Western Shugden Society – unlocked

Shedding Light on WSS, NKT-IKBU and Shugden

Resource Blog – Overview

leave a comment »

Blog Search – (powered by Google)

Western Shugden Society (WSS)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Religious Persecution?

The XIVth Dalai Lama

New Kadampa Tradition (NKT-IKBU)

Mixed Topics

Shantideva

(22) May those with fear become fearless,
Those in bondage be released,
Those lacking strength become strong,
And their hearts become friendly toward each other.

(41) May no limited being ever have pain,
Nor act with negative force, nor be sick,
Nor be frightened, nor be derided,
Nor ever be depressed.

(42) May the monasteries be well-established,
Spread with reading and recitation;
May the monastic community be always in harmony,
And the monastic purpose be fulfilled.

(43) May monks who wish to train (their minds)
Find isolated places,
And being rid of all distractions,
Absorb themselves in meditation, their minds fit for the task.

(44) May nuns have material support,
And be rid of conflict and harm;
And likewise may all renunciates
Have unbroken ethical discipline.

(45) May those with poor ethical discipline, being disgusted,
(Devote themselves) always to cleansing themselves of their negative karmic force;
And once they’ve reached the better rebirth states,
May their (vows of) tamed behavior remain unbroken.

(46) May the learned be shown respect,
And receive alms (and material support).
May their mental continuums be completely pure,
And (their fame) renowned in all directions.

(47) Without experiencing the sufferings of the worse rebirth states,
And without conduct that’s difficult to carry out,
May (wandering beings) swiftly attain Buddhahood,
With bodies superior to those of the gods.

(48) May all limited beings honor all the Buddhas,
Numerous times (and in numerous ways),
And may they always be happy (to the highest degree)
With the inconceivable bliss of the Buddhas.

(49) May the bodhisattvas’ heart-wishes
(To be able) to benefit the world be fulfilled,
And may whatever those guardians have intended
Indeed come to pass, for limited beings.

Shantideva, Bodhisattvacharyavatara, Chapter 10 – Dedication

Written by Tenzin Peljor

October 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Fundamentalism, Religion

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Shugden dispute represents a battleground of views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom. (Mills)

with one comment

The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant? Paul Williams [1]

At the moment the anonymous Western Shugden Society (WSS) with no legal office has started a Worldwide Press and Internet Campaign against the Dalai Lama. One may wonder who is behind that group and what are the facts?

Until now no investigative press article has explored this issue thoroughly. Most of the media just report what the Press speaker, Kelsang Pema, close disciple of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the British-based New Kadampa Tradition, states to them. It may be that the Press are overstrained with the complex spiritual issues involved and possibly they are a bit surprised, as many others are too.

Here are some well informed and interesting websites and articles which unlock the secrets of the WSS.

Two scholarly papers on the Dorje Shugden Controversy:

Three articles by the Dzogchen Community Italy on the Shugden Controversy:

Two articles about the first Worldwide Media Campaign of the New Kadampa Tradition (1996-1998) against the Dalai Lama:

Although these Western followers of Dorje Shugden try to give the impression that the Tibetans support them, and they blog and post under Tibetan names in the Internet, it can be doubted if the picture they draw is in any way correct. The situation of the present ‘misinformation campaign’ is not very different from that which started 12 years ago under the label Shugden Supporters Community (SSC), another front-group of the New Kadampa Tradition. The Independent wrote: “The view from inside the Shugden Supporters Community was almost a photographic negative of everything the outside world believes about Tibet and the Dalai Lama.”[2] Regarding the facts SSC (NKT) spread, the Independent said: “It was a powerful indictment, flawed only by the fact that almost everything I was told in the Lister house was untrue.”[2]

The Tibetan Deepak Thapa wrote the following article and it seems to be the perfect mirror of the actual situation as well:

Gareth Sparham, a former Buddhist monk and now Lecturer at the University of Michigan explained in 1996

Cross-Cultural Confusion

According to Press speaker Kelsang Pema, Dorje Shugden ‘practice’ “is a simple prayer that encourages people to develop pure minds of love, peace and compassion.”[3]

But according to researcher Mills: “in defence of the deity’s efficacy as a protector, [the Yellow Book] named 23 government officials and high lamas that had been assassinated using the deity’s powers”[4], and researcher Mumford states, Dorje Shugden is “extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.”[5]

Moreover at the peak of the conflict in exile, in February 1997, three Tibetan Buddhist monks, opponents of the Shugden practice, including the Dalai Lama’s close friend and confidant, seventy-year-old Lobsang Gyatso (the principal of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics), were brutally murdered in Dharamsala, India, the Tibetan capital in exile. The murdered monks were repeatedly stabbed and cut up in a manner resembling a ritual exorcism. The Indian police believe the murders were carried out by monks loyal to Shugden, and that the perpetrators are now under the protection of the Chinese government. The Indian police have accused Lobsang Chodak, 36, and Tenzin Chozin, 40, of stabbing Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students. In 2007 Interpol has issued wanted notices for Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin. According to a disciple of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, before he was killed, Lobsang Gyatso had to face many death threats, but refused any personal security.

For more see The Dorje Shugden Dispute and the article in The Times – June 22, 2007 Interpol on trail of Buddhist killers

There is a lot the Western Shugden Society do not tell to the public. Why?

Researcher Makransky states about the cross-cultural confusion in the Dorje Shugden issue:

A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the “protector” deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their “religious freedom” to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.[6]

According to Thubten Jigme Norbu, the Dalai Lama’s brother:

The worship of Dorje Shugden is not a religion at all. It is a cult.[7]

According to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the New Kadampa Tradition:

We believe that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha who is also a dharmapala. Problems have arisen because of someone’s view.[8]

Check it out yourself!

Notes

[1] The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996, Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana by Madeleine Bunting
[2] The Independent, London, 15 July 1996, Battle of the Buddhists by Andrew Brown
[3] BBC.co.uk, 27 May 2008, Protest at Dalai Lama prayer ban
[4] Mills, Martin (2003) “This turbulent Priest – Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden Controversy”, p. 65, Routledge
[5] Mumford 1989: 125-126
[6] Makransky, John J. (2000). “Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars”, p. 20, Routledge
[7] Lopez 1998a, p. 67
[8] Lopez 1998: An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tricycle, Spring 1998

last update: Nov 07, 2008
(footnotes and 3 quotes added)

Written by Tenzin Peljor

June 18, 2008 at 10:09 am

Posted in Fundamentalism, Western Shugden Society - News

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Australian Sangha Association statement

with 3 comments

Australian Sangha Association statement regarding protests at the teachings of HH the Dalai Lama

The ASA wishes to express its dismay at the conduct of robed members of the New Kadampa Tradition, Western Shugden Society and associated organizations during the teachings given by HH the Dalai Lama on 11-15 June 2008 at Olympic Stadium, Sydney, Australia.

The Dalai Lama’s teachings were attended by over 6000 people who came to be inspired by the peaceful and harmonious message of Buddhism. Instead they were met by a large, organized group of protesters dressed in monastic robes shouting slogans. Noisy public demonstrations such as these are not appropriate behaviour for monks or nuns and have brought Buddhism in this country into disrepute.

The ASA recognizes there is a difference of opinion with the Dalai Lama on various issues. It is the right of NKT and WSS members to disagree with the Dalai Lama’s opinions but their disagreement should be expressed in a peaceful, respectful and reasonable manner.

Therefore, in the spirit of Dharma and in accordance with Buddhist principles the ASA would encourage the NKT and WSS protesters to request forgiveness from the Dalai Lama for their behaviour and in future to conduct themselves with humility and restraint.

For more see: Australian Sangha Association Statement by ASA

Written by Tenzin Peljor

July 21, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Posted in Buddhism

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy & New Kadampa Tradition

with 6 comments

For the sake of neutrality and to promote understanding of this issue, a list of published scholarly papers and academic research about the Dorje Shugden Controversy and the New Kadampa Tradition:

The Dorje Shugden Controversy

In 1998 CESNUR suggested:

“for the background of this controversy, a good starting point is the scholarly paper by David Kay, “The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition“, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 277-293. Essential for understanding the controversy is vol. VII, n. 3 (Spring 1998) of Tricycle The Buddhist Review, including a scheme of the principal players on the controversy (p. 59), the article by Stephen Batchelor “Letting Daylight into Magic: The Life and Times of Dorje Shugden” (pp. 60-66) and “Two Sides of the Same God” by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (pp. 67-69), introducing Lopez’s interviews of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (pp. 70-76) and of Thubten Jigme Norbu, the elder brother of the Dalai Lama (pp. 77-82). Also recommended is Donald S. Lopez, Jr.’s book “Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West“, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1998 (see pages 188-196 on Dorje Shugden).”

“Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West” by Lopez is reviewed by Tsering Shakya and in 2005 Dreyfus responded in an essay, “Are We Prisoners of Shangri-la? Orientalism, Nationalism, and the Study of Tibet” to it. Dreyfus’ essay “examines the consequences of Said’s critique of orientalism for Tibetan studies, particularly in relation to Lopez’s claim that we are all “prisoners of Shangri-la.”

The most recent (unpublished) but independent research is McCune’s thesis (2007). According to McCune: “Dreyfus’s work [The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy] has been the most thorough. It asks the most insightful questions and employs many diverse means of answering these queries…”. The essay by Dreyfus is used in different academic research and it is also listed in bibliographies of reputable scholars. Prof. Geoffrey Samuel also referred to it in his expert testimony: The Recognition of Incarnate Lamas in Tibetan Buddhism and the Role of the Dalai Lama (PDF) for a court case.

Furthermore there is a short piece by Prof. Paul Williams: A quick note on Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan) (1996) and a thesis by Michael Nau (Miami Univserity) ‘Killing for the Dharma: An Analysis of the Shugden Deity and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism’ (2007).

Other scholarly sources covering range of Dorje Shugden Controversy or the nature and function of Dorje Shugden include:

  • ‘Himalayan Dialogue : Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal’, 1989, by Stan Royal Mumford, pages 125-130, 261-264
  • ‘Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies’, 1993, by Geoffrey Samuel, pages 545-548, 550, 605
  • ‘Oracles and Demons of Tibet – The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities’, 1996, by Rene De Nebesky-Wojkowitz, pages 4, 20, 134-144, 318, 343, 414, 418, 421, 432-439, 442, 445, 528
  • The Bhutan Abbot of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugs-ldan by David Jackson, published by Amnye Machen Institute, 2001 in Lungta #14, Review by Mark Turin (excerpt see Tricycle Blog comment # 891)

Pico Iyer discusses the Shugden issue and some details in his book The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (pages 135-139). Jeff Watt from the Sakya Resource Guide explains the point of view of the Sakya Tradition: Do Sakyas rely upon Dorje Shugden?

New Kadampa Tradition

David N. Kay’s research “Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation – The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC)” (2004) was reviewed by

There is a Book Synopsis and Book Extract available.

In 1995 Prof. Geoffrey Samuel published Tibetan Buddhism as a World Religion: Global Networking and its Consequences curtly discussing NKT’s split from FPMT (see The Problem of Stability).

The Guardian article of Bunting, Madeleine (1996), Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, is also used in Bluck’s, Kay’s, Lopez’s and other’s academic research.

In 2006 Routledge Curzon published Prof. Robert Bluck’s “British Buddhism” which includes some pages about the NKT. In general his interviewees denied or rejected the criticism NKT is faced with. Bluck suggested a number of different angles from which the NKT can be viewed:

  • The NKT could be viewed from outside as a movement aiming at what Titmus (1999: 91) called ‘conversion and empire-building’, with a dogmatic and superior viewpoint, ‘narrow-minded claims to historical significance’, intolerance of other traditions and ’strong identification with the leader or a book’.
  • A more scholarly external view might emphasize instead the enthusiasm, firm beliefs, urgent message and ‘charismatic leadership’ which Barker (1999: 20) saw as characteristic of many NRMs.
  • An alternative picture from inside the movement would include a wish to bring inner peace to more people, based on a pure lineage of teaching and practice, with faith and confidence in an authentic spiritual guide.

About the possible ways how to picture the NKT, Bluck said: “Our choice of interpretation may depend on how we engage with the other viewpoint, as well as the evidence itself, and until recently the NKT’s supporters and critics have largely ignored each other.”

Other neutral sources

Other Sources

As researcher Mills puts it: “The Shugden dispute represents a battleground of views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom.” The point of view of the Dalai Lama can be found here and the point of view of Shugden followers can be found here. There is also an Essay “Exiled from Exile” by Bernis, however it is neither used in any academic research nor has it been published by an academic publisher or newspaper, but can be found at the website of the Dorje Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious Society, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi 54, India.

UK journalist Isabel Hilton wrote in The Search for the Panchen Lama (p. 297-298):

“It was not only inside Tibet, however, that the Dalai Lama’s religious status came under attack. He also had a number of serious difficulties in the exile world, which began, for the first time, to threaten to tarnish his image.

As far as the outside world was concerned, the trouble came to light through the activities of a Gelugpa dissident, Geshe Kelsang, who had left India to live in the UK. After a controversial passage he gained control of a spiritual centre in Cumbria in the north of England, from where he launched a campaign that appeared to be aimed at destroying the reputation and authority of the Dalai Lama.

The substance of the campaign was the right to worship a particular deity called Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden was a popular deity for many Tibetans. He had the reputation of being able to impart enormous good fortune to his devotees but also of being extremely vindictive and jealous. One of the Dalai Lama’s tutors had encouraged the Dalai Lama himself to worship Dorje Shugden, but the Dalai Lama had decided, as a result of several dreams, that the deity was harmful. He gave up the practice himself, then banned it in all institutions that were connected with his person. This included Gelugpa monasteries and, of course, the government in exile.

There was some resistance to this edict in the monasteries in India, but the most visible and virulent campaign against it was conducted in exile on the direction of the Cumbrian centre. From Cumbria came a stream of anti-Dalai Lama invective which accused him of violating the religious freedoms of Dorje Shugden followers. It was a damaging charge against the man who had spent forty years pleading his country and his religion’s case.

The origins of the Dorje Shugden dispute lie deep in Gelugpa politics and the controversy is too complicated to explore here. But the significance of it pertains to sectarianism in Tibetan Buddhism: the defenders of Dorje Shugden are characterized as Gelugpa fundamentalists who regard the Dalai Lama’s association with other Buddhist sects – an association greatly strengthened in exile – as a betrayal of the Gelugpa. By insisting on worshipping the deity, they attack the Dalai Lama’s authority as a true Gelugpa leader.

It was a controversy that the Chinese, of course, were happy to publicize inside Tibet, and although no direct connection between the Dorje Shugden campaign and the Chinese government can be proved, there is no doubt that it served Beijing’s purposes well. In February 1997, for instance, the magazine China’s Tibet published a two-page article in which the Dalai Lama was ridiculed as a ‘self-styled believer in religious freedom’ and attached for his rejection of what the author described as an ‘innocent guardian of Tibetan Buddhist doctrine’. The Dalai Lama had, the article claimed, ’declared a virtual war against a holy spirit of the Gelug sect’.”

last update: April 13, 2009

Written by Tenzin Peljor

July 24, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Western Shugden Society – Review and Present Situation

with 10 comments

The New Kadampa Tradition started in the midst of April 2008 a highly professional world wide media campaign under the guise of the front group Western Shugden Society, which has “no leader nor registered office”. The activities are “against the Dalai Lama” and have the aim “to stop his evil actions” of “inflicting terrible human rights abuses on his own people and interfering with the religious freedom of thousands and thousands of people around the world.”. WSS/NKT portray the Dalai Lama as a “liar”, “hypocrite”, and “21st Century Dictator” who is “cruel and evil”. Accusing him of being ‘The Saffron Robed Muslim´ who has throughout his life “pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings” while having “stolen” the teachings “from Trijang Rinpoche.” (see The Tibetan Situation Today)

WSS/NKT demands:

  1. “To give freedom to practice Dorje Shugden to whoever wishes to rely upon this Deity.
  2. To stop completely the discrimination between Shugden and non-Shugden practitioners.
  3. To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled from their monasteries and nunneries to return where they should receive the same material and spiritual rights as the non-Shugden practitioners.”

WSS state many points which from their point of view are proof of a systematic “religious persecution” by the Dalai Lama.

These points include that six Shugden monks were expelled from their monasteries. According to WSS this has been done “to fulfil the Dalai Lama’s wish”. According to a monk from Sera, Shugden monks forced events and their actions led to different disputes, which couldn’t be solved. Finally the monastery decided to expell the Shugden monks after they recognized that the preceding Sera administration’s “live and let live approach” failed.

According to WSS “The true creator of all these problems is the Dalai Lama” and they demand:

  1. “To reverse the expulsion of the six monks and allow them to return to Sera Monastery where they should receive the same spiritual and material rights as the other monks who do not follow Shugden.
  2. If you do not accept the first point, we will immediately organise worldwide public demonstrations directly against the Dalai lama whenever he visits any country.

If you have some wisdom you should understand how important the Dalai Lama´s reputation is—this is now in your hands. We need your answer by the 22nd April 2008″

Obviously HH the Dalai Lama didn’t fulfil these wishes. So the protests of WSS started 22nd April 2008 at Colgate University, USA.

To find out the dynamics of the conflicts, what happened exactly, and to get the complete picture of events will take a lot of time and effort to thoroughly investigate the events in India. Although there are some records and eye witness reports from both sides, they are still one perspective.

According to WSS:

Using his people like an army, the Dalai Lama has destroyed all Shugden Temples and shrines, caused millions of people to experience inhumane situations and unbearable feelings of pain, and expelled all Shugden practitioners from the Tibetan community. He has separated innocent people from their families, friends and community. As a result of these actions, thousands of Shugden practitioners have been forced to become refugees for the second time in their life as they try to escape such inhumane actions that exist in this modern world by seeking exile in other countries. Now, as recently as 8th February 2008, the Dalai Lama has expelled 900 monks from their monasteries. On January 9th 2008 he was invited to inaugurate a Prayer Hall for a large monastic community in South India. At this spiritual event he publicly announced a “Referendum on the practice of Dolgyal (Shugden)” and proposed a collection of votes on this issue with a deadline on 8th February 2008. Since when did the action of prayer become an object for political vote? And since when did voting become a “yes” or “no” game with colored sticks with no middle/neutral option for abstaining? Well, this is precisely the nature of the referendum held by the Dalai Lama and the direct cause for these 900 innocent monks being expelled from their monasteries in recent days.

According to a Bhikshuni:

“During the recent teachings in Drepung by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, His Holiness mentioned the issue of Shugden a number of times, and this time there was much more concern around the issue. His Holiness the Dalai Lama said (Geshe Dorje Damdrul was translating):

‘The government of China is funding lamas who support Shugden in order to create difficulties for me, especially they (the Chinese government) give financial support to these lamas if they cultivate Shugden. China is very critical of me and the Indian government is being pushed against me by saying that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is restricting religious freedom by saying you cannot practice Shugden. It is my duty to warn people, and then it is up to the individual to decide, so I am not restricting religious freedom.’

His Holiness spoke a lot about the issue and as in the past explained His reasons for taking this stand.

His Holiness has asked for a referendum among the Tibetans regarding 2 questions:

1. Do you want to practice Shugden?
2. Do you want to be a part of a community sharing facilities, materials, doing Dharma activity together where some of the community practice Shugden? (This a concern especially in the monasteries where some monks still practice)

If the vote is more than 60% yes on both, then His Holiness the Dalai Lama said He will not even speak one word on the subject again!”

I feel that the actions taken at Sera were probably a result of what HH said, and it was not HH himself who was behind them. I cannot imagine that HH would ask people to sign statements vowing that they would never practice Shugden, or ask that monks be expelled if they do the practice. It seems he expressed his concerns, and perhaps the monks at Sera took these actions.

According to a Bhikshu:

I then travelled to Sera, where I stayed for a further four weeks. After less than a week of the teachings having ended in Drepung, all Sera monks were summoned to the monastery and those outside the monastery had to return within one month. The day after my arrival in Sera, Je and Me monks were signing the declaration [see above]. This is not just filling in a form, but each monk has to stand up in front of the entire Sera Je or Me assembly and declare that they won’t practice DS and then sign the declaration. This was done in accordance with the practices as outlined in the vinaya (the code of conduct for monks as set forth by Lord Buddha). Those that refuse to sign the declaration will be expelled (Drepung and Ganden had already expelled monks). Sera Je only has 4 monks who are practising and all are in Switzerland (Gonsar Rinpoche etc.), but for Sera Me, it is a much more serious issue as they have a few hundred monks who do the practice.

The day I left Sera, in mid-February, Me was conducting the final declarations, including those of the two kamptsen’s that have monks that do this practice. As DS practitioners have a reputation, there was a large presence of Indian policemen who were searching all the monks before they entered the Dukang. Sera Me’s gekyö (the disciplinarian who was named in the letter by the Western Shugden Society) had reportedly visited the chief of police in Mysore, and given him a list of names of people who should be investigated in case he was murdered (fortunately I am not aware that there has been any violence). But it is a very sad state of affairs when the police feel that they need to come into a monastery and that one of the most senior administrator’s fears that a fellow monk may murder him. Maybe it is time for a decisive conclusion!

Now some months later, Gonsar Rinpoche and his three geshes have been expelled by Je and 300 Me monks have been expelled. Unfortunately the difficulty in Me is continuing as these monks refuse to leave the monastery.

Life has at least returned to some normality. Whilst I was in Sera sojong (the monk’s purification ceremony) wasn’t performed, Me didn’t hold evening debate (there was less than a week’s classes between the end of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s teachings and the start of the Losar holidays), and all other joint activities were cancelled and the Lachi premises were closed. Sojong was only performed for the first time, two weeks ago!

Because all conflicts are solved in monasteries based on the Vinaya, and from the perspective of the welfare of the majority, it will be hard to judge the events without knowing that background. The way to solve conflicts in Tibetan monasteries is well explained by the previous (100th) Ganden Tripa, the Head of the Gelugpas, Lobsang Nyingma Rinpoche:

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

To avoid conflicts and to protect lay people from losing faith in monks and nuns, the Buddha set up different rules which – when kept – avoid disputes and turmoil:

  1. Not Causing a Division within the Sangha (monastic order)
  2. Not Siding with a schismatic (e.g. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso)
  3. Not Causing lay people to lose faith in the Sangha
  4. Heeding advice about one’s offences

It is obvious that these rules are not kept by those few Tibetan monks who support now the WSS/NKT protests. The Vinaya is very different from worldly perspectives. Mixed with a Western context and values a clash, confusion and a loss of faith in Buddhism will be a natural outcome. Buddhists don’t appreciate the harsh abusive language and noisy aggressive public protests of WSS. There are to many points contradicting Buddhist principles and Buddhist ethics.

On the other hand The Time Magazine is of course correct when stating:

What pushes the current allegations into a potential human rights matter is the contention that those who won’t take the oaths are denied monastery I.D. cards that the Tibetan Government in Exile allegedly requires to process visa requests through to the Indian government.[1] (Most of the Tibetan diaspora lives in India.) “Families are being torn apart,” reads Shugden literature.

One week before starting the series of protests at Colgate University until now WSS/NKT has set up a considerable quantity of anonymous websites, the main one in 11 languages, issuing a great number of press releases, “sending out glossy leaflets to selected Buddhists, publicising protests on various websites, giving interviews, and sending letters to Buddhist organisations” (TripleGem), and printing and spreading brochures (e.g. “The Tibetan Situation Today“). A number of YouTube Videos were produced, and in every suited forum the message of WSS has been published. The campaign included also to remove critical information from Wikipedia, using sockpuppets and blocking strategies, removing academic sources from related Wikiepdia articles while adding sources of anonymous websites.

Recently the NKT secretary has set up a new anonymous website, New Kadampa Truth, attacking some Buddhist masters and some Buddhist individuals – who disagree with them – including the ASA and researcher David N. Kay whose academic paper about NKT is portrayed as being “heavily biased” and “who had his own disgruntled history with the NKT”. After NKT members removed the History of NKT, based on Kay’s research, from the NKT-Wikipedia article, the NKT secretary offers now their own understanding of The Emergence of NKT in Britain.

A Buddhist, who is no former member of NKT, concerned about the present development and viewing NKT as a cult, has set up the anonymous website Buddhism under assault. According to him this is his respond to NKT’s “ugly attacks on esteemed Tibetan teachers of Buddhism – The Dalai Lama, Lama Yeshe (died 1984), Lama Zopa, Lama Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche – and 5 other individuals.” A group of former NKT members set up the Blog New Kadampa Truths.

The former Wikepdia articles which were published before April, 15, 2008 have been saved on a separate website. Those interested can see the differences by comparing the articles, reading the talk pages and screening the history of the respective articles.

The Dalai Lama’s or his representatives’ responses to the accusations are:

In a BBC interview, “the Dalai Lama said he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature. The protesters said they wanted to discuss the issue with the Dalai Lama. The exiled Tibetan leader said people were free to protest and it was up to individuals to decide.”

Tsering Tashi, the Dalai Lama’s representative in London, told AFP later that they respected the Shugden Buddhists’ right to protest but said their allegations were untrue. He added, “the group had not made any formal request to meet the Dalai Lama or his representatives.”

The NYT quoted the Dalai Lama: “This is just spirit worship,” he said. “After I read more about it, I realized my mistake and dropped my practice.”, “I think 99 percent of Tibetans follow my practice. Some small portion worship this spirit. I am committed to freedom of speech, freedom of talk. So I say to them, enjoy freedom of talk.”

According to Kasur Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama’s representative in America:

“There’s no suppression! His Holiness made it very clear that according to his own observations over many years—in fact, he himself used to worship Shugden—and over many years of his own experience and observation and investigation, he found that this practice is not according to Buddhist practice. That practice is also bringing in divisions within the Buddhist traditions. The practitioners are attaching more importance than the basic Buddhist practice, and therefore he felt that it’s a practice that he would not approve of and therefore he advised people to not engage in it. But he made it very clear right from the beginning it was up to the individuals. He has a responsibility to explain the negative aspects of it and then it’s up to the individuals to decide on their own. Officially there has never been any repression or denial of rights to practitioners. But after His Holiness’ advice many monastic orders adopted rules and regulations that would not accept practitioners of Shugden worship in their monastic order. The followers have set up their own groups and they are free to function. But it’s in the right of institutions to make their own decisions.” and “There’s some misunderstanding that groups taking their own actions is the policy of the Tibetan government, but it’s not. Institutions take advice and it is within their right to say they do not want Shugden worship. But now if a group of people say they want to set up their own institution because they are different practitioners, which is within their right.” (see Interview with Tashi Wangdi)

According to The Time Magazine:

“Shugden practitioners deny that they are fundamentalist, purist or violent, and have renewed their complaints in light of an intensifying crackdown by the Dalai Lama. He — or people acting in his perceived interests — has expanded the loyalty demand from abbots to monks and even laypeople as far afield as France. In a nod to the Tibetan Government in Exile’s self-definition as a democracy, each monastery has been taking a referendum on Shugden. When the “anti” faction inevitably wins, the monks pledge to renounce Shugden and deny spiritual or material aid to those who hold out. In transcripts that Shugdenpas allege record the Dalai Lama’s comments, he sounds atypically (to the Western ear) authoritarian. “Shugden devotees are growing in your monastery,” he is quoted as snapping at one abbot. “If you are this inept, you had better resign.”

[...]

The problem is that in Tibet most people shun those whom they think the Dalai Lama wants them to shun. The protesters display photos of signs they say have gone up recently in Tibet urging shopkeepers not to do business with tainted monks. They could be written by anybody, but most people assume they know the ultimate author of the signs.

Experts seem to think that there is something to the Shugden allegations. “There is considerable anecdotal evidence to support what they say,” Stephen Batchelor, co-founder of the Sharpham College for Buddhist Studies and Contemporary Enquiry, wrote in an email to TIME, although, he adds, “I have yet to see any hard evidence.” Wrote Donald Lopez of the University of Michigan, “Buddhist monks who apply for an Identity Certificates must also submit a letter form their abbot. I was told that there may have been cases in which, contrary to the policy of the Government-in-Exile, monks who worship Shugden have not been provided with such a letter.”

A witness from Sera and TibetInfoNet portrayed the situation in India from the perspective of what happened in Sera and what lamas and how the PR of China are involved.

The Australian Sangha Association (ASA) issued an official statement, suggesting to the protesters: “Therefore, in the spirit of Dharma and in accordance with Buddhist principles the ASA would encourage the NKT and WSS protesters to request forgiveness from the Dalai Lama for their behaviour and in future to conduct themselves with humility and restraint.” Regarding the status of NKT monks and nuns whether being authentic Buddhist monks and nuns or not, the Australian Sangha Association expressed their opinion “that for NKT members to represent themselves to the public as authentic Buddhist monks and nuns is wrong and misleading.”

NKT published 24 hours later their point of view “NKT monks and nuns are authentic and try to show a good and practical example of service, celibacy and humility for our modern world. Buddha Shakyamuni himself said that the Vinaya should be practiced in accordance with what is most acceptable for society. The NKT is following this advice from Buddha.”. According to NKT ASA is “delivering a misleading and injurious statement”; “Nowadays, in Tibetan Buddhism, …in practice many of these are broken from the day the vows are taken. We should appreciate that the NKT is acting honestly, in accordance with this reality, following the truth. They are not pretending to be lofty or important simply by collecting a large number of vows that are subsequently not possible for a modern-day practitioner to keep.” The statement of ASA is felt as being led by “bias” and “a mixture of religion and politics”. (see also How important is the Vinaya?)

With the same claim, mixing Dharma with politics, Geshe Kelsang expressed in the past his discontentment with the Buddhist approach of Lama Yeshe – who invited him in 1977 to England in his main center (Manjushri Institute, Ulverston) – the Dalai Lama, the Gelug school and the Tibetan diaspora. Finally this claim and different radical views and policies of Geshe Kelsang, as well as his growing insularity, led to a schism with Lama Yeshe and his organisation (FPMT) and his breakaway and isolation from the Gelug school,Tibetan Buddhism and the monasteries and ordained Sangha. As a result, since its inception in 1991, NKT is isolated from the Buddhist world and Tibetan Buddhism.

Although NKT acknowledges that “mistakes have been made” and NKT states “we are genuinely sorry for those mistakes and trying honestly to learn from them”, as long as NKT leadership repeats the same old narrow-minded habits using extremely skilful defence and attack means (we are pure and good persons “acting honestly” while concerned Buddhist lack proper motivation, are hostile or “pretending to be lofty or important”), there seem to be less hope for a positive change in NKT. Just some new Internal Rules will not end, what inwardly, in the heart, has gone wrong.

Annotation

Due to a lack of information and inconsistent information, it is difficult to give a clear picture of the actual situation in India – the situation for the monasteries and for the expelled monks.

According to a Bhikshu, who received this information from a Sera Geshe: “Sera Me has expelled 180 monks – 80 from Nepal and 100 from the same area in Tibet that the former Zong Rinpoche came from. They have left the monastery and have formed their own monastery just outside Sera. They are being supported financially by the usual lot from Europe and the Chinese government.” According to a Getsul closely related to Sera, only few monks have been expelled “they had to issue warnings to about a hundred monks but ended up having to expel only a handful!” he added: “Even during the initial ’stick’ referendum the supporters of HH Dalai Lama won by a large margin.”

Latest News

August 12, 2008

Sera Monastery (India): Situation for the Expelled Monks and the Monks abiding in Sera

According to a monk from Sera Monastery:

During the worst of crisis, Mey was almost closed by the police and a Sojong at Lachi was delayed for +4 hours by the police, some in riot geat. The Pomra’s wanted to come and had called the police to help. Anyhow, it’s done now but it was a SERIOUS crisis that lasted many months. Those who have not pledged still live in Sera but have “established” a monastery, separate to Sera Mey. They do their own debates, prayers, food and school. They kept the buildings of the old Kangsten and the new one being built, plus, well, almost everything…! We don’t care and, we don’t need to go anymore to those horrible night prayers that went well into the night. We may have less pocket money but what we have is clean. Could not be more happy.

see also:

[1] The problem with this suggestion made by the Time Magazine is that Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University clearly stated to Time Magazine, that “ID cards are not given out by the exile administration, but by the Indian authorities”.  (see TibetanReview.net)

Written by Tenzin Peljor

July 24, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Western Shugden Society - News

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Mixing Dharma with Politics

with 15 comments

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra states:

When a society comes together and makes decisions in harmony, when it respects its most noble traditions, cares for its most vulnerable members, treats its forests and lands with respect, then it will prosper and not decline…

HH the Dalai Lama:

I believe we must consciously develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. We must learn to work not just for our own individual self, family or nation but for the benefit of mankind.[1]

Western Shugden Society prepares next Anti-Dalai-Lama-Protests in Nantes, France

While the NKT/WSS is actually celebrating the NKT annual Buddhist Summer Festival at Manjushri Institute (Ulverston, Cumbria), led by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, they are also preparing the coming protests, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit and teachings in France which will start August 15, 2008 in Nantes.

A witness reported at the New Kadampa Survivor Forum about the present situation at NKT’s head center in Ulverston. Here is an extract:

I went to the festival or should I say political extremism gone mad. There were posters everywhere you looked, recruiting for the French demo against His Holiness. They were on all doors 2 a time inside and out. In all rooms, hallways. On mobile cooking points, walls and outbuildings. Even on the temple wall. The chapel was used as a meeting point. Even more posters! The walls were covered as were the doors and tables! Mein Gott! K.G. called it a Spiritual holiday to practise dharma. It felt like a BNP political rally. Not National Front.[..]
The ordained, although they have not taken ordination vows were sitting round tables watching videos of themselves at the demos! Attachment? Some told me they were prepared to use violence. Hatred? Why? Geshe-la wants us to win at all costs. Confusion? They have truly been poisoned. [..] I found the whole thing quite perverse. G.K giving an empowerment of Avalokiteshvara while before and after festival gathering and organising his Stormtroopers to attack the Living Embodiment of Avalokiteshvara? For an individual to use such an important time in peoples lives to suit his own ignorance I found quite disturbing and sad. With His Holiness at least we have hope for the future.

Another person confirmed this

Yes, they are gathering forces for their all expenses paid trip to France. Not with my money, they aint! I’ve seen people going to demos (quite new to Dharma) with a literal string of criminal convictions to call HHDL a hypocrite and a liar. Who are the hypocrites? The NKT does nothing else for wider society: this is their whole raison d’etre to keep DS practise alive. This, folks, is their real ‘hidden’ agenda. Shameful.

The NKT nun Kelsang N. stated at her blog:

Of the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama – Not surprisingly, mixed feelings abound, but overall people are feeling very positive about what’s happening. The vast majority of people I talked to had gotten to attend at least one demonstration, and most of them had very positive, meaningful experiences, echoing what my own Sangha buddies had said. But naturally, not everyone is so happy about what’s happening. What I did not hear was anyone who thought that the Dalai Lama’s actions are ethical or in the right. But what I did hear are people who are unsure if this is the correct response, and, disturbingly, I also heard stories of people feeling “pushed” by their local Resident Teacher to participate in the demonstrations. (see HappyNKTer’s webblog – PDF file)

She confirmed further at her happynkter webblog that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the initiator of the protests and views himself as the only remaining representative of Trijang Rinpoche. He also seems to be thinking about suing some critics. She wrote:

Of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – I always find it interesting to hear stories about what Geshe Kelsang is up to behind the scenes. Rumours always abound, especially at Festivals. So take these stories with a grain of salt!

Geshe-la had a monk read to him all the personal criticism against him that is around on the internet. Apparently it took two hours to read through everything. While the monk read, Geshe-la listened with closed eyes, occasionally saying the word, “Compassion.”

During the annual meeting with the Resident Teachers, he told them what led up to his decision to begin organizing opposition to the Dalai Lama. First, he was invited by some monks to India to see the discrimination that was happening. Upon arriving, he found that the situation had really deteriorated. He talked to many forlorn monks, and ended up giving them a good deal of food and money (food because most vendors will not sell to them, and they cannot buy food within their monasteries). When he returned to England, he spent many sleepless nights and thought to himself, “Perhaps it is the Dalai Lama’s karma to be able to destroy Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, and it is too late.” But he felt that he was his Guru Trijang Rinpoche’s only remaining representative, and as a representative of his teacher, he had to speak out. He felt he could not sit by and do nothing. One morning he awoke feeling very clear about what to do, and we started down this road of demonstrations.

And watch out — it looks like he may also begin some legal proceedings against some different entities and individuals over all of this.

Mixing Dharma with Politics

In general Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and NKT put much emphasis on the concept of ‘not mixing dharma with politics’. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso made use if this concept to criticize his fellow student Lama Thubten Yeshe and finally to split from him and FPMT. Lama Thubten Yeshe invited Geshe Kelsang in 1977 from Indian exile to England to teach the ‘General Programme’ of Buddhist studies at his centre Manjushri Institute in Ulverston, Cumbria. Two years later Lama Yeshe installed Geshe Jampa Tegchok there to teach the more advanced ‘Geshe Study Programme’. According to the Sera expulsion letter finally Geshe Kelsang Gyatso “usurped the FPMT centre and made it his own NKT”. According to researcher David Kay “in 1991, through the successful exploitation of a legal loophole, the assets of Manjushri Institute finally fell under the sole control of the Priory Group” (the close disciples of Geshe Kelsang). (Kay 2004 : 78) Kay states that Geshe Kelsang’s criticism of Lama Yeshe and FPMT “would often be couched in terms of the destruction of the ‘purity’ of the Dharma.” Geshe Kelsang claimed in the NKT publication “Eradicating wrong views”: the creation of the central governing organisation of the FMPT by Lama Yeshe had ‘mixed the Dharma with politics’ and thereby destroyed it. (Kay 2004 : 66)

More than 20 years after the schism at Manjushri Institute, the students of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso use the same concept and logic to criticise the Dalai Lama of ‘mixing dharma with politics’ and to have “caused one of greatest divisions in Buddhism since its inception.” (see e.g. Six Reasons…) In the heat of their world wide protests and media campaign it seems that they don’t recognise that they actually do those actions they accuse others of doing. Many former NKT members see WSS/NKT’s accusations against the Dalai Lama of being a “hypocrite”, a “liar” and “oppressor of religious freedom” or of “mixing dharma with politics” and creating “divisions” as dishonest and wrong. It may not be unfair and far more close to the facts to say, NKT/WSS can apply all these accusations to portray their own actions.

Regarding political acts, Tibetans in general don’t see politics as something dirty or bad. Their view is mainly if politics are good or bad depends upon the motivation, politic is not bad from its own side. In fact also the Jatakamala about Buddha’s former lives (before he became fully enlightened) show that many times he was a Bodhisattva king who ruled a country for the benefit of the people, thereby helping them to do good actions of patience, tolerance and especially ethics, and creating a karmic link to them. Later when the Bodhisattva became finally the Buddha, 2500 years ago, the Buddha gave also advice to kings, as some centuries later Arya Nagarjuna did as well. (One king even consulted the Buddha when he wished to go to war.)

If NKT uses this concept of ‘mixing dharma with politics’ to point out something very bad and NKT members think it is a valid concept they should apply it also to the Buddha. If they do, it follows that even the Bodhisattva who became the Buddha of our age had ‘mixed dharma with politics’.

What HH the Dalai Lama does, who is seen at least as a high Bodhisattva, ruling a country or a community based on Buddhist (ethical) principles, the Buddha has done too in his former lives as a Bodhisattva. This approach was not only a way to help sentient beings but to accumulate the merit (good karma) to finally get fully enlightened.

HH the Dalai Lama and Tibetans hold the view politics can help others and there is a need for politics so that communities can function in a good way. Someone must do this job, so why not make good politics and choose a person of the highest integrity who actions are based on compassion and wisdom for that? What is wrong with this?

The view of HH the Dalai Lama is:

“If we serve sentient beings by engaging in political activities with a spiritual orientation, we are actually following the Bodhisattva’s way of life.” (Gems of the Heart by the Dalai Lama, booklet)

“We share the view that religion and politics do mix and both agree that it is the clear duty of religion to serve humanity, that it must not ignore reality. It is not sufficient for religious people to be involved in prayer. Rather, they are morally obliged to contribute all they can to solving the world’s problems. [..] Politicians [with the aim to serve people through politics] need religion even more than a hermit on retreat. If a hermit acts out of bad motivation, he harms no one but himself. But if someone who can directly influence the whole of society acts with bad motivation, then a great number of people will adversely effected. I find no contradiction at all between politics and religion. For what is religion? As far as I am concerned, any deed done with good motivation is a religious act. On the other hand, a gathering of people in a temple or church who do not have good motivation are not performing a religious act when they prey together.[2]

The actions of WSS/NKT against the Dalai Lama also reflect other stories from the Jatakamala. There are some stories which show that the Bodhisattva, who finally became the Buddha of this present age, also had an adversary in Devadatta. Devadatta’s actions against the Bodhisattva are portrayed in different stories of the Jatakamala to be similar to a fox competing with a lion or a jackal competing with an elephant. Devadatta was extremely jealous of the Bodhisattva and thought in his deluded pride he would be wiser than the future Buddha. When the Bodhisattva became finally the Buddha, more than 2500 years ago, it was Devadatta who split the Monastic Order (Sangha) by creating his own monastic rules and criticizing the Buddha.

Regarding political acts, it is also true that Buddhist masters advised against political activities. It is said that Nagarjuna prayed not be a politician in all his future lives. In general for religious people politics can be damaging distraction undermining their own practice and inner development; or politics can be caught up in the self-centred attitude into longing for gain, honour and praise, finally leading one towards committing many destructive actions. However, from the Buddhist point of view, if ‘political actions’ are harmful, beneficial or neutral will depend upon the motivation and understanding (wisdom) of the doer. Therefore there are Buddhist teachers who hold e.g. the view: “Spirituality and politics aren’t different. People think they are, but they are the same.” (see Rebecca Novick: The Dharma of Politics: Adventures in Interdependence, Mandala Aug/Sept 2008), and there are Buddhist teachers who are completely restrained of engaging in politics. There are also Buddhist teachers or practitioners practising duplicity by claiming not to practice politics while being actively engaged.

Conclusion

Buddhism is a way to come closer to reality and is much more subtle, vast and deep than many of the oversimplified NKT or Shugden follower’s conceptions suggest. Moreover it appears that NKT and some Shugden followers, like “Mahalama” Lobsang Yeshi (Kundeling Lama) or Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, are far more involved in politics than even they seem to think. The question is now to judge to what extent their politics are based on integrity, compassion and wisdom.

[1] The Political Philosophy of His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama, Editor: A.A. Shiromany, Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre and Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, 1998, p XV, ISBN: 81-86230-20-3

[2] Freedom in Exile: Autobiography of the Dalai Lama by Dalai Lama XIV, p 202-3

last edits: Dec 31, 2008

Written by Tenzin Peljor

August 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

A Report from Sera and Some Advice

with 8 comments

An American woman offered this report from Sera Monastery India:

You are probably more interested in the Dorje Shukden (sp?) fiasco. What a stupid thing. I just can’t get over the fact that they are tearing the monastery apart about something that doesn’t exist… The thin veneer of Buddhism cracks to show what superstitious people they really are.Yes, there was a lot of angst and problems. I’m afraid all I could do was laugh about the whole thing. One morning the place was absolutely teeming with Indian police from Bangalore. I counted at least 60 officers swarming around Sera Mey temple. Khen Rinpoche had sent for them. Apparently the local and Mysore police are in the hands of the Shukden party, as it is called. They receive bribes, as do local people in the surrounding villages. It is alleged that the Shukden people are very rich, being financed by the Chinese who are absolutely ecstatic to see the monks at each other’s throats. Khen Rinpoche decreed that every Sera Mey monk must come to the temple and swear not to uphold the ghost. Of course, the Shukden practitioners didn’t come. Rinpoche threatened to resign if they didn’t come, but nothing happened. In the end every monk in the place now has a photo identity card in order to enter the temple. The Indian police are checking. That went on for a couple of weeks and there were notices up all over the place telling that worship of a ghost wouldn’t be allowed, but it went on anyway. As a lot of the activity took place in the early morning, I didn’t see much of it. I was frightened a few times by the police, as I didn’t have a PAP, despite having applied for it 5 months previously. When it finally did come, it was for a few days that had already passed. I never did like Sera very much, having gone there by mistake in 2001 thiking it was a Kagyu monastery.

Geshe Jamphel from Nalanda Monastery France offered the following advise regarding those Westerners who took a spiritual teacher too quickly:

If someone, perhaps when they were new to Dharma, took a teacher who later turned out is against His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which would not be the view of an enlightened being, you would be wise to disassociate yourself from such a person. However, despite him having turned out wrong, you still received a lot of benefit from him.

Now that you have faith in His Holiness, focus on him and see him as encompassing all of one’s teachers, see all your lamas dissolving into His Holiness. Now you can cut the connection with the first teacher, but you don’t have to destroy the faith you had in him, but rather place it in His Holiness.

In a situation where you rely on someone as your teacher, you will feel that he is a Buddhist, take refuge, see him as a Buddha and study with him. Later if you find out he is not a Buddhist, because he is taking refuge in false gods, there would be no fault if you turned away from him. It would not be that you were breaking your samayas with this person. (Full article Nalanda Newsletter)

Geshe Tashi, Jamyang center London, about the NKT ordination:

Recently I was informed that in a website which related to ex NKT students, it was stated that as an FPMT Geshe I approve NKT ordination. I would like to clarify that I never made such a statement. Within FPMT, as in all other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, in the mula-saravastivada system, novices hold 36 vows. This is the system I uphold. (Jamyang Newsletter August 2008)

Sakya Pandita:

Examination of Bad Conduct

Deceivers , well-mannered and smooth talking;
Should not be trusted until scrutinized.
Peacocks have lovely forms and pleasing calls,
But their food is extremely poisonous.

• Commentary: The beautiful, well-groomed appearance of those who deceive others is pleasing simply to behold. One is enchanted upon hearing their suave words.

But they are not to be trusted until they have been thoroughly investigated; they must be identified as cunning, bad-natured people, always sizing up others.

The peacock possesses a beautiful rainbow-hued body and a very sweet voice, but its food is a powerful poison found in dangerous, precipitous places.

Verse 152 • Ordinary Wisdom • Sakya Pandita’s Treasury of Good Advice • Translated by John T. Davenport • Foreword by His Holiness Sakya Trizin • Wisdom Publications • 2000 • Boston

Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen Pal Zangpo wrote in his “Dom gsum rab dbye”:

“I have love for all beings
and I do not speak ill of anyone.

If, perchance, I have lost my composure
and disparaged another, I renounce and confess that misdeed.

Whether the Noble Doctrine
has been misunderstood or correctly understood
is a theme that affects our long-term future destinations,
so if someone calls the positive and negative assessment
of these ‘hostility’, he is himself at fault.

Does one label as ‘hostily’
all the refutations of all false doctrines -
held by non-Buddhists and Buddhists alike -
that were made by all the wise men such Nagarjuna,
Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharmakirti?

Were all the Fully Enlightened Ones
merely jealous when they refuted
demons and non-Buddhist sectarians?

The wise are guides for blind fools,
and if you call it ‘hostily’ to lead them
well in matters of correct or mistaken teachings,
how, then, is Buddhism to be henceforth preserved?

A guide holds back the blind
from stepping over precipices
and leads them along a safe path.
Is that jealousy? If so, then how else
are the blind to be led?

If you say that it is due to a physician’s hostility
or jealousy that he urges,
‘Stop eating the foods that hurt your body
and eat only those that help’
then how else are the ill to be healed?

If to distinguish between true
and false teachings is to be called
‘hostility’ and ‘jealousy’, then just how else are beings
to be rescued from the ocean of Samsara?”

For those seeking balanced information see also Jigme Duntak’s Blog: Western Shugden Society.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

August 23, 2008 at 11:19 am

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

How Buddhists view the protests of NKT/WSS

with 11 comments

Loud is the noise that ordinary men make. Nobody thinks himself a fool, when divisions arise in the Sangha, nor do they ever value another person higher than themselves. – The Buddha, Mahavagga

Since the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT-IKBU) – via Western Shugden Society – are quite noisy on the streets and very dominant on the internet with their world wide media campaign against the Dalai Lama, the idea came up to collect some views from Buddhist monks and nuns, Buddhist masters, elected members of the Buddhist Communities or just simple Buddhists which counter the claims and perceptions of the Western Shugden Society / NKT. Here is a small collection of statements:

Buddhist monks and nuns:

In a video published by the Buddhist Monastery Pagode Path Hue, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, the publisher states about the protests in Nürnberg (Germany):

“The aggressive manner with which the “ordained” Shugden followers express their disagreement with the Dalai Lama is not in accordance with the Buddhist behavioural regulations for monks and nuns (Vinaya).” [1]

Thich Thien Son, Head Chairman of the German Vinaya Sangha:

“It is also very questionable what this is supposed to accomplish. Here we see two sides. One side is this demonstration, and on the other side are the Chinese who are shouting the same slogans. Therefore, one has to really ask what connection they have. And, since we also come from Asia and have lived under Communist rule, we know how propaganda and brain-washing happens. [..] Actually, it is a real pity to see that for creating peace we have to work together. And, instead the demonstrations and provocations are being staged here. Nevertheless, we hope that eventually these people will absorb Buddha’s guidance and Buddha’s loving kindness. Instead of shouting they should turn inside for meditation. It brings much, much more to settle inside and to have this inner reflection.” [1]

The Australian Sangha Association (ASA):

“The ASA wishes to express its dismay at the conduct of robed members of the New Kadampa Tradition, Western Shugden Society and associated organizations during the teachings given by HH the Dalai Lama on 11-15 June 2008 at Olympic Stadium, Sydney, Australia. [..] Noisy public demonstrations such as these are not appropriate behaviour for monks or nuns and have brought Buddhism in this country into disrepute. [..] Therefore, in the spirit of Dharma and in accordance with Buddhist principles the ASA would encourage the NKT and WSS protesters to request forgiveness from the Dalai Lama for their behaviour and in future to conduct themselves with humility and restraint.” [2]

HH the 14th Dalai Lama:

In a BBC interview, the Dalai Lama said he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature. The exiled Tibetan leader said people were free to protest and it was up to individuals to decide. [3]

Other Buddhists:

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche said in 2005:

“The Dalai Lama never said that he forbade them to do this practice; he simply advised them that it is not good. Everybody can give advice, why not? So when the Dalai Lama went to America, at the two or three different places he visited there were small groups with some Tibetan Gelugpa lamas and their western followers who protested saying: “The Dalai Lama denies us the right to free religion”. Of course the Chinese gave them a lot of support because they like it very much when Tibetans have disagreements among themselves. So you have to be careful because now even in the western world these groups are trying to influence people saying they are spreading dharma teachings. You are always free to decide for yourselves, but you can receive negativities.” [4]

Vajramala, Head Chairwoman of the German Buddhist Union (DBU):

“For a Western Buddhist, this practice appears to me like a relic from old times when – in European Middle Ages – we also had battles for the predominance of a certain religious group. However, such battles are not in accordance with what the Buddha taught.” [1]

Chris Ward:

“The WSS website gives the impression of a hate filled and vituperative personal campaign against the Dalai Lama, rather than  a compassionate and careful marshalling of evidence and argument. It does not demonstrate Buddhist virtues and it loses the moral high ground.

Precepts and actions are important. Harsh, abusive and divisive words generate anger, fear, and associated negative emotions. That is why there is so much guidance given in Buddhism about being careful with speech and words” [5]

Some East-German witnesses:

“I would like to say how primitive this shouting is. You know, we come from the East. We have lived under a dictatorship for decades. We know how dictatorships feel like. So, you can imagine where our sympathies lay.” [1]

Kamma, a Tibetan living in the West:

“Shugden movement is actually of no interest at all in Europe. This is a topic for ourselves, for Tibetans. This subject is simply critically dangerous for Tibetan affairs and for Buddhism.” [1]

Barbara O’Brien, a Zen Buddhist:

“At a time when Buddhism is still being introduced to the West, it is damaging to all schools of Buddhism to be confused with spirit worship.

Tibetan Buddhism is being systematically flushed out of Tibet by the government of China. As Tibetan Buddhism scatters, disembodied, around the globe, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is struggling to maintain some cohesion and integrity within it. The Shugden controversy clearly is weakening that effort.” [6]

Anonymous Buddhist:

“To those watching the news or attending a precious speaking engagement of The Dalai Lama, this is what they see. NKT militants raising their fists and yelling about their selfishly egocentric and ugly unilateral dominance-seeking war with The Dalai Lama. Armed with web sites, press releases, protest caravans, and its ultra ego, the Western Shugden Society, NKT’s multi-media power-hungry PR machine ‘chants’ that The Dalai Lama is evil and a liar. For its ego gratification NKT is defiling Buddhism with its worldwide assault.” [7]

Bino Tulku to BBC:

“This demonstration isn’t damaging for the Dalai Lama, but it’s damaging for Tibet because it detracts from the argument over our independence.” [8]

Tibetan refugee Diki Dolma:

“That’s nonsense! We know the Tibetan exile community and we know it’s just not true. Very, very few follow this practice. I feel sorry for these protesters. I think they don’t know much about Buddhism. They make out they are monks, but, look they don’t even know how to wear their robes properly!” [9]

Academics

George D. Chryssides:*

“While Buddhists have occasionally engaged in active protests about actions and policies which they regarded as serious contraventions of Buddhist teaching (such as the Vietnam war in the 1960s), a demonstration against fellow Buddhists, and particularly against such a respected leader as the Dalai Lama was surprising, to say the least.” [10]

John Makransky:

“Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their “religious freedom” to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.” [11]

Robert Barnett:*

“I also made it clear that the Western Shugden group’s allegations are problematic: they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics. The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility, since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries – while its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community instead of opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama in order to provoke misinformed publicity for their sect.”[12]

According to Indian Authorities in Dharamsala

“it can not be excluded that such groups are supported by the Chinese Government in order to significantly weaken the XIV Dalai Lama’s powerful influence.” [1]

for more details see:

Related Links (chronological order)

Videos

Academic Research

[1] The Shugden Group by Buddhist Monastery Path Hue, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Aug 2008)

[2] Australian Sangha Association Statement by ASA (22 July 2008)

[3] BBC (Nottingham) (27 May 2008)

[4] Provocations of the Gyalpo by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (2005)

[5] Spirit Worship is not Buddhist by TripleGem (12 June 08)

[6] Destroying Tibetan Buddhism in Order to Save It? by Barbara O’Brien (2008)

[7] Buddhism under Assault (2008)

[8] BBC: Peace and placards greet Dalai Lama (May 22, 2008)

[9] Buddhist at Loggerheads by New Internationalist, Vanessa Baird (May 30, 2008)

[10] Chryssides, George D. (1999) ‘The Dorje Shugden Controversy‘ in “Exploring New Religions“, Continuum International Publishing Group, 235

[11] Makransky, John J. (2000). “Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars”, p. 20, Routledge

[12] Barnett, Robert (2008). “Tibet scholar denies making Time magazine Shugden comment” by TibetanReview.net

* Chryssides and Barnett are probably not Buddhists but two of very few academics who give a type of judgement in this context.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

August 31, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

(Un) Holy Truth’s

with 23 comments

The following thoughts have been posted by Buddhism under Assault.

(Un)Holy Truths

The polemic of the NKT and WSS has, in recent weeks, become more aggressive and unkind. In attempting to use shock journalism in order to dictate the spiritual policies of the monasteries in exile, the WSS is undermining the Tibetan community in the only country where they can dictate the policies of their own monasteries – India.

The presentation of the “facts” given by the WSS is aimed at creating negative publicity at any cost using the techniques of shock journalism. Inaccurate parallels are drawn between the conflict in India and the holocaust and segregation. While the situations are completely different from both an anthropological and historical perspective, the techniques are as effective with the uninformed public as they are dishonest.

In addition, skewed and self-serving “eyewitness accounts” from South India are being published on their websites, which often distort realities in such a marked way the events they describe are unrecognizable to the communities they are writing about. While it is not appropriate for laypeople to be turned away from shops and this should be addressed, monasteries must protect the rule of law and community decisions in their compounds. When one ordains as a monk, one agrees to rule of the majority according to monastic principles.

By trying to contravene a rule decided upon by voting according to Vinaya principles, the Shugden devotees went against monastic law. To allow such people to continue as part of the assembly would have been detrimental to the unity of the monastery. But far from kicking them out, both Sera and Ganden monasteries allowed the houses concerned to keep all of their khangtsen buildings, kitchens and dormitories. From reading WSS accounts, however, one would be inclined to believe that these Shugden devotees are homeless – which is clearly not the case. Merely, the two communities are functioning separately in order to protect communal harmony and avoid the disputes. By all accounts things are now more peaceful.

A deep contradiction is evident here to those familiar with the history of the NKT, which, unfortunately the public is not. In 2002 there were two high-profile teaching visits by FPMT lamas, Zopa Rinpoche and Geshe Tegchok. Kelsang Gyatso sent letters to Manjushri and Madhyamaka Centres, stating that people were free to go if they chose, however they would no longer be his students. From all accounts, no longer being a student of Geshe Kelsang would make living in an NKT centre uncomfortable and nearly impossible. So, in effect, the NKT itself also limits the practices of its members. Except in this case, no referendum was held, it was simply an autocratic decision by the NKT leadership.

Another startling aspect of this campaign is the fits of exaggeration in the literature of the Western Shugden Society. If one watches their website the reports change from day-to-day on the number of protestors for example. In France the number was at first “nearly 500″, then “over 500″ finally, “700″. The photos of the protests show no noticeable change in the numbers in the crowd.

Kelsang Pema, spokesperson for the WSS, also made patent exaggerations in her case to reporters which would be immediately obvious to anyone following Gelugpa scriptures. During the protests in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, she told reporters that the Dalai Lama was teaching “Texts are commentaries to this (the Shugden) prayer. So he is making money from teaching the commentaries to the practice, but denying the prayer.” This interview is proudly posted on the WSS website, seemingly because they believe the uneducated public will not be able to point out such contradictions. The Lam Rim Chenmo, on which the Dalai Lama was teaching, was coined hundreds of years before the practice of Shugden. There is no mention at all of Shugden in the text, so to claim it was a commentary to the practice is an outright fabrication.

Photographs of walls at the monasteries become proof of “holocaust” tactics to ghettoize minority communities. But the fact is that many walls of similar height have existed in these monasteries to keep out livestock, noise and thieves – serving purposes no different than the walls around the houses of Indian farmers in the same area.. Photographs of monks using a hose to bring water to their room through a window becomes proof that Dalai Lama supporters are denying these monks water. In actual fact, many of the houses don’t have separate taps and the reality of life in India is that most people have to take water into their rooms through a hose shared with the rest of the compound.

In closing, while monasteries must have the right to set religious policies for their members, it is unfortunate that some Tibetans in the lay community have become overzealous and turned Shugden supporters away from shops. With negotiation, this problem could likely easily be solved. However, through its widespread distortion and exaggeration of the facts, the WSS only serves to further the reputation of the Shugden monks as being untrustworthy agitators.

One really wonders who benefits the most from this campaign in the end. The Shugden devotees in India, or the NKT who seek to discredit the other Buddhists who critique their spiritual practices?

For more see: “ESSAYS from readers…”

Annotation:

In France there were between 250-350 protesters.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 1, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Religious Fundamentalism in Buddhism

with 27 comments

The protests of the Western Shugden Society (WSS) / New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and Kundeling Lama’s[1] lawsuit against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile[1], India, invite reflection on the issue of fundamentalism in Buddhism.

Fundamentalism is a term which may be a battlefield for different interpretations as the terms “cult” or “religious freedom” can be said to be.

The editors of the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism came to agreement to offer this definition:

Fundamentalism refers to a “deep and totalistic commitment” to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[2][3][4][5]

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[6] the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[7]

The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[7] The collective use of the term fundamentalist to describe non-Christian movements has offended some Christians who desire to retain the original definition.

Fundamentalism is often used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase “Muslim fundamentalists” and “right-wing fundamentalists”).[8][9] Richard Dawkins used the term to characterise religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.[10]

Regarding doctrinal beliefs or fundamentalist concepts which appear to underlie the Dorje Shugden controversy, the website Western Shugden Society – unlocked has already offered a short analysis. Whatever point of view or understanding is followed, a radical and narrow minded attitude and clinging to specific concepts can be posited to form the basis for the ongoing dispute.

The issue of religious fundamentalism has been addressed also in an interview with the Dalai Lama by journalist Raimundo Bultrini. In this interview H.H. the Dalai Lama addressed the Shugden controversy indirectly:

HH. “But if we analyse the problem we can see that the limits of the fundamentalists lie in their inability to tolerate even the idea of dialogue, there is proof in their attempts to be invisible when they carry out their actions. Among the Imans there are different interpretations of the Koran but the final understanding is left to the individual. This is why there are extremists and black sheep, as there are in any religion”.

RB. Even in Buddhism?
HH. “Certainly even in Buddhism. In 1997 a group claiming to be from my same religious school were strongly suspected of having killed a lama who was very dear to me, the director of the School of Tibetan Dialectics in Dharamsala, and two monks, translators who were playing an important role in interpreting with the Chinese. These same people have beaten up and threatened other Tibetans in the name of their vision, which I would define as Buddhist integralism. They consider a certain protecting spirit, that I used to pray to and that I now distrust to be as important as the Buddha himself. In order to assert this, they went on to damage those round them instead of respecting them and understanding them, in line with the teachings of the man who spread the principles of universal compassion five centuries before Jesus Christ. From this point of view our experience is no different from that of Christianity, or of Hinduism”.

The overwhelming missionary media campaign by the Western Shugden Society, and also four recent articles[11] for “The Faith Column” in New Statesman were written by a close follower of the controversial Kundeling lama[1]. These actions have provoked different activities of Buddhists, e.g. the publication of the site Buddhism under assault, and an endless debate in different forums and news outlets.

The section of the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism regarding Buddhism has been repeatedly deleted – probably by followers of the NKT – however the quotes and material are based on reliable sources and the section is balanced. It states (or stated):

Buddhism

H.H. the Dalai Lama has agreed that extremists and fundamentalists also exist in Buddhism,[12] arguing that fundamentalists are not even able to pick up the idea of a possible dialogue.[12]

The Japanese Nichiren sect of Buddhism, which believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labelled fundamentalist. However, Nichiren Buddhism contains influences from Shintō and a strongly nationalistic streak.

At the height of the Dorje Shugden Controversy Robert Thurman claimed: “It would not be unfair to call Shugdens the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism” referring to the Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, who believe in swift and brutal justice.[13] A statement which was rejected by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the New Kadampa Tradition (aka NKT), arguing: “This really is a false accusation against innocent people. We have never done anything wrong. We simply practise our own religion, as passed down through many generations.”[14]

David N. Kay argued in his doctoral research that the NKT fit into the criteria of Robert Lifton’s definition of the fundamentalist self.[15] Inken Prohl stated: “Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organisational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism”. Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later ‘fundamentalist’ identity.”[16] However Prohl states also: “Although this observation presents a convincing and challenging observation of a mechanism at work in Buddhist organizations in the West, I would hesitate to characterize, as Kay does, such organisations as ‘fundamentalist’ due to the vague and, at the same time, extremely political implications of this term.”[16]

A monk sent these thoughts about fundamentalism in Buddhism to the Editorial staff of New Statesman:

»The scourge of fundamentalism is not merely a problem in the monotheistic faiths based on the god of Abraham. As with other world faiths, Buddhism has had in its fold members who believe unequivocally that they hold the ultimate truth, and that their detractors are dangerously mistaken and must be corrected. It is out of the energy of such fundamentalism that Dorje Shugden was promoted from Dolgyal, the spirit of Dol – a minor regional guardian; to a fully enlightened Buddha-protector by the conservative establishment within the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.

The Gelugpa tradition’s beginnings are the teachings of Lama Tzongkhapa, the ultimate non-sectarian lama, who based his writings on a combination of Indian treatises, Mahayana Sutras, and teachings he received from masters of the Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyu traditions. His approach was essentially non-sectarian and firmly rooted in a close adherence to the Indian texts.

How strange then, that those who claim they are “protecting the purity” of Tsongkhapa’s teachings from the non-sectarian approach of the Dalai Lama, have taken up as the banner of their cause, Dorje Shugden, a deity of dubious origins. Not found in any of the classical Indian texts which Tzongkhapa taught his followers should be the ultimate authority, or in any of the extensive writings of Tsongkhapa himself, Shugden in fact is a worldly deity who has become the banner of the fundamentalists.

Pabongkha Rinpoche, the root guru of Trijiang Rinpoche and founding lama of the Shugden movement, never gave clear reasons why he felt Shugden was a Buddha. The 13th Dalai Lama questioned his reliance on such a mundane protector, and in a letter responding to the Dalai Lama asking that he stop Shugden worship, Pabongkha promised to do so, and said that his reason for Shugden propitiation was because “my mother told me that Shugden is the deity of my maternal lineage.”

Despite this promise, after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama, Pabongkha once again began the transmission of Shugden practice to his students. Without scriptural references or historical precedents, his students believed Shugden to be a Buddha based on their faith in Pabongkhapa alone. Georges Dreyfus, noted Buddhist scholar, says:Pa-bong-ka suggests that he (Shugden) is the protector of the Ge-luk tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tzongkhapa (Gelug’s founder) himself.

In modern times, Shugden became the enforcer of the purity of Gelugpa doctrine. Zemey Tulku released a document called the “Yellow Book“. This book outlines stories of misfortunes that befall Gelug Shugden devotees who read and practice the texts of the other Tibetan lineages, especially the Nyingma tradition. Those who “mix” traditions are seen as enemies of the lineage, as can be seen from this excerpt from a propitiation ritual included in Zemey’s book:

Praise to you, violent god of the Yellow Hat teachings,
Who reduces to particles of dust
Great beings, high officials and ordinary people
Who pollute and corrupt the Geluk doctrine.

Thus, Shugden’s purpose is clear and well-known in both Gelug and non-Gelug circles. It is for this reason that high Kagyu Lamas such as Tai Situpa Rinpochey say they “utter Shugden’s name with fear” and the late head of the Nyingma tradition, Minling Trichen Rinpoche, referred to Shugden as a “ghost”. The head of the Sakya tradition, His Holiness Sakya Trizin, says that while some in his lineage made offerings to Shugden, he was always regarded as a mundane protector on the lowest level of the pantheon.

Due to this widespread fear and the sectarian flavour it gave modern Gelug practice, the Dalai Lama began speaking about the dangers of Shugden at his teaching events, eventually requesting Shugden devotees not to take teachings and initiations from him. The majority of Gelugpas understood and followed his reasoning, because it was after all based on the teachings of the fountainhead of the Gelugpa tradition, Lama Tzongkhapa.

Those most loyal to Pabongkha’s lineage, however, resisted, stepping up Shugden worship in monasteries, commissioning new statues, and printing Shugden texts that were dutifully thrust into the laps of monks in their houses who had doubts about the practice. Then, Lobsang Gyatso, head of the dialectics institute in Dharamsala, an opponent of Shugden who had written voluminously on the subject along with two attendants, was murdered in his home. Interpol eventually released arrest warrants for two chief suspects in his murder, confirmed by Indian police to be Shugden activists who subsequently fled to Chinese controlled Tibet. The suspects were never apprehended, and so never went to trial.

It was after this murder that HH Dalai Lama began to speak more actively against Shugden, including in a meeting with the abbots of all the major Gelug monasteries. As promotion of the deity continued, in 2007, the Dalai Lama recommended the matter be put to a vote. In all three Gelug monastic universities; Sera; Drepung and Ganden, the Shugden opponents won by a landslide. In the tradition of the original spirit of monastic law, vote sticks were drawn. In the spirit of the majority (on which monastic law is based, according to the Vinaya scriptures of early Buddhism), it was decided those who practiced Shugden could no longer participate in the monastic rituals. This was all done according to Buddhist law, with many precedents including votes held during schisms for various reasons in many other Buddhist countries such as Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka.

The Shugden activists refused to leave, so all monks were asked to take an oath to abandon Shugden and all those who refused were turned away from public pujas and debates. In effect, they were banished from monastery functions for not following monastic principles- rule of majority and abiding by vote results, common procedures in all Buddhist monastic communities. Rather than being banished from monastery grounds, however, Shugden worshipers were allowed to keep all their residential buildings and temples, essentially becoming a separate community within the monastery.

Without an understanding of the basics of monastic law and the Tibetan history of Shugden practice, it is easy to misunderstand this controversy. However, when one digs a little deeper, the picture becomes far more complex, and far less incriminating (for the Buddhist monastic communities) than Shugden activists would have us believe.

Sincerely, [...], Buddhist Monk«

(The name of the monk is kept private due to threats he received. His teacher was threatened with death many times.)

In general one can say, according to Buddhist understanding, fundamentalism – “a ‘deep and totalistic commitment’ to a belief” – is based on ignorance and clinging. The ignorance in that context is mainly referring to a lack of knowledge, therefore offering more knowledge about the disputed issue and its related vocabulary (concepts) can help for those open to differentiate their understanding to overcome fundamentalism. That’s why more understanding about Buddhism – especially the rectification of terms like devotion, faith, belief, Guru or root Guru, Breach of Guru Devotion, reliance to a Guru, seeing the teacher as a Buddha and so on – and the disputed issue – in this context the Shugden Controversy – could help some individuals to overcome fundamentalist attitudes.

However such a process of refining one’s understanding is impossible if one lacks the defining characteristics of a proper student of the Mahayana or prefers to read only texts written by their own school of thought. Sadly, NKT has a totally self-referential system and students are discouraged to read non-NKT Dharma-books, because this could confuse them and they could lose “faith”. NKT literature lacks a lot of Buddhist teachings and was written only by one author, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, which makes followers completely dependent on his views and thoughts.

Statements by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso which probably invite a narrow-minded perspective and blind faith include:

“Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely – relying upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. If we mix traditions many obstacles arise and it takes a long time for us to attain realizations.”[17]

According to Geshe Kelsang spiritual success is based on

“unwavering faith and confidence” and “it is essential to eliminate those doubts that interfere with the development of pure faith.”[18] Faith he explains is “a naturally virtuous mind that functions mainly to oppose the perception of faults in its observed object.”[19] “In particular, our ability to rely completely upon our spiritual guide depends upon having faith based on conviction that our spiritual guide is a buddha.”[20] and “We should be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once.”[21]

Regarding sectarianism he states:

“It is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism”[22] , and he discourages the reader of doing so, stating “studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions.”[22] “The practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.”[23] “The ugly, unfortunate result of not understanding pure Dharma and of following misleading teachings that pretend to be pure Dharma is sectarianism. This is one of the greatest hindrances to the flourishing of Dharma, especially in the West. Anything that gives rise to such an evil, destructive mind should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.”[24]

Je Tsongkhapa explains the defining characteristics of a student of the Mahayana in this way:

The defining characteristics of the student who relies upon the teacher

Aryadeva states in his Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuh-sataka):

“It is said that one who is non-partisan, intelligent, and diligent
Is a vessel for listening to the teachings.
The good qualities of the instructor do not appear otherwise
Nor do those of fellow listeners.”

Aryadeva says that one who is endowed with the three qualities is suitable to listen to the teachings. He also says that if you have all these qualities, the good qualities of one who instructs you in the teachings will appear as good qualities, not as faults. In addition, he says that to such a fully qualified person the good qualities of fellow listeners will also appear as good qualities and not as faults.

It is stated in Candrakirti’s commentary that if you, the listener, do not have all these defining characteristics of a suitable recipient of the teachings, then the influence of your own faults will cause even an extremely pure teacher who instructs you in the teachings to appear to have faults. Furthermore, you will consider the faults of the one who explains the teachings to be good qualities. Therefore, although you might find a teacher who has all the defining characteristics, it may be difficult to recognize their presence.

Thus, it is necessary for the disciple to have these three characteristics in their entirety in order to recognize that the teacher has all the defining characteristics and in order then to rely on that teacher.

With respect to these three characteristics, “nonpartisan” means not to take sides. If you are partisan, you will be obstructed by your bias and will not recognize good qualities. Because of this, you will not discover the meaning of good teachings. As Bhavaviveka states in his Heart of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka-hrdaya):

“Through taking sides the mind is distressed, Whereby you will never know peace.”

“Taking sides” is to have attachment for your own religious system and hostility toward others’. Look for it in your own mind and then discard it, for it says in the Bodhisattva Vows of Liberation (Bodhi-sattva-pratimoksa):

“After giving up your own assertions, respect and abide in the texts of the abbot and master.”

Question: Is just that one characteristic enough?
Reply: Though non-partisan, if you do not have the mental force to distinguish between correct paths of good explanation and counterfeit paths of false explanation, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have the intelligence that understands both of these. By this account you will give up what is unproductive, and then adopt what is productive.

Question: Are just these two enough?
Reply: Though having both of these, if, like a drawing of a person who is listening to the teachings, you are inactive, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have great diligence. Candrakirti’s commentary says “After adding the three qualities of the student to the two qualities of being focused and having respect for the teaching and its instructor, there are a total of five qualities.”

Then, these five qualities can be reduced to four:
(1) striving very diligently at the teaching,
(2) focusing the mind well when listening to the teaching,
(3) having great respect for the teaching and its instructor, and
(4) discarding bad explanations and retaining good explanations.

Having intelligence is the favourable condition that gives rise to these. Being non-partisan gets rid of the unfavourable condition of taking sides.

Investigate whether these attributes that make you suitable to be led by a guru are complete; if they are complete, cultivate delight. If they are incomplete, you must make an effort to obtain the causes that will complete them before your next life. Therefore, know these qualities of a listener. If you do not know their defining characteristics, you will not engage in an investigation to see whether they are complete, and will thereby ruin your great purpose.

(Lam Rim Chen Mo, p 75ff, Snow Lion Publications)

Buddhism is much about common sense and seeing things as they are. Students are encouraged to think for themselves and the Buddha and his genuine successors have repeatedly pointed out to not accept claims which contradict common sense or the spirit of the Dharma teachings. A genuine follower should have the ability to discriminate between what is constructive, what is not constructive and he should base his judgement on an unbiased investigation rather then following traditions.

Clash of Concepts

Because a main argument in the conflict on the side of the Shugden followers is that their Gurus, e.g. Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, revealed the Shugden practice and gave commitments for it, then, one has to follow it. Alternatively the Shugden opponents in the Gelug school cite Buddha in the Kalama Sutra and Je Tsongkhapa, the Gelug founder, who said one should not follow “if it is an improper and irreligious command”, which is based on the following from the Vinaya Sutra: “If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it.”[25] Shugden opponents refer to the sectarian nature of the Shugden practice which is seen by them as a contradiction to Buddhist ethics and one can also sum up the conflict as the religious scientist Michael von Brück (LM University, Munich) has done:

“We can conclude that the present controversy reveals the contradiction between the imperative of critically establishing the validity of (one’s own) opinions and the obedience towards the Lama (Guru)”[26]

Alexander Berzin pointed out as the central elements of the present conflict:

There are commitments on the levels of friendship, allegiance, loyalty, and bondings, both from student to teacher as well as from the student to their group. These life-long commitments are established through tantric empowerments. With respect to this there is a significant difference between Shugden followers and (almost) all other Tibetan Buddhists: followers of the ‘Shugden cult’, who receive the initiation, are told that this ‘protector’ or this ‘practice’ may never be given up again. However, according to an old instruction of the master Ashvaghosha, it’s the case that one may end the teacher-student-relationship even when having received an empowerment. There can be different reasons for ending such a relationship: if one has failed to sufficiently investigate one’s teacher beforehand or if one has critically distanced oneself from him and his methods. It’s said, that one may then respectfully distance oneself from such a teacher but that one should avoid speaking harsh words about him and his practice.[27]

Is there a Solution?

In general as previously stated, fundamentalism is based on non-knowledge so offering more understanding is suggested as one way to address fundamentalism. However, as long as a more narrow-minded person can refuse to broaden their understanding or to relax their views, and because one cannot force others to think about their point of view, this method has limitations.

Dialogue with fundamentalists is almost impossible. A Hindu master puts it this way: “It is impossible to discuss with a fundamentalist, without becoming a fundamentalist yourself.”

Fundamentalism is a challenging issue for each society, religion and mankind. Because the difficulties of fundamentalism lie in the mind and a mind can not be changed by force there seems to be only the challenging solution H.H. the Dalai Lama suggests in the interview by Raimundo Bultrini:

RB. What can the West or westerners do in a concrete way at this point?
HH. “Listen. Listen to their complaints and their reasons. They are unhappy and we should share their unhappiness.”
RB. Your Holiness, you have to admit that is a bit difficult.


[1] Tactics of Shugden Activists (perspective of the TGIE), Kundeling Tagtsa Jetung Rimpoche (perspective of Kundeling lama), Sowing dissent and undermining the Dalai Lama (perspective of TibetInfoNet), Vested interest group up in arms against the Dalai Lama (perspective of World Tibet Network News), The Dalai Lama’s demon (perspectives of France 24 TV), Writ Against the Dalai Lama

[2] Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. “Fundamentalism”, Global Policy Forum (with “consultative status at the UN”), May 2000, Accessed 14-05-2008.

[3] thefreedictionary.com: “Fundamentalism”, Accessed 14-05-2008.

[4] Google define:fundamentalism

[5] Marsden, George M. “Fundamentalism and American Culture”, Oxford University Press US (1980/rev.2006)

[6] Giddens, Anthony (1994). Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 6. ISBN 0-8047-2451-2. OCLC 32371646.

[7] Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1989

[8] Harris, Harriet (2008). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953253-2. OCLC 182663241.

[9] Boer, Roland (2005). “Fundamentalism”. New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. Ed. Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris and Raymond Williams. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 134–137. ISBN 0-631-22568-4. OCLC 230674627 57357498. Retrieved on 2008-07-27.

[10] Dawkins, Richard (2006-10-02). The God Delusion. Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0593055489.

[11] Meindert Groter: Why did the Dalai Lama ban Dorje Shugden?, Will the Dalai Lama return to Tibet?, The deity banned by Dalai Lama, Are the Dalai Lama’s critics backed by China?

[12] a b Tibet und Buddhismus, No. 79, April/2006, page 14

[13] Newsweek, April 28 1997, http://www.cesnur.org/press/Newsweek.htm

[14] Reply to Newsweek, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, 1997, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/fr99/gkg.htm

[15] Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation by David N. Kay, London and New York, p 110, ISBN 0-415-29765-6

[16] a b Inken Prohl, Free University of Berlin, Book Review on “Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain…”

[17] Kelsang Gyatso: Great Treasury of Merit: A Commentary to the Practice of Offering to the Spiritual Guide, 1992, p 31

[18] Kelsang Gyatso: Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 75

[19] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 107

[20] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 106

[21] Kelsang Gyatso: Guide to Dakini Land: The Highest Yoga Tantra Practice of Buddha Vajrayogini, 1996: p 18

[22] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 167

[23] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 166

[24] Kelsang, Clear Light of Bliss, 1982, p 154

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

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

[27] Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 5, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, Fundamentalism

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

A forgotten perspective – Who is persecuted?

with 34 comments

Who is persecuted and whose human rights are being violated?

The Western Shugden Society (WSS), a front group of the controversial[1] New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and some Shugden followers stress accusations against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile, are performing “religious persecution” against them in a world wide media campaign. It seems to be forgotten however, that the actual persecution and injustice occurs in Tibet – occupied by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – and not in India.

Some information to balance the claims of WSS/NKT or Kundeling Lama and his followers.

The PRC is very interested to use this conflict to undermine the unity of the Tibetans and their faith towards the Dalai Lama. So for example when the official Xinhua news agency said 17 Tibetans destroyed a pair of statues at Lhasa’s Ganden Monastery on 14 March 2006 depicting the deity Dorje Shugden, the mayor of Lhasa blamed the destruction on followers of the Dalai Lama. Alternatively, according to the BBC, analysts accused China of exploiting any dispute for political ends. The BBC reported “…some analysts have accused China of exploiting the apparent unrest for political gain in an effort to discredit the Dalai Lama. Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority. ‘There is a fault line in Tibetan Buddhism and its traditions itself, but it is also exploited for political purposes’…”[2]

The anonymous website dorjeshugden.com presents the Chinese fake Panchen Lama in front of a Shugden thanka and suggests indirectly he may be an emanation of the real Panchen Lama by stating:

“Whether we accept this as the authentic Panchen Lama or not is not the issue here. The Panchen Lama may have many emanations of we are to follow the scriptures.”

The Panchen Lama is traditionally one of the senior teachers for a young Dalai Lama and helps to identify an incarnation of a Dalai Lama.[3] Only a Dalai Lama can certify a Panchen Lama.[3] The present Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, recognized Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the XIth Panchen Lama.[3] Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was arrested by the Chinese government in 1995 and as of 2008 has not been seen in public.[4] The Chinese government imposed their own candidate Qoigyijabu.

It is obvious that the Chinese government will make every effort to support Shugden monasteries and Shugden lamas wherever they can and wherever someone accepts their financial support.

The New Kadampa Truth site, which was set up by the Secretary of the New Kadampa Tradition, reports about being accused of being sponsored by the Chinese government. NKT rejects this claim and states:

This is not true, and not a shred of evidence has been produced to support this repeated claim. In the Internal Rules (§3) it says:

The New Kadampa Tradition shall always be an entirely independent Buddhist tradition and the NKT-IKBU shall have no political affiliations.

The NKT has never had, and never will have, any political affiliations with the Chinese or Tibetan Governments. This is because mixing religion and politics is the cause of many problems, such as those evidenced by the Dalai Lama’s political interference in the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It is common for critics of the Dalai Lama to be labelled “Chinese sympathizers” (or usually far worse epithets) or to be accused of being on the payroll of the Chinese Government but, in the case of the NKT-IKBU, this is an entirely false accusation.

If one reads this statement carefully, it does not reject that NKT is financially supported by the PRC, it only states that NKT “never had, and never will have, any political affiliations”. Of course such a statement doesn’t prove that NKT or their front group, Western Shudgen Society, is financially supported by the PRC either. However, the statement sounds fuzzy and invites more doubts.

According to France TV 24[5]:

Behind this Shugden witch-hunt lies the fear of Chinese infiltration in the ranks of the Tibetan refugees. In the northern Indian city of Dharamsala, home of the Dalai Lama and the exiled Tibetan government, Shugden followers, with their open Chinese sympathies are considered a political threat.

“The Shugden and the Chinese are obviously allies,” says the Tibetan Prime Minister, Professor Samdhong Rinpoche. “Their cults all over the world are financed by the Chinese”. He adds that “people are afraid of Shugden violence. They are like terrorists, they will stop at nothing, everyone knows this.” To prove his point, he shows our reporters the photo of the murder of a leading Buddhist monk and two of his disciples in 1997. Tibetans are certain the Shugden are behind the murder.

A leading Shugden figure, Mahalama Losbang Yechi, defends his links with the Chinese community: “I approve the Chinese presence in Tibet. What we are living with the Dalai Lama today shows how authoritarian his theocratic regime must have been in the past. It was much more violent than what Tibetans are living today under Chinese rule.”

Yechi has filed a lawsuit against the Dalai Lama in an Indian high court for religious persecution. He denies acting on the orders of Chinese authorities.

Shugden followers, willingly or not, have become the symbol of a schism that threatens the struggle for Tibetan autonomy. For that, thousands of refugees have begun to pay a price.

France 24 TV also reports about what they portray as “Apartheid in Buddhist land” stating:

Photos of Shugden leaders are posted on city walls, branding them as traitors. Signs at the entrance of stores and hospitals forbid Shugden followers from entry. It’s apartheid, in Buddhist land.

Our reporters followed an ostracized Buddhist monk as he tried to affront the fellow villagers who have banned him. “We’re not violating Buddha’s teachings, and we’re excluded from everywhere just because of our religion” he complains.

“Aren’t you ashamed of betraying the Dalai Lama? You’re a monk! He is our only pillar, the only person we can count on,” he is asked.

In India, Shugden followers are forced to go into hiding. “I fled my house three days ago” says an old woman taken in by a family 300 kilometers away from her home. “I was the only Shugden in my village. Every day I grew more afraid of attacks.I had to block my door with stones for people not to break into my house”.

France 24 TV tries to balance their report but seem to have fallen under the influence of the exaggerated claims of some Shudgen followers. While it is certainly the case that injustice acts were performed by some Tibetans against Shugden followers, it is also the case that fanatical Shudgen followers forced the events. The claim of France TV Shugden worship is “a religion” and that 4 million Tibetans (from 6 million) would practice Shugden worship is incorrect and an exaggeration. It is far more an exaggeration to label the events in India “Apartheid in Buddhist land”.

The claims of the Western Shugden Society and some few Tibetan Shugden followers about “religious persecution” and violation of “human rights” are still unproven and seem to be heavily exaggerated. None of the independent human right groups have ever confirmed these claims. The controversial New Kadampa Tradition had already performed an Anti-Dalai Lama campaign under the guise of another front group, the Shugden Supporter Community (SSC), twelve years ago:

In 1996 Geshe Kelsang and his disciples started to denounce the Dalai Lama in public of being a “ruthless dictator” and “oppressor of religious freedom”,[6] they organised demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in the UK (later also in the USA, Swiss and Germany) with slogans like “Your smiles charm Your actions harm”.[7] Geshe Kelsang and the NKT accused the Dalai Lama of impinging on their religious freedom and of intolerance,[8] and further they accused the Dalai Lama “of selling out Tibet by promoting its autonomy within China rather than outright independence, of expelling their followers from jobs in Tibetan establishments in India, and of denying them humanitarian aid pouring in from Western countries.”[9] (see The Conflict in the West)

After investigating these claims carefully Amnesty International stated:

Amnesty International (AI) has received and studied a large amount of material alleging human rights abuses against worshippers of the Tibetan Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden. These alleged abuses are reported to have happened largely in Tibetan settlements in India. None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within AI’s mandate for action – such as grave violations of fundamental human rights including torture, the death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials. While recognizing that spiritual debate can be contentious. Amnesty International cannot become involved in debate on spiritual issues. AI campaigns on the grave violations of human rights in Tibet, as well as the rest of the People’s Republic of China. In 1997 a widespread crackdown on Tibetan nationalists and religious groups continued. At least 96 Tibetans, most of them Buddhist monks and nuns, were reported to have been detained during the year for peacefully exercising fundamental freedoms. A continuing ‘patriotic re-education campaign’ in monasteries and nunneries has led to expulsions and arrests. Prison conditions remain harsh in Tibet and prisoners are often ill-treated for minor infringements of prison regulations. (AI Index: ASA 17/14/98, June 1998) [10]

Amnesty International focuses on the places where real persecution and violation of human rights take place, e.g. in Tibet. Neither AI nor any other independent human right group confirmed the claims of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) or their front groups “Western Shugden Society” (WSS), 2008-??, and “Shugden Supporters Community” (SSC), 1996-1998, respectively.

If the Western Shugden Society/NKT, Kundeling Lama and his followers are financially supported by the PRC or not has to be proven as well, however it is clear that their world wide media campaign and actions against the Dalai Lama under the guise of “religious freedom” clearly support the Chinese Government’s aim to significantly weaken the XIV Dalai Lama’s powerful influence. Also their verbal attacks against the Dalai Lama have the same aggressive sound as those of the Chinese government. e.g. the PRC named the Dalai Lama a ‘wolf in monk’s robes’, the Western Shugden Society named him a ’saffron robed Muslim’ who is ‘evil and cruel’.

Persecution

What independent human right groups report about religious persecution is very different from what WSS or Kundeling Lama report. Here is an example by Human Rights Watch:[11]

Opposition to Worship of Dorje Shugden

Chinese authorities also used an esoteric religious dispute over Dorje Shugden, a Tibetan Buddhist protector deity, to attack Tenzin Delek, equating his active support for the Dalai Lama’s anti-Shugden stance with opposition to Chinese policy. Although the debate, which has waxed and waned for more than two decades, has no specific political aspect, support for the Dalai Lama on the issue seems to have been viewed as tantamount to “splittism.”

Dorje Shugden is considered a powerful magical being who can help propitiators acquire worldly goods and other powers and benefits. The deity is also seen by some as a protector of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism. In addition, the deity is regarded as being able to inflict harm on those who stop propitiating it or on those who belong to other sects of Tibetan Buddhism.

In 1976, the Dalai Lama stopped worshipping Shugden and began to teach that such worship could be harmful to individuals who offended the deity. He advised that Dorje Shugden was harmful to him and to the cause of Tibetan independence. He said that genuine deities think in terms of liberating people from suffering, not in terms of harming them. He saw it as his duty to bring the issue to the attention of Tibetan Buddhists, but to leave it to each individual to decide whether to follow his advice.

In 1996, the Dalai Lama went further, banning Shugden worship for those who wished to be his immediate followers or to take teaching from him. At that point, well-organized Shugden supporters in the Tibetan diaspora mounted active opposition to the Dalai Lama’s position, going so far as to accuse him of denying religious freedom to Shugden supporters. The seemingly narrow issue of whether Dorje Shugden was a beneficial or harmful deity masked other issues within and among the four sects that comprise Tibetan Buddhism. It also became a deeply divisive issue within the Gelugpa school, which the Dalai Lama leads, between ultra-conservatives who continued to worship the deity and a larger grouping which followed the Dalai Lama’s approach.

According to some accounts, Chinese government officials even promoted Shugden worship in Tibetan communities.[153] Their goals, it appeared, were to dampen the Dalai Lama’s moral authority within the Tibetan and international communities and to use theological differences to exacerbate divisions within the Tibetan community.

Southern Kham is where support for the deity in the region has traditionally been strongest. Tenzin Delek joined the campaign against Shugden worship as early as 1979 when he brought evidence of the practice at Lithang Gonchen monastery to the attention of the 10th Panchen Lama. When Tenzin Delek returned from India in 1987, he again resisted pressure to join in Shugden worship and again preached against the practice to the general public, to monks at Lithang Gonchen monastery, and to village elders. He even announced he would not set foot in Lithang Gonchen monastery until the practice there stopped.[154] His doing so reportedly resulted in some monks leaving Lithang Gonchen, the major religious facility in the area, and taking up residence at Orthok monastery.[155] Such defections, coupled with others attributable to the availability of new permanent facilities at Orthok monastery and Tenzin Delek’s presence there, might have been regarded as evidence of his rising prominence and have led to anxiety over competition for resources.

The controversy continued to simmer and occasionally to flare. In 1999, several non-Shugden worshipping Lithang Gonchen monks were briefly detained.[156] Two years later, not long before Tenzin Delek was arrested and after an influential lama at Lithang Gonchen monastery decided he would not longer propitiate the deity, Shugden worship there all but disappeared. Monks came from “everywhere” to participate in a ceremony marking the change.[157]

Chinese officials continue to call for Dorje Shugden worship. As noted at the outset of this report, they also claim that one or two of the bombings to which Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dondrup allegedly confessed occurred in close proximity to a senior monk who had supported Shugden worship.[158]

Other highly respected Buddhist leaders in Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture have suffered because of their support for the Dalai Lama as a religious figure and because of the respect and loyalty they engender from within local monastic and lay communities. Although the stories differ in the details, a common theme runs throughout, starting with concern on the part of Chinese authorities that these popular and charismatic figures make it difficult for the government to eliminate the veneration of the Dalai Lama and to dampen enthusiasm for religion. Chinese leaders fear that belief in Tibetan Buddhism, entwined as it is with Tibetan identity, will continue to support popular yearning for an independent Tibet.

Two cases of particular concern in Kardze are those of Sonam Phuntsog, serving out a five-year sentence for splittism, and the situation at Larung Gar, a monastic community formerly headed by Khenpo Jigme Phuntsog, which has been forced to drastically curtail its operations.

153 Isabel Hilton, “1. The Dalai Lama,” Independent, September 22, 1999; David Van Biema, “Monks vs. Monks,” Time Magazine, vol. 151, no. 18, May 11, 1998.

154 Human Rights Watch interviews with KR and ZB, September 5, 2003, and with HM, August 7, 2003.

155 Human Rights Watch interview with HM, August 7, 2003.

156 Human Rights Watch interview with KR, September 22, 2003.

157 Human Rights Watch interview with KR, December 14, 2002.

158 Human Rights Watch interview with DQ, April 4, 2003. See also Appendix II, “Interview with Kardze Court Judge.”

Also the report about the expulsion of monks who refused Shugden worship in Lama Gangchen’s monastery in Tibet invite more doubts about the honesty of the protesters who present their claims as an issue of “human rights” and “religious freedom”:

Gangchen Lama visited the monastery again on 3 December 1999, and instructed the monks to worship shugden deity (Shugden is a spirit which the Dalai Lama discourages to propitiate). He claimed himself as the re-incarnation of Panchen Sang Tashi, the founder of Gangchen Monastery, and called the monks to respect and worship him. He distributed booklets to the monks that had detailed explanation about his re-incarnation. However, no monks accepted him at the time.

Later, Gangchen Lama called 10 officials from the County Religious Department and PSB to instruct the monks to worship shugden and to respect him. A meeting was held in the monastery that very same day where the officials threatened the monks with arrest, detention and imprisonment if they oppose Gangchen Lama. Furthermore, refusal on the monk’s part would be deemed political and they would be investigated for crime against the nation. Since the beginning of 1999, Gangchen Lama had started building a new monastery of his own on the northen valley of Gangchen Monastery. The officials of County Religious Department and PSB forcefully evacuated the monks of Gangchen Monastery to the new monastery on 27 December 1999. Two new statues of the shugden deity placed in the prayer hall by Gangchen Monastery were met with protest by the monks. The statues were later taken by the monks who hid them in a nearby cave, which was used for meditation. There has been no history of shugden worship by the monks of Gangchen Monastery.

Owing to constant pressure to worship the deity and orders to carry out the instructions of Gangchen Lama, seven monks fled the monastery. Sonam fled from his monastery on January 1999, and stayed in Shigatse for two months. He escaped to Nepal in a group of eight Tibetans by paying 1800 yuan to a guide. He wishes to join a monastery in India. (see TCHRD report)

[1] Peter Bernard Clarke, a theology professor at Oxford, has characterised the NKT as a “controversial Tibetan Buddhist New Religious Movement (NRM)” see: Clarke, Peter Bernard. New Religions in Global Perspective, page 92, ISBN 0-415-25748-4, Routledge 2006

[2] BBC NEWS, Dalai Lama ‘behind Lhasa unrest’, May 10, 2006

[3] Laird, Thomas, The Story of Tibet, pages 148, 374

[4] Chinese view of Dalai Lama bodes ill for its Tibet policy, a March 29, 2008 article from the International Herald Tribune

[5] The Dalai Lama’s demon by France 24, Friday 08 August 2008

[6] Bunting, The Guardian, 1996, on July 6

[7] Bunting, The Guardian, 1996, on July 6; Lopez 1998:193

[8] Lopez 1998:193

[9] The Sydney Morning Herald, 2002, by Umarah Jamali in New Delhi November 16 2002

[10] Mills, Martin A, Human Rights in Global Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-30410-5, page 56, 57; Document – China: AI’s position on alleged abuses against worshippers of Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden, AI Index: ASA 17/14/98, June 1998

[11] Trials of a Tibetan Monk: The Case of Tenzin Delek: VII. Tenzin Delek’s Life and Work Prior to His April 2002 Arrest

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Information about the New Kadampa Tradition

with 43 comments

Author: EKC – a member of the New Kadampa Survivors.

A growing number of people are leaving the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and sharing their reasons for doing so. We hope this information can help you come to an informed decision about the kind of Buddhist organization you would be comfortable committing to.

  1. NKT students study only books written by one person, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a Tibetan monk expelled by his Tibetan monastery. Although students are not forbidden to read other books they are strongly discouraged from doing so.
  2. NKT’s main daily prayers are to a controversial deity known as Dorje Shugden. The Dalai Lama strongly discourages Shugden practices as divisive. Indeed the current protests against him by the WSS (Western Shugden Society), many members of which are high profile NKT teachers, are proving divisive and ugly, as are NKT techniques of swamping online Buddhist chat rooms and message boards with pro-Shugden and anti Dalai Lama propaganda.
  3. Two high profile members of the NKT, both serving long term as Deputy Spiritual Director at different times – Neil E. (Gen Thubten) and Steve W. (Gen Samden) – had to be removed due to sexual misconduct committed with several nuns and lay women. Both had vows of celibacy and were either deliberately misusing or misinterpreting higher tantric teachings to justify sexual exploitation of their followers.
  4. NKT has never given clear information about the two ex-deputy spiritual directors and NKT members find out through rumour and gossip, mainly at NKT festivals. They are told not to let it disturb their minds.
  5. Many other high level NKT teachers have also been involved in sexual misconduct, showing that they are poorly supported within the tradition, and many have misconceptions about what a vow of celibacy actually covers.
  6. Ex-residents of NKT Dharma centres report having been required to sign away their rights as tenants, illegally. Many were told that the centres had the right to evict them without notice, for example.
  7. It is commonly reported amongst past and present NKT members that many people who move into NKT centres give up their paid jobs to go on benefits. They then work unpaid for the centres while deceiving the welfare/benefits agencies of their status. Monks and nuns are told not to wear their robes to the Job Centre when they sign on.
  8. NKT monks and nuns are not actually ordained as monks and nuns according to a vital Buddhist text known as Vinaya. Fully ordained monks and nuns under the Vinaya have over two hundred specific vows, while NKT monks and nuns have 10 vows, several of which are very vague. Many Buddhist schools do not accept NKT ordination as valid.

Ex NKT members strongly suggest that potential new members do their own research before considering a commitment to this New Religious Movement.

Those seeking independent information can contact the British-based research group INFORM.

Appendix:

Statements by Buddhists:

Related Topics:

Critical Newspaper Articles about the New Kadampa Tradition:

Video

Open Letters by Kelsang Gyatso:

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

A Biased Historical Narrative Does Not History Make

with 32 comments

Author: Thubten Lobsang*

A Biased Historical Narrative Does Not History Make

The Western Shugden Society (WSS) has recently carried a poorly researched essay titled “The Lama Policy: Freedom from the Drug” without cited sources, only a vague claim that the “paper” is based on a “collection of Tibetan books”. The essay seeks to undermine the institution of the Dalai Lamas and the Ganden Phodrang, rather than address specific concerns about the Shugden issue. The WSS has crossed yet another line in its deluded propaganda war – it has made evident that no longer is it campaigning just about the Shugden issue, its aim has expanded to include discrediting the TGIE, HH Dalai Lama, and anyone who dares support him.

The essay mentions the 5th Dalai Lama as the inventor of the system in Tibet that united spiritual and secular rule, but this is patently incorrect. In fact, the first religious rulers to also hold political power in Tibet were Sakyas. It was also Sakya Lamas who first established a priest-patron relationship with the Mongols as outlined here by the Sapan Foundation (A Sakya Charity in India):

“During Sakya Pandita’s and Chogyal Phagpa’s time, the Sakya Tradition reached its zenith in terms of religious and temporal importance. In 1252, Chogyal Phagpa was invited to the court of Emperor Kublai Khan who was converted to Buddhism. They developed a patron-priest relationship. The Emperor received teachings from Chogyal Phagpa for many years and he was given the title of several generations.”

The Sakyas continued to hold political power throughout both the 13th and 14th centuries, according to the website of HH Sakya Trizin, current holder of the lineage.

The essay then goes on to categorically claim that the Great 5th Dalai Lama was behind the murder of Dragpa Gyaltsen (with legend claims arose later as the wrathful spirit Shugden). However, this “fact” is also hotly disputed, and there are several conflicting historical accounts. In his essay “The Shuk-Den Affair” Prof. Georges Dreyfus. In these accounts explanations of Dragpa Gyaltsen’s death range from suicide, to illness, to stress, to a suicide specifically tied to a vow to arise as a Gelug protector with a mission to protect Tsongkhapa’s doctrine from being corrupted by Nyingma influences. A recent Tibetan work (Dol rgyal zhib ‘jug tshogs chung) argues that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s main opponents were actually related to a family dispute, between his family, the Ge-Kha-Sas and Sonam Choephel. Clearly, the WSS account is one sided, biased and lacks a measured weighing of the evidence.

In addition, the essay “Lama Policy: Freedom from the Drug” seeks to portray the 5th Dalai Lama as being vengeful against his opponent the King of Tsang, and murderously seeking the help of the Mongols. The article “Schisms, Murders and Hungry Ghosts in Shangri-la” argues that in fact the Great 5th showed tremendous restraint and sought a conciliatory approach, through ecclesiastical integration of the Nyingma teachings:

“At the time the Great Fifth gained power there were both secular and sectarian rivalries. In addition to various schools of Tibetan Buddhism, the old Bon religion was reviving its bid for supremacy in Tibet. Rather than use his power to crush the Nyingma sect, which he easily could have done through his alliance with the Mongols, the Great Fifth deliberately incorporated Nyingmapa teachings and practices into his ecclesiastical court (Norbu, 248-49). Some Gelugpa purists objected.”

So, ironically, it was the Gelugpa purists, who the WSS seeks to portray as non-political, who objected the the non-sectarian policies of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, aimed at creating a more harmonious and unified Tibetan society.

The essay then goes on to repeat the same tired claim that HH the 14th Dalai Lama’s policies are aimed at destroying the integrity of the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism and making himself the head of a hodgepodge unified Tibetan church. In fact, a clear examination of the current Dalai Lama’s actions reveals a policy aimed at giving the Kagyus, Nyingmas and Sakyas a voice in the Phodrang government, that for years had been dominated almost entirely by Gelugpas. The essay neglects to mention the creation of a seat for the leader of each of the major lineages in the ministry in charge of religious affairs, and a policy aimed at recruiting government ministers in the TGIE from a variety of sects to reflect the religious diversity of Tibetan people.

WSS’s paper also neglects to mention that it is through the current Dalai Lama’s reforms that the TGIE has elected representatives, an elected Prime Minister and an essentially democratic system that even uses modern devices like the internet to register Tibetans overseas who want to vote in TGIE elections. While no one would argue the exile government doesn’t have its problems, the pace of change towards democratization is remarkable, especially considering the current plight of Tibetan refugees.

*Thubten Lobsang is the pseudonym of the author who wants to be anonymous.

Annotation
Williams states about the 5th Dalai Lama:

By most accounts the Dalai Lama was by the standards of his age a reasonably tolerant and benevolent ruler.[1]

[1] Clarke, Peter B. (ed.), Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, London & New York: Routledge, 2006, page 136

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Western Shugden Society - News

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Western Shugden Society: Sowing Dissent Through Baseless Allegations

with 35 comments

Author: Anonymous, revised article

Today, the 29th of September 2008 will be remembered by most people as the day that the Wall Street bailout bill failed to pass in the US Senate. However, for Buddhists, it will be remembered as the day that the Western Shugden Society officially began its campaign to overthrow HH the 14th Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile. Of course, the timing very unfortunate, as talks between the TGIE envoys and the Chinese government are at a crucial juncture. One wonders what the publication from this article accomplishes, apart from maintaining press coverage and the morale of WSS advocates.

The article, does not list any text or other reliable sources, apart from one book, an Ocean of Truth, but doesn’t cite the author or publication date of this apparent source. It doesn’t even say who the author of this latest WSS article is, perhaps preferring anonymity to forthrightness. It simply says at the beginning: “The following information has been compiled from various sources.” Those who wonder what these sources are, of course, are missing the point. Why? Well, really, an accurate or balanced account isn’t the point. It seems that the Tibetan organizations were correct in their summation of the Shugden campaign that was dismissed by the WSS as hateful and libelous rhetoric. But in fact, as we can now see plainly, WSS and its supporters are trying to “Sow dissent and undermine the Dalai Lama”.

Whoever wrote this article didn’t consider very carefully the implications it would have even for the Shugden camp. If it were true that the current Dalai Lama in an impostor, this would indicate two things:

  1. That Trijang Rinpoche, an omniscient Buddha and party to the background of the current Dalai Lama, kept secret something he knew to be a lie.
  2. That Dorje Shugden, at the time of the selection of the 14th Dalai Lama, failed once again in his “duty” to “protect” the Ganden tradition.

But surely, though Trijang Rinpoche may have been mistaken about Shugden, as a monk and by most accounts compassionate person he would not have allowed an impostor Dalai Lama to continue on the throne. The mystifying contradictions only go to once again further the conclusion reached by Tibetans in India a long time ago, that the WSS is “sowing dissent and undermining the Dalai Lama.”

In addition, the latest attempt by WSS reveals another ill-founded and un-Buddhist tactic – manipulation of Islamophobia. After using the headline “Saffron-robed Muslim” in their “information” booklet “The Tibetan Situation Today”, once again the thinly veiled anti-Muslim rhetoric appears in this article, “Taktser was a Muslim village”, and of course the unverified statements (no witnesses, no documents) that Buddhists had to pay Muslim officials bribes “in order to release” His Holiness the Dalai Lama from the Muslim community. Increasingly the prejudices of some in the WSS members, or at the very least the authors of their publications, are beginning to show. Though they claim the contrary, the label fundamentalist is becoming increasingly appropriate for the WSS.

Not content to merely undermine His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s selection by a litany of highly realized lamas as well as the Tibetan government, the latest propaganda aims to manipulate the deaths of two elderly but venerated lamas. Though HH Ling Rinpoche lived until the ripe old age of 80, we are told that his death was the fault of the Dalai Lama encouraging Gelugs to investigate the Nyingma tradition. Trijang Rinpoche, who also died at the mature and venerable age of 80, died because the Dalai Lama decided to give up Shugden.
One wonders how the WSS can claim that HH Dalai Lama and Tibetans who follow him are superstitious when they make such bold, unsubstantiated and superstitious claims themselves.

Clearly, the cause of Tibet, the work of HH Dalai Lama, the stability of the Three Great Monasteries is no concern of the WSS. Only the undermining of the institution of the Dalai Lama and the faith of his followers. It is very apparent that the political aspect of this campaign has shifted into high gear.

Clearly the WSS would have us believe that Serkong Rinpoche, Serkong Dorjechang, Ling Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche, Reting Rinpoche, the Ganden Tripa, HH Sakya Trizing, HH Karmapa, Penor Rinpoche, Phakchog Rinpoche and the countless others lamas who support HH Tenzin Gyatso as the 14th Dalai Lama are misleading the public. WSS alone can be counted to tell the “truth” about all Tibetan issues.
Perhaps one good thing can come out of this latest attack: nobody will believe ever again that the WSS is non-political.

For an accurate account of the enthronement of the Dalai Lama, verified by countless venerable lamas including WSS favourite Trijang Rinpoche, see this work:

  • Wangdu, Khemey Sonam (2000). “Discovery of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. An Eyewitness Account.” In: Discovery, Recognition and Enthronement of the 14th Dalai Lama. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, pp. 1-52

Annotation by blog owner:

This is the author’s reply to the WSS article Reting Lama – How he chose the false Dalai Lama. The author wished to be anonymous.

For more about the Dalai Lamas see:

  • The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama by Pico Iyer
  • Freedom in Exile: Autobiography of the Dalai Lama by Dalai Lama XIV*
  • Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation by Glenn H. Mullin

For more about Tibet’s history:

  • The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama by Thomas Laird
  • The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947 by Tsering Shakya
  • In Exile from the Land of Snows: The Definitive Account of the Dalai Lama and Tibet Since the Chinese Conquest by John Avedon
  • A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State by Melvyn C. Goldstein

* recommended by Paul Williams in Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (edited by Clarke, Routledge, 2005), p. 137

Written by Tenzin Peljor

September 29, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Sectarian Rivalry – The Yellow Book by Zimey Rinpoche

with 13 comments

Researcher David Kay states in his paper[1]

The young Fourteenth Dalai Lama was introduced to the practice of Dorje Shugden reliance by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959. After some years in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama became aware that his practice was in conflict, first with the state protector Pehar[2], and later with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and Tibetan people Palden Lhamo (dPal Idan lha mo), who, as a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened protector), objected strongly to Dorje Shugden’s pretensions.[3] He did not, however, voice his doubts about the merits of Dorje Shugden reliance until 1978 following the publication of a sectarian text by the Gelug lama Zimey Rinpoche (1927-96). This text, which is variously known as The Yellow Book or The Oral Transmission of the intelligent Father,[4] enumerates a series of stones that Zimey Rinpoche had heard informally from Trijang Rinpoche about ‘the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to have been shortened by Shuk-den’s displeasure at their practicing Nying-ma teachings’ (Dreyfus 1998: 256). The text asserts the pre-eminence of the Gelug school which is symbolised and safeguarded by Dorje Shugden, and presents a stern warning to those within the Gelug whose eclectic tendencies would compromise its purity. This publication provoked angry reactions from members of non-Gelug traditions, setting in motion a bitter literary exchange that drew on ‘all aspects of sectarian rivalry’ (Kapstein 1989: 231).[5]

Matthew T. Kapstein states:

There has been a great deal of sectarian dispute among Tibetan refugees in India. Much of this has its roots in the works of Pha-bong-kha-pa Bde-chen snying-po [Pabongkha Dechen Nyingpo](1878-1937), whose visions of the Dge-lugs-pa [Gelugpa] protective deity Rdo-rje shugs-ldan [Dorje Shugden] seem to have entailed a commitment to oppose actively the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the Bon-po. While the status of the protective deity was the ostensive topic of debate initially, all aspects of sectarian rivalry have since been brought into play. The first cannonade was the Dge-lugs-pa [Gelugpa] partisan Dze-smad sprul-sku’s [Zemed Tulku's] Bstan-srung byung-brjod. This was answered, on behalf of the other sects, in T. G. Dhongthog’s Dus-kyi sbrang-char.* The Dge-lugs-pa [Gelugpa] response came not from Dze-smad [Zemed Tulku], but from a disciple: Yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s [Yönten Gyamtso's] Gdong-lan. At least two counter attacks then appeared: T. G. Dhongthog’s Dus-kyi me-lce, and Bya-bral Sangs-rgyas-rdo-rje’s [Chatral Sangye Dorje's] Rdo-rje me-char.* Yon-tan-rgya-mtsho [Yönten Gyamtso] responded in turn with his Brgal-lan kun-khyab ‘brug-sgra. While these disputes were unfolding, H. H. the Dalai Lama disavowed the opinions of Dze-smad [Zemed Tulku] and his followers in a privately distributed mimeographed statement, published later by the government of Bhutan: Skyabs-mgon bka ’slob. The Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala has also published a statement of the Dalai Lama’s official position on these matters, Dol-rgyalskor gsal-bshad, and a collection of his pertinent speeches, Chos-skyong bka’-slob. [..]

The Dge-lugs-pa [Gelugpa] sect, both in India and Tibet, has become deeply fissured over the Shugs-ldan [Shugden] issue. During the past several years, the dispute has also become an international cause célèbre , particularly following the gruesome slaying in February 1997 of the principal of the Buddhist dialectical college in Dharamsala, a crime that has been widely blamed on adherents of the Shugs-ldan [Shugden] cult. The controversy has as a result been widely discussed in the press, and on several websites. In November 1997, a special panel was convened to discuss it at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. These developments are conveniently and accurately surveyed in Lopez 1998, pp. 188-196. See now also Dreyfus 1998.)[6]

Paul Williams states in A quick note on Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan):

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

The following is an excerpt of the Yellow Book. The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) translated this excerpt into English, added an introduction, and published it in 1996. The Yellow Book, Thunder of stirring Black cloud or The Oral Transmission of the intelligent Father, was originally published in 1974 by Tagdrag Uze and Choephel Legden who published also the Collected Works of Lama Pabongkhapa.[7] The Labrang (dwelling) of Trijang Rinpoche ordered 500 copies of that book.[7]

Introduction by TYC

We have been observing the Shugden Controversy more patiently than many people. Basically we find two reasons for it. On the first place it is politically motivated and the second reason is lack of proper knowledge. We are therefore, sending these statements with a pure motivation to help all the parties in the game. Since a great deal of garbage is being trashed out for public consumption, we hope to balance up the record. The practice of propitiating Dholgyal Shugden is a religious activity in our society. So a brief reference to the basic principles of Buddhism should be useful. The Buddha has taught the four noble truths – the suffering, its cause, the path and the state of liberation. In line with this the law of Karma is very basic. So the main message is that you are the creator of your own destiny. You suffer because of your evil actions. The other side of the coin is that you gain peace and full Enlightenment as results of your positive actions. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is our supreme leader and has a dual role, political and spiritual. He wants the best for his people and therefore explained the demerits of propitiating Dholgyal during some of his religious sermons. Dholgyal’s historical tie with the Tibetan government has been negative. So when you worship Dholgyal it brings some negative influence on the common Tibetan cause. In the long-run the practitioner too faces misfortune. We take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. But those who worship Dholgyal Shugden fully entrust in him and see him as the ultimate refuge. Dholgyal is at best a worldly spirit. The followers of Dholgyal barely have much respect to the Buddha. From a Buddhist perspective this is a fundamental mistake.

We must also recall that His Holiness the Dalai Lama attaches great importance for religious tolerance and understanding. Personally he had teachings from all the four major traditional schools of Tibetan Buddhism. His respect for other religions is also well documented. Some of his best friends are Christians and Jews. Under the circumstances, do you really find any ground for all these hue and cry of religious intolerance and suppression of religious freedom? Let us be very honest. Therefore we can see the political motive behind the controversy. His Holiness gave his instructions very clearly and openly. There was no coercion or force and you are left to make your own decision. We all expect His Holiness to guide us on the right path. Naturally you are not supposed to blame him for doing his job. We did some research about Shugden and its followers. The late Venerable Zeme Rinpoche was one of the most celebrated scholars of our time. We truly have much respect for his scholastic credentials. But unfortunately he was almost one-sided when it came to Shugden worship. His praise to Shugden sadly contains a great deal of sectarian feelings. His writings naturally influenced his students.

We are producing a few extractions from his works which do not need any elaboration. We leave it upto the readers to make their own judgement.

In these accounts narrated by Rinpoche, you will find that all those who did not follow Gelug tradition and sought teachings from other schools like Nyingma, they were punished by Dholgyal Shugden. Many of them had very short life. If Dholgyal really had such power, why did he allow Lhatsun Rinpoche to live so long? There were many other masters who practiced and taught Nyingma, Sakya and Kyagyu doctrine and enjoyed long life. We have met some old people who knew Lhatsun Rinpoche when he was in his eighties. This Rinpoche, the master, was in a matter of argument the boss and his disciples like Tatsak Rinpoche only followed him. If you really can hurt you hit at the root.

There are many more arguments to disprove what the late Zeme Rinpoche had written. Regardless of religious persuasions human beings all over the world believe in fate. And in Buddhism we term it the law of karma. A popular English saying, “What you sow, so shall you reap”. In a nut shell all those people mentioned in Rinpoche’s writing faced the result of their past actions. And Dholgyal’s role sounds whimsical and imaginary. As a Buddhist, when you forget the Buddha and take refuge in the Triple Jewel no evil spirit can harm you. But when you forget the Buddha and take refuge in a worldly spirit then the coming days will tell you the whole story.

We would like to appeal to all parties to practice patience and understanding. Our nation is facing a very critical time. Religious bigotry has served no purpose in any part of the world. The need of the hour is communal harmony and true feeling of loving kindness.

Excerpt of the Yellow Book by Zemey Rinpoche

Full Title: Account of the Protective Deity Dorje Shugden, Chief Guardian of the Gelug Sect, and of the Punishments meted out to Religious and Lay Leaders who incurred His Wrath

Published: 1973[4]

BQ4890.R37 D93 00
DZE SMAD BLO BZANG DPAL LDAN, 1927-

MTHU DANG STOBS KYIS CHE’BA’I BSTAN SRUNG CHEN PO RDO RJE SHUG
LDAN RTZAL GYI BYUNG BA BRJOD PA PHA RGOD BLA MA’I ZHAL GYI
DBUD RTZI ‘I CHU KHUR BRTZEGS SHING ‘JIGS RUNG GLOG ZHAGS ‘GYU
BA’I SPRIN NAG ‘KHRUGS PA’I NGA RO ZHES BYA BA BZHUGS SO /

[DZESMAD SPRUL MING PA BLO BZANG DPAL LDAN BSTAN 'DZIN YAR RGYAS
SU 'BOD PAS SBYAR].
DELHI : 1973

COVER TITLE: BSTAN SRUNG RDO RJE SHUGS LDAN RTZAL GYI BYUNG BA
BRJOD PA PHA RGOD BLA MA’I ZHAL GYI BDUD RTZI BZHUGS.

A CONTINUATION OF THE RDO RJE SHUGS LDAN GYI RTOGS BRJOD BY KHRI
BYANG BLO BZANG YE SHES BSTAN ‘DZIN RGYA MTSO.

Praise to you, the protector of the Yellow Hat tradition, you destroy like a pile of dust; Great adepts, high officials and ordinary people; who defile and corrupt the Gelug order.

With this quotation from the praise to Dorje Shugden, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang told me some highly interesting accounts which he had not written for publication. As is clear from the above mentioned praise, the protector has punished those who corrupted the Gelug order. The symptoms were clear with various episodes of punishments from the king, entanglement with the law and untimely death for many powerful lama regents, incarnate tulkus, highly adept scholars, high officials and rich and powerful people. While being followers of Lama Tsongkhapa tradition, they have corrupted it with other tenets and traditions. Since Kyabje Rinpoche told me about these with great compassion it is very precious for me. With these accounts as the basis, I compiled other reliable material and added to the Ocean of Praise to the Protector.

THE PANCHEN LAMAS

All knowing Losang Palden Choekyi Dakpa was the lord of the Doctrine and from a very young age proved himself as an eminent scholar. He thus had great potential to serve the Dharma and sentient beings. But he did not make the flawless and well established teachings of the Dharma Raja Lama Tsongkhapa as his principal practice. But instead he studied many treasure texts of Nyingma order and did meditation on those teachings. These were mentioned in his autobiography. Dorjee Shugden repeatedly asked him not to do that. He got annoyed with the deity and performed a wrathful and despicable ritual to burn it. Along with other ingredients he put a thanka of deity in the fire. But the fire could not consume the thanka. Then he took out the thanka and put it under the steps of his door in Tashi Lhunpo. Because of those actions, the Panchen Rinpoche became ill and eventually passed away in the water-sheep year of the 15th rapjung when he was only thirty years of age. In this way the Panchen Rinpoche was unsuccessful in his Dharma propagation deeds.

His successor, Panchen losang Thubten Choekyi Nyima Gelek Namgyal too faced a great deal of problems (as a consequence). Because of misunderstanding between his monastery and the Tibetan Government, he had to escape to Mongolia. Later he wished to come back to U- Tsang, but there were unsurmountable hurdles and he could not succeed. At the age of fifty five, in the year fire-ox, he passed away in Kyigudo. A year before he passed away, Je Phaphongkha Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo came to pay his respects. During that meeting, the Panchen Rinpoche told Phaphongkha Rinpoche that since Phaphongkha Rinpoche was the incarnation of Lodo Balpa, the Tashi Lhunpo monastery naturally had respect and faith in him The Panchen Rinpoche asked him to give teachings and also asked him to take out the thanka of Shugden deity which was buried by the previous Panchen Rinpoche. In accordance with the instructions of the Panchen Rinpoche, Je phaphongkha went to Tashi Lhunpo monastery in the year of iron-dragon of the 16th rapjung. There he gave many religious sermons including the lamrim teachings. He also took out the thanka of the Shugden deity and put it in a shrine in the Tashi Lhunpo and worshipped it.

Phaphongkha Rinpoche composed a text which was a kind of agreement and understanding between the monastery and the deity.

The next Panchen Rinpoche, Panchen Losang Thinley Lhundup Choekyi Gyaltsen was born in Amdo. He displayed various remarkable deeds which were clear signals of his greatness. When he came to U-Tsang, certain impediments delayed his enthronement. Soon after his arrival to Tashi Lhunpo, he composed a prayer to Dorjee Shugden which helped creating harmony between the deity and the Panchen Rinpoche. However, later things changed. There was a statue of Shugden in a shrine in the palace. When it was seen by the spiritual tutor of the Panchen Rinpoche, Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima, he told one of the attendants to take out the devil’s statue from there. When it was referred to the Panchen Rinpoche, he told the attendant to keep it where the teacher could not see. The tutor disliked Shugden and often told the Panchen Rinpoche that they practice pure kadampa tradition and that if he sought many deities, it could ruin him. The tutor banned the usual practice of propitiating Gyalchen Shugden at Tashi Lhunpo and the oracle karma, too, was banned from invoking the deity. The special invocation during the new year was also banned. Since then many bad omen occurred one after the other. A battle broke between the Shikatse soldiers and the Tashi Lhunpo subjects. The Tutor Ang Nyima himself fell from his horse two times. Several ominous incidents happened during the opening ceremony of the new palace, Dechen Phodrang. Because of these, they had to restore the practice of worshipping Gyalchen Shugden. On the invitation of China, the Panchen Rinpoche left for China in the wood-horse year.

Soon after the Panchen Rinpoche had departed from Tsang, unprecedented flood rushed from Gyaltse. The flooding totally washed away Kunkyobling, the main residential complex for many Panchen Lamas. Yongzin Ang Nyima could not return home and finally succumbed to an insect bite. Because the Panchen Rinpoche did not practice a pure philosophical tenet, unending disasters followed one after the other.

TEHOR ZIG-GYAB RINPOCHE

Tehor Zig-gyab Rinpoche worshipped Dorjee Shugden as the Chief of all deities. He completed his Dharma education at Tashi Lhunpo and earned the coveted Kachen degree. Then he went to Kham and propagated the Dharma and became very popular there. He again came back to Tashi Lhunpo and paid his respect to Panchen Losang Thubten Choekyi Nyima. The Panchen Lama became very fond of this scholar and asked him to be the abbot of Kunkyobling. Later the Panchen Lama gave his text of Nyingmapa teachings and some rituals tools. Due to that reason, he studied various Nyingmapa teachings. During that time a Nyingmapa tantric practitioner called Kyungtul came to see him. This visiter told him that if he learned Nyingma teachings he could become famous like the 5th Dalai Lama. So Zig-gyab Rinpoche decided to get teachings on Rinchen Terzod from the tantric master.

Dorjee Shugden on several occasions asked him not to study and meditate on Nyingmapa teachings. And if he did not heed to the deity’s advice, the Rinpoche would suffer from many hardships and could even shorten his life span. But Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not pay any attention. One day Dorjee Shugden was greatly annoyed and told the Rinpoche that, “I may not pierce you with my deadly claws, but if I did, I cannot take them out.” In this way the deity persuaded the Rinpoche to uphold a pure Gelug tradition. But the latter did not pay any heed and said that he has to abide but the instructions of his Lama. Ziggyab Rinpoche rented a house near Lhasa and received many Nyingma teachings and transmissions from the tantric master, Kyungtul. Gyalchen Shugden created a variety of miracles in their presence. So they decided to do a retreat. During that time Prime Minister Sheta Paljor Dorjee suddenly became very ill. So he requested for Zig-gyab Rinpoche to bestow an initiation for him. When the Rinpoche returned home after giving the initiation, he became very ill and after one day he passed away. If Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not practice Nyingmapa teachings and remained a proper practitioner of pure-gold like Gelug tradition, he could have a long life and his meritorious deeds could have spread far and wide. Kyabje Trijang Dorjeechang told me these accounts who in turn has heard from Tehor Losang Gyatso, an attendant of Zig-gyab Rinpoche until his last days.

PHAGPA LHA

Phagpa Lha Losang Thubten Mepham Tsultrim Gyaltsen was a great scholar and as such he should have upheld and propagated pure Gelugpa tradition. But he corrupted his philosophical stand and moral conduct and consequently lost his monk’s vow. He thus had to face the punishment by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso; and he was deprived of his religious and political powers. Later he lived in his house in Chamdo. One day while he was on his way to the toilet, he fell down and a broken bicycle piece pierced near his male organ and no amount of medication was of any help. After a long illness he succumbed to the injury. He had to face these difficulties, because he annoyed the deity Dorjee Shugden. When Je Phaphongkha was on his tour of the Kham area, he stayed over night at Phagpa Lha’s house. During the night he had a very ominous dream in relation to his host. Je Phaphongkha told about the dream to his secretary, Dema Losang Dorjee. All these accounts were told to my ever kind teacher, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang by Chamdo Gyara Rinpoche.

THE RETING RINPOCHE

Regent Reting Rinpoche had to suffer punishment with the king’s order. The misfortune was caused by the miraculous power of the Dharma protector great Dorjee Shugden. Let me explain. The fourth Reting Rinpoche, Ngawang Yeshi Tenpai Gyaltsen, offered the entire possession of Reting Ladang to the Tibetan Government and requested His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, not to search for the future Reting reincarnation. But His Holiness Thubten Gyatso returned everything back to the Ladang and asked them to search for the reincarnation. Accordingly the search party found the reincarnation in a simple family in Dakpo. This Rinpoche had made his foot prints on rocks. I saw one in the Reting monastery. One day while his mother was away the soup started boiling and overflowed from the earthen pot. So he closed the pot with his shoe lace. He displayed such miraculous powers while he was only a child. On the advice of His Holiness Thubten Gyatso, he was recognized as the 5th Reting Rinpoche and named Thubten Jampel Yeshi Gyaltsen.

He was admitted to Sera Je College where he completed his religious education. When H.H. Thubten Gyatso visited the Reting monastery in the water- monkey year, it seemed that he left some instructions to Reting Rinpoche concerning the governance of the nation.

His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away in the water-bird year. For about two months the Prime Minister and the Kashag held the responsibility of the Government. After that the General Assembly nominated the Reting Rinpoche, Gaden throne Holder Yeshi Palden and Yongzin Phurchok Jamgon Rinpoche for the regency. The Reting Rinpoche’s name was confirmed with traditional tests were done in front of Lord Avaloketeshvara in the Potala Palace. Accordingly he was enthroned as the Regent on the 10th day of the first month of the wood-dog year.

Thus he held the responsibility to head the Gaden Phodrang, the Tibetan Government. He took particular interest in the construction of the tomb of the thirteenth Dalai Lama and the search for the next reincarnation. He personally went to the precious lake and saw the visions which gave clear signals of the reincarnation. He then recognized and enthroned the right reincarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Those were indeed some of his wonderful deeds.

On the fourth day of the tenth month of the earth-hare year, the Reting Rinpoche did the hair cutting ceremony of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. In the last month of that year, he resigned from the post of regency after seven years of service. He had the traditional responsibility to uphold pure Kadampa tradition. His own monastery was the seat of Dromton Gyalpai Jungne. Moreover since the first Reting Rinpoche, Trichen Ngawang Chokden, tutor of His Holiness Kelsang Gyatso, the subsequent reincarnations preserved and propagated pure Gelug tradition. Many illustrious Gelug masters including Je Phaphongka exhorted and persuaded him to maintain and promote the stainless tradition of the great Lama Tsongkhapa. But the Reting Rinpoche did not pay any heed and he sought a number of hidden-treasure teachings of the Nyingma order from Tsenyi Tulku of Chamdo. He also received full transmission on Dzongchen from Sangya Dorjee. Thus the Reting Rinpoche departed from the tradition of his masters.

The final misfortune began to show up when the Reting Rinpoche had disagreement with the then Regent, Tadak. The government found evidence that the Reting Rinpoche had plotted against the life of the Regent Tadak. So, Kalon Surkhang Wangchen Gelek and Kalon Lhalu Gyurme Tsewang Dorjee went to the Reting monastery along with their force and arrested the Reting Rinpoche. Headed by Tsenyi Tulku, many monks from the Sera Je college revolted against the Tibetan government with arms. As the tension grew between the Sera Je College and the government, the latter increased its force and an intense fighting continued for days. Under the command of Kalsang Tsultrim, the government army fired at the Reting monastery and cause much destruction.

When the Reting Rinpoche and his friend Khardo Tulku was interrogated by the General Assembly, the latter confessed that they were guilty. The Reting Rinpoche also acknowledged his mistakes and pleaded for a chance to confess to the Regent himself. The appeal was sent through the Kashag with the endorsement of the General Assembly. But the appeal was rejected. The Reting Rinpoche was kept in Sharchen Chog under tight security with the officials, Lhungshar Orgyen Namdol and Rupon Kalsang Damdul in command. While he was in confinement, he suddenly passed away in the night on the 17th of the third month. No outsider had any knowledge of the cause of his death.

KHARDO TULKU

A similar case can be narrated about Khardo Tulku Kelsang Thubten Nyendak. Initially he sought teachings from Je Phaphongkha. But later, he corrupted his philosophical view and practice. He received many Nyingma teachings from Tsenyi Tulku along with the Reting Rinpoche. He was arrested with the Reting Rinpoche on the charges of plotting against the life of the then Regent Tadak. Later he was imprisoned in a dark cell with his legs in chains. After four years in jail, he was released during the amnesty announced when His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama was enthroned. After that he was free to live according to his wish, but soon he was passed away. So in short, all his deeds were unsuccessful which was purely due to the miraculous power of Dorje Shugden.

TATSAK RINPOCHE

In accordance with the prophecy of the deities and lamas, Kundeling Tatsak Rinpoche Losang Thupten Jigme Gyaltsen was recognized as the reincarnation of his predecessor. He completed his religious education from the Gomang College of Drepung monastery. He had the traditional responsibilities to practice and promote a pure Gelug order. But he departed far away from the stainless system of Gelug practice and received treasure text teachings from Lhatsun Rinpoche and received certain corrupted initiations known as the father’s experience and the mother’s dream which originated from Mongolia. These activities greatly annoyed the king of Gelug Dharma protectors, Dorjee Shugden, and as such Tatsak Rinpoche was accordingly punished. One day he suffered an acute pain in his chest. After consulting many deities and lama, he was told that it was caused by Dorjee Shugden. So, the oracle of the deity was invited and with invocation, he confessed his mistakes with the support of Lhatsun Rinpoche. It was of no help and in that place Lhatsun Rinpoche was scolded for his impure practice. Tatsak Rinpoche’s illness was more serious and he in much pain. So he sent Kundeling Oser Gyaltsen to invite Kyabje Trijang Dorjeechang. Another appeal was made via Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. I personally witnessed the event. During that time the great Dorjee Shugden said that since he had committed himself to protect the Gelug doctrine, there wasn’t much he could do. However, when such evolved Gelug master is supporting, he would see what could be done. But mainly the whole thing depended on how Tatsak Rinpoche behaved. The deity then asked Tatsak Rinpoche, “What will you do in the future ?” Tatsak Rinpoche wept bitterly and replied that he confessed his past mistakes and promised that henceforth he will stop the practice of Nyingma teachings. After that he recovered to some extent. Because he did not keep his promise, his health deteriorated again. Tatsak Rinpoche then left for India for medical treatment and as well as for the purpose of pilgrimage. He went to a big hospital in Calcutta for treatment. Even that was of no avail and he passed away.

JE PHAPHONGKHA

Our very kind and exalted master Phaphongkha Dechen Nyingpo, the holder of the vajra, too, received transmission on the secret Hayagriva and the Great Exposition on Pure Vision by the Dalai Lama from Dagri Rinpoche Thinley Pema Kunsang Chogyal, great mahasidhi Ose Thekchog Dorjee,Gungtul Rinpoche Khenrap Palden Tanpai Nyima, Menyak Rekhu Rinpoche Lobsang Chodak Gyatso and others during his early life. Moreover he received initiation on Dupthap Dojoi Bhum-sang from Gungtul Rinpoche. Later Je Phaphongkha received many transmissions and teaching from Nyingma tradition. In those days he used to have strange dreams. Sometimes he saw in his dreams bearded monks and at other times grandly robed monks showing unhappy moods. One night he slept on the bed which was on the east of the room, but when he woke up he found himself on the bed which was on the west side of the room. One night when he was not able to sleep he heard some strange and ominous voices of a woman and another person shouting alternately around mid-night. The noise seemed to be coming from a distant place coming closer to his home, finally he saw a red hand sticking through the curtain. He thought it was due to the miraculous power of Dorjee Shugden. He confessed and asked to be forgiven and the noise returned the way it came. In the water-mouse year, when the Chinese troops had already entered Tibet, the Tibetan Government decided to do some religious service for the peace and safety of the nation. With the instruction from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, JePhaphongkha gave the transmission Kagyur in the Gaden Hall. Soon after that teaching, he was so seriously ill that he almost passed away. The sickness was due to certain poison. When he recovered, his whole body had become bluish. Dorjee Shugden also used other means to persuade Je Phaphongkha to practice and propagate pure Gelug tradition free of defilements. Finally he stopped taking and practicing Nyingma teachings and did not propagate what he had learned. He kept his promise and maintained pure Gelug tradition. Therefore, during the later part of his life, his Dharma deeds spread even to places outside Tibet like China and Mongolia.

SURKHANG PEMA WANGCHEN

Now let me reveal some accounts of powerful officials who received wrathful punishment from Dorjee Shugden. Surkhang Pema Wangchen became a Cabinet Secretary, because of his corrupted view and conduct his life was short lived. He was born in a noble family which had special links with the deity. From a very young age he was highly talented and well versed in Tibetan language. He was proficient in Chinese language too. If you read his Tibetan poetry, it is enchanting. He was referred to as a pundit. At the age of fourteen, he entered the public service and soon afterwards got promotion. Because of his talent, His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama became fond of him and posted him to the rank of the Cabinet Secretary. That was indeed a great honor for him and obviously a great achievement in worldly affairs. But he did not keep his family tradition of the practice of Dorjee Shugden worship nor did he maintain a pure Gelug tradition. In the Surkhang family, they worshipped Dorjee Shugden on every special occasion. They observed the propitiating of the deity on the eight day of every new year. When invoking the deity, very special offerings were made on that day. The family used to invite all their relations for the occasion, and after the worship they had a great feast. So, he had the responsibility to practice Gelug teachings and worship Dorjee Shugden. But his views and practice were corrupted and he showed much interest in the Nyingma teachings. Because of his influence, his father Sonam Wangchen sought teaching on the `treasure-text’ from Nyarong Terdon Sogyal and due to that he died suddenly at the age of thirty seven.

Pema Wangchen sought many Nyingma initiations and teachings from Lama Pao Rinpoche. He also sought many other Nyingma Lamas, including lama Tenzin Dakpa from whom he received a great deal of Dzongchen teachings. He reprinted `Yonten zot’ which was written by Kunkhen Longchen. Pema Wangchen had a good relationship with Geshe Sharab Rinpoche. Since this Geshe was a scholar of pure Gelug order, he refuted certain thesis written by Lama Tenzin Dakpa. Owing to Pema Wangchen’s persuasion, the Geshe did not complete his composition. In that place, the Geshe advised Pema Wangchen by way of some beautiful poems that the latter should follow the flawless doctrine of the Dharma Raja Lama Tsongkhapa.

The Geshe further added that he was not sectarian and his instructions were proper. But Pema Wangchen was adamant and paid no heed to what the Geshe said. Because he did not enter the proper path and abandon the wrong one he fell ill as a result. So with the invocation of Dorjee Shugden the advice was sought for treating the sickness. Dharma protector Dorjee Shugden told him to make the statues of Lama Tsongkhapa and his two chief disciples. He was also asked to do many ritual services. On top of that the deity advised him to eliminate the wrong path and exhorted the need to enter the proper way. As he did not act in accordance with those instructions he suffered from another disease. This time he got sores on his body. Thamcho Palden, the physician to H.H. the Dalai Lama, treated him. When one sore was cured another appeared and the pain was excruciating. In the mean time, his son, too, died due to the same disease. Pema Wangchen suffered with the pain and misery of that disease for about a year. With the help of some Lamas, he confessed to Dorjee Shugden many times. One time the deity was invoked and Pema Wangchen confessed. But the deity declared his final decision. Dorjee Shugden said that he was helpless. People like him, highly educated and holding high post in the government, but who did not practice pure Gelug tradition could harm Gaden Phodrang, the Tibetan government as well as the Gelug doctrine. All his efforts, taking medical treatment, performing religious services and engaging in every possible means proved of no help. The punishment of Dharma protector Dorjee Shugden struck and he died at the age of twenty two.

LHALU JIGME WANGYAL

Originally the Lhalu family practiced pure Gelug tradition. But Lhalu Jigme Namgyal entered Nyingma order and practiced the teaching to the best of his ability. His spiritual master was a tantric practitioner who lived in Bari retreat. Along with himself, Jigme Namgyal’s mother also received a good deal of Nyingma teachings. But the master committed adultery with his mother. Yangzom Tsering of Shetra was married to Lhalu Jigme Namgyal. She had much faith in the Gelug doctrine and worshipped Dorjee Shugden as the protector. So there remained a discord between the husband and wife. When he was young he suffered from a disease and was infested with lice. The pain and misery were immense and finally through numerous miracles of the deity he had to take the long path to the life beyond. Soon his son Phuntsok Rabgyal also died and Yangzom Tsering was left behind. There was no heir to continue the family.

TSEPON LUNGSHAR

The staff working for the Lhalu family collectively made an application to the Tibetan government stressing the problems in that family. So with instruction from H. H. the 13th Dalai Lama, Tsepon Lungshar was appointed incharge of the Lhalu family. Since the lady in the family, Yangzom Tsering was true to her faith and the deity, there was a clash of faith with Tsepon Lungshar. The man practiced an impure faith as he had heard a great deal of Nyingmapa teachings and received their initiations. Since Lungshar was fairly dogmatic about the Nyingma faith, the lady had to shift the statue of Dorjee Shugden from their house to Tashi Choeling.

Later Tsepon Lungshar was ill for a long time. They saw many evil omens during that time. One day a vulture actually landed on their house top which was considered very ominous. He consulted many great lamas and was told to do many ritual services including Lama Chopa offerings. The later part of Lungshar’s life became more tense as he was caught up in political intrigues. He had some differences with certain cabinet ministers regarding the governance of the nation. So with the support of some officials, he formed his own group and wrote to the Regent, the Prime minister and the Kashag about their proposals. Along with that letter he made allegations against Trimon Kalon. According to another version, Kendung Lobsang Tenkyong and Tsepon Lungshar were jointly commissioned to look after the provisions for the enlarged Tibetan military. The National Assembly had outlined the source of income for the military.

According to that stipulation, the commission scrutinised the estates of the ministers and other high officials. They made good progress, but later they were accused of partiality and favoritism. His colleague Kendung Lobsang Tenkyong, passed away in the mean time. During that political back-stabbing, Lungshar was arrested and put behind the bars. His eye balls were taken out and in their place boiling oil was poured. The intensity of his pain and misery were beyond imagination. The last few years in he prison were most pathetic. Finally he died in prison.

KALON TRIMON NORBU WANGYAL

Kalon Trimon Norbu Wangyal got into the public service during the reign of His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama. He was very efficient and was therefore promoted to higher posts in the bureaucracy. Soon he was raised to the rank of Tsepon. He was chief of the army when the Chinese troops were ousted from Tibet in the water-mouse year and his outstanding job during the time was rewarded. He became knowledgeable in the art of administrations and politics.

His Holiness Thubten Gyatso was very pleased with Kalon Trimon. So later he was appointed as the Governor of Domey with the rank of cabinet minister. He was by all accounts crowned with great success and honor.

Despite his official title and success, he had great faith in the Nyingma tradition and sought various teachings from many Nyingma lamas. He maintained them as his principal practice. These activities annoyed the Gelug Dharma protector Dorjee Shugden and consequently Kalon Trimon became insane. Even when he still had the title of a minister, he did many crazy things. One time he went to the market place and started beating all the cymbals that were arranged for sale. One day he wore a white lower garment, which usually used by Nyingmapas and red upper shawl. In those garments he went straight to see the then regent Reting Rinpoche. The regent said in a matter of jest that he was in the dress of a treasure master. And asked what treasure he had. Since he had many sons, he said, “I have the treasure of human beings.”

So he was out of his senses and did not know what was right and what was wrong. Not only did he suffer, the life for his wife and children were very hard. He did not care for the family property and wealth. He wasted them like anything. So the boys had to leave the home with whatever share they could get. In the process, Kalon Trimon literally became a poor man heavily indebted and at last he had to leave this world.”

(THE LATE ZEME RINPOCHE ON SHUGDEN: Statement on Shugden by TYC, Dharamsala)

Annotation

Ngawang Chokden was the 54th Ganden Throne Holder and tutor of the seventh Dalai Lama. He is also mentioned by the current Dalai Lama as an opponent of spirit worship in the Gelugpa school. The Dalai Lama said:

“I came across the contents of the work of Purchok Ngawang Jampa on the history of the Three Geluk Seats of learning dealing with Ganden. That work records information about restrictions on Dholgyal. And the biography of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kelsang Gyatso’s Tutor Trichen Ngawang Chogden reveals that during his tenure as the Ganden Tripa, the worship of earthly guardian-spirits on the premise of Ganden monastery was restricted. These historical actions are clearly revealed in the biography of Changkya Rolpey Dorje written by Thuken Choekyi Nyima which records that Trichen Ngawang Chogden when restricting the worship of earthly Guardian-spirits within the premise of Ganden monastery clearly mentioned Dholgyal by name. And the historical record there is extraordinarily clear that the tradition of worshipping them in the Ganden monastery’s premise was restricted and outlawed. It is therefore a matter of common knowledge that we are not restricting the worship of Dholgyal, or have brought up a hitherto non-existent Dholgyal name, totally out of nowhere; rather, there is a historical precedent to our action dating from that period.”[8]

Keeping this in mind and examining the conflict as portrayed by Kapstein”[6][9] and other researchers[10], it is amazing to see how all these tensions, problems and controversial historical developments are perverted or actively denied by Shugden followers up to the claims made by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: “I would like to ask: what is the problem between the Nyingma and Gelug traditions? There is none. The majority of people from both traditions naturally live in harmony, so why is HH the Dalai Lama destroying this harmony by saying things like ‘Shugdens say you should not even touch a Nyingma document’?”[11]

Instead of acknowledging the tensions and trouble Geshe Kelsang claimed wrongly

“Now, my main point is that people should know that all the present problems regarding Dorje Shugden within the Mahayana Buddhist world have no creator other than HH the Dalai Lama.”[11]

Further Resource Links:

[1] Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation by David N. Kay, page 49, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415297656

[2] Since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Pehar has served as the traditional Dharma-protector of the Tibetan state. Pehar has been, and continues to be, consulted by the Dalai Lama and his government on affairs of state through the protector’s chief medium, who is known as the Nechung (gNas chung) Oracle. The importance of oracle priests in the processes of political decision-making may provide a context for understanding the claim that Dorje Shugden should replace Pehar as the state protector. According to ex-monk and popular Buddhist author Stephen Batchelor, such a shift in Dharma-protector allegiance would have given supporters of Dorje Shugden a degree of political influence (interview, June 1994). If the view that he was the chief Dharma-protector in Central Tibet had gained a wider acceptance, it would have been ‘Rdo-Rje-Sugs-Ldan rather than Pe Har himself who functions as the State Oracle at Nechung‘ (Chime Radha Rinpoche, 1981: 31). According to some commentators, Dorje Shugden worshippers within the Gelug continue to harbour aspirations for political power. The most recent declaration of the Dalai Lama regarding Dorje Shugden propitiation has thus been interpreted by some as an essentially political statement.

[3] Palden Lhamo is seen not only as the chief guardian goddess of the Gelug tradition, but also as the patron-deity of Tibet who is ‘very much connected with the cause of Tibetan intependence and the protection of Tibet from foreign invaders’ (Schwartz 1994: 131)

[4] The full Tibetan title of Zimey Rinpoche’s text translates as ‘Account of the Protective Deity Dorje Shugden, Chief Guardian of the Gelug Sect, and of the Punishments meted out to Religious and Lay Leaders who incurred His Wrath’. The book was published in 1973 but not circulated publicly until 1975.

[5] The main participants in this exchange were a Gelug disciple of Zimey Rinpoche called Yonten Gyaltso and the Sakya scholar T. G. Dhongthog, who composed at least three rejoinders to Zimey Rinpoche’s position, one of which was entitled The Rain of Adamant Fire: A Holy Discourse Based Upon Scriptures and Reason, Annihilating the Poisonous Seeds of the Wicked Speech of Dzeme Trulku Lobsang Palden (1979). Full bibliographical details of this dispute can be gleaned from Kapstein (1989:231).*

[6] Kapstein, Matthew (2000) ‘The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory’ Oxford University Press, p254

[7] The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word by Tenpai Gyaltsan Dhongthog, 2000, Sapan Institute, Washington, p 3

[8] HH the 14th Dalai Lama, Speech to an audience dominated by Tibetans from Tibet on 27 March 2006 during the Spring Teachings, http://www.dalailama.com/page.135.htm

[9] Kapstein, Matthew (1998) ‘The Purificatory Gem and Its Cleansing: A Late Tibetan Polemical Discussion of Apocryphal Texts‘, History of Religions, February 1989, Vol. 28, No. 3: 217-244

[10] An updated list of research: Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy & New Kadampa Tradition

[11] False Accusations Against the Innocent, Geshe Kelsang’s letter to Newsweek, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/fr99/gkg.htm

[12] Two weeks before NKT started the present protests via WSS (April 22, 2008) a group of new editors appeared and changed the related articles by means of deleting academic sources; adding extensive quotes from Geshe Kelsang’s writings; adding quotes from anonymous websites; deleting passages even when verified by WP:Reliable Sources; blocking academic research by labelling them as “heavily biased”; using sock puppets, and applying blocking strategies at the talk page. Since that the NKT related articles, like New Kadampa Tradition or Dorje Shugden, are in a constant process of change. The former articles were collected here.

*Note: The Rain of Adamant Fire was written by Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche, a Nyingma lama. The full title reads: The Rain of Adamant Fire. A holy discourse based upon scriptures and reason, annihilating the poisonous seeds of the wicked speech of Dzeme Trulku Lobsang Palden by the old nyingmapa hermit Chatral Sangyey Dorje (PDF-Tibetan language). Tenpai Gyaltsen Dhongthog wrote a few books on this issue, only one was translated into English, called The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word: A refutation of attacks on the advice of H.H. the Dalai Lama regarding the propitiation of guardian deities. The first few pages were posted on the NKT thread on e-sangha (page 26) It was published in 2000 by the Sapan Institute and may still be available from them: Sapan Institute, 137 N.W. 205th Street, Shoreline, Washington 98177, U.S.A. A PDF of The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word by Tenpai Gyaltsan Dhongthog can be purchased from the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center for $30. Being a Sakya lama T.G. Dhongthog probably knows quite a bit about this protector as it started out as a Sakya protector after being tamed by Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen. Sakyapas completely reject the NKT claims that Shugden is a reincarnation of Virupa, Sakya Pandita or Buton. (This additional information as well as the excerpt of the Yellow Book was provided by B.J. from the New Kadampa Survivors.)

last update: Jan 18, 2009

Written by Tenzin Peljor

October 1, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Fundamentalism

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

TibetInfoNet Update: Shugden in Kham

leave a comment »

TibetInfoNet has released an update on 30. May 2009 stating:

“There is hardly any better evidence for the increasing influence of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, despite five decades of exile, than the impact of his stance on the Shugden cult in eastern Tibet, a region known to Tibetans as Kham, and the largest part of which spreads today over the western Sichuan province and the eastern part of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). The Shugden cult, which the Dalai Lama has linked to conservative and sectarian attitudes, has virtually disappeared from this area where it once flourished like no where else in Tibet, except Lhasa. A declining, though aggressive group of Shugden supporters, however, continue a bitter struggle against local religious leaders who follow the Dalai Lama’s line on Shugden, share his views about promoting the unity of Buddhism, and, typically, are active in running social projects. The most prominent case is that of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche; the most recent that of Phurbu Rinpoche. Features common to the Shugden leaders in the region are their links to former regional elites, the influence of returned exiles in their midst, their linkages within international networks, close association with Tibetan members of the Chinese authorities and direct or indirect affiliation to Trijang Rinpoche, the cult’s most influential propagator in the late 20th century.”

For the complete update read

Other updates by TibetInfoNet include

See also

Note:
Statements quoted from other sources do not necessarily reflect the views of the blog owner.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

May 30, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Posted in Buddhism, Dorje Shugden Controversy

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Authors of “The Celibate – Sex. Lies. Salvation.” are NKT Teachers

with 23 comments

Usually it is not the practice of Buddhists to denounce other religious schools or to point out weaknesses and faults of religious practitioners of other religions. To make financial business out of pointing out supposed weaknesses of other religious systems can’t be viewed as “Right Livelihood” either.

The New Kadampa Tradition strongly claim to keep such principles. However, as with so many other things that NKT claim, what is written by NKT needn’t be a fact. Former members often think the beautiful claims of NKT help them to be socially acceptable but if one investigates more deeply the beautiful claims don’t reflect the reality. Here is another story from the World of NKT.

Len Foley, who is said to be very high up in being responsible for the security of Kelsang Gyatso, and Rebecca Gauthier, who is an NKT Resident Teacher in America at Tushita Kadampa Buddhist Centre, have both written a book “The Celibate – Sex. Lies. Salvation.“, which reveals “A dark secret… the church is dying to keep hidden.. and others are killing to keep silent.” Foley states “Although the book The Celibate is a fictional story, the depictions of the author’s day-to-day life studying to become a priest were derived from REAL experiences.”

authors

Click for Screenshot

The promotion website does not state anything about the NKT background of the authors. The thecelibate.com website introduces  Foley as having “spent three years studying to become a priest in one of the world’s most exclusive Roman Catholic seminaries.” and does not mention that he is a NKT teacher. Gauthier is introduced as having “spent three years preparing to become a Buddhist nun in various monasteries and Buddhist Centers throughout Europe.” and the website hides the fact that this is referring mainly – or even solely? – to NKT. Both are portrayed as “Combined, their commitment to celibacy spanned a decade”.

foley-gauthier

Click for Screenshot

The Tushita Kadampa Buddhist Centre website states about NKT Branch Teacher Len Foley: “Len Foley has been practicing Buddhism for eight years. He currently teaches Monday evenings in Simi Valley.” and about Resident Teacher Rebecca Gauthier: “Rebecca Gauthier has been practicing Buddhism for fifteen years under the guidance of Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.” Besides the dissimilar portraits at both websites, NKT expects from their teachers to have “wisdom, experience, faith, and pure motivation” otherwise NKT states “it will be difficult for others to develop faith in them or their teachings, and there will be little benefit.” NKT also warns “without proper training and preparation there is a danger of Teachers mixing worldly, samsaric activities with their teaching activities. Therefore we definitely need to train well if we wish to be a genuine benefit to others.”

I wonder how “A dark secret… the church is dying to keep hidden..” fits into the self-portrayal of NKT and is of “genuine benefit to others.”

A bit weird… maybe NKT teachers would do better to clean, clarify, and counsel NKT’s own internal celibacy scandals than making money with such a “fictional story” about Catholicism and celibacy? Though writing books is personal business and freedom of choice, as NKT Resident Teacher and NKT Branch Teacher both authors represent NKT. In the light of NKT’s baseless accusations against the Dalai Lama via the Western Shugden Society calling him a “hypocrite” and “liar”, also this story appears to be quite strange stuff – much more when one takes into account other strange events within NKT. For NKT there seem to be no contradictions with all of this. It is completely acceptable that NKT teachers publish such books, that Gen Thubten participates the Anti-Dalai Lama protests calling the Dalai Lama a hypocrite and liar, and that for example, the editor of Kelsang Gyatso’s books and his long-term student Lucy J. is being removed as a NKT Resident Teacher just because she had the courage to question the NKT protests.

NKT where do we go from here? Do you recognize how wide the rift has become between your self-perception, what you say to others and how NKT is actually perceived by others? How about making a U-turn?

In the context of the publication of the book “The Celibate – Sex. Lies. Salvation.” let’s remember the nice-sounding words of Kelsang Gyasto:

“We should concentrate on our own tradition and maintain the good qualities of our tradition, but we should always keep good relations with each other and never argue or criticize each other. What I would like to request is that we should improve our traditions while maintaining good relations with each other.”

There is also another statement by Kelsang Gyasto which he gave when it became known that his successor, Gen-la Samden, was engaged in multiple sexual misconduct and encouraged others to follow his example. As soon as NKT members tried to understand the internal scandals and asked questions to learn the facts about this in the NKT internet forums, Kelsang Gyatso ordered to close all NKT internet chat rooms and gave this message to his followers:

“Some small group in our NKT society engage in meaningless activity on the internet, not only Sangha, some lay. This is incorrect. We are Kadampa practitioners, Kadampa Teachers. Why are we enjoying meaningless activity, discussion? We can have a meaningful discussion with pure practitioners or senior practitioners, Teachers. There is no meaning in talking about silly things publicly on the internet. Instead, make meaningful discussion with our pure practitioners, senior Teachers. Please give my message to the individuals of this group. Stop this kind of actions. Gen-la Khyenrab, give my message in email or writing. Stop meaningless discussion on the internet. If you wish, do meaningful discussion with senior Teachers or pure practitioners, or meaningful discussion with your Teacher. No meaning engaging in silly question and answers on the internet. Please Gen-la Khyenrab, pass my message. I am telling you for your purpose and our society’s purpose. In this way, keep individuals and society pure and show very good example.”

“Some small group in our NKT society engage in meaningless activity on the internet, not only Sangha, some lay. This is incorrect. We are Kadampa practitioners, Kadampa Teachers. Why are we enjoying meaningless activity, discussion? We can have a meaningful discussion with pure practitioners or senior practitioners, Teachers. There is no meaning in talking about silly things publicly on the internet. Instead, make meaningful discussion with our pure practitioners, senior Teachers. Please give my message to the individuals of this group. Stop this kind of actions. Gen-la Khyenrab, give my message in email or writing. Stop meaningless discussion on the internet. If you wish, do meaningful discussion with senior Teachers or pure practitioners, or meaningful discussion with your Teacher. No meaning engaging in silly question and answers on the internet. Please Gen-la Khyenrab, pass my message. I am telling you for your purpose and our society’s purpose. In this way, keep individuals and society pure and show very good example.”

Last edited on May 31, 2009 at 22:16 pm

Written by Tenzin Peljor

May 30, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Posted in New Kadampa Tradition, Religion

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

100 Scholars From China Had A Discussion With The Dalai Lama

leave a comment »

Boston, MA, USA, 5 May 2009 (Editorial – The Boston Globe) – In a meeting at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge last week, the Dalai Lama and more than 100 scholars from China showed how direct discussion can overcome irrational prejudices and official cant. Chinese academics needed a chance to encounter Tibet’s spiritual leader without government interference.

The organizer of the event, Lobsang Sangay, a senior fellow at Harvard Law School, set out the simplest of ground rules: civil discourse and no photographs taken until after the discussion. Moderator Tu Weiming, professor of Chinese history and philosophy and Confucian studies at Harvard, urged all sides to allow a genuine exchange of ideas, celebrate their differences, and refrain from trying to convert others.

But the participants hardly needed coaching. The Chinese scholars were respectful and open-minded, often acknowledging false impressions they had originally held about Tibetans, the history of Tibetan-Chinese relations, and the role of the Dalai Lama. For his part, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists seemed to surprise many of the younger Chinese academics as he described the three- and four-hour audiences he had with Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing more than a half century ago.

Some in the audience were amused when the Dalai Lama said he had once been attracted to the moral principles of socialism, particularly its ideal of equal distribution, and had even asked to join the Chinese Communist Party. There were no challenges and no raised eyebrows, however, when he said that today there is a ruling Communist Party in China without communist ideology.

Free from official mediation, the academics heard the Dalai Lama say that he welcomes the material progress China had brought Tibet – but also that his people were suffering nonetheless because they lacked freedom of expression, religious freedom, and freedom from fear.

Drawing a distinction between autonomy for Tibet and political independence, he explained the request his envoys made to Chinese officials last summer, shortly after the violent clashes on the Tibetan plateau in March 2008. He said they had asked only for forms of autonomy consistent with those promised to national minorities in China’s constitution – especially the right to preserve Tibetan language, culture, and religion. Yet Chinese officials falsely accused him of demanding independence for Tibet, calling him a liar and a demon.

The Chinese scholars who crowded around him afterward, snapping photos of themselves with the Dalai Lama, now know he is nothing like the figure depicted in Beijing’s propaganda.

source: Editorial – A Talk With The Dalai Lama

Written by Tenzin Peljor

May 6, 2009 at 7:29 am

Posted in Dialogue

Tagged with , , ,

Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden’s Enlightened Lineage or How to Make ‘History’

with 216 comments

I gave up contributing to Wikipedia.

NKT editors were very busy to establish Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector on Wikipedia, and finally they have successfully accomplished this aim. Now this rather recent and minor view has become the main view in Wikipedia’s article on Dorje Shugden.  Further, the use of sources like Xinhua News Agency and Die Weltwoche in the introduction section of Dorje Shugden Controversy are mediocre for an encyclopaedia. To be able to include these dubious sources in the introduction section the NKT editors deleted quotes from Mills’ research. There are many other dubious sources added by NKT editors which now replace formerly quoted 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

For more than one year Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented as only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.

The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for themselves. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, already gave a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating

… these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea….

and since then nothing has really changed, hence, a “fruitless case”.

Recently Rodney Billman, probably a NKT follower related to the Tushita Kadampa Buddhist Centre, has set up a website, ‘Dorje Shugden History’ under the pseudonym ‘Trinley Kalsang’ to establish a new version of history on Shugden which is more in line with the propagators of the practice, because neutral academic research clearly differs to Shugden-pas’ views. Rodney Billman or ‘Trinley Kalsang’ is not known to have academic credits or to be a scholar but is nevertheless celebrated by some NKT posters to be a scholar, and I guess it will be just a question of time when also he is used for Wikipedia as a “reliable source”….

(I just checked, he was today quoted and introduced in the German Wikipedia as the “Buddhist scholar Trinlay Kalsang”.)

To balance the information given by NKT followers on Wikipedia, I use now my own blog, this is easier and less time consuming than to work or to negotiate with people who accept only one view as “the truth”, and who delete or block what is in opposition to their own way of thinking. Since the Wikipedia articles offer now extensive accounts on the “enlightened lineage” of Shugden, I focus in this post on the “mundane lineage” of Shugden. For a balanced and proper presentation of both views see Dorje Shugden – Origin, Nature and Function.

Of course, it’s up to the reader to put all this different information together and into perspective, and to check their factual correctness and credibility.

Dorje Shugden – The Mundane Protector

Kay states in his 1997 research, which is recommended by CESNUR, that the view that Dorje Shugden is actually a worldly protector “is widely supported by representatives of non-dGe lugs traditions.”[1]; hence it is not only the view of H.H. the Dalai Lama. Kay states that those who follow this view are convinced that Shugden’s “relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and dubious circumstances of origin (i.e. from a situation of conflict between a prominent dGe lugs lama and the Fifth Dalai Lama) make him a highly inappropriate object of worship and refuge.” He continues, “Supporters of this view reject the pretensions made by devotees of rDo rje shugs ldan, with respect to his status and importance, as recent innovations probably originating during the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche and reflecting his particularly exclusive sectarian agenda.”

Both Mumford and Nebesky-Wojkowitz show clearly that Shugden is regarded also among Shugden practitioners as a mundane protector. Kay states correctly:

Scholarly English language accounts of rDo rje shugs Idan reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions [that rDo rje shugs Idan is actually a ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma (worldly protector)] emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of rDo rje shugs Idan was gradually elevated from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz presents rDo rje shugs Idan as a deity “of comparatively recent origin” (1956: 134), who is one of the main dGe lugs protective deities operating in the worldly spheres, and Mumford’s references (1989) indicate how modern-day dGe lugs and Sa skya Buddhists in Nepal still regard the deity as a popular ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma. rDo rje shugs Idan’s rise to prominence through the sectarian activities of Phabongkha Rinpoche has already been mentioned. This appears to have preceded another important development whereby, during the 1930s and 1940s, Phabongkha supporters began to proclaim the fulfilment of the tradition “that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan … will succeed Pe har as the head of all ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the worldly spheres” (de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, 1956: 134) and maintain that the Tibetan government should turn its allegiance away from Pe har, the State protector, to rDo rje shugs Idan.

It is unclear when belief in rDo rje shugs Idan as an enlightened being first developed; the likelihood is that it emerged gradually as the Dharma-protector grew in prominence. This belief seems to have been in place by the time the young Fourteenth Dalai Lama was introduced to the practice by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959.[1]

Mumford[2] states:

The Tibetan guardian deity called Shugs-ldan (or rGyal-po Shugs-ldan, rDo-rje Shugs-ldan, etc.) provides a special case study of the Tibetan Srungma and its transmutation. He is extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive. Dawa Tshering, a wealthy merchant of Tshad-med village, has done very well with Shugs-ldan as his guardian deity. He gave the following oral account of Shugs-ldan’s origin:

Long ago in Tibet, rGyal-po Shugs-ldan was a powerful, learned lama who was more popular than the Dalai Lama himself. Other lamas envied him and tried to kill him. They shot at him but could not hit him. They tried to crush him under a rock, but he did not die. They tried to burn him in a fire, but he was not burned. Shugs-ldan called his enemies before him and said: “You want me to die. All right, I will.” Then he stuffed a scarf down his own throat. Thus he died by his own hand.

The spirit of the dead lama became a demon. He attacked his own former enemies and they died. The people asked the Dalai Lama to send a lama to exorcise the demon. A Jinseg [sbyin-seg: "fire exorcism"] was prepared. But when the fire was lit, it burned the lama instead of the demon. The people called another lama. Chanting mantras, the lama tricked the demon into entering his body. Then the lama himself entered the fire and died. The demon part of Shugs-ldan was destroyed, so Shugs-ldan became a god.

and

Shugs-ldan participates in a folk belief that is regularly transmuted by the lamas: a historical person who dies a strange, sudden death is likely to become a dangerous wandering ghost having “unfinished business,” often regarded as a vindictive btsan warrior spirit. Such a warrior may, like the Ghale ancestor, become the protector of a noble clan and its dependents, but when bound by the oath of the Buddha it becomes a protector of both the kin group and the Buddhist dharma. Lamaist authority is particularly strengthened when the warrior spirit is also, like Shugs-ldan, a historical lama…. The merchant Dawa Tshering for instance does an offering once a month, but at high risk:

‘If I forget, then he’ll make me sick. But if I do not neglect him he will aid me wherever I go. When I travel I pray to him, “May sickness not come.” When I cross a bridge I ask, “May the bridge not fall.” If I do not serve Shugs-ldan he will get angry. He will kill my animals and I will lose my wealth and the members of my household will fight.’

Researcher von Brück[3] makes clear that:

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

and

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

Some Eminent Buddhist Masters who Oppose the Claims on Shugden’s Enlightened Nature

There is a film documentary, Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy, by the TGIE which interviews the heads (or eminent lamas) of the four Tibetan Buddhist schools. They state:

H.E. Tai Situ Rinpoche, one of the four main disciples of H.H. the Karmapa – Head of the Karma Kagyu Tradition

We Kagyu followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyu followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.

H.H. Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche, the late Head of the Nyingma Tradition:

Shugden is a ghost. We Nyingma practitioner do not follow him. We propagate only those protectors that were bound by Padmasambhava. Shugden came after Padmasambhava. Shugden is a hungry ghost in the human realm.

H.H. Sakya Trizin, Head of the Sakya Tradition:

“In the beginning the Sakya throne holder Sakya Sönam Rinchen bound Shugden to protect Dharma. However, neither Shudgen nor other worldly spirits were depended upon during prayer meeting at Sakya. The statue of Shugden was in some shrine rooms but in the lowest category in the pantheon. No Sakya follower has ever taken life pledging empowerment through the medium of Shugden… Later Shugden worship decreased strongly among Sakyas due to the efforts of three leading Sakya lineage lamas” [including the root Guru of Sakya Trizin who was] “extremely unhappy with Shugden practice and advised on the demerits of Shugden practice. One of his disciples, Ngawang Yönten Gyatso, took strong actions to remove Shugden statues from the Sakya monasteries and to destroy them. Khyentse Dorje Chang Chökyi Lodrö was also very unhappy with Shugden practice, although he didn’t destroy statues, he performed rituals to banish Shugden. Since these three leading Sakya Lamas were against Shugden, this practice declined greatly among Sakya followers.”

H.H. the 100th Ganden Tripa, Lobsang Nyingma Rinpoche, late Head of the Gelug Tradition:

[..] Gelug Lamas of the past would have taken notice of Shugden if he was really the embodiment of the three refuge. But there is no historical record to show that they took any interest in Shugden. Therefore I can not accept Shugden as the embodiment of the Three Refuges.

H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama quoting the 5th Dalai Lama:

In his autobiography the 5th Dalai Lama writes that he performed a fire ritual against Shugden during which he composed a prayer to protect the deities. In the prayer the 5th Dalai Lama says that he is performing this ritual to vanquish Dorje Shugden who is harming the Buddhadharma and sentient beings. He clearly says that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s negative prayer resulted in his rebirth as Shugden.

This list can be continued endlessly, more accounts can be found in the former Wikipedia Article or in A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden, however, I will focus here mainly on a Sakya scholar, since he directly opposes Kelsang Gyatso and NKT and also Kelsang Gyatso seems to know his accounts, since he stated in an Open Letter to Newsweek about this scholar, Dongthog Tulku:

Some scholars debate with each other, such as the well-known Gelugpa scholar Yonten Gyatso and Dongthog Tulku, a scholar from another tradition, who conducted a debate by letter over a number of years. They have written many books replying to each other’s assertions, but this does not mean they are criticising each other. They are simply clarifying the doctrines of their own traditions, with good motivation.

I will add some other sources with quotes by either eminent academic scholars or eminent Buddhist masters as an appendix, so that this blog fulfils what it promises, to be a Resource Blog.

The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word by T. G. Dhongthog Tulku Rinpoche[4]

In the Introduction of this work the Sakya scholar Dongthog Tulku states:

The circumstance that led to my studying and writing on these matters was due to my appointment as librarian at Tibet House. In the early days there were not very many Tibetan books available in India. Therefore, Tibet House borrowed the collected works of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, Yongdzin Yeshe Gyaltsen (tutor of the seventh Dalai Lama) and Thuken Chokyi Nyima from the private residence of H.H. the Dalai Lama. We also borrowed the collected works of Pawong Khapa from the lama palace of Trijang Rinpoche, and the collected works of Zhuchen Tsultrim Rinchen from the lama palace of Ngor Luding. Tibet House purchased the collected works of Kongtrul Lodo Thaye and Longdol Lama. Accordingly, our library became replete with many Tibetan books. In the course of making a modern catalogue of these books I thus had the opportunity to read many of the various books by Gadenpa Lamas. Most of these I had never read before. When I was young I had heard that Phawong Khapa promoted many sectarian discourses and even ordered some disciples to desecrate images of Guru Padma Sambhava, but at that time I could not really believe it. Now, by reading his books myself, I came to know that these reports had been true. Most of the texts that are of this sectarian nature are in Phawong Khapa’s collected works, volume Cha. These consist of letters and admonitions addressed to lamas, tulkus, geshes, Chinese and Tibetan patrons, all in promotion of this sectarian bias. Following the brief refutation that I outlined in “The Timely Shower”, I wrote still more under the title, “The Timely Flame”.

Dongthog Tulku mentions a ‘pamphlet’ by Kelsang Gyatso entitled, “A Sword that Cuts the Suffering Plaint of Tibetans-in-exile” which Kelsang Gyatso, the New Kadampa Tradition’s founder, spread in the Tibetan exile community, and states that this compelled him to write a refutation. Dongthog Tulku wrote a point-by-point response, which can be read by everybody who is interested. (A PDF Copy of The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word can be purchased.) With respect to the  claims of an “enlightened lineage” he states on page 18-19:

In later years, Phawong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo introduced the rite of “Dorje Shugden Life Entrustment”. The basis of this rite derived from an illusory dream that Tagphu Pema Dorje had which he believed was a “pure vision”. Dolgyal Shugden was thus promoted to the level of a transworthy deity and adorned with the titles, “chief protector of the teachings of Manjushri-Tsongkhapa” and “war deity of the Gadenpa doctrine”. Moreover, from his own subjective viewpoint, Phawong Khapa also introduced elaborations of Shugden such as, peaceful and wrathful forms, five-family forms, and sadhanas composed in the categories of outer, inner and secret. Phawong Khapa thus disgraced the Gadenpa tradition in a magnitude as great as Mount Sumeru by establishing this tainted system of propitiation that makes Shugden more important and favored than the traditional Gadenpa guardian deities, six-armed Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Shri Mahakali Devi.

Among the Gadenpa tradition holders Penchen Lobzang Chogyen (1570-1662) was the most outstanding and is described as the second Je Rinpoche. The Great Fifth Dalai Lama was also very kind to the Gadenpa tradition. The promotion of the wrathful incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, who broke his spiritual commitment with these two kind lamas, to the high level of chief guardian deity of Manjushri-Tzongkhapa’s doctrine is nothing less than perversity. It is amazing that Phawong Khapa said that even putting other Tibetan Buddhist books together with Gadenpa books is prohibited (his collected works, vol. Cha) and yet a spirit, rebirth of a Gadenpa pledge breaker, can be assigned to the rank of a Gadenpa chief guardian deity. In case one might think that the Sakyapa viewpoint regarding Shugden is compatible with Phawong Khapa’s view, I can say that it is absolutely different. As mentioned above, Sakya Dagchen Sonam Rinchen put Dolgyal under his spiritual custody. Following that, the great Sakyapa Kunga Lodo and Morchen composed texts to Shugden but it should be understood that this was a wise method to secure the obedience of this spirit. However, when it came to propitiating chief pardian deities and protective war-deities, Kunga Lodo, Morchen and their followers propitiated Mahakala, Tsaturmukha and Mahakali rather than Dolgyal Shugden.

The basic difference between the Sakyapa view and that of phawong Khapa is that the Sakya placate Shugden conditionally. providing him with offerings of food and shelter. We understand that the time is not right to eliminate him because he is still under the karmic repercussions of his wrong conduct. And even the Buddha is unable to undo Karma. Whereas Phawong Khapa (and you followers) propitiate Dolgyal with the idea that he came purposely in this degenerate time to protect the Gadenpa doctrine. Therefore, there is a great difference; like the difference between feeding a criminal who is being held in custody or assigning that criminal to a high rank and worshiping him. Additionally, the Sakyapa also preserved the Buddha Dharma and saved the people of Tibet from harm by annihilating or restricting other spirits as well. These include Shangbal, Nyagrong Bulongma and others. So, please remember this kindness.

After the investigation of the history of Shugden worship, the qualifications of Pabongkha Rinpoche, the omissions and additions to Tantric texts he made (e.g Lama Chöpa ritual), the reprehension of Pabongkhapa by the 13th Dalai Lama etc., Dongthog Tulku states on page 29,30:

You who claim that Dolgyal is inseparable from Manjushri, what is the source of your assertion? There is no prophesy or scriptural reference to this in any of Buddha’s teachings or in any of the works of Indian Buddhist masters or in the works of Tzongkhapa. If there is one, supply the quote. Even the primitive Tibetan deity, Machen Pomra, Tzongkhapa’s own birth deity was not accomodated within the circumambulatory path of Gaden monastery, but rather, his cairn was installed on the outskirts of the monastery.[5] There is no doubt that Dolgyal, a reborn ghost, propitiated as a chief guardian deity of the Gadenpa doctrine is not in agreement with Je Tsongkhapa’s view.

Appendix – Quotes from Other Authoritative Sources

Geoffrey Samuel, states in Civilized Shamans p545-546

The dominant Gelugpa figure of this period, apart from the 13th Dalai Lama himself, was his near contemporary, the 1st P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e (1878-1943). P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e was by all accounts a brilliant scholar and accomplished Tantric meditator, who is remembered with devotion by his disciples. He is remembered with less favor by the Nyingmapa order in K’am where, as the Dalai Lama’s representative, his attitude was one of sectarian intolerance towards non-Gelugpa orders and the Nyingmapa in particular. [...]

P’awongk’a thus stood in a complex relationship to the 13th Dalai Lama, and in fact the two men where not personally close. The 13th Dalai Lama, like the Great 5th, was interested in the Nyingmapa and Dzogch’en traditions, and received teachings from Rimed lamas such as Terton Sogyal. His own orientation seems to have been open minded and eclectic, and was not identified with P’awongk’a’s conservative and traditionalist faction. Nonetheless, P’awongk’a was in some respects the logical expression in the religious sphere of the transformation that the 13th Dalai Lama was trying to bring about. Had the Lhasa government ever succeeded in turning Tibet into an effective cetralized state, the Gelugpa might have continued to move in this direction and might have gradually eliminated the other Tibetan religious traditions in favor of a well-controlled academic and clerical version.

In fact, P’awongk’a’s influence was strongest after his death and that of the 13th Dalai Lama, and particularly after the forced resignation of the regent Reting (Ratreng) Rimpoch’e in 1941 and his replacement by Tagtrag Rimpoch’e, who had been a close associate of P’awongk’a and shared his conservative orientation. It was at that time that P’awongk’a’s students gradually moved into the dominant position that they have held within the Gelugpa order into the 1970s and 1980s.

Excerpt from Lord of the Dance: The Autobiography of A Tibetan Lama, By Chagdud Tulku, an eminent Nyingma master, Padma Publishing, 1992, Pilgrims Publishers Edition, Kathmandu 2001, page 107

In Chamdo I first encountered the bitter dregs of sectarian friction between the Gelugpa and other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism… Although there were doctrinal differences among the traditions, sometimes strongly disputed in formal debates, in Kham there was generally both acceptance and cooperation. Since both my father and stepfather were Gelugpa lamas, my mother’s family was Sakya, and I was trained in both Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, any outer sectarian divisiveness would have inwardly fragmented me. I was spared this conflict until I listened to stories in Chamdo, and hearing them I felt uncomfortable and sad.

People told me that previously several monasteries housing statues of Padmasambhava and Nyingma texts were located near Chamdo, but then a Gelugpa lama named Phabongkhapa came from Central Tibet. He had contempt for the Nyingma tradition and thought that its doctrine was false and its practitioners wrongheaded. The dissention that ensued resulted in persecution, the destruction of many Nyingma texts and statues of Padmasambhava, and the conversion of monasteries from Nyingma to Gelugpa. This was followed by a severe drought and famine in the region.

Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro wrote to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho about Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism:

Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching.

David Jackson wrote an essay The Bhutan Abbot of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugs-ldan published by Amnye Machen Institute, 2001, Lungta #14, Review by Mark Turin

Excerpts of that essay, which has been transcribed and sent to me by a Buddhist monk living in India, Dharamsala, state:

During his abbacy, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgyamtsho failed to visit and pay respects to his teacher at the Khang-gsar lama palace. He was reluctant to do so because he was suspicious of the cult of the protector-deity Shugs-ldan, which was practiced at the monastery. He was also critical of certain old practices of Ngor Monastery, such as its tradition of sending a monastery appointed functionary to collect animals from the nomad regions for their flesh.

The senior Khang-gsar abbot, Ngag-dbang-mkhyen-rab-‘jam-dpal-smying-po, was a well known devotee of Shugs-ldan… Both he and his late uncle mKhanchen Ngag-dbang0blo-gros-snying-po visited Khams and established there in the 1890s in numerous monasteries the cult of Shugs-ldan, before the dGe-lugs-pa zealot Pha-bong-kha-pa (1878-1941) and his disciples brought the cult into disrepute through their sectarian excesses…

During these troubles, Dam-pa Rin-po-che was staying at rTa-nag giving the esoteric transmission of the Path with Its Fruit. One day, when he was reciting the text-transmission, he laid aside the text he was reading and said “Alas, the young abbot’s horse has died!” Among the more than one hundred disciples present, nobody understood what the master had alluded to. In fact, this harm to the young abbot he mentioned was caused by the rgyal-po spirit Shugden…

Dam-pa Rin-po-che, too, had on several occasions rebuked the malignant rgyal-po spirit. During the founding of the rDzong-gsar scriptural seminary seventeen years before in 1918, the same spirit had caused obstacles. At the founding of the scripture-exposition seminary at Ngor, similar obstacles had occurred. Dam-pa Rinpoche, too, was thus not at all fond of this spirit, and tension in this regard must have existed within the Khang-sar lama-palace even before Ngag-dbang-yon-tan0rgya-mtsho brought it to a head…

Evidently also during his second visit, he decided to attack at Ngor the deity Shugs-ldan, who was worshipped there as a minor protector. He explained to some of the monks how harmful this deity was. He made liberal gifts and decided to use this chance to expel the cult of Shugs-ldan from the monastery. This was one of the most important battles in what was to become a lifelong crusade against rDor-rje-shugs-ldan.

Helped by a single trusted monks… Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho threw the “life stone” (bla rdo) of Shugs-ldan from the roof of the eastern side of the central abbatial residence. People later said that the spot where the stone hit the ground seemed to be smeared with blood. He also removed the mask and thangkha of the rgyal-po spirit to the far side of the lCags pass, and thus attempted to frive out that spirit…

What can have pushed Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho to engage in open “war” against that deity? He saw Shugs-ldan as his personal enemy, blamind him for causing the premature death of his previous life. He also professed to be the rebirth of dBang-sdud-snying-po, (1763-1806?), the thirty-third throneholder of Sakya who had putted himself against Shugs-ldan and likewise had not lived to old age.

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s mother and two siblings died mysteriously while crossing the Nyungka La pass in sGa-oa south of Khri-du. Some said the three had been killed by Chinese, but no Chinese had been around at the time, and no human culprits were ever caught. It was later believed they had directly fallen victim to the vengeful Shugs-ldan.

For coercing or repelling Shugs-ldan, no lama was more powerful in those days than Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho. In direct confrontation, the lama could overpower him. But in the long run, the deity was more powerful, because he was able to harm the lama’s family members, attacking and killing his mother and two siblings…

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho also intensely disliked the particular tradition within the dGe-lugs-pa represented by Pha-bong-kha-pa, a lama who in 1940, a year before his death, continued in his sectarian machinations, decrying to a Kuomintang Governor (Lu Cun-krang) the fact that uncle ‘Jam-bdyangs-rgyal-mtshan hade published Go-rams-pa’s works…

But Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s main wrath was directed against the cult of the protector rDo-rje-shugs-ldan which Pha-bong-kha-pa had popularized in various dGe-lugs-pa circles. (In the early 1940s gangs of young monks in certain dGe-lugs-pa dominted areas of Khams such as Chab-mdo, Brag-gyab and Lho-rdzong were causing so much havoc through their Shugs-ldan group “possessions” that the central government’s Governor of Khams in Chab-mdo finally was compelled to punish three ringleaders by flogging.….

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho explained to the Khri-du monks and people, “Shugs-ldan is no good. He is evil. He’s not a protector, he’s a ghost! He has a long history of causing harm. There’s no use invoking a ghost.” In this way he convinced the monks to cease the practice, and removed all images and articles of worship from the monastery.

At Thar-lam monastery, he summoned the monks and told them of his campaign against Shugs-ldan. That deity, he said, was not a protector of religion, but rather an evil spirit who destroyed the doctrine… He proposed to destroy, if they would agree, the mask of this deity the next morning. …He took down a revered mask of the deity from its shrine and carried it outside. He hurled it into a bonfire and drew a pistol, shooting at the mask numerous times. After annihilating the mask, he reentered the Protector’s chapel and removed the other ritual articles….

Afterward, he re-consecrated the chapel to the deity Beg-tse. He defied Shugs-ldan to take revenge. When nothing occurred, the monks lost faith in Shugs-ldan and accepted the new protective deity. In sGa-pa, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho thus stamped out the practice of rDo-rje-shugs-ldan, at least in Sa-skya-pa circles, almost completely.

… Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho was thus highly exceptional, and he attracted all the Sa-skya-pa and even many Kagyupa and Nyingmapa adherents in sGa-pa as his disciples. If he gave them his personal blessing or a protection-cord, they would not be troubles by Shugs-ldan.

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho died in the early 1960s at the age of about 60, in a large prison near Siling holding thousands of prisoners. It is said he manifested wonders even in prison, for instance, freeing himself from his shackles.

Stephan Beyer states in The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet, University of California Press, 1978, p 238

The image was lent to a monastery of the “ancient” Nyingma sect named Kajegon and located in the capital of Dragyab, right next to another monastery of the Gelug sect. Indeed, it had been founded by the abbot of the latter monastery, an incarnation called Lord of Refuge Dragyab, who had been fascinated by the “ancient” teachings. The two neighbor monasteries shared the same facilities and officers, differing only in the performance of their rituals in their individual temples; and here the image rested in the amity of these sometimes rival sects.

When the Lord of Refuge Dragyab died, his monastery was taken over, during the minority of his reincarnation, by a regent named Zangmar toden, who was a very different sort of man from the former abbot. Zangmar has originally followed the “ancient” sect (he had been a disciple of the famous Drugu Shakyashri of Soderka) but then had moved to Ch’amdo, where he met and became the disciple of a Gelug lama named Master P’awang kawa.

Zangmar had fallen under the spell of this new and impressive personality. P’awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch’amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteries, and he was sympathetic to the concerns of the K’am people over whom he had been granted jurisdiction, a scholar and an enthusiast for all aspects of Tibetan culture. But many eastern Tibetans remember him with loathing as the great persecutor of the “ancient” sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K’am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of “ancient” books and paintings.

P’awang kawa sent his new disciple back to take charge of the Gelug monastery in Dragyab; Zangmar, with the zeal of the convert, carried with him only his master’s sectarianism and implemented only his policy of destruction. He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped up charge of treason. They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk, who carried with him by chance that day our image of Tara, tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back.[6]

Pabongkha Rinpoche about the practice of Dorje Shugden:[7]

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

See Also:

[1] The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition (1997) by David Kay, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 277-293, page 281
[2] Himalayan Dialogue : Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal (1989) by Stan Royal Mumford, University of Wisconsin Press, pages 125-130, 261-264
[3] The Tulkus and the Shugden Controversy (2001) by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, in Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent, published by Oxford University Press, 328-349
[4] The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word (2000) by Tenpai Gyaltsan Dhongthog, Sapan Institute, Washington
[5] This argument must be understood in the context of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s letter of excuse to the 13th Dalai Lama, where he states that his mother told him that Shugden was present at his birth and hence is his birth deity (lha). In this letter to the 13th Dalai Lama Pabongkha Rinpoche acknowledges his faults, he excuses for having violated the Buddhist refuge pledges and for having provoked the wrath of Nechung and he promises not to worship Shugden any more and to restrain from performing the rituals with respect to Shugden. (Von Brück’s German paper explains this more detailed. The fact of his promise to abstain from Shugden worship is also mentioned in Dreyfus (1998) and Dhongthog (2000). Von Brück states as the source for this Rigs dang dkyil ‘khor rga mtsho ‘l khyab bdag heruka dpal ngur smrig gar rolskyabs gchig pha bongkha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po’l rnam thar pa don ldan tshangs p’al dbyangs snyan, Phabongkhapa, Collected Works Vol. 14, Lhasa edition, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives , Dharamsala, Acc. 1622. Dreyfus states “According to his biographer, Pa-bong-ka promised not to propitiate Shuk-den any more.” and he gives as reference for this: Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong kha (pha bong kha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa), 471.a-.b.)
[6] This quote was added on May 4th, 2009
[7] The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy (1998) by Georges Dreyfus, Professor of Religion at Williams College, published in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Vol., 21, no. 2 [Fall 1998]:227-270) – (PDF-File)

Annotation:

I added the honorific term H.H. (His Holiness) where it is appropriate to add it, mainly for the Head of the Tibetan Traditions. The reason why I restrained to address Kelsang Gyatso with the title “Geshe”, an academic monastic title he claims to hold, is that three sources clearly state that he does not hold the title of a Geshe, and he himself could not give a reasonable explanation on this which is free from internal contradictions nor could he clarify what type of Geshe degree he holds.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

April 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Chinese Electronic Spy Ware Effects Google Search Results on Shugden

leave a comment »

The New York Times and other media have reported about a Ghostnet which infected the computers of the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE).

The electronic spy game has had at least some real-world impact, they said. For example, they said, after an e-mail invitation was sent by the Dalai Lama’s office to a foreign diplomat, the Chinese government made a call to the diplomat discouraging a visit. And a woman working for a group making Internet contacts between Tibetan exiles and Chinese citizens was stopped by Chinese intelligence officers on her way back to Tibet, shown transcripts of her online conversations and warned to stop her political activities.

There are also some practical implications related to the Dorje Shugden Controversy. If someone googles “Western Shugden Society” one will get on page 6 the warning massage:

warning1

Google’s detailed explanation states “You can choose to continue to the site at your own risk…” I hope the TGIE is able to remove these problems soon.

A research on the Spynet has been provided by the Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge:

A rather strange discussion took place on Tricycle Blog:

Written by Tenzin Peljor

April 12, 2009 at 10:34 am

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Update on the Situation at Sera Monastery – Visit of H.H. the Dalai Lama

with 30 comments

Here is a report from Sera monastery in South India about the actual situation. The report was written by a Buddhist monk.

I spent the last couple of days reuniting with friends and teachers at Sera monastery, and attending the teachings and Medicine Buddha Jenang of HH Dalai Lama at the Sera Mey temple.

[...] I can provide you a little bit of an update on the situation at the monastery.

  • The event passed peacefully. The Pomra Shugden faction continued with prayers and debate while HHDL taught directly across the road. It was a very calm and well organized event, with thousands of monks and laypeople from the Southern Settlements attending.
  • During this event, HHDL spent only perhaps 90 seconds talking about the Shugden issue. He stated that he knew it had been a hard year for Sera Mey monastery, but now the situation has improved and seems peaceful, as both sides are no longer practicing under one roof.
  • The previous note that the Sera Shugden monk posted on your website about “Not having to starve” is rich, considering that the Pomra Khangsten Shugden faction has engaged in a building spree, despite not having many new monks. An entire third floor has been added to their khangtsen, and an enormous prayer hall (similar in size to Sera Lachi) has been constructed down the hill from the medical centre. I am told it will open shortly. The money is clearly pouring in and the hints to destitution and homelessness clearly unfounded. They have kept everything belonging to the Pomra Khangtsen, despite the fact that nearly half the khangtsen has signed the oath and supports HHDL.
  • The Sera administration made a clear decision to let the Shugden monks keep the buildings (including several large dormitories, kitchen, and the old and new khantsen prayer halls).
  • The Monks at Pomra khangtsen are receiving many thousands of rupees in pocket money for long Kangso pujas to Shugden. Despite this, monks are continuing to leave Pomra, signing the oath and re-joining Sera Mey. As more leave, naturally, the amount each monk gets for the Shugden puja increases.
  • The Pomra monks who chose to sign the oath now no longer have khangsten pujas, so the income they used to receive from this is gone. This leaves many in far poorer circumstances. A piece of land has been granted by the Indian government in order for them to build a small hall in which to hold non-Shugden Pomra Prayers.
  • The large banner near the Sera Jey guesthouse stating “Shugden Followers Requested Not to Come” has been removed. The administration felt it was too heavy handed.
  • Monks are no longer asked to show ID when going to the monastery shops. I observed very carefully when I was there and this practice has definitely stopped. My friend told me now that there are several monks from the Pomra Shugden faction using the shops on the main road near the Sera Lachi. This practice was very shortlived, and, I am told, was a safety precaution to prevent any violence from either side. (The Indian government very nearly closed the monastery so it was important to keep the two sides very seperate so as to avoid any incidents).
  • The situation has been compared by several of my friends to a divorce, which though heated in the beginning results in a separation and eventually peaceful, seperate co-existence of both parties.
  • Many monks indicated to me that the protests organized by Kelsang Gyatso had greatly damaged the reputation of both Sera Monastery and Shugden devotees in the eyes of the Tibetan people, and that this damage would take a long time to repair.
  • There are now less threats against the leaders of Sera Monastery though I am told they still happen occasionally.

My great hope it that this situation can continue to simmer down and that eventually the baseless campaign against the Dalai Lama and slander against Sera and its abbots can end.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

March 8, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Religion

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility” – Correction to the Time Magazine Article by Tibet Scholar Robert Barnett

with 14 comments

Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University has denied Time Magazine’s suggestion with respect to obtaining Indian ID cards as stated in the article  The Dalai Lama’s Buddhist Foes July 18, 2008.

TibetanReview.net states:

Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University has denied Time Magazine’s obvious suggestion, in a Jul 18 online posting, that he alleged denial of exile Tibetan government help for worshippers of the controversial Shugden spirit in obtaining Indian government ID card. In an email to this magazine and others, Mr Barnett said he had clearly written to the weekly magazine’s correspondent David van Biema, “ID cards are not given out by the exile administration, but by the Indian authorities”.

He also said he wrote to the correspondent: “I also made it clear that the Western Shugden group’s allegations are problematic: they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics. The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility, since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries – while its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community instead of opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama in order to provoke misinformed publicity for their sect.”

Written by Tenzin Peljor

December 14, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Fundamentalism, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Scandalous feeding on rumors and gossips by pro-Shugden

with 11 comments

The following was sent by a monk from Sera Monastery India, Tersing, to counter the misinformation by the Western Shugden Society / New Kadampa Tradition

Scandalous feeding on rumors and gossips by pro-Shugden

The pro-Shugden website lately ran a number of “stories” in an attempted discrediting of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The one that particularly all the pro-Shugden websites are trying to “promote”, rather unsuccessfully, is the falsehood that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not the real incarnation of His predecessor. Rather the Shugden supporter websites (WSS and Wisdom Buddha blog) goes as far as to such a rumor-mongering of implicating His Holiness the Dalai Lama to a Muslim pedigree.

Nothing is far from the truth. The Shugden supporters have mostly based their so-called reports on rumours, purposely created by them for their own consumption. The alleged theory that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is not the true reincarnation of the Dalai Lamas is based on an anonymously published booklet called the “Expressing the Ocean of Truth” (tib lit: gtam drang bden rgya mtso) that was circulated in around year 2000-01. Other than this, there is nothing substantial that Shugden supporters could prove of their assertion.

This booklet, as could be seen, deals in its entirety on the person of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama with unsubstantial and baseless claims and allegations. The purpose as said above, is solely to malign the reputation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and nothing else.

Although there are differing opinions as to the source of this booklet, many believe it as handiwork of Shugden supporters themselves with assistance of other adversaries deeply antagonistic towards the Dalai Lama. Particularly among them are Gangchen Lama and Nga-Lama Lobsang Yeshi alias self-proclaimed Kundeling Rinpoche who conspired with their Communist masters to belittle His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the eyes of international community. The current flooding of Internet with all sorts of such unfounded and baseless rumours is seen by large number of people as working towards this direction only.

Moreover, by calling Taktser, the hamlet in Amdo Kubum where His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama was born, as a Chinese Muslim village is implying that the area belonged to China, thus flagrantly contradicting the historical facts and holding out the historically Tibetan area to PRC.

The second unjustifiable allegation that the pro-Shugden has made in their writings is about the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The writers in the same website, says that the monks in Sera and Ganden are not happy with the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It further claims that the monks are wary of His Holiness again speaking on the “Shugden issue” and inspiring “provocation.”

This assertion of the Shugden supporters are absolutely untrue. The visit, first of all, is heartily welcomed by all Tibetans from all walks of lives, including the monks of Sera monastery barring few handfuls of Shugden supporters. We as a monk community, feel it very fortunate to once again be in the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and to blessed by his kindness and benevolence. And by saying so, I also meant many of those who follow Shugden propitiation, if their claims of respecting His Holiness are not mere empty words.

Secondly, the purpose of the visit is to initiate many hundreds of monks into “Bikkhu”, who otherwise may have to go to Dharamsala to receive it. It is His Holiness’ compassion that foresaw the difficulties of many monks to travel to Dharamsala, including the financial difficulties that He has decided instead to come to Sera to perform the ordination, relieving the many hundreds of monks of their difficulties.

Thirdly, whereas the retaliating against the actions of Shugden supporters is concerned, it would have been done a long time back if it were not His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s advice to His followers to observe restraint. The way some of the Shugden supporters engaged themselves, for their own vested interest, in cheap politics founded on a particular faith is rather disquieting and condemnable.

The Tibetan people as whole are deeply hurt by the actions of few of the Shugden activists for such a plot to incite communal disharmony and discrediting of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. At the same time we do not blame all the followers of Shugden for such actions, for their sheer lack of insight into the true nature of the course that their self-proclaimed well-wishers and leaders are leading them to.

Therefore, this is also a time for those Shugden followers, who regard the Tibetan national interest as supreme, to rethink over the actions of some of their so-called well-wishers that is apparently in line with the avowed strategies of PRC to foment division and instill crack in the Tibetan people’s unity.

The Tibetan people as a whole, in spite of the attempt to dent, stands firm in their conviction to follow the advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama at both spiritual and secular level.

The recent Special General Meeting in mid November that saw the representation of all walks of lives of the Tibetan people, reaffirmed the supreme leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and therefore, harping otherwise by few handful of Shugden supporters would do nothing good except distancing themselves from the mainstream Tibetan society.

The Western Shugden Society tried also to show that Trijang Rinpoche’s thrones have been removed from Ganden at the orders of HH. But this is absolutely incorrect and the thrones are still there. I happened to be there recently. It is the pro-Shugden Dokhang House, now break-away from Shartse, that have taken away all the religious artefacts that late Trijang Rinpoche had donated to shartse monastery, all at their will.

Written by Tenzin Peljor

December 13, 2008 at 10:30 am

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

India Update – Present Situation

with 15 comments

A monk from Sera  Monastery wrote about the present situation:

- The Shugden portion from Pomra Khangtsen at Sera Mey (about 120-130 monks and novices) is not attracting any new Tibetan monks as those who come into exile do so in the spirit of being close to HHDL.

- Most of the Tibetan Pomras have left the Khangtsen and re-joined Sera Mey. Especially the young monks want no part in the vitriol of the more militant leaders who now largely control the breakaway faction. The nasty rhetoric spewing forth from several of the leaders of the faction against the Dalai Lama, in the words of this monk “literally had the monks running out the door back to the majority faction of the monastery.” The nasty comments and lies are so poisonous even many monks loyal to Shugden cannot stand it and have left the monastery altogether.

- Because of lack of numbers, Shugden practising Pomras have been going to Nepal to recruit young children (7-12) to join their house. They do this because most Tibetans wishing to ordain cannot take the taste of their vitriol against the Dalai Lama. The Nepali children are sent to the monastery by their parents because there is free room and board, but are usually called back by their parents when old enough to work in the fields. For this reason, they don’t finish their studies but serve only the purpose of bolstering the numbers of the Shugden faction in Pomra Khangtsen.

- From a young age these Nepali children are being taught to hate the Dalai Lama, that he is a destroyer of dharma, etc. In fact, one monk told me the Shugden leaders of Pomra are making use of the tension between Nepali and Tibetan monks to further their cause.

- Some Tibetan Shugdens at Sera who are not part of the militant wing have been shocked by the claims on the WSS website that this is a false Dalai Lama. They believe the tactics of these Western neophytes to Buddhism have harmed their cause more than helped it. This is according to one Shugden follower I spoke to in Delhi.

- Despite threats from Shugden worshippers, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will perform hundreds of bhikshu ordinations for novice monks of both Sera Mey and Jey this year around Losar at Sera Monastery.

- His Holiness has continued to withdraw from any political responsibilities in order to allow the Tibetans to take charge of their own future. This indicates all the talk about him being a dictator is baseless. The current meeting is being held largely in his absence, and on Phayul you can read a document where he begs the Tibetans to discuss every option openly.

- The above information comes from 3 members of Sera Mey monastery and 1 Geshe from Sera Jey monastery. In addition, I spoke with one monk loyal and a layperson to Shugden in Majnu Katilla settlement, Delhi.

- By all accounts the situation at Sera, despite the anti-Dalai Lama vitriol of some Shugden monks in the breakaway faction of Pomra Khangtsen, is largely peaceful. In fact, the demands of WSS have already been met! Both sides are continuing their practices without interruption and, through the division into two monasteries , there has been little conflict to mention the past two months. Both sides have kept all their own buildings and no one is homeless as a result of this dispute.

- The seperation has in fact eased tensions and made it easier for both sides to focus on their divergent goals.

Annotation

France 24 TV and Al Jazeera claimed there would be 4 million Buddhist Tibetans worshipping Shugden. It seems both media didn’t verify the claims they took over from Shugden supporters for their reports. More than 10 years ago the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and their members spread already this wrong information via their sub-organisation Shugden Supporters Community (SSC). Two British media consulted specialists and pointed out that this claim is grass exaggeration.

Andrew Brown from The Independent wrote:

“The figure of four million worshippers of Shugden was preposterous. There are only about six million Tibetans in the world at most, of whom less than half are members of the Gelugpa order (Steven Lane estimated 30 per cent), where the veneration of Shugden is concentrated. Even among the Gelugpa, only monks can be initiated into the cult of Shugden, and only a minority of those actually are. Most of the experts I talked to thought that about 100,000 people at most could be affected by the Dalai Lama’s ban.”

Peter Unwin stated:

“The figure of four million worshippers is grass exaggeration, experts estimating the figure to actually be around 100,000 or less than 2% of the Tibetan population, a large proportion of whom abandoned propitiation of the deity after the Dalai Lamas pronouncements.”

see also: Review and Present Situation 2008/07/24

Written by Tenzin Peljor

November 17, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Posted in Dorje Shugden Controversy, Fundamentalism

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

« Older Entries