联合早报: 西方民主、人权和黑白通吃的热比娅

　　前段时间，一伙民族分裂暴徒在乌鲁木齐制造了骇人听闻的打砸抢烧杀事件，给新疆人民的生命安全和新疆的稳定造成了极大地威胁。

　　商店被抢砸，公共交通工具被焚烧，无辜的汉维民众惨死街头，7.5日那天，所有中华儿女的心里都在滴血。有人说：中国逢九必有灾。虽然这个说法在今年
得到了再一次论证，但是这种说法却给七五事件蒙上了一种“天灾说”的色彩，它让人觉得，在这个逢九的年度里，中国必遭此一劫。然而，相对天灾，笔者觉得这
件事情更是人祸。

　　即使我们获取7.5事件真相的条件有限，但我们仍可以从我们能获知的消息中轻易地判断出这次疆独恐怖分子的暴力行为是提前策划好的。且不说现在抓获的
暴徒有来自千里之外的南疆地区，也不论所谓“和平示威”人士 的武装速度和武装程度已经赶得上冷兵器时代枕戈待旦的武士
，笔者更不忍心提那些无辜惨死街头的乌鲁木齐市民，单是从“疆独”势力的教母——热比娅在西方电视台出现地速度和为信口雌黄的作的充分准备来看，我们就可
以看出热比娅其实早已预知了这起事件的暴力走向。

　　如果还有人要说，这只是起和平示威活动，暴力行为是为了反抗政府的镇压。那么笔者觉得只有两种可能：一种是这些人为了一己自私，把自己的良心喂了狗；第二种就不说了，反正凭他们的智商，说了他们也听不懂。

　　结果还真的有人看不懂。《纽约时报》的记者在乌鲁木齐采访伤者时，把长着汉人面孔，墙头贴有汉人名字的汉族伤员硬生生报道成“在此次事件中受伤的无辜
维族群众”。《伦敦晚报》报道
“7.5事件”时配发了中国中央电视台公布的被暴徒袭击的无辜群众相互安慰的视频截图，图片展示的是两位被暴徒袭击后满是鲜血的少女。然而，《伦敦晚报》
给出的图片说明却是：“两名女士在被警察攻击后，互相安慰。”

　　还有一些境外记者在采访群众时，使用非常煽动性的语言来挑起和误导少数民族群众的情绪，一旦这些少数民族群众稍微对政府表示一点不满，他们便将之放
大，然后做成效果传回国内，当作第一手真实的新闻报道。而与此同时，他们对他们身后的正在发生的暴徒打砸行为却充耳不闻。7.5事件发生后，《华尔街日
报》、《纽约时报》上发表的文章更是通过“严谨”地分析得出了汉人政府镇压维族人的结论。正是通过这样无耻的行迳，西方的某些媒体，蒙骗了数以千万计的西
方民众，他们却得到了自己想要的舆论。

　　对于这些新闻恐怖主义，笔者不想多言，只想说一句：记者先生，虽然您
有着对事业无比狂热的热情，有着对弱者充满怜悯的表情，还有着对普天大众的无以复加的慈悲感情，但您的业务水准真的应该加强了。真的！或者您应该把您的职
业道德标准稍微提高一点，因为万一您的职业道德程度低于海平面，可能会引起海水的倒灌。

　　在7.5事件发生之后，笔者由衷地佩服热比娅，因为她竟然能做到黑白通吃。她能在赢得一部分西方舆论势力支持的同时和赢得基地组织的支持，太不容易
了。能把西方民众所痛恨的极端的宗教精神和西方一直以来都引以为豪的西方民主结合起来，笔者简直不知热比娅是怎么做到的，或者不知道西方媒体是怎么做到
的。

　　虽然这个女人不简单，笔者看不懂，但值得庆幸的是，通过这次的事件，笔者终于看清了一直以来以为被很多人认为很先进、很神圣的西方民主的面孔。
　　纵观整个人类社会的发展史，我们都必须承认，民主是这个世界社会制度发展的最终趋势。然而，这是不是就意味着我们必须追随那些已经实行民主的西方国家，恳求他们赐予我们民主的理念和制度呢。如果你现在还这样认为，你就是白痴。

　　一直以来作为软实力被标榜，同时又让西方国家自我感觉站在道德制高点的西方民主的实质是什么呢？在欧美发达国家的国内，民主制度确实体现了全民意志，
也促进了这些国家社会的发展进步，不可否认民主制度确实是一个进步的政治制度。但在国外，西方的这些发达国家对其他国家体现过民主吗？没有，从来没有！

　　虽然他们一再宣称：天赋人权，人人生而平等，但是他们从来就未认为伟大的美国人民和伊拉克，阿富汗难民平等。虽然他们宣称人民最重要的是生存权，人权
高于主权，但是那些西方的主流媒体对汉族群众的死伤视而不见，却对政府为制止暴力行为采取的行动说三道四。这些都表明标榜着民主、人权的西方媒体是将汉族
人民的生存权置于他们的国家利益之下，这难道也是人权高于主权吗？

　　西方天天呼吁民主、人权，好像他们在追求世界的正义与和平，可人们看到的却只是他们追逐利益的脚步。伊拉克的石油让伊拉克人民必须有民主；阿富汗的地
缘政治让阿富汗人民必须有民主；乌干达什么都没有，所以他们可以自相残杀。歪曲事实的真相，分裂中国的行为对他们有利，所以他们可以对汉维群众的被屠杀熟
视无睹。

　　越来越多的事实让人们明白，西方国家不是民主的圣地，西方那些衣冠楚楚的政治家更不是民主世界的上帝。西方不是民主、人权的代名词，他们拥有的民主和我们没有直接关系。他们所谓的民主不能由他们强加我们。

　　我们必须明白，一直以来，他们那些逢中必反、是非不分，颠倒黑白的西方主流媒体向我们展现的只是民主、人权理念的包装，而私底下他们只顾及他们自身的利益。

　　中国的民主是中国人自己的事情，中国人可以自己争取。所以，笔者希望，我们自己能把民主和西方分开。如果我们在民主化进程中遇到一些阵痛，不要怀疑那
都是美帝的阴谋，一概加以否定；同时，我们更不要对西方民主过于迷信，不要相信西方国家所呈现给我们的、要我们相信的一切。因为他们呈现的往往是经过包装
呵护他们利益的假象，他们从来就不是来带领我们走向民主的。7.5事件他们的卑劣表现再一次向我们表明，他们的西方式的民族人权只是他们欺骗我们的手段罢
了，他们所需要的只是自己的国家利益。

　　总之，西方民主是置于西方国家之下的民主。从来就没有什么国际民主主义，不要天真地把美国当作民主主义的祖国。对我们而言，祖国只有一个，那就是中国；对我们而言，民主是个好东西，但是只能靠自己追求。

　　 踟蹰行者

见到“肖恩”博发表了如下博文：

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

          Friday, July 3rd, 2009   4:59 pm

          鱼。。。消失了！

          鱼。。。象易熊猫和土包子一样的消失了。

 －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

“肖恩”肯定“鱼。。。”消失了？

看到多维博客里出现过对“鱼。。。”的生命威胁：

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

 －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

你看，需要报警吗？

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

另，这篇、以及发了几条评论，只要有“鱼xiangqiandi”四字，就不让发表。

难道多维装了绿坝？？

只傳上師教言，而不重視佛陀言教；

只把佛經做擺設，而把“論”作聖典；

隨意曲解佛經，混肴視聽！

READ DZONGSAR KHYENTSE RINPOCHE’S KEYNOTE ADDRESS

March 18, 2009

Deliver’s “Translating the Words of the Buddhadharma for Hearing, Contemplation and Meditation” to Translation Conference attendees.

Monday, 16 March 2009, 09.00

。。。。。。。。。
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s opening remarks to the Translator’s Conference in Bir made news all over Asia. Here is how Bhutan’s Kuensel reported the story:
 
