第三十四章 隆德寺----噶瑪汪秋

第三十四章   隆德寺----噶瑪汪秋

摘錄自＂噶瑪巴預言＂

蘇維亞.黃 原著，林淑貞中譯

!國際噶瑪噶舉佛教組織（ International Karma Kagyu Buddhist Organization) 之秘書噶瑪汪秋（Karma Wangchuk），於2004年寫了一篇文章，此文和我們以下所討論的隆德寺被佔領後發生了什麼事以及噶瑪巴慈善信託要取回它所付出的努力有關。此文得到作者同意編輯於此。

1993年8月2日，一群被大司徒仁波切和國師嘉察仁波切所帶領的團體，強佔嘉華噶瑪巴在錫金的主廟隆德寺。因為他們有錫金州官員以及警察的協助，他們成功了。從此，非法佔領隆德寺成為噶瑪巴爭議中的主要問題。

在利亞特休（Lea Terhune）的書中，她以熱情的措辭討論有關司徒仁波切和嘉察仁波切得到錫金總理那巴哈杜班達理（Nar Bahadur Bhandari）及其政府之協助，他們將隆德寺的掌控權交給兩位仁波切：特休承認，＂班達理在錫金是個有爭議的人物，經常被批評為腐敗。＂但是，她接下去讚揚他的行為：＂他尊敬十六世噶瑪巴並在他掌權時，經常協助隆德寺（在司徒仁波切和嘉察仁波切指導下）（註367）。

特休對此事件的說法引起許多問題：司徒和嘉察仁波切有權力掌控隆德寺嗎？N. B. 班達理和其錫金政府為何協助他們？印度憲法嚴格禁止政府涉入宗教事宜。整個州政府怎麼能夠都被收買？為何兩名仁波切要控制隆德寺當他們從未積極參與它的拉卜楞？還有，他們為何現在如此熱衷希望擁有隆德寺？

當我們談到噶瑪巴慈善信託對此事件之立場，以及他們作為嘉華噶瑪巴法定拉卜楞所做的努力，要經由印度法庭和平地取回隆德寺，以上這些問題都將被提出。

噶瑪巴慈善信託於1997年提出歸還隆德寺之訴訟，並在印度地方法院及高等法院贏得官司。司徒和嘉察仁波切上訴至最高法院，但被駁回。

噶瑪巴慈善信託只能在隆德寺被奪走五年後才能提出訴訟，當時錫金的政治情況阻止較早的投訴。

司徒和嘉察有權掌控隆德寺嗎？

藏傳佛教傳統裏，一位高階位喇嘛管理他自己的拉卜楞（labrang）。拉卜楞之職責為在高位喇嘛指示下，照管及處理所有的寺廟以及其他房地產事宜。每一個拉卜楞，和其他拉卜楞分開且有所區別，它獨立作業，沒有一位喇嘛對其他拉卜楞有管轄權。

毫無例外，過去所有的十六位噶瑪巴維持一個拉卜楞，此拉卜楞和所有其他喇嘛或上師分開且有所區別。同樣地，司徒仁波切帶領八蚌（Palpung）拉卜楞，嘉察仁波切管理卻貢（Chogong）拉卜楞，這些拉卜楞都是以兩位仁波切各別的傳統主廟而命名。

這種確立已久的拉卜楞系統禁止司徒和嘉察仁波切干預任何隆德寺拉卜楞之事宜。此外，故十六世嘉華噶瑪巴早已採取措施，正式及合法地將噶瑪巴慈善信託建立成他合法的拉卜楞。十六世噶瑪巴圓寂後，噶瑪巴慈善信託著手照管他的遺產，目的為照顧它們直到噶瑪巴以十七世噶瑪巴之身份回來。兩名仁波切在管理隆德寺上，在任何方面均沒有發言權，更別說佔領並控制它。

一名喇嘛要取得屬於另一個拉卜楞地產的唯一之途徑是訴諸武力。此正是1993年8月所發生的事，司徒和嘉察仁波切，藉由他們強有力的政治夥伴之直接協助，以武力奪得隆德寺。

錫金州政府為何支持奪取隆德寺？

我們相信司徒仁波切和嘉察仁波切以美金二百五十萬收買了前總理N. B. 班達理及其政府，分兩次捐獻給他的政黨（註368）。

一份頭款可能在班達理的警察進入隆德寺之前即已付清。印度憲法將印度建立成一個非宗教的國家並禁止任何政府官員涉及宗教事由。雖然我們對頭款之支付欠缺直接證據，推測班達理如果手中沒有收到一筆實際的付款，他應當不會觸犯印度憲法。

於1993年，隆德寺被奪取後，由司徒仁波切之團體於1993年付給總理班達理一百五十萬美元此事，我們有直接的證據。此款項是經由司徒仁波切的弟子，台灣百萬富豪陳履安遞送到的。此筆支付的款項於隆德寺被佔領後才一個月即已到達。這項捐獻已被新德里和剛渡兩地之政府調查人員登錄成文件，並刊登於報紙上。接踵而來的醜事導致印度政府對班達理之調查，以及其州政府終究於1995年跨台。

整個州政府如何可能都被收買？

特休提及總理班達理為＂一個具爭議的人物＂是一種保守的陳述。歷史顯示在班達理執政時期（1979一1995），錫金政府可能是在印度可見到的最腐敗的政權，經由賄賂及恐嚇的組合，總理像他自己的封地般治理著錫金。

在班達理統治期間，錫金大量存在著英勇的心靈之故事，他們甘冒總理之大不韙。首先，有一位反對派之領袖梅丹譚安（Mandan Tamang），他膽敢散發小冊，指控班達理腐敗且好色。梅丹被逮捕並死在獄中。他的屍體後來在朗波（Rongpo)河岸旁樹叢裏被發現。

不久之後，西里古里（Siliguri）（譯註1）一名記者R. K. 拜德（Baid）出版了一篇故事，詳述班達理管理部門之腐敗實例。班達理派遣秘密警察進入西孟加拉鄰近之州，（在他的法定管轄區之外），以便綁架拜德並將他帶至剛渡，他在剛渡被關進監獄並遭受酷刑。據說拜德被給予一大筆金錢（可能高達五百萬盧比），簽署一份否定他曾被綁架或虐待之信。這名記者據稱在西里古里用那些噤口費開了一間旅館。

剛渡有一名律師名為哈曼拉班達理（Hamelal Bhandari，和總理無任何關係），獨自承擔流通海報批評總理的行為，他被該黨的暴徒刼持，送入監獄並刑求，第二天，他被從一輛卡車上扔到剛渡的一條主街上，全身赤裸，極幸運地他逃出且生還。

這些是八零年代存在於錫金那些公開貪腐和脅迫之一瞥。錫金大衆對政府的行為了然所知，但是每個人都害怕公開發表意見，因為警察都是班達理個人的強制服從執行者，任何人膽敢向他或他的團體挑釁將會受到懲罰，上述的例子為最佳佐證。

就在此貪腐的情況下，1989年的大選展開。班達理系統化的脅迫令反對派極端驚嚇，使得沒有任何其他候選人及其黨派敢出來競選。在印度這種極度民主政治下，這是一件另人十分驚訝的事。

錫金是印度最小的州之一，人口僅四十萬，任何想要競選官職的侯選人均可輕易被鎮壓。班達理的政黨蠃得錫金國會所有三十二席位，給予他在政府裏第三次連任，他在政府各部門有著史無前例的權力，包括司法部。

噶瑪巴慈善信託為何不早一點提告？

司徒和嘉察仁波切和其同黨在班達理的協助下於1993年奪取隆德寺。但是，噶瑪巴慈善信託並未成功的提交他們的訴訟案件，直到四年後。什麼原因造成他們延遲？

即使在班達理政權尚未結束之前，有一個人極其勇敢控告司徒和嘉察仁波切，噶瑪貢波，前錫金國會議員以及十六世噶瑪巴虔誠的弟子，於1993年向剛渡地方法院控告司徒仁波切，理由為偽造噶瑪巴的預言信。噶瑪貢波的家人，包括妻子及小孩，均被逮捕入獄。在兩星期的監禁期間，他們都飽受身心刑罰折磨。

同時，為了確保沒有任何其他人再找司徒和嘉察仁波切的麻煩，班達理開始威脅噶瑪巴慈善信託之理事以封閉其口。他驅逐兩名非印度公民的理事，夏瑪仁波切和托噶仁波切，不准他們入境錫金。至於另兩位錫金居民之理事T. S. 江乘和J. T. 典薩巴，兩位都曾為前州政府高階位官員，班達理派遣暴徒去任意破壞他們個人的住處，江乘先生的家被石頭砸毀，典薩巴先生之座車完全被砸爛。

!當我和達哇策仁面談時，我問到這兩位年長理事後來如何了。

達哇策仁確認理事會中除了司徒仁波切外，一致支持夏瑪巴。隆德寺被奪走後，總理班達理知道噶瑪巴慈善信託會因為他們在佔領事件中，直接且非法的行為而控告他及他的政府。印度之法律嚴格禁止任何政府官員涉入宗教事宜。

首先禁止夏瑪及托噶仁波切進入錫金後，班達理派遣他的人去堵住另兩位年長理事之口，他派了兩輛巴士滿載著人，將車停在剛渡可以俯瞰江乘先生住家屋的路上，居高臨下，這些人向江乘先生的住家猛力投擲石塊。屋內，七十五歲高齡的江乘先生正在照顧他臥在病榻上的太太。儘管遭受攻擊，江乘先生並未動搖他的原則，他繼續努力為隆德寺及其僧衆尋求正義，並從未放棄他給夏瑪仁波切的支持。

另一位資深理事J. T . 典薩巴，被班達理的人實施類似的攻擊。他停在剛渡市場地區的座車被擊毀並完全破壞。但是，典薩巴先生也不撤回他對夏瑪仁波切的支持。不過，他決定到錫金地區以外之地區去提告，換言之，離開班達理的轄區。他顧慮到總理將會訴諸任何手段以擊潰他的對手。

班達理的脅迫活動奏效。J. T. 典薩巴為隆德寺僧衆的投訴案件，沒有在剛渡法庭提訴，而是於1994年在新德里向高等法院提起訴訟。高等法院回復，因為這是一件民事案件，應該向錫金當地州法院提交（註369）。但是，當總理班達理還留在任內，在錫金提出訴訟是不可能的。

此案件如何於1997年被提控？

1992年6月標誌著班達理生涯之結束之起始點。因為他開始涉入隆德事件，他的一名部長，P. K. 遷林（Chamling），策劃了競選活動打算取代他。他公開地指責班達理之貪腐並稱他為＂獨裁者＂，其結果，遷林的助理們被逮捕入獄刑求，他本人得以逃離並躲藏起來。

當時，夏瑪仁波切之秘書，科助嘉錯（Khedrub Gyatso），和遷林見面並對他提供協助，將一筆貸款借給他讓他競選，科助希望遷林能協助噶瑪巴慈善信託取回隆德寺作為回報。

遷林回應，他沒有立場去移走司徒仁波切和嘉察仁波切的僧侶，但他能保證噶瑪巴慈善信託在法院會受到公正的審判。

遷林說，＂一旦班達理敗選，則錫金的法院將可被接近，你應當到法院提出訴訟。我的責任是擊敗班達理，結束他的獨裁角色，將民主還給錫金。我會讓你在錫金提出訴訟，並償還你的貸款，這是我當前的目的，我將不會將司徒仁波切的僧衆遷出隆德寺，那樣是違法的，而我決意遵守法律。＂

遷林開始和新德里政府合作施加壓力於班達理，印度中央政府提出成堆的問題，班達理既無法解釋亦無答案。其中包括他和台灣百萬富翁陳履安之合作，以及他私下和中共政府交往之事。壓力繼續增長，到1995年8月，班達理被迫不光彩的下台。此事件對噶瑪巴爭議是如此的重要，以致於錫金虔誠的佛教徒以為噶瑪巴的護法一定曾給予遷林去策劃政變的靈感。

但是噶瑪巴慈善信託還是未能提控因為J. T. 典薩巴害怕班達理的政黨會捲土重來施加報復。厭倦再等待，於1996年8月，隆德寺合法的僧衆及喇嘛們舉行絕食抗議，請求州政府將他們的寺廟還給他們。

新選上的總理遷林邀請四十位資深喇嘛到他住所開會。他建議，＂睡在路上並如此抗議毫無意義＂，法律上，政府無法遷走司徒和嘉察仁波切的僧侶，唯一之道是得到法院命令，將寺廟還給他們。

噶瑪巴慈善信託依據什麼提出訴訟？

早於1996年，夏瑪仁波切於希里古理的辛克萊旅館曾召集了噶瑪巴慈善信託之理事們開會。他要求其他理事們給予許可，讓他代表他們提出訴訟。理事們不然就是年紀太大，無法協助；不然就是需要照顧生病的家人。因此，他們同意給予夏瑪巴權力去提訴。

1997年7月27日，夏瑪仁波切代表噶瑪巴慈善信託，向剛渡地方法院提出訴訟，指控司徒和嘉察仁波切非法的從噶瑪巴慈善信託之拉卜楞奪走隆德寺。在此案中，錫金州內政部長為第1號被告，錫金宗教部長為被告第2號，嘉察仁波切名列第3號被告。司徒仁波切未被列名因為他已因其與中共之間的交往而被驅逐出印度。

大約花了數年才使得法院同意審理此案件，因為嘉察仁波切的律師提出兩點初步問題：首先，噶瑪巴慈善信託資產只有二十萬印度盧比，並無足夠資源去維持隆德寺的土地及其設備；其次，既然所控訴的事件發生於四年前的1993，控訴時效已過。

最後，於2002年底，噶瑪巴慈善信託處理了所有初步問題，案件因而被允許進行。法院指派印度準備銀行之委員會於隆德寺內場地列舉資產存貨清單。（註370）

嘉察仁波切懼怕什麼？

列舉一份在隆德寺裏可移動資產的正確存貨表示一些寶物可能會被發現已然遺失。顯然地如此狀況使嘉察仁波切緊張，因為這些遺失的項目，他怕他可能會被指控犯罪。

嘉察仁波切呈遞一份新的申請書到法院，要求被從此案中除名，因為他沒有權利管理隆德寺，他屬於噶瑪巴的拉卜楞外的另一個拉卜楞，或稱寺廟管理處。

試圖將責難轉移開他自己，嘉察仁波切創造了一個新單位，名為＂族普拉卜楞＂（Tsurphu Labrang）。嘉察仁波切希望此發明在此案件上可以取代隆德寺的拉卜楞。此新的假冒的團體將由天珍南嘉帶頭，他列名為噶瑪巴的秘書長。（此人即是同一個天珍南嘉，隆德寺拉卜楞前副秘書，被托噶仁波切所開除。）

當此案件被審理時，清楚顯示此團體並無任何文件以証明它在隆德寺的管事人之職位及職責，在顯著的對比下，噶瑪巴慈善信託能夠提供早至1983年以來所有的會議記錄，所有記錄都和十六世噶瑪巴圓寂後寺廟的管理單位（拉卜楞）有關。因此，地方法院決定噶瑪巴慈善信託為此產業的合法管理單位。法院裁定那個假冒的團體並無任何權利或要求權去承擔隆德寺管理人的任務。

但是，司徒和嘉察仁波切和天珍南嘉以一個空洞的團體上訴剛渡高等法院。高等法院於2003年3月19日駁回他們的上訴。此表示嘉察仁波切再也無法逃離本案件中的被告身份。

法院兩次敗訴後，司徒和嘉察有無試圖和解？

在此案件中無法逃避被告身份後，嘉察仁波切懼怕被犯罪起訴，變得熱切希望庭外和解。他捎口訊至噶瑪巴慈善信託說願意協商一個解決之道。

夏瑪仁波切提出一個七點解決辦法為回應：

1. 既然原來的印度準備銀行之委員會未能完成它的工作，一項全新的盤點隆德寺資產存貨工作應當再進行以查明金剛寶冠是否仍在隆德寺。

2. 嘉察仁波切應當說明任何遺失之資產，不論它是被轉移至其他地點或已出售，以避免被犯罪起訴。

3. 除了14名隆德寺合法居民之喇嘛外，（雖然他們曾夥同司徒仁波切及嘉察仁波切奪取寺廟），其餘所有的喇嘛及僧侶均為闖入者，應當撤離場所。

4. 每一名被非法逐出隆德寺的合法僧侶應當被補償過去11年來，他們必須居住在其他住處之費用，每日50盧比。

5. 嘉察仁波切必須付出所有噶瑪巴慈善信託所承擔的訴訟費用。

6. 嘉察和司徒仁波切以及他們的僧衆，在未來任何時間點上，均不得涉入隆德寺之事由或試圖回到隆德寺，他們必須認清他們來自其他不同的拉卜楞，在隆德寺內無任何立場。

7. 司徒和嘉察仁波切必須為所有他們給隆德寺造成的暴力及紛擾提出一份公開道歉並撤銷他們對理事們所作的一切提控。

嘉察仁波切已準備接受上述所有條件，除了第4及第5條有關給被驅逐的僧衆們以及噶瑪巴慈善信託之財務補償。

就在嘉察仁波切準備接受夏瑪巴條件之提示前，司徒仁波切召喚他到新德里，他說服嘉察仁波切，夏瑪仁波切的條件和在法院第三次敗訴一樣糟糕，因此，提出上訴他們無可損失。如此，司徒仁波切和嘉察仁波切帶著他們所虛構的團體，族普拉卜楞，到新德里的最高法院上訴。

