印度流亡藏人苯教信仰者的邊緣化處境與生存策略

The Marginal Situation and Survival Strategiesof the Tibetan Bonpo in India

印度流亡藏人社會中的苯教信仰者，始終處於多個權力關係中的弱勢。在藏人於1959年流亡印度，並在印度建立流亡政府後，原本僅存於僧侶階層間對苯、佛關係的教義爭論，進一步發展成為雙方信仰者爭取社會資源的主要憑藉。尤其，流亡政府將「藏傳佛教」視為「國族」文化與歷史正統的論述，以及依照「官方認定」的宗教教派分配各種社會資源的政策，使苯教信仰者開始意識到，唯有讓苯教在西藏國族論述中取得「正當」且「核心」的位置，才得以爭取其生存所需的各種援助資源。本文即在檢視過去近五十年來，流亡印度的苯教信仰者如何在這樣的處境中運用不同權力主體（包括流亡府政府、印度政府以及國際人權組織等）間的矛盾或衝突，發展新的社會關係並重新詮釋其社群認同，以爭取最多選項的政治、經濟、宗教等資源，在種種限制的生活中，塑造更多可以「主動選擇」的機會。

This article presents a study of a marginal group among the marginalized, the Tibetan Bonpo in Dolanji, North India. The Bonpo are a distinctive religious minority within the Tibetan refugee population. Contemporary Bon and Buddhism share many similarities when it comes to philosophy and forms of ritual practice. However, adherents of the Bon religion believe that their founder is different from that of Buddhism, and assert that Buddhism has incorporated some elements from the earlier Bon religion as it developed within Tibetan societies. When the Tibetan Government-in-Exile was established in North India in 1960, it emphasised the Buddhist heritage as being central to Tibetan national identity. This discourse, which represents the Tibetans as being homogeneously Buddhist, marginalized the adherents of the Bon religion. As a result, the Bonpo have been compelled to adapt, whilst resisting the marginalization of their religious identity and the constraints embedded in their refugee status. Based on fourteenmonths of ethnographic fieldwork in Dolanji in 2007-2009, this article illustrates how the Bonpo adapt to multiple factors of marginality which constantly reinforce their powerlessness whilst, at the same time, attempting to challenge and change their marginal situation. It provides a different angle from which to understand the way of life of Tibetans in exile. Through the lens of the Bonpo, this study rethinks the role of religion in constructing Tibetan identity and in framing the official discourse of Tibetan nationalism. It is contended that it is from the margins, where people have to struggle to live under conditions determined by the centre, that the contradictions embedded in the dominant discourse and the ambiguities which constantly contest the practice of social relationships can be better approached and observed.