Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth3-1

III. Exit Feudal Theocracy

As the Shangri-La myth would have it, in old Tibet the people lived in contented and tranquil symbiosis with their monastic and secular lords. Rich lamas and poor monks, wealthy landlords and impoverished serfs were all bonded together, mutually sustained by the comforting balm of a deeply spiritual and pacific culture.

One is reminded of the idealized image of feudal Europe presented by latter-day conservative Catholics such as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. For them, medieval Christendom was a world of contented peasants living in the secure embrace of their Church, under the more or less benign protection of their lords.⁵⁵ Again we are invited to accept a particular culture in its idealized form divorced from its murky material history. This means accepting it as presented by its favored class, by those who profited most from it. The Shangri-La image of Tibet bears no more resemblance to historic actuality than does the pastoral image of medieval Europe.

Seen in all its grim realities, old Tibet confirms the view I expressed in an earlier book, namely that culture is anything but neutral. Culture can operate as a legitimating cover for a host of grave injustices, benefiting a privileged portion of society at great cost to the rest.⁵⁶ In theocratic feudal Tibet, ruling interests manipulated the traditional culture to fortify their own wealth and power. The theocracy equated rebellious thought and action with satanic influence. It propagated the general presumption of landlord superiority and peasant unworthiness. The rich were represented as deserving their good life, and the lowly poor as deserving their mean existence, all codified in teachings about the karmic residue of virtue and vice accumulated from past lives, presented as part of God’s will.

Were the more affluent lamas just hypocrites who preached one thing and secretly believed another? More likely they were genuinely attached to those beliefs that brought such good results for them. That their theology so perfectly supported their material privileges only strengthened the sincerity with which it was embraced.

It might be said that we denizens of the modern secular world cannot grasp the equations of happiness and pain, contentment and custom, that characterize more traditionally spiritual societies. This is probably true, and it may explain why some of us idealize such societies. But still, a gouged eye is a gouged eye; a flogging is a flogging; and the grinding exploitation of serfs and slaves is a brutal class injustice whatever its cultural wrapping. There is a difference between a spiritual bond and human bondage, even when both exist side by side

Many ordinary Tibetans want the Dalai Lama back in their country, but it appears that relatively few want a return to the social order he represented. A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that the Dalai Lama continues to be revered in Tibet, but

. . . few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China’s land reform to the clans. Tibet’s former slaves say they, too, don’t want their former masters to return to power. “I’ve already lived that life once before,” said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, “I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”⁵⁷

It should be noted that the Dalai Lama is not the only highly placed lama chosen in childhood as a reincarnation. One or another reincarnate lama or tulku--a spiritual teacher of special purity elected to be reborn again and again--can be found presiding over most major monasteries. The tulku system is unique to Tibetan Buddhism. Scores of Tibetan lamas claim to be reincarnate tulkus.

The very first tulku was a lama known as the Karmapa who appeared nearly three centuries before the first Dalai Lama. The Karmapa is leader of a Tibetan Buddhist tradition known as the Karma Kagyu. The rise of the Gelugpa sect headed by the Dalai Lama led to a politico-religious rivalry with the Kagyu that has lasted five hundred years and continues to play itself out within the Tibetan exile community today. That the Kagyu sect has grown famously, opening some six hundred new centers around the world in the last thirty-five years, has not helped the situation.

