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

By: Ashok Rao

R K Sinha, Member of Parliament representing Bihar

After having received the kindness of India for over six decades, there is still no sign of reciprocity from the Tibetans. This fact is now being highlighted by the Indians themselves from the highest level, from members of the Indian Parliament, and the article below is strong evidence of this. It was authored by RK Sinha, journalist and member for the Indian parliament representing Bihar, a state in northern India with a sizable Tibetan population. Mr Sinha’s article reflects the growing frustration of the Indians who are now speaking up and asking tough but fair questions – why aren’t the Tibetans or the Dalai Lama speaking up over matters relating to India? Originally published on the website of the English-language Indian newspaper, The Statesman, it was also reposted on the Tibetan news site Tibet Sun. The questions Sinha raised therefore are not just limited to Tibetophiles, but are ones that are being raised on a national level in India, amongst Indians themselves.

Under specific scrutiny is the current border dispute between China and India. On this topic, Sinha asks the obvious question: why is the Dalai Lama not saying anything about the situation, given that the Tibetans lost their country to the very nation that now stands armed at India’s very doorstep? This doorstep is the area of Doklam lying between China and India, an area contested by both countries. Tensions have been rising in the area as both countries have sent their armed forces to patrol their borders.

Having been welcomed into India with open arms, the Tibetans have been markedly absent in aiding their host country. Compounding the issue is the fact that the Tibetan leadership are particularly at fault for the current situation between India and China, as another point of contention between the two countries. First the Tibetans sought refuge in India and did not remain in Tibet, and secondly they have since campaigned for a free Tibet, much to the ire of the Chinese who claim Tibet is an integral part of China.

Thus China has views the Tibetans in exile as dissidents, and this has caused tension between the two world superpowers of India and China. Given this history it is fair that the Indians would be asking a genuine question – why aren’t the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans speaking up about the issue, or helping in any way, given all the help and aid afforded to them by India over the years? Why are the Tibetan leadership staying silent, when the Indian government have stuck their neck out for the Tibetans time and time again, thus risking their own people.

The Tibetans should really take note of such sentiment from the Indians and be wary. Their silence surrounding Indian issues is not going unnoticed, quite the opposite in fact. Since more Indians are becoming aware of this, the Tibetans should be doing their all to keep India on their good side, otherwise their generous hosts may just turn around and become unfriendly. If the Tibetans continue to be so arrogant in their relationship with China, they may find themselves with fewer supporters for their cause, fewer supporters in parliament, and a less glowing public opinion of Tibetans. Once that happens the Tibetans will really be in a quandary, their refugee status could be revoked or heavy sanctions could be imposed on them. At the moment, all that is asked of them is simple support for India, the country that took them in when they had nothing.

Why is the Dalai Lama silent?

Click on image to read the full report

Source: https://www.tibetsun.com/elsewhere/2017/07/25/why-is-the-dalai-lama-silent

The original article from The Statesman

Click on image to read the full report

Source: http://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/why-is-the-dalai-lama-silent-1500930385.html

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

By: Jangchup Wangmo

On July 14, 2017, the Tibetan Prime Minister Sikyong Lobsang Sangay visited the Central University of Tibetan Studies (CUTS) in Varanasi, India. Varanasi is known throughout the world to be an intellectual powerhouse; many of India’s political and philosophical greats spent time there studying or teaching.

For many students, this visit has become memorable and regardless of who you ask, it is mostly for the wrong reasons. The Sikyong’s visit to the university was marked by two incidents. The first was news that a 20-year-old CUTS student, Tenzin Choeying, had attempted to self-immolate. Saying that it was for the Tibetan cause, he also made it a point to state it was not the Prime Minister’s fault and that he was doing a good job. This statement however, has drawn doubt and ire from many quarters of the Tibetan community, who question why he even felt the need to utter a statement like that. If someone is doing a good job, if there is no possibility of them being blamed for it, then there would be no reason to bring it up at all. Sadly, the Tibetan community lost another brother when Choeyingla finally succumbed to his injuries six days later, with 90% burns all over his body.

This young man asked three questions of the Sikyong. It was a very brave move considering students at the Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) School in Dharamsala had previously suffered an interrogation session after they questioned their Prime Minister too. Or perhaps being young and not an adult protects him to a certain degree, since Tibetan adults who have spoken their minds have frequently found themselves on the receiving end of violent repercussions for doing so.

The second incident that has been said to have marred Sikyongla’s visit is when students had an opportunity to question their Prime Minister. One young man in particular, stepped up to the podium and asked the Prime Minister some tough but fair questions. This is not the first time the Sikyong has had to field such questions from the youth. In 2014, while visiting the Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) in Dharamsala, teenagers questioned the Sikyong’s policies and actions towards Dorje Shugden worship.

Instead of being rewarded for fair and open-minded thinking, the TCV students were hauled up in front of the authorities and interrogated as to why they had questioned the Sikyong in such a manner. Imagine if the leader of any other democratic nation did that to their children, and the kind of uproar that would ensue. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if former US President Barack Obama arranged for students to be interrogated each time they asked him difficult questions at town hall meetings. In a real democratic country, bullying and intimidating the youth would never be accepted. Yet, under the Tibetan regime, this is commonplace to the point it takes place without question.

How the Tibetan leadership trains their people to treat freedom of speech. Instead of respecting the rights of Dorje Shugden protesters to campaign against the ban, the Tibetan leadership tries to keep them out of sight with large black banners. Whether or not you agree with the practice is not the point. The point here is that if the Tibetan leadership was really a democratic government, they would encourage all forms of free speech, regardless of whether the content is flattering for them or if the views do not match theirs.

This latest incident at CUTS however, proves that when exposed to more and different sources of information, Tibetan youths are just as capable as any other nation’s youths in arriving at logical conclusions and asking the right questions. They just need to be given a chance to learn about everything and anything without repercussions, and not be penalized each time they want to explore other avenues of thought or viewpoints, as their elders so often experience. For Tibetan adults like Lukar Jam and Jamyang Norbu, they know all too well the price a Tibetan pays for speaking their mind, and for speaking the truth, especially if that truth has not been sanctioned by the leadership. Vandalized property, being run out of the settlements, being dangerously labelled as anti-Dalai Lama and anti-Tibet, and having a smear campaign launched against you is just a start.

Translation

That student says that “I have many questions but I am going to ask my three main questions to Sikyong. With great respect, my first question is to Sikyong that a few years ago, I think I heard from Radio Free Asia that you said, “I went to all the [Tibetan] settlements, to all the universities but I’ve never been to Varanasi [University].” So, today you are here. Are you complete now?

My second question is that it seems like you [Sikyong] are interested in external territories more than internal territories. You go abroad to many places for Tibet’s projects and therefore you are like Samdhong Rinpoche, and that is affecting and harming our internal territory. So what I wanted to tell you is, a few months ago, there was a meeting between the Parliament and the Sikyong and many other members about the serious topic of Tibet. All the members and you yourself are chosen by the public.

The public has hopes in and believes all of you to be good members of parliament. That is why the public voted for you and put you all in this position. So the public were watching that meeting but in the meeting, members of Parliament were so disrespectful to each other. Some were sleeping while others were speaking. Some people just walked away. Even you walked away during meeting and I saw that in the video. That’s what I found is very disrespectful to others as well as to the public, who support you to be their leader.

Third, in brief, you previously said that you will invite His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the Potala Palace. Now you have four years left [to the end of your term]. When will you invite His Holiness to the Potala Palace? Do you have any plans for this?”

For those who are familiar with the Tibetan language, they will immediately recognize the humor present in the young man’s style of questioning the Sikyong. While he is using very honorific words and phrases to address the Prime Minister, his questions themselves are very direct and tough, to the point of almost being rude. But because the young man makes light of his three questions in order to lift the mood, he is able to continue asking them although viewers can see clearly that the man behind him is uncomfortable. So while the boy’s words are polite, his questions are quite tough and embarrassing for the Tibetan Prime Minister.

The fact that the Sikyong may be embarrassed by such questions from a young man points to an issue which is endemic within Tibetan society – the leaders in this so-called democracy are not used to being questioned or held accountable for their actions.

