Christian Gregory wrote:
>
>
> What's not to the point are all the arguments that Tibetan Buddhism is on the whole corrupted because it comes from Tibet, a feudal theocracy--ie a bad, premodern social arrangement. Jenny put this smear most crisply, when she spoke of those "who fantacize that Tibetan Buddhism is _unrelated_ to its brutal theocracy," (this may not be an exact quotation, but I think it's close) as if the demystifying gesture of saying "Hey, guess what, Tibetan Buddhism comes from a bad place" either (a) clarified what the relation between the religious practices and the social arrangement _were_ (cause-effect? residual social formations? co-enabling institutions?), or (b) meant that Tibetan Buddhism, as received in the US and west, were as a whole corrupt b/c of its putative origins. It seems strange that people should use these arguments, given (rightly) how we respond to dismissals of the left or Marx b/c of crimes that have been committed in their names.
Blaming the Dalai Lama for the crimes of the Tibetan theocracy is not like blaming Marx and Marxism for Stalin. It is like blaming Stalin for Stalin.
Carrol