Notes in Samsara
Politics, Culture, American Buddhism, Economics, and Technology
Politics, Culture, American Buddhism, Economics, and Technology
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Book Review: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
In The Godless Delusion, Dawkins doesn't mention Buddhism much at all, except to say he thinks they're philosphies, not religions. This Buddhist disagrees on that point. Dawkins arguments against the existence of a monotheistic god are cogent, powerful, and above all, far more accessible than the tripe you get at infidels.org. Unfortunately, as a man trained in biology, every argument looks like it can be addressed with evolution. That said, one argument - the argument that says an "Intelligent" "Designer" would have to be hopelessly complex and hence far more unlikely than an evolved ecosystem built up by its own bootstraps a step at a time - is actually quite new to me.
Also unfortunately, he himself doesn't quite get probability theory, or to put it another way, he readily and humbly admits he's confused by quantum theory, but when he says "no no no there's no randmoness" in evolution, he protesteth too much. However, his wonderment shines through even here.
His basic arguments are spot on though.
Two points:
1. He doesn't quite mention theological positions of folks like mine - perhaps because there's so much kinship with his position, he doesn't see the difference. That is, he does not see that much of what he's saying is eventually irrelevant to folks like me, because the question's irrelevant, except perhaps as fodder for keeping busy in coach class.
2. He brings up what is likely some nonsensical controversial book about language and voices in one's head- the title escapes me at the moment and I am too comfortable frankly to get my copy of Dawkin's book to look it up. His point is that perhaps at one time the dialog in one's head was regarded as real. Perhaps it was, but as we have no model for how the ancients perceived consciousness until...yeah, Buddhists...OK, maybe some Hindu writings address such issues, I'm not familiar...but until Buddhists wrote about enlightenment, there wasn't a heckuva lot the ancients wrote about consciousness, though I'd suspect that at least among the lower classes, R.D. Laing's quote of Kierkegaard was probably right: the ancients probably did see angels and halos and all that what-not. Again, it doesn't matter because the dialog in your head is just that anyway; it's the picture of the cake...and that implies that we're likely miles apart from Quakers, despite the alleged similarities of practice.
All in all, very much worth reading. Go out and read it today, in fact, it's in paperback, and a bargain.
In The Godless Delusion, Dawkins doesn't mention Buddhism much at all, except to say he thinks they're philosphies, not religions. This Buddhist disagrees on that point. Dawkins arguments against the existence of a monotheistic god are cogent, powerful, and above all, far more accessible than the tripe you get at infidels.org. Unfortunately, as a man trained in biology, every argument looks like it can be addressed with evolution. That said, one argument - the argument that says an "Intelligent" "Designer" would have to be hopelessly complex and hence far more unlikely than an evolved ecosystem built up by its own bootstraps a step at a time - is actually quite new to me.
Also unfortunately, he himself doesn't quite get probability theory, or to put it another way, he readily and humbly admits he's confused by quantum theory, but when he says "no no no there's no randmoness" in evolution, he protesteth too much. However, his wonderment shines through even here.
His basic arguments are spot on though.
Two points:
1. He doesn't quite mention theological positions of folks like mine - perhaps because there's so much kinship with his position, he doesn't see the difference. That is, he does not see that much of what he's saying is eventually irrelevant to folks like me, because the question's irrelevant, except perhaps as fodder for keeping busy in coach class.
2. He brings up what is likely some nonsensical controversial book about language and voices in one's head- the title escapes me at the moment and I am too comfortable frankly to get my copy of Dawkin's book to look it up. His point is that perhaps at one time the dialog in one's head was regarded as real. Perhaps it was, but as we have no model for how the ancients perceived consciousness until...yeah, Buddhists...OK, maybe some Hindu writings address such issues, I'm not familiar...but until Buddhists wrote about enlightenment, there wasn't a heckuva lot the ancients wrote about consciousness, though I'd suspect that at least among the lower classes, R.D. Laing's quote of Kierkegaard was probably right: the ancients probably did see angels and halos and all that what-not. Again, it doesn't matter because the dialog in your head is just that anyway; it's the picture of the cake...and that implies that we're likely miles apart from Quakers, despite the alleged similarities of practice.
