A Conversation with Orville Schell

Schell is dean of the graduate program in journalism at UC-Berkeley, has produced several documentary films, and is the author of fifteen books, including nine about China.

Interview by Stephanie McMillan, June 16, 2000.

SM: You describe several common myths regarding Tibet: the peaceful, spiritually enlightened heaven; the pure, innocent victim violated by a cruel China; and the Chinese version of it as a feudal hell that needed liberation. Which would you say is closest to reality?

Schell: I think the problem is that all of these sort of virtual versions depart from reality and then embroider it. And each in their way involves projections. I guess if I was to have to choose between the western version and the Chinese version, I do think the western version is closer to reality in the sense that in the west one can pretty much say what one wants. I mean, I can tell you in an interview exactly what I think Tibet is, but that's extremely difficult in China. Because the official version of virtual Tibet, the Communist Party version, trumps all.

SM: So people aren't even allowed to talk about it?

Schell: It's a very very sensitive subject. If you speak publicly about it in a way that is not in accord with the official version, you'll get in trouble.

SM: It seems difficult to get undistorted information about Tibet, because sources on all sides are pushing their own agendas. The Chinese government of course wants to justify their actions there, and the Tibetan exiles wish to go back and have their old lifestyle. Is there information from any particular category of source that you trust to be objective?

Schell: You have to take each with a certain critical sense. I mean, China, I suppose, has a somewhat more distorted view, but you have to remember that many exiles haven't been to Tibet since 1959. So the Tibet they imagine and dream about and yearn for is really a Tibet that's past. Even though many of them are reform minded and recognize that the old Tibet needed to be reformed and changed. So there's a kind of nostalgia, for something that's a distant memory now, when it was possible for a place like Tibet to keep itself isolated from the rest of the world, including from China.

SM: Have you questioned people yourself while travelling there about what life was like?

Schell: Yeah, I mean the trouble is it's mostly older people now who remember. And since the ones who you might logically talk to or most easily talk to would be educated people, members of the aristocratic class, the government class or the monastic class, they have a point of view that obviously views their world as having come to an end when the Chinese came. If you talk to a nomad or a serf who worked on an estate of a monastery or an aristocrat, you might get a somewhat different view. The problem is that very few Tibetans really like the Chinese occupation, and that tends to color the way they look at their past, too. Because they look at the old even feudal past as one when China wasn't there. So it colors it with a certain brightness.

SM: Do you plan to write more about the current reality of Tibet? In your book you focused on the fact of the illusion, but didn't spend a lot of time describing the reality of life today.

Schell: Well, I have done some other writing about Tibet itself, and I'm sure I will continue to, and I've done two documentary films for public television which did get into that to some degree. But, you know, it's pretty well covered. So this book was really an effort to look at our Tibet, not the Tibet.

SM: Buddhism requires one to strive to eliminate the sense of self, the ego. Another of its main philosophical points is non-attachment. You've pointed out the irony of many Hollywood stars claiming to be Buddhists. Do you think that if they actually practiced it correctly, that they would have to give up being rich and famous?

Schell: Well, not necessarily. I think someone for instance like Richard Gere really does take his Buddhist practice seriously, and he is rich and famous. But actually, the way he treats people, and the way he leads his life is, I would say, quite exemplary.

SM: Does he live a simple life?

Schell: It's rather simple. I mean, obviously he has limosines and flies and has nice houses and whatnot. Also I think, I mean it's hard to judge, I find him a person who tries to treat people compassionately, sensitively, and not abuse his power, his position, his wealth, his fame. Now there are others who are a little more arrogant and I think a little less imbued with the actual spirit of Buddhism who are celebrities, but I don't think.and Richard Gere give enormous amounts of money to charity, and good causes. I wouldn't say you have to put on a sackcloth and ashes just to be Buddhist. It's a question of how you relate to your wealth, and what you do with it, how you treat other people.

SM: There has to be a certain amount of ego attached to want to be in a movie, though.

Schell: I guess there is, but then there also probably has to be a certain amount of ego attached to being the abbot of a large monastery. The point is life does involve a certain amount of ego, the question is how much. And what kind of an ego. But I do think there is a certain obvious contradiction between the kind of stereotypical Hollywood lifestyle and the notion of the simple Buddhist life that sees all material goods as an illusion.

SM: You've pointed out that many westerners are drawn to Tibetan Buddhism because in California, at least, it is presented as being undemanding and flexible.

Schell: I think many people choose to interpret it as undemanding and flexible. Actually it isn't quite as undemanding and flexible as some people imagine it.

SM: That's what I thought: that in Tibet Buddhism is extremely strict, and the behavior of practitioners is highly regulated.

