Origins
The historical origin of Dhogyal (Shugden) is unclear. Most scriptural documents on him appeared at the 19th century. There exist different orally-transmitted versions of his origins, but in the key points they contradict one another. Some references to Shugden are found in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama, so there is some agreement that the origins of Shugden stem from that time. According to a letter[9] of the present head of the Sakya Tradition, H.H. Sakya Trizin, 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.".[10] Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama of the 20th century, who received this practice from his root guru, is attributed with spreading reliance on Dorje Shugden widely within the Gelug tradition "during the 1930s and 1940s, and in this way a formerly marginal practice became a central element of the Gelug tradition."[11]
This issue has a long history and involves not only the Fourteenth Dalai Lama but also the Thirteenth and the Fifth Dalai Lamas. This history is discussed extensively in an article by Professor Georges Dreyfus.
The "founding myth" behind Shugden worship involves a lama named Drakpa Gyaltsen (1618-1655) who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Lobsang Gyatso (1617-1682). In fact the former seems to have been a candidate to become the Fifth Dalai Lama himself (i.e., while a child, some lamas proposed him as the reincarnation of the Fourth) but he was passed over. Their rivalry continued, however, and according to legend resulted in the early death (perhaps the murder) of Drakpa Gyaltsen. Later Trijang Rinpoche said that in reality there was no rivalry and pointed to that event as a "skilful means" (to tame the mind of disciples).
Among the different stories of the origins of Dorje Shugden is the idea that murder victims often become transformed into vengeful spirits, and as such Lama Drakpa Gyeltsen was able to transform his wrath to religious ends, namely the protection of the Gelugpa tradition against the influence of other schools. Hence his transformation into the "protector deity" Shugden to protect the "Purity" of the Gelug school. Georges Dreyfus doubts the historicity of this legend because there are no reliable scriptural sources of the historical background for this. The legend was written about later by apologists of Shugden.
Key figures in the modern popularization of worshipping Dorje Shugden are Je Pabongkha (1878-1944), a charismatic Khampa lama who seems to have been the first historical Gelugpa figure to promote Shugden worship as a major element of Gelugpa practice; and Trijang Rinpoche (1901-1981), a Ganden lama who was one of the tutors of the present Dalai Lama. The Lama Pabongkha put great emphasis on spreading this practice and thus made the practice quite popular in the Gelug tradition. Je Phabongka was scolded by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama for doing so and promised to stop, however after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, he began to spread the practice even more than previously.
In the beginning Dorje Shugden was seen by Pabongkha Rinpoche as a worldly deity who has to be controlled by tantric power, later he introduced him as an emanation of Manjushri. According to Lama Pabongkha's view Drakpa Gyeltsen was an incarnation of Dorje Shugden but his death is not the cause of Dorje Shugden. He established a line of arguments argueing that Shugden has a very close connection to practitioners of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition and is now their powerful protector and able to bestowing blessings and create appropriate conditions for Dharma realisations to flourish. To do this he established the idea that the original three protectors of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition (Kalarupa, who was bound by Tsongkhapa himself, Vaisravana and Mahakala) have gone to their pure lands and have no power anymore because the Karma of the Gelug adepts has changed and they should now follow Shugden.
Dreyfus wrote in his research:[12]
"Pabongkha suggests that he is the protector of the Gelug tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tsongkhapa himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shugden's partisans use to justify their claim. According to this story, the Dharma-king has left this world to retire in the pure land of Tushita having entrusted the protection of the Gelug tradition to Shugden. Thus, Shugden has become the main Gelug protector."
"Though Pabongkha was not particularly important by rank, he exercised a considerable influence through his very popular public teachings and his charismatic personality. Elder monks often mention the enchanting quality of his voice and the transformative power of his teachings. Pabongkha was also well served by his disciples, particularly the very gifted and versatile Trijang Rinpoche (khri byang rin po che, 1901-1983), a charismatic figure in his own right who became the present Dalai Lama's tutor and exercised considerable influence over the Lhasa higher classes and the monastic elites of the three main Gelug monasteries around Lhasa. Another influential disciple was Tob-den La-ma (rtogs ldan bla ma), a stridently Gelug lama very active in disseminating Pabongkha's teachings in Khams. Because of his own charisma and the qualities and influence of his disciples, Pabongkha had an enormous influence on the Gelug tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Gelug tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shugden as the protector, and Pabongkha as the guru."
