Don’t harass the Dalai Lama’s critics

In 2017, approximately 100 Tibetans gathered in Dharamsala to protest against the Tibetan leadership and to call for integrity in the Tibetan leadership. Scenes like this are becoming increasingly common; even the idea that the Dalai Lama might be disturbed to hear about their protest no longer makes these frustrated Tibetans hesitate. However, because they called for greater accountability in their government, these Tibetans were denounced as traitors. But will this soon be a thing of the past? When will Tibetans brave enough to protest against the leadership no longer be harassed and called “anti-Tibetan” or “anti-Dalai Lama”?

The opinion piece below was sent to dorjeshugden.com for publication. We accept submissions from the public, please send in your articles to [email protected].

 


 

By: Sil Klose

As His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s reputation is increasingly lying in tatters, Tibetans are growing emboldened when it comes to voicing their opinions against him.

Contextually-speaking, it is not easy for Tibetans to speak up against the Dalai Lama. Centuries of indoctrination to worship the Dalai Lama as a god-king has developed a culture of unquestioned obedience to everything he says. Backing this up is the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala) who enforce his diktats, under the guise of supporting his work but usually using his instructions as a cover to settle personal scores and vendettas, and fulfill private agendas.

So while to Westerners the Dalai Lama appears to be a smiling, giggly, charming old monk (and by nature, he truly is), Tibetans know differently. They know that the Dalai Lama should be obeyed without question, and that to displease him or to displease those who claim to represent him, can invite swift and oftentimes violent retribution in the name of “protecting the Dalai Lama”. They know that to hint, let alone speak, against the Dalai Lama’s policies can result in segregation and discrimination, as has been the experience of Dorje Shugden practitioners who have refused to abide by his ban against this centuries-old Buddhist deity.

Dorje Shugden practitioners have been kicked out of their homes and monasteries and rendered homeless, and refused service in shops, restaurants and even hospitals. The children are bullied in school, the parents are refused employment and the lamas are detained and questioned without basis, to prevent them from being able to teach. In the worst of cases, they are attacked and stabbed, or murdered whether it is by poison or being driven off the road. So to speak up against the Dalai Lama, Tibetan leadership and their policies can be fatal and the fact Tibetans are overcoming centuries of Dalai Lama-worship to join the chorus speaking up against him is a surprise indeed.


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/tibetanspeakingupvid007.mp4

It started with a Tibetan teenager, Tenzin Sherab, making fun of Samdhong Rinpoche, the ex-Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister) and current personal emissary of the Dalai Lama. At a public celebration in New York, the young man bravely took to the stage and mocked Samdhong Rinpoche’s manner of speaking, mimicking the inflections and cadence of his voice. The only reason he probably felt brave enough to do so is because he was in America and not India, and therefore away from the oppressive hand of the CTA.

Nevertheless, it was unprecedented that anyone might conceive of publicly mocking a monk who is the Dalai Lama’s right-hand man in this manner. Even more damning for the CTA’s reputation is that the audience laughed uproariously and gleefully circulated the video on social media. In years gone past, Samdhong Rinpoche would have been untouchable and beyond reproach; as the Kalon Tripa and the Dalai Lama’s emissary, the same courtesy extended to the Dalai Lama would have been extended to him. It now seems to be no longer the case, thanks to the CTA’s actions and how they have destroyed people’s faith in and respect for the monastic community.

The public mocking of Samdhong Rinpoche was followed by Tibetan students questioning Lobsang Sangay when he visited the Tibetan Children’s Village school in Dharamsala. The youths asked about the CTA’s role in the Dorje Shugden controversy and the “President” of the CTA reacted by showing his displeasure, his face instantly darkening and a snarl forming on his lips. Instead of answering their questions, he skirted around the subject and attempted to change topic. There are a few issues with this:


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/tibetan-youth-questions-sikyong-engsub.mp4

  1. Why even hold a public forum if some questions cannot be asked? And how can the CTA’s top leader, albeit a mere figurehead, be so uncouth as to refuse to answer the electorate’s questions? As future voters of the Tibetan community, the students had every right to ask their leader whatever they want. Is the CTA really a democracy when its leader tries to dictate what topics are appropriate for discussion and what are not?
  2. Is this Harvard-educated lawyer so easily shaken? If the equilibrium of the CTA’s top leader can be thrown off balance due to a couple of questions from a few youths far younger than him, is he really fit to be the President of an entire diaspora of Tibetan people? Is he qualified to lead the people in the Dalai Lama’s absence?
  3. True to form, the teenagers were summarily detained and questioned, and asked about their affiliations, allegiances and personal beliefs. It is worrisome that a few simple questions can result in the draconian treatment of children and it is insulting that the CTA thinks their own people are not smart enough to think and form their own opinions, but need to be fed the questions and put up to asking them.


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/CUTSstudent.mp4

Unfortunately for the CTA, the difficult questions are not going away. In more recent times, members of Parliament have been questioning the accuracy of the Nechung Oracle in official parliamentary sessions which are recorded and broadcasted. It is well-known that the Dalai Lama heavily relies on the Nechung Oracle and the forthcoming proclamations during the trance. His predictions however, have been shown to be unreliable and because people cannot question the Dalai Lama without being attacked for it, they are instead choosing to question the people he relies on. The logic is as such – if you cannot question the man who is making the decisions, then question the decisions he is making and the people who are helping him to make them.


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/QuestioningNechung.mp4

That is to say, why does the Dalai Lama rely on Nechung if he has been proven over decades to be unreliable? Surely that is a reflection of other potentially-poor choices and decisions the Dalai Lama has made, including the ban on Dorje Shugden and his involvement in the recognition of the Karmapas. As seen in this video below, these members of Parliament (MPs) have even been trying to dissociate themselves from the Nechung Oracle, ashamed and embarrassed that a so-called democracy is relying on spirits and gods for their policy-making.


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/TPiEevadingquestions.mp4

After MP Tenpa Yarphel questioned Nechung, it opened a floodgate of uncomfortable questions to be raised in the Tibetan Parliament. This latest series of videos contains the most overt criticism of the Dalai Lama yet to be made public. Some MPs are now openly saying there is no need to listen to everything the Dalai Lama says. Others are now saying that people who question or criticize the Dalai Lama should be left alone and not be harassed for their opinions, nor labelled a “Dalai Lama hater” just because they do not share the same views as him.

This is big, big news as the people now protecting critics of the Dalai Lama are not ordinary Tibetans, but those who are supposed to be the leaders of their community. First, MP Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam is actively discouraging Tibetans from following the Dalai Lama’s advice on universal ethics, saying that the advice applies only to the Dalai Lama’s Western audiences. Then the MP Andruk Tseten tells the listening MPs that people who dislike the Dalai Lama, like Dorje Shugden practitioners, do not affect the Dalai Lama’s life. That in fact, it is people who claim to be devoted to the Dalai Lama but disregard his instructions who actually harm the Dalai Lama’s life. In saying this, he backtracks on what the Dalai Lama has claimed all along (that China and Dorje Shugden practitioners are anti-Dalai Lama and anti-Tibetan).

What all of this does is allow Tibetans to feel it is possible to speak up against the Dalai Lama, because now they know their words will not have an effect on his life. In the past, it was always claimed that people who criticize the Dalai Lama will harm his life; now, Andruk Tseten says that this is not the case. On the one hand, cynics might think Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam and Andruk Tseten are posturing, saying things that will never happen just to look democratic and open-minded to the outside world. But even if it is posturing, there is always the risk that their posturing will backfire and Tibetans will take their words as encouragement, and it will embolden them to talk.

Instead of things improving for the CTA, they are becoming decidedly worse. The Dalai Lama’s reputation in the Western world is on the decline, amongst both governments who refuse to meet with him as well as the general public, given the exposé of his refusal to act on the sexual abuse cases. When the Dalai Lama is no longer the unquestioned leader he used to be, the CTA will need all the friends they can get for on their own, the CTA has not achieved much and without the reputation of the Dalai Lama backing them, they have no standing of their own.

So rather than continuing down this path, before they reach the point of no return, it would be prudent for them to extend a hand of reconciliation and create as many alliances as possible, even with those whose friendship they have previously rejected such as Dorje Shugden practitioners. Loyalty takes a long time to build up, but is easily destroyed overnight. Case in point – 60 years of goodwill is now in danger due to the Tibetan leadership’s silence over the abuse of women. If the CTA has any hope of enjoying the fruits of loyalty in the future, they had best start protecting and forming it now before it is too late.

 

Members of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile
speak against the Dalai Lama

 

“Don’t act on everything just because Dalai Lama says so,” says Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/KhenpoKadaNgedupSonam.mp4

Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam, a member of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (MP), reminds his fellow MPs that it is not necessary for them to listen to the Dalai Lama’s instructions.

He announces to all of them that whenever the Dalai Lama speaks about universal ethics, that is for his Western audience and the instructions are not for them (the Tibetans). As such, they do not need to follow it.

If people want to follow the Dalai Lama’s teachings on universal ethics, Khenpo Sonam says that it is enough for them to follow the 16 Pure Human Laws (མི་ཆོས་གཙང་མ་བཅུ་དྲུག).

Khenpo Sonam then reminds the listening MPs that the Dalai Lama recently gave the same instruction, saying that, “We Tibetans do not need to follow, I have already said that the universal ethics are not for us.”

How come Tibetans are exempt from practicing universal ethics?

Why is the Dalai Lama telling Western audiences one thing, and Tibetan audiences another?

 

“Leave Dalai Lama’s critics alone,”
says Tibetan MP Andruk Tseten


or watch on our server:
http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/AndrukTseten.mp4

Member of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile, Andruk Tseten, reminds Tibetans of the importance of following the Dalai Lama’s instructions and not disappointing him.

He said that considering the Dalai Lama’s advancing age (84 years old), it will be good for him to lessen his public programs if they are not important. Andruk Tseten says that it is important to make the Dalai Lama’s body and mind be relaxed and at peace, and the way to do this is by not disappointing the Dalai Lama.

Andruk Tseten says that if people like Dorje Shugden practitioners dislike the Dalai Lama, that is due to their ignorance. And if those ignorant people choose to disregard the Dalai Lama’s instructions, it is not a big deal. Andruk Tseten says that their choice will not affect the Dalai Lama’s life and activities. That is good Andruk Tseten says that because in a democratic society, people do not have to agree with everything the leader says and this does not make them ignorant. They do not need to be penalized for thinking different from their leaders. It just shows they have their own way which might be just as good. 

But if people who call the Dalai Lama their precious lama do not follow his instructions, then it will harm his life and activities. Those people who follow the Dalai Lama, but disregard his instructions, are the ones who disappoint and harm him. They are the people who do not bring peace to the Dalai Lama.
 

Please support this website by making a donation.
Your contribution goes towards supporting
our work to spread Dorje Shugden across the world.

