By: Tyr Beswick

Since they entered the country over 60 years ago, the Tibetans have had free reign to carry out their activities, whether religious, social or political. Led by the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; the Tibetan leadership based in Dharamsala, North India), they have taken full advantage of this kindness granted to them by the Indian government. However, instead of using this platform to benefit India, the CTA has exploited India as a platform to carry out their political agendas. Thus, the last 60 years have seen Tibetans using India as a base from which they can repeatedly provoke China on the issue of a Free Tibet.

The CTA has always shown a total absence of care for their host country’s political relations with other nation states although it is India who has been kindest to them. In 1959, when no other nation came to their aid, and no one else was open to hosting 95,000 exiled Tibetans, it was India who opened up her borders. However, the CTA has not shown India the gratitude she deserves.

Hence given the CTA’s behavior, it is unsurprising to learn that they have damaged their host country’s relationship with China on many occasions. But now India is pushing back against this Tibetan exploitation, and using the CTA and the Tibetans in-exile as a tool to improve ties with China instead. Most recently:

1. Vijay Gokhale, India’s Foreign Secretary met with both the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Prime Minister, Lobsang Sangay to tell them to move the “Thank You India” events out of Delhi, as India gears up to appease China. The instruction was a surprising one, as the events were supposed to be a way for the Tibetans to show their gratitude to India. But it does not seem like the Indians were interested, preferring instead to find ways of reaching out to China. Perhaps this show of Tibetan gratitude was too little, too late. Regardless, the CTA went ahead with their event anyway but had to hold it on a much smaller scale at their local temple in Dharamsala.
2. Gokhale went so far as to inform government officials not to attend any Tibetan events, even issuing a memo to this effect. The memo was leaked, an act which some think was intentional. This hints at two possibilities. First, it was a ploy to unofficially let China know that India is changing its stance towards the Tibetans, so India can get into China’s good books. Second, it was India’s way of letting ordinary Tibetans know she is serious about reaching out to China.
3. Some have also speculated that the upper echelons of power in Delhi were displeased by the CTA’s insensitivity towards the current state of bilateral relations between India and China. Having lived in India for the past 60 years, the CTA is fully aware of the necessity of maintaining the delicate balance of Sino-Indian ties. Yet, they went ahead with their “Thank You India’ celebrations without coordinating with the relevant Indian ministries and without any due consideration of how it could impact India’s foreign policy.

So just why is India changing its stance after 60 years of supporting the Tibetans in every manner possible? A brief look at recent global events makes the reasons behind India’s turnabout very clear — this is not the first time that the CTA have pulled a stunt like this with potentially huge negative repercussions for India.

1. It has been said that Samdhong Rinpoche’s secret visit to China last year contributed to India’s renewed sense of urgency in improving their relationship with China. Although no details have emerged about Samdhong Rinpoche’s visit, it is widely assumed he visited China to strike a deal about the Dalai Lama returning to Tibet. In the past, China has made it clear that any deal of this nature will only be approved if the CTA acknowledges that Tibet has always been a part of China. India sees this acknowledgement as problematic because it would call into question the legality of the McMahon Line. This is the border that Tibet and British India agreed upon during the 1914 Simla Conference; if the CTA admits Tibet was never independent, the Simla agreement becomes null and void, thus throwing into question the India-China border and opening up all kinds of territorial disputes. These are border territories that India is not willing to accede so building positive bilateral relations with China now, is a method for India to reduce the risk of potential territorial disputes in the future.
2. Staving off potential border disputes with China is just one of many incentives for India to improve relations with their giant neighbor. At home, the Indian leadership are finding that the CTA themselves are creating incentives for India to rescind her support of the Tibetans. In the last 60 years, the CTA have done very little to assist India with her many domestic and foreign challenges. Oftentimes, the CTA has even added to them, especially in stirring up trouble between China and India during sensitive times. We saw this most recently during the 2017 Doklam standoff, when Bhutan and China were locked in a territorial dispute over the Doklam area. India, claiming to act on Bhutan’s behalf, sought to intervene since Doklam is in their northeastern border and any instability there could spill over into Indian territory. As a result, China became upset at India’s presumed interference and the two nations nearly came to blows.
3. Despite the tense situation, the CTA President Lobsang Sangay decided to take a trip up to North India anyway. There, he unfurled the Tibetan flag at Pangong Lake, which is on India’s border with China’s Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). China saw this as a deliberate act of provocation since the flag symbolizes Tibetan independence and, by extension, the CTA’s dangerous ‘separatist’ activities to destabilize the TAR. And of course, they blamed India for allowing Lobsang Sangay to travel there, thus worsening India’s relationship with China.

With the relationship between India and China already so bad, any leader worth their salt would have been respectful and stayed away. Yet Lobsang Sangay deliberately sought to make matters worse, an indication that the Tibetans are definitely not innocent. Their need for one-upmanship over China has always overridden Indian welfare, and their actions reflect their ingratitude for India’s past kindnesses and disdain for her brighter future. It is this disdain that has caused India to react skillfully, outmaneuvering the Tibetans as they advance their aim of creating closer ties with China. The CTA thought it was safe, thought they could continue using India without apprise. However, the Indian government can only be taken advantage of so many times before this powerful, sophisticated democracy tires of their manipulation and games. The Tibetan leadership should realize one thing – while India may talk about a “sensitive time” with China, the same can be said of their relationship with the CTA, who should tread very, very carefully lest they lose Indian support altogether.

Is Trump Politics Inspiring Modi to Change His China Policy?

Click to enlarge. (Source: https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tibet-india-china-doklam-xi-jinping-dalai-lama-narendra-modi/story/1/23232.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: Shashi Kei

There is now confirmation that the Dalai Lama’s personal envoy and ex-Prime Minister of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) lied about his visit to China. Professor Samdhong Rinpoche’s trip, which was reported by no less than five news platforms and verified by the current head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, was flatly denied by Samdhong Rinpoche two weeks after news of his secret travels broke.

However, just over three weeks later, Samdhong Rinpoche’s denial was exposed to be false by Jayadeva Ranade, a former officer of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the primary foreign intelligence agency of India set up to closely monitor foreign threats to the country, including any from China. The former RAW officer revealed that Samdhong Rinpoche would certainly have met with senior Chinese officials including Xi Jinping’s appointee to The United Front Work Department, which is the very department set up by the Chinese Communist Party to manage Tibetan affairs. Therefore, given the reliability of the source of information, it is safe to say that Samdhong Rinpoche’s denial was disingenuous.

On its own, Samdhong Rinpoche’s purposeful misrepresentation of a fact is disturbing, not least because as a senior ordained monk who is looked up to for inspiration and guidance, his conduct can either inspire or dishearten younger monastic aspirants and pursers of the Dharma. Add to that the fact that Samdhong Rinpoche represents the Dalai Lama, supposedly a living symbol of truth and virtue who commands a vital position in the Tibetan leadership that draws support based on moral grounds, and Samdhong Rinpoche’s dishonesty is jarring. As a result, a number of very important questions should be raised:

(i) To begin with, any news about the Dalai Lama’s envoy having dialogue with Chinese officials, presumably about the possible return of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people to their homeland, should be welcome news. After all, about 150,000 Tibetans in exile and 6 million Tibetan people in the homeland deserve to know. They have waited over 50 years for signs that this dream that has defined the Tibetan diaspora might be possible; a dream for which 150 desperate Tibetans have set themselves on fire, as recently as May 2017. Sharing such news would serve to lift the spirits of the Tibetan people and many others around the world who have prayed, supported and campaigned for the Tibetan people’s return to their homeland. So why would Samdhong Rinpoche deny that he had talks with Chinese officials at all?

The CTA has recently been caught with their pants down on a number of corruption charges both abroad and in Dharamsala. The present leadership under Sikyong Lobsang Sangay has proven to be ineffective except for when it comes to disposing of rivals such as Lukar Jam and Penpa Tsering. Domestically the CTA has made it taboo for Tibetan refugees to accept Indian passports which would no doubt improve their chances of securing a better future as citizens of India, whilst CTA officials themselves have secured citizenships and permanent residencies abroad.

In short, the CTA is caught in its own entanglements that have arisen out of the self-serving agendas of CTA officials and their cronies. Much of the efforts the CTA has made in recent years has been to split the Tibetan community with myriad divisive issues so that the people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to ask what the CTA has been doing. Samdhong Rinpoche’s latest duplicity is very much characteristic of the Tibetan leadership and it is only a matter of time before we learn what Samdhong Rinpoche is hiding.

(ii) Or could Samdhong Rinpoche be hiding the fact that in order to secure favorable terms for the Dalai Lama and selected mandarins in Samdhong Rinpoche’s coterie, the Tibetan leadership would ultimately be willing to betray India who have provided for them for over half a century and at great costs to themselves?

As Jayadeva Ranade observed in his article, Samdhong Rinpoche’s visit takes place at a time when Sino-Indian relations are testy. And it was a shock that Samdhong Rinpoche would so insensitively attempt to reconcile with India’s adversary at a time when India needs support. Either Samdhong Rinpoche is completely inept at basic diplomacy, which is crucial for his role as personal envoy of the Dalai Lama, or he does not care about the wellbeing of the Tibetan people’s generous host. This is something the Indian people have begun to observe of late and consequently, more are voicing their unhappiness over how the Tibetans do not contribute back to India. They pay no rental, no taxes, and the CTA does not raise any funds to support Indian community projects. In fact, the Tibetan ‘refugees’ do far better and are far wealthier than the majority of the Indian people who continue to languish in sheer poverty.



Sino-Indian relations have deteriorated over time and there are multiple flashpoints along the Chinese-Indian border. The Tibet and Dalai Lama issues have not helped. At times like this, soft but effective pressure such as the Dalai Lama’s spiritual influence comes in handy in swaying sentiments in contested regions and other Sino-Indian cross-border issues. The Dalai Lama’s power should never be discounted, especially looking at how the Dalai Lama has managed to mesmerise the world with his charms longer than any statesman in living history, and enrolled a significant portion of the global populace into various manifestations of the ‘Tibetan cause’ even though no one really knows what the cause is.

Is Samdhong Rinpoche’s lie about his visit to China an indication that a deal is being negotiated with China that, in consummation, would hang India out to dry?


(iii) Perhaps the most disturbing element of Samdhong Rinpoche’s deception is how brazenly he conducts it. What most people see is an elderly person in monk’s robes who, as a two-term kalon tripa (Prime Minister of the CTA), held the fragmented Tibetan refugee community together. What fewer people know is the grotesque suppression of human rights that the exiled Tibetan people suffered under a government with Samdhong Rinpoche at the helm, and the damage Samdhong Rinpoche’s CTA inflicted with its schismatic policies and machinations.

It was under Samdhong Rinpoche’s leadership that the religious ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden was imposed in 1996. Samdhong Rinpoche directed the Tibetan Cabinet and Parliament to pass laws which in effect legalized the witch-hunt and persecution of Shugden Buddhists whose loyalty to the purity of their spiritual practice stood in the way of the CTA’s political ambitions. In 2008, with Samdhong Rinpoche still as the head, the Tibetan leadership inflicted the most damaging blow to the Tibetan monastic community by directing that Shugden-worshipping monks be forced to deny their own faith or be expelled. That directive ruptured the integrity of Tibetan Buddhism in a way Mao’s efforts to destroy Buddhism could not.

To justify his brutal policies, Samdhong Rinpoche had declared in an interview with Al Jazeera in 2009 that

… A lot of Shugden practitioners are becoming terrorists, and that they are willing to kill anybody. They are willing to beat up anybody.

Samdhong Rinpoche added that “It is very clear now people who are practicing Dorje Shugden are very close to the PRC leadership”

By falsely accusing Shugden Buddhists to be colluding with the Tibetan people’s enemy and by tagging them as “terrorists”, Samdhong Rinpoche struck a very sore chord with the people and unleashed a powerful source of pent-up anger against China. This anger was directed at innocent Shugden monks and lay practitioners who were already stricken because they had left their homes to follow the Dalai Lama into exile. In short, Samdhong Rinpoche succeeded in turning the Tibetan people against their own. However, there was never any truth in Samdhong Rinpoche’s false charges against Dorje Shugden practitioners and the fact remains that, throughout the entirety of the Dorje Shugden religious ban, Samdhong Rinpoche has never provided evidence to support his allegations or explain how Tibetan and non-Tibetan Buddhists instantly became allies with the CCP merely by worshipping an ancient Tibetan deity. Unfortunately, that false accusation took traction and the unity of the largest Tibetan Buddhist sect fell apart.

As it turns out, now we see that instead of Shugden Buddhists having alliances with the Chinese government as Samdhong Rinpoche has alleged, it is he who has been keeping friends in the CCP all this time. Samdhong Rinpoche’s recent visit to China could not have happened if he did not have very close ties with high officials in the Chinese Communist Central Committee. He is after all the personal envoy of the Dalai Lama whom the Chinese government regards with great caution. Before that, he was a two-term CTA prime minister who had attacked China’s reputation at each opportunity he could find. And yet, Samdhong Rinpoche managed to enter China quietly and hold secret talks with high Chinese officials. None of this could have happened if Samdhong Rinpoche did not have strings in the right places – strings that he has maintained throughout the years. The Chinese government must have some trust in Samdhong Rinpoche to let him in so easily.

In what is clearly an obscene twist of facts, Dorje Shugden Buddhists have been wrongly accused for years for being friendly with China and have been persecuted by the Tibetan people as a result. In the meantime, it is the accuser himself who has harboured secret Chinese networks and yet the Tibetan people blindly continue to place their trust in him. So we can clearly see that Samdhong Rinpoche, who began the unholy political crusade against Dorje Shugden worshippers, is someone who is not impartial to lying and deception.

Today the Tibetan community in exile is completely fragmented courtesy of a number of CTA policies that Samdhong Rinpoche initiated and Lobsang Sangay continued. To achieve the fading Tibetan dream, the people need to close ranks and set aside differences that their leadership introduced and perpetuated. They need to unite under a strong, committed and competent leadership that focuses on the welfare of the Tibetan people. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as long as the old robber-barons such as Samdhong Rinpoche are in power and the people are regarded as nothing more than chattels at the disposal of feudal lords, regardless of how many ‘democracy days’ the Tibetan people celebrate.

Tibet Developments May Put Pressure on India

Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/column/tibet-developments-may-put-pressure-on-india/20180107.htm. Click to read the full report.

Former Indian Intelligence Claims Samdhong Rinpoche Visited China

Source: http://www.tibetanjournal.com/index.php/2018/01/07/former-indian-intelligence-claims-samdhong-rinpoche-visited-china/. Click to read the full report.

There is clear evidence that the ban on Dorje Shugden’s practice, which was decreed by the Dalai Lama, has created dissension and division within the Tibetan exile communities in India and abroad. Dorje Shugden practitioners are alternately labeled as spirit worshippers who are destroying Tibetan Buddhism from within, Chinese spies who are paid to create discontent within the Tibetan population, or samaya-breakers who are endangering the Dalai Lama’s life. The followers of the Dalai Lama ostracize Shugden practitioners as a direct result of these pronouncements.

Consequently, the ban has driven a deep wedge into the heart of Tibetan society, resulting in families broken, marriages estranged, and friendships lost. Nowhere is the effect of the ban felt and seen more clearly than in the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries of the Gelugpa lineage where, not only are spiritual friendships rent asunder but worst of all, the sacred bond between teacher and student is severed in the name of the ban. This has culminated in the great expulsion of Shugden-practicing monks from their mother monasteries, and in the formation of Shar Ganden and Serpom monasteries, which are home to well over 1,000 Shugden monks today.

