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

By Sil Klose

Imagine being forced to choose between abandoning your religious beliefs or facing segregation, being thrown out of your community, getting fired from your job, having your business boycotted, losing your friends and even finding family members turning against you. Imagine being named on government blacklists, so that you can be persecuted publicly and your personal details, including your address, are openly published on official websites so that you and your entire family live in fear for your lives. All of this is imposed upon you alongside other punishments including being denied basic amenities and vital services such as healthcare and education, as well as having to face constant harassment and also violent attacks. Then, imagine knowing these cruel treatments will also fall upon your loved ones, including your children, solely due to your choice of religion.

Despite such obvious discrimination against Dorje Shugden practitioners, the Tibetan leadership continues to lie about there being no Dorje Shugden ban. Click to enlarge.

These are familiar scenes often described in historical accounts of famous public persecutions such as the Spanish Inquisition, the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, the racial discrimination of coloured people in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement, and South Africa’s apartheid system. As much as we would like to believe that such scenarios are a thing of the past, unfortunately, it is a harsh reality faced by Dorje Shugden practitioners for the past two decades.

The practice of Dorje Shugden originated in the 17^th century, as a common practice in the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism until Gelug masters also began to propagate this protector practice. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself received the practice from his tutor Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, and propitiated the powerful deity until he turned his back on the practice in 1976, largely due to politically-motivated reasons. By that time, Dorje Shugden had become widespread, practiced by lamas of all ranks and in almost all Gelug monasteries and Tibetan communities. Despite the Dalai Lama’s stance, the practice was heavily relied upon for its effectiveness and continued to grow.

That was until 20^th March 1996, when the Dalai Lama announced at a teaching that everyone should abandon the Dorje Shugden practice. The Dalai Lama also instructed that those who would not comply should immediately exit the hall. Ten days later, an official decree was issued from the Private Office of the Dalai Lama for everyone to stop practicing Dorje Shugden, along with instructions to make the public aware of this through government offices, monasteries, associations, and other formal bodies.

Every democratic leadership respects and upholds the religious freedom of its citizens. Yet, the Tibetan leadership does not hesitate to use state instruments to blatantly victimize a segment of its people simply because they disagree with their choice of religion. Click to enlarge.

The decree was quickly followed by a resolution passed by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies — the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile as it was known then — banning the worship of Dorje Shugden by Tibetan government employees.

The shocking announcement was the start of a schism that would divide not only the Tibetan monastic community but also the lives of lay Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists all over the world.

Evidence attesting to the serious consequences of being associated with Dorje Shugden in Tibetan communities are aplenty. Dorje Shugden practitioners, be they lay followers or members of the Sangha, have had their lives destroyed for steadfastly holding on to their faith.

As a result of the Dorje Shugden ban, Dorje Shugden practitioners are clearly ostracized within the Tibetan communities. Click to enlarge.

Even the monastic communities were not spared. In the aftermath of the unwarranted Dorje Shugden ban, monasteries which were once lifelong homes for monks were split in two. Click to enlarge.

Thus, it is nothing short of amazing that there are still those who remain blind to the pain and suffering caused by the Dorje Shugden ban. In fact, the Tibetan leadership and supporters of the Dalai Lama outright deny the existence of the ban even when confronted with plentiful evidence. Instead, pro-Dalai Lama supporters habitually dismiss the evidence as propaganda fabricated by Shugden practitioners, whom they have branded to be against the Dalai Lama and the so-called Tibetan cause, and even accuse them of being agents or spies of China.

The far-reaching detrimental consequences of the Dorje Shugden ban pervade into the cyberworld where hate speech, vulgarities and threats are blatantly directed at Dorje Shugden practitioners. Click to enlarge.

The Dalai Lama Ten Years Ago

To better understand the seriousness of the Dorje Shugden ban and its effects, we need to travel back to 2008, a crucial year of events that informed and shaped the mindset of Tibetans both in China-controlled territories and in all 24 Tibetan settlements in India; of Tibetan Buddhists residing everywhere in the world, and the regional politics of Tibet, India and China.

This video of the Dalai Lama speaking at a teaching in January 2008 has been identified as being the catalyst for the escalation of the Dorje Shugden ban. The points that were raised by the Dalai Lama became the narrative held by pro-Dalai Lama groups and the fuel for their anti-Dorje Shugden hate speech as we know it today.

This speech at Drepung Loseling Monastery was attended by the presiding abbots of the most influential monasteries – Ganden Shartse, Ganden Jangtse, Sera Mey, Sera Jey, Drepung Loseling, Drepung Gomang, Ratö and Tashi Lhunpo Monasteries along with their sponsors and patrons. The Dalai Lama’s teachings also coincided with several formal government functions, making it probable that top officials of the Tibetan Government-in-exile such as the Justice Commissioner, Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, the then-Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister) Samdhong Rinpoche and other ecclesiastical heads were also in attendance.

It is also important to remember that at the time the Dalai Lama gave this speech in Drepung Loseling Monastery in 2008, he was still the secular leader of the Tibetan people and had yet to relinquish his political power.

Video: The Dalai Lama at Drepung Loseling Monastery, 2008

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

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

TRANSCRIPT:

While you are having tea, I have something to tell, thought of telling in detail later. But today, as there are many sponsors here, and some of them are leaving tonight or tomorrow, therefore, I thought it is better to explain whilst everyone is present.

Have to translate it, [the Dalai Lama points in the direction of the translators] translate it. Where is the Chinese translator? There you are!

First of all, the Dalai Lama’s insistence that the translators are present clearly reflects his intention for his speech to be made available to an international audience. Similarly, the Dalai Lama makes it clear he wants everyone to hear his message before they leave, so that sponsors with the financial capacity to support the activities of Shugden practitioners are dissuaded from lending their assistance.

A screenshot of the 2008 video with the Dalai Lama pointing to his translators

TRANSCRIPT:

Now, all of you have heard about a controversy called Gyalpo Shugden! Now that controversy, since the 1970s, it continued up to now. Now, since recently, that controversy turned into something even the Chinese government started to take interest!

Recently, during our representative’s 6th round of talks with China, they have included it as a point of accusation. The Dalai Lama’s restriction of Shugden is suppression of religious freedom! So now, even the Chinese government which does not believe in religion, now, due to the Dalai Lama’s actions, is forced to take responsibility in order to protect religious freedom.

Right from the opening of his speech, the Dalai Lama set the stage by playing up the Tibetans’ negative sentiments against China and associating Shugden practitioners with the Chinese. For the Tibetans and their supporters, the association is simple – China is bad for invading Tibet, and therefore because Shugden practitioners have alleged links with China, they must also be bad. Nevermind whether these accusations are true or not, or whether any proof has been provided (it has not) because it is simply enough that the Dalai Lama has said so.

The Dalai Lama also employs his oft-used tactic of giggling, to make his tough message more easily digestible. Although he is in the midst of accusing Shugden worshippers of having links with the Chinese – a very serious topic indeed – the Dalai Lama turns his message into a joke. By appearing endearing and in possession of the moral high ground, with a few well-placed giggles here and there, something sinister becomes acceptable to the audience.

In truth, there was harmony between Shugden practitioners and the wider Tibetan Buddhist community until the Dalai Lama began speaking against Dorje Shugden’s practice. Before the ban, there was no record in the 400-year history of Dorje Shugden practice that Shugden followers collectively caused any harm, or performed harmful or unwholesome actions.

TRANSCRIPT:

They said Dalai Lama’s restriction on Dolgyal is in violation of religious freedom. The Chinese government has officially accused me! Now, I doubt Chinese government know anything about Dolgyal…ha, ha…but, they saw it as a political tool and started using it to criticize me.

If they accuse me personally, it’s no big deal. But, in Tibet, Dolgyal propitiators are given special privilege and support, funding their construction projects, etc. and then tell monasteries to propitiate Dolgyal. It is religious freedom and Dalai Lama is suppressing religious freedom. They encourage them in Tibet…like that.

Although self-defeating at first glance, the underlying message of the Dalai Lama’s speech is this: it is ridiculous that the Chinese government should accuse him of anything, but he is very magnanimous because “it’s no big deal”.

For the Dalai Lama to take potshots at China for not having full knowledge in relations to Dorje Shugden is, quite frankly, illogical. Since when has it been necessary for a government to have full and complete knowledge of every single religion, in order to safeguard their citizens’ religious freedom? This is especially applicable for governments who claim to be democratic in nature.

Any peaceful government would want to ensure stability and prevent in-fighting among its populace, especially when those fights are based on religion which can elicit very strong emotional reactions. On that note, China’s preventive actions against any unrest potentially triggered by religious issues are exactly what anyone would expect from any self-respecting, responsible government.

The irony is that the Dalai Lama accuses the Chinese of employing Shugden worship as a political tool when in reality, Shugden worship could not be used as anything if there was no ban. If China does indeed extend special privileges to Shugden-worshipping monasteries, who made that happen? Everything leads back to the Dalai Lama – if he proclaims over and over again that he is against the practice of Dorje Shugden, is it so surprising if the Chinese leadership hears about it and decides to support Shugden-related institutions?

So, even if it is the case where the Chinese government is capitalizing on the Shugden conflict to sway public opinion in their favor with sponsorships and other financial benefits, then the solution is quite obvious – all the Dalai Lama has to do to undermine the Chinese is to simply lift the ban.

So why does the Dalai Lama not just defuse the issue, lift the ban and prevent the Chinese from exploiting the controversial Dorje Shugden ban?

TRANSCRIPT:

Then most UNFORTUNATELY!! I believe at the instigation of Dolgyal propitiators, there is a statue of Guru Rinpoche at Samye, which was built recently. They have DISMANTLED it. Like that, there seems to have been other cases of dismantling Guru Rinpoche’s statues. There is so much restriction.

Then in western Tibet, there is a huge statue of Guru Rinpoche, built by the people. The Chinese Army surrounded the area, prohibiting anyone from coming near it, maybe to prevent anyone from taking pictures of the incident. Then they destroyed the statue with EXPLOSIVES!!

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is a fundamental rule of law upheld by any democratic government. Yet, the Dalai Lama callously, without producing any solid proof, blames Dorje Shugden practitioners for allegedly instigating the destruction of holy images.

This type of name-calling and finger-pointing in the absence of proof is a highly irresponsible action coming from a respected political and spiritual leader. Imagine if President Trump alleged that Mexicans blew up a Hindu temple or that Hindus blew up a mosque – what would be the fallout and reaction from the American people at such a statement? Yet, when the Dalai Lama alleges that Dorje Shugden practitioners destroyed a number of Guru Rinpoche statues, everyone just listens because it is the Dalai Lama talking.

In fact, the Dalai Lama’s choice of Guru Rinpoche is deliberate – Guru Rinpoche is commonly worshipped by the Nyingma sect and by alleging that Shugden practitioners destroyed a Guru Rinpoche statue, the Dalai Lama is trying to paint Shugden devotees (who are generally Gelugs) as sectarian and attempting to turn Nyingmapas against them. In effect, this statement from the Dalai Lama is highly schismatic as it pits two schools of Tibetan Buddhism — Gelugpas and Nyingmapas — against each other.

The Dalai Lama also reinforces a misconception that Guru Rinpoche is somehow a Nyingma deity because the Nyingmas famously propitiate him. However, to label Guru Rinpoche as such is actually ignorant because Guru Rinpoche, through meditation and practice, became attained and enlightened. To say that any Buddha belongs to the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu or Gelug sects is illogical; abiding in a state of enlightenment, the Buddhas do not have labels. Is Tara, who is commonly worshipped by all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, a Gelug Buddha or a Sakya Buddha? Since Amitabha is popular amongst Chinese Buddhists, is Amitabha Chinese?

So just because one sect propitiates a particular Buddha more, does not mean that the Buddha ‘belongs’ to that sect. Hence the idea that Shugden worshippers would destroy the image of another Buddha (i.e. Guru Rinpoche) is preposterous, because it would be destroying the image of an enlightened being, even if it is one whom they do not commonly propitiate.

The Dalai Lama’s accusations become all the more outlandish when we consider that the Dalai Lama’s own Guru, Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, who was one of the greatest propagators of Dorje Shugden practice, was known to have given Guru Rinpoche teachings and empowerments to many, including to Nyingmapas.

The Guru Rinpoche statue at Mindrolling Monastery. Guru Rinpoche does not exclusively ‘belong’ to the Nyingma sect; in fact, his teachings are revered by high lamas from all traditions including Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, as reflected in his autobiography, The Illusory Play.

TRANSCRIPT:

In that sense, it is now turning into an URGENT matter! So, under such circumstances, if we still keep treating fish and turnips as one, it creates problems for many people.

Then also, Dolgyal group recently submitted an application to the Indian Government, stating that the Dalai Lama restricts their religious freedom, and they also face danger to their lives, and requested the Indian government to provide them protection. And the Indian Foreign Ministry has also given them a letter acknowledging receipt. So, now this thing has become a serious issue.

This is the turning point in the video, the moment when the Dalai Lama makes his intentions clear. “Fish and turnips” is a Tibetan proverb meaning the two items in question could not be more different from one another. In this instance, this proverb is used to reinforce the point that Dorje Shugden practitioners and non-practitioners have absolutely nothing in common. Hence to treat them in the same way – meaning to allow Dorje Shugden practitioners into mainstream society and give them access to public events like the Dalai Lama’s talks – will be inviting trouble.

Unlike Westerners, Tibetans generally speak in a less direct manner. Hence to those who are unfamiliar with Tibetan customs, the Dalai Lama’s advice can come across as a friendly recommendation. However, to the Tibetans, especially given the Dalai Lama’s God-like status in their society, his words are in reality unquestionable and beyond challenge. In Tibetan society, regardless of how the Dalai Lama presents it, when he says something, it is not a choice but an instruction that must be followed. In the case of the Shugden ban, and in the case of this video especially, saying something is like ‘fish and turnips’ is actually a call to segregate Shugden followers from everyone else because they are not and can never be the same. Can anyone really believe that this is democracy?

A telling Tendor cartoon highlighting the Tibetan mentality when it comes to making choices. Click to enlarge.

The Dalai Lama, who ironically calls himself a democratic leader, then berates Shugden practitioners for reporting his actions to the Indian government. This is despite the fact they were well within their rights to do so; Shugden followers were merely exercising their freedom of speech to protest against the illegal ban and trying to protect their religious freedom. But in highlighting to Tibetans that someone had the gall to speak up and report him to the Indian government, the Dalai Lama’s message is very clear – Shugden practitioners are traitors who work against him, therefore they are deserving targets of violence, segregation and vulgarities.

Does this sound like the actions and words of a democratic leader to you? And is it really surprising that Dorje Shugden practitioners would seek the assistance of the law after being segregated and discriminated against for over a decade (at the time this video was filmed)?

TRANSCRIPT:

Up to now, I have only given advice about the disadvantage of such a practice, based on my own experience and words of past great masters as it is my duty to point out faults of such practice. But, it is up to the individual whether they want to heed my advice or not. NEVER EVER have I told anyone that you cannot propitiate Dolgyal. Right from the beginning, I have always quoted a stanza from KHACHE-BHALU’s advice, that “I Khache-Bhalu have given you my sincere advice, now it is up to you whether to listen or not”. I have always told everyone this way by referring to Khache-Bhalu’s advice. So, it is up to you whether you want to listen or not. NEVER EVER have I told before nor at any time that you have to obey to what I say.

This is a highly contradictory statement from the Dalai Lama. In the same year, the Dalai Lama went on a tirade against Dorje Shugden followers in Drepung Loseling Monastery and gave clear instructions for the monks to expel all Dorje Shugden practitioners from the monasteries. He even went as far as to congratulate the monasteries for taking harsh steps to eliminate this so-called scourge from the Sangha community and said clearly that he approved of such measures. Various documentaries from international media groups such as SwissTV, France24 and Al-Jazeera have also covered the Dorje Shugden controversy in great depth and it has been made clear that an official ban exists at the behest of the Dalai Lama. Clearly it is a ban and not just advice.