All in all, very much worth reading. Go out and read it today, in fact, it's in paperback, and a bargain.
Labels: atheism, Buddhism, Richard Dawkins
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Ok, how do you talk about a nice wristwatch on a Buddhist blog?
When I first moved out to the Northwest, I realized that the old Seiko 5 that I had had for decades was beat up, didn't quite look professional, especially when my company's early literature talked about wearing suits and all that.
I had wanted a replacement watch. I didn't really want a quartz movement - first of all there were the batteries. Secondly, a pure (automatic) mechanical movement such as the Seiko 5 had required no attention.
Unfortunately, I could not at the time, find a jewelry dealer in Vancouver that sold a decent non-quartz watch. It was the sticks, you know.
And Rolexes? I couldn't afford one, I wouldn't afford one, and they reeked of being yuppie toys to me.
So I wound up getting an at-the-time nice looking, but essentially cheap Citizen Quartz Chronograph, which tended to need batteries more often than I expected, and at times when it was unfortunate to replace them.
Still, it served me faithfully, more or less, for about 12 years though it got quite beat up. And of course I never actually used any chronograph functions.
And then...I realized that it was really beat up, from being on my wrist in all those coach-class international flights. It looked ridiculous on my hand when I met the CEO of my company.
I just didn't have the ceremonial robes down right, so to speak.
What had really tipped me in the direction of getting a new watch, though, was this article, which I read because my wife got me a subscription to Forbes Life, because frequent flyer miles were expiring, and, you know, it'd be a waste not to use them... Your logic may vary - anyway a variety of magazines started showing up at my home, but that's another story. Ok, let's just say, Forbes Life is conspicuous consumption porn, but it's worthwhile compared to Fortune.
Anyway, I came upon this article, and the engineer in me was fascinated.
(Note the irony of the last sentence...)
Too, I was reminded of the remonstration Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly made regarding her profession in "The Devil Wears Prada," which struck me as valid: people design this ridiculously expensive stuff not only so that the wealthy have something to conspicuously consume, but also because it helps the rest of us define our image of ourselves to each other. It's a bit of communication.
That movie is probably the only good date-movie I've seen in 5 years, but that's another trajectory...
I realized that it's high time I searched for a decent non-quartz watch. One that's not as accurate as my cell phone's time function.
I also realized there's the huge sub-stratum of society - like the folks who build model railroads obsessively or collect rocks (not necessarily jewels) who collect watches.
I'm not one of them. But I understand the allure. Here's what I got: the Oris BC3:
This watch should be environmentally correct, last decades to be handed down to my son, and didn't set me back anywhere near like a Rolex. It's readable on a plane on an international journey, it's readable without my reading glasses, and it's got a saphire crystal, so it won't likely get any kind of a serious scratch while I'm alive.
Moreover, you can see the movement moving through the saphire crystal see-through back, and it's movement's movement is reminiscent of Mary Roach's description of the human heart beating - it's doing some kind of wild St. Vitus dance in there. The watch appears alive; its second hand dances across the face.
It's deliriously, beautifully, obsolete and irrelevant. That's quite similar to a description once made by Thomas Merton about monks.
And somehow, I can't think it's totally, completely immoral to have a decent reliable watch in this day and age whose only future environmental footprint is characterized by its tuneups that will be needed years from now.
One final plus: my 6 year old asked me, "Daddy, why does it sound like it's going so fast?" He had never heard a mechanical wristwatch before, and so I got to explain to him about mechanical analogs of phase locked loops and whatnot.
I had wanted a replacement watch. I didn't really want a quartz movement - first of all there were the batteries. Secondly, a pure (automatic) mechanical movement such as the Seiko 5 had required no attention.
Unfortunately, I could not at the time, find a jewelry dealer in Vancouver that sold a decent non-quartz watch. It was the sticks, you know.
