Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition, Religion, Religious Extremism
by tenpel

In February 2008 900 Buddhist Shugden monks were made homeless by the Dalai Lama?

 
There are so many wrong and misleading claims and allegations by the International Shugden Community (ICS) / New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) that it is almost impossible to address and to correct them all. Joanne Clark’s blog and this blog made some efforts to correct some. There were also efforts by others (including the CTA, Buddhist (Head) Organizations etc.) but the ICS / NKT / Shugden groups still flood the media, interview partners of the Dalai Lama, journalists, Buddhist centres, the internet, news comment sections, YouTube (and also this blog) with false information.

Recently, a senior NKT teacher, Kadampa Ryan, repeated in the discussion thread of the “Declaration by New Kadampa Survivors concerning the Demonstrations against His Holiness“, the claims of the ICS/NKT, that the CTA/Dalai Lama had made Shugden followers “homeless”. To make it more easy for Ryan and others, here some of the facts.

The NKT / ICS Campaign claims wrongly for many years now:

In February 2008, as a direct result of the Dalai Lama’s demands, 900 Buddhist monks were made homeless.

But the facts, are, that after the Vinaya ‘Stick Referendum’ that is part of the monastic training for Buddhist monks and nuns, laid down by the Buddha and one of seven ways to settle conflicts (and which is deeply democratic), the majority of the monks in the three main Gelug monsteries (Ganden, Sera, Drepung) in India decided to separate from Shugden monks if they wish to continue their worship. Those who wanted to stay had to give up that practice. This is how things are done, if there is trouble, either your find a compromise or you have to separate if that is not possible. It is also common and part of democratic processes that a majority vote has to be accepted and respected. If a community decides based on majority vote that you cannot smoke on the group’s assets, then those who want to smoke have either to go or to abandon smoking (or you find another way that concords with the majority decision). This is really not an unusual or even criminal or oppressive behavior as the Anti Dalai Lama Campaigning Group wants to make the world believe.

All the monks who had to leave, got a fair share of the houses and property of the whole community. There is no doubt about it that this was the case, and even the deceptive Pro Shugden Site www . dorjeshugden . com acknowledges this fact. Here some excerpts, screenshots and commentaries to their own statements.

line-gothic

Below you find two images about the “desperate state” of the poor, made homeless by the Dalai Lama, Shugden monks in India.

Serpom Monastery
Serpom Monastery
Shar Gaden Monastery
Shar Gaden Monastery

The Shugden Site states:

… the existence of Shar Gaden and Serpom monasteries, established for the sole purpose of preserving and upholding Dorje Shugden’s lineage and ractices. Both monasteries are open and thriving, and their activities encompass the full range of monastic programs including Geshe degrees, initiations and oral transmissions, international tours, Buddhist festivals and celebrations.

These two eminent monasteries are and will continue to be an educational base for high Lamas such as Domo Geshe Rinpoche and other future lamas to come. They are learning centers, hubs from which Dorje Shugden’s lineage is practiced and transmitted, and where Guru Devotion is strong and powerful.

With approximately 600 monks in Serpom Monastery, 800 monks in Shar Gaden Monastery and with these numbers increasing over the years …

However, the anonymous Pro Shugden people behind the Shugden site deceive the readers about the fact, that the Shugden monks got the ground on which they built their new monasteries from the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA)* – the CTA which they accuse of oppressing them and of violating their human rights. Not telling the full facts they twist the facts instead:

… the very existence of these monasteries is a thorn in the side of Ganden, Sera and Drepung monasteries because they are right next door! More importantly, they are out of the CTA’s reach. The CTA cannot touch them, cannot close them down, cannot harass them, cannot do anything to them because they are legal entities licensed and protected by the Indian government.

Getting the land by their claimed “evil oppressors” and accusing the CTA to only aim to “close them down” and “harass them” is totally deceptive and wrong.

The story about the lack of water is a lie as explained on the Talk about Shugden site:

Nicolas Tessier Saying they had no proper source water is false as, up until last year, many of their water pipes where still connected to the main feeding source of Sera Mey. Those who were in residence in 2013 will remember well the drought that affected us leaving the Sera Mey kitchen, main building complex and various housing group with NO water. Hence, Sera Mey requested Serpom to find an alternative source for their water for which they complied and the matter was settled peacefully and without a hint of conflict. From 2008 to 2013 give us a gap of 5 years for which they were provide with water.

…

Siling Tongkhor I concur with what Nicholas has written above. Especially the case with water pipes. We were sharing the same water (coming from the Sera Mey water tanks) for the last 5 years from 2008-2013 after the separation.

The following excerpt by the Pro Shugden Site is a mix of truth and untruths (lies) – first they said Serpom was left without a prayer hall, now it has been changed to “without a properly sized” prayer hall. The Pomra monks fit comfortably in their old kangtsen prayer hall before the new elaborate one was built.

As you can see from the following quotes, not even the (deceptive and anonymous) Pro Shugden Site makes claims of “homelessness”.

When Ganden Shartse Monastery split, then Abbot H.E. Khensur Rinpoche Dakpa Tenzin braved the wrath of the Dalai Lama and Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) by insisting that monastic property be divided equally between Shar Ganden’s monks (formerly Dokhang Khamtsen) and the remaining monks of Ganden Shartse according to headcount. Through his compassion and unbiased care for the monks of Ganden regardless of their practice, the monks of Shar Ganden had sufficient assets and did not have to experience severe poverty after the separation, although Khensur Rinpoche suffered for his bravery.

Serpom’s troubles did not end after separation
*In the case of Serpom Monastery however, things were quite different. Instead of dividing the properties equally based on the headcounts of the monks, the then Abbot of Sera Mey, Kensur Rinpoche Lobsang Rabga, who presided over the separation and segregation of monastic assets allowed Serpom Monastery (formally Pomra Khamtsen) to keep only the buildings on Pomra Khamtsen land. This decision, although seemingly fair, left monks from both sides struggling to rebuild some essential structures of their separated monastery. The Serpom monks were without a properly- sized prayer hall, without a school and with insufficient accommodation and in the early days, Serpom did not even have a proper source of water (the monastic water pump house was built elsewhere) .

In case they change it, here the screenshot …

Screenshot DS Site
Screenshot DS Site

Here another description by the Pro DS Site:

The 450 monks of Dokhang Khangtsen has officially seperated from Gaden Shartse Monastery. Gaden Shartse had meetings and the property of the Shartse had to be divided. Dokhang Khangtsen was given their share of the collective monastic property. From Gaden Shartse Monastery, Dokhang khangtsen has recieved:

1. 400 crore Indian Lakhs (1 lakh is Indian rupees 100,000)( 1 crore is 1 lakh x 100)
2. 15 Female buffaloes that produce milk
3. Shartse has a guest house in Delhi, that has been handed over to Dokhang.
4. Shartse has a newly built guest house in Gaden, that has been handed over.
5. Much ritual silverware and ritual objects of the monastery.
6. Hospital Car
7. Carpets and Many thangkas
8. One lorry and two tractors
9. 20 acres of agricultural land

They have remained where they are in the Monastery but seperated from the main Gaden Shartse Monastery completely. They have no involvement with any activities with eachother. They have kept their khangtsen prayer hall and monk rooms. With this, they have formed their own Monastery and now it is offically called: SHAR DOKHANG DRATSTANG

The newly elected Abbot is: Geshe Lobsang Pende

In case they change it, here the screenshot …

Screenshot DS Site
Screenshot DS Site

* The Sikyong told to one of my reliable sources, that the CTA gave the land to the Shugden monasteries.

This claim makes sense, because the Indian government gave land for the Tibetan settlements to the CTA (formerly TGIE), the exile government of the Tibetans. According to my knowledge, the CTA is in charge to use those settlements / land according to the needs of the Tibetans.

Siling Tongkhor, a Gelug Tulku, states on the Talk about Shugden site:

… The land where Pobhor Khamtsen of Sera Mey Monastery has built their living quarters and now the monastic building, was given by CTA not the Government of India. Of course every inch of Tibetan refugee land belong to the government of India and not an iota of Indian land belong to Tibetans. The land was under CTA’s undertaking and after the split, was allotted to the remaining monks of Sermey Pomra Khamtsen, which has earlier, housed the largest number of Shugden worshippers prior to the separation in 2008.

Since the original Pomra Khamtsen monks had lost everything because at the time of separation the Shugden followers of the Pomra Khamtsen asked for all the property : monastic temple, monetary funds, living quarters et al, CTA gave the abovementioned land to the original Sermey Pomra Khamtsen monks where they have already built living quarters now and is halfway through building the monastic temple. The Shugden followers of Sermey Pomra Khamtsen went on to found a new monastery named Serpom – a derivative of Sera Mey and Pomra, and got all the lands, money and living quarters, monetary funds and as well as a newly built temple readymade! (all belonging to the erstwhile Pomra Khamtsen of Sera Mey monastery)

However, according to the 2014 speech by the Desung Kalon, the land was provided by the Indian Government at the request of H.H. the Dalai Lama:

In keeping with the principles of the Dharma and the Vinaya, ‘the mouth was distinguished from the moustache’ during the proceeding of Tsulshing [‘Stick throwing’- a monastic form of democratic referendum] in Gelugpa monasteries in 2008. Nobody was asked to leave the monastery; it was in fact left for the monks to decide where they wished to live. As was said earlier, it is true that a small number of people continue to live [in Gelug monasteries] with numerous rights. At present, there are the so-called Shar Gaden Nampar Gyalwayling and Serpom Khangtsen monasteries in Mundgod and Bylakupee respectively, [populated by Shugden devotee monks] who are living on the lands provided by the Indian Government at the request of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan Administration has never asked them to leave the land. If they voluntarily decide to leave, they are free to do so. There is no prohibition from the Tibetan Administration but rather there are words of appreciation. During the meeting of Tibetan Settlement Officers last year, a clear directive was issued that everyone is equally entitled to the rights enshrined and this directive still remains valid. There is no discrimination regarding this issue.

To reconcile both information … maybe after a request from the Dalai Lama, the CTA gave the land, originally donated and  designated by the Indian Government for refugee usage, to the Shugden monks.

See also

 

Last edited by tenpel on September 27, 2014 at 06:36 pm

Update Oct. 02, 2014

From Siling Tongkhor: “The ‘ground’ is a refugee area reserved by the GOI for Tibetan refugees. So the land belongs to none other than GOI. Now for any Tibetan individual or organization to build or developed on these refugee areas they had to seek a reference letter from the local CTA office known as the Representative’s Office or from the Settlement Officer. The land on where the Serpom Monastery and its residential quarters are situated are all within the refugee area and thus need reference from the CTA’s local office – Representative’s Office. If CTA really wanted discriminate the Shugden followers as they allege it can take back the land anytime by asking the Indian government to do so as CTA itself doesn’t have any law enforcement network to put that into effect.”