How Buddhists view the protests of NKT/WSS
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:
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.” [1]
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. [2]
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.” [3]
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.” [4]
Commentator of a video published by a Buddhist Pagode in 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).” [4]
Thich Thien Son, Former 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.” [4]
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.” [4]
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.” [4]
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
“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]
“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]
“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.” [4]
for more details see:
Related Links (chronological order)
- The Western Shugden Society by Jigme Duntak (August 13, 2008)
- Western Shugden Society – Review and Present Situation by Tenzin Peljor (July 24, 2008)
- Tibet scholar denies making Time magazine Shugden comment by TibetanReview.net (July 23, 2008)
- Australian Sangha Association Statement by ASA (July 22, 2008)
- The Battle of Sixth Avenue by Barbara O’Brien (July 18, 2008)
- Dalai Lama’s visit sparks protest by the Capital Times (7/20/2008)
- NYC: dissident Buddhists, idiot leftists protest Dalai Lama by Bill Weinberg Blog (07/19/2008)
- The Dalai Lama’s Buddhist Foes by The Time Magazine (July 18, 2008) –> see Denial of Comment by Tibet Scholar
- Dalai Lama Fans Clash With Protesters by The New York Times (July 17, 2008)
- The Dalai Lama and his Followers by ABC Radio National (July 6, 2008)
- Western Shugden Society – unlocked by Tenzin Peljor (June 13, 2008)
- Spirit Worship is not Buddhist by TripleGem (June 12, 08) – (Website disappeared, see: PDF-copy)
- Interview with Kelsang Pema “Dalai Lama protests”, at ABC National Radio, Australia (June 11, 2008)
- Buddhist at Loggerheads by New Internationalist, Vanessa Baird (May 30, 2008)
- BBC – Nottingham (May 27, 2008)
- BBC: Peace and placards greet Dalai Lama (May 22, 2008)
- Shugden sect plans protests at Dalai Lama’s British visit by AFP (May 21, 2008)
- Sowing dissent and undermining the Dalai Lama by TibetInfoNet (May 21, 2008)
- Undermining Tibetan Freedom Struggle by Phurbu Thinley (May 10, 2008)
- Tibetan Buddhism goes West… – review website (2008)
- The Dorje Shugden Controversy – Destroying Tibetan Buddhism in Order to Save It? by Barbara O’Brien (2008)
- Shugden Worshippers – The Buddhist Taliban by UnmadeInChina.org (2008)
- Buddhism under Assault (2008)
- Interpol on trail of Buddhist killers by The Times (June 22, 2007)
- A Spirit of the XVII Century by Raimondo Bultrini (2005, 2006)
- Provocations of the Gyalpo by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (2005)
- Review of the Protests 1996-1998 (2005-2008)
- Dalai Lama faced with death threats by Washington Times (Nov 22, 2003)
- Death threats to Dalai Lama blamed on rival Buddhist sect by The Sidney Morning Herald, (November 16, 2002)
- Schisms, Murder, and Hungry Ghosts in Shangra-La: Internal Conflicts in Tibetan Buddhist sect (Spring 1999) by Mike Wilson
- Shugden controversy: Tibetan govt flays Chinese official by Tribune India (Jan 5, 1999)
- Document – China: AI’s position on alleged abuses against worshippers of Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden (June 1998) by Amnesty International (AI) (PDF)
- Monks vs Monks by Time Magazine (May 11, 1998)
- Buddhists to Protest Dalai Lama During U.S. Visit by the New York Times (April 30, 1998)
- Cult Mystery by Newsweek, Tony Clifton (April 28, 1997)
- Battle of the Buddhists by Andrew Brown, The Independent (July 15, 1996) (Website disappeared, see PDF-copy)
- Call to close sect’s benefit loophole by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian (July 13, 1996)
- Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian (July 6, 1996) (PDF)
- Why the Dalai Lama rejects Shugden by Gareth Sparham (June 1996)
- It’s Dalai Lama vs Shugden (PDF-copy) by Deepak Thapa (1996)
Videos
- Sur les traces du Dalai Lama by France 2, 2008 (in French)
- The Shugden Group by the Buddhist Pagode Path Hue, Germany, 2008
- The Dalai Lama’s demon, France 24, 2008
- Official Web TV Station of the Central Tibetan Administration – included the BBC documentary “An Unholy Road” (Videos were removed only the self-correction of SWISS TV (in German) is still available.)
- Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy by the Tibetan Government in Exile
- Nechung the State Oracle of Tibet, 2006, by David Cherniack
- The Unwinking Gaze. Behind-the scenes portrait of the Dalai Lama, 2008, by Joshua Dugdale
- Angry Monk, 2005/2008, – Documentary about a rebellious Tibetan monk (Gendun Choephel) by Luc Schaedler
Academic Research
- Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück, Religious Scientist at the University of Munich (2001)
- The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy by Georges Dreyfus, Professor of Religion at Williams College (1999)
- for more see: Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy and New Kadampa Tradition – IKBU
[1] Australian Sangha Association Statement by ASA (22 July 2008)
[2] BBC (Nottingham) (27 May 2008)
[3] Provocations of the Gyalpo by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (2005)
[4] The Shugden Group by Pagode Path Hue (Aug 2008)
[5] Spirit Worship is not Buddhist by TripleGem (12 June 08) (see PDF-copy)
[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.
last update: March 31, 2010
I think it’s very sad that some of these quotes by other Buddhists display the same linking of spiritual and political actions that the Dalai Lama is engaging in, for example implying that WSS actions are backed by the Chinese. What interest does WSS have in what China does or does not do politically? – none.
It says a lot about the state of degeneration of Buddhism in this world that passivity is expressed so often, even in the face of the destruction of Buddha’s teachings – ‘just turn inside and meditate’ is not going to stop the outer problem of the Dalai Lama destroying the lineages of Tibetan Buddhism and this kind of comment displays a complete lack of understanding of how Buddhists should act.
No one criticized the monks in Burma for acting to overthrow a repressive regime but when spiritual practitioners try to bring attention to the hypocritical actions of a so-called spiritual leader it attracts criticism. What a strange world of double standards we live in.
comment TP
I am quite tired of the ongoing misleading propaganda of NKT. According to another Buddhist monk, now they try even to sue Lama Zopa Rinpoche who never spoke a bad word about NKT or Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
As far as I can say it – this is my personal opinion – after having checked it thoroughly: the double standards (duplicity), the hypocrisy, lies, religious oppression, dictatorship are all NKT problems, not HHDL’s or the Tibetan Exile community’s problems. I think members of NKT / WSS are victims of NKT’s (dictatorlike) leadership, victims of their own delusions, victims of their own wrong, misleading, one-sided propaganda, narrow minded and sectarian thoughts and actions, and spin doctor PR tricks. The foundation of NKT is rooted in schism and conflict (see Kay/Prohl). As NKT puts it: “If the root is poisoned the tree, the leaves and the fruits will also be poisoned.” Since its inception NKT is weaving a web of deceit and half-truths or untruths. The problem with this dangerous game is that the more you deceive yourself and others the more you have to add more spins to update the web of deception. Like a spider spins its web, NKT/WSS spins their “truths” until they are finally completely caught in their self-created trap. I think the explanation about lying, as described by Bhikkhu Bodhi, reveals the dynamics of this self-destructive process exemplary: “By their very nature lies tend to proliferate. Lying once and finding our word suspect, we feel compelled to lie again to defend our credibility, to paint a consistent picture of events. So the process repeats itself: the lies stretch, multiply, and connect until they lock us into a cage of falsehoods from which it is difficult to escape. The lie is thus a miniature paradigm for the whole process of subjective illusion. In each case the self-assured creator, sucked in by his own deceptions, eventually winds up their victim.”
For me personally the policy and dynamics of NKT’s autocrat leadership are quite the same to what I know and experienced by the communists in East Germany. Guess why the slogans of WSS/NKT and PRC against the Dalai Lama are the same? They have the same background and mind setting.
