The Dalai Lama and the American Empire

Dalai Lama shows off Congressional Medal
Today, I came across Grant Lawrence’s blog and discovered that he has been occasionally writing about the Dalai Lama’s hypocrisy for several years. Grant Lawrence works as a school counselor and mental health counselor in Gallup New Mexico. I’ve posted a couple excerpts from his articles below.

The Dalai Lama: A good showman but an empty robe

Audience member: “Can you give us an example of a leader we should look up to as a positive influence?”

Dalai Lama (after thinking for a few seconds): “President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader.”

The Dalai Lama has been shown to be something of a showman and a likely CIA stooge. He has previously gone on record supporting “just” wars like the one in Iraq and the War on Terror.

Unfortunately the Dalai Lama has put his own cause above the cause of humanity. The Dalai gets a great deal of US support (likely financial) for his continued discrediting of the Chinese government on the issues of Tibet. In 2007, Bush presented the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Medal of Freedom for his support of US policies around the world.

The people of Tibet and their treatment are an important issue. However, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of those countries suffering under the policies of Global Empire (globalisation) are no less important. …

The Dalai Lama Hype: Why?

The Dalai professes compassion and care for all beings but doesn’t care for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. He promotes the idea of just wars and that the US occupations of those countries are good and decent. He also has a special fondness for the war criminal Bush.

The Dalai Lama’s connections to the CIA should be known. He was saved and paid by the CIA after leaving Tibet.

The Dalai Lama has morphed into a type of New Age Televangelist for American Empire.

He’s all show. But when it comes to delivering the goods of real compassion and moral courage he’s too busy putting on that show. I believe it is no accident that the Dalai finds such adulation here in the West and he has a history of support from the CIA. …

Advertisements

10 responses to “The Dalai Lama and the American Empire

  • Johnson

    Wherever the Monster Monk goes, he is aiming to meet the famous and powerful, and suck the most money possible from those who worship his name.
    He has nothing to offer to his followers or those worship his name except creating hatred in their mind.

  • Andrew

    Yes, Grant Lawrence was able to express something that has long bothered me. He goes on in his blog to compare the Dalai Lama’s actions with Nelson Mandela and Gandhi. Mandela and Gandhi happily put there lives on the line for their respective causes and achieved the impossible. Further, they always support(ed) the freedom movements of other oppressed peoples.

    The DL could claim to be naive when he was fresh out of Tibet, but praising George W Bush and Chairman Mao says it all really.

  • Thomas Canada

    I also learned of the plight of Tibetans in India that worship the Deity Dorje Shugden. It appears the Dalai Lama has called them Demon worshipers and has banned them from their worship and takes responsibility for their harsh treatment and the suppression of their human rights (see video below).

    ……The Dalai Lama praises the monasteries that have expelled thousands of Shugden practitioners and accepts full responsibility for the expulsions, whilst ordinary Tibetans explain the repercussions the Dalai Lama’s heartless ban has had on their lives. The video concludes with an interview with an MP from the Tibetan Government in Exile which leaves the viewer in no doubt that the responsibility for the persecution of Shugden practitioners lies entirely in the hands of the Dalai Lama….

    ….Vigilante mobs of fanatical followers of the Dalai Lama, acting in the spirit of his public pronouncements, stormed into temples and private homes, seizing and destroying pictures and statues of Dorje Shugden – even taking them from shrines. Mobs attacked Dorje Shugden practitioners and their homes with stones and petrol bombs, destroying their possessions and threatening their lives.
    People lost their jobs, children were expelled from schools, and monks were expelled from monasteries; foreign travel permits and visas were denied; refugee aid, monastic stipends and allowances were cut off; and forced signature campaigns were undertaken. In these and many other ways that made Tibetans outcasts from their own already exiled community, the Dalai Lama, in the guise of his government, ministers and associated organisations, introduced a reign of terror against tens of thousands of his own people, making restrictions similar to those imposed on the Jewish people in Germany in the early years of Hitler’s rule……Source: Western Shugden Society

    There has to be some accountability even among the religious (especially among the religious) and those made into Saints and Gods by the Corporate/Government/Media Complex. These people being persecuted are only guilty of worshiping in a different way then prescribed by the Dalai Lama. His ‘Holiness’ should take a look at The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Thomas Canada

    Remember Golem?
    He too suffered ammensia that he killed his friend.
    Be patient!
    It will all come back to him once he recants.
    Come on Dalia, spit it out.

