Dear Dr. Lobsang Sangay,

I am writing to congratulate you on your democratically elected position as the leader of the Central Tibetan Administration. With no disrespect to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I am happy to see that the Tibetan community worldwide finally has someone who is secular to lead them in secular goals, objectives and prospects. It has been over sixty years of exile for the Tibetans who have lost their families, their country and their land. And unfortunately, at this current stage, it does not seem that you will get Tibet back in any form, not even autonomy.

While I am not Tibetan, I have several Tibetan friends all over the world and they have all expressed to me the same sentiment with regard to their sadness and loss over their homeland and that there has been absolutely zero progress towards regaining Tibet’s independence. However, my Tibetan friends will never dare voice this within the Tibetan community for fear that they will be branded as Chinese spies, although they are not. From what I gather, there is no freedom of speech within the Tibetan exile community although it is openly declared that people can speak freely.

As a British citizen, I am taking this opportunity to write to you to share an objective point of view. The Tibetan identity and culture are slowly eroding. The culture in Tibet itself has been taken over by the Chinese government. If you just visited Tibet today, you would see that its whole spiritual history and heart is gone. The feelings of the Tibetans in the refugee camps are resigned, unhappy and angry. The monastic refugee community seems to be in a slightly better state although there is still division in certain monasteries due to the Dorje Shugden issue.

The Dorje Shugden issue is very representative of the focus and narrow-mindedness of some of the members of the CTA, formerly known as the Tibetan Government in Exile. Any government or organisation should never have religious intolerance in any shape, form or manner over the people under their rule. In fact, the CTA should strengthen connections with all the teachers, devotees and practitioners of the Dorje Shugden group as they are powerful, have global influence and connections and are well respected. You should bring them in to help speak on behalf of all Tibetans to bring success to your cause. The CTA should not segregate or ostracise them. It is not logical for any people who are living as refugees to cause further separation among yourselves and lessen your population by something as silly as religious discrimination. Instead, you should be gathering strength in numbers and power.

It is sad to see that this discrimination is coming from the person with the highest authority within your community – the Dalai Lama himself. As someone from a first world country, it is shocking for me to see that the spiritual leader of one of the largest religions in the world has content on his website that speaks out against religious groups and minorities (It can be seen here: dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden). This is neither accepting nor kind, which are the very qualities that define Buddhism! This is unheard of for any religious leader anywhere in the world – perhaps the only people who continue this kind of dated practice are the Taliban which we have heard terrible things about! I am sure the Dalai Lama is not like this, but please understand that publically posting material like this on his official website creates a very damaging and unkind reputation for His Holiness and for all the people who are his followers and supporters. It would be a great service and benefit to your people and your much respected spiritual leader if you can remove such detrimental content.

China is indirectly doing the Central Tibetan Administration a favour – they have been the target of protests by Tibetans everywhere, so that Tibetans have actually forgotten that up until NOW, the Tibetan government in exile has not done anything for them. At the most basic level of welfare, the Tibetan government has not even provided any good opportunities for their own people to grow and develop after their education. After all, how many successful, well-known Tibetan scientists, business leaders or entrepreneurs are there in the world?

Dr Lobsang Sangay, you are probably the most successful Tibetan on a secular level, having been the first Tibetan to earn an SJD from Harvard Law School. Now you have been elected as the Kalon Tripa, what plans do you have to motivate Tibetans, provide a platform for them to be proud of their culture and unite them? Indeed, I understand you have a lot on your plate but I do hope that under your leadership, your government will no longer have any religious intolerance in any form, as is practised in any other first world nation.

Since you are the political head of the CTA, I suggest that you can improve the situation for the Tibetans worldwide by focusing on the education and qualifications to make Tibetans more successful. I hope you are able to deliver your promise to produce 10,000 Tibetan professionals in 10 years regardless of their religious orientation. If you are able to do this, then when successful Tibetans speak up, the rest of the world will actually listen and do something to help the Tibetan cause. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a Tibetan Richard Gere?

I understand that it is an incredible challenge for you to take over the political leadership from the legendary figure of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has made the Tibetan issue known to the world although there has still been NO improvement to the Tibetan situation. What will happen after His Holiness passes away? I hope it will not lead to a complete disintegration of the Tibetan identity. What will Tibetans be proud of? Which Tibetans are role models for the second and third generation Tibetans in exile? It is time to focus on the secular image of Tibet. It is time to unite all Tibetans regardless of their religious beliefs.

