A Critique of 'Why the Dalai Lama Matters' by Robert Thurman, Part 4

Continued from Chapter 2: What has the Dalai Lama Accomplished?

The next section is 'accomplishments and impacts'. Here, Thurman waxes lyrical on the Dalai Lama's achievements in various spheres but, as before, is somewhat prone to exaggeration. For example:

If you understand Buddhism not merely as a world religion, religion as primarily a system of belief and the Dalai Lama as being a great philosopher in the tradition he claims as his own, that of the Seventeen Great Professors (Pandits) of Nalanda University (the great Monastic University of classical India), then he emerges not as a religious preacher but as a world teacher. The Dalai Lama can be classified as someone like Albert Einstein, Arnold Toynbee, Bertrand Russell or Stephen Hawking who advances human knowledge from a philosophical and scientific point of view. If Buddhism is one third ethics, one third psychology and religion as therapy, and one third scientific wisdom, then the Dalai Lama brings new aspects of those three values to the world. (page 39)

These days the Dalai Lama talks about 'the Nalanda Tradition'. He mentioned it again in an interview in Nottingham in May 2008:

So some people criticize me, I banned that sort of spirit worship; that is not true. I just simply make clear what is the reality, whether as we are follower of Nalanda tradition, we are not spirit worshipper. So there is a sort of danger, I feel in my eye, the degenerating, the pure Nalanda tradition eventually become like spirit worship. That is not good.

Thurman says that the Dalai Lama claims this tradition as his own. These days, the Dalai Lama does not talk about the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism so much as the Nalanda tradition. This term is his own invention. The Dalai Lama was not educated in the 'Nalanda tradition' but in the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, a tradition he seems to have disowned and for which he shows increasing disrespect.

The Dalai Lama's Junior Tutor and Guru is Trijang Rinpoche, the Spiritual Guide of a whole generation of Gelugpa teachers from the highest Lamas to the most humble novices. The Dalai Lama has ordered Trijang Rinpoche's thrones to be removed from Ganden Lachi and Shartse monasteries. The thrones represent the continuing presence of this great Master, so what is the Dalai Lama saying by ordering their removal? Even though Trijang Rinpoche treated the Dalai Lama as his own son and cared for him in every way, how does the Dalai Lama repay that kindness? By branding him as a 'spirit worshipper', telling everyone he was 'wrong, yes wrong' and having his thrones removed from two monasteries where he was revered.

The Dalai Lama is clearly trying to destroy Trijang Rinpoche's reputation. In Buddhism, respect for one's own Teacher is vital. It is said to be the root of the path. The Dalai Lama has cut his root. Even so, he continues to travel around the world, giving the teachings from the very lineage he has turned his back on.

Where does the Dalai Lama's knowledge come from? It comes only from Buddha through the Dalai Lama’s teachers, whom he has thoroughly disrespected by calling them 'spirit worshippers' and enabling the persecution of their followers. The Dalai Lama is not the source of these teachings. Whereas the theory of relativity as formulated by Einstein was a unique achievement that came from his own thought experiments, if the Dalai Lama is teaching Buddhism correctly, he has nothing doctrinally “new” to offer. Buddha's insights were uniquely established two and a half thousand years ago and the content is non-negotiable. Buddha is the true genius and advancer of human knowledge, but he's not given the credit – the Dalai Lama takes the credit in Thurman's mind.

Recently, at an FPMT Center in Deerfield Beach, Florida, they proudly advertized that the teachings they gave were in the “lineage of the Dalai Lama”. But what is this lineage exactly? Does it begin and end with the Dalai Lama?

Buddhism is so much more than philosophy, science or 'religion as therapy' (a curious choice of words!). Boiling it down to mundane subjects of study seems to do Buddhism a grave disservice. Maybe it is the academic in him, but Thurman here misses the magic of Buddhism. No amount of philosophy, science or therapy can lead to permanent liberation from suffering and the full enlightenment of Buddhahood.

Later, Thurman gives us some insight as to why he wrote his book:

The main accusation against the Dalai Lama that surfaces from time to time around the world is that of being ineffective. People have said, “What has the Dalai Lama ever accomplished, for all his running around the world meeting celebrities?” In fact, answering that question is one of the main drives of this book. (page 45)

It is clear what the Dalai Lama has accomplished by doing this – celebrity and power. And Thurman seems to be justifying this lifestyle (or defending it, not sure which). While it is true that the Dalai Lama has been so far ineffective in his political work for Tibet, no doubt he will also receive more accusations against him in the future as a result of his illegal and unconstitutional actions. It could be argued that the main accusation against the Dalai Lama already is, 'Why is he lying?' or 'Why is he using Buddhism to maintain his own power and position at the cost of harmony in the Buddhist community?' Not surprisingly, Thurman does not address these questions.

He has been working on and gradually introducing a democratic constitution in the exile community as a way to live in exile and a model of self-rule whenever it is recovered in Tibet. It is a secularist constitution based on the separation of church and state, in which all religions are equal under the law (p 51)

Since 1959 the Dalai Lama has had ample opportunity to introduce a democratic system of government into the Tibetan community in exile. Why hasn't it happened? Could it be because he wants to continue the union of politics and religion for his own ends?

More and more Tibetans see the faults with this system. For example, in an article called “He Has Got It Wrong” (on pro-Tibetan Phayul, taken from the Times of India), Eliot Sperling says of the recent meeting (November 2008) about Tibet’s future in Dharamsala:

And while the Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that the Tibet issue is not about him but about all Tibetans, the end result of the special meeting bears out China's stance: in spite of his democratic rhetoric, the Dalai Lama has never empowered Tibetans to feel comfortable taking stands at variance with him. Accusations of disloyalty to the Dalai Lama remain a weapon in political and personal feuds in Dharamsala.

In her article commenting on this newspaper opinion piece, a Tibetan woman calling herself Mountain Phoenix says:

So when we look at the outcome of this “special meeting”, there was nothing special about it, let alone “historic”. The ultimate decision was again not to decide but to leave the decision to the Dalai Lama.

In the article 'Tibetan Religion and Politics', posted on Phayul, Samten G Karmay makes a powerful case for separation of church and state based upon the incompatibility of the role of head of democratic government with being a spiritual master:

In this theocratic system the head of the state was not only the political leader of the people, but also their spiritual master. In other words, the whole population was subjected and put in the position of spiritual disciple to the master. Within the context of this essentially religious bond no devotee would ever dream of opposing the view of the master, because that would be tantamount to breaking the sacred relationship between the master and the disciple. How does this fit with the discussion of democracy among the Tibetans in exile for whom HH the Dalai Lama is the political leader, but who nonetheless bestows on them the Kalachakra initiation?

This ties in with the Mongoose-Canine letter, in which the writer says:

Moreover, to challenge Lamas you have used religion for your aim. To that purpose you had to develop the Tibetan people’s blind faith. In the end you adopted the same activity that you yourself had pointed out was mistaken in other Lamas. For instance, you started the politics of public Kalachakra initiations. Normally the Kalachakra initiation is not given in public. Then you started to use it continuously in a big way for your politics. The result is that now the Tibetan people have returned to exactly the same muddy and dirty mixing of politics and religion of Lamas which you yourself had so precisely criticised in earlier times.

The implication is that the Dalai Lama has used his position as a Spiritual Leader through Kalachakra initiations to keep the Tibetan people docile because they would never challenge their Teacher with whom they have 'samaya' (sacred bond) through initiation. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso of the New Kadampa Tradition has been branded 'a samaya breaker' for the very reason that it is claimed that he received this initiation from the Dalai Lama in 1954 and has subsequently spoken out against him (N.B. he never received this initiation).

The point of the Dalai Lama using Kalachakra for political purposes is mentioned again later in the Mongoose-Canine letter:

Nowadays you have given the Kalachakra initiation so many times you have made the Tibetan people into donkeys. You can force them to go here and there as you like. In your words you always say that you want to be Gandhi but in your action you are like a religious fundamentalist who uses religious faith for political purposes.

Samten G Karmay's article was well read and received many supporting comments from Tibetans. Some examples:

religion and politics should be separated in order to have a true democratic system.people will more freely speak out when its a religious person most people don’t want to speak freely.the present tibetan govt needs to listen to people and stop calling people who give their opinion as chinese spy etc.this is not democracy

**************

As you know, Tibetan government in exile, in realty there is no democracy. It's like still old Tibet style empire rules, Lama Rules or one of the linage rule. One man leader for ever and at the same time they call it real democracy. In fact no Democracy and it's like banana democracy. Young educated Tibetans have no chances to become a Top leader of Tibet as a 'President".

