Kritik am Buch „The Shadow Of The Dalai Lama ... - Neues von Shi De

conference in Bonn he did in fact refer to the “inner modernization of the Tibetan society”.
Committed Buddhism, according to Thurman, is instigating a “cool revolution” (in the sense of
‘calm’).It is “cool” in contrast to the “hot” revolutions of the Western dominated history of the world
which demanded so many casualties. The five fundamental principles of this “cool revolution” are
cleverly assigned anew to a Western (and not Oriental) system of values: transcendental
individualism, nonviolent pacifism, educational evolutionism, ecosocial altruism, universal
democratism.
For Thurman, the Tibetan culture of “sacralization”, “magic”, “enlightenment”, “spiritual progress”,
and “peaceful monasticism” stands in opposition to a Western civilization of “secularization”,
“disenchantment”, “rationalization”, “profane belief in material progress”, and “materialism,
industrialism, and militarism” (Thurman 1998, p. 246).Even though the “inner revolution” is
unambiguously valued more highly, the achievements of the West ought not be totally abandoned in
the future. Thurman sees the world culture of the dawning millennium in a hierarchical (East over
West) union of both. Upon closer inspection, however, this “cool revolution” reveals itself to be a
“cool restoration” in which the world is to be transformed into a Tibetan-style Buddhist monastic state.
To substantiate Lamaism’s global mission (the “cool revolution”) in his book, Thurman had to distort
Tibetan history, or the history of Buddhism in general. He needed to construct a pure, faultless and
ideal history which from the outset pursued an exemplary, highly ethical task of instruction, aimed to
culminate eschatologically in the Buddhization of the entire planet. The Tibetan monasteries had to be
portrayed as bulwarks of peace and spiritual development, altruistically at work in the social interests
of all. The image of Tibet of old needed to appear appropriately noble-minded, “with”, Thurman says,
“the cultivation of scholarship and artistry; with the administration of the political system by
enlightened hierarchs; with ascetic charisma diffused among the common people; and with the
development of the reincarnation institution. It was a process of the removal of deep roots in instinct
and cultural patterns” (Thurman 1998, p. 231). A general misrepresentation in Thurman’s historical
construction is the depiction of Buddhist society and especially Lamaism as fundamentally peaceful
(to be played out in contrast to the deeply militaristic West): “[T]he main direction of the society was
ecstatic and positive; intrigues, violence and persecution were rarer than in any other
civilization” (Thurman 1998, p.36). Although appeals may be made to relevant sutras in support of
such a pacifist image of Tibetan Buddhism, as a social reality it is completely fictive.
As we have demonstrated, the opposite is the case. Lamaism was caught up in bloody struggles
between the various monastic factions from the outset. There was a terrible “civil war” in which the
country’s two main orders faced one another as opponents. Political murder has always been par for
the course and even the Dalai Lamas have not been spared. Even in the brief history of the exiled
Tibetans it is a constant occurrence. The concept of the enemy was deeply anchored in ancient
Tibetan culture, and persists to this day. Thus the destruction of “enemies of the teaching” is one of
the standard requirements of all tantric ritual texts. The sexual magic practices which lie at the center
of this religion and which Thurman either conceals or interprets as an expression of cooperation and
sexual equality are based upon a fundamental misogyny. The social misery of the masses in old Tibet
was shocking and repulsive, the authority of the priestly state was absolute and extended over life and
death. To present Tibet’s traditional society as a political example for modernity, in which the people
had oriented themselves toward a “broad social ethic” and in which anybody could achieve “freedom
and happiness” (Thurman 1998, p. 138) is farcical.