There is a fast, quick fix that the CTA can immediately implement to make the CTA more credible as a secular administration. Negative references to the Dorje Shugden issue must be removed. The CTA does not need the negative news with regard to the suppression of Shugden practitioners and denial of basic human rights, like travel papers, education, access to basic necessities etc. This issue makes the CTA look superstitious, unfair, backwards and illogical. It is very important NOW for the CTA to distance from the Dalai Lama’s spiritual edicts which were issued previously. I am not personally interested in the Dorje Shugden issue and I don’t understand any of the religious aspects of this issue but this is a something which can seriously damage the CTA’s reputation among Tibetans as well as around the world.

There are more people in the world who do not know about Dorje Shugden than people who do know about these religious issues. It would be much more beneficial for your government NOT to speak so publically about these kinds of issues as it would help to improve your government’s public image. Talking and focusing on these religious aspects makes the CTA look like you have religious intolerance and disrespect the freedom and rights of your own people. This creates a very negative reputation.

Tibetans need to step into the 21st century now and realise that the way forward is the separation of church and state. The Dalai Lama himself has acknowledged this. This is not the time of the Salem witch-hunts or the Spanish Inquisition. It is the time for creating progressiveness and unity among a disheartened, disparate people who desperately need it.

As the head of the CTA, you have the unique opportunity and position to bring the Tibetan people together and into modernity.

I sincerely hope you succeed.

With warmest wishes for your and Tibet’s maturity and progress,
YOUR NAME

First and foremost, I want to thank you for creating and maintaining the website of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. I am doing a bachelor degree in Theology and this website is one of my most visited and credible sources of information for my projects.

Whilst I respect the Dalai Lama very much, and have no doubts on his sincerity and compassion in wanting world peace and happiness for all, I have one bone to pick with regards to his website: why must it discuss about Shugden in such a negative light? It does not jive at all with the rest of the website. It sticks out like a sore thumb in fact.

Actually, I do not believe that the Dalai Lama actually wrote the content of the Dolgyal (Shugden) section of the website, in particular the article “His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Advice Concerning Dolgyal (Shugden)”. The logic given is hilarious. I take it that this article is meant to be a summary of the Dalai Lama’s reasons for why Shugden should not be practiced. Here are my humble two cents, from the perspective of a Theology student:

The first point: The danger of Tibetan Buddhism degenerating into a form of spirit worship – it practically translates to “INSECURITY”. Come now, I am sure the Dalai Lama is confident in the strength of pure Dharma teachings and practices? How could an unenlightened spirit cause the degeneration of Buddha’s teachings? Based on interviews with Shugden practitioners, I do not see how they are causing Buddhism to degenerate. They are just like any other Buddhist, wanting peace, harmony, happiness. Frankly this first point reminds me of some of the backward measures taken by certain Muslim political parties in some countries in the name of “protecting” Islam. It is a joke to the international community and to the locals. In their quest to maintain the purity of Islam, they themselves have in fact twisted it, and arguably to serve their own self interest.

Second point: Obstacles to the emergence of genuine non-sectarianism – This paragraph does not explain well why Shugden worship creates sectarianism. To me, having this section in the website IS creating sectarianism in itself, as it is denouncing Shugden practitioners. There is no evidence that they are the sole culprit for creating disharmony in the Buddhist community. One hand cannot clap.

Last point: Especially inappropriate in relation to the well-being of Tibetan society: Propitiating Dolgyal is particularly troublesome, given the Tibetan people’s present difficult circumstances – This paragraph is really too vague, and leaves my head full of “why?”.

I read about the fighting between Shugden supporters and non-supporters, and I was in much despair, disbelief, confusion… all the feelings which are not supposed to arise when one hears about Buddhism (or any religion for that matter)!

From all my years of study, Buddhism is my favourite. It is a much more higher level or the most evolved form of religion. It is so saddening that now, Buddhism has been brought down to such a low level. The essence is lost in the fight between believing and not believing a particular deity, because-someone-else-said-so. What has Buddhism become now, a popularity contest? What happened to offering the victory to others? So much precious time is being wasted on this debate. But what really matters ultimately?

The more I think about it, the more it just does not make sense why the Dolgyal chapter should be in the website. You may say I am cursed or blessed with a strong, rational and logical mind to not be too shaken by the Shugden issue, but I cannot say the same for people of weaker minds. The internal fighting between Shugden and anti-Shugden practitioners is bad bad bad publicity for Buddhism. And having this section on Shugden is contributing to the wider schism within the Buddhist community.

