Ngawang Yontan Gyatso (1902 – 1963) the disrobed abbot

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: Toby Lee

More than 50 years ago, before the practice of the enlightened Dharma protector Dorje Shugden was banned by the Tibetan leadership in 1996, there existed an extremely ambitious and gifted, but stubborn and destructive monk who courted the support of the Bhutan palace. As the 69^th abbot of Sakya Ngor Monastery, he distinguished himself by creating a strong dislike for Dorje Shugden and the teachings of Lama Tsongkhapa, leaving a trail of schism and division behind him.

This was at a time when Dorje Shugden and Lama Tsongkhapa were popularly represented by the Gelugpa stalwart H.H. Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo (1878–1941) who was not only highly respected by the monastic community but also the lay people of the Himalayas.

As a result of Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s ambitious but sectarian actions, Dorje Shugden publications were destroyed and his practice halted at many Sakya and other monasteries that Ngawang Yontan Gyatso had control over or had underhandedly leaned on.

Ironically, his sectarian actions were justified by the Gaden Phodrang (Tibetan government) which had been established in the 17^th Century by the 5^th Dalai Lama, who had not only fought with the Sakyas but also banned the printing of Gorampa’s writings. Gorampa, as the 6^th Abbot of Sakya Ngor Monastery, had been the fiercest critic of Lama Tsongkhapa in his time. Even the Mahasiddha and erudite master Je Tsongkhapa had his strong critics. With the passage of time, we can see that Tsongkhapa’s view and teachings really expanded globally, silencing his critics.

A statue of the 5th Dalai Lama (right) in the Jokhang Temple

Family influence makes a stubborn boy the Abbot of Ngor

As a child, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso is described as being intelligent and witty but also distressingly stubborn and independent, almost notoriously so. For example, it is recorded that when they were studying with their teacher (Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s uncle, Lama Gendun), his distant cousin Dezhung Rinpoche never got beatings over the head with his teacher’s slipper, but Ngawang Yontan Gyatso did.

Through the influence of his family who were relatively well-to-do and could count amongst them a number of respected lamas of rank, he was accepted as a candidate from Khangsar Labrang for the abbotship of Ngor Monastery. Subsequently, he became its 69^th Abbot. Unlike some of the other Ngor abbots who ascended the throne due to their hard work, studies and personal achievements, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso ascended the Ngor Abbot’s throne due to wealth and family position which is usually a recipe for disaster.

Ngor Monastery is one of the three main monasteries of the Sakya tradition. It was established by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo (1382-1444) who is considered one of the Six Ornaments of Tibet due to his many written works (almost 200 titles), teachings, practice, and the monastic institution he established.

Ngor abbots were originally selected primarily for their spiritual attainments, without regard for familial ties or regional origins. However, in the following century after its founding, a few eminent abbots had amassed a great fortune, some of which was kept after their deaths by family members. This became the seed from the 16^th century onward for the three oldest Labrangs of Ngor to control the abbotship of the monastery.

The present day Ngor Monastery located in India

A student disrespects his lama

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso may have been known for his intelligence, but respect for those senior to him was not counted amongst his positive qualities.

His main teacher, Dampa Rinpoche, was not a permanent resident of Khangsar Labrang and instead lived in places such as Sakya and Tanag. The lamas in permanent residence at Ngor were Zhalu Kuzhang Lama and Khensur Ngawang Khyenrab Jampal Nyingpo, who had been the 60^th abbot of Ngor Monastery.

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso, unsurprisingly, failed to get along with this older abbot and this was the cause of many later problems. In the second year of his term, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s behavior had so disappointed the senior master that he was even temporarily removed from his abbotship. It appears that Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s involvement in religion was for position, power, prestige and wealth. He was even disgracefully removed from the prestigious and sacred position of the abbot of Ngor Monastery. Being removed is a big disgrace.

Dezhung Rinpoche reported:

“The young zhabs-drung [now abbot] soon demonstrated not only a native intelligence and wit, but also a distressing stubbornness and independence. He soon quarrelled with the aged Khang-gsar mKhan-po. As a result of this conflict, he withdrew from the Khang-gsar Lama-palace and set up his own separate ecclesiastical palace.”

So, not only had Ngawang Yontan Gyatso disrespected a senior and older former abbot, but had gone so far as to leave the monastery to set up his own residence.

Sakya Monastery located in Tibet, China.

Spreading sectarianism

Having founded a residence of his own, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso now needed to find some way of funding his activities. In order to obtain patronage to boost his prestige at Ngor, he set out for Bhutan where he attracted the attention of the King who lavished upon him considerable wealth. He soon became the wealthiest of all the “ecclesiastical princes” of Ngor and became popularly known as the “Drukpa Khenpo” (“Bhutan abbot”). Following his success in Bhutan, he returned to Ngor where he remained a controversial figure.

Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo in his younger days

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso also began to manifest intense dislike for the enlightened protector Dorje Shugden, represented by the very popular Gelug lama Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo (1878–1941) at that time. Pabongka Rinpoche is the one who, in 1921 at Chuzang Hermitage near Lhasa, gave a historic 24-day exposition on the Lam Rim, or “stages of the path” that was attended by some 700 people. Many monks came from the three major monasteries in Lhasa (Ganden, Sera and Drepung), and many more traveled weeks from the Central Province of Tsang, and from as far away as Amdo and Kham just to receive teachings from Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche. This included about 30 lamas and reincarnations of lamas, as well as many lay people.

Unlike many other lamas who became famous for their scholarship or practice, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso is perhaps best remembered for his crusade against Dorje Shugden. The writings that exist about him are predominantly related to his anti-Shugden activities, and his systematic targeting of monasteries and monks to dismantle the practice in and around Tibet. In the summer of the third and last year of his abbacy (1935), during the time of the rainy-season retreat, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso began to court open conflict with Dorje Shugden practitioners. He began by sharply criticizing the monks of Khangsar Labrang’s own community, calling them “thieves and breakers of sacred tantric commitments”.

He then set out for Kham where he embarked upon a crusade against Dorje Shugden, destroying images and ritual objects at Damthog Monastery. Around 1948, when his cousin and former classmate Dezhung Rinpoche was at Sakya on pilgrimage, he traveled to Dezhung Rinpoche’s monastery of Tharlam.

Gathering the monks together, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso told them of his crusade against Dorje Shugden and said that Dorje Shugden was not a protector of religion, but an evil spirit who would cause the doctrine to perish. He told the monks of Tharlam that in his previous incarnation as Phankhang Ngawang Kunga Tenpai Gyaltsen, this deity had caused him great obstacles and had caused his early death at the age of 36. He also elicited from the Tharlam monks their agreement to destroy the mask of this deity the next morning. Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s actions showed his blatant disrespect for the previous holy Sakya Throneholders who had in their learning and wisdom installed Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition in the first place. But then, Ngawang Yonten Gyatso never had a penchant for respecting his seniors and the learned masters of the past, and was determined to exercise power and control in his focus to gain fame.

Hearing such words being uttered by someone of position, the monks were made sufficiently fearful and, although they were afraid of reprisals from the so-called angered deity, they felt duty-bound to follow the Ngor Abbot’s wishes.

Hence the following morning, after extensive prayers, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso led a procession of monks into the Protector Chapel. They removed a revered mask of Dorje Shugden from its shrine and carried it outside. Ngawang Yontan Gyatso then threw it into a fire, before drawing a pistol and shooting the mask several times. After the mask had been destroyed, he re-entered the Protector Chapel and removed all ritual articles associated with Dorje Shugden. He then had the monks carry the items down to the banks of the Kyichu River and hurl them into the waters.

The 342-mile Kyichu River in Lhasa

Reviving the Dharma out of spite

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s intense dislike for all things Dorje Shugden also manifested in the form of animosity towards the Gelug lama Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche. Ngawang Yontan Gyatso claimed that in 1940, a year before Pabongka Rinpoche’s death, Pabongka Rinpoche carried out “sectarian machinations” by voicing to a Chinese Kuomintang governor his displeasure at the fact “Uncle Jamyang Gyaltsen” had published Gorampa’s works. He even claimed that Pabongka Rinpoche had criticized the exposition of the Thirteen Great Indian Buddhist Works.

“Uncle Jamyang Gyaltsen” here refers to Gapa Khenpo Jamyang Chokyi Gyaltsen (also known as Khenpo Jamgyal; 1870-1940) who played a pivotal role in the preservation and propagation of Gorampa Sonam Senge’s teachings. Gorampa had been the 6^th Abbot of Ngor Monastery, and a contemporary of Lama Tsongkhapa as well as his biggest critic. His writings were banned by the Central Tibetan government who, for centuries, had ordered they be held under lock and key, outlawing their reproduction.

In claiming that Pabongka Rinpoche continued to be against Gorampa’s works, Ngawang Yontan Gyatso accomplished a number of things:

Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche was a tremendous proliferator of Dorje Shugden’s practice

1. He fanned the flames of sectarianism by claiming that Gelugpas (as represented by Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche) were against the teachings of a Sakya lama (as represented by Gorampa). Ngawang Yontan Gyatso was highly sectarian as the evidence shows.
2. He fanned people’s hatred against Dorje Shugden, just because Dorje Shugden was being heavily promoted by Pabongka Rinpoche. If Ngawang Yontan Gyatso could succeed in painting Pabongka Rinpoche as sectarian and therefore someone to be avoided, then anything else he propagated (i.e. Dorje Shugden) should also be avoided.
3. This was an opportune moment to remind the laity that the Central Tibetan government, which was predominantly Gelug, had banned the teachings of a Sakya lama for centuries. The Gelugs were a convenient target now that he had gained the support of the Bhutanese palace because, whilst the Sakyas were friendly with Bhutan, the Bhutanese viewed the Gelugs as enemies stemming from the time of the 5^th Dalai Lama’s Gaden Phodrang government.
4. As the 69^th Abbot of Ngor, by defending the legacy of the 6^th Ngor Abbot, it would legitimize his other actions and reinforce his power base, therefore helping him garner support for his crusade against Dorje Shugden.
5. Thus for Ngawang Yontan Gyatso, it suited him politically to be on the side of Gorampa and against Dorje Shugden and Pabongka Rinpoche. It was pure revenge which does not reflect well on himself. His vengeful tactics and sectarianism disqualify him as a spiritual master that can be relied upon.

An unremarkable end

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso eventually disrobed, took on a wife and lived the life of a “holy madman”. Even though he was a supposed high lama, he had not gain any sort of discipline. Even after a lifetime of monk-hood and his position as the abbot of such a prestigious monastery, he had no control over his desires, something which led him to disrobe and take on wife like an ordinary layman. Some time between 1959 and 1960, he was imprisoned by the Chinese, telling his remaining disciples, “I am going there, and will die after being tortured. If any of you have real faith and trust in me, come along with me!”

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso died in the early 1960s at about age 60 in a large prison near Siling (Xining), China, which held thousands of prisoners. His karma from persecuting others and destroying their religion finally caught up with him. Unlike other lamas who practice compassion, what Ngawang Yontan Gyatso practiced was the opposite. Genuine lamas make sure that their students do not suffer unnecessarily, but Ngawang Yontan Gyatso invited his disciples to join him in prison to suffer. During his death, he showed no extraordinary signs befitting a high lama, such as ‘thukdam‘ or death meditation, during which a lama remains in the deepest state of meditation when all bodily functions have stopped without physical decomposition occurring. There was a clear absence of rainbows, auspicious singing by celestial beings, or slight earth tremors that usually mark the birth and/or the death of a supreme high lama. There were no tears shed either. He died unceremoniously in prison and was never heard from again.

His legacy remains especially evident in Bhutan where, to this day, many people continue to view Gelugpas with suspicion in general, and Dorje Shugden with hatred in particular. Such is the effect Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s hate has had on the Bhutanese people where centuries later, they continue to dislike Dorje Shugden even though he is deeply rooted in their history via the 4^th Zhabdrung Rinpoche Jigme Norbu, the reincarnation of the lama who founded modern-day Bhutan. 

Fortunately, the younger generation of Bhutanese people are educated, can do research, discern and make their own decisions regarding the sacred practice of Dorje Shugden. Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s negative legacy is fading. The new literate class of young Bhutanese can see that sectarianism is harmful and that the 4^th Zhabdrung Rinpoche who was the highest incarnation in the land of Bhutan practiced and promoted Dorje Shugden. He even composed special prayers to Dorje Shugden as he knew that Dorje Shugden is beneficial for the Bhutanese people. The 4^th Zhabdrung Rinpoche must have regarded Dorje Shugden highly in order to compose texts to him. Out of faith for Zhabdrung Rinpoche, there has been a resurgence in Dorje Shugden’s practice among the younger generation of Bhutanese as they can feel the swiftness in the efficacy of his practice. 

Dorje Shugden Tanag is a form of Dorje Shugden commonly practised within the Sakya tradition. Click to enlarge.

Observers will also find it contradictory that someone who was the abbot of a Sakya monastery could leave behind him such a trail of destruction and negativity, because real Sakya practitioners are upholders of Buddha Shakyamuni’s doctrine which can only lead to the development of attainments such as compassion and wisdom. Genuine Sakya masters are saintly and they benefit sentient beings. They never cause sectarian destruction.

Yet, neither wisdom nor compassion is associated with Ngawang Yontan Gyatso and when examining the course of his life, it is easy to see why. When someone can challenge an elderly former abbot of his own monastery, to the point that said abbot would try to remove him, such a negative legacy is no longer surprising. Hence, today, the Abbot of Ngor is mostly remembered for his schismatic campaign against Dorje Shugden; even in anti-Shugden literature, his actions are referred to as a “grudge”, a word one does not often associate with Buddhist lamas and Dharma practitioners.

It is worth noting that for all of Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s campaigning against Dorje Shugden, Sakya’s reliance on Dorje Shugden continued well into the 20^th Century. For example, the 41^st Sakya Trizin was often seen engaging in Dorje Shugden pujas while living in the Tibetan refugee community in Buxa, North-East India back in the 1970s. All the high lamas of the four lineages lived in Buxa together and intermingled when they first went into exile back in 1959. It was well known the Sakyas practiced Dorje Shugden including the 41^st Sakya Trizin, who later denied it most likely for political correctness at the height of the ban against Shugden. Many times, the high lamas met and shared their lineages together. Senior Gelugpa monks and Sakya monks attest that Dorje Shugden was practiced in Sakya as well as by the 41^st Sakya Trizin while in Buxa. They were all in Buxa for a few years before resettling in various parts of India as designated by the Indian government. Similarly, to this day, there remains a Dorje Shugden mural prominently painted on one of the walls of Sakya Monastery in Shigatse.

Hence, if it was Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s intention to scrub Dorje Shugden’s image and practice off the face of this planet, his own lineage’s continued connection with the deity makes it clear that he was wholly unsuccessful. So if there is one lesson to be learned from the life story of Ngawang Yontan Gyatso, it is how negativity, schism, division and disharmony never pay off in the end.

Relevant readings

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche

Page 31 – 32

Lama Gendun served for about four years as khenpo of the seminary of Jyekundo after Shenga’s departure and was a stout defender of Sakyapa doctrines in local controversies. After that he went to Central Tibet and became head of the small seminary at Ngor. He also traveled widely with the Ngor Khangsar lama Dampa Rinpoche (1876-1953, his teacher and senior classmate under Shenga), receiving many teachings from him, and it was in Tsang at Sakya that he passed away in 1939 or 1940.

