Hell No

Disclaimer: I realize that both the Catholic Church and Tibetan Buddhist Church have true holy men in their ranks. My focus here is on those who are not holy. I mean no disrespect nor do I mean to give the impression that all priests and monks should be seen in a negative light.

I've finally seen enough "Free Tibet" bumperstickers. I have to write about this.

The Dalai Lama (pictured above selling computers; real fucking holy) touts "Free Tibet" everywhere he goes. But the more I learn about both the Dalai Lama and Tibet, the more I think he is just a celebrity politician looking out for himself. Yes, Tibet was terrorized by the communists. And Tibet should not be run by the Chinese. At this point I don't even think China should be run by the Chinese. But the Dalai Lama should not return to being Tibet's sole ruler.

I believe that local government is the best government, everywhere in the world. The closer to home the politicians and rulers are when things go wrong, the better. In that sense, Tibet should be "free". Free to be self-governed.

I also believe in freedom of religion. Religion and government are the two most dangerous institutions; they both hold massive power over the human heart, mind and body. Having both means that they can keep each other in check. If the government fucks up, religious leaders are there to help and lead the people. And vice versa: government can protect people of all religions, and can even protect people from their religion, like in the case of putting pedophile priests in jail.

The DL wants a return to the way things were pre-communist-takeover. Which means that he is both religious and government leader. This is a problem. To put any religious leader in charge of a country's government is dangerous. Not only will Buddhists who disagree with him be vulnerable to incarceration and police action, those who are not Buddhist, the Bonpo, will be in position to be royally screwed. The original religion of Tibet is Bon, a shamanistic, mountain-worshiping religion. They are not well-known outside of Tibet, have no celebrity face to help get Western sympathy, and could easily be taken advantage of if the DL ruled.

About Buddhists who may not agree with the DL: there are two major and three minor schools of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as numerous mini-schools and wandering lamas. In the late sixteenth century, the position of "Dalai Lama" was given to Sonam Gyatso of the Galupa school by a Mongolian emperor who wanted to recreate the dynasty of Ghangas Khan and needed a spiritual advisor. Because Sonam Gyatso was supposed to be the third incarnation of his series, he became the third DL. All the other schools were at a great disadvantage. Much war and pain ensued. Not only did the other schools have to fight for recognition, power and resources, but every time the DL died there was a battle over who would be next. The position of Dalai Lama is not "natural", ancient, or universally accepted. It is historically a position of hot politics.

What the DL never mentions to his adoring Western fans is that the Tibetan Buddhist Church (for lack of a better term) is more like the Catholic Church than any other institution. It has the same bureaucratic skeleton. It has a history of mysterious DL deaths when they weren't pleasing the rich and powerful. It has a history of little boys getting diddled, as a vow of celibacy is not really all that broken if it's with a little boy. Each monastery had its' own police force (big guys with huge keys attached to long chains, used for crowd control). And many monks became monks because it was easier than farming at 12,000 feet. And they could get drunk every night, even if they weren't supposed to.

I believe that Catholics should be free to be Catholic, and Galupa should be free to be Galupa, despite the hypocrisy and corruption rampant in both institutions. But neither should ever run a country. (I know they will have a lot of power anyway, but there needs to be as much separation as possible).

Tibet is in need of a local government; the Dalai Lama should not be it. When he says "Free Tibet", what he really means is "Give Me Tibet".

Hell no.