The search for a tulku, Erik Curren reminds us, has not always been conducted in that purely spiritual mode portrayed in certain Hollywood films. “Sometimes monastic officials wanted a child from a powerful local noble family to give the cloister more political clout. Other times they wanted a child from a lower-class family who would have little leverage to influence the child’s upbringing.” On other occasions “a local warlord, the Chinese emperor or even the Dalai Lama’s government in Lhasa might [have tried] to impose its choice of tulku on a monastery for political reasons.”⁵⁸

Such may have been the case in the selection of the 17th Karmapa, whose monastery-in-exile is situated in Rumtek, in the Indian state of Sikkim. In 1993 the monks of the Karma Kagyu tradition had a candidate of their own choice. The Dalai Lama, along with several dissenting Karma Kagyu leaders (and with the support of the Chinese government!) backed a different boy. The Kagyu monks charged that the Dalai Lama had overstepped his authority in attempting to select a leader for their sect. “Neither his political role nor his position as a lama in his own Gelugpa tradition entitled him to choose the Karmapa, who is a leader of a different tradition…”⁵⁹ As one of the Kagyu leaders insisted, “Dharma is about thinking for yourself. It is not about automatically following a teacher in all things, no matter how respected that teacher may be. More than anyone else, Buddhists should respect other people’s rights—their human rights and their religious freedom.”⁶⁰

What followed was a dozen years of conflict in the Tibetan exile community, punctuated by intermittent riots, intimidation, physical attacks, blacklisting, police harassment, litigation, official corruption, and the looting and undermining of the Karmapa’s monastery in Rumtek by supporters of the Gelugpa faction. All this has caused at least one western devotee to wonder if the years of exile were not hastening the moral corrosion of Tibetan Buddhism.⁶¹

What is clear is that not all Tibetan Buddhists accept the Dalai Lama as their theological and spiritual mentor. Though he is referred to as the “spiritual leader of Tibet,” many see this title as little more than a formality. It does not give him authority over the four religious schools of Tibet other than his own, “just as calling the U.S. president the ‘leader of the free world’ gives him no role in governing France or Germany.”⁶²

Not all Tibetan exiles are enamoured of the old Shangri-La theocracy. Kim Lewis, who studied healing methods with a Buddhist monk in Berkeley, California, had occasion to talk at length with more than a dozen Tibetan women who lived in the monk’s building. When she asked how they felt about returning to their homeland, the sentiment was unanimously negative. At first, Lewis assumed that their reluctance had to do with the Chinese occupation, but they quickly informed her otherwise. They said they were extremely grateful “not to have to marry 4 or 5 men, be pregnant almost all the time,” or deal with sexually transmitted diseases contacted from a straying husband. The younger women “were delighted to be getting an education, wanted absolutely nothing to do with any religion, and wondered why Americans were so naïve [about Tibet].”⁶³

The women interviewed by Lewis recounted stories of their grandmothers’ ordeals with monks who used them as “wisdom consorts.” By sleeping with the monks, the grandmothers were told, they gained “the means to enlightenment” -- after all, the Buddha himself had to be with a woman to reach enlightenment.

The women also mentioned the “rampant” sex that the supposedly spiritual and abstemious monks practiced with each other in the Gelugpa sect. The women who were mothers spoke bitterly about the monastery’s confiscation of their young boys in Tibet. They claimed that when a boy cried for his mother, he would be told “Why do you cry for her, she gave you up--she\'s just a woman.”

The monks who were granted political asylum in California applied for public assistance. Lewis, herself a devotee for a time, assisted with the paperwork. She observes that they continue to receive government checks amounting to $550 to $700 per month along with Medicare. In addition, the monks reside rent free in nicely furnished apartments. “They pay no utilities, have free access to the Internet on computers provided for them, along with fax machines, free cell and home phones and cable TV.”

They also receive a monthly payment from their order, along with contributions and dues from their American followers. Some devotees eagerly carry out chores for the monks, including grocery shopping and cleaning their apartments and toilets. These same holy men, Lewis remarks, “have no problem criticizing Americans for their ‘obsession with material things.’”⁶⁴

慈悲的封建制——西藏迷思（第三章之一）

第三章 结束封建神权制

在香格里拉的神话里，旧西藏的人们满足于与僧侣和领主们和平共处的状态。富有的喇嘛和贫穷的僧侣，有钱的地主和贫困的农奴被联系在一起，一种灵魂深处的信仰和平和的文化维系着这里的和平安定。

