關於 噶舉派大寶法王 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

今天是蓮師生日，特別誦經做迴向與祝福，
感謝蓮師所教導的一切。

也念誦蓮師七句祈請文

蓮花生大士七金剛句祈請文

吽 鄔金油記努江燦（語譯：吽 鄔金剎土西北隅）

貝瑪給薩東波拉（語譯：勝妙花莖蓮蕊上）

雅襯秋記吳助涅（語譯：證得稀有成就者）

貝瑪炯內謝素扎（語譯：蓮師名號十方聞）

扣杜康卓芒波郭（語譯：空行眷屬眾圍繞）

客記傑速答助記（語譯：我願如師恆修行）

欽吉羅企謝素梭（語譯：祈請降臨賜加持）

咕嚕貝瑪悉地吽

咕嚕貝瑪悉地吽

蓮師七金剛句祈請文之緣起

往昔於印度那爛陀大學，佛教學者和外道論師曾辯論不勝，多人同時夢見空行母喜哇秋出現說：「如果不請我兄長金剛顱鬘力（蓮華生大士）出馬，辯論將輸，佛法將會逐漸式微。」

論師問：「辯論在即，而蓮師住處距離甚遠，如何邀請？」

空行母答：「在你們寺院屋頂陳設供養，焚香奏樂，齊聲念此祈請文」，然後傳出此「蓮師七金剛句祈請文」。

於是學者們討論夢境，遂設供做此祈請，蓮華生大士瞬間由空中如奇跡般出現，代表佛教和外道辯論，獲得勝利。外道以法力威脅，蓮師取出獅面空行母所給寶匣，出十四字猛咒，降伏外道，這是「蓮師七金剛句祈請文」出世的因緣。

後來在第九世紀蓮師入西藏弘揚建立佛法後，教此祈請文給赤松德真王及其他弟子，並且為了傳給後世行者，藏在許多伏藏中。後世取出的伏藏法中，都有此「七金剛句祈請文」。

--

而照片中的這兩個嘎屋，是參加法會後幸運得到的法寶，去看了介紹才知道這嘎屋非常珍貴。

很多聖物都會來我家開同學會，感覺很熱鬧。

--
分享這個嘎屋的介紹>>

【蓮師十三金法--大醫王--
蓮師藥師佛無死長生嘎屋】

釋迦牟尼佛說：「在我涅槃12年後，聖者蓮花生大士咕嚕仁波切，也將在這個世間降生，他將繼續弘傳佛法幫助眾生遠離一切痛苦，他具有不可思議的力量及智慧，他將帶領無量眾生遠離痛苦，走向解脫。」

「東方蓮師藥師佛」，上師大醫王，藏名：咕嚕面嘰拉，本尊藍色身，穿白、藍、紅三色法衣，右手持藏青果訶子蓮枝帶葉，左手托盈血嗄巴拉顱碗，威立壇城東方蓮瓣之上，主藥師種姓，專門對治一切煩惱、所產生的特殊病痛，屬於最殊勝的息災去病之妙法。

蓮師預言：「未來五濁惡世時，將會出現許多奇怪無法治愈的疾病，產生這些疾病的原因，都是因為慾望所產生五毒熾盛的所引起的。」蓮師曾發下大願：「當一切眾生身體有病痛疾苦時，只要沒有任何懷疑的來祈請，蓮師藥師佛無二尊必定降臨來加持。」

此蓮師藥師佛聖物總集擦擦，是以貝瑪林巴化身崗頂法王親修之甘露、大圓滿成就者 波羅堪仁波切法衣、頂果欽哲法王親修之嘗解脫七世婆羅門藥丸、貝瑪林巴尊者親修之嘗解脫七世婆羅門藥丸、貝瑪林巴尊者之意化身-第一世圖謝達瓦仁波切(又稱明月上師)舍利子、不丹彌勒寺鎮寺之寶-自生地藏法藥、桑耶寺等聖地之加持物如法壓製而成。

再經由伏藏大師格薩爾王化身.法王南卡吉美仁波切、伏藏大師多傑林巴化身.法王巴卡祖古仁波切、伏藏大師貝瑪林巴化身.法王崗頂仁波切、崗頂寺上首金剛阿阇梨.多傑洛本筑扎仁波切、直貢噶舉努巴仁波切、薩迦察巴領袖 霞仲仁波切、竹巴噶舉 康祖法王，七位聖者開光加持圓滿，加持力不可思議。

