Literature relating to Buddhism?

[E.A Rumfield]

I am interested in a lot of Buddhist concepts but likely the religion as a whole is not for me. Nevertheless I would like to educate myself. I am particularly interested in the concepts Aldous Huxley speaks of in his last novel Islands. Did he write a piece of non-fiction on the subject? If not where did he get his information? Where would a good place to start be?

[mal4mac]

Matthieu Ricard ("Happiness") is in the Mahayana (Tibetan) tradition, Ajahn Brahm ("Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond") is in the Theravada (Thai Forest) tradition. Both are concerned with "how best to live" and neither are mystical or esoteric.

Ricard is also a good guide to the Dalai Lama's more "considered" works. I've just read the 14th Dalai Lamas "Spiritual Autobiography" and found the title a slight misnomer - much of it consists of political speeches. These are superb, but not really a "Spiritual Autobiography", or a good overview of Buddhist concepts.

Have you read Ricard, Paul? He's the Dalai Lama's "representative in France" and knows the French scientific & philosophical world well - his father is a famous Parisian philosopher and Ricard himself took a PhD in biochemistry with famous Nobel prize winner Jaques Monod. He uses Buddhism to deconstruct Western culture, as well as presenting a great overview of Buddhism as a path to happiness - breathtaking stuff.

Ajahn Brahm took a degree in theoretical physics at Cambridge, as well as spending four decades as Forest monk! His presentation of meditation reads like a well honed textbook of physics, everything is clear, nothing is ambiguously esoteric - do the experiment correctly and bliss is promised :)

Things have moved on briskly since Huxley and Hesse...

[Ser Nevarc]

Hesse's Siddhartha

[E.A Rumfield]

Hesse's Siddhartha

I read that in high school, tried to read it recently did not like it.

[Ser Nevarc]

Yeah I feel the same way

[JBI]

Monkey, or the longer edition, Journey to the West.

[mango]

perhaps you may start with the writings, speeches and interviews of the dalai lama. buddhism originated in india but found its mass following outside india in countries like japan, tibet, nepal, china etc. the basic concept in buddhism is that desire is the root of all misery, banish desire from the heart and mankind will achieve peace of mind and harmony.

the present dalai lama is a man of modern thinking, humour (he laughs a lot), intelligence while at the same time being a traditional buddhist. his words will give you better insight into the concepts.

rgds.

[namenlose]

JBI, which translation of Journey to the West would you recommend?

[ladderandbucket]

There are many introductions to Buddhism available but I would suggest first deciding which tradition you are interested in, the two main ones being Theravada and Mahayana. Mahayana tends towards the mystical and esoteric, whilst Theravada is more concerned with how best to live.
I can recommend What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula as an introduction to the Theravada tradition. Also, The Dhammapada is an important Buddhist text. I read a nice translation by Eknath Easwaren which had a lengthy introduction and commentary.
For many people Theravada Buddhism is better described as philosophy or psychology than religion. I am sceptical towards most things but have found a lot to agree with in the teachings of Buddha.

[JBI]

JBI, which translation of Journey to the West would you recommend?

The short version by Arthur Walley titled monkey. Or the long edition by Anthony C. Yu.

I have only seen those. I cannot attest to anything else.

[Paulclem]

Hesse's Siddhartha

Hesse's Siddhartha was written when the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism weren't clear. I would say it is not a Buddhist book, though it has elements in it.

[Paulclem]

There are many introductions to Buddhism available but I would suggest first deciding which tradition you are interested in, the two main ones being Theravada and Mahayana. Mahayana tends towards the mystical and esoteric, whilst Theravada is more concerned with how best to live.
I can recommend What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula as an introduction to the Theravada tradition. Also, The Dhammapada is an important Buddhist text. I read a nice translation by Eknath Easwaren which had a lengthy introduction and commentary.
For many people Theravada Buddhism is better described as philosophy or psychology than religion. I am sceptical towards most things but have found a lot to agree with in the teachings of Buddha.

There are mystical and esoteric elements withn Mahayana Buddhism, but it is based upon the same teachings as other schools. It depends upon who you read, but there is just as much abut everyday life - as has been said - By HH The Dalai Lama and many others.

[Corona]

I really liked H. Hesse's "Siddhartha". It may very well be his masterpiece, although I still prefer "Der Steppenwolf" by him.

[Whifflingpin]

Alexandra David-Neel's "My journey to Llasa" makes excellent reading. Also she has written other books arising out of her initiation into, and study of, Buddhism. I suspect that Paulclem might consider them too exotic to be truly spiritual, but they probably give a good account of what Buddhism was to most Buddhists in the mid-twentieth century.

Also, for a fictional journey into Buddhism, set in the same period as A D-N's travels, try Peter Dickinson's "Tulku." Aimed at younger readers, but maybe that makes it a better introduction.

[Paulclem]

Alexandra David-Neel's "My journey to Llasa" makes excellent reading. Also she has written other books arising out of her initiation into, and study of, Buddhism. I suspect that Paulclem might consider them too exotic to be truly spiritual, but they probably give a good account of what Buddhism was to most Buddhists in the mid-twentieth century.

Also, for a fictional journey into Buddhism, set in the same period as A D-N's travels, try Peter Dickinson's "Tulku." Aimed at younger readers, but maybe that makes it a better introduction.

Not at all. We have copies of Magic and Mystery in Tibet and initiates and Initiations in Tibet. I would also add The Way of the Whiite Clouds by Lama Anagorika Govinda. They are good at uncovering a Tibet lost to invasion.

[mal4mac]

I'm reading Sarah Shaw's "Introduction to Buddhist Meditation" at the moment - she explains things very clearly and has a shed load of references for many branches of Buddhism.

If you are going specifically for the concepts used by Huxley in Island, though, then you need to know what inspired him. He may be using Zen terms & Hindu concepts, for instance, which may not be covered by the books mentioned so far. Maybe dig out a good biography?

[JBI]

Not at all. We have copies of Magic and Mystery in Tibet and initiates and Initiations in Tibet. I would also add The Way of the Whiite Clouds by Lama Anagorika Govinda. They are good at uncovering a Tibet lost to invasion.

A major problem is a lot of it is iffy and broken. Tibetan Buddhism in itself is a renegade form of Buddhism, and its most traditional centres are only partially in Tibet proper - Qinghai, Gansu, and Beijing are traditional centres within China, and Mongolia as a country is perhaps the most traditional group of practitioners.

In general the idea of Tibet as an isolated or lost civilization is mythology, in that Tibetan Buddhism was the official religion of the Elite for most of China's last empire. There is an exact copy (though of smaller scale) of the big palace in Tibet in Chengde near the Manchu Emperor's old summer retreat, for example, which illustrates this idea.

As someone who has been to all these places (yet not Mongolia, wait until this summer), I can attest to a few things.

Firstly, Tibetan Buddhism in the last 100 years is clouded with propaganda and conflict, the accounts make a rather brutal and stoic religion into something of a spiritual Tai Chi, which it isn't. Secondly, the religion itself is not something "lost" but something that has evolved with the coming of modernism. It was bound to happen anyway, as the Qing regime fell, China changed, and the regimes religion also was destined to Change.

The problem with the literature though is much of it is just kookie 3rd age stuff mixed with exoticism. If you really want to read on this Buddhist stuff, there are numerous primary sources, especially those put out by Brill, which has a long series of books on Tibet.

As for literature, you can try directly into the old Mahayana Sutras, particularly the Lotus, which is available in a good (though abridged) translation by Burton Watson.

[Paulclem]

A major problem is a lot of it is iffy and broken. Tibetan Buddhism in itself is a renegade form of Buddhism, and its most traditional centres are only partially in Tibet proper - Qinghai, Gansu, and Beijing are traditional centres within China, and Mongolia as a country is perhaps the most traditional group of practitioners.

In general the idea of Tibet as an isolated or lost civilization is mythology, in that Tibetan Buddhism was the official religion of the Elite for most of China's last empire. There is an exact copy (though of smaller scale) of the big palace in Tibet in Chengde near the Manchu Emperor's old summer retreat, for example, which illustrates this idea.

As someone who has been to all these places (yet not Mongolia, wait until this summer), I can attest to a few things.

Firstly, Tibetan Buddhism in the last 100 years is clouded with propaganda and conflict, the accounts make a rather brutal and stoic religion into something of a spiritual Tai Chi, which it isn't. Secondly, the religion itself is not something "lost" but something that has evolved with the coming of modernism. It was bound to happen anyway, as the Qing regime fell, China changed, and the regimes religion also was destined to Change.

The problem with the literature though is much of it is just kookie 3rd age stuff mixed with exoticism. If you really want to read on this Buddhist stuff, there are numerous primary sources, especially those put out by Brill, which has a long series of books on Tibet.

As for literature, you can try directly into the old Mahayana Sutras, particularly the Lotus, which is available in a good (though abridged) translation by Burton Watson.

It depends to what depth you want to go into Mahayana Buddhism. Someone unfamiliar should probably get a commentary, or better still read something by HH The Dalai Lama, which presents Buddhist practice in an informal way that is accessible to the beginner.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mahayana+buddhism#/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+dalai+lama&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3Athe+dalai+lama

DT Suzuki and Thich Nat Hahn are also accessible. If someone is already familiar, then the sutras coud well be a good choice.

A major problem is a lot of it is iffy and broken. Tibetan Buddhism in itself is a renegade form of Buddhism, and its most traditional centres are only partially in Tibet proper - Qinghai, Gansu, and Beijing are traditional centres within China, and Mongolia as a country is perhaps the most traditional group of practitioners.

Tibetan Buddhism developed with influences from both India and China, but it certainly developed it's own form of Buddhism seperate from China. These are embodied in historical teachers such as Lama Tsonkhapa, Atsha and the original semi - mythical figure of Padmasambhava. These are to name but a few.

When China invaded then it systematically destroyed most of the monasteries, which is why so many Buddhists followed HH The Dalai lama into India. The traditions can be traced back through history as many of the texts were taken with them.

In general the idea of Tibet as an isolated or lost civilization is mythology, in that Tibetan Buddhism was the official religion of the Elite for most of China's last empire.

The whole lost horizon conception of Tibet comes from their policy of not allowing foreigners in right up to the 19th century. It is not true that it was merely a religion of the elite in Tibet, though it may have been in China. This is why there are still protests and struggles in Tibet conducted by ordinary people, and pixctures and photos of HH The Dalai lama are still banned.

Firstly, Tibetan Buddhism in the last 100 years is clouded with propaganda and conflict, the accounts make a rather brutal and stoic religion into something of a spiritual Tai Chi, which it isn't.

The traditions survived, and I would suggest that much of the propaganda comes from external sources such as China, and those countries for whom it was advantageous to denigrate China. Remember in all this that Tibetans made up merely a few million population and had very primitive resources.

Tibetan Buddhism is consistent with all the Buddhist traditions in following the word of the Buddha, and this is clear on a reading of the texts. There is no real difference between Therevadan and Tibetan except in different emphases and presentation. What Tibetan Buddhism did was to extend the teachings and incorporate Tantric ideas from Indian traditions.

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual Tai Chi. It has a consistent spiritual path that can be followed like every other school of Buddhism. if you mean that it is not a woolly, new age exercise - then I wholly agree.

the religion itself is not something "lost" but something that has evolved with the coming of modernism.

Correct - not lost, but a thriving tradition. The FPMT - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition based in Jamyang Centre, London and headed by Geshe Tashi Tsering, (who incidentally was the Buddhist representative at the London Olympics), is working on that premise.

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2012/jamyang-london-olympics-four-golds-for-team-fpmt-gb/

The modernism part - the Chinese input - has been particularly destructive in Tibet, and included a famine which killed many Tibetans. That this was engineered is particularly disturbing.

It was bound to happen anyway, as the Qing regime fell, China changed, and the regimes religion also was destined to Change.

Yes. The situation before the Chinese invasion was far from perfect. The country was backward, full of bandits and feudal, though it did have a rich religious tradition. With a power like China, it was inevitable though.

The problem with the literature though is much of it is just kookie 3rd age stuff mixed with exoticism.

This is true. Just choose carefully. A lot of Buddhist and Tibetan ideas were co-opted for new age ideas.

Anyway - I'm not going to bite. :biggrin5:

[E.A Rumfield]

As for literature, you can try directly into the old Mahayana Sutras, particularly the Lotus, which is available in a good (though abridged) translation by Burton Watson.

This sounds like what I'm looking for. Which of these would you recommend
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Lotus+burton+watson&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ALotus+burton+watson

[JBI]

The top one, or in a cheaper edition. It's not the most scholarly but it is the best "read".

[JBI]

It depends to what depth you want to go into Mahayana Buddhism. Someone unfamiliar should probably get a commentary, or better still read something by HH The Dalai Lama, which presents Buddhist practice in an informal way that is accessible to the beginner.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mahayana+buddhism#/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+dalai+lama&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3Athe+dalai+lama

DT Suzuki and Thich Nat Hahn are also accessible. If someone is already familiar, then the sutras coud well be a good choice.

A major problem is a lot of it is iffy and broken. Tibetan Buddhism in itself is a renegade form of Buddhism, and its most traditional centres are only partially in Tibet proper - Qinghai, Gansu, and Beijing are traditional centres within China, and Mongolia as a country is perhaps the most traditional group of practitioners.

Tibetan Buddhism developed with influences from both India and China, but it certainly developed it's own form of Buddhism seperate from China. These are embodied in historical teachers such as Lama Tsonkhapa, Atsha and the original semi - mythical figure of Padmasambhava. These are to name but a few.

When China invaded then it systematically destroyed most of the monasteries, which is why so many Buddhists followed HH The Dalai lama into India. The traditions can be traced back through history as many of the texts were taken with them.

In general the idea of Tibet as an isolated or lost civilization is mythology, in that Tibetan Buddhism was the official religion of the Elite for most of China's last empire.

The whole lost horizon conception of Tibet comes from their policy of not allowing foreigners in right up to the 19th century. It is not true that it was merely a religion of the elite in Tibet, though it may have been in China. This is why there are still protests and struggles in Tibet conducted by ordinary people, and pixctures and photos of HH The Dalai lama are still banned.

Firstly, Tibetan Buddhism in the last 100 years is clouded with propaganda and conflict, the accounts make a rather brutal and stoic religion into something of a spiritual Tai Chi, which it isn't.

The traditions survived, and I would suggest that much of the propaganda comes from external sources such as China, and those countries for whom it was advantageous to denigrate China. Remember in all this that Tibetans made up merely a few million population and had very primitive resources.

Tibetan Buddhism is consistent with all the Buddhist traditions in following the word of the Buddha, and this is clear on a reading of the texts. There is no real difference between Therevadan and Tibetan except in different emphases and presentation. What Tibetan Buddhism did was to extend the teachings and incorporate Tantric ideas from Indian traditions.

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual Tai Chi. It has a consistent spiritual path that can be followed like every other school of Buddhism. if you mean that it is not a woolly, new age exercise - then I wholly agree.

the religion itself is not something "lost" but something that has evolved with the coming of modernism.

Correct - not lost, but a thriving tradition. The FPMT - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition based in Jamyang Centre, London and headed by Geshe Tashi Tsering, (who incidentally was the Buddhist representative at the London Olympics), is working on that premise.

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2012/jamyang-london-olympics-four-golds-for-team-fpmt-gb/

The modernism part - the Chinese input - has been particularly destructive in Tibet, and included a famine which killed many Tibetans. That this was engineered is particularly disturbing.

It was bound to happen anyway, as the Qing regime fell, China changed, and the regimes religion also was destined to Change.

Yes. The situation before the Chinese invasion was far from perfect. The country was backward, full of bandits and feudal, though it did have a rich religious tradition. With a power like China, it was inevitable though.

The problem with the literature though is much of it is just kookie 3rd age stuff mixed with exoticism.

This is true. Just choose carefully. A lot of Buddhist and Tibetan ideas were co-opted for new age ideas.

Anyway - I'm not going to bite. :biggrin5:

With the desire not to be too political, much of what you are saying is wrong. Firstly, the Dalai Lama was a good friend and counselor historically to the empires of Qing, and Tibet and Mongolia were of one country pretty much for 1000 years. This idea of a Tibet as something autonoumous even historically is untrue.

Basically with the fall of the Empire of China in 1911, traditional provinces and strongholds broke off. The one with the best claim for breaking off was xin Jinag (literally Chinese for new territory), whereas the old state-supporting province of Tibet was first broken in half with the coming of the Ma clan in China's Northwest, and then conquered by itself in perhaps a more brutal regime than exists today in Afghanistan. I am not a supporter of the Chinese government, but what they did was far from a crime against Tibet - they burned some temples, but they built roads, and they still are supporting the Tibetans in everything they need financially. As terrible as a modernization process is, the Dalai Lama and friends are counter-developmental. They do not work to fix the problem, only to complicate and slow down a system that has been working. Restoration and development of monasteries has been consistent in China for the past 30 years.