这唤起了我们对中世纪欧洲的理想化印象，它在G. K. Chesterton和Hilaire Belloc这些保守天主教徒嘴里时常出现。他们嘴里描述的中世纪欧洲是这样的一个世界：心满意足的农民们安全地生活在教会的保护下，他们的地主也或多或少的给予一些关怀。[注55]同样，我们又再一次地被模糊了物质历史的理想化假象笼罩。这意味着它是按最高利益获得者的视角描绘下来的。田园风情的中世纪景象与其真实历史相去甚远，同样的，香格里拉的理想化描述也脱离了实际。

在审视了这么多阴暗的事实以后，旧西藏证实了我早在上一本书里提到的观点，即文化绝不是中性的。文化能够为一大些极不公正的暴行披上合法的外衣，让社会上一小部分人通过牺牲其余人的利益来获取特权。[注56]封建神权统治下的西藏，统治者通过操纵传统文化来扩张他的财富和势力。神权把任何反抗的思想和行为归为魔鬼的影响。它宣扬地主富有而农民贫困是天定的。富人应该过着舒适的生活，穷人忍受自己的命运，这些被解释为是前世积累善行的因果报应，是神的意志的一部分。

那么这些富有的喇嘛都是嘴上说一套背地做一套的伪君子吗？更有可能的是，他们都是由衷地相信这些会带来好结果的信仰。神学如此完美地支持了他们的物质特权，这只会更加强他们的虔诚。

或者可以这么说，我们这些生活在现代俗世里的人们，是不能理解这个关于幸福和痛苦，满足和习惯这些传统精神社会特色的公式的。这可能是对的，它解释了为什么我们常会理想化这些社会。但是，挖眼就是挖眼；鞭笞就是鞭笞；对农奴和奴隶的剥削就是一种野蛮的阶级不公，无论它外表包裹着什么样的外衣。精神认同和人身束缚是有区别的，即便是他们常同时出没。

很多传统的藏民都希望达赖喇嘛的回归，但是并不意味着有人想回到他代表的那个社会制度。1999年《华盛顿邮报》报道发现达赖喇嘛在西藏依然受到尊敬，但是

……几乎没有藏民欢迎那些作为顾问，追随着他逃亡的，腐败的贵族阶级的回归。例如，很多西藏农民都不愿意把中国土地改革分到的土地归还贵族。西藏的前奴隶们也认为他们并不欢迎过去的主人回来统治。“过去我已经受够了那种生活了。”Wangchuk，一名67岁的老奴隶这样说道。他正穿着最好的衣服上日喀则，这个藏传佛教的圣地，作每年一次的朝拜。他说他尊敬达赖喇嘛，但补充道：“尽管在中国共产主义下我并不自由，但是比起做奴隶的日子可要好多了。”[注57]

值得注意的是，达赖喇嘛并非唯一一个在孩童时期就作为转世重生的对象而被选为高级喇嘛的人。在大多数寺院里我们都能发现一个或其他转世喇嘛或活佛——一个纯净的精神导师，他会不断地重生，能通过选举而被找到——他们在主持寺院工作。

第一个活佛是被称为噶玛巴的喇嘛，他比第一个达赖喇嘛早出现三个世纪。噶玛巴是藏传佛教噶玛噶举派的领袖。由达赖喇嘛领导的格鲁派与噶玛噶举派展开了长达500年的政治宗教斗争，在今天的西藏流亡社区还存在着。即便是噶玛噶举派在这35年来发展迅猛，在世界范围内发展了600多个新的中心，对局势也并没有什么帮助。

Erik Curren提醒我们活佛的选举并不如好莱坞电影描绘的那样，按照纯精神的模式来寻找的。“有时候宗教势力希望能从当地贵族的家庭里寻找一个孩子，以此来增加寺院的政治权力。其他时候，他们会从一些低阶层的家庭寻找，以便孩子的成长不受家族的影响。”某些时候，“地方军阀、中国皇帝甚至远在拉萨的达赖喇嘛的政府都会因为政治目的‘干预’寺庙活佛的选择。”[注58]

