Who made Lama Zopa a Rinpoche?

Originally published on June 11, 2009

(Source: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=49.0)

This website helps me to see things better but what I as I have always believed deep in my heart the same beliefs as expressed in this website…

I respect H.H. the Dalai Lama and I respect Dharmaphala Dorje Shugden. Just like my teacher Lama Yeshe who had supreme faith in H.H. and trusted Dorje Shugden his whole life till he passed away.

LAMA YESHE was the very symbol of skillful compassionate action in constant motion and he mentioned many times that Dorje Shugden made his works grow as far as it did during his life time. Lama stayed true to his root teachers such as H.H. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten and H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche showing us what guru devotion is really meant to be free of political inclinations.

In his practice of Dorje Shugden, Lama never hinted even slightly of sectarianism, or disregard for any form of religion never mind Buddhism. Lama would sometimes make breakfast for us students and during breakfast go into a dharma subject we were unclear about, or praise of H.H. the Dalai Lama or one of his personal teachers.

That truly was an age of ‘innocence’ sort of a way to say. Very inspiring stories at that. I miss those days before the controversies. Much simpler back then. Simpler that there was next to zero in lama-bashing, centre-bashing, lineage-bashing or siding up with H.H. the Dalai Lama for political reasons.

It was Lama who cared for me and taught me patiently. It is Lama whom I owe everything to. I will choose Lama always.

I am grateful to Lama for the dharma he imparted to so many. I express my gratefulness to Lama by myself never criticizing or doubting any of his practices or the practices he so compassionately gave us.

If Lama can have such deep affection/faith for H.H. the Dalai Lama, tremendous effort of guru devotion in his lamas, and keep up the practice of his protector Dorje Shugden throughout his life and see no conflicts, then I will do the same in my limited capacity.

I respect the Dalai Lama from my heart, but my root guru is Lama Yeshe and he advised us to practice Dorje Shugden and I will do so till the end.

If I must choose between the Dalai Lama and my root guru, Lama Yeshe, then I choose Lama Yeshe. He is the one that cared for me. Patiently taught me the dharma in a down-to-earth pragmatic level.

Lama Yeshe was not considered to be a scholar, or have studied much or even considered learned by his own Tibetan peers. Lama Yeshe was not a Rinpoche per se, nor ‘qualified’ to sit on a throne in a monastic environment, and did not obtain his Geshe degree that some equate as qualified to teach these days, but he was instrumental to bring thousands onto the path of BuddhaDharma.

He had real experiential knowledge of the dharma and was able to convey it in such a way that it would literally change the lives of hundreds as it did me.

I have met the Dalai Lama a few times and feel very fortunate, but the actual lama that took care of me was Lama Yeshe. I will view him as my refuge. In my meditations I invite Dalai Lama, Lama Zopa, Zong Rinpoche to dissolve into Lama Yeshe and then I focus on Lama Yeshe and proceed with my refuge.

Even when Lama was hospitalized for the last time and ‘dying’, H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche flew in to perform the rituals, prayers, ceremonies necessary. The actual cremation H.H. Zong Rinpoche again flew into Vajrapani Institute in California to oversee the whole procedure. That shows us Lama’s deep guru samaya intact that on his deathbed, his great lama would personally fly in to do the rites both during his death process and again during the cremation.

Kyabje Zong Rinpoche performing puja for Lama when he was extremely sick

Lama made no conflicts between the great lamas, his lamas, lineages, schools, diverse religions and certainly not dorje shugden and I think that embodies his capacity to think from a deeper wisdom. I bow to Lama. I MISS LAMA.

I hope his students will keep their samaya clean to Lama. I hope his students will never criticize H.H. the Dalai Lama, H.H. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, their practices and their students.


I am very happy to see Lama Yeshe’s sacred picture in this website’s masters sections. Many people are afraid to say the truth to look politically wrong. But that is not what the dharma is about. We should let go of attachment of this sort and just do our practice. Ego-less state of mind is the goal of our practice as Lama would say.

Lama relied on Dorje Shugden, just as Kyabje Zong Rinpoche did. When we condemn Dorje Shugden, aren’t we condemning Lama’s choices? Aren’t we condemning Kyabje Zong Rinpoche’s choices?

Also never to criticize Dorje Shugden and the practices Lama gave us SO THAT HIS CURRENT INCARNATION CAN MANIFEST AS A DHARMA TEACHER. The only way his unmistaken current incarnation can manifest as a great dharma teacher again, is if his students keep samaya clean free of politics and free of politically motivated actions in the name of dharma.

Otherwise, it would be the responsibilities of the students if the current Lama Yeshe incarnation cannot perform the actions as he had set out to do. After all, if we as FPMT members criticize others who practice Dorje Shugden, then that will accumulate very heavy karma. Why? Because we destroy the faith of others in their gurus.

Do we have the right to do that? Does Lama Zopa’s closeness with H.H. the Dalai Lama validate FPMT CENTRES AND MEMBERS TO BE SOME KIND OF SPIRITUAL POLICE. That type of spiritual arrogance will be the downfall of any dharma organization. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF LAMA YESHE’S ASPIRATIONS.

We should reflect Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa well, by never criticizing other sects, lamas, lineages, practices, Dorje Shugden, etc. Why because it contradicts Lama Yeshe’s Bodhicitta aspirations. We should not especially criticize lamas who are spiritual heirs of Sera, Gaden, Drepung or who are students of Pabongkha, Trijang, Zong Rinpoches. Why? Because they are OUR LINEAGE LAMAS ALSO AND THEY ALL PRACTICED DORJE SHUGDEN AS THEIR PRINCIPLE PROTECTOR.

What if Lama’s reincarnation decides not to take over?

After all, think, how many years will Lama Zopa be alive. If Lama Osel, doesn’t decide to take over, or manifest as in his previous life, then what will happen to FPMT after Lama Zopa is gone. I shudder to think that. So we MUST CREATE THE CAUSES FOR FPMT TO SURVIVE AND LAMA OSEL TO MANIFEST AS HIS PREVIOUS LIFE BY KEEPING OUR SAMAYA CLEAN. HELPING OTHERS TO KEEP THEIR SAMAYAS CLEAN TO THEIR LAMAS BY NEVER CRITICIZING.

We can set out to cross the bridge, but if others destroy the bridge, then to get to the other side would take much more effort after great delays. Lama Zopa is working so hard, but the sad time will come when he enters death, then if Lama Osel’s incarnation is willing to take over, it will be smooth. Otherwise what will happen. What will become of all that has been started??? That would be such a waste.

So myself, I keep up my practices to create the causes for that. We cannot think of Lama’s work just expanding in our life time which it can due to Lama Zopa. But into future lifetimes. Future generations. So for that to happen, we need continuation of Lama’s successor.

If we just follow along the current political tides, we may look clean and good, but simultaneously it becomes damaging to what Lama’s previous incarnation practiced and that would not be very good. What’s the point if Lama’s centers and works grow now and after Lama Zopa’s passing, it stops, slows down or what not?

Is spiritual attainments gained by flashing pictures we have taken together with the Dalai Lama to other centers and justifying our arrogant authoritarian ways with that? I don’t think so.

I think if Dalai Lama is close to FPMT we should reflect that well by being even more humble, even more gentle, even more kind so we do not stain the name of H.H. the Dalai Lama. We cannot uplift his name or prove our guru devotion to him by putting down anything in regards to Dorje Shugden. That would be a heavy price to pay at the expense of our own Lama Yeshe’s heart protector. That is Dorje Shugden.

So when Lama was alive, we practice Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden is ok and a Buddha.

Lama Yeshe (far right) and Lama Zopa (second from right) doing a puja underneath a thangka of Dorje Shugden.

Kopan had monthly ‘secret’ pujas to Dorje Shugden as with most of the centers. The FPMT centers that were fortunate to have a great lama/geshe living nearby would always invite them monthly to the centers to do the monthly Dorje Shugden pujas as instructed by both Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa.

The young Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche who resides in Nepal was often invited to Kopan Monastery to perform incredible pujas. Even before the current new Kopan Prayer Hall was built, many preliminary pujas had to be done on the land before the foundation was set. Kopan invited Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche to perform them.

Then when Dharamsala started stepping up on their anti-Shugden campaign, Kopan cut their ties with Pabongkha Rinpoche. It remains so till this day amazingly and he is the reincarnation of our lineage master!!!

I was amazed when I heard that from very reliable sources. In fact, Kopan wanted to look good, that the monk administrators influenced some Taiwanese sponsors against Pabongkha Rinpoche. Rinpoche was promised by them to build a Pabongkha Monastery in Nepal, and the Taiwanese had promised to sponsor it.

In order to get on Dharamsala’s good side and to get the sponsorship for themselves, Kopan administrative monks told the Taiwanese sponsors (which I will withhold name from here) that Pabongkha Rinpoche is not following Dalai Lama’s instructions to abandon Shugden practice and that they should not support Pabongkha’s Rinpoche’s intent on building the Monastery in Nepal.

