Nechung Dorje Drayangling Monastery is not far from Drepung Monastery in Tibet

The Nechung oracle is the state oracle of Tibet. The governing council of Tibet and the Dalai Lama consult him on all matters of state. Usually, it is the chief minister of the Dharma Protector Pehar by the name of Dorje Drakden who takes possession of the oracle and acts as the mouthpiece for Pehar. The Horpas, an ethnic group that lived east of the Kokonor Lake, originally worshiped Pehar. According to oral tradition, this deity was one of the many deities and powerful spirits that challenged Guru Padmasambhava when he first came to Tibet. Consequently, he was subjugated and sworn to protect the Dharma. According to another source, a Bön (indigenous shamanistic tradition of Tibet) general by the name of Tara Lugong brought back the worship of this deity when he seized a meditational center near Kanchow of the Bhata Hor, a tribe of Uighurs, towards the end of the 8th century CE. Pehar was the protector of Samye Monastery and also a protector of the Dharma in general. During the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1642-1682), the worship of Pehar first moved from Samye to Tse Gungtang and then to the present site of Nechung Monastery. At Tse Gungtang, Pehar was believed to have started a fire at a monastery. This angered a powerful high lama there who, using his meditational powers, captured Pehar in a box and threw him in a river.

A thangka representation of Nechung Pehar

This box floated westwards into the vicinity of Drepung Monastery, where an abbot requested an attendant to retrieve it. While the attendant was carrying the box back to the monastery, he opened the box out of curiosity. Pehar, in the form of a bird, escaped and perched upon a nearby tree before disappearing. It was around this tree that a chapel was later built to Pehar. The Fifth Dalai Lama expanded this chapel which later became known as Nechung Monastery. Then, he installed the Nechung oracle as the state oracle of Tibet. In spite of holding the respected position of state oracle, the Nechung oracle over the centuries has been beset with numerous controversies. Hence, many high lamas both in the past and today refuse to consult the Nechung oracleeven on the smallest of matters as this oracle has been proven to give inaccurate pronouncements and prophecies over the years.  

During the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama

A statue of Dorje Shugden riding on a horse that was believed to have been made by the Fifth Dalai Lama

It is generally believed that the current Dorje Shugden ban was substantiated by a long-standing feud that extends back to the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, who had initially blamed the calamities befalling Lhasa at the time on the spirit of the deceased lama, Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. The Fifth Dalai Lama commissioned Nyingma lamas to perform powerful fire pujas to eradicate the ‘spirit’, Dorje Shugden. However, the pujas were ineffective as Dorje Shugden was of the same indestructible nature as Yamantaka. The Dalai Lama realized this and composed a praise to Dorje Shugden, built the shrine Trode Khangsar and crafted statues according to the vision he had of Dorje Shugden. According to the elder monks of Gaden Phelgyeling Monastery, the Fifth Dalai Lama was the one who appointed Dorje Shugden to be the protector of their monastery as well. Thus, whatever issues that might have existed between Dorje Shugden and the Fifth Dalai Lama were resolved. Since then, many Dalai Lama incarnations have arisen with no issues with Dorje Shugden.  

During the time of the 13th Dalai Lama

It is believed that issues with Dorje Shugden resurfaced during the time of the 13th Dalai Lama but historical records reveal the truth of the matter – that he merely reshuffled state approval of deities. At that time, Tibetan society was rife with the worship of innumerable deities and oracles. Charlatans had taken advantage of the situation, posing as oracles of make-believe deities and cheating people of money and offerings. To curb the situation, the 13th Dalai Lama outlawed the worship of a number of such deities and oracles. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama continued to approve of the state oracles of Nechung and Gadong, Dorje Shugden from Trode Khangsar, Tsangpa (believed to be the peaceful aspect of Setrab) and the Tenma oracle from Drepung.

The embalmed holy remains of Domo Geshe Rinpoche Ngawang Kelsang (1866-1936) – the only known image of him

There was a high-ranking police officer for British India by the name of Legden. He was a Sherpa (of Tibetan ethnicity) from Darjeeling, and had maintained special relations with the 13th Dalai Lama. He often traveled to Tibet and was bestowed a high rank by the Dalai Lama for being the founder of the first Tibetan police regiment in Lhasa. On one occasion, he was requested to investigate a money-forgery racket by the Dalai Lama and was successful in arresting several Nepalese men in Calcutta who were involved in this racket. He was also awarded medals of honor by the British government in London for his service in India. His memoirs include a personal letter from the 13th Dalai Lama thanking him for his service to Tibet, and several gifts including a walking stick. The Dalai Lama also gave him some special sacred items which were to be sent to a modern temple of Dorje Shugdenas well as a Guru Rinpoche temple, both founded by Domo Geshe Rinpoche. The above are some noteworthy anecdotes that confirm the 13th Dalai Lama had actually approved of the worship of Dorje Shugden, contrary to what is disseminated today.  

Younghusband British invasion and the demise of the 13th Dalai Lama

The Nechung oracle is infamously linked to the defeat of the Tibetans at the hands of the British expedition in 1904. Prior to this, the Tibetans had taken measures to curb the growing influence of the British in the Sikkim area. On the advice of the Nechung oracle, the Tibetans forcibly occupied a mountain within the influence of the British. The Nechung oracle said that the magical powers emanating from the mountain would fend off the advance of the British troops into Tibet. Needless to say, the British forces recaptured the mountain fairly easily with a feeble resistance from the Tibetans. Then in 1904, the Younghusband Expeditionary Force began to advance into Central Tibet after a failed negotiation attempt. Colonel Francis Younghusband led the British troops into the Tibetan heartland. The Nechung oracle was invoked and proclaimed that the British army would reach Central Tibet and predicted that the Tibetan army would be victorious. The British did arrive in Lhasa but, unlike Nechung’s prophecy, easily defeated the poorly equipped Tibetans. The Dalai Lama fled the country along with the Nechung oracle. Upon his return when the had British departed, the Nechung oracle was dismissed from his position as the state oracle.

Expedition leader Col Younghusband (centre) with Captain Hayman (right) and other officers in Tibet in 1903

When the 13th Dalai Lama fell ill, the Nechung oracle was traditionally invoked to advice on the best course of action to heal the Dalai Lama. Towards the end of the 13th Dalai Lama’s days, the Nechung oracle was summoned whereupon he prescribed a certain herbal remedy and prepared the medicine in a cup of water himself. Witnesses said that the 13th Dalai Lama refused to drink the concoction but the Nechung oracle insisted and literally poured the tonic down the Dalai Lama’s throat. The Dalai Lama’s condition deteriorated after that and he soon lost consciousness and never said another word. It was said that the Dalai Lama was prescribed the wrong medicine for his condition and that was what killed the Dalai Lama. It is widely believed that, since the time of the 13th Dalai Lama until today, the Nechung oracle has been under the influence of an evil spirit instead of Nechung/Pehar, thus causing much mischief and problems for the Tibetan peoples such as the untimely death of the 13th Dalai Lama. Some believe that a tulku of Nyarong who had become a raging spirit is entering the Nechung oracle. Another source claims that the Nechung oracle is taking trance of a previously deposed oracle. Whatever it is, rumors and controversy have been shadowing the Nechung Oracle ever since, not to mention glaringly wrong predictions and prophecies.  

The 14th Dalai Lama’s escape from Tibet

The biography of the 14th Dalai Lama states that, during the tumultuous period of 1959, it was Nechung via his oracle who told the Dalai Lama that it was time to escape from Tibet. However, according to letters and documents from Changtso Lobsang Yeshe, it was in fact a message from Dorje Shugden that prompted the Dalai Lama to begin his flight to India. After the Chinese forces fired two cannon shots at the Potala Palace, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche had requested Rato Chowar Rinpoche and Kensur Ngawang Dakpa of Sera Mey Monastery to consult the Panglung Oracle about the imminent threat to Tibet. Changtso Lobsang Yeshe became the main intermediary between Kensur Ngawang Dakpa and Dorje Shugden via the 6th Panglung Oracle because the Chinese were observing Kensur Ngawang Dakpa rather tightly. Thus, it was Changtso Lobsang Yeshe who ended up representing Kensur Ngawang Dakpa at a private audience on this pressing matter with the Protector Dorje Shugden on 10th March 1959 via the 6th Panglung Oracle. During that period, a sinister Chinese plot to have the Dalai Lama and many other religious leaders arrested and harmed was uncovered. And it was at this crucial juncture that Dorje Shugden gave specific advice for the Dalai Lama to leave Tibet without further delay. Dorje Shugden also specified the exact time and day of departure, the escape route, and also gave further instructions on what to do to ensure a successful escape. Conversely, the Nechung oracle had adviced the Dalai Lama to remain in Tibet. Thus, the 14th Dalai Lama’s life and the spread of Tibetan Buddhism in the world is attributed to Dorje Shugden and not the Nechung oracle.  

How Nechung misled the 14th Dalai Lama

In 1970, the 14th Dalai Lama was still practicing Dorje Shugden, exactly as he had been taught by His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. It was also widely known that the Dalai Lama had his personal monastery, Namgyal Monastery, perform monthly pujas to Dorje Shugden. However, around the time when the Dalai Lama was about to receive Dorje Shugden sogtaeor life-entrustment initiation from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the state oracle took trance and misled him away from the practice with negative counsel about Dorje Shugden. Therefore, it is clear that the Dorje Shugden ban did not start from a vision or meditative realization but was influenced by an external source.

In the 70s before the ban, the Dalai Lama’s private Namgyal Monastery was doing monthly Dorje Shugden pujas

The Dalai Lama had two extraordinary gurus, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. Of the two tutors, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was the ‘father’ and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was the ‘mother’. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche not only gave teachings on the Lamrim and other Dharma topics to the Dalai Lama but also taught everything else he knew from table manners to the proper etiquette expected of a high lama. In fact, the Dalai Lama has received the most tantric transmissions and Lamrim teachings from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. Even Kyabje Ling Rinpoche received the Lamrim teachings from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. Thus, whenever the Dalai Lama gives lamrim teachings, he should recite the prayer to solicit the blessings of the lineage masters beforehand, according to tradition. However, due to the Dorje Shugden controversy, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche have been omitted from the list of lineage masters. This is a travesty of tradition and lineage – these two great masters are major lineage holders of the Gelugpa tradition and omitting them would mean that the lineage is broken.  

Pisu Jola’s Book

Pisu Jola was an educated lay Tibetan man. He sponsored the Dorje Shugden statue in the great prayer hall of Gaden Tsokchen, which was consecrated by the Dalai Lama, the two tutors – Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje Zong Rinpoche and other high lamas. However, when the ban on Dorje Shugden began, the Dalai Lama decreed that the statue was to be removed. Thus, the Gaden oracle had the statue placed in his own temple instead. When Pisu Jola found out about this, he was very disturbed and pleaded with the religious affairs office not to carry out the plan. At that time, Nyingma Lama Kamtrul was the person in charge. Pisu Jola pleaded with him not to do so. He said, I do not have a very long time to live. I do not want to die in such great disappointment… In other words, he was very respectful. But the lama responded by admonishing the old man saying, You stupid old man! If you are afraid of your death, you should listen to the Dalai Lama. Disheartened by the state of affairs, Pisu Jola decided to write a small but powerful book about the Dorje Shugden issue. Guru Deva Rinpoche sponsored the publication of Pisu Jola’s book. The Central Tibetan Administration were very unhappy when the book began circulating, as it contained many true stories that they wished to suppress. So desperate were they, that the CTA even offered a reward for each copy of Pisu Jola book that was handed over to them!

The Nechung Oracle in full regalia as he takes trance of Dorje Drakden who acts as a mouthpiece for Nechung

So what is all the fuss about? Well, one of the stories in Pisu Jola’s book is the famous story of the circumstances surrounding Kyabje Ling Rinpoche’s passing. When Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was seriously ill, Ling Ladrang (household), Changtzos (assistants) and the Abbot of Sera Mey Monastery at that time requested for an emergency trance with the Nechung oracle in order to consult the Dharma Protector Nechung for a way to heal Ling Rinpoche’s illness. The paper containing the questions pertaining to Ling Rinpoche’s health was presented to Nechung in trance, who took it, crumpled it into a ball and put it under his buttocks. Nechung then proclaimed that if Ling Rinpoche’s condition improved in three days time, there would be no harm to Ling Rinpoche’s life. Nechung further commented, Obstacles from the big is put on the head of the small. This was interpreted to mean that the Dalai Lama’s obstacles (‘big’) were being suffered by Ling Rinpoche (‘small’). This statement got the old Ling Ladrang Changtzo worked up. “How can the Guru be considered the ‘small’ and the student the ‘big’?” the Changtso said. The Ling Ladrang Changtzo grabbed Nechung in trance by his clothes and scolded Nechung to his face saying, Every day we offer you liquor, tea and pray to you. And in difficult times like these, you say such things and never help!!!Nechung left the body of the oracle and never took trance in the presence of the Changtzo again.  

The Great Return to Tibet

The Dalai Lama with the Indian beggar girl who claimed to be the incarnation of a Hindu goddess

In more recent times, an Indian beggar girl traveled to Dharamsala a few years ago claiming to be an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Sambhavi. Her parents demanded a private audience with the Dalai Lama, claiming that the girl had a special message for him. In ‘trance’, she warned him of health concerns and also gave a prediction that Tibetans would return to Tibet in 2012. The incident was covered by the news channel Al-Jazeera and French Channel 5. To verify the girl’s claims, the Nechung oracle was invoked and the Dharma Protector concurred with the girl’s predictions. However, the year 2012 came and went and nothing happened. Even earlier in 1986, the Nechung oracle offered another prediction concerning the Tibetan cause. The oracle pronounced that in the Year of the Dragon, something extraordinary would happen; the Tibetans in exile and abroad would reunite and that this day was very near. At that time, a Geshe was visiting Lhasa and people would come up and ask him, “Are you from abroad?” When he said yes, they asked further, “Did you know that our state oracle has given this prediction?” And they showed him a slip of paper that had the prediction written on it. On another occasion, the state oracle said, I will send 100 million divine soldiers to China Come 1987, the Year of the Dragon, the Tibetans organized an uprising against the Chinese, optimistic that Nechung’s prediction would come true. However, the Chinese police swiftly crushed the uprising and no divine soldiers came to assistant.In fact, Nechung would make further (and similar) predictions about the Year of the Ox (1997) and the Year of the Pig (1995) but with no success. The Tibetan situation remained the same.  

Conclusion

It is clear from these anecdotes that Nechung has a track record of making unreliable, inaccurate and plain-out wrong pronouncements and prophecies. These incorrect predictions have created tremendous trouble for the Dalai Lama and for the cause of Tibet. Yet, it is puzzling to note that despite all the problems that arose due to the reliance on the state oracle, the Nechung oracle is still very much revered and consulted to this day. Generally, many high lamas still have high regard for the Dharma Protector Nechung, and some believe that the being entering the Nechung oracle’s body is not necessarily Nechung himself. In fact, some say that a powerful malignant spirit of someone who had been murdered by the CTA has been entering the state oracle, and intentionally making incorrect pronouncements – karma coming back for the Tibetan leadership. Whatever it is, there is a general belief that the trance of the Nechung oracle is not and has not been pure. In all likelihood, Nechung’s pronouncement against Dorje Shugden is yet another fake prophecy designed to create more harm in Tibetan society. Very plausible considering that all the Dorje Shugden ban has achieved is to create suffering, misery and heartache for all involved.

Addendum

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche’s autobiography ‘A Tulku’s Journey from Tibet to Canada’, published in 2016, provides historical evidence and irrefutable proof that the Central Tibetan Administration is falsifying the facts when it comes to the practice of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden.

The autobiography of Zasep Tulku Rinpoche, a high lama of the Gelug lineage, provides accurate historical accounts of the Dorje Shugden practice. Click to enlarge.

The back cover of the book, click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge

Historical accounts show that prior to the politicization of the Dorje Shugden practice by the Central Tibetan Administration, this popular deity was relied upon by Dharma practitioners to help in their spiritual practice. Contrary to detractors’ claims about Dorje Shugden being ‘anti-Dharma’, this Dharma Protector practice was traditionally deemed to be suitable to be practiced alongside the Highest Yoga Tantras.

Click to enlarge

Zasep Rinpoche and his family were able to escape to safety prior to the events of 1959 through the clairvoyance and prophetic advice of Dorje Shugden through one of his oracles, Lama Gelong Chojor Gyamtso.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Oracles of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden were known for the accuracy of their prophecies due to Dorje Shugden being a fully enlightened deity with perfect clairvoyance. As stated clearly by Zasep Rinpoche in his autobiography ‘A Tulku’s Journey from Tibet to Canada’, Dorje Shugden warned the Tibetans of the impending loss of their homeland but his advice was mostly ignored by the Tibetan government.

The Tibetan government chose to consult the worldly state protector Nechung, and Nechung advised that the Dalai Lama should remain in Tibet where he would be safe. This was mistaken advice, as historical events would later show. Fortunately for Tibetan Buddhists all around the world, Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang had great faith in Dorje Shugden and consulted the protector for advice on the Dalai Lama’s safety. Dorje Shugden via the Panglung Oracle urgently adviced the Dalai Lama to leave for India immediately and gave the exact escape route. In saving the Dalai Lama from certain harm, Dorje Shugden prevented the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism and preserved the future of the Tibetan culture and people.

Zasep Rinpoche’s account of events concur with monastic records that it was indeed Dorje Shugden who saved the Dalai Lama instead of Nechung, contrary to the claims of the Tibetan leadership.

Click to enlarge

Dorje Shugden’s practice was first established within the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism. The Sakya Throneholders regarded this Dharma Protector as an enlightened being and Dorje Shugden, together with Dorje Setrab and Tsiu Marpo formed the triune of Sakya Protectors known as Gyalpo Sum. Today, Sakya practitioners claim that Dorje Shugden was never widely practiced by their lineage but history proves otherwise. The undeniable fact is that before the CTA’s religious ban, Dorje Shugden was practiced first by the Sakyas and was later transmitted to the Gelug school where it was practiced by the majority of the Gelugpas.

Click to enlarge

Contrary to the CTA’s claims that Dorje Shugden’s practice is sectarian, Zasep Rinpoche’s autobiography shows how practitioners of all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism lived and practiced together in harmony, especially during the early years of exile in India. It was only when the CTA launched a virulent smear campaign against Dorje Shugden that the general public began to label Dorje Shugden a sectarian practice. In truth, Dorje Shugden’s practice is no more sectarian than the practices of other Dharma Protectors such as Mahakala Bernagchen, Achi Chokyi Drolma or Dorje Legpa, who protect the Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu and Nyingma schools respectively.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

By the 1980s, the Tibetan government had failed to fulfil multiple promises to return the Tibetan people to their homeland. A scapegoat was needed and they made one out of an ancient Buddhist practice, pinning the loss of Tibet and the failure of the Tibetan cause on Dorje Shugden. In his autobiography, Zasep Rinpoche is of the same opinion, stating that “…the [Dorje Shugden] controversy was orchestrated by the Tibetan Central Administration…”

The Tibetan leadership effectively sanctioned witch-hunts on Dorje Shugden practitioners and persecuted them using government instruments, declaring that simply by being a Shugden worshipper, one was effectively an enemy of the Tibetan nation.

As a result of the hatred against Dorje Shugden practitioners instigated by the Tibetan leadership, virtually all Shugden Buddhists had to fear for their lives, or at least for their safety.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Dorje Shugden’s beneficial practice has continued to thrive due to the courage and commitment of high lamas such as Zasep Tulku Rinpoche.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

For centuries, Dorje Shugden has been practiced alongside the highest practices of the Gelug and Sakya lineages. Zasep Tulku Rinpoche’s list of transmission is an indication that the highest scholars viewed the Protector as an enlightened being compatible with their yidam practices.

Dorje Shugden’s practice initially began in the Sakya school when the “spirit” of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen first travelled there after failing to enter Tashi Lhumpo to meet his Guru.

One of Dorje Shugden’s previous incarnations was as Sakya Pandita. As such the Sakya patriarch at that time, Dagchen Dorje Chang Sonam Rinchen accepted him and officially enthroned him as a Dharma Protector. Then, Kunkhyen Ngawang Kunga Lodroe composed a praise that became the start of his practice in the Sakya School.

Meanwhile, the Fifth Dalai Lama and many other high Lamas tried to destroy him with various wrathful rituals but all their attempts failed. This appeared to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the Dalai Lama to publicly prove the indestructible nature of Dorje Shugden.

Eventually, realizing that Dorje Shugden had, in fact, arisen as a Protector and not as a spirit, the Fifth Dalai Lama composed a praise of Dorje Shugden and even crafted a statue of him with his very own hands.

This statue was made by the 5th Dalai Lama himself. It is still venerated daily in Phelgyeling Monastery, Nepal.

He entrusted this statue and practice to Phelgyeling Monastery, which then installed Dorje Shugden as its main Protector. Elders of the monastery today say that the practice became so widespread that even Nyingmapas of their area in Tibet practiced Dorje Shugden.

The Great Fifth Dalai Lama also built the first tsen khang, Protector chapel, of Dorje Shugden in Lhasa. This temple still stands in Lhasa today and is a popular pilgrimage site for devotees of Dorje Shugden from all over the world. In its earlier days, the chapel was placed under the care of Riwo Choling, a Gelug monastery – this became the first link for Dorje Shugden’s practice to enter the Gelug tradition.

Dorje Shugden is a Dharma Protector who has arisen in this form specifically to safeguard our Dharma practice. Therefore, the very moment we begin our spiritual connection with him through our prayers, offerings and refuge is the moment he begins his work to sustain us on the spiritual path.

However, many of us are new to the Dharma and our immediate concern may not be for our spiritual practice, mind transformation or even Enlightenment; many of us are more concerned about our immediate problems: relationship conflicts, monetary concerns, career dilemmas, bills to pay, mouths to feed and jobs to fulfil.

We must realize that as long as we are alive, such problems will continue to plague us, to a greater or lesser extent. We therefore need assistance that is fast, efficacious and something we can place our full trust in.

This is where Dorje Shugden comes in, as he is the most supreme among all the Dharma Protectors. Dorje Shugden holds a vajra hook in the crook of his left arm which reflects his powerful ability to attract all desired material and spiritual resources for our worldly and spiritual life.

Also, with his enlightened nature, which is the same as Manjushri’s, the Buddha of Wisdom, he will skilfully alleviate our problems so we can focus more on our spiritual practice. Many people develop faith quickly in Dorje Shugden because they receive very clear signs that he has alleviated their problems. Often, practitioners enter the Dharma in this way when their immediate prayers are answered swiftly.

Dorje Shugden’s strength and ability are boundless. Devotees of Dorje Shugden will be able to share with you numerous examples of how he has rescued them from dire circumstances, in ways that other Protectors are unable to do at this time.

Dorje Shugden is able to come to our assistance much quicker because he is in the form of a worldly god although his mind is that of a fully enlightened Buddha – Manjushri. This worldly form is symbolised by the boots that he wears, which represents a very close, strong karmic affinity that he has with us.

When Dorje Shugden first arose as a Dharma Protector, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama tried to destroy him with some of the deadliest fire rituals. However, due to his indestructible, fully enlightened nature, Dorje Shugden was not destroyed in any of the rites and survived all of the attempts. Actually, the Dalai Lama did this to reveal Dorje Shugden’s real nature and the enlightened level of his power, attainments and efficacy.

It was with these enlightened qualities that Dorje Shugden was able to guide the current incarnation of the Dalai Lama safely out of Tibet during the Chinese invasion. Dorje Shugden is now also the main force behind the phenomenal growth of the world’s largest Tibetan Buddhist organizations and continues to perform countless other modern-day miracles.

If we place our trust in Dorje Shugden, we should have full faith that he will know what is best for us. He will bestow what is ultimately most beneficial for our spiritual practice and overall well-being. Therefore, we may not get exactly what we pray for or we may receive something else that we didn’t ask for.

When we find ourselves in such a situation, we should be grateful that Dorje Shugden has given us this opportunity to push our spiritual practice to another level and trust that what he has given us is for our highest benefit in the long term. There is no need to question Dorje Shugden’s better judgment and lose focus of the bigger picture.

Also, Dorje Shugden has 32 deities in his mandala that are each emanations of himself. Each of these deities bestows a type of blessing on practitioners and assists the principal deity to perform different beneficial actions:

Duldzin Dorje Shugden

The principal deity who leads us on the right path and alleviates all outer and inner obstacles.

Vairochana Shugden

The ‘purification’ emanation of Dorje Shugden. He is very efficacious in helping us to heal from life-threatening or incapacitating diseases.

Ratna Shugden

The ‘increase’ emanation of Dorje Shugden. He increases our merit and material resources or leads us to those who can bring us abundant resources.

Padma Shugden

The ‘control’ emanation of Dorje Shugden. He helps us to control our own difficult mind or situations and other people/beings who are difficult to tame.

Karma Shugden

The ‘wrathful’ emanation of Dorje Shugden. He helps to overcome extremely dangerous and negative situations.

The Eight Guiding Monks

They empower us to hold our spiritual vows and commitments.

The Nine Mothers

They assist Tantric practitioners with the higher meditations.

The Ten Deities

They help to alleviate all outer and inner obstacles, like broken samaya, which will take us away from our spiritual path.

Finally, because Dorje Shugden is an emanation of Manjushri, propitiating him will also bless you with excellent memory, a sharp mind, creativity and empowering speech that is clear and precise in its meaning.

The Dalai Lama makes a great deal of being non-sectarian and claims that those who practise Dorje Shugden are sectarian. He quotes ‘sectarianism’ as one of his main reasons for banning the practice of Shugden:

2. Obstacles to the emergence of genuine non-sectarianism: His Holiness has often stated that one of his most important commitments is the promotion of inter-religious understanding and harmony. As part of this endeavour, His Holiness is committed to encouraging non-sectarianism in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. In this matter, His Holiness is following the example set by his predecessors, specifically the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Not only is a non-sectarian approach mutually enriching for all Tibetan Buddhist schools, but it is also the best safeguard against a rise of sectarianism that could have damaging consequences for the Tibetan tradition as a whole. Given the acknowledged link between Dolgyal* worship and sectarianism, this particular practice remains a fundamental obstacle to fostering a genuine non-sectarian spirit within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

(*Dolgyal is a derogatory term for Dorje Shugden)

Bigotry, discrimination, hatred

So how non-sectarian is the Dalai Lama? This is the definition of sectarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism from Wikipedia:

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or factions of a political movement.

This definition contains many powerful words such as ‘bigotry, discrimination and hatred’, all of which apply to the Dalai Lama’s public pronouncements about the practice of Dorje Shugden. An enforced signature campaign to stop the practice has led to Tibetans practising bigotry and hatred towards those who disagree with the Dalai Lama’s political ban of the practice. Discrimination is exactly what Shugden practitioners are experiencing in Tibetan communities throughout the world (shockingly, even in democratic Western countries such as the USA, France and Switzerland) as the Dalai Lama brands them as spirit worshippers. Paradoxically, this makes the Dalai Lama’s own Guru Trijang Rinpoche a spirit worshipper and invalidates the whole Gelugpa lineage; but this unwanted consequence doesn’t seem to have dawned on the Dalai Lama.

Considering the evidence of ostracism and discrimination, and the Dalai Lama bringing the subject of Shugden up at every public meeting of Tibetans in an attempt to completely stamp out the practice, how can the Dalai Lama be said to be non-sectarian?

Rime

Another red herring is the Dalai Lama talking about ‘Rime’ or ‘Rigme’ (pronounced Reemay). Here is an example from a talk he gave on 14th January 2011 as reported by Voice of Tibet radio:

Since I, as an ordinary body of Amdo, got the name of fourteen Dalai Lama, I ought to follow the steps of my predecessors. It is my responsibility to serve the Rigme teachings of Tibet.

Rime is a non-sectarian movement that began in Tibet, prompted by the political infighting between the different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is claiming the Rime is non-sectarian and should be followed whereas the practice of Dorje Shugden is sectarian. By making such false claims, and encouraging discrimination against a religious tradition that was promoted by his own Teacher, the Dalai Lama shows himself to be sectarian. The approach of Rime is quite different to that of the Dalai Lama.

Ringu Tulku says:

Ris or Phyog-ris in Tibetan means “one-sided”, “partisan” or “sectarian”. Med means “No”. Ris-med (Wylie), or Rimé, therefore means “no sides”, “non-partisan” or “non-sectarian”. It does not mean “non-conformist” or “non-committal”; nor does it mean forming a new School or system that is different from the existing ones. A person who believes the Rimé way almost certainly follows one lineage as his or her main practice. He or she would not dissociate from the School in which he or she was raised.

Rime therefore doesn’t mean practising all traditions. It also doesn’t mean blurring the lines between traditions, as the Dalai Lama is wont to do:

Rimé is not a way of uniting different Schools and lineages by emphasising their similarities. It is basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with different needs. Therefore, Rimé teachers always take great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another. To retain the original style and methods of each teaching lineage preserves the power of that lineage experience. Kongtrul and Khentse made great efforts to retain the original flavour of each teaching, while making them available to many.

In a talk he gave to a Russian audience on 27 November 2010 in response to a question about receiving empowerments from different traditions:

There is no problem. No differences are there at all. You should receive Gelug empowerment; you should receive Nyingma empowerment; you should receive Sakya empowerment; and you should receive Kagyu empowerment. As for me, I receive all of them. Well, all Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geden are students of seventeen Mahasiddas and scholars. Shugden worshippers are saying that if a Gelugpa worship Shugden, it is incorrect to keep a text of Nyingma. That is wrong. In twenty century, because of Shugden, sectarian is developing in Tibet. This is wrong.

Notice that the Dalai Lama uses this occasion to unfairly brand Shugden practitioners as sectarian. He also uses wrong logic to justify eclecticism: ‘Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geden are students of the seventeen Mahasiddhas and scholars’. While this is undoubtedly true, there are important differences in their presentation of Buddha’s teachings which are appreciated by those who follow Rime but not by the Dalai Lama. We can therefore see that true Rime celebrates diversity, whereas the Dalai Lama’s idea of Rime is to amalgamate the schools by claiming there is no difference and everyone should practice all schools, expressly against the Rime edict that one should follow one lineage as one’s main practice and no dissociate from that school. The Dalai Lama has dissociated himself from the Gelugpa school and from his root Guru through his criticism of Dorje Shugden practice and practitioners. His actions are therefore sectarian and non-Rime, even though he claims to have banned the practice because he’s non-sectarian!

Ask yourself this question: How is someone non-sectarian by banning a religious practice and outlawing it? This is clearly contradictory. It’s against the Rime teachings that the Dalai Lama claims to support.

There are further contradictions in the Dalai Lama’s position. In his speech of 14th January, the Dalai Lama says he must follow his predecessors by protecting the Rime school, but the First Dalai Lama, Je Gendundrub wrote a beautiful praise to Je Tsongkhapa called Song of the Eastern Snow Mountain in which he says:

From now until enlightenment
I shall seek no refuge other than you.
O Venerable Father and Sons (Je Tsongkhapa and his two spiritual sons, Khedrubje and Gyaltsabje)
Please care for me with your compassion.

The Rime system didn’t exist until the nineteenth century, five hundred years after the First Dalai Lama proclaimed his sole refuge to be Je Tsongkhapa. Rime is therefore a relatively recent development. The present Dalai Lama seems to have forsaken Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition for the sake of following no tradition (he’s not following Rime, as clearly explained) and he has also forsaken the kindness of his Gurus by having them branded as spirit worshippers.

Finally then: why doesn’t the present Dalai Lama show the example of his ultimate predecessor, the First Dalai Lama and remain within the Gelugpa school of Buddhism while respecting all others, appreciating and celebrating their differences as a true Rime practitioner would? Instead, he has chosen the path of sectarian intolerance by banning one of the main practices of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, which he seems intent on destroying, and merging all schools of Buddhism into one by claiming they are all the same.

Source :
http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2011/02/dalai-lamas-sectarian-non-sectarian.html

I have been scouring the internet for as much information as I can on Dorje Shugden. I have compiled a lot of notes (thanks to Google Notes) so I will now present what I have found with regards to this “deity”.

At this moment in time I have no affiliation with any Buddhist Schools nor with the Dalai Lama so everything here is taken from other web sites and blogs with my own interpretations. Where possible I have included links to the original articles.

So, if like me you are interested in the Dorje Shugden Practice and want to know more, this is my introduction.

What’s in a name?
The name Dorje Shugden translates from Tibetan to Powerful Thunderbolt.

Who is Dorje Shugden?
Some say that this “deity” is an enlightened being or dharma protector whereas others view him as an “evil spirit”. It was said that the 5th Dalai Lama, who came into rule in 1642 had a rival by the name of Dragpa Gyaltsen. Dragpa defeated the Dalai Lama in debate and was deemed more popular than the Dalai Lama himself. Soon after Dragpa was mysteriously found dead with a ceremonial scarf forced down his throat. It has never been verified if this was murder or suicide. It is/was of the opinion that Dorje Shugden was the vengeful spirit of Dragpa Gyaltsen.

The Dalai Lama then changed his mind about Shugden and announced that Shugden was indeed an enlightened being and henceforth praised him as a Buddha.

Who practices Dorje Shugden?
It would be wise of me to mention at this early stage in my research that the 14th Dalai Lama himself was a practitioner of Dorje Shugden from around 1951 to 1970. He was certainly introduced to the practice by his teachers Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (respective Senior and Junior teachers to the 14th Dalai Lama).

The Ban
The reason I bring this up early in this post is that in 1996, the 14th Dalai Lama made a sudden u-turn in his mindset and banned the practice of Dorje Shugden.

The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying he “strongly discourages” the practice of Dorje Shugden. But there is evidence of a ban. For example the ID cards for Tibetans are given as long as they swear they are not Shugden practitioners nor will they have any spiritual or material relationship with those who do.

The Dalai Lama has given a few reasons why Dorje Shugden should not be practiced. One of those is that the 5th and 13th Dalai Lamas banned the practice. As noted above, the 5th Dalai Lama had already changed his mind about Dorje Shugden being an evil spirit. Plus if you add to this the fact that the 6th to the 12th Dalai Lamas did not have a problem with the practice. Also there is no record of the 13th Dalai Lama actually banning the practice itself and he had also changed his mind about Dorje Shugden being an evil spirit.

As the 14th Dalai Lama’s teachers were practitioners, it seems odd how he would wait until Trijang Rinpoche had died before initiating the ban. Trijang had died in 1981, the Dalai Lama had stopped his practice in 1970, yet he did not ban it publicly until 1996. Some people believe that the 14th Dalai Lama is using his political power for religious reasons.

Why I think the ban should be lifted.
Buddha Shakyamuni [1] was the founder of Buddhism, in his own words, Shakyamuni said that “practitioners have the freedom to make up their own minds about what to adopt and what to practice, and which spiritual leader to follow.” He also said that, “no one should believe him just because he said it or because others believed him – they needed to ascertain the truth for themselves.”

So why does the Dalai Lama have a right to tell Buddhists not to practice Dorje Shugden? If Shakyamuni said we should effectively be finding these things out for ourselves then no one has the right to tell Buddhists what they can and cannot practice.

In his autobiography, Freedom from exile, the 14th Dalai Lama wrote that he consults an Oracle (that of Nechung). Now, to be a Buddhist, you must take “refuge in the Three Jewels – The Buddha, The Dharma, and The Sangha”. No where does it mention about Oracles nor did the Buddha ever teach anything on the reliance of Oracles.

Here is a Youtube video called Dalai Lama – The Devil Within. This explains some of what I have written here.

[1] Buddha Shakyamuni is the founder of Buddhism who lived in the 6th century BC in Northern India. Buddha explained that all our problems and suffering arise from confused and negative states of mind and all our happiness and good fortune arise from peaceful and positive states mind. He taught methods for gradually overcoming minds such as anger, jealousy and ignorance and developing positive states of minds such as love, compassion and wisdom. Through this we will come to experience the lasting peace and happiness of full enlightenment.

Source : http://maramyfriend.livejournal.com/

Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, “The Great 5th” Dalai Lama was the temporal and spiritual ruler of Tibet from 1642-1682. He unified Tibet under the Gelug school of Buddhism, made Lhasa the capital city, established friendly relations with the Manchu Emperor in Beijing and built the Potala Palace.

He was a great writer on spiritual subjects and an adept administrator, putting in place the dual system of government that ruled Tibet for centuries. The Great Fifth Dalai Lama also wrote a prayer to Dorje Shugden.

(Prayer link: dorjeshugden.com/?page_id=341)

Overview

Dorje Shugden (Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), “Powerful thunderbolt”; also known as Dhol-rgyal) is a relatively recent, but very controversial, deity within the complex pantheons of Himalayan Buddhism. There exist different accounts and claims on Dorje Shugden’s origin, nature and function.

Origin, Nature and Functions

According to researcher Kay: “Whilst there is a consensus that this protector practice originated in the seventeenth century, there is much disagreement about the nature and status of Dorje Shugden, the events that led to his appearance onto the religious landscape of Tibet, and the subsequent development of his cult.” [2]

There are two dominant views: [3]

One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being). Opposing this Position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a ‘jig nen pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector).

Kay examines: [3]

“One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being) and that, whilst not being bound by history, he assumed a series of human incarnations before manifesting himself as a Dharma protector during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. According to this view, the Fifth Dalai Lama initially mistook Dorje Shugden for a harmful and vengeful spirit of a tulku of Drepung monastery called Dragpa Gyaltsen, who had been murdered by the Tibetan government because of the threat posed by his widespread popularity and influence. After a number of failed attempts to subdue this worldly spirit by enlisting the help of a high-ranking Nyingma lama, the Great Fifth realised that Dorje Shugden was in reality an enlightened being and began henceforth to praise him as a Buddha. Proponents of this view maintain that the deity has been worshipped as a Buddha ever since, and that he is now the chief guardian deity of the Gelug Tradition. These proponents claim, furthermore, that the Sakya tradition also recognises and worships Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. The main representative of this view in recent years has been Geshe Kelsang Gyatso who, like many other popular Gelug lamas stands firmly within the lineage tradition of the highly influential Phabongkha Rinpoche and his disciple Trijang Rinpoche.” [4]

And

“Opposing this Position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a ‘jig nen pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector) whose relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him a highly inappropriate object of such exalted veneration and refuge. This view agrees with the former that Dorje Shugden entered the Tibetan religious landscape following the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, a rival to the Great Fifth and his government. According to this view, however, the deity initially came into existence as a demonic and vengeance-seeking spirit, causing many calamities and disasters for his former enemies before being pacified and reconciled to the Gelug school as a protector of its teachings and interests. Supporters of this view reject the pretensions made by devotees of Dorje Shugden, with respect to his Status and importance, as recent innovations probably originating during the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche and reflecting his particularly exclusive and sectarian agenda. The present Dalai Lama is the main proponent of this position and he is widely supported in it by representatives of the Gelug and non-Gelug traditions.” [5]

Regarding English scholarly discussions, Kay states: “Scholarly discussions of the various legends behind the emergence of the Dorje Shugden cult can be found in Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1956), Chime Radha Rinpoche (1981), and Mumford (1989). All of these accounts narrate the latter of the two positions, in which the deity is defined as a worldly protector. The fact that these scholars reveal no awareness of an alternative view suggests that the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance.” [6] [*1]

Although proponents of the view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being claim that the Sakya tradition also recognises and worships Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being [7], Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya tradition, states that some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. [8] Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that “The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a ‘jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala.” [9]

Then there are lamas who regard Dorje Shugden as a destructive and malevolent (or demonic) force, like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche [10], Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche [11], former head of the Nyingma school, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche. The latter is head of 25 monasteries in Bhutan and holds the view: People who practice Shugden “will get a lot of money, a lot of disciples, and a lot of problems.” [12]

According to Nebesky-Wojkowitz, lower class deities, known as the ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma, are mundane or worldly deities who are still residing within the spheres inhabited by animated beings and taking an active part in the religious life of Tibet, most of them by assuming from time to time possession of mediums who act then as their mouthpieces. [13]

The view that Dorje Shugden may be a worldly protector can be indicated by the fact that Shugden is invoked by oracles. One of these oracles is Kuten Lama, an uncle of Kelsang Gyatso, who has served as an oracle of Dorje Shugden for more than 20 years, for both monastic and lay Buddhists who sought divine assistance. [14]

[Editor’s note: Enlightened protectors can manifest in worldly form in order to be more accessible to us.]

Origins

The historical origin of Dorje Shugden is unclear. Most scriptural documents on him appeared at the 19th century. There exist different orally transmitted versions of his origins, but in the key points they contradict one another. Some references to Shugden are found in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama, so there is some agreement that the origins of Shugden stem from that time. However, the claim of Shugden followers that the 5th Dalai Lama wrote a praise on Dorje Shugden lacks historical evidence, according to researcher von Brück: there is no historical record of such a praise neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama nor elsewhere.[110] Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama of the 20th century, who received this practice from his root guru, is attributed with spreading reliance on Dorje Shugden widely within the Gelug tradition “during the 1930s and 1940s, and in this way a formerly marginal practice became a central element of the Gelug tradition.” [15]

This issue has a long history and involves not only the Fourteenth Dalai Lama but also the Thirteenth and the Fifth Dalai Lamas. There is an extensive essay on its origin and history in The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy [16] by Prof. George Dreyfus.

According to Mills, Shugden is “supposedly the spirit of a murdered Gelukpa lama who had opposed the Fifth Dalai Lama both in debate and in politics. Shugden is said to have laid waste to Central Tibet until, according to one account, his power forced the Tibetan Government of the Fifth Dalai Lama to seek reconciliation, and accept him as one of the protector deities (Tib. choskyong) of the Gelukpa order.” [17]

According to Dreyfus “When asked to explain the origin of the practice of Dorje Shukden, his followers point to a rather obscure and bloody episode of Tibetan history, the premature death of Truku Drakba Gyeltsen (sprul sku grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1618-1655). ”Drak-ba Gyel-tsen” was an important Gelug lama who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617-1682). [16] He suggests, “that the events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen’s death must be understood in relation to its historical context, the political events surrounding the emergence of the Dalai Lama institution as a centralizing power during the second half of the seventeenth century. The rule of this monarch seems to have been particularly resented by some elements in the Geluk tradition. It is quite probable that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was seen after his death as a victim of the Dalai Lama’s power and hence became a symbol of opposition.” [16]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, rituals related to Dorje Shugden began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, skal bzang thub bstan ‘jigs med rgya mtsho), an important Lama and a tutor (yongs ‘dzin) to the 9th Dalai Lama wrote a torma offering ritual[18]. Also, the Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 – 1813, blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug ‘jigs med rgya mtsho), the head of Gelug sect in Mongolia also wrote a torma offering to Shugden in the context of Shambhala and Kalachakra. [19]

Key figures in the modern popularization of worshipping Dorje Shugden are Je Pabongkha (1878-1944), a charismatic Khampa lama who seems to have been the first historical Gelugpa figure to promote Shugden worship as a major element of Gelugpa practice; and Trijang Rinpoche (1901-1981), a Ganden lama who was one of the tutors of the present Dalai Lama. Pabongkha Rinpoche put great emphasis on spreading this practice and thus made the practice quite popular in the Gelug tradition. The Life-Entrusting (Sogde) practice was seen by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama as going against the Buddhist principles of refuge (Triratna), therefore he scolded Pabongkha Rinpoche for it. Pabongkha Rinpoche stated in a letter to the 13th Dalai Lama, that this is actually his fault. He excused himself for having acted against the triratna-pledges and for having provoked the wrath of Nechung, explaining that the deity (lha) Shugden played a special role at the time of his birth, and he promised to stop worshipping Shugden and to avoid performing the rituals regarding that deity. [109] However, after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, he began to spread the practice even more than previously.

In the beginning, Dorje Shugden was seen by Pabongkha Rinpoche as a worldly deity who has to be controlled by tantric power [108], it is not clear when and how the view that he is an emanation of Manjushri appeared. According to Lama Pabongkha’s view, Drakpa Gyeltsen was an incarnation of Dorje Shugden but his death is not the cause of Dorje Shugden. He established a line of arguments arguing that Shugden has a very close connection to practitioners of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition and is now their powerful protector and able to bestow blessings and create appropriate conditions for Dharma realisations to flourish. To do this, he established the idea that the original three protectors of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition (Kalarupa, who was bound by Tsongkhapa himself, Vaisravana and Mahakala) have gone to their pure lands and have no power anymore because the Karma of the Gelug adepts has changed and they should now follow Shugden.

Dreyfus wrote in his essay “The Shugden Affair”: [20]

“Pabongkha suggests that he is the protector of the Gelug tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tsongkhapa himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shugden’s partisans use to justify their claim. According to this story, the Dharma-king has left this world to retire in the pure land of Tushita having entrusted the protection of the Gelug tradition to Shugden. Thus, Shugden has become the main Gelug protector.”

“Though Pabongkha was not particularly important by rank, he exercised a considerable influence through his very popular public teachings and his charismatic personality. Elder monks often mention the enchanting quality of his voice and the transformative power of his teachings. Pabongkha was also well served by his disciples, particularly the very gifted and versatile Trijang Rinpoche (khri byang rin po che, 1901-1983), a charismatic figure in his own right who became the present Dalai Lama’s tutor and exercised considerable influence over the Lhasa higher classes and the monastic elites of the three main Gelug monasteries around Lhasa. Another influential disciple was Tob-den La-ma (rtogs ldan bla ma), a stridently Gelug lama very active in disseminating Pabongkha’s teachings in Kham. Because of his own charisma and the qualities and influence of his disciples, Pabongkha had an enormous influence on the Gelug tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Gelug tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam), Shugden as the protector, and Pabongkha as the guru.”

“Where Pabongkha was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Gelug tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Tsongkhapa’s teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pabongkha’s wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dorje Shugden as the central protector of the Gelug tradition. Whereas previously Shugden seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Gelug tradition, Pabongkha made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. In this way, he founded a new and distinct way of conceiving the teachings of the Gelug tradition that is central to the Shugden Affair.”

The conflict and refutations cannot be understood fully without seeing the complex historical, religious, social, scientific, and cultural background and the struggle of the reformers, conservatives, and traditionalists in Tibet. The practice of Shugden involves family relations too. On the other hand, Tibet was quite isolated, and there was not much modern scientific outlook. Even at the time when the Chinese took over Tibet, Buddhist teachers in Tibet taught (and this was also taught to HH the Dalai Lama) that the earth was flat, that the moon shone from itself and was the same distance from the Earth as the sun is, and the texts on the “history” of Tibet told about building a thousand stupas in one day, and the like.

The dispute itself

“The Shugden dispute represents a battleground of Views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom. [21]”
According to researcher Mills: “The object of the controversy – the deity Dorje Shugden, also named Dholgyal by opponents of its worship – had been a point of controversy between the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism since its emergence onto the Tibetan scene in the late seventeenth Century, and was strongly associated with the interests of the ruling Gelukpa Order.” [22]

Mills continues: “[..] the deity retained a controversial quality, being seen as strongly sectarian in character, especially against the ancient Nyingmapa school of Tibetan Buddhism: the deity was seen as wreaking supernatural vengeance upon any Gelukpa monk or nun who ‘polluted’ his or her religious practice with that of other schools. Most particularly those of the Nyingmapa. This placed the deity’s worship at odds with the role of the Dalai Lama, who not only headed the Gelugpa order but, as head of State, maintained strong ritual relationships with the other schools of Buddhism in Tibet, particularly the Nyingmapa. The deity thus became the symbolic focus of power struggles, both within the Gelukpa order and between it and other Buddhist schools.” [23]

Driving this dispute is the inherent nature of Dorje Shugden, which is to “protect” the Gelug lineage from adulteration by the traditions of other lineages, especially the Nyingmapa. His practice includes a promise not even to touch a Nyingma scripture, and several pro-Shugden lamas have said Shugden will kill those who violate this vow. [Editor’s note: there is no evidence of this “promise” in Dorje Shugden’s practice nor of this statement from ‘pro-Shugden lamas’.]

“Conservative” Gelugpas may find such language congenial to their views, while “liberals” are more likely to stress the arbitrary nature of such sectarian divisions. The dispute appears mainly theological; however the extent to which theology dovetails with more secular interests of particular monasteries, families, and other power-holders should not be overlooked.

Though the roots of the Dorje Shugden controversy are more than 360 years old, the issue surfaced within the Tibetan exile community during the 1970s [24] after Zemey Rinpoche published the Yellow Book, which included stories – passed by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche – about members of the Gelugpa sect who practiced Gelug and Nyingma teachings together and were killed by Shugden. According to Mills: “in defence of the deity’s efficacy as a protector, [this book] named 23 government officials and high lamas that had been assassinated using the deity’s powers.” [25]

According to Mumford: Dorje Shugden is “extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.” [26]

After the publication of the Yellow Book, the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion in several closed teachings that the practice should be stopped, although he made no general public statement. According to Mills: “In 1978, His Holiness spoke out publicly against the use of the deity as an institutional protector, although maintaining that individual should decide for themselves in terms of private practice. It was not until Spring 1996 that the Dalai Lama decided to move more forcefully on the issue. Responding to growing pressure – particularly from other schools of Tibetan Buddhism such as the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project – he announced during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was ‘an evil spirit’ whose actions were detrimental to the ’cause of Tibet’, and that henceforth he would not by giving tantric initiation to worshippers of the deity (who should therefore stay away), since the unbridgeable divergence of their respective positions would inevitably undermine the sacred guru—Student relationship, and thus compromize his role as a teacher (and by extension his health).” [27]

Once a marginal practice [28], the worship of Dorje Shugden became, under Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, a widespread practice in the Gelug school, and many Gelug lamas practised it and spread the worship of Dorje Shugden. According to the XIVth Dalai Lama, the practice became so widespread that only very few, like Gen Pema Gyaltsen (the ex-abbot of Drepung Loseling monastery) opposed it: “For some time he was the only one – a lone voice against the worship. Even I was involved in the propitiation at the time. Ling Rinpoche did go through the motions, but in reality, his involvement was reluctant. As far as Trijang Rinpoche was concerned, it was a special, personal practice and Zong Rinpoche was similarly involved.” [29]

The Fourteenth Dalai Lama holds the view “This is not an authentic tradition, but a mistaken one. It is leading people astray. As Buddhists, who take ultimate refuge in the three jewels, we are not permitted to take refuge in worldly deities.” [30]

Therefore he advised against the practice although he has in the past received Shugden empowerments from one of his teachers, Trijang Rinpoche, and practised it. That he gave up one of the practices he received from one of his teachers has provoked the criticism of NKT members and Shugden adherents (who strongly emphasize Guru obedience). They argued that he has failed to observe the vows given by one of his teachers and has “broken with his Guru” and that he has forced others to do likewise. [107]

The Dalai Lama opposes that view and cites many examples of Buddhist history which show that there are many lineage masters who disagreed with or corrected their own teacher’s false assertions or views, after giving evidences he concludes “Even if something is or was performed by great spiritual teachers of the past, if it goes against the general spirit of the teachings, it should be discarded.” [31]

Further he stresses the importance that people should not follow his advice blindly but instead they should thoroughly investigate; “Others of you may be thinking, “well I am not sure of the reasons, but as it is something that the Dalai Lama has instructed, I must abide by it”. I want to stress again that I do not support this attitude at all. This is a ridiculous approach. This is a position that one should come to by weighing the evidence and then using one’s discernment about what it would be best to adopt and what best to avoid.” [32]

In an interview, Alexander Berzin pointed out as the central elements of the present conflict: There are commitments on the levels of friendship, allegiance, loyalty, and bondings, both from student to teacher as well as from the student to their group. These life-long commitments are established through tantric empowerments. With respect to this there is, according to Berzin, a significant difference between Shugden followers and (almost) all other Tibetan Buddhists: followers of the ‘Shugden cult’, who receive the initiation, are told that this ‘protector’ or this ‘practice’ may never be given up again. However, according to an old instruction of the master Ashvaghosha, it’s the case that one may end the teacher-student-relationship even when having received an empowerment. There can be different reasons for ending such a relationship: if one has failed to sufficiently investigate one’s teacher beforehand or if one has critically distanced oneself to him and his methods. It’s said, that one may then respectfully distance oneself from such a teacher but that one should avoid speaking harsh words about him and his practice. [33]

Today’s Controversy

Today’s controversy surrounding the deity refers to a particular brand of Gelugpa exclusivism that emerged in Central and Eastern Tibet during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where the deity was considered to demarcate the boundaries of Gelugpa religious practice, especially in opposition to growing influence of Ri-me, literally “non-sectarian”. Many Gelugpas, as well as many Kagyupas, Sakyapas and Nyingmapas, began to follow the ideas of the Ri-me movement, but conservative Gelugpas, especially Pabongkha Rinpoche, became concerned over the “purity” of the Gelug school and opposed the ideas of Ri-me. Pabongkha Rinpoche established instead a special Gelug exclusivism. [34] Different sources state that disciples of Pabongkha Rinpoche destroyed Nyingma monasteries or converted them to Gelug monasteries and destroyed statues of Padmasambhava. [35]

[Editor’s note: This claim of Pabongkha Rinpoche being sectarian is not substantiated. Please see http://shugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/defamation-of-je-phabongkhapa/ for a more balanced view of the situation.]

This on-going tension has reached new heights in the Tibetan exile context, where the Fourteenth Dalai Lama started first to distance himself from Shugden and later used his position as the political and religious head of Tibet to stop the growing influence of the worship of Shugden by advising against it. [36]

The dispute developed international dimensions in the 1990s, when the Dalai Lama’s statements against the practice of Shugden challenged the British-based New Kadampa Tradition to oppose him. Geshe Kelsang said that Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden asked him to help them. As a result, Kelsang Gyatso sent a public letter [37] to the Dalai Lama, to which he did not receive any response, and subsequently created the Shugden Supporter Community (SSC), which organised protests and a huge media campaign during the Dalai Lama’s teaching tour of Europe and America, accusing him of religious persecution and opposing the human rights to freedom of religious practice and of spreading untruths. According to Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the Americas of the Dalai Lama, there was no suppression of Shugden worship. “Officially there has never been any repression or denial of rights to practitioners,” said Wangdi. “But after His Holiness’ advice [against worship] many monastic orders adopted rules and regulations that would not accept practitioners of Shugden worship in their monastic order.” [38]

(see The Conflict in the West)

In India, some protests and opposition were organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable Society with the support of SSC. [39]

The SSC tried to obtain a statement from Amnesty International (AI) that the Tibetan Government in Exile (specifically the 14th Dalai Lama) had violated human rights. However, AI replied in an official press release:

None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within AI’s mandate for action – such as grave violations of fundamental human rights including torture, the death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials. [40]

This neither asserts nor denies the validity of the allegations against the CTA (Central Tibetan Administration), nor finds either side culpable. Amnesty International regards “spiritual issues” and state affairs as separate, whilst seeing the command-based nation-state as the fundamental framework for understanding the category of “actionable human rights abuses”. Fundamental to this were linked criteria of state accountability and the exercise of state force, neither of which could clearly be identified within the CTA context. [41]

At the peak of the conflict, in February 1997, three Tibetan Buddhist monks, opponents of the Shugden practice, including the Dalai Lama’s close friend and confidant, seventy-year-old Lobsang Gyatso (the principal of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics), were brutally murdered in Dharamsala, India, the Tibetan capital in exile. The murdered monks were repeatedly stabbed and cut up in a manner resembling a ritual exorcism. The Indian police believe the murders were carried out by monks loyal to Shugden, and that the perpetrators are now under the protection of the Chinese government. [42] The Indian police have accused Lobsang Chodak, 36, and Tenzin Chozin, 40, of stabbing Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students. [112] In 2007 Interpol has issued wanted notices for Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin. [112] According to a disciple of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, before he was killed, Lobsang Gyatso had faced many death threats, but refused any personal security. [43] The Shugden Society in New Delhi denies any involvement in the murders or threats. [44] Kelsang Gyatso distanced himself: “Killing such a geshe and monks is very bad, it is horrible. How can Mahayana Buddhists who are always talking about compassion kill people? Impossible. There are many different possible explanations [for the murders]. There are many Shugden practitioners throughout the world, and each of them is responsible for his own actions. But definitely, we can say that these murders are very bad.” [45]

Another remarkable episode concerns the decision by the young reincarnation of Trijang Rinpoche to leave the Centre Rabten Choeling in Switzerland where he had remained for years under the guidance of his lama-tutor, Gonsar Tulku Rinpoche. In a dramatic letter and in an interview on the Tibetan radio station in Dharamsala, Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche announced his abandonment of his monastic robes in order to become ‘an ordinary person’. “Shocked by a series of still murky events, the gravest of which was the attempted murder of his former personal assistant by members of the cult, the young Trijang explained he had no intention of becoming a banner or symbol of the pro-Shugden movement.” [10]

Recent Developments

On 22 April 2008, the newly-founded Western Shugden Society – behind which is mainly the New Kadampa Tradition – began a campaign against the 14th Dalai Lama, claiming he is “banning them from practising their own version of Buddhism”. The campaigns accuse him of being “a hypocrite”, who is “persecuting his own people”. [46] Since then, the protesters follow the Dalai Lama to every city to express their point of view by means of demonstrations. The protesters in Nottingham said the ban on the prayer worshipping the spirit of Dorje Shugden was “unjust”, and pictured the worship of Dorje Shugden as “a simple prayer that encourages people to develop pure minds of love, peace and compassion.” His Holiness the Dalai Lama replied in a BBC interview that he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature, and added, people were free to protest and it was up to individuals to decide. [111]

The political dimension

According to Kay, “whilst the conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment have often resented the inclusive and impartial policies of the Dalai Lamas towards the revival of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Dalai Lama has in turn rejected exclusivism on the grounds that it encourages sectarian disunity and thereby harms the interests of the Tibetan state.” [47]

Thus the Dalai Lama has spoken out against what he saw as spiritually harmful as well as nationally damaging. Especially during Tibet’s present political circumstances, the present Dalai Lama felt the urge to speak against Dorje Shugden practice. In sum, the Dalai Lama’s main criticisms of Shugden practice is that the “practice fosters religious intolerance and harms the Tibetan cause and unity”.

