Can a pacifist religious belief be changed when survival is at stake?

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
Vinod,

Japanese and Tibetans are incomparable. Look at their culture, look at their education. The Japan is the land of Samurais, and their history is full of exploits of great warriors against China and Korea. The Japanese youth easily associates with a call to arms.
In contrast, not a single Tibetan disciple has ever ventured beyond the realms of meditation. They are not made for this. They've been told to forgive even if their brothers are stabbed in front of them, and surprisingly, they actually manage it ! The only hope of a Tibetan uprising will emerge in form of a new Lama who sheds the defeatist path of the current.

About India's intervention, one must consider the timeline. At that time, as you stated, we were led by idealists who didn't think we even need an army. And yet they were stupid enough to execute a "Forward Policy." At that time, we were not capable of military intervention. Pakistan was powerful then, and we didn't need more heartaches.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
Exactly that is why it is said that if u want peace be prepared for war.Unforfunately the leaders of our country especially nehru never believed in it but always were shafting india. Even today instead of giving the pakistanis a fitting reply our leaders our more interested in making money for themselves and ignoring the massive bloodshed our country has to face from pakistan, needless to say greatly abetted by china.Even after being invaded and colonized it seems Indians dont want to wake up to the true nature of our ruling elite.
You can take out your frustration somewhere else.
What should we do ? Embark on a Genghis Khan campaign ? Slaughter all enemies ? Are we even capable of doing so ?

Yes, there is much we can wish for from our leaders, but mindless bloodshed is not one of them. We are no superpower, nor are we led by retards. War is a last resort to any situation.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
Also,

If the Tibetans happen to take to arms, they'll be brutally crushed. They'll provide China with just the reason they're waiting for. Once a Tibetan fires a shot, no one can stop the Chinese tanks from rolling in.

Basically, for the Tibetans - its pretty hopeless. They can do nothing but watch, as the time when they could have done something has long gone.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Ohimalaya, there is no obsession. We don't look at Tibet as a buffer zone because of any hostility to China. We look at it as a historically independent entity that is much closer to Indian culture than the Chinese.

It may have been part of or paid obeisance to some Chinese empires and that doesn't make the Tibetans into Chinese.

So, sorry we have fundamental differences in the way we both look at the status of Tibet.

There were no Han Chinese in Tibet a few decades back. There was no PLA in Tibet before 1949. Things have changed after China manipulated the Tibetan leadership (and got them killed in a plane crash?).

Lets not pretend that nothing is going on there, that this place is not losing its identity under the Chinese onslaught. And that the Tibetans don't want China to let them live as they want to.

I think there may have been some bad customs in Tibet earlier. That doesn't give anyone the right to annex the country and flood them with alien people coming from thousands of miles who have never had anything to do with that land in history!
 
Last edited:

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
The world we live in, is a world of contrast. On one hand we have people like Tibetans who'll stick to the principles of their religion even if it guarantees their annihilation. One the other hand we have retards like these (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/55548/if-one-not-hindu-he.html) who will go to any level to annihilate all other religions.


China is too powerful to be affected by Tibetan rebellions. We all know that. Even Dalai Lama knows that. Probably that's why they prefer to keep quiet. Atleast, they'll live.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Also,

If the Tibetans happen to take to arms, they'll be brutally crushed. They'll provide China with just the reason they're waiting for. Once a Tibetan fires a shot, no one can stop the Chinese tanks from rolling in.

Basically, for the Tibetans - its pretty hopeless. They can do nothing but watch, as the time when they could have done something has long gone.
All they can do is keep the issue alive and wait for the situation to become favorable. They are doing that and my heart goes out to these people.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Vinod,

Japanese and Tibetans are incomparable. Look at their culture, look at their education. The Japan is the land of Samurais, and their history is full of exploits of great warriors against China and Korea. The Japanese youth easily associates with a call to arms.
In contrast, not a single Tibetan disciple has ever ventured beyond the realms of meditation. They are not made for this. They've been told to forgive even if their brothers are stabbed in front of them, and surprisingly, they actually manage it ! The only hope of a Tibetan uprising will emerge in form of a new Lama who sheds the defeatist path of the current.
Tibetans were not always pacifists. They have some military conquests to their credit as well in the long past.