As for the figure himself, there is a massive shrine outside of Xining celebrating the place where he was born. You can go there and see items of his childhood from before he was "discovered". Hardly a banning of his face and image. Basically the Chinese hate him because they give Tibets more freedom and money than they give themselves, yet he comes around and tells them China is the devil, and ignores that China is the developer of infrastructure in Tibet.

As for the province itself - the most traditional places of Tibetan worship are not in Lhasa, but divided. Probably the most traditional place is Yushu on the border between Sichuan, Tibet, and Qinghai province, which is the remotest and most untouched region (it's hard to get there). Even there though, there is no travel restriction. The travel restriction is necessary, in a sense, because Western people feel a kind of love of going to another country and actively getting involved in politics they do not understand. In some cases it is justified, but here, there are much bigger issues in this country than mistreatment of Tibet.

As for the religion itself though, it is like half-animist-half-buddhist. It's concepts and philosophy are rooted in Tibetan systems, not in Indian or Chinese systems of thought. That's why I called it a renegade buddhism, because it developed as an indigenous break-off from Chan Buddhism, when the a Tibetan king decided to follow his Chinese wife and become buddhist.

The problem with dealing with issues of Tibet, is that the western perspective is drown in propaganda. The Dalai Lama, despite good he may do, is actually more of a terrorist to the development of Tibet than others would think. Basically he goes to celebrity parties in the US and gets them to say he is spiritually awakened, and therefore his people should be free. The idea of an isolate Tibet only emerged after China as a political body erupted into anarchy and warlordism - Tibet is just another Warlord territory, that was eventually reabsorbed.

As for the thriving nature of the place or whatever - the major temples are still intact. The number of monks has decreased substantially, those those left now have ipads (you can see them playing on them while praying), so they aren't exactly poor.

But when we talk about religion, we must notice that Tibetan buddhism is one of the kookier versions of Buddhism around, hardly representative of the tradition, in that it is a rather new esoteric form of heretical buddhism.

[Paulclem]

With the desire not to be too political, much of what you are saying is wrong. Firstly, the Dalai Lama was a good friend and counselor historically to the empires of Qing, and Tibet and Mongolia were of one country pretty much for 1000 years. This idea of a Tibet as something autonoumous even historically is untrue.

Basically with the fall of the Empire of China in 1911, traditional provinces and strongholds broke off. The one with the best claim for breaking off was xin Jinag (literally Chinese for new territory), whereas the old state-supporting province of Tibet was first broken in half with the coming of the Ma clan in China's Northwest, and then conquered by itself in perhaps a more brutal regime than exists today in Afghanistan. I am not a supporter of the Chinese government, but what they did was far from a crime against Tibet - they burned some temples, but they built roads, and they still are supporting the Tibetans in everything they need financially. As terrible as a modernization process is, the Dalai Lama and friends are counter-developmental. They do not work to fix the problem, only to complicate and slow down a system that has been working. Restoration and development of monasteries has been consistent in China for the past 30 years.

As for the figure himself, there is a massive shrine outside of Xining celebrating the place where he was born. You can go there and see items of his childhood from before he was "discovered". Hardly a banning of his face and image. Basically the Chinese hate him because they give Tibets more freedom and money than they give themselves, yet he comes around and tells them China is the devil, and ignores that China is the developer of infrastructure in Tibet.

As for the province itself - the most traditional places of Tibetan worship are not in Lhasa, but divided. Probably the most traditional place is Yushu on the border between Sichuan, Tibet, and Qinghai province, which is the remotest and most untouched region (it's hard to get there). Even there though, there is no travel restriction. The travel restriction is necessary, in a sense, because Western people feel a kind of love of going to another country and actively getting involved in politics they do not understand. In some cases it is justified, but here, there are much bigger issues in this country than mistreatment of Tibet.

As for the religion itself though, it is like half-animist-half-buddhist. It's concepts and philosophy are rooted in Tibetan systems, not in Indian or Chinese systems of thought. That's why I called it a renegade buddhism, because it developed as an indigenous break-off from Chan Buddhism, when the a Tibetan king decided to follow his Chinese wife and become buddhist.

The problem with dealing with issues of Tibet, is that the western perspective is drown in propaganda. The Dalai Lama, despite good he may do, is actually more of a terrorist to the development of Tibet than others would think. Basically he goes to celebrity parties in the US and gets them to say he is spiritually awakened, and therefore his people should be free. The idea of an isolate Tibet only emerged after China as a political body erupted into anarchy and warlordism - Tibet is just another Warlord territory, that was eventually reabsorbed.

As for the thriving nature of the place or whatever - the major temples are still intact. The number of monks has decreased substantially, those those left now have ipads (you can see them playing on them while praying), so they aren't exactly poor.

But when we talk about religion, we must notice that Tibetan buddhism is one of the kookier versions of Buddhism around, hardly representative of the tradition, in that it is a rather new esoteric form of heretical buddhism.

This idea of a Tibet as something autonoumous even historically is untrue.

This is disputed by the Tibetans, and has been the crux of the Chinese claim to Tibet and it's supposed ancient claim. Their argument rests upon payment of tributes to the Emperor, and the wording of documents. Whatever the truth of the matter, history is written by the victors, and the Chinese invasion and control of the country was always going to happen for strategic and economic reasons. Tibet is De Facto part of China now, and that is unlikely to change.

but what they did was far from a crime against Tibet - they burned some temples

These things are always presented as such by victors - look what we're doing for an ungrateful population. In hindsight, Tibet was never going to be able to modernise itself. The fact remains that 6,000 monasteries were destroyed, and many perished in the invasion and famine that followed. These events are being taught on histroy courses here in England. If there is exagerrations and untruths, then you can bet that the Chinese untruths are all the greater. After all, they were the aggressors with a modern army against outdated weapons that were ineffective during Younghusband's invasion 50 years earlier.

the Dalai Lama and friends are counter-developmental

He's described as a splittist, though he now accepts that Tibet will remain as part of China. I think he sees it as his job and responsibility to the Tibetan people. Part of that development has been to settle Chinese immigrants in Tibet and so swamp the indiginous population. It is a conqueror's strategy and perfectly understandable given potential instability. HH The Dalai Lama is rightly concerned about the preservation of Tibetan identity and culture though.

