Violence and Sangha are not a good mix

48-Hour Curfew at Tibetan Settlement. 24-Hour Curfew at Another Tibetan Settlement in South India.

INDIA – Deccan Herald,
Monday, September 11, 2000:

Representatives of Dorje Shugden devotees from Ooty, Shillong, Kalimpong, Darjeeling and Sikh, Nepal, Delhi and Bylakuppe gathered at the settlement (Pop. 13,000) in Mundgod in the southern Indian state of Karnataka to participate in a one-day prayer convention organised by the local Shugden Society. The gathering was violently attacked by a mob of more than 2000 Tibetan Dalai Lama “supporters”. An eye-witness report from these incidents:

Sep. 8:
Anticipating objection and violence, Mr Nudup Dorje, Chairman of the settlement, requests all the house masters of Gaden Monastery to calm down their monks on the 10th, as ‘there will be only a peaceful protest march of about 200 Tibetans against the Dorje Shugden convention’. Ven. Geleg Thogmed, the house master of Dokhang Khangtsen calls a special gathering of all the monks of Dokhang Khangtsen, and asks each and every one of them to remain calm during the peaceful protest. The monks believe their house master, and return perplexed and thoughtfully to their quarters.

Sep. 9:
Representatives of Dorje Shugden devotees arrive from Ooty, Shillong, Kalimpong, Darjeeling and Sikh, Nepal, Delhi and Bylakuppe arrive at the settlement (Pop. 13,000) in Mundgod in the southern Indian state of Karnataka to participate in a one-day prayer convention organised by the local Shugden Society, for the purpose of:

1. sorting out legal and other details about constructing a new prayer hall for the worship of Lord Shugden as the existing one can accommodate only half the number of devotees at every prayer session and
2. discussing how to respond to the continuing religious prosecution within Tibetan society at the hands of those claiming to be ‘supporters of the Dalai Lama’ against anyone who reveres the Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden. The delegates, assembled in Delhi, leave in two groups for south India.

MUNDGOD:

The area in front of the new Dokhang Khangtsen (House), located beside the entry gate to the Tibetan settlement, is quiet except for a police bus and a few policemen on patrol. This was sent by the local police.

Morning, Karnatak countryroad:

Representatives for the convention who came together by train are stopped halfway to Mundgod by a detachment of police, and searched thoroughly for weapons, at the behest of the local Tibetan Women’s Association and the Tibetan Youth Congress who had baselessly alleged that Shugden devotees are ‘anti-Dalai Lama’.

Mid Afternoon, Goa-Karnatak border:

Geshe Cheme, General Secretary of the Shugden Society, and two advocates of the Supreme Court of India, Mr Thakur and Mr Arvind Singh, were on their way to the convention from the airport when they were stopped by another detachment of police at the Goa-Karnatak border. They are escorted to the district police headquarters at the seaside city of Karwar to meet the police commissioner. The PC briefs the Supreme Court lawyers about allegations he has received from the Tibetan Women’s Association, the Tibetan Youth Congress, and the settlement Chairman to the effect that the Shugden devotees in the settlement are all ‘anti-Dalai Lama’, ‘paid by China’ and other baseless charges. He asks the lawyers to live in separate accommodations outside of the Tibetan settlement, as he was apprehensive that ‘the other side’ may attack the convention participants. They reach the convention venue after another five hours by car.

Late evening, Mundgod Tibetan settlement:

News is received that, as their final pitch to prevent the convention from taking place, officers of the local Tibetan Women’s Association asked the camp leaders to announce that every Tibetan in the settlement above the age of 15 should join their protest the next day. Anyone refusing will be fined Rs. 500, or will be asked to give an explanation. The TWA approaches Drepung Loseling Monastery, requesting it to send Drepung monks to participate in the protest. The monastery keeps silent. Besides monasteries, the TWA visited the local Tibetan infirmary with the same message. They visited Jangchub Choeling (The Abode of Dharma), the peaceful local Tibetan nunnery, a second time to urge the nuns to join in the next morning’s procession.

Sep. 10: 9 A.M.
Soon after their simple breakfast, local Tibetans began to leave their home in twos and threes. From the side of Camp 3, several hundred Tibetans descended towards Gaden Monastery as though they were on their normal life visits in the settlement. However, after passing the big blue police van strategically placed near the Camp 3 bridge, they came together, forming a 3000-strong procession and briskly proceeded towards Gaden Monastery. But we did not know any of this at the time…

Except for some passersby, there was almost no one within the gates of the convention precinct. It was open. From the vantage point of the new prayer hall, I could see groups of police and some passersby outside the gate. Most of the monks had gone to attend the morning debate at the monastery courtyard.

