關於 world day of social justice ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

「地獄空」攝影集即將在八月中元節前出版，由知名設計師與攝影家黃子欽設計，內附在下二位高徒精美繪製符咒、心經版畫書籤、愣嚴咒牌、尊勝咒語...等，感恩十方大德助印，希望疫情退散，平安喜樂，後記如下：

野放台灣五十餘年，貪狼獨坐，三方四正殺破狼格局，少年多舛，白手起家，隨展覽雲遊四海，如閒雲野鶴常持各類底片機流連廢墟、山川、宮廟忘返，遂設幻影堂自詡堂主，一日三省「凡所有相皆是虛妄」，常宅於暗房沖片放大通宵、鍾情黑白世界之單純，彩色照片俗世繽紛花俏做作甜美甚至比現實更現實故少拍也。知天命之年有餘，了悟人生一瞬、眨眼即逝，雖非仙人，亦無道骨，初聞離垢地生清淨心，但離華嚴「不動地」尚遠，待修持也。
2017年盛暑拍畢《巨神連線》，心律不整差點心肌梗塞向閻羅王報到，意識死神隨伺在側，人生苦短，如何了生脫死、盡斷煩惱、無所罣礙、遠離顛倒……總不得解，蒙釋迦摩尼佛開示飆淚三晝夜，聞佛法數載始知自我渺如塵埃，甚感慚愧。閒暇乃參訪名寺古剎，禮敬焚香佛陀菩薩羅漢諸神天仙王爺媽娘，台灣宮廟千奇百怪、宗派錯綜複雜（佛教、道教、一貫道、天主教、基督教、齋教、回教＆大同教、儒教鑾堂、天帝教＆天德教、慈惠堂＆勝安宮、軒轅教、道院、理教、萬國道德會、會靈山……）、神棍橫行（依人不依法、偶像崇拜、斂財、邪淫），因歷史變遷、社會動盪、政治鬥爭、意識形態等因素導致佛道混雜，但地獄造景稀少，後專注拍攝各殿閻王、判官、陰司、獄卒、七爺、八爺乃至一切罪人，各寺造景巧妙、耐人尋味，意境乖張溢於言表，造型扭曲非常人所能塑也，然匠心獨運、自成一格，專研西方藝術數十載方知真誠樸拙最美，絲毫不輸喬托（Giotto di Bondone，1267～1337）乃至米開朗基羅（Michelangelo Di lodovico Buonarroti Simoni 1475 ~ 1564）矣。

創立於1986年的石門金剛宮風景優美可眺望北濱，雖主祀四面佛，儒釋道眾神尊也不含糊，可過七星橋解厄、繞行五百黝黑羅漢敲鑼印心、跪拜亞洲最大臥佛涅槃像，安太歲自不在話下，甲子太歲爺雙眼長出手掌印象甚深，1994年經閻羅王指示廟公建造一條肚內設極樂世界及陰曹地府之神龍，行走暗黑通道觸動感應機關，只見面容猙獰受刑者呼天搶地喊冤、身邊盡是血肉糢糊殘肢敗屍腦漿塗地，十殿閻羅各司其職、威儀攝人。新北市林口區青嶺湖北文紫祥宮包公廟則以壁面彩塑地獄浮雕獨步全台，粉嫩色彩搭配卡漫風格，尤為造型簡直恐怖到可愛透頂，該廟主祀森羅殿閻羅天子包拯（包青天），陽世冤屈者可至此參拜祭解，求破懸案者眾，逢中元普渡皆以紙紮船渡亡魂至彼岸，全台唯一閻羅天子巨像籌備中，四周環繞墓地，適合修不淨觀也。台灣首尊彰化八卦山大佛旁南天宮（1971）地府則是首座電動地府，規模精小但驚嚇度破表，略顯破敗但五光十色仍蠻凶悍，出自已故台南大道長金登富之作，而電動神明起始可追溯至1960年代北港朝天宮。倒是嘉義水上鄉白人牙膏觀光工廠「戴相府」、「將軍府」設置十殿地府出乎意料之外，乾淨亮麗、ㄧ殿ㄧ間、簡單樸實。由高雄蓮潭龍虎塔龍口入內可見全臺唯一交趾陶地獄牆面，尊尊栩栩如生，續入龍身乃進聞聲救苦白衣觀音大士三十三化身浮雕隧道，造型設色甚為古錐。高雄大岡山超峰寺入口處「西方三聖蓮池海會」（阿彌陀佛、觀世音菩薩、大勢至菩薩巨像）旁設靜態十殿閻羅（1970年代初），雖略為陳舊然韻味猶存，續往上行可抵「證菩提道－釋迦如來應化事迹」雕塑園區，一攬世尊畢生精華。如來年邁時，琉璃國王為報長期被釋迦族輕蔑之傲慢心，世尊雖三次單獨伽跌坐 阻擋大軍進攻之路，但因緣果報無法逆轉，昔日婢女所生王子瞋恨無以復加，還是滅了祖國。自持神通第一目犍連不忍無辜百姓慘遭屠殺，遂以缽盛救度五百族人，最終卻化為血水，佛言神通廣大仍不敵千百劫業力，因緣果報屢試不爽。其母死後墜入餓鬼道飢餓難耐，目犍連遂展神通救渡，但所食尚未入口皆化為赤火，佛陀囑咐農曆七月十五日僧眾解安居自恣日，於盆中設甘露美食供養十方僧眾，因此超度亡母。後世「盂蘭盆法會」乃至「水懺法會」、「瑜珈焰口法會 」皆為消業障、斷塵垢之超渡儀軌，既渡亡魂也自懺悔。

台南麻豆代天府規模宏大、造型豔麗，不但可遊十八層地獄尚可逛天堂（1979年興建，1983年開放)，燈光絢爛、聲響駭人，獨自漫步宛如觀落陰、地獄走一回。先過「心頭山」、入「清心池」、進「陰陽界」、抵「交簿廳」、達「鬼門關」、遊「補經所」、探「枉死城」、行「奈何橋」，至ㄧ殿泰廣王照「孽鏡台」現造惡原形，睹抱柱、火床等小地獄。二殿楚江王開「陰查簿 」判案定奪，觀糞尿泥、餓鬼、舞池、寒冰、膿血、鞭韃、舌犁、劍葉、戟腹拋接、砧截……等小地獄。三殿宋帝王刑罰為倒吊、銅鐵刮臉、挖眼、搗樁、倒烤、吸血、穿肋、抽筋、蛆蛀等小地獄……兼遊「四生（胎、卵、濕、化）回魂府」。四殿五官王掌管腰斬、拔舌、沸湯、刺嘴、剝皮、箭樹、車崩、射眼……等十六小地獄。隨五殿森羅王豋「望鄉臺」回眸親人最終眼後觀擊膝、誅心、刀山、飛刀火石……小地獄。六殿卞城王別稱「大叫喚大地獄」，轄火牛、虎啖、噬腎、鉗嘴含鍼、釘喉、磨摧、砍頭……等小地獄。七殿泰山王為「熱惱大地獄」，窺烙手指、抽腸、頂石蹲身、油釜滾烹、割舌穿腮……等十六小地獄。八殿都市王掌管「大熱惱大地獄」兼火狗、鐵汁、鐵蛇、鋸劈斷肢、釘板、灸脊、鐵丸、磅秤……等小地獄。九殿平等王直轄十八層「阿鼻大地獄」，直透地心、內中陰森、不見五指、滿溢地漿，皆為極犯，另轄紫赤毒蛇鑽孔、夾頂、鐵鴉、針雨、蜂蠍……等小地獄。至十殿輪轉王上「觀生臺」、「轉劫所八司」（查驗司 、稽善司 、考過司 、恩怨司 、壽命司 、支配司、掌劫司 、授生司）後至「孟婆亭」飲「醧忘湯」忘盡前塵往事，依前世功德過金、銀、玉、石、木、竹六種橋樑至「轉輪臺（紫河車）」入六道輪迴轉生投胎。據《十八泥犁經》記載，人過世後七七四十九天為「中陰生」，經閻羅王審判善惡業力判定去留或懲罰百千萬劫，犯五逆重罪則墮入「無間地獄（阿鼻地獄）」永劫不復。地藏王乃幽冥教主，統轄十殿閻羅，逢三曹普渡便在各殿設「講道所」超度尚存善根之鬼魂。

人類居於五趣（阿修羅、人、傍生、餓鬼、地獄）雜居地五濁惡世之堪忍世界，犯十惡業（殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語、兩舌、惡口、綺語、貪慾、嗔恚、愚痴）者必墮三趣惡道。如何出「三界」（欲界、色界、無色界）二十八天？凡人無此意識，別說能破「十二因緣」（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死）還滅門，更別想斷除「四聖諦」（苦、集、滅、道）集地八十一品見惑與八十八使思惑（五利使-身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見、五鈍使-貪、瞋、癡、慢、疑），了悟「五蘊」（色、受、想、行、識）本空、「十二入」（眼、耳、鼻、舌、意、色、聲、香、味、觸、法）空、「十八界」空，破俱生我執與分別我執、法執甚至空執，生十一處「善心所」（信、精進、慚、愧、無貪、無瞋、無痴、輕安、不放逸、行捨、不害），降二十六處「惡心所」（貪、瞋、癡、慢、疑、惡見、忿、恨、覆、惱、嫉、慳、誑、諂、害、憍、無慚、無愧、掉舉、惛沉、不信、懈怠、放逸、失念、散亂、不正知），須知善根斷盡則陷永劫輪迴、無垠轉世之苦。

地獄可能空滅嗎？若地獄空乏人間多鬼怪，地獄淨空世間何嘗非淨土？若能證空性何處現地獄？

地獄曠古來便廣泛流傳各部族間，老死生滅為自然運行之基礎、宇宙意識之核心，然今文明昌盛如咱城邦並非慾望消弭之所，惡性所及實無可根除，礙於憲法國家法律社會軍隊企業公司學校家庭團體之層層束縛不亞於十八層，乃遁於壓抑、束己情懷，暗埋心底、日久貪嗔痴慢疑怨噌會疊穢。而六塵未熄，心多妄念，妖魔鬼怪魑魅魍魎孤魂閃靈出沒於荒郊乃至人間，會靈於曠野密林以增性靈乃出世高人修煉之舉，我等凡人擅闖宛如迪士尼般之人造地獄，三魂七魄尚不足以出竅，驚邪恐怖淒厲猙獰倒滿足了自以為是的慚愧，豈不謬哉？

病毒肆虐年半有餘，全球確診者逼近一億八千萬，枉死者近四百萬，堪比戰爭規模，望眾生發慈悲心、令往生者安息、善待其他物種、平等有情眾生。地獄本空，唯妄念生起一切羨慕嫉妒恨而地獄現前。盡以此書作為世界新冷戰獨裁者、超限戰者、暗網駭客、陰險狡猾冷嘲熱諷落井下石者之良知備忘錄矣。

姚瑞中寫於2021年端午節

Postscript

I have been living recklessly in Taiwan for more than fifty years. According to Zi Wei Dou Shu (Purple Star Astrology), Tan Lang is the sole star in my house of Self. This star, which represents xxx, forms an equilateral triangle with that star Qi Sha and Po Jun on the square chart and constitutes a Sha Po Lang pattern. The pattern indicates a kind of turbulence and change, a life of wandering with ups and downs and it tells a lot about my life. After my ill-fated youth, I started from scratch and traveled around the world with exhibitions that I participated. Like a flaneur, I wandered around ruins, nature, and temples with every type of film camera obliviously. Thus, I founded the Hall of Illusion and claimed to be the master of the hall. Several times a day, I pondered a quote from the Diamond Sutra, “Everything with form is unreal.” In addition, I usually stayed in the darkroom developing film and enlarging those negatives overnight. However, I treasured the simplicity of the black and white world. The earthly, gaudy, garish, phony and pleasing qualities within colored photos make the images even more realistic than the real world. It is not my cup of tea, so I seldom took colored photos. In Confucian thought, the age of fifty marks the stage knowing the mandate of Heaven. I am now at my fifties and realize how ephemeral human life is. However, I am not an immortal, nor having sagelike characteristics. I just learned that the stage of stainless (the second bhūmi) and develop a pure mind that is free from doubt and defilement. However, I’m still far from the immovable state and need to practice.