Dezhung Rinpoche had been instructed by Gatön to stay with Lama Gendun and was accepted by Lama Gendun as his personal pupil. At this time Lama Gendun had two or three young monks under his personal supervision, including Dezhung Rinpoche and the latter’s distant cousin, the future Ngor Khangsar abbot Ngawang Yontan Gyatso (1902-ca. 1963, Ngor abbot 1933-1936), later known as the “Druk Khenpo.” As a teacher Lama Gendun was so strict that both pupils were afraid of him. Once he asked Dezhung Rinpoche to go to another room and fetch a book and a vase of water. Afraid of some rebuke, Dezhung Rinpoche immediately ran off as requested and rushed back into the room, holding the two objects before him, staring intently into his teacher’s face to try to divine his next wish. In his nervous distraction, he held the vase over the book.

“What are you doing, careless fellow?” said Lama Gendun, snatching the book out of his hands and swatting him over the head with it. “You should never hold something over a book like that!”

Another time, after some mistake, Lama Gendun scolded him sharply, saying, “You a trulku? Hah! Maybe a vulture’s trulku!” But Dezhung Rinpoche never got beatings over the head with his teacher’s slipper, as his more obstinate companion, the future Khangsar abbot Ngawang Yontan Gyatso, Lama Gendun’s nephew, did.

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche, page 31.
Click to enlarge.

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche, page 32.
Click to enlarge.

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche

Page 188 – 189, together with some relevant notes

During this period (ca. 1953-1954), Rinpoche’s distant cousin the Drukpa abbot Ngawang Yontan Gyatso (1902 – ca. 1963), an old classmate of Dezhung Rinpoche from the time of his youthful studies under Shenga and Lama Gendun, and now for many years the ex-abbot of Ngor turned tantrika, also visited Tharlam. He requested Dezhung Rinpoche to record the life story of Ga Lama Jamyang Gyaltsen, saying, “Since Jamgyal Rinpoche was your ‘maternal uncle’ and you studied under him for two years, you should by all means write his biography.” The Drukpa Abbot was a true paternal nephew of Jamgyal, being the son of Jamgyal’s younger brother Skal dga’ (Skal bzang phrin las). He was a well-known and almost notorious figure.

As Dezhung Rinpoche later recalled:

‘Brug pa Mkhan po… was born in Sga in Kham. His family was an old and honorable one, some of whose scions had achieved great prominence as religious figures of the Sakyapa and Nyingmapa sects. His uncle was the famous Sga Lama Jamyang Gyaltsen (1870-1940), the editor of the collected works of Gowo Rabjampa Sonam Sengge (1429-1489). He was related to the ruling houses of Nangchen and Derge. Through the influence of his family and because of his intelligence and wit, he was accepted as a shabdrung of the Khangsar Lama palace of Ngor and proclaimed to be the rebirth of Ngorpa Mkhan po Ngawang Kunga Tenpay Gyaltsen (1863-1899) of the Phan khang Lama palace.⁷¹²

The young shabdrung soon demonstrated not only a native intelligence and wit, but also a distressing stubbornness and independence. He soon quarrelled with the aged Khang gsar Mkhan po Ngag dbang snying po . As a result of this conflict, he withdrew from the Khang gsar Lama palace and set up his own separate ecclesiastical palace. In order to obtain the wealth necessary to increase his prestige at Ngor, he set out for Bhutan where he attracted the attention of the King of Bhutan, who lavished upon him considerable wealth. He soon was the most wealthy of the ecclesiastical princes of Ngor.

Ngawang Yontan Gyatso, now known as the “Drukpa Khenpo” (“Bhutan abbot”), returned to Ngor and there began a crusade against the protector Rdo rje shugs ldan.⁷¹³ Still later he returned to Kham and gave up his monk’s vows. Living mainly in Gapa, he was known there as “Lab kha Abbot,” so called from his family home near Tharlam on the opposite side of the Drichu. He is said to have died in the early 1960s in Kham, in Communist imprisonment.

Footnotes
⁷¹² – Ngag dbang kun dga’ bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan was the sixty-first abbot of Ngor and his tenure was from 1895 to 1898. During the second year of his term, the senior Khang gsar abbot at that time, Ngag dbang mkhyen rab ‘jam dpal snying po of the Zhwa lu Sku zhang family, was very disappointed at Ngawang Yontan Gyatso’s behavior and succeeded in temporarily removing him from the position of abbot, saying, “I put him up as abbot, and I can take him down!”

⁷¹³ – According to Dezhung Rinpoche (as recorded in E.G. Smith, unpublished paper “Notes on the History of the Cult of Rdo-rje-shugs-ldan,” Inner Asia Colloquium, July 25, 1963, pp. 7–9), the ‘Brug pa Mkhan po lived as a sort of “holy madman” (chos smyon) and was subject to ecstatic trances in which deities would enter his person. On numerous occasions, when bestowing the initiation of Na ro Mkha’ spyod ma (Naro Kacho Vajrayogini), he would rise and begin dancing and whirling about. He intensely disliked the particular tradition within the Dge lugs pa represented by Pha bong kha pa, and his main wrath was directed against the cult of the protector Rdo rje shugs ldan. Sometimes it seemed as if he were physically struggling with another deity for the possession of his body. That deity was Shugs ldan. As Smith also recorded (pp. 7-8):

It was at Ngor that he began his “war” on Rdo-rje-shugs-ldan. One of the most important mgon-khang of Rdo-rje-shugs-ldan was the rTenmkhar at Ngor. Having made significant gifts to the various politically significant personages and to the monastic community, he assessed the climate to be ripe for the destruction of the mask of Shugs-ldan and the institution of the worship of a rival bstan-srung. His iconoclastic successes at Ngor made him only more eager for more victories against Shugs-ldan, whom, it seems, he actually viewed as a physical enemy.

He set out for Khams where he embarked upon a crusade against this deity. He visited the monastery of ‘Dam thog in Ldan rna and there destroyed the images and ritual objects of this cult. Then he came to Tharlam in about 1948, in the absence of Dezhung Rinpoche (who was at Sakya on pilgrimage). He called the monks together and told them of his crusade against Shugs ldan. He told them that Shugs ldan was not a protector of religion, but that he was an evil spirit who would cause the doctrine to perish. He told them that this deity had caused him great obstacles in his previous incarnation as the Phan khang Ngag dbang kun dga’ bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1863-1899), and that Shugs ldan had then actually caused his early death at age thirty-six. He proposed to destroy, if they would agree, the mask of this deity the following morning. Many of the monks feared the consequences of so provocative an act, and they were afraid of reprisals from the angered deity. But being the disciples of ‘Brug pa Mkhan po, they felt bound to follow his wishes. The next morning, after prolonged prayers, he led a procession of monks into the Protector’s Chapel (mgon khang). He took down a revered mask of the deity from its shrine and carried it outside. He then hurled it into a fire, and then drew a pistol and shot at the mask numerous times. After the mask had been destroyed, he reentered the Protector’s Chapel and removed all the ritual articles associated with that deity. These he had the monks carry down to the banks of the ‘Bri chu and hurl into the river.

After this, he reconsecrated the chapel to the deity Beg tse. He defied Shugs ldan to take revenge. When nothing happened, the frightened monks lost their faith in Shugs ldan and accepted the new protective deity.

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche, page 188.
Click to enlarge.

A Saint in Seattle; The Life of the Tibetan Mystic Dezhung Rinpoche, page 189.
Click to enlarge.

Further reading

Lungta 14: Aspects of Tibetan History Spring 2001
Published by Amnye Machen Institute
Guest Editor: Roberto Vitali
Editor: Tashi Tsering
[Click to download a PDF copy]
 

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. The opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the website or its editors.

By: Karma Yeshe

Recently, a short video clip of the current 12^th Tai Situ Rinpoche Pema Tönyö Nyinje surfaced within WeChat groups, causing quite a commotion. The minute-long footage features Tai Situ Rinpoche who is one of the four Regents of the Karma Kagyu lineage, fanning the fears surrounding Dorje Shugden, a Dharma Protector of the Gelug tradition.

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

It is extremely disappointing that Tai Situ Rinpoche, believed to be an emanation of the future Buddha Maitreya, would lobby opinions that bring no benefit to the unity of the Tibetan people. Someone who is labelled an emanation of the Buddha Maitreya should actually be filled with love, compassion and great tolerance, and should not fear any so-called ‘spirits’. Any emanation of Maitreya should not incite fear in the people who have trust in him, as well as his followers because in the end, if the so-called Maitreya is afraid of a spirit, then it must be your intention to create schism. On the contrary, Tai Situ Rinpoche’s speech contains not-too-subtle connotations that sow seeds of doubt and discord. Tibetan society does not need more ‘high’ lamas who criticize other lineages’ practices, deities and protectors. What they need are representatives of Buddhism who will create harmony, love, acceptance and tolerance; if someone like Tai Situ wants to start criticizing another lineage, practice, religion or spiritual path, then there will be many other paths which are not Karma Kagyu which will be considered wrong by him. Where do you draw the line? Maybe he should remain silent and respect all religious paths, would that not be better? It is not his place to judge another person’s spiritual path but to practice tolerance and perhaps remain silent.

Translation of the WeChat video of the 12th Tai Situ Rinpoche, Pema Tönyö Nyinje commenting on Dorje Shugden.

Who is really causing schism?

One cannot help but question Tai Situ Rinpoche’s intentions for playing on and amplifying such unfounded fears. Why is Tai Situ Rinpoche taking sides in the Dorje Shugden rift? After all, it is unnecessary for him to be involved in such a sensitive and charged issue, especially when it does not directly concern his lineage. Tai Situ Rinpoche should set a good example and not interfere in the philosophies, practices, deities and spiritual path of another sect of Buddhism. His opinion will not hold water nor will it be respected but will be the cause of much more schism and dissension amongst various sects.

Until the implementation of the undemocratic ban in 1996, Dorje Shugden was widely practiced by great masters of both the Sakya and Gelug traditions. In fact, Dorje Shugden was first practiced, enshrined and written about in the Sakya tradition – a few great Sakya throne holders composed lengthy prayers and liturgies to Dorje Shugden for meditations and pujas, and within the Sakya tradition, Dorje Shugden is known as ‘Dorje Shugden tanag’ (Dorje Shugden depicted riding on a black horse). His was a highly recommended practice by some of the Sakya throne holders and in the main temple of Sakya in Tibet, there are shrines dedicated to him. Historically, it was the 30^th Sakya throne holder Sonam Rinchen who first enthroned Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector who, together with Dorje Setrap and Tsiu Marpo, formed as one of the groups of protectors of the Sakya lineage known as The Three Kings (Gyalpo Sum). It was from the Sakyas that great Gelugpa high-ranking masters, luminaries, yogis and scholars received this practice and up until today, many Gelugpa meditational practices were actually imported from the Sakya lineage. Hence, having originated amongst the Sakyas, Dorje Shugden became a mainstream practice in almost all Gelug monasteries in and out of Tibet for the past 400 years.

The Sakya Gyalpo Sum trio of protectors include Setrap, Dorje Shugden and Tsiu Marpo.

Therefore, when historical evidence shows the extensive, multi-tradition and interminable practice of this enlightened Dharma Protector prior to the 1996 Dorje Shugden ban, Tai Situ Rinpoche saying that Dorje Shugden “creates a lot of disharmony” and “within the Sangha there will be a lot of schism” is not only completely untrue but ironically is itself the cause of disharmony, distrust, animosity and schism. Tai Situ Rinpoche himself has created so much controversy, schism, division and fighting within his own lineage, and that he cannot blame on Dorje Shugden since he is so frightfully fearful of even mentioning his name. It is ironic he says Dorje Shugden creates division and schism, when he is doing a fine job of doing so all on his own.

His statements also demean all the great masters of the Gelug tradition (and the Sakya masters preceding them) who had tremendous faith in Dorje Shugden and engaged in his practice. Is Tai Situ Rinpoche implying that all the great Sakya and Gelug masters were wrong? That they lied to and misled their followers by encouraging them to rely on Dorje Shugden? That they were bad practitioners with no wisdom and foresight? That Tai Situ himself is higher and has better insight than all of them? How can Tai Situ Rinpoche judge lamas who are much more superior than himself? As sad as it seems, many within Tibetan Buddhism (both Tibetans and foreigners) find Tai Situ Rinpoche’s actions and speech more akin to a politician’s for self-gain than that of a so-called high lama. His immediate senior, His Eminence Shamar Rinpoche, is considered much more spiritual, direct and honest, and it would not come as a shock to know that Tai Situ has created great schism, talk and divisiveness against Shamar Rinpoche. For that, Tai Situpa was in fact banned by the Indian government from entering India for five years. That itself should say a lot. Shouldn’t a lama of Tai Situ Rinpoche’s standing be promoting religious tolerance, unity and peace instead?

Perhaps this is because Tai Situ Rinpoche is no stranger to divisiveness – he is a central figure in the controversy surrounding the recognition of the 17^th Karmapa candidate. He has also instigated and promoted violence within the Karma Kagyu sect by encouraging his supporters to ransack Rumtek Monastery. Tai Situ Rinpoche’s encouragement was fueled by jealousy and unhappiness with His Eminence Shamar Rinpoche enthroning his Karmapa candidate Thaye Dorje in Rumtek Monastery itself. Within this video that was captured, you can see the extreme violence and vandalism by Tai Situpa’s supporters in Rumtek Monastery while Shamarpa and his Karmapa candidate were inside. Take note that Rumtek Monastery is the headquarters of the Karmapa in India, where Tai Situpa and Shamarpa had both grown up. Tai Situ Rinpoche overstepped his boundaries when he recognized Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the 17^th Karmapa, a responsibility traditionally reserved for Shamar Rinpoche, the second highest ranking Karma Kagyu lama.

The Tibetan government-in-exile, known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has been implicated in the controversy surrounding the recognition of the 17th Karmapa. Shamarpa Rinpoche should be the traditional lama to recognize and enthrone the 17th Karmapa. Due to the CTA’s interference, Shamarpa’s candidate received many threats and problems during the recognition. This picture shows His Eminence Shamar Rinpoche (right) with the 17th Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje (left).

The Tibetan government-in-exile, known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has been implicated in the controversy surrounding the recognition of the 17th Karmapa. This picture shows Tai Situ Rinpoche (right) with the 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje (left). With much violence, in-fighting and split among the Karma Kagyus, this very political Tai Situ Rinpoche did his Karmapa candidate’s enthronement. Many within Karma Kagyu sect do not accept his choice of candidate. The Dalai Lama was asked to withdraw his support for this candidate but said he could not do so because he has already signed his name to it, which means that he was endorsing this candidate for perhaps political reasons. The reason why Tai Situ broke with tradition and went to His Holiness the Dalai Lama to recognize his candidate is because he wanted his candidate to win so that he, Tai Situpa, could have access and control of the Karmapa’s estate accumulated over 16 generations. He therefore went to the Dalai Lama to gain an endorsement for his candidate Ogyen Trinley, thereby riding on the Dalai Lama’s fame to override Shamarpa who is the traditional person who is supposed to recognize the Karmapa.

