Dibyesh Anand：佛不笑了

2011年2月2日，嘉瓦噶玛巴在他的驻锡之地——达兰萨拉上密院中接见来自印度各地的数千名流亡藏人、喜马拉雅民众和外国信徒时，就所谓的“巨款”+“中国间谍”风波，强调印度与中共的法制有天壤之别，信众可完全放心，事情总会有水落石出的时候。图1为当时情景，图2为信众支持嘉瓦噶玛巴的情景，皆来自网络。

本文来自http://www.hindustantimes.com/Buddha-s-not-smiling/Article1-657332.aspx。

佛不笑了

印度斯坦时报
2011年2月1日

作者：Dibyesh Anand（迪毕石·阿南德 ）
译者：卜花儿 ( @Buxoro)

“噶玛巴是中国间谍？”“达赖喇嘛可能的继任者是中国的奸细？”“这是中国为控制边境地区使用的新花招？”媒体对噶玛巴喇嘛的猜疑令人发指。可悲的是，这种新闻报道没有以任何实情调查为依据，这不仅暴露了印度媒体的工作方式，也打击了藏人对印度民主的信任，进而危害了印度在西藏的长远利益。

警方在搜查中发现了价值几千万卢比的现金，最多也可能只是噶玛巴寺院管理者处理金钱不够规则，或不太透明，他们当然要为此负责。但是指责一个人为另一个国家的间谍，是一个很严肃的问题，不应随便提出，因为会损害他或她的名誉。这种新闻报道扑风捉影，也显示了对生活在印度的西藏人缺乏了解。

第十七世噶玛巴伍金•赤烈多吉是噶玛噶举派的教主，具有藏传佛教中最悠久的转世传承。他是同时被达赖喇嘛和中国政府承认的为数不多的喇嘛之一。这并没有什么阴谋可言，在整个1980年代和1990年代初，中国对西藏境内的宗教人士还比较通融，对喇嘛转世的选择也能与达赖喇嘛及其他流亡中的喇嘛咨询、协调。到1995年，在班禅喇嘛转世发生危机之后，这种宽容不复存在。

第十六世噶玛巴圆寂后转世的选择本身也一直有争议，另一位是听列泰耶多杰，由噶玛噶举派的重要人物夏玛巴认证为噶玛巴。很多人都说夏玛巴与印度安全机构及政府机构由密切联系。但是，大多数藏人已接受达赖喇嘛的选择。在中国控制的西藏，实际上对噶玛巴的崇拜已仅次于对达赖喇嘛的崇拜，在西藏格鲁派寺院（达赖喇嘛和班禅喇嘛的教派），都能看到噶玛巴的照片。对普通藏人来说，噶玛巴与达赖喇嘛相距不远也增加了他的神圣性。

噶玛巴确实避免做反对中国的政治声明，北京也因此没有对他有所指责。同样，这也没有什么可疑之处，在1959年达赖喇嘛流亡时，中国也没有公开批评他，直到他发表公开声明之后。北京并不想因为谴责噶玛巴，而帮助制造出另一个全球公认的人物，成为自由西藏运动动员的象征。此外，在历史上，历代噶玛巴也一直避免政治，因为在西藏传统政府中，格鲁派一直起主导作用。专注纯粹宗教事务，第十七世噶玛巴是在保持前世的传统。

不幸的是，在了解藏传佛教派系之间及中藏关系中的微妙之处之前，印度媒体就对噶玛巴的非政治立场起疑。对噶玛巴1999年逃离西藏的一直不断的揣测，使我想起了一部日本阴谋论电影，编导认为他是被“派”到锡金取回在隆德寺保存的“黑帽”。有趣的是，我是在北京得到的这部电影！

几十年的文化革命一直未能动摇藏人对他们喇嘛的信念。印度媒体对噶玛巴的攻击只会增强藏人对他的尊重，但对印度肯定会适得其反。因为作为藏传佛教信徒，无论是在流亡之中，还是居住在边境地区，西藏和世界其他地区，都会因这种对宗教人士的羞辱而愤愤不平。试想，如果这个宗教人物是夏希伊玛目（Shahi Imam）或兰德福（Baba Ramdev），媒体会这么随便地编派这种未经证实的故事吗？

中国强硬派官员一定会对印度媒体的这场闹剧笑翻天了，他们知道，这将不仅会在印度的西藏流亡社会中产生疑惑，也会使生活在中国境内的藏人对印度失去好感。1940年代末以来，印度已多次让藏人失望，包括在提出独立要求时需要的帮助与支持，以及在1954年，与中国签署关于旧西藏国家的协议( Panchsheel agreement，中国译为“和平共处五项原则”，全名为《中印关于中国西藏地方和印度之间的通商及交通协定》）。印度是为十多万流亡藏人提供了庇护，但我们不要忘记，流亡的喇嘛是安稳的基石，对边民的抚慰比印度军队更为有效。藏人对他们的印度主人的感激也异常慷慨，不愿提起这个不大但令人尴尬的真相：直到1951年，那些有争议的边境地区，既不是中国的也不是印度的，而是西藏的。作为回报，印度人最起码可以做的是，如果没有证据，不要恶性中伤藏人宗教领袖。这个要求不过分吧？

原文：

Buddha’s not smiling

Hindustan Times
February 01, 2011

Dibyesh Anand

‘Is the Karmapa a Chinese spy?’ ‘Is the possible successor to the Dalai Lama a Chinese mole?’ ‘Is this another clever ploy of China to take control of the border regions?’ The media have gone berserk with speculations about the Karmapa Lama. Sadly, the coverage has failed to do any groundwork research. This episode not only exposes the way the Indian media works but also jolts the Tibetan faith in Indian democracy and harms India’s long-term interests in Tibet.

The police raid found a few crore rupees worth of cash. At most, this may be a case of financial irregularity or non-transparent dealings by the managers of the Karmapa’s monastery for which they should be held accountable. Raising questions about a person being a spy for another country is a serious matter. It destroys his or her reputation. The news stories reflect a witch-hunt and betray the lack of an understanding of Tibetan life in India.

Ogyen Trinley Dorje is the 17th Karmapa, the oldest lineage in Tibetan Buddhism and the head of the Karma Kagyu sect. He is one of the rare lamas recognised by both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, China was more accommodative of Tibet-based religious figures, consulting and coordinating the choice of reincarnations with the Dalai Lama and other lamas in exile. This accommodativeness came to an end with the crisis over the Panchen Lama’s reincarnation in 1995.

The Karmapa’s selection after the demise of the 16th Karmapa was not without its own controversy as there is a rival candidate, Trinley Thaye Dorje, who had the backing of a senior Karma Kagyu figure, the Shamarpa. The Shamarpa is reputed to have close connections within the Indian security establishment and bureaucracy. But most Tibetans have accepted the Dalai Lama’s choice. In fact, within China-controlled Tibet, veneration for the Karmapa is next only to that of the Dalai Lama. Even within the Gelug (the sect of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama) monasteries in Tibet, one comes across the Karmapa’s picture and it is clear that for ordinary Tibetans, the Karmapa’s proximity to the Dalai Lama adds to his sacredness.

It is true that the Karmapa has avoided making anti-China political statements and Beijing has therefore not denounced him. Again, there is nothing suspicious about this. The Chinese had refused to openly criticise even the Dalai Lama in 1959 until he made a public statement after his exile. Beijing does not want to denounce the Karmapa and thus contribute to the creation of another globally recognised figurehead around which the Free Tibet movement will mobilise. Moreover, in recent history, Karmapas have avoided overly political positions since in the traditional Tibetan State, the Gelug sect was dominant. By focusing solely on religious affairs, the present 17th Karmapa is following the footsteps of his previous reincarnation.

It is unfortunate that without appreciating the nuances of sectarian politics within Tibetan Buddhism and Sino-Tibetan relations, the Indian media portrayed the Karmapa’s apolitical stance as suspicious. Continuing speculation about the Karmapa’s escape from Tibet in 1999 reminds me of a Japanese conspiracy theory film where the filmmaker argued that he was ‘sent’ to Sikkim to get control over the ‘Black Hat’ kept in Rumtek monastery in Sikkim. Interestingly, this film was given to me in Beijing!

Decades of repression during the Cultural Revolution has not been able to shake the belief that Tibetans have in their lamas. The Indian media’s onslaught on the Karmapa will only reaffirm Tibetan respect for the Karmapa. But it will certainly backfire for India as followers of Tibetan Buddhism in exile, in the border regions, in Tibet and in the rest of the world, will resent this humiliation of the religious figure. Had it been the Shahi Imam or Baba Ramdev, would the media have taken such liberties in going to town with such an unconfirmed story?

Hardline officials in China must be laughing their heads off at the Indian media circus. They know that this will not only create confusion in the exiled Tibetan community in India, but will also create a disenchantment about India among Tibetans inside China. India has let the Tibetans down on many occasions since the late 1940s when the latter sought help and support in making their claims for independence internationally and in 1954 when the Panchsheel agreement was signed with China over the old Tibetan State. India has provided refuge to more than 100,000 Tibetan exiles. But we must not forget that the exiled lamas provide a stability and keep the people in the borderlands pacified in a manner more effective than the Indian military. Tibetans are over-generous with their gratitude to their Indian hosts and are hesitant in reminding India of a small inconvenient truth: until 1951, the disputed border regions were neither Chinese nor Indian but Tibetan. In return, the very least Indians could do is not malign Tibetan religious leaders before they are even proved guilty of their misdemeanour. Is that too much to ask?