A Zen master who has long resided in the US recently came back to Taiwan to give Buddhist teachings.
He mentioned the relationship between politics and religion in one of his many lectures. He felt that the social tensions represented by the split between the pan-blue and pan-green camps is almost as serious as the racial conflict between black and white people in US history or the strife between Islam and Hinduism in India.
He thinks we need someone like Gandhi to mediate and sacrifice himself or herself if we are to have any hope for reconciliation.
I asked him: If a religious master deliberately obscures his political stance so as to reduce resistance and facilitate his teachings in the community, how is he different from a businessman who avoids taking sides to make more money?
The Zen master did not answer the question about motives directly. Instead, he said that our society needs an impartial third party who reminds the parties to calm down and listen to each other humbly. The third party should play the role of an arbitrator, so neutrality should be strictly observed. But this would not affect the religious master's own voting preferences. The master believes this to be true neutrality.
I think this Zen master is very experienced and thoroughly understands both Buddhist teachings and the ways of the world. He is concerned with politics but he is seldom involved in it. He does not casually talk about controversial political issues. He is good at maintaining his neutrality.
Master Wei Chueh (
In other words, not all religious masters have the virtuous capacity to act as an impartial third party.
To win more votes, some political figures purposefully obscure their political positions by proposing reconciliation and forgiveness. But in reality they still want to defeat and tear their enemies to pieces when the time is ripe. This is false neutrality.
Today's division between the pan-blue camp's pro-China stance and pan-green camp's emphasis on Taiwan's sovereignty is a result of various historical factors and social criteria. The two camp's different views represent two options for the country's future.
Some people believe that scholars should observe neutrality, but this is also incorrect. Only a few academics with extraordinary virtue, such as Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (
Most scholars are average citizens. They should strongly defend the values and positions they choose. As long as they focus on the matter at hand and listen to others, they have absorbed the essence of being neutral.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Modern History at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers