After reading about iconic historical Buddhist figures like Vimalakirti and Milarepa, it was quite a different experience to read about a living Buddhist figure like the Dalai Lama. There are many key differences between the Dalai Lama and historical figures, one of the most important of which being the temporal power the Dalai Lama has over Tibet. The fact that the Dalai Lama wields so much political power was surprising to me considering the fact that he was born into the position––or, technically, chosen by a search party when he was very young (FIE 11). The Dalai Lama's lack of choice in his being the Dalai Lama is something that I was reminded of throughout Freedom in Exile; amazingly, he was not even consulted for the decision of his premature enthronement during the Chinese invasion when he was 15 years old (53). This idea led me to a few questions which stayed in the back of my mind throughout the book, including "What if he ended up being unsuitable for the position?" and "What if he didn't want to be the Dalai Lama at all?"

Another question that I asked myself occasionally during the reading was whether it made sense for a Buddhist practitioner to hold temporal power over a nation. I suppose this question came up because Buddhist teachings emphasize abandoning attachments and perfecting one's compassion for others, while politics necessarily involve certain attachments to values and relationships, and I do not associate politicians with the type of compassion we read about in this course, generally. The Dalai Lama responds directly to this question, saying that he sees no contradiction between religion and politics. He argues that, if anything, it is more important for a politician to be religious because he/she is responsible for so many people's well-being (203). I think this is a great point, and I think our political situation in the United States could be very well served by a shift toward Buddhist ideals.

Speaking of politics, I was interested in the Dalai Lama's discussion of Marxism. He seems to be convinced by many of the teachings of Marxism and believes in the possibility of a synthesis of Buddhism and Marxism as an effective way of conducting politics:

"The two approaches to life [Buddhism and Marxism] are so obviously complementary" (227).

The only problem the Dalai Lama sees with Marxism is its insistence on a materialistic view of human existence (90). However, he is able to reconcile this materialism by suggesting that both material and spiritual development are required for humanity to progress. He recognizes the importance of technological advancements, and notes that humanity would stagnate without it. At the time of writing Freedom in Exile, the Dalai Lama suggested that he would vote for an environmental party if he were to vote, as humans are necessarily children of the earth (269). More recently, the Dalai Lama has self-identified as a leftist and a communist. I was encouraged to see that the Dalai Lama looks favorably on Marxism, and I was intrigued by his take on why China has been such an aggressor to Tibet in spite of their apparent foundation in communism. After dealing with leaders from Communist China extensively, he came to realize that the Chinese government was not truly Marxist:

"Actually, these people were nothing but Chinese chauvinists posing as Communists: a collection of narrow-minded fanatics" (112).

In public interviews, the Dalai Lama has similarly joked that Chinese leaders are actually capitalists.

Reading about the Dalai Lama's daily routine was illuminating and frankly impressive. It is admirable how much time he dedicates to meditation and prayer each day (at least four hours), not to mention his consistency. This section brought me to question what the Dalai Lama means by prayer. I do not remember discussing prayer much in class, or reading about it, so I am curious about what Buddhist prayer consists of and how it differs from prayer in other religions. We have read in great detail about meditation, but I am interested in what role prayer plays and how the two practices are different.

I have spent a lot of time reading, thinking, and debating about whether violence is acceptable when one's rights are being violated. I have read works from thinkers who saw violence as a necessary component of a successful revolution (Malcolm X, Fanon) as well as thinkers who preferred a non-violent solution (MLK, Gandhi). It was interesting, although not surprising, to see that the Dalai Lama is firmly on the side of non-violence. He writes that he can never condone violence, even in the case of his fellow Tibetans who experienced serious human rights violations. This makes logical sense based strictly on the teachings of Buddhism, but perhaps not practical sense in real-world situations. The Dalai Lama recognizes this and concedes that violence is inevitable in serious cases, and that it is unreasonable for him to expect anything else from people who have endured such violations (263).