Interview With The Most Ven Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche

(Anna Alomes, power in philosophy-two arguments for Nonviolent today, submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy, University of Tasmania, October, 1998. pp.307-318).

Rinpoche, I am interested in your view regarding the perceived shift from dialogue with the Chinese government to nonviolent direct action in the form of your proposed Satyagraha campaign.

My perception about my thinking of Satyagraha is not a shift from the dialogue, but two totally different things. At the moment, I have postponed the implementation of the Satyagraha action because of the announcement by His Holiness of the referendum regarding the future course of action. I do not mean that the outcome of the referendum would relate to my Satyagraha. That is not the case. Rather, if the Satyagraha moment is launched in between, then the course of the referendum might be slightly altered. Therefore I have postponed the action relating to the Satyagraha until the referendum is completed.

A large proportion of people oppose the idea of conducting a referendum, and there are logical reasons for this. The parliament will give consideration to the views and make a decision at its next sitting in September. If the decision is to conduct a referendum, three or four months will be required to prepare. If the decision is to postpone the referendum, then I will begin three or four months of training to begin a small scale Satyagraha.

You spoke earlier of the need to include a range of alternatives. Is it your intention to include those alternatives in the referendum?

Yes, either, to claim complete independence or to approach the united nations for the peoples’ right to self-determination or to begin a Satyagraha moment as policy. These are only tentative suggestions. It is left to the people as to what kind of choice will be offered in the final referendum. As this has been going on for quite a long on or not, the Satyagraha moment is considered necessary for two reasons. First, the Chinese occupation and the suffering experienced by the Tibetan people and second, the destruction of a considerable section of the environment. For all of this, we are responsible, not the Chinese.

Can you explain this responsibility further?

The Tibetans as a nation, a people, have certain unique responsibilities. We are carrying a unique spiritual heritage and a unique culture which is beneficial not for the people of Tibet, but for all of mankind. Tibet is considered to be the particular spiritual field for the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (the deity of compassion). Choosing Tibet as his own field of work, therefore the Tibetans are supposed to be compassionate, tolerant and nonviolent. But this, we could not keep up. Tibetans have become violent, inconsiderate of each other, almost irreligious, and even the monks do not always observe the conducts, nor are the lay people observing the moral conducts.

Has this happened over a long period of time?

Yes. Almost two hundred years. The general decay started around the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th century. That time signals a period of gradual decline. The last hundred years was the worst period. After the seventh Dalai Lama, the eight Dalai Lama was not very powerful in governing the state, and then the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth-none of them could rule, and passed at a very early age. Only the thirteenth Dalai Lama was able to rule Tibet for a number of years, but he was always involved in struggle. Soon after he took over the temporal powers, he has to face the Younghusband led British military invasion of 1904, and he had to spend a number of years in china. When he returned back to Tibet, he had to deal with the British government. It was only in 1913-1935, that he was able to rule. But at that time, he could not do things the way he wished, and then arrived the problems we face today. So therefore it is our mistake and we shall have to repent. This will continue unless and until the Tibetan people repent that mistake made on our part.

The second issue is that china is showing the wrong conduct inside Tibet particularly in relation to the spiritual and cultural heritage. It is improper and unjust. This is violence and this is not based on truth, and we are witnesses to it. Therefore we must express our disagreement, our opposition. We must do so with love and compassion. Unless and until we do so in the face of china, in a very close contact manner, it is not sufficient for us to sit idly in India in our facilities, our air-conditioned rooms and to simply say that china is doing wrong. It is not sufficient. We should go to the Chinese people inside Tibet and tell them what they are doing is wrong, we do not agree and we will insist that they stop. That is our duty.

Unless we do this, we just sit as witnesses. This amounts to approval. If that message reflects approval, then we are part of that wrongdoing, and history will judge later that we have played a part in that. Therefore we cannot, or I at least should not be a party to that. The Satyagraha action then, is also necessary in this regard, and therefore I began the thought to commence the Satyagraha at least individual Satyagraha. It is not collective but individual Satyagraha and this in no way clashes with the dialogue.

