THE POTOMAC CONFERENCE, October 5 - 6, 1992
SINO-TIBETAN RELATIONS: PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
October 5, Afternoon Session II.
CULTURAL, ETHNIC & CHANGING PERCEPTIONS
Tibetan Culture and Modernization
The Chinese Tradition of "Great Unification" and
the Tibetan Issue
The Ethics of Religion
Robert A. F. Thurman, Moderator
+ + + + + + +
ROBERT A. F. THURMAN
Now, Mr. Xue Haipei, who is the president of Green China, Incorporated,
who was already introduced in the earlier session on the environment. He
is the former Executive Director of The Independent Federation of Chinese
Students and Scholars. Mr. Xue.
XUE HAIPEI
I have to say a few words about Jamyang's words just now, even though
that breaks the protocol. I, myself, feel very bad all the time about
one thing in China. If you talk to people, even very educated, very
brilliant people in China, and possibly even politically sensitive
people, you will know that we all know that Chinese propaganda is false.
We all know that. We all know that everything they tell us in _The
People's Daily_ everyday is false, _one hundred percent_. And we have
all developed a skill called "the Chinese way of reading between the
lines of _The People's Daily_." We apply that every day in our daily
analysis, but when it comes to the issue of Tibet, that same skill
doesn't apply any more! We say we know that nothing happening there,
because that's what _The People's Daily_ has told us, so how can we know
anything else? I feel this is very inconsistent, and I have to say I am
ashamed of myself in this way.
Now I'll go back to my topic, a futuristic one, on civil religion and
the future of Tibetan Buddhism. I myself, from my own personal knowledge
of Tibetan Buddhism is, I guess, no more than average of most people
here.
I want to give a footnote at the beginning. This paper is more about
possibilities than a real assessment. It intends to raise some questions
rather than find solutions at this moment. It directs our attention to
one very fundamental question, that is, what can we contribute to each
other in the future, in whatever capacity - either one country or two
different countries - autonomous region or federation? For no two
neighboring relations can live in real peace together if, instead of
contributing to each other, each side engages in a zero-sum game.
CIVIL RELIGION AND FUTURE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM
The moment I mailed out the abstract for this brief paper, I started to
regret the title: it is simply is too broad an issue to be discussed for
such an occasion; and, at the same time, I am ill-prepared for the topic.
But the reason that somehow prompted me to venture into it, is the
growing concern about certain developments in China: that is, the
wide-spread cynicism of politics, public interest, morals, and culture.
I do not think I have to stress here the centrality of Tibetan Buddhism
to Tibetan society. Abruptly thrown into the Twentieth Century, followed
by a brief but painful encounter with Communist China, finally forced
into a long odyssey into the outside world, and after more than one
generation of non-religious, atheist education in Tibet, and given the
still-experimental and growing practice of democratic, secular governance
in the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, the situation that Tibetan Buddhism
faces tomorrow in Tibet hypothetically under His Holiness is a very
different and challenging one. Will Tibet remain a theocracy or [he nods
to moderator Thurman] a "lama-cracy," that is, putting spiritual and
temporal power in one religious leader or leading institutions, in this
case the Dalai Lama? What is the role that Buddhism will play in
education, law, morals, politics, and even economics in the Tibet of
tomorrow? Will Buddhism itself needs to reform? All these questions are
there, and they have to be explored and answered when envisioning
building the Tibet of tomorrow.
One thing that seems certain is that Tibetan Buddhism is not going to be
as widely involved in every aspect of daily life as before, or at least
it will be involved to a lesser degree. A case in point to highlight
this is the insistence of the Dalai Lama not to be the secular ruler of
day-to-day government of tomorrow. And we also know that education in
Tibetan settlements are no longer centered around Buddhism, even though
Buddhist teaching and knowledge is still an integral part of it. On the
other hand, Tibet today is also quite different from yesterday, whether
one likes it or not. It has been brought much closer to the influence of
the non-religious, or even anti-religious Han people and Han culture (and
in many other ways such as education, economic integration, Han people
working and living in Tibet, modern media, and the much increased volume
of exchange and contact, and communication itself). As a result, the
significance of Buddhism may be less intense among the well-educated
sector of populace, and some tension or uneasiness may develop.
