Perhaps no one could have a better understanding of this Buddhism teaching than the Dalai Lama:"The sea of bitterness has no bounds; repent, and the shore is at hand."
The monk, who preaches around the world his "art of happiness," however, has shown little living wisdom when he strains all his nerves peddling his idea of the "autonomy" of Tibet in spite of the fact that an autonomous mechanism has existed on the snowy land for 40 years.
On Sept. 1, 1965, the People's Congress of Tibet Autonomous Region, the local legislature and watchdog of the government, opened its first session, marking a new page in Tibetan history: serfs and slaves once oppressed by the hierachical regime became free, with their representatives sitting on the local legislature.
Ridiculously, however, decades after the autonomous region was established, the Dalai Lama, who started a riot with his followers in 1959 in fear of losing his supreme power and then fled, was one day struck by an idea of "autonomy."
But the monk is only playing with words by labeling his version of "autonomy" with a modifier "greater," said Basang Wangdui, a researcher with the regional academy of social sciences.
The Dalai Lama's profession of giving up the "Tibet independence" claim is regarded by his western patrons as an olive branch presented to the Chinese government, but this seeming abandonment is so far only a verbal service.
The monk takes every chance to defame the governance in Tibet whenever he is offered a platform of speech by his backers, alleging that he seeks "greater autonomy" in Tibet to save the traditional culture and promote democracy and freedom there.
A person who is pure-hearted in seeking compromise certainly will not sling mud on the other part, while an attempt to win international interference on an internal affair is an obvious denial of the framework that Tibet is part of China.
So, if the Dalai Lama had an olive branch in hand, he must be delivering it to the wrong place.
The Dalai Lama's idea of "Greater Tibet," as part of his "greater autonomy" line, is historically groundless, said Basang Wangdui.
Tibetan habitats in Sichuan, Gansu, Yunnan and Qinghai provinces had never been under a same local regime since the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), when Tibet was included into the Chinese territory, the researcher said.
A former ruler of a heriarchial regime, the Dalai Lama is not at all qualified to make any remarks on a democratic structure. He must face the fact that Tibet, under the current autonomous mechanism, has witnessed changes which would be impossible under his rule.
Behind all of the Dalai Lama's greater claims lies insatiable greed. By asking for a sky-high price, the Dalai Lama has put his sincerity under doubt.
It might not be respectful to doubt the wisdom of "His Holiness" for not waking up to reality, but we have to wonder what on earth the Dalai Lama wants for the claim of "greater autonomy."
If what he wants is to separate Tibet from the Chinese territory, he will never feel, or be, satisfied.