Restoration and development of monasteries

Yes - they realised that there was money to be made from western tourists interested in Tibetan culture. It is a moot point whether what is presented by the Chinese as Tibetan actually is - just as native dances for tourists in other countries may or may not be.

You can go there and see items of his childhood from before he was "discovered". Hardly a banning of his face and image.

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/photo-09042012170920.html

Also, this quote is from the PDF on travelling to Tibet:

It is important not to bring in pictures of the Dalai Lama into China

http://www.journeys.travel/files/pdf/country_predeps/tibet.pdf

It may be that in China his image is allowed - I am not aware of this.

Basically the Chinese hate him because they give Tibets more freedom and money than they give themselves, yet he comes around and tells them China is the devil, and ignores that China is the developer of infrastructure in Tibet.

I reckon years of focused propaganda would produce that effect too.

As for the province itself - the most traditional places of Tibetan worship are not in Lhasa, but divided

The traditional places of worship were on the whole destroyed. Tibetan traditions were centred around the major monasteries, but also many smaller ones that served the communities.

The travel restriction is necessary, in a sense, because Western people feel a kind of love of going to another country and actively getting involved in politics they do not understand. In some cases it is justified, but here, there are much bigger issues in this country than mistreatment of Tibet.

Unwise to do so in China. I think the travel restrictions are probably for a number of reasons - to limit contact, so that there is a lack of information about conditions - to limit any voice people might have. This is what regimes do. I would agree that there are bigger issues in China as a whole. I don't feel any less inclined to support HH The Dalai Lama though.

As for the religion itself though, it is like half-animist-half-buddhist. It's concepts and philosophy are rooted in Tibetan systems, not in Indian or Chinese systems of thought. That's why I called it a renegade buddhism, because it developed as an indigenous break-off from Chan Buddhism, when the a Tibetan king decided to follow his Chinese wife and become buddhist.

Tibetan Buddhism is not renegade, and is not regarded as such by other Buddhist traditions. This is eveident in how welcome HH The Dalai Lama is made in Buddhist countries. I also know of Therevadan Monks who studied Tibetan Buddhism as well as their own tradition. The reason for this is that there isno fundamental difference in the basis of the religion.

As for animist:

Animism (from Latin anima "soul, life")[1] is a set of beliefs based on the existence of non-human "spiritual beings" or similar kinds of embodied principles

It only partly appies in that there is a stated awareness of other beings. It is only part because the soul part of animist is not a concept in Buddhism and Buddhist beliefs are not based upon the existence of other beings, but on the teaching of The Buddha.

What you may also have picked up on is the adaptation of the appearance of Buddhist practices to local conditions. This is not limited to Tibet. Alms rounds were part and parcel of Buddhism in India, but were not adopted in China and japan due to traditional attitudes to work. this led on Zen master to comment:
"A day without work is a day without food".

Local art influences images, and the particular mythology present in Tibet influenced how it developed. For example Padmasambhava was said to have defeated the demons said to inhabit various places in Tibet, and converted them to The Dharma. It is similar to all the snakes in Ireland being expelled by St Patrick. The imagesof Chenrsig, (Avolokitesvara) and Tara, were said to have been painted from the most beautiful young boy and girl who could be found.

It's concepts and philosophy are rooted in Tibetan systems

This is incorrect. It is well known that the great development engendered in Tibetan Buddhism actually comes from Indian Tantric traditions. Tantra, or Vajrayana, builds upon the Bodhisattva ideal, also developed in Tibet, and became the third path.

an indigenous break-off from Chan Buddhism, when the a Tibetan king decided to follow his Chinese wife and become buddhist.

He's reputed to have had two wives - one from the defeated chinese Emperor - (which rather goes against the idea of Tibetan subjugation to China) - and a Nepali one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songts%C3%A4n_Gampo

The art is credited with more indian influence, and certainly important teachers such as Atisha and Lama Tsonkhapa came from india.

The Dalai Lama, despite good he may do, is actually more of a terrorist to the development of Tibet than others would think. Basically he goes to celebrity parties in the US and gets them to say he is spiritually awakened,

He describes himself as a simple monk. I think he is justified in standing up for the rights of Tibetans, and has accepted that role since his escape in 1959. Most of his tours are actually about teaching Buddhism, though he does get questioned inevitably at Q and A sessions.

But when we talk about religion, we must notice that Tibetan buddhism is one of the kookier versions of Buddhism around, hardly representative of the tradition, in that it is a rather new esoteric form of heretical buddhism.[/

It's actually part of the mainstream Buddhist traditions, but perhaps you could expand on this so that I can properly respond.

Thanks - my favourite subject. :biggrin5:

[tonywalt]

Of Human Bondage by Somerset Maugham is very Buddhist by way of the life experiences and choices of the Protaganist - I almost prefer the less overt way it presents the philosophy without naming it.

[Paulclem]

Of Human Bondage by Somerset Maugham is very Buddhist by way of the life experiences and choices of the Protaganist - I almost prefer the less overt way it presents the philosophy without naming it.

I wasn't aware of that. I read something of his in my twenties but was unimpressed and didn't pursue it. Emil has recommended him to me as well, so perhaps I'll give him a try again. It might read better to my ageing mind.

[mal4mac]

A major problem is a lot of it is iffy and broken.

So the rest of it is superb and whole? In any tradition a lot of things are iffy and broken.



Tibetan Buddhism in itself is a renegade form of Buddhism...


A renegade is a "person who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles." I've never seen anyone argue this in the case of Tibetan Buddhism, can you justify such a statement? It reads like propoganda from Deep Red China.



... and its most traditional centres are only partially in Tibet proper - Qinghai, Gansu, and Beijing are traditional centres within China, and Mongolia as a country is perhaps the most traditional group of practitioners.


From my hazy knowledge of the history of Tibetan Buddhism I suspect you might be correct here, but it's just playing with geography, I can't see how this helps your attack on the religion.



As someone who has been to all these places (yet not Mongolia, wait until this summer), I can attest to a few things.


I'd prefer Matthieu Ricard's assesment of Tibetan Buddhism - he has slightly more experience :)



Firstly, Tibetan Buddhism in the last 100 years is clouded with propaganda and conflict, the accounts make a rather brutal and stoic religion...


That's propoganda straight from the the first British imperial translators. In what way is it brutal, in what way is it stoical? Please use modern sources like Brahm or Ricard in your answer -- they have spent decades immersed in different branches of Buddhism, and from their accounts it is far from brutal and far from stoic - from their eyes, it's a kindly and compassionate religion, whose main fruit is blissful happiness. From my vague memory of reading Island, Huxley also presented it in a positive light (although "it" was only partly Buddhism, with a lot of Vedanta, drug Culture, and utilitarianism thrown into the pot...)



The problem with the literature though is much of it is just kookie 3rd age stuff mixed with exoticism.


Ricard doesn't do "kookie 3rd age", he has a PhD from a top French University where he worked with Jaques Monod. Read his book "The Monk and the Philosopher", a series of dialogues with his father, a famous and far-from-kookie philosopher. Nothing kookie there. The "flying Lama" stuff can be read as mythology, and surely there is nothing wrong with mythology? Otherwise you'd have to dismiss the Greeks as very kookie...

As with all branches of religion you can find some kookie examples, but Tibetan Buddhism, like most great religions, is far from kookie in its highest forms.

[mal4mac]

I am not a supporter of the Chinese government, but what they did was far from a crime against Tibet - they burned some temples...


And killed a million civilians, tortured many others... check out some good newspaper resources, and then try and defend China:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/tibet

[Paulclem]

I taught a chinese lady who was studying for her English GCSE a few years ago. During a discussion one week we just happened to mention dictators, and I asked her how the chinese regard Mao nowadays. She was surprised by the question and I realised she had no idea about the revelations about the failures and the incompetence and the cruelty of his leadership. I immediately regretted asking her as it is clearly not the chinese population's fault that they are misled. I was a little surprised by JBI's post, especially regarding his attitude to the chinese government, but perhaps he can't access reliable info whilst he's there. I did think that the Tibetan atrocities had been widely recorded.

[JBI]

Or perhaps I come from a more creative standpoint than you. As bad as the maoist regime in Tibet was, it was far better than the Tibetan regime in Tibet. The standard of living has been steadily increasing, as has education. Every population goes through a modernization period.

As for Mao as an historical character, he is far more layered and complex than his current treatment in Western scholarship. In truth, he is perhaps the most complex character in 20th century history, in that he cannot only be viewed in a negative light. He transformed China, and virtually all intellectuals left in China not only followed him, but believed and supported him. Hardly someone to dismiss as vile tyrant when considering his impact on a social system.

As for Buddhism itself in Tibet, Tibet has a weird history, where it merged with local beliefs. It is hardly like any other form of buddhism, in that its form of worship, and cultural practices merged strangely.

As for me being an apologist, truth be told you cannot understand the violence committed by the Tibetan theocracy against its own people. They are religious slaves to a doctrine that places lay people on the bottom - watching them pray at their temples is almost sickening as they physically abuse themselves in the same way some christians physically abuse themselves for a form of salvation. It has improved a lot since its original form took dominance.

Basically Tibetan purists that see modernization as an invasion miss the point that all cultures have a right to develop and modernize - sure some disasters occurred in the middle, but also lots of good. People do not realize when something good happens to a group of people, because they only see that they going there for tourism is hampered.

In comparison, the super-religious societies that still flourish today in India have shown the world the darker side of humanity, especially in relation to how people are treated. The best way to "preserve" Tibetan culture, if you will, is to museumify it, the same way we have "preserved" Victorian culture - time changes things, quit being such Luddites.

As for paying homage to Laurence Brahm, etc. he is the biggest China apologist around. His idea of preserving Tibet is building a five star hotel where rich tourists can go learn about Yoga, and other nonsense. Hardly the greatest example of an authority, despite his educational background. But what do you expect from someone who made a career praising China's rise. He is hardly the "lover" of culture you make him out to be. He also is the museumifier.

Basically most people working with this model assume that things should be preserved perfectly. Others mainly wish to record, and still others only see the surface. There were plenty of scholars writing about the wonders of China in the 19th century, despite how terrible the living conditions were. You cannot come in from an angle of "tourist fascination" and make judgments on a place you probably know nothing about. Truth be told, my experiences of seeing Tibetan monks was a mix of revulsion and disgust. They are almost all fat, and all were playing on their phones while chanting. They own all their temples - they are cashing in from the industry.

As for Ricard, highly an authoritative source on history. His life is that of a monk immersed in his guruism, despite his educational background. He loves the teachings, and is happy, but that does not make him the bottom-feeder on the social hierarchy of Tibetan life - the one woman forced to marry a family of men. That is to say, the social structure of Tibet was, and still is highly hierarchical, and rooted in backwardisms. The Tibetan religious authority play the major role in administering things, with the brainwashing of religious education.