If there was no ban, why were 600 Ganden Shartse monks forced to leave their monastery to form Shar Ganden Monastery? If there was no ban, why does every Tibetan store in Mundgod and Bylakuppe have signs in the window stating that Dorje Shugden practitioners are unwelcome? Why do hospitals have signs denying service and treatment to Shugden followers?

Monks protest to demand the departure of Dorje Shugden practitioners from their monasteries, South India, 2008.

Furthermore, as the political leader of the Tibetan exile community, why does the Dalai Lama ban Shugden followers from attending his secular talks? All citizens are entitled to attend talks by their country’s leaders regardless of their religious persuasions. Surely the members of the US Congress do not have to be of the same religion as the US President in order to attend his speeches? Surely not all the people who attend the Dalai Lama’s foreign talks are Buddhists? Therefore, why aren’t Dorje Shugden practitioners allowed to listen to his political speeches? Imagine the fallout if President Trump excluded all Muslims from attending his talks or if the Queen of England excluded all Hindus.

It is arguable that Dorje Shugden is a spiritual matter and hence, those who continue to uphold Dorje Shugden’s practice may not have samaya with the Dalai Lama and therefore should not attend his spiritual teachings. Other religions have such exclusions too. For instance, non-Muslims are not allowed to enter mosques and in Nepal, some temples are off-limits for non-Hindus. But the bottom line is, if the Dalai Lama is giving a talk about the future of the exile community, everyone should be allowed to attend even if they practice Dorje Shugden. And they should most definitely be allowed access to services in hospitals, schools, stores and so forth. Their choice of religion should not affect their rights as human beings.

A senior monk of Ganden Monastery testified to the threats and coercion that Shugden worshippers faced. However, the Dalai Lama has continued to deny that there was any discrimination.

TRANSCRIPT:

But now, the time has come where we no longer can continue with this ‘on and off’ like status quo! We have to make it clear, FOR THAT REASON! As it is mentioned in the Sutra, to settle the monastic dispute, there are I think seven points? Like distributing grass, painted sticks, etc., right? Now, the time has come for us to distribute colored sticks. Then also in modern democratic method, the English word, “Referendum”. “Referendum”, to ask the majority! Now the time has come to ask the majority!

Therefore, after this Loseling programme is over, all of you will return to your respective monasteries. There in your monasteries, to all the monks, there should be one question, “Whether you want to propitiate Dolgyal or not?” Those who want to propitiate Dolgyal should sign, “YES. I want to PROPITIATE”. And those who don’t want to propitiate Dolgyal should sign, “NO. I don’t want to PROPITIATE Dolgyal”, understood?

Then, next question. Those who want to share religious and mundane activities with Dolgyal propitiators should sign, “Yes! I want to share”. Then, those who don’t want to share religious as well as mundane activities with Dolgyal propitiators should sign, “NO!” Understand? Then, see what happens. Let’s do the voting. Nobody is forcing.

The Dalai Lama mentions a referendum but despite this democratic-sounding label, a shrewd analysis of the Dalai Lama’s speech indicates that his call for a referendum is a ruse, designed to legitimize his command to segregate Shugden worshippers from mainstream society. Knowing that his speech was being translated into English and Chinese, and would therefore be broadcast all over the world, the Dalai Lama used the concept of a referendum to appear modern and democratic, paying lip service to give a good impression to his international audience.

In reality, the referendum was anything but democratic. First of all, the referendum was not requested for by the majority of Tibetans. And not only was it held at the instructions of just one individual, but the voting also took place openly. This meant peer pressure would force Tibetans to vote against Dorje Shugden, knowing that if they did not, everyone would know they disobeyed the Dalai Lama’s instructions.

Yellow vote sticks denote renouncement of the Dorje Shugden practice and a refusal to share any spiritual and material relations with Dorje Shugden followers. Red vote sticks indicate the opposite. Those who chose the red sticks were expected to explain themselves further.

Similarly, the referendum was designed to force people who do not practice Shugden to openly disassociate with those who do. In what kind of democratic society are people forced to disassociate from others just because they do not share the same opinions or religious beliefs?

Hence the referendum was nothing more than an open call for monks to officially “disown” and marginalize their fellow Dharma brothers. Why make the monks “unfriend” their fellow Sangha with whom they have been walking the spiritual path for decades? This is like a father telling his sons not to be harmonious and to hate each other.

In this entire section of the video, the Dalai Lama also repeatedly addressed the abbots who were in attendance – from Drepung Loseling, Drepung Gomang, Sera Jey, Sera Mey, Ganden Shartse, Ganden Jangtse, Rato and Tashi Lhunpo Monasteries. This is very revealing of the Dalai Lama’s forceful insistence that his instructions were to be carried out by those present. Failure to do so would automatically mean the abbots were disobeying the Dalai Lama, who has clearly told them over and over again that the referendum, with the Dalai Lama’s preferred outcome, is mandatory.

Trode Khangsar marks the official establishment of Dorje Shugden’s practice in Tibet by His Holiness the 5th Dalai Lama, who commissioned Trode Khangsar as a “Protector House” for Dorje Shugden in the 17th Century.

TRANSCRIPT:

If the final result of voting shows more than 60% want to propitiate Dolgyal, then from that day onwards, I shall never utter even a single word about Dolgyal. Understand? Then you all have to take full responsibility!

But if it turns out that more than 60%-70% says they don’t want to propitiate Dolgyal and they don’t want nothing to do with Dolgyal propitiators, then we shall have to think accordingly.

While it may seem fair and even democratic to hear the Dalai Lama mention that he will never utter a single word about Dorje Shugden again should 60% vote to keep the practice, his next statement of caution is a clear indication of the Dalai Lama’s preferred outcome and his continued coercion of the monks to abandon their practice, by issuing what is essentially spiritual blackmail. In saying “you all have to take full responsibility”, what this really means in reality is “practice Dorje Shugden and you will all go to hell” as well as “this will be your fate if you do not obey my instructions”. Thus by him saying that, the Dalai Lama is playing on the baseless fears of the anti-Dorje Shugden camp who falsely claim that the enlightened protector is nothing but a spirit.

The Dalai Lama is very shrewd to employ this “threat” as he is fully aware that all members of the Sangha must know that the heavy karma for propitiating spirits will lead to a rebirth in the hell realms. He also knows that to the outside world, he is viewed as the spiritual leader of all Tibetan Buddhists (although, in theory, this is not true since each lineage has its own head). So to foreign audiences, the Dalai Lama’s words sound like spiritual advice born out of concern for his followers’ spiritual wellbeing. But Tibetans know better, and Tibetans hear the underlying message of spiritual blackmail that accompanies the Dalai Lama’s words.

In the history of mankind, no democratic country has ever forced its citizens to choose between their religion and friends. That is, until this unethical ban imposed by the Dalai Lama. Knowing this, in the second scenario where the majority gives up their Dorje Shugden practice and severs ties with those who want to maintain it, the Dalai Lama had this to say: “Then, we shall have to think accordingly.” He makes it sound open, as though he has never considered the ramifications of the referendum. Yet he had it in mind all along to call for the referendum, what questions need to be asked, and even a specific figure that he is looking for (60 to 70%). Hence the Dalai Lama’s reply, though innocent in appearance, has been read by many Tibetans as another threat i.e. “get 60 to 70% to agree with me, or else…”

How can all these highly attained lamas be oblivious to the demonic side of Dorje Shugden, if it were true that he is an evil spirit?

TRANSCRIPT:

But, then in reality also, those who propitiate Dolgyal have no reason to come to India. We who came to India came here in protest of the Chinese Government’s policy. But as the P.R.C. government patronizes Dolgyal propitiators, they are taking special care of them! Then, obviously it is better for them to go back to where they are specially welcome. What is the point of staying here? Understand?

It is precisely this type of talk from the Dalai Lama that makes life so difficult for Dorje Shugden practitioners living in the Tibetan exile communities in India. By saying this, the Dalai Lama is essentially telling the Tibetan government and the heads of the monasteries not to entertain Shugden-practicing refugees who have made the arduous journey from Tibet to India. Although it may not sound that way to foreign ears, the message to Tibetans is clear: Don’t help the refugees who practice Dorje Shugden. Don’t give them travel permits, job opportunities, health services, education, etc. Basically, make their life so difficult that they have no choice but to return to Tibet to face whatever is coming to them.

It is shocking that the Dalai Lama, as the leader of the Tibetans, does not welcome his own people escaping supposed Chinese oppression in Tibet. When the Tibetans escaped from their home country after the events of 1959, they were all fleeing from a common threat. Many did not succeed and died; and both Shugden practitioners and non-Shugden practitioners had their lives taken indiscriminately. As the leader of the Tibetan people at the time this video was filmed, is the Dalai Lama not responsible for their welfare if they choose to flee Tibet and escape to India? If things in Tibet are so bad because the Chinese leadership is so bad, why is the Dalai Lama rejecting his own people who wish to escape into exile? Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that Shugden practitioners are undeserving of a safe haven in India?

Shugden practitioners suffered just as much as any other Tibetan during the political upheaval of 1959. Just because they practice Dorje Shugden does not mean they are less Tibetan, or that they experienced less suffering in 1959. Almost every family in Tibet lost someone during those tumultuous years so theoretically, Shugden-worshipping Tibetans have every reason to want to escape into exile, just like any other Tibetan. Yet, the Dalai Lama continues to reinforce the mentality of “us versus them” – according to the Dalai Lama’s view, on one side are loyal Tibetans “who came to India in protest of Chinese government policy” and on the other side are so-called disloyal Tibetans who practice Dorje Shugden under the alleged support of the Chinese.

It is time the Dalai Lama changes this view. It has been nearly 60 years since the Dalai Lama led the exodus of Tibetans into India. To give some context, the infamous Berlin Wall was raised in 1961 and after 28 years, the wall came down when Germany was reunited. In 1945, when Japan surrendered to the US-led Pacific allied forces, the island state suffered massive devastation but 40 years later, the Japanese rebuilt their country to become one of the biggest economies in the world.

On the other side of the coin, modern China is nowhere like the ‘Red China’ it was under Mao in 1959. China today is a modern industrial nation that has overtaken all of Europe to become the second biggest economy in the world and is rapidly closing the gap between themselves and the USA, which maintains its position as the biggest world economy. China today also employs diplomacy for negotiations, as opposed to enforcing their military might. Hence, it is not unusual that in their bid to become a global superpower, China is becoming more democratic and open. By allowing freedom of religion which includes Dorje Shugden practice, China’s decision to support all religious practices is moving with the times.

What is not moving with the times however is the Dalai Lama’s feudalistic belief that assumes all Dorje Shugden devotees are Chinese supporters and therefore, have no right to come to India. What’s more, the Dalai Lama again reinforces his misguided point that Dorje Shugden practitioners are all receiving special treatment from the Chinese and are therefore anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama by virtue of their spiritual practice.

Many of those who escaped with the Dalai Lama in 1959 under Dorje Shugden’s protection remain confused and devastated by the Dorje Shugden ban.

TRANSCRIPT:

Well, if the majority decides they want to propitiate Dolgyal, then I have nothing more to say except, “Yes, of course”. It doesn’t make any difference to me.

Before, even I propitiated it and I was wrong. So, I apologise that to past masters and started practicing in proper way. That is my current position. But, if majority decides they want to propitiate Dolgyal, it’s OK, you have your freedom to choose. Understand? For that you don’t have to be cautious or fear or flatter Dalai Lama in any way. But first, make sure you understand the whole issue completely.

Once more, the Dalai Lama makes a deliberate psychological play. First, he expresses that it does not make any difference to him whether people want to practice Dorje Shugden or not, and even goes further to say that he will be okay if they decide to. Our question: then why even call for the referendum, if it does not matter to him and there is no issue? And why spend so long talking about Dorje Shugden if it doesn’t make any difference to him?

Next, using another disarming approach, the Dalai Lama admits to having practiced Dorje Shugden himself. He then goes on to say that it was his mistake to have done so, then offers his apologies to his Gurus. Our question: but where is his apology to the Gurus who gave him the practice, which he is now giving up and attacking?

The Dalai Lama then smoothly slips in his advice that people should first be fully informed before they make a choice to practice. Our question: Does that mean his own holy Gurus were not fully informed when they practiced and propagated Dorje Shugden and only he, the Dalai Lama, is fully informed on the matter?

TRANSCRIPT:

Also, later on, tomorrow or day after tomorrow, I have copies of quotes from relevant scriptures for distribution. Starting from the 5^th Dalai Lama, what many great masters of the past say, and their view about Dolgyal propitiation and how they have restricted / banned the practice. Those literature, right now, I have asked to print more copies for distribution and I shall distribute it. Now, before referendum, make sure everyone knows how, starting from 5^th Dalai Lama, what past masters who criticize Dolgyal propitiation have to say. Explain to everybody about that in detail.

Then, they should also know what Dolgyal propitiators say about the advantages and purpose of propitiating Dolgyal. Regarding that, since recently, they have published many books. Like if you propitiate Dolgyal, Dolgyal is a god of wealth and you will be rich! Then, first obtain the vase, then gradually you trust your life force to Dolgyal followed by monthly grand worship – seem to follow in that sequence. If you propitiate Dolgyal, you will be rich, you will be successful in every venture. Those things are written in late Dagom Rinpoche’s book. Many have seen books like that and know about them.

So, you should know what Dolgyal propitiators say about the advantages and purpose of propitiation. Then on the other side, know about the views of those who say it is wrong to propitiate Dolgyal. Then like weighing on a scale, see which view holds more weight! Those who are pro-Dolgyal or those against it. Starting from the 5^th Dalai Lama, Trichen Ngawang Chokden, Changkya Rolpai Dorje, Phurchok Ngawang Jampa, then Yongzin Yeshi Gyaltsen, these are the main great masters. So, keep them at one side and then balance and think which side has more reasons. So, I feel this is how it should be done. Understand? Sponsors, do you understand?

This psychological play fast reaches its conclusion with the Dalai Lama announcing that he has already made all the necessary preparations to distribute information about Dorje Shugden practice — printed literature with the negative views of a handful of “great masters” who supposedly restricted or discouraged Dorje Shugden practice! But where are the views of the attained masters who say that Dorje Shugden’s practice is good and beneficial? High ranking and highly respected masters such as H.H. the 9^th Panchen Lama, H.H. the 10^th Panchen Lama, H.H. the 101^st Ganden Tripa Jetsun Lungrik Namgyal, Mahasiddha Tagphu Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Pabongka Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Zong Dorje Chang, H.E. Kyabje Zemey Dorje Chang and H.E. Domo Geshe Rinpoche, not to mention hundreds of other lamas far outnumber the ones who have spoken negatively about Dorje Shugden. Even the current 11^th Panchen Lama practices Dorje Shugden. Furthermore, they all taught Dorje Shugden practice to tens of thousands of Tibetans and foreigners over the past century. Why didn’t the Dalai Lama make copies of their teachings too?

This image of Dorje Shugden was commissioned by His Holiness the 5th Dalai Lama and is still housed in Phelgyeling Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Not to mention that His Holiness the 5^th Dalai Lama was actually the first to recognize Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Dharma Protector! He established the very first chapel dedicated to Dorje Shugden called Trode Khangsar in Lhasa, composed a prayer to Dorje Shugden, and even commissioned a statue of Dorje Shugden which remains to this day in Phelgyeling Monastery in Nepal. These facts are conveniently left out and the 14^th Dalai Lama chooses to only highlight the negative things that the 5^th Dalai Lama had to say about Dorje Shugden before he realized his mistake.

