|
Editorial Review Book Description
Prisoners of Shangri-La is a provocative analysis of the romance of Tibet, a romance that, even as it is invoked by Tibetan lamas living in exile, ultimately imprisons those who seek the goal of Tibetan independence from Chinese occupation.
"Lopez lifts the veil on America's romantic vision of Tibet to reveal a country and a spiritual history more complex and less ideal than popular perceptions allow. . . . Lively and engaging, Lopez's book raises important questions about how Eastern religions are often co-opted, assimilated and misunderstood by Western culture."—Publishers Weekly
"Proceeding with care and precision, Lopez reveals the extent to which scholars have behaved like intellectual colonialists. . . . Someone had to burst the bubble of pop Tibetology, and few could have done it as resoundingly as Lopez."—Booklist
"Fascinating. . . [A] provocative exploration. Lopez conveys the full dizziness of the Western encounter with Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism."—Fred Pheil, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review
"A timely and courageous exploration. . . . [Lopez's] book will sharpen the terms of the debate over what the Tibetans and their observers can or should be doing about the place and the idea of Tibet. And that alone is what will give us all back our Shambhala."—Jonathan Spence, Lingua Franca Book Review
"Lopez's most important theme is that we should be wary of the idea . . . that Tibet has what the West lacks, that if we were only to look there we would find the answers to our problems. Lopez's book shows that, on the contrary, when the West has looked at Tibet, all that it has seen is a distorted reflection of itself."—Ben Jackson, Times Higher Education Supplement
... Read more Customer Reviews (18) 
Are we still prisoners of Shangri-la?
At ten years from its publication that flared many a fire from other Tibetan scholars and Buddhist adepts, Lopez's demystifying and deconstructive work can be coolly judged for its positive and negative aspects. The book was issued in 1998 at the peak of American "Tibetmania" by an academician who was probably greatly annoyed by the many interpretations and transformations of what he deemed a field o knowledge worthy of a "scientific" study. With a solid even if slightly arrogant and according to some "biased" approach, the Author analyzes the cardinal points of Western misinterpretation of the Tibetan culture. Starting from the pejorative term of "Lamaism", leading us through the Hippy and New-Age popularity of the "Tibetan Book of the Dead", across Lobsang Rampa's global and successful hoax he shows us how, with a typical "Orientalism"approach, we tend to see in Tibet and its culture either a paradisiac or demoniac reality that does not exist and a great part of the confusion is due to the tools used for the interpretation of ancient texts. Eviscerating the formula "Om manipadme hum", attempting an esthetical and epistemological analysis of Tibetan art works and depicting, this time in severely personal perspective, the scenario of Tibetan studies in the US and in the rest of the world, he lands us in a territory where with clean an virgin eyes we can try to really look and appreciate a culture so different form ours.
The last part of the book deals with the apparent complacency of Tibetan religious authorities with the Western misreading of a "Buddhist modernism" and a "diluting of dharma", in order to enforce anti-Chinese politics in the attempt of finding patrons in exile. Naturally this idea is strictly personal and has to re-evaluated today that somehow the illusion of a Free Tibet seems as far away as ever before.
Another point to make at a distance of ten years is the constant updating of the translations of the original sources of Tibetan knowledge, that have greatly contributed on their own to the demystification of this academic discipline and widespread religion.
The book is easy to read also because the innumerable bibliographical citations are helpfully all at the end and can be consulted at wish (don't miss them for clues to further reading) and represents a milestone for the layman that is interested in this field.
P.S. The apparently incomprehensible and complicated Shugden affair is still going on now!
Poor scholarship, incorrect conclusions, slanderous insinuation
While his criticism of some westernized ideas of Buddhism are very correct, his application of this "myth-buster" attitude to authentic Tibetan teachings translated into English are unfortunate, to say the least. It is odd that his conclusions in this book are in disagreement with the Dalai Lama, especially since Lopez actually worked on the English translation of the Dalai Lama's "Opening The Eye Of New Awareness." Suffice to say, Lopez overshot here and has mislead a large group of people with this work, full of inaccuracy.