This was the last typical NKT/WSS propaganda post which I approved, and my most frank reply. Instead to comment your points, my answer is to quote this thoughtful essay: (Un)Holy Truths.
Manjushri'sSword
September 1, 2008 at 5:07 pm
During the Second World War many people said that the Nazi death camps didn’t exist because they didn’t want to believe that such a thing was possible. We see a similar situation with the Dalai Lama – people simply don’t want to accept that he is behaving in a non-Buddhist and hypocritical manner. It’s like being told there’s no Santa Claus – it’s not very welcome news because we prefer legend and fantasy to truth.
I can understand it if you see your teacher as the Dalai Lama that you don’t want to accept that the Dalai Lama’s actions are inappropriate but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening – there is concrete evidence. The Dalai Lama has most definitely lied by saying that there is no ban, when we have it ‘on record’ that elsewhere he has said that there is a ban. Please don’t close your mind to this, it’s there for all to see. I can provide you with this evidence if you haven’t already seen it for yourself…so, who is lying? Not WSS.
As for the slogans of WSS and PRC being the same, if WSS calls the Dalai Lama a liar and PRC calls him a liar, it’s only because it’s the truth. Just because we see the same truth doesn’t mean that we are working together.
comment TP
Dear Manjushri’sSword, thank you for your enlightened activities and insights. After NKT/WSS have already the Dalai Lama’s “Tyranny exposed”, put HHDL into context with Adolph Hitler, reported about Sera’s “segregation wall” and monks deprived of water – due to “religious persecution”, recently proofed he is no Buddhist, I guess the next step will be to show that the TGIE already bought Zyklon B and installs gas chambers in the monasteries? I corrected your wisdom a little bit – please excuse my arrogance, but I am a normal being, not an enlightened one – What you/NKT/WSS claims “It’s like being told there’s a Santa Claus – it’s a very welcome news because we prefer legend and fantasy to truth.” Welcome in the NKT-World of truths.
Manjushri'sSword
September 1, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It is a shame that your reply is intellectually bereft of merit. It is very clear that you have a deep personal problem and you are projecting it onto the NKT. Why not just come clean and accept your mind is distorted?
Where do you find time to meditate?!
comment TP
This is your opinion. Better to slander me than the Dalai Lama ;-)
croatia
September 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Why not listen to how the non-Gelug lamas regard Shugden. They see him as a wordly spirit. Same with many famous Gelug Lamas such as Ngulchu Dharmabhadra, who composed the beloved Lama Chopa. The only reason you feel this way is because you see Trijiang Rinpochey as the only authority on Lama Tzongkhapa’s teachings. This is a narrow and inaccurate view.
See here how non-Gelugs regard Shugden:
^ http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Minling_Trichen_Rinpoche
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9ni15ueFZk minutes: 37:00
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9ni15ueFZk mintes: 6:41
Do the views of non-Gelugs, terrified of Shugden, count for nothing? Do they not have the right to be freed from fear?
Khedrup
September 2, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I think if these Lamas go for Refuge to the Three Jewels they don’t have anything to be afraid of. If Dorje Shugden is simply a worldly spirit, why couldn’t the Fifth Dalai Lama and his entourage subdue him?
Their ‘fear’, and the Dalai Lama’s statement that Dorje Shugden was harming his health are yet more indications of the great degeneration of Buddhism in this world. Does anyone know how to go for Refuge anymore?
P.S. Panchen Losang Choygan composed Lama Chopa, not Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. If you really think it’s beloved, why do you support a man who wants to destroy the special qualities of the individual traditions of Tibetan Buddhism?
comment TP
I agree, it is said, if you take proper refuge there will be no harm personally for you. But are mere prayers really sufficient? Maybe if you take proper refuge you are able to recognize that Shugden is no proper object or refuge or that he is, and what then? What is with those who take refuge in a bad spirit or even demon, who on top of that lack spiritual power and wisdom? They will be harmed, won’t they? To reduce harmful influence is a proper Bodhisattva activity, it is the activity of giving fearlessness. It may be not sufficient by just taking refuge to receive no harm at all. (Buddhism is very practical, earthed, based on common sense and yet very vast and deep – it is no fundamentalist black-and-white religion.) History shows that many Dalai Lama’s were killed and Shugden followers boast about the efficiency of the practice to were able to assassinate 23 high government officials, including the former regent Reting Rinpoche. We can suspect that they (who were killed) took proper refuge, only prayers may not be sufficient. If those beings were enlightened than there is no harm for them personally but for those affiliated with them by having lost their spiritual guides. As not only past Dalai Lamas had been killed but recently also his close friend Lobsang Gyatso – by fanatical Shugden worshippers – the death threats against him have to be taken serious – mere prayers may not be sufficient. If they are, I suggest to NKT/WSS/Shugden followers to pray instead of organising protests. As they claim they receive so much harm by HHDL it follows they have also so proper refuge and are no Buddhists?
It is true that the first Panchen Lama, Lobsang Chökyi Gyaltsen composed the Lama Chopa. But for whom did he compose it? For the students of the great 5th Dalai Lama ;-)
Among the opponents of Shugden are:
the previous and present Ganden Tripa – head of the Gelugpas. Lama Zopa Rinpoche states “Some people think that the practice of Shugden prevents Lama Tsong Khapa’s teachings from degenerating and promotes their development. But there have been many Gelug lamas who without practising Shugden, spread Buddhadharma, spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa like the sky.” He refers to the 14th, 13th Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, the latter “a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.” and “Purchog Jampa Rinpoche, a very high lama of Sera Je Monastery and an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, wrote against the practice of Shugden in the Monastery’s constitution. Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced.”
According to The Dolgyal Research Committee (Tibetan Government in Exile), prominent opponents include not only the 5th, 13th and current Dalai Lamas but also the 5th and 8th Panchen Lamas, Dzongsar Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, the 14th and 16th Karmapas among others. Another source states that Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a Dzogchen master, “has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults”.
Opponents include Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche, former head of the Nyingma school, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche, who is head of 25 monasteries in Bhutan, and stated: People who practice Shugden “will get many money, many disciples and then many problems.”
Although proponents of the view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being claim that the Sakya tradition also recognise and worship Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being, Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya tradition, states that some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that “The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a ‘jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala.”
for more see: http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy.html
Personally I met no Kagyue or Nyingma lama who does not see Shugden worship as destructive. Kagyuepas say one should not even speak his name and Nyingmas see him just as a very powerful evil demon.
If you wish to learn more see statements by H.H. Dalai Lama (Gelug), H.H. Ganden Tripa (Head of the Gelugpa Order), Kyabje Lati Rinpoche (Gelug), H.H. Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche (Head of the Nyingma-Tradition), Kyabje Trulshik Rinpoche (Nyingma), H.H. Sakya Trizin (Head of the Sakya-Tradition), H.E. Tai Situ Rinpoche (Kagyu) in this documentary film: http://dalailama.com/page.157.htm I guess NKT members deleted or forgot to list these statements at the Shugden-Wikipedia articles, didn’t they?
Manjushri's Sword
September 2, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Is Dorje Shugden really a protector?
In a way it is very funny. Through the power of the noisy claims of WSS and some Shugden followers that Shugden followers would be “persecuted”, are “untouchables”, they would suffer on “apartheid” and the “dictatorship” of the “saffron-robed Muslim”, the “21st Century Buddhist Dictator the Dalai Lama”, these type of Shugden followers just proof that Shugden is no protector, he can not even protect his followers but must be protected by his followers.
The trial to protect the protector seems to be so inefficient that they rely on the support of the Chinese Communist Party, which holds the view that “religion is poison”, has no spiritual interests, is clearly the enemy of the Tibetan freedom struggle, Tibetan Buddhism in general and the opponent or enemy of the Tibetan’s religious and cultural freedom in Tibet. They rely and – according to official statements by the TGIE and other sources – they collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party, who has only interest in worldly power and to gain control and keep control over Tibet. Due to the Chinese party officials’ efforts and those Tibetans collaborating with them, some of these Shugden followers are now united with the wrong Panchen Lama and can rejoice financially well supported (by the PRC) Shugden monasteries in Tibet.
