Yesterday was my very first trip to the Napa Valley. It was well worth the visit as we had a pleasant day visiting wine country. Our light lunch (above) at Domaine Chandon was a highlight.The only bad thing about the Napa Valley is getting there (and back). It's only an hour drive from San Francisco but the roads are busy and the route is complicated—at least for tourists like us. On this occasion, however, the trip was a little more exciting because when crossing the Golden Gate bridge we encountered the protesters who were there for the Olympic torch run.
As it turns out, there were more police than protestors but the "free Tibet" and "free Burma" banners elicited a (very) few honks from passing motorists. Leslie was driving so we were one of the cars making noises. You know you're a product of the 60's when most of the protesters are the same age as you are and know how to flash a peace sign!
23 comments :
I sympathise with the sentiment and I hope you enjoy your holiday but you touch on a little reported annoyance - any protest (that blocks the road or impedes the traffic or even causes people to slow down to look) which then holds up signs saying "honk if you support us".
Now while I support the protestors in this case, selfish fuel price protestors and idiot stem cell protestors are equally likely to cause disruption, and surely you need the horn to say "get out of the way" or "speed up and stop gawping at them". What's the alternative, to shout out of the car?
Larry, I didn't realize you're in the Bay Area. Welcome to the west coast! The wine country is especially beautiful in spring and fall, and I'm glad you got to see it in season. If you have time for another outing, I recommend either Muir Woods north of the Golden Gate, or Big Basin Park down the southern peninsula. Both have astonishing redwood trees.
Oh, and not all roads in California are continuously crowded. I've been doing some geology work on roadcuts up Mount Hamilton Road east of San Jose. On weekdays, the cars are many minutes apart (a good thing, since there tends to be no shoulder at the road cuts, and plastering oneself against the rock face to avoid being hit does interfere with the work).
But on weekdays it is a beautiful drive. On weekends, the traffic is miserable. Sigh.
larry...
welcome to the bay area!
skip the redwoods and head here
you won't regret it...
To support the Dalai Lama is to support a return to a theocratic state that was, in many respects, worse than the current Chinese occupation. While I don't support the Chinese in Tibet, I also don't support theocracy.
It's time for the Dalai to stop being nice and catching flies with chopsticks. Time to kick some totalitarian butt!!!!
nai is typical ignorant neoatheist. It's hard to be a theocracy if Buddhists don't believe in god, isn't it?.
Buddhism has plenty knowledge and wisdom. To think it is a deplorable religion is sooo "western supremacist" crap (worse so: in the name of "rationalism")
Nai: Go back to the XIXTh centruy , where you belong.
If you have the time, a trip to Monterey and the Aquarium is a must.
Sorry, I have to agree with nal. The Dalai Lama would have us believe it's okay to tolerate injustice in this world because you'll have another shot next time around. Buddhism only seems morally superior to Christianity because it doesn't permeate our culture or colour our politics. Surely the secular-leaning Tibetans who lived for so long under a parasite monastic caste that may have a longer history of pedophilic clergy than the Catholic Church might feel differently.
Watch Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, and pay attention to the final scene, after the merchant, the woodcutter and the Buddhist monk have heard the entire tale of murder, cowardice, deceit and betrayal that is the main plot of the film. The three then hear a baby's cries, and find an abandoned infant. The merchant steals the blanket the child is swaddled in, reasoning that it will be dead from exposure soon anyway. The monk can only bemoan how evil the world is. It is the poor woodcutter, already struggling to feed six children of his own, who takes mercy on the baby and brings it home. Clearly those born into a culture where Buddhism holds much sway aren't necessarily sympathetic to it.
Also, Tibetan Buddhism is a branch of Mahayana ("Great Vehicle") Buddhism, wherein historical saint-like bodhisattvas are essentially elevated to divine status. Much like Christianity converted pagan deities into saints as it spread through Europe, Mahayana Buddhism transformed local gods into bodhisattvas. The Pure Land sect of Japan, for example, is based on the worship of the messianic Amida Buddha, a very Christ-like figure. To call Mahayana Buddhism, and thus Tibetan Buddhism, "atheist", is inaccurate. It is the smaller, Theravada branch of Buddhism that can be interpreted as atheist.
BAGA!!!
Rashomon certainly shows how thin the convictions of many can be, but do not confuse yourself into thinking it is a specific criticism to BUDDHISM, even if it takes te blow in this case. But the same story could be told in a completely christian scenario and be equally well-understood. Kurosawa knows a bit about transcultural truths; remmber "Ran" and "Throne of blood"?
To change my mind, you'd have to inform me about how the close-minded, dogmatic narrowness of tibetan monks has led them to repress the liberties of others.
However, I do think that Buddhism contains teachings that would be contrary to that effect; specially given their philosophical traditions regarding the limits of reason and the subjectivity of experience.
I'll accept that there is, specially at a most popular level of the practice of budhism, the use of "god" like figures. Does this make the chinese governmet preferable? Sorry: You're a freakin pseudorationalist nutcase. In truly democratic societies, you don't lose you freedom of practicing and supporting a religion just because your faith includes god-like figures.
The buddhist notion is that some men can indeed become "illuminated" achieving truly god-like status among men. It relates to the belief in a state superior to our normal condition. Being the Dalai lama is not for free. He is no mere "god-token", but the carrier of hard-learned wisdom of an ancient culture. He is rigorously trained and schooled since very young age. Of course the intent is to make something like a god out of a man is clear but it's no a free ride sponsored by supertition.
I'd take the dalai lama over the great majority of living scientists to hang out and have a conversation
Note that I do not doubt that there is documented stupidity, corruption, superstition, backstabbing, sexual harassmente, paedophilia, murder, war you know...who knows what shit has gone down in those temples along the lengths of history. Everything!
But this is symptomatic to virtually every old organized religion. It does not mean that China is preferable. Or do you think the communist party is a stranger to all these human failures? And are quite nasty too: Chinese can't vists any website; They cannot blog about anything they want. The government kills dissenters all the time.
Shallow antireligiosity has caused some to lose proper focus in this case
Larry, geologist colleague Karen and any others with an interest in wine and the influence of the rocks - if you have not seen it, you may want to check out GAC publication GCRS9: Fine Wine and Terroir at:
http://www.gac.ca/publications/view_pub.php?id=144
WKM
As it turns out, there were more police than protestors but the "free Tibet" and "free Burma" banners elicited a (very) few honks from passing motorists. Leslie was driving so we were one of the cars making noises.
Regardless of what one thinks of China's stewardship of Tibet it seems odd to be openly hostile to anything approaching a theocracy in western countries but to think it's just what Tibet needs. Maybe most of the westerners waving "Free Tibet" signs don't have in mind a return to the pre-1959 status quo, with hundreds of thousands of landless serfs labouring to keep the rich landowners and monasteries in luxury, but I'll bet you that a fair number of the Tibetan exiles waving them want just that.
Naive Westerners imagine that "free Tibet" will be a nice cosy democracy, a bit like Canada, perhaps, but it will be a lot more like Afghanistan or Iran.
The Dalai Lama appears to be a decent person (even if he did publicly object to Pinochet's house arrest in the UK), but then so is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I wouldn't want him running the UK. Come to that, I wouldn't want anyone who had a job for life.
"a return to the pre-1959 status quo, with hundreds of thousands of landless serfs labouring to keep the rich landowners and monasteries in luxury, but I'll bet you that a fair number of the Tibetan exiles waving them want just that."
That is SO Buddhist, oh my.
Of course, there is no such thing as an obscenely privileged elite in the benign chinese communist party: nor in the "new rich" of China. Or if you want just look at us westerners. Such wondrous achievements of equality. You can rejoice reflecting on that, while your mexican servant fixes you a drink.
I am amazed at how many fools don't realize this is ust China's basic Bully ohilosophy. NO competing authorites, moral or of any kind. Everyhting appointed by the state. An you stuoid fools give the thumbs up on that . Why? becuase your a re little know it all neoatheist, shallow western supremacists that have progressed very little toward the appreciation of cultural and intellectual diversity. As I said, youare kind of stuck in a XIXth century philosophy. It's a shame. I guess it's a hallmark of western culture to be barbaric in that way, in the name of progress and reason.
YOu can all suck my Shaolin balls
Oooops, is that Athel Cornish-Bowden the the systems-biochemist guy?
I did not know that was you.
Let me say that I've heard about your research and have nothing but respect for it.
Pardon my language then, haha. But that IS how I feel about Tibet. AND neoatheists (dawkins fans)
P.D. How many countries outside europe and the US did not have a situation similar to tibet in 1959? How many countries still do, that are not buddhist? Is it fair to blame the Dalai lama? Plus Tibet 2008 would indeed be very different than in 1959.
Sanders: It's hard to be a theocracy if Buddhists don't believe in god, isn't it?.
No. Theocracy does not require a belief in god. Theocracy is a government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. Lamaism is a branch of Buddhism, mainly in Tibet, where the Dalai Lama is revered as a living Deity.
"Naive Westerners imagine that "free Tibet" will be a nice cosy democracy, a bit like Canada, perhaps, but it will be a lot more like Afghanistan or Iran"
Really? So much more similar? They'd go for nuclear weapons? Deny the holocaust? Plan some terrorist attacks on the US and Europe?
That is an obviously prejudiced, unrealistic, and unfair prognosis. As if to refuse Tibet any chance ever.
According to the Dalai himself, China can be in charge of the military and foreign policy of Tibet. Face it: the Dalai Lama IS harmless.
I'm sure Tibetans would be much happier with a theocracy they know who has the best interest of TIBET in mind, rather than a FOREIGN secular government, who has the best interest of CHINA in mind. It's very silly for outsiders to not take the opinion of actual tibetans seriously.
The first poeple who have any right to say anything, is the PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, the Tibetans
If China tries to destroy tibetan culture by the means of force, there is going to be another bloodbath, just like in 1959. There will be a similar bloodbath in ANY country with cultural identity in where you repress the culture by the means of force and terror. It has nothing to do with how stupid or crappy you may think that culture is from your western point of view. Try to explain that to someone that his family was murdered by another culture. He doesn't give a shit which culture is best. He simply hates the murderers.
China's way is NOT the way of dealing with a different culture, and neither is any pathetic attempt of imposing superior "western" culture by FORCE in countries with well-defined, non-western cultural identities. These actions in fact are corrosive for the maintenance of secular and democratic values, who gte tainted with the use of force and thus no longer seem to be justified by reason but simply be the token flags of military western expansionism.
"Theocracy is a government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. Lamaism is a branch of Buddhism, mainly in Tibet, where the Dalai Lama is revered as a living Deity"
There is a subtle difference, The Lama himself IS the Deity, rather than being guided by "the true god", some arger and omnipotent entity or "personality". Such larger, all-ruling "god-entity", I repeat, does not exist for Buddhists.
Sanders: There is a subtle difference, The Lama himself IS the Deity, ...
Hence, the definition is fulfilled: Theocracy is a government of a state by immediate divine guidance. The divine guidance comes from the Dalai Lama.
Sanders: I'm sure Tibetans would be much happier with a theocracy ... rather than a FOREIGN secular government, who has the best interest of CHINA in mind.
And those are the only two choices?
Sanders: It's very silly for outsiders to not take the opinion of actual tibetans seriously.
Good idea, here's what one Tibetan said in a WaPo article:
“I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”
Maybe a domestic secular government might appeal to him.
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
*shrug* One quote from a dissenter. Great. You'll always find someone to tell you just what you want to hear. Do you care about what the majority of tibetans think? It's like the silly use of the rashomon movie above as a "proof" against buddhism.
I just want to make it clear that tibetan buddhists do NOT believe in any overarching supernatural entity; their only "god", is a man of flesh and bone. Interesting... I don't even know if the word "god" works here. I'd just leave it in "lama".
I'll concede that a state ruled by the Dalai lama could be fairly considered to be a theocratic state. However, I think that your simplistic conflation "defend tibet, defend theocracy" is yet another point that shows how poorly you have thought about this topic.
This would hardly be the case. Like in so many countries, Buddhist monks and monasteries would probably continue to coexist and influence society, without actually ruling or administrating it, a task that would go to specifically political authorities.
Sure, the Dalai lama would continue to hold great influence; but he does not hold influence form any actual "power" in any terms such as armed forces or money- What the Dalai Lama has infinitely more value: he has AUTHORITY; that is, people consider him worth the listening. Moral authority. That is what the chinese government cannot tolerate, and fears.
It is China that is actively attacking tibetan culture becuase, they will not tolerate the fact they have any kind of figurehead that is not appointed by the chinese government. They have forced the Dalai into exile.
Also, you sloppy thinkers do not seem to realize that tha fact Buddhism does not need to have an impeccable history (who has?) does not justify the force and terror of the chinese.
It' so easy to make "historical judgements" of nations and countries...who are you to judge buddhsim? I already SAID above that i asume that all kinds of evil shit has gone down in tibetan temples along history. But also so, everywhere else. This "holier than though" attitude of judging the history of Buddhism is stupid in extreme. It DOES NOT justify violence and terror against the tibetans TODAY, no matter what the historical past. I'm talking about basic HUMAN RESPECT here; people do not deserve to be terrorized and murdered.
NAL; why did you cut the quote out of context?
"wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, “I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”
I think it is very stupid for anyone to think that it is possible for Tibet to go back to feudalism and serfdom. Probably at this moment this man is on the side of the Dalai, like most Tibetans.
See, what you do not understand, is that Tibetans certainly don't like their pre-1959 past, You paint it ias if upon obtaining autnonmy they woudl go back to 2959. Thats incredibly stupid. Further, no matter how oppressice teh past feudal system was, this does not mean tibetans have to bow their heads to injustice and oppression from a foreign country. They are united by a culture and a religion and are overwhelmingly against the chinese government becuase THEY know better than anybody that they would NOT return to feudalism. They think they would be BETTER off, not worse, ruling themselves rather than ruled by the totalitarian chinese technocracy.
Sorry, I'm on a rage rmapage in full rant mode. As the Dalai said, passions are fired.
You cannot rake up any muck you can find about Tibetan religion, while ignoring any of its virtues and the intricate development of philosophy within buddhism. Look into it! Just aome! That's all I have to say: It's self-evidently good stuff (unless you're a pinhead)
Sure, tibetan Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity, all have a dark past. But, believe it or not, all of them have also had one or two golden ages, where art, philosophy, even science indeed flourished under a religious tent. This you simply choose to ignore.
The TEACHINGS are valuable, even if there are times in which even the "church" hierarchies no longer follow them. They may become corrupt, losing all spirituality and morality, living lifes of excess, absuign their powers. Those are the times of decadence, and guess what: secular government and organizations can also end in a similar sociopathology of decadence (some of that is going on in China and the US; hence the despair for a "return to values". Religion ends up filling the empty space)
Yet even so, the scripts, the teachings, many survive (not all, and not always hahaha), that in brighter times people once again interested in wisdom may return to the teachings.
I consider this is such a time for tibetan buddhism (which is much more than what I can say for the catholic church right now)
I guess I can boil myself down to this: Philosophical teachings, reasoning about ethics, renderd true achievements of intellect that MUST remain with us.
"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind"
-Albert Einstein 1937
(This Einstein quote IS real, BTW)
Now I know exactly what many of you are thinking; that Einstein here suddenly revealed what an immense naïve fool he could be...bla bla bla etc etc.
Let's see... I think I'll go for... Einstein!!! Sorry. It's YOU who are the fools and have no idea what you are talking about.
See, Einstein was a keen philosopher, who in fact DID read and study the buddhists. In fact, many other scientists (specially the creative ones!) have shown appreciation for buddhist philosophy.
I haven' gone that far into it myself, but I have GENUINE respect for it.
Post a Comment