Please do seriously consider taking down the Dolgyal webpage from the Dalai Lama’s website, if you wish to maintain the credibility of the Dalai Lama. Otherwise, please put in a section on what Dolgyal practice involves, and let the readers decide whether it is an evil practice or not. Afterall, Buddhism is about seeing from different perspectives and not just one view.

Yours truly,

(YOUR NAME)

Re: Dolgyal (Shugden) Webpage on His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet’s Official Website

First and foremost, I would like to tell you that I am an absolutely avid fan of Buddhism, despite being born and raised in a Catholic family and going to Catholic schools until I was shipped off to America for college. I have been reading various Buddhist literature since I was 18 (that is about 9 years ago) and one of my favourites is “Mind Science – An East – West Dialogue”, written by H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. I believe He is one of the greatest gifts, if not THE best gift that was bestowed upon the West when he was thrown into exile in 1959. The feeling of deja vu surrounds me as I am reminded of how India “lost” Atisha to Tibet, due to the collective karma of the people in the respective countries.

Now, I must confess that whilst I am a big fan of Buddhism, I cannot claim to be a loyal fan of His Holiness. I read books and websites of other Lamas as well, and I find them all very complementary and consistent with each other. I love them all. Compassion, altruism, harmony, loving kindness… this is what all the Lamas, Tulkus, Rinpoches, Gurus etc teach us. I fold my hands to them and wish them all to have long lives and continue creating such delightful websites for the whole world to see.

I love H.H.’s website too. It is like a big juicy Dharma steak for me to chew on. BUT what I found rather intriguing is that of all the Lamas’ websites I have marked as my favourite, it seems that only the website of H.H. has a special section dedicated to Dolgyal or Shugden. Unfortunately, this special section is dedicated to openly criticize and downgrade this deity.

While I am not too sure on who is “wrong” or “right”, who is enlightened and who is not (for who am I to judge, I am a mere deluded being), I do see this as quite inconsistent with what H.H. has been preaching, which includes acceptance of other people’s beliefs. I do wonder why Shugden is being singled out as such a terrible deity or spirit, when there are so many other worldy gods and devils being worshipped by the masses as well? Why is there no mention on the harmful effects of praying to these spirits?

It is very disturbing and disheartening to know that now, even Buddhism is tarnished with internal fighting between so-called Dharma practitioners, and very very openly at that. It is rather embarrasing. Isn’t creating schism between sangha members one of the actions of body which brings the worst karmic consequences? I do not see how this section of the website would make things better or create harmony between practitioners, not to mention budding young Buddhists who have yet to develop strong faith and knowledge in the subject.

With all due respect, I humbly beg your Administration to kindly consider removing the content on Dolgyal from H.H’s website. Not that I am siding anyone here, I just believe that as real Buddhists, we should practice what we preach and respect everybody’s right to practice their own religion. If we can be silent on Muslim and Christian extremist, why not our own Buddhist extremists as well? If the Shugden practice is really cursed, surely it will die out on its own. I am an optimist in the sense that I strongly believe that pure Dharma will prevail all else in the long run. I am on your side as I too, want the Dharma to spread and flourish. But I do not think that having the Dogyal shaming section in H.H’s section would help our cause, as it is very misleading and a source of confusion and misconception.

I thank you for your time in reading this letter, and look forward to seeing an updated website of H.H. (minus Shugden content) soon.

Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)

To the government of Tibet,

I write with concern about some disturbing news I have received recently. It is regarding the way in which His Holiness the Great Fourteenth Dalai Lama is being promoted by those who oversee his secular matters. Specifically, it is regarding His Holiness’ image concerning the so-called Dolgyal issue. It has been brought to my attention that His Holiness’ website contains a section on the deity Dorje Shugden.

From a non-Buddhist perspective, as someone who values the Dalai Lama for the wisdom and knowledge he brings to the world, the section does not match what His Holiness represents to me and so many others – harmony, peace and compassion.

The website SHOULD be a personal reflection of His Holiness’ nature but unfortunately, in its current state, it is not. On the one hand, most of His Holiness’ website promotes his messages of tolerance and acceptance; on the other hand, there is this section suppressing a religious practice?

Without any disrespect intended, this section makes His Holiness LOOK hypocritical. It makes His Holiness LOOK as though he practises double standards and LOOK as though he does not believe in equanimity… I say “look” because we all know that His Holiness isn’t really like that.

