A bitter controversy exists within Tibetan Buddhism on the veneration as a protector deity of Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan), a practice rejected by the Dalai Lama and defended as essential by the Dorje Shugden Society and by the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), headquartered in Britain and led by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The controversy escalated with a bitter campaign by the NKT during the Dalai Lama's European visit in the Summer of 1996 and with the murder of three Dalai Lama disciples near Dharamsala, India, on February 4, 1997. On May 3, 1998, followers of Dorje Shugden demonstrated against the Dalai Lama in New York during his visit there. For the background of this controversy, a good starting point is the scholarly paper by David Kay, "The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition", Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 277-293. Essential for understanding the controversy is vol. VII, n. 3 (Spring 1998) of Tricycle The Buddhist Review, including a scheme of the principal players on the controversy (p. 59), the article by Stephen Batchelor "Letting Daylight into Magic: The Life and Times of Dorje Shugden" (pp. 60-66) and "Two Sides of the Same God" by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (pp. 67-69), introducing Lopez's interviews of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (pp. 70-76) and of Thubten Jigme Norbu, the elder brother of the Dalai Lama (pp. 77-82). Also recommended is Donald S. Lopez, Jr.'s book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1998 (see pages 188-196 on Dorje Shugden).

NECHUNG - THE STATE ORACLE OF TIBET

Like many ancient civilizations of the world, the phenomenon of oracles remains an important part of the Tibetan way of life. Tibetans rely on oracles for various reasons. The purpose of the oracles is not just to foretell the future. They are called upon as protectors and sometimes used as healers. However, their primary function is to protect the Buddha Dharma and its practitioners.

In the Tibetan tradition, the word oracle is used for a spirit which enters those men and women who act as mediums between the natural and the spiritual realms. The mediums are, therefore, known as kuten, which literally means, "the physical basis."

In early times it is believed that there were hundreds of oracles throughout Tibet. Today, only a few survive, including those consulted by the Tibetan government. Of these, the principal one is the Nechung oracle. Through him manifests Dorje Drak-den (Nechung), the principal protector divinity of the Tibetan government and the Dalai Lama (see History of Nechung Monastery). It is because of this that Nechung Kuten is given the rank of a deputy minister in the exiled Tibetan government hierarchy.

In his autobiography, Freedom in Exile, His Holiness the Dalai Lama writes:

"For hundreds of years now, it has been traditional for the Dalai Lama, and the Government, to consult Nechung during the New Year festivals. In addition, he might well be called upon at other times if either have specific queries. I myself have dealings with him several times a year. This may sound far-fetched to twentieth-century western readers. Even some Tibetans, mostly those who consider themselves 'progressive', have misgivings about my continued use of this ancient method of intelligence gathering. But I do so for the simple reason that as I look back over the many occasions when I have asked questions of the oracle, on each one of them time has proved that his answer was correct. This is not to say that I rely solely on the oracle's advice. I do not. I seek his opinion in the same way as I seek the opinion of my Cabinet and just as I seek the opinion of my own conscience. I consider the gods to be my 'upper house'. The Kashag constitutes my lower house. Like any other leader, I consult both before making a decision on affairs of state. And sometimes, in addition to Nechung's counsel, I also take into consideration certain prophecies.

"In one respect, the responsibility of Nechung and the responsibility of the Dalai Lama towards Tibet are the same, though we act in different ways. My task, that of leadership, is peaceful. His, in his capacity as protector and defender, is wrathful. However, although our functions are similar, my relationship with Nechung is that of commander to lieutenant: I never bow down to him. It is for Nechung to bow to the Dalai Lama. Yet we are very close, friends almost. When I was small, it was touching. Nechung liked me a lot and always took great care of me. For example, if he noticed that I had dressed carelessly or improperly, he would come over and rearrange my shirt, adjust my robe and so on.

"Nechung has always shown respect for me. Even when his relations with the Government have deteriorated, as they did during the last few years of the Regency, he invariably responds enthusiastically whenever asked anything about me. At the same time, his replies to questions about government policy can be crushing. Sometimes he just responds with a burst of sarcastic laughter. I well remember a particular incident that occurred when I was about fourteen. Nechung was asked a question about China. Rather than answer it directly, the Kuten turned towards the East and began bending forward violently. It was frightening to watch, knowing that this movement combined with the weight of the massive helmet he wore on his head would be enough to snap his neck. He did it at least fifteen times, leaving no one in any doubt about where the danger lay.

"Dealing with Nechung is by no means easy. It takes time and patience during each encounter before he will open up. He is very reserved and austere, just as you would imagine a grand old man of ancient times to be. Nor does he bother with minor matters: his interest is only in the larger issues, so it pays to frame questions accordingly. He also has definite likes and dislikes, but he does not show them very readily.

"Nechung has his own monastery in Dharamsala, but usually he comes to me. On formal occasions, the Kuten is dressed in an elaborate costume consisting of several layers of clothing topped by a highly ornate robe of golden silk brocade, which is covered with ancient designs in red and blue and green and yellow. On his chest he wears a circular mirror which is surrounded by clusters of turquoise and amethyst, its polished steel flashing with the Sanskrit mantra corresponding to Dorje Drakden. Before the proceedings begin, he also puts on a sort of harness, which supports four flags and three victory banners. Altogether, this outfit weighs more than seventy pounds and the medium, when not in trance, can hardly walk in it.

"The ceremony begins with chanted invocations and prayers, accompanied by the urgings of horns, cymbals and drums. After a short while, the Kuten enters his trance, having been supported until then by his assistants, who now help him over to a small stool set before my throne. Then, as the first prayer cycle concludes and the second begins, his trance begins to deepen. At this point, a huge helmet is placed on his head. This item weighs approximately thirty pounds, though in former times it weighed over eighty.

"Now the kuten's face transforms, becoming rather wild before puffing up to give him an altogether strange appearance, with bulging eyes and swollen cheeks. His breathing begins to shorten and he starts to hiss violently. Then, momentarily, his respiration stops. At this point the helmet is tied in place with a knot so tight that it would undoubtedly strangle the Kuten if something very real were not happening. The possession is now complete and the mortal frame of the medium expands visibly.

"Next, he leaps up with a start and, grabbing a ritual sword from one of his attendants, begins to dance with slow, dignified, yet somehow menacing, steps. He then comes in front of me and either prostrates fully or bows deeply from the waist until his helmet touches the ground before springing back up, the weight of his regalia counting for nothing. The volcanic energy of the deity can barely be contained within the earthly frailty of the kuten, who moves and gestures as if his body were made of rubber and driven by a coiled spring of enormous power.

"There follows an interchange between Nechung and myself, where he makes ritual offerings to me. I then ask any personal questions I have for him. After replying, he returns to his stool and listens to questions put by members of the Government. Before giving answers to these the Kuten begins to dance again, thrashing his sword above his head. He looks like a magnificent, fierce Tibetan warrior chieftain of old.

"As soon as Dorje Drakden has finished speaking, the Kuten makes a final offering before collapsing, a rigid and lifeless form, signifying the end of the possession. Simultaneously, the knot holding his helmet in place is untied in a great hurry by his assistants, who then carry him out to recover whilst the ceremony continues.

"Surprising as it may seem, the oracle's replies to questions are rarely vague. As in the case of my escape from Lhasa, he is often very specific. But I suppose that it would be difficult for any scientific investigation either to prove or disprove conclusively the validity of his pronouncements. The same would surely be true of other areas of Tibetan experience, for example the matter of tulkus (reincarnate lamas)."

THE GELUG TRADITION

The Kadampa tradition founded by Atisha was the direct source of inspiration for the development of the Gelug tradition founded by Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419). He was born in the Tsongkha region of Amdo province. At the age of three he received full-fledged lay ordination from the Fourth Karmapa, Rolpey Dorjey, and the name Kunga Nyingpo. At the age of seven he received novice vows from his teacher, Chöjey Dhondup Rinchen, and was given the name Lobsang Drakpa. Even at this young age he had received many teachings and initiations of Heruka, Yamantaka and Hevajra, and could recite by heart texts like Expression of the Names of Manjushri.

Tsongkhapa travelled extensively in search of knowledge and studied with masters of all the existing traditions beginning with Chennga Chökyi Gyelpo, from whom he received teachings on topics such as the mind of enlightenment and the Great Seal (Mahamudra). He was taught the medical treatises by Könchok Kyab at Drikung. In Nyethang Dewachen he studied the Ornaments for clear Realisation and the Perfection of Wisdom and, excelling in debate, he became famous for his erudition. He also travelled to Sakya where he studied monastic discipline, phenomenology, valid cognition, the Middle Way and Guhyasamaja with lamas such as Kazhipa Losel and Rendawa. He also received transmissions of the Six Doctrines of Naropa, the Kalachakra, Mahamudra, the Path and Its Fruit, Chakrasamvara and numerous others and transmitted them to his disciples.

In addition to his studies and teachings he engaged in extensive meditation retreats. The longest, at Wolkha Cholung, lasted four years during which he was accompanied by eight close disciples. He is reputed to have performed millions of prostration's, mandala offerings and other forms of purification practice. Tsongkhapa frequently had visions of meditational deities and especially of Manjushri, with whom he could communicate to settle his questions about profound aspects of the teachings.

Tsongkhapa studied with more than a hundred teachers, practised extensively and taught thousands of disciples mainly in the central and eastern regions of Tibet. In addition he wrote a great deal. His collected works, comprising eighteen volumes, contain hundred of titles relating to all aspects of Buddhist teachings and clarify some of the most difficult topics of sutrayana and mantrayana teachings.

Major works among them are:

• The Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path (Lam-rim chen-mo)
• The Great Exposition of Tantras (sNgag-rim chen-mo)
• The Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretive and Definitive Teachings (Drnng-nges legs-bshad snying-po)
• The Praise of Relativity (rTen-'brel bstodpa)
• The Clear Exposition of the Five Stages of Guhyasamaja (gSang-'dus rim-lnga gsal-sgron)
• The Golden Rosary (gSer-phreng)

Among his many main disciples, Gyeltsab Dharma Rinchen (1364-1432), Khedrub Geleg Pelsang (1385-1438), Gyalwa Gendun Drup (1391-1474), Jamyang Chöjey Tashi Pelden (1379-1449), Jamchen Chöjey Shakya Yeshe, Jey Sherab Sengey and Kunga Dhondup (1354-143S) are some of the more significant.

Tsongkhapa finally passed away at the age of sixty on the twenty-fifth of the tenth Tibetan month, entrusting his throne in Ganden to Gyeltsabjey. So began a tradition which continues to the present day. The ninety-ninth successor to the Ganden throne, and thus the formal head of the Gelugpa, is Ven. Yeshi Dhondup.

Of the major Gelugpa monasteries in Tibet, Ganden Monastery was founded by Tsongkhapa himself in 1409 and was divided into two colleges, Shartsey and Jangtsey. Jamyang Chöje Tashi Pelden founded Drepung Monastery in 1416. At one time it had seven branches but these were later amalgated into four Loseling, Gomang, Deyang and Ngagpa. Of the, only two college. Drepung and Gomang have survived up to the present time. Another of Tsongkhapa's spiritual sons, Jamchen Chöjey Shakya Yeshi established Sera Monastery in 1419. This too initially had five colleges which were later amalgated into two-Sera-Jey and Sera-Mey. Similarly, Gyalwa Gendun Drup, the First Dalai Lama, founded Tashi Lhunpo Monastery at Shigatse in 1447, which was to become the seat of the successive Panchen Lamas. It originally had four colleges.

The Lower Tantric College, Gyumey, was established by Jey Sherab Sengey in 1440, and the Upper Tantric College Gyutö by Gyuchen Kunga Dhondup in 1474. At their peak there were more than five thousand monks in each of the monastic universities around Lhasa, Ganden, Drepung and Sera, while there were at least five hundred in each tantric college. Young men would travel from all three regions of Tibet to enroll at these monastic universities as monks in order to receive an education and spiritual training. The Gelug tradition lays special emphasis on the place of ethics, as expressed through monastic discipline, as the ideal basis for religious education and practice. Consequently, the great majority of Gelugpa lamas are monks and the master who is a layman is a rarity. In addition, the Gelug tradition regards sound scholarship as a prerequisite for constructive meditation, hence, the teachings of both sutra and tantra are subject to rigorous analysis through the medium of dialectical debate.

In general, the curriculum of study covers the five major topics:

• The perfection of wisdom
• Philosophy of the Middle Way
• Valid cognition
• Phenomenology
• Monastic discipline

These five are studied meticulously by the dialectical method using Indian texts as well as Indian and Tibetan commentaries to them, often textbooks unique to each monastic tradition, for a period of fifteen to twenty years. On completing this training, a monk is awarded one of three levels of the degree of Geshey (Doctorate of Buddhist Philosophy), Dorampa, Tsogrampa and Lharampa, of which the highest is the Geshey Lharampa degree.

Subsequently, if he so wishes the Geshey may join one of the tantric colleges to study the tantras and so complete his formal studies, or he may return to his local monastery to teach, or retire into seclusion to engage in intensive meditation. A monk who has completed a Geshey's training is respected as being a fully qualified and authoritative spiritual master worthy of devotion and esteem.

This tradition remains dynamic even after coming into exile. The major Gelug monasteries, Sera, Drepung, Ganden, and Tashi Lhunpo monasteries and Gyumey Tantric College have been re-established in various Tibetan settlements in Karnataka, and Gyutö Tantric College has been re-established in Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh, all in India.

DO SAKYAS RELY UPON DORJE SHUGDEN?

By Jeff Watt, the Webmaster for Sakya Resource Guide.

It has been correctly pointed out many times that Sakya, specifically the Khon family, played a role in the early development of the Shugden cult. The worldly spirit (in Tibetan 'gyalpo' meaning king, a type of ghost) having one face and two hands mounted on a black horse was grouped with the senior worldly protectors of the town of Sakya namely Tsi'u Marpo and Dorje Setrap (these two are Nyingma in origin and not exclusive to Sakya). This trio is called the 'Gyalpo Sum' - the Three King Spirits. In the town of Sakya there is a small temple called the Mug chung Gong khang where the offering service of Shugden was carried out by a monk appointee. This small structure was just north of the Zhi tog Pho drang (Sakya Government Building).

Sakya Trizin Sachen Ngawang Kunga Lodro (1729-1790?) composed an new offering service for Shugden based on the 'torma throwing' ritual of the 'Three Kings.' Later, Sakya Trizin Trakshu Thinley Rinchen (1871-1936) in his personal diaries written on scraps of paper starting from the age of 8 years records all his thoughts, dreams and miscellaneous experiences. After his passing these were collected and added to his biography. In these diaries, amongst many other topics, he muses over the nature of Shugden and the relationship between Shugden, his father (S.T. Kunga Nyingpo) and his grand-father (S.T. Tashi Rinchen) of whom Trakshu Thinley Rinchen was the incarnation. These are regarded as an interesting curiosity within the Drolma Podrang of the Khon family as well as being their personal family business.

It has of course been pointed out by others as well as myself that H.H. Sakya Trizin (of the Drolma Podrang) does not himself practice Shugden - this based on the instructions of his root guru, nor does his sister follow the worldly protector practice. I personally have also spent a great deal of time with the two Gongma Lamas of the Phuntsok Podrang and although Mahakala, Magzorma (the Podrang's family protector), Tsi'u Mara and even the Sakya Barmo witches were discussed many times, I cannot  recall one conversation about Shugden. All of this however was prior to 1984 before the Dalai Lama began to speak out about the worldly protector. At the Sakya Monastery in Seattle, Wash., Dagchen Rinpoche has not included any worldy protectors in the regular Mahakala & Protector Pujas, subsequently the 'Three Kings' are absent.

The personal anecdote offered to ARBT relating to Sakya Dagchen Rinpoche and Shugden was very nice and is definitely worth following up, but it is just an anecdote. An anecdote is like one half of a wheel. It just doesn't get you very far.

As for the notion of a 'secret line' of Shugden practice/practitioners within Sakya, this is absurd. Tibetan culture, Buddhist and otherwise, has many secrets and many that should have been kept secret but this half-baked idea enters the realm of fantasy and science fiction.

Now to the matter of Gorampa. To this day, the refutations against Tsongkhapa's madhyamika view by Gorampa Sonam Senge have not even been replied to by the great Gelugpa scholars of the past few hundred years. Instead, the defenders of Tsongkhapa have attacked the intellectual juniors of Gorampa such as Taktsang Lotsawa, Shakya Chogden and others (see Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness). Also, Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo (the founder of Ngor), a contemporary, critisized Tsongkhapa's understanding of Tantra. Please understand that these are not ramblings or sectarian explitives but are commonly known to all who have studied Madhyamika within the greater family of the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition. For the Sakya School Sakya Pandita is the definitive scholar and teacher. Gorampa Sonam Senge is the definitive scholar in explaining the difficult meanings of Sakya Pandita's works. Many Gelugpa monasteries banned outright Gorampa's works from entering their premises. The works of some other Sakya lamas which critisized
Tsongkhapa or seemed at odds with those views were banned from publication entirely within Tibet and were only preserved secretly and re-published openly from Bhutan after 1959.

Just to clarify an item that has been mentioned more than once. Mahakala is not the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. There is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara which arose in the form of Mahakala and this is the Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala with one face and six arms, in a standing posture. This form was later adopted by Tsongkhapa and followers as the main protector of the Gelugpa School. Mahakalas can arise from various sources namely Vajradhara and the Anuttarayoga Tantras but are not generically Avalokiteshvara.

DID AN OBSCURE TIBETAN SECT MURDER THREE MONKS CLOSE TO THE DALAI LAMA?

© Newsweek April 28 1997 - Posted on May 6, 1997 by World Tibet News

BY TONY CLIFTON

This murder mystery seems earthly to be set in the monastic palace of the God King of Tibet. Yet the facts are inescapable. Three members of the Dalai Lama's inner circle were brutally slain on the night of Feb 4 in a bedroom just a few hundred yards from His Holiness's exile residence in the northern Indian city of Dharmsala. The next morning monks found the Dalai Lama's close friend and confidant 70-year-old Lobsang Gyatso, dead on his bed. Two young monks, Nagawang Lodoe and the Dalai Lama's Chinese-language interpreter, Lobsang Nagwang, died within hours of the attack. Each victim had been stabbed 15 to 20 times, leaving the walls of the small monk's chamber splattered with blood. Police believe it was the work of five to eight attackers. But who, exactly? Cash and gilded Buddhist statues were left at the scene, ruling out robbers. And what kind of criminal would commit such carnage in this famed sanctuary of the gentlest religion?

The savagery of the attack immediately steered police to search for fanatics of some kind. So did the death threats that followed against 14 more members of the Dalai Lama's entourage. Now Indian police believe the murders were committed by an obscure Buddhist sect that takes its name and inspiration from a minor but ferocious Tibetan deity: the Dorje Shugden.

The Shugdens consider themselves guardians of Tibetan Buddhism, and particularly their branch of the faith, known as Gelugs, or the Yellow Hats, for their ceremonial headdress. They can be harshly doctrinaire, and have branded the Dalai Lama a traitor to the Yellow Hats for befriending other branches of Buddhism. In the last year the Dalai Lama has retaliated, denouncing one Shugden order in particular as a hostile and crass, commercial cult -and providing what police suspect maybe the motive for brutal retaliation against His Holiness's inner circle. Indian police have formally questioned at least five Shugden followers, and were canvassing Tibetan-refugee neighborhoods in New Delhi last week, seeking clues to what they describe as a well organized murder plot. "I think there's no doubt that Shugden was behind the killings," says Robert Thurman, America's foremost Buddhist scholar and an old friend of the Dalai Lama's. "The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up in a way that was like an exorcism."

