The True Face Of The Dalai Lama – When The Dalai Lamas Ruled: Hell On Earth


The Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama


by Sardar Vazir Singh

A recent article in the Vancouver Sun notes the following about the attitude of Canadians to  Sikhs:

Across Canada, 72 per cent said they have a “generally favourable opinion” of Christianity. At the other end of the spectrum, Islam scored the lowest favourability rating, just 28 per cent. Sikhism came in at 30 per cent and Hinduism was rated favourably by 41 per cent. Both Buddhism, at 57 per cent, and Judaism, 53 per cent, were rated favourably by more than half the population.

The high approval ratings for Christianity and Judaism are not surprising given the fact that Canada is a Judeo-Christian country.

The very high approval rating for Buddhism which even surpasses Judaism is  frankly quite amazing.  Buddhism, an offshoot of Hinduism, is a complete bunch of  mystical hocus pocus which has been transmorgified  by the fake media into an uber cool, wonderful,  hippy-dippy, feel good, groovy philosophy which is  completely in sync  with the everybody is too cool twittered new age.


A CIA asset, the Dalai Lama has to be one of the greatest PR men around.

So read the article below which shreds Buddhism and the Dalai Lama System.

The True Face Of  The Dalai Lama


by Kalovski Itim
April 2, 2008


This is a backgrounder of the struggle in Tibet and how the US has been building up Dalai Lama to pursue their ideological struggle. In the US many uninformed people had been awed by his philosophy on “peace” and “non-violence”.

This article will bare facts to the real color and intent of the Lama, why the US had given him a Nobel Prize and many more. – Kalovski Itim.

When the Dalai Lamas Ruled: Hell on Earth


Hard Climate, Heartless Society

Tibet is one of the most remote places in the world. It is centered on a high mountain plateau deep in the heart of Asia. It is cut off from South Asia by the Himalayas, the highest mountains in the world. Countless river gorges and at least six different mountain ranges carve this region into  isolated valleys. Before all the changes brought about after the Chinese revolution of 1949, there were no roads in Tibet that wheeled vehicles could travel. All travel was over winding, dangerous mountain trails by mule, by foot or by  yaks which are hairy cow-like mountain animals. Trade, communications and centralized government were almost impossible to maintain.

Most of Tibet is above the tree-line. The air is very thin. Most crops and trees won’t grow there. It was a struggle to grow food and even find fuel for fires. At the time of the revolution, the population of Tibet was extremely spread out. About two or three million Tibetans lived in an area half the size of the United States, about 1.5 million square miles. Villages, monasteries and nomad encampments were often separated by many days of  travel.

Maoist revolutionaries saw there were “Three Great Lacks” in old Tibet: lack of fuel, lack of communications, and lack of people. The revolutionaries analyzed that these “Three Great Lacks” were not mainly caused by the physical conditions, but by the social system. The Maoists said that the “Three Great Lacks” were caused by the “Three Abundances” in Tibetan society: “Abundant poverty, abundant oppression and abundant fear of the supernatural.”


Class Society in Old Tibet

Tibet was a feudal society before the revolutionary changes that started in 1949. There were two main classes: the serfs and the aristocratic serf owners. The people lived like serfs in Europe’s “Dark Ages, or like African slaves and sharecroppers of the U.S. South. Tibetan serfs scratched barley harvest from the hard earth with wooden plows and sickles. Goats, sheep and yaks were  raised for milk, butter, cheese and meat. The aristocratic  and monastery masters owned the people, the land and most of the animals. They forced the serfs to hand over most grain and demanded all kinds of forced labor (called ulag). Among the serfs, both men and women participated in hard labor, including ulag. The scattered nomadic peoples of Tibet’s barren western highlands were also owned by lords and lamas.

The Dalai Lama’s older brother Thubten Jigme Norbu  claims that in the lamaist social order, “There is no class system and the mobility from class to class makes any class prejudice impossible.” But the whole existence of this religious order was based on a rigid and brutal class system. Serfs were treated like despised “inferiors”the way Black people were treated in the Jim Crow South. Serfs could not use the same seats, vocabulary or eating utensils as serf owners. Even touching one of the master’s belongings could be punished by whipping. The masters and serfs were so distant from each other that in much of Tibet they spoke different languages. It was the custom for a serf to kneel on all fours so his master could step on his back to mount a horse.

Tibet scholar A. Tom Grunfeld describes how one ruling class girl routinely had servants carry her up and down stairs just because she was lazy. Masters often rode on their serfs’ backs across streams. The only thing worse than a serf in Tibet was a “chattel slave,” who had no right to even grow a few crops for themselves. These slaves were often starved, beaten and worked to death. A master could turn a serf into a slave any time he wanted. Children were routinely bought and sold in Tibet’s capital, Lhasa. About 5 percent of the Tibetan people were counted as chattel slaves. And at least another 10 percent were poor monks who were really “slaves in robes.”

The lamaist system tried to prevent any escape. Runaway slaves couldn’t just set up free farms in the vast empty lands. Former serfs explained to revolutionary writer Anna Louise Strong that before liberation, “You could not live in Tibet without a master. Anyone might pick you up as an outlaw unless you had a legal owner.”



Born Female  Proof of Past Sins?

The Dalai Lama writes, “In Tibet there was no special discrimination against women.” The Dalai Lama’s authorized biographer Robert Hicks argues that Tibetan women were content with their status and “influenced their husbands.” But in Tibet, being born a woman was considered a punishment for “impious” (sinful) behavior in a previous life. The word for “woman” in old Tibet, kiemen, meant “inferior birth.” Women were told to pray, “May I reject a feminine body and be reborn a male one.” Lamaist superstition associated women with evil and sin. It was said “among ten women you’ll find nine devils.” Anything women touched was considered tainted so all kinds of taboos were placed on women. Women were forbidden to handle medicine.

Han Suyin reports, “No woman was allowed to touch a lama’s belongings, nor could she raise a wall, or ‘the wall will fall.’ A widow was a despicable being, already a devil. No woman was allowed to use iron instruments or touch iron. Religion forbade her to lift her eyes above the knee of a man, as serfs and slaves were not allowed to life the eyes upon the face of the nobles or great lamas.”  Monks of the major sects of Tibetan Buddhism rejected sexual intimacy (or even contact) with women, as part of their plan to be holy. Before the revolution, no woman had ever set foot in most monasteries or the palaces of the Dalai Lama.

There are reports of women being burned for giving birth to twins and for practicing the pre-Buddhist traditional religion (called Bon). Twins were considered proof that a woman had mated with an evil spirit. The rituals and folk medicine of Bon were considered “witchcraft.” Like in other feudal societies, upper class women were sold into arranged marriages. Custom allowed a husband to cut off the tip of his wife’s nose if he discovered she had slept with someone else. The patriarchal practices included polygyny, where a wealthy man could have many wives; and polyandry, where in land-poor noble families one woman was forced to be wife to several brothers. Among the lower classes, family life was similar to slavery  in the U.S. South. (See The Life of a Tibetan Slave.) Serfs could not marry or leave the estate without the master’s permission. Masters transferred serfs from one estate to another at will, breaking up serf families forever. Rape of women serfs was common under the ulag system, a lord could demand “temporary wives.”


The Three Masters

The Tibetan people called their rulers “the Three Great Masters” because the ruling class of serf owners was organized into three institutions: the lama monasteries possessed 37 percent of the cultivated land and pasture in old Tibet; the secular aristocracy 25 percent; and the  remaining 38 percent was in the hands of the government officials appointed by the Dalai Lama’s advisors. About 2 percent of Tibet’s population was in this upper class, and an additional 3 percent were their agents, overseers, stewards, managers of estates and private armies. The ger-ba, a tiny elite of about 200 families, ruled at the top. Han Suyin writes: “Only 626 people held 93  percent of all land and wealth and 70 percent of all the yaks in Tibet. These 626 included 333 heads of monasteries and  religious authorities, and 287 lay authorities (including the nobles of the Tibetan army) and six cabinet ministers.” Merchants and handicraftsmen also belonged to a lord. A quarter of the population in the capital city of Lhasa survived by begging from religious pilgrims. There was no modern industry or working class. Even matches and nails had to be imported. Before the revolution, no one in Tibet was ever paid wages for their work. The heart of this system was exploitation. Serfs worked 16 or 18-hour days to enrich their masterskeeping only about a quarter of the food they raised.

A. Tom Grunfeld writes: “These estates were extremely lucrative. One former aristocrat noted that a ‘small’ estate would typically consist of a few thousand sheep, a thousands, an undetermined number of nomads and two hundred agricultural serfs. The yearly output would consist of over 36,000 kg (80,000 lbs.) of grain, over 1,800 kg (4,000 lbs.) of wool and almost 500 kg (1,200 lbs.) of butter. A government official had ‘unlimited powers of extortion’ and could make a fortune from his powers to extract bribes not to imprison and punish people. There was also the matter of extracting monies from the peasantry beyondth e necessary taxes.”

The ruling serf owners were parasites. One observer, Sir Charles Bell, described a typical official who spent an hour a day at his official duties. Upper class parties lasted for days of eating, gambling and lying around. The aristocratic lamas also never worked. They spent their days chanting, memorizing religious dogma and doing nothing.


The Monasteries: Strongholds of Feudalism

Defenders of old Tibet portray Lamaist Buddhism as the essence of the culture of the people of Tibet. But it was really nothing more or less than the ideology of a specific  oppressive social system. The lamaist religion itself is exactly as old as feudal class society. The first Tibetan king, Songsten-gampo, established a unified feudal system in Tibet, around 650 A.D. He married princesses from China and Nepal in order to learn from them the practices used outside Tibet to carry out feudalism. These princesses brought Tantric Buddhism to Tibet, where it was merged with earlier animist beliefs to create a new religion, Lamaism.

This new  religion had to be imposed on the people over the next century and a half by the ruling class, using violence. King Trosong Detsen decreed: “He who shows a finger to a monk shall have his finger cut off; he who speaks ill of the monks and the king’s Buddhist policy shall have his lips cut off; he who looks askance at them shall have his eyes put out“. Between the 1400s and the 1600s, a bloody consolidation of power took place, the abbots of the largest monasteries seized overall power. Because these abbots practiced anti-woman celibacy, their new political system could not operate by hereditary father-to-son succession. So the lamas created a new doctrine for their religion: They announced that they could detect newborn children who were reincarnations of dead ruling lamas. Hundreds of top lamas were declared “Living Buddhas” (Bodhisattvas) who had supposedly ruled others for centuries, switching to new bodies occasionally as old host bodies wore out. The central symbol of this system, the various men called Dalai Lama, was said to be the early Tibetan nature-god.

Chenrezig who had simply reappeared in 14 different bodies over the centuries. In fact, only three of the 14 Dalai Lamas actually ruled. Between 1751 and 1950, there was no adult Dalai Lama on the throne in Tibet 77 percent of the time. The most powerful abbots ruled as “regent” advisors who trained, manipulated and even assassinated the child-king Dalai Lamas.

Tibetan monasteries were not holy, compassionate Shangrilas, like in some New Age fantasy. These monasteries were dark fortresses of feudal exploitation they were armed villages of monks complete with military warehouses and private armies. Pilgrim s came to some shrines to pray for a better life. But the main activity ofmo nasteries was robbing the surrounding peasants. The huge idle religious clergy grew little food feeding them was a big burden on the people.

The largest monasteries housed thousands of monks. Each “parent” monastery created dozens (even hundreds) of small strongholds scattered through the mountain valleys. For example, the huge Drepung monastery housed 7,000 monks and owned 40,000 people on 185 different estates with 300 pastures. Monasteries also made up countless religious taxes to rob the people including taxes on haircuts, on windows, on doorsteps, taxes on newborn children or calves, taxes on babies born with double eyelids and so on. A quarter of Drepung’s income came from interest on money lent to the serf-peasantry. The monasteries also demanded that serfs hand over many young boys to serve as child-monks.