**************

You are right -- majority Tibetans has no power to tell or comment to the head of the exile. Because our head leader is Religious one. One of the four linage of mahayana Tibetan Buddhism. If you do so there is Dhamtsik Samaya breaking between a guru and the deciple.

Since the Dalai Lama alone has the power to determine whether democracy is introduced or not, and there is no democracy, the facts speak for themselves. Thurman should not whitewash this situation by pretending that the Dalai Lama is pro-democracy when his clear lack of action in this area shows that he is not. Either the Dalai Lama is fooling Thurman, or Thurman is fooling us.

Thurman talks about the Dalai Lama's enthusiasm for inter-religious dialogue. Why then doesn't the Dalai Lama want to talk to Dorje Shugden practitioners to resolve the big schism in his own community? Their pleas for understanding are ignored. The Religion section in the recent Memorandum has fine words for the Chinese, but surely the Dalai Lama and his government should get their own house in order first?

Thurman also mentions that the Dalai Lama defends the Muslim religion. In these times, when Muslims tend to be demonized as terrorists due to the actions of a relative minority of fanatics, this is a laudable thing to do. But surely it would have been worth mentioning here that the Dalai Lama has a natural sympathy with Muslims because he is from a Muslim family and was born in a Muslim village? It is a curious omission.

Thurman talks about 'what we might call the magic of the Dalai Lama's special presence' (page 62). He reports that 'the effect of his presence is galvanizing; people often burst into tears, forget what they were planning to say, commonly change their preconceived ideas completely'. Is it a good idea to mention this? Thurman's intention is probably good, and what he wants to show is how his Guru’s presence has a powerful effect on others’ minds. However, there have been many charismatic leaders throughout history who have had powerful speech and been able to get people to do what they want, and this has not always worked out to their advantage. Does Thurman really want us to think that the Dalai Lama has some power to influence others, and maybe even to be able to control their minds?

It's a curious thing to talk about and, more than anything else, it indicates a somewhat unexamined faith. Thurman doesn't see how it could be misunderstood, which is a little naïve of him. If people said such fanatical things about Geshe Kelsang, no doubt his critics would jump on the bandwagon with their accusations of 'mind control cult'; so why do no alarm bells sound when people talk so glowingly of the control the Dalai Lama exerts over others?

Thurman talks extensively about Tibetan, Tibetans and the Tibetan cause, which is also the other main motivation for his writing this book. He's obviously trying to coax Chinese sympathizers to see a different view of the Dalai Lama with one aim in mind – the fulfilment of the Dalai Lama's wishes for autonomy for Tibet within China. This is where the book is quite political and a little obvious in its intentions. Thurman is saying “look, the Dalai Lama is really a very special guy and you can trust him, so give us back Tibet!”

Whilst not wanting to get too political, I have to mention an obvious lie about the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan resistance, and the CIA because it has implications for Thurman's trustworthiness and honesty. Thurman says:

Tibetan warriors did fight for over a decade as guerrillas (with a low level of support from CIA until betrayed by Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon), against the Dalai Lama's instructions, but admittedly with his admiration for their bravery.

Does Thurman really believe this version of events? There is evidence that the Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA payroll in the 1960's, to a tune of $186,000 per annum. From the Wikipedia article on the 14th Dalai Lama:

In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the U.S. Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA).

According to a report in a Vancouver newspaper:

Funds to pay this army were funnelled through the Dalai Lama and his organization, which received US$1.7 million a year, later reduced to $1.2 million. (Of this, the Dalai Lama himself was paid $186,000 a year. But no one has ever suggested that he pocketed it. The money was used to operate his exiled government's offices in Geneva and New York.) The last year in which the stipend was paid out was 1974. By then, of course, U.S. policy had changed to one of embracing China, not antagonizing it.

According to Thurman, the guerrillas fought ‘against the Dalai Lama's instructions’; yet the Dalai Lama's administration received the funds to pay for the army from the CIA, with the Dalai Lama himself being paid. No one can claim that the Dalai Lama didn't know what was going on, or that it was against his instructions.

