Do the words of the Dalai Lama matter to all Buddhists?


CNN reports the Dalai Lama –the spiritual leader of Tibet — has urged his co-religionists  in Sri Lanka and Myanmar to halt the sectarian violence that has pitted majority Buddhist populations against Muslim minorities.

The assumption behind this story is that the Dalai Lama is a person of consequence whose words will carry weight with Buddhists round the world. What he says matters, CNN reports.

But does it? And if it does matter, to whom does it matter?

The attacks on Muslims in Sri Lanka and Myanmar have had the approval of Buddhists leaders and in some cases mobs have been led by saffron-robe clad Buddhists monks. The report from CNN cleanly and clearly reports on the Dalai Lama’s call for peace, but it neglects to mention (or perhaps it assumes) that Buddhism is a monolith, a unified system of belief whose leaders are universally esteemed by its practitioners.

The bottom line: What the CNN team is doing in this story is projecting Christian assumptions about a church and hierarchy upon a non-Christian institution. These assumptions make the story intellectually accessible to a Western reader, but present the issue in a false light.

The article entitled “Dalai Lama to Myanmar, Sri Lanka Buddhists: Stop violence against Muslims” begins:

(CNN) – Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has made a renewed call for Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka to cease violence towards the countries’ Muslim minorities, in an address delivered on his 79th birthday. Speaking before tens of thousands of Buddhists, including Hollywood actor Richard Gere, the exiled Buddhist leader implored the faithful in the majority-Buddhist countries to refrain from such attacks.

“I urge the Buddhists in these countries to imagine an image of Buddha before they commit such a crime,” he said in the Indian town of Leh. “Buddha preaches love and compassion. If the Buddha is there, he will protect the Muslims whom the Buddhists are attacking.”

The article reports that “[r]ising Buddhist nationalism” in Sri Lanka and Mynamar “spearheaded by movements led by extremist monks” has led to communal violence in recent years. Details of the violence are given as are the Dalai Lama’s calls for peaceful coexistence between the faith communities.

And the story closes with an explanatory note that:

The Dalai Lama was speaking before the audience in Leh to confer Kalachakra, a process intended to empower tens of thousands of his Buddhist followers to reach enlightenment, his office said.

I give the story high marks for style, context and clarity. A reader knows who said this, what he said, when he said it and why he said it. The lede tells us that this matters because the Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibet’s Buddhist community, who has also attracted an international following including actors such as Richard Gere.

From a Western perspective this is sufficient information to know the Dalai Lama (and his words) matter. But that is not the issue here. The big question is whether his words carry any weight with his purported target audience in this case, the Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

The world’s 300 million or so Buddhists can be roughly divided into two main schools, Theravada and Mahayana — and these can be further divided into a myriad of schools, sects and groups. While all draw upon the teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, (the Buddha or the enlightened/awakened one) these groups have different views on the paths towards enlightenment or liberation, the interpretation of the Buddhist scriptures and the practices of the faith. The meaning of the Three Jewels of Buddhism, the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the community) differ widely. As does the structure and hierarchy of Buddhism.

The two major branches of Buddhism: Theravada (“The School of the Elders”) and Mahayana (“The Great Vehicle”) arose in different parts of Asia. The monks of Sri Lanka and Myanmar follow the Theravada tradition, while the Dalai Lama follows the Mahayana path. His words have moral authority, but — here is the key — not ecclesial authority.

Should CNN have added a few words explaining the divisions within Buddhism? Would it serve any purpose to ask if these statements by the Dalai Lama were intended for his Western audiences, not the “extremists monks” of Sri Lanka and Mynamar?

Was the Dalai Lama speaking as a religious leader to his co-religionists or as a spiritual leader to other men? Fleshing out this distinction would go a long way towards answering this question: “Do his words matter to the degree journalists think that they matter?”