Consequently it worked and unfortunately for Kopan’s karma. My question is, who put Kopan as the spiritual police in Nepal and so daringly create schism between their lineage guru’s sponsors??

For example, the Delhi FPMT branch centre in the past on monthly basis would invite the great Rongtha Gyabgon Rinpoche who lived in Ladakh Budh Vihar, New Delhi to perform the pujas at their centre every month. Dorje Shugden full puja was done at FPMT centre in Delhi monthly with great offerings. It was advised by Lama Zopa. In fact, Lama Zopa used to perform the Dorje Shugden pujas in both Kopan and Delhi himself on many occasions!!

Himalayan Yogic Institute in Katmandu had a Dorje Shugden statue in their side shrine room in a box with offerings, it would be opened from time to time as did the Delhi centre.

So Kopan is now very great, how did Dorje Shugden damage Kopan?? What was the wrong results manifesting now due to the decades that Lama Yeshe practiced Dorje Shugden and had Kopan do pujas monthly?? So if a friend helped us in the past, and we get a new friend, we simply abandon the old friend? Is that ethical or dharmic?

Lama Yeshe in Kopan, 1975 doing a puja during the 8th Meditation Course. Thanks to Lama’s reliance on Dorje Shugden, Kopan has grown to become great today. So how did Lama’s reliance on Dorje Shugden curtail Kopan’s success?

Then Lama dies and we don’t practice because H.H. the Dalai Lama says not to. And HH has reasons beyond our ordinary minds can conceive. Then one unfortunate day, H.H. Dalai Lama passes away (very sad time) and Lama Yeshe is back and then we again practice Dorje Shugden?? I mean that is a strange scenario. Back and forth that is.

It is very sad, because many of the FPMT centers now go on spiritual witch-hunts condemning other centers in their same cities. Using Dorje Shugden practice as negative as their ‘pure’ reasoning to take students away from their respective centers to join the nearby FPMT centers. But in fact they are just as I see it, trying to increase their own memberships.

I have witnessed this. Many, many, many of the older Lama Yeshe students have gone underground with their practices of Dorje Shugden. Some like me do not really go to the centers here in the USA anymore. They will not abandon their practice of Dorje Shugden because of their great devotion to Lama Yeshe and are somewhat flabbergasted at the direction that some new FPMT centers’ are going with their arrogant witch hunts.


We must practice the essence of what HH teaches as did Lama Yeshe, which are tolerance, compassion, forgiveness and not ever slandering any lama, dharma, lineage or practice. As the karmic retributions will fall onto us. We should never mislead new FPMT students toward this line of thought. We are destroying our organization slowly if we do so.

FPMT centers citing so and so practice Dorje Shugden and so therefore they are not pure. That is so hypocritical and political because Lama Yeshe practiced and Lama Zopa was recognized as a tulku by Dorje Shugden himself. In Dorje Shugden is a ghost, then Lama Zopa’s recognition becomes nil.

In fact some of the FPMT centers’ committees are in direct competition to attach students to their OWN centers for fundraising, attendance, membership, etc. So they use the heinous method of condemning Dorje Shugden to scare other centre members into joining FPMT. In fact when they do that, it is a disgrace. Older/senior FPMT students should speak up to new and younger ones who have not had the great fortune to meet our founder, Lama Yeshe.

Lama with His Holiness Zong Rinpoche (seated) and Lama Zopa. Both Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa received Dorje Shugden from Zong Rinpoche Rinpoche. Was Lama praying to a ghost? What Zong Rinpoche praying to a ghost?

Lama Yeshe’s main protector practice was Dorje Shugden till the end. He didn’t take an unfortunate rebirth. Dorje Shugden didn’t harm him? IF LAMA YESHE WAS PRAYING TO A GHOST, THEN WHY DIDN’T HE TAKE REBIRTH IN THE THREE LOWER REALMS??

We must think clearly and not be swept away by convenient political tides in order to fill our dharma centers with membership so it gives it a successful appearance. If that was done, what would be the cost? It would affect Lama Osel’s current incarnation in not being able to manifest as a dharma teacher.

We destroy other people’s faith in their lama, and help them break their samaya with their lama, that karma would return back to us PERSONALLY AND AS A GROUP.

We as FPMT should respect our founder’s wishes and not ever criticize Dorje Shugden, his practitioners, his lineage, his followers in anyway because our founder, Lama Yeshe was one of them.

We shouldn’t practice or not practice what the current political situation pressures us to or not to. We should do what our lama says. So during Lama’s life Dorje Shugden is good and now Lama is dead, so Dorje Shugden is bad??? Wouldn’t that infer that lama was wrong, had bad degenerate practices, lacking in wisdom, had no refuge, had no attainments and wasted his life praying to a spirit??

So if Lama gave us Heruka initiation and practice, then it had no blessings because lama’s refuge degenerated due to his practice of Dorje Shugden?? Since Dorje Shugden is a spirit and Lama kept up his ‘sogtae’ (Dorje Shugden’s initiation) or life entrustment practices his whole life, then all of the other practices lama did was degenerated and ineffective when passed to us.

So any practices Lama Zopa received from Lama Yeshe and passes it to others would logically be degenerate also??? Wouldn’t it?

Lama gave many teachings and practices to us. It is our duty and commitment as his students that we maintain what Lama conferred on us, and not give it up for convenience or the sake of politics or financial benefits.

The implications are quite big if we choose to believe that way….So that would mean many of the practices that Lama Zopa does now and gives others that are directly from Lama Yeshe are degenerated because Lama Yeshe was degenerated?? Of course not. Very dangerous line of thought. Very ruinous direction we are heading toward.

I watched Lama Zopa get brow-beaten into ‘giving’ up his Dorje Shugden practices. And Lama has to be degenerated because H.H. Kyabje Trijang and Zong Rinpoches were degenerated we have to falsely assume. Both these lamas practiced Dorje Shugden till they entered parinirvana (deaths)…Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche entered into 12 days of clear light meditations in Dharamsala and Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, three days.

And their unmistaken incarnations are back recognized by both H.H. the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden via his oracle again. How come they didn’t go to the Three Lower Realms since they worshipped Dorje Shugden the ‘spirit’ their whole lives in fact in all their previous many incarnations they worshipped also.

They didn’t descend into the lower realms from a lifetime of practicing and propagating a Dorje Shugden. Since these great lamas have ‘degenerated’ their refuge by the practice of Dorje Shugden which implies they have zero attainments in the first place to choose a spirit to worship, then their other practices naturally became defiled.

Do we choose to believe that way of thought?? I and many others clearly don’t. It doesn’t make sense. Many teachers and thousands of their disciples around the world today are committed and practice Dorje Shugden today. Because they have been given this practice by H.H. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche. They are following the commands of their root gurus, so what are they doing wrong? We switch gurus like status symbols??

His Holiness Zong Rinpoche (left) and His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche (right) were both Lama’s gurus. Both of them practiced Dorje Shugden, and they in turn conferred this practice onto Lama. Lama maintained his commitment to them until the end of his life, so how come we cannot maintain ours?

These are both the root gurus of Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa. So we should not criticize other centers, lamas, students that practice Dorje Shugden. Be true to your dharma practice.

Even if hypothetically lama had given up his Dorje Shugden practices during his life, which he did not, his gurus didn’t give it up. So if his gurus did not give it up, then the practices received by Lama Yeshe would have been degenerated since his lamas are degenerated.

Lama Yeshe was inviting H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche up till his death in the early 80’s to his centers giving teachings, initiations, transmissions and commentaries. And Dorje Shugden life empowerments to hundreds. So however you want to look at it, then many of the practice graciously conferred by lama Zopa today are in one way or another defiled or at least contaminated. Could that be so? I don’t want to go that direction.

So however many photos Lama Zopa takes together with H.H. the Dalai Lama and advertised (as today, affiliations with Dalai Lama in any way would hint at authenticity/genuine practice whether you are or not) or whoever many events of H.H. are sponsored by Lama Zopa, it still cannot wash away the inner degenerate practices received from Lama Yeshe. Is that what we choose to believe?

Lama assisting Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, who he was extremely devoted to. Lama never gave up his commitments. What kind of example are we setting for future generations of FPMT if we gave up what Lama gave to us? What does that say about our devotion to Lama?

Even if Lama Zopa truly gave up his Dorje Shugden practices to be ‘absolved’, then he would have to give up all the practices that Lama Yeshe gave him also or at least don’t pass it to others. Then we have to believe the founder of our FPMT Lama Yeshe WAS WRONG.

In order to be truly clean? Just giving up Dorje Shugden wouldn’t be enough as his root lama, Lama Yeshe would have to be thought of as WRONG IN LAMA ZOPA’S DAILY MEDITATIONS. I also don’t think so.

