【回应原文】
M.A. Jones
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:21 pm
It's also interesting to note that there are numerous politicians and academic researchers from India who don't believe that the yearly influx of Tibetans into India ought to be classified as "refugees". But the problem for the Indian and Nepalese governments, is that if they were to start denying these Tibetan pilgims entry into their borders as "refugees" then the plethora of Tibetans in Exile support groups throughout the Western world would voice enormously harsh criticisms of them - criticisms and charges that the Western media would then pick up on and report uncritically.

Some independent travellers to this region report what they actually see, and occasionally you come across one daring enough to call a spade a spade. Timothy Doye, for example, titled his travelogue to India as follows: A Pilgrimage to India: Three Tibetan monks travel overland to India on foot. In it he describes his encounters and conversations with three Tibetan "pilgrims".

"Dorje, Dhondrup and Sonam came from a small village in Kham, a Tibetan province" of China, he writes. "They say the villagers there live traditional lives. They grow barley, potatoes and peas and they keep yak, sheep and goats. They celebrate the festivals and even young kids still wear traditional clothes. Two Chinese live in the village and they are married to Tibetans."

I have travelled throughout the Kham region myself, back in 2002, and I was pleasantly surprised by just how "Tibetan" these communities have remained, although the Lama monastic village of Songzanlin, just outside of Zhongdian (in Yunnan Province) was undergoing extensive restoration while I was there, and I could see that the writing was on the wall - that, like most such places throughout the entire world, it was destined to exist in a commodified form.

Doyle then goes to write the following:

"Human rights activists blame the Chinese occupation of Tibet for the death of 1.2 million Tibetans. Activists also accuse Chinese authorities of responding to Tibetan political and cultural dissent with imprisonment, torture and the transfer of thousands of Chinese subjects into Tibet. The monks have heard of the Chinese atrocities but say they don’t know much about the situation. But they are firm in their opinion that the Dalai Lama should return to their country. 'It was good when the Dalai Lama lived in Tibet,' says Dorje. 'We think that if he came back it would be good for sentient beings and for the Tibetan people. He is a great Lama and he can guide us properly.'"

Interesting how these monks had only "heard of the Chinese atrocities" but were not very aware of them.
"Parents normally send children to monasteries around ten years of age but young adults commonly decide on their own to leave family life and join a monastery," continues Doyle. "During childhood each of the three monks attended school for three years and then quit to work with their families. After leaving school and going to work they separately contemplated joining the monastery. 'When we wanted to become monks,' says Sonam, 'we asked our families and they said it would be a good idea.'"

And what were the monk's motivations for wanting to come to India. Doyle explains:

"The three monks feel a monk’s life is easier than a householder’s life. 'Householders have to deal with worldly existence,' says Dorje. 'We don’t have to look after families. If you want to go to India you can go and not worry. The householder worries all day and he doesn’t have time to practice religion.' The three monks see the chance to become a monk and practice the Tibetan Buddhist path as a great opportunity to accumulate merit, clear obstacles and position themselves for a favourable next life, a life one step closer to Buddhahood and liberation from earthly existence.

In other words, economic and religious - a lifestyle choice, in essence.

And of course the smuggling industry was there to help encourage them to make their decision so that they could provide them with their profitable services.

"After a few weeks in Lhasa the three monks along with 40 other Tibetans packed themselves into the back of a truck. For a fee the passengers would be driven to a remote location on the Tibet-Nepal border and guided south through the main Himalayan range to Kathmandu where they would be received by the reception committee for Tibetan refugees and given passage to India."

All very organised, from the Nepalese and Indian end as well.

And these particular three monks saw themselves NOT as refugees, but as pilgims. By the time they reached Nepal, they had exhausted their food supplies and were hungry, so they approached some locals for help. As Doyle writes:

"The monks explained that they were on pilgrimage to India and that they needed food."

Many members of the Nepalese police regard the pilgrims as sources of wealth, as easy targets to rob from. "At one point seven Nepali police arrested the three monks. They ordered the monks to strip. The monks didn’t know any Nepali. They said 'Dalai Lama', 'Dalai Lama,' to indicate that they were pilgrims. The police took their money, a silver bracelet, a watch and a sheepskin jacket. The monks asked for some of the money. The police gave them Rs. 250. The monks asked for more and the police beat them, threw them outside the check post and tossed their bag to them, saying, Dalai Lama go—Go and see the Dalai Lama.'"

"Officials at the Tibetan refugee reception center in Kathmandu asked the monks why they had left Tibet. The monks said that they had come to see the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist holy places of Nepal and India. The reception officials asked them if Chinese rule affected their decision to leave Tibet. Not really, they said. But if the Dalai Lama still lived in Tibet they doubt they would have tried to visit Nepal and India. When they had completed their pilgrimage they intended to return to Tibet."

So once again, yet more evidence, this time of a qualitative nature, to support cctang's case, which is obviously the one that I maintain as well. The overwhelming majority of those Tibetans who venture across the Himalayas each year to India are NOT refugess, but are pilgrims, and most of them do so with the intention of returning.

But the Tibetans in Exile of course prefer to give the rest of the world the impression that these pilgrims are refugees escaping torture and abuse, and that's because the Tibetans in Exile government has both political and financial incentives to do so - as I discussed in my earlier response above.
M.A.Jones , Hangzhou

【原文链接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻译】
M.A. Jone 贴于: 2007年1月12日, 星期五, 晚上 11:21
还有一样让我觉得有趣的是从印度来的无数政客和学术研究者不认为每年涌入印度的藏人应被列为“难民”。但印度及尼泊尔政府为难的是, 一旦他们否定这批越境西藏朝圣者为“难民”时, 西方多不胜数的西藏流亡政府的支持组织将极严厉地批评他们 - 然后这些批评指控就会被西方传媒接下去唱和和作负面报导。

有些游客独自到这一带旅游的把所见所闻揭露, 有时候还真有一两勇敢得可称“黑是黑白是白”的。举例来说, Timothy Doyle就以“印度朝圣行：三名西藏喇嘛徒步跋涉赴印”A Pilgrimage to India: Three Tibetan monks travel overland to India on foot为他印度见闻游记。里面他对自己跟这三名西藏“朝圣者”的相遇及对话有如下描述：

“Dorjem Dhondrup和Sonam来自西藏康区(Kham, 译注：Jones称为西藏一省, 可见连他也搞不清地区跟省的分别了。)的一个小村落。他们说那里村民都过着传统生活。他们种大麦, 马铃薯, 跟豆, 养殖牦牛, 绵羊和山羊。他们庆祝节日, 连小朋友都穿上传统衣服。有两个汉人(译者注: Chinese应指是汉人)住在他们村, 都跟藏人结了婚。”

我自己也在2002年在康区到处旅游, 我很欣慰地发现这些社群保持处在一个多么“藏”的模式。虽然我去的时候,中甸(云南境内)外的松赞林喇嘛村正在大兴土木进行修葺工程, 我看到墙上写着字 – 而一如整个世界所有这种地方, 那些字是有意被作为商品化形式存在的(译笔注：估计Jones是说他看到墙上有广告宣传字样)。

Doyle接着写：
“人权运动组织指责中国进占西藏杀害了120万藏人。他们也指控中国政府囚禁, 残害西藏政治文化异见份子, 而且把数以千计的汉人移民西藏。这些喇嘛曾听说有关中国的暴行, 但说他们对情况所知不多。可是他们很坚决认为dl喇嘛应该回去。“dl喇嘛在西藏时很好”Dorje说,“我们觉得他回来对众生和西藏人都好。他是个伟大的喇嘛, 他能正确指导我们。”

对为什么这些喇嘛只“曾听说有关中国的暴行”但对情况所知不多很好奇, Doyle继续写,“家长一般把年约十岁的孩子送去寺院, 但年轻人则是自己决定到寺院出家的。三个喇嘛都是在童年念了三年书就辍学在家中工作。三人离开学校工作后分别决定出家。Sonam说“当我们决定出家, 征求家人意见时, 他们都说是好主意。”

那么是什么驱使这些喇嘛来印度呢? Doyle解释：“这三名喇嘛觉得喇嘛的生活比在家人生活容易。Dorje说‘在家人要烦恼在世上存活。我们不用照顾家庭。如果你想去印度你就可以去, 不必顾虑。在家人整天烦恼, 他没时间去修行。’三名喇嘛对出家奉行藏传佛法一途视为积功德, 除障碍, 求来生更好生活的极好机会, 可以来生更向成佛更进一步, 和从俗世解脱。”