Related Topics: , , , ,

Share this article
38 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. I’m sick and tired of the Tibetan attitude of regionalism. Why should we follow leaders just because they are Khampas or Utsangpas or whatever? I’ve never been to Lhasa or Chamdo or Chatreng and I don’t see myself going there anytime soon. I left Dehradun when I was a kid and my home is now NYC. So what do I care about where this and that wannabe Tibetan politician comes from? I’m more interested in what you have to say about your policies, your strategies, your plans etc … anything that involves a rational strategic approach. Don’t tell me about nechung and all that and about how we have to follow prophecy and blah blah.. If tibet is a democracy then why do we need to listen to deities and lamas? Keep spirituality out of politics already!

    So I’m all for debates, arguments, disagreements, and calling things for what they are. Let’s stop pussyfooting around. If we can’t criticize the Tibetan leaders, they are not fit to lead us. More Tibetans should think with their brains and not be blind sheep.

  2. Why is that now those protecting the critics of His Holiness Dalai Lama are not ordinary Tibetan? Very simple, just because they they have no idea of what’s happening in the Tibetan community. The simply do not know the truth behind the scene. HHDL has been promoted and projected as a very to the world even for the last 60 years. Well, Tibetan Buddhism has been spread through out the world due to his fame but unfortunately the truth is he is more than just a spiritual head. He created lot’s of sufferings to Tibetan and also abusing his power towards his people.

  3. Whatever you want to say, democracy is never going to practiced in Tibetans in exile in the near future. Though by name, Tibetan in exile is a democratic administration, but in fact, it is still very much a feudal system. The issue is not about the people, but the government refused to teach their people about democracy, and the reason is very simple: to control them easily.

    If people can think for themselves, they will start questioning the administration: Why did you fail to get us back to Tibet for the past 60 years?

    This is an embarrassing question for the CTA which they have no solution, because the ministers are selfish and only care for their own benefits.

    If CTA really wants to practice democracy, they must stop harassing the critics. 👎🏽

  4. In a real democratic country (in this case the community…), people are encouraged to ask or demand an answer if there is a need to. Even though the CTA claims they are democratic, they are actually not. For those who speak up, the CTA will arrange people to give them a “lesson”.

    It is only until recently a few Tibetans started to question the CTA. Looked at how Lobsang Sangay reacted when he was questioned in the forum with the students. He was not happy at all. The normal Tibetans have every right to question the leadership because it was the Tibetans who voted them to become their leaders.

    So actually the CTA is a dictator, people can only listen to them but they cannot express their opinion or question them. This is the reason why the Tibetans are still in such a less favourable position. When the next election come, the Tibetans should choose someone else, someone who can give them a better future.

  5. Pathetic is how I view the Leadership of CTA. They are unable to answer questions by students who are schooled and have learnt the system of democracy in this 21st century.

    The primitive and feudalistic way that Lobsang Sangay dealt with the questions is way out of modern thinking. When applicable he would throw in demanding obedience by his subjects (as though he is a ruling king) as he had given them green books, RC and ID. Wow that is way off, all citizens are entitled to such basics and it is not favour from the CTA.

    But what I do think pretty admirable is how Lobsang Sangay is so very artful in circumventing answer directly to simple questions as stated in this article. This is evidence of someone who constant practises deceit and cheating and of course lying.

    The Dorje Shugden issue will never be resolved by CTA as it is a great scapegoat for CTA’s inability to govern and also a great excuse to distract the people of Tibetan from all the scandalous and self serving actions and policies of the CTA’s leaders.

    It is a horrid scene to see how CTA has devalued the Dalai Lama’s international prestige. CTA should always engaged in dialogue for amicable settlement instead of ignoring disagreements by imposing bans and discrimination. CTA could have and should have the diplomatic skills to stop the protests against the Dalai Lama, if CTA had served the Dalai Lama well.

    More horrible to see is how CTA has degraded Tibetan Buddhism.

  6. There is no hope for Tibetan leadership in exiled with years of greed and corruption. At this juncture I could only pray for the Tibetans men and women on the street.

  7. CTA can never practice democracy. Such immature government will not able to nurture new leader but will see more and more people leaving them. For the past 60 year, Tibetan leadership had brought their people in India for a joy right. CTA has not provided any improvement towards their people but instead create schism to cover their ineffectiveness. Dorje Shugden practice has been there for the past 400 years ago. If Shugden can be wrong, all the lineage lama that practice Dorje Shugden can be wrong and which means Dalai Lama also wrong and the list goes on….

    Tibetan leadership need to make a change in order to make a stronger government. They should respect all religious and encourage them to practice in their own belief.

  8. It is good news that more and more Tibetan people are standing up for themselves and not manipulated by the CTA. It is also good news that those who speak up will not be harm like it used to be before. Good luck to the CTA as they are getting less and less support and also trust.

  9. First of all, I’m really impressed by the Tibetan youths in the second video. They are obviously capable of thinking for themselves and equally expressing their thoughts so well. The questions they have brought up are all pertinent.

    Sikyong Lobsang Sangay’s answers to them miss the point of most of the questions, almost as if he was sidelining them.

    As an Asian Studies researcher on the politics of refugees and communities-in-exile, it’s pretty obvious that this Shugden subject is a tactical ploy to splinter the Tibetans-in-exile and ensure that the status quo of those who wield political power remain to do so, meaning the ones in the upper echelons of the Central Tibetan Administration.

    It does also appear that the same ruling clans of Tibet, the Tibetan deep state, still retain their power base through the Central Tibetan Administration.

    The Tibetan Exile Government’s push for their 5-50 strategy is wool over the eyes of the Tibetan people, it is obvious that the 5 part of the 5-50 strategy to make headway with China is only to gain a PR advantage for the sake of appearing to the Tibetans and to the world at large that they are taking diplomatic efforts to come to an agreement with the Chinese authorities. The truth however is that there have been no discussion since 2008 and if one takes into consideration all the anti-Chinese rhetoric and accusations from the Central Tibetan Administration, it is clear that all their talk about accepting China is just that, all talk.

    Taking also into consideration, the amount of funding the Central Tibetan Administration receives from governments and interest groups around the world, it is fair to say that the heads within the Central Tibetan Administration are financially well-secure and therefore, any actualisation of the Umaylam plan would be detrimental to the health of the personal economy of these heads within the Central Tibetan Administration.

    As such, it would not be hard to look at the 50 part of the 5-50 strategy as a means to secure long term funding to keep their pockets full for a long while. Perhaps, even a retirement fund for the present heads of the Central Tibetan Administration.

    If I can summarise the entire 5-50 strategy in one word, it would be: sneaky.

    It gives me comfort that watching the videos in this article and seeing how, especially the Tibetan youths, are in their clear and balanced critique of the issues, mayl be able to prevent the present Central Tibetan Administration from causing more harm to the Tibetan people and the Tibet cause.

  10. The CTA declare themselves as a democratic government-in-exile. If so then voices of their people should be heard, whether pleasant or unpleasant to the ears of the CTA. But it does not seem so. For example, the controversial issue on Dorje Shugden. If CTA claim Dorje Shugden issue is not political but spiritual, then why does CTA interfere in spiritual affairs when they are a government and not a monastery? On one hand the CTA say they are democratic. On the other hand when Tibetans speak up against spiritual matters that CTA are against, for example on Dorje Shugden, the CTA go all out and brand these people as dissidents, spies, traitors. And they ensure these people’s lives become a living hell.

  11. In the first video [http://video.dorjeshugden.com/videos/tibetan-youth-questions-sikyong-engsub.mp4] Sikyong said that Dorje Shugden people are not stopped from practising and are given equal rights. My question is – then how come there is a whole section in CTA’s site about Dorje Shugden condemning this practice?

    CTA claims to be democratic government but I think they are practising selective democracy. What suits them, they will adopt and conveniently ignore the rest which doesn’t suit their agendas.


    Screenshot 2018-10-28 15.40.56

  12. No democratic leader is above questioning at all. Lobsang Sangay has exhibited, the type of un-democratic government that the CTA is truly is. If they cannot stand up to students and teenagers, I do not know what kind of leadership is running the show now.

    Questions about the Nechung Oracle are valid, given that the Nechung Oracle incorrectly adviced the Dalai lama to stay in Tibet in 1959. Do not stop Tibetan people and MP’s from raising something that clearly does not work.

    “MP Andruk Tseten tells the listening MPs that people who dislike the Dalai Lama, like Dorje Shugden practitioners, do not affect the Dalai Lama’s life.” I quote, well why have the ban on Dorje Shugden people then, why isn’t there a representative of the Dorje Shugden people in the parliament then?

    “Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam,a member of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (MP), reminds his fellow MPs that it is not necessary for them to listen to the Dalai Lama’s instructions.” If then this can be true, then all that the Dalai Lama have mentioned in the past 20 years about Dorje Shugden can be reversed once and for all.

  13. CTA need to realise that this is no longer what it was back in the 60s. People are more aware what is happening and they do look at the wrongdoings and misleading actions of influential people. This so called ‘government’ is going fast into extinction.

  14. I think the precedent had been set for the people to be more vocal against the Dalai Lama. As they see no repercussion against the speakers, then more will be embolden to voice out their unhappy opinions. If taken as constructive, then the Tibetan leaders can learn of their people’s thought and complains but of course, why would they care when its their own pocket that concerns them the most. If not, then I guess black marks will be chalked up against the speakers and when the time is right, they will be hit for their voices. Freedom is not exactly the Tibetan Leaders’ practice. And by now I think the Dalai Lama is not as bothered as he prepares himself to return to Tibet. I did notice though that the speakers will tend to use the Dalai Lama’s name very often to seem as though they are speaking on behalf of the Dalai Lama and as such sanction to speak. Also then the blames fall on the Dalai Lama rather than themselves. What they say will also hold more clout from the Dalai Lama’s name. What is important will be for the people to really form a caring government through their votes and not let fear overrule their rights. But it is encouraging that the start of maybe freedom of speech??? I guess it depends on who was talk about.

  15. Tibet, a province in China well known for it’s Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism. A province that’s popular for it’s traditional medicine, a sacred place where full of harmony. Dalai Lama, well known for being an old kind monk, who has got Noble prize as a Peace Ambassador, his people worship him as a Dharma king. BUT, the so called government he leads, CENTRAL TIBETAN ADMINISTRATION, so dictate, claim that they are democracy “government” but it’s actually the other way. Discriminate people who doesn’t agree with them, segregate people who has different opinion on the “government” by always using “In protecting the name of The Dalai Lama”. CTA name is so smelly until people heard about CTA also feel irritated, the name is so smelly than rubbish that rot in the rubbish bin. This kind of government doesn’t even have the chance to rule if it’s in other country. This kind of leader has already got kicked out from the Parliament or got killed. Lobsang Sangay doesn’t even know how to lead a government, he should be put in jail. Tibetan can only obey to their leader because they have no rights to speak. There’s no human rights in the Tibetan community in exile, coz their brilliant “government” doesn’t allow human rights. CTA, i think u should bag up and leave India.

