Common Misconceptions: The Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama's Rebirth

On this blog, we usually address actions by non-Tibetans that harm Tibetans. For many of these actions, the cause is ignorance. Today, rather than talking about behaviors, I want to try and clear up a very common misconception shared by many, if not most, foreign supporters.

It is the role of the Panchen Lama in the discovery of the Dalai Lamas.

Let us pretend for a moment that this is one of those tricky college exams:

True or False: It is the duty of the Panchen Lama, exclusively, to recognize the reincarnation of the next Dalai Lama?

Most people, including myself up until a few years ago, would answer "True." However, they would be wrong.

The Tibetan system of reincarnation is very complex, and so in general conversation, it is boiled down to its simplest terms. And in those simplest terms, the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama have a joint relationship whereby one recognizes the other. And, in those simplest terms, it brings up the uncomfortable question that the Tibetan community is currently faced with: Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama recognized by HH the 14th Dalai Lama, has been missing since May 17th, 1995. He was only 6 years old when Chinese security forces disappeared him and his family. Without the Panchen Lama, who will recognize the 15th Dalai Lama when the current Dalai Lama passes?

Based on this belief, many fear that if Tibet is not free prior to the passing of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. This belief creates a false sense of urgency, whereby there is an extremely limited amount of time to solve the Tibet problem. Many people faced with this misconception urge forms of sudden-death compromise. Although I fully believe that the situation in Tibet must be remedied as soon as possible, I have to ask: is this deadline real?

Let's put the situation into western terms.

In the United States government, we have a Vice President. In the simplest terms the Vice President's duty is to take over the roll of president in the case that the president dies or is otherwise incapacitated. In doing so, a smooth government continues and upheaval is prevented.

However, let us take instead the possibility that the President and Vice President are travelling together and there is some sort of accident: Both are incapacitated. If we were only looking at the simplest terms, then the country would be in very big trouble! However, an entire hierarchy exists within the US government which would cause a series of shifts, thus providing a new president and guaranteeing a smooth continuance of government and prevention of major upheaval.

This safety net provides two functions: Firstly, it guarantees that if something were to happen to both the President and Vice President, someone would still be running the country. However, secondly and far more relevant to our case, it guarantees that enemies of the current political regime cannot overtake the government through assassinating or kidnapping the President, Vice President or other political leaders.

Likewise, the Tibetan political and religious systems have had such failsafes for years. In the case that the Panchen Lama is unavailable, other qualified lamas can recognize the new Dalai Lama. In fact, recent history shows that the system can work perfectly smoothly, even when the Panchen Lama is unavailable.

For readers who have seen the Martin Scorcese film, Kundun, think back and try and remember the role the Panchen Lama served in the film. You may recall that he was not even mentioned! Why? Because in the case of the current Dalai Lama, The Panchen Lama was unavailable!

How is that? The 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, passed away in 1933. The 9th Panchen Lama, Thubten Choekyi Nyima, passed away four years later in 1937. The current Dalai Lama was born in 1935. The search for and recognition of the 14th Dalai Lama commenced in 1937 after the Panchen Lama had died. To put it simply, after the death of Panchen Lama there was neither a Panchen Lama available to recognize the Dalai Lama nor a Dalai Lama available to recognize the Panchen Lama. While the system of mutual recognition works perfectly when there is an age gap of at least 15 years, it fails when the deaths and births fall within about ten years of each other.

Being that Buddhism teaches impermanence, the Lamas who worked within this system were painfully aware that you could not conveniently schedule death and there needed to be a back-up system in the case of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama dying or being born at around the same time.

In the case of the 14th Dalai Lama, he was recognized by another high lama: Reting Rinpoche. As we can see when we now look at HH 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and recipient of the 2006 congressional Gold Medal, the system seems to have worked just fine.

The disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama was one of the greatest and most tragic blows to Tibetans in their recent history. As long as he is missing, it will remain an open wound and I do not mean to dismiss that in any way. However, it is important that we remember that Tibetans and the Tibetan institution have an emergency plan, set up and practiced, for a situation in which the Panchen Lama is not available to recognize the Dalai Lama.

Why did I feel that this detail of Tibetan Buddhism and politics was so important that it deserved its own post? In Tibet's current non-violent struggle, the two main weapons are truth and hope. Without truth, there is no reliability or legitimacy to the cause. Without hope, it is too easy to give up and in doing so abandon the Tibetans inside of Tibet who's lives rely on not giving up. While we must always struggle to move as quickly as possible, we cannot afford to create a false deadline whereby we can declare the struggle "dead." For Tibetans inside of Tibet, as long as they remain oppressed, the struggle continues. If we declare it hopeless, we withdraw our support, and that is the greatest disservice we can provide.

The Perils of Translation: Part 1

Translation and Tibetan language study seem to go hand in hand. In fact, I cannot seem to think of any other modern spoken language that if one chooses to study it, one will automatically be asked "Oh! So you are [or are planning to become] a translator!" In fact, the association between Tibetan language study and translation (of Buddhist texts in particular) is so strong that those of us who choose to pursue modern Tibetan are frequently hit with outright antagonism for our choice!

Us non-Dharma Tibetan students are frequently encouraged to do translation, which as Pongu noted in a previous post, seems to only mean Dharma translation. Strangely enough, work on translating modern texts, or using one's studies to write in Tibetan are considered worthless, but we'll talk about that another time (hence the "part 1.")

I have a problem with this. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a good translation and the hard work that went into it, but I really don't like the ideas surrounding it. Why should anyone studying Tibetan automatically be assumed to be a translator? Well, statistically, there's a pretty good chance that they are. To me, that brings up a big issue. Tibetan is a living, modern language with more than eight millions speakers world wide, if one includes related dialects such as Balti and Ladakhi. Yet the modern spoken aspect of Tibetan is systematically ignored by many, if not most, people interested in learning Tibetan. Only the Dharma language is seen as worthwhile. It completely disregards modern Tibetan language, and with it, much of modern Tibetan culture.

What of modern Tibetan literature? Songs? Blogs? Autobiographies? When I mention translation of any of these, the idea is generally tossed aside as worthless.

I seriously ask the commenters here. Can you think of another language with millions of speakers and a vivid modern culture and literature scene where the modern language is outright ignored? Where only the classical language is considered worthwhile? I am really trying to think of one and I can't.

The second issue was pointed out be a commenter as well as several Tibetans I've spoken to. That's qualification for translation.

Virtually all of the primary texts in Buddhism have been translated already. That means the texts yet to be translated are either very new or very rare or very advanced. In short, if you've reached the level where you should be studying these texts (which, from a traditional study standpoint would probably include a minimum of 10 years in a shedra) then I certainly hope you would have picked up some Tibetan along the way.

This isn't to say all Tibetan Buddhists should learn Tibetan. By no means! But it means that if you are going to be studying these extremely advanced esoteric texts, you should have taken the many years necessary to study all of the primary texts, primary practices and so forth. Don't start decorating a house before you've built the foundation, as a friend of mine likes to say. If you are studying these texts, you should be under the guidance of a teacher, and if you are doing the years upon years of intensive study, then you are probably in a monastic environment, in which case, yes. You should learn Tibetan.

But it's more than just the linguistic knowledge of Tibetan. These texts are advanced. Throughout Tibetan history they would have been translated by khenpos, geshes, lamas who had studied Buddhism for most likely a bare minimum of 20 years of intensive study inside of a monastery or shedra. They would have learned all the primary texts and practices and likely studied and practiced this text before translating it.

Linguistic knowledge is not enough! In order to express the actual meaning of a complex Buddhist text, one needs to have a deep understanding of the Buddhist context. To paraphrase one person: "How do these kids who've studied for five years think that they can accurately translate the texts we take a lifetime to master?"

As another Tibetan friend expressed, it is cheapening the profound teachings and culture of Tibet.

And that's not helping anybody.

Frozen in Time

Frequently, during political discussions about Tibet, scholars especially will condemn the independent Tibetan government prior to 1959 as backwards and feudal. They may condemn current Chinese actions in Tibet, but will then follow that up by saying "If Tibet were still independent, they would be living in a feudal system, peasants controlled by landlords, and have no modern amenities or technologies. The Chinese government may be brutal, but they've brought Tibet into the 20th century! Look at the train, look at the roads." A similar argument comes from western Buddhists. A Tibetan commenter on "Incident at Gyuto" gave us a great example: While visiting Bodh Gaya, a western Buddhist nun, with a complete disregard for the feelings of the Tibetans around her, commented that it was good that Tibet was occupied, because otherwise Tibetan Buddhism would never have spread to the outside world.

Although seemingly different, these two ideas stem from the same viewpoint: Were it not for the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Tibet would have remained isolated. Nothing would have ever changed.

Before I begin my rant, I want to note that it is impossible to know what truly would have happened had the occupation never occurred. The best we can make are educated guesses.

That said, I think this view point is completely false. Why on earth should we assume that nothing would change over the course of 50-plus years? Tibet was already on the brink of change when the occupation started. The young Dalai Lama, rapidly approaching majority (the age at which he would take full political power), was interested in contacting the outside world. He wanted to bring democracy to his country. He had frequent contact with some of the foreigners residing in Lhasa, petitioned to statesmen abroad and had a great interest in the world outside of Tibet. It is safe to assume that, had Tibet retained independence and the Dalai Lama been allowed to attain majority as head of the Tibetan government, he would have pushed for a more open, democratic Tibet. In fact, when the Dalai Lama did attain majority and move the Tibetan government, one of his first moves was to declare the Tibetan National Government the only valid government of the people of Tibet and that this government was now a democracy.

In addition, with the British invasion of Tibet in 1911, the Chinese (even before the communist party) invading and encroaching on numerous areas of Eastern Tibet, the Russians sending in spies, India gaining independence and virtually every neighboring country shifting governments, it is unimaginable that Tibet would have been able to retain isolation.

Let's look at other countries. Prior to the mid 20th century, many countries around the world were in semi or complete isolation. For some, the isolation was due to a political choice, but for many others it was due to location or a lack of technology. Honestly, how many of these countries remain isolated now, in the 21st century? Even North Korea, the most self isolated, totalitarian and closed country in the world, has advanced technologically by leaps and bounds in the past 50 years. Remember, North Korea, unlike Tibet, is a country that desperately wants to remain isolated and is perfectly happy to oppress its own people.

How can we reasonably believe that Tibet would have remained the one exception in the entire world? The one country that, as all nations were swept forward in the technological and communication advances of the 20th century, would have remained stagnant in time? To believe that is to believe that Tibetans were too backwards to look towards the future.

As for the Buddhism comments, prior to 1959, the Dalai Lama had already travelled abroad to India at the invitation of the Indian government to go on pilgrimage and to celebrate the Buddha's birthday. He knew that there were Buddhists all over the world and many great masters of the past had travelled widely. I am sure that someone with as much drive as he had at such a young age, and still has at the age of 76, would have made every effort to travel abroad. Tibetan Buddhism, which had already been partially disseminated in the rest of the world prior to 1959, would have continued its spread when the Dalai Lama travelled. To believe that he would have been content to reside in the Potala for the rest of his life pays no attention to the kind of young man he was even before the Chinese ever came.

Cultures like Tibet are not quaint showcases in museums, perpetually remaining in one moment in time for others to ponder and exoticize. All cultures, Tibet included, live, change and grow. To assume otherwise is to disempower the people of those cultures.

Helping people just like me

“I've been trying to get her to study dharma translation, so she could, you know, help people.”

I ran into a white American male, whom I'll call Chris, on a long bus ride in northern India. He recognized me through “Amy”, a friend of mine he knew and had seen me with, and he struck up the conversation with “You're Amy's friend, right?” I answered yes, and he went on to ask about our in-his-eyes-mutual friend, who's involved in many Tibet-related activities including language interpretation. I really hadn't been in contact with her much recently, and I found his interest rather uncomfortable, so after telling Chris she was busy organizing fundraisers for disaster relief (specifically the earthquake-devastated area of Jyekundo) in Tibet, I tried to steer the conversation in other directions.

Chris told me he's in India studying Tibetan to be a translator. When I asked what sort of translation he wanted to do, it was obvious that he didn't even think of the fact that there could be anything to translate except ancient texts; he responded as if I was asking whether he wanted to focus on translation or interpretation. I clarified, but he said he wasn't interested in “modern novels”. I really wasn't getting through to him that there could be things like newspapers, biographies, histories, blogs, political platforms, and so on written in Tibetan, but rather than push it, I left the issue alone. I let our conversation wander to other topics like language study, life in India, our hometowns – general small talk.

I can't remember how the following came up, but Chris had on-and-off been giving me the impression that he wanted to bring the topic of conversation back to my friend Amy. Eventually he mentioned something about her focus on modern issues and interpreting spoken Tibetan, responding to his own comments in disappointment: “I've been trying to get her to study dharma translation, so she could, you know, help people. It's such a shame.”

At this, I was shocked and furious. I couldn't believe he just said that. I tried to gather my thoughts for a few seconds before responding, but I just blurted out:

“Wait a minute. You mean, so she could help spoiled, privileged, pansy-ass white kids try to get enlightened?”

Had I thought about it a few seconds longer, I might have said, “Oh? Which people?” and made him do his own reasoning about how his comment was so problematic.

What made me furious was not his disparaging my friend, which is between the two of them and really none of my business. Rather, it was that pretty much everything I had said about Amy during our conversation was about her work for disaster relief, and Chris implied direct relief was worthless in comparison to expanding the volume of Tibetan religious texts accessible to an English-only audience. To me it felt like Chris's use of the word “people” was specifically excluding Tibetans and only including people like himself, whether that likeness was racial (white) or cultural (English-speaking Buddhists).

I really chewed him out, surely saying some problematic things myself in the process. I asked him if he had any idea what Tibetans had been doing in the earthquake zone, how all the monasteries had sent their monks as rescue and aid workers, and yelled at him to think about what practicing dharma means to them. I said something to the effect that outsiders who think they value Tibetan religion so much need to stop spending so much time studying books about it and watch how Tibetans practice. I asked him where the American dharma groups were during Hurricane Katrina (which, incidentally, affected non-white residents the most severely) to which he said he didn't know.

My emotional response went on for quite a while, expanding to my feeling that there are always outsiders wanting to get something out of Tibet for themselves and caring little for actual Tibetans. Chris didn't get openly hostile, and responded to most of my tirade not with arguments but with excuses and dismissals (derailment?). He “didn't realize how much” Amy was doing. “Both sides are important,” he stressed, referring to book-knowledge and action. He did listen, and I felt like I had some effect. He told me in his line of work, translation, it's easy to get caught up in thinking just about the people it's for. But he never apologized, and seemed to remain oblivious that he had actually done anything offensive. We parted as he got off the bus.

A couple days later I spoke with Amy. Chris had contacted her to complain about how “disrespectful” I'd been, and after calling him out again herself, she shared with me a lot of what he said. One thing I hadn't thought of when I accused Chris of ignoring Tibetans as “people” in his idea of “helping people” is that he might consider translating texts somehow helpful to Tibetans. He told Amy it was both preserving Tibetan Buddhist culture and drawing supporters to Tibet.

I'd welcome alternate opinions from readers, but as far as I can see, both of these claims are at best implausible, and rather oblivious to anything having to do with the real world.

Telling someone you're preserving Tibetan Buddhist culture by translating scriptures into English is a lot like telling someone you're preserving endangered species by putting animals in zoos. In a way both claims are true - if all animals in the wild were wiped out, or if Buddhism completely ceased to exist in Tibet, there would still be a few of the species left in zoos, and there would still be English translations of the scriptures on Western people's bookshelves. But in both cases, the “preservation” taking place is much more for the sake of somebody else who wants to observe and enjoy. And all too often, the atmosphere of scholarship and research on Tibet (as opposed to for Tibet) ends up manufacturing Western “experts” who get a lot more respect and recognition for their supposed knowledge of all things Tibetan than actual Tibetans with a lot more knowledge.

As for the idea that translating Tibetan scripture into English creates support for Tibet, it's just completely implausible. The sort of translation being done by Western scholars these days consists almost entirely of advanced texts, which would only be of interest to someone already familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. And there's a strong argument to be made that anyone who considers oneself to be at this level but who needs a translation for lack of Tibetan reading capability has their priorities backwards - but that's a topic for a completely different post.

There was one thing Chris said to Amy that made me feel like he'd at least gotten something out of our conversation: he said “I should think about benefiting Tibetans more.” But I still felt like he was more interested in justifying and exaggerating the importance of his work than pursuing any real benefit for Tibet.

Dharma Wars: When Tibetans argue and White people cry "Victim!"

Recently, there has been a bit of a crisis within the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. The location of the crisis is New York, and so it does effect the Western Buddhist sangha.

I won't go too deeply into the crisis, but according to popular belief (which may or may not be the actual cause) A Tibetan from aristocratic background and lifestyle got upset about his lawn not being mowed and fired a non-Tibetan manager. A Tibetan lama then resigned from his position at the monastery, one thing led to another and that lama was effectively banned from teaching at that monastery or any of its affiliated centers. A lot of people believe that the aristocrat's anger over the lawn mowing incident led to the banning of this Lama. This may be partially true, I don't know. But that is the general belief.

**IMPORTANT NOTE: After speaking with several people it came to light that, although the so-called "Lawnmower Incident" may have been a contributing factor, there were also theological reasons behind the decision at hand. I won't elaborate on them here since I don't know all the details, but trust me in saying that it's far more complex than most people will lead you to believe**

The response by many western people, including at least one popular and widely read Buddhist blogger have been accusing Tibetans of abusing the western Buddhist sangha. One particularly memorable quote read:

"thanks to the failure of Tibetans to accept Americans as their equals. It is as simple as that. We are peasants to them."

The first thing that struck me as odd was, aside from the initial manager who no one is talking about, the victim in this case is a TIBETAN Lama, and his aggressor is a FELLOW TIBETAN. In short, this is infighting. With "In" being a key component of that word. How is it that when the victim is a Tibetan, westerners are complaining about being the ones abused?

This is also, clearly, an unfair generalization of 6 million people based on the inappropriate actions of a few. It is a clear example of a minority figure's action representing the entire minority while a white person's action represents the individual.

Many are pinning this as a racist issue (Tibetans versus Americans) as compared to the class structure issue that it actually is. Does anyone really think it would be any different if it were a Tibetan who had not mown the lawn? For that matter, westerners in positions of respect who perceive disrespect tend to respond in the same way, yet we wouldn't generalize all westerners in such a manner. (I'm inclined to remember my private school headmistress who summarily fired or refused to renew contracts of teachers who disagreed with her... )

How is this that when one aristocratic family acts poorly and we can generalize all Tibetans, and yet when westerners in positions of power (school, religious authority, etc...) do the exact same thing, it is the act of the individual?

I chose to respond to the blogger, hoping that other readers would see this. I received one positive response, a blogger who wrote that the original writer should have been more careful with his words. But the original writer also responded.

"It can only be resolved by Tibetans, from the top down, the intervention of His Holiness himself leading his Tibetan disciples and representatives into the 21st century reality of the Karma Kagyu in this country.

This isn't Tibet.We're Americans. Treat us like KTD is, like a bunch of peasants, banning a beloved teacher for siding with a Western lay person over an Tibetan aristocrat is the straw that broke the camels back."

In one paragraph he states that it is a Tibetan issue, but in the very next one he again turns it into Tibetan vs American. Treating us like peasants, Western lay person versus Tibetan aristocrat.

The many people who are making this argument completely fail to discuss, or even look at, the theological or situational backing behind the decision to ban (very complex on both counts, as I later found out.) Not only are they mistaken about the cause, but they are making the problem worse. Instead of discussing the actual reasons and therefore being able to petition for change, they chose instead to cry "victim" and completely ignore the issues at hand.

I personally am upset about the ban, but I am about 100 times more upset at the idiotic and racist response by so many western Buddhists who have chosen to blame all of Tibetan culture and pretend to be the victims in this situation instead of try to learn the real cause behind the decision and help the Lama in question.


Finally, the congregation of this Buddhist center, although largely westerners also has many Chinese, Taiwanese, and of course, numerous Tibetans. All of them are being effected by this ban. The Tibetans may be effected even more so due to family connections and social pressures to completely shun this lama in accordance with the banning.

So, if this IS the result of the "Lawn Mowing Incident" as it is now being called, then this is a case of aristocrats treating EVERYONE below them like "peasants" as our writer says. Including numerous Tibetans. Yet, as we so commonly see, this writer and the many others feel as though it is us, the poor westerners, who are being so horribly abused by these terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Tibetans.

...and people wonder why I refuse to go to Buddhist centers in the west.

Let's Talk About Butts...

Well, this title basically wrote itself. My last REAL post, Let's Talk About Feet, dealt with the appropriation and offensive use of Tibetan religious imagery. Presumably the makers of the shoes were neither Tibetans nor Buddhists, so we can shake that off to a certain extent as ignorance. As as you may have gathered from the post, I was more upset by the responses from the Western Buddhist community 's complete disregard for Tibetan culture and the potential for offense than I was about the actual shoes.

Then today I was visiting a large market in a very large, diverse and liberal city. This supermarket really had everything, including it's own devoted Yoga corner.


All the usuals were there. Clothing, accessories, yoga mats and zafus. Zafus are circular meditation cushions, to provide comfort and support to your bum during long meditations and take some stress off of your knees. These are most widely used for Buddhist meditation in Buddhist centers. In fact, a very large number of those who produce these are Buddhist as are those who market it. Then one of the zafus caught my eye.


Yes. That is a Tibetan Thangka image of White Tara, the female Buddha of compassion and long life, printed on a zafu. Remember all that stuff I wrote about having sacred images below the waist? The makers and marketers of this Zafu are telling us to put a sacred image under our butt. And at $49.99, it's not cheap to do so. Plus, if it's in a mainstream market like this, they must be producing and selling a large number. Since these items are pretty much sold to western Buddhists in America (Tibetan homes and temples do not actually use cushions like this, by and large) it says that a solid number of Americans practicing Buddhist meditation are perfectly happy to shove a sacred image under their butt.

I'm just speechless with this one.

Let's Talk About Feet

Anyone who keeps up on Tibetan or Buddhist news probably saw the news about Keds, (or, as we later found out, Zazzle.com) selling "Tibetan Buddhist Shoes." It was reported on the popular Tibetan news site, Phayul as well as the very popular Buddhist magazine Tricycle's blog site[Editor's Note: Tricycle has changed it's blog site and the comments are no longer visible].

The shoes featured Tibetan flags, mantras, the face of HH Dalai Lama, and even a Thangka of a Buddha, among other designs.




The Tibetan community, and world Buddhist community as a whole, was deeply offended.

Fortunately, Keds acted quickly, not only removing the offending shoes, but also issuing an apology and explaining how the error had occurred. Apparently, although Keds accepts responsibility for their lack of oversight on this issue, the offense had been committed by a partner site, zazzle.com which allows customers to custom design and sell shoes. Keds, however, admirably immediately contacted the site, the shoes were removed, and accepted responsibility for their role and immediately started taking steps to prevent future problems.


What does that have to do with this blog? I'm getting to it, I promise. But first I want to look at why this is so offensive.

In most Asian cultures (and I'm not talking east Asian, I'm talking all of Asia) as well as cultures with a strong Asian influence (for example, many European Muslim countries) the feet are considered dirty. Stepping over things, pointing with the feet, or placing respected objects on or under the feet is a huge no-no.

This can be a bit confusing from a western standpoint, since we don't have that association. I think almost every westerner working with Tibetans (myself included) has nudged someone with their foot, pointed with a foot, stepped over a book, stepped over a sleeping child, or stepped over food during a picnic--something like that--and been greeted with looks of absolute offense and horror. This is one that we all learn the hard way. But while the food/child/book rules are a bit harder to grasp, the religion one is pretty obvious.

Does anyone remember the fiasco a few years back when Nike made a shoe with a design that looked like the Arabic word "Allah" and there were massive protests by Muslims? Or the international threats to boycott the film "Hollywood Buddha" because the poster featured a man sitting on a Buddha head?

In short, people should know by now that putting religious images on a shoe might be offensive, and you probably ought to check with a religious authority before doing so.

So Zazzle.com and shoe designer? That was dumb. Straightforward dumb.

And I'm sure some people thought it was "honoring" Tibetan culture, and to those people, I'd like to direct you to this post from the blog Native Appropriations. Different context, but I think it's one of the best explanations of why you should be careful when wearing another culture's sacred symbols for fashion.

But this blog isn't about the general ignorance of the public towards Tibet and Tibetan culture. In fact, I originally argued that this was not a valid topic for a post.

That is until I saw the comments on the tricycle blog.

I want to break this down as best I can. I don't know 100% which bloggers are Tibetans and which aren't, but I'm going to assume that Tibetan name and Tibetan linguistic writing patterns imply Tibetan. And I'm not going to include my own comment, which I left because I was so pissed when I saw these.

Because this is Tricycle, a Buddhist magazine, I think we can safely assume that all commenter consider themselves to be Buddhist.

Number of comments (minus my own): 27
Number of Tibetan commenters: 7
Number of Non-Tibetan commenters: 9

The Tibetan writers unanimously found the designs terribly offensive.

Of the non Tibetan writers: Two neutral, Two found the designs inappropriate, and the remaining five all thought that everyone should lighten up and shouldn't be offended.

Those remaining five defended the designs by pointing to "transcendence" clinging to "things" and "symbols," "Impermanence" how the "True Buddha is not an image" or how this should be used as a lesson in non-attachment.

Others just said that they thought it was funny or wanted a pair.

So apparently, cultural offenses are anti-Buddhist, because they are clinging to symbols. However, I doubt that one of these writers would walk into a temple wearing a shirt that says "F*ck you" on it, because I'm pretty sure they would recognize that as culturally offensive. And I'm even more sure that they wouldn't spray paint obscenities and upside down crosses on a catholic church in order to make a point about the inherent fallacy of symbols.

Why? Well, they would claim being respectful of others' cultures and beliefs, but then--wait--why aren't we being respectful of Tibetan culture and belief?

The real reason? I'm 99% sure it's because this isn't offensive to White Western culture.

So if it's offensive to westerners, we shouldn't do it. But if its horribly offensive to Tibetans? Well, come on. Just lighten up! It's funny. Anyway, you shouldn't be so attached to symbols. After all, there is no true holiness!

These are people who consider themselves Buddhist, take teachings from Tibetan lamas, should know better, DO know better, but don't care.

Incident at Gyuto

After my post about living in a Refugee camp, I ran into a few perfect examples of what I was talking about. Both from the side this being a refugee camp and from the side of inappropriate behavior from "Supporters." This also goes a bit into Pongu's post about doing everything in English.

Yesterday was His Holiness the 17th Gyalwa Karmapa's birthday. Since I don't live far from Gyuto monastery, where he resides, I headed over to Gyuto for the day to take part in the celebrations. Overall, it was a wonderful day with prayers in the morning, a chance to meet HH Karmapa, free lunch, a talk in the afternoon, a "Cake" made out of Tsampa (Barley flour...in this case mixed with butter, sugar, cashews and raisins!), and a performance by the Tibetan Institute of Performing arts. It was hot, it was VERY crowded, but overall, it was a wonderful day and His Holiness seemed happy with the celebration as well.

But one incident really riled me up.

First I should note the demographic at Gyuto. I would say about 85% of people were Tibetan, the remaining 15% being westerners, Taiwanese, Chinese and Koreans with a small smattering of others. Of those Tibetans, the vast majority were new arrivals from Tibet. I met a lot of people from Sokor Loptra (TTS, the Tibetan Transit school) which is only for people who have arrived from Tibet within the past 5 years. I also saw a lot of people from the New Arrival Center, who had arrived from Tibet within the past 2 months. The Karmapa, as a younger Lama who only escaped from Tibet in 2000, has a much greater following among Tibetans inside of Tibet or immediately from Tibet than from Tibetans in India. So the vast majority of Tibetans present were new arrivals from Tibet and very obviously so. Please read Living in a Refugee Camp for a better understanding of the situation of New arrival Tibetans.


I was sitting with some of my friends outside of the Gyuto store. We were drinking soda and eating chips and just enjoying ourselves. At the next table over, an American Buddhist nun was doing the same as us. There were lots of people and definitely not enough chairs. She was holding a seat for a friend by placing her backpack on the seat next to her.

A young Tibetan man who had arrived from Amdo only a couple of years before and speaks mediocre English came over and asked if he could take the chair. The nun, with her mouth full, responded in English that she was holding the chair. Since she did not make any hand gestures, and since her speech was muffled, the young man assumed compliance and started to take the chair. The nun then started yelling at him.

Nun: "I told you, you can't take that chair!"

Man: "But, no one is sitting there!"

Nun: "No one is sitting there now, but my friend is coming!"

Man: "I didn't know"

Nun: "Well, I was telling you, but I was eating!"

The young man apologized and went away. The nun continued to, loudly, complain about how rude these young Tibetans were.

I was shocked. I almost went up and confronted her, and in retrospect, I should have and I am ashamed of myself for not doing it. Here she, a woman who has been living in India for nearly 10 years as a Buddhist nun, has made no effort whatsoever to learn spoken Tibetan, or apparently, even simple Tibetan cultural hand gestures. She clearly has no understanding of the fact that most of the people there were new arrivals who speak poor (if any) English and might not understand a muffled comment. And I suppose I should note that while she was complaining about his rudeness, she was the one talking with her mouth full!

Here she is, living as an ordained nun in Tibetan society in India, very publically promoting her own charitable activities for Tibetans, but clearly taking no time whatsoever to understand the situation of those around her or even, during the ten years of her residence, learning the language of her host society!

I wonder if she ever interacts with Tibetans, because I find it hard to believe that she never would have learned even the simple hand gestures that mean "wait a minute" or "No" if she had spent more than five minutes with Tibetan people.


The other incident was actually very beautiful, albeit very sad and I think illustrates the mindset of this place as a refugee camp.

A friend of mine, visiting from Sikkim, held a place for me inside the temple for His Holiness' afternoon talk. She is Tibetan, born and raised in India. She has never seen Tibet.

We love hanging out and gossiping with each other, just like girls anywhere in the world, and always try to sit together at teachings.

At the end of His Holiness' address (In Tibetan, English, Chinese and KOREAN!!! With no translators. Can I just note how impressed I am???) members of the Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts stood up to sing a song for His Holiness. Their piece was a stunningly beautiful song with lyrics and music composed by His Holiness immediately prior to his escape from Tibet. It's one of my favorite traditional style songs. The style and words are beautiful and absolutely classical. When listening to this song it's very easy to imagine oneself back in Tibet

My friend leaned over, as the song started and said, "Whenever I hear this song, all I can think is 'here we are, in the presence of His Holiness Karmapa, in our Chupas [traditional dress] listening to our music, and we aren't in our country, we can't go to our country. We don't have a country'" And she just started repeating "We don't have a country, we don't have a country."

As we listened to this elegant melody, she kept reaching up and wiping away tears. And trying to laugh off how embarrassed she was to cry in public. She continued silently crying throughout the whole song.

This is really what it means to live in a refugee camp.

"Is he even Buddhist?"

An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a message after a confrontation with one of my close friends. My friend, who I'll call 'Max,' is a long term Tibet supporter, and a fluent Tibetan speaker. This acquaintance, who I'll call 'Joe,' had gotten into an argument with Max about ways of supporting Tibet. When he contacted me to rant, one of his questions was: "Is Max even Buddhist?"

He's not the first to ask this question either. In fact, I find this question a common way for alleged Tibet supporters to put down or delegitimize other Tibet supporters with whom they disagree.

To me, this is a symptom of a far greater problem: the belief that in order to support Tibet, you have to be Buddhist.

This is a problem for many reasons.

First of all, it isolates non-Buddhist supporters. Darfur receives support from Christian groups and especially Jewish ones! Do you think that support would still exist if Darfur supporters asked about other Darfur supporters "Are they even Muslim?" If these supporters felt that they were being judged not only as to their religion but as to their level of religiosity, I doubt that they would stay with the cause. Yet, this pressure is seen as acceptable from Tibet supporters.

Now, this sentiment does not come from Tibetans, in my experience. The Dalai Lama himself has discouraged Tibet supporters from converting to Buddhism, instead encouraging them to understand and appreciate their own faith and culture.

This claim also delegitimizes the motives of those who wish to work for altruistic purposes. It says simply: "The reason to support Tibet is because I am Buddhist, and I want to preserve Buddhism." instead of saying "We should support Tibet because it is the right thing to do, it is an issue of human rights."

The irony, of course, being that Buddhism is supposed to encourage altruistic values, and yet, in judging this way, they are discouraging altruistic intention.

Secondly, the issue of Tibet is an issue of human rights. Not all Tibetans are Buddhist, neither are all Tibet supporters. His assumption that 99% of supporters (another statement he made in the same e-mail) came to Tibet via the Dharma is thus not only problematic, but inaccurate. I remember at a meeting of about a hundred members of Students for a Free Tibet, people were asked what brought them to Tibetan issues. Less than half answered Buddhism.

Let's go back to that earlier point: not all Tibetans are Buddhists. There are Tibetan Muslims, Bonpos and even Catholics (I passed two century-old Tibetan catholic churches in Dartsedo.). When we assume that Tibetan issues are solely Buddhist issues, what are we saying about Tibetans who are not Buddhist?

To Joe, I simply responded "Max's religion and practice is no one's business but his own. It's unfair to judge how a person is as an activist and supporter based on whether or not he is the same religion as you."

Although I do consider myself Buddhist, I also find it personally insulting when someone looks at me and asks, judgmentally, about my faith. If I answer that I consider religion a personal thing (my usual way of saying "None of your damned business") I'm usually met with judging stares or comments about the superiority of (western style) Buddhist practice. If I say I am Buddhist, this is followed by an interrogation of how much I meditate, practice, etc.

This judgmental interrogation creates two major problems. The first of which being it forces away many well intentioned, sincere individuals who's experience could be extraordinarily valuable to the Tibetan cause. If Tibetans were to choose for some reason or another, not to accept help from a certain group, this would be their prerogative. However, this instead is foreign 'supporters' forcing away potentially excellent supporters solely due to their faith. One major goal in the Tibetan movement is to make it a household name and get support from all over the world. How will this support come if people are ostracized due to not being Buddhist?

Secondly, this is a group of people trying to hijack the Tibetan cause and turn it into a crusade for their own evangelical form of Buddhism. Despite their claims of being Tibet supporters, by rejecting or isolating all supporters who are not (as they deem) Buddhist, they are clearly taking potential support away from the Tibetan cause. What, then, are they trying to do? Under the guise of "Tibetan Support" they are attempting to gather and create a group that represents their own evangelical view of Buddhism.

The irony is that these same people will criticize the way China judges Tibetans religious practice, and how Chinese employers will frequently disregard a Tibetan who shows overt Buddhist faith, or how Chinese security is more likely to frisk a Tibetan wearing prayer beads. They fail to see that their actions of judging the worth and quality of a fellow supporter by their faith is, in essence, the same.

I think we need to realize that this isn't appropriate. I have decided, henceforth, when asked this question, my new response will be "I don't see how my religious affiliation relates to my work." I'm bound to make some new enemies (something which actually started less than one hour after launching this blog,) but I also think it will give me a clearer sense of who I should be working with, and who is only in this from a religiously judgmental standpoint.

I would really like to hear what readers, especially any Tibetans in the audience, think about this issue and what we can do about it.

Treating monastic robes as party costumes

Native Appropriations, a blog dealing with appropriation of indigenous and especially Native American culture, is reporting on San Francisco's “Bay to Breakers” event:

Bay to Breakers is an annual San Francisco Bay Area tradition, now in its 99th year. Technically it's a 12k race, starting downtown (the bay) and ending at the beach (the breakers). I don't know the exact history, or how it has (d)evolved through the years, but I can tell you it is now one part serious road race, and about 100 parts drunken costumed debauchery.

The big story is that they lost count after taking fifty-some photos of white people covered in feathers and paint and drunkenly war-whooping “playing Indian”. But near the bottom of the article, they add:

Indian costumes were by no means the only form of racist costumes. There were plenty of "Mexicans" in sombreros and mustaches, "Asians" with kimonos and stereotypical rice paddy hats, even some "Tibetan monks" (I have a picture of those):

Notice that we're not just assuming this is drunken costume party behavior; the “nun” in the center of the picture is actually carrying a can of Bud.

Is this a case of well-meaning supporters trying to find a clever way to insert a Free Tibet message in a public event (and screwing it up horribly), or just random party-goers who think they can treat someone else's religion and national struggle as a costume to put on while you party? I'm leaning towards the latter since they don't even get the color or design of the robes right, but with just a picture it's pretty hard to tell.

Even if they were trying to do something good, it's hard for me to tell where the borderline between making a positive statement and doing something offensive gets drawn. Of course they shouldn't be drunk and carrying beer cans, and mixing up the color of their robes (maybe they think TIE-bet is THAI-bet?) but what about other aspects. Would it be okay if these people had really shaved their heads? If they were carrying pictures of Tibetan martyrs? Does whether they have the permission/blessing of a Tibetan community or religious authority change anything?