One of my demands in my Satyagraha is that I would not only welcome meaningful dialogue with china, but I will insist that china resumes meaningful dialogue with His Holiness. Therefore it is not a diversion or a shift away from dialogue, one is not against the other, merely different.

You discussed the pattern of decline commencing around the seventeenth century. Is it possible to identify any one reason or set of reason, which initiated this decline?

The reason, I think is that the religious minded people became increasingly indifferent to state power or state management which had responsibility for most of the organization including the monasteries. This was left in the hands of the lesser-evolved people who were not fully spiritually inclined, instead they were politically minded or power hungry. These people were looking for self-glorification, self –power and the accumulation of wealth. In our times, all of the monasteries are managed by uneducated people who manage financial affairs and estates while the religious minded people hide themselves away in the monasteries. They have nothing to say in the management, and as a result, the management become very corrupt. The government is no longer interested in the needs of the people and in return, the people have lost faith in the government. When china entered Tibet, many Tibetan citizens asked “what is the difference for us?” we were suffering under the hand of the Tibetan authorities, and now we are suffering at the hands of the Chinese-we are the sufferers regardless. There is no better or worse, they are all still people who rule over us.

The basic essence of the combination of religious and state power-we call it cho sid sun drel (chos srid zung ‘brel) is unique for the Tibetans. It was lost and religion remained only in the individuals with the state and the organizations becoming irreligious. This was the basic weakness.

Rinpoche, what strategies have you considered for your campaign?

The selection of the term ‘strategy’ is inappropriate. It originates from ‘generalship’. These strategists have nothing to do with nonviolence. Non violence is neither a matter of strategy, nor does it count in any strategic direction, because it has no battle to wage and no wars to win. Strategy is used to win a war, and hence, it implies defeat of the enemy and victory for one’s own side. It also implies the use of all possible means to gain victory without any consideration for right or wrong.

To replace this, the term that is required is ‘skillful means’. This Buddhist concept mandates that when you are planning the nonviolent action you must consider how best the skillful means can be adopted. In order to achieve this, I recommend two things, which are indispensable. First, the unity or purity of ends and means. Many people propose that care must be taken to retain the purity of ends and means. The other essential requirement is the skillfulness in the choice of means and methods. If you wish to call this strategy then I have no objection. In summary, time and duration are important points to be considered. Place is also important as is the level and skill of action. The tempo of action is yet another and it is important to consider the ‘taking of violence’. The choice involves the judgement of tolerating the suffering, or avoiding the suffering. By this, I mean, how to minimize the volume of violence while facing up to the violent reaction. Sometimes this requires more assertiveness and sometimes less. Rather than strategy it is much more and issue of judgement.

Do you have thoughts about what you may encounter when you return to Tibet?

Yes, of course. I think it is 99% certain that as soon as I enter the land of Tibet, the Chinese will arrest and imprison me. There is no doubt- unless the Chinese adopt some other violent strategy. In the context of our discussion, theirs is only ‘strategy’.

I heard that the peace march which was proposed last year from Delhi to Lhasa and denied by the Chinese officials was the source of much discussion between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan Autonomous Region authorities on how best to react to this action. Many people suggested that all marches should be shot at the boarder, futher, that this was the most effective method to be adopted. As soon as these people cross the Tibetan boarder, machine guns should be used, and they should all be shot. A small moderate faction spoke against this, saying that this would reflect negatively on the Chinese government and enlist support for the separatists, allowing them an international focus. Instead it was proposed that they should be imprisoned or sent back to India. A few people even disagreed and proposed that the best strategy would be to control the local people, instruct then very strictly not to receive the marchers with any enthusiasm or welcome, maintaining absolute indifference and let them come. They should be allowed freedom to go where they want to go, and demonstrate to the world that there is no response for them inside Tibet. The Tibetan people would be seen to be happy with no atrocities or torture going on, and these would be viewed as just a few separatists who were not suppressed, but were unsupported, and they returned of their own accord. This would be good for propaganda. In this way it would discourage people from coming from the outside. They would be broken-hearted when they are rejected by their local people. This would then be the end of the matter and the best strategy. Others involved in the discussion group suggest, that while this sounds feasible, it would fail because the local Tibetans could never be controlled to that extent. Regardless of the amount of pressure applied, there could be no guarantee that a reception would not take place. In light of this, there is a very small chance that the Chinese might try to ignore the Satyagraha, because I don’t think a large group of people would accompany me.