换言之, 本质上是经济和宗教上生活方式的抉择。

当然, 其中有偷渡集团帮忙鼓励他们作决定, 好能为他们提供高盈利的服务。

“在拉萨数星期后, 这三名喇嘛连同另外40名西藏人挤上一辆卡车后面。付了费的乘客将被载往西藏-尼泊尔边境一个偏僻地点, 然后被带领往南越过喜马拉亚山岭到达加德满都, 那里他们由一个西藏难民的接待处接应, 带他们往印度。”

一切都极有组织地安排, 包括尼泊尔跟印度那端(的安排)。

而这三名喇嘛并不把自己当难民看待, 而是朝圣者。抵尼泊尔的时候, 他们耗尽干粮, 饥肠辘辘, 于是他们向当地人求助。Doyle这样写的：

“这些喇嘛解释他们往印度朝坚途中, 而他们需要食品。”

许多尼泊尔警察视朝圣者为财源及抢劫的肥羊。“有一次7名尼泊尔警察把三名喇嘛逮捕。他们命令喇嘛脱光衣服。那些喇嘛不懂尼泊尔语。他们说“dl喇嘛”,“dl喇嘛”来表示他们是朝圣者。那些警察拿走他们的钱, 一个银手镯, 一个手表和一件羊皮夹克。喇嘛要求拿回一点钱, 警察给了他们250尼泊尔卢比。喇嘛要求多给些, 却被警察殴打, 把他们扔到检查站外, 边说‘dl喇嘛去吧 -  去见dl喇嘛’边把他们的包包扔给他们。”

“加德满都西藏难民接待处的官员问这些喇嘛为什么离开西藏。那些喇嘛说他们是为去见dl喇嘛, 和尼泊尔及印度的佛教圣地。接待处官员问他们中国统治有没有影响他们离藏的决定。他们说, 事实上并没有。但如果dl喇嘛仍在西藏, 他们怀疑自己会尝试来尼泊尔和印度。当他们完成他们朝圣之旅, 他们计划回去西藏的。”

所以, 再一次地, 这次更有力的证据支持cctang的论点, 很明显也是我一直所持的看法。每年冒险越过喜马拉亚去印度的西藏人里, 有绝大部份不是难民, 而是朝圣者, 而且他们大多数都是打算之后要回(西藏)去的。

但西藏流亡组织当然希望给世界一个假象：这些朝圣者是因被迫害和(人权)被侵犯而出逃的难民。那是因为西藏流亡组织既有政治原因, 也有经济原因去那么做 – 正如我稍早前在上面回应说的那样子。
M.A. Jones, 杭州

【回應原文】
sarahravensworth
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:00 am
M.A.Jones, don't expect Western journalists to let the truth get in the way of a good story. They know that in order to sell their newspapers and to maximize their ratings, they have to continue using all the old Cold War rhetoric when describing places like China, and when referring to the Tibet Question.

Why? Simple: tell people what they already know to be the "truth" and they'll love you for it, and will lap it all up with infectious enthusiasm. Tell them something new, and they'll hate you for it. But that's human nature for you.

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻譯】
sarahravensworth貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 凌晨 2:00
M.A. Jones, 不要希望西方記者會讓真相妨礙了一個引人入勝的故事。他們曉得：如果要讓他們的報紙大賣, 把他們評級達到最高, 他們在描述像中國這樣的地方, 和提及西藏問題時, 必須用盡一切舊日冷戰文筆手法。
為什麼? 很簡單：告訴人們他們早已認為是「事實真相」, 那麼他們才會因此喜歡你, 而且會傳染賁亢地加鹽加醋。告訴他們截然不同的新狀況, 他們會因此恨死你。但告訴你, 那就是人性。

M.A. Jones
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:47 am
Thanks for your comments Sarah Ravensworth.

You congratulate me for speaking out about the financial and political motivations of the Tibetans in Exile Government, but in fact, many people are now starting to speak out.

Tibetan specialist A. Tom Grunfeld is one of them. He is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at Empire State College, of the State University of New York, and specialises in the teaching of modern East Asian history with an emphasis on China and Tibet. He has been travelling and living in that region since 1966, and has published several books and over 150 articles and book reviews, including the well received The Making of Modern Tibet. If there is anybody who is an "expert" on Tibet, he is.

Grunfeld has pointed out that the "exiled Dalai Lama's money and power only continues as long as there are many stateless refugees. Consequently, it [has been] to the benefit of the exile leadership to keep the masses of Tibetans in children's homes, transit camps and temporary facilities for decades. For the same reasons, the Dalai Lama's 'government' opposes mixed marriages between Tibetan exiles and Indians and opposes masses of exiled Tibetans applying for citizenship in India - even though this legal status would make their lives much easier. Meanwhile it is common for the wealthy Tibetan upper class to apply for non-Tibetan status - including two of the Dalai Lama's brothers who are U.S. citizens."

Grunfeld also has a great deal to say about the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama and his theocratic side-kicks. For example, Tibetans in exile and their supporters are constantly harping on about how Tibet's schools teach in the Chinese language rather than in the Tibetan language, and accuse the Chinese of cultural genocide for doing so.

Grunfeld also has a great deal to say about the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama and his theocratic side-kicks. For example, Tibetans in exile and their supporters are constantly harping on about how Tibet's schools teach in the Chinese language rather than in the Tibetan language, and accuse the Chinese of cultural genocide for doing so.

Yet the lamaists adopted English as the main language of instruction in their exile school system in Dharmasala. The Dalai Lama himself justified this practice in his 1990 autobiography on the grounds that English is "the international language of the future." Fine. Schools in the Tibetan Autonomous Region also teach English, just as they also teach Tibetan as a language, though most subjects are taught in Chinese. And there is a very good reason why most subjects in Tibet are taught in the Chinese language too, I might add: there are precious few books and teachers available to teach many advanced political and scientific subjects in the Tibetan language. Simple as that.

Is the Tibetans in Exile Government also guilty of cultural genocide then, for teaching everything in the English language?

And as A.Tom Grunfeld also notes, there is plenty more hypocrisy: "the Tibetan upper class exiles make a fetish about 'Tibet's traditional culture' yet in reality many have contemptuously shed this traditional culture, sending their children to expensive English boarding schools. The Dalai Lama's authorised biographer, Roger Hicks, describes how, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the younger generation of this elite had become largely Westernised."

And finally, as Grunfeld so rightly also points out, and as I too have been arguing all along on this thread, "China, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region, has undergone dramatic changes. Tibet has roads, schools, hospitals, a burgeoning middle class, internet cafes, karaoke bars, discos, and some 100,000 tourists annually. Religion is widely practiced. There are thousands of Tibetan officials, CCP members, and military recruits in Tibet. Indeed, many of the most ardently anti-Dalai Lama officials are Tibetan."
M.A. Jones

M.A. Jones貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 凌晨 4:47
謝謝Sarah Ravensworth 妳的回應。
妳讚賞我說出西藏流亡政府經濟和政治動機, 其實, 許多人已開始暢言了。

西藏專家譚•戈倫夫（A. Tom Grunfeld）就是其中之一。他是 美國紐約州立大學帝州學院（State University of New York Empire State college）SUNY優秀教授, 專攻教授特別是有關中國和西藏方面的現代東亞史。從1966年以來, 他就在那地區遊歷及居住, 發表多本書, 及超過150份文章及書評, 包括很受歡迎的《現代西藏的誕生》(The Making of Modern Tibet)。如果有西藏的「專家」的話, 那該是他了。

戈倫夫指出「流亡達賴只有當尚有無數無國可投的難民時, 他的財源與權力才能延續。故此, 數十年來[一直以來]把大量西藏人留在孤兒院, 過度營, 及臨時設施是對流亡領袖有利的。同樣原因, 達賴政府反對流亡藏人與印度人通婚, 也反對大量流亡藏人申請歸化印度籍 - 那怕這種合法身份能令他們生活過得更好些。另一方面, 有錢的上層西藏人士卻通常申請非西藏國籍 – 包括達賴的兩名兄弟, 都是美國公民。

戈倫夫對達賴及他的神權夥伴們的偽善還有許多話說。比如, 流亡西藏人士及他們支持者一直唱和著西藏的學校如何以中文而不是藏語來教學, 於是指控中國人藉此進行文化滅族。

然而, 在達蘭薩拉的流亡學校系統裡, 喇嘛以英語為主要教學語言。達賴喇嘛自己為這做法在1990年的自傳中辯解說因為英語是「未來的國際語言」的原故。那好吧, 西藏自治區裡的學校也教在教藏語的同時作為語言來教英語了, 雖然多數學科是以中文教授的。而且我還可以補充: 有很充分的理由為什麼在西藏要以中文來教授多數學科的。 那里根本沒有足夠藏語的教材和師資足以用藏語教授許多高程度的政治及科學科目的, 就是那麼簡單。

以英語來作一切教學語言, 那西藏流亡政府是否也是犯了文化滅種的罪呢?