  • Thomas Canada

    Andrew,
    Baby Buddhas are not naive!

  • Thomas Canada

    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!
    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!
    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!
    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!
    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!
    Dalia Lama is the Usurper and killed a Wisdom Buddha!

  • Thomas Canada

    The Yellow Book controversy?
    Sources:

    SA: Dreyfus, Georges (1998). The Shuk-den Affair: History and Nature of a Quarrel. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (JIABS), 21. 2, 227-270.
    TR: Tibetan Review, August, 1976.
    Much of the Shukden Affair uses cause and effect constructions to show the development of issues and responses. In particular, to describe the Dalai Lama’s initial actions against Shugden practice in the late seventies Dreyfus stresses a direct cause and effect relation between the effect (the Dalai Lama’s ban) and publication of Dzemey Rinpoche’s Yellow Book as the cause. In other words, the Dalai Lama’s ban was a reaction to the publication of the Yellow Book, and the Yellow Book therefore is the primary cause of all controversy since that time. However, when incidents in this time frame, in particular the mid seventies, are examined it shows this development is not likely a simple cause and effect relation. Rather, this retelling of events appears as a disingenuous attempt to use the Yellow Book as a lid to conceal a crock pot of other issues cooking in the 1970’s and mute other causes that led to the Dalai Lama’s initial ban.

    The anachronistic spark

    “Can’t start a fire without a spark” so goes the popular saying and the fire is quite well known without needing to say much about at this point. It is high time for reassessing what sparked and when within a rational context. This account will leave examination the actual Yellow Book’s contents for a different discussion and will primarily focus on its publication.

    It is popularly assumed that publication of Dze-may Rinpoche’s Yellow Book sparked the Dorje Shugden controversy in the 1970’s. In the Shuk-den Affair Dreyfus outlines a chronology on how that ultimately unfolded with restrictions against the practice by the Dalai Lama. First, according to Dreyfus in the early 70’s the Gelug tradition was united and “nobody would have dreamed of the crisis that was about to come.” He then claims it was 1975 when the situation began to deteriorate when the Yellow Book was published (SA, 255) and the crisis “started from this book and the Dalai Lama’s reaction to it.” Dreyfus describes the first public manifestation of this “crisis” on Tibetan New Year 1976, which will be examined next. But first notice the logic: it is a direct cause and effect scenario of a controversial book being published and a subsequent public disavowal or disapproval. It some ways it seems similar to the public reaction witnessed with publication of Satanic Verses in the late 1980’s, although the specifics are quite different. Given that this phenomenon was witnessed by many world-wide it seems like a plausible scenario.

    However, upon reconsideration the first problem with this retelling of events is a simple factual error: the Yellow Book was published in 1973, not 1975 (its LCN is BQ4890 R37 D98 1973). According to the colophon it was written even earlier: 1970. In the time frame between the Yellow Book’s publication in 1973 until 1976 there are no known statements to determine the Dalai Lama’s reaction or immediate disavowal. Although it seems like pointing out this mistake may be a minor technicality it is important because it is unlikely that the Dalai Lama would have reacted suddenly or sharply after sitting idle on this matter for two or three years. Moreover per Dreyfus himself the Yellow Book “was intended to complement Tri-jang’s commentary on Pa-bongka’s praise to Shuk-den.” Trijang Rinpoche’s commentary was first published in 1967 and also contains at least one story that is found in the Yellow Book, therefore its material wasn’t completely unknown to those who were most likely to read it. In other words, the Yellow Book and its material were not as ground breaking and shocking as some insinuate.