Geshe Jangchub Dorje, President of the local Shugden society, opens the prayer convention. There are about 70 delegates. Mr Jampal Yeshe, President of the Shugden Society from Delhi, took the podium next. We were hardly a few minutes into his speech when political reality thrust aside peaceful intentions of mortals…

From our venue, we started hearing chants. The chanting got louder and louder. It became more and more difficult to concentrate on the speaker. About 50 steps away from the prayer hall, outsiders began to converge at the gate to watch the advancing procession. Monks helping with the prayer convention from within the compound became curious and went to see. The policemen began to form a barrier outside the gate. They had helmets and cane batons. None of them had shields.

Expecting to see leaders of the TWA and TYC leading the march, the onlookers saw widows, old women and old men from the local Tibetan infirmary placed at the head of the procession. The Chairman of the settlement was seen pretending to stop the advancing procession. As the protesters reached the gates of Dokhang House (the prayer venue), they became ugly. They began to shout abuses against Dorje Shugden. “Any Tibetan who worships Shugden against the wishes of the Dalai Lama”, they shouted, “are traitors.” Soon the protesters began to throw dust and small stones at the direction of the convention. These fell on monks who were watching from inside the gate. Soon larger stones and bricks followed. Flower pots and glass panes of the Dokhang students’ hostel facing the road were smashed without pity. All the windows of the nearby residence of Geshe Tenzin Chophel, one of the main disciples of the late Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, were hit and smashed. The attack increased in intensity. The local police inspector was hit on the face and started bleeding. Other police officers were similarly attacked. It was becoming impossible to restrain the monks watching from inside. They became restless. They shouted at the police for holding them in check while not being able to control the abuse and attack from the protesters. The abuses and attacks continued. Some of the monks within the gate rushed out and charged at the protesting mob.

Soon there was hand-to-hand fighting between the protesters and the monks. It was an uneven match: about 40 monks, young and old, trying to combat about 3000 screaming protesters. Many on both sides received bad beatings. Many on both the sides started bleeding from injuries. Some protesters begged for mercy, saying they had no choice but to join the procession or face penalty from the TWA. Nuns in the procession from the local Tibetan nunnery fled to the nearby Lhopa Khangtsen. Amidst sobs they cried that the TWA came to their nunnery twice to ask them to join to this protest march, be fined, or ‘face a Tibetan inquiry commission’. The fight was continuing. Sticks, stones and bricks were landing everywhere. The protesters fled screaming. But again they regrouped and advanced towards the monks. The in-fighting became bitter and tragic. Some of the protesters, while fleeing, fell into ditches and nearly suffocated to death. Others, while fleeing, smashed the window panes of the Shartse Monastery student canteen and the library above it.

Some old Tibetans were seen weeping at the steps of the Shartse student canteen, sobbing that that this attack on the monks was a replay of the cultural revolution in Tibet. The violent confrontation and fighting, however, grew in strength and continued for about two hours. In desperation, the police fired several times into the air. This proved effective.

Many Tibetans on both sides suffered injuries. Among the protesters some fell unconscious; others had to be lifted and carried away. Some of the monks had to be immediately taken to Indian hospitals in Mundgod. About 40 protesters were treated for various injuries at the local Tibetan hospital near Camp 3. About seven of them were said to be admitted. We also heard that one monk and a nun had fatal injuries, and were rushed to Hubli hospital for intensive treatment.

The prayer convention was resumed. The Supreme Court lawyers, who had witnessed the confrontation from their car throughout the duration, were shocked beyond belief. They addressed the convention. They observed that according to the constitution of India, every Tibetan living in India has complete freedom to adopt any religion and worship any god.

About lunch time the police commissioner arrived at the Tibetan settlement from his headquarters in Karwar (three-hour bus ride) to evaluate the situation for himself and to inspect the attack on his officers by the protesters. For the local police chief whose uniform was splattered with blood from injuries on his face, the commissioner asked for a change of his officer’s uniform.

Meanwhile, at the settlement office, the Tibetan Women’s Association, the Tibetan Youth Congress and other Tibetans were planning a second protest march in the evening. Apprised of this development the local Indian administration decided to ask the delegates to leave by nightfall. At the same time, they imposed a 24-hour curfew throughout the Tibetan settlement. Sensing that even the leaving of delegates was not enough for the protesters and the organisers, fearing an even more serious civil unrest, the police commissioner imposed another 24-hour curfew at 6PM on Tuesday, September 11 over the entire settlement.

What happened at Sera after the Mundgod incident:

On Sep. 12 the next day, there was another clash among the Tibetans. This took place at the Bylakuppe Tibetan settlement, the largest Tibetan enclave outside of Tibet. Delegates from various Tibetan monasteries and camps had objected to the presence of the United Cholsum Organisation (UCL) who had arrived from Dharamsala to pitch for elections. Though both the police and the settlement Chairmen ordered them to be out of the settlement by 8AM, they evaded the order and stayed on. The entire delegation of the Dorje Shugden devotees from all over India and Nepal, who had a brief reception at the local Pomra Khangtsen monastery on their return from Mundgod, left the place as asked by the police.

About 600 Tibetans awaited them at Camp 1. They missed the delegates’ car, which left by another route. However, about 20 monks of Pomra Khangtsen, who saw off the delegates up to Priyapatna, were not so fortunate. When they returned towards their monastery after seeing off the delegation, they fell right into the waiting arms of a 600-strong Tibetan mob. In complete defiance of the police intervention, they attacked the monks. There was no compassion. None of the monks were spared. They were beaten without mercy by their fellow Tibetans. All of them received massive injuries. The police imposed a 24-hour curfew in the settlement.

Although the 20 monks were beaten without mercy by the Tibetans, the police took them into judicial custody. The UCO leaders, who responsible for the clash, and were contravening their expulsion order from the police, were left untouched.

Source: www.schettini.com

In particular, the Dalai Lama has initiated referendums at each of the great Gelugpa monasteries on this issue and my efforts here are focused on checking the validity of these referendums.

During a speech made by the Dalai Lama in January 8th 2008 at Drepung Loseling Monastery (transcript from Voice of America) he said:

“In the Vinaya rules also, when there is a contentious issue, the monks take vote-sticks and decide, as mentioned in the seven methods of resolving conflict. In contemporary democratic practice, there is such a thing as ‘referendum’, ‘consulting the majority’. The matter has now reached this point of consulting what the majority wants. Therefore, when you return to your respective places after this programme at Loseling Monastery, put these questions:

1. Whether you want to worship Dholgyal. This is the first question. Those who want to worship, should sign saying they wish to worship Dholgyal; those who don’t want, should sign saying that [they] don’t want to.
2. ‘[Whether] we want to share the religious and material amenities of life with Dholgyal worshippers.’ You should sign saying so. ‘We do not want to share religious and material amenities of life with Dholgyal worshippers.’ (You should) sign saying so.’”

The particular section of the Vinaya to which the Dalai Lama is referring, known as “The Seven Methods for Resolving Conflict”, is the scriptural basis for the referendums at the great Gelugpa monasteries of Sera, Ganden, and Drepung. I decided to study these instructions to discern whether or not those procedures are being followed.

As I proceeded I was shocked to find that the protocols laid out by Buddha on how to handle such conflicts are being completely ignored by both the Dalai Lama and the abbots of those monasteries. In fact, the particular translation and commentary I referenced for this article offered many instructions that, if followed sincerely, would ease much of the suffering being endured by practitioners on both sides of this issue.

For the sake of readability and in the interest of space I will not insert all seven methods for resolving conflict here. I have based this article in its entirety upon The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volume I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (see here for the full article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html).

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Thanissaro Bhikkhu for this work as I would be unable to investigate the scriptural validity of these referendums without his kindness in composing this work. In this instance it is not ideal to use the Pali translation of the Vinaya Pitaka because it would not be the translation that the Dalai Lama himself would follow. However, after some consideration, I realised that the violations of the protocols laid out by Buddha in the Pali translation of the Vinaya Pitaka would be reasonable objections to the referendums even if they were not mentioned in the Tibetan translations, thus I decided to compose this article.

The main reason why I didn’t use one of the Tibetan translations is that I could not find them translated into English. If you have access to a translation of these seven methods for resolving conflict from the Kangyur and Tangyur I would love to study those, please pass them along.

The particular method in question is method #5 which I have copied below.

“5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and – in the words of the Canon – are “wounding one another with weapons of the tongue.” In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.

