The opening ceremony of a five-day Tibetan cultural extravaganza in Bangkok, Thailand's capital, on 5 February 2010/Photos by Tenzin Losel

Guy Baker enters the debate on the Thai government's refusal of a visa for Jetsun Pema (PostBag, March 9) by saying that Tibet under the Dalai Lama is a ''theocracy'' and that Tibetan Buddhism ''belittles Buddhism''.

Collins Dictionary defines theocracy as ''a government by a deity or a priesthood''. Is Tibet a theocracy? Based on this definition, of course. So what?

It's not the status of theocracy per se, whether Buddhist, Muslim (Iran) or Christian (the Vatican) that is objectionable. Most people would not have problems with Iran were it not for its repressive, discriminatory and dangerous policies.

I personally believe that, in this day and age, separation of church and state is preferable to theocracy. But if the Tibetans choose to live in a theocracy, who am I, or Mr Baker, to say otherwise?

Why don't we ask the Tibetan people themselves whether they want to live in communist China or in theocratic Tibet? (A similar choice was given to East Timor so there's nothing unique here.) Isn't that the democratic way? But that won't happen. Why? Because the People's Republic of China stands in the way.

Be that as it may, the Dalai Lama himself has instituted democratic reforms for his government-in-exile with the promise that eventually he would leave the political stage altogether. So much for theocracy.

What about the claim that Tibetan Buddhism belittles Buddhism?

Far from belittling Buddhism, the institution of the Dalai Lama gives the fullest expression to the bodhisattva ideal, a cornerstone of Mahayana Buddhism, which includes Tibetan Buddhism. A bodhisattva vows to serve all sentient beings in every sphere of life. That includes politics.

It's noteworthy that in the Jataka stories of the previous lives of the Buddha, common to all Buddhist traditions, including the Theravada, he was born as King Vessantara.

Furthermore, there's no evidence that the Dalai Lama exploits Buddhism in international politics to seek autonomy, and Mr Baker offers none.

The Buddha taught the dhamma in its various forms, as a complete, comprehensive, consistent and efficacious path towards enlightenment. Therefore, nothing that anyone does can ''belittle'' Buddhism.

Mr Baker finally says that ''the Tibetan mixture of Buddhism and politics is a bad example for Thailand''. Suffice it is to say that Thai politics would not be in such a mess today if more Thai politicians and their followers sincerely practised humility, non-violence, honesty, compassion and selflessness, qualities that Thai and Tibetan Buddhism alike regard as of utmost importance and which the Dalai Lama has come to symbolise to people the world over, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.



     Print this article      Email this article