The principal cause of isolationism is ostracism by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama for political reasons. The Dalai Lama has banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, but unlike some religious disagreements where there is a ‘live and let live’ attitude, the Dalai Lama will never allow anyone to remain neutral on the issue.

He has forced Tibetans to swear an oath in front of the Tibetan protectoress Palden Lhamo not to share material or spiritual resources with Shugden practitioners. Thus, it’s not possible to abstain or remain neutral on this issue if you are Tibetan, because if you do not swear an oath, you are excluded from Tibetan society.

This ostracism began very early on, in fact, as soon as the Dalai Lama decided, for incorrect reasons, to stop practising Shugden. He then formed a plan to destroy the practice by exploiting the blind faith of the Tibetan people which has been encouraged by giving many public Kalachakra empowerments. The problems started in 1976 when the Dalai Lama gave up the practice. This caused many problems from the beginning. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso explained how this ostracism began:

Lama Yeshe was the general spiritual director of Manjushri Center, while I had the responsibility of organizing the daily programmes. We were both very happy to have the picture of HH the Dalai Lama on the shrine because we hoped that the people of Manjushri and HH Dalai Lama would develop a good spiritual connection and relationship.

Many times we invited the Dalai Lama to come to Manjushri Centre, although we both knew, even then, that he had rejected the practice of Dorje Shugden. We assumed it was not his real intention because we found it difficult to believe that he really wanted to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden.

So for a long time we continued to practise Dorje Shugden and kept faith in the Dalai Lama. Then later the situation deteriorated because he intensified his ban on Dorje Shugden worship. I heard that he said in public that those who practise Dorje Shugden cannot be his friend.

Then my mind gradually changed, especially as we received criticism from people who were saying that Manjushri Centre had broken its guru devotion to the Dalai Lama because of our continued practice of Dorje Shugden. As his picture was on our shrine, people believed that he was our root Guru — on the other hand because we practised Dorje Shugden people thought we were against the Dalai Lama. Due to this contradiction we received a lot of criticism.

The Dalai Lama never visited Manjushri Centre because he was displeased that Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang continued to practise Dorje Shugden.

Because the Dalai Lama’s stance on Dorje Shugden was not to allow any religious freedom, Tibetan Buddhism began to polarise into two distinct camps – those who followed the Dalai Lama’s view that Dorje Shugden was a harmful spirit and those who had faith in the traditional Gelugpa lineage view of Je Pabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang that Dorje Shugden was a protector aspect of Je Tsongkhapa himself.

The Dalai Lama made it clear on many occasions that he wanted to eradicate the practice of Dorje Shugden completely, and so it became a case of ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me’. This caused a lot of suffering for Shugdenpas who were torn between their faith in the Dalai Lama and their faith in their Lineage Gurus and Shugden himself. They had to make a choice, and no choice was comfortable as it involved the loss of something precious in either case.

(Continued in part 2)

Source : http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-dorje-shugden-practitioners-are-not.html

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

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

(*Dolgyal is a derogatory term for Dorje Shugden)

Bigotry, discrimination, hatred

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

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

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

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

Rime

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

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

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

Ringu Tulku says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lama Tsongkhapa

Ngawang Drakpa was one of the closest disciples of the incomparable Je Tsongkhapa. He met and learnt from the master just after the master’s Gelong ordination and well before the first contact of Je Tsongkhapa with his 3 more famous disciples: Gyaltsab Je, Kedrup Je and the 1st Dalai Lama. Ngawang Drakpa, although less famous, was no doubt one of the closest heart disciples of Tsongkhapa.

Some of the most important texts composed by Je Tsongkhapa were originally written for Ngawang Drakpa or were composed on the personal requests of this disciple. Among them are the 3 Principal Aspects of the Path, the account of the famous Bodhisattva Ever-Weeping and the Sadhana of the 13-deity Yamantaka. In the 3 Principal Aspects of the Path, Je Tsongkhapa calls Ngawang Drakpa ‘my son’, showing an unusual personal affection for his disciple. In a letter that Je Tsongkhapa sent to his disciple, the master implores Ngawang Drakpa to follow his private instructions. He urges him to act and pray, in all his lives, as his teacher does. And he invites Ngawang Drakpa to meet him again, at the end, in enlightenment – where he promises to offer his favored disciple the first sip of their cup of immortality.