In the summer of 2017, after filming the work Incarnation, I experienced a severe heart rhythm problem which almost triggered myocardial infarction and could have killed me. Consequently, I realized that death was waiting for me and the life is too short to figure out how I can liberate myself from the cycle of Birth and Death. I couldn’t comprehend how to be free from all afflictions and worries and how to avoid delusive ideas. I wept for three days and nights after being enlightened by Shakyamuni Buddha. Up to the moment, I felt ashamed that I failed to realize that the self is as insignificant as dust after these years learning and practicing Buddhism. Since then, I have visited famous temples and monasteries in my spare time, worshiping Buddha, Bodhisattvas, arhats, and all the deities and immortals. Taiwan’s temples are myriad with a enormous number of sects, including Buddhism, Taoism, Yiguandao, Catholicism, Christianity, Chinese religions of fasting, Islam& Baháʼí Faith, Confucianism, Tiandiism& Tian-De Teachings, Xiwangmu cult, Yellow Emperor Sect, Precosmic Salvationism, Liism, World Wide Ethical Society, séance cult, etc. Some people even claim that they can mediate communication between the deities or spirits of the dead with human beings, having their believer rely on themselves instead of the orthodox dharma or dogma and pay excessive respect and admiration for the mediums or objects, accumulating wealth through such an unfair means or even harassing their believer sexually. Due to Taiwan’s historical changes, social turbulence, political struggles, and ideological issues, Buddhism and Taoism are somehow mixed. However, there are few emphases on the concept of the hell. As I took photographs of Yama of each court, judges, wardens of the underworld, jailers, General Fan and Hsieh (the ghost escorts) and all sinners, I found few temples cleverly created hellish scenes that are intriguing, exaggerating, and extraordinary. However, the creations are unparalleled unique. I have been studying Western arts for decades and then I came to realize that simplicity makes the most beautiful works of art. These hellish scenes can even compete with works of Giotto di Bondone (1267-1337) and Michelangelo Di lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (1475-1564).

Jingang Temple Shimen District, founded in 1986, overlooks the beautiful North shore. Although the temple is mainly dedicated to Phra Phrom (the Thai representation of Mahabrahma), spirits of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism can also be founded in the temple. The worshipper can go cross the Seven Star bridge to relieve bad luck, walk along the five hundred arhat statues and knock on the gong to affirm one’s Buddha nature. Furthermore, the worshipper can also prostrate themself before Asia’s largest statue of Buddha in Nirvana (the Reclining Buddha statue) and pacify the Taoist Tai Sui deity of the year. I was impressed by the Jia-Zi Tai Sui General that a pair of palms grow out of his eyes. In 1994, the biō-kong (the person taking charge of the temporal affairs of a temple) received a divine inspiration from Yama (the King of Hell) that he had to build a sacred hall in the shape of a divine dragon, with the interior designed according to the World of Ultimate Bliss and the Underworld. When the visitor walks in the dark hallway, they will see the tortured people (dioramas, of course) scrunching their faces and crying bitterly and loudly in excessive grief as the visitor triggers the mechanism. One will even find them in the midst of flesh, body liquid and blood, mutilated limbs, and rotten corpses. While each of the ten Yamas are focusing on their own duties, showing their sacred dignity that collect visitors’ attention. The Baogong Temple in Linkou District, New Taipei City exclusively features colorful depiction of hellish scenes in relief in Taiwan. With its pastel shades and cartoon-like style, the relief is both grotesque and adorable at the same time. This temple is dedicated to Bao Zhen (also known as Justice Bao) representing the incarnation of Yama. Living people who have been treated unjustly can come worshipping Bao Gong and receive exorcism. Therefore, many people come here for seeking to solve unsolved cases. In Zhongyuan Festival (the ghost festival), the temple will burn the Zhizha (paper craft) boat to ferry the ghosts to the other shore, which is the shore of enlightenment. The only giant statue of Yama in Taiwan is still in the making. The temple is surrounded by a cemetery, suitable for meditating on the loathsomeness and impurity. Nantian Temple (1971), located next to the Eight Trigram Mountains Buddha in Changhua, features the first animatronic underworld. Despite the small size, the animatronic underworld is intensely shocking. Though it’s slightly worn, the colorful dioramas are still brutally ferocious. The creator was the late venerable Dao Zhang (Taoist priest) Jing Deng-fu while the origin of animatronic deities can be traced back to the 1960s Beigang Chaotian Temple. On the contrary, the Whiteman Toothpaste Tourism Factory in Shuishang Township, Chiayi, features ten Yamas with individual booth. The place is unexpectedly clean and polished yet keeps a simple and modest tone. Then, the Dragon Pagoda of the Dragon and Tiger Pagodas at Lotus Lake in Zuoying, Kaohsiung, holds the only relief of hellish scenes made of Kochin ceramic. All the figures are vivid and life-like. If one goes further into the pagoda, they will see a relief tunnel of the thirty-three incarnations of the white-robed form of Guanyin (Avalokiteśvara) on a white lotus, with a lovely and interesting design. Another Hall of Yama is built in the 1970s next to the entrance of Dagangshan Chaofeng Temple, located in the Alian District of Kaohsiung. Visitors will also see three statues of the Three Holy Ones of the Western Pureland (Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara, Mahāsthāmaprāpta) which assemble at a lotus pond. Although the hellish scene looks somewhat antiquated, you may still find its previous charm. If one goes further, they will reach the sculptural garden of “Attaining the Bodhi Way: the Incarnation of Sakyamuni Buddha,” where the visitor can see the essence of Bhagavato’s (meaning the Blessed one, one of the common epithets for Buddha) life. When Tathāgata (another epithet for Buddha) was old, the king of Kosala wanted to avenge the arrogance of the tribe of Shakyas who had long despised him, regarding him as a son of a maiden. Although Buddha has sat in lotus position alone three times to stop the army from attacking his tribe. However, one can never reverse the cause and following karma. The prince born of a maiden was so furious that he eventually destroyed his homeland. Maudgalyāyana (one of the Buddha’s closest disciples), who is said to have had supernatural abilities that surpassed the other disciples, could not bear to see the slaughter of innocent people. Thus, he saved five hundred people of his tribe with a pātra (an eating utensil of Buddhist monks). Unfortunately, everything he did was in vain, those who were saved eventually turned into a puddle of blood. The Buddha said that the supernatural abilities cannot surpass the power of karma. The cause and effect work all the time. When Maudgalyāyana’s mother fell into the path of hungry ghost, he used his supernatural abilities to save his mother from hunger. However, all the food turned into fire before being fed to his mother. Later, the Buddha commanded the monks to put nectar and dishes in a basin on the 15th day of the seventh month in the lunar calendar for the monks from all directions to free his mother from reincarnation. In later times, the Ullambana Dharma Service, the Compassionate Samadhi Water Repentance, and the Yoga Collection for Feeding the Searing Mouths Dharma Service are rituals to eliminate karmic hindrance and to cease to worldly delusions. Through such practices, one can free the dead as well as confess their repentance.

Madou Daitian Temple is a magnificent and colorful temple in Tainan. Not only can the worshippers visit the eighteen levels of Hell but also the Heaven (it was built in 1979 and inaugurated in 1983) here. The lighting and sound effects are stunning and frightening. When walking alone in the space, one may feel like taking a Guan Luo Yin trip (a Taoist necromancy which leads people’s spirits to hell and communicate with the dead ones) to visit the underworld prison. Before arriving the first court of the underworld, the visitor will walk through the Mountain of Heart Summit, the Pure Heart Pond, the Frontier between the Living and the Dead Realms, the Soul Registry Hall, the Portico of Demons, the Center for Complementary Teaching of Canonical Books, the Citadel of Premature Death, and the Bridge of Vanity. When one arrives at the first court, they will see King Chin-guang, who is in charge of the court, using the Mirror of Retribution to show the earthly form of evil creatures and also witness the sub-hell of Pillar-Holding and Fire Bed, etc. At the second court, King Chu-jiang collates the register of sins the souls of the dead have committed to impose the punishments. Here, you will see the sub-hell of Excrement and Urine, Hungry Ghost, Burning Dance Floor, Ice, Pus and Blood, Whipping, Tongue-Raking, Sword Blade, Stomach-Piercing, Chopping, etc. Next, the dead at the third court, ruled by King Song-di, will receive the punishments including inversion tortures, face-skinning with steel and copper knife, eye-wrenching, pounding, blood-sucking, rib-piercing, roasting, tendon-taking, being eaten by maggots. The visitor can pay a visit to the Palace of Soul-Resuscitation for the Four Forms of Creatures (birth from an egg, birth from a womb, birth from moisture, and birth by transformation). King Wu-guan is in charge of the fourth court. There are sixteen sub-hells at the fourth court including Waist Chop, Tongue Removal, Boiling Pond, Mouth-stabbing, Skin-peeling, Sword Tree, Burning Wheels and Cart, Eye-shooting, etc. Next, at the fifth court, sinful souls are allowed to ascend the Tower of Hometown-Viewing to take a final look of their family. The visitor will witness sub-hells of Knee-striking, Heart-slicing, Blade Mountain, Flying Swords and Burning Stones, etc. The King of Bian City takes charge of the sixth court, which is also known as the “Great Hell of Screaming,” with sub-hells including Fire Cattle, Tiger-Biting, Kidney-Eating, Mouth-Poking, Throat-Nailing, Iron Mill, Decapitation, etc. The King of Tai-shan is in charge of the seventh court, the “Great Hell of Heat and Fire.” The sixteen sub-hells at this court include Finger-Searing, Bowel-Hauling, Stone-Bearing, Boiling Oil, Tongue-Removal and Cheek-Piercing, etc. Next, the King Du-shi is in charge of the eighth court, the “Great Hell of Intense Fire and Heat,” and the sub-hells including Fire Dogs, Molten Iron, Iron Snakes, Dismemberment, Steel Spikes, Burning-Marrow, Iron Ball, Scale, etc. The ninth court is ruled by the King Ping-deng. It is known as the biggest court, Avici Hell (the Hell of Incessant Suffering), which if the lowest level of the hell realm and the interior is gloomily and terrifyingly dark. Those who committed the most serious evil deed will be sent to the Avici Hell. Sub-hells such as Poisonous Snake, Brain-Removal, Crow-Gnawing, Raining Needles, Wasps and Scorpions are included at this court. After arriving the tenth court, ruled by the Great King of the Reincarnation Palace, one can visit the “Observatory of Life on earth” and the “eight bureaus of the Reincarnation Palace” (including the Bureau of Judicial Control, the Bureau of Good-Actions, the Bureau of Bad-Actions, the Bureau of Debts, Gratitude, and Vengeance, the Bureau of Longevity and Destiny, the Bureau of Familial Ties, the Bureau of the Reincarnated, and the Bureau of Birth). The sinful one will be sent to the Pavilion of Mengpo and made to drink the Soup of Forgetfulness to forget all past affairs. According to the sinful one’s merits of previous life, they will go across one of the six bridges (gold, silver, jade, stone, wood, bamboo) to the “Reincarnation-Wheel (Wheel on the Crimson River).” Finally, one is able to reborn in the six realms. According to the Aṣṭadaśa nāraka sutra ( the Eighteen Hells Sutra), after one passes away, they will enter an intermediate and transitional state between death and rebirth, known as antarābhava in Sanskrit, for forty-nine days. The being will be evaluated by Yama, who will decide if one should get reborn or get punished at the hell. Those who committed the Five Grave Offenses (killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha, and creating a schism within the community of Buddhist monks and nun who practice for attaining enlightenment.) will be sent to the Avici Hell and stay there eternally. Kṣitigarbha is the Lord of the Nether World, ruling the ten court of Hell. The lord will set up the “Hall of Teaching” at each court to salvage those sinful ones who still obtain few merits at the offering rituals.

Human beings live the Sahā world (sahāloka in Sanskrit, meaning “endurance of suffering,” a concept of mundane world in Mahāyāna Buddhism) where they share with other reincarnations (including beings of the hells, of the preta, and of malevolent nature spirits) with five turbidities (the Kalpa turbidity, the view turbidity, the affliction turbidity, the living beings turbidity, and the life turbidity). Those who commit the ten evil deeds (killing, stealing, adultery, lying, using immoral language, slandering, equivocating, coveting, anger, and false views) must fall into the three evil paths (animals, preta, and hell). However, how can one escape from the three realms/ twenty-eight heavens (including the six heavens of the desire realm, the eighteen heavens of the form realm, and the four heavens of the formless realm)? Worldly people who don’t have such an awareness cannot leave the cycle of the twelve nidanas (meaning causes or motivations), let alone eliminate the eighty-one afflictions (that have been produced due to misunderstanding regarding reality) and the eighty-eight illusions (including five afflictions of advanced practitioners, also known as five views: view of self, extreme view, evil view, view of attachment to views, and view of morality; and five unintelligent temptations: desire, anger, stupidity, arrogance, and doubt) of thought within the three realms and four Arya satyas (noble truths, including suffering, arising, ending, and path). They cannot realize that the essence of the five skandhas (referring to aggregates of clinging, including the matter of form, sensation, recognition, mental formation, and consciousness) , the twelve ayatana (meaning sense base, including six internal bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind and six external bases: visible objects, sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental objects), and the eighteen dhātavah (meaning compositional elements of human existence, including six consciousness, six faculties, and their objects) are the emptiness and the void. Furthermore, they cannot dispel the two reasons for clinging to the idea of the self and the attachment to elemental constructs and even believe in the two (false) tenets that that karma and nirvana are not real and that the ego and phenomena are real. As a consequence, they fail to develop the eleven wholesome mental factors (faith, energy, conscience, being ashamed, non-attachment, non-aggression, non-delusion, calmness, equanimity, conscientiousness, and non-injuriousness) and cease the sixteen unwholesome mental factors (desire, greed, anger, delusion, arrogance, doubt, wrong view, wrath, enmity, hypocrisy, vexation, jealousy, parsimony, deceit, flattery, harming, ambitiousness, stupidity, lacking of faith, idleness, being unrestrained, forgetting, distraction, non-discernment, ). One must bear in mind that once all our virtuous roots are discontinued, they will be trapped in the never-ending reincarnation and the suffering of infinite continuity.
Is it possible that the hell will be empty one day? If the beings in hell will become extinct while evil spirits inhabit the mundane world, the world could be considered as a pure land. If we could witness the nature of the void, then hell will exist no more.
Since ancient times, the concept of hell has been widely spread among all tribes. Aging, death, beginning, and end are the basis of nature and the core of cosmic consciousness. However, the prosperous civilization as our island is not a place where desire can be eliminated. It’s impossible to eradicate evil nature. Since fetters brought by the constitution, the state, the law, society, the military, corporations, schools, families, and groups are not less than the eighteen levels of hell, the mortals repress themselves, bury their feelings. Day after day, greed, anger, stupidity, arrogance, doubt, and resentment are stacking. However, since the six dust (visible objects, sound, odor, taste, touch, and mental objects) has not yet been extinguished, people in the mundane world are still full of delusions. The demons, devils, evil spirits, and the wondering dead exist in the wilderness, while only advanced practitioners with transcendent would attempt to make contact with the dead in the wasteland and forest. Worldly people like us trespass in Disneyland-like man-made hell. It is absurd and ridiculous that the hellish scenes cannot stop us from perpetrating evil deeds, but the horrific and cruel scenes yet satisfy our self-righteous shame.

The pandemic has been boiling over for more than a year and a half. The number of infected patients worldwide is nearly a hundred and eighty million, and the death toll has risen to four million, which is equivalent to a war crisis. I hope that we can all be compassionate, give peace to the dead, treat all sentient beings well and equally. The hell is innately empty; however, deluded and misleading thoughts would give rise to all jealousy and hatred and then manifest the hell before us. This book merely serves as a memorandum of conscience for dictators of the world’s new cold war, supporters of unrestrained warfare, dark web hackers, and those who are cunning and contemptuous and maltreat others when knowing they have problems.

June 2021,

Yao Jui-chung

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”