    Dreyfus also claims that Yellow Book first circulated when the Dalai Lama reinstated the Fifth Dalai Lama’s ritual system in October 1975, which he considers perhaps an attempt by high Gelug lamas to protest this move due to its coincidental timing (SA, 263). However, this argument is undermined as well when considering it was published first in 1973. What Dreyfus doesn’t mention is a refutation of the Yellow Book written by Dongthog Rinpoche (an unintended audience) in 1974 which got some attention. However, other than that there is no early indication of a reaction by the Dalai Lama in the advent of the publication of the Yellow Book, nor do the strange events during the Tibetan New Year of 1976 bear any relation to a reaction to the publication of this book.

    The 1976 New Year Affair

    According to Dreyfus the Dalai Lama reacted strongly to this book and the first public manifestation of his disapproval was his refusal of annual long life offerings made by the Tibetan government on Tibetan New Year in 1976 (SA, 257). Regarding this affair Dreyfus states “I do not believe that these events have been well documented even by Tibetans.” He goes on to explain how this is linked to Dorje Shugden and the Yellow Book using his own subjective recollection of that time. However, there are many of documents explaining the incidents and sentiment of that time, for instance the August 1976 edition of The Tibetan Review contains four pages of various newspapers articles that covered this story. And from these reports the actual nature of this affair can be read in moderate detail, which has no mention of Dorje Shugden whatsoever. Rather, reading these articles exposes many tangible political forces within the exiled Tibetan community at the time, with any “ethereal” influence limited to statements of the state oracle only.

    According to the article The Prophecy and the Speculations published by the Hindustan Times dated May 7, 1976 many Tibetans in Tibetan settlements in India were praying feverishly because of growing sentiment that the Dalai Lama may not be with them long, a sentiment backed by palpable indications. It goes on to explain one of the indications was the Dalai Lama himself doubting his own usefulness to the Tibetan community (TR, 18). This is corroborated by the Times of India article Prayers for His Health which states that “there is ferment over the Dalai Lama’s BBC-TV interview last November [1975] when he said that most probably he might be the last Dalai Lama and that institution intended to benefit Tibetan people might no longer be able to do so.” (TR, 19).

    It is unclear whether the Dalai Lama himself said that he may not live much longer. In any case, in 1976 statements by the state oracle made this sentiment much more ominous, from The Prophecy and the Speculations article:

    This by itself is enough to cause a stir, but what has confounded the Tibetans is the State oracle who too has thrown the he-may-not-be-with-you-long hint. The oracle was first consulted by the monks of Drepung Monastery in Mysore in the first week of March. Later in the last week of the same month, delegates from India and abroad, who had assembled here to attend the annual religious conference, consulted the oracle. The oracle, a monk, went into a trance and again came out with the same answer. (TR, 18)

    This article goes on to explain the importance of the state oracle, given that it found the present Dalai Lama incarnation. In retrospect of the events in 1976, this article further reports:

    In Dharamsala, following the last March prophecy by the State oracle, the lamas held a ritual, called the Tenzhugs ceremony. Traditionally, the ceremony is to request the Dalai Lama to stay on for a long time. But the Dalai Lama refused to accept the customary gifts-a statue of Buddha, a book and a stupa image-from the lamas. Even persuasion by the two teachers of the Dalai Lama was of no use. The acceptance of the gifts is taken to be concurrence to “stay on”. (TR, 18)

    In addition this article reports that the Dalai Lama’s annual address on March 10 of 1976 to commemorate the 1959 Lhasa revolt was significant:

    In a hardhitting speech, the Dalai Lama castigated the Tibetans in India for indulging in “squabbles and factionalism” and accused them of emulating the “luxury life-style of other rich people.” (TR, 18)

    The article states that seventeen days later the Dalai Lama went into retreat, confined himself to a room and received no visitors. This same basic story is retold in articles by Gemini, Times of India and Sunday. But what exactly is meant by the Dalai Lama’s reference to “squabbles and factionalism”, could he possibly be referring to controversy regarding the publication of the Yellow Book?

