Tibetan Buddhism has been the object of fascination in the West for a really long period now. Whether or not this assimilation in Western pop culture is ‘good’ or beneficial for Tibetan Buddhism is a question which can be answered only with reference to its particular context, historical and contemporary. This paper will seek to analyze the case of Tibetan Buddhism in the context of its relation to Tibet as a ‘nation’, its Diaspora community’s choices and its existence in a global capitalistic order.
A useful starting point in the discussion on Tibet is the link between the cause of Tibetan Independence and preservation of Tibetan culture. In one of his writings, His Holiness Dalai Lama elaborates on this quite clearly: “As Buddhist practitioners, you should understand the necessity of preserving Tibetan Buddhism. For this land, the physical country of Tibet is crucial. We have tried our best to preserve The Tibetan traditions outside Tibet for thirty years…..there is a real danger that they will change, they will not survive away from the protective nurture of our homeland.” It is quite clear that His Holiness Dalai Lama’s appeal for preservation is directed towards powerful Western nations where Tibetan Buddhism has come to occupy a central space in public consciousness because of ‘Western Buddhists’. The Dalai Lama’s leverage over the West is not of political power and he is aware of it. . It is a leverage based on the widespread disenchantment with hedonistic materialism in the consumer societies of the West. In fact, the unequal power relations in the sphere of international politics are reversed on the plane of morality. It is this superiority which The Dalai Lama exerts in his appeal, which is an invitation to the West to gain some moral high ground by extending support to the Tibetan cause. The Western penchant for lending support to ‘nationalist’ movements only gives credence to His Holiness Dalai Lama’s claim.
In a discussion of Tibetan nationalism, it would be a useful exercise to explore the trajectory of Tibet’s national identity. Difficult as it is to define nationalism, it would be useful for our purposes to define it as a kind of horizontal solidarity between the members of community, real or imagined. Ethnicity, language and religion are characteristics which often form the basis for this solidarity, even though exceptions abound in the modern world, making any generalizations difficult. According to these broad markers, Tibet can be classified as a nation. In fact, prior to Chinese annexation of Tibet, there was a political entity referred to in the West as “Tibet” and imagined to be ruled by the Dalai Lama. Like other nations, Tibet too has its share of invented traditions and creation myths. The noteworthy fact is that Tibetan traditions are depicted as originating outside Tibet. Buddhism is believed to have come from India to an ‘uncivilized people’ into whom culture is introduced. Moreover, when asked what their fatherland is, most Tibetans usually respond with the name of a region, with strong identification with local mountains, valleys, deities, lamas, monasteries, chieftains and mutually unintelligible dialects. A strong association with clan identities is also identifiable. Together, all these factors form a threat to a formation of Tibet’s national identity which is a critical prerequisite for lending authenticity to Tibet’s demand for independence. The Dalai Lama, as political leader of the displaced Tibetan community, has consciously tried to eradicate all such threats. This is best exemplified in his stance on Shugden who is a regional deity of Tibet dating from pre-Buddhist times. Shugden has been declared obsolete and sent into exile by the Dalai Lama so that Tibetans in exile may develop a national, rather than clan identity. This national identity is required only now, after they have fled the land they regard as the site of the nation of Tibet. Tibetan culture becomes the same culture for all Tibetans, only in retrospect. [1](This idea is further explored later in this paper).
On the question of Tibetan nationalism, it would be instructive to use Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities model to understand the problematization of the Tibetan nation. Not being a colony during the nineteenth century, Tibet did not develop those institutions key to development of national consciousness, namely print capitalism, census, maps or museums. A nation-state, with its attendant secular state and polity, notions of citizenship, a global capitalist economy, membership in an international system of states enjoying diplomatic relations, an advanced social division of labor, industrialism, and dominance of secular cultural values, is a label which hardly fits the Tibetan case. Even though Anderson’s model is highly Eurocentric and not unchallenged, it serves to explain the difficulties Tibet faces in demanding independence as a world system of nation-states. This problem is critical to understanding the context within which the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan emigrants’ concerted attempts to forge a national identity must be seen - as a response tailored to the Western conceptions of a nation.
In recent times the Dalai Lama has also blurred the link between a call for Tibetan independence and a call for preservation of its culture. In an interview to Le Monde the Dalai Lama said, “A kind of cultural genocide is in progress in Tibet. And even if losing her independence is acceptable, then still the destruction of our spirituality, of Tibetan Buddhism, is unthinkable. Protecting the Tibetan heritage has become my primary occupation.” On careful reading, one notices a collapsing of ‘culture’ into ‘religion’ in this particular statement of the Dalai Lama. This is particularly important because Buddhism is universalistic and allows creation of identities like ‘Western Buddhists’ whereas the idea of a ‘Western Tibetan’, by definition is absurd. By choosing the goal of cultural preservation and weakening the link with the demand for independent political entity of a Tibetan nation-state, the Dalai Lama has all but forfeited hope for an independent Tibet. Once this shift in priorities and goals is recognized, then Tibetan Buddhism’s representations and commodification can be seen under a different light – that of preservation, at any cost.
To gain an idea of the interplay between nationalism and preservation among Tibetan Buddhists, an ideal starting point is Buddhism Observed, an anthropological study of Tibetan and Western exiles in Bodhanath, Nepal. As Peter Moran puts it, “For Tibetan exiles, culture becomes the home that travels. The Dharamsala government presents a ‘Tibetan culture’ to be remembered, reproduced and emulated by Tibetan refugees, and Buddhism is central to that cultural identity.” The key thought lies in the realization that in Bodhnath, Buddhism is not just for Tibetans; in fact, Tibetans are aware of being visible to the world community in their struggle to regain their homeland. Of course, the strategic exercise reeks of Orientalism, with its attempts to essentialize Tibetan culture and present it as a static culture (which is equated to religion) which needs the West to survive and achieve the ultimate marker of modernity, nationhood. The other motive for this conscious and strategic undertaking is what has been discussed in this paper before: a need for preservation. The most visibly prominent part of this strategy is the proffering of Tibetan culture as commodities, whether as curios in shops or as experiences in the monasteries. The visceral reaction of a layman to this commodification of religion borders on revulsion. Yet, on closer study, one realizes that the notion of authenticity comes into focus only after commodification takes place. This important idea is eerily similar to the earlier conclusion that crystallization of a Tibetan identity took place only after Chinese annexation and resultant displacement of Tibetans. The interrelated forces of global capitalism and modernity have acted together to produce the inescapable contemporary realities of Tibetan Buddhist refugees. It is within this circumscribed sphere of choices that the actions of Tibetans need to be viewed – whether it is their strategic Orientalism or commodification of tradition.
The link between tradition and commodification of Tibetan Buddhism can also be analyzed meaningfully as a consequence of secularization of the West. The separation of church and state has played itself out as the ending of state support for religious organizations, the elimination of religious teaching in public schools and the ending of legislative protection for religious doctrine or other state-sponsored controls designed to safeguard religion. Perhaps more meaningfully, secularization can also refer to a pervasive decline of interest in established religious traditions[2]. This lack of socialization in a religion combined with individualism becomes the primary cause for exploration of ‘Oriental’ religions (in this case, Tibetan Buddhism). Yet, the first contact between the Western individual and Oriental religion is influenced by his/her socialization as a consumer and plays itself out as an impulse to possess.
The aforesaid impulse is exemplified by thousands of tourists who visit Bodhanath every year. A distinction here must be made between Western Buddhists and Western tourists on the basis of their experiences of the objects they seek to possess. A Western Buddhist, who would define the object in terms of its use value in ritual or practice would be repelled by the idea of being lumped together in the same category as the tourist who seeks another item for collection. Yet both seek an identification of the ‘self’ in an object proffered by the ‘other’. Both tourists and pilgrims share an identity as foreigners in Bodanath. Propelled by a desire for experiences of authenticity, they both travel in search of an actual Tibetan culture as they imagine it to be: pure, spiritual and without stain of commodification, so all pervading in their own consumer societies. Ironically that is exactly what they end up doing. In the modern world of global capitalism which generates enough surplus as to allows exploratory pursuits such as theirs, they are simply religious consumers, shopping for a religion which is the cure for all the evils existent in Western society.
In all this focus on the West, it is easy to lose the perspective of the Tibetan Buddhists who are the sellers in the marketplace. It is interesting to note the Buddhist logic behind the power of a sacred object, i.e. how it ‘works’ – even on a tourist or a non-Buddhist. Moran narrates Gelek, a monk’s explanation “The attraction that the observer of sacred art, objects or symbols feels is due to connections made with such material in previous lives. More importantly, if a non-Buddhist buys a statue, takes a picture of an image of Buddha, or wears a Buddhist ‘rosary’ around her neck, the object may make her think: what is this thing I see or I’m wearing? What does it mean? How is it used? Maybe that person will try to find out more about the Dharma in his lifetime.” Several Newars and Tibetans expressed their satisfaction with selling Buddhist objects to Western Buddhists, where they would be used to ‘create virtue and merit’, which in turn produce fortunate results in future. [3]
The connection between initial curiosity and further exploration of Buddhism is perfectly analogous to the earlier described connection between a tourist and pilgrim. The spectrum between these two categories of individuals is traversed through a progressively greater involvement with the religion. Seen with this perspective, the introduction of Tibetan Buddhism’s objects to the marketplace and their sale to even casual tourists can be understood as a self-preserving mechanism. In fact, it is apparent that Tibetan Buddhists are fully conscious of their actions and do not see any contradiction between commodification and preservation. Perhaps it is a pragmatism born out of recognition of their unique place in world history. As refugees and practitioners of a faith without a state, Tibetan Buddhists are straddled with the responsibility of disseminating information about their cultural and spiritual legacy to prevent its extinction. It is to be noted that this responsibility is very different from the missionary zeal which drives most proselytizing missions in other religions. In conclusion, it must be reiterated that the commodification of Tibetan Buddhism is a conscious choice and can be justified only in light of its historical, political and economic context as laid out in this paper.
[1] Lopez, Donald S. The Prisoners of Shangri-La. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[2] York, Michael “New Age Commodification and Appropriation of Spirituality” Journal of Contemporary Religion 16.3 (2001)
[3] Moran, Peter. Buddhism Observed. New York: Routledge Courzan Press 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment