-South China
Morning PostJanuary 22 |
|
The anti-Karmapa faction continues its public relations blitz to undermine the 14 year old Gyalwang Karmapa in a South China Morning
Post
story by Charmaine Chan. For one of the first times in the English-speaking press, European allies of the India-based faction chime in with their standard denunciations of the Karmapa. Chan notes that many "Tibetan Buddhists and academics have scoffed at the accusations of deception made over the years. The claims have been bandied about for such a long time they sound rehearsed and a little tired these days. But the group led by the Shamarpa are far from giving up the fight. They include the Danish lama, Ole Nydahl [and] his wife, Hannah . . . ."
Chan makes no attempt to hide her sarcasm in describing the situation in the article entitled Doubters Deepen Karmapa Intrigue:
"This faction, led by the Shamarpa (also known as Shamar Rinpoche), contend that Urgyen Trinley Dorje is not the true Karmapa. They say the title belongs, rather, to another boy, Thaye Dorje, a 17-year-old who fled Tibet in 1994 and now lives in France. So eager was the Rinpoche (meaning "precious one") to revive interest in his cause that shortly after Urgyen Trinley Dorje reached Dharamsala in India two weeks ago, the New Delhi-based spiritual leader began describing the episode as a political ploy stage-managed by Beijing - a claim he has since retracted for nebulous reasons . . . ."
In attempting to assess the validity of the Shamar/Ole claims, Chan quotes the "eminent Buddhist scholar," Professor Robert Thurman of Columbia University, who has no affiliation with the Kagyu order:
"'Tibetans, except for a very few, accept this Karmapa [Urgyen Trinley Dorje]. The Karmapa does not have to be nervous about rivalry from the other boy. The monastery here in America [Karma Triyana Dharmachakra in
Woodstock, New York], the ones in Europe, they all have allegiance to the Karmapa recognised by everybody.'" As to "Lama Ole," Thurman says "He's a rabble rouser. He's one of the white lamas who
claims he's a great mystic . . . he may be, but I know the Tibetans don't consider him as significant." The claim on which the anti-Karmapa faction focuses involves the prediction letter "supposedly written
by the 16th Karmapa months before he died of cancer in 1981." (The letter is quoted in full at the beginning of the article.) As Chan notes, the letter is indecipherable to those outside the Kagyu order:
"Given such Delphic clues, even Sherlock Holmes would have been stumped." Shamar Rinpoche, however, has challenged the authenticity of the letter on other grounds, claiming it was not written in the
handwriting of the Sixteenth Karmapa. Though this letter is intimately tied to the rituals and traditions of the Kagyu order, the rallying cry of the Shamarpa-Ole faction in their assault against the 17th Karmapa is the
demand for special proof: "'If they are so sure he is the Karmapa, let's have that letter forensically tested.'" Forensic "science" was of course unknown in Tibet, and it goes without saying that forensic
tests have never been performed on a prediction letter in the 810 year history of this sacred ritual of the Gyalwang Karmapas. The anti-Karmapa faction claims that a forensic examination of the letter will allow a
scientific verification of the identity of the Karmapa. Those familiar with scientific testing and with forensic examination, however, recognize that this claim is erroneous. No amount of forensic examination can answer
the questions raised by the anti-Karmapa faction. The request for forensic testing is based on massive confusion about what it means to "forensically test" something. Forensic testing has developed as an
adjunct of the legal process trying to determine the authenticity of types of evidence used by investigators and jurists. Obviously, it was never designed to be applied to the identification of a reincarnate Buddhist
teacher. This is obvious, of course, but there are sound scientific reasons why forensic testing is an inappropriate request. Firstly, in a court of law, for example, forensic testing is not the only acceptable proof
of the authentiticity of a handwritten document. Indeed, in a court of law, the most common way to authenticate handwriting is through the testimony of those familiar with someone's handwriting through their normal
interchanges with that person. (See references in memo linked at the end of this article). Dozens of the Sixteenth Karmapa's close associates familiar with His Holiness the Sixteenth Karmapa's handwriting have
satisfied themselves that the handwriting in the letter is that of the 16th Karmapa's. Put aside the two regents, Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche, who Shamar Rinpoche accuses of improper motives. Aside from Shamarpa
and his few allies, dozens of the Karmapa's attendants, secretaries, and all the countless other officials in the lineage who worked with the Karmapa and have seen his handwriting (which is often the subject of public
display) have confirmed, to a person, the authenticity of the letter. Second, forensic testing was not intended to create evidence which counters this common sense evidence. There are different types of
science, and the anti-Karmapa are confusing pure science with the applied "science" of forensics. Applied sciences were not intended to solve disputes such as that raised by the anti-Karmapa faction. This is because