Ngawang Drakpa was born in 1365 in the region of eastern Tibet known as Gyalrong (or as Gralmorong). His father was a local king and the family was Bönpo (practitioners of a form of Shamanistic religion). Ngawang Drakpa became famous for his knowledge in the Bön religion and was known as Wangpo Ngawang Drakpa, the title ‘Wangpo’ being a respected title given only to masters of royal descent.

In 1381, at the age of 16, Ngawang Drakpa went to central Tibet with 4 other monks. In 1385, he met and became a disciple of Je Tsongkhapa. He was later given the title of ‘Khenchen’ (master abbot), by Je Tsongkhapa. Thus in the biography of Je Tsongkhapa, Ngawang Drakpa is addressed as Tsako Wangpo Khenchen Ngawang Drakpa (the word ‘Tsako’ denotes the place of his birth, a region of Gyalrong in Eastern Tibet). He is also known as one of the ’4 Original disciples’ of Tsongkhapa. In 1409, when Tsongkhapa initiated the Monlam Chenmo, (the annual grand prayer festival which continued up to 1959), Ngawang Drakpa was one of his major assistants.

Chakor Monastery

On the 4th lunar month of 1409, Ngawang Drakpa and Tsongkhapa performed a Nyungney fasting retreat together at Jokhang (the grand cathedral of Lhasa). Ngawang Drakpa was asked to observe his dreams. He dreamt of two white conch shells descending from the sky, merging into one and it fell into his lap. In his dream, he blew the conch shell towards the east and it made a loud sound. The next day, Tsongkhapa explained that the conch shell meant that Ngawang Drakpa would spread the pure teachings of the Buddha and blowing it while facing the east in the dream meant that Ngawang Drakpa was destined to teach in his birthplace, eastern Tibet, and the loud sound meant that his activities would be successful.

In 1409, Ngawang Drakpa decided to return to eastern Tibet. According to legend, Je Tsongkhapa presented the disciple with a crystal rosary just before Ngawang Drakpa’s departure. Upon receiving it, Ngawang Drakpa immediately made a vow to establish as many monasteries as the number of beads on the rosary (there were 108 crystal beads) as a way to repay his Guru’s kindness. On his way back to eastern Tibet, Ngawang Drakpa paid homage at Je Tsongkhapa’s birthplace, where the famous monastery of Kumbum would later be built. Ngawang Drakpa traveled extensively throughout the Gyalrong region and founded 107 monasteries before he built the grand Dhe-Tsang Monastery, which was to become the spiritual headquarters of all Gelugpa monasteries in the Gyalrong region. Dhe-Tsang Monastery was the 108th and the last of the series of monasteries that he promised to build.

Relic Stupa of Ngawang Drakpa

The monastery construction was completed in 1414, just 5 years after the founding of Ganden Monastery, the first monastery of the Gelugpa lineage founded by Je Tsongkhapa. The name ‘Dhe-Tsang’ means ‘Fulfillment’ or ‘Completion’ and was given to this monastery as the founding of it marks the fulfillment of Ngawang Drakpa’s promise to build 108 monasteries.

Ngawang Drakpa served the Dhe-Tsang Monastery as the founding abbot and passed away in Chakor Monastery (about 100 kilometers from Dhe-Tsang) in 1431, at the age of 65 and after several months of intensive meditation retreats. Ngawang Drakpa’s holy body was preserved in a stupa at this monastery. At Dhe-Tsang Monastery, statues and stupas in memory of this great master were also built. Sadly, these were destroyed in the 1950′s.

In 1983, His Holiness the 10th Panchen Rinpoche made a pilgrimage to Chakor Monastery and donated generously towards the restoration of Ngawang Drakpa’s stupa. Some of Ngawang Drakpa’s remain, said to be part of his skull, was given by a monk who hid the piece from desecration for the new stupa. Dhe-Tsang Monastery also built new statues in memory of its founder in 1983. In 1993, Khejok Rinpoche returned to the Gyalrong district for a brief visit and paid homage to the new Stupa at Chakor.

In 1999, the monastery acquired another piece of Ngawang Drakpa’s skull from the same monk who donated the first piece for the Chakor Stupa and is now planning to build another Stupa to house this precious relic.

Ngawang Drakpa’s disciple Choje Drakpa (some hold the view that he was also the younger brother of Ngawang Drakpa) succeeded as the monastery’s 2nd abbot. There is a restored Stupa at Chakor Monastery right next to the restored Ngawang Drakpa Stupa in memory of Choje Drakpa, probably housing some of Choje Drakpa’s relics.

Bone relic from the skull of Ngawang Drakpa

Unlike the Dalai Lamas and other eminent Lamas of similar stature, there has been no official recognition for the incarnations of Ngawang Drakpa. However, it is commonly accepted that the great Pabongkha Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo was one of his incarnations. Even Pabongkha Rinpoche himself said, during a conversation with his own mother at Sera Monastery, “On some occasion, the thought comes to my mind that I have been other people as well and in other times when our great and gentle protector Tsongkhapa lived on this earth I was, I sometimes think, that friar from Tsako – Ngawang Drakpa”.

In fact, this great Lama identified himself more with Ngawang Drakpa than with the Changkya Tulku he was more officially regarded as, although the latter was much more influential and famous (some of the Changkya Tulkus have been the teachers of Chinese emperors and enjoyed political status more or less equivalent to the emperors themselves) than Ngawang Drakpa. Pabongka Rinpoche belonged to the Gyalrong House of Sera-Mey College, which has close connection with Ngawang Drakpa. He was considered ‘part of the family’ amongst the Dhe-Tsang monks studying at Gyalrong House of Sera-Mey.

Source: http://www.b-i-a.net/Ngawang%20Drakpa.htm

A Dharma Protector is an emanation of a Buddha or a Bodhisattva whose main functions are to avert the inner and outer obstacles that prevent practitioners from achieving spiritual realizations, and to arrange all the necessary conditions for their practice.

In Tibet every monastery had its own Dharma Protector, but the tradition did not begin in Tibet; the Mahayanists of ancient India also relied upon Dharma Protectors to eliminate hindrances and to fulfil their spiritual wishes.

Though there are some worldly deities who are friendly towards Buddhism and who try to help practitioners, they are not real Dharma Protectors. Such worldly deities are able to increase the external wealth of practitioners and help them to succeed in their worldly activities, but they do not have the wisdom or the power to protect the development of Dharma within a practitioner’s mind.

It is this inner Dharma the experiences of great compassion, bodhichitta, the wisdom realizing emptiness, and so forth that is most important and that needs to be protected; outer conditions are of secondary importance.

Although their motivation is good, worldly deities lack wisdom and so sometimes the external help that they give actually interferes with the attainment of authentic Dharma realizations. If they have no Dharma realizations themselves, how can they be Dharma Protectors? It is clear therefore that all actual Dharma Protectors must be emanations of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas.

These Protectors have great power to protect Buddhadharma and its practitioners, but the extent to which we receive help from them depends upon our faith and conviction in them. To receive their full protection we must rely upon them with continuous, unwavering devotion.

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

There is no difference in the compassion, wisdom, or power of the various Dharma Protectors but, because of the karma of sentient beings, one particular Dharma Protector will have a greater opportunity to help Dharma practitioners at any one particular time. We can understand how this is so by considering the example of Buddha Shakyamuni.

Previously the beings of this world had the karma to see Buddha Shakyamuni’s Supreme Emanation Body and to receive teachings directly from him. These days, however, we do not have such karma, and so Buddha appears to us in the form of our Spiritual Guide and helps us by giving teachings and leading us on spiritual paths. Thus the form that Buddha’s help takes varies according to our changing karma, but its essential nature remains the same.

Among all the Dharma Protectors, four-faced Mahakala, Kalarupa, and Dorje Shugdän in particular have the same nature because they are all emanations of Manjushri. However, the beings of this present time have a stronger karmic link with Dorje Shugdän than with the other Dharma Protectors.

It was for this reason that Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realized Master of the Sakya Tradition, told his disciples, `Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugdän.’ He said this on many occasions to encourage his disciples to develop faith in the practice of Dorje Shugdän.

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

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

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

Source : http://nepalartsgallery.blogspot.com/2007/02/tibetan-god-statue.html