2016年7月25日 星期一

中共当局开始清洗色达五明佛学院


【 民主中国首发 】   时间: 7/23/2016
作者: 桑杰嘉
中国政府对西藏色达佛学院实施的强拆和所谓的改革项目,不仅仅是对佛学院宗教活动进行限制,而是强制摧毁僧尼宿舍,在分割佛学院基础上进一步从佛学院上师喇嘛和堪布手中剥夺管理寺院的权力,并安排中共的干部管理佛学院。然后,将要把佛学院改变成中共政治运动的基地,特别将要驱逐学习佛教的僧人、尼姑和居士等,全面限制以佛教为主的西藏独特文化的学习和继承。从以上中共的文件中清楚看到,其目的是摧毁西藏人民的特质和语言等文化。

1993年被美国《世界报》称为“世界上最大的佛学院”的色达五明佛学院(作者供图)

西藏最大的佛教学院色达五明佛学院部分僧舍遭拆除、学员被驱逐

6月,境外媒体纷纷报道有关中共计划向西藏最大的佛教学院色达五明佛学院动刀--驱逐的学员和拆除僧舍的消息,境内外藏人忧心忡忡,各人权组织也呼吁国际社会关注。今天7月20日中共正式实施拆除僧舍行动,据中共官方发布的文件今年将驱逐2200名学员。到2017年佛学院人数限制在5000人,网友称“意味着63%的学员要被迫离开学院”。这是色达佛学院成立以来第四次遭受如此大规模的清洗行动。中共拆除僧舍的目的是驱逐僧侣,按中共的计划拆除僧舍和驱逐僧侣学员同步进行,《色达县喇荣五明佛学院整顿清理工作》指出,“驱逐出佛学院的人数与摧毁的僧舍数目要相等,将对僧舍的数目和人数进行对比调查。”因此,说明驱逐僧侣学员行动也已经开始了。
 色达佛学院,又称色达喇荣五明佛学院,位于西藏色大县境内,距离县城20公里,海拔3700米,由晋美彭措堪布于1980年创办,1993年被美国《世界报》称为“世界上最大的佛学院”。佛学院分僧人、尼师、居士,以及留学生等。学员来自西藏三区、中国各地以及欧美、台湾、新加坡、马来西亚等。
 据色达佛学院高层透露中共清洗之前派人进行调查,以及用高科技卫星等手段统计出色达佛学院共有13000座僧舍,这次行动中要拆除5000座僧舍,虽然色达佛学院没有透露驱逐僧尼和居士的人数。如果按一座僧舍居住一位学员计,中共可能会一次性驱逐5000名学员。

来自中共最高层决定

这次清洗色达佛学院是以《色达县喇荣五明佛学院整顿清理工作》为指导方针展开,该文件称:“是根据中央第六次西藏工作座谈会和第二次全国宗教工作会议整顿色达佛学院精神”的实施,从而看出清洗色达佛学院的决定来自中共最高层。另外,色达佛学院高层透露,这次的规定不是来自县、州政府,也不是省政府,是习近平曾亲自点了色达佛学院的名字,所以,没有人敢抗拒。色达佛学院高层明确指出此次无法躲避拆除,而且说这次政府文件中明确说色达佛学院面临“关键”时刻。中共当局也警告说 “清理”也许会受到阻力,“我们有充分的准备应对”。7月初,色达佛学院高层多次强调了“拆除僧舍是既定政策”。 依据中共《色达县喇荣五明佛学院整顿清理工作》显示执行“清理”色达佛学院的是甘孜藏族自治州政府的各部门,还有色达县政府。负责实施的大多数官员是中国人。而且,该运动分七个步骤,并有实施小组和负责人进行限时执行。

中共文件显示参与执行的部门有:甘孜州宣传部、州统战部、州民族宗教工作室、州法律部门、州公安处、州民政、州国家安全局、州城镇住房建设部门、州国家资源部门、州民政、色达县政府等。