Our question: How can people be “fully informed” when they are only given one-sided information on Dorje Shugden’s practice? Why didn’t the Dalai Lama distribute teachings from high lamas who fully supported, recommended and condoned Dorje Shugden practice? How are people supposed to weigh both sides of the matter prior to making their choice if the Dalai Lama restricts the information distributed to only that which paints Dorje Shugden in a negative light? Our answer: the entire referendum is a smokescreen to hide the fact that there is no democracy at all when it comes to the Dorje Shugden issue. The referendum is couched in the language of democracy but the truth is that the Dalai Lama is just forcing his point of view onto the Tibetan people by spreading unbalanced, one-sided information to get the results he wants from the referendum.

The Dalai Lama also makes negative insinuations about Dorje Shugden’s role as a “god of wealth”. However, the Dalai Lama is conveniently ignoring the fact that Tibetan Buddhism is rich in other wealth deities and practices such as Dzambala, Namtose, White Mahakala, Yellow Yamantaka, Yellow Tara and so forth. The outer purpose of these deity practices is to remove obstacles and attract wealth – it is not just unique to Dorje Shugden. So if the Dalai Lama is going to criticize Dorje Shugden for being a “god of wealth”, shouldn’t he discourage the practices of these other deities too?

The Dalai Lama even goes further to stress that those present should “explain to everybody” his views of the Dorje Shugden practice “in detail”. Tibetans will know that this is essentially a command from their leader to disseminate propaganda that refutes Dorje Shugden practice and discredits its practitioners. Being that it is the Dalai Lama’s views, there is in reality no choice – failure to conform and obey means going against the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama then makes it a point to address the sponsors directly, stressing the importance of them understanding what he has said. Although it was posed as a question, it is in fact the Dalai Lama’s way of applying pressure on the sponsors to withhold financial support for monasteries, groups and individuals who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. Now that the Dalai Lama has directly addressed them, anyone who attempts to support Shugden worshippers will be viewed as contradicting the Dalai Lama’s direct instructions. It is nothing but a systematic oppression of Dorje Shugden practitioners, segregating them from everyone and everything that could support them.

TRANSCRIPT:

As per an old saying which says, “separation of moustache and mouth”, I think the time has come to do just that. Because now the Chinese government has started to take such a strong stance.

The Dalai Lama now uses another Tibetan proverb, the “separation of moustache and mouth”, to make one of his strongest statements in the video. To Western ears, the phrase may sound poetic but Tibetans know full well what the Dalai Lama means – despite the mouth’s close proximity to the moustache, they are separate and not the same, just as in the case of fish and turnips. Thus, the Dalai Lama is strongly stating that Shugden practitioners should be segregated and separated from the rest of the Tibetan community, and the reason he gives for enforcing this segregation is that the Chinese government supports Dorje Shugden practice.

It is astonishing that the Dalai Lama uses a foreign government’s policies and yet-to-be-proven support as a basis to justify obstructing an individual’s religious freedom. This enforced segregation is miles away from the democratic image the Dalai Lama tries so hard to portray throughout his video. It is also miles away from the justification the Dalai Lama initially gave for banning the practice – that is, Dorje Shugden is supposedly bad and unenlightened. Yet here, the Dalai Lama makes it clear that his main reason to call for the segregation of Shugden practitioners is their alleged link to the Chinese government. So which one is it? Is it because this long-established 400-year-old practice is not in accordance with Tibetan Buddhist doctrine? Is it because the Chinese government supports it? Or is it merely a political smokescreen to hide the failures of the Tibetan leadership to regain their homeland by blaming it on a protector deity? The inconsistencies in the Dalai Lama’s words over the decades when it comes to the undemocratic ban on Dorje Shugden practice bears further investigation and analysis.

A screenshot of the 2008 video where the Dalai Lama talks about “separation of moustache and mouth.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Till now, Dolgyal propitiators have committed murder, have beaten people and threaten people who oppose their view. Those are in a way, no big deal.

Here, the Dalai Lama is obviously referring to the murder of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, the Director of the Tibetan School of Dialectics, which anti-Shugden groups keep raising as proof of the character of Dorje Shugden followers despite a lack of tangible evidence or arrests proving that the crime was committed by Dorje Shugden practitioners.

And after talking about the murder and violence, the Dalai Lama rounds off his point by saying it is ‘no big deal’. Notice the pattern here – once again, the Dalai Lama adds a lighthearted touch to a very important subject so that he can make potentially offensive information more acceptable to the audience. He is essentially creating the association in listeners’ minds that all Dorje Shugden followers are aggressive and violent, in the hope that it will make the act of banning Dorje Shugden more palatable.

Yet, the Dalai Lama’s statement can be interpreted in another way. Is the Dalai Lama actually saying that murder, beatings and violence are “no big deal”? That would explain why no repercussions are meted upon his supporters who beat and threaten Shugden followers within the Tibetan settlements; if the very top thinks violence is “no big deal”, then the underlings have no reason to.

Astute observers will find the callousness behind this thought process to be not in keeping with the Dalai Lama’s image of tolerance and compassion. Just because an individual or a small group of people from a particular faith allegedly performed an act of violence, it does not mean that everyone who subscribes to that faith should be criminalized. For example, when the World Trade Center in New York was attacked by terrorists, the United States government did not respond by banning the practice of Islam or by segregating its practitioners. Similarly, after the Jewish genocide of World War II, the world did not respond by segregating all Germans. To criminalize an entire group of people for the acts of a few is illogical, wrong and a huge infringement on human rights.

TRANSCRIPT:

But now they have decided to side with the People’s Republic of China. That is indeed very surprising! Right now we are arguing with the Chinese government, that if they give us meaningful autonomy that Tibetans can trust, then we are ready to stay within the People’s Republic of China. Right now, we are arguing that what the Chinese are doing in Tibet as they please with utter lack of respect to Tibetan feeling, is wrong! While we are arguing, they choose to side with the Chinese government. That is very sad indeed!

By this point in his speech, the Dalai Lama has accused Dorje Shugden practitioners of being enemies of the Nyingmapas, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. and now – the icing on the cake – as Chinese spies. The Dalai Lama is well aware that most Tibetans have strong feelings about their enemy #1, China. Despite the fact that it is illogical to label all four million Dorje Shugden practitioners as being pro-China, the Dalai Lama has done so through this speech and as a result, Dorje Shugden practitioners all around the world, old and young, are being labeled Chinese dogs and Chinese spies.

TRANSCRIPT:

Then as to the proportion of lying, they accuse their religious freedom has been denied. But in reality, this is not a religious matter at all! Like we touched on the subject yesterday, this matter is propitiation of a spirit who is in violation of pledge (Dam-si) with distorted aspiration (monlam-logpai). It is not even a Dharmapala class of spirit.

But then, if you say perfidious spirit, in Yamantaka’s 15 cardinal protector’s ritual cake offering prayer, there it says:

Spirits and Vetalas (zombie) in front of Lord Yamantaka and Manjushri,
You who have pledged to protect the Dharma, karmic lord of death,
Mamo and dakinis as well as perfidious spirits and Vetalas (zombies),
You who are protector or external, internal and secret aspects bounded by oath.

But at the end, it says those who uphold PLEDGES!!! Not those who VIOLATE pledges. If it is one who upholds pledges, then even it is a perfidious spirit or Vetala (zombie) are also OK. But if it is a perfidious spirit who is also in violation of pledges, then it is not right. Understand?

Because some might think a perfidious spirit is OK as it is mentioned in Yamantaka’s prayer, “Perfidious spirit, vetala (zombie), who are protector, To you I bow with respect.” So a perfidious spirit is OK since it is mentioned in Yamantaka’s prayer, BUT then at the end it says, those who UPHOLDS PLEDGES! Here is one who is in VIOLATION of pledge!! It is like I told you yesterday. Maybe I shall explain later. I myself have not much to say. But I shall distribute the documents later on.

Returning to the so-called doctrinal basis for banning Dorje Shugden, the Dalai Lama cites scriptures in the Yamantaka propitiation rites to support his view that Dorje Shugden is a perfidious spirit and therefore, deserving of a ban.

Buddhism teaches that a sentient being can take rebirth in any one of the six realms, one of them being the spirit realm. After death, and by virtue of their negative karma, beings who are extremely attached may take rebirth as one of the many classes of spirits. In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a tradition of subduing spirits by putting them under oath to protect the Buddha’s teachings. Spirits who are subdued in such a manner are known as worldly protectors. Unlike enlightened beings who manifest as enlightened protectors, these worldly protectors do not serve the Dharma out of compassion, but because they are oath-bound to do so.

A painting of Nechung Dorje Drakden, the Protector of the Tibetan government

One famous example is Nechung or Pehar, who was once a war-mongering Persian spirit who found his way to Tibet, where he was put under oath by Guru Rinpoche. In time, Nechung, who was first commonly propitiated by the Nyingmas, became accepted by the Gelug school and has since become the Protector of the Tibetan government. Likewise, his oracle has been appointed as the State Oracle of the Tibetan government.

However, in his speech, the Dalai Lama is saying that Dorje Shugden is not even in the class of spirits who have been subdued. This implies that Dorje Shugden is one of the worst perfidious spirits who has also violated his pledges. But the Dalai Lama is overlooking one very important point: if Dorje Shugden is as harmful and perfidious as he claims, then why doesn’t the Dalai Lama just subdue Dorje Shugden and “force” him to serve the Dharma? Tibetan Buddhism is renowned for its powerful rituals that can subdue even the most malignant spirits and black magic. Surely, it would be a simple matter to just subdue and bind Dorje Shugden thus bringing an end to the Dorje Shugden controversy? Why expend so many hours talking about the harm a so-called spirit can cause when it would just be easier to solve the problem once and for all?

Having said that, even if Dorje Shugden is truly a perfidious spirit, this should not be the Dalai Lama’s concern as the secular leader of the Tibetan people. Whether people choose to worship spirits or demons, or if they want to pray to a teapot or a slice of bread – none of this should be an issue for the Dalai Lama if he truly respected religious freedom. The Dalai Lama, in his position as the Tibetan head-of-state, should be guaranteeing his people’s rights to freedom of religion, and not oppressing the rights of Dorje Shugden followers to practice their religion freely and openly.

A real head of a truly democratic state should only be concerned about ensuring that the citizens have religious freedom, and to provide a safe environment for them to practice their religion of choice. What a person wishes to have faith in – even if it is a teapot – is entirely up to them and should not be policed.

TRANSCRIPT:

Now for 300, almost 400 years, this problem continued. For 360 years, 370 years it remained in a subtle way. But for last 30 years, it has become a prominent controversy. In addition to that, now even the Chinese Communist Government has started to take special interest. So now, on our part, we have to think carefully and decide what to do. Do we separate mouth and moustache? Do we separate fish and turnips? And how do we go about doing it?

The Dalai Lama claims that for nearly 400 years, the practice of Dorje Shugden has been an ongoing issue but historically speaking, there are no such reliable accounts. On the contrary, there is plentiful evidence to show a widespread reliance on Dorje Shugden worship over the last four centuries. Even when the Dalai Lama escaped into India and for decades after, there was no problem with Dorje Shugden and even the Dalai Lama continued to practice Dorje Shugden in exile without any negative repercussions.

But by saying that Dorje Shugden practice has been problematic, the Dalai Lama has rewritten history because his words cannot be challenged. Because of that, pro-Dalai Lama groups viciously target Dorje Shugden practitioners both online and offline. And yet again, the Dalai Lama raises the mouth-moustache and fish-turnip analogies to remind his audience about separating from, and segregating and discriminating against Shugden practitioners.

Ironically, the Dalai Lama also proclaims that in the last 30 years, Dorje Shugden has become a prominent controversy. But how and why did the practice become “a prominent controversy”? The truth is, Dorje Shugden practice has grown more in the last 30 years than it has in the past few centuries only because the Dalai Lama keeps talking about it over and over again.

And, by mentioning China and the segregation of Dorje Shugden practitioners in the same breath, the Dalai Lama is skilfully planting the idea in the audience’s mind that Dorje Shugden practice is negative and its followers should be segregated.

TRANSCRIPT:

First, listen to both sides carefully. Then contemplate. After that we shall decide by vote. Understand? Abbots understand? Shall distribute documents later. Sutra teachers understand? Administrators also understand? Sponsors also, did you understand? That is how it is. So, no use leaving it like that. Even in the Sutras, when there are major differences of opinion in the Sangha, they settle it by monks voting with coloured sticks. It is written as seven ways to settle monastic disputes. Like that, even in our modern way, referendum is a very good way. So, we shall settle it with referendum!

Then you western monks, do you want to participate in the referendum too? Ha, Ha, Ha…

OK. There is no hurry. When you all return to your respective monasteries, there, after settling down, then explain everything in detail, and make sure everybody understands the whole thing clearly, and give them time to think and contemplate. Then, only after that, we shall hold voting. That is how we do it, understand? So, this I thought is a good time to explain while the sponsors are present.

Having presented all of his so-called irrefutable evidence, the Dalai Lama once again reminds the abbots, teachers and administrators of the biggest Tibetan Buddhist monasteries to carry out his referendum. Remember – at the beginning of his speech, the Dalai Lama suggested a referendum. And by the end of his speech, having presented all of his arguments, no one in the audience is able to refuse the referendum especially since the Dalai Lama singled out different groups of people. It is the Dalai Lama’s subtle way of letting them know that he is watching to see what they will do next, and if they will disobey his orders. From the outset, the entire speech looks and sounds relatively democratic but in reality, the abbots, teachers, administrators and sponsors have no choice if they want to remain in the Dalai Lama’s good books.

As predicted, in the months following this speech, the referendum took place exactly as the Dalai Lama had described, with colored sticks and all. Monks were forced to choose between giving up their Shugden practice or continue practicing and suffer the consequences.

Video: The vote-stick referendum regarding the worshipping of Dolgyal (Dorje Shugden)

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

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

Those who decided to remain loyal to their Gurus and continue practicing came to suffer grave consequences. Not only were they ostracized from their brethren as outcasts and pariahs, but many were expelled from their monasteries, the only home they had ever known. All around them, the community gathered to routinely degrade and berate them, refusing them service in shops or treatment in hospitals, and dealing them a level of indignity one would not expect from a so-called democratic, supposedly Buddhist society.

In another time and place, if this had occurred in Tibet and not in an exile settlement in India, and if the Dalai Lama had full control over the law and its enforcers, it would not be hard to believe that Dorje Shugden practitioners could easily have been placed in concentration camps. Only Indian law tempered the Tibetan leadership’s behaviour, preventing them from going all the way to decimate the population of Shugden practitioners.

Video: Tibetan Leadership Organizes Violence Again

Monks and lay Tibetan protestors turned violent at the instigation of Tibetan Government-in-exile representatives and threw stones at a khamtsen (fraternity house) of Ganden Shartse Monastery because its residents chose to remain Dorje Shugden practitioners. While the violent protests were happening, the monks inside remained calm and performed a Dorje Shugden puja.

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

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

10 Years Later, An Unexpected U-turn?

Fast forward 10 years from 2008 and the Dalai Lama has changed his mind on various issues which he has been typically very staunch about.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about total independence, he now pushes for genuine autonomy under Chinese rule.

Where the Dalai Lama once attacked China with rhetoric (as can be seen in the video above), he now makes various overtures to appease the Chinese leadership.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about the terms and conditions of his return to China, he has since sent his personal emissary, Samdhong Rinpoche on a secret visit to China, presumably to renew strained Sino-Tibetan relations and discuss the terms for the Dalai Lama’s return.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about his choice of candidate for the position of the 11^th Panchen Lama, he has since acknowledged China’s choice of Panchen Lama as “official” and even commented that he is receiving a good education from a good teacher.