For over 20 years, the Dalai Lama has taken an unyielding stance against Shugden Buddhists, openly and repeatedly condemning the practice, while his administration has passed parliamentary resolutions criminalizing the followers of this enlightened Buddhist deity. Yet, in spite of all the abuse and false accusations hurled against Dorje Shugden and his practitioners, the honest truth is that the Dalai Lama owes his fame, success, and even his life to Dorje Shugden and the attained masters that uphold this practice.

Here are just a few examples of why the Dalai Lama is indebted to the great Dorje Shugden Lamas, both past and present.

The Two Tutors

An official portrait of the Dalai Lama (center) and his two tutors, H.H. Kyabje Ling Rinpoche (left) and H.H. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (right)

When the 14th Dalai Lama came of age in Tibet, two imperial tutors or Yongzins were appointed for him. The imperial tutors are responsible for the Dalai Lama’s formal education in grammar, arithmetic, dialectics, philosophy, lamrim, and innumerable tantric initiations and oral transmissions. Given their great responsibility, it is to be expected that the Dalai Lama’s tutors would be carefully selected from among the most erudite masters of the time. Thus, it was no surprise that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was chosen to be the Dalai Lama’s Senior Tutor and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the Junior Tutor.

The relationship between the Dalai Lama and his two extraordinary Gurus was very close and spanned over 30 years. So close was their relationship that Ling Rinpoche was likened to be the Dalai Lama’s father while Trijang Rinpoche was the mother. Ling Rinpoche was primarily occupied with giving teachings on Buddhist philosophy, while Trijang Rinpoche taught the Lamrim and the tantras. In fact, most of the Dalai Lama’s tantric initiations were received from Trijang Rinpoche.

Just like a mother nurtures her child, Trijang Rinpoche also taught the Dalai Lama everything else he needed to know for someone of his position. As the Dalai Lama’s birth father died young and his mother came from a peasant background, his parents could not teach him the proper behavior befitting such a high lama. So it was ultimately Trijang Rinpoche who taught the Dalai Lama “how to be a Dalai Lama” – how to speak, how to receive guests, noble manners, grooming, etc.

It is important to note that both tutors were very close students of Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche and received a great number of lineages, teachings and transmissions from him, including the practice of Dorje Shugden. Therefore, most of what the Dalai Lama teaches in his stadium-packed events today is largely due to the kindness of these brilliant masters: Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche AND Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche.

Yet, the Dalai Lama dishonors the kindness of his tutors and the lineage masters with every negative statement he makes against Dorje Shugden. Not only were Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche staunch Dorje Shugden practitioners, they also proliferated Dorje Shugden’s practice. Kyabje Ling Rinpoche composed a fulfillment text propitiating Dorje Shugden, while Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche composed ‘Music Delighting An Ocean of Protectors‘, a commentary of Dagpo Rinpoche’s praise to Dorje Shugden called ‘Infinite Aeons’ and one of the most definitive and complete documents on Vajradhara Dorje Shugden, his nature, function and history.

During a 1997 teaching in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama did acknowledge how much he owes Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, saying:

I received immeasurable kindness from him even when I was very small. It may seem a little boastful if I give you this example of my strong faith in Trijang Rinpoche. I often dream of my lamas, and in one clear dream Kyabje Rinpoche was urinating and I was lapping it up. So, I do have single pointed faith in him.

Yet, in an interview with Swiss Public Television in 1998, the Dalai Lama vehemently said that his Gurus were wrong about the nature of Dorje Shugden (watch the interview here). Once again, the Dalai Lama contradicts himself. If the Dalai Lama really means what he says about his faith in Trijang Rinpoche, why doesn’t he uphold ALL of the teachings and lineages that were bestowed upon him, including the practice of Dorje Shugden, as a sign of his devotion to his lamas?

The Western Buddhist Pioneers

Dalai Lama (centre), Geshe Rabten (left) and Gonsar Rinpoche (right) with members of Tashi Rabten during the Dalai Lama’s visit

Europe

The late Geshe Rabten was an erudite scholar, unexcelled debater and a fearless lama who first introduced the complete and complex teachings of Buddhism in the West. Appointed as the philosophical assistant to the Dalai Lama in 1964, Geshe Rabten moved to Switzerland in 1974 to serve as the Abbot of Rikon Monastery in Tosstal, at the Dalai Lama’s request. Combining his understanding of the Western mind and ideas with his ability to explain Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy with powerful clarity, Geshe Rabten quickly gained a following of Western students and became the pioneer in spreading Tibetan Buddhism in Western Europe.

Unknown to most, it was Geshe Rabten who arranged the Dalai Lama’s very first visit to Europe in 1973, inviting him for a tour that included Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Germany, and UK. During this trip, the Dalai Lama gave a discourse on adaptating to Western civilization at Rikon Monastery, Switzerland, on 6 October 1973.

It was also Geshe Rabten who arranged the Dalai Lama’s very first public teaching in the West. Geshe-la invited the Dalai Lama to visit Tharpa Choeling in Mt Pelerin, Switzerland in the summer of 1979, and 900 members of the public attended these historical teachings.

Thus, it is partly due to the kindness of Geshe Rabten that the Dalai Lama has mastered all the Buddhist philosophy and dialectical lessons needed to become the great scholar, debater and master of Buddhism that he is today. And it is entirely due to the kindness of Geshe Rabten that many doors in the West were open to the Dalai Lama, resulting in his eventual fame as the figurehead of Tibetan Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama gave a discourse on adaptating to Western civilization at Rikon Monastery, Switzerland, 6 October 1973

1979: His Holiness the Dalai Lama gives his first public teaching in the West in Tharpa Choeling, with B. Alan Wallace and Helmut Gassner translating

America

A rare portrait of Domo Geshe Rinpoche Ngawang Jigme

In 1971, Kyabje Domo Geshe Rinpoche Ngawang Jigme established the Dungkar Gompa Society in the United States. A property was found in the Catskill Mountains of New York State and was named Gangjong Namgyal, the All Victorious Snow Land.

Then in the summer of 1981, Domo Geshe Rinpoche invited the Dalai Lama to visit the United States, hosting his stay at Gangjong Namgyal. After that initial visit, the fame and influence of the Dalai Lama grew exponentially and resulted in innumerable other trips to America. Thus, it was partly due to the kindness and foresight of Domo Geshe Rinpoche that the way was paved for the Dalai Lama’s eventual popularity in the USA.

Domo Geshe Rinpoche is yet another Dorje Shugden lama who was renowned for creating the Dungkar Oracle that took trance of Dorje Shugden, and for pacifying and installing Namkar Barzin within the entourage of Dorje Shugden.

Today, the Dalai Lama misuses his fame and reputation as a Tibetan Buddhist leader to mislead audiences worldwide into believing that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and that his practice is harmful. Yet, Geshe Rabten, his heart disciple Gonsar Rinpoche and Domo Geshe Rinpoche are all renowned Dorje Shugden practitioners. Thus, when the Dalai Lama renounces Dorje Shugden’s practice, he is ‘biting the hands that fed him’ and that put him on the world stage.

The Dalai Lama’s fame, stature and success today is due to the kindness of Dorje Shugden lamas, past and present

The Life Savers

The 6th Panglung Kuten, Oracle to the Protector Dorje Shugden

The Dalai Lama also appears to have forgotten how Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Dorje Shugden saved his life during the tumultuous period of Chinese military presence in Tibet. It was through Trijang Rinpoche’s counsel that special arrangements were made to seek the advice of Dorje Shugden via the Panglung oracle. And it was Dorje Shugden via this oracle who instructed the Dalai Lama to leave Tibet and revealed the escape route for the fleeing party.

It was also Dorje Shugden practitioners, in the form of the Chushi Gangdruk, who successfully escorted the Dalai Lama out of Tibet in 1959, at the cost of their lives. The Chushi Gangdruk was a society of Khampa warriors, formed at the advice of Dorje Shugden a few years prior. Through his omniscience, Dorje Shugden already knew in 1956 that the Dalai Lama would have to leave Tibet in 1959, and thus insisted the Chushi Gangdruk be formed to escort the Dalai Lama to safety.

Chushi Gangdruk Self Defence Forces, Lhokha, U-Tsang Province, 1958.

And on yet another occasion in December 1999, the Dalai Lama was on the road from Gaya in Bihar to Sarnath on the outskirts of Varanasi when he met with a car accident. The car that was carrying him exploded and would have killed the Dalai Lama had it not been for a bodyguard who pulled the dazed Dalai Lama out of the wreckage just in the nick of time. That bodyguard was in fact a student of Domo Geshe Rinpoche and a staunch Dorje Shugden practitioner.

Thus, on more than one occasion, the Dalai Lama owes his life to Dorje Shugden and his practitioners. Why then does the Dalai Lama say that Dorje Shugden’s practice endangers his life, since the reverse is clearly the case?

The Right Hand Man

Samdhong Rinpoche (right) followed Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s instructions to assist the Dalai Lama

The 5th Samdhong Rinpoche Lobsang Tenzin was elected into power as the Kalon Tripa or Prime Minister of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in 2001. He played an instrumental role in implementing many of the Dalai Lama’s policies. However, before his appointment into office, Samdhong Rinpoche was another staunch Dorje Shugden practitioner, a direct student of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche who was known to take Dorje Shugden pujas very seriously.

Originally, Trijang Rinpoche was grooming Samdhong Rinpoche as a teaching lama who would give initiations, oral transmissions, teachings and blessings. However, when Samdhong Rinpoche entered the political arena, his root teacher Trijang Rinpoche told him to go all the way and follow the Dalai Lama’s advice. During one of his last speeches in office, Samdhong Rinpoche revealed that he did not really care about Tibetan politics and only did his job because it was one of his Guru’s last instructions to him.

The Ingratitude?

It is apparent from these examples that the Dalai Lama has received tremendous benefits from Dorje Shugden and his practitioners. Almost everything the Dalai Lama has – his lineage, teachings, initiations, fame, success, popularity, manners, grooming, even his life – was received from or obtained through the efforts of Dorje Shugden practitioners. Unfortunately, the ban on Dorje Shugden has alienated and outcast the very same people who have brought so much benefit to the Dalai Lama and his works.

From a logical perspective, these examples illustrate how the Dalai Lama’s reasons for the Dorje Shugden ban are weak and hollow.

From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that Dorje Shugden’s practice only brings benefit to everyone that it touches.

And at the most basic level, it is clear that the Dalai Lama’s actions have the result of making him appear ungrateful. This is completely unbefitting of a world-renowned Buddhist master. After all, the virtue of gratitude should be inherent in such an illustrious master, spiritual leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner. It would, therefore, very much behoove the Dalai Lama to address the Dorje Shugden issue to reconcile the differences between the pro- and anti-Shugden parties – if not for the sake of correcting a mistake, then at the very least, in remembrance of the kindness of these great Shugden High Lamas to whom the Dalai Lama is indebted.

It has been 55 years since the Tibetan people became victims of a conflict that engulfed their lives and displaced them from their homes. Since then, the people have been hit by wave after wave of disappointments with the likelihood of them regaining their independence nowhere in sight.

The Tibetan government-in-exile (now known as the Central Tibetan Administration or CTA) have always laid the blame on China for the breakdowns in negotiations between them and the Chinese government. As a matter of fact, the CTA has blamed Beijing for just about everything that has gone awry and rarely is the CTA’s role in any failure ever raised and examined.

It is only when we analyse the leadership culture of the Tibetans-in-exile that a disturbing picture arises – a picture that paints the CTA as being a dishonest government that habitually deceives and manipulates its own people to the detriment of the nation and its future. In fact, remarkable parallels are revealed concerning the CTA’s willingness to lie about topics as important as the fight for Tibetan independence, the Middle Way Approach and even the Dorje Shugden ban, as we shall see in this article.

If we are to appraise the integrity of a government, we have to study its leaders and key figures. In the case of the CTA, besides the Dalai Lama, the most prominent politicians who have shaped the fate of the Tibetan people in exile are Samdhong Rinpoche the ex-Prime Minister of the CTA, Lobsang Sangay the present Sikyong, and Penpa Tsering the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament.

Samdhong Rinpoche is the elder statesman who was very much responsible for shaping the Tibetan people’s fight to regain their homeland. He was also the Prime Minister when the government adopted a policy of apartheid against a large segment of the Tibetan community, the Dorje Shugden worshippers. Recently Samdhong Rinpoche spoke to the students of Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) Suja, which gives us a good opportunity to assess how much value he places on the future of the Tibetan people.

Watch Samdhong Rinpoche’s Speech at TCV Suja

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

Samdhong Rinpoche is the third and hopefully final act in what has been the CTA’s effort in indoctrinating the minds of young Tibetans on the issue of Dorje Shugden, in particular to allay their concerns about the impact the CTA’s religious ban has on the Tibetan community. The Sikyong, Lobsang Sangay, and the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament, Penpa Tsering, both had their turns earlier this year but with disastrous outcomes.

While Penpa Tsering fumbled throughout his manufactured version of Gelugpa history, Lobsang Sangay was completely caught off-guard by students questioning the wisdom of the government’s discriminatory policies towards Dorje Shugden practitioners, borne out of the Dalai Lama’s rather sudden and unexplained prejudice towards the practice. Samdhong Rinpoche’s presence at TCV then, was damage control. At least that was the plan.

As ever, the well-rehearsed narrative presented to the young Tibetans on the Dorje Shugden controversy is that the Dalai Lama and his government are defending the Tibetan people and Buddhism against unprovoked aggression by the Chinese government in their efforts to destabilize Tibetan unity and undermine the ‘Tibetan cause’. It is the same narrative we have been subjected to over countless years, one intended to paint the CTA as the perennial victim.

In the past, as is now, it is a blatant lie. Whilst previously the CTA has been crude in their fabrication and delivery of lies, Samdhong Rinpoche’s speech leaves little doubt as to who the master of misinformation and deception is, perhaps second only to the Dalai Lama himself.

Samdhong Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama – partners in the crime of swindling the Tibetan people

Deception #1: To support Dorje Shugden is to support China

Right from the start, Samdhong Rinpoche wasted no time in stacking the deck by his warning that since the “Dholgyal issue” is being used by the PRC, any attempt to confront and challenge the CTA’s ban would have an adverse effect on the unity of the Tibetan people. In other words, don’t question the ban unless it is your intention to cause greater disharmony.

This is Samdhong Rinpoche’s perverted logic. Even if it’s true that the Chinese government is fanning the Shugden conflict with sponsorships, presumably to destabilize Tibetan unity and undermine the Dalai Lama’s authority as it is often accused of, surely it follows that lifting the ban would disarm the issue and save it from abuse.

In addition, Samdhong Rinpoche made it a point to state that he was there in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the CTA. In this way, the CTA can benefit from Samdhong Rinpoche’s program of misinformation and at the same time, deny any involvement should there be a backlash from his unsavoury campaign.

The truth is, the current Dorje Shugden conflict has little to do with China or Sino-Tibetan politics. It does however have everything to do with the Dalai Lama and the CTA’s decades-long policy of feudal-esque oppression, expropriation of its own people’s thoughts, chronic absence of transparency, lack of accountability, habitual manufacturing of lies and generally playing the Tibetan people and the rest of the world for fools.

Just look at the transcript of Samdhong Rinpoche’s speech. By his own account, he was supposed to tackle a number of issues that have troubled the Tibetan youth. But rather than addressing them as genuine concerns, his speech is clear evidence that he was there to gild over the CTA’s official lies on the Shugden issue, exposed by the students’ questioning. As past CTA leaders have demonstrated, it is far more important to perpetuate the lie than to arrest the rot in the unity of the Tibetan society heading towards disintegration.

Deception #2: There is no ban

For instance, to a student’s question pertaining to the CTA’s Dorje Shugden ban and the social discrimination that flows from it, Samdhong Rinpoche simply insisted that there is no ‘ban’ on the Shugden practice because the Dalai Lama has not issued a decree to forbid it. It is dishonest for Samdhong Rinpoche to make this statement as he, more than anyone else, knows that the government-in-exile and its officers exist only to anticipate and actualize the Dalai Lama’s demands. Samdhong Rinpoche even admitted in the past that the entire Tibetan government-in-exile had to work within the framework defined and limited ONLY by the Dalai Lama’s wishes. (Tim Johnson, Tragedy In Crimson: How The Dalai Lama Conquered The World But Lost The battle With China, Published February 1st 2011 by Nation Books [ISBN13: 9781568586014] p. 130.)

Therefore when the Tibetan Kashag and The Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies (ATPD) legislated in June 1996 and again in September 1997 against the practice of Dorje Shugden, it was in response to the Dalai Lama’s open condemnation of the Shugden practice. These resolutions had the powerful effect of normalizing social codes that essentially criminalized the Shugden practice and turned its practitioners into social pariahs.

It was a significant government policy targeted at the Tibetan community itself, and could not have been executed without a nod from the Dalai Lama who was the indisputable head of the Tibetan people, politically as well as spiritually. So, under the Dalai Lama, not only did the CTA legislate against a religious practice, it began unleashing a series of hate-campaigns designed to turn uninformed Tibetans against their own kin.

Deception #3: Redefining religious freedom

And then, as if to test and establish a new limit of idiocy, Samdhong Rinpoche launched into a sermon based on his perverse construal of various human rights provisions, only to conclude that if anyone’s human rights have been infringed, it is the Dalai Lama’s and not those whose religious practice has been outlawed. To Samdhong Rinpoche, the oppressor has been victimised and by his interpretation, a person’s human rights as provided for by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The Indian Constitution and the Tibetan Charter extends also to the right to publicly condemn, insult and criminalize the practice of another person’s religion! That is not the case of course.

Citing Article 25 of the Indian Constitution in a complete bastardization of the Article’s real intentions, Samdhong Rinpoche insisted that so long as the Dalai Lama can form a negative opinion of the Shugden practice – notwithstanding such opinion being subjective, arbitrary and extremely personal, it also qualifies him to discriminate against the Shugden practice as an exercise of his religious freedom. And further, to challenge the Dalai Lama’s discrimination is tantamount to an infringement of his rights! Bizarre as it is, this was what Samdhong Rinpoche wanted his young audience to believe.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states:

“Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion…”

(http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03.html)

The Dalai Lama demanded the expulsion of Shugden monks from the monasteries. Yet, according to Samdhong Rinpoche, this is merely an expression of religious freedom and to say otherwise would mean that the Dalai Lama’s religious freedom has been infringed!

Did Samdhong Rinpoche misunderstand Article 25?  It is impossible for he is regarded as one of the leading Tibetan scholars of Buddhism, and is also an authority on the works of Mahatma Gandhi and other great thinkers. The law on religious freedom is clear, not merely per the legislature but also as interpreted by the judiciary.

In the Indian Supreme Court case, Rev Stainislaus vs State of M.P. (A.I.R. 1977 SC 908) the court found that Article 25 does protect a person’s right to declare freely and openly one’s faith, but more importantly, that a person’s right to express his religion does not include the right to convert another person to the former’s faith, because the latter is equally entitled to freedom of conscience.

In sum, the Dalai Lama and the CTA are in breach of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution by their attempts to convert Shugden practitioners away from their faith through coercion and/or allurement. Samdhong Rinpoche took a good law that would incriminate an oppressor of religious freedom and deformed it into moral and legal ground for the Dalai Lama and CTA’s crime against human and civil rights to be justified.

And clearly the Indian Government disagrees with Samdhong Rinpoche. The proof is in the permission granted for Shar Ganden and Serpom Monastery, both Dorje Shugden-worshipping institutions, to be established. If Samdhong Rinpoche is correct in his accusation that Shugden worship contravenes morality and is more akin to terrorism, why would the Indian Government allow them to operate openly on Indian soil?

Deception #4: There is no discrimination against Dorje Shugden practitioners

In the same speech, Samdhong Rinpoche also suggested that the presence of these two monastic universities is evidence that there is no discrimination against Dorje Shugden worshippers by the Dalai Lama and CTA. In fact, the opposite is true.

The formation of Shar Ganden and Serpom Monastery (previously Dokham Khangtsen of Ganden Shartse and Pomra Khangtsen of Sera Mey) attest to the Dalai Lama’s prejudice against Shugden monks and their expulsion from their original monasteries. Why else would the monks of Dokham and Pomra give up their monastic homes only to start again with scarce resources and under strenuous circumstances? That they are even able to operate in relative peace is due to the protection accorded by the Indian Government to registered Indian societies which Shar Ganden and Serpom are, and has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama or CTA’s tolerance of Shugden worshippers.

Samdhong Rinpoche also claimed there is no ‘social discrimination’ but only some ‘social boycott’ against Shugden practitioners by the Tibetan community, but the Shugden people brought it upon themselves by their intransigence and betrayal of the Dalai Lama. In other words, it is not the CTA or the Dalai Lama’s doing.

Again this is false because such ‘boycott’ only arose after the CTA passed official resolutions declaring the practice of Dorje Shugden to be wrong and harmful, both to the life of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Cause. It became a serious social offence even to be seen with a Shugden worshipper as the renowned Tibetan writer, Jamyang Norbu discovered. He wrote of his experience:

…Since then I have not been paying much attention to the Shugden issue, but this business with the photograph troubled me. Is it now a criminal act in our society or a mortal sin in the eyes of the official church to have your photograph taken with a member of the Shugden organization? I asked around and it seems that the answer is yes. I was told that Dharamshala officials were now going around Tibetan communities making people sign pledges that they would completely ostracize Shugden devotees, not share a meal with them or have anything to do with them in any way ~ Jamyang Norbu

Deception #5: Lies and more lies

Clearly, Samdhong Rinpoche was unconcerned with the intelligence of his audience so he thought nothing of uttering statements that contradicted each other within minutes of their making. He said, monasteries that put up signs prohibiting entry to Shugden worshippers are only exercising their lawful rights. But minutes before that, the same Samdhong Rinpoche said that discrimination in granting or banning entry to temples is banned under law as it violates public order and morality.

To another TCV student’s plea for the CTA to defuse the Shugden conflict before it deteriorates into an India/Pakistan situation, Samdhong Rinpoche’s reassurance was that the percentage of Tibetans worldwide who worship Dorje Shugden is so insignificant that there was no risk of that situation happening. Again that is gravely inaccurate.

An estimated 400,000 Tibetans attended the Monlam Festival held at Trijang Rinpoche’s Sampheling Monastery in March this year, and over 200,000 Tibetans were drawn to the enthronement of the present Denma Gonsa Rinpoche in Gonsa Monastery in Tibet, yet another well-known Shugden monastery. We see how readily Samdhong Rinpoche dismisses a potential risk to the future of the Tibetan people in order to preserve a lie.

As if the dishonest semantics were not appalling enough, Samdhong Rinpoche even suggested that there is moral equivalence between Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for India’s independence and CTA-sponsored discrimination against its own citizens; and between monasteries expelling Shugden monks and hotel guests hanging ‘Do Not Disturb’ signs on the door. It is simply bizarre to hear the ex-Kalon Tripa draw these parallels and think nothing of it, and even expecting the audience to swallow these farcicalities without objection.

Deception #6: Contradictions upon contradictions

Samdhong Rinpoche’s assault on the young Tibetans’ reason and logic did not end there but it would be beyond the scope of a single article to rebut every lie and misinformation in his speech, for they range from the absurd to the fantastic to those that plainly contradict CTA’s official statements.

For example, in response to a question on the CTA’s efforts to bridge the widening rift between Shugden and anti-Shugden Tibetans, Samdhong Rinpoche stated unequivocally that there is no way the CTA would welcome Shugden worshippers unless they parted with their practice. But that would mean the Sikyong Lobsang Sangay deliberately lied when he answered that the government has been trying to engage Dorje Shugden practitioners in dialogue since 1975 but to no avail. [Watch the video from 1 minute 55 seconds onwards]

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

Who is the liar? The ex-Kalon Tripa or the current Sikyong or perhaps, both?

These must surely be some of the most morally and intellectually corrupt statements made in modern history and once we get over the shock of their sheer absurdity, it is vital that we realize the significance of such corruption within the upper echelons of the Tibetan leadership. All Tibetan people must remember this each time they wonder why, after half a century, the Tibetan people are still in the wilderness as the rest of the world moves on. How can anyone trust such a government and how can anything undertaken by such a government be accepted as being genuine and sincere? Every Tibetan, regardless of their stance on Dorje Shugden, should be concerned.

Deception #7: The Middle Way Approach was democratically approved

These lies and deceptions are extremely costly to the Tibetan people. For example, in June 1988 at Strasbourg, the Dalai Lama announced that he was giving up his demand for Tibet’s full independence from the Chinese government and would instead veer his efforts towards securing ‘full autonomy’. The Dalai Lama also stated clearly that ultimately the Tibetan people must decide for themselves in a nationwide referendum, which the Dalai Lama directed the Tibetan exile government to conduct. But there was never a true referendum carried out as the process was corrupted by vested interest within the government.

The writer and activist, Jamyang Norbu, chronicled the lies and deceptions of the Dalai Lama and the CTA regarding the Middle Way Approach in his writing:

The Great Middleway Referendum Swindle

One of the first referendum meetings was held at Rajpur, a settlement relatively close to Dharamshala. That same evening at the Amnye Machen Institute we received a phone call from a former reporter for MANGTSO who had attended the meeting. He told us that in their presentation, the MPs had dropped not very subtle hints that failure to vote for [Middle Way Approach] would be tantamount to disloyalty to the Dalai Lama. The public became confused but also very angry. A former (very) senior Kashag minister, Mr. W.G. Kundeling, who had retired to Rajpur was the first to speak after the MPs. He flat out declared that he found the whole idea of giving up the goal of independence unacceptable but that he also had no desire to go against the wishes of His Holiness. He would therefore not take part in such a referendum. Others spoke up, saying much the same thing. A few also pointed out that since the Dalai Lama had openly declared that his MWA policy had failed in his last two 10th March statements how could he now be asking the public to vote for MWA?

Just about everyone involved in what was intended to be a referendum refused to participate and yet the exile government under the then Prime Minister, Samdhong Rinpoche twisted the fiasco and through some sly machinations and misrepresentations, passed a resolution that amongst other things stated:

Among the views received from the Tibetan public, following a preliminary poll, the majority expressed preference for dispensing with the referendum, leaving it to His Holiness the Dalai Lama to take decisions from time to time in accordance with the prevailing political situation and circumstance. Altogether 64.60 percent of the opinions received demanded that the referendum be not held and favoured for His Holiness and the Central Tibetan Administration to decide.

We see the same trickery and chicanery employed by the CTA in the way they cheated the Tibetan people of their independence cause, repeating in the way the Shugden religious conflict was conjured out of thin air.

There was never a public referendum that approved of the shift in policy from Independence to The Middle Way. Such public approval was falsely manufactured by the government. Similarly, there was never a general consensus authorizing the CTA and Kashag to pass resolutions that outlawed the practice of Dorje Shugden, as Samdhong Rinpoche and various CTA leaders have claimed time and time again. In both cases, the government blatantly lied.

Furthermore we see that in order to arm-twist the Tibetan people into conformity, the CTA regularly leverages on the Dalai Lama’s name and would frame any position that does not fit in with their agenda as acts of betrayal against the Dalai Lama. Not to vote for the Middle Way was an act of disloyalty to the Dalai Lama. Similarly, not to obey the illegal Shugden ban was an act of treason, as it was to be associated with a Shugden practitioner.

And we see how the CTA does not hesitate to invent numbers (e.g. “64.6% of the people demanded that a referendum not be held”), statistics and ‘facts’ to give the impression that they are acting on the will of the Tibetan people and for the good of the people. Virtually all the accusations against Dorje Shugden have been fabrications as are claims that Shugden worshippers are Chinese agents. The CTA has never produced any proof whatsoever.

With whom does Samdhong Rinpoche’s loyalty lie? With the Tibetan people, the Dharma or himself?

The following incidences show that manipulating the people is not a rare anomaly by a few corrupt leaders but a culture of deception which is routine in the CTA. And when we consider that these are issues of the highest importance to the Tibetan people, it is frightening to think that nothing is sacred to the CTA – not Tibetan independence that tens of thousands have fought and sacrificed for over the decades, not the future of the Tibetan people in exile who have placed their complete trust in the CTA and certainly not the preservation of pure Buddhist lineages and traditions.

CTA on the Highway to Autocracy

By Mila Rangzen

“The CTA’s attempts to get the final say from US consulates since 2009 on the issuance of visas to Tibetans is a top-down plot to control and eliminate aspirations of independence or any other form of opposition to its stance. Those who are vocal about independence in particular and critical of CTA inactions in general will be denied visas to US on one pretext or the other. If Sikyong Lobsang Sangay applies this unconstitutional control of the Tibetan thought, speech and movement; violence, bloodshed and assassinations as a payback among our community cannot be ruled out completely”
http://www.rangzen.net/2014/05/25/cta-on-the-highway-to-autocracy/

The Middle Way Approach of the Dalai Lama – A Self-Deception?

By Tenpel

“In that essay [Elliot Sperling] thoroughly questions the effectiveness of the Middle Way Approach of the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and a cult of personality of the Dalai Lama that prevents to question the effectiveness of the Middle Way Approach and that undermines and ignores all other opinions. According to Sperling, the drive within the CTA has led to a situation where “the Dalai Lama was unwittingly turned into the prime spokesperson against Tibetan independence, to the benefit of China.”

The analysis of Elliot Sperling with the title “Self-Delusion” (in German Selbsttäuschung – “Die Politik des Mittleren Weges ist realitätsfern“) Sperling is pointing out how the CTA and the Dalai Lama have undermined unintentionally [?] the Tibet independence movement and have weakened thereby the Tibet cause”.
http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2014/07/21/the-middle-way-of-the-dalai-lama-a-self-deception/

The Great Middleway Referendum Swindle

By Jamyang Norbu

“It is this assertion that keeps appearing again and again in many CTA statements:

• The Middle-Way Approach was adopted democratically
• The mutually beneficial Middle-Way policy… adopted democratically by the overwhelming majority of the Tibetans…
• His Holiness the Dalai Lama has proposed the Middle Way Approach and has been adopted democratically by Tibetans
• The Middle-Way policy was adopted democratically — through unanimous agreement

Every one of these statements are bald-faced lies. There is no other way to express it. If I tried to put it any more diplomatically I am afraid I might end up telling a lie myself”

And,

“The Middle Way was not adopted democratically. Far from it. Instead the lies and swindles of officials and MPs led by Samdhong Rinpoche, to foist a phony referendum on the exile public have undoubtedly undermined Tibetan democracy. They also effectively sabotaged His Holiness’s genuine attempts, in 1995 and 2008, to democratically consult with the Tibetan people and find a workable alternative to the Middle Way Approach”.
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=35262

Over a hundred Tibetan lives were lost through self-immolation while hopes of a free Tibet are being destroyed by the CTA

The Tibetan people should not delude themselves that anything remotely close to a solution that would see their return to their homeland is anywhere in sight. Not as long as the CTA is staffed by deceitful politicians who do not hesitate to prey on their own kin while the rest of the people stand impotently.