But the fact that the Sikyong might be embarrassed by these questions is reflective of a much larger problem in Tibetan society. It is almost as though he is embarrassed because he is not used to being asked such difficult questions, and he does not know quite what to make of it. In actuality, as the leader of a so-called democracy, he should be embarrassed that he is not used to being held accountable! It means that he has not been leading his people well, because the culture of speaking up and being engaged in the political process has not yet filtered through the community after 60 years in exile. That being said, as the leader of a so-called democracy, his people do have every right to hold him accountable and ask him to explain the government’s behavior. Why should members of the public like this young man not be allowed to hold their leaders accountable? As the boy himself says, it was the public who voted the Sikyong and his cohorts into power, and so the public should be able to hold them accountable for their actions too.

The future of the Tibetan people, and the welfare of the community depends on open-thinking individuals like this brave young gentleman. When the stalwarts of the Tibetan political establishment are gone, who will stand at the helm of the community, to lead and guide everybody? It is time that the Tibetan leadership start nurturing people like this man, and harness his clearly analytical thinking towards the benefit of the Tibetan people. So instead of penalizing the youth for their curiosity and open minds, adults like the Prime Minister should actually nurture and foster this curiosity. Curiosity leads to innovation; innovation leads to initiative, and initiative leads to activities which will help to preserve, protect and promote Tibetan culture, religion and history long after the Prime Minister is no longer in power.

As more Tibetans in Tibet take their lives in an attempt to pressure dialogue between the Tibetan exiled leadership and the Chinese, leaders like Sikyong Lobsang Sangay continue to be relaxed and refuse to do whatever it takes to get these discussions started. In the meantime, more Tibetans will continue to die, thanks to the Sikyong’s lack of creativity and innovation when it comes to initiating the dialogue. (Credit: www.tibettruth.com)

And if the Prime Minister does not find this logic appealing, then consider this – what kind of older, supposedly Harvard educated man, is intimidated by the questions of teenagers? What kind of adult needs to bully a child? From where we stand, to be intimidated by children does not speak well of one’s own qualities and intellectual abilities. It in fact suggests a huge amount of hidden insecurities when a person can be so easily unsettled by the questions of teenagers. Why does the Tibetan Prime Minister want to be surrounded by Yes Men who do not challenge him to improve the welfare of the people? It is sad indeed when the Tibetan Prime Minister so deathly afraid of questions, that he has to intimidate his own people into not asking anything. So instead of learning, instead of forcing oneself to think about the welfare of the community, the Sikyong would rather suppress all forms of free speech and thought, so he can experience the final years of office in comfort, ease and complacency, as he has been doing.

Sikyong Lobsang Sangayla, it is time to start being accountable to your people and letting them get involved in the democratic process without backbites, harassment and violent repercussions. It is time you started respecting your people’s intellect and stop stamping down on their ability to form incisive, analytical questions about your leadership and works. Just because many of them do not ask it, does not mean that many of them are not thinking it. After some time, when they cannot say what they truly feel, the pressure inside will build up until people start to think that they have no choice but to resort to drastic, extreme actions. Just like Choeyingla, the 20-year old who felt that no one was hearing his voice and his suffering, and he needed to do the biggest thing he can – give up his life – to get your attention. In his last moments, this young man did not think about his mother or father; he chose to dedicate his last words to talking about you. Sikyongla, it really is time to get your head out of the sand and realize Tibetans are not going to stay silent about you and your lackeys anymore.

Addendum

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche’s autobiography ‘A Tulku’s Journey from Tibet to Canada’, published in 2016, provides historical evidence and irrefutable proof that the Central Tibetan Administration is falsifying the facts when it comes to the practice of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden.

The autobiography of Zasep Tulku Rinpoche, a high lama of the Gelug lineage, provides accurate historical accounts of the Dorje Shugden practice. Click to enlarge.

The back cover of the book, click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge

Historical accounts show that prior to the politicization of the Dorje Shugden practice by the Central Tibetan Administration, this popular deity was relied upon by Dharma practitioners to help in their spiritual practice. Contrary to detractors’ claims about Dorje Shugden being ‘anti-Dharma’, this Dharma Protector practice was traditionally deemed to be suitable to be practiced alongside the Highest Yoga Tantras.