The Shugdens worship a god who is often depicted wearing necklaces of human heads - symbols of conquered vices and transgressions. He is a sword-wielding warrior figure, riding a snow lion through a sea of boiling blood. As one of the minor Dharmapala, or protectors of the faith, Dorje Shugden has had an underground following among Tibetans obsessed with doctrinal purity for centuries. "It would not be unfair to call Shugdens the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism," says Thurman, referring to the Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, who believe in swift and brutal justice. As early as the 1600s, the Dalai Lamas were trying to curb worship of Dorje Shugden. About 15 years ago, the current Dalai Lama began to voice concern that the sect was gaining strength, sowing discord.

Then, in 1991, a senior monk named Kelsang Gyatso established a new Dorje Shugden order based in England and called the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) The NKT soon flourished by promising spiritual rewards for cash-an unholy sales pitch that helped trigger confrontation with the Dalai Lama's circle. Through a spokesman, Kelsang insisted to NEWSWEEK that his followers had nothing to do with the grisly murders in Dharmsala and that their idol's "wrathful aspect" is only symbolic: "Even if my best friend did the murders, I would condemn it," he said.

Nonetheless, the followers of the NKT have painted a hostile portrait of the Dalai Lama that is unrecognizable to mainstream Buddhists-indeed, to millions around the world who revere the Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion of Tibet. The NKT accuse him of selling out Tibet by promoting its "autonomy" within China rather than outright "independence." In fact, the Dalai Lama's global campaigning on behalf of Tibet may have made him an obvious target, like any other world leader. Since the Dharmsala murders, security has been tightened around the Dalai Lama, who was traveling last week in France and Spain under the careful watch of bodyguards.

The dispute with Dorje Shugden is rooted mainly in ancient struggles within Buddhism. Above all, the Shugdens are angry that the Dalai Lama is promoting dialogue between the Yellow Hats and another major branch of Tibetan Buddhism, Nyingma, or the Red Hats. The Shugdens consider it a sin even to talk to Red Hats, or to touch Nyingma religious works. The police believe that one of the reasons the men were killed was that the old sage, Lobsang Gyatso, was a particularly active intermediary between the Dalai Lama and the Red Hats. His obituary describes him as an outspoken critic of Yellow Hat conservatives. And in an interview with NEWSWEEK earlier this month, the Dalai Lama expressed his worries about the Dorje Shugden. "That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought," he said.

"Say I want to practice Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me. Now, that's an obstacle to religious freedom. I am trying to promote thetradition of coexistence, but the Shugdens say you should not even touch a Red Hat  document. That teaching totally contradicts my efforts.

The split grew angry early last year. The Dalai Lama issued a call to all Tibetan Buddhists to avoid the Shugdens. He warned against the cult's extremism and against public worship of their idol. Soon after, the NKT in London claimed that the Dalai Lama's remarks had inspired Tibetans to harass Shugden followers in Dharmsala. It claimed that mainstream Tibetan groups were searching homes and temples for Shugden devotees and burning images of the Dorje Shugden. The NKT began protesting on the streets of London last May, accusing the Dalai Lama of suppressing their religion.

They carried a picture of His Holiness over the slogan YOUR SMILES CHARM, YOUR ACTIONS HARM. Then the threats began. A letter to the Tibetan Women's Association in Dharmsala warned, "If there comes a division among prominent persons in the [Yellow Hat] sect, there will be bloodshed in the monasteries and settlements [across India]."

The threats were among the clues that set police on the trail of the Shugdens soon alter the murders. On Feb. 8 the five Shugden followers were questioned in New Delhi and ordered to be available again on May 3; police said the five are not suspects but suspected witnesses of a well-organized murder plot. The leader of the Dorje Shugden devotees, Geshe Dragpa Gyaltsan, said police are intensely questioning innocent Shugden followers.

"We are supposed to have a hit list of 14 men," he said. "We don't have a hit list, and it would be completely against the advice and guidance of Dorje Shugden if we did." He described the Dalai Lama as a good man led astray by his advisers and the Tibetan exile government in Dharmsala, which he accused of banning Shugden followers from official posts and higher education. At this rate, he suggested, Shugdens "will end up being the Jews of Tibetan Buddhism." Then he offered a peace plan: the Dalai Lama could speak "face to face" with Dorje Shugden himself through one of the sect's "three or four" mediums. "I have spoken to Dorje Shugden many times this way," said Geshe, "and we could easily arrange for him to talk to the Dalai Lama."

The religious conflict at the heart of this mystery goes back to the early 15th century, when a reformer named Tsongkhapa founded the Yellow Hats. The nephew of Tsongkhapa became the first Dalai Lama, establishing an unbroken line of God Kings. Each was believed to be a reincarnation of his predecessor, and ruled supreme over older orders, including the modest and scholarly Red Hats. The Yellow Hats were far more grand than the austere Red Hats in their clothes and magnificent palaces, but the Dorje Shugden sect would become grander still. They were always among the most fervent defenders of Yellow Hat supremacy, and in London today they celebrate Kelsang as their "peerless" spiritual guide.

Shugden followers always believed their god could grant earthly favors, and NKT has richly exploited this belief. Though barely known in the East, the NKT has slickly and successfully promoted Dorje Shugden in Europe. It's the fastest growing Buddhist sect in Britain, where it now has about 3,000 members, a thriving publishing business in London and mansions that double as "Dharma Centers" all over the country. It has also been denounced by the London press and the Dalai Lama as a cult that fleeces its own followers. "Nobody would pray to Buddha for better business, but they go to Shugden for such favors - and this is where it has become like spirit worship," the Dalai Lama told NEWSWEEK. "This is a great pity - a tragedy."

NKT founder Kelsang has publicly retreated from his confrontation with the Dalai Lama. Through his spokesman he told NEWSWEEK that the NKT had abandoned its demonstrations last July alter realizing they were less and less appropriate. Elsewhere he has denied allegations that he is a fraud of a monk who never went on a religious retreat and who has made a personal fortune in the "millions of pounds." He insists that any profits go to his Dharma Centers and that he lives modestly on a 3250 stipend each month. Yet there is no denying the crude mix of spiritual and commercial themes pitched on the sect's Internet Web site. A current bulletin explains that "accumulating merit" is vital to "become an enlightened being" and that helping the Dharma Centers "flourish" is a great way to accumulate merit.

"So," the bulletin offers, "if you are in the market for some merit (and who isn't) here is a perfect opportunity." There follows a price list: 23,000 ($4,800) for an NKT shrine cabinet, 22,000 for an NKT Buddha statue, 230 for "a teacup and saucer for Geshe-La" (Kelsang's honorific title).

"Shugden appeals to crazies by offering instant gratification," says Thurman. "Once you get involved, you're told you have to devote your lives to the cult, because the god gets very angry if you don't attend to him every day. It's really bad stuff, the way they're draining money out of people."

The suspicion now is that the savvy these Shugdens apply to business could have been put to more nefarious ends in Dharmsala. But Kelsang insists his idol and his order are peaceful. No one saw the attackers slip in and out of the monastery chamber on the frosty night of Feb. 4. There are no real suspects in hand, only suspicions, potential witnesses and the suggestive tale of an angry split in Tibetan Buddhism. As much as anything, the Shugdens are suspect because no alternative theory has emerged to explain this unholy crime. But the mystery of the Dharmsala murders is far from solved.

With SUZANNE MILLER in London

SAKYA / GELUG DIFFERENCE - CALLED SHUGDEN TANAG CHEN [RIDING A BLACK HORSE]

Worldly protectors are typically indigenous Tibetan deities, mountain gods, daemons, spirits or ghosts that have been subjugated and sworn to loyally protect a monastery, geographic region or all of Buddhism in general. This form of Dorje Shugden is rare and was not typically worshipped in the town of Sakya. That specific form was Shugden Tanag Chen (Shugden [riding] a Black Horse.). During the early decades of the last century Dorje Shugden became a subject of considerable controversy among the four Tibetan schools, namely the Gelugpa. The controversy still continues today. Also, within the Sakya School there is no initiation or ‘life-entrusting’ (Tibetan: srog gtad) ritual for Shugden as found in the Gelug School. That form of the deity (Shugden) typically appears riding a snow lion, holding a sword in the upraised right hand and a heart clutched to the breast in the left. For the Sakyapa all forms of the practice fell into disfavour over 6 decades ago and are essentially non-existent outside of Tibet. Small temples in regional areas of Tibet historically connected with the indigenous local deity may still proffer offerings for the purpose of protection and removing obstacles.

THE SHUK-DEN AFFAIR: ORIGINS OF A CONTROVERSY

By Georges Dreyfus -- Williams College -- Fall 1999

In recent years the community of Tibetan Buddhists has been agitated by an intense dispute concerning the practice of a controversial deity, Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan). Several Tibetan monks have been brutally murdered, and the Tibetan community in general and the Ge-luk tradition in particular have become profoundly polarized. Outsiders have been puzzled by the intensity of this dispute, for it concerns an unusualtype of deity, the dharma protector (chos skyong srung ma), the concept of which is difficult to understand within the modern view of religion as a system of individual beliefs.

Despite the importance of these events and the coverage that it has received in both print and electronic media, modern scholars have remained relatively silent on the subject. One reason for this is that few scholars are willing to enter into a conflict as highly charged as this one. Moreover, the dispute concerns a rather baroque area of the Tibetan religious world that is neither well known nor easy for a modern observer to conceptualize. Nevertheless, this scholarly silence is regrettable, in that it has allowed less well-informed viewpoints to acquire legitimacy.It has also contributed to the irrational atmosphere that has surrounded this question.

In this essay, I will attempt to fill this scholarly gap and to promote a more rational approach by examining the quarrel surrounding Shuk-den and delineating some of the events leading to the present crisis. I will examine the narrative of Shuk-den's origin, focusing on the meaning of the hostility toward the Dalai Lama which it displays and which is confirmed by recent events. 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. How can there be a practice in the Ge-luk tradition opposed to its own leader? To answer this question, I will examine the historical development of the Shuk-den practice. I will first consider the events related in the Shuk-den story.I will then turn to later historical developments, in particular the way in which Pa-bong-ka (pha bong kha,) 1878-1941), the central figure in the Shuk-den lineage, developed this practice in response to contemporary events.I will also examine some of the events that took place in India in the 1970s when the "Shuk-den Affair" started to emerge. I will show that although the dispute concerning this deity has an important political background, it primarily concerns the orientation of the Ge-luk tradition and its relation to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions. In exploring these questions, I will also seek to answer other related questions such as: Why is Shuk-den so controversial? Is the practice of propitiating Shuk-den different from the practices associated with other protectors? Why has the present Dalai Lama been so opposed to the practice of propitiating Shuk-den? These are some of the questions that I seek to answer in this interpretive essay.What I will not attempt to explain are the more recent events that have unfolded in the 1990s.These events are still shrouded in controversy and will need to be established with any reasonable degree of objectivity before they can be interpreted.

In order to address some of the questions just mentioned, I explore the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as it has been understood over time.In doing so, I follow the critical methods of the historical approach, whose assumptions are quite different from those of the believers. I examine how Shuk-den is presented in the rare texts where he appears prior to the contemporary period, that is, as a wordly deity ('jig rten pa'i lha) who can be propitiated but not worshiped.His followers often reply that this description refers to the interpretable meaning (drang don ) of the deity, not its ultimate meaning (nges don), for in such a dimension Shuk-den is said to be fully enlightened (nges don la sang rgyas).[2] It is this kind of normative distinction that I leave aside in this essay intended for a modern audience.

The Founding Myth

When asked to explain the origin of the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den, his followers point to a rather obscure and bloody episode of Tibetan history, the premature death of Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen (sprul sku grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1618-1655).Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was an important Ge-luk lama who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, )1617-1682).[3] Drak-ba Gyel-tsen and Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso were born at a crucial time in the Ge-luk tradition. The tradition had by then survived a protracted civil war with the forces of Tsang (gtsang) backed by some of the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. It had not yet won the war but had begun to establish an alliance with Mongol groups that would allow it to triumph two decades later. Around the same time, two of the most important Ge-luk lamas had died: the fourth Dalai Lama and the second reincarnation of Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba (bsod nams grags pa,) 1478-1554), who was one of the most important Ge-luk teachers during the sixteenth century. Between the two boys, Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso was chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama over Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who was designated by way of compensation as the third reincarnation of Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba.[4] This choice did not seem, however, to have resolved the contention between the two lamas, as they remained rivals at the heads of two competing estates known as the "Upper Chamber" (zim khang gong ma) under Drak-ba Gyel-tsen and the "Lower Chamber" (zim khang 'og ma) under the Dalai Lama. During the next two decades, the struggle between the forces of Central Tibet supported by the Mongols of Gushri Khan and the forces of Tsang continued, gradually turning to the advantage of the former party.Due to his connection with the Mongols, which had been established by the Third Dalai Lama and reinforced by the Fourth, the Fifth Dalai Lama and his party were able to establish their supremacy. In 1642, the Fifth Dalai Lama became the ruler of Tibet and entrusted the actual running of the state to his prime minister, S¯-nam Ch¯-pel (bsod nams chos 'phal). This victory, however, still did not eliminate the rivalry between the two lamas and their estates. Very little is known about the events that took place in the next ten years but it seems quite clear that there was a contentious between the two lamas' estates. What is less clear is the reason behind this conflict. Was Drak-ba Gyel-tsen perceived as a focus of the opposition to the rule of the Fifth Dalai Lama and his prime minister within the Ge-luk hierarchy?Was there a personal rivalry between the two lamas? Or was the main reason for the tension a dispute between Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's family, the Ge-kha-sas, and S¯-nam Ch¯-pel, as a recent work argues?[5]

What seems to be well established is that in these circumstances, in 1655, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen suddenly died. The exact conditions of his death are controversial and shrouded in legends. Some of the Fifth's sympathizers claimed that there was nothing extraordinary in Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death. He had just died of a sudden illness. Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's sympathizers seemed to have disagreed, arguing that he had died because he had not been able to bear the constant efforts from the Dalai Lama's followers to undermine him. Others claimed that he was killed while in the custody of the prime minister.Still others claimed that he submitted himself voluntarily to death by strangulation or by suffocation in order to become a wrathful protector of the Ge-luk tradition.[6] In a particularly dramatic and highly revealing account, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death is described as occurring after a traditional religious debate that he had with the Fifth Dalai Lama. As an acknowledgment of his victory, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had received a ceremonial scarf from the Fifth. Shortly after, however, he was found dead, the scarf stuffed down his throat.

Whatever the exact details of his death, the important point is that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death was perceived to be related to his rivalry with the Fifth Dalai Lama. It was also taken to have been violent and hence the kind of death that leads people to take rebirth as dangerous spirits.According to standard Indian and Tibetan cultural assumptions, a person who is killed often becomes a ghost and seeks revenge.In his famous description of the demonology of Tibet, Nebesky-Wojkowitz provides several examples of the transformation of a person into a spirit due to a violent death.[7] Such a spirit is considered more dangerous when the person has religious knowledge, which is said to explain the particular power of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's spirit. He[8] is not just one among many protectors but a particularly dangerous one as the vengeful ghost of a knowledgeable person who died violently and prematurely. According to the Shuk-den legend, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen manifested himself as a (gyel-po,) i.e., the dangerous red-spirit[9] of a person, often a religious one, who is bent on extracting revenge against those involved in his death.Since he had been an important lama, however, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen turned his anger from a personal revenge to a nobler task, the protection of the doctrinal purity of the Ge-luk tradition.According to the legend, he first manifestated his wrathful nature by haunting his silver mausoleum, which became animated by a buzzing noise, and by inflicting damage on his own estate.Then the monks serving the Fifth Dalai Lama began to encounter difficulties in performing their ritual duties.[10] Finally the Dalai Lama himself became the target.He began to hear noises such as that of stones falling on the roof, which became so loud that it is said that he could not eat his meals without monks blowing large horns on the roof of his residence.Frightened by these wrathful manifestations, the prime minister S¯-nam Ch¯-pel decided to get rid of the troublesome silver mausoleum by packing it into a wooden box and throwing it in the Kyi-chu river.Carried by the current the box reached D¯l, a small pond in Southern Tibet. It is there that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's spirit resided for a while in a small temple built for him at the order of the Fifth Dalai Lama, who decided to pacify his spirit by establishing a practice of propitiation under the name of (Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den ((rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan ) and entrusting it to the Sa-gya school.[11]

This story is striking. In particular, its undertone of hostility toward the Dalai Lama is remarkable given that the Dalai Lama represents to a large extent the ascendency of the Ge-luk school, also the school that the Shuk-den rituals seek to protect.Our first task here is to explain the meaning of this narrative, an important task given that the recent events in India seem to illustrate its hostility toward the Dalai Lama.The most obvious and tempting explanation is to assume that this story is primarily a political tale reflecting the tension between a strong Dalai Lama and a restive Ge-luk establishment.This may surprise an outside observer for whom the institution of the Dalai Lama is a Ge-luk creation and represents the power of this school. This interpretation appears more credible to an insider who knows that the Dalai Lama institution rests on a complex coalition in which the Ge-luk school is central but which includes other people, such as members of aristocratic families, adherents of the Nying-ma tradition, etc.

In such a coalition, the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Ge-luk establishment is difficult and must be carefully negotiated.The delicacy of this situation is illustrated by the question of the leadership of the Ge-luk tradition.The nominal leader of the Ge-luk school is not the Dalai Lama but the Tri Rin-bo-che (khri rin po che), the Holder of the Throne of Ga-den in direct line of succession from Dzong-ka-ba. But in times where the Dalai Lama is strong, the leadership of the Holder of the Throne of Ga-den, who is chosen among the ex-abbots of the two tantric colleges,[12] is mostly nominal, and the Dalai Lama exercises effective leadership over the Ge-luk school through his government.

The Ge-luk school and more particularly its three large monasteries around Lhasa have played a leading role in the Dalai Lama's rule in Tibet. They have supported and legitimized his power and have received in return considerable socio-economic power.But this power also has been a source of tension with the Dalai Lamas, particularly when he was a strong personality who had his own power basis and intended to lead.In the history of the Dalai Lamas, there have been three such politically powerful figures: the Fifth, the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, and all three have had serious difficulties with the Ge-luk establishment. It is also these same three Dalai Lamas who are said to have had problems with Shuk-den.Shuk-den could then be a manifestation of the political resentment of the Ge-luk hierarchy against the power of a strong Dalai Lama seeking to restrict and control it.The dispute surrounding Shuk-den would be a thinly disguised way for Ge-luk partisans to express their political opposition to an institution that does not sufficiently represent their parochial interests, an opposition manifested in the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation against the Fifth Dalai Lama.

I would argue that although tempting, this reading of the Shuk-den story is inadequate for at least two reasons.First, it fails to differentiate the stages in the relations between the Dalai Lama and the Ge-luk establishment.It is true that these relations have often been tense.But to run together the opposition between the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Ge-luk hierarchy, and the tension surrounding the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dalai Lamas fails to take into account the profound transformations that the Dalai Lama institution has undergone, particularly around the turn of the eighteenth century.Secondly, the political interpretation of the saga of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation is anachronistic, confusing the story and the events that it narrates.Or, to put it differently, this interpretation fails to see that we are dealing here with two stories: the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, a seventeenth century victim of the Fifth Dalai Lama's power, and the story of Shuk-den, the spirit in charge of maintaining the purity of the Ge-luk tradition as understood by his twentieth century followers.The former narrative is clearly political but is not about Shuk-den. It concerns the nature of the Dalai Lama institution and its relation to the Ge-luk hierarchy in the seventeenth century. The latter is about Shuk-den. It is mostly religious but does not concern the Dalai Lama's political power.

To further clarify these two points, I will examine the political context in which the Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story took place and the nature of the Dalai Lama institution at that time.I will then consider the events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's tragic death in a historical perspective, and try to reconstruct the way in which it was understood by his contemporaries.

The Historical Context

The events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death must be understood in relation to its historical context, the political events surrounding the emergence of the Dalai Lama institution as a centralizing power during the second half of the seventeenth century.The rule of this monarch seems to have been particularly resented by some elements in the Ge-luk tradition.It is quite probable that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was seen after his death as a victim of the Dalai Lama's power and hence became a symbol of opposition.

The resentment against the power of the Fifth Dalai Lama was primarily connected to a broad and far-reaching issue, the desire of some of the more sectarian Ge-luk hierarchs to set up a purely Ge-luk rule.Some even seem to have argued for the suppression of the schools against which they had fought for more than a century, particularly the Kar-ma Ka-gy¸ tradition.[13] The Fifth seems to have realized that such a rule would have had little support and would have exacerbated the intersectarian violence that had marred the last two centuries of Tibetan history.To avoid this, he attempted to build a state with a broader power base, state which he presented as the re-establishment of the early Tibetan empire. His rule was to be supported by the Ge-luk tradition, but would also include groups affiliated with other religious traditions.

The Fifth was particularly well disposed toward the Nying-ma tradition from which he derived a great deal of his practice and with which he had a relation through his family. This seems to have created a great deal of frustration among some Ge-luk circles, as expressed by several popular stories.The stories frequently involve a colorful figure, Ba-ko Rab-jam (bra sgo rab 'byams), who was a friend of the Dalai Lama. In the stories, he is often depicted as making fun of the Fifth Dalai Lama.For example, one day he comes to see the Dalai Lama, but the enormous Pur-ba (ritual dagger) he wears in his belt prevents him from crossing the door, an obviously sarcastic reference to the Nying-ma leanings of the Fifth Dalai Lama.

In the light of this opposition, it would seem that the narrative of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestationmakes perfect sense. Is not the Shuk-den story about the revenge of a group, the Ge-luk hierarchy, in struggle against the Fifth's strong centralizing power?Although tempting, this interpretation completely ignores the historical transformations of the Dalai Lama institution.In particular, it ignores the fact that after the Fifth's death the Dalai Lama institution was taken over by the Ge-luk hierarchy and radically changed. To put it colorfully, if Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had manifested as Shuk-den to protect the Ge-luk hierarchy against the encroachments of a Dalai Lama not sufficiently sympathetic to the Ge-luk tradition, this vengeful spirit would have been out of business by the beginning of the eighteenth century when his partisans, the Ge-luk hierarchy, won the day!

As long as the Fifth was alive, the Ge-luk hierarchy had to endure his rule, but his death changed the situation.His prime minister Sang-gye Gya-tso (sangs rgyas rgya mtsho) at first tried to conceal this death.When this proved impossible, he attempted to continue the Fifth's tradition by appointing his candidate, Tsang-yang Gya-tso (tshangs dbyangs rgya mtsho), as the Sixth Dalai Lama. But with the latter's failure to behave as a Dalai Lama, Sang-gye Gya-tso lost the possibility to continue the task started by the Fifth.A few years later (1705) he was killed after being defeated by a complex coalition of Ge-luk hierarchs involving Jam-yang-shay-ba, the Dzungar Mongols and Lhab-zang Khan with the backing of the Manchu emperor.[14]

After this defeat, the role of the Dalai Lama was transformed.His political power was limited and the nature of the ritual system supporting the institution was changed, as we shall see later. In these ways, the institution of the Dalai Lama became a more purely Ge-luk creation.Hence, it makes very little sense to speak of Shuk-den as representing the spirit of Ge-luk opposition to the Dalai Lama institution after the demise of the Fifth, for by then the institution had become to a large extent favorable to the Ge-luk hierarchy.Admittedly, there were a few incidents between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and some elements of the Ge-luk tradition.There was also some resentment against the high-handedness of this ruler but these were minor and should not be blown out of proportion.

Did Drak-ba Gyel-tsen Become a Spirit?

This interpretation is confirmed by an analysis of the view of the contemporaries of these events.In the founding myth of the Shuk-den practice, the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death and wrathful manifestation is presented as the view of his followers. Given the cultural assumptions of Tibetans, this scenario cannot be dismissed without further analysis. Impressed by his violent and premature death, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers may have begun to propitiate his spirit in an atmosphere of strong hostility against those who were thought to have been responsible.But although this scenario is culturally plausible, is it historical? That is, did Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers think of him in this way?This question is more difficult, given the paucity of contemporary sources, but it needs to be asked, for we cannot simply assume that these legendary episodes reflect the perception of contemporaries.In fact, there are indications that they do not.

The most decisive evidence is provided by the later Ge-luk historian, Sum-pa Ken-po ye-shay Pel-jor (sum pa mKhan po ye shes dpal 'byor), 1702-1788), who reports for the year 1657(Fire Bird) the following:

The assertion that this Tibetan spirit (bod de'i rgyal po) is Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, the reincarnation of the Upper Chamber, is just an expression of prejudice.Thus, I believe that the rumor that it is S¯-nam Ch¯-pel, who after passing away in the same year is protecting the Ge-luk tradition having assumed the form of a dharma protector through his ["]great concern for the Ge-luk tradition,["] is correct.[15]

This passage is significant in several respects. First, it confirms the fact that there were stories of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becoming Shuk-den quite early on. Although Sum-pa does not mention the deity by name, it seems quite clear that this is who he has in mind. But it also shows that Sum-pa Ken-po does not concede the identification of Shuk-den as the wrathful manifestation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, which he takes to be an insult to "the reincarnation of the Upper Chamber."In what is probably a tongue in cheek tit-for-tat, he rather identifies the troublesome spirit with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's enemy, S¯-nam Ch¯-pel, the hated first prime minister of the Fifth Dalai Lama whom he sarcastically credits with a "great concern for the Ge-luk tradition."

Second, Sum-pa's remark is important because it reflects the view of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's sympathizers as the respectful epithet ("the reincarnation of the Upper Chamber") makes clear.Sum-pa was the disciple of Jam-yang-shay-ba ('jam dbyangs bzhad pa,) 1648-1722), one of the leading Ge-luk lamas opposing the Fifth and his third prime minister (sde srid) Sang-gye Gya-tso.[16] Thus, when he denies that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had become Shuk-den, Sum-pa is reflecting the views of the people who considered Drak-ba Gyel-tsen with sympathy as an unfortunate victim of a rule they resented.The ironical remark about S¯-nam Ch¯-pel ("his great concern for the Ge-luk tradition") and his identification as Shuk-den confirms this. Sum-pa disliked S¯-nam Ch¯-pel, whom he considered responsible for the Fifth's rule and Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death.

Sum-pa's remark, however, raises a question.For, who then are the people claiming that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had become Shuk-den if not the followers of this lama?Could it be that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers had changed their minds by the time Sum-pa Ken-po wrote his account (1749)?Though further investigations may change our view, the evidence seems to suggest that this is not the case.The people who were identifying Shuk-den as the wrathful manifestation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen were not his followers but his enemies, i.e., the Fifth Dalai Lama and his followers.This seems to be the implication of comments by Sang-gye Gya-tso when he says, referring to Drak-ba Gyel-tsen:

After [the death of] Ngak-wang S¯-nam Ge-lek (Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba's second reincarnation), [his reincarnation was born] as a member of the Ge-kha-sa family. Although [this person] had at first hopes for being the reincarnation of the All-knowing Yon-ten Gya-tso (the Fourth Dalai Lama), he was made the reincarnation of Ngak-wang S¯-nam Ge-lek and finally ended in a bad rebirth.[17]

Although Sang-gye Gya-tso is not explicit, his words seem to refer to the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation as a spirit such as Shuk-den.This is confirmed by the Fifth Dalai Lama, who describes Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise as leading to his becoming a spirit.The Fifth explains that:

Due to the magic of a spirit (?), the son of the noble family Ge-kha-sa turned into a false reincarnation of Ngak-wang S¯-nam Ge-lek and became a spirit [motivated by] mistaken prayers (smon lam log pa'i dam srid).[18]
What this quote indicates is that after Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death the claim that he had become a spirit such as Shuk-den was not a praise of his followers, but a denigration, not to say downright slander, by his enemies!It is not Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's partisans who were identifying him as Shuk-den, but his adversaries who were presenting this scenario as a way to explain away the events following his tragic demise.

We must wonder, however, why the Fifth Dalai Lama and his followers were interested in propagating the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation, a story which the latter's followers were keen to dispel?The answer to this question is bound to be tentative and highly speculative, and it is unlikely that any clear historical evidence will answer this question. Nevertheless, I think that it is not unreasonable to assume the following scenario. Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's premature death must have been a momentous event in Tibet at that time.It must have created a considerable malaise among Tibetans, who consider the killing of a high lama a terrible crime that can affect a whole country (as attested by the perception of the Re-ting affair in this century). Such a perception of misfortune must have been accompanied by events perceived as bad omens.There were probably stories of the possession and destruction of objects associated with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, as reported in the founding myth. Finally, there was the fact that the reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen seems not to have been sought for, an extraordinary occurrence given that he was the reincarnation of Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba, one of the foremost Ge-luk lamas.[19]

It is in these circumstances that the story of his wrathful reincarnation must have appeared, not as a vindication of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, but as an attempt by the Fifth Dalai Lama and his followers to explain the absence of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation and to shift the blame for the bad omen that had followed his death. These events were not the karmic effects of his violent death but the results of his transformation into a dangerous spirit. The Fifth Dalai Lama mentions that after Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise his spirit started to harm people. In order to pacify him, the Fifth had a small temple built near the pond of D¯l, but this did not help and the reports of harm continued unabated.With the help of several important lamas such as Ter-dag Ling-pa (gter bdag gling pa,) 1646-1714), the Fifth decided to launch a final ritual assault and to burn the spirit during a fire ritual in which the spectators were said to have smelled the odor of burnt flesh.

As we realize, this description of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's posthumous fate is highly partisan and it is no surprise that his sympathizers rejected these explanations. They were keen on keeping the blame on the party of the Dalai Lama, arguing that the unfortunate events were not due to the wrathful reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who had taken rebirth as the emperor of China.[20] Finally, there are other stories that seem to hint that the evil spirit connected with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was already active prior to the latter's demise, even as early 1636.[21] If Shuk-den was already active prior to Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's tragic demise, how can he be the latter's wrathful manifestation?These conflicting stories show that what we have here is not a unified narrative but several partly overlaping stories.The founding myth of the Shuk-den tradition grew out of a nexus of narratives surrounding these events and developed in accordance with the new changing historical circumstances.It is not the account of the followers of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, as claimed by Shuk-den's modern followers, but it is only one of the many versions of the bundle of stories surrounding these tragic events.In fact, the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise as it appears in contemporary sources has little to do with Shuk-den.It is not about the deity but about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Only much later, when the significance of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story faded, did this story resurface and get taken as the account of the origin of Shuk-den.

The fact that the founding narrative of the Shuk-den practice is largely mythological does not mean that we should dismiss it.Rather we should inquire into its meaning.This is what I will do in the later pages of this essay, where I examine the story of the violent manifestation of Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen as the founding myth of the tradition of those who propitiate Shuk-den. Before going into this, we need to inquire about the history of this propitiation.For, if this practice did not start with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death, where does it come from? And the Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story was later recast as the founding myth of the Shuk-den lineage , when did this appropriation take place?

The Early History of a Practice

To understand the history of the Shuk-den practice, we need to examine the way in which this deity has been considered throughout most of the history of the Ge-luk tradition. To his twentieth century followers, Shuk-den is known as (Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den Tsal (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal)), the "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force."[22] If we look at earlier mentions, however, we can see that Shuk-den also appears under another and less exalted name, i.e., as (D¯l Gyel (dol rgyal).Even Pa-bong-ka calls him in this way when he says: "The wooden implements (i.e., crate) having been thrown in the water, the pond of D¯l became whitish. After abiding there, he became known for a while as (D¯l-gyel)."[23] This name helps us to understand how Shuk-den was considered in the earlier period, that is, as a troublesome but minor spirit, an interpretation confirmed by the explanations concerning Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation.

The name (D¯l Gyel) is quite interesting, for it yields a possible explanation of the origin of Shuk-den.It suggests that originally Shuk-den had a close regional connection with the area of the Tsang-po and the Yar-lung valleys where the pond of D¯l lies. There, Shuk-den/ D¯l-gyel was considered a (gyel po (rgyal po)), that is, the dangerous red-spirit of a religious person, who had died after falling from his monastic vows or had been killed in troubling circumstances.[24] Shuk-den/ D¯l Gyel would then be a spirit from Southern Tibet, potentially troublesome like other red-spirits. No wonder then that his identification with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was rejected by the latter's followers as an insult to this important and unfortunate lama.

We find confirmation of Shuk-den's regional connection in the description given in 1815 by a Nying-ma teacher Do Kyen-tse (mdo mkhyen brtse ye shes rdo rje).While narrating his travels, he mentions the unpleasant presence of Shuk-den in Southern Tibet.On his way to Lhasa, after passing through the Nying-ma monastery of Dor-je Drak, Do Kyen-tse arrived in the area of Dra-thang (grwa thang) where Gyel-po Shuk-den (this is the name he uses) was active. Nevertheless, the spirit was unable to interfere with his travel and he reached his destination safely.[25] Thus, the existence of a deity, D¯l-gyel/ Shuk-den, and his regional connection with the area of Southern Tibet seem to have been well established quite early on.

This regional connection is further confirmed by the fact that Shuk-den was propitiated in some of the monasteries of the same area, particularly in Sam-ye (bsam yas), which was by then Sa-kya.There Shuk-den appears as a minor but dangerous wordly protector. This also suggests that this deity was first adopted by the tradition of the monastery of Sa-gya,[26] a hypothesis further confirmed by the reference in the founding myth to his being taken over by the holder of the Sa-gya throne S¯-nam-rin-chen (bsod nams rin chen). In one of the versions, Shuk-den first attempts to go to Ta-shi Lhung-po, the residence of his teacher, the First Pen-chen Lama, Lob-zang Ch¯-gyen (blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan,) 1569-1662). He is prevented from doing so by Vai??a?a (rnam thos sras), the supra-mundane protector of the monastery. He is then taken in by S¯-nam-rin-chen, who pities him and writes a text for his propitiation. This reference to the holder of the Sa-gya throne S¯-nam-rin-chen throws some interesting light on the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation and the establishment of the Shuk-den cult entrusted to the Sa-gya. It seems at first to confirm this story until we realize that S¯-nam-rin-chen was born in 1704, long after the events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-sten's tragic demise.This considerable gap suggests that the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation as Shuk-den is a later creation, which incorporates a variety of narratives rearranged in the light of later situations. The founding myth of the Shuk-den practice is not a historical account but one of the many versions of a nexus of stories surrounding these tragic events, which developed gradually in the light of new historical circumstances.

Although S¯-nam-rin-chen's role in the Shuk-den's saga is more than questionable, his contribution to the tradition of this deity is not deniable. The small text that is attributed to him does seem to exist. It is the first ritual text focusing on Shuk-den that I have been able to trace. It can be found in the collection of ritual texts for the protectors of the Sam-ye monastery and confirms the existence of the practice of Shuk-den early on in the Sa-gya tradition.[27] Its title ("The Request to the Gyel-po [for the] Termination of Gane??uot;) suggests that Shuk-den was considered as an effective spirit in charge of clearing away obstacles (Gane??eing the king of obstacles).[28] Shuk-den does not seem to have played, however, a major role in the Sa-gya tradition, where he seemed to have remained a dangerous though minor worldly protector. This is confirmed by a story told by Ka-lu Rin-bo-che, who mentions coming across a small Sa-gya temple for Shuk-den in Western Tibet and the profound fear that this deity inspired in the care-taker of this temple.[29]

The regional connection with Southern Tibet and the sectarian link with the Sa-gya tradition is further confirmed by Stanley Mumford's anthropological description of the propitiation of Shuk-den in the Himalayan region.In his study of the religious life in the remote village of Tsap in Nepal, Mumford describes the practice of Shuk-den as a Sa-gya practice well established among the Tibetans of the region.In a small text used for this practice Shuk-den is presented as a wordly protector in charge of bestowing wealth, food, life and good fortune, of protecting the dharma, preventing its destruction, and of repeling the external and internal enemies of the ten regions.Finally, Shuk-denm is invoked as a special protector of the Sa-gya tradition: "Protect the dharma in general, and in particular the Sakyapas. I praise you, who have agreed to be the Srungma of the Sakyapas".[30]

Given this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the practice of D¯l-gyel was at first a minor Sa-gya practice later adopted by the Ge-luk tradition. But here another difficult question remains. When did this happen? The evidence available establishes that the practice of propitiating D¯l-gyel existed in the Ge-luk tradition during the eighteenth century.One of the clearest proofs appears in the biography of the Ge-luk polymath Jang-gya-r¯l-bay-dor-jay (1717-1786), written by his disciple Tu-gen-lo-sang-ch¯-gyi-nyi-ma (thu'u bkwan blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma),1737-1802).[31] Tu-gen reports that Jang-gya mentions that D¯l-gyel was propitiated by several Ga-den Tri-bas. After several unfortunate events, another Tri-ba, Ngak-wang Chok-den (ngag dbang mchog ldan,) 1677-1751), the tutor of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kel-zang Gya-tso (bskal bzang rgya tsho,) 1708-1757) put an end to this practice by expelling Shuk-den from Ga-den monastery.

This mention of D¯l-Gyel is quite interesting for a number of reasons. First, it dates the practice of propitiating this deity in the Ge-luk tradition.This practice must have existed prior to Ngak-wang Chok-den's intervention, and it must have had a certain extension to have been adopted by several Ga-den Tri-bas. Second, it attests to the troublesome character of this deity.However, no connection is made with Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Jang-gya was after all one of the followers of Jam-yang-shay-ba, one of the main Ge-luk hierarchs opposed to the Fifth, and hence not inclined to consider favorably the story of Shuk-den as Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation.Finally, this passage illustrates the minor status of this deity in the Ge-luk tradition at that time, as Jang-gya mentions the expulsion of this deity in passing. This impression of small importance is confirmed by the fact that it is so difficult to document the practice of Shuk-den prior to the beginning of this century. But if D¯l-gyel, as he is called by Jang-gya, is minor, why did Ngak-wang Chok-den and Jang-gya oppose his propitiation?Possibly because of its troublesome character.Jang-gya mentions that the Tri-bas who propitiated D¯l-gyel encountered difficulties but he does not elaborate.Another possible reason for expelling D¯l-gyel from Ga-den is that no mundane deity is allowed to remain permanently in Ga-den.Even Ma-chen Pom-ra, the local god (yul lha) of Dzong-ka-ba, the founder of the Ge-luk tradition, is not supposed to stay in Ga-den overnight, and must take his residence below the monastery.[32] Finally, the political connection alleged by the Fifth Dalai Lama's followers between this deity and their nemesis, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, may have played a role, though this is far from sure since by this time the story of the latter's demise must have started to fade away. Jang-gya may not have opposed the practice in general, for we find a representation of Shuk-den in a collection of thanka paintings given to Jang-gya by the Qianlong Emperor. Because the thanka is not dated, we cannot be sure of the date of its appearance in the collection. Despite this uncertainty concerning some details, an impression emerges which suggests that around the middle of the eighteenth century D¯l-gyel was a troublesome but minor deity propitiated by some Ge-luk lamas.