清洗七步骤

中共《色达县喇荣五明佛学院整顿清理工作》七个步骤进行。通过七个步骤完成对色达佛学院的清洗任务,其中包括宣传教育、登记佛学院学员、僧舍编号、驱逐学员、拆除僧舍、佛学院内安装监控摄影装置、限制佛学院进出、设置政府行政部门、政府干部进入寺院管理结构,并管理寺院的宗教活动等。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤一:

对佛学院实施开展政治宣传教育运动。向僧侣宣传第六次中央西藏工作座谈会和全国宗教工作会议的内容。按佛学院宗教管理层分三部分进行:

第一部分,佛学院常务代表委员会委员和常务委员、年长的僧尼等实施(干部)私人关系上进行宣传和说明。对佛学院各部的格给(职务)和十八部门的负责人集中宣传和说明。对324殿小(佛学院组织)组负责人进行分组宣传和说明,这一工作要在2016年6月1日前要完成。

第二部分,佛学院各林(佛学院的组织)和各聪(佛学院的组织)召开会议宣传和说明,并要写认可书。僧人和尼姑签订承认和遵守这些法规的协议,按法规学习宗教,在佛学院树立法规宣传栏。向僧人和尼姑放映中共法规宣传教育影片,要求佛学院的法规普及率达到百分之百。这一运动2016年7月3日前要完成。

第三部分,在佛学院每月进行法规宣传教育运动,这一运动要求在2016年10月31日前完成。

负责领导者:儋尼克(音译)、张潘森(音译)、香洛、香曲等。

执行部门:州宣传部、州统战部、州民族宗教工作室、州法律部门和色达县政府等。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤二:

对佛学院居住的居士、僧人、尼姑、老人和残疾人等的进行详细的登记注册,实施所谓的“一个标准三个实际”。对地点、人数、僧舍等分成不同的分类,为便于检查和管理对僧舍进行编号。这一运动要在2016年7月31前完成。

负责领导人:李江(音译)、张平生(音译)、舒文(音译)。

负责部门:州公安处、州民政、州国家安全局、色达县政府。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤三:

消减佛学院僧人、尼姑和居士的数量。2016年驱逐僧人和尼姑2200人,其中1029名居士进行另外分区。1200名僧人和尼姑将驱逐佛学院。其中包括来自其他省的僧人和尼姑600名。2017年将佛学院总人数限制在5000人,如果2017年9月30日前没有限制在5000人,2017年驱逐僧人和尼姑的人数将增加。

今年驱逐出寺院的僧人和尼姑的名单要在2016年6月15日前上交政府,10月30日前要驱逐完毕。向上级提交寺院常住的5000名僧侣的名单,其中外省僧侣不得超过1000人。调查其他居住在寺院中的人员, 2016年8月30日前提交名单给上级部门。

负责领导人:张平生(音译)、儋尼克(音译)、蔡耶芳(音译)。

负责部门:州统战部、州民族宗教事务委员会、州教育部门、州公安处、州民政、色达县政府,还有外地僧尼各自的县、州政府部门。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤四:

要拆除1500座僧舍,包括2013年至今被驱逐出佛学院的僧人、尼师、违犯规定建的僧舍、进入养老院的僧尼之僧舍,以及住进旅馆的尼师之宿舍等,至2016年10月30日要完成。

负责领导:张阳都(音译)、阿吉布哲(音译)。

负责部门:州统战部、州民族宗教委员会、州公安处、州城镇住房建设部门、州国家资源部门、州民政、色达县政府等。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤五:

佛学院内安装监控摄影装置,规定佛学院进出的法规。2016年8月31日前要完成。

负责领导人:张平生(音译)、舒文(音译)。

负责部门:州公安处、色达县政府。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤六:

佛学院居士林要单独分离出佛学院,改为由政府直接控制下的行政部门。佛学院和居士林之间30米内的所有的僧舍要强拆。2016年9月30日前要完成。

负责领导人:张平生(音译)、西布(音译)

负责部门:州城镇住房建设部门、州国家资源部门、州民政、色达县政府。

中共清洗色达佛学院的步骤七:

拆除僧人和尼师宿舍要把寺院和学院分开,并保留隔离区。从保留的5000名学员中区分入寺院的僧尼和入佛学院的僧尼名单和数目。寺院管理要有政府干部和僧人负责,并管理寺院的宗教活动。佛学院按中国政府学校管理方式管理,建立一个有政府干部和僧人组成的管理委员会,并将开设中国政府的教育活动,还有实施2+3办法。2016年8月31日前要完成。

负责领导人:李成明(音译)、儋尼克(音译)、张平生(音译)、香曲

负责部门:州统战部、州民族宗教事务委员会、州公安处、州城镇住房建设部门、州国家资源部门、色达县政府。

中共为什么要清洗佛学院?

