The opinion piece below was sent to dorjeshugden.com for publication. We accept submissions from the public, please send in your articles to ds@dorjeshugden.com.

By Tobi Lee

For better or for worse, the fastest way of spreading news today is via social media and like any other inanimate object, the results of social media use are dependent on the motivation of its users. Whether it is to shock and horrify, or to educate and raise awareness, social media has become many people’s preferred method of getting their news and spreading it. The downside however, is that oftentimes unsubstantiated rumors take a life of their own on social media, thanks to people’s propensity to spread news before checking facts.

One such unsubstantiated Facebook posting that has recently left users stunned was apparently made by a monk in Bhutan. The monk, Sonam Dorje of a Nyingma monastery in Pardo, Bhutan, claimed that his monastery’s sponsor, Benchen Khenpo, had brought some foreign pilgrims to visit. The group included Dechen Tulku, a Tibetan lama who is a well-known and outspoken Dorje Shugden practitioner.

The posting, which was accompanied by a letter, was full of contradictions. On the one hand, Sonam Dorje claimed that he did not know who Dechen Tulku was at the time of his visit. At the same time, he also stated in his posting that Dechen Tulku has a history of visiting other Bhutanese states and monasteries. Regardless, after learning about Dechen Tulku’s background, Sonam Dorje went on to post that,

Actually, Dorje Shugden’s practice was banned many years ago by our spiritual leaders. According to this, I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them. I believe that they are evil beings.

Dechen Tulku during his recent visit to Bhutan

Taking the visit as a negative sign, his monastery then requested their lamas for divination. The results said that Dechen Tulku’s visit had brought negative obstacles to the monastery and in order to purify and prevent these obstacles from manifesting, the monastery would have to and is now performing Damtsig Lu Lo Dang, Gekte, and Drolo gyi Tordak pujas.

Sonam Dorje ended his posting by calling upon all Bhutanese people to be careful of people who are Shugden practitioners.

What observers have found puzzling about this post is that even at first glance, there are strong reasons to believe that the letter and Facebook post are fake. This is because:

1. The letter is not written on a monastery’s official letterhead, especially when it is supposed to be an official notice. This is against convention and in some cases, regulations.
2. There is no mention of which monastery the letter is from and the pictures posted do not show any buildings. This is left as a mystery, making the accusations flimsy.
3. The letter is written following the rules of Tibetan grammar. If it was written by a Bhutanese, the style of grammar would be Bhutanese and not Tibetan. Hence there is a very strong likelihood that the author of the letter is Tibetan.
4. The notice is a picture, not a scan of the original document which would have provided for greater authenticity.
5. There is no signature, only a name. If the issue was so important, how come the monastery refused to endorse it with their letterhead, or even the abbot’s signature and seal? This again does not lend any authenticity to the post’s claims.

Hence the letter could have been written by anyone but the question is, what was this person’s motivation to do so?

A Contentious Past

Gyalo Dhondup, the Dalai Lama’s brother, was involved in a plot to assassinate the Bhutanese king.

The Tibetans have a history of creating problems in peace-loving Bhutan. In 1974, Tibetan refugees were expelled from the country after the Bhutanese government uncovered a plot to assassinate the nation’s beloved king, just months before his coronation. 28 Tibetans were involved in this plot, including Gyalo Dhondup, the Dalai Lama’s brother who wanted to overthrow the Bhutanese government and install his brother as the ruler. Having just lost their own country, Tibet, Gyalo Dhondup must have been hankering after a return to any form of power.

As a result of his actions, Tibetans in Bhutan were given an ultimatum – become Bhutanese citizens, assimilate into the country and pledge loyalty to the government, or leave. Thousands of Tibetans chose to become Bhutanese citizens while others left to start new lives in India or in the West.

The assassination plot is not the first time that Tibetans have attempted to depose Bhutanese rulers in order to install a Tibetan one. These plots arise from Tibetan jealousy and covetousness for Bhutan’s stable governance and economy, a situation compounded by the world’s comparison of these two Buddhist governments; that is, people cannot help but wonder why Bhutan is able to remain democratic and independent, while Tibet was so swiftly taken over by China. What is lacking in the Tibetan leadership’s method of governance?