Such a vote is valid if:

1. The issue is important
2. The procedures of “in the presence of” have all been followed but have not succeeded in settling the issue. (The discussion in the Cullavagga indicates that at least two Communities have tried settling the issue; the Commentary recommends trying the normal procedures in at least two or three)
3. Both sides have been made to reflect on their position
4. The distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority sides with the Dhamma
5. He hopes that the majority sides with the Dhamma
6. The distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Sangha
7. He hopes that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Sangha
8. The tickets are taken in accordance with the Dhamma (according to the Commentary, this means that there is no cheating – e.g. one Bhikkhu taking two tickets – and the Dhamma side wins)
9. The assembly is complete
10. The bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views (and not, for example, under fear of intimidation or coercion)”

(Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code I, Chapter 11 – Adhikarana Samatha)
This brings me to my first observation:

The Referendum is Under Fear of Intimidation or Coercion
(which invalidates the referendum according to #10)

• On January 26th, 2008, the referendum was conducted in Sera-Je monastery.
• On February 9th, 2008 the referendum was conducted in Ganden-Shartse Monastery.

Prior to either of these referendums there were actions already taken against Dorje Shugden monks. Here is the timeline of events:

• On January 8th:
  In the assembly hall of Ganden-Jangtse Monastery, each monk had to stand up in turn and declare that he will never practise Dorje Shugden. Twelve monks who practise Dorje Shugden did not attend and were expelled from the monastery.In Phukang Khangtsen (also in Ganden-Shartse) signed statements were collected from each monk, declaring that the signatory never practises Dorje Shugden. Monks who did not want to sign the statement and take the oath to forgo the practice of Dorje Shugden were pressured to do so. The signature and oath campaign was conducted in ten monastic sections. When the signatures were collected in Phukang Khangtsen, one monk was expelled for refusing to sign.
• o On January 11th 2008:
  The abbot of Ganden-Jangtse Monastery, Gen Rinpoche Geshe Lobsang Tsephel was publicly scolded by the Dalai Lama in a public meeting for being a Dorje Shugden practitioner. He was accused of being ‘two-faced’ for seemingly following the Dalai Lama’s advice while secretly practising Dorje Shugden.

Before any referendum was held at Sera-Je or Ganden-Shartse, monks were already being expelled and humiliated. This is a very important point.

In the shadow of these events, the Ganden and Sera monks were asked to participate in a referendum for which they were already aware of the consequences should they vote against the majority.

My question, is this what we call a referendum? Does it sound like this referendum was held wholly without intimidation or coercion? I ask the reader to consider how you would vote in such a situation if your livelihood was on the line, knowing as well that you would have no more access to physical or spiritual nourishment and would be effectively disowned by your spiritual family. Might it be more prudent to vote against Dorje Shugden in public while continuing to practice in secret? This is precisely what many lay and ordained Tibetans are doing.

When these pre-loaded referendums were being held the Dorje Shugden practitioners had to cast their vote in the face of definite expulsion from their monastery. They also had to consider that non-Dorje Shugden practitioners had signed the oath to not to share material amenities of life. The choice made publically by Dorje Shugden practitioners would clearly impact their ability to survive outside the monastery. It is difficult to conclude that such a ‘choice’ is not coercion in its grossest form and that as such the Dalai Lama’s so-called referendums directly contradict the Vinaya and the spirit of Buddha’s teachings as a whole.

The Referendum will lead to a split in the Sangha
(which invalidates the referendum according to #6 and #7)

The second question put forth by the Dalai Lama is: “[Whether] we want to share the religious and material amenities of life (live together in the monastery) with Dholgyal worshippers.”

What this means is that practitioners who formerly lived together in the same Monastery would now not be able to use the same kitchen, do Sojong together, or use the same Khangtsen at all.

“A schism (saṅgha-bheda, literally a split in the Saṅgha) is a division in the Community in which two groups of bhikkhus of common affiliation, with at least five in one group and four in the other, conduct Community business separately in the same territory.” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code II, Chapter 21)

On February 7th 2008, in the assembly hall of Shartse Monastery, the disciplinarian – with tears in his eyes – announced: ‘Now Dhokhang Khangtsen will be separated from Shartse Monastery.’

This clearly meets Buddha’s definition of a schism (which I will explore in a future article). It is clear that the vote itself is on whether or not to split the Sangha. Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s commentary clearly indicates that if it is understood that the referendum would lead to a split in the Sangha the referendum is invalid.

