User:Louisa1419/sandbox

Mystics who are seen to have caused controversy within the representation of Tibet

Nicolas Roerich

The paintings that were depicted of Tibet by Roerich were between 1923-1947. The art that was created by Roerich has been within Western Culture. The Pilgrims in the Himalayas art sold for 17.4 million rupees ($260,000) in India's Mumbai by Ossian's art auction house in 2017. The journeys that Roerich embarked on for inspiration were funded by the U.S government under Roosevelt and wealthy supporters, as they were interested in what Roerich would learn on his journey to the East that could be transferred to the West.

Roerich was set in his conviction to find a utopia in which there was peace and wisdom awaiting individuals. This was central to his focus within his artwork of achieving Shambala, which is said to be hidden within mountain ranges and deserts of Middle Asia, which may explain the focus of many of his paintings as having mountains similar to the Himalayas within them. Scholars suggest that the use of the Himalayas as central to all of his paintings in expressing Asia, is problematic as it unifies the Asian culture as one entity. Whereas in reality there are multiple dimensions and religions within Asia than the unified version Roerich expresses within his paintings.

The inspiration of Shambala by Roerich is expressed within his paintings. as the colorings is bold and unearthly in comparison to the landscape that exists within Asia. This reinforces the opinion within the West that the East is a mystical and predominantly religious landscape, which in turn leads to cultural misrepresentation as well as cultural romanticism of Asia. The lack of realism within his paintings when portraying the East, is the reasoning many scholars disagree with his portrayal of Tibet. The wider framing of how the East and West are represented within the West also shows how the interpretation of Tibet has been of a mystical land with notions of spiritual freedom. This dismisses the struggles that take place in Tibet daily due to the industrialization that happened globally, and threatened the livelihood of Tibetans.

Madame Alexandra Neel

In 1972 an article was published in relation to Madame Alexandra David-Neel named ‘A.David-Neel au Tibet’. The author was Jeanne Denys who claimed that David-Neel was lying about her visit to Tibet, as she listed numerous reasons as to why this was the case. There were claims that Alexandra was christened Alexandrine, and had studied music not philosophy/languages as she had claimed. The musical interest she had studied was used to capitalize and she travelled with her singing abilities as well as acting

The most damning evidence that was used against David-Neel was the claim that she had never learnt the Tibetan language and did not engage with the culture as she stated. Jeanne Denys said that she learnt this through an analysis of her life and visits to her home. Further it was remarked that the philosophy she preached to the Western world was in fact the interpretation of other writers who had studied Tibet.

The claims she made within her book ‘Magic and Mystery in Tibet’ which was published in 1929 was a falsification of events, as Denys stated she had never interviewed the Dalai Lama. The places David-Neel claimed to have visited: Shi-ga-tze, Lhasa and Ku-bum were a fabrication and were not of truth according to Denys.

The evidence of nott visiting these places was revealed by Denys as not true due to the lack of communication that could’ve happened between the Panchen Lamas Mother. The reasoning of this was that the language spoken among the areas David-Neel stated to have visited, could not have been comprehensible; even if she spoke Tibetan.

Denys scathing attack against David-Neel claimed her adopted son: Yongden was not a llama and there was no evidence to confirm he even engaged in religious practices. The evidence of this according to Denys was based on the reasoning that his room had no bed in it and he slept on a mattress.

Lama Govinda

Lama Govinda wrote the book ‘Insights of a Himalayan Pilgrim’ in 1991 and it received accumulative praise from a Western audience. However, some critics have asserted that his analysis of Tibet Buddhism can be regarded as oversimplified for a Western audience and lacking the substance that Tibet Buddhism embodies. Gutschow exemplifies this tension as they show that people of experienced Buddhist philosophy will notice the absence of footnotes to show evidence of the link between Buddhist philosophy and its original language: Sanskrit and Pali

Gutschow provides critics in regard to the chapter ‘A Tibetan Buddhist looks at Christianity’ which is regarded as ideological in nature and dismissive of the Sectarian wars that took place within Tibet over the religion of Buddhism. This reinforces the ideology of Buddhist sects living in peace that is asserted by Western Tibet scholars. The reader does not gain insight into the intolerance of Buddhism that existed within the 17th century; such as the battles between the dGe lugs pa sect and the Kar ma pa’s.

The second section of the book is regarded as highlighting the tension that is created when Western Buddhists transform the religion into something of an ‘unreligious scientific theorem’. Gutschow criticises the way in which Govinda advocates for Buddhism to be distinguished from Vedic and Brahaminic traditions, but fails to relay the similarities that exist between the religions. As an individual who has studied Buddhist philosophy knows hta Buddhism was influenced by these religions and shares similarities in its practice.

The approach of Govinda to identify that India's religions are on a path to evolution through their religions, Gutschow sees as naive due to Govindas assertion that Indian religion is following a path somewhat similar to that of the west. As the rise of self-awareness and logic becomes more dominant within India, in contrast the mystical religious ideology that existed in past practices of Buddhism.

T.Lobsang Rampa

‘The Third Eye’ was published in Britain by T.Lobsang Rampa in 1956. The story is stated as an autobiographical account of Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, who was described as one of the sons of the leading members of the Dalai Lama government. There are detailed accounts of how Lobsang Rampa mastered his journey throughout Tibet, and then became transferred into an Englishman's body to carry on his journey and influence the Western world on the way of Tibetan truth.

The scathing reviews that followed reflected how critics thought of The Third eye as a sell out which had the purpose to profit from Westerners' attraction to the mysticalness of the East. This is reflected in Hugh Richardson's criticism of the book in the Daily Telegraph and Morning post on November 30th 1956, in which he stated ‘ A book which plays up to public eagerness to hear about “Mysterious Tibet” has the advantage that few people have the experience to refute it. But anyone who has lived in Tibet will feel after reading a few pages of “The Third eye” (Secker & Warburg. 18s) that its author.”T.Lobsang Rampa,” is certainly not a Tibetan…’.

Tuesday Lobasang Rampa was later identified as Cyril Hoskin who was a plumber from Devon (wiki). However, amidst the contoversy Cyril maintained that an ‘Eastern Entity’ had absorbed his thoughts and ways of living. Hoskin fiercely maintained that his books were of truth, and those trying to falsify his claims were mistaken.