Book Review: "The Noodle Maker Of Kalimpong" By Gyalo Thondup

Gyalo Thondup:
The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong
Public Affairs: New York, 2015

Once a year I meet up with friends of my late father's generation, peacefully chatting about our phayul, remembering old stories and personalities and speaking our local dialect. These are moments I cherish for they make me feel I am part of history; that I am carrying on the torch. This time however, the peace evaporated quickly when a man at the lower end of our table suddenly exclaimed to everyone assembled: "Did you hear? Gyalo Thondup wrote a book. In it, he says sdugchag zhedrag ("nasty things") about Bapa Yeshi!"

"Is it true?" One of my father's friend's gave me a questioning look, "You read the book".

I did read it and he is critical of Bapa Yeshi, it is true. But Gyalo Thondup writes unfavourably about others as well, not just the quixotic people in the resistance. No wonder readers have protested his interpretation of events. Even his co-author finds it necessary to distance herself by adding a strange disclaimer in the epilogue in the style of "whatever is written here, I am just the writer and not liable for the content".

But do I want to get involved? Forgive me. I am tired of them: Controversies. To me it is he-said-she-said. What do I know? I am of a different generation. The biggest takeaway for someone like me is how Gyalo Thondup established contact with the Chinese and how the Tibetan side - maladroit, insecure and ill-advised - missed every single opportunity to come to an agreement. In my view, there is much to be learned from these failures.

Gyalo Thondup cites two specific instances in which the Tibetan side wasted opportunities for talks. The first occurred under Deng Xiaoping when both sides came to an agreement to hold talks about the Dalai Lama's return. The Chinese side stated it would be ready to meet his representatives anywhere he likes. Instead of settling the question of location with the dialogue partner first, the Tibetans pompously blared out to the world that talks were going to be held in Geneva. The Chinese side saw the faux pas as proof that the Tibetans were not seriously comitted. They immediately broke off communication.

The second instance was handled so poorly we continue to struggle with its consequences. The Tibetan side caused a disaster beyond all expectations in connection with the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Looking at the proceedings everything was on a good way: The search team in Tibet had done all the preparatory work and remarkably so had the consent of the Chinese authorities to consult with the Dalai Lama in order to come to a final decision. The Tibetans then again surged ahead unilaterally, proclaiming this child is the new Panchen Lama without informing their Chinese counterpart first. What a debacle. The humiliated Chinese reacted by demonstratively picking another child with the Dalai Lama's appointee never to be seen again.

The takeaway from these two instances is very important and Gyalo Thondup points this out as well: The Tibetan leadership in India needs to alter its communication culture and refrain from constantly involving the global media at every step. They need to better understand Chinese culture and etiquette. Going public is the last step, taken together after mutual agreement. Since then, the two sides have not been on speaking terms. Any attempts from the Tibetans to revive the talks have failed. A few years ago, Gyalo Thondup's successors, the Dalai Lama's envoys unable to live up to earlier successes, threw in the towel in frustration.

My impression is that instead of learning from their gigantic mistakes, the Tibetan side is doing anything it can to deepen the rift and aggravate the consequences from the communication fiasco. If I critically reflect without preconception, not only have we blasted the Panchen Lama succession, but by insisting that the China-appointed Panchen Lama is not authentic, we have also spent the last twenty years opting for confrontation. Is it not time we ask ourselves what the benefit of insisting should be? It is too late to have another candidate installed. Beijing's appointee is grown up and sits firmly in the saddle. According to recent reports, he also begins to show some backbone by speaking up on issues that are important for the Tibetan people. Given the circumstances this should be a reason for cautious optimism. If we recall, the selection process of the previous Panchen Lama was troubled by similar legitimacy problems. He succeeded in silencing the critics precisely by letting his actions speak. Tibetans are pious but they are also pragmatic. When the person is perceived to fulfill the responsibility that comes with the role, it becomes less important whether a reincarnation is "authentic". I say it is time to stop harping on about principles and give the young Panchen Lama in Beijing a chance.

If the Tibetan side is truly committed to getting the Dalai Lama back to Tibet in this lifetime, it is better to work for a rapprochement between him and the Panchen Lama in Beijing. Consider how awkward it will be for the Dalai Lama to be meeting with the Panchen Lama whom he has opposed all these years. How can they play their traditional roles to benefit all Tibetans if they are not aligned? Thus, those who truly want to see Kundun back in his native land must seriously reflect whether it is not wiser to advocate a policy change now and frame good arguments that lead to a rapprochement. Mind you, "their" boy was not arbitrarily picked out of the blue. He made it into the final shortlist of three candidates, all of them Tulkus. Tibetans highly respect such "runner ups" and refer to them as Panchen ‘os sprul or “Panchen selection Tulku”. Do we have reason to believe that the selection process up to that point was faulty?

I am saying all this because at present, neither the Dalai Lama nor the Panchen Lama can fulfill their roles to improve the Tibetan people's situation. One is accepted but not there. The other is there but not accepted. It is absurd. It should be one office, one Lama, not double this, double that. People are tired of the double staffing that comes with posts of high-ranking Lamas. It creates divisions that hurts us. Instead of finger-pointing, we should make an effort to come to a rapprochement with Beijing and their Panchen Lama so he and the Dalai Lama can start to work together for the wellbeing of the Tibetan people. After all, the Tibet issue is said to be about the six million Tibetans, is it not? Therefore, anyone with an influence on the Dalai Lama should now advise him towards seeking an understanding with the leadership in Beijing so he can return sooner than later.

