二
比起這點，第二個問題或許更令北京憂心。達賴喇嘛人在印度50 年，其一言一行在藏區竟然還有如斯巨大的影響力，原因究竟何在？近日的藏區紛亂，官方一直強調是「達賴集團」在幕後精心策劃出來的，我以為這個說法必須好 好分析。首先，所謂「達賴集團」指的其實不一定是達賴本人。凡對西藏問題略有所知者，都知道「西藏青年大會」才是流亡西藏人中的激進派，他們的勢力龐大網 絡周全，雖然奉達賴喇嘛為尊，但也公開批評過達賴的非暴力主張，二者潛存矛盾。我們目前雖然沒有足夠資訊研判內情，但最近的事件卻不一定就是達賴本人指揮 煽動。反過來看，達賴那番若藏人暴力活動持續他就要退位的聲明，則有可能是對「西藏青年大會」等激進派的反制施壓。 二.Compared to this point, the second problem maybe more disturbs government in Beijing. Dalai Lama himself has been in India for 50 years. His actions and words are so influential to Tibetan district. What is the reason on earth? For the turbulence happened in Tibet recently, the government have been emphasizing that the activity was devised in an elaborate way by Dalai Group behind the curtain. I think this statement should be analyzed carefully. Firstly, what is called Dalai Group, it does not mean Dalai himself. All of the people who know something about Tibet problem may know that Tibetan Youth Congress is the radical school among exiled Tibetan, who has powerful influence and considerate network. Although they divinize Dalai Lama, they criticize his nonviolence proposition. Contradiction exists silently between them. We don’t master enough information to research and judge secret situation for the time being, but recent event were not always commanded and fomented by Dalai Lama. On the other hand, the statement of Dalai that he will abdicate if Tibetans continue to make violent activities perhaps may indicate a counter spelling and pressing to Tibetan Youth Congress and other radical schools. 然而，不管有沒有人策動藏人上街，也不管策動者是誰，中國政府首先該問的是何以它在過去數十年來投入了大量的人力財力，使西藏年均GDP 每年皆有超過10%的增長，竟還有許多藏人深懷怨憤，隨時就能人手一面「雪山獅子旗」呢？以我個人所見，這甚至是不少漢族知識分子都感到難以理解的，他們 有的相信官方主流論述，認為共產黨把藏人從神權統治下的農奴制解放了出來；有的則覺得漢地各省長期以來勒緊自己的褲帶對西藏施行慷慨的「對口援助」，藏民 卻毫不領情，一翻臉就不認人，甚是奇怪。 However, no matter whether there are someone staged Tibetan to go to the street, also no matter who was the sponsor, what the Chinese government should ask is even they devote a great deal of man power and wealth, and makes GDP per capita in Tibet has been growing at rates of more than 10% every year, but still many Tibetans keep discontent and indignation deeply in their heart to the extent that each person can hold snow mountain and lion flag at any time? In my personal opinion, this is hard even for a number of Han nationality intellectuals to understand. Some of them believe government statement of main trend, and hold the point of view that CCP saved and liberated the Tibetan from Serfdom under thearchy; some of them feel very strange for every province which people of Han nationality reside all tight their belts to give coordinated general assistance to Tibet, but Tibetans, as it were, ungrateful to that behavior, once fall out, very unfriendly. 说起來，西藏問題真是一團迷霧，只要你朝它多走一步，你就會發現原來所相信的任何一種簡單立場都能碰上理據十足的反駁。不只現在的西方媒體造假與中國傳媒監控各惹嫌疑，歷史上的詭局謎團更是令人眼花撩亂。如果你認為「自古以來」，西藏就是中國的一部分；你將會發現要花很多時間去解釋古代宗主國對藩屬的關係為什麼等同於現代民族國家和它的轄下省份（越南反而確曾是中華王朝的一省）。反過來說，如果你相信在「中國入侵」之前，西藏是片連丁點暴力都不可能發生的和平淨土；那麼你又該如何理解14 任達賴喇嘛裏頭只有3位順利活到成年的事實呢？假如你覺得文革對西藏的破壞是不可饒恕的，你或許應該知道當年打砸佛寺佛像的主力之一竟然是藏人。假如你認為中央對西藏的宗教自由已經足夠寬容，甚至准許流亡在外的眾多上師返鄉建寺（最有名的當屬頂果欽哲法王）；你可能也曉得現在的西藏小學生是連隨身護符也不准帶的。 