I consider the Dalai Lama to be spiritual fraud for reasons I will later relate.
But first can we look at the matter of sexual relationships between older monks and younger novices. These are common in some forms of Buddhism. I think it is unfair to judge the religion without seeing it in its cultural/moral setting' Indeed it must be seen in the light of cultural differences (So please do not flame the messenger). The first Catholic misssionaries in Japan in the 16th century were loud in their complaints about the practise of male/male sex in Japan. Francis Xavier winged that even, " ... the public does not at all consider it outrageous."
Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, writes in his book, Male Colors, The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, that the Japanese of the era considered male to male sex as normative. Leupp relates a charming story that was used in Japan as an explanation for the existence of male to male attraction. The story goes that living in the lakes and rivers of Japan, there was a water-sprite, that was 'passionately fond of young men," and if the sprite found a young man swimming it would enter the young man through his anus and inflame him with homosexual desire.
Such attitudes were common across so much of the ancient world, as I posted in the recent thread on gay marriage. But I did not remind readers that in ancient Athens, if we believe Plato, the elite all had their younger boyfriends. So, men like Plato and Socrates and many others, forming part of the foundation of western culture were all (apparently) acepting of male to male sex.
In our western world, we owe the negative outlook on male-male sexual and romantic attraction to the Christian church, even though it does not seem that Jesus himself can be considered as having spoken against it. In fact, as some argue - if we see the Roman army officer of Matthew 8:5-13 as having a sexual relationship with his pais (servant or boy) as would have easily been the case in the Roman Army, then Jeus actually said that this practiser of sodomy had greater faith than anyone in Israel. And, as I pointed out in the gay marriage thread, its very hard to see the Jonathon-David relationship in any other light than homoerotic.
If we look at this matter without the negative influence of the Christian church, then it becomes part of normal life. The only question is when is a younger person considered mature enough for a relationship? The legal ages set in the USA are not universal.
Outside the USA, there is a range of legal ages for both heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity. In Christian Ethiopia it is the practise for families to marry their young daughters off at the first signs of puberty. (I agree that this seems to be a bad practise as the evidence may show that its one thing to be able to conceive, but a totally different thing to carry the child to birth. It's claimed that many girls do not have the neccessary physical maturity to bear a child without suffering physical damage to their own bodies.
In Australia, the age of informed consent is now 16 for both males and females. In Japan, Spain and Syria (to name some nations) it is set at 13.
Setting an age is a relatively modern notion and again in the past there has been variation. But most age limits take heed of puberty, and puberty at least seems to set a natural sign to the limits of sexual activity. There are some curious examples though, as in some cases children being married before puberty (in the church too)
And I suggest, that there is a fair amount of evidence that in earlier times to be past puberty was a requisite for any form of sexual relationship.
So that's why I suggest its a little unfair to accuse the Dalai Lama of harbouring paedophiles in his monastories. In the past I may have agreed, but more research indicates that its not as simple as it may seem when looking from one cultural context to another.
__________________________________
So what's my objection. Simply that he is a politician masquerading as a religious symbol.
The Melbourne Age presented thei picture of the DL as a politician in 2007.
Quote:
Behind Dalai Lama's holy cloak
Michael Backman
May 23, 2007
THE Dalai Lama show is set to roll into Australia again next month and again Australian politicians are getting themselves in a twist as to whether they should meet him.
Rarely do journalists challenge the Dalai Lama.
Partly it is because he is so charming and engaging. Most published accounts of him breeze on as airily as the subject, for whom a good giggle and a quaint parable are substitutes for hard answers. But this is the man who advocates greater autonomy for millions of people who are currently Chinese citizens, presumably with him as head of their government. So, why not hold him accountable as a political figure?
No mere spiritual leader, he was the head of Tibet's government when he went into exile in 1959. It was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues. (The Dalai Lama's own father was almost certainly murdered in 1946, the consequence of a coup plot.)
The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA.
The money was to pay for guerilla operations against the Chinese, notwithstanding the Dalai Lama's public stance in support of non-violence, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA's payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year).
The funds were paid to him personally, but he used all or most of them for Tibetan government-in-exile activities, principally to fund offices in New York and Geneva, and to lobby internationally.
Details of the government-in-exile's funding today are far from clear. Structurally, it comprises seven departments and several other special offices. There have also been charitable trusts, a publishing company, hotels in India and Nepal, and a handicrafts distribution company in the US and in Australia, all grouped under the government-in-exile's Department of Finance.
The government was involved in running 24 businesses in all, but decided in 2003 that it would withdraw from these because such commercial involvement was not appropriate.
Several years ago, I asked the Dalai Lama's Department of Finance for details of its budget. In response, it claimed then to have annual revenue of about $US22 million, which it spent on various health, education, religious and cultural programs.
The biggest item was for politically related expenditure, at $US7 million. The next biggest was administration, which ran to $US4.5 million. Almost $US2 million was allocated to running the government-in-exile's overseas offices.
For all that the government-in-exile claims to do, these sums seemed remarkably low.
It is not clear how donations enter its budgeting. These are likely to run to many millions annually, but the Dalai Lama's Department of Finance provided no explicit acknowledgment of them or of their sources.
Certainly, there are plenty of rumours among expatriate Tibetans of endemic corruption and misuse of monies collected in the name of the Dalai Lama.
Many donations are channelled through the New York-based Tibet Fund, set up in 1981 by Tibetan refugees and US citizens. It has grown into a multimillion-dollar organisation that disburses $US3 million each year to its various programs.
Part of its funding comes from the US State Department's Bureau for Refugee Programs.
Like many Asian politicians, the Dalai Lama has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence. In recent years, three of the six members of the Kashag, or cabinet, the highest executive branch of the Tibetan government-in-exile, have been close relatives of the Dalai Lama.
An older brother served as chairman of the Kashag and as the minister of security. He also headed the CIA-backed Tibetan contra movement in the 1960s.
A sister-in-law served as head of the government-in-exile's planning council and its Department of Health.
A younger sister served as health and education minister and her husband served as head of the government-in-exile's Department of Information and International Relations.
Their daughter was made a member of the Tibetan parliament in exile. A younger brother has served as a senior member of the private office of the Dalai Lama and his wife has served as education minister.
The second wife of a brother-in-law serves as the representative of the Tibetan government-in-exile for northern Europe and head of international relations for the government-in-exile. All these positions give the Dalai Lama's family access to millions of dollars collected on behalf of the government-in-exile.
The Dalai Lama might now be well-known but few really know much about him. For example, contrary to widespread belief, he is not a vegetarian. He eats meat. He has done so (he claims) on a doctor's advice following liver complications from hepatitis. I have checked with several doctors but none agrees that meat consumption is necessary or even desirable for a damaged liver.
What has the Dalai Lama actually achieved for Tibetans inside Tibet?
If his goal has been independence for Tibet or, more recently, greater autonomy, then he has been a miserable failure.
He has kept Tibet on the front pages around the world, but to what end? The main achievement seems to have been to become a celebrity. Possibly, had he stayed quiet, fewer Tibetans might have been tortured, killed and generally suppressed by China.
In any event, the current Dalai Lama is 72 years old. His successor - a reincarnation - will be appointed as a child and it will be many years before he plays a meaningful role. As far as China is concerned, that is one problem that will take care of itself, irrespective of whether or not John Howard or Kevin Rudd meet the current Dalai Lama.
[email protected],
Web-link: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/behind-dalai-lamas-holy-cloak/2007/05/22/1179601410290.html