  16. There are getting more Tibetans who are brave to voice out their view toward CTA. Happy to see this because that means Tibetans are explored to the outside world and no longer just listen only to CTA. With all these years of Dorje Shugden controversy by CTA’s action, it is very sad because it has caused people losing faith and respect to the monastic community. It is good to hear Andruk Tseten says that in a democratic society, people do not have to agree with everything the leader says and this does not make them ignorant.

  17. The HH Dalai Lama’s government in exile, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) proclaims itself to be a democratic system of government. But whatever mentioned in this article is true and how do you consider them as democratic. Lobsang Sangay displeasure when his own people ask question about Dorje Shugden. Can you accept a democratic system of government interfere your believe/religion. CTA Leadership ban the Dorje Shugden practice but they denied even there are so much proofs of the ban, how to trust them?

    Another leader, Khenpo Kada Ngedup Sonam, a member of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (MP), reminds his fellow MPs that it is not necessary for them to listen to the Dalai Lama’s instructions. He said “We Tibetans do not need to follow, I have already said that the universal ethics are not for us.” Why Tibetan can exempted from practicing “Universal ethic”. Again my question is “ how to trust this type of leadership”.

    The conclusion is 60 years gone, check the result, the current situation of the Tibetan in Exile in India, they are still stateless, still can’t go back to Tibet. At this stage, it should be no more taking religion as a politic tools to control the people, do something more logical to improve their life. Lift the ban of Dorje Shugden and unite all Tibetan and works together to a better tomorrow.

  18. Yes, it’s time for Tibetan people to stand up for rights just like the 100 Tibetans gathered to protest against the Tibetan leadership. It is very truth that people do not have to agree with everything the leader says in a democratic society as mentioned by Andruk Tseten. If every Tibetan people is responsible and working together toward a peaceful community instead of engaging in wrong actions and creating suffering for others, Tibetan today may achieve independence successfully.

    Unfortunately, they may never achieve it because CTA could no longer be trusted in protecting its people

  19. Young generation Tibetan has realising how bias CTA ready are. CTA can’t just using Dalai Lama name and politic power to control them how they feel and thinking. When CTA continue discriminate Dorje Shugden practitioner, tibetan felt no religion practice freedom and no have basic human right how they should think and react. Tibetan refugee has lose hope their leadership has fail them badly and no democracy and freedom for the tibetan.

  20. Till today, I cannot fathom the logic that harm can be done onto Dalai lama. What logic is that can someone please tell me? First they said that he is buddha then they said that he can be harmed if they practice Dorje shugden or disobey his instructions. Mind you, I am not a buddhist (although I learn as much as I can) but I find it rather interesting when I first came across this so called ‘Dorje shugden controversy’.
    Now, my question is, is he a buddha as claimed or not? Because if he is, then he shouldn’t be able to have harm fall onto him, right? Because how can buddha have the karma to be harmed? Now, if he is not a buddha, again, how does Dorje shugden harm him? Wish him short life? How preposterous!

  21. This is definitely tells CTA is totally out dated. New evolution arise, people are getting smarter and going more in advance of developing themselves. It pitiful CTA still stuck into the time back away 60 years ago. Like what had said, once the karma is open nothing can be done. How much lavish you are before and how much poverty you have become. 🤘

  22. To gain respect from people, we should respect the people first.
    Love & peace is possible only when we start loving & giving peace to others. 1 hand can never clap👏

    dalai-lama-quotes-main-fb

  23. China and India are becoming closer and in a recent meeting have agreed on some points. One of these points is that the Dalai Lama will not be allowed to carry out any more political activities against China on Indian soil. Being a spiritual leader, why is he so political anyway? The Indian leaders are slowly silencing the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans in India. The Dalai Lama and his Tibetan government in-exile regime had better make friends with China already. They should either go back to Tibet/China or become Indian citizens and remain silent.

    China will review new inputs on Azhar

    Delhi says no anti-Chinese activity will be allowed in India

    China has assured India that it will, in future, consider any additional information that is provided on Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar to designate him as an international terrorist.

    The assurance was given by Minister of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, Zhao Kezhi, to Home Minister Rajnath Singh at a high-level meeting held in New Delhi last week.

    Dalai Lama’s visit

    On its part, India said its territory would not be used for any political activity against China, when Beijing raised the visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh in 2016.

    The Doklam stand-off between the armies of the two countries at the China-Sikkim-Bhutan tri-junction last year, which lasted for over two months, was not raised by either side.

    China had blocked India’s proposal to designate Azhar as an international terrorist at a UN sanctions committee. “The Chinese Minister also promised action on United Liberation Front of Assam leader Paresh Baruah, who is said to be hiding in China. He said they would consider any fresh information provided by India on both Azhar and Baruah,” said a senior government official.

    China considers Arunachal Pradesh a disputed territory and has referred to Tibetan leader Dalai Lama as a “separatist.” China was categorical that no protests or demonstrations should be organised by the Tibetans here.

    ‘A spiritual leader’

    “They wanted to raise the so-called disputed status of Arunachal Pradesh, but we did not agree to include it in the agenda. The Chinese delegation was assured that no political activity against the Chinese will be allowed from any Indian territory and as far as the Dalai Lama is concerned, he is a spiritual Tibetan leader who was given shelter in India,” said the official.

    Beijing also raised the unrest in Xinjiang province and sought India’s cooperation on the movement of Uighur militants.

    ‘No Uighur militants’

    “There is no evidence of the movement of Uighur militants in India, but the Chinese raised the subject as they have an apprehension that they may use India as a transit. They were assured that no such activity will be allowed,” said the official.

    On October 22, India and China signed an agreement to “strengthen and consolidate discussions and cooperation in the areas of counter-terrorism, organised crime, drug control and other such relevant areas.”

    A Memorandum of Understanding had been signed in 2005 with China, but that lapsed two years ago.

    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/will-consider-information-on-azhar-china-tells-india/article25347756.ece

    ChinaWillReviewNewInputs

  24. It is clear and obvious that the CTA does not care for the Tibetans but they only care for themselves! Showing off as a democratic leadership but is it how a democratic leadership behaves? Not at all!

    It is such a pity for the Tibetans who have suffered so much to have such a leadership!! 😤

  25. A powerful article, a must-read! Makes people wonder, why are they so biased against China when all the other countries are doing exactly what China is doing but behind the facade of ‘democracy’? 👎

    Opinion: In Search Of Historical Parallels For China’s Rise
    October 15, 20182:55 PM ET
    Alexis Dudden teaches history at the University of Connecticut and is the author of Japan’s Colonization of Korea and Troubled Apologies Among Japan, Korea, and the United States. Jeffrey Wasserstrom (@jwassers) teaches history at University of California, Irvine, and is the author of Eight Juxtapositions: China through Imperfect Analogies from Mark Twain to Manchukuo and coauthor of China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know.
    History can be helpful in making sense of what the Chinese Communist Party is doing within and beyond the borders of the People’s Republic of China. But when it comes to understanding today’s China, history is an imperfect guide. Neat parallels with the past aren’t possible. Certain aspects of China today are completely without historical precedent. And even when certain parallels do become possible, history isn’t helpful in quite the way that either Chinese President Xi Jinping or others promoting comparisons to the past may assume.
    Some have warned that as China threatens to displace the U.S. as a world power, war is inevitable — the so-called Thucydides Trap. While it may be tempting now to view the U.S. as Sparta to China’s Athens, this analogy does not stand up to scrutiny. There are more than just two major states locked in competition. Moves by Russia, the European Union, Japan and other powers will affect what does or does not happen next. The existence of international organizations and nuclear weapons alone makes it problematic to summon ancient Greek wars as templates for contemporary geopolitical tensions.
    Xi’s own ideas about the past are particularly significant, and similarly flawed. In promoting his outward-facing Belt and Road Initiative — an ambitious global infrastructure project — and his more domestically focused “Chinese dream” vision of national rejuvenation, he advances the idea that China should be seen as both rebooting and rejecting the past.
    In terms of rebooting, he presents the Belt and Road Initiative as putting a glorious new high-tech spin on the ancient Silk Road. In terms of rejecting, he presents China as breaking completely from the way two previous rising powers — the U.S. and Japan — behaved during the so-called “century of humiliation,” the period between 1839 and 1949 when they were part of an imperialist ganging-up on China.
    But there are no perfect historical analogies for the Belt and Road Initiative. It is not the modern version of the ancient Silk Road. That “road” was actually a set of roads, and they evolved organically, not via a top-down edict. In addition, Silk Roads also were defined by flows in different directions, with China being transformed by things moving into the country as much as by things heading out from it.
    Similarly, there are no perfect analogies to Beijing’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea or its creation of a vast network of indoctrination camps for Uighurs in Muslim-majority Xinjiang.
    As historians of China and Japan, what intrigues us, though, is that some of the most revealing imperfect analogies that come to mind lie precisely where Xi claims no precedents should be sought: in the actions and rhetoric of America and Japan between the first Opium War and the second world war — the period encompassing China’s century of humiliation.
    As America and Japan leapfrogged up the world’s geopolitical hierarchy, they each, as China does now, generated awe, anxiety and an admixture of the two. Much like China today, these two countries were associated with rapid economic development (facilitated by limits on the rights of laborers), technological advances (such as impressive new train lines) and territorial expansion (including, in each case, asserting control over islands in the Pacific Ocean).
    Leaders in Washington and Tokyo then, like those in Beijing now, often claimed to be breaking with the playbooks of previous empires. They asserted that their actions were motivated not by a naked desire for greater power but by a wish to improve the lot of people already under their control in borderlands or those being brought under their control farther away. When they used force, they claimed, they did so only to ensure stability and order.
    Beijing’s recent actions in Xinjiang and Tibet have echoes in Tokyo’s actions in Manchuria in the 1930s and Washington’s in the Philippines at the turn of the 19th century. Tokyo sent soldiers and settlers to Manchuria and exerted direct and indirect influence over the territory. Japanese official publications treated Manchuria’s people much in the same way as China’s Xinhua News Agency now treats those of Xinjiang and Tibet — as inhabitants of a backward and dangerous frontier that needed guidance from a government in a more advanced capital. In the Philippines, American proponents of expansion similarly celebrated the influx of new people and the importing of “modern” ideas, institutions and influences.
    History does suggest that Beijing’s leaders might consider doing things to make their actions less similar to the negative models of Japanese and U.S. expansion that loom large in China’s textbooks. They could grant greater agency to Uighurs and Tibetans in the path of their assimilationist development moves — allowing various languages to be taught in schools, for example — and reverse the trend in Xinjiang of disappearing people into camps, which conjures up other troubling historical analogies as well.
    In the South China Sea, Beijing is doing things that anyone steeped in the American and Japanese pasts will find familiar. But there are new twists.
    In the 1850s, the Japanese government built six Odaiba island fortresses in Tokyo Bay as a defensive strategy, primarily against the Americans. During an 1879 tour of China and Japan, former U.S. president Ulysses S. Grant boasted about his nation’s completion of the transcontinental railroad, which is notable in this context because it was a grand, “belt”-like project that, among other things, facilitated his successors’ annexations of Hawaii and the Philippines, as well as other islands.
    Beijing’s recent pressure on international airlines to shade Taiwan the same color as the mainland on their maps is a new turn. It does, though, recall schoolchildren’s maps in Japan being modified to include Taiwan in 1895, when Tokyo annexed the island into its growing empire. The same thing occurred again in 1910, when Japan subsumed Korea.
    One important difference between China’s expansionist moves and those of the United States and Japan is how they resonated at home. Until Japan took its dark turn in the late 1930s that resulted in the cataclysmic events of 1945, Japanese critics of Tokyo’s territorial ambitions could express their views in public.
    Mark Twain, a writer Xi admires, found it distasteful when the U.S. took control of the Philippines — when, as he put it, the “eagle put its talons” into new places with rapacious greed.
    Some Chinese citizens doubtlessly feel similarly about their government’s actions in the South China Sea, as well as its repressive moves in Xinjiang and Tibet. Unlike Twain or domestic critics of Japanese expansionism, though, it would be dangerous for China’s people to voice their concerns openly. That may be one of the most troubling comparisons from the past and present.
    https://www.npr.org/2018/10/15/657019981/opinion-in-search-of-historical-parallels-for-chinas-rise