forensic evidence is usually disputed evidence, subject to conflicting opinions, and is not intended to produce certainty. Forensic testing is not a pure science which in which impartial standards have been accepted
by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Rather, it is part of the legal process, designed to provide evidence for a trier of fact, judge or jury, to use to determine whether something is authentic or not. There are
always two sides to any claim of forensic testing. For instance, in the reknowned trial of OJ Simpson the prosecution forensic scientists testified that they were sure that a text proved x, and the eminent forensic
scientists from the defense side were just as certain that the evidence proved the opposite of x. In addition to common disputes between forensic experts acting in good faith, the US legal system has unfortunately
produced a phenomenon called "hired guns," which are experts who are paid by contending sides in a dispute. The expert is usually able ot provide evidence for whichever position pays them the most. This is the
current scandal of forensic science in US jurisprudence, but it is a fact of life. See, e.g., the following news reports for a taste of this world:
"Criminalist recants glove testimony" ("Baker suggested [police criminalist Richard] Fox was a
hired gun out to refute opinions by defense experts who suggested blood was added to the sock in the lab."). "Kaczynski tantrum puts defense woes in spotlight" (But on cross-examination, it will boil down to one question, .
. . Only a hired gun would answer yes . . ."). "Fighting for 'the brave' Personal
injury lawyer loves to take on deep pockets" ("Corboy says now he "misjudged" in using an expert witness who -- he didn't learn until too
late -- was a "hired gun" who testified in trials for a living."). This is the sordid world into which the anti-Karmapa forces seek to drag the Karmapa. It is unclear that their intention in doing
so is "test anything"; it is equally likely it is to sow further doubt and confusion. Third, the prediction letter under examination is not susceptible to forensic examination according to the standards of
forensic examination itself. The following settled forensic principles indicate that forensic testing is not applicable to the prediction letter: 1) the ability of an expert to verify handwriting depends on the expert's
familiarity with the writing system and circumstances under which the document was written. 2) If the expert is unfamiliar with the writing system (in this case colloquial Tibetan cursive) ordinary persons familiar with
handwriting are considered better evidence of authenticity than "experts"; 3) even with commonly known English language documents, equally qualified "experts" often disagree over handwriting
samples. Extensive citations for these principles are contained in the memorandum linked at the end of this commentary. Given that the letter is in Tibetan cursive, no handwriting analyst will be familiar with
the language. As discussed in the memo linked at the end of this comment, such unfamiliarity is fatal to reliable analysis. One treatise on handwriting provided the following example of such unreliability: "In the court
of Etawah (U. P.) it was found that one eminent expert failed to form a correct opinion simply because he was ignorant of Hindi language, and due to this fact he could not detect forgery and formed an opinion on the
mere comparison of forms of letters. In the word '[composed of Hindi characters]' he failed to ascertain the initial and the final parts of the strokes." B. L. Saxena, Identification of Handwriting, Disputed
Documents and Detection of Forgeries, p. 91 (Allahabad 1962). To be sure, Buddhism is pro-science. As the Dalai Lama constantly emphasizes in his writing, in Buddhism it is important to apply scientific principles
to one's views of the world. See, e.g., Hayward and Varella, Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind
(Shambhala 1992). However, forensic analysis is not such a pure science. It is an applied practice for a specific purpose: to settle disputed issues of fact, which has grown up as an adjunct to the prosecutorial and litigative process of criminal and civil investigations and court proceedings. Thus it is not the type of genuine scientific investigation in which fruitful scientific inquiry takes place. We do not need to drag the Kagyu order to the level of the OJ Simpson and Unabomber trials by introducing forensic science into Kagyu religious discourse, at least in the manner in which the anti-Karmapa forces seek at this time to use it: as a way of staking a claim to the assets of a religous order.
So few people understand what "forensic testing" means, that they may naturally accept unsubstantiated pronouncements without using their own independent judgement to evaluate the validity of such
statements. Shamar Rinpoche has publicly stated that he withdrew his request for forensic testing after 1992. There is good reason for having done so, but his allies continue to press it nevertheless. Click here to review a memorandum
prepared in 1993 indicating the lack of a scientific basis for examining the prediction letter through a forensic examination.
Full text
of the article is at the SCMP website. |
-Hindustan Times op-ed |
|
In the Features section of the Hindustan Times, Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche provides an op-ed under the
headline "The truth behind the Karmapa controversy," in which he asks the reader to separate "fact from fiction." In the article, Shamar Rinpoche describes the Karmapa as a
"communist train[ee]," accuses the Dalai Lama of trying to destroy the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism by merging them into his Gelugpa school, effectively terms Situ Rinpoche a "traitor" who has
"betrayed" the Kagyu lineage, and in a strange show of agreement with the claims of the current Chinese government, argues that the Dalai Lama's government has no authority with respect to official
reincarnations. The logical result of this last position of Shamar Rinpoche seems to be that the non-Buddhist Chinese government has the authority in Tibet of confirming official reincarnations. In commenting here on
Shamar Rinpoche's definitive statement of his position to date, it may first be best to point out the deep sorrow felt by all Kagyus in struggling with this schism. Schism is considered to be one of the greatest
downfalls in all orders of Buddhism worldwide. The current schism in the Tibetan Kagyu order is particularly deep, since it involves the sine qua non
of being a Karma Kagyu: the development of the proper ascertainment of, and confidence and certainty in, the root teacher (Skt. "guru") of the Karma Kagyu order, the Gyalwang Karmapa. The sorrow is particularly sharp because it appears historically accurate to say that, between 14th and 18th Century, many of the individual holders of the office of the Shamarpa Rinpoche were leading lights of the Kagyu order.
See, e.g., Rain of Wisdom pp. 309-10, passim (Shambhala 1980). But after the 18th Century, the Shamar Rinpoche line dropped out of the lineage charts. Shamar Rinpoche rests many of his arguments on bare
claims that he has a certain type of authority over the Karmapa which, based on available records, appear unsupported. In addition, his positive arguments are contradicted by statements he has made elsewhere. These
statements are susceptible to reasoned analysis and evaluation, not only by participants in this story, but by the press reporting on the story to the world. Although evaluation of claims seems to rest on religious
beliefs and arcane traditions, there is a significant literature which can be used to verify the accuracy of claims, and once verified the complexities presented for analysis are no more difficult than what we confront
every day in the news of mundane political and social issues. It is unfortunate in the extreme to have the veil of "Shangri-la" pierced, but maybe it is for the best. Despite the aura of the mystical that pervades
the presentation of Tibetan Buddhists, it is at bottom a practice which calls upon its practitioners to make subtle judgments and display courage in the face of adversity. So this tragicomedy is a good place to start
practicing those skills, and a good place to report on how Buddhists are exercising those skills to overcome this tragedy. For at bottom, if there is a true and false in this story, it will be a denial of religious
freedom and basic human rights to the party that is in the right, if that party is not allowed to practice as it wishes. We comment specifically on the following claims and arguments made by Rinpoche in his op-ed:
- Claim that Kagyu religious tradition dictates that the holder of the office of Shamar Rinpoche chooses the Karmapa
- Claim that Shamar Rinpoche's hierarchical rank in the order entitles him to choose the Karmapa
- Argument that the Dalai Lama has no role in the confirmation process of the Karmapa
- Shamar Rinpoche's other arguments
a. Claim that the holder of the office of Shamar Rinpoche has traditionally chosen the Karmapa In the article Shamar Rinpoche asks the reader to "look at the historical facts" to understand why the various parties he attacks are, in his view, violating Tibetan
traditions. Yet it would do well for the reader to apply this same standard to the Shamarpa's own prior statments about the history of recognition of the Karmapas. He asserts:
"As the second-highest ranking leader of the Karma Kagyu school, the Shamarpa lamas have been historically responsible for identifying the Karmapa's legitimate reincarnation. Using the Kagyu school's
traditional methods, I selected Thaye Dorje as the true reincarnation of the Karmapa."
