2008年12月23日星期二

2005-2008:只剩下火苗随风摇曳……



2005-2008:只剩下火苗随风摇曳……

·唯色·

西藏的节日,
究竟是谁的节日?
我不知道。我不知道。我不知道。
因为我找不到,
有谁会在这些节日中感到快乐。
从1月到12月,
藏历,而不是公历或汉历:
洛萨、萨嘎达瓦、雪顿、噶丹昂觉……
原本为的是礼佛,娱神,驱魔,悦己……

这些节日已离我们越来越远。
只剩下一个名声。
只剩下一个花架子。
只剩下一份份砸在头上的红头文件,
从头到尾都是不准、不准、不准!
如果怎么怎么样,就会这么这么样,
全都指向可怕的下场。
比方,如果去寺院了,如果去转经了,
轻则扣工资,重则开除,
再重则,蹲监狱。
后来很少下红头文件了,
改成口头传达。
这是由来已久的老规矩,
但还是很震慑。
但最震慑的还没有出笼,
但最震慑的在前天已露凶相。

前天是噶丹昂觉,
纪念杰仁波切的日子。
家家酥油灯,人人诵三宝,
而这已是往昔情景。
一年不如一年,到了05年,
新来的张书记一声吼,拉萨也要抖三抖【1】。
博巴【2】不顾禁令,云集而至,
我看见冲天的火光,
照亮一张张戴着口罩的脸,
那恍如幻象的慰藉,
足以忽略身边的警察和便衣。
06年,《拉萨晚报》的头版,
以拉萨市委、市政府的名义,
正式警告:“全体……广大……不准
参与和围观燃灯节活动”。
07年,友人告诉远在北京的我:
“警察空前地多,
信众也空前地多,
许多安多和康巴在人群中磕长头,
只有在这时才能喊出一点点声音……”

至于今年的噶丹昂觉,
也即是前天的拉萨,
“中午去帕廓,
很多店早早就关门了……
竟听见高音喇叭了,藏语和汉语,反复播放:
不准参与,不准围观,不准聚众……
不知道高音喇叭安在哪里,
但在祖拉康【3】附近都能听到,
声音传得很远,很远……
就像文革期间,老人低语:
每天从高音喇叭传来的藏语和汉语,让人心悸。
房顶上,过去过来的人多得很,
拿枪的,不拿枪的……
老城区里,过去过来的人也不少,
穿制服的,不穿制服的……
感觉到处都是昂觉【4】,
到处都是密【5】……”

新华社记者的照片出现在网上了,
没有添满香炉的桑【6】了,
没有冲天的火光了,
也没有戴着大口罩的拉萨人了,
而往年来朝拜的安多和康巴,
没有了,没有了,没有了。
只有祖拉康的古修【7】,
点着一盏一盏的酥油灯,
火苗随风摇曳……
夜空幽蓝,布达拉孑然,竟如此寂寥。
广场上的那些人影,是不是,
除了执行任务的,
就是好奇的喉舌或“藏漂”【8】?
新华社记者的报道出现在网上了,
称握着盾牌的武警战士说:
“百姓今夜尽情点灯,决不允许坏人放火!”【9】
还煞有介事地称:
“按照藏民族传统,
都想在今夜点上一盏平安灯……”

不,那不是平安灯,
那是怀念之灯,
你们可曾有丝毫的了解?
你们可曾听见深藏在我们内心的声音?
“……浊世苍生 痛失宗师
悲悯大地 悲鸣雪域
如今我等 念您恩德
唯有尊者 与我同在……”【10】
唯有尊者,与我同在!

2008-12-23,北京

注:
【1】出自毛泽东时代号称“铁人”的石油工人王进喜的豪言壮语:“石油工人一声吼,地球也要抖三抖”。
【2】博巴,藏语:藏人。
【3】祖拉康,藏语:大昭寺。
【4】昂觉,藏语:耳朵,比喻便衣、暗探。
【5】密,藏语:眼睛,比喻便衣、暗探。
【6】桑,藏语,敬神佛的香草。
【7】古修,藏语:先生,这里指僧人。
【8】“藏漂”:从汉地跑到拉萨来生活的文艺青年简称“藏漂”。
【9】出自中国古诗句““只许州官放火,不许百姓点灯”,作者是宋代诗人陆游。
【10】这首诗原名为“怀念宗师宗喀巴”,见http://gulei.tibetcul.com/53567.html“燃灯节短信祈祷文”。


图为2005年拉萨的“噶丹昂觉”(燃灯节)(唯色拍摄)。






图为2007年拉萨的“噶丹昂觉”(燃灯节)(WJ拍摄)。





图为2008年拉萨的“噶丹昂觉”(燃灯节)(新华社记者拍摄)。





图为2008年在印度达兰萨拉的“噶丹昂觉”(图1桑杰嘉拍摄,图2和图3朱瑞拍摄)。



5 条评论:

  1. 达赖喇嘛特使与中国多次谈判难获进展


    西藏流亡精神领袖达赖喇嘛领导的西藏流亡政府,希望把中国所有的藏人自治区合并为一个自治区,但是中国中央政府断然拒绝并驳斥这一要求不合时宜,双方坚持己见,造成西藏问题难解。

    中央社今天报道说,西藏流亡政府总理桑东仁波切稍早在流亡地印度西北山城达兰萨拉接受媒体采访表示,自2002年以来,达赖喇嘛特使与中国的多次谈判都没有能够获得进展,症结只有两个基本问题,第一是,中国坚持达赖喇嘛必须承认西藏在历史上是属于中国的一部分;第二是,中国拒绝接受藏人提出「所有藏区都集中在同一自治行政区」的要求,即重新划分西藏自治区,把青海、四川、甘肃、云南的部分藏区也划入西藏自治区。桑东仁波认为,只要中国政府展现政治意愿,西藏问题终究会得到解决。

    根据桑东仁波切认为,仔细研读绝大多数的历史材料,就可以了解西藏并不属于中国,在文化、语言和生活习俗上也与汉人不同;至于第二个问题,将所有藏族集中在一个自治行政区下,是易于保存藏族文化,否则散居各地,文化就有流失的一天。

    西藏流亡政府的总理同时表示,在中国宪法架构下,西藏流亡政府谋求真正的自治,并不是要自绝于外,因为一个深处内陆的西藏,需要仰赖其他地区提供经济和各项发展需要,何况西藏也不可能完全独立,因为有50% 的藏人,是居住在现在的西藏自治区之外。

    中央社报道说,中国坚持表西藏是中国领土至今已有700 多年历史。一些西藏学者认为,在中国所举证的时期,西藏其实大部分都是独立的。据流亡藏人表示,中国1949年进入西藏,1959年西藏抗争失败,达赖喇嘛逃亡印度至今。目前中国西藏自治区约有600 万藏人,海外流亡藏人约25万人。

    中央社引述藏裔哈佛法学博士洛桑森盖指出,中国的西藏自治区划分存有问题。他说,藏人世代居住在现今的西藏自治区和周围藏区。但西藏人口有一半被划分在目前的西藏自治区之外。实际上,例如达赖喇嘛的出生地在青海,而森盖博士的父母则来自四川。

    森盖曾于2004年被美国亚洲协会选为21位太平洋地区年轻领袖之一。他说表示,西藏流亡政府要求重新划分,只是承认现状,不是扩大势力。

    对于流亡政府提出涵盖西藏及其他四区的「大西藏自治区」要求,中国方面非常愤怒,认为已不合时宜。大多数汉人也怀疑,认为西藏流亡政府野心太大,想要扩大势力范围,佔领中国1/4 的领土。

    中央社引述新华社稍早的报道说,11月初,中国和西藏在北京举行第八轮对话时,全国中国人民政治协商会议副主席、中央统

    战部部长杜青林、常务副部长朱维群都表示,「中华人民共和国民族区域自治法」坚持国家利益和中华民族利益高于一切的原则,坚抉维护国家统一和民族团结,不容任何形式的分裂。

    中国方面强调「民族区域自治」是中国单一制国家结构形式的具体体现,不同于一些国家实行的联邦制、邦联制,也不同于中国在香港、澳门实行的一国两制。中国的主张也撤底否决了西藏流亡政府谋求真正民族自治的一切梦想。

    报道还说,中国官员警告出席对话的达赖喇嘛特使洛地嘉日和格桑坚赞,在维护统一和领土完整这个原则问题上,无论任何时候、任何情况下,都不可有丝毫的动摇和偏离,西藏独立、半独立或变相独立都不可行。

    朱维群随后访问英国伦敦并接受英国媒体专访时强硬表示,达赖喇嘛要求的高度自治,实质上就是「不叫西藏独立的西藏独立」,北京当局不可能接受。中国外交部发言人秦刚也在一项记者会上,将西藏问题难解的责任归咎达赖喇嘛。他答覆媒体说,北京对达赖的立场是一贯和明确的,希望达赖能认清形势,改变立场,以实际行动放弃分裂主张,在有生之年为西藏做一些有益的事情。

    中央社的报道说,中国公开强调不会在西藏问题上让步,也不容许讨价还价,流亡政府能与中国谈判的筹码全部都化为乌有。但是现年73岁的诺贝尔和平奖得主达赖喇嘛仍然认为,和中国继续对话才是解抉西藏问题的唯一途径。达赖坚持,西藏问题的解决决定权,不是在达赖喇嘛或者西藏流亡政府手中,是要靠中国政府。

    摘自『法广中文』

    回复删除
  2. hi dear sister,thanks so much you did for us !pleas check that:
    www.standup4tibet.ning.com.
    lets join hands and say NO to losar 2009.
    for us it is about skipping a few happy moments and for tibetans it was their LIFE.