There are different political interpretations of that conflict.

In the context of the Tibetan history, Kay states: “The political policies of the Dalai Lamas have also been informed by this inclusive orientation. It can be discerned, for example, in the Great Fifth’s (1617-82) leniency and tolerance towards opposing factions and traditions following the establishment of Gelug hegemony over Tibet in 1642; in the Great Thirteenth’s (1876-1933) modernist-leaning reforms, which attempted to turn Tibet into a modern state through the assimilation of foreign ideas and institutions (such as an efficient standing army and Western-style education); and in the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s promotion of egalitarian principles and attempts to ‘Maintain good relations among the various traditions of Tibetan religion in exile’ (Samuel 1993: 550). This inclusive approach has, however, repeatedly met opposition from others within the Gelug tradition whose orientation has been more exclusive. The tolerant and eclectic bent of the Fifth Dalai Lama, for example, was strongly opposed by the more conservative segment of the Gelug tradition. These ‘fanatic and vociferous Gelug churchmen’ (Smith 1970: 16) were outraged by the support he gave to Nyingma monasteries, and their ‘bigoted conviction of the truth of their own faith’ (Smith 1970: 21) led them to suppress the treatises composed by more inclusively orientated Gelug lamas who betrayed Nyingma, or other non-Gelug, influences. Similarly, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s political reforms were thwarted by the conservative element of the monastic segment, which feared that modernisation and change would erode its economic base and the religious basis of the state. His spiritually inclusive approach was also rejected by contemporaries such as Pabongkha Rinpoche (1878-1943). As with his predecessors, the current Dalai Lama’s open and ecumenical approach to religious practice and his policy of representing the interests of all Tibetans equally, irrespective of their particular traditional affiliation, have been opposed by disgruntled Gelug adherents of a more exclusive orientation. This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through a dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden.” [48]

Another view looking more at the present situation is: “it has been suggested that the Dalai Lama, in rejecting Dorje Shugden, is speaking out against a particular quasi-political factions within the Gelug tradition-in-exile who are opposed to his modern, ecumenical and democratic political vision, and who believe that the Tibetan government” [47] “should champion a fundamentalist version of Tibetan Buddhism as a state religion in which the dogmas of the Nyingmapa, Kagyupa, and Sakyapa schools are heterodox and discredited.” [49] According to this interpretation, Dorje Shugden has become a political symbol for this “religious fundamentalist party”. [47] From this point of view, the rejection of Dorje Shugden should be interpreted “not as an attempt to stamp out a religious practice he disagrees with, but as a political statement”. According to Sparham: “He has to say he opposes a religious practice in order to say clearly that he wants to guarantee to all Tibetans an equal right to religious freedom and political equality in a future Tibet.”[50]

Dreyfus argues that although the political dimension forms an important part of that dispute, it does not provide an adequate explanation for it. [47] He traces back the conflict more on the exclusive/inclusive approach and maintains that to understand the Dalai Lama’s point of view, one has to consider the complex ritual basis for the institution of the Dalai Lamas, which was developed by the Great Fifth and rests upon “an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nyingma tradition combine with an overall Gelug orientation”. [51] This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school. The 5th Dalai Lama was criticized by and has been treated in a hostile manner by conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment for doing this and for supporting Nyingma practitioners. The same happened when the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage devotion to Padmasambhava, central to the Nyingmas, and when he introduced Nyingma rituals at his personal Namgyal Monastery (Dharmasala, India). Whilst the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage devotion to Padmasambhava for the purpose of unifying the Tibetans and “to protect Tibetans from danger”, [52] the “more exclusively orientated segments of the Gelug boycotted the ceremonies”, [47] and in that context the sectarian Yellow Book was published.

Other analysts argue the opposite view, that it is the Tibetan Government in Exile which seeks to create a homogeneity of belief. Wilson argues [53] that the TGIE is a theocracy which he identifies by the following features, “religious freedom is restricted because state power is marshaled in favour of a particular set of religious beliefs (and, by extension, against others), the intention being to eradicate alternative beliefs and pursue national homogeneity of belief.” [53]

According to Wilson, the pursuit of religious homogeneity has been illustrated during “The last thirty years” which have “witnessed the growing ascendancy, both in exile and within Tibet, of the Dalai Lama as either the direct root–guru of all those firmly interested in Tibetan independence (often through the numerous mass Kalachakra empowerments he has given since 1959) or, more commonly, the indirect apex of an increasingly unified pyramid of lamaic (guru-disciple) relationships, many of which transcend the sectarian divides which became entrenched within Tibetan Buddhism during the centuries following the 5th Dalai Lama’s establishment of centralized Gelugkpa rule in Central Tibet.” In this context, by criticising the practice of Shugden, the TGIE is asserting “the functional role of religion within the constitution for a sacral political life centered on the Dalai Lama and held together primarily by acts of ritualized loyalty.” [53] or as Helmut Gassner (Swiss), a former interpreter of the Dalai Lama and a Shugden follower, argues “…for most Tibetans nothing is more important than the Dalai Lama’s life; so if one is labeled an enemy of the Dalai Lama, one is branded as a traitor and therewith ‘free-for-all’ or an outlaw.” [54]

Wilson argues that “the Dalai Lama’s request that Shugden worshippers not receive the tantric initiations — the foundation of the ‘root-guru’ relationship — from him, effectively placed them outside the fold of the exiled Tibetan polity.” [53] He establishes this view by arguing that the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is a theocracy and that the Dalai Lama’s statements in Spring 1996 “during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was an “evil spirit” whose actions were detrimental to the “cause of Tibet”” reflect the Dalai Lama’s decision to “move more forcefully” in response “to growing pressure – particularly from the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project”. [55]

Jane Ardley writes, [56] concerning the political dimension of the Shugden controversy. “…the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this.” [56]

Ardley references the following directive published by the Tibetan Government in Exile to illustrate the “interwoven” nature of the politics and religion:

“In sum, the departments, their branches and subsidiaries, monasteries and their branches that are functioning under the administrative control of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile should be strictly instructed, in accordance with the rules and regulations, not to indulge in the propitiation of Shugden. We would like to clarify that if individual citizens propitiate Shugden, it will harm the common interest of Tibet, the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and strengthen the spirits that are against the religion.” [56]

In his concluding remarks, Wilson observes that “…the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of differing understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of state life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated line between theocratic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as category.” In particular he sees the main failing of the Shugden Supporters Campaign as arising from their erroneous assertion of “the separation of religion and state as the basis for the understanding of religious freedom and denied any legitimate functioning role to Buddhism within the constitution of that state.” [53]

Whereas Kay states “The Dalai Lama opposes the Yellow Book and Dorje Shugden propitiation because they defy his attempts to restore the ritual foundations of the Tibetan state and because they disrupt the basis of his leadership, designating him as an “enemy of Buddhism” and potential target of the deities retribution.” [47]

According to Mills:

“Tibetan Buddhist political and institutional life centres round the activities of its four principal schools – the Nyingmapa, the Kagyud, the Sakya and the Gelukpa – the last of which was politically dominant in Tibet from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries; the four schools had the Dalai Lamas as their political figure-heads.” [58]

Mills puts the struggle of the Dalai Lama, as well as those involved, into perspective, describing e.g. “Shugden was a protector deity – a choskyong – whose historical role served to bolster the symbolic distinction between the ruling Gelukpa order and the influence of other school of Buddhist institutional thought in Tibet. As a choskyong, however, the deity’s role was more than a question of personal belief: it existed as an element within the functioning structure of state law and practice. As such, the continuity of the deity’s institutional worship within the diaspora supported a State that was institutionally sectarian at a symbolic level. This consequence of continued Shugden practice was so strongly felt, for example, that during the early I990s the Nyingmapa school threatened to remove their presence from the Tibetan Assembly of People’s Deputies – they sought to secede from a State structure whose very form and functioning was antagonistic to their presence.” [59] As a part of his conclusion from investigating the issue of human rights in that dispute, Mills states: “Whilst there was clearly also a strong issue of the actual ‘facts of the case’ the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of different understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of State life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated link between theoretic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as a category. By this, I do not mean to imply that the CTA slipped through a loophole in human rights law. Rather that it denatured relationships of religious faith to the extent to which they are merely ‘individually held beliefs’ and ‘private practices’. Western social and legal discourse may have blinded itself to the role that such relationships play in the constitution of states as communal legal entities.” [60]

The Bristol-based Buddhist specialist Paul Williams remarked in a Guardian interview on the Shugden controversy in 1996:

“The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant?” [61]

Another point of the political dimension is the involvement of the Chinese, interested to use this conflict to undermine the unity of the Tibetans and their faith towards the Dalai Lama. So for example when the official Xinhua news agency said 17 Tibetans destroyed a pair of statues at Lhasa’s Ganden Monastery on 14 March 2006 depicting the deity Dorje Shugden, the mayor of Lhasa blamed the destruction on followers of the Dalai Lama. On the other side, according to the BBC, analysts accused China of exploiting any dispute for political ends. According to the BBC “…some analysts have accused China of exploiting the apparent unrest for political gain in an effort to discredit the Dalai Lama. Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority. ‘There is a fault line in Tibetan Buddhism and its traditions itself, but it is also exploited for political purposes’…” [62]

Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

Historically the Gelug tradition, founded by Je Tsongkhapa, has never been a completely unified order. Internal conflicts and divisions are a part of it and are based on philosophical, political, regional, economic, and institutional interests. In the 17th century, the Gelug order became politically dominant in central Tibet. This was through the institutions of the Dalai Lamas. Although he is not the head of the Gelug school — the head is the Ganden Tripa, the abbot of Ganden Monastery — the Dalai Lama is the highest incarnate Lama of the Gelug school, comparable to the position of the Karmapa in the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Because of his responsibility as the political and religious leader of the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama’s duty is to balance the different interests and to be sensitive towards the different traditions and relationships. “It is necessary also to reflect on what the development of such a sectarian cult has meant and continues to mean for the Dalai Lama and for all the Tibetans in exile (and also for the Tibetans in occupied Tibet, for whom the repercussions of this matter are many and of more than secondary import).”[10] There were power struggles from the 14th century onwards “competing for political influence and economical support”[63] and a tendency of a strong sectarian interpretation of the Buddha’s doctrine. This sectarian attitude was encountered in the open approach of the Dalai Lamas, especially the 5th, 13th and 14th, and through the development of the Rimé movement at the end of the 19th century, which Gelug lamas also followed.

The founder of the Gelug school, Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419), had an open, ecumenical and eclectic approach. He used to go to all the great lamas of his time from all the different Buddhist schools and received Buddhist teachings from them. But his first successor, Khedrubje (mKhas grub rje) (1385-1483) became “quite active in enforcing a stricter orthodoxy, chasting… disciples for not upholding Tsongkhapa’s pure tradition”.[63]

According to David N. Kay:

“from this time, as is the case with most religious traditions, there have been those within the Gelug who have interpreted their tradition ‘inclusively’, believing that their Gelug affiliation should in no way exclude the influence of other schools which constitute additional resources along the path of enlightenment. Others have adopted a more ‘exclusive’ approach, considering that their Gelug identity should preclude the pursuit of other paths and that the ‘purity’ of the Gelug tradition must be defended and preserved.[64]

In the past the different approaches of Pabongka Rinpoche (1878-1943) [Editor’s note: Pabongka Rinpoche passed into clear light in 1941] (‘exclusive’ religious and political approach) and the 13th Dalai Lama (1876-1933) (‘inclusive’ religious and political approach) were quite contrary. Especially at that time, the conservative Gelugpas feared modernisation and the reforms of the 13th Dalai Lama, and tried to undermine them. As a sign of that modernisation from within the Tibetan society, the Rime movement won strong influence, especially in Kham (Khams, Eastern Tibet),

“…and in response to the Rimé movement (ris med) that had originated and was flowering in that region, Pabongkha Rinpoche (a Gelug agent of the Tibetan government) and his disciples employed repressive measures against non-Gelug sects. Religious artefacts associated with Padmasambhava — who is revered as a ‘second Buddha’ by Nyingma practitioners — were destroyed, and non-Gelug, and particularly Nyingma, monasteries were forcibly converted to the Gelug position. A key element of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s outlook was the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden, which he married to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies.”[48]

According to Samuel, Pabongka Rinpoche, who was a “strict purist and conservative”, “adopted an attitude of sectarian intolerance” and “instituted a campaign to convert non-Gelug gompa (monasteries) in Kham to the Gelugpa school, by force where necessary.”[65] Pabongkha Rinpoche and his disciples prompted the growing influence of the Rimé movement by propagating the supremacy of the Gelug school as the only pure tradition.[66] He based his approach on a ‘unique understanding’ of the Shunyata view in the Gelug tradition.

To show the sectarian nature of the Shugden practice, Dreyfus quotes Pabongka Rinpoche from an introduction to the text of the empowerment required to propitiate Shugden:

“[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely important for holding Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition without mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the great violence and the speed of the force of his actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low. [This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that] many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”[16]

Although Trijang Rinpoche (1900-1981), one of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s famous disciples, had a more moderate view on other traditions than Pabongkha, nevertheless “he continued to regard the deity (Dorje Shugden) as a severe and violent punisher of inclusively orientated Gelug practitioners.”[67] Trijang Rinpoche, as the Junior Tutor of HH the Dalai Lama introduced the Dorje Shugden practice to the Dalai Lama in 1959. Some years later, the 14th Dalai Lama recognized that this practice is in conflict with the state protector Pehar and with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and the Tibetan people, Palden Lhamo (dPal ldan lha mo), and that this practice is also in conflict with his own open and ecumenical (Rimé) approach and religious and political responsibilities. After the publication of Zemey Rinpoche’s sectarian text The Yellow Book on Shugden, he spoke publicly against Dorje Shugden practice and distanced himself from it.

The Conflict in the West

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition

These ideological, political and religious views on an exclusive/inclusive approach or belief were brought to the west and were at large expressed in the west by the conflicts (1979-1984)[68] between Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who developed at Manjushri Institute an ever increasing ‘exclusive’ approach,[69] and Lama Yeshe, who had a more ‘inclusive’ approach[70] and had invited Geshe Kelsang in 1976 to England at his FPMT centre and later lost this centre, Manjushri Institute, to Geshe Kelsang and his followers.[71]

However, these conflicts didn’t appear to the public. But the issue about the nature of Dorje Shugden became visible to the broader public by the New Kadampa Tradition’s (NKT) media-campaign (1996-1998) on Dorje Shugden against the 14th Dalai Lama, after the Dalai Lama has rejected and spoken out against this practice.[72] He has described Shugden as an evil and malevolent force, and argued that other Lamas before him had also placed restrictions on worship of this spirit.[72] Geshe Kelsang teaches that the deity Dorje Shugden is the Dharma protector for the New Kadampa Tradition and is a manifestation of the Buddha[72] and commented that this practice was taught him and the Dalai Lama by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, that’s why, he concludes, they cannot give it up, otherwise they would break their Guru’s pledges.

In 1996, Geshe Kelsang and his disciples started to denounce the Dalai Lama in public of being a “ruthless dictator” and “oppressor of religious freedom”,[73] they organized demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in the UK (later also in the USA, Swiss and Germany) with slogans like “Your smiles charm Your actions harm”.[74] Geshe Kelsang and the NKT accused the Dalai Lama of impinging on their religious freedom and of intolerance,[75] and further they accused the Dalai Lama “of selling out Tibet by promoting its autonomy within China rather than outright independence, of expelling their followers from jobs in Tibetan establishments in India, and of denying them humanitarian aid pouring in from Western countries.”[72] Newspapers like The Guardian (Britain), The Independent (Britain), The Washington Post (USA), The New York Times (USA), Die TAZ (Germany) as well as other newspapers in different countries picked up the hot topic and published articles, reported about the conflict and especially the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) and NKT. Besides these and CNN, the BBC and Swiss TV also reported in detail about these conflicts. The Guardian: “A group calling itself the Shugden Supporters Community – the majority of whose members are also NKT – has mounted a high-profile international campaign, claiming the Dalai Lama’s warnings against Dorje Shugden amount to a ban which denies religious freedom to the Tibetan refugee settlements of India. And NKT members have been handed draft letters to send to the Home Secretary asking for the Dalai Lama’s visa for the UK to be cancelled, arguing that he violates the very human rights – of religious tolerance and non-violence – which he has spent his life promoting.”[77] According to The Independent: “The view from inside the Shugden Supporters Community was almost a photographic negative of everything the outside world believes about Tibet and the Dalai Lama.”[78] Regarding the facts SSC (NKT) spread, The Independent said: “It was a powerful indictment, flawed only by the fact that almost everything I was told in the Lister house was untrue.”[78] In support of the NKT, the SSC published a directory of supporters (“Dorje Shugden Supporter List”), which included monasteries in India and other non-NKT Western-based centers, associated with known Tibetan Buddhist teachers. This list was part of the second press pack, released on 10 July 1996.[79] The listing of western-based groups and their Buddhist teachers may have been misleading as well.[79] Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance did not express his support for the campaign and was shocked to hear that he had been listed as a supporter.[79] Also Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche was put on the list without he had been asked for and even after he had complained to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso individually, his name and his organisation’s name weren’t removed from the list.[80] According to a German Buddhist Magazine, there were a number of names of Tibetan teachers and their organisation on the list who never gave their support or even were asked for it.[80]

As a result of the aggressive campaign, the NKT was faced with hostile press articles. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. commented: “The demonstrations made front-page news in the British press, which collectively rose to the Dalai Lama’s defense and in various reports depicted the New Kadampa Tradition as a fanatic, empire-building, demon-worshipping cult. The demonstrations were a public relations disaster for the NKT, not only because of its treatment by the press, but also because the media provided no historical context for the controversy and portrayed Shugden as a remnant of Tibet’s primitive pre-Buddhist past.”[81]

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his followers are convinced that the actions of the Dalai Lama in that dispute are solely politically motivated. In November 2002, he wrote in an open letter to The Washington Times: “in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT.”[82] However, according to the The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, in September 2002, NKT members held a news conference at which they said: “The Dalai Lama and his soldiers in Dharamsala are creating terror in Tibetan society by harassing and persecuting people like us. We cannot take it lying down for long.”[76]

A main feature of the exclusive approach among Shugden devotees is a total reliance on one Guru and his tradition, which was fortified by Pabongkha Rinpoche by the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) practice on Shugden. Although “Pa-bong-ka had an enormous influence on the Ge-luk tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition which focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru.”[83] The imperative of total reliance on one Guru was enhanced once more by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west – although the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) ceremony is not given by him. According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must “be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once”[84] and “Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition, purely relying upon one Teacher, practicing only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector.”[85] According to Kay: “Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.”[86]

In 2006, Geshe Kelsang claimed in public, during the annually NKT summer festival, that:

Dorje Shugdän is a Dharma Protector who is a manifestation of Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa appears as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugdän to prevent his doctrine from degenerating.

Je Tsongkhapa himself takes responsibility for preventing his doctrine from degenerating or from disappearing… To do this, since he passed away he continually appears in many different aspects, such as in the aspect of a Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage. Previously, for example, he appeared as the Mahasiddha Dharmavajra and Gyälwa Ensapa; and more recently as Je Phabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He appeared in the aspect of these Teachers.[87]

Other Tibetan Lamas

There are other Tibetan Gelug-Lamas in the west who follow the Dorje Shugden practice like Gonsar Rinpoche (Swiss), Dagom Rinpoche (Nepal/USA), Panglung Rinpoche (Germany), Gyalzar Rinpoche (Swiss), Kundeling Rinpoche (India/Netherlands), and Lama Gangchen Rinpoche (Italy), all of them with their own approach and attitude but more moderate than Geshe Kelsang and NKT. Except Kundeling Rinpoche who is not officially recognized by the Dalai Lama as a Tulku, the other Lamas do still respect the 14th Dalai Lama but cannot accept his reasoning. A main argument of Dagom Rinpoche and Gonsar Rinpoche is they do not really understand the Dalai Lama advising against the practice. Gonsar Rinpoche said, “I have spent many years in exile and have a great reverence for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, but now he is abusing our freedom by banning Shugden. It makes me very sad… We are not doing anything wrong; we are just keeping on with this practice, which we have received through great masters. I respect His Holiness very much, hoping he may change his opinion… I cannot accept this ban on Shugden. If I accept this, then I accept that all of my masters, wise great masters, are wrong. If I accept that they are demon worshippers, then the teachings are wrong, everything we believe in is wrong. That is not possible.”[88] Geshe Kelsang also argued in the same way when he said: “If the practice of Dorje Shugden is bad, then definitely we have to say that Trijang Rinpoche is bad, and that all Gelugpa lamas in the Dalai Lama’s own lineage would be bad.”[89] Contrary to this point of view, the Dalai Lama stated: “I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche’s promotion of the worship of Dholgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dholgyal… My approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.”[90]

However, from the point of view of many of the Shugden followers it is a painful dilemma. But it has to be stated that although Pabongkha Rinpoche “married the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies”,[91] lamas like Lama Gangchen Rinpoche and Lama Yeshe (who in the past also practiced Dorje Shugden) nevertheless follow an inclusive approach. It has to be further stated that an exclusive approach does not necessarily include the idea of having a sectarian view.[92]

Kay states: “Examples of such lamas, who have taught in the West, include Geshe Rabten, Gonsar Rinpoche, Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, Lama Thubten Yeshe, Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Geshe Thubten Loden, Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, Lama Gangchen and Geshe Lhundup Sopa. It should be remembered that their association with this particular lineage-tradition does not necessarily mean that they are exclusive in orientation or devotees of Dorje Shugden. Some lamas, like Geshe Kelsang and the late Geshe Rabten, have combined these elements, whereas others, like Lamas Yeshe and Zopa Rinpoche and Lama Gangchen, came into exile with a commitment to the protector practice but not to its associated exclusivism.”[93] Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance, a Gelug Tulku and close disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, had been even called metaphorically the “motherland of syncretism”.[94]

Obedience towards the Guru

Because a main argument in the conflict on the side of the Shugden followers is that their Gurus (Lamas) (e.g. Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche) revealed the Shugden practice and gave obligations on it, one has to follow it, whereas the Shugden opponents in the Gelug school cite Buddha in the Kalama Sutra and Je Tsongkhapa, the Gelug founder, who said one should not follow “if it is an improper and irreligious command”, which is based on the Vinaya Sutra: “If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it.”[95] They refer to the sectarian nature of the Shugden practice which is seen by them as a contradiction to Buddhist ethics, and one can also sum up the conflict as the religious scientist Michael von Brück (LM University, Munich) has done:

“We can conclude that the present controversy reveals the contradiction between the imperative of critically establishing the validity of (one’s own) opinions and the obedience towards the Lama (Guru)”[96]

Summary

By these examinations, it becomes clear that the religious and political conflict around Dorje Shugden is mainly based on a polarisation of an exclusive/inclusive approach. According to Kay: “This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through the dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden.”[97] The exclusive/inclusive approach can be traced back to Tsongkhapa’s and Khedrub Jey’s different approaches and the frictions deriving from these two different approaches are a part of the Gelug history, transferred to the west and are related strongly to personal, philosophical, political, regional and institutional views, interests and struggles.

Arguments for and against

Arguments and Buddhist teachers who advised against Dorje Shugden practice

Views of the XIVth Dalai Lama

The XIVth Dalai Lama is asking people who want to take initiation from him to let go of this practice and this deity[98], and gives three main reasons for advising against the propitiation of Dholgyal (Shugden):

“Such practices degenerate the profound and vast teachings of Buddhism, wherein our ultimate refuge is the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. While the profound teachings of the Buddha are based on the two truths and the Four Noble Truths, the appeasing and propitiating of Dholgyal, to the extent it is done by those who do this practice, degenerate the Buddhist practice into a form of spirit worship.

It goes against His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s non-sectarian approach especially within the Tibetan Buddhist traditions. His Holiness himself practices teachings from the other traditions such as Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyu simultaneously with the Geluk tradition and encourages others to do the same. However, the practice of Dholgyal is extremely sectarian.

The Dholgyal spirit has a long history of antagonistic attitude to the Dalai Lamas and the Tibetan Government they head since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Throughout that period, it has also been very controversial in both the Geluk and Sakya traditions. In fact, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama and the Great Thirteenth Dalai Lama, as well as many other prominent Tibetan lamas have categorically stated the harmful effects of this practice and have advised against the practice and propitiation of Dholgyal.”[99]

He is stating further:

“The ones who want to keep their practice of Shugden should not attend any further events or ceremonies in which a teacher-disciple relationship is established with me. This is something each person has to decide for him/herself. Each person has to take care of this themselves. From my side, I don’t want this relationship to be established if it is the case that the person is keeping up the Shugden practice. I myself would engage in contradiction to the commitments I have had towards the previous Dalai Lamas, especially toward the 5th Dalai Lama, and therefore I request that if any of you are practicing Shugden for you not to attend the initiations. I have explained the reasons why I am against the veneration of Shugden and given my sources in a very detailed manner.”[98]

Statement by the Previous (100th) Ganden Tripa

The previous (100th) Ganden Tripa, Lobsang Nyingma Rinpoche, stated:

“If it [Shugden] were a real protector, it should protect the people. There may not be any protector such as this, which needs to be protected by the people. Is it proper to disturb the peace and harmony by causing conflicts, unleashing terror and shooting demeaning words in order to please the Dharmapala? Does this fulfill the wishes of our great masters? Try to analyze and contemplate on the teachings that had been taught in the Lamrim [stages of path], Lojong [training of mind] and other scriptural texts. Does devoting time in framing detrimental plots and committing degrading act, which seems no different from the act of attacking monasteries wielding swords and spears and draining the holy robes of the Buddha with blood, fulfill the wishes of our great masters?”[100]

and

“The Mahayana teachings advocate an altruistic attitude of sacrificing few for the sake of many. Thus why is it not possible for one, who acclaims oneself to be a Mahayana, to stop worshipping these dubious gods and deities for the sake and benefit of the Tibetans in whole and for the well-being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the Vinaya [Buddhist code of discipline], it is held that since a controversial issue is settled by picking the mandatory twig by “accepting the voice of many by the few” the resolution should be accepted by all. As it has been supported by ninety five percent it would be wise and advisable for the remaining five percent to stop worshipping the deity keeping in mind that there exists provisions such as the four Severe Punishments [Nan tur bzhi], the seven Expulsions [Gnas dbyung bdun] and the four Convictions [Grangs gzhug bzhi] in the Vinaya [Code of Discipline].”[100]

Gelug Opponents

According to Lama Zopa Rinpoche “Some people think that the practice of Shugden prevents Lama Tsong Khapa’s teachings from degenerating and promotes their development. But there have been many Gelug lamas who without practicing Shugden, spread Buddhadharma, spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa like the sky.” He refers to the 14th, 13th Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, the latter “a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.”[101]

Lama Zopa Rinpoche states:

“Purchog Jampa Rinpoche, a very high lama of Sera Je Monastery and an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, wrote against the practice of Shugden in the Monastery’s constitution. Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced.”[101]

Opponents from other Tibetan Buddhist schools

According to The Dolgyal Research Committee (Tibetan Government in Exile), prominent opponents include not only the 5th, 13th and current Dalai Lamas but also the 5th and 8th Panchen Lamas, Dzongsar Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, the 14th and 16th Karmapas among others.[102] Another source states that Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a Dzogchen master, “has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults”.[10] Opponents include Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche[103], former head of the Nyingma school, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche, who is head of 25 monasteries in Bhutan, and stated: People who practice Shugden “will get many money, many disciples and then many problems.”[104]

Arguments by followers of Shugden

Shugden supporters responded point-by-point as follows:

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

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

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

Shugden-followers claim there is documentary evidence to support this. The Tibetan Government in Exile rejects the claims (2)-(4).[105]

Introduction to Dorje Shugden by Kelsang Gyatso

“Buddhas have manifested in the form of various Dharma Protectors, such as Mahakala, Kalarupa, Kalindewi, and Dorje Shugden. From the time of Je Tsongkhapa until the first Panchen Lama, Losang Chökyi Gyaltsän, the principal Dharma Protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s lineage was Kalarupa. Later, however, it was felt by many high Lamas that Dorje Shugden had become the principal Dharma Protector of this tradition.

There is no difference in the compassion, wisdom, or power of the various Dharma Protectors, but because of the karma of sentient beings, one particular Dharma Protector will have a greater opportunity to help Dharma practitioners at any one particular time.

We can understand how this is so by considering the example of Buddha Shakyamuni. Previously the beings of this world had the karma to see Buddha Shakyamuni’s Supreme Emanation Body and to receive teachings directly from him.

These days, however, we do not have such karma, and so Buddha appears to us in the form of our Spiritual Guide and helps us by giving teachings and leading us on spiritual paths. Thus, the form that Buddha’s help takes varies according to our changing karma, but its essential nature remains the same.

Among all the Dharma Protectors, four-faced Mahakala, Kalarupa, and Dorje Shugden in particular have the same nature because they are all emanations of Manjushri.

However, the beings of this present time have a stronger karmic link with Dorje Shugden than with the other Dharma Protectors. It was for this reason that Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realized Master of the Sakya tradition, told his disciples, “Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden.” He said this on many occasions to encourage his disciples to develop faith in the practice of Dorje Shugden.

We too should heed his advice and take it to heart. He did not say that this is the time to rely upon other Dharma Protectors, but clearly stated that now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden. Many high Lamas of the Sakya tradition and many Sakya monasteries have relied sincerely upon Dorje Shugden.

In recent years the person most responsible for propagating the practice of Dorje Shugden was the late Trijang Dorjechang, the root Guru of many Gelugpa practitioners from humble novices to the highest Lamas. He encouraged all his disciples to rely upon Dorje Shugden and gave Dorje Shugdän empowerments many times.

Even in his old age, so as to prevent the practice of Dorje Shugdän from degenerating he wrote an extensive text entitled Symphony Delighting an Ocean of Conquerors, which is a commentary to Tagpo Kelsang Khädrub Rinpoche’s praise of Dorje Shugden called Infinite Aeons.”[106]

References

Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation – The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, Routledge
Martin A. Mills (2003). Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements edited by Richard A. Wilson Jon P. Mitchell, ISBN: 0203506278, Routledge
Dreyfus, George (1999). The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy
Bunting, Madeleine (1996). Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian – London

NOTES

1. BBC, The New Kadampa Tradition, [1]

2. Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation – The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 46

3. Kay : 2004, 47

4. Kay : 2004, 47

5. Kay : 2004, 47

6. Kay page 230

7. Kay : 2004, 47

8. Letter to the Assembly of Tibetan Peoples Deputies, Sakya Trizin, June 15 1996, Archives of ATPD in von Brück; Michael: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 184

9. interview, July 1996, Kay page 230

10. a b c “A Spirit of the XVII Secolo”, Raimondo Bultrini, Dzogchen Community published in Mirror, January 2006,

11. See Interview in the Documentary Film at: Official Web Page of the Dalai Lama, http://www.dalailama.com/page.132.htm

12. Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73

13. Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956: 3

14. Kay 2004: 73

15. David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, published by RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 48

16. Dreyfus : 1999 – this is taken from a revised version of an essay published earlier in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Vol., 21, no. 2 [1998]:227-270), see: The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy

17. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 55

18. “‘Jam mgon rgyal ba’i bstan srung rdo rje shugs ldan gyi ‘phrin bcol phyogs bsdus bzhugs so”, pages 33-37. Sera Me Press (ser smad ‘phrul spar khang), 1991.

19. “‘Jam mgon rgyal ba’i bstan srung rdo rje shugs ldan gyi ‘phrin bcol phyogs bsdus bzhugs so”, pages 31-33. Sera Me Press (ser smad ‘phrul spar khang), 1991.

20. Georges Dreyfus, Williams College, The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy, 1999

21. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 65

22. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 55

23. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 56

24. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 56

25. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 56

26. Mumford 1989:125-126

27. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 56

28. Dreyfus : 1999

29. Official Homepage of the Dalai Lama, http://www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm

30. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [2]

31. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [3]

32. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [4]

33. Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73

34. Kay: 2004, Dreyfus : 1999

35. Kay: 2004, page 43; Dreyfus : 1999; Chagdug Tulku “Der Herr des Tanzes” (“Lord of the Dance: Autobiography of a Tibetan Lama”), ISBN 3896201204 : page 133

36. Interview with Tashi Wangdi, David Shankbone, Wikinews, November 14, 2007.

37. CESNUR, [5]

38. Interview with Tashi Wangdi, David Shankbone, Wikinews, November 14, 2007.

39. Letter to the Indian Prime Minister by Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society and Shugden Supporters Community (SSC), [6]

40. Amnesty International’s position on alleged abuses against worshippers of Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden, AI Index: ASA 17/14/98 June 1998

41. Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge ISBN 0-415-30410-5

42. Newsweek April 28 1997, [7] & Official Homepage of the Dalai Lama, http://dalailama.com/page.136.htm

43. Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73

44. Mike Wilson, 1999, Schisms, murder, and hungry ghosts in Shangra-La – internal conflicts in Tibetan Buddhist sect, [8]

45. Kelsang Gyatso spoke with Donald S. Lopez, Jr, Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998

46. Newsday, Dalai Lama repeats call for Tibet autonomy, not independence, http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–dalailama-colgate0422apr22,0,1571830.story

47. a b c d e f Kay pages 50, 51, 52

48. a b Kay page 43

49. Sparham 1996: 12

50. Sparham 1996: 13

51. Dreyfus 1998: 269

52. Dreyfus 1998: 262

53. a b c d e Human Rights in Global Perspective; ed Richard Wilson, published by Routledge Curzon, ISBN 0-415-30410-5

54. Dalai Lama Dorje Shugden, Helmut Gassner, Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation Hamburg, March 26th 1999, [9]

55. Wilson, p56

56. a b Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives, Jane Ardley, published by RoutledgeCurzon ISBN 0-7007-1572-X

57. Tibetan Parliament in Exile’s Resolution of June 1996, [10]

58. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 6

59. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 63

60. Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routelidge ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 66

61. Bunting 1996, see also Mills : 2000, page 68

62. BBC NEWS, Dalai Lama ‘behind Lhasa unrest’, May 10, 2006 [11]

63. a b Kay pages 39, 40 citing G. Dreyfus

64. Kay pages 41,42

65. Samuel at Kay page 230

66. Kay page 47

67. Kay page 49

68. Kay pages 61-69

69. Kay page 57ff

70. Kay page 65

71. Kay pages 61-66

72. a b c BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/kadampa.shtml

73. Bunting, The Guardian, 1996, on July 6

74. Bunting, The Guardian, 1996, on July 6; Lopez 1998:193

75. Lopez 1998:193

76. a b The Sydney Morning Herald, 2002, by Umarah Jamali in New Delhi November 16 2002, see: [12]

77. Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, July 6, 1996, [13]

78. a b Andrew Brown in The Independent, London, 15 July 1996, Battle of the Buddhists, [14]

79. a b c Kay 2004 : 235

80. a b German Buddhist Magazine Chökor, No. 25, 1998, page 50

81. “Two Sides of the Same God”, by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998

82. Open letter from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to Wesley Pruden, editor in chief, The Washington Times, Press Statement — November 25, 2002, [15]

83. George Dreyfus, The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy, [16]

84. Kelsang Gyatso, 1991, Kay page 92

85. Kelsang Gyatso, Great Treasury of Merit: How to Rely Upon A Spiritual Guide first published 1992, page 31, ISBN 0-948006-22-6, see also Kay page 92

86. Kay page 92

87. Kelsang Gyatso, Who is Dorje Shugden?, [17]

88. On The Outs By John Goetz, [18]

89. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso spoke with Donald S. Lopez, Jr, Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998

90. Official Homepage of the Dalai Lama, [19]

91. Kay page 43

92. Kay page 41

93. Kay page 230

94. Introduction to the Internet-conference “Hightech and Macumba”, Goethe-Institute of São Paulo; Goethe-Institute of São Paulo

95. The Fulfillment of All Hopes: Guru Devotion in Tibetan Buddhism, Wisdom Publications, ISBN 0-86171-153-X, page 64

96. Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 209,210

97. Kay page 43

98. a b Collection of Advice regarding Shugden (Dhogyal), [20], The 14th Dalai Lama’s Teachings in Zurich (Swiss), August 12th 2005. Also published by Auditorium, see “Jokers Edition”

99. Official Website of HH the Dalai Lama, http://www.dalailama.com/page.132.htm

100. a b Statement Of His Eminence The Gaden Tri Rinpoche (Head Of Gelukpa Sect) Regarding The Worship Of Gods And Protectors Tibetan Government in Exile

101. a b Lama Zopa Rinpoche, [21]

102. A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden by The Dolgyal Research Committee, TGIE, [22]

103. See Interview in the Documentary Film at: Official Web Page of the Dalai Lama, http://www.dalailama.com/page.132.htm

104. Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73

105. Documentary, Dorje Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy, by the TGIE, [23]

106. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart Jewel – Tharpa Publications

107. Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 209, the Dorje Shugden Devotees Religious and Charitable Society, New Delhi, Nov 1996 wrote in a letter to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, that he has created “a great deal of anguish among a large number of Tibetans and the followers of several prominent Lamas who spread the Dharma to thousands of non-Tibetans around the world”, because his ban of the Shugden practice “is forcing almost all of the Gelugpa Lamas who have spread the Dharma to the West to break their vow and commitments to either to His Holiness or to their root Guru, who is also the root Guru of His Holiness, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.”

108. http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy.html – Notes-DS^ Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 193

109. Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 194-196, Letter to the 13th Dalai Lama by Pabongkha Rinpoche, Biography of Pabongkha Rinpoche by Dharma Losang Dorje, Vol XIV, Lhasa Edition, pages 471ff

110. Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 199

111. BBC co.uk, Portest at Dalai Lama prayer ban, 27 May 2008

112. The Times – June 22, 2007; “Interpol on trail of Buddhist killers”

External links[*2]

Common links on Dorje Shugden

The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy by George Dreyfus, Professor of Religion at Williams College
The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich)
Schisms, Murder, and Hungry Ghosts in Shangra-La: Internal Conflicts in Tibetan Buddhist sect by Mike Wilson
Official Statement of Amnesty International (AI) (June 1998) (PDF) http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1998&m=7&p=22_1
It’s Dalai Lama vs Shugden – Leave It to Tibetans by Deepak Thapa (PDF)
Why the Dalai Lama Rejects Shugden by Gareth Sparham
The Battle of Buddhists by Andrew Brown in The Independent, London (PDF)
A Critical Newsweek Article and two open letters from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso from the CESNUR homepage
Letting Daylight into Magic by Stephen Batchelor, from Tricycle
Two Articles presenting both views (see left and right of page) (DOC)
Supporters of Dorje Shugden

The Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden at the New Kadampa Tradition’s site
The Nature and Function of Dorje Shugden explained by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, NKT-Summer-Festival Videos 2006
Dorje Shugden Informational Site according to the website impressum, compiled by some US supporters in the Western Shugden Society
www.dharmaprotector.org An anonymous website called “Standing Up for the Middle Way”
Autobiography of Kuten Lama, a Dorje Shugden Oracle
Interview with Lobsang Yeshe (Kundeling Rinpoche) – described as a self-proclaimed Lama [25], [26]
www.dorjeshugden.com – An anonymous website devoted to the propagation of Dorje Shugden
Speech by a previous interpreter to the Dalai Lama, Helmut Gassner, Swiss (Source from an anonymous website)
“Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis (1996-1999)” by Ursula Bernis, 1996-1999
Dorje Shugden critics

Articles and Speeches by the Dalai Lama Detailed History of the Shugden Affair (Including a Documentary Film)
Statement of His Eminence the Ganden Tri Rinpoche the Head of the Gelugpa
Collection of Statements by the Tibetan Government in Exile
A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden by The Dolgyal Research Committee published by TGIE
Collection of Advice Regarding Shugden by FPMT
Provocations of the Gyalpo by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu
A Spirit of the XVII Century by Raimondo Bultrini

[*1]Mills states that “most Gelukpa commentators place him [Shugden] as a worldly deity”. Mills, Martin (2003) Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism – The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism, p. 366, Routledge

[*2] The content of many links got lost already. It is tried to keep the link section up to date where it is possible by replacing dead links with links to websites that host the content once linked. Dead links are deactivated but left to keep the taste of the origin state of the article.

© Wikipedia

This article was taken from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia (April-May 2008). Large parts of it were edited by T. Peljor.

Source: http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy.html

Should the worship of Dorje Shugden – by devotees who consider the practice a sacred commitment – be banned by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama?

I chose this topic of research for a variety of reasons, not all of which may eventually become clear to the reader, but I do want to explain how it is that an obscure religious ritual that originated in Tibet several centuries ago fits into Unit Two of Taking Sides, “Culture and Values”, and specifically how it fits into my own cultural milieu and is relevant to my values. Some explanation and background information is called for here before we can begin to examine the chosen opposing points of view on this issue.

Who is Dorje Shugden, and why is there an attempt to ban the rituals associated with him? At this point I must admit that the topic I have chosen is not an easy one to introduce to people outside of its context of origination, which is that of Tibetan Buddhism, so let’s begin with the basics and dig into the quarrel as we go on.

Background Information

Dorje Shugden is a Dharmapala, and “Dharmapala” is a Tibetan word that is most widely translated as “protector of the Dharma”. “Dharma” means “truth” and refers to the teachings of Buddha. Put simply, Dorje Shugden can be thought of as a sort of guardian angel. This guardian angel plays a major role in the religious practices of those who study and practice within the lineage of Buddhism handed down in Tibet from the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419), also known as the lineage of the Dalai Lamas. The name of this lineage is “Gelukpa”, which is generally translated as “virtuous person.”

Je Tsongkhapa, one of the great scholars and teachers of Tibetan Buddhism, is renowned for having been a reformer of Buddhism in Tibet late in the 14th century and is known especially for his clarification of Buddha’s teachings and his institution of a strong ethical code. In fact, Je Tsongkhapa literally wrote the book on Tantric Ethics, and is described as having “swept away wrong views with the correct and perfect ones”.¹ It is primarily this “purity” of the Dharma that Dorje Shugden protects. However, the role of the Dharmapala is larger in scope and extends to caring for and benefitting practitioners of the Dharma and helping to remove obstacles to a practitioner’s spiritual path. Sometimes, a Dharmapala will actually stir up negative conditions and experiences in order to help strengthen a practitioner’s devotion to going for refuge to The Three Jewels of Buddha, (the teacher), Dharma, (the teachings), and Sangha, (the community or “congregation” of practitioners).

The word “Jewels” is used to remind practitioners that each of these facets of one’s experience in Buddhism is precious and valuable, like a jewel. (This is why we need Dharma Protectors, much as we would be careful to make sure valuable gems were secured and preferably protected, so too with our spiritual resources.) The word “Sangha” is now popularly translated to include all practitioners in a given community, but its literal translation is a reference specifically to those practitioners who have achieved realizations on the spiritual path: those who have mastered the various techniques of meditation and achieved the results expected from such mastery. “Tantric Ethics” is a compilation of the vows taken by a practitioner of the Vajrayana school of Buddhism. Translated literally, Vajra-Yana means ‘Indestructible Vehicle’. Though a full explanation of this would easily make a book of its own, I’d like to briefly describe the three primary branches of the lineage tree of Buddhism.

The earliest form of Buddhism was one in which the practitioner sought only his own release from “Samsara”, which is the involuntary cycle of death and rebirth (or reincarnation). The next branch to grow on this tree was the Maha-Yana, or “Great-Vehicle” branch, and in this form of Buddhism, one strives not only for their own liberation from Samsara, but for the liberation of all living beings. It is in the Mahayana tradition that the role of the “Bodhisattva” was conceived. A Bodhisattva is a practitioner who spontaneously wishes – and works — for the liberation of others before his or her own liberation. Finally, from the Mahayana, there developed the Vajrayana, sometimes referred to as the Mantrayana, which is a reference to the use of “Mantras” (short-hand prayers that are recited at least once, and ideally six times, daily by the Vajrayana Buddhist). Vajrayana Buddhism is “Tantric” Buddhism.

Put simply, the word Tantra refers to the so-called secret teachings – those teachings that are passed (or transmitted) from teacher to student directly in a relationship that is known as student/master or Yogi/Guru. In the west we often use “Lama” rather than “Guru”, as the word Guru carries baggage we don’t want to haul around with us.

This brings me finally to one of the most important aspects of this question regarding Dorje Shugden: those who answer “NO” have entered into a relationship that is basically a contract – or bond — with their Guru, who has assigned the prayers to Dorje Shugden as part of the student’s practice of Buddhism, and they feel it would be improper not to keep their promises (or more accurately, “vows”) to their Guru. The Yogi/Guru relationship is not well understood in the West, and this has sometimes led to abuses of power by alleged Gurus. I must say “alleged” Gurus, because a true Guru (sometimes translated as “spiritual friend”) would never abuse the dynamics of the Guru/Yogi relationship.

For me, and for many people I know, this has been a personal trouble which is part and parcel of a much larger social and cultural issue. I first heard about this controversy in 1998 when I read the articles which represent the “YES” and “NO” responses to the question herein. I found the interviews very interesting, but slightly irrelevant to my spiritual path at the time, as I was not yet “officially” Buddhist. By “not yet officially” here, I refer to the fact that I had not yet gone through the ceremony known as taking refuge, during which an individual takes the five primary vows in Buddhism: to abstain from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxicants.

By the time I officially took refuge in Buddhism – much as a ship takes refuge at port in a storm — I had all but forgotten about this family feud within Tibetan Buddhism, which is tantamount to the Hatfield and McCoy feud with which many of us are familiar in America. Being American, and not Tibetan, I was not familiar with the schism associated with this issue, so when I reached a point where I seriously needed a safe port in the storm that was my life at the time and “crashed” a refuge ceremony at a Buddhist Centre in Baltimore, I knew that the image of Dorje Shugden on the wall in the shrine room was familiar, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why it was familiar or where I could have previously seen it. When I mentioned that I wondered where I had seen this image before, the monks at this center found it “most auspicious” that I had some recognition of Dorje Shugden and assured me that this was due to karmic imprints from previous lives spent practicing Dharma. (While I don’t dismiss this notion, the painting of Dorje Shugden that I found familiar was in fact the same image used in the magazine in which the interviews were published.)

The interviews I have chosen to use as the “YES/NO” responses to the title question were published in the spring of 1998 in a Buddhist publication titled Tricycle Magazine, The Buddhist Review. Consequently, at first glance it might appear that I have chosen to examine an issue that’s out of date, but this feud is more active now than ever, with the Buddhist practitioners on the “NO” side engaging in well-organized protests at teachings given by the Dalai Lama throughout the world. The intended audience for these interviews would have been primarily the readership of the magazine, which consists mostly of Buddhists in America. However, it must also be noted that the magazine’s editor, the interviewer, and both interviewees were certainly aware that the audience would quickly expand to Buddhists and scholars of religion around the world.

Responses to the Question

Let’s examine the “NO” response. The answer of “NO” comes from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the founder and spiritual director of the New Kadampa Tradition of Buddhism. In fact, the New Kadampa Tradition was formed as a response to the question we are examining in this paper. In the late 1990’s, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama issued a proclamation stating that the practice of reciting prayers to Dorje Shugden was to be discontinued. I should mention here that the Dalai Lama himself engaged in reciting these prayers for a couple of decades – basically right up until shortly after the Guru who had transmitted (or assigned) this practice to the Dalai Lama passed away. Another concept that I should hasten to explain is that of the “Tulku” or reincarnation of a spiritual master. His Holiness is referred to as the 14th Dalai Lama because he is on his 14th life in this realm as we know it.

I mention this because one of the other “NO” responses to this question comes from the reincarnation of Trijang Rinpoche, and Trijang Rinpoche is the Guru who initiated both Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and His Holiness the Dalai Lama into the practice of reciting prayers to Dorje Shugden. Incidentally, a point that should be mentioned for the clarification of context with regard to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s position, is that Geshe la’s brother has worked directly with the monk who serves as the Oracle of Dorje Shugden – that person through whom Dorje Shugden communicates with ordinary people in this ordinary world.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso uses evidence that is common knowledge within his culture as well as anecdotal evidence based on his own experience engaging in the practice of reciting prayers to Dorje Shugden for several decades. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – also known as Geshe-la, which is a term of endearment — describes the process of Dorje Shugden practice: “Basically, the Dharmapala practice includes the practices of refuge and generating compassion for all living beings. Then guru yoga, visualization of the deity, and making offerings. Then requests for success in our Dharma practice, for the pacifying of obstacles to our practice, and to fulfill the wishes of practitioners. Finally, there is a dedication of the virtues accumulated during this practice for the happiness of all living beings.”² What Geshe-la has given us here is a basic outline of most Vajrayana practices. The “guru yoga” to which he refers is a part of the ritual in which one acknowledges – and renews – the pledges made to the teacher who initiated the student into the practice. “Visualization of the deity” is, as it sounds, the process in the ritual of visualizing the deity to which one is preparing to make offerings. Generally, these offerings are described as “both set out and imagined” in order to include not only physical offerings placed on the shrine, but also a type of offering called the Mandala Offering, in which one basically visualizes and offers all good things in the universe to the deity. Then, as with most types of prayer, there is some request for help on the spiritual path, and in the case of these Vajrayana practices, this is requested not only for oneself but also for others.

The “dedication of all the virtues” that Geshe-la mentions is based on the belief that while engaging in spiritual practices, one accumulates “merit” or what some might call “good karma”, and in Vajrayana Buddhism, this good karma is offered back to others rather than simply accumulated for oneself.

When the interviewer asks, “You believe that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha?” Geshe-la replies, “I believe this, yes.” This is a central point on which the two camps of “YES” and “NO” differ, with the “YES” camp indicating that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha, or an Enlightened Being, and therefore not a deity who can offer spiritual refuge. As it turns out, this issue dates back to the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, who is well known as “The Great Fifth” to Tibetan Buddhists. As Lindsay G. McCune writes in her Master’s Thesis: “Drakpa Gyeltsen, on the other hand, is an individual who needs some familiarization. He was born in 1618 and, as a young boy, was identified as a potential incarnation of the recently deceased Fourth Dalai Lama, Yönten Gyamtso (1589-1617). As one can deduce, the boy was not installed as the Fifth Dalai Lama. Nevertheless, the Gelukpa authorities agreed that there was still something quite unique about this young boy, and it was eventually determined that he was the incarnation of another important Gelukpa figure: Sonam Gelek Pelzang (1594-1615), the fourth incarnation, or trülku, in the Drepung Zimkhang Gongma line. By all accounts, Drakpa Gyeltsen performed his duties as the Drepung Gongma with an impressive degree of aptitude and finesse. Apparently, however, a number of other incarnate lamas and government officials became envious of his popularity.

One of these lamas may have been the Dalai Lama himself; however, details on this point are unclear and, therefore, difficult to verify. Whoever his enemies were, it is clear that they must have been influential because, distorted though the precise facts may be, it is certain that his untimely death was in some manner the result of the ridicule he received from them. Various stories abound about the nature of Drakpa Gyeltsen’s mysterious death. Some postulate a sinister assassination, while others report a woeful suicide.”³ The “YES” camp believes that Drakpa Gyeltsen reincarnated not as a human being but as a “hungry ghost”, a type of being that lives in a realm “parallel” to the human realm and is often a mischievous spirit, like the concept of a poltergeist. The “NO” camp maintains that Drakpa Gyeltsen achieved enlightenment, which would have made him a Buddha, a being exempt from being involuntarily born in any of the realms of “Samsara.”

This brings us to the “YES” response to the question, which maintains that Drakpa Gyeltsen reincarnated as Dorje Shugden in the hungry ghost realm. The “YES” response comes from Venerable Thubten Jigme Norbu, and it is not without significance to context here that Venerable is the elder brother of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, given that it is the Dalai Lama who banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. In the interview, when Mr. Lopez asks, “What is the role of ‘protector deities’ in Tibetan Buddhism?”, Venerable replies, “There are two kinds: transcendent protectors and worldly protectors. Among the transcendent protectors you have Mahakala and many others. These are considered fierce forms of enlightened beings that help remove obstacles in one’s practice of the Dharma. On the other hand, you have worldly protectors, as distinct from transcendent protectors. These have their origin back in the great old days, when Buddhist leaders are said to have converted the local deities into protectors.”⁴ Venerable also uses common knowledge from his culture and anecdotal evidence in his argument.

Getting down to the nitty of the gritty, as it were, there are a few relevant aspects of this issue that are not fully addressed by either of our interviewees. The real issue here, hiding behind all the veils of mystery and secrecy, is sects. That’s right: let’s talk about sects. The Dalai Lama’s position is that the practice of Dorje Shugden promotes sectarianism, and while it’s not impossible to dance around the topic in such a way as to avoid this central issue, it remains the central issue nonetheless. The purpose of Dorje Shugden is to keep pure and protect the Dharma of Je Tsongkhapa. When Je Tsongkhapa “reformed” Buddhism in Tibet by clarifying the Buddha’s teachings and establishing a strict code of ethics, he basically started his own limb on the tree of Buddhism: the Gelukpa. Though Tsongkhapa himself had teachers from different traditions, the teachings that he gave and the code of ethics he established had the effect of shutting out the other major schools of Buddhism in Tibet, most especially the Nyingma tradition. The Dalai Lama feels that as a spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, people who collectively practice any or all of the four primary sects or schools of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama can’t choose one school and declare it the best, or the most pure, as he is looked up to and venerated by members of all four schools of Tibet.

Here I begin to tread on thin ice, as I have “insider” information, and am bound by oath to keep most of it “inside.” (Though 90% of it has been leaked over the centuries anyway, and with Globalization and the Internet, there are Tantric “secrets” all over the place.) I can safely say that the Initiation into the practice of Dorje Shugden carries with it some vows and oaths, as is the case with all initiations in Buddhism (and, I imagine, in most types of initiation into “secret” societies.) One of the vows associated with the initiation into Dorje Shugden practice is that the practitioner will only study the Dharma of Je Tsongkhapa, and will not study or practice philosophy or ritual from any of the other three schools of Buddhism. One can easily see how this would be interpreted as Sectarianism.

So where do I stand on this question? SHOULD the worship of Dorje Shugden be banned for practitioners who received this initiation from their Vajra Master (Guru)? No. In my opinion, it should not be banned – most especially for those who have a sacred commitment to their Guru which predates the ban – and the people who practice it should not be discriminated against. In the Tibetan community in exile in India, this ban has had the effect of ostracizing many Buddhists who feel it is their duty to their own Lama to continue this practice. I do not believe that someone who practices the veneration of Dorje Shugden should be outcast, unable to buy items at the market, unable to walk down the street without fear of being the target of attacks by rabid followers of the Dalai Lama.

But here’s where it gets especially tricky for some of us: some of us have “Samaya” (vows, bonds) not only with the Dalai Lama but also with Lamas who side against the Dalai Lama. This places many people in turmoil and confusion. Which Master do I serve? My humble but well-educated opinion is that it is possible to navigate relationships with people on either side of this issue without either praising or condemning anyone at all. I liken this to “licking the honey from a razor blade”. It can be done, but it must be done correctly if one is to avoid injury.

1. Robert Thurman, Life & Teachings of Tsongkhapa, p. 34
2. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, An Interview with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998
3. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/lgm_thesis.pdf
4. Venerable Thubten Jigme Norbu, An Interview with Thubten Jigme Norbu, Tricycle, Spring 1998

Source : http://tnt-david.livejournal.com/7591.html

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso spoke with Donald S. Lopez, Jr., last summer at Manjushri Buddhist Centre in Ulverston, England.

PROFESSOR DONALD LOPEZ: What is the importance of dharmapala (dharma protector) practice in Tibetan Buddhism?

GESHE KELSANG GYATSO (GKG): Although dharmapalas appear wrathful, in reality they are the same as Buddhas and bodhisattvas. In order to benefit people and spiritual practitioners, Buddhas and bodhisattvas emanate in the form of dharmapalas. Each monastery and practitioner regards their own dharmapala practice as very important because they practice this in their daily life and it has been passed down from generation to generation.

LOPEZ: Can you describe what the actual practice might look like? Does it take the form of prostrations, or mantras or visualizations?

GKG: Basically, the dharmapala practice includes the practices of refuge and generating compassion for all living beings. Then guru yoga – visualization of the deity and making offerings. Then requests for success in our dharma practice, for the pacifying of obstacles to our practice, and to fulfill the spiritual wishes of practitioners. Finally, there is a dedication of all the virtues accumulated during this practice for the happiness of all living beings.

LOPEZ: What is the relationship between a Buddha and a dharmapala?

The Dalai Lama needs to say publicly what evidence he has for saying that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit who is harming Tibetan independence and his life. Just saying Dorje Shugden is bad is not enough.”

GKG: There can be Buddhas who are not dharmapalas such as Buddha Shakyamuni. He is a Buddha, but we can’t say that he is a dharmapala.

LOPEZ: Can there be dharmapalas who are not Buddhas?

GKG: An actual dharmapala is necessarily either an emanation of Buddha or an emanation of a bodhisattva, and is not an ordinary being. A dharmapala who is an emanation of Buddha is a Buddha and also a dharmapala.

LOPEZ: What about Dorje Shugden?

GKG: We believe that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha who is also a dharmapala. Problems have arisen because of someone’s view. So although we say the “Dorje Shugden problem”, in reality this is a human problem, not a Dorje Shugden problem. This is not a fault of Buddha-dharma, not a fault of Tibetan Buddhism, or even a fault of Tibetan people in general. This is a particular person’s wrong view. He can keep this view, of course, but forcing other people to follow this is not right. For this reason, nowadays we [Tibetan Buddhists] are showing many problems to the world. We are ashamed and sorry that this causes the reputation of Buddhists in general to be damaged. It is not a general Buddhist problem, but a specific problem within Tibetan Buddhism.

LOPEZ: when you say that one person has caused the problem, do you mean the Dalai Lama?

KGG: Yes, that’s true.

LOPEZ: So you would say that a true dharmapala must be either a Buddha or a high bodhisattva?

GKG: Yes, some deities have a worldly aspect, but in reality they are higher bodhisattvas or Buddhas/

LOPEZ: You believe that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha?

GKG: I believe this, yes.

LOPEZ: And the Dalai Lama has said that Dorje Shugden is a worldly god- one that is subject to rebirth?

GKG: He said that Dorje Shugden is an evil, harmful, interfering spirit.

LOPEZ: This raises a difficult question because we have the Dalai Lama saying that Dorje Shugden is a worldly god, and Geshe Kelsang and Trijang Rinpoche [the junior tutor of the Dalai Lama and a Dorje Shugden advocate] and a number of great Gelugpa lamas saying that Dorje Shugden is a transcendent god, or a Buddha. How does one make a decision as to which position is correct?

GKG: The Dalai Lama needs to say publicly what evidence he has for saying that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit who is harming Tibetan independence and his life. Just saying Dorje Shugden is bad is not enough. He needs to say why, so that people can understand. Of course we have many good reasons why we think Dorje Shugden is a Buddha. Believing this doesn’t harm any body. If the practice of Dorje Shugden is bad, then definitely we have to say that Trijang Rinpoche is bad, and that all Gelugpa lamas in the Dalai Lama’s own lineage would be bad. It is his responsibility to clarify this.

LOPEZ: Some Nyingma lamas say that because the Gelugpas worshiped Dorje Shugden the Chinese took over Tibet. Some Gelugpas feel that because the Thirteenth Dalai Lama did not permit the worship of Dorje Shugden, the Chinese came in. How do you understand the relationship between the worship of Dorje Shugden and Tibetan history?

GKG: Some Nyingmapas have doubts about whether Dorje Shugden is harmful or not. They have reasons. The Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) created this problem. At that time, in Drepung monastery there were two groups, called the Upper House and the Lower House. The Fifth Dalai Lama was in the Lower House, and a lama called (Ngatrul) Drakpa Gyaltsen lived in the Upper House. Both these lamas were very famous, and there was rivalry between their followers. In particular, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s ministers opposed Drakpa Gyaltsen and according to many history books, and even some prayer books, they killed Drakpa Gyaltsen. The Fifth Dalai Lama then thought Drakpa Gylatsen had appeared as Dorje Shugden. Initially the Fifth Dalai Lama was afraid that Dorje Shugden was a harmful spirit trying to destroy him. Then he requested some Nyingma lamas to destroy Dorje Shugden. Then later, after realizing that he had made a mistake, the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote a special prayer to Dorje Shugden of apology and confession. Then, after Drakpa Gyaltsen passed away he appeared in the form of Dorje Shugden. Because the lamas in Drakpa Gyaltsen’s lineage of incarnations are manifestations of the wisdom Buddha Manjushri, and because Drakpa Gyaltsen appeared in the form of Dorje Shugden, we believe without doubt that the very nature of Dorje Shugden is that of a wisdom Buddha.

LOPEZ: Some people have the view that because people worshipped Dorje Shugden, the Chinese came and took over Tibet. Do you feel that Dorje Shugden played any role in the fall of Tibet?

GKG: This is complete nonsense.

LOPEZ: Why do you feel that the Dalai Lama is against Dorje Shugden?

GKG: You need to ask him why [laughs].

LOPEZ: Do you believe that the Dalai Lama is an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara?

GKG: If he is an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara why is he causing so many people suffering? Why is he causing the spiritual life of so many people to be destroyed? Now there is big confusion. Since His Holiness the Dalai Lama removed Shugden statues from Gelugpa monasteries and temples and claimed that Shugden is a worldly, harmful spirit, people throughout the Buddhist world have begun to have doubts about the general dharma of the Gelugpa tradition, and in particular the dharma of Je Pabongka and Trijang Rinpoche. Now you can see the belief pervading everywhere that these lamas and their tradition are invalid and impure. How can His Holiness the Dalai Lama do this, unless he thinks that the dharma taught by Trijang Rinpoche is not the real dharma? What he is doing now is putting great effort to destroy the dharma taught by his own spiritual guide. This is a very horrible example, because every Buddhist practitioner believes that relying on the spiritual guide is the root of the path and the very essence of the practice. He is showing that the lama or spiritual guide doesn’t matter. How can Avalokiteshvara do this?

LOPEZ: We know that he asked that people who were worshippers of Dorje Shugden not take tantric initiations from him. Do you think he has the right to do that, to make that kind of request?

“Demonstrating was telling [the Dalai Lama] that he made a mistake. Demonstrating was loving him, not disrespecting him. But he never changed.”

GKG: This caused so many people suffering. Tibetan people love him and then he said that those who practice worship of Dorje Shugden cannot come to his initiation. This caused people pain. It looks like these people are removed from the Tibetan community which is under the Dalai Lama’s mandala. Tibetan people are under his mandala, and he removed these people, so this is why I am saying that thousands of people are suffering.

LOPEZ: One of the arguments put forth is that the Dalai Lama is now the head, in a sense, of all Tibetan Buddhists and the head of a government-in-exile. And that from this view, it is not right for there to be sectarian attachment to one particular dharma protector. Dorje Shugden is closely associated with the Gelug and is seen not to be a Protector of the Nyingma, for example, so it is not right to have members of his government worshiping Dorje Shugden.

GKG: He is not the spiritual leader of Gelugpas. The spiritual leader of the Gelugpas must necessarily be a Gelugpa. For example, the spiritual guide, spiritual leader of the Nyingmapas necessarily must be a Nyingmapa because be must be within that lineage. The spiritual leader of each religious tradition must necessarily be from that tradition.

LOPEZ: So in your opinion, the Dalai Lama is not a Gelugpa, and therefore has no right to tell Gelugpas which dharmapala they can worship?

GKG: That’s right.

LOPEZ: Who is the head of the Gelugpa lineage?

GKG: The Ganden Tripa.

[Since the death of Tsongkhapa in 1419, the Ganden Tripa or “throneholder of Ganden (monastery),” has been the official head of the Gelug sect. Traditionally, this was an elected position. The current Ganden Tripa was appointed by the Dalai Lama. – Lopez]

LOPEZ: The present Ganden Tripa has also denounced the worship of Dorje Shugden.

GKG: He has to follow the Dalai Lama’s view, otherwise there is danger. He has no choice, no power. Even my uncle, who is the medium for the dharmapala Dorje Shugden, has to follow the Dalai Lama, otherwise there is danger. They cannot remain within Tibetan society.

LOPEZ: And the Dalai Lama is not Gelugpa because he rejects Dorje Shugden?

GKG: You can ask him whether he is Gelugpa or not. I don’t know, but I believe he is not. It looks as if he humiliates the Gelugpas, as if he destroys the dharma of the Gelugpas. It’s not only about Dorje Shugden. If Dorje Shugden is bad, then all those Gelugpa lamas who engaged in the practice of Dorje Shugden are impure. Then, without doubt the Gelugpa dharma is impure. He publicly destroys the Gelugpa dharma, so how can he say he is a Gelugpa lama?

LOPEZ: What is the role of the Dalai Lama?

GKG: He is the political leader of the Tibetans.

LOPEZ: Let me ask you the name of your organization, “New Kadampa Tradition”. We know that Tsongkhapa first called his group Dadam Sarpa (New Kadam). So you have taken that name. I am wondering: what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Gelugpa tradition?

GKG: We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn’t matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa lamas and geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries on Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa Tradition and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely.

LOPEZ: Are the New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa tradition synonymous?

GKG: Because the New Kadampa tradition is in Western countries, most of the followers of this tradition are Westerners, so their way of studying and practicing is different.

LOPEZ: So it is a Western organization. Gelugpa monks in Tibet and India are not members of the New Kadampa Tradition?

GKG: They never use the title New Kadampa Tradition at Sera, Ganden, and Drepung. Generally, the Kadampas before Lama Tsongkhapa are known as Old Kadampas, and after Lama Tsongkhapa, in books the lineages are called New Kadampa. This is because Lama Tsongkhapa had a slightly different way or presenting the dharma. But the only title used nowadays is Gelugpa. I called our dharma centers the New Kadampa Tradition. The source of the teachings and practices comes from Lama Tsongkhapa. We have never said that here we are pure, whereas others are not pure. The dharma is the same.

LOPEZ: Was Dorje Shugden consulted in the decision to found the New Kadampa Tradition?

GKG: No, that was my decision. I wanted to encourage people to practice purely. Just having a lot of dharma knowledge, studying a lot intellectually but not practicing, is a serious problem. This was my experience in Tibet. Intellectual knowledge alone does not give peace.

LOPEZ: Last summer [1996], you organized demonstrations in London against the Dalai Lama. The British press was very supportive of the Dalai Lama and the New Kadampa was painted in quite negative terms. Do you regret the formation of the Shugden Supporters Community in retrospect? Could you perhaps have done it differently?

GKG: We had hoped that His Holiness the Dalai Lama would change and give freedom to Tibetan people. That was our aim. Our demonstration was telling him: you made a mistake so you should change. After thedemonstration we requested him to please sign a declaration to give complete freedom to Dorje Shugden worship, and he refuse. Then when he returned to India he was stronger than before.

LOPEZ: Do you think that in retrospect the demonstrations were not a good idea?

GKG: Demonstrating was telling him that he made a mistake. Demonstrating should have been a teacher for him. Demonstrating was loving him, not disrespecting him, not harming him. But he never changed.

LOPEZ: In the West, demonstrating is not perceived as an act of love.

GKG: But from our point of view we were hoping to make him realize that he made a mistake so that he could correct it.

LOPEZ: For the New Kadampa Tradition it was something of a public relations disaster, with all the negative press that was created. I was wondering whether you would have done things differently.

GKG: The New Kadampa Tradition suffered, our reputation was destroyed, and we lost many things. Yes, of course we are suffering, because people believe what the Dalai Lama says. Also many other groups and centers who practice worship of Dorje Shugden including those in Europe and America are also experiencing suffering. Many people are saying Dorje Shugden practitioners are bad, they are a cult or sectarian –they are using bad names because of what His Holiness the Dalai Lama says. In reality, we haven’t done anything wrong.

LOPEZ: It is often written that Dorje Shugden is someone who punishes people who mix Gelugpa and Nyingma teachings, and many Nyingma reject Dorje Shugden. I was wondering if you could comment on that. If Dorje Shugden is a protector of the Gelugpa and of the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa as you say, what is his relationship to people who are not Gelugpas?

GKG: He is just neutral, nothing good or bad. We are eating our own food and they are eating their own food. There is nothing wrong. Also, they have their own dharma protectors. We are never saying that their dharma protectors harm us. If we think that Nyingma dharma protectors are harming us then this is stupid. There is also no meaning in Nyingmapas thinking Dorje Shugden is harming them. But in reality their believing this is not their fault, because this idea originally came from the Fifth Dalai Lama. From that time the Nyingmapas developed doubts, but in reality they need to clarify whether there is any truth to these rumors that Dorje Shugden is against Nyingma. Up to now it has just remained a superstition.

LOPEZ: What about a Gelug who practices Nyingma? Does Dorje Shugden care about that? Does he disapprove of people who mix Gelug and Nyingma?

GKG: Some people believe that if Gelugpa practitioners practice Nyingma teachings, Dorje Shugden will harm them, but this is completely wrong. We never believe this. Impossible. Besides Dorje Shugden, there are many Tibetan stories of other dharmapalas killing people. There is even a lama called Ra Lotsawa who killed thirteen tantric masters including Tarma Dode, Marpa’s son. This is no just superstition. Many monasteries, maybe including Namgyal Dratsang (His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s private monastery), engage in the practice of Yamantaka that comes from Ra Lotsawa’s instructions. So shouldn’t they stop this practice because Ra Lotsawa was a murderer? This would be meaningless. It is similar with Dorje Shugden, but there is no evidence of Dorje Shugden harming anyone. It is just superstition. For example, if a Gelugpa lama who practices Nyingma teachings has an accident, then some people think, “Oh, this is Dorje Shugden’s fault.” This is stupid. Then they write a book about these things, but this is not real evidence. However, Ra Lotsawa himself admitted that he killed other lamas who were tantric masters, but his teachings on Yamantaka are still being practiced in many monasteries.

LOPEZ: I want to ask you about the terrible events of February 4 [1997], when Geshe Losang Gyatso was murdered in Dharamsala. Do you have anything to say about that, or any idea why he was murdered?

GKG: Of course, people suspect Shugden followers because this problem has arisen. Killing such a geshe and monks is very bad, it is horrible. How can Mahayana Buddhists who are always talking about compassion kill people? Impossible. There are many different possible explanations [for the murders]. There are many Shugden practitioners throughout the world, and each of them is responsible for his own actions. But definitely, we can say that these murders are very bad.

LOPEZ: Given your devotion to Dorje Shugden and your founding of the New Kadampa Tradition, do you feel that Je Tsongkhapa’s view, meditation, and practice is the most complete in all Tibetan Buddhism? Is it only through Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings that one can attain enlightenment? Or is it also possible though Nyingma or Kagyu?

GKG: Of course! Of course we believe that every Nyingma and Kagyupa have their complete path. Not only Gelugpa. I believe that Nyingmapas have a complete path. Of course, Kagyupas are very special. We very much appreciate the example of Marpa and Milarepa [in the Kagyu lineage]. Milarepa showed the best example of guru devotion. Of course the Kagyupas as well as the Nyingmapas and the Sakyupas, have a complete path to enlightenment. Many Nyingmapas and Kagyupas practice very sincerely and are not just studying intellectually. I think that some Gelugpa practitioners need to follow their practical example. But we don’t need to mix our traditions. Each tradition has its own uncommon good qualities, and it is important not to lose these. We should concentrate on our own tradition and maintain the good qualities of our tradition, but we should always keep good relations with each other and never argue or criticize each other. What I would like to request is that we should improve our traditions while maintaining good relations with each other.

Source: Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Spring 1998 edition

No FPMT centre does this practice and all fully support His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s wish that this practice not be done. For more information, see http://tibet.net/important-issues/dolgyal-related-statements-and-resolutions/.

Dorje Shugden

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gave the following talk on the Dharma protector practice, Dorje Shugden. First he talked about the importance of compassion and our responsibility for leading all sentient beings to enlightenment. To do that, we need first to become enlightened ourselves. In order to do that, we have to complete the entire path to enlightenment, the root of which is guru devotion. Then Rinpoche talked about the qualities of the guru, including the ten qualities from the Abhisamayalankara and the twenty qualities required of a tantric guru.

If you are making a new Dharma connection with a teacher, aside from the other qualities of the teacher that you should check, you should also examine the teacher to make sure that he or she is in harmony with His Holiness Dalai Lama regarding the practice of what is called döl-gyäl, the protector Shugden.

Make sure that the teacher does not do this practice. These days, that is an extra analysis you should make. In that way, you’ll avoid problems in the future.