It is not possible to square this current claim with Kagyu historical records or with Shamar Rinpoche's prior statements on this issue. With regard to
the Kagyu religious ritual used to identify the Karmapa reincarnation, it is the unique quality of the Karmapa that he is said to identify himself. See, e.g., extracts from Holmes, Karmapa
(Altea 1996) (e.g., "The first Karmapa, Dusum Chenpa, made predictions about future Karmapas. In particular, he was the first Karmapa to present a prediction letter, detailing his future incarnation. He gave it
to his main disciple, Drogon Rechen, predecessor of the Tai Situ line (they were only called Tai Situ after this title was conferred by the Chinese Emperor in the early 15th century" click here to go to specific reference ). As is apparent from even a cursory review of the history of the Karmapas, it is traditional for the "identification of the reincarnation" to take the following form:
before his death, the Karmapa secretly leaves a letter or provides an oral message with someone to give them information about how to identify the reincarnation.One need not rely for such references to other
authorities -- Shamar Rinpoche himself, who has helpfully published his own speeches in The Karmapa Papers and online at his website, has previously contradicted his current position in the Hindustan Times
. A review of those speeches contains statements by him such as the following:
1992: "Regarding the Karmapa's reincarnations, already seven years ago . . . I wrote a letter. This letter was sent to all monasteries in Tibet. In India it was sent to lamas of all the schools
and all the main holders of the different Kagyu schools within the four great and the eight minor Kagyu schools. What I said at that time in my letter is that in the continuation of the Gyalwa Karmapa
incarnations, they have always recognized themselves in the way that the former recognizes the next. This is their most special quality that is to be preserved completely." "Shamar Rinpoche's Talk in Tibetan," Rumtek, June 8th, 1992, translated and reprinted in The Karmapa Papers, p. 106 (Paris 1992). 1992: "As you
know from history, all Karmapas leave a message.
Before the first Karmapa passed away, he left a message to his disciple and the second Karmapa was found accoringly. Sometimes, they left a letter, sometimes they just gave a message to a very trustworthy disciple. Regarding this, it is not always necessary that the message is given to somebody having a high title as Rinpoche or whatever. . . .
According to the official system valid at that time in Tibet, one needed the approval of the Tibetan government and H.H. Dalai Lama." "Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche's Talk in English," Rumtek, June 9th, 1992, reprinted in The Karmapa Papers, at p. 109.
By 1996, Shamar Rinpoche was taking a different tack: "A great Sakya lama, Chobgye Tri Rinpoche, whose monastery is in Kathmandu, Nepal. . . came here to Delhi, having cut short his
visit to a Sakya monastery in Moussurie to meet with Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche. He said that he needed to speak to Shamar Rinpoche urgently and told him [that] 'a few days before he came to Delhi he had yet another dream
about His Holiness early one morning. . . .At noon on the same day that he had the dream, Chobgye Tri Rinpoche was visited by a relative from Lhasa who brought a photograph of a young child who was quite well
known in the area of Lhasa to have said, "I am the Karmapa".
That is why Chobgye Tri Rinpoche came to see Rinpoche in Delhi. Shamar Rinpoche felt that when he was told this, he should try to find out about this young child, to make a connection." " Speech held by Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche at the International Karma Kagyu Conference March 28th, 1996, New Delhi, India" published at Shamar Rinpoche's website
. Subsequently, Shamar Rinpoche provided this information to the Dalai
Lama and asked for recognition of his candidate as a Karmapa in exile, so to speak. The Dalai Lama's office replied by public letter as follows: "In 1996 our representative in Nepal approached Chobgye Tri
Rinpoche to ask how he had recognised the reincarnate that you have put forth. Chobgye Tri Rinpoche, in response, wrote to H. H. the Dalai Lama that he hadn't made the recognition.
This letter made it clear that you don't have an authentic source for your claim. Thus, there is no possibility of a second Karmapa-reincarnation.There can be just one head of the Tsurphu and Rumtek Monasteries. There is no possibility of two heads." Copies of the letters are available at a
website maintained by a supporter of Shamar Rinpoche. Shamar Rinpoche's words speak for themselves. Members of the Shamar Rinpoche line have not been historically responsible for identifying the Karmapa. Consonant with Kagyu
tradition, the Karmapa recognizes himself. To the contrary, it would seem to follow from Shamar Rinpoche's position in the Hindustan Times
that the head of the Kagyu order is not the Karmapa, but Shamar Rinpoche. b.Claim that Shamar Rinpoche's rank
entitles him to choose the Karmapa Shamar bases this claim on his references to the history of the Kagyu in Tibet, but in so making this claim,
he omits what appear to the outside observer to be critical historical facts.
- While it is true that previous holders of the office of Shamar Rinpoche were important lineage figures, there is no record that such figures ever identified a Karmapa in the way Shamar Rinpoche now suggests.
- Moreover, even to the extent that previous Shamar Rinpoches were important figures in Tibet, that arrangement ended in the 18th Century, when the Tenth Shamar Rinpoche (1742-92) was expelled from Tibet by the
Lhasa government. This fact is confirmed by nothing less than Shamarpa's official biographies. After the Tenth Shamar Rinpoche died in the 18th Century in exile in Nepal, no subsequent Shamar Rinpoche was ever
officially recognized in Tibet. The current Shamar Rinpoche was officially enthroned in 1964 in India. See the extended discussion of this point
by clicking here.
