Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength" is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelug school. Dorje Shugden's precise nature — enlightened tutelary deity (Yidam) or bound Dharma protector (Dharmapala) or a malevolent force[1] (known derogatorily as "Dhol-rgyal") is disputed among adherents of Tibetan Buddhism. This has led to ongoing conflict in the Tibetan community in exile.[2] To find out more about Dorje Shugden’s nature and function, go to the main entry: Dorje Shugden.
On April 22, 2008, the newly-founded Western Shugden Society began a campaign directed towards the 14th Dalai Lama, claiming he is "banning them from practicing their own version of Buddhism". The campaigns accuse him of being "a hypocrite", who is "persecuting his own people".[3]
According to the Western Shugden Society, on the orders of the Dalai Lama, the ban was and continues to be enforced by the Tibetan Government in Exile and all other Tibetan Exile associations such as the Tibetan Youth Congress and the Tibetan Women’s Association:[4] Specifically:
Today's controversy surrounding the deity refers to a particular brand of Gelugpa diversity that emerged in Central and Eastern Tibet during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where the deity was considered to demarcate the boundaries of Gelugpa religious practice, especially in opposition to growing influence of Ri-me, literally "non-sectarian" or "non-lineage". Many Gelugpas, as well as many Kagyupas, Sakyapas and Nyingmapas, began to follow the ideas of the Ri-me movement, but conservative Gelugpas, especially Pabongkha Rinpoche, became concerned over the "purity" of the Gelug school and opposed the ideas of Ri-me and encouraged a special Gelug moderate exclusivism.[5] Different sources state that disciples of Pabongkha Rinpoche destroyed Nyingma monasteries or converted them to Gelug monasteries and destroyed statues of Padmasambhava[6], although there is debate about the reliability of this information.
This on-going tension, which has been simmering for ten years has reached new heights in the Tibetan exile context, where the Fourteenth Dalai Lama first began to distance himself from Shugden and later used his position as the political and religious head of Tibet to stop the growing influence of the worship of Shugden by banning the practice.[7]
This ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden has caused a large rift in the Tibetan community.[8] Tibetan and Western practitioners are currently organizing demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban wherever the Dalai Lama appears, accusing him of denying them religious freedom.[9] The representative of the Dalai Lama appeared in Hamilton, New York to say that from a legal standpoint there is no ban. However, he was contradicted by the practical examples and stories of Dorje Shugden practitioners which clearly indicate that followers are being persecuted because there is clearly a ban in effect and it comes from the Dalai Lama’s words. The representative said that he would look into all the evidences of human rights abuse within the Tibetan community in India and agreed that they were wrong.[10]
A dispute began in the 1970s when the Dalai Lama started to speak out against the veneration of Dorje Shugden, engaged in by approximately 1 million Buddhists in India, China, Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal and the West. In the 1990s he banned the practice.
On May 8, 1996 in a public address in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama said, "It has been twenty years since I first mentioned the Dorje Shugden public restriction".
Also, in an address on May 5, 1996, the Dalai Lama said, "It may have been about ten years ago. While giving a lam.rim teaching at Drepung, I once gave my reasons for issuing the ban."[11]
And "In this way came the reasons, on account of which I have issued the ban in recent times."
The Dalai Lama remarked to members of the Cholsum Congress on March 4th,
It is good that paying attention to my health you have passed a resolution regarding this matter. Danger to health does not exclusively mean an armed attack. This type is extremely rare in Tibetan society. If there is continued indifference to my injunctions, then there would not be any point in my continuing to live silently as a disappointed man[12].
The Dalai Lama claims that Dorje Shugden is in discord with government approved protectors.
Whether outside of Tibet or within it, a deity in discord with [government deities] whose relationship with the origin of this [exile] government at the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama [is discordant] whatever may be the ultimate reality this is serious in the context of the common cause of Tibet. Therefore, unless I remind you once again there are those who pretend they have not heard it. It will be the last resort if [we] have to knock on [their/your] doors. It would be good if [they/you] can heed this without [us] having to resort to this last step. [13]
During the fifth session of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (TPiE), which began on March 4, 2008, the Speaker, Karma Chophel, delivered the opening address. According to the official website of the Central Tibetan Administration, he lauded the bold initiative of Tibetan monastic communities in their resolve to end the Dolgyal (Shugden) worship, following the long life offering to His Holiness the Dalai Lama held at Drepung monastery in south India in February.
This session will present motions to strengthen the present resolution adopted by the TPiE against the propitiation of Shugden, he added.
