Dalai Lama found guilty of persecution by High Court

[crazycloud]

I agree with Mr. "a friend"! Change the name of the thread until such time as we have some good, solid evidence that we can show. As for now, there has been no verdict.

So what about the Dec 9 court date? Any news from anyone?

 

[emptymountains]

I saw that Thom had posted this elsewhere:

No definitions were found for THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 2222/2008 DORJEET SHUGDEN DEVOTEES CHRITABLE and RELIGIOUS SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jayant Tripathi and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocates. versus UOI and ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Atul Nanda, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 09.12.2009 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for four weeks time to file response to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 7th December, 2009. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for UOI points out that the affidavit in support of the amended writ petition is dated 2nd April, 2008 and the amended writ petition is dated 5th April, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will take corrective steps. Re-list on 29th March, 2010. SANJIV KHANNA, J. DECEMBER 09, 2009 VKR.

[crazycloud]

ok, Thanks.

So another delay, til March this time......

[a friend]

Well, you are quite the poet, Chief!
But let's leave aside too many adjectifs. Here in this forum several people have said and I think you were among them, that the Lamas think that the Dalai lama is sick.
So let's show some compassion that and only act when it's needed, let's go against his actions only whenever it's the moment to defend the innocent. The rest of the time, well, you know what I think.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND HAPPY DECADE!
Let's thank with our heart all our holy Lamas, starting with Lord Buddha Shakyamuni, for all the teachings and the inspiration.
And let's thank our Protector, the Dharmapala Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden.
May his waves of inspiration and his enlightened actions continue and increase.

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Well, while I'm definitely PRO-Shugden, I'm not so sure if I should be ANTI-Dalai. There is that catch, you see.

I might be anti-establishment and anti-'papal', but the old Tibetan idiocies are not my interest, as they do not touch me, or anyone else, excepting the old idiots and their followers. Maintaining the lineal integrity of different traditions is of course a great thing, but then again... We shall see.

[emptymountains]

(Speaking up for Thom here, since I'm guessing this thread is why he left...?)

Believe it or not, this is my first time actually reading what has been said... Only act when needed? How about not stopping action until it's no longer needed? Only act when it's time to defend the innocent? Look at what the DL has been up to the past 2 years! Now is to the time to protect the pitiful and protectorless! Besides, did hoping it would all go away (from 1998-2008) work out for us in the end? Samsara has never ended on its own, and it never will.

Wrath is 'forceful compassion', so why is showing the DL a wrathful response not being compassionate towards him? ZP says he's pro-Shugden but not anti-DL. (I guess Thom's message--since deleted--sounded anti-DL?) Well, if we are identifying (a) the DL's true self with (b) the object of his self-cherishing--the latter being the actual object of Thom's wrathful response--then it's easy for us to take his words as being anti-DL, but in reality they are "anti-DL's delusions". Yes, the DL's sick, and you cure the patient by treating the disease: his ego.

[a friend]

(Speaking up for Thom here, since I'm guessing this thread is why he left...?)

Thom has been coming and going under different denominations since the beginning of his presence in this website. Besides he didn't leave, he's extremely active in the Guestroom.

Only act when needed? How about not stopping action until it's no longer needed?

Dear Emptymountains, I partially agree with you. That depends, though, on what you call action. For example, I pray and hope that Trinley Kelsang will never stop doing his research. His actions are thoroughly correct and useful, not only now but in the future, as far as history lasts in the world. Because he is trying to restore the truth.
Other actions do not possess all those qualities.

I don't know which wrathful compassionate response you are referring to. Insults, name calling, hateful speech are not compassionate, they are just wrong speech. But I don't want to start an ethical discussion here.
Let's forget about Buddhist conduct and focus on "no longer needed". Efficacy. If you are looking for a change in public opinion about our issue, then insults, name calling, hateful speech are not efficacious. On the contrary. It’s a well known phenomenon in communication that a good portion of the public takes the side of the person who is attacked with that type of speech. In the case of DL he has so few words to utter to deflate even good arguments, imagine hateful speech … it directly acts in his favor.
One thing is to point to his actions. This has to be done when it has to be done and we’ve done it. That it will be necessary to continue doing it is very probable. But not all the time, not in any field at random.
And then, another thing is to call him names.
One thing is to say: “The Dalai Lama has prompted the religious and social persecution of a portion of the Tibetan community around the world.”
Another thing is to say: “The D. L. is a bandit, a fake Lama, a thief, a dictator, a liar.”
Emptymountains, honestly, which of those types of utterances are going to have at least a chance to be taken seriously?

And then, forget communication, forget Buddhism. Just out of respect for ourselves as human beings we should refrain from insults and hateful speech.

[emptymountains]

The following are not my words (posted publically as a comment to one of my since-deleted blog posts), but they did help me to understand the apparent name-calling:

The term “hypocrite” is a valid description from a Prasangika point of view. It means someone who makes critical statements about others, but doesn’t adequately evaluate their own behavior from the same point of view. They are therefore “under critical” of their own behavior. “Hypocrisy” is a perfect criticism of someone’s position from a Prasangika point of view. It shows that there is a contradiction between their words and their actions.

“Dictator” is also a fine description for a Prasangika to give someone. It is not any violation of rules of logic and debate to describe someone as a dictator if they are imposing heavy and self-serving rules or punishments, expecting immediate compliance, and then punishing people if they don’t comply. It points out an implicit contradiction in a person’s behavior, since they are wishing to control and command others, but don’t want to hear any feedback or be in any way controlled themselves. Because there is a contradiction in how they behave towards others and how they would want people to treat them, then a dictator’s position is invalid from a Prasangika’s point of view.

[Name-calling is] just childish behavior, and that’s not what the WSS is doing. Although terms like “Liar”, “Hypocrite”, and “Dictator” are unpleasant to hear, it is not inappropriate for Prasangikas to publicly use those terms to describe others’ behavior if that is an accurate description. You can’t call these terms “un-Buddhist” … they are descriptive terms. There’s nothing “un-Buddhist” about publicly pointing out another person’s faults if you are free from any self-centered motivation in doing so, and if this action is necessary in order to prevent the person from causing further harm and suffering.

“Buddhist” does not equal “always being quiet and polite and never saying or doing anything that might upset people”. That’s good practice in general, but it is not sufficient in every case.

[a friend]

Emptymountains,
The author! If it's not your words, and you invoque the authority of those words, then you need to give the source.

[a friend]

Thom,
You can post in the Forum all you want, as usual. You come and go as it pleases you.

Now about your speech.
If your motivation is to make this “bad boy” get his “comeuppins”, then I wonder who is being naïf here. Do you think your words are going to change him? Do you think your words are going to destroy his reputation? Do you think your words are making him depressed or unhappy?
Unfortunately I suspect that your words are making him quite happy. I don’t know in Oriental countries but in Western countries your method only serves to help him. Nobody takes seriously tabloid language, nobody takes seriously name calling. Bad language, name calling, are weapons in the hands of the one that you wish to punish. This is not my opinion, it’s the nature of communication in our Western countries.

I suggest that you change name calling for enunciation of his actions.
Instead of saying, “he’s a dictator”, just describe actions. This day, this place, he said this. That day, that place, he did that. The consequences for people were such and such.
If you give facts instead of insults then there is a chance that your words be taken seriously. But then, this would mean that you are not angry any more. I might be asking too much too soon.
Anyway, when you are done venting, maybe you might wish to consider my suggestions.

[a friend]

Dear Thom,
I'm pretty sure that I've been a hen many times, and a monk many times. My recollections of nunneries are weak, but a nun too. A dog too. A bitch too. Simple mathematics of beginningless ...
So you can go on Thom, call me whatever you want ...
You are doing me a favor, sending  me to my Lojong practice.

But I have to continue saying that this is not a good place to use hateful language against the Dalai Lama. Somebody has to say it. It’s nothing against you, since this advice is given to others too, actually to all of us.

Beyond the efficacy or lack of it of such language, there is the honor of Dharma to defend, and of the Lamas who brought us up. If sometimes a guest passes by, he needs to know that not everybody here, in this Buddhist website, approves of wrong speech, not even in the case of a so called “enemy” because if we, Buddhists, act like that, what is it that we are showing the world about our holy Dharma, what is it to be expected of those who did not have the fortune of entering into Dharma. This being a public site it’s appropriate that whoever passes by sees that at least some among us wish that all of us preserve our vows as far as this unfortunate situation permits.

Anyway, you come and go as you please, as usual.

With affection,
a Friend

[Lineageholder]

I'm with Thom on this one.  If I need to say 'liar', 'fraud', 'cheat' and 'hypocrite' to protect Je Tsongkhapa's tradition from being destroyed, I'll do it and face the consequences.  They are all expressions of truth and valid descriptions as Emptymountains has shown.  They are valid descriptions of conventional reality.

I don't believe that the Dalai Lama can be stopped simply by pointing out the inconsistencies in his actions and words.  I understand that the power of the Dalai Lama's speech has to be completely destroyed.  Many people believe him simply because of who he is.  They have faith that he is a holy being because that's how he appears, wearing Je Tsongkhapa's robes, and so they follow his view.  This has to stop because the Dalai Lama is NOT a holy being (can Avalokiteshvara cause suffering to millions?) but a self-serving politician who is using the Buddhadharma for his own power and reputation.  if you have any doubt, please read 'A Great Deception'.  All your doubts will be removed. 

The only way to destroy the power of the Dalai Lama's speech is to show him as he really is - to shine the light of wisdom on him and tell things as they really are.  Liar, hypocrite, fraud and cheat are perfect descriptions.  I'm not afraid to tell the truth. I admit that using these words is a double-edged sword because of the misconceptions that people have about Buddhism, thinking you have to speak nice words all the time otherwise you're a bad Buddhist.  It is an important question whether the use of such words is skilful means or not, but my doubts are removed because these are words that our own Teachers (Gelugpa Lamas) who compiled 'A Great Deception' have used. The truth is more important than opinions and judgements.  If we're 'nice' but Je Tsongkhapa's tradition disappears from this world because we weren't wise or brave enough to use strong, wrathful actions, it will be a disaster and a tragedy.  Right now, only we stand in the way of this happening.  We must act as an offering to our Gurus to protect the precious doctrine that Buddha and many others gave their lives for many times.  This is our offering to our Gurus and all sentient beings - to try to remove political pollution from Buddhism by showing the institution of the Dalai Lama to be flawed and deceptive because it mixes religion and politics.