|
Edited on Mon Dec-07-09 02:02 PM by Betty Karlson
The Gospel of Thomas, however, has experienced strong Gnostic influence, and was written several centuries after the four "Standard" Gospels were completed - which might be another viable reason for leaving it out of the Bible. Then there is textual consistency - which Thomas' gospel does not share with the four standard ones.
Applying Derrida to the idea of the person-based divinity, we might conclude that it is our IMAGE of God that differs, rather than the Deity Himself (or Herself, of course).
And this brings us back to Mr Gyatso, who stands in the theoretical tradition of all Lamas who went before him (or were emanations of the same soul, if that's what you believe). The first one of these Dalai Lamas lived at the end of the 14th century, and ruled an indefinite number of Tibetan patches.
It was not until the 5th one, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (1617 - 1682) that Tibet was unified. By consequence, the present Dalai Lama stands in the tradition of priestly feudal overlordship over a labouring class - precisely what many people on this site resent in theocratic Republicans' ideals.
The only reason Mr Gyatso doesn't any longer practise these principles is because he was forcibly removed from power by the biggest bully of the class of 1950: China. I'm well aware of Mr Gyatso's hardships, but renouncing his feudal power he did not.
Numbers 6 through 12 slowly warmed up to the rest of the world, when Thubten Gyatso (# 13) flung wide the gates of Tibet. This process of cultural exchange was, indeed, an exchange - which means that Mr Gyatso (14) inherited a system of thought that had at least in part been influenced by what we may dubb modern western thought.
My question, therefore, aimed to learn from what part of this polymorphous body of Tibetan thought Mr Gyatso had derived his insight from. Or does he claim it comes naturally to him, without any preceding acculturation?
|