The CTA may have fooled the Tibetan people for over half a century but it is clear to China as well as the rest of the world, what kind of government the CTA is. And unless this changes, the Tibetans can expect to remain as refugees and see their culture and religion wither away by the winds of change and time.

The Tibetan people’s war is not with China, at least not for the moment. Before the people can imagine taking on China with even the slightest chance of success, they must first confront their own government, the CTA, whose culture of deception has robbed the Tibetan people for decades.

Samdhong Rinpoche’s staggering dishonesty as demonstrated by a single speech to young Tibetan minds is typical of the CTA. Imagine the decay after 50 years of such corruption. It is disconcerting to think that this is the administration that is seeking the world’s support to govern a population of 6 million people and asking to be trusted to efficiently manage an ultra-sensitive geopolitical environment.

The same politicians now divide the Tibetan nation further with an unjust and unsubstantiated religious ban so as to distract the people from the issue of independence and to weaken the collective call for Rangzen permanently. After all, what is a religious ban if the CTA can trade away the freedom and future of an entire nation of Tibetan people? And yet, the people continue to rally blindly behind the CTA as it drives in the final wedge that could be the death of a splintering Tibetan unity, badly needed to secure the people’s future.

It is time for Tibetans the world over to open their eyes and see the truth behind the lies; not the rhetoric and deification of those who may wish to sell you their version of their “truth” behind smoke and mirrors, but to look at the facts for what they are rather than who is saying it.

Read Samdhong Rinpoche’s full speech at TCV Suja

(click image to enlarge)

Click on image to enlarge
(Source: http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2014/07/21/the-middle-way-of-the-dalai-lama-a-self-deception/)

Read Jamyang Norbu’s full article

(click image to enlarge)

Click on image to enlarge
(Source: http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2014/09/03/the-great-middleway-referendum-swindle/)

It has been 12 years since I first heard Dorje Shugden’s name. Under normal circumstances it’s best not to talk about protectors openly. This is because the sanctity and potency of the protectors would be compromised, and you don’t really want their assistance to wane. Best kept in silence, they serve as fuel on the path to enlightenment.

In monasteries, the protectors’ shrines are closed, only to be opened on special occasions. This is how one would treat their guardian angel, for one to secretly cherish them helps to fulfill one’s commitment.

Let’s have a look at a non-Buddhist example. Elie Wiesel, the Jewish writer, said that his thoughts upon waking are always about war and how it could be possible for mankind to be so cruel. He used the thought of suffering as an anchor in his mind. In this way the suffering during the war provided him with the inspiration to work relentlessly to gain insight and write, with the hope of preventing the human race from making the same mistakes again.

Buddhists too are worried about human suffering and work towards enlightenment.

Now, a person could try to be a good Buddhist but they could easily be distracted by mundane things that are likely to take them off track. Not every Buddhist wakes up with the thought to relieve mankind of suffering and so most people need a special wake up call. My teacher’s teachers used the thought of Dorje Shugden to keep their minds on the right track, as did the Dalai Lama’s teachers, and many more in the Gelug and Sakya lineages.

Buddhists generally don’t say one lineage is better than the other. However we do place maximum trust in our own teachers, while at the same time always examining the purity of their words. Their words shouldn’t be discredited so easily and should be highly respected. This is because they are seen to be the Buddha’s own words meant for us in our present situation.

The wisdom they carry has the power to bring us to enlightenment and end suffering. If you find you can’t trust your teacher’s own words, either your teacher is not good and does not have a Buddhist motivation, or you are having trouble understanding what Buddhism is all about.

The deity Dorje Shugden is said to be the spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, a famous enlightened High Lama who was a contemporary of the Fifth Dalai Lama. He turned out to be more famous than the Dalai Lama himself, which incited jealousy amongst the Dalai Lama’s entourage. Eventually, he was brutally murdered by some of the servants of the fifth Dalai Lama while he was away from home. Being enlightened, the Lama had to help his assailants to kill himself. Being absolutely pure, their swords and spears could not hurt him but produced extra mystical eyes on his body.

He told his assailants he had a little leftover negative karma that could be used to kill him in a very violent way. Upon his death, this made him assume the form of a powerful protector. There are other versions of this story but this is the one that the present Dalai Lama himself must have heard from his teachers who initiated him into the practice.

Now, he says that he made a mistake for relying on this deity. His criticism of his own teachers comes conveniently at a time when they have all passed away. So, now that others who share the same teachers disgree with the Dalai Lama’s stance on Dorje Shugden. In response, some of the Dalai Lama’s supporters accuse his opponents to be supported by China.

“The Shugden and the Chinese are obviously allies,” the Tibetan prime minister in exile Samdhong Rinpoche said in a recent interview with France 24 TV. “Their cult all over the world is being financed by the Chinese.”

The Dalai Lama says he has investigated this matter to the best of his ability. However, in the end this was his decision: Ban the ghost.

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2008/08/dalai-lama-teachers-away-dorje

A TIBETAN IDENTITY CRISIS (1996-1999)

© by Ursula Bernis

Preface

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…”

“Whereas…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration . . .”

from the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

While gathering material for a book on seminal Buddhist masters of this century, I became aware in 1996, that because most belonged to the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and relied on the religious protector Dorje Shugden, they were suddenly at the center of a raging controversy. Told by the Dalai Lama to renounce ties with that venerable tradition, they were put into a position of either breaking their vows or facing ostracism from the community. These greatest of masters who included one of the two tutors of the Dalai Lama had been central to the transmission of Buddhism as it traveled from Tibet to India and the rest of the world after 1959. They ensured the integrity of a living wisdom tradition that had been passed on from one adept to another for a millennia. I was shocked to hear the ugly allegations against such venerated and highly respected Lamas. I personally knew many of them, had studied with them, and had had a chance to observe them in close proximity over many years. Like most everyone else, I found their gentle kindness, open-mindedness, and inclusive teachings exemplary.

Since every accusation against them contradicted facts, reason, and my own experience, I felt compelled to get to the bottom of the controversy that had generated such extreme views. It was impossible to continue my project without finding an explanation of how such a dramatic shift from the most revered masters to “devil worshipers” could have occurred and, moreover, how it could so completely possess the Tibetan cultural psyche in such a short time.

In the process of my work on this book I found that open debate about the subject was impossible in the exile community and that the conflict was driven by an emotional zeal for the Dalai Lama beyond all rational considerations, suggesting an identity crisis of unexpected proportions. The conditions of exile, the loss of country, home, family and the threat to the established religious world view certainly contributed to the Tibetans’ exaggerated hold onto the one institution left to them, that of Dalai Lamas. However, there seemed something else at work that extended far beyond the Tibetan community to affect Western Tibet supporters as well. They exhibited similarly irrational responses to the conflict. No matter what approach one brought to the subject, all attempts at rational debate became immediately polarized and turned into a series of outlandish accusations, none of which held up under scrutiny.

At the heart of the difficulties complicating this investigation were the unique problems deriving from the fact that Tibetan society remains largely an oral culture. I traveled throughout India and Nepal, the longest visit lasting four months, and talked to hundreds of Tibetans and affected Buddhists, gathering their stories and oral testimony. At the same time, I collected relevant documentation of government records, published papers, wall posters — a common form of communication about controversial subjects — and circulars of the various social organizations that make up the Tibetan administration. This material forms the background for this book.

Since the Tibetan exile government denies the reality of the conflict it has been instrumental in creating, the issue is presented here from three different perspectives:

• Part I, from the point of view of Tibetans living in India and Nepal most affected by the conflict;
• Part II, a historical background and chronological ordering of events surrounding the conflict followed by biographical sketches of the most influential masters of a tradition now being suppressed as a “cult”; and
• Part III, which examines the issue from an outsider’s point of view.

My analysis traces some of the standard accusations to a basic confusion of religious and political issues. It brings to bear the historical and cultural background to show the dynamics of power relations in the exile community and how they get played out in the international arena through the media. Crucial to understanding the emotional involvement in this issue of Western Tibet supporters is their need to uphold at all cost today’s icon of universal goodness, made accessible by the media to a world bereft of deep spiritual meaning. Even though the Dalai Lama’s politics come into critical focus, the book is not intended as an attack on him.

Although I am indebted to many scholars and experts on the subject, it would be a disservice at the time of this writing to acknowledge their individual help publicly. The nature of the issue is so sensitive that they must remain unnamed. Even so, I would like to express here my gratitude for their contribution.

“By defending those people who are persecuted for their race, religion, ethnicity or ideology, you are actually contributing to guiding our human family to peace, justice and dignity.”

His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama

Dharamsala, Dec. 7, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Never before in its history has Tibet been lost so thoroughly and seemingly irreversibly to invaders. Even during historical periods of strong outside influence such as the Mongolian and Manchu forces in the 17th and 18th centuries, Tibet was not as totally occupied as it is now. Until Communist China subjugated Tibet in the middle of this century, it was never under complete control of another nation. This came at a time when the age of colonization had ended for the rest of the world, which makes this immense loss even more tragic. It would be difficult for any people to accept the sad reality of so much destruction and to deal with it rationally.

Tibetans who grew up in a country as large as Europe, populated by not more than six million people, found the loss of their country and way of life especially hard to accept. Moving from the Himalayan snow mountain ranges — and beyond them, the open spaces of the high plateau, which gave an intense sense of personal freedom — to the stifling heat and congested spaces of overpopulated India with its religious, cultural, and linguistic diversity meant changing to a world as foreign as one can possibly imagine. Today, when the loss of Tibet is becoming ever more apparent to the rest of the world, the hope for Tibetan self-determination is quickly dwindling. Nevertheless, much of the generation growing up in exile courageously holds on to the idea of freedom, even if they see it as deferred to an indefinite future.

To think through the many intrinsic contradictions that make up their political and social fabric in exile would only cause deeper suffering and more intense emotional turmoil. By their own account, most Tibetans simply rely on the Dalai Lama and go on with their everyday business of life. This attitude is not religious — as is claimed in the West — but a desperate solution to an identity crisis of a people in denial. It also explains their often-unrealistic political views which are propagated in a larger international context.

The one Tibetan institution believed to be still intact is that of the Dalai Lama. In him religious and political power are fused in a uniquely Tibetan way. Continuing the heritage through incarnation, the institution of Dalai Lama, first established in Tibet in 1642, has become larger than life today in exile with the overwhelming responsibility of bringing an ancient culture into the twenty-first century. The institution of the Dalai Lama in exile has become the very soul of Tibet, the nation, the culture, and the religion. In the face of the severe disruption in Tibetan life not only by political forces but also global cultural change, it has become the source of Tibetan identity per se. No other Dalai Lama ever had to carry as heavy a burden of his institution as the current, the Fourteenth. In Tibet, the Dalai Lama was formally the “The Great Owner” of the country, still one of his names today. In religious and political ways he was the head of the government and leader of his people. In exile, without a country and only a handful of people, without a legal mandate or a power base other than a globalized version of Buddhism, his tasks as head of state and government have become almost impossible. Yet he is everything to his people, the one true vestige of a cherished way of life that amounts to what is Tibetan for Tibetans.

Communist China took over Tibet beginning in 1949 with a so-called “peaceful liberation” culminating in complete control in 1959, when the Dalai Lama escaped to India followed by approximately eighty thousand of his people, a number that subsequently increased to an estimated one hundred twenty thousand dispersed around the world. Then only in his early twenties, the Dalai Lama established an administration in exile8 with the help of his tutors, religious dignitaries, loyal old regime aristocrats, and family. They established an infrastructure in Dharamsala, a small hill station in the foot hills of the Himalayas located in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, assigned to them by the Indian government, to deal with the influx of refugees and to save the largely religious culture of Tibet.

Tibetans were granted refugee status in India at the time under an executive order, since India has not ratified the International Convention of Refugees. In spite of the political and legal reality that the Dalai Lama and his people are not permited any political activities in India, their administration in Dharamsala is called a government. It was formally established during the first few days of the Dalai Lama’s escape in March 1959 in Tibet en route to India. Exile Tibetans consider it the Tibetan government per se even though neither India nor any other country recognizes it as such.

In the 1960′s, most of the older loyalists were pushed out of the Tibetan exile government in Dharamsala while the most important political functions were assumed by the Dalai Lama’s family, particularly his older brother Gyalo Thondup. Chinese educated, he seemed to be the only diplomatically trained person then who could present the Tibet problem internationally. Gyalo Thondup had dealt with the Indian government already in 1948 when, unfortunate for its immediate political future, Tibet had failed to recognize Indian independence (1947). He also helped the Tibetan resistance with aid from the CIA. In Tibet, a family member of a Dalai Lama was legally barred from holding office, something that changed in exile, where Gyalo Thondup and others later became ministers. Recently, another brother of the Dalai Lama has claimed that today only three families, including his, run the exile government.

Early on in exile, in 1961, the Dalai Lama began to draft a constitution for a future free Tibet which was adopted in 1963. However, a charter to administer the very different situation in exile was not implemented until 1991. It is a simpler document than the draft constitution and it passed the Assembly of People’s Deputies by a simple majority. Hailed as a “leap forward” in democratizing Tibetan politics, it instituted several novel practices for the exile government such as election of ministers (Tib.: kalon) by the people’s deputies in their Assembly or parliament. Nevertheless, the preamble states the nature of the government to be the union of religious and political affairs in continuity with the Ganden Potang government of Tibet established by the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1642. The Dalai Lama continues to be its unelected head and the political system remains without institutionalized opposition.

It is commonly known that the Dalai Lama is still the religious and political head of Tibetans, at least in exile, since in the Western press he is usually referred to as “God-King.” The effort to democratize has not extended to separate the domains of religion and politics. Since the Tibetan exile government in Dharamsala is not legitimately a government by legal and international standards, it is difficult to analyze this problema in an easy or straightforward way. It is not a democracy. The Tibetan people have never been asked to vote on any of the major political decisions concerning the future of their country either inside or outside Tibet. Often not even the Assembly and Cabinet (Kashag) are asked. Even more basic, freedom of speech, the very foundation of democracy, is woefully absent among exile Tibetans.

Criticism of official exile government business is usually dismissed as being of Chinese origin. China is doing whatever it can to destabilize the exile community, discredit the Dalai Lama, and silence any criticism of its policies in Tibet. It moves to fan the flames of any internal Tibetan conflict. But Tibetan society today seems to be just as intolerant of internal opposition as the Chinese. Allegations of Chinese interference are widely used by Tibetans as an excuse to silence any opposition.

In an atmosphere where nationalistic and religious fervor for the Dalai Lama are all too often substituted for rational debate and political analysis, the dynamics of social groups plays an important role in enforcing policies of the exile government, which itself is denied this role by its host country. The unusual circumstances of exile require atypical solutions to social and political problems. The exile government works through social organizations which were also common in old Tibet where they did not have the same political functions they acquired in exile.

