The Buddha on the Road

What kind of world are we living in when the Dalai Lama—the Dalai fucking Lama—does a flip-flop on the moral justifiability of violence in the War on Terrorism?

From a statement on the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks:

We should explore the use of non-violence as a long-term measure to control terrorism of every kind. We need a well-thought-out, coordinated long-term strategy. ...

In today's reality the only way of resolving differences is through dialogue and compromise, through human understanding and humility. We need to appreciate that genuine peace comes about through mutual understanding, respect and trust. Problems within human society should be solved in a humanitarian way, for which non-violence provides the proper approach.

...and from a New York Times article one year later (found via the International Herald Tribune)...

The Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and one of the world's leading advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence, and that it was "too early to say" whether the Iraq war is a mistake.

"I feel only history will tell," he said Wednesday. "Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures." ...

At a time when many political and religious leaders are saying that the US antiterrorism campaign and the war in Iraq are only fueling additional terrorism, the Dalai Lama refused to pass judgment.

What the hell's going on here? This is the sort of thing one might expect from, say, Jesus of Nazareth, who was a bit of a nail-pounding ‘ard man as we all know and not above bringing the pain as required (ask the money-changers in the Temple about Mr. Meek-and-Mild, and they’ll show you His sandal-prints on their arses): but from the Buddha Of Compassion hisself? I feel a pit opening at my feet.

Well, no. The Christ comparison is both facile and facetious: that is to say, it won’t hold water. Jesus was never a head of state, as such—when He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven, it was never to rally support for His government-in-exile—and thus never had to deal with the sorts of political realities that plague the DL Quatorze. As recounted in Orville Schell’s excellent Virtual Tibet, among other places, His Holiness has always trod lightly with regard to international politics. He will, if possible, avoid pissing off the governments of either the US—the only power with a shot at influencing China on the Tibet question—or his host for 44 years, India, which has its own problems with terrorism arising from the intersection of religion and politics. There are strong practical reasons for him to do so.

And HH is nothing if not practical. A closer look at his position on the War on Terror—indeed, on non-violence generally—shows that the flip-flop is an illusion: his recent remarks are a corollary to, not a refutation of, his earlier position.

The Dalai Lama is interesting among religious figures in that his opposition to violent solutions comes not only from an aversion to violence on moral or humanitarian grounds—but also (and this seems to be the angle he emphasizes, at least for Western audiences) from the simple fact that violence is a staggeringly ineffective tool for solving problems. The communiqué at the first link continues:

I believe there will always be conflicts and clash of ideas as long as human beings exist. This is natural. Therefore, we need an active method or approach to overcome such contradictions. ...

Terrorism cannot be overcome by the use of force because it does not address the complex underlying problems. In fact the use of force may not only fail to solve the problems, it may exacerbate them and frequently leaves destruction and suffering in its wake. .... Violence undoubtedly breeds more violence. If we instinctively retaliate when violence is done to us, what can we expect other than that our opponent to also feel justified retaliating. This is how violence escalates. ...

In today's world expectations of war have changed. It is no longer realistic to expect that our enemy will be completely destroyed, or that victory will be total for us. Or for that matter, can an enemy be considered absolute. We have seen many times that today's enemies are often tomorrow's allies, a clear indication that things are relative and very interrelated and interdependent. Our survival, our success, our progress, are very much related to others' well being. Therefore, we as well as our enemies are still very much interdependent. Whether we regard them as economic, ideological or political enemies makes no difference to this. Their destruction has a destructive effect upon us. Thus, the very concept of war ... is no longer relevant.

Realpolitik as an expression of compassion: globalization as a model for peace: a quiet acceptance that all you can do is try your best in an imperfect world (a quintessentially Buddhist idea, that, and diametrically opposed to the Christian notion of making this a perfect world—of building the Kingdom of God on Earth). He's a smart man, and a sly one, that DL XIV: in a world where absolutists argue that even admitting the inevitability of violence is morally equivalent to advocating it, he walks his fine line, without stumbling on his slippery slope.

It's a hard road, that, and one we're all walking with him. We may as well admit that we're not all going to make it to the end of the road, and that the ones who fall along the way will be the ones who try to walk a straight line along a winding path.