"Rinpoché said that, among the Buddhist culture, the Kangyur is widely used as a “merit-making object”: monasteries will buy a copy only for it to be stacked in the shelves. “If offerings are made, the text will be read out loud, but little effort will be invested in understanding the meaning of each word. While paying homage to the Word of the Buddha is a powerfully meritorious spiritual act, the Tibetan habit of using the Kangyur solely for this purpose is neither to be admired nor emulated: in fact, it’s a big mistake.” Rinpoché added: “Every religion has an original holy book – for Christians, it’s the Bible, and for Moslems it’s the Koran. For Buddhists, our root holy books are the Sutras and they are of vital importance, because what Buddha taught us must always be the final word on any given subject, not what we find in the Shastras (ancient Hindu commentaries on Buddhism) – and definitely not what’s to be found in the Tibetan  commentaries.” Rinpoche said: “As Buddhadharma is taught more widely in the modern world, where attention to detail and authenticity are so valued, people are going to want to know what Buddha, himself, actually said. The trend today is for teachers, priests, scholars, politicians and fanatics to obscure the original meaning of important texts by interpreting them in a way that supports their own personal agendas – it’s happening in all religions, and sadly, Buddhism is no exception. When problems, created by such interpretations arise in the future, our beacon of truth can only be the Words of the Buddha.” Rinpoche said that Buddhist cultures today preserved and propagated the work of their own lamas, and have forgotten the Buddha’s Sutras. Such cultures often promoted the teachings of their own teachers far more than those of the Buddha, he said, – “and I have no trouble understanding why Tibetan Buddhism is sometimes described as
 “Lamaism”. “Today, as a result, our vision is quite narrow, and instead of dedicating our limited resources to translating the Words of the Buddha, we pour it into translating the teachings of individual lineage gurus, biographies, their long-life prayers, and prayers for the propagation of the teachings of individual schools.”

学佛没必要学藏文，尊佛法没必要爱藏文化：

Personally, I find it hard to fathom the attitude of those Tibetan lamas who expect those who want to study and practice the Buddhadharma, first to perfect the Tibetan language. I can see that right now it’s important for some people learn Tibetan, but how necessary will it really be in a hundred years time? Fundamentally, the Buddhadharma and Tibetan culture are two different things, and just because someone is interested in Buddhadharma doesn’t mean that he or she aspires to be a Tibetologist. 

…….

翻译佛经要的是专业，而不是靠实修或证量：

And there are other issues like, who does the best job, the scholar-translator or the practitioner-translator?

When we encounter the more inscrutable passages from the Buddha’s teachings, it is usually to the interpretations of the great practitioners that we turn. If a practitioner-translator is our ideal because he or she has greater emotional authority than a scholar-translator, we should also remember that many of these great practitioners aren’t particularly well-versed in Buddhist philosophy. They even take pride in their lack of worldly knowledge, for example in their literary skills, telling us that they’re glad they didn’t waste their time studying ‘all that intellectual stuff’! And worse still, it is well-known in Tibet that often not only the practitioners, but even the scholars—the Geshes and Khenpos—didn’t know how to write their own names, let alone a whole sentence. So, imagining we can rely on the linguistic expertise of these great beings, may be a little over-optimistic.

 
We also have the problem of dealing with the excruciating modern phenomenon of ‘political correctness’. Can we really translate arhat as the ‘destroyer of enemies’? Can this literal translation really help students understand its true meaning? Especially these days, when such a phrase could so easily be confused with the language of religious fanaticism （宗教盲信/宗教狂热）. Consequently, not only do scholars play a vital role in the process of translation, but so do the arbiters of social sensitivities; and their roles are at least equally important to that of the practitioner, and definitely not less.

We also need the help and advice of good editors and writers, so that we can ensure the language the text is being translated into is well written. Just because someone can understand Tibetan, doesn’t mean that they can write well in their own language. Take English, for example. As we all know, the way Tibetan is written is very different from English, but I wonder, is using a kind of pidgin-English to reflect the Tibetan style a good solution? Wouldn’t it be better for the native English translators to pay more attention to perfecting their written English style, so that they can represent Tibetan ideas in a way that their readers can understand?

Insignificant as it may sound when compared with what we have yet to achieve, I’ve noticed that few translators have been able to render many prayers and practices from Tibetan into other languages and retain the metre necessary to be able to chant them easily. And so, practitioners inspired by traditional forms of chanting, usually do so in Tibetan. I think we should starting thinking about how we can produce prayers in other languages—particularly those usually practiced in groups—that are written in metre so that students can chant in their own languages.

