The following article was written by Ron Cook
The Fourteenth Dalai Lama is regarded by his followers to be:
1) an authentic and pure lineage holder of the teachings of Buddha;
2) a propagator of Buddhism;
3) the political leader and advocate of the Tibetan people, representing their best interests;
4) a manifestation of the Buddha of Compassion Avalokiteshvara (Tib. Chenrazig);
5) a reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama, who in turn was a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama previous to him, and so forth – an unbroken lineage of fourteen successive reincarnations of the same person.
In this presentation the Dalai Lama’s own words reveal that he holds hidden views opposite to those that have brought him accolades few others have received, including a Nobel peace prize. His reputation as an authentic spiritual leader of the Buddhist faith has been carefully and meticulously crafted, but sadly appears to be nothing more than a magician’s illusion. Though a stellar reputation precedes him everywhere he goes, the quotes collected herein savage that reputation. In moments of candour the Dalai Lama brings into disrepute both himself and the institution of the Dalai Lamas. His political views appear to be much more self-serving than altruistic and more expedient than moralistic. It will become clear that the Dalai Lama has a sinister side that is rarely noticed or is deliberately ignored. I have included my own comments following various quotations and interviews that help expose the shocking contradictions and inconsistencies with Buddhist teachings. I believe that even the most ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama will have to agree (if only privately) that his words are very troubling.
1) Is the Dalai Lama an authentic and pure lineage holder of the teachings of Buddha?
Interview with Jennifer Byrne ‘Australian Broadcasting Corporation’ (ABC TV), Broadcast: May 22, 2002:
Byrne: “As you have said, people have tried to paint you as a living God – as a living Buddha – a man God… you say you are very much a human…?”
Dalai Lama: [laughs] “If it is some Tibetan, you see – they say or I think believe, the Tibetan sort of bright future can be achieved through just praying to the Dalai Lama. That is nonsense.”
Byrne: “So they should not pray to the Dalai Lama?”
Dalai Lama: “It is useless. We work hard… we have to work hard, even Dalai himself. Through prayer nothing can be achieved. I’m always telling people prayer of course is good, but through prayer we can’t change the reality. Very different. So change reality through heart, through action!”
Byrne: “Through work?”
Dalai Lama: “Yes. Karma means action. So things change through action not by prayer… not by wish.”
The Dalai Lama reveals that he does not believe in the power of prayer. This belief is completely contrary to Buddhist doctrine as well as all major spiritual traditions. The efficacy of prayer has been confirmed in various scientific studies but even more importantly – anecdotally – by millions and millions of people. The above statement is inconceivable coming from a supposed spiritual leader. The question is, why would he ever say such a thing? Why would he encourage the abolition of prayer?
The Dalai Lama is known around the world as a champion of non-violence. Sadly his words and actions are deeply inconsistent with this reputation. On January 25, 1997 the Chicago Tribune ran a story that revealed the Dalai Lama’s involvement with the CIA.
Among other things the article exposed that Tibetan guerrillas were trained in Colorado and later sent to Tibet to fight the Chinese. From 1956 to 1972 the CIA armed and trainedthe guerrillas. The Dalai Lama’s brothers were deeply involved and acted as contact
agents for the CIA. The CIA arranged parachute drops of arms and established training camps in eastern Tibet prior to the 1959 exodus. The Dalai Lama was also reported to be in radio contact with the CIA during the final escape to India. In addition it has been
learned that the Dalai Lama was on the CIA’s payroll for at least a decade, and was paid $186,000 USD a year. This topic is beyond the scope of this article, however an important conclusion can be drawn. He clearly supported the use of violence against the
Chinese army as evidenced below.
A 1998 BBC television documentary titled ‘The Shadow Circus: The CIA in Tibet’ the Dalai Lama talked about utilizing violence during the Chinese invasion:
“There is a basic Buddhist belief that if the motivation is good and the goal is good, then any method, even apparently of a violent kind, is permissible.”
In the book Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816-1980 by Melvin Small and David Singer, Tibetan resistance fighters (many trained by the CIA) killed some 40,000 Chinese soldiers in the years between 1956 and 1959. Approximately 100,000 Tibetan civilians and fighters were slaughtered according to Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr in their book Ethnic Conflict in World Politics. This carnage was all happening while the Dalai Lama was in power in Tibet.
The astonishing truth is the Dalai Lama is not at all adverse to employing violence in order to accomplish particular goals, despite all that he has said to the contrary.
While being interviewed by Robert Thurman in the Nov / Dec 1997 issue of ‘Mother Jones’ magazine the Dalai Lama said:
“…if the situation was such that there was only one learned lama or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life, then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it might be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated…”
The number 10 has great significance. This statement coincided with a list of names being circulated in the Tibetan exile communities in 1997. The ‘enemies of Tibet’ were a group of Dorje Shugden practitioners who had publicly dared to defy the Dalai Lama’s ban on the propitiation of this deity. The list included the following:
1) Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – founder of the New Kadampa Tradition
2) Lama Serkong Titrul Rinpoche – Abbot of Buddhist Centres in Singapore and Taiwan
3) Lama Gangchen Rinpoche – Spiritual Director of Gangchen Kunpen Ling Buddhist Centres world wide
4) Kundeling Lama Losang Yeshe Rinpoche – Abbot of Atisha monastery in Bangalore India
5) Geshe Chime Tsering – General Secretary of the Dorje Shugden Society in Dehli India
6) Geshe Konchog Gyaltsen – Vice-President of the Dorje Shugden Society in Dehli India
7) Gen Chatring Jampel Yeshe – President of the Dorje Shugden Society in Dehli India
8 ) Tenzin Chodak – a Dorje Shugden practioner living in the UK
9) Tseten Gyurme – a well known supporter of Dorje Shugden practitioners
10) Dr. Losang Thubten – a scholar who is an advisor to the Dorje Shugden Society, Delhi India
Interview with Anne Curry ‘NBC Nightly News,’ broadcast April 11, 2008:
Curry: “Is violence ever justified?”
Dalai Lama: “No.”
Dalai Lama: “No. In theoretically, yes. (sic) You can say in certain– under certain circumstances. Provided your motivation is good. Your goal is larger interest for larger people and a just cause. Theoretically, a violent method can be permissible…”
Unfortunately, the Dalai Lama seems incapable of excluding violence as a solution to the problems of the world.
From the Dalai Lama’s first autobiography (1964) page 190: [referring to Tibetan insurgents engaged in fighting the Chinese]
“Despite my belief, I much admire their courage and their determination to take on the fierce struggle which they began for our freedom, our culture, and religion. I thank them for their strength and their daring, and also personally for the protection which they gave me. … Hence I could not honorably give them the advice to avoid violence. In order to fight they had sacrificed their homes and all the comforts and advantages of a peaceful life. Now they could not see any alternative to continuing to struggle and I had nothing to oppose that with.” [quote subsequently removed from reprints]
Here the Dalai Lama admits that in the political struggle for Tibet he is unable to either practice dharma or give dharma. The action of killing is one of the heaviest negative actions one can engage in. The Dalai Lama’s unwillingness to encourage regret and to repudiate violence is utterly contrary to the function of a spiritual guide. His admiration of these acts of killing is in itself very non-virtuous. How can a Buddhist spiritual master be so bereft of wisdom and compassion – the very things that he is supposed to represent?
From ‘The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’ by Fran Bauer and Tom Heinen, May 14, 1998 the Dalai Lama said in a news conference with Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson [regarding India’s testing of nuclear weapons]:
“There is sometimes the concept, a few nations OK to possess nuclear weapons [and] the rest of the world should not – that’s undemocratic.”
Posted on the official web site of the Tibetan Government in Exile the Dalai Lama said [quote subsequently removed from the site]:
“As long as some of the major world powers continue to possess nuclear weapons, it is not right to outright condemn India’s actions. After all, India is a large country with its own nuclear perceptions.”
The Dalai Lama is widely known to be against nuclear proliferation and for world peace. Here he endorses the right of India to pursue development of weapons of mass destruction. Is he for or against nuclear proliferation? This contradiction is understandable in light of the fact that the Indian government allows the Dalai Lama to operate a government in exile on its soil. It is likely that his endorsement of India’s nuclear program is a political debt being repaid.
From the ‘Seattle Times,’ story by Hal Bernton, May 15, 2001:
Dalai Lama: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.”
This answer was in response to a young schoolgirl’s question on how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate. Is the Dalai Lama’s response an endorsement of firearms in schools, for arming teenagers, or implicit approval of American second amendment? [the right to bear arms] Is he indicating that public safety can be achieved through the barrel of a gun? In light of the horrific mass killings in American schools why would a spiritual master indicate that appropriately aimed gunfire is a suitable remedy? Can he not think of a non-violent alternative?
If the Dalai Lama was an authentic Buddhist master and lineage holder he would naturally possess superior qualities of both wisdom and compassion. Thus he would not be subject to such confusion, lack of wisdom, contradiction, and poor judgment. Yet another example of these deficiencies is found in the disturbing relationship with apocalyptic cult leader Shoko Asahara that arose in the mid to late 1980’s. In their book ‘The Cult at the End of the World -The Incredible Story of Aum,’ authors David E. Kaplan and Andrew Marshall quote the Dalai Lama:
Dalai Lama: [speaking to Shoko Asahara] “You should spread real Buddhism there [in Japan]… You can do that well, because you have the mind of a Buddha. If you do so, I shall be very pleased. It will help me with my mission.”
A few years later on March 20, 1995, Asahara commanded his followers to release deadly sarin gas into the Tokyo subway. Twelve people died and 5,500 were injured. Shortly after the attacks the Dalai Lama was quoted in the German magazine ‘Stern’ (36/95, p. 126), saying that Asahara was:
… [a] “friend, although not necessarily a perfect one.”
Kaplan and Marshall detail Asahara’s activities over this whole time period and indicate that Asahara was quite disturbed. Why is it that the Dalai Lama was unable to perceive such an unbalanced personality – particularly if the Dalai Lama is supposed to be an advanced spiritual being with special powers of awareness?
Interview with Claudia Dreifus ‘New York Times’ November 28, 1993:
Dalai Lama: “Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.”
All parents experience significant challenges in raising their children – the parents of the disabled in particular. However, millions of parents have found their disabled children to also bring them immense joy. How can advocating the killing of the disabled be of karmic benefit to anyone? This way of thinking creates many problems – that arbitrary standards based on convenience or inconvenience determine who is worthy to live or die.
Moreover, what determines whether an action is negative or not has nothing to do with the circumstances, it has to do with whether or not a negative mind is present.
The Dalai Lama is known to be fascinated by science and its views concerning the nature of phenomena. In his book ‘The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality’ (2005) he writes:
“My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
The ‘New York Times,’ November 12, 2005:
“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”
Science is principally predicated on exploring the outer world and Buddhadharma is an exclusive exploration of the inner world of the mind. Since Buddha proved in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras that all phenomena lack inherent existence and are mere appearances to the mind, it is impossible for science to hold a more advanced view of the nature of reality. Buddha called the realization that all phenomena lack inherent existence an ultimate truth because it is a perfect and unmistaken final awareness of reality. Is it not true that the Dalai Lama’s view that science has or will discover a more profound reality is heretical, grossly ignorant of Buddhadharma, and an example of holding no faith in Buddha’s teachings? Does the Dalai Lama’s view not also imply that Buddha must not have possessed omniscient wisdom?
An authentic Buddhist spiritual master necessarily has unwavering faith and reliance in the Three Jewels – Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Faith and reliance in the Three Jewels is what distinguishes a Buddhist from a non-Buddhist. In the ‘Times Online’ August 23, 2008, Charles Bremner quotes the Dalai Lama while on a visit to France as saying:
“We should strive for inner peace in the concert of God…. We also have responsibility to take care of the planet. The trees and all beautiful things are part of creation … Harmony is very very essential.”
Belief in God the creator is belief in monotheism. Monotheism and creationism are not part of Buddha’s teachings. This statement begs the question what religion does the Dalai Lama actually believe in?
Interview with Femi Adesina, Lagos, Nigeria, December 13, 2008:
Adesina: “What roles should religious leaders play in national development?”
Dalai Lama: “Basically, religious leaders should promote human values and harmony. They should be active in the preservation of ecology. It’s our duty to protect our world. We have the responsibility to take care of the planet created by God.”
Here the Dalai Lama is even more explicit in his belief in God the creator. This belief utterly contradicts Buddhist doctrine. Buddha said repeatedly that mind is the creator of all phenomena. Why does the Dalai Lama apparently not know what Buddha taught?
The interview also included this question:
Adesina: “As a spiritual leader, do you have healing powers?”
Dalai Lama: “As a Buddhist monk, you study five different courses. Logic, craft, medicine, literature, Buddhist philosophy. But healing powers? No, no, no. If I had healing powers, then first I would heal myself of the gall bladder problem, for which I had surgery (laughs). But I had to go for modern technology. If I had healing power, I wouldn’t need that. It therefore means I have no healing powers. I’m very sceptical about such claims. Very, very sceptical. It does not mean people do not get healed miraculously. It happens. One of my French friends, who her hands. It may happen, but I’m very sceptical. By chance maybe, one or two. But you can’t say it’s definite. Furthermore, Buddhists are more of scientists, rather than believers.”
Why is the Dalai Lama ‘very very sceptical’ concerning miraculous healing? Buddha performed many miraculous healings as did Jesus and others. Buddha explicitly taught the methods to accomplish such powers. The Dalai Lama again reveals his non-faith in Buddhism, and as such, seems to be functioning to destroy the faith of his followers so they will develop faith in science instead.
A few sentences later [while answering the same question] the Dalai Lama says:
“Since my childhood, I’ve had keen interest in science and technology. We must accept the reality, rather than what literature says.”
The Dalai Lama explained that, ‘As a Buddhist monk, you study five different courses. Logic, craft, medicine, literature, Buddhist philosophy.’ He goes on to say ‘We must accept the reality, rather than what literature says.’ Is his conclusion that Buddhist teachings should not be believed and we must believe in reality as taught by science?
Interview by Parveen Chopra and Swati Chopra, ‘Life Positive’ magazine August 2001:
Dalai Lama: “Compassion, or karuna, stems from wisdom. For instance, animals with their limited intelligence, are happier and more peaceful than we are. Even so, I have observed that animals become aggressive during the mating season because there is now attachment to the mate. Attachment awakens feelings of klesh within them. Similarly for us, if there is less attachment and jealousy, we are able to focus within.”
Here the Dalai Lama seems to be completely unaware of Buddha’s teachings concerning fortunate and unfortunate rebirth. Animal rebirth is not a happier and more peaceful existence than human. What principally distinguishes one realm of rebirth from another is
the level and degree of suffering one has to experience within that realm. Animals have to remain in a state of constant fear and vigilance for their life. Animals must endure whatever harsh conditions present themselves – disease, famine, extreme weather, injury, pollution, loss of habitat, exploitation and attack by humans, etc. Apparently as far as the Dalai Lama is concerned, being eaten alive or torn to sheds by other animals, being slaughtered for human consumption, or experiencing harsh environmental conditions is a more peaceful and happier way to live.
Interview with John Kennedy in ‘George’ magazine, November 1997:
Kennedy: “One of the principles of karma is that if you do good deeds, they will come back to you. Why do you think all this misfortune has befallen the Tibetan people? What happened in a previous time that could have led to this?”
Dalai Lama: “That is, of course, basically due to karma. But this does not mean Buddhism is wrong or these people are wrong. Circumstances change. Times change. Sometimes it happens. But I don’t believe it’s because we did anything wrong.”
Interview by Johan Hari, ‘The Independent’ – 07/06/2004:
Hari: […Yet the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibetans are being punished for their ‘bad karma.’] “Can this be true, Your Holiness?”
Dalai Lama: “Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one’s karma.”
Hari: “So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life?”
Dalai Lama: “Oh yes. Of course.”
Hari: [‘Suddenly, one of his entourage – dormant until now – leaps up and speaks quickly to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan. He turns to me.’]
Dalai Lama: “This is for Buddhists! Only for Buddhists! Last question now, please. We must hurry.”
Why does the Dalai Lama contradict himself in the two interviews? On the one hand he explains that Tibetans have done nothing wrong and on the other that Tibetans are experiencing the fruit of their non-virtuous actions. His first explanation is – there is effect without action. His second explanation is – there is action and effect. Since the law of actions and their effects is a central pillar of Buddhism shouldn’t the leader of Tibetan Buddhism have a thorough understanding of this tenet?
An often quoted one-liner of the Dalai Lama concerns meditation practice. In ‘People’ magazine, September 1979 he said:
“Sleep is the best meditation.”
What is the Dalai Lama’s meaning? If this statement is not intended to discredit the practice of meditation and to reinforce a person’s laziness and attachment to sleep, then what is its meaning?
‘Los Angeles Times’ interview, May 21, 1994:
Dalai Lama: “Although I cannot claim to have knowledge of the entire dimensions of Buddhist thought, I try to give the overall picture in my presentations. Sometimes I, too, find certain kinds of Buddhist teaching unrecognizable.”
The Dali Lama cannot be an authentic and pure lineage holder of Buddhist teachings. He does not believe in the power of prayer. He is in favour of violence when it suits his own or his government’s purposes. He has advocated nuclear proliferation. He believes that armed retaliation is reasonable. He developed a strange relationship with the criminal Shoko Asahara. He believes that a mentally disabled fetus is unworthy of life. He believes that scientific views should prevail over Buddhist views. He believes in not only developing concert with God, but that God is the creator of the world. He is ‘very, very sceptical’ concerning miraculous healing. He advocates non-belief in Buddhism. He believes animal rebirth is more peaceful and happy than human rebirth. He is confused as to the basic understanding of Buddha’s teachings on the law of cause and effect. He admits holding an incomplete understanding of Buddha’s teachings. How could an authentic Buddhist spiritual master be afflicted with so many views that contradict Buddhist teachings?
2) Does the Dalai Lama propagate Buddha’s teachings?
Interview with Claude Arpi, Tekchen Choling, Dharamsala India, March 6, 2006:
Arpi: “Our Review [magazine] is destined to the French public. Could you tell us about the spread of Buddhism in France? In 1960 when you sent Dagpo Rinpoche in France, Buddhism was practically unknown. I am told that there are today 5 millions of sympathizers. It seems a wave, a spiritual tsunami. Could you envisage this when you sent lamas such Dagpo Rinpoche in Europe?”
Dalai Lama: “No, never! In fact it has never been my interest to propagate Buddhism, my own religion. At that time, the main reason why we were eager to send Tibetans scholars in some of European universities (in France, Germany, Denmark or Italy) was some wrong perceptions about Tibetan Buddhism. It was our duty to show a proper representation of Tibetan Buddhism. This was the main reason. Even today, I have no intention to expand or promote Tibetan Buddhism… I always make it clear that it is better to keep your own religion.”
If the Dalai Lama is not interested in promoting Buddhism what exactly is he interested in promoting? Why has he written dozens of books? Are the books just an easy and convenient way to generate steady income? Or is writing books a way to create an illusion of propagating Buddhism? Why would anyone remain as the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism if they are not committed to promoting it? From a spiritual point of view his intention is utterly illogical.
The Dalai Lama’s actions are in sharp contrast to Buddha’s. Buddha was keenly interested in causing Buddhism to flourish. He traveled extensively and gave some 84,000 teachings. At the time there was a tradition of debate between leaders of philosophical schools and various spiritual traditions. The custom was that the looser of the debate converted to the victor’s tradition. In this way Buddha gathered thousands of disciples.
Interview with Rachael Kohn in ‘The Emory Wheel’ October 21, 2007:
Kohn: “The Buddha taught people how to avoid suffering in a material world, and you teach people how to be happy in a material world. Is this a more optimistic way, a more western way, of putting the Buddha’s teaching?”
Dalai Lama: “No, actually I always try to promote secular ethics or human values not as a religion, not as Buddhism. Of course to Buddhists, certainly. You see, I explain the importance of the suffering nature, then the causes of suffering, the cessation of suffering, then the ways and paths to overcome the suffering. So I always, you see, emphasise the importance of the realisation of the suffering nature. But my partisan approach that is simply the promotion of human values, not religion, it’s not a religious thing. In fact I make this always clear, in order to be good person, a warm hearted person, it is not necessarily to have religious faith. Without religious faith, there can be a nice person, a warm hearted person, and happy person.”
Are we to understand that the Dalai Lama holds real interest in creating a tradition of non-religion? Is he intent on creating a system of belief that excludes faith in or recognition of enlightened beings? What spiritual leader of any tradition promotes non-
faith and non-religion in their tradition? Is it because he secretly wants Buddhism to be destroyed and secular humanism to become popular? Strangely this view is in contradiction to what he has said concerning his belief in God. Why should it be the least bit confusing as to what the Dalai Lama believes?
In an interview conducted by Erich Follath and Padma Rao at the exile headquarters of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India for ‘Spiegel’ (05 / 12 / 2008), the Dalai Lama is clear in his primary objectives. He is not interested in promoting Buddhism, he is interested in science, promoting secular humanism, and as always, engaging in politics.
Follath/Rao: “You travel around the world a lot …”
Dalai Lama: “… and that’s the way it will remain for a long time. Even if I am to return to Lhasa, I would like to continue traveling. I consider myself a citizen of the world and am very interested in the relationships between science and Buddhism. My main goals are to promote fundamental human values and exchange among the religions. Then comes Tibet.”
‘Mother Jones’ magazine Nov/ Dec 1997, interview with Robert Thurman:
Thurman: “Some people say that you have to follow the religions of your own culture. Is it really a good idea to adopt a religion or spiritual practice foreign to one’s culture?”
Dalai Lama: “I always say that people should not rush to change religions. There is real value in finding the spiritual resources you need in your home religion. Even secular humanism has great spiritual resources; it is almost like a religion to me.”
The Dalai Lama is the most famous Buddhist in the world but he has no real intention of propagating Buddhism. His own words show that he cannot be considered a real Buddhist but instead must be regarded as either a secular humanist or a monotheist. He all but admits to being an adherent of secular humanism. Can his agenda of non-promotion of Buddhism and promotion of the non-religion of ‘human values’ be seen as anything other than an attack on Buddhism? Is the Dalai Lama just ignorant and confused or is he holding a secret intention to destroy Buddhism? If destroying Buddhism is his intention then an external enemy of Buddhism could not be more effective.
3) Does the Dalai Lama represent the best interests of the Tibetan people?
Speech by the Dalai Lama at State University of New York, Stony Brook NY, USA, September 17, 1990:
“Then I was 21 years and already had some knowledge about Western civilization. Dalai Lama means a Buddhist monk who is supposed to be a man of peace, but I was fond of looking at war books. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama had some war pictorial books about the first world war. I was very fond of looking at and reading them. I could not read English — I looked with amazement at these, the primitive tanks or motors and some primitive aeroplanes. These were very fascinating to me. Therefore I developed a scientific outlook. I felt along with the Chinese that we may develop Tibet as a modern community, a modern country, and also I had great attraction towards Marxism, especially the Marxism stressing internationalism. Of course according to the Marxist theory, his main concern was not how to make money, but rather how to distribute, how to utilize these things properly. I think in his economic theory there is some moral principle involved. Anyway, since then I call myself half Marxist and half Buddhist monk.”
Here the Dalai Lama expresses a bizarre association between the development of a scientific outlook, the weaponry of war, and Marxism. The essential point here is what would lie in store for Tibetans were they to regain some sort of statehood. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said he upholds democratic principals, but in truth he is attracted to Marxist values and not democratic ones. Prior to his fleeing Tibet, his rule was authoritarian with the average Tibetan holding little more status than a serf.
After 40 years in exile the Dalai Lama decided that Tibetans should have an official head of government, and in July 2001, Samdhong Lobsang Tenzin was elected Prime Minister. In reality Lobsang’s position is nothing more than that of a figure head. He cannot do
anything without the prior approval of the Dalai Lama. It is impossible for him or anyone who wishes to remain within the Tibetan exile community to disagree with any policy or utterance of the Dalai Lama. This is why they stay silent when the Dalai Lama says things like ‘I am half Marxist – half Buddhist’ or referring to Shoko Asahara as having ‘the mind of a Buddha.’
Speech by the Dalai Lama at State University of New York, Stony Brook NY, USA, September 17, 1990:
“Then in 1954 I went to China as a head of the delegation of Tibet, to participate in the Chinese Congress of People’s Deputies. During that period I had a number of occasions to meet Chairman Mao and other dignitaries. I considered Chairman Mao really a great revolutionary and great leader. When I talked with him, I used an interpreter, one Tibetan who knew Chinese and Marxist ideology very well. With his help the discussion with Chairman Mao reached great depths.”
This ‘great leader’ repressed religion and encouraged thoughtless devotion to the state through intimidation, incarceration, and violence. It is obvious that the Dalai Lama was enamored by Chairman Mao’s his ability to subjugate and control millions of human beings.
Interview with Jörg Eigendorf July 4, 2009:
Eigendorf: … “you used to be a long-time admirer of Mao Zedong. How could you be so wrong?”
Dalai Lama: “I am still convinced that Mao Zedong was a Marxist, who wanted to help workers and farmers, in his early years up until the mid-1950s. In the mid-1950’s I spent six months in Beijing and another four months in many other parts of China. The party leaders, to me, seemed really dedicated to their cause.”
Eigendorf: “What impressed you about Mao?”
Dalai Lama: “He always looked like a farmer – his clothes were old and ruined. And when he spoke, he did so very slowly, so every word had an importance. He never beat around the bush, never said niceties; he always came straight to the point. All of his party members that I met back then were like that, which impressed me.”
Interview to ‘Associated Press’ Dharamsala, January 31, 1995:
Question: “If Deng Xiaoping did die over the next few days, can you sum up your feelings towards the man?”
Dalai Lama: “No doubt a great leader, a great revolutionary. Also a very able person; a person who can act decisively and quickly according to circumstances, no matter whether his motivation was sincere or not. It is very difficult to judge the motivation. As a human being, Deng Xiaoping, whom sometimes I call my old friend, is a great person if we disregard the suffering meted out to other people.”
Deng Xiaoping was in power during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and ordered the crackdown on pro-democracy protestors. What precisely is admirable about a leader who can act ‘decisively and quickly according to circumstances, no matter whether his motivation was sincere or not?’ As with his relationship with Shoko Asahara the Dalai Lama is rather forgiving of his friends’ murderous behavior and holds an attitude with regard to Xiaoping, that the ends justify the means. There is no unequivocal condemnation of their violent actions because the Dalai Lama is not adverse to employing violence when power and control is at stake.
The Dalai Lama’s admiration for authoritarian leaders should cause alarm bells to ring in the minds of Tibetans. It took more than 30 years in exile before an Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies were directly elected from among the 130,000 Tibetan exiles.
Democracy was definitely not a high priority with the Dalai Lama.
Interview with ‘Associated Press’ Dharamsala, January 31, 1995:
…“There are deputies who are elected by the people. The final approval of them is mine. The People’s Deputies, who are elected in exile, only have authority from those in exile. The Dalai Lama, however, is somebody who can represent all six million Tibetans. So you see, my approval of them is beneficial. It gives weight or authority to them… Now in most cases, if there are several candidates, I approve those who have the highest votes. Suppose, however, there is a person who I feel cannot correctly handle the responsibility, I then have the authority to choose someone else.”
The Dalai Lama admitted that he was the supreme authority of the government thus proving that democracy did not exist. The question is has anything changed since Samdhong Lobsang Tenzin was elected in 2001? Given his admiration for those who have achieved great power and authority, there has been no evidence to date that the balance of power has changed. In fact, not once since the inception of the Tibetan government in exile have any of the Dalai Lama’s initiatives been repudiated. It seems the government is well acquainted with both a rubber stamp policy and fear of the consequences of disagreeing with the Dalai Lama.
‘The Economic Times’ New Delhi, June 20, 1994:
Question: “Do you think you can ever go back to Tibet?”
Dalai Lama: “Oh Yes! In a few years we’ll go back.”
Speech by the Dalai Lama at Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies, Dharamsala, June 4, 1996:
“As I have repeatedly pointed out prior to 1959 and 1960, the Tibetan cause was not something on which one could place one’s hopes. Even many friends said that was the end of Tibet. These days significant changes are taking place…From the positive viewpoint, as I have been saying, we are nearing the solution of our cause. There is still no change in my hope that in about two-three years there will certainly be a change.”
Speech by the Dalai Lama at the 40th Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day on March 10, 1999:
“Today, the Tibetan freedom movement is in a much stronger and better position than ever before and I firmly believe that despite the present intransigence of the Chinese government, the prospects for progress in bringing about a meaningful dialogue and negotiations are better today than ever.”
Tibet was irrevocably lost in 1959. Unfortunately, the Dalai Lama’s deep involvement with the CIA sealed Tibet’s fate. The Chinese will never trust the Dalai Lama due to this covert relationship with American spy masters. The ‘Free Tibet’ campaign has only prolonged the misery of the Tibetan people by instilling in them a sense of false hope. In 1989 the Dalai Lama unilaterally abandoned the fight for an independent Tibet and submitted to the Chinese his ‘Strasbourg Proposal.’ He effectively recognized that Tibet was now a part of China and proposed a degree of autonomy within the Chinese state. Supposedly he withdrew the Strasbourg Proposal in 1991, but it is clear he is still seeking no more than autonomy within China and not and independent state. Why does the ‘Free Tibet’ campaign continue to solicit donations 20 years later when their leader has no intention of fighting for it?
Until 2009, whenever asked, the Dalai Lama was eternally optimistic about impending success in returning to Tibet. This previous unrelenting ‘optimism’ must be held suspect as evidence for deception. Why? Because the function of repeatedly saying return to Tibet is close at hand was to keep Tibetans holding a mind of unwavering confidence and hope in the Dalai Lama.
One of the most despicable things the Dalai Lama has said comes from an interview by Paul Bibby and Joyce Morgan for the Australian paper ‘The Age,’ June 12, 2008:
[in reference to Dorje Shugden practioners protesting the Dalai Lama’s ban against this practice]
“They consider me a big liar – perhaps that is true.”
The Dalai Lama’s ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden has caused the most rancorous and painful division within the Buddhist faith since the time of Buddha. Is it not contemptuous of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha to utter something like this?
The Dalai Lama’s reverence for authoritarian and dictatorial leaders, Marxism, the weaponry of war, his lack of interest in democracy, and his clinging to power despite years of political failure, indicate he is not an honest advocate for the people of Tibet. He has said that if Tibetans achieve some sort of autonomy within China he will immediately step down as their political leader. Perhaps he knows all too well that this will never happen. His service for others could easily be a tool to insure his position of authority. Superficially his words and activities appear to show a man of the people – for the people, but it appears if one digs a little deeper they find a man of himself – for himself. Why do Tibetans and all Buddhist for that matter not hold him to his words below?
From an interview with Femi Adesina, Lagos, Nigeria, December 13, 2008:
“Then in politics, I think religious leaders should better stay clear of partisan politics.”
4) Is the Dalai Lama a manifestation of the Buddha of Compassion?
Interview with Australian reporter Ray Martin for the TV program ‘Sunday’ June 10, 2007:
Martin: “The world calls you a living god, a living Buddha, does that embarrass you?”
Dalai Lama: “That is totally nonsense. I am not God. I am not living Buddha. The real person or the real name fit the real person; that is simple Buddhist monk.”
Martin: “Simple Buddhist monk?”
Dalai Lama: “Just Buddhist monk.”
Interview in India by Parveen Chopra and Swati Chopra published in ‘Life Positive’ magazine, August 2001:
P.Chopra/ S. Chopra: “You are called the ‘living Buddha’…?”
Dalai Lama: “The term ‘living Buddha’ is a translation of the Chinese word ‘ho fu’. In Tibetan, the operative word is ‘lama’ which means ‘guru’. A guru is someone who is not necessarily a Buddha but is heavy with knowledge. I believe that previous Dalai Lamas were manifestations of Avalokiteshvara (the Buddha of Compassion) and the fifth Dalai Lama is believed to be an incarnation of Manjushri. I am fortunate to be the reincarnation of all these great lamas!” (laughs)
Why does he give completely opposite answers to the same question? At some point in his life did he suddenly realize that he is an ordinary being? From a spiritual point of view it is completely illogical to make such contradictory statements, unless there is a motivation to deceive or confuse. The question is which of these answers is the truth? I think the true answer can be validly inferred by admissions he has made concerning the state of his own mind.
Interview by Mary S. Aikins in the Canadian version of ‘Readers Digest Magazine’ in the February 2004:
Aikins: “I’m told that after a long day you often relax by watching television. What are your favourite programs?”
Dalai Lama: “Nature programs: National Geographic, Discovery Channel.”
Aikins: “Do you have a favourite animal?”
Dalai Lama: “Birds maybe. I feed birds, peaceful birds. I’m a non-violent person, but if a hawk comes when I’m feeding birds, I lose my temper and get my air rifle.”
Aikins: “You have an air rifle?”
Dalai Lama: “Yes, although I shoot only to scare the hawks.”
Later he was asked the following:
Aikins: “What special message do you have for parents?”
Dalai Lama: “They themselves must have a very close relationship, respect one another. That has a positive impact on the child’s mind. On top of that, parents must provide every occasion for genuine human affection to the child. I think that’s very important. [Pause.] Though I’m not sure that if I was a father I would be very good. I have a bad temper…My father also was quite short-tempered.”
Interview with Claudia Dreifus ‘New York Times’ November 28, 1993:
Dreifus: “It is said that you get up at 4 in the morning. How can you be lazy?”
Dalai Lama: “It’s not that kind of laziness. For instance, sometimes, when I visit some Western countries, I develop an enthusiasm to improve my English. But when I actually make the effort to study, after a few days, my enthusiasm is finished. [Laughs.] That is laziness. Other weaknesses are, I think, anger and attachments. I’m attached to my watch and my prayer beads. Then, of course, sometimes beautiful women. . . . But then, many monks have the same experience. Some of it is curiosity: If you use this, what is the feeling?” [Points to his groin.]
Later he is asked:
Dreifus: “What do you do for leisure, to relax?”
Dalai Lama: “I like to let my thoughts come to me each morning before I get up. I meditate for a few hours and that is like recharging. After that, my daily conduct is usually driven by the motivation to help, to create a positive atmosphere for others. I garden . . . gardening is one of my hobbies. Also, reading encyclopaedias with pictures. [Laughs.] I am a man of peace, but I am
fond of looking at picture books of the Second World War. I own some, which I believe are produced by Time-Life. I’ve just ordered a new set. Thirty books.”
Dreifus: “Really? Why does the Reincarnation of Compassion have such a fascination with one of the most terrible events in human history?”
Dalai Lama: “Perhaps because the stories are so negative and gruesome, they strengthen my belief in non-violence. [Smiles.] However, I find many of the machines of violence very attractive. Tanks, airplanes, warships, especially aircraft carriers. And the German U-boats, submarines. . . .”
Dreifus: “I once read that as a little boy in Lhasa, you liked war toys.”
Dalai Lama: “Yes, very much. I also had an air rifle in Lhasa. And I have one in India. I often feed small birds, but when they come together, hawks spot them and catch them — a very bad thing. So in order to protect these small birds, I keep the air rifle.”
Dreifus: “So it is a Buddhist rifle?”
Dalai Lama: [Laughs] “A compassionate rifle!”
An example of the Dalai Lama’s ‘bad temper’ comes from the pages one his own books where he threatens one of his students. On page 242 of ‘Kalachakra Tantra- Rite of Initiation’ he says:
“You must do what I tell to you. You should not deride me, and if you do, without forsaking fright, the time of death will come, and you will fall into a hell.”
Interview with Jörg Eigendorf July 4, 2009:
Eigendorf: “When was the last time you were unfair or unjust?”
Dalai Lama: [Thinks] “Sometimes I lose my patience, but then I apologize. It happens sometimes.”
Eigendorf: “You have written books about how damaging anger is, and still you get angry sometimes?”
Dalai Lama: “Of course. It is not about eliminating anger, but rather finding the cause for it and working against it. If you do not understand where the anger comes from and don’t work against it, the anger will grow. Anger is a destructive emotion which is based on arrogance. This is why one must find the cause and counteract it.”
The Dalai Lama repeatedly admits suffering from the delusion of anger. If he were an enlightened being – the Buddha of Compassion – generating the mind of anger would be completely impossible. Anger can only arise in ordinary beings because they have yet to abandon negative minds. The mind of enlightenment is totally free from all traces of negativity, and once attained could never degenerate.
Interview with Bill Moyers, ‘Spirit and Nature’ 1991, PBS Television:
Moyers: “Does this reverence for all living things mean that I shouldn’t have [slaps his own face] … that mosquito that just bit me here?”
Dalai Lama: [laughing]
Moyers: “I’m serious about that – would it – does it … is there a danger of excess in this. A lot of people say, well you who care about the environment are going to extremes.”
Dalai Lama: “Usually is my practice is something like this. One mosquito see…one mosquito come… that if my mood is something quite – quite happy then usually I give some blood see – to the mosquito. Then there is the second time comes …then more impatience. So that sometimes I do like this… [blows on his arm at imaginary mosquito] blow … blow. Then third come! Then sometimes…” [flicks imaginary mosquito with his finger apparently indicating that he is killing it, while laughing]
Moyers: “Three strikes and your out – as we say.”
Australian TV program ‘Sunday’ with Ray Martin, June 10, 2007:
Martin: “And, do you — last — Do you really, as you say in this book, do you really believe you may come back as an insect or an animal next time?”
Dalai Lama: “It’s always possible.”
Martin: “Is it?”
Dalai Lama: “As a Buddhist that, depends on my sort of activities or my actions during this lifetime.”
Martin: “But what have you done bad that would bring you back as an insect?”
Dalai Lama: “One of my sort of little doubt is unfortunately, I think, killing few mosquitoes.”
Dalai Lama: “I really don’t know. So, so — so next life there is possibility to reincarnate as a mosquito.”
In two separate interviews the Dalai Lama admits deliberately breaking his ordination vow of refraining from killing. For an ordained person this is a very serious transgression and a great accumulation of non-virtue. In the interview with Bill Moyers, he feels the action of killing to be humorous! The Dalai Lama clearly states that the condition which determines whether a mosquito lives or dies is dependent upon his mood. In fact, his ordination vows are destroyed because he expresses both no regret for the action, and sets an unprecedented example of non-virtue for his followers to emulate. For the Dalai Lama compassion for all sentient beings has severe limits. In most spiritual traditions he would be considered an apostate.
Interview with Amitabh Pal ‘The Progressive’ January 2006:
[the Dalai Lama comments about military leaders who were apparently Buddhist]
“In the 1930s, one Mongolian leader became a very, very brutal dictator and eventually became a murderer. Previously, he was a monk, I am told, and then he became a revolutionary. Under the influence of his new ideology, he actually killed his own teacher. Pol Pot’s family background was Buddhist. Whether he himself was a Buddhist at a young age, I don’t know. Even Chairman Mao’s family background was Buddhist… So one day, if the Dalai Lama becomes a mass murderer, he will become the most deadly of mass murderers.” [Laughs]
Article by Michael Paulson and James F. Smith, in the ‘Boston Globe,’ May 1, 2009:
‘A student asked about ethics and the weapons industry. The Dalai Lama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his non-violent campaign for Tibetan rights, said he hoped this would be the century for global demilitarization. But a good start, he said, would be for institutions like MIT to invent a bullet “that misses ordinary people but hits the decision makers,” waving his arm in the path of a wiggling bullet to laughter and applause. “That kind of bullet needs to be developed. Wonderful.”’
These are supposedly examples of the Dalai Lama’s sense of humour. Considering he has been friends with and admired people who have ordered mass murder, (Asahara, Mao, Xiaoping) is it not a sign of spiritual degeneracy to joke in this way?
Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Aryatara Institute, Germany, April 7, 2001:
Lama Zopa: ‘Recently, when His Holiness the Dalai Lama was at Geshe Sopa’s center, Deer Park, in Madison, Wisconsin, His Holiness said in the teachings, “I have no realization of bodhichitta or emptiness.”
If the Dalai Lama was a manifestation of Avalokiteshvara – the Buddha of Compassion – necessarily he would possess both bodhichitta and wisdom realizing emptiness.
The Dalai Lama cannot be the Buddha of Compassion. By his own admission he states that he is subject to experiencing negative minds like anger and attachment. Since Buddhas do not experience negative minds, the Dalai Lama must be an ordinary being.
The admissions of anger, killing, attachment to women and material things, possession of a firearm, watching television, and fascination for the weaponry of war clearly indicate the mind of an ordinary deluded being. He states that he has no realization of bodhichitta or emptiness which are the very qualities of a superior being. Moreover, his sense of humour may seem to be innocuous to some, but why is it violence based? Is it not perverse for a religious leader to joke that, ‘if the Dalai Lama becomes a mass murderer, he will become the most deadly of mass murderers?’ It is impossible for ordinary beings to know the minds of others directly but the Dalai Lama’s words do express the content of his mind. In his moments of candour he reveals a deeply disturbed psyche. One may argue that, of course, all ordinary beings have faults, but it is the Dalai Lama and majority of his followers who are the ones who have claimed that he is the manifestation of a faultless enlightened being.
5) Is the Dalai Lama a reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama?
To have successfully reincarnated 14 times in a row in the same world and in the same region of the world, one would necessarily have to possess a high degree of control over their mind. The fourteenth Dalai Lama has an admitted anger and attachment problem. It is all but impossible for a person strongly influenced by negative minds to take human rebirth fourteen times in succession. Why? Delusions such as anger cause a person to perform non-virtue (such as killing mosquitoes) which is a direct cause for unfortunate rebirth. Since the first reincarnation would supposedly possess the most negative minds and subsequent reincarnations fewer and fewer, the current Dalai Lama should possess the least negative and purest mind of all the fourteen reincarnations. He should have the deepest and most profound wisdom and realization of all the Dalai Lamas. Unfortunately the Dalai Lama’s speech exposes to the world a person whose practice of Buddha’s teachings is completely inconsistent and contradictory to them.
The Dalai Lama has an anger problem, an attachment problem, and by extension an ignorance problem. These deluded minds preclude the possibility of successive reincarnations, therefore the fourteen Dalai Lamas cannot be the same person. In addition the biographies of the Dalai Lamas indicate that some were deeply troubled and were unable to maintain moral discipline or even hold an interest in practicing Dharma. In his book ‘The Making of Modern Tibet,’ Tom Grunfeld describes the sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso. On page 43 he writes:
“[He] came to be known among Tibetans as the ‘Merry one’, and not without cause, for he devoted himself more to debauchery than to religious pursuits. He is fondly remembered for his poetry, which constitutes almost the entire non- religious literature of Tibet.”
The early Dalai Lamas on the other hand were pure practioners that caused both peace and Dharma to flourish throughout the whole region of Tibet and Mongolia. Opposite personality traits such as these show unequivocally that the Dalai Lamas are of different mental continuums.
The Dalai Lama’s own words are best suited to summarize what Buddhists should do in response to uncovering such deceitfulness. In the article ‘Shaping the Future? Western Buddhist Teachers Meet the Dalai Lama,’ (Dharamsala, India. March 23-22, 1993) Stephen Batchelor quotes the following:
Dalai Lama: “When there is incontrovertible evidence of wrong-doing, then it is one’s responsibility to take action. Make voice! Give warning! We no longer tolerate!”
Batchelor: [The Dalai Lama encouraged us repeatedly to criticise such behaviour openly, even, when all else fails to “name names in newspapers.”]
The ‘Globe and Mail’ (Canadian newspaper) September 8, 2006:
Dalai Lama: “Media people should have long noses like an elephant to smell out politicians, mayors, prime ministers and businessmen. We need to know the reality, the good and the bad, not just the appearance.”
The Dalai Lama’s own words are his worst enemy. What Buddhists need to understand is that the institution of Dalai Lamas, (since the time of the fifth Dalai Lama) has merged religion with politics so thoroughly and for so long, that the practice is rarely questioned. It has resulted in Tibetan Buddhists and now Western Buddhists developing faith in and obedience to the political power of the Dalai Lama. History has shown that political considerations invariably cause abandonment of spiritual values.
The purpose of exposing the Dalai Lama’s deception is not to induce hatred toward him but to show that the institution of the Dalai Lamas is heretical and is destroying Buddhism. It is because he holds so much influence over Buddhists worldwide that his betrayal must be exposed. Sadly, the Dalai Lama’s spiritual heart has been sacrificed in order to appease his political ambition and power. He is therefore completely unreliable as a spiritual leader. He has indicated repeatedly that he does not hold basic Buddhist beliefs nor does he wish to propagate Buddhist teachings. Buddhist should of course develop compassion for such a misguided being. Buddhists would be wise to conclude that no matter what profound or beautiful things he may say, there is no reasonable basis in which he should be regarded as an actual Buddhist practitioner. Buddhists should realize that the only reason he is able say anything profound or meaningful is because he has Buddha’s words to repeat.
The Dalai Lama has said that whether or not there is a fifteenth Dalai Lama is for Tibetans to decide. For the sake of Buddhism may Tibetans find the wisdom to finally and forever abandon this fusion of religion and politics, and let the religious lead the religious and the political lead the political.