Re: [Marxism] In Solidarity with the People of Tibet

[Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg McDonald wrote:
> Well, I just read ALL of the Parenti article on Tibet, and he makes a  
> convincing argument that the coterie around the D.L. is not to be  
> trusted. The last straw for me: not only was the D.L. a paid CIA  
> agent, but he lobbied on behalf of Pinochet. Pretty unforgivable in  
> my book.  Hard to jibe with his philosophy. So it turns out Tibetan  
> Buddhism is the compassionate conservatism of eastern philosophy/ 
> religion. I'm glad you guys are around to bring me back to my senses.
>   

Greg:

there was an interesting op-ed piece yesterday, in -- of all places -- 
the NY Times, entitled "He May Be a God, but He’s No Politician". it's 
from a different perspective than you will get here, but it is worth 
checking out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html

as for your comment about Buddhism, and your statement yesterday that 
one needs to meditate for 10 days before passing judgment on the Dalai 
Lama: i've done countless 7- and 10-day retreats, and i reject the 
notion that one needs to do this kind of sitting in order to assess 
politics, Tibetan or otherwise.

i got into Zen back in the early 70's, and at that time a significant 
fraction of those coming to the discipline had been attached, in one 
form or another, to the anti-war movement. i never saw Buddhism in any 
way enhance the political acumen of these people in any way. instead, 
what i saw, at least at the Centers i frequented, was an insistence that 
"internal revolution" occur before a person could go out and agitate for 
"external revolution". This type of sentiment persists in US spiritual 
circles to this day, but has never been properly analyzed from within 
these circles.

it would be interesting to compare Buddhism's transplant to the US with, 
for example, the practice of Buddhism in VietNam. What was the 
relationship of the Buddhist monks to the VietCong, for example? were 
the monks who immolated themselves from mainstream Buddhism, or off to 
one side? Did Vietnamese Buddhism insist on personal enlightenment 
before taking a political stance on the events of the '60s and '70s?

there are other aspects of meditation that can be questioned: for 
example, what are the effects on people sitting for long periods of time 
in an externally enforced silence? does it have adverse effects on 
interpersonal and community-based living? i think so, speaking from 
experience living in such communities.

one thing i always found curious: the insistence on internal change 
before working "externally", while at the same time there is this 
over-engineered set of external circumstances in which meditation 
retreats take place. wake up at this time, eat only this much, sit for 
exactly this long, manual work at least one hour a day, walk like this, 
fold your legs like that, straighten your spine like this. and so forth. 
i came to see the engineering of individual existence in such a fashion, 
devoid of anything even remotely communal in spirit, even within these 
community-based groups, as the pinnacle of idiocy.

i do think there is something to meditation. but i think its 
communal-based practice, particularly in the US, requires a strong dose 
of ruthless criticism. and much of the Dalai Lama's support lies in the 
US based communities, though i suspect European centers are also strong???

Les


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu