Philosophy Now Forum

otherwise non religious people - even otherwise vocal atheists - often love the dalai lama

now as far as i can tell his sole claim to being the ruler of tibet is that he has been one in the past life

this makes about as much sense as a claim to being the king of england because a strange woman in a pond gave a sword to you

why is it that so many otherwise 'progressive' people do not just laugh at dalai lamas pythonesque claim to power

Support for what Tibet was under Lama's is support for monarchy, feudalism, slavery and religious autocracy.

However it must be remembered the support for him comes mostly from liberals and conservatives while there is considerable opposition to him on the left

With Liberals it seems to be just another trendy middle class PC thing along with saving the whale green politics and for conservatives as a convenient anti Chinese and communism vehicle. On the other hand on the left there has been a lot of criticism to him, obviously some motivated by supporting a communist country but for others the reasons I list above.

On the other hand a lot of modern supporters point out while the Lamas represented oppression in the past, what they've evolved into while in exile is something akin to western society, so judging them by the past is unfair.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Same question as what's the big deal about the queen of England? The Tibetan set up though in choosing a head by 'Lama vision', and not by bloodline, ensures a male leader, but is more finely tuned on the type of person who will lead perhaps than bloodline selection. Most world leaders are not particularly intelligent human beings, which is the whole point; they are there to basically represent the average Joe, and to example hopefully a good average model, which I think the DL does.
Its very similar to the papal model of selection, and based on something as dubious as Tibetan succession. Its the myth that matters to the majority because the myth doesn't change over millennia, whereas humans shift with each generation. If succession reflected a truly intelligent process it would alter with each new ruler - the process criterion would have to be reviewed. Basing on a myth is much more expedient and efficient. Democracy works politically because unlike these icons of culture that royalty and religious leaders represent, politicians have to be more accountable to the times in which they live: what a pope or lama says and does now is hardly changed from 1000 years ago. Think of them as like wallpaper and they may not bother you as much.

Kayla wrote:otherwise non religious people - even otherwise vocal atheists - often love the dalai lama

now as far as i can tell his sole claim to being the ruler of tibet is that he has been one in the past life

this makes about as much sense as a claim to being the king of england because a strange woman in a pond gave a sword to you

why is it that so many otherwise 'progressive' people do not just laugh at dalai lamas pythonesque claim to power

You will be pleased to know, that I, as an atheist, laugh my ass off every time the dalai lama is mentioned.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... ing-anyway

This is all you need to know

Christopher Hitchens accuses the Dalai Lama of claiming to be a “hereditary king appointed by heaven itself” and of enforcing “one-man rule” in Dharamsala, the town in the Indian Himalayas that serves as a capital for the more than a hundred and fifty thousand Tibetans in exile.

A provence he rules like any other dictator.



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/b ... z26FhYH1z5