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

By: Karmo Tsomo

Bhutan is no ordinary place. A modern-day Shangri-La shrouded in magic and mystery, this is the last of the great Himalayan kingdoms, a place where modernity is embraced alongside traditional Buddhist culture. Known all over the world for its sustainable approach to tourism focused on “low-volume” but “high-value”, the country prides itself for its philosophy of “Gross National Happiness”, placing emphasis on citizens’ wellbeing rather than material indulgences.

The result is a country full of juxtapositions, from Buddhist monks with smartphones, to provocative images etched on the sides of sacred monasteries. Nevertheless, contrary to how it is portrayed for its upkeep of traditional Buddhist values, Bhutan is not a mere museum piece. The Bhutanese are highly educated, well-informed about the world and are extremely fun-loving. It is this very blend of the modern and the ancient that makes the country endlessly fascinating.

Legendary Beginnings

Bhutan’s snow-capped peaks tower above deep and shadowy gorges cloaked in primeval forests. Dotted along this stunning Himalayan landscape are formidable dzongs or fortress monasteries, reminders of how the Bhutanese have made this incredible land their home for centuries. It is no wonder that Bhutan is the land of legends.

Bhutan is known around the world for its beautiful landscapes, from lush green forests to snow-capped mountains dotted with Buddhist temples and fortress dzongs.

And legend has it that the great and powerful Indian tantric adept, Guru Rinpoche or Padmasambhava, saved King Sindhu Raja of Bumthang from being possessed by a vicious demon spirit. He exorcised this demon, captured it and bound it by oath never to harm others and instead support the practice of Buddhism. By manifesting his extraordinary powers, Guru Rinpoche also converted both the king and his rival to the peaceful Buddhist religion, thereby ending years of strife and restoring peace to the land of what is today known as Bhutan.

On Guru Rinpoche’s second visit to Bhutan, he traversed the districts of Bumthang, Mongar and Lhuentse on his return from Tibet where he had subdued hordes of demons and spirits obstructing the great Abbot Santarakshita from establishing Buddhism there. King Trisong Detsen had invited Guru Rinpoche to Tibet to save Santarakshita’s work from being destroyed by the likes of Pehar (now known as Nechung). Thanks to Guru Rinpoche’s subjugation of the negative interferences, Santarakshita was able to complete the construction of Samye Monastery and establish the order of ordained Sangha there.

While doing all this, Guru Rinpoche left his body print and an impression of his head with a hat in the rocks at Gom Kora, Bhutan. Taking on the form of Dorje Dragpo (one of Guru Rinpoche’s eight primary manifestations) he also flew to Taktsang in Paro on a tigress surrounded by the flames of his wisdom. And it was this event that gave the world-famous Taktsang Monastery its colloquial moniker “Tiger’s Nest”.

Guru Rinpoche later visited Bhutan again, his third visit being during the reign of Muthri Tsenpo (764 – 817 CE), the son of Tibetan King Trisong Detsen. Since then, a host of enlightened beings have empowered the landscape with their holy presence and built Bhutan as a Buddhist kingdom which survives until today.

The Bhutanese landscape is intrinsically linked with Guru Rinpoche, an enlightened Indian tantric adept who visited the country thrice and blessed the land. Here we see a giant statue of the master in the Lhuentse district.

The Bhutanese Identity

By the 16^th century however, the kingdom had fallen into political disarray, with local chieftains controlling various territories and engaging in petty feuds. It was during this period that Bhutan’s complex history with Tibet began.

The arrival of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal (1594-1651 CE) of the Drukpa Kagyu sect of Tibetan Buddhism was to change the fate of Bhutan forever. At just eight years old, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal received the layman vows from Mipham Chogyal and was given the name Ngawang Namgyal. He went on to receive teachings from esteemed masters of the time, covering not only teachings from the Drukpa Kagyu lineage but also the Nyingma, Sakya, Gelug and other Kagyu traditions as well. He was also the abbot-prince of Ralung Monastery.

At the age of 12, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal was recognized as the reincarnation of Kunkhyen Pema Karpo, the 4^th Gyalwang Drukpa, or supreme head of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage. The Gyalwang Drukpas are actually considered to be emanations of Chenrezig, the Buddha of Compassion. He was enthroned at Ralung Monastery at the age of 13 and received the name Drukpa Ngawang Tenzin Namgyal Jigme Drakpa.

Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, the founder of Bhutan and the great master who spread the sacred Drukpa Kagyu lineage in the country.

However, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal was not the only recognized reincarnation of Kunkhyen Pema Karpo. There was another candidate, known as Gyalwa Pagsam Wangpo, and this led to disharmony not only within the monastery but also within the Drukpa Kagyu tradition. Gyalwa Pagsam Wangpo eventually earned the favor of the King of Tsang and was enthroned as the 5^th Gyalwang Drukpa. Fearing persecution from the King of Tsang, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal decided to flee Tibet.

Receiving signs from the Dharma Protector Yeshe Gonpo (the Wisdom Mahakala) in the form of a raven, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal was directed south to Bhutan. Arriving in what is now Bumdeling in eastern Bhutan, in 1616, he established Cheri Monastery, also known as Chagri Dorjeden Monastery. Three years later, he entered solitary retreat in a cave near Cheri where he manifested tremendous spiritual realizations. At the age of 40, he received full monastic ordination.

After establishing Palpungthang Dewa Chenpo Dharma Gandro in 1637, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal become an exalted leader, both spiritually and in secular terms. In fact, he successfully established a system of dzongs, or fortress monasteries, to protect the Bhutanese from marauding Tibetans bent on conquering new lands. The first of these, Simtokha Dzong, even housed a monastic body and administrative facilities. Combining civil, religious and defensive functions, it became the model for all later dzongs in Bhutan.

Simtokha Dzong in the present days

In establishing an order of Buddhist Sangha in Bhutan, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal commenced the construction of many monasteries and when Punakha Dzong was completed in 1653 CE, two years after his passing, the Sangha were relocated there. It became the dratsang (central monastic body) for Bhutan, headed by the supreme abbot known as the Je Khenpo.

Realizing a need for the Bhutanese to preserve their own culture and identity embellished with the Buddhist religion, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal created a spectrum of unique customs, traditions, ceremonies and rituals in a deliberate attempt to develop a distinctive Bhutanese identity that has since come to be beloved and celebrated by its people. This included not only the codification of the Drukpa Kagyu teachings into a distinctively Bhutanese system, but also the adoption of a national dress and the celebration of new festivals. It was through his foresight and immense efforts that the current nation of Bhutan as we know it was born. He also successfully built good relations with the neighboring kingdoms of Nepal, Cooch Behar and Ladakh, thus securing the Bhutanese kingdom’s status as a sovereign state.

Punakha Dzong

The Rise of Kings

By the late 1800s, as things would have it, Bhutan was once again in the throes of political turmoil although the positions created by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal of Druk Desi (secular ruler) and Je Khenpo (spiritual leader) still had sway with the people. It was the shrewd 51^st desi, Jigme Namgyal who installed his 17-year-old son Ugyen Wangchuk as the penlop (governer) of Paro. This move was to change the history of Bhutan forever.

First King: Druk Gyalpo Ugyen Wangchuk

Druk Gyalpo Ugyen Wangchuk, the first king of Bhutan.

At the age of 20, Ugyen Wangchuk was also installed as the penlop of Trongsa, giving him more influence than the new desi. When fights broke out between various dzong leaders from around the country, he tried to mediate. However during the conflict, some of these leaders were either killed or they fled to Tibet. In the aftermath, Ugyen Wangchuk providentially emerged as the most powerful figure in the country.

With the death of the desi, Ugyen Wangchuk was elected the hereditary leader of Bhutan through a unanimous vote of Bhutan’s highest Buddhist lamas and secular chieftains. He was enthroned with the title Druk Gyalpo (Dragon King) on 17^th December 1907.

Second King: Druk Gyalpo Jigme Wangchuk

Druk Gyalpo Jigme Wangchuk, the second king of Bhutan.

Ugyen Wangchuk was succeeded by his 24-year-old son, Jigme Wangchuk, when he died in 1926. Though King Jigme Wangchuk reigned during the Second World War, Bhutan was unaffected due to its policy of isolationism. During this time, King Jigme Wangchuk successfully brought the entire country under his control through refining the nation’s administrative processes and economic systems.

In 1947, India gained independence from Britain and signed a landmark agreement with King Jigme Wangchuk. This treaty asserted Bhutan’s authority as a sovereign nation state and marked the beginning of very strong relations between the two countries. India also vowed never to interfere with Bhutan’s internal affairs, while Bhutan asked India to guide its external policies in order to build international relations.

Third King: Druk Gyalpo Jigme Dorji Wangchuk

Druk Gyalpo Jigme Dorji Wangchuk, the third king of Bhutan.

King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk succeeded his father to the throne of Bhutan in 1952. Having been educated in both India and England, he was a formidable statesman and spoke fluent Hindi, English and Tibetan as well as his native Bhutanese. In order to build closer relations with India, he invited the then-Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his daughter Indira Gandhi to Bhutan in 1958.

As the Chinese Cultural Revolution spread to Tibet in 1959, Jigme Dorji Wangchuk realized that the Bhutanese policy of isolationism was no longer appropriate in the 20^th century and he strove to make Bhutan a member of the larger world community. In 1961, he ended Bhutan’s self-imposed isolation and started a five-year program of development that propelled Bhutan into the modern world. In 1962, Bhutan joined the Colombo Plan, giving it access to technical assistance and training from other member countries throughout Southeast Asia. Improved relations with India also led to the financing of the Chhukha hydroelectric project in western Bhutan. In 1969, Bhutan joined the Universal Postal Union and became a member of the United Nations in 1971.

King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk’s achievements were also equally impressive on the home front. He established a High Court, created the Royal Bhutan Army and police forces, and abolished serfdom throughout the country. Another of his greatest achievements was the creation of the National Assembly known as the Tshogdu, and the implementation of a 12-volume code of law. All the while, the king emphasized the need to preserve Bhutanese culture and tradition.

Fourth King: Druk Gyalpo Jigme Singye Wangchuk

The fourth king of Bhutan, Druk Gyalpo Jigme Singye Wangchuk (right), crowning his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk (left) as the fifth king of Bhutan.

King Jigme Singye Wangchuk assumed the throne at the age of 16 when his father passed away at the age of 44. Similar to his father, he received his education in both India and England. He also studied at the Ugyen Wangchuk Academy in Paro.

Continuing his father’s legacy, he dramatically advanced the modernization process in Bhutan. Making use of Bhutan’s three special circumstances – a small population, a large land mass, and the country’s rich natural resources – he strove to achieve economic self-reliance.

It was King Jigme Singye Wangchuk who implemented the now-famous philosophy of Gross National Happiness. Rather than just a measurement of a person’s individual happiness, this philosophy encompasses criteria to measure development projects and progress in terms related to the greater good of society at large. This in turn feeds back into an individual’s sustainable level of happiness.

He was also the first king to invite foreign press to the country’s capital, Thimphu. A total of 287 guests were invited and many new facilities such as hotels were built to accommodate them. These hotels have since become the basis for the development of tourism in Bhutan, which is one of the industries the country relies on to sustain its economy.

King Jigme Singye Wangchuk was instrumental in improving health care, rural development, education and communications. He was also the mastermind behind Bhutan’s policy of environmental conservation, which stresses ecological considerations above commercial interests. He also strengthened the modernization process through six development goals: sustainability; self-reliance; people’s participation and decentralization; human resource development; regionally balanced development; and the efficiency and development of the private sector.

In 2005, the then 49-year-old king announced that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his son, the Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk, and facilitated the transition of the country from an absolute monarchy to a democratic constitutional monarchy in 2008.

Fifth King: Druk Gyalpo Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk

Druk Gyalpo Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk, the fifth king of Bhutan

King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk became king on 9^th December 2006 and was enthroned on 6^th November 2008. Apart from being educated in Bhutan, India and England, he also studied in the USA. He is well-known for his efforts to democratize Bhutan, improve diplomatic relations with foreign nations such as India, Thailand, Japan and Singapore; improve education; and land reforms.

His marriage to Queen Jetsun Pema and the arrival of their son was greatly anticipated by the people of Bhutan who affectionately call him “The People’s King”. His works are leading Bhutan into the modern world, carrying on the legacy of previous kings, all the while retaining Bhutan’s unique culture.

Bhutan’s Tibetan Trouble

Bhutan has a long and complex history with Tibet. As both countries are Buddhist, and as the form of Buddhism practiced in Bhutan has its origins in Tibet, one would assume that the two countries have maintained close cultural and political ties. Both countries even rely on the same writing script that was developed by the great Tibetan translator Thonmi Sambhota.

In theory therefore, the two nation states should get along well with each other. In practice however, Tibetans have been creating problems for Bhutan for a very long time. Since the time of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal’s settling in Bhutan, the Tibetan leadership have repeatedly tried to take over the country for themselves. This repressive attitude continues even into the modern era — the Central Tibetan Administration’s (“CTA”; Tibetan leadership located in Dharamsala, North India) actions over the last 60 years have been nothing but hostile.

Gyalo Thondup, brother of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. He was one of the alleged masterminds behind the assassination attempt on the crown prince of Bhutan.

In 1979, the Bhutanese government issued the Tibetans in their country with an ultimatum: become Bhutanese citizens or go back to China. This ensued after tensions between Tibetans, who were kindly granted refuge by the Bhutanese government, and the local Bhutanese population escalated. Not only did the Tibetans refuse to assimilate into Bhutanese culture but in 1974, a day before the coronation of the young King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, a Tibetan plot to murder the then 18-year-old crown prince was uncovered by the Bhutanese government.

30 Tibetans were arrested and accused of conspiring to assassinate the young king. The group of conspirators, though led by a Bhutanese deputy home minister, was largely made up of Tibetans. This included Gyalo Thondup, the brother of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and the Dalai Lama’s representative in Thimpu, Bhutan’s capital city. Amongst the others involved was a “Tibetan woman who once used to enjoy considerable influence and privilege in Bhutan”.

The Tibetan Woman

This “Tibetan woman” was a controversial figure known as Yangki. She was the mistress of King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk, the third king of Bhutan. Yangki’s family had no social status or political power before she became the king’s mistress, but as her influence grew, so did the power of her family. Professor Leo Rose of Cornell University describes the machinations of Yangki and her family in his work The Politics of Bhutan, published in 1977. His research makes it clear that Yangki had been involved in more than one political assassination plot. The disposal of certain key figures in the upper echelons of Bhutanese society was her way of consolidating power and moving up the power ladder.

Yangki and Kanaibhu, her father, were the masterminds behind the assassination of Lochen Jigme Dorji, the then-prime minister and close confidant of the king. They had become convinced that the prime minister was trying to murder the king. Since they were solely dependent on the king for economic and social prosperity, they decided the prime minister had to be done away with, lest his plan to kill the king was successful. Kanaibhu even supplied the gun that the assassin used to kill the prime minister.