About geoconger
  • Matt

    At least the story (as far as I can tell) doesn’t say anything false, such as that the DL actually does have any authority over Therevada Buddhists, but I agree that the story would have been strengthened by a brief explanation that this is more like if the Pope were to criticize Protestants, not like the Pope criticizing Catholics.

    • benmlockhart

      like
      Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
      on the computer . see post C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Julia B

    More like the Pope asking for peace in the Middle East.

  • helen

    The Dalai Lama’s words may matter to Westerners more than to the nations spoken to, who have their own hierarchy of Buddhist leaders.

    I find it a little odd that the Western press (and the politicians, e.g., Madame Clinton) are excited about the treatment of Muslims in Buddhist countries.
    Where is the angst about the treatment of Christians in those countries? It has been going on for a lot longer, decades in the case of native Christians in Myanmar.

    The world, US in the foreground, sent copious aid to Indonesia in the wake of a tsunami. That was news. Of the recent persecution of Christians and the destruction of churches in that predominantly Muslim country, we hear very little and that mostly on Christian web sites.

    Is that what you call a “Kellerism”, too?

    • http://www.exclusivechurch.com/ Lorenzo Fernandez-Vicente

      Really? do you have any evidence of this. Last I was in Yangon, the nitre staff of the hotel was Roman Catholic, the minority’s doing quite well there, the cathedrals, both Anglican and RC are by far the best kept buildings in town. If you mean little hill-tribes almost forcibly converted a couple of generations ago and now seeking independence, you should say so.

      • http://www.exclusivechurch.com/ Lorenzo Fernandez-Vicente

        the entire staff

  • http://www.mikehickerson.com Micheal Hickerson

    Great analysis, George. In my experience, a lot of Westerners perceive the Dalai Lama as the “Pope of All Buddhism,” without understanding his actual role within the religion, so a few words about the different branches of Buddhism would have been justified. I’d also like to know whether the Dalai Lama DOES have moral authority among Theravada Buddhists. There are a lot of Protestants who don’t care a whit about the Pope’s statements, and some (though less than once upon a time) who may even be inclined to take a position contrary to the Pope’s just because he is the Pope. What does a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk think about the Dalai Lama?

  • Julia B

    I always assumed the Dalai Lama was historically important to his home country of Nepal, but only possibly-inspirational elsewhere – like Desmond Tutu outside of South Africa. Even for those of the same type of Buddhism. No?

  • Anthony Nuccio

    “Should CNN have added a few words explaining the divisions within Buddhism? Would it serve any purpose to ask if these statements by the Dalai Lama were intended for his Western audiences, not the “extremists monks” of Sri Lanka and Mynamar?”

    I think the general statements of the Dalai Lama serve as a moral call to both Western audiences and the “extremist monks.” I also think that some words about the divisions of Buddhism wouldn’t have really helped the CNN piece, but it wouldn’t have hurt if they had been included.

    “Was the Dalai Lama speaking as a religious leader to his co-religionists or as a spiritual leader to other men? Fleshing out this distinction would go a long way towards answering this question: “Do his words matter to the degree journalists think that they matter?”

    I see the Dalai Lama’s words as being both applicable to his co-religionists and to other human beings. Do words matter in the way that journalists think that they matter? Absolutely. Had the Dalai Lama chosen different words, had the CNN piece been written differently, and so on would have meant that the meanings and perceptions of what happened would be changed and we would be discussing the turn of events differently than we are now.

    To perhaps answer the question that you pose as the title of the article, I would argue that the Dalai Lama’s words certainly matter in the sphere of acting morally and ethically towards other human beings. You do a good job of simply explaining division in Buddhism, but even though ecclesiastical divisions are important, I think the Dalai Lama sought to minimize those divisions in wake of trying to appeal to a broader range of humanity. Personally, I think that had the Dalai Lama simply been addressing monks of his own order, the story would have never been published. Of course, we also have to answer for how much Westerners know about Buddhism, which is usually nothing in comparison to understanding the complexities of any faith.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X