It was widely agreed after the death of the Karmapa that the remaining four regents (three, after the death of Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche) would act as equals. See the discussion of regency below, in "Update
and Retrospective."
c.-Argument that the Dalai Lama has no role in the confirmation process of the Karmapa The best
information on this point indicates that it is accurate to say that the Dalai Lama has limited authority to enforce theological or liturgical decisions within another order. This seems to be the position of the Dalai
Lama himself. Thus, the Dalai lama does not traditionally "recognize" a reincarnation according to the internal ecclesiastical and doctrinal guidelines of another Tibetan order. However, as the spiritual
representative of the whole of the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama has traditionally been called upon to confirm the recognition of a lineage head.
As Shamar Rinpoche himself said when talking about the Karmapa in 1992, "According to the official system valid at that time in Tibet, one needed the approval of the Tibetan government and H.H. Dalai
Lama." Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche's Talk in English," Rumtek, June 9th, 1992, reprinted in The Karmapa Papers
, at p. 109.
Shamar Rinpoche argues that "The Chinese Karmapa wears the stamp of legitimacy, according to the press, because the Dalai Lama has approved of
the 14-year-old boy."
This obscures a critical fact: the Kagyu lineage heads and main officials as a whole -- with the exception of Shamar Rinpoche, certain relatives and a few allies -- did in fact approve the way in which the Karmapa recognized himself. Even apart from the "regents" of the lineage, virtually all the holders of the key lineage positions agreed on the Karmapa, including the main abbot, the main ritual master, the main meditation master, the main instructor at the shedra in Rumtek, as well as the vast majority of Kagyu officials in various organizations around the world, all agree that Karmapa Urgyen Trinley Dorje had been validly recognized through a letter left by his predecessor, as interpreted according to traditional methods by lineage hierarchs. It was this approval that the Dalai Lama has repeatedly confirmed, over Shamar Rinpoche's sole objection.
It is this fact which Shamar Rinpoche has tried to rebut through unsupported claims of hierarchical rank in the order. But he has no such authority to identify and install the Karmapa contrary to the entirety of the
Kagyu community. This fact is apparent to the Tibetan community, which has overwhelmingly and resoundingly rejected Shamar Rinpoche's claims. It is not yet clear to the press, which still seems bedazzled by the veil of
religious unreason, but it is suggested that standard reportorial investigations can in fact ascertain the truth of this situation.
Finally, in Shamar Rinpoche's own biographical literature published at his behest, the following is stated: "Following the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Sixteenth Gyalwa Karmapa and the young
Twelfth Shamarpa left Tibet and settled in Sikkim. Then His Holiness Karmapa asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama to allow recognition of the Shamarpa. Permission was granted and official recognition and enthronement
took place in Rumtek, Sikkim, in 1964, the Karmapa performing the ceremonies." The Seed of Faith: A Short History of the Line of the
Incarnations of the Shamarpas, trans. Katia Holmes (Kagyu Samye Ling 1980).
d.Shamar Rinpoche's other arguments Other examples of contradictions and logical flaws in Shamar
Rinpoche's article:
- he argues that the first Dalai Lama could not have recognized the first few Karmapa's, because he had not yet been born. However, the same must be said of Shamar Rinpoche's assertion that he can recognize the
Karmapa.
- he claims that the Karmapa was forced to train for six years in communist ideology, yet just last week in an interview he said the opposite, questioning "the claim that the Karmapa had fled religious
persecution by the Chinese authorities. 'He is a VIP in China. All his expenses are being taken care of by the Chinese Government. He is in a very comfortable position. So there is no question of violation of
human rights . . . .'"
Shamar Rinpoche concludes his attacks on the Karmapa and all who have acknowledged him by saying that he is willing to compromise on a sort of power-sharing arrangement: "I explained that since the Chinese
government had authorised Ugyen Trinlay to take over Tsurphu, which was the Karmapa's traditional seat in Tibet, it was only logical to allow my nominee, the Indian Karmapa, to take the Rumtek monastery in India."
It is hard to square this proposed compromise with Shamar Rinpoche's public attacks in every available media outlet against the Karmapa. Moreover, as Shamar Rinpoche himself points out, he needs to explain the
historical precedent that allows such a compromise. Full text
of Shamar Rinpoche's op-ed is at the Hindustan Times website. |