Queen Ashi Kesang Choden Wangchuk and the 3rd king of Bhutan, Jigme Dorji Wangchuk.

As it turned out, their reasoning was nothing more than their self-centered need to retain power. Suffice to say, the king was furious and ordered the elimination of both Yangki and her father. They were saved at the last minute when the queen, Ashi Kesang Choden Wangchuk interceded. The queen was a paragon of compassion; although she knew she was sparing the life of her husband’s mistress, she was still moved to do so. Eventually, cover-up stories were spread to hide Yangki’s involvement in the assassination as it was commonly known that she was the king’s mistress.

Yangki and Kanaibhu were secretly imprisoned for their part in the assassination, but were later released and reinstated to their eminent positions within the Bhutanese elite. By the time of the king’s passing, Yangki had borne the monarch four children but they were never legitimized or considered to be in the line of succession for the throne. Shortly before his death, King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk himself dictated a letter to the crown-prince, countersigned by some of the top Bhutanese government officials. In it, the king made it clear that he regretted his relationship with Yangki, and that her children should never be considered royalty:

“In my life time I have committed a very big blunder by having an affair with Yangki. Being young, I stayed with her a few times and before I could keep the affair within limits, not one or two but four children were born, so I could not sever my connection with her. Kesang Wangchuk is completely in the right. She was consecrated with me in the Tashi Ngasol ceremony as my true Queen, and as such children born from her are the legitimate princes and princesses. In the case of Yangki, she is only a girlfriend and not a legitimate wife, and as such children born from her cannot be considered royal children but are to be considered as illegitimate children.

You should never give any Government service and status to Yangki’s children. If you grant them status, it will create problems for you. It will be enough to treat them like other Bhutanese subjects.

I have given them adequate wealth, so they should not face any hardship. In case they do face hardships, maybe you will help them.

In case I die, let them stay outside the country for a few years; after that do as you deem necessary. The reason why I am saying all this is for your own benefit.”

~ Jigme

Despite the king’s efforts to make the best of a bad situation and provide for his children born out of wedlock, Yangki, her father and their Tibetan cohorts had other ideas.

The Failed Assassination

King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk passed away in 1972 but it was not until 1974 that his heir, Prince Jigme Singye Wangchuk, was to be crowned the king of Bhutan. Following the insidious plot hatched by Gyalo Thondup, the Tibetans set out to murder Prince Jigme Singye Wangchuk and burn down not only the royal palace but also Bhutan’s administrative headquarters. They even managed to smuggle more than 12 trucks of weaponry into the country.

During the ensuring panic and pandemonium, the conspirators planned to install one of Yangki’s illegitimate male children as the monarch, and the group of Tibetans behind the coup would have moved into positions of authority. If the plot had been successful, Bhutan would have come under the control of this group and indirectly, the Tibetan leadership. However, a secret meeting of the Bhutanese National Assembly took steps against the conspirators and with the help of Indian intelligence agencies, the plot was foiled. Yangki fled to India with her family where she settled and lived in exile. Other members of the Tibetan cohort were arrested by the authorities, tried and convicted for their involvement. Prince Jigme Singye Wangchuk went on to become the king.

Map of Bhutan, Nepal and India. Click to enlarge.

To prevent such a situation from arising again, the Bhutanese government had to act appropriately. The government knew that if Tibetans were left to their own devices and were allowed to remain without integrating into Bhutanese society, Tibetans would:

• Continue to retain their Tibetan identity. This separation from the Bhutanese population would give rise to increased resentment on both sides. The Bhutanese would resent the Tibetans for being refugees, while the Tibetans would presumably make further attempts to take over the country, egged on by the Tibetan leadership who desperately sought a land they could rule.
• Continue to protest for the ‘Tibetan cause’. This would not only disrupt the peace in Bhutan, but would hinder its move towards modernization and jeopardize future relations with foreign powers.

An archived news article published in The New York Times about the plot to assassinate Jigme Singye Wangchuk before his coronation as the king of Bhutan. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1974/
06/02/archives/bhutan-reports-plot-to-kill-king-regime-accuses-tibetans-on-eve-of.html.

Shockingly, the CTA opposed the Bhutanese government’s 1979 ultimatum. Instead of securing their people’s future as legitimate citizens of a nation state, with all the benefits it provides, they chose to keep the 6,300 Tibetans within Bhutan’s borders as refugees. Bhutan even accused CTA officials of creating difficulties for the Tibetan refugees, although the Tibetans living in Bhutan had already accepted that Bhutan was the country of their future.

Despite the CTA’s objections, 2,300 Tibetans decided to become Bhutanese citizens, swearing allegiance to the king, and integrating into the country’s society. They became full citizens with all the rights accorded to them by law. The remainder resettled in India, where they continued to live under the yoke of the CTA, although some later chose to move to Europe and North America.

Since that time, Bhutan has remained quiet on the issue of the Tibetans, obviously scarred from the devious plot to overthrow the Bhutanese monarchy and plunge the country into chaos. But what does this incident tell us about how the Bhutanese government thinks about the Tibetans?

• The Bhutanese government was not prejudiced against Tibetans. They simply wanted them to integrate into Bhutanese society for the sake of harmony and peace. Not only that, but the Tibetans would have access to all the legal rights, services, and the economic potential that every Bhutanese citizen has.
• They wanted to avoid disagreements and struggles with China, something that both Nepal and India had to deal with in the succeeding years. Once the ‘Tibetan refugee’ situation was removed, the Bhutanese could remain focused on developing their country rather than worrying about international relations.
• They wanted to ensure that Tibetans who remained in Bhutan became contributing members of the country’s Gross National Happiness philosophy rather than relying on hand-outs.

Despite the CTA being exposed for trying to assassinate the country’s beloved future monarch, Bhutan never retaliated. Instead it took a compassionate stance towards the Tibetans, understanding that harmony could never be achieved by keeping the Tibetans as refugees. This was a lesson that the likes of Nepal and India did not learn, and are suffering for now.

It is unfortunate that the CTA have a track record of making the lives of Tibetans difficult no matter where in the world they are. Just as Bhutan accused the CTA of creating issues where there were none to begin with, the CTA is also known to ostracize, discriminate and actively persecute whole swathes of their own society, from the Jonangpas to Dorje Shugden practitioners.

In keeping their people divided and in constant need of support, the CTA have crippled the Tibetan society in-exile. The CTA has failed to provide the Tibetans with a secure future and if the CTA continues down this path, Bhutan will not be the last nation state to remove them from their borders. One day, as countries seek to integrate the Tibetans rather than keep them as refugees, the Tibetan culture and heritage outside the Tibet Autonomous Region of China will cease to exist forever.

Bhutan and Dorje Shugden

The 4th Zhabdrung Rinpoche Jigme Norbu was an ardent practitioner of Guru Rinpoche and Dorje Shugden.

Unbeknownst to many Tibetan Buddhist practitioners, Buddhism in Bhutan has a long and established link to the practice of the enlightened Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. To understand the tremendous impact of this relationship, one must trace the annals of history back to the time of Bhutan’s legendary founder, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal.

Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal was the first in a successive line of reincarnations that spread the Drukpa Kagyu tradition in Bhutan and secured the country as an independent nation state. He was not only the reincarnation of Kunkhyen Pema Karpo, the 4^th Gyalwang Drukpa, and therefore an emanation of Chenrezig; but he was also the figure who effectively ensured Bhutan’s independence and defended it against waves of attacks from Mongolian and Tibetan invaders during the time of the 5^th Dalai Lama. After his passing, three of his reincarnations were identified, each representing emanations of his body, speech and mind. However, only one of the three i.e. the mind emanation was enthroned as his successor and was named the 1^st Zhabdrung Rinpoche.

The First Zhabdrung Rinpoche: Jigme Drakpa I

Jigme Drakpa was born in 1724 in the mountain ranges of Yoru, Tibet. He was enthroned at the age of 23 and became a fully ordained monk. At the age of 25, he entered a three-year retreat at Cheri Monastery, following the Kagyu tradition. Engaging in both the generation and completion stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, he gained many spiritual attainments and dedicated his life to serving sentient beings and spreading the Buddhist doctrine. However, his deeds led others to become envious. He was poisoned and subsequently passed away in 1761.

The Second Zhabdrung Rinpoche: Chokyi Gyeltsen

Born in 1762, Chokyi Gyeltsen was enthroned at a young age. Receiving both novice and full monastic ordination, he had not yet completed his studies when again jealousy overtook the minds of others. He was poisoned and passed away in 1788. He was just 27 years old at the time.

The Third Zhabdrung Rinpoche: Jigme Drakpa II

Jigme Drakpa II was born in Bumdeling, Bhutan in 1791. He was enthroned at a young age, and began his study of the monastic codes of conduct as well as sutra and tantra. He also received teachings on the generation and completion stages of Highest Yoga Tantra. While at Talo Sangak Choling Monastery, he expanded the main prayer hall and later took responsibility for the entire institution. He is also noted to have invited a Dharma Protector from Samye Monastery in Tibet, and built a chapel for the Protector.

When he was just 20, he assumed both spiritual and secular responsibility for the country. However, those with untoward intent fostered problems between him and another of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal’s reincarnations who was identified as the speech emanation. Manifesting great disappointment, he resigned from his position as the country’s leader only a year after he had assumed power. He spent the rest of his life in the monastery, practicing and meditating. He passed away in 1830.

The Fourth Zhabdrung Rinpoche: Jigme Norbu

The fourth of the Zhabdrung mind incarnations was Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu (1831-1861 CE). He was born into the respected family line of the renowned Bhutanese Nyingma tertön (discoverer of hidden Buddhist teachings) Pemalingpa (1450-1521 CE).

The 4th Zhabdrung Rinpoche Jigme Norbu. Click on image to enlarge.

Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu received his education from many of the Je Khenpos or supreme heads of Buddhism within Bhutan. These included Sherab Gyeltsen (the 25^th Je Khenpo), Padma Zangpo (the 27^th/29^th Je Khenpo), Jampel Gyatso (the 30^th Je Khenpo), and Yonten Gyeltsen (the 31^st Je Khenpo).

After being positively identified as the reincarnation of the 3^rd Zhabdrung Rinpoche, Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu was enthroned as the 4^th mind emanation of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal. He was also enthroned as the desi, the secular ruler of the country. Not wanting to remain a monk, he took on a consort named Dechen Tsomo in order to practice advanced Mahamudra meditation.

It was with his consort that he fathered a daughter named Rinchen Tsomo. This did not sit well with the elite of Bhutanese society of the time. Combined with false allegations of his involvement in a failed political coup, he decided to resign from his positions in 1852. He then left his monastic seat of Talo Sangak Choling and travelled to Tibet for some time. Later, he returned to Gorina Monastery in Bhutan, which was originally founded by one of his teachers, Sherab Gyeltsen, and entered clear light at the age of 31.

Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu wrote many texts throughout his life. A compilation of these works, titled ‘The Collected Works of the Fourth Zhabdrung Tulku of Bhutan, Jigme Norbu (1831-1861)‘ was published by the National Library of Bhutan in 1984. Contained within this compilation are various rituals to powerful and important Dharma Protectors such as invocation liturgies, torma offerings and verses of praise to Mahakala, Tsering Chenga, Shingkongma, Palden Lhamo, Tsiu Marpo, Rahula and Dorje Shugden.

A Closer Look at Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s Dorje Shugden Texts

Upon closer examination, Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s Collected Works contain numerous mentions of Dorje Shugden throughout. Specific sections are even dedicated to this enlightened Dharma Protector. For instance, in Volume ‘NA’ of his collected works, which is a 50-page Request for Fulfilment of Activities to All Protectors, Dorje Shugden is mentioned repeatedly, alongside the other Protectors listed above.

Volume NA of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s Collected Works. Click to enlarge.

The prayer begins with mentions of Guru Rinpoche in the form of Pema Totreng or the “Powerful Lotus Garland of Skulls”. This form of Guru Rinpoche was particularly favored by the tertön Pemalingpa and his followers.

Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu composed this text when he was just 27 years old, at the monastery of Ngenlung Sangwa Chenpo Zhelmey Khang. According to the colophon, the author’s name is given as Chime Wangchuk, which is one of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s many known aliases.

According to the colophon, the author of the first part of the prayer is Chime Wangchuk, a known alias of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu. Click to enlarge.

The next part of this work is a daily torma offering ritual to various Dharma Protectors including Dorje Shugden. The authorship of this ritual is also attributed to Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu under the alias Dorje Chechog Dupa Tsel, who composed it after he was requested to do so by the ever-faithful Dagmo Kelsang Karma Tsomo.

The colophon indicates that the author of the daily torma offering ritual is Dorje Chechog Dupa Tsel, another of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s known aliases. Click to enlarge.

A comprehensive list of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s many aliases, as compiled by the Buddhist Digital Resource Center, can be seen below. The Buddhist Digital Resource Center is a reputable US-based non-profit organization that seeks out, preserves, and disseminates Buddhist literature.

A comprehensive list of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s many aliases from the Buddhist Digital Resource Center.

Dorje Shugden’s importance to Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu is most clearly evidenced in Volume “PHA” of his Collected Works, which is a collection of fulfillment rituals to all protectors known as Pawo Jiglu. An entire section of this volume (21 pages in total) is dedicated solely to Dorje Shugden, and includes his visualization, invocation, offerings, torma offerings, praise, fulfilment offering, confessional and enthronement prayers.

Volume PHA of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s Collected Works. Click to enlarge.

It is important to note Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s assertion within Volume PHA that Dorje Shugden is the collection of all the Buddhas’ power. This can be seen in the first line of his praise and it references Dorje Shugden’s unmistaken enlightened nature.

Another important point of note is that throughout the ritual, there are numerous examples of Dorje Shugden’s intricate connection and association with Guru Rinpoche. This is not commonly found in other ritual texts. For example, a confessional verse reads:

“Ordered to protect the essential doctrine
By Padma Wang and Jamyang father and sons
Heruka and Vajrakapalamalin [Guru Rinpoche],
Dorje Shugden and retinue consider me.”

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

In another verse within the enthronement prayer, Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu writes:

“Fully empowered and Vajra-sealed
By deathless Vidyadhara Vajrakapalamalin
[Guru Rinpoche Pema Totreng]
To protect the general and specific doctrine,
I enthrone you as the Great King of Dharma Protectors.“

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

In view of the unique manner in which Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu combines praises and petitions to both Guru Rinpoche and Dorje Shugden within the same ritual text and even within the same verse, it is highly likely that Dorje Shugden was not only a Protector of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu, but also one who has a special connection to all the people of Bhutan.

Downloads

• Click here to download Volume NA.
• Click here to download Volume PHA.
• Click here to download Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s collected works.

Drukpa Kunley

Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s writings on Dorje Shugden have many similarities with those of the 17^th century Bhutanese Drukpa Kagyu master, Drubwang Dreuley Tenzin Zangpo, who is also known to have propitiated Dorje Shugden. Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo is considered to be the third reincarnation of Drukpa Kunley, the Bhutanese mahasiddha.

Known and loved all over Bhutan for his outlandish mahasiddha behavior and magnificent spiritual attainments, Drukpa Kunley led a very interesting life. He was one of the Nyönpas (“madmen”), a group of spiritual masters who, on an outward level, appeared to be behaving completely in opposition to the Buddhist teachings, but inwardly had great spiritual attainments. Their behavior included eating meat, drinking alcohol, singing, dancing, and engaging in sexual activity.

A painting of Drukpa Kunley

Drukpa Kunley was born in 1455 and was the great grandson of Yeshe Rinchen, a known emanation of Manjushri. From a young age, he showed signs of renunciation and took ordination, receiving the name Kunga Legpa. Around the age of seven, his father, Nangso Rinchen Zangpo, was murdered due to conflict with his paternal uncle. He spent the next six years of his life as a servant. During this time, he realized that if he did not practice the Dharma, his life would be wasted. And so he travelled to U province, giving away his worldly possessions which included a rosary made of 50 pieces of amber, a turquoise earring and a yellow ochre horse.

Arriving at Ralung Monastery, he stayed there for a short while, receiving his main teachings from his root teacher Lhatsun Kunga Chogyam. These included teachings on the body’s energy channels, the Nyingpo Kor, and grammar. He also received teachings on tummo (inner heat meditation) and Mahamudra (Great Seal meditation). He received layman’s vows and novice monastic ordination from Nenying Choje and full ordination from Zhalu Khyen Rabpa. He also received the complete teachings of the Buddha from various erudite Rimé masters such as Kungpo Sangye.

Ralung Monastery

Having attained complete realization of both the sutra and tantra paths within Buddhism, Drukpa Kunley understood that self-liberation, bodhicitta and samaya (spiritual commitment) vows are all contained within the tantric vows, so he returned his monastic vows to the Three Jewels. He had come to the understanding that protecting the mind was more important than outward appearances. It was from then on that the great master manifested the behavior of a madman. Even so, he was extremely compassionate, providing people with whatever they needed, from water and wealth to teaching the Dharma.

One interesting tale recounts his meeting with two other “madmen”, known as the madman Heruka of Tsang (Tsangnyon Heruka) and the madman Kunga Zangpo of U (Unyon Kunga Zangpo). All three happened to meet each other and travelled to Tsari, southeast of Lhasa. Deciding to leave something behind for faith to arise in the minds of future disciples, Tsangnyon Heruka left his footprint in a stone and Unyon Kunga Zangpo left his handprint. Drukpa Kunley however exclaimed that leaving a print in a stone was as easy as leaving a print in the mud for him, and he declared that even his dog could do it. Drukpa Kunley then caught a dog and placed its paw on the stone, where it left an impression.

Drukpa Kunley or Kunga Legpa

Drukpa Kunley also studied under the master Pemalingpa who, as we saw earlier, was the forefather of Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu. Drukpa Kunley’s outrageous behavior is said to have shocked people out of their preconceived notions and misconceptions about not only secular life, but on a higher level, spirituality too.

Drukpa Kunley’s impact on Bhutanese culture cannot be underestimated. He is still honored in religious murals, rituals, and artwork throughout the country. Known as the ‘Madman of the Dragon Lineage’, his legacy lies in his crazy methods of bringing people to enlightenment. Another of his epithets is the ‘Saint of 5,000 Women’, since most of his disciples were female. His strange behavior however was moist with Buddhist teachings.

One story recounts the importance of holding vows. Upon entering a monastery, he emitted a beautiful fragrance while walking past some young monks. As he approached the older monks however, he farted, emitting a foul odor. When confronted, he told the older monks that what they smelled was a reflection of how well or badly they were holding their morality and vows.

The divine madman, Drukpa Kunley. Click to enlarge.

Drukpa Kunley is also known for his unconventional methods of teaching people about desire and attachment. There are numerous accounts of how he would lay down naked in the middle of the road with his private parts exposed and erect. Nuns would walk past him, at first showing how shocked they were, but then coming closer and talking amongst themselves. When asked why he was doing this, he would reply that he was not doing anything at all, and that it was the nuns who were making a spectacle of him. He would then proceed to grant them profound teachings about desire, attachment and how to overcome them.

Towards the end of his life, Drukpa Kunley was invited to Nangkatser. There, he realised he would pass away soon after a rainbow appeared and shone onto his right foot. So, he travelled to where his son, Zhingkyong Drukdrak was staying. He passed away at Thodlung Lampar Monastery and his body was cremated. Incredible images of deities and numerous relics were found in the ashes of his funeral pyre, and were later installed in a silver reliquary stupa.

During his lifetime, Drukpa Kunley served as the abbot of Nyel Dreuley Gon for a brief span of time. This small Drukpa Kagyu monastery was to become the seat of his incarnations, known as the Dreuley Tulkus. Drukpa Kunley was considered the first of his incarnation lineage and his second incarnation was known as Drubtho Rinpoche.

Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo

Drubwang Dreuley Ngawang Tenzin Zangpo was recognised as the third Dreuley Tulku by his root-teacher, Gyalwang Pagsam Wangpo. He was born into a servant family and showed signs of being spiritually attained, such as hooking a leg of lamb onto the rays of the sun.

From a young age, Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo was known to be very humble and held his vows strongly. He was a great meditator and became a well-known religious figure throughout the land. He is particularly noted to have received the initiation of Palden Lhamo and teachings on Mahamudra. He is also remembered for his memorization of the Abbreviated Kalachakra Tantra.

One of his later incarnations, the 5^th Dreuley Tulku, Drubwang Kunga Mingyur Dorje composed a prayer in which he praised the incomparable qualities of Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo:

“With his excellent compassion, he performed limitless deeds for the benefit of others,
Skilled in teaching Dharma to those of different propensities,
Teaching the definitive nectar to develop beings’ full understanding of enlightenment,
To the great saffron-clad monk, I make requests.”

It was this incarnation of the Dreuley lineage who began Bhutan’s close connection with Dorje Shugden. The great Gelugpa master Serkong Dorje Chang wrote that one of the earliest and most significant Dorje Shugden ritual texts, known as Petition to Dorje Shugden Tsel: Granting all Desired Activities was most likely co-composed by Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo and Morchen Kunga Lhundrub, a Sakya master. This work was so significant that Serkong Dorje Chang incorporated it into his own writings. It was also included in the extensive catalogue of Dorje Shugden texts compiled by the Mongolian master Lobsang Tamdin.

The Dorje Shugden prayer composed by Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo can be found in Volume KA of the Dorje Shugden bebum. Click to enlarge.

The colophon lists the authors of this Dorje Shugden text as Dreuley (the Drukpa Kagyu master Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo) and Morchen (the Sakya master Morchen Kunga Lhundrub). Click to enlarge.

Both Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo and Morchen Kunga Lhundrub are named in the colophon of the text as ‘Dreuley’ and ‘Morchen’ respectively. Serkong Dorje Chang further states that Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo authored the upper portion of the text while Morchen Kunga Lhudrub authored the lower portion. This text also appears in the Dorje Shugden bebum compiled by H.E. Guru Deva Rinpoche.

Like many other masters who composed texts to this enlightened Dharma Protector, Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo wrote reverentially of Dorje Shugden, with clear allusions to his enlightened nature. For instance, he writes:

“As such appears in the middle of open, wide space from the syllable tsa the King of Dharma, the lord of the powerful and magical, Dorje Shugden.”

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

And,

“Kye! Fast and powerful protector of the Buddhadharma
Overwhelmingly frightful body mandala,
Like the sun illuminating a coral mountain,
Blazing glory clothed as a renunciate,
With one face both wrathful and virtuous.”

The original Tibetan verse can be viewed here. Click to enlarge.

It is also known that Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu based his own Dorje Shugden compositions on that authored by Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo. Thus, it is logical to deduce that prayer texts to Dorje Shugden were easily available, indicative of the fact that his practice was once popular in Bhutan.

Downloads

• Click here to download Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo’s Dorje Shugden text.

Non-Sectarian Nature

In the present environment where divisions and schism based on religion are becoming pervasive, it is vital that we take special note of past Buddhist masters’ inclusiveness in their approach to practices and practitioners of other traditions.

Today, some people attempt to claim that Dorje Shugden is a sectarian Gelugpa protector, only practiced by a handful of Tibetan Buddhists. His practice is mistakenly labelled as wrong and not something we should engage in, but these people are ignoring historical facts – Dorje Shugden was practiced first in the Sakya tradition and, as we have seen, he was practiced in the Kagyu tradition too. Furthermore, his practice even spread to Bhutan centuries ago.

Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu was a Drukpa Kagyu master, but respected the Nyingma tradition and also propitiated Dorje Shugden. His view of Dorje Shugden’s nature is made clear in his reference to the Protector as being the “embodiment of all the Buddha’s power”. Only an enlightened being can be worthy of such a title, so it is an indication that Dorje Shugden is in fact an enlightened being, contrary to what others, including the Tibetan leadership would have you believe.

Dorje Shugden Tanag (Dorje Shugden on a Black Horse) originating from the Sakya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism

Hailing from such an important and revered incarnation lineage, it is impossible to believe that Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu would make a blunder in identifying Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. To say so would effectively nullify the entire lineage of Zhabdrung incarnations since that time, and even call into question the spiritual authority of his first incarnation, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal. Coupled with the fact that the Zhabdrung incarnations are believed to be emanations of Chenrezig, if one were to say that Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu was mistaken, it would be tantamount to claiming Chenrezig himself is wrong. Furthermore, since the Tibetan leadership are fond of declaring that the Dalai Lama cannot be wrong because he is an emanation of Chenrezig, surely the Bhutanese leadership should similarly back up Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s praise of Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector since he too is also an emanation of Chenrezig?

More than that however, Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu’s and Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo’s texts prove that Dorje Shugden is not a sectarian deity that protects only Gelug practitioners. Both Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu and Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo belonged to the Drukpa Kagyu lineage, which had by then incorporated Nyingma practices into their tradition. On the other hand, Morchen Kunga Lhundrub belonged to the Sakya tradition, which has a long history of Shugden propitiation. For such masters to compose texts to Dorje Shugden shows without question that Dorje Shugden practice can benefit anyone, regardless of what sect they belong to. Add to this the fact that Dagmo Kelsang Karma Tsomo, an ordinary practitioner, petitioned Zhabdrung Jigme Norbu to compose a daily torma offering which included Dorje Shugden is clear evidence of Dorje Shugden’s practice having once been popular in Bhutan.

Dorje Shugden, one of the Three Kings (Gyalpo Sum), is part of the Sakya pantheon of Dharma Protectors.

The Tibetan leadership regularly try to pass off lies and warped logic as truth. However, this is not unexpected from an autocratic regime that is only pretending to be a democracy. What is strange however is the unfortunate fact that Bhutan, a real democratic nation also banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, even though the country has such an intimate link to it.

The truth of the matter becomes clear when we understand Bhutan’s troublesome history with the Tibetan leadership. Nothing good has ever come from having any association with the Tibetan leadership and Bhutan is no exception. First it was the endless plots of the Tibetan government to get the better of Bhutan, then the assassination attempt on the life of Prince Jigme Singye Wangchuk. Thus, the Dorje Shugden practice may very well have been an attrition of the Bhutanese leadership’s loathing and fear of the Tibetan government, within whose ranks the practice of Dorje Shugden was once very common.

The Tibetan leadership’s wrongful segregation and discrimination of their own people based on their religious choices (Dorje Shugden practice) for political reasons would not have gone un-noticed by Bhutan’s leaders. So perhaps in order to prevent the Tibetan leadership from spreading the conflict into their borders, the Bhutanese government decided to take an unfortunate pre-emptive measure and banned Dorje Shugden before it became a trigger for division, infighting and strife to creep into Bhutan. Looking at the state of the Tibetan community, who could blame the Bhutanese government? But in doing so, they sacrificed an important component of Bhutanese history and part of their spiritual heritage.

A Real Buddhist Democracy

Comparing historical Bhutan with its modern version makes a few things very clear. Chiefly, it is thanks to the forward-thinking policies of their broadminded monarchy that Bhutan has managed to retain its unique identity, marrying 21^st century technological advancements with ancient Buddhist values as well as a practical appreciation for nature. This open-minded thinking has filtered down to every sector of Bhutanese society, allowing Bhutan and its people to decide for themselves what works best for them, at their own pace.

The 5th Druk Gyalpo His Majesty Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk and the current 70th Je Khenpo Tulku Jigme Choedra. The position of the Je Khenpos was created by none other than Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal.

Thus, we see in Bhutan today a model of what a successful Buddhist democracy truly looks like, where religious principles are an intrinsic part of everyday life for both ordinary citizens as well as the government. These Buddhist principles are applied to better the Bhutanese people’s lives instead of being used to manipulate them, as we see the Tibetan leadership do as a matter of habit. In this way, Bhutan has found a gentle and yet sure method of upholding and preserving its traditions. Unfortunately, due to the machinations of the Tibetan leadership in wanting to meddle in Bhutan’s affairs, the practice of Dorje Shugden was banned, denying everyday citizens their right and heritage to the practice.

ARTICLE 7 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A Bhutanese citizen shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. No person shall be compelled to belong to another faith by means of coercion or inducement… No one shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, sex, language, religion, politics, or other status. Source: The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan, nationalcouncil.bt

Both the Bhutanese and the Tibetan people once practiced Dorje Shugden. And both the Tibetan and Bhutanese governments banned the practice of Dorje Shugden for different reasons. And yet we see very different outcomes. The Tibetan leadership blamed Dorje Shugden for their political failures and the loss of the Tibetan nation. If the Tibetan people’s problems were truly related to Dorje Shugden, then the Tibetan leadership is still no better off after having institutionalized a prohibition against the protector practice. Clearly it has nothing to do with a deity but very much to do with the attitude and caliber of the Tibetan leadership.

An official statement banning Dorje Shugden’s practice in Bhutan, as issued by the 70th Je Khenpo. Click to enlarge.

The Bhutanese spiritual leadership banned Dorje Shugden too but the country prospered before the ban and continued to do so after. Again, it is clear that the fortune of the nation has nothing to do with Dorje Shugden or indeed any deity. Therefore, it is a shame that the Bhutanese people are still denied the Dorje Shugden practice, a very important aspect of their Buddhist heritage bestowed upon them by the holy line of the Zhabdrung Rinpoches.

The Bhutanese leadership have come a long way and must by now have the maturity to separate religion from politics and also the confidence to be a proper democratic state that allows its people to practice his or her faith openly, freely and without fear, even if they decide to resurrect the practice of Dorje Shugden which the 4^th Zhabdrung Rinpoche Jigme Norbu and Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo hailed. This is especially important given the fact that Dorje Shugden is a proven and indivisible part of their history.

Hopefully the Bhutanese nation will lead the way again and lean away from the medieval attitudes of the Tibetan government that have proven time and again to be the cause of much failure and grief to the people. Indeed, there are many lessons that the Tibetan leadership can learn from this mountainous Land of the Thunder Dragon and if Bhutan’s history is anything to go by, then one thing is for sure – the world has not heard the last of the dragon’s roar, nor the beautiful chant of Dorje Shugden prayers.

Addendum

The current incarnation of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal known as the 10th Zhabdrung Jigdrel Ngawang Namgyal was placed under unwarranted house arrest by the Bhutanese government as a young child. This news even appeared on the Buddhist Channel website. Click on the image below to read more.

Click to enlarge. (Source: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=40,3674,0,0,1,0#.WyK4w1Uzayp)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Himalayan region is known for its deep spirituality and, aside from Tibet, is one of the most renowned Buddhist nations in the region is Bhutan. Bhutanese monks are predominantly of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage as the result of their founding lama Ngawang Namgyal acting on the advice of Mahakala, and fleeing Tibet following an unresolved dispute about the true candidate of his incarnation.

Ngawang Namgyal, also known as Shabdrung Rinpoche, settled in Western Bhutan and unified Bhutan as a nation state, fending off three attacks by the Tsang Empire in the process. Once the Tsang Empire had been defeated by the Mongols, and the Fifth Dalai Lama was installed to the throne in Tibet, Shabdrung Rinpoche continued to successfully defend Bhutan from the invading forces of Tibetans and Mongols.

Aside from his prowess as a secular leader, Shabdrung Rinpoche was also deeply devoted to the Dharma and under his patronage, many monasteries were established, such as Cheri Monastery. He also promoted non-sectarianism in his land, allowing monks of the ancient Nyingma sect to remain – to this day, Nyingmas comprise of 30% of Bhutanese monks.

During Shabdrun Rinpoche’s time, the Tibetan influence continued to expand over the Himalayan region and Bhutan was not spared. The Tibetan government established a list of approved incarnation lineages; one of those established for the Drukpa subsect of the Kagyu lineage was the Dreuley line of incarnations, present in both Tibet and Bhutan.

Drubwang Drukpa Kunley

The Dreuley line of incarnations began with Drubwang Drukpa Kunley, a mahasiddha and an accomplished poet from Dreuley Monastery. Known as The Divine Madman of the Dragon Lineage, Drubwang Drukpa Kunley was renowned for his crazy methods of enlightening other beings.

With mostly female disciples, he thus also earned the name The Saint of 5000 Women. He was known, for example for walking into prayer halls and emitting a beautiful smell as he walked by younger monks; then, as he walked towards the older monks, he would fart and emit a very bad smell of faeces. When the monks confronted him about this, he would tell them that the smell is a reflection of how well or badly the monks were holding their vows and morality.

He was also very famous for his teachings in desire, often using very unconventional ways to point out people’s attachments and desires to them. For example, he would lay down on a public street with his private parts exposed and his penis erect. Nuns would walk past him, showing at first how shocked they were. Then, they would walk closer to him to look at his private parts, point and talk.

When they asked him why he was doing this and causing so much trouble, he would merely tell them that he was not doing anything – it was them who were making it a big spectacle out of it. He would then give them profound teachings about desire.

Both of Drukpa Kunley’s succeeding reincarnations did not live particularly long lives. Whilst Drukpa Kunley entered clear light at the age of 74, his succeeding incarnation Drukpa Dragpa Gyeltsen was just 25 years old when he passed into clear light. The third incarnation of the Dreuley lineage lived for just 58 years.

Despite his short life however, it was this incarnation of the Dreuley lineage who began the lineage’s close connection with Dorje Shugden. Serkong Dorje Chang writes that one of the earliest and most significant Dorje Shugden rituals, Petition to Dorje Shugden Tsel: Granting all Desired Activities, is most likely co-composed by the third Dreuley incarnation, Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo and Morchen Kunga Lhundrub. So significant it was that Serkong Dorje Chang would also later incorporate this ritual into his own writings and it was included in the extensive catalogue of Shugden texts and lineages compiled by Lobsang Tamdin.

Significant to note is the prayers within this text allude to the enlightened nature of Dorje Shugden. He is described for example, as Lord of Death, an epiteth for Dorje Shugden – this is not to be read literally, but as a reference to a kind of omniscience that is able to distinguish right from wrong, a characteristic that is specific only to fully enlightened beings. He is also alluded to as Avalokiteshvara or as a “Dharma king”, and praised in connection with Tulku Dragpa Gyeltsen, known to be a most superior lama.

It is interesting to note how many of these Lamas of the past wrote so reverentially of Dorje Shugden, with clear allusions to his enlightened nature. This does not at all collude with the more recent claims that he is only a worldly and malevolent spirit, and that his practice was only made up by Pabongka Rinpoche later in the 19th century.

Such was the power and blessings of this text, that it was used in Trode Khangsar in Lhasa and Riwo Choling in Lhoka. Its practice also spread as far as Mongolia, via the Sangphu oracle who travelled there and, when invoked to take trance, gave this ritual to a monk.

Future incarnations of the Dreuley lineage would come to find themselves fostering diplomatic relations. After many years of separation between Bhutan and Tibet, it was not until the fourth incarnation of the Dreuley lineage that reconciliation took place. During the time of the first Phola prince Miwang Pholhane Sonam Tobgye, Drukpa Kagyu Sangha in Tibet and Bhutan were encouraged to foster relations with one another in the hopes that the effects of positive dialogue would soon filter into the political realm.

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

I remember the admin posted this before, so I would like to repost here for everyone’s reference:

While the Sixteenth Karmapa (the previous Karmapa) was on a pilgrimage in Nepal he stopped at Urgyen Rinpoche’s new monastery. At that time the Nepalese king and queen were there and came out to greet him with a scarf.

When he went into the monastery there was a statue of Guru Dragpo with Dharmapala Shugden being pressed down under the statue’s feet. The Karmapa stood in the presence of the statue for awhile, then pointed his finger at it and asked “who is the person that said to build this statue? This isn’t Nyingma nor Sakya, certainly not Gelug and not Kagyu either. I didn’t say to build it, this is not one of the deities you can’t rely on.

Although the time is a little early in the future you will definitely need to rely on this deity.” Out of all the abbots and masters present not one came forward to answer. The Karmapa said “remove this now.” Immediately a person with an axe and shovel came and had to remove it. Many lamas present at that time definitely remember, a seventy five year old man from Chamdo called Samcho witnessed this event. – from Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche’s sungbum

The first four pictures below are some pictures of the opening in 1976. Now, the founder of the monastery above is Kagyu, and the monastery was built under the direction of the 16th Karmapa, following the ‘new treasures of Chokgyur Lingpa’.  Hence, the Karmapa has a “say” during the opening.  What does a Kagyu monastery have against a protector of another lineage? It seems rather odd.

The Nyingma monastery in Pharping, as far as I know, it only started building around 10 years ago and follows the Ripa lineage. I am not sure whether the Dorje Drolo is still stepping on a monk, but I have seen the initial drawings of the statues. I have included 2 drawings with the recent pictures below. If the Karmapa disapproved of the particular form, why is it still being made then (10 years back) and now?

I could be wrong, but perhaps this is just plain politics, especially in Nepal where all schools of Buddhism and monasteries are out there to compete for survival, earning tourist bucks and the support of local community is more important than real Buddhadharma? However, this does not justify the derogatory portrayal of another lineage’s protector, definitely un-Buddhist? :-[ I hope the time that Karmapa’s prophecised will come soon.

by Vajraprotector

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.30

I have been edging to write this for the longest time to share this view of what has been both draining my well-being as well as empowering my spiritual self to clear the frustration and negative emotions arising from this unfortunate spiritual suppression.

Loving Shugden

At the early time, entering into the teaching of the Tathagata,
you rose in the form of Vinaya-holding Bhikshu,
thus you protect all the teachings of the Sravaka-Pitaka without exception, I prostrate to you.

As we all know and agree that Dorje Shugden is by no fault an enlightened Being of the highest nature. Openly portraying himself as the sacred protector of Manjunatha Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings, he had vowed to arise as an UNCOMMON protector of the sublime Gaden lineage. This form which He has dutifully taken in order to serve his Spiritual Master with the interest to preserve the holy lineage which is unmistakenly clear and lucidly outlines the path to Supreme Enlightenment.

It is therefore with great responsibility that this noble monk, Je Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen in his lifetime chose to arise during his murder as this uncommon protector. The controversies surrounding this historical figure today has lead to many uncalled for mental anguish and material deprivation. The ban since its conceptualization and beginning has pushed Tibetan Buddhism especially the lineage of the Gaden tradition to the forefront. Both negative and positive feedback has been received by the media and people around the world which denotes the amount of care and hate people have for this deity.

The current result; people have heard about Tibetan Buddhism, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, Lamas, Rinpoches, Geshes, and of course Dorje Shugden. Without any doubt it has triggered in the recipient’s mind that such things exist. Those who are concerned showed signs of care which triggers the dormant compassion in them, allowing a seed of liberation in the form of Compassion and Love to sprout in barren grounds of today’s world of advanced technology.

Those who show hate and malice towards the deity, lineage masters and that of the tradition collects a certain amount of negative karma but in nature connects with the Buddha nature within. A Buddha is a Buddha, any thought of hatred or malice would not harm Him, but only plant seeds of enlightenment for the future. Either way things will work out fine.

The ancient Kadampa masters always tells us to think with broad and expansiveness of the mind, look further into the future and we shall be able to do more to benefit others. Such is the nature of an enlightened Mind which we need to badly nurture. This thought coupled with compassion and skillful means brings us yonder to a world better known as Bliss.

The wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden’s encompassing qualities of body, speech, mind, qualities and activities renders such an amazing chance for sentient beings who are sunk in the seas of Samsara to be able to obtain his sacred blessing in this way. He is therefore a Buddha WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION!

Je Pabongkha Dechen Nyingpo, HH Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang, HH Zong Dorje Chang, HH Zemey Dorje Chang are lineage masters without fault in conduct and practice which we can see living proofs of what these masters have contributed towards the people of Tibet and humanity in itself. The spread of the untainted doctrine of Lama Tsongkhapa through these masters of which have benefitted thousands in India, China, Mongolia and Tibet during the prime time of their life has made so much impact in the minds of those who receive their teachings.

Today, we see their lineage grow through hardworking living masters who have transformed from practice and perfected them before passing onto others whom in turn made a huge impact in their life. How is this possible? The enlightened mind works in reference to the happiness of other people and not on the self. Hence, the protector of these highly evolved beings is definitely a Buddha of great Compassion!

Within a short span of time and given the geographical and demographical set downs of Tibet, the practice of Dorje Shugden has definitely outshone many older teachings which had originated in Tibet. During times of hardship when the people and their religion was put down badly to the point of extermination, Dorje Shugden held these people within the folds of his robes and ensured them safety. Such is the display of his unfeigned powers of protection.

A good example was Dorje Shugden’s powers in shielding the Dalai Lama on HH’s escape from Lhasa to India. Without doubt Dorje Shugden’s powers have ensured a nation in exile to have a spiritual leader today. Definitely to be able to protect the Dalai Lama from the Red Guard would not only mean skillful magical powers but the merit to put on hold negative karma from ripening on the people who will be without a refuge in the world. Dorje Shugden is the wrathful King of Dharma Protectors in which we can take refuge for whatever obstacles we may face for His might is infallible!

Uncommon in any tradition of Buddhism, Dorje Shugden arises to teach when the Dharma is degenerating. True to his predecessor’s personalities, Dorje Shugden is a master of both Sutras and Tantric teachings. On top of that, he is the sacred holder of the Vinaya which is the root of all Buddhist texts, views and attainments.

From time to time through his emanations, trances and magical manifestations, Dorje Shugden has arisen and will arise to propagate the special view of Je Tsongkhapa. From here we can see that Dorje Shugden does not only support other Lamas and Rinpoche’s well being for them to spread the sacred Dharma, he takes it upon himself to do the job at times. This makes him a very special being and protector because he provides the SAME PROTECTION to both Dharma and sentient beings.

Recollecting the above few points which I have highlighted, it is safe for us to accept and love Dorje Shugden. A protector Buddha with characteristics such as I’ve mentioned above would not harm anyone regardless who they are. If they cannot harm beings such as Trijang Rinpoche, why would He want to harm HHDL and the cause of Tibet? If he is so malicious, it would be right for Trijang Rinpoche, the junior tutor of HHDL to warn us also. If Trijang Rinpoche is wrong, HHDL will have to be wrong also! And there goes the rest of the world of Buddhism.

Loving Dorje Shugden means to embrace the teachings of his spiritual master, Je Tsongkhapa. By practicing the paths of Lojong(Mind Transformation), Lamrim(Stages of the Path) and Mahamudra(the Great Seal) one delights the heart of Dorje Shugden and we will be blessed. A demon would not require this of us to make him happy. A demon would only want flesh and blood from jealousy and malice to destroy ourselves and the people around us. Love, for many of us is attachment, love for Dorje Shugden is Liberation.

Love all Lamas

We are fortunate to be able to be reborn in this era where technology has brought our living standards to a point whereby we do not need to endure hardships for our daily needs. Our material needs are pretty much taken care of. Education is affordable though may vary according to our family background but we will not be easily left uncared for. On top of that, we are more fortunate to have met our Spiritual Guide of a valid tradition stemming from Buddha Shakyamuni’s time. If we have such fortune, we should really appreciate and rejoice in the merits which we have amassed over time.

With technology also, we have access to highly evolved beings such as HHDL and Lamas of traditions of Lord Buddha. These traditions sprouted when Dharma was bare in the lands of barbarians and these masters and their patriachs went through hardships and sacrifice to establish the good news of the sacred Dharma in these lands. We need to understand the nature of Dharma which is very precious and not easy to phatom in the minds of the unsown. The amount of love, work, cajoling, beating, punishments etc in order to get the Dharma settled within our mindstream.

Whether their actions are wrathful or peaceful, their motivation is focused in bringing the Dharma, the nectar which is the medicine to heal our sufferings and negative emotions. This is done in order to uplift us and bring us to come to terms with ourselves in peace and happiness. And on a higher level, empower us to empower others with the holy words and practice of the Omniscient Lord Buddha. This is done in order to preserve the wondrous holy Dharma which we have received much benefit from. We need to keep it alive so that the generations that come after us may be able to benefit from it as well.

Different views and points highlighted during the process of teaching and disseminating the Dharma is often misread as means to oppose another party. The differences in teachings are not meant to be contradictory but to be complimentary by the Buddha himself. This is further elucidated by masters of the Middle view such as the great mendicant Nagarjuna, Lord of the Pervasive view. When you structurally put it focused onto smaller things and put people into view on a single subject, we would not be able to achieve harmony in terms of realizing the essence of what these views has been put onto us.

Similarly when we approach one Lama and we are taught one thing but the next Lama whom we meet teaches us something contradicting, we should examine ourselves and not the qualified Lamas. Traditionally, when we engage in practice with one Lama, we should stick to only His Eminence and not move to another without the permission of the first. This is clearly stated in the 50 verses of Guru Devotion.

We should not be masters of ourselves and make decisions for our spiritual path without proper consultation and permission from our current gurus. From this, we create causes to be suitable vessels for the Dharma to be in us. Our minds will be at ease and not cluttered from the things we hear. Having dispelling unnecessary obstacles, we create a platform for attainments and realizations to grow within ourselves.