So I again request everyone to think of the implications. Otherwise Lama Zopa had no formal long term training in Sera, has never studied to be a Geshe and is not a known as a scholar. He is not a Geshe of any rank. But contrary to not being a scholar-Geshe, he has excelled as a great master anyways. How kind of Dorje Shugden to know that Lama Zopa would bring many benefit to others and therefore recognize him as a true reincarnation.

When Dorje Shugden recognized him as a great incarnation, everyone accepted and believed. It is believed and accepted until today WITHOUT QUESTION. So if Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit, what about Lama Zopa? Do we want to go that direction I ask again ? If Dorje Shugden is evil, then why believe Lama Zopa is an incarnation? Since Dorje Shugden pronounced it first.

I am grateful to Dorje Shugden for assisting Lama throughout his holy life. I am grateful to H.H. the Dalai Lama to spread Dharma even further now where the seeds have been sown way back then by the greats like Lama and his contemporaries for it to grow this big now..

This website speaks the same message as Lama Yeshe did. That is guru devotion, tolerance, acceptance and using one’s wisdom mind. I thank all those who participate in it and host it.


The famous oracle of Dungkar, taking trance of Dorje Shugden. There was only one oracle at Dungkar, and this oracle took trance of six deities, three of whom are Dorje Shugden or associated with Dorje Shugden.

There was a very famous oracle of Dorje Shugden in Dromo Geshe’s Rinpoche’s Dungkar Monastery. This Monastery was visited by H.H. the Dalai Lama. When Dalai Lama visited, he was so impressed with Dorje Shugden’s prophecies via the Oracle Monk, that there and then H.H. the Dalai Lama composed the prayer and praise to Dorje Shugden. Still in use today. I am sure it is the same prayer as on the Home page of this extraordinary website.

There were many incidences of Lama Zopa wanting to become a monk or join his uncle to go to Tibet when he was very young. His mother relenting finally sent the young Lama Zopa with his uncle to Tibet where they went to Dungkar Monastery.

It was at this Monastery, the monks asked Dorje Shugden in full trance whether this young boy from Nepal was indeed a Tulku Incarnation as the young boy himself insisted that he was. DORJE SHUGDEN CONFIRMED IT. Yes Dorje Shugden took full possession/trance of Dungkar’s oracle and conferred the Rinpoche title on Lama Zopa and till this day it still holds.

So the current holder of the whole FPMT organization, our own Lama Zopa Rinpoche, was recognized, installed and enthroned by Dorje Shugden himself as a reincarnation or a Tulku. It is on that basis that Lama Zopa received special training from Lama Yeshe.

Many didn’t know that Lama Zopa was recognized by Dorje Shugden himself. He is and many of the younger FPMT students can verify that with the book written by the nun Jamyang Wangmo. Excellent book.

I would recommend highly getting this book which tells you everything:



Written by Jamyang Wangmo (Vajra Publications)

You can get it at any major bookstore. The incredible thing is that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has given a foreword to the book!

Why would His Holiness endorse this book knowing that it was Dorje Shugden who confirmed Lama Zopa’s incarnation status. Isn’t the Dalai Lama inadvertently or indirectly endorsing the recognition made by Dorje Shugden by giving a foreword to this book which is the biography of Lama Zopa Rinpoche?

See Page 172-173 of this book. Also see page 376 (footnote 250, 256) where it mentions clearly that ‘Gyachen’ (short for Gyachen Dorje Shugden) took possession of the oracle that day and pronounced Lama Zopa to be a true incarnation. This Dungkar Monastery oracle was famous throughout Tibet to take trance of Gyachen Dorje Shugden, Tashi Ober, Kache Marpo and Namkar Barzin. Kache Marpo and Namkar Barzin both being Dorje Shugden’s main entourage.

Page 172 and 173

footnote 250, as referenced in Pages 172 and 173

footnote 256

In fact many of the great masters mentioned in this book took Dorje Shugden as their principle protector. Masters such as Serkong Dorje Chang, Geshe Rabten, Zong Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche, Trehor Kyorpon Rinpoche, etc. etc. It seems many of the Lamas connected to Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa are great practitioners of Dorje Shugden.

We of FPMT, especially the people who joined after Lama Yeshe’s passing should think of the future from a wide scope. Our founding father was a sound Dorje Shugden practitioner, and his legacy was passed to Lama Zopa who was invested as a Tulku by Dorje Shugden.

Our lineage lamas all practiced Dorje Shugden as their principle protector. We must not criticize this protector in any way. If he was so bad, or truly a spirit, do you think all the dharma protectors of Tibet cannot out beat him?

Do you think the Dalai Lama cannot do some wrathful pujas and just subdue him as was done to Nechung (In Exile From The Land Of Snows. Wisdom Publications by John F. Avedon. Chapter: Wheel of Protection, pp. 238-270). Could it be that and evil spirit can harm the Dalai Lama’s life, merits and activities? If he can be harmed, then what is the point we take refuge?

We must think deeper, harder and refrain from actions of body, speech and mind to get immediate benefit. We must think of our organization, the dharma, and our personal growth on a long term basis. Into our future lives.

I hope all that read this would understand better. That is my hope to write. As I have not said anything for over twenty years.

Yeshe Sangye



FPMT Lineage Lamas

If FPMT is to be a fortress of Dharma, it has to depend on the solid foundations by which it is built, and there is no stronger foundation than to follow the Guru’s instructions, as stated in Je Tsongkapa’s text The Foundation of All Good Qualities. The majority of Lama Zopa’s teachers are well-known stalwarts of Dorje Shugden. It is no secret that Lama practiced Dorje Shugden himself too. In fact, Lama Zopa himself says,

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.
Source: http://www.lamayeshe.com/?sect=article&id=1026

It is therefore baffling that Lama Zopa and any of the senior students of FPMT, most of whom have Lama Yeshe as their root guru, would denounce Dorje Shugden today. By contradicting their lineage masters, a number of questions arise:

  1. If most of FPMT’s lineage masters are correct about Dorje Shugden and take the Protector as an integral practice, how can the FPMT simply dismiss it on the whim of the Dalai Lama?
  2. If Lama Zopa so blatantly disregards the majority of his teachers, how can the FPMT hope to inculcate guru devotion in their students? And if there is no culture of strong devotion to the gurus, how can the FPMT teach higher trainings that requite absolute adherence to the guru’s instructions?
  3. If the FPMT agrees with the Dalai Lama and CTA as they seem to, and accordingly treat Dorje Shugden practitioners as criminals of society and enemies of the Tibetan people, then why list “criminals” on their official website as lineage masters?
  4. Following on from that, why continue to pass on the lineage teachings to present and future FPMT students if indeed these teachings came from lamas who seriously erred by practicing demon worship, as the FPMT claim Dorje Shugden to be?

Let’s take a closer look at the list of gurus that Lama Zopa names as his teachers:

1. H.H. Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo

Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche’s faith and reliance on Dorje Shugden was undisputed. This enlightened master, who authored what has been recognized as an important Lamrim text (Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand) by the Dalai Lama himself, taught the great importance of propitiating Dorje Shugden as the Dharma Protector of the Gelug lineage.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/pabongka-rinpoche-wikipedia/


2. H.H. Trijang Rinpoche

In modern Gelugpa history, there is hardly any significant figure of the Ganden tradition who has not been a disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. Trijang Rinpoche’s role in preserving the entirety of the Oral Ganden lineage and then passing it on intact cannot be disputed, and Dorje Shugden’s practice is an integral part of that tradition.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/tributes/a-tribute-to-his-holiness-kyabje-trijang-rinpoche/


3. H.H. Ling Rinpoche

Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was the heart disciple of Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche, and Ling Rinpoche received all his Dharma knowledge and practices from Pabongka Rinpoche. Ling Rinpoche, in turn, passed his knowledge and practices down to the 14th Dalai Lama. It is a known fact that Ling Rinpoche prescribed Dorje Shugden’s practice to many within the Tibetan community, and also composed prayers to Dorje Shugden.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/dalai-lama-and-ling-rinpoche-a-contradiction/


4. H.H. Zong Rinpoche

A heart son of H.H. Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje Zong Rinpoche had impeccable knowledge of all rituals, art and science, and was renowned for his ‘many actions of powerful magic,’ as a result of which ‘the most marvellous, indescribable signs occurred.’ Zong Rinpoche trusted Dorje Shugden wholeheartedly and advised his students to practice strongly and devotedly.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/videos/must-watch/must-watch-advice-from-hh-kyabje-zong-dorje-chang-on-dorje-shugden-part-1/


5. Lama Yeshe

The founder of FPMT and a great practitioner of Dorje Shugden till the end, Lama Yeshe is well known to have commenced all-important Dharma projects with Dorje Shugden prayers. He remained devoted to his teachers and did not give up his practice of Dorje Shugden despite the ban on its practice.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/letter-from-yeshe-fpmt/


6. Serkong Tsenshab Rinpoche

Serkong Tsenshab Rinpoche was a Dorje Shugden practitioner and his devotion borne out of his practice is legendary. Rinpoche absorbed the obstacles to the Dalai Lama’s welfare and works, and took them upon himself through the practice of tonglen. It is therefore incredible that anyone should accuse Dorje Shugden lamas of wishing to harm the Dalai Lama.

