It should have been a restorative and healing experience for victims of sexual abuse going to meet the international man of compassion, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. They had hoped that the meeting would be a fruitful one, and they would be able to elicit some kind of promise from him to do something about their pain. Instead, according to reports from BBC, ABC and Radio Free Asia, the victims left with “mixed responses”, with some even expressing disappointment.

“Meeting the Dalai Lama was a disappointment”. Just a few years ago, such a phrase or thought would have been unthinkable. Yet, the fact these types of feelings are being reported with increasing frequency should come as no surprise to anyone. It is the result of decades of refusal from the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala) to take responsibility for their people and their actions like any responsible leader or government.

Is it possible that the reports might be inaccurate and can therefore be discredited? Not really, since the BBC is held as the gold standard of journalism, and relied upon all around the world as a source of objective information. In war-torn areas, or regions of great strife and conflict, people turn to the BBC for their news. So the fact this meeting and its unfavorable outcome captured the attention of the BBC and ABC indicates the severity of the matter and something that the Tibetan leadership should take very seriously but clearly failed to.

So while the BBC has traditionally joined other media outlets in providing unquestioning supporting for the Tibetan government, it now seems that the tide is turning as the Dalai Lama makes gaffe after public relations gaffe. But is anyone really surprised when the CTA’s reaction towards these sex crimes has been underwhelmingly lackluster, even to the point of being protectionist towards the sex predators? Let us examine the facts:
Why do victims of sexual abuse have to beg THE man of compassion to listen and help them? The fact the BBC said the Dalai Lama was “receptive”, putting the phrase in speech marks, implies that he was not actually that receptive to the audience. In the same way you might describe a person as “interesting” to avoid saying what you really feel about them. One of those present even said that the Dalai Lama did not want to hear about their cases and that essentially, he had to be convinced. It is disturbing that the Dalai Lama and his people would have to be convinced to meet with victims of sexual abuse. The reality is that they made it complicated because they did not actually want to hold the audience and be confronted with facts , but were forced to due to public pressure and the need to appear as though they are doing something.

Why do victims only get 20 minutes? The Dalai Lama will fly around the world to attend events hosted by these sex offenders. He will stay with them, eat their food, give teachings in their Dharma centers and endorse their organizations, and he will spend hours with sponsors. He spends hours commenting on the religious practice of others and the domestic policies of other countries. But he only granted 20 minutes to these victims who have suffered so much at the hands of people that he endorsed. On top of that, he will not do anything concrete to sanction the offenders. These victims have had their lives turned upside down by the very people he said would be safe and okay to associate with.

Why does the Dalai Lama teach people to be responsible, when he himself rejects responsibility for the actions of those whom he allowed to use his name and reputation as an endorsement of their behavior? The Dalai Lama cannot claim ignorance in this matter. It is clear that the abusers used his name and their association with him in order to build trust and lure people within striking range of their criminal misdeeds. Many allowed themselves to be in harm’s way because they trusted the Dalai Lama’s commendation of these predators. The abuses were not once off and spanned many years during which time it has come to light that the Dalai Lama’s office was informed of such abuses. It is clear that these abusers are guilty of the crimes that they have been accused of. Yet, the Dalai Lama has until now refused to take any responsibility although it would have been less likely that the abuse was perpetuated had the abusers not received an endorsement from the Dalai Lama.

Why does the Dalai Lama speak so strongly on so many other issues but he will not speak up against sexual abuse? The fact sexual abuse is universally reviled means that there will not be any damage to the Dalai Lama’s reputation if he speaks up against it and against their perpetrators; he would actually be lauded and praised for his open-minded attitude and willingness to side with the victims and prevent further victims from being harmed. The Dalai Lama will even speak up against issues that do not concern him, for example the caste system in India or the mistakes that he perceives were made by Nehru. The Tibetan leadership will publish books, videos, pamphlets, hit lists and posters against Dorje Shugden. Yet, the Dalai Lama and CTA will not do anything about a topic that directly concerns them i.e. how the Dalai Lama has endorsed the perpetrators of these sex crimes. So the fact that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan leadership will not say or do anything against these lamas and their actions is highly suspicious.
Why does the Dalai Lama endorse criminals? Sogyal Rinpoche and those of his ilk are not the first offenders whom the Dalai Lama has endorsed. The Dalai Lama met with Japanese cult leader Shoko Asahara before he injured thousands in the Tokyo subway. The Dalai Lama has also accepted US$1mil to grace an event hosted by American cult leader Keith Raniere who was recently indicted on various crimes, including sex trafficking. And when the Dalai Lama was younger and living in Lhasa, he was tutored by the Nazi Heinrich Harrer. Again, this tendency of the Dalai Lama to affirm harmful people seems to be habitual. What is even more disturbing is how the Dalai Lama regards many of these people as his personal friends.

Why does the Tibetan leadership have a warped view of what constitutes a crime? On the one hand, they say that Dorje Shugden practitioners are “criminals in history”. This is because they dare to defy the Dalai Lama’s ban of the practice and hence, only because they refuse to listen to the Dalai Lama, they become criminals. On the other hand, when people commit actual crimes by sexually abusing their students, those people are not accused of being criminals. No resolutions are passed in the Tibetan parliament condemning their crimes. No books are published warning people against them. For the Tibetan leadership’s information, in the real world, in the democratic world, in the world outside the Tibetan community, a crime is anything that actually hurts other people. This includes murder, theft, embezzlement and money laundering (incidentally, all things that Dalai Lama associates have been accused of). It does not include “not listening to the Dalai Lama”. So what crime do Dorje Shugden practitioners commit when they keep their personal practice and refuse to abide by the Dalai Lama’s diktats to give up the practice? Does the Tibetan leadership actually understand what a crime is?
Why does the Tibetan leadership want to damage the reputation of Tibet? Whatever the CTA wants to insist about how much they have done towards the Tibetan cause, the reality is that no one has done as much as His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The reality is that the entire welfare of the Tibetan cause rests on the Dalai Lama’s name and reputation. With each successive gaffe by the Dalai Lama, the damage to the Dalai Lama’s reputation only makes it harder for the CTA to raise funds and raise awareness. So perhaps the CTA does not really care about Tibet after all? It is clear they will do nothing to protect the future of the Tibetan cause by protecting the reputation of the man upon whom all of it rests. In the same vein, the CTA portray themselves to be defenders of the Buddha’s teachings but in fact their complicity in these crimes harm the Buddhadharma.

Do the Tibetan leadership truly love the Dalai Lama? Thanks to the CTA’s ineptitude, refusal to deal with the sexual abuse and hiding behind the Dalai Lama’s name, they have left their leader exposed, opening him up to the world for questioning. Now that people know the Dalai Lama endorses sex abusers, it puts him at risk of being accused of every tragedy being used to his advantage. It leads people to wonder if the Dalai Lama’s silence over self-immolations is his complicit approval for the suicides and deaths of his people. It leads people to wonder if his silence over the schisms in the Karma Kagyu is his approval for the division of the school.