為何司徒和嘉察仁波切依然繼續戰鬥？

為何司徒和嘉察仁波切要堅持保有隆德寺？我們相信有兩點理由。首先，嘉察仁波切知道司徒仁波切已從隆德寺藏寶庫房裏搬離一些貴重的聖物。印度準備銀行的存貨盤點發現有些項目已經遺失。我們相信嘉察仁波切害怕假如他這一方失去對隆德之掌控，則偷竊之事會被發現，他會被責備並在犯罪系統下起訴。其次，兩名仁波切知道在喜瑪拉雅地區信徒心中，那一個人坐上十六世噶瑪巴的法座並戴上金剛寶冠即是噶瑪巴，他們不希望噶瑪巴泰耶多杰享有這些優勢，如此則會顯著地削弱大衆對他們的候選人噶瑪巴烏金廷列的信仰。

!2004年7月5日，印度最高法院對噶瑪巴主廟隆德寺下了判決。最高法院支持剛渡法院之判決，並駁回族普拉卜楞尋求合法批准它控制隆德寺之申請書。（註371）

此案件現已被認為百分之九十噶瑪巴慈善信託將勝訴。

噶瑪巴慈善信託的觀點是，利亞特休和司徒仁波切的人現正製造一種見解，即只有在噶瑪巴所屬的範圍內，西藏喇嘛之拉卜楞制度是有問題的。司徒仁波切自己現在非常慷慨地擴張他自己在智慧林的拉卜楞，此顯示他利用，支持以及相信拉卜楞系統。

敗壞拉卜楞制度之名聲可能可以讓司徒仁波切和阿貢祖古有藉口，不顧噶瑪巴慈善信託合法的權利及責任以保存，保護和管理噶瑪巴的資產。由司徒人馬所提出對噶瑪巴的拉卜楞的負面批評，是用來替他們的罪行作辯護，他們是隆德寺的非法佔有人會辯稱隆德寺本身加上它的法寶並不屬於噶瑪巴，而是屬於所有的傳承持有者，包括司徒和嘉察仁波切在內。但是，以這兩名仁波切為例，他們合法地擁有以自己名字登記的資產。司徒和嘉察仁波切已非法並用暴力奪取了噶瑪巴的資產，但他們不是竊賊，隆德寺屬於他們的，也屬於所有的佛教徒。就是此觀點司徒的黨派用以影響他們在西方，台灣以及香港的信徒，此點在阿貢寫給班達理的信中昭然若揭。

如前面章節提及，1993年8月奪得隆德寺後，阿貢寫一封信給總理班達理，對其＂達成協助隆德寺＂之舉表達＂堅定的支持那項行動＂（註372）。我已由噶瑪巴慈善信託處得到阿貢簽名的此信副本（註373），在此信中阿貢自己承認，他清楚地表明羅巴慈善機構曾多年在隆德寺資助一百個人，他也表達以下的看法，隆德應當像是一個對十六世噶瑪巴所有攝政以及所有佛教弟子們開放的場所。當夏瑪巴讀到阿貢信之副本時，他決定在另一封給班達理的信反映阿貢的說法。此二封信之內容刊登於下。

&阿貢致錫金總理N. B. 班達理之信：

總理閣下，

在被告知關於最近所發生事件之真相後，我想表達我堅定支持閣下為協助隆德寺所採取的行動。我如是作，

1. 代表我所負責的歐洲中心，包括英國，比利時，愛爾蘭及西班牙，還有非洲之佛教道場之理事們，工作人員以及學生們，還有，

2. 代表羅巴慈善機構，此單位已一貫地多年贊助隆德寺約一百個人。

我極為感激由於你的介入使得傳統的隆德雨季結夏安居得以舉行並允許在學院研讀之僧侶們得以恢復他們的課程此一事實。隆德得以對所有十六世噶瑪巴指定之攝政們以及所有佛教弟子們開放一事極其重要。佛教寺廟應當可以被每個人使用，此狀況特別適用於隆德寺，此寺廟由十六世噶瑪巴和許多高階位祖古們不斷存在所得到之加持力。

隆德寺在最近幾年內在噶瑪噶舉傳承中扮演極其重要的角色並成為西方佛教弟子們造訪的重要地點，它是一個十六世噶瑪巴聖上為建立噶瑪噶舉教法所行之清淨行為之特徵及顯現。它的衰退已造成過去幾年造訪它的一些弟子對我們傳承之不敬。我確定在未來它會回到過去的光輝並成為佛教在世界上的主要地點之一，對錫金人民而言，此為一佳例及榮耀。我確定，你在關鍵時刻所作的決定性，合理性及權衡性的回應將會依照歷史，被證實其有正當的理由以及值得讚揚的。

我們相當遺憾知道有些對你不實的指控之文件已在許多不同的國家的道場中流傳。我們相信真相將大白且適當的行動將會被採取以抵制那些散播謠言之人。

許多西方人已表達他們對隆德寺的憂慮及關切，我感激你給一份回應，向他們確保現在所採取的每一個步驟將會保證它未來的完善方向以及攝政們的安全。

阿貢祖古仁波切博士（簽名）
噶舉桑耶林西藏中心方丈及主任
羅巴慈善創辦人及主席


&夏瑪仁波切致錫金總理N. B. 班達理信函，1994年1月15日（註374）：

閣下，

我有一份蘇格蘭之阿貢袓古給閣下之信函副本，因為此信涉及嘉華噶瑪巴在隆德之法輪中心，我以噶瑪巴慈善信託理事身份回應此信，噶瑪巴慈善信託是由十六世噶瑪巴所創立，一個擁有隆德寺合法監護權的基金會。

此信揭示你和阿貢，司徒及嘉察仁波切合作，你們的團體現在非法的奪取噶瑪巴的寺廟。我對阿貢的要點評論於下。（以下摘錄自阿貢之信文將置於引號中，並以斜體字排列。）

＂在被告知關於最近所發生事件之真相後，我想表達我堅定支持閣下為協助隆德寺所採取的行動。我如是作，

1. 代表我所負責的歐洲中心，包括英國，比利時，愛爾蘭及西班牙，還有非洲之佛教道場之理事們，工作人員以及學生們，還有，

2. 代表羅巴慈善機構，此單位已一貫地多年贊助隆德寺約一百個人。”

作為錫金的總理，錫金州的居民依賴你的政府保護在錫金之醫院，學校，寺廟以及其他公共團體以避免其遭受外國人非法侵入，攻擊以及佔領，並保護它們不受外國政府之控制。就另一方面而言，寺廟（如隆德寺）內部及其管理並不受你的州政府管轄，其原因是在印度，宗教機構被授權免於政府之介入可自由操作。但是，1993年8月2日，你指揮你的州政府衛兵及警察，奪取隆德寺並將其控制權交給司徒及嘉察仁波切，此二人和一名外國人以及外國代表阿貢祖古結盟。

中共政府出版許多英文和藏文雜誌，由中共駐新德里和加德滿都大使館負責流通，這些刊物清楚地刋載著蘇格蘭的阿貢祖古是中共於大不列顛之西藏社區代表。此外，阿貢自己在蘇格蘭的寺廟桑耶林之通訊描述他為負責大司徒仁波切閣下之外交事宜之人。因此，此處我們了解阿貢祖古，他是一名大不列顛人民，他是中共代表，也是司徒的外交代表，他寫信給你，感謝你在非法奪得隆德寺所扮演的角色。但是不論阿貢，司徒或嘉察仁波切，沒有一人對隆德寺具有任何合法權利或所有權。

1992年6月29日，當中共政府正式指派西藏族普寺內的烏金廷列為十六世噶瑪巴之轉世靈童時，他們和代表大司徒仁波切的阿貢祖古和代表嘉察仁波切的喜繞塔清（Sherab Tharchin）一起完成此認證，然後於1993年8月2日，你派出兩百名武裝州府衛兵，以武力奪取了隆德寺。你的部下將寺廟之鑰匙交給嘉察仁波切，他也簽收了；同一天，隆德寺內六名資深喇嘛被逮捕並下獄。

如你所知，根據印度法律，當一棟房屋出租給租戶時，連屋主都無權入屋逐出房客，屋主若如此作將會被捕，他需要遵循法律程序。噶瑪巴的僧侶是隆德寺的合法居民，他們的居住權應當受你的政府保護。當超過二千名由剛渡來的外人於1993年8月2日突然襲擊隆德寺時，僧侶們鎖上通往大殿之門，試圖保護寺廟，你作為錫金政府之總理，錫金政府之員警及衛兵們應當執行印度法律，將入侵者和闖入者趕走。此條法律不僅是印度法令，在其他國家如英國和美國也一樣。但是，你的州軍隊卻靠攏外來侵襲者，將二百名居住於寺廟內的喇嘛趕走。阿貢給你的感謝函現在書面確定你曾參與奪取隆德寺。

次日，你所僱用的街頭鬥士，被認為是打手的被派出，以石頭攻擊兩位噶瑪巴慈善信託資深理事在剛渡的家及車輛。當你下命令時，你有無考慮過其中一位理事是前錫金副秘書長，另一位是前錫金內政部祕書長，後者還曾因無貪腐模範政行贏得國家之＂黑領帶獎＂。極顯然地，此一種故意破壞之行為，其目的為脅迫兩位年長理事，使得他們不敢控訴你的違法行為。

至於那一百名阿貢的羅巴慈善所資助的隆德村民，我是否可以提醒你我在前一年6月向你要求的事，完全和此情況有關。1992年6月4日，我正要回隆德寺，我和你在巴格多拉（Bagdogra） 機場會見，當時我通知你司徒仁波切和阿貢正在利用羅巴作為掩護，收買隆德村民，他們在分裂我們的社區。我講述於1990年，阿貢祖古和他的祕書利亞懷勒如何來到剛渡並在那裡開始一個羅巴分會。他們演講並公開徵求大衆支持司徒仁波切。他們的回報是，阿貢答應他們將由羅巴的資助項目得到定期的款項，大部份參加的人是你在剛渡的打手及其家人和朋友。

阿貢和利亞懷勒也去了隆德並對村民講述同樣的演説，他們在達哈（Dalha）家庭成員的家中設立辦公室，我們村莊社區一半人口接受他們的金錢並保證支持司徒仁波切；另一半拒絕，並反對阿貢之出現，此組人群由一位隆德寺拉卜楞的資深管理人雷希卓陽所領導。唯一的理事當時在隆德為蔣貢仁波切，他叫利亞懷勒到他辦公室並叫她離開隆德。

我回憶起那一天在機場你臉上顯出的輕蔑表情，你並不願認真考慮我所説的話因為你始終站在他們那邊。

＂我極為感激由於你的介入使得傳統的隆德雨季結夏安居得以舉行並允許在學院研讀之僧侶們得以恢復他們的課程此一事實。”

阿貢所言虛假。噶瑪巴的僧侶們被迫離開隆德寺，其結果是，他們既無法結夏安居也無法在學院裏研習，我將會在未來將此點在法院裏提證。

＂隆德得以對所有十六世噶瑪巴指定之攝政們以及所有佛教弟子們開放一事極其重要。佛教寺廟應當可以被每個人使用，此狀況特別適用於隆德寺，此寺廟由十六世噶瑪巴和許多高階位祖古們不斷存在所得到之加持力。＂

作為總理，你認為像阿貢祖古這樣的外國人在印度，應當有任何權利去將噶瑪巴所屬的隆德法輪中心改變成所謂的攝政們的公共財產？順便一提的是，十六世嘉華噶瑪巴從未指派過任何攝政。同時，阿貢祖古有何權利去開放噶瑪巴的財產給所有的佛教弟子？那麼你是否允許中共的宗教局到隆德寺舉行佛教大會？當我說不止是阿貢，就是你身為錫金州之總理，也沒有權利去指示將噶瑪巴的資產給大衆使用，我想你會同意我的見解。

＂隆德寺在最近幾年內在噶瑪噶舉傳承中扮演極其重要的角色並成為西方佛教弟子們造訪的重要地點，它是一個十六世噶瑪巴聖上為建立噶瑪噶舉教法所行之清淨行為之特徵及顯現。它的衰退已造成過去幾年造訪它的一些弟子對我們傳承之不敬。＂

這是阿貢，司徒和嘉察仁波切典型的技倆，即以他們自己所為去指控別人。從1965年以來，隆德寺一直是一個活躍的噶瑪巴法輪中心。再一次，我質疑阿貢這個從別的國家來的外人為何會對隆德寺如此有興趣。我也表明阿貢自己的行為是為了要分裂隆德社區，當他和利亞懷勒到隆德收買村民時，他使得隆德衰微，然後他再以自己所為之結果，用以責怪他人，如他在信中所言。

可能阿貢自己以為隆德的衰敗是因為他和另兩位仁波切未能於1992年6月成功奪下隆德寺。當時，我反對司徒及嘉察仁波切因為他們和中國結盟指派一名十七世噶瑪巴。如你所知，我們的聯合政府曾派出軍事護衛隊來保護我，其結果是，超過四百名已來到隆德寺的司徒支援者必須立刻離開，奇蹟似的，如此龐大的一群人居然可以在當晚從錫金全部消失。你的邊境守衛是否在他們進入錫金時沒有檢查他們的簽證，然後當他們離開時也並未在邊境被停留下來詢查？

＂我們相當遺憾知道有些對你不實的指控之文件已在許多不同的國家的道場中流傳。我們相信真相將大白且適當的行動將會被採取以抵制那些散播謠言之人。

許多西方人已表達他們對隆德寺的憂慮及關切，我感激你給一份回應，向他們確保現在所採取的每一個步驟將會保證它未來的完善方向以及攝政們的安全。＂

關於你的涉入此事，我曾表達我的關切和懷疑，即你巳從台灣的陳履安收到約一百二十萬美元。近日的新聞報紙之報導已確認我是正確無虞。你與陳履安，司徒仁波切以及你的副主席噶瑪托登在錫金托登的農舍祕密相會之事現已見報，一個裝滿美金的皮箱如何轉手其中之問題之一是陳履安如何在沒有所需要的文件下將錢帶過錫金邊境。

我了解阿貢有許多作家，記者之徒弟，他們是無辜的信徒。我記得有些他的徒弟曾對我說，假如阿貢指向東方而說是西方，他們會相信他。我也曾聽到許多謠傳，說阿貢的同夥現正在著作文章及書籍，毫無疑問地，所有的罪行都將會被掩蓋。

感謝你的關注。

誠摯地，

夏瑪仁波切

註367：＂噶瑪巴，政治之轉世＂，第193頁。

註368：我們的猜測是根據第二次付款的數額，它在法院證詞裏已被公開。

註369：編者註：案件並非只是如特休在她書中錯誤的描述成＂被駁回＂。

註370：詳見附錄C，一份印度官員盤查存貨之報告，此報告刊登於當地新聞上。

註371：詳見附錄C一1及C一2，錫金剛渡法院判決和高等法院之判決駁回上訴。同樣地，附錄C一3中,” IKKBO 關於法庭案件之公報＂解釋其細節。

註372：詳見第三十三章，＂瞞天過海 ＂。

註373：原文副本詳見附錄A一15。

註374：原文詳見附錄A一16。

譯註1：西里古里（Siliguri）：印度東北平原上的古城，屬於西孟加拉邦，不屬於錫金。

 

附錄A 一15：阿貢祖古致錫金總理N. B. 班達理信：

 

附錄A一16：1994年1月15日，夏瑪巴致錫金總理N.B. 班達理信：

 

附錄C
有關隆德寺之法院判決及報告

附錄C一1：2003年8月26日，錫金剛渡法院判決

 

THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS ASSESSED AT Rs 3.000,-

The judgement is explained by Chief Justice R.K. Patra and Judge N. Surjamani Singh as follows:

Chief Justice R.K. Patra gives the following judgement:

_____________________________________________

1. What is the real purpose of the petitioner’s (Tshurphu Labrang) writ petition? It is an attempt to be accepted as a necessary party in the pending suit for the rightful administration of Rumtek Monastery? Chief Justice R.K. Patra explains as follows:

The request for acceptance looks innocuous but if the veil is lifted it would disclose that the entire object of the petitioner is to project and get declared Urgyen Trinley Dorje as the 17th Karmapa. This is evident from an earlier statement, wherein Thsurphu Labrang (the petitioner) said that it is in control and in possession of the suit properties and is holding them for the benefit of Urgyen Trinley Dorje, who is accepted as the 17th Gyalwa Karmapa. In that particular statement it has been further stated by the petitioner that Urgyen Trinley Dorje has been confirmed as the 17th Karmapa by the Dalai Lama and also accepted by all the lamas of the Kagyu School. In paragraph 18 it has contended that the real issue is whether Urgyen Trinley Dorje is the 17th Karmapa or not.

We are inclined to hold that the entire game of the petitioner is to project Urgyen Trinley Dorje as the 17th Karmapa and subsequently let him take control over the Karmapa Charitable Trust and the Dharma Chakra Centre (Rumtek Monastery).