From an interview with the Dalai Lama with the New York Times in 1993:

Q: In Tibet, from the late 1950's until the early 1970's, one of your brothers was involved in leading a guerrilla movement against the Chinese. In fact, the guerrillas were supported by the C.I.A. How did you feel about that?

A: I'm always against violence. But the Tibetan guerrillas were very dedicated people. They were willing to sacrifice their own lives for the Tibetan nation. And they found a way to receive help from the C.I.A. Now, the C.I.A.'s motivation for helping was entirely political. They did not help out of genuine sympathy, not out of support for a just cause. That was not very healthy.

The Dalai Lama says “they found a way to receive help from the CIA” as if the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Administration knew nothing about it; but they were on the payroll! The Dalai Lama is being disingenuous, as is Thurman in misrepresenting events. The aim is to maintain the Dalai Lama's public image as someone who does not agree with armed struggle, which is obviously wrong.

Things become even more nefarious when the Mongoose Canine letter states:

The problem of your government splitting the Tibetan guerilla fighters in Mustang. In fact, they were originally organised by your government with the help of the CIA. In 1969, as a consequence of Nixon’s policy with China, you provoked a fight among the Tibetan guerillas over their weapons. This fight finally destroyed them.

What then are we to make of Thurman's statement:

But overall, in spite of massive oppression, Tibetans have maintained the non-violence the Dalai Lama has asked of them. The greatness of this achievement cannot be overstated (page 74)

Thurman seems attached to Tibet and what it represents in his mind, as he is attached to the Dalai Lama and what he represents. Such attachment is obviously going to influence his views. Either Thurman is deliberately misrepresenting events, or he is genuinely in the thrall of the Dalai Lama and Tibet and ignoring obvious truths. This is also evident when he says:

Nowadays the world is spinning out of control in a “war on terror” which is endless in principle because violence simply breeds more counter-violence. Then, to our amazement, we encounter a people who eschew terrorism and violence from the beginning. (page 74)

Michael Parenti is an American political scientist, historian and media critic whose article Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth explains the excesses of Tibet as a feudal society. The view that Tibet was some kind of Shangri-la filled with happy, non-violent practising Buddhists is a complete myth.

As for 'eschewing violence from the beginning', there was almost a riot in New York in July 2008 when a large group of Tibetans who had just been to a teaching by the Dalai Lama surrounded a much smaller group of Western Shugden Society protestors to spit, jeer and throw things. The protestors had to be evacuated by New York Police for their own safety. There have also been many other instances of violence against Dorje Shugden practitioners, some of which are itemized on the Dorje Shugden Controversy article in Wikipedia.

Again, there are many more points in this chapter that merit comment, but we will finish on something positive -- the Dalai Lama's concluding statement from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:

I pray for all of us, oppressor and friend, that together we succeed in building a better world through human understanding and love, and that in doing so we may reduce the pain and suffering of all sentient beings. Thank you. (page 95)

We pray that the Dalai Lama will live by these words and stop all the problems he has created in the Buddhist community through his divisive actions. Dalai Lama, please give religious freedom to Dorje Shugden practitioners.

The story of 16 young Tibetan refugees in Nepal and India

Testimony of Lobsang Tsultrim, Tibetan Refugee

My name is Lobsang Tsultrim. I am from Gyaltang province - Yunan in Chinese - in Tibet. July 16, 2007 was the date I arrived at the Tibetan Reception Center (TRC) in Kathmandu, Nepal. Upon our arrival at the TRC, we rejoiced as though we were home and we felt secure and at ease, meeting fellow Tibetans there. However, that feeling abruptly ended when we were interviewed by the Head of the TRC.

"Do you have a Chinese passport?” the Head asked. “We have no Chinese passport,” we replied. He laughed and yelled: “Tell me honestly. If you don't have a Chinese passport, which way did you take to come down to Nepal?” I responded that I really didn't have a passport and that we gave money to a guide to help us cross the border. He then asked which monastery we were going to, and I told him Sera Mey monastery. He further inquired which Khamtsen (monastic section) I would join and I told him Pomra Khamtsen.

He clearly disliked my answer and began speaking badly to me. I was confused about what had gone wrong. I figured out that he was angry because Pomra Khamtsen practices Dorje Shugden.

