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)
IOWs you want what you say to be accepted without question. And then you go on to make declarative statements about politics and dharma and in your own words explain how dharma is inseparable from politics. That is a contradictory, arrogant, self-serving and inherently dishonest attitude.
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. ... However, I do not have any direct proof that he is a racist/bigot. ... But because I do not have any direct proof of him being a racist, it was unfair and unkind of me to say so.
More than that it conforms to three of the ten non-virtues as expounded on by Padmasambhava. Telling lies, divisive talk and idle gossip. (pp 40 Dakini Teachings) You also have no direct proof that he's a conspiracy theorist just your opinion. Aiyeeeeeeeeeee!
I will remove the racist/bigot name calling from my blog.
A little Vajrasattva might not hurt either. Once that energy is out there it's out there. ;^)
1) How do you know that I have obviously never listened to Hannity or Limbaugh? Sorry, but you are wrong on that.
Given the obvious association you try to establish and attach to them it is clear to me that you don't know what Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh are about. You may have listened to them but you haven't heard them.
From your blog:3) So, the article originated on "G2 Bulletin", a subscription only subsidiary of World Net Daily (WND), which are both right-wing, conservative, rumor mills. (a subjective opinion)
Canada Free Press (CFP) is also a right-wing uber-conservative web-publication, that has legally gotten in trouble in the past for getting caught with false stories. (Also a subjective opinion. Having glanced through some article titles at CFP I would characterize it as more populist than "uber-conservative." They have articles that range across the spectrum. You don't name any false articles either so that is an unsubstantiated claim that can't be checked.)
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.
It is clear that your intention is to support your claim that CFP and WND are unreliable sources (A claim that is only true on a case-by-case basis. Like most publications they draw from many sources.) by naming these contributors thereby insinuating that they write falsehoods. Not being familiar with CFP until finding its name on your blog and not being a regular reader of WND I am unaware that any of them are contributers. They may be. But it is an association that proves nothing about their veracity or the veracity of those publications. It does demonstrate your leftist biases wherein you expect those associations to be enough to make your point. Having listened to Rush Limbaugh regularly since 1993 and many hours of Sean Hannity I know the point you are trying to make is false. I am also very familiar with Ann Coulter's writings and she is scrupulously honest and sources her hard information in painful detail.
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.
Let's examine what you said on your blog about that.
8) An email to the GCHQ (UK Government Communications Headquarters - the centre for Her Majesty’s Government’s Signal Intelligence activities) which is the main focus of the article, questioning the validity of the article yielded this response from Alan Thompson, Press Officer at the GCHQ:"Thank you for your email. It is GCHQ’s long-standing policy to respond that we are able to neither confirm nor deny in respect to enquiries on intelligence matters. I would simply add that I am not aware of Gordon Thomas making any approach to GCHQ prior to publishing on this subject; such an approach would invariably be directed through the Press Office. I hope that is of some help."
You are told that the policy is to "neither confirm nor deny in respect to enquiries on intelligence matters." Then you are told "I am not aware of Gordon Thomas making any approach to GCHQ prior to publishing on this subject;..." You prove nothing with this other than that GCHQ is telling you nothing. You have the policy as stated by their Press Secretary and his personal statement that he isn't aware of Gordon Thomas inquiring of GCHQ. Has it occurred to you that GT has contacts other than the Press Secretary? Or that the Press Secretary has no awareness of who talks to who by design? What you have there is a statement of nothing about nothing.
Personally, I do not believe in ‘right’ or ‘left’.
The biases you have displayed here contradict that assertion.
The Buddhist path is the middle way.
Which refers to the extremes of nihilism and eternalism which are personally held POVs. It is not an excuse to ignore the realities of samasara, relative reality, which is by its nature dualistic. The dharma is not about 'belief' it is about recognizing reality as it is. Right and left political philosophies exist in samsara whether you believe in them or not. Obviously you do have attachments to leftist ideology since you adhere to it without the discriminating wisdom of needing to substantiate your political views with critical analysis.
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.
You are not open to hearing all sides. You began with the statement that you aren't here to debate. That is a direct statement of closed-offedness. It also ignores the fact that this is a political forum where debate is the primary activity and function. It is what it is. You also set out to do more than debunk that photo. Which you didn't conclusively do. You also set out to debunk the CFP/WND article and your only proof of that was based on innuendo and guilt by association. You speak of your primary motivation as "the truth" but your methods are overwhelmingly intellectually dishonest.
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.
The photo only accompanied the article as an attachment to an e-mail circulating with a pirated copy of the article. It did not accompany the CFP version of the article, which can be seen on a pirate website, and you provide no evidence that WND included the photo with the article and I can't/won't verify that one way or the other since I am not going to subscribe to WNDs G2 Bulletin. It is incumbent upon you to do that as it is your assertion now that it was your motivation. It is also your contention now that you only sought to discredit CFP and the author Gordon Thomas (through negative associations and unsubstantiated accusations) in order to disprove the false connotation the photo created by being circulated with the article. Which does not appear in the CFP version and, as far as anyone knows at this point, does not appear with the G2 Bulletin version.
This blogger does a good job of exposing your lackadaisical reporting methods.
As for being a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner; well whoop-de-friggin'-do! I am too and have been for ten years. Shall we whip out our malas and see whose is bigger? Unless you're a teacher (and I'll eat my mala if you are) then we are both students and it's a meaningless point for either of us to rest our political arguments on that fact. It is also a useless point to make any claims of purity of intent on that basis. If either of us had that what use would we have for taking the path?
5) To address the few attacks questioning my personal Buddhist beliefs and activism:
If you consider Buddhism to be a set of beliefs, especially if you are following the Diamond Vehicle, you do have problems.
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.
The differences in the three vehicles is primarily one of approach not interpretation. Apparent contradictions between Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana doctrines are matters of approach not fundamental disagreements as to meaning as is true in the doctrinal differences in various Christian sects for instance.
Your paragraphs on Buddhist view are entirely a Hinayana view and not particularly relevant to a tantric practitioner.
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.
First you make an absolute statement about the Buddha and, again, you set down the condition that it shouldn't be debated. I can assure you that my teacher would debate that whether you wanted to hear it or not. He has bluntly said "It is not possible to hold liberal views and practice dharma." Since dharma practice requires taking responsibility for one's actions as the first act of the path it shouldn't be surprising given that all liberal ideology today is based on a culture of victimhood. Only a little scrutiny reveals that virtually every liberal "cause" is based on blaming someone or something else for the negative conditions one finds themselves in. Racism, sexism and classism are the so-called "causes" of hatred, social status and poverty. Instead of encouraging personal responsibility liberalism relies on blaming others and offering the solutions of wealth redistribution, racial quotas/preferences and abortion. Nothing could be further from the Dharma than that. Nothing!
sources: Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia U (www.bobthurman.com/essay3.shtml);
Never heard of him. Was/is he a practitioner? In strict Tibetan Buddhist tradition I rely on my teacher as my primary guide to dharma. In accordance with his guidance and instruction I place complete trust in Padmashambhava, Dudjom Rimpoche and other teachers within that lineage that he gives his imprimatur to. While the teachings of Shakyamuni are in no way incorrect, are indeed the basis of all other teachings, and the Hinayana vehicle is likewise without fault, they cannot be used by a tantric practitioner in practice or in action as they require holding an inferior view (which should be understood by a Buddhist practitioner as meaning lower or introductory not as in with fault or error.) As a matter of approach the Vajrayana view involves making no distinctions. As a matter of approach the Hinayana view is all about making distinctions.
I won't argue that many Tibetan Buddhists, especially western students and teachers, think they have some dharmic duty to change the world. But that is a dualistic view based on making distinctions. It may be entirely appropriate for a Hinayana or Theravedan Buddhist to practice in that way. How can a Vajrayana student approach the Great Perfection in that way? How can you descend with the view if your view is in error to begin with?
Happy Sojong! (for the benefit of the 99.99% of FReepers who have no idea what Sojong is it is the once monthly practice on full moon of remorse, repentance, confession and purification.)
In sum you have provided thin evidence that a photo attached to a circulating e-mail, never actually published with the article, is not what you claim others intended it to be believed to be. What purpose you have served other than to create confusion that didn't previously exist and give apologists for the PRC more fodder to cast doubt on the Tibetan cause is beyond me. They have certainly appeared here on FR and used your blog to do just that.
Tashi delek!