![]() |
![]() ![]() Shugden versus pluralism and national unity controversy and clarification Tibetan Buddhism generally believes in two types of deities and spirits: transcendental beings and worldly beings. Although worldly beings can be positive or negative by nature, transcendental beings belong to the same category as the Buddhas, which means we can take refuge in them, propitiate them and make them offerings. Worldly beings, on the other hand, are like our servants. In return for certain short-term services, we pay them by making ritual offerings to them. We should neither take refuge in them, nor should we worship them to the extent that they become more important than the Buddha. Origin of Worldly Deities and Spirits The tradition of propitiating worldly beings as protectors is roughly as old as Tibetan Buddhism itself. It dates back to the ninth century when the Tibetan king, Trisong Detsen, invited Shantarakshita from India to teach Buddhism in Tibet. The local spirits proved hostile to this foreign religion and actively obstructed the efforts of the Indian spiritual master. Shantarakshita then advised the Tibetan king to invite Guru Padmasambhava, a tantric adept from India, to deal with these hostile spirits. Accordingly, Padmasambhava (also known as Guru Rinpoche) came to Tibet and subdued the most powerful spirits. Once vanquished, the spirits were bound by oath to act as Dharma Protectors. Thus, worldly protectors began to play a role in the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon. One day, before the king and his ministers, Padmasambhava summoned one of the Four Great Kings, (the protectors of the four directions often depicted around the doors of Tibetan temples) into the body of a young man. Using the youth's body as a medium, the clairvoyant deity identified the spirits who were creating trouble. The deity pronounced that the spirit Thangla was responsible for the lightning strike on Marpori (the Red Hill that became the site of the Potala Palace) and that the spirit Yarla Shampo had provoked the flood which washed away the Phangthang Palace. This was the first occasion in Tibet in which a worldly deity was summoned into the body of a human being, who acted as its physical medium. Through the medium, the deity gave predictions and advice. Subsequently other protectors have also come to be used as oracles. Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden was unheard of during the time of the historical Buddha. It was not even among those spirits whom Padmasambhava, the founder of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, subdued and bound to the oath of protecting the dharma. It was neither among the protector-deities appointed by Marpa Lotsava, Milarepa and Dhagpo Lhaje, the founders of the Kagyud order, nor was Shugden among the deities appointed by the five founders of the Sakya order, nor among those appointed by Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelug order. The worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's emergence coincided with the founding of the Gaden Podrang Government of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in conflict with the Fifth Dalai Lama and was hostile towards him. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of harm and interference. Rituals were undertaken to oppose him. Since that time the Fifth and Thirteenth Dalai Lamas and several Gaden Throneholders, spiritual heads of the Gelugpa tradition, have placed stringent restrictions on the propitiation of Shugden. Many highly-realized Gelugpa lamas spoke strongly against Shugen. In the Zhol edition of the Collected Works of Great Gelugpa Scholar, Thukan Nyima (Vol, Ka, p.446), the following account of a conversation between Changkya Rolpai Dorje1 and his student, Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima2, is found: "Reaching the site of the cairn of Machen, Changkya Rolpai Dorje explains to his student, 'Je Lama (Tsongkhapa) and his students did not propitiate worldly gods and protectors and hence even the cairn of Machen, the god of his birthplace, was not included within the parameter of the circumambulatory (path at Gaden). (However), in the past some Gaden Throneholders propitiated Dolgyal (Shugden) and experienced misfortunes. Consequently, Trichen Dorje Chang dismantled Dolgyal's image and shrine and banished the spirit from the monastery.'" Similarly, Gaden Throneholder Trichen Ngawang Chokden referred to Shugden as a "very vicious and evil spirit". He, in fact, prohibited the practice of Shugden (Biography of Trichen Ngawang Chokden, by Changkya Rolpai Dorjee, p.67 ). The current Sakya Throne Holder, in his letter to the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, wrote: "Today, there is not a single Sakya monastery or centre which follows Shugden practice." He said that his root-gurus - such as the late Khenchen Dorje Chang Ngor Khangsar, the late Khenchen Ngawang Yonten Gyatso and many other realized lamas of the Sakya order - took earnest steps to discourage the Shugden practice and that they drove Shugden from all the Sakya shrines. For Kagyud and Nyingma orders Shugden is anethema. The current Shamar Rinpoche, in his letter to Ladakh Lama Chime Rinpoche's monastery, said: "We Kagyud and Nyingma followers believe that even our bad dreams are caused by Shugden. Years ago, I visited Dharamsala with the late Karmapa. At that time, I stayed at Gangchen Kyishong guest house. There I