法衣的功德：
因高僧日以繼夜不間斷修持本尊法門，每一位證悟大成就者貼身穿著的法衣，均凝聚了與本尊無二的密意加持，正向能量不可思議，不論是見到、觸碰到、或置於隨身舍利盒內佩帶在身上，能快速開啟行者智能，打開身體脈輪，淨除身、口、意三門之罪障，累世冤親債主無法找到。

每一位高僧大德均有不共傳承的秘密護法，依據誓言守護法主佛法事業光明圓滿，因法衣上凝聚了上師所積累的正向加持力，隨身佩帶，護法會遵守誓言，庇佑保護弟子在修行之路順利無礙，不受兇暴魔障、邪惡魔鬼、非人，怨敵詛咒等傷害，快速圓滿世間福報資糧、出世間解脫功德。

※嘎屋裝藏近代三位大成就者聖物：
1.頂果欽哲法王法衣
2.不丹100歲大成就者瑟波法王法衣
3.伏藏大師年龍上師法衣
4.四教派一切聖物總集甘露丸
莊嚴圓滿！

※蓮師藥師佛心咒：
嗡阿吽 班雜咕嚕貝瑪 推聽札 貝堪解 拉扎 薩爾哇 悉地 帕拉 吽阿！

--

希望大家見到這聖物都能結下好緣，
身心都能自在喜樂，
也願世界疫情能盡快平息。

最後還是要跟蓮師說：

「生日快樂！」

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”

一日阿聖在夢裡夢到黃財神藏巴拉，祂對我說一個最佳的創造全新福德資糧的最佳方法，我專注的將方法和流程紀錄下來。

夢醒後來到黃財神法像前確認，獲得再次的確認與肯定，於是我將進行這場儀式，儀軌之前接受過灌頂所以沒問題，另外開創新財富福德的關鍵方法就是『布施與供養』！

所以所有參與的費用，將會用在供養與布施的方面，開創我們更大的福德資糧，跳脫過去貧困窮忙的狀態。

參加方法：

1-選擇好自己要供的供養套數，一套就是500元。(請視自己能力而調整份數)

2-然後轉帳完成後填單送出即可完成報名。

3-部分供金將會供養不丹一場殊勝法會，十月之後阿聖會請到一些不丹竹巴噶舉大法會上的極殊勝甘露丸，每位參加者將與您結緣一顆甘露丸，這是無價之寶，請勿隨意轉售或任意拋棄，收到後可吞食或是放在祭壇上供養，或是隨身攜帶給予保護和祝福。

若要與多人分享甘露丸，可以泡水後將水分享給眾人一起飲用即可！
(每人一顆，並非一份一顆唷！特此聲明)

甘露丸內容如下：

甘露丸功德利益簡介：
一、總攝寧瑪派一切法之功德丸。
二、總攝薩迦派一切法之功德丸。
三、總攝嘎舉派一切法之功德丸。
四、總攝嘎當派一切法之功德丸。
五、 集丘磊智慧成就 經莢越五十萬新舊教誠之無上甘露丸。
六、集蓮花生大士佛父母菩提心伏藏之甘露丸。
七、長壽甘露功德內涵： 1. 修集印度西藏千種長壽法之金剛長壽甘露， 2. 巔尼嶺巴 於巴迭烏所迎請上有「啥」字之甘露丸。3. 供珠 伏藏師佛父母之「阿」字長壽丸。4. 瑪熱諦岡 上師佛父母所成就之長壽丸。5. 降魔離畏智慧金剛 依無死成就命之明點上所成就之前後多種長壽丸。 6. 最上怙主第十八世堪赤丹 曾敦主 前後多次修瑪拉熱岡所成之逾千不死甘露善施壽藥。

八、集七世甘露之精華： 1. 集印度與西藏七世解脫經驗無修佛「阿」印甘露丸。2. 取自 岡顛 經莢七世甘露丸。3. 由 無畏智金剛 之手所次之七世甘露丸。4. 七世肉身甘露丸。 5. 離畏智金剛 大悲門成就七世甘露源。6. 由 隆卓 上師所賜七世甘露，經大成就者五次觀修具加持大力。

九、攝集一億觀音心咒之甘露丸： 1. 尼泊爾 仰勒薛督 所成七世大悲離苦甘露，經大成就者五次觀修具加持力甘露丸。 2. 除魔離畏智金剛 由千餘遍之降魔大悲門所成七世甘露丸。 3. 第十二世法王大成就者及其法王子 阿旺珠美 仁波切之聖物虹甘露，依觀世音金鬘門一億遍觀修而成。4. 經智者 炯蘇策倉仁 波切一人獨立修誦一億遍觀心咒。5. 最上怙主第十八世堪赤丹 曾敦主 仁波切以本師舍利為本，加上諸多印藏大德不滅舍利，經觀修觀音金鬘門所成具有一億遍觀音心咒之甘露丸。

十、金剛薩埵一億圈甘露丸。
十一、集古培舍利瞻布金水。
十二、集菩提心鼻血囊沓紅寶石甘露丸。
十三、義成甘露丸精華。
十四、 努桑皆耶謝 之洽絕且卓甘露丸。
十五、伏藏師 德千林巴 之最上加持得均淨行無垢精華髮、及甚深智慧腦甘露丸。
十六、咕嚕咕咧聖物甘露。
十七、 根敦 經莢之俱生敦絀甘露丸。
十八、 天子木如 及咕嚕印甘露丸。
十九、十萬空行之烏均甘露丸。
二十、 曼達拉踏 之衣甘露丸。
二十一、 智慧海王空行 之髮甘露丸。
二十二、 烏金林巴 之肉身甘露丸。
二十三、 咕嚕闕汪 之肉身甘露丸。
二十四、 然那仁巴 之肉身甘露丸。
二十五、 朵敦多傑林巴 之肉身甘露丸。
二十六、 悲若 之帽甘露丸。
二十七、持明 甲村寧波 之肉身甘露丸。
二十八、 檢巴 之帽甘露丸。
二十九、 杰瑪巴 之舍利甘露。
三十、 額卻身金剛 之衣甘露丸。
三十一、 卓袞臧巴甲勒 之帽甘露丸。
三十二、 卓袞臧巴甲勒 之鞋甘露丸。
三十三、 甲哇隆熱巴 之心甘露丸。
三十四、 杰汪卻皆 之舍利甘露丸。
三十五、 阿旺卻杰 之舍利甘露丸。
三十六、 赤透顛巴寶幢 之頭頂骨甘露丸。
三十七、 竹巴袞雷 之弓繩甘露丸。
三十八、 遍見卻囊匝日皆架 住世時之法甘露丸。
三十九、 霞春 仁波切之肉身甘露丸。
四十、 霞春 仁波切之舍利甘露丸。
四十一、竹巴 圖瑟阿旺舉昧 之舍利甘露丸。
四十二、自在成就者 索南桑波 之舍利甘露丸。
四十三、 離畏智慧金剛 之血甘露丸。
四十四、 離畏智慧金剛 之骨灰甘露丸。
四十五、 離畏智慧金剛 之手甘露丸。
四十六、大香甘露丸。
四十七、小香甘露丸。
四十八、五肉五甘露無錯亂甘露丸。
四十九、遍除冒瀆晦氣過失甘露丸。
五十、牛五淨甘露丸。
五十一、生威光身甘露丸。
五十二、生梵音聲甘露丸。
五十三、生大樂心甘露丸。
五十四、無邊沐浴甘露丸。
五十五、福物如意寶甘露丸。
五十六、龍藥甘露丸。
五十七、二十五寶瓶物。
五十八、東方寶瓶物。
五十九、南方寶瓶物。
六十、西方寶瓶物。
六十一、北方寶瓶物。
六十二、中央寶瓶物。
六十三、具遮除星曜、龍、妖厲三種障害咒力丸。
六十四、大成就者 唐東 杰波繞世間三回之十大種甘露丸。
六十五、無上續食子物。
六十六、事續食子物。
六十七、三十五血。
六十八、供施品甘露丸。
六十九、替身物品甘露丸。
七十、長壽甘露母丸。
七十一、七生母丸。
七十二、多方集聚母丸。
七十三、聖物穩彩母丸。

甘露丸所含之加持物均已經歷了千年以上之歷史，稀有難得，若眾生有幸見著或親嚐此種珍貴之甘露加持丸，均可清淨自身業障及解脫輪迴，並可得到無上加持與保護，但必須對它具有絕對的虔誠與信心。

填單網址：
https://forms.gle/cFHtgKqnAZgMgM819

我這次供養不丹的法會自己就供了20份，希望法會順利圓滿，也期望自己未來能不再為了金錢苦苦追求，能有穩定成長的收入，其餘時間我能好好創作與禪修。

獲得福德資糧最佳的方式，感謝黃財神藏巴拉的指點，我深信不疑，也將這方法分享給各位。