Manjushri Buddhist Centre

From Más Allá de la Ciencia

Number 103/9/1997, by J.C. Deus
(Translated from Spanish; scroll down to see scans from the original Spanish magazine)

For the first time in history, the Dalai Lama is having to confront serious accusations made against him publicly for infringing the religious freedom and human rights of his own people. His attempt to eliminate a deity which he describes as ‘suspicious’ and ‘defiled’ is causing him, the highest Tibetan authority, endless problems. Even though the feared ‘demon’ is in fact harmless, the internal demons of Tibetan Buddhism seem to have woken up from their sleep.

Readers of MAS ALLA DE LA CIENCIA will remember that I have written two articles about the religious persecution which the Dalai Lama has implemented against one of the most revered of the countless number of deities within Tibetan Buddhism, a deity known as Dorje Shugden (see numbers 94 and 100). These articles were also recently published on the Internet. In these articles we can read about the ban of the worship of this deity, who has officially been declared as evil, about the persecution of his devotees, and public demonstrations by a number of dissidents who, for the first time in the history of the Tibetans in exile, accuse the Dalai Lama of being a dictator and an oppressor. Finally, there were three murders at the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile, the court of Dharamsala, for which the dissidents were blamed. This was an obvious sign that ‘the blood had reached the river’ and that this quarrel, which at first just seemed like another of the countless quarrels that have characterised the history of this theocracy (which has not yet lasted a millennium), is becoming a story that has heavy consequences for the future of these people.

For this reason, it was not surprising that one day I received a message through the Internet from someone who complained about my bias in favour of the Dalai Lama, and who offered to tell me the other side of the story. This person was a Basque-born Buddhist nun called Kelsang Dewang, who has been studying with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – known as Geshe-la by his followers. This Lama has been brave enough to contradict the orders of the Dalai Lama, to protest publicly against them, and to lead a movement of disobedience. The organisation that Geshe leads – the New Kadampa Tradition – not only regards the deity Dorje as a ‘divine emanation’ and one of their main spiritual practices, but is also an important group within Western Buddhism, since it is the one that is growing the most at present.

In this way, we started exchanging messages, with much discussion, not only about the decision of the Dalai Lama, but also about a little-known story of alleged abuse, persecution and despotism by the man who the media has enthroned as a symbol of tolerance and the embodiment of human rights. However, the new image presented by his critics is that of a man hungry for power, cruel to those who oppose him, and ruling the Tibetan government-in-exile with an iron hand while preaching compassion around the world.
 

The Demons of the Dalai Lama

But let’s do a bit of history. The Dalai Lama himself previously revered the deity Dorje Shugden, as had his tutors and teachers, until inexplicably in 1978 he changed his view and adopted a hostility [towards the deity]. Initially this hostility was expressed only within the complex labyrinth of his feudal court and in the puzzling organisation of the Tibetan religious apparatus in exile.

But in 1996 this repudiation of Dorje Shugden was made public and what until then had been only exhortations, often ignored, became prohibitions implemented with violent persecution of the followers of this [deity], now a so-called ‘demon’. The Dalai Lama presented his attack as a matter of life or death for the Tibetan cause. Dorje was portrayed as an evil being responsible for the failure to attain Tibetan independence and for many other problems. If he were not completely abolished forever, he would sink the Tibetan people into the greatest of catastrophes. He was even harmful to the life of the Dalai Lama, the highest leader in Tibetan Buddhism.

His assertions stunned the devotees of this deity, to the extent that the lama Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, director of the New Kadampa Tradition, ignored his orders, and his followers organised public demonstrations in England and Switzerland protesting against the Dalai Lama’s decision. Officials of Tibetan Offices, representing the Dalai Lama in the West, promptly relayed to the media accusations against the New Kadampa Tradition, describing it as a dangerous sect, worshippers of the devil, and people who had sold their soul to a Satanic cult in exchange for Mephistophelian favours of money and power. Dorje was portrayed as a demon, hungry for blood and responsible for a cult that brainwashed and financially exploited innocents who fell into its hands.

For this reason, doubts assailed me when Dewang, the Basque-born Tibetan Buddhist nun and member of the New Kadampa Tradition, invited me to see for myself that these accusations were completely false, to visit their main centre and interview their leader Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and to know about Dorje Shugden directly. Thoughts such as ‘Am I going into the very mouth of the wolf by going to the headquarters of a fanatic group? What if the Dalai Lama was right and Dorje Shugden really bites?’ arose.
 

In the House of the ‘Demon’

The Manjushri Buddhist Centre is located in the north of England, five hours by train from London, next to a bay in the midst of idyllic green fields. It is a huge mansion, whose property includes a large wood, a beach and several secondary smaller buildings. It is certainly impressive, especially since the purchasing price twenty years ago was only £75,000, as Dewang hurried to tell me in order to counter rumours.

The problem of owning such a mansion, said Dewang, is not so much buying it but maintaining and repairing it. Religious communities are free from this problem as their members work diligently in exchange for room and accommodation, work being considered as ennobling. Dewang took me to see the new temple that was to be inaugurated in two weeks’ time, when more than 1600 followers of the New Kadampa Tradition from all around the world would be gathering for their annual festival. In stone, wood and glass, it is a magnificent place with capacity for about 700; a great work of art made exclusively by the members of the community. I saw impressive bronze statues ready to be placed in the shrine, monks sand-papering the wood and painting walls.

I was guided by Dewang around the whole property, going up and down a labyrinth of staircases, visiting large and beautifully-maintained meditation rooms, and listening to detailed explanations about the statues, mandalas, pictures and shrines of the vast pantheon of Tibetan Buddhism. I was introduced to some of the monks and nuns who had arrived from many of the 200 centres of the New Kadampa Tradition around the world. The fact that it was a mixed monastery, with [some people keeping] vows of chastity, gave the place a charming hippie touch. The nuns with their short hair had a good appearance; they looked at you smilingly, and you forgot that they were nuns. Their faces were beatific, and I couldn’t find anything that was weird or suspicious.

Finally I saw Dorje, as he appeared in Newsweek, holding a blazing sword and riding a wrathful white lion that steps over a human body. A Dorje of wrathful fangs and bulging eyes, including the third eye. Dewang explained that in Tibetan Buddhism there are thousands of beneficial deities with wrathful aspects, and that they only subdue evil and show their wrath against obstacles that prevent spiritual realisations.

I looked and looked at it, but I didn’t feel any fear. It reminded me of the silly things shown to children during the Valencian fallas [typical Spanish fiestas of Valencia]. It was placed in a huge glass cabinet surrounded by four other representations mounted on different animals. If the one mounted on a dragon was quite repulsive, the ones riding a horse and an elephant had kind faces. Perhaps to compensate for his wrathful representation, the most well-known, Dewang insisted on me looking at another of his manifestations, a handsome peaceful youth that seemed to have come out of a poster from the Chinese cultural revolution. Undoubtedly, I could see nothing that was strange, or which you would not see in any one of the hundreds of religious movements that presently exist around the world.
 

A New Portrait

Then the time came for me to meet with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the thin and enigmatic person who from his photos seems difficult to reach (see the interview that follows). With his English and mine, we struggled to understand each other. He would continually put his hand at his heart to express that his objectives were pure. He looked happy and very little affected by the controversy. When we finished the interview, he surprised me with a hug and gifts of a bottle of non-alcoholic wine and a pen.

Then I had supper with James Belither, the Secretary of the New Kadampa Tradition, who lives in one of the little houses that surround the main building, and where the Buddhist families live. He is not a monk but a lay person, a gentle English man. That day he was a little taciturn as he told me of the difficulty of knowing the exact number of people affiliated to the New Kadampa Tradition, estimating that there are between two and four thousand. He explained that he could not understand why the Dalai Lama had launched such an absurd witch hunt, and expressed his concern about the possible future harmful effects of ill-intentioned rumours spread by some people against them.

From what I gathered in my conversations with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the nun Dewang and James Belither, there emerged a surprising portrait of the Dalai Lama from which we can conclude that although he is considered a world hero, he is in reality a superstitious dictator who relies heavily on oracles and divinations. It also gave a dark description that tore through the idyllic veil of his propaganda; a scenario filled with intrigues more suited to a medieval court in which cruel feudal men fight to the death, while court favourites and sorcerers manipulate the sovereign. Demons and deities fighting to control people’s minds; spells and curses…

It was said, for example, that the new favourite medium or oracle of the Dalai Lama is a young girl who has recently arrived from Lhasa, expert in fanning the inquisitorial fire against the deity Dorje. Recently, in the middle of a public religious ceremony, this young girl, who invokes a favourite spirit of the Dalai Lama called Nechung, entered a trance and accused an old and respected lama of being a secret servant of the demonic deity [Dorje Shugden]. The old lama slapped her. Later, it was agreed to keep quiet about the incident.

An oracle of the protector Nechung

At midnight I switched off the light, mindful that my door had no lock. I slept very well and woke up early in the morning. I had a walk in the woods, went down to the beach, looked at the various buildings and took some pictures. I spoke with a young monk from Barcelona who insisted that the way Geshe Kelsang Gyatso presents Tibetan Buddhism is much more accessible to Westerners than the way shown by other lamas and traditions. Later on, Dewang showed me the local prehistoric stone circle, and we also had time to visit the New Kadampa Tradition’s office. There was nothing else to see, nothing else to discuss, my stay had come to an end.

On the train back to London, I reflected on the conflict. It is a repeat of one that occurred three and a half centuries ago between the then-Dalai Lama and Ngatrul Dragpa. That conflict finished with the Dalai’s assumption of military-political power, the assassination of Ngatrul by [suffocation with] a katag (the traditional white silk scarf), the blaming of problems on the vengeance of Dorje, and the Dalai’s repentance. Would the story repeat itself again?
 

Intrigues at the Palace

For many years, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, guru of the New Kadampa Tradition, was not allowed to work independently until his followers threatened to expose publicly the dirty linen of a drug trafficking operation organised by certain organisations in order to finance Tibetan centres. The truth is that the growth of the New Kadampa Tradition in the West is causing fear to some, and is the envy of many. Its rapid development over the last six years provides Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with a growing leadership which is a threat to the Dalai Lama. Because of this, the followers of the Dalai Lama are trying to destroy Dorje Shugden, his protector and emblem. However, he has shown himself to be an independent figure and it will be difficult to silence him.

According to one of the personal translators of the Dalai Lama, there is a secret society, the self-styled Secret Organisation of External and Internal Enemy Eliminators [of Tibet] that has threatened to kill anybody who continues to practise Dorje Shugden. The translator, who has offered to prove and expand on his assertions, says that the accusations against the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi of having planned the three recent assassinations at the court of the Dalai Lama are totally unfounded.

“The Lama who was killed in February 1997″, says the translator, “was known for his strong attacks on Dorje Shugden and those who worship him. It was said that he had returned from Taiwan just a few days before, carrying a lot of cash. Among the hypotheses that circulated at the palace-in-exile in Dharamsala about the motive of the crimes were: there was disagreement about the distribution of the money; Mr Gyalo, a brother of the Dalai Lama, was involved in the crimes, and that he was in contact with other secret organisations; the murders were committed by the Khampa guerrilla organisation that led the fight in 1959 and who are also in disagreement with the Dalai’s government; or by a desperate individual follower of Dorje Shugden; or by Chinese or Taiwanese secret agents; or even done purposely to incriminate the Dorje Shugden Society.”

The accusations that the Dalai Lama and his court are obsessed with eliminating internal dissents are also confirmed by this translator and Western monk: “While the Tibetan government-in-exile has shown itself powerless against the Chinese occupation, they have concentrated on repressing Tibetan opposition to the point of eliminating it, as is shown by the suspension in 1996 of the only independent newspaper in the Tibetan exile community, the recent amendment of the Tibetan Constitution so that a Supreme Judge cannot possibly be a devotee of Dorje Shugden, and by rejecting attempted mediation by abbots of the great monasteries.”

While the followers of the Dalai Lama say that the practitioners of Dorje Shugden are the Talibans of Tibetan Buddhism, they themselves did not show a very good example or good sense when, in July 1997, Lobsang Thubten, one of the leaders of the Dorje Shugden Society in New Delhi was furiously attacked by 200 followers of the Dalai Lama. On the other hand, the Shugdens deny allegations that they use their deity to obtain material and personal favours. They say that they rely on him only for help in their spiritual progress and in their praying for the happiness of all beings. The followers of the New Kadampa Tradition admit that pictures of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, their spiritual director, take pre-eminent place in their meditation rooms and that they also have special prayers for his long life but as they explain, this is a common practice in Tibetan Buddhism, in which the figure of the guru, or spiritual guide, is crucial.

In summary, all this indicates that the Dalai Lama will not stop until he manages to stop Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. And if the latter has the powerful deity and protector Dorje Shugden on his side, the Dalai Lama tries to counteract this power with his own protector, the spirit Nechung. Lama against lama and deity against deity, it is possible that behind this bloody religious battle, which is not short of threats, intrigues and assassinations, there hides manipulation, which is not spiritual, by a feudal monarchipope trying to eliminate a dangerous rival. On his side he has world public opinion, headed by Hollywood. But in matters of gods and demons one never knows….
 

Deus writes here that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche practiced Dorje Shugden. Click to enlarge.

The Friends of the ‘Evil One’

Among famous Lamas who have already passed away, Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, the tutors of the Dalai Lama, were probably the most renowned figures who worshipped the controversial deity and protector Dorje Shugden. But there are also many famous living Lamas and teachers whose responsibility has been to keep this tradition alive. Despite their cautious silence, they have all become direct opponents of the official line promulgated by the Dalai Lama, and many continue their practice in secret due to fear of reprisals.
 

Geshe Kelsang Gyato: The Dalai Lama is Infringing Human Rights

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

The difficult responsibility of leading the opposition to the Dalai Lama has fallen into the hands of the highest authority in the New Kadampa Tradition, the independent and intellectual lama Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. But his disagreement goes further than the question of the intrinsic virtue or otherwise of a figure within the Buddhist pantheon. Behind his words, well measured and respectful, throb doubts and accusations of greater depth.

His private residence is on the second floor of Manjushri Buddhist Centre, on top of the visitors’ rooms and next to a meditation room where there is a big statue of Vajrayogini, a female Buddha with naked, swollen breasts who does not seem to take such prominence in orthodox monasteries.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s house is similar to an upper middle class apartment in any Western city. In the kitchen, next to a machine for making organic bread, I was served tea, and then in the sitting-room I finally met him, a gentle man of indefinite age – actually he is over sixty – who has published sixteen books over the last ten years, after completing a three-year retreat in which he alone knows what happened.
 

J.C. Deus: Is there a solution to the serious conflict that divides Tibetan Buddhism in relation to the ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden, the deity you regard as an emanation of the Buddha of Wisdom?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: If the Dalai Lama decided to give freedom and allow the practice of Dorje Shugden, the problem would finish automatically.
 

J.C. Deus: What steps should be taken to resolve the situation?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: The Dalai Lama has to understand that his ban and the methods his government-in-exile is using to implement it are illegal, cruel and inhumane. The Dalai Lama is infringing the human rights of many people.
 

J.C. Deus: Are there other important figures in Tibetan Buddhism who are disappointed with the Dalai Lama? If so, why don’t they make their criticism public?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: There are very many indeed who do not agree with him, but they cannot express their critical point of view for fear of reprisal. In Tibetan society, no one is allowed to express ideas that oppose those of the Dalai Lama. If you do, they will destroy you. They will discredit you to the point of making you a pariah, if they don’t resort to violence.
 

J.C. Deus: Is it possible that the Dalai Lama is just a moderniser of Tibetan Buddhism who is clashing with more traditional sectors? Or are you amongst those who think that he is hungry for power and wishes to monopolise all Tibetan religious and political power?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: The second description seems closer to reality.
 

J.C. Deus: What, in your opinion, is the real reason why on 14th July 1978 the Dalai Lama publicly went against the deity and protector Dorje Shugden?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: I think that there are many reasons. One of them was the influence of the spirit Nechung, the protector of the Dalai Lama. The oracle (medium) of Nechung with the consent of the Dalai Lama wants to have all the power. Many people think that jealousy was an important factor because the practice of Dorje Shugden was, and still is, very popular among many Lamas, including the tutors and root gurus of the Dalai Lama, as well as many scholars and thousands of other practitioners. But there is also a factor of ignorance and superstition, because the Dalai Lama based all his decisions to implement this ban on divinations, oracles and dreams. He himself says so in the discourse he gave in July 1978.
 

J.C. Deus: Do you think this is an attempt to stop the preponderance of the Gelug tradition in Tibetan Buddhism?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: Yes, this is clear.
 

J.C. Deus: Who is responsible for this problem, the Dalai Lama or the human oracle through whom the spirit Nechung manifests? Who is this oracle, how was he elected and whose interests does he represent?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: The Dalai Lama chooses everything. He also chose Nechung. I don’t know much about him but they themselves say he is a spirit.
 

J.C. Deus: It is said that the Dalai Lama has more oracles (mediums) than ministers, that he is surrounded by oracles and that he does not take a step without consulting them. What do you think about such reliance? Do you think that there is a hidden power at the palace in Dharamsala?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: This reliance is inappropriate. These methods of divination are often the source of many problems, conflicts and quarrels, and give rise to superstition. The person who gets into the habit of relying upon these methods ends up losing self-confidence, and there comes a time when he becomes incapable of taking a single decision by himself based on logical reasoning and using his own wisdom, or relying on the wisdom of other experts who could advise him. Buddha did not teach these methods; they are not Buddhist practices. About the second part of the question, whether or not there may be a hidden power in Dharamsala, all the power is in the hands of the Dalai Lama. If tomorrow he were to say that all Tibetans have to worship Dorje Shugden, they would put photos and images of this deity on their shrines. If the next day he said the opposite, they would remove all these images. This is his power.
 

J.C. Deus: Has the Tibetan government-in-exile failed? Do you think that the fight for independence should be abandoned and instead accept dependency on China?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: It is obvious that the Tibetan government-in-exile has failed in its principal task: to gain independence for Tibet. But I prefer not to comment about political matters, so I will abstain from replying to the second question.
 

J.C. Deus: How do you see the Dalai Lama’s role as a political Tibetan leader? Do you think that he may have become a puppet of the United States in its disputes with China?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: I think that it is a serious error to have a political leader who is at the same time a spiritual leader. Politics and religion are two different things, and to mix them gives rise to many political and religious problems. Often they use religious methods, such as devotion to the spiritual guide, to attain political objectives. It is very problematic. To me it is unacceptable that the government-in-exile forces all of us to take the Dalai Lama as our spiritual guide or guru. In Buddhism there is complete freedom; no one can force you to choose someone as your spiritual master, this is something that each of us has to choose with complete freedom.
 

J.C. Deus: Would you say that the Dalai Lama runs a dictatorship over the Tibetan exile community?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: Yes, in many aspects it is a dictatorship. There are no elections and an opposition is impossible in present Tibetan society, and these are two of the main characteristics of a dictatorship.
 

J.C. Deus: Finally, do you think that it was a serious mistake to have chosen the present Dalai Lama? Is it possible that he may not be the actual reincarnation of his predecessor?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: I think that political leaders should be elected democratically, and it is a mistake that the same person embodies and administers both the political and religious power of a country.
 

Interview with Kelsang Dewang, Buddhist Nun

The Dalai Lama makes decisions based on oracles, and dreams, and throwing little balls of dough into the air.

Despite her name, Kelsang Dewang is a Spanish nun who converted to Buddhism twenty years ago. She is the translator and personal assistant of the leader of the New Kadampa Tradition. As a practitioner of the deity Dorje Shugden, her voice has been listened to in this controversy, and presents a serious and critical point-of-view about the historical roots of Tibetan Buddhism and the present role of the Dalai Lama.
 

J.C. Deus: You are a practitioner of Dorje Shugden, a deity that is accused of being a demon and of taking the souls of those who worship him.
Kelsang Dewang: No, he is not a demon. He is a protector of Dharma and these protectors, by definition, are emanations of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas (realised and liberated beings), and the practitioner relies on them seeking help to attain spiritual realisations. Shugden is an emanation of the Buddha of Wisdom and one of the main protectors of the Gelugpa tradition.
 