Although it’s true that we have not been blessed with great Dharma patrons like King Trisong Deutsen, all is not lost because modern technology is on our side. The great translator Vairochana, when he needed to find a specific manuscript, had to walk from Tibet to India, and it took him several months. Today, thanks both to modern technology and projects like Gene Smith’s TBRC, it’s possible to download Tibetan texts to your computer, even from somewhere as remote as Bir—if the internet is working, of course.

I believe the process we begin here could now continue online quite easily in an ongoing conference of ideas and mutual support. And we shouldn’t limit who we bring into our conversations. Not only should we be talking to other translators, but also to all those who support the translation process, the teachers, the linguists, the writers, and, of course, the students.

By opening up the lines of communications between ourselves, we could start working out how we can help each other more efficiently.

You know, every time I visit Manhattan Island, I am amazed by the foresight of those Americans who created that part of New York City. They had such vision! The way they planned the layout of the streets and avenues, Central Park, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it’s as if they knew what would be needed in the 20th century, and beyond. This kind of visionary planning is absolutely necessary in order to achieve our goal.

Therefore, I would like to call on all of you here today—the translators, the Rinpoches and the sponsors—to aspire to be as visionary as those great New York City planners. After all, what we are going to do will have a far greater impact on the world than the laying out of a city ever could. We will be making available to people of all nationalities, everything they need to follow the Buddha’s infinite path to liberation, which is the only source of true happiness and enlightenment.

And so I entreat you, please, we must learn to work together. The stakes are high, and, practically speaking, it’s our generation who will shoulder the responsibility for ensuring that the Buddhadharma continues to flourish in this world. We need to make a thorough and effective plan for the future, and we must put it into action.

As a Tibetan, I am amazed when I read texts by the great Lotsawas, like Vairochana and Chogroluyi Gyaltsen, and remember just how much I, personally, owe them. They endured unimaginable hardships to bring the Buddhadharma from India to Tibet. Without their compassionate determination, their devotion and sheer hard work, I would never have been able truly to appreciate the words of the Buddha in my own language.

We are being given the opportunity to emulate those great beings—the translators, scholars, panditas and saints of the past—by taking on the task of translating and making available the Words of the Buddha to as many people in this world as possible, in their own languages, now and for centuries to come.

原文：
http://www.khyentsefoundation.com/2009_03_read_dzongsar_khyentse_rinpoches_keynote_address.html

]]>

四川地震，又引发国际救援的话题。中国没有在第一时间接受外国救援队的进入。无论是国外还是国内，都有报纸借此批评中国政府不够开放，更有不少人提到当年唐山大地震拒绝外援的“极左错误”。

可惜西方发达国家至今也依然在犯这种所谓的“极左”错误，美国卡翠娜飓风的时候不少国家提出派救援队，都被拒绝了。日本前几年大地震的时候也同样如此。五月１４日日本首相福田康夫在首相官邸，就中国“很难接受”日本政府向四川地震提供的援助人员一事，回答记者问。福田说：“在日本神户发生阪神大地震的时候，日本当时也没有能够接受外国援助人员，因为即使他们来了，也只能是很混乱的状态。现在中国处在同样的状况，我们可以理解。”确实，任何外国人在这个时候的进入，都会对当地的物流造成相当压力。福田的话，是一个深受地震灾害的日本人的将心比心，远好于不少政客或者记者指手画脚的道德秀乱扣大帽子。对某些中国人来讲，反正国际的东西都好，那么这个日本首相的话也可以暂且听一听。