Furthermore, on the issue of how to handle a schism according to the Vinaya, the present Dalai Lama has not been following Buddha’s advice.

“As for the laity, the texts quote the Buddha as saying that they should give gifts to both factions and listen to their Dhamma. Then, on consideration, they should give their preference to the Dhamma-faction. Notice, however, that in advising the laity to give preference to one faction over another, the Buddha does not say that only one faction should receive alms. After all, the laity may be misinformed about the Dhamma and in a poor position to tell the right faction from the wrong. At the same time, the Buddha has never been recorded as declaring a living being as unworthy of gifts, for that would be tantamount to saying that the being was unworthy to live.” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code II, Chapter 21)

This means that the signature campaign being conducted in the lay community by the CTA (within which the Dalai Lama is the final authority) to not share material amenities with Dorje Shugden practitioners directly contradicts the Vinaya. The language of the Vinaya makes clear that both Dorje Shugden practitioners and non-Dorje Shugden practitioners should be able to purchase goods and receive services like any other Tibetan living in exile. If the reader has any doubts as to whether this discrimination is really happening please refer to the France24 documentary which reveals such religious discrimination. http://www.france24.com/en/20080808-dalai-lama-demons-india-buddhism-dorje-shugden

The Referendum has not followed Buddha’s Protocols in the Vinaya
(which invalidates the referendum according to #2)

According to the commentary the referendum is only valid if the procedures of “in the presence of” have all been followed but have not succeeded in settling the issue. “In the presence of” means that the community has to meet and try to settle the issue before the referendum is taken (emphasis added).

This has not happened. In fact, the Dalai Lama has never met with the community of Dorje Shugden monks from these monasteries. There has not even been a reply from the Dalai Lama or his representatives to the requests of Shugden practitioners to have a dialogue on this issue. This is a clear contradiction with the commentary given. The referendum is not the result of a meeting within the monastic community but rather it has been unilaterally decreed by the Dalai Lama himself (please refer to the January 8th, 2008 talk at Drepung for evidence of this).

This brings up the question, is the Dalai Lama a member of these monastic communities? If the answer is yes, then he (or a representative of his) has to meet with the Dorje Shugden communities at these monasteries prior to any referendum. If the answer is no, which can be stated in terms of the Dalai Lama not residing within that monastery, then on what basis is he even involving himself? Where does the Vinaya say that to resolve a conflict, high lamas should adjudicate? This is what the Dalai Lama’s supporters are saying but it has no basis in Buddha’s teachings.

Others might argue that the Dalai Lama is not involving himself but simply saying the matter should go to a vote. To refute this point please watch the France24 video (web link to this piece is above) where the Dalai Lama is on video saying from the teaching throne, “These monks must be expelled from all monasteries. If they are not happy, you can tell them that the Dalai Lama himself asked that this be done, and it is very urgent.”

The most compelling argument on this point is that the Vinaya provides an opportunity for any monk in the assembly to protest against having the matter settled by the group. If this happens then the group is deemed incompetent to resolve the issue. The purpose of this is to protect the Dharma from bhikkhus who advocate what is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya yet hold sway over the group. Surely if such a meeting would have occurred the Dorje Shugden monks would have protested.

The Outcome of the Referendum is not in Accordance with the Dharma
(which invalidates the referendum according to #4, #5, and #8)

Venerable Atisha said,
“Friends, until you attain enlightenment the spiritual teacher is indispensable, therefore rely upon the holy Spiritual Guide. Until you realise ultimate truth, listening is indispensable, therefore listen to the instructions of the Spiritual Guide.”

The referendum contradicts the words of this holy teacher because the practitioners of Dorje Shugden received a commitment to do this practice from their Gurus Trijang Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Zong Rinpoche, Dagom Rinpoche, etc. To abandon their teachers’ advice by voting in favor of the ban would be non-Dharma according to Venerable Atisha.

The irony is that this puts the Dalai Lama and his followers in the position where if they are to establish their view as Dharma then they would have to say that Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche (the Dalai Lama’s Gurus) taught non-Dharma thus invalidating his own teachers’ qualifications as authentic Gurus. How can a valid teacher teach non-Dharma? If the Dalai Lama’s teachers are not valid teachers then by what lineage is the Dalai Lama a lama himself?