The class relations of Tibet were reproduced inside the monasteries: the majority of monks were slaves and servants to the upper abbots and lived half-starved lives of menial labor, prayer chanting and routine beatings. Upper monks could force poor monks to take their religious exams or perform sexual services. (In the most powerful Tibetan sect, such homosexual sex was considered a sign of holy distance from women.) A small percent of the clergy were nuns. After liberation, Anna Louise Strong asked a young monk, Lobsang Telé, if monastery life followed Buddhist teachings about compassion. The young lama replied that he heard  plenty of talk in the scripture halls about kindness to all living creatures, but that he personally had been whipped at least a thousand times. “If any upper class lama refrains from whipping you,” he told Strong, “that is already very good. I never saw an upper lama give food to any poor lama who was hungry. They treated the laymen who were believers just as badly or even worse.”

These days, the Dalai Lama is “packaged” internationally as a non-materialist holy man. In fact, the Dalai Lama was the biggest serf owner in Tibet. Legally, he owned the whole country and everyone in it. In practice, his family directly controlled 27 manors, 36 pastures, 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves. When he moved from palace to palace, the Dalai Lama rode on a throne chair pulled by dozens of slaves. His troops marched along to “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary,” a tune learned from their British imperialist trainers. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama’s bodyguards, all over six-and-a-half feet tall, with padded shoulders and long whips, beat people out of his path. This ritual is described in the Dalai Lama’s autobiography.

The first time he fled to India in 1950, the Dalai Lama’s advisors sent several hundred mule-loads of gold and silver bars ahead to secure his comfort in exile. After the second time he fled, in 1959, Peking Review reported that his family left lots of gold and silver behind, plus 20,331 pieces of jewelry and 14,676 pieces of clothing.


Bitter Poverty, Early Death

The people lived with constant cold and hunger. Serfs endlessly gathered scarce wood for their masters. But their own huts were only heated by small cooking fires of yak dung. Before the revolution there was no electricity in Tibet. The darkness was only lit by flickering yak-butter lamps.

Serfs were often sick from malnutrition. The traditional food of the masses is a mush made from tea, yak butter, and a barley flour called tsampa. Serfs rarely tasted meat. One 1940 study of eastern Tibet says that 38 percent of households never got any tea and drank only wild herbs or “white tea” (boiled water). Seventy-five percent of the households were forced at times to eat grass. Half of the people couldn’t afford butter the main source of protein available. Meanwhile, a major shrine, the Jokka Kang, burned four tons of yak butter offerings daily. It has been estimated that one-third of all the butter produced in Tibet went up in smoke in nearly 3,000 temples, not counting the small alters in each house.

In old Tibet, nothing was known about basic hygiene, sanitation, or the fact that germs caused disease. For ordinary people, there were no outhouses, sewers or toilets. The lamas taught that disease and death were caused by sinful “impiety.” They said that chanting, obedience, paying monks money and swallowing prayer scrolls was the only real protection from disease. Old Tibet’s superstition, feudal practices and low productive forces caused the people to suffer terribly from disease. Most children died before their first year. Even most Dalai Lamas did not make it to 18 years old and died before their coronations. A third of the population had smallpox. A 1925 smallpox epidemic killed 7,000 in Lhasa. It is not known how many died in the countryside. Leprosy, tuberculosis, goiter, tetanus, blindness and ulcers were very common. Feudal sexual customs spread venereal disease, including in the monasteries. Before the revolution, about 90 percent of the population was infected causing widespread sterility and death. Later, under the leadership of Mao Tsetung, the revolution was able to greatly reduce these illnesses but it required intense class struggle against the lamas and their religious superstitions. The monks denounced antibiotics and public health campaigns, saying it was a sin to kill lice or even germs! The monks denounced the People’s Liberation Army for eliminating the large bands of wild, rabies-infested dogs that terrorized people across Tibet. (Still today, one of the “charges” against the Maoist revolution is that it “killed dogs”!)


