張貼者：2011/3/13 下午7:41Green Tibet
[
已更新 2011/3/14 下午11:43
]
As for the parliamentary election, yet another situation is emerging. When the Dalai Lama first established a democratic parliament in Dharamsala, decisions were based on the opinions of the Dalai Lama. In the past decades, the parliament has been following the path laid out by the Dalai Lama, and thus, further endorsing the Dalai Lama’s decisions. To date, even though the Tibetan Youth Congress has frequently opposed the moderate stance of the Dalai Lama, members of the Youth Congress have not dared to voice their opposition within the parliament. At the very most, Youth Congress members have dwelled upon peripheral issues, or complained about the ineptitude of officials. It is apparent that the Dalai Lama has been annoyed by the constant bickering with the parliament. In fact, on a number of occasions, the parliament has closed sessions without coming to resolutions about what the Dalai Lama has referred to as “small issues.” We have no way of knowing whether or not the Dalai Lama still advocates moving toward a Western style democratic system. Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama can certainly see that promoting democracy has given rise to ceaseless disputes within Tibetan society. Another particularly frightening prospect is that once the current Dalai Lama passes away, no leader will be capable of gaining control. Therefore, the democratic system will tear the Tibetan community apart.
Even though the Dalai Lama has, at times, chosen the wrong path and acted upon selfish concerns, as the leader of the Tibetan people, he should not sit back and watch as matters deteriorate even further. The Dalai Lama can see that he will not be able to control the parliament in the future. Moreover, he will not necessarily have the complete obedience of the democratically elected Premiere. Thus, he is looking for a way to get a handle on the situation.
As mentioned previously, the Sde-srid system was set up during the time of the 5th Dalai Lama. The Sde-srid acted at the behest of the Dalai Lama. We believe that a return to Sde-srid system could be the Dalai Lama’s final ploy to deal with public opinion. The Sde-srid system was perpetuated for many decades after the death of the 5th Dalai Lama. Thus, restoring the Sde-srid system would be a brilliant way to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, the Dalai Lama could use the Sde-srid to override the electoral system and maintain his theocratic authority. In other words, the restoration of the Sde-srid system would represent the Dalai Lama’s distrust of the democratic process. On the other hand, by reinstating the Sde-srid system, the Dalai Lama could resolve of the problem of finding a suitable leader after he passes away.
As discussed above, the format of this round of democratic elections in Tibetan communities should be applauded. However, the motives behind these elections are another matter. The Dalai Lama knows that Western democratic procedures are not suited to the current circumstances of the Tibetan exile community. Moreover, he has long been aware that the development of democracy would eventually lead to the questioning of his authority. This being the case, why has he continued to insist upon democratic reform? Actually, the Dalai Lama faces his own difficulties. It is well-known that many countries have elevated the status and voice of the current Dalai Lama as a way to counterbalance the power of China. In other words, without the backing of international political forces, the Dalai Lama would just be another unknown leader of a community in exile. Thus, the Dalai Lama must gain the good graces of western nations by continuing to enthusiastically promote democracy. By doing so, the Dalai Lama can also highlight China’s lack of democracy and utter disregard of human rights.
|
張貼者：2011/3/1 上午8:39Green Tibet
[
已更新 2011/3/13 下午7:51
]
The format of this round of democratic elections in Tibetan communities should be applauded. The elections are being carried in accordance to democratic procedures. In other words, the candidates are directly elected by the voters. However, the problem lies in how a political system which combines religious and state institutions can coordinate a democratic political administration. For example, in the past, when major events occurred in Tibet, séance ceremonies were practically unavoidable. Important Oracles like Gnas-chung were consulted. To an outsider, this seems like an ignorant and superstitious practice, but according to Tibetan Buddhism, not even the Dalai Lama can violate the precognitions of the oracles. If we assume that the sacred Kalachakara Dus-‘khor teaching given by the Dalai Lama each year is not superstitious, then we must assume that the same is true of seeking the precognitions of oracles. Yet, with the rise of democratic institutions, should the opinions of the parliament and the Dalai Lama or the oracles be at odds, whose opinion will take precedence? Outsiders believe that public opinions should be the determining factor. However, in a society with values shaped by Tibetan Buddhism, when the precognitions of oracles are transformed into public opinion, Tibetan society could be on the verge of collapse.