戈倫夫也再指出, 還有許多許多的虛偽:「上等的西藏流亡人士把 '西藏傳統文化'奉若神明, 然而在事實上卻輕蔑不當回事, 把他們的孩子送到昂貴的英語寄宿學校去。達賴喇嘛任命的自傳作者 Roger Hicks 描述, 從60年代晚期至70年代初, 這些精英的年輕一代是如何大部份變成西化的。

最後, 戈倫夫精準地指出, 而我也在這裡一直在爭辯著, 「中國, 包括西藏自治區在內, 都經歷了巨大變化。西藏有了道路, 學校, 醫院, 一個迅速成長的中產階級, 網吧, 卡拉OK, 廸士高, 和每年上十萬的遊客群。處處可見宗教。那裡有上千的西藏官員, 共產黨員和軍人都是從西藏招募的。確實地, 最激烈反對達賴喇嘛的官員中, 許多都是西藏人。
M.A.Jones 杭州

Ambivalent
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:51 am
M.A.Jones you have produced a convincing argument. I have always been ambivalent towards the Tibetan cause because like all separatist movements, they push a chauvanistically nationalist agenda, in the same way that the Irish Republicans do, and all other such groups throughout the world. And power always corrupts. The old Tibetan elite, as you have shown, are just continuing to run their traditional caste/class system in India.

Ambivalent貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上10:51
M.A. Jones, 你製造了一個具說服力的辯解。我一直對西藏訴求相當矛盾的, 因為一如所有分離主義者, 他們推動一個大沙文的民族主義議程, 就像北愛共和軍跟世界其他類似組織那樣。權力永遠是腐化的。舊西藏精英, 一如你所示, 只是在印度延續他們傳統的種姓制度而已。

Tibet Response Network
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:10 pm
I'm not one to see "reds under the bed" but Mr. Jones has a great deal of time on his hands to write long, complex pieces on Tibet and China. I don't even have time to read them all, let alone write pieces of that length and complexity. Is school out at the moment?

Anyway, taking at face value your "bio" of Aussie English teacher in China five years - you may know a great deal about China and Chinese history but you're less well informed on the Tibetan government in exile and His Holiness.

HH is a devout Buddhist who (unlike some Tibetan monks it is true) lives according to his vows. When not travelling he lives a simple life and works hard to accomplish his two main goals - the preservation and propagation of the Buddhist Dharma and the preservation of Tibetan culture.

Tibetans in India are taught English as a second language to Tibetan - they need this lingua fanca to be able to communicate and get by in their country of adoption. In China they are taught Chinese because it is the language of their illegal occupiers and most of the teachers don't speak Tibetan.

It is true that a number of Tibetans come to India as pilgrims. Others come for education, hoping to return to Tibet. It is equally true that many come as political refugees and are recognised as such by both the UN and the Indian government.

On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not.

Bottom line. China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial. When China holds an open , free referendum of all Tibetans on whether they want "two systems, one country" government, Tibetan government or Chinese government I'll start listening attentively to the Chinese apologists. Until then I'll continue to regard them as just that; apologists for an anachronistic, hypocritical dictatorship.
David Meanwell
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511

【中文翻譯】
Tibet Response Network貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上7:10
我並非「草木皆兵」之人, 但Jones先生手上那麼多時間去寫那麼又長又繁有關西藏與中國的文章。我甚至沒空一一看完, 甭說寫那麼又長又繁的東西了。學校現在放假了嗎?

好吧, 算你如自稱一個老澳英文教師在中國教了五年的履歷是真的, 你也許對中國及中國歷史很瞭解, 可你對西藏流亡政府和達賴上師他卻沒那麼瞭解。

上師他是個很虔誠的佛教徒, (不像一些西藏喇嘛, 是真的) 他按照他的發願來生活的。在不旅行時, 他生活簡單, 很努力去實現他兩個主要目標 – 保存及宏揚藏傳佛教和保存西藏文化。

印度的西藏人是以英語當為藏語以外的第二語言來教授的 – 他們需要這新共同語言來在他們東道國裡溝通及應付日常生活。在中國他們被授以中文, 那是因為中文是他們非法佔領者的語言, 而大部份教師不懂藏文。

有些西藏人是作為朝聖者來印度。其他來受教育, 希望回到西藏去。但 同樣屬實的是許多是政治難民而且是同時被聯合國與印度政府承認的。

至於流亡政府有經濟及政治動機….. 請你說說那個政府不這樣。

底線是: 中國武力入侵西藏。中國否決西藏人基本自由和權利, 並在沒有予以公開聆訊就囚禁, 折磨, 及處決西藏人。要是中國舉行公開自由的公投, 讓所有西藏人決定他們是要「一國兩制」政府, 西藏政府或中國政府, 我才會仔細聽那些中國辯護者說什麼。在此之前, 我置之不理, 那些為過時, 虛偽獨裁者辯論的人。

David Meanwell
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet
西藏緊急回應網絡 – 與藏人為西藏工作

ChineseHawkeye
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:30 pm
Tibet Response Network
I feel astonished you did not realized who those exiles and lama were? Why do you insist slavery return to Tibet? I have no clue where you got the information that "China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial".

Do not repeat those silly propaganda from liars. Please go to Tibet province in China yourself and see with your own eyes. I promise CCP would not follow you as long as you do not shout "free tibet" on street there, lol.

ChineseHawkeye貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上9:30
西藏緊急回應網絡
我感到震驚, 你對那些西藏流亡份子跟喇嘛過往是什麼人竟全不知底蘊? 你為什麼堅持奴隸制度重回西藏? 我摸不著頭腦你從那裡來的資訊說「中國武力入侵西藏。中國否決西藏人基本自由和權利, 並在沒有予以公開聆訊就囚禁, 折磨, 及處決西藏人。」

不要重覆那些騙子的白痴文宣啦。請你親自去一下中國裡的西藏省, 用自己眼睛去看看。我答應你, 你要不在那裡隨街叫嚷「西藏獨立」, 共產黨是不會跟蹤你的。哈哈哈

M.A. Jones
Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:39 pm
Dear David Meanwell,
You say that the Dalai Lama lives a 「simple」 life when not travelling. Perhaps, but he still lives a very privileged life when in Dharmasala by comparison with his fellows in exile. And he certainly does know how to live it up while on the road. Every time the Dalai Lama visitis his movie star friends in Los Angeles for example, he stays in the Presidential Suite at the Huntington Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which normally rents for $3000 a day!

I like to base my assessments on empirically verifiable facts David, and in order to come to a fair and balanced assessment, it is always necessary to examine the big picture, which requires access and attention to quantitative as well as qualitative evidence.

If you were to take a closer look at the real situation for incarnate lamas (or tulkas), both inside and outside of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, then you would appreciate the fact that they do not live 「simple」 lives compared to most, but rather, lives of privilege and comparative material wealth. This applies to tulkas living in the TAR as well as to those like the Dalai Lama in Dharmasala.

Allow me to be lazy (I do in fact have limited time, as it is the last week of the term before my students begin preparations for their final assessments) by quoting at length for you the findings of a study by Pamela Logan titled 「Tulkas in Tibet」, published in the Winter 2004 edition of Harvard Asia Quarterly:

「The transformation of Old Tibet into an integral part of China has meant big changes for tulkus. Yet paradoxically, it has led to greater, not less, power for some. The Karma Kagyu sect, for example, has played second fiddle to the Geluk Sect since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. In Old Tibet, the Karma Kagyu held perhaps five hundred monasteries, which maintained loose ties to one another. Economically, these monasteries derived their sustenance from offerings given by local people. These ordinary supporters were subsistence farmers and herdsmen, who tithed grain, meat, butter, animals, and land. A portion of their offerings would have been distributed to the tulkus according to their rank. The highest ranked tulku in the sect is the Karmapa, and he would have had some degree of influence over much of these assets, in addition to his own labrang, or estate. It was a comfortable existence, but it had limitations, too.