Hence, it is important to LOVE OUR LAMAS and in abiding with their wishes, we create a very harmonious platform for teachers of all traditions to teach their disciples in accordance with their dispositions. This is very essential of today’s world as this would have lessened the sufferings of members of the Sangha who have worked very hard in getting the sacred Dharma to us. By loving our Lamas, we LOVE ALL LAMAS from every tradition and lineage of Lord Buddha disregarding race, color and orientation. Making the Buddhist world a better place to study and gain realization from our practice.

Our minds are weak, hence we need the nectar of our Lama’s speech to empower us to be better people. With concentration and discerning analysis of our Lamas’ words, we are not easily confused and will have the faith to act in accord with our Lama’s wishes to get things done for the happiness of many. The confusion with the Dorje Shugden ban would be easily lifted if it we loved our Lamas without agenda for ourselves. This would have cleared much doubt and confusion with the people of Tibet suffering from the ban. For us watching from the front, we should look deeper into the problem and understand it thoroughly before we jump into any conclusion.

Creating this strong loving platform of awareness, we save many people from undesired state of confusion and unhappiness. I am writing this to create awareness for us to have clean Samayas with our Spiritual Guide for it is through them many attainments will arise in our mind stream. Loving our teacher means we listen to EVERYTHING THEY SAY and follow all the way.

Heal the world

Healing a world damaged and hurt by pollutions of the mind and physical pollution is by far the hardest and most mind boggling task to do in this era and time. Convenience is the great cause for this to happen. The peace which we envision for the world today might not be what we can achieve with our own two hands. But here’s what I think is possible:

Promoting the Gaden tradition:

Our tradition is rich with the fruits of all four schools of Buddhism in Tibet (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Kadam) we shall promote Lama Tsongkhapa’s tradition in accordance with the disposition of the people of today. People from all walks of life should bask in the sunshine of the Gaden tradition. In doing so, we promote spiritual harmony amongst other schools too!

Dorje Shugden – Protector of Universal Peace

Like the mother Matzu of China/Taiwan, this deity has been honored by the UNESCO as one of its world peace ambassadors. We can write and promote Dorje Shugden as means of UNIVERSAL PEACE for all.

Go Vegetarian

Peace is a result of non-violence, I urge everyone who reads this to dedicate one week of your vegetarian diet towards this cause. Make a prayer to Dorje Shugden and dedicate it to this cause. Earnest prayers coupled with action begets results.

Raise awareness of the sufferings of suppression

Monks who are practitioners of Dorje Shugden are suppressed for their religious beliefs, we need to raise awareness about this matter and release these monks from their confusion and mental turmoil.

Prayer of Universal Peace

I believe Dorje Shugden promises peace within ourselves and to the people around us whom we love. He is Manjushri, lord of ultimate wisdom who cuts asunder our negative emotions and provides us with the wisdom needed for a better world. Doing his prayer COLLECTIVELY would create the causes for this to happen.

Above are 5 points which I have in mind through this website which we can help achieve Universal Peace and in return create causes for the ban to be lifted. Do take a good read and give your feedback on what we can do to make this happen!

As no-one desires the slightest suffering
Nor ever has enough of happiness,
There is no difference between myself and others,
So let me make others joyfully happy – bless me thus!

Harry Nephew
dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=1605.0

His Eminence Loden Sherab Rinpoche’s previous incarnation was the great translator Loden Sherab (1059–1109). The translator Loden Sherab was one of the renowned masters who went through much hardship to bring the Dharma texts from India to Tibet. Loden Sherab travelled to India and translated Dharma texts at Bodhgaya Monastery, and it was from here that he brought the infallible dharma protector Dharmapala Setrab to Tibet.

Five hundred years later, it was Dharmapala Setrab who rescued Dorje Shugden from being burnt during the fire pujas that were performed by Mindrolling Lama, one of the most skilled lamas in overcoming spirits. Mindrolling Lama had been tasked by the 5th Dalai Lama to exorcise Dorje Shugden but it was in vain as Dorje Shugden was not a spirit. Setrab has a very special relationship with Dorje Shugden, and Setrab is clearly depicted within Dorje Shugden’s mandala. The current Loden Sherab Rinpoche had the previous Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche as one of his main teachers.

The Lineage of the Dagyab Kyabgoens

The lineage of the Kyabgoens, “Lords of Protection”, of Dagyab goes back to Dragpa Gyatso (1572 – 1638). He was born in the region of Dagyab into a family who were followers of the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Dragpa Gyatso went to study at Ganden Monastery near Lhasa in Central Tibet and became a well-known Gelugpa teacher and meditation master. After completion of his studies the 4th Dalai Lama, Yonten Gyatso (1589-1616), asked him to return to Dagyab to help people there in their spiritual pursuits. Back in Dagyab he gave many teachings and spent several years meditating in a cave that had a protruding rock outcrop. That is how he later became known by that name. His activities also took him to neighboring regions formerly called Chayuel, Kyongyuel, and Getshang. He accumulated a large following and his disciples became so devoted to him that, out of gratitude, they offered him all their land. Eventually, this led to the unification of these regions into one county which constitutes present day Dagyab County. He spent the rest of his life in Dagyab and because his vast activities brought much benefit and happiness to the area, he was later known as the Kyabgoen of Dagyab, the Protector Lord of Dagyab.

Since the 4th Kyabgoen of Dagyab, all following reincarnations have additionally held the title Hothogthu Nomonhan (Eng. Noble; Tib. ‘phags-pa, Skr. Arya). Hothogthus are among a small group of the highest ranking reincarnated lamas who were often reincarnations of Regents of Tibet. The present 9th Dagyab Kyabgon is the only Hothogthu living in the west.

In a prayer dedicated to the lineage of the Dagyab Kyabgoens, several Indian and Tibetan masters are mentioned as previous reincarnations of the Dagyab Kyabgoens. The most well known among them is the great translator Loden Sherab (1059-1109) from Central Tibet. Therefore, the Dagyab Kyabgoens were also known as Lama Loden Sherab. This name remains until the present. Thus the current 9th Kyabgoen of Dagyab holds the name H.E. Loden Sherab Dagyab Kyabgoen Rinpoche.

Finding the Reincarnation

In 1942/43, a delegation came from Dagyab to Menya in search of the reincarnation of the previous Kyabgoen of Dagyab. The delegates wanted to particularly examine one candidate, the then 2-year-old boy, Tsering Wangden of the Sampa-khapa family. The report of their findings was sent to the Central Tibetan government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a final decision.

At that time, the young boy had already been recognized as the reincarnation of the head lama of Giwakha Monastery in Menya. In 1944, the Dagyab delegation returned to Menya with the official recognition by the Dalai Lama of the four-year-old boy as the reincarnation of the late Dagyab Kyabgoen. Subsequently, this caused a conflict between the Giwakha and Dagyab monasteries. Until the dispute was settled Rinpoche had to stay in the monastery of Ngamchoe Goenpa in Dartsedo (Chinese “Khangdiang”), which is a border town and served as a neutral place. He stayed there for one year and nine months. During that time the people of Dagyab were not allowed to see him. It was then decided to perform seven days of prayers to Setrab, a protector deity. The ceremonies were to conclude in a divination that would decide on the issue. There were three choices: he was either the head of the Giwakha or the Dagyab monastery, or of both monasteries together. The divination fell in favor of Dagyab. As compensation,, the Dagyab delegation had to give the Giwakha monastery many material goods. Dagyab Rinpoche’s cousin, Choekyi Gyaltsen, was later recognized as the head lama of Giwakha monastery.

When Rinpoche was five years old, he moved from Dartsedo to Dagyab county. As soon as he reached the border the traditional first hair cutting ceremony was performed by Tsangsar Rinpoche, a highly respected Sakya lama in Dagyab. Tsangsar Rinpoche became Dagyab Rinpoche’s main teacher who taught and guided him in his Buddhist studies and practice for many years.

Rinpoche’s enthronement and early years of education

On the 3rd day of the 1st month of the Tibetan lunar calendar Rinpoche arrived at his principal monastery, Tashi Yangkyil which was also known as Magoen, in Yendum , the capital of Dagyab. On the very day of his arrival Rinpoche was formally enthroned as the 9th Kyabgoen of Dagyab. Representatives of the Central Tibetan government and of surrounding counties came to participate in the ceremony. A representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama presented him with a yellow brocade. Written on it in cinnabar red pigment was his new name given by the Dalai Lama himself “Lobsang Tenzin Choekyi Gyaltshen”.

After three days of elaborate ceremonies and celebrations, Rinpoche took residence in the Royal Houses, the so-called “Gyalkhang”. He stayed in its main building, the Red Palace “Phodrang Marpo”, until the age of fourteen.

Rinpoche’s parents came to see him often as they had moved with him from Menya. His father slept next to him until his death at the age of forty-nine. The Master of Robes “Zimpoen” was one of Rinpoche’s personal attendants who also slept there dutifully. One of his two bodyguards, “Zimgag”, alternately slept in the anteroom. His parents and a few relatives had been offered by the Dagyab Labrang to stay in the summer residence of the Kyabgoens, which was situated at the foot of the hill close to his own residence. Nowadays, the local government uses this residence. Rinpoche’s father, Lobsang Dorje, was given the title of “Denchang” , “key-holder”, which represented a promotion to a higher rank. From then on he worked in the main administrative office called “Yigtsang”.

From the age of seven, Rinpoche was taught to read Tibetan scripts by his private senior tutor Tsonsang Tulku. He had to memorize many Buddhist texts, learn chanting and how to play religious musical instruments for use in ceremonies. His junior tutor, Geshe Kalsang Phuntsog, was responsible for teaching Rinpoche these skills. Both tutors were very strict but his junior tutor, in particular, was also very kind and skillful.

Even though at that time there were no clocks, Rinpoche’s daily routine looked roughly like this:

4:00AM – 6:30AM learning by rote by the light of butter lamps

7:00AM – 12:00PM reading practice

2:00PM – 4:00PM writing practice, rituals, and the use of religious musical instruments

4:00PM – 6:00PM reading practice

7:30PM – 10:00PM reciting the text that he had to memorize

Rest on Sundays was unknown in Tibet. During the year there were a few holidays according to the Tibetan Lunar Calendar, such as during the Tibetan New Year. There were summer picnics in Changrag, the Willow Tree Park. Children’s toys were also virtually unknown. Young Rinpoche was permitted to play with lumps of dough to form figures and he was happy when he could play in the park by a small stream. He was always surrounded by adults and did not know any children of his own age. A small dog named Manga was his regular playmate. Rarely did he leave the Red Palace, except when attending ceremonies outside the monastery or when going on summer picnics. Every year on the 15th day of the fourth month of the Tibetan calendar celebrating Saga Dawa, Rinpoche circumambulated the entire monastery on a so-called korwa. Saga Dawa commemorates three auspicious events, Buddha Shakyamuni’s birthday, the day he attained enlightenment and the day he went into paranirvana, and therefore marks one of the most important days of celebration in Buddhism.

Rinpoche was also taught meditation practices by his tutors under whose guidance he undertook several retreats.

Rinpoche’s higher studies and the arrival of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army

 In 1950 the Chinese People’s Liberation Army entered Chamdo and establised the “Chamdo People’s Liberation Committee”. Even though Rinpoche was only nine years old at the time, the Chinese authorities urged him to participate in their first conference in Chamdo and to join a group of only eight of the highest-ranking dignitaries “Zhuren”, a position which he was obliged to accept.

It was customary for the Kyabgoen of Dagyab to travel to the outlying regions of Dagyab. This journey was meant for the benefit of the elderly and those unable to travel long distances to come and see Rinpoche at his monastery. On this six-month journey, he visited many farming and nomad areas, as well as monasteries and nunneries.

In 1954, at the age of fourteen, Rinpoche continued his studies at Drepung Loseling Monastery outside the capital of Lhasa in Central Tibet. At that time Drepung had about 9000 monks. He concentrated on the five main Buddhist philosophical subjects: Prajnaparamita, the perfection of wisdom; Madhyamika, the philosophy of the Middle Way; Vinaya, the canon of monastic discipline; Abidharma, metaphysics; and Pramana, logic and epistemology.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama appointed according to tradition the abbot of Drepung Loseling College, Ven. Geshe Pema Gyaltsen, as Rinpoche’s official tutor. Ven. Geshe Nyima Gyaltsen, Abbot of Shagkor Dratshang, also became his teacher in philosophy. Both were outstanding teachers of the time. The Dalai Lama himself received teachings from the latter. Rinpoche received most of the Vinaya and Abhidharmakosha teachings from Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, senior tutor to His Holiness the Dalai Lama later in the Indian Exile. Rinpoche received many Buddhist Sutra and Tantra teachings from 28 Masters. His main teachers are Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, who were the senior and junior tutors to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and His Holiness the Sakya Trizin.

In 1956, the Chinese Government set up the “Preparatory Committee for the Autonomous Region of Tibet” in Lhasa where Rinpoche had to attend weekly meetings on Fridays and Saturdays. Due to his high rank, he was given several titles by the Chinese government such as Wu Yuan of Standing Committee which he was obliged to accept even though, given his young age, he didn’t have much knowledge about administration.

Indian Exile and living in the West

In 1959, after the suppression of the Tibetan National Uprising in Lhasa by Chinese troops, Rinpoche escaped, according to his administrators’ plan, by leaving Drepung monastery for Sangphu in Southern Tibet. From there he left for the Tibetan-Indian border where he met with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. His Holiness asked him to join him in exile in India.

Rinpoche finished his Buddhist studies in Dharamsala in Northern India. He received the Geshe degree, a doctorate in Buddhist Psycho-ethical Philosophy, which is equivalent to a PhD in Buddhist Philosophy in the West. From 1964 until 1966, he lived in New Delhi where he directed the Tibet House, an internationally recognized institute for the promotion and preservation of Tibetan and Buddhist culture. It was then that he was invited by the University of Bonn, Germany to work as a researcher at its Institute for Central Asian Studies, which he accepted.

His main area of interest included Tibetan Buddhist symbols, iconography and Tibetan religious art. He taught courses, as well as supported students and colleagues in their academic research work. He worked there until his retirement in 2004 and published several books connected to his research. A list of publications of his body of work, including academic papers about Tibetan Buddhist art, iconography and symbolism, translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into German, as well as various explanations for Western Buddhists, in both German and English can be downloaded. Among the Tibetan Tulkus in exile, Rinpoche is considered the one who holds the most lineages in the Gelug tradition.

As soon as Rinpoche left for Germany, he gave back his monk´s vows. This was not an easy decision to make. However, he envisioned it to be rather difficult to live as a monk in the Western world without the monastic environment. Naturally, there were big changes in his new way of life. He became a regular employee and led a “liberated” life, learning all kinds of chores in day-to-day life that were unfamiliar to him as a former monk in a monastery. He learned to take care of a household with tasks such as shopping, cooking, cleaning, emptying garbage, driving a car, etc., and took a special interest in sewing and carpentry. In 1969, Rinpoche married Norden Pemba with whom he has two grown-up children. His wife says about him “If someone needs him as a teacher, he will teach. If you want him to give a hand as a cook or driver, he is willing.”

In the 1980s, due to the explicit request of people interested in Buddhism he began to be active as a spiritual teacher for Europeans. Since 1984 Rinpoche has been teaching the Dharma, mainly in his own center in Frankfurt, the Choedzong Buddhist Society. He is also the Spiritual Director of Tibet House in Germany, which he co-founded with the Buddhist community Choedzong e.V.

Sources:

• http://www.dagyab-rinpoche.com/biography/the-lineage-of-the-dagyab-kyabgoens/
• http://www.dagyab-rinpoche.com/biography/finding-the-reincarnation/
• http://www.dagyab-rinpoche.com/biography/rinpoches-inthronisierung-und-die-fruehen-jahre-der-ausbildung-en-US/
• http://www.dagyab-rinpoche.com/biography/rinpoche-s-higher-studies-and-the-arrival-of-the-chinese-people-s-liberation-army/
• http://www.dagyab-rinpoche.com/biography/indian-exile-and-living-in-the-west/

Paul Williams
Centre for Buddhist Studies
University of Bristol

The following note is taken from an informal letter in response to a request for some further information on the current dispute over Dorje Shugden*.

Dorje Shugden is a Dharma protector deity, and you can read one of the very few academic accounts of him in English in Rene de Nebesky-Wojkowitz’s Oracles and Demons of Tibet. Dorje Shugden — at least as it concerns the present dispute — is associated primarily with the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, although there have been some adherents from within the Sakya school. I would think the figure of four million adherents which has been mentioned to be very much over exaggerated, and I am not sure how that calculation has been made.

The present dispute over the status of Dorje Shugden between the Dalai Lama and the Shugden Supporters Community / New Kadampa Tradition has its roots in history, and there is a significant dimension of political power involved in the dispute. It is not a simple one of the suppression of religious freedom, as it has been portrayed. I know of no cases in the whole history of Tibetan Buddhism where a tradition or practice has been suppressed on the basis of purely religious factors, and one could not imagine the Dalai Lama — who has always been astonishingly broadminded in matters of religion — having any interest in doing such a thing.

Basically it seems to me that what we are dealing with here is a controversy between Traditionalists and Modernisers. Like all Dharma Protectors, Dorje Shugden is a fierce figure who, unusually however, appears in the form of a Gelugpa monk. He is considered by some of his followers to be an emanation of Manjushri, although others (including I think the New Kadampa Tradition) appear to consider him to be a fully enlightened Buddha of whom Manjushri is himself an emanation. The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, considers Dorje Shugden to be simply a worldly deity — a figure of great power but no intrinsic spirituality — of doubtful reliability and not a Buddha at all, or even a bodhisattva.

Editor’s note: It is interesting that prior to the Dalai Lama’s public ban of the Dorje Shugden practice, the Dalai Lama himself practised Dorje Shugden and wrote a well known praise to Dorje Shugden. It is highly improbable that such a High Lama as the Dalai Lama could be initially unaware that Dorje Shugden was a worldly deity for so long.

Thus as regards the doctrinal dispute, for one side it is a matter of relying on a Buddha, albeit an apparently rather fierce Buddha; for the other if they take refuge in a worldly deity then this is to abandon taking refuge solely in the Buddha and thus to abandon the very definition of being a Buddhist. From such a perspective, if one is not careful, this could easily degenerate into a Buddhist version of demon-worship.

The practice of Dorje Shugden goes back to the 17th Century, but it has been particularly predominant in the 20th Century among followers of the controversial Gelug Lama Pabongkhapa, who died in 1941. It is from this lineage tradition, via Pabongkhapa’s principal disciple and the Dalai Lama’s Junior Tutor Trijang Rinpoche, that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT trace their connection with Dorje Shugden.

The problem is that Pabongkhapa was renowned for being — or at least held by followers of other schools of Tibetan Buddhism as being — extremely sectarian and intolerant of other schools.

Editor’s note: This is a common misconception. Pabongkha Rinpoche was far from sectarian and was often invited to teach at other schools.

The practice of Dorje Shugden was considered at least by other traditions as having been developed as a form of Gelug triumphalism and aimed at bringing into play a Dharma protector for the (magical) suppression of the other schools, or at least their marginalisation. In particular it was considered that the practice of Dorje Shugden was aimed at the Nyingmapa tradition. In the later 1970s and early 1980s, there was fierce controversy among certain Gelug, Sakya and Nyingma Lamas in India over Dorje Shugden and his status, which the Dalai Lama attempted to cool down. The material has been published and is available in Tibetan.

The Dalai Lama himself was apparently urged by Trijang Rinpoche to undertake the practice of Dorje Shugden and eventually declined. For some time, His Holiness has been sensitive to the problems with this practice in promoting a perceived sectarianism, and he had urged that the practice be undertaken only in private and not promulgated.

Editor’s note: Interesting that the author of this article now says that it was ‘perceived sectarianism’.

He also said that those who would take himself as a spiritual master and respect him, and those who work for the Tibetan Government in Exile, should not engage in the practice of Dorje Shugden. This means also that those who would take Tantric initiations from him should not engage in the practice either. If a Tantric master gives initiation to those who take refuge in a worldly god and therefore do not have a pure Buddhist refuge then this can rebound on the health and life of the Tantric master. I suspect this is the primary point behind the Dalai Lama’s reported claim that engaging in the practice of Dorje Shugden might shorten his life. It looks as though what has happened is that recently he has started to put this Opposition to the practice of Dorje Shugden forward with greater urgency, perhaps in connection with his attempts to encourage a democratic political system for the Tibetans within which the old sectarian and regional rivalries and antagonisms could have no place.

It is this issue which is far and away the main issue in the controversy between the Dalai Lama and the New Kadampa Tradition, which has been running for some years. It is surprising that there are followers of the NKT who seem to be unaware of the dispute, but it has been marked for some time by the absence of any pictures of the Dalai Lama in NKT centres. One can indeed understand the perspective of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso et al., who hold that the practice of Dorje Shugden is a traditional Gelug practice which they have been taught by their teachers, and their teachers before them. The Dalai Lama, as both a political and a spiritual figure, considers that this practice is not skilful or suitable for the present situation of the Tibetan people or Tibetan Buddhism in the world.

So as I said above, what we have here is clearly a version of the common religious controversy between Traditionalists (I avoid the word ‘Fundamentalists’, which has also been used in this context) and Modernisers. From the perspective of the NKT, the Dalai Lama and his followers have abandoned and abused a Buddha (or bodhisattva) and a crucial dimension of the Gelug tradition. Thus the NKT wants to claim at least de facto that they now represent the true Gelug tradition.

The so-called ‘Gelug’ tradition, at least inasmuch as it is manifest in the Dalai Lama, no longer represents the authentic tradition. The NKT does. Hence the importance of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (and his many books), and the direct linking by his followers of Geshe Kelsang himself with Shakyamuni Buddha and the original founder of the Gelug tradition, Je Tsongkhapa.

I do not know of the truth of the stories of widespread active suppression of the practice of Dorje Shugden in India. I doubt very much if the Dalai Lama himself would have ‘ordered’ some of the various things which have been reported, although it is possible that some of his more enthusiastic supporters, perhaps from within the Tibetan Youth Congress, have been a little heavy-handed. Judging by the figure of four million supporters, I would however be inclined to be rather skeptical of such reports coming from the Shugden Supporters Committee.

I think this will give you an idea of the issues at stake. The Dalai Lama as an anti-sectarian moderniser is of course perfectly in harmony with all his other actions and mission. From the perspective of the Dorje Shugden Supporters on the other hand there are other important issues involved. In the background of course are the Chinese, who must be absolutely delighted. They are likely to be the only winners in this unfortunate dispute.

(c) Professor Paul Williams
Centre for Buddhist Studies
Theology and Religious Studies
University of Bristol
3 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1TB U.K.

* This article, according to Prof. Williams is “substantially the same article” as the article ‘Dorje Shugden’ published in The Middle Way 1996, Vol. 71, no.2, pages 130-2. The Middle Way article ‘Dorje Shugden’ was quoted and is in the bibliography of the following research on the New Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden:

• Bluck, Robert (2006), ‘British Buddhism’, Routledge/Curzon
• Kay, David N. (2004), ‘Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation’, Routledge/Curzon
• Chryssides, George D. (1999), ‘ Exploring New Religions’, Continuum International Publishing Group
• Central Tibetan Administration-in-Exile, (India) (1998), ‘The Worship of Shugden’, Dept. of Religion and Culture, Dept. of Religion and Culture, published also by the University of Virginia

(The Middle Way article ‘Dorje Shugden’ is possibly quoted or listed in other research but is included in the list above. Other references to it are yet to be verified.)

Offered with kind permission from the author.

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

Overview

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

Origin, Nature and Functions

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

There are two dominant views: [3]

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

Kay examines: [3]

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dispute itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Controversy

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

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

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

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

(see The Conflict in the West)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Developments

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

The political dimension

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

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

There are different political interpretations of that conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Mills:

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

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

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

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

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

Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

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

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

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

According to David N. Kay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conflict in the West

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Tibetan Lamas

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

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

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

Obedience towards the Guru

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

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

Summary

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

Arguments for and against

Arguments and Buddhist teachers who advised against Dorje Shugden practice

Views of the XIVth Dalai Lama

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

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

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

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

He is stating further:

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

Statement by the Previous (100th) Ganden Tripa

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

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

and

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

Gelug Opponents

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

Lama Zopa Rinpoche states:

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

Opponents from other Tibetan Buddhist schools

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

Arguments by followers of Shugden

Shugden supporters responded point-by-point as follows:

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

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

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

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

Introduction to Dorje Shugden by Kelsang Gyatso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

NOTES

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

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

3. Kay : 2004, 47

4. Kay : 2004, 47

5. Kay : 2004, 47

6. Kay page 230

7. Kay : 2004, 47

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

9. interview, July 1996, Kay page 230

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

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

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

13. Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956: 3

14. Kay 2004: 73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. Mumford 1989:125-126

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

28. Dreyfus : 1999

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

30. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [2]

31. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [3]

32. Official Dalai Lama Homepage, [4]

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

34. Kay: 2004, Dreyfus : 1999

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

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

37. CESNUR, [5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48. a b Kay page 43

49. Sparham 1996: 12

50. Sparham 1996: 13

51. Dreyfus 1998: 269

52. Dreyfus 1998: 262

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

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

55. Wilson, p56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64. Kay pages 41,42

65. Samuel at Kay page 230

66. Kay page 47

67. Kay page 49

68. Kay pages 61-69

69. Kay page 57ff

70. Kay page 65

71. Kay pages 61-66

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

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

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

75. Lopez 1998:193

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

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

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

79. a b c Kay 2004 : 235

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

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

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

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

84. Kelsang Gyatso, 1991, Kay page 92

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

86. Kay page 92

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

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

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

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

91. Kay page 43

92. Kay page 41

93. Kay page 230

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

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

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

97. Kay page 43

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

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

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

101. a b Lama Zopa Rinpoche, [21]

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

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

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

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

106. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart Jewel – Tharpa Publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links[*2]

Common links on Dorje Shugden

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

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

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

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

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

© Wikipedia

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

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

Los Angeles, California | September 1988

Secret: Only Initiated Practitioners

The first protector I will speak about is Shenpa. Shenpa is very important for His Holiness’ swift rebirth, because he is the main protector of the Nyingma lineage.

Shenpa is the main guardian for all of our practices: Troma, Phurba, etc. He is one of the divine protectors that Guru Rinpoche entrusted the terma teachings with, and basically he controls most of the terma teachings.

An interesting thing about Shenpa is that my father met him several times. I’ll tell you about one incident.
Normally, Shenpa was in very close contact with my father all the time, and really served him. It was very difficult for us to even see Shenpa’s face, because he was very wrathful, and he doesn’t show his face as easily as other dharmapalas do. Shenpa is very conservative. Also, it isn’t easy to call on Shenpa to do things, but he could manifest to Rinpoche in person.

Shenpa was the one who brought my mother and father together. Shenpa had gone to my mother’s father in person. My maternal grandfather was a military commander named Shig Go Tey. He was governor of the province called Shig Go Tey, which is very large. My grandfather was also the 13th Dalai Lama’s personal cabinet advisor. He was an aristocrat, but at the same time he was also a minor terton, connected with Guru Rinpoche’s teachings. He would always carry a phurba in his chuba.

At one time my grandfather was looking for a particular text in the area of Lhasa when Shenpa appeared to him in person. He told him that the text could be found with Dudjom Rinpoche, who was in Lhasa at the time. My maternal grandfather had never heard of Dudjom Rinpoche. Shenpa told him where Dudjom Rinpoche was staying and said, “Send your daughter to request the text.” Before he left, he told him, “I have a present for you.” He gave him a bow and arrow, then walked away from the room and disappeared.

My grandfather was so caught up with talking to Shenpa that he forgot that he was in his inner chamber, which was inaccessible to anyone. The chambers are constructed in such a way that the inner chamber is private, and there is an outer chamber where servants guard the inner chamber so that no one enters.

Immediately after Shenpa left he realized that there was no way for this person to enter, and he thought, “How did this person get into my inner chamber?” He rushed out to where his servants were guarding him and asked them where was the man who had just given him the bow and arrow. The servants said there was no such person, that they had been there the whole time and hadn’t let anyone in. That night my grandfather had a very positive indication that he would meet Dudjom Rinpoche and receive teachings from him.

That same night, Shenpa went to Dudjom Rinpoche and told him, “I am going to get the consort for you, so tomorrow morning, let whoever comes in to see you. Set up an auspicious offering on the table, and tomorrow a person will come who will be your future wife.”

Most of Dudjom Rinpoche’s servants at that time were monks, so the next day Rinpoche told them, “If anyone comes today, no matter who they are, I want to see them. A woman will come to see me so don’t stop her from seeing me.” Later that day Rinpoche met my mother.

After that, Dudjom Rinpoche went to my mother’s house and asked my grandfather for her. It was at that time that my grandfather showed Rinpoche the gift that Shenpa had given him, because he felt that the person who had given it to him was a protector. Rinpoche recognized that the bow and arrow was the same bow and arrow that he had placed in his monastery for the protectors. Shenpa had taken the bow and arrow all the way to Lhasa to give to my grandfather. My grandfather then became Rinpoche’s disciple.

Shenpa is a wisdom being with very high realization. My name, “Shenpen,” means “benefactor of others,” but “Shenpa” means “the hunter” –he hunts for human life.

The reason we pray to Shenpa is because he was in such close contact with Rinpoche. Shenpa gives tremendous blessing and protection to students who are in retreat, and for all practitioners of the Tersar lineage. Shenpa vowed that he would continue to benefit people until the next Buddha comes so that the Tersar lineage, its protectors and blessings wouldn’t be lost. So this is a direct prediction and prophecy of Shenpa.

Shenpa came to my father many times like this to help him. Once, when Rinpoche was traveling from one part of Tibet to another –a dangerous thing to do since there are bandits everywhere — he wasn’t able to get where he wanted to by nightfall. My father, mother, and three or four servants, that’s all the people who were in the group, got stuck on a hill. Suddenly they looked up on the hill and saw 30 or 40 bandits.

My mother was very worried. There were no other travelers in sight, and she thought they would all be robbed and killed by those bandits. Bandits do that kind of thing. They were completely desperate. The bandits were howling and making all kinds of noises and coming down the mountain when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, another band of 30 to 40 riders appeared and started riding up from the ravine below, carrying guns and bows and arrows. The bandits coming down from above were frightened and retreated because they were outnumbered.

The group of riders from below then came up to Rinpoche, and the leader got off his horse asking him, “Oh ho, where are you traveling?” Rinpoche answered, “I am traveling to Lhasa. Where are you going?” He replied, “The next village.” Rinpoche thanked him for coming at just the right moment. The leader asked him, “Who are you?” Rinpoche replied, “Oh, I’m a padma guru, I’ve been recognized as Pedma Guru. My name is Dudjom Rinpoche.”

Then the leader said, “I’ve heard a lot about you. Aren’t you the terton Gillay Terton’s reincarnation?” Rinpoche said, “Yes, I have been recognized as such.” So immediately the leader made prostrations to Rinpoche. Rinpoche asked him, “Do I know you?” The leader replied, “Yes, you know me, but it isn’t important for you to remember me at this moment, but I know you.” That person was Shenpa.

Later that night, at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, Rinpoche had a dream. Shenpa appeared to him and said, ” I came to serve you. Forgive me if I fooled you. That was not my intention. You were traveling in a dangerous place, so I came to serve you. You have commanded me many times to come in times of need.” The next morning, when Rinpoche got up, he made a very elaborate offering to the dharmapalas to thank them for making the bandits go away.

Now he was able to complete his journey safely. The chieftain, or Shenpa, had looked familiar to Rinpoche. He felt he had seen him before, but he couldn’t figure out where. He was completely disguised as a bandit, but when Rinpoche looked at his feet, he saw he was barefoot. People don’t ride barefoot, so it occurred to Rinpoche later on that that was a subtle sign of the protector.

Shenpa serves Rinpoche’s disciples too. One time there was a disciple who went into retreat in Kongbo during the winter, and this disciple was completely cut off by snow and dying of starvation. Right in front of his retreat house someone dragged the body of a dead deer. The disciple was meditating inside when a voice said to him, “I’ve brought you food down there. Eat it.”

When he went outside and looked, he saw the dead deer and brought it inside, and he was able to do another three months of retreat. Later on, Shenpa told Rinpoche, “One of your students was dying, so I took him deer meat.”

The activity of the dharmapalas is incredible. Dharmapalas are wisdom beings that can help you attain realization. Needless to say, there are other protectors, like Trod Gyel Harmo, Tseringma, and other protectors and protectresses that protect the lineage, but Shenpa is the main protector of the Dudjom Tersar lineage.

When Dudjom Lingpa discovered a certain terma, Shenpa was there to help him, taking the terma from the rock. Shenpa is committed to the Dudjom lineage and to whoever practices in the lineage. If a practitioner calls on him, he will be there to answer. This doesn’t mean he will answer all the small detailed things, but if there is crucial need, he will be there. So Shenpa practice is important.

Then, along with this practice, you can add one more practice. It starts with: Kung Jo! Kung Tu Zang Mo Ying Gee Yum. This is the prayer for Mamo Ekadzati, Dorje Legpa and Ralchigma. Sometimes, if you do the Dam Cheen Chi Tor, then you can just recite the Ma Za Dor Sum. That would be great.

If you make the dharmapala offerings, and do dharmapala practice like Ma Za Dor Sum or Shenpa practice, it is important to keep count of your repetitions. You can’t just say it two or three times and just leave it. Unfortunately, we have never done an intensive dharmapala practice together. When I practice, if I have time, sometimes I will recite one mala, but not less than 21 times. It’s very important to invoke them.

What dharmapalas really are is our confidence. They support our confidence to be able to reach out and help others. In fact, if we lack confidence, dharmapalas have a way of subtly communicating with us to bring our confidence back. Confidence is the right way of respecting the teachings, the right way of benefiting people. That is the confidence it will bring up in us.

In fact, dharmapala is the subtle communication of the Buddha in the sambhogakaya realm in which we have developed the fine perception of seeing them, so if you see the form of the dharmapala, you have also seen the form of the Buddha in the dharmakaya realm. Dharmapalas are the subtle communications between these two levels.

Dharmapalas will manifest in an ordinary way because our understanding is ordinary, but when we purify our perception, they manifest in an extraordinary way. It depends on our perception. Dharmapalas are the real communication of a subtle body, and through them we can experience our subtle body in a way that we have never experienced before. Through the dharmapala, we can experience the subtle body immediately in our everyday situations. So these two practices, Shenpa and Ma Za Dor Sum, are important.

The third dharmapala is optional, and it is that of my protectress, Kong Jhyo. When I was young she saved me many times from death. I was very naughty when I was young, and I gave my parents a lot of problems. My protectress, Kongsen Denma, came to me several times and saved me. I’ve seen her several times from childhood to adulthood, and whenever I have a problem, she always comes up.

Rinpoche, my father, would always say: “Don’t forget to appease her, and don’t forget to always make offerings to her.” But in spite of that, I’ve always been more involved with protectors like Shenpa. Somehow, I never include her in my practice. It’s just recently that things have been pointing out that she is the real one I should be concerned with, so I have been taking more interest in doing her practice. She is my birth goddess. I was born in Kongbo, and she became my protectress.

So this practice is optional. If you do do that practice, she will create more favorable circumstances for me to be able to come and help you all more fully. Also, she will create a situation where you will find time to practice as well.

You have this practice, it starts with Kay Sha Shu Pa Ja Jung Pa Zon Zhu Sho Shu Kay Su Yidam ___ Tum Mo Che. I will give you all the oral transmissions straight away, so you’ll have that.

Normally, when you are doing a tsog puja or a dharmapala practice as a group, it is good to do this practice of Kongsen Denma. It’s not something you have to do every day. It is good to do it collectively as a group. As I said, in my own experience, she has really come and helped me many times.

Normally, as far as your daily practice goes, if you have a dharmapala initiation it is good to do the practice. Why? Because it opens your confidence. Also, your confidence is opened when you are able to relate to the sambhogakaya wisdom body of these deities. These dharmapalas are the protectors of the dharmakaya buddhas that are in the active field – not in the depth of meditation.

Protectors are willing to show their divine form to you, and will show it to you in a way that you can relate to, but they remain behind because we are not subtle enough, and we don’t realize it, and we don’t evoke them enough. But somehow, when the time of need arises, these protectors and protectresses will come and help.

In the Nyingma lineage, and in the whole buddhadharma, one of the most complex things to explain is the dharmapalas. The reason for this is because we must be spoken to on our individual levels of realization; otherwise, it becomes a gross fabrication of a very, very subtle complex.

The explanation can also be very difficult and terrifying, because the dharmapalas arise from the vapors of our blood. There are so many levels of protectors: there are local palas, dharmapalas, wisdom protectors, there is a whole heirarchy of protectors. It is like a comprehensive government of dharmapalas.

If you understand the dharmapala practice, you understand the working mind of the Buddhas. The dharmapalas are the main working force of all the Buddhas, because they communicate the process of our mind. If there is an enemy, what is the enemy? How should we view the enemy? If there is something harming us, how do we defeat it?

It is important to do the dharmapala practice at the beginning and end of each empowerment or wang, and if you are doing a retreat, you must also begin and end with a dharmapala practice. There is no time that you can ever exclude these wisdom beings.

The dharmapala initiation is called “Tsogmay Tsogthig” which means “empowerment giving you the life force of the protectors.” Once you have received the initiation, you must do the practice every day or they will harm you. It’s a commitment, a very serious contract. This empowerment will explain exactly what the protectors are, and how they dwell in our system and energize you.

A general dharmapala practice you can do as a group, even if you haven’t had the initiation, is the Tsomig Tsogthig. It’s a special transmission which I don’t think is being given, unless you are a tulku or really committed to spending the rest of your life in practice. It is a very difficult and risky transmission to give, and it has a very heavy samaya.

So those are the three dharmapala practices I recommend: Shenpa, the three deities, and Kongsen Denma. After that, if there are other protectors you wish to include, then include them, but these three are the root protectors in your practice.

The “Dam Chen Chi Tor” practice contains the entire magnitude of the protectors, and is a complete protector prayer for all lineages. The Dam Chen Chi Tor is so complete that once you have finished it, you have fulfilled the samaya to all the lineages. All protectors for all practices come from there. Once you have done this, you can go to the other protector prayers to pay special respect to individual protectors.

Whenever you pour a liquid as an offering to a protector, you must wear a scarf over your mouth so you don’t breathe into the protectors. The thing about the dharmapalas is that they are very disciplined wisdom Buddhas. They won’t accept any of your faults at all. They will discipline you. If, for example, you breathe into what you are pouring, they will slap you back, and in the same way, if your practice is done correctly and well, you will have a positive reaction back, straight away.

It is good to offer red wine to the dharmapalas, but the best offering is whiskey. Whiskey is expensive, but when you make an offering to the dharmapalas, and to the wisdom Buddhas, you don’t want to be cheap, you should want to offer something good. If you cannot afford whiskey, drop down to wine, and if you cannot afford wine, then offer tea. If you cannot afford tea, what can I say?

Along with the liquid that you offer in the dharmapala cup, you should also offer beef heart. The dharmapala offering is a symbol of activating the heart core. The chanting and beating of the drum that we do in the dharmapala practice vibrates the Buddha’s heart. From that heart vibration, our heart vibrates.

So they vibrate together, which produces the energy that produces the different phenomena. Within the beef heart, all essences are together. If you can’ t afford heart , offer a small piece of meat. If you can’t afford heart or meat, then offer a biscuit, or a little rice.

Basically, the offering should be whiskey, heart, the five kinds of meat, and at last one grain of rice. If you are doing a long practice, cut many pieces of meat, and continue to add heart and whiskey as if to say, “Please have, please have.”

Now it is not just whiskey and meat, but it is nectar we are offering. This offering is a symbol of our heart being opened to the dharmapala and saying, “Have this.” If you have an enemy, the offering symbolizes their heart, as if you were saying, “Please subjugate my enemy.” When you say “subjugate” you don’t mean kill. Subjugate means you want them to see the wisdom of not harming you. It is a means to bring wisdom to that person.

Many times, if someone seeks to harm you, and you are doing dharmapala ractice, that person will suddenly change their mind and decide not to hurt you. Why? Because the dharmapala changes their mind about the benefits of harming you.

Normally, when we make our offering, the power of the five meats and the five nectars increases the offering in an infinite way, like space, but since we don’t have the meditative power to increase it the way it should be increased, if we add a little dudtsi or amrita inside the bottle of whiskey, because the dudtsi has been blessed by the power of meditation, the whiskey will have the strength of meditation. The amrita has the power to make your dharmapala practice successful.

You must have either the power of the practice of relying on your yidam, your meditation, or the substance. The dudtsi contains all three powers, and alone can fulfill all three requirements. It is really powerful. I do that, by the way. You can feel the difference when you add dudtsi to the whiskey. The vibration in the room changes straight away. The protectors come.

In the Nyingma lineage, the key to making dudtsi is knowing how to prepare the nectars. Dudtsi contains five gems, five meats, five nectars, and the relics of all the Buddhas and tertons. It also contains the combination of all the earth that Rinpoche has collected from different areas.

When we make dudtsi, we combine relic upon relic, and concentrate it with the 21-day practice of day and night. The practice goes on for 21 days and nights, without interruption. It is an awesome, overwhelming process. The mantra must continue 24 hours a day.

Herbs are mixed with the dudtsi, and all of these ingredients, these king medicines, are mixed together. Then the mixture is sealed all around. Bell and dorje are placed in different quarters to symbolize the blessing.

The medicine that is prepared must be kept in a mandala, so a whole mandala must be prepared. It must be constantly attended to, with offering lamps and light. And with the practice of Dorje Sempa, Vajrsattva, Phurba, or Avalokitesvara, the lama empowers the medicine with his mind, again and again.

It is an extremely complex process to prepare dudtsi. Throughout the practice tsog is offered. When His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche prepared it, in the end, as a symbolic thing, people would see rainbows coming out of the dudtsi. Rainbows would cross each other in the air in the room where he worked, and other things like that.

Even with an ordinary lama, due to the strength of the blessings, the skull cup will boil over and radiate light on the ceiling. There are always miraculous signs when dudtsi is being prepared. Always.

If you are sick, or have samaya contamination or anything like that, if you eat a little dudtsi it will purify your channels. Dudtsi is really to purify channels. If you add a little to the whiskey, it will make up for whatever you lack in reliance on yidam, meditation, or the power of the substance.

When you practice alone, place the protector offering on your table, not the altar, so you can keep feeding it . Make the offering very carefully, and place a bumpa or water bowl here with a little saffron in it, and keep purifying the protector offering with the water as well. Also, you can turn the incense around the offering.

You must be very diligent, very conscientious of what you are doing. It is very bad if any dirt gets into the offering. The offering receptacle must be washed thoroughly, and make sure your hands are washed too. If you sit down and touch the floor after washing your hands, you might think your hands are washed, but they aren’t. Be careful.

The best way of disposing of a protector offering is in the river or ocean. It is also good to keep it in a high place where birds can eat it, like on a post, or in a tree, or put it on clean ground, blocked by a fence or stone, away from where you walk. If you are in retreat, you can collect it in a plastic garbage bag.

Don’t give the remains to domesticated dogs, cats, or other animals that comprise your extended family. If they are other people’s animals, and strays, it’s not great but it is okay. It is okay for wild animals to consume the offerings. It is good to make the offering every day, especially toward the evening.

Q. I don’t believe in the dharmapalas. Everything else about dharma makes sense, but dharmapalas don’t make sense to me.

A. Everybody has a problem with the dharmapalas. They ask, “Who are they? I don’t believe in them.” And, my dear, I must say two things to you: First, just because you don’t visually see or understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Remember this one. Second, what you don’t see is your limitation, not an expansion of your awareness.

The reason it is so hard to relate to the teaching of the dharmapalas is because this teaching is so very, very sophisticated. When you go through all the elaboration of the practice, through all the blood, guts, pus and everything spilling out, and you look at the various vapors that rise up, then you begin to understand.

Understanding the dharmapala is really understanding how your blood and your heart beat relate to your practice. We say your heart is the drum of the dharmapala. The pumping of the blood is the offering to the protectors, and the beating of the heart is their drum.