Schell:: Well it can be. But it's not quite like Christianity, it's not quite as moralistic or inflexible or judgmental. But yes, to be a good Buddhist certainly involves, you know, it could be celibacy, it could be renouncing all things except what you have with you in the monastery, it means leading a life of contemplation and meditation. It depends upon the degree to which you commit yourself to it.

SM: Have you found any prominent western celebrity practicing Buddhism the way it's practiced in Tibet?

Schell: You know even in Tibet it's practiced in different ways, and there are charlatans there too. And there are very profound, spiritual people as well. I mean, I would say that Hollywood doesn't have a monopoly on grasping, on greed, and ego.

SM: But have you found anyone, any prominent person, here who actually practices it that way, who does the prayer wheel, and the chanting, who believes in the protective demons? Can we even call what they're doing Tibetan Buddhism anymore? Because it's not really the same.

Schell: Well I do think it has undergone substantial changes for most westerners. I think Buddhism is changing as it moves, just as every religion does. Christianity changed as it moved, and most religions do. And Buddhism is rather flexible, you think of all the different Buddhist traditions in Southeast Asia. Tibetan Buddhism is very different from the Buddhism as it arose in India or Sri Lanka. So this is not surprising.

SM: Maybe it should be called something else, though.

Schell: Well some people call it American Buddhism, or the American Buddhist movement, or the western Buddhist movement.

SM: In India, the beliefs of karma and reincarnation are used very often as a method of social control by the higher castes, who make the threat that if one rebels against one's assigned social role, then one would be doomed to a terrible next life. Do you think that in Tibet these beliefs have been used to reinforce conditions of inequality?

Schell: Probably not in Tibet, you know Hindus have class, the caste system. But in Tibet there was less of that I think, and actually Buddhism was probably a more leveling influence, in that all people were on the wheel of life and having to deal with karma, and death and rebirth, and it was kind of an equalizer. So I think in this respect, Buddhism is a somewhat more egalitarian religion, in terms of its religious belief.

SM: Didn't they have a very strict class society?

Schell: There was an aristocracy, and there was a theocracy, the monks. And there were all the nomads. So in that sense there were strict groups. But in terms of someone's ability to be good and reincarnated in a higher state, it was quite equal.

SM: But in terms of a serf rebelling against being a serf, would they have a hard time doing that because they would feel like oh, I'm violating my religious beliefs?

Schell: There was perhaps a little of that, but the notion of liberation was not in revolution or rebellion, it was in sort of spiritual enlightenment within, earning good karma rather than trying to improve your station in this life, it was to improve your station in the next life. So that tended to mitigate against the kind of revolutions and rebellions that characterized many other societies.

SM: You mentioned that the Dalai Lama has said that the concept of equality, and even Marxism, are appealing to him. Do you think he was in favor of abolishing feudalism in Tibet?

Schell: Yes. I think, early on, remember he was a young man when he left Tibet in 59, he would have been in his early 20s. But he had made expressions that Tibet really did need to be reformed. And he's made repeated expressions to this effect since. So his thrust now is not to restore the old feudal system, but to protect Tibetan Buddhism and its culture while reforming the sort of unjust aspects of its old society, I mean if he were able to go back.

SM: What would he want in its place? Would he want socialism, do you think?

Schell: Well actually I think he is somewhat socialistically inclined, in the sense of believing that people should be equal, there should not be great disparities in wealth and poverty, and that there should be a kind of equality of opportunity. By his own admission, that's what appealed to him about Marxism early on in the '50s. But what didn't appeal to him was the Leninist aspect, and the control aspect, and the anti-religion aspect of it.

SM: By Leninism you mean control?

Schell: Yes, the very tight democratic centralism, which means the party represents everybody and sets the guidelines for what happens and everyone else obeys. Or at their peril, resists.

SM: What do you think will be the effect on the Free Tibet movement now that China has most favored nation trading status? Has the US government abandoned Tibet in some way now that it has what it wants with China? What are the US's current interests regarding Tibet?

Schell: The United States has no hard-core interests in Tibet, and that's the problem. That there's no real trade issue or military issue.

SM: They can't make money off it.

Schell:: No, we can't make money off it. We've never supported Tibet as an independent country. We've always felt sympathy, many Americans, but the government has always been very clear that Tibet is a part of China. I think it doesn't really matter, this normal permanent trade status, or MFN is not going to undermine Tibet's cause, I mean it has a very powerful, moral message to its cause, and I think China has got to solve this problem if it's going to join the family of civilized nations, and be accepted. And it doesn't matter what its trade status is, it's still getting an enormous black eye around the world from the whole occupation of Tibet. It's a great shame for China.

SM: It seems that the US had some strategic interest in Tibet before, when the CIA was funding the rebellion there.

Schell: They gave very minor support to the Tibetan guerrillas and they yanked it out before Nixon went to China in '72. I mean, it was a flash in the pan.