....Contrast this to the modern situation. While within Tibet itself, the Karma Kagyu are still a distant second place, the school has been remarkably successful in propagating overseas. The Karmapa's followers are said to number five million globally, and some have claimed his assets to be worth over $1.2 billion. This staggering sum is disputed by many, and I have been unable to discover how it was calculated. Nevertheless, the aggregate wealth of the centres owned by various charities and used for Karma Kagyu worship around the world is astonishing. They operate meditation centres in 34 countries on six continents, including dozens in America, Europe, and Asia. Most of these are simply associations, but some are actual properties, a number of them located on prime real estate in the cities of London, Hamburg, Dublin, Barcelona, Essex, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Hong Kong. They also operate dozens of centres in India.」

So Tibetan incanate lamas, living in the TAR, are doing very well under Chinese rule, it would seem!

「Even lesser tulkus enjoy deep devotion from ordinary Tibetans. Pewar Rinpoche is a minor Sakya sect tulku who keeps a modest labrang in Derge, a small town in eastern Tibet. He spends a good deal of time travelling, but when word reaches Derge that he is coming home, people line the streets, as many as 24 hours in advance. When he is in residence, a constant stream of callers come seeking blessings or advice. They bow low as they enter the room, tears in their eyes, and approach Pewar Rinpoche in the manner of supplicants approaching a king. Each caller, no matter how poor, contributes a tattered bill to the pile on the table beside Pewar Rinpoche's great throne-like chair. Although his house – like most in the town – still lacks a flush toilet, he is not short of cash, food, or gifts.」

Yep, and the theocratic elite living outside of the TAR, in Dharmasala also receive plenty of such gifts.

Over the last 25 years, a portion of China's new wealth has 「trickled up the narrow, winding dirt roads to the Tibetan plateau」 and the standard of living for Tibetans has consequently been improving, as I have already argued. 「As the climate of fear lifted,」 says Logan, 「families again began tithing alms and sons. Despite serious political instability in Lhasa, tulkus in most parts of Tibet found that the resources at their disposal were slowly increasing. Punctuating this slow rise were occasional uprisings against Chinese rule at some rebellious monasteries. The resulting crackdowns led to imprisonment for the ringleaders, who sometimes included tulkus, and restraints on movement. But the majority of tulkus kept their heads low, and managed to avoid these problems. By the mid-1990s, many had attained a fairly comfortable Tibetan lifestyle and restored the most important temples in their monasteries. Their wealth continued to increase, and so, like many others belonging to the rising middle class, they discovered a new use for disposable income: travel.」

Yes, today's Tibetan incarnate lamas are doing very well. Pamela Logan again:

「In 2000 I visited a Buddhist monastery located on the remote grasslands of eastern Tibet. There was not a tree within three hours' drive, and the land supported only a sparse scattering of herdsmen. Nevertheless, the monastery was thronging with people. Hundreds of workers were in the final stages of constructing a grand new temple. The monks were busily preparing for a great dedication ceremony that would soon take place. Workers were also constructing a hospital, a primary school for local children, and a hotel to house the many hundreds of expected guests. To finance these projects, seven million yuan (almost US$900,000) had been raised by a local tulku from his followers. The donors were not in Tibet, nor were they from overseas. They were in the eastern Chinese regions of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Zhejiang, and Fujian. Many tulkus have discovered that Chinese cities are not only good places to spend the winter, shop, and eat well; they are also good places to collect new students and raise funds. I know a number of tulkus who have established second homes in Chengdu, the largest metropolis in the vicinity of the Tibetan plateau. From there they travel to other Chinese cities. More than a few of them have obtained Chinese passports and travel abroad to places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Although many of them do not speak Mandarin well, they seem to fascinate their Chinese followers.」

So much for all of the hyperbolic claims of the Tibetan Government in Exile and its supporters. The Tibetan Government in Exile know damn well how good their counterparts in the TAR are doing under Chinese rule too, which is why even the Dalai Lama himself now concedes that Tibet is better off under Chinese rule. 「To remain with the People's Republic of China is in our interest,」 he said, adding that China was an economically powerful Asian nation. (Reported by the PTI news agency in December 2006, and picked up and reported by many mainstream newspapers throughout the world).

Tibetans in Exile support groups claim that Tibetans in the TAR are prevented from free religious practice. This is simply not the case either, as many observers to Tibet today will testify to. Pamela Logan again:

「A tulku's most basic responsibility is to his sangha, his religious community. In modern Tibet, Buddhist practice is monitored by the Religious Affairs Bureau, a branch of the Chinese government; therefore, tulkus must tread a careful path through a maze of conflicting demands. If they serve as abbots, they are supposed to participate in periodic 'patriotic re-education' campaigns, and to uphold various rules concerning things like the number of monks at their monastery. Because of their influence, they may be asked to speak out in favour of government campaigns. However, most tulkus I know do not seem much impeded by government-imposed duties. They spend much more time on their traditional responsibilities. Every monastery has a calendar of religious activities in which the local tulkus are expected to take part, and a senior tulku will probably lead. Monks gather in their monastery's main assembly hall, where they sit for hours chanting in unison from printed scriptures, usually to the accompaniment of ritual instruments such as drums, horns, and bells. At times, the chanting is punctuated by other rites such as the giving of an offering, the destruction of an effigy, or the distribution of sanctified gifts such as water, protection yarn, or medicine. A great deal of detailed knowledge is required to understand these rituals and to keep to the complicated script.」

Barry Sautman's research on the present situation of religious practice in Tibet let him to the exact same conclusions.

As for the Dalai Lama himself, he seems to spend more time moving around the planet with the skilled opportunism of a political chameleon, preaching mysticism to Western New Agers rather than participating in traditional Tibetan religious rituals. Let us not forget that he lent his support to the conservative religious forces of the West by signing the "Seamless Garment" anti-abortion statement, he supports nuclear testing, and he even lent his support to Pinochet. Do you remember that David? Think back to April 1999, when His Holiness, along with Margaret Thatcher and the first George Bush, called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet, the former fascist dictator of Chile and a longtime CIA client who had been apprehended while visiting England. The Dalai Lama urged that Pinochet not be forced to go to Spain where he was wanted to stand trial for crimes against humanity, though he was careful to add to his call that we, the world, should "not forget about what happened." Well, why should it surprise anybody that His Holiness the Dalai Lama should come out and ask to world not to force the ageing Pinochet to stand trial - since he and his government in exile are also funded by the CIA? Yes David, His Holiness certainly does live by his vows, which I suspect probably read something like this: thou shall not be disloyal to one's own benefactors, regardless of what they ask me to do or to say!

And the Tibetan Government in Exile, as Pamela Logan and countless others have observed, 「is virtually run by tulkus, just as it was in Old Tibet. The Dalai Lama is at the top. Samdhong Rinpoche heads the Kashag (a body comparable to the Cabinet), and once chaired the Assembly. The Dalai Lama's special envoy to Washington is Lodi Gyari Rinpoche, another tulku. And the list goes on.」

And the tulkus of Dharamasala are quite prepared to purge their political rivals too. As the British journalist Christopher Hitchens reported back in 1998, 「supporters of the Dorge Shugden deity - a 『Dharma protector' and an ancient object of worship and propitiation in Tibet - have been threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead. A Swiss television documentary graphically intercuts footage of His Holiness, denying all knowledge of menace and intimidation, with scenes of his followers' enthusiastically promulgating 『Wanted' posters and other paraphernalia of excommunication and persecution.」

You say David, that while many of the theocratic elite in Dhamarsala do not live according to their vows, the Dalai Lama does. This may or may not partially be the case, but so what? The world doesn't revolve around His Holiness, does t? The fate of the world's entire Tibetan population does not hang on his shoulders, despite what some might like to think. In fact, he is becoming increasingly insignificant. Tibetans in the TAR are moving on, and many of the more educated, as Pamela Logan and so many others have noted, are becoming increasingly cynical about lamaism, as their understanding of the world becomes increasingly more complex. Many of them enjoy frequenting kareoke bars more than they enjoy attending religious festivals and fundraising events. Even the Tibetan youth in India are becoming increasingly Westernised and detached from lamaism, as the recent controversy over the staging of the Miss Tibet pageant, held in India, goes to show. The Aisa Times reported how the Tibetan government-in-exile is opposed to the competition, calling it "un-Tibetan and untraditional". The government even set up billboards at high-visibility locations throughout Dharamsala expressing opposition to the beauty contest and urging all Tibetans to boycott the pageant.