J.C. Deus: Are we in fact facing a political conflict and a battle for power which is obscured by an apparent religious confrontation?
Kelsang Dewang: It could be, religion and politics are very much mixed in Tibetan society. The truth is that the Gelugpa Tradition is the most widespread and the most successful, and this always gives rise to jealousy and envy. It is a conflict that has its roots in the XVII century, but it is dreadful to bring these resentments into the present. It does not matter that some people think that Dorje Shugden is a spirit and others think that he is a Buddha. In democratic countries we have freedom, and we should also respect those who have different views to us. Besides this, they cannot prove that Dorje is an evil spirit. When they try to, they only tell superstitious stories. If someone has a bad dream, if someone gets sick, if the crops are not good, or if a Lama falls off a bicycle and dies, all these are blamed on Dorje Shugden. Just recently a young girl in Dharamsala was raped, and they immediately said that the perpetrator was a follower of Dorje Shugden. Tibetan culture is very superstitious, but this has nothing to do with Buddhism. Buddhism and Tibetan culture are two different things, and we have to learn carefully to unwrap the precious treasure of Dharma from the dirty wrappings in which we have received it.
 

J.C. Deus: It seems that the attack is not limited to Lama Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and to the New Kadampa Tradition, but that they are also trying to discredit the whole Gelugpa tradition by forbidding the essential practices of this tradition. News has been heard that some of the Lamas of this lineage have been discredited. Are there any details of this situation?
Kelsang Dewang: It has been said that they have started to suppress the practice of Lama Chöpa, and that the Dalai Lama has also publicly criticised the famous Jamyang Shaypa. But the principal objects of the attack are the lamas that have brought the Gelugpa tradition into the present day, Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche. This criticism implies that they were not realised beings, but were ordinary beings with delusions, so it would follow that their teachings lack blessings and are not valid. From this it would follow that the Gelugpa Tradition is a degenerate path. But the paradox is that the Dalai Lama himself was educated as a Gelugpa, and received all his instructions from Trijang Rinpoche, his root guru, whom he now criticises. In reality, in Tibetan society there has never been any democracy. In the VIIth century in Tibet they threw criminals over a cliff, and in the XXth century the way of punishing those who oppose the Government has not changed so much, even in exile.

Before the present Dalai Lama escaped to India, members of his government assassinated the great Gelugpa Lama Reting Rinpoche. He was poisoned in 1947, after it was decided that to throw him over a cliff was not an appropriate way to kill a lama of such rank. And this lama was killed just because he did not agree with the government’s activities. Because of these reprisals, Tibetans are forced to wear two masks: with one they smile to the Dalai Lama, and with the other they criticise him. All the power is held by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama and its orders have to be followed at all costs. No one has the opportunity to express a different view. This institution [the Private Office] is in charge of passing on information to the people. When it criticises someone for holding different views, and that person does not retract his views or keep silent, he will start receiving threats. Many people feel unhappy for other reasons also. For example, the Dalai Lama and his government have spent the last twenty six years fund-raising for the purpose of Tibetan independence, but now the Dalai Lama says that he is not interested in the independence of Tibet, so for this reason many people feel that they have been cheated.
 

J.C. Deus: What is the relationship between the Dalai Lama and other schools and traditions?
Kelsang Dewang: The Dalai Lama has a very bad relationship with the other main Tibetan Buddhist tradition, the Kagyupas. Recently they underwent a lot of suffering due to the interference of the Dalai Lama in the choice of the reincarnation of the new Karmapa, the head of the Kagyupas. The Dalai Lama forced the recognition of a boy that the Chinese authorities had recognised as the new Karmapa, but the Kagyupas had already found a boy they believed to be the true incarnation. Besides, the Dalai Lama has no power to recognise officially this reincarnation and in doing so, he has divided the Kagyupas into two main factions: those who follow the Dalai Lama and those who follow Shamar Rinpoche, the lama in charge of recognising the Karmapas. Consequently, the Tibetan Government has done everything possible to make this lama another pariah. In Gelugpa society, the problems created by the ban of the practice of Dorje Shugden has forced many lamas and monks, who cannot accept abandoning their religious practice, to escape to Nepal or Mongolia. Many monks demonstrated, and several of them were expelled from their monasteries.
 

J.C. Deus: Nechung is the spirit protector of the Dalai Lama. How does he manifest?
Kelsang Dewang: Nechung is a worldly spirit, they say so themselves. Tibetans like spirits and divinations very much. In the New Kadampa Tradition, we do not follow these methods because we do not consider them to be truly Buddhist. In my opinion, often the medium or oracle is just a good actor. When the spirit has entered the body of the oracle, people ask questions and he replies. I find this way of answering questions incorrect and open to criticism, because often a medium will reply according to his personal interests. Also, I cannot understand why the Dalai Lama, if he is an enlightened being as some say, needs to consult a worldly spirit. The Dalai Lama decided that he had to ban the worship of Dorje Shugden following the advice he received from the spirit Nechung transmitted via a medium. The writings of the Dalai Lama confirm that he makes his decisions based on divination through oracles, dream interpretation and throwing little balls of dough into the air. Considering that his internal and external political activities are based on these methods of discrimination, we should not be surprised that in all these years in exile he has [only] managed mainly to become one of the idols of Hollywood stars. Besides, the spirit Nechung is notorious for making many mistakes. The 13th Dalal Lama died because Nechung gave him poison by mistake.
 

J.C. Deus: Do you think that the Dalai Lama has degenerated?
Kelsang Dewang: A being of high realisations cannot degenerate. There is a point on the spiritual path when it is impossible to go backwards. It is not possible for the Dalai Lama to be a Buddha and then to degenerate; therefore, the only possibility is that he is an ordinary being and his actions are showing it. A real Buddhist does not need to be afraid of spirits, so why should he be?

J.C. Deus
 

Addendum

Spanish author José Catalán Deus is renowned for having worked with the likes of CNN, and other big name newspapers and magazines. He has even published book after book of historical reporting, giving factual accounts of events and issues. His article in a 1997 issue of the Mas Alla magazine is no different. Aiming to fulfil the magazine’s aim to report on events and matters regarding religion, spiritual affairs, and metaphysics, he has provided a balanced, unbiased overview of a somewhat tricky situation – the conflict surrounding the practice of Dorje Shugden, as orchestrated by the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala). Published well before the height of this coordinated ban, the article is free from the CTA’s machinations to hide the truth.

The CTA have long spewed the false claim that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche did not practice Dorje Shugden but as Deus reports, this is not even close to the truth of the matter. He clearly interviewed the right people and as an independent commentator, discovered that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche did in fact practice Dorje Shugden and has even composed prayers to the deity. In fact, it was not only Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, the senior tutor to His Holiness the Dalai Lama who practised the deity, but Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the junior tutor to the Dalai Lama as well. The CTA often claim that these two primary teachers of the Dalai Lama were not involved with the practice, but as Deus’s objective reporting clearly indicates, they both in fact did practice. And Deus has no recourse to lie or take sides on the matter, as such a blunder would have ruined his reporting career – neither he himself nor the magazine he was writing for were linked to Tibetan Buddhism in any way, and therefore have no reason to report either in support for or against the Dorje Shugden ban.

The very fact that an unbiased author, in a matter-of-fact reporting manner, reaffirmed the truth that both tutors of His Holiness the Dalai Lama practised Dorje Shugden, undermined the CTA and exposed them for what they are – liars. What they propagate is nothing near the truth, and here it has been exposed for all to see.

You can scroll down to page 33 of the magazine to see where José Catalán Deus specifically mentions that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche both practised Dorje Shugden.

The cover of the September 1997 issue of Mas Alla magazine in which the article by José Catalán Deus was published. Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

José Catalán Deus highlights the fact that both Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche were practitioners of Dorje Shugden here on page 33 of the magazine. The sentence in English reads “Among famous Lamas who have already passed away, Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, the tutors of the Dalai Lama, were probably the most renowned figures who worshipped the controversial deity and protector Dorje Shugden.” Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Without Pabongka Rinpoche passing on the valuable teachings to his heart disciple, Trijang Dorje Chang, none of us would probably be able to even lay our eyes and hands on this immensely blessed text.

Teachings that are passed down from one generation of teachers to the next generation of disciples are highly blessed. They become the treasured “oral transmissions” that is the heart of the Gelugpa tradition. Therefore, the teacher and disciple relationship is of utmost importance. It is what we call the path of Vajrayana.

For instance, the Southern style Lamrim that we all know today as documented in the Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand was actually a priceless teaching given to a great lama named Kelsang Tenzin directly from the Buddha of Wisdom himself, Manjushri.

Pictured here is an image of Dagpo Jampel Lhundrup who was the Guru of Pabongka Dorje Chang.

Then Kelsang Tenzin had passed on these teachings to Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup, who passed it on to Dagpo Jampel Lhundrub. This is how the special teachings came to Pabongka Rinpoche. It was Pabongka Rinpoche who then spread this teaching to the masses throughout Tibet; and from there, it has spread to the world.

Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup was no ordinary Lama. As the Guru of Pabongka Rinpoche’s Guru, Dagpo Jampel Lhudrup, Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup was the conduit of the many precious teachings that survived and were passed onto Pabongka Rinpoche.

Pabongka Dorje Chang also spoke highly of Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup on many occasions, where he declared Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup as one of the most important Lamas in the Gelugpa Lineage. The role of the lineage holders is very important and thus Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup was honoured in the Lamrim, as well as in the lineage prayers of the Gandapa Heruka Body Mandala.

In his lifetime, Pabongka Rinpoche promoted two specific teachings widely and passionately. One was the Southern style Lamrim which makes up the text Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, and the other is the practice of a special powerful Dharma Protector, Dorje Shugden.

During the civil unrest in Tibet, Pabongka Rinpoche passed both these practices in their entirety to Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, as he knew that he was not able to leave Tibet. Pabongka Rinpoche did not want these precious teachings to die with him but for the lineage to continue and spread far and wide. He believed that in the future, many people would need the special Protector practice of Dorje Shugden as it would benefit many people of this time.

Following the wishes of his Guru, Pabongka Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche promoted both practices widely, giving thousands of people the valuable Protector Dorje Shugden Initiation. Trijang Rinpoche also wrote the famous commentary, Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors. This was a commentary on a praise of Dorje Shugden written by Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup that was called “Infinite Aeons”.

In essence, “Infinite Aeons” was a comprehensive text on the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden Fulfillment Ritual. It was passed down to Pabongka Rinpoche, who then passed it onto his closest disciple, Trijang Rinpoche. This became the vital text that Trijang Dorje Chang based his commentary upon in the Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors. This text is still being studied and used among Shugden practitioners across the globe today.

In “Infinite Aeons”, the great Dharmapala Dorje Shugden’s previous incarnations are listed to include Sakya Pandita, Birwapa, Panchen Sonam Drakpa and Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. Within this document, there are stories about the erudite Lama, Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen in this extensive praise to Dorje Shugden. There are details of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen’s life story, how he was murdered, how he arose as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden and was enthroned first by the Sakya clan and the Chinese Emperor. It also details how Dorje Shugden was finally confirmed as a Protector by the 5th Dalai Lama himself. Above all, “Infinite Aeons” explains that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened emanation of Manjushri in the wrathful form.

The text states that Dorje Shugden arose as a Protector to guard the precious teachings of the Nagarjuna’s Middle View as taught by the Dharma King, Lord Tsongkhapa.

In this text Dagpo Kelsang Kedrub included the serkym, or golden drink offering ritual, as well as offerings to the three main Yidams – Heruka, Yamantaka and Ghuyasamaja. In addition, we can find complete verses praising each of the five emanations of Dorje Shugden, and the Protector’s entourage – all 32 of them, excluding Kache Marpo.

Dagpo Kelsang Khedrup authored many important texts, such as the biographies of the Lamrim Lamas, generation of Bodhichitta and etc. However, the most crucial text of all would be the “Infinite Aeons”, as it confirms that Dorje Shugden is truly an enlightened being and not an evil spirit. Most importantly, it confirms that Dorje Shugden is none other than Lord Manjushri in a fearsome form.

When I first became involved actively with the study of the Lamrim, and as I did further research on the Internet about the Gelugpa teachings and its lineage, I came across the controversy of Dorje Shugden. At first, I searched more to find out what it was about and quickly realized that I just could not make any sense of it AT ALL!

The statements of the Dalai Lama seemed contradictory and it didn’t make much sense at all to me. Then I saw the images of monks demonstrating with banners asking the Dalai Lama to stop…. lying???? Some were even describing him as a… dictator??? Then, he also said that his own teachers were… wrong??

I had been through some parts of the Lamrim by then, and had the determination to study it more as it was answering all of my questions. So I decide to COMPLETELY ignore the topic of Dorje Shugden. Every time I came across it on the Internet, I just did not look at it, did not read anything about it and kept it at the back of my mind, to be explored later when I would have sufficient knowledge and be able to understand the dynamics at play.

I did this because there was one answer from the Dalai Lama to a formal request for clarifications sent by Western Gelugpa monks: “Your main concern should be the study and realization of the 18 volumes of Lama Tsongkhapa”. And so, following the Dalai Lama’s advice, I too set myself to study the Lamrim before entertaining a polemic in my mind.

It was only months later that, through the kindness of my teacher, I was given more detailed explanations and gained more understanding as to why the whole thing seemed to make no sense at all: The very fact that it made no sense indicated that sense is to be found at another level, at a larger scale. Then, instead of undermining my determination to learn and practice, the controversy made it stronger. I realized that His Holiness was acting out of great compassion and with a pure and sincere motivation. His actions are truly remarkable! The controversy is helping many and will continue to help many more!

I run my own business, and very, very soon after having connected with the Dharma and with Dorje Shugden, my business collapsed and all my ventures got suspended or cancelled. ALL! And all within only four weeks. I had 18 employees in October 2008; by the beginning of 2009, I only had two left and we were working only four-day weeks with salary cuts.

Until then, I lived out of a suitcase, travelling 20 days a month, from the States to the Maldives, Dubai, Singapore, China… As such, I would not have been able to study the Lamrim, as I was away most of the time. So, by losing all my jobs, I suddenly had lots more free time at hand. I must say here that I never panicked in this situation. Instead, I took the opportunity at hand to study the Lamrim; I knew that it was a unique opportunity.

My business never collapsed completely and it survived. As a matter of fact, we are now busy working on projects that are spreading the Dharma, and now, even my working hours have been made meaningful!

This is a story I do not talk about openly to just anyone because in the mind of new practitioners, Dorje Shugden is supposed to “protect” us, so how could he have created conditions such that my business collapsed? If some people heard this story, they may not even want to make prayers to Dorje Shugden or do his practice.

Dorje Shugden is a Dharma Protector and his “role” is to create conducive conditions for people to practice the Dharma. In my case, the loss of business created the conditions for me to practice Dharma and as a result, my life is now meaningful, I am happier and, looking at the bigger picture, I have received tremendous help from him. I feel very fortunate.

I wish for my mind to be completely free of any confusion, and may such achievement come to be helpful to others.

~ Eva ~

Lama Thubten Phurbu is doing a lot of work in China and Tibet to spread the tradition of Lama Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden. It is really good news to know that NAGBA is associated and working closely with many lamas of the Gelugpa tradition and spreading Lama Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden’s lineage.

To know more about this lama see the posts below

1. Lama Thubten Phurbu’s Dharma Tour in Kham/Lhasa, Tibet
   Source : dorjeshugden.com/?p=8337
2. Dorje Shugden oracle takes trance while Lama Thubten Phurbu is giving Dharma talk
   Source : dorjeshugden.com/?p=8331
3. Huge Dorje Shugden statue of Tseri Sagong Monastery in Chamdo, Tibet
   Source : dorjeshugden.com/?p=8069
4. Lama Thubten Phurbu Spreading Dorje Shugden in Chamdo, Tibet
   Source : dorjeshugden.com/?p=8051
5. Chinese Buddhist Temple Spreading Dorje Shugden
   Source : dorjeshugden.com/?p=8029

The world was horrified when the Taliban blew up images of the Buddha carved into the rock in Afghanistan. This religious terrorism has also been happening in India since the 1980s. For 30 years, the Dalai Lama’s Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has been ordering the destruction of statues and other holy images of the Wisdom Buddha, the Protector Deity of the Gelugpa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, and encouraging monks and nuns to engage in such terrible negative karmic actions.

HH 14th Dalai Lama

Recently, someone posted the following on an anti-Shugden website regarding my previous post The Dalai Lama: a Spiritual Conundrum:

According to NKT, the Dalai Lama has inflicted more harm that those who have killed millions of people, tortured millions of people and raped millions of women in modern times.

What could be more harmful than murder, torture and rape?

This was in response to my statement in the article that the Dalai Lama was the “Spiritual Teacher who has inflicted the greatest harm on the greatest number of people in modern times”.

I said that the Dalai Lama was the Spiritual Teacher who has inflicted the greatest harm on the greatest number of people – this is patently true. If we consider the nature of a Spiritual Teacher, their job is to benefit others, not to harm them. That a Spiritual Teacher would inflict ANY harm is anathema and completely contrary to their nature and function.

How has the Dalai Lama harmed others? He has forced thousands of Tibetan Gelugpas to break their commitments to their Gurus by swearing an oath to Palden Lhamo. He has called the realizations of his own Teachers into question by saying that they were wrong about the nature and function of Dorje Shugden.

Although he talks about non-sectarianism, it seems that, out of sectarianism, he is destroying the Gelugpa tradition by casting doubt on its Lineage Gurus and practices. He threatens their very validity.

In answer to the question “What could be more harmful than murder, torture and rape?” my reply would be “destroying the spiritual lives of others, and destroying the future happiness of millions of people by forcing them to break their spiritual commitments”.

Let me explain.

While murder, torture and rape are terrible crimes and reprehensible, for the victim they only affect one life. Far worse is the breaking of spiritual commitments and negative actions towards the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha), which can affect people for countless lifetimes.

There are hair-raising stories of people who took many lower rebirths due to disparaging monks, for example. One man once insulted a monk by telling him that he looked like a frog. As a result, he was reborn 500 times in succession as a frog. Breaking spiritual commitments endangers the happiness of many future lives.

The Dalai Lama has blackmailed and coerced thousands of Tibetans to swearing an oath to Palden Lhamo (a Protectoress of the Gelugpa tradition) that they will no longer practise Dorje Shugden, even though they may have made a promise to their Spiritual Guides to do so, and furthermore, not to share material or spiritual resources with those who continue to do so.

This promise will adversely affect them for many of their future lives. The Dalai Lama has created a schism in the Sangha, which is one of the five heinous actions of immediate retribution. It is said that someone who commits such an action will go straight to hell at the end of that life, which is why it is called an action of ‘immediate retribution’.

For this reason, we can feel sorry for the Dalai Lama, but we must also acknowledge the enormous spiritual damage he has inflicted on those who are in his mandala and under his power. This damage not only destroys their spiritual life now, but endangers the happiness of their countless future lives. This is an action of unparalleled cruelty.

Shantideva

As Shantideva says in Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life:

If all living beings, including the gods and demi-gods,
Were to rise up against me as one enemy,
They could not lead me to the fire of the deepest hell
And throw me in.

But this powerful enemy of the delusions
In an instant can cast me into that fiery place
Where even the ashes of Mount Meru
Would be consumed without a trace.

(Chapter IV, verses 30 and 31)

So, if all the murderers, torturers and rapists were to rise up against me as my enemy, they could destroy my life, but they couldn’t cast me into hell. Breaking spiritual commitments through the power of delusion can cast me in an instant into hell. This is the reason why forcing people to break their spiritual commitments is far more harmful than murder, torture and rape.

It’s therefore clear to me that no matter how much the Dalai Lama speaks about peace, harmony and non-sectarianism, his actions, which are spiritual violence against those who, unfortunately, have the faith to follow him, are the worse kinds of actions leading to the worst kind of results. The suffering he is inflicting will last not only in this life but in future lives as well. Therefore, controversially, I have to say that his actions are more cruel than that of any murderer, torturer or rapist for the clear spiritual reasons I have explained.

Many people regard the Dalai Lama as the living embodiment of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of Compassion, but as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso said in an interview in Tricycle magazine in 1998:

If he is an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara why he is 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?

Source: http://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/the-dalai-lama-a-spiritual-conundrum-a-reply-to-criticism/

King Songtsen Gampo

Michael von Brück
Centre for Religious Studies
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

Religions are systems of social communication which at the same time create images of reality which become normative structures of perception, and these in turn define what is considered ‘real’ in a given society. In this way the legitimacy of social structures as well as structures of perception and thinking are established.

Religions develop different ways of creating these patterns and structures, or rather these different patterns and structures are called religions. In course of time, these patterns change. Therefore, ‘orthodoxy’ versus ‘heterodoxy’ or ‘canonicity’ versus ‘changing interpretations’ are only temporally established sets of communication which stabilize each other mutually.

The ‘canon’ is more than just a set of scriptures and their generally accepted mode of interpretetation: it is also a model of social relations and values. But religions also refer to what is not (yet), and thus negate what is. Their very structure includes an ‘ought’ which, in many cases, is imbued with a charismatic emphasis inasmuch as it is a potential or actual criticism of the status quo.

Paradoxically, religious institutions are the subject and object of this critique at the same time. In this way, religion itself is the meta-critique of its own legitimation of reality. Therefore, canon and charisma or religious institutionalization and ‘divine interference’ are two aspects of the same subject matter. My paper demonstrates this interconnection by looking at the present Tibetan Shugden controversy.

As W.C. Smith has shown, we need to be aware that religions are cumulative traditions and, as such, are syncretic. Organized religion tries to channel syncretic processes in order to establish a longer lasting canonicity or stability, but this process itself bears syncretic traits. Identity after all, is not an object but a process in which norms and patterns of argument are continuously being challenged by events.

The result is a process of assimilation and dissimilation which follows pre-established criteria as long as a society can agree on the rules of the process. It seems that these criteria can be subsumed under two categories: (a) an aesthetic logic which determines the limits of that which can be integrated; (b) the power structure in a given community. Both give each other legitimacy.

The actual controversy on Shugden is an example of how canonicity is being defined and redefined in the ever-changing context of power structures. However, ‘power’ is not just political or economic; it is also that which is convincing and plausible, that which asserts itself successfully and becomes a pattern of interpretation for historical events. That is why celestial hierarchies not only reflect mundane hierarchies—the celestial aspect also informs and changes the mundane aspect. Both are in correspondence, or in a dialectical relationship.

Tibetan Buddhism is a highly syncretic and pluralistic form of Tantric Mahayana Buddhism which has integrated elements of Tibetan Bon, Shamanism, Manichaeic tradition and animistic beliefs. Though Tantric Buddhism was introduced into Tibet rather rapidly during the reigns of the kings Songtsen Gampo (AD 620-49) and Trisong Detsen (755-98), a variety of different forms can be observed from the very beginning: more scholastic systems (represented by Shantirakshita and Kamalashila) of a graded path to awakening rival the tantric form (represented by Padmasambhava) and the sudden experience of awakening as practised in Chinese Ch’an (represented by the monk Hoshang at the ‘council’ in the first Tibetan Buddhist monastery at Samye [792-4]).

Later, different schools developed during the so-called second spread of Buddhism in Tibet after the tenth and eleventh centuries. From that time the Sakya school develops next to the Kadampa (later Gelugpa), the Kagyüpa and the old Nyingma school.

The distinctive character of these schools is established not so much by differing philosophical views (though there are differences in interpreting the classical tradition), as by different chains or lineages of master-and-disciple relationships, because in Tibetan Buddhism the oral tradition and charismatic leadership of a master (skt. guru, tib. lama) plays a very important role.

Even later, when one or the other school became dominant politically, there was never a dominant single religious lineage but rather a polycentric interaction of different traditions. Since the heads of different schools and/ or powerful monastic institutions were regarded as charismatic incarnations of their predecessors, each lineage could develop on the basis of its own authority and authenticity which, at times, could create tensions and conflicts with the religious and political desire to create a generally accepted canonicity in the tradition so as to form a consistent framework of a pan-Tibetan identity.

This paper is a case study of such a conflict between the plurality of charismatic interpretations and the claim of a unified canonicity within Tibetan Buddhism at the present time.

In Tibetan Buddhism religious authority rests mainly on two grounds:

1. The scriptural tradition, i.e. the canonical Vinaya, Sutra and Tantra texts translated and collected over centuries and finally codified by Bu-ston (1290-1364) in the Kanjur (bka’ ‘gyur) and the commentaries of the Tanjur (bstan ‘gyur).² However, Bu-ston’s selection and arrangement shows a bias against the older Nyingma school (rnin ma pa), which finally contributed to an antagonism of the new (reformed) schools and the old one.
2. The reincarnated Lama (Tulku, sprul sku), who embodies lineages of tradition that have shaped a specific monastic interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism and a social allegiance that has given Tibetan Buddhism its (regional) coherence. The concept of the Tulku has its roots in the Mahayana-bodhisattva, though its religious and political implications are unique to the Tibetan tradition. The Tulku represents spiritual authority due to his karmic punya acquired over countless lifetimes. He exercises authority for he embodies and combines both the charismatic presence of the spiritual force and ecclesiastical approval of the religious and political hierarchy. However, these different aspects can also lead to conflict as the recent controversy on the legitimacy of Shugden shows.

That Tibetan history was impregnated by those conflicts can be observed by referring to three areas of conflict:

• The tension between the authority of different Tulku lineages and the centralizing power of the more powerful lineages (such as the Sakyapas in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and the Gelukpas after the sixteenth century).
• The tension between the canon of the triratna, i.e. Buddha, dharma, samgha as embodied in the Kangyur and the specific ‘root-teacher’ who is usually a reincarnated Lama responsible for the perpetuation of his specific lineage.
• The tension between the Buddhist canon and pre-Buddhist practices of the propitiation of deities which have been incorporated into the Buddhist universe but often are not accepted by all Tibetan Buddhists in the same way.

All three areas of conflict were closely tied to Tibetan geography and history—with the vast areas of sparsely populated land inhabited by nomadic, semi-nomadic and settled groups only loosely connected with each other. One reason for this is that cultivation of land was possible only in valleys which far from each other, were connected only by difficult paths over the mountains. This situation fostered independent social developments.

Wider parts of Tibet were unified only after the eighth century, precisely the time when Buddhism was introduced into Tibet. In fact, the Buddhist establishment of administration, the introduction of a script, and a more general Buddhist creed contributed to the unification of Tibet. King Songtsen Gampo (620-49) probably used the structure of Buddhism to unify the country, even more than King Trisong Detsen (755-98).

However, local forces and the old establishment of the Bon tradition (with its countless deities and localized cults) resisted both the unification and the canonization of religious beliefs and practices through Buddhism. This conflict shaped Tibetan history over centuries, and in some ways it is present even today, though in a different form. The conflict is both a religious problem of a generalized canonicity versus individual ‘charismatic’ claims and a struggle between centralized power and the plurality of local traditions.

The present controversy concerning the deity Dorje Shugden (rdo rje shugs ldan) known also as Dolgyal is a reflection of the problem of transmission and canonicity in Tibetan Buddhism. The issue is rooted in a controversy at the time of the Dalai Lama (1617-82), was revived at the time of the 13th Dalai Lama (1876-1933) and gained momentum since the 1970s when Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, distanced himself from the worship of this deity, for he felt that Buddhist refuge is refuge in the triratna and not in minor deities.

HH 5th Dalai lama and Emperor Shunzhi

A controversial book by the late Zemed Rinpoche (Gaden monastery) in 1976 defended Shugden worship, and counter-arguments by Jadral Rinpoche (Nyingma) and others aggravated verbal hostilities. In July 1996 the controversy increased after the Dalai Lama took a stand³ against the worship of Shugden in his personal surroundings and in institutions connected with the Tibetan Government in exile for basically two reasons:

• The cult of Shugden, as the defender of the ‘pure’ Gelukpa doctrine as against other schools, is divisive on sectarian lines.
• The sole authority and place of refuge for Buddhists should be the Buddha and his teaching alone, not minor deities.

A number of abbots and monks in Gelukpa monasteries resisted this order of the highest Tulku of the Tibetan tradition and formed a ‘Dorje Shugden Devotees Religious and Charitable Society’ in New Delhi in July 1996. Besides, the Gelukpa Kelsang Gyatso in England formed a ‘New Kadampa’ order openly attacking the Dalai Lama on the Shugden issue and political issues as well.

Fifteen abbots and Geshes of Kelsang’s original monastery, the Sera Je Dratsang (now in Bylakuppe, Karnataka) issued an open letter against Kelsang⁴ stripping him of his membership in the monastery, calling him an ‘apostate’⁵ and comparing him to Mohammed of Ghazni.⁶ Samdhong Rinpoche, President of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile, visited the monasteries of Gaden and Drepung in July 1996 in order to explain the Dalai Lama’s position on the issue.

Monks at Sera and Gaden announced a demonstration against the presence of their own leader. The monastic authorities curbed any demonstration. However, some monks staged a silent demonstration and thus charged to have broken their vow of obedience to the monastic authorities. The monks felt they were not guilty. But eleven monks were expelled from Gaden. The last tragic event was the murder of Abbot Geshe Losang Gyatso, Director of the Buddhist School of Dialectics, and two of his disciples in Dharamsala on 4 February 1997—the three Gelukpa monks had been known as outspoken critics of the Shugden worship.⁷

The dynamics of the controversy are not surprising: in Tibetan history, time and again, the differences between different schools of Tibetan Buddhism were reflected in antagonisms between different deities and/ or dharma-protectors who were supposed to protect a specific monastery, tradition, lineage or school. However, the problem today is aggravated because of its political implications concerning the authority of the Dalai Lama and the endangered unity of the different Tibetan traditions (in exile).

Two Aspects of Transmission: Tulkus and Protector Deities

Formally, religious authority is derived from the transmission only of the dharma. But dharma is embodied in several ways, viz. the traditional Buddhist monastic transmission of the teaching, including the special reincarnated teachers (Tulku) and the spiritual powers which have been ‘tamed’ by Buddhism and were changed into Buddhist deities representing mental forces which may powerfully protect (or harm) the dharma.

So far this is not a development in Tibet only, for in other Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc. actual religion in the villages (and often in the monasteries too) is shaped by a combination of the veneration of the triratna and worship of deities and local spirits. What is unique to Tibet is the fact that those deities may become associated with specific Tulkus and/or lineages, so that these lineages are connected with the authority of transtemporal deities. That is to say the Tibetan issue of canonicity and ‘charisma’ is the fabric of a hierarchical universe where temporal transmission of the dharma and transtemporal succession of higher powers are interconnected.

The Tulku (sprul sku)

The Tulku is a physical manifestation of higher levels of consciousness, in the exceptional case of Buddha consciousness (buddhatva) itself. Tulkus are countless in number and different in the degree of their spiritual realization. The highest ones are considered ‘beings’ reborn not because of karmic necessity but due to their spiritual freedom to fulfil their bodhisattva vows. That is to say, Tulkus are embodied not to work out and counterbal­ance negative karmic imprints, but to help sentient beings in continuity with their bodhisattvic presence in former rebirths.

There are many Tulkus, acclaimed and selected by their respective monastic institutions, but most Tulkus have no more than local appeal. Since the sixteenth century the most famous Tibetan Tulku is the Dalai Lama. He holds spiritual power as one of the main leaders of the Gelukpa sect,⁸ and he represents political power in as much as the Gelukpas became the dominant group during the sixteenth century.

Generally speaking, the Tulku tradition in Tibet has two different roots: a spiritual-philosophical development in Indian Buddhism, i.e. the bodhisattva doctrine, and a political development in Tibet in relation to the Mongolian connection. It will be necessary to focus on the structural problem of spiritual-philosophical authority in order to clarify the canonical function of the Tulku in the Tibetan system.

The concept of Tulku is connected with the trikaya doctrine in Indian Buddhism, for sprul sku is the translation of the Sanskrit nirmanakaya. In Tibetan Buddhism, the Tulku represents the presence of the Buddha in his rupakaya in the midst of the (monastic) society. Hence, the presence and authority of the Tulku represents the completion of triratna, complementing the dharma (which is the object of study and realization of the monks) and the monastic community (samgha).

The concept of Tulku reinterprets the former bodhisattva ideal in terms of the Tantric siddha tradition. The Tulku may have greater spiritual and magical powers, he may obtain different bodily forms etc. As this kind of incarnation happened deliberately, it needs to be distinguished from the general karmic chain of causation which makes ordinary beings reappear inevitably according to the karmic structure of consciousness.

Though there are levels of higher Tulkus (such as the Karmapa, the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama, etc.) who have the freedom to choose the circumstances of their reincarnation, and lower Tulkus who have fewer spiritual achievements and therefore less freedom from karmic bondage, Tulkus are classified according to the realization of the traditional bodhisattva bhumis (Ray 1986: 41). In any case there is enough stability, so that Tulkus return into a predictable spatial and social situation such as a specific monastery, etc. Tulku lineages have a beginning, and once they have started they become a personalized expression of the cumulative tradition.

Tulkus have a higher reputation than ordinary Lamas, but they have basically the same function, though, because of their reputation, they bring more material support and wealth from the laity to the monastery (Ekvall 1959: 216). Tulkus are bound to become high Lamas, for they have a better start than other beings due to their karmic imprint. This belief is demonstrated by the fact that Tulkus can jump classes in their monastic colleges. Tulkus, it is said, are manifest where they can enact most effectively their bodhisattva vows to liberate all sentient beings. Their manifestation is always purposeful. Therefore, the general quality of consciousness of enlightenment (bodhicitta), i.e. their karuna, is actualized and historically defined. This in itself is an interesting development in the Buddhist philosophy of history, but we have to limit our presentation to the Tulku issue in Tibet.

To sum up the argument so far, we can state that a Tulku is a bodhisattva who is reincarnated, discovered, and ritually ‘canonized’, viz. re-installed into the seat of religious-political power of his predecessor by becoming a Lama (Ray 1986: 44).

The Tulku may or may not be a charismatic figure, though any touch of charismatic character would certainly enhance his fame and importance in society. Politically speaking, the Tulku system gave the monastic succession greater stability at a time when the Sakyapa—and later Karmapa and still later Gelukpa monasteries—gained considerable political power due to their changing alliances with the military power of the Mongols. Hence, from the very beginning the Tulku lineages not only represent spiritual authenticity but also political power and stability.⁹

The decentralized system of monastic lineages and regional centres of spiritual and political power and centralizing forces which culminated in the take-over of power by the Gelukpas in the sixteenth century came into conflict. And this is precisely where the Shugden issue needs to be located politically, for Shugden arises at a period of conflict as regards the centralization of power by the 5th Dalai Lama. To delineate this conflict it is imperative to deal first with the hierarchy and function of different deities within Tibetan Buddhism, as Shugden is a deity whose status is debatable.

Deities (lha)

In Tibetan Buddhism there exist countless beings above the level of beings with a gross physical body. They are systematized in different classes depending on their spiritual quality. At the highest level, some of them are emanations (sprul pa) of the highest aspects of the Buddha: Mahakala (Nagpo chenpo, in 75 forms), Yama (gShin rje), Shri Devi (dPaldan lhamo), Vaishravana (rNam thos sras), etc. Some are deities (lha) which have a universal appearance and meaning (such as higher dharmapalas, Tib.: chos skyong or srung ma), some are only local ghosts.

The highest beings are beyond any conceptualization and have the function of personal tutelary deities (yidam), they are nothing other than the radiation of universal Buddha consciousness or Buddha nature. Those lower beings that are ambiguous have been tamed and bound by oaths—they are the lower dharmapalas. Generally speaking, all dharmapalas are classified into two different groups: those beyond samsara and those within samsara.

The last group again comprises beings in very different situations concerning their level of being. In order to make contact with the human plane, they use human media who fall into trances. However, there is no generally recognized classification and even within one school or tradition there are significant differences and contradictions of interpretation and classification.¹⁰ This sometimes causes conflict because of the complexity of the subject, and regional as well as sectarian differences. A generally accepted canonization has never been possible.

In the context of this essay, it is most important to understand the difference between the tutelary deity (yidam) and dharma-protector (dharmapala), for to confuse the two may have significant consequences. The present Shugden controversy might have to do with such a confusion of categories: yidams are always trans-mundane, for they are emanations of the Buddha. The meditational practice regarding these yidams is identification with the deity, which is possible through complete surrender or the ‘life-entrustment’ of body, speech and mind by special initiation.

The practice is aimed at a complete union with the deity. Hayagriva (rta mgrin), Yamantaka (gshin rje gshed), Kalacakra etc. are considered to be yidams (ishtadevata), though Hayagriva is a rather rare case where yidam and dharmapdla converge. Dharmapalas, however, are usually not trans-mundane but samsaric, only some of them are trans-mundane.¹¹; Dharmapdlas are only helpers to practice the triratna and remain external, the meditational practice relating to them is never unification for they cannot substitute the refuge in the triratna. Concerning all these deities, we have to add that some of these higher deities have Indian origins (such as Mahakala, Shri Devi, etc.), and they have acquired a number of different forms in Tibet. Others—mainly of the lower class whom Padmasambhava had bound by a specific oath—are of Tibetan background.

This vow or oath (Skt.: samaya, tib.: dam tshig) by which those spirit beings have been bound is of great importance. It is, however, different from the three types of vows human beings can take in order to foster their spiritual progess: vinaya vow, bodhisattva vow and Tantric vow. Out of these the Tantric vow means that the disciple hands over his/her whole life (body, speech and mind) to the spiritual power visualized as that deity and represented by the Lama.

The Tantric vow binds teacher and disciple together in an exclusive connection of total obedience on the side of the disciple. This is even more so in the relation to one’s ‘root Lama’ (rtsa ba’i bla ma), who is the teacher who transmits all the three aspects of the tradition as a single person: (a) the oral transmission of the texts; (b) commentaries on the texts; (c) empowerment into the practice of a specific deity. Such a relationship to the root Lama creates a special karmic situation and is absolutely binding. To change or correct the transmission handed down by a root teacher is not possible unless the relationship has been dissolved and the vow has been returned formally. The one who breaks the vow (dam nyams) commits such a serious ‘negative deed’ that he/she will definitely be reborn many times in hell.

Taking these different levels and beings into account, conflicts concerning loyalty can often arise. Whereas some of the highest deities, such as Mahakala, Tara, Avalokiteshvara, Yamantaka, Pehar, etc. are common to all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, certain schools have preferences even for different manifestations of the highest beings. Among the protectors, too, some are claimed to be protectors of special sects, groups, regions or individuals. The quality of these highest beings is undisputed in the tradition, they are ‘canonical’, but the authenticity of the specialized protectors can be disputed. The lower beings can become jealous and vindictive if a person looks for help to another protector. Next to faith in the highest beings, each lineage of Tulkus has special protectors as well. If Tulkus get into conflict with each other, so do protectors.

The Conflict of Authenticity—Aspects of the Shugden Controversy

At present a deep conflict has developed within Tibetan Buddhism, especially in the school of the Gelukpas around the Dalai Lama. This conflict reflects precisely the issue of different levels of canonicity earlier outlined: the universal versus the regional, the scriptural canon versus the charismatic interpretation as embodied in the Tulkus—whose lineages are authorized in addition by their special connections to deities. The problem is the classification or canonical status of a given deity, in our case the deity Shugden.

Shugden (rdo rje shugs ldan) should be considered a deity (lha) belonging to the lower realm, as can be seen by his historical origin. However, the issue is disputed. Obviously, Shugden has been linked to Gelukpa monasteries and became one of the main protectors of the Gelukpas, but there is also a relationship to the Sakyas. He comes from all directions (and monasteries!) in order to protect his worshippers, to fulfill wishes, to purify the dharma, etc. (Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1993: 141) His character is fierce and violent and he destroys all enemies. Animals are sacrificed to him symbolically.

His abode is full of skeletons and human skulls, weapons surround him and the blood of men and horses form a lake. (Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1993: 136-7) His body has a dark-red colour and his facial expressions are similar to the well-known descriptions of rakshasa. However, all these attributes are not unique, they are more or less stereotypes for dharma-protectors in general. Different traditions focus on different forms and colours, e.g. in the Gonkhang (mgon khang) of Geluk monasteries such as Gaden, the deity Shugden is propitiated in his red form, whereas as dharmapala of the Sakya monastery he rides a black horse. How and when these different iconographic details developed cannot be established.

Shugden has obviously been quite popular in the Southern Himalayas. He is invoked to protect ‘the prestige of the Buddha, dharma, and sangha’ and to dissipate ‘the obstructions that hinder attainment of the bodhisattva mind’ (Mumford 1990: 262). So far this description testifies to the noble intentions of the deity and relates it to the refuge in the triratna. At the same time, Shugden is connected with ‘human wealth, food, life, and good fortune’ and asked to grant long life and the fulfilment of all desires, particularly in this life, and invoked against bodily and mental sickness (Mumford 1990: 262-3). This, too, is not at all a deviation from other incantations to protector deities. He is addressed as ‘great king’, ‘religion-protector’, ‘wish-fulfilling gem’ who ‘protects the dharma and prevents its destruction’ and is asked to ‘repel external and internal enemies of the ten regions.’

Like Pehar, Nechung and other deities, Shugden takes possession of mediums, or Kuten (sku rten), which are his physical supports. A famous Kuten of Shugden lives in the Gaden monastery of the Gelukpa sect, which has been approved by the monastic authorities and is tested regularly. I do not intend to elaborate on this aspect since I have dealt with the history and experience of this Kuten elsewhere.¹² It suffices to say that to my knowledge no sectarian tendencies have appeared—at least in connection with this Kuten.

History of Shugden

The 5th Dalai Lama: In order to determine the quality and nature of Shugden, his history needs to be taken into account. However, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of this century, though many oral traditions—sometimes mutually contradictory—have to be taken into account.¹³

The story of Shugden¹⁴ goes back to the 5th Dalai Lama (Ngawang Losang Gyatso, 1617-82). He lived at a time of struggle for power in Tibet. It was also the beginning of the Gelukpa dominance over Tilbet and the 5th Dalai Lama consolidated his power and centralized the state on the basis of Mongol military power. In order to unify the Tibetans he was interested in an ‘ecumenical approach’, i.e. he wanted to find a new approach to sectarian strife by recognizing their ‘unity in difference’. Hence, he took instruction not only from Gelukpa teachers but also from Nyingma teachers. In the beginning he wielded a strong hand towards the Kagyüpas, but became more tolerant and accommodating in later years (Schulemann 1958: 235). This was certainly controversial among some Gelukpas, and the following story might well have a historical basis in those controversies.

At the Dalai Lama’s upper residence (bla brang) in Drepung (‘bras-spungs) monastery there was a lama called Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen (sprul sku grags pa rgyelmtshan) who was supposed to be a reincarnation of the Panchen Sonam Drakpa (1478-1554), the disciple of the 2nd Dalai Lama, whereas the first incarnation was Dulzin Drakpa Gyaltsen, a disciple of Tsongkhapa (1357-1410). It is hard to establish this reincarnation lineage historically, it is rather a matter of belief.¹⁵

Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen had probably been one of the contenders to be chosen as the 5th Dalai Lama (Yamaguchi 1995: 12), and this must have caused tensions, especially since the Dalai Lama intended to minimize the number and importance of other Tulku lineages at Drepung in order to centralize power. Due to his wisdom Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen had an increasing number of followers which caused jealousy among the adherents and in the household of the Dalai Lama. Certain circles of government officials connected with the Dalai Lama (including the Regent) decided to kill Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.

Different versions are handed down as to whether he was killed or killed himself. His main disciple asked him not to leave the world but to come back in proper form and take revenge on his enemies. All sorts of misfortune happened to the Tibetan government, and even the Dalai Lama suffered. Nobody could stop this evil spirit or bind him. When the Tibetan government realized that the spirit could not be subdued, they requested him to co-operate and, instead of causing harm, to become a protector of the Gelukpa sect. The spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen agreed and became Shugden, the protector deity.

Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen

Historical evidence is not clear and the details contradict each other. We cannot even be sure that the events relating to the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the worship of Shugden in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries concern the same deity or at least form a continuous tradition.

The problem is that he seems to be an evil spirit causing harm to the monastic institutions and the Dalai Lamas, but at the same time he is regarded as dharma-protector of a higher rank.¹⁶ One thing is quite clear: the story of the link between the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the worship of Shugden has its roots in the power struggles of the 5th Dalai Lama and the successful centralization of power in his hands after the death of the Mongol Gushri Khan.

Developments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: The contemporary controversial Shugden worship starts probably with Tagphu Dorje Chang (stag phu bstan p’ai dngos grubsy 1876-1922), the teacher of Phabongkhapa (1878-1941), who handed down the practice to Trijang Kinpoche , the junior tutor of the 14th Dalai Lama. It is here, at the turn of this century, that Shugden (Dolgyal) enters the Gelukpa tradition, whereas before many textual references hint at the Sakya school. And only at that time the deity seems to become a sectarian protector.

Phabongkhapa: This sectarian emphasis or exclusivity is evident in Phabongkhapa (1878-1941). Phabongkhapa (pha bong kha pa byams pa bstan ‘dzin phrin las rgya mtsho) is a key figure in the history of the Shugden controversy. He was a charismatic teacher and member of the Sera Me monastery. Whether he received the Shugden tradition and the controversial Sogde (srog gtad, i.e. life-entrustment)¹⁷ from his teacher Tagphu or not, he preached it forcefully, initiated many disciples into it, and made this practice popular among high Gelukpa Lamas.

In his ‘Initiation texts for the practice of the visionary teachings’¹⁸ which he had received from Losang Choekyi Wangchuk (blo bzang chos kyi dbang phyug), there are teachings on Amitayus, Avalokiteshvara, Vajrapani, Tara and the Guru Yoga, and there is no mention of Shugden because the text deals with high Tantric initiations. That Shugden is not mentioned in this context suggests that he considers the deity not among this high class of deities. However, in his text ‘The profound blessing of life-initiation of Shugden, the most powerful dharmapala of Jamgön (Tsongkhapa), the jewel chariot bringing forth a mass of blessings’¹⁹ he gives a detailed account of the Shugden practice and remarks:

I have written this at the request of Shugden, because in the past there was a tradition of Sogde (srog gtad) to Shugden²⁰ but later neither the tradition nor the text could be found—they have become like flowers in the sky—so Shugden has asked me two times to write a new initiation text. I have passed on the practice of initiation (dbang) to some disciples in accordance with my own experience, and (a text) has been written as a seed for (a detailed text). But only that would be not reliable and something like an illegitimate son.

Therefore, I explained it in detail to my master Tagphu Dorje Chang and presented this draft to him. … (501) He took that draft and wrote his text down, combining this seed text with his own vision. Tagphu commented about the five types of Shugden, the respective colors etc., the offerings to be arranged, thus at the time of initiation the large Lamrim text should be there on the altar, a cakra representing one’s life, damaru, dorje etc. The practitioner has to utter the life generating words of Vajrabhairava and to make torma²¹ offerings. … (502)

The initiation can be given to somebody who has received initiation into Vajrabhairava and keeps the commitments connected with it. … (502-503) Though there are so many different traditions and philosophies in Tibet, only this tradition of Tsongkhapa is the supreme, the top of the victory banner, the most complete, the essence of the teaching. … (505) To bring Shugden into one’s own service is a very powerful blessing. In order to receive this initiation the disciples visualize themselves as the yidam (Vajrabhairava) and as such invoke and control Shugden. The dharmapala (Shugden) is presented to the disciples as the one who abides by their commands.

He goes on to explain how master and disciple visualize themselves as Vajrabhairava and Yamantaka and then receive initiation into the five aspects of Shugden—including mantras, colours etc.—which emanate from the altar (505). The emanating energies are finally dissolved into the heart of the disciple, with full awareness that he controls the protector.

In order to interpret Phabongkhapa properly we have to distinguish several aspects of initiation in Tibetan Buddhism. There are two types of ‘initiation’, and the first comprises two aspects:

1. The initiation into the realm or presence of the positive emanation of a deity (dbang) which corresponds largely to the Indian rite of abhisheka;
2. the permission to continue the practice of a deity (rjes gnang) after initiation (a) proper. This requires control of the deity, and high masters are supposed to be able to have the power to control the deity.

Life-entrustment initiation (srog gtad) which is a complete surrender of the person’s whole life and unconditional refuge—this commitment can be made only to the Buddha or the yidam as his perfect emanation on the personal level.

On this basis Phabongkhapa’s text has two characteristic marks:

It does not say that only Gelukpa teaching leads to liberation, but calls Tsongkhapa’s teaching the highest and the essence of all teachings. But this is traditional parlance and not an exaggerated exclusivity.

The text quoted does not say that master and disciple actually take refuge in Shugden. The yidam and Shugden are kept apart, and the dharmapala is to be controlled. The master transfers the power to control Shugden to the disciple, and this is common practice. However, in so far as the disciple merges with the Shugden energy an identification with Shugden takes place, and this is against the genuine Gelukpa tradition. There can be no life-entrustment initiation (srog gtad) concerning a dharmapala, for the dharmapala is a minor being and not a yidam.²²

Thus, the whole controversy focuses on the interpretation of the status of Shugden. There is a contradiction concerning Shugden that cannot be resolved. On the one hand it is argued that Shugden is a wrathful, mundane protector deity with such and such an origin in history, and to deal with such a spirit one has to have control over him. On the other hand, those who propitiate Shugden maintain that Shugden is a high deity beyond the mundane level and therefore deserves life-entrustment (srog gtad), i.e. complete surrender, like emanations of the Buddha. Whether the sectarian issue (Gelukpa exclusivity) is connected with this problem is a different question. It depends on the interpretation of Shugden, and this varies, as has been demonstrated.

The issue was taken up by the 13th Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government, who managed to stop Phabongkhapa propitiating Shugden. The Tibetan government argued (1) that Shugden was in competition with Nechung who, being very close to the government and the Dalai Lama personally, was the protector of the Drepung monastery; and that taking refuge in Shugden was to belittle the refuge in the Buddha-Dharma-Samgha (triratna).

Whether Phabongkhapa’s Shugden practice led to violent sectarian attacks, particularly on Nyingma institutions, is not quite clear. Tsetan Zhabdrung, a famous scholar from Amdo, reports that followers of Phabongkhapa destroyed Padmasambhava’s image and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities.

Trijang Rinpoche: Trijang Rinpoche (1901-81), the disciple of Phabongkhapa and junior tutor of the 14th Dalai Lama, had a tremendous influence on a whole generation of Tulkus and higher Lamas of the Gelukpa order. His residence at Gaden Shartse monastery (in exile near Mundgod, North Karnataka, India) ensured a close relation of this monastic establishment to his teachings.

He also practised the Shugden tradition, and most of the present Gelukpa Lamas, who oppose the order of the 14th Dalai Lama to give up on Shugden, do so with reference to Trijang Rinpoche as their teacher. He mentions his stand on Shugden in his autobiography²³ and in a text called ‘Commentary on Phabongkhapa’s Praise to Shugden.’²⁴

Trijang argues that the deity Shugden already has had a relation with Tsongkhapa, and that it arose as dharmapala in accordance with the wishes of Nechung. He addresses Shugden—’Praise to you who had the courage to take up the wish of Nechung, the most powerful protector, who time and again asked you to arise as this dharmapala specifically for the Gaden tradition.’ (98) Thus, he implies that there is no contradiction between Nechung and Shugden.

Trijang further maintains that the 5th Dalai Lama and Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen could not have had this controversy, but that this misfortune was due to the followers of both Lamas—the seeming difference was an upaya (means for spiritual success) between the Dalai Lama and Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen in order to manifest the power of Shugden (115). He quotes a hymn which the 5th Dalai Lama is said to have written in praise of Shugden (Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen):

… your might and power is like lightning, you possess the courage and confidence to discriminate between right and wrong, I invite you faithfully, so come here to this place. … You subdue various spirits of cremation grounds. I arrange varieties of outer, inner and secret offerings and tormas. I confess that previously due to my selfishness I could not leave this attitude of being so strict (against this spirit), but now I praise you humbly and respectfully with body, speech and mind … may we always be protected by the triratna.

The problem is that this position has no historical evidence, neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama or elsewhere. It could be assumed that had the Dalai Lama known about any connection between Tsongkhapa (Nechung) and Shugden (Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen) he would have acted differently. Because of the very different position and rank of the two it is rather unlikely that the 5th Dalai Lama would have written such a hymn of self-correction.

We could go on quoting several oral traditions which are related by Trijang Rinpoche to establish and defend the Shugden tradition. Trijang wants to show that Nechung and Shugden do not clash or, in other terms, that there is no contradiction between the general protection of the whole of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and the specific protection of the Gelukpa school only. Looking into the history of the struggle between different schools in Tibet and judging from the heat of the present controversy there is more to say. It is clear that by historical evidence the authenticity of that tradition on Shugden cannot be decided.

The Dalai Lama’s Arguments against Shugden

When the Tibetans went into exile several Lamas, such as Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and others—many of them connected with Gaden Shartse monastery—brought the Shugden practice with them. Especially Zong Rinpoche, being a student of Trijang Rinpoche, was en­gaged in the practice and passed it on to many disciples, first in Buxa Duar (North India), later in South India. However, it needs to be mentioned that most of the Lamas who received this initiation had been devotees of Shugden long before, and it is obvious that this practice had been wide­spread for at least two or three generations.

This was so not only in Nepal, as mentioned, but also in other areas of the Southern Himalayas such as Ladakh and Spiti. The 14th Dalai Lama himself had been initiated into this practice by his tutor Trijang Rinpoche. But the Dalai Lama publicly expressed doubts about Shugden and stopped this practice, first for him­self in 1976, and since 1996 by asking all official institutions and disciples, who had received initiations from him, to give up Shugden. This is to be seen in connection with his interest in finding common ground in the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Dalai Lama 1984: 200-25) so as to overcome precisely those exclusivist tendencies that Shugden is said to protect.

The 14th Dalai Lama himself has taken up the issue several times. His statements on Shugden have been collected and published recently in Tibetan.²⁵ In order to investigate the canonical status of Shugden and his practice, he applies basically three methodological devices or arguments: (1) historical evidence, (2) political reason, (3) spiritual insight.

(1) Historical evidence:

In order to examine the authenticity of the Shugden tradition the Dalai Lama refers back to the historical origin, implying that at the origin the purity of the tradition is still maintained and therefore the judgment on canonicity on this basis is valid. However, two ‘origins’ have to be distinguished: the general origin of the Buddhist tradition (the Buddha who has preached the dharma and thus established the samgha), and the particular origin of the Gelukpa tradition (Tsongkhapa and his teachings).

The Dalai Lama defends his views in arguing that Buddhism is refuge in the triratna, and that this is the yardstick of canonicity. Any additional practice may help in practising this refuge in the triratna but can never be a substitute. In fact, if such an additional practice leads to obscuring the triratna, it is to be given up. Therefore, he refutes the practice of life-entrustment (sroggtad) to Shugden. Otherwise Tibetan Buddhism would become a kind of Shamanism.²⁶ He also attacks the practice of Shugden as a corruption of the original dharmapala practice for worldly gains.²⁷

Propitiating spirits is a practice originating in pre-Buddhist Tibet. However, when Guru Padmasambhava was helping to establish Buddhism in Tibet in the eighth century, He recruited some spirits such as Nechung, the State Oracle, to protect the Buddhist doctrine. Due to his high spiritual attainments, he was able to subdue such spirits and bind them by oath. Propitiating of spirits, therefore, is not a Buddhist practice itself, but a means to help sustain spiritual practice. Over the centuries the practice of propitiating spirits has instead become widespread as a means to achieve fame, fortune and the general well-being for this life, concerns that run counter to the general Buddhist outlook.

At the same time he needs to link his arguments to the specific origin of Gelukpa tradition, to Tsongkhapa. There cannot be a contradiction, for if Tsongkhapa interprets the Buddhadharma rightly, he himself refers back to the triratna. That is to say, that canonicity is to be founded in the triratna as interpreted by Tsongkhapa.

(2) Political reason:

The Dalai Lama is part of the Gelukpa tradition but at the same time responsible for all of Tibetan Buddhism. This is a structural problem, for if the interests of the two conflict, the Dalai Lama is caught in between. His arguments here are based both on historical comparison and general reasoning. He refers to the life of the 5th Dalai Lama and the 13th Dalai Lama, takes these predecessors as examples of a pan-Buddhist spirit which has rejected the sectarian approach, and he himself follows the same line.

In both cases the historical evidence has already been highlighted. The 5th Dalai Lama, for instance, established the political power of the Gelukpas, but in course of time he integrated Nyingma and Kagyüpa teachings and balanced the interest of these groups. He thus achieved political stability—unheard of before. Likewise in the present situation:

he wants all Tibetans to be united in the refuge to the triratna, to respect the differences of the traditions by seeing them in rela­tion to each other (Dalai Lama 1984: 200-25) so as to overcome all divi­sive forces. The 14th Dalai Lama goes on and argues: it is said by the Shugden propitiatiors that Nechung had asked Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen several times to arise as this wrathful deity Shugden (77). Even if this were the case, it is Nechung who would be the subject and originator of the whole tradition. But because of the sectarian spirit, this cannot be.

(3) Spiritual insight:

Since the argument is about deities in conflict (Nechung versus Shugden) a direct insight into the nature of these spiritual levels would be necessary to judge the authenticity. The Dalai Lama—as all the Dalai Lamas before him—relies on Nechung and repeatedly argues that he had approached Nechung (in a special spiritual communication which is not accessible to everybody) and Nechung had told him to bring up the issue (49-50). Accordingly, Nechung is in conflict with Shugden and therefore propitiating Shugden is to be given up. But even here the Dalai Lama judges the authenticity of Nechung by reason.

He states:

“Even if my master says something I compare it with what Je Tsongkhapa said and examine it on that basis. Likewise, I do not right away believe, even if it is said by a dharma protector. I think about it and do divination, I am very careful … Some may think that I am easily believing everything that Nechung says … but this is not so … It is said that we Gelukpas appreciate the power of conventional reason­ing. So we have to keep up with it. Hence it has to be questioned whether Shugden is the reincarnation of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen or not. Even if it were so, it would be on the basis of a conflict between Tulku Drakpa and the 5th Dalai Lama … It is to be judged reasonably … But to judge the exceptional (the deities) on the basis of the level of ordinary beings is impossible. (77)”

However, in spite of these arguments, opposition against this interpretation of the Dalai Lama and the Exile government is still strong on two grounds:²⁸

• the truthfulness and commitments to one’s root teacher
• religious freedom

Many of the present Lamas of the Gelukpa tradition have received their teachings from Trijang Rinpoche or Zong Rinpoche. In those cases where he is the ‘root Lama’ (rtsa ba’i bla ma) who has handed down all three aspects of the tradition (oral transmission of texts, commentaries, the empowerments), the relationship to him is absolutely binding. This is an essential part of Vajrayana practice. Otherwise, according to Tantric tradition he might be regarded as a person who has broken the Tantric vow (dam-nyams) and this would concern the Dalai Lama himself as having been initiated by Shugden practice.

Conclusion

The present Tibetan Shugden controversy can be interpreted as a problem of the general validity of arguments based on canonical judgments versus particular religious forces as embodied in special protector deities linked to specific sects and Tulku lineages. This issue is personalized in the institution of the Dalai Lamas. The Dalai Lamas are being interpreted as reincarnated Lamas of the highest spiritual power. They are incarnations of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion for all sentient beings.

As such their scope is universal or at least related to the whole of Tibet, both in religious and political terms. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama belongs to one sect of Tibetan Buddhism, the Gelukpas, who have been engaged in power struggles with other sects and groups. Since the identity of these groups is largely shaped by Tulku lineages, the lineage of the Dalai Lamas is in this respect one among many—a fact reflected in the different interpretations of protector deities, which are connected with those groups, sects and lineages.

These lineages are shaped not only by transmission of the canonical texts but also by Tantric initiations, which transfer spiritual power directly from teacher to disciple. However, the efficacy of Tantric initiation requires truthfulness and commitment to one’s root teacher. Thus, if the root teacher has transmitted the Shugden practice to a disciple, he should not give it up, even if he wishes to. This is the tragic dilemma in the present controversy. That is to say, the present controversy clearly reveals the clash between the need to critically establish canonicity and obedience to the Lama. Therefore, the present controversy and the Dalai Lama’s call to focus on the essentials of Buddhist practice are significant events in establishing canonicity within non-textual aspects of Tibetan Buddhism.

