Gyaltsab Je’s Light on the Path, for example, is so deep and packed with analysis that only a handful of students in the traditional monastic curriculum ever get further than the second of its four chapters, despite the fact that a month of intense debate is devoted to the book every year in the course of a monk’s philosophical studies, which take up to two decades. And without understanding this generation of commentaries, it is difficult to grasp accurately the Indian commentaries, without which the original sutras can hardly be appreciated in depth.

Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk was born in 1928 in the Tarlam region of Kham, eastern Tibet, and entered the monastic life at the age of eight. When he was fifteen, he travelled to Lhasa, the national capital, and entered the Sera Mey college of Sera Monastic University, considered one of the greatest educational institutions of the country.

For seventeen years, he devoted himself to an intense study of the classical texts of Buddhism, winning honors in every area of the traditional curriculum. He became an accomplished debater, and gave successful defenses of his knowledge in public oral examinations at every one of the great Gelukpa colleges. At an early point in his scholastic career he had already taken on students of his own.

His knowledge was not gained without great effort. He would devote long and tireless hours to the college debate ground, where student monks meet to review their daily lessons in heated philosophical debates. His free time was given almost entirely to memorization of the great philosophical texts, a traditional requirement of a monk’s training. He would recite his texts from memory late into the night, and to keep himself from falling asleep would perch high in a tree, or on a large boulder, where the self-imposed punishment for dozing off would be a nasty fall. In this manner Geshe Wangchuk was able to commit to memory literally thousands of pages of the original works, and became something of a walking encyclopedia.

As a result of his philosophical acumen and vast store of knowledge, he received the highest honors in the final examinations that mark the end of the long course to become a Geshe, or master of Buddhist philosophy.

In the difficult period following the loss of Tibet, Geshe Wangchuk suffered greatly. He was imprisoned for some time and then, during the “Cultural” Revolution, assigned to hard labor. In 1977, he was appointed to the Bureau of Cultural Preservation, where he devoted himself to a research of written and physical antiquities. He has travelled to China on various occasions and, with the relaxation of some of the previous restrictions, has visited Japan and India.

In recent years, Geshe Wangchuk has made exceptional efforts to help preserve the Buddhist religion in Tibet. He has played a leading role in the restoration of the literary classics of the country, and has served in Beijing as a university professor of Buddhist philosophy, as well as performing the duties of a traditional lama by teaching many students in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet. He also assisted the late Panchen Lama in his efforts to gain the release of the many monks imprisoned during demonstrations for a free Tibet.

Among the notable events of his life, Geshe Wangchuk includes the traditional acts of generosity he has performed for monks and monasteries during his trips to India. Despite his limited means, he has made donations to help build new temples and support needy refugee monks. The most important part of any Buddhist’s life is the success of his relationship with his spiritual instructors, and in his autobiography Geshe Wangchuk describes his studies under some thirty great religious teachers. In his usual modest way he concludes that “On the good side, I have never once in my life deprecated one of my lamas; and yet, on the bad side, I don’t feel that I was able to pay proper service to any one of them either.”

Geshe Wangchuk has composed a great many original works. In his student days, he wrote a eulogy of Je Tsongkapa and essays on difficult points of the Madhyamika and Vaibhasika schools of Buddhist thought; all these papers were destroyed in the upheaval during the loss of Tibet.

Throughout the 1960s, he continued writing on various subjects, but again these manuscripts were all burned during the chaotic “Cultural” Revolution. Since this time, he has been a prolific writer, publishing works on the comparative study of the classical philosophical schools of Buddhism; a historical essay of 21 great Tibetan monasteries; numerous articles in Buddhist journals; versed petitions and prayers to eminent lamas; and a summary of the 500-year history of Sera Mey College.

In the past few years, Geshe Wangchuk has been allowed to travel outside of Tibet for extended teaching tours, and has greatly benefitted the students and teachers of the Tibetan refugee community in India. Within the last year, he has given an extensive public discourse on the entire text of Liberation in Our Hands, an immense description of the lam-rim or steps on the path to enlightenment, composed by the illustrious Pabongka Rinpoche, Dechen Nyingpo. He has also found time to give public teachings on the subjects of logic and valid perception set forth in the present book. It is greatly hoped that he will enjoy the freedom and health to continue this great work.

The details of Geshe Wangchuk’s life mentioned here have been summarized from a brief autobiographical work currently under publication by the press of Sera Mey College. The final pages of this text contain exquisite verses that describe his own life and practice, and it would not be inappropriate to include a few of these lines here, to show the value of modesty in the thinking of a great man:

It is an excellent thing
That I have imparted to others
The power to learn and become
The mystical worlds and beings;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That I myself have never
Seen the slightest vision
Of an angel’s face.

It is a thing of goodness
That I have paid my visits
To very holy places
And spared no effort there;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That they could not affect me
And here I am exactly
As I was before.

It is a thing of goodness
That I have had the chance
To meet and seek the blessings
Of many thousand lamas;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That I remain no more
Than a hollow log of wood
That never could be blessed.

It is a thing of goodness
That in society
I’ve dressed up in the handsome
Robes of a Buddhist monk;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That on my inside rains
A steady shower of sins,
Of evil thoughts, of wrong.

It is a thing of goodness
That I’ve donned the ritual robes
And taken in my hands
The holy bell and scepter;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That still I’m stuck in seeing
The world as ordinary,
And as no paradise.

It is a nice thing people speak
Of me in flattering terms
And give me all those titles
I really don’t deserve;

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That actually I’ve not
The moral strength to watch
What I do and say.

It is a true thing, that if you
Don’t look very closely
I seem to you a monk
With the cleanest vows.

It’s though a thing that makes me sad
That if you really check
You’ll find I’ve not the slightest
Thing to show you now.

But of course he does, and in the present work Geshe Wangchuk shows himself as one of the greatest living scholars of the Buddhist logic tradition.

Source : http://www.asianclassics.org/release6/flat/S0039F_E.TXT

HUM
Lobsang Dragpa, essence of the ocean of mandalas,
Three precious yidams’ mandala attendants,
Especially the principal of the potent dregs,
Dorje Shugden and retinue consider me.

Recklessly drunk from the three poisons,
Accumulated downfalls by nature and transgression
The limits of faultless precepts and commandments,
With an ailing and repenting mind I confess.

Pervasive guru present in the 10 directions,
Peaceful and wrathful Yidams established by the Jina,
Oath bound protectors of the Secret Vehicle,
From my heart I lay bare all samaya transgressions.

Displeasing, disrespect, reproach and wrong view toward
The Glorious Guru Vajradhara,
In the presence of the Yidams and Protectors having the wisdom eye,
I confess all lack of faith.

Especially to life ruler of the Dregs,
Forgotten, broken and inferior offering tormas,
To the protector performing the four activities
I confess all broken thanksgiving service tormas.

Carelessness of what ought to be accepted and rejected,
The root and secondary [precepts] of body, speech and mind,
To the listening protectors and retinue,
With a regretful mind I confess these faults.

Primordial, naturally pure Dharmakaya,
Free from all conceptual elaboration,
May all faults written with the pen of conceptualization,
Be purified within the sphere of emptiness.

Thus concludes the short prayer to Lord Dorje Shugden. This is the confessional prayer section taken from Dragri Dorje Chang Jetsun Gyatso Thaye’s (Sera Je college) longer work called Treasury of the Four Activities

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gave this talk to students of the FPMT’s Masters Program at Istituto Lama Tsongkhapa, 22 October 2000.