Video: The Dalai Lama Corrects Himself on the Chinese Panchen Lama

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

All these developments lend hope that, despite his harsh words against Shugden practitioners, the Dalai Lama might soon change his mind about them too. If the Dalai Lama has begun to reverse his stance on the issue of Tibet and the Panchen Lama, it definitely leaves open the possibility that he could do the same with his stance on Dorje Shugden. Certainly it would be a change that Shugden practitioners worldwide would welcome with open arms.

The End of the Ban on Dorje Shugden?

In a famous prediction by His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, the junior tutor to the 14^th Dalai Lama, he said that,

…in the future, it will appear that the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden are in conflict, but in actuality they are helping each other to make the Buddhadharma grow, through making the practice of Dorje Shugden known to the world-at-large.

For those of us without clairvoyance, what we can irrefutably see with our own eyes is the extent of the Dalai Lama’s power over the monasteries and the Tibetan community at large. If the Dalai Lama can make such a shocking statement about the Chinese-backed Panchen Lama, it would be just as easy for him to speak up to negate the ban on Dorje Shugden practice. Only time will tell and by looking at the fast-moving political changes between China, India and the Tibetan leadership in the recent months, there is increasing hope that that time may be close.

Dorje Shugden: Will this 400-year-old Dharma Protector practice become the cause that unites a world at odds with each other?

Supporting Documents

A letter from the Tibetan Women’s Association and Tibetan Youth Congress to Sera Mey Pomra Khangtsen, pressuring the monks of Pomra Khangtsen to give up their practice of Dorje Shugden. Click to enlarge.

English translation:

To the monks under Sera-Mey Pomra monastic section, the object of refuge, who did not pick the vote-stick and who didn’t take oaths:

We, the members of standing committee of Tibetan Youth Congress and Tibetan Woman Association here in Bylakupee as well as the members, would like to request you:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the champion of peace and spiritual and temporal leader of Tibetan religion and politics has delivered advices and instructions at row.

In the announcement by Department of Culture and Religion of Tibetan government in exile, “Henceforth, in order to not pollute the commitment between guru and disciple by those who continue to worship Dholgyal [Dorje Shugden], they [Shugden devotees] are not permitted to attend the teachings of the Dalai Lama; they are not permitted to be admitted in any Gelug monastery, as per the charter of Gelug monastic establishment; and they are not permitted to take part together in prayers, exams and so on. Nevertheless, they can equally enjoy other rights of Tibetan in exile.

It is imperative to take this into consideration to maintain peace and security in the community, and that there should be no harassment between Shugden monks and non-Shugden monks. Furthermore, spiritual activities including the great prayer festival in Sera, Drepung and Ganden should be held traditionally – and on time. Even in the future, each monastery must accept if anyone, with pure motivation, takes oath and engages in what to take and what to abandon.”

It is vital to abide by the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the refuge of this and next life, and in particular, there is a peril that will stain the dignity of Sera Mey Monastery and the root of happiness of the six million Tibetans.

Therefore, in order to maintain pure commitment and harmony as it was within Sera Mey Monastery in particular, and to ensure the dignity of Sera Monastery as it used to be, we strongly request you, from now on, to give up the practice of Dholgyal, and to take vote stick and oath of not worshipping. And we urge you to bear the matter in the mind.

Dated: February 25, 2008
Tibetan Youth Congress, Bylakuppe
Tibetan Woman Association, Bylakuppe
With seals

Copy to:
The Hon. Private Office of the Dalai Lama
Department of Culture and Religion
The Office of Chief Representative of Southern Settlements
The representatives of old and new settlements in Bylakuppe
Sera Lachi monastery
Abbot of Sera-Jay monastery
Abbot of Sera-May monastery
The headquarter of Tibetan Youth Congress
Tibetan headquarter of Tibetan Woman Association

A leaflet featuring the names and photos of six expelled Sera Mey monks, circulated amongst the Tibetan monastic and lay community, encouraging them to ostracise these Dorje Shugden practioners.

English translation:

To the Tibetan public and monks,

Since earlier time, the following monks under the affiliation of Sera Mey Pomra, whose names are listed together with their photos, have engaged in mere conceit exaggeration to around six thousands monks, in the name of Dorje Shugden.

Therefore, the lords of law of Sera Lachi Monastery, disciplinarian Geshe Thupten Tendar and disciplinarian Geshe Tsultrim Gyaltsen have excommunicated them from the institution of Sera Monastery. We thus call for Tibetan public and monks not share to religious and material resources with these persons.

Thupten Samphel (photo), Thupten Kunsang (photo), Tenzin Tsering (photo)
Jampa Khetsun (photo), Jampa Chogyal (photo), Lobsang Jigme (photo)

Dated: April 8, 2008

The General Secretary of the Department of Religion and Culture personally decrees that recommendation letters for monastic entry are not to be issued to Dorje Shugden practitioners. Click to enlarge.

English translation:

To Abbots and Administrators of the Gelug monasteries,

We have received the copy of the decree dated 02.17.2007, which was sent by the Kashag [Tibetan Cabinet] to the directors of Tibetan Reception Offices, and urged us to send the notice to every Gelug monastic establishment.

Simply for the sake of Tibetan religion and politics, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been giving advice regarding the worship of Dorje Shugden; even the Head Reception Center has been describing the reasons behind the Dalai Lama’s ban against worshipping Dholgyal (Dorje Shugden) to our Tibetan brothers from Tibet. But we still provide the same recommendation letters, without discrimination, for schools and monasteries to the few Tibetan newcomers who continue taking a rigid stand to worship Dholgyal.

However, in the 7 of 12 section of Gelug’s Code of Conduct resolved on the gathering of Gaden Tripa, Sharjang Choje, abbots and representatives, it is clear that those who want to join a monastery must give up the worship of Dholgyal [Dorje Shugden]. As such, the Head Reception Center must explain to them the reasons why the Dalai Lama has imposed a ban on worshipping Dholgyal.

In case they didn’t listen and take a rigid stand of continuing their worship, there is no way to let them enter any Gelug Monastery including Sera, Drepung and Ganden. Therefore, from the day you receive this decree, you must implement the policy not to provide a recommendation for any monastery which is registered in the Tibetan Government in Exile’s Department of Religion and Culture. But we urge you it is clearly written that for students who want to join a school, it is fine to provide a recommendation.

Tsering Dhondup
General-Secretary
Department of Religion & Culture
Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai Lama
Dated: February 27, 2007

The Guardian: PM-in-exile urges Tibetans to make Dalai Lama’s return a reality

The sudden announcement by President Lobsang Sangay calling for Dalai Lama’s return to Chinese controlled Tibet. Click to enlarge.

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

The Dorje Shugden ban is a travesty of justice and also an indictment against everyone who has perpetuated this grave injustice against innocent monks and four million Dorje Shugden believers around the world. One of the enforcers of the Dalai Lama’s illegal ban is none other than Robert Thurman, regarded as ‘the Dalai Lama’s man in America’. Thurman had previously labelled Shugden Buddhists as the “Taliban of Buddhism” with the intention of creating public enmity towards Dorje Shugden people.

Thurman’s disregard for the law is not limited to defaming innocent Shugden practitioners but also extends to seeking to engage hackers to attack the social media accounts of some who are critical of the ban. This itself is a felony and shows Thurman’s utter scorn of the people’s right to express their opinions.

Fortunately, there are people like Indy Hack, an independent UK based journalist who has devoted himself to reporting on the deceit of the Dalai Lama and his coterie. In this story, Indy Hack exposes Thurman’s criminal enterprise in denying Shugden worshippers their right to their religion. For more from Indy Hack, visit arebuddhistsracist.com.

What is #LamaGate?

#LamaGate refers to the hacking scandal that surrounds the Dalai Lama’s trip to the US in fall 2014. It centres around the Dalai Lama’s most trusted US friend and confidant, Professor Robert Thurman, who allegedly tried to solicit members of Anonymous to engage in computer hacking on his behalf.

On 29th October 2014 Professor Thurman published a tweet (shown below) asking how to get the help of the Anonymous group to “get info out” about certain individuals he wished to target.

In and of itself this may seem like nothing more than a foolish and careless over-reaction on the part of Professor Thurman to the widespread media coverage the Shugden protests had been receiving. Yet when it was pointed out to him that such an action could be considered illegal in the US this didn’t dissuade him from continuing down his chosen path of action.

In the following hours Thurman published a series of tweets identifying specific Twitter accounts to target. He identified each of them as, “key Anti HHDL Shugden Twitter Spam Accounts”, and followed the account name with the tags #anon and #OpShugden.

#OpShugden was devised by another Twitter user (@OpTsampa) who appeared to be working alongside Thurman in his campaign. @OpTsampa also tweeted an offer of 50 BitCoins ($16,967) to anyone who could link the most accounts together that had been identified by Thurman.

Exactly what information Thurman wanted Anonymous members to “get out” of each of the identified accounts is uncertain, although it appears that he was trying to reveal the identities of the owners of the accounts. The only way to get this information would be to gain access to the users accounts without their consent, as such it appears that Thurman was soliciting computer hacking against each of the individually named Twitter accounts.

Why would Professor Thurman solicit hacking?

Throughout his fall tour of the US the Dalai Lama has faced an unprecedented level of media attention about allegations of human rights violations and religious discrimination, as anyone familiar with this site will know. Professor Thurman plays a key role in the dissemination of information against the protesters because of his academic standing and his close friendship with the Dalai Lama. They are so close in fact that the NY Times magazine referred to Thurman as, “the Dalai Lama’s man in America”.

Prior to 29th October, all of the Dalai Lama’s attempts to avoid addressing the issues raised by the protesters had been unsuccessful with the US media. Everywhere the Dalai Lama spoke, protesters gathered and news agencies covered not just the protests, but the issues behind them (see here).

As the time drew closer for the Dalai Lama to appear in New York City, where Thurman is based, the pressure had been increasing on Thurman to do something to counteract the effect of the protests. Under such increasing pressure it appears that he may have taken the highly unusual step of soliciting computer hacking in an attempt to reduce some of the exposure they were getting on Twitter.

It seems that Thurman believed several Twitter accounts were run by one or two individuals, and that by hacking those accounts he would be able to silence them.

What happens now?

Presently the #Lamagate scandal is continuing to increase on a daily basis. On 30th October this website published a guide on how to indict Robert Thurman and on 31st October it ran an Indict-Storm on Twitter, calling for any users who felt violated by Professor Thurman’s actions to report them to the authorities.

During 30th/31st October multiple reports were filed with the NYPD and the FBI asking for them to investigate the allegations against Thurman. Specifically they stated:

“It is alleged that Professor Robert A. Thurman (@BobThurman) did knowingly solicit others to commit computer hacking and provided information to direct said computer hacking against several users of Twitter in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030 (a) (2).

On October 29th 2014 it is alleged Professor Robert A. Thurman directed computer hackers associated with the ‘Anonymous’ group to hack Twitter’s computer servers and extract information about the following users: @tompotter1945, @TalkingTibet, @wisdomdakini2, and @Vajralight.

I am making a formal complaint about alleged criminal activity by Professor Robert A. Thurman and asking you to investigate whether any criminal activity has taken place.”

Despite this Professor Thurman continues to maintain a public list of Twitter users which he refers to as, “Known Spammers”. Members of this list continue to report suspicious activity on their Twitter accounts.

Who is involved?

Given Professor Thurman’s close relationship with the Dalai Lama it is highly likely that he may have known about this course of action. As the management of the Dalai Lama’s visit is also conducted with the US Office of Tibet, now based in Washington DC, it is also highly likely that they were aware of Thurman’s decision to try and recruit Anonymous.

Despite the high profile of this scandal both the US Office of Tibet and the Dalai Lama have so far remained silent, refusing to comment or even acknowledge its existence.

Likewise Columbia University, Professor Thurman’s employers, have refused to acknowledge or comment on the scandal.

Fortunately the Anonymous group are less afraid of speaking publicly on this issue. On 2nd November they issued the following public statement about the scandal addressed principally to Professor Thurman:

“.@BobThurman we have no position on this currently but can tell you one of Anon’s only central principles is NYPA: Not Your Personal Army”

More to follow…

Source: http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/lamagate.html

Robert Thurman & Anonymous

On October 28th 2014 respected scholar and author Robert Thurman decided to mention me on Twitter and make false and unsupported claims about me. He also tried to add me to a list which he promotes to followers of the Dalai Lama so they can send threatening and offensive tweets to its members. I responded by publishing an open letter to him on 29th October, but what I wasn’t expecting was his vehement and extreme reaction.

Throughout the day there was no response from Professor Thurman, yet things suddenly changed as the evening arrived and he issued a tweet publicly asking for the help of Anonymous.

Screenshot taken at 18:00 EDT 29th Oct 2014

I was one of the people that Professor Thurman was wanting to target and unearth information about, including my identity. Whilst I have the greatest respect for the ethos of Anonymous, I have never been their focus, nor have I ever considered my work to warrant their focus.

I raised the issue of the legality of publishing such a tweet and the hasty reply from an account that Professor Thurman was working with in his new Anonymous campaign replied that it was just about re-tweets and whois searches.

Screenshot taken at 07:44 EDT 30th Oct 2014

Of course re-tweets and whois searches are standard practices and certainly not in any way illegal. However the Anonymous group is not renowned for its use of whois, or its social media re-tweeting campaigns.

As @OpTsampa says, “Anyone can backtrace an IP”. So why would they be asking for the help of Anonymous if they only wanted to back-trace IPs and conduct whois searches?

Anonymous is well known as a collective of hackers who engage in electronic civil disobedience (ECD). You don’t ask for the help of Anonymous for re-tweets, you ask for their help for one thing – hacking, which is a federal crime in the US.

Asking for the help of Anonymous is fairly easy on Twitter, you just publish a tweet and insert the call sign “#anon”. Both @OpTsampa and Professor Thurman then engaged in a campaign of publishing tweets identifying Twitter users and encouraging Anonymous members to target them.

Screenshot taken at 07:45 EDT 30th Oct 2014

Screenshot taken at 21:36 EDT 29th Oct 2014

If you thought this was maybe a bit of harmless fun from Professor Thurman and his accomplice the next tweet may surprise you.

Screenshot taken at 07:44 EDT 30th Oct 2014

For those unfamiliar with the Bit Coin currency it’s a virtual currency which enables transactions to be carried out completely anonymously. It is often used when paying for services which are illegal, such as hacking. The value of 50 Bit Coins at the time this tweet was published was $16,967.00.

Offering hackers just under $17,000 to target people on Twitter is not harmless fun. It is a very serious financial offer, and a US federal crime. As this statement from the US Attorneys Office in April 2014 makes clear in the case of Fidel Salinas.

Whilst Salinas was accused of engaging in hacking, it is a criminal offence to solicit federal criminal acts and you can be an accessory to the crimes if you are found to have encouraged or instigated them.

On October 29th 2014 it would appear quite clearly that @OpTsampa and Professor Robert Thurman were not only accomplices in cyber crime, but that they actively engaged in soliciting cyber crime, as defined by the FBI.

The question is why would a Professor at Columbia University in New York, the co-founder and president of Tibet House US, and father of Hollywood star Uma Thurman, be so desperate as to break federal law?

Maybe it was never intended as an attempt to solicit hacking? If so then why did Anonymous themselves issue a formal response through their official Twitter account?

If there is nothing to hide, if the allegations of religious discrimination and human rights violations by the Dalai Lama are unfounded, then why would an eminent professor ask for Anonymous to help?

Why not simply debate the issue and show evidence that refutes or counters the claims?

At the present moment I am taking legal advice regarding filing a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Centre (IC3) of the FBI so that they can further investigate Professor Thurman’s role in soliciting cyber crime.

I will keep you posted with updates as this case develops.

*****UPDATE*****

14:30 – 30th October 2014

After having taken legal advice I am in the process of drafting a formal complaint for investigation by the FBI. I am awaiting the FBI’s decision whether it is best to submit the formal complaint through their New York field office, or through IC3.