Therefore, for all the reasons mentioned here, the referendum on Dorje Shugden practice is non-Dharma. Since the Dalai Lama is presenting the referendum as Dharma when in reality it is non-Dharma he is deceiving Buddhist practitioners around the world.

Furthermore, by denying these practitioners the basic necessities of life (by these I mean the aforementioned material amenities) the Dalai Lama and the abbots carrying out these referendums are breaking their refuge vows to Buddha which include not harming any living being.

Typically, those who have spoken out against the Dalai Lama on this issue have been portrayed as gullible, naive, and unaware of the harmfulness of Dorje Shugden. I would like to point out however that those in the Tibetan and Western communities who practise Dorje Shugden have experienced considerable slander and libe,l thus making this issue a point of internal reflection and consideration for many of us.

This article is the result of one Dorje Shugden practitioner’s investigation, my own. What I ask to all those who disagree, can you establish – based on Buddha’s teachings – the validity of these referendums?

Source: DorjeShugden Blog
http://dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/dalai-lamas-referendum-contradicts-vinaya/

To the attention of all the most venerable Rinpoches, the venerable Geshes, the monastic community as well as lay community, who are endowed with faith based on understanding of the quality of the teaching of master Je Tsongkhapa, the King of Dharma, emanation of Lord Manjushri.

This is our appeal to all those with ever rising strength of courage and sincerity.

The following is a request coming from the depth of our heart. A situation which has occurred and which is beyond possibility to imagine is the following:

As it says, “In this world of existence, things which seem impossible to exist come into existence”. Due to politics entering inside the belly of religion, and due to the difference in power between the mouth of an ordinary person and that of a sovereign, although there is not even the slightest fault for a humble person to respect and worship one’s own lama and deity on which one has relied for generations, one is now identified in the exile Tibetan society as the enemy number one, who has committed the heaviest crime.

A forced order has been given that every monk of any monastic university must pledge through swearing and giving signatures to not have any contact of any kind, spiritual or material, with those who rely on the deity Dorje Shugden. If one does not comply with this, one must be expelled from the monasteries. In fact, this order has been carried out effectively in the three monastic universities and other Gelug monasteries openly, this has become evident to all.

We, a department belonging to Gaden Shartse monastic college with the name Palden Dokhang Kamtsen, consist of venerable Tulkus and Geshes and a monastic Sangha. Those actually present at the monastery reach the number of over 500 persons, and there are still more than 300 persons living abroad. The Tulkus, Geshes, and ordinary monks of our department, joined by other departments like Pukhang, Nyagre, Thebo, and Lhopa, have united to face the same challenge with the firm decision not to participate in that miserable swearing procedure which has taken place on February 9th 2008 in the Gaden Shartse Monastic College in the name of the college’s protector deity Setrab.

From that moment on we lost all our hope and aspiration to participate in our monastic college at the prayer assembly, the debate sessions, and even to have meals together. Now we have no other choice than to establish our own kitchen in our own department.

However, for a bird to fly in the sky it requires two wings. In the same way, establishing a monastery with a Sangha community also depends on two indispensable elements: the education and the material resources. With regards to education, with full confidence, we can say that we are in no way in any shortage of any kind. Moreover, it is very encouraging, that in all the members of our Sangha, older and younger, the fire of enthusiasm is burning strongly to establish a monastic community which is free of all kinds of mixtures, under whatever circumstances, easy or difficult.

The greatest difficulty we encounter now are the material resources. For example, in order to newly produce schools, libraries, and dining halls, and likewise to provide the monastic Sangha of several hundred monks daily with their sustenance of living, such as daily tea and meals, we are faced with an anxiety like a patient who is deprived of funds to pay his medical bill. Therefore, we would like to place our request to everybody, with folded hands, for the sake of the teachings of the Gaden tradition in general, and in particular for the faultless tradition of our former great masters, such as the precious spiritual father, His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, and his sons.

This situation is like a butterlamp which is just about to extinguish due to lack of oil. At this very difficult period of our life, we have decided to face any difficulties, even to place our own life, if necessary, as a target, to safeguard the precious lineage of teaching and practice of the Dharma. In order to fulfil this great responsibility, and for us to overcome the difficulties of the present time, we ask for your support, your help and assistance, by all means.

Dokhang department of Ganden Monastery
on the 14th of February 2008 from Mundgod in India

Source: WisdomBuddhaDorjeShugden.org
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden20.php