Thank you Lineageholder for acknowledging my discovery/speculation, based on Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche´s own words, that the one whom the Protector wanted mostly to leave Tibet to benefit the teachings and sentient beings was this holy Trijang Dorjechang himself. (This is not to say that he wasn´t happy to protect all the others, a Buddha is always happy to protect, if they could they would take our obscurations with their own hands and would take us out of samsara once and for all, they don´t do it because it´s not possible).
I absolutely agree that one should take action when action is to be taken, and OF COURSE if your venerable Lama requested you to do demonstrations or other actions then there´s no doubt you have to do it.
Since it seems that what I´ve been saying is a little bit misunderstood, let me give a succinct explanation. It´s just a case of taking the middle way.
1- I oppose the use of insults against the Dalai Lama. This has two motivations: one, I try to keep my vows as much as I can and the Three Jewels know how difficult it is; I try also to remind others in this website to also keep their vows related to right speech. The other motivation is just skilful means in front of the world: I know that for some Oriental people the use of insults works quite well; this is not so in the Western world. In our Western world what works best is to point very clearly to wrong actions without what is called ‘ad hominem’ attacks, the attacks on the person. In the case of the D.L. this is true to a much greater degree due to his good reputation and the fact that people do not like to be treated as idiots. If you insult such a cherished icon, they feel insulted themselves because they have admiration and sympathy towards him. In the West what works is to say “he did this, look how it breaks such and such of our laws about human rights, etc.” rather than the use of insults that gives us a bad aspect and makes still more convincing his smiling face.
2- I consider a wrong view quite pernicious to go about saying that the Dalai Lama did what he did out of compassion in order to disseminate the cult of the Protector, or in order to benefit in some other unknown mysterious way the teachings and beings or even the Tibetans. This sounds quite virtuous, to maintain this view, but it´s not. It´s a wrong view, a type of superstition, maintained either out of innocent ignorance or out of other motivations, like repeating what others are saying or even out of some compassion for the Dalai Lama´s followers. But Buddhas act like in the Anglo-Saxon law: following precedents. For instance, the Buddhas with the marks they all are born in the Himalayas, they all are enlightened sitting under the Bodhi Tree, etc. There is no precedent of a Buddha that shows himself as such (and the Dalai Lama does, since he accepts the title of Chenrezig that he´s been awarded with) there is no precedent that they turn against their Gurus or that they split the Sangha or that they massively persecute people out of religious discrimination. Lord Atisha didn´t do this, Lord Tsongkapa didn´t do this, and that´s that: enough precedence for me, as to how a Guru/Buddha should conduct himself in the face of the world. How do you imagine that Buddhas that give the appearance of Guru/Buddhas go about showing the opposite of that which is their main, basic job: to show beings what to adopt and what to abandon? This doesn´t stand to reason.
(Here I beg any potential debater to please not come back again with examples that have nothing, nothing to do with this case, like Tilopa eating fish in front of Naropa or Marpa throwing Mila through the window; this does not fall into the public level I am talking about, that has nothing to do with the intimate Guru/disciple relationship. So please skip these and other similar examples. Skip also that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche said this or that. Kyabje Rinpoche was the Guru of the Dalai Lama and loved his disciple tenderly and never abandoned him; while he was alive he tried to maintain the door open for him to make amends, and for the Tibetans in exile not to loose hope, but once he passed away … a door closed in a definite way, so do not try to give me that one either).
3- About to take action against him, if innocent lives are at stake even in a broad sense and it´s possible to do something then one should do something. The Three Jewels know what we did. But to think that the teachings will survive only if we do actions against the Dalai Lama is also a deviation. The teachings will survive if we protect the Lamas and our own practice. If we do not actualize in our practice and realizations the holy teachings of Je Rinpoche then we are destroying the teachings with more strength than the outer actions of the Dalai Lama. Because if we, recipients of the treasury of Dharma imparted to us by our holy Lamas, those giants that came from the Land of Snows, do not practice, then who? Once we die, if this generation of disciples does not give enough number of realized beings, who is going to impart the Dharma to the coming generations? What a terrible betrayal to our Lamas and sentient beings that would be.
That is the meaning of my injonctions: if there is an innocent to protect and you can do it, then do it. Afterwards go immediately back to your practice and forget about that poor Dalai Lama and his actions. Listen, study, contemplate, meditate! This is going to save the holy Dharma, this is going to benefit ourselves and others.
Ok, thank the Three Jewels that this was going to be succinct. Imagine what it would be had I announced that it was going to be extensive.