SM: Did you ever ask or wonder how the Dalai Lama reconciles his leadership of guerrilla warfare with his belief in nonviolence?

Schell: It's an interesting question and he, himself, struggles with it. I think does believe, and has said as much, that sometimes, when people are taking away your home and your land, violence is justified to defend yourself.

SM: What about the concept of non-attachment?

Schell: Well, there is somewhat of a contradiction here. I mean this is the contradiction he has to embrace, between being a spiritual leader and also being a political leader. And being the defender of his people in a political dilemma, as well as the defender of their spiritual purity.

SM: Who are the exiles? Are they mostly disposessed landlords and higher clergy? Do you think it's legitimate to view their situation as similar to the Cuban exiles in Miami?

Schell: I think originally many of the people who fled were the aristocracy of the old Tibetan government. But since then many ordinary people, who were monks or nomads, or you know, ordinary people who just suffered, they've left too.

SM: Are they mostly in India?

Schell: Most of them come out through Nepal, and end up in India and get spread out around the world.

SM: Do they leave mainly because of repression or because of economic hardship?

Schell: I think it mostly has been the repression. There have been relatively few economic refugees in Tibet. It's not a rich country and the people are very poor, but I've not met a lot of people who've left because of economic opportunity. I think there probably are some but this is not one of the most common themes.

SM: I have recently heard and read two versions of how boys traditionally joined monasteries. One said that the monks kidnapped them and it was felt to be a great tragedy by their families. The other said that it was an honor for a boy to be chosen, and that the family was happy that he would be educated. Which do you believe is closer to the truth?

Schell: I've not heard many stories of kidnappings. The truth is that one out of four males did end up in monasteries in traditional Tibet. And it was considered a great honor because the religion sort of ruled. So yes, you could say they were parasites and living off the land and not working, and not producing anything, but this was one of the great traditional societies of the world where religion, rather than industrial revolution and gross national product, was what was esteemed. So this is the fact of the matter.

SM: So the families were happy about it?

Schell: Yes, I think they were. I mean, monasteries were the only place you could be educated, you could learn to read, you could acquire the status of the priesthood.

SM: Did the priests and the monks keep in touch with their families?

Schell: Oh yes. The monasteries were very much the center of life in Tibet. Most of Tibet was nomadic, so nomads would come in to the monasteries. There were really no cities besides Lhasa and one other very small what you could call a city, built around a monastery. But they'd come in for festivals, and religious holidays, and come in to worship and this was the center of life. This was like our shopping mall.

SM: It's hard to find out what's really true because you get so many disparate opinions.

Schell: That's a problem, contradictory views, and each of them have their own kind of ax to grind.

SM: How would you say that daily life has changed for ordinary people in Tibet since China's interference?

Schell: I think for the majority the standard of living is better. There's medicine, running water, electricity, if you judge it by modern amenities. On the other hand, it's a good question, are people happier? And that's harder to answer. That's sort of the meaning of life question. But out in the countryside, nomads live pretty much as they always did.

SM: Do you think the majority want independence from China?

Schell: I would say most of them would like the Dalai Lama to be able to come back, they would like the Chinese to lighten up, and if not outright independence, they would like to have a greater autonomy to determine their own affairs.

SM: And that would include the majority of people, not just the aristocrats?

Schell: I think you would have to say that, yes.

SM: To what extent did the people of Tibetans participate in China's invasion/ liberation of Tibet, and then the Cultural Revolution?

Schell: There were a fair number of young people who did become convinced that the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party would liberate them, would change society, and many young Tibetans did become Red Guards and did attack their own monasteries. You can't blame it all on China. But on the other hand, China really did lead this revolution and it transcended just the late '60s and the Cultural Revolution.

SM: What do you mean?

Schell: Well the worst damage in Tibet was done in the years about '66 to 1970, during the Cultural Revolution, which was the most fevered part of the revolution in China, and there were Tibetans who participated in the desecration of religious shrines and monasteries. But what China did was infinitely beyond that, imprisoning people, killing people, torturing people, disturbing traditional nomadic society, wrecking monasteries, turning all the monks and nuns out. I mean, it was pretty savage, what they did.

SM: I read some articles on the web that discuss your ideas of journalism, and in one of them from a couple of years ago you commented that there is increased conflict between journalistic integrity and the profit motive of the major media. You said that today the world is dominated by business and nationalism, not politics. With the growing political movement against global capitalism now, do you think there is a new opportunity for progressive or non-business journalism to flourish?

Schell: Well, I think it's highly problematic. All forms of media are so dependent upon advertising and ratings, and it does influence what they do in such a profound way. It's very hard to find organs of mass media that reach large numbers of people that can break free of this gravity.

SM: Do you think that more of the independent press might become more popular because of the developing social movements?

Schell: It's possible. I don't see that happening in the near future though.

home |  writings