Otherwise we must consider the 99% chance of being killed or imprisoned. The third possibility of course is that the Chinese may intercept us before reaching Tibet, and prevent the arrival by influencing the Indian government. These are the possibilities and whatever may come, we must accept it. We must face the consequences as much as possible with love and compassion.

Do you consider that the best judgement would be to inform the Chinese government of your arrival in advance, or to begin the nonviolent action unannounced and at a time of your choosing?

I have not considered these details. I have yet to work out at which point I shall enter the timing of that entry and whether this shall be conducted in secret or made by announcement. Before these details can be put in place, we need at least three or four months of self training and preparation. It is not easy for us.

This preparation bears a similarity to the campaign conducted by the Rev.Dr.Martin Luther king jr. in difference would appear to be the judgement he made to rally vast numbers of supports across large geographic area in part, to gain an international media exposure. Your response in contrast appears to focus on a more gentle, personal Satyagraha moment without deliberately attracting attention to the action. Would this interpretation be correct?

Yes, this is right. My basic thinking is that Satyagraha is not aimed at giving the opportunity for international attention. This may, or may not result. That is not the focus of my Satyagraha. Second, in my Satyagraha, I do not care about the end results. Of course we wish for the freedom of people inside Tibet. This will either occur or not, as a result. But that is a different issue. I must perform my duty, and if, in the performance of that duty there is a result for the people inside Tibet that would be very good. Even if I cannot give any results to them, or to us-still I must perform the duty. Duty is simply duty, and the result is entirely different. If you perform duty in the hope or desire for the result, then your duty cannot be a pure one, it becomes means to an end. Therefore our concern is the extent to which our Satyagraha is pure and perfect. This is of the utmost importance. We have no concern for the end result. If positive results are achieved, this is very good. If not, then we have no regrets. If our action goes wrong, then that would be a disaster. This must be taken care of.

The actions of Martin Luther King and Gandhi involved an entirely different situation. There was a rule of law, both of them participated in a democratic society, an environment in where that particular Satyagraha can become effective. China in contrast is completely totalitarian. There is no concern for moral rules, and what they have done in Tiananmen square, is very fresh in our memory. Knowing all this, some feel that our Satyagraha is nothing more than suicide. This view may be correct, but suicide would be preferable to remaining silent in the active. If I do not undertake a Satyagraha, that death may be only two or three years early, which won’t make such difference to my life. But to live one’s life with a basic duty given from birth – and my existence carries that duty- and then failing to perform that duty, means may existence will have no meaning. So from this angle we have judged the execution of the Satyagraha, not on its effectiveness and what will result, nor on whether the Chinese will yield or not yield. These are different questions.

What of the Tibetan Government in Exile?

The Government in Exile in my opinion should continue. On the I’m quite clear; and my participation in the Government in Exile is a very small proportion. I commenced responsibilities in 1991, only seven years ago, and before that the Government in Exile existed for more than 30 years. Even if my participation is absent, the Government in Exile will still exist. So therefore I do not want to dismantle the Government. My presence or absence will not make much difference.

I have already mentioned in my writing that if I am alone it will be an individual Satyagraha, if there are a few of us it will be a group Satyagraha. I will never go to the media; that is our side, but if the media comes to us, we will not hide. If they ask what we are doing then I must be transparent. We will speak the truth. This will be our approach. If any international support comes, I will accept and welcome it; but if there is no response from the international community, I have no regret and no claim over them to support us. Therefore my action will not seek publicity.

Your presentation of the power of truth through nonviolence is certainly a contrast to the variety of ways that the concept of power is understood from the non-Buddhist side. I am interested in finding those elements that can be utilized to create a better social structure of power relations. This involves analysis of whether armies, police forces and so on are legitimate.

I have never considered armies to be legitimate or justified. Armies exist to fight wars, and for this reason armies can never be justified. In future if Tibet becomes free, His Holiness has proposed that it be a military free country (like Costa Rica, for example) and even then we need some kind of police force. This is necessary and I don’t think it represents violence. Even in the Buddhist monk community, Sangha, by rotation, someone has to act in an administrative or disciplinary capacity.

If a monk breeches the rules of conduct, a number of punishments must be enforced and these are not considered to be violent.

We have the presence to keep criminals away from the society. In that case the imprisonment would not be a violent one for they would be given good food, a small amount of personal freedom inside the prison, a great deal of teaching , persuasion and education to allow them to realize that they have committed some criminal act. After this, if you are certain that the prisoner has evolved his heart within say 10 days, then he can be released. The purpose of punishment or sanction must be to improve the individual and not to take revenge.

I do not believe in revenge or compensatory justice. If something has been done, then you cannot be compensated. If you have tortured somebody, then torturing this person in return will never lead to compensation. Taking revenge will never lessen the amount of crime he has committed; instead, another crime is perpetrated. But, if an individual has committed a crime, then in his or her eyes as well as from the perspective of the lager society, there must be some imposition of punishment or sanction. The aim should be directed toward the improvement of the individual and in this case it is considered to be nonviolent. This is in accord with the Buddhist teachings.

In relation to the teacher’s imposition of sanctions toward students, my opinion is that if the teacher is angry or annoyed at the student, and out of that annoyance results actions, then that is wrong and would not help the student. In contrast, out of compassion, if there are a number of students who can only be corrected by punishment or sanctions, then from the motivation of love and compassion for the improvement of the student a certain amount of sanction is justifiable. In this respect, the sacrifice of the teacher is most important.

To illustrate this I often repeat the story of the robber and the Bodhisattva, where the Bodhisattva kills the robber, accumulating great amount of merit for the Bodhisattva. This is a point of debate in the canon. When the Bodhisattva sacrifices himself by taking on this amount of sin, he is going to commit by killing the robber, through this act, he could save the 500 people who are sure to perish at the hands of the robber. He also prevents the demerit which would be acquired as a result of the robber committing this act, then the Bodhisattva sacrifices himself by killing that man. It is still a point of debate whether the act of killing was violent or nonviolent. Many argue that the act of killing was violent, but the enormous compassion for that person was responsible for accumulating some merit but the act of killing did accumulate some demerit. From this symbolic story we can understand the even an act of killing can be nonviolent if the intention is very pure.

How can you ensure that individuals within legitimate structures will act of the right reasons and not abuse that power?

This is very difficult. We have to take that risk. For example in our police force we shall have to conduct extensive training courses to ensure that they carry out their work to the highest possible standard. Even so, this will not ensure that individuals will always do the right thing. Even the monks whose lives are spent training in the monasteries, do a number of things, which are wrong, but the philosophy behind the system and the general approach must be laid down in the policy. With regards the implementation of this in daily life, there are bound to be a number of errors and these will need correcting. These wrongdoings would be judged the illegitimate use of force.

Most of the people who talk about nonviolence believe that it is possible for an individual life, but not possible to run a state or society to operate with complete nonviolence. I try to oppose that idea; only our conditioned thought leads us to accept that this is impossible. We have never experimented anywhere to determine whether it is possible. If such experiments were conducted I think would be possible. Every country maintains a huge military force often at the expense of expenditure on health and education, in the name of defence. Even if, over time, there has been no threat to warrant it, they still maintain this defence force. Consideration is never given to abolishing the defence force, particularly in relation to smaller countries. Take as an example the small country of Bhutan; they can never defend themselves form attack against the force of India on the one side and china on the other. This is a reality, but still they maintain a military force in the name of defence and teach the training of violence from generation to generation. This is quite stupid; if India abolished defence today, do you think that Pakistan, Bangladesh and China would immediately threaten? I feel that this would become morally more difficult if china, fully equipped with weaponry were to attach a weaponless india; the entire world would react claiming no sense to such an action. But none is prepared to try, instead, taking it for granted that such a system would be impossible.