Let me repeat here that I have never denied the fact that human rights abuses occur in Tibet, or that some of the refugees who flee into India are not genuine refugees deserving of refugee status. My argument is that these days, the overwhelming majority of those who make the journey into India from Tibet are not refugees, but are religious pilgrims, and that they should not therefore be given refugee status, which is partly why so many politicians and academics in both India and Nepal are now arguing for consequent changes in policy.

David, you point out that "On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not."

(to be continued)

(continued from above)

True, all governments formulate policies that are based on both political and financial considerations, but this doesn't excuse the Tibetan Government in Exile from deliberately misleading the world on the real reasons why so many of these thousands of "refugees" from Tibet visit Dharmasala each year, does it?

I am not an apologist for the Chinese government, but I am not an apologist for the Tibetan Government in Exile either. I strive for fairness and balance when formulating my own assessments, which is why if you read my posts more carefully you will see that my comments on China's governance of Tibet are made not without criticisms.

Finally, let me conclude here by saying that I agree with those like A.Tom Grunfeld for example, who argue that although it is important to condemn human rights abuses, we "must also acknowledge the significant gains in personal freedoms for the vast majority of China's citizens," and that we must "support the moderate elements in the Chinese government by portraying Tibet in a more realistic fashion," by engaging more with Tibetan officials from the TAR "and by not pandering to the Tibet Lobby."

Why?
Because as Grunfeld argues, the success of the international campaign for Tibet "has led to a proportional deterioration in cultural conditions for the people of the TAR, since Tibet's high profile has bolstered the authority of the Chinese hardliners." Moreover, publicity from outside Tibet encourages hardline separatists to continue their struggles against Chinese rule, which, from the point of view of Chinese hardliners, increases the threat of instability, and therefore the need to make further crackdowns."

Pamela Logan appears to agree with this assessment too, and hopes that any future 15th Dalai Lama will prove to be "less divisive".

London and Californian based Tibet lobby groups might "Meanwell", but they are misinformed, prone to exaggeration, over-emotional, and more likely to harm the plight of the Tibetan people than to improve it.
M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

M.A. Jones貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上11:39
親愛的David Meanwell:
你說達賴喇嘛不旅行時生活「簡單」。也許如此, 但相對追隨他流亡達馬薩拉的人來說, 他仍然是過著特權生活。在旅途時, 他當然曉得如何活得更好些。比如說, 每次他去羅省探訪他那些明星朋友時, 他都入住Huntington Ritz-Carlton酒店的總統套房, 那是要一天$3,000房租的!

David, 我喜歡以可經驗驗證的事實作自己評估的依據, 而為了能有公正平衡的評估, 就必須掌握及關注一切量與質的事證來研究大環境,

如果你仔細研究在西藏自治區以內及以外的轉世喇嘛(或圖嘉)的真實情況, 那你就該清楚他們相較大眾來說, 一點都不生活「簡單」, 而是過著特權和比較富裕的物質享受。這對西藏自治區裡的圖嘉和在達馬薩拉像達賴喇嘛那樣的圖嘉都是一樣適用的。

容許我懶惰些(事實上我時間有限, 因為這是我學生準備期終考前學期的最後一週了), 我只長篇幅引述Pamela Logan在她於2004冬出版的哈佛亞洲季節風裡名為「在西藏的圖嘉」的研究結果:

「把舊西藏轉化成為中國一部份對圖嘉們代表著鉅大轉變。但自相矛盾的是, 它使他們某些人擁有更多, 而非更少權力。舉例說, 噶瑪噶舉派自達賴五世以來就是次於格魯派的。在舊西藏, 噶瑪噶舉擁有約五百座寺院, 彼此鬆散地連繫著。在經濟上, 這些寺院的生計由當地人供養。一般施主善信都是僅可維生的農戶和牧民, 課什一稅地奉獻穀物, 肉食, 酥油, 牲口和土地。他們的供養中的一部份被按等級分配給各圖嘉。派裡最高級的圖嘉是大寶法王噶瑪巴, 而除了他自己的僧侶學校(labrang)或不動產外, 他對大部份資產有某程度的影響權力。那是很舒心的生活, 但也有一些侷限。

…以此與現代情況相比。雖然噶瑪噶舉在西藏仍是遠遠居第二位, 但在海外則顯著地得以弘揚。噶瑪巴的全球追隨者據稱有500萬, 據說他的資產總值達12億美元以上。這筆難以置信的數目受許多人質疑, 而我也一直沒法找出是如何算出來的。無論如何, 眾多慈善組織於全球擁有用作噶瑪噶舉信仰的中心累積的財富是驚人的。他們在6大洲34個國家經營冥想中心, 其中包括12家在美洲, 歐洲及亞洲。它們大部份是社團, 但有些是真正的產業, 其中有坐落於倫敦, 漢堡, 杜拜, 巴薩隆那, 艾塞克斯, 紐約, 芝加哥, 三藩市, 及香港的黃金地段。他們也有幾十所中心在印度。」

故此, 在西藏自治區的西藏傳世喇嘛, 在中國管治下似乎過得非常好!

「就是地位稍次的西藏圖嘉也享受一般西藏人的虔誠信奉。 本錯仁波切(活佛), (譯者註: 謝謝西藏小子協助提供 Pewar Rinpoche的譯名) 是較小的薩迦派的圖嘉, 在西藏東部一個小鎮德格有一家僧侶學校。他經常出遊, 但當他回家的訊息傳達時, 人民在街上列隊迎接, 甚至是提早24小時前便迎候。他駐鍚時, 來謁人流不息來求祝福或受教。他們一入內便叩首, 眼淚滿眶,就跟乞求國王般地走近本錯仁波切。每個求謁者, 不管多窮, 都往本錯仁波切巨大寶座似的椅子旁的枱幾上成堆的錢上投下殘破的鈔票。雖然他的房子 – 一如鎮上多數地方 – 還沒有抽水馬桶, 但他不愁沒錢, 食物或禮物。」

說對了, 那些生活在西藏自治區外的神權精英們, 在達馬薩拉也收到無數這類的禮物。

在過去廿五年裡, 有一部份中國的新財富已「細水長流從那狹窄曲折塵土道路流往西藏高原」, 而西藏人的生活水平因此如我所論的獲得改善。Logan說: 「當恐懼氣氛消除, 家家戶戶開始增耕草甸和添丁。雖然拉薩政治嚴重不穩, 但西藏大部份地區的圖嘉們發現他們能支配的資源慢慢增多了。讓這增長間歇停下的是一些較反叛的寺院時而發生對抗中國管治的動亂。隨之而來的鎮壓往往是為首者被捕, 而有時包括了一些圖嘉, 於是增長就受阻了。但大多數圖嘉都低姿態, 而設法避免生事。90年代中, 他們許多都達到相當安逸的西藏式生活, 也重修了多數重要的寺院。他們財富不斷增加, 於是就像許多中產新富一樣, 他們發現新的花錢方法: 旅遊。」

對呀, 今天的轉世喇嘛們過得挺滋潤的。Pamela Logan再說:

「在2000年我探訪了西藏東部偏僻草原上的一所佛寺。三個鍾頭的路途上看不到一棵樹, 遼闊的土地上只有稀疏散佈的一些牧民。但寺院裡卻擠滿人。上百名工人正在忙於修建一座新大殿的最後工程。僧侶們都為盛大的開光大典作籌備而忙碌。工人們也在蓋一座醫院, 一座為當地小孩開辦的小學, 和安置預計來觀禮的數百名嘉賓的飯店。為了這些工程, 一名當地的圖嘉向他的善信募了RMB700萬(約折US$90萬)。那些善長並非來自西藏或海外, 而是在東面的中國地區如上海, 廣州, 浙江及福建。許多圖嘉發現這些中國城市不只是避寒, 購物, 美食勝地; 而且還是收徒弟及籌款的好地方。我認識數位圖嘉都在最近西藏高原的大城市, 成都,有第二住處。他們從那裡再去其他中國城市。他們不止數人都有中國護照, 而出國到像香港, 新加坡, 及台灣去。雖然他們不大會說普通話, 但似乎他們對中國信眾極具吸引力。
西藏流亡政府和他們支持者誇張的指控就是這麼回事了。西藏流亡政府心知肚明他們在西藏自治區的同寅在中國管治下過得很好, 這是為何連達賴喇嘛自己也轉為承認在中國管治下西藏變得更好。「留在中華人民共和國對我們有利」他說, 還說中國是亞洲經濟強國。(據2006年12月印報托新聞社的報導, 而由許多主流通訊社引述向全球發佈。)