The Beauty of western studies of Eastern religion is the double standard they hold in judgment. On one hand, the backwardness of Christianity has been discussed and spoken a billion times. We criticize church views of women, we argue the standards of law are corrupt, we argue that these ideas have no place in modern politics, etc. But when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, or any other religion, tibeten buddhism being even more severe and dated, we praise it as a "spiritually enlightened" mantra, and start 3rd-aging it. I know the Japanese doing something similar with Christianity, but still, it is ridiculous. Simply put, even Wikipedia can tell you why you did not want to be a Tibetan before 1950, or even today - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_classes_of_Tibet - that does not mean you cannot appreciate some aspects of the culture, of course you should. There is much beauty there.

Seriously, you can like Chinese novels and poetry, but hate the idea that Chinese women had their feet forcibly bound for almost 1000 years. I see no difference with liking aspects of Buddhist culture in Tibet, yet hating many of the cultural practices as a whole.


As for me being a Red-China subscriber, most Chinese people complain too much about how the Tibetans are granted everything they want from the government. In a sense they are right in that they get preferential treatment, though I am not sitting here saying China should cut them off.

[mal4mac]

... As bad as the maoist regime in Tibet was, it was far better than the Tibetan regime in Tibet. The standard of living has been steadily increasing, as has education. Every population goes through a modernization period.


Who are you to say the maoist regime was "far better"? Who made you God? The Tibetans far preferred the Dalai Lama as their leader to Mao - surely that is beyond dispute? Surely they should decide? The Dalai Lama is now asking for Tibet to be a proper, Western style, democracy. Perhaps this is partly "self serving", in that he knows who the Tibetan people would vote for! But self-serving is surely fine if it also supports the best cause? Isn't Western democracy an example of modernization beyond what the Chinese offer - i.e., age old totalitarianism, backed by a spurious communist ideology?



In comparison, the super-religious societies that still flourish today in India have shown the world the darker side of humanity, especially in relation to how people are treated. The best way to "preserve" Tibetan culture, if you will, is to museumify it, the same way we have "preserved" Victorian culture - time changes things, quit being such Luddites.


The caste system in India in appalling, and it is related, to some extent, with the Hindu religion. Plus the disputes between Hindus and Moslems are attrocious, etc. But what has that got to do with Buddhism, Tibetan or otherwise?

Of course times change! No one is disputing that or being Luddite. it's just that, surely, times should change without 20% of the population of a country being murdered, their "listed buildings" burnt to the ground, their books destroyed, their leaders forced into exile, and the population plunged into a morass of terror and propaganda.

The Dalai Lama is famously non-Luddite - watch or read "Seven Years in Tibet" to see how interested he was in modern Western technology - as a kid in Lhasa he was using telescopes, tinkering with cars, setting up a film studio, etc. Hardly Luddite! More recently he has held yearly conferences with Western scientists on the intersection between Buddhist philosophy and science - many Buddhist ideas and procedures are now "cutting edge". See the work of non-Buddhist intellectuals like Mark Williams, Jon Kabat-Zinn, and Owen Flanagan to get some impression on the impact that Buddhism has had. (And, of course, earlier, highly creative, intellectuals like Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, and Christoper Isherwood were also vastly taken by Buddhism, but they only scratched the surface.)



As for paying homage to Laurence Brahm...


I was talking about a different Brahm - Ajahn Brahm the Theravadan Buddhist. I doubt "Lawrence Brahm" has the honorific title "Ajahn" or has written a book with the title I gave, so I think I was specific enough... concentrate JBI :)



The Beauty of western studies of Eastern religion is the double standard they hold in judgment. On one hand, the backwardness of Christianity has been discussed and spoken a billion times. We criticize church views of women, we argue the standards of law are corrupt, we argue that these ideas have no place in modern politics, etc. But when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, or any other religion, Tibeten buddhism being even more severe and dated, we praise it as a "spiritually enlightened" mantra, and start 3rd-aging it.


Straw man argument. I don't see this double standard amongst "the serious".

To try and bring the thread back to "Island", can anyone show how Huxley might have applied this double standard? He was too intelligent, well-read, cyncial and broad minded to get all 3rd agey and say, "the Buddha is great, man, but the Pope's a bore..." But that doesn't mean he didn't see a core of "spiritually enlightened" material in Buddhism, and other religions -- try reading "The Perennial Philosophy", or his many essays circulating around this topic.

[JBI]

Well anyway, you expect there not to have been a mass disaster? The biggest destruction in terms of population, ironically was at the same time as a global famine in the rest of China, so the idea of China as deliberately targeting Tibet seems rather weak. As for violently suppressing a rebellion, my question is why did the CIA fund a rebellion and give them guns? Seems like it isn't just big bad China but a similar conflict that tore up most of Asia, Afghanistan included. As for the destruction of temples, yes, Chinese people helped, but so did Tibetans - it's not all Mao's fault that people believed. It wasn't just Han red gaurds going around and burning, there were Tibetans there too, in fact, I would wager, given the population distribution and lack of mobility, especially around Tibet, it was mostly Tibetans being iconoclasts. So your answer is that it is China's fault for giving them such an appealing form of propaganda.

As for indian caste systems, well, something similar reigned in Tibet well through the life of the 13th Dalai lama (he is noted for freeing the slaves, but not abolishing serfdom). Such cultural stigmas still exist even today, with the monks not only facilitating this, but enforcing it.

Paying lip service to monks is not my goal. Ajahn Brahm is a converted monk. Hardly a reliable scholar - it's like asking a bishop to give a critical view of the catholic church. either way, I am not familiar with his work - from his Wikipedia page it seems he is a Theravadan monk, which means not a Tibetan buddhist, and I am not sure which or how his works deal with other forms of Buddhism. You could perhaps point me in the right direction.

Still, in comparison, Tibet came out better than most countries where the US had intervention, or other Western powers. Look at the destruction in South East Asia for instance. We speak of Buddhist destruction etc. but from my understanding Vietnam got hit pretty hard - Bagan was about 80% destroyed in Burma, Laos, Cambodia, etc. still are picking up the pieces.