I see no reason to denigrate them. I have a lot of respect for the peaceful Tibetan culture and a lot of regret that such a peaceful culture can't survive the harsh realities of the world unless it also produces men who will fight in the dungeons to protect it from predators who will inevitably swoop down on the week and the meek.

About India's intervention, one must consider the timeline. At that time, as you stated, we were led by idealists who didn't think we even need an army. And yet they were stupid enough to execute a "Forward Policy." At that time, we were not capable of military intervention. Pakistan was powerful then, and we didn't need more heartaches.
Yes, India had its limitations. Most of them had to do with the fact that India didn't know what it wanted and how to go about achieving what it knew it wanted. These weaknesses persist to this day.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
The world we live in, is a world of contrast. On one hand we have people like Tibetans who'll stick to the principles of their religion even if it guarantees their annihilation. One the other hand we have retards like these (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/55548/if-one-not-hindu-he.html) who will go to any level to annihilate all other religions.


China is too powerful to be affected by Tibetan rebellions. We all know that. Even Dalai Lama knows that. Probably that's why they prefer to keep quiet. Atleast, they'll live.
How did you get that impression? I didn't. One may nit agree with their ideology but I don't think one needs to stretch the meaning.

Anyway that would probably be an off topic discussion. We can probably discuss in some other thread.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
How did you get that impression? I didn't. One may nit agree with their ideology but I don't think one needs to stretch the meaning.

Anyway that would probably be an off topic discussion. We can probably discuss in some other thread.
Annihilate was too extreme. Sorry for that. "Suppress" would be a better word. Anyways, I just wanted to highlight the contrast.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
I see no reason to denigrate them. I have a lot of respect for the peaceful Tibetan culture and a lot of regret that such a peaceful culture can't survive the harsh realities of the world unless it also produces men who will fight in the dungeons to protect it from predators who will inevitably swoop down on the week and the meek.
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not denigrating them. I'm just pointing out that resistance is against their nature.
From whatever I've read in the past in Dalai Lama's texts, I've gathered that a general Tibetan mind does not believe in freedom. For them, as long as they are mentally free, they're independent. And as long as they can think, they can meditate. As long as they can meditate they can work on Buddha's principles. For a strict Buddhist, its all about being liberated from re-birth(Nirvana). And the only thing that leads them too it, is Dharma whose essential requirement is non-violence. So you see ? If they take to arms, they'll contradict everything they've been taught.
 

MANISH123

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
14
Likes
0
Also,

If the Tibetans happen to take to arms, they'll be brutally crushed. They'll provide China with just the reason they're waiting for. Once a Tibetan fires a shot, no one can stop the Chinese tanks from rolling in.

Basically, for the Tibetans - its pretty hopeless. They can do nothing but watch, as the time when they could have done something has long gone.
What happened is a thing of the past.If the tibetans were to rise violently now, they would be buthchered by the hans.
I guess they are better left alone now till india develops some B****s

Did u read this before posting which says essntially the same thing that u are saying or copying others comments comes naturally to u.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Manish, please avoid getting into personal scuffles.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not denigrating them. I'm just pointing out that resistance is against their nature.
From whatever I've read in the past in Dalai Lama's texts, I've gathered that a general Tibetan mind does not believe in freedom. For them, as long as they are mentally free, they're independent. And as long as they can think, they can meditate. As long as they can meditate they can work on Buddha's principles. For a strict Buddhist, its all about being liberated from re-birth(Nirvana). And the only thing that leads them too it, is Dharma whose essential requirement is non-violence. So you see ? If they take to arms, they'll contradict everything they've been taught.
Agree. This is what happened to us in India too. That is why the invaders found it so easy to invade and rule us for hundreds of years. We also retreated in our shells and thought that the physical world doesn't matter.

Well, it does and preserving it is a prerequisite for conquering the spiritual world.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
I was going through an article on the ideals on which the Tibetan resistance functions. It might be a beneficiary read in this thread. I'm posting relevant excerpts of the rather long article to get the main points across. However, the link at the bottom can be referred to for more details.


In the tireless drive of the Dalai Lama and his admirers to promote the Tibetan struggle as a wholly non-violent affair conducted by a race of uniquely spiritual people (who would rather give up their country than commit any act of violence) truth has, unfortunately, become the first of casualties. However pious and arguably necessary, this mission to project Tibetan history and contemporary events through the rose-tinted lens of official pacifist ideology ignores the sacrifice and courage of the many thousands of Tibetan freedom fighters (monks and lamas included) who took up arms to fight for the freedom of their country. But I have commented at length on this in a couple of other articles and it is perhaps unnecessary to go into it again.