As you can tell already this line of argument smacks of something that
rings familiar. I call it a by-product and integral part of the
modernization paradigm, the secularization thesis puts forth that as the
world becomes increasingly modernized, it will also become less religious
and more secular. Though I think the secularization thesis in general
misses an important point, and needs some serious revision, in term of
government, social institution-building, education, it does indicate a
direction of development.
American sociologist Robert Bellah of UC Berkeley has written
extensively about the concept, and tried to put it to empirical test in
this country; he came up with some interesting findings. The phrase
"civil religion" is Rousseau's, the great French social theorist and
writer. In his Chapter 8, Book 4 of the _Social Contract_, he outlines
the simple dogmas of the civil religion as he envisions. This is, "the
existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue, the punishment
of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance." What is central
here is the concept of God by Rousseau. As you know, Rousseau is quite
anti-Christian/Catholic, so the God here, rather than the Christian God,
it is a God of deism, equivalent to the supreme arbitrator/or supreme law
presiding over nature and human beings. To Bellah, civil religion in the
context of America, is that the core elements and symbols derived and
distilled from religions, are inculcated into the society and into the
culture of this country thus becoming God in the sense of Rousseau, a
supreme arbitrator, be it a religious God, a deist God, an active, "just
Heaven" in the Chinese sense, or even the enlarged shared fundamental
mission of mankind itself.
To Bellah, a whole set of concepts _ God, justice, love _ is embodied in
the new, and non-religious social rituals, symbols, language in the
culture. Hence the "God" referred to by the founding fathers and on up
to the last Presidential candidate; the American constitution, the acts
of the Supreme Court, the ceremonial placing the hand on the Bible in the
swearing-in of the President, and other forms of oath taking, down to the
rituals around sports in the high schools in small towns. This set of
concepts creates a transcending common ground for both the religious and
non-religious to communicate with each other, to share the same language,
symbols and message without compromising or bending one's individual
beliefs; it serves as a cushion between the religious and non-religious.
And, more constructively, it provides religion an access and channel to
the culture and to the society that it otherwise would not have, and it
elevates and directs the feeling toward the sacred, if not the religious,
of non-religious people to a higher realm of existence. For countries
that have more than one major religion, or with a strong or limited
religious tradition like India (which has several major religions at the
same time), Tibet (which has one very strong religion) and China (with a
very limited religion and with an atheistic past), the nurturing and
existence of such a transcending common ground often is vital for the
well-being of the country. Too often, for countries lacking such a
common ground, such as Iran, Lebanon, China and certain Latin American
countries, a vitality in social construct is lacking as well.
Even though Tibet is a very religious nation, perhaps the most religious
nation in world, there will be people who are not religious, who view
Tibetan Buddhism as largely cultural and historical heritage. For the
interests of the whole of Tibetan people, for the interests of a neighbor
with 1.3 billion people, and for peoples around the world who are
fascinated by the message of Buddhism, but who would not call themselves
Buddhist, or just plain humanists, a civil religion based on the Buddhist
message is taking shape in many places. Today, the "Sarvodaya movement"
in Sri Lanka, that work on rural development incorporating a Buddhist
vision, the more and more assertive Buddhist movement in Thailand, and in
Burma in this century.
And I would single out China where the Han lives to see the relevance of
that concept to China. As you know, in China today, we are having crises
of beliefs. Communism as it is practiced in China and Soviet Union is
for sure already bankrupt; Confucian tradition has been discredited since
the May 4th movement, and the younger generation are deprived of a chance
even to know what Confucianism is like. And from the Cultural Revolution
onward, even the very basic moral codes have been broken. Worse still,
there is a wide-spread politic-cultural cynicism nowadays that runs very
deep in society. In China today, there is one ideology, that is, simply
put, making money at whatever price, which I have to say, is _not_ a new
phenomenon, but rather quite consistent with our cultural tradition. So
we are left with very little choice today when facing a reconstruction
and renewal of Chinese society. And in reconstructing China, we have to
learn to combine all the resources, we have to learn how to be tolerant
and be pluralistic. If so, the moral forces of all the religions have to
be joined with other forces, with all the secular forces. After all, the
future of the culture, lies, to me, not in only maintaining its
distinction, but in the also synthesis of different cultures.
We often see in the crises in Chinese history, especially around the
change of the dynasties, people, especially scholars who like to go to
the religious roots to find some solution or blame. Around the turn of
the century, a lot of noted Chinese scholars turned to Buddhism, when
facing the Western advance in China - scholars such as Liang Qichao, Kang
Yonwei, and Hu Shi. And unfortunately for Hu Shi, he found that all the
trouble in China was that China was too much "Indianized."
Buddhism has a widespread influence and rooted tradition in China, even
though for most of its tenure, it has attracted more followers from the
lower strata of the society than on the top. The core message,
symbolism, and language of Buddhism in China, the vast, untapped
socio-cultural resources can be transformed into socially acceptable
form, namely, into the symbolism and language of civil religion. For
example, the concepts of kindness and mercy have a wide appeal
originating in but embraced far beyond Buddhism. The view of Karma can
translate into compatible concepts for non-Buddhists; The respectful
attitudes by Buddhists towards nature and all sentient beings can be made
compatible with and even deepening the concepts and action of
environmental movement (the story of Tibetan drivers who is not
religious, but stops to let a frog pass the road is a vivid reminder for
me - and he even told me that he is not Buddhist!) Given the extent and
history of religious exchange and influence between the Han people and
the Tibetan people and given the similarity and closeness of the kinds of
Buddhism both people have (I guess some of our Tibetan friends today may
still miss the role they played in 13th century with the Mongol, or Yuan
Dynasty ), Tibetan Buddhism could and should play its part in China. In
fact, in terms of Buddhism, if not Tibetan Buddhism under Dalai Lama, who
else?
In fact, His Holiness has been at the forefront in spreading the basic,
widely applied Buddhist message to the whole world in a humanistic,
culturally compatible fashion. "All what I believe in Tibetan Buddhism
can be boiled down to one word," His Holiness says, "and that is
'compassion'." In this fashion, what compassion carries with it can be
appealing to both religious and non-religious people, and we really have
a chance to see the real beauty and power of civil religion. For
Chinese, whose general populace, especially its intellectuals, are
largely atheistic and yet very sensitive to the feeling of the sacred, a
religious message transformed and adjusted this way really offers an
opportunity for them to look seriously at these messages, and even to
contribute what they can bring from their own culture to enriching it.
It offers a chance for a real dialogue to develop between the religious
and the non-religious, and thus may start a process that many social
theorists fail to grasp, notably the secularization thesis.
Having gone through this process, we come to look again at the
secularization thesis. It will not adequately explain the persistent,
even resurgent expression of conservative Protestantism in Europe and
America; it will not adequately explain the merging of Buddhist ethics
toward nature with the worldwide environmental movement; it will not
adequately explain how the religious join hands with the non-religious in
issues like social justice: and above all, it will not explain civil
religion itself at all, where the religious and the non-religious come
together. A fundamental flaw is, I believe, that the theorists did not
draw a distinction between "sacred" and "religion". Because if
secularization means the decline of religion, it does not necessarily
mean as well the disappearance of the sacred. It is exactly this feeling
of the sacred that helps draw closer the otherwise separate world of
religion and that of non-religion in the common transcending ground of
civil religion, thus giving us a platform for understanding each other
better, and it helps to constantly provide a fountain of appreciation of
religions like Tibetan Buddhism.
In my abstract, I asked, "is there a balancing point between the need of
the religious and the non-religious, which, instead of what the
secularization thesis claims, allows the two to communicate with each
other and even contribute to the mutual growth ?" I think one interesting
answer would be civil religion and the communication process that it sets
into motion.
In conclusion, permit me to quote His Holiness Dalai Lama: "It is my
prayer that one day I shall be able to carry this message of concern for
the environment and for others to the people of China. Since Buddhism is
by no means alien to the Chinese, I believe that I may be able to serve
them in a practical way.... For as a Buddhist monk, my concern extends to
all members of the human family and, to all suffering sentient beings."
ROBERT A. F. THURMAN
A very interesting talk for the sociologists, and I'm particularly
interested in that subject myself - the secularization thesis. In fact,
in Tibet I have a theory that Tibet is opposite - it's the
_sacrilization_ thesis. So, Tibet went in the opposite direction three
hundred years ago, and that's why it's so puzzling to everybody. But
we'll talk about that later.
|