Therefore it also makes me wonder if the people in charge of His Holiness’ image REALLY know what they are doing. After all, hypocrisy and violating human rights are so not appealing in today’s media. And people today aren’t stupid – news travels fast, and people are educated and exposed, and they’re not afraid to speak out when they see something is not right. These people who speak out against injustice are known as activists – would you rather they speak up FOR Tibetan independence, or AGAINST your government’s suppression of Dorje Shugden practitioners?

Speaking of image and reputation, Buddhism is known as THE religion of peace, and publicising this Dolgyal issue on the website of the face of Tibetan Buddhism is really destroying this. I hope you’ll remove the section from His Holiness’ website because it does not belong in a sphere of love and compassion. It does not paint the right portrait of a man whom we all know radiates only good energy, and brings happiness to so many.

Peace, love and light,

(YOUR NAME)

Hello sir,
I send my good greetings to you, and I also hope that my letter finds you well. I just wanted to thank you for being a member of a Buddhist government that does a lot to preserve Sakyamuni’s tradition in this world. It is quite a wonderful thing. There is something that I am have some trouble understanding and also I have not been able to get an answer. It is pertaining to the question of Dorje Shugden whom I understand that you have labelled to be a dolgyal.

Prior to learning of this issue, my lama asked me to practice and I have seen many benefits from this practice. My children had great difficulties in school and I could not pay their school fees so I prayed to Dorje Shugden to help. And every time a bill was coming from the school, something unexplainable would happen and I would get just enough money to pay for their bills. Maybe if their bill is US$1599, I would get exactly that amount.

So I am just wondering why a Buddhist government is suppressing a Buddhist deity. I have yet to see harm in Dorje Shugden’s practice and even when I am not consistent, he does not punish me. As I understand from Buddha’s teachings, if bad things happen to me, it is because my OWN bad karma is ripening. It is not because Dorje Shugden seeks to harm me.

How come your government does not feel it is hypocritical to take the money of Western donors like me, yet condemn us for interfering in Tibetan affairs? I am not saying that giving a lot of money means we have an overall say in Tibetan affairs, but surely we are allowed to have an opinion. At least that is what I understand democracy to be all about – everyone is entitled to an opinion, and in a democracy everyone listens to everyone (money or not). I feel that it is arrogant of the Tibetans to label Westerners as lacking in understanding of Tibetan ways, and therefore not being qualified to comment (when we’re apparently qualified enough to donate!).

Except for a few Tibetans who follow the crowd like sheep, I have not yet met any logical person who can discern with conviction, without coercion that Dorje Shugden is wrong. I am not asking you to go against the ban but just to think about your government’s actions, and whether you wish to inform the world that hypocrisy is the way of the Tibetans. It does not foster trust and will probably make your work for a free Tibet become much more difficult. I hope that you are the person of logic to make the right decisions.

Gigi Leung

The Dalai Lama makes a great deal of being non-sectarian and claims that those who practise Dorje Shugden are sectarian. He quotes ‘sectarianism’ as one of his main reasons for banning the practice of Shugden:

2. Obstacles to the emergence of genuine non-sectarianism: His Holiness has often stated that one of his most important commitments is the promotion of inter-religious understanding and harmony. As part of this endeavour, His Holiness is committed to encouraging non-sectarianism in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. In this matter, His Holiness is following the example set by his predecessors, specifically the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Not only is a non-sectarian approach mutually enriching for all Tibetan Buddhist schools, but it is also the best safeguard against a rise of sectarianism that could have damaging consequences for the Tibetan tradition as a whole. Given the acknowledged link between Dolgyal* worship and sectarianism, this particular practice remains a fundamental obstacle to fostering a genuine non-sectarian spirit within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

(*Dolgyal is a derogatory term for Dorje Shugden)

Bigotry, discrimination, hatred

So how non-sectarian is the Dalai Lama? This is the definition of sectarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism from Wikipedia:

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.

This definition contains many powerful words such as ‘bigotry, discrimination and hatred’, all of which apply to the Dalai Lama’s public pronouncements about the practice of Dorje Shugden. An enforced signature campaign to stop the practice has led to Tibetans practising bigotry and hatred towards those who disagree with the Dalai Lama’s political ban of the practice. Discrimination is exactly what Shugden practitioners are experiencing in Tibetan communities throughout the world (shockingly, even in democratic Western countries such as the USA, France and Switzerland) as the Dalai Lama brands them as spirit worshippers. Paradoxically, this makes the Dalai Lama’s own Guru Trijang Rinpoche a spirit worshipper and invalidates the whole Gelugpa lineage; but this unwanted consequence doesn’t seem to have dawned on the Dalai Lama.

Considering the evidence of ostracism and discrimination, and the Dalai Lama bringing the subject of Shugden up at every public meeting of Tibetans in an attempt to completely stamp out the practice, how can the Dalai Lama be said to be non-sectarian?

Rime

Another red herring is the Dalai Lama talking about ‘Rime’ or ‘Rigme’ (pronounced Reemay). Here is an example from a talk he gave on 14th January 2011 as reported by Voice of Tibet radio:

Since I, as an ordinary body of Amdo, got the name of fourteen Dalai Lama, I ought to follow the steps of my predecessors. It is my responsibility to serve the Rigme teachings of Tibet.

Rime is a non-sectarian movement that began in Tibet, prompted by the political infighting between the different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is claiming the Rime is non-sectarian and should be followed whereas the practice of Dorje Shugden is sectarian. By making such false claims, and encouraging discrimination against a religious tradition that was promoted by his own Teacher, the Dalai Lama shows himself to be sectarian. The approach of Rime is quite different to that of the Dalai Lama.

Ringu Tulku says:

Ris or Phyog-ris in Tibetan means “one-sided”, “partisan” or “sectarian”. Med means “No”. Ris-med (Wylie), or Rimé, therefore means “no sides”, “non-partisan” or “non-sectarian”. It does not mean “non-conformist” or “non-committal”; nor does it mean forming a new School or system that is different from the existing ones. A person who believes the Rimé way almost certainly follows one lineage as his or her main practice. He or she would not dissociate from the School in which he or she was raised.

Rime therefore doesn’t mean practising all traditions. It also doesn’t mean blurring the lines between traditions, as the Dalai Lama is wont to do:

Rimé is not a way of uniting different Schools and lineages by emphasising their similarities. It is basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with different needs. Therefore, Rimé teachers always take great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another. To retain the original style and methods of each teaching lineage preserves the power of that lineage experience. Kongtrul and Khentse made great efforts to retain the original flavour of each teaching, while making them available to many.

In a talk he gave to a Russian audience on 27 November 2010 in response to a question about receiving empowerments from different traditions:

There is no problem. No differences are there at all. You should receive Gelug empowerment; you should receive Nyingma empowerment; you should receive Sakya empowerment; and you should receive Kagyu empowerment. As for me, I receive all of them. Well, all Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geden are students of seventeen Mahasiddas and scholars. Shugden worshippers are saying that if a Gelugpa worship Shugden, it is incorrect to keep a text of Nyingma. That is wrong. In twenty century, because of Shugden, sectarian is developing in Tibet. This is wrong.

Notice that the Dalai Lama uses this occasion to unfairly brand Shugden practitioners as sectarian. He also uses wrong logic to justify eclecticism: ‘Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geden are students of the seventeen Mahasiddhas and scholars’. While this is undoubtedly true, there are important differences in their presentation of Buddha’s teachings which are appreciated by those who follow Rime but not by the Dalai Lama. We can therefore see that true Rime celebrates diversity, whereas the Dalai Lama’s idea of Rime is to amalgamate the schools by claiming there is no difference and everyone should practice all schools, expressly against the Rime edict that one should follow one lineage as one’s main practice and no dissociate from that school. The Dalai Lama has dissociated himself from the Gelugpa school and from his root Guru through his criticism of Dorje Shugden practice and practitioners. His actions are therefore sectarian and non-Rime, even though he claims to have banned the practice because he’s non-sectarian!

Ask yourself this question: How is someone non-sectarian by banning a religious practice and outlawing it? This is clearly contradictory. It’s against the Rime teachings that the Dalai Lama claims to support.

There are further contradictions in the Dalai Lama’s position. In his speech of 14th January, the Dalai Lama says he must follow his predecessors by protecting the Rime school, but the First Dalai Lama, Je Gendundrub wrote a beautiful praise to Je Tsongkhapa called Song of the Eastern Snow Mountain in which he says:

From now until enlightenment
I shall seek no refuge other than you.
O Venerable Father and Sons (Je Tsongkhapa and his two spiritual sons, Khedrubje and Gyaltsabje)
Please care for me with your compassion.

The Rime system didn’t exist until the nineteenth century, five hundred years after the First Dalai Lama proclaimed his sole refuge to be Je Tsongkhapa. Rime is therefore a relatively recent development. The present Dalai Lama seems to have forsaken Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition for the sake of following no tradition (he’s not following Rime, as clearly explained) and he has also forsaken the kindness of his Gurus by having them branded as spirit worshippers.

Finally then: why doesn’t the present Dalai Lama show the example of his ultimate predecessor, the First Dalai Lama and remain within the Gelugpa school of Buddhism while respecting all others, appreciating and celebrating their differences as a true Rime practitioner would? Instead, he has chosen the path of sectarian intolerance by banning one of the main practices of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, which he seems intent on destroying, and merging all schools of Buddhism into one by claiming they are all the same.

Source :
http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2011/02/dalai-lamas-sectarian-non-sectarian.html

Relics Expo organizer “Gelugpa Buddhist Association Singapore” not recognized by HH Dalai Lama

Singapore — The office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama has expressed its concern about the so-named “The Buddha and His Principal Disciples’ Relics Grand Cultural World Exhibition”, from December 9 to 17, 2006 at the Singapore Expo, hosted by the “Gelugpa Buddhist Association Singapore”.

A statement from H.H.’s office also states that the organizing party of the expo – although branding itself as a Gelugpa centre, is not recognized as such by H.H. the Dalai Lama nor H.H. the Ganden Trisur Rinpoche (the Official Head Emeritus of the Gelugpa Tradition). Therefore, labelling itself as a “Gelugpa” centre is inaccurate and misleading.

The Dalai Lama’s office further clarifies that its position is clear and consistent with regard to the worship of “dolgyal-shugden” which it strongly considers as “worship of the unenlightened evil spirit”.

The statement further elaborates that students of the Dharma who continue to rely upon a worldly spirit such as dolgyal-shugden actually contradicts the Buddha’s own advice against taking refuge in samsaric spirits.

By participating in events related to the practice of this worldly spirit, one effectively “breaks” one’s Refuge Vows and will effectively become a Non-Buddhist, negating the source and root of all Dharmic practices, the statement continues.

In a separate announcement, the Charitable Assistance Society (CAS) of Thousand-Arm Chenrezig have, on behalf of the Tibetan Buddhist community in Singapore, urged all to adhere to the H.H. Dalai Lama’s office advisory.

The CAS statement further urged Tibetan Buddhist practitioners to ….inform all other unknowing Buddhists, that, according to the Buddha’s holy Teachings as preserved in every tradition and lineage as well as His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s advice, taking refuge in worldly-spirit, in this context, this programme’s uncompromising stand of practising and taking refuge in dolgyal-shugden, effectively contravenes one’s Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

The CAS also said the organizing party have failed to clarify or justify the authenticity of the source of their claimed “relics”, most of which were presented as plasticine-looking coloured balls. “The organization too claimed many of their “relics” as being originated from Lord Buddha’s blood, bones, saliva and other bodily parts,” the statement concluded.

The Dalai Lama is no Pope
by Visakha Kawasaki, Kandy, Sri Lanka, The Buddhist Channel, Dec 6, 2006

I write with regards to the article, “Dalai Lama’s office disapproves Singapore Expo on ‘Buddha Relics’”

Aside from the fact that the Dalai Lama seems to have some problems with discipline within his own sect, with the expo’s organizers claiming to be Gelugpa, it needs saying that the Dalai Lama is not in a position to declare that all Buddhists who revere relics of the Teacher or his chief Disciples are somehow worshipping “the unenlightened evil spirit!”

He is certainly mistaken too when he claims that by showing reverence for the relics of the Buddha and other Arhats, a Buddhist “effectively ‘breaks’ one’s Refuge Vows and will effectively become a Non-Buddhist, negating the source and root of all Dharmic practices.”

The Dalai Lama’s followers have been urged to ….inform all other unknowing Buddhists, that, according to the Buddha’s holy Teachings as preserved in every tradition and lineage as well as His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s advice, taking refuge in worldly (sic) -spirit, in this context, this programme’s uncompromising stand of practising and taking refuge in dulgyal-shugden, effectively contravenes one’s Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

Although the Dalai Lama may deserve respect as the head of his sect, he is not a Buddhist Pope, and might do well to educate himself about other Buddhist traditions, and avoid pronouncements of such a “catholic” nature.