Much of this book is just plain silly and petty, but when we get to the meat of it, that is, when Lopez actually starts discussing ideas of some substance, rather than the gaseous reporting of pop culture in relation to Buddhism, he falls flat. Lopez often presents a collection of little facts or factoids in a rather political manner, by using some points of fact to paint the picture he would like us to see and to use this as a stepping-off point to insinuate other ideas with a carefully-turned phrase, which are left unstated and unsupported. One can immediately see this technique at work, for instance, in the Introduction of the book where the author appears to be sneering as he lists a string of seemingly vapid Buddhist sightings in the West. Quite a one-sided presentation.
In particular, I found this technique most disturbing in his criticism of Lama Govinda, which lacks any real substance. In fact, much of this bookseems rather like a political smear campaign, not just on "fake Western Buddhists," but on Buddhism, in general. Lopez is not content to simply disillusion us of our romantic ideas of Tibet, but seems intent on utterly trivializing Tibetan culture by systematically devaluing its rich symbolism and incredibly far-reaching realms of thought and insteadpresenting it through a "scholarly lens" as if the culture was nothing more than an assemblage of superstitious, backwards tribalist luddites and opportunists.
Lopez criticized Lama Govinda for using a term "Dhyani Buddha" to describe the meditation Buddhas, despite the fact that Govinda's first mention of the "Dhyani Buddhas" includes a footnote which explains this phrase was an invention of Western scholarship coined to describe the 5 meditation Buddhas. So, here Lopez has used a coy little aside to incriminate Govinda without informing the reader that Govinda was aware of this fact and already made his readers aware of this fact. Lopez mentions it as if he is setting some 'record' straight or correcting some great error of Govinda's. This is a good example of the political smear tactic used throughout this book. There was really no reason for it and, ultimately, the fact that Govinda used the term "Dhyani Buddha" means nothing, but what Lopez hopes to confer without actually writing the words is that Govinda isn't quite the expert that Lopez is.
But, in fact, Govinda was far more expert than Lopez believes himself to be. At least Govinda didn't have the audacity to claim that OM MANI PADME HUM was merely "an invocation to the 'god' Avaloketesvara" as Lopez has done here. Yes, Lopez argues that the official mantra of Tibet, OM MANI PADME HUM, is "simply an invocation of Avaloketesvara," while accusing Western scholars (such as Lama Govinda) of frivolouspsychologizing of the mantra and Lopez also incriminates authentic Tibetan teachers for going along with such "misconceptions" simply to promote a "free Tibet" agenda, according to Lopez.
Now, this is a real head-scratcher for a few reasons:
(1) Lopez plays role-reversal, incriminating Western scholars vs. authentic Tibetan Buddhists. But, Lopez, himself, actually _IS_ a Western scholar... and he accuses all authentic Tibetan lamas who don't agree with him of diluting Tibetan teachings to suit the misunderstanding of Western scholars!
With such blatant misdirection, Lopez should switch careers to politics.
(2)The mantra does, in fact, roughly translate to "the jewel in the lotus" (mani = jewel; padma = lotus). Rather, Lopez suggests it should be roughly translated to "O, Mr. Jewel-Lotus. Please give us a hand," (!!!) without the slightest indication that he comprehends how the "jewel in the lotus" symbolism could possibly tie in with the rest of Tibetan Buddhism.
(3) When Lopez suggests that the MANI mantra is "just an invocation," heimplies that the words are fairly meaningless and that the symbolism of "Mr. Jewel-Lotus"' (!!!) was arbitrary or created in a vacuum, because hedenies that "the jewel in the lotus" has any meaning (and he is wrong, of course). Chenrezig/Avalokitesvarah just likes jewels and flowers, I suppose... nothing at all to do with emptiness and form or cutting or unbreakable truth... nah, couldn't be.