However, the question whether a particular person is the 17th incarnation of the Karmapa or not is not the bone of contention. It is a foreign issue to the case at hand. Instead the main dispute between the parties of the pending suit is whether the plaintiffs, being the trustees, are obliged to possess and administer the suit property or whether

the defendants 1 - 3 have illegally dispossessed them. For all given reasons, the petitioner’s request to be included in the pending suit has no merit.

2. What are the real facts?

Chief Justice R.K. Patra gives following judgement :

Quote

The respondents 1-4

1. Karmapa Charitable Trust,
2. Shri T.S. Gyaltsen,
3. Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche,
4. Shri Gyan Jyoti Kansakar

have instituted Civil Suit No. 40 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Judge (East + North) Sikkim at Gangtok against respondents 5-7

5. State of Sikkim through Chief Secretary
6. The Secretary, Ecclesiastical Affairs, Government of Sikkim
7. Goshir Gyaltsap Rinpoche

 Their case in the plaint is as follows:

In the year 1959, His Holiness Ranjung Rigpae Dorje, the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa being accompanied by nearly 300 high lamas, monks and lay followers came from Tibet and settled at Rumtek in East District of Sikkim. The then Chogyal of Sikkim Sir Tashi Namgyal offered him 74 acres of land in perpetuity for the construction of the monastic centre which is now known as the Dharma Chakra Centre.

While coming to Sikkim, the Karmapa brought with him precious and sacred relics, ritual items, icons, paintings etc. which have been preserved in the monastery at Rumtek. The most precious and invaluable religious symbol of the Karmapa is the Black Hat which was also preserved in the monastery till 1992. Since 1959, besides the monks of Tibetan origin, a number of individuals from Sikkim and outside have joined the Dharma Chakra Centre as students, disciples and devotees of Karmapa. On 6th November 1981 the 16th Karmapa expired. Before his death, he established a public religious and charitable Trust called Karmapa Charitable Trust for the purpose mentioned in the trust deed dated 23rd August 1961. Under the said deed the 16th Karmapa was the sole trustee during his life-time. Following the death of the 16th Karmapa, in terms of the trust deed respondents 2 to 4 took charge of the properties and affairs of the Dharma Chakra Centre. As per the trust deed, they are under legal obligation to continue to hold charge of the entire properties of the trust until the 17th Karmapa attains the age of 21 at which point of time he (the 17th Karmapa) shall become the sole trustee once again and the trustees discharging their obligation under the trust deed shall automatically become functus officio. The respondents 2-4 in their capacity as the duly appointed trustees of the Karmapa Charitable Trust are the sole, absolute and exclusive legal authority of the trust (having stepped into shoes of the deceased 16th Karmapa) which has vested in them on their assumption of the office of trustees. The corpus of the trust which vested in them, inter alia, includes the movable and immovable properties as mentioned in Scheduled ‘’A’’ and ‘’B’’ of the plaint (herinafter referred to as the suit property). The respondents 2-4 as the duly appointed trustees also moved the learned District Judge after issuing notice to the parties concerned as well as to the general public by order dated 10th March 1986 allowed the prayer for grant of succession certificate in their favour.

While the matter stood thus the state government of Sikkim through ist officers respondents 5 + 6 under the pretext of maintaining law and order within the premises of the Dharma Chakra Centre deployed massive police force on 2nd August 1993 with a view to interfere with the rights, duties and obligations of the repondents 2 - 4. The illegal and arbitrary action made on 2nd August 1993 was the result of collusion and covert acts of the respondents 5 - 7. On that day,i.e. 2nd August 1993, respondent 7 with the connivance of respondents 5 and 7 invited large number of lay people from Gangtok and other places into the courtyard of the monastery and terrorised and harassed the legitimate monks/beneficiaries of the Dharma Chakra Centre. The unruly mob resorted to violence on account of which a number of monks/beneficiaries were injured and extensive damage to the monastery was also caused. Although police officials were present within the monastery, no action was taken against the culprits who indulged in violence.

The then Home Secretary ordered confiscation of the main key of the principle shrine hall of the monastery which was promptly carried out by the police and officers present there. After illegal confiscation of the key, the police and supporters of respondent 7 launched illegal eviction of monks/beneficiaries from their respective homes, quarters located within the premises of the Dharmna Chakra Centre. Taking advantage of indiscriminate arrest and detention of the innocent monks/beneficiaries, the officers of State Government seized an opportunity to open the pricipal shrine hall of the monastery. Ever since the fateful day of 2nd August 1993, the entire premises of the Dharma Chakra Centre including the main monastery, personal residence of the Karmapa are under illegal/unlawful possession of respondent 7 held through respondents 5 and 6. As a result of this, it has become impossible for the respondents 2 to 4 to enter into the premises and discharge their lawful duties as trustees and their obligations towards the beneficiaries of the trust.

On the basis of the above averments, the respondents 1 to 4 have sought for an order of eviction of all the encroachers inducted by respondent 7 from the suit property, rooms, quarters, houses of the Dharma Chakra Centre and restoration of the same including the main key of the principal shrine hall to them (respondents 1 to 4) and for a decree that the respondents 1 to 4 are alone entitled to possess and administer the suit property.

Unquote

After some purely legal arguments Chief Justice R. K. PATRA continues his judgement as follows:

Quote

At this stage, we may like to know as to who is this petitioner - Tshurphu Labrang. According to the petitioner ‘’labrang’’ means the residence of a high and eminent spiritual master ‘Lama’. It also means the administration of Lamas. Amongst some prominent Labrangs, the petitioner is one of them, being Tshurphu monastery of Karmapa. In paragraph 7 of this application the petitioner has averred that after the death of 16th Gyalwa Karmapa in November, 1981, Urgyen Trinley Dorje who is now a minor has been recognized by the Dalai Lama as the 17th reincarnation of the Gyalwa Karmapa. In paragraph 8, it has been asserted that the petitioner is in charge of the administration over property, monasteries, schools, philantropic and spiritual works undertaken by the Karmapa imcluding religious activities at the Rumtek monastery. The specific case of the petitioner is that Karmapa alone is competent to appoint a General Secretary (in Tibetan language, General Secretary is known as Zhanag Zodpa). If, according to the petitioner, the 17th Karmapa is still a minor, it is not conceivable under what law a minor could appoint a General Secretary through whome application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC as well as this application has been filed.

Besides this, one Tenzing Namgyal claims to be the General Secretary of the petitioner since 1992. This claim has been refuted by respondents 1 to 4 in their counter-affidavit stating that the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa appointed one Dhamchoe Yongdu as the General Secretary who died on 10th December, 1982 and after him one Topga Yulgyal who died in October, 1997. If Topga Yulgyal was the General Secretary from 1982 till his death in October 1997, Tenzing Namgyal could not have been appointed as the General Secretary in 1992. The claim, therefore, put forth by Tenzing Namgyal that he is the General Secretary of the petitioner appears to be preposterous.

Unquote

The judgement of Chief Justice R.K. Patra ends with the following verdict:

Quote

IN THE RESULT; THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS COMPOSITE APPLICATION WHICH IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH COSTS ASSESSED AT Rs. 3,000/-.

Sd/-
(R.K. Patra)

Chief Justice

26.08.2003

Unquote

Judge Singh supports the judgement of Chief Justice R.K. Patra and adds his own judgement as follows:

Quote

I have had the privilege of perusing the judgement proposed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. I respectfully concur the opinion by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and, over and above that, I hereby add opinion of mine and observations stated infra:-

Unquote

Judge Singh ends his own judgement with the following verdict:

Quote

For the reasons and observations made above, I am of the view that the writ petitioner could not make out a case to justify interference with the impugned order dated 15th November 2002 passed by the learned District Judge (East and North) in CMC no. 19-2002 and apart from that the said Shri Tenzing Namgyal, the alleged General Secretary or Shri Karma Drolma, the alleged Power of Attorney holder has failed to establish that they have enforcable legal right to file the present writ petition for and on behalf of the Tshurphu Labrang. In my considered view, the writ petition is devoid of merit.

Sd/-

Surjamani Singh)

Judge

26.8.2003

Unquote

 

 

 

 

附錄C一2：2004年7月5日，最高法院對上訴之判決

 

SLP(C)No. 22903 OF 2003 ITEM No.41 Court No. 5 SECTION XIV
A/N MATTER

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22903/2003
(From the judgement and order dated 26/08/2003 in WP 5/03
of The HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM at Gangtok)

TSHURPHU LABRANG Petitioner (s)

VERSUS

KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. Respondent (s)
( With Appln(s). for permission to place addl. documents Vol.III
to VI and exemption from filing O.T. and clarification and
directions and with prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date : 05/07/2004 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. VARIAVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT

 

For Petitioner (s) Mr. A.B. Saharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sudarshan Misra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Naresh Mathur, Adv.

