Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.
I was more mindful of:

Much of what he believes and teaches is absurd to modern ears. But he is still a world figure: a man who stands for nonviolence and the disinterested pursuit of truth in a way that no other religious leader manages to do.
and:

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral this afternoon.
From which I take:

"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"

I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.

The article also goes so far as to say that we only think Buddhism is less corrupt because we don't understand it and it's exotic.

If such things were said about any major Western religious leader or politician they would not be published in a mainstream newspaper, not under the cloak of flattery at any rate.