    The article The Last Dalai Lama published by Sunday has more in-depth analysis of that speech by the Dalai Lama which says “he spoke of many things, but the thread which held it all together was made of frustration.” It states that 17 years had passed since he left Tibet, and the Tibetan cause had lost a lot support around the world since then. It says on March 10, 1963 he proclaimed the first constitution for Tibet, which would go into effect if and when the exiled government would regain control of Tibet. However, the article states that constitution did go into effect for the exiled Tibetan government itself in 1963 and it is precisely this which was the source of “squabbles and factionalism”:

    Since 1963, the office-bearers in his “Government” at Dharamsala have been elected. The elections, it is reported, are keenly contested and have given birth to squabbles and factionalism within the community. This has further embittered the Dalai Lama. (TR, 20)

    In the wake of all these events the The Prophecy and the Speculations article reported it left the Tibetan people speculating “what exactly the statement of the oracle that the ‘Dalai Lama may not be with you for long’ means” (TR, 18). Dreyfus recollects the reaction among Tibetans in Switzerland and suggests some were not emotionally moved perhaps due to their loyalty to Trijang Rinpoche over the Dalai Lama (SA, 258). However, it is clear that the events of this time are not linked to Dorje Shugden or the Yellow Book at all. Nor by this time has the Dalai Lama been linked to any public statements regarding the matter. Rather Dreyfus’s subjective recollection is not only merely conjecture, it has just been proven wrong. In addition, this also shows there were other palpable factors contributing to political problems in exile for the Dalai Lama in the mid-70’s: the statements state oracle, factionalism due to elections for the constitution and statements by the Dalai Lama himself openly questioning his role.

    The Birth of Opposition

    All of this may leave one begging when and how exactly did lead the Dalai Lama to start opposing Shugden practice. This article will not definitively answer this question, many of the clues needed to answer this question have never been exposed or published, they are as inaccessible as the Dalai Lama’s mind itself. However it is important to examine some of the parameters of the possibilities, because other accounts of when and how this may have happened, such as the Shukden Affair, are not reliable.

    The Shukden Affair states another cause for strong reaction against the Yellow Book was incompatibility between the ritual system of the Dalai Lama and Shugden. Dreyfus notes two aspects of this ritual system started by the Fifth Dalai Lama: rituals in conjunction with Guru Rinpoche and the state protector Nechung. Dreyfus states a return to this earlier ritual system was reinstituted by the Dalai Lama in October 1975 with an offering ceremony to Guru Rinpoche, which was intended to “restore synergy that existed between this figure and the Tibetan people.” (SA, 262). However, in November 1975 the Dalai Lama in an interview with the BBC stated that he doubted that the institution of the Dalai Lama was doing any good to the Tibetan people (TR, 20). This leads one to doubt the allegation of a revival of the Dalai Lama’s institution and state rituals at this time.

    Moreover, according to the Fourteenth Dalai Lama the Fifth Dalai Lama’s ritual system had the purpose for the “nation able to take part in the history of the region” (SA, 262), as it was rooted particularly in the historical temples in Southern Tibet itself including Khra-’brug and bSam-yas. However, these temples were not recreated in exile and they would by definition lose their significance outside of Tibet. Dreyfus claims after the Fifth Dalai Lama the eclectic ritual system supported by these temples was abandoned and replaced by a purely Gelug one (SA, 261). This requires a much more thorough historical analysis to determine, but in any case there is no indication of a redefinition in the significance of these original establishments. The Dalai Lamas succeeding the Fifth did not break their link with these temples, they also sought to restore them, and the Tibetan government consulted the local Tshang-pa oracle. In other words there was always a certain tolerance for the Dalai Lama’s orientation with accommodating these pre-Gelug institutions. This is even more apparent in the case of the state oracle Nechung.