The Tibetan government-in-exile, known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) has been implicated in the controversy surrounding the recognition of the 17th Karmapa. This picture shows His Eminence Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche (right) with his candidate of the 17th Karmapa Dawa Sangpo Dorje (left). So within the Karma Kagyu school of Buddhism, due to the politics and greed, there are three candidates to Karmapa. It is a very sad situation indeed, with so much in-fighting and schism within the Karma Kagyus. Tai Situ Rinpoche would like to say Dorje Shugden creates divisions and schisms, but it seems without Dorje Shugden, Tai Situ is creating a lot of divisions on his own.

Tai Situ Rinpoche also broke tradition when, in a bid to force his candidate onto the Karma Kagyu throne, he involved His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA; Tibetan leadership in Dharamsala, North India) in the recognition of the 17^th Karmapa. Everyone knows the reason why Tai Situ broke with tradition and went to His Holiness the Dalai Lama to recognize his candidate – he wanted his candidate to win so that he, Tai Situpa, could have access and control of the Karmapa’s estate accumulated over 16 generations. He therefore went to the Dalai Lama to gain an endorsement for his candidate Ogyen Trinley, thereby riding on the Dalai Lama’s fame to override Shamarpa who is the traditional person who is supposed to recognize the Karmapa.

To further inflame the issue, Tai Situ Rinpoche refused to submit for verification the evidence he claimed substantiated his choice of candidate. In fact, the line of Karmapa incarnations are known for finding their own next incarnations – before they pass away, they leave a written letter stating the location their next incarnation, as well as the name of their parents. This letter is sealed until the appropriate time when the four Regents open it together and embark on finding the Karmapa incarnation. The four regents are Shamar Rinpoche, Tai Situ Rinpoche, Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche and Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche.

Tai Situ claimed he had this important recognition letter from the 16^thKarmapa giving the whereabouts of the 17^thKarmapa but he would not show it to anyone nor share it with the other regents. Shamarpa also claimed to have the letter and said that the letter held by Tai Situ is a forgery. The division continues from thereon without end; until today, the Karma Kagyu school is split into two, fighting, lambasting, criticizing, finger-pointing and badmouthing each other to such a point whereby one of the Karmapa candidates, Ogyen Trinley, spoke up about it. For someone who is as colorful as Tai Situ Rinpoche, who has created so much division, fighting and anger within his own lineage with his alleged deceptions, do you think he has the right to criticize another sect’s choice of protectors? Maybe he should solve his own problems before he sticks his nose into other issues that he knows nothing about. With his refusal to show his letter allegedly in the handwriting of the 16^th Karmapa, his actions have since caused a deep split within the Karma Kagyu school which shows no sign of healing.

Inflammatory and untrue statements

This is the head of the Gelugpa order, His Holiness the 101st Gaden Tripa Jetsun Lungrik Namgyal. During his tenure, which was extremely successful, he was the supreme throne holder of the Gelugpa school. Currently 92 years old, His Holiness resides in France where he remains a very strong practitioner of Dorje Shugden, always encouraging people to rely on the enlightened Protector. When the highest-ranking lama within the Gelug school of Buddhism tells you Dorje Shugden is beneficial and Manjushri in nature, maybe a much lower-ranking lama such as Tai Situpa should take heed of his senior. The 92-year-old Gaden Tripa is one of the greatest scholars of Buddhism on this planet and the head of the spiritual tradition of Gelugpa. He has lived a stainless, faultless life, remains very healthy and strong, and continues to advocate the practice of Dorje Shugden which he has received from his own root guru. Compare this to the politically-inclined Tai Situ Rinpoche who sends his followers to storm his own monastery, and throw rocks and bottles, and break its windows to disturb an important ceremony. You think which one you should listen to.

The divided opinion on the divinity of Dorje Shugden, which has gone on for decades, is still a highly charged topic today. Regardless of one’s opinion, what is crystal clear is that Dorje Shugden has not been conclusively proven to be a malevolent spirit. Contrary to this and in fact, there is vast evidence of Dorje Shugden’s enlightened nature.

In the video, Tai Situ Rinpoche clearly says that,

If you practice Shugden, it will bring obstacles to your life.

This alludes to the wrong views held by the anti-Shugden camp that a person’s life is shortened if he propitiates Dorje Shugden. Yet, it has been established that many lamas who are or were steadfast Dorje Shugden practitioners have long lifespans with some living well into their eighties and nineties. These include:

• H.H. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, who lived until the age of 81 (1901-1981)
• H.H. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, who lived until the age of 79 (1905-1984)
• H.E. Sogpu Rinpoche (Bundasheri Tulku Guru Deva), who lived until the age of 101 (1908 – 2009)
• H.E. Kyabje Lati Rinpoche, who lived until the age of 88 (1922 – 2010)
• H.E. Kensur Lobsang Tharchin Rinpoche, who lived until the age of 83 (1921 – 2004)
• H.E. Kensur Jampa Yeshe Rinpoche, who lived until the age of 82 (1929 – 2011)
• H.H. 101st Trisur Rinpoche Jetsun Lungrik Namgyal, who is still going strong at 91 years old (1927 – present)
• H.H. the 14^th Dalai Lama, who is still very much active and healthy at 83 years old (1935 – present)
• Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who is already 87 years old (1931 – present)
• H.E. Drubwang Gangchen Rinpoche, who is at present 77 years old (1941 – present)
• H.E. Kensur Rinpoche Lobsang Phende, who is also currently 77 years old (1941 – present)

His Eminence Sogpu Rinpoche is considered to be an emanation of Gyenze, the “increasing” form of Dorje Shugden. He was born in 1908 in Hanchen Hosguu of Ordos in Inner Mongolia, and was enthroned on the Hutugtu throne at a young age. He entered clear light and left his earthly body in 2009 at the age of 101 years old.

Is a malevolent spirit more powerful than the Buddhas?

Early Karma Kagyu Refuge Tree showing the Buddhas, enlightened protectors and lineage masters. Click to enlarge.

As one of the oldest tulku lineages of the Karma Kagyu tradition, Tai Situ Rinpoche should possess the knowledge to understand that there is no basis to fear any spirit, malevolent or otherwise, if one has taken the Refuge Vows and even more so if one has taken the Sangha Vows. The Buddhist teachings are clear that no ghost or spirit can harm a monk or nun unless they themselves have broken their vows.

By encouraging fear of malevolent spirits, Tai Situ Rinpoche makes the supposition that the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) do not have the power to bring people under their protection. To make matters worse, when most lay people would turn to their lama or guru for spiritual assistance, including for protection against spirits and black magic, Tai Situ Rinpoche’s seeming lack of faith in the power of vows and refuge is akin to him saying that he is powerless to assist or protect his followers from malevolent spirits. This is illogical — can you imagine going to the Dalai Lama only to have His Holiness tell you that not only is he powerless to help, but he fears the spirit? Can you imagine His Holiness encouraging you to be afraid of a malevolent spirit and advising you to refrain from saying its name just in case you attract its attention?

In fact, high Tibetan lamas are renowned for their ability to subdue malevolent spirits. Given his repute, it should not be beyond Tai Situ Rinpoche’s ability to do so as well. As such, instead of playing up people’s paranoia with continuous talk, if Dorje Shugden were really that harmful, why not be practical and apply the proven solution i.e. subjugation?

Nechung was once an evil worldly spirit that did his best to destroy the advent of Buddhism in Tibet until he was subdued by Guru Rinpoche or Padmasambhava. In fact, Nechung is said to have originally come from Persia. So here you have a perfidious Persian spirit subdued by an Indian saint, turned into a Protector force within Tibet. Who is the real spirit? Today, he is the State Oracle of Tibet. In this picture, the 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje, Sikyong Dr Lobsang Sangay and representatives of the CTA attend the invocation of the Nechung Oracle at Nechung Monastery on 18th July 2016. They are all waiting for the Nechung spirit to enter his human oracle and give predictions of the future, many of which have been proven wrong.

Spirits and ghosts are beings who are experiencing great pain and suffering. So, instead of encouraging his followers to fear Dorje Shugden who is supposedly a malevolent spirit, would it not behoove Tai Situ Rinpoche to subdue Dorje Shugden and send his consciousness to a pure land? Or alternatively, to subdue Dorje Shugden to serve as a Dharma Protector as in the case of Nechung, the State Oracle of Tibet? Lamas like Tai Situ Rinpoche are supposed to help people overcome spirit problems, as well as help spirits be released from their suffering. So how does Tai Situ Rinpoche subdue ghosts or spirits if he is afraid of them?

No demon or evil spirit can be more powerful than a Buddha but by Tai Situ Rinpoche labelling Dorje Shugden a spirit and then encouraging his followers to fear Dorje Shugden, he is implying that Dorje Shugden is stronger than Buddha Shakyamuni, Yamantaka, Manjushri or Palden Lhamo. What kind of message is he spreading to his students and followers? Why is he spreading information that is contradictory to the basic tenets of Buddhism?

There is only one possible explanation as to why Dorje Shugden cannot be subdued, which is that Dorje Shugden is himself a Buddha, an enlightened being emanating as a worldly protector. The only beings that cannot be subdued by Buddhas, are Buddhas themselves.

What is Tai Situ Rinpoche really saying?

It is a shame that Tai Situ Rinpoche is abusing his position as one of the leaders of the Karma Kagyu school to spread misleading, unsubstantiated fears and distorted information to the tens of thousands of adherents of his lineage, and to worsen an already-wide rift amongst Tibetan society. In fact, Tai Situ is very well-known to follow politics of the majority in order to have access to financial gain. By him sticking his nose and interfering with Gelugpa and Sakya business, and criticizing a Protector that has nothing to do with them, he is trying to nuzzle up to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile, and to be seen to be on the ‘right’ side. When he is seen to be on the ‘right’ side and he is supported by the Dalai Lama, it will mean more fame for him which will of course translate into more donations. This could be his only motive for speaking up on a subject that he knows nothing about. By speaking against Dorje Shugden, he is automatically criticizing the great Sakya and Gelug lamas who are much more senior than him, and much greater in knowledge than himself.

Instead of accepting Tai Situ Rinpoche’s words wholesale, discerning viewers should analyze the contents of his speech, examine them logically against the Buddha’s teachings, and then speak up to correct the wrong views that this video may have created. Tai Situ Rinpoche should really be held accountable for the pain, suffering and discrimination that he is encouraging through this short one-minute video – what is his motive for making these comments and what is he trying to achieve, personal, political or spiritual gain?

Addendum

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

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

The back cover of the book, click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge

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

Click to enlarge

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

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

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

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

Click to enlarge

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

Click to enlarge

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

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

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

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

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

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

Freedom for Tibetans is not likely if the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) continues their double standard politics

By: Tenzin Tsondrue

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.

In a world driven by differing values, individual needs and often opposing organizational interests, conflicts and controversies are inevitable. Unfortunately this applies to all aspects of life including religion. In fact, religion is always a latent source of quarrels which, if unmanaged, can escalate into full blown hostilities. Therefore a leader and the government of a religious community must make special effort to be fair and be seen to be unbiased and equal in its handling of such conflicts. A defining mark of good government is fairness and the care the leadership takes to neither fall into partisanship by choosing a side to stand with, or to remain apathetic to the plight of another.

This is a concept that the Tibetan government-in-exile, now known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), seems unable to grasp or have no respect for, acting instead as if it is still a feudal lordship rather than the liberal government it professes to be. The CTA’s official stance on key issues is found to differ depending on what situation suits its agenda better.

At first glance, it may just seem like the CTA is an inexperienced and incompetent government. But after decades of similar inconsistencies, it is clear that the CTA is not in fact a government of the people and for the people, but a conspiracy of a small elite, using the instrument of government to serve themselves. This would explain why they appear reluctant to apply good governance in situations where there is no personal benefit to them (other than the well being of the people) but are quick to intervene and act ultra vires when there are private objectives to fulfill.

For example, neither the Dalai Lama or the CTA acted swiftly to discourage the spate of over 100 self-immolations around 2010. Instead those incidents were treated as political opportunities for anti-Chinese propaganda and so the CTA refused to advise against them for the longest time, choosing political mileage over the lives of its people. That is not the only example and in fact a number of past events involving the Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug lineages will attest to the CTA’s secret agendas. These examples will expose the fact that what the CTA claims to be policies and guiding principles only apply in some cases and not in others, depending on what is more conducive to their hidden plans.

In its harsh decision to ban the practice of Dorje Shugden, the CTA cited the reasons being Dorje Shuden’s legacy of enmity towards the Dalai Lama line; the ‘sectarian’ nature of the practice that breeds disunity; the malicious intention of the leaders of the practice who are in fact Chinese agents; the ‘spiritual bond’ (samaya) between the Dalai Lama and all Tibetans which if breached would endanger the Dalai Lama’s life, and other similar false justifications. All these reasons seem to allude to the CTA taking steps to protect the overall well-being of the people but we will see that these reasons are hollow because when similar situations arise apart from Shugden, the CTA has acted differently. These contradictions have led to some of the greatest damage being inflicted on the credibility of the Tibetan nation and Tibetan Buddhism in modern history.

1. The Fifth Dalai Lama and the Kagyus

Highlights discrepancies in the way the CTA deals with the Gelugs and the Kagyus

The autobiography of the incomparable scholar Geshe Lhundub Sopa

Following the assassination of King Langdarma in 842 CE, which marked the end of the Tibetan Empire that had originally been established by Namri Songtsen, the region of Tibet fell into many years of civil war. The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (a short biography can be found here) instigated a series of military and social campaigns in an attempt to once again unify Tibet under a single leadership. It was during this period that the Fifth Dalai Lama enlisted the help of Gushi Khan, a powerful military leader of the Dzungar Mongols.

In Geshe Lhundub Sopa’s autobiography Like A Waking Dream, he writes that the Dzungar Mongols who supported the Fifth Dalai Lama defeated the army of the King of Tsang, who were patrons of the Karmapa. As a result, the defeated Karmapa (the spiritual head of the Karma Kagyu lineage) was sent to Tsurphu Monastery by the government of the Fifth Dalai Lama.

The Fifth Dalai Lama is widely known as the leader who unified Tibet and became both the religious and temporal leader of the region

The Gelugpa leadership felt that the surrounding landscape of the monastery – the mountains framing the black earth below and the sky above in a triangular fashion, to be highly inauspicious. This triangle resembles the black iron triangle used in Tibetan sorcery to entrap spirits and negative forces. Hence, it was thought that sending the Karmapa there was to condemn him to an unpropitious place.

The black iron triangle is known to be used in rituals that trap and bind negative spirits and energies.

In retaliation, the Kagyus are rumoured to have procured the Fifth Dalai Lama’s hair and placed it under the steps at the front entrance of Tsurphu Monastery. This was done deliberately so that all who entered the monastery would have to symbolically step over the Dalai Lama, which was considered a grave insult. This incident is one of many that tells of the historic enmity between the Karma Kagyus and the Fifth Dalai Lama and his government. It is rumoured that the Fifth Dalai Lama’s hair is still under the Tsurphu Monastery steps. Even Geshe Sopa had heard of it and he states in his book that he never set foot in that monastery because he was afraid that the rumour might turn out to be true.

At one time I wanted to go to Tsurphu, but somebody told me that I shouldn’t. The person said that in the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, the Kagyupas had gotten some of his hair and put it under the front steps of the monastery. Walking on the steps would be like stepping on the Fifth Dalai Lama’s head. It was probably true. After the Fifth Dalai Lama’s rise to power there was strong animosity between the sects; the Kagyupas probably thought of him as their enemy. They could have gotten some of his hair and done this. Every time I went by that valley and saw the golden roof and the beautiful buildings, I wanted to go, but I never did. I was afraid that it might be true about the Fifth Dalai Lama’s hair under those steps.

- Geshé Lhundub Sopa with Paul Donnelly, Like a Waking Dream: The Autobiography of Geshé Lhundub Sopa, Wisdom Publications, Inc. 2012. P.30)

The steps leading to Tsurphu Monastery in Tolung Valley, Tibet. Established by the 1st Gyalwa Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa, it has long been the traditional seat of the Karma Kagyu tradition

Geshe Sopa’s statement indicates that Gelug-Kagyu animosity may still be simmering beneath the surface. Certainly if the Fifth Dalai Lama’s hair remains where it was planted, it could be misrepresented as the continuing intention of the Kagyus to put down the lineage of the Dalai Lamas. It hints at an unspoken and subtle feud between the Kagyupas and the Gelug establishment. This is a potentially inflammatory situation and could be harmful to the unity of Tibetans, even though it may not be the intention of present day Kagyus.

Surprisingly the CTA has not done anything about this. The CTA has stated on more than a few occasions that even to oppose the historic Dalai Lamas is tantamount to opposing the present Dalai Lama. We see this clearly in the case where the present Dalai Lama and the CTA have taken it upon themselves to continue open hostilities against Shugden Buddhists today, as the result of an alleged feud between the 17th century Gelugpa sage, Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and his supposed rival, the Fifth Dalai Lama. Dorje Shugden is the Dharma Protector that is the reincarnation of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.

The Dorje Shugden practice is banned today because the CTA claims that as a result of an alleged quarrel some 360 years ago, Shugden Buddhists are enemies of the present Dalai Lama. And seeing that the Dalai Lama is the embodiment of the Tibetan nation and its people, by extension Shugden Buddhists are enemies of the Tibetan people. This ‘fact’ therefore warrants their persecution. Of course this is an absurd proposition and yet the Dalai Lama has stated that he is obliged to continue the legacy of the Fifth Dalai Lama with regards to Shugden. The simple fact that the Fifth Dalai Lama’s hair remains under the steps of Tsurphu Monastery and yet the CTA treats this with casual indifference, speaks of their dis-ingenuity. Why act on an alleged centuries-old conflict between Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the Dalai Lama’s predecessor and punish Shugden Buddhists today, and not apply the same treatment to the Kagyus? Why penalize one set of people and not the other for what appears to be similar ancient conflicts? And for that matter, why should a progressive government be concerned about old conflicts?

The CTA’s inconsistency in its treatment of Shugden Gelugpas and Karma Kagyus can only be explained by the fact that it is easier for a Gelugpa Dalai Lama and CTA to pick on their own people. On the other hand, they cannot get away with the same treatment with the Karma Kagyus who are not from the same tradition or school of thought. Therefore their actions and decisions are not based on what is right but what suits them and what they can get away with.

2. The CTA’s Silence on Forced Kagyu Conversion

The Gyalwang Drukpa, the spiritual head of the Drukpa Kagyu School

On September 10th 2014, the Gyalwang Drukpa, head of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage published an open letter calling upon Karma Kagyu leaders to end their forced conversion of Drukpa Monasteries and holy sites. These conversions were allegedly done following the instructions of the current 17th Karmapa, His Holiness Ogyen Trinley Dorje , a fact that perturbs the Gyalwang Drukpa given his deep respect for the Karmapa. Both lineages have shared a strong spiritual bond and are even known as Gyalwa Kar-Druk Yab-Sey or “Spiritual Father and Son” as the Gyalwang Drukpas and Gyalwa Karmapas have historically given guidance to whomever of the two was younger. Whilst both schools are closely interrelated, they have maintained their individual lineages, traditions, practices, hierarchies and administrations. However this harmony between the two lineages has been increasingly threatened by the Karma Kagyu’s forced conversions of the Drukpa Kagyus.

The Gyalwang Drukpa’s open letter regarding the forced conversions of Drukpa Monasteries and holy sites (Click to enlarge)

In the interview below, the Gyalwang Drukpa explained that these forced conversions have become increasingly common and not even holy sites like the sect’s Dri-ra Phung monastery, the equivalent of Mecca to the Muslims, have been spared. The Gyalwang Drukpa likened these forced conversions to “killing us [Drukpas]”. In other words it is a serious attempt to force the disintegration of the Drukpa lineage. The Gyalwang Drukpa expressed in the video that he has had to go public to create awareness of the Drukpa lineage’s plight which begs the question, where is the CTA in its duty to preserve unity? Preserving unity is also the CTA’s often quoted justification to wipe out Shugden Buddhists whom the CTA accuses as being ‘sectarian’ and therefore dangerous.

This is not a commentary on the relationship between the Drukpa Kagyu and the Karma Kagyu. This article does not serve to condone the behavior of those monks who have forced their way to overrun Drukpa monasteries, but neither does it seek to malign the Karma Kagyu lineage. Instead it is to highlight the hypocrisy of the CTA in targeting Shugden practitioners, as well as to highlight how the CTA has utterly and completely neglected their duty to create an environment where all lineages can thrive and not at the expense of any sect or tradition.

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

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

The Gyalwang Drukpa explains about the forced conversions during a short interview. From the Drukpa Lineage’s YouTube channel.

The incredible thing to note is that this is not a recent phenomenon and has been taking place for over a decade. And yet neither the Dalai Lama or the CTA have stepped in to ensure that the Drukpa Kagyus are protected from such forced annexations. The Dalai Lama has time and time again presented himself as the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism who is responsible for the preservation of all Tibetan Buddhist lineages. The CTA was established to supposedly represent the welfare of all Tibetans as well as organizations. Yet both the Dalai Lama and CTA have behaved as if the Tibetan spiritual community is exempt from all laws.

The Gyalwang Drukpa expresses his worries over the issue in a dignified yet authoritative manner, promoting cooperation rather than fighting. He is quoted as saying, “Buddhism is not about conversion. It is about love, compassion, peace and understanding.” This role and statement promoting peace should have been said by the Dalai Lama and reiterated by the CTA. So why does the CTA and Dalai Lama continue to remain silent? Compared to the ban on Dorje Shugden which the CTA actively supports, the CTA’s silence towards these forced conversions betrays its double standards and its targeting of the Gelugpa lineage’s practice of the Wisdom Protector, Dorje Shugden.

It cannot be said that the CTA has a policy of non-intervention in spiritual matters. The CTA’s apathy and disturbing silence in the Drukpa-Karma Kagyu case is in stark contrast to their aggressive advocacy of forced conversions of Shugden Buddhists away from their practice, even to the point of legislating such criminality in parliament. Furthermore, if the CTA appears to be non-interventionist in its approach to the various Tibetan Buddhist schools, this illusion is dissipated when we realize that the CTA has previously actively interfered in Kagyu affairs.

3. A CTA proposal to restructure the Kagyu leadership

In another 2010 interview regarding Kagyu leadership, Gyalwang Drukpa openly dismissed a CTA proposal to restructure the Kagyu leadership and base the appointment of a single leader to all Kagyu sects on a rotational basis. Not only does this interfere with the various Kagyu sects’ self-determination based on centuries of tradition but as the Gyalwang Drukpa explained, this would destroy the harmony between the different Kagyu lineages.

Perhaps that was the intention of the CTA from the beginning. Just as the CTA divided the Gelug lineage by imposing a ban on a pervasive protector practice of the Gelugs, it created division within the Kagyus. By side-stepping proper protocol and acting beyond its authority, the CTA forcibly interfered with leadership issues in the Karma Kagyu lineage, with devastating effect as evidenced by the violence at Rumtek Monastery, the official seat of the Karmapas.

The Violent Rumtek Takeover

Rumtek Monastery lies 24 km from Gangtok, Sikkim (Northern India) and is regarded as the wealthiest of all Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. A few years after the 16th Karmapa passed into clear light in 1981, there were two claimants to the throne. One, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, was discovered by Tai Situ Rinpoche, who was one of the regents of the Karma Kagyu school; the other, Trinley Thaye Dorje, was discovered by the senior regent, Shamar Rinpoche. By tradition, it is the responsibility of Shamar Rinpoche to find and enthrone the next Karmapa but Tai Situ Rinpoche broke with tradition and protocol, and approached the Dalai Lama to endorse his candidate as the rightful Karmapa. It should be stated clearly that the Dalai Lama does not have any authority or influence in the appointment of the highest seat of the Karma Kagyus. Yet in this instance, the Dalai Lama sided with Tai Situ Rinpoche instead of mediating the conflict.

Today there are two 17th Karmapas – Tai Situ Rinpoche enthroned Ogyen Trinley Dorje with the support of the Dalai Lama, the CTA and, ironically, the Chinese government. Meanwhile, Shamar Rinpoche enthroned Trinley Thaye Dorje with the backing of a large percentage of the Karma Kagyus. By intervening in Karma Kagyu affairs then officiating his unwarranted intervention by drawing the CTA into fray, the Dalai Lama’s endorsement of a Karmapa candidate split the Karma Kagyu lineage. His decision sparked violent clashes over Rumtek Monastery, turning a holy site into a battlefield.

Disturbingly, as conflicts between the two parties escalated and continue to persist till this day, neither the Dalai Lama or the CTA have seen fit to step in once again, this time to arbitrate a quarrel which was not intractable until the Dalai Lama’s involvement. Despite the problems caused, the CTA remains recalcitrant. The Karmapa Charitable Trust (the legal and administrative body of Rumtek Monastery) officially declared Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje as the heir of the 16th Karmapa and this decision was upheld by the Indian court of law. Instead of respecting that, the Dalai Lama continues to regard Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the rightful Karmapa candidate, and endorses his status by constantly appearing in public and official events with him. The CTA’s refusal to act as a fair, impartial and democratic government is even more disturbing. A true spiritual leader who claims to represent all Tibetan Buddhist traditions should not take sides and act to the disadvantage of any particular lineage. A genuine government of the people would push for peaceful reconciliation. And yet none of these commonsense measures were or have been taken.

The Karmapa Controversy, just like the Dorje Shugden ban, is concrete proof that both the Dalai Lama and CTA do not operate on principles of peace and justice. In both cases, their actions led to results diametrically opposed to what they are supposed to uphold. Both the Dalai Lama and CTA are often heard preaching peace and unity. In fact, the CTA claims that banning the Shugden practice was necessary to safeguard unity amongst the Tibetan people. And yet the CTA’s ban of the Shugden practice and their endorsement of Tai Situ Rinpoche’s candidate split the largest (Gelug) and second largest (Kagyu) Buddhist schools, thereby tearing the entire Tibetan community apart.

4. Tai Situ Rinpoche’s Exile from India

An online transcript of Tai Situ Rinpoche’s speech upon arriving back in India. Click to enlarge. (Source: http://www.quietmountain.org/links/situ_rinpoche/situ_return.htm)

In 1994, Shri Narayan Singh filed a criminal complaint to the Chief Magistrate of Delhi alleging Tai Situ Rinpoche to be an agent of the Chinese along with Gyaltsab Rinpoche, and that they were part of a bigger Chinese conspiracy to bring about the disintegration of India.

The complaint alleged that the conspirators planned to do this by bringing about the amalgamation of the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and the Indian state of Sikkim. Another similar report was allegedly filed by Sri Sridar Rao, an official of the government of Sikkim and was submitted to the Cabinet Secretary of India, T S R Subrahmanyam.

Ogyen Trinley Dorje (left) was found and recognized by Tai Situ Rinpoche (right) and is one of two claimants to the throne of the 17th Karmapa. This claimant, supported by the Chinese, is also supported by the Dalai Lama

Following a series of newspaper articles discussing this, the Indian government decided to ban Tai Situ Rinpoche in August 1994 from re-entering India on national security grounds. The ban was the culmination of a decade-long Indian intelligence investigation of Tai Situ Rinpoche’s activities in China. It seems that the recognition of a Chinese national as the Karmapa by Tai Situ Rinpoche, who was also backed by the Chinese, seemed to be at the heart of this controversy. A Chinese Karmapa would eventually wield tremendous power in Sikkim, where Rumtek (the seat of the Karmapa) lies.

And so, if it is true that the Dalai Lama and CTA were concerned about Chinese spies infiltrating their ranks and sabotaging the Tibetan independence movement, they would have been more reluctant to endorse a Chinese-sponsored Karmapa. Clearly however, Tai Situ Rinpoche and his protégé Ogyen Trinley Dorje’s close ties with China were of no concern to the Dalai Lama and CTA.

However, when it comes to individuals whom the CTA wishes to oppress and marginalize, the individual’s spiritual practice (which in fact precedes the Sino-Tibetan conflict) becomes reason enough for the CTA to label them ‘Chinese agents’. Even to be seen with any Chinese person is tantamount to treason. The CTA even went as far as publishing a hitlist of Shugden lamas and worshipers on their official website, denouncing them as criminals of society for protesting against the Dalai Lama.

Why is there such disparity between the way the CTA views Tai Situ Rinpoche and Ogyen Trinley Dorje, and the way they view all Shugden Buddhists? The only logical conclusion would be that in one situation, the CTA benefits from endorsing a Chinese-backed Karmapa whilst in the other, they do not benefit in any way. By endorsing a Karmapa candidate with confirmed ties to China and supporting Tai Situ Rinpoche whom Indian Intelligence suspects to be an agent of the Chinese government, the CTA proves its own malicious intentions. And this is not to mention the CTA’s complete disregard and respect for India’s security concerns.

5. The Sakyas and the Question of Samaya

The great Sakya Lama Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche (centre), together with the Karmapa Candidate Trinley Thaye Dorje (left) and the Sharmapa (right)

Another interesting point to note is the Dalai Lama’s view that all Tibetans have a spiritual bond with him, and this compels them to obey his every wish. Failure to do so harms the Dalai Lama’s life through the breaking of their samaya with him, or so they are told.

Yet the same policy does not apply to Sakya lamas and the Dalai Lama. The great Sakya Lama Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche, recognized by the 13th Dalai Lama as the 18th in the lineage of Chobgye Trichens, was instrumental in the Sharmapa’s recognition of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the rightful 17th Karmapa. During multiple dreams, Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche had visions of the late 16th Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje circumambulating stupas and even had a relative come to him with a photograph of a child who is supposed to be the reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa. Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche conveyed this to the Sharmapa in 1986, who then went on to recognize Trinley Thaye Dorje as the 17th Karmapa.

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama (left) receiving Sakya teachings and empowerments from Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is actually a student of Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche, having received Sakya teachings and empowerments from him. So the question arises: why did the Dalai Lama endorse Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the 17th Karmapa when his own Sakya teacher Chobgye Trinchen Rinpoche recognised Trinley Thaye Dorje instead?

Within Tibetan Buddhism, a student is supposed to follow the advice and actions of his/her teacher, so why didn’t the Dalai Lama abide by Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche’s recognition of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the correct reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa? This is not the first time that the Dalai Lama has gone against the advice or teachings of his teachers. The Dalai Lama also contradicted his main teachers, H.H. Ling Rinpoche and H.H. Trijang Rinpoche, when he abandoned the protector practice and imposed the ban on Dorje Shugden.

So how is it that Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche’s support for a rival Karmapa candidate, the Dalai Lama’s decision to support a candidate apart from the one Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche recognised, and the Dalai Lama’s turning against his own teachers’ practice all do not constitute breaking samaya? But Shugden worshipers’ refusal to obey the diktat of the Dalai Lama (with whom they might have no spiritual bond) is considered breaking samaya? Many Tibetan Buddhist practitioners have firmly-established samayas with their Shugden teachers and none with the Dalai Lama. Yet the CTA insists that ALL Tibetan Buddhists have to follow the Dalai Lama, or they will be accused of breaking samaya. This is completely absurd and shows that the Tibetan leadership are even prepared to distort long-established spiritual traditions to achieve their goals. It also shows the CTA to be nothing but the Dalai Lama’s enforcers, even enforcing something that is evidently wrong, just because the Dalai Lama said so.

Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche (left), the Karmapa candidate Ogyen Trinley Dorje, His Holiness Sakya Trizin (right) and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama (far right). Interestingly, Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche did NOT recognise Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the rightful Karmapa candidate, and instead recognised Trinley Thaye Dorje

Confounding the issue of samaya and the recognition of the Karmapa is the CTA’s involvement. Seen in the picture above is Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche, seated next to Ogyen Trinley Dorje, the opposing candidate for the throne of the Karmapa. Why would Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche sit next to or be seen with the Dalai Lama’s candidate which he himself did not select as the true Karmapa candidate? And when he himself clearly does not think Ogyen Trinley Dorje is the true Karmapa? Some could argue that perhaps Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche actually believes that both candidates are legitimate reincarnations of the Karmapa. This is highly unlikely however – if he did think this were the case, there is nothing to stop him from making a formal pronouncement of Ogyen Trinley Dorje as another legitimate reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa.

Note also that Ogyen Trinley Dorje is seated in between Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche and H.H. Sakya Trizin, the current head of the Sakya lineage, with the Dalai Lama on the far right. This picture highlights the political nature of the CTA and the Dalai Lama’s effort to portray religious harmony between the various Tibetan Buddhist lineages, but this show is obviously forced. Ogyen Trinley Dorje is placed between Sakya lamas, one of whom (Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche) we have already seen supports the opposing Karmapa candidate.

Left to right: Shangpa Kagyu Lama Trinlay Tulku Rinpoche, H.E. Sakya Jetsun Chimey Luding Rinpoche, H.E. Luding Khenchen Rinpoche, 17th Karmapa candidate Trinley Thaye Dorje, H.H. Sakya Trizin, H.E. Ratna Vajra Rinpoche, Dagmo Kusho Tashi Lhakyi (consort of H.H. Sakya Trizin) and Dagmo Kalden Dunkyi (consort of H.E. Ratna Vajra Rinpoche)

Adding to the Sakya involvement within the Karma Kagyu lineage is H.H. Sakya Trizin’s confusing association with both Karmapa candidates. Often seen together with Ogyen Trinley Dorje at the Dalai Lama’s events and teachings, Sakya Trizin has also been seen with the other candidate Trinley Thaye Dorje. In the photo above for example, Sakya Trizin is seated next to the Karmapa candidate not endorsed by the Dalai Lama. Rather than a political photograph, this is more of an intimate setting, with many lamas of both the Sakya and Kagyu lineages coming together. They include Luding Khenchen Rinpoche, head of the Ngor tradition within the Sakya lineage.

H.H. Sakya Trizin is also a student of Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche, who identified Trinley Thaye Dorje as the rightful Karmapa reincarnation. Therefore it is logical to assume he supports Trinley Thaye Dorje’s claim to the throne of the Karmapa rather than the Dalai Lama-endorsed Ogyen Trinley Dorje.

Why is it that H.H. Sakya Trizin can be seen with both Karmapa candidates without reprisal from the CTA or the Dalai Lama? Is the Sakya Trizin simply sitting on the fence, not wanting to embroil himself in another lineage’s affairs or is the CTA forcing him into the position of associating with the Dalai Lama’s choice of Ogyen Trinley Dorje over his own guru’s choice of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the correct Karmapa candidate?

H.H. Sakya Trizin recently bestowed a special empowerment to Ogyen Trinley Dorje, the Karmapa candidate recognised by Tai Situ Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama. This contradicts Sakya Trizin’s guru’s acknowledgement of Trinley Thaye Dorje as the Karmapa

In addition to this, Sakya Trizin was recently invited to give an empowerment to Ogyen Trinley Dorje, a candidate not recognized by his own teacher. Did Sakya Trizin really want to give the empowerment or was this due to pressure from the CTA to once again portray religious harmony? Sakya Trizin’s indecision regarding which Karmapa candidate to support can be bewildering to say the least, especially since he has never publicly stated which Karmapa candidate he supports.

It could be argued that H.H. Sakya Trizin is appearing with both Karmapa candidates to remain neutral, even though his own teacher was instrumental in the recognition of one candidate. However, Sakya Trizin has not extended this neutrality to all other sects of Tibetan Buddhism. For despite Sakya Trizin’s “neutrality” regarding the Karmapa candidates, he has clearly and publicly denounced Dorje Shugden practice. This in itself is a double standard – if his aim is to remain neutral in a Karma Kagyu issue because it does not concern the Sakyas, he should also remain neutral on the Dorje Shugden issue which does not concern the Sakyas. In adhering to the CTA’s attitude of non-involvement in the Karmapa dispute, yet publicly denouncing Dorje Shugden, Sakya Trizin allows himself to be influenced with the double standards of the CTA, a stance that is unbecoming of the spiritual head of the indomitable Sakya lineage.

The Nyingma Lama Dilgo Khyentse Yangsi Rinpoche (left) together with Karmapa candidate Trinley Thaye Dorje (right)

Despite the CTA’s strict insistence that all Tibetans loyal to the Dalai Lama are not to associate with anyone who opposes the Dalai Lama even symbolically, Sakya Trizin nevertheless met with the Karmapa candidate not endorsed by the Dalai Lama (Trinley Thaye Dorje) and escaped the CTA’s wrath. Sakya Trizin is not the only high lama who has openly flouted this non-association rule by the CTA.

The present reincarnation of the great Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche also paid a visit to Trinley Thaye Dorje in 2010 and was not rebuked for it. Sakya Trizin and Dilgo Khyentse Yangsi Rinpoche’s disregard for the CTA and the Dalai Lama’s policies are not different from Shugden practitioners’ disregard of the Dalai Lama and CTA’s order to abandon the practice. The difference however, is that Dorje Shugden practitioners are persecuted for disobeying the CTA whereas many like Sakya Trizin and Dilgo Khyentse Yangsi Rinpoche remain untouched. This reflects not only the CTA’s lack of consistency when it comes to reprimanding those who disregard their policies, it also shows that many high lamas regard the Dalai Lama and CTA’s orders to be ridiculous and refuse to be bound by it.

Sogyal Rinpoche (left) leading His Holiness the Dalai Lama (right)

Controversy also exists within the Nyingma lineage specifically surrounding Sogyal Rinpoche who has been the focus of many inquiries. Sogyal Rinpoche has been the subject of numerous lawsuits brought over the years by students and others who have had some associations with Sogyal Rinpoche. Some of the accusations against Sogyal Rinpoche even call into question his authenticity as a high Tibetan lama. Despite the controversies and questions surrounding Sogyal Rinpoche, the Dalai Lama still associates with Sogyal Rinpoche and his religious activities, including the opening of Lerab Ling, a large temple in Montpelier, France in 2008.

Even though these matters have arisen consistently over the years, the Dalai Lama makes no move to disassociate with Sogyal Rinpoche or question his actions. In fact the Dalai Lama’s continuing association with Sogyal Rinpoche is seen by many as an endorsement of Sogyal Rinpoche’s character, and perhaps even a silent rebuttal of accusations against Sogyal Rinpoche. This may be the Dalai Lama’s attempt to once again portray religious tolerance, or it may be the Dalai Lama’s acknowledgement of Sogyal Rinpoche’s instrumentality to the Dalai Lama’s objectives. Whatever the Dalai Lama’s motivations may be, the Dalai Lama does nothing about Sogyal Rinpoche and the controversies surrounding him. This behaviour is markedly different compared to the Dalai Lama’s approach to the ban on Dorje Shugden, where the Dalai Lama emphatically enforces it and denounces lamas or practitioners alike if they continue in the practice of Dorje Shugden.
 
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

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

Double Standards & Destabilisation

Rather than highlighting issues within the Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya lineages, this article seeks to point out the selectivity of the CTA when dealing with Tibetan Buddhist issues, and how their bias and prejudice have the potential to destabilize Tibetan society. On the one hand, the CTA practices a non-involvement policy towards the Kagyupas; on the other hand, the CTA enforces a continued and vigorous campaign against Dorje Shugden. This prejudice appears to have filtered down to the heads of various lineages, and has the potential to create resentment between the different lineages. For example, Sakya Trizin speaks up against the Dorje Shugden practice, but remains indifferent when it comes to the troubles surrounding the Karmapa issue or forced conversion of the Drukpa Kagyus. Outwardly, it may appear that he holds a bias against the Gelugs, and a bias in favour of the Kagyus.

These incidents of indifferent non-involvement at times and aggressive partisanship at other times clearly demonstrate a lack of consistency which is indicative of good government. However, instead of making any effort to be fair and equitable in its management of state affairs, double standards and bias continue to dominate the CTA’s character. If an administration such as the CTA is seen to regularly fail in its duty to its people, how can it expect to receive support from progressive nation states in its campaign to regain control of its homeland? More importantly, how can the Tibetan people and religious leaders even trust the CTA and have enough confidence in them to secure freedom for them?

What is the Dalai Lama and CTA’s real purpose in persisting in such discriminating policies? Is the real intention of the Dalai Lama and CTA to unite their people and pursue a genuine fight for freedom, or is it to divide the Tibetan community for their own selfish agendas? Based on hard facts and analysis of past events, it would seem that the latter is more plausible. This sends an extremely negative image of the Tibetan people and Tibetan Buddhism to the world.

The Dorje Shugden ban; the interference in the Kagyu leadership; the refusal or failure to intercede when a religious sect preys on another, the loose and wrongful distortion of important spiritual traditions such as the upholding of the proper meaning and significance of samaya, and the dangerous self-serving application of laws and policies can only serve to destroy the reputation of the Tibetan people and along with it, their culture and religion. All of these issues should have been resolved quickly by the Dalai Lama and the CTA in a manner befitting an effective leadership based on sound political structure and governance. However, this has not been the case and their double standard politics exposes the real situation – a lack of sound political and religious leadership that has not only created multiple rifts with Tibetan Buddhist society, but their continued policies of non-involvement only further solidify these divisions. Clearly it is the Tibetan leadership that has been creating disharmony among the Tibetan people, hindering their efforts for self-autonomous rule of Tibet or complete freedom, while tarnishing the reputation of the great practice lineages of Tibetan Buddhism for adherents all over the world.

Disclaimer: This article was submitted by a third party author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of DorjeShugden.com. We accept submissions from the public, please send in your articles to ds@dorjeshugden.com

Special Announcement from DorjeShugden.com

DorjeShugden.com wishes the Gyalwang Drukpa well and prays that this issue of forced conversion by other lineages is peacefully and swiftly resolved so that the glorious Drukpa lineage is preserved and flourishes. We send our prayers and dedicate the merits from our practice for this to happen.

We also wish the Karma Kagyu lineage well. May the current issues regarding the Karmapa candidates be resolved and the Kagyu lineage become whole once again.

DorjeShugden.com Admin

Related links:

• Self-Immolations Have Failed The Tibetans (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/self-immolations-have-failed-the-tibetans)
• Dalai Lama Recognizes Bon Faith (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/dalai-lama-recognizes-the-bon)
• Tibetan Leadership Publishes Hit List (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/tibetan-leadership-publishes-hit-list)
• Tibetan Leadership Organizes Violence (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/tibetan-leadership-organizes-violence)
• Geshe Lhundub Sopa Speaks About Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/geshe-lhundub-sopa-speaks-about-shugden)
• Will The Karmapa Save Dorje Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/will-the-karmapa-save-dorje-shugden)
• Divine Friends The Karmapa and Trijang Rinpoche (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/divine-friends-the-karmapa-and-trijang-rinpoche)
• What’s The Similarity Between Sharmapa and Shugden’s Dilemma (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/whats-the-similarity-between-sharmapa-and-shugdens-dilemma)
• Karmapa Asked Anti-Shugden Statue to be Removed (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/the-controversy/karmapa)
• True Spiritual Leadership: Karmapa Vs Dalai Lama (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/true-spiritual-leadership-karmapa-vs-dalai-lama)
• Biography of the Fifth Dalai Lama (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/great-masters/enlightened-lamas-series/the-great-fifth-dalai-lama-ngawang-lobsang-gyatso-1617-1682)

Composed by the 31st Sakya Trizin Kunga Lodro

HUM
DORJE CHANG WANG TSA GYÜ LAMA DANG
NGÖ DRUB KÜN TSÖL YIDAM LHA YI TSOG
BAR CHE KÜN SEL SUNG MAY THU TOB KYI
TRINLEY LHÜN DRUB GYEL POR NGA SÖL LO

HUM!
With the Vajradhara root and lineage masters,
The assembly of yidhams ¹ who grant all realizations,
And protectors who remove all obstacles,
We recognize you as a king among thrinlay lhundrub ².

GANG KU MUG NAG NYI MA JE WAY ZI
CHÖ GÖ SUM DEN RAB JUNG ZHÖN NUI TSUL
SER GYI DANG DEN THANG THEB BU LA SÖL
CHÖ KHOR YONG KYI SUNG MAR NGA SÖL LO

Your dark-red form blazes like a hundred suns,
You appear as a youthful monk in the triple robes,
You wear a gold-hued thebzha ³ on your head,
We recognize you as the protector of all chokhors ⁴.

DREN PA TSAM GYI MI THUN CHOG NAM KÜN
KE CHIG NYI LA THEL BAR LOG NÜ PAY
LHA MAG JE WAY MAG TSOG GYE PA YI
CHAG TSEN TSEN DEN BING GI NGA SÖL LO

Merely by recalling whose name,
Who could emanate a million divine hosts,
That can reduce to dust all malignant forces,
With the divine sandalwood bheng ⁵, we recognize you as such.

TEN DANG TEN DZIN BU ZHIN KYONG DZE CHING
NAM ZHI TRINLEY THOG MAY NYUR DRUB PA
DRAG SHUL TOB DEN DORJE SHUGDEN TSEL
DAG GI TEN GYI DRA LHAR NGA SÖL LO

You are the fierce and mighty Dorje Shugden,
Who sustains tenpa ⁶ and tenzin ⁷ like son,
And swiftly fulfills all four tasks,
I recognize you as my constant dralha ⁸.

DOR NA DAG GI LEG NYE JA WA KÜN
CHÖ SUNG CHEN PO KYE LA NYER TAY KYI
NYIN TSEN YEL WA MAY PAR SUNG WA DANG
CHOG DÜ KÜN TU GYE PAY TRA SHI TSÖL

In short I entrust all my concerns both right n’ wrong,
To you, great dharmapala,
Protect me day and night with vigilance,
At all times and places, grant propitious factors.

For more information about the 31st Sakya Trizin Kunga Lodro:

• Sakya Throne Holders: Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741) & Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
• A Sakya Tale
• Dorje Shugden on a Black Horse
• Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871-1935) – the 39th Sakya Trizin
• Praise of the Protector Dorje Shugden
• The Time of the Great Fifth

Notes:
1. Meditational deities.
2. Thrinlay: task, purpose; lhun, shortened form of the adverb lhungyis, effortlessly; drub: accomplishing naturally. ‘By whose blessings one’s purposes are fulfilled effortlessly’.
3. The hat worn by high-ranking ecclesiastical personages in Tibet.
4. A compund of cho (Dharma) and khor (its adherents).
5. The cudgel in the hands of deities.
6. The Buddha’s teaching.
7. Upholders of the Buddha’s teachings.
8. The divinity someone could rely upon in times of strife and war.

by Brunhild Hekate

In the middle of a whirling palace of black wind… is the Great King with a body red-black in colour, one face two hands, the right holds a club aloft to the sky and the left a skull cup filled with blood and a human heart. On the head a lacquer hat is placed, riding a black horse surrounded by inconceivable emanations… to the Dhamapala King Shugden Tsal, together with attendants… ~ Sakya kangsol, based on an earlier text from the 19th century.

A History of Dorje Shugden in the Sakya Tradition

The Sakya lineage holders are emanations of Avalokiteshvara and Manjushri and their family lineage is famously divine. Practices within the Sakya lineage are passed down from father to the eldest son, ensuring the continuity of the lineage across generations, pure and accurate. Similarly, the practice of Dorje Shugden has been passed down within the Sakya lineage for several generations until recently, when the practice lost its popularity due to political expediency.

Morchen Kunga Lhundrub

Historically, the Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism has viewed Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. Dorje Shugden was first practised by the Sakyas in the early 17th century, beginning with the Sakya Kangsol written by Morchen Kunga Lhundrub (1654–1728), who was Sakya’s most precious Tantric and Lamdre Lineage holder. He wrote praises to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being, and composed some of the earliest descriptions of the iconography and activities of Dorje Shugden and his four cardinal emanations.

Morchen Kunga Lhundrub was also the first to describe Dorje Shugden as being seated on a lion throne. Prior to this, the Sakya Kangsol refers to Dorje Shugden as Dorje Shugden Tanag, or Dorje Shugden Riding a Black Horse, one of the forms of Dorje Shugden unique to the Sakyas.

Paintings, thangkas and murals of Dorje Shugden Tanag were found in Sakya Monastery located in Tsang, Tibet before the turn of the 20th century.

Main temple of Sakya, Lhakang Chenmo

Northern Sakya Seat, Tibet

Southern Sakya Seat, Tibet

The 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen

Dorje Shugden was inducted into the pantheon of Sakya protectors by the 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741), who strongly propitiated the form of Dorje Shugden riding a black horse. Sonam Rinchen later placed Dorje Shugden together with two other Protectors, Dorje Setrab and Tsiu Marpo, and these three principle protectors were collectively known as the “Three Kings” (Gyalpo Sum).

Dorje Shugden, one of the Three Kings, is part of the Sakya pantheon of Dharma Protectors

The 31st Sakya Throneholder Sachen Kunga Lodro

Sakya Kunga Lodro

Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729–1783), a great master of the Sakya tradition and the 31st Sakya Trizin, is believed to have been an incarnation of the great Sakya Pandit, Buton Rinchen Drub and Shakya Shri, a Kashmiri Pandit in the line of Sakya masters of Dorje Shugden’s lineage. One of Shakya Shri’s predecessors, an Indian master named Jetari, was also Atisha Dipamkara’s guru.

Sachen Kunga Lodro received all the transmissions of Dorje Shugden, amongst others, from his father, Sonam Rinchen, and it was he who fully culminated the various rituals of Dorje Shugden, combining the lineages received from his father with those of Morchen Kunga Lhundrub. Sachen Kunga Lodro clearly carried on the tradition of his father, praising Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector, .

Sachen Kunga Lodro also wrote a wrathful torma offering to Dorje Shugden called ‘Swirl of Perfect Sense Offerings‘. This ritual was later used by Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche as part of his ‘Melodious Drum Victorious In All Directions‘, one of the most well-known rituals to Dorje Shugden. Thus, the source of some modern-day Dorje Shugden practices can be traced to the Sakya school. The text written by Kunga Lodro has also been included in the latest edition of the Dorje Shugden bebum, published by Lama Gangchen Rinpoche.

The 32nd Sakya Trizin Wangdu Nyingpo (1763–1809) depicted in this 19th century thangka, with Dharmapala Chitipati (left) and Dharmapala Dorje Shugden (right)

A close up of Dorje Shugden Tanag

The complete thangka. At the top are the principal meditational deities special to Wangdu Nyingpo – Chakrasamvara, Vajrayogini and Hevajra at the upper left and Vajrakila, Hayagriva and Vajrapani at the upper right. To the left is Chitipati, the two dancing skeletons, and to the right is Dorje Shugden Tanag, riding a black horse. Below him is Panjarnata Mahakala with Brahmarupa Mahakala on the left and Shri Devi Dudsolma on the right.

The 37th Sakya Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo

A close up of the 33rd Sakya Throneholder Mahasiddha Pema Dudul from the thangka below

Sachen Kunga Lodro would later go on to fulfil the prophecy of Mahasiddha Pema Dudul, who said in response to the 35th Sakya Throneholder Tashi Rinchen’s question about his future heir:

These days times are so degenerate no-one else is coming, but now Grandpa Shugden himself will definitely come as your son!

By this cryptic statement, Mahasiddha Pema Dudul meant that his grandfather, the great 31st Sakya Trizin Sachen Kunga Lodro, would eventually take rebirth as the son of the 35th Sakya Trizin Tashi Rinchen, thus upholding the most esoteric and precious Sakya teachings to benefit living beings.

In 1850, Sachen Kunga Lodro was indeed reincarnated as Kunga Nyingpo, who went on to ascend the Sakya Throne in 1883 as the 37th Sakya Trizin.

A 19th century Sakya thangka depicting the Five Emanations of Dorje Shugden. At the bottom left is the grandson of Kunga Lodro, the 33rd Sakya Throneholder Pema Dudul (1792–1853) . This form of an enthroned Dorje Shugden is similar to another thangka in Trode Khangsar

The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen

Dragshul Trinley Rinchen, the 39th Sakya Trizin explained in his autobiography that his father, the great Sakyapa Kunga Nyingpo was one with Avalokiteshvara. To prove this, he recounted the story of Mahasiddha Pema Dudul and Tashi Rinchen mentioned above. He then wrote:

The Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden Tsel definitively is Avalokiteshvara. In the scripture of the Nyingma Tantra, Rinchen Nadun says: The one known as Dolgyal is not mistaken on the path to liberation, he is by nature the Great Compassionate One. Hence, the Nyingma tantra quoted that Dorje Shugden and Avalokiteshvara are the same person.

As can be seen throughout his autobiography, Dragshul Trinley Rinchen was also a staunch Dorje Shugden practitioner, with many rituals and offerings to Dorje Shugden recorded in great detail.

His autobiography also notes the occasions when he met Dorje Shugden through an oracle, and it was during one such occasion that Dorje Shugden reminded Dragshul Trinley Rinchen to uphold the Dharma in general and gave some prophecies. Dragshul Trinley Rinchen was a great Sakya master, and is considered one of the most outstanding lineage masters of our time.

The 40th Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Thutob Wangchuk

The 40th Sakya Trizin Ngawang Thutob Wangchuk was born as the heir-apparent to Dragshul Thrinley Rinchen. The biography of the 41st Sakya Trizin names Ngawang Thutob Wangchuk as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara who has the ability to see and speak to Manjushri. As demonstrated on one occasion, the famous and holy Manjushri statue called Jamyang Tsodgyalma did speak to him, instructing him to practise the Guru Yoga of his father (instead of reciting confession prayers) while contemplating the ultimate view, thus merging his mind and the primordial wisdom of his father into one.

The Sakya Lineage

Thus, one can see clearly that Dorje Shugden Tanag has been an important and integral practice of the Sakya Tradition for the past few hundred years. Furthermore, the line of Sakya Throneholders has viewed Dorje Shugden as a fully enlightened being who is one with Avalokiteshvara and Manjushri. However, since the early 20th century, the Dorje Shugden Tanag practice has gradually declined.

The offering rituals for the Three Kings are no longer found in the standard Sakya Protector manuals of Indian and Tibetan monasteries. Neither can paintings or murals of Dorje Shugden Tanag be found in Sakya monasteries. It would appear that since 1996, the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) have successfully pressured the current 41st Sakya Trizin into giving up the practice of Dorje Shugden Tanag. How is it that the Dalai Lama, a Gelugpa monk, can interfere and influence the religious practices of the Sakya School?

H.H. Jigdal Dagchen Sakya (b. 1929)

Today, there are still a few enlightened masters who continue to be bastions of Dorje Shugden’s practice in the Sakya school. One is the Abbot of Ngor monastary, an important branch of the Sakyapas. Another is H.H. Jigdal Dagchen Sakya, the current head of the Phuntsog Phodrang who lives in Seattle, Washington with his descendants.

H.H. Dagchen Rinpoche is the twenty-sixth generation of the Sakya-Khon lineage, and is regarded as an embodiment of Manjushri. He is in line to be the 42nd Sakya Trizin, which means that the lineage of Dorje Shugden Tanag may rise to prominence once again. After all, some of the Sakya Trizins are, without a doubt, emanations of Dorje Shugden!

Thartse Jampa Namka Chime, the abbot of Ngor monastary in the late 18th century and the previous incarnation of Jamyang Kyentse Wangpo.

It is truly unfortunate that the CTA’s political power and influence has affected the teachings and practices upheld by the previous Sakya Trizins. While the Sakyapas may deny the fact that they stopped the practice of Dorje Shugden Tanag in order to maintain good relations with the Dalai Lama and CTA, there is no doubt that for the moment, they have abandoned a practice endorsed by their lineage masters.

An Overview of the Sakya Trizin Line

from the 30th to the 40th Throneholders

His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin

Special Mention to the Following Great Masters

Shakya Shri Bhadra

Shakya Shri Bhadra b.1127 – d.1225

Shakya Shri Bhadra (Shakya Shri) was a Kashmiri paṇḍit who was invited to Tibet by Tropu Lotsāwa Rinchen Sengge. He arrived in 1204, at the age of either fifty-nine or seventy-eight, and remained for ten years, leaving in 1214.

Active primarily in Tsang, his significance to Tibetan Buddhism is characterized by his initiating four important lineages of teachings: to Sakya Paṇḍita he taught exoteric philosophy; pith instructions to Tropu Lotsāwa; tantra to Chel Lotsāwa; and Vinaya to Tsang Sowa Sonam Dze.

Shakya Shri was born in Daśobharā, in Kashmir, in 1127 (or 1145). During the earlier stages of his time in Tibet, possibly while still en route to Tropu from Chumik in 1204, he met Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyeltsen, who was on his way to Kyangdur with funeral offerings following the death of his father, Pelchen Opo. Shakya Shri is said to have given him teachings on logic at the time.

During the 1208 summer retreat at Gyangong, he met Sakya Paṇḍita again and served as the upadhyaya in his ordination ceremony. During the 1210 summer retreat at Sakya, he gave Sakya Paṇḍita extensive teachings on Kalachakra, Vinaya, linguistics, poetry, logic and epistemology, and Abhidharma. The two worked on a retranslation of Dharmakirti’s Pramaṇavarttika. From this connection, Shakya Shri is often credited with initiating the tradition of logic in the Sakya school; while some dispute this characterization, his importance to the Sakya tradition was considerable.

Kyabje Trijang Dorje Chang’s ‘Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors’ also quotes Kyabje Ling Dorje Chang’s previous incarnation, Losang Lungtog Tenzin Trinley’s recognition of Shakya Shri as a previous incarnation of Dorje Shugden. The incarnation lineage is said to be as follows:

• Shakya Shri
• Choku Ozer
• Buton Rinchen Drub
• Panchen Sonam Drub
• Panchen Sonam Dragpa
• Sonam Yeshe Wangpo
• Sonam Geleg Pelsang
• Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen

Atisha Dipamkara

Atisha Dipamkara b.982? – d.1054

The Bengali monk Atisha Dipamkara was of pivotal importance in the second transmission of Buddhism in Tibet. Invited from the Indian monastery-university of Vikramshila to Tibet by the Purang kings, Atisha spent thirteen years in Ngari and U-Tsang.

He is credited with the propagation of the Lamrim and Lojong teachings that later became the core of the Geluk tradition; his composition, the Bodhipathapradipa is a central text for the Lamrim, or Stages of the Path. He was also instrumental in the spread of the cult of Tara in Tibet.

Atisha’s main disciple Dromtonpa founded several important monasteries and gave rise to the Kadam tradition, which was later absorbed by the Gelug and, to some extent, the Sakya and Kagyu traditions.

Buton Rinchen Drub

Buton Rinchen Drub b.1290 – d.1364

Buton Rinchen Drub, a Sakya lama raised in a Nyingma family, was the eleventh abbot of Zhalu Monastery from 1320 to 1356. Some enumerations list him as the first abbot, as he significantly expanded the institution.

He was an important teacher of the Prajnaparamita, a key lineage holder of the Guhyasamaja and Kalachakra tantras as transmitted in the Geluk tradition, and the Kalachakra, Hevajra and Sampuṭa tantras as transmitted in the Sakya tradition.

He is generally credited as the creator of the Tibetan Buddhist canon, the Kangyur and Tengyur, and his History of Buddhism is still widely read. In addition to his Sakya training, he also studied in the Kadam and Kagyu traditions.

Addendum – Importance of Dorje Shugden in the Sakya tradition

Since the great Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism was founded, the lineage of practice has been passed down through forty-two successive spiritual heads, known as Sakya Trizins. From this list of prestigious masters, six of these heads or throne holders of the tradition stand out for their practice and proliferation of Dorje Shugden. This is a practice that they even spread amongst their innumerable disciples. These throne holders constructed shrines and protector houses to Dorje Shugden, composed prayers to him and taught their students how to engage in the practice. This list includes:

1. His Holiness the 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741 CE)
2. His Holiness the 31st Sakya Trizin Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729-1783 CE)
3. His Holiness the 33rd Sakya Trizin Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853 CE)
4. His Holiness the 35th Sakya Trizin Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865 CE)
5. His Holiness the 37th Sakya Trizin Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899 CE)
6. His Holiness the 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936 CE)

The spiritual responsibility of the throne holder is to receive teachings covering the entire Sakya lineage, which consists of the common and esoteric transmissions of the Lam Dre, the Thirteen Golden Dharmas, the Hevajra tantric practices, and many others. These masters are then to proliferate these teachings. If is for this reason that they are considered to be highly learned and accomplished masters. It is through these six throne holders that the entire breadth of the Sakya lineage has descended to this day.

Due to the current political situation, with the Tibetan leadership telling everyone that the practice is bad, people might dismiss these six throne holders as being mistaken about the true nature of Dorje Shugden and their history of promoting the practice. But to come to this conclusion, one would need to assume that these throne holders were just ordinary men who are flawed, ignorant and make mistakes. If we think that, then they are rendered unreliable for spiritual growth. What is the point of going to get teachings from them if what they teach can be wrong?

To make such a dire accusation has far-reaching implications on the lives of everyday practitioners as they may lose confidence in what could well be a ‘flawed’ Sakya lineage. Since the throne holders were wrong, ordinary practitioners may feel it is pointless to continue practicing as the lineage is broken and has no blessings. Following this line of thinking, the Sakya lineage is invalidated because the entire lineage flows through these great throne holders.

According to the Tibetan leadership, Dorje Shugden is a spirit and by worshiping him one is no longer Buddhist. By engaging in his worship you lose the connection to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha because you break the refuge commitment of not worshiping an unenlightened being. This creates the cause for an unfortunate rebirth in the three lower realms. Following this logic, the six throne holders should have taken rebirth in those realms, but that is impossible as they have reincarnated back successively into the same family. The 37th throne holder, Kunga Nyingpo, is said to be the reincarnation of the 31st throneholder, Sachen Kunga Lodro, both of whom are even considered emanations of Dorje Shugden themselves. Some like Sachen Kunga Lodro have also composed lengthy prayers to Dorje Shugden which are still in use today.

It was due to their spiritual attainments that these Sakya throne holders were able to distinguish the nature of formless beings like Dorje Shugden. They did this using logical analysis or using their supernatural clairvoyant abilities. Most probably they used both methods and arrived at the same conclusion – Dorje Shugden is definitely an enlightened being and his practice is beneficial. This is why the throne holders composed extensive prayers to him.

From learning about these great throne holders, their abilities and achievements, great faith arises not only in the throne holders themselves, but also in the practices they taught, such as the practice of the Dharma protector Dorje Shugden.

Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936), the 39th Sakya Trizin, was a strong practitioner of Dorje Shugden. Researching his family history, he even proved that his holy father, the 37th Sakya Trizin Kunga Nyingpo (1850–1899), was an emanation of Dorje Shugden.

The 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936), head of the Sakya lineage, was a strong practitioner of Dorje Shugden. He is known for spreading the practice of Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition.

Click here to download the entire Sakya Dorje Shugden kangsol

 
Related articles:

• Sakya Throne Holders: Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741) & Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
• Should the Sakya Lineage Be Dissolved?
• The real reason the Sakya Trizin resigned
• A Sakya Tale

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

[To view the video with Chinese subtitles; scroll to the bottom of the article or click here]

The Speaker of Parliament is an important position and it is the Speaker’s duty to interpret parliamentary rules impartially, maintain order, and to defend the rights and privileges of members of parliament, including the right to freedom of speech. Most importantly, the Speaker’s actions must be impartial and his first duty is to moderate debates so that all voices of the people’s representatives are fairly heard.

But this is not a role that Penpa Tsering, the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile respects and honors. In a speech to students of Upper TCV School on 4 June 2014, Penpa Tsering openly abused his position of influence and showed the world the CTA’s true colors.

In a speech filled with lies and distortions of history, the Speaker attacked Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo, one of the most respected high lamas of Tibetan Buddhism and no doubt one of the greatest Gelugpa Lamas of the past century. Not only is Pabongka Rinpoche the root Guru of virtually all Gelugpa masters in modern times, he is also the source of Dharma for both the 14th Dalai Lama’s principal teachers, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Ling Rinpoche. Therefore, almost all the present Dalai Lama’s Dharma knowledge flows from Pabongka Rinpoche and yet all these meant nothing to Penpa Tsering.

In an environment that is already highly sensitive and on an issue that has divided the Tibetan people, Penpa Tsering referred to Dorje Shugden as the devil and denigrated Pabongka Rinpoche in a most offensive way. This must be the first time that an elected politician (in what is supposedly a democracy) maligns a Buddha and one of its holiest saints in such a terrible way and thinks nothing of it.

Amongst other false accusations, the Speaker inferred that Pabongka Rinpoche was under the influence of the devil and created the Shugden practice to serve its own evil intentions. Not only is it wrong for an ordinary person to judge and insult a highly respected lama who has done much for Tibetan Buddhism, it is worse that a politician tries to influence the minds of young Tibetans on a contentious religious issue with blatant lies.

The CTA has always denied that they have imposed a religious ban on the Shugden practice because to admit so would mean they admit to an unlawful breach of human rights. Instead, they claim that the Dalai Lama has merely advised people against the practice. If that is true, and since the spiritual leader of the people has already given his opinion, why would the Speaker involve himself in trying to turn the minds of young Tibetans against a religious practice, especially since he is not a spiritual figure and does not have any spiritual authority to do so? Why did the Speaker not use this precious time and opportunity with the future generation of the Tibetan people to encourage them in their harmonious and democratic endeavours? Why did the Speaker instead abuse his power to tell lies and twist facts? Some of the lies are so base it is an insult to the intelligence of the young Tibetans.

The Guru of all Gurus, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo (1878 – 1941)

For instance, Penpa Tsering claimed that Dorje Shugden “sogtae” (life entrustment) means giving one’s life to the spirit and that before Pabongka Rinpoche, there was no history of sogtae whatsoever. Either Penpa Tsering is totally ignorant of a subject that he was lecturing the Tibetan students on, or he meant to brainwash them with gross deception.

Dorje Shugden sogtae is a commitment rite for a practitioner to follow Je Tsongkapa’s teachings all the way till enlightenment and to trust Dorje Shugden as the principle protector until the practitioner gains Bodhicitta. Life entrustment rituals existed much earlier on before Pabongka Rinpoche’s time.

For example, in the 17th century, life entrustment rituals of the protector Dorje Barwa were conducted by the Fifth Dalai Lama. Similar life entrustment rituals for Nechung, an unenlightened spirit who is the Tibetan state’s protector, can be found in the collected works of Thuken Dharmavajra (1737-1802). There are many other such examples [See Note 1]. The Dalai Lama himself has given teachings on life entrustments of the ‘Five Great Kings’ (Nechung).

Therefore it is utterly dishonest for Penpa Tsering to distort facts on a spiritual matter that he should abstain from commenting on as a politician. But it does show the extent to which the CTA will go to trick the Tibetan people into supporting an unholy and illegal ban they are now desperate to defend.

The Speaker went on to say that with sogtae, the practitioner risks not taking a good rebirth and instead becomes a wandering spirit that moves around ‘Dolgyal’ Shugden. So how does Penpa Tsering explain the return of acclaimed Shugden masters like Pabongka Choktrul Rinpoche, Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche, Zemey Choktrul Rinpoche, Domo Geshe Rinpoche, Lama Osel (Lama Yeshe’s reincarnation), and many more? And for that matter, it would also mean that Lama Zopa would become a wandering spirit since he took Dorje Shugden sogtae from Trijang Rinpoche.

There are also many contradictions in Penpa Tsering’s statements. On the one hand, he referred to Pabongka Rinpoche as a great Lamrim master, so great that the 13th Dalai Lama would send Pabongka Rinpoche to teach the Lamrim instead of the Ganden Tripa (head of the Gelugpa lineage with perfect mastery of the Sutras and Tantras). On the other hand, Penpa Tsering accused Pabongka Rinpoche of being under the influence of the devil Shugden and doing the devil’s work. Why would a lama who is under the devil’s power spread great dharma teachings like the Lamrim which Pabongka Rinpoche was famous for? That Pabongka Rinpoche did so much to spread Je Tsongkapa’s teachings is proof that Dorje Shugden is not an evil spirit but the Protector of Tsongkapa’s teachings. Additionally, in insulting Pabongka Rinpoche in such a terrible way, Penpa Tsering was actually saying that the 13th Dalai Lama had no clairvoyance at all to detect a devil worshipper.

And to inflame the young listeners, the Speaker accused Pabongka Rinpoche of attempting to eradicate Nyingma teachings and even destroying statues of Guru Rinpoche and burning Nyingma monasteries. This statement by Penpa Tsering is malicious, dangerous and an outright lie and it is easily proven. When the regency of the 14th Dalai Lama was offered to Pabongka Rinpoche, he declined. Surely if Pabongka Rinpoche had intentions of destroying the Nyingma or any other traditions as Penpa Tsering claimed, then being the Regent would give him the political power to do so and yet Pabongka Rinpoche refused the opportunity. On the contrary Pabongkha Rinpoche regarded it as malpractice of Dharma even to disparage the teachings of other lineages, and wrote in the Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, Phabongkha wrote:

Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favouring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Not only did Penpa Tsering fail to acknowledge the purity of Pabongka Rinpoche as a spiritual master, he instead poisoned the reputation of one of the greatest masters of Tibetan Buddhism.

Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, the 14th Dalai Lama, and the Speaker of Parliament Penpa Tsering. Lobsang Sangay agreed to Tibet being under communist rule, the Dalai Lama is accused of being a dishonest despot worldwide and Penpa Tsering shows contempt for high Tibetan lamas and penchant for untruths

Penpa Tsering did not limit his offense to Pabongka Rinpoche. In his speech, he also commented on masters of the Sakya lineage, the 9th Panchen Lama and also Trijang Rinpoche, unashamedly claiming that the present Trijang Rinpoche is living in miserable conditions due to his Dorje Shugden practice. It is shocking that Penpa Tsering did not see anything wrong in passing derogatory comments about the Guru of the present Dalai Lama, and it will be interesting to see if the Dalai Lama will censure the Speaker for such rudeness or whether the Dalai Lama will allow a precedent that ordinary people can insult high lamas without any recourse.

If the Dalai Lama has made an exception for Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche to continue in his worship of Dorje Shugden, then who is Penpa Tsering to comment on it? If there is any truth in the allegation that Dorje Shugden is a demonic force, it would also mean that the Dalai Lama has no compassion in letting the reincarnation of his holy Guru to continue in a practice that would be harmful to practitioners as the accusations go.

It is amazing that an ordinary man such as Penpa Tsering would not hesitate to pass judgement on so many great Tibetan masters. It shows that the Speaker places himself above all these high lamas even though he has no spiritual authority and obviously even less spiritual knowledge.

In the Speaker’s comments on the Sakya lineage, whether he intended it or not, Penpa Tsering actually let slip the CTA’s interference in religious matters and forcing their decisions on Sakya Gongma Rinpoche to abandon Dorje Shugden. The Speaker acknowledged that it was only in 1996 after a chitue meeting (Parliament meeting) that the Sakya lineage stopped their propitiation of Dorje Shugden. By right, such decisions would be made amongst the leadership of the Sakya lineage who have practiced Shugden for hundreds of years, and not suddenly after a parliament meeting. Clearly the Sakyas were forced just as the CTA has been forcing Gelugpa lamas to part with this ancient practice.

The Speaker in his speech did not hesitate to demote Dorje Shugden, a protector the Sakya clan regarded as Avalokisteshvara (Khri chen Drag shul ‘Phrin las rin chen. Rdo rje ‘chang drag shul ‘phrin las rin chen gyi rtogs brjod [The Autobiography of Khri-chen Drag-shul-phrin-las-rin-chen of Sakya). Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre: 1974, pp. 29-31] Note 2) to the lowest level protector. At least he did not accuse the highest lamas in the Sakya lineage to have worshipped the devil as he accused Pabongka Rinpoche of, although it is the same deity he was referring to. This is how much respect the CTA has for the feelings of not only the Gelugpa Shugdenpas but also for anyone who has been forced to give up their religious practice.

Penpa Tsering’s speech to the young Tibetans is clear proof:

1. That the CTA has no respect for even the most distinguished high lamas and masters such that an ordinary man like Penpa Tsering feels no shame in defaming a highly attained and respected master like Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche;
2. That the CTA does actively interfere in religious matters even though they have no authority over spiritual affairs other than to preserve and promote the rich Tibetan spiritual culture. In fact it would be even more accurate to say that the CTA manipulates religion for their own gain and does not hesitate to destroy the truth along the way. How are they better off than the Chinese they condemn?
3. That the Dorje Shugden ban is not based on scriptural facts and evidence but on lies that the CTA manufacture and impose as justification, by force. Since 1996, the CTA and representatives of the Dalai Lama have insisted that they have done ‘extensive research’ and discovered Dorje Shugden to be a malicious demon. With the Tibetan people and the Gelugpa community worldwide divided, the CTA must now produce evidence of their so-called extensive research that over three centuries of Buddhist masters have missed. If indeed there is any proof of Dorje Shugden’s demonic nature, why don’t they produce it instead of defiling the good name of a high Gelugpa lama who entered clear light over half a century before the Shugden ban?;
4. That prominent politicians within the CTA such as Sikyong Lobsang Sangay and now the Speaker Penpa Tsering would stoop so low as to tell blatant lies to young Tibetans, and destroy the authenticity of Tibetan history. If this is the top level of the leadership, what does it say about the rest of the CTA? What does it say about the Dalai Lama who endorsed them? How can anyone trust them?
5. That the CTA is two-faced; they object to protests and accusations against the Dalai Lama on the basis that it is disrespectful and yet the CTA themselves engage in hurting the feelings of religious practitioners by insulting past and present high masters;
6. That the CTA is a dishonest and disrespectful government who at first denied that they persecute Shugden monks and lay practitioners but is now openly antagonistic towards the practitioners not sparing even past masters who have entered clear light after doing so much for the Tibetan people.

How can this government be trusted to lead the Tibetan people into the future? Instead of focusing on efforts to re-establish cordial relations with China so that independent or autonomy discussions can proceed, instead of busying themselves on how to progress the well-being of the Tibetan people in exile, instead of cultivating harmony amongst the Tibetan people, the CTA and politicians like Penpa Tsering engage in deception of their own people and blatant acts of contempt for high lamas who have preserved the Buddha’s teachings and made it synonymous with the Tibetan people. And along the way completely distort facts and history.

How can people of the world respect the Tibetan community and the Tibetan Buddhist religion when they see leaders such as Penpa Tsering putting down lineage masters like Pabongka Rinpoche whose reputation has been held in high esteem until now when it is sullied by a morally and spiritually corrupt politician?

Penpa Tsering’s behaviour shows that the CTA is getting increasingly desperate as more and more truths about their human rights abuse surface. When at first they denied that a religious ban existed, they now resort to outright lies and more lies to cover their dishonesty. Penpa Tsering’s insolence towards some of the most beloved high lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition has hurt many Tibetans and infuriated them, not to mention carrying the potential for an angry response by the public. It is only by the counsel of Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche that hurt feelings did not give rise to flared tempers and action by the community in general, regardless of which side of the Shugden issue they stand on.

