Well put. I am a Tibetan Buddhist and when I ran across Asher's blog doing research on an e-mail forward of the article mentioned I sent it to my teacher for comment. He guffawed and said he discredits himself in two sentences. Here they are...
I am a Buddhist practioner in the Tibetan tradition. I have been a social activist.
The second sentence, in essence, says "I am not a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner."
I am a political activist but the basis for that is that I'm an American not that I am a Buddhist. I also consider being a political activist a quite different thing than being a "social activist" which is just double speak for utopianist. Any serious first year student should be able to grasp the concept of samsara well enough to know that a utopian state is not possible. If it were then everything the Buddha taught would be entirely false in which case it would be kind of stupid to practice Buddhism. His little screed about "the truth" is rather enlightening too after he turns around and insults people he has obviously never listened to (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh) and relies on his own unsourced innuendo and guilt by association to "refute" the article in question.
Greetings - this is Ehron Asher. I want to say first that I am not here to debate your politics. I am not here to insult, fight or be confrontational. We may have different beliefs, but we all share the human experience. I am only here on this site to address comments made here about me and my research on this topic, and to hopefully clear up some misstatements and misunderstandings.
Re: DATE OF THE PHOTO/FILM
Early in my research, I had arrived at 2003 as the date the photo was taken on the film set for “World Without Thieves”. This was given to me by several sources, including the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Development, which used the image on the back cover of their 2003 Annual Report. Further research revealed a 2001 date - from the Chinese film “The Touch”. I updated this on my blog as soon as I learned it. This information has since been confirmed by the film’s CHINESE distribution company, as well as in a soon to be published interview with a PLA soldier who was in the film.
Re: GORDON THOMAS
Paul Ross — Your comment made me re-read what I wrote about Mr. Thomas. After reviewing it, I’ve come to the conclusion that some of my remarks about Mr.Thomas are indeed conjecture. I called him a racist, a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. Based on reading about 10 of his articles and lengthy excerpts and reviews of his books, including the one that claims China used bin Laden to assault the U.S. on 9/11 — I stand by my comment that he is a conspiracy theorist. However, I do not have any direct proof that he is a racist/bigot. I only have his association with the unashamedly anti-Zionist, Holocaust-denying American Free Press - including his keynote address at an anti-Zionist, white supremacist, holocaust-denying conference. But because I do not have any direct proof of him being a racist, it was unfair and unkind of me to say so. I will remove the racist/bigot name calling from my blog.
Re: INSULTING and NOT LISTENING
TigersEye: You stated that I insult people I have “obviously never listened to (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh)”
1) How do you know that I have obviously never listened to Hannity or Limbaugh? Sorry, but you are wrong on that. Personally, I do not believe in ‘right’ or ‘left’. The Buddhist path is the middle way. I am open to listening to all sides - and fairly weighing all facts and opinions. For cryin out loud... consider what it is I have done here! I am a Tibetan Buddhist practioner, a supporter of the Tibetan ‘cause’... yet I have gone to great lengths to debunk an image that supports my own cause. Why? Because the truth itself is more important than whose ‘side’ the truth benefits.
Look, I am what you all would call a Liberal. I will be voting for a Democrat in November. But if I had been the person to discover that Hillary was not being truthful about that Bosnia trip, I would have done the same thing I have done with this photo/article. I would’ve called her on it. Not because I want to damage her campaign, but because she was not telling the truth. I’d do the same if it was Obama.
2) I absolutely did NOT insult Hannity, Limbaugh, et al... I simply listed them as being columnists for G2 Bulletin, World Net Daily and Canada Free Press. Here is a summation of what I wrote: The article originated on “G2 Bulletin”, a subscription only subsidiary of World Net Daily(TRUE) Both are right-wing, conservative,(TRUE) muckracking, rumor mills (TRUE, IN MY OPINION). Canada Free Press is also a right-wing uber-conservative web-publication,(TRUE) that has legally gotten in trouble in the past for getting caught with false stories(TRUE). G2, WND and CFP’s other columnists include: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, the late Rev.Jerry Falwell, Dr. John Hagee, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak and Bill O’Rielly (ALL TRUE).
Re: GUILT BY ASSOC.
