Isolationism was intensified in 2008, when the Dalai Lama started a new phase of persecution against Shugden practitioners. Whilst ostensibly on a religious visit to Drepung Loseling monastery in South India, instead he instigated a political referendum on whether the monastery wanted Shugden monks to remain in their ranks.

He forced the monks to vote by having them select a stick of either red (for Dorje Shugden) or yellow (for the Dalai Lama) colour in a public referendum. Very few monks were brave enough to go against the Dalai Lama and as a result of the ‘referendum’ which was undemocratic and unconstitutional – since when do monks engage in a political vote on a spiritual practice?

Nine hundred monks were expelled from their monasteries. The Dalai Lama himself is on video shamelessly praising the Abbots of the monasteries for expelling the monks. This intensified the schism in the Sangha that the Dalai Lama has instigated with the introduction of the ban in 1996.

Eventually the monks found a home in two new monasteries that were purpose built for them by various Western benefactors, Shar Gaden and Serpom. It was clear that the monastic community was completely split. High walls were erected between the new monasteries and the old to separate the two factions.

The Central Tibetan Administration quickly introduced a process of oath-swearing for Tibetans whereby the had to swear in front of Palden Lhamo not to share material or spiritual resources with Shugden practitioners. Just as the monasteries were divided, this split families and set family members against each other as some swore and some bravely refused.

The suffering that this caused was incredible and further isolated Shugden practitioners, making them pariahs in their own communities. It’s difficult to believe that a so-called ‘Buddhist’ society could countenance this, but out of blind faith in the Dalai Lama, the ordinary people have instigated his evil actions. There are many examples in history where the weak have been influenced by powerful and charismatic dictators to create evil – this unfortunate situation is just another one of those.

All of these actions, instigated by the Dalai Lama, clearly show that he is not a qualified Buddhist Teacher, nor even a Buddhist, as it is a commitment of Buddhism not to harm others.

Editor’s note: DorjeShugden.com does not support the anti-Dalai Lama stance in this article as we believe that the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden are working together to spread Dharma. However, we are publishing this article to show the various different perspectives on this subject.

(Continued in part 3)

Source : http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-dorje-shugden-practitioners-are-not_17.html

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

(1) In brief

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

(2) Segregation

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

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

Segregation in the monasteries

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

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

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

Segregation in the lay community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) Does this affect Western Buddhists?

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

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

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

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

Students considering ordination should also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6) Does this affect Tibetans in the West?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden01.php

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/