View Full Version : Petition against Chinese Occupation in Tibet

03-05-2001, 01:27 AM
This is a petition for the freedom of Tibetans to practice their religion and belief.

This is a plea for the freedom of Tibetans and to have the right to save their country, their people and the right to practice their religion as they have for so long.

To return Lhasa to the quiet, peaceful place that is was whereby Tibetans travel for days, weeks, months to pay their respects to their beloved Dalai Lama.

Om Mani Padme Hum ...

Please add to this thread to show your support

Breathe till there is no breath...

Eight Diagram Boxer
03-06-2001, 07:33 PM
Free Tibet

Knowing others is wisdom, Knowing the self is enlightenment- Lao Tzu

ninja turtle
03-06-2001, 09:50 PM
I'll get a full body tattoo of the Tibetan Flag and run naked in the streets of Lhasa- maybe then Tibet's situation would get some attention in American media.
The papers would read:
"American man beaten and imprisoned for nudity and illegal acknowledgement of a country/people/culture/religion now threatened by genocide and/or extinction."
This isn't really a petition- but it should be.

03-07-2001, 03:28 AM
Does a petition full of nicknames and aliases really mean anything?

03-08-2001, 01:46 AM

You are absolutely right. I did question as to whether I should have started a thread like this in this way. I do however see one little advantage.

There are many people who would rather keep a closed eye to the problem and reality that people of Tibet are facing. At least, this way, people are given an introduction, the seed that will hopefully fruit into their minds.

If any good comes out of this, its worth the effort. I hope you understand...

03-16-2001, 02:18 AM
I'm in. Free Tibet.

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

Fish of Fury
03-16-2001, 04:58 PM
i quite liked that Sting song, that he wrote for the Dalai lama.
i think it was "Tibet's too big without you" :)

03-18-2001, 08:52 PM
What do you think this thread will accomplish?

Kung Lek
03-18-2001, 11:10 PM

Politics? Did someone make a political statement?

The Freedom of Tibet movement is very interesting.
A couple of things you really have to ask yourself about the cause:

#1. Why did China occupy Tibet?

#2. Why did the Dalai Lama leave?

Otherwise, to say Free Tibet is not unlike saying "Free Palestine" or for that matter "Let's give North America and South Amereica back to the rightful owners"

Personally, the most important question of the above two is number two. Why did the Dalai Lama leave?


Kung Lek

03-19-2001, 05:34 AM
I dunno, why did China invade Tibet?

I don't know much about the surrounding issues, but it seems to me that if Tibet had been an independent entity, then for China to go in there and seize control seems wrong.

As I said, I don't know much about it, but on face value it seems wrong.

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

03-19-2001, 04:45 PM
The USA had it's Vietnam and China will have it's Tibet. Let's just hope there are some Tibetans left to get their country back together.

03-20-2001, 10:41 PM
Kung Lek raised a really good point there.

The Black Dragon
03-22-2001, 12:24 AM
Tibet was an independant country that literally had no maeans in defending itself against its rival countries, save the great tibetan mountains. Thus it is only right for China to give back Tibet, as Tibet has been independant for thousands of years until about 50 years ago. The whole place should be freed...

03-22-2001, 01:10 AM
For an idea as to the situation, rent Scorcese's beautiful "Kundun"... There will no longer be an ambivolent reaction to the moral question and no reason to offer alternate perspectives.


03-22-2001, 05:09 PM
If China did cease it's occupation of Tibet wouldn't somebody else invade it?

Why focus on Tibet?

Kung Lek
03-22-2001, 06:57 PM
Ok, here is a quote from the Dalai Lama himself.
In adition to this, it is important to note that economic changes have been for the better in tibet.

But, i find it curious that the Dalai Lama never speaks of why China came in to the country but that he is willing to let them control the economy and political structure of the country.
I also find it curious that a person with tibetan buddhist beliefs would find it necessary to run away?
Fear of his own life? That thinking doesn't fit wiht the precepts of Tibetan Buddhism. The cause would be 1000 times stronger if he had become martyred through imprisonment or execution. Yet, fear seems to be the motivator and it shouldn't.

