Tibetan Fundamentalism (Anonymous)
The project to establish a monolithic Tibetan Buddhism allows people to define who and what is Tibetan and Buddhist. The conflation of Tibetan national identity with Buddhism is not only exclusionary of non-Buddhist Tibetans but is dangerous for the integrity of Tibetan Buddhism. It denies the Tibetan identity from the Muslim Tibetans, threatens to erase the intellectual history of all the sects except the Gyelug, and delegitimizes all voices that do not align with Dalai Lama’s hegemony, resulting in a national narrative that is dependent on a fundamentalist view of Tibetan Buddhism. The Tibetan National identity, as a result, becomes the creation of censorship, exclusion and violence.
I was having a conversation with my uncle about a controversy that was brewing inside the Rubin Museum, a Himalayan art museum in NYC. My uncle works there. One young Tibetan employee was complaining about how removed the museum was from the political reality of Tibet and how under-represented Tibetans were within the museum despite it extensively displaying Tibetan art. I told my uncle that I felt that she was justified in her critique and my uncle responded by saying that I, along with that person, were part of a generation that did nothing yet felt entitled to complain about everything. He said my ideas and my reasonings were eurocentric and that he was speaking from a Buddhist perspective.
I was having a conversation with my uncle about a controversy that was brewing inside the Rubin Museum, a Himalayan art museum in NYC. My uncle works there. One young Tibetan employee was complaining about how removed the museum was from the political reality of Tibet and how under-represented Tibetans were within the museum despite it extensively displaying Tibetan art. I told my uncle that I felt that she was justified in her critique and my uncle responded by saying that I, along with that person, were part of a generation that did nothing yet felt entitled to complain about everything. He said my ideas and my reasonings were eurocentric and that he was speaking from a Buddhist perspective.
He claimed that he spoke as a Tibetan
person while I spoke as an American. I said I did not recognize the
profoundness of Buddhist philosophy in his dismissal of me as an
under-accomplished person. He said I speak the way I do because I don’t know
Buddhism. Inherent in his argument was an accusation that I was less Tibetan
than him, and that my critique of the Rubin museum was the result of hubris
granted to me by my Western education. To justify his argument, he told me the
most bizarre anecdote.
It turns out Robert Thurman, father of actress Uma Thurman
and the first White person to become a gyeshe,1 holds lessons on
Tibetan Buddhism for young Tibetan Americans. He begins his lesson by
asking the young teens to raise their hands if they are Buddhist and without
doubt they all raise their hands, to which he responds by laughing at them.
What an asshole, I thought. However, my uncle thought
differently and recommended that I attend one those lessons to learn from
Robert Thurman how to be a true Buddhist. My uncle didn’t realize it but
he had told me that I was less Tibetan than Thurman. Not only had he
delegitimized my claim to the Tibetan identity because I lacked knowledge of
esoteric Buddhist philosophy but he had also inadvertently called my
grandparents less Tibetan than me and the Indian yogi who brought Buddhism to
Tibet, Padhmasambhava, the most Tibetan of all.
He was effectively denying
Buddhism to a vast majority of Tibetans, mostly the non-elite, and he was
conflating Buddhism with the Tibetan national identity, an ideology that has
been growing in popularity and establishing a dangerous precedence for the
exiled community; it is the defining of Tibetanness based on an assumption that
a pure expression of it exists, that one can categorize Tibetanness based on a
set of obscure qualifications, one of which is one’s knowledge and subscription
to esoteric Buddhism. However, the esoteric Buddhist community itself is not a monolithic
institution. It is diverse and has a history of disagreements, some of which
have been violent and such disagreements have continued into exile. The attempt
to unify Tibetan Buddhism and avoid violent disagreements have in turn caused
further violence.
Shugden is a hugely contested deity within Tibetan society.
He is the ghost of the Sonam Drakpa Gyaltsen, who was a powerful gyelug lama
during the time of the fifth Dalai Lama. Gyaltsen had a tense relationship with
the Dalai Lama and later died under mysterious conditions, creating a huge
outrage at that time. His ghost is said to have tormented the Dalai Lama until
the head lama of the Sakya sect intervened and pacified him. Since then he has
been accepted as the protector deity of the Gyelug sect. As Shugden was
powerful enough to combat the Dalai Lama, he is believed to have the ability to
give his worshippers immediate wealth and prosperity. He also has the
reputation for being stubborn and ruthless at times, therefore worshipping him
entailed strict observation of daily offerings.
As a result, Dalai Lama’s
announcement forbidding Shugden worship was met with strong opposition. Such
announcements are usually made on the Kalachakra initiation, which is a huge
event that takes place at Bodhgaya almost every year. Refugee camps become
empty during that time. Dalai Lama stated that Shugden worship was a threat to
his longevity and would also disrupt the peace amongst the Tibetan people.