    Nechung remained the state oracle since Fifth Dalai Lama until the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. Dreyfus notes that the Fourteenth Dalai Lama abandoned his own Shugden practice in the mid-70’s because he couldn’t keep propitiating Shugden and relying on the state oracle Nechung simultaneously (SA, 262). This decision however doesn’t hold up to reasoning. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama relied on both Shugden and Nechung up until this time without any well documented issues, how would publication of the Yellow Book change the nature of Shugden himself to be incompatible with Nechung? If one accepts the Yellow Book’s message as definitive, it states the nature of Shugden had been opposed to Gelug lamas doing Nyingma practice for nearly a century, how would merely penning these accounts in a book change Shugden’s nature or behavior to be suddenly incompatible with Nechung? Alternatively if one rationalizes the Yellow Book’s message as mere ideology then the message of the Yellow Book would not be definitively describing the nature of the Shugden as a Gelug protector, hence any perceived conflict between Nechung and Shugden would be merely a product of the human ideas.

    Yet, putting reasoning aside, according to Dreyfus the Dalai Lama’s earliest speeches on his advice for opposing Shugden refers to statements he attributes to Nechung. Dreyfus references a collection of speeches between 1978 to 1996 published as gong sa skyabs mgon chen po mchog nas chos skyong bsten phyogs skor btsal ba’i bka’ slob (SA, 261), in short “advice” by the Dalai Lama given on regarding Shugden. Notice the starting year of this collection: 1978. It has been established the events in 1976 were not related Shugden, nor do we find publications indicating statements by the Dalai Lama on this matter before 1978. Therefore there is a five year gap between publication of the Yellow Book and the Dalai Lama’s first known statements against Shugden practice.

    In the reference by Dreyfus to this, the Dalai Lama claims he initially tried to prevent Nechung from expressing resentment against the success of Shugden through the oracle, but publication of the Yellow Book made his restraint not possible (SA, 263). Yet this should be subjected to chronological analysis, did Nechung actually say this before 1973? If one accepts this literally, it would need to be the case. But this is not surprising when considering a statement from Trijang Rinpoche’s 1967 Music Delighting the Ocean Protectors that says many Tibetans were claiming there was resentment between Nechung and Dorje Shugden, therefore it is not suitable for the Tibetan government and its workers to rely on Dorje Shugden. The major question this spawns is whether this was due to actual statements made by the Nechung oracle itself or if words were being put into the mouth of the oracle by certain people (including perhaps even the Dalai Lama) or factions for a political purpose. This is indeed difficult to ascertain and will need to be examined upon finding reliable historical documents.

    In short there is no indication that the Yellow Book sought to redefine the Dalai Lama institution itself, stripping it of the state oracle and its pre-existing allegiances to Padmasambhava. Nor can Padmasambhava or temples such as bSam-yas in this context be claimed to be exclusive to the modern Nyingma sect. This figure and these places are common to the Tibetan heritage so there is no reason to conclude that all rituals to Padmasambhava would have been met with immediate resistance by puritanical Gelug figures. Therefore there is little or no evidence of such an ideological conflict necessitating the Dalai Lama’s ban of Shugden. Rather in the initial speeches against Shugden in 1978 the Dalai Lama used statements and behavior he attributed to Nechung to justify it. However, it still needs to be determined if the Nechung oracle really said this or was being misquoted to advance some interest.

    Conclusion

    This account is by no means definitive to describe what happened in relation to the Dalai Lama institution and Dorje Shugden in the 1970’s, rather it is an attempt to consider known evidence on equal ground. It is understandable that the Yellow Book may be offensive or far fetched for many people, however that does not mean all problems can be blamed on it. This account does certainly show the Shuk-den Affair is way off the mark describing the lead up on the ban of Dorje Shugden in the 1970’s. A major problem with the Shuk-den Affair is it attempts to define all events and ideas in terms of Dalai Lama/Shugden when there is clearly much room for considering other factors and political currents.

  • Thomas Canada

    Tibet and the Paper Tigers
    Monday, 20 April 2009 13:56 Y.C. Dhardhowa, editor for The Tibet Post
    The World Doesn’t Care About Peace

    The spiraling violence in Tibet in the last four decades presents a serious threat to world peace. Religious and peace leaders, particularly the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, legendary African archbishop Tu Tu, 1979 Nobel peace prize winner Williams of Northern Ireland, Arab king Abdullah, have genuinely worked for peace.

    They have repeatedly called for urgent resolution of festering conflicts of the world, especially the issues of Tibet, the Middle East, and the current situation in Iraq etc. Yet, the world doesn’t care for peace and nonviolence. There is no thought beyond war, business and daily life. How can Tibet trust a world that continues to ignore its repeated pleas for peace?

    Why are Arab-World issues and Tibetan issues treated differently?

    The proceedings at the 61st general assembly of the UN only show member nations in an unending scramble for power – power to occupy, power for war, power for weapons. Of course, there are talks about religion, nonviolence, good will, environment protection, global warming, etc. So-called peace makers see the same problems in Tibet, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. But there is no voice rising for the humble and occupied Tibetans. All attention gets focused on Iraq, Afghanistan and Middle East, only for material gains like oil or increasing terror or political power. Why is there no resolution for the Tibetans?

    Peace is but a meaningless word, in a world competing for weapons, economic power and political advantages. The world saw the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, can we count the number of people killed? The war on terror is raging; can we count the people that have become terrorists? In 1959 China occupied Tibet, killing 1.5 million out of 6 millions Tibetans. The Tibetan government-in-exile has estimated at least one million Tibetans have died under Chinese rule and around 80,000 refugees have fled the country. The death toll is comparable to the amount of Jewish deaths from Nazi atrocities. It is a common belief that involving paper heroes such as UN, USA, EU, ARAB world and SAARC will be helpful. But, unfortunately, a Paper Tiger never bites, and will never bite.

    For the Tibetans, the dilemma is a clear exclusion from political stake holding, which radicalizes and legitimizes violence of red Chinese. This political pandering is why there is no effort to solve the Tibetan crisis. Isn’t that how Iraq, Afghanistan and Middle East are different? We must take the first difficult steps on that road to equality; an equality that has so far evaded the snow people since the 1950s. The Chinese are still hunting down Tibetans like rats in the snow. In my opinion, Tibetans can’t trust a world that doesn’t care about Tibet. Tibetans are losing hope that their issues will be resolved.

    A huge banner, with the symbol of a way or road painted on it, hangs above the main hall of the assembly to constantly remind the more than 450 to 550 senior religious and political world leaders attending many conferences, to find ways to fulfill the stated aims of confronting violence and advancing shared security of peace in this world. Tibetans are escaping from their home, without a single weapon, getting killed by heavy arms of Chinese military in Tibet and its neighboring borders. Big eats small, even in animals, the bigger ones become friends and the UN is one of them. Unfortunately, the smaller become victims, much like the Tibetans.

    The UN and EU don’t have any old or new proposals for Tibet and its people’s sufferings. The Chinese occupation since 1959 sent thousands of Tibetan refugees into India, Nepal and abroad. These political bodies, however, never considered any welfare, security, aid and support for Tibetans inside and outside Tibet. Neither was there any effort to call for an active participation of all Asian states. Hardly are there any press conferences addressing Tibet issues, but many leaders have commented that attempts at peace were not successful at creating peace between Tibet and the China for the reasons that Chinese secular efforts were not enough to solve the problems between people of different faiths.