The dispute developed international dimensions in the 1990s, when the Dalai Lama's statements against the practice of Shugden challenged the British-based New Kadampa Tradition to oppose him. Geshe Kelsang said that Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden asked him to help them. As a result, Kelsang Gyatso sent a public letter[14] to the Dalai Lama, to which he did not receive any response, and subsequently created the Shugden Supporter Community (SSC), which organised protests and a huge media campaign during the Dalai Lama's teaching tour of Europe and America, accusing him of religious persecution, denying freedom of religious practice, and spreading untruths. According to Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the Americas of the Dalai Lama, there was no suppression of Shugden worship. "Officially there has never been any repression or denial of rights to practitioners," said Wangdi. "But after His Holiness’ advice [against worship] many monastic orders adopted rules and regulations that would not accept practitioners of Shugden worship in their monastic order."[15] However, a Swiss TV documentary made at the time of the first abuses of Dorje Shugden practitioners in 1997 paints a different picture. The documentary shows evidence of violence and even death threats towards Dorje Shugden practitioners with 'wanted' posters of Dorje Shugden adherents being posted in Dharamsala, encouraging violence towards practitioners[16]
In India, some protests and opposition were organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable Society with the support of SSC.[17]
The SSC tried to obtain a statement from Amnesty International (AI) that the Tibetan Government in Exile (specifically the 14th Dalai Lama) had violated human rights. However, AI replied in an official press release:
None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within AI's mandate for action – such as grave violations of fundamental human rights including torture, the death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials.[18] This neither asserts nor denies the validity of the allegations against the CTA (Central Tibetan Administration), nor finds either side culpable. Amnesty International regards "spiritual issues" and state affairs as separate, whilst seeing the command-based nation-state as the fundamental framework for understanding the category of "actionable human rights abuses". Fundamental to this were linked criteria of state accountability and the exercise of state force, neither of which could clearly be identified within the CTA context.[19]
At the peak of the conflict, in February 1997, three anti-Shugden Tibetan Buddhist monks, including the Dalai Lama's close friend and confidant, seventy-year-old Lobsang Gyatso (the principal of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics), were brutally murdered in Dharamasala, India, the Tibetan capital in exile. The murdered monks were repeatedly stabbed and cut up in a manner resembling a ritual exorcism. According to Tony Clifton (in the same Newsweek article from 1997):
No one saw the attackers slip in and out of the monastery chamber on the frosty night of Feb. 4. There are no real suspects in hand, only suspicions, potential witnesses and the suggestive tale of an angry split in Tibetan Buddhism. As much as anything, the Shugdens are suspect because no alternative theory has emerged to explain this unholy crime. But the mystery of the Dharmasala murders is far from solved.[20]
According to a disciple of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, before he was killed, Lobsang Gyatso had to face many death threats, but refused any personal security.[21]
Helmut Gassner, an Austrian Buddhist monk who was a translator for the Dalai Lama for seventeen years, spoke about the murders in a talk he gave to the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation Hamburg, on March 26th 1999:
The Director of the Dialectics School was well known for his slanderous writings in which he would drag through the mud anything that veered even slightly from the course established by the government-in-exile: famous masters, the big monastic universities and even the Tibetan guerilla were his targets. In one of his last articles he wrote, "...these people will not cease to criticize the Dalai Lama until blood flows from their bodies...."
Given the character of the assassination and the humiliations the Tibetan guerilla movement had been subjected to in earlier years, one could have assumed that the search for the murderer would eventually also lead to them. But that obviously did not occur; already the next day, Dharamsala's local newspaper claimed that the murderer would certainly be found among the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi. Aside from who committed the murders, this gruesome act was exploited to the hilt by the government-in-exile with only one aim in mind: Resorting to all possible means they tried to incriminate the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi in order to put its leading monks behind Indian bars. For the benefit of the press, the image of a Dorje Shugden sect with bloodthirsty, cultish, terrorist and fundamentalist attributes was successfully established linking it effectively with the traditionally depicted wrathful appearance of the deity while cleverly neglecting to mention that many wrathful Buddhist deities are represented in considerably more terrifying ways.[22]
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso also made reference to other suspects for the murders in his reply to the Newsweek article:
Robert Thurman is quoted as saying: "I think there's no doubt that Shugden was behind the killings." Of course, killing people is very bad, and I utterly condemn these appalling murders, but by reading the letter addressed to HH the Dalai Lama known as the 'Mongoose Canine Letter', we can clearly understand that HH the Dalai Lama has many enemies, so why are only Shugden supporters suspected? It is a great pity that Lobsang Gyatso who was a 70-year old Geshe died in the most horrible of circumstances, seemingly because HH the Dalai Lama has many enemies.[23]
The Shugden Society in New Delhi denies any involvement in the murders or threats.[24] Kelsang Gyatso distanced himself:
Killing such a geshe and monks is very bad, it is horrible. How can Mahayana Buddhists who are always talking about compassion kill people? Impossible. There are many different possible explanations [for the murders]. There are many Shugden practitioners throughout the world, and each of them is responsible for his own actions. But definitely, we can say that these murders are very bad.[25]
This ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden has caused a large rift in the Tibetan community.[26] Tibetan and Western practitioners are currently organizing demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban wherever the Dalai Lama appears, accusing him of denying them religious freedom.[27] The representative of the Dalai Lama appeared in Hamilton, New York to say that from a legal standpoint there is no ban. However, he was contradicted by the practical examples and stories of Dorje Shugden practitioners which clearly indicate that followers are being persecuted because there is clearly a ban in effect and it comes from the Dalai Lama’s words. The representative said that he would look into all the evidences of human rights abuse within the Tibetan community in India and agreed that they were wrong.[28]
| “ | The Shugden dispute represents a battleground of Views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom.[29] | ” |
According to researcher Mills:
"The object of the controversy - the deity Dorje Shugden, also named Dholgyal by opponents of its worship - had been a point of controversy between the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism since its emergence onto the Tibetan scene in the late seventeenth Century, and was strongly associated with the interests of the ruling Gelukpa Order.
... The deity retained a controversial quality, being seen as strongly sectarian in character, especially against the ancient Nyingmapa school of Tibetan Buddhism: the deity was seen as wreaking supenatural vengeance upon any Gelukpa monk or nun who 'polluted' his or her religious practice with that of other schools. Most particularly those of the Nyingmapa.
... This placed the deity's worship at odds with the role of the Dalai Lama, who not only headed the Gelugpa order but, as head of State, maintained strong ritual relationships with the other schools of Buddhism in Tibet, particularly the Nyingmapa. The deity thus became the symbolic focus of power struggles, both within the Gelukpa order and between it and other Buddhist schools."[30]
Geshe Kelsang, holding the view of those who rely upon Dorje Shugden, says in his full commentary to the practice of Dorje Shugden: "Dorje Shugden does not help only Gelugpas; because he is a Buddha he helps all living beings, including non-Buddhists."[31]
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso disagrees with this analysis, saying it is simple superstition with no basis in fact. In an interview in Tricycle he says:
"Some people believe that if Gelugpa practitioners practice Nyingma teachings, Dorje Shugden will harm them, but this is completely wrong. We never believe this. Impossible. Besides Dorje Shugden, there are many Tibetan stories of other Dharmapalas killing people. There is even a lama called Ra Lotsawa who killed thirteen tantric masters including Tarma Dode, Marpa’s son. This is not just superstition. Many monasteries, maybe including Namgyal Dratsang (His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s private monastery), engage in the practice of Yamantaka that comes from Ra Lotsawa’s instructions. So shouldn’t they stop this practice because Lama Ra Lotsawa was a murderer? This would be meaningless. It is similar with Dorje Shugden, but there is no evidence of Dorje Shugden harming anyone. It is just superstition. For example, if a Gelugpa lama who practices Nyingma teachings has an accident, then some people think, "Oh, this is Dorje Shugden’s fault." This is stupid. Then they write a book about these things, but this is not real evidence.[32]
The confusion arises as the function of Dorje Shugden is to protect the Gelug lineage, and especially the Ganden Oral Lineage.[33] According to anti-Shugden proponents who believe the words of the Dalai Lama, the practice of Dorje Shugden includes a promise not even to touch a Nyingma scripture and that he will kill those who violate this vow. Dorje Shugden practitioners cannot find one mention of these words in the collected praises to him. On the contrary Dorje Shugden's function is to protect all living beings from their own delusions and can never harm any living being -- as it says in the extensive fulfilling and restoring ritual of the Dharma Protector, the great king Dorje Shugden, in conjunction with Mahakala, Kalarupa, Kalindewi and other Dharma Protectors:
Even though you display the manner of a fearsome being
Amidst a mass of turbulent, blazing fire,
You never move even slightly from the peaceful state of love and compassion.
— Extensive Prayers to Dorje Shugden[34]
and
You said "I will protect as a wealth of merit for all beings
The sublime, stainless essence of the Buddhas' teachings."— Extensive Prayers to Dorje Shugden[35]
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso points out that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being who could never harm any living being:
"Some people believe that if Gelugpa practitioners practice Nyingma teachings, Dorje Shugden will harm them, but this is completely wrong. We never believe this. Impossible." [36]
He adds:
HH the Dalai Lama says: "That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me." This is also completely untrue. We would like to ask HH the Dalai Lama: who are these Shugden practitioners saying these meaningless things? His words are causing disharmony between Shugden practitioners and Nyingma practitioners. Why is HH the Dalai Lama creating this new problem? Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism. Some scholars debate with each other, such as the well-known Gelugpa scholar Yonten Gyatso and Dongthog Tulku, a scholar from another tradition, who conducted a debate by letter over a number of years. They have written many books replying to each other’s assertions, but this does not mean they are criticising each other. They are simply clarifying the doctrines of their own traditions, with good motivation. There is nothing wrong with this. I would like to ask: what is the problem between the Nyingma and Gelug traditions? There is none. The majority of people from both traditions naturally live in harmony, so why is HH the Dalai Lama destroying this harmony by saying things like "Shugdens say you should not even touch a Nyingma document"? Although we concentrate on our own tradition we respect all other Buddhist traditions, including the Nyingma, and we rejoice very much in their sincere practice. [37]
"Conservative" Gelugpas may find such language congenial to their views, while "liberals" are more likely to stress the arbitrary nature of such sectarian divisions.
Dorje Shugden practitioners have never been considered sectarian. According to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the words in the Dorje Shugden prayers are not directed at living beings or other traditions, but at living beings delusions or negative minds:
The stainless sun of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition
Shines throughout the sky of samsara and nirvana,
Eliminating the darkness of inferior and wrong paths;
Please cause its light to spread and bring good fortune to all living beings.— Brief Prayers to Dorje Shugden
In this context, ‘paths’ do not mean external paths that lead from one place to another. We do not need to study external paths as we can see them directly with our eyes. ‘Paths’ here refer to internal paths, which are by nature our actions. Actions of body, speech and mind that are motivated by ignorance are wrong paths because they lead to suffering, and actions that are motivated by wisdom are correct paths—or spiritual paths—because they lead to happiness. Because there are different levels of happiness, such as the happiness of liberation and enlightenment, there are different levels of spiritual paths, such as the path to liberation and the path to enlightenment. Our present experiences of particular suffering and problems have a specific connection with particular actions we performed in the past. This hidden connection is subtle and not easy to understand. We cannot see it with our eyes, but we can understand it through using our wisdom, and especially through relying upon Buddha’s teachings.
— Geshe Kelsang Gyatso[38]
Though the roots of the Dorje Shugden controversy are more than 360 years old, the issue surfaced within the Tibetan exile community during the 1970s.[39] After Zemey Rinpoche published the Yellow Book, which included stories passed by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, members of the Gelugpa sect who also practiced Gelug and Nyingma teachings and were killed by Shugden. According to Mills: "in defence of the deity's efficacy as a protector, [this book] named 23 government officials and high lamas that had been assassinated using the deity's powers."[40] According to Mumford: Dorje Shugden is "extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive."[41] After the publication of the Yellow Book, the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion in several closed teachings that the practice should be stopped, although he made no general public statement.