Concessions are difficult and they hurt our ego. Though the official message is that we accept Chinese rule, I have the impression the Tibetan leadership is happy with the current situation where they manage the refugee community now grown into the third generation and well-established in the countries where they took up residence. Meanwhile the Dalai Lama has also evolved into a global religious figure and so everything seems just fine. But if the Tibetan leadership were to put themselves in the shoes of a person in Tibet, there isn’t the faintest doubt that the Dalai Lama’s place is among his people. There would be so much he could do with his international prestige, not only for the Tibetan people but also for the betterment of China as a whole, were he only to return now.

Of course, Dharamsala is free to insist on its right to determine reincarnations and opt for remaining stuck for another twenty years. Or they can toss dogmatism over board and take a bold step forward. If we are able to get our heads around now and make the difficult decisions, things may gradually start to move. In the medium run, accepting the reality may lead to the opening of the door to talks again, which has remained so closely shut. As for the "real reincarnation" of the Panchen Lama, the whole matter is most unfortunate. But it is to be hoped that his situation too will improve and he can finally begin to lead a normal life, once the reincarnation issue is formally settled with the Dalai Lama throwing his weight behind Beijing's appointee.

Back to The Noodle Maker: Never mind the false modesty implied in the title of the book. In the old days, many Tibetan families in Kalimpong made noodles for a living. Gyalo Thondup, we all know it, is not one of them. In his self-perception he may be a noodle-making country bumpkin from the Amdo backwater. His brother, the Dalai Lama, in his self-perception is a "simple monk" for that matter. But in the external perception of the Tibetan public, it couldn't be more different. As far as Gyalo Thondup is concerned, we think of him as Yabshi Gyalo Thondup, a member of the inner sanctum, the Dalai Lama's family, and a representative of the high nobility. From the point of view of an untitled Tibetan, there is no social class difference whatsoever between Gyalo Thondup and the opportunistic nobles whom he accuses by name of collaborating with the enemy and of many other misdeeds. It so happens that the Tibetan nobility is made up of families into which a Dalai Lama was born. The fact that Gyalo Thondup never had to account for his opaque and yet so dominating role behind the scenes, can be directly linked to his aristocratic Yabshi credentials. As the Dalai Lama's relative, we must concede, the man is a sacred cow.

So while I understand that many are upset over irritating remarks and accusations contained in The Noodle Maker, his story is also a testimony of how weak the exiles' democratic institutions really are with nobody calling for accountability. The judiciary has no punch, the legislative no power and the executive no means. The media shows no interest in investigating his role nor does the public, which remains entangled in a web of rumours, innuendos and interpersonal conflicts. Gyalo Thondup was the man who dealt eye to eye with all the powerful people in China, America, India and also Russia. His mission was to get Tibet independent with the secret help of the Americans. Later, when independence was dropped as the official goal, his task changed to getting the Dalai Lama back to Tibet. That he never received an official mandate from neither the government nor the people is one of the many contradictions in the way we Tibetans conduct our politics. His legacy will inevitably carry an overtone of uncontrolled power, secrecy and intrigue.

Though I did read Gyalo Thondup’s memoirs, I am unable to really assess The Noodle Maker. It contains too many parts on which I cannot throw any light. I tried to present my takeaways and observations instead. I also think we should ask ourselves who else could have handled our national affairs at the time, had Gyalo Thondup not assumed the role. Would we be any better off? If he was that bad, we should have employed someone else, but we didn't. In this regard, The Noodle Maker highlights our deficit in terms of strong leaders who can cope with modern politics and become winners for our people.

The critical issue is for our classe politique to have the courage and break out of its cocoon, overcome decades-long political inertia and finally make a positive impact for the Tibetans. How can we start a new way of thinking without taboos and get talking with the Chinese again? And how can we rear the leaders capable of taking on the challenge? If the Tibet issue is still about the six million Tibetans, then this is the important point to work on.

My father's old friend sighed: "Our task has become very difficult."

The others nodded in agreement.

I felt bad for them and also myself. We really are in a sad situation. If The Noodle Maker shows us one thing then it's that. But in my view, there are still a few chances left to improve our lot. We should not blow them again.

Mountain Phoenix Over Tibet

The Spirit That I Called - Dorje Shugden And The Unresolved Political History Of The Gelugpas

"From the spirits that I called, Sir, deliver me!"

Unlike in The Sorcerer's Apprenctice, in the Dorje

Shugden story nobody is coming to the rescue.

All hell has broken loose since the 14^th Dalai Lama has announced that there is sectarian spirit worship in the Gelug order, the Buddhist school that traditionally underpinned the Tibetan state and instituted Dalai Lamas as heads of government for the last five hundred years. It is also the order that prides itself on its debating skills, its emphasis on ethics and logic, and its combination of study and meditation. In the current dispute however, there is no skillful debate to be detected, nor ethics or logic. Neither side studies the arguments of the other, let alone meditates on their position! What one side says the other listens selectively, focusing only on what confirms their own prejudice. Entangled in the polemics of the blame game, there is no analysis taking place and no big picture emerging.

Where should one start to understand the reasons for this archaic conflict over an invisible thing? Rather than going away any time soon, the topic is driving a wedge between people, leaving nothing but losers across the board with His Holiness the Dalai Lama's image suffering, the Gelugpa order in disarray, insecure practitioners and social peace shattered. With the spread of Tibetan Buddhism to the West, it's no longer an internal issue either. There must be a way to understand it in a manner that makes sense.