I touch on the subject here primarily to bring to the reader’s attention some observations on "truth" and "non-violence" by a person eminently qualified to pronounce on them. Mahatma Gandhi believed that the love of truth was a more important human quality than non-violence. He called his methods Satyagraha or "firmness in truth", and felt that terms like "pacifism" or "non-violence" did not fully convey the essential spirit of his philosophy of action.

At the beginning of World War II, Gandhi supported a resolution for recruiting Indians into the war effort. He even went around raising recruits himself, though many people were upset by this. "You are a votary of ahimsa," some of his followers protested. "How can you ask us to take up arms?" Gandhi’s reply reveals how he considered a person’s social responsibility and his duty to his country to sometimes override even a powerful moral conviction as non-violence. He said: "I recognise that in the hour of its danger we must give, as we have decided to give, ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire of which we aspire in the near future to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas … I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire, and racial distinctions would become a thing of the past."

When Pakistani raiders invaded Kashmir and began to approach Srinagar — after Kashmir’s accession to India on October 26, 1947 — appeals were made to Prime Minister Nehru by leaders of Kashmir, including the Maharajah and the popular Muslim leader, Sheikh Abdullah, but Nehru dithered. Finally, at the insistence of Patel, Nehru ordered military help to proceed. Patel, through a broadcast over All India Radio, commandeered all aircraft available in India and started air operations. A relieved Gandhi told Patel, "At one time I was feeling very miserable and oppressed when I heard this [the Pakistan invasion]. But when the Kashmir operation began, I began to feel proud of them, and every aeroplane that goes with materials and arms and ammunition and requirements of the Army, I feel proud."

Gandhi justified his view, "Any injustice on our land, any encroachment on our land should be defended by violence, if not by non-violence… If you can defend by non-violence, by all means do it; that is the first thing I should like. If it is for me to do, I would not touch anything, either a pistol or revolver or anything. But I would not see India degrading itself to be feeling helpless." (’Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: India’s Iron Man’, B Krishna, Harper Collins India, 1996.)

Tibetan ideas on non-violence are, by comparison, confused, naive, and in certain cases seem to derive from magical beliefs inherent in traditional Tibetan thinking. For instance, the speaker of the Tibetan People’s Assembly, Samdhong Rinpoche, who has come out with his own version of Gandhi’s Satyagraha doctrine (but which Rinpoche has translated somewhat awkwardly as "Truth Insistence"), once made the somewhat fantastic pronouncement that if fifty percent of the Tibetan people were able to comprehend Rinpoche’s doctrine of "Truth Insistence", the Chinese would be compelled to leave Tibet in less than three months. The Dalai Lama does not make as extravagant a claim for the efficacy of his Middle Way doctrine. Both views, however, reflect their roots in traditional metaphysical thinking and clearly reveal an imperfect understanding of the politics of nation states and the Darwinian reality of our modern world.

Certainly, peace is preferable to war, and non-violence to violence. Only someone with serious mental or moral shortcomings would dispute the general rightness, even righteousness, of the proposition. But people and nations are sometimes confronted with problems where violent action seems to be not only the only possible solution but the heroic and wise one as well.

Was the illusory peace that Chamberlain and Daladier bartered from Hitler at Munich worth the price of betraying Czechoslovakia? On the other hand, were President Roosevelt’s efforts to push a reluctant America into World War II the evil machinations of a Jew-loving warmonger, as the German propaganda ministry might have put it, or an act that probably saved mankind from Nazi domination?

Or closer home, was it wrong for the people of Lhasa to rise up in armed rebellion to protect the life of the Dalai Lama? Was it wrong of the Dalai Lama to use the armed escort of resistance fighters to escape from Lhasa? What would have happened had he remained? He might have been killed in the fighting, or suffered imprisonment, torture and public humiliation like the Tenth Panchen Lama. In the opinion of the Dalai Lama’s youngest brother, Tenzin Choegyal, had the Dalai Lama remained in Tibet "…they (the Chinese) would have used His Holiness just as the Japanese used poor Pu Yi (the last Manchu Emperor). That’s what he would have become, another Pu Yi." (Kundun, Mary Craig, Harper Collins, 1997).

