(zur deutschen Version hier klicken…)
On first view this project might appear quite „exotic“ in character. As such it comes in the proximity of an issue complex for the Western world and even explosive at the moment – the issue of how to deal with „other cultures“.
After centuries of material and mental exploitation of other cultures through colonialism and eurocentrism it must, of course, be allowed to put the question why an artistic project must include such an amount of „foreign culture“ as it is obviously planned here. Isn’t it better to stay with „oneself“ and to face the challenge of further developing one’s „own“ cultural expressions?
The question is understood and legitimate but my answer is clear:
No. I think we cannot.
We cannot „stay with ourselves“ because the problem that comes with this idea is: What exactly is meant by it? Where does „ourselves“ start and where does it end? Where exactly is the place I should „stay“ when I am asked to stay with „myself“?
Does Bach still belong to „me“ whereas the Beatles do not because they are from England? Am I allowed to analyze the music of the Bretagne but should better stay away from Arabic music because I am supposed to assume this kind of music would be too alien to me already before I even started the engagement?
By insisting on the existence of „mine“ in opposition to „the other’s“ I once again generate the foreign and distance myself from it. By „just caring for myself“ I confirm the euro-centristic and colonialist discourse I originally wanted to leave. Again it is I that draw a line. What before I incorporated as „mine“ without asking I now differentiate, again without asking. Both of these extremes underlies an asymmetric balance of power. In both variants it is I who determine the relation and take over the dominant role. In both I remain the colonialist.
Hence the postcolonial paralysis is perfected, a paralysis which we often seem to suffer even in situations where absolutely no postcolonial relationship is given. Nevertheless in the encounter with other cultures we seem to get aware of the fact that we cannot define our „own“ precisely (which to some might cause quite scary feelings), but we also know from experience that for a true and profound understanding of „the other“ we lack the appropriate and even necessary cultural conditioning.
We live in a globalized world where people from different parts get to know each other in different ways. Some of these encounters are enabled by the various possibilities offered by the internet, others take place because people literally have been beaten or bombed out of their countries, thus being forced to participate in the giant migration movements we are witnessing at the moment.
Of course, for me as a Westerner, who shares the colonialist heritage of Europe, there is good reason to carefully investigate myself in terms of any tendency of appropriation towards other cultures.
On the other side those who „own“ the foreign culture are at the moment often standing directly in front of me. They are my fellow citizens. This fundamentally changes the situation.
In this project I do not deal with an isolated people somewhere on top of the Himalayan mountains. Tibetans do not seem to having been isolated at any time anyway, and now often they live in the Western countries, too. And as with all other people that came to Europe from all parts of the world, we have the chance to meet them here and learn something. A great and historically rare opportunity is taking place in Europe at this moment. Some would propose we should only sort the encountered diverse cultural practices that come with the migration movements into two bins, “ours” and “theirs.” Surely we can accomplish more than this partition.
Since the similarities as well as the dissimilarities between me and others depend on the way I perceive myself, we should be aware that most of the cultural differences we can find at the moment are not as solid as we tend to think they are. As soon as we start to relate to „the other“ more consciously they might change very quickly. This relating can not be done without contact and dialogue. So instead of confirming the differences by sorting our cultural practices as described above what we should look for is a way of communication and exchange that allows us to treat each other seriously and equally. This, of course, means that I respect when the other side decides to keep a part of their cultural heritage hidden. But it also means that I am aware if he or she would like to share some of their heritage or would at least start a dialogue about it.
Nevertheless it is important to be conscious about some basic facts, too: First, the human ear is culturally conditioned, and second musical understanding to a great extent is constituted by the knowing of its cultural context. Furthermore it is possible that there are cultural codes and predeterminations which may remain incomprehensible to me for the rest of my life, despite my deepest and most honest effort.
Where do we go from here?
When cultures become persons
Now I would propose we get in contact not with a culture, not with a musical system, but with concrete individuals.
The first representative of Yungdrung Bon I met in Berlin. His name was Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and he was a citizen of the United States of America. Wangyal’s parents had fled form Tibet to India where he himself was born. He got his education in the rebuilt Menri Monastery in India and finished his studies with a Geshe degree which in the US is a PhD of philosophy.
After his education Tenzin gave back the monks’ vows and travelled to the West.
He is now married to Tsering Wangmo, another US citizen with a similar cultural background. Tsering Wangmo and Tenzin Wangyal have two children of whom the older one loves to play football. The family lives in California. Tenzin Wangyal has a facebook account. From time to time he posts photos from the different places of the world he visited alone or with his family. Some of them look like one would imagine the home of a Bönpo monk. Others are appearantly Mexican restaurants somewhere in the US.
Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is one of the most respected meditation teachers of Yungdrung Bön. Unfortunately he does not know that much about Bön ritual music (as he says himself) – perhaps because in order to become an expert in ritual music one has to specialize on music during monastic education. Tenzin Wangyal seems not to have done so.
The moment the exotic far-away culture stands in front of oneself in the shape of very concrete individual it is suddenly not important any more, how reasonable or unreasonable the claim is that one might or might not be able to completely understand the cultural background of each other. Neither is it important to prove how high the probability is that there might occur various kinds of misunderstanding in our encounter. All this is not important any more because the concrete individual is just talking to me this very moment, and while he or she does so and I listen to them as they are, the exchange is already taking place. The encounter has already begun.
Theoretical engagement is one of the most important and effective tools to prepare for such an encounter. It is of invaluable service in respect to reflect on the encounter after it has taken place. Theory is able to lighten the not understood, giving us a feeling of understanding it. That is important for becoming unafraid of it. Theory is of highest value when it is about getting aware of our preconceptions and habitual thought patterns in which we are entangled when encountering others. We cannot leave theory aside. But theory cannot replace the encounter itself. It cannot be a substitute for the dialogue between concrete persons and will never be able to bring forth the unpredictable miracles that often take place when the one human meets the other.
The many Bön representatives’ engagement with the West, the translations of Bön literature into English and many other languages, the intentional encountering and dealing with Western ways of behaviour and thinking can surely be explained in many different ways.
In any case to me it appears as an invitation for dialogue.
This invitation made by the several Bönpos whom I have met in German speaking countries alone, I would like to accept and, as far as this is possible to me, try to answer.
With this attempt, of course, something is involved that cannot be solved in theory: The fear of making mistakes and being rejected.
Within every dialogue mistakes and misunderstandings are possible. Thus it is well possible that I will make mistakes during this project, too. These mistakes may be gross or subtle mistakes in understanding, but they can also be mistakes in behaviour or mistakes in respect to the etiquette of the Bön society the rules and language of which I don’t really know.
In contrast to a written book or a paper I cannot correct such mistakes in a second edition of our encounter. I am dependent on the reaction and forgiveness of the other. The awareness of this can produce fear.
I think one of the most important steps on the way to an equal dialogue with a person from whatever culture is to face this basic fear.
If we want to liberate ourselves from what I called the „postcolonial paralysis“, if we would truly like to establish a dialogue as equal partners with whatever part of the world, we have to face the challenge of how to deal with our mistakes and fears instead of avoiding them on any costs and hiding ourselves behind our working desks
Since I believe that the exchange and the dialogue with representatives of Yungdrung Bön might be of high benefit for many of us I would like to accept this challenge and with this project grow myself, too.
My special thanks goes to Birrell Walsh for his kind support, helpful discussion, and proof-reading of the English versions of these texts.