Tibetan sex predators shielded by Dalai Lama’s disinterest – 达赖喇嘛的冷漠·藏族性犯罪者的温床

以下文章是读者来函。我们欢迎读者投函,请将投函至以下电邮: [email protected]

 


 

作者:Magda v.d. Berg

对被佛教导师性侵的受害人来说,跟达赖喇嘛这位慈悲的国际代表见面,带来的应该是修复和治愈创伤的经验。受害人希望这场会面能带来成果,能从达赖喇嘛口中听到他的承诺——承诺为受害人的伤痛做些什么。无论如何,根据英国广播公司、美国广播公司和自由亚洲电台的新闻报道,受害人的反应不一,一些受害人甚至透露了内心的失望。

“跟达赖喇嘛的会面令人失望”。这句话在好几年前是难于跟达赖喇嘛联想在一块的。然而,我们近来越来越频密地听到类似的报道,无论如何,这并不令人意外。这是藏人行政中央几十年以来拒绝为藏人和本身的行动负责任的结果。

达赖喇嘛与仁增南开嘉措,其中一位被指责利用本身跟达赖喇嘛的关系,
伤害他的弟子的施暴者。

这些新闻有可能错误报道,因此并不可信?未必如此,英国广播公司拥有很高的新闻报道标准,是全世界各地许多人信赖的新闻来源。在战火连天的地区或冲突区,大家都依赖英国广播公司获得最新消息。因此,这次的会面与不太令人满意的结果,引起了主要媒体如英国广播公司和美国广播公司的关注。这说明了事件的严重性,以及作为藏人领导应该认真看待之,却没有办到的事实。

英国广播公司传统上跟其他媒体公司,长期大力支持藏人领导,如今看起来情况改变了。但是,藏人行政中央对性侵案的消极反应,甚至于包庇性侵加害人的事实,是否令人感到意外?且让我们一一检视以下几个相关事实:

  1. 为什么性侵受害人需要向慈悲的代表乞求他的聆听和帮助?英国广播公司特别引述说达赖喇嘛的反应是“乐于倾听”的,即说明了他并非如此。同理,你可能会用“有趣”来形容一个人,从而避免说出你内心真正的感受。在场的人甚至形容说,达赖喇嘛其实并不愿意倾听他们的遭遇,必须被说服如此做。令人不安的是,达赖喇嘛必须被说服来跟性侵受害人见面。事实是,他们将事情复杂化,并且并非真心希望安排这场会面和面对事实;却在公众压力和企图让别人觉得他们在做些什么的情况下,进行了该场会面。
  2. 为何受害人只有区区的20分钟?达赖喇嘛全世界巡回出席性犯罪者所主办的活动,跟他们一起住、一起吃饭,还长时间相处。他也花时间评论他人的宗教信仰,其他国家的内政;却吝于施舍20分钟,给遭到他所认可的性犯罪者伤害的受害人述说不幸遭遇。不仅如此,他甚至不会采取任何具体的行动来制裁这些罪犯。这些受害人的人生不幸地,被得到达赖喇嘛认可的人所摧毁了。

达赖喇嘛接受性侵案嫌疑人仁增南开嘉措的供养。达赖喇嘛会接受多杰雄登人的
供养吗?性侵是被接受的,修行多杰雄登却是不可被接受的?

  1. 为何达赖喇嘛一方面教导世人要负责任,但是本身却拒绝为那些利用他的名声招摇撞骗者的恶行负责?在此件事上,达赖喇嘛难逃其咎。显然的,这些施暴者,利用他的名声和关系,来建立一般人对他们的信任,从而方便向无辜者施暴。许多人基于对达赖喇嘛的信任,把自己暴露成目标。这些暴行并非就此一回,而是在达赖喇嘛的办事处知情的情况下,仍持续了很长的一段时间。显然的,这些施暴者并非是清白的,他们都得到达赖喇嘛撑腰,才会让事情陷入今日如此不堪的局面,而达赖喇嘛却拒绝扛起任何责任。
  2. 为何达赖喇嘛在其他议题上直言不讳,针对性侵案却绝口不提?性侵是普遍谴责的罪行,如果达赖喇嘛在性侵案上谴责施暴者,根本不会对他的名声带来任何破坏;反之会赢得更多人的赞美和欢呼。他会被赞颂为一位思想开明的领袖,愿意站在受害人的角度着想,防止更多人受害。达赖喇嘛会在与己无关的印度的种姓制度,或者所谓的尼赫鲁犯错的议题上畅所欲言。达赖喇嘛和藏人行政中央也会针对多杰雄登人,出书、制作影片、印刷传单、攻击清单海报有话直说;但是在对他们的声誉会造成直接影响的议题上,譬如达赖喇嘛认可的性犯罪者做出恶行的事件上袖手旁观。因此,达赖喇嘛和藏人领袖对这些喇嘛和他们的行为举止,一言不发和袖手旁观的举动是非常可疑的。
  3. 为何达赖喇嘛给罪犯背书?索甲仁波切和他的同流之辈,并非初犯。达赖喇嘛曾跟日本地铁毒气杀人日本邪教教主麻原彰晃会面,也曾接受高达一百万美元的捐款,为基斯拉尼尔站台。基斯拉尼尔是涉及性贩卖活动和其他等多项罪行的美国性爱邪教教主。年轻的达赖喇嘛住在拉萨时,曾接受纳粹党员海因里希哈勒的教导。这再次证明了,达赖喇嘛为罪犯站台和背书书并非新鲜事。更令人不安的是,达赖喇嘛把这些人当成知心朋友。

达赖喇嘛跟纳粹党员海因里希哈勒合照。
达赖喇嘛似乎倾向于跟这些可厌的人物打交道。

  1. 为何达赖喇嘛只在有利的情况下成为全西藏的精神领袖?事实上,达赖喇嘛并非四大藏传佛教流派任何一个传承的精神领袖。即便是他来自格鲁派,真正的精神领袖却是甘丹赤巴。无论如何,藏人领袖利用大家对此事实的无知,继续到处宣扬达赖喇嘛为整个西藏的精神领袖。每当达赖喇嘛对某件事感兴趣时,他即会利用大家的无知乘机介入。譬如,他在插手大宝法王事件上,就利用了本身的“地位”。他认可噶玛噶举传承的另一位领袖,也造成了该派的分裂。在禁止多杰雄登法门事件上,即便他没有任何权利如此做,却再次利用此“地位”插手。无论如何,每当情况变得困难或不利于他们时,即会拒绝扛起责任,假装无能为力。在造成噶玛噶举分裂的事件上,面对质问时,达赖喇嘛选择了袖手旁观。同样地,在多杰雄登禁令问题上,即便这项禁令造成了西藏人的分裂,他也不会解除禁令。现在,西方世界终于领教了达赖喇嘛不会对他认可的人的偏差行为,即便涉及的是严重的性侵罪行,扛起任何责任。
  2. 为何藏人领袖攻击坚持自己的修行且无害的人;却认可操弄、利用和欺压弱势的人?藏人行政中央会耗费心机发布上街示威的多杰雄登人的攻击清单,即便有足够的平台和能力,却继续放任性侵人。如果他们将用在攻击多杰雄登人的拨款,转移到教育这些喇嘛关于性侵的邪恶,肯定会减少很多烦恼和破坏。能发出一张性侵者清单,警告下一个可能的受害者,是不是比发出攻击上街抗议达赖喇嘛和藏人行政中央集权的涉及者清单来得强?

以藏学“专家”自居的罗伯特·瑟曼(右)和索甲仁波切合照。罗伯特·瑟曼的女儿乌玛·瑟曼声称被性侵的同时,她的父亲却跟同样是性侵人的索甲仁波切亲密合照。
罗伯特·瑟曼对他的女儿和其他的性侵受害人的慈悲心和同理心都去了哪里?

  1. 为何藏人领袖对罪行的定义如此之扭曲?他们一方面说多杰雄登修行人是“历史上的罪犯”,因为这群人敢于违背达赖喇嘛下达的修行禁令;因此不听从达赖喇嘛命令的人都是罪犯。另一方面,一群有证据涉及性侵他们的弟子的人,却未被标签为罪犯。藏人即没有在国会通过法令谴责这项罪行,也没有出版任何书籍警告世人。藏人领袖要知道的是,在真实的世界、民主世界、藏人社区以外的世界里,伤害他人的行为才是真正的罪行——譬如谋杀、偷窃、贪污和洗黑钱(与达赖喇嘛有关连的人经常所涉及的恶行)。显然,这些罪行并不包括“不遵从达赖喇嘛”。因此,多杰雄登人不听从达赖喇嘛的忠告,不放弃修行又到底犯了哪一项罪行?藏人领袖到底明白什么是罪行吗?
  2. 为何藏人领导要去破坏西藏的声誉?尽管藏行政中央一直对外声称本身为西藏正义事业付出了很多,事实却是没有人比达赖喇嘛付出得更多。整个西藏正义事业的未来建立在达赖喇嘛的名声和地位之上。达赖喇嘛越是犯错,藏人行政中央就越是难于获得捐款,或提高公众对西藏正义事业上的醒觉。又或者是藏人行政中央压根儿都不关心西藏的未来?显然,他们在保护这位承担了西藏正义事业未来的达赖喇嘛的声誉问题上漠不关心。基于同样的原因,藏人行政中央将本身塑造成佛教教义的维护者,实际的情况却是,他们成为性侵共犯的举动,伤害了佛法。
  3. 藏人领袖是不是真心爱护达赖喇嘛?基于藏人行政中央的无能,拒绝处理性侵案投诉,以及躲在达赖喇嘛背后的逃避举动,导致达赖喇嘛陷入面对全世界质问的窘境。当世界知道了达赖喇嘛支持性犯罪者的事实,使他有可能被指责利用每个不幸来谋取本身的利益。譬如,达赖喇嘛对自焚举动的沉默,会被视为他默许藏人的自杀行为。他在噶玛噶举派事件上的沉默,则被视为他默许这个藏传佛教传承的分裂。

涉嫌性侵的祖古洛桑跟达赖喇嘛的合照。在荷兰提交给达赖喇嘛的藏传佛教导师
性侵弟子的陈情书中,侵害人包括了祖古洛桑。如果祖古洛桑没有涉及其中的话,
他的名字不会出现在陈情书中。

 

达赖喇嘛可以怎么做?

