簡介第二部份

簡介第二部份

摘錄自”噶瑪巴預言” ( The Karmapa Prophecies), 第二部份

英文原著：蘇維亞 黃 ( Sylvia Wong)

英譯中：林淑貞

由於司徒仁波切預言信之合法性遭受質疑，以及他們一連串的違法行爲已使司徒仁波切及其夥伴們名聲敗壞，他們在1993年對隆德寺僧侶所作的侵略行為之細節已在印度法院被揭露無餘。錫金剛托法院（The Court of Gangtok in Sikkim）( 譯註一)裁決“祖普拉卜楞”( Tsurphu Labrang, 司徒及嘉察仁波切所創造用以控制隆德寺的行政僧團)，對隆德寺既無傳統性亦非合法性的權力，此項裁決於2003年8月宣布，並於2004年進一步由印度高等法院確認，此案仍在上訴中 (註122 )。這些被揭示的真相已不可避免地在人們心中對司徒仁波切的侯選人，噶瑪巴烏金庭烈的真實性產生懷疑。

面對大眾對他們行為的不信任，司徒及嘉察仁波切的支持者們試圖藉由出版許多書籍以重振他們的作為及其侯選人合法性，他們也下功夫去詆毀當前的夏瑪巴，因他認證了噶瑪巴泰耶多杰。

司徒仁波切的同夥不但目標對準當今的夏瑪巴，他們同時也攻擊過去世的數位夏瑪巴。歷史上，夏瑪巴，（同時也被稱為“紅帽噶瑪巴”），在佛法上具備認證噶瑪巴的權威性。以下所附的文件“夏瑪巴—紅帽噶瑪巴”對歷史上夏瑪巴的起源及其角色提供一份扼要綱領，澳洲紐卡斯爾大學人類學教授傑弗瑞 山米爾（Prof. Geoffrey Samuel, University of Newcastle, Australia），在紐西蘭奧克蘭法院裏以口供書証實上述的要義。在此審判中，必須裁決哪一位十七世噶瑪巴對當地一座引起訴訟的廟宇有歸屬權(註123)。法庭承認夏瑪巴在噶瑪噶舉傳承裏的權威性，因此判決噶瑪巴泰耶多杰為合法。既然夏瑪巴的合法性和泰耶多杰為新噶瑪巴的真實性有密不可分的關聯，因此極易了解為何代表另一位侯選人的人們會試著詆毀夏瑪巴傳承，極不幸地，如此的意圖表示需要重寫噶瑪噶舉的歷史。

“黑帽噶瑪巴”以及“紅帽噶瑪巴”兩系列傳承同為噶瑪噶舉歷史及特點的核心，當然，極其重要的是噶瑪噶舉傳承能夠經得住宗教學者們及歷史學家們的批判及審察並歡迎此類學術探討，但是藉由錯誤的歪曲事實來敗壞夏瑪巴傳承則既非評論亦非學術性探討，同時，試圖消除歷史的關鍵部份也將噶瑪噶舉傳承的未來置於危機中。顯而易見的，那些歪曲的資料已誤導了不懂藏文的人們。因此，將傳承的歷史真相公諸於世極其必要，特別是和第六世夏瑪巴及第十世噶瑪巴有關的那一段時期。

在第二部份裏，我將糾正在利亞特休所著的“噶瑪巴：轉世的政治”書中的錯誤部份，我無法在此全部討論。我將比對歷史資料（譯自藏文古籍及其他資料）以及由利亞特休書中摘錄的段落，藉由這些例句，我想呈現利亞特休及其資料來源(不論他是誰)如何歪曲原始文典的意義。

/夏瑪巴—紅帽噶瑪巴（註124）

在我們討論夏瑪巴傳承的歷史之前，首先必須了解其起源。這份精簡的介紹根據十六世紀著名的噶瑪噶舉學者“噶瑪廷烈”( Karma Trinley )的著作，他是夏瑪巴西藏主廟楊巴千寺( Yangpachen Monastery )的住持，也是第八世噶瑪巴米確多杰( Mikyo Dorje, 1507-1554 )的老師之一。

於十三世紀時，第二世噶瑪巴，噶瑪拔希( Karma Pakshi, 1204-1283 )曾授記未來將分別有兩位噶瑪巴的化身（註125），他的授記被證實了，當第三世噶瑪巴朗炯多杰 ( Rangjung Dorje, 1284-1339 )，認証他的主要弟子，克主卓巴辛給( Khedrup Drakpa Senge, 1283-1349 )，具備和他一樣的覺證以及清淨心，他賜給這名弟子一頂寶石紅頂冠，和他的黑寶冠一模一樣的寶冠，並稱他為“夏瑪巴”。第三世噶瑪巴引用釋迦牟尼佛於“善劫經”( Good Kalpa Sutra )中的授記：
“未來將有一位大菩薩( Mahabodhisattva )，頭戴寶石紅頂冠，他將拯救苦難大眾，將他們引導出輪迴的迷惑及苦楚。”

第四世噶瑪巴瑞沛多杰( Rolpe Dorje, 1340-1383 )，為第二世夏瑪巴( 1350-1405 )坐床時，即承襲前世開始的傳統。當時，第四世噶瑪巴引用第二世噶瑪巴所說的預言，“你是一位化身，而我是另一個。維護噶瑪噶舉傳承使之永垂不朽的責任平均降落在你和我身上。”

歷史上，夏瑪巴的轉世們肩負保存及弘揚佛法的任務，但是他的工作不僅限於噶瑪噶舉傳承而已，歷代夏瑪巴對其他傳承（如寧瑪派及止貢噶舉）的支助，其成效亦相當顯著。


註122：法院裁決書：請參閱附錄C-1, C-2, C-3。

註123：請參閱第四部份，第三十七章尾“夏瑪巴於紐西蘭奧克蘭法律訴訟：2004年貝魯欽哲仁波切 ( Beru Chentse Rinpoche) 對抗噶瑪喜饒 ( Karma Shedrup)及其他人”

註124：藏文中“夏瑪”( Sha-Mar)意為“紅帽”、“夏瑪巴”（Shamar-Pa）意為“戴紅帽的人”。在西藏歷史記錄裏，夏瑪巴經常被稱為“紅帽噶瑪巴”( The Karmapa Red Hat or the Red Hat Karmapa )。

註125：化身( Nirmanakaya )意表由覺悟之心所顯化出的形相，在以此指的是人類之形相。

譯註1：剛托Gangtok為錫金首府。

附錄 C一1：2003年8月26日，錫金剛托法院判決。



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，高等法院對上訴之判決

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：印度錫金剛托法庭案件三份公告

2003年7月22日
IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (1)

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

2002年7月27日
IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (2)

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

2004年9月10日
IKKBO Bulletin on Court Case Filed In Gangtok, Sikkim, India (3)

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.