Nepal’s April 25 quake: a view from afar

On April 25, 2015, just before midday local time, the Nepalese Himalayas was struck by an earthquake of magnitude ≥ 7.8. Its epicentral region was located about 80km west of Kathmandu, but the many aftershocks have been clustered around the Valley, shifting an entire region. At least ten thousand lives were lost or injured as a result. This horrific calamity was not caused by divine retribution, but rather by collisions occurring, with some predictability, between the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates. Several M ≥ 5 aftershocks are expected, with a greater than 50% chance of an M ≥ 6 aftershock, in the coming months (Source: USGS).

KathmanduUnwrappedInSAR
The quake originated in Lamjung district, with seismic activity focused around the Kathmandu Valley (Source: A. Lomax, via twitter).

Such widely felt effects, together with the increasing pervasion of social media, are generating an unprecedented flow of data. Making sense of it is difficult for people in the midst of the crisis, let alone those on the outside — though there are some worthy efforts (*). Many call for more aid, but some say there is too much. On live television, it seems to be business as usual in the Kathmandu Valley. However, the normality orchestrated on TV reveals nothing of the disruptions likely to come: critical shortages of manpower, water, fuel and electricity, failures of agriculture and transport, debilitated families, missionary predation, ever-growing dependence on foreigners.

The situation in the Valley — since it’s what I know, it’s the part I can assess — now seems to be as follows. In the Durbar Square of Lalitpur, the Jagannarayan and Hari Shankar temples have fully collapsed. Hiraṇyavarṇa-mahāvihāra, the Golden Temple, is undamaged. There is widespread damage in Bungamati, with Amarāvati-mahāvihāra mandir laid waste. The chariot of Karuṇāmaya (‘Macchendranath’), now on its twelve-year yātrā, has been hit. In Kathmandu Durbar square, Kasthamandap, Maju Dega, Kam Dev temple and Trailokya Mohan Narayan temple were destroyed; the Kumari House stands unaffected. Kalmochan temple at Thapathali and Bhimsen Tower, a.k.a. Dharahara, have fallen down. The Swayambhu caitya has not been obviously affected, though some surrounding buildings, including the Pratappur temple, are shattered. Although a hairline crack has appeared in the Bodhnath stūpa it remains intact, apart from a collapsed stūpa on its periphery (misleadingly photographed in front of the main structure).

The old cities of Bhaktapur, Sankhu, Kirtipur and Khokana have suffered severe damage and loss of life. Beyond the Valley, in Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk and Nuwakot, whole villages have been wiped out, and reportedly, hundreds of thousands are affected in the Tibet Autonomous Region. It looks like the communities at these places will receive some aid from outside, sooner or later. Whether it arrives in good time, reaches the people who need it, is usable, makes things better rather than worse — or is needed at all — are altogether different questions.

Today nobody knows how much is being stolen from heritage sites. While UNESCO has funds to hire security, and jurisdiction over the entire Valley, the Kathmandu office says it can only work on its database. Fortunately, the job is somehow getting done. The false opposition ‘protect lives, not buildings’ is also getting a lot of airtime. Buildings are there to improve lives (unless built in a failing state). That’s why the displaced people who shivered under tarpaulins for a while have gone back to their homes as fast as they can, in spite of the risks.

The proposition that traditional spaces merely “serve as an anchor for aspiration and memory” and have nothing to do with livelihoods, shelter, storage, commerce, discourse, traffic, and the experience of pleasure and meaning is very mistaken. This damning with faint praise is no ordinary lapse of judgment; the Newars’ spaces seem to incite real unease among those who don’t belong there. This shows that they work as intended, and that their value comprises far more than the sum of their parts. Even in times of weakness, the Kathmandu Valley’s precious urban landscape can resist the neuroses projected onto it from outside. Nonetheless,this priceless quality won’t continue of its own accord. It needs intelligence, attention and work. That is how lives are renewed.

On not reviewing Wedemeyer’s ‘Making Sense’

Wedemeyer (2012), p.39.
Wedemeyer (2012), p.39.

Currently I have no plans to review Christian Wedemeyer’s Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism (2012), but that’s not to say that it shouldn’t be reviewed. Just a couple of months after its release, it is now on the shelves of over 80 libraries. Moreover, Dr. Wedemeyer promises to publish a minimum of three more volumes on the Śrīsamāja. Hopefully someone — who isn’t me — will soon get around to a review.

Philology as national security threat

It’s not every day that philology determines the future of a superpower. November 12, 2000 CE, was just such a day. The outcome of the 54th United States presedential election hung in the balance, awaiting a manual recount of the Florida ballots. Officials were shown on television holding up punched ballots to the light, straining to determine whether their chads were dimpled or pregnant, or had hanging or swinging doors.

Know your chads (infographic: abcnews.com).

The officials’ process engendered doubt – doubt that could grow into a grey area which, left unchecked, might obscure entitlement and privilege itself. At this crucial juncture, former Secretary of State James Baker laid down his nation-changing methodological critique:

“How do you divine the intent of the voter on that voting card … with those little punch holes?” he said today on NBC’s Meet the Press. “You’re divining the intent of the voter with respect to whether it has two chads hanging down or whether it’s punched or whether it has an indentation? I mean, that’s crazy.” *

Textual critics were dismissed as diviners; textual criticism became an act of madness. The rest is history. But since history, especially bad history, loves nothing more than to repeat itself, the eve of the 57th presidential election provides an occasion to reflect on the value of philology.
Continue reading “Philology as national security threat”

Congress on Buddhist Women concludes


The well-attended International Congress on Buddhist Women’s Role in the Sangha concluded in Hamburg last Friday, 20th July, with a Panel Discussion consisting of H.H.D.L. and over a dozen monks and nuns from various traditions, watched by an audience of thousands.

The aim of the Congress was to find a way to offer a fully legitimate ordination for Buddhist nuns in the Tibetan tradition. The options discussed during the previous two days had effectively narrowed down to two:

  • Single ordination by Mūlasarvāstivādin monks alone (the option preferred among Tibetan nuns, but considered least acceptable by their vinaya specialists); or
  • Dual ordination by monks of the Mūlasarvāstivāda nikāya (ie. Tibetans) together with nuns from the Dharmaguptaka nikāya (ie. Tibetan nuns ordained in an East Asian lineage).

H.H.D.L. was asked by the panel members to choose one of these options, the matter having already been ‘researched’ within the Tibetan tradition for over 25 years. The panel did not present a united recommendation for a particular ordination method, though everyone agreed that it was time for a decision to be made.

Finally, at the conclusion of the panel discussion, the Dalai Lama requested (through a prepared statement) that Tibetan-tradition nuns who had received ordination in the Dharmaguptaka nikāya should perform the three monthly practices of their saṅgha (namely poṣadha, etc.) according to the Dharmaguptaka. (Apparently this had not yet been done in Tibetan — English being used in some cases — as the various saṅghas of Tibetan Dharmaguptaka bhikṣuṇīs (both Western & ethnic Tibetan) have not yet arranged for the relevant texts to be translated into Tibetan).

My understanding of this decree is that it is directed towards sealing the legitimacy of existing Dharmaguptaka bhikṣuṇī ordinations. (Within Tibetan monasteries, Dharmaguptaka nuns face difficulties in acceptance, and because they follow a different nikāya they will presumably now have to perform their monastic rituals separately.) Thus the decree “normalizes” the status of these nuns. Additionally — and here there is some cause for optimism — it may be regarded as laying the groundwork for the second option of dual ordination.

Though I am currently unable to spare the time to review the first part of the Congress leading to the panel discussion, here are a few observations recorded while still fresh in my mind:

  • The unscripted sections of the Congress, namely the evening panel discussions, took on an urgency and intensity of a kind that recalled the suffragettes’ movement. A number of women were clearly desperate to be ordained and to have their ordination seen as legitimate. The question that remained opaque to outsiders was: why should members of a modern society want to throw themselves into monastic (or even pseudo-monastic) Buddhist life with such unseemly haste? In fact it was agreed in advance that Congress would not focus on this question, partly because it had been discussed at several previous gatherings. Nonetheless, may I point out that this issue is not peripheral at all, should we wish to make the case that gender equality in Buddhism is not merely desirable, but necessary;
  • It so happened that differences in opinion on this point, between Tibetan-tradition nuns from the West and those who were ethnically Tibetan, widened dramatically in the Q & A sessions of the first two days. The nuns of Tibetan ethnicity took pains to state, repeatedly and with increasing forcefulness, that notions of gender equality had nothing to do either with the Buddhism they followed or the particular issue at hand. A number of presenters, particularly the male monks, concurred that an acceptable ordination procedure must be decided according to the vinaya — if it can be decided at all — and not according to any other criterion;
  • Materials in Sanskrit, which constitute the ultimate authorities for any follower of the Mahāyāna, were referred to by a number of scholars. In this case, not much of the literature which can be considered problem-critical is preserved in Sanskrit; but many related texts are, and these should certainly be consulted if issues of interpretation arise. If scholarly input is sought to solve these problems, ones that cannot be resolved exclusively within Tibetan tradition (and we should not expect, by any means, that this is the only problem within Buddhism that will need dealing with), then one should accept as well that these Indian (or ‘pan-traditional’) materials are sources of superior authority;
  • But when one deals with Indian Buddhism, it is a serious mistake to think that this is in any way synonymous with the Theravāda. The Theravādins’ perceived status as the “elders” of Buddhism lends a certain weight to their input, indeed; but Theravādin authority, in practical terms, does not extend beyond its own nikāya. For Theravādins (not for serious scholars, or anyone else), only Pāli materials enshrine “the Buddha’s word”; all other lineages are debased, and all matters that lie outside the Pāli canon are irrelevant. In this tradition only procedures according to fixed Theravādin canon are acceptable;
  • This essential fact about the Theravādin incapacity to modernize was at least clear to some of the scholars present, as for example in the presentation of Dr. Martin Seeger (Leeds U.). In refreshingly honest language, Dr. Seeger observed that mainstream institutionalised Buddhism in Thailand*:

    …has largely lost its moral, cultural and doctrinal authority… due to… its obsolete, outmoded structure and educational system, and ongoing coverage by a sensational Thai press of sexual scandals, corruption, irredeemable breaches of the monastic code of members of the Thai saṅgha. … The Thai saṅgha as an institution has shown itself to be incapable of providing adequate responses and adjustments to the challenges and impacts of democratization, modernization, urbanization, and globalization…;

  • One of the speakers in the panel discussion, a Thai nun, made the point that Thai women were unable to take up the option of ordination in a non-Theravādin tradition while the issue of legitimacy remained unresolved. And this speaker made it clear that the Tibetans lost a valuable opportunity to bring their advanced Budddhism to people who are otherwise stuck with the difficulties of the Hīnayāna.

This Congress was unusual, commendable even, in as far as it exposed the workings and failings of Buddhism to public scrutiny — and worked towards a progressive and equitable outcome. The desired instant gratification was not obtained, but the extensive participation and publicity seems to have increased the pressure to find a solution.

[*Revised, 4 September 2007.]