As the alleged offenses occurred over the Twitter platform it is likely to be an inter-state matter placing it within federal jurisdiction.

I am advised that Professor Thurman is currently aware that he is one of the subjects named in my formal complaint.

More to follow.

***Further Update***

As this is now an ongoing criminal investigation I am unable to add further comments.

Source: http://www.arebuddhistsracist.com/robert_thurman_anonymous.html
 

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

By Tobi Lee

For better or for worse, the fastest way of spreading news today is via social media and like any other inanimate object, the results of social media use are dependent on the motivation of its users. Whether it is to shock and horrify, or to educate and raise awareness, social media has become many people’s preferred method of getting their news and spreading it. The downside however, is that oftentimes unsubstantiated rumors take a life of their own on social media, thanks to people’s propensity to spread news before checking facts.

One such unsubstantiated Facebook posting that has recently left users stunned was apparently made by a monk in Bhutan. The monk, Sonam Dorje of a Nyingma monastery in Pardo, Bhutan, claimed that his monastery’s sponsor, Benchen Khenpo, had brought some foreign pilgrims to visit. The group included Dechen Tulku, a Tibetan lama who is a well-known and outspoken Dorje Shugden practitioner.

The posting, which was accompanied by a letter, was full of contradictions. On the one hand, Sonam Dorje claimed that he did not know who Dechen Tulku was at the time of his visit. At the same time, he also stated in his posting that Dechen Tulku has a history of visiting other Bhutanese states and monasteries. Regardless, after learning about Dechen Tulku’s background, Sonam Dorje went on to post that,

Actually, Dorje Shugden’s practice was banned many years ago by our spiritual leaders. According to this, I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them. I believe that they are evil beings.

Dechen Tulku during his recent visit to Bhutan

Taking the visit as a negative sign, his monastery then requested their lamas for divination. The results said that Dechen Tulku’s visit had brought negative obstacles to the monastery and in order to purify and prevent these obstacles from manifesting, the monastery would have to and is now performing Damtsig Lu Lo Dang, Gekte, and Drolo gyi Tordak pujas.

Sonam Dorje ended his posting by calling upon all Bhutanese people to be careful of people who are Shugden practitioners.

What observers have found puzzling about this post is that even at first glance, there are strong reasons to believe that the letter and Facebook post are fake. This is because:

1. The letter is not written on a monastery’s official letterhead, especially when it is supposed to be an official notice. This is against convention and in some cases, regulations.
2. There is no mention of which monastery the letter is from and the pictures posted do not show any buildings. This is left as a mystery, making the accusations flimsy.
3. The letter is written following the rules of Tibetan grammar. If it was written by a Bhutanese, the style of grammar would be Bhutanese and not Tibetan. Hence there is a very strong likelihood that the author of the letter is Tibetan.
4. The notice is a picture, not a scan of the original document which would have provided for greater authenticity.
5. There is no signature, only a name. If the issue was so important, how come the monastery refused to endorse it with their letterhead, or even the abbot’s signature and seal? This again does not lend any authenticity to the post’s claims.

Hence the letter could have been written by anyone but the question is, what was this person’s motivation to do so?

A Contentious Past

Gyalo Dhondup, the Dalai Lama’s brother, was involved in a plot to assassinate the Bhutanese king.

The Tibetans have a history of creating problems in peace-loving Bhutan. In 1974, Tibetan refugees were expelled from the country after the Bhutanese government uncovered a plot to assassinate the nation’s beloved king, just months before his coronation. 28 Tibetans were involved in this plot, including Gyalo Dhondup, the Dalai Lama’s brother who wanted to overthrow the Bhutanese government and install his brother as the ruler. Having just lost their own country, Tibet, Gyalo Dhondup must have been hankering after a return to any form of power.

As a result of his actions, Tibetans in Bhutan were given an ultimatum – become Bhutanese citizens, assimilate into the country and pledge loyalty to the government, or leave. Thousands of Tibetans chose to become Bhutanese citizens while others left to start new lives in India or in the West.

The assassination plot is not the first time that Tibetans have attempted to depose Bhutanese rulers in order to install a Tibetan one. These plots arise from Tibetan jealousy and covetousness for Bhutan’s stable governance and economy, a situation compounded by the world’s comparison of these two Buddhist governments; that is, people cannot help but wonder why Bhutan is able to remain democratic and independent, while Tibet was so swiftly taken over by China. What is lacking in the Tibetan leadership’s method of governance?

And so, this letter with its Tibetan syntax and grammatical rules has all of the hallmarks of a Tibetan leadership-led plot:

1. Someone wishes to unsettle relations between the Bhutanese people and Dorje Shugden practitioners, by creating misunderstandings between the two groups. The open-minded Bhutanese have generally abstained from criticizing Dorje Shugden practitioners because, exposed to the workings of the modern world, theirs is a society that respects individual rights and freedoms.
2. The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership based in Dharamsala, North India) wants to find another way to further vilify Dorje Shugden practitioners. Because their own reputation is in tatters and their name has lost credibility thanks to numerous ongoing scandals ranging from sexual harassment to embezzlement to money laundering, they are now making use of Bhutan’s good reputation to do so. That is, if Bhutan, who are good and democratic, hate Dorje Shugden practitioners, everyone should follow in their example and hate Shugden practitioners too.
3. By intentionally pointing out that a Nyingma monastery issued this letter, the Tibetan author is driving a wedge between the Gelugs and Nyingmas, encouraging hostility between the two schools of practitioners.
4. By dredging up the Dorje Shugden issue once again and reminding Nyingmas that they should exhibit animosity towards Gelugpas, perhaps it will distract the Tibetans and Bhutanese from the Tibetan leadership’s own failures and ongoing scandals

Of course, suspicious in all of this is the fact Sonam Dorje is a common name, and no monastery, abbot or monastic administration has come forward to take responsibility for the anonymous letter. After all, why would anyone wish to be identified with such a divisive letter, designed to encourage hatred? No real spiritual practitioner would ever pen such a letter which is clearly not in the spirit of Buddhism.

Nyingmas Do Not Hate

Kyabje Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche, a prominent master of the Nyingma tradition.

There are four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism: Gelug, Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya. All four are equally valid paths to Enlightenment, and the relationship between the four schools may be likened to four different cars offering various routes to the same destination.

Nevertheless, in recent history, the CTA has made it their business to repeatedly remind Nyingma practitioners that they should hate Gelugpas and this latest Facebook posting is no different, with its ironic statement that “…I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them.”

Incredibly, the letter’s narrow-minded author does not realize what a contradiction it is to call himself a pure Nyingma practitioner yet project such extreme hatred towards millions of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The fact is that the Gelug, Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools are all valid traditions of Buddhism, and real practitioners of any one of these schools will practice the Buddha’s teachings on compassion and wisdom. None of these schools espouse hate or schism, so why would a so-called “pure” Nyingma practitioner proudly declare how they “really hate” someone? No real Nyingma practitioner will hate anyone and similarly, no real Gelug practitioner will ever believe that a real Nyingma practitioner can hate anyone. How can the sun hate the moon, when both occupy the same sky?

Bhutan Guarantees Religious Freedom

Serious doubts have been cast over the authenticity of the letter but if it had indeed been written by someone in Bhutan, the fact it could even be published is a reflection of Bhutan’s democratic laws.

Bhutan’s Constitution, adopted in 2008, transformed the country from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Article 7 of the Constitution establishes numerous rights, including “many of the basic human rights enshrined in international conventions”. This includes the freedom of thought and religion; and the freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language, religion, politics, or other status.

Hence, the divisive letter takes full advantage of Bhutan’s laws which protect freedom of speech and religion. Yet, it simultaneously infringes on the same laws which give Benchen Khenpo the right to invite and host whomever he wants.

Based on the law, how can any religious leader ban any religious practice? How can the so-called Nyingma author of the letter criticize Benchen Khenpo for his friendship with a Dorje Shugden practitioner? Regardless of whether Dechen Tulku practices Dorje Shugden or not, that is his faith and his personal choice is protected under Bhutanese law. His choice should not prevent two friends from meeting; is the author implying that Dechen Tulku must give up his Dorje Shugden practice just to visit beautiful Bhutan and his friend Benchen Khenpo? If that is the case, then the letter might as well ridiculously call for all tourists to renounce their religious practices which do not align to the author’s sensibilities.

Guilty by Association

Dechen Tulku in Bhutan

According to the letter, the author’s monastery was so easily affected by a simple visit from Dechen Tulku that pujas had to be performed to destroy the obstacles created by his visit. If a mere visit from a single Dorje Shugden practitioner can bring about such calamity, as the letter’s author falsely claims, then the situation can be read in a number of ways:

1. The members of the author’s monastery are poor practitioners, and their refuge vows are so broken that they no longer enjoy the protection of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha).
2. Benchen Khenpo is a much more powerful practitioner as he is not affected or tainted by his association and friendship with Dechen Tulku.
3. Dorje Shugden practitioners are so powerful that a mere association or connection with them will taint everything that they touch. That is why Sonam Dorje took pains to mention that they destroyed the monetary contributions that Dechen Tulku made, because they came from a stalwart Dorje Shugden practitioner.

But if it is the case that any connection with a Dorje Shugden practitioner is a tainted one, why doesn’t the monastery – if it at all exists – return their patron Benchen Khenpo’s contributions as well? After all, according to the logic presented by Sonam Dorje, surely Benchen Khenpo and everything he owns would have also been tainted too, thanks to his being friends with Dechen Tulku?

It would have been easy to include the items offered by Benchen Khenpo in the three pujas that were performed to purify and prevent the obstacles that were supposedly brought about by the visit of Dechen Tulku. As a matter of fact, if these pujas are powerful enough to remove the supposed obstacles, why didn’t the monastery just direct them towards Dorje Shugden in order to subdue him? Why has no Nyingma lama conducted any of their powerful rituals, of which they have many, to successfully subdue Dorje Shugden so there is no longer a deity for anyone to make a connection with?

The Karmapa said Shugden should not be subdued

H.H. the 16th Karmapa

Aside from the fact Dorje Shugden is a Buddha with no karma to be harmed, it is possible that no Nyingma lama has ever attempted such a subjugation ritual because of the words of the previous 16^th Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, who counselled Nyingma practitioners to respect Dorje Shugden.

While on pilgrimage in Nepal, the 16^th Karmapa graced the opening of Urgyen Rinpoche’s new Nyingma monastery. After being greeted by the Nepalese King and Queen, he entered the monastery and saw a statue of the Nyingma Protector Dorje Drolo stepping on Dorje Shugden. The original iconography of Dorje Drolo does not include Dorje Shugden at all, but the statue in the monastery had been modified to depict Dorje Shugden being pressed down under the statue’s feet.

After gazing at the statue for a while, the 16^th Karmapa then pointed his finger towards the statue and asked,

Who made this? Where did this lineage come from? Who is the person who built this statue?

In a room full of abbots and monks, no one stepped forward. The 16^th Karmapa then became visibly angry and demanded that the statue be removed. He then gave the following prediction to the Nyingmas at the monastery:

You will have no choice in the future but to practice this Protector; there will come a time when you need him.

There were many lamas present at that time who witnessed this event and this incident has also been recorded in Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche’s sungbum (collected works and writings).

Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?

If readers pause to consider the content of the letter and its context, they will quickly realize that there are many reasons to doubt its authenticity and question its authorship. It does not make sense that after six decades, Bhutanese Nyingma practitioners are suddenly wading into the Dorje Shugden controversy by issuing such a provocative letter. What would the Nyingma monastery – if it at all exists – gain from publishing such a letter?

To ascertain the real author of the letter, one should look to who stands to gain the most from its publication. The democratic Bhutanese leadership have no reason to publish the letter; their country is stable, their economy is growing, and they enjoy an immense amount of global publicity for their unique culture and traditions, as well as their environmental preservation efforts. Publishing such a letter only harms their image.

Similarly, the Nyingmas have no reason to publish such a letter especially when it paints them as intolerant, narrow-minded and superstitious. Likewise, the Gelugs will not benefit from a letter that encourages Nyingma hostility towards them.

The only people who stand to gain from the letter is the Tibetan leadership, who will benefit from a Bhutanese nation distracted and weakened by a perceived enemy to fight against. In fact, it seems extremely likely, given the Tibetan syntax of its composition, that the letter’s source lies within the Tibetan community. And for anyone to be so daring as to falsely pinpoint the letter to a Nyingma source, it can only be done with the approval of the very top i.e. the Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala.

Until today, even with so much turmoil within their ranks, the Central Tibetan Administration still cannot resist creating trouble for Bhutan. The CTA is like a jealous, petty child in a playground, caught in an argument he cannot win and resorting to “If I can’t have it, you can’t have it either” tactics. Sadly but clearly, the Tibetan leadership’s mentality is that if Tibetans cannot enjoy peaceful independence, they will be damned if Bhutan is allowed to.

At the end of the day, the real victims here are the people – the Tibetan people who have once again been painted in a bad light by the actions of their inept, troublemaking leadership, and the Bhutanese people who have nothing to do with Tibetan politics but are now being exploited to direct anger and hostility at unsuspecting Dorje Shugden practitioners who just want to be left alone to practice in peace.

CTA, it is time to grow up and stop meddling in other people’s affairs. Your playground days are over.

English translation: We Bhutanese who are very peaceful… have spoken about important news. Please look carefully.

English translation: Recently, the Dorje Shugden practitioner Dechen Tulku visited Bhutan. We realised that this was a negative sign and we performed pujas. This is the notice that we performed the pujas.

The supposed official notice from the monastery. Click to enlarge

Translation of the notice:

Recently my friend and the monastery’s sponsor, Benchen Khenpo, brought foreigners to Bhutan for a pilgrimage. When they arrived at Pardo, Benchen Khenpo asked if he could visit my monasteries and that he had a friend who was a Gelug Tulku that would like to come along. We are grateful to Benchen Khenpo and so whoever comes along with him is welcomed and served tea. We did not know anything about this Gelug Tulku [Dechen Tulku] and did not ask about who he was. According to Bhutanese culture, he offered tea and 500 [Bhutanese Ngultrum] cash to each monk. He [Dechen Tulku] has a history of visiting other Bhutanese states and monasteries.

A few days later, after he went back, we realised his photos were all over social media. Then we understood he was a Dorje Shugden practitioner. Actually, Dorje Shugden’s practice was banned many years ago by our spiritual leaders. According to this, I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them. I believe that they are evil beings.

When such a situation happens in our Nyingma monastery [Dechen Tulku making offerings] this is a very negative sign. We requested our lamas for divination. His visit brought negative obstacles to the monastery. In order to purify and prevent the obstacles, we are now performing the Damtsig Lu Lo Dang, Gekte, and Drolo gyi Tordak pujas. We are doing these kinds of pujas now. The monetary offerings that Dechen Tulku made were put together with the “lu” torma, which was taken outside and thrown away as part of the ritual.

I want to apologize for not looking into this person [Dechen Tulku] and it is my mistake for not asking before he visited the monastery. I request that from today onwards, all Bhutanese people should be careful about people who are Shugden practitioners.

From the monastery’s lama, Sonam Dorje.

 
Sources of information on Benchen Khenpo:

• http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-10/news/vw-3361_1_shangri-la
• http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/31/news/cl-49176

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

By: Tsering Bruckman

In an unprecedented move back in 2005, the Nepali authorities shut down two key offices associated with the Dalai Lama in the country’s capital city, Kathmandu. It was a decision that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership) did not expect and it came as a shock to them. When both the Office of the Dalai Lama’s Representative and the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office were closed, it caused a huge setback for Tibetans trying to cross over to India. Both offices had been informally used as reception centers for Tibetan refugees arriving from Tibet, but neither had been sanctioned to operate. For many years, Nepali authorities had closed one eye to their activities, allowing them to continue until finally, they received some impetus to shut down the operations. It was a decision that presented a hindrance for the CTA, who had already been making futile attempts to maintain a presence in a country that does not recognize their authority.