Click to enlarge

Zasep Rinpoche and his family were able to escape to safety prior to the events of 1959 through the clairvoyance and prophetic advice of Dorje Shugden through one of his oracles, Lama Gelong Chojor Gyamtso.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Oracles of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden were known for the accuracy of their prophecies due to Dorje Shugden being a fully enlightened deity with perfect clairvoyance. As stated clearly by Zasep Rinpoche in his autobiography ‘A Tulku’s Journey from Tibet to Canada’, Dorje Shugden warned the Tibetans of the impending loss of their homeland but his advice was mostly ignored by the Tibetan government.

The Tibetan government chose to consult the worldly state protector Nechung, and Nechung advised that the Dalai Lama should remain in Tibet where he would be safe. This was mistaken advice, as historical events would later show. Fortunately for Tibetan Buddhists all around the world, Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang had great faith in Dorje Shugden and consulted the protector for advice on the Dalai Lama’s safety. Dorje Shugden via the Panglung Oracle urgently adviced the Dalai Lama to leave for India immediately and gave the exact escape route. In saving the Dalai Lama from certain harm, Dorje Shugden prevented the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism and preserved the future of the Tibetan culture and people.

Zasep Rinpoche’s account of events concur with monastic records that it was indeed Dorje Shugden who saved the Dalai Lama instead of Nechung, contrary to the claims of the Tibetan leadership.

Click to enlarge

Dorje Shugden’s practice was first established within the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism. The Sakya Throneholders regarded this Dharma Protector as an enlightened being and Dorje Shugden, together with Dorje Setrab and Tsiu Marpo formed the triune of Sakya Protectors known as Gyalpo Sum. Today, Sakya practitioners claim that Dorje Shugden was never widely practiced by their lineage but history proves otherwise. The undeniable fact is that before the CTA’s religious ban, Dorje Shugden was practiced first by the Sakyas and was later transmitted to the Gelug school where it was practiced by the majority of the Gelugpas.

Click to enlarge

Contrary to the CTA’s claims that Dorje Shugden’s practice is sectarian, Zasep Rinpoche’s autobiography shows how practitioners of all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism lived and practiced together in harmony, especially during the early years of exile in India. It was only when the CTA launched a virulent smear campaign against Dorje Shugden that the general public began to label Dorje Shugden a sectarian practice. In truth, Dorje Shugden’s practice is no more sectarian than the practices of other Dharma Protectors such as Mahakala Bernagchen, Achi Chokyi Drolma or Dorje Legpa, who protect the Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu and Nyingma schools respectively.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

By the 1980s, the Tibetan government had failed to fulfil multiple promises to return the Tibetan people to their homeland. A scapegoat was needed and they made one out of an ancient Buddhist practice, pinning the loss of Tibet and the failure of the Tibetan cause on Dorje Shugden. In his autobiography, Zasep Rinpoche is of the same opinion, stating that “…the [Dorje Shugden] controversy was orchestrated by the Tibetan Central Administration…”

The Tibetan leadership effectively sanctioned witch-hunts on Dorje Shugden practitioners and persecuted them using government instruments, declaring that simply by being a Shugden worshipper, one was effectively an enemy of the Tibetan nation.

As a result of the hatred against Dorje Shugden practitioners instigated by the Tibetan leadership, virtually all Shugden Buddhists had to fear for their lives, or at least for their safety.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Dorje Shugden’s beneficial practice has continued to thrive due to the courage and commitment of high lamas such as Zasep Tulku Rinpoche.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

For centuries, Dorje Shugden has been practiced alongside the highest practices of the Gelug and Sakya lineages. Zasep Tulku Rinpoche’s list of transmission is an indication that the highest scholars viewed the Protector as an enlightened being compatible with their yidam practices.