You can find many resources on teh inyternet about the Dalai Lama and his views. He is of course peaceful and wise, but still, reality is reality no matter how one glosses it up eh?

Anyway, here is what the "God King" of tibet has to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is with this realization that in the early seventies I discussed and decided with my senior officials the main points of my "Middle Way Approach". Consequently, I opted for a resolution of the Tibet issue, which does not call for the independence of Tibet or its separation from China.

I firmly believe that it is possible to find a political solution that ensures the basic rights & freedoms of the Tibetan people within the framework of the People's Republic of China. My primary concern is the survival and preservation of Tibet's unique spiritual heritage, which is based on compassion and non-violence. And, I believe it is worthwhile & beneficial to preserve this heritage since it continues to remain relevant in our present-day world.


As non-participants. I think it is best tolook at all the angles before taking a side in the issue even if you don't like communism of the prc.
It goes beyond the usurping of a nation, far beyond that.
I have been following this throughout the entirty of my life and even I have reservations about both sides views and actions.

Btw, kundun is gratuitous propoganda and is a "story" which favours the political views of the Free Tibet Organization. Nicely shot piece of film though.


Kung Lek

03-23-2001, 03:47 AM
Like who?

Kung Lek never came back to let us know why China originally invaded Tibet, so I don't understand all the issues. Anyone else know why China invaded?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

03-23-2001, 07:31 AM
Apologies Kung Lek - you must have beaten me to the post :).

Here are my thoughts on this:

In adition to this, it is important to note that economic changes have been for the better in tibet.

I don't believe economic gains are the be all and end all in this world. I have a BEc. and I believe that I mostly wasted 3 years of my life studying economics. The problem with governments nowadays is that their focus is not on the people, but on economic growth.

I accept that economic growth is an important part of maintaining a country in a responsible manner, however I believe the role of government is to provide a structure for the people (be that in providing infrastructure, law and order, military protection, whatever), and assistance when required. I don't believe governments do this most of the time. The social impact of government policy is often ignored on the path to economic growth.

I think that Communism has worked for China (to a certain degree), and on my two visits to China the people seem to accept Communism. I guess they don't have much choice :).

As far as Tibet goes, I still don't know why China seized control. My thoughts are that if the Dalai Lama did not leave Tibet, he would have been martyred, but I don't think he would better serve the cause of his country as a martyr. I think that preserving Tibet's spiritual heritage is a worthy cause to fight for.

Having said all that, if it were possible to resolve the conflict without either party 'losing out' then I guess that would be ideal.

I'll stop my rant now :)

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

03-25-2001, 03:44 AM
If the thread increases awareness for a few people, it had succeeded, IMHO.

"To best condition the body you must first ignore completely how the body looks and focus rather on how it feels.

To condition the mind you must ignore how things appear or seem and focus rather on what they truly are."

Kung Lek
03-25-2001, 05:47 AM

Ok don't get me wrong here, I don't have a very good view of communism and I do not believe it "works" for anyone. People are individuals and communism strips this away. The communism of china is more totalitarian than marxist no matter how they do it up.

The situation for your average indigenous tibetan is not good, for chinese in tibet it is not to bad at all.

I do not have the answer as to why china invaded and usurped the Dalai Lama. I am curious also because this has never been made clear to me by positions on either side.

what I do know is that many tibetans left with the dalai lama and now live in northern india.
The governments of the rest of the world never really did anything about it and apperently the dalai lama does not intend too.

spirituality lives within the individual and not within an institution and its trappings.


Kung Lek

Fish of Fury
03-25-2001, 07:37 AM
why did china invade?
heard some cool theories (hidden oil fields etc. etc.) but i do know that they seem to persecute many peoples in out lying areas (incl. some remote areas of western china where the locals are sort of half chinese, half russian...can't remember what they're called...i'm basing this on Amnesty International research)
maybe it's an "ethnic cleansing" program (?)

