Sistani Throws in the Towel

As much as I recognise Ayatullah as a pious and knowledgeable man , I think his influence on Iraqi politics has mixed to say the least. He ,or the coterie of advisers around him, have dithered around the important question; insisting the occupying powers set a date to withdraw. His role has been to give implicit support to the pro-free market SCIRI, and their sinister Badr Brigade militia.

Although elements of As-Sadr’s Madhi Army have been dragged into the appalling sectarian violence, the As-Sadr organisation in general has kept up an anti-occupation, anti-ba’ath , anti-sectarian line . More importantly As-Sadr’s rudimentary network has given practical help and support in terms of social welfare etc, to the impoverished masses.

A spiritual leader should never be a politician.

Maybe Tibet would have survived more effectively against China if it wasn't headed by the Dalai Lama at the time of invasion.

If someone is truly spiritual they will always oppose violence, but the defending of one's country against an aggressor is a basic human (animal?) instinct. We can argue that reason should transcend instinct, but the principle of protecting one's territory is enshrined in the UN Human Rights Legislation devised after ww2 - the result of endless hours of reasoned discussion.

The Dalai Lama is nothing if not a politician. He made the best of a difficult situation - Chinese power was irresistable, and resistance would have lead to untold suffering.

That may be the case, DC, but such a decision should be a political one. What is necessary for the preservation of a nation state may be quite different for that which is necessary for the spiritual development of an individual. There has been untold suffering in Tibet ANYWAY. This is generally what happens when one country is ransacked by another.

What I'm saying is that if the Dalai Lama took his decision for political reasons - for the preservation of Tibet as a Nation state, then fair enough. I guess we could argue that it worked well for De Gaulle in France during the 1940s, although from what I've read there was still plenty of suffering.

However, as he had been deified as a "living God", he would be trying to reconcile both political and spiritual forces. This is an EXTREMELY difficult argument. What if Britain had done as France did, and succombed to the Nazis; become an occupied land. Perhaps fewer people would have lost their lives? But there is also the MENTAL suffering of being a people under occupation.

I don't have the answer to this dilemma. But Sistani was trying to follow the example of the Dalai Lama, and not resisting occupation in the hope that suffering would be reduced.

History shows us that this is not the case. It shows that he who conquers becomes emboldened, even more cruel, and the suffering of the occupied continues - even increases. Sadly, this has been borne out again in Iraq.

For an example of increased suffering under occupation, see the latest offering on Legofesto:

http://legofesto.blogspot.com

When will people learn from history?

Is Mr Lama still teaching TM, does anyone know?

You cannot separate politics from the spiritual. The Dalai Lama is a clever bloke. I suspect that if they had stood and fought, they would have been crushed and the Chinese would have magicked them out of existence. The flight from Tibet was carefully orchestrated, and the governing structure maintained. It was also a PR coup for the Tibetans.