In contrast, His Holiness wishes to make Tibet a zone of ahimsa or a zone of nonviolence, which of course means no military force or weapons.

How would you maintain control and order, if not in the way, by the use of coercion and force?

The term force is a vague term. If for example there is a quarrel among the people, then the police should attend and pacify or even arrest them; this is perhaps unavoidable and will happen unless the entire population is highly educated. There should be an agency tasked with maintaining harmony among the people. Therefore we do not rule out the necessity of a police force. Now that we propose complete nonviolence and as a consequence, a completely military-free zone, some propose that the enforcement agency should be closed down. Two questions arise from this: the immediate question as to how we employ these people, and the long-range question: if Tibet becomes free, at the very least we must require a group of people to be vigilant regarding custom, maintenance of peace and the safeguarding of law and order, and so it is apparent that we require this type of agency for which Buddhist nonviolent force is necessary. We should initiate a long-range program to educate the people in order to reduce the need for such a requirement, but without trying, we cannot determine whether such a thing is possible. Perhaps after one or two thousand years, society will have evolved to the point where such an agency is no longer required but at the moment a certain use of force is necessary.

In an autonomous Tibet, for example, how could the gap between the ideals of a monastic order and the structure required to run a society (and protect the rights of citizens) be overcome?

According to the Buddhist canon, there should be a gap between the monastic order and civil society. The monk community is considered to have renounced that society; the focus is on salvation. Within this life, they have no interest in day to day affairs and are therefore dependent on the civil society for their food, clothes and medicine in return for which, they contribute some small social work like painting, teaching or medicine. The gap therefore is quite obvious. In the past history of Tibet during the later stage, the monastic orders became very much entangled in state business and big monasteries became very powerful in running the government. There was an assembly of people representatives, which was dominated by those who represented the three large monasteries. If they chose to combine on any issue, they carried the weight in the decision-making process. This has a two-way effect of corrupting both the monastery and the government.

In a future free Tibet, the monasteries should be completely separate to the running of the state, that is they should not be represented in any government business; therefore I recommend that the government at the stage should be separate. This will keep the monastery pure. The rest of civil society should comprise the following: civil court; civil rule of law; police force; representative measures; and sanctions or punishment, and these must be based on the philosophy of nonviolence. At the same time, the monastic order should be a source of inspiration and an example for the civic society.

How do you view the concept of power?

Power is a very vague term, and been interpreted and misinterpreted in many ways. I see only the sovereignty of the people. People have inbuilt rights and powers, and upon adopting the system of democracy, the sovereignty equally lies within each citizen, and each citizen is a shareholder of the sovereignty of the country. In the exercise of this, each person has a right to vote or not vote, to be chosen as a representative or to choose a representative. These are the channels through which he or she exercises their sovereignty or power.

There is also a different perception worth nothing. In the Buddhist monastic order, the minority has the most powerful opinion, and the majority doesn’t have power in decision-making, whatever the Sangha decision. Suppose there are 100 monks and 99 agree to one point, and one monk dissents; then that decision can never be carried out. Unless and until that one dissenting monk is persuaded, then if the Sangha decision is so important, after being exposed to all prevailing methods of persuasion if the monk maintains dissent, he must be expelled from that community. Unless and until he is made a non-member of that community, the 99 people cannot override the one person’s opinion. This can be seen as one extreme.

At the other extreme, in today’s democratic society, if there are 100, then the opinion of 51 can easily overrule the opinion of 49. The effective opinion then only belongs to two people. If two from the 51 side decide to change, then the 49 side will win. This is a bit difficult to justify. So, in order to run a state or a country, the imposition of ideas is not the correct way by educating or promoting ideas is acceptable. This amounts to the explanation of an idea, which everyone shares the right to do, but no one has the right to oppose it by any means. Promoting an idea doesn’t involve power. It involves only wisdom and the use of argument to give reasons as to why you think this idea should prevail.

Following on from teachings by Ven. Lobsang Norbu la- it has become apparent that the distinction should be made between

The exercise of power for political gain and power relations using force, coercion and violence, and
The power of truth which harnesses enormous energy for individual growth and societal change. This latter power of truth can be easily distinguished from the former by the pure motivation and the immense importance to aspire to apply this compassion, love and wisdom in a practical day to day way observing the interdependence of all things. From this, the truth will flow. The former exercise of power, if occurring within an environment which is not conducive to truth where the motivation of the individual or group is focused on personal gain or some form of violence toward others can never to the truth.

In order to make a clear analysis one should first ask: what is the truth? And why is nonviolence the truth?

Rinpoche, your writing on Satyagraha list very specific aspects of the truth to which Tibetan can lay claim. These are not hypothetical, but can be confirmed either through the senses or through indisputable evidence. Gandhi writes that through ‘Satya combined with Ahimsa you can bring the world to your feet’ and appears to discuss the power of truth in a more general sense. Is there a more fundamental truth which must be understood before claims can be laid to specific self-evident truths?

This is a bit complicated because religious traditions claim that religious tradition is to help the people to realize the truth. Truth as a word is very commonly used by almost every tradition. There are many traditions which do not differentiate the two sides of truth. They are many traditions which do not differentiate the two sides of truth. They always talk about the truth that means ‘the ultimate truth’ and if the truth is only the ultimate truth there cannot be any experiment with the truth. From this viewpoint the only two positions possible are whether you see the truth or don’t see the truth. We, as Buddhists perceive truth in from two different angles: absolute truth and convention or relative truth. The second is not absolute truth, rather it is truth according to your understanding or perception or social or political or you can do an experiment with the truth and you will have your understanding at a number of levels.

Initially I did not understand what Gandhi meant by giving the title of my experiment with the Truth for his autobiography. But now I understand that he was always trying to discover or understand truth through his work. The understanding of truth is always either changing or progressing; mostly it is progressing higher and higher. According to that understanding, the effectiveness of work is also progressing, and so when I say that my insistence of truth is a relative truth or conventional truth, it is one which is verifiable in day to day life. For example when I say that I claim the independence of Tibet, I do not claim that there was no independent good for Tibet rather claiming if afresh. It was independent that is true. I can’t say it is the truth, but I can say that it is true, that truth is the basis for my insistence. So, I realize this is true, but then if some convinces me through logic that Tibet has never been independent, upon that point of realization I will no longer insist on the previous belief because now I understand that it was not true.

Similarly, the way in which the Chinese are governing the Tibetans politically, socially, culturally educationally- in all spheres what they are treating the Tibetan is not the right way. It is not the right way as a statement is true according to my perception and therefore I insist that this treatment is true according to my perception and therefore I insist that this treatment should be stopped. And if my understanding of that truth is not true, but falsehood and I can discover this through reason, then I will give up my insistence. So whatever I insist must be true according to my understanding but this truth is not the level of absolute truth that is a part of conventional truth which is true according to common sense logic.

This conventional truth can change at two levels: if my understanding is correct, the change would only take place when the situation changes. If my understanding is not correct then when I get the correct understanding my understanding changes this is subjective change and objective change.

NOTES:
1. His Holiness raised the issue of the referendum on several occasions, but outlined his proposal in his statement of March 10 1995. His pursuit of a meaningful dialogue with Chinese authorities for the past 13 or 14 years has not led to a result. Meanwhile the situation inside Tibet is deteriorating day by day, and time is running out. It is time now for people to consider whether we should continue his Middle Path approach for dialogue with them, or we should choose some other course of action. On the matter, I would like to ask the people.

2. Satyagraha: Truth insistence Samdhong Losang Tenzin, Satyagrahi Community pub. Sarnath Varanasi 1995.