I then was escorted to Room no. 5, where I gave an interview again. The staff asked my name, my parents’ names and my fatherland, and I answered them. They also asked the monastery and monastic section (Khamtsen) of my choice. I said I would go to join Pomra Khamtsen at Sera Mey. I was then asked if I worship Dorje Shugden, and I replied that I do.

I was then told that I would have to sign a statement renouncing my faith and practice in Dorje Shugden if I wanted to go to Pomra Khamtsen at Sera Mey.

I appealed to him not to force me to sign.

The staff member conducting this phase of the interview said:

"You are a Chinese spy. You dislike the Dalai Lama. If you worship Shugden, you are against the Dalai Lama.”

I denied those allegations, saying that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual master of Tibet and he is also my guru. Dorje Shugden is a Deity who is worshipped by our monastery and our province and our family.

I was pushed again regarding my reasons for refusing to sign the statement renouncing Dorje Shugden. And I repeated my earlier statement that the Deity Dorje Shugden is worshipped by our monastery and province, and that my family also has worshiped the Deity for several generations. I strenuously denied that my worship of Dorje Shugden meant I disliked the Dalai Lama. I begged him to have sympathy for me and not force me to give up my religious faith.

I was then told that I needed to think carefully about this matter, as there was no way I would be admitted to the monastery if I didn’t sign. He refused to give me a reference letter, which would have stated that my admission to Sera Mey was sanctioned by the Dalai Lama and the Kalon Tripa, head of the Tibetan cabinet.

Our purpose in risking escape from Tibet was to have an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and to join the monastery where we could study Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. We had no purpose apart from that.

We stayed for two months in Kathmandu without getting a reference letter from the TRC.

We are grieving.

The delegates from Pomra Khamtsen, Dhokhang Khamtsen, Shugden devotees and the Nepali government provided us help. The ministry of Nepali Home Affairs sent a notice to the UNHCR and the TRC not to engage in discrimination. The UNHCR then asked the TRC not to provide any letter to newcomers from Tibet. We left Kathmandu on July 12, 2007.

Even after we left the TRC, we were harassed. Before boarding a bus to Delhi, the head of the TRC and his staff searched our bags -- stealing our new things and leaving only those items that were second-hand. The items they took were clothes and tins of meat we needed for our journey.

Their behavior shocked us. What could we do? Our eyes filled with tears.

Instead of Tibetans helping Tibetans, they repressed and robbed us. They maltreated and discriminated against us because we worship Dorje Shugden. We felt that Shugden devotees in India suffered more than us. We then left.

On July 14, 2007, we arrived at the TRC located at Budh Vihar in Delhi. We sojourned there for approximately 10 hours. We were then sent to Dharamsala by bus. On July 15, in the morning, we arrived at Dharamsala and went to the TRC there. As soon as we arrived at the center, a staff said:

"We all are Tibetans. We all should maintain harmony and unity. And we must obey the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.”

He said further things we didn't understand because of differences in our dialects. Then he showed us our beds, gave us each plates and spoons, and collected Rs.150 from each of us. We were served breakfast of rice noodles and egg. After breakfast, our names were collected. For three days no one was called for interview.

A staff member (whose height was 5.5 and whose age was around 25) wrote down my name and that of Tsering Norbu, who is 14 years old. He said we needed to go somewhere else. I asked him where we needed to go, but he said nothing. As we do not speak the Lhasa dialect, communication was difficult. We asked the staff person to call a monk we knew from Sera Mey. We gave him the number and asked him to call on his mobile, but he did not do this, saying that the number didn’t work. He then took us to a two-story building. There was one Indian, a nun and three other men including the person who brought us here. The Indian didn't ask any questions.

The interrogation went as follows:

Department: "Which Deity does your monastery worship?"
Lobsang: "Our monastery worships the Deity Dorje Shugden."
Department: "If so, do you worship the Dalai Lama?"
Lobsang: "We worship Dorje Shugden as a Deity and the Dalai Lama as a Guru. Not only that, I brought a photo of the Dalai Lama. "
Department: "It is said that the photo was not allowed."
Lobsang: "As we have faith and belief, we keep the photo in our pocket."
Department: "If you worship Shugden, you are against the Dalai Lama. If you worship Shugden, you can't worship the Dalai Lama. You must choose one or the other."
Lobsang: "From generation to generation we have worshipped both the Dalai Lama and Shugden. Therefore we cannot choose between them, as I mentioned earlier."

They had a discussion among themselves and then told us to leave. We returned to the TRC. The next day, each of us was questioned by the TRC.

Interrogator: "What is your name, province and monastery?"
Lobsang: "My monastery is Gyaltang Songtsen Ling."
Interrogator: "How many monks are there in your monastery? Do they worship Shugden?"
Lobsang: "Our monastery has over eight hundred monks. They worship Shugden."
Interrogator: "Is the main statue of your monastery Lama Tsongkhapa or Guru Padmasambhawa?"
Lobsang: "The main statue is Tsongkhapa (the founder of the Gelug Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism)."
Interrogator: "Which monastic section of the monastery are you going to?"
Lobsang: "I am going to Pomra Khamtsen."
Interrogator: "If you are going to a monastery, you must sign that you never worship Shugden. You cannot go if you do not sign. This is in accordance with the Dalai Lama’s direction and the Kashag’s (Tibetan cabinet) order. We didn't formulate this policy. Therefore, you cannot have a reference letter. If you want to go to a school, there is no objection. But you cannot go to a monastery as long as you worship Dorje Shugden. So you must think well. I have no options for you."

A few days later, we were told not to stay in the TRC. We said we would leave the TRC if they gave us the reference letter, but that without a letter we had nowhere to go. A staff person threatened that if we didn’t leave the police would beat us and put us in prison. On September 20, the TRC stopped giving us meals and blankets; we were put in a empty room in the roof. We felt cold and hungry for the first time in our lives.

The staff again told us that we couldn’t stay at the TRC and would have to leave soon. We again asked them to give us the letter; they replied that they would not provide it if we didn’t sign a statement renouncing Dorje Shugden. We responded by saying that if they didn’t have the authority to provide a letter, let us meet Kalon Tripa Samdhong Rinpoche.

Then Lobsang Norbu and I were brought to the office of the Tibetan Cabinet. We didn't meet the Kalon Tripa. However, there was a young man in the Cabinet Office. We gave him our petition and returned.

“You can't stay here more than three days”, the TRC staff told us, “and you had better discuss this.” We repeated that we would go if they provided us with a letter; otherwise, we had nowhere to go. The next day we approached the Cabinet Office. After waiting a few minutes, Kalon Tripa and five or six men came together. We got up to show our respect. Kalon asked us our names and what was the matter. We said, “Rinpoche, please give us a letter of reference so that we can join the monastery.”

Kalon Samdhong responded:

“If you don’t sign declaring that you will stop worshipping Shugden, there is no way to send you to the monastery. It is better for you go back to Tibet. You’ll have to get the money for the journey”.

His response really hurt our hearts. He had no regard for us, as was evidenced by his words. Heartbroken, we returned to the TRC.

We continued to be threatened and harassed by the TRC staff, who told us they didn’t know when the police would be coming to arrest us and that we should leave as soon as possible.

On September 22, the police did come to the TRC and told us to leave Dharamshala as soon as possible or we would be imprisoned. The TRC and the police forced us to give two different signatures, declaring that: (1) we are leaving Dharamshala, and (2) we will go back to Tibet.

When I refused to sign, the police beat me with a stick. Lobsang Tseten got slapped.

They continued to interrogate us and told us again that we must sign the statement that we were returning to Tibet. The said our refusal to sign would result in our being booked into jail, and that those of us under the age of sixteen would be taken to a different facility.

The TRC staff informed us that the police gave us one week to leave or else we would be imprisoned. This was heartbreaking beyond belief. Our parents sent us to study Tibetan Buddhism and philosophy. To this end, we risked our lives to escape. We risked everything for this, but we journeyed to a free country only to have our own people persecute us—Tibetans, who always talk about peace, love and compassion for all living beings.

Again we were brought to the police station. We stayed there without food and drink for one day and were brought back to the TRC in the evening. The TRC staff said it was definite that the police would arrest us if we didn’t leave as soon as possible. We were young newcomers who were ignorant about this place and system, and had difficulty communicating. Given the situation and our experiences of the previous six months, it was clear we were trapped and that we should leave for the time being. Our hope was that we would have recourse with the Indian government to investigate our case and protect us.

We are deeply grateful to the Government of India for providing us asylum as Tibetan refugees. It is certain that the Tibetan Administration exiled in Dharamasala would not, even if they had the authority, give us refugee status.

(Background to these disturbing events can be found here.)

Human rights violations of Dorje Shugden practitioners

In her well researched book of the late 1990s, Exiled from Exile, Dr Ursula Bernis explains how the ban of Dorje Shugden and resulting persecution came about. An extract:

"In the summer of 1996, the Tibetan government in exile was accused of human rights violations by many Tibetans and some of their Western supporters. Since then most critics have been pressured into silence. Although two prominent human rights organizations expressed their concerns privately to the exile government, they refused to do so publicly for several reasons including that it could be seen as undermining the efforts of the Dalai Lama and the much larger and more serious issue of improving human rights in Tibet under Chinese control. I have seen one of the letters shown to me on condition I not disclose it and its source."

Here is one of many examples of the human rights violations Dr Bernis is talking about. For more first-hand interviews of people conducted at that time -- chronicling abuses that continue right through to the present day -- see Detailed reports of discrimination from inside India and elsewhere.

Extracts from An Interview with Jamphel Yeshe

"For all my life in exile, I have had the welfare of Tibetans and the idea of freedom constantly on my mind. As is well known in the Tibetan community, I worked towards that end in many different ways. All of this is destroyed now by the defamation campaign against me and my family. Because of death threats, I cannot go anywhere alone. I have to live in constant fear of losing my life, my family, my community, my access to religion, my livelihood, -- in short, everything that is dear to me and makes my life worth living....

Q: How has the ban affected you personally?
A: Since the ban we have endless inner turmoil, day and night. My situation is not exceptional. Each and every Tibetan Buddhist who is not able to relinquish faith in his or her Guru is in the same situation. Since the ban was imposed by the Tibetan exile government, families have broken down in every Tibetan community. Children broke relations with their parents and teachers and students have stopped speaking with each other.

These things happened because the Tibetan exile government started a signature campaign against our faith. We were asked to sign a list swearing that we will give up our reliance on the Dharmapala (Dorje Shugden) for this and all future lives. These lists were passed around very publically so everyone could see who signed and who not. When the government stopped the Women's Association and Youth Congress continued to push people to sign. Through the public nature of this campaign we have been completely marginalized. As the president of the Dorje Shugden Society, it was my duty to inform all Tibetans about the situation.

If a Tibetan speaks out, the automatic reaction now is to find out whether or not he relies on Dorje Shugden. If he does, then as a Tibetan I should not have any contact with him, according to the Tibetan exile government. Because of the atmosphere of distrust created this way, I have lost many of my former friends and business contacts. They all know I rely on Dorje Shugden. It has become a trend within the Tibetan exile community for people to declare openly that they want to go after me and finish me. Threats are also made openly against my colleagues in the Society and we experience this prevailing atmosphere of fear and distrust as a great burden.

I am a family man, I have three children. My oldest son is twelve years old, the second son nine years, and my daughter is six years old. The two older children were in school at the Tibetan Children's Village (TCV) in Dharamsala. I and my family received many explicit death threats. I found out through reliable sources -- I can't tell you who -- that an ex-military man and a member of the Tibetan parliament from Rajpur was discussing my two sons and their whereabouts in school in Dharamsala and my involvement with the Dorje Shugden Society with other Tibetans from a military background. Many Tibetans have joined the Indian army as part of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police after the CIA supported Khampa resistance ceased to be active. They have their own units, their own uniforms with their symbols but do not wear them publically.

He said they were well trained and that he and his colleagues would do whatever was necessary and whatever the Tibetan exile government wanted them to do against the Dorje Shugden people. For Tibetans who firmly believe that the Dalai Lama's life is threatened by those who rely on Dorje Shugden, these sentiments, and the willingness to act on them, are completely credible. So I took my children out of the school in Dharamsala and sent them to a safe place in another country. The perception was that anyone who wanted to attack us was free to do so.

The threat letters I received included statements like, "We will not spare your wife and children." One such letter says (in translation):

"To Tashi Dolma [Jamphel Yeshe's wife], from D.P. Gyatso. According to what I heard, your president husband, Chatreng Yeshe, has engaged in many plans regarding the Dalai Lama. Moreover, it is also said that you are going on a film shooting about the Dalai Lama, [Seven Years in Tibet] This being the case you are not permitted to participate in this filming. If you go, I will not spare you easily. We are youths of Darjeeling Voluntary Youth. If you don't believe it, you can come to Darjeeling anytime. Do you understand, slut. Secretary of Youth Group, Darjeeling, Kalimpong. P.S. Some of us are now in Delhi. You have to inform Chatreng Yeshi."

My wife and I received many threatening phone calls, and even our six year old daughter. When asked for a name, the answer was only "I am a man." Once, when they called, the child answered the telephone, as she often did, and the person on the other end told her, "There are fifteen of us here in Delhi and we will kill you and we will kill your father. We will destroy you." My daughter was very upset. She went to close all the doors and told me to stay inside. Early in the morning she would come to my bed and touch me. When I moved, she shouted, overjoyed, "Daddy is still alive."

Mixing Religion and Politics -- the Dalai Lama's ban on Dorje Shugden

There is currently a very well reasoned and interesting article on the unfortunate mixture of religion and politics in Tibetan society on Investigating the Campaign Against Dorje Shugden.

Here is an extract:

"The fact that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile have been able to subject the Tibetan populace to an oath swearing campaign, whereby they promise not to engage in prayer to Dorje Shugden or have dealings with anyone who does, harkens back to the religious persecution in England during the 17th century whereby religious uniformity was mandated by the state.

That this oath swearing campaign initiated by the Dalai Lama has bypassed our conscience and our concept of religious freedom as an unalienable human right is a sign of a deeper crisis that has emerged in the Tibetan and Buddhist Community. ....

...In the Al Jazeera news footage, the interviewer asks Tsultrim Tenzin, member of the Tibetan Government in Exile, if the government debated the Dorje Shugden issue. He replied:

“There was no argument. If there was some opposition, then there will be some argument, but there is no opposition. We do not have any doubt about the Dalai Lama’s decisions. We do not think he is a human being. He is a supreme human being, and he is god, he is Avalokiteshvara, he has no interest [in] himself, he always thinks of others. Everybody is happy. Our system is everybody is happy. There is democracy, full democracy. Everyone can experience whatever he likes”

.... So what we have here is the divine right of the Dalai Lama versus the rights of individuals to practice the prayer of their choosing. Thomas Jefferson could not have scripted a better example as to why the divine right of kings and the divine right of individuals are incompatible governing principles...

Click here for the full article.

Dalai Lama's political ban of a religious practice extends to Switzerland

Will it ever stop? This mixture of politics and religion is already destroying the spiritual lives of many thousands of people in the Tibetan exile community in India, and is spreading its tentacles into the West.

Swiss Resolution regarding the worshipping of Dholgyal

On August 16, 2008, in the local assembly of Tibetan people in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, their Deputies discussed thoroughly with great responsibility. After that, the Local Assembly’s Deputies extended their appreciation to the Resolution (1996) adopted by the majority regarding the worshipping of Dholgyal (Shugden). Due to necessity there is now no option but to add three new resolutions on top of the existing five resolutions. We request all Tibetans who are above 18 years old in Switzerland and Liechtenstein to fully follow the content of these resolutions.

A The five resolutions passed unanimously by the Local Assembly’s Deputies on July 6, 1996 were:

1. The Dholgyal worshipper must completely give up [the practice] henceforth.

2. Those who do not worship Shugden must follow the instruction without falling into the trap of others.

3. You all must invite only those who do not worship Dholgyal, when you need to perform puja for oneself or for the Dalai Lama’s well-being.

4. Be it in private or a group, when you make offerings to the monasteries in Nepal, India, etc, you must do these offerings to those monasteries which do not worship Dholgyal.

5. You must bear in mind the instructions of politics and religion and abide by them without any contradiction.

B Three additional resolutions adopted on August 16, 2008 by the majority during the Second Session of Local Assembly were:

1. Recently a few Dholgyal followers have engaged in baseless criticism against the Dalai Lama in public. This we recognize as a conspiracy to spread rumors through gossip.

2. Those few Tibetans who criticize the Dalai Lama, we recognize them being in the category of Chinese government’s politics, directly, indirectly and thoroughly.

3. We will collect signatures as a truth witness which represents the volunteer support to the above-mentioned points.

For a copy of the original Tibetan document, please see www.WesternShugdenSociety.org