The Yellow Book however is not believed by the majority of Dorje Shugden practitioners but considered by them to be a collection of superstitious tales for the uneducated. Geshe Kelsang says:
Also, about the source of this present problem, it is not Zemey Tulku’s Yellow Book because in reality no-one believes the stories in this book, with the possible exception of some of his disciples. In itself this book has no power to destroy harmony, but the Dalai Lama believed the stories in this book to be true and he then spoke out against this practice in public. It was this reaction from the Dalai Lama that was the real cause of the problem, upsetting many Nyingma practitioners and causing disharmony. Because the Dalai Lama believed these superstitions, people also believed them, and this is how the present problem arose.
As you know Chattral Sangay Dorje and Geshe Yonten Gyatso engaged in a written debate on Dorje Shugden, both of their books have been published. These books have never been the cause of disharmony between Nyingmapa and Gelugpa practitioners. Chattral Sangay Dorje’s book is very beneficial for Nyingmapa practitioners, giving them encouragement and confidence for their practice, while Geshe Yonten Gyatso’s book is likewise beneficial for the Gelugpa practitioner. So here there is no problem, they are scholars debating with each other to clarify certain issues with a good motivation. If the Dalai Lama had just ignored Zemey Tulku’s book, there would be no basis for any problem.
— Geshe Kelsang Gyatso[42]
According to Mills:
In 1978, His Holiness spoke out publicly against the use of the deity as an institutional protector, although maintaining that individual should decide for themselves in terms of private practice. It was not until Spring 1996 that the Dalai Lama decided to move more forcefully on the issue. Responding to growing pressure - particularly from other schools of Tibetan Buddhism such as the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project - he announced during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was 'an evil spirit' whose actions were detrimental to the 'cause of Tibet', and that henceforth he would not by giving tantric initiation to worshippers of the deity (who should therefore stay away), since the unbridgeable divergence of their respective positions would inevitably undermine the sacred guru—Student relationship, and thus compromise his role as a teacher (and by extension his health).
— Martin Mills[43]
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso points out that the view holding Dorje Shugden to be a worldly spirit is entirely erroneous and slanders the great Gelug masters of the 19th and 20th centuries such as Trijang Rinpoche, the Junior Tutor of the Dalai Lama who taught this practice to the Dalai Lama. This is because all Buddhists know that no Buddhist goes for refuge to a worldly spirit or gods or they break their refuge vows.
If we recognize that worldly gods are not suitable objects of refuge and then make the promise, ‘I will not go for ultimate refuge to objects other than the Three Jewels’, this is going for refuge by abandoning going for refuge to other objects. If we go for refuge to teachers whose instructions contradict those of Buddha we shall be led onto wrong paths; and if we go for refuge to worldly gods, although we may receive some short-term benefits we shall be diverted from perfect paths leading to liberation and enlightenment. However, when we abandon going for refuge to other objects we should not do so out of sectarianism. Our motivation should be simply to keep our refuge vows purely and avoid the harm we would inflict upon ourself by breaking our commitments. If we have perfect faith in Buddha there is no reason why we should ever need to go for refuge to other objects.
— Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Joyful Path of Good Fortune[44]
The worship of Dorje Shugden became under Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche a widespread practice in the Gelug school, and many Gelug lamas practised it and spread the worship of Dorje Shugden. According to the XIVth Dalai Lama, the practice became so widespread that only very few, like Gen Pema Gyaltsen (the ex-abbot of Drepung Loseling monastery) opposed it: "For some time he was the only one - a lone voice against the worship. Even I was involved in the propitiation at the time. Ling Rinpoche did go through the motions, but in reality, his involvement was reluctant. As far as Trijang Rinpoche was concerned, it was a special, personal practice and Zong Rinpoche was similarly involved."[45] That the Dalai Lama gave up one of the practices he received from one of his teachers has provoked the criticism of many Gelug practitioners. They argued that he has failed to observe the vows given by one of his teachers and has "broken with his Guru" and that he has used his political power to force others to do likewise.
The Fourteenth Dalai Lama holds the view "This is not an authentic tradition, but a mistaken one. It is leading people astray. As Buddhists, who take ultimate refuge in the three jewels, we are not permitted to take refuge in worldly deities."[46] The Dalai Lama came to his conclusion to give up his practice of Dorje Shugden by relying upon the Nechung oracle, the Tibetan government's state oracle. No one disputes the nature of Nechung, everyone views him as a worldly spirit or deity. The Dalai Lama has therefore banned the practice of what he considers to be a worldly deity on the advice of someone whom everyone considers to be a worldly deity.
Therefore he advised against the practice although he has in the past received Shugden empowerments from one of his teachers, Trijang Rinpoche and practised it. That he gave up one of the practices he received from one of his teachers has provoked the criticism of NKT members and some Shugden adherents (who strongly emphasize Guru obedience). They argued that he has failed to observe the vows given by one of his teachers and has "broken with his Guru" and that he has forced others to do likewise.
