The History of Dorje Shugden

In the commentary Heart Jewel, Geshe Kelsang explains the spiritual history of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden -- a short account that is deeply inspiring to practitioners and that evokes great faith. It is enough history for many who have faith in their spiritual teachers, lineage and Protector.

Now a new website has been completed, which gives more detail and historical context through which everyone, even the most skeptical, can hopefully start to see that Dorje Shugden has always been relied upon as a Buddha.

This website uncovers the texts, rituals, historical works and art dedicated to the practice of the Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden. As the author, Trinley Kalsang, explains:

"Although there are many texts that reveal the gradual development of the system of ritual for this deity, much of this has not been brought out in the open for examination."

Much of this material in fact has been deliberately suppressed because it proves that Dorje Shugden has been considered an enlightened being and the Protector of the Gelug lineage for several hundred years, since he first arose in this form; and this quite obviously undermines the 14th Dalai Lama's pronouncements of Dorje Shugden being a spirit of the dark forces, a Chinese demon, and so on.

Trinley Kalsang, a scholar of Tibetan, focuses on works from the time period before the 20th century. He leaves aside the works of Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche with the exception of various references to how these have drawn upon these earlier works. In particular, it can now be seen how the basic components of the practice were originally developed within the Sakya tradition and then incorporated into the Gelug tradition.

In particular, these translations and essays naturally disprove many of the fallacious ideas written in The Shuk-den Affair by Georges Dreyfus, who put the onus of the development and spread of Dorje Shugden on the individual figure of Pabongkha Rinpoche in the 20th century. He was not the first to do so, but he lent the Dalai Lama's claim Western academic credibility and enabled copy cat commentators, altogether doing a great deal of damage to the reputation of Dorje Shugden and his followers.

As Trinley Kalsang explains, the presentation of The Shuk-den Affair follows the same approach as that found in polemical Tibetan works, including the Brief History of Opposition to Shugden by the Tibetan Government in Exile's “Dolgyal Research Committee", the main thrust of which is to discredit the Dorje Shugden practice by discrediting Pabongkha Rinpoche. With this approach, the existing practice is presented as a whimsical device of one person rather than as a true spiritual practice with precedence. With The Shuk-den Affair, Dreyfus took this same pre-existing presentation and wrapped it in a seemingly scholarly package.

Dreyfus therefore got behind the Dalai Lama and his Government in Exile in discrediting the practice of Dorje Shugden and falsely accusing the highly revered Gelugpa Lama Je Phabongkhapa of possessing a sectarian agenda. Regrettably, some later Western commentators such as David Kay relied upon Dreyfus's work as the basis for their own inaccurate and defamatory accounts of the Wisdom Buddha without doing the original research that would have shown them that Dreyfus's work was full of problems and political bias to begin with. Consciously or not, these commentators' omission in doing decent research, relying so heavily on accounts by the Dalai Lama, TGIE and Dreyfus, seems to have arisen from trying to stay on the right side of the Tibetan power structure. It appears that they took as their starting point the assumption that the Dalai Lama must be right and skewed the history to fit with this. Had they found these collected works, and used them, they might have been able to tell a more accurate story.

The main sources for this website were originally collected by the Mongolian scholar and master Lobsang Tamdin (1867-1937), who gathered a number of earlier texts written by Mongolian and Tibetan masters. Regardless of where individuals stand on whether or not people should be allowed to continue their practice of Dorje Shugden, the translations on this website prove that Pabongkha Rinpoche did not invent any aspect of this practice, but merely absorbed and propagated it.The translations speak for themselves -- not a lot of added interpretation or polemics are required to challenge the views of the Dalai Lama, the TGIE, Dreyfus, and other detractors.

As the author says:

"In short, it has been revealed from historical sources that Dorje Shugden is the Three Bodhisattvas: Avalokiteshvara, Vajrapani and Manjushri. He is the sole protector ever to bear the title Protector of the Conqueror Manjunatha, having the responsibility to protect and promote the doctrine of the Second Buddha Jamgon Lama Tsongkhapa. "

Part Five: Disputing Pico Iyer's version of events regarding the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden

Fifth and final part of setting the record straight on Pico Iyer's book, Open Road, The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

On the false view of non-sectarianism

p 121

In effect, he seemed to be bringing out into the world two sometimes unrelated treasures, each of them explosive, one was Tibet and it’s particular culture, often hard to translate into other tongues, and the other was his brand of Buddhism. To mass general audiences, he always stressed “on crazy wisdom,” as you could call it, because philosophy seemed a way to cut through all the divisions to some universal human core. (“Sectarianism is poison,” he writes in an unusual violent statement in his second autobiography.) When he spoke of Nalanda Buddhism, “in honor of ancient Buddhism University in India from which his tradition’s great philosophers had emerged, he was essentially suggesting that reason and universality could offer places where Gelug practitioner and Kagyu, eastern Tibetan and central, American and Chinese could come together.

“His brand of Buddhism” is a very interesting phrase because that's what it is. What the Dalai Lama is promoting is his very own version of Buddhism, a sort of amalgamation of the traditional Tibetan Buddhist schools of Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelugpa. He has referred to it a couple of times now, most recently in Nottingham in May 2008.

What is 'Nalanda Buddhism'? In this context, it is quite simply the Dalai Lama's break with tradition. He advertises it as tradition by using the name of a famous monastic university in India and quoting the names of great Masters such as Nagarjuna, but the truth is that the Dalai Lama is now his own tradition. He wasn't the Head of any school of Tibetan Buddhism so he created his own tradition. He calls it 'rigme' or “non-denominational”. It seems that to arrive at this tradition you pick which bits of Tibetan Buddhism you like (principally Dzogchen teachings) and graft on a bit of philosophy. You also throw out any unique quality of each existing Tibetan Buddhist tradition (such as the traditionally chosen Karmapa or the Buddhist Deity Dorje Shugden), and that is when the problems start.

Divide and rule is the method of this tradition, producing a non-denominational mish-mash of the Dalai Lama's making, masquerading as mainstream Buddhism through the power of his celebrity.

The Dalai Lama has a very strange idea of non-sectarianism. He says “sectarianism is poison” but his idea of sectarianism is practising one spiritual tradition purely. Therefore, to be non-sectarian, one has to receive teachings from all Buddhist schools and practise each one. In an interview in Nottingham in May 2008 he said:

“My approach is promotion of non-sectarian. I myself receive teaching from all different Tibetan Buddhist sect”

If each tradition of Tibetan Buddhism has a complete path to enlightenment, why do we need to receive teachings from all of them? Surely it is fine to practise one while maintaining respect and good relationships with the others? This is true non-sectarianism.

What the Dalai Lama calls non-sectarianism is mixing traditions. What the Dalai Lama calls the “Nalanda Tradition” is his attempt to merge all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism together under his leadership. Therefore, for “Nalanda Tradition” read “tradition of Buddhism created by the Dalai Lama by merging the present traditions of Tibetan Buddhism under a false premise of non-sectarianism that allows the Dalai Lama to do as he pleases.”

Pico Iyer says:

....he was essentially suggesting that reason and universality could offer places where Gelug practitioner and Kagyu, eastern Tibetan and central, American and Chinese could come together.

No, he was essentially suggesting that there could be a tradition of Buddhism that the Dalai Lama has created and is the supreme leader of, and that encompasses all Buddhists. This is what the Dalai Lama has worked for: supreme religious and political power. He's a politician in the robes of a monk, causing confusion by that very dichotomy; posing as a religious authority when he is not the head of any school of Buddhism, speaking words like 'religious freedom' and 'harmony' while he destroys both.