Notes
1 I wish to thank H. H. the Dalai Lama for his personal advice and help in getting access to the archives and informants at various offices in Dharamsala. I am also greatly indebted to Ven. Tenzin Tsepak, Dialectic School at Dharamsala, who helped me to locate and translate important texts in the archives and library at Dharamsala.
2 The 100 volumes of Kanjur (bka’ ‘gyur) contain 13 volumes of Vinaya, 21 volumes of Prajnaparamita-Sutras, 45 volumes of other Sutras, and 21 volumes comprising various Tantras. Tanjur (bstan ‘gyur) is divided into three parts: (1) 64 hymns in one volume; (2) 2664 commentaries on the Tantras in 86 volumes; (3) a collection of several texts that can be subdivided into 15 volumes of commentaries on the Prajnaparamita-literature, 18 volumes of Madhyamika-Shastras, 10 volumes of further Sutra-commentaries, 10 volumes of Yogacara-Shastras, 30 volumes Shastras on early Buddhist texts, 30 volumes on logic, medicine, crafts and trade (mostly translations from Sanskrit), and 13 volumes of Tibetan texts on various topics.
3 Statement of H.H. the Dalai Lama on the Shugden issue, 1 July 1996, Archives Private Office of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala 1996. Cf. Shobhan Saxena’s interview with the Dalai Lama in The Times of India, 17 August 1996.
4 Open letter To the Tibetan Buddhists around the world and fellow Tibetan compatriots within and outside Tibet’, no date (summer/autumn 1996), Archives of the Council of Religious and Cultural Affairs, Dharamsala.
5 ‘To the Tibetan Buddhists’ (5).
6 Ibid. (9).
7 Tibet und Buddhismus 11.41 (1997): 36-7.
8 The Dalai Lama (seat in Lhasa) is not the only and uncontested leading figure of the Gelukpas. The Panchen Rinpoche (seat in Shigatse) and the abbots of the three great monastic universities near Lhasa (Ganden, Drepung, Sera) are important too. In history we observe power struggles between the Panchen Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama which are linked with regional rivalries between the provinces of Ü (Lhasa) and Tsang (Shigatse).
9 Ray (1986: 42) suggests that from the beginning the concept of Tulku and divine kingship as understood in Tibet are connected.
10 Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993: ix) states that even Lamas of the same sect ‘very often disagree in their explanations of the more complicated religious theories or in the translation of obscure passages in Tibetan works.’
11 The cult of local protector deities had become very popular at the time of the Mahaparirvana-Sutra for it is explicitly justified in that text. See Klimkeit (1990:144)/em>
12 See von Brück (1996).
13 Some material is collected in Kashag (ed.), Dolgyal gyi jungrim (Historical development of Dolgyal). Dharamsala, 1996 [manuscript].
14 Parts (or rather a few hints) of this can be found in the autobiography of the 5th Dalai Lama, but it is retold by Trijang Rinpoche and others, lately also by Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1993: 134-5).
15 See Losang Gyatso (1996: 2).
16 Losang Gyatso refers to the collected works of Phabongkhapa and criticizes him, for he regards him as a great deity and emanation of the Buddha but mentions at the same time that many regard him as a lower spirit which causes harm on account of his bad karman (Losang Gyatso 1996: 5).
17 Srog gtad is complete surrender of body, speech and mind to the deity. The disciple who entrusts his whole life to the Buddha or an emanation of the Buddha can do this only to the highest spiritual beings, not to lower ones.
18 The full title reads Dpal stag phu’i gsan chos rgya can bcu gsum gyi smin byed dbang chog chu ‘babs su bkod pa don gnis ‘bras bus brijd pa’i yons ‘dui dbang po and was printed from the block prints of 1935 from Lha klu House in Lhasa in 1979.
19 Phabongkhapa, ‘Jam mgon bstan srung thu bo rdo rje shugs ldan gyi srog dbang dzab mo’i byin rlab rin chen dbang po ‘dren p’ai yid ches nor bu’i shing rta. In Collected Works. Vol. 7. 498ff. Delhi, n.d. (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives Acc. No. 457, Acc. 1622).
20 He refers to a lost text by Lama Rinchen Wangyal.
21 Tormas (gtor ma) are offering cakes used in rituals made of barley-flour (tsam ba) and butter.
22 However, there is evidence that srog-gtad or rjes-gnang is being practiced also with regard to other dharma-protectors. Hence, Shugden seems to be no complete exception.
23 Published in Tibetan in Delhi in 1978.
24 The full title reads Dge ldan bstan pa bsrung b’ai lha mchog sprul p’ai chos rgyal chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal gyi gsang gsum rmad du byung b’ai rtogs pa brtod p’ai gtam du bya ba dam can rgya mtsho dgyes p’ai rol mo. (Dharma protector of Gaden, Supreme Deity, manifestation of the deity Dorje Shugden …) in Trijang Rinpoche (1978: 98ff.).
25 See Dalai Lama (1996).
26 Statement in a personal talk with the author on 19 October 1996 at the Dalai Lama’s residence in Dharamsala.
27 The Dalai Lama quoted in Principal Points of the Kashag’s Statement concerning Dolgyal. Geneva: The Tibet Bureau, 1996.
28 Letter to all Tibet Support Groups by the Dorje Shugden Devotees Religious and Charitable Society, New Delhi, November 1996 (Archives of the Private Office of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Dharamsala). The letter expresses ‘a great ideal 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’, for the prohibition 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 His Holiness or to their root Guru, who is also the root Guru of His Holiness, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.’

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

TRANSLATION

LE DALAI LAMA IMPOSE L’INTERDICTION SUR SHUGDEN (SHOUGDEN)

THE DALAI LAMA IMPOSES A BAN ON SHUGDEN

Extracts of speeches on the ban of the Gelugpa Protector Dorje Shugden by Tibetan leaders. This film contains remarks from the Dalai Lama and the now ex-Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile, Samdong Rinpoche. Their words are proof of what the ban on Dorje Shugden’s practice really is.

They reveal the importance given to the segregation, as well as to the division in the monasteries of the Tibetan community in exile. They also demonstrate how the Dalai Lama disrupts the harmony of the Tibetans in exile.

These words show that the ban was created by the Dalai Lama himself and not by the monasteries. They prove that it is the Dalai Lama and his Government who impose this ban and control the decisions made by the monasteries in India… which has also a negative effect on other communities in Tibet and elsewhere in the world.

Speech 1

Today, in the presence of the Government employees and our people, I will talk about the Protector. This is not a meeting about our political struggle for freedom.

I think we are the only ones gathered here to talk about this subject. I think that in the world, other people do not meet to talk about this subject. I have already talked about this, when we met during the last Kalachakra festival.

We are gathered here: Lamas, Geshes and friends in the Dharma. I repeat that this subject is very important and you should respect what I say. If however you think “something like this is the responsibility of the Dalai Lama, not mine”, your way of thinking is therefore wrong. Do you understand? And in the same way, you can explain this situation to those who live in Tibet, if you still have relatives there.

For example, in regions like Dakyap, Markham, Tchamdo and Denma-Khampa……in all these regions, you should inform them well. It is your responsibility to explain to those who live in Tibet. Do you understand?

If not, I’m telling you this here. You display a very respectful attitude but in reality you do not make any effort to explain this ban to others. This is very disappointing for me, understand?

Speech 2

Most of you have understood the reasons for abandoning the practice, and you have done so, but some of you seem not to have listened to my advice and pretend not to know about the subject.

And you think perhaps that it is not a serious subject and that later, things will be fine. You can also think that, in exile The Dalai Lama cannot do much about the matter. Some of you think like that.

Speech 3

I started this ban in memory of the Fifth Dalai Lama. I started it myself and I will finish it. Do you understand?

Some of you do not take this seriously. But they are wrong. You, members of staff, you pretend not to have heard and you let the time pass.

You think that it is better if we do not take any action against the population. When we met each other, you displayed a nice attitude and you said to me, “I’m clean and I’m not practicing.” But in fact these words are deceitful. This will probably continue to happen.

In the Monastery of Sera Jey, some students voluntarily assumed the responsibility and they strove to impose the ban. You should follow this example and support each other. It is very important.

Speech 4

I’ve talked about the ban at Drepung, when I was giving a teaching on the Lamrim of the Great Scope. At that time, many abbots from all the monasteries attended the teachings. Kelsang Yeshi, you were there, do you remember?

The abbots of the monasteries of Sera, Drepung, Gaden and also the monastic colleges of Gyuto and Gyume were there. Altogether, there were about 15 heads present. They came to see me, crying and promising vigorously to act according to my request. But in reality, they have done nothing, and now the final result is not very good.

Speech 5

The position of Dholgyal (Dorje Shugden) has become very special in the Gelug school. This is why the Gelugpas must pay a lot of attention to it. Even if His Holiness was not very clear in his speech. He has already spoken about the subject many times with great clarity, recently and in previous years, in the manner of a father advising his son.

On this point, we must thus make a clear decision. If not, we will not act because we think that this ban will create a lot of different problems in our society, and we are afraid of the segregation within our society.

I think this is bad. Here, what is important is that if we do not put this ban in place as we have been advised and we let ourselves be invaded by doubts about our ability and our judgments, then we will not be able to fulfil and sustain our wishes.

So I think that it will be very sad for us. Therefore, I don’t have any doubts, you will not forget this request, but will keep it in mind.

Speech 6

The abbots, the chief disciplinarians and the administrators of the monasteries, they have continued patiently to impose the ban and I know that each one of us work hard to enforce the ban and I appreciate it very much.

I am pleased with your voluntary support and your actions. It is very good. Some of you try to be tactful on the subject of putting this ban into operation and you may think that these actions will disrupt the harmony of the society.

Some of you may have reasons to remain quiet and discreet. On my part, I have no comment. But we always rejoice in the actions of those who act seriously and clearly. Whatever it may be that you need from our Government in Exile, we are ready to provide all types of support.

This is what I wanted to explain to you.

The Dalai Lama arrives in Britain today as a sect based in Yorkshire criticises him for persecuting them and assisting the Chinese oppressors. Can they possibly be right?

Andrew Brown, 15 July 1996

Ruth Lister drove her shining 7-series BMW with aplomb down one of the worst roads I have ever seen. It was so badly potholed and steep that we might have been in Tibet. And so, in a sense, we were. For though physically we were in the small West Yorkshire town of Hebden Bridge, making light conversation about the iniquities of the council roads department, we had come to discuss the oracles and demons of ancient Tibet.

Ruth and her husband Ron are central figures in an unprecedented attack on the Dalai Lama and are among the organisers of demonstrations against him planned for his visit to this country, which begins today and culminates in an appearance at the Alexandra Palace in north London on Saturday. They even have their own alternative spiritual leader.

I had come to talk to them about the Shugden Supporters Community, the shadowy group they founded which has been bombarding the English media and the worldwide Internet with accusations that the Dalai Lama is “persecuting his own people” by discouraging or even forbidding the worship of a deity named Dorje Shugden – originally the ghost of a disgruntled 17th-century abbot – in the monasteries under his control. Such worship is causing disharmony among Tibet’s protector deities, the Dalai Lama says – he is a harmful spirit whose veneration may even be assisting the Chinese oppressors.

No one had heard of the Shugden Supporters, or the still more mysterious Freedom Foundation, until the spring, when they both started to issue press releases. Ringing the number given by one of these organisations, I got through to a Buddhist centre run by a rich, fast-growing and secretive Buddhist sect called the NKT [New Kadampa Tradition]. It was in Hebden Bridge, in Ruth Lister’s house, that Steven Lane, a plump young man in his twenties with monkishly cropped hair, arranged to tell me the story of the Shugden Supporters Community.

Steven Lane talked for nearly an hour, hardly drawing breath, without notes. He had the catechetical manner you find among Scientologists or Trotskyists: people who not only know all the answers, but all the questions, too. If the wrong question came up, he simply steamed on and ignored it.

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. The worship of Dorje Shugden, Lane said, could not possibly be taken as threatening. It was a harmless spiritual practice, comparable to the worship of St Francis in Christianity; and four million people followed the deity.

A long and damning report on the NKT which had appeared in the Guardian could be explained because its author was a member of a rival Buddhist organisation. The Dalai Lama, he said, was not a spiritual leader; not even a member of the Gelugpa tradition [the dominant Buddhist tradition in Tibet].

In fact, the Dalai Lama was not really struggling for Tibetan freedom at all, and his actions against Shugden were motivated by political desires. It was as if Lane was asserting that Nelson Mandela was a secret agent of apartheid with no moral stature at all.

It was a powerful indictment, flawed only by the fact that almost everything I was told in the Lister’s house was untrue. The figure of four million worshippers for Dorje Shugden is preposterous. There are only about six million Tibetans in the world at most, of whom less than half are members of the Gelugpa order (Steven Lane estimated 30 per cent), where the veneration of Shugden is concentrated.

Even among the Gelugpa, only monks can be initiated into the cult of Shugden, and only a minority of those actually are. Most of the experts I talked to thought that about 100,000 people at most could be affected by the Dalai Lama’s ban.

The Dalai Lama is venerated as a spiritual as well as a political leader by all Tibetans, especially those in the Gelugpa order, to which he belongs. Only within the NKT centres are his photographs not displayed: in fact they are banned, as is all mention of his name. As for not struggling for Tibetan freedom, he was awarded a Nobel prize for his efforts, and caused a major diplomatic ruction between Germany and China earlier this summer after the German parliament passed a resolution in his honour.

Shugden himself is not necessarily the compassionate figure portrayed by the NKT. In one rite, reprinted in a Western study, his followers are asked to consider him “living in a palace in a lake of boiling blood, wearing a necklace of skulls and human body parts, in a terrible stench of human flesh”. Not quite the home life of St Francis of Assisi.

Such shamanistic beings do have a role in Tibetan Buddhism: they are considered to have been tamed and bound by the exceptional sanctity of the greatest lamas. But they are considered by most students to represent marginal aspects of Tibetan culture, hold-overs from shamanism rather than central to the Buddhist message.

To be initiated into the cult of Shugden involves a contractual relationship with this terrifying deity: the initiate promises to meditate on him and pray to him every day for the rest of his life. One can see why Tibetans could be reluctant to offend Shugden; and in the Dalai Lama’s speeches to Tibetans against the practice, he has suggested prayers to protect them from the spirit’s vengeance. But why should English Buddhists in West Yorkshire be getting so worked up?

Let us start with the allegiances of the people involved. Ron Lister and his wife claimed to not to be members of the NKT, but merely “concerned Buddhists”. However, when I went to use the telephone in the hall, I noticed that the first number on their speed dial was for “Geshe-la”, as the devotees of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso call their guru; later I discovered that Ron and Ruth Lister had edited the first of Geshe Kelsang’s books to be published in English, and Geshe Kelsang himself told me that he had accompanied Ron Lister on his “fact-finding” tour round India to find evidence of the Dalai Lama’s alleged persecutions.

The more one digs into this story, the more everything comes back to the NKT, a sect founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the late 1970s after he gained control of the Buddhist centre at Coniston Priory in Cumbria from a rival Buddhist organisation. Since then, the NKT has been enormously successful. Unlike most Buddhist organisations, it actively makes converts and solicits donations. Steven Lane – an NKT member for eight years – said: “I have met Geshe Kelsang on numerous occasions. He never orders. Sometimes he suggests. Sometimes he helps you to see different options.”

This is a curious perspective. All the other evidence suggests an attitude of slavish devotion on the part of his followers. The foreword to one of his recent books says: “From the depths of our hearts we thank the author for his inconceivable kindness in composing this book. Throughout the preparation of this book, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has demonstrated compassion, wisdom, and inexhaustible patience … there can be no greater proof of the immense value of the Bodhisattva’s way of life than the living example of such a realised Master.”

Within the NKT, Geshe Kelsang is now regarded as the “third Buddha”, who will bring Buddhism to the Western world. When I asked the guru himself about this, he replied: “Some people believe I am the third Buddha, but this is people’s choice. From me, never. I have never pretended I am special.”

The chance to meet him came unexpectedly. The day after I had returned from Hebden Bridge, two saffron-clad, shaven-headed NKT monks appeared in the reception of the Independent, accompanying a rather confused Tibetan devotee of Dorje Shugden. This party had made its way round several broadsheet newspapers to offer interviews with Geshe Kelsang.

I found him in the attic bedroom of a house in Golders Green. It was painted entirely white, except for a sort of shrine behind him. Two English NKT members sat on each side of me, ready to interpret, for the guru’s English is poor and his pronunciation difficult to understand.

Much of what he said to me was already entirely familiar: the claim of four million supporters; the idea that the Dalai Lama was planning to return to China as a Communist puppet ruler; the preposterous assertion, made with great force, that the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent (a devout Catholic) was “working for” a rival Buddhist organisation.

I asked him something that puzzles me about this story: what business was it of his what the Dalai Lama does in his own monasteries? The NKT clams to have nothing to do with the Dalai Lama. It certainly doesn’t recognise his authority over its centres. Yet if the two streams of Buddhism are so separate, why does the NKT care what the Dalai Lama does?

His reply was illuminating in its passion if not its logic. There was a sense of sacrilege when he described the Dalai Lama’s actions which made many things clear. “The practice of Dorje Shugden came from generation to generation,” he said. “There is so much joy in the daily practice; and the Dalai Lama suddenly says this is bad, this is harmful. The Dalai Lama is not an ordinary being, and when he said this, everybody shocked. They experienced mental pain.” Here he pressed one fist against his heart, in a gesture to ensure I understood what he meant by mental pain.

If Dalai Lama right, then up to now, this practice we have done for 20 years, everything wasted: time lost, money lost, everything lost. That is the big issue.

And maybe it is. Within traditional Tibetan politics, these theological disputes always have a political pay-off. Gods such as Shugden, or Nechung, the traditional protector deity of all Tibet, make their wishes known through trance-oracles, on which all the major decisions of state are based.

In the confused and troubled times of the 1940s, before the Chinese invasion, the cult of Shugden was linked to narrow Gelugpa factionalism, and to a policy that exalted the interests of Central Tibet over the east. In arguing against the cult, and trying to suppress it within his monasteries, the Dalai Lama is not just making a theological point, but a political one: that the Tibetan state he wants would not favour one form of Buddhism over another.

But the dispute over Dorje Shugden makes no sense in terms of practical politics in the West. It has already directed a great deal of media attention on to the NKT and its elastic ways with truth. Some of the mud being flung at the Dalai Lama will probably stick. The reputation of Tibetan Buddhism as a uniquely clean and rational religion will certainly be damaged. The only lasting winners from the row will be the Chinese, who have mounted a fresh campaign of repression inside Tibet this spring. And Dorje Shugden himself, aching for worshippers inside his lake of boiling blood.

Editors Note: This article is very biased against Dorje Shugden and ignorant over the symbolism in protector practices. Dorje Shugden is also not a God, Dorje Shugden practitioners are not in a cult. Dharma Protectors are not from shamanistic Tibetan practices but have come from India. Even if only 100,000 practitioners are affected, isn’t that a significant number? Even if 10 people were affected – shouldn’t they be allowed religious freedom?

This article has been written many years back and since then many other Buddhists groups besides NKT have risen up to oppose the ban in one way or another. Great monasteries like Serpom and Shar Gaden have sprung up from this crisis and they are continuously growing in strength and stature.

Dorje Shugden practice is no longer kept to only Tibetans – and this growth is directly attributed to HH Dalai Lama for creating awareness of this powerful Dharma Protector through the ban. From China to USA to Europe to Southeast Asia – Dorje Shugden practice has been growing swiftly as people personally experience the benefits of the practice. The controversy is generating much more benefit than the harm it has caused.

Source : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/battle-of-the-buddhists-1328839.html

A TIBETAN IDENTITY CRISIS (1996-1999)

© by Ursula Bernis

Preface

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…”

“Whereas…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration . . .”

from the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

While gathering material for a book on seminal Buddhist masters of this century, I became aware in 1996, that because most belonged to the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and relied on the religious protector Dorje Shugden, they were suddenly at the center of a raging controversy. Told by the Dalai Lama to renounce ties with that venerable tradition, they were put into a position of either breaking their vows or facing ostracism from the community. These greatest of masters who included one of the two tutors of the Dalai Lama had been central to the transmission of Buddhism as it traveled from Tibet to India and the rest of the world after 1959. They ensured the integrity of a living wisdom tradition that had been passed on from one adept to another for a millennia. I was shocked to hear the ugly allegations against such venerated and highly respected Lamas. I personally knew many of them, had studied with them, and had had a chance to observe them in close proximity over many years. Like most everyone else, I found their gentle kindness, open-mindedness, and inclusive teachings exemplary.