So, in a sense, the Dalai Lama owes his freedom, his present international stature and maybe even his Nobel Peace Prize to violent men who rescued him not only from physical danger but from a situation that was politically and morally compromising. They also freed him from a relationship with the Communist Chinese that was not only hopeless but unhealthy as well.

This article does not seek to advocate that Tibetans take up arms here and now, but to point out to our leaders and friends that the complexities of human affairs call for a more eclectic and robust approach to the Tibetan problem than the current pacifist inertia. Even if, let us say, we eventually adopt a non-violent strategy this decision should come through study, discussion and appreciation of realities, not merely as an article of divine faith nor because it is being applauded by celebrities and world leaders for whom peace, trade with China, and maintenance of the status quo, is definitely more important than Tibetan freedom.

But getting back to Gandhi. When all’s said and done, the Mahatma’s brand of non-violence towers above ours because his was a doctrine of sacrifice, courage and above all action; qualities, which in the Tibetan non-violent movement are conspicuous only by their absence — unless one counts the heroic courage of some lone activists inside Tibet. Otherwise, in the rank and leadership of the movement in exile, non-violent activism seems to have become entirely an affair of celebrities, religious ceremonies, rock concerts, Hollywood movies, conferences, careers and conveniences. The ultimate convenience being the giving up of our main goal of independence in order to save "Tibetan Buddhist culture" — a euphemism, if I have ever heard one, for the power of the theocracy. We should also remember that Gandhi led by example. The genuine simplicity of the Mahatma’s lifestyle (Sarojini Naidu’s crack about the cost of supporting the Mahatma’s poverty is more witty than substantial), his readiness to face police batons, endure imprisonment, even face death for his convictions were doubtless more inspirational to his followers than just teachings and initiations. Such fearlessness and integrity is, to be brutally frank, non-existent in our leadership circles.

But the Tibetan "Truth Insistence" movement seems to have discovered a substitute. In a document I have received, which seems to be a manifesto of the movement, Samdhong Rinpoche expresses the conviction of being able to instil the requisite qualities of courage, endurance, forbearance and compassion in his followers through the wonderfully vague yet impressive sounding method of "philosophical understanding".

If I know anything about how things are done in Dharamshala we are definitely in for more nebulous, "feel-good" conferences (with silk-lined folders and expensive colour souvenir magazines for delegates), seminars and workshops, all of which will probably be underwritten by some well-meaning foreign foundation with more enthusiasm and money than awareness of the real and frightening dangers assailing Tibetan society.

Inside Tibet courageous souls still defy Chinese might with courage worthy of Gandhi. Still the question must be asked whether any of those brave activists are, in any true sense, non-violent activists. In conversations with a number of new arrivals in Dharamshala, I received the definite impression that nearly all of the demonstrators and activists in Tibet adopted non-violent methods (up to a point, they threw stones and burnt down a police station) because they were not in a position to do anything else; and that if the time came where violent insurrection were possible against the Chinese they would welcome it.

Orville Schell, who secretly interviewed a number of activists inside Tibet for the film Red Flag Over Tibet, told me that an important Tibetan Lama he interviewed had said that the only way to stop the Chinese was through violence.

And this is beginning to happen, albeit in a modest way. Judging by the few bombs that went off in Tibet in recent years, some stubborn Tibetans definitely seem to lack appreciation of our official non-violent philosophy. If Gandhi were still around, one might suppose that he would, as a matter of course, condemn our bombers and applaud the exile peace movement. But I am not sure. In the August 11, 1920 issue of Young India he wrote:

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I could advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms than she should become a helpless witness to her own dishonour."

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, in the conclusion of his Political Testament, did not mince words on the question of defending Tibetan sovereignty against Chinese aggression: "…we should make every effort to safeguard ourselves against this impending disaster. Use peaceful means where they are appropriate; but where they are not appropriate, do not hesitate to resort to more forceful means."
Courtesy : Jamyang Norbu
http://www.tibetwrites.org/?Non-Violence-And-Non-Action
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
The article shows, that there is still a will to take up arms if required, which I had wrongly discounted. They just need a leader to tell them to do so.(Not saying that it would be effective, though)
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Thanks for that article Soham. I am now forced to ask, is the Dalai Lama a political liability to the Tibetan cause. Its was his actions or the lack of it which forced the Tibetans to leave their land and live in exile. He gets the Nobel for that, but he has harmed his people by letting go of their land.
The Dalai Lama is respected for his stature as a religious leader, but its his political leadership that is in question.
 

ShyAngel

Founding Member
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
454
Likes
8
Yusaf that's not true! His Holiness the Dalai Lama was in his (teen) 17 year's old when 1st time he met Communist leader Mao Tsatong. He was only 22 year old boy when he left Tibet with no choice. He didn't even had the full power then but "RESPONSIBLE" towards his people somehow is still there. You wouldn't even dare to come up with such a week statement like that if you would had known a little more accurate information about the century old Dalai Lama lineage and how Chinese had forcefully invent Tibet. Sorry! Didn't mean to make you sound so raw but,,,,,,,,we're all not perfect therefor, we learn something new every day right!

Now to clarify your misunderstanding:

PREOCCUPATION:

1. His Holiness never made any long vacation plan to India and nor did he ever ask any tibetan people to join in with him. When crisis comes in any nation its always the people that suffer 1st and nevertheless, they'll be the one who make their own decision on what to do and how to get out of that danger zone! His Holiness didn't even have any idea on how to deal with such a "DANGEROUS" situation like that since he is very young, innocent, and of course Nobel buddhist lama. Even though he didn't had full power over the nation then yet spiritually he is still the Dalai Lama and had to accept the responsibility of the nation one year earlier. Kashak/tibetan parliament of central government made that decision and his journey to India was the decision made by his deity "Nachung" & "Palden Lamo" medium. The only thing he said before he left TIBET was: "free all the prisoners and I'm looking forward to come back again."
2:Our great grandparents were living btw Nepal and Tibet former (SILK ROUTE) for many centuries before even chinese military occupy Tibet, before even the present 14th Dalai Lama was born. So many tibetans had been paying tax to both former Central Tibetan Government and royal Nepal. So many of tibetans like them were never once told by His Holiness to leave their nation behind. So you are wrong to accuse His Holiness over some individuals unsatisfied life!

POST OCCUPATION:

3:His Holiness succeed in not just building up a healthy society in exile but also he had kept his century old religion, cultural, and heritage safely ALIVE under the help of the great mother India!
4:When my parents, relatives, and so many of those tibetans follow his step and lived and learned under his shelter they were ALSO living with the children of prisoners, thief, and lower caste from old Tibet and yet they were all "TREATED EQUALLY"! Because he gave birth to democratic (FREE TIBET) government in exile.
5:And the people who serve his government were all from all shades of caste and their only goal is to secure and guard OUR people and follow middle way path.

REALITY CHECK:
6:Last but not least, ancient Tibet has dropped the royal power back in last king Lang Darma revolution during a period of chaos in 797-977 BC and The Master Plan of hindu lord: "Avalokitesvara" aka the lineage of Dalai Lama raised with nothing but (POLITICAL POWER OVER THE NATION). It was all deeply politicize by wise indian pundits to rule the land all the way from Himalaya to the land of Mongol Khans. Talking about Tibet being backward? Hell to the no!!!!! Tibet started the game of politics in 1357-2010 before even African nation exist. To safe the innocents from devils if Sri Krishna can naturally be god and politician at the same time then why is it so surprising and confusing to accept His Holiness The Dalai Lama and his century old status. Dalai Lama is not just respected for his stature as religious leader but also being a such a Nobel politician for following his path to ahimsa which no other politician has ever done so far. I'm proud to have him as the leader of my nation<3
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Shy, where is the nation? Why has the Dalai Lama more than on once occasion said that he now accepts Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and looks for just autonomy?
Also the question i have asked is can you let aside your pacifist beliefs to stand up in arms against the Chinese?
 

ShyAngel

Founding Member
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
454
Likes
8
Yusaf what you mean where is the nation? Safe that 1st questions to those unsatisfied and angry tibetans in exile. I just support them but I don't follow them. I said we are following middle way path then who needs the nation. His Holiness and us young and bright youngsters are just looking for autonomy and of course lots of freedom to tibetan people in Tibet. To answer your question on if if we can let pacifist beliefs to stand up in arms against the chinese then I would say YES but at the same time we have to be careful that we don't loss our morality while trying to be soft with them. Chinese are pretty dirty exploited! You see pacifist beliefs are not really their cup of tea so it might take time!
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Are you saying you are OK with the Chinese occupation?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top