In the past, it was unthinkable that Tibetans in the free world would join protests exclaiming, "False Dalai Lama, stop lying!" as some are heard shouting during his recent visits to Western countries. It was inconceivable that Tibetans would try to take a Dalai Lama to court for violating their religious rights, as some in India did. I am glad my grandparents didn't live to witness these developments. The rift runs deep leading all the way into Tibet where it splits age-old communities and families. What caused such a drastic estrangement?

Before this dispute, no Tibetan ever questioned the Dalai Lama's fundamental integrity. After he had been to Strasbourg in 1988 to present his Five-Point Peace Plan to members of the European Parliament, for example, nobody was seen demonstrating or attempting to take him to court, even though he single-handedly sacrificed regaining independence as the goal of the political struggle. An elected leader of another country may have been ousted from office over such highhandedness and perhaps even put on trial for high treason. But as far as his people are concerned, the Dalai Lama never faced any kind of scrutiny. Many had a hard time letting go the dream of an independent country. In the end, they put his wish above their own heart's desire. In my eyes, this emotional sacrifice underscores the extent of the Tibetans' trust in the Dalai Lama. Regardless of any autocratic tendencies, their devotion to him has always been unconditional.

The decision to remove Dorje Shugden from the Gelug pantheon was similarly high-handed. While it affects only a part of the community, it has met with resistance. This decision was not about replacing one political idea with another, such as independence with autonomy, with the Chinese running the show irrespective of Tibetan requests. On the one hand, it had a concrete effect on people's private practice: Suddenly their religious orientation drew public criticism from the highest level. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama's negative assessment of Dorje Shugden also had implications for the Gelugpa teachings in general: Propitiating this "spirit" was passed down by lineage masters held in the highest esteem. This last one in my view, is crucial for the dissonance coming from within the Dalai Lama's own ranks. Therefore I will look at it in a bit more detail.

Tibetan tsa-rgyu bla-ma or root and lineage masters derive their authority to transmit Buddhist teachings based on the belief that they gained irrevocable insight into the ultimate truth. In other words, such masters are considered enlightened. It shows for example in the way people address them by putting Kyabje in front of their names, which means "Lord of Refuge". These enlightened lineage holders thus pass the teaching from one to the next with the line traceable all the way back to the historical Buddha himself. Tibet has brought forth four such main lineages through which the Dharma has been transmitted in this fashion. One of them is the Gelugpa lineage, the others being Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya, as is well known.

If some Gelugpa masters of this caliber were now hoodwinked by a "spirit", had a sectarian bias, or even engaged in missionising and forced conversion, as is sometimes alleged, they couldn't possibly have been enlightened at the same time? And if they weren’t, then the conclusion can only be that the transmission was invalid: These root and lineage holders were charlatans and hundreds if not thousands followed an erroneous path. The criticism of Dorje Shugden being a sectarian spirit can thus be perceived as ultimately threatening the legitimacy of the Gelugpa transmission. This interpretation is the likelier cause for the current falling-out rather than political instigation by China using pecuniary means to damage the image of the Dalai Lama, as is sometimes claimed. When Tibetans are prepared to sacrifice their independence for the Dalai Lama, what difference could Chinese mammon make? What we in fact have is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Dorje Shugden and the related consequences for the Gelugpa lineage.

What then should one understand by "the nature" of Dorje Shugden? Who or what is this thing? Basically there are two allegations hanging in the air: That he is a "spirit" and therefore not a proper Buddhist deity, and that he is sectarian and therefore socially divisive. Although officially only worshipped by a minority, the guy seems to spell enough trouble both on religious and political grounds that it's deemed necessary to remove him from public life. So let's take a look at both allegations one after the other.

There are plenty of stories of how Dorje Shugden "arose" and who he "was" in previous lives. The interpretations vary greatly based on which side of the conflict one stands. For a general understanding however, we can ignore the details because we are moving about in Tantrayana where abstruse-sounding details abound. Once we get an idea of the peculiarity of the Tantrayana, we can also follow why Theravadans may think, what the Tibetans are doing is not Buddhism at all. And we will also understand why Tibetan masters generally advise students to keep their tantric practice to themselves: The Tantrayana involves a type of mindset which - mildly put - requires getting used to. When someone has to keep justifying himself for propitiating a "spirit" for example, he will never get around to acting upon his Bodhisattva vow and help others. People will start to have negative thoughts which can create unwholesome karma for them, and that's not exactly what an aspiring Bodhisattva should encourage. That's why it's recommended not to talk about the technique in the first place. What the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over. But since the Dorje Shugden practice has been exposed to the public, we need to look at it in a bit more depth in order to understand the nature of the conflict without getting entangled in its polemics.

For our type of discussion, it is important to look at the issue in the cold light of day without getting distracted by fantastic but irrelevant details. It is important to look based on universally accepted Buddhist tenets, such as the inherently empty nature of all phenomena. These cannot suddenly become invalid when moving about in a tantric context. Having said that, it is necessary to take a generic look at the category of protector deities or Dharmapalas (Tibetan: srungma) in order to have a reference point from where to start our reflections. Since their ancestors opted for the Tantrayana, Tibetans owe it to themselves to understand Dharmapalas at least at a conceptual level.

To make sure everyone is on the same page: The foundation of the Tibetan Buddhist practice is the same as in Theravada; practitioners work to transform their thoughts, speech and actions to become ethical in order to avoid rebirth in lower realms and stop perpetuating the samsaric cycle. In addition, as adherents of the Mahayana pursuing the Bodhisattva ideal, Tibetan Buddhists strive to develop wisdom and compassion – not to become great saints, but to make themselves the best they can be in order to help others. To achieve this goal, practitioners use various meditation techniques, do specific retreats, recite Mantras and take special vows as recommended by the Lama under whom they are studying.  To intensify their efforts, some then move on to tantric meditations around the trio consisting of Lama (Guru Yoga), Yidam (deity meditation) and Sungma (Dharmapala propitiation). The function of a Dharmapala is to protect dedicated lay and ordained practitioners from any obstacles that may occur on the path to transform one's ordinary body, speech and mind into those of an enlightened being.

Some Dharmapalas arose from hostile pagan spirits of pre-Buddhist Tibet and were converted by great masters of the past to protect the Buddhist teaching, it is said; then there are fantastic stories of Dharmapalas "recruited" from the Devas and Bodhisattvas; to complicate the concept, some protector deities are said to possess Buddha nature as the Three Jewels, not at all of inferior status assigned to do a lowly job as guards, as their form would suggest. And not enough: Enlightened masters, it is said, can also manifest as Dharmapalas; out of their great compassion, they make themselves available beyond their physical death, so to speak, so that practitioners can ask them for guidance via a medium. This in short, is the wondrous world of Dharmapalas as I have come to understand.

Generally speaking Dharmapalas are neither a main practice nor do all practitioners propitiate them by reciting these specific prayers and making offerings. The main practice consists of working towards directly experiencing Emptiness and cultivating stable Bodhicitta. Nevertheless, Dharmapalas must have their legitimacy for they also appear in the Field of Merit or tsog-shing, which lists the "Who's Who" of a Tibetan Buddhist school and serves as a source of inspiriation for practitioners. Shown in the Field of Merit of each school are the people who were instrumental in transmitting the Dharma in this specific lineage. Alongside the root and lineage Lamas, there are meditation deities, Bodhisattvas and Arhats,  as well as Dharmapalas (chos-skyong, srung-ma) all of whom the practitioner is supposed to visualise as being formed by rays of light coming of Buddha Shakyamuni's heart. The message is that all these people and objects in the Field of Merit are of the exact same nature as the Buddha himself and not a separate, anonymous crowd. They are a practitioner's "divine friends" who help getting ahead on the path to enlightenment. To cut a long story short, from their inclusion in the Field of Merit it follows that generally speaking Dharmapalas can be of the same nature as Buddha and qualify as objects of refuge.

The crunch question is of course whether Dorje Shugden can be considered as one of these "enlightened Dharmapalas". The Dalai Lama clearly says no. He has repeatedly stated that Dorje Shugden is a divisive spirit whose worship results in a number of negative outcomes. As evidence, he cites his own experience, which also goes back into previous reincarnations. Those with great faith in the Dalai Lama, considering him their main spiritual guide, have accepted his view without further ado. From a secular standpoint it may seem immature and submissive, but from a Buddhist practitioner's position, it must be deemed okay: There are those, who advance on the path by working mainly with their faith. As long as behaviour remains ethical, there is no need to go into laborious explanations as to why one decides to follow one's Lama's advice, that's my understanding.

Then there are those who try to advance on the path by working more with their "wisdom mind". If we belong to this group, we must aim at a correctly derived analysis based on objectivity or non-attachment, above everything else. Aggravating the analysis in this specific case is that the person raising the doubts is the Dalai Lama. In Tibetan circles, there is a heavy dose of lèse majesté with regard to this issue. The topic is deemed too hot to handle with everyone preferring conspiracy theories and walking on eggshells in order not to compromise him. However, if we investigate the issue undeterred, we may first bring to mind the fundamental Buddhist principle of the so-called "inherently empty nature of phenomena" as Buddha Gautama proclaimed in the third seal of the fundamental "Four Great Seals of the Dharma". A popular association would be the story of a son who gives his old mother a dogtooth pretending it's a relic of the Buddha; wholeheartedly believing him, the mother worships it and eventually gains genuine spiritual insights from it. If a dogtooth had the inherent nature of just a dogtooth, the old lady would not have been able to produce such a result. Her attitude and motivation made all the difference. Many Tibetans are familiar with this story and its line of argument: The object of veneration is as holy or unholy as the mind of the venerator.

When we accord the insight of the inherently empty nature of phenomena to Dorje Shugden, it explains why some can say full of conviction that he is a manifestation of Buddha Manjushri. At the same time, the guy has absolutely no relevance to uninvolved onlookers because it's WYSIWYG - what you see is what you get. Tibetans are unlikely to knowingly worship a "spirit" because as Buddhists they know it's pointless to go for refuge in an object that is not a representation of the Three Jewels. But they cannot be unknowingly worshipping a spirit either because that would amount to Dorje Shugden having the inherent nature of a spirit, which blatantly contradicts the principle of the emptiness of all phenomena. My conclusion is therefore that for his adherents, Dorje Shugden must be a bona fide object of refuge, a so-called "enlightened Dharmapala" of the same nature as a Buddha.