Read more: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/tsenzhab_serkong_rinpoche/a_portrait_of_tsenzhab_serkong_rinpoche/part_8.html


7. H.H. Serkong Dorje Chang

Serkong Dorje Chang was well known for writing extensive commentaries on the tantric deity Chakrasamvara as well as an extensive confession and propitiation prayer (kangso) to the protector Dorje Shugden. In this kangso, Serkong Dorje Chang identifies Dorje Shugden as the principal protector of Lama Tsongkapa as well as the special protector of Ganden’s Ear-Whispered Lineage, the heart of the Gelug tradition.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/enlightened-lamas-series/serkong-dorje-chang-1856-1918-2/


8. H.H. Sakya Trizin

History shows that Dorje Shugden was first propitiated by the Sakyas. Dorje Shugden was inducted into the pantheon of Sakya protectors by the 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741). Later, Sonam Rinchen named Dorje Shugden together with two other Protectors – Setrab and Tsiu Marpo – as the “Three Kings” (Gyalpo Sum).

Other Sakya high lamas who propitiated Dorje Shugden include the 31st Sakya Trizin Kunkhyen Ngawang Kunga Lodroe, the 33rd Sakya Trizin Padma Dudul Wangchug, the 35th Sakya Trizin Tashi Rinchen, the 37th Sakya Trizin Kunga Nyingpo, the 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Thinley Rinchen and the 41st Sakya Trizin, who later recanted his practice under political coercion.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/dorje-shugden-on-a-black-horse/


9. Geshe Rabten Rinpoche

Geshe Rabten was the philosophical assistant of the 14th Dalai Lama and the first Tibetan Buddhist master to introduce the complete Vinaya-tradition and the study of the five major topics of Buddhism to the West.

Geshe Rabten’s faith in the Protector is clear by his statement, “This manifestation of the Buddha has no equal. If you are really determined to tame your mind, he will even give you his heart”.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/tributes/a-tribute-to-geshe-rabten-rinpoche/


10. Geshe Sopa Rinpoche

The Dalai Lama praised Geshe Lhundrub Sopa Rinpoche as an eminent “Buddhist mentor and a guide to hundreds of Western students and a pure lineage holder of the monastic tradition”.

However, this erudite teacher disagreed with the Dalai Lama’s view of Dorje Shugden, saying that “The idea of these ritual texts of Shukden is to spread and strengthen the pure teachings and destroy wrong views and practices, so their language and imagery tends to seem rather sectarian and aggressive”.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/geshe-lhundub-sopa-speaks-about-shugden/


11. Gomo Tulku

Lama Zopa himself stated that Gomo Tulku worked to spread the Dorje Shugden lineage:

“My root guru, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche; Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s guru’s root guru; His Holiness Zong Rinpoche, from whom many of the older students received the initiation of Shugden; and the previous incarnation of Gomo Rinpoche, who has a strong connection with Istituto Lama Tzong Khapa, here in Italy, all promoted the practice of Shugden. They were all aspects of the Dharmakaya”.

Read more: http://www.lamayeshe.com/?sect=article&id=1026


12. Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche

Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche was born in the province of Amdo and at age six was recognized as the reincarnation of the former Abbot of Kirti Gompa. Rinpoche received teachings from many high Lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition including the practice of Dorje Shugden, which he kept all his life.


13. Zemey Rinpoche

So highly realised was Zemey Rinpoche that Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang regarded Zemey Rinpoche, one of his heart disciples, as being equal to him in knowledge and attainments. Zemey Rinpoche held all the same lineages, transmissions and practices as Trijang Rinpoche including the practice of Dorje Shugden.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/tributes/a-tribute-to-h-e-zemey-rinpoche/


14. Ribur Rinpoche

Ribur Rinpoche’s devotion to his guru, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche was legendary. He faithfully held on to all the teachings he received from Pabongka Rinpoche, including the Dorje Shugden practice.

As Ribur Rinpoche said, “I have had some success as a scholar, and as a lama I am somebody, but these things are not important. The only thing that matters to me is that I was a disciple of Pabongka Rinpoche”.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/recent-masters/ven-ribur-rinpoche/


15. Choden Rinpoche

Choden Rinpoche, one of the highest lamas in Tibetan Buddhism, was recognized and ordained by Pabongka Rinpoche. Choden Rinpoche was a fiercely steadfast practitioner of Dharma, saying: “I don’t remember too clearly my first meeting with Pabongka Rinpoche, but I do remember that Rinpoche was very happy with me. I really admired everything that Rinpoche did: the way he walked, the way he dressed, everything. I felt, “If only I could be like him”.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/recent-masters/h-e-choden-rinpoche/


16. Khensur Denma Locho Rinpoche

Khensur Denma Locho Rinpoche of Drepung Loseling Monastery was a direct student of H.H. Ling Dorje Chang. He was an expert on Manjushri’s fierce form, Yamantaka, amongst many other teachings and practices, and was appointed the Abbot of the Dalai Lama’s Namgyal Monastery from 1986 to 1991.

Denma Locho Rinpoche was a scholar of the highest calibre and a very prolific gentle teacher who did not discriminate against Dorje Shugden practitioners although it cost him his reputation.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/recent-masters/h-e-dhenma-lochoe-rinpoche/


17. Khyongla Rato Rinpoche

Khyongla Rato Rinpoche is a reincarnate lama and scholar of the Gelugpa order of Tibetan Buddhism. Rinpoche was born in the Dagyab region of Kham, in southeastern Tibet and eventually settled in the United States where he founded The Tibet Center, the oldest Tibetan Buddhist Center in New York City.

Read more: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/recent-masters/khyongla-rato-rinpoche/

It is truly shocking to see FPMT policies that openly dishonor the practice of its lineage masters. Our root Guru, Lama Yeshe, was a Dorje Shugden practitioner. Kopan manifested with the help of Dorje Shugden. Sadly however, it appears that to be politically correct and on the Dalai Lama’s side far outweighs loyalty to the lineage masters and the pure tradition the masters used their lives to manifest.



Further Developments

After Yeshe Sangye’s stunning article on the fact Lama Zopa was recognized by Dorje Shugden as a Rinpoche, the news spread like wildfire. Lama Zopa tried to issue a clarification but it only served to confirm by Lama Zopa himself that he was indeed recognized by Dorje Shugden.

Lama Zopa’s “clarification” is included below. Notice that he ends it by saying, “So the Lopon for his own benefit asked the oracle of the monastery if this was true.” We ask – who is the oracle of the monastery? The famous Dorje Shugden Oracle of Dungkar Monastery, of course! See here: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/?p=307


Lama Zopa’s 2008 “clarification”
about being recognized by Dorje Shugden:

(Source: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=292)

To my very dear friends and students, I heard there is some misunderstanding about how I was recognized, so I just want to give you the details here.

The main disciple of the Lawudo Lama Kunsang Yeshe (who it is said is my previous life) was Ngawang Chopel. He did many retreats during his life and he also followed the Buddha’s example of offering his own body (charity) to the insects and animals for seven days; this was quite amazing as he completely offered and they ate parts of it and he had to be taken to the hospital. Later Ngawang Chopel also built a monastery at Maritika near a cave of Guru Rinpoche (considered one of the most holy places of Guru Rinpoche – where it is said He achieved immortality). Ngawang Chopel was with the Lawudo Lama at the time of his death. The Lawudo Lama explained the signs happening in the death process to him as he was dying.

Since I was born in a very poor family, there was doubt by some if I was the incarnation, mainly on the part of the son of Lama Kunsang Yeshe. When Ngawang Chopel heard this he went immediately to Tibet to consult high lamas and all six lamas he consulted confirmed without doubt that I was the incarnation of the Lawudo Lama Kunsang Yeshe. Two of the six high Lamas were His Holiness Tulshig Rinpoche (one of the teachers of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) and his root guru, the great Lama Rongpu Sangye. So at an early age, long before going to Tibet and the monastery at Pagri (small branch of Domo Geshe’s main monastery), I was recognized. Before I left for Tibet the son of Lama Kunsang Yeshe accepted me as the incarnation and promised to return to me the cave and texts, etc. belonging to his father after I returned from Tibet.