Shugden worship has become a taboo and the deity is now
referred to as “the one who cannot be shown” — as sign of the creeping paranoia
that has not begun to seize many Shugden worshippers. There have been violent
outbreaks between monasteries, and many monasteries with Shugden associations
are trying to rewrite their history by claiming other legacies.
The controversy behind the two Karmapas have resulted in
similar violence. Karmapa is the head of Kagyu sect.2 The 16th Karmapa left
behind an impressive legacy as the most successful in proselytizing
Buddhism in the West. Most foreigners who practice Tibetan Buddhism are
Kagyu and not Gyelug as most would assume. My uncle was a close companion of
Sharmapa, a very important Kagyu rinpoche, who recognized the Karmapa that has
been ignored by the Dalai Lama.
There are those who are secretly resentful
towards the Dalai Lama for recognizing another Karmapa even though he had been
notified of Sharmapa’s discovery. There are those who refuse to bear any ill
thoughts of enlightened beings and follow both the Karmapas. Then there are
those who call the Karmapa recognized by the Kagyu sect itself illegitimate,
giving the Dalai Lama supreme authority over not only the sect he presides over,
Gyelug, but all other sects as well. Such fundamentalist ideologies are an
integral part of Tibetan government in exile, which claims to model itself
after core principles of modern democracy.
It was election season recently in exile and the most controversial
figure to run for office was Lukhar Jam. He has been labeled as being
“anti-Dalai Lama” for his secularist ideology and has been accused of being a
communist spy for not subscribing to any religion despite having spent years in
the notorious Chinese prison for activism. In Dharamshala, the exile capital,
people responded by ripping his posters. When my aunt went to vote for him, she
was stopped by other voters. He is “anti-Dalai Lama”, they all warned. She
voted for him nonetheless but came back home shaken up by the whole experience.
She later asked if her political decision was truly “anti-Dalai Lama.” I told
her Lukhar Jam has done everything in accordance with the exile constitution
and that the constitution was written under the guidance of his holiness.
I did not tell her that I like Lukhar Jam exactly for his
controversial label. I did not tell her that I desired a more diverse group of
voices to represent the Tibetan plight. I did not tell her that I felt that the
Dalai Lama and his growing relationship with the global community and people
like Robert Thurman were responsible for the fundamentalist ideology that
threatened her and censored Lukhar Jam. I did not tell her of my desire for the
Tibetan people to distance themselves from the Dalai Lama and the hegemonic
Tibetan national narrative that is dependent on the homogenization of Tibetan
Buddhism.
I believed he offered a new attitude and a new political
language, one that was not fixated on Buddhism and its purity. He could
have been an opportunity for the exile community to bring forth an an
alternative expression of Tibet and show the fragility of the mainstream
discourse on Tibetan nationhood. He did exactly that and it is unfortunate how
he and his ideas were disparaged. He was the most provocative and widely
discussed candidate, and he lost.
The project to establish a monolithic Tibetan Buddhism
allows people to define who and what is Tibetan and Buddhist. The conflation of
Tibetan national identity with Buddhism is not only exclusionary of
non-Buddhist Tibetans but is dangerous for the integrity of Tibetan Buddhism.
It denies the Tibetan identity from the Muslim Tibetans, threatens to erase the
intellectual history of all the sects except the Gyelug, and delegitimizes all
voices that do not align with Dalai Lama’s hegemony, resulting in a national
narrative that is dependent on a fundamentalist view of Tibetan Buddhism. The
Tibetan National identity, as a result, becomes the creation of censorship,
exclusion and violence.
None of this was easy for me to write. I was burdened by the
guilt of having marred Dalai Lama’s pristine reputation. I also know that my
claim to the Buddhist identity will be questioned because of my secularist
politics. I feel a certain obligation, however, and the fact that I would have
to have such doubts strengthens my resolution. I can’t accept the current
exclusionary Tibetan national narrative. Its obsession with doctoring Tibetan
history into a homogenous Buddhist one is a violent project.
I also feel that
it is not unrelated to my uncle’s accusation of my progressive ideologies as
being “un-Tibetan”, and the fact that a figure such as Robert Thurman exists as
a cultural custodian of the Tibetan people. Tibetan Buddhism and
the Tibetan national identity are being simplified to fulfill the
romantic expectations of homogeneity and the supposed moral and spiritual
superiority of the Tibetan people. However, these expectations are adversary to
the goals they seek to achieve, which are peace and unity. They work only to
accommodate people who are neither in exile nor under occupation, people like
Robert Thurman: White, privileged, and with rudimentary knowledge of the
Tibetan experience.
- A scholar of Tibetan Buddhism trained in the traditional method. ↩
- There are four sects in Tibetan Buddhism: Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gyelug. Each sect has their own head and vastly different intellectual legacy. Dalai Lama is the head of the Gyelug sect. ↩