But how can we explain that when His Holiness the Dalai Lama looks at Dorje Shugden, he sees a divisive spirit? An answer is found in the systemic nature of the institution of Dalai Lamas: They are recruited from the Gelugpa order exclusively, but their function differs greatly from that of its other Lamas because the person who serves as Dalai Lama, the Gyalwa Tulku, has also served as the head of the government and as such is the leader of all Tibetans, not just Gelugpas. While the sole responsibility of regular Gelugpa Lamas consists of ensuring that the spiritual lineage is passed on from one generation to the next, the responsibility of a Dalai Lama, above all, is to look after the welfare of the Tibetan people as a whole. His task is thus by definition political. By systemic default, Dalai Lamas wear two hats – one religious, i. e. Gelug Lama, the other political, i. e. head of state and government. If they want to serve all Tibetans equally, Dalai Lamas have no choice but to transcend their narrow lineage responsibility, there is no alternative within the framework of the traditional Tibetan political system.

Especially after going into exile, the ruling Gelugpas must have realised that their form of government had to become more inclusive if they wanted to hold all Tibetans together across regional and sectarian lines. The 14^th Dalai Lama then initiated democratic reforms with the aim to make the exile polity fairer and more representative. On a personal level, he also began to complement his Gelug practice with teachings from the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. In the process, it seems an inner conflict arose as the Dalai Lama had also inherited the propitiation of the Gelug protector Dorje Shugden from some of his root teachers. The Dalai Lama has not been specific about the nature of these tensions but since it is a personal experience, it suffices to acknowledge that to him it didn't feel right to continue. It is in this context of trying to transform an exclusivist Gelugpa government into an inclusive pan-Tibetan leadership that the Dorje Shugden worship was eventually identified as an obstacle to unity.

Why pick on this particular poor devil when there are dozens of protector deities in the Tibetan tantric pantheon? By trying to answer this question we are moving from the religious aspect of the conflict into its political dimension. The Dorje Shugden practice is a relic of the past when the Gelugpas were among themselves in government and sectarian bias was the institutionalized norm. As its very name emphasizes, the Ganden Phodrang government established in 1642 and in charge until the fall of Tibet in 1950, was a Gelugpa government. As such and by today's standards, it must be considered sectarian and biased by nature in itself. It is my assertion that an exclusivist, sectarian abuse of Dorje Shugden must have occurred within this larger historical context: Politicised Gelupas must have instrumentalised the Dharmapala towards their worldly aim to expand Gelug rule. This would also explain why other Tibetans to this day sometimes associate Dorje Shugden with Gelug hegemony.

In the new exile polity however, a Nyingma member of parliament, a Bonpo clerk or a Kagyu official understandably had no reason to participate in state-sponsored Gelugpa protector rituals, and particularly so when they associated Dorje Shugden with the old Gelugpa-dominated state and abuse of power. The guy clearly didn't possess majority appeal in the new Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama saw that. A separation was perhaps all the more necessary as the new government still had a Dalai Lama, a Gelugpa Lama, as its head until 2011 when the 14th Dalai Lama formally stepped down from political power. To hold people together, the government either had to drop this ritual or settle for a Dharmapala that was acceptable to Tibetans of all religious backgrounds. As a personal consequence, the Dalai Lama discontinued his own practice of Dorje Shugden. The advantage was that he and the government became better identifiable for all Tibetans. Parting with Dorje Shugden was an important gesture that the government was now catering to the needs of all Tibetans equally. On a personal level, the Dalai Lama had meanwhile also become a professing follower of the Rimé movement and the Gelug-specific Dorje Shugden practice definitely didn't feel right to him anymore.

Historically, Rimé – which is often translated as “non-sectarian” - was the answer by Tibet's smaller orders to counter the Gelugpas’ sectarian expansionism. With political backing and powerful patrons, the Gelug order was free to spread its school of Buddhism into the farthest corner of the highlands. Precious transmissions and teachings from smaller orders were at risk of being extinguished and so great masters of the past - lineage holders in the true sense of the word - took it upon themselves to save and consolidate them, hence the Rimé movement was born. That a Dalai Lama would one day join the underdogs and stop putting the interest of his own school above the interest of the others is therefore extraordinary. Not only does it hold great symbolic significance for Tibet's religious minorities, but it is fulfills the necessity of exile to keep everyone together under one roof.

What we are witnessing, in my view, is therefore nothing less than the dying days of Gelugpa rule. Any hegemony exhausts its cycle. Buddhists would say it's impermanence at work. The exile polity is becoming more inclusive and with it, the Rimé movement is experiencing a revival. At the dawn of this new era, it would seem Dorje Shugden has become a convenient scapegoat for the official Gelug school to absolve itself from its historical responsibility of institutionalised sectarian rule. Singling Dorje Shugden out as the culprit and projecting collective shortcomings of Gelugpa rule onto this "spirit" allows the official order to extricate itself from the potential stigma of religious Apartheid. By getting rid of Dorje Shugden, so perhaps the new Gelugpa calculation, the order would be able to survive historical accountability unscathed, and the Tibetans could have a new beginning. More research is required to back up my conclusions, but that's my hypothesis in a nutshell for the moment.

Setting the current dispute into the historical context of Ganden Phodrang rule would also explain, why today's people in the Dorje Shugden camp all slip under general suspicion of being Gelug chauvinists: That's what politicised Dorje Shugden adherents of the past must have been. No smoke without a fire. It is known that power corrupts. It has a similar effect on people as money, sex or drugs. Over time, the dopamine boost causes addiction and leaves traces on the psyche. If this is done in an institutionalised manner and over centuries, the effect on the Gelug order can hardly have been flattering?

