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 Sil Klose

Imagine being forced to choose between abandoning your religious beliefs or facing segregation, being thrown out of your community, getting fired from your job, having your business boycotted, losing your friends and even finding family members turning against you. Imagine being named on government blacklists, so that you can be persecuted publicly and your personal details, including your address, are openly published on official websites so that you and your entire family live in fear for your lives. All of this is imposed upon you alongside other punishments including being denied basic amenities and vital services such as healthcare and education, as well as having to face constant harassment and also violent attacks. Then, imagine knowing these cruel treatments will also fall upon your loved ones, including your children, solely due to your choice of religion.

Despite such obvious discrimination against Dorje Shugden practitioners, the Tibetan leadership continues to lie about there being no Dorje Shugden ban. Click to enlarge.

These are familiar scenes often described in historical accounts of famous public persecutions such as the Spanish Inquisition, the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, the racial discrimination of coloured people in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement, and South Africa’s apartheid system. As much as we would like to believe that such scenarios are a thing of the past, unfortunately, it is a harsh reality faced by Dorje Shugden practitioners for the past two decades.

The practice of Dorje Shugden originated in the 17^th century, as a common practice in the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism until Gelug masters also began to propagate this protector practice. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself received the practice from his tutor Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, and propitiated the powerful deity until he turned his back on the practice in 1976, largely due to politically-motivated reasons. By that time, Dorje Shugden had become widespread, practiced by lamas of all ranks and in almost all Gelug monasteries and Tibetan communities. Despite the Dalai Lama’s stance, the practice was heavily relied upon for its effectiveness and continued to grow.

That was until 20^th March 1996, when the Dalai Lama announced at a teaching that everyone should abandon the Dorje Shugden practice. The Dalai Lama also instructed that those who would not comply should immediately exit the hall. Ten days later, an official decree was issued from the Private Office of the Dalai Lama for everyone to stop practicing Dorje Shugden, along with instructions to make the public aware of this through government offices, monasteries, associations, and other formal bodies.

Every democratic leadership respects and upholds the religious freedom of its citizens. Yet, the Tibetan leadership does not hesitate to use state instruments to blatantly victimize a segment of its people simply because they disagree with their choice of religion. Click to enlarge.

The decree was quickly followed by a resolution passed by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies — the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile as it was known then — banning the worship of Dorje Shugden by Tibetan government employees.

The shocking announcement was the start of a schism that would divide not only the Tibetan monastic community but also the lives of lay Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists all over the world.

Evidence attesting to the serious consequences of being associated with Dorje Shugden in Tibetan communities are aplenty. Dorje Shugden practitioners, be they lay followers or members of the Sangha, have had their lives destroyed for steadfastly holding on to their faith.

As a result of the Dorje Shugden ban, Dorje Shugden practitioners are clearly ostracized within the Tibetan communities. Click to enlarge.

Even the monastic communities were not spared. In the aftermath of the unwarranted Dorje Shugden ban, monasteries which were once lifelong homes for monks were split in two. Click to enlarge.

Thus, it is nothing short of amazing that there are still those who remain blind to the pain and suffering caused by the Dorje Shugden ban. In fact, the Tibetan leadership and supporters of the Dalai Lama outright deny the existence of the ban even when confronted with plentiful evidence. Instead, pro-Dalai Lama supporters habitually dismiss the evidence as propaganda fabricated by Shugden practitioners, whom they have branded to be against the Dalai Lama and the so-called Tibetan cause, and even accuse them of being agents or spies of China.

The far-reaching detrimental consequences of the Dorje Shugden ban pervade into the cyberworld where hate speech, vulgarities and threats are blatantly directed at Dorje Shugden practitioners. Click to enlarge.

The Dalai Lama Ten Years Ago

To better understand the seriousness of the Dorje Shugden ban and its effects, we need to travel back to 2008, a crucial year of events that informed and shaped the mindset of Tibetans both in China-controlled territories and in all 24 Tibetan settlements in India; of Tibetan Buddhists residing everywhere in the world, and the regional politics of Tibet, India and China.

This video of the Dalai Lama speaking at a teaching in January 2008 has been identified as being the catalyst for the escalation of the Dorje Shugden ban. The points that were raised by the Dalai Lama became the narrative held by pro-Dalai Lama groups and the fuel for their anti-Dorje Shugden hate speech as we know it today.

This speech at Drepung Loseling Monastery was attended by the presiding abbots of the most influential monasteries – Ganden Shartse, Ganden Jangtse, Sera Mey, Sera Jey, Drepung Loseling, Drepung Gomang, Ratö and Tashi Lhunpo Monasteries along with their sponsors and patrons. The Dalai Lama’s teachings also coincided with several formal government functions, making it probable that top officials of the Tibetan Government-in-exile such as the Justice Commissioner, Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, the then-Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister) Samdhong Rinpoche and other ecclesiastical heads were also in attendance.

It is also important to remember that at the time the Dalai Lama gave this speech in Drepung Loseling Monastery in 2008, he was still the secular leader of the Tibetan people and had yet to relinquish his political power.

Video: The Dalai Lama at Drepung Loseling Monastery, 2008

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

TRANSCRIPT:

While you are having tea, I have something to tell, thought of telling in detail later. But today, as there are many sponsors here, and some of them are leaving tonight or tomorrow, therefore, I thought it is better to explain whilst everyone is present.

Have to translate it, [the Dalai Lama points in the direction of the translators] translate it. Where is the Chinese translator? There you are!

First of all, the Dalai Lama’s insistence that the translators are present clearly reflects his intention for his speech to be made available to an international audience. Similarly, the Dalai Lama makes it clear he wants everyone to hear his message before they leave, so that sponsors with the financial capacity to support the activities of Shugden practitioners are dissuaded from lending their assistance.

A screenshot of the 2008 video with the Dalai Lama pointing to his translators

TRANSCRIPT:

Now, all of you have heard about a controversy called Gyalpo Shugden! Now that controversy, since the 1970s, it continued up to now. Now, since recently, that controversy turned into something even the Chinese government started to take interest!

Recently, during our representative’s 6th round of talks with China, they have included it as a point of accusation. The Dalai Lama’s restriction of Shugden is suppression of religious freedom! So now, even the Chinese government which does not believe in religion, now, due to the Dalai Lama’s actions, is forced to take responsibility in order to protect religious freedom.

Right from the opening of his speech, the Dalai Lama set the stage by playing up the Tibetans’ negative sentiments against China and associating Shugden practitioners with the Chinese. For the Tibetans and their supporters, the association is simple – China is bad for invading Tibet, and therefore because Shugden practitioners have alleged links with China, they must also be bad. Nevermind whether these accusations are true or not, or whether any proof has been provided (it has not) because it is simply enough that the Dalai Lama has said so.

The Dalai Lama also employs his oft-used tactic of giggling, to make his tough message more easily digestible. Although he is in the midst of accusing Shugden worshippers of having links with the Chinese – a very serious topic indeed – the Dalai Lama turns his message into a joke. By appearing endearing and in possession of the moral high ground, with a few well-placed giggles here and there, something sinister becomes acceptable to the audience.

In truth, there was harmony between Shugden practitioners and the wider Tibetan Buddhist community until the Dalai Lama began speaking against Dorje Shugden’s practice. Before the ban, there was no record in the 400-year history of Dorje Shugden practice that Shugden followers collectively caused any harm, or performed harmful or unwholesome actions.

TRANSCRIPT:

They said Dalai Lama’s restriction on Dolgyal is in violation of religious freedom. The Chinese government has officially accused me! Now, I doubt Chinese government know anything about Dolgyal…ha, ha…but, they saw it as a political tool and started using it to criticize me.

If they accuse me personally, it’s no big deal. But, in Tibet, Dolgyal propitiators are given special privilege and support, funding their construction projects, etc. and then tell monasteries to propitiate Dolgyal. It is religious freedom and Dalai Lama is suppressing religious freedom. They encourage them in Tibet…like that.

Although self-defeating at first glance, the underlying message of the Dalai Lama’s speech is this: it is ridiculous that the Chinese government should accuse him of anything, but he is very magnanimous because “it’s no big deal”.

For the Dalai Lama to take potshots at China for not having full knowledge in relations to Dorje Shugden is, quite frankly, illogical. Since when has it been necessary for a government to have full and complete knowledge of every single religion, in order to safeguard their citizens’ religious freedom? This is especially applicable for governments who claim to be democratic in nature.

Any peaceful government would want to ensure stability and prevent in-fighting among its populace, especially when those fights are based on religion which can elicit very strong emotional reactions. On that note, China’s preventive actions against any unrest potentially triggered by religious issues are exactly what anyone would expect from any self-respecting, responsible government.

The irony is that the Dalai Lama accuses the Chinese of employing Shugden worship as a political tool when in reality, Shugden worship could not be used as anything if there was no ban. If China does indeed extend special privileges to Shugden-worshipping monasteries, who made that happen? Everything leads back to the Dalai Lama – if he proclaims over and over again that he is against the practice of Dorje Shugden, is it so surprising if the Chinese leadership hears about it and decides to support Shugden-related institutions?

So, even if it is the case where the Chinese government is capitalizing on the Shugden conflict to sway public opinion in their favor with sponsorships and other financial benefits, then the solution is quite obvious – all the Dalai Lama has to do to undermine the Chinese is to simply lift the ban.

So why does the Dalai Lama not just defuse the issue, lift the ban and prevent the Chinese from exploiting the controversial Dorje Shugden ban?

TRANSCRIPT:

Then most UNFORTUNATELY!! I believe at the instigation of Dolgyal propitiators, there is a statue of Guru Rinpoche at Samye, which was built recently. They have DISMANTLED it. Like that, there seems to have been other cases of dismantling Guru Rinpoche’s statues. There is so much restriction.

Then in western Tibet, there is a huge statue of Guru Rinpoche, built by the people. The Chinese Army surrounded the area, prohibiting anyone from coming near it, maybe to prevent anyone from taking pictures of the incident. Then they destroyed the statue with EXPLOSIVES!!

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is a fundamental rule of law upheld by any democratic government. Yet, the Dalai Lama callously, without producing any solid proof, blames Dorje Shugden practitioners for allegedly instigating the destruction of holy images.

This type of name-calling and finger-pointing in the absence of proof is a highly irresponsible action coming from a respected political and spiritual leader. Imagine if President Trump alleged that Mexicans blew up a Hindu temple or that Hindus blew up a mosque – what would be the fallout and reaction from the American people at such a statement? Yet, when the Dalai Lama alleges that Dorje Shugden practitioners destroyed a number of Guru Rinpoche statues, everyone just listens because it is the Dalai Lama talking.

In fact, the Dalai Lama’s choice of Guru Rinpoche is deliberate – Guru Rinpoche is commonly worshipped by the Nyingma sect and by alleging that Shugden practitioners destroyed a Guru Rinpoche statue, the Dalai Lama is trying to paint Shugden devotees (who are generally Gelugs) as sectarian and attempting to turn Nyingmapas against them. In effect, this statement from the Dalai Lama is highly schismatic as it pits two schools of Tibetan Buddhism — Gelugpas and Nyingmapas — against each other.

The Dalai Lama also reinforces a misconception that Guru Rinpoche is somehow a Nyingma deity because the Nyingmas famously propitiate him. However, to label Guru Rinpoche as such is actually ignorant because Guru Rinpoche, through meditation and practice, became attained and enlightened. To say that any Buddha belongs to the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu or Gelug sects is illogical; abiding in a state of enlightenment, the Buddhas do not have labels. Is Tara, who is commonly worshipped by all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, a Gelug Buddha or a Sakya Buddha? Since Amitabha is popular amongst Chinese Buddhists, is Amitabha Chinese?

So just because one sect propitiates a particular Buddha more, does not mean that the Buddha ‘belongs’ to that sect. Hence the idea that Shugden worshippers would destroy the image of another Buddha (i.e. Guru Rinpoche) is preposterous, because it would be destroying the image of an enlightened being, even if it is one whom they do not commonly propitiate.

The Dalai Lama’s accusations become all the more outlandish when we consider that the Dalai Lama’s own Guru, Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, who was one of the greatest propagators of Dorje Shugden practice, was known to have given Guru Rinpoche teachings and empowerments to many, including to Nyingmapas.

The Guru Rinpoche statue at Mindrolling Monastery. Guru Rinpoche does not exclusively ‘belong’ to the Nyingma sect; in fact, his teachings are revered by high lamas from all traditions including Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, as reflected in his autobiography, The Illusory Play.

TRANSCRIPT:

In that sense, it is now turning into an URGENT matter! So, under such circumstances, if we still keep treating fish and turnips as one, it creates problems for many people.

Then also, Dolgyal group recently submitted an application to the Indian Government, stating that the Dalai Lama restricts their religious freedom, and they also face danger to their lives, and requested the Indian government to provide them protection. And the Indian Foreign Ministry has also given them a letter acknowledging receipt. So, now this thing has become a serious issue.

This is the turning point in the video, the moment when the Dalai Lama makes his intentions clear. “Fish and turnips” is a Tibetan proverb meaning the two items in question could not be more different from one another. In this instance, this proverb is used to reinforce the point that Dorje Shugden practitioners and non-practitioners have absolutely nothing in common. Hence to treat them in the same way – meaning to allow Dorje Shugden practitioners into mainstream society and give them access to public events like the Dalai Lama’s talks – will be inviting trouble.

Unlike Westerners, Tibetans generally speak in a less direct manner. Hence to those who are unfamiliar with Tibetan customs, the Dalai Lama’s advice can come across as a friendly recommendation. However, to the Tibetans, especially given the Dalai Lama’s God-like status in their society, his words are in reality unquestionable and beyond challenge. In Tibetan society, regardless of how the Dalai Lama presents it, when he says something, it is not a choice but an instruction that must be followed. In the case of the Shugden ban, and in the case of this video especially, saying something is like ‘fish and turnips’ is actually a call to segregate Shugden followers from everyone else because they are not and can never be the same. Can anyone really believe that this is democracy?

A telling Tendor cartoon highlighting the Tibetan mentality when it comes to making choices. Click to enlarge.

The Dalai Lama, who ironically calls himself a democratic leader, then berates Shugden practitioners for reporting his actions to the Indian government. This is despite the fact they were well within their rights to do so; Shugden followers were merely exercising their freedom of speech to protest against the illegal ban and trying to protect their religious freedom. But in highlighting to Tibetans that someone had the gall to speak up and report him to the Indian government, the Dalai Lama’s message is very clear – Shugden practitioners are traitors who work against him, therefore they are deserving targets of violence, segregation and vulgarities.

Does this sound like the actions and words of a democratic leader to you? And is it really surprising that Dorje Shugden practitioners would seek the assistance of the law after being segregated and discriminated against for over a decade (at the time this video was filmed)?

TRANSCRIPT:

Up to now, I have only given advice about the disadvantage of such a practice, based on my own experience and words of past great masters as it is my duty to point out faults of such practice. But, it is up to the individual whether they want to heed my advice or not. NEVER EVER have I told anyone that you cannot propitiate Dolgyal. Right from the beginning, I have always quoted a stanza from KHACHE-BHALU’s advice, that “I Khache-Bhalu have given you my sincere advice, now it is up to you whether to listen or not”. I have always told everyone this way by referring to Khache-Bhalu’s advice. So, it is up to you whether you want to listen or not. NEVER EVER have I told before nor at any time that you have to obey to what I say.

This is a highly contradictory statement from the Dalai Lama. In the same year, the Dalai Lama went on a tirade against Dorje Shugden followers in Drepung Loseling Monastery and gave clear instructions for the monks to expel all Dorje Shugden practitioners from the monasteries. He even went as far as to congratulate the monasteries for taking harsh steps to eliminate this so-called scourge from the Sangha community and said clearly that he approved of such measures. Various documentaries from international media groups such as SwissTV, France24 and Al-Jazeera have also covered the Dorje Shugden controversy in great depth and it has been made clear that an official ban exists at the behest of the Dalai Lama. Clearly it is a ban and not just advice.

If there was no ban, why were 600 Ganden Shartse monks forced to leave their monastery to form Shar Ganden Monastery? If there was no ban, why does every Tibetan store in Mundgod and Bylakuppe have signs in the window stating that Dorje Shugden practitioners are unwelcome? Why do hospitals have signs denying service and treatment to Shugden followers?

Monks protest to demand the departure of Dorje Shugden practitioners from their monasteries, South India, 2008.

Furthermore, as the political leader of the Tibetan exile community, why does the Dalai Lama ban Shugden followers from attending his secular talks? All citizens are entitled to attend talks by their country’s leaders regardless of their religious persuasions. Surely the members of the US Congress do not have to be of the same religion as the US President in order to attend his speeches? Surely not all the people who attend the Dalai Lama’s foreign talks are Buddhists? Therefore, why aren’t Dorje Shugden practitioners allowed to listen to his political speeches? Imagine the fallout if President Trump excluded all Muslims from attending his talks or if the Queen of England excluded all Hindus.

It is arguable that Dorje Shugden is a spiritual matter and hence, those who continue to uphold Dorje Shugden’s practice may not have samaya with the Dalai Lama and therefore should not attend his spiritual teachings. Other religions have such exclusions too. For instance, non-Muslims are not allowed to enter mosques and in Nepal, some temples are off-limits for non-Hindus. But the bottom line is, if the Dalai Lama is giving a talk about the future of the exile community, everyone should be allowed to attend even if they practice Dorje Shugden. And they should most definitely be allowed access to services in hospitals, schools, stores and so forth. Their choice of religion should not affect their rights as human beings.

A senior monk of Ganden Monastery testified to the threats and coercion that Shugden worshippers faced. However, the Dalai Lama has continued to deny that there was any discrimination.

TRANSCRIPT:

But now, the time has come where we no longer can continue with this ‘on and off’ like status quo! We have to make it clear, FOR THAT REASON! As it is mentioned in the Sutra, to settle the monastic dispute, there are I think seven points? Like distributing grass, painted sticks, etc., right? Now, the time has come for us to distribute colored sticks. Then also in modern democratic method, the English word, “Referendum”. “Referendum”, to ask the majority! Now the time has come to ask the majority!

Therefore, after this Loseling programme is over, all of you will return to your respective monasteries. There in your monasteries, to all the monks, there should be one question, “Whether you want to propitiate Dolgyal or not?” Those who want to propitiate Dolgyal should sign, “YES. I want to PROPITIATE”. And those who don’t want to propitiate Dolgyal should sign, “NO. I don’t want to PROPITIATE Dolgyal”, understood?

Then, next question. Those who want to share religious and mundane activities with Dolgyal propitiators should sign, “Yes! I want to share”. Then, those who don’t want to share religious as well as mundane activities with Dolgyal propitiators should sign, “NO!” Understand? Then, see what happens. Let’s do the voting. Nobody is forcing.

The Dalai Lama mentions a referendum but despite this democratic-sounding label, a shrewd analysis of the Dalai Lama’s speech indicates that his call for a referendum is a ruse, designed to legitimize his command to segregate Shugden worshippers from mainstream society. Knowing that his speech was being translated into English and Chinese, and would therefore be broadcast all over the world, the Dalai Lama used the concept of a referendum to appear modern and democratic, paying lip service to give a good impression to his international audience.

In reality, the referendum was anything but democratic. First of all, the referendum was not requested for by the majority of Tibetans. And not only was it held at the instructions of just one individual, but the voting also took place openly. This meant peer pressure would force Tibetans to vote against Dorje Shugden, knowing that if they did not, everyone would know they disobeyed the Dalai Lama’s instructions.

Yellow vote sticks denote renouncement of the Dorje Shugden practice and a refusal to share any spiritual and material relations with Dorje Shugden followers. Red vote sticks indicate the opposite. Those who chose the red sticks were expected to explain themselves further.

Similarly, the referendum was designed to force people who do not practice Shugden to openly disassociate with those who do. In what kind of democratic society are people forced to disassociate from others just because they do not share the same opinions or religious beliefs?

Hence the referendum was nothing more than an open call for monks to officially “disown” and marginalize their fellow Dharma brothers. Why make the monks “unfriend” their fellow Sangha with whom they have been walking the spiritual path for decades? This is like a father telling his sons not to be harmonious and to hate each other.

In this entire section of the video, the Dalai Lama also repeatedly addressed the abbots who were in attendance – from Drepung Loseling, Drepung Gomang, Sera Jey, Sera Mey, Ganden Shartse, Ganden Jangtse, Rato and Tashi Lhunpo Monasteries. This is very revealing of the Dalai Lama’s forceful insistence that his instructions were to be carried out by those present. Failure to do so would automatically mean the abbots were disobeying the Dalai Lama, who has clearly told them over and over again that the referendum, with the Dalai Lama’s preferred outcome, is mandatory.

Trode Khangsar marks the official establishment of Dorje Shugden’s practice in Tibet by His Holiness the 5th Dalai Lama, who commissioned Trode Khangsar as a “Protector House” for Dorje Shugden in the 17th Century.

TRANSCRIPT:

If the final result of voting shows more than 60% want to propitiate Dolgyal, then from that day onwards, I shall never utter even a single word about Dolgyal. Understand? Then you all have to take full responsibility!

But if it turns out that more than 60%-70% says they don’t want to propitiate Dolgyal and they don’t want nothing to do with Dolgyal propitiators, then we shall have to think accordingly.

While it may seem fair and even democratic to hear the Dalai Lama mention that he will never utter a single word about Dorje Shugden again should 60% vote to keep the practice, his next statement of caution is a clear indication of the Dalai Lama’s preferred outcome and his continued coercion of the monks to abandon their practice, by issuing what is essentially spiritual blackmail. In saying “you all have to take full responsibility”, what this really means in reality is “practice Dorje Shugden and you will all go to hell” as well as “this will be your fate if you do not obey my instructions”. Thus by him saying that, the Dalai Lama is playing on the baseless fears of the anti-Dorje Shugden camp who falsely claim that the enlightened protector is nothing but a spirit.

The Dalai Lama is very shrewd to employ this “threat” as he is fully aware that all members of the Sangha must know that the heavy karma for propitiating spirits will lead to a rebirth in the hell realms. He also knows that to the outside world, he is viewed as the spiritual leader of all Tibetan Buddhists (although, in theory, this is not true since each lineage has its own head). So to foreign audiences, the Dalai Lama’s words sound like spiritual advice born out of concern for his followers’ spiritual wellbeing. But Tibetans know better, and Tibetans hear the underlying message of spiritual blackmail that accompanies the Dalai Lama’s words.

In the history of mankind, no democratic country has ever forced its citizens to choose between their religion and friends. That is, until this unethical ban imposed by the Dalai Lama. Knowing this, in the second scenario where the majority gives up their Dorje Shugden practice and severs ties with those who want to maintain it, the Dalai Lama had this to say: “Then, we shall have to think accordingly.” He makes it sound open, as though he has never considered the ramifications of the referendum. Yet he had it in mind all along to call for the referendum, what questions need to be asked, and even a specific figure that he is looking for (60 to 70%). Hence the Dalai Lama’s reply, though innocent in appearance, has been read by many Tibetans as another threat i.e. “get 60 to 70% to agree with me, or else…”

How can all these highly attained lamas be oblivious to the demonic side of Dorje Shugden, if it were true that he is an evil spirit?

TRANSCRIPT:

But, then in reality also, those who propitiate Dolgyal have no reason to come to India. We who came to India came here in protest of the Chinese Government’s policy. But as the P.R.C. government patronizes Dolgyal propitiators, they are taking special care of them! Then, obviously it is better for them to go back to where they are specially welcome. What is the point of staying here? Understand?

It is precisely this type of talk from the Dalai Lama that makes life so difficult for Dorje Shugden practitioners living in the Tibetan exile communities in India. By saying this, the Dalai Lama is essentially telling the Tibetan government and the heads of the monasteries not to entertain Shugden-practicing refugees who have made the arduous journey from Tibet to India. Although it may not sound that way to foreign ears, the message to Tibetans is clear: Don’t help the refugees who practice Dorje Shugden. Don’t give them travel permits, job opportunities, health services, education, etc. Basically, make their life so difficult that they have no choice but to return to Tibet to face whatever is coming to them.

It is shocking that the Dalai Lama, as the leader of the Tibetans, does not welcome his own people escaping supposed Chinese oppression in Tibet. When the Tibetans escaped from their home country after the events of 1959, they were all fleeing from a common threat. Many did not succeed and died; and both Shugden practitioners and non-Shugden practitioners had their lives taken indiscriminately. As the leader of the Tibetan people at the time this video was filmed, is the Dalai Lama not responsible for their welfare if they choose to flee Tibet and escape to India? If things in Tibet are so bad because the Chinese leadership is so bad, why is the Dalai Lama rejecting his own people who wish to escape into exile? Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that Shugden practitioners are undeserving of a safe haven in India?

Shugden practitioners suffered just as much as any other Tibetan during the political upheaval of 1959. Just because they practice Dorje Shugden does not mean they are less Tibetan, or that they experienced less suffering in 1959. Almost every family in Tibet lost someone during those tumultuous years so theoretically, Shugden-worshipping Tibetans have every reason to want to escape into exile, just like any other Tibetan. Yet, the Dalai Lama continues to reinforce the mentality of “us versus them” – according to the Dalai Lama’s view, on one side are loyal Tibetans “who came to India in protest of Chinese government policy” and on the other side are so-called disloyal Tibetans who practice Dorje Shugden under the alleged support of the Chinese.

It is time the Dalai Lama changes this view. It has been nearly 60 years since the Dalai Lama led the exodus of Tibetans into India. To give some context, the infamous Berlin Wall was raised in 1961 and after 28 years, the wall came down when Germany was reunited. In 1945, when Japan surrendered to the US-led Pacific allied forces, the island state suffered massive devastation but 40 years later, the Japanese rebuilt their country to become one of the biggest economies in the world.

On the other side of the coin, modern China is nowhere like the ‘Red China’ it was under Mao in 1959. China today is a modern industrial nation that has overtaken all of Europe to become the second biggest economy in the world and is rapidly closing the gap between themselves and the USA, which maintains its position as the biggest world economy. China today also employs diplomacy for negotiations, as opposed to enforcing their military might. Hence, it is not unusual that in their bid to become a global superpower, China is becoming more democratic and open. By allowing freedom of religion which includes Dorje Shugden practice, China’s decision to support all religious practices is moving with the times.

What is not moving with the times however is the Dalai Lama’s feudalistic belief that assumes all Dorje Shugden devotees are Chinese supporters and therefore, have no right to come to India. What’s more, the Dalai Lama again reinforces his misguided point that Dorje Shugden practitioners are all receiving special treatment from the Chinese and are therefore anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama by virtue of their spiritual practice.

Many of those who escaped with the Dalai Lama in 1959 under Dorje Shugden’s protection remain confused and devastated by the Dorje Shugden ban.

TRANSCRIPT:

Well, if the majority decides they want to propitiate Dolgyal, then I have nothing more to say except, “Yes, of course”. It doesn’t make any difference to me.

Before, even I propitiated it and I was wrong. So, I apologise that to past masters and started practicing in proper way. That is my current position. But, if majority decides they want to propitiate Dolgyal, it’s OK, you have your freedom to choose. Understand? For that you don’t have to be cautious or fear or flatter Dalai Lama in any way. But first, make sure you understand the whole issue completely.

Once more, the Dalai Lama makes a deliberate psychological play. First, he expresses that it does not make any difference to him whether people want to practice Dorje Shugden or not, and even goes further to say that he will be okay if they decide to. Our question: then why even call for the referendum, if it does not matter to him and there is no issue? And why spend so long talking about Dorje Shugden if it doesn’t make any difference to him?

Next, using another disarming approach, the Dalai Lama admits to having practiced Dorje Shugden himself. He then goes on to say that it was his mistake to have done so, then offers his apologies to his Gurus. Our question: but where is his apology to the Gurus who gave him the practice, which he is now giving up and attacking?

The Dalai Lama then smoothly slips in his advice that people should first be fully informed before they make a choice to practice. Our question: Does that mean his own holy Gurus were not fully informed when they practiced and propagated Dorje Shugden and only he, the Dalai Lama, is fully informed on the matter?

TRANSCRIPT:

Also, later on, tomorrow or day after tomorrow, I have copies of quotes from relevant scriptures for distribution. Starting from the 5^th Dalai Lama, what many great masters of the past say, and their view about Dolgyal propitiation and how they have restricted / banned the practice. Those literature, right now, I have asked to print more copies for distribution and I shall distribute it. Now, before referendum, make sure everyone knows how, starting from 5^th Dalai Lama, what past masters who criticize Dolgyal propitiation have to say. Explain to everybody about that in detail.

Then, they should also know what Dolgyal propitiators say about the advantages and purpose of propitiating Dolgyal. Regarding that, since recently, they have published many books. Like if you propitiate Dolgyal, Dolgyal is a god of wealth and you will be rich! Then, first obtain the vase, then gradually you trust your life force to Dolgyal followed by monthly grand worship – seem to follow in that sequence. If you propitiate Dolgyal, you will be rich, you will be successful in every venture. Those things are written in late Dagom Rinpoche’s book. Many have seen books like that and know about them.

So, you should know what Dolgyal propitiators say about the advantages and purpose of propitiation. Then on the other side, know about the views of those who say it is wrong to propitiate Dolgyal. Then like weighing on a scale, see which view holds more weight! Those who are pro-Dolgyal or those against it. Starting from the 5^th Dalai Lama, Trichen Ngawang Chokden, Changkya Rolpai Dorje, Phurchok Ngawang Jampa, then Yongzin Yeshi Gyaltsen, these are the main great masters. So, keep them at one side and then balance and think which side has more reasons. So, I feel this is how it should be done. Understand? Sponsors, do you understand?

This psychological play fast reaches its conclusion with the Dalai Lama announcing that he has already made all the necessary preparations to distribute information about Dorje Shugden practice — printed literature with the negative views of a handful of “great masters” who supposedly restricted or discouraged Dorje Shugden practice! But where are the views of the attained masters who say that Dorje Shugden’s practice is good and beneficial? High ranking and highly respected masters such as H.H. the 9^th Panchen Lama, H.H. the 10^th Panchen Lama, H.H. the 101^st Ganden Tripa Jetsun Lungrik Namgyal, Mahasiddha Tagphu Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Pabongka Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, H.H. Kyabje Zong Dorje Chang, H.E. Kyabje Zemey Dorje Chang and H.E. Domo Geshe Rinpoche, not to mention hundreds of other lamas far outnumber the ones who have spoken negatively about Dorje Shugden. Even the current 11^th Panchen Lama practices Dorje Shugden. Furthermore, they all taught Dorje Shugden practice to tens of thousands of Tibetans and foreigners over the past century. Why didn’t the Dalai Lama make copies of their teachings too?

This image of Dorje Shugden was commissioned by His Holiness the 5th Dalai Lama and is still housed in Phelgyeling Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Not to mention that His Holiness the 5^th Dalai Lama was actually the first to recognize Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Dharma Protector! He established the very first chapel dedicated to Dorje Shugden called Trode Khangsar in Lhasa, composed a prayer to Dorje Shugden, and even commissioned a statue of Dorje Shugden which remains to this day in Phelgyeling Monastery in Nepal. These facts are conveniently left out and the 14^th Dalai Lama chooses to only highlight the negative things that the 5^th Dalai Lama had to say about Dorje Shugden before he realized his mistake.

Our question: How can people be “fully informed” when they are only given one-sided information on Dorje Shugden’s practice? Why didn’t the Dalai Lama distribute teachings from high lamas who fully supported, recommended and condoned Dorje Shugden practice? How are people supposed to weigh both sides of the matter prior to making their choice if the Dalai Lama restricts the information distributed to only that which paints Dorje Shugden in a negative light? Our answer: the entire referendum is a smokescreen to hide the fact that there is no democracy at all when it comes to the Dorje Shugden issue. The referendum is couched in the language of democracy but the truth is that the Dalai Lama is just forcing his point of view onto the Tibetan people by spreading unbalanced, one-sided information to get the results he wants from the referendum.

The Dalai Lama also makes negative insinuations about Dorje Shugden’s role as a “god of wealth”. However, the Dalai Lama is conveniently ignoring the fact that Tibetan Buddhism is rich in other wealth deities and practices such as Dzambala, Namtose, White Mahakala, Yellow Yamantaka, Yellow Tara and so forth. The outer purpose of these deity practices is to remove obstacles and attract wealth – it is not just unique to Dorje Shugden. So if the Dalai Lama is going to criticize Dorje Shugden for being a “god of wealth”, shouldn’t he discourage the practices of these other deities too?

The Dalai Lama even goes further to stress that those present should “explain to everybody” his views of the Dorje Shugden practice “in detail”. Tibetans will know that this is essentially a command from their leader to disseminate propaganda that refutes Dorje Shugden practice and discredits its practitioners. Being that it is the Dalai Lama’s views, there is in reality no choice – failure to conform and obey means going against the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama then makes it a point to address the sponsors directly, stressing the importance of them understanding what he has said. Although it was posed as a question, it is in fact the Dalai Lama’s way of applying pressure on the sponsors to withhold financial support for monasteries, groups and individuals who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. Now that the Dalai Lama has directly addressed them, anyone who attempts to support Shugden worshippers will be viewed as contradicting the Dalai Lama’s direct instructions. It is nothing but a systematic oppression of Dorje Shugden practitioners, segregating them from everyone and everything that could support them.

TRANSCRIPT:

As per an old saying which says, “separation of moustache and mouth”, I think the time has come to do just that. Because now the Chinese government has started to take such a strong stance.

The Dalai Lama now uses another Tibetan proverb, the “separation of moustache and mouth”, to make one of his strongest statements in the video. To Western ears, the phrase may sound poetic but Tibetans know full well what the Dalai Lama means – despite the mouth’s close proximity to the moustache, they are separate and not the same, just as in the case of fish and turnips. Thus, the Dalai Lama is strongly stating that Shugden practitioners should be segregated and separated from the rest of the Tibetan community, and the reason he gives for enforcing this segregation is that the Chinese government supports Dorje Shugden practice.

It is astonishing that the Dalai Lama uses a foreign government’s policies and yet-to-be-proven support as a basis to justify obstructing an individual’s religious freedom. This enforced segregation is miles away from the democratic image the Dalai Lama tries so hard to portray throughout his video. It is also miles away from the justification the Dalai Lama initially gave for banning the practice – that is, Dorje Shugden is supposedly bad and unenlightened. Yet here, the Dalai Lama makes it clear that his main reason to call for the segregation of Shugden practitioners is their alleged link to the Chinese government. So which one is it? Is it because this long-established 400-year-old practice is not in accordance with Tibetan Buddhist doctrine? Is it because the Chinese government supports it? Or is it merely a political smokescreen to hide the failures of the Tibetan leadership to regain their homeland by blaming it on a protector deity? The inconsistencies in the Dalai Lama’s words over the decades when it comes to the undemocratic ban on Dorje Shugden practice bears further investigation and analysis.

A screenshot of the 2008 video where the Dalai Lama talks about “separation of moustache and mouth.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Till now, Dolgyal propitiators have committed murder, have beaten people and threaten people who oppose their view. Those are in a way, no big deal.

Here, the Dalai Lama is obviously referring to the murder of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, the Director of the Tibetan School of Dialectics, which anti-Shugden groups keep raising as proof of the character of Dorje Shugden followers despite a lack of tangible evidence or arrests proving that the crime was committed by Dorje Shugden practitioners.

And after talking about the murder and violence, the Dalai Lama rounds off his point by saying it is ‘no big deal’. Notice the pattern here – once again, the Dalai Lama adds a lighthearted touch to a very important subject so that he can make potentially offensive information more acceptable to the audience. He is essentially creating the association in listeners’ minds that all Dorje Shugden followers are aggressive and violent, in the hope that it will make the act of banning Dorje Shugden more palatable.

Yet, the Dalai Lama’s statement can be interpreted in another way. Is the Dalai Lama actually saying that murder, beatings and violence are “no big deal”? That would explain why no repercussions are meted upon his supporters who beat and threaten Shugden followers within the Tibetan settlements; if the very top thinks violence is “no big deal”, then the underlings have no reason to.

Astute observers will find the callousness behind this thought process to be not in keeping with the Dalai Lama’s image of tolerance and compassion. Just because an individual or a small group of people from a particular faith allegedly performed an act of violence, it does not mean that everyone who subscribes to that faith should be criminalized. For example, when the World Trade Center in New York was attacked by terrorists, the United States government did not respond by banning the practice of Islam or by segregating its practitioners. Similarly, after the Jewish genocide of World War II, the world did not respond by segregating all Germans. To criminalize an entire group of people for the acts of a few is illogical, wrong and a huge infringement on human rights.

TRANSCRIPT:

But now they have decided to side with the People’s Republic of China. That is indeed very surprising! Right now we are arguing with the Chinese government, that if they give us meaningful autonomy that Tibetans can trust, then we are ready to stay within the People’s Republic of China. Right now, we are arguing that what the Chinese are doing in Tibet as they please with utter lack of respect to Tibetan feeling, is wrong! While we are arguing, they choose to side with the Chinese government. That is very sad indeed!

By this point in his speech, the Dalai Lama has accused Dorje Shugden practitioners of being enemies of the Nyingmapas, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. and now – the icing on the cake – as Chinese spies. The Dalai Lama is well aware that most Tibetans have strong feelings about their enemy #1, China. Despite the fact that it is illogical to label all four million Dorje Shugden practitioners as being pro-China, the Dalai Lama has done so through this speech and as a result, Dorje Shugden practitioners all around the world, old and young, are being labeled Chinese dogs and Chinese spies.

TRANSCRIPT:

Then as to the proportion of lying, they accuse their religious freedom has been denied. But in reality, this is not a religious matter at all! Like we touched on the subject yesterday, this matter is propitiation of a spirit who is in violation of pledge (Dam-si) with distorted aspiration (monlam-logpai). It is not even a Dharmapala class of spirit.

But then, if you say perfidious spirit, in Yamantaka’s 15 cardinal protector’s ritual cake offering prayer, there it says:

Spirits and Vetalas (zombie) in front of Lord Yamantaka and Manjushri,
You who have pledged to protect the Dharma, karmic lord of death,
Mamo and dakinis as well as perfidious spirits and Vetalas (zombies),
You who are protector or external, internal and secret aspects bounded by oath.

But at the end, it says those who uphold PLEDGES!!! Not those who VIOLATE pledges. If it is one who upholds pledges, then even it is a perfidious spirit or Vetala (zombie) are also OK. But if it is a perfidious spirit who is also in violation of pledges, then it is not right. Understand?

Because some might think a perfidious spirit is OK as it is mentioned in Yamantaka’s prayer, “Perfidious spirit, vetala (zombie), who are protector, To you I bow with respect.” So a perfidious spirit is OK since it is mentioned in Yamantaka’s prayer, BUT then at the end it says, those who UPHOLDS PLEDGES! Here is one who is in VIOLATION of pledge!! It is like I told you yesterday. Maybe I shall explain later. I myself have not much to say. But I shall distribute the documents later on.