dreamed that Shugden was trying to harm me. Later, I performed Padmasambhava's wrathful riruals to counter Shugden's attempts." It is thus clear that spiritual masters of all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism disapprove of the Shugden practice. Propitiation of Shugden goes against the wishes of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and is ultimately harmful to the Tibetan people for two reasons. First, although His Holiness works for harmony amongst his people and encourages a non-sectarian view of religious tradition, Shugden is notoriously sectarian and disruptive of communal harmony. Secondly, such practice leads to the degeneration of the vast and profound teachings of Buddhist tradition. The Buddha's teachings are based on his explanation of the Two Truths and the Four Noble Truths. He advised his followers to take refuge only in the Buddha (the Fully Awakened Being), the Dharma (his doctrine) and the Sangha (the spiritual community). Propitiation of Shugden, as it has recently developed, results in Buddhist practice degenerating into little more than spirit worship. The threat that propitiation of Shugden represents to the life and well being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not that he is at risk of attack from an evil spirit. The hazard arises when the bond of spiritual trust between the Tibetan people and His Holiness is broken. Similarly, there is a danger when a disciple enters a spiritual relationship with a lama, but fails to heed, or defies, his advice. His Holiness has been particularly critical of the hypocrisy of paying him respect to his face, and even praying for his long life, but behaving contrary to his advice behind his back. Earlier in the present century, stalwart proponents of Shugden encouraged the belief that their protector was particularly swift and effective in doling out material rewards to his supporters. This has led to a great increase in the numbers of ordinary people propitiating Shugden over the past sixty years or so. In order to exaggerate Shugden's importance, proponents also sought to portray the spirit as the exclusive protector of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. This flies in the face of the fact that the protectors recognized by Je Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelugpa, as guardians of his tradition are Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa or Dharmaraja - not Shugden. Despite this, proponents of Shugden have resorted to intimidation and deception to support their case. They warned that swift though the spirit was in bringing material enrichment, he was equally quick to punish so-called apostasy. Great misfortunes, they warned, would be visited upon any practitioner who supplemented or replaced his or her "pure Gelugpa practice" with practices from other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Shugden advocates have ascribed the deaths and misfortunes of many lamas and political figures to Shugden's vengeance on just these grounds. However, contemporary and historical research suggests that association with the practice of Shugden itself attracts misfortune and that those who strongly rely on him are eventually subjected to various calamities, whatever they may do. Stories from many parts of Tibet are replete with accounts of the religious intolerance of powerful Shugden practitioners. Propitiation of Shugden has taken on the characteristics of a fanatical cult, in which there is no place for the views or practices of other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, particularly those of the ancient Nyingma tradition founded by Padmasambhava. Naturally, such divisiveness does not sit well with Tibetans' need to unite and withstand external threats to their very identity. Consequently, the Dalai Lamas who are responsible for the welfare of Tibet and all its people have spoken forcefully against it. Of late, proponents of the Shugden cult have elevated their spirit to such heights that the worship of Shugden is equated with, mixed up or even given more importance than, taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, the practice which defines a Buddhist. In other words, a worldly spirit is equated or has become more important than the doctrine it is supposed to protect. It is as if a mere bodyguard to a head of state were to be paid more respect than the head of state he is hired to protect. Discouraging the Practice Owing to the innately disruptive and divisive nature of this practice, which runs counter to the unity of the Tibetan people and the rights of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon to respect and equal treatment, Tibetan leaders have long discouraged reliance on Shugden. Prominent among them were the Fifth and the Thirteenth Dalai Lamas. Therefore, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's recent advice to abjure this practice has historical precedence. Not only is he responsible for keeping all Tibetan Buddhist traditions alive when they are threatened with extinction in our homeland, he is also the leader of the Tibetan people at this critical juncture when unity is imperative. Furthermore, as one of the world's foremost Buddhist leaders, His Holiness is concerned that Buddhism in general, with its rich and profound potential for developing the human mind, should not degenerate into mere superstition and spirit worship. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, like his predecessors, is primarily a Gelugpa, but he has deep respect for all other schools of Buddhism. He sets an example of non-sectarianism and has received teachings and initiations from all traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Although His Holiness personally abandoned any connection with Shugden in 1975, he decided not to counsel others likewise to avoid the spiritual turmoil that might result. In the meantime, however, Zeme Rinpoche, a highly regarded erudite lama and stalwart practitioner of Shugden, compiled and published a book entitled the Oral Transmission of the Competent Father (pha-rgod bla-ma'i zhal-lung). In it he stated that Shugden would destroy any Gelugpa practitioner, be he an ordinary person, a highly-realized lama or even a ruler, if he supplemented his Gelugpa practice with the practice of other spiritual traditions. Zeme Rinpoche named the following 23 government officials and Buddhist masters who, he said, were put to death by Shugden for practicing the Nyingma tradition: 1) Dordrak Rigzin Pema Trinley, 2) Wolkha Jedrung Lobsang Trinley (also known as Lhelung Sheypai Dorjee), 3) Wolkha Jedrung's reincarnation, who studied at Loseling College of Drepung Monastery and became the abbot of Gyutoed Tantric College, 4) Wolkha Jedrung's second reincarnation, who died while a student at Loseling College, 5) Wolkha Jedrung's third reincarnation, who was born in Tsel Gungthang and died as he was about to be enthroned, 6) Panchen Lobsang Palden Choekyi Dakpa Tenpai Wangchuk, the eighth Panchen Lama, 7) his reincarnation, Panchen Lobsang Thubten Choekyi Nyima Gelek Namgyal, 8) Chamdo Phagbala Lobsang Thubten Mipham Tsultrim Gyaltsen, 9) Thubten Jampel Yeshi Gyaltsen, the Fifth Reting Rinpoche, 10) Kachen Ang Nyima, the tutor of the Nineth Panchen Lama, 11) Khardho Tulku Kelsang Thubten Nyendrak, 12) Nyungney Lama Lobsang Yeshi Gyaltsen, 13) Lobsang Palden Choekyi Wangchuk, the former body of Tehor Sig-gyab Tulku, 14) the former body of Sera Je's Tzenya Tulku, 15) Thubten Kelsang Tenzin, the Sixth Nagchu Drubkhang Tulku, 16) Lobsang Trinley Rabgye, the Dhemo Rinpoche of Tengyeling, 17) Tatsak Jedrung Lobsang Thubten Jigme Gyaltsen Kundeling, 18) Pema Wangchen Surkhang, the Kashag secretary, who died at the age of 22, 19) Shabe Sonam Wangchen, the father of Pema Wangchen Surkhang, who died at the age of 37, 20) Gung Jigme Namgyal Lhalu, 21) his son Phuntsok Rabgye, 22) Tsipon Lungshar, and 23) Kalon Trimon Norbu Wangyal. Zeme Rinpoche's book also stated that in 1954 Shugden used his occult power to bring the biggest flood in Gyangtse, which destroyed many villages and killed thousands of people and animals. Scare tactics of the similar kind were employed by other lamas and proponents of Shugden. As a result of such intimidation, in 1975, a group of Gelugpa monks and nuns were too scared to participate in special prayers to Guru Padmasambhava - who established Buddhism in Tibet and who is also especially associated with the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism - that were organized as a contribution to the Tibetan people's struggle for freedom. His Holiness thought it "extremely unfortunate that one sect should go about intimidating the public, discouraging them from creating sectarian harmony by being eclectic in their spiritual practice." There had also been several indications that Palden Lhamo and Nechung were displeased by the burgeoning practice of propitiating Shugden. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama consulted Palden Lhamo by means of divination and other methods to discover whether the propitiation of Shugden could be continued or should be prohibited. The clear answer was that the propitiation of Shugden should be brought to an end immediately. The Fifty Stanzas on the Guru says, "If the master's purpose is not understood, clarify it verbally." His Holiness consulted Trijang Rinpoche and discussed the matter with him. Trijang Rinpoche told His Holiness that Palden Lhamo would never deceive anybody, therefore, it would be better to cease propitiation of Shugden. Consequently, His Holiness removed the thangka of Shugden he had in his chambers and gave it to Trijang Rinpoche. When other lamas consulted Trijang Rinpoche on this matter, he told them that Palden Lhamo was displeased with Shugden and that this had to do with the affairs of the Tibetan government. While addressing a gathering at Drepung monastery, he also said, "We should follow His Holiness' advice on the propitiation of protector deities. Whether we are able to promote our religious and secular affairs during this difficult period depends on whether we follow the path His Holiness has shown to us. It also depends on how far we are able to stand firmly by our cause." In the past too, great Indian and Tibetan masters preserved the Buddhist doctrine and freed it from the wrong views that people developed from time to time. Whenever they saw the danger of wrong views creeping into the mainstream of the doctrine they took steps to correct those whose views were mistaken. In 1978, His Holiness spoke out publicly for the first time on the attendant risks of propitiating Shugden and since then has referred to the issue regularly in the course of his periodic public teachings. He made it clear that "everybody has the right to propitiate whichever deity he or she chooses to." A large number of Tibetans followed their leader's advice and