It is important to differentiate though, that contemporary followers of Dorje Shugden in Tibet and abroad, are private people without any association to state power and who have a different notion of the Dharmapala altogether. They also vehemently reject any wrongdoings with regard to belittling other Buddhist schools. The most vocal ones among them are not the most skillful in advancing their point, but if one listens to their message with a willingness to understand their concern, one may notice that their bewilderment at the accusation is actually genuine. - It shouldn't come as a surprise really because Gelugpas in general have a poor historical awareness of the problematic nature of their order's long-term marriage to political power. This unawareness also explains why the accused are totally clueless and the critics can direct any kind of sectarianism guilt pointedly on Dorje Shugden and his followers, without having second thoughts about themselves. On this point, all Gelugpas high and low are equally history-blind.

If there is sectarianism however, it is not found in an object but sits in the heads of people who are projecting their biased thinking onto this object. Siding with Dorje Shugden therefore cannot be considered “sectarian” per se. It says nothing about people’s motives and any blanket judgment must fall short. Though this is a Buddhist truism, the association of Dorje Shugden with Gelug power politics persists. Einstein didn't say for nothing that a prejudice is harder to crack than an atom.

What we need to keep in mind is that supreme Buddhist principles do not suddenly become invalid when moving about in a tantric context. Then we will also recognise that insisting on something being a divisive spirit is an eternalist fallacy, just as is claiming the contrary that this thing is an enlightened Buddha: Both positions can become dogmatic and rigid when continuously overemphasized. If an almost octogenarian Dalai Lama continues with what he refers to as his "duty" to alert people, even neutral observers will begin to take it as a sign of senile stubbornness. And if the Dorje Shugden folks don't stop shouting at his talks, they will have ruined the reputation of their Dharmapala beyond repair. People on either side must be careful not to become attached and compromise their ethics in the process, creating the conditions for a lot more trouble. Fact is opinions are sharply divided and the Sangha is split. Each side projects their preference. What more proof do we need that phenomena are inherently empty? And since neither side is on speaking terms with each other, this is also the theological end of the story. Live and let live.

The political end is more difficult to foresee. In hindsight, the biggest miscalculation in the quest to remove Dorje Shugden from the Gelug pantheon was the assumption that as in the past, people would follow the Dalai Lama's recommendation out of loyalty. Had the Dalai Lama left the disassociation from Dorje Shugden at the state level and his personal situation as its head, the dispute may have ended with the separation from the dissenting monks. But for whatever reason he began to repeatedly raise the issue at large public gatherings. Once his concern was publicised, things developed their own dynamics. So when people still don't listen after nearly twenty years of constant reminders, it can't be because they haven't heard the message? Rather they don't seem to appreciate protectionist interventions with regard to their personal religious practice. Perhaps then it is time to look at the dissent as an exercise for the Tibetans to become more self-reliant. The Dalai Lama won't be around to coach his people forever. The sooner they learn to figure out what they want, the better.

I don't know whether the "Dorje Shugden Tibetans" are aware of it but with their refusal to comply, they have created a historical precedence: For the first time since Lama Tsongkhapa, we now have a section of the Gelugpas that is completely cut off from the old ways of "religion and politics combined". These renegade monasteries and lay practitioners are now as independent as the Nyingmapa, Sakyapa and Kagyupa have been, never coming into the orbit of government. Could it be then that the Tibetan dispute so painful to observe at present, will be looked upon by later generations as a watershed in history, when a part of the Gelugpas was able to shake off the burden of government and become a normal Tibetan Buddhist school? In the heat of the polemics it may be difficult to envision this transition, but the Dorje Shugden supporters dominating the headlines are hardly representative of the whole group. There are less visible Tibetan masters, monks and and lay practitioners who stand on their ethics, and who focus on their spiritual practice to benefit others. By keeping a low profile, they help to avoid adding fuel to the fire. They also remain respectful of His Holiness the Dalai Lama though they do not share his view on the protector. 

It would be desirable for the head of the Gelugpa school, the so-called "Throne holder of Ganden" or Ganden Tripa, to play a more active role and put things into perspective for everyone. Dharmapalas are personal and not a main practice. Amidst the hype, a molehill appears like a mountain. The Ganden Tripa should also lead efforts to dissipate the doubts cast on the authenticity of the spiritual transmission. Furthermore, he should be at the forefront to investigate with ruthless candor the political role his order played during the Ganden Phodrang rule. At the same time it is clear that the Ganden Tripa's hands are tied. Even the person who represents Lama Tsongkhapa on earth has trouble stepping out of the Dalai Lama's shadow. The entire discussion is not easy because previous Dalai Lamas, especially the 5th to which the current 14th seems to feel particular affinity, are themselves implied in sectarian conflicts and the Dalai Lama is still among us, active in public affairs and dominating public opinion. It doesn't help either that, unlike the other Tibetan Buddhist schools, the big Gelugpa monasteries in India, including the throne holder of Ganden, are under the administration of the exile government and receive funding from them. - How can Lama Tsongkhapa's earthly deputy find a good way to act in the best interest of the lineage, irrespective of political concerns and without making His Holiness the Dalai Lama appear in a bad light?

This was my high-level take on the issue based on the free flow of thoughts. I hope it didn't add to the confusion or oversimplify the problem. My big picture can be summed up with the motto "Life punishes those who delay". The ugly dispute we currently have is the price the Tibetans are paying for their unresolved past. They prefer to localise the problem in an external source, in this case Dorje Shugden, when what is really required would be a critical self-analysis and the Gelugpas doing some serious introspection regarding their historical role: To what extent did the order compromise its ethics due to exercising state power?

With my prayers for peaceful co-existence

Mountain Phoenix Over Tibet

"When others, out of jealousy, mistreat me

With abuse, insult and the like,

May I take the defeat upon myself

And may I offer the victory to others."

5th verse from the Lojong text "Training of the Mind in Eight Verses", by the 11th-century Kadampa master Geshe Langri Tangpa Dorje Senge; the text is commonly used in Bodhisattva-training.

Rising From The Ashes

As great the sacrifices and as well intended, no matter from what side I try to look at them, the Tibetan self-immolations don’t feel right. The sight of people burning alive, bystanders who sometimes offer a Khata to the person in flames, compatriots abroad telling me “Tibetans in Tibet are the boss, whatever they do, we must support” - all this seems surreal. To me it feels like we have run out of ideas. The struggle has reached an all-time low.

Distancing ourselves clearly from self-immolation as a political method is not a betrayal of our sacrificing Tibetan brothers and sisters. Not distancing ourselves means approval and indirect encouragement of a method that is neither humanly sustainable nor politically effective.

Self-immolation is not okay even as the ultimate resort.

Little has it served us that the self-immolations are a desperate cry for help in the face of increasing pressure. Hopes that the Chinese will put an end to the self-immolations by making concessions are clearly not materialising.  Nevertheless Tibetan public opinion abroad is that the victims are “heroes”. Tibetan-language channels also refer to Jampel Yeshi, the man who recently set himself on fire in India, as Pawo even though in his case there was no direct Chinese repression involved.

Calling the self-immolators “heroes” arises from our compassion and our empathy. It is meant well. But when the intended political effect of these acts is zero, where is the wisdom part coming in that we know must go hand in hand with compassion?

With all my prayers for the deceased and those left wounded, I fail to see them as heroes. I can follow they believed if only something dramatic would be done it could improve the situation. But a hero personifies an ideal and works to fulfill that in the real world, someone who leads by example and whose actions bring change, a person we can strive to emulate. Politically motivated suicide victims cannot be role models for our society no matter how noble and selfless the goal. These deaths are tragic and the victims´ families deserve all our sympathies, but begging your pardon, they are not “heroes”.

It is also a misconception that the self-immolations are the ultimate “Buddhist” sacrifice. The Takmo Lüjin (“Sacrificing the body to a tigress”) story sometimes cited in defence is unfortunate because we conveniently eliminate the fact that when our Lamas recount these stories they were not meant for imitation but to illustrate the great compassion of the enlightened mind. Lamas take pains to point out not to take these stories literally because unlike the actions of a Buddha or a Bodhisattva, actions of ordinary beings are always mixed with worldly concerns. So when we cite Buddhism to justify what is essentially a political act, we allow our patriotism and our emotions to cloud our judgment.

Another problematic development is the involvement of the Sangha in the self-immolations.  The spiritual community of monks and nuns represents the third of the “Three Jewels” and seeking refuge in them forms the basis of Tibetan Buddhist practice. Tibetan society holds monks and nuns in high regard. The earthquake in Kyegu two years ago has shown the significant role the Sangha continues to play helping in the rescue, providing comfort, organising prayer services and leading burial ceremonies. When members of the Sangha now begin to set themselves on fire, where does that leave the lay and what message does it send to them? The sacrifices are enormous but will they make it easier for the people left behind to deal with their lives? Who should they turn to for guidance when monks and nuns resort to such drastic measures?

There is one thing though the self-immolations are showing quite clearly and it’s this: Nobody in the world cares. We Tibetans are alone. There is not one country and not the people of one country giving us the kind of support it takes to improve our situation.

Even among the billion Chinese people, many of whom live side by side with Tibetans and know their government’s unscrupulous methods first-hand, there is no one up to the level of humanity to sympathise with the Tibetans. The extreme opposite is the case: Chinese security personnel shoot at self-immolators and physically abuse them while Chinese citizens throw stones at them. Not even among the many Chinese dissidents who live in the free world is there one who has spoken up for their Tibetan brothers and sisters, for that’s what the Chinese say we are: members of one and the same family.

If the Tibetans were free to choose they would long have gone their separate ways, Buddha knows this is the truth. But it’s bad luck or collective Karma: We are not in a position to choose. We are not in a position to negotiate for change either. We are deserted, we are totally outnumbered and we are completely at the mercy of China. It’s like being in a forced marriage with an abusive partner with all the neighbours knowing exactly what is going on but nobody stepping in to offer real support.

So when we are left to fend for ourselves, what would be a better way to beat the odds than setting ourselves on fire?

We could make the strategic decision to be more like the biblical David who beat overpowering Goliath because he refused to fight at the latter’s terms. David avoided direct confrontation because the balance of power was not in his favour. Instead, he used what he was best at: endurance and agility, sustaining himself, sheer determination to survive and outlast the giant.  While Goliath had the physical might of China, David had the long-term view and a sense of timing. Everyone knows David prevailed.

In our context trying to be like David means discontinue the self-immolations without ifs and buts. Being like David means avoiding anything that provokes Chinese retaliation and instead systematically broaden our focus to long-term sustenance. None of us knows when this problem with China will be resolved, so we must prepare ourselves to endure. We must dose our energy wisely because this very sense of urgency that drives us up the wall now has been around for decades and may well continue for more decades. We must plan accordingly and control our impulses.

If we insist on continuing down the path of the self-immolations instead, our collective anger and frustration at our powerlessness are preprogrammed to increase.  One can already observe signs of frustration with everyone expecting someone else to find the right response. The self-immolators and protestors in Tibet are banking their hopes on their compatriots living in freedom. The ones in freedom are put in a tight spot and overextended by this monumental task, putting all their hopes on foreign governments or the UN. You can hear people saying they are tired of shouting at demonstrations, tired of candle light vigils, frustrated at the world for ignoring Tibetan lives while going overboard for other countries. And in our collective frustration we drive ourselves to lie in wait for each other’s perceived mistakes as if those were responsible for not achieving the political goals.

If we don’t come up with a systematic plan that expands our outlook to include the long-term, increasing internal strife could be the result where the ones in Tibet get frustrated with the ones abroad because they believe the ones abroad don’t do enough to push for political change while they are ready to pay with their lives; the ones in Tibet from areas with demonstrations may accuse the other areas without demonstrations of being unpatriotic, selfish cowards; the areas with no demonstrations may come to resent the areas with demonstrations because due to their “fault”, the Chinese government clamps down on all of them all without discrimination.  Caught up in internal strife, it will only benefit China to maintain the tyranny.

The qualities the biblical David represents are our best bet to beat the odds. They are not a new discovery by the Tibetans but the painful experience from the self-immolations is underlining their effectiveness many times over. People in many parts of Tibet have been successfully sustaining themselves, their families and their communities this way ever since the Chinese took control. These “Davidian” qualities are also embodied in the person whose name the self-immolators consistently call out: the Dalai Lama. His life is truly based on endurance, discipline, concentration, patience but also generosity, wisdom and compassion. He has refined himself over and over again and is a living example of how one can overcome historical events and still not loose faith and give hope to others.  We mentioned “heroes” earlier: Here is a genuine one we can strive to copy, someone positive, someone worthy to emulate on our scale.

By generating in ourselves the values the Dalai Lama represents, we truly begin to carry him in our hearts even when he is far. We no longer need to rely on externalising all our hopes on him but can find hope within ourselves. These values lie dormant in us. They are core values of the Tibetan civilization. Now is the time to become distinctively aware of them, try our best to activate them, nurture them and consciously train in them and pass them on to our children; make them a living part of our culture, internalize them. Armed with these qualities we do not need to fear anything because we have the certainty that we will remain unshaken whatever we have to undergo.

Training in mental skills is tougher and more precious than sacrificing one’s life because it requires sustained effort over an unknown period of time, even over generations. Learning these skills is not a political flash in the pan. They also make our present more meaningful, as it requires a vision and persistent effort. In the long haul, it is these qualities that will prove much more resilient against the might and power of the Chinese domination.

We are from a culture that is used to think in kalpa or aeons. So thinking long-term shouldn’t be a problem, it’s our strength. At some point, just like Goliath, the might cannot be sustained any longer and opportunities will arise when political constellations change. We will not miss them but lie in wait for them and exploit them skillfully.

I was numb over the self-immolations for some time but I am slowly realising that they have served a purpose after all: They have made it plain once and for all that we cannot win if we try to force China to behave in a certain way whether by peaceful protest or through self-immolations. Our only chance to beat the tyrant is by outlasting him through our endurance, David style. No dictatorship can last forever.

But this is not only a time for us to go inward and work on ourselves.  This is also the time to go outward and focus on small tangible goals while not loosing sight of the large, abstract ones. If there is one positive thing that has come out of self-immolations and the sacrifices it’s the Tibetan identity growing stronger all across the homeland. We must now make the most of this renewed sense of identity and use it in constructive ways to give it meaning.

Tibetan policy-makers, political activists, people who work on projects in Tibet, anyone who cares and with some influence must now move to the next level and make smart, long-term plans to carefully work for cultural preservation, strengthening and protecting the Tibetan language, teaching our children the values that we have learned to live, taking care of our own environment, our resources, protect our own habitats, our forests, our rivers, through community action and leadership on the grassroots level. It’s easier said than done, but we still have to do it because it’s our best bet.

We begin with ourselves, extend it to our families, which then flows into our communities. It’s “Lhakar” bottom up, magnified by seven days a week, extrapolated to 365 days of the year, for the rest of our lives. And while each of us individually goes about accomplishing these tasks, we draw on our inner strength and confidence sharing that with our family and our community.

Tibetans have come a long way. Our brave ancestors fought the Chinese. They survived the crazy political campaigns and the devastating famines only to go through the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. A new generation of Tibetans born in an era not affected by political craze is coming of age. We must not loose our patience now but carry on so the sacrifices of the self-immolators are not in vain. We must rise from the ashes with renewed strength, a cool head and a clear vision to absolutely outlive this situation, always prepared to renegotiate the relationship with China once the political constellations change.

Nothing can shake us or make us nervous in the manner of “time is running out”. We have all the time in the world because we’re in charge, not our opponent. Remember David.

May each day bring us renewed strength!

Mountain Phoenix

Related essays

Please Stop Killing Yourselves!

Reckless Robots Versus Kind-Hearted Softies

The Long And Winding Road


All written content on this blog is coyprighted. Please do not repost entire essays on your websites without seeking my prior written consent.