Mr. Sudarsh Menon,Adv.

 

For Respondent (s) Mr. Parag Tripathy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Parveen Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Somnath Mukherjee,Adv.

Mr. S.S. Hamal, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Jetely, Adv.

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Adv.

Mr. Jayant, Adv.

Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Deepak K. Thakur, Adv.

Mr. K.V.Mohan,Adv.

Mr. Brijender Chahar, Adv.

Mrs. Jyoti Chahar, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv.

 

2

 

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. B.S. Chahar, learned counsel states that the State of Sikkim does not desire to file affidavit.

We see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. We, however, clarify that the trial court will not take into consideration any observations made in the impugned order or in the order of the District Judge dismissing the application.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(K.K. Chawla)Court Master

(Jasbir Singh)Court Master

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

附錄C一3：三份印度錫金剛渡法庭公報

 

IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (1)
Date: 22.07.02

The late 16th Gyalwa Karmapa Rangjung Rigpai Dorje established and developed Rumtek Monastery. It sits on a piece of land property offered him measuring 74 acres by King Tashi Namgyal of Sikkim in 1962. His Holiness kept all religious Buddhist relics and antique religious instruments of the Karma Kagyu lineage in this monastery, Rumtek Monastery, and the Monastery became a very famous Buddhist teaching center in the World.

On 6th Nov. 1981, the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa passed away in Chicago, USA. Immediately afterwards the Karmapa Charitable Trust took over the Monastery and it's Administration. The Karmapa Charitable Trust was set up by the late 16th Gyalwa Karmapa in 1962, the same year he started the construction of the Monastery. The Trust comprised of seven Trustees, six of them were lay and one of them was Topga Rinpoche, who was Karmapa's nephew.

After the 16th Karmapa had passed away two Trustees had also passed away and their offices became vacant. In the beginning of April 1984 without the knowledge of Shamar Rinpoche, Situ, Gyaltsab and Kongtrul Rinpoches jointly wrote a letter (signed by all three of them) and secretly sent Mr. Tenzin Namgyal to deliver it to two of the Trustees, Mr. Ashok Verma (who was based in New Delhi, India) and Mr. Gyan Jyoti (who was based in Kathmandu, Nepal.)

The letter requested them to resign as Trustees of the Karmapa Charitable Trust. For that purpose, they even lied by claiming that the request was made on behalf of the entire Monk Body of Rumtek Monastery; the letter also requested the two Trustees for an immediate written confirmation if they agreed to resign. The three Rinpoches' aim was to create four vacancies in the Board so that Shamar, Situ, Kongtrul, and Gyaltsab, four of them could step in. Mr. Ashok Verma believed them; he accepted their request and confirmed his resignation in writing.

Mr. Tenzin Namgyal then went to Kathmandu for his next victim, but the then General Secretary Topga Rinpoche got information of this and managed to inform all the other Trustees in time. Hence, Mr. Gyan Jyoti flatly rejected their request. But in any case there were now three vacant trusteeships. Owing to these vacancies Topga Rinpoche immediately called a Board meeting in the first week of May, 1984. However, in order to find out what motive or motives lay behind the false representation of the three aforesaid Rinpoches, Topga Rinpoche also invited the three to the meeting.

Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches did not come to the meeting but Kongtrul Rinpoche presented himself on their behalf. Kongtrul Rinpoche explained to the meeting that there was no bad intention behind their requests since they thought the best way to serve Karmapa was to serve as Trustees. To this, Topga Rinpoche pointed out that it would not be necessary for the Rinpoches to serve as Trustees if they could serve the Karmapa in their own spiritual capacity.

He accused them of harboring intention to take over the Trust. An argument ensued between Topga Rinpoche and Kongtrul Rinpoch. Trustees Mr. Densapa and Mr. T.S. Gyaltsen were then too kind hearted and polite in the face of pressure from Kongtrul Rinpoche, and so they spoke out in sympathy with Kongtrul Rinpoche and accepted the three Rinpoches' request to join the Board of Trustees. As a result, Shamarpa Rinpoche (being the senior-most of all the Rinpoches) Situ Rinpoche and Kongtrul Rinpoche became Trustees.

As there were only three vacancies instead of the intended four, Gyaltsab Rinpoche was left out. This new Board then took care of the Monastery and its administration until 1993. On 2nd August, 1993, nine years after the aforesaid Rinpoches had joined the Board of Trustees, Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche, with the force of a large number of their followers (almost 1000 people) and a few hundred armed troops provided by the State Government of Sikkim and led by the Home Secretary of State, Mr. Sonam Wangdi, suddenly attacked Rumtek Monastery and physically evicted all the resident Trustees, Rinpoches, Abbots, Staffs and the monks.

They took over Rumtek Monastery within 12 hours. The takeover was illegal as well as violent. Since then until 1998 The Karmapa Charitable could not do anything about this illegal occupation of Rumtek Monastery out of consideration for Trustee J. D. Densapa, who was threatened by Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches' party in Sikkim not to take any legal action against them. In 1996 Shamarpa Rinpoche won over J.D. Densapa, who then offered to resign from the Trust. At the same time Mr. T.S. Gyaltsen, Topga Rinpoche and Mr. Gyan Joty appointed him as chief executive of the trust to take the necessary actions against the illegal occupants and the Government of Sikkim.

So, with the exception of Situ Rinpoche, all the Trustees had agreed and signed a letter giving Shamar Rinpoche due authority to file a case at the court. On the 28th of July 1997, Shamarpa Rinpoche duly filed a case in the District Court of Sikkim, and named as defendant Gyaltsab Rinpoche, and the State Government of Sikkim. It accused them of illegally occupying Rumtek Monastery. But due to legal technicalities the case dragged on for five years in the Court without a clear solution in sight, the reason being:

1. The State Government of Sikkim and Gyaltsab Rinpoche (Gyaltsab had to appear in the Court since Situ Rinpoche was banned by the Indian Government from entering Sikkim) said that the case against them should be disqualified because, with the exception of Shamar Rinpoche's signature, it did not have the signatures of all of the Trustees.

2. Rumtek Monastery houses many priceless religious objects and the Karmapa Charitable Trust had not deposited sufficient court fees, which was set by law at 2 per cent of the value of the assets claimed by the Plaintiff.

3. However, the Defense also argued that the sole asset of the Karmapa Charitable Trust was two hundred thousand Rupees cash which was all the Trust had since it was set up in 1962. It therefore claimed that none of the moveable and immoveable objects belonged to Rumtek Monastery.

But on 17th October, 2001, the Trust's lawyers, Mr. S.S. Hamal, Mr. Praveen Agarwal and Mr. Bhattacharya finally managed to win over all the arguments in Court. As a result the Court ordered an Inventorisation of all the properties of Rumtek Monastery. For this they appointed the Regional Director (Calcutta) of the Reserve Bank of India, Mr. V.K. Sharma as Commissioner to lead the Inventory. The Reserve Bank of India refused this order a few times but the Court prevailed in the end.

This was the reason why the Commissioner's meeting with the contending parties had to wait until April, 2002. On 4th of April the Commissioner came to Gangtok, Sikkim to meet with both parties and managed to fix the date for the Inventory on 14th of May, 2002. On 9th of May, however, the State Government of Sikkim objected to the Inventory by writing to the Commissioner to the effect that the Commissioner's coming to Sikkim would cause serious law and order problems among the population.

The Commissioner then duly notified the High Court on 10th of May. The High Court then warned the State Government that it might take action to dissolve the State Government if it refused to respect the Court's decision and failed to assist the Commissioner with the inventory taking. Then taking heed of the warning the Sikkimese Government surrendered and promised to keep law and order and assist the Commissioner with the Inventory.

On 18th of June, 2002, the high Court called all the parties and scolded the lawyer for the Sikkimese Government for his disobedience to the Court and fix the Inventory on 8th July. After this the State Government of Sikkim (Defendants No. 1 and 2) and Gyatshab Rinpoche's party (Defendant No. 3) became terribly demoralized. On the 22nd June, 2002, eight members of the Joint Action Committee came to see Mr. T.S. Gyaltsen (a senior Trustee of the Karmapa Charitable Trust), and literally begged him to stop the inventory out of his compassion for Situ Rinpoche and Gyaltsab Rinpoche.

Mr. T.S. Gyaltsen asked them if the Karmapa's relics were still there in the Monastery, they said that they should be there. Then T.S. Gyaltsen said that in that case there should be no reason to stop the inventory from proceeding since, as they had said, all the relics were intact. But they kept begging even though they had nothing to add on the subject any more.

These members (Joint Action Committee) then tried a different tack and explained that the controversy was due to rivalry between Situ Rinpoche's and Shamar Rinpoche's factions, to which T. S. Gyaltsen countered by saying that while Sikkim was a Buddhist Country which followed the Nyingma and the Karma Kagyu traditions and that all these Tibetan Lamas were also guests in their country, so "isn't it a terrible shame that you as Sikkimese should take sides in your guests' quarrels" and thus aggravating the controversy even further when "you should instead be helping them to resolve their problems peacefully".

The eight members felt very humiliated, whereupon Mr. T.S. Gyaltsen finally said that it was impossible to stop the Inventory since it was the decision of the Court and no one could go against it. The Continuation of this report will come in next few days."

by IKKBO

IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (2)
Date: 27.07.02

According to reliable sources, on 18th of June, 2002 the High Court had fixed the date for the inventory at Rumtek Monastery. At the same time, it ordered that no one was to be allowed at the premises of the Monastery during the inventory except the following:

2 representatives and the lawyer for Defendants Nos. 3 (Gyaltsab Rinpoche);

1 representative for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (State Government of Sikkim and the Ecclesiastical Department of Sikkim).

2 representatives and the lawyer for the Karmapa Charitable Trust (KCT), the Plaintiff.

The Commissioner appointed by the Court (Regional Director of the Reserve Bank of India).

The Defendants' representatives are: Tenzin Nyamgyal, Phuntsok Lama, and N. Dorje (Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Dept.)

The Plaintiff's representatives are: T.S. Gyaltsen and Gyan Joti (senior Trustees of KCT). Due to T.S. Gyaltsen's age and illness and Gyan Joti's age, the KCT requested the Court to allow Dron Nyer Ngodrup and Khenpo Chodrak Tenpel to substitute for these two senior Trustees. But the Court stood firm on its original decision.

Then on 8 and 9 of July the Commissioner (Mr. V.K. Sharma) came to Rumtek and was met by the representatives of all the parties. In the event, T.S. Gyaltsen was unable to attend for the reasons explained above, so the Commissioner permitted S.S. Hamal (Sikkim based lawyer for KCT) to take his place.

The inventory, which was based on the list submitted by the Plaintiff (but not the Monastery's own inventory list, which was kept at the Monastery's office but effectively inaccessible to the Trustees due to the Sikkimese' Government unlawful ban on the Trustees to enter the Monastery), started with the main shrine hall and there all of the 1000 Buddhas statues, which were commissioned by the late 16th Karmapa in 1975, were accounted for. It was followed by the inventory of holy books.

Several ancient and original copies were found to be missing. In the inventory of the Karmapa's personal ritual objects, 5 items - including a very fine and antique ritual bell (which the Defendant there and then said that it had been given to Urgyen Thrinlay at Dharamsala), were found to be missing. On 10th of July the inventory of over 300 antique ritual costumes (for the Lama Dance) made of Chinese silk brocades and dated from the Yuan and Ming dynasties were taken. In the course of the inventory Gyan Joti (KCT) pointed out to the Commissioner that many new ritual costumes were mixed in with the old ones, and he managed to identify 20 pieces of them.

Tenzin Namgyal then tried to point out to the Commissioner that the hats that were used for the Lama Dance should be counted as well as the costumes. The lawyer of the KCT (S.S. Hamal) objected to it by reason of the fact that those were only hats used with the brocade costumes; and besides, the hats appeared to have been made of new Indian fabrics but not antique Chinese brocades. Failing to convince the Commissioner of his 'reasons' after several attempts, Tenzin Namgyal finally had to back down.

At the end of the count, it was confirmed that over 200 antique ritual costumes were missing. This part of the inventory lasted until 11th of July, 2002. On 12th of July the Commissioner proceeded to the most important part of the inventory, which was the shrine room (located on the first floor of the monastery) that contained the famous Karmapa Vajra Crown and a big collection of very rare Buddhist statues of ancient Indian origin, which belonged to the previous Karmapas.

Included in this inventory was also Situ Rinpoche's alleged letter of recognition of the 17th Karmapa reincarnation. It was deposited in a golden box holding the 16th Karmapa's holiest relics. The door to the shrine room was supposed to have been kept under lock and seal since 1992 by the original body of Rumtek monks (before they were thrown out of the Monastery by the Defendants on 2 August 1993). Tenzin Namgyal told the Commissioner to the same effect when they arrived at the shrine room. But Gyan Joti (KCT) said that the seal would need to be examined carefully. His reasons being:

1) In all the nine years after the original monks and the Trustees had been thrown out of Rumtek, they were stopped unlawfully by the State Government of Sikkim from entering the Monastery, so that it was impossible for the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's party (the original monks body) to inspect the lock or the seal.

2) In the first two years after the illegal eviction of the original monks body the suite of rooms adjacent to the shrine room was continuously occupied by Situ Rinpoche until March 1995.

3) The knotted cloth used for making the seal looked too new for the ten years of use and exposure to the humid weather at Rumtek.

N. Dorje (Sikkim Govt.) said the shrine room was put under guard all this time by the Sikkim Government, to which P. Agarwal (KCT lawyer) countered that for all this time the shrine room was in fact guarded by the same people (State Government of Sikkim) who actively helped the takeover of the monastery by Defendant No. 3, who threw out the original monk body and Trustees from the Monastery, "so how can you be trusted to guard the shrine room and protect its valuable objects?"

Finally, it was agreed to compare the seal on the lock with a sample of the original. It was found that the two seal marks did not match. On 13th July it was discovered that the key of the lock could not be found, so it was necessary for the Commissioner to break the seal and lock in order to open the door to the shrine room. The lawyer (Mathur) representing Defendant No. 3 pointed out to the Commissioner his observation that the shrine room was in fact dusty and full of cobweb in the ceiling, and therefore concluded that the room could not have been opened since the seal was applied in 1992 by the monks.

Pervin Agarwal (lawyer representing KCT) retorted by saying that dust and spiders web could accumulate in just two or three years in a closed room; and besides, Situ Rinpoche had lived in the adjacent rooms from August 1993 until the end of 1994 and therefore he could have opened the shrine room anytime during this period and that could still have given enough time for cobwebs to develop inside it. At the end of the inventory that day it was confirmed that 26 antique holy statues and the golden relics box (containing Situ Rinpoche's alleged letter of prediction) were missing from the shrine room.

Attached to the box containing the Karmapa Crown was a knotted-cloth-and-wax seal. Tenzin Namgyal said the seal was applied by the late 16th Karmapa himself. Gyan Joti, however, demanded that the seal had to be examined. When the seal was matched with an imprint of the late 16th Karmapa's seal, the two did not match. Then the Commission asked Tenzin Namgyal if he was sure that the Crown was indeed inside the box.

Tenzin Namgyal replied that now he could not be sure; whereupon the Commissioner scolded him by saying: "How then could you represent Defendant No. 3?" In the evening of the same day, the Commissioner decided to suspend the inventory for the time being until further decision of the Court, i.e. that the inspection of the Vajra Crown and the contents of a few other rooms should be postponed.

Meanwhile he would submit a report on what he had done so far. Now, three new locks were put on the shrine room door by the Defendants and the Plaintiff, respectively. The keys were sealed in an envelop by all parties plus the High Court, and subsequently deposited with the High Court. The Commissioner reminded both Defendants and Plaintiff that until the inventory was completed and officially confirmed, no one should reveal the result of the proceedings taking place at Rumtek Monastery.

On 25th of July, 2002 the Commissioner submitted the 'interim' report to the High Court.

by IKKBO

IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (3)
Date: 09.10.04

A Curious Question of Legal Strategy: Where to Go Next on the Rumtek Case?

On July 5 of this year, the Indian Supreme Court in New Delhi dismissed the request of the Tsurphu Labrang, a group supporting the Karmapa claim of Orgyen Trinley Dorje, to insert itself as a party in the case over possession of Rumtek Monastery, the seat of the 16th Karmapa located in India's northeastern Sikkim state. This decision put the Rumtek case back into the hands of the District Court in Gangtok, Sikkim's capital, for execution of that court's original decision given in 2002.

In that decision, the District Court concluded that the Karmapa Charitable Trust was the legitimate administrator of Rumtek, and that accordingly a process should begin to return the monastery and all of its land, buildings and moveable property to the Karmapa Trust.

On August 17 of this year, Judge A.P. Suba of the District Court announced that in early September he would appoint a "Settler" as provided under Section 18 of the Indian Civil Code, to conclude the Rumtek case and carry out the orders of the court.

This means that the Karmapa Charitable Trust has a choice to make.

In the early days of this case during the 1990s, the party opposing the Karmapa Trust--known in the latest court decision as the Tsurphu Labrang but in fact no more than a loose conspiracy of lamas and others seeking to benefit from possession of Rumtek--thought that it would take many years to conclude this litigation. Led by Situ and Gyaltsab Rinpoches, this group anticipated that it would have ample time to complete its plan to remove all the significant valuables from Rumtek for possible sale abroad, place Orgyen Trinley on the Karmapa's throne and then slowly reduce the influence of the office of the Karmapas.

This plan was intended to enrich these lamas and their allies in the Sikkim government and elsewhere while increasing the spiritual prestige of these lamas. By diminishing the office of the Karmapa, Situ and Gyaltsab would effectively move one rung higher in the Karma Kagyu hierarchy. And Gyaltsab would become the chief lama in Sikkim, consolidating that turf as his own sphere of influence.

Both Defendant #1, the Sikkim government Home Ministry, and Defendant #3, Gyaltsab Rinpoche, thought that the case would continue for decades (Defendant #2 was the Sikkim Department of Ecclesiastical Affairs).

Then, the District Court ordered an inventory of all the moveable valuables held at Rumtek. When this inventory began in 2001, Situ and Gyaltsab's group realized that they were mistaken and that the case was proceeding much faster than they had anticipated. They worried not only that their plan would be foiled, but that it would be discovered and that they might face repercussions including criminal prosecution.

In this tense situation, this group's immediate concern was to shield Gyaltsab Rinpoche from criminal charges. To do this, they got the idea to create an organization with the name of the historical body that had managed Karmapa's affairs back in Tibet before 1959, the Tsurphu Labrang. This group would substitute for Gyaltsab as defendant in the Rumtek proceedings, allowing Gyaltsab to excuse himself from the case, and thus, hopefully, avoid criminal liability.

So, Gyaltsab Rinpoche admitted to the District Court that he had no jurisdiction over Rumtek, and asked to be excused as a defendant in the case. The Karmapa Trust did not oppose his request, and the court allowed Gyaltsab to withdraw. Then, the Tsurphu Labrang applied to take Gyaltsab's place, claiming that it was the rightful administrator of Rumtek. This claim was rejected by the District Court in 2002.

Not wanting to abandon its claim on Rumtek, the Tsurphu Labrang appealed this decision to the High Court in Gangtok. This court initially consented to allow this group to participate in the case, and continued to do so for some months before also declaring in 2003 that the group had no standing in Rumtek's affairs. Finally, the group appealed this decision to the Indian Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal in its July decision, denying the Tsurphu Labrang its last chance to gain standing in the Rumtek case.

This leaves the Karmapa Trust without any opposition in this case aside from the pro forma defendants in the Sikkim state government, the Home Ministry and Department of Ecclesiastical Affairs.

But it is only the position of Defendant #3 that can be held responsible for the management of Rumtek over the last decade since Situ and Gyaltsab's group seized power there on August 2, 1993. Gyaltsab Rinpoche already excused himself from the case in the District Court, and the Tsurphu Labrang has been rejected by all three levels of courts that have subsequently heard this case. So this means that there is no one outside of the Karmapa Trust in this case who claims ownership over Rumtek. As things stand now, if the Karmapa Trust does not exercise its right to file an objection to excusing Gyaltsab from the case, then the case for possession of Rumtek should conclude shortly.

This course of action would probably be the most expedient way for the Karmapa Trust to regain possession of Rumtek. If the Trust were to object to Gyaltsab Rinpoche excusing himself from the case, and try to bring him back, then it would be necessary to repeat many of the proceedings of the case with him as sole defendant, and in particular, to subject him to hours of testimony and cross-examination. This could add two or three years of delay to the case. Since regaining Rumtek as quickly as possible is the main aim of the Trust in this case, recalling Gyaltsab and enduring additional court delays is not attractive.

However, allowing Gyaltsab to withdraw would leave the Trust with another problem. The District Court in Gangtok is expected to order that the inventory of moveable valuables at Rumtek begun and then suspended in 2002 be concluded. At this time, the inventory may discover that valuable objects are missing from Rumtek, particularly the Black Crown of the Karmapas, or at least its original priceless jewels. If the court has excused Gyaltsab Rinpoche from the case but has recognized no other defendant to replace him, then there will be no one to hold responsible for any losses at Rumtek. This would make it difficult to recover missing objects and prosecute people involved in any thefts.

The Karmapa Trust is now considering the best way to proceed. It is seeking a compromise that will not delay the conclusion of the case but will still require the leaders of the opposition party, who have illegally occupied Rumtek for more than ten years, to account for all valuables that should be present at the monastery. The Trust will announce its strategy shortly.

 

 

 

附錄C一4：隆德寺庫存盤點

 

MISSING DORJE with UGYEN TRINLEY – by a Staff Reporter from ‘The Weekend Review’ in their ‘Sikkim Update’ page No. 10, and dated 12-18 July, 2002 Rumtek:

“At least four items have been found to be missing so far – and one of them given away to Ugyen Trinley Dorje – from the articles of faith belonging to the Karmapa at the Rumtek Dharma Chakra’s enthronement room. The work inside the main treasure room did not begin till the time of going to press because none of the parties involved could produce the key to the door of the room, bringing in another twist in the controversy.

A bell and a dorje, item No. 14 in the ‘List of Ritual Objects’ in Schedule ‘A’ properties, and described as “Old ‘Korlo ma’ bell, with dorje with piece of turquoises (sic). Dorje is gold plated and a little defect on the spokes” was not found during the inventorisation. The representatives of Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche is reported to have told the Commissioner that the set, used by the 14th Karmapa,and considered to be very holy, has already been given to Ugyen Trinley Dorje, one of the two main claimants to the throne of the Karmapa. Along with this, other precious items missing are Item No. 11(Silver foot of silver – sic –carved lotus, gold flower and turquoises); Item No. 33 (Mixed metal mirror gilded with gold flower and one torquoises(sic) in the center; and Item No. 34 (Mixed metal mirror, with seven auspicious signs on the back).

According to agency reports, Sonam Ongmu, speaking on behalf of the Goshir Camp, confirmed that the bell-and-dorje set has been given to Ugyen Trinley Dorje. There was no information about where the other items have gone. Meanwhile, the process of inventorisation was reduced to a formality as the keys to the main room where the Karmapa treasures are left could not be traced. None of the parties accepted that they have the keys. V.K. Sharma, the Commissioner appointed by the District Court (North and East), for taking inventory of Rumtek Dharma Chakra Centre properties, was left with little option.

The camp of Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche, who are in occupation of Rumtek at present, had said that that the seal on the lock could be broken, since it had not been put by the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa, “but had been put on the lock by the members of the monk’s body in 1992’’. They have even agreed to get a locksmith to make a duplicate key for the lock and have it opened for the Commissioner to take the inventory of the main artifacts and ritual objects.

However, the Commissioner has said that he would seek the court’s advice on this before breaking the seal.

The entire process for inventory is of five days and is to culminate on 13 July as per schedule. Till 11July, 02 items have been taken up for inventorisation. Some sacred texts were found to be missing as well, though it could not be concluded that they have been taken away, till the time that the inventorisation is completed. The Commissioner has now just two days to complete the nventorisation, and Item No. 61 itself will take a very long time to scrutiny, as it contains “226 pieces of Chamgos (mask dance uniforms) made up of antique Chinese brocades. Among the 226 pieces, four pairs of Chamgos, made during the reign of Kublia Khan, depict fir pattern. These are in the main prayer hall in cupboards having 1,000 Buddha statues.

By the time this is invemtorised, the Commissioner will have no time left for opening the main room. He has so far not sought the intervention or the advice of the court regarding the breaking of the seal, getting a duplicate key made and the room opened. None of the two main parties are reportedly willing to move the court either.

Earlier, on 8 July, the Commissioner had reached Rumtek at around 11.00 am, and has taken his office that Gyaltsab Rinpoche’s followers had, as per court
orders, made for him. He had held rounds of discussions and offered prayers at the shrine. Later he had inspected the Monastery in General, reviewing the rooms that hold the sacred treasures.

Till lunch, the keys could not be traced, though a few months earlier, Goshir Gyaltsab had said he had handed over the keys to the Tsurphu Lhabrang. The meetings broke for lunch and later, the Commissioner went back to work at around 2.30 pm.

The first day’s inventorisation work ended past 4.00 pm, and the Commissioner along with other official left for Gangtok. The Commissioner was, however, not available for comments. In general, he has refused to speak with the press and even during his last visit in April, he had said that he would only communicate with the court, to which he is solely responsible.

Phunshuk Lama (ADC to Ogyen Trinley Dorje), Tenzing Namgyal (general secretary of Tsurphu Lhabrang Office in Exile) and one advocate representing Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche, along with T.S. Gyaltsen, Gyanjyoti Khangsa and an advocate for the Karmapa Charitable Trust representing the plaintiff are  involved in the inventory process.