达赖喇嘛接见那些受害者的举动非常引人注目。他“谴责”性犯罪者的举措固然是好,但人人搁在嘴边的问题是:面对这一切,达赖喇嘛本身又会怎么做?因为他简单的一句谴责并不足以改正问题。

若达赖喇嘛什么都不做,其建议受害者向执法单位举报性犯罪者的话或许中听,实际却无异于告诉众人,他无意参与其中。他将责任推到饱受创伤的受害者身上,让他们自己采取行动。这也意味着寻求正义的责任,落在受害者身上,而达赖喇嘛自己便无需多做什么。达赖喇嘛坚决不对这些罪行采取更多行动,怪不得受害者见了达赖喇嘛后会有复杂的情绪。就像天主教会的教皇对待性侵案的受害者那样,若非社会大众对他施压,他不会有所行动。他采取行动不是因为觉得那些罪行有什么不对,或是对那些人的罪行感到气愤。

达赖喇嘛并非冷淡、内敛之人。过去,他严厉谴责多杰雄登信众,更组织、动员排挤他们。于是,他是能用他对待多杰雄登信众那样的态度,去对待那些性犯罪者:

  1. 在开示和集会上重复且严厉的谴责索甲仁波切、萨姜米庞仁波切、岗顶祖古、喇嘛诺那、 喇嘛耶喜宁波、喇嘛秋达仁波切、丹增东登、持明学会的南卡仁波切、 祖古洛桑及喇嘛乌金昆桑多吉。
  2. 将这些性犯罪者从藏人寺院、学府、医院、餐厅和商店隔离。
  3. 要求他们的书籍从各大书店下架。
  4. 强制他们时时上报行踪,让众人警惕、保护好自己,避免成为下一个受害者。好比在西方,性犯罪者必须向当地执法单位报到,也会受强制佩戴电子脚环。
  5. 在他的网站上开设一个栏目,谴责这些性犯罪者。目前,在他和藏人行政中央(西藏流亡政府)的网站上都设有讨伐多杰雄登信众的栏目
    呼吁大众停止向他们求法。他们犯了罪行,人们为何还要向他们寻求关于慈悲、出离心和断欲的教诲呢?
  6. 要求寺院驱赶他们。为什么其他坚守清净戒律的僧众要接触这等事,跟这样的行为扯上关系?
  7. 用藏文警告藏人不得与他们维持关系。
  8. 要求他们补偿受害者。毕竟,这些性犯罪者摧毁受害者对他们的信念和信任。他们原本怀着一颗虔诚的心来修行。还有什么比摧毁别人对佛教的信心来得更具破坏性?
  9. 利用流亡西藏人民议会立法严惩此等行为或防范未来悲剧一再发生。

第41任萨迦法王与索甲仁波切。为什么上师们继续与性犯罪者如索甲仁波切往来?继续往来意味着他们向大众及自己的弟子展示出认可性犯罪者的信息。

因此,受害者应该要问的是:为什么达赖喇嘛不对伤害他们的索甲仁波切、萨姜米庞仁波切、岗顶祖古、喇嘛诺那、喇嘛耶喜宁波、喇嘛秋达仁波切、丹增东登、持明学会的南卡仁波切、喇嘛乌金昆桑多吉及祖古洛桑采取以上任何一种行动?每个人也该问问:为什么达赖喇嘛在谴责信仰多杰雄登的上师时如此毫无顾忌,却不对这些侵犯他人的上师如此赶尽杀绝?对佛教及别人的信仰构成巨大伤害,他们应当承受来自达赖喇嘛更为严厉的谴责,这样才能对脆弱的群众起警告作用。达赖喇嘛对这些性犯罪的上师的公开谴责根本就谈不上严厉或彻底。他可以,也应该更严厉,更强烈谴责他们,将他们从世界各地的藏人社群隔离。唯有这么做,他们才无处藏匿,才会面对相应的法律制裁。毕竟,达赖喇嘛是以此等手段对付多杰雄登信众。而这些侵犯他人的上师肯定比信仰多杰雄登的人来得更加危险,对佛教也更具破坏性,难道不是吗?

又或者达赖喇嘛暗地里是个有性别歧视的人?过去几个月,他才说自己应该转世变成一个很有吸引力的女人,否则就一无是处(做女人若无吸引力就一无所用)。正是这种大男子主义的思想引导他人依样画葫芦,加上他对性侵案的沉默,人人都以为这些性犯罪者是达赖喇嘛的朋友。因此,他们获得一定程度的“庇护”,也不受谴责。除非达赖喇嘛采取更强烈的手段,否则人们不敢制裁那些他认可的人。正如好莱坞必须用上几十年的时间才能将哈维·韦恩斯坦这位大人物绳之于法,虽然人们一早就知道他的罪行。正是好莱坞行业里的沉默促成韦恩斯坦一而再再而三的侵犯年轻女演员。

另一张罗伯特·瑟曼与索甲仁波切的照片显示他们二人关系友好、亲近。
为何罗伯特·瑟曼等人要与像是索甲的人为伍,为他背书?

 

达赖喇嘛魅力不再?

现在人人皆知达赖喇嘛无意保护性侵案的受害者,那么藏人行政中央这一次又要用什么来解释呢?过去他们无法使西藏重获自由,便将信仰多杰雄登的人当成代罪羔羊,说这个信仰激怒吉祥天母,还危害达赖喇嘛的性命。这次藏人社群中发生性丑闻的灾难,他们打算怪罪哪个神明

作为藏人的精神领袖,达赖喇嘛让那些为向他寻找修行指引的人失望至极。那些受害者已经见了藏传佛教最高权威却求助无门,试想想,他们会有什么感受?有多少人会心灰意冷,然后或会放弃他们的修行,或是失去对上师的信心?达赖喇嘛不愿制裁这些性犯罪者,结果藏传佛教受到伤害,因为这些性犯罪者确实有罪,但他依然纵容他们自由行事。

而作为藏人的世俗领袖,他也让其子民失望至极,因为他不愿意制裁违反世俗法律的人们。即使是政治领袖也会谴责犯法的人,拒绝与他们往来。想一想,让这些性犯罪者逍遥法外,还会有多少人会成为下一个受害者?

不管是世俗或宗教领袖,最重要的一点是:当达赖喇嘛可以在扮演政治领袖或是扮演宗教领袖的角色中做选择时,他一直都选当政治领袖,旁边还有只为自己谋福祉的流亡藏人领袖的推波助澜。因此,流亡藏人领袖真是如此无能吗?或许这一切都不是达赖喇嘛的错。或许是流亡藏人领袖不断的疏忽,没有好好筛选达赖喇嘛的交友圈子。流亡藏人领导难道被这些人的财富蒙蔽了双眼,以至于他们看不见这些性犯罪者的过失和行为?

不管是哪个原因,总得有一个人担起这个责任,不管是流亡藏人领袖或是达赖喇嘛本身。上百名受害者都在翘首以盼。

 

[英国广播公司] 达赖喇嘛与据称性侵案受害者会面

资料来源: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45521075。点击放大。

 

[译文] 达赖喇嘛与据称性侵案受害者会面

西藏精神领袖达赖尊者在荷兰会见四位据称性侵案受害者

该组人要求会面讨论由几个国家的前任或现任佛教导师们所涉及的性侵指控。

“我们以开放的心态在佛教里找寻皈依,直至我们因它之名而遭受侵害。”他们在文中指出。

一名发言人称达赖喇嘛听闻性侵案后表示“难过”,并“持续谴责”这种行为。

1989年诺贝尔和平奖得主达赖喇嘛目前正访问欧洲。

在周五出席20分钟见面会的三位女士和一位先生,呈交了来自12位据称是受害者的证词。

其中一名出席者乌瓦纳·毕尔玛告诉埃菲社,这是“一次非常复杂的会面”。

她说,达赖喇嘛最初“不愿意聆听”他们的案件,但补充说,经过了10分钟的谈话,他变得“比较愿意接受”。

“进入尾声时,他变得比较亲近,不再试图说服我们这不是他的错,而是开始聆听我们说的话,”毕尔玛女士说。

何谓藏佛佛教?

此次会面落在本觉会(Rigpa)为其创办人索甲拉嘎尔,又称索甲仁波切所涉的性侵案做出道歉后的一周之后。本觉会是一个活跃于西方的国际佛教组织。

索甲仁波切因1994年出版的个人著作“西藏生死书”而著名,该书销售量高达三百万册。

上个月,由本觉会所委的律师在一项独立调查中发现,索甲仁波切的某些“内圈”成员“严重遭受来自他的肉体、性和精神虐待。”

该报告补充说,该组织的某些资深成员对此有所听闻,却“未能解决这些问题,陷他人于危险当中。”

已卸任的本觉会前领袖索甲仁波切以健康为由,拒绝接受此次调查访问。

 

[美国广播公司] 达赖喇嘛与称遭佛教上师性侵
的受害者会面

资料来源: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dalai-lama-meets-alleged-victims-abuse-buddhist-gurus-57820565。点击放大。

 

[译文] 达赖喇嘛与称遭佛教上师性侵的受害者会面

四名称遭受藏传佛教上师肉体和精神虐待的人士,周五在荷兰向达赖喇嘛提交一份来自12名据称受害者的证词,并向他请愿。

一个使用“metooguru”为标签,并通过一项网络请愿收集了约1,300个签名的小组,要求与这位精神领袖会面,以便他可以收到他们所收集到的证词。达赖喇嘛在荷兰为期四天访问的第一天,与四位代表会面了约20分钟。

达赖喇嘛是藏传佛教其中一派的领袖。此次周五鹿特丹酒店见面会的主办人希望这位诺贝尔和平奖得主将利用他的道德权威来对信仰做出更广泛的影响。

“我们想从他身上得到的是,他要十分清楚知道,事实就是藏传佛教传统的宗教领袖并不凌驾于法律之上,” 与达赖喇嘛会面的四个人之一,乌瓦纳·毕尔玛这么说。“即便他们声称他们的传统允许所谓超越善恶的行为,事实并非如此。”

这群来自荷兰和比利时的据称受害者表示,达赖喇嘛答应将采取行动,包括在11月举办的佛教上师会议上提出他们的性侵和精神、肉体虐待报告。
会面之后,达赖喇嘛并没对记者发表谈话。其随行人员也没有立刻对置评要求做出回应。

跟他会面的群众中出现了不同的反应。其中一位与会者表示,她有点失望。

然而自称自小在比利时的佛教教派中长大而遭肉体虐待的里卡多·门德斯表示,他很高兴看到达赖喇嘛似乎为他们的证词所动容。

“他就像是:好,现在我有了这些材料,我有这些文件,来自真人的真实故事。我可以用这些材料在佛教圈子里说‘这个人、那个人有此行为,你们不应追随他们,而且这并不是藏传佛教。’”

这让门德斯对未来抱持希望。

“或许,或许这就是这一次会面将带出的结果,他(达赖喇嘛)的谴责将变得名正言顺。”他说。

 

[自由亚洲电台] 达赖喇嘛在荷兰接见性侵案受害者

资料来源:https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/meets-09142018173444.html。点击放大。

 

[译文] 达赖喇嘛在荷兰接见性侵案受害者

据消息,达赖喇嘛于周五在荷兰的鹿特丹接见四名声称被上师性侵及受上师精神折磨的信众。
在此前一周,他们四人代表12名信众请求与藏传佛教精神领袖会面,向达赖喇嘛描述受害成员的痛苦经历,并要求达赖喇嘛采取行动,为他们的问题找解决方案。

据自由亚洲电台藏语部的消息,好几位藏传佛教上师的名字:瑞士持明学会的南卡仁波切、奥地利维也纳的南登免朗中心的杜固洛桑、在全球拥有过百道场的本觉会的索甲仁波切,以及比利时一位名为罗伯特·斯帕茨(又名“喇嘛乌金昆桑多吉”),都出现在周五的控诉书中。

提出与达赖喇嘛会面的请愿者包括来自奥地利、澳洲、比利时、法国、荷兰及美国的佛门弟子。

近几个月来,西方藏传佛教上师,包括本觉会的索甲仁波切、国际香巴拉的萨姜米庞仁波切都卷入性丑闻中。

对索甲的独立调查结果于上周公布,显示许多针对他的指控属实。

据悉,在长达20分钟的会面中,达赖喇嘛拒绝记者的提问,但告知与会者,他将于11月份,跟藏传佛教各大领导人在印度会面时,提及藏传佛教圈子内滥权的问题。

“我们对他的诉求是非常清晰的。藏传佛教的宗教领导也受法律约束”。与会者乌瓦纳·毕尔玛在会面后这样表示。联合通讯社如此报道。

“即使他们声称他们的传统认可那些超越善恶之别的行为,但实际并非如此。”