为什么中共政府对色达佛学院一而再,再而三地进行清洗?

中共宣布要对色达佛学院进行所谓的“清理”之后,西藏境内外非常关注事态的发展,各人权组织纷纷谴责中共以改善佛学院之名清洗佛学院。也引起了境内外社会媒体上广泛的讨论。因此,中共色达县委统战部部长华科“辟谣”说:“色达五明佛学院要被拆除?假的!”,并说因为色达佛学院:“杂乱无序的生活区安全隐患非常大”、“ 政府要规划一个更加宜居宜修的禅院宝地”。西藏这六十多年的血泪长河中真的找不到中共如此关心西藏佛教和寺院的例子,相反,对于藏人更多经验是黄鼠狼给鸡拜年---没安好心!

从中共发布的文件中非常清楚,其目的是驱逐僧尼等学员,控制佛学院人数,限制僧尼自由入学,以及政府直接控制佛学院的各部门和宗教活动。色达佛学院是西藏乃至世界上最大的佛学院,自成立以来一直坚持学习和修行西藏佛教、传承和发扬光大西藏传统文化、积极参与社会服务、慈善活动。另外,由于数千名的中国学子在佛学院依靠雄厚的师资力量直接用中文学习西藏佛教。还有佛学院几位出色的堪布在中国哲学、佛学界,乃至世界各地受到广泛欢迎。特别是学院虽然由宁玛传承的晋美彭措大师创办,但一直坚持西藏各大传承哲学体系的综合式教学方式,所以,更是广受欢迎,学员云集。

中共为了控制西藏佛教以及为其独裁统治服务前后颁布多部“法规”,控制佛教机构、干涉宗教活动、涉足宗教传统等,如《藏传佛教寺庙管理办法》、《藏传佛教活佛转世管理办法》等等。

自从佛学院创办起,来自西藏各地的学子日益增多,现有万余学员,如此庞大的西藏佛教组织对于独裁者、消灭西藏文化和民族为目的的中共来说一直是眼中钉,早想斩草除根。但是,由于佛学院管理层和学员坚持自律,包括2008年全西藏发生抗议事件时佛学院非常谨慎,最后中共还是没有找到下手的机会。但是,对于像中共这样的独裁殖民政权来说“欲加之罪,何患无辞”?曾经多次以不同的理由进行了严厉打击色达佛学院,一直无法全面控制佛学院。因此,中共最高层“发怒”了,在中共“中央第六次西藏工作座谈会和第二次全国宗教工作会议”等会议上习近平指出:“推动宗教问题始终是中共治国理政必须处理好的重大问题,宗教工作在党和国家工作全域中具有特殊重要性,并强调宗教中国化是重要任务。”因此,色达佛学院难逃一劫,也是为什么地方政府如此下定决心的原因。

西藏人权与民主促进中心谴责:“中国政府对西藏色达佛学院实施的强拆和所谓的改革项目不仅仅是对佛学院宗教活动进行限制、是强制摧毁僧尼宿舍、分割佛学院基础上进一步从佛学院上师喇嘛和堪布手中剥夺管理寺院的权力,并安排中共的干部管理佛学院。然后,将要把佛学院改变成中共政治运动的基地,特别将要驱逐学习佛教的僧人、尼姑和居士等。全面限制以佛教为主的西藏独特文化的学习和继承。从以上中共的文件中清楚看到,其目的是摧毁西藏人民的特质和语言等文化。”