The Violence of the Lamas

In old Tibet, the upper classes preached mystical Buddhist nonviolence. But, like all ruling classes in history, they practiced reactionary violence to maintain their rule. The lamaist system of government came into being through bloody struggles. The early lam as reportedly assassinated the last Tibetan king, Lang Darma, in the 10th century. Then they fought centuries of civil wars, complete with mutual massacres of whole monasteries. In the 20th century, the 13th Dalai Lama brought in British imperialist trainers to modernize his national army. He even offered some of his troops to help the British fight World War I. These historical facts alone prove that lamaist doctrines of “compassion” and “nonviolence” are hypocrisy.

The former ruling class denies there was class struggle in old Tibet. A typical account by Gyaltsen Gyaltag, a representative of the Dalai Lama in Europe, says: “Prior to 1950, the Tibetans never experienced a famine, and social injustices never led to an uprising of the people.” It is true that there is little written record of class struggle. The reason is that Lamaism prevented any real histories from being written down. Only disputes over religious dogma were recorded.  But the mountains of Tibet were filled with bandit aways, and each estate had its armed fighters. This  alone is proof that violence  defined Tibetan society and its power relations.

Revolutionary historians have documented uprisings among Tibetan serfs in 1908, 1918, 1931, and the 1940s. In one famous uprising, 150 families of serfs of northern Tibet’s Thridug county rose up in 1918, led by a woman, Hor Lhamo. They killed the county head, under the slogan: “Down with officials! Abolish all ulag forced labor!”. Daily violence in old Tibet was aimed at the masses of people. Each master punished “his” serfs, and organized armed gangs to enforce his rule. Squads of monks brutalized the people. They were called “Iron Bars” because of the big metal rods they carried to batter people. It was a crime to “step out of your place”like hunting fish or wild sheep that the lamaist declared were “sacred.” It was even a crime for a serf to appeal his master’s decisions to some other authority. When serfs ran away, the masters’ gangs went to hunt them down. Each estate had its own dungeons and torture chambers. Pepper was forced under the eyelids. Spikes were forced under the fingernails. Serfs had their legs connected by short chains and were released to wander hobbled for the rest of their lives.

Grunfeld writes: “Buddhist belief precludes the taking of life, so that whipping a person to the edge of death and then releasing him to die elsewhere allowed Tibetan officials to justify the death as ‘an act of God.’ Other brutal forms of punishment included the cutting off of hands at the wrists, using red-hot irons to gouge out eyes; hanging by the thumbs; and crippling the offender, sewing him into a bag, and throwing the bag in the river.”

As signs of the lamas’ power, traditional ceremonies used body parts of people who had died: flutes made out of human thigh bones, bowls made out of skulls, drums made from human skin. After the revolution, a rosary was found in the Dalai Lama’s palace made from 108 different skulls.

After liberation, serfs widely reported that the lamas engaged in ritual human sacrifice including burying serf children alive in monastery ground-breaking ceremonies. Former serfs testified that at least 21 people were sacrificed by monks in 1948 in hopes of preventing the victory of the Maoist revolution

Be Sociable, Share!

Related posts:

Tagged with
  1. While I do not buy into the rosy western impression of the Dalai Lama and believe much of what is written by this Maoist author, the practices of Lamaism should not be used to condemn the whole of Buddhism, which also includes two other main schools the Theravada (or Hinayana) tradition and the Mahayana schools which have many more followers than the Tibetan tradition.

    In fact, it was a learned Sri Lankan chief abbot in Malaysia from whom I first heard about the Dalai Lama going into exile with cartloads of gold.

    While there admittedly are increasing instances of corruption, jealousies and so on within both Theravada and Mahayana clergy, the teaching itself has many good and valuable aspects in relation to the conduct of one’ s life.

    As for the public perception of Sikhs in Canada, well could that not be more due to racism, ignorance and prejudice which exists below the politically correct surface in Canadian society?

    Sikhs after all are mostly comprised of ethnic Punjabis who are a visible minority, especially since Sikhism does not actively go about preaching and converting people, so there rarely are caucasians who’ve become Sikhs.