_________________________"I never drive faster than i can see...other than that...it's all in the reflexes" Jack Burton

03-27-2001, 09:24 AM
Does anyone actually know what China's reason for invading was?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

monkey mind
03-27-2001, 09:33 PM
The balance of power in greater central asia has been more or less in flux for thousands of years. Why did China invade Tibet? From a historical point of view it looks like a "natural" reassertion of Chinese power in the west follwoing a period of internal turmoil. Why was this invasion uniquely cruel? Because it combined a centuries old racial and ethnic antipathy with ultra-radical Maoist fervor. Remember that the Dalai Lama remained in Tibet for about 9 years after the invasion. It was only when the Cultural Revolution warmed up and the harassment became extreme that he fled. I can't see how we can question the Dalai Lama too much on this. Was it skillful means for him to leave? Was he, as a teenager, afraid not only for his own life but for the traditions he represented? He has said that this was the hardest thing he ever did, and I think we should respect that.

We should also understand that Tibet was bound to have a rocky entry into the modern world. Like many places around the world Tibet had 20th century economics, technology, and geopolitics foisted on it, but because of its isolation and feudal/theocratic government, Tibet was uniquely poised for a difficult transition. The Dalai Lama has also said as much. Still, that doesn't mean that because the Chinese have accomplished this transition with some benefits (on their own terms: economic, political), that we should overlook their outrageous treatment of Tibetans. I've spent some time with Tibetan refugees in Nepal, and it's hard to deny the incredible suffering of these people. For the Dalai Lama to insist on full independence for Tibet would only ensure more harassment for those still in Tibet, that much is clear. Thus it seems most reasonable and compassionate for him to search for some kind of compromise, with a degree of autonomy for Tibet. If a "Free Tibet" movement in the west can help put pressure on the Chinese to allow some measure of dignity for Tibetans in their own land, then I'm for it. Plus "Cultural Autonomy for Tibet" doesn't fit as easily on a bumper sticker.


Kung Lek
03-27-2001, 09:45 PM

Your points are valid. I do however think that for people of the west protesting chinese occupation is a little "misplaced" though the sentiment is good and correct.

In the country I live in, the indigenous people have been treated very badly and are treated badly in view of the social norms.

The native peoples of canada have been eating a raw deal for centuries. But it seems because of the global "perception" of canada, that we as a society here are doing nothing so bad.

This is not the truth by a longshot. Our prisons are filled wiht native americans even moreso than non-native nationals. We relegate them to "reserves" which are more often than not useless land areas that have little in the way of future potential. we throw money at them to get rid of the sense of guilt for the people to actually work at integration of the whole of society.

Overall, they are treated badly in most social circumstances and many of them are turned away from jobs because of hte fact they are native and maybe they speak english a bit differently or maybe their cultural background isn't appealing enough to the standard non-native canadian.

It is a major problem that has still to this day not been resolved. there have been some minor inroads, but we still segregate the native peoples of canada wiht reserves, seperate government rules, the department of indian affairs and many other government departments that seek to keep the native people of canada seperate from the mainstream as opposed to integration and retention of cultural practices.

Canada is a poor example of human rights in many ways, as is the united states and many other first and second world countries.

In essence, it is my feeling that for any canadian of descent other than native to be crying "human rights" on the government of china or any country is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

Think globally, Act locally.


Kung Lek

monkey mind
03-27-2001, 11:46 PM
More valid points (is anybody keeping score?) Indeed, we tend to cry out against sensational human rights abuses in faraway places while all too often ignoring the more grinding and constant if less flashy continuation of racism and oppression at home. We should act locally to help foster reconciliation and mutual respect among various groups where we live. But we should also think globally. And if we consider ourselves citizens of a global village, then we should feel obligated to speak out against the ongoing abuse suffered by any of our sisters and brothers around the globe. I don't see this as an either/or proposition. Many of us live in glass houses, shouldn't we be throwing stones at all of them, our own included?

03-28-2001, 09:37 AM
I agree. Most countries have a bad history of human rights abuses. Australia has a terrible one.

As much I am ashamed of Australia's past, and even of the ongoing problem we have with reconciling our modern society with the indigenous population, I still feel that it is my right to speak out about what I feel is wrong.

I don't know what the reasons for China's invasion of Tibet are, but it seems wrong. I know why the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues, and why they go around treating their women so badly, but that seems wrong too. So I speak out against those actions.