And Rolexes? I couldn't afford one, I wouldn't afford one, and they reeked of being yuppie toys to me.
So I wound up getting an at-the-time nice looking, but essentially cheap Citizen Quartz Chronograph, which tended to need batteries more often than I expected, and at times when it was unfortunate to replace them.
Still, it served me faithfully, more or less, for about 12 years though it got quite beat up. And of course I never actually used any chronograph functions.
And then...I realized that it was really beat up, from being on my wrist in all those coach-class international flights. It looked ridiculous on my hand when I met the CEO of my company.
I just didn't have the ceremonial robes down right, so to speak.
What had really tipped me in the direction of getting a new watch, though, was this article, which I read because my wife got me a subscription to Forbes Life, because frequent flyer miles were expiring, and, you know, it'd be a waste not to use them... Your logic may vary - anyway a variety of magazines started showing up at my home, but that's another story. Ok, let's just say, Forbes Life is conspicuous consumption porn, but it's worthwhile compared to Fortune.
Anyway, I came upon this article, and the engineer in me was fascinated.
The first collectible watch I ever bought was a Rolex Bubbleback, the only timepiece in the 1940s to enclose a self-winding movement in a waterproof case. Admittedly that wasn’t especially impressive by the time I acquired it in 1991—modern quartz didn’t need winding, and watertight plastics were abundant—but what mattered to me was the sheer inventiveness, the audacity of making a watch bulbous as a submarine just so that it could be powered by swimming. In the mid-20th-century, Rolex thrived on technical bravado, making sport of staid jewelry counters by displaying watches inside goldfish bowls, while other companies such as Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin tested the limits of mechanical complexity with watches that tracked phases of the moon or multiple time zones.
Today, that grand old tradition of bold mechanical innovation is back with a vengeance. Aided by the latest advances in chemical and mechanical engineering—and computers, of course—an agile new generation of independent watchmakers is building timepieces that would have been unimaginable in the ’40s, or even the ’90s. Richard Mille combines platinum and steel with resilient new materials developed for fighter jets. Franck Muller engineers gears that rotate only once every thousand years. The most extraordinary contemporary timepieces don’t remind me of 20th-century wristwatches so much as 18th-century philosophical toys such as the mechanical doll that delighted savvy audiences by writing Descartes’famous line “Cogito ergo sum” with a quill pen.
(Note the irony of the last sentence...)
Too, I was reminded of the remonstration Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly made regarding her profession in "The Devil Wears Prada," which struck me as valid: people design this ridiculously expensive stuff not only so that the wealthy have something to conspicuously consume, but also because it helps the rest of us define our image of ourselves to each other. It's a bit of communication.
Andy Sachs: No, no, nothing. Y'know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. Y'know, I'm still learning about all this stuff.
Miranda Priestly: This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.
That movie is probably the only good date-movie I've seen in 5 years, but that's another trajectory...
I realized that it's high time I searched for a decent non-quartz watch. One that's not as accurate as my cell phone's time function.
I also realized there's the huge sub-stratum of society - like the folks who build model railroads obsessively or collect rocks (not necessarily jewels) who collect watches.
I'm not one of them. But I understand the allure. Here's what I got: the Oris BC3:
This watch should be environmentally correct, last decades to be handed down to my son, and didn't set me back anywhere near like a Rolex. It's readable on a plane on an international journey, it's readable without my reading glasses, and it's got a saphire crystal, so it won't likely get any kind of a serious scratch while I'm alive.
Moreover, you can see the movement moving through the saphire crystal see-through back, and it's movement's movement is reminiscent of Mary Roach's description of the human heart beating - it's doing some kind of wild St. Vitus dance in there. The watch appears alive; its second hand dances across the face.
It's deliriously, beautifully, obsolete and irrelevant. That's quite similar to a description once made by Thomas Merton about monks.
And somehow, I can't think it's totally, completely immoral to have a decent reliable watch in this day and age whose only future environmental footprint is characterized by its tuneups that will be needed years from now.
One final plus: my 6 year old asked me, "Daddy, why does it sound like it's going so fast?" He had never heard a mechanical wristwatch before, and so I got to explain to him about mechanical analogs of phase locked loops and whatnot.
The trouble with the death penalty...
Now that the "Supreme Court" has OK'd lethal injection, it's killing time again in prisons...
Which means that the "State," that entity representing you and me, create a behavior, on behalf of you and me, explicitly bound by the behavior of another.
And this particular behavior is based on the notion that if you kill someone who is causing the worst kind of trouble, you will reduce the numbers of people who cause that kind of trouble.
The problem is you cannot extirpate vile hatred this way. You cannot exile desperate murderousness from the human heart this way.
So you're only making more murder, on our behalf.
Freakin' wonderful. All we need is more of this...
“The Supreme Court essentially blessed their way of doing things,” said Douglas A. Berman, a professor of law and a sentencing expert at Ohio State University. “So in some sense, they’re back from vacation and ready to go to work.”
Experts say the resumption of executions is likely to throw a strong new spotlight on the divisive national — and international — issue of capital punishment.
“When people confront a new wave of executions, they’ll be questioning not only how people are executed but whether people should be executed,” said James R. Acker, a historian of the death penalty and a criminal justice professor at the State University at Albany.
Texas leads the list with five people now set to die here in the Walls Unit, the state’s death house, between June 3 and Aug. 20. Virginia is next with four. Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota have also set execution dates.
Some welcome the end of the moratorium.
“We’ll start playing a little bit of catch-up,” said William R. Hubbarth, a spokesman for Justice for All, a victims rights group based in Houston.
“It’s not like we have a cheering section for the death penalty.” Mr. Hubbarth said. But, he added: “The capital murderers set to be executed should be executed post-haste. It’s not about killing the inmate. It’s about imposing the penalty that 12 of his peers have assessed.”
Which means that the "State," that entity representing you and me, create a behavior, on behalf of you and me, explicitly bound by the behavior of another.
And this particular behavior is based on the notion that if you kill someone who is causing the worst kind of trouble, you will reduce the numbers of people who cause that kind of trouble.
The problem is you cannot extirpate vile hatred this way. You cannot exile desperate murderousness from the human heart this way.
So you're only making more murder, on our behalf.
Freakin' wonderful. All we need is more of this...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Coincidentally...
A mystery donor leaving $1 million to Naropa University informs me of its founder....
Chogyam Trungpa was rakish indeed, if Wikipedia's right...
Also this week:
Who was a spiritual adpept? Who was the imposter? Both? Either? Neither?
My 2 cents: It's irrelevant. The whole damn question. And luckily there are other choices...and they don't involve brain-checking at the door or signing properties over to somebody who's really "just some guy."
Naropa was founded in 1974 by a Tibetan lama, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a charismatic spiritual leader who also cut a rakish and unforgettable presence in Boulder. The reputation of Rinpoche was of a hard-partying man and a genius who was the first to adapt Buddhism to American tastes.
Rinpoche attracted a rebel generation to Naropa, including Howl poet Allen Ginsberg, who founded the Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics at Naropa, named after the famous "beat" writer.
At Naropa, a more measured Buddhist influence spread, too, with visits from ordinary teaching lamas to the Dalai Lama.
Chogyam Trungpa was rakish indeed, if Wikipedia's right...
An incident that became a cause célèbre among some poets and artists was the Halloween party at the Fall, 1975, Snowmass Colorado Seminary, a 3-month period of intensive meditation and study of the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana vehicles of Tibetan Buddhism. The poet W. S. Merwin had arrived that summer at the Naropa Institute and been told by Allen Ginsberg that seminary was where it was really at. Although he had not gone through the several years worth of practice required, Merwin was insistent he attend, and Trungpa eventually granted his request - along with his girlfriend as well. At seminary the couple stayed to themselves. At the Halloween party, after many, including Trungpa himself, had taken off their clothes, Merwin was asked to join the event, but refused. On Trungpa's orders his Vajra Guard forced entry into the poet's locked and barricaded room; brought him and his girlfriend, Dana Naone, against their will, to the party; and eventually stripped them of all their clothes, onlookers ignoring Naone's pleas for help and for someone to call the police.
Also this week:
Albert Hofmann, the mystical Swiss chemist who gave the world LSD, the most powerful psychotropic substance known, died Tuesday at his hilltop home near Basel, Switzerland. He was 102...
He then took LSD hundreds of times, but regarded it as a powerful and potentially dangerous psychotropic drug that demanded respect. More important to him than the pleasures of the psychedelic experience was the drug’s value as a revelatory aid for contemplating and understanding what he saw as humanity’s oneness with nature. That perception, of union, which came to Dr. Hofmann as almost a religious epiphany while still a child, directed much of his personal and professional life.
Dr. Hofmann was born in Baden, a spa town in northern Switzerland, on Jan. 11, 1906, the eldest of four children. His father, who had no higher education, was a toolmaker in a local factory, and the family lived in a rented apartment. But Dr. Hofmann spent much of his childhood outdoors.
He would wander the hills above the town and play around the ruins of a Hapsburg castle, the Stein. “It was a real paradise up there,” he said in an interview in 2006. “We had no money, but I had a wonderful childhood.”
It was during one of his ambles that he had his epiphany.
“It happened on a May morning — I have forgotten the year — but I can still point to the exact spot where it occurred, on a forest path on Martinsberg above Baden,” he wrote in “LSD: My Problem Child.” “As I strolled through the freshly greened woods filled with bird song and lit up by the morning sun, all at once everything appeared in an uncommonly clear light.
Who was a spiritual adpept? Who was the imposter? Both? Either? Neither?
My 2 cents: It's irrelevant. The whole damn question. And luckily there are other choices...and they don't involve brain-checking at the door or signing properties over to somebody who's really "just some guy."
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Hadley *didn't* "misspeak" Nepal/Tibet mixup.
From my Kos diary today:
The dialog was ridiculed far and wide in the blogosphere, showing how inept Bush regime toadies were. Bush regime national security adviser Stephen Hadley "mixed up" Nepal and Tibet during an interview with George Stephanopolous on Sunday.
But was it a mistake?
Media Matters has a good reference:
Nepal? That's not Tibet, right?
Right.
Just like Iran is not Iraq...
Did ya know this?
Not many in the West know about this, but this is fodder for conspiracy theories amongst Indians and others who hail from this region.
Was Hadley's Nepal/Tibet mixup an attempt to indirectly blame China for the bad karma floating around in Nepal? Are they to blame? Are we by installing Gyanendra?
My interpretation is: I don't really know the answers to those questions, but I think Hadley was deliberately phallus-waving towards China in that region of the world, and certainly that is how China would have taken it.
The dialog was ridiculed far and wide in the blogosphere, showing how inept Bush regime toadies were. Bush regime national security adviser Stephen Hadley "mixed up" Nepal and Tibet during an interview with George Stephanopolous on Sunday.
But was it a mistake?
Media Matters has a good reference:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): Let's talk about the Olympics. President Carter came out against a boycott, but President Bush has been under tremendous pressure to stay away from the opening ceremonies. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain won't go. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany won't go. The president has said his plans have not changed. Does that mean he'll attend the opening ceremonies, or not?
HADLEY: What the president said is that he will go to the Olympics. He wants to support our Olympic athletes -- the wonderful men and women who are going to participate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means he'll go see events but he won't go to the opening ceremonies?
HADLEY: The president has said he is going to the Olympics. I think this whole issue --
STEPHANOPOULOS: How come you can't -- how come you don't want to answer the question?
HADLEY: This whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about Nepal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So does that mean the president will be going to them?
HADLEY: The president is going to the Olympics. The president is going to -- thinks that the way to deal with the issue of Nepal is not by some -- a statement that you're not going to the opening ceremonies and say, "Therefore, I've checked the Nepal box."
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he may not go to the opening ceremonies, you just don't want to say it.