佛学院别无选择

最近网上传色达佛学院堪布慈诚罗珠7月2日向僧尼众发表的讲话录音。堪布慈诚罗珠在讲话中强调政府已经下定决心要拆除僧舍,也说明了官方文件对这次清洗的既定政策。还说明了这个决定来自中共中央最高决策者。他也回顾了前几次的打压经历,以及堪布晋美彭措大师在面临打压时的立场和应对方式等。最后,堪布慈诚罗珠呼吁僧尼众要为大局着想,要从佛学院的未来着想,要为佛法既如意宝晋美彭措的法脉着想。如果采取一些极端方式将对整个佛学院带来灾难,我们作为如意宝晋美彭措的弟子相信为佛法、为如意宝的法脉考虑。也劝说不要在社会媒体发表过激言论等。他说他们在拆除僧舍时我们继续看书学习,我知道拆除僧舍是对个人是个很大的损失,因此,佛学院也在想给予个人补助等。而且,特别强调政府在过去几年里一直向佛学院高层施压,这次是在无法摆脱拆除僧舍。

另外,在网上传发说是堪布慈诚罗珠的讲话:“我们将以‘四沙门法’方法应对这场风波;他骂不还骂,他怒不还怒,他打不还打,寻过不还报。”

中共多次打压色达佛学院

色达佛学院创办至今经历了多次中共政治打压,摧毁等,其中较大规模的打压运动如下:

在2001年6月中旬,中共军队开往喇荣高地,进行各种操练军演恐吓,之后,军队开始拆除学院部分中国学员僧舍。5月27日上午9时十五分,中共军队带着工人及监察员进入佛学院拆除尼师宿舍,工人周围是全副武装的军人守护,而且还有更多的士兵在佛学院的制高点上虎视眈眈。当时军方已经下令拆除僧舍时如有人反抗即可立即开枪。6月27日至7月12日,中共拆除2200余座僧舍,并下令佛学院只准许1000名僧人和400名尼师居留,其他一律强制驱逐。这次驱逐事件中由于无法接受中共对佛学院的清洗19岁的西藏尼师旺莫自杀,另外,还有一位中国尼师和中国僧人前后自杀。当时,佛学院僧尼约8800人。

2002年12月,中共政府官员再次来到佛学院要求拆除上次没有拆除的尼师宿舍。12月26日,中共开始拆除行动,当时遭到学员的抗议。后来又与色达县干部发生冲突,并拘捕了四名学员,佛学院按政府要求赔偿了之后,四位学员无罪释放。
2004年4月底至5月初,中共政府再次进入佛学院强制拆除房舍20多栋。

西藏著名作家采访记录“在一个清凉的早晨,有几十辆军用卡车轰鸣地冲进山谷,武警荷枪实弹,纵身跃下,强行拆毁了3000多所房屋。……整个山谷只剩下了1400名学员,法王晋美彭措在失去行动自由一年后终于得以回到了他创建的学院。但是,政府丝毫没有放松对色达佛学院的监控,常年派工作组驻守。”

2016年7月20日

2016年7月2日 星期六

ཚེ་རིང་འོད་ཟེར་ལགས་ཀྱིས་ང་དང་གྲོགས་མོ་ཐང་ཏན་ཧང་གི་དེབ་༼དུས་ལོག་༽གི་ཆེད་དུ་བྲིས་པའི་གླེང་བརྗོད་དབྱིན་ཡིག་མ།西藏著名作家唯色为《翻身乱世流亡藏人》口述录写的---《证言是如此迫切又重要》英文版:“The Urgency and Importance of Eyewitness Testimonies – Part Two” ByTsering Woeser

“The Urgency and Importance of Eyewitness Testimonies”
By Woeser

Part Two

Eleven Tibetan eyewitnesses who recount their past experiences appear in the book “Troubled Times: Voices of Tibetan Refugees”; apart from one woman–the daughter of a resistance fighter–all of them are men, and all of them were resistance fighters. There is one of them, Chagdoe Donyon, I will never forget. This is not only because he is from Kham, the same hometown as my father and was also born in 1937, the same year my father was born, but more because when I saw his photo I was shocked to notice how much he also resembled my father. I read and re-read his oral accounts. He was the illegitimate child of a Princess from Derge. At the age of 13, he went to the Derge Imperial Palace at a time when my also 13-year-old father joined the military troops, leaving Derge for Chamdo. At 18, Donyon fled from Derge with his wife and parents and made a pilgrimage to Lhasa. Back then, my father was also in Lhasa, probably already a second lieutenant of the PLA. Later, Donyon became an important member of the “Chushi Gangdruk” trained by the CIA, leading a group of seven people to enter Tibetan airspace and organise and train resistance fighters. By that time, my father was already a high military officer working at the communications department for the Tibet Military Zone. If these two people from the same hometown, at the same age, looking so alike had met back then, they would have been bitter enemies. It is hard to even imagine this unlikely scenario; but it is certain that even if they had had something in common, they would have had to massacre each other.
Another witness is the official of the old Tibetan government Juchen Thubten Namgyal. He is also from Derge. In fact he is a relative of my father’s female cousin; more precisely, he is a relative of my father’s female cousin’s father and so he was not in direct blood relations to my father. However, I have never really understood this matter. When my father was still alive, I once asked him about their relationship, but he did not want to speak and I left it at that. Anyway, it is also not important whether the two were blood related or not, what I actually want to express is that after reading Juchen Thubten Namgyal’s oral account, I was overcome by complicated emotions. In terms of age, Juchen Thubten Namgyal was merely six years older than my father. But in real life, Juchen Thubten Namgyal took off his robes, became a guerilla fighter and left Derge to fight in Lhasa and other Tibetan areas. My father, as a PLA officer, was also in Lhasa and other Tibetan places; he did not go to war and only worked as a translator and took up an administrative post. And yet, the two men had already become bitter enemies.
I took particular notice of Juchen Thubten Namgyal’s accounts of the end of 1955 when so-called “democratic reform” was being implemented in Derge and public denunciations were daily fare, specifically demonising the religious. The royal family sent Juchen Thubten Namgyal to Lhasa to ask for armed support from the Tibetan government. But when he arrived in Lhasa he realised that “the Potala Palace, Jokhang and Ramoche Temples were embellished with butter lamps and the aristocratic officials were carrying out large-scale constructions, the noise of tamping machines was everywhere … the officials were doing big business, building new houses, singing and dancing, it was like one big happy festival.” It reminded me of Tsering Shakya’s book “The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947” in which he describes that when the Communist army entered Lhasa to “win over the patriotic upper class” they used the old silver dollar “Dayan” to crazily purchase Tibetan products. Members of the aristocratic families “saw this as an opportunity to make big money.” They readily sold land and accommodation, they sold grain and wool and happily enjoyed lavish banquets and ballroom dances organised by the PLA; every month they would send their servants back with horses loaded with bags full of “Dayan”. Sickening indeed.
In Autumn 2012, the Tibetologist Elliot Sperling published the article “The Body Count”. When I posted the Chinese translation on my blog, I promoted it as “an incredibly important essay; for history, for Tibet, for China; and of course, even more for humanity (this sentence should be specifically and forcefully directed at those so-called scholars who deliberately distort facts and who are mass murderers shaping humanity).”
In the article Sperling writes: “It is beyond dispute that there have been massive deaths in Tibet in the period between approximately 1950 and 1975 … the fact that a large-scale slaughter took place ought to be unquestioned”. However, “the matter of mass death in Tibet has rarely been raised within the PRC, at least officially, and then, only to rebut claims of such an occurrence.”
Mr. Sperling wrote this article because of photos that had been taken in May 2012 revealing mass graves in Nangchen county (Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai Province), showing human bones piling up, a ghastly sight. Local Tibetans exposed that this was where monks and laypeople had been massacred in 1958. “The past had come calling in the form of a mass grave. And the past was unconcerned about embarrassing the Chinese Government.” It is not only this mass grave that makes the eyewitness testimonies in “Troubled Times: Voices of Tibetan Refugees” ever more meaningful.
Mr. Sperling points out: “There are other ways in which the suppressed history of the slaughter breaks through the barrier of silence that the Chinese authorities have imposed on it.” The examples listed include a map displaying the collated data of China’s 1982 census; “the Tibetan Plateau, in 1982, had a widespread imbalance between males and females, an imbalance that can really only be explained by violent struggle. Across the entire PRC the Tibetan Plateau stands out in red as the largest expanse of territory in which the number of women so consistently outstripped that of men. And there among the red is Yushu…”. Two Tibetans who appear in “Troubled Times: Voices of Tibetan Refugees” are survivors from this red territory.
Mr. Sperling also says, “In the end, it is the records held by China that need to see the light of day. It is not enough to know, whether from direct personal accounts or indirect references in other sources, that something horrid and brutal took place in Tibet.” But of course, these records are still hidden secrets locked away and so today, the oral testimonies of survivors are ever more urgent and important. Just as the old Ratu Ngawang from Lithang said: “Chinese Communists have no belief, they forced Tibetans to destroy their monasteries. Headmen, Rinpoches and monks were accused of exploiting the people and thus massacred. They used the national army to suppress people in Kham and Amdo. They had guns, airplanes, bombs and so on, but we had no weapons other than those bought privately. The Tibetan people will never forgot that they ruthlessly massacred these helpless people, we will pass this history on from generation to generation. I will never forget this until I take my last breath.”
Tang Danhong and I first met when she opened her Kafka Bookshop in Chengdu. She is a typical Chengdu beauty. Her bookshop was located in an old vernacular alley that has by now been turned into a fake scenic spot. Inside the shop, I was drawn to the special shelf with books about Tibet; Danhong noticed it and came forward. It was the beginning of 20 years of deep friendship. Today, she lives far away in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, while I live in China’s imperial capital. We have not met each other for 11 years.
Both Danhong and I were given the inborn passion and gift of writing poetry. Her documentaries are also extraordinarily valuable, documenting sky burials and Buddhist assemblies at Tsurphu Monastery, the young Karmapa and also Sershul County’s ecology and folklore. She has been to Lhasa many times, sometimes living with me. We would then go to the monastery, we would go out sightseeing or to eat Sichuan and Tibetan food.
We have so much in common; not only age, poetry and art; not only Sichuan dialect and not only our deep love for Tibet. My love comes from my flesh and bones–just as Danhong wrote in an email to me: “You love them because they are your family, I love them because of my mysterious connection with them…” But what unites us the most is our profound feeling of shame: She feels this shame because she is Chinese; I feel this shame because I am one-quarter Chinese and because my father was a PLA soldier. And because of this shame, we feel restless and even guilty. Because of this shame we want to make up for it through writing. This is also why, after the protests of March 2008, Danhong wrote the essay “Chinese views on Tibet: Tibet – Her Pain, My Shame”. She wrote: “18 years ago, when I set foot on Tibetan soil for the very first time, I could not imagine that I would ever feel such deep and inconsolable regret for the place and its people; I did not know that my encounter with Tibet bestowed this precious favour on my life; I also did not know that when I received Tibet’s comfort and compassion, another feeling dissipated throughout my body and mind, it was a feeling of pain that had nothing to do with me as an individual, but was related to the relationship between two ethnic groups: Chinese and Tibetans…”
Because of this shame, Danhong embarked upon the path of writing eyewitness literature. We hope to eliminate nations and nationalists; we want to eliminate power, colonialists and their “Damnatio memoriae”, just as suffering has always existed and keeps accumulating. And all of this can never be wiped away, it can even less be destroyed and glossed over through “Damnatio memoriae”. George Orwell, in “1984”, writes about the “unperson”, someone who has been vaporised and thus erased from existence. The oral accounts of the 11 Tibetans in “Troubled Times: Voices of Tibetan Refugees” tell how countless Tibetans were massacred and vaporised; they were once real, but then disappeared in physical or virtual mass graves as if they had never ever existed. And it is only through such eyewitness testimonies that these compatriots continue to exist.
Finally, I need to mention Sangjey Kyab from Amdo. He was born in the 1970s and became an exiled Tibetan of the new generation. He first left Tibet for Dharamsala and then settled down in Europe. Though we have never met, we have become good friends. I would like to thank him for his continuous help in translating Tibetan essays.
August 2015, Beijing