Theological Implications of the Dalai Lama’s Religious Ban

In analyzing the Dalai Lama’s Dorje Shugden ban, it is easy enough to see how restricting a person from expressing his religious beliefs is a breach of his human rights. However, even as news about the ban acknowledges how it impinges on various ‘freedom of religion’ provisions in the constitutions of a long list of democratic countries and the United Nations Charter, it fails to recognize how the ban impacts on the very theology of Tibetan Buddhism.

Shugden worshippers are quite regularly described as belonging to an ‘extreme religious fundamentalist sect’. But in truth, what makes it seem fundamentalist is the Shugden practitioner’s steadfastness in observing a precept that is fundamental to the successful practice of the Vajrayana path. The said precept is not uniquely Shugden, but deemed critical to virtually all schools under the Tibetan Buddhist banner, i.e. the great importance of keeping one’s vows and commitments to the teacher.

By Western values that are heavily influenced by Christian principles, such loyalty may be regarded as cultish thinking or fanaticism that immediately carries negative connotations. However, the mistake is to assume that a practitioner’s devotion to his teacher is based on the teacher’s charisma and unique cult personality. It is not.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the taking and holding of sets of vows are prerequisites to a successful practice and it is normal for a practitioner on his quest for enlightenment to take refuge vows; and as he progresses in spiritual maturity, the bodhisattva vows and eventually tantric vows. These vows are designed to cultivate a certain attitude in the practitioner and to foster an enlightened view to life and all phenomena. It is in keeping these vows that the practitioner avoids pitfalls that would reverse his training and cause him to stray from a carefully guided path that ends in liberation of the mind. The teacher, then, is the manifestation of one who has successfully traversed the journey and becomes the focus of the practitioner’s efforts.

Seeing the teacher as the ultimate human example of Buddhahood again is not a Shugden invention. In fact, the highest Tibetan lamas from both sides of the Shugden controversy agree to this important view of the teacher.

Lama Zopa, once a Shugden practitioner and now an outspoken Shugden critic says this of the spiritual teacher:

Earlier I mentioned a little about taking refuge in the guru having established the understanding that the essence of the guru is Buddha. The previous Kagyu lamas practiced thus:

Whatever actions are done by the qualified, precious guru — all are good; and whatever actions are done are all of quality.

Even if the act of being a butcher or killing human beings is done, it is meaningful and good. It is definite that sentient beings are guided with compassion.
Source: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=233&chid=342

And again:

As a disciple, one must regard one’s guru as an enlightened being. Even if the guru does not regard himself as an enlightened being and claims that you, as his disciple, gain Buddhahood before him, you must still show respect and pay homage to your guru.
Source: http://www.yogilin.org/efiles/a0/a0003.html

Lama Zopa (right) who gave up his commitments to his guru, Lama Yeshe, to be on the right side of the Dalai Lama’s politics

If the teacher is to be regarded as the Buddha, then to follow the teacher is to agree to obey the Buddha’s instructions along the guided path. The Tibetan term for a practitioner’s promise and commitment to follow a particular set of instructions embodied in the teacher is known as ‘samaya’. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, a student is advised to study his potential teacher carefully but once he takes even the basic refuge vows and regards the teacher as his root guru, that samaya is established and has to be protected.

The most widely accepted principles of samaya define a ‘root’ samaya as that, which if violated, would eliminate all values from the spiritual practice. ‘Branch’ samaya is defined as any, which if defiled, would impair the benefit of practice. And the most grievous root samaya that a practitioner can violate is the vows and commitments to his teacher, seen as the Buddha.

If the student has received ‘sogtae’ (life entrustment) or tantric initiations then it becomes even more imperative that the vows be strictly observed. A practitioner, having taken higher vows, is cautioned of the ‘Fourteen Root Downfalls’, the first of which is to dishonor the teacher. (Read more about the Root commitments of a serious Buddhist practitioner)

A painting of Milarepa, one of Tibet’s famous Yogis and a central historical figure of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. His story is often used to depict the importance of devotion to one’s teacher, emphasizing that all spiritual attainments arise from obeying one’s guru. Loyalty to one’s teacher is not uniquely practiced by Shugden Buddhists, but it is a core element in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

All Tibetan Buddhist schools agree that committing any of the root downfalls creates the causes for a rebirth in ‘vajra hell’. Therefore, if a practitioner who has taken vows with his root teacher were to abandon him and breach his commitments to practices given by the teacher, he condemns himself to the lowest rebirth – the complete opposite to his purpose of practicing Buddhism. However, in imposing the ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden, thus requiring the practitioner to denounce his teacher and the holy practices given to him, this is precisely what the Dalai Lama expects all Shugden Buddhists to do!

The Dalai Lama’s actions forces the Shugden Buddhist to choose between condemning himself to vajra hell or risk being labeled a traitor of the Tibetan people, a worshipper of a ‘Chinese ghost’ and an enemy of the Dalai Lama wishing him and the Tibetan people ill.

The simple truth is, in refusing to abide by the Dalai Lama’s religious ban for which no logical or real scriptural reasons have been provided, Shugden Buddhists are not opposing the Dalai Lama but simply avoiding the defilement of a spiritual code central to the Tibetan Buddhist practice, which ironically the Dalai Lama is thought to be upholding. In truth then, the Shugden controversy cannot be framed as the Dalai Lama versus the Shugden cult. Instead, it should be correctly understood as the diktat of a politically-motivated theocrat versus the pure and proper practice of Shugden Buddhists according to a 360-year-old tradition.

Seen in the proper light, there is little that can be said in defense of the Dalai Lama’s actions. If the Dalai Lama were to argue that one could break vows without any karmic repercussions, it would mean all refuge, Bodhisattva and tantric vows are superficial. However, the Dalai Lama tells all Tibetans that not agreeing to abide by his religious ban is tantamount to breaking samaya with him and would harm his life. So clearly, the Dalai Lama acknowledges that breaking samaya is harmful.

But while that is correct in principle, it is not in application because the Dalai Lama is not the guru to most Shugden Buddhists, and so their keeping of their vows to their own root gurus have no bearing on the Dalai Lama. This is just more proof of how religion is abused to support political objectives. However, if Shugden Buddhists were to abide by an illegal ban with no canonical basis, then they harm their correct practice, they harm themselves and jeopardize their samaya with their Shugden root gurus which is central to the practice of Tibetan Buddhism.

Even if we were to set aside spiritual doctrines, common decency dictates that learning from a guru or spiritual teacher “should not be the same as killing a deer, extracting its musk and then discarding its body.”

Even after attaining enlightenment, one must continue to honor one’s guru for without him realization is simply impossible.

That too is a quote by Lama Zopa who, despite understanding the great importance of samaya, sacrificed his devotion to Lama Yeshe in order to fall on the right side of the Dalai Lama.