Since every accusation against them contradicted facts, reason, and my own experience, I felt compelled to get to the bottom of the controversy that had generated such extreme views. It was impossible to continue my project without finding an explanation of how such a dramatic shift from the most revered masters to “devil worshipers” could have occurred and, moreover, how it could so completely possess the Tibetan cultural psyche in such a short time.

In the process of my work on this book I found that open debate about the subject was impossible in the exile community and that the conflict was driven by an emotional zeal for the Dalai Lama beyond all rational considerations, suggesting an identity crisis of unexpected proportions. The conditions of exile, the loss of country, home, family and the threat to the established religious world view certainly contributed to the Tibetans’ exaggerated hold onto the one institution left to them, that of Dalai Lamas. However, there seemed something else at work that extended far beyond the Tibetan community to affect Western Tibet supporters as well. They exhibited similarly irrational responses to the conflict. No matter what approach one brought to the subject, all attempts at rational debate became immediately polarized and turned into a series of outlandish accusations, none of which held up under scrutiny.

At the heart of the difficulties complicating this investigation were the unique problems deriving from the fact that Tibetan society remains largely an oral culture. I traveled throughout India and Nepal, the longest visit lasting four months, and talked to hundreds of Tibetans and affected Buddhists, gathering their stories and oral testimony. At the same time, I collected relevant documentation of government records, published papers, wall posters — a common form of communication about controversial subjects — and circulars of the various social organizations that make up the Tibetan administration. This material forms the background for this book.

Since the Tibetan exile government denies the reality of the conflict it has been instrumental in creating, the issue is presented here from three different perspectives:

• Part I, from the point of view of Tibetans living in India and Nepal most affected by the conflict;
• Part II, a historical background and chronological ordering of events surrounding the conflict followed by biographical sketches of the most influential masters of a tradition now being suppressed as a “cult”; and
• Part III, which examines the issue from an outsider’s point of view.

My analysis traces some of the standard accusations to a basic confusion of religious and political issues. It brings to bear the historical and cultural background to show the dynamics of power relations in the exile community and how they get played out in the international arena through the media. Crucial to understanding the emotional involvement in this issue of Western Tibet supporters is their need to uphold at all cost today’s icon of universal goodness, made accessible by the media to a world bereft of deep spiritual meaning. Even though the Dalai Lama’s politics come into critical focus, the book is not intended as an attack on him.

Although I am indebted to many scholars and experts on the subject, it would be a disservice at the time of this writing to acknowledge their individual help publicly. The nature of the issue is so sensitive that they must remain unnamed. Even so, I would like to express here my gratitude for their contribution.

“By defending those people who are persecuted for their race, religion, ethnicity or ideology, you are actually contributing to guiding our human family to peace, justice and dignity.”

His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama

Dharamsala, Dec. 7, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Never before in its history has Tibet been lost so thoroughly and seemingly irreversibly to invaders. Even during historical periods of strong outside influence such as the Mongolian and Manchu forces in the 17th and 18th centuries, Tibet was not as totally occupied as it is now. Until Communist China subjugated Tibet in the middle of this century, it was never under complete control of another nation. This came at a time when the age of colonization had ended for the rest of the world, which makes this immense loss even more tragic. It would be difficult for any people to accept the sad reality of so much destruction and to deal with it rationally.

Tibetans who grew up in a country as large as Europe, populated by not more than six million people, found the loss of their country and way of life especially hard to accept. Moving from the Himalayan snow mountain ranges — and beyond them, the open spaces of the high plateau, which gave an intense sense of personal freedom — to the stifling heat and congested spaces of overpopulated India with its religious, cultural, and linguistic diversity meant changing to a world as foreign as one can possibly imagine. Today, when the loss of Tibet is becoming ever more apparent to the rest of the world, the hope for Tibetan self-determination is quickly dwindling. Nevertheless, much of the generation growing up in exile courageously holds on to the idea of freedom, even if they see it as deferred to an indefinite future.

To think through the many intrinsic contradictions that make up their political and social fabric in exile would only cause deeper suffering and more intense emotional turmoil. By their own account, most Tibetans simply rely on the Dalai Lama and go on with their everyday business of life. This attitude is not religious — as is claimed in the West — but a desperate solution to an identity crisis of a people in denial. It also explains their often-unrealistic political views which are propagated in a larger international context.

The one Tibetan institution believed to be still intact is that of the Dalai Lama. In him religious and political power are fused in a uniquely Tibetan way. Continuing the heritage through incarnation, the institution of Dalai Lama, first established in Tibet in 1642, has become larger than life today in exile with the overwhelming responsibility of bringing an ancient culture into the twenty-first century. The institution of the Dalai Lama in exile has become the very soul of Tibet, the nation, the culture, and the religion. In the face of the severe disruption in Tibetan life not only by political forces but also global cultural change, it has become the source of Tibetan identity per se. No other Dalai Lama ever had to carry as heavy a burden of his institution as the current, the Fourteenth. In Tibet, the Dalai Lama was formally the “The Great Owner” of the country, still one of his names today. In religious and political ways he was the head of the government and leader of his people. In exile, without a country and only a handful of people, without a legal mandate or a power base other than a globalized version of Buddhism, his tasks as head of state and government have become almost impossible. Yet he is everything to his people, the one true vestige of a cherished way of life that amounts to what is Tibetan for Tibetans.

Communist China took over Tibet beginning in 1949 with a so-called “peaceful liberation” culminating in complete control in 1959, when the Dalai Lama escaped to India followed by approximately eighty thousand of his people, a number that subsequently increased to an estimated one hundred twenty thousand dispersed around the world. Then only in his early twenties, the Dalai Lama established an administration in exile8 with the help of his tutors, religious dignitaries, loyal old regime aristocrats, and family. They established an infrastructure in Dharamsala, a small hill station in the foot hills of the Himalayas located in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, assigned to them by the Indian government, to deal with the influx of refugees and to save the largely religious culture of Tibet.

Tibetans were granted refugee status in India at the time under an executive order, since India has not ratified the International Convention of Refugees. In spite of the political and legal reality that the Dalai Lama and his people are not permited any political activities in India, their administration in Dharamsala is called a government. It was formally established during the first few days of the Dalai Lama’s escape in March 1959 in Tibet en route to India. Exile Tibetans consider it the Tibetan government per se even though neither India nor any other country recognizes it as such.

In the 1960′s, most of the older loyalists were pushed out of the Tibetan exile government in Dharamsala while the most important political functions were assumed by the Dalai Lama’s family, particularly his older brother Gyalo Thondup. Chinese educated, he seemed to be the only diplomatically trained person then who could present the Tibet problem internationally. Gyalo Thondup had dealt with the Indian government already in 1948 when, unfortunate for its immediate political future, Tibet had failed to recognize Indian independence (1947). He also helped the Tibetan resistance with aid from the CIA. In Tibet, a family member of a Dalai Lama was legally barred from holding office, something that changed in exile, where Gyalo Thondup and others later became ministers. Recently, another brother of the Dalai Lama has claimed that today only three families, including his, run the exile government.

Early on in exile, in 1961, the Dalai Lama began to draft a constitution for a future free Tibet which was adopted in 1963. However, a charter to administer the very different situation in exile was not implemented until 1991. It is a simpler document than the draft constitution and it passed the Assembly of People’s Deputies by a simple majority. Hailed as a “leap forward” in democratizing Tibetan politics, it instituted several novel practices for the exile government such as election of ministers (Tib.: kalon) by the people’s deputies in their Assembly or parliament. Nevertheless, the preamble states the nature of the government to be the union of religious and political affairs in continuity with the Ganden Potang government of Tibet established by the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1642. The Dalai Lama continues to be its unelected head and the political system remains without institutionalized opposition.

It is commonly known that the Dalai Lama is still the religious and political head of Tibetans, at least in exile, since in the Western press he is usually referred to as “God-King.” The effort to democratize has not extended to separate the domains of religion and politics. Since the Tibetan exile government in Dharamsala is not legitimately a government by legal and international standards, it is difficult to analyze this problema in an easy or straightforward way. It is not a democracy. The Tibetan people have never been asked to vote on any of the major political decisions concerning the future of their country either inside or outside Tibet. Often not even the Assembly and Cabinet (Kashag) are asked. Even more basic, freedom of speech, the very foundation of democracy, is woefully absent among exile Tibetans.

Criticism of official exile government business is usually dismissed as being of Chinese origin. China is doing whatever it can to destabilize the exile community, discredit the Dalai Lama, and silence any criticism of its policies in Tibet. It moves to fan the flames of any internal Tibetan conflict. But Tibetan society today seems to be just as intolerant of internal opposition as the Chinese. Allegations of Chinese interference are widely used by Tibetans as an excuse to silence any opposition.

In an atmosphere where nationalistic and religious fervor for the Dalai Lama are all too often substituted for rational debate and political analysis, the dynamics of social groups plays an important role in enforcing policies of the exile government, which itself is denied this role by its host country. The unusual circumstances of exile require atypical solutions to social and political problems. The exile government works through social organizations which were also common in old Tibet where they did not have the same political functions they acquired in exile.

In 1991, the base of representation in the Assembly was divided into regional groups (based on the traditional division of Tibetan geography into three main provinces, Tib.: chol.ka gsum,or Cholsum) and religious sects functioning like interest groups. A network of NGO’s, made up of different regional sub-groups, social welfare groups, religious organizations, and local chapters of women’s and youth groups effectively carry out the exile government’s wishes usually in the name of the Dalai Lama. Social pressure to conform to anything interpreted as the wish of the Dalai Lama has become intense, especially in the last decade. This type of social control was not exercised in Tibet before 1959 but developed out of the very difficult conditions in exile, where the large number of social groups originated first to help destitute refugees and later to raise funds from international sponsors and donor organizations. Another reason is that the legal status of Tibetans in India is precarious. They are prohibited from engaging in overt “political” activity.

Since Tibetans are refugees in India, they do not have their own police or legal system. The Indian police and legal systems have often proven to be corrupt and Tibetans do not trust them. Thus, social pressure is an effective method of control and enforcing directives of the Tibetan exile government. Tibetans are clannish in ways difficult for us to grasp which makes social pressure an effective device. They are primarily still an oral culture and get their information from radio, tapes, and an amazingly accurate grapevine. This makes them extremely vulnerable to rumor mongering.

Publications in Tibetan or English are to varying degrees controlled by the exile government which exercises censorship. A free press does not exist among Tibetans themselves, although they have access to the international press. The fear and mistrust that naturally develop among exiles are ever on the rise. This is especially true since more and more Tibetans escaped to India from their Chinese controlled homeland in the 1990′s, bringing with them their different use of language and unfamiliar views. The upbringing of Tibetans in Tibet and those in India differs radically, causing even deeper factionalism and paranoia already rampant in the exile community. These factors explain in part why the Dalai Lama’s words carry the weight of law and why an indirect remark from him can destroy someone or actually become incendiary.

Until the 1990′s the one issue uniting the exile community had been Tibetan independence. The State Oracle advising the Dalai Lama and his government had repeatedly predicted in the 80′s early 90′s that freedom was waiting just around the corner. This clearly did not materialize.

With the official political strategy having changed from independence to returning to Tibet under Chinese control, the institution of Dalai Lama has emerged today as the only unifying factor. Where in the 1980′s the Dalai Lama still laughingly responded in the affirmative to the inevitable journalistic question whether he was the last Dalai Lama, in the 90′s he answered the same question by emphasizing different type of continuity for the institution. Among the possibilities he mentioned were a Dalai Lama elected like the Pope or incarnated as a woman. The return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet became the most important issue for exile Tibetans in the late 1990′s. The explanation floated, also in the Western press, was that unless he died and was reborn in Tibet, the Chinese would not accept a future Dalai Lama.

Although full of contradictions that leave everyone guessing, this explanation nevertheless points to the need of ensuring the continuity of the institution of the Dalai Lamas, something that has come to represent the nation in lieu of a country. The clearer it becomes that Tibet is lost, the stronger is the clinging to the institution of Dalai Lama. Hence, Tibetans resist vehemently anything that can be construed as a criticism of his person or administration and react with irrational fury to anything that can be seen as a threat even to his reputation or legacy, let alone his life.

It is not difficult to see that Tibetans are going through the most severe identity crisis in their history. Those living in exile have been displaced from their homeland and those left in Tibet from their culture. The complex set of problems created by all these forced changes in an already complicated society with arcane social practices remain largely inaccessible to the Western mind. Most do not affect us. Yet Tibetans have been a genuine source for spiritual discovery in the last decades for many people around the world, and the Dalai Lama a powerful source of inspiration. There are a number of religious issues embedded in Tibetan political and social problems that take some effort to extricate. The one I found especially striking in its impenetrable abstruseness is the Dorje Shugden protector conflict rooted in the Dalai Lama’s restrictions of his practice, which surfaced in 1996 to receive international attention. It exposes the fault lines and depth of the Tibetan identity crisis like few others.

Inquiring into the circumstances for its eruption, I found out more about Tibetans than I had in many years of participating in human rights work and following the teachings of their masters. The Dorje Shugden conflict serves as an example of the ever-widening gap between appearances and reality in the increasingly fractious refugee community.

In March 1996, His Holiness strongly advised his followers not to rely on the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden because, according to the prophecies of his oracles, Dorje Shugden harms the institution of the Dalai Lama, his life, his government, and the cause of Tibet. Immediately government offices promulgated this advice, stated in no uncertain terms by the Dalai Lama, and turned it into a full-fledged ban. Everyone then, including the Dalai Lama, referred to the conflict as “a ban.” Later, after questions from the international press, the exile government denied that there was a ban and continues to hold this position. At the time, the strong reaction by the exile government to the oracles’ prophecies and the Dalai Lama’s statements resulted in forced signature campaigns, where Tibetans were pressured under threat of force or expulsion to sign a document forswearing Dorje Shugden, desecration and destruction of holy images, death threats and threats of violence. Although few violent incidents actually occurred, the campaign of fear and intimidation pressuring Tibetans to give up their age old religious practice to “save” the Dalai Lama and the “cause of Tibet” resulted in dividing the community, ostracism, loss of revenues for monasteries and businesses, loss of opportunities for education, travel, economic advancement, social welfare, and threatens the survival of a religious tradition.

Chinese authorities, ever on the lookout to embarrass the Dalai Lama and to disparage his followers, did not waste time in 1996 to seize the issue to serve their divisive ends. They criticized the Dalai Lama for betraying his bodhisattva aims, meant to benefit others without concern for one’s own health and well-being as is befitting a religious person. This was an especially embarrassing charge for someone so widely believed to be a manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, Buddha of compassion. The government in exile used the Chinese interference effectively to silence most critics of the ban, conveniently reversing cause and effect by claiming that Buddhists who rely on Dorje Shugden had caused the conflict and that they were working for the Chinese. This is considered the ultimate betrayal in the Tibetan exile community, the equivalent to high treason.

Dharmapala Dorje Shugden is held in high esteem by many Tibetans as a powerful guardian of religious vows and law. A Dharmapala plays the role of a caretaker or guardian of Buddhist practice. Like parents, he or she is believed to help with establishing conditions conducive for spiritual practice and to avert harm and interferences. The Buddha is the ultimate authority but, just like a president, he or she has aides who work out and enforce the details on the day-to-day level spanning many degrees in rank. Dharmapalas are also beings on the path to enlightenment.

Some of them go back to the time of the Buddha, others evolved in Tibet. Some of the most widely revered Buddhist masters in the last three hundred fifty years of Tibetan history relied on Dorje Shugden as their guardian, including the Dalai Lama until the mid-1970′s. They considered him an emanation whose nature is the wisdom of the Buddha Manjushri but appearing mostly in a worldly, fierce way. This century, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche41, one of the two mentors of the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Domo Geshe Rinpoche were the most renowned and influential masters of the Gelug tradition, the largest order of Tibetan Buddhism. With their fame also spread that of their guardian, Dorje Shugden. He is believed to be extremely powerful, swift, and precise. Although different views about him were known in Tibet, in exile, this Dharmapala became demonized in unprecedented ways even for Tibetans.

The aim was to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden — not its possible misuse — since at no time was any distinction made between relying responsibly on this guardian deity and misusing to which all religious practices are subject.

The source of the demonization was oracles (mediums in trance) of the Tibetan exile government, many Tibetans believe to be unreliable. Their prophecies declared Dorje Shugden to be an evil spirit intent on harming the Dalai Lama and the cause of Tibet seen by many as synonymous. The exile government’s continuing uncompromising stand on this point polarized the issue and turned any attempt to present a different interpretation, even those made in good faith, into an attack on the Dalai Lama and, hence, a confirmation of the “prophecies.” Thus, the Dorje Shugden believed to be evil and the one religious people rely on seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They are two different beings with each side believing that the other invented its own story of Dorje Shugden. They could not be further apart, one a demon, carrier of seemingly absolute evil, the other believed by most of Tibet’s greatest Buddhist masters to be an emanation of the Buddha’s wisdom within worldly action. In part, these different views are the result of dragging into the political arena an esoteric religious practice that is easily misunderstood, especially when made public in this way. The difference between the two radically different conceptions of Dorje Shugden also pits two kinds of authority against each other, one religious, the other political. Proclaiming Dorje Shugden an evil spirit denies more than two hundred acclaimed Tibetan Buddhist masters — not counting their tens of thousands of disciples — their religious qualifications. These are based on the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the very essence of wisdom. From a Buddhist point of view this is clearly absurd. It makes sense only from a non-religious context. Hence, the differences concerning Dorje Shugden have to be considered from a political point of view.

In the summer of 1996, the Tibetan government in exile was accused of human rights violations by many Tibetans and some of their Western supporters. Since then most critics have been pressured into silence. Although two prominent human rights organizations expressed their concerns privately to the exile government, they refused to do so publicly for several reasons including that it could be seen as undermining the efforts of the Dalai Lama and the much larger and more serious issue of improving human rights in Tibet under Chinese control. Amnesty International specified recently that there had been no human rights violations — torture, death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention and unfair trials — in the Tibetan exile community as a result of the Dorje Shugden conflict. Since the Tibetan exile government has to function under Indian law, it is clear that it could not use such methods to begin with. The methods Dharamsala has used to pressure Tibetans into giving up one of their cherished religious practices and the tradition, it is meant to protect are based on silencing any genuine disagreement with its policies through a kind of psychological warfare that uses threats against those perceived to disagree with the Dalai Lama, intimidation, and social pressure. How this gets played out in a uniquely Tibetan way in their unusual exile circumstances will, I hope, become clearer in the course of the book.

PART I — EXILED FROM EXILE

TIBETAN VOICES

One of the main aims of this book is to give Tibetans a voice, since they cannot speak out in their own communities without facing serious consequences, intense social pressure, threats of violence, slander, and ostracism. In this part of the book are documented the experiences of Tibetans affected by the Dorje Shugden ban. They are excerpts from many informal conversations and formal interviews I conducted mostly from October 1997 to May 1998 in the areas in India and Nepal where Tibetans live in large numbers: Delhi, Dharamsala, Spiti, Kinnaur, Mysore, Mundgod, Goa, Darjeeling, Kalimpong, and in Nepal’s Kathmandu valley.

In what might be called an ethno-phenomenological approach, I collected additional oral testimony about the conflict from Tibetans and other Buddhists in different parts of the world from May 1996 till the present. For the most part, I have included those parts of the conversations that are representative of many other voices. This is by no means an exhaustive study. Most of the Buddhists who were deeply affected by the ban of their protector practice were too afraid to expose their names to the world. So I am including only some names. Others have been changed or left out altogether. Sometimes I have left out the name of the place for reasons of confidentiality. Each conversation partner told me much about his or her social, religious, political, and family background. I have included some of that information to give the reader an idea of how pervasive the practice was through all levels of Tibetan society and how far-reaching is the despair about the conflict.