The Dalai Lama opposes that view and cites many examples of Buddhist history which show that there are many lineage masters who disagreed with or corrected their own teacher's false assertions or views, after giving evidences he concludes "Even if something is or was performed by great spiritual teachers of the past, if it goes against the general spirit of the teachings, it should be discarded."[47] Further he stresses the importance that people should not follow his advise blindly but instead they should thoroughly investigate; "Others of you may be thinking, "well I am not sure of the reasons, but as it is something that the Dalai Lama has instructed, I must abide by it". I want to stress again that I do not support this attitude at all. This is a ridiculous approach. This is a position that one should come to by weighing the evidence and then using one's discernment about what it would be best to adopt and what best to avoid."[48] At the same time, his words carry great weight amongst Tibetans, many of whom have expressed that they have in fact had no choice but to give up the practice or go underground: "Therefore, unless I remind you once again there are those who pretend they have not heard it. It will be the last resort if [we] have to knock on your doors. It would be good if you can heed this without us having to resort to this last step." [49] For a Tibetan, this is very strong language. The phrase "it would be good, if..." is culturally understood to be an order with a strong warning of very serious consequences if not followed.
Dreyfus argues that although the political dimension forms an important part of that dispute it does not provide an adequate explanation for it. He traces back the conflict more on the exclusive/inclusive approach and maintains that to understand the Dalai Lamas point of view one has to consider the complex ritual basis for the institution of the Dalai Lamas, which was developed by the Great Fifth and rests upon "an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nyingma tradition combine with an overall Gelug orientation"[50] This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school. The 5th Dalai Lama was criticized by and has been treated in a hostile manner by conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment for doing this and for supporting Nyingma practitioners. The same happened when the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava, central to the Nyingmas, and when he introduced Nyingma rituals at his personal Namgyal Monastery (Dharmasala, India). Whilst the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava for the purpose of unifying the Tibetans and "to protect Tibetans from danger",[51] the "more exclusively orientated segments of the Gelug boycotted the ceremonies", and in that context the sectarian Yellow Book was published.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso completely disagrees with those who say Dorje Shugden's nature is sectarian.
Considering the NKT’s position regarding the Tibetan traditions in general, Geshe Kelsang has stated on innumerable occasions that he deeply appreciates all four Tibetan Buddhist traditions, praises Buddhist masters from all four schools in his books, and teaches that all four schools provide a complete and valid path to enlightenment. The nearly 4,000 pages of his collected writings contain not a single criticism of any other spiritual tradition, Buddhist or non-Buddhist.[citation needed]
Kelsang Gyatso has made it clear that he does not agree with any of the sentiments in the Yellow Book and that Zemey Rinpoche was not speaking for Trijang Rinpoche or Pabongkha Rinpoche when he wrote it.[52]
Some analysts argue that it is the Tibetan Government in Exile which seeks to create a homegenity of belief. Wilson argues[53] that the TGIE is a theocracy which he identifies by the following features, "religious freedom is restricted because state power is marshaled in favour of a particular set of religious beliefs (and, by extension, against others), the intention being to eradicate alternative beliefs and pursue national homogeneity of belief.".[53]
According to Wilson the pursuit of religious homogeneity have been illustrated during "The last thirty years" which have "witnessed the growing ascendancy, both in exile and within Tibet, of the Dalai Lama as either the direct root–guru of all those firmly interested in Tibetan independence (often through the numerous mass Kalachakra empowerments he has given since 1959) or, more commonly, the indirect apex of an increasingly unified pyramid of lamaic (guru-disciple) relationships, many of which transcend the sectarian divides which became entrenched within Tibetan Buddhism during the centuries following the 5th Dalai Lama’s establishment of centralized Gelugkpa rule in Central Tibet." In this context, by criticising the practice of Shugden, the TGIE is asserting "the functional role of religion within the constitution for a sacral political life centered on the Dalai Lama and held together primarily by acts of ritualized loyalty."[53] or as Helmut Gassner (Swiss), a former interpreter of the Dalai Lama and a Shugden follower, argues "...for most Tibetans nothing is more important than the Dalai Lama's life; so if one is labelled an enemy of the Dalai Lama, one is branded as a traitor and therewith 'free-for-all' or an outlaw."[54]
Wilson argues that "the Dalai Lama’s request that Shugden worshippers not receive the tantric initiations — the foundation of the ‘root-guru’ relationship — from him, effectively placed them outside the fold of the exiled Tibetan polity."[53] He establishes this view by arguing that the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is a theocracy and that the Dalai Lama's statements in Spring 1996 "during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was an "evil spirit" whose actions were detrimental to the "cause of Tibet"" reflect the Dalai Lama's decision to "move more forcefully" in response "to growing pressure – particularly from the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project".[55]
Jane Ardley writes,[56] concerning the political dimension of the Shugden controversy. "…the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity.
The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this."[56]
Ardley references the following directive published by the Tibetan Government in Exile to illustrate the "interwoven" nature of the politics and religion:
In sum, the departments, their branches and subsidiaries, monasteries and their branches that are functioning under the administrative control of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile should be strictly instructed, in accordance with the rules and regulations, not to indulge in the propitiation of Shugden. We would like to clarify that if individual citizens propitiate Shugden, it will harm the common interest of Tibet, the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and strengthen the spirits that are against the religion.[57]
In his concluding remarks, Wilson observes that "…the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of differing understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of state life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated line between theocratic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as category." In particular he sees the main failing of the Shugden Supporters Campaign as arising from their erroneous assertion of "the separation of religion and state as the basis for the understanding of religious freedom and denied any legitimate functioning role to Buddhism within the constitution of that state."[53]
Whereas Kay states "The Dalai Lama opposes the Yellow Book and Dorje Shugden propitiation because they defy his attempts to restore the ritual foundations of the Tibetan state and because they disrupt the basis of his leadership, designating him as an "enemy of Buddhism" and potential target of the deities retribution."
According to Mills:
Tibetan Buddhist political and institutional life centres round the activities of its four principal schools - the Nyingmapa, the Kagyud, the Sakya and the Gelukpa - the last of which was politically dominant in Tibet from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries; the four schools had the Dalai Lamas as their political figure-heads.[58]
Mills puts the struggles the Dalai Lama, as well as those involved, have into perspective, describing e.g. "Shugden was a protector deity - a choskyong - whose historical role served to bolster the symbolic distinction between the ruling Gelukpa order and the influence of other school of Buddhist institutional thought in Tibet. As a choskyong, however, the deity's role was more than a question of personal belief: it existed as an element within the functioning structure of state law and practice. As such, the continuity of the deity's institutional worship within the diaspora supported a State that was institutionally sectarian at a symbolic level. This consequence of continued Shugden practice was so strongly felt, for example, that during the early I990s the Nyingmapa school threatened to remove their presence from the Tibetan Assembly of People’s Deputies - they sought to secede from a State structure whose very form and functioning was antagonistic to their presence."[59] As a part of his conclusion from investigating the issue of human rights in that dispute Mills states: "Whilst there was clearly also a strong issue of the actual ‘facts of the case’ the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of different understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of State life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated link between theoretic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as a category. By this, I do not mean to imply that the CTA slipped through a loophole in human rights law. Rather that it by denaturing relationships of religious faith to the extent to which they are merely 'individually held beliefs' and 'private practices'. Western social and legal discourse may have blinded itself to the role that such relationships play in the constitution of states as communal legal entities."[60]
Another point of the political dimension is the involvement of the Chinese, interested to use this conflict to undermine the unity of the Tibetans and their faith towards the Dalai Lama. So for example when the official Xinhua news agency said 17 Tibetans destroyed a pair of statues at Lhasa's Ganden Monastery on 14 March 2006 depicting the deity Dorje Shugden, the mayor of Lhasa blamed the destruction on followers of the Dalai Lama. On the other side, according to BBC, analysts accused China of exploiting any dispute for political ends. According to BBC "...some analysts have accused China of exploiting the apparent unrest for political gain in an effort to discredit the Dalai Lama. Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority. 'There is a fault line in Tibetan Buddhism and its traditions itself, but it is also exploited for political purposes'..."[61]
Historically the Gelug tradition, founded by Je Tsongkhapa, has never been a completely unified order. Internal conflicts and divisions are a part of it and are based on philosophical, political, regional, economic, and institutional interests. In the 17th century the Gelug order became politically dominant in central Tibet. This was through the institutions of the Dalai Lamas. Although he is not the head of the Gelug school — the head is the Ganden Tripa, the abbot of Ganden Monastery — the Dalai Lama is the highest incarnate Lama of the Gelug school, comparable to the position of the Karmapa in the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism.
Because of his responsibility as the theocratic and sole leader of the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama's duty is to balance the different interests and be sensitive towards the different traditions and relationships. "It is necessary also to reflect on what the development of such a sectarian cult has meant and continues to mean for the Dalai Lama and for all the Tibetans in exile (and also for the Tibetans in occupied Tibet, for whom the repercussions of this matter are many and of more than secondary import)."[62] Opponents of the ban argue that there was never conflict betweeen the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism and that the conflict has been initiated by the ban of Dorje Shugden and undermining of the Gelug school. There were power struggles from the 14th century onwards "competing for political influence and economical support"[63] and a tendency of a strong sectarian interpretation of the Buddha's doctrine. This sectarian attitude was encountered in the open approach of the Dalai Lamas, especially the 5th, 13th and 14th, and through the development of the Rimé movement at the end of the 19th century, which Gelug lamas also followed.
Trijang Rinpoche, as the Junior Tutor of HH the Dalai Lama introduced the Dorje Shugden practice to the Dalai Lama in 1959. Some years later the 14th Dalai Lama decided on his own that this practice is in conflict with the state protector Pehar and with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and the Tibetan people, Palden Lhamo (dPal ldan lha mo), and that this practice was also in conflict with his own open and ecumenical (Rimé, literally "non-lineage") approach and religious and political responsibilities. After the publication of Zemey Rinpoche's text The Yellow Book on Shugden, he began to speak publicly against Dorje Shugden practice and distanced himself from it.
These ideological, political and religious views on an exclusive/inclusive approach or belief were brought to the west and were at large expressed in the west by the conflicts (1979-1984)[64] between Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who developed at Manjushri Institute an ever increasing 'exclusive' approach,[65] and Lama Yeshe, who had a more 'inclusive' approach[66] and had invited Geshe Kelsang in 1976 to England at his FPMT centre and later lost this centre, Manjushri Institute, to Geshe Kelsang and his followers.[67]
However, these conflicts didn't appear to the public. But the issue about the nature of Dorje Shugden became visible to the broader public by the New Kadampa Tradition's (NKT) media-campaign (1996-1998) on Dorje Shugden against the 14th Dalai Lama, after the Dalai Lama has rejected and spoken out against this practice.[68] He has described Shugden as an evil and malevolent force, and argued that other Lamas before him had also placed restrictions on worship of this spirit.[68] Geshe Kelsang teaches that the deity Dorje Shugden is the Dharma protector for the New Kadampa Tradition and is a manifestation of the Buddha[68] and commented that this practice was taught him and the Dalai Lama by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, that's why, he concludes, they can not give it up, otherwise they would break their Guru's pledges.
In 1996 Geshe Kelsang and his disciples started to denounce the Dalai Lama in public of being a "ruthless dictator" and "oppressor of religious freedom",[69] they organized demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in the UK (later also in the USA, Swiss and Germany) with slogans like "Your smiles charm Your actions harm".[70] Geshe Kelsang and the NKT accused the Dalai Lama of impinging on their religious freedom and of intolerance,[71] and further they accused the Dalai Lama "of selling out Tibet by promoting its autonomy within China rather than outright independence, of expelling their followers from jobs in Tibetan establishments in India, and of denying them humanitarian aid pouring in from Western countries."[72] Newspapers like The Guardian (Britain), The Independent (Britain), The Washington Post (USA), The New York Times (USA), Die TAZ (Germany) as well as other newspapers in different countries picked up the hot topic and published articles, reported about the conflict and especially the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) and NKT. Besides these and CNN also the BBC and Swiss TV reported in detail about these conflicts. The Guardian: "A group calling itself the Shugden Supporters Community - the majority of whose members are also NKT - has mounted a high-profile international campaign, claiming the Dalai Lama's warnings against Dorje Shugden amount to a ban which denies religious freedom to the Tibetan refugee settlements of India. And NKT members have been handed draft letters to send to the Home Secretary asking for the Dalai Lama's visa for the UK to be cancelled, arguing that he violates the very human rights - of religious tolerance and non-violence - which he has spent his life promoting."[73] According to the Independent: "The view from inside the Shugden Supporters Community was almost a photographic negative of everything the outside world believes about Tibet and the Dalai Lama."[74] Regarding the facts SSC (NKT) spread, the Independent said: "It was a powerful indictment, flawed only by the fact that almost everything I was told in the Lister house was untrue."[74] In support of the NKT, the SSC published a directory of supporters ("Dorje Shugden Supporter List"), which included monasteries in India and other non-NKT Western-based centers, associated with known Tibetan Buddhist teachers. This list was part of the second press pack, released on 10 July 1996.[75] The listing of western-based groups and their Buddhist teachers may have been misleading as well.[75] Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance did not express his support for the campaign and was shocked to hear that he had been listed as a supporter.[75] Also Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche was put on the list without he had been asked for and even after he had complained to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso individually, his name and his organisation's name weren't remove from the list.[76] According to a German Buddhist Magazine there were a number of names of Tibetan teachers and their organisation on the list who never gave their support or even were asked for it.[76]
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his followers are convinced that the actions of the Dalai Lama in that dispute are solely politically motivated. In November 2002 he wrote in an open letter to The Washington Times: "in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT."[77] However, according to the The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, in September 2002 NKT members held a news conference in Kathmandu at which they said: "The Dalai Lama and his soldiers in Dharamsala are creating terror in Tibetan society by harassing and persecuting people like us. We cannot take it lying down for long."[72]. However, this quote is misattributed as there are no NKT Centres and no activity by the New Kadampa Tradition in Nepal.
A main feature of the exclusive approach among Shugden devotees is a total reliance on one Guru and his tradition, which was fortified by Pabogkha Rinpoche by the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) practice on Shugden. Although "Pa-bong-ka had an enormous influence on the Ge-luk tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru."[78] The imperative of total reliance on one Guru was enhanced once more by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west - although the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) ceremony is not given by him. According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must "be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once"[79] and "Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely relying upon one Teacher, practicing only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector."[80]
In 2006 Geshe Kelsang claimed in public, during the annually NKT summer festival, that:
Dorje Shugdän is a Dharma Protector who is a manifestation of Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa appears as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugdän to prevent his doctrine from degenerating. Je Tsongkhapa himself takes responsibility for preventing his doctrine from degenerating or from disappearing...To do this, since he passed away he continually appears in many different aspects, such as in the aspect of a Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage. Previously, for example, he appeared as the Mahasiddha Dharmavajra and Gyälwa Ensapa; and more recently as Je Phabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He appeared in the aspect of these Teachers.[81]
There are other Tibetan Gelug-Lamas in the west who follow the Dorje Shugden practice like Gonsar Rinpoche (Swiss), Dagom Rinpoche (Nepal/USA), Panglung Rinpoche (Germany), Gyalzar Rinpoche (Swiss), Kundeling Rinpoche (India/Netherlands), and Lama Gangchen Rinpoche (Italy), all of them with their own approach and attitude but more moderate than Geshe Kelsang and NKT. Except Kundeling Rinpoche who is not official recognized by the Dalai Lama as a Tulku, some of the other Lamas do still respect the 14th Dalai Lama but cannot accept his reasoning. A main argument of Dagom Rinpoche and Gonsar Rinpoche is they do not really understand the Dalai Lama advising against the practice. Gonsar Rinpoche said,
I have spent many years in exile and have a great reverence for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, but now he is abusing our freedom by banning Shugden. It makes me very sad... We are not doing anything wrong; we are just keeping on with this practice, which we have received through great masters. I respect His Holiness very much, hoping he may change his opinion... I cannot accept this ban on Shugden. If I accept this, then I accept that all of my masters, wise great masters, are wrong. If I accept that they are demon worshippers, then the teachings are wrong, everything we believe in is wrong. That is not possible.[82]
Geshe Cheme Tsering received an Acarya degree from Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies, Sanskrit University, Sarnath, where he studied in the Nyingma Division and got the highest qualification of a Lharampa Geshe. He said in Delhi, October 22, 1997:
The Tibetan exile government is now perceived as experimenting with a democratic form of government. The long term aim is to transform Tibet itself into a democratic country. But when it gets challenged to test the democratic principles, it does not stand up to the challenge at all. This was demonstrated by how they handled the ban.
Usually in democratic countries issues are introduced through the parliamentary process and then taken up by the upper house and then the President. In this case and in many other cases it was brought up unilaterally by the Dalai Lama himself.
In 1995 the oracles (mediums) advised him that continued worship of Dorje Shugden is not constructive for the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan government's work towards freedom. On March 10th and 21st, 1996, he publicized these oracular prophecies in a public teaching. Neither the Assembly, the Cabinet nor the heads of the four Tibetan Buddhist traditions, not even the head of the Gelugpas were consulted.
After the announcement was made, it was endorsed by the Cabinet and the Assembly and became policy. That is how the Tibetan government works. Before we did not know these things, because we were not inside the problem. Now we are. So this is not theoretical to us. [83]
— Geshe Cheme Tsering
Geshe Kelsang also argued against the reasons for the ban:
If the practice of Dorje Shugden is bad, then definitely we have to say that Trijang Rinpoche is bad, and that all Gelugpa lamas in the Dalai Lama’s own lineage would be bad. [84]
Contrary to this point of view the Dalai Lama stated: ((I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dholgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dholgyal... My approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.[85]))
However, from the point of view of many of the Shugden followers it is a painful dilemma. But it has to be stated that although Pabongkha Rinpoche "married the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies",[86] lamas like Lama Gangchen Rinpoche and Lama Yeshe (who in the past also practiced Dorje Shugden) nevertheless follow an inclusive approach. It has to be further stated that an exclusive approach does not necessarily include the idea of having a sectarian view.[87]
Kay states: "Examples of such lamas, who have taught in the West, include Geshe Rabten, Gonsar Rinpoche, Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, Lama Thubten Yeshe, Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Geshe Thubten Loden, Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, Lama Gangchen and Geshe Lhundup Sopa. It should be remembered that their association with this particular lineage-tradition does not necessarily mean that they are exclusive in orientation or devotees of Dorje Shugden. Some lamas, like Geshe Kelsang and the late Geshe Rabten, have combined these elements, whereas others, like Lamas Yeshe and Zopa Rinpoche and Lama Gangchen, came into exile with a commitment to the protector practice but not to its associated exclusivism."[88] Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance, a Gelug Tulku and close disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, had been called even, metaphorically, the "motherland of syncretism".[89]
The XIVth Dalai Lama is asking people who want to take initiation from him to let go of this practice and this deity[90], and gives three main reasons for advising against the propitiation of Dholgyal (Shugden):
| “ |
|
” |
He is stating further:
The ones who want to keep their practice of Shugden should not attend any further events or ceremonies in which a teacher-disciple relationship is established with me. This is something each person has to decide for him/herself. Each person has to take care of this themselves. From my side, I don't want this relationship to be established if it is the case that the person is keeping up the Shugden practice. I myself would engage in contradiction to the commitments I have had towards the previous Dalai Lamas, especially toward the 5th Dalai Lama, and therefore I request that if any of you are practicing Shugden for you not to attend the initiations. I have explained the reasons why I am against the veneration of Shugden and given my sources in a very detailed manner.[90]
— 14th Dalai Lama
Dr Ursula Bernis has summarized the main accusations of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in her book ""Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis" excerpted in the article "Exiled from Exile"[92] and refuted them as follows:
Pro-Dorje Shugden Gelug teachers have asked the Dalai Lama to present valid reasons supporting these claims and, in the absence of any response, have continued to engage in the practice.
With reference to the sixth claim above, that the Fifth Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, Trijang Rinpoche in his text 'Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors' where he says that the Eleventh Dalai Lama actually enthroned Dorje Shugden as the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings. The text is a commentary to a praise to Dorje Shugden by Dagpo Kelsang Khedrub. In commentary to this following verse:
Enthroned as guardian of the Yellow Hat Teachings,
By the Chinese emperor, the Dalai Lama, and his regent,He says:
As for this, during the first period of the time of the eleventh Dalai Lama Kedrup Gyatso and the regent Ratreng Hotogtu Ngawang Yeshe Tsultrim Gyaltsen, the Great Dharma King Nechung and the Lhasa Trokang Gyalchen Shugden were both swift to perform activities and both were very renowned to give accurate prophesies.....inside a pitched tent, in an elaborate auspicious ceremony, over the door of the protector palace was offered the pandit's award. The Trokang oracle, the temple monks, and general chief monks, with the regent Ratreng Rinpoche, the Chinese Amban, the Kashag, and Shabpa as chief attendees, Tibetan and Chinese people of all ranks were offered a feast and had a huge festival. With the Chinese emperor Dhakong and the Lord of Buddhas, the Dalai Lama, patron and lama together, they all praised and enthroned Gyalchen Dorje Shugden as principal protector of the Yellow Hat Teachings as praised in this part of the verse. [93]
If the Dalai Lamas are all the same mental continuum, what accounts for their wildly differing views on Dorje Shugden?
Shugden supporters accuse the Dalai Lama of "banning" them, with the following specifics:[94]
Shugden-followers claim there is documentary evidence to support this[96]. The Tibetan Government in Exile reject the claims (2)-(4).[97]
[[Category:Politics of Tibet]] [[Category:Conflict]]