Australia has in the past had a huge whaling industry. Does that mean we should not speak out against whaling operations conducted by Japan and Norway?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

03-29-2001, 12:20 PM
I don't have a very good view of communism and I do not believe it "works" for anyone.

It seems to be doing ok in Cuba.

Kung Lek
03-29-2001, 05:39 PM
tanglangman- when was the last time you were in cuba?

it really isn't in that great a shape.


Kung Lek

03-29-2001, 06:35 PM
My Parent have just returned form Cuba and from what they tell me it is doing ok. From what I gather compared to other countries in the central americas their lot is quite good. They saw no beggars, they visisted a local school where all the all children seemed norished and healthy.

Just because they are not wealthy does not mean they are not doing ok.

Do you see my point??

Kung Lek
03-31-2001, 10:45 PM

I agree that poverty is relative. And I do understand that point in what you say.

But, success or failure is mine and I would rather not have a government telling me what I can and cannot succeed at.

This to me is one of the primary failings of communism.No freedom to excel, just sameness for the greater good of all at the expense of all except the politburo or those in power.

This equates humanity to an antfarm in the mentality of a communist government. if I was an artist and the government told me I was not but instead I would be a tobacco or sugarcane farm worker then that is what I would be relegated to an existance of under communist rule with no out but my own death or escape.

You still think it's acceptable living for an individualistic person in a communist country?


Kung Lek

04-01-2001, 05:42 AM
We're kind of getting off topic here. The question is still "Why did China invade Tibet?" and whether it is something we should be protesting/concerned about.

Anyone know why China invaded Tibet?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

04-01-2001, 11:33 AM
All I said was that it seemed to be doing ok in Cuba. I was not defending Communism or attacking the right of the individual. How do you know that that is what happens in Cuba (being told what your job is going to be)?

Ghost Dog
04-01-2001, 02:08 PM
I am not entirely sure why China invaded Tibet in the 50s. Of what I know, it was a general process of frontier control - the PRC carried out similar operations in the muslim west of the country and also towards the north. Securing its borders allowed more control for trade. This was a very chaotic time in SE Asia with conflicts in Korea, India, the central asian states annexed by the USSR, and don't forget the troubles in Laos, and the early revolts in cambodia, burma and vietnam.

I do not know if the chinese authorities knew of the potential fossil fuel or agricultural exploitation in the Tibetan region, but they certainly know aobut it now, (did any of you follow the events surrounding the World Bank's funding of chinese migrant workers in Tibet aswell as the possible pipline venture proceeding from the floating of PetroChina - the state oil company - on the stock exchange. BP Amaco were set to buy into it but after mass protest from many environmentatl and human rights organisations, they did not buy into the tibetan project)

I am in favour of a Free Tibet.
However, let us not forget that the Tibetan people lived in poverty and illiteracy under the Lama Church's control. They had no way of choosing a leader which lived in a massive pallace living the life of Reilly while his subjects starved. A similar system exists in Bhutan where foreigners until recently were not allowed in to see the devastating consequences of autocracy.
The argument of economic reform in the TAR in ridiculous. The chinese migrants are creaming all the wealth for themselves - to the detriment of the Tibetan people, their religion and environment.
I cringe every time I hear the words 'economic reform.' This argument was forwarded by the PRC recently when the visiting Olympic Council were in Beijing. They had the audacity to tell the world to ignore their massive abuse of human rights.

I don't want to be disrespecting the Dali Lama, I just believe in democracy. I think it is easy for us in the 'West' to get carried away by the romanticism of Tibetan Buddhism. Living as I do in a country which was invaded by various peoples for most of its history, where an orthodox church controlled with an iron fist and destroyed people's ability to think, act and live as an autonomous being, I just feel that we should be as objective as we can when discussing the tibetan issue.

If people want more info on the events surrounding the 1950 invasion of Tibet, it is possible to get transcripts of the treaties and negotiations. I shall chech my university library for exact name and publisher.

Free Tibet
Free the minds of china
Never forget Tiananmen square - may justice prevail

Kung Lek
04-01-2001, 05:28 PM
g-Dog, you make some very good and valid points.


Kung Lek

04-02-2001, 04:10 AM
I think this is actually part of the problem with the large powers of the world today. They are so willing to tell other nations what they want.

If the people of Tibet were content with their way of life before the invasion, then what right has China to invade? Yes it has probably improved their standard of living, but who's to say that this is what the people wanted. What is the people of Tibet were happy with their lot. Who has the right to say that they have to move with the rest of the world?

While I understand your point Ghost Dog, I find it ironic that in the same breath you are defending the Communist Chinese move into Tibet, then claiming that you support democracy. Maybe the autocracy in Tibet wasn't the best governing system around, but is the Chinese rule any better?

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

Ghost Dog
04-02-2001, 02:50 PM
Sorry mate if I was slightly unclear above.
I find China's illegal occupation of Tibet abhorent.
The Tibetans are not economically better now than when under the Lama Church fifty or so years ago; they are becoming second rate citizens and soon to be an ethnic minority in their own country.
If they want to be left alone, and they do, I respect their decision. The main point I wanted to get accross was that perhaps, when (and not 'if') they eventually win their independence, the option of electing their leader might be suggested, aswell as the fact that they do have a choice as to how much power their church should have. Orthodoxy and totalitarianism in any form, whether religious or political, is, in my view, detrimental to a healthy society and the individual's ability to participate in it with respect and dignity.

And that's about all I have to say really.

Peace :

04-03-2001, 02:36 AM
Ghost Dog,

Cool, my misunderstanding I think.

Guns don't kill people, I kill people

monkey mind
04-06-2001, 08:53 PM
I've been awawy from the computer for a while (actually it's kind of nice). Glad to see that the discussion is continuing in a thoughtful, respectful manner. I'd only add here that the Dalai Lama himself has expressed his desire for the next Dalai Lama to be elected, not "found" in the traditional way. I'm not sure just who would do the electing, but he has made it clear that he believes in some form of democracy.

04-10-2001, 06:07 PM
Ok, I'm in college, and one of the classes I'm taking is a Buddhist traditions class. Recently the Tibeten issue came up. Our teacher explained why China invaded Tibet, and why they don't want to give it back. Originally, China was controlled by the Han group of people in southern China. Where the Great wall of China is, used to be one of the borders of the country. Eventually, the Manchus invaded from the North. Not only did they invade what was China, but also Tibet and three other small regions. Eventually, the Manchurians fully integrated into Chinese culture. The last dynesty to rule China was the Ching dynesty. When the dynesty ended, the former Chinese republics went back to being independant. There was a period of fighting for several years. There was complete anarchy. People were starving to death in the streets. This was when the cultural revolution with Chairman Mao took place. The Chinese welcomed communism, because it brought stability to their country. There are two main reasons why the Chinese invaded Tibet. First of all, they believed that they were restoring the "glory" of the Ching empire. Second of all, they believed the Tibetens were being manipulated by the theocratic government. The Tibetens disagree with this whole line of thinking, because they believe that the Ching dynesty was a Manchurian dynesty, not Chinese. The Chinese do not want to give up Tibet, because they see it as being a part of their country (from Ching dynesty). That is why they view the Dali Lama as a criminal trying to separate their country. Don't get me wrong though, I completely disagree with China. Also, if you look at the Chinese flag, there is one big star in the center to represent the Han group of people, and the other stars represent the other regions that are now part of China (from Ching dynesty), but were independant. It would be like if someone from Mexico wanted to take back Texas. The issue of the Chinese occupation of Tibet is very complicated with histroical significance for the Chinese and the Tibetens.

[This message was edited by magicfist on 04-11-01 at 09:18 AM.]

04-11-2001, 01:11 AM
Magicfist got it mostly right.

The claim of China owning Tibet goes back to the Qing (Ching) dynasty. China, like most countries, once it takes a piece of land is very loathe to give it back. Hell, this logic is at the root of the Ireland/England conflict and the IRA.

The more recent history is not exact though.

