Let me start by saying that I love the Dalai Lama and AFAIK everything he stands for spiritually...

... but does his spiritual connection really have to be tied into his political one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7410745.stm

This link presents an excellent political arguments IMO but it doesn't change my personal opinion that the Dalai Lama -- and thus Tibet -- are unique and should be preserved as is, theology, philosophy, geography, and all.

My fear is that if the Chinese are given free reign in Tibet, all of the above will crumble and we will be worse for it.

To be honest and this might sound a bit blunt, but I've always looked upon the Dalai Lama as the Pope of Buddhism.

Basically he is as much a political leader as he is a spiritual one and his image became very symbolic for Buddhism and Tibet. But... he basically does as he pleases, for example some time ago he suddenly forbid his followers to pray to one of the most popular Gods.

A quite selfish act and followers that literally love the Dalai Lama as their father and this particular God as their mother so to speak are having huge problems in Tibet now. They get excluded from a whole lot of things and became outcasts because they now believe in and pray to the wrong God (according to 'their father', just imagine what this means in practice for these people. They even have trouble getting jobs and so on now because of it.)...

According to the Dalai Lama he always got 'bad luck' from this particular God and therefore it's forbidden to pray to now, but basically the Dalai Lama is as power-hungry as any political or spiritual leader out there and wanted to press his mark on modern Buddhism. I mean, was it really necessary to exclude this popular God from the pantheon of Buddistic Gods? Heck no, not at all.

I'm not exactly pro-Chinese when it comes to Tibet, no country has the right to occupy territory that isn't somehow rightfully theirs and even then it's difficult to justify any kind of occupation.

But I do think the Chinese have a pretty valid point when it comes to having made Tibet more modern. Still, is that a good enough argument to simply claim total control over Tibet? I don't really think so, but I would have to dive more into the history of both Tibet and China to see who's 'more right' than the other.

Buddhism is SHIT.

Eloquent as usual... but you missed a word: "the" between "is" and "shit".

Really? Then you must leave the Netherlands at once, because your country and every other country in history was obtained by some sort of occupation. Except for maybe some tribes in South America.

It doesnt matter who is right or more right, the Chinese will occupy whatever country they want if there is no one around to stop them, and noone strong enough cares that much about Tibet because it doesn't offer any resources. Thats the harsh reality.

According to the article you posted, all he has done was try to fight the Chinese, that may be stupid but I dont see how it opposes his spirituality.

I agree, I like the Tibetan culture. I think it goes back to the fundamental question however, how would it serve the Chinese to totally destroy all of those things? If Tibet simply allows the Chinese to dominate then I dont think that they have any incentive to destroy their culture.

In my opinion the best advice for Tibet is to remain passive and peaceful and not give the Chinese any reason to cause any havoc.

Last time I've checked we aren't occupying anyone's territory but our own, but in a way you are right. It's difficult, if not impossible in most cases to determine whether someone has the 'right' to live somewhere. Still, all kinds of literal occupation is wrong in my opinion and most cases of occupation are actually pretty obvious. Take Israel for example and the Syrian Golan heights.



Just like with Taiwan China is convinced that they rightfully own these countries.

By the way Tibet does have vast deposits of metal resources which are of great interest to the Chinese. It's the number one reason why they build a railroad going to Tibet.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/magazines/fortune/lustgarten_china.fortune/index.htm

It's not that his politics opposes his spirituality. It's that his spirituality is in contention with his politics.



My point exactly. If Tibet were to give ground on some of the political issues, they may keep their spiritual autonomy.

Now, let it be known that I too know very little on the background. I too have a "gut" feeling that because as you said there is no one to protect Tibet (ie: there is no oil to be exploited on their lands), then no matter what political agreements are in place, China would be able to do as it please, recind on it's word, and there is nothing Tibet (or the world) will be able to do about it.

Thats interesting, I knew they were building the railroad but I didn't know why. I thought that Tibet only had a scarce agricultural economy, I did not know about the potential metals.

Of course, just because your link says that there have been metal rich areas found may only be China's ostensible excuse for building the railroad...if you study war at all you are aware of the strong logistical problems involved...

(In other words I dont trust that the Chinese are building this railroad only for exploiting Tibet's minerals--they have a double use of bringing a transportation infrastructure towards the middle east)

But I will concede that I didn't know about the article...or the alleged minerals...so thanks.

I am not aware of Netherlands history but I am sure that there was some kind of barbarian tribe which took your land to begin with, I think it was the Franks which finally held it and it was part of the 17 provinces held by the Dukes of Burgundy. Whichever group finally held on to it only did so through brute violence. The only reason why you sit comfortably in front of your computer is because some king and some army decided that they were going to O_C_C_U_P_Y your land. Do you wish to give it back or do you feel like the Netherlands truly has a "right" to it?

Nobody really has a 'right' to anything on earth, we all just murdered each other in order to possess it.

If you feel so strongly about it, why dont you give your land to the Palestinians? The problem with judging one country having 'rights' is that you always bring your own 'rights' in question.

I think I will have to go meditate on a mountain in Tibet before I can understand what your saying there...

Yeah. China is definitely a big superpower, and Tibet is an exceptionally beautiful place on earth, its too bad really.

But as you said; if OIL is found in Tibet then that changes everything. Maybe then someone could help them. But even if the US and all of Europe defended Tibet I shudder to think about what conflict with China would mean....

I would not have problems with that at all, but the Netherlands is already becoming pretty crowded. We're just a small country and although for me personally it doesn't mean they aren't welcome... such a solution might be a bit of a problem in practice.

Also, why should we give land to the Palestinians when it is really the Jews that got a country assigned to them that for sure didn't belong to them at that time.



No worries and yes it's probably quite obvious that the Chinese have build this railroad for more than just tourism purposes and 'modernizing' Tibet.



I'm a direct descendant from the Franks though... hence my last name. Still, yeah, I get your point.



And yet there's still plenty of space left for all of us. I'm probably far to idealistic when it comes to the harsh reality we're really living in, I give you that. :p From a standpoint of morality it would make sense not to 'occupy' any territory, but when it comes to wealth and resources the violence seems to know no limits.

I guess this only proves evolution in that only the strong survive... in the end.

I dont dispute survival of the fittest, it is readily observed, it is observed in every level of nature and social interaction.

Off topic: When you look at history through the lens of class or racial struggle(of the fittest) like Hitler or communism, it is incorrect to see survival of the fittest as being genetics ... (For example the Aryans being the master race is not true at all)

I see national struggles as being more the survival of ideas and ideologies rather than the survival of a race based on their genetics.

For example, if we went by the early German eugenics movements both Stephen Hawking(a disabled man) and Albert Einstein(a Jew) would have been removed from Hitler's ideal gene pool, and that would be a tragedy to humans as a whole.


Heh, are you serious? I suppose that would make perfect sense...but I feel like you are pulling my leg. But for Dutch names, your name is so much easier to understand than something like Edsger W. Dijkstra