    Hinduism has been popularised in western culture due to pop stars such as the Beatles and the Hari Krishna movement, while Buddhism has benefitted from the propaganda about the Dalai Lama, as well as contact between caucasian youth, who during the hippie era in the 60s visited Buddhist lands such as Thailand, Napal and so on.

    Also, if you disagree with what this Maoist wrote, why did you publish the article here in the first place. Anyway, this author did not criticise Buddhism as such in this article but rather the practice of Lamaism in Tibet.

  2. Dear Admin,

    After many years of studying and practicing Buddhism, I eventually came to be rather put off by the attitude of some Buddhists – ie FOLLOWERS of Buddhism who take the Buddha’s teachings on Karma, the impermanent and imperfect nature of the world infected by greed hatred and delusion as an excuse for not wanting to involve themselves in the affairs of the world with the intention to better it, but instead to focus on individually striving to perfect themselves and through that be an inspiration to others which would change the world for the better.

    While it is OK for members of the order of monks to turn away from worldly concerns in search of spiritual perfection, it should not be so for those lay Buddhists to adopt such attitudes, which IMHO is a form of escapism instead of challenging the corruption and injustice in their society.

    In many ways, this is a similar attitude among the western hippies, especially in vast countries with plenty of vacant sparesly habited rural areas, especially in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of the U.S. who seek to escape the cities into rural communes where they live some idyllic life.

    Having gone out to the far reaches of British Columbia with such a hippie friend of mine, I realised how isolated and provincial one’s mind would become, especially since the newspapers in such areas only report on what’s going on in their small town and surrounding areas, while they would be totally ignorant even if World War III was happening around them.

    I mentioned such escapism to a journalist with Adbusters Magazine and they said that such people would end up making themselves irrelevant to the rest of the world.

    I know very little about the Sikhi teachings but from your brief description, it certainly seems to be a socially pro-active religion – a kind of socialistic religion with an emphasis on justice and social wellbeing,

    As for the conflict between the Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka, I would not put that down to a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism/Christianity, though the two ethnic groups mostly correspond respectively to these religions, any more than the conflict between the Irish Republicans and Loyalists is a battle between Catholicism and Protestantism, as is portrayed by the media.

    The link below, most probably written by a Sinhalese, suggests external interference by imperialist powers in furtherance of their geo-strategic aims as being behind the conflict in Sri Lanka.

    Unfortunately, I do not receive much news about conversions to Sikhi in the US but here in Malaysia, there is very little known conversion to Sikhi, though I know of several former Sikhs who have converted to Christianity and Ba’hai.

    As for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, While I also accept Jesus, I have observed that the some of the teachings of these three religions are bitterly against the others, all of which worship the same God – hence the “Allah” controversy in Malaysia.

    Thus, I am rather wary of believing everything written in these religion’s books as the word of God and would rather rely on by own feelings and conscience as to their validity.

    While the problems in the Middle East are largely due to manipulation by external imperialist interests, the scriptural differences between these three religions from that region are a factor in the conflict too, what can and are exploited by outside troublemakers.

    In contract, religions of the East, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhi, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, etc very much co-exist happily, with few exceptions where politicians have successfully interfered to manipulate their followers.

    However, on the other hand, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are more socially proactive than Buddhism. In our part of the world, this is especially noticeable in the concept of an Islamic state, which forms the key ideology of the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) which rather interestingly supports the rights of Christians to us ethe word “Allah,” while the more secular, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) – the leading party in the ruling Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition – opposes Cristians using the word “Allah.”

    Stay tuned to the Malaysian Insider for ongoing reports on this issue

  3. I’m not sure you’re taking the right tack if your plan is to improve the public image of Sikhs. Need a Public Relations consultant do we?

  4. I just wonder If all Sikhs are free of all those commonly seen traits, greed, aversion, delusion, etc.

    That is why I trust no religion, I do accept practices, ideas, and see that the incorporation these can create real change , physically and spiritually.

    Yes there are ignorant “buddhist monks” very delusional as there are in all the other religions I have seen. And yes I have seen at least a practicing Sikh with vile intentions and lots of greed, etc.

    When will humanity become responsable individually rather then in groups or definitions?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: