User:CFynn/sandbox/Sandbox-1

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy surrounding the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje (or Dolgyal) Shugden and the nature and status of this entity.

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism over the "purity" of the Gelupgpa school and the inclusion of non-Gelugpa teachings, especially Nyingma-teachings. The worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden has become the symbolic center-point of this conflict.

Overview
Dorje Shugden first appeared 17th century, during the time of the 5th Dalai Lama, about the time of the untimely death of another lama, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (d. 1656), considered to be his rival. The popular account says that Dorje Shugden arose as the wrathful manifestation of that lama.

Until the early 20th century, Dorje Shugden was generally considered to be a minor protective deity and the practice was not very widespread. The influential Gelug lama Pabongkha Déchen Nyingpo(1878–1941) promoted a practice of this deity re-envisioning him as an enlightened protector and main guardian the Gekugpa teachings. The 13th Dalai Lama wanted to limit this practice and Pabongkha apparently agreed stop its propagation. But, following the death of the 13th Dalai Lama in 1933, he

The controversy re-surfaced again in 1973 following the publication of a provocative book about this deity and the subsequent responses. In 1976 the 14th Dalai Lama, who had been introduced to the practice by his junior tutor Trijang Rinpoche, began advising Tibetans against the worship of this entity. In subsequent years his advice became increasingly stronger and he has labelled Shugden a “harmful spirit”. Some amongst the minority of Tibetans who continued to worship Shugden alleged that these statements by the Dalai Lama led to discrimination against them by religious authorities and agencies of the Central Tibetan Administration, and to their ostracism by followers of the Dalai Lama.

In 1996 this controversy first came to wider attention following demonstrations held against the Dalai Lama by mostly western followers of lamas still promoting the worship of Shugden who some teach is a “Wisdom Buddha”. These demonstrations were widely reported in the western media and have reoccurred during many of the Dalai Lama’s subsequent visits to Europe and America.

There are various views about the underlying reasons for this ongoing controversy which is ostensibly about whether Shugden is a mundane worldly deity or the manifestation of an enlightened Buddha. Many academics regard the controversy as part of a long standing struggle between conservative and liberal factions within the Gelug tradition to which both the Dalai Lama and his opponents belong. Denouncement of this deity It has also been called an attempt by the Dalai Lama to encourage unity amongst the various Tibetan religious traditions - but opponents claim this is an attempt to control them and suppress their religious freedom. There have also been allegations that this controversy is being stirred up or manipulated by agencies of the Government of China in order to discredit the Dalai Lama and divide opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet.

History
Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet, which was adopted in the 17th century as a "minor protector" of the Gelug school. In the 17th century the 5th Dalai Lama united Tibet politically. He favored the Gelugpa School, to which he belonged, and gave most offices and areas of responsibility to representatives of this school.

Conflict arose, centering on the question whether the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism are equal, or whether the Gelugpa School is to be favoured. Some institutions and state rituals were enthrusted to other schools, which alarmed powerful members of the Gelugpa School. A faction was formed, which professed Dorje Shugden as a protector deity for the purity of the Gelugpa school.

1930s-1940s Pabongkha
In the 1930s, Pa-bong-ka started to promote Dorje Shugden. Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a violent protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against other traditions, transforming Dorje Shugden's "marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition," thus "replacing the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Ge-luk tradition", namely Pehar, Nechung, Palden Lhamo, Mahakala, Vaisravana and Kalarupa, who was appointed by Tsongkhapa. According to Dreyfus, "Shuk-den was nothing but a minor Ge-luk protector before the 1930s when Pa-bong-ka started to promote him aggressively as the main Ge-luk protector."

Dreyfus also notes, "[T]he propitiation of Shukden as a Geluk protector is not an ancestral tradition, but a relatively recent invention of tradition associated with the revival movement within the Geluk spearheaded by Pabongkha."

This change is reflected in artwork, since there is "lack of Dorje Shugden art in the Gelug school prior to the end of the 19th century."

Persecution of the Rimé movement
Dorje Shugden was a key tool in Phabongkha's persecution of the flourishing Rimé movement, an ecumenical movement which compiled together the teachings of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma, in response to the dominance of the Gelugpa school. Non-Gelug, and especially Nyingma, monasteries were forced to convert to the Gelug position.

Phabongkha feared a decline of Gelugpa monasteries, and induced a revival movement, which promoted the Gelugpa as the only pure tradition. He regarded the practice of non-Gelugpa teachings by Gelugpa monks as a threat to the Gepugpa-tradition, and opposed the influence of the other schools, especially the Nyingma. He coupled Dorje Shugden to Gelug exclusivism, using it against other traditions, and against Gelugpa's with eclectic tendencies. The main function of the deity was presented as "the protection of the Ge-luk tradition through violent means, even including the killing of its enemies."

Response by the 13th Dalai Lama
The abbot of Drepung monastery and the 13th Dalai Lama were opposed to Phabongka's propititation of Shugden. Restrictions on the practice of Shugden were implemented by the 13th Dalai Lama. Pabongka apologized and promised not to practice Shuk-den any more.

1970s - The Yellow Book
In 1975 The Yellow Book, also known as The Oral Transmission of the Intelligent Father, was published, enumerates a series of stories that Zimey Rinpoche had heard informally from Trijang Rinpoche about ‘the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to have been shortened by Shuk-den’s displeasure at their practicing Nying-ma teachings’. The text asserts the pre-eminence of the Gelug school which is symbolised and safeguarded by Dorje Shugden, and presents a stern warning to those within the Gelug whose eclectic tendencies would compromise its purity. This publication provoked angry reactions from members of nonGelug traditions, setting in motion a bitter literary exchange that drew on ‘all aspects of sectarian rivalry’.

Response by the 14th Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama publicly rejected The Yellow Book which to his opinion could only damage the common cause of the Tibetan people because of its sectarian divisiveness.

In 1977 he began speaking out against the use of the deity as an institutional protector and laying restrictions on public performances of the practice. In a series of talks, he sought to undermine the status elevation of Dorje Shugden by reaffirming the centrality of the traditional supramundane protectors of the Gelug tradition. He stated that the Shugden practice is in conflict with the state protector Pehar and with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and the Tibetan people, Palden Lhamo. The 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava "to protect Tibetans from danger".

He also vehemently rejected Dorje Shugden’s associated sectarianism, stating that the practice encourages sectarian rivalry between Tibetan Buddhist schools, and emphasising that all the Tibetan traditions are ‘equally profound dharmas’ and defending the ‘unbiased and eclectic’ approach to Buddhist practice as exemplified by the Second, Third and Fifth Dalai Lamas.

Initiations by the 14th Dalai Lama
With the urging of the other schools who have long been opposed to Shugden, and his senior Gelug tutor who always doubted the practice, the 14th Dalai Lama asked the increasing number of western Shugden practitioners who were newly being proselytized primarily in Britain to refrain from attending his teachings.

New Kadampa Tradition
The New Kadampa Tradition, founded by Kelsang Gyatso in 1991, has continued the worship of Dorje Shugden. Kelsang Gyatso regards his school to be the true continuation of the "pure" teachings of Je Tsongkhapa, rejecting the "inclusivism" os the Dalai Lama. Thurman notes that members of the New Kadampa Tradition, responded by trying "...to force their supposed mentor to adopt their perspective that the demonic spirit is an enlightened being, almost more important than the Buddha himself, and perhaps also rejoin their worship of it, or at least give them all his initiatory teachings in spite of their defiance of his best advice."

DSRCS and SSC
In India, some protests and opposition were organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable Society with the support of the SSC.

In, 1996 the SSC attempted to obtain a statement from Amnesty International (AI) that the TGIE (specifically the 14th Dalai Lama) had violated human rights. However, the AI replied that the SSC's allegations were as yet unsubstantiated. Two years later, the AI stated in an official press release that complaints by Shugden practitioners fell outside its purview of "grave violations of fundamental human rights" (such as torture, the death penalty, extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials), adding that "while recognizing that a spiritual debate can be contentious, [we] cannot become involved in debate on spiritual issues." In itself, the nuanced statement neither asserted nor denied the validity of the claims made against the TGIE, just that they were not actionable according to AI's mandate.

The Dorje Shugden Devotees’ Charitable and Religious Society and Kundeling Lama DSDCRS filed a petition against the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and the Dalai Lama, accusing them of harassment and maltreatment. On 5 April 2010, Justice S. Muralidhar dismissed the petition, stating that allegations of violence and harassment were "vague averments" and that there as an "absence of any specific instances of any such attacks."

Murder of Lobsang Gyatso and two students
On February 4, 1997, the principal of the Buddhist School of Dialectics, Geshe Lobsang Gyatso was murdered in Dharmasala, along with two of his students. The murders were linked to the Dorje Shugden faction. Kay notes "The subsequent investigation by the Indian police linked the murders to the Dorje Shugden faction of the exiled Tibetan community."

In a small 1978 pamphlet Lobsang Gyatso alluded to a "knotless heretic teacher," which people took as referring to Trijang Rinpoche and his advocacy of Shugden. According to Lobsang Gyatso's biographer, Gareth Sparham, many Geshes and Lamas were outraged about his criticism: "How could a nobody like Lobsang Gyatso, who was neither from an aristocratic family nor the head of a Tibetan region, indeed not even a full graduate of a religious university, dare to criticize in print an important establishment figure? Georges Dreyfus at the time remarked that in pre-1959 Gen-la would have been killed outright for his temerity. Many in the Tibetan community ostracized Gen-la, even though the Dalai Lama had already by that time begun speaking publicly against the Shugden cult. Even the Dalai Lama appeared to distance himself from Gen-la. "He is headstrong and his lack of sensitivity is making trouble," seemed to be his attitude towards Gen-la at the time."

Georges Dreyfus added that "Despite being hurt by the polemical attack, Tri-jang Rin-po-che made it clear that violence was out of the question. Gradually, tempers cooled down and the incident was forgotten—or so it seemed."

In June 2007, the Times stated that Interpol had issued a Red notice to China for extraditing two of the alleged killers, Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin. Robert Thurman adds that the alleged killers had their origin within China as well. The Seattle Times reported that: "The two men suspected of stabbing their victims are believed to have fled India. Five others, all linked to the Dorje Shugden Society in New Delhi, were questioned for months about a possible conspiracy. No one has been charged."

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso denied the involvement of any of his followers in the murder, and condemned the killings.

Attempted murder
Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche revealed an attempt to frame the Tibetan government in exile with murder: "In my own labrang, I have recently witnessed a kind of factionalism, and I have discovered that one person in particular was planning an evil conspiracy. This plan was to murder my assistant, Tharchin, and to implicate His Holiness’s government-in-exile with this odious crime [...] If he had succeeded in his plan, it would have been a cause of great trouble for the labrang, as well as a cause of disgrace to the Tibetan government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama."

Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche declaration disturbed the image of a peaceful community, and the polemics against the Dalai Lama diminshed for a long while.

Ongoing protests
Hundreds of western Shugden practitioners have staged numerous demonstrations against the Dalai Lama, most recently in 2014 in San Francisco, Berkeley, Washington DC, Oslo, Rotterdam and Frankfurt. In response, the "Central Tibetan Administration" published two lists of participants of the protests.

Views
Ling Rinpoche, who was the Ganden Tripa and senior Gelug tutor to the 14th Dalai Lama, was opposed to Shugden as he hailed from Drepung monastery.

The 14th Dalai Lama himself said in 2008, that he never used the word "ban", and "...restricting a form of practice that restricts others’ religious freedom is actually a protection of religious freedom. So in other words, negation of a negation is an affirmation.""

Kelsang Gyatso
In an interview with scholar Donald Lopez, in regards to the controversy, Geshe Kelsang explains "We believe that Dorje Shugden is a buddha who is also a dharmapala. Problems have arisen because of someone’s view. So although we say the “Dorje Shugden problem” in reality this is a human problem, not a Dorje Shugden problem. This is not a fault of Buddha-dharma, not a fault of Tibetan Buddhism, or even a fault of Tibetan people in general. This is a particular person’s wrong view. He can keep this view, of course, but forcing other people to follow this is not right. For this reason, nowadays we [Tibetan Buddhists] are showing many problems to the world. We are ashamed and sorry that this causes the reputation of Buddhists in general to be damaged. It is not a general Buddhist problem, but a specific problem within Tibetan Buddhism."

According to Kelsang Gyatso, "Dorje Shugden always helps, guides, and protects pure and faithful practitioners by granting blessings, increasing their wisdom, fulfilling their wishes, and bestowing success on all their virtuous activities. Dorje Shugden does not help only Gelugpas; because he is a Buddha he helps all living beings, including non-Buddhists."

1970s response by the Dalai Lama
According to Georges Dreyfus, the sectarian elements of the Yellow Book were not unusual and do not "justify or explain the Dalai Lama's strong reaction." Instead, he traces back the conflict more on the exclusive/inclusive approach and maintain that to understand the Dalai Lama's 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." This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school.

Kay reminds us that "[W]hen traditions come into conflict, religious and philosophical differences are often markers of disputes that are primarily economic, material and political in nature."

Dalai Lama
Several reasons for the 14th Dalai Lama's stance have been given. According to John Makransky, "The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the “protector” deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects."

According to Kapstein, the 14th Dalai Lama is "...focused upon the role of Shugden as a militantly sectarian protector of the Gelukpa order, and the harm that has been done to Tibetan sectarian relations by the cult's more vociferous proponents."

According to Dreyfus, the 14th Dalai Lama stance stems from his favoring the traditional Gelugpa traditions and protectors rather than Shugden: "[I]n this dispute the Dalai Lama’s position does not stem from his Buddhist modernism and from a desire to develop a modern nationalism, but from his commitment to another protector, Nechung, who is said to resent Shukden [...] his opposition to Shukden is motivated by his return to a more traditional stance in which this deity is seen as incompatible with the vision of the tradition (the "clan") represented by the Fifth Dalai Lama."

Elevation of Dorje Shugden
According to David Kay Kelsang Gyatso departs from Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche by stating that Dorje Shugden's appearance is enlightened, rather than worldly. According to Kay, "Geshe Kelsang takes the elevation of Dorje Shugden’s ontological status another step further, emphasising that the deity is enlightened in both essence and appearance."

He explains how Geshe Kelsang Gyatso presents Dorje Shugden's appearance: "Some people believe that Dorje Shugdan is an emanation of Manjushri who shows the aspect of a worldly being, but this is incorrect. Even Dorje Shugdan’s form reveals the complete stages of the path of Sutra and Tantra, and such qualities are not possessed by the forms of worldly beings."

Criticism of Proponents of Dorje Shugden
According to Dreyfus, "The irony is that Shuk-den is presented by his followers as the protector of the Ge-luk (dge lugs) school, of which the Dalai Lama is the (de facto) leader."

According to John Makransky: "[S]ome Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! [...] 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."

According to Tibetologist Thierry Dodin, "The demonstrators are almost exclusively western monks and nuns, ordained in the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) according to the group’s own ritual."

Dodin states that it is the New Kadampa Tradition "...that since the 1990’s has held spectacular demonstrations whenever the Dalai Lama went to the West."

Dodin also states that "The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too."

NKT/WSS claims
Scholars reject NKT/WSS claims. Robert Thurman for example states "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute."

Scholars reject NKT/WSS claims that the 14th Dalai Lama has suppressed religious freedom, indicating that the situation is actually the opposite. Thurman says: "They then went on the attack, claiming they had been "banned" and "excommunicated," etc., when in fact the Dalai Lama was exercising his religious freedom by not accepting students who reject his advice, and actually go so far as to condemn him!"

Thurman explains that members of the cult want: "to force their supposed mentor to adopt their perspective that the demonic spirit is an enlightened being, almost more important than the Buddha himself, and perhaps also rejoin their worship of it, or at least give them all his initiatory teachings in spite of their defiance of his best advice."

Regarding NKT/WSS claims that there is prohibition of Shugden, and therefore a repression of religious freedom, Thierry Dodin states: "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom."

Nathan W. Hill, Lecturer in Tibetan and Linguistics at London University SOAS’ (School of Oriental and African Studies), states that the Dalai Lama does not control the Indian government, or any other government: "This accusation makes no sense … the Dalai Lama is not head of any state; he has no military or police at his command; he has no political jurisdiction over which he can exercise suppression. Some members of the Gelug sect left the authority of the Dalai Lama in order to follow what they see as a purer form of religion. These people may not be very popular in other parts of the Gelug sect, but their human rights have not been violated nor their freedoms suppressed; even if some people did want to suppress or silence the pro-Shugen side, they simply have no means of doing so.”"

Similarly, Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University states that "ID cards are not given out by the Tibetan government in exile, but by the Indian authorities".

Barnett says the WSS is "severely lacking in credibility": "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.”"

Chinese government involvement
Robert Thurman, a noted academic close to the Dalai Lama, claims that Shugden activities are financed by the United Front Work Department of the government of China as part of its strategy against the Dalai Lama.

Raimondo Bultrini documents the Chinese alleged coordination of Shugden activity in the book The Dalai Lama and the King Demon.

Within Chinese controlled territory, the Chinese government demands monks to worship Shugden, in conjunction with forcing them to denounce the Dalai Lama and fly the Chinese national flag.

According to Ben Hillman, "According to one senior lama from Sichuan, the Chinese government naturally allies itself with the Shugden supporters, not just to undermine the Dalai Lama, but because most Shugden worshippers come from Eastern Tibet, from areas that were only ever loosely under Lhasa’s jurisdiction and are today integrated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan. Monks who had traveled across these areas note that the central government has allocated a disproportionate amount of funds since 1996 to pro-Shugden monasteries to assist them with construction and renovations. Evidence of local government favoritism toward the pro-Shugden faction began to emerge at S Monastery in 2003 when monks applied for permission to undertake studies in India. Despite equal numbers of applications from all khangtsens, of the 12 monks who were issued travel documents, only one was from an anti-Shugden khangtsen. Similarly, in 2004, one of the monastery’s smallest and (previously) poorest khangtsens began to build an elaborate new prayer room and residence for its handful of members. Financial support had been obtained from Beijing through a network of pro-Shugden lamas with access to officials at the highest level."

According to the Tibetologist Thierry Dodin, "China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority.

He also provides a couple of examples of China's role in Shugden activity: "For instance, the construction of Shugden temples and monasteries is being subsidised by the State. We also know that most of the teachers surrounding the young man who in 1995 was designated as the Panchen Lama by the Chinese leadership, against the will of the Dalai Lama, belong to the Shugden group. I think these examples clearly demonstrate the role China is playing in this conflict."

Also the Central Tibetan Administration in India has claimed that "In order to undermine the peace and harmony within the Tibetan people, China provides political and financial support to Shugden worshippers in Tibet, India and Nepal in particular, and in general, across the globe." And, in an on-line article published by the Times of India, a source in the Religion and Culture Department of the Tibetan Government in exile is quoted as saying that Dorje Shugden followers  "have their people in all Tibetan settlements. We are worried about their sources of funding. It might be China or some other anti-Tibetan elements."

In December 2012, Lama Jampa Ngodrup, a promoter of the practice of Dorje Shugden, apparently became "the first Tibetan lama to be appointed by the Chinese Government to travel on an official trip abroad to give Dharma teachings."

Academic sources




Other Sources