与83岁的达赖喇嘛的会面,正值罗马天主教会深陷神职人员在美国、欧洲等地滥用职权的风波之时。

报道、翻译:自由亚洲电台藏语部;英文编辑:李察·芬尼

 

[印度斯坦时报] “并非新鲜事”:达赖喇嘛说他早已
知晓佛教导师涉嫌性侵

令人难以置信,达赖喇嘛坦言对于佛教导师性侵事件,他早已知情——25年前即知情——但是没有采取任何行动制止。此话令性侵受害人不安,因为他们赖于达赖喇嘛的名声和言论为标准,衡量哪些导师是可以信赖的,哪些是不可信赖的。

到底谁是哪位在25年前达赖喇嘛听闻的性侵导师,而他又针对此采取了什么行动?如果达赖喇嘛没有在当时采取任何制止行动的话,等于他默许这些施暴者继续他们的暴行长达25年。《印度斯坦时报》的跟进访问,进一步确认了跟达赖喇嘛会面后,受害人的结论——达赖喇嘛不会对他们伸出援手,他压根儿不想帮助他们。

资料来源: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/dalai-lama-i-knew-of-sex-abuse-by-buddhist-teachers-since-1990s/story-238DdgDwzQYU5rDfTSgl8M.html。点击放大。

 

[询问报] 对佛教导师性侵事件,达赖喇嘛早已知情,这“并非新鲜事”

另一篇报道显示达赖喇嘛早已知晓性侵事件,但是却袖手旁观。他对这些受害人的慈悲心在哪里?如果不是向达赖喇嘛这位藏传佛教领袖求助,他们还能向谁求助?

达赖喇嘛达赖喇嘛再次推卸责任,推说“佛教领袖应多注意类似事件”。难道达赖喇嘛不是其中一位宗教领袖吗?虽然事实未必如此,但是藏人行政中央一直将达赖喇嘛定位为所有藏传佛教的宗教领袖。

那么,为何这位领袖没有做出关注,也没有采取任何行动制止。反之,他呼吁其他人“关心他们可耻的行为”?为何达赖喇嘛把责任推卸给其他宗教领袖?他并未把自己定位为宗教领袖?如果事实如此,达赖喇嘛可能应该考虑只专注于本身的私人事务,不再插手藏人的宗教议题。

资料来源: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1032920/dalai-lama-knew-sex-abuse-by-buddhist-teachers-its-nothing-new。点击放大。

 

更多媒体报导

接二连三的性丑闻已经引起西方媒体的关注及大篇幅报道。最早期的性丑闻发生在1989年:全球其中一个最大规模的藏传佛教道场的上师被爆故意向多个伴侣传播艾滋病。自那时起,流亡藏人领袖每每遭遇性丑闻时就沉默不语。

然而,当有一个人拒绝放弃多杰雄登的信仰,藏人行政中央就会详述雄登上师的种种不是和“罪行”,因为他们拒绝跟从多杰雄登的禁令。他们的拒绝跟从被勾勒成“反达赖”,是背叛的行为,于是他们就是罪犯。然而,信仰多杰雄登实际上是触犯了哪条法律,以至于是一种罪行?而且,为何藏人行政中央如此激烈的谴责多杰雄登信众,却对人们侵犯女性,违反法律的行为视若无睹?

 

藏人行政中央及他们对性侵犯的立场


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

 

视频:“以成佛之名——宗教里的性丑闻”
关于索甲仁波切


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

 

纽约时报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/21/us/buddhists-in-us-agonize-on-aids-issue.html

 

独立报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/abuse-alleged-at-monastery-for-tibet-exiles-698788.html

 

卫报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism

 

卫报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jul/01/lama-sex-abuse-sogyal-rinpoche-buddhist

 

索甲仁波切

至尊达赖喇嘛将索甲仁波切称为“好友”。

这些或许是近代藏传佛教界最广为人知、最具撼动性的性丑闻。索甲仁波切成了2011年一部纪录片的主角,里头详述他被指控的罪行,以及他一件用无人知晓的金额而达成庭外和解的官司。尽管如此,达赖喇嘛和流亡藏人领袖依然与他往来,一起公开露面,从而认可他的活动和行为。

近期,索甲仁波切遭资深弟子揭发罪行,将一切摊在阳光底下,因此他被迫辞职。几个月后,他被诊断患癌,从此退出大众视线。遭他侵犯的受害者继续活在创伤中,他也继续躲着,藏人行政中央依然没有发表任何声明,讨伐他的行为,也没有跟他划清界限。为何他们对这样的暴行视若无睹,却对没有违法的多杰雄登信仰如此大肆讨伐为何他们强制人们跟信仰多杰雄登的人划清界限,实施隔离政策,却几十年来不跟被指控性侵女性的人划清界限?

 

Lion’s Roar

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.lionsroar.com/letter-to-sogyal-rinpoche-from-current-and-ex-rigpa-members-details-abuse-allegations/

 

每日电讯报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/sexual-assaults-violent-rages-inside-dark-world-buddhist-teacher/

 

Medium(第一部分)

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://medium.com/@tahlianewland/harvey-weinstein-and-sogyal-rinpoche-a-study-of-responses-part-1-management-f7413d904c0b

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://medium.com/@tahlianewland/harvey-weinstein-sogyal-rinpoche-a-comparison-part-2-culture-1fcc5bfc7599

 

萨姜米庞仁波切

至尊达赖喇嘛与萨姜米庞仁波切

另一个大规模的藏传佛教道场领袖也在被控与弟子有非正当性行为后被迫下台。萨姜米庞仁波切在文告中承担一切责任,承认自己的行为。即便如此,萨姜米庞仁波切依然享有来自达赖喇嘛和流亡藏人领袖多年的背书和认可,尽管关于他的性丑闻已存在多年。流亡藏人领袖会为任何东西背书,不管那些东西是否违法,只要那些东西能给他们带来金钱利益。但只要一个人是信仰多杰雄登的,他们就是罪人,是恶人,不管他为其他人带来多少福祉。这一切只因他们拒绝遵从流亡藏人领袖所实施的禁令。

 

Tricycle

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/sakyong-mipham-rinpoche-sexual-abuse/

 

Think Progress

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://thinkprogress.org/buddhist-leader-sexually-assaulted-students-report-finds-0d08e17cedd9/

 

Lion’s Roar

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.lionsroar.com/report-alleges-sexual-misconduct-by-leader-of-shambhala-community/

 

Tricycle

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/shambhala-leaders-resign/

 

纽约时报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/nyregion/shambhala-sexual-misconduct.html

 

CBC.ca

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/new-allegations-surface-against-shambhala-leader-1.4743325

 

Tricycle

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/sakyong-mipham-rinpoche-sexual-assault/

 

岗顶祖古

好莱坞演员理查·基尔跟两位涉嫌性行为不端的上师合照。(岗顶祖古和索甲仁波切)

作为不丹22所寺院的负责人,岗顶祖古的地位深具影响力。他甚至曾与好莱坞演员Richard Gere以及另一位性犯罪者索甲仁波切合影。 虽然岗顶祖古的不当行为并不像索甲仁波切那样公开,但在某些圈子里,他的事情已几乎已是无人不知。 其中最广为人知的是克里斯汀·钱德勒在她的网站extibetanbuddhist.com和她的著作《Enthralled:The Guru Cult of Tibetan Buddhism》中的记录。 钱德勒女士是一名训练有素的社会工作者和心理学家,专研究性虐待和功能失调。

钱德勒女士在给我们其中一个资料来源的电邮中写道:

所有信仰藏传佛教的居民都向克雷斯通的所有上师们学习,所以我曾跟岗顶一起做了大约四到五天的闭关。我从未跟他亲近,但我们都在那里跟所有的上师们一起修行和学习。 在他的其中一个“竹登”(drupdens),一个很长的诵咒经历中——他十分善于通过咒语来营造超常规的意识状态——一个参加表演的不丹舞蹈团曾抱怨他非礼抚摸年轻的不丹妇女。

这些讯息都反映在她的书中,她写道:

我还参加了几次与一位不丹祖古的闭关,这是一位在闭关时通过诵咒来营造超常规意识状态的大师。这位不丹高僧跟后来被簇钦·艾莉昂揭穿涉嫌非礼不丹女舞者的已婚祖古是同一个人。

资料来源: Chandler, C. (2017). “Crestone, Colorado”, Chapter 22 of ‘Enthralled: The Guru Cult of Tibetan Buddhism’.

书中的这一段提到一些不丹舞者被一未已婚祖古非礼,虽然这位已婚祖古的名字并未被提及,但根据钱德勒女士的电邮回复,可以肯定地推论出这位已婚祖古是岗顶仁波切。更重要的是,这一次这段文中还直接指明簇钦·艾莉昂是提供这些针对岗顶仁波切指控的资料来源。

过去艾莉昂曾私下在藏传佛教僧众中提起女性问题,但当她在接受投诉,并公开指责某不丹祖古非礼前来演出的年轻不丹女舞者之后,这位不丹高僧就警告她说,她的所为已经过分,必须收敛,否则将把她逐出西藏上师圈。 如果她继续投诉他们的性侵事件,她将不再得到西藏上师为她“背书”,继续作为一位协助上师们在西方弘扬密法的受敬重藏传佛教导师。这将导致她在藏传“大圆满”导师圈中失去容身之处。

资料来源: Chandler, C. (2017). “The Dakinis and Their “Spiritualized Feminism”.”, Chapter 18 of ‘Enthralled: The Guru Cult of Tibetan Buddhism’.

这里再一次提及对不丹女舞者的非礼事件,且也再度跟艾莉昂喇嘛扯上关系。钱德勒女士说,艾莉昂喇嘛最终受到威胁,被逼保持沉默。据我们所知的西藏领导人如何以沉默默许虐待,并拒绝向受害者提供支持的情况看来,这一结论并不令人意外。 这不过是职场权力游戏的又一例,跟岗顶祖古有关的的虐待丑闻被掩盖,而艾莉昂喇嘛则被逼保持沉默。艾莉昂喇嘛的其中一位亲近弟子透过电邮证实了此事:

是的,很不幸岗顶祖古是最严重的罪犯之一。他曾有侵犯女弟子的历史,而我最近还发现,他也曾侵犯他寺院里的年轻僧人,这几乎可说是一个公开的秘密。他的不当行为致使他在很大程度上遭到美国佛教界的驱逐,但他依然在欧洲和不丹出没。

由于关系密切,艾莉昂喇嘛的亲近弟子对有关岗顶祖古不当行为的指控有所了解是合乎逻辑的。西藏领导人再一次显示只要是非雄登上师,只要那个上师不修持多杰雄登,他所作出的任何行为都是可以被接受的,而他们也将不会采取任何行动来保护受害者(甚至尝试揭发虐待行为)。然而,一旦确定某位上师是多杰雄登修持者,他们就会单凭自己的宗教选择,自然成为暴力和蛮横对待的公开目标。

 

ExTibetanBuddhist.com

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://extibetanbuddhist.com/this-sexual-abuser-hollywood-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

 

ErikJampa.com

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.erikjampa.com/single-post/2017/11/11/Calling-Out-the-Guru-from-Afar-On-Dzongsar-Khyentses-Sex-Contract-and-Subsequent-Backlash-from-the-Buddhist-Community

 

喇嘛诺那

喇嘛诺那与藏人行政中央支持的第十七世噶玛巴邬金钦列多杰合照

这里有更多关于另一位上师对弟子进行性骚扰和不伦关系的指控。西藏领导人对这些事件有什么表态?他们怎么不资助和出版声明、传单、小册子等来辅导和对这类事件提出警示,却愿意为反多杰雄登的视频、书籍、网站等付费?