还有一个问题就是，长远来讲，外国的救援究竟有多大的作用？２００７年在开一次国际会议的时候，认识了一个马来西亚的朋友。她是一个资深的ＮＧＯ工作者，就东南亚海啸之后的重建工作我们有一段非常有意思的谈话。海啸过去了好几年，她自己参与了所居住的巴厘岛一带的恢复重建工作，和整个地区从事类似工作的地方政府和民间组织也有非常多的交流。海啸受灾面积巨大，救援分布非常不均衡，有的地方没有或者很少外国救援（有的是当地政府拒绝，有的是因为内战之类的原因外国ＮＧＯ没有或者较少进入）；有的地方外国救援多到几乎成灾。从她了解的情况看，几年过去，恢复得相对比较好的地方，反而常常是没有或者很少外国救援的地区。为什么？她的分析是：外国政府或者国际ＮＧＯ来大把撒钱，当然不少人欢迎，但长远来讲非常不利于当地的能力建设。欧美国家的ＮＧＯ工作者到发展中国家工作，如此富有牺牲精神，当然要付欧美国家的工资。那对当地雇员也不能太过歧视，待遇不说同等，多少要看齐。对不少财大气粗的国际ＮＧＯ，这些钱不是问题，但后果是造就了一个往往脱离底层的ＮＧＯ中产阶级。这些ＮＧＯ也做所谓“能力建设”，但这些能力建设着眼点往往是更好地满足给钱的欧美基金会的要求，而不是真正倾听底层的声音。于是，不少时间和精力都花在如何按照欧美基金会的要求写项目申请，项目总结，项目评估，往往也少不了飞来飞去，到国际会议上夸夸其谈的机会。几年下来，不少人公民社会，参与式社区建设之类术语一套一套的。可是，一个人的时间花在那里是看得见的。花了太多时间与国际接轨学习“参与式社区建设”之类国际ＮＧＯ流行术语，真正参与社区的时间就少了。这种脱离了底层的ＮＧＯ贵族做出来的项目效果如何，大家可想而知――往往是中看不中用。与此相反，在没有外国援助的地方，无论是当地政府还是民间组织，重建的时候都不得不依靠本土力量。一开始由于资源的匮乏，起步往往艰难，但正因为如此，从业者不得不努力发掘当地的潜力――无论是人力还是物力。但由于根子扎得牢，几年下来往往有更扎实的成果。正如中国老话说的“救急不救穷”，“靠人不如靠己”。

朋友提供的信息和她的评论让我思考了很久。唐山大地震拒绝外援我从前也一直认为是错误，但她的话让我重新思考。无论是出于“极左的意识形态”还是歪打正着，当时的政策都没有大错：无论是救灾还是重建，最重要的都要靠自力更生，因地制宜。

中国政府现在已经接受了日本，台湾等几支救援队。作为来自地震多发区的队伍，这些救援队有极高的专业素质和抢险经验。尽管政府不得不为翻译陪同等支付人力物力，相信这些救援队还是能够发挥相当的正面作用。但地震专业救援队全世界也就这么数得出来几支，不少还在等待中国政府批准的救援队都是常规救援队甚至志愿者组成的非专业队伍。这一次四川救灾，从政府到民间，都万众一心，组织有序，我读到的不少外国媒体都赞誉有加；来自四川的报道也说当地需要更多某些相关专业人员，但并不缺非专业志愿者。这世界上还有比四川更急需帮助的地方，建议这些等待进入中国的救援队到更需要他们的地方去。缅甸风灾过后，至今还有几百万人没有干净的饮用水。卡翠娜飓风过去好几年，某些地方的重建还是一塌糊涂：新奥尔良某些社区至今平均每天一起枪杀案。无论是缅甸还是美国新奥尔良，都更需要有更多的救援队去救急。

后记：我妹夫就是在成都统筹安排物流的人之一，现在每天忙得只睡三四个小时。所以我有一手信息知道外国的救援队进去添不少麻烦，但成效未知。下面台湾９２１大地震的数据也说明，那么多外国救援队，救出来的总人数居然是个位数，和解放军救出来的成千上万个相比完全是零头。为配合外国救援队的那些人力物力，我们自己安排完全有可能效率更大。现在接受这几支救援队，个人觉得更多的是外交考虑，回应国际上的好心。但现在不是配合外国人和精英们做道德秀的时候，为了更有效地救灾，没有必要让更多的外国救援者进入。

冒着被开除社会党的危险 终于有法国议员敢站出来仗义执言了
本文由 大蜗牛 在 2008-4-19 11:21 发表于: 倍可亲.美国 ( backchina.com )

德国画报3月28日竟然使用比CNN更恶劣的截图!
本文由 laodai 在 2008-3-31 17:19 发表于: 倍可亲.美国 ( backchina.com )

请注意，右图后面是尼泊尔警察，截图故意去掉，硬说是西藏。目的也很明确：抵制北京奥运。

CTV "Mike Duffy"采访中国大使，竟然在大使对话过程中，又插入尼泊尔警察画面，来说明中国大使正在说谎。再看看报道中下图的警察是哪国的。

 

以下链接是之前有关造假图片的转贴：

http://blog.dwnews.com/?p=34813

 

]]>