Returning to the so-called doctrinal basis for banning Dorje Shugden, the Dalai Lama cites scriptures in the Yamantaka propitiation rites to support his view that Dorje Shugden is a perfidious spirit and therefore, deserving of a ban.

Buddhism teaches that a sentient being can take rebirth in any one of the six realms, one of them being the spirit realm. After death, and by virtue of their negative karma, beings who are extremely attached may take rebirth as one of the many classes of spirits. In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a tradition of subduing spirits by putting them under oath to protect the Buddha’s teachings. Spirits who are subdued in such a manner are known as worldly protectors. Unlike enlightened beings who manifest as enlightened protectors, these worldly protectors do not serve the Dharma out of compassion, but because they are oath-bound to do so.

A painting of Nechung Dorje Drakden, the Protector of the Tibetan government

One famous example is Nechung or Pehar, who was once a war-mongering Persian spirit who found his way to Tibet, where he was put under oath by Guru Rinpoche. In time, Nechung, who was first commonly propitiated by the Nyingmas, became accepted by the Gelug school and has since become the Protector of the Tibetan government. Likewise, his oracle has been appointed as the State Oracle of the Tibetan government.

However, in his speech, the Dalai Lama is saying that Dorje Shugden is not even in the class of spirits who have been subdued. This implies that Dorje Shugden is one of the worst perfidious spirits who has also violated his pledges. But the Dalai Lama is overlooking one very important point: if Dorje Shugden is as harmful and perfidious as he claims, then why doesn’t the Dalai Lama just subdue Dorje Shugden and “force” him to serve the Dharma? Tibetan Buddhism is renowned for its powerful rituals that can subdue even the most malignant spirits and black magic. Surely, it would be a simple matter to just subdue and bind Dorje Shugden thus bringing an end to the Dorje Shugden controversy? Why expend so many hours talking about the harm a so-called spirit can cause when it would just be easier to solve the problem once and for all?

Having said that, even if Dorje Shugden is truly a perfidious spirit, this should not be the Dalai Lama’s concern as the secular leader of the Tibetan people. Whether people choose to worship spirits or demons, or if they want to pray to a teapot or a slice of bread – none of this should be an issue for the Dalai Lama if he truly respected religious freedom. The Dalai Lama, in his position as the Tibetan head-of-state, should be guaranteeing his people’s rights to freedom of religion, and not oppressing the rights of Dorje Shugden followers to practice their religion freely and openly.

A real head of a truly democratic state should only be concerned about ensuring that the citizens have religious freedom, and to provide a safe environment for them to practice their religion of choice. What a person wishes to have faith in – even if it is a teapot – is entirely up to them and should not be policed.

TRANSCRIPT:

Now for 300, almost 400 years, this problem continued. For 360 years, 370 years it remained in a subtle way. But for last 30 years, it has become a prominent controversy. In addition to that, now even the Chinese Communist Government has started to take special interest. So now, on our part, we have to think carefully and decide what to do. Do we separate mouth and moustache? Do we separate fish and turnips? And how do we go about doing it?

The Dalai Lama claims that for nearly 400 years, the practice of Dorje Shugden has been an ongoing issue but historically speaking, there are no such reliable accounts. On the contrary, there is plentiful evidence to show a widespread reliance on Dorje Shugden worship over the last four centuries. Even when the Dalai Lama escaped into India and for decades after, there was no problem with Dorje Shugden and even the Dalai Lama continued to practice Dorje Shugden in exile without any negative repercussions.

But by saying that Dorje Shugden practice has been problematic, the Dalai Lama has rewritten history because his words cannot be challenged. Because of that, pro-Dalai Lama groups viciously target Dorje Shugden practitioners both online and offline. And yet again, the Dalai Lama raises the mouth-moustache and fish-turnip analogies to remind his audience about separating from, and segregating and discriminating against Shugden practitioners.

Ironically, the Dalai Lama also proclaims that in the last 30 years, Dorje Shugden has become a prominent controversy. But how and why did the practice become “a prominent controversy”? The truth is, Dorje Shugden practice has grown more in the last 30 years than it has in the past few centuries only because the Dalai Lama keeps talking about it over and over again.

And, by mentioning China and the segregation of Dorje Shugden practitioners in the same breath, the Dalai Lama is skilfully planting the idea in the audience’s mind that Dorje Shugden practice is negative and its followers should be segregated.

TRANSCRIPT:

First, listen to both sides carefully. Then contemplate. After that we shall decide by vote. Understand? Abbots understand? Shall distribute documents later. Sutra teachers understand? Administrators also understand? Sponsors also, did you understand? That is how it is. So, no use leaving it like that. Even in the Sutras, when there are major differences of opinion in the Sangha, they settle it by monks voting with coloured sticks. It is written as seven ways to settle monastic disputes. Like that, even in our modern way, referendum is a very good way. So, we shall settle it with referendum!

Then you western monks, do you want to participate in the referendum too? Ha, Ha, Ha…

OK. There is no hurry. When you all return to your respective monasteries, there, after settling down, then explain everything in detail, and make sure everybody understands the whole thing clearly, and give them time to think and contemplate. Then, only after that, we shall hold voting. That is how we do it, understand? So, this I thought is a good time to explain while the sponsors are present.

Having presented all of his so-called irrefutable evidence, the Dalai Lama once again reminds the abbots, teachers and administrators of the biggest Tibetan Buddhist monasteries to carry out his referendum. Remember – at the beginning of his speech, the Dalai Lama suggested a referendum. And by the end of his speech, having presented all of his arguments, no one in the audience is able to refuse the referendum especially since the Dalai Lama singled out different groups of people. It is the Dalai Lama’s subtle way of letting them know that he is watching to see what they will do next, and if they will disobey his orders. From the outset, the entire speech looks and sounds relatively democratic but in reality, the abbots, teachers, administrators and sponsors have no choice if they want to remain in the Dalai Lama’s good books.

As predicted, in the months following this speech, the referendum took place exactly as the Dalai Lama had described, with colored sticks and all. Monks were forced to choose between giving up their Shugden practice or continue practicing and suffer the consequences.

Video: The vote-stick referendum regarding the worshipping of Dolgyal (Dorje Shugden)

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

Those who decided to remain loyal to their Gurus and continue practicing came to suffer grave consequences. Not only were they ostracized from their brethren as outcasts and pariahs, but many were expelled from their monasteries, the only home they had ever known. All around them, the community gathered to routinely degrade and berate them, refusing them service in shops or treatment in hospitals, and dealing them a level of indignity one would not expect from a so-called democratic, supposedly Buddhist society.

In another time and place, if this had occurred in Tibet and not in an exile settlement in India, and if the Dalai Lama had full control over the law and its enforcers, it would not be hard to believe that Dorje Shugden practitioners could easily have been placed in concentration camps. Only Indian law tempered the Tibetan leadership’s behaviour, preventing them from going all the way to decimate the population of Shugden practitioners.

Video: Tibetan Leadership Organizes Violence Again

Monks and lay Tibetan protestors turned violent at the instigation of Tibetan Government-in-exile representatives and threw stones at a khamtsen (fraternity house) of Ganden Shartse Monastery because its residents chose to remain Dorje Shugden practitioners. While the violent protests were happening, the monks inside remained calm and performed a Dorje Shugden puja.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

10 Years Later, An Unexpected U-turn?

Fast forward 10 years from 2008 and the Dalai Lama has changed his mind on various issues which he has been typically very staunch about.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about total independence, he now pushes for genuine autonomy under Chinese rule.

Where the Dalai Lama once attacked China with rhetoric (as can be seen in the video above), he now makes various overtures to appease the Chinese leadership.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about the terms and conditions of his return to China, he has since sent his personal emissary, Samdhong Rinpoche on a secret visit to China, presumably to renew strained Sino-Tibetan relations and discuss the terms for the Dalai Lama’s return.

Where the Dalai Lama was once very firm about his choice of candidate for the position of the 11^th Panchen Lama, he has since acknowledged China’s choice of Panchen Lama as “official” and even commented that he is receiving a good education from a good teacher.

Video: The Dalai Lama Corrects Himself on the Chinese Panchen Lama

Or watch on server | download video (right click & save file)

All these developments lend hope that, despite his harsh words against Shugden practitioners, the Dalai Lama might soon change his mind about them too. If the Dalai Lama has begun to reverse his stance on the issue of Tibet and the Panchen Lama, it definitely leaves open the possibility that he could do the same with his stance on Dorje Shugden. Certainly it would be a change that Shugden practitioners worldwide would welcome with open arms.

The End of the Ban on Dorje Shugden?

In a famous prediction by His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, the junior tutor to the 14^th Dalai Lama, he said that,

…in the future, it will appear that the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden are in conflict, but in actuality they are helping each other to make the Buddhadharma grow, through making the practice of Dorje Shugden known to the world-at-large.

For those of us without clairvoyance, what we can irrefutably see with our own eyes is the extent of the Dalai Lama’s power over the monasteries and the Tibetan community at large. If the Dalai Lama can make such a shocking statement about the Chinese-backed Panchen Lama, it would be just as easy for him to speak up to negate the ban on Dorje Shugden practice. Only time will tell and by looking at the fast-moving political changes between China, India and the Tibetan leadership in the recent months, there is increasing hope that that time may be close.

Dorje Shugden: Will this 400-year-old Dharma Protector practice become the cause that unites a world at odds with each other?

Supporting Documents

A letter from the Tibetan Women’s Association and Tibetan Youth Congress to Sera Mey Pomra Khangtsen, pressuring the monks of Pomra Khangtsen to give up their practice of Dorje Shugden. Click to enlarge.

English translation:

To the monks under Sera-Mey Pomra monastic section, the object of refuge, who did not pick the vote-stick and who didn’t take oaths:

We, the members of standing committee of Tibetan Youth Congress and Tibetan Woman Association here in Bylakupee as well as the members, would like to request you:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the champion of peace and spiritual and temporal leader of Tibetan religion and politics has delivered advices and instructions at row.

In the announcement by Department of Culture and Religion of Tibetan government in exile, “Henceforth, in order to not pollute the commitment between guru and disciple by those who continue to worship Dholgyal [Dorje Shugden], they [Shugden devotees] are not permitted to attend the teachings of the Dalai Lama; they are not permitted to be admitted in any Gelug monastery, as per the charter of Gelug monastic establishment; and they are not permitted to take part together in prayers, exams and so on. Nevertheless, they can equally enjoy other rights of Tibetan in exile.

It is imperative to take this into consideration to maintain peace and security in the community, and that there should be no harassment between Shugden monks and non-Shugden monks. Furthermore, spiritual activities including the great prayer festival in Sera, Drepung and Ganden should be held traditionally – and on time. Even in the future, each monastery must accept if anyone, with pure motivation, takes oath and engages in what to take and what to abandon.”

It is vital to abide by the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the refuge of this and next life, and in particular, there is a peril that will stain the dignity of Sera Mey Monastery and the root of happiness of the six million Tibetans.

Therefore, in order to maintain pure commitment and harmony as it was within Sera Mey Monastery in particular, and to ensure the dignity of Sera Monastery as it used to be, we strongly request you, from now on, to give up the practice of Dholgyal, and to take vote stick and oath of not worshipping. And we urge you to bear the matter in the mind.

Dated: February 25, 2008
Tibetan Youth Congress, Bylakuppe
Tibetan Woman Association, Bylakuppe
With seals

Copy to:
The Hon. Private Office of the Dalai Lama
Department of Culture and Religion
The Office of Chief Representative of Southern Settlements
The representatives of old and new settlements in Bylakuppe
Sera Lachi monastery
Abbot of Sera-Jay monastery
Abbot of Sera-May monastery
The headquarter of Tibetan Youth Congress
Tibetan headquarter of Tibetan Woman Association

A leaflet featuring the names and photos of six expelled Sera Mey monks, circulated amongst the Tibetan monastic and lay community, encouraging them to ostracise these Dorje Shugden practioners.

English translation:

To the Tibetan public and monks,

Since earlier time, the following monks under the affiliation of Sera Mey Pomra, whose names are listed together with their photos, have engaged in mere conceit exaggeration to around six thousands monks, in the name of Dorje Shugden.

Therefore, the lords of law of Sera Lachi Monastery, disciplinarian Geshe Thupten Tendar and disciplinarian Geshe Tsultrim Gyaltsen have excommunicated them from the institution of Sera Monastery. We thus call for Tibetan public and monks not share to religious and material resources with these persons.

Thupten Samphel (photo), Thupten Kunsang (photo), Tenzin Tsering (photo)
Jampa Khetsun (photo), Jampa Chogyal (photo), Lobsang Jigme (photo)

Dated: April 8, 2008

The General Secretary of the Department of Religion and Culture personally decrees that recommendation letters for monastic entry are not to be issued to Dorje Shugden practitioners. Click to enlarge.

English translation:

To Abbots and Administrators of the Gelug monasteries,

We have received the copy of the decree dated 02.17.2007, which was sent by the Kashag [Tibetan Cabinet] to the directors of Tibetan Reception Offices, and urged us to send the notice to every Gelug monastic establishment.

Simply for the sake of Tibetan religion and politics, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been giving advice regarding the worship of Dorje Shugden; even the Head Reception Center has been describing the reasons behind the Dalai Lama’s ban against worshipping Dholgyal (Dorje Shugden) to our Tibetan brothers from Tibet. But we still provide the same recommendation letters, without discrimination, for schools and monasteries to the few Tibetan newcomers who continue taking a rigid stand to worship Dholgyal.

However, in the 7 of 12 section of Gelug’s Code of Conduct resolved on the gathering of Gaden Tripa, Sharjang Choje, abbots and representatives, it is clear that those who want to join a monastery must give up the worship of Dholgyal [Dorje Shugden]. As such, the Head Reception Center must explain to them the reasons why the Dalai Lama has imposed a ban on worshipping Dholgyal.

In case they didn’t listen and take a rigid stand of continuing their worship, there is no way to let them enter any Gelug Monastery including Sera, Drepung and Ganden. Therefore, from the day you receive this decree, you must implement the policy not to provide a recommendation for any monastery which is registered in the Tibetan Government in Exile’s Department of Religion and Culture. But we urge you it is clearly written that for students who want to join a school, it is fine to provide a recommendation.

Tsering Dhondup
General-Secretary
Department of Religion & Culture
Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai Lama
Dated: February 27, 2007

The Guardian: PM-in-exile urges Tibetans to make Dalai Lama’s return a reality

The sudden announcement by President Lobsang Sangay calling for Dalai Lama’s return to Chinese controlled Tibet. Click to enlarge.

In 2008, Dhokang Khangtsen with its 600 tulkus, geshes and monks separated from Ganden Shartse monastery and formed Shar Ganden. This fledgling monastery is an enduring legacy of the segregation imposed by the Dorje Shugden ban

There were many sincere Dorje Shugden practitioners that lived within the walls of Ganden Shartse monastery in the past. Many of these practitioners were great Tulkus, Geshes and ordinary hard-working members of the monastic community. Needless to say, many of these practitioners have contributed everything they had towards the sustenance and expansion of Ganden monastery as a whole.

With the Dorje Shugden ban being ruthlessly enforced in the last decade, many of these monks had to flee to safety with literally nothing on their backs while the elders of Ganden Shartse stood idly by and did nothing to help. In fact, the elders of Ganden Shartse sat tight on the assets and coffers of the monastery, which include offerings and sponsorships made by Dorje Shugden practitioners.

For instance, all Geshes make offerings to the monastery as part of their geshe offering ceremony. And when the monastery is in need, the senior monks, tulkus, rinpoches and geshes will raise the necessary funds for building expansion, books, food and so forth. So why doesn’t the monastery return the offerings of Dorje Shugden practitioners after expelling the same Dorje Shugden monks from their walls?

On the one hand, the monastery accepts and retain donations from Dorje Shugden practitioners (the monastery doesn’t even question sponsors about their stance on the Dorje Shugden affair) but on the other hand, Dorje Shugden practitioners are shamed and expelled from the monastic community. There seems to be a contradiction here with the way the Dorje Shugden ban has been and continues to be enforced.

A traditional depiction of the Tulkus of Shar Ganden monastery. From left to right: Khen Rinpoche Lobsang Pende, H.H Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and H.E. Domo Geshe Rinpoche

The Dorje Shugden ban requires total segregation between Dorje Shugden practitioners and the followers of the Dalai Lama. This segregation is heavily (even violently) enforced and no interaction is allowed between both parties as Dorje Shugden practitioners are seen as ‘contaminated’ and ‘unclean’. Shops in Tibetan communities display clear signs stating that Dorje Shugden practitioners will not be served. Schools and public service providers such as libraries deny entry to Dorje Shugden practitioners.

So complete and pervasive is the discrimination against Dorje Shugden practitioners that it is therefore surprising that the offerings and sponsorships from Dorje Shugden practitioners are still accepted, retained and used by the anti-Shugden monastic community. Given the illogical and discriminatory implementation of the ban, one would think that the offerings and sponsorships of Dorje Shugden practitioners would likewise be deemed unclean and unfit to be used by members of Monastery!

The generous sponsor of Ganden, Sera and Drepung, Guru Deva Rinpoche

Take for instance the Mongolian Lama Guru Deva Rinpoche, widely regarded as the emanation of Gyenze and a great Dorje Shugden Lama. He had made the most generous offerings and donations to the Dalai Lama and the great monasteries of Ganden, Sera and Drepung in the earlier days when Tibetans coming into exile experienced hardship and scarcity.

During the height of the Dorje Shugden ban however, a Tibetan mob had tried to destroy Guru Deva Rinpoche’s ladrang in Drepung Gomang. Consequently, Guru Deva Rinpoche was forced to return to Mongolia – his homeland. The offerings and donations remain the property of Ganden, Sera and Drepung, who continued to speak against Guru Deva Rinpoche until his passing in 2009.

H.E. Denma Locho Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche

Another clear example occurred in recent years when Serkong Tritul Rinpoche invited Drepung Loseling’s Denma Locho Rinpoche to Taiwan to teach and transmit some important lineages. Tritul Rinpoche, along with Jamseng Rinpoche, are well known Dorje Shugden lamas while Denma Locho Rinpoche does not practice Dorje Shugden but neither does he discriminate against Dorje Shugden practitioners.

During this visit, a series of pictures were taken of Denma Locho Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche (also known as Dromtug Rinpoche). These pictures were proliferated and became the basis for trouble between Denma Locho Rinpoche and the monastery and office of the Dalai Lama.

After the trip to Taiwan, Ganden Jangtse Gaser Tulku Rinpoche had requested Denma Locho Rinpoche to give a series of teachings at Drepung Loseling’s prayer hall. On the third day of the teaching, Drepung Gomang monks put up posters stating that monks shouldn’t attend the teachings as the great lama was ‘unclean’ due to his association with Tritul Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche.

So concerned were the Ganden Jangtse monastic officials with being politically correct that they had the audacity to decree that any monks attending Denma Locho Rinpoche’s teachings would be expelled. Even the Dalai Lama, whom Denma Locho Rinpoche was personally very close to prior to the Taiwan incident, sidelined and basically ignored Denma Locho Rinpoche whenever he visited Ganden or Drepung monasteries. This is not just a great insult but has severe impact on the lama’s reputation in the monastery.

However, there is more to this series of incidents than meets the eye. During the Taiwan trip, Tritul Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche had offered a large sum of money to Denma Locho Rinpoche, who then donated a large portion of this sum to Drepung Loseling. The money that was donated to Loseling (which clearly came from Dorje Shugden practitioners) was accepted and used for the expansion of the monastery, even while they ostracized and criticized this great master for his association with the same Shugden practitioners.

H.E. Lama Gangchen Rinpoche with his close disciple, Lama Michel Rinpoche

H.E. Gangchen Rinpoche is another great Dorje Shugden Lama who sponsored many buildings for Sera Mey monastery’s Tsangpa Khamtsen, including a prayer hall and monk quarters. Due to the ban, he was unceremoniously cut off while the monks continue to inhabit the buildings that he sponsored. In yet another example, Kensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel, the ex-abbot of Ganden Jangtse is a great Dorje Shugden practitioner who sponsored millions for the massive Jangtse prayer hall that is still in use today. These are just a few notable examples of Dorje Shugden lamas who have made tremendous contributions to their various monasteries.

Kensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel (left), the ex-abbot of Ganden Jangtse is a great Dorje Shugden practitioner

Therefore, if the monastic community and indeed the Tibetan laity insist on upholding this ridiculous ban that in fact infringes on the human rights of Dorje Shugden practitioners, wouldn’t it only be fair that the monastery return these offerings? They would if they had any sense of integrity.

Integrity and keeping one’s vows and commitments are ideals that are supposed to be held more dear than our eyes, as Lama Tsongkhapa had said and upheld. With the deepest respect, the monastery should then also practice this and return whatever Dorje Shugden practitioners have offered in the past – be they monks or laypeople. At least, they would then be keeping to the letter of the (unfair and illogical) ban on Dorje Shugden instead of only choosing to do so when it is to their advantage. Why strive to appear politically correct yet live, eat, sleep, and practice in entire buildings built by the most devoted of Dorje Shugden practitioners? It boggles the mind.

Particularly in the early days of exile, a number of claims were made about the centrality of the practice of Dorje Shugden in Geluk practice, in particular, that the deity was the main protector of the Geluk.

This claim seems to be strongly linked to a doctrine connected with the 19th and 20th century charismatic Geluk teacher Phabongkha Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo, and quite possibly his main teacher Tagphu Dorje Chang who emphasised “one lama, one personal meditation deity, and one protector” as being the essence of Geluk practice. It will therefore be looked at in that context.

One Protector

Quite clearly, as the Geluk tradition was founded by Je Tsongkhapa in the early 15th century and the non-canonical protector deity Dorje Shugden did not manifest until 1657, that deity’s practice could not have been the main protector practice of the Geluk for the first 250 years of the tradition.

The main protectors of the tradition until then, and the plural is important here, seem to have been the following:

• The canonical supramundane protector Karmaraja, locatable in the Yamantaka tantra cycle of the ‘father’ subdivision of the peerless yoga tantras and within that in the practices of Vajrabhairava;
• The canonical supramundane protector Six-Armed Mahakala, locatable in the ‘Vajra Tent’ tantra text in the Heruka cycle of the ‘mother’ subdivision of the peerless yoga tantra division;
• The canonical supramundane deity Vaishravana in the aspect of riding a lion and holding an umbrella in his right hand and a jewel spitting mongoose in his left.
• Later, but still before the appearance of the deity Dorje Shugden, the canonical supramundane deity Palden Lhamo Magzor Gyalmo became a protector of the Geluk. A clear date for this has not yet been established but may well turn out to be after the vision of the 2nd Dalai Lama, where Guru Rinpoche Padmasambhava instructed him to take Palden Lhamo as a personal protector. Certainly by the late 17th and early 18th century, her practice was well established across the Geluk. What is important to note here is that all these are supramundane and that they are shared in common with the other Sarma traditions of Sakya and Kagyu.

None is exclusive to the Geluk. From the surviving collected writings of great teachers in the Geluk tradition, there is documentary evidence of continued interest in the practice of all these deities as dharma protectors right up until the present day.

Some of them also have functions as institutional protectors. For example, Palden Lhamo is the chief protector deity for Ganden Jangtse college and the practice of Palden Lhamo is a chief practice of the protector chapel for Drepung Lhachi, i.e. the totality of that monastery.

Apart from a few, often oblique references criticising the practice by certain lamas, the first surviving documentary evidence we have of the widespread worship of Dorje Shugden in the Geluk comes from the first half of the 20th century and seems due to the activities of Phabongkha Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo.

The 3rd Trijang Rinpoche was collating material in his Labrang before exile, and managed to reconstitute some of his collection in exile, where he wrote quite extensively on the practice of Dorje Shugden. It may be that in the library of his Labrang in Ganden there are original dateable documents from before Phabongkhapa.

Much of the 3rd Trijang’s interesting work on Dorje Shugden is the collation of oral tradition around the practice of the deity. The weight of evidence so far available suggests that the practice of Dorje Shugden as either a worldly oath-bound protector or as an emanation of a fully enlightened being was mainly a private protector practice, with few institutions in the Geluk monasteries doing this as a regular practice.

One obvious example until very recently was the Bomra regional house of Sera Mey college. There were Dorje Shugden shrines in both Sera and Ganden monasteries in old Tibet and in exile, it seems that a three dimensional model of his mandala house had been built at Ganden.

But such is the loss of documentation due to the ravages of the cultural revolution that it is not at all clear how long Dorje Shugden shrines had been established in those monasteries in old Tibet or how well patronised they were in terms of numbers. Both clearly had wealthy sponsors but that does not necessarily equate to numbers.

The evidence that the practice of Dorje Shugden was the main protector of the Geluk simply does not stack up. It seems that for the Geluk as a whole and as an institution, the three then four canonical supramundane deities from the early days have remained the main dharma protectors of the tradition.

One Personal Deity

The one personal deity claimed as central for the Geluk is the practice of the aspect of Vajrayogini that comes through Naropa, known as ‘Naro Khacho’. The practice of Vajrayogini cannot be accessed except through an initiation into a Heruka deity.

Nowadays in Tibetan Buddhism, this seems mainly to be through the system of the five deity Heruka mandala in the tradition of Tilbupa. Looking at the tantra masters in the prayers to the lineage masters of this Vajrayogini lineage produced in the 19th and 20th centuries before coming into exile, Je Tsongkhapa is noticeable by his absence and it would seem that the practice came into the Geluk from the Sakya not through Tsongkhapa.

The issue of who does and who does not get included in lineage prayers is in itself a topic of great interest as until recently it was extremely unlikely that any given tantra practitioner of note really only had one master in the practice. 

More likely he would have studied different aspects of the practice and received different transmissions and oral instructions connected with the practice from a number of tantra masters. This scattering of transmission lineages between teachers is often deliberate, being one way to ensure that transmissions are not severed by untimely death of the only holder.

If we look at the surviving documentary evidence of Tsonghapa’s collected works, it would seem that Je Tsongkhapa had a deep interest in the 32 deity Akshobhyavajra Guhyasamaja tantra system, the 13 deity Vajrabhairava system and the 62 deity Heruka Cakrasamvara system and made these three practices the core of Geluk tantra practice.

Again the plural is significant. It was of these three mandalas that Tsongkhapa had three dimensional models made in a special temple in Ganden, the seat of his tradition. It is these three practices that constitute the core of the ritual training in the two surviving tantra colleges of Gyu Toh and Gyu Med and constituted the core of the tradition at Sey Gyu dratsang at Sey in the Tsang province of old Tibet.

The transmission lineage of this last practice has been badly damaged and it is not clear whether it can be reestablished fully either in exile or in Tibet. But the other two tantric colleges have been successfully reestablished and continue to ensure the survival of these key tantra practices within the Geluk.

In the Geluk it is the recitation of these practices by the tantric monks from these two colleges that is considered the best way to consecrate a temple. Of the three tantras traditionally Guhyasamaja is held as the main practice, Vajrabhairava as a preliminary and obstacle removing practice and the 62 deity Chakrasamvara as an enhancing practice.

Vajrayogini in the form of Naro Khacho is a branch practice off the Cakrasamvara cycle of practices. The tradition holds that if the number of core tantric practices of Je Tsongkhapa is taken as four then the practice of Kalacakra should be taken as the fourth. If it expanded to five then the practice of Mahacakra Guhya(ka)adipati should be added as the fifth.

Again the weight of the evidence seems to show that Naro Khacho Vajrayogini never was the core or sole tantric practice of the Geluk, though much admired and taken up by some individuals as their main personal meditational deity. It seems that from very early on, the main or core personal meditation deity practices of the Geluk were 32 deity Akshobhyavajra Guhyasamaja, 13 deity Vajrabhairava and 62 deity Heruka Cakrasamvara.

A very special boy was born in 1779 in Mongolia. The boy would come to be known as Ngawang Khedrup, one of the greatest Mongol teachers of the Gelug tradition. He received his novice vows in Urga (modern day Ulaan Bator) and was enrolled into Tashi Chophel Monastery.

When he was old enough, he traveled to Tibet and enrolled into Drepung Gomang Monastery to study the five great treatises. At the monastery, he studied under a line of illustrious teachers including the Fourth Jetsun Dampa, the Eighth Dalai Lama and the Second Reting Rinpoche, one of the earliest Gelug Lamas to embrace the practice of Dorje Shugden.

While he was residing in Lhasa, there were certain adversaries fueled by jealousy who accused him of breaking his monk vows. However, with his strong faith and reliance on the Protector Dorje Shugden, he was soon absolved of all accusations when he went to consult the oracle of Trode Khangsar. Interestingly enough it was Nechung to advised him to consult Shugden on this matter, stating that only Shugden would be able to determine the truth in such disputes. This in itself is a clear indication of Shugden’s enlightened nature, for it is only Buddhas who have the highest level of unbiased wisdom to discriminate between right and wrong.

After he completed his monastic studies and received his Rabjampa degree, he decided to return to Mongolia. Upon his return, the Emperor Daoguang awarded him with the title of the Supreme Chief Khenpo. At that time, he took up office as the Abbot of a Gelug college which was renowned for specializing in the practice of Hevajra in the 19th Century. It was called the Hevajra Practice College of Urga.

Throughout his lifetime, Ngawang Khedrub wrote extensively and his collection of works includes sadhanas, hagiographies of Jetsun Dampa, commentaries of the Lamrim and a text detailing the death process. He seemed to have an especially close connection with Maitreya – his writings on sadhanas seemed to be centered on the Buddha Maitreya, including a praise to Maitreya. The book Mongolia and the Mongolians even details that a statue of Maitreya, standing at more 120 feet, was apparently commissioned by Ngawang Khedrub.

In a short text on Panchen Sonam Dragpa’s hagiography, Ngawang Khedrup wrote that the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden arose from the omniscient wisdom of Panchen Sonam Drakpa. It is therefore not a surprise that one of his disciples, Ngawang Yeshe Thubten, became the author of one of the earliest Dorje Shugden ritual texts.

Later Gelug masters including Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche frequently quote from this same text, drawing a direct link between Dorje Shugden and Panchen Sonam Dragpa as a previous incarnation. It is thus from great Lamas like Ngawang Khedrub that the lineage and practice of Dorje Shugden continues to grow in Mongolia.

The Supreme Spiritual Friend

After Panchen Sonam Drakpa passed away, he took rebirth as Sonam Yeshe Wangpo near Tölung Lampa in Tibet. From birth, he spoke with clairvoyance and seemed to remember people and events of his past life.

After he was recognized, he was brought to Drepung Monastery and presented to the Omniscient Sonam Gyatso, the Third Dalai Lama, who was a student of Panchen Sonam Drakpa, the boy’s predecessor. The Dalai Lama cut off a bit of the boy’s hair in a ritual and gave him the name Sonam Yeshe Wangpo. The young boy then went to Kyormo Lung and was able to make dedications, prayers and give teachings easily at a young age. This caused many to develop faith in him as the actual incarnation.

From a very young age, Sonam Yeshe Wangpo pursued his studies at Chakar Dratsang, where he studied the great treatises with Damcho Pelbar. He finally received his full ordination in front of an assembly of great Abbots, masters and monks including the Third Dalai Lama.

When the Dalai Lama traveled to Mongolia, Sonam Yeshe Wangpo, who was just a young man then, followed along as part of his retinue. A lot was accomplished during these travels to Mongolia as the Dalai Lama converted Altan Khan to Buddhism; this paved the way for all of Mongolia to become Buddhist.

Upon their return, they traveled to monasteries like Chokor Ling at Chamdo. At Chamdo, Lord Sonam Gyatso, the Third Dalai Lama, became the peacemaker between warring factions. Through his mediation, they even started to work together to build a Buddha Shakyamuni statue in a temple at Lithang.

Throughout the journey, the young Sonam Yeshe Wangpo composed verses to praise his Lama and commentaries on the teachings. He also gave various teachings during this period.

For the remainder of his life, Sonam Yeshe Wangpo made a lot of offerings to the Sangha of Ganden, Sera, Drepung Chakar and other smaller monasteries. He was invited to ascend the throne of Kyormo Lung Monastery and become its Abbot, which he accepted.

He also continued to give many teachings and was later further requested to ascend the throne of the monastery in Chamdo. However, he entered clear light that year when he was only 37 years old. After his cremation, numerous relics and deity images were found in his ashes and these were placed in a stupa that was kept in Chokor Gyal Monastery.

The sacred relics that were left behind by the cremation fire were placed inside eight types of stupas, which were all made of silver. These were then brought to Drepung Upper Residence but strange voices and squeezing sounds were heard to arise from the relics.

Following Nechung’s instructions, the Desi took the relics out of the stupas and placed them inside a wooden box that was then cast into the Kyichu River. It eventually came to rest in lower Lhoka Dol, which is known today as the White Spring of Dol.

The “spirit” of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen initially travelled to Tashi Lhumpo hoping to meet his Guru, Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyeltsen. However, the Horse Lords of Vaishravana, who stood encircling the monastery, barred access to the monastery.

The “spirit” then traveled to Sakya, led by imprints of his previous life as Sakya Pandita. The patriarch of Sakya at that time, Dagchen Dorje Chang Sonam Rinchen, recognised and enthroned him as a Dharma Protector and Kunkhyen Ngawang Kungo Lodroe then composed a praise to him. Dorje Shugden practice flourished henceforth in the Sakya School until recent times.

However, back in Lhasa, the calamities that had hit the capital continued to intensify. Even the Dalai Lama was affected – he beheld many inauspicious apparitions that seemed to plague and disturb him.

When the Dalai Lama gave an initiation, the initiation torma fell on its own accord without the slightest breeze. When he was served meals, the plates of food would overturn for no reason; he couldn’t even drink a cup of a tea without the teacup shaking from disturbances. One time, it even seemed that the entire Potala Palace was rocking back and forth.

The Dalai Lama sensed that all these occurrences were bad omens. “We have wronged Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen,” he said. “He has died and become a raging, evil spirit.” The Dalai Lama resolved to destroy this spirit using tantric rituals.

The first ritual, a wrathful fire puja, was performed by the 5th Dalai Lama himself. The ritual failed because the Dharma Protector Setrab manifested a miraculous monastery on top of the mountain, which rocked the Potala Palace; this distracted the Dalai Lama from his ritual and the “spirit” was freed.

The 5th Dalai Lama then contracted other very powerful tantric masters of the Nyingma tradition, such as Dordrag Rigtzin, Minling Terchen and Gadong Ngarampa, to perform similarly deadly rituals to destroy the “spirit” of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen.

However, all of them failed too as Setrab would manifest more distractions to pull the Lamas’ attention away; or when they were able to attract the spirit onto the ritual ladle, to be burned in the fire puja, they were unable to destroy him in the fire. Whenever the Nyingma Lamas dipped the ladle into the fire, an indestructible image of Yamantaka would arise instead, and stand atop the ladle.

Such magical incidents revealed the true nature of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen, which is that he is one with Yamantaka, the wrathful emanation of Manjushri, Buddha of Wisdom. The nature of Yamantaka is beyond death and rebirth, as he is fully enlightened. This was why neither the Dalai Lama nor Nyingma Lamas were able to destroy this “spirit”.

According to the Great Fifth’s autobiography, he had heard of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen’s illness and was very concerned, as they were both close students of the same Guru, Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyeltsen. The Dalai Lama was unable to meet Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen in person so his regent, Desi Sonam Chopel dispatched Depa Norbu instead, allowing him the window of opportunity to perform his evil deed.

However, the Dalai Lama had no prior knowledge of the evil plot to assassinate Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. He wrote that he was initially told that Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen passed away due to illness but later found out that some young people had murdered him. With sadness, he told his attendants what he had learnt and was quick to notice Depa Norbu’s guilty expression. Consequently, the Dalai Lama demanded to know what happened and was thoroughly dismayed to find out the truth.

Before dealing with his attendants, he called for pen and paper. Seized by overwhelming grief and guilt on behalf of his students, he composed a heartfelt verse of apology to his friend, Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. He ordered the verses to be brought to the funeral pyre and immediately read out.

Just before the verses arrive at the site of the funerary stupa at Ngakpa Drepung Monastery, the monks had been trying repeatedly in vain to light the pyre beneath the holy remains of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. However, whatever they did, the pyre just would not light.

The funeral rituals were stalled until the Dalai Lama’s verses arrived. When they did, the Dalai Lama’s attendant read the verses out loud towards the holy remains and just as he finished reading, the pyre immediately burst into flames.

The sight of the burning pyre made Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen’s attendant weep in deep sorrow. Out of frustration and sadness, he took hold of his zen (outer robe) and slapped it against the funerary stupa.

What kind of high Lama are you? How could you let them kill you and not do anything?
~ Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen’s attendant

Suddenly, a thick gust of wind and smoke swirled out from the funeral pyre into the sky and covered all of Lhasa, in the shape of a large hand. As the smoke swept through the sky, earthquakes shook the land, hail fell, cattle died, crops failed and there was famine throughout the land. These were all signs of the cumulative negative karma of the people who had destroyed a holy being, Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen.

Lama Tsongkhapa’s holy tooth relic

Lama Tsongkhapa’s holy tooth relic, Ganden Monastery, Tibet

Lama Tsongkhapa’s holy tooth relic, Ganden Monastery, Tibet

Lama Tsongkhapa’s holy tooth relic, Drepung Monastery, Tibet

Lama Tsongkhapa’s holy tooth relic, Drepung Monastery, Tibet

Lama Tsongkhapa’s Mala, bell and hat

The mala, bell and hat that Lama Tsongkhapa used before, now kept in Drepung Monastery, Gaden Phodrang

Lama Tsongkhapa’s bowl

Lama Tsongkhapa’s bowl and Yak horn – it is said that you can see the images of 21 Taras if you look into the hole of the horn.

Kedrup Je’s Yamantaka Statue

Drepung Monastery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location

Mount Gephel, Lhasa Prefecture, Tibet, China

Founded by

Jamyang Chojey

Founded

1416

Sect

Gelug

Dedicated to

Je Tsongkhapa

Colleges

7 – Gomang, Loseling, Deyang, Shagkor, Gyelwa or Tosamling, Dulwa and Ngagpa

Drepung Monastery (Wylie: ‘bras spungs dgon [1]),(literally “Rice Heap” monastery[2][3]), located at the foot of Mount Gephel, is one of the “great three” Gelukpa university monasteries of Tibet. The other two are Ganden and Sera.

Drepung is the largest of all Tibetan monasteries and is located on the Gambo Utse mountain, five kilometers from the western suburb of Lhasa.

Freddie Spencer Chapman reported, after his 1936-37 trip to Tibet, that Drepung was at that time the largest monastery in the world, and housed 7,700 monks, “but sometimes as many as 10,000 monks.”[4]

Since the the 1950s, Drepung Monastery, along with its peers Ganden and Sera, have lost much of their independence and spiritual credibility in the eyes of Tibetans since they operate under the close watch of the Chinese security services. All three were reestablished in exile in the 1950s in Karnataka state in south India. Drepung and Ganden are in Mundgod and Sera is in Bylakuppe.

Contents

1 History
2 Recent events
3 Footnotes
4 References
5 See also

History

It was founded in 1416 by Jamyang Choge Tashi Palden (1397–1449), one of Tsongkhapa’s main disciples, and it was named after the sacred abode in South India of Shridhanyakataka.[5] Drepung was the principal seat of the Gelugpa school and it retained the premier place amongst the four great Gelugpa monasteries.[6]

The Ganden Podang (dga´ ldan pho brang) in Drepung was the residence of the Dalai Lamas until the Great Fifth Dalai Lama constructed the Potala. Drepung was known for the high standards of its academic study, and was called the Nalanda of Tibet, a reference to the great Buddhist monastic university of India.

Ganden Phodrang, the residence of Dalai Lama

Old records show that there were two centres of power in Drepung: the so-called lower chamber (Zimkhang ‘og ma) [7] associated with the Dalai Lamas-to-be, and the upper chamber (Zimkhang gong ma) associated with the descendants (future incarnations) of Panchen Sonam Drakpa, an illustrious teacher who died in 1554.[8] The estate of the Dalai Lamas at Drepung monastery, called Ganden Phodrang, had been constructed in 1518 by Gendun Gyatso Palzangpo (1476–1541), retrospectively named and counted as 2nd Dalai Lama.

Panchen Sönam Drakpa (1478-1554 CE) in 1535 succeeded Gendün Gyatso (1476–1541) on the Throne of Drepung, both of them being major figures in the history of the Geluk tradition. By the time Panchen Sönam Drakpa was appointed to the Throne of Drepung (Drepung Tri), he was already a famous Geluk master.

He had already occupied the Throne of Ganden (Ganden Tripa) and was considered the most prolific and important Geluk thinker of his time. His successor was none other than Sönam Gyatso (1543-1588 CE), the lama who would receive the official title of the Third Dalai Lama (Talé Lama Kutreng Sumpa).

Before his death in 1554, Panchen Sönam Drakpa established his own estate (Ladrang), the Upper Chamber (Zimkhang Gongma), which was named because of its location at the top of Drepung, just below the Ngakpa debating courtyard “Ngagpa Dratshang”.

Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center attributes the following Name variants to Panchen Sönam Drakpa: “bsod nams grags pa [primaryName], paN chen bsod nams grags pa [title], khri 15 bsod nams grags pa [primaryTitle], rtses thang paN chen bsod nams grags pa [title], gzims khang gong ma 01 bsod nams grags pa [title], this last one referring to the Seat of the Upper Chamber established in 1554.[9]

According to TBRC his successors referring to the estate of the Zimkhang Gongma were Sonam Yeshe Wangpo (1556–92),[10] Sonam Gelek Palzang (1594–1615)[11] and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (1619–1656)[12] – closely connected to the famous story of Dorje Shugden. (Some say that Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen was Panchen Sönam Drakpa’s second reincarnation,[13] but usually he is considered to be the 4th incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa [14]).

It seems to be commonly accepted that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the fourth holder of the Zimkhang Gong ma incarnation line. According to Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center zimkhang gong ma Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen has been his “primary Title”.[15] Since the search for his reincarnation has been banned by the then Tibetan Govt, he has been the last one.

The Tibetan Govt at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Dalai Lama’s ministers were jealous of the fame Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen had. More came to recieve teachings and advice to Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen than to the 5th Dalai Lama. This was threatening the rise in power of the Dalai Lama they thought and had tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen strangled with a scarf. Confiscated his Ladrang (Zimkhang Gong Ma) and banned Tulku Drapka Gyeltsen’s incarnation from being reinstalled.

Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen’s incarnation has been taking rebirth until now since the time of his murder over 350 years ago, but under other under incarnate lama’s names.  There is a a Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen incarnation currently, but is is under another name. He will continue to incarnate and do his works.

Chapman reported that in the late 1930s Drepung was divided into four colleges, each housing monks from a different locality: “one being favoured by Khampas, another by Mongolians, and so on.” Each college was presided over by an abbot who had been appointed by the late 13th Dalai Lama.[16]

The Repaired Entrance to Drepung

Drepung is now divided into what are known as the seven great colleges: Gomang (sGo-mang), Loseling (Blo-gsal gling), Deyang (bDe-dbyangs), Shagkor (Shag-skor), Gyelwa (rGyal-ba) or Tosamling (Thos-bsam gling), Dulwa (‘Dul-ba), and Ngagpa (sNgags-pa). It can be a somewhat useful analogy to think of Drepung as a university along the lines of Oxford or the Sorbonne in the Middle Ages, the various colleges having different emphases, teaching lineages, or traditional geographical affiliations.

According to local sources, today the population at the monastery in Lhasa is about 300 monks, due to population capping enforced by the Chinese government. However, the institution has continued its tradition in exile with campuses in South India on land in Karnataka given to the Tibetan community in exile by Prime Minister Nehru.

The monastery in India today houses over 5,000 celibate monks, with around 3,000 at Drepung Loseling and some 2,000 at Drepung Gomang. Hundreds of new monks are admitted each year, many of them refugees from Tibet.

The Ganden-Phodrang-Palace situated at Drepung Monastery was constructed by the 2nd Dalai Lama in 1518 [17] and declared his chief residence/governmental palace until the inauguration of Potala Palace by the 5th Dalai Lama.

Recent events

About 40% of the old monastic town was destroyed after the Chinese arrived in Lhasa in 1951, though luckily the chief buildings including the four colleges, the Tsokchen and the Dalai Lamas’ residence were preserved.[6]

Drepung monastery was shut by Chinese authorities on 14 March 2008, after monk-led protests against Chinese rule turned violent and businesses, shops and vehicles were looted and torched. The PRC claims that 22 people were killed in the riots but Tibetan sources put the figure much higher. It was reopened in the last week of August after being shut for five months.[18]

Footnotes

1. TBRC
2. Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land. Patrick French. (2003) Alfred A. Knopf. New York City, p.240 (in quote from 13th Dalai Lama).
3. Dialogues Tibetan Dialogues Han. Hannue. Quoting a monk at Drepung.
4. Chapman F. Spencer. Lhasa the Holy City, p. 195. Readers Union Ltd., London.
5. Dorje (1999), p. 113.
6. a b Dowman (1988), p. 67.
7. gong ma ‘og ma – the higher and the lower, the one above and the one under
8. [1]
9. TBRC
10. TBRC bsod nams ye shes dbang po (gzims khang gong ma 02)
11. TBRC bsod nams dge legs dpal bzang (gzims khang gong ma 03)
12. TBRC grags pa rgyal mtshan (gzims khang gong ma 04)
13. Drepung: An Introduction by Georges Dreyfus (April 10, 2006)
14. Brief History of Ganden
15. TBRC
16. Chapman F. Spencer. Lhasa the Holy City, p. 198. Readers Union Ltd., London.
17. [2] (german)
18. Major Buddhist monastery reopens in Tibet. The Associated Press

References

• Dorje, Gyurme. (1999). Footprint Tibet Handbook with Bhutan. 2nd Edition. Footprint Handbooks. Bath, England. ISBN 0-8442-2190-2.
• Dowman, Keith. (1988). The Power-places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim’s Guide. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and New York. ISBN 0-7102-1370-0

Source: Wikipedia

Alexander Berzin, 1991

expanded with Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche II, September 2003

Original version published in “Gelug Monasteries.” Chö-Yang, Year of Tibet Edition (Dharamsala, India, 1991).

The founding of Ganden Nampar-gyelway-ling Monastery (dGa’-ldan rnam-par rgyal-ba’i gling dGon-pa) by Jey Tsongkhapa Lozang-dragpa (rJe Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang grags-pa) (1357-1419) was prophesied by Buddha Shakyamuni. In the Manjushri Root Tantra (‘Jam-dpal rtsa-rgyud), Buddha said, “After I have passed away from this world, when the earth becomes desolate, you will take the form of a child and enact the deeds of a Buddha. At that time there will be a great monastery called Rabga (Rab-dga’) in the Land of Snows.” “Ga” is the first syllable of “Ganden.”

On the occasion of Tsongkhapa, as a small boy in a previous life, offering the Buddha a crystal rosary, the Buddha prophesied in The Sutra Taught to King Dam-ngag-bogpa (mDo-sde gDams-ngag ‘bog-pa’i rgyal-po’i bstan-pa), “O Ananda. This small boy who has given me a crystal rosary will restore my teachings. At a degenerate time in the future, he will found a monastery called ‘Ge’ (dGe) at the border between Dri (‘Bri) and Den (lDan). His name will be Lozang.”

“Ge” is a variant of the first syllable of “Ganden.” The boy was given in return a conch shell that had been presented to the Buddha by a naga king. Buddha entrusted this shell to his disciple, Maudgalyayana, who buried it in Tibet as a treasure auspicious for the future spread of the teachings.

In 1409, Tsongkhapa instituted the Great Prayer Festival (sMon-lam chen-mo) at the Lhasa Jokang Temple (Lha-sa Jo-khang, Jokhang). Afterwards, his disciples, concerned about the effect of constant travel on their teacher’s health, offered to build him a monastery at any site of his choice.*

Tsongkhapa accepted and chose Drogri Mountain (‘Brog ri-bo-che), approximately 50 kilometers east of Lhasa. He personally consecrated the land and named the monastery Ganden, Tushita in Sanskrit, after the pure land realm of the future Buddha, Maitreya.

The main temple and over seventy buildings were completed that year, 1409, in strict adherence with the Indian monastic rules. The next year, on a hill behind Ganden, Tsongkhapa unearthed the treasure conch shell that Maudgalyayana had buried there. All the prophesies about Ganden Monastery were thus fulfilled.

In 1416, Tsongkhapa gave the Ganden conch to his disciple, Jamyang Chojey (‘Jam-dbyangs Chos-rje bKra-shis dpal-ldan) (1379-1449), who founded Drepung Monastery (‘Bras-spungs dGon-pa) later that year. The conch has been kept at Drepung ever since. Another close disciple, Jamchen Chojey (Byams-chen Chos-rje Shakya ye-shes) (1354-1435), founded Sera Monastery (Se-ra dGon-pa) in 1419, the year Tsongkhapa passed away.

Tsongkhapa stayed frequently at Ganden until the end of his life. He passed away at this monastery and his remains were kept there. His construction of Ganden’s main temple, with its large statues and three-dimensional mandalas, is counted as the fourth great deed of Tsongkhapa’s life.

Since its founding, Ganden has been the seat of the Ganden Tripa (dGa’-ldan Khri-pa), the Holder of the Golden Throne of Ganden and head of the Gelug Tradition. This tradition, traced from Tsongkhapa, is also called the Ganden Tradition (dGa’-ldan lugs), named after Ganden Monastery. “Lug” means tradition, and “Gelug” is an abbreviation of “Ganden Lug.”

The first Ganden Tripa was Gyeltsabjey (rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen) (1364-1432), to whom Tsongkhapa gave his robe and staff before he passed away. The second was Kaydrubjey (mKhas-grub rJe dGe-legs dpal-bzang) (1385-1438). The present throne holder, Tri Rinpoche Yeshey-tubten (Khri Rin-po-che Ye-shes thub-bstan), is the ninety-ninth of this line. The term of office is seven years.

Ganden Monastery is comprised of two colleges, Jangtsey (Byang-rtse Grva-tshang) and Shartsey (Shar-rtse grva-tshang), meaning North Peak and East Peak respectively. According to one tradition, they were named after their location to the north and east of Ganden’s main temple.

At the time of the Second Ganden Tripa, Kaydrubjey, Ganden Monastery was divided into four colleges. Later in his term, Pelden (dPal-ldan Grva-tshang) and Yardrog Colleges (Yar-’brog Grva-tshang) merged to become Jangtsey; while Panchen Shakya-shri (Pan-chen Sha-kya-shri Grva-tshang) and Chodrag Colleges (Chos-grags Grva-tshang) merged to become Shartsey.

Horton Namka-pelzang (Hor-ston Nam-mkha’ dpal-bzang), the author of Mind-Training Like the Rays of the Sun (Blo-sbyong nyi-ma’i ‘od), is considered the founder of Jangtsey College. Nayten Rinchen-gyeltsen (gNas-brtan Rin-chen rgyal-mtshan) is considered the founder of Shartsey College. During the period of the Twenty-first Ganden Tripa, Sangpu Nyarong College (gSang-phu nyag-rong Grva-tshang), which had arisen later, also merged with Shartsey.

Jangtsey College, which contained Tsongkhapa’s residence, at first had thirteen divisions (khang-tshan): Lubum (Klu-’bum Khang-tshan), Tsawa (Tsha-ba Khang-tshan), Samlo (bSam-blo Khang-tshan), Hardong (Har-gdong Khang-tshan, Hamdong Khamtsen), Serkong (gSer-skong Khang-tshan), Trehor (Tre-hor Khang-tshan), Gyelrong (rGyal-rong Khang-tshan), Bati (sBa-ti Khang-tshan), Ngari (mNga’-ri Khang-tshan), Dora (rDo-ra Khang-tshan), Dranyi (Bra-nyi Khang-tshan, Banyi Khamtsen), Gowo (Go-bo Khang-tshan), and Kongpo (Kong-po Khang-tshan) Kangtsens.