Edited by Nicholas Ribush.

Recently I sent a letter (see note below) to the abbots of the large monasteries of Sera, Ganden and Drepung to inspire the older geshes and other lamas who had a strong connection with the previous life of my root guru, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, to request his incarnation to show the aspect of following His Holiness Dalai Lama’s holy wishes and return to India to study in his monastery and follow the normal way of life of such high lamas. In this way, the incarnation will benefit the world greatly, in the West and especially the Tibetan people in the East. I’m not going to read the whole thing from top to bottom to you, just a few parts.

His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche has been in Switzerland away from his monastery, under the control of other people, for a long time. Some time ago, I felt that because he was my root guru, I must do something about it. I felt it unbearable to leave things as they were; I felt I had to try to resolve this issue. Therefore I wrote this letter, which expresses my own thoughts, hoping to inspire the abbots and older geshes to add their views and request the incarnation and his entourage to return to India.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has taken unbelievable responsibility for the peace and happiness of this world. He has worked for world peace in general and, in particular, for the preservation of Buddhism, the holy Dharma, in its entirety—the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle and both Mahayana Paramitayana and tantra. On top of that, there’s the issue of Tibet, which is unbelievably hard and such a difficult situation. Despite the many problems, His Holiness has taken responsibility for the welfare of all Tibetan people, especially those in the monasteries — the monks’ means of living and their education. That in itself is an unbelievable task, but in addition, he has taken responsibility for the freedom of Tibet.

If Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s incarnation were to follow His Holiness’s holy wishes and go back to study in the monastery like His Holiness Ling Rinpoche and other lamas do, it would reduce the burden in His Holiness’s heart and relieve the discomfort of this situation. So that’s one aspect of this.

There are many contemporary and ancient stories about His Holiness Dalai Lama that, together with valid quotations from the scriptures, prove that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is Chenrezig; the Buddha of Compassion. [See Lama Zopa's talks In Praise of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=371 and Great Compassion and His Holiness the Dalai Lama http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=370 ]. The qualities of his holy body, speech and mind, his great compassion and his holy actions are as limitless as the sky and benefit not only the East but also the West; in fact, every country in the world.

His Holiness has even managed to spread the Dharma to far-flung countries where normally you’d never hear any Buddhadharma at all. Like the rising sun, he has shed the light of Dharma upon the sentient beings who live in those countries, leading them along the pure path to peace and happiness, to liberation and enlightenment. Because of such incredible, extensive work throughout the world, His Holiness’s kindness is beyond measure.

What proves that the founder of the Buddhadharma, Shakyamuni Buddha, is a pure founder, a valid founder? This is proven by his teaching being pure and valid. Similarly, the fact that even ordinary beings like us can see the extensive qualities of His Holiness’s holy body, speech and mind proves that he is the Buddha of Compassion.

Further proof that His Holiness is the Buddha of Compassion comes from Guru Shakyamuni Buddha in India, when he predicted to the bodhisattva Eliminating Defilements (Dribpa Namsäl), “The sentient beings in the Snowland of Tibet will be subdued by the Buddha of Compassion.”

Guru Shakyamuni Buddha also predicted to the bodhisattva Thayä Rigchog, “The Chenrezig who is going to work for the transmigratory beings of the Snowland of Tibet is you.”

Furthermore, the teachings say, “The guide of all the sentient beings in the Snowland of Tibet will hold the position of a king. The savior of Tibet, Phurgyäl Yül, is my heart disciple. His holy mind is completely clear, without obscuration, but he will work for sentient beings in a hidden manner by acting as an ordinary being.”

When we meet this Chenrezig that the Buddha predicted, hear his holy speech and are guided by him with compassion, if His Holiness Dalai Lama is not that Chenrezig, who else can Chenrezig be? If His Holiness is not Chenrezig, then nobody can be Chenrezig; even those great yogis who are said to be incarnations of this buddha or that are suspect. You can’t trust any other incarnation.

So, that proof relates to the ancient stories from the time of the Buddha, when he predicted that Chenrezig would be the Dharma king of Tibet and preserve Dharma and guide sentient beings in Tibet by revealing the Dharma.

However, there are also recent stories that prove the ancient stories true. When His Holiness was giving teachings at Geshe Sopa Rinpoche’s center, Deer Park, in Madison, Wisconsin, recently, he said, “I have no experience, no realization of bodhicitta and no realization of emptiness.” His Holiness often says that, but later, during an interview with the staff of Deer Park, somebody raised the question, “If you don’t have those realizations, as you say, there must be no hope for people like us.”

When His Holiness heard this, he felt incredible compassion and had to say something, so he told the people that he remembered being around Guru Shakyamuni Buddha in India. This means that he was one of the bodhisattvas who were part of the Buddha’s entourage. It slipped out that he remembered being in the presence of the Buddha.

This story is connected to the previous stories about the predictions the Buddha made to those bodhisattvas and that Chenrezig would guide sentient beings in Tibet and that the bodhisattva Thayä Rigchog was in actuality Chenrezig and would be the one who would do that work in Tibet.

There are many Buddhist leaders in the world, not only those from Tibet. But amongst all these Buddhist leaders, His Holiness’s deeds are beyond compare. Because of His Holiness, the Buddhadharma, the precious teaching of the Buddha, the only medicine that can eliminate the suffering of all transmigrator beings, is flourishing. His Holiness’s holy actions have prevented the Buddhadharma from degenerating.

Besides His Holiness having taken complete responsibility for preserving the stainless teaching of the Buddha, he has also taken full responsibility for the freedom of the six million Tibetan people in the world. His Holiness has borne great hardship to ensure that Tibetans everywhere have both Dharma and temporal freedom.

Because of all this, we must not only completely abandon any thought of giving harm to His Holiness’s activities but also put every effort into helping him. The time has come for all of us together to offer His Holiness every possible service. Therefore, each of us should generate the most extensive thought of benefiting others and ourselves. In this way, please follow His Holiness’s advice and wishes as much as you possibly can.

Whereas above I am asking everyone to follow His Holiness’s advice, in a later paragraph I quote the sutra that says, “Bhikshus and the wise should examine my teachings like goldsmiths analyze gold, by cutting, rubbing and scorching it. Examine my teachings in the same way and then put them into practice. Do not practice Dharma on the strength of blind faith alone.”

So, the Buddha himself said that we should first analyze his teachings and once we are convinced of their validity then put them into practice. We should not just blindly follow what he said simply because he said it.

We have many gurus; many virtuous friends with whom we have made a Dharma connection. You often find that, when you ask your various teachers for advice on your practice, you receive different instructions. That’s quite common.

It also says in the teachings that you should not simply rely on the person giving Dharma teachings but on the Dharma itself. In other words, you should base your practice on valid teachings of the Buddha and the previous pundits’ and yogis’ commentaries on those teachings. Moreover, you should practice according to your own capacity. Just because something is called Buddhism or Buddhist meditation doesn’t mean that you should necessarily put it into practice. Of course, your practice should be based on valid teachings of the Buddha and the ancient Indian pundits’ and yogis’ commentaries, but even then you should just practice according to your own capacity.

You have to use your own wisdom; you have to analyze. One guru tells you not to do a certain thing; another tells you to do it. Which one are you going to follow? You have to use your own wisdom. So here, in my letter to the abbots, I’m talking about the practice of this particular protector, Shugden.

Some of you may be familiar with this issue, others may not. However, whereas so far I’ve just been talking about general advice, where one guru tells you not to do something and another says to do it, what I’m doing is leading up to the specific issue of the practice of Shugden. One guru tells you “Don’t practice this protector”; another says, “Practice this protector.” You find yourself getting conflicting instructions from different gurus. How are you supposed to know what to do?

What you have to do is use your wisdom. Analyze the various instructions you have received to determine which course of action is the most beneficial for sentient beings, which creates fewest problems. Once you have reached a conclusion, practice that.

The teachings also explain what to do if your guru tells you to do something that you can’t do, that is beyond your capacity; something that you cannot transform into the path to enlightenment and would create heavy negative karma if you did it. For example, if your guru tells you to do something very heavy, like killing a human being, but from your side you feel that you don’t have the capacity to do it, how do you handle that situation?

It is said in the teachings, “Like an actor, the one Dharmakaya, the great bliss, the ultimate guru, manifests in many different forms.”

Therefore, from your side, you must look at the holy minds of all the gurus with whom you have made a Dharma connection as the great, blissful Dharmakaya. You must see them as being completely free of error and in possession of all good qualities. Your mind must look at all of them as Buddha. By keeping your mind in that view, you don’t lose your guru devotion. If continuously you keep in mind that your gurus are Buddha, non-devotional thoughts, such as disbelief, anger and so forth, do not arise. It is extremely important to avoid generating negative thoughts towards your gurus because such minds create enormous obstacles not only to gaining realizations but even to temporary success. However, the Vinaya teachings say, “If your guru tells you to do something that is not Dharma, do not do it.”

Also, the Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion says in verse 24, “If you cannot do what your guru suggests, you can request permission not to do it by explaining why you can’t.” Humbly, without arrogance, without thinking, “Oh, my guru doesn’t know this, he doesn’t know that,” by looking with devotion at your guru as Buddha, humbly explain how you are incapable of doing what he asks. As skillfully as you can, try to get permission from your guru not to do what he has asked you to do.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said, “Special disciples and special gurus, like Milarepa and Marpa or Naropa and Tilopa, are different. In such cases, every single word that the guru says to the disciple, even if it involves killing, stealing and so forth, has to be followed exactly.”

In this part of my letter, then, I am offering His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche my suggestions for dealing with various questions that arise, such as, “Perhaps His Holiness says this, but what about other lamas, who say something different?” Here I try to answer those various points. Of course, this approach can help with many things, but the particular issue here is that of Shugden.

Then I request His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche to go back to India to study in his monastery. It is extremely important that he return to his monastery to undertake deep, extensive study. The people who are preventing the incarnation from doing this are not considering the extensive benefit that he could offer sentient beings if he were allowed to develop in the normal way. They are not thinking of his future benefit to sentient beings.

At the Gelugpa meeting in Delhi in March 1999, which we, the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, helped organize, all the abbots agreed that if His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche’s incarnation’s holy activities were not developed in one of the great monasteries, if they were developed outside, they wouldn’t count.

Another thing is that the way things are, the Tibetan people see the incarnation as being against His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In that way, Tibetan people and others generate wrong views towards him and thus create the extremely heavy negative karma of criticizing a holy being.

Also, other people’s misuse of the incarnation damages his samaya with His Holiness, which severely hinders the incarnation’s ability to develop his holy actions to benefit sentient beings. Moreover, if a bad connection is made with His Holiness this time, there will be bad connections in all future lives. This hinders his ability to benefit sentient beings in future lives. Therefore, it’s extremely harmful. Many sentient beings collect negative karma. Most people can understand all this. Even someone with just a little lam-rim knowledge can understand these problems.

Some people say that if you don’t practice Shugden, Lama Tsongkhapa’s teaching cannot be developed. The next point answers this view.

Some people think that the practice of Shugden prevents Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings from degenerating and promotes their development. But there have been many Gelug lamas who without practicing Shugden, spread Buddhadharma, spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa like the sky. Lamas like Their Holinesses the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen—a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.

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

This point is very important, because people think that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the only one trying to stop the practice of Shugden. Therefore, the people who are practicing it get negative towards His Holiness. But His Holiness is not the only one. There are many other high lamas who, in monastery constitutions, have advised their monasteries not to practice, or, if they are practicing, to stop. There are many, many lamas who have done this.

No other protector has become such a big issue, but this has become important because not only His Holiness the Dalai Lama has advised against it but so have many other great lamas. Therefore it is something that we have to think about.

Even though this specific issue does not concern most of you—only a few old students—everybody has to understand what I mentioned at the beginning and again in the middle: how to remain devoted to lamas who give you conflicting advice and how to get permission not to do something you have been asked to do without generating wrong views, arrogance or anger.

My root guru, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche; Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s guru’s root guru; His Holiness Song Rinpoche, from whom many of the older students received the initiation of Shugden; and the previous incarnation of Gomo Rinpoche, who has a strong connection with Istituto Lama Tsongkhapa, here in Italy, all promoted the practice of Shugden. They were all aspects of the Dharmakaya.

I myself took the initiation of Shugden from His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche. There were four of us—Lama Yeshe, Claudio Cipullo, Piero Cerri and myself. However, this initiation can be given to only three people at a time; there cannot be four. Kyabje Rinpoche had set up the altar and made all the preparations perfectly—of course, everything he did was always perfect—and was there, waiting for us. After the four of us sat down, he said, “You cannot be four; only three. Whoever has bodhicitta, who has let go of the I and cherishes others, should leave.” Lama shot up immediately. I just sat there like a donkey, as if I were made of stone. So then the three of us, Claudio, Piero and I, took the initiation.
Of course, Lama and I practiced Shugden for many years. That was always the main thing that Lama did whenever there were problems to overcome. At the beginning of every Kopan course, Lama always did Shugden puja to eliminate hindrances. Of course, this was not Lama’s principal practice. His principal practice was bodhicitta, emptiness, clear light, illusory body and so forth. The protector puja was done simply to overcome obstacles.

However, all these lamas giving different kinds of advice are all manifestations of the Dharmakaya. The point is that many great lamas who had incredible qualities and were of unbelievable benefit in Tibet, preserving and spreading the stainless teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa, advised against the practice of Shugden.

Similarly, His Holiness is of enormous benefit to sentient beings and, furthermore, has taken on the incredible burdens of his position. Therefore, it has become crucial that we support him, especially in his efforts on behalf of Tibet. This is very important and the main reason we changed—why Kopan changed; why I changed . As I understood how hard His Holiness works and what heavy burdens he has assumed, I changed. How could I be against His Holiness? There was no way. The only thing to do was to support, serve and help him. That’s the main thing.

The next question—and here, I’m just posing hypothetical questions and giving the answers, like the debate texts do—that comes up for some people is that if the incarnation of His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche doesn’t practice, the lineage of Shugden will degenerate and die out. Some people might think this because in his previous life, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche was the main lama preserving this lineage, which had come down through his root guru, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo. To that, I say there’s no need to worry because many other people do the practice, so the lineage will not get lost.

Then, some people say that this practice should continue because it promotes wealth and prosperity in the world. In response, I say that the practice of Shugden is not necessary for wealth. There are many rich and powerful countries in the world, like Saudi Arabia and the USA, that don’t practice Shugden. They haven’t taken the initiation; they haven’t made a commitment to practice. As everybody knows, wealth and prosperity comes from merit and virtue; from the creation of good karma.

After Guru Shakyamuni Buddha left his father’s palace but before he began to practice Buddhism, he practiced Hinduism. That’s not because he didn’t know that Hinduism was not the way. It was to show sentient beings that his first choice was wrong and that Buddhism was the right path.

At one point, when things in Tibet became very difficult politically, His Holiness came to Dromo Geshe Rinpoche’s monastery in southern Tibet. At that time the Tibetan government could not decide whether His Holiness should go on to India or back to Lhasa. So His Holiness and his ministers consulted Dromo Geshe Rinpoche’s monastery’s protector, the one in question. Through the oracle, Shugden said that His Holiness should not go to India. This protected Tibet for another year or for so. What I have heard is that after that experience, His Holiness would recite prayers to Shugden regularly. However, after many years of analysis, when His Holiness was about to take the initiation of Shugden, he received signs in a dream that he should not. As a result, he didn’t take the initiation.

This is the same as what Guru Shakyamuni Buddha did. He first became enlightened inconceivably long ago, not, as history tells us, two-and-a-half thousand years ago in India. According to the Theravada tradition, that’s what happened, but the Mahayana does not accept this—we believe he became enlightened inconceivably long ago. Therefore, as an enlightened being, how can the Buddha make a mistake? He simply practiced Hinduism to show sentient beings that it was the wrong path. This is just what His Holiness did; he practiced Shugden to show us it was wrong.

Because of His Holiness’s special capacity to benefit people extensively by revealing the entire Buddhadharma in a very short time, in two or three days or even one or two hours, it is very important that he have a long, healthy life. Since His Holiness can introduce the Dharma to people in such a short time, leading them to the peace and happiness of liberation and enlightenment, the longer and healthier His Holiness’s life, the more he can benefit us sentient beings. Therefore, we need to support him. That’s the main point.

For example, if something were to happen to His Holiness’s life, what would happen to Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism? Imagine how much suffering there would be. We’d have no guide; all those monasteries would also be guideless. Everything depends on His Holiness. Like a father and mother, His Holiness is everything; not only to Dharma students but especially to Tibetans. Who would we listen to if His Holiness were not there? You can see how much suffering there’d be without him.

If Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism is lost, the complete teaching of the Buddha is lost. If there’s no Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism there’s no complete teaching of the Buddha. Even though there might be Chinese Mahayana and other traditions, it’s only Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism that has everything—the Lesser Vehicle teachings, Mahayana sutra and Mahayana tantra; especially the complete teaching on tantra. You see how much suffering and confusion there’d be in the world. This is particularly true for Tibetans.

Therefore, it’s extremely important that you understand this. His Holiness’s advice is to not practice Shugden, therefore, we have to support His Holiness and fulfill his wishes on this point. That’s the essence of what I’m trying to say. I don’t know whether any of you are practicing Shugden, but this is just to inform those who do not know and to clarify the situation for those who do.

Another thing is that some Tibetans and others severely criticize Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo because he practiced Shugden, making him out to be some kind of demon. However, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo wrote incredible teachings on sutra and tantra; on Heruka, Tara Cittamani and many other topics. All these amazing teachings were written purely from his experience. So it’s impossible that he can really be some kind of evil being, as those extremists accuse him of being. There’s no way he could have done the negative things they say he did.

The great translator Ra Lotsawa, one of the main Yamantaka lineage holders, is supposed to have killed many people through his tantric power, but nobody regards Ra Lotsawa as bad. Tantric powers are attained on the basis of bodhicitta, the realization of emptiness and the generation and completion stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, and when you gain the powers that come with the clear light and the illusory body and do wrathful actions—for example, separating evil beings’ consciousness from their body—the main point is to transfer their consciousness to the pure land. That’s the end result of wrathful tantric actions. Wrathful actions like that are done to benefit other sentient beings. When dealing with evil beings through peaceful actions doesn’t benefit them, the only way left to benefit them is through wrathful actions. If you possess the necessary powers and qualities you can benefit others in that way with no danger to yourself. Not only can you but you are supposed to. It’s part of your samaya.

There are many stories about the great yogis and living beings. For example, one great yogi called Lobpön Jampel Shenyen made soup with live worms. And when Naropa first met his guru, Tilopa, he was down by the river cooking live fish and eating them, which made him think, “This can’t be Tilopa.” So when he asked, “Are you Tilopa?” Tilopa said, “No.” Later on, when Naropa had generated faith and again asked, “Are you Tilopa?” Tilopa said, “Yes.” Anyway, great yogis can assume such aspects.

The incarnation of Kyabje Dorje Chang, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, is His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s guru and the lama of all the Tibetan people, so it’s terrible if he’s hidden away in some corner as if there’s something wrong with him. That’s absolutely shameful. Therefore, the people around him have to think very extensively. In his previous life he performed incredibly holy actions; therefore, his present incarnation has the potential to spread Dharma in both the East and the West like the rising sun spreads light. Even just within the FPMT there are more than 120 centers in which he could spread the teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa when he finishes his geshe degree. But the extent to which he can practice guru devotion and develop his holy actions depends almost entirely on his attendant.

Then in my letter to His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche I also request the incarnation that whatever sutra and tantra teachings he offered His Holiness Dalai Lama in his previous life, to please take those complete lineages from His Holiness Dalai Lama. So I request this from my heart.

However, this does not apply only to His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche. It applies to all of you as well. The main point in telling you all this is that if you read the letter, it might give you an idea of how to practice in general and particularly what to do with respect to the issue of the protector, Shugden. The other point is to let everyone know something about this issue itself.

Note

1. The letter was addressed to the reincarnation of the previous Trijang Rinpoche and Lama Zopa Rinpoche sent it to the abbots to get their input and support for it. Here, Rinpoche is reading parts of this letter to the assembled students and commenting on it. The letter itself is not available at this time.

Source: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=335&chid=1398

Delhi, 17.9.2000
PRESS RELEASE

Sera Mey Monastery in Bylakuppe

On Sep. 10, there was an hour-long clash between Tibetan protesters and monks in the Tibetan settlement in Mundgod, Karnataka. The ‘protesters’ numbered about 3000, including nuns, lay people and inmates of the local old peoples’ home. They came at the behest of the local Tibetan Women’s Association (TWA) and the local Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) who made it mandatory for every Tibetan above school-going age to join in the protest against Shugden worshippers – or be fined a public penalty.

They targeted a two-day prayer conference attended by about 70 delegates of Shugden worshippers from all over India and Nepal. The ‘protesters’ attacked not only the monks participating in the prayer-conference, but also vented their ire at the local policemen and other officers. Many on both sides, and the police, had received serious injuries. The police imposed a 24-hour curfew from 6pm to the evening of the next day. Forseeing more unrest, they extended it for another 24 hours on Sep. 12.

A four-man representative of the Tibetan exile election commission, who had arrived in the settlement on official duty, visited those of the protesters who were in the local Tibetan hospital. They did not call or visit any of the monks who had also received serious injuries and were bed-ridden in their monastery hostel.

On Sep. 12, there was another clash among Tibetans. This took place at the Bylakuppe Tibetan settlement, the largest Tibetan enclave outside of Tibet. Delegates from various local Tibetan monasteries and camps in the settlement had objected to the presence of the United Cholsum Organisation (UCL) from Dharamsala to pitch for elections. Though both the police and the settlement Chairmen ordered them to be out of the settlement by 8am, they evaded the order and stayed on. The entire delegation of the Dorje Shugden devotees from all over India and Nepal, who had a brief reception at the local Pomra Khangtsen monastery on their return from Mundgod, left the place after a brief prayer, as requested by the police.

About 600 Tibetans awaited them at Camp 1. They missed the delegation’s motorcade which left by another route. However, about 20 monks of Pomra Khangtsen, who saw off the delegates up to Priyapatna, were not so fortunate. While returning, they fell into the waiting arms of the mob. In complete defiance of the police intervention, they attacked the monks. There was no compassion. None of the monks was spared. They were beaten without mercy by their fellow Tibetans. All of them received massive injuries. The police imposed section 144 within the Sera Monastic University.

Although the 20 monks were the victims, the police took them into judicial custody. The UCO leaders, who responsible for the clash, and were contravening their expulsion order from the police, were left untouched.

THE ORIGIN

The origin of these two clashes among ordinary Tibetans is the ban imposed by the Dalai Lama on the worship of Dorje Shugden, a Tibetan protector deity worshipped by thousands of prominent Tibetans including Trijang Rinpoche (1901-1982), the Dalai Lama’s junior tutor.

THE POLITICAL COMPULSION BEHIND THE RELIGIOUS BAN

As the ‘well-being of the Dalai Lama and independence of Tibet’ were given as the pretext for imposing it, it got all the major Tibetan organisations (who had till then openly opposed any concession by anyone to China on Tibetan independence) totally involved in enforcing it in every Tibetan community in India, Nepal, Switzerland, and even in Tibet where Tibetans are under Chinese subjugation. Four months later, when the confusion created by this policy completely involved the entire Tibetan exile community, the Dalai Lama announced (July 17, 1996), at a joint address to the British parliament, that he was seeking autonomy under China, as opposed to complete independence from China (which had been the notion given to the Tibetan public till then).

THE DALAI LAMA’S ROLE

Both the religious ban and the method adopted to enforce it have created results tantamount to religious persecution in exile. These are all documented. Throughout the exile Tibetan enclaves, there have been grievous injuries, daily harassment and discrimination against those Tibetans who refuse to give up their faith in Shugden, or poor Tibetan families who receive scholarship for their children’s education from Tibetan Lamas in Europe who revere the deity.

These actions contravene more than one section of the Constitution of India, in which the Dalai Lama is a refugee and resident. They contravene more than one clause of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, which is his main source of support where the Tibetan people are concerned. To date, neither the Dalai Lama nor his Private Office have deplored these incidents. Why?

THE TWO INCIDENTS

The two recent incidents mentioned at the beginning have left about 70-100 Tibetans wounded. These Tibetans do not know each other. Nor do they know why they attacked each other. None of the assailants had any enmity towards each other. This is perhaps the real tragedy. Those who attacked did so believing that they were carrying out the ‘wishes of the Dalai Lama’. Those who resisted the onslaught and retaliated in self-defence, did so to defend their right to freedom of religion, for a life consistent with human rights and dignity.

IMPORTANCE OF THESE INCIDENTS

The Tibetan establishment routinely informs the Union and state Govt. of India that Shugden worshippers are ‘Chinese spies’. On the other hand, all the monks who were attacked at Mundgod on the 10th, all the 20 monks who were beaten without mercy by a 600-strong Tibetan mob at Bylakuppe on the 12th, are Tibetans who had recently escaped from Chinese rule. None of them have any connection with the Chinese government. Each of them has escaped Tibet, given up their family and relatives in Tibet, to live in freedom, to live a life with human dignity, in exile.

This incident has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that even though Shugden devotees are loyal Tibetans, the Private Office of the Dalai Lama, and some of its lobbyists, is bent upon destroying any Tibetan or Tibetan monastery or Tibetan individual who disagrees with him – at any cost, under any pretext, even if this means misrepresenting facts to governments and Tibetan supporters abroad.

IN THE AFTERMATH

On the 14th, the Dorje Shugden Society called on the Union Home Minister to apprise the Government of the situation and to seek a full inquiry into the incidents and their origin. The Government is concerned for unity among Tibetans.

The Tibetan exile administration is completely dominated by the Private Office of the Dalai Lama and its lobbyists. More than four decades have passed since the exile Tibetan administration came into existence. But the Tibetan exile community has no independent Judiciary, no independent press and no opposition party.

OUR DECISION

Tibetans who worship Lord Shugden, share in the grief of all those Tibetans who suffered in these two incidents. They deplore this violence. Knowingly or unknowingly, the Dalai Lama is creating permanent division among his own people based on religious faith and ideological convictions. The price for this divisive policy will be exacted from future Tibetans yet to be born. The Dalai Lama’s so-called ‘supporters’ are seeking to rule even the conscience of each and every one who is born a Tibetan. The respected leader, bearing the entire weight of his exiled people and his international commitments, is too distracted to notice this dangerous trend.

The two recent incidents in Mundgod and Bylakuppe are just the tip of this dangerous iceberg.

The Private Office of the Dalai Lama is the whole cause of these two incidents. The local Tibetan Women’s Association (TWA) and Tibetan Youth Congress, who masterminded the incident in Mundgod, are staffed with educated Tibetans. Their mandate does not permit infringement of anyone’s religious and human rights. Hence, unless insisted in the name of the Dalai Lama, they would not commission such a step on their own. Furthermore, the Private Office has created, for political purposes, the present religious controversy. It has consistently sustained this controversy by giving inducements of favors, high offices, titles, immigration or postings in Western countries, and money to any abbot, Tibetan petty official, or monastery or Buddhist centre who helps to support this controversial religious policy.

Till these questionable methods stop, those close to the sun may enjoy a sunny life but the average common Tibetan will continue to suffer in anguish and remain torn between their native Tibetan values of honesty and political deception being continuously espoused in their leader’s name. We would like to clarify that except for this religious ban, Shugden devotees have no quarrel or any political objectives against either the Dalai Lama or his Private Office. But till such time as the Dalai Lama clarifies his stand on these two incidents, and starts working for uniting the Tibetans on the basis of truth, honesty, and Buddhist and ancient Indian values of religious diversity and tolerance, till that time, with all due respect for him as a great spiritual master, we will not accept him as our religious leader any more.

Violence and Sangha are not a good mix

48-Hour Curfew at Tibetan Settlement. 24-Hour Curfew at Another Tibetan Settlement in South India.

INDIA – Deccan Herald,
Monday, September 11, 2000:

Representatives of Dorje Shugden devotees from Ooty, Shillong, Kalimpong, Darjeeling and Sikh, Nepal, Delhi and Bylakuppe gathered at the settlement (Pop. 13,000) in Mundgod in the southern Indian state of Karnataka to participate in a one-day prayer convention organised by the local Shugden Society. The gathering was violently attacked by a mob of more than 2000 Tibetan Dalai Lama “supporters”. An eye-witness report from these incidents:

Sep. 8:
Anticipating objection and violence, Mr Nudup Dorje, Chairman of the settlement, requests all the house masters of Gaden Monastery to calm down their monks on the 10th, as ‘there will be only a peaceful protest march of about 200 Tibetans against the Dorje Shugden convention’. Ven. Geleg Thogmed, the house master of Dokhang Khangtsen calls a special gathering of all the monks of Dokhang Khangtsen, and asks each and every one of them to remain calm during the peaceful protest. The monks believe their house master, and return perplexed and thoughtfully to their quarters.

Sep. 9:
Representatives of Dorje Shugden devotees arrive from Ooty, Shillong, Kalimpong, Darjeeling and Sikh, Nepal, Delhi and Bylakuppe arrive at the settlement (Pop. 13,000) in Mundgod in the southern Indian state of Karnataka to participate in a one-day prayer convention organised by the local Shugden Society, for the purpose of:

1. sorting out legal and other details about constructing a new prayer hall for the worship of Lord Shugden as the existing one can accommodate only half the number of devotees at every prayer session and
2. discussing how to respond to the continuing religious prosecution within Tibetan society at the hands of those claiming to be ‘supporters of the Dalai Lama’ against anyone who reveres the Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden. The delegates, assembled in Delhi, leave in two groups for south India.

MUNDGOD:

The area in front of the new Dokhang Khangtsen (House), located beside the entry gate to the Tibetan settlement, is quiet except for a police bus and a few policemen on patrol. This was sent by the local police.

Morning, Karnatak countryroad:

Representatives for the convention who came together by train are stopped halfway to Mundgod by a detachment of police, and searched thoroughly for weapons, at the behest of the local Tibetan Women’s Association and the Tibetan Youth Congress who had baselessly alleged that Shugden devotees are ‘anti-Dalai Lama’.

Mid Afternoon, Goa-Karnatak border:

Geshe Cheme, General Secretary of the Shugden Society, and two advocates of the Supreme Court of India, Mr Thakur and Mr Arvind Singh, were on their way to the convention from the airport when they were stopped by another detachment of police at the Goa-Karnatak border. They are escorted to the district police headquarters at the seaside city of Karwar to meet the police commissioner. The PC briefs the Supreme Court lawyers about allegations he has received from the Tibetan Women’s Association, the Tibetan Youth Congress, and the settlement Chairman to the effect that the Shugden devotees in the settlement are all ‘anti-Dalai Lama’, ‘paid by China’ and other baseless charges. He asks the lawyers to live in separate accommodations outside of the Tibetan settlement, as he was apprehensive that ‘the other side’ may attack the convention participants. They reach the convention venue after another five hours by car.

Late evening, Mundgod Tibetan settlement:

News is received that, as their final pitch to prevent the convention from taking place, officers of the local Tibetan Women’s Association asked the camp leaders to announce that every Tibetan in the settlement above the age of 15 should join their protest the next day. Anyone refusing will be fined Rs. 500, or will be asked to give an explanation. The TWA approaches Drepung Loseling Monastery, requesting it to send Drepung monks to participate in the protest. The monastery keeps silent. Besides monasteries, the TWA visited the local Tibetan infirmary with the same message. They visited Jangchub Choeling (The Abode of Dharma), the peaceful local Tibetan nunnery, a second time to urge the nuns to join in the next morning’s procession.

Sep. 10: 9 A.M.
Soon after their simple breakfast, local Tibetans began to leave their home in twos and threes. From the side of Camp 3, several hundred Tibetans descended towards Gaden Monastery as though they were on their normal life visits in the settlement. However, after passing the big blue police van strategically placed near the Camp 3 bridge, they came together, forming a 3000-strong procession and briskly proceeded towards Gaden Monastery. But we did not know any of this at the time…

Except for some passersby, there was almost no one within the gates of the convention precinct. It was open. From the vantage point of the new prayer hall, I could see groups of police and some passersby outside the gate. Most of the monks had gone to attend the morning debate at the monastery courtyard.

Geshe Jangchub Dorje, President of the local Shugden society, opens the prayer convention. There are about 70 delegates. Mr Jampal Yeshe, President of the Shugden Society from Delhi, took the podium next. We were hardly a few minutes into his speech when political reality thrust aside peaceful intentions of mortals…

From our venue, we started hearing chants. The chanting got louder and louder. It became more and more difficult to concentrate on the speaker. About 50 steps away from the prayer hall, outsiders began to converge at the gate to watch the advancing procession. Monks helping with the prayer convention from within the compound became curious and went to see. The policemen began to form a barrier outside the gate. They had helmets and cane batons. None of them had shields.

Expecting to see leaders of the TWA and TYC leading the march, the onlookers saw widows, old women and old men from the local Tibetan infirmary placed at the head of the procession. The Chairman of the settlement was seen pretending to stop the advancing procession. As the protesters reached the gates of Dokhang House (the prayer venue), they became ugly. They began to shout abuses against Dorje Shugden. “Any Tibetan who worships Shugden against the wishes of the Dalai Lama”, they shouted, “are traitors.” Soon the protesters began to throw dust and small stones at the direction of the convention. These fell on monks who were watching from inside the gate. Soon larger stones and bricks followed. Flower pots and glass panes of the Dokhang students’ hostel facing the road were smashed without pity. All the windows of the nearby residence of Geshe Tenzin Chophel, one of the main disciples of the late Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, were hit and smashed. The attack increased in intensity. The local police inspector was hit on the face and started bleeding. Other police officers were similarly attacked. It was becoming impossible to restrain the monks watching from inside. They became restless. They shouted at the police for holding them in check while not being able to control the abuse and attack from the protesters. The abuses and attacks continued. Some of the monks within the gate rushed out and charged at the protesting mob.

Soon there was hand-to-hand fighting between the protesters and the monks. It was an uneven match: about 40 monks, young and old, trying to combat about 3000 screaming protesters. Many on both sides received bad beatings. Many on both the sides started bleeding from injuries. Some protesters begged for mercy, saying they had no choice but to join the procession or face penalty from the TWA. Nuns in the procession from the local Tibetan nunnery fled to the nearby Lhopa Khangtsen. Amidst sobs they cried that the TWA came to their nunnery twice to ask them to join to this protest march, be fined, or ‘face a Tibetan inquiry commission’. The fight was continuing. Sticks, stones and bricks were landing everywhere. The protesters fled screaming. But again they regrouped and advanced towards the monks. The in-fighting became bitter and tragic. Some of the protesters, while fleeing, fell into ditches and nearly suffocated to death. Others, while fleeing, smashed the window panes of the Shartse Monastery student canteen and the library above it.

Some old Tibetans were seen weeping at the steps of the Shartse student canteen, sobbing that that this attack on the monks was a replay of the cultural revolution in Tibet. The violent confrontation and fighting, however, grew in strength and continued for about two hours. In desperation, the police fired several times into the air. This proved effective.

Many Tibetans on both sides suffered injuries. Among the protesters some fell unconscious; others had to be lifted and carried away. Some of the monks had to be immediately taken to Indian hospitals in Mundgod. About 40 protesters were treated for various injuries at the local Tibetan hospital near Camp 3. About seven of them were said to be admitted. We also heard that one monk and a nun had fatal injuries, and were rushed to Hubli hospital for intensive treatment.

The prayer convention was resumed. The Supreme Court lawyers, who had witnessed the confrontation from their car throughout the duration, were shocked beyond belief. They addressed the convention. They observed that according to the constitution of India, every Tibetan living in India has complete freedom to adopt any religion and worship any god.

About lunch time the police commissioner arrived at the Tibetan settlement from his headquarters in Karwar (three-hour bus ride) to evaluate the situation for himself and to inspect the attack on his officers by the protesters. For the local police chief whose uniform was splattered with blood from injuries on his face, the commissioner asked for a change of his officer’s uniform.

Meanwhile, at the settlement office, the Tibetan Women’s Association, the Tibetan Youth Congress and other Tibetans were planning a second protest march in the evening. Apprised of this development the local Indian administration decided to ask the delegates to leave by nightfall. At the same time, they imposed a 24-hour curfew throughout the Tibetan settlement. Sensing that even the leaving of delegates was not enough for the protesters and the organisers, fearing an even more serious civil unrest, the police commissioner imposed another 24-hour curfew at 6PM on Tuesday, September 11 over the entire settlement.

What happened at Sera after the Mundgod incident:

On Sep. 12 the next day, there was another clash among the Tibetans. This took place at the Bylakuppe Tibetan settlement, the largest Tibetan enclave outside of Tibet. Delegates from various Tibetan monasteries and camps had objected to the presence of the United Cholsum Organisation (UCL) who had arrived from Dharamsala to pitch for elections. Though both the police and the settlement Chairmen ordered them to be out of the settlement by 8AM, they evaded the order and stayed on. The entire delegation of the Dorje Shugden devotees from all over India and Nepal, who had a brief reception at the local Pomra Khangtsen monastery on their return from Mundgod, left the place as asked by the police.

About 600 Tibetans awaited them at Camp 1. They missed the delegates’ car, which left by another route. However, about 20 monks of Pomra Khangtsen, who saw off the delegates up to Priyapatna, were not so fortunate. When they returned towards their monastery after seeing off the delegation, they fell right into the waiting arms of a 600-strong Tibetan mob. In complete defiance of the police intervention, they attacked the monks. There was no compassion. None of the monks were spared. They were beaten without mercy by their fellow Tibetans. All of them received massive injuries. The police imposed a 24-hour curfew in the settlement.

Although the 20 monks were beaten without mercy by the Tibetans, the police took them into judicial custody. The UCO leaders, who responsible for the clash, and were contravening their expulsion order from the police, were left untouched.

Source: www.schettini.com

In particular, the Dalai Lama has initiated referendums at each of the great Gelugpa monasteries on this issue and my efforts here are focused on checking the validity of these referendums.

During a speech made by the Dalai Lama in January 8th 2008 at Drepung Loseling Monastery (transcript from Voice of America) he said:

“In the Vinaya rules also, when there is a contentious issue, the monks take vote-sticks and decide, as mentioned in the seven methods of resolving conflict. In contemporary democratic practice, there is such a thing as ‘referendum’, ‘consulting the majority’. The matter has now reached this point of consulting what the majority wants. Therefore, when you return to your respective places after this programme at Loseling Monastery, put these questions:

1. Whether you want to worship Dholgyal. This is the first question. Those who want to worship, should sign saying they wish to worship Dholgyal; those who don’t want, should sign saying that [they] don’t want to.
2. ‘[Whether] we want to share the religious and material amenities of life with Dholgyal worshippers.’ You should sign saying so. ‘We do not want to share religious and material amenities of life with Dholgyal worshippers.’ (You should) sign saying so.’”

The particular section of the Vinaya to which the Dalai Lama is referring, known as “The Seven Methods for Resolving Conflict”, is the scriptural basis for the referendums at the great Gelugpa monasteries of Sera, Ganden, and Drepung. I decided to study these instructions to discern whether or not those procedures are being followed.

As I proceeded I was shocked to find that the protocols laid out by Buddha on how to handle such conflicts are being completely ignored by both the Dalai Lama and the abbots of those monasteries. In fact, the particular translation and commentary I referenced for this article offered many instructions that, if followed sincerely, would ease much of the suffering being endured by practitioners on both sides of this issue.

For the sake of readability and in the interest of space I will not insert all seven methods for resolving conflict here. I have based this article in its entirety upon The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volume I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (see here for the full article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html).

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Thanissaro Bhikkhu for this work as I would be unable to investigate the scriptural validity of these referendums without his kindness in composing this work. In this instance it is not ideal to use the Pali translation of the Vinaya Pitaka because it would not be the translation that the Dalai Lama himself would follow. However, after some consideration, I realised that the violations of the protocols laid out by Buddha in the Pali translation of the Vinaya Pitaka would be reasonable objections to the referendums even if they were not mentioned in the Tibetan translations, thus I decided to compose this article.

The main reason why I didn’t use one of the Tibetan translations is that I could not find them translated into English. If you have access to a translation of these seven methods for resolving conflict from the Kangyur and Tangyur I would love to study those, please pass them along.

The particular method in question is method #5 which I have copied below.

“5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and – in the words of the Canon – are “wounding one another with weapons of the tongue.” In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.

Such a vote is valid if:

1. The issue is important
2. The procedures of “in the presence of” have all been followed but have not succeeded in settling the issue. (The discussion in the Cullavagga indicates that at least two Communities have tried settling the issue; the Commentary recommends trying the normal procedures in at least two or three)
3. Both sides have been made to reflect on their position
4. The distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority sides with the Dhamma
5. He hopes that the majority sides with the Dhamma
6. The distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Sangha
7. He hopes that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Sangha
8. The tickets are taken in accordance with the Dhamma (according to the Commentary, this means that there is no cheating – e.g. one Bhikkhu taking two tickets – and the Dhamma side wins)
9. The assembly is complete
10. The bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views (and not, for example, under fear of intimidation or coercion)”

(Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code I, Chapter 11 – Adhikarana Samatha)
This brings me to my first observation:

The Referendum is Under Fear of Intimidation or Coercion
(which invalidates the referendum according to #10)

• On January 26th, 2008, the referendum was conducted in Sera-Je monastery.
• On February 9th, 2008 the referendum was conducted in Ganden-Shartse Monastery.

Prior to either of these referendums there were actions already taken against Dorje Shugden monks. Here is the timeline of events:

• On January 8th:
  In the assembly hall of Ganden-Jangtse Monastery, each monk had to stand up in turn and declare that he will never practise Dorje Shugden. Twelve monks who practise Dorje Shugden did not attend and were expelled from the monastery.In Phukang Khangtsen (also in Ganden-Shartse) signed statements were collected from each monk, declaring that the signatory never practises Dorje Shugden. Monks who did not want to sign the statement and take the oath to forgo the practice of Dorje Shugden were pressured to do so. The signature and oath campaign was conducted in ten monastic sections. When the signatures were collected in Phukang Khangtsen, one monk was expelled for refusing to sign.
• o On January 11th 2008:
  The abbot of Ganden-Jangtse Monastery, Gen Rinpoche Geshe Lobsang Tsephel was publicly scolded by the Dalai Lama in a public meeting for being a Dorje Shugden practitioner. He was accused of being ‘two-faced’ for seemingly following the Dalai Lama’s advice while secretly practising Dorje Shugden.

Before any referendum was held at Sera-Je or Ganden-Shartse, monks were already being expelled and humiliated. This is a very important point.

In the shadow of these events, the Ganden and Sera monks were asked to participate in a referendum for which they were already aware of the consequences should they vote against the majority.

My question, is this what we call a referendum? Does it sound like this referendum was held wholly without intimidation or coercion? I ask the reader to consider how you would vote in such a situation if your livelihood was on the line, knowing as well that you would have no more access to physical or spiritual nourishment and would be effectively disowned by your spiritual family. Might it be more prudent to vote against Dorje Shugden in public while continuing to practice in secret? This is precisely what many lay and ordained Tibetans are doing.

When these pre-loaded referendums were being held the Dorje Shugden practitioners had to cast their vote in the face of definite expulsion from their monastery. They also had to consider that non-Dorje Shugden practitioners had signed the oath to not to share material amenities of life. The choice made publically by Dorje Shugden practitioners would clearly impact their ability to survive outside the monastery. It is difficult to conclude that such a ‘choice’ is not coercion in its grossest form and that as such the Dalai Lama’s so-called referendums directly contradict the Vinaya and the spirit of Buddha’s teachings as a whole.

The Referendum will lead to a split in the Sangha
(which invalidates the referendum according to #6 and #7)

The second question put forth by the Dalai Lama is: “[Whether] we want to share the religious and material amenities of life (live together in the monastery) with Dholgyal worshippers.”

What this means is that practitioners who formerly lived together in the same Monastery would now not be able to use the same kitchen, do Sojong together, or use the same Khangtsen at all.

“A schism (saṅgha-bheda, literally a split in the Saṅgha) is a division in the Community in which two groups of bhikkhus of common affiliation, with at least five in one group and four in the other, conduct Community business separately in the same territory.” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code II, Chapter 21)

On February 7th 2008, in the assembly hall of Shartse Monastery, the disciplinarian – with tears in his eyes – announced: ‘Now Dhokhang Khangtsen will be separated from Shartse Monastery.’

This clearly meets Buddha’s definition of a schism (which I will explore in a future article). It is clear that the vote itself is on whether or not to split the Sangha. Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s commentary clearly indicates that if it is understood that the referendum would lead to a split in the Sangha the referendum is invalid.

Furthermore, on the issue of how to handle a schism according to the Vinaya, the present Dalai Lama has not been following Buddha’s advice.

“As for the laity, the texts quote the Buddha as saying that they should give gifts to both factions and listen to their Dhamma. Then, on consideration, they should give their preference to the Dhamma-faction. Notice, however, that in advising the laity to give preference to one faction over another, the Buddha does not say that only one faction should receive alms. After all, the laity may be misinformed about the Dhamma and in a poor position to tell the right faction from the wrong. At the same time, the Buddha has never been recorded as declaring a living being as unworthy of gifts, for that would be tantamount to saying that the being was unworthy to live.” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhist Monastic Code II, Chapter 21)

This means that the signature campaign being conducted in the lay community by the CTA (within which the Dalai Lama is the final authority) to not share material amenities with Dorje Shugden practitioners directly contradicts the Vinaya. The language of the Vinaya makes clear that both Dorje Shugden practitioners and non-Dorje Shugden practitioners should be able to purchase goods and receive services like any other Tibetan living in exile. If the reader has any doubts as to whether this discrimination is really happening please refer to the France24 documentary which reveals such religious discrimination. http://www.france24.com/en/20080808-dalai-lama-demons-india-buddhism-dorje-shugden

The Referendum has not followed Buddha’s Protocols in the Vinaya
(which invalidates the referendum according to #2)

According to the commentary the referendum is only valid if the procedures of “in the presence of” have all been followed but have not succeeded in settling the issue. “In the presence of” means that the community has to meet and try to settle the issue before the referendum is taken (emphasis added).

This has not happened. In fact, the Dalai Lama has never met with the community of Dorje Shugden monks from these monasteries. There has not even been a reply from the Dalai Lama or his representatives to the requests of Shugden practitioners to have a dialogue on this issue. This is a clear contradiction with the commentary given. The referendum is not the result of a meeting within the monastic community but rather it has been unilaterally decreed by the Dalai Lama himself (please refer to the January 8th, 2008 talk at Drepung for evidence of this).

This brings up the question, is the Dalai Lama a member of these monastic communities? If the answer is yes, then he (or a representative of his) has to meet with the Dorje Shugden communities at these monasteries prior to any referendum. If the answer is no, which can be stated in terms of the Dalai Lama not residing within that monastery, then on what basis is he even involving himself? Where does the Vinaya say that to resolve a conflict, high lamas should adjudicate? This is what the Dalai Lama’s supporters are saying but it has no basis in Buddha’s teachings.

Others might argue that the Dalai Lama is not involving himself but simply saying the matter should go to a vote. To refute this point please watch the France24 video (web link to this piece is above) where the Dalai Lama is on video saying from the teaching throne, “These monks must be expelled from all monasteries. If they are not happy, you can tell them that the Dalai Lama himself asked that this be done, and it is very urgent.”

The most compelling argument on this point is that the Vinaya provides an opportunity for any monk in the assembly to protest against having the matter settled by the group. If this happens then the group is deemed incompetent to resolve the issue. The purpose of this is to protect the Dharma from bhikkhus who advocate what is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya yet hold sway over the group. Surely if such a meeting would have occurred the Dorje Shugden monks would have protested.

The Outcome of the Referendum is not in Accordance with the Dharma
(which invalidates the referendum according to #4, #5, and #8)

Venerable Atisha said,
“Friends, until you attain enlightenment the spiritual teacher is indispensable, therefore rely upon the holy Spiritual Guide. Until you realise ultimate truth, listening is indispensable, therefore listen to the instructions of the Spiritual Guide.”

The referendum contradicts the words of this holy teacher because the practitioners of Dorje Shugden received a commitment to do this practice from their Gurus Trijang Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Zong Rinpoche, Dagom Rinpoche, etc. To abandon their teachers’ advice by voting in favor of the ban would be non-Dharma according to Venerable Atisha.

The irony is that this puts the Dalai Lama and his followers in the position where if they are to establish their view as Dharma then they would have to say that Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche (the Dalai Lama’s Gurus) taught non-Dharma thus invalidating his own teachers’ qualifications as authentic Gurus. How can a valid teacher teach non-Dharma? If the Dalai Lama’s teachers are not valid teachers then by what lineage is the Dalai Lama a lama himself?

Therefore, for all the reasons mentioned here, the referendum on Dorje Shugden practice is non-Dharma. Since the Dalai Lama is presenting the referendum as Dharma when in reality it is non-Dharma he is deceiving Buddhist practitioners around the world.

Furthermore, by denying these practitioners the basic necessities of life (by these I mean the aforementioned material amenities) the Dalai Lama and the abbots carrying out these referendums are breaking their refuge vows to Buddha which include not harming any living being.

Typically, those who have spoken out against the Dalai Lama on this issue have been portrayed as gullible, naive, and unaware of the harmfulness of Dorje Shugden. I would like to point out however that those in the Tibetan and Western communities who practise Dorje Shugden have experienced considerable slander and libe,l thus making this issue a point of internal reflection and consideration for many of us.

This article is the result of one Dorje Shugden practitioner’s investigation, my own. What I ask to all those who disagree, can you establish – based on Buddha’s teachings – the validity of these referendums?

Source: DorjeShugden Blog
http://dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/dalai-lamas-referendum-contradicts-vinaya/