    ty

  26. “The bottom line is its not about whether anyone trusts or likes China but whether China can help these countries advance their own respective national interests. And the answer is yes. Correspondingly the question is whether any country can afford not to access China’s vast consumer market moving into the future. Not doing business is bad for local economies and no one will elect or re-elect a government that presides over a failing economy.”~NY Times

    How China Has Defied Expectations, in Canada and Around the Globe
    By Ian Austen
    Nov. 23, 2018
    In Saskatchewan, farming is done on a grand scale. So when I visited the Canadian Western Agribition in Regina this week for an upcoming story, I wasn’t surprised to find that the annual gathering of Western farmers is almost overwhelmingly large, luring 127,000 visitors last year to a city of 215,000.
    Like all agricultural exhibitions, the Agribition has a wide array of activities for city dwellers like me, including a rodeo, horse shows and cattle judging. But what started as a regional exhibition 48 years ago has grown into a global event. Cattle ranchers, many from distant parts of North America, parade their livestock to buyers from around the world looking to improve their herds.
    When I asked breeders where their customers come from these days, many of them said China.
    Canada, like the rest of the world, has not escaped the effects of China’s move from isolated backwater to a global economic and political force. For the past several months, more than a dozen New York Times reporters, editors, photographers and designers have been examining China’s dramatic rise in a project called China Rules, which launched this week.
    Phil Pan, our Hong Kong-based Asia editor, has worked in China for about two decades and returned to writing to produce the must-read opening essay on how China’s rise has defied expectations.
    Political shifts in Washington and Beijing helped influence the timing of the series. “One factor was certainly a sense at the beginning of the year that America under Trump was in retreat or withdrawing from the world,” Phil said.
    Under President Xi Jinping, China saw an opportunity to step up, he said. And in recent months, he said, “We began to see this fundamental shift in the relationship between the U.S. and China from engagement to competition.”
    While President Trump has attacked China and launched a trade war against it, Canada has taken an opposing track. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said repeatedly that his government is moving toward a full-scale free trade agreement with China, though that movement’s progress has been stately, at best.
    And Mr. Trudeau’s government continues to rebuff American security warnings about allowing equipment made from Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecommunications company with research operations in Canada, into the coming upgrade of Canada’s wireless networks.
    I asked Phil if Canadians can, or should, trust China.
    “I think the debate in Canada and the United States probably will be much less about trust than about interests,” he said. “Is the fact that the Chinese political system is authoritarian a problem for our national interest?”
    Here, for your weekend reading pleasure, is more from our China Rules series:
    • The American Dream Is Alive. In China.
    • How China Made Its Own Internet
    • How China Took Over Your TV
    • How China Is Writing its Own (Hollywood) Script
    • The World, Built by China
    Among the stories still to come in the series is an examination of China’s authoritarian control of its citizens, as well as articles on how the country is challenging the global, liberal democratic order and why its economic rise left many Western economists red-faced.
    If after reading China Rules, you’d like to discuss the series, we have a new Facebook group: Examining China’s Reach With The New York Times.
    In Conversation
    Mark Thompson, president and chief executive officer of The New York Times Company, will join Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, in conversation at the University of Toronto on Tuesday, December 11. The two will discuss U.S.-Canada relations, foreign policy challenges and more. Details and ticket information are available here.
    And a final reminder that Sam Tanenhaus, a former editor of The New York Times Book Review, will moderate a panel on book reviewing on Friday, Nov. 30, also in Toronto. Use the code CANADALETTER for $5 off the ticket price.
    Trans Canada
    —The turmoil that followed the arrest of six teenagers accused of sexual assault during hazing rituals at an elite private school in Toronto is prompting some Canadians to question the value of all-boys schools.
    —Canada is pushing the United States to end steel and aluminum tariffs before the ceremonial signing of the replacement deal for Nafta. But Washington is considering another, similarly unappealing measure to replace the duties.
    —An art historian from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario is among the curators of an exhibit that uses imaging technology to peel back the layers of Bruegel’s complex masterpieces.
    —In Opinion, Amanda Siebert wrote that the legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada will allow medical research to blossom.
    —While the United States dithers, Canada has approved new regulations that will allow for the sale of cars with headlights that automatically adjust their beams, letting drivers see farther down the road without blinding oncoming traffic.
    A native of Windsor, Ontario, Ian Austen was educated in Toronto, lives in Ottawa and has reported about Canada for The New York Times for the past 15 years. Follow him on Twitter at @ianrausten.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/world/canada/china-defied-expectations-canada.html

  27. Everyone is expecting a communist China to fail. But in fact China is getting stronger and bigger and more powerful. China proves communism can work to the chagrin of ‘democratic’ countries such as the US who is jealous and threatened of their own status quo. China will continue to grow according to the New York Times.