But, that isn't too say much of Europe wasn't beaten down - 5 years before Chinese takeover in Tibet half of Europe was bombed to bits. The American government even gave money to a Chinese government who destroyed far more traditional Chinese culture than the Communists - Changsha, for instance, was burned down pretty much on Chiang kai-Shek's exit, and almost all the city walls and city plans of all cities destroyed during the nationalist's control of China.

As for other centres like Qinghai, well, the Tibetans actually attacked Qinghai with the intent to conquer in 1930 - not the most modest of peace-loving countries like we dream of. The Ma clique, with strong ties to the Chiang government would have been supplied by Western powers (this before the Japanese invaded China). The Tibetans, likewise, were shooting British guns, as the Dalai Lama got himself involved in The Great Game.

So we can see from an historical perspective that destruction was more or less eminent. The destruction of cultures is a facet of Modernization. Japan got hit, China is still getting hit, and pretty much every country goes through something similar, except for Canada and the US maybe, which are the results of other "great upheavals".

The big disaster of Buddhist culture arguably would have been in the 30s, when modernization began. With the Japanese threat and the decline of the Ma Clique's power, things regressed. By the time Mao arrived, things had deteriorated, but were also deteriorating all over China. Famine hit in the 50s doing much of the killing, and ideology in the 60s and 70s. That does not make Tibetan culture, however, any less backward than it was. Simply put it was a slave society, with a strong theocracy enforcing a feudal caste system.

I am not a supporter of what the communists did, but that doesn't mean we need to spiritualize and turn a blind eye to the fact that Tibet historically, and very much right now, is a theocracy, with an ingrained class system. We criticize other countries in the world for doing the same, why don't we have the nerve to say it about a Buddhist country?

[mal4mac]

... the idea of China as deliberately targeting Tibet seems rather weak.

The Chinese army marched into Tibet with guns firing, if that's not targeting Tibet then what is?



As for violently suppressing a rebellion, my question is why did the CIA fund a rebellion and give them guns?


Good question. The Dalai Lama never supported this, he has always been for non-violent opposition, repeatedly supporting Gandhi's principal of ahimsa, although realising that China is a much more difficult proposition than the dog-tired and generally benign late British Empire. I've just read the Dalai Lama's "Spiritual Autobiography" which contains many speeches elaborating his position, one after he won his Nobel peace prize, and many to the United Nations who have repeatedly condemned China...). He is so against violence that he has threatened to stand down as spiritual leader if the violence is repeated on a large scale - perhaps the main reason why revolt in Tibet hasn't reached the levels of violence (on both sides) we see in Syria today?


As for the destruction of temples, yes, Chinese people helped, but so did Tibetans

You always get a few bad apples, criminals, and stupid people in any society. There were a number of Tibetan Maoists, but only a small minority.



Ajahn Brahm is a converted monk. Hardly a reliable scholar - it's like asking a bishop to give a critical view of the catholic church. either way, I am not familiar with his work - from his Wikipedia page it seems he is a Theravadan monk, which means not a Tibetan buddhist, and I am not sure which or how his works deal with other forms of Buddhism. You could perhaps point me in the right direction.


I mentioned Ajahn Brahm before this Tibetan fork started, when the OP was asking for any tips on Buddhism, not just Tibetan. I've only read "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond" by him, which is meditator's handbook in the Theravadan, Thai Forest tradition. So it doesn't say anything significant about other forms of Buddhism. It does show in-depth scholarship - referencing about 20 original works in Pali and the main, current translations into English. His main focus is Samadhi meditation, but Brahm (again) only gives his position. ("Samadhi" by Shankman reveals the breadth of discussion on this topic if you are interested in this.)



Tibet historically, and very much right now, is a theocracy, with an ingrained class system. We criticize other countries in the world for doing the same, why don't we have the nerve to say it about a Buddhist country?

As China is in control, I guess by the Tibetan theocracy "right now" you mean The Dalai Lama and his Rinpoches. In that case I think you are wrong, at least on the scale of politics. In his Spiritual Biography the Dalai Lama stresses that he would not seek to be the political leader of a free Tibet, he hopes it to become a democracy with elected leaders. If he goes back on this, and the class system in a free Tibet (or in the Tibetan diaspora...) seems ingrained I would be the first to complain!

The Dalai Lama certainly gets a lot of bowing and scaraping from Tibetans, and others. But is that due to class being ingrained? Don't some leaders deserve bowing and scraping?

Personally, I have a problem with the Lama system, which seems rather theocratic, so I would not convert to Tibetan Buddhism. But if the theocrats toe the Buddhist line, then they should show near perfect humility, wisdom, compassion, and lovingkindness to those they "rule". Remarkably, the Dalai Lama appears to do this, that's probably why he doesn't get as much stick as the British Royal family (for example.) When's the last time he appeared on UTube naked in Las Vegas with a stripper? :reddevil:

[mango]

dear friends,

off topic, but still allow me to make a small clarification based on some of the above posts.

the caste system in india was originally designed in the olden times to keep social order and hierarchy and a man's work was tied to his caste, the son followed the father's line of work etc. however over time it degenerated into untouchability which in fact did not exist in the olden times. ancient indian kings were tolerant and highly educated in the puranas and shastras and cared for human rights and values very much. however sadly things started going wrong later.

nowadays the stigma of the caste system is almost gone, the lower castes have reserved seats in educations and government jobs and their lot has improved very much while the high caste has declined. but still in some conservative areas of north india some instances do crop up.

rgds.

[Jassy Melson]

One of the best books I've read wherein Buddhism comes into play but is never mentioned is Lost Horizon. The author is I believe James Hilton (I'm not sure about that).