    Mediations may be necessary in the Utsang province (Western Tibet), Kham province in Eastern Tibet, and the Amdho province (Eastern Tibet) from western countries. Thousands of Tibetans from occupied Tibet have cried out to the world to help the Holy Land regain freedom and peace for all. There has been too much bloodshed over the Snow land, particularly the recent murder of 7 Tibetans between the Tibet and Nepal border. China has no claims to victory after killing innocent Tibetan women (Nuns) and children.

    No official international committee ever invited the spiritual leader of Tibet, The Dalai Lama to a platform of the International Inter-religious and Political Affairs for Tibet. The reason is clear, he is known to the world as a peacemaker. Many current anti-peace men have dwelt on the causes of violence in the name of religion. When our identities are threatened we seek to defend them. An ancient scholar once explained the reality of the future, “All scholars are thieves; I am the leader of the thieves.”

    One of my friends, Mr. Dhardho Karma said because religion is so profoundly related to identity, when people are hurt they fall on their religious traditions to give them a sense of purpose and seek self-justification in a way that disregards and stigmatizes the other. This way, he continued, politicians come to the conclusion that for peace building to happen it must be kept away from religion. He said, he would have urged the assembly to acknowledge that terrible things have been done in the name of religion and would refer to the Holy Land as an area where conflict resolution has failed because red politicians did not work together with religious leaders. I know that he is trying to remind me how many holy places were destroyed by the Chinese in Tibet since 1950s.

    What happened to the promise of chairman Dang?

    Yes, Karma played an instrumental role in bringing together the two political monotheistic faiths for the first Tibet inter-faith group meeting in Dhartsedho (A place in Tibet which shares a border with China) in 1985, a place that never knew a UN human rights declaration, it was drawn up condemning violence in the name of freedom. At the same time Chinese chairman Dang declared that everything was possible except Tibet freedom.
    Many Tibetans said they hoped the United Nations 1980s theme of Dialogue among Cultures, occupation, human rights and Civilizations (which I expected) would yet pave the way for talks to resolve the China and Tibet crisis.

    Bapa Phuntsok (First Tibetan communist) used to say that although he respected the roots of Han-Chinese civilization, he hoped its great capacity and resources could be utilized to establish peace and stability for mankind even in Tibet. But this capacity was being squandered by Chinese politicians who are neither serving the interests of Chinese citizens nor the people of the whole 95 minorities of China. Chinese made Tibetans a minority in China, but we are not a minority. We have our own language, history, tradition, culture, custom, currency, national flag and anthem, which symbolizes Tibet as a completed nation.

    If Tibetans act in any direction for their independence, terrorist development had nothing to do with it. As signatory to the UN human rights Treaty, Tibet has the right to develop any action for freedom and struggle for peaceful purposes, but still Tibetans are like a rat without teeth in front of the Chinese. In exile Tibetan communities, some Tibetans used hunger strikes, burn themselves, showing their sufferings, but never an active action has been taken for a free Tibet. One of my friends, Mr. Luzi, a man of Chinese origin from Malaysia, asked me ‘why don’t you Tibetans take any action for Tibet independence and why are Chinese leaders and militaries so happy in Tibet?’ These are very important questions for Tibetans; we never make it difficult for Chinese leaders and their military in Tibet.

    Speaking of the Chinese attack on Tibetans recently, even many western people said, such a brutal attack has to be premeditated. Killing Tibetans is not an act of self-defense. The country is fighting to protect its culture, customs and identity. Tibet’s potential in helping to solve the China and Tibet crisis should be recognized.

    Why are there human skeletons in every corner of the mountains?

    Many world leaders, particularly, an UN torture investigator, Mr. Nowak revealed that his investigations for human rights and human torture records in Tibet reported terrible wrong-doings. Every year, more than 3000 Tibetans escaped from Tibet. From 1960s to 1980s, Chinese border military murdered hundreds of Tibetans in the mountains. Many skeletons of those who tried to escape from across the border lie buried in the mountains, even now.