17世噶玛巴的选举就出现了如上情况，他应该在印度的锡金隆德寺主持。1993年噶玛噶举派的僧侣们有了自己的候选人。达赖喇嘛和一些持不同意见的噶玛噶举派领袖（在中国政府的支持下！）推荐了另一位男孩。噶玛噶举派的僧侣指责达赖喇嘛越权干预其他派系的领袖选举。“不论从政治角色还是格鲁派领袖的身份，他都没有资格来干预噶玛巴的选举，这个其他派系领袖的选举……”[注59]正如一个噶玛噶举派的领导人坚持的那样：“佛法是要求自己审视言行的。并不存在一个适用于各种情况的教导者，不论这位智者是何等的受人尊敬。更甚于别人，佛教徒应该更尊重别人的权利——他们的人权和宗教自由。”[注60]

随后发生在西藏流亡地区的是长达十几年的冲突，充斥着不时的骚乱、恐吓、人身攻击、黑名单、警察的干预、诉讼、腐败和噶玛巴所在的隆德寺被格鲁派教众的袭击骚扰。所有这些让一名西方同仁思考，是否多年的流亡生活导致了藏传佛教的堕落。[注61]

我们清楚地看到，并非所有的藏传佛教徒们都认同达赖喇嘛是他们神学和精神上的领袖。尽管他被称为“西藏的精神领袖”，很多人把这个看成一种形式上的称呼。并未给予他管理除自己以外其它四个教派的权利，“就像称美国总统是‘自由世界的领袖’一样，他可不能管理法国或者德国。”[注62]

并非所有的西藏流亡人士都迷恋旧香格里拉的神权统治。Kim Lewis曾在加利福尼亚伯克利与一名佛教僧侣学习医术，有机会与住在僧侣大楼里的十几个西藏妇女谈话。当她问到是否愿意回到故乡，所有人都表示否认的态度。开始，Lewis认为她们不想受中国政府统治，但很快她们告诉她并非如此。她们说，她们非常庆幸自己“不用和四五个男人结婚，几乎没有不怀孕的时候”，或是应对从一名不忠的丈夫那里得来的性病。这些年轻的妇女“非常庆幸自己能够接受教育，可以不用信仰宗教，并且奇怪为什么美国人对西藏抱有这么天真的想法。”[注63]

Lewis采访的这些妇女还向她讲述了她们祖母作为“智慧女”遭受僧侣们折磨的过去。祖母曾讲过，通过僧侣们睡觉，她们就会获得“启蒙的神示”——最后，佛陀自己也会通过女人获得启示。

这些妇女还提及在理论上应该精神化并有节制的格鲁派僧侣之间“疯狂的”性行为。一位曾是母亲的妇女伤心地说到在西藏僧侣们抢走她们的男孩。当孩子哭着要妈妈的时候，他们就恐吓说：“你为什么哭着找她呢？她抛弃了你——她只是个女人。”

寻求政治庇护的僧侣在加利福尼亚都申请了公众援助。Lewis她自己也曾是个信徒，帮助进行文书工作。她注意到，僧侣们每个月都能获得550到700美元的支票，还有医疗保险。除此之外，僧侣们还能免费居住在配有精制家具的公寓里。“他们不用支付水电费，配置的电脑可以上网，还有传真机、免费手机、家用电话和有线电视。”

他们每月还收到教派的款项，以及其他美国追随者的捐赠。一些信徒热心地为僧侣跑腿，包括购物和清洁公寓、厕所。同样是这些圣人们，Lewis补充：“在批评美国人‘痴迷于物质享受’的时候，可是一点都不留情面。”

第一页|第二页|第三页|第四页|第五页|第六页|第七页|第八页