I was brought into Tibet by two uncles; both were my alphabet teachers. Why did I have two alphabet teachers? The first one was from Thami, near Lawudo; he took care of me. When I was very small (maybe four years old) I was always escaping and running home, so my mother sent me far away to the monastery in Rolwaling, a very isolated place high in the mountains near Tibet. There I was in the care of another uncle, Ngawang Gendun, who also taught me the alphabet (Tibetan). I stayed with him in Rolwaling for seven years, memorizing and reading texts and doing pujas called “shi-trol.”

These two uncles took me to Tibet. In Tibet I stayed with another uncle. He was in the Indian army; then he met a Tibetan lady from Tsang and they married and lived in Pagri, Tibet. Pagri was a very busy place for traders from Bhutan, Kalimpong, Lhasa, etc. The three uncles with some other Sherpas left me in the care of my aunt while they went on pilgrimage to Lhasa. They didn’t take me as they thought the journey would be too difficult and I could die, as I was still very young. After living some time in Pagri (hanging around), outside my house I met a very tall monk (externally appearing not to know me) and immediately he asked me if I would be his disciple (there must have been very strong karma with him). I answered him immediately “yes.”

Next day in the morning my aunt made a very nice thermos of tea and bread in a bamboo container inside a basket and took me to the small branch monastery of Domo Geshe Rinpoche’s main monastery about fifteen to twenty minutes’ walk away, where I met the tall monk again – he was the Lopon of this small monastery. The Lopon heard stories of me from people in the village, that I was a tulku from Lawudo near Thami. So the Lopon for his own benefit asked the oracle of the monastery if this was true.

With much love and prayer,
Lama Zopa Rinpoche


If you look carefully, the explanation from Lama Zopa Rinpoche does not deny the fact that he was also recognized by Dorje Shugden.

There are other descriptions such as about hospitals, insects, tall uncles, small monastery, etc. etc. etc. that attempt to distract the reader but Lama Zopa himself writes on the last line that the lopon of this monastery asked the oracle to confirm if he is a tulku or not. But he doesn’t explain what the oracle said and which deity entered the oracle. Of course the possessing being was Dorje Shugden, as stated in the book Lawudo Lama by Jamyang Wangmo. The book was written by one of FPMT’s own nuns and even more surprising, a foreword was provided by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The private office of His Holiness definitely did not read this book carefully before issuing this foreword. Maybe they had no time to scan and read page by page so it most likely slipped past them. One thing is for sure – Lama Zopa Rinpoche, who is a special being, was recognized by the protector of his root guru, Dorje Shugden, another special being.

If Lama Zopa Rinpoche was not recognized by Dorje Shugden, then just say so. Just say that he was not recognized by Dorje Shugden. Simple and straight. But the fact is, he was.



Someone called Ronald Johnson further tried to deny all of this but his attempt was futile, and he was easily and immediately refuted:

You totally miss the point. Also, it would appear that English is not your first language so you would not be aware of the difference between recognized and confirmed. The implications of Yeshe Sangye’s first missive were that Rinpoche was FIRST identified by DS; Rinpoche’s letter clearly indicates that this is not so.

Look, anybody can ask DS anything…I could ask him if Tenzin Gyatso was indeed the Dalai Lama and he would confirm it. So what?

Also, to take a couple of sentences out of Jamyang Wangmo’s 500-page book and make a federal case out of it is simply obfuscation. Anyway, this happened in the mid-50s. The world was a very different place back then…especially Tibet. “



In response, a user on the Dorje Shugden forum known as Mountains says:

Dear Ronald,

My English being 1st or 2nd language has no point in this issue. I understand you are angry. I beg your forgiveness and wish you no ill. I am not attacking Lama Zopa nor FPMT, but the whole shugden issue has divided all of us. Imagine our Tibetan Buddhist world and how it would be if the whole Dorje Shugden issue was never brought up? Who did it harm? The majority of the Gelugpa High lamas and Geshes practiced/practice Dorje Shugden including Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa. Do you see any difference in Lama Zopa before when he was practicing and now when he says he is not?? He is exactly the same. Which leads you to believe with your own eyes, there is nothing wrong with Dorje Shugden. Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa are both sublime beings who practiced a sublime Dharma protector.

(1) Do you deny that Lama Yeshe practiced Dorje Shugden his whole life until his death? Was lama Yeshe wrong in this? Was Lama Yeshe’s refuge commitments degenerated due to this? If not, why is it so bad, that lama zopa was confirmed by Dorje Shugden?? The point is not if he was confirmed or recognized, the point is that DORJE SHUGDEN’S PRACTICE, ORACLES, TRADITION, LINEAGE WAS WIDESPREAD/PREDOMINATE AND VALID IN THE TIBET OF THE 50′S. And you are right, Tibet WAS VERY DIFFERENT BACK THEN. The gelugpas were one and coexisted with the other sects beautifully.

(2) Do you want to hinge on one word of Yeshe Sangye’s letter that is identified? Whether Rinpoche indicates it is or not is not the point, the point is DORJE SHUGDEN was used to confirm his reincarnation status.

In the other Lama Zopa’s book “The Door to Satisfaction” by Wisdom Publications page X of Editor’s Preface, again Lama Zopa mentions clearly in the 3rd paragraph that the Dharma Protector of Domo Geshe’s Monastery CONFIRMED THAT RINPOCHE WAS A REINCARNATE LAMA AND OFFERED ADVICE CONCERNING HIS CARE. That we can conclude since Rinpoche mentions no other names of who else recognized him, whoever else did not hold much weight in the eyes of the ppl to caretake and train Rinpoche at that time. So they had to consult something to CONFIRM AND MAKE SURE Lama Zopa is who the others say he is. Who did they trust to confirm, Dorje Shugden.

If the great emanation of Tsongkapa, Domo Geshe Rinpoche would have a oracle recieving Dorje Shugden’s presence in his temple, definitely Dorje Shugden is a beneficial and beneficient being. Unless Domo Geshe Rinpoche was also unattained? I dont think so. Domo Geshe’s famous oracle in which HH the 14th Dalai Lama himself consulted in the 50′s at Dungkar Choede, can take full possession of 6 different dharma protectors!

They are:

      1. Dorje Shugden
      2. Namka Barzin (Dorje Shugden’s entourage)
      3. Kache Marpo (Dorje Shugden’s entourage)
      4. Tashi Obar
      5. Genyen Jingkarwa
      6. Pawo Trobar

Three of them are Dorje Shugden and his acolytes. Surely Domo Geshe Rinpoche whose people and temple nurtured and took care of Lama Zopa in the early years are not all evil, wrong and degenerate for propitiating Dorje Shugden? Domo Geshe is famed for his devotion to Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (root guru of Lama Yeshe and HH Dalai Lama), His great meditative concentration on the Vajra Yogini Tantras and his powerful propitiation of Dorje Shugden. Is Domo Geshe wrong to have a famous Dorje Shugden oracle in his monastery that ppl came from all parts of Tibet to consult. On all states of affairs, governmental, secular, etc. Many high incarnations are found by the oracular pronouncements of Dorje Shugden’s oracles past and present, so why not Lama Zopa Rinpoche. Even the current Trijang and Zong Rinpoche incarnations were found and confirmed by the Dorje Shugden oracle or Choyang Dulzin Kuten of Gaden. Then only it was presented to the Dalai Lama for formal recognition. What Dorje Shugden found and recognized was further confirmed by HH. Is that so bad that Lama Zopa was also confirmed by the great protector of Lama Yeshe, Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche, Pabongkha Rinpoche, Regent Daktra Rinpoche, Domo Geshe Rinpoche that he is authentic? Of course not.

The incarnations of HH the Dalai Lamas are all confirmed by Nechung Oracle, but recognized and enthroned by the regents of Tibet. So are the confirmations by Nechung Oracle for the Dalai Lama not important? You dont say that Nechung recognized the Dalai Lama, but he plays an important part to confirm that LEADS TO EVENTUAL RECOGNITION. Just the same in the case of Lama Zopa, where Dorje Shugden confirmed he is a real tulku and even gave advice on the care. And in the Tibet of the 50′s Dorje Shugden’s oracular pronouncements carry great weight as his famous oracle in Lhasa called PANGLUNG KUTEN OR ORACLE where many high lamas, nobilities,and government officials consulted for private and governmental affairs. HH kyabje Trijang Rinpoche very much relied on the accuracy of this oracle of Dorje Shugden/Kache Marpo. You can read in his personal autobiography of HH Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.

(3) If Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he would of said that Lama Zopa is not a tulku, dont take care of him. Why would he say that? Because he can forsee Lama Zopa would benefit many and he would try to stop it not being happy about that. Devadatta did whatever he can to stop Buddha, but could not of course. Similarily, Dorje Shugden was so bad, he would try to stop Lama Zopa’s works to flower in the future.