HADLEY: No, the president is going to the Olympics. What he's doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels, and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, of concern for what's happening in Nepal, urging the Chinese government to understand that it is in their interest to reach out to representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to show while the whole world is watching China that they are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect.
Nepal? That's not Tibet, right?
Right.
Just like Iran is not Iraq...
Did ya know this?
Nepal's Maoists, poised to win national elections by a large margin, have called on King Gyanendra to abdicate "gracefully" rather than be removed.
Baburam Bhattarai, the Maoists' second-in-command, on Wednesday said: "The best thing for the king would be to bow out gracefully to pave the way for a democratic republic."
The statement came as the Maoists continued to further their lead in Thursday's elections to the 601-seat Constituent Assembly...
In an effort to establish a communist republic, the Maoist fight to take down the monarchy left at least 13,000 people dead.
The king took power in 2001 after eight members of the royal family were killed by Crown Prince Dipendra, who also shot himself.
Gyanendra then took absolute power in 2005 to fight the Maoists.
Some politicians have said Nepal should keep a monarch as a national symbol of neutrality between China and India.
Not many in the West know about this, but this is fodder for conspiracy theories amongst Indians and others who hail from this region.
Was Hadley's Nepal/Tibet mixup an attempt to indirectly blame China for the bad karma floating around in Nepal? Are they to blame? Are we by installing Gyanendra?
My interpretation is: I don't really know the answers to those questions, but I think Hadley was deliberately phallus-waving towards China in that region of the world, and certainly that is how China would have taken it.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
A bit of a corrective about Tibet...
Since Danny Fisher has been strongly for advocating for the Dalai Lama's position in the recent Tibet brouhaha (e.g., here, here, here and here) I thought it would be good to add a bit of perspective to this, and so revising my diary from Kos a few days ago might help in this regard:
So the Dalai Lama's in the US, the Chinese are claiming that theocracy is over and done within Tibet, and they also don't like a recent resolution passed by the US House of Representatives which asked China to end its crackdown on protests in Tibet and to enter directly into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama.
Now, here's the rest of the story...
As well as being ridiculously well educated in communication theory and other aspects of electrical engineering, I like to follow popular science & history.
It's well known among earth scientists that the Himalayas started to get that way when the Indian subcontinent slammed into the rest of Asia a few million years ago (they are among the youngest, if not the youngest mountain range in the world.)
Now what that means is that the earth's crust has been pushing upward as these two massive land masses (and tectonic plates) keep pushing up against each other.
Which got me thinking...
I'd bet that means that hard to get mineral deposits - you have to go miles deep for some mines in the world - are probably not miles deep in some regions of the Himalayas.
And sure enough...
Now I'm not one of those folks who believes that one side (e.g. the Chinese) is all evil and the other side (the Dalai Lama) is all good. And vice versa. And I'm a Buddhist. And I think it'd be a good thing for China to have open discussions with HH the Dalai Lama.
Having said all that, the main reason I've written this is simply to note, yet again, how our media has left out - like the Chinese media - a key component of the story, which is kind of obscene given the recent worldwide issues with natural resources such as mineral ores. And frankly, I've not heard this from HH the D.L. himself.
When you also consider, besides the rich mineral resources in Tibet the fact that poverty is still a huge problem in all of China, even by the way in which they measure it, it's clear that different reasons begin to emerge for this whole Tibetan thing that have little to do with the Dalai Lama or "cultural genocide," or anything like that.
The vast, vast majority of the Chinese that I speak with view the Dalai Lama as a cat's paw for the US and other western powers (though many don't put it that politely). They don't do this because they're "fooled" by Chinese propaganda, which they view more cynically than we view our media, generally. They're just more inclined to "follow the money" and see the reason-behind-the-reason in their own media as well as the US media. (Nota bene: I'm leaving out the folks from Falun Da Fa that I've spoken with, for the same reasons that in forming an opinion of Tom Cruise, I'd likely not weight opinions from Scientologists very heavily.)