Monks joined these divisions according to their places of origin. Monks from Mongolia, for example, joined Hardong. In later times, there were only twelve. Bati and Ngari Kangtsens were dissolved, and Para Kangtsen (Pha-ra Khang-tsan) was added. Each division had several houses (mi-tshan), also divided according to the places of origin of the monks living in them.

Shartsey College has eleven divisions: Dokang (rDo-khang Khang-tshan), Pukang (Phu-khang Khang-tshan), Nyag-re (Nyag-re Khang-tshan), Lhopa (Lho-pa Khang-tshan), Zungchu (Zung-chu Khang-tshan), Tepo (The-po Khang-tshan), Choni (Co-ni Khang-tshan), Ta-on (rTa-’on Khang-tshan, rTa-dbon Khang-tshan), Ngari (mNga’-ris Khang-tshan), Sogpa (Sog-pa Khang-tshan), and Gungru (Gung-ru Khang-tshan) Kangtsens.

Both divisions of Ganden, Jangtsey and Shartsey, have a combined study program of sutra and tantra. This is in contrast with the other two main Gelug Monasteries in the Lhasa area, Sera (Se-ra dGon-pa) and Drepung. Of the four colleges at Drepung: Losel-ling (Blo-gsal gling Grva-tshang) and Gomang Colleges (sGo-mang Grva-tshang) have only sutra studies, Ngagpa College (sNgags-pa Grva-tshang) has only tantra studies, while Deyang College (bDe-dbyangs Grva-tshang) has both. Of the three colleges at Sera: Jey (Byes Grva-tshang) and May Colleges (sMad Gvra-tshang) have only sutra studies and Ngagpa College (sNgags-pa Grva-tshang) has only tantra studies. In India, Drepung Ngagpa and Sera Ngagpa Colleges have added sutra studies to their programs. Drepung Deyang College has not been reestablished.

Jangtsey College follows the sutra textbooks (yig-cha) of Jetsunpa Chokyi-gyeltsen (rJe-btsun-pa Chos-kyi rgyal-mtshan) (1469-1544), in common with Sera Jey and Sera Ngagpa Colleges. Shartsey College uses the textbooks of the Fifteenth Ganden Tripa, Panchen Sonam-dragpa (Pan-chen bSod-nams grags-pa) (1478-1554), as does Drepung Losel-ling and Drepung Ngagpa Tantric Colleges.

As for the other colleges at the three major Gelug monasteries in the Lhasa area (gdan-sa gsum), Sera May College uses the sutra textbooks written by Kaydrub Tendarwa (mKhas-grub dGe-’dun bstan-pa dar-rgyas) (1493-1568).

Drepung Gomang and Drepung Deyang Colleges use the textbooks written by Kunkyen Jamyang-zheypa the First, Ngawang-tsondru (Kun-mkhyen ‘Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa Ngag-dbang brtson-’grus) (1648-1721). All the colleges follow the texts written by Tsongkhapa, Gyeltsabjey, and Kaydrubjey. Their various textbooks differ merely on fine points of interpretation.

Study is by means of memorization, logic, and debate. Monks study the preliminary subjects of logic for three years. The main study of the five major texts takes eleven further years. At the end of each year of study, monks must pass an examination (rgyugs-sprod) to go on to the next class. Those who end their sutra studies at the completion of these eleven years and present a formal debate to the mixed assembly of their entire college (gling-bsre dam-bca’) receive the degree of Geshe Tsogrampa (dGe-bshes Tshogs-ram-pa).

Those who study for a further five years and present a formal debate before the collected assembly of monks from all three major Gelug monasteries of the Lhasa area during the Great Prayer Festival at the Lhasa Jokang receive the title Geshe Lharampa (dGe-bshes Lha-ram-pa). Monks who merely pass examinations on memorization of the major texts, but without completing their Geshe education receive the degree Kyerimpa (bsKyed-rim-pa).

Geshe Tsogrampas and Geshe Lharampas must then pursue their tantric studies at either Gyumay Lower Tantric College (rGyud-smad Grva-tshang) or Gyuto Upper Tantric College (rGyud-stod Grva-tshang). To which one they go depends on their places of origin. Upon completion of their tantra studies, also through the medium of debate, and presentation of a tantra formal debate, they receive the degree Geshe Ngagrampa (dGe-bshes sNgags-ram-pa). They may either stay on at the Tantric College or return to Ganden. If they return, they must present another tantra formal debate at their home college.

[See: A Brief History of Gyumay and Gyuto, Lower and Upper Tantric Colleges.]

Monks with merely the Kyerimpa degree may study tantra at their own college. Those at Jangtsey follow the textbooks of Gyumay, written by rGyu Sherab-senggey (rGyud Shes-rab seng-ge) (1383-1445). Those at Shartsey follow the textbooks of Gyuto, written by Gyuchen Kunga-dondrub (rGyud-chen Kun-dga’ don-grub) (1419-1486). Those from Jangtsey who present the tantra formal debate also receive the degree Geshe Ngagrampa. Those from Shartsey receive the degree Uma-shayring (dBu-ma bshad-ring).

[See: Overview of the Gelug Monastic Education System.]

Jangtsey College as a whole is responsible for maintaining the annual performance of the full rituals of the Akshobhya (Mi-bskyod-pa) form of the Guhyasamaja (gSang-ba ‘dus-pa), while Shartsey for mainitaining Thirteen-Couple Vajrabhairava (rDo-rje ‘Jigs-byed Lha bcu-gsum). In addition, each division within the two colleges is responsible for the annual performance of the full rituals of specific tantric deities from the four classes of tantra.

At Ganden Jangtsey, within the anuttaryoga (rnal-’byor bla-med rgyud) class of tantra, Para, Kongpo, and Dranyi maintain the Akshobhya form of Guhyasamaja, while Hardong maintains the Mahachakra form of Vajrapani (Phyag-rdor ‘Khor-chen). Within yoga tantra (rnal-byor rgyud), Lumbum and Tsawa maintain the rituals of Vajradhatu (rDor-dbyings). Within charya (behavior) tantra (spyod-rgyud), Serkong, Dora, and Samlo maintain Vairochana Abhisambodhi (rNam-snang mngon-byang). Within kriya (action) tantra (bya-rgyud), Gowo, Trehor, and Gyelrong maintain Akshobhya (Mi-’khrugs-pa).

At Ganden Shartsey, within the anuttaryoga class of tantra, Dokang, Ta-on, and Gungru maintain Thirteen-Couple Vajrabhairava; Tepo and Lhopa maintain the Luipa (Lu’i-pa) lineage of Chakrasamvara (bDe-mchog); and Nyag-re maintains Kalachakra (Dus-’khor). Within the yoga class, Choni and Sogpa maintain Samvid (Kun-rig). Within the kriya class, Zungchu maintains the Nine-Deity form of Amitayus (Tshe-dpag-med lha-dgu); Ngari maintains the Eight Sugata practice of Bhaishaja (Medicine Buddha) (sMan-lha bDe-gshegs-brgyad), and Pukang maintains the Sixteen Arhats (gNas-brtan phyag-spyod).

The special protector (srung-ma) of the Common Assembly of Ganden Monastery as a whole (dGa’-ldan Bla-spyi) is Chogyel (Chos-rgyal, Dharmaraja). The special protector of Ganden Jangtsey is Pelden Lhamo (dPal-ldan Lha-mo). The Jangtsey monks perform daily, and more extensively on special occasions, the rituals of this protector for the benefit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and for the Tibetan Government.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s special protectors are Pelden Lhamo and Nechung (gNas-chung), while those of the Tibetan Government are Pelden Lhamo and Jamsing (‘Jam-sing). Both pairs are called the Black and Red Pair (dMar-nag gnyis) – Pelden Lhamo is black in color, while Nechung and Jamsing are both red. The special protector of Ganden Shartsey is Setrab (Se-khrab).

On the 29th and 30th of each Tibetan month, the Jangtsey monks perform for an entire day and evening the full rituals of their protector, while Shartsey does the same on the 28th and 29th. Each kangtsen division also has its own special protector. On the 15th of each Tibetan month, each khangtsen performs for an entire day and evening the full rituals of its protector.

As for the two other main Gelug monasteries in the Lhasa area, the special protector of the Common Assembly of Drepung is Nechung, that of Drepung Losel-ling is also Nechung, and that of Drepung Gomang is Six-Armed Mahakala (dGon-po phyag-drug). The special protector of the Common Assembly of Sera is Jamsing, that of Sera Jey is also Jamsing as well as the Yangsang (Yang-gsang, Especially Hidden) form of Hayagriva (rTa-mgrin), and that of Sera May is Teu (The’u).

Since the time of the Eighth Ganden Tripa, the position of Ganden Tripa has alternated between the Jangtsey Chojey (Byang-rtse Chos-rje) and the Shartsey Chojey (Shar-rtse Chos-rje). The Jangtsey Chojey, or Dharma Master of Jangtsey, is the senior-most Retired Abbot (mKhan-zur Rin-po-che) of Gyumay Lower Tantric College (rGyud-smad Grva-tshang). His seat is at Jangtsey College. The Shartsey Chojey, Dharma Master of Shartsey, is the senior-most Retired Abbot of Gyuto Upper Tantric College (rGyud-stod Grva-tshang). He has his seat at Shartsey College.

Ganden Monastery, as well as Sera and Drepung, follows the early summer retreat (dbyar-gnas snga-ma), from the 16th of the sixth Tibetan month to the 30th of the seventh month. During the retreat, a discourse is traditionally given on Tsongkhapa’s Lam-rim chen-mo (Great Exposition on the Graded Stages of the Path). The initial scope teachings are given by the junior of the Jangtsey and Sharjey Chojeys, the intermediate scope by the senior of the two, and the advanced scope by the Ganden Tripa.

The monk population of Ganden was officially listed as 3,300, but by 1959 it was 7,500. The monastery was totally destroyed by the Chinese. At present, it is being partially reconstructed in Tibet. In India, Ganden Monastery has been relocated in Mundgod, Karnataka State.

* The main student requesting not mentioned in the article is Duldzin Drakpa Gyeltsen (Dorje Shugden). Hence, Dorje Shugden literally built Gaden Monastery for his Guru, Lama Tsongkhapa.

Gaden Monastery in its original form in Tibet

Gaden Monastery after destruction by the Chinese communists, with partial restoration

Gaden Monastery today in Tibet

Not only did Dorje Shugden built Gaden. He also composed the textbooks that they debate in Gaden Shartse, Drepung Loseling and the Tantric Colleges of Drepung to become a Geshe. These textbooks were composed by the incomparable Panchen Sonam Drakpa, whose prolific works are indisputable commentaries of the highest order and equivalent only to Je Tsongkhapa’s own works. Hence, if someone is able to write the textbooks that will lead you to full Enlightenment, he must be enlightened himself!

extracted from http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/buddhism_tibet/gelug/overview_gelug_monastic_education.html

Textbooks

All colleges within the Gelug monasteries follow the commentaries to these texts written by Tsongkhapa and his two main disciples, Gyeltsabjey (rGyal-tshab rJe Dar-ma rin-chen) (1364-1432) and Kaydrubjey (mKhas-grub rJe dGe-legs dpal-bzang) (1385-1438). In addition, each follows one of several textbooks (yig-cha) that developed to explain the fine points. The textbooks differ in interpretation of many details.

The first set of textbooks to develop were written by Jetsunpa Chokyi-gyeltsen (rJe-btsun-pa Chos-kyi rgyal-mtshan) (1469-1544), called “the Jetsunpa textbooks” for short. Ganden Jangtsey (dGa’-ldan Byang-rtse Grva-tshang), Sera Jey (Se-ra Byes Grva-tshang), and Sera Ngagpa Colleges (Se-ra sNgags-pa Grva-tshang) follow them.

The next two sets were written by two disciples of Jetsunpa. According to popular tradition, Jetsunpa asked the two to write commentaries explaining some of the major texts slightly differently than he had, so that future disciples would be able to sharpen their intelligence by debating their discrepancies. One set was written by Kaydrub Tendarwa (mKhas-grub dGe-‘dun bstan-pa dar-rgyas) (1493-1568). They are used by Sera May College (Se-ra sMad Grva-tshang).

The other set was written by Panchen Sonam-dragpa (Pan-chen bSod-nams grags-pa) (1478-1554), called “the Panchen textbooks” for short. They are followed by Ganden Shartsey (dGa’-ldan Shar-rtse Grva-tshang), Drepung Losel-ling (‘Bras-spungs Blo-gsal gling Grva-tshang), and Drepung Ngagpa Colleges (‘Bras-spungs sNgags-pa Grva-tshang).

A fourth set was written several centuries later by Kunkyen Jamyang-zheypa (the First), Ngawang-tsondru (Kun-mkhyen ‘Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa Ngag-dbang brtson-‘grus) (1648-1721), called “the Kunkyen textbooks” for short. They are followed by Drepung Gomang (‘Bras-spungs sGo-mang Grva-tshang) and Drepung Deyang Colleges (‘Bras-spungs bDe-dyangs Grva-tshang). Labrang Monastery (Bla-brang dGon-pa) in far-eastern Amdo (founded by Jamyang-zheypa) and most monasteries in Inner and Outer Mongolia, Buryatia, Kalmykia, and Tuva also follow them.

Each of the textbook traditions includes several additional texts written by later scholars.