Ex-Prime Minister of Nepal, Sher Bahadur Deuba, reiterated Nepal’s pro-China stance in November 2016. It is clear that Nepal has not changed its stance towards the Tibetans over the years.

Although the reason cited was that both offices had not registered their activities under Nepali law, it was obvious to everyone that Nepal’s real reason for their closure was a desire for a closer relationship with China. To many people in Nepal, the decision was a no-brainer. For a country of Nepal’s size and limited economic prospects, it was logical for them to align with their gigantic neighbor, who would be able to offer them opportunities and the potential to better their country. China would be able to invest in infrastructure, creating jobs for local Nepalis, and a closer relationship would invariably encourage Chinese tourists to visit Nepal, thus creating an influx of much-needed foreign currency. By comparison, a better relationship with the CTA would not result in anything anywhere near as beneficial or attractive for the Nepalis.

For over 60 years now, Tibetan refugees have streamed into Nepal as they leave the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. Some go on to India and the many Tibetan settlements there, but many remain in Nepal. For those who stayed in Nepal, the majority of them made use of the country’s thriving tourist industry to create a livelihood for themselves but being undocumented and refugees, they never paid taxes. Instead, they retained every penny they earned and channeled these towards their own personal projects and large Buddhist monasteries where even more financial assistance could be received from faithful pilgrims making copious offerings. This was something that many local Nepalis were very upset about and in fact, 11 years later, their complaints would be proven valid when a close associate of the Dalai Lama was caught up in a money laundering scandal. Phakchok Rinpoche was accused of using the 2015 Nepal earthquake to raise funds for victims, but never actually transferring the funds to them. It resulted in the Nepali authorities seizing NPR15 crores (approx. US$1.4mil) from his bank accounts.

So the government had to do something to address rising tensions between the Tibetans and Nepalis, with local Nepalis accusing the Tibetans of taking advantage and not giving anything back to the country. The decision they made was to close the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office in Kathmandu, which previously furnished new refugees with paperwork to stay in Nepal or go to India. Since then, Nepal has also tightened its borders and as a result, without Nepal as a way-station, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of new arrivals from Tibet. Tibetans wishing to enter into exile have been forced to leave Tibet via another country.

Because the Nepali government recognizes that Tibet is a part of China, the country has in general taken an increasingly hardline approach towards Tibetan refugees. The authorities have clamped down on Tibetans protesting against China, or any other form of anti-China activity on its sovereign soil; annual March 10 independence protests for example, have had to take place without permits and have been met with a heavy police presence. In short, because Nepal (like many other countries) wants to be friends with China, it does not bode well for the Tibetan leadership. And Nepal is not alone in their desire to form a closer relationship with China. Theirs is part of a growing trend, mirrored by countries all over the world, who now consider it bad to be seen with the Tibetan leadership in light of China’s growing economic and political power.

It is clear that the Tibetan leadership are being rejected on political and economic grounds, and at the same time many ordinary Tibetans are now also rejecting the leadership for taking advantage of their people for financial gain and nothing more. From anger over the leadership blocking Tibetans from becoming Indian citizens, double standards, allegations of murder, corruption and financial mismanagement, forced conversions with the Kagyu tradition or the divisive and at times violent ban on Dorje Shugden, the Tibetan leadership are now being rejected by their own people. As their influence wanes due to their ineffectiveness, how long will it be before the Tibetan leadership falls into irrelevance?

Nepal closes Dalai Lama’s office in Kathmandu

Click to read the full report. (Source: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=8923)

Related articles:

• Australian PM has no plans to meet Dalai Lama 2017
• Switzerland rejects the Tibetans again
• It’s Bad to Be Seen With Tibetan Leaders
• Tibetans rejected by Bhutan
• Tibetans rejected by Sweden
• Tibetans rejected by Italy
• Switzerland is on China’s side
• Mongolia Bans the Dalai Lama
• Give up the Tibetan cause, get an Indian passport
• Pope Francis snubs the Dalai Lama – 2014
• Switzerland insists Tibetans are Chinese
• Dalai Lama Rejected from Taiwan
• No South African visa for the Dalai Lama
• Tibetans rejected by Pakistan

Pakistan has expressed their outright support for China on all matters, including Tibet, and there is very little chance of them changing their minds.

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

By: Kay Beswick

There is more disappointing news for the Sikyong Lobsang Sangye as he embarks on yet another tour of America to curry favor with the West and raise funds supposedly for the Tibetan community, but in actuality for his own financial gain. In recent times, there has been a growing body of criticism about the Sikyong’s frequent travels, and how little time he spends in Dharamsala dealing with the issues of his people.

A comment left by a former Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) employee explaining that Sikyong Lobsang Sangye’s reasons for traveling are not benign and altruistic, but self-serving and nefarious. Click to enlarge.

One also cannot help but wonder if this trip is some form of damage control as the Tibetan leadership’s reputation is increasingly left in tatters. As the Sikyong departs for the United States, he leaves behind an exiled community in India who are more isolated than ever as yet another country with a potential border claim to Tibet has rejected the Tibetans.

Pakistan, whose disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir borders with historical Tibet, recently announced that China has their full support on many critical issues, including the Tibetan one. President Mamnoon Hussain, the leader of the Pakistan nation, was full of praise for the Chinese leadership for their role in peacekeeping and stability efforts in countries like Afghanistan.

Thus it would seem that in the region, the number of allies that Tibet can count on is rapidly declining, as the people and governments who support them dwindle both in number and in financial contributions. There is in all likelihood no hope for the Tibetans on Pakistan reversing their decision since they are a staunchly Muslim state who are not going to be charmed by an association with the Dalai Lama or swayed by the romanticized concept of Shangri-la.

The salient points to consider are these:

• People are clearer in their rejection of the Tibetans, than they are in support of. A nuclear power has openly declared that they will have nothing to do with the Tibetan issue, and they will support China in it. What other country of such power has so clearly voiced their support for Tibet? In the last 60 years, even Tibet’s biggest supporter, the US (another nuclear power), has not been as clear about their support for Tibet as compared to Pakistan’s outright rejection.
• Within the region, Pakistan’s role in anti-terror activities is crucial. What country will risk Pakistan’s lack of cooperation on anti-terrorism, a topic that creates universal concern, by pressing for the Tibetan agenda which is minor in comparison? For the rest of the world, China is their economic darling, for their potential as a trading partner and cash cow. And for Pakistan, governments are far more invested in keeping peace and stability in Pakistan than in pushing for them to support the Tibetan cause.
• For Pakistan, having China on their side helps strengthen their claims against a common objective i.e. India who themselves are fast realizing that they have very little to gain from Tibetan presence in their country. It has even reached a stage where Tibetan citizens hoping to becoming India are being told to give up their Tibetan refugee papers. To compound this, a recent article penned by an Indian Member of Parliament questioned why the Dalai Lama does nothing to help with the many domestic conflicts and upheavals that are troubling the country.
• And for Pakistan, they are not making this decision based on religion or human rights, but purely based on politics and economics. For that reason, there is very little the Tibetans will be able to do to persuade Pakistan not to support an emboldened China on the Tibetan issue, because talk of Buddhism and the Dalai Lama as an international man of peace will not appeal to them. For Pakistan, it is purely about maximizing their economic and political gain in the region, to provide for their population, and there is nothing the Tibetans can offer to replace whatever benefits Pakistan might experience from a positive relationship with China.

As the Tibetan leadership’s pool of international supporters dwindles, internally they continue to perpetuate schism and divisions amongst their own people, for example by interfering in the recognition process of the Karmapas or by directing violence and vulgarities towards Dorje Shugden practitioners. Other leaderships who are logical and facing so much external opposition would ordinarily regroup, and discuss how to encourage harmony and unity amongst their people since there is strength in numbers. But it seems Lobsang Sangye has a bigger preoccupation with raising funds than with the welfare of his people, starting with the senseless loss of lives through self-immolations.

So is there any surprise that the Tibetan leadership is finding less support for themselves, when they do not even support their own people?

This article is not to comment on Indo-Pakistani politics but to highlight that yet another country, regardless of their political leanings, has rejected the Tibetans. As predicted, more and more nations are making plain their lack of support for the Tibetans. If things continue on its current downward spiral, it looks like Sikyong Lobsang Sangye will have to travel more often to placate and charm new sponsors, since fewer people and nations are willing to open their wallets and borders to the Tibetan exiled community. And upon analysis of the greater picture, maybe it is about time too, because 60 years of exploiting their sponsors as well as their host India is really 60 years too much.

Pakistan supports China’s stance on Tibet: President Mamnoon

Click to enlarge. Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1351540

Related articles:

• Australian PM has no plans to meet Dalai Lama 2017
• Switzerland rejects the Tibetans again
• It’s Bad to Be Seen With Tibetan Leaders
• Tibetans rejected by Bhutan
• Tibetans rejected by Nepal
• Tibetans rejected by Sweden
• Tibetans rejected by Italy
• Switzerland is on China’s side
• Mongolia Bans the Dalai Lama
• Give up the Tibetan cause, get an Indian passport
• Pope Francis snubs the Dalai Lama – 2014
• Switzerland insists Tibetans are Chinese
• Dalai Lama Rejected from Taiwan
• No South African visa for the Dalai Lama

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

By: Solaray Kusco

Below are two articles received reviewing the Tibetan leadership’s stance towards applying for Indian citizenship.

In a scathing review of the Tibetan leadership’s latest actions, Mila Rangzen has recounted the Central Tibetan Administration’s (CTA) recent policies towards the news that Tibetans born between 1959 to 1987 will be able to gain Indian citizenship. Of particular concern for him were the struggles ordinary Tibetans will face to get citizenship, and the double standards that exist.

For many people who do not have intimate knowledge of life in the Tibetan settlements under the Tibetan leadership, Mila Rangzen’s account will indeed be an eye-opener. His writings come from the point-of-view of a Tibetan who does not appear to have any allegiances to any religion that he can be accused of bias, who does not have any associations that risk him being accused of being Chinese, and who appears only to be interested in the welfare of his people.

In addition to the points that Mila Rangzen has raised, it is important for people to remember this:

1. When ordinary Tibetans have gained Indian citizenship, they will no longer rely on the CTA for anything, just like Tibetan-Americans, Tibetan-Canadians, etc.

• So if the Tibetan-Indians have legal disputes, they will deal with the Indian authorities. If they need to renew their passports, they can liaise directly with the Indian leadership. If they need to buy land, it will be done under Indian law. Everything will be done according to Indian law. Tibetan-Indians will deal with Indian authorities, not with the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA, based in Dharamsala).
• It is the same as Tibetans who become Americans, Canadians, Swiss, etc. who no longer rely on the CTA for anything, and are thus no longer beholden to any of their diktats and policies.
• Thus when Tibetans gain Indian citizenship, there will be an end to the current procedure of Tibetans going to their leadership first to get approvals for anything they wish to do. As a result, the Tibetan leadership will no longer function as the gatekeeper between ordinary Tibetans and the Indian authorities. And because Dharamsala no longer functions as a gatekeeper, the major reason for their existence will be gone.
• Obviously this is an eventuality that frightens the Tibetan leadership because their method of governance has been one based on control. Controlling their people’s access to services and their movements has been a financially lucrative operation for a corrupt leadership occupied by people open to bribes and embezzling. Once the CTA no longer controls these Tibetans, it will be a loss of revenue because Tibetans do not have to bribe them to get anything done anymore. The Tibetans will not have to pay their Tibetan taxes, or for fast-tracking their visa applications to travel to the West.

2. Mila Rangzen raised the issue of the CTA being invested in keeping their people poor

• This aspect of control and subjugation is important, because with the settlements full of poor people, the Tibetan leadership can parade their situation to the West to garner sympathy and money for the ‘poor’ and ‘suffering’ Tibetans. But actually, it is for the CTA to keep the money and use as they like.
• So instead of encouraging their citizens’ upward mobility, they find it in their interests to keep them suppressed.
• This explains why the millions of dollars that has been pumped into the Tibetan settlements over the last 60 years has not borne much results. In fact, it was only recently they opened their first public library, and even then it was through the efforts of a private citizen to establish it. And the betterment, big buildings, golden temples, schools, halls and restaurants in the Tibetan settlements were not built with the help of the CTA but from overseas Tibetans and foreign friends donating privately. The CTA did not contribute to those.

3. The CTA has a “divide and conquer” mentality even with their own people

• It should be illegal that the CTA are kicking people out of Tibetan settlements just because they want to better their lives by becoming Indian citizens.
• That is saying “if you want to be Indian, there will be consequences” but what is so bad about becoming Indian that you need to be punished for it?
• What they are enforcing on Tibetans who wish to become Indian citizens is the same as what they did to Dorje Shugden people, by forcing them to split apart. If they are separated, they will have less ability and resources to assemble and protest (it takes more effort to gather people).
• The real question is, are Tibetans who just want to make a better life for themselves the real enemy here? Do they deserve to be vilified?

4. Another issue that Mila Rangzen’s article raised was that of double standards.

• Why did Lobsang Wangyal have to fight for citizenship, while others like Gyari Dolma were able to buy 20 years ago? Because they have money and Lobsang Wangyal does not.
• Why did Tibetan leadership stay silent when one of their citizens went to court to fight for his rights? It is because the leaders do not want to draw attention to themselves as having another citizenship / being in a privileged position. They have to appear humble and in service to the Tibetan people, although this is not the case. Another leadership that does this is in North Korea where leaders present an image of humble living to their people so the community does not suspect inequality, hypocrisy and double standards, and rally to rise up against them.
• Why did Lobsang Wangyal have to use his own personal funds for fight for the rights of the whole community, when the Tibetan leadership should have stepped in and said or done something to help him? One private citizen fought to set a precedence for his whole community, but it should have been the leadership’s responsibility to do this.

5. Racism and double standards. Anything Western and European is acceptable because of money, and the Tibetan leadership are deathly afraid of doing anything to upset the West because they are a source of money. Simultaneously, anything Indian is trampled upon.

• That is why US, Australian, Canadian, Swiss citizenships are coveted. There are no consequences to getting passports from the West. You will not get kicked out of the settlements if you have a Western passport, but you will be if you have an Indian one. You will not be stigmatized if you have a Western passport, but you will be if you have an Indian one.
• That is why Tibetan leaders continue to reap CTA benefits despite being Canadians, Australians, Americans, etc. And Tibetan-Americans, Tibetan Canadians, etc. will never have anything said against them because:
  • They can complain to their respective Western governments who will question the CTA about what is going on, and possibly withhold funding
  • If they push these Tibetan-American, Tibetan-Australian, etc. people too far, they will just throw up their hands and devolve themselves of all connections with the CTA (and the CTA thus has even less control)
• But the only reason you can get those types of coveted citizenships is because you have money to get there. If you do not, you will have to “settle” for an Indian citizenship.
• Even still, the Tibetans will face problems getting an Indian citizenship, thanks to their own Tibetan exile government setting up so many obstacles.
• So the question is – why is it Tibetan leaders can have it easy, but the common Tibetan has to suffer?
• On top of that, Tibetans are rude to class/treat their hosts as a second rate option in terms of citizenship and even marriage.

Conclusion

1. Ultimately, the CTA’s motivation is very clear: money, control and power. When will they ever learn their lesson to put their citizens first, and self-interests second? Their self-serving ways have not brought them much success over the last 60 years, so is it not time to try a new and different method?
2. Despite being elected officials, their behaviour is clearly motivated by spite, both for their own people and their host country. They wish to spite their people by ensuring they remain poor, defenceless and stateless refugees, and they wish to spite India for being kind to their people by blocking any Indian government attempts to help the Tibetans in India. So in reality, the Tibetan people should be upset about the CTA using their people, keeping them down to get free money that they then use to hurt their own community.
3. The CTA are also creating many obstacles to the high lamas and good lamas who suffer as a result of the Tibetan leadership creating obstacles for them to disseminate the Dharma. The Tibetan leadership will be the death of the Dharma every time they stop Tibetan lamas from getting out of the country to teach and turn the wheel of Dharma.