gave up propitiating Shugden. Many high lamas, including the head of the Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism, the Gaden Throne Holder or the head of the Gelug School, and the Jangtse Choje, the second Gelug hierarch, wrote to His Holiness to express their support for his advice. However, a small number of very vocal and assertive followers of Shugden continued to exploit people's fears to discourage them from giving it up. While His Holiness was visiting the Tibetan settlement at Hunsur, South India, in December 1993, a large number of lay Tibetans from very poor families sought an audience with him. They asked for His Holiness' help. They told him of their sleepless nights and bouts of anxiety, of how they lived in a state of fear, as a result of warnings they had been given of Shugden's displeasure. His Holiness was very disturbed by this crude kind of psychological blackmail. In the spring of 1996, he urged those who wished to follow him as a spiritual master, and those willing to work for the cause of Tibet, to give up propitiating Shugden altogether. He asked those who wished to continue the propitiation of Shugden not to take tantric empowerments from him. Tantric empowerment requires a sense of implicit trust between the lama and disciples. It also involves the giving and taking of vows and pledges, not least the pledge to abide by the lama's advice, breach of which will rebound negatively on the life of the lama. Subsequently, the Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala and the regional chapters of major Tibetan non-governmental organizations set out to make His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice clear to all Tibetans living in settlements across India. In some settlements, supporters of Shugden threatened to beat and kill any visiting Tibetan officials. As a result, officials called for police protection. Campaign of Violence Over the past years, Shugden activists have become increasingly virulent in their threats of violence against the critics of the practice. Circulars have been sent to offices of the Tibetan Administration, threatening to unleash acts of terror and death. One letter, dated April 1996, said: "The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan donkey-officials should resolve the problem truthfully, or we will be forced to resort to bloodshed." On 30th April 1996, the Secretary of the Department of Religion and Culture and a representative of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama went to Mundgod to explain His Holiness' advice to the residents of the settlement there. A package was delivered to them containing a knife and the message, "We were unable to meet you this time, but we hope to get you next time." These were no empty threats. On the night of 27 May 1996, an unsuccessful attempt was made in Mundgod, South India, to kill Venerable Thupten Wangyal, a former abbot of the Jangtse College of Gaden Monastery, by setting fire to his house while he was inside it. In January 1997, Geshe Thinley of Jangtse College, Gaden Monastery, was brutally beaten in the Tibetan camp in Delhi. On 9 January 1997, Jangtse College's barn and granary in Mundgod were set afire. It is apparent that these violent incidents were aimed at harming and intimidating critics of the propitiation of Shugden. On 4 February 1997, the Director of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, a fearless and outspoken critic of Shugden practice, and two close students were found brutally murdered in the Director's room in Dharamsala. Prolonged and painstaking investigations by the Kangra District Police led them to identify two of the six assailants, both of whom are believed to have escaped to Tibet. Quoting police sources, Jansatta, a Hindi-language daily, reported that during their journey to Dharamsala, the assailants had made a phone call, later traced to Chime Tsering, Secretary of the Shugden Supporters Society in Delhi. Two more assailants, both Shugden activists, were later identified. They too had escaped to Tibet. About a month after the murders, a circular purportedly issued by Lobsang Jungney of Sera Monastery, South India, was sent to various departments of the Tibetan Administration. Addressed to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Chairman of the Tibetan Parliament, the circular threatened: "you will be treated to many more carcasses if you continue the present practice." Smear Campaign Simultaneously, foreign proponents of Shugden, mostly based in the UK, embarked on a highly aggressive and sophisticated smear campaign against His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his exiled administration. They flooded the Internet, the international media and political circles with allegations of religious persecution and physical threats being made against devotees of Shugden. The Tibetan Administration was accused of dismissing Shugden supporters from their posts in the government and of expelling their children from Tibetan schools. It was also alleged that the Tibetan Administration was withholding humanitarian aid from followers of Shugden. As a result of this intense lobbying, several reporters and columnists took up the story and conducted their own investigations. The consequent media coverage was largely negative to the Shugden activists themselves, portraying them as members of an intolerant and pretentious cult. The enraged activists then accused the newspersons