For Buddhist practitioners to come together is very simple. We don’t all need just one tradition of Buddhism that everyone can subscribe to – we simply need to be left alone with the religious freedom to practise our individual traditions as our Gurus have taught us, while respecting without discrimination the differences and uniqueness of the different sects of Buddhism.

We also need a certain Dalai Lama to stop sowing words of disharmony in the Buddhist community and creating schisms where they ought not to be.

Click here for Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four.

Posted courtesy of Lineage Holder.

Part Three: Disputing Pico Iyer's version of events regarding the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden

Part Three of setting the record straight on Pico Iyer's book, Open Road, The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama's personal feelings about Dorje Shugden

pp 135-138

One hot day in August 2005 in Zurich, at an eight day set of teachings on compassion the Dalai Lama was offering, the public address system suddenly declared- in German, Tibetan, and English- that followers of Shugden should take care not to attend the following morning, when the Dalai Lama was going to be offering some special initiations. Flyers were handed out to the same effect, and the announcement was broadcast again. Then, as he was nearing the end of his daily explication of the text, at 4pm, the Dalai Lama suddenly said “Today I am going to speak for 30 extra minutes. If that makes problems for you, please feel free to go. But I hope you will not mind my going on a little late today.” The audience, which could never get enough of him- many of its members had travelled across the world for these teachings- was clearly delighted.

Slowly at first, in long and forceful Tibetan sentences- rendered into German by a scholarly man on stage next to the Dalai Lama (and into other languages by unseen translators speaking into our transistor radios)- the Dalai Lama began to explain why he did not wish any followers of Shugden, to attend the special initiations, even if some of them had chosen, in spite of requests, to attend the other days teachings. For them to be present during these esoteric ceremonies would potentially impede the progress of everyone else, he said, and even do harm to the person giving the initiations, himself.

His voice began to rise, and soon he was speaking like thunder. Argument after argument followed as to why Shugden supporters should not come, and his bearing was as wrathful as I had ever seen him public. Occasionally his words would trail off, and the mild mannered Swiss professor in jacket and tie by his side would start translating the sentences; then, before the man could continue the Dalai Lama would start up again, drowning him out.

The audience laughed at such moments, but not with delight.

This is another oft-repeated lie from the Dalai Lama: Dorje Shugden harms himself and others. How can this be? One of the benefits of Buddhist refuge is that we are protected from harm inflicted by humans and non-humans, so if the Dalai Lama is a follower of Buddha Shakyamuni, how can he be harmed? Furthermore, how can others be harmed? This is a very irrational statement. The bogeyman under the bed is alive and well, appearing in the form of Dorje Shugden as far as the Dalai Lama is concerned. “Watch out, he is coming to get you....!”

I challenge the Dalai Lama to explain clearly and with logical reasons how and why he and others are being harmed by Dorje Shugden. He has been challenged on this before by Geshe Kelsang and other great Lamas, but has never replied.

This passage also clearly shows the strong negative feelings that the Dalai Lama has towards Dorje Shugden. What has Dorje Shugden even done to him except to save his life (by helping him to escape from Tibet)? How can you trust someone whose judgement is so erratic? One minute the Dalai Lama is your friend, the next he's seeing you as his worst enemy! This is completely contrary to everything that Buddha taught.

The Dalai Lama has a right to believe whatever he wants about Dorje Shugden, but he has no right to enforce his view in Tibetan society or elsewhere. Here Pico Iyer shows that the Dalai Lama is a religious dictator, getting on his soapbox and subjecting an unsuspecting audience who came to hear about compassion to a thirty-minute tirade about his hatred of a Buddhist Deity and its followers.

The Dalai Lama is always smiling for the Western media but here he showed his true colours, inducing nervous laughter from an audience who had never seen this man act so extremely in public before. The smiley mask had slipped and what they saw was not very pleasant.

Part Four coming soon.

Click here to read Part One and Part Two.

Posted courtesy of Lineageholder.