Is Indian citizenship for Tibetans a threat to the Tibetan cause?

Click on image to read the full report

Click on image to read the comments

Source: https://www.tibetsun.com/opinions/2017/08/07/is-indian-citizenship-for-tibetans-a-threat-to-the-tibetan-cause

Tibetan leadership refuses to allow Tibetans to get Indian passport

In a bold and daring move, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) also known as the Kashag, have effectively blocked Tibetans in exile from becoming Indian citizens. A memo issued on July 5, 2017, which was circulated to CTA offices in Tibetan settlements in India, saw the Kashag ordering that Tibetans seeking Indian citizenship are not to be issued No Objection Certificates (NOC), a document necessary in the naturalization process. This move however creates two huge political fall-outs:

1. The Kashag violated its own charter, which states a Tibetan can seek the citizenship of any other country while at the same time retaining their Tibetan nationality.
2. It is a slap in the face of India’s hospitality, host country to the Tibetans, who made it legal for Tibetans in India to become Indian citizens if they wish.

At this point, one could ask who actually gives the Tibetan leadership the authority to impose these rules on Tibetans living in India? It is quite simple, it is the Indian government. Without the Indian government, the Identity Certification (Yellow Book) issued to all Tibetan refugees has no power. So it is especially galling that when the Indian leadership says it is okay to give Tibetans citizenship, the Tibetan leadership steps in to say it is not even though they have no power to do so. Why does the mouse try and tell the lion what is acceptable and not acceptable?

So it is important to realize that the CTA’s authority is dependent on the Indian government and on their own, they have no power or influence, just like how paper money is worthless without gold reserves to back it up. It is this same Indian government who is now offering Tibetans citizenship and are in effect threatening the CTA’s hold on their people. As people begin recognizing the benefits of being Indian, they will want to take up citizenship, come under Indian governance (instead of Tibetan) and thus effectively end the CTA who will no longer have anyone to govern.

And of course, as per Tibetan government modus operandi, there has been no further response from the leadership about this when questioned. Instead they have blamed the media for creating problems and refused to be interviewed to clarify matters for the public. And while the media are asking questions in their pursuit of the truth, if they are not careful, they will be shut down just like the Mangtso newspaper was for publishing views that contradicted the Tibetan leadership’s.

What the Kashag have said is that that Tibetan youth should not just think of the short-term benefits of becoming Indian citizens, but of their Tibetan identity. It is their way of discouraging the Tibetan youth from becoming Indian citizens, by emotionally blackmailing them from not taking up an Indian passport. For the most part, the Kashag have been successful and some young Tibetans are insisting that you cannot be Tibetan if you hold an Indian passport. But this is extremely hypocritical since top CTA officials like Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, Dhardon Sharling, and Gyari Dolma are themselves citizens of other countries. What is more, they have lived at least 20-30 years this way; the Tibetan youth have lived as Tibetan refugees THEIR WHOLE LIVES so who is more Tibetan now? So if Tibetanness is measured by the passport one carries, and Tibetanness is the basis of someone being qualified to have an opinion or to lead the community, then by that logic the Tibetan leadership are the least qualified to do anything. Why are they not forced to think about their Tibetan identity and give up their foreign citizenship, unlike other people who want to get an Indian citizenship? These questions raise some interesting and noteworthy points to remember:

• India gives Tibetans the opportunity to become Indian citizens because they have realized giving Tibetans refugee status is worthless. As refugees, they do not help India but as citizens, they will be forced to contribute as members of Indian society. At the same time India needs to retain her humanitarian image and will not be able to revoke their refugee status or kick them out of the country without some kind of public relations nightmare.
• If India allows Tibetans to become Indians, the CTA are silenced because they cannot be seen denying their people the citizenship and rights accorded to Indian nationals.
• The Tibetans will no longer be an issue of contention between China and India if they become Indian nationals. When Tibetans become Indians, they are no longer ruled by the CTA but by the Indian government. This means China cannot criticize them because they are now Indian citizens. India can simply inform China not to interfere in the affairs of another country. Previously China would have felt they had basis to comment because China classed the Tibetans as Chinese citizens.
• Western powers will no longer give the Tibetans money and funding as they will no longer be refugees but citizens of a democratic country. Why do citizens need financial support from external parties, when they have a legitimate government to petition for assistance? As a result, the CTA will lose their source of funding from sympathetic Western governments and private donors.
• India cannot expel the Tibetans from their country because the Dalai Lama is extremely respected both in India and around the world. But the Indian government can encourage Tibetans to become Indian citizens instead, thereby removing their basis to complain about their refugee status or use their status as an excuse to cause trouble. This will mean that when His Holiness the Dalai Lama passes away and Tibetans want to riot, they can be easily controlled because they are Indians now and not Tibetans, and thus beholden to Indian law. India granting Tibetans this opportunity to become its citizens can therefore be seen as preparation for the passing of the Dalai Lama and for preventing any ensuing violence that may arise as a result of his passing.

All in all, India has been extremely benevolent and patient towards Tibetans for 60 years. Still, it is no surprise that they are doing this because they need to look out for their own country as well, and it is simply not pragmatic to risk the welfare of over 1 billion people for the complaints of 150,000 exiled Tibetans. So if the CTA keeps moving to block the Tibetans from gaining what is rightfully theirs, the Tibetan leadership might just very well find themselves under more pressure. Growing frustration on India’s part may mean that when it comes to the Tibetans, if the leadership complains too much or make things too difficult, the Indian leadership may just respond by making it even easier for Tibetans to become Indians, and thus drastically speeding up the inevitable – the demise of the CTA.

In violation of Charter, Kashag impedes issuing of passports to Tibetans

Click on image to read the full report

Click on image to read the comments

Source: https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2017/08/03/in-violation-of-charter-kashag-impedes-issuing-of-passports-to-tibetans

Sweden no longer accepts the Tibetan Identity Certificate, also known as the Yellow Book, as a valid travel document.

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

By: Ashok Rao

In a move that is beginning to be mirrored by many others, Sweden announced in June 2016 that it no longer accepts the Tibetan Yellow Book as a valid travel document. This document, officially known as an Identity Certificate (IC), issued by the government of India, classifies its holder as both a Tibetan refugee and a protectorate of India. It is this document that Tibetans travelling abroad use to entreat foreign countries to allow them to enter. This move by Sweden has sent reverberations throughout the Tibetan community in exile and indicates a global shift within international politics.

With a population of over 100 Tibetan refugees living in the country, Sweden has become weary of refugees, especially due to the situation in Europe and the Middle East which has seen a marked increase in the number of those seeking refuge in more developed countries. For this reason Sweden issued an official announcement that it would no longer accept the IC travel document in its processes allowing Tibetans to enter its borders. Tibetans wishing to enter Sweden will have to bear the identity documentation of an actual nation, like India or China. This means that Sweden no longer wants Tibetans to enter their country as Tibetans and as refugees; in effect, Sweden no longer recognizes the existence of a status such as “Tibetan refugee”.

An infographic used to announce that Sweden no longer accepts the Yellow Book as a valid form of identification that can be used during the visa application process.

One would assume that Sweden somehow would not have the right to turn down the Tibetan IC as a valid travel document, but in actuality this is not the case. Legally speaking, the Yellow Book has little weight outside of India’s borders and it is the discretion of any country whether they wish to accept it as a valid form of identification. The fact that Sweden can reject the Yellow Book harks back to the fact that India itself does not have a clear policy when it comes to refugees. India is not a signatory of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, all of which are international programmes that protect the rights of refugees, including their freedom to travel.

Since India does not belong to any of the above, the IC granted to Tibetans in exile does not have weight outside of its own borders, and legally does not need to be recognized as refugee travel documents. In this case, Sweden has simply exercised its legal rights to stop accepting the Tibetan IC as a valid travel document. Hence, no other nation state has challenged Sweden over its actions because they have no legal basis to do so. Certainly, aside from protesting Sweden’s actions, the Tibetan leadership can do very little to protect their people’s ability to visit Sweden.

The fact is that Sweden and other countries that have so far allowed Tibetans to enter their borders have done so out of kindness, and not legal obligation. Now, however, it seems the tide is turning, and many countries no longer want someone who identifies as ‘Tibetan’ within their borders. Tibetans can still enter their countries, just not as Tibetan ‘citizens’ or refugees. But this begs the question, why is it that they have implemented this change now?

One could argue that Sweden is simply reacting to events in Europe, with an increased number of those seeking refuge coming from all over the world. The number of refugees means resources allocated to the refugees are being stretched thin, and there is a strain on relationships between the host countries’ citizens and their newly-arrived guests. When Sweden’s actions are examined on a global scale however, it is quite clear that there is a political shift away from supporting Tibetans. This is evident by the number of countries who are surely but steadily distancing themselves from the Tibetans and their leadership, in favor of aligning themselves with China. It is a global trend that looks bleak for the Tibetan leadership indeed.

On the one hand there is this political distancing from the Tibetans and their leadership and on the other hand, many ordinary Tibetans, Tibetan Buddhists or Tibet enthusiasts from all around the world are waking up to the fact that the Tibetan leadership have done nothing but take advantage of their position and mismanaged their people. From the ban on Dorje Shugden, the unequal treatment of the Jonangpas, or their silence over forced conversions in the Kagyu school, the leadership have magnificently displayed their inability to govern and their blunderous mistakes. As their true colours are laid bare, they can do nothing but hide behind the skirts of their previous saviour, India.

However, India as the government who issues the Tibetan IC remains strangely silent on these issues. They have also done nothing to strengthen or legitimize the status of the Tibetans as legal refugees in the eyes of other nation states. Instead, India has offered them the choice to become full citizens of India if they give up their Tibetan identity. With so much apathy towards the Tibetans’ ability to travel, and even growing hostility towards their presence, one can only wonder as to the fate Tibetans will face in the years to come.

Sweden Does Not Accept India’s Tibetan Travel Document ‘IC’

Article describing Sweden no longer accepting the Tibetan IC on Tibetan Journal. Click to enlarge.

Related articles:

• Australian PM has no plans to meet Dalai Lama 2017
• Switzerland rejects the Tibetans again
• It’s Bad to Be Seen With Tibetan Leaders
• Tibetans rejected by Bhutan
• Tibetans rejected by Nepal
• Tibetans rejected by Pakistan
• Tibetans rejected by Italy
• Switzerland is on China’s side
• Mongolia Bans the Dalai Lama
• Give up the Tibetan cause, get an Indian passport
• Pope Francis snubs the Dalai Lama – 2014
• Switzerland insists Tibetans are Chinese
• Dalai Lama Rejected from Taiwan
• No South African visa for the Dalai Lama

Both Italy (top flag) and Switzerland (bottom flag) have rejected the Tibetans, as well as Sweden in a much earlier ruling in June 2016. Which country will the Tibetans next face rejection from? As the years pass by, it becomes increasingly harder for the Tibetans to travel, with fewer and fewer countries willing to risk their economic relationships with China for the sake of the Tibetan community.

By: Kay Beswick

One by one, the world’s nations are dissociating with the Tibetan leadership. On June 28, 2016 Swedish authorities announced a change in regulations, saying that they no longer accepted the Tibetan Identity Certificate as a valid identification document. The Identity Certificate, popularly known as the Yellow Book thanks to its cover, is issued by the Indian government. It identifies the bearer as a Tibetan refugee and protectorate of India, and requests immigration at the traveler’s destination to allow the bearer to enter the country.

This news came as a shock to the Tibetan community because without the Identity Certificate, and without any other identification documentation, they would not be allowed to apply for a visa to enter Sweden. This was swiftly followed by Switzerland’s announcement in July 2016 that they had revised their immigration policy, and that Switzerland no longer recognized “Tibetan” as a valid nationality. The ruling specifically concerned the Yellow Book, which Switzerland also announced would no longer be accepted as a valid identification document. Tibetans in Switzerland were also asked to change their nationality to “Chinese”. With more than 4,000 Tibetans living in Switzerland, they are the largest exile community in Europe so Switzerland’s change in policy was a real blow.

The infographic used by the Voice of America to announce that Sweden no longer accepted the Yellow Book as a valid form of identification that can be used during the visa application process.

Later in the same year, in December 2016, news came that Mongolia had banned the Dalai Lama, after a highly publicized but unpopular visit to the Buddhist nation. And now the latest news is that on May 18, 2017, Italy has followed in Sweden and Switzerland’s footsteps. After the Italian Consulate in Mumbai, India stopped accepting applications from Tibetans for an Italian visa, it was swiftly followed by the consulate in Delhi stopping too. Both consulates had done so upon orders from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rome, Italy. Just like Sweden and Switzerland, Italy has stopped accepting the Yellow Book as a valid identity document.

Even India themselves, do not appear to be interested in applying effort to maintain the refugee privileges of carrying a Yellow Book. This is hardly surprising considering India does not benefit in any way for sticking up for the Tibetan Yellow Book. Given the current climate, it seems logical that in order for Tibetans to have unrestricted freedom to travel, the best would be for them to get an Indian passport. Yet, a recent court ruling decreed that any Tibetan who wants an Indian passport, must give up their Yellow Book (i.e. their Tibetan citizenship) because it is illegal in Indian law to have dual citizenship. Tibetans wishing to get an Indian passport must also move out of the Tibetan settlements since they will no longer be considered a refugee.

Lobsang Wangyal, a Tibetan journalist and social entrepreneur, was the first Tibetan to get an Indian passport, having met the requirements set by the Indian government.

If the Yellow Book were that precious, and if the Indian government was that interested in maintaining the Yellow Book, they could have made some sort of exception for the Tibetan refugees to carry both. Yet the Indian government have created a situation whereby, over time and frustrated by their lack of ability to travel, Tibetans will be forced to give up their Tibetan citizenship, carry an Indian passport and assimilate into the general population in India.

And so now we come to this point on the road – Sweden, Switzerland and Italy have stopped recognizing the Yellow Book as valid identification, and India is pressing for Tibetans to give it up.

It is indeed strange that after 30 years, Switzerland and Italy have both suddenly stopped recognizing the Yellow Book’s validity. Both countries have traditionally had a good relationship with Tibetan refugees; as noted, Switzerland has the largest exile community in Europe, while Italy is home to many lamas and masters who have their Buddhist organizations and centres headquartered there. So what changed in the last 30 years that led to this outcome?

The only logical answer is the rise of China, and its ongoing dominance as a global economic and political powerhouse. As an increasing number of countries come to this realization, only time will tell what Tibetans will decide to do. History has shown that nations have not erred on the side of Tibet, preferring instead to work with China for the benefit of their own economies. Indeed the news of Italy rejecting the Yellow Book could not come at a worse time for the Tibetan leadership who now not only have to deal with a fallout with the US, but now with Europe too.

Over in the US, President Donald Trump has slashed the amount of financial aid to the Tibetan leadership to zero. While Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and various other media personalities campaign to reverse this, over in Europe the European Central Bank (ECB) has converted a part of their US dollar reserves to the Chinese yuan. It is a move that economic analysts have said indicates the ECB’s faith in the Chinese economy as well as their dependency on it.

Then at a grassroots level, Chinese citizens continue to gain visa-free travel to an increasing list of countries. Visa-free travel suggests that these nations are very keen to attract Chinese tourists and foreign currency, and they want to make it as easy as possible for the Chinese to visit their countries. In the meantime, Tibetans find that their freedom to travel on the Yellow Book is slowly being eroded, even by India herself. Unlike the Chinese passport which is gaining in value, the Tibetan passport (a.k.a. the Yellow Book) is rapidly declining in value.

