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

counterexamples. Nevertheless, Thurman presumes to declare them expressions of traditional Tibet’s
“inner modernity”, which is ultimately superior to Europe’s “outer modernity”: “As Europe was
pushing away the Pope, the Church, and the enchantment of everyday life, Tibet was turning over the
reins of its country to a new kind of government, which cannot properly be called ‘theocratic’, since
the Tibetans do not believe in an omnipotent God, but which can be called ‘Buddhocratic’” (Thurman
1998, p. 248). This form of government is supposed to guide our future. At the Tibet conference in
Bonn, Thurman made this clearer: “Yes, not theocratic, because that brings [with it a] comparison to
the Holy Roman Empire ... because it has the conception of an authoritarian God controlling the
universe” (Thurman at the conference in Bonn). Thurman seems to think the concept of an
“authoritarian Buddha” does not exist, although this is precisely what may be found at the basis of the
Lamaist system.
For the author, the monasticization of Tibetan society was a lucky millennial event for humanity
which reached its preliminary peak in the era in which the Gelugpa order was founded by Tsongkhapa
(1357–1419) and the institution of the Dalai Lama was established. In Bonn Thurman praised this
period as “the millennium of the fifteenth century of the planetary unique form of modern Tibetan
society ... [which] led to the unfolding in the seventeenth century [of] what I call post-millennial,
inwardly modern, mass-monastic, or even Buddhocratic [society]”. Tsongkhapa is presented as the
founding father of this “modern Tibet”: he “was a spiritual prodigy. ... He perceived a cosmic shift
from universe to buddhaverse” (Thurman 1998, pp. 232–233).
The Tibet of old was, according to Thurman, just such a buddhaverse, an earthly “Buddha paradise”,
governed by nonviolence and wisdom, generosity, sensitivity, and tolerance. An exemplary
enlightened consciousness was cultivated in the monastic Jewel Community. The monasteries
provided the guarantee that politics was conducted along ethical lines: “The monastic core provides
the cocoon for the free creativity of the lay Jewel Community” (Thurman 1998, p. 294).
This “monastic form of government”, pre-tested by Old Tibet, provides a vision for the future for
Thurman: “I am very interested in this. I feel a very strong trend in this [direction]” (Thurman’s
presentation in Bonn). The “monasticization” which was then (i.e., in the fifteenth century) spreading
through Asia whilst the doors to the monasteries of Europe were closing, has once again become
significant on a global political level. “And if you study Max Weber carefully... in fact what
secularization and industrial progress brought had a lot to do with the slamming of the monastery
doors. ... So, a monastic form of government is an unthinkable thing for Western society. We often
say Tibet is frozen in the Middle Ages because Tibet is not secularized in the way the Western world
is! It moved out of the balance between sacred and secular and went into a sacralization process and
enchanted the universe. The concrete proof of that was that the monasteries provided the
government” (Thurman in Bonn).
Here, Thurman is paraphrasing Weber’s thesis of the “disenchantment of the world” which
accompanied the rise of capitalism. The “re-enchantment of the world” is a political program for him,
which can only be carried out by Lamaist monks. Monasticism “is the shelter and training ground for
the nonviolent ‘army’, the shock troops for the sustained social revolution the Buddha
initiated ...” (Thurman 1998, p. 294, § 15). The monastic clergy would progressively assume control
of political matters via a three-stage plan. In the final phase of this plan, “the society is able to enjoy
the universe of enlightenment, and Jewel Community institutions [the monasteries] openly take
responsibility for the society’s direction” (Thurman 1998, p. 296, § 24).