Dalai Lama news
Dalai Lama’s address in January, 2008
from Voice of America (Translation of Dalai Lama’s address)
Extract 1: A problem lingering from about 370 years, which remained overlooked in about the last 30 years. Since Communist China is taking special interest in the matter… You abbots, do you understand? You office bearers, do you understand? The literature will be distributed later. You sponsors, did you understand? You Western monks, do you want to join in the referendum? To neglect it is of no use. In the Vinaya rules also, when there is a contentious issue, the monks take vote-sticks and decide, as mentioned in the seven methods of resolving conflict. In contemporary democratic practice, there is such a thing as ‘referendum’, ‘consulting the majority’. The matter has now reached this point of consulting what the majority wants. Therefore, when you return to your respective places after this programme at Loseling Monastery, put these questions: 1. Whether you want to worship Dholgyal. This is the first question. Those who want to worship, should sign saying they wish to worship Dholgyal; those who don’t want should sign saying that don’t want to. 2. ‘We want to share the religious and material amenities of life (live together in the monastery) of life with Dholgyal worshippers.’ You should sign saying so. ‘We do not want to share religious and material amenities of life (live together) with Dholgyal worshippers.’ (You should) sign saying so.’
Extract 2: So take this voting on majority choice. No one will put any pressure; I am not putting any pressure. If the ‘Yes Sayers’ have a majority of 60 or 70, then from this day onwards I will not speak even one word on Dholgyal. And you will be responsible for whatever the consequences. If 60 or 70 or more majority vote that they ‘do not worship Dholgyal’, that they ‘have no wish to share religious and material amenities of life (live together) with Dholgyal worshippers’, then one has to think accordingly.
Extract 3: This issue has now become a matter of interest to the Chinese Government also. During the meeting between them and my sixth delegation, one of their criticisms is that the ban on Shugden worship by the Dalai Lama constitutes an attack on freedom of religion; that the atheist Chinese government, on account of the actions of the Dalai Lama, has come to take some responsibility towards the freedom of religion. They have actually made this formal criticism from the government. I am not sure if the Chinese government knows anything about Dholgyal, but seeing a political purpose in the issue they have levelled this criticism against me. It is of no importance that I am criticized. But in Tibet they give special care of Dholgyal worshippers; financial incentives are given for construction work; monasteries are told they should worship Dholgyal, that the Dalai Lama is undermining Freedom of Religion. A sad development is that an image of Padmasambhava recently built at Samye monastery (in Tibet) was destroyed, most likely at the instigation of Dholgyal worshippers. There have been similar cases of destruction of Padmasambhava’s image. This seems to be so… There is a large image of Padmasambhava built by the public in upper Tibet. Chinese soldiers barricaded this image, restricted entry for anyone, shooed away photographers, and then dynamited the image. So, this matter is becoming urgent. Under such conditions, if we still keep mistaking falsehood for truth, many people will face difficulty.
Extract 4: Recently, the Shugden society has written to the Indian Government claiming that the Dalai Lama is banning Shugden worship, that they are becoming apprehensive, and that they want protection by the government. The MEA has sent an acknowledgement. This has grave implications. Till now I have explained the pros and cons. To alert the public from my side that there is this danger is my responsibility. Whether to heed this advice or not is purely one’s personal choice. I have never … (Quote from a book) as I always say, to heed this or not is purely one’s own choice. I have never said that you should listen to what I say: I am not saying it even now. But it is not good to leave this issue in abeyance. It needs to be clarified.’