After years and years of corruption, money laundering, visa-for-money schemes, double standards, embezzlement, financial mismanagement, wasted foreign aid, suppression of free speech, prejudice against the Jonangpas, silence over the troubles faced by the Kagyus (like the Karmapa issue and the associated violence), abuse of donors’ funds, unethical elections, intimidation of political opponents, as well as rejecting Dorje Shugden practitioners, ostracizing them and violently discriminating against them, it unfortunately appears that the Tibetan leadership’s karma is swiftly catching up. Which country is next? Who will next step up and say they no longer accept “Tibetan” as a valid nationality, and the Yellow Book as a valid identification document? If this trend continues, and if the Tibetan leadership do not wake up soon, it will not be long before they find that they are banging on closed doors which will never open for them ever again.

The Petition Calling for the Italian Government to Accept Tibetan Applicants for Italian Visas

The petition that has been started to pressure the Italian Embassy in Mumbai to reverse their decision. Click to enlarge.

Related articles:

• Australian PM has no plans to meet Dalai Lama 2017
• Switzerland rejects the Tibetans again
• It’s Bad to Be Seen With Tibetan Leaders
• Tibetans rejected by Bhutan
• Tibetans rejected by Nepal
• Tibetans rejected by Pakistan
• Switzerland is on China’s side
• Mongolia Bans the Dalai Lama
• Give up the Tibetan cause, get an Indian passport
• Pope Francis snubs the Dalai Lama – 2014
• Switzerland insists Tibetans are Chinese
• Dalai Lama Rejected from Taiwan
• Tibetans rejected by Sweden
• No South African visa for the Dalai Lama

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

By: Kay Beswick

If you have been following the Lukar Jam saga, you will know that Lukar Jam Atsok is a vocal freedom fighter for Tibet’s complete independence. He is also a former political prisoner of China and ran for the position of Sikyong against incumbent Sikyong Lobsang Sangay in the 2016 Tibetan elections. However, instead of welcoming him as a comrade-in-arms and fighting hand-in-hand for their country’s future, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has treated him like an enemy of the state, even going to the extent of condemning the poem he recently wrote as a tribute to a cherished friend and fellow activist, the late Professor Elliot Sperling.

Why? Because the CTA’s warped idea of democracy is a situation where everyone must conform and abide to the leadership’s ideas and opinions. In the CTA’s version of democracy, those who voice out different opinions, no matter how valid or legitimate, are labeled as traitors, Chinese spies and anti-Dalai Lama. The Tibetan government in exile is also known to use various methods of intimidation to threaten, scare and coerce its opponents into submission. Such undemocratic and often violent intimidation is targeted at individuals such as Lukar Jam Atsok, who passionately advocates for true democracy for Tibet, and groups such as Dorje Shugden practitioners who chose to follow their spiritual path.

In the case of Dorje Shugden practitioners, Dorje Shugden has been made a scapegoat for the CTA’s failures to further the Tibetan cause. In the case of Lukar Jam, he has been verbally attacked, refused service in restaurants and recently was the victim of violent vandalism. His private car had its windows smashed in an unwarranted act of violence to intimidate him into silence and to punish him for supposedly disrespecting His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

No one from the CTA has spoken against the perpetrators of this crime, clearly indicating their stance on the matter. There can be no other explanation other than that they too hope to silence voices of reason, independence and democracy, no different to what the CTA accuses China of.

The price Lukar Jam Atsok has had to pay for creative license in his tribute to the late Professor Elliot Sperling

While pro-CTA and Dalai Lama loyalists choose to ignore the real issues plaguing their government-in-exile and their lack of progress in gaining independence or even autonomy for their country, Tibetans citizens are beginning to realize what is actually happening or rather, not happening, with their country. Since my last report, more and more Tibetans have come forward to take a stand despite risks to their person. In the recent article “Lukar Jam Atsok, The ‘People-Elected’ Opponent of The Dalai Lama“, the writer Jigme Wangchuk made an astute and chillingly worrying observation:

Attack on writers and critiques are akin to Chinese troops subjecting ‘separatists’ to imprisonment. If not for the law of the land which seemingly holds justice against people deprived of identity, how volatile will be the situation then; how unabashed will be the naysayers?

Clearly, the CTA’s undemocratic actions have not gone unnoticed and parallels between their actions and China’s are bound to be drawn. Despite being refugees in a foreign land for the last six decades, the government in exile sees themselves as being above the local law and have been instrumental in numerous criminal vendettas against their own citizens.

All this is done on the pretext of protecting the Tibetan cause although in truth, it is only to protect their own interests. Imagine what would happen if the CTA were given a free hand to rule Tibet? For sure, Tibetans would be subjected to the CTA’s own brand of democracy – one that lacks even the most basic human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Violence is not disagreement, it is violence. ~ Jigme Wangchuk, http://www.tibetanjournal.com/index.php/2017/03/24/lukar-jam-atsock-the-people-elected-opponent-of-the-dalai-lama/

If the CTA still wishes to remain in power, they should start practicing real democracy and focus their resources on uniting Tibetans instead of creating further division and wasting resources by spreading lies and harassing individuals and groups. Indeed, who would want a government whose idea of democracy includes the suppression of one’s freedom of speech as seen in Lukar Jam’s case, or elaborate hate campaigns against religious groups as seen in the case of Dorje Shugden?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made it clear that he is unaffected by his critics. However, pro-CTA loyalists continue to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and dictate with an iron fist what can and cannot be said about the Dalai Lama. This type of oppression will be the cause of the CTA’s eventual downfall. Tibetan independence remains elusive even after 60 years, and freedom of speech and expression has not improved a whit.

Click to enlarge. Extracted from http://www.tibetanjournal.com/index.php/2017/03/24/lukar-jam-atsock-the-people-elected-opponent-of-the-dalai-lama/

Nyentog Tashi Dargyeling Monastery in Tibet.

Despite the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration’s (CTA) eagerness to engage in talks with China for greater autonomy of the Tibetan region, the CTA’s ridiculous policies and enforcement of the Dorje Shugden ban has once again caused a stir and generated unrest in their homeland.

On 18 September 2016, Tashi Dargyeling Monastery in the Nyentog region of Tibet released an official letter warning of the monastery’s boycott of all Shugden practitioners and those who have connections with these practitioners. A rough translation of the letter issued by the sangha of the monastery is as follows:

Click to enlarge

Letter from Nyentog Tashi Dargyeling Monastery

Generally, the Buddha’s Dharma and especially H.H. the 14^th Dalai Lama’s life is harmed by Dorje Shugden. Recently, some people within our community have been making thangkas of this deity and supporting this practice. We would like to inform that the monks of Nyentog Monastery firmly protest against these works and urge them to stop. If these individuals do not conform to the monastery’s requests and continue to worship Dorje Shugden or remain connected to the deity’s practitioners, we will cut connections with these said individuals completely. For those who refuse to distance themselves from the practice, the monks of the monastery will not go to the homes of these individuals to perform pujas (prayers). If there is anyone who passes away in these households, the monastery will not be open to them . These are the three conditions that our monastery is firm with, and this promise is witnessed by our Protectors Kalarupa and Chechog Sheltred.

Signed by all Sangha members of Nyentog Monastery

Looking at this letter, let us first examine the spiritual implications it has on the community.

1. Setting A Bad Example

As human beings, there are three crucial moments that are most important in our lives, which are birth, illness and death. These are three occasions when many seek comfort and blessings from their religious order.

However, with the recent letter from Nyentog Monastery, it will no longer be possible for Shugden practitioners in that area to receive these basic religious rites in times of need. Even though the families of these practitioners have supported the monastery for many generations, they will now be deprived of even funeral services, which are much needed during one of life’s most trying times.

This letter is nothing more than blackmail to force Shugden practitioners in Nyentog into abandoning their religious beliefs, and is particularly unacceptable because it comes from an institution that people have put their faith and trust in.

2. The Real Harm to Buddha’s Dharma is Segregation

The Buddha himself predicted that the Dharma would not be destroyed by external sources but by Buddhists themselves. By subscribing to the ostracism and segregation of Shugden practitioners, the sangha of this monastic community have successfully broken one of their root vows, the Bodhisattva Vows.

Even when faced with an individual who has committed heinous crimes, as a religious order the monastery should provide solace, blessings and ensure that the person goes to the afterlife peacefully. Instead, the sangha of Nyentog Monastery are doing the exact opposite.

The question everyone should ask here is, how can following the Dalai Lama’s advice cause the monks of Nyentog Monastery to become less compassionate, more discriminatory and even break their Bodhisattva Vows? If proving one’s loyalty and absolute obedience to the Dalai Lama comes at the price of harming others in the process, then clearly something is very wrong.

3. What is the True Purpose of the Monastery?

Monasteries are formed to help relieve the sufferings of sentient beings, whether on a basic level or to the ultimate level of Enlightenment. However, with the recent actions by Nyentog Monastery, the results are the exact opposite. The effect of their letter on the small community of Nyentog will, without a doubt, be discrimination against Shugden practitioners. The ‘condemned’ community will soon be treated as social pariahs by their own people.

The experiences of the exiled Tibetan community in India when the ban on Dorje Shugden was enforced some 20 years ago will be replicated in Nyentog. Families will get into arguments over the issue and break apart; people such as the thangka painter in the news will shortly find themselves unemployed; innocent people who have done no wrong except practice Dorje Shugden will soon find themselves ostracized by their own neighbors.

All these unfortunate events will take place just because the monks of Nyentog Monastery want to ‘prove’ their loyalty to the Dalai Lama. Great Buddhist masters of the past have been known to take on the sufferings of others quietly, and the sangha have historically been placed on a pedestal by the lay community for their selfless acts. However, the monks of Nyentog Monastery have displayed nothing but their concerns of self preservation, succumbing to the pressure created by the CTA’s cronies and throwing Shugden practitioners to the wolves. They have absolutely no regard for the chaos and harm resulting from their actions as long as they themselves are safe.

4. The Claim that Dorje Shugden Harms the Dalai Lama’s Life is a Lie

Apart from the government, religious institutions such as monasteries or temples have great influence over the community in most small villages. In some cases, they have even greater influence than the government officials. As such, the monasteries have a great responsibility and it would behoove them to uphold and educate the public of the truth. To most Tibetan Buddhists, the 14^th Dalai Lama is considered to be the emanation of the Buddha of Compassion, Avalokiteshvara. Thus, claiming that the Buddha can be harmed by any worldly being is contradictory to Buddhist principals, beliefs and philosophy. On top of that, in recent times, the Dalai Lama himself has declared that Dorje Shugden does no harm to his life. Thus, the monks’ actions to spread this lie by capitalizing on the lay community’s lack of knowledge is unbecoming.

Another Perspective

These spiritual implications may not be of significance to everyone. However, we should also examine the situation from a more practical point of view on how the actions of this monastery (and all communities who shun Dorje Shugden practitioners) have deprived innocent people of their basic human rights.

With 5000 years of history and a melting pot of 1.3 billion citizens, China has seen its fair share of civil wars and the effects of disunity within its borders. If China is ever to fall, the fault would most certainly lie in the destabilization of its internal security. It is a known fact that the authorities in China have clamped down on individuals who have caused unrest in Tibet in relations to the Shugden issue, and have also released statements indicating they are aware that the Dorje Shugden issue is being used as a tool by the CTA to create disunity within China.

As such, monasteries such as Nyentog Monastery do not help the Dalai Lama’s vision of Umaylam. With each incident such as this one, China’s distrust of the Dalai Lama grows and the Dalai Lama’s wish for a peaceful return to Tibet becomes more unlikely. If the Dalai Lama being in exile can create such disharmony within Tibet leaving the Chinese authorities to clear up the mess, what would be the effect of the Dalai Lama and the CTA once they return to Tibet? Thus, if Tibetans really want the Dalai Lama to have an opportunity to return to Tibet, they should avoid creating further unrest through the Dorje Shugden issue lest China clamps down even harder on the Tibetan leader in exile. After all, any country/government can implement new laws as and when necessary especially when internal security is at stake; we can see this most recently in the news about France’s unpopular ban on the burkini.

While some people claim that China lacks religious freedom, we should also question why a supposedly “suppressed” Tibetan religious group would further suppress the religious rights of their fellow Tibetans? Why cherry pick on China but allow people like the monks of Nyentog Monastery to get away scot-free with their religious suppression of Shugden practitioners? When a religious group encourages discrimination and causes disharmony and riots, it is no longer a religious issue but a matter of security and social harmony.

Radio Free Asia Article

Click to enlarge

English Translation

Recently, a big Shugden thangka appeared at Nianduhu Village in Tongren County, Qinghai. The local sangha community protested against the thangka and a statement has been released to urge the people to boycott this deity.

The spreading of a photo of the large Shugden thangka appearing in Nianduhu Village at Tongren County of Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture led to strong criticism amongst netizens, denouncing the local people for practicing Shugden and going against His Holiness’ instructions as well as destroying the uncontaminated relationship of lineage Gurus and students.

On Friday, a source informed RFA that it is true that the Shugden thangka appeared in Nianduhu Village of Tongren County. However, that thangka had nothing to do with Nianduhu Monastery and in contrast, the sangha community of Nianduhu Monastery released a joint statement protesting against the thangka. They hope to make their stance clear in the media.

The source told RFA: “Since the photo of the Shugden thangka was widely spread, Nianduhu Village and its monastery are under constant criticism, thus some of the elderly people in Nianduhu Village and the administration of Nianduhu Monastery gathered for a meeting and concluded the following: In the future regardless of which village they are from, those who have Shugden’s picture, statue or thangka found in their houses should be totally cut off from us. If their family members are sick or pass away, Nianduhu Monastery’s sangha will no longer perform rituals for them.”

The source also said: “Nianduhu Monastery’s sangha community also released a joint statement on 18^th September 2016 urging the villagers to boycott Shugden.”

“None of the monks in Nianduhu Monastery practice Shugden. In the joint statement released by the sangha community of Nianduhu Monastery, it says clearly that practicing Shugden not only brings harm to Buddhism, it also is harming the Dalai Lama’s long life. That statement is protesting against the actions of some villagers who are producing Shugden thangkas, and stressed that if the people producing these Shugden thangkas insist on continuing their works, Nianduhu Monastery will cut them off from the monastery, no puja will be performed for them and they will be banned from entering Nianduhu Monastery.”

Another source also told RFA about the origin of the “Shugden thangka” incident.

The source said, “This is the whole story: There is an ex-monk in Nianduhu Village. Even though he is not a practitioner of Shugden, one time after he returned to Nianduhu Village, he received an order to produce a Shugden thangka. He then assigned some of his acquaintances to paint the thangka and he paid them upon completion of the work. After Nianduhu Monastery found out what was happening, some of the monks and the elderly people in the village not only had a meeting to address this issue, they also went to each family in the village to explain the harm of practicing Shugden and requested the villagers to distinguish between what is wrong and what is right. After releasing the joint statement, the sangha community also distributed their statement to the villagers, stressing that they would implement the contents of their statement and advising the people to conduct themselves well.”

The Shugden issue has lasted for almost 400 years since the 5^th Dalai Lama’s time. The origin of Shugden is in fact a local deity, but to its practitioners, Shugden is within the fundamentalism of the Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism. However, after the investigation conducted by the 5^th and 13^th Dalai Lama, they explained in detail that Shugden is a demon and it is harming Buddhism, and Shugden is the cause of the disharmony between the different sects. Gelug lineage lamas from the past to this day also oppose the practice of Shugden. After closely observing the issue, in the mid-seventies, the 14^th Dalai Lama officially gave advice to all Tibetan Buddhists to stop the practice of Shugden and claimed that he has responsible for educating people about Shugden’s background, characteristics and the negative impact of this practice. However, it is up to the people’s personal choice to practice Shugden or not.