of bias and distortion. Following her lengthy investigative piece, the religious correspondent of The Guardian was accused of belonging to a rival Buddhist sect. Actually, The Guardian correspondent is a devout Catholic, as The Independent newspaper from London later testified. In the meantime, the Tibetan Administration received protest letters from many individuals, who had been fed the story of Administration-sponsored "religious persecution" in the exile community. The Administration's response has been to invite such critics to independently visit Tibetan settlements and ascertain the truth for themselves after speaking to a cross-section of people. The Administration's Stand The Tibetan Administration's basic policy on the question of propitiating Shugden was spelled out in a resolution passed unanimously on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies (the Tibetan parliament in exile). The resolution forbade the propitiation of Shugden by government departments, their subsidiaries, and monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed of the imprudence of propitiating this spirit, but must be given the freedom "to decide as they like". In September 1997, the Assembly passed another resolution which reaffirmed its June-1996 resolution and urged the people of Tibet to oppose, through lawful means, the Beijing-inspired campaigns of a handful of Shugden supporters. The Tibetan Administration also instituted a nine-member Special Committee to look into the Shugden activists' allegations of religious persecution. The committee found that allegations that Shugden devotees had been dismissed from government jobs or that their children had been expelled from schools, and that humanitarian assistance was being denied to them, were totally without substance. In fact, it was established that the children of several Shugden activists, including the President of Shugden Society in Delhi, remained enrolled at that time at the Tibetan Children's Village (TCV) Schools in Dharamsala and at Tibetan institutions elsewhere in India. The President later withdrew his children from the TCV school and sent them to a school in a foreign country. But this was not due to any pressure from the Tibetan Administration; the President merely found a "greener pasture" elsewhere. The office of the TCV, the Central Tibetan Schools Administration (which runs all the schools for Tibetans funded by the Government of India) and the Tibetan Homes Fondation issued written denials that any children had been expelled from their schools because their parents propitiated Shugden. A repudiation of the dismissal of any Tibetan Administrative personnel on similar grounds was issued by the Public Service Commission of the Tibetan Administration. China's Hidden Hand Beijing lost no time in trying to exploit the situation to its advantage. The official Chinese media made much of the criticism of His Holiness and the exile Administration by pro-Shugden groups in India and Europe. In specific reference to this issue, the official Chinese periodical, China's Tibet, supported the contention of Shugden activists by saying, "Tibetan compatriots living in India and Nepal joined in a collective protest opposing the Dalai Lama's decision and banded together to protect monasteries, lamas and nuns from hounding by the Dalai and his men." Another piece of Chinese propaganda recently featured a photograph of Gangchen Rinpoche, a prominent proponent of Shugden based in Italy and Nepal, seated alongside the child the Chinese government has imposed in the place of the Panchen Lama. (The Panchen Lama recognized by His Holiness the Dalai Lama remains under house arrest in China). Elsewhere, a publication brought out by Shugden supporters implies support for the Chinese stand over recognition of the new Panchen Lama. It is believed that other Shugden advocates have also visited China and that they are receiving substantial funding for their activities in India and overseas from China. Reports from several sources confirm that visa application forms for Tibetan refugee monks applying for permission to visit Tibet include the question, "Are you a Shugden practitioner?" It is said that a visa is more likely to be granted if the answer is "Yes". All this is consistent with Beijing's avowed strategy, drawn up at secret official meetings in Chengdu in May 1993 and in Beijing in July 1994, to provoke sectarian and regional divisions within the Tibetan exiled community, in order to undermine the Tibetan freedom struggle. Conclusion The Tibetan Administration calls on all Shugden activists to consider first and foremost the greater good of the Tibetan cause and to desist from their campaign of misinformation and violence, which will benefit nobody but China. Although the Tibetan Administration will continue to declare the demerits of propitiating Shugden, how individuals respond to that advice in private is a matter for their own conscience. Following His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice and the Assembly resolutions, the Administration will strictly discourage group invocation of Shugden to further sectarian divisions or to arouse fear in others. For its part, the Administration has never used, or encouraged the use of, coercion against Shugden practitioners in the past, nor will it do so in the future. 2 November 1997
Department of Information and International Relations
[ Homepage ] [ Dholgyal ][ CTA-book ]
|