That monks in monasteries in Tibet were expelled because they refused Shugden worship seems to be no reason to include them in their fight for “religious freedom”. The really existing religious persecution, torture and oppression in Tibet was never worth a word of compassion by the NKT leadership. Hypocrisy?
Maybe all these and NKT’s own development are the best signs of the nature and function of Dorje Shugden? Buddhism could live more than 2000 years without such a protector, so it will survive also the loss of Shugden’s previous influence.
Who wants to learn more about the concepts of some Shugen followers can also visit and investigate some of their websites, which introduce e.g. the PRC’s fake Panchen Lama in front of a huge Shugden thanka and try to harmonize the different contradictions by some uncommon theories:
- http://dharmadhatu.web-log.nl/dharmadhatu/2008/03/think-about-the.html
- http://dorjeshugden.com/panchenshugden.htm
Tenzin
September 3, 2008 at 10:55 am
Sorry I mistyped, I meant to add both Ngulchu Lama’s and Panchen Lama’s names and their works. I apologize for my hasty and unmindful typing and error.
The author of Lama Chopa, Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen, ALONG with Ngulgchu Dharmabhadra, recommended against Shugden:
From Lama Zopa Rinpochey
Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced.
So, the author of the seminal Gelug liturgy, the Guru Puja (Lama Chopa), that we recited at Sera more than any other extensive practice, is an opponent of Shugden. Ngulchu Dharmabhadra, lineage guru of the widespread Gelug transmissions of Yamantaka and Vajrayogini, also recommended against the practice. I would have you note, Ngulchu Dharmabhadra is a lineage guru in the Vajrayogini practice as explicated by Phabongkhapa and practiced in the NKT.
So really, HHDL is not “destroying” the Gelug lineage at all, but examining the teachings of various Gelug lamas in order to make his decisions, rather than relying on the lineage of Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijiang Rinpochey as the final authority. A modern lineage, much beloved by a few powerful students and aristocratic benefactors, but hardly representative of the entire Gelug tradition.
In fact, it is through the efforts of these two lamas that the Gelug tradition became homogenized, rather than diversified. Instead of propagating the 3 tantric practices of Yamantaka (Jigjed), Heruka Chakrsamvara (Demchog), and Guhyasamaja (Sangwa Dupa), with the three protectors Kalarupa (Damchen Choegyal), 6 arm Mahakala (Chadrugpa) and Vaishravana, they propagated a tight “ear whispered lineage” not extensively mentioned in Lama Tzongkhapa’s texts. This lineage was far more simplified and less diverse than what Lama Tzongkhapa taught – namely, Vajrayogini as the tutelary deity and Shugden as the protector. AS this lineage became more widespread, Guhyasamaja, the main tantric practice of Lama Tzongkhapa on which he wrote many volumes,degenerated in favour of more extensive reliance on Vajrayogini, whose practice takes up only a few pages in Tzongkhapa’s collected works.
So really, who limited the diversity? HHDL is trying to go back to a broad, classical Gelug as espoused in Lama Tzongkhapa’s works, nothing else. It is Trijiang Rinpochey’s exclusive followers who have only their unquestioning faith in this modern reinterpretation for their claims, while HH’s ideas are based on a complete and extensive understanding of the original works of Lama Tzongkhapa and the great scholars of Nalanda.
If you want to understand the broad, inclusive and extensive practice of Gelugpa Buddhism, you must examine Lama Tzongkhapa’s treatises themselves, rather than just Phabongkha’s commentaries. And of course, the classical texts themselves, in their original forms written by Chandrakirti, Nagarjuna (lhundrup), Vasubandhu and all.
Single-pointed reliance on one modern re-interpreter’s works is not sufficient for preserving the Gelug tradition in its full breadth. His Holiness I see is trying to preserve the tradition, in all its scope, rather than set it aside for a simplified version based on re-interpretation by two modern lamas.
K.
Khedrup
September 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Sorry i should clarify in the above that the second paragraph from the top only is from Lama Zopa rinpochey, the rest are my views and interpretation.
It is also not true to paint a picture of Phabongkhapa as a completely politically uninvolved hermit practitioner. It is common knowledge that he was governor of Chamdo with extensive administrative duties.
Also, while HHDL is critical of Shugden worship and over-streamlining of the Gelug teachings, he NEVER engages in sweeping criticism as Shugden advocated would have us believe. He says this:
Now of all of Phabongkha Rinpoche’s disciples, Trijang Rinpoche can really be seen as the main one and his real spiritual heir. There are those who suggest that because these two obviously pushed the worship of Dholgyal that its importance is unquestionable and that therefore it is fitting that others should also get involved in it – that the worship is validated by those two figures’ association with it. To listen to these people you would get the impression that their worship of Dholgyal was the most important thing that these two did in their lives; their main contribution. That is ridiculous; it was not like that at all. One just has to look at the works that they composed, like the Stages of the Path by Phabongkha or that of Trijang Rinpoche. They were really both masters of and heirs to that tradition. I took many Stages of the Path teachings from Trijang Rinpoche. It was quite evident that there was something quite distinct in his way of explaining, something very special about it. In terms of Tantra, as well, he was a master, particularly of Heruka Chakrasamvara, and that he was a great yogi is a generally accepted fact. Therefore, the real contribution and achievement of both of these two figures was in terms of their mastery of the Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Heruka practise. Dholgyal was only ever a secondary thing.
This I think is the key point of His Holiness, on which everything else rests. He is trying in fact to save the complete philosophical tradition, in all its complexity, of the Gelug tradition:
There is another issue at question here. Even if something is or was performed by great spiritual teachers of the past, if it goes against the general spirit of the teachings, it should be discarded. This is a point that Je Rinpoche made repeatedly, saying, The purpose of having personal advice instruction is to have a digestible abridgement (of the teachings). One should never forsake the essential meaning of the great texts. What I have been saying comes back to this point. Some make out as though they have some secret personal instruction. Who was superior to Nagarjuna and Asanga or each of their spiritual sons when it came to composing abridged instruction of the teachings?
Khedrup
September 3, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Dholgyal was only ever a secondary thing.” No, it’s not. This more than anything speaks volumes about the Dalai Lama’s ignorance. Without the Dharma protector there is no Dharma, that’s the point. People just don’t get it.
Also, it’s not secondary because if Trijang and Phabongkha could be wrong about Dorje Shugden, how could they have realizations? This calls the whole lineage into question. He doesn’t get that either! He can wax lyrical about Phabongkha and Trijang, but basically he’s saying that his Teachers were ignorant. What else were they ignorant of then? How can they be relied upon? He (and you) don’t see these contradictions. He’s invalidating the whole lineage. It’s dependent relationship ignorance here – you think you can just throw away something ‘minor’ like Dorje Shugden and it’s not going to affect anything; that’s wrong. It’s like taking away the sun and still expecting it to be bright and warm on this planet. It’s ignorance like this that is destroying the Buddhadharma.
About Panchen Losang Chogyan being an opponent of Shugden practice, that’s crazy. Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was his student. Where’s the evidence? I’ve got a praise from the Fifth Dalai Lama to show that he changed his mind about Dorje Shugden – let’s see a clear statement from PLC saying not to practise Dorje Shugden.
If you want to kid yourself that the Dalai Lama knows better than Phabongkha and Trijang, that’s fine. I personally think that you have completely diminshed their contribution to the Gelugpa Lineage, but that’s what the Dalai Lama wants. He wants them to be seen as ‘minor figures’ and then he can discard them in the way that he has discarded Dorje Shugden. How much respect does the Dalai Lama have for his Teachers when he wants Trijang’s throne removed from Ganden Lachi and Shartse monasteries? I know where my reliance lies. It lies with those Teachers who don’t mix religion and politics, who rely sincerely on their Spiritual Guide, and who don’t tell barefaced lies.
comment TP
Dear MS, maybe you sharpen your sword a bit? You may be fooled by your own ignorance. there are many masters of the past who have made faults and held views or a view which were corrected or refuted by their own disciples. it is superstition to believe every teacher or lineage master was enlightened. i gave a link with quotes and examples on that already elsewhere here at the blog. if you like i can add it again. it is also just naive to believe because a master made a fault that he is completely faulty and none of his teachings matter. nobody holds such a view. this is a fake argument and has also been discussed elsewhere here at the blog, i can add also more on this, if you (or someone else) is interested.
moreover there are different levels of realisations. so what one realised master sees mustn’t be seen by another. that’s why the authority of the highest tulkus is the first step to question something. both teachers are important teachers in the gelug school but they are not the most important teachers although such an emphasize is placed on them by their followers. to put this into perspective doesn’t mean to put them down.
i am quite sure that HHDL has the proper attitude to his teachers. my main teacher, a Kagyu teacher, said: ‘regarding the guru follow HHDL’s approch, it is completely in line with the sutras and tantras.’ since i received harm by shugden lamas and not by HHDL i know where my heart goes.
so you follow what you feel correct, that’s fine. best wishes, tp
Manjushri's Sword
September 3, 2008 at 10:22 pm
There is another issue at question here. Even if something is or was performed by great spiritual teachers of the past, if it goes against the general spirit of the teachings, it should be discarded.
How does relying on a Buddha go against the general spirit of the teachings? What is there in the practice of Dorje Shugden that goes against Buddhist Teachings?
Relying on Oracles comes from the Bon tradition and is definitely against the general spirit of Buddhist teachings, but the Dalai Lama doesn’t discard that.
comment TP
how shugden became a Buddha? initially shugden wasn’t seen as a Buddha but a worldly spirit – also in the Sakya school and by Pabponkha Rinpoche himself. that he is a Buddha is just a claim which came up later, there is no proof and no historical evidence for this. it is for sure disputed if he is a Buddha or not. (see von Brueck’s research)
if you disagree with using oracles, you may remember that Shugden is invoked by his followers, e.g. Gangchen lama, by oracles too. moreover no Buddha is invoked by oracles, this also proofs that he may not be a Buddha. or have you ever heard that Buddha Vajrayogini is invoked by an oracle?
HHDL does not wrongly claim that Nechung is a Buddha, nor does he take refuge in him. he just uses Nechung’s knowledge and checks if Nechung’s perspective is valid and can help in certain cases. there is nothing wrong in using other’s powers. but there is something wrong in wrongly to claim they are enlightened if they are not. this HHDL does not do.
of course if Shugden is a Buddha or not is the main point in that dispute…
Manjushri's Sword
September 3, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Dear Manjushri’s Sword, I lack time to read your and Adam’s posts at the moment. I approved them this time without having read them. In your last post I see that you address the issue of oracles. Shugden has also oracles and the uncle of GKG, Kuten lama, is a Shugden oracle. So if you see contradiction then this applies also for those propagating this practice. Buddhas are never invited via oracles. As Shugden is channelled via oracles (Lama Gangchen does this still) it follows he can not be a Buddha.
HHDL does not rely only on Nechung in his decisions. According to researcher von Brück: “The 14th Dalai Lama himself has taken up the issue several times. His statements on Shugden have been collected and published recently in Tibetan.25 In order to investigate the canonical status of Shugden and his practice, he applies basically three methodological devices or arguments: (1) historical evidence, (2) political reason, (3) spiritual insight.”
for the details see the end of his paper:
http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html
Moreover, HHDL does not see Nechung wrongly as a Buddha nor takes he refuge in him. He uses his power and checks Nechung’s advises before he accepts or rejects them. Nechung was bound by Padmasambhava and conservative Gelug purists tried to replace Nechung by Shugden to gain more power and control. So if HHDL is announced by them now as being superstitious they are it as well, by channelling Shugden and trying to replace Nechung with Shugden. After their trials failed it is easy to address the lost battle as the faults of HHDL.
Again, it is not that black-and-white and simplistic as NKT/WSS suggest and addresses these issues to their followers.
Tenzin
September 4, 2008 at 10:03 am