I slightly agree with your comment that I (in part) used ‘guilt by association’ to refute the article — and I’ve addressed this already above in my response to Paul Ross. However, I was generally not refuting the article. I was refuting the association of the content of the article with the photo... and the validity of the claim that British intel has satellite images that show PLA dressing as monks and starting the violence. In my opening statement I say that the reliability of the article is ‘questionable’, NOT untrue. I then go on to state that I do not doubt that the Chinese government is doing the things the article (and photo) claim. ‘Guilt by association’ was only one aspect of the puzzle which I offered as reasons to question the validity of the article. Most significantly, I show the response I received from the GCHQ (UK Government Communications Headquarters - the centre for Her Majesty’s Government’s Signal Intelligence activities), which clearly states that it is their firm policy to not confirm or deny inquiries on intelligence matters - and that to the Press Office’s knowledge, Mr.Thomas did not even contact the GCHQ prior to publishing the article about the GCHQ.
re: UNSOURCED INNUENDO
Regarding your comment that I rely on my own “unsourced innuendo”... I don’t know what you are referring to here, but I clearly state every single one of my sources. Other than calling Mr. Thomas a racist/bigot, there is nothing that I reported that was not sourced and confirmed.
5) To address the few attacks questioning my personal Buddhist beliefs and activism:
* There are 5 major branches of Christianity with approx 33,830 denominational families throughout the world. There are 11 denominations of Judaism. There are 3 main branches of Buddhism, each with a number of sects. All of the divisions within the individual faiths exist because of various doctrinal differences, differing interpretations of scripture, incorporation of local cultural traditions or beliefs.
* Along with the cultivation of profound philosophical insight, the development of an altruistic motivation lies at the heart of Tibetan Buddhism. This central teaching is that of the ‘Bodhisattva’ (meaning “Enlightened Existence” or “Wisdom Being”). (Similar to the idea of a saint, although it is attainable by anyone who aspires to it.)
Where in some schools of Buddhism, the goal is to attain individual enlightenment so that you can enter ‘Nirvana’, which ends the process of being reborn into the world where people suffer — the ‘Bodhisattva’ of the Tibetan school compassionately vows to not enter ‘Nirvana’ until all other beings cease to suffer. This vow is universal, nondiscriminatory, and passionate to the point where the individual is capable of dedicating his or her entire being for the benefit of other sentient beings.
The 8th century scripture “The Bodhisattva’s Way of Life” remains to this day the most influential texts for Tibetan Buddhists on the practice of this altruistic ideal. This verse exemplifies the practice: “For as long as space endures, For as long as sentient beings remain, May I too abide, And dispel the miseries of beings.”
* Buddhism has always been socially engaged, and the historical Buddha was a social/political activist and rebel - his monastic order was a ‘Radical social intervention’ - Born a Prince in the Hindu upper-caste, he was distraught when he discovered the suffering and inequality of the lower-caste. As a teacher, he rebelled against the exclusiveness of the priests & upper crust (Brahmins) of his day. Rather than continue to use Sanskrit, the language used by priests which was only understood by the upper-echelon of royalty and the wealthy, he chose to use a form of Pali - the ‘language of the people’ for his sermons. He strongly disapproved of the ritual sacrifices practiced by the Brahmins, as these often involved the slaughter of animals. Furthermore, the Buddha would teach that sacrifice should be seen as requiring personal effort in the form of good deeds such as acts of charity. Social reform was also spearheaded by the Buddha. He denounced all claims made by the Brahmins to be superior by virtue of their birth. The Buddha claimed that one became noble by deeds, not by birth. In a clear rejection of the caste system, the Buddha’s community was organized in a democratic manner, similar to the political system followed in the republican tribes. The monks used marked sticks when voting and a corporate decision was made if a resolution had been passed three times in the general assembly of Buddhist bhikkus (monks). And for the first time in world history, women were allowed to participate in monastic life.
A short, hardly comprehensive list of the Buddhas’ and his followers’ social reform and activism would have to include involvement in building bridges, hospices, veterinary hospitals, no-interest loan banks, orphanages, wells, vegetarianism, anti-capital punishment, opposition to untouchability, support for widows, education, tax and debt relief, roads, and pacifism, all of which occur in pre-modern Buddhism. Yes, the Buddha was an extremely liberal lefty. But again, let’s not make this a debate about whether or not you agree with the Buddha’s reforms/political stance.
“The primary Buddhist position on social action is one of total activism, an unswerving commitment to complete self- transformation and complete world-transformation. Thus, it is squarely in the center of all Buddhist traditions to bring basic principles to bear on actual contemporary problems to develop ethical, even political, guidelines for action.” - Robert Thurman
If there are any additional questions about sources or anything else, please just let me know and I am happy to oblige.
May all beings — conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, Tibetans and Chinese — all beings on this planet — always know peace, offer love and respect, be kind, and have happiness and freedom from oppression.
And may all beings benefit from the the truth.
with sincere respect,
Ehron Asher
sources: Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia U (www.bobthurman.com/essay3.shtml); World Christian Encyclopedia; Adherents.com; ReligionFacts.com; Wikipedia; Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life; Intl Hearld Tribune (www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/01/opinion/edweiner.php)