西藏流亡政府的支持組織聲稱在西藏自治區的西藏人不許有宗教信仰自由。這根本非實情, 因為現今許多到過西藏的觀察家都能證明的。Pamela Logan 又說:

「一個圖嘉最基本的責任就是對他的僧伽, 他的信仰團體負責。在現今西藏, 佛教活動是由中國政府一個部門, 宗教事務局管理; 所以圖嘉們必須在互相矛盾的訴求迷宮中小心行事。作為僧侶, 他們被期待按期參與「愛國再教育」運動, 和遵守一些如對他們寺院僧侶人數的規定。由於他們的影響力, 他們也許被要求對政府運動美言一下。但多數我認識的圖嘉們似乎沒有被政府所加的職責所阻礙。他們花更多時間在自己傳統職責上。每秉寺院都有一個宗教活動的日曆表, 而當地的圖嘉多數都須要在一高級圖嘉帶領下出席的。僧侶在寺院大殿集合, 在那裡坐上數小時一起依照經典印本來誦讀, 通常有法器如鼓, 角及鈴伴著。其中, 誦經會被其他儀式如獻供, 破瓦, 分發聖水,護身繩符或靈藥等聖物所打斷。瞭解這些儀式和記誦那些複雜的經文是需要很豐富的知識的。」

沙巴利就西藏現狀對其宗教習俗的研究讓他也有相同的結論。

至於達賴喇嘛本人, 他似乎與其參予傳統西藏宗教儀式, 倒不如多花時間當政治變色龍的投機本事來周遊列國, 跟一些西方新世代宣揚神秘論。我們別忘了他曾支持西方保守宗教陣營而簽署所謂「天衣無縫」的反墮胎宣言(註:指1971年Eileen Egan提倡的生命保護應是全面的, 見http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_garment) 他又支持核試, 而且他還支持皮諾切特(註: 智利獨裁者, 見http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5 ... A%E5%88%87%E7%89%B9)。 David, 你記得這些嗎? 追溯1999年4月, 活佛上師跟撒徹爾夫人, 老布希, 要求英國政府釋放前智利法西斯獨裁者奧古斯托.皮諾切特及一名在英國被捕的長期中情局線人。達賴喇嘛要求不要把皮諾切特送往以人道罪行通緝審訊他的西班牙, 雖然他很小心在呼籲加上, 我們, 全世界, 不應「忘記發生的事實」。因達賴喇嘛跟他的政府也同樣獲中情局資助, 為什麼我們需驚訝他應站出來要求世界不要把年老的皮諾切特送去受審? 對嘛, David, 活佛上師當然依照他誓言生活, 但我懷疑那該是這樣寫的: 「你不能不忠於你的施主,不管他們要我做什麼或說什麼!」

而西藏流亡政府, 一如Pamela Logan與數不盡的其他人所觀察, 「是完全由圖嘉所控制, 就像在舊西藏那一樣。達賴喇嘛在最上, 桑東仁波切(Samdhong Rinpoche)率領噶廈(Kashag)(一個像內閣的機構), 而曾經一度主持人民議會。達賴喇嘛派去華盛頓的特使洛第嘉日(Lodi Gyari Rinpoche)是另一名圖嘉。然後名單一直列下去。」

達馬薩拉的圖嘉們似乎對清除政敵也很有一手。英國記者Christopher Hitchens 在1998年報導:「西藏歷史上受供奉崇拜的多傑雄天-大力金剛護法神(雄天宗)的信眾 – 自達賴喇嘛宣佈禁令信奉這一度被崇拜的神後, 就受到暴力, 流放以至死亡恐嚇。一個瑞士電視台的紀錄片以剪接活佛上師否則對一切威脅恐嚇知情的圖片, 組合另一圖片內追隨者興奮地發佈「通緝」海報和逐出教會及迫害的其他器材。」

David你說, 在達馬薩拉許多神權精英並不按照自己誓言生活, 達賴喇嘛卻是。這或是或非只是一半如此, 可是那又怎樣? 世界並不是圍繞著活佛上師轉的, 是吧? 世界所有西藏人口的命運也不繫於他一身, 那怕有些人是那麼想。事實上他是愈來愈不重要。西藏自治區的藏人往前走, 而許多受較高教育的, 如Pamela Logan及其他許多人都指出, 愈來愈多人認識世界更深後, 對喇嘛教不以為然。他們許多人喜歡去卡拉OK吧比去參加宗教節日者為多。就連在印度的西藏年輕人也愈來愈西化而遠離喇嘛教, 就像最近在印度舉辦西藏小姐選美的爭議所顯示的一樣。亞洲時代雜誌報導西藏流亡政府如何反對比賽活動, 指稱為「去西藏化及去傳統化」。政府還在達馬薩拉顯眼地點到處矗立廣告板表態反對選美並要求所有西藏人杯葛選美活動。

讓我在此重申, 我從未否認過在西藏有侵犯人權的事實, 或逃入印度的一些難民並非是真正難民而應獲難民資格。我爭論的是現在, 絕大多數從西藏到印度的人並非難民, 而是朝聖者, 於是他們不應獲難民身份。這也是為什麼許多印度及尼泊爾政客和學者在吵著陸續改變政策的部份原因。

David, 你指出「至於流亡政府有經濟及政治動機….. 請你說說那個政府不這樣。」

對, 所有政府都根據政治及經濟考量來擬定政策, 但這不是容許西藏流亡政府就為什麼每年有那麼上千的「難民」從西藏去到達馬薩拉的原因上故意誤導世界, 對吧?

我也不是為中國政府的辯護, 但我也不是西藏流亡政府辯護者。我盡力在自己評論時達到公正與持平, 因此你如細閱我貼文時, 我對中國管治西藏上並非沒有批評的.

最後, 讓我在此總結一下, 我認同像戈倫夫那些人的論點, 雖然指責侵犯人權很重要, 我們「必須也承認大多數中國人民獲取了許多重要的個人自由」, 而我們必須「更真實去描繪西藏情況以支持中國政府的穩健派」, 與更多西藏自治區的西藏官員接觸, 「而不是逢迎西藏的遊說人員」。

為什麼?
因為戈倫夫說, 西藏的國際運動成功「已導致西藏自治區人民的文化條件相對的退步, 因為西藏的高調助長了中國官方的強硬派。」還有, 西藏境外的宣傳鼓勵了激進分裂份子持續與中國政府對抗, 而從中國強硬派角度來說, 是提高了不穩定的危機, 而於是乎有需要進一步壓制。」

Pamela Logan似乎也同意這樣的評估, 而希望未來任何的15世達賴喇嘛將會是「較少分化」的。

位於倫敦及加州的西藏遊說團體可能出於「善意」, 但他們是被誤導, 傾向於誇大瓜實, 過於情緒用事, 而更有可能危害西藏人的境況而不是去改善它。
M.A.Jones 杭州

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-5-25 10:18 编辑 ]

up。。。。

【回應原文】
Sarahravensworth
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:18 am
M.A.Jones, bravo! You have just hammered the last nail into Mr. Meanwell's coffin (metaphorically speaking, of course!)
Your point about how the Dalai Lama is becoming increasingly politically insignificant is spot on too.
The last three paragraphs that you wrote in your last comment read like breaths of fresh air, and Mr. Meanwell's resorting to tactics similar to Tony Martin's, in implying that you must have some kind of hidden agenda in writing these well researched comments of yours is a sure indication that he is unable to counter your arguments with anything of real substance or meaning.
I look forward to reading more of your comments on this forum.
【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511
【聲明】本文翻譯僅限Anti-CNN使用，謝絕轉載。
【中文翻譯】
Sarahravensworth貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 凌晨3:18
M.A. Jones, 太棒了! 你剛把最後一顆釘子敲到「善意」先生的棺木上。(當然只是比喻!)
你那有關達賴喇嘛漸漸變成政治上無足輕重的論調也很到位。
回應的最後三段讀之如清風送爽, 「善意」先生只能運用一如Tony Martin一樣的技倆,影射你寫這些充分研究的文章背後有不可告人之私, 那隻顯示他無法以任何實質或有意義的東西來反駁你的論點。
期待在這論壇讀到你更多偉論。

【回應原文】
M.A. Jones  Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:13 am
Socratease (I love the name) - thank you for your cautionary advice. I will try my best not to disappoint you, though I think a little light sarcasm is quite acceptable at times, as a way of helping to expose apparent contradictions and hypocrasies.

