On Pedophiles, Sexual Predators, and the Dalai Lama

     We’d be sitting outside and Maharajji would pull my hands under the blanket and make me massage his legs, almost pulling me under the blanket. I loved touching him, but I was not sure how far you can go in touching Maharajji. I’d be working on his feet and calves, and he’d grab my arm and pull my hand up to his thigh. So I’d do his thighs for a little bit and then my hands would start wandering down to his calves again, because all of a sudden I’d look around and see all these people staring at me. An Indian woman would be gasping, and I’d get real embarrassed, so I’d start working on his feet again. Then his hand would come sliding down and grab mine and pull it up again.

     He would often perform this puzzling ritual with me. And if I tried to explain it to myself, no sooner would I have the thought than he’d turn to me and yell “Nahin!” [No!] and then go on with his conversation.

     —testimony of a western hippie chick disciple of Neem Karoli Baba, from Miracle of Love: Stories about Neem Karoli Baba, compiled by Ram Dass

     I assume most of you have heard of the Dalai Lama’s recent “Biden moment,” even if you haven’t seen the strange video. I wasn’t planning on writing about this incident, but lately I have been exposed to various comments on it which are of greater anthropological interest to me than an old Tibetan lama inviting a small child to suck his tongue. Many of the comments are to the effect that the Dalai Lama has finally outed himself as a sexual predator and pervert, that he is not spiritual or knowledgeable regarding Buddhism because he is little more than a politician and tool of the globalist establishment, and so on. Most if not all of the comments like this are from people who never liked the Dalai Lama, or the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, much anyway. The strange invitation to tongue-sucking simply confirmed what they suspected all along.

     My response to such reactions, if I give one, tend to be along the lines of this: It is best to give people the benefit of the doubt, and especially saints, sages, and people with a reputation for being such. Anyone familiar with Pali suttas may know that bashing a genuine saint is the road to hell; and it is often difficult to tell whether a person is a genuine saint or not. Not all saints appear to have perfect virtue.

     It is something to consider, I think, that there has not been a wave of #metoo types coming forward with similar tales of the Dalai Lama kissing them inappropriately or making strange invitations (in public or in private) to suck his tongue. As far as I know this is pretty much of a one-off, and, as I say giving the benefit of the doubt, I might hypothesize that the Dalai Lama likes kids, he kissed the boy innocently, he then stuck out his tongue at the boy (which I understand it some kind of Tibetan traditional thing), and then, possibly because he’s in his late eighties, he had a weird idea of making a childish joke to the child, which of course bombed outrageously. Even if I’m wrong, without further evidence that he’s a sexual predator on children or anyone else, I think it is a more prudent hypothesis than reviling the man as some sort of immoral or amoral scum. It is, after all, spiritually dangerous to revile a holy man.

     And some holy men, or sages, or realized beings, are alleged even by their own followers of having committed unsaintly behavior of a sexual nature. Even setting aside the escapades of people like Jiddu Krishnamurti and “Osho” Rajneesh, consider the behavior of Lord Krishna, revered by tens or hundreds of millions of Vaishnavite Hindus as a manifestation of Vishnu, their supreme God. Not only did he have an illicit affair with the fair Radha, but there was also the incident with the five hundred cowherd girls, no doubt many of whom were teenagers (considering that cowherd girls do indeed tend to be young unmarried women or girls)—Lord Krishna, a manifestation of God mind you, multiplied his body into five hundred bodies and fornicated with all five hundred girls simultaneously. Nowadays in the west this would be considered an act of sexual predation, and Krishna would be “outed” as a kind of rapist. And we may as well not even bring up the case of Muhammad.

     The thing is, other cultures than ours have different standards with regard to what is appropriate. Raping female prisoners of war was a common occurrence in premodern times, and was considered to be one of the plain facts about warfare…and I think I may have accidentally brought up Muhammad on that one, as well as the Old Testament Israelites. This, however, does not make it right, and I’m certainly not endorsing rape, or even warfare.