In 1991, the base of representation in the Assembly was divided into regional groups (based on the traditional division of Tibetan geography into three main provinces, Tib.: chol.ka gsum,or Cholsum) and religious sects functioning like interest groups. A network of NGO’s, made up of different regional sub-groups, social welfare groups, religious organizations, and local chapters of women’s and youth groups effectively carry out the exile government’s wishes usually in the name of the Dalai Lama. Social pressure to conform to anything interpreted as the wish of the Dalai Lama has become intense, especially in the last decade. This type of social control was not exercised in Tibet before 1959 but developed out of the very difficult conditions in exile, where the large number of social groups originated first to help destitute refugees and later to raise funds from international sponsors and donor organizations. Another reason is that the legal status of Tibetans in India is precarious. They are prohibited from engaging in overt “political” activity.

Since Tibetans are refugees in India, they do not have their own police or legal system. The Indian police and legal systems have often proven to be corrupt and Tibetans do not trust them. Thus, social pressure is an effective method of control and enforcing directives of the Tibetan exile government. Tibetans are clannish in ways difficult for us to grasp which makes social pressure an effective device. They are primarily still an oral culture and get their information from radio, tapes, and an amazingly accurate grapevine. This makes them extremely vulnerable to rumor mongering.

Publications in Tibetan or English are to varying degrees controlled by the exile government which exercises censorship. A free press does not exist among Tibetans themselves, although they have access to the international press. The fear and mistrust that naturally develop among exiles are ever on the rise. This is especially true since more and more Tibetans escaped to India from their Chinese controlled homeland in the 1990′s, bringing with them their different use of language and unfamiliar views. The upbringing of Tibetans in Tibet and those in India differs radically, causing even deeper factionalism and paranoia already rampant in the exile community. These factors explain in part why the Dalai Lama’s words carry the weight of law and why an indirect remark from him can destroy someone or actually become incendiary.

Until the 1990′s the one issue uniting the exile community had been Tibetan independence. The State Oracle advising the Dalai Lama and his government had repeatedly predicted in the 80′s early 90′s that freedom was waiting just around the corner. This clearly did not materialize.

With the official political strategy having changed from independence to returning to Tibet under Chinese control, the institution of Dalai Lama has emerged today as the only unifying factor. Where in the 1980′s the Dalai Lama still laughingly responded in the affirmative to the inevitable journalistic question whether he was the last Dalai Lama, in the 90′s he answered the same question by emphasizing different type of continuity for the institution. Among the possibilities he mentioned were a Dalai Lama elected like the Pope or incarnated as a woman. The return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet became the most important issue for exile Tibetans in the late 1990′s. The explanation floated, also in the Western press, was that unless he died and was reborn in Tibet, the Chinese would not accept a future Dalai Lama.

Although full of contradictions that leave everyone guessing, this explanation nevertheless points to the need of ensuring the continuity of the institution of the Dalai Lamas, something that has come to represent the nation in lieu of a country. The clearer it becomes that Tibet is lost, the stronger is the clinging to the institution of Dalai Lama. Hence, Tibetans resist vehemently anything that can be construed as a criticism of his person or administration and react with irrational fury to anything that can be seen as a threat even to his reputation or legacy, let alone his life.

It is not difficult to see that Tibetans are going through the most severe identity crisis in their history. Those living in exile have been displaced from their homeland and those left in Tibet from their culture. The complex set of problems created by all these forced changes in an already complicated society with arcane social practices remain largely inaccessible to the Western mind. Most do not affect us. Yet Tibetans have been a genuine source for spiritual discovery in the last decades for many people around the world, and the Dalai Lama a powerful source of inspiration. There are a number of religious issues embedded in Tibetan political and social problems that take some effort to extricate. The one I found especially striking in its impenetrable abstruseness is the Dorje Shugden protector conflict rooted in the Dalai Lama’s restrictions of his practice, which surfaced in 1996 to receive international attention. It exposes the fault lines and depth of the Tibetan identity crisis like few others.

Inquiring into the circumstances for its eruption, I found out more about Tibetans than I had in many years of participating in human rights work and following the teachings of their masters. The Dorje Shugden conflict serves as an example of the ever-widening gap between appearances and reality in the increasingly fractious refugee community.

In March 1996, His Holiness strongly advised his followers not to rely on the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden because, according to the prophecies of his oracles, Dorje Shugden harms the institution of the Dalai Lama, his life, his government, and the cause of Tibet. Immediately government offices promulgated this advice, stated in no uncertain terms by the Dalai Lama, and turned it into a full-fledged ban. Everyone then, including the Dalai Lama, referred to the conflict as “a ban.” Later, after questions from the international press, the exile government denied that there was a ban and continues to hold this position. At the time, the strong reaction by the exile government to the oracles’ prophecies and the Dalai Lama’s statements resulted in forced signature campaigns, where Tibetans were pressured under threat of force or expulsion to sign a document forswearing Dorje Shugden, desecration and destruction of holy images, death threats and threats of violence. Although few violent incidents actually occurred, the campaign of fear and intimidation pressuring Tibetans to give up their age old religious practice to “save” the Dalai Lama and the “cause of Tibet” resulted in dividing the community, ostracism, loss of revenues for monasteries and businesses, loss of opportunities for education, travel, economic advancement, social welfare, and threatens the survival of a religious tradition.

Chinese authorities, ever on the lookout to embarrass the Dalai Lama and to disparage his followers, did not waste time in 1996 to seize the issue to serve their divisive ends. They criticized the Dalai Lama for betraying his bodhisattva aims, meant to benefit others without concern for one’s own health and well-being as is befitting a religious person. This was an especially embarrassing charge for someone so widely believed to be a manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, Buddha of compassion. The government in exile used the Chinese interference effectively to silence most critics of the ban, conveniently reversing cause and effect by claiming that Buddhists who rely on Dorje Shugden had caused the conflict and that they were working for the Chinese. This is considered the ultimate betrayal in the Tibetan exile community, the equivalent to high treason.

Dharmapala Dorje Shugden is held in high esteem by many Tibetans as a powerful guardian of religious vows and law. A Dharmapala plays the role of a caretaker or guardian of Buddhist practice. Like parents, he or she is believed to help with establishing conditions conducive for spiritual practice and to avert harm and interferences. The Buddha is the ultimate authority but, just like a president, he or she has aides who work out and enforce the details on the day-to-day level spanning many degrees in rank. Dharmapalas are also beings on the path to enlightenment.

Some of them go back to the time of the Buddha, others evolved in Tibet. Some of the most widely revered Buddhist masters in the last three hundred fifty years of Tibetan history relied on Dorje Shugden as their guardian, including the Dalai Lama until the mid-1970′s. They considered him an emanation whose nature is the wisdom of the Buddha Manjushri but appearing mostly in a worldly, fierce way. This century, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche41, one of the two mentors of the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Domo Geshe Rinpoche were the most renowned and influential masters of the Gelug tradition, the largest order of Tibetan Buddhism. With their fame also spread that of their guardian, Dorje Shugden. He is believed to be extremely powerful, swift, and precise. Although different views about him were known in Tibet, in exile, this Dharmapala became demonized in unprecedented ways even for Tibetans.

The aim was to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden — not its possible misuse — since at no time was any distinction made between relying responsibly on this guardian deity and misusing to which all religious practices are subject.

The source of the demonization was oracles (mediums in trance) of the Tibetan exile government, many Tibetans believe to be unreliable. Their prophecies declared Dorje Shugden to be an evil spirit intent on harming the Dalai Lama and the cause of Tibet seen by many as synonymous. The exile government’s continuing uncompromising stand on this point polarized the issue and turned any attempt to present a different interpretation, even those made in good faith, into an attack on the Dalai Lama and, hence, a confirmation of the “prophecies.” Thus, the Dorje Shugden believed to be evil and the one religious people rely on seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They are two different beings with each side believing that the other invented its own story of Dorje Shugden. They could not be further apart, one a demon, carrier of seemingly absolute evil, the other believed by most of Tibet’s greatest Buddhist masters to be an emanation of the Buddha’s wisdom within worldly action. In part, these different views are the result of dragging into the political arena an esoteric religious practice that is easily misunderstood, especially when made public in this way. The difference between the two radically different conceptions of Dorje Shugden also pits two kinds of authority against each other, one religious, the other political. Proclaiming Dorje Shugden an evil spirit denies more than two hundred acclaimed Tibetan Buddhist masters — not counting their tens of thousands of disciples — their religious qualifications. These are based on the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the very essence of wisdom. From a Buddhist point of view this is clearly absurd. It makes sense only from a non-religious context. Hence, the differences concerning Dorje Shugden have to be considered from a political point of view.

In the summer of 1996, the Tibetan government in exile was accused of human rights violations by many Tibetans and some of their Western supporters. Since then most critics have been pressured into silence. Although two prominent human rights organizations expressed their concerns privately to the exile government, they refused to do so publicly for several reasons including that it could be seen as undermining the efforts of the Dalai Lama and the much larger and more serious issue of improving human rights in Tibet under Chinese control. Amnesty International specified recently that there had been no human rights violations — torture, death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention and unfair trials — in the Tibetan exile community as a result of the Dorje Shugden conflict. Since the Tibetan exile government has to function under Indian law, it is clear that it could not use such methods to begin with. The methods Dharamsala has used to pressure Tibetans into giving up one of their cherished religious practices and the tradition, it is meant to protect are based on silencing any genuine disagreement with its policies through a kind of psychological warfare that uses threats against those perceived to disagree with the Dalai Lama, intimidation, and social pressure. How this gets played out in a uniquely Tibetan way in their unusual exile circumstances will, I hope, become clearer in the course of the book.

PART I — EXILED FROM EXILE

TIBETAN VOICES

One of the main aims of this book is to give Tibetans a voice, since they cannot speak out in their own communities without facing serious consequences, intense social pressure, threats of violence, slander, and ostracism. In this part of the book are documented the experiences of Tibetans affected by the Dorje Shugden ban. They are excerpts from many informal conversations and formal interviews I conducted mostly from October 1997 to May 1998 in the areas in India and Nepal where Tibetans live in large numbers: Delhi, Dharamsala, Spiti, Kinnaur, Mysore, Mundgod, Goa, Darjeeling, Kalimpong, and in Nepal’s Kathmandu valley.

In what might be called an ethno-phenomenological approach, I collected additional oral testimony about the conflict from Tibetans and other Buddhists in different parts of the world from May 1996 till the present. For the most part, I have included those parts of the conversations that are representative of many other voices. This is by no means an exhaustive study. Most of the Buddhists who were deeply affected by the ban of their protector practice were too afraid to expose their names to the world. So I am including only some names. Others have been changed or left out altogether. Sometimes I have left out the name of the place for reasons of confidentiality. Each conversation partner told me much about his or her social, religious, political, and family background. I have included some of that information to give the reader an idea of how pervasive the practice was through all levels of Tibetan society and how far-reaching is the despair about the conflict.

I tried to include voices from a cross-section of Tibetan society. However, the religious and intellectual elite most qualified to explain the reasons for the conflict to the world is not represented directly by interviews. It is not even clear at the moment how many of the leading Gelugpas still rely on Dorje Shugden. In the emotional atmosphere of the “war of words,” they were accused of cowardice and their silence interpreted as betrayal. I have good reasons to believe it was out of respect for His Holiness and religious concerns. With their silence they resisted participating in the split created by the ban and refused to disgrace the Buddha Dharma they are trying to preserve for future generations.

Since my Tibetan is not adequate to conduct lengthy and detailed conversations such as these, I had to rely on translators. Many exile Tibetans who know English do not know Tibetan well enough to understand the intricacies of the language, the religious terms or the language of official documents. My concern was that a translator should master the Tibetan language rather than have flawless English. Both of my main translators were well educated in Tibetan and also knew English quite well. But since the English needed editing, I often used my own terms and expressions for words not precise enough in the original. For this reason, the truly authentic Tibetan voice comes through only sketchily, a common problem when working with translation.

I noted whenever the discussion was originally in English.

I would like to provide a glimpse of the complexities of Tibetan culture in its mixture of religion and politics and how multifaceted is the issue that brought the uniquely Tibetan identity crisis into focus for the rest of the world and the many different levels on which it gets played out. I intentionally did not order the content of the interviews around categories of my choosing in the hope that the authenticity of the Tibetans’ concerns comes through more clearly this way.

I would like to point out to the reader unfamiliar with Tibetan culture that Tibetans do not complain in public. It is very difficult to get them to express their thoughts and feelings to begin with, especially to a stranger from another country. It simply is not done in Tibetan culture. So, whatever deeply troubles them is expressed in a most understated and indirect way. The following testimony, even though a barometer for the Tibetan exile society’s feelings about the current identity crisis, has to be seen in the context of this type of extreme understatement of the inner turmoil that is tearing people apart in that community.

Tibetans do not answer specific questions, I learned. They almost never answer with a straight “yes” or “no.” This is culturally determined. Whatever I asked concerning the subject of Dorje Shugden, the answer came as a long story or as a great deal of accumulated reflections and doubts. After a while I gave up trying to elicit responses to specific questions. I was trying to document the conflict and what Tibetans most directly affected felt about it. They needed to talk. On more than one occasion people broke into tears sobbing that they had no one to whom to tell their story. To see old monks cry like that, especially those who had safeguarded His Holiness out of Tibet in 1959, was more than disconcerting.

I talked to hundreds of people and became aware of their exaggerated fears that contradict the media image of happy Tibetans. One of these fears, I discovered, was of their beloved leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This greatly surprised me. Why would Tibetans be so afraid of someone they believe so literally to be an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of compassion? This became one of the most puzzling questions that led me to uncover many contradictions in the Tibetan exile society.

Aside from their intense fears, what also struck me was that almost all of the people I talked to were upright, strong people — good citizens, we would say — who had served either the exile government or the Tibetan community at large for decades on a day-to-day basis with hard work, devotion, loyalty, and innovations. The older Tibetans had been the backbone of the exile community in the sixties and seventies and many of them had put together its social infrastructure in the first place. They are for the most part capable, hard working people with many community leaders other Tibetans turn to for help in times of need. It is literally unbelievable that now they all allegedly receive money from China for spying and creating conflict in the Tibetan community. To anyone who knows these people and their demonstrated loyalty to the Dalai Lama, it seems pathetic, even silly, to allege they have become a security risk intent on harming the life of the Dalai Lama — the most devastating accusation for any Tibetan.

My aim in this section is to document how Tibetans feel about the identity crisis occurring in their communities in exile not establish the truth about the ontological status of Dorje Shugden. That would be beyond the scope of all but a handful of realized, spiritual masters.

Religious truth cannot be legislated or established by a general survey, by voting, giving opinions, or by recounting one’s personal experiences. It is not a political subject. Whom we choose to believe as acting solely on religious grounds is up to each individual, the reader as well as those whose feelings and statements are recorded here.

In order to familiarize the reader with the political status of exile Tibetans in India and the administrative system they have constructed, the first interview presented is with Samdhong Rinpoche, advisor to the Dalai Lama and senior most government official since 1991. It touches on the subject of the relationship between religion and politics in the Tibetan exile government and starts this section to aid the reader in following with greater ease the grievances voiced by Tibetans affected by the ban.

At the end of this section I include the views of two non-Tibetans whose close affiliations with the culture and language qualify them to add their own unique perspective. Since their presentations might be more systematic, the reader would perhaps benefit from reading them first. However, I have included them at the end since this section is meant to give voice to Tibetans.

From Conversations and Interviews

Interview in English with Samdhong Rinpoche, Chairman of the Assembly since 1991 and co- drafter of the Charter for the Tibetan exile government. For more than twenty years, he has also been the Director of the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath, which is affiliated with Sanskrit University at Varanasi, India. He has consistently been devoted and loyal to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Sarnath, January 12, 1998:

Q: How can a government that mixes religion and politics actually become democratic? Is the Tibetan exile government at the moment more interested in preserving the Ganden Potang government46 or in democratizing and trying to find an appropriate government for, one hopes, a future free Tibet. Can you say something about that?