Speaking of which, I forgot to raise the issue of His Holiness's attitude towards the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and on the invasion of Afghanistan.

In September 2003, the Dalai Lama said that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that it was too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press, just after he met with President Bush.

"In principle, I always believe non-violence is the right thing, and non-violent method is in the long run more effective," he said, but some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."

For somebody who claims to be "half-Marxist and half-Buddhist" and who preaches non-violence, don't you think it's very odd and inherently contradictory for the Dalai Lama to be preaching what is essentially a fundamentally immoral Randian "the means are justified by the ends" approach? Try telling that to the majority of people in Iraq!

A year later, in November 2004, he visited Stanford University where he addressed (for a price of course - tickets didn't come cheaply) a large audience on the subject, which the Stanford Review reported on as follows:

"On the subject of the Iraq war, the Dalai Lama presented a relatively consequentialist view. 'It is still too early to say whether it is right or wrong. I think another few years, then we'll see, then history will show whether this war was really justified, because it brought a good result. So, up until now, I think difficult to say. At least the motivation, to bring democracy, freedom, and that goal is right, a right goal.'"

The American historian Howard Zinn had this to say in response: "I've always admired the Dalai Lama for his advocacy of non-violence and his support of the rights of Tibet against Chinese domination, but I must say I was disappointed to read his comment on the war in Iraq [i.e., 'Wait a few years'], because this is such an obvious, clear-cut moral issue in which massive violence has been used against Iraqis with many thousands of dead."

Adrian Zupp, writing for Thinking Peace, expressed confusion: "So, given his intelligence and enormous sense of compassion, why doesn't the Dalai Lama question the leader of the free world about the downside of globalisation? About 'Star Wars II' and the Bush administration's flagrant disregard of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? About the unlawful attack on Iraq? Civilian body counts? Why doesn't he even pose such questions rhetorically in the media?"

I agree with Norman Solomon, who rightly points out that by not speaking out against such murderous imperialism amounts to taking a political position. Solomon writes: "Let the great spiritual teachers basking in acclaim today learn how to emulate Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1967 explicitly condemned 'racism,' 'militarism,' and 'economic exploitation' while also having the moral fortitude to denounce the Vietnam War."

Yes, well, His Holiness's wishy-washy stand on such human rights issues doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, it's exactly what I have come to expect from him. The fact that His Holiness prefers to be vague on such issues is because he doesn't want to offend his main financial and political benefactor - the U.S. State Department. It's the same reason why he supports anti-abortion legislation, India's nuclear testing, and why he tried to help convince the world that there was no need to put Chile's Pinochet on trial - all of his positions reflect those of the U.S. State Department. Simple as that.

Yes, he's a real progressive character, this Dalai Lama, and really deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize too, isn't he?

And the whole reason why he is so popular is because he preaches safe vacuous messages - all of his messages are vague and politically safe. As Adrian Zupp points out, "his various books sell very well: The Art of Happiness, a collection of conversations with author Howard C. Cutler, sold more than 1.2 million copies and was on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly two years. People are prepared to pay considerable money to see him in person too. Tickets for his talk at the FleetCenter, titled 「The Global Community and the Need for Universal Responsibility,」 ranged up to $100, and in New York City, his final stop, tickets for his teaching sessions were priced at $400 each ($1200 and $3000 for VIPs and big donors) and all sold out well in advance."

And just exactly what do people get to hear for their money? Hollow and vague New Age advice on the "importance of compassion", about 「reducing destructive emotions,」 about "tolerance", about 「internal disarmament,」 about restraint, and about the role of intelligence in facilitating these things. What I find incomprehensible is why people would part with so much money to hear someone lecture on such needs. One must be tolerant and learn how to disarm your own internal anger - O.K., fine. Who could disagree with that? And who needs to be given such advice anyway?

M.A.Jones  Hangzhou
【中文翻譯】
M.A. Jones貼於: 2007年1月13日, 星期六, 晚上11:39
Socratease (我喜歡這名字, 註:是蘇格拉底與諷刺的合併) – 謝謝你提醒。我會盡力不讓你失望, 雖然我覺得有時輕輕諷刺不失為更明顯掀開矛盾與虛偽的方法。

講到這裡, 我忘了提活佛上師對非法入侵及佔領伊拉克和入侵阿富汗的態度。

2003年9月, 達賴喇嘛說美國為首的阿富汗戰爭可以用贏取更大和平來合理化, 但伊拉克戰爭是否值得則尚是過早定論。他在見完布希總統後接受美聯社採訪時說: 「我想歷史將有結論。」

「原則上, 我一直相信非暴力是正確的, 非暴力的方法長遠而言更有效。」他說, 但有些戰爭, 包括韓戰及二次大戰, 有助於「保衛了大多數的文明與民主。」他說對他在阿富汗看到相似的作用 - 「或許是某種的解放。」

作為某個自稱是「一半馬克思另一半是佛教徒」而又宣導非暴力的人, 你不覺得達賴喇嘛這樣宣導是很怪又有根本上的自相矛盾, 本質上像基本不道德畸形人的「但求目的, 不擇手段」手法? 跟伊拉克多數人說這些話試試看!

一年後, 2004年的11月, 他訪問史丹福大學並在那裡向一大群聽眾就這題目演講(當然收費啦 – 門費還不便宜), 史丹福學報(Stanford Review)如此報導:

「對伊拉克戰爭, 達賴喇嘛提出一個比較後果主義者的觀點。『現在是對是錯尚屬言之過早。我想數年後, 我們將會知道, 然後歷史將顯示這場戰爭是否因有一個好結果而是值得的。所以到現時為止, 我認為很難說。最少動機上, 引入民主, 自由這個目標是對的, 一個正確的目標。』」

美國史學家侯活.津恩(Howard Zinn)有如下的反應:「我一向欣賞達賴喇嘛非暴力主張以及他對西藏反中國佔領權利的支持, 但我必須說看到他對伊戰的評論(即數年後), 我很失望。因為這是個很清楚明白, 直接了當, 涉及了對伊拉克人廣泛使用暴力導致上千人死亡的道德問題。

為和平想法(Thinking Peace)(註: 一份主張非暴力溝通的網上日報)撰稿的阿德里安.蘇普(Adrian Zupp)表示疑惑: 「以他的智慧及無比的悲憫, 為什麼達賴喇嘛不質疑自由世界的領導人全球化的不利情況? 不質疑《星球大戰二》及布希政府惡劣地漠視反彈道導彈條約? 不質疑非法攻擊伊拉克? 平民死亡數字? 為什麼他連咬文嚼字在媒體上作個樣子都欠奉呢?

我同意諾曼.蘇羅蒙(Norman Solomon)說法, 他正確指出沒有對這些兇狠的帝國主義公開指責就形同政治上選邊站了。蘇羅蒙寫著:「讓今天浸沐於歡呼中偉大的精神導師學習如何向馬丁路德.金博士看齊。金博士在1967年公開譴責「種族主義」,「軍國主義」和「經濟剝削」之外, 也有那道德剛毅去譴責越戰。」

對嘛, 活佛上師在人權問題上的搖擺不定對我來說一點都不奇怪。事實上, 這恰恰是我預期他的表現。活佛上師選擇在這些問題上模糊其辭是因為他不想冒犯他最大的財務及政治的施主 – 美國國務院。也是出自同一理由, 他支持反墮胎法案, 印度核試, 及他試圖協助說服全世界沒有需要把智利皮諾切特送去受審 – 他所有立場都反映了美國國務院的立場。就是那麼簡單。(譯註: 一針見血, 絕倒!)

