February 20, 2001

Editors, be warned. If you don't want your newspaper or magazine burned, don't raise awkward questions about Tibet's top lamas. Copies of Asiaweek with the cover story "Lama Wars" published late last year are said to have been torched. The reason was my questioning of the circumstances surrounding the recognition of Urgyen Trinley as the reincarnation of the Karmapa and leader of the Karma Kagyu sect, and the Dalai Lama's role in the affair. Supporters of the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala in India did what they usually do when their spiritual leaders are shown in a poor light - they grabbed Asiaweek off the newsstands and burned it. A simple form of censorship.

Letters poured into the magazine's Hong Kong office. The story was attacked as a "distortion of Tibetan history and recent Karma Kagyu events." But praise for the piece far outweighed criticism, by a ratio of 10 to one. "'Struggle for Tibet's Soul' is unbiased in its approach to the issue of two competing Karmapa Lamas, and the war being waged from the different quarters of the Tibetan Kagyu lineage," was a fairly representative comment.

The reason I bring this up now is that the Karmapa is in the news again - and the controversy could intensify. At the beginning of February, the 15-year-old lama was given refugee status by the Indian authorities, after a year-long wait. Trinley hit world headlines in January last year with his escape from Tibet. For millions of followers around the world, his flight and his new-found refugee status are causes for celebration. They now ask: will he be allowed to visit his Karma Kagyu sect exile seat at Rumtek Monastery in the mountain kingdom of Sikkim?

Why does all this matter? I would prefer not to simplify what is a very complex religious and political issue. But if you want it in a nutshell: a significant minority of the estimated 5 million followers of the Karma Kagyu sect consider Urgyen Trinley a "fake." Careful examination of the process by which he was found and recognized as the reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa, who died in 1981, indicates fraud. Regent Tai Situ Rinpoche, with the help of Gyaltsab Rinpoche, allegedly forged a letter said to have been written by the 16th Karmapa pointing to where he would be reborn. They dragged the communist Chinese authorities into the process by involving them in the search and enthronement in Tibet. The two rinpoche, respected lamas, used force to push out rival Sharma Rinpoche, who went on to recognize another boy, Thaye Dorje, as a rival Karmapa. And they involved the Dalai Lama, who belongs to the Geluk sect, in the controversy. The Dalai Lama gave his blessing to the recognition of Trinley, eager to win over the formerly troublesome sect, and with the hope that the new Karmapa could play a role in a political solution of the "Tibet Question."

If the allegations are to be believed, a simple nomad boy was turned into a political and religious pawn. On the other hand, if the recognition process has been carried out correctly, Urygen Trinley is the Karmapa. The Karma Kagyu sect has split over this difference. Asiaweek was not the first to publish the story of the controversy, laying bare the "political" interference in the centuries-old Tibetan practice of searching for the reincarnations of high lamas. But it was the first to put developments into their true perspective, showing how the Karmapa issue has worrying implications for Chinese control over the recognition of top lamas, the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama, and the spiritual future of Tibet

The criticism of my story was understandable. The piece challenged the belief of millions of followers who worship Trinley almost like a god (forgive the journalese, considering we are talking about Buddhism, not Christianity). It is like telling a Catholic that the Pope is a fraud. Take one Western follower I talked to at the Samye Ling Tibetan Center in Scotland. She had dropped a well-paid career at the sight of a photo of the young lama and was on the brink of going on a three-year Buddhist retreat. There is no way she could accept the suggestion that Trinley might not be the "true" reincarnation of the Karmapa.

It is hard to logically debate a subject in which faith in one's spiritual leader plays such an important part. One Internet website, supporting Urgyen Trinley, devoted much space to a well-argued critique of the Asiaweek story, trying to find holes in minor points of terminology and cultural practice. But the critics failed to tackle the key allegations - that the crucial "letter of recognition" was a poor forgery by Tai Situ, who has refused to have it forensically tested; that he deviously brought the Chinese authorities into the process; that he first set eyes on the boy Trinley one year before he announced he was found, the implication being that he purposely looked for a boy to fill the role; and that his tactics resulted in violence and deaths. Not for nothing has Delhi restricted Tai Situ's movements. These are serious allegations, not made lightly, but not made with any bias. And the story did not say rival Dorje is the "true" Karmapa.

Space constraints meant the story failed to delve deeply into the gray areas. But I didn't "parachute" into the controversy. My piece was the culmination of a 30-year Tibetan odyssey of Himalayan journeys, journalistic coverage, and trips to Tibet and Dharamsala. The cover story was the result of months of research and weeks of journeys in Tibet, India, Sikkim and Europe. This was a tough but fair inquiry, in which I met and talked to the main players without the hindrance of affiliation to any particular Tibetan Buddhist sect.

The resulting story was not a statement that the issue was black and white, that Trinley and his backer Tai Situ were the bad guys, rival Dorje and his backer Sharma, the good guys. Both "sides" have been responsible for great good in terms of helping people along the Buddhist path. Both sides may have erred. We are looking at human strengths, weaknesses and egos, even though the main protagonists are recognized as tulku, reincarnated enlightened beings. We are looking at the effects these tulku have on millions of followers around the world. We are talking about the politics of reincarnation, dragged out from behind the wall of the mountains of the Himalaya and exposed to the modern world. Political choices made in recognizing young lamas have been going on for centuries. Now it is important news, vital to the future of the Tibetan people. And it is there for the whole world to see. If they choose to look.

And it matters to the followers of Tibetan Buddhism. The religion has so much to offer. But most followers are babes lost in the woods at the start. They rely on their Buddhist teachers, be they Tibetan or foreign, to point the way. And it can be particularly traumatic if they find they have been led astray, encouraged to believe in a spiritual figurehead who is not all he is said to be.

The issues of the Karmapa and the future of the Dalai Lama matter to the people of Tibet. Yet why are journalists not looking into these matters in depth? A handful of international publications, including the New York Times, London's The Sunday Times and the The Scotsman, have delved into the controversy, as have a number of well-informed Indian journalists. But the vast majority of newspapers, magazines, wire and TV services report unquestioningly, accepting that, in Tai Situ's words, "the Karmapa is the Karmapa, Buddha is Buddha, Christ is Christ, that's it." Why is this?

Blame in part the reverence for the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan spiritual leader is arguably the most compassionate religious leader in the world today. His untiring efforts to bring peace and reconciliation won him the Nobel peace Prize in 1989. See him in action, feel the grasp of his hand, hear his kind words to a Tibetan refugee who has just fled suppression in his homeland. The reverence even among hard-nosed Western journalists can blind people to his weaknesses. Judgement is suspended. The Dalai Lama can't be wrong. So when he throws his weight behind Trinley, journalists follow.

Then there is the "cause" of Tibet, the simple image of the good guys and the bad guys, the Chinese who invaded and destroyed Tibet, the Tibetans fighting for their freedom. Questioning Tibet's spiritual leaders seems to imply a pro-Communist Chinese bias. It is politically incorrect to look at the murky politics behind the scenes.

Buddhism calls for truth. It also encourages followers to ask questions. The Dalai Lama has stressed these points himself. While his entourage around him might look embarrassed, he can be direct, he can joke, he can cut through the stifling reverence that prohibits people from asking questions. But this is complex issue. Questions have to be asked if answers are to be forthcoming. Some might argue it would take a thousand lifetimes to really understand Tibetan Buddhism. But a start has to be made.