(4) I see that Sangye has taken a couple of sentences out of Jamyang Wangmo’s book, to support the fact that even great lamas alive today are direct, or indirect products of the Dorje Shugden lineage of lamas, oracles and practices. It is not making a federal case. And If it was attempted to be turned into a federal case in any country outside of the Tibetan Exile footholds, it would never be a federal case. Religious freedom is tolerated anywhere in the democratic world. What is happening in the Tibetan settlements can only happen because of the pressures of ostracization. Muslims, satanists,Hindus, Sikhs, atheists, voodoo-followers, Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, Amish, Orthodox, Jews are ALL ALLOWED TO ATTEND ANY BUDDHIST SERMON IN ANY FPMT CENTRE IN THE WORLD. CAN ATTEND ANY TEACHINGS/GATHERINGS/INITIATIONS BY HH DALAI LAMA IN THE WORLD. ONLY DORJE SHUGDEN PRACTITIONERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. Doesnt that sound funny. Surely Dorje Shugden practitioners are ‘better’ than satanists?? Christians, Muslims would find the image of the Buddha blasphemous, yet their devotees are never barred from HH Dalai Lama’s talks, why is that? Because it cannot never be gotten away with?

(5) My point is simple. FPMT as well as many other centres, lamas, organizations in the world has practiced Dorje Shugden peacefully and without incidence for a long time. In some cases, centuries. What is the big furor now. Suddenly HH Dalai Lama is right and all other lamas are wrong?? Cannot be. If so, then HH the Dalai Lama can be wrong also. In the unfortunate time in the future, when HH passes away, what will stop ppl from saying his ban on Dorje Shugden was wrong?? In fact what is to stop people from saying it now. Since our gurus can be wrong, the whole basis of Guru devotional practices is severely disrupted. This is not a Gelugpa issue, but a issue of freedom to practice whatever lineage we wish free of any lamas condemnations. If one lama can condemn, then all can be condemned. Then who is right and who is wrong?? I dont want to go that direction.

(6) Dont hinge the whole thing on words such as recognition and confirmation. Lama Yeshe and his root gurus/lineage practiced Dorje Shugden. Lama Yeshe consulted Dorje Shugden on many issues throughout his whole life. That is what makes FPMT so great now. Lama himself mentions in his books that it is the protector’s divine help in all his works that made it grow. FPMT’s main sadhanas are composed by lamas that held Dorje Shugden as their principal protectors. So if you wish to throw out Dorje Shugden, you better abandon the practices of for example Cittamanitara, Vajra Yogini and Yamantaka composed by Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche. Since he practiced Dorje Shugden and that is a mistake, then the sadhanas he composed that Gelugpas do everyday could be a mistake also. After all he seems to be able to make mistakes. We have to be very careful. That is not the case definitely.


Again Ronald, I write this to you in earnest to help you and many people see that Dorje Shugden has never harmed and will never harm. If he does harm, just have the great lamas do a fire puja or binding puja and be done with it. Do you mean all the dharma protectors of Tibet cannot overcome one ‘evil’ spirit Dorje Shugden?? It is not as simple as that. There is a bigger picture as predicted by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. Dorje Shugden will go global. China will adopt the practice and on a governmental level promote the practice of Dorje Shugden first in China then from China into the world. The practice will go global and strong in the future generations. HH the Dalai Lama knows that. He cannot openly push it. So in his own way he is pushing it. China is already using Dorje Shugden as one of the bargaining ‘chips’ in the 6th negotiations with the exile govt of Tibet as stated by kalon Tripa Samdhong Rinpoche. China is taking great interest and HH is pushing it in that directions. That is a level much more powerful than our likes and dislikes within the Tibetan Buddhist Community. China will adopt Dorje Shugden’s practice and will make it grow as HH is pushing it into that direction. As predicted in the early 70′s by HH Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang.”




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

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

The back cover of the book, click to enlarge.



Click to enlarge

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



Click to enlarge

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



Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

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

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



Click to enlarge

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



Click to enlarge

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



Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

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

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



Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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



Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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


For further reading:

Where is Lama Yeshe? (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/where-is-lama-yeshe/)

FPMT Lineage Masters are Dorje Shugden Believers (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/fpmt-lineage-masters-are-believers-of-dorje-shugden/)

FPMT, Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/fpmt-dalai-lama-and-dorje-shugden/)

A True Inspiration: Claudio Cipullo (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/news/a-true-inspiration-claudio-cipullo/)

Fabrizio Pallotti (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/news/fabrizio-pallotti/)

Politically Correct at the Expense of the Lineage (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/politically-correct-at-the-expense-of-the-lineage/)

Lama Yeshe and Geshe Rabten (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/mail-out/lama-yeshe-and-geshe-rabten/)

The Broken Samayas of FPMT (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/the-broken-samayas-of-fpmt/)

The Questionable Policies of the FPMT (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/the-questionable-policies-of-the-fpmt/)

Lama Zopa admitted to being recognized by Dorje Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/others-old/lama-zopa-admitted-to-being-recognized-by-dorje-shugden/)

Recognized by Dorje Shugden, but Speaks against Dorje Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/recognized-by-dorje-shugden-but-speaks-against-dorje-shugden/)

Kopan Monks Asking for Dorje Shugden Puja for Lama Zopa (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/kopan-monks-asking-for-dorje-shugden-puja-for-lama-zopa/)

Dakini Healed Lama Zopa? (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/dakini-healed-lama-zopa/)

A Tribute to Ven. Lama Yeshe Rinpoche (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/a-tribute-to-ven-lama-yeshe-rinpoche/)


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

Related Topics: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article
81 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. Dear Yeshe Sangye,
    It was indeed a very well thought of post. It made a LOT of sense. The best part was when you mentioned about the lineage and the blessings. Very illogical to stop Dorje Shugden practice just because H.H. said so. My refuge is my holy Guru and I am eternally thankful for His blessings, teachings and initiations. Like you, He cared for me and love me without discrimination, endlessly. I do not disrespect H.H. in any way but He is not my Guru hence why should I follow His instruction to stop Dorje Shugden’s practice? If we say that our Guru is wrong in His practices, then everything that stems from it would definitely be wrong and without blessings. Why practice then? There will be NO attainments of any sort if we think like that.
    As a Dharma practitioner, we learn about wisdom and compassion. And we definitely learn about Karma. Everyday in our sadana, we aspire to be a better person for the benefit of others. So if we condemn anyone or anything, wouldn’t there be karma? Pure hypocrisy at play. Why even bother to practice?
    We have to take a step back, and analyze the whole thing again in order to have a clearer perspective of what we really want in our practice. Do we want to be spiritual or be involved in ‘politics’?

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

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


  3. It’s good to hear of your respect for the Dalai Lama and deep devotion to your root guru. Not many people dare to speak up and express what you did because of fear which the CTA have instilled in those who had spoken up. It’ll be good and beneficial for more people to come forth and say their piece and the truth.

  4. Although there are so many evidences proof that Dorje Shugden is not a spirit worship but peoples still dare not to speak up, They are afraid they will against the Dalai Lama or the center can not get sponsorship. Therefore the degenerate of Buddhism is due to the Buddhist themselves who are not dare to speak up the true but follow majority to live on, Thank you for those who speak up and correcting the misunderstanding of Dorje Shugden practice.

  5. Lama Zopa practiced Dorje Shugden
    Kyabje Zong Rinpoche practiced Dorje Shugden
    Both are High Lamas
    Both reincarnation came back perfect.
    End of story.

  6. Everyone should share the world equally.
    Everyone must place ourselves into others’ shoes, to understand & we shall receive the same respect & care from others.

    Simple & easy.


  7. If your respect your lama zopa, then respect what his practice. Even you don’t practice Dorje Shugden, never critisize him and other who practice it. Respect other belief , create peace and harmony with each other. This is basic human right what we live in this world.

  8. So Lama Zopa was recognised by Dorje Shugden huh? If Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit, why didn’t Lama Zopa tell everyone he is not a real Tulku because we cannot trust Dorje Shugden as he is an evil spirit? Of course, Lama Zopa would not say that, who would want to have their tulku status taken away?

    It is very sad to see how Lama Zopa gave up the practice his teacher Lama Yeshe held so close to his heart. Lama Zopa always shows his affection and devotion to Lama Yeshe but his action doesn’t show that. How can he give up the practice his teacher treasured so much so he can be politically correct?

    The Dalai Lama may be famous but all attainment comes from our teacher. Will Lama Zopa still get the blessing if he betrayed his teacher? If he doesn’t get the blessing from the lineage gurus anymore, how will the students in FPMT progress in their spiritual practice?

  9. This article give a complete explanation and evident that Dorje Shugden is not evil/spirits and many high lamas consulted him. I don’t know what else to make FPMT realise that Dorje Shugden is their lineage practice and how important to up hold the lineage else what is FPMT all about. Can FPMT exist without a spiritual background that link back their teaching all the way to Buddha Shakyamuni?

    FPMT future does not depend only of Lama Osel but their own students to mend their karma to create the condition for Lama Osel to come back and teach especially when Lama Zopa is gone.

    If they still don’t realise this than nothing much can be done and many people will start questioning based on the facts that presented above.

  10. It is so fundamental yet they don’t get it? It is illogical to expect spiritual growth and flourishing of centers with broken samaya and activities that generate hate, schism and run contrary to practicing Dharma.

  11. Thanks for this wonderful article. So well explained and I think those who’s using the Dorje Shugden ban to influence members from other dharma centres to join theirs by mad mouthing other’s lamas are very very bad. How can this being allowed in a dharma Centers. Hence the Dorje Shugden practitioners are the one that devoted to their guru! Keeping their samaya clean with their guru.

    I think the path of practicing Dharma is how we learn the truth of our minds and others minds. What makes us evil is not what people pray to but what their delusion lead them to. What’s scary is they do not realised the wrong they have done and there’s regret and remorse.

    Those dharma Center with big names may be famous and have lots of followers but chances of misleading the followers also very high.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Your policies and work are not effective.

    Too bad.

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


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

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

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


    These are important points to remember:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    This interesting article has much food for thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Photos-Empress Cixi of China.



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

    Read more at:

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

    Dorje no longer recognised by Indian govt as 17th Karmapa

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


  21. I wonder what is the plan of FPMT when Lama Zopa is not around anymore. At the moment, Lama Zopa is the only ‘brand’ FPMT has to attract sponsors and students. No other lama in FPMT has a reputation comparable to Lama Zopa.

    The only way FPMT can maintain its reputation, sponsors and students will be the coming back of Lama Osel, whose previous life founded FPMT. Unfortunately, due to the broken Samaya of the students, Lama Osel chose to disrobe and live as a layperson. He is not so much involved in the teaching scene.

    However, if the students repair their Samaya with Lama Osel and create harmony in their center, there is a chance Lama Osel will still come back to FPMT and continue to turn the wheel of Dharma. The first thing FPMT has to do is to stop discriminating Dorje Shugden practitioners and stop spreading false negative news about Dorje Shugden. They should always remember the manifestation of FPMT is through the assistance and blessings of Dorje Shugden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  23. I’ve been operating an online hate group on FB against the NKT. I use to be a part of that organization. I loved my guru Geshe Kelsang, but I didn’t like some of the underlings who ran the organization. I was there for over a decade and it was time for me to be given a position of a teacher and have the respect I felt I deserved. I didn’t get what I wanted and I felt angry and slighted. It reminded me of my abandonment issues I’ve had throughout my life. I’ve never belonged anywhere and people usually left me and I just couldn’t stand it. I got my personal emotional issues mixed up with my spiritual direction. I projected my personal issues onto my teacher and the organization and I have done that so many times in my life ruining good situations.

    I left NKT and told whoever would listen to me who I was abused in NKT. I started a FB page to encourage other ‘victims’ to speak out against NKT. Being the vast organization that NKT is, it was not difficult to find other people who had left for one reason or another and had things to say against NKT. Our little group even got close to some of the events coordinators of the Dalai Lama and we were given a chance to take pictures with Dalai Lama which we promptly did. The photo with the Dalai Lama we thought gave us some validation towards our stance against NKT-but it backfired. It gave us a high to have a photo with the Dalai Lama but after a while we realized we can never be close to the Dalai Lama. We can never get the care and amount of teachings we use to get from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Being close to the Dalai Lama is like celebrity worship not so much as having a personal guru who is there for us.

    I regret opening my FB page as it vented out my rage and it was the platform for many other people who had blame and anger issues to collect vast amounts of negative karma. We were never able to have any cases or legal suits against NKT with all of our bantering because there was nothing substantial or genuine in the so called abuses we claimed we received while in NKT. NKT continues to grow while the rest of us who left are nowhere in life. Nowhere in our spiritual practice and just living empty lives. For me I’ve gotten tired of the page I’ve started and FB and it’s a horrendous effort to go there to post things or read any comments. Barely anyone visits the page anyways these days. How much can people vent out their anger at someone or something which is not to blame in the first place?

    I don’t have the courage to apologize to my teacher or rejoin NKT because I am a coward. I’ve always been a coward looking for the easy way out. But I am thinking about it. I realize my mistakes. I realized my mistakes which comes from me.

  24. Karmapa Thaye Dorje Ignores the Dalai Lama

    (1) Decades ago, the Shamarpa asked the Dalai Lama to endorse Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa. Shamarpa proved to the Dalai Lama that Thaye Dorje was the Karmapa. The Dalai Lama still refused as it will make the Dalai Lama look bad for endorsing Ogyen Trinley. ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJJXYAz3Bz0

    It is known that Tai Situ Rinpoche recognized Ogyen Trinley by stealth. Tai Situ Rinpoche used the Dalai Lama’s fame to promote his Ogyen Trinley candidate in order to secure the Karmapa wealth of many generations.

    (2) Even though the Dalai Lama endorsed Ogyen Trinley as Karmapa, Thaye Dorje could not be restrained and continues to grow immensely in popularity all over the world. Even without the Dalai Lama’s endorsement, the Karmapa Thaye Dorje is growing in importance. Tai Situ Rinpoche thought that without the Dalai Lama’s endorsement, the Karmapa Thaye Dorje would fall and become nothing. He was wrong.

    (3) Shamarpa Rinpoche had asked the Dalai Lama to at least ordain Thaye Dorje as a monk when he was very young and the Dalai Lama refused. This refusal hurt Shamarpa and the Karmapa Thaye Dorje very much. The Dalai Lama sidelined Shamarpa Rinpoche and Thaye Dorje. It was a grievous insult and detrimental interference. In the Karma Kagyu tradition it is the Shamarpa who is the first and foremost to recognize the Karmapas and only in his absence do other regents recognize the Karmapas. Not only did the Dalai Lama interfere in Karma Kagyu affairs but the Dalai Lama took sides. That caused so much fighting and disharmony within the Karma Kagyu school of Buddhism. Tai Situ Rinpoche was wrong not to consult with Shamarpa Rinpoche in all of this.

    (4) The Dalai Lama had no business interfering in Karma Kagyu traditions by recognizing a Karmapa. In the history of the Karma Kagyu school, there has not been one Karmapa recognized by a Dalai Lama nor did they ever need the Dalai Lama’s endorsement. This interference by the Dalai Lama has caused the Karma Kagyu school to take two sides and broke them up and created much disharmony. The disharmony, fighting and mud-slinging as to which one is the real Karmapa has continued to this day in 2019.

    (5) Shamarpa Rinpoche passed away in 2014 and it is up to the Karmapa to recognize his incarnation without the endorsement or interference of the Dalai Lama.

    (6) Now the Karmapa Thaye Dorje recognizes his son born in 2018 as Shamarpa Rinpoche’s incarnation and he does not ask the Dalai Lama to endorse this incarnation. He does not need it. The Dalai Lama has done enough damage. This will shift the dynamics of the Karma Kagyu school again in favor of the Shamarpa Rinpoche’s side. Unfortunately, it will make Ogyen Trinley look strange and left out in the cold. Within the Kagyu school, the Shamarpa is the next highest incarnation after the Karmapa. The Karmapas always recognized Shamarpas and vice versa. It shows that the Karmapa Thaye Dorje has the full authority to recognize the next highest incarnation within their school on his own. This Shamarpa will be spiritually trained by the Karmapa Thaye Dorje himself without the influence of the aged Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile which most Karma Kagyus consider a regime.

    (7) During the Kagyu Monlam prayers in Bodhgaya on January 2019, Thaye Dorje was there leading the Monlam (New Year’s prayers) and so was the Dalai Lama in Bodhgaya, giving teachings in another location nearby. The Dalai Lama, while in Bodhgaya, wanted to meet Thaye Dorje but Thaye Dorje refused. Thaye Dorje avoided the Dalai Lama. It was an insult to the Dalai Lama that he had to accept for all the damage he had done in their Karmapa affair and Karma Kagyu school.

    The Dalai Lama had sidelined Shamarpa and Thaye Dorje when asked to endorse Thaye Dorje decades ago. Now that the Karmapa Ogyen Trinley has run away to the USA, the Dalai Lama wants to be friendly with Thaye Dorje so that he can get on the Karma Kagyu school’s good side. Without the Dalai Lama’s permission, the two Karmapas met in France and decided to mend the rift. This will make the Dalai Lama look bad. Even the Dalai Lama did not think in such a big way or a middle way to help mend the rift. Too bad and too late for the Dalai Lama to make friends with the Karma Kagyu school of Buddhism.

    So much damage has been done. But the Karmapa Thaye Dorje is on the way to mending all this.

    Karma Tsogyal


  25. Contemplate this:

    Indian journalists sound desperate when they talk about terrorist attacks on India. As this article correctly states, there is little that India can do to address terrorism as they seem to operate from Pakistan. To deal with the terrorists, Indians will have to literally attack Pakistan which it cannot do.

    Well, there is something India can do which is to stop Dharamsala’s terrorist activities against China being executed from Indian soil. The Tibetans have been attacking China for decades, yet they say they wish to return to Tibet. How do you return to a place you constantly criticize? The Dalai Lama is literally begging China to allow him to visit the Five Peaks of Manjushri pilgrimage site in China and also his birthplace in Amdo, Tibet. But if the Dalai Lama keeps criticizing China, why would they sit at the bargaining table with him? India allows for all of this to happen on Indian soil, so that would irritate China.

    Yet India wants concessions from China on the terrorist issue. Meanwhile, Beijing equates Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) leader Hafiz Saeed to India supporting the Dalai Lama against China for five decades now. Furthermore, India wants China to speak up against Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) Masood Azhar. But India does not speak up against Dalai Lama. Whether the world thinks the Dalai Lama is the good guy or not, he is a thorn in China’s side so anyone that supports him is not supporting China. Similar to the situation, LeT’s Hafiz Saeed and JeM’s Masood Azhar are a thorn in India’s side but they do not bother China and her allies, so why should China do anything about them? If India does something on the Dalai Lama, then it would be fair to ask China to do something about their support of Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Hafiz Saeed and Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar. Simple equation.

    These reports are really bare-faced hypocrisy. It implies one nation is helpless against terrorists because the terrorists camp out in another country. But that did not stop the US from heavily bombing Iraq on the basis that it was harboring terrorists. The US did not hesitate to overthrow the government and murder its leader Saddam Hussein.

    It is also very hypocritical that the same journalists who are outraged at China’s annexation of Tibet are quiet about Israel’s annexation of Palestine.

    It is interesting to note that most terrorist attacks are aimed at the US and her allies. Everyone conveniently forgets that the US has been throwing their weight around for decades and can even determine which leader they want in other countries.
    Back to India – if China can convince North Korea to have détente with the US, China can similarly help India with the JeM. India simply has to give up the Tibet card. The article is also a one-sided opinion piece because India faces as many terrorist threats from Bangladesh, with just as many terrorist camps, but because Bangladesh is not China, their involvement is not mentioned.

    India is a great country. China and India as friends will be able to influence the globe literally economically and, eventually, militarily. But India has to play fair. By supporting the Dalai Lama, India will get nothing and furthermore, it will be a stumbling block to China’s 1.4 billion people becoming friends with India’s 1.3 billion people.

    The Dalai Lama has to be compassionate and stop speaking against China because he has to consider the difficulty he places India in as his host. Each time he criticizes and allows his refugees to protest against China and ask for western support, it makes China look bad. So if the Dalai Lama wants China and India to become closer and benefit each other economically then he has to be silent on this already.

    The Diplomat’s Prarthana Basu sums it up very well by saying in the article below that “Now with another terrorist attack infuriating India’s populace, the mystery behind this Chinese silence remains unsolved. While most attribute China’s apparent silence as a favor to Pakistan, as both continue to maintain their “all-weather friendship,” others argue that China holds India responsible for granting political asylum to the Tibetan leader Dalai Lama, whom Beijing equates to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) leader Hafiz Saeed.”

  26. We can see there are contradictions here in the anti-Shugden camp.

    1. Lama Yeshe was a Dorje Shugden practitioner. If according to the Dalai Lama’s theory that Dorje Shugden is a spirit, Lama Yeshe should take rebirth in the three lower realms, why did the Dalai Lama recognise his reincarnation? If the reincarnation is real, it just means Dorje Shugden is not a spirit.

    2. While the FPMT and other Gelug monasteries don’t allow Dorje Shugden practitioners to participate in their Dharma teachings or activities, their own teachers actually received the teachings from Dorje Shugden lamas. For example, Lama Zopa, many of his teachers such as Lama Yeshe, Pabongkha Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten Rinpoche, etc were strong Dorje Shugden practitioners. If he has received teachings from Dorje Shugden lamas, then what he is teaching now would be corrupted. He should just close down all his centers.

    3. Lama Zopa should not worship or have his students worship Lama Yeshe’s statue. Lama Yeshe was a Dorje Shugden practitioner, why does Lama Zopa still worship a spirit worshiper? This is very confusing. If he has such devotion for Lama Yeshe, he should not have banned Dorje Shugden practice and discriminated Dorje Shugden practitioners. It is either he is completely against it, so he has to remove everything related to Lama Yeshe or admit that Dorje Shugden is not a spirit.

    4. Lama Zopa should give an explanation to the students why when he said Dorje Shugden is a spirit but yet all FPMT centers still keep Lama Yeshe’s statues and spread his teachings.

    I personally think Lama Zopa knows Dorje Shugden is not a spirit, he might still be practising Dorje Shugden secretly. Perhaps he has made a promise to Lama Yeshe to protect their Dharma centers and don’t go against the Dalai Lama. What he is doing now, is merely to keep his promise to his guru. Lama Yeshe as a highly attained lama, he must have known there would a ban on Dorje Shugden and given instruction to Lama Zope before he entered into clear light. By still worshiping Lama Yeshe and spreading his teachings, Lama Zopa is indirectly telling us Dorje Shugden is not a spirit, this might be the hidden message he wants everyone to know!

  27. FPMT is a very bad example of a Vajrayana student. As mentioned in the 50 Stanzas of Guru Devotion, all attainment comes from our guru. Therefore, we have to follow the instructions of our guru and never go against it. That includes not giving up the practice given to us by our guru.

    As everyone knows Lama Yeshe was a very devoted Dorje Shugden practitioner. He propitiated Dorje Shugden regularly. Whenever he needs help, he would also ask Dorje Shugden for help. The manifestation of Kopan Monastery was mainly due to Dorje Shugden’s kind assistance.

    Unfortunately, after Lama Yeshe passed away, students in FMPT chose to give up Dorje Shugden practice just to be politically correct and be in the good book of the Dalai Lama. They have forgotten the kindness of their guru. It is very hypocritical of them to keep the statue of Lama Yeshe on the shrine and then gave up the precious practice given to them by Lama Yeshe.

  28. Unlike 5 years ago, Tibetan leader Lobsang Sangay is not invited to Prime Minister Modi’s swearing-in ceremony this time. It is clear that PM Modi of India snubs the Tibetan leadership once again in favour of deeper ties with China. The Tibetan leadership finds itself increasingly isolated as nobody wants to offend China by lending any support to the ungrateful Tibetans.

    PM Modi snubs Tibetan leadership for swearing-in ceremony
    By Tenzin Dharpo
    May. 30, 2019
    DHARAMSHALA, May 30: The Indian Prime Minister who is fresh off of a massive win in the Indian Lok Sabha elections has done a U-turn by not inviting exile Tibetan government’s President to the swearing in ceremony due to be held later today, in a bid to not anger Beijing.
    The President of the exile Tibetan government, known officially as the Central Tibetan Administration, Dr. Lobsang Sangay’s absence today at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi marks a stark contrast to 2014 when the elected Tibetan leader was seated in the former rows at the ceremony when PM Modi was sworn into office the first time around.
    The invitation to Dr. Sangay in May 2014 drew strong objection from the Chinese government who lodged an official protest censuring New Delhi’s disregard for the so-called ‘One-China policy’. Many said at the time that the invite was posturing at most, of Modi’s intent to India’s neighbor and biggest rivals both in Asia and global arenas.
    The New Delhi-Beijing relations post the Doklam stand off and Wuhan summit has meant that India has given a cold shoulder to the exile Tibetan set up, thereby taking a step back in using the much-touted ‘Tibet card’. The shift in policy has markedly been seen on the ground with New Delhi issuing an advisory to senior leaders to avoid His Holiness the Dalai Lama or pushing the CTA to shift the “thank you India” ceremony from New Delhi to Dharamshala last year.
    The head of the Tibetan polity who extended pleasantries to PM Modi on his win, however may have anticipated the snub. Days after Modi’s historic election win, Sangay flew to the United States and is scheduled to return on June 5 to India next week.

  29. There are cause and effect. FPMT disowned Lama Yeshe by stoping Shugden practice and put down Shugden practitioners. In return, Lama Yeshe took rebirth and came as Lama Osel which didn’t join back the centre. What I can see from here is Dorje Shugden is not an evil spirit because Lama Yeshe came back as Lama Osel and recognised by HH. Dalai Lama. But due to the broken samaya from the student who abandons Shugden practice which given by Lama Yeshe, his reincarnation can’t effective benefit many people. This is quite obvious until FPMT mend their samaya back. This has to be fast while Lama Zopa still around.

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter your message

Show More
Show More

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

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

Contemplate This

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

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

© DorjeShugden.com 2024 | All Rights Reserved
Total views:30,801