The 11th Dalai Lama Khedrup Gyatso

Here is the direct quote which is quoted directly from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s autobiagraphy on page 123-124:-

Enthroned as guardian of the Yellow Hat Teachings,
By the Chinese emperor, the Dalai Lama, and his regent
~ Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s autobiagraphy on page 123-124

As for this, during the first period of the time of the eleventh Dalai Lama Kedrup Gyatso and the regent Ratreng Hotogtu Ngawang Yeshe Tsultrim Gyaltsen, the Great Dharma King Nechung and the Lhasa Trokang Gyalchen Shugden were both swift to perform activities and both were very renowned to give accurate prophesies.

Resident in Tibet was a high Chinese minister who was powerful and oppressive named Amben Che Trungtang. He had some very important questions to ask for prophecy that he had written in Chinese.

He came to the Lhasa Trode Kangsar Protector Palace and, in front of the image of the Dharmapala, burned the questions he had written in Chinese, and demanded that the Dharmapala (Shugden) give clear prophesies in answer to his questions during an invocation the following day.

When Dharmapala was invoked the next day, he gave explicit powerful answers to the questions in the correct order. Trungtang, with delighted conviction, informed the emperor Dhakong who awarded a proclamation of praise to Gyalchen of the Trokang Temple with a pandit’s hat, and also gave a pandit’s hat to Nechung at the same time.

Emperor Dhakong

The regent Ratreng, the Kashag, the Shabpa, the head secretary and so forth, ordained and lay officials from the high to low, and the Chinese Amban and his entourage went to Nechung in the morning and after a ceremonial offering of the new pandit’s hat, then went to Lhasa Trode Kangsar. There, in the center of a large stone courtyard, inside a pitched tent, in an elaborate auspicious ceremony, over the door of the protector palace was offered the pandit’s award.

The Trokang oracle, the temple monks, and general chief monks, with the regent Ratreng Rinpoche, the Chinese Amban, the Kashag, and Shabpa as chief attendees, Tibetan and Chinese people of all ranks were offered a feast and had a huge festival.

With the Chinese emperor Dhakong and the Lord of Buddhas, the Dalai Lama, patron and lama together, they all praised and enthroned Gyalchen Dorje Shugden as principal protector of the Yellow Hat Teachings as praised in this part of the verse.

I have seen with my own eyes a record of this and the previously related story in which the minister Bumtangpa was saved from execution, in the notations of the office of the Kashag of the Tibetan government, in the guest book diary for the respective dates where the essence of what occurred in each instance was described.

From Shugden’ s puja praise:
“Enthroned as guardian of the Yellow Hat Teachings
By the Chinese emperor, the Dalai Lama, and his regent,
You generated the intent to protect the Teachings from now
Until the Buddha, Aspiring One, praise to you!”

天命皇帝佛王供施主，晋封黄帽教派大护法
从今乃至胜解如来间，发心保护教法尊前赞！

by Big Uncle

The word ‘ban’ means ‘to prohibit esp. by legal means or social pressure’ (Longmans Dictionary); ‘formally prohibit’ or ‘formal or authoritative prohibition’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary); ‘to prohibit, … forbid’ or ‘an official prohibition’, ‘a public proclamation or edict’ (Collins Dictionary).

In the ‘New Light English-Tibetan Dictionary’ compiled by T.G. Dongthog, second edition, p31, LTWA, 1985, the Tibetan word translated as ‘ban’ is ‘bkag.sdom byed.pa’. The Tibetan word ‘dam.bsgrag’ is more or less synonymous with ‘bkag.sdom’; ‘dam bsgrag’ is taken to mean a ban or official proclamation against something, and carries a stronger emphasis than ‘bkag.sdom’. As one Tibetan put it, a ‘dam.bsgrag’ comes after a ‘bkag.sdom’.

The following are a number of references both in Tibetan and English that clearly demonstrate the imposition of a ban.

1. On May 22nd 1996 a circular was distributed by the Kashag, the cabinet of the exile Tibetan government, (each page carrying the official seal of the Tibetan government), which quoted extensively from a talk given by the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala on March 21st 1996.The Kashag statement (page 2, 3rd paragraph) reads quoting from the Dalai Lama:
   

   ‘yang phebs dgongs su lar nas ~ gong sa lnga pa chen po’i skabs la sprul sku grags pa rgyal mtshan dang ma ‘grigs pai gnas tshul rnam thar nang gsal yod la / gsang wa rgya can gyi nang du’ng (letters indistinct) ha cang gsal po yod / de dag la khungs gnang nas sku phreng bcu gsum pas ‘dam bsgrags’ gnang yod / khong dgongs pa gzhan don du gshegs rjes chab srid kyi zhabs ‘degs zhu mkhan cho’i nang nas yin na’ng ‘dra / phyogs gzhan dag nas yin na’ng ‘dra / mdor na lha srung bsten phyogs thog nas yin na’ng ‘ng / mang po zhig sku mdun sku gong ma ‘tso zhing gzhes pa’i skabs la btang stoms (letters indistinct) su yod pa de dag gzhi nas ‘pag ‘tshag brgyab (next word unintelligible) mang po zhig chags yod / dol rgyal ni de’i gras shig chags yod / dom rang ~ gong sa lnga ba chen po’i skye gral du yod pa dang / de bzhin sku mdun sku gong ma dang las ‘brel thong (letter indistinct) ma yin pa yod pa zhig yin pas ~ gong sa lnga ba chen po dang sku mdun sku gong ma’i skabs nas phyag len yod wa ‘de’e mjug bskyal rgyu nga’i ‘gan yin / mi kha shas kyi sang (letter indistinct) war mi ‘gro wa yong gi yod kyang / ‘di nga’i ngos kyi ‘gan yin zhing / …

   ‘Basically the autobiography of the 5th Dalai Lama is explicit on the conflict between the Dalai Lama and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. The ‘Secret Vision’ is also clear on this. Based on them, the 13th Dalai Lama issued a ‘ban’. Many things that remained anonymous during his lifetime, on the part of government ministers as well as the common public, started thrashing about after his death. Gyalchen is one of them. I have come to be counted amongst the line of the 5th Dalai Lama. I feel a definite karmic connection with my predecessor. It is my mandate to complete what was in practice during the 5th Dalai Lama and my predecessor. This is my responsibility.’

   The Kashag’s quote is based on the text of the Dalai Lama’s talk at the preparatory session of Tamdrin Yangsang and Sangdrub empowerments, Thekchen Cheoling Temple, McCleod Ganj, March 21st 1996: page 2 line 4, in which he said: ‘…de’i khungs byas te sku phreng bchu gsum pas skabs ‘dam bsgrags’ gnang yod …’

2. From a booklet entitled ‘Selected Addresses of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the issue of propitiating Protector Deities’, published by Sherig Parkhang, Dharamsala, July 10th 1996
   1. from the address by HH the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, May 5th 1996, p175, line 16
      

      ‘It may have been about ten years ago. While giving a Lamrim teaching at Drepung I once gave my reasons for issuing the ban (dam.bsgrags).’

   2. ibid, p183, line 11
      

      ‘In this way came the reasons, on account of which I have issued the ban (dam.bsgrags) in recent times. In banning (this reliance on Shugden), many came forward and declared that henceforth they will abide by my injunctions. I happily thank and appreciate their gesture.’

3. From a letter to Ganden Shartse Monastic College, from the Tibetan exile- government Department of Religion and Culture, Dharamsala, 5th May 1996:
   

   ‘A letter of the Private Office of the Dalai Lama dated 30th March 1996, with a video cassette of the Dalai Lama’s address given in the Spring during the Lamrim teachings forbidding (bsten gsol mi chog pa) reliance on Dhogyal as well as an emphatic address (bka’ slob nan pebs) has been sent (to the monastery).’

4. From a letter to the Abbot of Sermey Monastic College, Byllakuppe, from the Private Office of HH the Dalai Lama, March 30th 1996:
   

   ‘As you are aware, the great 13th Dalai Lama had issued a ‘ban’ on the worship of Dorje Shugden on the basis of the Great 5th Dalai Lama’s secret visions. In addition to our government oracles pointing towards danger to the health of HH the Dalai Lama, as well as the cause of Tibet due to the worship of Shugden, after this ‘ban’, this observation is also the conclusion reached by His Holiness after years of observation.’

   ‘ched ‘bul / dgongs par mnga’ gsal ~ rgyal mchog lnga pa chen poi gsung rgya can nang dol rgyal ‘bkag sdom’ dgos pa gsal ba ltar bka’ drin zla med ~ rgyal mchog sku phreng bcu gsum pa chen pos dmigs bsal ‘dam bsgrags bkag sdom’ mdzad yod pa de ltar yang / dus phyes rgyal chen bsten gsol rgya che byas pa ‘dis spyi nor ~ gong sa ~ skyabs mgon chen poi sku pya dang / bod bstan srid mi rigs rang dwang dang bcas par gnod ‘gal bar chad ci che yong sum skor gzhung bsten chos skyong kun nas snga rjes su bka’ lung phebs pai khar/ gtso che spyi nor ~ gong sa ~ kyabs mgon chen po mchog nas lo mang ring brtag dpyad zab nan sgo gang sa nas bkyangs pai snying por / bstan srung dmar nag gnyis dang / …’

5. From information produced by the Research and Analysis Wing, Tibetan exile government, Department of Security, report number: 28/7.8/1997:
   

   ‘His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in view of the present and future pros and cons on Tibetan politics and religion, through various religious investigations, has given repeated talks about the need to give up reliance on Dolgyal. Specifically, after issuing an emphatic ban at his spring teachings of 1996, most of the Tibetans living in exile and within Tibet, who are gifted with intelligence and patriotism, have respectfully compiled and appreciatively mended their faith accordingly. This deserves to be applauded.’‘… skyabs mgon chen po mchog gis / bod bstan srid spyi byu’i ‘phral phugs kyi khe nyen la gzhigs te / chos phyogs kyi brtag thabs sna tshogs brgyud / dol rgyal bsten gsol mtshams ‘jog dgos gal che ba’i blang dor bka’ slob snga rjes phebs pa dang / lhag par du 1996 loi dpyid chos skabs ‘dgag bya spyi nan shugs cher’ bstsal rjes / rigs zhen blo gros dang ldan pa’i gzhigs byes gnyis su gnas ‘khod bod mi phal mo ches bka’ gsung spyi bos blangs te /

6. From an interview with the Dalai Lama, ‘The World Tonight’ BBC Radio 4, 10.00 p.m. 16th July 1996:
   

   ‘It is well known that the worshipper of that spirit usual approach, a little bit sectarian. So that does not go well with my approach. I myself, in early age, I also did practise this. I was also a worshipper of the Deity. Then about 20 years ago I found through my own investigation, not suitable. So therefore, you see I also started some restriction. Then, beginning of this year, once more I repeated this. This time our exile parliament and many big monasteries made some effort. That is why a few individuals here and there complain.’

   Most people would regard making an ‘effort’ to enforce a ‘restriction’ as fulfilling the definition of a ban. Since the Dalai Lama initiated the restriction, and the effort is being made by the exile parliament, with the Dalai Lama being the head of the exile government, it is clear that the ban both originates from the Dalai Lama and is being implemented in his name, with his knowledge, approval and support.

7. From an interview with the Dalai Lama on Swiss TV ’10 vor 10’ 7th January 1998
   Although originally transmitted in German, the questions and answers can be heard distinctly in English. The numbers on the side refer to the time on the video recording.
   (Question to the Dalai Lama by Swiss journalist Beat Regli:)

   14:58 [BR] ‘Why this ban?’
   15:04 [DL]
   ‘Tibetan Buddhism is such a profound tradition. The danger of such practice is for Tibetan Buddhism to degenerate into spirit worship.’15:41 [Commentator]
   To his own people he gave these written reasons:
   ‘Propitiating Dolgyal does great harm to the cause of Tibet. It also imperils the life of the Dalai Lama.’ May 199615:24 [BR]
   ‘Are you aware the extent to which your ban can lead to violence when Tibetans think that your life is in danger?’
   16:01 [DL] ‘No! No!’
   16:06 [Commentator]
   He continues to bring up the subject in public talks. A commission of his exile government found no wrongdoing against the worshippers of this deity.
   16:21 [DL]
   ‘Everybody you can ask. The majority, I think 99%, completely agrees
   or follows my advice, and from this side, no single record about violence.’