You must be brought up in the context of being with them, or having seen them or the local protectors. If you can’t see the local protectors, how can you hope to see the dharmapalas? If you can’t see your ancestors who have died on this land, how can you hope to see a local protector, let alone a dharmapala? The level of energy is very high, very subtle. Once your energy is very subtle, then you want to name the subtleness of the protectors. This is what you want to come to.

For example, once, in His Holiness’ temple, a man named Pedma Longdu used to beat the dharmapala drum every evening and make offerings. He had made a commitment to His Holiness to perform this offering ritual, and it was his routine. One night he got drunk and didn’t make the offering. He went to sleep.

In the middle of the night my mother woke up, maybe around 2:00 a.m., when the dharmapala drum began beating on its own. She woke up my father and asked him, “Did you ask for a special extension of the practice? What is going on?” Rinpoche just got up and smiled, and said, “It doesn’t matter. No, it doesn’t matter.”

The drum beat the whole night, and all the people surrounding the temple could not sleep. The dharmapala had become very violent, hitting the drum, because the offering had not been put there.

The next morning Rinpoche called Pema Longdu, who is now the head lama of the Buddha Monastery in Kaleekoh, and asked him, “Why didn’t you do the dharmapala practice last night?” The lama became arrogant and said, “If I miss one day’s practice, are they going to get so hungry?”

The next day Pema Longdu was hit by a fever, becoming violently ill and almost losing his life. This was because he talked about the protectors as if they were hungry for an offering, and were so attached to that offering that they couldn’t go even one day without it.

Right after he said that his blood started warming up. He couldn’t sleep all night, and his heart kept on beating, beating, beating. The next morning, he started vomiting blood. So Rinpoche told him to go straight away into the temple and make prostrations to the protectors, or they would take his life.

The protectors can take your life force. It really is in their hands. Why? The life force we are talking about in the Chi Med Tsog Thig is the protector. There is nothing other than that. It wasn’t that the dharmapalas missed the offering. They just showed him that he had lost his discipline in the training of his mind. That is why the dharmapala showed its hand. It can be a very costly affair.

Let me tell you another story about the dharmapalas. The reason my father, Dudjom Rinpoche, was never angry towards any particular person is because once he had a bad experience, and he vowed never to get angry again. I’ll explain what happened, but we should not talk about it to anyone.

When Rinpoche was young, he had some financial difficulties, as all of us do have at one time or another. Rinpoche was sponsoring many things, and his finances weren’t so good. So he borrowed quite a large sum from these three brothers, because Rinpoche was always borrowing money.

He was going to pay it back, but in Tibet it is horrible to borrow money because the interest is so high. You cannot believe it. After one or two years, if you can’t repay a loan, your interest is four or five times the amount you borrowed.

Rinpoche couldn’t pay the loan back the first year. He had started building a monastery and just couldn’t pay it. So in the second or third year one of the brothers became very angry. Rinpoche said, “Please wait. I think my situation will soon be a little bit better.” Rinpoche was already making payments, but he had borrowed quite a large amount of money.

One day Rinpoche was teaching, and in those days lamas would teach very casually, sitting in front of the house in the garden letting people come and go as they wanted, when all of a sudden this brother turns up and says, “Give me the money right now.” Rinpoche said, “I don’t have it.” So the brother said, “Then what you need is a whack,” and he grabbed Rinpoche by the throat and dragged him out.

Now all of his disciples were warriors, because as you know Tibetans are fighters, so his disciples were dragging their swords out, and Rinpoche was screaming, “Don’t touch him, don’t touch him.” Everyone there had a knife and gun and were prepared to kill this brother straight away, but Rinpoche stopped them. So the angry brother kicked him two or three times, and Rinpcohe felt really bad, but he said, “He’s right. It is his money that I haven’t been able to give him. It is true.”

Early one morning, before the dawn light, Rinpoche was doing his practice around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. In the middle of his practice, someone came in and put something on the table in front of him, and made a big noise in the dark.

So Rinpoche goes looking for a torch — batteries were brought from Lhasa, and from there they came from China, so who could afford them? — finds it, and lighting it he finds a fresh head cut off, with the brains intact. He immediately realizes that it is the head of the brother who grabbed him by the neck. The protector could not bear to see him humiliated, so he lopped that person’s head off and brought it to Rinpoche.

From that time on Rinpoche swore never to feel any emotion, or show any emotion. He had been thinking, “Why did that man treat me so badly?” He deserved it, but not in this way. Two days later, another brother went completely crazy and stabbed himself.

Soon afterward, the third brother was riding his horse and fell. Once a protector gets angry, he won’t stop until he cuts the entire family line. You might ask, “What logic is there in hurting family members?”, but I’m trying to tell you it goes beyond logic.

So immediately, Rinpoche had to stop this, because it was spreading to the other family members. So he told the parents and relatives to come to the monastery and do prostrations in the temple and ask for forgiveness. Rinpoche accepted their petitions for forgiveness, then it was cut. It didn’t get the father and mother, but next it would have been the uncles.

The wisdom mind of the dharmapalas is such that when people are cut, they are also liberated. Don’t forget this. It is not that they are suffering. The dharmapalas have the right to take the life force away. The life force we are talking about is a vitality which is in the grasp of the dharmapalas.

The truth is contained in this awareness. It is very difficult to understand at this moment, but the more you do dharmapala practice, the more you will be able to see many things you did not see before.

Rinpoche felt very bad that he showed a little emotion, because he felt that it was that emotion which transformed into the activity of the dharmapalas. It doesn’t make sense to say the dharmapalas felt anger, because they are the wisdom deities, and are beyond anger. But when you violate a holy body, the dharmapala is sworn to protect that, so they will come into action.

Regarding the lamas who are being killed in Tibet, as I said, the dharmapalas are sworn to protect the body of divine truth –not outside, but inside. Physically speaking, these lamas still have to go through the same experiences of birth, old age, sickness and death, just like anyone else. They have chosen to go through these challenges, which is why they are called bodhisattva.

Bodhisattva means accepting the challenge to come back into samsara and go through the same poisons and training, again and again. But innerly they will perceive their sickness differently. They will stay in the dharmakaya perception, and when they die, they will dissolve into light. It is only because our perception is impure that we see them suffering in an outer way. That is the difference.

Now that you have been given the explanation of the dharmapalas, if you don’t have respect for that explanation, then you are in serious trouble. Then you won’t practice as you should. If you haven’t had enough explanation, and you do the practice a little wrong, that is a little okay, but once you’ve had the explanation, and you do it any other way, then you break your commitment. What is more, there is the difficult matter of all the levels of the protectors, arising from intangibility, from that which is unseen. It is very complex.

I’ve seen thousands of examples of what the protectors can do. When you do their practices, you will find your confidence. As you move toward realization, the thing you will lack is the protectors. That is when the protectors arise.

What we have not understood so far is the strength of the blood, the strength of the heart, and the strength of the flesh. This means we haven’t really understood the dharmapalas at all.

If you practice consistently, then the dharmapalas have to reveal themselves to you. Their qualities will reveal in the depth of you — in the breath, in the blood vapor, in the nerve vapor — and you will be able to see them for the first time. Then you will begin to understand what is called “the unhindered action of the Buddhas.”

Right now, the closest you will come to seeing the perfect enlightened mind of the Buddhas is from the point of view of the protectors. It is very complex. You need to do a one month retreat of the dharmapala before you can realize, through the beat of the drum, just whose heart it is that is beating.

The drum beat is not your heartbeat, it is the heartbeat of the dharmapalas. And when you begin to understand that, fear begins to rise, because without beating the drum, the drum is still beating. Then more fear will arise. That is how you go about looking for the protectors. If you see the protectors, you might just faint. Sometimes, the life force will just run away.

When you pray for protection, you probably think you are praying to be protected from something, but though it is isn’t written, what you are really praying for is the protection of the dharmapalas. The dharmapala is the manifestation of the wisdom activity of the Buddhas. Suppose you are doing practice and someone wants to kill you, but you are saved. Who saved you? It was the dharmapalas. The bridge between the intellect and the wisdom mind is the dharmapalas.

The dharmapalas are implicit in all dharma practices. Only through the dharmapalas do you explicitly bring up the full range and magnitude of the activity of the Buddhas. You practice with wishful thought, but when you do dharmapala practice, that wishful thought translates into action.

Every time something happens to you that brings a change or realization in your life, or gives you strength to live again, that is the activity of the dharmapalas. It is not just happening by accident; it is the movement of the dharmapala. The heartbeat is the heartbeat of the dharmapala.

For example, sometimes they manifest as a person, blocking you from going a certain way, and later on you see that someone going that way was hit by a car, or they go into another person’s mind and block you so you will be safe, or physically manifest so that you are saved. These are all common activities of the dharmapala. They push you from this to that until you make the auspicious connection. It just depends on how you understand it.

Non-physical things which happen to you, which are good for you, are also the dharmapala. If you think the person or situation that was good for you, and continue to practice, someday the dharmapala will come and say, “Yes, I did that for you. I gave you that situation a long time ago.” That is the way it is.

The dharmapalas can be violent, but they can be peaceful too. They can be a butterfly, they can be warmth, they can be anything. They don’t have to be just one particular form. The activity aspect is dharmapala.

To tell the truth, even for myself:, the complexity of the dharmapalas is such that sometimes I say to myself, “What am I doing?” When you practice, you will understand, but when you don’t, then it is difficult. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve seen them or not, if you continue to do your protector practices, different situations will arise from that.

Somehow, what I always see is the wrathful. When I was small I couldn’t sleep. When I grew up I was constantly seeing the movement of the dharmapala. I remember my father saying, “Ah, these are things practitioners wish to see but can’t. These are your protectors.”

At that time I couldn’t understand what these protectors were, though in my depth I could. They had three eyes, six eyes, and I couldn’t relate to them. And the words they spoke weren’t words a small kid could understand like, “I love you.”

Instead they would say, “Give me your heart. I want to eat you,” or something like that. Those were their exact words, and I was only five or six years old. I couldn’t sleep. I would see their translucent bodies, and they would come and grab me.

In the daytime, I couldn’t play either. My eldest sister would never play with me because I would see these things, and when I would point them out to her, she would see the same things. And my servants, the young men who were looking after me, none of them would take responsibility for me at night. That is how bad it was.

In the daytime, I would be playing a game like hide and seek, and sometimes I would be running and all of a sudden I would fall into a gigantic lap. When I would look up I would see this horrible face, and then I’d faint. Most of my childhood was spent in either a fainting or unconscious state. I’ve always been like that. I had a difficult life as a kid.

My mother and father would sleep together and put me in the middle between them, and as soon as they fell asleep, someone would shake me. I’m not joking. The protector would shake me so I would wake up, and then I would see on the ceiling this deity with three heads, tongue rolled up, guts hanging out, one hand holding a knife, saying, “Come, come, I want to just cut your neck.”

It helped that Rinpoche told me it was good that I had these protectors, and that they were the wisdom deities. As a child I could relate to something nice, but seeing something like that just scared the hell out of me. I couldn’t understand why they would do that, why they would frighten me. And later in my life, I didn’t understand why they didn’t have the wisdom to know I was just a child.

Rinpoche would be doing a tsog, and I would look inside the tsog offering and see a whole host of non-existent people. Sometimes they would bring dead people to Rinpoche for his blessing. I would see that person walk in, sit down and observe. I saw many things that terrified me.

My mother would fight with my father, saying, “If this continues a long time, you will have no son left.” It was true. Anything that moved, I was frightened. She wanted him to seal off my mind so I wouldn’t see these visions. Rinpoche had a way of sealing this vision off, totally.

My father said no, we must leave it as it is, that it was really beneficial for me. I couldn’t understand how it was beneficial. But later, after a big fight with my mother, he sealed it.

Rinpoche called me in to him and said, “It is very unfortunate what I am going to do, but I am going to seal your vision completely.” I was maybe seven or eight years old. There was an altar set up with some nectar on it. He told me to put it on my eyes.

So I put it on my eyes and forehead, and he said, “From today on, I’ve sealed this one.” Truly speaking, after that I never saw them again. I could feel them move for another year, but the vision aspect was gone. Now I think it was a great mistake.

My mother should have listened to Rinpoche, because he was talking from his wisdom mind. I’m sure I wouldn’t have died, but I was so happy when my mother requested that. Believe me, my servants couldn’t bear to be with me. At night they wouldn’t go out with me, because just like with my sister, if I pointed the dharmapalas out, they would see them too.

I would be sitting in a room, and the door curtains would start moving, and something would catch my eye and I would see this gigantic finger saying, “Come, come. ” I wouldn’t want to look at it, so I’d tell my sister, “there, there,” and she would see the same gigantic finger saying, “Come, come,” and then she’d start screaming.

It is no wonder I had no one to play with. If it had been a dream, I would have understood it as a dream, but it wasn’t a dream. I really saw it. I couldn’t hide in any corner.

The only time I felt secure that nothing was going to come was when I would sit right next to my father or mother when they were doing things. Even then, when I looked around, I would see things, but they wouldn’t frighten me because my mother or father was there.

Rinpoche told me that later on my vision would reopen on its own, but I think it was good for my health that he sealed it off; otherwise, I don’t know what would have happened to me. It was a terrible part of my life.

So when you ask about the dharmapala, I’ve had the same kinds of questions, like why would they scare the hell out of me? If they had just showed themselves to me once, I would have said, ” I’ve had an experience,” but showing me again and again, daytime, evening, nighttime, whenever I played they were running after me, attacking me.

And their words were not sweet or gentle, they were always, “I want to chop you,” or “I want to eat your heart.” The only gentle thing I’ve seen is Kongsen Denma, and she’s important to me. She always appears in the most beautiful form.

One day I was playing outside in the field and suddenly this beautiful lady came and said, “I’ll take you to the main garden in Lhasa.” I said, “Yes, I want to go.” So I just held her hand and went. I saw everything in the lingka. I’d never been to the lingka before. I was lost for seven hours.

My mother was worried , and she went to my father and he said, “No, no. There is nothing wrong with him. He’ll come back home. It looks alright.” During the seven hours I was lost, my memory was that I went to this lingka and had a nice time. I watched all the fish in the water.

Then, all of a sudden, I was back in front of the gate, and a servant came and grabbed me and dragged me in, because all the servants were out looking for me. I didn’t know what had happened. I didn’t realize I had been gone for seven hours. It had seemed just a few minutes to me. The beautiful lady had said, “Go back. I’ll come and visit you again.”

My mother asked me what happened, and where had I been, and who took me, so I told her. The lingka is a 1/2- day’s horse ride from my house. Rinpoche knew nothing was wrong. He could see everything was intact, that I hadn’t been taken by a demon or a spirit. Rinpoche said most probably it must have been one of his protectors.

So she was the only elegant lady with all the ornaments saying, “come” with gentle words. The rest I’ve seen were all (he makes a grimace). That’s what I mean when I say dharmapalas.

(The two stories about laying down on the road and letting the Chinese Trucks roll over him, and Falling in the Well were not translated.)

Source:http://dharmadhatu.web-log.nl/dharmadhatu/2006/03/the_protectors.html