Couldn’t Dhamma protect Tibet?

[Maitri]

SarathW,

This topic has not hurt my feelings, but I noticed some unskillful speech discussing Tibetans and their strain of Dharma. I agree with the sentiment that much of Tibetan Buddhism is a later development than the Theravada- that can't be disputed, really. I would never argue, for instance, that the Tantras were a teaching of the historical Buddha or that smoke/fire offerings are truly reflective of the proper Dhamma. I would even say that the Tibetan religious-political system had the most to do with the collapse of their government.

However, even after Ven. Pesala gave a quick and informative answer about how the Dhamma protects us some people on this thread went right into bashing Tibetan Buddhism. My point is simply that Theravadan countries also have had problems with war, violence, and political instability. If we want to bash Tibetan Buddhism for not protecting the nation then you would have to say the same about the Theravada for these respective countries as well.

[Dhammanando]

It would appear that the op’s question was effectively answered 11 months ago in Ven. Pesala’s post. The Dhamma didn’t protect Tibet from the scourge of Mao’s communism because the statement that “the Dhamma protects the one who practises it” doesn’t refer the protection of nations. It doesn’t even refer to the protection of individuals from physical harm during their present life. Rather, it means that one who practises Dhamma is safeguarded against ‘evil destinies’ (duggati), meaning rebirth in the lower realms.

• Dhammo have rakkhati dhammacāriṃ, dhammo suciṇṇo sukhamāvahati,
  Esānisaṃso dhamme suciṇṇe, na duggatiṃ gacchati dhammacārī.
  
  “Truly the Dhamma protects the practiser of Dhamma; the Dhamma well-practised brings happiness.
  This is the reward of the Dhamma when well-practised: the practiser of the Dhamma does not go to a bad bourn.”
  (Theragāthā, verse of Dhammika Thera)