如果藏人行政中央只是因为不接受这个修持而反对多杰雄登,那是否意味着他们对这些性指控的保持沉默就等于是允许这种不正当的行为

 

Lion’s Roar

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.lionsroar.com/kagyu-thubten-choling-addresses-sangha-about-lama-norhla-rinpoches-sexual-misconduct-with-students/

 

Tricycle

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/kagyu-thubten-choling-monastery-working-sex-impropriety/

 

喇嘛耶喜宁波

在这篇文章的评论部分,人们被警告不要参加这个导师的活动,说他已被逐出寺院,并被禁止在噶玛噶举旗下教学。 西藏领导层为何不对此作出反对声明?

 

Little Bangkok Sangha

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:http://www.littlebang.org/lama-yeshe-nyingpo/

 

喇嘛秋达仁波切

喇嘛秋达仁波切与达赖喇嘛

一位已婚上师承认涉及婚外情后,选择离开去进行闭关而不是面对后果。上师本应促进家庭团结,而不是成为破坏关系和导致情人分开的因素。

西藏领导层对忠于伴侣(一种私人选择)的重要性没有任何评论,却对那些选择继续修持多杰雄登而拒绝跟从禁令(另一种私人选择)的人百般刁难,藏人行政中央凭什么认为自己有权批评和监督一个私人选择,但当涉及另一个实际带来危害的选择时,却不采取同等程度的干预?其虚伪程度实在令人震惊。

 

BuddhistChannel.tv

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=49,10104,0,0,1,0#.W2Zc-i2B19I

 

丹增东登

丹增东登 (左)是达赖喇嘛在美国的特使

这位达赖喇嘛的前美国特使被发现为达赖喇嘛穿针引线,最终将达赖喇嘛与邪教组织NXIVM联系在一起。 为了一百万美元的“捐款”,他策划让达赖喇嘛出席NXIVM活动,让达赖喇嘛在该组织领导基思·拉尼埃所出席的一场演讲中发言,这位领导最近因涉及包括非法性交易、合谋非法性交易和强迫劳动等多项罪名被捕和被起诉。丹增东登本人也被指控通过与NXIVM的关系,与女性建立不正当关系和联系,虽然他本应是一名僧人。

一个代表达赖喇嘛的僧人,可以为达赖喇嘛穿针引线并与女人发生关系,而西藏领导人永远不会说什么,因为它给他们带来了金钱利益。 然而,当一个人为了维护宗教自由,拒绝遵从多杰雄登禁令和拒绝放弃修持而抗议时,西藏领导层却将他们变成贱民,并将其塑造成一个可以暴力和蛮横对待的目标。

 

FrankReport

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://frankreport.com/2016/02/13/should-lama-tenzin-be-defrocked-is-dalai-lama-to-blamed-for-endorsing-keith-while-tenzin-was-sleeping-with-sara-bronfman/

 

卫报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/27/dalai-lama-tenzin-dhonden-tibet-monk-corruption-accusations

 

卫报

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/tenzin-dhonden-dalai-lama-corruption-celebrity-investigation

 

持明学会的南卡仁波切

持明学会的南卡仁波切与索甲仁波切,两人都被指控性侵犯

他与尼泊尔僧尼的不正当性行为遭到许多指控,但由于没有一个女人愿意出面证实或指证他,所以至今依然也还只是指控。 然而,正如俗话所说的“无风不起浪”,一个没有被捉奸的人,永远不会被指控涉及不当性行为

人们已针对他的行为向达赖喇嘛办事处提出了投诉,但无济于事。持明学会的南卡仁波切恰好也是唯一一位几乎要认证美国导师达拉旺秋的上师,后者自称是多杰雄登上师绰摩格西仁波切的转世,尽管这一说法广被否决。 据说,旺秋接近他是希望利用他与达赖喇嘛的关系来得到正式的认证。 即使在那时,她的小组成员也已经针对他的“性开放”和“在他身边感觉不自在”作出投诉。 前弟子们一直在社交媒体上抱怨他的行为,并表示他利用自己与达赖喇嘛的关系继续猖獗下去。

 

面子书

此图已经过裁剪,请点击放大阅读全文。资料来源:https://www.facebook.com/groups/1459918927422287/permalink/159032400438

 

红迪(Reddit)

资料来源:https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/3pcnxe/rigdzin_namkha_gyatso
_rinpoche/。 点击放大。

 

喇嘛乌金昆桑多吉

2016年,经过20年的审判,一位名叫罗伯特·斯帕茨或喇嘛乌金的比利时公民因涉嫌强奸和其他性侵犯,儿童绑架及严重酷刑和洗钱罪等多项罪名成立。审判期间也揭发了该组织的一些成员被迫向社区提供大笔财政捐助,受益者是罗伯特·斯帕茨。 他缺席审判,被判缓刑4年,他的组织乌金昆桑措林也因多项指控被判有罪,在民事诉讼中被令向约30名原告人支付赔偿金。

斯帕茨对判决提出上诉,结果却是寻求公道的受害者设立了一个完整网站:https://www.okcinfo.news/en/。有趣的是,达赖喇嘛曾于1990年,在虐待事件的最高峰时期访问设于布鲁塞尔的乌金昆桑措林。 乌金昆桑措林继续自由运作,而达赖喇嘛从未谴责过斯帕茨,尽管这种做法肯定会协助受害者取得公道。

 

L’Avenir

资料来源:https://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20180425_01161205/robert-spatz-un-imposteur-un-escroc-un-esclavagiste-des-temps-modernes-et-un-violeur。 点击放大。

 

DH.be

资料来源:http://www.dhnet.be/actu/faits/le-conseil-de-robert-spatz-le-gourou-de-la-secte-okc-plaide-l-acquittement-5aea0a22cd70c60ea6c2a9d0。点击放大。

Please support this website by making a donation.
Your contribution goes towards supporting
our work to spread Dorje Shugden across the world.
Share this article
42 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. 看到这篇文后,好心寒。心疼惜那些被性侵的受害人,生气的是她们是被所谓的佛教导师性侵。更加不可以相信的是那些被性侵的受害人遭受达赖喇嘛的冷漠,他其实并不愿意倾听他们的遭遇,达赖喇嘛必须被说服来跟性侵受害人见面,而且还是那么曲曲20分钟。难道达赖喇嘛是不愿意把时间花在性侵的受害人的身上为她们讨回公道?达赖喇嘛一方面教导世人要负责任,但是他所表现出来的是在推卸责任。
    文章里提到达赖喇嘛坦言对于佛教导师性侵事件,他早已知情——25年前即知情,但是没有采取任何制止行动。可以说他是默许施暴者的暴行。实在是恐怖极了!一位曾经是诺贝尔和平奖得主,是不是应该更加维护人权吗?更何况是那些被性侵的受害人硬着头皮去请求达赖喇嘛为他们主持公道,但是却的不到援助,甚至被漠视。

    还有为什么这几位佛教导师这么明目张胆犯下性侵罪行而没有被达赖喇嘛和藏人行政中央处罚呢?这几位佛教导师到现在还可以大摇大摆的到处去讲法,很大的可能性,他们会性侵别的女子,种下更多的恶业。他们如此胆大妄为,是不是有人在背后为他们撑腰呢?这种卑劣的行为非常可耻,不但让人对西藏佛教没有信心,更严重的话,影响到好某些人的修心修行之路。这等于在杀害一位佛,因佛说佛从心生,每个人都可以成佛。

    我们这些普通人都认定性犯罪者是不可原谅的,他们因该受到法律上的制裁。为什么至高无上的精神领袖没有采取行动呢?

  2. 从报导看来,有至少一位的受害者觉得与达赖喇嘛的会面,觉得很失望。我本身还真的希望达赖能给这些受害者一个交代。难道这些所谓的仁波切就能够为所欲为吗?难道他们做错了,不需要受到惩罚吗?这样怎么都讲不过去吧?!我真的不明白为什么达赖要这么维护他的朋友。这是不是说他也认同他们的做法?

    达赖可以在其他课题上,大做文章,但是对这些性侵的受害者,为什么只有廿分钟?

    达赖是时候你出来给大家一个交代乐吧?!

  3. 真沒想到達賴喇嘛竟然會包庇這些性侵犯者,知情不報也是一種罪過啊!無論是從世俗或者是宗教角度來看待此事,達賴喇嘛在處理這件事上確實做的不對,更何況他是一位頗受人們敬仰的領袖和學者。如果連他也不吭一聲,那自然的也不會有人說什麼,這些性侵犯者也會越來越放肆。那些受害者可是無辜的,達賴喇嘛不替她們主持公道就罷了,竟然還包庇那些傷害她們的人,這算是何等行為?

  4. 达赖喇嘛曾经获颁诺贝尔和平奖。这代表他对国际的人权与和平的问题相当关注。但是,在这次的课题上,他不仅没有挺身站出来帮助受害者,反而想逃离问题。这不是作为一名精神领袖所该有的行为。我们不能站在黑暗,拒绝光明的普照!这是让人伤心的事。

  5. 这新闻也太离谱了吧!达赖尊者竟然不愿意会见这些饱受藏族上师性侵犯的受害者,还不断地说明这些罪行与他无关,看了让人觉得心灰意冷。尊者早在 90 年代就听说有这类的罪行,可是尊者一直不吭声,让这些罪犯继续犯罪,实在是不能理解。

    在西藏开放之前,有很多藏族喇嘛以佛教密续之名对身边的僧尼性侵犯。她们一般都是年幼无知,小小就出家,所以很容易就被说摆就范。在过去数百年以来,无数位达赖尊者在执政的时候,就没有处理这些事情,而且还允许布达拉宫地牢进行严酷的审犯酷刑。布达拉宫可是观音菩萨世间的住处啊!

    由于文化的差异,一般而言,东方人不会公开自己遭受性侵犯的经历,避免家族因为自己的不幸而遭受耻辱。随着西方文化的影响,尤其是最近在美国盛行的 “米兔”(#MeToo)运动,逐渐有东方人前来分享自己的遭遇,让罪犯一一显露去受他们应得的惩罚。这样的行为非常值得鼓励,毕竟要公开自己被性侵犯的过程需要很大的勇气。

    达赖尊者是公认的西藏佛教领袖;和平诺贝尔奖得奖者;普世慈悲和平等的代表,竟然如此对待这群受害者,完全违背尊者的身份和教诲。这些藏族喇嘛跟尊者合过照,尊者也拜访过他们的中心,很明显是支持他们的事业和行为。今天这些受害者请求尊者帮忙是合情合理,也是理所当然的,因为尊者是他们唯一的希望,也是西藏佛教继续延续的主要推行人。

    达赖尊者必须严厉呵斥这些滥用上师身份、西藏佛教之名而对他人进行性侵犯的罪犯,并且提供解决方案,不再让这些丑陋的恶性继续延续下去!“米兔”

  6. 人人都在借宗教之名行騙、作惡,我不會因此而對宗教失去信心,也不敢奢望這樣的事就此不再發生。但可悲的是,但悲劇發生之後,沒有人願意承擔,就連地位如此崇高、影響力如此廣泛的達賴喇嘛也打算袖手旁觀。他本可以大力譴責那些侵犯人者,甚至警告大眾要遠離這些人。他非但沒有這麼做,反而還跟侵犯人者為伍,請問這是為什麼?我實在想不明白。一個推廣、宣揚慈悲的人,難道面對那些受害者,他感受不到他們的一點痛苦嗎?如果感受得到,為什麼可以如此麻木行事?