And so, this letter with its Tibetan syntax and grammatical rules has all of the hallmarks of a Tibetan leadership-led plot:

1. Someone wishes to unsettle relations between the Bhutanese people and Dorje Shugden practitioners, by creating misunderstandings between the two groups. The open-minded Bhutanese have generally abstained from criticizing Dorje Shugden practitioners because, exposed to the workings of the modern world, theirs is a society that respects individual rights and freedoms.
2. The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership based in Dharamsala, North India) wants to find another way to further vilify Dorje Shugden practitioners. Because their own reputation is in tatters and their name has lost credibility thanks to numerous ongoing scandals ranging from sexual harassment to embezzlement to money laundering, they are now making use of Bhutan’s good reputation to do so. That is, if Bhutan, who are good and democratic, hate Dorje Shugden practitioners, everyone should follow in their example and hate Shugden practitioners too.
3. By intentionally pointing out that a Nyingma monastery issued this letter, the Tibetan author is driving a wedge between the Gelugs and Nyingmas, encouraging hostility between the two schools of practitioners.
4. By dredging up the Dorje Shugden issue once again and reminding Nyingmas that they should exhibit animosity towards Gelugpas, perhaps it will distract the Tibetans and Bhutanese from the Tibetan leadership’s own failures and ongoing scandals

Of course, suspicious in all of this is the fact Sonam Dorje is a common name, and no monastery, abbot or monastic administration has come forward to take responsibility for the anonymous letter. After all, why would anyone wish to be identified with such a divisive letter, designed to encourage hatred? No real spiritual practitioner would ever pen such a letter which is clearly not in the spirit of Buddhism.

Nyingmas Do Not Hate

Kyabje Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche, a prominent master of the Nyingma tradition.

There are four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism: Gelug, Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya. All four are equally valid paths to Enlightenment, and the relationship between the four schools may be likened to four different cars offering various routes to the same destination.

Nevertheless, in recent history, the CTA has made it their business to repeatedly remind Nyingma practitioners that they should hate Gelugpas and this latest Facebook posting is no different, with its ironic statement that “…I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them.”

Incredibly, the letter’s narrow-minded author does not realize what a contradiction it is to call himself a pure Nyingma practitioner yet project such extreme hatred towards millions of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The fact is that the Gelug, Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools are all valid traditions of Buddhism, and real practitioners of any one of these schools will practice the Buddha’s teachings on compassion and wisdom. None of these schools espouse hate or schism, so why would a so-called “pure” Nyingma practitioner proudly declare how they “really hate” someone? No real Nyingma practitioner will hate anyone and similarly, no real Gelug practitioner will ever believe that a real Nyingma practitioner can hate anyone. How can the sun hate the moon, when both occupy the same sky?

Bhutan Guarantees Religious Freedom

Serious doubts have been cast over the authenticity of the letter but if it had indeed been written by someone in Bhutan, the fact it could even be published is a reflection of Bhutan’s democratic laws.

Bhutan’s Constitution, adopted in 2008, transformed the country from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy. Article 7 of the Constitution establishes numerous rights, including “many of the basic human rights enshrined in international conventions”. This includes the freedom of thought and religion; and the freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language, religion, politics, or other status.

Hence, the divisive letter takes full advantage of Bhutan’s laws which protect freedom of speech and religion. Yet, it simultaneously infringes on the same laws which give Benchen Khenpo the right to invite and host whomever he wants.

Based on the law, how can any religious leader ban any religious practice? How can the so-called Nyingma author of the letter criticize Benchen Khenpo for his friendship with a Dorje Shugden practitioner? Regardless of whether Dechen Tulku practices Dorje Shugden or not, that is his faith and his personal choice is protected under Bhutanese law. His choice should not prevent two friends from meeting; is the author implying that Dechen Tulku must give up his Dorje Shugden practice just to visit beautiful Bhutan and his friend Benchen Khenpo? If that is the case, then the letter might as well ridiculously call for all tourists to renounce their religious practices which do not align to the author’s sensibilities.