    The current peace process or middle way approach of the Dalai Lama with the Chinese consisted mainly to build a corridor for peace and prosperity which would enhance the living standards of the people in both Tibet and China through the creation of an agro-economy park and foreign policy museum in the Tibet. The red Chinese never had a heart for others. Since the 1990s, Tibet and its people lost all their political prosperity, their dignity and their ancient history. Still there is no propaganda for Tibetan issues. So I ask, why are Tibet and its people’s issues so cheap?
    Because they revere a man who is so cheap and never cared for 95% of his own people. That’s why you are so cheap and the Nations of the World have told you so, no meeting with your Cheap Grifter hustling for himself.

  • Johnson

    The above was a completely liars—Is this a Buddhist nature?
    “killing 1.5 million out of 6 millions Tibetans”
    When the Red Army entered Lhasa in 1951 under the peaceful liberation treaty, Lhasa poeple were lining up on the street to welcome them and the total population of Tibetans in 1951 was between 1 million to 1.2 million.
    “between Tibet and the China”
    The was no such thing as Tibet and China, Tibet has been within the country now called China since the Mongol time, whoever visited Tibet Museum would see the historical fact or evidence.
    “China and Tibet crisis”
    There were no such thing, except separative crisis for the Lhasa government.
    “In exile Tibetan communities, some Tibetans used hunger strikes, burn themselves, showing their sufferings, but never an active action has been taken for a free Tibet”
    All these were concert showed, these crazy people did these things were brainwashed by monster monk’s education and rumors (monster monk was to blame). What these people did had nothing to do with the real life in Tibet, people in Tibet live 100 times better than them. Tibet was freed from slavery since new China was founded. Few Tibetans inside Tibet had been persuated by religious rumors to see the monster monk, so they could be saved when they passed over(life ended), that was what motivated them, wanted to go to India by illegal means. All they wanted to see was the monster monk and nothing else in this world was important to them. They exited China illegally had nothing to do with how good or how bad the live in Tibet was; They did not care, they only care about seeing the monster monk. What a Great Master by name.

  • Thomas Canada

    How about creating a forum and gather the Masters vs HHDL on stage at Indiana Universtiy Auditorium to Debate the Issues once and for all? Surely we can garner enough people to put this together?
    Put him on the Hot Seat and somehow publish in prime space the Challenge to His Holiness.

    Make him sweat and make it clear, I think we can even get the Chinese to help with this arm twisting debate. One he would love to take just to prove how stupid he is to actually face the facts before the world publically.
    Surely there are those out there that know exactly the phone numbers to dial to achieve this.
    What better time than to bring Our Lineage Masters and Teachers together for one Big Showdown. He wants a fight, so let’s give it to him.
    I’ve called him permissble name in the book, althought privately I have a whole host of other adjectives to throw at him. The same kind he uses in private to describe his feeling towards us.
    Want to tangle, come to Bloomington and shake this Old Lama until he quivers for all the lies he told, his nose must be three feet long by now.
    Hear me Dalia Lama? I am speaking directly to you and I and all of will prove that we speak the truth and not you.
    I have no fear of your incantations from hell. I’ve seen them all before and now I know you and your sly monks for what you are.
    Deceitful self serving Despots and you know the truth, otherwise why would you select such a topic.
    If you want it, come and get it, do you hear me?
    I heard you the other day and I tell you again what I told you then.
    Go to Hell and stay there until you recant for murdering the Wisdom Buddha, Dragpa Gyalsthen.
    You will not harm a hair on any of Lord Shugden’s wards. That means the untold millions across the world.
    So, I repeat. Let us establish a challenge to meet and debate and force him to concede and meet his fate. The truth will be known for those who care to watch and hear you stumble when actually sharing the stage. No more just listening to you, we’ve all had enough and we are truly through with you.
    You have been notigfied, now give a think. We’ll work out the details and you can even bring the Red Chair of Thurman Land. A man lost on himself. Did I call him a coward as well ? If not, I do now.

    Defend the Lineage or Loose It!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: