|
Essay by Seth Houston |
Dear Mr. Kamenetz,
I greatly enjoyed your Sunday afternoon lecture, "What I learned about Judaism from the Dalai Lama." One of the most compelling aspects of both your book and your lecture was your description of how the Jewish delegates to Dharamsala developed a richer, more complex understanding of Judaism over the course of the dialog. The diversity of the Jewish delegation, the challenge of formulating and sharing the "Jewish secret of spiritual survival in exile" with the Dalai Lama, and the latter's keen listening and questioning skills all contributed to this process of self-understanding. However, the Tibetan side of the delegation was represented not by a diverse group of rabbis, but by a single individual: the Dalai Lama. Like Judaism, Tibetan Buddhism is quite diverse and divisive. Neglecting to engage a broader spectrum of Tibetan representatives, in my opinion, results in two significant disadvantages for Tibet. First, it works against the process of democratization advocated by both the Jewish delegates and by the Dalai Lama. Second, it leads to the uncritical acceptance of a simplified and somewhat distorted view of Tibetan history which hinders the possibility of a conversation which is much more important for the future of Tibet: a dialog with China.
The historical example Yitz Greenberg chose to illustrate Jewish spiritual survival in the face of persecution was the second destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. The Judaism that emerged from this devastating event much less dominated by temple priests; rather, it centered more on rabbis and maintaining Jewish traditions in the home. The lesson that Tibetans should draw from this event, Greenberg implied, is that democratization is crucial to religious survival. The Dalai Lama wholeheartedly agrees, and has been working for decades toward a more democratic Tibetan government in exile. But the Jewish delegation's treatment of the Dalai Lama as the sole representative of Tibet works against such goals. The delegation's dialogue with the Dalai Lama is to be commended, but I hope that it will prove to be merely the first step in an ongoing engagement with a much broader cross-section of the heterogeneous Tibetan community.
A second consequence of dialoguing with just the Dalai Lama is your rather uncritical acceptance of an oversimplified view of Tibetan history. You began your lecture with an overview of the plight of Tibet; you described Tibet as having been basically autonomous, with a "special relationship" with China, for a thousand years prior to its invasion and occupation in 1950. You characterized this description as an overgeneralization, but a generally accurate one. Which it is, in very general terms. But it also reflects particularly ideology quite prevalent in Dharamsala and in Tibet Support Groups worldwide, and glosses over some crucial questions. Let me suggest what might be a more accurate and useful generalization: Tibet's ruling lamas, because of their Buddhist aversion to engaging in violence, could only achieve national unity under their leadership by displacing enforcement to outside powers, usually Mongol or Chinese. These lama's tendency to rely on foreign military intervention planted the seeds for China's dominance over Tibet in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and China's actual annexation of Tibet in the twentieth.
Why is this important? In a sense, the Dalai Lama's strategy of winning hearts throughout the world in the hopes that the international community will bring pressure to bear on China replicates this centuries-old pattern. Framing the Tibetans' struggle for greater self-determination as a question of spiritual survival inhibits discussion of the complex political forces that resulted in, and help perpetuate, the possibility of meaningful dialogue with China. Spreading such views of Tibet helps Tibetans less, in my opinion, than trying to develop more nuanced frameworks which can accommodate the views of both Dharamsala and Beijing, perhaps leading ultimately to Sino-Tibetan intellectual and political rapprochements. By engaging with a wider spectrum of Tibetans, Jewish dialogers could participate in the complication and opening up of this overgeneralization of Tibetan history; Jews could help Tibetans come to terms with the richness and diversity of their traditions the same way as the Dalai Lama helped the Jewish delegates. May the dialogues continue!
Rodger Kamenetz gave a lecture Sunday entitled "What I learned about Judaism from the Dalai Lama."
Copyright © 1997, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 125, Number 15; February 21, 1997
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.