Guilty by Association

Dechen Tulku in Bhutan

According to the letter, the author’s monastery was so easily affected by a simple visit from Dechen Tulku that pujas had to be performed to destroy the obstacles created by his visit. If a mere visit from a single Dorje Shugden practitioner can bring about such calamity, as the letter’s author falsely claims, then the situation can be read in a number of ways:

1. The members of the author’s monastery are poor practitioners, and their refuge vows are so broken that they no longer enjoy the protection of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha).
2. Benchen Khenpo is a much more powerful practitioner as he is not affected or tainted by his association and friendship with Dechen Tulku.
3. Dorje Shugden practitioners are so powerful that a mere association or connection with them will taint everything that they touch. That is why Sonam Dorje took pains to mention that they destroyed the monetary contributions that Dechen Tulku made, because they came from a stalwart Dorje Shugden practitioner.

But if it is the case that any connection with a Dorje Shugden practitioner is a tainted one, why doesn’t the monastery – if it at all exists – return their patron Benchen Khenpo’s contributions as well? After all, according to the logic presented by Sonam Dorje, surely Benchen Khenpo and everything he owns would have also been tainted too, thanks to his being friends with Dechen Tulku?

It would have been easy to include the items offered by Benchen Khenpo in the three pujas that were performed to purify and prevent the obstacles that were supposedly brought about by the visit of Dechen Tulku. As a matter of fact, if these pujas are powerful enough to remove the supposed obstacles, why didn’t the monastery just direct them towards Dorje Shugden in order to subdue him? Why has no Nyingma lama conducted any of their powerful rituals, of which they have many, to successfully subdue Dorje Shugden so there is no longer a deity for anyone to make a connection with?

The Karmapa said Shugden should not be subdued

H.H. the 16th Karmapa

Aside from the fact Dorje Shugden is a Buddha with no karma to be harmed, it is possible that no Nyingma lama has ever attempted such a subjugation ritual because of the words of the previous 16^th Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, who counselled Nyingma practitioners to respect Dorje Shugden.

While on pilgrimage in Nepal, the 16^th Karmapa graced the opening of Urgyen Rinpoche’s new Nyingma monastery. After being greeted by the Nepalese King and Queen, he entered the monastery and saw a statue of the Nyingma Protector Dorje Drolo stepping on Dorje Shugden. The original iconography of Dorje Drolo does not include Dorje Shugden at all, but the statue in the monastery had been modified to depict Dorje Shugden being pressed down under the statue’s feet.

After gazing at the statue for a while, the 16^th Karmapa then pointed his finger towards the statue and asked,

Who made this? Where did this lineage come from? Who is the person who built this statue?

In a room full of abbots and monks, no one stepped forward. The 16^th Karmapa then became visibly angry and demanded that the statue be removed. He then gave the following prediction to the Nyingmas at the monastery:

You will have no choice in the future but to practice this Protector; there will come a time when you need him.

There were many lamas present at that time who witnessed this event and this incident has also been recorded in Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche’s sungbum (collected works and writings).

Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?

If readers pause to consider the content of the letter and its context, they will quickly realize that there are many reasons to doubt its authenticity and question its authorship. It does not make sense that after six decades, Bhutanese Nyingma practitioners are suddenly wading into the Dorje Shugden controversy by issuing such a provocative letter. What would the Nyingma monastery – if it at all exists – gain from publishing such a letter?

To ascertain the real author of the letter, one should look to who stands to gain the most from its publication. The democratic Bhutanese leadership have no reason to publish the letter; their country is stable, their economy is growing, and they enjoy an immense amount of global publicity for their unique culture and traditions, as well as their environmental preservation efforts. Publishing such a letter only harms their image.

Similarly, the Nyingmas have no reason to publish such a letter especially when it paints them as intolerant, narrow-minded and superstitious. Likewise, the Gelugs will not benefit from a letter that encourages Nyingma hostility towards them.

The only people who stand to gain from the letter is the Tibetan leadership, who will benefit from a Bhutanese nation distracted and weakened by a perceived enemy to fight against. In fact, it seems extremely likely, given the Tibetan syntax of its composition, that the letter’s source lies within the Tibetan community. And for anyone to be so daring as to falsely pinpoint the letter to a Nyingma source, it can only be done with the approval of the very top i.e. the Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala.

Until today, even with so much turmoil within their ranks, the Central Tibetan Administration still cannot resist creating trouble for Bhutan. The CTA is like a jealous, petty child in a playground, caught in an argument he cannot win and resorting to “If I can’t have it, you can’t have it either” tactics. Sadly but clearly, the Tibetan leadership’s mentality is that if Tibetans cannot enjoy peaceful independence, they will be damned if Bhutan is allowed to.

At the end of the day, the real victims here are the people – the Tibetan people who have once again been painted in a bad light by the actions of their inept, troublemaking leadership, and the Bhutanese people who have nothing to do with Tibetan politics but are now being exploited to direct anger and hostility at unsuspecting Dorje Shugden practitioners who just want to be left alone to practice in peace.

CTA, it is time to grow up and stop meddling in other people’s affairs. Your playground days are over.

English translation: We Bhutanese who are very peaceful… have spoken about important news. Please look carefully.

English translation: Recently, the Dorje Shugden practitioner Dechen Tulku visited Bhutan. We realised that this was a negative sign and we performed pujas. This is the notice that we performed the pujas.

The supposed official notice from the monastery. Click to enlarge

Translation of the notice:

Recently my friend and the monastery’s sponsor, Benchen Khenpo, brought foreigners to Bhutan for a pilgrimage. When they arrived at Pardo, Benchen Khenpo asked if he could visit my monasteries and that he had a friend who was a Gelug Tulku that would like to come along. We are grateful to Benchen Khenpo and so whoever comes along with him is welcomed and served tea. We did not know anything about this Gelug Tulku [Dechen Tulku] and did not ask about who he was. According to Bhutanese culture, he offered tea and 500 [Bhutanese Ngultrum] cash to each monk. He [Dechen Tulku] has a history of visiting other Bhutanese states and monasteries.

A few days later, after he went back, we realised his photos were all over social media. Then we understood he was a Dorje Shugden practitioner. Actually, Dorje Shugden’s practice was banned many years ago by our spiritual leaders. According to this, I am the holder of the pure Nyingma lineage and when I see Shugden practitioners, I really hate them. I believe that they are evil beings.

When such a situation happens in our Nyingma monastery [Dechen Tulku making offerings] this is a very negative sign. We requested our lamas for divination. His visit brought negative obstacles to the monastery. In order to purify and prevent the obstacles, we are now performing the Damtsig Lu Lo Dang, Gekte, and Drolo gyi Tordak pujas. We are doing these kinds of pujas now. The monetary offerings that Dechen Tulku made were put together with the “lu” torma, which was taken outside and thrown away as part of the ritual.

I want to apologize for not looking into this person [Dechen Tulku] and it is my mistake for not asking before he visited the monastery. I request that from today onwards, all Bhutanese people should be careful about people who are Shugden practitioners.

From the monastery’s lama, Sonam Dorje.

 
Sources of information on Benchen Khenpo:

• http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-10/news/vw-3361_1_shangri-la
• http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/31/news/cl-49176

1. Shugden is a worldly spirit.
2. Shugden practice has the potential to promote sectarianism.
3. Shugden practice harms the health of the Dalai Lama and is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan people.
4. The Nechung State Oracle (bound by Padmasambhava) stated that it is harmful.
5. Tibetan people using divination have received bad omens to the effect that Shugden is harming them.
6. The Fifth Dalai Lama said: He will talk over and over again and not stop to say: Shugden is a negative force. And the Fourteenth Dalai Lama said that he sees himself in the footsteps of the Thirteenth and Fifth Dalai Lamas.[49]

None of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism today accepts Shugden as a Dharmapala, citing his origin and activities against other schools. Masters from the other Tibetan Buddhist schools (Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya) agree with the view of the 14th Dalai Lama that Shugden (Dhogyal) is a worldly spirit with demonic power. Shugden was not mentioned by the Buddha, Atisha, or Tsongkhapa, or any Indian Tantric yogi or Indian pandit who developed the basis for Tibetan Buddhism.