Taking this break, Tibet problem really leave people in doubt. As long as you walk forward to it, you will find any simple standpoint that you believed before can meet round disproval. Not only western media forged and china media controls are suspected separately, but also historical enigmas and puzzles bewilder people to a great extent. If you think Tibet has been a part of China since the ancient years, you will find that much time will be paid to explain why suzerain to vassal state equals modern democracy country to its provinces under its command (instead of Vietnam was once a province of china dynasty). Conversely, if you believe Tibet was a peaceful pure land before china invading even a little bit violent accident would not happen at all, how do you understand only three living Buddha lived smoothly among fourteen ones? If you think destroy of Cultural Revolution to Tibet is unforgiving, maybe you ought to know that one of main forces of beating and smashing josses are unexpectedly Tibetans during that time. If you think the religion freedom of central government give Tibet is lenient enough, even Zhongduo Guru was allowed to go back to hometown to build temple (the most famous one is Ding Guo Qin Zhe Dharmaraja), you may also know that nowadays pupils in Tibet are not permitted to bring talisman with them. 關於西藏的歷史，北京和達蘭薩拉各有一套說法。前者強調老西藏是塊大部分人充當農奴的黑暗土地，是共產黨一手把它帶進了光明的現代社會。後者則將西藏描繪為一個牧歌般的和平桃源，沒有爭戰只有靈性，是無神論的共產黨摧毁了這一切。 About history of Tibet, Beijing and Dharamsala, both sides have a point. The former emphasizes that old Tibet is a black land filled with most people were taken as serf, CCP pulled it into a modern society without the help of others; while the latter describes Tibet as a bucolic and peaceful Shangri-La with no war, but spiritualism, it is atheistic CCP, destroy everything. 平心而論，兩者都各有偏頗，不足為信。西藏確曾是個農奴社會，1951 年前，光是三大領主經營的莊園竟然就佔了全藏可耕地的62%，其中又有37%為寺院所有。大部分平民都要在耕作之餘替領主服終身勞役。不過這些農奴的實况 遠非中文裏的「奴」字所能概括，雖然身分是「奴」，但他們的物質生活卻不一定很差，所以在「劃成分」時才會出現了「富裕農奴」這麼古怪的類別。西藏確實也 是個佛國，出家人所佔的人口比例舉世罕見。只不過和任何俗世社會一樣，以前的西藏也少不了各種勾心鬥角、貪污暴政甚至高層僧侶間的政治暗殺，與完美的世外 桃源相去甚遠（詳見王力雄《天葬》、Melvyn Goldstein 的經典巨著《A History ofModern Tibet 1913-1951》（中譯《喇嘛王國的覆滅》） 及《The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China,Tibet and the Dalai Lama》）。 To give the devil his due, every part is not fair enough to count for very little. Tibet was really a serf society. Before 1951, only manors operated by three large suzerains occupied 62% of Tibetan arable land and 37% of that was possessed by temples. Most of ordinary people needed to be at servitude for the whole life. But the situation of those serfs is far from Chinese serf can be generalized. Though status is serf, their material life was not necessarily tough. So such odd catalogue rich serf appeared when dividing identity. Tibet was a real Buddha land, it is seldom seen votarists constitute a high proportion of population in the world. Only as same as other secular society, Tibet was also full of intrigue, tyranny, corruption, even the assassination among high class monks, quite far from an imaginary ideal world.