边巴才仁在达兰萨拉西藏儿童村的演讲（2014年6月4日）

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

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

Updated 21 June 2014: Penpa Tsering on Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen

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

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

Prior to delivering his inflammatory remarks about Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche, and referring to Dorje Shugden as the devil, Tibetan Speaker of Parliament Penpa Tsering had already put his foot in his mouth with a series of lies about Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen delivered to the students of Upper TCV School.

Penpa Tsering began by casting aspirations on Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, claiming that the high lama came to power through the manipulations of his mother and that he died of a disease as the result of the demon’s curse.

In fact, it was the 4th Panchen Lama Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen who by divination chose Lobsang Gyatso as the reincarnation of the 4th Dalai Lama. The was the same Panchen Lama who recognized Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen as the unmistaken incarnation of his predecessor, Ngawang Sonam Geleg Pelzangpo.

The Panchen Lama even wrote a prayer listing Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen’s previous incarnations as including Bodhisattva Manjushri, Mahasiddha Birupa, Sakya Pandita, Buton Rinchen Drub, Duldzin Drakpa Gyaltsen, and Panchen Sonam Dragpa. The same line of predecessors of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen have also been confirmed by no less than Kyabje Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.

Once again, Penpa Tsering clearly presumes to know better than the esteemed Pabongka Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, and even dares to naysay the 4th Panchen Lama, who was the teacher of both the Fifth Dalai Lama as well as Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.

If Penpa Tsering is correct that Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen came to power by the craftiness of his mother, then the 4th Panchen Lama in fact had no clairvoyance whatsoever. That would also mean that the Panchen Lama’s selection of the Fifth Dalai Lama must be called into question.

How can the same Panchen Lama who had the omniscience to select a candidate who arose to become The Great Fifth Dalai Lama be so easily outwitted when it came to his other student, Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen? But that is what Penpa Tsering, whose statement claims a higher wisdom than the Panchen Lama, Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, wanted the young Tibetan students of Upper TCV to believe. And if that is not outrageous enough, Penpa Tsering insisted that Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, who was of the same mind continuum as Manjushri, was possessed by an evil spirit and died as the result of that. By Penpa Tsering’s definition, not even enlightened beings are safe from demon possessions and in that way, he challenged everything the Buddha himself taught.

In an environment that is already highly sensitive and on an issue that has divided the Tibetan people, any good leader would do what is necessary to calm emotions. However, Penpa Tsering clearly feels it is more important to push forward the views of the CTA at all costs, regardless of the consequences to the Tibetan society at large. Even schoolchildren are not to be spared in the CTA’s efforts to justify their actions in enforcing the Dorje Shugden ban.

Notes

1. By the 19th century, life entrustments can be found in some Gelug masters’ collected works. In the collected works of Changlung Pandita (1770-1845), one finds a life entrustment to the Five Warriors connected with the Hayagriva Most Secret Form (rta mgrin yang gsang). The collected works of Gendun Dargye has a life entrustment ritual for Setrabchen per the instructions of his teacher Gomang Tenpa Choepel (1840-1907/1908). Life entrustment rituals for various protectors can be found in the collected works of Rongchen Kirti Lobsang Trinley (1849-1904), including Setrabchen and Dorje Shugden. In addition, there existed a different life entrustment for Dorje Shugden written down by Rinchen Wangyal (1741-1812) of Sera Monastery.
2. “So when we consider the relationship of the Sakya Tradition to the Practice of Dorje Shugden we see that, contrary to the claims of some present-day Sakya Lamas, for more than three hundred years Dorje Shugden has been viewed in Sakya as an Enlightened protector. Not among the provincial practitioners or those without education, but by the Throneholders of the lineage, and the holders of the Sakya’s most precious Tantric transmissions, Lamdre Lineage holders like Morchen Dorjechang who wrote praises to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being”. [Source: http://truthaboutshugden.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/a-sakya-tale-part-three-dorje-shugden-the-great-compassionate-one/]

Since the ban on the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden, Thurman has maintained a deliberately offensive stance towards Shugden practitioners, comparing them to the Taliban, and accusing them of being Chinese spies against the Tibetans.

In 2008, the Western Shugden Society wrote a letter to Robert Thurman urging him to produce proof to support his statement that Shugden people are sectarian, like the Buddhist Taliban and “working for the Chinese.” The full letter is reproduced below:

10th September 2008

An Open Letter
To Robert Thurman,

We the Western Shugden Society are writing this letter regarding your previous public statement that Shugden people are sectarian, naming them “the Buddhist Taliban”; and your recent public statement that the Western Shugden Society protestors are “working for the Chinese”.

As you know, Shugden people want to practice the Gelug tradition purely, without mixing with the Nyingma tradition. Because of this the Dalai Lama has said to Shugden people that they are sectarian. In truth, the Nyingmapa also want to practice their Nyingma tradition purely without mixing with the Gelug tradition; and it is the same for the Sakyapa and Kagyupa. So according to the Dalai Lama’s view, the Nyingmapa, Sakyapa and Kagyupa are also sectarian, but he only says that Shugden people are sectarian. In reality he is lying.

If you, Robert Thurman, are not yourself lying, then you must show your evidence to prove your public statements: that Shugden people are sectarian, “the Buddhist Taliban” as you named them; and that the Western Shugden Society is working for the Chinese. You should show your evidence publicly through the internet before 25th October 2008. If your evidence does not appear by this date then we will conclude that you have lied publicly and are misleading people.

Sincerely,
Western Shugden Society

By 25 October 2008, Thurman had not responded to the letter in any way. It wouldn’t be unfair therefore, to consider that he has indeed lied publicly and misled people by what he is saying.

Thurman is in an especially precarious situation as someone who has already garnered a reputation as a kind of authority in Buddhism. To make statements like this is not something to be taken lightly, especially when he has nothing to substantiate what he says.

Surely, as an academic, he should understand better than anybody else that when one conveys any statements as fact, the ability to produce supporting evidence is an indivisible part of the academic process. Above all else, as a respected academic, he can (and should) be held responsible for the accuracy and truth of whatever he communicates.

Thousands of people read his books, most likely with the view that it might help their understanding and practice of Buddhism. If he is reacting in such irresponsible and hurtful ways in relations to one of the most crucial issues of Tibetan Buddhism today, a shadow of doubt would surely be cast over the rest of his writings, talks and teachings too.

Further, as a Buddhist, he has a double responsibility to upholding the truth. He should be abiding by the most basic refuge vows of not lying and not using harsh speech by launching false accusations and defamatory comments at fellow practitioners. That is the least that can be expected of someone who was even a monk for two years and is considered a close friend of the Dalai Lama.

For all the unpleasant words he has issued against Shugden practitioners however, it is his silence in response to this open letter that has been most deafening. It proves, above all, the falsities of what he has been saying and a great disappointment that someone who is so highly respected in Buddhism could have such little empathy towards fellow Buddhists.

The information in the following article is extracted from the blogs http://robertthurman.wordpress.com, http://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com and
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org. For more interesting reads on the subject, please visit the blogs directly.

Shakya Shri Bhadra

The Kashmiri Mahapandita

In the year 1127, one of Dorje Shugden’s previous incarnations took rebirth in a Brahmin family in Dasobhara, Kashmir. Little is known of Shakya Shri Bhadra’s family except that he had a brother by the name of Buddhacandra. He was given the traditional Brahmin education of the time, studying grammar under the Brahmin Laksmidhara at the age of 10. When he turned 23, Sukhasribhadradeva bestowed upon him the novice vows and the name Subedha.

In fulfillment of a prophecy, Shakya Shri Bhadra traveled to Magadha, the heartland of ancient Buddhist India, when he was 30. There, he met and received many initiations and full ordination from Santakaragupta alongside other gurus like Dasabala and Dhavaraka. He practiced intensely and had visions of deities like Tara, Cakrasamvara and Kalachakra. He even travelled as far as Bihar in order to receive Dharma teachings.

In this manner, Shakya Shri Bhadra mastered the five sciences (language, science, logic, art and Buddhist philosophy) and established himself as a great master. He was awarded the title of Mahapandita and ascended the Abbot’s throne in Nalanda Monastery and later Vikramashila, following a long line of illustrious Abbots including Atisha over 150 years before. He was highly sought after as a teacher and would give teachings to over 12,000 monks at Odantapuri. While on pilgrimage through Bodhgaya and Varanasi, he had visions of Buddha Shakyamuni, Tara and Chenrezig.

At the turn of the twelfth century, Turkic invaders were encroaching on Eastern India over Bihar and Bengal. Eventually, the invaders overran the ancient city of Varanasi and consequently, Vikramashila Monastery was completely obliterated and the entire sangha community of Odantapuri was slaughtered mercilessly. In the onslaught of the invasion, the Mahapandita Shakya Shri Bhadra had to flee eastwards but soon returned to Bihar to continue spreading the doctrine despite the risk to his life.

Shakya Shri Bhadra was invited to Tibet by Tropu Lotsawa Rinchen Sengge when he was seventy-seven. The young translator travelled to the Chumbi Valley and when he finally met Shakya Shri Bhadra in a town called Vanesvara, he made his request. Shakya Shri Bhadra was surprised to see how young the translator was and was inclined towards remaining in India. However, he changed his mind upon hearing the young translator debate with the other panditas that accompanied Shakya Shri Bhadra. The grand old master finally arrived in Tibet in the year 1204.

Several Indian companions accompanied Shakya Shri Bhadra on his journey to Tibet. They were all great masters including the likes of Sugatasri, Jayadatta, Vibhuticandra, Danasila, Sanghasri, Candavyakaraṇa, Jivagupta, Mahabodhi and Kalacandra. Each master was an expert in the field of Madhyamaka, Prajnaparamita, Vinaya, Sanskrit Grammar, Abhidharma, logic, Maitreya’s treatises, Bodhicaryavatara and Kalacakra. Besides his companions, Shakya Shri Bhadra also brought to Tibet the relics of the Buddha that his brother, Buddhacandra, had received from a Sinhalese master. These relics were meant for a Tibetan master, Jikten Gonpo Rinchen Pel.

While in Tibet, Shakya Shri Bhadra traveled to various monastic seats to give teachings during every summer retreat including Tropu, Lemoche, Sinmori, Solnagtang, Gyangong, Nyangme, Rinchengang, Sakya, Luggudong in Shang and Purang. While at Tropu, he taught Prajnaparamita, Pratimoksa and Mahayanasutralamkara. He also taught the Mahayanasutra again at Nartang and travelled to Samye, Tsurpu, Reting and Tangpoche in order to give extensive teachings.

While he was at Samye, Shakya Shri Bhadra requested the local chieftain, Jowo Lha, for access to the Sanskrit texts within the vaults of the monastery. While going through the various texts, he was reported to have seen a Sanskrit text of the Guhyagarbha Tantra. This was taken to be an important validation for the Nyingma tradition as the text affirms the Indian source of its lineage. Shakya Shri Bhadra is also widely regarded as having validated the lineage of the Vajrakilaya practice.

During the first decade of the 13th century, the Nyingma lama Drogon Namkha Pel had invited the Kashmiri master to preside over the consecration rituals of the funerary stupa of the Nyingma lama’s late father, Nyangrel Nyima Ozer.

In his early travels through Tibet, Shakya Shri Bhadra met a young man who was travelling with funerary offerings following the passing of his father, Pelchen Opo. This young man would eventually become known as the great Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyeltsen. Shakya Shri Bhadra was said to have given him teachings on logic. From this connection, Shakya Shri Bhadra is often credited with introducing the Indian lineage of logic into the Sakya School.

Shakya Shri Bhadra also had a strange connection with the Drigung Kagyu School. It was said that Vibhuticandra, one of Shakya Shri Bhadra’s Indian attendants, was against the idea of accepting an invitation to teach at Drikung and was reprimanded by his master. The previous year, a student of Drikung requested ordination from Shakya Shri Bhadra but was refused. However, the man continued to hold on to Shakya Shri Bhadra’s robes, pleading to be accepted. In the end, Jose Nyima, one of the Tibetan attendants, had to forcibly push him aside and the ensuing scuffle left the man with a bloody nose.

Later, when Shakya Shri Bhadra propitiated Tara (which he did on a daily basis), Tara appeared to him in a vision with her back facing him. He enquired the reason for this and she replied that one of his attendants had mistreated a disciple of Nagarjuna. This anecdote supports the Drikung Kagyu claim that Jikten Gonpo was a reincarnation of Nagarjuna. Shakya Shri Bhadra was also said to have heard Nagarjuna’s name mystically emanating from a small stream near Drikung Monastery.

Over the course of his travels, Shakya Shri Bhadra had accumulated a vast amount of offerings only to donate the considerable amount solely to the construction of a large statue of Buddha Maitreya at Tropu, for which he also performed the consecration ritual. He also delivered the Buddha’s relics from his brother to Jikten Gonpo at Drikung Monastery. Throughout his travels, Shakya Shri Bhadra ordained innumerable monks into the Kashmiri Vinaya system that eventually became prevalent in the Sakya, Kagyu and later Gelug traditions.

Despite repeated requests to remain in Tibet, Shakya Shri Bhadra decided to return to Kashmir, his homeland. On the journey homewards, he spent some time in Lato with Tropu Lotsawa and offered him much gold as a parting gift. After that, he travelled to Ngari, spending the summer retreat in Purang, and finally left Tibet’s borders in 1214. Shakya Shri Bhadra spent the remainder of his life in Kashmir repairing temples, ordaining monks, and giving teachings. In 1225, he entered clear light at the age of ninety-nine and was widely believed to have reincarnated in Tibet as Buton Rinchen Drub (1290-1364).

Unparalleled Master of the Sakya School

The next incarnation subsequently manifested in Western Tibet as the legendary Sakya Pandita, the renowned lineage holder of the Sakya School in Tibet. Many decades later, Dorje Shugden was first enthroned as a Dharma Protector and practiced within the Sakya school due very much to this connection.

As a child, Sakya Pandita exhibited profound signs of an extraordinary being like spontaneously uttering Sanskrit before Tibetan, and memorizing sacred texts in his dreams. He studied the great master under Jetsun Drakpa Gyeltsen of the Sakya School and mastered all the teachings. Then, he composed a treatise on valid cognition called ‘Rig Ter’ in order to correct the prevailing misconceptions that had arisen during that time in India and Tibet.

Sakya Pandita matured into an excellent scholar and unrivalled debater. He was the first Tibetan scholar to silence six Hindu scholars, including the renowned Indian scholar, Harinanda, in a grand debate.

From then on, Sakya Pandita’s fame grew like wildfire in the Tibeto-Indian world and his name eventually travelled to as far away as China where the Mongol ruler, Godan Khan invited him to their court to teach. He accepted and was well received at the imperial court.

The Mongol prince was impressed and sought to put Sakya Pandita to the test. He colluded with court magicians to conjure a vision of a temple for Sakya Pandita to bless. Sakya Pandita came and blessed the illusory temple with a sprinkling of flowers.

Then, to the embarrassment of the Prince, the magicians were unable to dissolve the illusion because the temple had become real by Sakya Pandita’s blessings. With newfound faith, the prince confessed what he had done and took heartfelt refuge in Sakya Pandita.

When Sakya Pandita eventually passed into clear light, he left behind numerous disciples, including a successor to continue his work in China.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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