    但達賴喇嘛的麻木,何止是在這些事情上?噶瑪巴鬧三包、班禪鬧雙胞、多傑雄登禁令,這些事情,就足以讓千萬人受苦。還請達賴喇嘛再三斟酌,停止分裂深化,把慈悲的精神貫徹其中才是啊!

  7. 尊重人权,禁止对民族、信仰和宗教等事由进行歧视,甚至是禁止性骚扰都是尊重人权的重要部分。令人惊讶的是,那么多年以来藏人社群却未获得合乎人权的对待。当藏人行政中央发出禁令禁止修持多杰雄登开始,证明了藏人社群已失去宗教信仰的自由。再来,现在发生被几位曾经被认为是高僧却违反法律,侵犯女性。这所有的一切,清楚的显示藏人社群失去了宁静与安全。

    真的令人担忧和怀疑藏人领袖到底明白什么是人权?什么是罪行吗?如果一个可以独立行政的政府,必定可以确保每个人都受到合乎人权的对待。而藏人行政中央,你做到了吗?

  8. 其实我不明白为什么西方国家的信徒这么天真?你的上师借宗教之名做出这种猥琐的事情,难道你们不会用自己的头脑分析这种事情是否合理? 其实落入这种全套的人本身也要检讨。Sogyal 这种人渣肯定是必须得到法律制裁,危害佛教声誉,罪该万死。

  9. When compared to the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in Dharamsala that does not take any responsibility for their people like any proper government normally would, China is radically different and liberal for allowing sex abuse victims to express themselves on social media, despite its heavy censorship of the Internet.

    For people like Luo Xixi, whose online postings on sex abuse has garnered millions of views on Chinese social media, said that the government is gradually opening up to the #MeToo movement, a hashtag catch-phrase movement that encourages and empowers sex abuse victims to stand up against sex abuse. In China, those who are convicted of sexual abuse are severely dealt with by the law and laid off from work. The Central Tibetan Administration should take heed of how such cases are dealt with in China and not allow sex abuse perpetrators, especially Tibetan lamas to continue committing their crimes unchecked and without consequence.

    Social media gives sexual abuse victims in China voice to speak out
    By Violet Law, Special to USA Today
    BEIJING – After spending two months late last year nudging university officials to punish her former adviser for trying to pressure her and others into sex, Luo Xixi found unlikely help on China’s heavily censored internet.
    She published a post on Weibo, a popular microblog site similar to Twitter, to detail her own experiences and those of four others with the professor at Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. In a few hours, her post – initially targeting her less than 10 followers – garnered 3 million views.
    It had swift consequences in the conservative country, too: The professor was fired.
    “I don’t think the officials forgot to block me,” Luo told USA TODAY by phone from her California home, where she moved after graduation to work in software programming. “I can tell the government is trying to open the door to the #MeToo movement, little by little.”
    Sexual abuse scandals aren’t new in China, but they rarely have caused a stir in the past. In this deeply patriarchal society, women who spoke out before were often seen as airing dirty laundry in public and bringing shame upon their family.
    But with Luo’s post – the first by a Chinese to use her real name – the tide has turned and the floodgates to sexual misconduct allegations in China burst open.
    Other Chinese nationals living overseas began posting on various Chinese-language social media sites alleging sexual misconduct by academics. Since late July, every few days new victims and witnesses inside China have aired their accusations on chat groups or personal blogs against such prominent figures in philanthropy, the media, entertainment – including a national variety show host and a monk who heads the country’s Buddhist association.
    State censors have deleted some of the posts, though not before they percolated on cyberspace through re-posts and were amplified by local media reports.
    Much as the so-called Great Firewall has kept sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and most recently Reddit off-limits to China’s netizens, there is a plethora of popular homegrown sites.
    Also, as China’s censorship apparatus is known to employ AI, or artificial intelligence, to automatically block sensitive terms from posts and group chats, some netizens find a way around referring to #MeToo by using homophonic Chinese words that mean “rice rabbit.”
    “China has a contentious internet culture – people in China are used to taking their grievances online,” said Yang Guobing, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in online activism in China. “(Censorship) hasn’t really stopped the determined protesters.”
    For example, in April, five Chinese living abroad, including one on the faculty at Wesleyan University in Connecticut and another teaching at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, posted open letters online demanding that Peking University release specifics of a 1998 investigation into a former professor following their undergraduate classmate’s suicide: They believe he repeatedly raped her. Even as she took her own life, the professor held on to his position for more than a decade and won national recognition.
    They distanced themselves from the #MeToo movement knowing that Chinese officials often are quick to crack down on organized actions.
    “Before I came forward, I told our classmates we shouldn’t hitch ourselves to any movement or political demand,” the Wesleyan professor Wang Ao wrote on one of his blogs. “I tend to think I’m just an outsider and volunteer.”
    Following the recent wave of allegations, however, a few of the accused ended up apologizing online. After well-known environmentalist Feng Yongfeng was accused of harassing several women, he posted his mea culpa on WeChat, a social media-cum-messaging app.
    And the fallout has been particularly swift for professors identified as perpetrators – all were let go or resigned from their jobs.
    The latest to face consequences is Xu Gang, associate professor of East Asian studies at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. On at least two Chinese-language social media sites, Wang publicized his female colleagues’ accusations against Xu’s sexual harassment dating back two decades. He left his tenured position earlier this month.
    Meanwhile, Luo says she now embraces #MeToo, as she’s since realized the term is a rallying cry that resonates with the Chinese.
    “So more people can come forward,” she said. “So they know they’re not alone.”
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/16/sex-abuse-victims-china-social-media-gives-them-voice-speak-out/1279302002/

  10. His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s speeches create headlines nowadays not because they bring wisdom and enlightening thoughts, but rather unpleasant feelings and disapprovals. From the sexist quip in 2015, his gaffe on Nehru, and his recent comment about Europe that caused him to be labelled as White Supremacist, there is now one more to add onto the list. In order to be congenial and consistent with the image of a Nobel Peace Laureate, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been issuing statements, especially about Islam, such as redefining Jihad as an interior struggle.

    More and more people are expressing their doubt, with some even directly pointing out the mistakes in the Dalai Lama’s speech. This pattern of speech of strong statements that ends up in denial or apology seems consistent with his advice concerning the practice of Dorje Shugden. With the reasons behind the ban shifted so much over time, perhaps there really was never any validity behind the ban at all.

    TWO VERSIONS OF THE DALAI LAMA
    Should one be truthful about Islam when making pronouncements about it?
    September 20, 2018 Hugh Fitzgerald
    There seem to be two Dalai Lamas when it comes to Islam.
    The first Dalai Lama, like that other expert on Islam Pope Francis, knows that authentic Islam is opposed to terrorism, that Islam is all about peace, and that any Muslim who engages in violence for that very reason can not be a “genuine Muslim.”
    Here he is, for example, in a speech in Strasbourg in September 2016:
    “‘Any person who wants to indulge in violence is no longer a genuine Buddhist or genuine Muslim,’ says Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader.
    He argued that differentiating fundamentalism from Islam itself was a key way to stop violence and strengthen integration.
    The Dalai Lama has said there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” as anyone who partakes in violent activities is not a “genuine” Muslim.
    Speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in France at the end of last week, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader suggested the phrase was a contradiction in terms and condemned those who commit violent acts in the name of religion.
    The Dalai Lama asserted that all religions were united by the values of love, compassion, tolerance and more. He argued that with this common ground the world would be able to build peace.
    Where and when have Muslims demonstrated “the values of love, compassion, tolerance…” to non-Muslims?
    “Buddhist terrorist. Muslim terrorist. That wording is wrong,” he said. “Any person who wants to indulge in violence is no longer a genuine Buddhist or genuine Muslim, because it is a Muslim teaching that once you are involved in bloodshed, actually you are no longer a genuine practitioner of Islam.”
    Where does it say anywhere in the Qur’an or the hadith that “once you are involved in bloodshed, actually you are no longer a genuine practitioner of Islam”? Nowhere. Quite the reverse: throughout the Qur’an, in 109 Jihad verses, Muslims are commanded to engage in bloodshed. In the Hadith, Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct — and therefore to be emulated — takes part in 27 military campaigns, orders the torture and killing of Kinana of Khaybar, directly engages in the decapitation of 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and is delighted to receive news of the murders of people who had mocked or opposed him, including Asma bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, and Ka’b bin al-Ashraf. Wasn’t this warrior and killer “involved in bloodshed”? And who, if not Muhammad, was a “genuine practitioner of Islam”?
    “All major religious traditions carry the same message: a message of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline – all religious traditions.”
    This isn’t true. There is no “message of love” for non-Muslims in Islam. Rather, Muslims are told to make war until all non-Muslims are subdued, and offered only the options of death, conversion to Islam, or enduring the permanent status of dhimmi, with its many onerous conditions. Where is the “love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment,” etc. in any of this? Indeed, Muslims are taught to not even take “Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other.” They are taught, too, according to a famous hadith, that they may smile at Infidels, as long as they curse them in their hearts. None of this suggests the “love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance” that the Dalai Lama insists are the essence of Islam’s message.
    “He argued that differentiating between fundamentalism and Islam was a key way to stop violence and strengthen integration: ‘On that level, we can build a genuine harmony, on the basis of mutual respect, mutual learning, mutual admiration”.
    “Mutual respect, mutual learning, meaning admiration”? Is he unfamiliar with the Qur’anic verse that describes Muslims as the “best of peoples” (3:110) while the non-Muslims are described as “the most vile of creatures” (98:6)? How can Muslims admire those whom they have been told not to take even as friends, how can they admire those they are told are “the most vile of creatures”? It’s not possible.
    On what basis does the Dalai Lama make such remarks? It’s amazing to think that at the age of 83, with all the time in the world to have engaged in the study of other religions, he still has managed to avoid learning what Islam is all about. Or is it that he hopes that somehow, by dint of ignoring the essence of Islam, he can somehow affect the attitudes and behavior of Muslims? He is foolish to keep making pronouncements on Islam without having read, and studied, the Qur’an and Hadith. And he is both foolish and wicked if he has indeed read and studied the canonical Islamic texts, and decided that nonetheless he will ignore their content and attempt, using his great and quite undeserved prestige, to convince us that the authentic Islam — the same authentic Islam that Pope Francis refers to — has nothing to do with violence or terrorism.
    In September 2014, at a meeting in India, the Dalai Lama made the usual claim of the apologists that Jihad is a Spiritual Struggle:
    “Jihad combats inner destructive emotions. Everybody carries jihad in their hearts, including me,” the Dalai Lama said.
    This claim that Jihad is an interior struggle comes from a supposed hadith about Muhammad returning from the “Lesser Jihad” of warfare to the “Greater Jihad” of his own spiritual struggle. No one, by the way, has been able to find the source of this supposed hadith.
    The Dalai Lama said Indian Muslims can offer lessons on Shia-Sunni harmony as Shias feel safer in India than in Pakistan.
    Why would that be? It’s because the Hindu majority, which controls the police and security services, keep violence down between the sects, without favoring either side. In Pakistan, on the other hand, the Sunni majority does nothing to protect the Shi’a from Sunni attacks, such as those carried out by the anti-Shi’a terrorist group Sipah-e-Sahaba. The only “lesson” to be learned has nothing to do with Indian Muslims being somehow different, but rather, with the fact that non-Muslims in India are better able to hold the intra-Muslim violence in check.
    As far back as 2008, the Dalai Lama said what lots of Western leaders have been saying about Islam since 2001. He said “it was wrong, it was entirely unfair, to call Islam a violent religion.” But six years later, in September 2014, at a conference of religious leaders he had organized, the Dalai Lama seemed to modify his earlier brisk dismissal of any connection between Islam and violence, when he said that “killing in the name of faith is terrible.” The implication was clear: some people [Muslims] were killing in the name of faith, and while that was “terrible,” it was no longer “entirely unfair” to link some Muslims to such violence. Everyone understood what adherents he must have intended to set straight about their own faith. At least he recognized that some people “claimed” to be acting violently in accordance with the texts and teachings of their religion, even if those people were “wrong.”
    Then he showed he was still determined to give Islam a pass, adding in the same speech that “jihad was being misused and the term connotes fighting one’s own impurities.” No, that’s what the apologists maintain. He clearly had been reading too much Karen Armstrong. And still worse was to follow: “Jihad combats inner destructive emotions. Everybody carries jihad in their hearts, including me.” Apparently Muslims over the past 1400 years have everywhere misunderstood the true nature of jihad, which only very tangentially might have to do with fighting the Infidels, failing to understand that it describes an individual’s struggle to be a better person.
    Is it possible that the Dalai Lama really does not know by this point, in 2018, how Muslims understand the word “jihad” and how they historically have acted when commanded to wage “jihad,” does not know with what murderous meaning the Qur’an endows that word? Perhaps he really doesn’t know. Or perhaps he thinks that if he (and others) repeat this jihad-as-inner-struggle mantra, that many Muslims will in time convince themselves that that is really what “jihad” is about. But why would they listen to the Dalai Lama and not their own clerics? Other world leaders have described Islam in similarly misleading terms — Barack Obama (“the true peaceful nature of Islam”), Tony Blair (the Islamic State’s ideology is “based in a complete perversion of the proper faith of Islam”), Pope Francis (“Islam is a religion of peace”) – whenever they pontificated about Islam, a faith which they so maddeningly presume to know so much about. Muslim behavior did not change as a result. In the case of Obama, Blair and the Pope, one has the feeling that they really believe the nonsense they are spouting. With the Dalai Lama, who has been exposed to Islam in Asia for more than a half-century, his real beliefs are still not clear.
    The prominent Syrian cleric Ramadan al-Buti complained that when Westerners describe Islam as a “religion of peace,” they are not trying to defend Islam, but to trick Muslims into believing it is peaceful, and then – horribile dictu — into giving up the real doctrine of jihad for that ludicrous “inner struggle” business. Of course, Islam is about violence and war, said the truth-telling Ramadan Al-Buti. But why believe a prominent Muslim cleric about Islam, when there are so many non-Muslims, like the loquacious Dalai Lama, ready to tell both us, and Muslims, that the faith is all about peace and tolerance?
    At the same gathering, the Dalai Lama insisted that “India is the only country where different religions have been able to co-exist.” This was a bizarre remark, but the Dalai Lama is given to strange remarks. First, could he have forgotten that all over the Western world, people of different confessions have coexisted peacefully? Or is it that he just doesn’t want to say anything in praise of the West, because that would invite comparison with how Muslim states treat non-Muslims (very badly) compared to how the non-Muslim West treats Muslims (very generously)? Second, when he speaks about “coexistence” in India, hasn’t he overlooked the centuries of Muslim conquest and Muslim rule? In all his decades in India — he has lived there since 1959 — didn’t he learn the history of India, the country that gave him refuge, about the mass murder of tens of millions of Hindus, about the virtual disappearance of Buddhism, about the forced conversion of many millions — Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, more? Has he forgotten Mahmoud of Ghazni, and Aurangzeb, and all the other murderous Muslims in India’s history? Does any of that support his claim that India is “the only country where different religions…have been able to co-exist”? Coexistence, of a kind, only became possible in India once the British had deposed the Mughal rulers, and then, since 1947, Hindus dominated — and that domination is what allowed for coexistence.
    The Dalai Lama has claimed that Indian Muslims can offer lessons on Shia-Sunni harmony, as Shias feel safer in India than in Pakistan. He’s right – they do feel safer in India. But he’s wrong about the reason. It’s not that Indian Muslims can “offer lessons” on Sunni-Shia harmony to Muslims in Pakistan, which might hold out hope of lessening intra-Islamic hostilities. The sects remain just as ideologically at odds in India as in Pakistan. But the secret of tamping down the intra-Islamic violence is that the Indian government, in which Hindus predominate, can use force to suppress such intra-Islamic violence. It’s not that the Muslims in India are a different, less violent breed than their coreligionists in Pakistan, but that in India, the violence can be better held in check. In Pakistan, the Sunni government does little to reign in anti-Shi’a violence.
    The next time the Dalai Lama mentioned Islam was at a gathering of his followers from 27 countries on January 31, 2015. He said that “though terrorism has emerged as a global problem,” it should not be associated with Islam, as “Muslims were neither terrorist nor its sponsorer [sic].” No one had the bad taste to remind him of the nearly 25,000 terrorist attacks (now there have been 33,500) carried out by Muslims since 9/11; no one at the meeting had the nerve to jog his memory with mention of Charlie Hebdo, Hyper Cacher, Bataclan, Magnanville, Nice, London buses and metro stations, Lee Rigby, the Atocha station in Madrid, Theo van Gogh’s murder in Amsterdam, or the attacks at Fort Hood, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Orlando. No reporter asked him about Muhammad’s claim that “I have been made victorious through terror.”
    Like Pope Francis, who now says “equating Islam with violence is wrong” and just this past summer insisted again, astoundingly, that “all religions want peace,” the Dalai Lama is a “spiritual leader” who doesn’t want to call into conceivable question other faiths. All religions are good; no religion, rightly understood, can possibly countenance violence. Repeat ad libitum.
    The Dalai Lama offers treacly pieties, insisting that no religion could possibly be responsible for any violence or aggression by its adherents. His worldview cannot accommodate the real Islam, and its violent adherents who make the news every day, so he has chosen to believe in a sanitized, even imaginary, version of the faith.
    Yet the Dalai Lama has also shown, very occasionally, signs of justified worry. He has noticed that the migrants flowing into Europe have been a source of great anxiety and disruption, and this past May, in an interview with the Frankfurter Algemeiner Zeitung, he surprised many when he forthrightly said: “Europe, for example Germany, cannot [that is, must not] become an Arab country. Germany is Germany.” And “from a moral point of view too, I think the refugees should only be admitted temporarily. The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries.”
    This seemed to be a welcome volte-face from the pollyannish pronouncements of the past. Of course, one should notice that he said Germany “cannot become an Arab country,” rather than saying that Germany “cannot become a Muslim country.” It’s as if he still couldn’t bring himself to recognize that it is the faith of Islam, and not the ethnicity of some of its Believers, that makes Muslims permanently hostile to non-Muslims, and unable to integrate into their societies, that is, into Europe. But he certainly appeared to be suggesting that the migrants, almost all of them Muslims, should not be allowed to remain and transform the countries which had so generously admitted them. Rather, those migrants should eventually be sent back to “help rebuild their countries.” It was a welcome display of common sense. He appeared to recognize the danger of letting “Arab” (Muslim) migrants stay, and that a policy of sending them home after they had acquired skills useful in rebuilding their own countries, was morally justified. Some might say — you and I, for example — that it would have been morally justified to send them right back, without that training: the Western world is not some gigantic training center, and it owes the world’s Muslims exactly nothing.
    But then, in a visit to Paris in September 2016, the Dalai Lama called for entering into talks – a “dialogue”? – with the Islamic State so as to “end bloodshed in Syria and Iraq,” which showed a complete misunderstanding of the Islamic State. Its fighters are determined to carry on without letup against those it considers — not just Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, but also Shi’ites and even insufficiently-fanatical Muslims — to be Infidels. Not dialogue, but total destruction, is the only way to deal with the Islamic State. But even that will not end the threat, because the ideology on which ISIS rests cannot be destroyed, which means that new recruits to the cause, and new Islamic States, will keep appearing. The Dalai Lama’s notion of a “dialogue” with ISIS is a fantasy solution, by someone who doesn’t know what else to suggest.
    In the same speech, the Dalai Lama also repeated that “religion is never a justification for killing,” when Islam – see the Qur’an, see the Hadith – overflows with justifications for the killing of insubmissive Infidels. And the Muslim killers always justify their killings, being careful to cite chapter and verse, from the Qur’an, or to adduce evidence from the life of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith, that lend textual support to their every act.
    Did the Dalai Lama see the killers of Drummer Rigby holding up their Qur’ans and quoting from it? Did he see the many leaders of the Islamic State, such as Al-Baghdadi, or propagandists for Al Qaeda, like Al-Awlaki, similarly quoting from the Qur’an to justify their attacks? Perhaps he managed to miss it all.
    In August 2018, the Dalai Lama appealed to Muslims in India to make efforts to reduce Shia-Sunni conflicts that are prevalent in some other countries and asserted that Islam is a religion of peace. He lamented the bloodshed over denominational differences, which he said should be avoided as Islam teaches compassion and harmony.
    The Dalai Lama has recently been speaking out about Sunni-Shi’a clashes, deploring them even as he offers no explanation as to why “peaceful” Muslims seem so often to engage in violence.
    Addressing an event in August 2018 at the Goa Institute of Management, the 14th Dalai Lama stressed the need for international brotherhood and harmony.
    “Muslims across the globe follow the same Quran and also pray five times a day. However, they are killing each other owing to differences between the sects like Shia and Sunni,” he said.
    The Dalai Lama said, “I was in Ladakh. I suggested to Ladakhi Muslims that Indian Muslims should make some efforts to reduce the conflict between Shias and Sunnis.”
    He told the audience that a national conference of Muslims would be organised in the coming months, which will be followed by a similar convention at the international level.
    He said that modern India has remained by and large peaceful due to over 1000-year-old history of religious harmony.
    The Dalai Lama’s claim is bizarre. Modern India did not “remain by and large peaceful” during the last 1000 years. It was the scene of bloody conquests by invading Muslims, who killed many millions, and once they had conquered and subjugated the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist populations, they killed tens of millions more. The Indian historian K. S. Lal has written that 70-80 million non-Muslims in India were killed by Muslim armies. Tens of thousands of Hindu and Buddhist temples were destroyed. How can the Dalai Lama be unaware of this long history? After the Communist Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1959, he fled to India, where he, and tens of thousands of his followers, were given permanent refuge. Has he not, in all the decades he has lived in India, had the slightest interest in studying the history of the country that gave him refuge, and the effect of the Muslim conquests on Hindus and Buddhists? Is he unaware that Buddhism, his own religion, was virtually wiped out in India by the Muslim conquerors? Can he, the spiritual head of one branch of Buddhism, really be unaware of what happened to Buddhism in the land of its birthplace? Wasn’t he interested enough to find out?
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271371/two-versions-dalai-lama-hugh-fitzgerald

  11. 这篇文章实在令人震撼 达赖喇嘛也无法为藏传佛教的丑闻发声了。

    身为藏传佛教大家眼中的精神领导, 达赖喇嘛对于这些一波波的震撼弹也感到乏力。 达赖喇嘛在面对欧洲难民问题, 还有性丑闻问题的回应都让人感到失望, 不禁让人想到达赖喇嘛是不是江郎才尽了, 已经无法处理这些公共关系危机。

    或许达赖喇嘛知道这些问题都已经是无法扭曲乾坤, 那倒不如就让他置于死地而后生, 让涉及丑闻的领袖下台, 留下真正诚心修佛的大师继续传承佛法。 而达赖喇嘛自己则选择退隐。

    接下来, 人们或许会开始讨伐达赖喇嘛之前所做的奇怪决定, 例如多杰雄登禁令。 那时或许多杰雄登修持者也可以重新得到尊重, 也可以不被歧视, 安心修习多杰雄登法门。

  12. 看了这篇文章,心裡总是感到有一种不舒服的感觉……那种接受不到卻被迫接受的痛苦,应该是这样的。身为一名女性,得知这样的丑闻竟发生在令人尊重的宗教界领域,顿时感到浑身不舒服;心裡吶喊:这是什么世界来?

    身为一名德高望重且受人敬爱的高僧,以弘法为名,可是卻到处招搖欺骗,对整个佛教界的伤害是非常大的。最令人感到气愤的是,他们皆以如此的动作可以让对方获得证悟;这是可恶可恥的行为。

    我真心希望达赖喇嘛重新审查此案件,不要让更多无辜的人受到伤害,使他们终生从此受到伤害,並且对佛法失去信心。😖😓😓😓

  13. It is shocking that CTA and Dalai Lama remain silent and let the crime continue but continue ban and discriminated the Dorje Shugden practitioners.

  14. 請達賴喇嘛出來說幾句話公道話!

    請這位大師為所有受此巨大傷害的女性們說句公道話,為她們受創的心靈給予適當的安撫和慰問。如果身為西蔵流亡政府政教合一的領袖願意站出來說兩句話,我深信她們所受的傷害都可以穫得平衡,可以走出這種可怕的陰影,並且穫得重生。

    因此,我在這個自由言論的平台上,祈請達賴喇嘛可以站出來為這些身心靈已經受到巨大創傷的女性們,給予一定程度上的支持!感恩達賴喇嘛的慈悲!

  15. 那些喇嘛欺负女孩子是不好的行为,应该得到惩罚。因为他是佛教徒,很多人尊重所以我们不该这样做。要不然会有因果报应。

  16. 读完这篇文章我真的觉得很心寒,为何身为国际佛教领导者,对国际社会影响力这么大,为何可以包庇亲近弟子的不道德行为,让他们为所欲为这么多年,让这么多的受害者受到性侵犯。

    达赖喇嘛哪里还称得上是慈悲为怀?达赖喇嘛这么多年可以化那么多时间在世界巡回演讲和接见那么多人,但是为何只是敷衍给了区区二十分钟见性侵犯受害者呢?!这种漠视的行为是多么的可怕!

    作为一位思想开明的领袖,应该要将这些利用达赖喇嘛的名义做出如此腐败以及对佛教照成强大的破坏,必须把他们这些施暴者绳之于法。

    反过来看看,达赖喇嘛可以用这么多的时间来对持和打压多杰雄登护法持修者,那是如何说的过去。对待这些默默持修多杰雄登的人,但在此并没有伤害任何的人或修行作出欺压和不公平对待,这简直就是一个和犯罪者做出恶行的行为是一致的。

    如此多的高僧大德作出如此的大逆不道之事但是还可以逍遥快活的到处宣扬佛法,真的是太邪恶了。

    达赖喇嘛应该更关注和阻止这些时间的发生和采取行动,那么才可以得到尊重。

    这些行为已经严重到影响修行人的心识,断决了有心要修行的人,造了如初大的恶业,那还称的上是传法修行人呢?

    达赖喇嘛可以包庇和沉默不语的对代这些性侵犯罪者那么也要对多杰雄登修持者以一样的态度,还给他们自由。

  17. 为何达赖喇嘛 and CTA 严厉谴责多杰雄登信众,更组织、动员排挤他们。却不对严重性侵罪犯采取行动呢?

  18. 令人震撼 达赖喇嘛也无法为藏传佛教的丑闻发声了,身为藏传佛教大家眼中的精神领导。

    却一直从容弟子错下去,对于侵犯他人的师也没有出声阻止。对性侵案却绝口不提。
    到底是为什么达赖喇嘛一直不出声。还一直从容他们错下去。

    对于多杰雄登修持者还是多杰雄登的上师切
    毫无顾忌对他们做出伤害。

    宗教信仰不是自由选择吗?修持什么法门,不自由选择吗?为什么就是要针对多杰修登持者,谁修持什么法门,难道还要谁来决定吗?一直要针对多杰雄登修持者,还赶尽杀绝。

    对于侵犯他人的上师达赖喇嘛也不出面阻止一直默默不出声,他们已经对佛教带来巨大伤害,造成严重后果,达赖喇嘛还一直不出声阻止。为什么?

    达赖喇嘛是否应该对这些侵犯他人的上师,严厉的谴责和阻止,才可以对群众起警告作用。

  19. 我们不该向这些喇嘛学习,这些是不对的。所以你不要向这些喇嘛。因为这些是不对的。

  20. 我们不该向这些喇嘛学习,这些是不对的。所以你不要向这些喇嘛。因为这些是不对的。

  21. 从英国的报导看来,有至多位的受害者觉得与达赖喇嘛的会面,觉得很失望。我本身还真的希望达赖能给这些受害者一个交代。难道这些所谓的仁波切就能够为所欲为吗?难道他们做错了,不需要受到惩罚吗?这样怎么都讲不过去吧?!

    我真的不明白为什么达赖要这么维护他的朋友。这是不是说他也认同他们的做法,是不是有金钱交易的问题,达赖可以在其他课题上,大做文章,但是对这些性侵的受害者,为什么只有廿分钟,这就是很有问题😓

    😈😈😈😈😈😈😈😈😈😈😈👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹

    达赖是时候你出来给大家一个公平交代替吧?!

  22. 希望达赖喇嘛正视这个问题, 马上停止这些严重的性侵案, 停止包庇和制裁这些罪犯。对于不幸的受害人, 倾听和给于更多的关懷。

  23. 信仰和宗教都是自由选择,不是由谁来控制
    要尊重个人自由选择。

    这么多年以来藏人社群却未获得合理的人权和公平的对待。

    当多杰雄登禁令开始,修持多杰雄登的社群已失去宗教信仰选择的自由。

    一直针对多杰雄登修持者,用各式各样的方法来对付多杰修持者,还要阻止他们做任何事情,有天里吗?还做出无耻的行为,侵犯他人,还是一位上师。你们觉得可耻吗?佛教的包容,慈悲,是真的吗?修行多杰雄登有错吗?要这样对付多杰修登修行者。

    达赖喇嘛却一直不阻止。是为什么难道他们没错吗?

  24. 达赖尊者是藏傳佛教的最高领袖,所以在发生这样震惊佛教界的丑聞,而达赖尊者又抱着如此的态度去面对受害者,难怪会引起怨愤。我们局外人也搞不清到底达赖是以什么標準来审判对与錯?为何对修持多杰雄登者非要趕盡殺絕,而对这些宗教性侵者却如此宽容?还是只因为他们与他是一样的都不修多杰雄登? ·所以可以被包容?尊贵的达赖尊者,你該如何向被害者交待?1

  25. 從世俗的道義上,我們不能夠允許這類性侵犯案件發生,在宗教界界上,這更加是不可容忍的。可是,這類事件屡屡發生,身為領導人竟然保持沉默,不加以干涉……這意味著甚麼呢?他們都認為這並不是一件很嚴重的事情,它還是可以穫得包庇的!

    不是嗎? 要不,為什麼達賴喇嘛和藏人行政中央都對此事袖手旁觀,不發一言呢?就算是受傷者要求接見,也一再拖延推辭,這明顯地看出領導人們對事情的雙重標準作法,這種如此不合道義和不合人性的作法,往往叫人感到沮喪和失望。大家對尊貴的達賴喇嘛都感到很失望,可是有礙於他個人的崇高的地位,大家都不敢公開批評或反抗,受害者只能默默地忍受被人羞恥,痛苦地過日子。

    達賴喇嘛這樣子冷酷的作風和手法,不禁是針對以上事件,事實上如果大家熟知多杰雄登禁令事件的話,都可以略略體會到達賴喇嘛這種不近人情的作法。所以,許多人只敢怒不敢言!

    我個人只是整件事情的旁觀者,可是經已覺得很多事情的不妥,因此我的發言是基於人道的立場,與宗教信仰無關。祈請達賴喇嘛正視這個問題的存在性,因為它的發生並不是明日而已,其實据説已經掩埋了二十多年了!

  26. 达赖尊者面对那些被性侵的受害者,抱着小事一桩的态度去应对,难怪会引起西方媒体的大事報报导及受害者的不满。
    如今达赖尊者的行事方式往往出人意料之外,对这等嚴重事件,他视为等閒之,而对’他不喜欢的宗教修持者却做了很多東西,例如不能出席他的法会讲座,生病了不能看政府的医生,不能上学还有很多很多的不人道对待,只因他们忠於自己的傳承,修持多杰雄登!

  27. Why Dalai Lama doesn’t say anything to clear this issue. It seems to be the Dalai Lama treat these sexual predators way better than Dorje Shugden people. So it seems it’s ok to be sexual abuser and that is better than a Dorje Shugden worshipper. Shame!

  28. Transcript: Dalai Lama is a Racist Nazi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_J_we4rp34

    Dalai Lama is a piece of shit and a disgusting scumbag. It is, it is insane this cunt comes to Europe and tells us that we should not accept more refugees. Is he fucking retarded? It is amazing, like you don’t expect from people like, like those to be Nazis and to support all the right. It’s just insane a spiritual leader is a fucking Nazi dude. Europe needs more refugees, way more than we already have. Do you understand? And this degenerate says that we should send refugees back to where they came from and that we should help the countries of the refugees. His suggestions are, it’s obvious, like obviously we should help the countries of the, of the refugees, of their origin, but we should not send anyone back. We need more refugees in Europe and we should not deport anyone. We should give money to the refugees so they can stay in Europe and live here. What this Dalai Lama is suggesting is very inhumane, that’s all what I wanted to say. Hopefully in future we will get more migrants in Europe. Hopefully we can help more people. Let’s hope, let’s hope for the better.

  29. The issue of Indian resentment towards the Tibetan refugees living on Indian soil is nothing new. The Tibetans have built comfortable lives for themselves in India and enjoy many privileges including exemption from paying tax. All of this is done without Tibetans showing genuine concern for the less fortunate in their host country.

    The story below, which took place over 24 years ago, is a reflection of how fragile the Tibetan situation is in India. When a Tibetan murdered an Indian following a dispute, chaos ensued, and the Dalai Lama had to consider moving out of Dharamsala. Tensions between the Indian and Tibetan community have not normalised and remain high in the area even until today.

    Hate campaign shatters calm of Dalai Lama
    TIM MCGIRK in New Delhi | Wednesday 11 May 1994 00:02
    THE Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of Tibet, has threatened to move the headquarters of his government-in-exile from Dharamsala, in the Himalayas of northern India, after two local politicians incited Indians to go on a rampage against Tibetan refugees.
    The calm of Dharamsala, the forested retreat where the Dalai Lama and 8,000 other Tibetan monks and refugees have been living since 1960, was shattered on 22 April when an Indian youth, who belonged to a caste of shepherds known as the gaddis, was stabbed to death by a Tibetan in a fight which developed over an India versus Pakistan cricket match on television.
    During the funeral Krishan Kapoor, a politician belonging to the rightwing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), yanked the shroud off the corpse, reached into the cadaver’s open stomach, pulled out a length of intestine, and held it high. ‘This is what the Tibetans have done]’ he yelled.
    The mourners went berserk. Shouting ‘Death to the Dalai Lama]’ and ‘Long Live Deng Xiaoping]’ the mob stormed the compound of the Tibetan government-in-exile, smashed windows, set fires and destroyed furniture. They then looted Tibetan shops and beat up refugees.
    Not to be outdone by Mr Kapoor, the rival Congress politician, a shrill ex-princess named Chandresh Kumari, helped circulate a petition calling for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans to get out of India. The Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, was abroad during these events, but in a statement he said: ‘To avoid a conflict becoming a major problem in the future, it is best that I move out of Dharamsala. I am very, very sad that an individual incident has, unfortunately, been allowed to be manipulated by local politicians and this makes it serious.’ He mentioned moving to Bangalore, in southern India, which would mean dismantling the government-in-exile’s offices, Tibetan medicine centres, libraries, monasteries and schools. In all, more than 100,000 Tibetan refugees are scattered around the country.
    In goading the gaddis against the Tibetans, both Mr Kapoor and Ms Kumari are aiming to pick up support from the poor but numerous shepherds’ community. Even before the stabbing, the gaddis’ resentment against the refugees was high. They blame them for driving up land prices and envy the prosperity of some Tibetan shopowners.
    One recent pamphlet warned: ‘If you Tibetans do not leave Dharamsala by 25 July, we will bomb you out.’
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/hate-campaign-shatters-calm-of-dalai-lama-1435112.html

    Hate campaign shatters calm of Dalai Lama

  30. A Plot to Murder the Dalai Lama

    Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka, South India, says there is a plot to murder the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

    Link to the original video: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/fight-for-separate-lingayat-religion-karnataka-deputy-cm-alleges-murderous-plot-against-dalai-lama-more-1353993-2018-10-02

    http://video.dorjeshugden.com/comment-videos/comment-1538514480.mp4


  31. A plot to murder the Dalai Lama by a Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) terrorist named Kausar was recently uncovered. Kausar planned to cause the Dalai Lama’s demise and blow up Buddhist temples in the Indian State of Karnataka as revenge for the attacks on Rohingya Muslims by some Buddhists in Myanmar.

    Although Kausar’s plans are appalling and cannot be justified, it is a reminder that the Dalai Lama as a well-known Buddhist personality has a moral obligation to discourage religious persecution in any form. This even includes the discrimination experienced by Dorje Shugden practitioners.

    Bengaluru: JMB terrorists targeted Buddhist temples in Karnataka?
    Tue, Oct 2 2018 01:46:48 PM
    Daijiworld Media Network – Bengaluru (MS)
    Bengaluru, Oct 2: Explosive information about the plans of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) terrorist Kausar alias Muneer Sheikh alias Mohammed Jahidul Islam (38) has been unearthed in which he had targeted to blow up the Buddhist temples of the state.
    Earlier in the National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation, it came to light that Kausar had planned to plant a bomb at the programme of Buddhist leader Dalai Lama that was held in the month of August at Ramanagara. Dalai Lama had participated in the programme that was held on August 13 at the Dalai Lama Institute of Higher Education, which is situated at the Bengaluru – Mysuru road. Kausar was arrested by NIA on August 7, barely six days before the programme.
    With regard to this information, the top officials of the CID department have held a meeting on Monday, October 1 and it was decided to conduct a separate investigation of this issue, as per the information given by home minister.
    It was also decided to gather information to know whether Kausar had visited the sites of important Buddhist temples in the state like Bailukuppe Tibetan Camp at Kushalnagar in Kodagu, Kollegal and the camp at Mundagod of Uttara Kannada district.
    It is confirmed from the interrogation that Kausar had planned to conduct acts of sabotage and explosions, targeting the Buddhists living in India, as a revenge to the attacks on Rohingya Muslims by the Buddhists in Myanmar. In addition, the investigating officers have also said that Kausar, who had lived in and around Bengaluru from 2014, had hatched a plot to kill Dalai Lama.
    NIA officials had arrested an accomplice of Kausar in the case of Bodh Gaya bombings. It is also confirmed that the JMB terrorists had planned in Kerala to carry out acts of sabotage in the state of Karnataka. It is learnt that a special team will be sent to Kerala also to know Kausar’s link there.
    One accomplice of Kausar still absconding
    NIA has so far arrested seven accused in the Bodh Gaya explosion case. However, Arif Hussain, one more accused and accomplice of Kausar is absconding. Arif is one of the members of the gang that kept IED explosives in the Kalachakra ground of Bodh Gaya. During the investigation, a shocking piece of information has come to light that Arif had met Kausar after the blasts and also discussed with regards to the failure of the intended plan.
    Expert in manufacturing IED explosives
    Kausar, the JMB terrorist is an expert in manufacturing IED explosives. He had come to India with his accomplice Muzafir Rehman from Bangladesh and had planned to carry out terrorist acts on a large scale. Kausar had also trained his accomplices with regards to the manufacture of IED.
    No information of intended bombings in state, says CM
    “No plot was hatched to kill Buddhist leader Dalai Lama in the state of Karnataka. Police are about to file charge sheet against the accused who have been arrested for the bomb blasts that took place in Bodh Gaya. However, I do not know why the name of Dalai Lama is mentioned in this issue. There is no relation between terrorist Kausar, who was caught in Ramanagara, and the attempt on the life of Dalai Lama. However, the police are going to conduct investigation in this angle also. The central government has not sought any information in this regard from the state government,” clarified CM Kumaraswamy to the media.
    Speaking on the issue, Dr G Parameshwar, DCM, said, “The officers of NIA are not sharing any information with us with regard to the plot hatched by the terrorists. They gather information at the international level and arrest the terrorists.”
    Former CM Jagadish Shettar accused the state government and said, “A comprehensive inquiry has to be conducted relating to the issue of the plot to kill Dalai Lama by JMB terrorists. The arrest of suspected terrorists by the NIA shows the utter failure of the state CID.” 
    http://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay.aspx?newsID=531008

    Bengaluru JMB terrorists targeted Buddhist temples in Karnataka

  32. The fact that rangzen activists aim for the goal of Tibetan independence is at odds with the Dalai Lama’s goal for Tibet’s autonomy. This is nothing new but it is an undeniable fact that the Dalai Lama is the most recognisable Tibetan face and representative for the Tibetan Cause. However, for years now there has been a deficit of trust between China and the Dalai Lama, which leaves the future of Tibetan refugees in limbo.

    Recently, the Dalai Lama tried to take conciliatory steps towards China by acknowledging that development in the Tibet Autonomous Region is beneficial and expressed his desire to return to China. He even said he wants to go on pilgrimage to Mount Wutai, China’s most famous Buddhist site. The fact that the Rangzen people are still protesting against China however shows their true colour. They are against the Dalai Lama and want to make sure that his efforts to help Tibetans are unsuccessful.

    Activists coalition rally against “Xi-the-Pooh” at Un headquarters in NY
    [Thursday, September 20, 2018 18:01]
    By Tenzin Dharpo
    DHARAMSHALA, Sep. 20: Activists from various countries that calls for freedom from China’s repression gathered in front of the United Nation’s headquarters in New York City on Tuesday on the opening day of the 73rd General Assembly to protest CCP honcho Chinese President Xi Jinping.
    Activists from Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia and Hong Kong, Taiwan as well as pro-democracy groups in unison called for the end to repressive policies implemented by China and freedom for their countries. The coalition labelled the Chinese president “Xi-the Pooh” in resemblance to cartoon character Winnie the Pooh who is incidentally banned in China, in addition to calling the Chinese leader “Xitler” likening him to infamous Nazi dictator Adolf Hilter.
    Members of the Students for a Free Tibet, Tibetan Youth Congress and Tibetan National Congress joined in the rally that saw activists throw ink at an effigy of Xi in apparent solidarity with Chinese woman Dong Yaoqiong who threw ink at a poster of Xi in Shanghai on July 4. The 29-year-old from Hunan province was arrested by Chinese police in July and has been detained in a mental institution, sources say. 
    SFT Executive Director Dorjee Tsetan led the protest where activists denounced China’s narrative that Xi as the face of new China inching towards leadership in the global arena and reiterate their resistance in the face of Xi-led CCP’s totalitarian rule.
    Tiananmen massacre survivor and pro-democracy activist Rose Tang wrote in her Facebook page, “Very honoured to be with my sisters and brothers from Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and the US to de-face Xitler. Xitler and the Chinese Communist Party rely on lies and violence; our weapons are peace, love and compassion. We shall defeat Xitler!”
    Representatives from various occupied nations and activists such as Ilshat Hassan, President of Uyghur American Association, Enghebatu Togochog, Director of Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center, Sarah Cook, Senior Researcher for East Asia, Freedom House, Teng Baio, Chinese Human Rights Lawyer and Activist, Omer Karnat, Director, Uyghur Human Rights Project, Ngawang Tharchin, President, Regional Tibetan Youth Congress NY/NJ, Anna Cheung, Activist, New York For Hong Kong and Marvin Kumetat, US Program Coordinator, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization were seen speaking at the protest rally in New York city.
    http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=40781&article=Activists+coalition+rally+against+%E2%80%9CXi-the-Pooh%E2%80%9D+at+Un+headquarters+in+NY

    Activists coalition rally against “Xi-the-Pooh” at Un headquarters in NY

  33. Sex Predator in a Monk’s Robes?

    In USA, Shambhala’s head Sakyong Mipham with his huge ceremonial hat, blue and gold brocades on a high throne. So much pomp and ceremony and underneath it all was a monster… a sexual predator in religious robes exploiting women and people. Such a disgusting shame. Sakyong should be barred from any activities in the future and go for counselling. He needs it badly. His father was Chogyam Trungpa who did the same thing to women and included drugs and orgies in the 70′s. Dalai Lama supports Sakyong Mipham as sizeable donations were given to the Dalai Lama’s office. Shame. We all thought Dalai Lama was clairvoyant and can see the hearts of sentient beings? Sakyong Mipham wears monk robes, shaves his head but has a wife and kids. Why keep wearing monk robes? He is wearing monk robes to look authentic as he is not authentic. Easier to swindle and fool people. Ontop of wearing robes, shaved head masquerading as a monk, has a wife and kids, he further attacks other women sexually. What kind of spiritual leader is this? Disgusting.

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. “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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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.

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 2018 | All Rights Reserved
Total views:5,026,422