    The Land That Failed to Fail
    The West was sure the Chinese approach would not work. It just had to wait. It’s still waiting.
    By PHILIP P. PAN
    Photographs by BRYAN DENTON
    NOV. 18, 2018
    In the uncertain years after Mao’s death, long before China became an industrial juggernaut, before the Communist Party went on a winning streak that would reshape the world, a group of economics students gathered at a mountain retreat outside Shanghai. There, in the bamboo forests of Moganshan, the young scholars grappled with a pressing question: How could China catch up with the West?
    It was the autumn of 1984, and on the other side of the world, Ronald Reagan was promising “morning again in America.” China, meanwhile, was just recovering from decades of political and economic turmoil. There had been progress in the countryside, but more than three-quarters of the population still lived in extreme poverty. The state decided where everyone worked, what every factory made and how much everything cost.
    The students and researchers attending the Academic Symposium of Middle-Aged and Young Economists wanted to unleash market forces but worried about crashing the economy — and alarming the party bureaucrats and ideologues who controlled it.
    Late one night, they reached a consensus: Factories should meet state quotas but sell anything extra they made at any price they chose. It was a clever, quietly radical proposal to undercut the planned economy — and it intrigued a young party official in the room who had no background in economics. “As they were discussing the problem, I didn’t say anything at all,” recalled Xu Jing’an, now 76 and retired. “I was thinking, how do we make this work?”
    The Chinese economy has grown so fast for so long now that it is easy to forget how unlikely its metamorphosis into a global powerhouse was, how much of its ascent was improvised and born of desperation. The proposal that Mr. Xu took from the mountain retreat, soon adopted as government policy, was a pivotal early step in this astounding transformation.
    China now leads the world in the number of homeowners, internet users, college graduates and, by some counts, billionaires. Extreme poverty has fallen to less than 1 percent. An isolated, impoverished backwater has evolved into the most significant rival to the United States since the fall of the Soviet Union.
    An epochal contest is underway. With President Xi Jinping pushing a more assertive agenda overseas and tightening controls at home, the Trump administration has launched a trade war and is gearing up for what could be a new Cold War. Meanwhile, in Beijing the question these days is less how to catch up with the West than how to pull ahead — and how to do so in a new era of American hostility.
    The pattern is familiar to historians, a rising power challenging an established one, with a familiar complication: For decades, the United States encouraged and aided China’s rise, working with its leaders and its people to build the most important economic partnership in the world, one that has lifted both nations.
    During this time, eight American presidents assumed, or hoped, that China would eventually bend to what were considered the established rules of modernization: Prosperity would fuel popular demands for political freedom and bring China into the fold of democratic nations. Or the Chinese economy would falter under the weight of authoritarian rule and bureaucratic rot.
    But neither happened. Instead, China’s Communist leaders have defied expectations again and again. They embraced capitalism even as they continued to call themselves Marxists. They used repression to maintain power but without stifling entrepreneurship or innovation. Surrounded by foes and rivals, they avoided war, with one brief exception, even as they fanned nationalist sentiment at home. And they presided over 40 years of uninterrupted growth, often with unorthodox policies the textbooks said would fail.
    In late September, the People’s Republic of China marked a milestone, surpassing the Soviet Union in longevity. Days later, it celebrated a record 69 years of Communist rule. And China may be just hitting its stride — a new superpower with an economy on track to become not just the world’s largest but, quite soon, the largest by a wide margin.
    The world thought it could change China, and in many ways it has. But China’s success has been so spectacular that it has just as often changed the world — and the American understanding of how the world works.
    There is no simple explanation for how China’s leaders pulled this off. There was foresight and luck, skill and violent resolve, but perhaps most important was the fear — a sense of crisis among Mao’s successors that they never shook, and that intensified after the Tiananmen Square massacre and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    Even as they put the disasters of Mao’s rule behind them, China’s Communists studied and obsessed over the fate of their old ideological allies in Moscow, determined to learn from their mistakes. They drew two lessons: The party needed to embrace “reform” to survive — but “reform” must never include democratization.
    China has veered between these competing impulses ever since, between opening up and clamping down, between experimenting with change and resisting it, always pulling back before going too far in either direction for fear of running aground.
    Many people said that the party would fail, that this tension between openness and repression would be too much for a nation as big as China to sustain. But it may be precisely why China soared.
    Whether it can continue to do so with the United States trying to stop it is another question entirely.
    Apparatchiks Into Capitalists
    None of the participants at the Moganshan conference could have predicted how China would take off, much less the roles they would play in the boom ahead. They had come of age in an era of tumult, almost entirely isolated from the rest of the world, with little to prepare them for the challenge they faced. To succeed, the party had to both reinvent its ideology and reprogram its best and brightest to carry it out.
    Mr. Xu, for example, had graduated with a degree in journalism on the eve of Mao’s violent Cultural Revolution, during which millions of people were purged, persecuted and killed. He spent those years at a “cadre school” doing manual labor and teaching Marxism in an army unit. After Mao’s death, he was assigned to a state research institute tasked with fixing the economy. His first job was figuring out how to give factories more power to make decisions, a subject he knew almost nothing about. Yet he went on to a distinguished career as an economic policymaker, helping launch China’s first stock market in Shenzhen.
    Among the other young participants in Moganshan were Zhou Xiaochuan, who would later lead China’s central bank for 15 years; Lou Jiwei, who ran China’s sovereign wealth fund and recently stepped down as finance minister; and an agricultural policy specialist named Wang Qishan, who rose higher than any of them.
    Mr. Wang headed China’s first investment bank and helped steer the nation through the Asian financial crisis. As Beijing’s mayor, he hosted the 2008 Olympics. Then he oversaw the party’s recent high-stakes crackdown on corruption. Now he is China’s vice president, second in authority only to Xi Jinping, the party’s leader.
    The careers of these men from Moganshan highlight an important aspect of China’s success: It turned its apparatchiks into capitalists.
    Bureaucrats who were once obstacles to growth became engines of growth. Officials devoted to class warfare and price controls began chasing investment and promoting private enterprise. Every day now, the leader of a Chinese district, city or province makes a pitch like the one Yan Chaojun made at a business forum in September.
    “Sanya,” Mr. Yan said, referring to the southern resort town he leads, “must be a good butler, nanny, driver and cleaning person for businesses, and welcome investment from foreign companies.”
    It was a remarkable act of reinvention, one that eluded the Soviets. In both China and the Soviet Union, vast Stalinist bureaucracies had smothered economic growth, with officials who wielded unchecked power resisting change that threatened their privileges.
    Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, tried to break the hold of these bureaucrats on the economy by opening up the political system. Decades later, Chinese officials still take classes on why that was a mistake. The party even produced a documentary series on the subject in 2006, distributing it on classified DVDs for officials at all levels to watch.
    Afraid to open up politically but unwilling to stand still, the party found another way. It moved gradually and followed the pattern of the compromise at Moganshan, which left the planned economy intact while allowing a market economy to flourish and outgrow it.
    Party leaders called this go-slow, experimental approach “crossing the river by feeling the stones” — allowing farmers to grow and sell their own crops, for example, while retaining state ownership of the land; lifting investment restrictions in “special economic zones,” while leaving them in place in the rest of the country; or introducing privatization by selling only minority stakes in state firms at first.
    “There was resistance,” Mr. Xu said. “Satisfying the reformers and the opposition was an art.”
    American economists were skeptical. Market forces needed to be introduced quickly, they argued; otherwise, the bureaucracy would mobilize to block necessary changes. After a visit to China in 1988, the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman called the party’s strategy “an open invitation to corruption and inefficiency.”
    But China had a strange advantage in battling bureaucratic resistance. The nation’s long economic boom followed one of the darkest chapters of its history, the Cultural Revolution, which decimated the party apparatus and left it in shambles. In effect, autocratic excess set the stage for Mao’s eventual successor, Deng Xiaoping, to lead the party in a radically more open direction.
    That included sending generations of young party officials to the United States and elsewhere to study how modern economies worked. Sometimes they enrolled in universities, sometimes they found jobs, and sometimes they went on brief “study tours.” When they returned, the party promoted their careers and arranged for others to learn from them.
    At the same time, the party invested in education, expanding access to schools and universities, and all but eliminating illiteracy. Many critics focus on the weaknesses of the Chinese system — the emphasis on tests and memorization, the political constraints, the discrimination against rural students. But mainland China now produces more graduates in science and engineering every year than the United States, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan combined.
    In cities like Shanghai, Chinese schoolchildren outperform peers around the world. For many parents, though, even that is not enough. Because of new wealth, a traditional emphasis on education as a path to social mobility and the state’s hypercompetitive college entrance exam, most students also enroll in after-school tutoring programs — a market worth $125 billion, according to one study, or as much as half the government’s annual military budget.
    Another explanation for the party’s transformation lies in bureaucratic mechanics. Analysts sometimes say that China embraced economic reform while resisting political reform. But in reality, the party made changes after Mao’s death that fell short of free elections or independent courts yet were nevertheless significant.
    The party introduced term limits and mandatory retirement ages, for example, making it easier to flush out incompetent officials. And it revamped the internal report cards it used to evaluate local leaders for promotions and bonuses, focusing them almost exclusively on concrete economic targets.
    These seemingly minor adjustments had an outsize impact, injecting a dose of accountability — and competition — into the political system, said Yuen Yuen Ang, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. “China created a unique hybrid,” she said, “an autocracy with democratic characteristics.”
    As the economy flourished, officials with a single-minded focus on growth often ignored widespread pollution, violations of labor standards, and tainted food and medical supplies. They were rewarded with soaring tax revenues and opportunities to enrich their friends, their relatives and themselves. A wave of officials abandoned the state and went into business. Over time, the party elite amassed great wealth, which cemented its support for the privatization of much of the economy it once controlled.
    The private sector now produces more than 60 percent of the nation’s economic output, employs over 80 percent of workers in cities and towns, and generates 90 percent of new jobs, a senior official said in a speech last year. As often as not, the bureaucrats stay out of the way.
    “I basically don’t see them even once a year,” said James Ni, chairman and founder of Mlily, a mattress manufacturer in eastern China. “I’m creating jobs, generating tax revenue. Why should they bother me?”
    In recent years, President Xi has sought to assert the party’s authority inside private firms. He has also bolstered state-owned enterprises with subsidies while preserving barriers to foreign competition. And he has endorsed demands that American companies surrender technology in exchange for market access.
    In doing so, he is betting that the Chinese state has changed so much that it should play a leading role in the economy — that it can build and run “national champions” capable of outcompeting the United States for control of the high-tech industries of the future. But he has also provoked a backlash in Washington.
    ‘Opening Up’
    In December, the Communist Party will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the “reform and opening up” policies that transformed China. The triumphant propaganda has already begun, with Mr. Xi putting himself front and center, as if taking a victory lap for the nation.
    He is the party’s most powerful leader since Deng and the son of a senior official who served Deng, but even as he wraps himself in Deng’s legacy, Mr. Xi has set himself apart in an important way: Deng encouraged the party to seek help and expertise overseas, but Mr. Xi preaches self-reliance and warns of the threats posed by “hostile foreign forces.”
    In other words, he appears to have less use for the “opening up” part of Deng’s slogan.
    Of the many risks that the party took in its pursuit of growth, perhaps the biggest was letting in foreign investment, trade and ideas. It was an exceptional gamble by a country once as isolated as North Korea is today, and it paid off in an exceptional way: China tapped into a wave of globalization sweeping the world and emerged as the world’s factory. China’s embrace of the internet, within limits, helped make it a leader in technology. And foreign advice helped China reshape its banks, build a legal system and create modern corporations.
    The party prefers a different narrative these days, presenting the economic boom as “grown out of the soil of China” and primarily the result of its leadership. But this obscures one of the great ironies of China’s rise — that Beijing’s former enemies helped make it possible.
    The United States and Japan, both routinely vilified by party propagandists, became major trading partners and were important sources of aid, investment and expertise. The real game changers, though, were people like Tony Lin, a factory manager who made his first trip to the mainland in 1988.
    Mr. Lin was born and raised in Taiwan, the self-governing island where those who lost the Chinese civil war fled after the Communist Revolution. As a schoolboy, he was taught that mainland China was the enemy.
    But in the late 1980s, the sneaker factory he managed in central Taiwan was having trouble finding workers, and its biggest customer, Nike, suggested moving some production to China. Mr. Lin set aside his fears and made the trip. What he found surprised him: a large and willing work force, and officials so eager for capital and know-how that they offered the use of a state factory free and a five-year break on taxes.
    Mr. Lin spent the next decade shuttling to and from southern China, spending months at a time there and returning home only for short breaks to see his wife and children. He built and ran five sneaker factories, including Nike’s largest Chinese supplier.
    “China’s policies were tremendous,” he recalled. “They were like a sponge absorbing water, money, technology, everything.”
    Mr. Lin was part of a torrent of investment from ethnic Chinese enclaves in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and beyond that washed over China — and gave it a leg up on other developing countries. Without this diaspora, some economists argue, the mainland’s transformation might have stalled at the level of a country like Indonesia or Mexico.
    The timing worked out for China, which opened up just as Taiwan was outgrowing its place in the global manufacturing chain. China benefited from Taiwan’s money, but also its managerial experience, technology and relationships with customers around the world. In effect, Taiwan jump-started capitalism in China and plugged it into the global economy.
    Before long, the government in Taiwan began to worry about relying so much on its onetime enemy and tried to shift investment elsewhere. But the mainland was too cheap, too close and, with a common language and heritage, too familiar. Mr. Lin tried opening factories in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia but always came back to China.
    Now Taiwan finds itself increasingly dependent on a much more powerful China, which is pushing ever harder for unification, and the island’s future is uncertain.
    There are echoes of Taiwan’s predicament around the world, where many are having second thoughts about how they rushed to embrace Beijing with trade and investment.
    The remorse may be strongest in the United States, which brought China into the World Trade Organization, became China’s largest customer and now accuses it of large-scale theft of technology — what one official called “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”
    Many in Washington predicted that trade would bring political change. It did, but not in China. “Opening up” ended up strengthening the party’s hold on power rather than weakening it. The shock of China’s rise as an export colossus, however, was felt in factory towns around the world.
    In the United States, economists say at least two million jobs disappeared as a result, many in districts that ended up voting for President Trump.
    Selective Repression
    Over lunch at a luxurious private club on the 50th floor of an apartment tower in central Beijing, one of China’s most successful real estate tycoons explained why he had left his job at a government research center after the crackdown on the student-led democracy movement in Tiananmen Square.
    “It was very easy,” said Feng Lun, the chairman of Vantone Holdings, which manages a multibillion-dollar portfolio of properties around the world. “One day, I woke up and everyone had run away. So I ran, too.”
    Until the soldiers opened fire, he said, he had planned to spend his entire career in the civil service. Instead, as the party was pushing out those who had sympathized with the students, he joined the exodus of officials who started over as entrepreneurs in the 1990s.
    “At the time, if you held a meeting and told us to go into business, we wouldn’t have gone,” he recalled. “So this incident, it unintentionally planted seeds in the market economy.”
    Such has been the seesaw pattern of the party’s success.
    The pro-democracy movement in 1989 was the closest the party ever came to political liberalization after Mao’s death, and the crackdown that followed was the furthest it went in the other direction, toward repression and control. After the massacre, the economy stalled and retrenchment seemed certain. Yet three years later, Deng used a tour of southern China to wrestle the party back to “reform and opening up” once more.
    Many who had left the government, like Mr. Feng, suddenly found themselves leading the nation’s transformation from the outside, as its first generation of private entrepreneurs.
    Now Mr. Xi is steering the party toward repression again, tightening its grip on society, concentrating power in his own hands and setting himself up to rule for life by abolishing the presidential term limit. Will the party loosen up again, as it did a few years after Tiananmen, or is this a more permanent shift? If it is, what will it mean for the Chinese economic miracle?
    The fear is that Mr. Xi is attempting to rewrite the recipe behind China’s rise, replacing selective repression with something more severe.
    The party has always been vigilant about crushing potential threats — a fledgling opposition party, a popular spiritual movement, even a dissident writer awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But with some big exceptions, it has also generally retreated from people’s personal lives and given them enough freedom to keep the economy growing.
    The internet is an example of how it has benefited by striking a balance. The party let the nation go online with barely an inkling of what that might mean, then reaped the economic benefits while controlling the spread of information that could hurt it.
    In 2011, it confronted a crisis. After a high-speed train crash in eastern China, more than 30 million messages criticizing the party’s handling of the fatal accident flooded social media — faster than censors could screen them.
    Panicked officials considered shutting down the most popular service, Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter, but the authorities were afraid of how the public would respond. In the end, they let Weibo stay open but invested much more in tightening controls and ordered companies to do the same.
    The compromise worked. Now, many companies assign hundreds of employees to censorship duties — and China has become a giant on the global internet landscape.
    “The cost of censorship is quite limited compared to the great value created by the internet,” said Chen Tong, an industry pioneer. “We still get the information we need for economic progress.”
    A ‘New Era’
    China is not the only country that has squared the demands of authoritarian rule with the needs of free markets. But it has done so for longer, at greater scale and with more convincing results than any other.
    The question now is whether it can sustain this model with the United States as an adversary rather than a partner.
    The trade war has only just begun. And it is not just a trade war. American warships and planes are challenging Chinese claims to disputed waters with increasing frequency even as China keeps ratcheting up military spending. And Washington is maneuvering to counter Beijing’s growing influence around the world, warning that a Chinese spending spree on global infrastructure comes with strings attached.
    The two nations may yet reach some accommodation. But both left and right in America have portrayed China as the champion of an alternative global order, one that embraces autocratic values and undermines fair competition. It is a rare consensus for the United States, which is deeply divided about so much else, including how it has wielded power abroad in recent decades — and how it should do so now.
    Mr. Xi, on the other hand, has shown no sign of abandoning what he calls “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Some in his corner have been itching to take on the United States since the 2008 financial crisis and see the Trump administration’s policies as proof of what they have always suspected — that America is determined to keep China down.
    At the same time, there is also widespread anxiety over the new acrimony, because the United States has long inspired admiration and envy in China, and because of a gnawing sense that the party’s formula for success may be faltering.
    Prosperity has brought rising expectations in China; the public wants more than just economic growth. It wants cleaner air, safer food and medicine, better health care and schools, less corruption and greater equality. The party is struggling to deliver, and tweaks to the report cards it uses to measure the performance of officials hardly seem enough.
    “The basic problem is, who is growth for?” said Mr. Xu, the retired official who wrote the Moganshan report. “We haven’t solved this problem.”
    Growth has begun to slow, which may be better for the economy in the long term but could shake public confidence. The party is investing ever more in censorship to control discussion of the challenges the nation faces: widening inequality, dangerous debt levels, an aging population.
    Mr. Xi himself has acknowledged that the party must adapt, declaring that the nation is entering a “new era” requiring new methods. But his prescription has largely been a throwback to repression, including vast internment camps targeting Muslim ethnic minorities. “Opening up” has been replaced by an outward push, with huge loans that critics describe as predatory and other efforts to gain influence — or interfere — in the politics of other countries. At home, experimentation is out while political orthodoxy and discipline are in.
    In effect, Mr. Xi seems to believe that China has been so successful that the party can return to a more conventional authoritarian posture — and that to survive and surpass the United States it must.
    Certainly, the momentum is still with the party. Over the past four decades, economic growth in China has been 10 times faster than in the United States, and it is still more than twice as fast. The party appears to enjoy broad public support, and many around the world are convinced that Mr. Trump’s America is in retreat while China’s moment is just beginning.
    Then again, China has a way of defying expectations.
    Philip P. Pan is The Times’s Asia Editor and author of “Out of Mao’s Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China.” He has lived in and reported on China for nearly two decades.
    Jonathan Ansfield and Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Beijing. Claire Fu, Zoe Mou and Iris Zhao contributed research from Beijing, and Carolyn Zhang from Shanghai.
    Design: Matt Ruby, Rumsey Taylor, Quoctrung Bui Editing: Tess Felder, Eric Nagourney, David Schmidt Photo Editing: Craig Allen, Meghan Petersen, Mikko Takkunen Illustrations: Sergio Peçanh

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/25/world/asia/china-rules.html

  28. India and China now pushing ahead with resolution of their border disputes. It looks like India is finally ready to officially drop the Tibet card.

    Excerpt:

    “India and China will have “early harvest” talks on their vexed border dispute as many agreements have been reached by both sides since their top leaders met in Wuhan, Beijing said on Monday”.

    Sino-Indian ‘early harvest’ spells scorched earth for Tibetan dreams.

    Too bad for Tibetans in India. Too bad for Tibetan leadership. Their karma coming back soon for all the harms they have done.

    India, China for ‘early harvest’ talks on border
    November 27, 2018
    BEIJING: India and China will have “early harvest” talks on their vexed border dispute as many agreements have been reached by both sides since their top leaders met in Wuhan, Beijing said on Monday.
    Days after India and China pledged to intensify their efforts to resolve a decades-long boundary feud in their border talks, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that New Delhi and Beijing have agreed to authorise the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on border affairs to start “early harvest consultations.”
    The Ministry’s spokesperson Geng Shuang said India’s National Security Advisor and Chinese State Councillor had a constructive and forward-looking meeting at the 21st round of border talks last week.
    Asked what he meant by “early harvest,” Geng did not elaborate.
    “After the Wuhan summit between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the bilateral relations have made very positive progress and made new developments.
    Indo-Asian News Service
    http://gulftoday.ae/portal/f8b61f20-9429-48df-b61d-06df2e236b51.aspx

  29. Dear Lobsang Sangye and Tibetan Govt in exile in Dharamsala,

    How come after 60 years you are still not at the G20 meetings? How come you cannot get your country back? How come the world economies and power are shifting towards the East which is China? How come you cannot get Tibetan autonomy, or freedom or any leeway with China? How come your negotiations with China is a failure and you produced nothing?

    You run around begging for FREE MONEY from Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, Taiwan and US for 60 years now but no one in your refugee community has made it big or successful? Where did all the money go? In your pockets? How come all your Tibetans from India/Nepal are going back to Tibet or leaving to the west. How come your schools in India are empty? How come Dharamsala is emptying out?

    How come you are getting weaker and more world governments are ignoring you? How come more are paying attention to China? Less governments are willing to pay attention to you and the Tibet cause? Where is all your rangzen groups? How come they are not effective? Maybe they are disillusioned with your corruption, lies and underhanded tactics and human rights abuses using religion to divide your own people?

    What happened to you? Why are you and your community your Tibetan ‘parliament’ such losers and failures? How come you cannot achieve anything?

    Are you going to continue to beg for more FREE MONEY to fund your trips, houses, children’s education, vacations, five star hotels, nice brocade chubas, expensive accessories, and properties. You know the ordinary Tibetan in India has gotten nothing in financial help of the hundreds of millions in aid for that last 60 years you Tibetan exiled government pocketed. Is that why your Tibetan people in India and Nepal are all leaving to back to Tibet and the west? You failed?

    Your policies and work are not effective.

    Too bad.

    China rises at the G20
    The global balance of power is shifting from West to East
    Tensions loom over Argentina, which plays host to the 2018 summit of the G20 which started on November 30. The G20 is an international forum of the EU and the heads of state of 19 major economies, which discusses global economic challenges. And the challenges are mounting.
    Globalization is in reverse, as the US threatens to escalate its trade war with China and other trading partners; and xenophobia is rife in many Western countries. These challenges are a threat to global prosperity, but what will shape much of the long-term evolution of the global economy is the rise of China and other emerging economies.
    Much of the focus at the G20 has been on Donald Trump and his series of sidebar meetings with other leaders, especially Xi Jinping. Trump has said that it is “highly unlikely” that he would postpone the planned increase in tariff levels from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods in January 2019.
    Of course, this may be bluster and a frequent refrain from apologists for Trump is: “Take note of what the president does, not what he says.” But we may be on the cusp of a full-blown trade war, which will not be confined to the US and China and which will reverse and reconfigure globalization. Entering foreign markets will be more costly and global supply chains will be disrupted.
    Globalization is not inevitable
    The notion that globalization is a natural phenomenon, akin to the change in the seasons or the weather or gravity, is a frequent refrain. During his tenure as prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair opined: “I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalization. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.” A pithy turn of phrase, but patently not true.
    The configuration and extent of globalization are shaped by public policy and technological change. When this changes, it can, in turn, accelerate, slow, or reverse globalization. In periods of severe economic crisis, it has been common for countries to become inward looking — blaming “others” for economic problems and resorting to protectionism and controls on immigration.
    In the interwar period, for example, the response to the Great Depression was a trade war and competitive devaluations as the Gold Standard unraveled. Similarly, since the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, there has been a worldwide rise in protectionist measures and Trump’s interventions may lead to a new phase of “delocalization.”
    An evolving global economic order
    Major economic crises often reflect endemic flaws within the structure of the global economy and lead to major changes in global economic leadership. The crises and lessons of the interwar period led to the establishment of the Bretton Woods system, which managed the world economy during the post-war golden age of capitalism until the early 1970s. It was the system that created new international institutions (the IMF, World Bank, and GATT, which was the forerunner of the WTO) and this was underpinned by the dominance of the US economy.
    But the relative strength of the US (and the dollar) declined and the system unraveled in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This collapse, and a series of oil crises, led to another major economic crisis which temporarily stalled globalization and led to shifting reliance on the power of unfettered market forces.
    Liberal market capitalism may have been unleashed, but is still not ubiquitous in the world economy. The picture of a fully globalized world and the dominance of free markets is a partial distortion of a complex picture. The extent to which countries have embraced the global market agenda is highly variable.
    Although many developed countries have deregulated financial markets, capital controls and managed currencies are still highly prevalent in developing countries. In terms of trade, tariffs have been reduced since World War II but they have not been eradicated.
    Meanwhile, the use of non-tariff barriers has increased, with roughly 80% of all traded goods affected by these restrictive rules and regulations — and these are prevalent in developed countries. The ongoing chaos of Brexit illustrates that “free trade” is not a natural state but is negotiated, complex, and dependent on a litany of regulations and agreements.
    Deregulation, the hollowing out of the welfare state, and intensified global competition have led to rising income and wealth inequality in many Western countries. And many of those who have not benefited from globalization have also borne the brunt of the austerity policies that followed the financial crisis and the Great Recession. The resulting backlash against globalization helps explain the election of Trump and the vote for Brexit.
    The rise of China
    The G20 will focus on current instability but there are long-term structural shifts which are leading to a rebalancing of the global economy. The balance of power is shifting from West to East and we are in the early stages of transition to China as the dominant world economy.
    China is already the largest economy in the world (measured in purchasing power parity) and PwC (using World Bank data) estimates that by 2050, the Chinese economy will be 72% larger than the US. Further, by 2050, six of the largest eight economies will be countries that are still emerging markets.
    China is home to many of the world’s largest companies, including major tech companies like Alibaba and Tencent. It is investing rapidly in research and innovation and although the dollar remains the dominant world currency, the IMF has added the renminbi to its basket of global reserve currencies. It will only become more important as Trump’s policy of American isolationism continues.
    This year’s G20 summit will focus on maintaining some semblance of international cooperation and preventing a global trade war. The short-term noise will probably come from Trump. But China can play a long-term game as its position in the global economy is on the rise. In the face of the gales of the long-term shifts in the global economy, Trump can blow hard now — but as far as the future is concerned, he will be blowing in the wind.
    Michael Kitson is University Senior Lecturer in International Macroeconomics, Cambridge Judge Business School. This article previously appeared in Reuters.
    https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/2018/12/01/china-rises-at-the-g20

  30. TIBETANS SHOULD NOT HAVE MONKS AS LEADERS, THAT IS A BIG MISTAKE

    Note what Namdol Lhagyari said is progressive and unlike the usual Tibetan rhetoric:

    “The problem I see right now is how reliant we are on one individual,” Namdol Lhagyari, 32, the youngest member of Tibet’s exile parliament, said. “I understand that every freedom movement requires one role model, one leader, who would push everyone in the right direction, bring everyone to one goal. But he has reached an age where we will have to prepare ourselves for a post-Dalai Lama.”

    Source: https://themediaproject.org/news/2018/12/3/as-the-dalai-lama-ages-tibetan-exiles-turn-to-secular-unity-over-sacred

    👎

    These are important points to remember:

    1. Tibetan lamas and monks SHOULD not enter politics. They should not hold positions of power, leadership and political roles. It will demean the Dharma. They are not trained, nor qualified nor have the credentials to be in government. They also do much damage to religion as people start to respect them less. The lines between respecting them as spiritual beings (sangha) and speaking against them when they are in government and make wrong decisions become blurred.

    2. Monks and nuns should not get involved with the running of the country but should stick to education. Giving good education to the public about ethics, morality and in some cases Buddhism. No one wants to see a political monk or nun. Because it contradicts the very reason they renounced the worldly life in order to enter a life of contemplation, learning, meditation and gaining enlightenment.

    3. Look at other countries where Buddhism is strong where sangha is sangha and never get involved with government or being public officials. In Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Sri Lanka etc where there are tens of thousands of sangha, you don’t see them in the government at all. Local or national governments both do not have sangha. Even in Christian countries you don’t see priests in government. That is Tibet’s big mistake to place monks/high lamas in so many government positions and as public officials. Very dangerous for the country as it has proven with Tibet and Tibetans.

    4. Monks, nuns and high lamas should do dharma practice, produce books, videos, give teachings, guide the public, do funerals, blessings, be a nurturer, study dharma, build real temples, keep existing temples spiritual, animal shelters, environmentalists, be mediators, help with orphanages, shelters, the poor, half way houses, poor houses, and basically all sorts of charities that benefit the mind and body of sentient beings that is NOT GOVERNMENT BASED. If sangha gives good education, they can produce kind and good leaders to run the country.

    Tibetans should never never never allow Sangha (monks, nuns and spiritual personages) to be involved with government, politics and rule of law because it ends up in disaster. That is how Tibet lost it’s country and will never get it back. There are too many monks in the Tibetan Parliament and as leaders remember Samdhong Rinpoche as the prime minister of exiles. That was very bad. The King of Tibet currently is a monk. How does that look? Very political.
    Tibet made that huge mistake and Tibet will never recover from it.

    Forum: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=6226.0

  31. Differences between Dalai Lama and CTA president put Tibetan politics in a tailspin
    By Rajeev Sharma, November 27, 2018 SouthasianMonitor.com

    Tibetan politics is in a tailspin as there are signs of serious differences between the 14th Dalai Lama, unquestionably the supreme and undisputed leader of the Tibetans, and Lobsang Sangay, president of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA).

    The immediate provocation is the unceremonious cancellation of the 13th Religious Conference of the Schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon Tradition, which was scheduled between November 29 and December 1 year in Dharamshala. Insiders have revealed that the conference was cancelled by Lobsang without consulting the Dalai Lama.

    Even more intriguing is the timing of the move. Knowledgeable sources in the Tibetan establishment in India disclosed that Lobsang made the move while the Dalai Lama was travelling back from Japan, knowing that he wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop it.

    Tibetan politics is turning out to be a cloak-and-dagger mystery. According to sources, Lobsang waited until the Dalai Lama was on his way to the airport before ordering the Department of Religion and Culture to cancel the event. Interestingly, the cancellation of the conference is available by way of an announcement in English on the CTA website.

    The CTA’s Department of Religion and Culture announced that owing to the sudden demise of the supreme head of the Nyingma tradition, Kathok Getse Rinpoche, who passed away this week in Nepal and in respecting the sentiments of the followers of Nyingma tradition, the 13th Religious Conference of the Schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon Tradition was being indefinitely postponed.

    The department cited that many lamas and representatives of the Nyingma tradition were unable to participate because of Rinpoche’s passing away.

    On November 22, the CTA organised a prayer service to mourn the demise of Rinpoche, the 7th supreme head of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Rinpoche passed away following an accident on November 19 in Pharping, Nepal. He was 64.

    Sources say the Dalai Lama is furious with Lobsang Sangay for trying to take credit for his negotiations with China about returning to Tibet.

    Sangay claimed that the Dalai Lama has failed for 60 years in negotiations with China, but he has the power and ability to succeed. This is also an indication of how weak the Dalai Lama’s current position is. Sangay knows that the Dalai Lama has been negotiating with China about returning and he’s trying to position himself to take credit for it. Had this happened a few years ago the Dalai Lama would have had him removed, but since his cancer has become terminal, Sangay has been consolidating his position among the exiled community. He controls the press department of the Tibetan government-in-exile and has done so since he ousted Dicki Chhoyang.

    For the record, the head of the department, which cancelled the conference, was appointed by Sangay.

    By the time the Dalai Lama returned to India the event was cancelled and announcements were issued to the media while he was still in the flight, which would have prevented a confirmation with the Tibetan leader and nothing could have been done to stop it. The reason given for the cancellation was the death of a senior monk.

    Sources said that the real reason for the CTA president to keep the Dalai Lama in the dark was because the latter would decide again whether to back the Karmapa as his successor. The Karmapa issue has been a major reason of discord between the Dalai Lama and the CTA president. Sources spoke about a telephonic conversation between the Dalai Lama and Sangay in this regard on November 22 when the former was in Japan.

    During this conversation, furious arguments broke out between the two. The Dalai Lama is said to have “shouted” at Sangay, saying that the Karmapa wouldn’t be chosen and that he wouldn’t be dictated terms by anyone. In this conversation, the Dalai Lama used some expletives in Tibetan language which he did not expect Sangay to understand as the CTA president doesn’t know the language. However, a Lobsang aide is said to have translated what the Dalai Lama said.

    This marks the most significant power play ever between the different factions within the Tibetan exile leadership. In other words, it’s now an all-out battle between the Dalai Lama and Lobsang Sangay over the future of the exile community, which may worsen in the days to come.

    (The writer is a columnist and strategic analyst who tweets @Kishkindha)

    Source: http://southasianmonitor.com/2018/11/27/differences-between-dalai-lama-and-cta-president-put-tibetan-politics-in-a-tailspin/

    ===================================

    This interesting article has much food for thought:

    1. Dalai Lama is angry and shouting expletives as Lobsang Sangay. Everyone knows the Dalai Lama is in full control. He claims he’s retired from politics but this is just to say what the west wants to hear so he can continue getting funding. It looks good to the west that he voluntarily gave up power and this makes him look progressive. But the Dalai Lama controls everything from behind and if you don’t agree with his decisions, he will be furious. Every Tibetan knows this well.

    2. Interesting the article mentions Dalai Lama’s cancer is terminal. Everyone knew this but the Dalai Lama tries to cover this point up. Why? Who knows? What is the problem if people knows he has cancer. Tibetan govt tries to play it down.

    3. Dalai Lama is angry as his successor will only be on his terms and no one else may dictate to him the terms as Lobsang Sangay tried to do so since it is not a democracy in practice. As all Tibetans know, the Dalai Lama is the Lama-King and he has full power and no one may contradict him. The face he shows the west (soft, friendly, diplomatic, easy-going, democratic) is all just for the west. The face Dalai Lama shows his Tibetan people (fierce, King, angersome, in charge and must be obeyed) is how it really is. Tibetans know the Dalai Lama controls everything and fully manages all politics. People are not happy with this but dare not speak up as there is no democracy.

    Writer Rajeev Sharma is telling the situation like it really is. Finally the truth is coming out. Tibetan government in exile is a regime in every sense of the world that depends on all the hundreds of millions of free dollars it has been taking from the west, Japan, Australia and so on. It exists on free money. It is not a good government and has failed all negotiations with China due to the Tibetan leaders’ arrogance. Why arrogance? They think the world will force China to do what Tibetans leaders want and that they are so important on everyone’s agenda. Tibetans are on no one’s top agenda and China is an economic and military super power. China will not and will never kowtow to the Tibetan demands. It is the Tibetans who must beg China to be friends and get some concessions if at all possible. No country has ever dared stand up to USA, but China has and China is growing in power yearly. Everyone is scrambling to be China’s friend and saying goodbye to the Tibetan cause. Tibetan cause is the thing of the past and no economic benefits to support Tibetan cause.

    These days every country votes in leaders that can better their country’s economy due to world recession. So every country has to do business and trade and aid with China to improve their economy. If you side with the Dalai Lama and Tibetan govt in exile in India, what do you get? Nothing! So leaders of every nation realize this now and will continue to make friends with China and say goodbye to the Dalai Lama. Dalai Lama on a personal level may be rich, famous and sells a lot of books, but that won’t get Tibet back. That won’t win the support of leaders of the free world and other nations.

    • Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article.
      I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info.

      Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

  32. “What does Empress Cixi and the 14th Dalai Lama have in common?”

    His Holiness the Dalai Lama has a ‘method’ in his very powerful rule.

    The Dalai Lama will always say it is not up to him and it’s up to his people. He gave up his power to the people. But it is not really up to his people. His people and his parliament must seek his approval for all decisions or carry out his will. If you ask his people do they want a 15th Dalai Lama after him, they have to say yes as the current one (14th) is watching them and you have to be politically correct to say yes. Who dares to say no? You don’t want to displease him. Who dares to say we want genuine democratically elected leaders. Remember, none of the Dalai Lamas were ever democratically elected (the penny drops). All the Dalai Lamas sit in power on the throne till the end of their lives.

    Also how the next Dalai Lama will be found, the current Dalai Lama will definitely set the mechanics during his lifetime and then sit back and say, it’s the people who wanted it this way. It’s the people who wanted another Dalai Lama. Of course they have to say that. If they say they don’t want another Dalai Lama after this one, it is tantamount to treason. It will offend the current Dalai Lama and make him upset. In order for a stateless leader like himself to continue to get millions in aid for free as he has been for 60 years, he must appear democratic. How will he get money to support his vast expenditure of his lama court, if no free donations in the millions are given? So behind the scenes, Dalai Lama pulls all the strings but in front, he acts like he is doesn’t know anything and not involved and his elected leaders are running the show. Nothing can be further from the truth. Just like the last empress Cixi of China. She always enthrones little emperors handpicked by her from her royal family and extended families and controlled their power and ruled China from behind them as their regent during their adolescence. As a woman she could not be the emperor or ruler of all China, so she was clever and put young kids she chose from her royal families on the throne to be their regent and controlled them from behind the gauze curtain. She was suppose to hand power back to them when they reach the age of maturity to rule China, but she never did. She would place the young emperors on the throne during audiences and sit behind a curtain and dictate orders to the ministers in the name of the emperor as their regent. So in this way, she was acting in the name of the emperor (regent), but actually she was in full control. When time came to hand power over to the emperor, she would have them poisoned. Then place another new very young emperor on the throne. She did this for decades.

    She was literally the power behind the throne. She could not be dethroned in this way yet she held all power. Like this, she ruled China till her death which was near impossible for any woman to do so. The last emperor Puyi she placed on the throne before the kingdom fell to civil war. (This spawned the movie by director Bernardo Bertolucci “The Last Emperor” and the emperor was played by John Lone.) When time came for the maturing emperors to take actual power from Dowager Cixi during her regencies, she would have them poisoned and install another young emperor and continue to be the regent. In this way, she stayed in power. She didn’t get a chance to poison Puyi because she passed away (rode the dragon to heaven) during his adolescence.

    The other only female ‘emperor’ in Chinese history is We Xetian (Empress Wu). Another very incredibly intelligent woman who beat the men around her at their own game and ruled China as a woman.

    The Dalai Lama started the Dorje Shugden ban. It came from him and only he can start it. But now he says, it is not him. Because it would make him look bad if he admits the ban came from him which it did. He claims everyone in the monasteries took a vote and they voted Dorje Shugden out. Ignorant western audiences wouldn’t know any better. They had no choice but to vote Dorje Shugden out or the abbots of the monasteries would be dishonorably discharged by the Dalai Lama himself. He places them in power and he can remove them. All Abbots of the great Gelug Monasteries are chosen by the Dalai Lama himself. He can remove them from power anytime, therefore the abbots are frightened of the Dalai Lama. Dalai Lama says he just advised to not practice Shugden, but his people, the abbots in charge, the monasteries took it to another step and outlawed Dorje Shugden and it’s the will of the people. So his ban on Shugden appears democratic. It was up to them. But it is not. He rules behind a ‘gauze’ curtain that he handed his power over to his personal ‘Puyi’ (Lobsang Sangay).

    The Dalai Lama cannot show the world he is in full charge, because he would be seen as a dictator and therefore lose all free aid money which he and his government subsist on. Dalai Lama is behind the gauze and holds all power and Lobsang Sangay ‘Puyi’ is on the throne. Strangely similar to Empress Cixi. If Lobsang Sangay does things that does not please the Dalai Lama, you can bet your bottom dollar, he will be dethroned. Again, no Dalai Lama was ever democratically voted into a lifetime of power.

    Photos-Empress Cixi of China.

    CiXi

    56

  33. ‘Karmapa’ Ogyen Trinley no longer recognised by Indian govt as 17th Karmapa. Indian government is not happy he did not show respect to India for all the years he took refuge in India. He simply renounced his Indian protectorate papers and took a Dominican republic passport. He could have had the courtesy to let Indian government know beforehand and thank them.

    Read more at:
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67279793.cms?&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

    ‘Dorje no longer recognised by Indian govt as 17th Karmapa’
    Indrani Bagchi | TNN | Dec 28, 2018, 04:00 IST
    HIGHLIGHTS
    Given its apparent disenchantment with the Karmapa, the government is no longer seeing his decision to acquire a Dominican passport as a problem and is willing to give him a visa.
    This could mean that India will no accord much importance to the status of his identity certificate, the document commonly issued to Tibetan refugees, which also facilitates travel abroad.
    NEW DELHI: The already strained ties between Karmapa Ugyen Trinley Dorje and the Indian government seems to have further deteriorated with the government making it clear that it does not recognise him as the legitimate Buddhist religious leader of the influential karma kagyu sect.
    The sharp put down, articulated by well-placed sources, makes the status and future of the Karmapa uncertain in India and seems to indicate that India’s impatience with his long absence from India has turned into a colder indifference to the leader’s claim to his “traditional” seat of the Rumtek monastery.
    Given its apparent disenchantment with the Karmapa, the government is no longer seeing his decision to acquire a Dominican passport as a problem and is willing to give him a visa. This could mean that India will not accord much importance to the status of his identity certificate, the document commonly issued to Tibetan refugees, which also facilitates travel abroad.
    There are legal and political aspects to the development. Since there are competing claims to the Rumtek monastery that are sub judice, India cannot pronounce on the Karmapa’s claim. However, politically, keeping the Karmapa in its zone of influence and supporting his presence here makes India a “guardian” of a religious leader seen to rank next to the Dalai Lama in importance.
    The government’s stand is at odds with the Dalai Lama, who has recognised Dorje as the legitimate Karmapa. In recent years, the Indian government had also shed its suspicions about Karmapa’s escape from China along with his older sister and a few followers. But for more than a year after Karmapa went to the US, he has avoided returning and has in fact complained that he finds restrictions on his travel irksome.
    The rival claimant to the post, Thaye Dorje, who had been placed as a Karmapa claimant by Shamar Rimpoche, recently renounced monkhood and got married, diluting his claim since the title calls for celibacy.
    The two claimants had riven the Karma Kagyu sect, though according to reports, an attempt was made to bridge the divide with Ugyed Trinley Dorje and Trinley Thaye Dorje meeting at a place on the France-Switzerland border in October.
    Ugyen Trinley Dorje’s situation became tenuous after he took a passport from the commonwealth of Dominica in the Caribbean. Sources said Dorje’s acquiring of a foreign passport automatically makes the Tibetan identity certificate (IC) invalid. This means, he would need a visa to enter India.
    The Indian government, according to sources, have conveyed to the Karmapa willingness to issue him a visa. “But he has not approached any Indian mission for a visa,” they said.
    Indian security agencies have been suspicious of him for years, branding him a Chinese spy, particularly as China so readily recognised him. In 2016, the Modi government however, eased travel restrictions for him and he was allowed to travel overseas.
    This throws into confusion not only the future of the Karma Kagyu sect of which Dorje is believed to be the head, but would have implications for India-China and India-Tibet relations in the longer term.
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67279793.cms?&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

    Dorje no longer recognised by Indian govt as 17th Karmapa

  34. As the so-called spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama strictly abstains from drinking alcohol in accordance to traditional monastic codes. However, it has recently been reported that the religious leader owns his own vineyard in Switzerland! Apparently, various celebrities, including the likes of Roger Moore, Sepp Blatter and Zinedine Zidane have all made trips to the vineyard. What will people say when they find out that a Buddhist monk, who promotes abstinence from alcohol, owns a vineyard that produces wine for sale? This is certainly not going to sit well with his image of a religious leader and member of the Buddhist monastic order.

    http://video.dorjeshugden.com/comment-videos/comment-1546557813.mp4


  35. Dear Tibetan government-in-exile (Dharamsala),

    Sharmapa Rinpoche is the highest authority in the Karma Kagyu after Karmapa. By age-old tradition, Sharmapa is the one that confirms the real incarnation of Karmapa. He recognized Thaye Dorje as the genuine Karmapa. But Dalai Lama endorsed Orgyen Trinley as the real Karmapa. Dalai Lama is a great lama but there has never been a tradition of him recognizing a Karmapa.

    Both ‘Karmapas’ have big followings in and out of Tibet. So which one should we follow? We have to follow the genuine Karmapa. If we follow the fake one, we will get fake teachings, fake lineage and no results. We can even take rebirth in the lower realms.

    Only the Tibetan leaders can tell us which is the real Karmapa. You have told us which one is the real Panchen Lama. We follow the Panchen of your choosing. Since then we have condemned China and condemned the fake Panchen Lama. Now it is the same situation with Karmapa. We have denounced the fake Karmapa and ask him to step down. He is destroying the Karma Kagyu Lineage.

    This issue has torn the Karma Kagyu sect in half. There are many who are so confused and some gave up Tibetan Buddhism altogether because of this. We must solve the confusion. This does not look good for the Tibetan government in exile because the confusion was started by Tibetan government. I support Dalai Lama and Tibetan government. But so many of us need to know the real Karmapa already. Don’t remain silent. Which one is the real Karmapa.

    Tibetan government in exile, you have created two Gelugs (Pro-Dorje Shugden and against), you have created two Panchen Rinpoches, two Karmapas, two Dromo Geshe Rinpoches, two Kundeling Rinpoches and so on. When are you going to solve all the confusion. You are destroying Tibetan Buddhism.

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter your message

Show More
Show More
+

(Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, maximum file size: 10MB each)

You can now upload MP4 videos to the comments section. "Choose File" -> click "Upload" then wait while your video is processed. Then copy the link and paste it into the message box. Your video will appear after you submit your comment.
Maximum size is 64MB

Contemplate This

.…Instead of turning away people who practise Dorje Shugden, we should be kind to them. Give them logic and wisdom without fear, then in time they give up the ‘wrong’ practice. Actually Shugden practitioners are not doing anything wrong. But hypothetically, if they are, wouldn’t it be more Buddhistic to be accepting? So those who have views against Dorje Shugden should contemplate this. Those practicing Dorje Shugden should forbear with extreme patience, fortitude and keep your commitments. The time will come as predicted that Dorje Shugden’s practice and it’s terrific quick benefits will be embraced by the world and it will be a practice of many beings.

Dorje Shugden and Dalai Lama – Spreading Dharma Together | Terms of Use | Disclaimer

© DorjeShugden.com 2019 | All Rights Reserved
Total views:5,245,186