I tried to include voices from a cross-section of Tibetan society. However, the religious and intellectual elite most qualified to explain the reasons for the conflict to the world is not represented directly by interviews. It is not even clear at the moment how many of the leading Gelugpas still rely on Dorje Shugden. In the emotional atmosphere of the “war of words,” they were accused of cowardice and their silence interpreted as betrayal. I have good reasons to believe it was out of respect for His Holiness and religious concerns. With their silence they resisted participating in the split created by the ban and refused to disgrace the Buddha Dharma they are trying to preserve for future generations.

Since my Tibetan is not adequate to conduct lengthy and detailed conversations such as these, I had to rely on translators. Many exile Tibetans who know English do not know Tibetan well enough to understand the intricacies of the language, the religious terms or the language of official documents. My concern was that a translator should master the Tibetan language rather than have flawless English. Both of my main translators were well educated in Tibetan and also knew English quite well. But since the English needed editing, I often used my own terms and expressions for words not precise enough in the original. For this reason, the truly authentic Tibetan voice comes through only sketchily, a common problem when working with translation.

I noted whenever the discussion was originally in English.

I would like to provide a glimpse of the complexities of Tibetan culture in its mixture of religion and politics and how multifaceted is the issue that brought the uniquely Tibetan identity crisis into focus for the rest of the world and the many different levels on which it gets played out. I intentionally did not order the content of the interviews around categories of my choosing in the hope that the authenticity of the Tibetans’ concerns comes through more clearly this way.

I would like to point out to the reader unfamiliar with Tibetan culture that Tibetans do not complain in public. It is very difficult to get them to express their thoughts and feelings to begin with, especially to a stranger from another country. It simply is not done in Tibetan culture. So, whatever deeply troubles them is expressed in a most understated and indirect way. The following testimony, even though a barometer for the Tibetan exile society’s feelings about the current identity crisis, has to be seen in the context of this type of extreme understatement of the inner turmoil that is tearing people apart in that community.

Tibetans do not answer specific questions, I learned. They almost never answer with a straight “yes” or “no.” This is culturally determined. Whatever I asked concerning the subject of Dorje Shugden, the answer came as a long story or as a great deal of accumulated reflections and doubts. After a while I gave up trying to elicit responses to specific questions. I was trying to document the conflict and what Tibetans most directly affected felt about it. They needed to talk. On more than one occasion people broke into tears sobbing that they had no one to whom to tell their story. To see old monks cry like that, especially those who had safeguarded His Holiness out of Tibet in 1959, was more than disconcerting.

I talked to hundreds of people and became aware of their exaggerated fears that contradict the media image of happy Tibetans. One of these fears, I discovered, was of their beloved leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This greatly surprised me. Why would Tibetans be so afraid of someone they believe so literally to be an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of compassion? This became one of the most puzzling questions that led me to uncover many contradictions in the Tibetan exile society.

Aside from their intense fears, what also struck me was that almost all of the people I talked to were upright, strong people — good citizens, we would say — who had served either the exile government or the Tibetan community at large for decades on a day-to-day basis with hard work, devotion, loyalty, and innovations. The older Tibetans had been the backbone of the exile community in the sixties and seventies and many of them had put together its social infrastructure in the first place. They are for the most part capable, hard working people with many community leaders other Tibetans turn to for help in times of need. It is literally unbelievable that now they all allegedly receive money from China for spying and creating conflict in the Tibetan community. To anyone who knows these people and their demonstrated loyalty to the Dalai Lama, it seems pathetic, even silly, to allege they have become a security risk intent on harming the life of the Dalai Lama — the most devastating accusation for any Tibetan.

My aim in this section is to document how Tibetans feel about the identity crisis occurring in their communities in exile not establish the truth about the ontological status of Dorje Shugden. That would be beyond the scope of all but a handful of realized, spiritual masters.

Religious truth cannot be legislated or established by a general survey, by voting, giving opinions, or by recounting one’s personal experiences. It is not a political subject. Whom we choose to believe as acting solely on religious grounds is up to each individual, the reader as well as those whose feelings and statements are recorded here.

In order to familiarize the reader with the political status of exile Tibetans in India and the administrative system they have constructed, the first interview presented is with Samdhong Rinpoche, advisor to the Dalai Lama and senior most government official since 1991. It touches on the subject of the relationship between religion and politics in the Tibetan exile government and starts this section to aid the reader in following with greater ease the grievances voiced by Tibetans affected by the ban.

At the end of this section I include the views of two non-Tibetans whose close affiliations with the culture and language qualify them to add their own unique perspective. Since their presentations might be more systematic, the reader would perhaps benefit from reading them first. However, I have included them at the end since this section is meant to give voice to Tibetans.

From Conversations and Interviews

Interview in English with Samdhong Rinpoche, Chairman of the Assembly since 1991 and co- drafter of the Charter for the Tibetan exile government. For more than twenty years, he has also been the Director of the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath, which is affiliated with Sanskrit University at Varanasi, India. He has consistently been devoted and loyal to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Sarnath, January 12, 1998:

Q: How can a government that mixes religion and politics actually become democratic? Is the Tibetan exile government at the moment more interested in preserving the Ganden Potang government46 or in democratizing and trying to find an appropriate government for, one hopes, a future free Tibet. Can you say something about that?

A: As far as the Tibetan government in exile is concerned, the direction in which it is moving is quite transparent. And there is no room for any confusion. The Charter for the Tibetans in exile which was drafted by His Holiness and placed before the 11th Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies was of a secular character. His Holiness clearly mentioned that the nature of the polity of the Tibetans in exile would be secular. When it was put before the Assembly to be adopted, the Assembly was divided and there was less reasoning and more emotions. The people were carried away by emotion and we were not able to adopt it. That was in 1991, when the Charter was presented for the first time. I was not able to convince the people to adopt the word “secular” [in the Preamble] because they understood secular to mean anti-religion or opposite of religion. Particularly the English word “secular” translated into Hindi gives it a sense of indifferent attitude towards religion. So that was not really pleasant. And therefore we lost by two or three votes; 22 were in favor of secularism and 24 against. So we removed the word “secular” and substituted it with the combination of Dharma and politics as we used to in Tibet: chos.srid zung.’drel. Thus, chos.srid zung.’drel was reinstated. Then it went to His Holiness for his consent. He did not insist upon restoring the word “secular” because he sensed the emotion of the members of the Assembly and he respected that. At the moment in the first article the nature of polity is given as a combination of Dharma and politics, but the composition or constitution of the charter is a completely secular one. And we are now working under that charter. Since we have a combination of Dharma and politics I now have to defend the religious polity. This is not a big problem since the rest of the charter is a secular one. And the words “combining religion and politics” do not cause any particular problem in carrying out its mandate. His Holiness has a very clear vision that a future Tibet must have a secular kind of governance. That is not because he is against religious tradition but because he thinks it is appropriate for the people and the rest of the world. The entire world is now in the fashion of secularism. The world at large may not understand the religious polity and it may be misused by irreligious people in the name of religion, if you have a combination of religion and politics. On the other hand, the religious institutions might become more powerful and overshadow state affairs as we have experienced in the past. I personally believe very strongly that religion and politics can never be combined properly.

Q: Do you feel it is never appropriate or just not in this particular historical period?

A: Actually it is only a lack of information and education among the people. Otherwise I personally feel that a secular government can serve and preserve more appropriately and more powerfully religious traditions. I think that a secular government was never meant to be an anti- religious government and a secular government can do a lot of things for the preservation of cultural and religious traditions. I am a very firm believer, and His Holiness too, that Tibet’s identity is inseparable from its religious tradition. That is the essence of Tibetness: it is our culture and our religion. The preservation of culture and religion is the first and foremost responsibility of the Tibetan government in exile or the Tibetan government in Tibet, whatever it may be. His Holiness gives political sovereignty secondary importance to the preservation of religion and cultural heritage, because our religious tradition and our religiosity, our religious mind and the culture, which is a manifestation of our religious mind, are very, very important for the entirety of humanity. It does not belong to the Tibetans alone, it belongs to the universe and we have a sense of universal responsibility to preserve it. For that purpose, His Holiness is ready to give up the demand for complete independence. He is more concerned with the preservation of religious tradition and culture and for that purpose a secular government can work more effectively and more appropriately.

Now I am coming back to the combination of religion and politics and how it works in the government in exile. Our policies are based on the religious mind or on the basic principle of religion and that does not mean it is Buddhism or Hinduism or any -ism. We say the eternal Dharma. The eternal Dharma subscribes to truth, non-violence and equality. Truth and non- violence and equality is the essence of the eternal Dharma and that is the commitment of our polity. The Tibetan polity’s first and foremost commitment is to the truth, non-violence, and equality. For “equality” we sometimes use the word “democracy” and sometimes we use the word “equality, according to the context. These three are the basic structure of our polity. This has been the essence of eternal Dharma. Dharma and polity become one and the religious mind is governing the provision of our polity. And here you should not understand that the religious institutions have something to do with politics. No religious institution has anything to do with politics. The religious institution is an institution, not a religion. We only refer to the religiosity of the religion, not the organization of the religion. So this is my summary.

There is a second thing which many people question and many people argue: if you have a polity governed by religiosity, how it can be a popular democracy? In that matter, I am very clear that a proper democracy is only possible if the polity comes out of religiosity, a religious mind. Otherwise, if your polity is based on negative emotions or negative thoughts which are based on a kind of selfish motivation or competition or very strong nationalism, which can go to any extent to preserve and promote its self-interest, that is not a proper democracy. That democracy can become very corrupt, which is what we are witnessing in Pakistan and India and elsewhere. In the name of democracy all kinds of corruption and atrocities are going on. We don’t want that kind of democracy. A genuine democracy can only be established if the people of the community or the country by and large are religious-minded and pure-minded.

Q: In the present form of the exile government, what in your view are the checks and balances on power? What is the relationship between India and the exile government and its legal basis, since on the one hand India does not accept the exile government as a government, so to speak, yet, at the same time, India is very accepting?

A: That problem we cannot solve as long as we are based in India. The Indian government is so tolerant and helpful just to ignore the existence of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Otherwise, legally and politically we cannot exist in India. The Indian government does not recognize the Tibetan government-in-exile and yet this is just a bluff. Within the working relationship, they recognize everything.

Q: They recognize your institutions and they give your government the responsibility for taking care of the Tibetans?

A: Yes, yes, yes, yes. In other countries, for example, this would be very difficult. In India, we use our own letterheads with the name of the government-in-exile. On these letterheads we correspond with the government of India. The government of India accepts them and responds, only not addressing us as “government-in-exile.” They do not recognize any institutions. They only recognize the institution of Dalai Lama and his representative. On that basis, we are working the entire administration of the government-in-exile, everything which the government of India supposedly does not know. So we say the government of India shuts one eye and opens one eye as far as Tibetan affairs are concerned. They are so tolerant.

As far as checks and balances are concerned, I have to make certain clarifications. Tibetans in exile in India have to abide by Indian civil law as well as Indian criminal law. We are not above the law. We are not outside the law. Whosoever is in India has to abide by Indian law and there cannot be a separate legal system within the legal system of India; that is very clear. Therefore the government in exile cannot have an independent judiciary system. Because that judiciary might legally clash with Indian law, we don’t have an independent judiciary system as such. We have one only insofar as it fits into Indian law of arbitration.

As refugees, the Tibetans in India are legally protected by an executive order alone. India is not signatory to the International Convention of Refugees and the country itself does not have any laws concerning refugees. If the government policy changes, our position is very weak. If one day a government takes the decision not to accept Tibetans as political refugees then we cannot go to the court of law because there is no legal protection.

The Tibetans or any other refugees which are accepted by the government of India legally have all the fundamental human rights which are enshrined in the Indian constitution, except the political rights of voting and standing for election. This is clarified by a Supreme Court order. When Prime Minister Li Peng was visiting India about 50 Tibetan demonstrators were imprisoned by the police on the charge they were doing some demonstration and burning the Chinese flag and so on. On this charge they were detained. Some people went to the Supreme Court and it gave the order that the Tibetan refugees living in India have all the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Indian constitution and laws except the political rights. Under that order they had to release immediately all detainees and that order still stands and is one of the legal protections. Therefore freedom of press, of religion, and of association, which are also enshrined in our charter, are protected in India by Indian laws; that is one of the guarantees. And anyone who thinks there is a violation of these rights can go to the Indian courts of law and seek redress and remedy for that.

Coming back to checks and balances in the exile government, certain disputes cannot be taken to an Indian court of law. For example, political discrimination or decisions of our government cannot because they don’t recognize the exile government. Therefore, in lieu of the independent judiciary we have a Justice Commission provided in the Charter. For its jurisdiction, we had to find some room in Indian law which we found under the provision of arbitration. Arbitrators can be appointed by anyone and they have the power to maintain judgments. Those judgments can be challenged in an Indian court. But unless challenged in an appropriate court, their orders will be held as good as an order of a court of law. If looked at from the Indian point of view, it is arbitration within the Indian provision of law, and from our side it is an independent judiciary to protect the provisions of the Charter for the Tibetans in exile. If any interpretation of our charter is disputed we can go to the Justice Commission and we can debate it there.

Q: What about criminal cases?

A: Yes, criminal cases would have to go to Indian courts. No criminal case can be dealt with by the Justice Commission, only civil disputes and especially disputes within the Tibetan administration and in the interpretation of the Charter.

So, the rest of the checks and balances are in our Constitution. Our Charter is neither a presidential nor parliamentary system. It is in-between. There is a second handicap and we don’t have political parties at the moment.

Q: You can’t really talk about democracy unless you have opposition parties. This is a fundamental aspect of democracy.

A: Yes, that may be, but we have to interpret it in a different way. The opposition parties are necessary but not indispensable. The Assembly in exile is the highest decision-making body. It is represented by the provinces and the religious traditions and some other people. It is an elected body of forty-six members which really represents and is answerable to the people. At the moment, that decision-making body has the role to act as the ruling party and the rest as opposition party. Both of these roles have to be performed by the same representatives. As a ruling party the assembly has to make all the policies and programs for the government and they are binding on the government. The Kashag [Cabinet] is elected by the Assembly and it stays in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of the Assembly. The members of the Kashag have the right to sit and speak in the Assembly, but they don’t have the right to vote. The executive [the Dalai Lama] and the Kashag are answerable, accountable and responsible to the Assembly, which has the power to dissolve the Kashag at any time or to replace any particular Kalon [minister] at any time by majority vote. The legislative is more powerful than the executive body and the executive does not have any kind of veto power. Whatever decisions the legislative makes are binding on the executive.

Q: In practice, does it work that way?

A: Yes, exactly in that way, exactly in that way.

Q: What is His Holiness’ structural place in this?

A: He holds two very important positions, one is the head of state and the other is the head of the government. And as the head of state all executive decisions and their implementations are done in his name on behalf of him. He is working on the advice of the Kashag (Cabinet) which he can accept or not. But His Holiness answers to the Assembly, his advice is not binding. If his actions are contrary to the Assembly’s decisions then they will not recognize them. He cannot do that.

Q: And you said he does not have veto power?

A: He has veto power in a sense. Any decision, any resolution that is adopted by the Assembly is sent to him for his assent. Unless he gives his assent, it cannot become a law. He can voice his disagreement with a piece of legislation within two weeks and send it back to the Assembly with his reasons and comments for reconsideration. And for that he can address the parliament in person or he can send a message through the speaker or in writing to the parliament. If the Assembly agrees with his suggestions it may amend the legislation. If it does not agree with his suggestions, it can send the same decision back again to His Holiness. At that time he has only two options, either he accepts it or declares a referendum. That is the final measure. The result of a referendum would be binding on the Assembly as well as on His Holiness. None of the institutions are above the referendum.

Q: And have you had a case in which His Holiness did not accept a decision twice?

A: Not yet, it is only a provision in the charter. We have not used it.

Q: Do you think it will ever happen?

A: His Holiness is by nature very democratic. He always goes by the majority53 consensus of the Assembly. I don’t expect during this present Dalai Lama to be any confrontation between him and the Assembly, because he is very flexible. He always goes by reason and his reasons are powerful and that can convince the Assembly, and otherwise he will be reconciled with the Assembly’s decision.

So even without opposition parties, the entire Assembly is performing the role of the opposition. It has been quite effective and powerful, because the Kashag [Cabinet] and the executive have no power in the Assembly. When the entire parliament stands for some issue, there cannot be a division. On the other hand, with a multi-party system, whether the party members consciously agree or do not agree they have to follow the party whip and that is also one kind of repression. We do not recognize it as such, but it is one form of repression. I agree with Jaiprakash Narain who, in his later age, recommends a party-less democracy. It is one of the most powerful ideas of democracy and I am very much convinced by it. For quite some time I used to argue that without a multi-party system there cannot be a proper democracy. But now I am more experienced with the nature of people in India and also with the Tibetan community. The multi- party system may not be very suitable for us. In India it is the greatest failure. For the 50 years since independence, at any time the ruling party did not get more than 22% of the votes. And recently, party discipline mostly goes against the conscience of the people. The party as a whole makes other decisions and its members have foregone their right to speak and act. They have to agree to party discipline. That is one kind of repression. Also, the power-seekers are not principled to stay with one party but change parties like an overcoat. This has caused all kinds of instability. In our case, there is no such struggle because we have a party-less democracy. My objection to the multi-party systems in the US and England, for example, is that public opinions are not generated by the public. Public opinions are enforced by the party, and powerful propaganda and advertising brainwash the people. Therefore the basic right of the people’s conscience is always damaged. We are very much against the Communist system of brainwashing. I personally feel that brainwashing is one of the most insufferable crimes against humanity, against basic dignity and basic individual freedom. But in the so-called-multi-party democratic countries the brainwashing takes place in a different way. It always goes on. It goes on through education, through workshops, through governments, through electronic media, through print media and Internet and what not, all kind of bombardment of advertisement makes you almost mad and reduces you to a helpless creature. You have to surrender your own power of thinking and guide it or abide by one of the powerful media. That is the worst result of multi-party democratic systems and market-oriented economies. They have taken away basic human values and human individual freedom which they are never able to protect.

An interview in English with Geshe Cheme Tsering. He received an Acharya degree from Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies, Sanskrit University, Sarnath, where he studied in the Nyingma Division and a Lharampa Geshe54 degree from Ganden Shartse, 1996. Delhi, October 22, 1997:

Q: What has the ban of Dorje Shugden done to you personally, to your life?

A: It is interesting how reality shatters your imagined perception. My perception of the inside workings of the Tibetan exile government has completely changed. My experience of this ban also has changed my perception of how His Holiness works within Tibetan society. It also changed my perception about how Western Buddhist centers and supporters of Tibet receive and give and gather information.

The Tibetan exile government is now perceived as experimenting with a democratic form of government. The long-term aim is to transform Tibet itself into a democratic country. But when it gets challenged to test the democratic principles, it does not stand up to the challenge at all. This was demonstrated by how they handled the ban. Usually in democratic countries, issues are introduced through the parliamentary process and then taken up by the upper house and then the President. In this case and in many other cases, it was brought up unilaterally by the Dalai Lama himself. In 1995, the oracles (mediums) advised him that continued worship of Dorje Shugden is not constructive for the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan government’s work towards freedom. On March 10th and 21st, 1996, he publicized these oracular prophecies in a public teaching. Neither the Assembly, the Cabinet nor the heads of the four Tibetan Buddhist traditions, not even the head of the Gelugpas were consulted. After the announcement was made, it was endorsed by the Cabinet and the Assembly and became policy. That is how the Tibetan government works. Before we did not know these things, because we were not inside the problem. Now we are. So this is not just theory.

When His Holiness first proclaimed the ban, he took the oracles as reference. “There is indication that it is harmful to me and Tibetan society, a negative effect for Tibetan society, if Dorje Shugden worship is continued.” That is how he first put it in 1996. This theme was immediately taken up by the Tibetan government and its various branches around the world. When His Holiness was asked by an Indian journalist, the reason for the ban he said was, “Buddhism is a very profound religion and the worship of Dorje Shugden is denigrating Buddhism to the level of spirit worship.” He also said that, “Worshipers of Dorje Shugden have been sectarian throughout history,” when asked by a Western journalist about the reason for the ban. Here, he opted for ecumenical unity between different Tibetan traditions, “The worship of Dorje Shugden is against the ecumenic spirit.” On more than one occasion in the US and in Switzerland, he even prohibited Western Buddhists [who rely on Dorje Shugden] from attending his initiations and teachings. From this and many other observations we have made one can say that whenever he makes announcements and gives reasons, they are more based on the expediency of the moment than a solid foundation applicable in the West and East both. First he said worship of the deity in Tibetan society is not good. If that is so, then why prohibit Westerners from worshiping Dorje Shugden? Going through all these reasons, His Holiness has given different ones everywhere. He has not given reasons that hold ground or have meaning everywhere. This has changed my perception about His Holiness.

Outside, His Holiness projects a picture of a very compassionate society and since he is a winner of the Nobel peace prize, people embrace that view of Tibetan society. But in reality I now find that what His Holiness tells the world about the need for compassion and loving kindness bears no relation to the actual way in which he treats his own critics in Tibetan society. Some of the Tibetan public in Dharamsala is clearly showing that they do not want to be a part of this ban anymore, since they have seen its destructive effect among Tibetans. If we look to the private observations of lower ranking Tibetan government employees, this much is evident.55 The Dalai Lama on the other hand has taken every opportunity, such as ordination of monks, public teachings in Dharamsala and those like his recent Kalachakra initiation near Darjeeling, to keep public indignation against devotees of Dorje Shugden at the boiling point. He misses no opportunity in these and other Tibetan gatherings to express openly that he is against the worship of Dorje Shugden. Unlike other politicians, this has very serious repercussions in Tibetan society. Once the Dalai Lama expresses his displeasure at someone, no matter who he is or however great his or her contribution to Tibetan society has been in the past, that person becomes a pariah overnight in Tibetan society. The key Tibetan policy makers know this very clearly. Front-ranking Tibetan intellectuals fought against this trend but have now come to the conclusion that at least in this generation the Dalai Lama has absolute hold over the Tibetan public and honest disagreement or dissension stand absolutely no chance. This is one of the reasons why my perception of His Holiness’ actions outside and inside Tibetan society has changed.

Those in the Western world that are sympathetic to Tibet but have no exposure to Tibetan society at the family, government, or monastic level, do not have this understanding. Unlike any democratic society, the exile Tibetan community is a unique entity in itself. At the top level you have a handful of Tibetans who are intimately aware of shifts in international politics. This is mainly represented by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama. Below these people and far less powerful is the Tibetan exile government. In this government also, the key policy decisions are more often made on direction by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama rather than through parliamentary procedures or the wishes of the people. Below the government are sixty percent of Tibetans who are older — monks and lay people alike — largely unexposed to modern education, their mind frame stuck in ancient Tibet. This proportion of Tibetan people demonstrate no personal initiative to explore new ideas or methods or policies regarding the future of Tibet. Individually they are very efficient in meeting their personal necessities. They have almost blind faith in the Dalai Lama. This faith retains complete reliance on the Dalai Lama. When very carefully examined, this exposes two fundamental defects: (1). As far as the future of Tibet is concerned, at a subconscious level, they do not want to take any initiative or personal responsibility. (2). This lack of personal confidence breeds a hollow but inescapable blind trust that if they rely on the Dalai Lama, everything will be fine. Given these factors this mass of Tibetan people is an ideal and willing tool to propagate whatever policy or pronouncement the Tibetan government deems fit. The remaining 30 or 40% of Tibetans are the younger ones, most of whom are not well acquainted with or sufficiently grounded in their mother culture. So they really do not have a reference point to evaluate a modern society, outside society. Those who have sufficient knowledge of Tibetan society and the outside world have no voice in the Tibetan government to bring in fresh air. Some of these enterprising Tibetans started Tibetan political parties, but they became the target of intense public indignation and had to abandon their efforts. Others tried to express their view through the written media. They were either beaten by the mob or threatened within an inch of their lives. A few others started a newspaper of their own. It was so successful that it brought down the circulation of other Tibetan newspapers. However, a public rebuke by the Dalai Lama of this newspaper during a teaching in Dharamsala forced its closure. This is where the Tibetan exile community stands more than four and a half decades after they lost their independence to China.

Q: But how did the ban affect you personally?

A: Ever since 1962, when I joined the Tibetan school in Shimla in northern India until my graduation as Geshe Lharampa from Ganden Shartse in southern India in 1996, I have been an exemplary student. I always obtained A grades. Especially in south India, I made more than my share of contribution towards the cause of Tibet and development of the monastic college. The Tibetan exile government is well aware of all these. I was even being considered for the post of official translator for the Dalai Lama at that time. I have never had any connections with China or Taiwan. This fact can be easily verified by anyone. After I voiced my disagreement against this ban in April 1996, however, the Tibetan exile administration in Dharamsala has used every conceivable method to destroy my credibility. For example, the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament, Samdhong Rinpoche, in June 1996 spread the word in south India that I was holding two different passports. In New Delhi the Head of the Foreigners Registration Office tried to summon me twice, through notices, in an effort to revoke my permit to stay in India. The Bureau of the Dalai Lama in Delhi expressly sent its liaison officer more than once and told the concerned officers in the external affairs office of India that they must not renew my identity certificate [the yellow book issued to Tibetans in lieu of a passport]. None of these however succeeded. Most recently I have learned that the local foreigners registration office in Mundgod has been petitioned by front organizations of the Tibetan government in Dharamsala that they must not renew my RC [Registration Certificate]. This was in July 1997. This is just one part of the harassment that Dharamsala is subjecting me to. If I were to go to Dharamsala on my own, chances are that I would meet not only with public hostility but quite possibly I may be manhandled and beaten without mercy. But Dharamsala is not any exception in this respect. In any other Tibetan settlement in India, I am a marked man. If I were attacked in any of these settlements, no Tibetan would come to my defense — would dare to come to my defense.

An abbot of a Gelugpa monastery, an incarnate Lama, a Geshe, well educated, in his seventies, very gentle, soft spoken, kind and warm. He did not know me and I had no introduction. I did not really know who he was when I met him in a public place of the monastery until I found out his name later on. We talked in Tibetan and after just a few minutes he took me into another room where we could speak in private. He trusted me that quickly with a subject everyone was afraid to talk about openly. The monastery has given up performing Dorje Shugden rituals officially or in groups, but many of the monks still continue privately. He did not want his name to be used publicly; October 6, 1997:

Q: How has the ban affected you?

A: It has caused us great difficulties. We are at crossroads. The dilemma is whether to follow His Holiness and throw away our commitments to our root Gurus or to keep that commitment and displease His Holiness. This dilemma has caused untold inner turmoil. We lost our peace of mind. Often I cannot sleep; my mind is always on this subject. The inner turmoil prevents any kind of deep Dharma contemplation for which the mind has to be calm.

Those of us who live in India have considered escaping the difficulties created by the conflict. For example, if we want to attend His Holiness’ teachings, he says those who rely on Dorje Shugden cannot come. This is a source of deep hurt and stigma. If we went back to Tibet, we could not be sure that our freedom of religion would be upheld there. If we went to other countries, we could not be sure that we could continue to practice the same way as now because of so many different circumstances. So the ban has created many complications. It has even caused madness.

Q: How will this affect the future of the Gelug tradition?

A: It will weaken it because there is no trust among Gelugpas anymore. Some will follow the Dalai Lama and some their root Guru. Naturally there will be some fighting and hence more mistrust. In one way or another, everyone within the Gelug tradition will break their damtsig, their sacred word and commitments. Conflict arises between parents and children, husband and wife, Ganden Jangtse and Shartse, which were so close before and had good relations. They now oppose each other and so much conflict has sprung up between them. For example, Serkong Tsenshab Rinpoche told any people not to rely on Dorje Shugden. Now these people say instead of offering tormas to the protector, we offer him shit. This kind of hatred creates so much bad karma. Serkong Rinpoche and his father (the great adept, Serkong Dorje Chang) had a falling out over this issue and separated. Up in Spiti, they now call Serkong Tsenshab by the name of his father, Serkong Dorje Chang. This is how the Gelugpa tradition is changing. These days we have to be like the Gelugpas during the Kagyu wars, when Geshes wore hats that were red on the outside with the yellow hidden on the inside. When they were caught wearing yellow hats, they would be punished. During that time, many Gelugpas went far east to Kham and caused the tradition to flourish there. It is still a Gelugpa stronghold today.

Today, the situation is like this: Dorje Shugden followers say bad things about the Dalai Lama and this creates more conflict and more discrimination against Dorje Shugden followers. This becomes a cycle of ever larger and deeper conflicts. Like two stones hitting one another — one needs to worry about fire. Neither side is willing to change. Personally, I am worried that the conflict will escalate into a larger one, since both sides are dug in. They will die for their positions. In future, this might split the Tibetan community. Dharamsala says there are just a few Dorje Shugden followers, but this is not true. There are so many, about one third of all Buddhists who really practice (not of the general population) rely on Dorje Shugden. Because Tibetans don’t have the freedom, they are afraid to speak out.

The exile Tibetans are supposed to be democratic, but they are not. For example, in the monasteries, if someone goes against the abbot, he is suspended. The Tibetan government acts the same way. Their structure and actions are the same as that of a monastery. The Tibetan government is not true, not honest. They have democracy on their tongue but do not act on it. I am only saying this because I am really fed up with their actions and all of these conflicts they have created. I am speaking from my heart, not merely complaining. We lost our leader and we have no others. Everyone is too scared.

Jamphel Yeshe, sixty-year-old President of the Dorje Shugden Society, summarized and wrote down his life’s contributions upon request from a Dorje Shugden support group. What follows is an extract from the translation of an unpublished biographical statement. From September 1997, the Tibetan community has been circulating my dossier (one among ten others) published by the Security Bureau of the Tibetan exile government. Like a “wanted poster,” it was put up repeatedly on walls of Tibetan settlements around India and Nepal. This poster gives basic information about my whereabouts and that of my family. It also gives defamatory, wrong information about my person, falsely accusing me of working for the Chinese government, the worst possible disgrace for a Tibetan in exile. This and other defamatory acts that aim at ostracizing me and my family from society have been very painful and changed my life radically. Even worse than the death threats against me were the threats against my wife, who had to leave as a result. I had to send the children abroad for safety reasons. When my six- year-old daughter playfully answered the telephone, anonymous callers told her, “We will kill your Daddy.” This traumatized her so severely that she would check on me constantly, try to close all the doors, and prevent me from going outside. We have all been separated from each other for quite some time now, mother and father from children, husband and wife from each other. In addition, my business is boycotted by Tibetans who believe the distortions of the exile government, and my economic base is disappearing. I am alone and isolated from others in my already isolated exile society.

I am listing here my small contribution to social and public life since coming into exile, in order to set the record straight. Soon after I escaped from Tibet in the middle of 1959, I served as a group leader in Dalhousie for several years. Under my care were about eighty old people who were part of a temporary settlement of five hundred Tibetans. At the same time I was in charge of the Dalhousie branch of Ganden Shartse monastery. I acted as its treasurer for several years. After that, I served the Dalhousie branch of the Cholsum Organization, the largest umbrella of all Tibetan regional and social welfare organizations.

While studying in Varanasi at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, I contributed to many activities of the Institute. I was also an active member of the freedom movement from its inception at Varanasi. This organization became part of the backbone of the Tibetan exile administration. I served this organization in various capacities also in Dharamsala and Delhi. From 1975, I served the Gelugpa Cultural Society as a representative of Ganden Shartse and was active in exploring the possibility for a joint Mönlam Festival64 of all Buddhist traditions. In 1979, the Great Prayer Festival was celebrated by monasteries belonging to the Gelug, Sakya, Nyingma, and Kagyu traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, presided over by the two Tutors of His Holiness, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche as well as many abbots, tulkus, monks, scholars and prominent lay people. This was the most special event in the history of the Gelugpa Cultural Society.

During my long stay in Delhi, I have tried to perform social services for different kinds of Tibetans according to my capacity. My personal name, Jamphel Yeshe or Chatreng Yeshe, is well known for my contribution in the Tibetan community. I have made continued efforts to request members of my own community and other countries to support Tibetans in need and the Tibetan cause in general. I received a medal of appreciation from Amdo Jamyang, the camp leader at the time of Majnuka Tilla in Delhi, for helping raise funds for the Tibetan school at that camp. My own regional group, the Chatreng Association, has acknowledged my contribution to developing its organization and helping its members. I also tried to find a way to build a residence for His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Delhi, since he does not have a place of his own to stay on his many visits to and through the Indian capital on his way abroad. But since I am merely an individual without means, I made an impassioned appeal and detailed proposal to the Tibetan Women’s Association. But the plan never materialized. His Holiness still has to stay in hotels when he comes to Delhi.

For all my life in exile, I have had the welfare of Tibetans and the idea of freedom constantly on my mind. As is well known in the Tibetan community, I worked towards that end in many different ways. All of this is destroyed now by the defamation campaign against me and my family. Because of death threats, I cannot go anywhere alone. I have to live in constant fear of losing my life, my family, my community, my access to religion, my livelihood, — in short, everything that is dear to me and makes my life worth living.

From an interview with Jamphel Yeshe, Delhi, October 1997: When we first escaped to India, it was because of our religious faith. We also had the strong hope to return to a free Tibet. For more than thirty years we held the hope we will get freedom for our country. But that has changed completely now and not only because the Chinese are so intransigent. Even the hope for future freedom has been dashed because of the exile administration’s more recent policy.

Q: How has the ban affected you personally?

A: Since the ban we have endless inner turmoil, day and night. My situation is not exceptional. Each and every Tibetan Buddhist who is not able to relinquish faith in his or her Guru is in the same situation. Since the ban was imposed by the Tibetan exile government, families have broken down in every Tibetan community. Children broke relations with their parents and teachers and students have stopped speaking with each other. These things happened because the Tibetan exile government started a signature campaign against our faith. We were asked to sign a list swearing that we will give up our reliance on the Dharmapala (Dorje Shugden) for this and all future lives. These lists were passed around very publically so everyone could see who signed and who not. When the government stopped, the Women’s Association and Youth Congress continued to push people to sign. Through the public nature of this campaign we have been completely marginalized. As the president of the Dorje Shugden Society, it was my duty to inform all Tibetans about the situation.

If a Tibetan speaks out, the automatic reaction now is to find out whether or not he relies on Dorje Shugden. If he does, then as a Tibetan, I should not have any contact with him, according to the Tibetan exile government. Because of the atmosphere of distrust created this way, I have lost many of my former friends and business contacts. They all know I rely on Dorje Shugden. It has become a trend within the Tibetan exile community for people to declare openly that they want to go after me and finish me. Threats are also made openly against my colleagues in the Society and we experience this prevailing atmosphere of fear and distrust as a great burden.

I am a family man, I have three children. My oldest son is twelve years old, the second son nine years, and my daughter is six years old. The two older children were in school at the Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV) in Dharamsala. I and my family received many explicit death threats. I found out through reliable sources — I can’t tell you who — that an ex-military man and a member of the Tibetan parliament from Rajpur was discussing my two sons and their whereabouts in school in Dharamsala and my involvement with the Dorje Shugden Society with other Tibetans from a military background.68 He said they were well trained and that he and his colleagues would do whatever was necessary and whatever the Tibetan exile government wanted them to do against the Dorje Shugden people.69 So I took my children out of the school in Dharamsala and sent them to a safe place in another country. The perception was that anyone who wanted to attack us was free to do so. The threat letters I received included statements like, “We will not spare your wife and children.”

My wife and I received many threatening phone calls, and even our six-year-old daughter. When asked for a name, the answer was only “I am a man.” Once, when they called, the child answered the telephone, as she often did, and the person on the other end told her, “There are fifteen of us here in Delhi and we will kill you and we will kill your father. We will destroy you.” My daughter was very upset. She went to close all the doors and told me to stay inside. Early in the morning, she would come to my bed and touch me. When I moved, she shouted, overjoyed, “Daddy is still alive.”

Mrs. Pema is the wife of the retired schoolteacher Dr. Thubten. It is not clear why people call him doctor. He had been a monk earlier and holds a Geshe Lharampa degree from Ganden Shartse (1958). He escaped from Tibet in 1959 and joined the teacher training program in Dharamsala. From 1963, he worked for the Indian government for 29 years in the Central Tibetan School system in Mussoorie, in South India, in Dalhousie and Shimla. In 1991, the family bought a small piece of land in the Clementown Tibetan settlement near Dehradun and built a house there. They have a daughter age twenty-two. Mrs. Pema says she was introduced to the Dorje Shugden practice by her husband but has become a strong believer herself now. She is crying as soon as she starts to talk and intermittently breaks into uncontrollable sobs. She is clearly still traumatized from the events which happened a year ago and again several months ago. I talked to Mrs. Pema’s nephew, a monk at Ganden, independently at another time. He had been locked inside the house during the arson attempt and confirmed her story. I met Mrs. Pema unexpectedly in Delhi in October 1997; her husband was somewhere in Delhi in an undisclosed place, so I could not interview him.

Mrs. Pema: My husband knows much about Dorje Shugden because he is a Geshe Lharampa and earlier had studied the subject extensively. He explained the history to people who had not even heard about Dorje Shugden before and were told all kinds of misinformation. So after that people were saying he is not obeying the Dalai Lama. October last year (1996) we came to Delhi for religious observances and left our daughter and nephew in the house [in Clementown near Dehradun]. On November 7, 1996, a group of people came and locked the house from the outside with the children inside and then threw stones at it and tried to set the house on fire. Luckily only the curtains caught fire through the open windows, the house did not burn because it is made of concrete. The children were able to stop the fire from spreading inside but men with masks had poured kerosene over the front door before they ignited it. For two hours they pelted the house with stones and shouted obscenities, including references to Dorje Shugden in Amdo dialect. Kalsang, my daughter, was finally able to open the door from the inside with a hairpin. She called us in Delhi. When we went to talk to the police, they told us that they could not protect us and that we should leave for a while because our lives were in danger there. They assured us that the house would be under police protection. So we left for Delhi.

On June 29, 1997, our house in the Clementown settlement was attacked again. We got a call saying that if we wanted to save any of our possessions we better come back immediately. When we got there, we went to the police station for help. They accompanied us and left two policemen with us while we looked through the house to see what could be salvaged. We found the door had been broken down and everything was destroyed with broken china everywhere. Thirty years of hard work went into this house. Fifteen to twenty minutes after the other policemen had left, a group of seventy to ninety Tibetans came and bombarded the house with stones again for two hours. The two policemen left for our security ran away. After some time twenty to twenty-five different policemen, some with two or three stars, came from Dehradun. A journalist took pictures. The crowd took his camera and injured his hand.71 Two or three women held back a policeman while the Tibetan men kept attacking the house. Leading officers finally told us to take our possessions and to leave since the crowd would kill us and they would not take any responsibility. I told them I did not want to leave the house. If I cannot have religious freedom, I will die for it.

We asked the police for a written statement saying that they could not protect us, but they refused. They only said that if we did not leave, the mob would kill us. Then a policeman came with a truck and took us away for protection. We were kept in police custody for five hours. A friend and the driver who had brought us from Delhi were hurt and did not receive medical attention. Then the local police brought our belongings, saying that we had to vacate the house. They did this as a favor to us since the mob was threatening to burn down everything. Since most of the things were broken, like the TV and refrigerator, we told them they are of no use anymore, that they should have left them to burn.

Q: Why did you not initiate legal action?

A: We don’t know anything about Indian law and if we try to complain or file a case, there is a bribery system. We don’t have any money. A complaint will take a long time. Besides, the Clementown police were bribed by Tibetans. The truck the police had loaded our things on and sent us away from the settlement was paid for by the police with money they received from the government in exile. They have made our life like hell.

Now we live in Delhi where we have to pay rent. We lost everything and my husband is too old to start over again. The people in Clementown want to kill him. Only because of the religious ban did we have trouble there, after we had lived there peacefully for five years. My daughter did not sign the petitions to give up Dorje Shugden. There were ten to fifteen families in Clementown who relied on Dorje Shugden. We were the only one that did not sign the petition. My husband was a disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and had strong faith in him. So there was no question of giving his signature. My husband taught Tibetan children for thirty years. Many of them now hold office in Dharamsala and they turned against him like this. Everywhere he went, he used to get respect from former students — thousands and thousands. Now everything is destroyed, is finished. We are refugees a second time, once from Tibet and once from India.

Source :
http://www.shugdensociety.info/pdfs/BernisResearch.pdf