Recently, I also introduced a new guideline for the protection of the Dharma centers and their students, which is not to invite to the center teachers who do the protector practice and are therefore against His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

However, this doesn’t include gurus who may have practiced the protector in the past. It doesn’t mean that they’re bad. I’m not saying that.

If you have already made a Dharma connection with such teachers and you criticize them or give them up, that is totally incorrect; that is opposite to lam-rim practice. The lam-rim, sutra, and tantra teachings all explain how to practice guru devotion so that we can avoid creating such heavy negative karmas as criticizing our gurus. It’s for our benefit.

Since we disciples want profit, not loss, since we aspire to achieve the highest profit, enlightenment, the complete qualities of cessation and realization, it is crucial to know how to practice guru devotion.

If those gurus who used to do the practice still had the same aspect now, if they were still alive in that aspect, they would also change.

For example, His Holiness himself did the practice in Tibet for a short while, but after extensive analysis, checking many experiences and signs, and considering the advice of many other high lamas who advised not to do the practice, His Holiness also decided against it.

It is not only His Holiness who is saying not to do this practice. Before His Holiness, many other high lamas, holders of the entire Buddhadharma, also instructed their monasteries and students not to do this practice.

After checking in many ways, His Holiness came to the conclusion that for the benefit of individual people as well as the world in general, he would stop doing this practice and also advised others to stop.

Therefore, if those gurus who did the practice still had the same aspect, they would stop. Also, many gurus, many great teachers who are still living, have stopped as well, even though they used to do the practice before.

Even though many people, groups, and monasteries have asked His Holiness to change his advice on this, he has remained firm. Since he arrived at his decision through many years’ analysis, there has been no change; His Holiness always says the same thing in this regard. As His Holiness has said in many teachings, he will never change his opinion on this matter.

If His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not Chenrezig, if he’s not Buddha, who else is there in the world that you can point to as Buddha? If His Holiness is not the Buddha of Compassion, then it’s a mistake to call other lamas Buddha, who are said to be incarnations of a Buddha.

[Rinpoche then explained in detail how His Holiness is Chenrezig and how the guru is Buddha.]

Dorje Shugden Practice

A student asked Rinpoche questions about the practice of the protector Dorje Shugden. His Holiness the Dalai Lama had asked his students to stop performing this practice. Many students had received initiations from their gurus and taken commitments to perform the practice before His Holiness made this request. The student had decided to stop performing the protector practice, but was concerned about the impact on his relationship with the gurus who had given him the initiations and commitment to do the practice. Rinpoche commented as follows.

With regard to your question about the protector and your concern about not generating negative thoughts and losing faith toward other lamas, the decision that you have taken is correct.

Kopan Monastery had been performing the Dorje Shugden practice from the beginning, as this was Lama Yeshe’s main protector [he had several but DS was the most important] , on whom he relied whenever he needed help for anything [for help on anything, not just mundane].

But since His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the one who holds, preserves, and spreads the entire Buddhist Dharma – both the lesser vehicle and the Mahayana, Paramitayana, and Secret Mantra Vajrayana – without the existence of His Holiness, not only Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism but Buddhism in general would suffer in the world. It would be similar to when children are left behind when their parents die. It would be like that.

Therefore, support for His Holiness becomes very important. Another thing is that His Holiness is the main source of world peace. In this aspect, His Holiness gives so much peace and happiness to so many millions and millions of people in this world.

This aspect of His Holiness is the greatest inspiration, bringing many millions of people’s hearts toward Buddhism. Even though we have many high lamas, not everyone is able to manifest this particular aspect, even though from my side the virtuous friends are of the same essence.

Therefore, it becomes very important to support His Holiness and to fulfil His Holiness’ wishes. For that reason, Kopan Monastery stopped doing this practice. This was done for His Holiness. This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Zong Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil. For us ordinary people it is difficult to judge, because we cannot see these lamas’ minds.

Another side of the teaching is that it is mentioned that the protector is an Arya Bodhisattva, a manifestation of Manjushri. So, then, there is also the risk of our creating very heavy karma in that context. [for having bad thoughts about an enlightened being]

In addition, if one has received teachings, initiations, and so forth from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso*, including the practice of Dorje Shugden, there is a way of practicing lam rim in relation to this situation.

In the lam rim, it says that the Buddhas – for example, Buddha Vajradhara, Guru Shakyamuni Buddha, and so forth – manifest in ordinary form and guide us to enlightenment. That means they manifest in an ordinary aspect that shows mistakes, such as having delusions, performing mistaken actions, and so on.

One can also think in this way about the situation, according to the lam rim. In reality, there is no mistake here, but the guru is showing the aspect of making mistakes, like a movie actor.

Thinking in this way and relating the situation to that part of the lam rim helps keep one from losing faith, from losing guru devotion. It only inspires one. Why? Because without the ordinary aspect that shows mistakes, we have no other way to be guided. There is no other method for the Buddhas to guide us to enlightenment.

Another way to look at this situation is that although in reality there is no mistake on the guru’s part, nevertheless we see mistakes according to our karma. The guru shows mistakes because we only have the karma to see this manifestation at this moment, and nothing else.

In this matter, that aspect becomes most precious and important for us, for our minds. As it is mentioned by Gyalwa Ensapa, “Until one becomes separated from evil karmic obscurations, even if all the Buddhas without exception directly descend in front of one, one will not have the fortune to see the supreme holy body, adorned with the holy signs and exemplifications, but rather only the present appearance (the ordinary view). ”

Even if a guru kills another guru or kills many millions of people, as Hitler or Mao did, since one has made a connection with him or her, one should never lose faith from one’s own side.

Unless from his or her side the virtuous friend tells you, “Now I am no longer your guru. You should not follow me anymore,” unless he gives this permission, one must not give up one’s faith in that teacher.

One time, after I had listened for three days to one person’s teachings, that person told me not to follow him. The bodhisattva Khunu Lama later explained to me that it was acceptable not to follow that person, but important not to criticize, to keep the mind in equanimity regarding him.

It is said in the tantric teachings, “If one thinks one’s own guru is bad-tempered, one will be reborn in the hell realms for 60 eons.” If one does not cultivate devotion after one has made a Dharma connection – which means having received teachings with the recognition of guru and disciple – then it is said in the teachings that one will be reborn as a dog one hundred times, and then be reborn in a lower caste – or, as His Holiness Zong Rinpoche mentioned, as a scorpion.

This applies even if there are no negative thoughts arising toward the guru, such as heresy or anger, but one still does not develop devotion and follow the teacher after listening to even just one stanza, even if one no longer regards that teacher as one’s guru or forgets one’s guru-disciple relation.

The conclusion is that both ways of looking at the situation with the guru are correct, because there is a purpose to both: that is, to benefit others. These ways of thinking are what protect our mind from the heaviest karma.

Action Against Lamas

A student who had very heavy obstacles in his life, and felt like he was being attacked by spirits, had taken it upon himself to force lamas who were performing the protector practice, Dorje Shugden, to stop. Rinpoche sent him the following advice.

My very dear Jimmy,

Thank you very much your kind letter. I appreciate you following His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s wishes. That helps Tibet, and also helps your growth – not physical growth, but spiritual growth. You made a wise decision. That is very important: thinking big for the future of the teachings of Buddha and for sentient beings.

If those other lamas are your gurus – that means, if you have received initiations or teachings from them, with the recognition that you had a guru-disciple relationship and that person is the guru and you are the disciple – then if you get angry or generate heretical thoughts toward that person, it is not good.

In Lama Tsongkhapa’s Lam-rim Chen-mo (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment), it says, Even simply generating non-devotional thought, to think of the guru as an ordinary person, is an obstacle.

So, you can imagine what it is like if you generate heresy and anger toward your gurus and criticize them with a negative mind. This is creating the heaviest obstacle to realizations on the path to enlightenment, and the heaviest obstacle even to this life’s happiness, as well as to future lives’ happiness. There is no need to mention liberation or enlightenment.

The other thing is that in this life, by generating heretical thoughts or anger toward the guru, one experiences heavy sufferings, especially sickness, and many catastrophes, one after the other.

Also, when you die, it is in such a terrible way. It is very terrifying, not peaceful, and there is the most unbearable suffering in the hell realms. Not only that, but it lasts for such a length of time, for eons.

Please read the section on guru devotion in Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo’s Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand. Also, read the section on guru devotion in Lama Tsongkhapa’s Lam-rim Chen-mo. Please study other Dharma books, at least these two texts and the sections that I have mentioned.

In the teaching Commentary on the Difficult Points of the “Black Enemy of Yama,” (Tib: Dra-nag-ka-drel) (see Steps on the Path to Enlightenment, Volume 1, page 157) it is said that after having made a Dharma connection, receiving teachings (even four words), with a recognition of a guru-disciple relationship (the other person is your guru and you are his or her disciple), if you forget to devote yourself to that person as a guru, or if you don’t regard them as your guru, you will be born as a dog for one hundred lifetimes, and then you will be born into a lower rank. His Holiness Zong Rinpoche says one is born as a scorpion instead of in a lower rank.

If you did create negative karma with your teachers, please confess whatever heresy, anger, or criticism you have committed against them. Confess as quickly as possible.

If death comes before your confession, your future lives will be so difficult. Not only will you be unable to meet the guru, but you will also be unable to meet the Dharma. Not only that, but you will experience unimaginable suffering for an incredible amount of time.

The Fifth Dalai Lama advised how to practice guru devotion in this kind of situation. When you have difficulty with gurus, seeing mistakes in their actions, then think that this is the view of your own hallucinated mind. All these appearances are your own mistakes manifested as the guru’s holy actions. Recognize it as your own mistake and abandon it, like a poison.

What is to be abandoned is one’s own thoughts of seeing mistakes in the gurus, which are ordinary concepts. You can abandon this by thinking in the way His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama explained.

Gyalwa Ensapa said,
In short, whatever great or small realization one generates is due to having meditated with little or great devotion. To the qualified valid gurus, may I be able to complete the commitment without obstacles, and look at the gurus’ qualities with no mistakes.

The other way is to think that bodhisattvas work for sentient beings. Their only concern is other sentient beings, without exception, no matter how evil they are. The more evil they are, then the more the bodhisattvas cherish them, and the more concern the bodhisattvas have for them. [by actively participating in the DS controversy, people begin to do things against their vows, begin to be more 'evil' - bodhisattvas then, according to what Lama Zopa says, should have more compassion and concern for these people who need more help to achieve enlightenment.

So think more carefully about the high lamas' motivation for creating this controversy] Their attitude is like this, and their action is only to work for sentient beings. That includes you. Even a very new bodhisattva who became a bodhisattva today thinks like this.

Therefore, there is no question about Buddha, who completed the path, with both method and wisdom, who has omniscience, perfect power, and complete compassion for all sentient beings, including you. The Buddha will not work for himself, even for one second, but only for all sentient beings, continuously, according to the level of their minds.

Buddha works by manifesting in various forms and revealing different methods, not only by giving teachings, initiations, vows, and so forth, but also guiding beings in many different ways, giving advice and leading you in so many ways from happiness to happiness, up until enlightenment.

Now, there is not just one Buddha. There are numerous buddhas guiding you and other sentient beings. Who else are those buddhas than your gurus? Who gives you teachings, vows, initiations, oral transmissions, and advice? Who definitely brings you to enlightenment with these methods?

There is no question. If they are not manifestations of the buddhas, or Buddha doesn’t manifest through them and guide you, then that means there is no Buddha guiding you. That means either you don’t accept that there are countless buddhas, or you don’t accept that there is even one Buddha, or you think that there is a Buddha, but he is not omniscient. Or you think that Buddha doesn’t have compassion toward you, or Buddha doesn’t have perfect power to guide you or to reveal methods to you.

If you think like this, it means there is no Buddha and nobody can become a buddha. All these mistakes arise, and many Buddhist teachings become falsified.

Because you trust in His Holiness the Dalai Lama, you have no doubt that His Holiness has limitless compassion. You have no doubt that His Holiness and particularly what he teaches is Chenrezig manifested. He is not telling lies.

So, you have no doubt that Shakyamuni Buddha does exist, and that his path has no mistakes, and there is no doubt that there are countless buddhas.

Then, think that the conclusion is: for all those from whom you have received teachings with a recognition of a guru-disciple relationship, from your side, you must have a new mind, a different mind, 24 hours every day, and think differently.

Think of them as Buddha. Each and every one of them is Buddha guiding you. This is the most important thing. This devotional thought is the most precious one in your life, more precious than billions of dollars, gold, diamonds, or wish-fulfilling jewels.

From this thought, you can achieve all happiness up until enlightenment, and you can bring about complete happiness for all sentient beings. You can fulfil all the wishes of all sentient beings.

Thank you very much. Sorry, you have written many times, but I wasn’t able to reply quickly. Please keep my reply. It might be helpful to read it from time to time. You can also show it to others who have similar problems.

With much love and prayers…

Forsaking a Guru

A student wrote to Rinpoche saying that he had forsaken one of his gurus, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso*. The student said that he was not keeping his vows and was aware of the negative karma that could result from these actions. Rinpoche answered as follows.

Once you have made a Dharma connection with the virtuous friend, your guru, you cannot give up this relationship unless the guru himself or herself says, “Don’t come,” or “Don’t regard me as your guru.”

By giving up Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, you have created heavy negative karma in this life. Since you haven’t given me up, I suggest that you confess to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso about what happened, and devote yourself again to this virtuous friend.

According to guru devotion practice, no matter how many gurus you have, you should look at all of them as one being, one mind, and that is Dharmakaya. That view must come from the disciple’s side. You look at them as one mind in different bodies, acting in different ways, according to the karma of sentient beings and their ordinary mistaken minds.

This is what one should practice, if one wants profit and not loss. So, change your attitude and apologize to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Confess to him and follow him again, unless he says, “No”. This will help lighten your heaviest negative karma.

In this world, people are so afraid of getting cancer or AIDS, but they don’t think about eons of suffering in the hell realms. There is such great suffering in the lower realms that cancer and AIDS or whatever suffering one can encounter in the human realm seems a great comfort and pleasure by comparison.

Causing heresy and anger and giving up the virtuous friend is much worse than killing and waging wars. This is because the object is very powerful. One’s guru is the most powerful among all powerful objects, such as buddhas.

The karma from forsaking one’s guru is worse than the karma generated by Hitler and Mao Tse Tung. Mao Tse Tung caused harm to many holy beings, but they were not his gurus.

In the world, someone who kills many millions of people can still achieve enlightenment in that same lifetime. But generating heresy toward the virtuous friend and giving up one’s devotion to the virtuous friend makes it difficult to achieve enlightenment, even if one practices tantra with much hardship. It will be like taking a rebirth in hell.

Therefore, what I am saying is this: In the world, actions such as killing and waging war have very bad repercussions and are terrible, but the karma from these actions is mild compared to heresy and giving up one’s guru.

You can see in the outline in the lam rim, even if one commits the five heinous crimes – killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, drawing blood from a Buddha, causing schism in the Sangha, and killing an Arhant – one can still achieve enlightenment, but not based on mistaken devotion to the virtuous friend. If you read Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, or Essential Nectar, particularly the lam rim outline on guru devotion, you will understand.

I advise you to make your negative karma smaller by apologizing with regret. Practicing Buddhism is basically your choice. If you want to be free from suffering and its causes, delusion and karma, this is what you need to do: practice the Buddhist path and the Four Noble Truths.

If you don’t want to be free from suffering and its causes, then there is no need to practice Buddhism. If you don’t want happiness, then don’t practice virtue.

*Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a teacher in the UK, who continues to engage in and encourage the Dorje Shugden Protector practice.

Faith in His Holiness

A student wrote to Rinpoche saying how another student had been doing a protector practice, which His Holiness the Dalai Lama had asked people to stop practicing, but had now stopped.

My dear Tony, 
I hope you are well.

I received your message regarding the other student. I think it is very good that he has stopped that practice, and especially it is excellent that he has faith in His Holiness the Dalai Lama. That is really great!

There are so many reasons to follow His Holiness. He is the embodiment of compassion of all the Buddhas, and especially now he has reincarnated to guide the Tibetan people.

In fact, as we all know, for many lives His Holiness the Dalai Lama has reincarnated to guide the Tibetan people, and especially to preserve the complete teachings of the Buddhadharma. His Holiness is the only one in this world who completely preserves the holy Dharma that came from the Buddha, which has come through the great yogis and pandits of India and Tibet.

Because of His Holiness, the Buddhadharma has spread all over the world. Not only the Buddhadharma, His Holiness is also able to speak in a universal language that goes beyond religion. Every year, thousands of people follow the path and make their life meaningful, and are able to find answers to their life questions due to His Holiness.

This is all due to the kindness of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. So, you can see how His Holiness is of the greatest benefit to this world. Even the political leaders of this world respect His Holiness.

It is the same with so many great Tibetan reincarnations, who also follow His Holiness. If this isn’t Guru Shakyamuni benefiting the world, if this isn’t Manjushri benefiting the world, then who could it be?

There are many reasons for following His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s advice regarding not following or practicing the protector. His Holiness is able to teach in any culture and able, in a very grounded way, to relate so well to others.

Therefore, we have the responsibility to pray for His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s long life and to help and support His Holiness’s holy wishes and activities.

His Holiness supports many things, such as the environment, etc., but His Holiness’ main message has to do with the mind, because everything comes from the mind. Suffering and happiness depend on the mind.

His Holiness not only teaches the entire path to enlightenment, but also in a very practical way helps people to deal with the problems of their daily lives. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s existence in this world is extremely important. He is the guide and gives the antidote for all the problems of this world.

Therefore, one person following His Holiness’s advice achieves His Holiness’s wishes—this is the cause of His Holiness’ long life. The more we as individuals follow His Holiness’ advice and support His Holiness, the longer His Holiness will stay in this world and benefit sentient beings.

As far as reincarnation is concerned, the most important thing is being recognized through this life’s actions. Recognition should come naturally and organically in dependence on how that person conducts his life and activities to benefit others. The label tulku doesn’t mean anything; the importance is how much you benefit sentient beings.

If you don’t benefit sentient beings, the title is empty, really empty. So, we should not be concerned with a label. People will respect or not respect in dependence on this life’s actions .

In essence, everything will depend on his practice, how well he does this in accordance with Lama Tsongkhapa’s instructions. And that’s it. The result will come from that.

Actually, more and more people want to be recognized as a tulku. In fact, all of us are reincarnations—we are the reincarnations of worms in our stomach, pigs, dogs, cats, and bugs.

So, everyone is a reincarnation of someone, something. The worms in the stomach are there because of their past negative karma of being attached to sex. So, everyone is a reincarnation. Without a past life, there will not be this life.

So, the conclusion is: whether recognized or not, people respect you on the basis of your actions to benefit others. This approach fits.

Thank you for all your activities. Please try as much as possible to do everything with bodhicitta. In this way there will be the most benefit to sentient beings.

With lots of love and prayers…

From Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archives
(http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=335)