After the fall of the Qing dynasty (Emperor Pu yi as seen in the Last Emperor), China had a period under Sun Yatsen where an attempt was made at democracy. Sun was aligned with another group and while Sun truly wanted a democratic government, the others were mostly ex-warlords and a couple of them saw themselves capable of becoming the new Emperor of China. This eventually led to the breakdown of this attempt at democracy. Chiang Kaishek laid claim to being Sun's student and disciple but while this is historically accurate, many would argue that Chiang did NOT adhere to Sun's love or plan for democracy and in the end, ended up more like the warlords than his mentor. (This part is a bit fuzzy to me because I have never found Chiang's history that fascinating).

Anyway, China's government fell into disarray and that combined with around 100 years of European powers cutting her up made it vvery weak. Then cam the Japanese expansion and invasion into China. Both Mao and Chiang fought against the Japanese. Mao retreated west and encouraged the Japanese to follow. Then he fought using geurilla tactics against them quite successfully. Chiang fought as well but not as successfully if memory serves.

When WWII was over, there was no real central government in China. Chiang set up the Kuomintang and centered on the cities. He got a lot support from foreign powers in money and arms. At the same time, Mao was fighting back from the west against Chiang (red vs. white army). The big problem here was that Mao was used to guerilla tactics and using what the enemy left behind. He also employed Sun Tzu's principles quite well. He would draw Chiang's army out until their supply line could be cut, then confiscate their equipment and move in. One by one, Chiang's strongholds fell and Mao moved on. Mao combined his soldiers, the workers, farmers, and any other soldiers or people who would join. Chiang had a reputation for aligning with the money interest and against the workers, farmers, etc. There was famine, war, and major problems.

If memory serves, Chiang fell back from Nanjing and went to Taiwan vowing to return and take back China. (not too likely since at no time in the entire history of Asia has any person been routed like that and ever returned to reconquer where they were thrown out of)

Mao then set up the PRC government. In the 1950's came the Great Leap Forward. This was an attempt at massive industrialization in China and led to hardhsips, famine, there were natural disasters, etc... There were also some of Mao's allies who Mao began to see as threats...so they disappeared, died of 'natural' causes, were arrested, etc...

After the Great Leap forward, came a few years of OK times. Chou Enlai was around then I think....fuzzy here...this is all from memory.

The gang of 4 (Mao's wife and 3 others with Mao's blessing) started the Red Guard with the youth to fight against the 4 evils...basically old anti revolutionary thinking. Mao seemed to come under their control...and in 1966 the Cultural Revolution began. This lasted almost 10 years. The 1976 on period most people know better anyway.

When Mao extended his control back to Tibet, he encountered Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. Mao was VERY anti-religion. The missing piece here is that the Tibetans would have always recognized the Lama as the highest authority over the PRC govt. and Mao. Even if Mao had allowed the Dalai LAma to stay, this would have been a loss of face for Mao and unacceptable...no one person can be at a level with the party or Mao. This is a major reason that the Lama had to flee. his charisma and number of followers would have required Mao to imprison or kill him...either way he would have been a martyr. But, Mao would no more have let a single person hold a position of that kind of power in opposition to his own than he would have permitted that person to be a religious leader. Both were contrary to all that Mao believed.

Since China viewed the theocracy as against the party rule and they viewed the Tibet territory as historically Chinese, they invaded and occupied. The Tibetans have long held that they were independent and resisted. Who is right...depends upon which part of history you hold with.

However, it is solely a Chinese-Tibet problem and no matter what we do here, the solution must come from within their borders.

04-12-2001, 10:30 AM
Not to sound like I don't care but do you think China would care if everyone non-China citizen signed a petition to free tibet? I hardly believe they would. Why not call for more people to boycott things made in China. Thats hitting them were it hurts.

06-13-2001, 01:01 PM
Didn't the Americans use 'Apache' helicopters to help in the wars in Eastern Europe/Gulf over ethnic cleansing???(Just an observation :) ).

The country I currently live in has been taken over many times, and has taken over many others also. I believe most countries have problems mainly religious or political, although none can be justified I think a petition to stop oppressiveness and selfishness would be better.
I'd also really like to stop any possessiveness, but until human nature can change though, guess its pie in the sky.
Maybe we are heading for greater world peace, as there seem to be certain areas of the world where less fighting/wars are taking place. But then at the same time there seems to be more rioting within countries(albeit in the name of peace and freedom.)

But then again, this is only my opinion, and my knowledge of world problems isn't sufficient enough to really comment, just wanted to bring this thread back up to the front page, as I think it raises some good points.


07-19-2001, 03:26 AM
The Dalai Lama did not just leave Tibet because he feared for his life, but he left Tibet because of what tibetans might do if he was held as a polical prisoner by China.

The Dalai Lama is the human rencarnation of the Buddha of Compassion who gave up liberation from samsara (the cycle of suffering) to come back and liberate the rest of us. Whether he really is, it doesn't really matter because he represents selflessness and compassion and if he is killed, murdered and tortured it will represent us killing compassion, selflessness and love. Now if the Chinese held the Dalai Lama in a torture camp, it is definite that more lives will not only be killed but Tibetans might resort to violence, breaking the buddhist practice of detachment, love and compassion. The Dalai Lama left Tibet not because he was abandoning his people, but he left to prevent the death of hope and love.

As for the arguments of who owns Tibet, is irrelevant admist the suffering of Tibet. The country is striken with poverty, indigenous Tibetans are being borbarded by noise and are also the minorities of their own country. Tibet was once a quiet, peaceful country and now it is being polluted and drowned with noise. Indigenous Tibetans are forbidden to practice their culture and religion. The situation there might not be unique in that many other indeginous nations are facing the same problems. The difference is that China are holding practicing nuns and monks as political prisoners. Tibetans are peaceful and until now they do not practice violence because it is the single most important strength that they have.

Although independant Tibet under the rule of the Dalai Lama, did not have economic, polical and millitary power, they had their strong spiritual practice. They represent what ideals many of us share of a wonderous country. The Dalai Lama has said that when Tibet is free, he would cease to be the head of the state. He says this because he wants Tibet to be a democratic society and it makes it difficult for the system to work if he is part of it.

So what the Chinese governemnt was afraid of - that the head of the country also being a religious practitioner would not occur if Tibet was free. The Dalai Lama does not want to lead the country of Tibet politically but I don't think he would ever give up his spiritual leadership. That I do not hope so either. He is a great man who has taught us lots of things and although his country is in turmoil, the Tibetan faith, love, compasion lives in the rest of us.

So I guess what I want to point out is that who has ownership of Tibet is not the issue anymore, the Tibetan situation is more about the freedom of Tibet to practice it's culture. Many of you have compared other countries to the plight of indigenous issues and you are correct in saying that Tibet is not unique as such to indegeious problems. Helping those closer to home is important but is it also not important to conserve love and compassion? This is what the Dala Lama represents to me and it is for this reason why his story relates to me at a personal level.

Here are some links to more about Tibet's situation:

www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/index.html (http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/index.html)
www.motherjones.com/mother_hones/ND97/thurman_jump.html (http://www.motherjones.com/mother_hones/ND97/thurman_jump.html)

To see how you can help:
www.tibetfund.org (http://www.tibetfund.org)
www.atc.org.au (http://www.atc.org.au)
www.savetibet.org (http://www.savetibet.org)

I also wrote a essay or some sort of thingy about tibet which I will put online my website when I post this message.

07-19-2001, 03:38 AM
Hi, here's the link www.frij.com.au/tibet.html (http://www.frij.com.au/tibet.html)

This has been a great thread and by talking about it I hope we have made a difference/

08-19-2001, 01:11 AM
I do agree that Tibet should be freed, but this on it's own wont achieve anything.If you really want to free Tibet then you should try an take a more active role in their freedom movements, then something might get done.With regards to the last post, I see your point that if China leaves Tibet then some other country might invade them, but does that mean that Tibet should always be under Chinese rule?
Danny Lee

08-19-2001, 03:20 AM
California has it's own culture, why cannot Tibet? What was the revolutionary motto? "No taxation without representation". Why bother with splitting up borders, balkanizing the region, dealing with transitory governments? How about we push for a reform of the Chinese government to treat all it's citizens fairly and well so that individuals, weather in Hong Kong, Manchuria, or Tibet, can persue the lifestyles and culture that most appeals to them?

08-19-2001, 03:45 AM
Admirable sentiments, but don't you think it would be difficult to push for reform of another country's govt, let alone that of China?

How would you feel if the Chinese were pushing for reform of your govt?

What we do in life echoes in Eternity

08-19-2001, 04:35 PM
Be an improvement on bribing officials to get what they want from us.

Though I loved the jokes last election about thrid-world countries sending in observers to supervise our election.

BTW, we've been sanctioning China for decades to get them to change. It is only recently that we have opened trade (why do you think everything was "made in Hong Kong" for so long?)

08-19-2001, 04:36 PM
Besides, however hard reform might be, it's got to be easer than getting a still expansionist power (seen them threaten Tiwan lately?) to give up a large territory.

08-20-2001, 02:01 AM
But did the sanctions bring about change in China?

It is difficult to get any country's govt to change (I don't like the term reform because that implies that they are wrong and we are right). When you have a dictatorship or a rigid ruling structure like China, then the task is even harder.

I have always been curious - if the US has always fought for democracy, then why did it not take the fight to countries that have ruling monarchies?

What we do in life echoes in Eternity

08-20-2001, 07:10 AM
Like where?

08-20-2001, 07:25 AM
Nepal is still a ruling monarchy.

What we do in life echoes in Eternity

Fish of Fury
08-21-2001, 07:27 AM
only just

__________________________________________________ _________________________ "I'm just trying to lull you into a genuine sense of security!"

08-21-2001, 09:18 PM
Ever read about the history of Hawaii? Similar to Tibet. I can't wait for my honeymoon there, in the good old U S of A baby!

09-17-2001, 03:03 AM
Nod. I'm there.

For those entering the
realm of Wu with their
mind on Ch'an, the
silent smile awaits
them. - Ch'au-Lu

www.thousandbuddha.org (http://www.thousandbuddha.org)

09-17-2001, 04:43 AM

I like your linked site !

"Either your two side channels are open, and your central channel closed, or
your central channel open, and your two side channels closed.
These are the only alternatives..."
Lama Yeshe quoting Lama Tsongkhapa

06-10-2016, 10:42 AM
Anyone ever been to the Academy of Larung Gar?

China to demolish half of world’s biggest Buddhist centre (https://www.socialnews.xyz/2016/06/china-to-demolish-half-of-worlds-biggest-buddhist-centre/)

Beijing, June 10 (IANS) China is planning significant demolition at one of the largest Buddhist monasteries in the world, which would reduce the centre to half its size and render thousands homeless, said Human Rights Watch on Friday.

According to a recent official order, the Chinese government is set to demolish the residential quarters of around 5,000 monks and other workers of the Academy of Larung Gar that is home to 10,000 people, and impose joint management of the monastery, Efe news quoted a statement by HRW as saying.

The country's ruling Communist Party or local government officials will form the majority in the monastery's new management team, a practice that has become common in other monasteries in the Tibetan regions too, HRW claimed.

HRW calls this a violation of the right to religious freedom as enshrined in the Chinese constitution, and urged Beijing to reconsider its policy.

The human rights organisation's protest comes shortly after it released an extensive report on persecution in Tibetan regions.

In the report, HRW expresses concern against the Chinese government having extended its repression of dissidence to these enclaves through unprecedented monitoring and control in rural areas and small cities, and leading to never-before-seen numbers of detentions and protests.

Buddhists, however, are not the only religious group to be reeling under such repression; in eastern China, authorities are withdrawing or destroying crosses from churches, while children and Muslim officials are forbidden to fast during Ramadan in the western part of the country.

David Jamieson
06-20-2016, 08:35 AM
Here's a thing: It doesn't matter if buildings and thrones are usurped.
The 8 fold path can be followed from any walk of life, from anywhere you are.

Leaders and followers are not necessary to the practice of finding the buddha within.
Cultivate harmony with others. Be compassionate. Carry on.

In my opinion, it's time for the temple to live in the heart where it belongs and the institutions, which are all corrupt anyway can be seen as such and known to be that. Corruptions of the Philosophy. Corruptions of humans.