The Dalai Lama's been reasonable representative for Tibetan Buddhism, I think, but in this whole thing not to have mentioned the issues of resources in China and poverty in China just ain't very Mahayana of him, and I'm sure not mentioning the mineral resources issue strikes his negotiating competitors as disingenuous to say the least.
And if I know about the above, you can be damned certain that he knows about the above, or certainly should know about the above.
So the Dalai Lama's in the US, the Chinese are claiming that theocracy is over and done within Tibet, and they also don't like a recent resolution passed by the US House of Representatives which asked China to end its crackdown on protests in Tibet and to enter directly into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama.
Now, here's the rest of the story...
As well as being ridiculously well educated in communication theory and other aspects of electrical engineering, I like to follow popular science & history.
It's well known among earth scientists that the Himalayas started to get that way when the Indian subcontinent slammed into the rest of Asia a few million years ago (they are among the youngest, if not the youngest mountain range in the world.)
Now what that means is that the earth's crust has been pushing upward as these two massive land masses (and tectonic plates) keep pushing up against each other.
Which got me thinking...
I'd bet that means that hard to get mineral deposits - you have to go miles deep for some mines in the world - are probably not miles deep in some regions of the Himalayas.
And sure enough...
BEIJING: Chinese geologists have found deposits of copper, iron, lead and zinc ore along the Qinghai-Tibet Railroad route, the state news media said Thursday, adding that the area may also have petroleum potential.
China opened a railroad to Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, in 2006, paving the wave for an influx of Chinese investment in the poor remote region but also prompting warnings from some that such development could endanger the plateau's fragile environment and undermine Tibetan culture.
Already, mining firms have permanently booked cars on the train to ferry employees to Qinghai and Tibet, Chinese media reported last year.
Total possible reserves could equal more than 20 million tons of copper and 10 million tons of lead and zinc, the official Xinhua press agency said, citing the country's top geological surveyor, Meng Xianlai. Meng is director of the China Geological Survey, under the Ministry of Land and Resources.
Deposits include the Yulong copper find in the Tibet Autonomous Region, with a proven reserve of 7.89 million tons, Meng said, second only to the country's largest copper mine, operated by Jiangxi Copper...
Yulong Copper's major shareholders are Zijin Mining Group, the second- largest Chinese gold miner, and Western Mining, one of the largest Chinese mining and development companies.
Now I'm not one of those folks who believes that one side (e.g. the Chinese) is all evil and the other side (the Dalai Lama) is all good. And vice versa. And I'm a Buddhist. And I think it'd be a good thing for China to have open discussions with HH the Dalai Lama.
Having said all that, the main reason I've written this is simply to note, yet again, how our media has left out - like the Chinese media - a key component of the story, which is kind of obscene given the recent worldwide issues with natural resources such as mineral ores. And frankly, I've not heard this from HH the D.L. himself.
When you also consider, besides the rich mineral resources in Tibet the fact that poverty is still a huge problem in all of China, even by the way in which they measure it, it's clear that different reasons begin to emerge for this whole Tibetan thing that have little to do with the Dalai Lama or "cultural genocide," or anything like that.
The vast, vast majority of the Chinese that I speak with view the Dalai Lama as a cat's paw for the US and other western powers (though many don't put it that politely). They don't do this because they're "fooled" by Chinese propaganda, which they view more cynically than we view our media, generally. They're just more inclined to "follow the money" and see the reason-behind-the-reason in their own media as well as the US media. (Nota bene: I'm leaving out the folks from Falun Da Fa that I've spoken with, for the same reasons that in forming an opinion of Tom Cruise, I'd likely not weight opinions from Scientologists very heavily.)
The Dalai Lama's been reasonable representative for Tibetan Buddhism, I think, but in this whole thing not to have mentioned the issues of resources in China and poverty in China just ain't very Mahayana of him, and I'm sure not mentioning the mineral resources issue strikes his negotiating competitors as disingenuous to say the least.
And if I know about the above, you can be damned certain that he knows about the above, or certainly should know about the above.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