Lopez takes umbrage with Lama Govinda for his lengthy commentary in "Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism" in which Govinda has explained this six syllable MANI mantra from every angle: literal, symbolic and beyond the dead letter. Govinda accomplished this in more detail than I've seen in a dozen other books covering the same topic, yet, in disagreement with none. Lama Govinda's entire book is, in fact, arranged around this mantra, but this is not appreciated at all by Lopez, who seems to really "get off" on questioning the authority and integrity of others. Yet, each criticism begs the question,"by whose authority does Lopez make these assertions and accusations?" In an interview I once read, Lopez admitted it was "by his own authority" because "he read a lot of books and wasn't finding what others were talking about." Great. By his own authority, he is accusing lineage-holders of an ancient tradition of not knowing their own traditions.
After all, Govinda lived in Tibet and India for 30 years as a dedicated Buddhist. Govinda was the one of the first authentic Western practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. But, Lopez would rather you think of him as a bumbling fraud, akin to Lobsang Rampa. Lopez even insinuates that Govinda was maybe not a real lama at all, while giving no evidence to support such a conclusion other than wild speculation. In every possible instance where there is no documentation, Lopez takes the opportunity to assume the absolute worst and, of course, share his fantasies with the reader, where in fact there does not even seem to be grounds for speculation, let alone suspicion. One can only presume Lopez is jealous. Again, these are the actions one would expect from a political smear campaign, not a fact-seeking historian.
For Lopez to suggest that Govinda's commentary on OM MANI PADME HUM is westernized, psychologized projection-fantasy is pure nonsense. Lopez has also gone to such lengths as to further incriminate basically every Tibetan lama as illogically taking part in this so-called "diluting of the dharma." This list of guilty Tibetan lamas would include the Dalai Lama and just about every other lama to ever speak on the subject.
According to Lopez, these Tibetans are guilty of simply going along with the misconstrued ideas of westerners to help facilitate a "free Tibet." GIVE ME A BREAK! This is about the most outrageous claim he could possibly make! Now that the Dalai Lama has accepted publicly the Chinese occupation of Tibet, what grounds are there for such a ludicrous idea, anyway?
Tibetan translations are checked and re-checked for accuracy and republished when earlier translation errors are discovered. At this point, many important texts are being translated with utmost accuracy into other languages. At no time do authentic Tibetan teachers dilute the teachings.Tibetans have historically gone out of their way to preserve the Dharma, holding it more precious than their own lives, which they have willingly given up to support the Dharma! Such a conclusion on Lopez's part certainly takes some courage... or arrogance... or selfishness... probably all three, as is generally the case with a lettered man with a pet theory.
A question that comes up a lot while pondering "Prisoners of Shangri-La" is his audience: what audience _is_ Donald S. Lopez, Jr. writing for, anyway? If he is writing for even casually-educated Buddhists, is an entire chapter on Lobsang Rampa necessary? No, of course not.
It does not seem like this was intended for people actually interested in Buddhism, but rather people with a detached, "scholarly" interest in Buddhism.
Unlike those he hascriticized, who have spent their entire lives steeped in the culture of Tibet (Govinda, David-Neel, Trungpa, not to mention all the other Tibetan lamas who agree with their teachings) and who actually have the respect of the Buddhist community by and large, Lopez will remain a detached scholar whose books are not really "Buddhist studies" at all. His book "Religions of Tibet" shows the same inability to discriminate between concepts or, perhaps, unify them.
In any case, Lopez is a true dead-letter scholar who appears to be fascinated (or entertained?) by Tibetan culture, but is not even able to accept it superficially let alone integrate its great depths. Not recommended.
Very informative
Very impressive erudition displayed by this famous Tibetologist. The book has seven chapters discussing seven aspects of Tibetan culture;
1) Lama-Lamaism. Talks about the meaning of the terms and how scholars from Protestant background compared Lamaism to Catholicism, or viewed it as a corruption of original primitive Buddhism.
2) Tibetan Book of the Dead. This is a NYINGMA text (a terma, that is, a sacred text written in the 8th century and hidden for later discovery). Lopez goes over the various editions and translations of this text, showing how each edition added a different interpretation to it. From Evans-Wentz (reading it on the background of theosophical teachings: no rebirth in lower animal realms for human beings is possible), to Leary (paradigmatic of an acid trip), to Trungpa (transpersonal psychology), to Sogyal (self-help, new-Agish), to Thurman (reading the text within a Geluk template).
