mental regression to the Middle Age

Some European leaders who are using Dalai Lama as a kind of political leverage haven't realized that from the perspective of the Enlightenment, his political vision as a religious leader is against the core values of secularization in European/western civilization, as the power game he is in should be treated separately from other concerns about ordinary Tibetan people. 

Is Dalai Lama willing to give up his prestigious religious leadership in entering the sphere of political power structure? I doubt so. As far as I know, among Tibetan Buddhists, which are segregated roughly into four sections, Dalai Lama belongs only to one section. In fact, the way he interferes with the religious life of other sections have caused internal tension and conflicts among TIbetan Bhuddhists. Such a fact is hardly exposed by the western media, which shows either ignorance of current state of Tibetan religious life, or collusion of treating him as a proxy to level against Chinese government.

Some observers have suggested the similarity of Dalai Lama's struggle with the case of Northern Ireland, which I don't think it's valid exactly because of Dalai Lama's identity. Instead of being nudged into a certain mode of thinking unconsciously, one should ask where Dalai Lama's popularity is from. Is it from soothing religious statements as a religious figure that which meet the spiritual needs of ordinary people, or from a politician who is eyeing for the secularized power, or from a representative speaking on behalf of Tibetan people in the name of human rights and liberty?

It's the second aspect of the above-mentioned three facets that Dalai Lama have goes against the principle of the secularism, and for those who have followed him closely, one might have noticed that he's very skillful in addressing those different appeals to different audiences. In another words, he knows what his audiences want to hear under different circumstances, be they politicians, religious practitioners, or ordinary people who want to be enlightened spiritually. 

Isn't his mythic and affectionate aura that has attracted many overseas followers from his own contradictory identity that he is both a 'spiritual leader' speaking nicely on human issues and a 'political leader' fighting for those being repressed and asking for governing power? If Levi Strauss was still alive today, he probably would point out that Dalai Lama is actually a myth created by the post-ideological society.  

No wonder those members of European Parliament would be excited when they are greeted by his congenial smile and witty remarks, which makes what's going on around him in Europe now looks rather like a political farce. One might argue that at the very moment he's greeted with an unanimous applause there, his charming manner as a religious practitioner has conquered parliamentary members. What he said is very simple and plain, and nothing special to those sophisticated politicians of modern world; his persona and his very presence there count as a symbol to satisfy the fantasy of political struggle. 

Struggle? You must be joking. It's very easy for those of us in a secularised society to forget the fact that the prestigious leadership currently he is enjoying as a 'spiritual leader' is granted by the reincarnation system of the Tibetan Buddhism. He probably will reform this system, but that's only the future prospect. 

This is a kind of mental regression to the Middle Age, isn't it? Because he is so different, he must have brought a rare fresh air to the stuffy parliamentary building in Brussels, which is full of endless and lengthy debates in a politically disengaged society largely at the mass level. 

So far, there is no dogmatic political journalists who would follow his statements in various occasions like those in the US do, that any inconsistent views of a prominent political figure would be highlighted to the public. If so, I guess the general impression would be quite different.

But this does not mean that there is no way to look into this murky situation. Instead of being confused by all those extrapolations that have so far appeared in the public sphere, one should stick to the identity issue of Dalai Lama himself from a firmly secularized standpoint, the quilting point that seems to hold everything now regarding Tibetan issues; unless, of course, the coordinates are changed.  

By promoting the very idea that Dalai Lama as a equivalent party Chinese government should deal with on Tibetan governance, which falls into the problem of secularism I mentioned above, European leaders have implicitly endorsed his unique representativeness, which not only reveals their partial understanding of Tibetan religious life, but also betrays their self-centred approach in recognizing the unity of China. This is the true test of the Sino-EU strategic partnership.

However, that is still not a fundamental issue about Dalai Lama. By supporting Dalai Lama regarding the governance of Tibet, European leaders would also give a implausible signal that they are promoting theocracy, which can not be accepted among those progressives. I've found that some European pundits and politicians have ignored this aspect, perhaps because their memories of the Enlightenment movement that is originated from the Europe in the Middle Age are faded, or they are not willing to confront and to reflect, because of the prevailing sentiment about China in the European public sphere. 

The standard argument that Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) might be more radical to handle if there is no breakthrough in the dialogue when DL is still alive has its own merit, but those countries who silently allow those ethnic Tibetan people, who can speak fluent English, to organize political gatherings and obtain donations from different channels for their radical political activities in doing something against a sovereign country should be held accountable as well. This is similar to the internationally co-ordinated anti-terror strategy.