對呀, 他真是個前進人物, 這個達賴喇嘛, 的確值得來個諾貝爾和平獎嘛, 對不? (譯註: 感覺作者是在反諷揶揄)

他那麼受歡迎的整個原因就是他在宣揚安全空泛的訊息 – 他所有的訊息都是含糊而又政治正確的。就如阿德里安.蘇普指出:「他許多書都很暢銷: 「快樂的藝術」是跟作家侯活. 卡特勒(Howard C. Cutler)談話的文集, 賣了超過120萬本, 在紐約時代暢銷榜上差不多達兩年之久。人們也願意花可觀的錢去見他一面。 他在艦隊中心球館名為「全球社會及普世責任的需要」的演講門劵售價高達$100, 在紐約市, 他的最後一站, 他的授課講座定價是每課$400 (貴賓票和大金主的票價是$1200及$3000), 所有門票都一早售完。」

那麼人們花了錢到底聽到些什麼? 有關「悲憫的重要性」, 有關「減低毀滅性的情緒」,  kb有關「忍耐」, 有關「自我去戾」, 有關自制, 及在這些問題上智慧扮演的角色等空泛又含糊的新世代忠告。我搞不懂的是為什麼有人願意花那麼多錢去聽某人就這些需要的演講。一個人必須忍耐而且學習如何放下你自己內心的憤怒 – 好好, 很好。誰又會對此不同意呢? 又有誰需要別人給這樣的建言呢?
M.A. Jones  杭州

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-6-2 13:39 编辑 ]

【回應原文】
Sarahravensworth posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:08 am
hehehe.... spot on again M.A.Jones! As a celebrity, the Dalia Lama not only sells bums on seats at auditoriums - also he has value as an advertizer, so he is often used as a commodity to market other people's books as well by writing introductory forewords, as well as advertizing all kinds of other products like Apple Computers, etc.
I reckon the secret to his business success lies in the application to his philosophical/religious messages of the McDonald's principle.
You see, by making their food as bland as possible,McDonald's is able to maximize the size of its market. Starbuck's does the same. By selling lattes that taste like hot milk, with only a subtle hint of coffee flavor, Starbuck's is able to offend the tastes of no one - well, no one apart from those who actually like real aromatic and flavorsome coffee, that is. But such people are in the minority. It's smart business sense, because the majority of people have bland tastes.
The Dalai Lama applies this same principle to the messages he sells. The more meaningless his messages are, the safer they are. And that's because most people don't like to think. I'm sure there must be a cognitive link between a person's ability to experience and appreciate taste, and a person's ability to be able to think independently and critically.

【原文鏈接】http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?p=496511#496511
【聲明】本文翻譯僅限Anti-CNN使用，謝絕轉載。

【中文翻譯】
Sarahravensworth貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 早上9:08
嘻嘻嘻,M.A. Jones, 你又打中了!作為知名人士, 達賴喇嘛不但促銷坐在會堂席位那些屁股–他還有打廣告的價值, 所以他就經常被當奇貨用來促銷別人的書籍或是寫寫序言介紹, 及用來為所有其它產品如蘋果電腦打廣告之用。
我估計他經營有術的秘密在於他在他哲學/宗教宣傳裡運用了麥當奴原理。
大家看,他們把食品弄得有多平凡就多平凡無味, 麥當奴就能把他們的市場規模擴到極點。星巴克也一樣。把賣的拿鐵弄得像熱奶的味道, 只隱約帶點咖啡味, 星巴克就不會讓誰覺得味道不對勁 – 嗯, 除了那些真正喜歡香濃有勁有味咖啡的人。但這些人是小數。這是很聰明的生意眼, 因為大多數人都口味平平無奇的。
達賴喇嘛在他促銷的訊息裡運用同樣原理。他的訊息愈沒內涵意義就愈是保險。那是因為大多數人都不喜愛思考。我肯定一個人嚐試品味的能力, 跟一個人獨立精確思考的能力是互相關聯的。

【回應原文】Ambivalent Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 am
M.A.Jones writes: "As for the Dalai Lama himself, he seems to spend more time moving around the planet with the skilled opportunism of a political chameleon, preaching mysticism to Western New Agers rather than participating in traditional Tibetan religious rituals."
So we have here a REAL Karma Chameleon!!!!! Anybody remember Boy George and Culture Club?

The lyrics to that song sure do appear to be written about His Holiness:
If I listen to your lies would you say
I'm a man without conviction
I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go
You come and go

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go
You come and go

【中文翻譯】
Ambivalent貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 早上10:10
M.A.Jones 寫著:「至於達賴喇嘛本人, 他似乎與其參予傳統西藏宗教儀式, 倒不如多花時間當政治變色龍的投機本事來周遊列國, 跟一些西方新世代宣揚神秘論。」
那麼我們有一條真正的羯磨變色龍!!!!! (註:羯磨是梵文音譯, 業的意思) 有沒有人記得喬治男孩和文化俱樂部?

那首歌的歌詞真像在寫活佛上師他:
如果我聽信你的謊話,
你會否說我是信念不堅定的人
我是一個不懂得
如何去促銷矛盾的人
你來而復去
你來而復去

羯磨 羯磨 羯磨 羯磨 羯磨變色龍
你來而復去
你來而復去

【回應原文】
M.A.Jones  Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:26 am
Sarah and Ambivalent - thank you for your comments.

Sarah, I agree that the Dalai Lama is seen as a hot commodity in the marketing world, and that if he were to begin criticising U.S. policy in places like Iraq, that his market value as an advertiser would nose-dive and his popularity suffer. By being non-commital and vague, he avoids upsetting both sides of the political spectrum.

It wasn't my intention to turn this thread into a discussion about the Dalai Lama, and to be fair on the man, he does bring to the world a general message of peace. All I'm arguing really, is that he is notquite the person that he is so often cracked up to be - he certainly doesn't have the political and moral integrity of another Martin Luther King.He's no Ghandi either, and I can certainly think of plenty of other people who I would consider to be far more deserving of an international peace prize than His Holiness.

I think there is indeed ample evidence to show that he is a political chameleon, that he is politically and financially self-serving, but I don't want to over-state my case by arguing that he's the "Ronald McDonald of the philosophy world" or that he is somehow especially bad or evil or stupid. He has on occasions, both in his writings and when giving press conferences, been able to demonstrate quite a reasonable understanding of the interconnectedness of cosmology, neurology, psychology and physics, yet I also recognise so many ideological inconsistencies in his world view - he often puts his foot in it when discussing his thoughts about sexuality and the morality of sexual mores for example, expressing at times contradictory attitudes. He maybe a paradox of a man, but he is only human, after all.

And Ambivalent, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to say that I once paid good money to see Culture Club perform live in concert, in Sydney it was, back in 1985 if I remember correctly, when I was aged 15. I'm not sure whether it's fair to describe His Holiness as a "karma" chameleon though, but he sure is a political one.

All the best,
M.A.Jones, Hangzhou

【中文翻譯】M.A.Jones 貼於: 2007年1月14日, 星期日, 早上11:26
Sarah 及 Ambivalent – 謝謝你們的回應。

Sarah, 我同意達賴喇嘛在國際市場被視為灸手奇貨, 而如果他開始批評美國在比如說伊拉克的政策時, 他作為一個廣告人的市場價值就會暴瀉而他的受歡迎度也受損。讓自己全無定見及模糊其說, 他避免讓政治光譜兩端陣營不愉快。

我原來沒打算把這連結變為討論達賴喇嘛,公平地說,他的確為世界帶來和平的一般訊息。我真正爭論的是,他不那麼是他經常被描述示人的那個人 – 他的確沒有那政治及道德操守作為另一個金博士。他亦非聖雄甘地, 而我肯定世界上比活佛上師更值得拿國際和平獎項的人, 比比皆是。

我想那裡真的有相當多證據顯示他是政治變色龍,及在政治上經濟上都是利己的。但我不想誇大我的理據說他是「哲學世界裡的麥當奴叔叔」或他是某程度上太壞或邪惡或愚蠢。有時候,不管是寫作或是開記者會,他還是能夠顯示對宇宙論,神經學,心理學及物理之間關聯的一定理解。可是我也察覺他的世界觀裡有那麼多意識形態不一致的地方 – 比如說, 他討論他對性及性道德觀的品行時,他經常一腳插進去而有時表現自相矛盾的態度。他可能是似是而非的人,但他畢竟也只是個人而已。

還有Ambivalent, 我毫不以為恥或尷尬的坦白我曾有一次付可觀的錢去看文化俱樂部演唱會。如沒記錯那是1985年在悉尼, 我才十五歲。我不敢肯定稱活佛為羯磨變色龍是否公平, 但毫無疑問, 他是政治變色龍。

祝好
M.A.Jones杭州

[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-6-3 12:37 编辑 ]