   19:05 [BR]
   ‘Why don’t you simply advise people not to revere the deity and to be tolerant with those who continue to practice it and under no circumstances to use violence?’
   19:18 [DL]
   ‘Nobody harming! Nobody harming on them!’

   19:24 [BR]
   ‘I saw them myself in the newspapers.’
   [DL] 19:28 ‘No!’
   ‘I think rumours!’
   19:31 [Commentator]
   Tashi Angdu is the general secretary of the society that published the ad which demands ruthless action against all critics of the Dalai Lama. He is a renowned politician, president of the Tibetan regional council.
   19:50 [TA]
   The nature of our work and the views of the government are one. We don’t do anything that goes against the views of the government.’
   19:59 [Commentator]
   Willingly he confirms to us that their Society also threatens to use violence against those Dalai Lama critics who won’t listen to them.
   20:09 [TA]

   ‘People and deities are exactly the same. There are official deities and non-official deities. Only deities that are recognized by the government may be worshipped. Worshipping deities that are not recognized by the government is against the law.’

8. It is clear from the recordings that the Dalai Lama well understands the meaning of the word ‘ban’ (there is a translator present who is occasionally heard speaking in the background). The Dalai Lama does not deny that there is a ban, only that this ban has led to violence. Furthermore, it is clear from the Dalai Lama’s answer to the third question that his intention was not simply to give advice.
   If the Dalai Lama doesn’t deny the existence of a ban against the practice of Dorje Shugden, why should anyone else?
9. The following document, though not containing the word ‘ban’, nevertheless clearly fulfils the requirements of a ‘prohibition by legal means or social pressure’; a ban by any other name:A copy of a ‘Special Notice to Doctors and Staff Members’ written on paper letter-headed Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala etc. The English translation that accompanied this reads:
   

   ‘As we all know our exile government oracles pointed out repeatedly and in explicit clarity that the worship of Dorje Shugden poses danger to the well-being of the Dalai Lama, besides posing danger to the cause of Tibet.

   ‘Above all, in the recent Lamrim and Tamdrin Yangsang addresses, His Holiness has again emphasised on the worship of Dorje Shugden. Herewith we bring out an extract of the addresses. Regarding this, all government employees in Dharamsala have already passed resolution in favour of it. Since it concerns the cause of the Tibetan people and above all His Holiness well-being, we cannot leave it as it is.

   ‘Therefore if we do not have amongst us [anyone] who worships Dorje Shugden, we should resolve not to worship Shugden in the future. Whereas if there is anyone who worships Dorje Shugden they should repent the past and stop worshipping. They must submit a declaration that they will not worship in the future. In case there is anyone who doesn’t abide by the addresses of His Holiness to give up Shugden worship, then, since there is nothing more important than the well-being of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan cause, such person should submit their resignation. There is no other alternative for such [a] person.

   ‘One should also take stringent responsibility to urge relatives who worship Shugden to abandon this worship. At the gathering of the relevant staff members, make this announcement. And make sure that no one comes up with excuses of not having heard it. We also request you to send us the signed resolution at once from each and every one.
   from the Department of Health
   Dated: April 18, 1996
   c.c. Welfare Officer
   Signed by Assistant General Secretary and bearing Seal of the Department of Health.

10. In an interview with the Dalai Lama in the Swiss newspaper ‘Tages Anzeiger’ March 7th 1998
    When asked how Tibetans in exile and in his home country took up his advice to stop worshipping Dorje Shugden, he says: ‘Many Tibetans took my advice. But in certain areas of Tibet the Shugden worship increased and also in India there were monasteries who purposely worshipped Shugden. For this reason I strengthened the restriction of the practice in 1995.’ (translated from German).
    It is clear that the Dalai Lama is making a distinction between ‘advice’ and ‘restriction’, and that his intention after 1995 was not simply to advise but to strengthen a restriction.

Source : http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/guest-blogs/ban-by-another-name