Shugden was not accepted as an official part of the Gelug school by the Ganden Tripa, the head of the Gelug school. Because the worship of Shugden has led to conflicts within the Tibetan Buddhist community (for instance, it is said that disciples of Lama Pabongkha destroyed Nyingma monasteries and statues of Padmasambhava and converted these monasteries into Gelug monasteries – and not only Nyingmapas had many difficulties with that spirit, also Kagyu practitioners made cleaning rituals after they visited Gelug monasteries), the 14th Dalai Lama used his status as the spiritual and political head of the Tibetan people to speak out about the practice.

Then he asked Shugden followers not to come to his teachings, because there is no basis for a faithful teacher-disciple relationship if they don’t believe him. He also advised Gelug monasteries to stop the practice and to prmote harmony within the Tibetan Buddhist community. In Tibetan Buddhism everyone is free not to follow the Dalai Lama’s advice, so he asked that people do the practice in private if they cannot give it up. There are now members of the Gelug school (for instance in Sera Monastery, India) who follow his advice, and some who do not.

One member of the Tibetan Government in Exile (Kashag) suggested that practitioners of Dolgyal should not be allowed to hold public office within the Tibetan Government in Exile, but this was not taken up.

The 14th Dalai Lama was given that practice by one of his teachers without respecting what the 13th Dalai Lama and 5th Dalai Lama had to say about it. Because the practice of Dolgyal is sectarian and propagates a special Gelugpa exclusiveness which does not fit to the views, behavior, and tasks of a Dalai Lama and his function as the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, he told his teachers about his conflict and they agreed that he stop the practice.

The Dalai Lama doesn’t deny anyone’s freedom to practice Shugden worship, but he insists on his right to ask those accepting Vajrayana teachings and empowerments from him to abstain from such practices. In addition, he sees discussion of the problem of “sectarianism” within the Tibetan community as his responsibility in his capacity as the spiritual and political leader of Tibet.

Arguments by followers of Shugden

Shugden supporters responded point-by-point as follows:

1. The statement that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit is unsubstantiated and contradicts the view of many spiritual masters of the Gelug tradition who hold him to be a manifestation of the Wisdom Buddha.
2. Furthermore, the essential Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the emptiness of persons requires that one should not attribute inherently existent qualities to any being. Thus, Shugden like any other being has the qualities that one’s own mind sees in him.
3. Prior to instigating this ban, there was no history of disharmony between practitioners of Dorje Shugden and other traditions – it is the ban itself that is a manifestation of sectarianism.
4. There is no evidence to support the claims that the Dalai Lama’s health and the interests of the Tibetan people have been affected.
5. Divination is not a reliable means of deciding such issues. Furthermore, evidence from oracles is not admissible either.
6. The Dalai Lama might claim that his teachers agreed to him stopping the practice, but in reality they had no choice but to accept, as to go against the Dalai Lama results in grave consequences. It is said that Trijang Rinpoche in particular was ‘very disappointed’ that the Dalai Lama abandoned his practice of Dorje Shugden.

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.

Shugden supporters accuse the Dalai Lama of “banning” them, with the following specifics:

1. Such practitioners are discouraged from attending teachings by the Dalai Lama.
2. Practitioners of Dorje Shugden are not allowed to hold public office within the Tibetan Government in Exile.
3. Many monasteries and individuals publicly engaging in the practice have been pressed to stop.
4. The official ban on this practice has sparked debate within the Tibetan community and widespread public pressure upon those maintaining the practice.

Shugden-followers claim there is documentary evidence to support this. The Tibetan Government in Exile reject the claims [50]

Referenced Links

*49. The 14th Dalai Lama’s Teachings in Swiss 2003 on Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara, published by Auditorium, see also “Jokers Edition”

*50. Documentary, Dorje Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy, by the TGIE

Source : http://tripatlas.com/Dorje_Shugden#Arguments

(Editor’s Note: This link appears to have been removed from the mentioned website)