3) The British impostor Lobsang Rampa.
4) Om Mane Pdame Om. Discusses the meaning of this phrase.
5) Tibetan iconography.
6) The academic field of Tibetan Studies. When I read this section I was depressed about the low level of my erudition. Here are people who know their field inside out, and what do I have to show for? I can only take some consolation in the fact that I have read on a WIDE front rather than from a narrow, specialized perspective.
7) The prison of stereotypes: "This book is about the factors that have contributed to the formation and persistence of the romance of Tibet." (p.11)
Backstage pass
to one of the biggest gigs touring the world right now.
The book, written in the best academese, presents a clear view of the West's distortion, and the history of that distortion-making, vis-Ã -vis Tibet and Tibet's version of Buddhism.
The book is laid out into seven neat chapters, each bearing a single-word title that feels Borgesian in its cryptic minimalism. Each chapter deals with one of the events and objects that have structured for the West the illusion called Tibet. They are (and refer to):
1. The Name (the term `Lamaism')
2. The Book(The Tibetan Book of the Dead)
3. The Eye(the book, `The Third Eye' by T. Lobsang Rampa)
4. The Spell(the mantra Om Mani Padme Hum)
5. The Art(Thangkas, Mandalas, Wrathful Deities, Skull cups, etc)
6. The Field(of Buddhist Studies and Tibetology in the US)
7. The Prison (the collective illusion regarding "Tibet" and her mysteries)
Yes, the debunking is sobering as well as entertaining, as it is done with solid scholarly information delivered with biting wit and even Wildean sarcasm at times.
But the most interesting things the author mentions are questions and remain still as questions: Namely, the question of Tibetan clergy's willing "collusion" or co-option of the West's tendency to "psychologize" the Buddhist doctrine. For example, there is a marked tendency on the part of the Tibetan Lamas and American academics to veer away from interpreting the Six Realms as anything more than so many "psychological states" in this present incarnation but that is certainly NOT the way most Tibetans have been taught.
Moreover, there is a Dalai Lama approved move to present to the West a user-friendly version of Tibetan Buddhism that is totally devoid of the really weird stuff that "formerly" took up (and still takes up for the average Tibetan) the bulk of what that faith used to be all about "back home": exorcism, magic, animistic rituals, etc., stuff that would be totally unacceptable in the modern West.
The last chapter deals a bit with the so-called Shugden Affair that may have played a part in the murder of an old Lama and his two students who supported the Dalai Lama's new policy (after consulting an oracle) to outlaw Shugden (a protecting deity of the Geluk sect) worship. This was not widely reported in the media but apparently this was/is a big deal among the Tibetans in the dressing room backstage even as they continue to put on a great show on stage.
No doubt, Tibetan Buddhism, even in its Americanized (low fat, low salt, Stuart Smalley) version has something to offer to some people - if not to the West as a whole, then at least to the Tibetans' image. But are we in the West willing, ready, and daring enough to meet the Tibetans on their own religious turf and do what they do and eat what they eat, so to speak? If not, maybe going back to church and listening to a familiar sermon may not be entirely a bad idea for those who must have religion.
Let's not forget, nobody in China has ever heard of, let alone eat, Chop Suey.
Excellent book marred by slander
As many reviewers have commented, Prof. Lopez does an excellent job deconstructing the many fantasies Westerners entertain about Tibet. I was very dismayed, however, by his sneering dismissal of the work of Trungpa Rinpoche and Sogyal Rinpoche, who he declares are not "real Tibetans" because they dared to try to present a difficult terma text in a manner that they believed would resonate with Westerners. While Trungpa Rinpoche did often present the dharma in psychological terms, he consistently affirmed the conventional Tibetan understanding of the six realms and other teachings. Surely Prof. Lopez is aware of the years of vigorous traditional monastic training Rinpoche underwent as a tulku in pre-invasion Tibet, as a result of which he received both the Khenpo degree. For Prof. Lopez to think that he is in a position to weigh in on the validity of the teaching choices made by these two lamas strikes me as quite arrogant and presumptuous.
... Read more |
What A Crock!