     But just consider one of the main taboos of postmodern America: pedophilia. Mere accusations of pedophilia are enough to ruin a man’s career and reputation. But the fact is that for most of our existence as a species, a human female was considered sexually mature after puberty, as is the case with all other species of animal on this planet. That’s what puberty is: the transition from relatively asexual child to sexual adult—at least in the realm of Biology. One may argue that humans rely heavily on culture, less so on instinct, and so human females, though biologically adults are still psychologically children until they are eighteen or so. That is a fair argument, and one that for all I know is perfectly valid.

     The fact remains, though, that throughout the world, including in the west not very long ago, it was common, maybe even accepted as “right,” that an older man already set up in life would seek out a teenage girl for the purpose of marriage. I have been told that in the deep south during the nineteenth century the “correct” age for a man was twice the age of his bride plus seven years; so the “correct” age for a sixteen-year-old girl’s husband would be 39. Nowadays this also would be called pedophilia, though at the time it was considered quite normal and no outrage at all. Hell, my own grandfather, an ordained Baptist minister and by all accounts a sensitive, intelligent, and good man, was twenty years older than my grandmother, and married her when she was fresh out of high school. That would make him a pedophile by today’s somewhat hysterical standards…though, as I say, back then it was fine.

     Ancient India was no different, including ancient India in the Buddha’s time. In the suttas when a woman is described as at the peak of attractiveness she is about fifteen years old. It has been the tradition in India since ancient times for older men to marry much younger women.

     An illustrative example is the Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana, probably best known for its descriptions of various sex positions and practices. Probably the most useful part of the book for modern western men is the chapter on seducing the wives of other men—not because it explains how to seduce married women, but because it explains how to woo an adult woman. The sections on how to court a prospective bride describe methods of ingratiating oneself with, and gaining the trust of, a twelve-year-old pubescent and “nubile” girl. But of course the purpose was to marry the girl, not simply to seduce and dump her. THAT was considered immoral even in ancient India.

     My own view, which is strongly influenced by Biology and a knowledge of history and foreign cultures, is that a human female becomes a sexually mature woman, physically at least, at puberty or a little after, and a man with honorable intentions (i.e. marriage) is not necessarily a pedophile if he courts a teenage girl. Raping or seducing and then dumping ANYONE is immoral, which should be fairly obvious. So it seems to me that actual pedophilia would technically involve sexual attraction and desire for prepubescent children. It is best, though, in most cases I think, to conform to the sexual mores of one’s culture. But I will not apply today’s (somewhat hysterical) standards to ancient times, or to a hundred years ago, or to cultures that are innocent of “progressive” feminism and cancel culture. The appropriate minimum age for a human female to engage in sexual relations, or to marry, is predominantly a cultural construct—though biologically having sex with a girl who has not made the transition through puberty would be unnatural as well as immoral.

     With regard to people who may read this and instantly accuse yours truly of defending pedophilia and thereby being a pedophile, pervert, and sexual predator myself, I would just observe that the only time I ever had sexual relations with a teenage girl was when I was a teenager myself, and I have never been tempted to “make moves” on a teenage girl since then. I can acknowledge that a teenage girl is very pretty, and I can even acknowledge that a female toddler or infant is beautiful; but acknowledging a person’s beauty is not the same as wanting to have sex with that person. Personally, I would not be opposed to capital punishment for someone who has sex with a prepubescent child, and I am willing to allow each society to decide what age AFTER puberty is an appropriate age for a girl to marry. And I certainly am NOT inclined to condemn my own grandfather, as well as someone like Neem Karoli Baba or even J. Krishnamurti, to hell just because they acted in a very human manner. Also I am not inclined to condemn the Dalai Lama for kissing a small boy, sticking his tongue out at him, and strangely asking him if he wanted to suck it. After all we are all human, and who the hell knows what is appropriate in Tibet.