This election will mark the first time that the premiere will not be appointed directly by the Dalai Lama, but rather chosen through a democratic election. As a result, there are more candidates than expected, running for both premiere and parliament member seats. This is because the required amount of signatures for a letter of declaration is too low. Candidates only need to get the signatures of a dozen so eligible Tibetan voters. To gain eligibility to vote, Tibetans must pay poll taxes to the Dalai Lama’s government. This allows some room for maneuvering. The exiled Tibetans who are unable or unwilling to pay their taxesoften reach implicit agreements with candidates who pay their taxes for them. Moreover, since the number of signatures required for candidates seeking seats on the parliament member is so low, past elections have been rife with bribery and vote buying. The election committee has been unable to deal with this kind of practice. We applaud democratic institutions which give the people the ability to supervise their government. However, the Tibetans can choose to develop a democratic system that reflects the development of traditional Tibetan culture. They do not necessary have to follow the Western democratic model.
The official Election Day is set for March 20th, less than a month away. There were four leading candidates in the preliminary premiere election. Among them, Lobsang Senge led with 30,000 votes. To everyone’s surprise, the Dalai Lama’s favored candidate Tenzin Tethong only earned 10,000 votes. Lobsang Senge, a Harvard graduate, has led the way in determining the key issues. The reputations of the other more traditional candidates are less than remarkable. The main issues promoted by Lobsang Senge have included people's livelihood, education and social problems. Thus, he has moved beyond the ideology of struggling for independence which has overshadowed all other issues in the past. Though it is still difficult to predict who will emerge victorious in the premiere election, Lobsang Senge has already earned his place in the history of Tibetan elections.
We can say that if Logsang Senge is elected as premiere, it means that the exiled Tibetans have already grown weary of the path that the Dalai Lama has been guiding them down over the past half century. Even more, they are hoping for solutions to real-life problems. After all, caught up in the current of modern thinking, young Tibetans do not want to be refugees forever and they do not want to go on relying on the good graces of others for the rest of their lives. If any of the traditionalist candidates are elected (the most notable of whom being the highly qualified Tenzin Tethong), it means that, regardless of the individual qualifications of the candidates themselves, the preferences of the Dalai Lama still hold sway. That is, the Dalai Lama is still very influential.
This election has yet another variable. To date, Lobsang Senge has yet to criticize China’s Tibet policy. Thus, there are rumors circulating that he already reached an understanding with China. (to be continued)
|
張貼者：2010/12/28 上午6:45Green Tibet
[
已更新 2011/3/13 下午7:52
]
In recent years, politically inclined Tibetans living abroad have been busy trying to get elected as the premiere (bka'-blon khri-pa) or as representatives of the People’s Assembly (mi-mang spyi-‘thus) of the Tibetan government in exile.
In the most recent election, the premiere race has attracted considerable public attention. However, do Tibetans know the origin of the premiere system?
Since the 12th Century, during the second propagation of Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet was in a state of utter chaos. The different schools of Tibetan Buddhism were consolidating their local power bases. The various schools were constantly engaged with each other in conflict and war. In the beginning of the 17th Century, the leader of the Khoshot Mongols, Gushri Khan, and the 5th Dalai Lama came to a secret agreement. Gushri Khan was to help the Gelugs School defeat the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. After accomplishing this, he would give religious authority to the Dalai Lama, while retaining military control and the authority to appoint and remove officials. The Dalai Lama set up an official position, called the sde-srid, to represent him in Lhasa, while he stayed in Dga'-ldan pho-brang in 'Bras-spung Monastery.
However, Tibetans were unwilling to remain under Mongolian control. Therefore, when Sang-rgyas rgya-mtsho was appointed as the sde-srid, major conflict erupted. The ultimate result of this conflict occurred in 1720, when the Kangxi Emperor in Beijing sent a large army to Tibet to bring an end to the conflict between the Tibetans and Mongolians. At that time, the emperor decided to end the Mongolian control of Tibet. He set up the four bka'-blon system, and appointed Khang-chen-nas bsod-nams rgyal-po as the bka'-blon khri-pa or premiere. The four bka'-blons collectively managed the affairs of Tibet. This is the origin of the well-known bka'-blon system.
The first bka'-blon khri-pa did not get along with the other bka'-blons, including Lum-pa-nas bkra-shis rgyal-po. Therefore, these three bka'-blons united and had Khang-chen-nas-bsod-nams rgyal-po assassinated. This led to further internal disorder within Tibetan. The emperor in Beijing once again sent a large army to Tibet. With the assistance of the Khang-chen-nas-bsod-nams Rgyal-po’s subordinate Pho-lha-nas sbsod-nams stobs-rgyas, the conflict was brought to an end. The emperor’s imperial inspector minister had the three offending bka'-blons executed.
To promote long-term stability in Tibet, the emperor did not appoint bka'-blons any more. Rather, in 1728, the emperor appointed Pho-lha-nas, who had proven himself during the period of conflict, as the Junwang (prince of the commandery). The emperor also set up the amban system. The amban was responsible to monitor the junwang. An amban was directly appointed by Beijing every three years. The amban system continued until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.
With the support of the emperor in Beijing, Pho-lha-nas ruled Tibet for twenty years. This was a rare period of stability in Tibetan history. His son, 'gyur-med rnam-rgyal, took over his thrown in 1747. However, he did not see eye to eye with the 7th Dalai Lama. The amban sided with and chose to protect the 7th Dalai Lama. As a result, 'gyur-med rnam-rgyal was strongly displeased with the amban. On October 25, 1750, as 'gyur-med rnam-rgyal was attempting to carry out a large scale invasion of the amban’s office, he was killed by the amban. The amban and the vice amban were also killed during the battle.
After the conflict was put down, the Qianglong Emperor decided to get rid of the junwang system and political authority was placed directly in the hands of the Dalai Lama. In 1751, the bka'-shag government was established. There were still four bka'-blons, but a rule was set up requiring that the bka'-blon khri-pa be a monk, while the other three were laymen. This system continued until March of 1959, when the PRC began to carry out democratic reform in Tibet.
After the PRC dissolved the bka'-shag government, the Dalai Lama reestablished the system in India. It is not clear whether the Dalai Lama realizes that this system was not established by Tibetans, but was set up by the emperor in Beijing in the hope of bringing peace and stability to Tibet. (to be continued).
|
張貼者：2010/11/7 下午5:33Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/11/7 下午8:30
]
In the last round of talks between representatives and the Dalai Lama and Beijing, the Tibetan stance was based on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People. However, in the end, the talks failed.
Citing the above mentioned memorandum, the representatives of the Dalai Lama urged Beijing to “respect the integrity of the Tibetan nationality.” Moreover, in regard to the policy of dividing Tibetans within the Tibetan Autonomous Region and those in other provinces, the Dalai Lama’s representatives offered the following view: “Rather than respecting the integrity of the nationality, this policy promotes its fragmentation and disregards the spirit of autonomy.” Thus, they emphasized their insistence upon recognizing the “three regions” of Tibet. In other words, in addition to the Tibetan Autonomous Region, they believe that the future Tibet should include Amdo and Kham. An article posted in the Hot Issues column on this site on May 16, 2009, gave examples explaining the unreasonable nature of such a position. Undoubtedly, with his wealth of wisdom and experience, the Dalai Lama was well aware of how Beijing would respond to this stance. Nonetheless, he would rather have the talks fall apart than change his position. What is the reason for this?
The three regions concept has long been maintained by the Tibetans. However, these regions are actually inhabited by a mixture of numerous ethnic groups. Some of these other groups would certainly oppose the three regions concept. For example, in Haixi Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai Provence, the ethnically Mongolian population surpasses that of the Tibetan population. Moreover, in Hainan and Huangnan Autonomous Prefectures, many Tibetans have long since been Mongolianized. From this viewpoint, the Mongolians in Qinghai Provence certainly would not agree with the Dalai Lama’s stance that Qinghai is one of three Tibetan regions. To give the Dalai Lama the benefit of the doubt, we might speculate that he has long persisted in supporting the three regions concept because Tibetans in exile have become accustomed to promoting this position. As a result, if the Dalai Lama were to suddenly change his stance, he would disappoint his supporters.
Thus, it is evident that if the Dalai Lama were to abandon this stance, he would place himself in a predicament. This is because the Dalai Lama’s advocacy of Tibetan independence and the “middle path” has been based on the concept of three Tibetan regions. For example, the original design and framework of the Tibetan government in exile is based the three regions. In the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies, each region is represented by ten members. This is of no minor significance. In fact, for the Dalai Lama to abandon the concept of three regions would be tantamount to abandoning the legal basis of his government. This, of course, could directly threaten the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan government in exile, which has taken fifty years of hard workto establish. Furthermore, it could potentially lead to the collapse Tibetan exile society. This is the main reason why the Dalai Lama continues to insist the three regions concept.
|
張貼者：2010/10/20 上午12:37Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/10/20 上午9:42
]
The Dalai Lama’s large scale campaign to forbid Shugden worship actually aims to kill two birds with one stone. First, this campaign serves to test the loyalty of Tibetan exile society to the Dalai Lama, while simultaneously weeding out the individuals with divergent opinions. Second, it has been suggested that Shugden is a Chinese devil. An assertion of this sort ties Shugden together with the Tibetan exiles’ bitter enemy, China. This serves to further foment hatred of China within Tibetan society. In addition, other plans to penetrate into Tibet are also in the works. For example, agents have been sent to monasteries in Tibetan regions in China to forbid Shugden worship and oppose the government. In fact, one person with close ties to the largest Geluk monastery in Litang County believes that the explosion which occurred there in 1998 is related to the above-mentioned activities.
Due to the intense pressure applied by the Tibetan government in exile, the majority of Tibetans and most major monasteries outside of China have abandoned Shugden worship. Only a few small groups, like the Pombra College of Sera Monastery in southern India and the followers of Kelsang Gyatso residing in English, insist upon holding to their religious tradition. Currently, there are about 200 groups spread throughout Europe which also continue to worship the Shugden protective deity.
The monasteries, lamas and groups oppressed by the Dalai Lama’s policy have even filed a law-suit with an Indian court. However, recognizing the complex religious nature of this issue, the astute Indian court has also noted the political implications. As a result, the Indian court has wisely refused to accept the case brought against the Dalai Lama.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, the Dalai Lama’s decision to root out Shugden worship could also be part of an ongoing power struggle. Looking back at the reincarnation system in Tibetan Buddhism, traditionally, it is very important to hold a recognition ceremony and consult an oracle. Shugden and Nechung are the two most powerful protective deities. Historically, they are also the two deities which have been consulted most often. The Dalai Lama hopes that the young candidates of his choice can meet the approval an oracle, and hence, attain formal recognition and legal status. In other words, oracles have the final say about which young candidates are chosen. In order to gain ultimate control over the reincarnation of Geluk lamas, the Dalai Lama must minimize any threats to his authority
Yet another reason behind the Dalai Lama’s policy also has to do with the recognition of young candidates for reincarnation. In this case, it is a peaceful struggle involving the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Other than the Geluk School, only part of the Sakya School has traditionally been associated with Shugden. In other words, the Ningma and Kagyu Schools do not believe in the Shugden protector deity. Thus, the Dalai Lama has used his opposition to Dorje Shugden to demonstrate that his stance is consistent with the religious doctrines of the Ningma and Kagyu Schools. Moreover, the fourteenth Dalai Lama has broken with the conventions established by previous Dalai Lamas. That is, he has turned his back on the spirit and principles of the Geluk lineage. The Dalai Lama sought conversion from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche of the Ningma School, Kalu Rinpoche of the Kagyu School, as well as leaders of the Sakya School. He also accepted their empowerments, oral teachings and lectures. The Dalai Lama has made these gestures in order to gradually establish his position within the lineages of the other schools. By doing so, he can solidify his authority over the reincarnation process. Traditionally, recognition of candidates for reincarnation has been an internal matter for each school. Other schools have no right to interfere. However, nowadays, the Dalai Lama is gradually gaining the final say in the recognition of reincarnate living Buddhas in the other schools. From this point of view, the fourteenth Dalai Lama has consolidated more power than any previous Dalai Lama.
|
張貼者：2010/9/24 上午2:06Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/9/24 下午4:47
]
In 1978, the Dalai Lama gave two reasons for prohibiting the worship of the protector deity Dorje Shugden: "Worshipping this evil deity is a danger for my life and for the freedom of Tibet......" However, were these two reasons the real motivations for his actions?
Just like all previous Dalai Lamas, the fourteenth Dalai Lama grew up presenting offerings to the protector deity Dorje Shugden. Subsequently, after becoming an adult, the Dalai Lama’s relationship with his initiate master, Trichang Rinpoche, began to deteriorate, eventually resulting in intense conflict between the two. The Dalai Lama had a political rivalry with the 16th Karmapa, but Trichang Rinpoche had established a closed relationship with him. Another longstanding political rival of the Dalai Lama, the traditional aristocracy, also had a harmonious relationship with Trichang Rinpoche. These events led to a deep sense of dissatisfaction toward his master on the part of the Dalai Lama. However, another irreconcilable disagreement led the Dalai Lama to turn his back on his former master: Trichang Rinpoche was the head re-incarnated lama of the Gadan oral linage of the Gelug pa school of the Tibetan Buddhism. Moreover, his religious achievements, status and moral standing could not be replaced by the Dalai Lama. At the time, the Dalai Lama had yet to solidify his status. Therefore, in order to enhance his position as the supreme head of the Geluk lineage, he began to come up with excuses to harm his own master through attacking the protector deity Dorje Shugden (Trichang Rinpoche was the most important supporter of Dorje Shugden).
In 1978, the Dalai Lama’s attempts to prohibit religious activity were unsuccessful. The main reason for the lack of success was that in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, it is important to act in complete obeisance of one’s master. Thus, the high lamas and the living Buddhas from the three main monasteries were opposed to the Dalai Lama’s betrayal of his master.
The policy promoted eighteen years later by the Dalai Lama, in 1996, was an official, large-scale attack on Dorje Shugden. This time, it was necessary to completely eradicate the protector deity Dorje Shugden and all of his influence. The main reason the Dalai Lama had the power to accomplish this was that he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. This greatly enhanced the Dalai Lama’s status within both Tibetan society and the international community. Secondly, the high lamas and living Buddhas, Trichang Rinpoche, who disagreed with him, passed away. Thus, the Dalai Lama had nothing to fear or worry. Furthermore, the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism viewed this matter as an internal dispute within the Geluk School and chose not to intervene (to be continued).
|
張貼者：2010/9/13 上午9:52Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/9/13 下午7:59
]
A strange phenomenon has cropped up in the past few years. That is, whenever the Dalai Lama visits large cities in the West, a group of Tibetan Buddhists follows him like a shadow, carrying out peaceful protests. The protestors have the following slogans: “Dalai Lama, stop religious persecution,” “Dalai Lama is a liar,” “Give us back freedom of religion.” Even stranger, all of these protestors are Geluk monks. In other words, they are part of the same school of Tibetan Buddhism as the Dalai Lama himself. Peaceful protests like these have occurred in New York, Philadelphia, London and other important cities around the world.
Since receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, the Dalai Lama has attained widespread popularity throughout the world. Thus, outside observers are compelled to wonder, as a religious leader who espouses tolerance, compassion and nonviolence, why has the Dalai Lama been the subject of such intense, long-term protests by members of the same school of Tibetan Buddhism? Are the protestors merely extremists, or does the Dalai Lama really have another side which people do not know about? What is really going on?
This worldwide group of protestors is made of Tibetan lamas, Western lamas and Tibetan laypeople. These protestors share a common point; they are all followers of the Geluk protector deity, Dorje Shugden. On two occasions, in 1978 and 1996, the Dalai Lama has strictly forbidden the worship of Dorje Shugden by Tibetan monks and laypeople. After prohibiting Shugden worship in 1978, due to the intense resistance offered by members of the Geluk School and followers of Shugden, only the Dalai Lama and the government in exile stopped presenting offerings to the Shugden deity, while the monasteries, monks and laypeople were still free to decide for themselves. However, the wave of religious prohibition carried out in 1996 took place swiftly and decisively. The Dalai Lama publicly proclaimed that he advocated expelling all monks supporting Shugden from monasteries and removing all Tibetan Shugden supporters from refugee settlements.
This wave of religious prohibition has divided the Tibetan people. For example, Sera Monastery publicly announced its division into two separate groups. The two sides are separated by an insurmountable wall and all interaction between the two has been completely cut off. Villages supporting Shugden have discovered poison in their wells. Stones have repeatedly been thrown through residents’ windows and lives have been severely threatened. What kind of deep hatred has led the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, to create such a deep rift between Tibetans? Why has he resorted to such extreme measures to forbid Shudgen worship?
Looking at the issue from an historical perspective, Trulku Darpa Gyalthan (1619-1657), the forth Panchen Lama and the fifth Dalai Lama were contemporaneous historical figures. They were the three most important living Buddhas at the time. However, after the fifth Dalai Lama gained political authority in 1642, to further solidify his own power, he followed the plan laid out by Regent Sodnam Choepel, and had Trulku Darpa Gyalthan strangled.
After the death of Trulku Darpa Gyalthan, an ill omen emerged in Lhasa. The fifth Dalai Lama had repeated nightmares and suffered from insomnia. Numerous large-scale Buddhists ceremonies were unable to alleviate the problem. Finally, the fifth Dalai Lama admitted that he was wrong. He also promised to make Darpa Gyalthan the Geluk School’s most important protector deity. This is the origin of Dorje Shugden. Moreover, before the fourteenth Dalai Lama announced the prohibition of Shugden worship in 1978, previous incarnations of the Dalai Lama were in the practice of presenting offerings to the Shugden deity (to be continued next week).
|
張貼者：2010/6/6 下午7:15Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/6/6 下午11:22
]
In the year 2000, the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorj, secretly traveled from Tibet to India without the knowledge of the Chinese government. This incident caused an international stir and was a major embarrassment for the Chinese. Interestingly, all statements by the Karmapa indicate that the only reason he came to India was to retrieve the Black Crown and other objects which symbolize the authentic lineage of the Karmapa. What is more, to date, the Chinese government has yet to make any disparaging comments about his departure. In other words, both sides have left themselves a considerable amount of leeway.
Initially, the Karmapa’s arrival in India received a great deal of attention in India and in the West. In particular, his departure from Tibet was interpreted by supporters of the Tibetan independence cause as an act of protest to the Chinese government’s destruction of religion in Tibet. Curiously though, upon arrival in India, the Karmapa did not reside in a Karma Kagyu monastery, but rather stayed in a Geluk monastery directly across from the residence of the Dalai Lama where he had to pay rent for a number of years. Gradually, the nature of his ceremonial encounters has changed and restrictions have been placed upon his movement. He originally planned to travel to Europe to teach Buddhism from the end of May until the beginning of July this year. However, for unknown reasons, his visa was not approved by the Indian government. Moreover, the Indian government has yet to approve the current Karmapa’s wishes to visit the Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim, which was rebuilt by the 16th Karmapa. Tibetan Buddhists know that the 17th Karmapa has a wide international followers and significant influence worldwide. His followers have raised enough funds to purchase roughly one hundred acres of land and construct a monastery for his use. However, these plans have been vetoed by the government in exile. One has to wonder, who exactly is trying to hold the Karmapa back and what is the motivation behind these actions?
In the past ten years, during his residence in India, the Karmapa’s status has gradually declined. Recently, the government in exile has decided to decrease his official salary and security force by fifty percent. These kinds of minor actions are displeasing to the young Karmapa. Another matter that has perplexed the Karmapa has to do with the Commission of Religious Affairs. The commission is made of up representatives of the four major sects of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon-po. Under normal circumstances, each school is represented by its Gyalwa Rinpoche or recognized Tulku. However, in addition to the Karmapa, the commission also includes representatives from the Drikung and Drukpa branches of the Kagyu Sect. This is a major insult to the status of the Karmapa. In other words, could it be that the government in exile is trying to diminish the influence of the Karmapa by increasing the number of Kagyu representatives? No wonder the Karmapa recently announced his official withdrawal from the commission.
The expression ‘when drinking ice water on a winter’s day, you feel the coldness in each drop’ aptly describes the Karmapa’s feelings as of late. This means that throughout the past ten years of interactions, the Karmapa has experienced a shift from warm to cold that has been all too intense.
|
張貼者：2010/5/17 上午10:01Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/5/18 上午7:56
]
Last year (2009), under the direction of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government in exile established a new department, the “Commission of Religious Affairs.” According its 5th Article, this commission is the, “highest administrative department responsible to guide and regulate religious affairs related to the four major sects of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön.”
For the past one thousand three hundred years, all of the different sects of Tibetan Buddhism have been completely autonomous. They have enjoyed total freedom. This was also the case during the Sakyapa and Phagmodrupa periods. Even under the Gandan Podrang government, the early incarnations of the Dalai Lama did not try to change this tradition. This is because they knew that each sect of Tibetan Buddhism has gone through a unique process of development. Thus, the establishment of a centralized authority has been avoided out of respect for each sect and for the history of Tibet.
It is widely accepted that the freedom of religion is a basic human right. It is also vitally important that leaders acknowledge this right. The constitutions of all nations expressly guarantee religious freedom. In other words, advanced nations and societies cannot regulate or restrict their citizens by making laws related to religion, let alone establish departments specifically responsible for managing religious activity.
Based on the instructions of the Dalai Lama, the establishment of the Commission of Religious Affairs was based on eleven terms. For example, according to the first term, the commission is responsible “to establish laws, regulations and rules to ensure the sustainable development of the unique heritages of the four sects of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön.” However, if Tibetan Buddhism had been managed by a central authority for the past one thousand and three hundred years, would the Tibetan Buddhism we see today be so splendid and diverse? What about the amazing accomplishments made by the various sects of Tibetan Buddhism throughout the years?
These eleven terms are all intended to usurp the freedom and autonomy of the various sects. This even includes interference in religious practices and the identification of incarnate Living Buddhas. All of this runs counter to the prevailing ideas of our time. If the Dalai Lama were to create regulations and restrictions for his own sect--the Gelugpa, we would not offer any opinion； The Dalai Lama criticizes Beijing harshly for the destruction of religious freedom in Tibet. This being the case, what does the Dalai Lama have to say about his own set of practices to interfere other sects' internal religious affairs?
|
張貼者：2010/4/16 下午10:52Green Tibet
[
已更新 2010/4/17 上午6:16
]
On April 2nd, the Dalai Lama sent "ministers" Tempa Tsering and Jetsun Pema on a visit to Japan. At a reception ceremony, the two ministers both expressed that from a historical and legal perspective, Tibet has always been an independent counntry. We believe that the above statement is the key to the problem. For years now, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly emphasized in public addresses that he is only demanding a high level of autonomy for Tibet, not Tibetan independence. However, none of his representatives in the USA, Canada, Japan, English, etc., has ever passed up an opportunity to proclaim that Tibet is an independent country subject to the illegal occupation of China.
A recent statement by Dawa Tsering, a representative the Tibetan Religious Foundation in Taiwan, is a typical example. A few years ago, Tsering was a police of the Bureau of Public Security in Qinghai Province. At the time, he was convicted of theft (source of information: records from a public hearing of the Legislative Yuan of the ROC, 2009.12.07.) and subsequently fled to India to seek aid from the Dalai Lama. Tsering was later molded into a hero bravely resisting the persecution of the PRC. Just after the 314 incident in Lhasa 2008, Tsering was sent to Taiwan to act as the official representative of the Dalai Lama in Taiwan. At a public hearing of the Legislative Yuan of the ROC held on December 7th, 2009, Tsering stated that the Tibetan government does not recognize the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission. He pointed out that doing so would be tantamount to admitting that Tibet is a part of China… and we are exiled Tibetans, we have lost our country.
Dawa Tsering’s view is not unique. In other words, other than the Dalai Lama himself, all of his officials share the same attitudes and opinions as Tsering. From the viewpoint of Beijing, the only reasonable explanation for the contrasting stances of the Dalai Lama and his representatives is that the Dalai Lama is executing a kind of two handed strategy. For his part, the Dalai Lama continually reiterates his demand for a high level of autonomy. However, he allows his own officials to brazenly promote Tibetan independence to the international community.
We hope that the Dalai Lama and Beijing can engage in constructive dialogue. For this to happen, the first thing the Dalai Lama has to do is to restrain the public statements made by his own officials. Their positions should be consistent with those of the Dalai Lama. This is the first step toward establishing mutual trust.
|
|