A: As far as the Tibetan government in exile is concerned, the direction in which it is moving is quite transparent. And there is no room for any confusion. The Charter for the Tibetans in exile which was drafted by His Holiness and placed before the 11th Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies was of a secular character. His Holiness clearly mentioned that the nature of the polity of the Tibetans in exile would be secular. When it was put before the Assembly to be adopted, the Assembly was divided and there was less reasoning and more emotions. The people were carried away by emotion and we were not able to adopt it. That was in 1991, when the Charter was presented for the first time. I was not able to convince the people to adopt the word “secular” [in the Preamble] because they understood secular to mean anti-religion or opposite of religion. Particularly the English word “secular” translated into Hindi gives it a sense of indifferent attitude towards religion. So that was not really pleasant. And therefore we lost by two or three votes; 22 were in favor of secularism and 24 against. So we removed the word “secular” and substituted it with the combination of Dharma and politics as we used to in Tibet: chos.srid zung.’drel. Thus, chos.srid zung.’drel was reinstated. Then it went to His Holiness for his consent. He did not insist upon restoring the word “secular” because he sensed the emotion of the members of the Assembly and he respected that. At the moment in the first article the nature of polity is given as a combination of Dharma and politics, but the composition or constitution of the charter is a completely secular one. And we are now working under that charter. Since we have a combination of Dharma and politics I now have to defend the religious polity. This is not a big problem since the rest of the charter is a secular one. And the words “combining religion and politics” do not cause any particular problem in carrying out its mandate. His Holiness has a very clear vision that a future Tibet must have a secular kind of governance. That is not because he is against religious tradition but because he thinks it is appropriate for the people and the rest of the world. The entire world is now in the fashion of secularism. The world at large may not understand the religious polity and it may be misused by irreligious people in the name of religion, if you have a combination of religion and politics. On the other hand, the religious institutions might become more powerful and overshadow state affairs as we have experienced in the past. I personally believe very strongly that religion and politics can never be combined properly.

Q: Do you feel it is never appropriate or just not in this particular historical period?

A: Actually it is only a lack of information and education among the people. Otherwise I personally feel that a secular government can serve and preserve more appropriately and more powerfully religious traditions. I think that a secular government was never meant to be an anti- religious government and a secular government can do a lot of things for the preservation of cultural and religious traditions. I am a very firm believer, and His Holiness too, that Tibet’s identity is inseparable from its religious tradition. That is the essence of Tibetness: it is our culture and our religion. The preservation of culture and religion is the first and foremost responsibility of the Tibetan government in exile or the Tibetan government in Tibet, whatever it may be. His Holiness gives political sovereignty secondary importance to the preservation of religion and cultural heritage, because our religious tradition and our religiosity, our religious mind and the culture, which is a manifestation of our religious mind, are very, very important for the entirety of humanity. It does not belong to the Tibetans alone, it belongs to the universe and we have a sense of universal responsibility to preserve it. For that purpose, His Holiness is ready to give up the demand for complete independence. He is more concerned with the preservation of religious tradition and culture and for that purpose a secular government can work more effectively and more appropriately.

Now I am coming back to the combination of religion and politics and how it works in the government in exile. Our policies are based on the religious mind or on the basic principle of religion and that does not mean it is Buddhism or Hinduism or any -ism. We say the eternal Dharma. The eternal Dharma subscribes to truth, non-violence and equality. Truth and non- violence and equality is the essence of the eternal Dharma and that is the commitment of our polity. The Tibetan polity’s first and foremost commitment is to the truth, non-violence, and equality. For “equality” we sometimes use the word “democracy” and sometimes we use the word “equality, according to the context. These three are the basic structure of our polity. This has been the essence of eternal Dharma. Dharma and polity become one and the religious mind is governing the provision of our polity. And here you should not understand that the religious institutions have something to do with politics. No religious institution has anything to do with politics. The religious institution is an institution, not a religion. We only refer to the religiosity of the religion, not the organization of the religion. So this is my summary.

There is a second thing which many people question and many people argue: if you have a polity governed by religiosity, how it can be a popular democracy? In that matter, I am very clear that a proper democracy is only possible if the polity comes out of religiosity, a religious mind. Otherwise, if your polity is based on negative emotions or negative thoughts which are based on a kind of selfish motivation or competition or very strong nationalism, which can go to any extent to preserve and promote its self-interest, that is not a proper democracy. That democracy can become very corrupt, which is what we are witnessing in Pakistan and India and elsewhere. In the name of democracy all kinds of corruption and atrocities are going on. We don’t want that kind of democracy. A genuine democracy can only be established if the people of the community or the country by and large are religious-minded and pure-minded.

Q: In the present form of the exile government, what in your view are the checks and balances on power? What is the relationship between India and the exile government and its legal basis, since on the one hand India does not accept the exile government as a government, so to speak, yet, at the same time, India is very accepting?

A: That problem we cannot solve as long as we are based in India. The Indian government is so tolerant and helpful just to ignore the existence of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Otherwise, legally and politically we cannot exist in India. The Indian government does not recognize the Tibetan government-in-exile and yet this is just a bluff. Within the working relationship, they recognize everything.

Q: They recognize your institutions and they give your government the responsibility for taking care of the Tibetans?

A: Yes, yes, yes, yes. In other countries, for example, this would be very difficult. In India, we use our own letterheads with the name of the government-in-exile. On these letterheads we correspond with the government of India. The government of India accepts them and responds, only not addressing us as “government-in-exile.” They do not recognize any institutions. They only recognize the institution of Dalai Lama and his representative. On that basis, we are working the entire administration of the government-in-exile, everything which the government of India supposedly does not know. So we say the government of India shuts one eye and opens one eye as far as Tibetan affairs are concerned. They are so tolerant.

As far as checks and balances are concerned, I have to make certain clarifications. Tibetans in exile in India have to abide by Indian civil law as well as Indian criminal law. We are not above the law. We are not outside the law. Whosoever is in India has to abide by Indian law and there cannot be a separate legal system within the legal system of India; that is very clear. Therefore the government in exile cannot have an independent judiciary system. Because that judiciary might legally clash with Indian law, we don’t have an independent judiciary system as such. We have one only insofar as it fits into Indian law of arbitration.

As refugees, the Tibetans in India are legally protected by an executive order alone. India is not signatory to the International Convention of Refugees and the country itself does not have any laws concerning refugees. If the government policy changes, our position is very weak. If one day a government takes the decision not to accept Tibetans as political refugees then we cannot go to the court of law because there is no legal protection.

The Tibetans or any other refugees which are accepted by the government of India legally have all the fundamental human rights which are enshrined in the Indian constitution, except the political rights of voting and standing for election. This is clarified by a Supreme Court order. When Prime Minister Li Peng was visiting India about 50 Tibetan demonstrators were imprisoned by the police on the charge they were doing some demonstration and burning the Chinese flag and so on. On this charge they were detained. Some people went to the Supreme Court and it gave the order that the Tibetan refugees living in India have all the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Indian constitution and laws except the political rights. Under that order they had to release immediately all detainees and that order still stands and is one of the legal protections. Therefore freedom of press, of religion, and of association, which are also enshrined in our charter, are protected in India by Indian laws; that is one of the guarantees. And anyone who thinks there is a violation of these rights can go to the Indian courts of law and seek redress and remedy for that.

Coming back to checks and balances in the exile government, certain disputes cannot be taken to an Indian court of law. For example, political discrimination or decisions of our government cannot because they don’t recognize the exile government. Therefore, in lieu of the independent judiciary we have a Justice Commission provided in the Charter. For its jurisdiction, we had to find some room in Indian law which we found under the provision of arbitration. Arbitrators can be appointed by anyone and they have the power to maintain judgments. Those judgments can be challenged in an Indian court. But unless challenged in an appropriate court, their orders will be held as good as an order of a court of law. If looked at from the Indian point of view, it is arbitration within the Indian provision of law, and from our side it is an independent judiciary to protect the provisions of the Charter for the Tibetans in exile. If any interpretation of our charter is disputed we can go to the Justice Commission and we can debate it there.

Q: What about criminal cases?

A: Yes, criminal cases would have to go to Indian courts. No criminal case can be dealt with by the Justice Commission, only civil disputes and especially disputes within the Tibetan administration and in the interpretation of the Charter.

So, the rest of the checks and balances are in our Constitution. Our Charter is neither a presidential nor parliamentary system. It is in-between. There is a second handicap and we don’t have political parties at the moment.

Q: You can’t really talk about democracy unless you have opposition parties. This is a fundamental aspect of democracy.

A: Yes, that may be, but we have to interpret it in a different way. The opposition parties are necessary but not indispensable. The Assembly in exile is the highest decision-making body. It is represented by the provinces and the religious traditions and some other people. It is an elected body of forty-six members which really represents and is answerable to the people. At the moment, that decision-making body has the role to act as the ruling party and the rest as opposition party. Both of these roles have to be performed by the same representatives. As a ruling party the assembly has to make all the policies and programs for the government and they are binding on the government. The Kashag [Cabinet] is elected by the Assembly and it stays in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of the Assembly. The members of the Kashag have the right to sit and speak in the Assembly, but they don’t have the right to vote. The executive [the Dalai Lama] and the Kashag are answerable, accountable and responsible to the Assembly, which has the power to dissolve the Kashag at any time or to replace any particular Kalon [minister] at any time by majority vote. The legislative is more powerful than the executive body and the executive does not have any kind of veto power. Whatever decisions the legislative makes are binding on the executive.

Q: In practice, does it work that way?

A: Yes, exactly in that way, exactly in that way.

Q: What is His Holiness’ structural place in this?

A: He holds two very important positions, one is the head of state and the other is the head of the government. And as the head of state all executive decisions and their implementations are done in his name on behalf of him. He is working on the advice of the Kashag (Cabinet) which he can accept or not. But His Holiness answers to the Assembly, his advice is not binding. If his actions are contrary to the Assembly’s decisions then they will not recognize them. He cannot do that.

Q: And you said he does not have veto power?

A: He has veto power in a sense. Any decision, any resolution that is adopted by the Assembly is sent to him for his assent. Unless he gives his assent, it cannot become a law. He can voice his disagreement with a piece of legislation within two weeks and send it back to the Assembly with his reasons and comments for reconsideration. And for that he can address the parliament in person or he can send a message through the speaker or in writing to the parliament. If the Assembly agrees with his suggestions it may amend the legislation. If it does not agree with his suggestions, it can send the same decision back again to His Holiness. At that time he has only two options, either he accepts it or declares a referendum. That is the final measure. The result of a referendum would be binding on the Assembly as well as on His Holiness. None of the institutions are above the referendum.

Q: And have you had a case in which His Holiness did not accept a decision twice?

A: Not yet, it is only a provision in the charter. We have not used it.

Q: Do you think it will ever happen?

A: His Holiness is by nature very democratic. He always goes by the majority53 consensus of the Assembly. I don’t expect during this present Dalai Lama to be any confrontation between him and the Assembly, because he is very flexible. He always goes by reason and his reasons are powerful and that can convince the Assembly, and otherwise he will be reconciled with the Assembly’s decision.

So even without opposition parties, the entire Assembly is performing the role of the opposition. It has been quite effective and powerful, because the Kashag [Cabinet] and the executive have no power in the Assembly. When the entire parliament stands for some issue, there cannot be a division. On the other hand, with a multi-party system, whether the party members consciously agree or do not agree they have to follow the party whip and that is also one kind of repression. We do not recognize it as such, but it is one form of repression. I agree with Jaiprakash Narain who, in his later age, recommends a party-less democracy. It is one of the most powerful ideas of democracy and I am very much convinced by it. For quite some time I used to argue that without a multi-party system there cannot be a proper democracy. But now I am more experienced with the nature of people in India and also with the Tibetan community. The multi- party system may not be very suitable for us. In India it is the greatest failure. For the 50 years since independence, at any time the ruling party did not get more than 22% of the votes. And recently, party discipline mostly goes against the conscience of the people. The party as a whole makes other decisions and its members have foregone their right to speak and act. They have to agree to party discipline. That is one kind of repression. Also, the power-seekers are not principled to stay with one party but change parties like an overcoat. This has caused all kinds of instability. In our case, there is no such struggle because we have a party-less democracy. My objection to the multi-party systems in the US and England, for example, is that public opinions are not generated by the public. Public opinions are enforced by the party, and powerful propaganda and advertising brainwash the people. Therefore the basic right of the people’s conscience is always damaged. We are very much against the Communist system of brainwashing. I personally feel that brainwashing is one of the most insufferable crimes against humanity, against basic dignity and basic individual freedom. But in the so-called-multi-party democratic countries the brainwashing takes place in a different way. It always goes on. It goes on through education, through workshops, through governments, through electronic media, through print media and Internet and what not, all kind of bombardment of advertisement makes you almost mad and reduces you to a helpless creature. You have to surrender your own power of thinking and guide it or abide by one of the powerful media. That is the worst result of multi-party democratic systems and market-oriented economies. They have taken away basic human values and human individual freedom which they are never able to protect.

An interview in English with Geshe Cheme Tsering. He received an Acharya degree from Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies, Sanskrit University, Sarnath, where he studied in the Nyingma Division and a Lharampa Geshe54 degree from Ganden Shartse, 1996. Delhi, October 22, 1997:

Q: What has the ban of Dorje Shugden done to you personally, to your life?

A: It is interesting how reality shatters your imagined perception. My perception of the inside workings of the Tibetan exile government has completely changed. My experience of this ban also has changed my perception of how His Holiness works within Tibetan society. It also changed my perception about how Western Buddhist centers and supporters of Tibet receive and give and gather information.

The Tibetan exile government is now perceived as experimenting with a democratic form of government. The long-term aim is to transform Tibet itself into a democratic country. But when it gets challenged to test the democratic principles, it does not stand up to the challenge at all. This was demonstrated by how they handled the ban. Usually in democratic countries, issues are introduced through the parliamentary process and then taken up by the upper house and then the President. In this case and in many other cases, it was brought up unilaterally by the Dalai Lama himself. In 1995, the oracles (mediums) advised him that continued worship of Dorje Shugden is not constructive for the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan government’s work towards freedom. On March 10th and 21st, 1996, he publicized these oracular prophecies in a public teaching. Neither the Assembly, the Cabinet nor the heads of the four Tibetan Buddhist traditions, not even the head of the Gelugpas were consulted. After the announcement was made, it was endorsed by the Cabinet and the Assembly and became policy. That is how the Tibetan government works. Before we did not know these things, because we were not inside the problem. Now we are. So this is not just theory.

When His Holiness first proclaimed the ban, he took the oracles as reference. “There is indication that it is harmful to me and Tibetan society, a negative effect for Tibetan society, if Dorje Shugden worship is continued.” That is how he first put it in 1996. This theme was immediately taken up by the Tibetan government and its various branches around the world. When His Holiness was asked by an Indian journalist, the reason for the ban he said was, “Buddhism is a very profound religion and the worship of Dorje Shugden is denigrating Buddhism to the level of spirit worship.” He also said that, “Worshipers of Dorje Shugden have been sectarian throughout history,” when asked by a Western journalist about the reason for the ban. Here, he opted for ecumenical unity between different Tibetan traditions, “The worship of Dorje Shugden is against the ecumenic spirit.” On more than one occasion in the US and in Switzerland, he even prohibited Western Buddhists [who rely on Dorje Shugden] from attending his initiations and teachings. From this and many other observations we have made one can say that whenever he makes announcements and gives reasons, they are more based on the expediency of the moment than a solid foundation applicable in the West and East both. First he said worship of the deity in Tibetan society is not good. If that is so, then why prohibit Westerners from worshiping Dorje Shugden? Going through all these reasons, His Holiness has given different ones everywhere. He has not given reasons that hold ground or have meaning everywhere. This has changed my perception about His Holiness.

Outside, His Holiness projects a picture of a very compassionate society and since he is a winner of the Nobel peace prize, people embrace that view of Tibetan society. But in reality I now find that what His Holiness tells the world about the need for compassion and loving kindness bears no relation to the actual way in which he treats his own critics in Tibetan society. Some of the Tibetan public in Dharamsala is clearly showing that they do not want to be a part of this ban anymore, since they have seen its destructive effect among Tibetans. If we look to the private observations of lower ranking Tibetan government employees, this much is evident.55 The Dalai Lama on the other hand has taken every opportunity, such as ordination of monks, public teachings in Dharamsala and those like his recent Kalachakra initiation near Darjeeling, to keep public indignation against devotees of Dorje Shugden at the boiling point. He misses no opportunity in these and other Tibetan gatherings to express openly that he is against the worship of Dorje Shugden. Unlike other politicians, this has very serious repercussions in Tibetan society. Once the Dalai Lama expresses his displeasure at someone, no matter who he is or however great his or her contribution to Tibetan society has been in the past, that person becomes a pariah overnight in Tibetan society. The key Tibetan policy makers know this very clearly. Front-ranking Tibetan intellectuals fought against this trend but have now come to the conclusion that at least in this generation the Dalai Lama has absolute hold over the Tibetan public and honest disagreement or dissension stand absolutely no chance. This is one of the reasons why my perception of His Holiness’ actions outside and inside Tibetan society has changed.

Those in the Western world that are sympathetic to Tibet but have no exposure to Tibetan society at the family, government, or monastic level, do not have this understanding. Unlike any democratic society, the exile Tibetan community is a unique entity in itself. At the top level you have a handful of Tibetans who are intimately aware of shifts in international politics. This is mainly represented by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama. Below these people and far less powerful is the Tibetan exile government. In this government also, the key policy decisions are more often made on direction by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama rather than through parliamentary procedures or the wishes of the people. Below the government are sixty percent of Tibetans who are older — monks and lay people alike — largely unexposed to modern education, their mind frame stuck in ancient Tibet. This proportion of Tibetan people demonstrate no personal initiative to explore new ideas or methods or policies regarding the future of Tibet. Individually they are very efficient in meeting their personal necessities. They have almost blind faith in the Dalai Lama. This faith retains complete reliance on the Dalai Lama. When very carefully examined, this exposes two fundamental defects: (1). As far as the future of Tibet is concerned, at a subconscious level, they do not want to take any initiative or personal responsibility. (2). This lack of personal confidence breeds a hollow but inescapable blind trust that if they rely on the Dalai Lama, everything will be fine. Given these factors this mass of Tibetan people is an ideal and willing tool to propagate whatever policy or pronouncement the Tibetan government deems fit. The remaining 30 or 40% of Tibetans are the younger ones, most of whom are not well acquainted with or sufficiently grounded in their mother culture. So they really do not have a reference point to evaluate a modern society, outside society. Those who have sufficient knowledge of Tibetan society and the outside world have no voice in the Tibetan government to bring in fresh air. Some of these enterprising Tibetans started Tibetan political parties, but they became the target of intense public indignation and had to abandon their efforts. Others tried to express their view through the written media. They were either beaten by the mob or threatened within an inch of their lives. A few others started a newspaper of their own. It was so successful that it brought down the circulation of other Tibetan newspapers. However, a public rebuke by the Dalai Lama of this newspaper during a teaching in Dharamsala forced its closure. This is where the Tibetan exile community stands more than four and a half decades after they lost their independence to China.

Q: But how did the ban affect you personally?

A: Ever since 1962, when I joined the Tibetan school in Shimla in northern India until my graduation as Geshe Lharampa from Ganden Shartse in southern India in 1996, I have been an exemplary student. I always obtained A grades. Especially in south India, I made more than my share of contribution towards the cause of Tibet and development of the monastic college. The Tibetan exile government is well aware of all these. I was even being considered for the post of official translator for the Dalai Lama at that time. I have never had any connections with China or Taiwan. This fact can be easily verified by anyone. After I voiced my disagreement against this ban in April 1996, however, the Tibetan exile administration in Dharamsala has used every conceivable method to destroy my credibility. For example, the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament, Samdhong Rinpoche, in June 1996 spread the word in south India that I was holding two different passports. In New Delhi the Head of the Foreigners Registration Office tried to summon me twice, through notices, in an effort to revoke my permit to stay in India. The Bureau of the Dalai Lama in Delhi expressly sent its liaison officer more than once and told the concerned officers in the external affairs office of India that they must not renew my identity certificate [the yellow book issued to Tibetans in lieu of a passport]. None of these however succeeded. Most recently I have learned that the local foreigners registration office in Mundgod has been petitioned by front organizations of the Tibetan government in Dharamsala that they must not renew my RC [Registration Certificate]. This was in July 1997. This is just one part of the harassment that Dharamsala is subjecting me to. If I were to go to Dharamsala on my own, chances are that I would meet not only with public hostility but quite possibly I may be manhandled and beaten without mercy. But Dharamsala is not any exception in this respect. In any other Tibetan settlement in India, I am a marked man. If I were attacked in any of these settlements, no Tibetan would come to my defense — would dare to come to my defense.

An abbot of a Gelugpa monastery, an incarnate Lama, a Geshe, well educated, in his seventies, very gentle, soft spoken, kind and warm. He did not know me and I had no introduction. I did not really know who he was when I met him in a public place of the monastery until I found out his name later on. We talked in Tibetan and after just a few minutes he took me into another room where we could speak in private. He trusted me that quickly with a subject everyone was afraid to talk about openly. The monastery has given up performing Dorje Shugden rituals officially or in groups, but many of the monks still continue privately. He did not want his name to be used publicly; October 6, 1997:

Q: How has the ban affected you?

A: It has caused us great difficulties. We are at crossroads. The dilemma is whether to follow His Holiness and throw away our commitments to our root Gurus or to keep that commitment and displease His Holiness. This dilemma has caused untold inner turmoil. We lost our peace of mind. Often I cannot sleep; my mind is always on this subject. The inner turmoil prevents any kind of deep Dharma contemplation for which the mind has to be calm.

Those of us who live in India have considered escaping the difficulties created by the conflict. For example, if we want to attend His Holiness’ teachings, he says those who rely on Dorje Shugden cannot come. This is a source of deep hurt and stigma. If we went back to Tibet, we could not be sure that our freedom of religion would be upheld there. If we went to other countries, we could not be sure that we could continue to practice the same way as now because of so many different circumstances. So the ban has created many complications. It has even caused madness.

Q: How will this affect the future of the Gelug tradition?

A: It will weaken it because there is no trust among Gelugpas anymore. Some will follow the Dalai Lama and some their root Guru. Naturally there will be some fighting and hence more mistrust. In one way or another, everyone within the Gelug tradition will break their damtsig, their sacred word and commitments. Conflict arises between parents and children, husband and wife, Ganden Jangtse and Shartse, which were so close before and had good relations. They now oppose each other and so much conflict has sprung up between them. For example, Serkong Tsenshab Rinpoche told any people not to rely on Dorje Shugden. Now these people say instead of offering tormas to the protector, we offer him shit. This kind of hatred creates so much bad karma. Serkong Rinpoche and his father (the great adept, Serkong Dorje Chang) had a falling out over this issue and separated. Up in Spiti, they now call Serkong Tsenshab by the name of his father, Serkong Dorje Chang. This is how the Gelugpa tradition is changing. These days we have to be like the Gelugpas during the Kagyu wars, when Geshes wore hats that were red on the outside with the yellow hidden on the inside. When they were caught wearing yellow hats, they would be punished. During that time, many Gelugpas went far east to Kham and caused the tradition to flourish there. It is still a Gelugpa stronghold today.

Today, the situation is like this: Dorje Shugden followers say bad things about the Dalai Lama and this creates more conflict and more discrimination against Dorje Shugden followers. This becomes a cycle of ever larger and deeper conflicts. Like two stones hitting one another — one needs to worry about fire. Neither side is willing to change. Personally, I am worried that the conflict will escalate into a larger one, since both sides are dug in. They will die for their positions. In future, this might split the Tibetan community. Dharamsala says there are just a few Dorje Shugden followers, but this is not true. There are so many, about one third of all Buddhists who really practice (not of the general population) rely on Dorje Shugden. Because Tibetans don’t have the freedom, they are afraid to speak out.

The exile Tibetans are supposed to be democratic, but they are not. For example, in the monasteries, if someone goes against the abbot, he is suspended. The Tibetan government acts the same way. Their structure and actions are the same as that of a monastery. The Tibetan government is not true, not honest. They have democracy on their tongue but do not act on it. I am only saying this because I am really fed up with their actions and all of these conflicts they have created. I am speaking from my heart, not merely complaining. We lost our leader and we have no others. Everyone is too scared.

Jamphel Yeshe, sixty-year-old President of the Dorje Shugden Society, summarized and wrote down his life’s contributions upon request from a Dorje Shugden support group. What follows is an extract from the translation of an unpublished biographical statement. From September 1997, the Tibetan community has been circulating my dossier (one among ten others) published by the Security Bureau of the Tibetan exile government. Like a “wanted poster,” it was put up repeatedly on walls of Tibetan settlements around India and Nepal. This poster gives basic information about my whereabouts and that of my family. It also gives defamatory, wrong information about my person, falsely accusing me of working for the Chinese government, the worst possible disgrace for a Tibetan in exile. This and other defamatory acts that aim at ostracizing me and my family from society have been very painful and changed my life radically. Even worse than the death threats against me were the threats against my wife, who had to leave as a result. I had to send the children abroad for safety reasons. When my six- year-old daughter playfully answered the telephone, anonymous callers told her, “We will kill your Daddy.” This traumatized her so severely that she would check on me constantly, try to close all the doors, and prevent me from going outside. We have all been separated from each other for quite some time now, mother and father from children, husband and wife from each other. In addition, my business is boycotted by Tibetans who believe the distortions of the exile government, and my economic base is disappearing. I am alone and isolated from others in my already isolated exile society.

I am listing here my small contribution to social and public life since coming into exile, in order to set the record straight. Soon after I escaped from Tibet in the middle of 1959, I served as a group leader in Dalhousie for several years. Under my care were about eighty old people who were part of a temporary settlement of five hundred Tibetans. At the same time I was in charge of the Dalhousie branch of Ganden Shartse monastery. I acted as its treasurer for several years. After that, I served the Dalhousie branch of the Cholsum Organization, the largest umbrella of all Tibetan regional and social welfare organizations.

While studying in Varanasi at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, I contributed to many activities of the Institute. I was also an active member of the freedom movement from its inception at Varanasi. This organization became part of the backbone of the Tibetan exile administration. I served this organization in various capacities also in Dharamsala and Delhi. From 1975, I served the Gelugpa Cultural Society as a representative of Ganden Shartse and was active in exploring the possibility for a joint Mönlam Festival64 of all Buddhist traditions. In 1979, the Great Prayer Festival was celebrated by monasteries belonging to the Gelug, Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, presided over by the two Tutors of His Holiness, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche as well as many abbots, tulkus, monks, scholars and prominent lay people. This was the most special event in the history of the Gelugpa Cultural Society.

During my long stay in Delhi, I have tried to perform social services for different kinds of Tibetans according to my capacity. My personal name, Jamphel Yeshe or Chatreng Yeshe, is well known for my contribution in the Tibetan community. I have made continued efforts to request members of my own community and other countries to support Tibetans in need and the Tibetan cause in general. I received a medal of appreciation from Amdo Jamyang, the camp leader at the time of Majnuka Tilla in Delhi, for helping raise funds for the Tibetan school at that camp. My own regional group, the Chatreng Association, has acknowledged my contribution to developing its organization and helping its members. I also tried to find a way to build a residence for His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Delhi, since he does not have a place of his own to stay on his many visits to and through the Indian capital on his way abroad. But since I am merely an individual without means, I made an impassioned appeal and detailed proposal to the Tibetan Women’s Association. But the plan never materialized. His Holiness still has to stay in hotels when he comes to Delhi.

For all my life in exile, I have had the welfare of Tibetans and the idea of freedom constantly on my mind. As is well known in the Tibetan community, I worked towards that end in many different ways. All of this is destroyed now by the defamation campaign against me and my family. Because of death threats, I cannot go anywhere alone. I have to live in constant fear of losing my life, my family, my community, my access to religion, my livelihood, — in short, everything that is dear to me and makes my life worth living.

From an interview with Jamphel Yeshe, Delhi, October 1997: When we first escaped to India, it was because of our religious faith. We also had the strong hope to return to a free Tibet. For more than thirty years we held the hope we will get freedom for our country. But that has changed completely now and not only because the Chinese are so intransigent. Even the hope for future freedom has been dashed because of the exile administration’s more recent policy.

Q: How has the ban affected you personally?

A: Since the ban we have endless inner turmoil, day and night. My situation is not exceptional. Each and every Tibetan Buddhist who is not able to relinquish faith in his or her Guru is in the same situation. Since the ban was imposed by the Tibetan exile government, families have broken down in every Tibetan community. Children broke relations with their parents and teachers and students have stopped speaking with each other. These things happened because the Tibetan exile government started a signature campaign against our faith. We were asked to sign a list swearing that we will give up our reliance on the Dharmapala (Dorje Shugden) for this and all future lives. These lists were passed around very publically so everyone could see who signed and who not. When the government stopped, the Women’s Association and Youth Congress continued to push people to sign. Through the public nature of this campaign we have been completely marginalized. As the president of the Dorje Shugden Society, it was my duty to inform all Tibetans about the situation.

If a Tibetan speaks out, the automatic reaction now is to find out whether or not he relies on Dorje Shugden. If he does, then as a Tibetan, I should not have any contact with him, according to the Tibetan exile government. Because of the atmosphere of distrust created this way, I have lost many of my former friends and business contacts. They all know I rely on Dorje Shugden. It has become a trend within the Tibetan exile community for people to declare openly that they want to go after me and finish me. Threats are also made openly against my colleagues in the Society and we experience this prevailing atmosphere of fear and distrust as a great burden.

I am a family man, I have three children. My oldest son is twelve years old, the second son nine years, and my daughter is six years old. The two older children were in school at the Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) in Dharamsala. I and my family received many explicit death threats. I found out through reliable sources — I can’t tell you who — that an ex-military man and a member of the Tibetan parliament from Rajpur was discussing my two sons and their whereabouts in school in Dharamsala and my involvement with the Dorje Shugden Society with other Tibetans from a military background.68 He said they were well trained and that he and his colleagues would do whatever was necessary and whatever the Tibetan exile government wanted them to do against the Dorje Shugden people.69 So I took my children out of the school in Dharamsala and sent them to a safe place in another country. The perception was that anyone who wanted to attack us was free to do so. The threat letters I received included statements like, “We will not spare your wife and children.”