    回复删除
  3. Mystery Man from Beijing

    By Therang Buengu

    As the upheavals of March settle into a new layer of memory, there are still a few things that linger in my mind. Among them, one still evokes in me a strange excitement every time I think about it. The mystery man from Beijing: who really is he?

    In the first few days of the uprising, a person using the name of Jigme Namgyal started writing scathing articles in the Chinese language, critical of Beijing's Tibet policy. Within a few weeks, Jigme Namgyal published seven lengthy articles--a total of 30,000 or so characters. What profoundly impressed me was not the length and prolificness of his writings, but rather his intimate knowledge of Beijing's Tibet policy making circle, his intense frustration with the Beijing leadership's short sightedness on Tibet policy and his ability to express his thoughts and feelings--yes, feelings: this guy is not pretending he is a detached analyst--his articles are filled with anger, frustration and often bitter pessimism. Then at the end of May, just as he appeared suddenly out of the stormy sky, the mystery man from Beijing disappeared into the darkness of Beijing's insistence on a hardline policy on Tibet. We haven't seen his writing again. Still don't know who he or she is.

    In the article entitled, "Let Our Dalai Lama Return Home", the author points out five reasons why China rejects the Dalai Lama's possible return. He then observes that "as long as CCP relies on this same irrational, inhuman, irresponsible and ineffective bunch of bureaucrats to continue managing Tibetan affairs, then the Dalai Lama will not be able to return home." In his eyes "time and time again [in not dealing with the Dalai Lama directly] China erroneously sows the seeds of ethnic and political crisis." He predicts that one day they will come back to hound the nation. In almost every line and sentence of his writing, we can feel his bitter frustration against the Chinese leadership's inability to see an alternative way to manage the Tibet issue and his outright anger against those bureaucrats whose selfishness and low IQ (di zhineng) who have been charged with this responsibility. Yet this mystery man from Beijing still holds out hope. He doesn't believe that the opportunity to resolve the Tibet issue has already "entered a an irreversible path of dead end" (西藏问题的解决已经进入了一个无可变更的死路也不竟然)". This, he believes, because it is China's interest to engage with Tibetans to resolve the issue.

    In many of his articles, the mysterious man revisits the critical juncture in China's Tibet policy in the past, pointing out their political consequences in the present. To me, the most intriguing part is that when he is talking about those historical events, you can almost sense that this is not learned knowledge from books, but rather that he witnessed or even experienced them as a participant. He has in-depth understanding of Tibet under Mao's China, yet his language transcends the party phraseology to describe and analyze that tumultuous era (which is sadly not always the case--most people from that generation can't get away from using the Party language, even when criticizing the Party). Reading Jigme Namgyal's article is a rare treat. I can see the vast knowledge and experience of the older Tibetan generation, combined with the younger generation's contemporary worldview, new language and most importantly, newfound boldness and courage in his writing. This combination is a scarce commodity in contemporary writing on Tibet in the Chinese language, particularly from Tibetan authors.

    We haven't seen this mysterious man's new writing for more than a half year. Yet my curiosity and desire to know this mysterious man is not only alive but grows ever more intense . Among friends, the question of the identity of the mysterious man continues to animate our conversations. Yet among all the many Tibetans we know in Beijing, those who fit in profile of this man's vast personal knowledge and have the ability to write them in the Chinese language doesn't fit the courage and passion of the author. That is precisely the most intriguing part of the story. In today's Tibetan elite, you never know what is alive deep in their hearts--who really possesses the passion and sometimes even have the courage to take enormous risks to express their sense of injustice and moral outrage against the current Tibetan predicament.

    Whether this mysterious man is really living in Beijing--as he claims--or whether he is a Tibetan researcher who has been working on ethnic minority policy for many years--as he describes himself--we may never know. But I'd like to imagine that such a person exists: a Tibetan intellectual who is working on the inside the Party system, in public acting just like any other Tibetan cadre--overly cautious, obedient, most of the time blind to the suffering and humiliation that the majority of Tibetans endure--yet deep down in his heart carrying a fire of passion for Tibet that bursts forth in a time of crisis and tragedy.

    Every time I think about this, I am moved.
    http://thebrang.blogspot.com/

    回复删除