"Where Pabongkha was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Gelug tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Tsongkhapa's teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pabongkha's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dorje Shugden as the central protector of the Gelug tradition. Whereas previously Shugden seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Gelug tradition, Pabongkha made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. In this way, he founded a new and distinct way of conceiving the teachings of the Gelug tradition that is central to the "Shugden Affair."
The conflict and refutations cannot be understood fully without seeing the complex historical, religious, social, scientific, and cultural background and the struggle of the reformers, conservatives, and traditionalists in Tibet. The practice of Shugden involves family relations too. For instance one Shugden oracle (Kuten lama) is the uncle of Kelsang Gyatso the founder of New Kadampa Tradition. On the other hand Tibet was quite isolated, and there was not much modern scientific outlook. Even at the time when the Chinese took over Tibet, Buddhist teachers in Tibet taught (and this was also taught to HH the Dalai Lama) that the earth was flat, that the moon shone from itself and was the same distance from the Earth as the sun is, and the texts on the "history" of Tibet told about building a thousand stupas in one day, and the like.
[edit] The dispute itself
Since its inception, the practice has been disputed within all four Tibetan Buddhist Schools. There has been a dispute in the Gelug tradition as to whether he is a Buddha or a Demon; also, most masters from the other Tibetan Buddhist schools (Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya) see Shugden (Dhogyal) as a Demon. Pabongkha Rinpoche was himself contradictionary on Shugden. In his first commentaries on the practice, he dealt with him as worldly (unenlightened) Dharmapalas are dealt with: the disciple has to control him by his Tantric Power and give him orders. Later Shugden was considered to be a manifestation of the enlightened Buddha Manjushri.
The dispute can be summarized as follows:
• Today his adherents say Shugden is an enlightened being similar to many others of the Mahayana tradition — a Dharmapala, an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri.
• His detractors say Shugden is not an enlightened being. Some say he is a "worldly" protector spirit, but many others see him as a demon and thus an inappropriate object of Buddhist worship.
Driving this dispute is the inherent nature of Dorje Shugden, which is to "protect" the Gelug lineage from adulteration by the traditions of other lineages, especially the Nyingmapa. His practice includes a promise not even to touch a Nyingma scripture, and several pro-Shugden lamas have said Shugden will kill those who violate this vow. "Conservative" Gelugpas may find such language congenial to their views, while "liberals" are more likely to stress the arbitrary nature of such sectarian divisions. The dispute appears mainly theological; however the extent to which theology dovetails with more secular interests of particular monasteries, families, and other power-holders should not be overlooked.
Though the roots of the Dorje Shugden controversy are more than 360 years old, the issue surfaced within the Tibetan exile community during the 1970s. After Zemey Rinpoche published the Yellow Book, which included stories passed by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, members of the Gelugpa sect who also practiced Gelug and Nyingma teachings and were killed by Shugden. After publication of the Yellow Book, the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion in several closed teachings that the practice should be stopped, although he made no general public statement. Finally, in 1995, he felt the necessity to make his opinion of the practice public and did so during open teachings, during which he made it clear that to practice Dorje Shugden was to oppose the Tibetan cause and harm his life, effectively obliging institutions, including monasteries, to abandon the practice or make the practice secret and personal. He further requested that anyone pursuing this practice should no longer attend his Teachings, stressing that it would go against the close bond between student and teacher if the student were to do practices harmful to their teacher. Some lamas such as Gonsar Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso protested against this because they felt an implied loss of freedom caused by His Holinesses public statements. Mainly the NKT organised demonstrations and a press campaign, which attracted international media attention to the issue during the 1990s. NKT founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from Sera Monastery because of his behavior against the Dalai Lama.
There have been high Gelug Lamas like the senior tutor of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, and others who not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice. The prominent Dzogchen master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche "has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults"[13] and started to warn his followers relating to that cult and people who follow it.
The Fourteenth Dalai Lama advised this although he has in the past received Shugden empowerments from one of his teachers, Trijang Rinpoche and practiced it. That's why he has been criticized by NKT members and some Shugden adherents (who strongly emphasize Guru obedience). They argued that he has failed to observe the vows given by one of his teachers and has "broken with his Guru" and that he has forced others to do likewise.
On the other hand the decisions of the Dalai Lama can be seen in accordance with the advice of the Buddha in the Kalama Sutra only to accept what is reasonable, well checked, and accords with the Dharma and not just because tradition or teachers taught it. His actions can also been seen as being in accordance with the commentaries on Guru devotion by Tsongkhapa, the Kalachakra Tantra and the Vinaya. Especially the Kalachakra Tantra has a passage which is related to such topics.
After Kay had introduced and investigated both views on Shugden[14] he summarized the two positions: "Scholarly discussions of the various legends behind the emergence of the Dorje Shugden cult can be found in Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1956), Chime Radha Rinpoche (1981), and Mumford (1989). All of these accounts narrate the latter of the two positions, in which the deity is defined as a worldly protector. The fact that these scholars reveal no awareness of an alternative view suggests that the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance."[15]
[edit] The political dimension
According to Kay, “whilst the conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment have often resented the inclusive and impartial policies of the Dalai Lamas towards revival Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Dalai Lama has in turn rejected exclusivism on the grounds of that encourages sectarian disunity and thereby harms the interests of the Tibetan state.”[16] Thus the Dalai Lamas have spoken out against what he saw as spiritually harmful as well as nationally damaging. Especially during Tibet’s present political circumstance the present Dalai Lama felt the urge to speak against Dorje Shugden practice. In sum the Dalai Lama’s main criticisms of Shugden practice is that the "practice fosters religious intolerance and harms the Tibetan cause and unity".
There are different political interpretations of that conflict.
In the context of the Tibetan history Kay states: "The political policies of the Dalai Lamas have also been informed by this inclusive orientation. It can be discerned, for example, in the Great Fifth's (1617-82) leniency and tolerance towards opposing factions and traditions following the establishment of Gelug hegemony over Tibet in 1642; in the Great Thirteenth's (1876-1933) modernist-leaning reforms, which attempted to turn Tibet into a modern state through the assimilation of foreign ideas and institutions (such as an efficient standing army and Western-style education); and in the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's promotion of egalitarian principles and attempts to 'Maintain good relations among the various traditions of Tibetan religion in exile' (Samuel 1993: 550). This inclusive approach has, however, repeatedly met opposition from others within the Gelug tradition whose orientation has been more exclusive. The tolerant and eclectic bent of the Fifth Dalai Lama, for example, was strongly opposed by the more conservative segment of the Gelug tradition. These 'fanatic and vociferous Gelug churchmen' (Smith 1970: 16) were outraged by the support he gave to Nyingma monasteries, and their 'bigoted conviction of the truth of their own faith' (Smith 1970: 21) led them to suppress the treatises composed by more inclusively orientated Gelug lamas who betrayed Nyingma, or other non-Gelug, influences. Similary, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama's political reforms were thwarted by the conservative element of the monastic segment which feared that modernisation and change would erode its economic base and the religious basis of the state. His spiritually inclusive approach was also rejected by contemporaries such as Pabongkha Rinpoche (1878-1943)...As with his predecessors, the current Dalai Lama's open and ecumenical approach to religious practice and his policy of representing the interests of all Tibetans equally, irrespective of their particular traditional affiliation, has been opposed by disgruntled Geiug adherents of a more exclusive orientation. This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through a dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden."”[17]
Another view more looking to the present situation is: “it has been suggested that the Dalai Lama, in rejecting Dorje Shugden, is speaking out against a particular quasi-political factions within the Gelug tradition-in-exile who are opposed to his modern, ecumenical and democratic political vision, and who believe that the Tibetan government”[16] “should champion a fundamentalist version of Tibetan Buddhism as a state religion in which the dogmas of the Nyingmapa, Kagyupa, and Sakyapa schools are heterodox and discredited.”[18] According to this interpretation, Dorje Shugden has become a political symbol for this “religious fundamentalist party”.[16] From this point of view, the rejection of Dorje Shugden should be interpreted "not as an attempt to stamp out a religious practice he disagrees with, but as a political statement". According to Sparham: "He has to say he opposes a religious practice in order to say clearly that he wants to guarantee to all Tibetans an equal right to religious freedom and political equality in a future Tibet."[19]
Dreyfus argues that although the political dimension forms an important part of that dispute it does not provide an adequate explanation for it.[16] He traces back the conflict more on the exclusive/inclusive approach and maintains that to understand the Dalai Lamas point of view one has to consider the complex ritual basis for the institution of the Dalai Lamas, which was developed by the Great Fifth and rests upon "an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nyingma tradition combine with an overall Gelug orientation"[20] This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school. The 5th Dalai Lama was criticized by and has been treated in a hostile manner by conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment for doing this and for supporting Nyingma practitioners. The same happened when the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava, central to the Nyingmas, and when he introduced Nyingma rituals at his personal Namgyal Monastery (Dharmasala, India). Whilst the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava for the purpose of unifying the Tibetans and "to protect Tibetans from danger",[21] the "more exclusively orientated segments of the Gelug boycotted the ceremonies",[16] and in that context the sectarian Yellow Book was published.
Other analysts argue the opposite view, that it is the Tibetan Government in Exile which seeks to create a homegenity of belief. Wilson argues[22] that the TGIE is a Theocracy which he identifies by the following features, "religious freedom is restricted because state power is marshaled in favour of a particular set of religious beliefs (and, by extension, against others), the intention being to eradicate alternative beliefs and pursue national homogeneity of belief.".[22]
According to Wilson the pursuit of religious homogeneity have been illustrated during "The last thirty years" which have "witnessed the growing ascendancy, both in exile and within Tibet, of the Dalai Lama as either the direct root–guru of all those firmly interested in Tibetan independence (often through the numerous mass Kalachakra empowerments he has given since 1959) or, more commonly, the indirect apex of an increasingly unified pyramid of lamaic (guru-disciple) relationships, many of which transcend the sectarian divides which became entrenched within Tibetan Buddhism during the centuries following the 5th Dalai Lama’s establishment of centralized Gelugkpa rule in Central Tibet." In this context, by criticising the practice of Shugden, the TGIE is asserting "the functional role of religion within the constitution for a sacral political life centered on the Dalai Lama and held together primarily by acts of ritualized loyalty."[22] or as Helmut Gassner (Swiss), a former interpreter of the Dalai Lama and a Shugden follower, argues "...for most Tibetans nothing is more important than the Dalai Lama's life; so if one is labelled an enemy of the Dalai Lama, one is branded as a traitor and therewith 'free-for-all' or an outlaw."[23]
Wilson argues that "the Dalai Lama’s request that Shugden worshippers not receive the tantric initiations — the foundation of the ‘root-guru’ relationship — from him, effectively placed them outside the fold of the exiled Tibetan polity."[22] He establishes this view by arguing that the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is a theocracy and that the Dalai Lama's statements in Spring 1996 "during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was an “evil spirit” whose actions were detrimental to the “cause of Tibet”" reflect the Dalai Lama's decision to "move more forcefully" in response "to growing pressure – particularly from the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project".[24]
Jane Ardley writes,[25] concerning the political dimension of the Shugden controversy. "…the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this."[25]
Ardley references the following directive published by the Tibetan Government in Exile to illustrate the "interwoven" nature of the politics and religion:
"In sum, the departments, their branches and subsidiaries, monasteries and their branches that are functioning under the administrative control of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile should be strictly instructed, in accordance with the rules and regulations, not to indulge in the propitiation of Shugden. We would like to clarify that if individual citizens propitiate Shugden, it will harm the common interest of Tibet, the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and strengthen the spirits that are against the religion."'[26]
PART 1 FROM WICKIPEDIA