My wife and I received many threatening phone calls, and even our six-year-old daughter. When asked for a name, the answer was only “I am a man.” Once, when they called, the child answered the telephone, as she often did, and the person on the other end told her, “There are fifteen of us here in Delhi and we will kill you and we will kill your father. We will destroy you.” My daughter was very upset. She went to close all the doors and told me to stay inside. Early in the morning, she would come to my bed and touch me. When I moved, she shouted, overjoyed, “Daddy is still alive.”

Mrs. Pema is the wife of the retired schoolteacher Dr. Thubten. It is not clear why people call him doctor. He had been a monk earlier and holds a Geshe Lharampa degree from Ganden Shartse (1958). He escaped from Tibet in 1959 and joined the teacher training program in Dharamsala. From 1963, he worked for the Indian government for 29 years in the Central Tibetan School system in Mussoorie, in South India, in Dalhousie and Shimla. In 1991, the family bought a small piece of land in the Clementown Tibetan settlement near Dehradun and built a house there. They have a daughter age twenty-two. Mrs. Pema says she was introduced to the Dorje Shugden practice by her husband but has become a strong believer herself now. She is crying as soon as she starts to talk and intermittently breaks into uncontrollable sobs. She is clearly still traumatized from the events which happened a year ago and again several months ago. I talked to Mrs. Pema’s nephew, a monk at Ganden, independently at another time. He had been locked inside the house during the arson attempt and confirmed her story. I met Mrs. Pema unexpectedly in Delhi in October 1997; her husband was somewhere in Delhi in an undisclosed place, so I could not interview him.

Mrs. Pema: My husband knows much about Dorje Shugden because he is a Geshe Lharampa and earlier had studied the subject extensively. He explained the history to people who had not even heard about Dorje Shugden before and were told all kinds of misinformation. So after that people were saying he is not obeying the Dalai Lama. October last year (1996) we came to Delhi for religious observances and left our daughter and nephew in the house [in Clementown near Dehradun]. On November 7, 1996, a group of people came and locked the house from the outside with the children inside and then threw stones at it and tried to set the house on fire. Luckily only the curtains caught fire through the open windows, the house did not burn because it is made of concrete. The children were able to stop the fire from spreading inside but men with masks had poured kerosene over the front door before they ignited it. For two hours they pelted the house with stones and shouted obscenities, including references to Dorje Shugden in Amdo dialect. Kalsang, my daughter, was finally able to open the door from the inside with a hairpin. She called us in Delhi. When we went to talk to the police, they told us that they could not protect us and that we should leave for a while because our lives were in danger there. They assured us that the house would be under police protection. So we left for Delhi.

On June 29, 1997, our house in the Clementown settlement was attacked again. We got a call saying that if we wanted to save any of our possessions we better come back immediately. When we got there, we went to the police station for help. They accompanied us and left two policemen with us while we looked through the house to see what could be salvaged. We found the door had been broken down and everything was destroyed with broken china everywhere. Thirty years of hard work went into this house. Fifteen to twenty minutes after the other policemen had left, a group of seventy to ninety Tibetans came and bombarded the house with stones again for two hours. The two policemen left for our security ran away. After some time twenty to twenty-five different policemen, some with two or three stars, came from Dehradun. A journalist took pictures. The crowd took his camera and injured his hand.71 Two or three women held back a policeman while the Tibetan men kept attacking the house. Leading officers finally told us to take our possessions and to leave since the crowd would kill us and they would not take any responsibility. I told them I did not want to leave the house. If I cannot have religious freedom, I will die for it.

We asked the police for a written statement saying that they could not protect us, but they refused. They only said that if we did not leave, the mob would kill us. Then a policeman came with a truck and took us away for protection. We were kept in police custody for five hours. A friend and the driver who had brought us from Delhi were hurt and did not receive medical attention. Then the local police brought our belongings, saying that we had to vacate the house. They did this as a favor to us since the mob was threatening to burn down everything. Since most of the things were broken, like the TV and refrigerator, we told them they are of no use anymore, that they should have left them to burn.

Q: Why did you not initiate legal action?

A: We don’t know anything about Indian law and if we try to complain or file a case, there is a bribery system. We don’t have any money. A complaint will take a long time. Besides, the Clementown police were bribed by Tibetans. The truck the police had loaded our things on and sent us away from the settlement was paid for by the police with money they received from the government in exile. They have made our life like hell.

Now we live in Delhi where we have to pay rent. We lost everything and my husband is too old to start over again. The people in Clementown want to kill him. Only because of the religious ban did we have trouble there, after we had lived there peacefully for five years. My daughter did not sign the petitions to give up Dorje Shugden. There were ten to fifteen families in Clementown who relied on Dorje Shugden. We were the only one that did not sign the petition. My husband was a disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and had strong faith in him. So there was no question of giving his signature. My husband taught Tibetan children for thirty years. Many of them now hold office in Dharamsala and they turned against him like this. Everywhere he went, he used to get respect from former students — thousands and thousands. Now everything is destroyed, is finished. We are refugees a second time, once from Tibet and once from India.

Source :
http://www.shugdensociety.info/pdfs/BernisResearch.pdf

Samdhong Rinpoche

Below is a letter written by Dorje Shugden practitioners living in the USA to Radio Free Asia in response to the article they published in which Prime Minister Samdhong is Encouraging Violence Against Shugden Practitioners.

Dear Sirs:
We are writing with regards to the recent news posting on December 24th 2010 on the website of Radio Free Asia in the Tibetan news section of the agency…The media clip that has been posted there broadcasted the speech of the Prime Minister of Tibetan Government-in-Exile, Samdong Rinpoche, regarding the issue of worshipping the Buddhist deity Shugden.

In this speech, Samdong Rinpoche calls Tibetans to fight with Shugden followers; he even labels these people as “traitors” and “terrorists”. According to him, Shugden devotees are not to be tolerated by other Tibetans, who should not mingle with the followers of the deity, and who should stop any relations with them. The Tibetan Service of RFA is well known and quite popular in the Tibetan community in Exile, especially among the Tibetan community outside of Tibet and India as an independent source of news and information regarding Tibetan affairs. The tensions that exist in Tibetan society due to the Dharamsala policy on the issue that results in physical, emotional, mental and economic suffering of Shugden devotees, should be accounted for by the Tibetan service of RFA as well, whose coverage contributes to such framing of the issue. The Tibetan service of RFA should bear its share of responsibility, being the Fourth Estate.

We, the group of the followers of Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden, are very much upset by the news release of Tibetan service of RFA for posting the audio clip of the speech of the representative of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile without giving any comment and critical evaluation of such a policy and the official viewpoint of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile that conducts the policy of intolerance towards a community of people that has different religious views than the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile.

It is hard to believe that the Tibetan service of RFA is posting the news release without giving any comment as a media that operates in a free country and whose mission is to provide news to countries whose governments prohibit access to a free press. By giving the floor only to the official “Dharamsala” information on the issue of Shugden means supporting the policy of discrimination based on religion and the failure to adhere to its mission and principles of free press.

By submitting this message we truly believe that opinions other than those of official Dharamsala should be published on the website of the service as well.

Thank you for your attention.
Dorjee Shugden USA

( Source : http://shugdensociety.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/a-letter-from-tibetan-shugden-practitioners-in-the-usa-to-radio-free-asia/)

1. In brief
2. Segregation
3. Does the Dalai Lama have the right to do this?
4. Who is responsible for the ban, Yellow Card and resulting penalties for those who disobey?
5. Does this affect Western Buddhists?
6. Does this affect Tibetans in the West?
7. How many people are affected by this ban and persecution?

(1) In brief

• Monks and nuns are forbidden to do the practice and are unconstitutionally expelled from their monasteries and nunneries if they do not comply
• Thousands of Shugden practitioners among the Tibetan lay people are being forced to abandon the practice or lose the support of their government and face orchestrated public humiliation and intimidation
• People who refuse to renounce the practice are losing their jobs, their children are being expelled from schools, and their travel papers, which require prior authorization from the Tibetan Government in Exile, are not being issued
• Statues have been smashed, temples destroyed, books burned, practitioners’ houses attacked, and even death threats issued in a persecution that resembles a medieval witch hunt

(2) Segregation

Today the entire Tibetan population is being forced to hold an Identity Card, the YELLOW CARD, proving that they took the oath swearing (1) not to worship Dorje Shugden, and (2) not to have any material or spiritual relationship with Dorje Shugden practitioners.

This segregates and denies the human rights of both monastics and lay families.

Segregation in the monasteries

Buddhist monks and nuns who do not swear and are not given the Yellow Card are:

• Not allowed to eat with others
• Deprived of food. They are not allowed in any of the monastery’s kitchens. Even if they receive some external help for their survival, they cannot buy food from the monastery’s shop or anywhere in the nearby Tibetan settlements
• Not allowed to set foot in their main temple
• Not allowed to attend the daily monastic gatherings of prayers, rituals and debates
• Having to be protected by Indian police to attend the sacred yearly Monlam Chenmo Festival, created by their religious founder Je Tsongkhapa
• Receiving violent threats in the neighbouring Tibetan settlements, cowardly posted during the night

It is forbidden to talk to them. It is forbidden to walk close to them. If you see one of them, you have to deviate your steps to not cross his or her path.

Segregation in the lay community

Lay Tibetans have been made to swear the double oath of not worshipping the Protector Dorje Shugden themselves, as well as forsaking all contact with the monastic practitioners.

Those who do not swear and are not given the Yellow Card:

• Are not allowed to travel in the same taxicab or rickshaw with other Tibetans
• Cannot purchase even the most essential groceries (their children cannot even buy candy)
• Cannot eat in any restaurant
• Lose their jobs
• Have their children expelled from school

Definition of Segregation from Cornell: 3 -Segregation -1. enforced separation of groups: the practice of keeping ethnic, racial, religious, or gender groups separate, especially by enforcing the use of separate schools, transportation, housing, and other facilities, and usually discriminating against a minority group.

4 -A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly [.] and the right to equality in public places.

Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. (Cornell University Law School).]

(3) Does the Dalai Lama have the right to do this?

Although the world has been served an image of the Dalai Lama as the religious leader – a Pope of sorts – of all Buddhists, he is not. He does not have any religious authority to do what he is doing. In a general way this is because Buddhism accepts all internal religious beliefs and doesn’t harbor the notion of persecuting heresy, and in particular because there is no level of authority in the Buddhist religion to order or implement a religious persecution.

(4) Who is responsible for the ban, Yellow Card and resulting penalties for those who disobey?

Everything going on now is the direct responsibility of the Dalai Lama. He has been campaigning personally to push the abbots and monks to do the referendum and make others take the double oath.

He is responsible for the persecution because he chose the necessary words to push Tibetans to become the tormentors of their fellow exiles by repeating four calumnies over and over again.

1. The worshipping of Dorje Shugden endangers his life
2. It harms the cause of Tibet
3. Practitioners assassinated three monks in Dharamsala in the 1990s
4. Practitioners are working for the Chinese to harm the cause of Tibet

To measure how deep the crisis goes, consider the following statement by Ngawang Tenpa, Officer of the Cholsum organisation, the largest regional group in Tibetan politics:

It is possible to think of a time when we will make friends with the Chinese, but with these (Dorje Shugden) people – never.

(5) Does this affect Western Buddhists?

Western Buddhist Centers with a connection to the Dalai Lama have also been signing declarations promising not to engage in the Shugden practice or to allow into their Center anyone who does.

In the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition) Handbook, Lama Zopa says:

All those who offer service or teach in FPMT centers are committed to follow the advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. As an example, His Holiness has prohibited the practice of the so-called protector, Do Gyel (Shugden), so teachers or others affiliated with the FPMT should not engage in this practice.

This also extends to ordination. From the IMI/FPMT website:

Students considering ordination should also:

• have had Buddhist refuge for at least five years,
• have lived with lay vows for at least three years,
• NOT be a Shugden practitioner,
• be at least 20 years of age, etc etc

This is even though Lama Zopa says about himself and his teacher, the Founder of the FPMT:

Of course, Lama and I practiced Dorje Shugden for many years. That was always the main thing that Lama did whenever there were problems to overcome. At the beginning of every Kopan course, Lama always did Shugden puja to eliminate hindrances.“

This suppression of religious freedom and private belief amongst Western practitioners is even more ironic and tragic given that about 70% of their lineage Gurus were renowned Dorje Shugden practitioners! Where is their lineage now? It seems to start and end with the Dalai Lama (who is, interestingly enough, placed alone and above all the other great Lamas on the lineage Guru page, including his own teachers). The Dalai Lama is clearly destroying the established and ancient spiritual lineage not only of Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners but of Westerners too.

This February, the Dalai Lama sent the FPMT Centers the same referendum as in India with the two questions about (1) whether they reject the Protector Dorje Shugden and (2) whether they support Dorje Shugden practitioners.

This so-called “poll” does not lead to actual physical persecution as the Dalai Lama has no political power in the West to back it up (though, he does control the disbursement of considerable financial resources to these centers). But causing Westerners to swear that they are going to discriminate against others based on their religious faith is not only non-Buddhist, but creates disharmony and mistrust between the many European and American FPMT Buddhist Centers and the many Western Buddhist Centers who do rely upon Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden.

Many Dorje Shugden practitioners in the West, both Westerners and Tibetans, have been forced to remain anonymous for fear of becoming a target of the Dalai Lama’s criticism and developing a bad reputation. They are falsely accused of being demon-worshippers, Chinese agents, sectarian cult members, and so on. Because of the Dalai Lama’s unquestioned reputation in the West, the media have often believed him over the explanations of Dorje Shugden practitioners, and so have portrayed Dorje Shugden practitioners with a negative bias.

(6) Does this affect Tibetans in the West?

Many Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners in the West fear the Dalai Lama’s followers, both in Asia and the rest of the world, with good reasons.

The Tibetan communities in the West have already implemented some type of segregation, even before the taking of the oath. For example, in April there was a demonstration at Colgate University against the Dalai Lama’s actions. One of the monks who attended was recognised by members of the American Tibetan community as the brother of a restaurant owner. People stopped attending that restaurant, which will soon be forced out of business.

On April 26, 2008, at Ganden Lachi monastery, Mundgod, South India, Thupten Lungrik, the minister of the Department of Education (of the Tibetan government in exile) gave a public speech to the monks and lay people:

Every Tibetan must know that the Shugden society has filed the case against His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In New York, during the demonstration by western Shugden devotees, some Tibetans took part. All Tibetans must identify them.

On May 4, 2008, an urgent meeting against Shugden devotees was held in Dharamsala. Samdhong Rinpoche [the Dalai Lama's principal aide] said that Shugden devotees are staging demonstrations against His Holiness the Dalai Lama in many places; and that it is not the right time to demonstrate. The discussion on the writ petition filed by the society in Delhi High Court was taking place. Some Tibetans volunteered to attack the Shugden society and its members.

(7) How many people are affected by this ban and persecution?

This is a widespread religious tradition. There are an estimated one million Tibetans in the Tibetan areas of China that rely upon Dorje Shugden as the Protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s wisdom tradition. There are many other Dorje Shugden practitioners in Mongolia, India, Taiwan, Nepal, Switzerland, the US, the UK, and so on. All of them are affected directly or indirectly by this ban and, if nothing is done to stop it, a well-loved, peaceful and ancient tradition of Buddhism will be destroyed.

Source: www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden01.php

This is a collection of video clips on the recent documentary by Al Jazeera entitled ‘Dalai Lama – The Devil Within’
by Al Jazeera that highlight Professor Samdhong Rinpoche blatantly lying.