The practice of D¯l-gyel or Shuk-den also surfaced as an issue during the rule of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, who put restrictions on the oracle for Shuk-den but did not prohibit his activities completely. D¯l-gyel could be propitiated in his proper place in the order of Tibetan gods, namely, as a minor mundane deity. His oracle was permitted only at certain fixed locations such as Tro-de Khang-sar (spro bde khang gsar) in Lhasa or Tro-mo (gro mo) in the Chumbi valley, but not in any of the large monasteries. Finally, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and his government applied pressure on Pa-bong-ka to desist from propitiating Shuk-den.They were particularly displeased by the diffusion of the Shuk-den practice in Dre-bung. They perceived these efforts as attempts to displace Ne-chung, who is, as we will see later, the wordly protector of the Dre-bung monastery and the Tibetan government. Hence, they ordered him to abstain from propitiating Shuk-den altogether.According to his biographer, Pa-bong-ka promised not to propitiate Shuk-den any more.[33]

These events seem to indicate that the propitiation of Shuk-den had spread to a certain extent during or just prior to the rule of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. This may have been due to a gradual spread of this practice during the nineteenth century, particularly its second half.This practice was widespread enough during the time of the Thirteenth to raise some concern in governmental circles.But even then references to D¯l-gyel or Shuk-den remain very rare. Although the Thirteenth opposed what he saw as an excessive emphasis on Shuk-den by Pa-bong-ka, the issue was minor and there was little controversy concerning the practice of this deity.

Thus, what emerges from this impressionistic survey is that Shuk-den was a minor though troublesome deity in the Ge-luk pantheon throughout most of the history of this tradition. This deity does not seem to have been considered early on as Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's manifestation, except by his enemies, who intended the identification disparagingly. Its gradual adoption in the Ge-luk tradition does not show any relation with either Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba or his third reincarnation, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Shuk-den seems to have been adopted by Ge-luk lamas because of his power as a wordly deity, not on the basis of a connection with Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba's lineage.Lamas who are part of this lineage do not show any special inclination toward Shuk-den. Moreover, the monks of the Lo-sel-ling college of Dre-bung, who take Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba's works as their textbooks (yig cha) and consider him as perhaps the foremost interpreter of Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, have had very little connection with Shuk-den (with a few individual exceptions).

How is it then that this minor spirit coming from an obscure location in Central Tibet has become the center of raging controversy that has cost the lives of several Ge-luk monks and continues to threaten the unity of the Ge-luk tradition? Moreover, how is it that this deity is now so pervasively identified with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen by his staunchest supporters, who take this connection as a vindication of both Shuk-den and Drak-ba Gyel-tsen?

The Rise of a Spirit

To answer these questions, we must consider the changes that took place within the Ge-luk tradition during the first half of the twentieth century due to Pa-bong-ka (1878-1941) and the revival movement that he spearheaded. Though Pa-bong-ka 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.Pa-bong-ka was also well served by his disciples, particularly the very gifted and versatile Tri-jang Rin-bo-che (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 Ge-luk monasteries around Lhasa.Another influential disciple was Tob-den La-ma (rtogs ldan bla ma), a stridently Ge-luk lama very active in disseminating Pa-bong-ka's teachings in Khams.Because of his own charisma and the qualities and influence of his disciples, Pa-bong-ka had an enormous influence on the Ge-luk tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogin^ as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru.

Like other revivalist figures, Pa-bong-ka presented his teachings as embodying the orthodoxy of his tradition.But when compared with the main teachings of his tradition as they appear in Dzong-ka-ba's writings, Pa-bong-ka's approach appears in several respects quite innovative. Although he insisted on the Stages of the Path (lam rim) as the basis of further practice, like other Ge-luk teachers, Pa-bong-ka differed in recommending Vajrayogin^ as the central meditational deity of the Ge-luk tradition. This emphasis is remarkable given the fact that the practice of this deity came originally from the Sa-gya tradition and is not included in Dzong-ka-ba's original synthesis, which is based on the practice of three meditational deities (Yam®taka, Guhya-samªa, and Cakrasa?vara). The novelty of his approach is even clearer when we consider Pa-bong-ka's emphasis on T² Cintama?i as a secondary meditational deity, for this practice is not canonical in the strict sense of the term but comes from the pure visions of one of Pa-bong-ka's main teachers, Ta bu Pe-ma Baz-ra (sta bu padma badzra), a figure about whom very little is presently known. We have to be clear, however, on the nature of Pa-bong-ka's innovations. He did not introduce these practices himself, for he received them from teachers such as Ta bu Pe-ma Baz-ra and Dak-po Kel-zang Kay-drub (dwag po bskal bzang mkhas grub). Where Pa-bong-ka was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Ge-luk tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Dzong-ka-ba's teaching.This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pa-bong-ka's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as the central protector of the Ge-luk tradition. Whereas previously Shuk-den seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Ge-luk tradition, Pa-bong-ka 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 Ge-luk tradition that is central to the "Shuk-den Affair."

In promoting Shuk-den as the protector of his charismatic movement, Pa-bong-ka did not invent the practice of this deity, which he seems to have received from his teachers,[34] but he transformed a marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition.This transformation is illustrated by the epithets used to refer to Shuk-den. Instead of being just "The Spirit from D¯l" (dol rgyal), or even the "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal), he is described now by Pa-bong-ka and his disciples as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord Ma~ju??(i.e., Dzong-ka-ba)" ('jam mgon rgyal ba'i bstan srung)[35] and "the supreme protective deity of the Ge-den (i.e., Ge-luk) tradition" (dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog).[36]

These descriptions have been controversial.Traditionally, the Ge-luk tradition has been protected by the Dharma-king (dam can chos rgyal), the supra-mundane deity bound to an oath given to Dzong-ka-ba, the founder of the tradition. The tradition also speaks of three main protectors adapted to the three scopes of practice described in the Stages of the Path (skyes bu gsum gyi srung ma): Mah«a for the person of great scope, Vai??a?a for the person of middling scope, and the Dharma-king for the person of small scope.[37] By describing Shuk-den as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord Ma~ju??" Pa-bong-ka suggests that he is the protector of the Ge-luk tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Dzong-ka-ba himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shuk-den'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 Tu?ita having entrusted the protection of the Ge-luk tradition to Shuk-den.Thus, Shuk-den has become the main Ge-luk protector replacing the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Ge-luk tradition, indeed a spectacular promotion in the pantheon of the tradition.

Pa-bong-ka's promotion of this deity has several reasons.There was an undeniable personal devotion to Shuk-den in Pa-bong-ka derived from his early experiences, dreams or visions. This devotion was also based on a family connection, for Shuk-den was his mother's female god (skyes ma'i rgyud kyi lha).[38] Pa-bong-ka's writings reflect this strong devotion to Shuk-den, as is shown by the following passage:

Praise and prostration through remembering your three secrets [to you] the violent poison for the obstacles, the enemies, [and] those who have broken [their] pledges, [to you] the magical jewel who fulfills the hopes and wishes of the practitioners, [to you] the only life tree [i.e., support] in protecting Dzong-ka-ba's tradition.[39]
The very real personal devotion found in many of the Shuk-den texts written by Pa-bong-ka and his disciples explains Pa-bong-ka's fervor in diffusing Shuk-den.From the viewpoint of his followers, it is the most important element of Pa-bong-ka's heritage.

There is, however, another element that must be examined in order to understand the troublesome nature of the practice of Shuk-den, namely, the sectarian stance that it reflects. This is where the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becomes relevant again.For Pa-bong-ka, particularly at the end of his life, one of the main functions of Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den as Ge-luk protector is the use of violent means (the adamantine force) to protect the Ge-luk tradition. Pa-bong-ka quite explicitly states:

Now [I] exhort to violent actions Shuk-den, who is the main war-god of Dzong-ka-ba's tradition and its holders, the angry spirit, the Slayer of Y­a (i.e., Yam®taka or Ma~ju??in his wrathful form)....In particular it is time [for you] to free (i.e., kill) in one moment the enemies of Dzong-ka-ba's tradition.Protector, set up [your] violent actions without [letting] your previous commitments dissipate.Quickly engage in violent actions without relaxing your loving promises. Quickly accomplish [these] requests and entrusted actions without leaving them aside (or without acting impartially). Quickly accomplish [these] actions [that I] entrust [to you], for I do not have any other source of hope.[40]
This passage clearly presents the goal of the propitiation of Shuk-den as the protection of the Ge-luk tradition through violent means, even including the killing of its enemies. We should wonder, however, what this passage means?Is it to be taken literally?And who are these enemies?

To answer these questions in detail would take us beyond the purview of this essay. A short answer is that in certain ways the statements of this ritual text are not very different from the ones found in similar texts devoted to other mundane protectors. By itself, this text does not prove very much. Combined with Pa-bong-ka's other writings, however, the statement about killing the enemies of the Ge-luk is more than the usual ritual incitements contained in manuals for the propitiation of protectors.Consider this rather explicit passage contained in an introduction to the text of the empowerment required to propitiate Shuk-den (the (srog gtad,)about which more will be said later):

[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely important for holding Dzong-ka-ba's tradition without mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the great violence and the speed of the force of his actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low.[This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that] many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous andmisleading paths.In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances.Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.[41]
In this passage, which is based on notes taken by Tri-jang during a ceremony given by Pa-bong-ka and published in his (Collected Works,) Pa-bong-ka takes the references to eliminating the enemies of the the Ge-luk tradition as more than stylistic conventions or usual ritual incantations. It may concern the elimination of actual people by the protector.But who are these people?

A number of people may be included in this category.Several Nying-ma lamas have claimed to have been the target of Shuk-den, who is often greatly feared by the followers of this school. In this passage, however, Pa-bong-ka seems to have in mind less members of other schools than those Ge-luk practitioners who mix Dzong-ka-ba's tradition with elements from other traditions, particularly the Nying-ma Dzok-chen to which he refers indirectly but clearly.[42] The mission of Shuk-den as defined here is to prevent Ge-luk practitioners from mixing traditions and even visiting retribution on those who dare to go against this prescription.

This is also the central message of the founding myth of the Shuk-den practice as defined by Pa-bong-ka and his followers.Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becomes a wrathful deity to visit retribution, not on those who caused his death, but on those who defile Dsong-ka-ba's pure tradition. According to the legend, Shuk-den takes the Fifth Dalai Lama as his target because the latter was eclectic, including in his practice many elements from the Nying-ma tradition, which provoked the anger of Shuk-den as a guardian of Ge-luk orthodoxy. Pa-bong-ka is quite explicit:

Because the All Seeing Great Fifth practiced and developed all tenets of the old and new [schools], this great protector through the power of previous prayers produced a variety of extremely frightful appearances to the supreme Powerful King (the Fifth Dalai Lama) in order to protect and defend spotlessly Dzong-ka'ba's great tradition.[43]
We may now understand the peculiar fate of the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation as Shuk-den, which shifted from a slander of the former into a praise of the latter. Pa-bong-ka was aware of the stories surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death but understood them quite differently from the way contemporaries of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had. For him, the narrative was not about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen but about Shuk-den and the identification of the latter with the former was a way to legitimize the diffusion of a practice that had been previously marginal.??

The choice of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was particularly meaningful for Pa-bong-ka, who had been pressured by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama to renounce his practice of Shuk-den and may have been somewhat resentful.He may have felt a communion with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who like him had been the object of unwelcome attention from a strong Dalai Lama. More importantly, however, Pa-bong-ka must have felt that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's alleged posthumous antagonism to the Fifth Dalai Lama's eclecticism paralleled his own opposition to the adoption of Nying-ma teachings by some Ge-luk-bas.Shuk-den's anger against the Fifth Dalai Lama is not directed at the Dalai Lama institution (per se) but at the Nying-ma leanings of the Fifth.Finally, the choice of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen as the source of the Shuk-den lineage was an ideal way to legitimize an originally Sa-gya practice. By tracing back the lineage to Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, Pa-bong-ka could present the Shuk-den practice as authentically Ge-luk and reinterpret its undeniable roots in the Sa-gya tradition as an interlude in an essentially Ge-luk story.

Keeping the Ge-luk Tradition Pure

We now begin to understand the main message of the founding myth of the Shuk-den practice. We are also in a position to grasp some of the reasons for the troublesome nature of this deity and we understand the history of this myth, which is a classical case of invention, or, perhaps re-invention, of tradition in which past events are re-interpreted in the light of a contemporary situation.Still, a few questions remain.For example, why was Pa-bong-ka so emphatic in his opposition to Ge-luk eclecticism? Why did he worry so much about this limited phenomenon which was no threat to the overwhelming domination of the Ge-luk tradition in Central Tibet?It is true that several important Ge-luk lamas such as the Fifth Pen-chen Lama Lob-zang Pal-den (blo bzang dpal ldan chos kyi grags pa,)1853-1882) and La-ts?n Rin-bo-che (lha btsun rin po che) were attracted by Nying-ma practices of the Dzok-chen tradition. But this phenomenon remained limited in Central Tibet.Why did Pa-bong-ka feel the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition threatened?

To answer, we must place Pa-bong-ka in context.The idea of keeping the Ge-luk tradition pure (dge lugs tshang ma) was hardly new.It may even date to Kay-drub's tenure as the second Holder of the Throne of Ga-den during the first half of the fifteenth century. It appears that Kay-drub urged his followers to stick to Dzong-ka-ba's views and scolded those who did not. This approach became stronger during the seventeenth century, probably as a result of the civil war that led to the emergence of the Dalai Lama institution.But even then, not all Ge-luk-bas agreed with this approach. For example, the Fifth Dalai Lama advocated a more eclectic and inclusive approach.

As we have seen, his approach did not meet the approval of several Ge-luk hierarchs. After their victory at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the more restrictive view became dominant. It is only much later, around the turn of the twentieth century, that this issue resurfaced in connection with the success of the Non-sectarian (ris med) movement in Eastern Tibet, which developed as a reaction against sectarian abuses among Non-Ge-luk schools.It was intended to promote a more ecumenical atmosphere among these schools, but it was also a way for the weaker traditions to oppose the dominant Ge-luk tradition by presenting a united front. Their strategy was remarkably successful, and in short order the movement revived Non-Ge-luk institutions and greatly strengthened their position, particularly in Khams.It also influenced several important Ge-luk lamas, as we will see shortly.

This success could not but worry the more conservative elements of the Ge-luk establishment. Pa-bong-ka was particularly worried about the situation in Khams, which influenced his view of other traditions. In an earlier period of his life, Pa-bong-ka was rather open-minded.He had received several Dzok-chen teachings and was eclectic himself, despite his close personal connection with Shuk-den, his personal deity. After receiving these teachings, however, he became sick and attributed this interference to Shuk-den's displeasure. He thus refrained from taking any more Dzok-cen teaching and became more committed to a purely Ge-luk line of practice. Nevertheless, Pa-bong-ka did not immediately promote Shuk-den as the main protector of the Ge-luk tradition against other schools, perhaps because of the restrictions that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and his government placed on his practice of Shuk-den. The situation changed after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1933. Shortly after, Pa-bong-ka left Lhasa and visited several important Ge-luk monasteries in Khams, the area where the Non-sectarian movement was the strongest.There he could not but notice the strength of this movement as well as the poor shape of the Ge-luk institutions.Whereas in Amdo and Central Tibet, the Ge-luk school's hegemony was overwhelming and the challenge of other schools had little credibility, the situation in Khams was quite different.Ge-luk monasteries were large but had little to show for themselves. There were very few scholars and most monks were almost completely illiterate.Moreover, the level of discipline was poor.Given that situation, the success of the Non-sectarian movement was hardly surprising.

Pa-bong-ka perceived this situation as a serious threat to the overall Ge-luk supremacy, and this led him to a more sectarian and militant stance. He saw the inclusion by Ge-luk-bas of the teachings of other schools as a threat to the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition. The task of protecting the tradition from such encroachments was assigned to Shuk-den, the protector with whom he had a strong personal tie. This renewed emphasis on Shuk-den was also made possible by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama's death which removed the restrictions imposed on Pa-bong-ka's practice and diffusion of Shuk-den.

The sectarian implications of Pa-bong-ka's revival movement and the role of Shuk-den therein became clear during the 1940s, when the cult of Shuk-den spread in Khams and the Ge-luk tradition became much more aggressive in its opposition to the other schools. Under one of Pa-bong-ka's disciples, Tob-den Rin-bo-che, several Nying-ma monasteries were forcefully transformed into Ge-luk establishments and statues of Gu-ru Rin-bo-che are said to have been destroyed.In certain parts of Khams, particularly in Ge-luk strongholds such as Dra-gyab and Cham-do, some Ge-luk fanatics tried to stamp out the other traditions in the name of Shuk-den. It is hard to know, however, what Pa-bong-ka thought about these events, which may have been the work of a few extremists.It is clear, however, that since this time Shuk-den played a central role for Pa-bong-ka, who continued to promote his practice to support Ge-luk exclusivism after his return to Central Tibet.

We now start to understand Shuk-den's particularities and the reason he is controversial. First is his origin as D¯l-gyel, an angry and vengeful spirit.This makes him particularly effective and powerful but also dangerous according to standard Tibetan cultural assumptions.Second is his novelty as the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord Ma~ju?? the protector of a Ge-luk revival movement who is said to replace the main supra-mundane protector of the tradition. This promotion is all the more controversial that it is recent, for Shuk-den was nothing but a minor Ge-luk protector before the the 1930s when Pa-bong-ka started to promote him aggressively as the main Ge-luk protector.Third is his sectarian role as Do-je Shuk-den, that is, holder of the adamantine violence now understood to be aimed at keeping the Ge-luk tradition separate from and above other schools. Shuk-den is now depicted by his followers not just as the main Ge-luk protector, but as the one in charge of visiting retribution on those Ge-luk-bas tempted by the religious eclecticism of the Non-sectarian movement.

Still, for many years nothing happened.Some Ge-luk teachers may have been uncomfortable at the promotion of Shuk-den but there was no reason to engage in a controversy with Pa-bong-ka, who was popular but just one among many important Ge-luk lamas. Despite some tension between him and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, no major differences surfaced and the Ge-luk tradition seemed strong and united. After the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, there was very little discussion concerning Shuk-den. Pa-bong-ka's promotion of Shuk-den's cult and its founding myth were not considered threatening to the Tibetan government or the young new Dalai Lama, for the cult was not opposed to the Dalai Lama institution but affirmed the primacy of the Ge-luk tradition, a goal shared by many in the Tibetan government.In later years, the importance of Pa-bong-ka's lineage was further reinforced by the nomination of Tri-jang as the Junior Tutor of the Dalai Lama.

The exile both confirmed this situation and changed it. Pa-bong-ka's disciple Tri-jang became in exile the main source of teaching and inspiration for the Ge-luk tradition. The Dalai Lama was still young; his other tutor, Ling Rin-bo-che, had a modest personality that took him out of contention, and most of the other great Ge-luk lamas remained in Tibet. The preeminence of Tri-jang further strengthened the position of Pa-bong-ka's lineage as embodying the central orthodoxy of the tradition. Moreover, Tri-jang seems to have been personally extremely devoted to Shuk-den. In his commentary on Pa-bong-ka's praise of Shuk-den,[44] Tri-jang devotes several pages to explaining the many dreams of Shuk-den that he had from the age of seven.Tri-jang stressed this practice among his disciples and pushed the glorification of Shuk-den even further than Pa-bong-ka, insisting on the fact that this deity is ultimately a fully enlightened buddha who merely appears as a mundane deity.

Ge-luk teachers who were uncomfortable with this situation could say little against Tri-jang, the Dalai Lama's own teacher.Moreover, everyone (myself included) was won over by Tri-jang's astonishing qualities, his command of the Tibetan tradition, his personal grace, his refined manners, his diplomatic skills, and commanding presence. Finally, there was no reason for open controversy, for there was enough room in the tradition to accomodate several views. Ling Rin-bo-che offered an alternative to those who did not completely share Tri-jang's orientation. Thus, at the beginning of the 70s, the tradition seemed to be strong and united in its admiration of its great teachers, the Dalai Lama and his two tutors, a trinity that almost providentially seemed to be the mirror image of the original relation between Dzong-ka-ba and his two disciples.Nobody would have dreamed of the crisis that was about to come.

The Dispute Begins

The situation began to deteriorate in 1975, a year which can be described as the Ge-luk (annus terribilis.) In this year a book (henceforth the "Yellow Book") written in Tibetan about Shuk-den by Dze-may Rin-bo-che (dze smad rin po che,) 1927-1996) was published.[45] Retrospectively, we can say that the whole affair started from this book and the Dalai Lama's reaction to it. Prior to its publication, there was no controversy concerning Shuk-den.There may have been some tension between the Dalai Lama and some Ge-luk-bas. Some of the more conservative elements may have believed that the three monasteries should rule the Tibetan state and hence have resented the power and orientation of the last two Dalai Lamas. These elements may have also tended toward the Shuk-den practice.Thus, elements of resentment, suspicion and discontent provided the background for the present crisis, but they did not create it.The present crisis is a new phenomenon, largely a product of contingent circumstances and even coincidence.

The Yellow Book was intended to complement Tri-jang's commentary on Pa-bong-ka's praise of Shuk-den.[46] It consists of a series of stories which the author had heard informally from his teacher Tri-jang during the many years of their relationship which he wanted to record for posterity before the death of his teacher.The book enumerates the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to have been shortened by Shuk-den's displeasure at their practicing Nying-ma teachings. First, the Fifth Pen-chen Lama, Lob-zang Pal-den, is described as the object of Shuk-den's anger because he adopted Nying-ma practices. Despite the repeated warnings of the protector, Lob-zang Pal-den refused to mend his ways. After an unsuccessful ritual self-defense, which backfired, Lob-zang Pal-den died at the age of twenty nine.[47] The book cites several other Ge-luk lamas who had similar fates.Most noticeable is the long description of the Re-treng (rwa streng) affair.According to this account, Re-treng's tragic fate is not due to his real or alleged misdeeds,[48] but because he incurres the wrath of Shuk-den by practicing Nying-ma teachings.

Another particularly revealing story is that of the preceding reincarnation of Zi-gyab Rin-bo-che (gzigs rgyab rin po che), a lama from Tre-hor, who first studied at Tra-shi Lhung-po where he became learned and then developed a link with the Sixth Pen-chen Lama Tub-ten Ch¯-gi-nyi-ma (thub stan chos kyi nyi ma,) 1883-1937), who asked him to stay with him.Because of the past Pen-chen lama's eclectic ritual practice, Zi-gyab studied and practiced Nying-ma teachings.Later he decided to receive one of its central teachings, Jam-g¯n Kong-trul's ('jam mgon kong sprul, )1813-1899) (Rin chen gter mdzod) from Kyung Rin-bo-che (khyung rin po che). According to the story, Shuk-den warned Zi-gyab against this course of action. When the lama refused to heed the protector's advice, he fell sick and died suddenly without having been able to listen to the (Rin chen gTer Mdzod).In short order Kyung also died suddenly after several ominous signs of Shuk-den's anger.Shuk-den's anger at Zi-gyab's attempt to receive the (Rin chen gter mdzod)is particularly revealing in view of the central place held by this collection of teachings in the Non-sectarian movement.

Whatever the intentions of its author, the main message of the Yellow Book is hard to miss. Ge-luk lamas should absolutely not practice the teachings from other schools, otherwise they will incur Shuk-den's wrath and die prematurely.The author of the Yellow Book was repeating the views already expressed by the two most important figures in the tradition of Shuk-den followers, Pa-bong-ka and Tri-jang, as illustrated by the above quote (for the former) and claimed by the book itself (for the latter).[49] The Yellow Book provided a number of cases that illustrate this point, emphasizing that the dire warnings were not empty threats but based on "facts."

The Dalai Lama reacted strongly to this book.He felt personally betrayed by Dze-may, a lama for whom he had great hopes and to whom he had shown particular solicitude. More importantly, he felt that the Yellow Book was an attack on his role as Dalai Lama, a rejection of his religious leadership by the Ge-luk establishment, and a betrayal of his efforts in the struggle for Tibetan freedom.In 1976 the first signs of the impending crisis appeared, which I will explore in some detail, since I do not believe that these events have been well documented even by Tibetans. I will use my own memories to supplement the sketchy public records.

One of the first public manifestation of the Dalai Lama's state of mind was his refusal, after the Tibetan New Year of 1976, of the long life offerings made by the Tibetan government.Traditionally, the Dalai Lama accepts such an offering after the new year as a sign of the pure bond (dam tshig tshang ma) that exists between him and Tibetans: this bond is based on his commitment to continue his work as Dalai Lama and the Tibetans' allegiance. His refusal signaled in effect that he thought that the bond had been undermined and that the behavior of Tibetans was incompatible with his remaining as Dalai Lama. When pressed by the National Assembly to accept the offerings, the Dalai Lama sent back even stronger signals, mentioning dreams in which ?«in^s had entreated him to return to the pure realms. The refusal of the offerings of long life was already bad enough. The mention of these dreams was akin to a declaration of intention to abandon this world and his role therein. This sent the Tibetan community into a veritable ritual frenzy.The state oracle of Ne-chung ordered Tibetans to recite an enormous number of ma?i, the mantra of the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara of whom the Dalai Lama is said to be a manifestation.

At that time I was living at the Rikon monastery in Switzerland.I did not witness the scenes I am describing but heard about them from Tibetan friends and read reports in the (Shes Bya) review in Tibetan.I remember very clearly, however, the emotion that the news created among the monks living in Switzerland.Some were devastated, crying openly.I also remember the many hours that the Tibetan community in Switzerland spent reciting the number of required mantras.I was puzzled by the fact that not all Ge-luk monks seemed equally affected. Some seemed to be distinctly cool, despite their participation in the public rituals intended to protect the life of the Dalai Lama.Why were they so unmoved by the news of the Dalai Lama's reaction?

The answer, about which I had no idea at the time, was that they agreed with the views expressed by the Yellow Book.Hence, they were less then moved by the Dalai Lama's negative reaction. They understood that it manifested a profound division within the Ge-luk tradition, a division about which they could not but worry. Primarily, however, they saw his reaction as a rejection and a betrayal of the teachings of his tutor, Tri-jang, whom they considered to be the main teacher of the Ge-luk tradition and the guardian of its orthodoxy.They also may have foreseen that the Dalai Lama would counterattack. The crisis that has agitated the Ge-luk school since then had begun.

In the mid 1976, the Dalai Lama finally accepted the long life offerings of the Tibetan government and the Tibetan people.He would lead them after all, but this was not the end of the story, for he would also take strong actions to strengthen the loyalty of the Ge-luk establishment. His offensive started at the beginning of 1977 when Dze-may was publicly berated for his book. He was expelled from one of the public teachings that the Dalai Lama gave that year.The Dalai Lama also began to apply pressure against the practice of Shuk-den, laying several restrictions on the practice. The three great monasteries of Dre-bung, Ga-den and Se-ra, which traditionally, though not unambiguously, have supported the Tibetan government, and the two tantric colleges were ordered not to propitiate Shuk-den in public ceremonies.Moreover, several statues of Shuk-den were removed from the chapels of the three monasteries. Finally, the Dalai Lama ordered the monks of Se-ra in Bylakuppe not to use a building originally intended for the monthly ritual of Shuk-den.Individuals could continue their practice privately if they so chose, as long as they remained discreet about it.

The Ritual Basis of the Dalai Lama Institution

Many found the Dalai Lama's reaction excessive.After all, the views expressed by the book were rather unexceptional. The book was undeniably sectarian, but this is not rare in any of the four (or more) Tibetan schools. Similar sectarian views were held by Pa-bong-ka.[50] Even the Non-sectarian movement had at times used its inclusive strategy against the dominance of the Ge-luk school. Thus, the mere presence of a sectarian element in the Yellow Book could not justify or explain the Dalai Lama's strong reaction.We need to find another explanation.

Throughout the crisis, the Dalai Lama has gone to great lengths to explain his position. At first reserved to a limited audience, these explanations, some of which are of great scholarly quality, are now available in Tibetan and are invaluable to understand the present crisis.[51] The Dalai Lama repeatedly points to the relation between Shuk-den and the ritual system underlying the institution of the Dalai Lama as the source of the problem.

The institution of the Dalai Lama is not just political, but also rests on an elaborate ritual system, which has undergone several transformations. When the Fifth Dalai Lama assumed power after 1642, he attempted to build a broad- based rule legitimized by a claim to reestablish the early Tibetan empire.This claim was supported by an elaborate ritual system, which sought to reenact the perceived religious basis of the Tibetan empire. This ritual system was not limited to the practices of the Ge-luk tradition but included teachings and figures closely associated with the Nying-ma tradition, the Buddhist school that for Tibetans has a close association with the early empire.The ritual system involves an extremely complex network of practices which cannot be examined here.Two elements require mention, however.

The first element is devotion to Padmasambhava, the semi-mythical founder of the Nying-ma tradition.His role is central to the ritual system as conceived by the present Dalai Lama, for Guru Rin-bo-che is responsible for taming the negative forces in Tibet. According to legend, he started the practice of transforming pre-Buddhist deities into worldly protectors by binding them through oaths.He is in charge of making sure that these gods keep their word, and he is the guarantor of all the worldly protectors of the Tibetan world.[52]

The second element of this ritual system is the primacy of the protector Ne-chung. Like most other collective entities in the Tibetan cultural landscape, the Dalai Lama and his government have mundane protectors, who are often described as the "Two Red and Black Protectors" (srung ma dmar nag gnyis). The black protector is identified as the Great Goddess (dpal-ldan lha mo), the Tibetan equivalent of (Mah­dev^). The identification of the red protector has varied over time, but since the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ne-chung has been recognized as the red warrior deity protecting the Dalai Lama institution.[53] Together, they are taken to protect the Dalai Lama and his institution, including the Tibetan government.

Ne-chung is one in an important group of deities named "the five kings" (rgyal po sku lnga,) lit., five king-bodies) who are considered to be the manifestations of Pe-har, the deity appointed by Padmasambhava as the main guardian of Buddhism in Tibet. Among the five deities, Ne-chung is usually identified with Dor-je Drak-den (rdo rje grags ldan), the speech deity of the five kings.[54] Because of his connection with Pe-har, the guardian deity of Buddhism during the early Tibetan empire, the Fifth Dalai Lama and his government have chosen Ne-chung as the "Red Protector" thus emphasizing their connection with the early empire and strengthening their legitimacy.This choice further reinforced the centrality of Guru Rin-bo-che, and reflected the Fifth Dalai Lama's personal association with the Nying-ma tradition.

The Yellow Book and the propitiation of Shuk-den threaten this eclectic system centered on the worship of Guru Rin-bo-che and the propitiation of Ne-chung. By presenting Shuk-den as a deity in charge of visiting retribution upon those Ge-luk who have adopted practices from the Nying-ma tradition, which is based on and closely associated with the devotion to Guru Rin-bo-che, the Yellow Book undermines the ritual system underlying the Dalai Lama institution, and the present Dalai Lama's efforts to implement this system more fully.I also believe that the timing of the Yellow Book was particularly disastrous.

In his early years, the present Dalai Lama followed the advice of his teachers and practiced an almost purely Ge-luk ritual system.In doing so, he was continuing the tradition of the last seven Dalai Lamas, who had adopted a strictly Ge-luk ritual system as the religious basis of their power.Important changes were introduced after the death of the Fifth and the defeat of his party, when the role of the Dalai Lama and the ritual system supporting the institution were changed.Instead of an eclectic system emulating the religious basis of the early empire, a more purely Ge-luk ritual system was installed under the auspices of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kel-zang Gya-tso.The monks of Nam-gyel, the personal monastery of the Dalai Lama, were replaced by monks from the Ge-luk Tantric Colleges and the Nying-ma rituals that they had performed were discontinued.[55] This situation continued into this century, forming the religious practice of the young Fourteenth.

As the Fourteenth became more mature, however, he started to question this orientation. He felt a strong appreciation for the Fifth's political project, which he has described as a masterplan for building Tibet into a nation able to take part in the history of the region rather than a marginal state governed by religious hierarchs mostly preoccupied with the power of their monasteries and estates.[56] He also felt a strong religious bond with the Fifth and gradually came to the realization that he needed to implement the latter's ritual system.Consequently, he abandoned his Shuk-den practice in the mid-seventies, for he could not keep propitiating this deity while using Ne-chung, the protector associated with Guru Rin-bo-che and with whom he had had a special relation for many years.[57] He also attempted to promote the role of Guru Rin-bo-che in the ritual system of the Tibetan state. Only by strengthening this role, which he saw as vital to the integrity of the ritual basis of the Tibetan state, could the cause of Tibet be successful.Were not the political difficulties experienced by Tibetans signs that this ritual support had been undermined?

As an expression of his resolve to return to the ritual system developed by the Fifth Dalai Lama, the present Dalai Lama developed the role of Nying-ma rituals in the practice of his own personal Nam-gyel monastery. The monastery's repertoire was expanded from the usual Ge-luk tantric rituals to include typical Nying-ma practices such as Vajra k^laya and others.He invited several Nying-ma lamas to give teachings and empowerments to his monks. He also ordered them to do appropriate retreats.I remember the tongue in cheek comments of some of my friends of the Nam-gyel monastery about their "becoming Nying-ma-bas."They were surprised, taken aback and uncomfortable, for the rituals of the Nam-gyel monastery had been for many years Ge-luk, not very different from that of the two tantric colleges.They were ready to follow the Dalai Lama, however, despite their obvious misgivings.

Another key element in the Dalai Lama's strategy of returning to the Fifth's ritual system was the institution in October 1975 of a yearly ceremony of making a hundred thousands offerings to Guru Rin-bo-che.The collective worship of Guru Rin-bo-che would restore the synergy that existed between this figure and the Tibetan people, thus strengthening the power of the gods appointed by Guru Rin-bo-che to protect Tibetans from danger. But this event was not very successful. Many Ge-luk monks and nuns felt rather lukewarm, if not downright hostile, toward Guru Rin-bo-che, and abstained from attending the event.They profoundly resented the adoption of rituals they saw as coming from an alien tradition.

This was precisely the time that the famous Yellow Book first circulated, a coincidence I consider particularly unfortunate.[58] Although the connection between the low attendance at this new ceremony and the book is hard to establish, the Dalai Lama felt that the Yellow Book had contributed to the lack of support among Ge-luk monks and nuns.More importantly, he felt that the appearance of such a book precisely when he was trying to restore the ritual basis of the Tibetan state represented an act of open defiance by the very people, the high Ge-luk lamas, who were supposed to support him.These were the same people who had thwarted the attempts of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama toward reform with tragic consequences for Tibet.These were also particularly difficult times for Tibet politically. The repression in Tibet had gone on practically uninterrupted since 1959 and there seemed no end in sight. The sadness and even desperation thereby induced in the exile community and the Dalai Lama must have contributed to the crisis.[59]

Finally, the Dalai Lama felt directly attacked by the Yellow Book. For, after all, who was the person who was designated as a potential target of Shuk-den, the person who was undermining the purity of the Ge-luk tradition by adopting practices from the Nying-ma tradition, if not himself?Also, the Dalai Lama felt that this book was working against his efforts to promote harmony among the Tibetan schools.The matter was made much worse by the attribution of the opinions expressed by the Yellow Book to Tri-jang, who, to my knowledge, has never rejected this attribution. In fact, everybody assumed that Dze-may had indeed reported the words of his teacher and this is why the book was thought to be particularly damaging.What could the Dalai Lama say against his own teacher?

The Role of Shuk-den

If we can recognize the Dalai Lama's reasons for reacting to the diffusion of the Yellow Book, we have yet to understand the place of the practice of Shuk-den in this affair. Why focus so exclusively on the propitiation of Shuk-den?We need to consider briefly the role of mundane protectors in Tibetan culture. Mundane protectors ('jig rtenpa'i lha) are guardians in a universe alive with forces which can quickly become threatening, and are considered by Tibetans to be particularly effective because they are mundane, i.e., unenlightened.[60] They share human emotions such as anger or jealousy, which makes them more effective than the more remote supra-mundane deities ('jig rten las 'das pa'i lha), but also more prone to take offense at the actions of humans or other protectors.Shuk-den, for example, is presented as being hostile to those Ge-luk-bas who do not stick to the pure tradition of Dzong-ka-ba and seek the teachings of other traditions. Shuk-den is also said to undermine Ne-chung, who is said to resent Shuk-den's role and actions. Ne-chung is often depicted as acting out of resentment against and jealousy toward Shuk-den, proding the Dalai Lama to act against Shuk-den, to abandon the propitiation of this deity, to ban his practice, etc. The Dalai Lama himself has described on numerous occasions the strength of his relation to Ne-chung and the role of this deity in his decisions concerning Shuk-den.[61] Although the decision to limit the role of Shuk-den in 1970s cannot be solely attributed to Ne-chung, this deity has played an important role in the Dalai Lama's decisions.

We may wonder about the meaning of these conflicts between deities, their resentment against each other.What does it mean to say that Ne-chung resents Shuk-den, that he asked the Dalai Lama to ban him? For traditional Tibetans, such a statement is perfectly clear and does not require any further explanation, since it refers to entities whose reality is as certain as that of the solar system is for scientifically educated people.The propitiation of these entities is an integral part of their culture, and the conflict between worldly protectors or gods is a normal occurence in a universe which is filled by entities who can harm humans. I remember at one point becoming quite close to a young lama and his servant.I used to eat with them, until one day I was told that my visits were not welcome any more. They had had bad dreams, one of the privileged channels through which protectors communicate with humans.[62] According to these dreams, their protector was unhappy at my visits.My god apparently did not agree with theirs!

For modern educated people such an explanation is hardly satisfying. In the case of personal relations, incompatibilities can be easily explained as temperamental.But what does it mean for Shuk-den and Ne-chung not to get along? To understand this aspect of Tibetan culture, we need to realize that protectors are not just individual guardians but also protect collective entities. Monasteries, households of lamas, regional houses in large monasteries, and clans or families have their own protectors. This collective dimension of protectors is most relevant to the present conflict between Shuk-den and Ne-chung, which is quite obviously a reflection of the conflict between two groups, the conservative Ge-luk-bas, who resent the Dalai Lama's reliance on the Nying-ma tradition, and the g‚roups who accept or support the Dalai Lama's eclectic approach. The relation between groups and worldly protectors becomes clear if one remembers that the deities who are protectors are defined as such because they protect the person or the group, often by violent means, from enemies. These enemies are described as the "enemies of Buddhism" (bstan dgra); they are the "other" in opposition to which the person and the group define their identity.The connection between group and protector is very close.

There is, however, an important distinction to be made here. In the case of supra-mundane protectors, enemies of Buddhism threaten Buddhism as well as their own spiritual welfare.[63] The violence that protectors unleash against them is said to be strictly motivated by compassion and aims at benefiting the beings who are its target, much like the actions of bodhisattvas described in the Mah¹®a literature.[64] This violence is impartial and cannot be used for one's personal advantage. However, the violence of mundane deities is quite different, for it involves quasi human emotions.Since these deities experience these emotions, they are thought to be partial and can be enrolled in actions performed on behalf of the person or the group who propitiates them.The term "enemies of Buddhism" is used and the practitioner or the group will ask the protector to get rid of these beings. But in this case the term "enemies of Buddhism" refers less to the objects of compassionate and impartial violence than to the being perceived by the person or the group as threatening. An "enemy of Buddhism" may belong to a rival Buddhist group, or may be a member of one's own tradition, such as Ge-luk practitioners who are interested in other schools such as the Nying-ma.[65] We now begin to understand the close connection between group identity and mundane protectors, and the reason why the propitiation of some protectors can be quite troubling.

Moreover, the close connection between group and protector is not just symbolic, it is also inscribed in the nature of the practices relating to protectors which is based on the notion of loyalty.The relation between a person or group and the protector is described as being based on the maintenance of "pure bond" or "pure commitment" (dam tshig tshang ma). This notion of pure bond is particularly important in Tibetan Buddhism, where there is a strong emphasis on preserving the commitment between students and their teachers, especially in the context of tantric practice.But this sense of loyalty goes well beyond the domain of tantric practice. It plays a vital role in the social life of Tibetans, who put a great emphasis on personal friendship and group loyalty.It also informs a part of Tibetan political life, as we noticed earlier.

It is this same sense of loyalty that lies at the basis of the relations between protectors and their followers.This is particularly true regarding the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den, a practice based on the taking of a solemn oath similar to that of friends swearing life-long loyalty to each other.The propitiation of Shuk-den requires a ceremony called "life entrusting" (srog gtad), during which the followers and the deity are introduced to each other by the guru who confers the empowerment.[66] The follower swears his or her fidelity to Dor-je Shuk-den who in exchange promises to serve him or her. It is clear that this practice fosters a very strong loyalty to the deity and by extension to the group that the deity represents.

In Shuk-den's case, devotion has been strengthened further by the central role of the charismatic teachers Pa-bong-ka and Tri-jang, who have transformed this formerly minor practice into one of the main elements of the Ge-luk tradition. Because of the central place of keeping commitments to one's guru among Tibetans, and because of the considerable personal qualities of these teachers, they have succeeded in inspiring an extreme devotion in their followers, who seem to value their commitment to these figures more than anything else. In fact, from the point of view of many of Shuk-den's followers, the devotion to teachers such as Pa-bong-ka or Tri-jang is the basis for the practice of Shuk-den. They propitiate this deity first and foremost because it is the protector recommended by their guru. This situation has contributed significantly to the polarization that surrounds the issue and has further enhanced the troubling potential of the Shuk-den practice.For when the Dalai Lama opposes Shuk-den, the followers of this deity feel his opposition is directed against the founding fathers of their own tradition, and hence an attack against their own group.They also feel misrepresented when they are accused of being sectarian, for in their perspective the sectarian element pales in significance when compared to their commitment to their guru and his tradition.

Nevertheless, groups may feel that they fit the description "enemies of Buddhism" as defined by the Shuk-den rituals, even if the threat they imply is not implemented or is considered secondary by their practitioners. Thus the claim that the practice of Shuk-den disrupts the functioning of the Dalai Lama institution becomes-special-character:footnote'>[67] But, as we saw earlier, a number of Nying-ma rituals are precisely the basis of the Dalai Lama institution as understood by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Does it not follow that the present Dalai Lama is the "enemy of Buddhism" as implied by the practice of Shuk-den?

Most of Pa-bong-ka's followers would answer this question in the negative. They would argue that their practice is primarily not directed at anybody but stems from their religious commitments. Nevertheless, the fact that this shocking statement seems to follow logically from the way the practice of Shuk-den has been defined by its main proponents explains the challenge that such a practice raises for the leadership of the Dalai Lama.It also throws some light on the claim that Ne-chung resents Shuk-den's success. Since Ne-chung is taken as the preeminent protector of the Dalai Lama, he must indeed be disturbed by a cult that takes the very people he is meant to protect as its target. Finally, we understand the divisiveness of the practice of mundane protectors such as Shuk-den and the danger of violence that it contains.For, after all, what can one do with the enemies of Buddhism but fight them? We are also able to answer one of the questions raised at the beginning of this essay: is the practice of Shuk-den different from the practices associated with other protectors? It is clear that there are other wordly protectors within the world of Tibetan Buddhism. It also clear that Shuk-den as a deity does not appear to be very different from other worldly protectors who are all perceived to inspire awe and fear and hence have the potential for being put to troubling uses, though the particular cultural scenario associated with Shuk-den, i.e., being a spirit of a dead religious person (rgyal po), may mark him as a particularly fierce deity. A similar cultural scenario, however, is alleged in the case of Ne-chung, a deity sometimes presented as the spirit of a monk who broke his vows.[68] Thus, the root of the problem raised by the Shuk-den affair is not the particular nature of the deity. So why is the practice of Shuk-den so problematic?

The answer is to be found in the sectarian ways in which this practice has been defined by its founders.Shuk-den was re-invented during this century not just to satisfy the wordly puposes of individuals or particular institutions, but also and mostly to affirm and defend the identity of a revival movement opposed to other religious groups, particularly within the Ge-luk tradition.Shuk-den is the protector in charge not just of protecting individual practitioners but the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition as conceived by its most conservative elements.It is this aggessively sectarian use of this deity that has been particularly problematic. The practices associated with the other protectors are different in that they are used by monasteries, lama's estates, families, or individuals for this-wordly purposes as piecemeal elements of a traditional network of religious practices, not to affirm a systematically sectarian outlook.As such they do not map into any large-scale socio-political distinction and their potential for abuse remains limited.

This sectarian stance is the central message of the founding myth of the Shuk-den tradition, the wrathful transformation of Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen into Shuk-den and his hostility to the Fifth Dalai Lama. This hostility reflects the attitude of a part of the Ge-luk tradition which advocates a strictly Ge-luk practice and opposes the importation of Nying-ma teachings into their tradition. This opposition between two visions of the Ge-luk tradition focuses on the figure of the Dalai Lama because of the way in which the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas have considered the institution they represent, i.e., as resting on an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nying-ma tradition combine with an overall Ge-luk orientation.Shuk-den, then, is less the spirit of the Ge-luk political resentment against a strong Dalai Lama, than it is the spirit of a religious resentment against a perceived threat to the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition.The target of Shuk-den is not the Dalai Lama (per se) but the accomodation toward other schools, particularly the Nying-ma, shown by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, an attitude perceived by Shuk-den's followers as a defilement of Dzong-ka'ba's tradition.

When this sectarian orientation is combined with some of the particularities of the Shuk-den tradition such as the central role of charismatic figures such as Pa-bong-ka and Tri-jang, the extreme devotion they have inspired in their followers, as well as the intensity of the loyalty developed by the Shuk-den cult based on the life entrusting ceremony mentioned above, the troubling events that have revolved around the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den become less surprising. The strong opposition of the present Dalai Lama also becomes more understandable. For a sectarian opposition to the Dalai Lama institution cannot help but have strong political implications in contemporary Tibetan society where this institution plays such a large role. The practice of propitiating Shuk-den threatens this institution and undermines its ability to function as a rallying point for Tibetans. Is it then surprising if he opposes it so vigorously?

[1]This is a revised version of an essay published earlier in the (Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies)(Vol., 21, no. 2 [1998]:227-270) and reprinted here with the permission of the editors of the above mentioned journal.I would like to thank them.I would also like to acknowledge all the people who have helped me in this project. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, however, I feel that I should not mention any name and just thank them collectively.
[2]Tri-jang Rin-bo-che, (The Music that Rejoices the Ocean of Pledge Bound, Being an Account of the Amazing Three Secrets [of Body, Speech and Mind] of Great Magical Dharma Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force, The Supreme Manifested Deity Protecting the Ge-den Tradition (dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog sprul pa'i chos rgyal chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal gyi gsang gsum rmad du byung ba'i rtogs pa brjod pa'i gtam du bya ba dam can can rgya mtsho dgyes pa'i rol mo,) Collected Works, Delhi: Guru Deva, 1978), V.5-159, 8.
[3]Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's lineage is said to go back to Dul Dzin Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, a direct disciple of Dzong-ka-ba. This lineage is, however, a kind of spiritual lineage and quite different from the recognized lineage of a lama. See Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement to the Explanation of the Preliminaries of the Life Entrusting [Ritual] )(rgyal chen srog gtad gyi sngon 'gro bshad pa'i mtshams sbyor kha bskong),) Collected Works, New Delhi: Chopel Legdan, 1973), VII.517-532, 520.
[4]Sang-gye Gya-tso (sangs rgyas rgya mtsho), explains that after Ngak-wang Ge-lek (ngag dbang dge legs) had died, the second reincarnation of Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba was found in the Ge-kha-sa (gad kha sa) family.He adds: "Although he had hopes for being the reincarnation of the All-knowing Yon-ten Gya-tso, he was made the reincarnation of Ngak-wang Ge-lek" (thams cad mkhyen pa yon tan rgya mtsho'i sprul sku yong du re yang ngag dbang dge legs kyi sprul sku byas pas). Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, (Vai?®rya-ser-po) (Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1960), 72. 5>
[5]Dol rgyal zhib 'jug tshogs chung, (Dol rgyal lam shugs ldan byung rim la dpyad pa) (Dharamsala, 1998), 25-35. 6>
[6]Tri-jang, (Music ,) 101-109.
[7]R. Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles and Demons of Tibet).(The Hague: Mouton, 1956).
[8]In this essay I will treat deities as "real persons" since they are experienced as such by Tibetans.
[9]Such a spirit is also called (tsan) (often but not always the spirit of a monk who has either fallen from his monastic commitment or has been killed), who lives in rocks and must be pacified with special red offerings. Tibetans speak of eight classes of of gods and spirits (lha srin sde brgyad). See: Samuel, (Civilized Shaman) (Washington: Smithsonian, 1993), 161-163.
[10]Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 521.
[11]Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 523 and Tri-jang, (Music ,) 105.
[12]The Tri-ba seems at first to have been elected, which would have stenghtened his position.Later he was selected by the Dalai Lama.When did this change occur?Only further research will provide an answer which will greatly help us in understanding the history of the Ge-luk tradition.
[13]E.G. Smith, "Introduction," (Kongtrul's Encyclopedia of Indo-Tibetan Culture )(New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1970), 17.
[14]L. Petech, Introduction to Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, (Vaid®rya-ser-po) , xi-xii. 15>
[15]bod de'i rgyal po ni gzim khang gong ma sprul sku grags rgyan zer ba ni chag(s) sdang gi gtam kho nar zad do/ des na bsod nams chos 'phel ni lo 'dir 'das nas khong dge lugs la thugs zhen ches pas chos bsrung ba'i tshul bzung nas dge lugs pa skyong zhes grags pa bden nam snyam mo/. (Rehu mig or chronological tables)in Sum pa mkhan po, (dPag bsam ljon bzang )(Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1959), 70-1. 16>
[16]This opposition had come to the fore when the prime minister tried to entice the Lo-sel-ling college of Dre-bung monastery to adopt the fifth Dalai Lama's works as its textbooks in place of Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba's works.After the college's refusal, Sang-gye Gya-tso asked Jam-yang-shay-ba to refute Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba.This was an attempt at strengthening the government's control over the monasteries as well as a way of removing Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's posthumous influence, two goals with which Jam-yang-shay-ba had little sympathy. Hence, the latter refused to oblige.
[17](de'i rjes su gad kha sa pa'i nang so gro (grod?) lhug thog mar thams cad mkhyen pa yon tan rgya mtsho'i sprul sku yong du re yang ngag dbang bsod nams dge legs kyi sprul sku byas pas mthar skye gnas mi bzang bar gyur to/) Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, (Vai?®rya-ser-po) (Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1960), 71-2.
[18]gad kha sa lags a rgyal gyi 'phrul la brten ngag dbang bsod nams dge legs dpal bzang gyi sku skye rdzus ma lam du song ba smon lam log pa'i dam srid gyur te/.Fifth Dalai Lama, (Collected Works,) vol. Ha, 423-4. A similar scenario is presented in the Fifth's autobiography.Both passages were quoted by the present Dalai Lama in a talk given in Los Angeles, June 1997.
[19]Some stories present the Nga-ri Rin-bo-che as the reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen but they are hard to trace and are probably significantly posterior to the facts here discussed.
[20]In reference to the year 1655 (Wood Sheep), Sum-pa-mkhan-po notes: "[Birth of] the Kangshi emperor renowned as the reincarnation of Tul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen (sprul sku grags rgyan skye bar grags pa'i khang zhi bde skyid rgyal po) (Rehu mig ,) 70. 21>
[21]In his autobiography, the Fifth Dalai Lama mentions the existence of a harmful spirit around the pond of D¯l. See (Du ku La'i gos bzang,) II. ?/span>157.a-.b.
[22]Pa-bong-ka gives the following gloss of Shuk-den's name: "[This] great protector, who holds the adamantine force which is all pervading regarding the destruction of the army of the devil, [this] spirit who is a war god, the protector of the Ge-den tradition, who assumes the pretense of being a wordly boastful god though he is beyond the world, is well known "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (de ltar 'jig rten las 'das kyang dregs pa'i zol 'chang dge ldan bstan srung dgra lha'i rgyal po/ bdud kyi sde 'joms pa la thogs pa med pa'i rdo rje'i shugs 'chang ba bstan srung chen po rgyal chen dor je shugs ldan rtsal zhes yongs su grags pa.(Supplement,) 528.
[23]shing cha rnams chu la bskyur ba dol chu mig dkar mor chags pas der gnas pas re zhig bar du dol rgyal zhes grags. Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 521. 24>
[24]Another informant has suggested that Shuk-den became at some point a monastic deity in charge of eliminating rogue monks who had broken their vows but still pretended to be pure. ?/span>This hypothesis would account for the monastic appearance of Shuk-den's main form (for a description of Shuk-den's five forms, see Kelzang Gyatso, (Heart Jewel,) 77) and provide a precedent for Shuk-den's opposition to Ge-luk practitioners who have adopted Nying-ma teachings.From punishing rogue monks, it is quite easy to imagine how D¯l-gyel could have been transformed into a deity punishing "rogue Ge-luk-bas"! I have not found, however, any source confirming this hypothesis. That such a type of deity exists among Tibetans is well established(Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 207), but the connection with D¯l-gyel or Shuk-den remains unfounded. 25>
[25]phyi'i nang du nged rang phyir ldog cing/ sku tshab drung du phyin nas smon lam rnam par dag pas mtshams sbyar nas/ dur khrod du zhag gcig bsdad pas tshar slong gi mtha' rdzogs pa byung/ de nas theg cing btsan thang g.yu yi lha khang du zhag gcig bsdad/ rim bzhin gtsang chu'i srib ngos nas/ byams pa gling dang o rgyan smin grol gling/ thub bstan rdor brag sogs la mchod mjal zhus/ lcags la'i sras mkhan rin po che dang mjal zhing thugs yid gcig 'dres su gyur/ grwa thang du rgyal po shugs ldan nas cho 'phrul sna tshogs byung yang nye zho ma nus.Bde bar lcags zam chu bo rir slebs.Autobiography of Mdo Mkhyen brtse Ye shes rdo rje. Gangtok:Namgyal Institutue of Tibetology, 1974), 148. 26>
[26]The practice of propitiating D¯l-gyel seems to have been absent in the Ngor-ba or Tshar-ba branches of the Sa-gya tradition. It disappeared from the tradition of Sa-gya, perhpas due to the realization of its sectarian implications.
[27]Pl 480/ IASWR microfilms 08.043. ‚Dpal bsam yas lhun gyis grub pa'i gtsugs lag khang gi srung ma phrin las kiy mgon pa kun khyab rdo rje drag po rtsal gyi spyan 'dren bskang pa phrin bcol, 12.b-16.a.It is by no means sure, however, that the present version is identical to the text written by S¯-nam-rin-chen.The colophon mentions the fact that the text was revised (bcos) by Ngak-wang Kun-ga Lo-dr¯ (ngag dbang kun dga' blo gros).The text is found among a collections of ritual texts of Anye Zhab (amyes zhabs ngag dbang kun dga',) 1597-1659).
[28]rgyal gsol log 'dren tshar gcod.
[29]One of the main sources in this essay is the present Dalai Lama, who has done a great deal of excellent research concerning Shuk-den, tracing several mentions of this deity in the early stages of the Ge-luk tradition.Here I am borrowing from his talk given on the 8th of May 1996. 30>
[30]S. Mumford, 'Himalayan Dialogue (Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 1989), 264. 31>
[31]Collected works of Thu-bkwan Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-ma (Delhi :Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969-1971), I.5-831, 221.b. Quoted by the Dalai Lama in his talk of the 8th of may 1996.
[32]Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 210.
[33]Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong kha ( pha bong kha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa), 471.a-.b. 34>
[34]Ta bu Pe-ma Baz-ra and Dak-po Kel-zang Kay-drub are often mentioned as sources of the Shuk-den teachings. 35>
[35]Pa-bong-ka, Collected Works, VIII.498, 533. 36>
[36]Tri-jang,(Music,) 5.
[37]Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 5.
[38]Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong kha,) 471.b.
[39]hung/ blo bzang bstan pa srung ba'i srog zhing gcig/ rnal 'byor 'dod pa'i re skong yid bzhin nor/ dam nyams dgra gegs srog la ha la'i dug/ khyod kyi gsang gsum dran pas bstod phyag tshal/ Pa-bong-ka, (Collection of [Rituals] concerning the Circle of Offerings, The Special Offering of Drinks, [and] the Exhortation to Action of the Powerful Protectors of Buddhismand [the propitiation of] Wealth Gods and Spirit (mthu ldan bstan srung khag gi 'phrin las bskul gser skyems tshogs mchod sogs dang/ gnod sbyin nor lha' skor 'ga' zhig phogs gcig tu bkod pa,) Collected Works, New Delhi: Chopel Legdan, 1973), VII.451-497), 467. 40>
[40]hung/ khro rgyal gshin rje gshed/ 'jam mgon bla ma tsong kha pa'i/ bstan dang bstan 'dzind dgra lha'i gtso/ shugs ldan drag po las la bskul/ ... khyad par blo bzang bstan pa'i dgra/ skad cig sgrol ba'i dus la bab/ sngon gyi dam tshig ma gyel bar/ chos skyong drag po'i las la bzhengs/ snying ring thugs dam ma lhod par/ dra po'i las la myur du chos/ bskul zhing 'phrin las bcol ba'i las/ bstang snyoms ma mdzad myur du sgrubs/ bdag la re sa gzhan med kyi/ bcol ba'i 'phrin las myur sgrubs. Pa-bong-ka, (Collection ,) 468-469. 41>
[41]zhwa gser gyi bstan pa la log par spyod pa'i 'gro ba mchog dman kun la drag po'i che pa thog ltar 'beb pa la 'phrin las kyi shugs shin tu myur zhing/ drag shul shin tu che bas na/ rang phyogs kyi ser skya mchog dman mang po zhig kyang rje'i ring lugs gser sbyangs btso ma lta bu 'di nyid kyis go ma chod par gzhan phyogs pa'i lta grub 'khrul pa las kyang nyid 'khrul mu 'byam du song ba'i lam log lam gol gyi grub mtha' myur myur mo dang/ zab zab mor grags pa mang po zhig bse bslad byas pa la brten nas bstan bsrung gnyan po 'dis rang gzugs dngos su bstan pa dang/ khrog gtum 'jigs shing rngams pa'i rnam 'gyur mi bzad pa'i cho 'phrul sna tshogs pas kha cig myo zhing 'bog pa dang/ la la khong khrag 'dren cing glo bur du tshe'i 'du byed pa/ 'ga' zhig mi 'dod pa'i ngan ltas ci rigs pas dpal 'byor 'du longs rigs rgyud dang bcas pa ltag chu chad pa'i rdzing bu ltar rim bzhin rjes shul med par btang ba dang/ skye ba'i phreng ba gzhan mar 'gar yang ci byas pa la lam du rgyu dka' ba sogs mngon sum du byung ba dang 'byung 'gyur mang po mthong thos kyi yul du 'gyur pa ltar lags pas blo bzang rgyal ba'i bstan pa grub mtha' chal chol gzhan gyis bse bslad med par 'dzin pa shin tu gal che zhing. Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 526-527.
[42]The ironical words (myur myur mo dang/ zab zab mo) are clear references to Dzok-chen, which characterizes itself as having the most profound view and the fastest path.
[43]kun gzigs lnga pa chen po grub mtha' gsar rnying thams cad 'dzing skyong spel bar mdzad pas/ chos skyong chen po 'dis sngon gyi thugs smon gyi dbang gis 'jam mgon bla ma'i ring lugs dri ma med par bsrung zhing skyong ba'i phyir/ rgyal dbang mchog la shin tu 'jigs su rung ba'i rnam 'gyur sna tshogs ston pa'i gzigs snang byung ba na/ Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement , )521. This text consists of notes taken by Pa-bong-ka's secretary Lob-zang Dor-je during one of Pa-bong-ka's Life Entrusting (srog gtad) ceremonies. 44>
[44]Tri-jang, (Music. ) 45>
[45]See above for the bibliographical reference. 46>
[46]Tri-jang, (Music. )
[47]Or thirty according to the Tibetan way of counting years. Dze-may, (The Yellow Book,) 4.
[48]M. Goldstein, (A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951 )(Berkeley: University of California, 1989), 310-363.
[49]When compared to Pa-bong-ka's explicit stance, Tri-jang's stance toward other schools seems more moderate. In fact, it is clear that for him the devotional element is much more important than the sectarian element in the practice of Shuk-den. This is why some of his disciples seem to be genuinely surprised when they are accused of being sectarian. Nevertheless, Tri-jang does point to the connection between the Fifth Pen-chen Lama's tragic fate, his Non-sectarian (ris su ma chad pa) orientation, and Shuk-den's action.(Music,) 134. 50>
[50]The best example of Ge-luk sectarianism is perhaps Sum-pa ken-po ye-shay-bel-jor's attack on the Nying-ma tradition. There has been, however, another tradition of Ge-luk thinkers who have defended and exemplified a more enlightened and tolerant view. Tu-gen rejected the conclusions of his teacher Sum-pa Ken-po and defended the authenticity of the Nying-ma tradition. See M. Kapstein, "The Purificatory Gem and its Cleansing", (History of Religions )28 (1989) 3, 217-244. Another example is Jang-gya. More enlightened Ge-luk thinkers such as Tu-gen or Jang-gya should not be thought of as eclectic.They were not arguing for a more inclusive religious practice, as did the Fifth Dalai Lama, but for a more tolerant outlook within a purely Ge-luk practice. 51>
[51]His collected speeches from 1978 to 1996 on the subject have been published in (Gong sa skyabs mgon chen po mchog nas chos skyong bsten phyogs skor btsal ba'i bka' slob) (Dharamsala: Religious Affairs, 1996).(henceforth DL)
[52]DL, 24.This fact is recognized even by Shuk-den's followers. Pa-bong-ka describes how Pe-har, the main protector appointed by Padmasambhava, is supposed to have incited Shuk-den into protecting the Ge-luk tradition.Pehar is depicted as saying: I have been assigned by Guru Rin-bo-che to protect the Nying-ma tradition and hence cannot protect Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, the only truly faultless tradition. You should do it. (Supplement,) 519.
[53]Heller, "Historic and Iconographic Aspects of the Protective Deities," 483. 54>
[54]Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 107.The five king-bodies represent the five aspects of the group of deity: body, speech, mind, quality and action.Ne-chung is identified with Dor-je Drak-den, who represents the speech aspect, whereas Pe-har represents the action aspect. 55>
[55]gDong-thog mentions the discontinuation of the practice of 'Jam dpal gshin rje tshe bdag.(Gong sa skyabs mgon rgyal ba'i dbang po mchog gi lha srung bsten phyogs bka' slob la rgol ba'i rtsod zlog bden gtam sa gzhi 'dar ba'i 'brug sgra) (Seattle: SaPen Institute, 1996), 23. 56>
[56]Oral interview given during the second visit of the Dalai Lama in France (1987).
[57]DL., 17-20.In his account of the genesis of the Shuk-den affair, the Dalai Lama described his complex relation with Ne-chung concerning Shuk-den. He first tried to prevent Ne-chung from expressing through his oracle resentment against the success of Shuk-den, labeling this protector "the teacher of novelty seekers" (a sras mkhan po), and complaining that the practice of Shuk-den weakens him (DL, 20).The Dalai Lama ordered Ne-chung to keep silent on this topic, realizing the conflict that would be unleashed if he gave in to Ne-chung's requests.
[58]This was also the time when the Dalai Lama was trying to prevent Ne-chung from expressing his resentment against Shuk-den. The Dalai Lama felt that the publication of the Yellow Book made this self-imposed restraint impossible. His efforts at moderation were not recognized and imitated.Henceforth, he felt that he could not stop Ne-chung from complaining and demanding that Shuk-den stop his activities.See DL, 20.
[59]A factor in the developments analyzed here has been the political situation in Tibet.The Dalai Lama and the exile community have felt a strong urgency to do something about the situation in Tibet and that has probably exacerbated the "affair." It is not without reason that the most acute crises in the "Shuk-den Affair" have occurred in moments (1975, 1996) where, for different reasons, the situation of Tibet seemed most difficult.??R. Schwartz mentions the role that millenarian elements such as oracles and protectors have played in contemporary Tibetan political actions during the most difficult times when rational modes of action seem impossible and hopeless. See (Circle of Protest)(New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 226-231. 60>
[60]Technically, mundane protectors are defined as deities who have not attained the noble path ('phags lam, ²yam²ga) in their spiritual development. 61>
[61]DL., 17-9.
[62]The other channel is the possession of a person, who is often appointed to this office.Such a person functions as the basis (sku rten) for the deity, who speaks oracularly through his or her mouth.
[63]I am explaining the Tibetan understanding of supra-mundane deities, who are mostly Indian in their origin. Whether these gods were understood in India in the same way is a different question. 64>
[64]The classical example in the Mah¹®a s®tras is found in the story of the bodhisattva killing the person who was about to murder five hundred people on his ship.See G. Chang, (A Treasury of Mah¹®a S®tras) (Delhi: Motilal, 1991), 452-465. 65>
[65]Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 526. 66>
[66]This ceremony, which does not seem to have any source in the Indian tradition, is not unique to Dor-je Shuk-den. It seems to exist for some other wordly gods as well where it is called "life empowerment" (srog dbang). It does not appear that these ceremonies are practiced in the case of protectors such as Ne-chung, but I have not been able to obtain clear information on this point.
[67]Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 526-527.See above.
[68]Lob-zang Ch¯-phel, (gzhung lan drang srong rgan po'i 'bel gtam) (Delhi: Dorje Shugden Sciety, 1997), 120.

HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA'S RESPONSE TO MEDIA A QUESTION ON SHUGDEN AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE IN INDIANAPOLIS ON AUGUST 16, 1999

Question: The practitioner of Dorjee Shugden, will they be permitted to the Kalachakra? Answer: Now here, you need lot of explanation. Basically, for the last more than 300 years, this controversy remained. And then particularly in the last 60 years, lot of controversial things happened. Here controversy means, lot of sectarian, unhappy things occurred in eastern Tibet, Central Tibet, and Southern Tibet. In any way, in my own case, due to my ignorance, I practice this spirit. I practiced worship of this spirit. Eventually I realised that this is not the right way, this is a mistake. Then I carried further investigation. I found, the fifth Dalai Lama actually considered this spirit to be a malevolent force which may have been born as a result of misguided aspirations.

And then many Tibetan masters, particularly among the Geluk tradition, yellow hat tradition, like Purchok Ngawang Jampa, one great master, very famous; and then the teacher of the seventh Dalai Lama, Trichen Ngawang Chokdhen, very famous. Then another Tibetan lama, of course, well known, Kyangja Rolpai Dorjee, and then the teacher of the eighth Dalai Lama, Yongzin Yeshi Gyaltsen. All these and other masters considered this an evil force. So then things became clear. And also, as mentioned before, for the last 300 years, particularly in the last 60 years, if you investigate and meet more people from all major four Buddhist traditions of Tibet, then you will get the clearer picture, what really happened in the last few centuries and particularly in the last few decades. So the basic thing is firstly, I mean there are three points. Number One, Since the fifth Dalai Lama considered this an evil force, evil spirit, and he once tried to destroy that. So therefore, me as the Dalai Lama, the 14th incarnation of the Dalai Lama, I am among the lineage of the Dalai Lama, so I have to follow. It is logical. It is better to follow the fifth Dalai Lama and also the 13th Dalai Lama. The 13th Dalai Lama also placed restrictions on this evil spirit. So then I realised my mistake and then I stopped completely worshipping this.

Number Two. As you know I always try to promote non-sectarian spirit, not only among Tibetan Buddhist traditions, but also among other religious traditions, as many people by now know. Particularly among the four Tibetan Buddhist tradition, I myself receive teachings from Nyingma tradition, Sakya tradition and Kagyud tradition. So this is my approach. So this spirit, you can see from some books in order to praise this spirit, it is made very clear that if one follower of the yellow hat sect, if that even touch the scripture of the Nyingma tradition, this spirit will destroy you. In fact the ninth, no the eighth Panchen Lama, because he practised the Nyingma tradition, follower, I mean worshipper of this spirit believe that this spirit destroyed the eighth Panchen Lama because he practised the Nyingma tradition.

So you see in my effort in promotion of non-sectarianism this becomes a great obstacle. So this is Number 2 reason.

Then Number 3, unfortunately among Tibetans, our Tibetan Buddhist tradition is actually very rich and very authentic. However, there is a sign of danger of degeneration of this rich Buddhist tradition into spirit worship. It is a great pity. And then that spirit is also not reliable, very controversial and many great lamas considered this an evil force. So, therefore, I put restrictions. Then some people who practice this distorted my standpoint. Since I carry this attitude with sincere motivation and sufficient reason, so I want to continue with the stand. Therefore, now in religious tradition, in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition there is a concept known as the importance of the sacred bond between the teacher and the disciples. So in order to be safer for the students side, if you worship this spirit then please don't come to listen to my teaching because it is for their own sake. So this is no change. My position is still like that. Same.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF OPPOSITION TO SHUGDEN

Edited and Compiled by The Dolgyal Research Committee

Measures Taken by Various Learned Non-sectarian Scholars and Great Practitioners Against the Practice and Propitiation of Dolgyal or Shugden

Edited and Compiled by The Dolgyal Research Committee

PREFACE

This leaflet, dealing with the measures taken by various learned scholars and great practitioners against the practice and propitiation of Dolgyal or Shugden, has been extracted from the book: Research on the Evolution of Shugden Entitled: Clouds of Offering Pleasing the Impartial for direct and easy reference.

Dolgyal Research Committee C/O Department of Religion and Culture Central Tibetan Administration Dharamsala 22 October 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some general accounts and stories about gods and spirits may be related to (somebody's) pure vision, most of them arise because of the variety of human perception and imagination, thus, they are obscure phenomena. If we regard everything as pure vision and disregard day to day, ordinary, worldly human experiences, we will have no way to explain these things. Moreover, (the worship of Dolgyal) is a crucial issue that we cannot just sit back and ignore, without investigating whether such practice has harmed or helped our society.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has stated in one of his talks on the process of practice and propitiation of dharma protectors, "If it is said that there are uncommon and inconceivable secret events, let us first develop a refined consciousness capable of experiencing such mystical things. If we had such a consciousness we could then make use of them, but we simply have to go by popular conventions. If the person is at an ordinary level, but the object of experience is something of inconceivable secrecy, then he cannot experience it."(1) As His Holiness the Dalai Lama points out, even though people who recognise Gyalchen Shugden as reliable, and particularly those who say that Shugden is the protector of Gelugpas, assert that this is a profoundly secret issue, it has created and is creating many problems on an ordinary human level. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has farsightedly given advice and guidance regarding the practice and propitiation of dharma protectors. The validity of this advice is proved and supported by actual historical events.

The second volume of the Heavely Garment (Dukulai Gosang) describes how the Great Fifth Dalai Lama performed peaceful and wrathful activities in 1674, the wood-tiger year:

"The Gyalpo of Dol Chumig Karmo has intensified its harmful activities and also many deceptive activities of this evil and hostile spirit are being observed. In Namgyal Monastery, following the specifically targeted ritual, a ritual fire offering was lead by the Vajra Acharya Dra-na Cho-je (Brag-sNa-Chos-rJe)(2)."

Also in 1675, the wood-rabbit year:

"Because of strong indications of disturbances from disembodied beings, recitation of 10,000,000 wrathful mantras targeting evil forces in general and particularly the interfering spirit of Chumig Karmo have been recited, followed by the performance of a ritual fire offering according to the practice of Rigzin Dorje Drag-po-tsal by Namgyal Monastery at which Gelong Lodro Gyalwa acted as Vajra Acharya. Thus, means ensuring the welfare of the citizens of Tibet have been accomplished."(3)

Again in 1675, the wood-rabbit year: "It is well known that at Dol Chumig Karmo a very powerful perfidious interfering spirit (dam sri), born due to distorted prayers, has been harming the teaching of the Buddha and sentient beings in general and in particular. The harmful activity has intensified since the fire-bird (year) [1636] and (the spirit) has been successful in many of his missions. But hardly anyone has taken any action, as if this did not concern them. So, at the end of the earth-bird (year) [1648] a new shrine was constructed at Dol Chumig Karmo and articles were placed there in the hope that it would become a place for the Gyalpo to settle. However, his harmful activities only intensified and recently many lay and ordained people have been afflicted with diseases and a few monks have died. Therefore, all the monks unanimously decided that a fire ritual should be performed.

Consequently, two groups of practitioners were organised. One was led by Nagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho, who acted as the Vajra Acharya of (a performance of) the Dorje Drolo ritual and the other was led by Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse, who acted as the Vajra Acharya of (a performance of the) Yangsang Karma Dragpo ritual. Likewise Rigzin Pema Thinley of Dorje Drag, Dharma King Terdag Lingpa, Vugja Lungpa, Drigung Tulku Rinpoche, Katshal Zurpa Ngari Konchok Lhundup and Palri Tulku performed the Wrathful Lama, Yamaraja, Phurba, Loktri practice for seven days, at the conclusion of which a fire-ritual was performed during which the 'perfidious interfering spirit' and his entourage were burnt. Everybody was convinced (of its success because of) the appearance of wonderful signs and the smell of burning flesh that everybody witnessed. Thus, many sentient beings were explicitly granted the gift of fearlessness because their lives were saved. And indirectly these creatures (byung po) were delivered to the peaceful state of being released from having to experience the intolerable suffering of bad states of rebirth due to their increasing negative actions.

At that time a testimony was written to indicate that these creatures or evil spirits were without protection and refuge and (consequently) Namgyal Monastery, Dorje Drak Monastery, Dardhingpa Monastery recited mantras to negate the evil forces."(4)

As mentioned above, this testimony is found in the volume Da of the Fifth Dalai Lama's Collected Works under the title Compendium Of Offerings, Fulfillment, Confessions And Eulogies etc. to the Unobstructed Wrathful and Powerful Committed Ocean of Dharma Protectors Entitled "Spontaneous Fulfillment of The Four Sublime Activities".

"Because of the meddling of Lag Agyal of Gekhasa (his mother), the false reincarnation of Tulku Sonam Geleg Palzang (Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen) got his way and because of distorted prayers he became a perfidious interfering spirit (dam sri) and brought serious harm to sentient beings. Therefore, a total of seven groups of practitioners led by Dorje Drag Tulku Rinpoche ( the fourth rDo-Drag-Rig-'Zin Pema Thrinley), Choegyal Terdag Lingpa, Choeje Vugja Lungpa, Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup, Palri Tulku and two groups of practitioners of Phende Legshe Ling (Namgyal Dratsang) performed a ritual fire offering and burnt the interfering spirit. This is the testimony I have written at that time:

To the deities, Six Armed Mahakala, Karmaraja and Magzor, To the oathbound protectors The Four Faced Mahakala, Chamdral Begtse, etc. Who have been propitiated and whose practice (has been done) I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.

To the female protectors like Nodjin Yangghaza, etc. and Gyalpo Ku-nga, Khyabjug, Dorje Leg and particularly Nechung and his entourage I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.

To Tse-mar etc. and the seven Barwa brothers And likewise Setrab of Sangphu etc.- the wrathful gods and spirits among whom this negative spirit seeks support - I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of wrong prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.

Having agreed before the root and lineage lama Vajra Dharas To increase what is good and beneficial to sentient beings and the dharma, If you protect this perfidious interfering spirit, Will you not cause your own past pledges to degenerate?

There are groups of evil spirits who display various unsuitable miracles In the form of human and, cattle disease, hailstorms, famine, and drought. May their power and ability Their body, speech and mind be smashed into tiny particles.(5)

As is evident here, from 1657 the fire-bird year, a perfidious interfering spirit at Dol brought harm to the teaching and the sentient beings in general and in particular. In 1669, the earth-bird year, activities to pacify the spirit were performed with the construction of a new house and the placing of (relevant) articles, but to no avail. In the beginning of 1674, the wood-tiger year, and 1675, the wood-rabbit year, two specifically targeted rituals were performed and finally, at the end of 1675, the wood-rabbit year, seven groups of practitioners performed fire rituals and destroyed it forever.

Subsequently, many indisputably learned scholars and great practitioners who purely practised and maintained the philosophical views and tenets of the Gelugpa also continued to act against it. For example, in the biography of Trichen Ngawang Chokden(6) composed by Changkya Rolpai Dorje(7) entitled The Melodious Speech of Realised Sky Farers called The Great Drum of the Celestial Beings he states:

"Earlier, a very vicious and evil spirit ( here it doesn't mention that this spirit is Dolgyal, but that it is Dolgyal who is referred to is clear from the biography of Changkya. Also, the time refers to the period when Trichen Ngawang Chokden was the Ganden throne-holder) possessed a man from Draksep (a place very near to Ganden) and some unstable former-abbots, and monastic hostels also worshipped it by simply invoking and propitiating it. On the top of the Jangtse mountain a cairn for invoking spirits was also built. Seeing these as extremely inappropriate he issued an edict to the assembly of monks that from the time of Je Tsongkhapa there had been no tradition of propitiating worldly spirits and protectors within the premises of this seat of learning and so, henceforth, nobody would be allowed to engage in such deeds. The cairn was also destroyed (this is very clearly mentioned in the biography of Changkya) and the stones and earth of which it was made were taken back to the places from where they had been taken. The medium was invoked to come into trance and was then ordered not to come into trance henceforth. Dolgyal too said, 'If this is Tri Rinpoche's order, I have no choice but to accept." This evil spirit then fled to sTag-rTse-Zhol. (Tri Rinpoche) himself then went into retreat for some time and subsequently established the practice of Dharma Raja's ritual cake offering composed by the Omniscient Gendun Gyatso (the second Dalai Lama) as a regular religious practice of monastic assembly. As a result of having transgressed Dharma Raja's words, a former-abbot who had propitiated this evil spirit immediately expired. The monastic hostels also experienced many misfortunes and this led to the end of such practice and became a contributory factor in the purification of the monastery and the place."(8)

As is evident in the above statements Trichen Ngawang Chogden placed restrictions (on the practice of Dolgyal) and asked monks not to practice or propitiate such evil spirits within the Ganden complex. It was in 1740, the iron-monkey year and the second year of his incumbency as the Ganden Throne Holder that he dismantled the cairn of the spirit situated on the peak of the Jangtse mountain.

What is the source to prove that this evil and harmful spirit whose practice was restricted in Ganden was none other than Dolgyal? In the biography of Changkya Rolpai Dorje composed by Thukan Choekyi Nyima (1737-1802)(9) entitled Beautifying Ornament of Ganden we read:

Reaching the site of the cairn to Machen, he explained in detail to Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima as follows:

"Je Lama (Tsongkhapa) and his students do not propitiate worldly gods and protectors and hence even the cairn of Machen, the deity of his birthplace, is not included within the limits of the circumambulatory (path at Ganden). (However,) in the past some Ganden Throne Holders propitiated Dolgyal (Shugden) and experienced misfortunes, consequently Tri Chen Dorje Chang dismantled Dolgyal's image and shrine and banished it from the monastery."(10)

As mentioned here, when Changkya Rolpai Dorje went on a pilgrimage to Ganden Monastery he clearly mentioned the name of Dolgyal to Thukan Choekyi Nyima. This clearly proves the point.

Again in the Toe-'Bril by the late Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche we find: "In the central part of Tibet shortly after the passing away of Phurchog Je Ngawang Jhampa, Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen, and Longdol Lama Rinpoche, the survival of the tradition of listening and instruction on the stages of path to enlightenment was in a critical condition. It was at that time that Nyungne Lama Yeshe Wangpo intentionally appeared to uphold and disseminate this teaching. This sublime being received ordination from Yongzin Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen and thus received the name Yeshe Wangpo."

As the text clearly shows, the three lamas mentioned above were at that time the principal practitioners and teachers of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment and also the ones who sustained the practice of the pure Gelug tradition. Thus, they enhanced the Yellow Hat teaching and their being universally worthy of respect and veneration is undisputed. Let us analyse these three eminent lamas' views of Dolgyal.

In Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa's(11) (1682-1762) work The Catalogue of the Establishment of the Four Monastic Seats and the Lower and the Upper Tantric College entitled "White Lotus Rosary" we find at the end of the account of the history of the Ganden Monastery:

"Thus, at the time when Je (Tsongkhapa) himself was alive, apart from those dharma protectors who are bound by oath and are mentioned in the tantras themselves, no objects for propitiating or seeking the help of harmful negative worldly spirits, who would express their wrath on even very minor matters, were ever installed within the premises of this monastic seat. As a result, all the members of the community, both Lamas and disciples lived in harmony and the tradition of study and practice flourished. Even (the cairn) to the spirit of Tsongkhapa's birthplace was placed outside the monastery. However, nowadays, many people who consider themselves to be followers of Tsongkhapa, and who adopt the three robes of a fully ordained Buddhist monk, go for refuge in ghostly spirits. They will have to face the consequence of meeting with great misfortune. Therefore, if we, the ordained sangha, properly guard our precepts and vows, the guardians who are bound by oath and who have earlier seen the Buddha will help and support us without hesitation."(12)

Phurchok Ngawang Jampa's statement, "nowadays, many people who consider themselves to be followers of Tsongkhapa, and who adopt the three robes of a fully ordained Buddhist monk, go for refuge in ghostly spirits. They will have to face the consequences of meeting with great misfortune" clearly indicates that they will encounter misfortunes and thus he strongly criticised this practice. That this ghostly spirit referred to by Phurchog Jampa is none other than Dolgyal is clearly indicated by the two accounts of Changkya and Thukan.

The biography of Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen(13) entitled The Day Light Opening the Lotus of the Buddha's Teaching composed by the Eighth Dalai Lama, Jhampel Gyatsho, also says:

"With regard to Dharma protectors too, it is not enough to have the name of a dharma protector. The three, Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Vaishravana, who were exclusively appointed by Je Tsongkhapa, are sufficient. This is because the lineages of all the Buddhas can be summarized into three lineages: Tathagata, Vajra and Lotus. The wrathful manifestation of these three are: Dharmaraja, Vaishravana and Mahakala. This is so because Dharmaraja (Damchan Choegyal) is the one who distinguishes between wholesome and unwholesome deeds, therefore he is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of initial mental scope, in which the main teaching concerns the law of cause and effect , what is to be adopted and what is to be discarded. Vaishravana is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of middling mental scope in which the principal teaching concerns the three higher trainings. And Six Armed Mahakala (Yeshekyi Gonpo Chagdruk) is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of great mental scope, in which the primary teaching is the instruction on meditation on the awakening mind or bodhichitta. We need no other dharma protector than these three."

Again, in the above biography, after giving instructions to Panchen Rinpoche's attendants about how Panchen Rinpoche should study and practise, we find: "Especially those from Tashi Lhunpo are being misled by this new dharma protector. Therefore, the dharma protectors which were practised and propitiated by Panchen Losang Choegyen should be enough. On the other hand, if you newly propitiate an evil ghost, it will become a great source of trouble, therefore you should all pay special attention to this."(14)
Thus, he gave clear guidance based on his innermost feelings. The statement, "if you newly propitiate an evil ghost, it will become a great source of trouble," refers only to Dolgyal for there is no other spirit to which it could refer.

In the various records of the teachings that he had received and in the Lists of Ocean of Dharma Protectors found in the Collected Works of Long Dol Lama Rinpoche we do not find even a hint about Dolgyal. From this it can be safely concluded that he did not practise or propitiate Dolgyal.

Thus, among those who practised the pure Gelug teaching Phurchog Ngawang Jampa and Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen had actually raised objections to the practice of Dolgyal and Long Dol Lama Rinpoche never practised or propitiated it. When we reflect carefully on how those who maintained Gelugpa thought and practice purely have clearly pointed out the mistakes of going for refuge to wrathful worldly spirits (and protectors) other than Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Vaishravana, who were appointed by Je Tsongkhapa himself, it is clear that there is not an element of truth in contemporary statements that it is improper for a Gelugpa not to propitiate Dolgyal, or the claim that those who do not propitiate Dolgyal are either not Gelugpas or that the Gelugpas will not be able to manage their own affairs.

Likewise, many great and non-sectarian lamas from the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism have advised against this practice. Here are a few examples. We have recounted earlier that during the time of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) many great lamas and practitioners performed ritual fire offerings and eliminated Dolgyal forever. Particularly in the work of Min-ling Lochen Dharma-Shri (1654-1717) the Biography of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorjee entitled: Chariot of Faith we find:

"From the 10th of the sixth month he accomplished the retreat and mantra recitation of Phurba and the perfidious evil spirit known by the name Dolgyal was destroyed so completely by means of a fire ritual, that only the name remained. At that time, on the occasion of summoning and entrance the lamentation of a dying person (could be heard), and on the occasion of the offering through the overpowering recitation of Ho, there was a clear indication when everyone became aware of the smell of a burning corpse."(15)

It is also clearly mentioned in the related documents that Do Drak Rigzin Pema Thrinley (1640-1718), a contemporary of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorje, performed a wrathful ritual fire offering, so we did not repeat it here.

Because some followers of Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup propitiated Gyalchen Shugden, gradually some Gelugpa lamas also began to propitiate it. When various calamities and disturbances arose because of the propitiation of Shugden, Derge Zongsar Khyentse Jamyang Choekyi Lodro, alias Pema Yeshe Dorje, who was a non-sectarian practitioner who mainly practiced the Sakya tradition, wrote in his composition: Inducement Dedicated to the Perfidious Evil Spirit and Kordag(16):

"Kye(17)! I offer this ransoming ritual cake of spine joints In lieu of flesh, blood, body and life To all existent and visible evil spirits, To Gyalpo Shugden, the Kordag, To Dawa Senge Zang, the annihilator To the Gyaldre and the nine hosts of Bagu and his retinues, To Tegyal, Lakyab and Dragdre, To the Gyalgong, Evil Spirit and the perfidious ones and To the male and female ghosts of the dead and the living.(18)

If we examine these verses then it becomes very clear that what is known among many learned lamas and practitioners as Gyalchen Shugden is categorised here as Kordag, Gyalgong, Byungpo, Perfidious Spirit, Ghost of the Dead and is treated as someone who has to be bribed and paid off. Moreover, the Khangsar Khenpo, Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho, the sixty-sixth throne holder of Ngor Aewam Choedan, who was the student of Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Shenphen Nyingpo (1876-1952) and Ngor Klu Ding Khenpo, Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen, and many renowned and learned Sakya Lamas have even performed wrathful practices to destroy the shrines of Shugden and have banished him.

Also, the biography of the fifth Panchen Lama, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk (1855-82) states: Also, in the code of rules of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery composed by Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk in the 15th Rabjung of the fire-rat year (1876) we find the following statement:

"Recently, it seems some cases of invoking ghosts (through mediums) within the compound of the monastery have taken place. In future, except for special dharma protectors like the Lamo Choekyong,(or Lamo Tsangpa, a special protector of the Tashi Lhunpo Monastery) summoning different kinds of spirits to enter into mediums will be prohibited. Dharma protectors should be Vajra protectors possessing transcendental wisdom. Propitiating and taking refuge in evil spirits and ghosts like Dolgyal, that are wandering hungry spirits, contradicts the fundamental precepts of taking refuge in the Three Jewels, which is what distinguishes a Buddhist. Therefore, such practices should be given up. I have also observed that while passing through certain precipitous paths, which are the abodes of harmful hungry ghosts, ordinary lay people dismount from their horses, make prostrations and pay homage. In this connection, those of us who are followers of the Buddha should abandon such practices and instead generate virtuous thoughts like kindness, peace and benevolence when we reach such places and should give teachings reflecting on all conditioned phenomena being like the light of a star, a haze, a lamp etc. Then offer incense smoke as a way of making a gift. Apart from that, it is absolutely improper to act like an ordinary worldly person by making prostrations, dismounting from your horse, removing your hat and praying for short term and long term happiness. The inappropriateness of such actions is mentioned in many authentic treatises. So without undertaking these practices you should sustain your practice until it is accomplished."(20)

Biography of Jigme Dhamchoe Gyatsho by the Dhomey scholar Tsetan Zhabdrung(21)(1910-1985)

"Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching."(22)

This letter of request is a letter sent by Jamgon Choekyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, a great scholar of the recent past from the Kham area, to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho of Dhomey (1898-1947). We can clearly see in this letter that by propagating inappropriate behaviour, some followers of Kyabje Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo greatly harmed Je Tsongkhapa's teaching, therefore a request was made that an instructive epistle should be composed, carved on a wooden block and distributed to the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham.

Then there is also a letter of complaint that Kyabje Phabong Kha received entitled "The Logic of Diamond Slivers" whose author is unknown. We have not seen the contents of that letter in detail, but Kyabje Phabong Kha received another letter of complaint from one by the name Choeze Thubten Losang of Domey entitled "The Chariot Pulling the Three Modes of Reasoning: An Appeal made to Kyabje Phabong Kha when he was staying at Chabdo" Later, Denma Losang Dorjee wrote a rejoinder entitled "Drum Stick Invoking the Sound of the Consequence of the Great Drum Bringing a Smile to the face of the Intelligent": An annotated description of the result of analysis of the false letter titled An Appeal Made to Kyabje Phabong Kha when he was staying in Chabdo" In that rejoinder the contents of the letter sent to Kyabje Phabong Kha are cited without missing, adding or repeating the meaning of a single word. When we reflect on the meaning of that letter it seems very probable that Jigme Dhamcho Gyatsho wrote it under a pseudonym for special reasons at the request of Jamgon Chokyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. Whatever the case may be, that rejoinder is found in the volume Na, Lhasa block print, an appendix of Kyabje Phabong Khapa's collected works where you can read it in detail. Anyway, there must have been some purpose and reason for these indisputable and non-sectarian scholars to place restrictions (on this practice).

Some people have tried to prove that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatsho (1876-1933), did not place any restrictions on Dolgyal. In support of their assertion they cite "The Biography of Gyalwa Thubten Gyatsho entitled The Amazing Precious Garland" composed by his tutor Phurchog Tulku Jhampa Tenzin wherein it is stated:

"In the Water Dog year (1922) before the lama in charge of Dungkar Gon, the spiritual teacher Ngawang Kelsang, who abides in the natural discipline of an accomplished one, and who is respected as a lama by all sentient beings in outer Tibet, the melodious bell of whose fame resounds from place to place, Gyalchen Dorje Shugden, who is extremely strict in his commitment and pledge to guard the teaching of Jamgon (Tsongkhapa) entered the body of a human being and said, "Now is the time when the Med-hor(23) are rising and if you wish to stop them it is important immediately to restore the stupas to the east and west of the central land of Tibet. This clear vajra prophecy is being brought to the notice of His Highness (Gongsa Chenpo) by the Geshe, through Governor of Dromo."(24)

On the basis of this statement it is said that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, far from placing restrictions on the practice of Dolgyal, in fact propitiated it. This makes it very clear that these people have failed to understand the import of the account, because the biography of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was written by his tutor Phurchog Tulku Jhampa Tenzin. He has simply recorded how at that time the Dromo Geshe passed this information through the Governor of Dromo. He did not write that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama practised Dolgyal. This is nothing more than a prophecy of Shugden being brought to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama=s notice through the Governor of Dromo.

As an example of how the Thirteenth Dalai Lama placed strong restrictions on the practice and propitiation of new gods and protectors and particularly on Dolgyal because of its being very controversial in the past, Denma Losang Dorje in his composition, "The biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo entitled "The Meaningful and Melodious Song of Brahma" records:

"(Here is) an appeal from me, Phabong Khapa, holding the name of an incarnate, in accordance with an instruction that I have received from you through Tse Khendron Chenmo. (I am glad that) you have received my application of 22nd of the 12th month last year, and I am grateful that you have kindly clarified each and every point therein. It was entirely my mistake and I have absolutely nothing to say (to defend it). It will be my endeavour in the future to take the meaning of your instructions earnestly to heart and I ask your forgiveness for whatever mistakes I have made in my appeal."

Phabong Khapa quotes the Dalai Lama's letter: "With regard to the three points mentioned here, there is still much ground for debate, both in logical and scriptural terms, but this is enough for the time being. With regard to your reference to making endeavour in the practice of taking refuge, first of all you are propitiating Shugden as a protector. Since they received Lamrim teaching from you at the Drepung Monastic Religious Centre last year and so made a connection with you, propitiation of Shugden among students there has greatly increased. The Great Nechung Choegyal who from the very beginning was commanded and entrusted to protect and guard this monastery, expressed his displeasure to the Drepung Lachi several times, saying that (due to propitiating Shugden) the degeneration of the Buddha dharma had been speeded up. This is the source of his displeasure. I feel that your seeking the support of a wrathful worldly spirit (to secure benefits in) this life specifically contradicts the precepts of taking refuge. Therefore, your statement, 'I want to say from the depths of my heart that it is only due to my being confused by ignorance and not that I have knowingly entered an unwholesome path and led others onto the same path.' is contradictory."

Phabong Khapa answers: "You have therefore instructed me to give you an answer. I have propitiated Shugden until now because my old mother told me that Shugden is the deity of my maternal lineage. I wish to inform you that henceforth, with intense regret (for what is past) and (with the intention of) restraining my faults (in the future), I will never again propitiate (Shugden) or make daily offerings and supporting prayers and that I will wholeheartedly keep this commitment in the core of my heart. Whatever mistakes I have committed until now, such as having become a cause for the mental displeasure of the Great Nechung Choegyal, contradicting the precepts of taking refuge and so forth, I request you, the supreme protector, who is especially compassionate to the lowly, to regard me with love and great compassion and patiently to forgive me. With great respect I here offer one silk scarf as a medium of request and five silver coins (to contribute to the) mandala offering."(25)

The contents of this appeal constitute an apology from Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.

Since the practice of Shugden prevailed among the followers of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo (1878-1941), the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had issued a proclamation about the inappropriateness of such a practice. In response Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo accepted his mistakes and sent an informal appeal to His Holiness making a confession, expressing his remorse and asking for his forgiveness while promising not to propitiate the spirit or do the practice in the future. The reason that restrictions were placed on the practice is that to do it contradicts the precepts of Taking Refuge and the Great Dharmaraja Nechung had expressed an antipathy towards it. This is very clear from this appeal.

Now let us examine Dolgyal's attitude towards the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. The biography of Je Phabong Khapa composed by Denma Losang Dorje states: "In the seventh month of Hor before the Zhide Tazur(26) I heard someone, who seemed to be a monk in trance, (possessed by) Shugden, say twice in high triumphal tones: "It is (to be) on the Namgang (30th) after completion of the 9th" I asked Je Lama (Phabong Khapa) about this in detail and later, on the 30th of tenth month of Hor the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away. Therefore, (Phabong Khapa) said that this earlier pronouncement seemed to state that His Holiness would pass away on 30th of the 10th month after the completion of the 9th month."(27)

If we analyse this, of the two possible subjects, oneself and others, the verb 'is (to be)' refers to one's own action. In terms of meaning it indicates one's mentally deciding and making a commitment to do something. So here too, if he were not setting the time, he should have said: "It will be on 30th after the completion of the 9th" and not 'It is (to be)'. This usage is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the Tibetan language. Moreover, he said it twice, very distinctly, in a triumphal raised voice. This indicates his confidence in announcing that he is going to accomplish an important task on the 30th .

It is only fear of the Tibetan Government that prevents the author from relating this story explicitly, but what it seeks to imply is that His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was also destroyed by Shugden. Therefore, it is very clear that this spirit is harmful in thought and deed and is bent on harming and hindering those great spiritual teachers who have realised the non-contradictory nature of all the teachings. Subsequently, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has spoken about the fact that propitiation of Dolgyal conflicts with Nechung, and that such practices contradicts the precepts of Taking Refuge. The truth of this is implicitly confirmed by events since the time of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.

Let us discuss the assertion found in the Toe-'Bril: "When it was not caught during the fire ritual, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama in a wrathful aspect asked Setrab to announce the order in the protector chapel of Sangphu. It is said that while reading the document containing the order, even the dharma protector's headgear shook with fear," and, "the display of miraculous power increased even after the fire ritual (had been performed), therefore, the Great Fifth composed a short prayer of propitiation, "Hum! Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity...".

In the earth-bird year (1669), the Fifth Dalai Lama constructed a new shrine at Dol and tried to reform the spirit through peaceful means. Since those actions did not produce a positive result, he subsequently performed several specifically targeted practices and finally a ritual fire ceremony was conducted by seven groups of practitioners. Through such deeds many living beings were provided with the gift of life and such hungry ghosts were indirectly liberated to the state of peace, free from the severe sufferings of the unfortunate realms.

The preface to (the great Fifth Dalai Lama's Testimonial Statement) also states: "this testimonial account was written at the time when the evil spirit was destroyed during a fire ritual". Thus, when it is stated so clearly in the Heavenly Garment (Dukulai Gosang) that the spirit was destroyed, it is unacceptable that due to Setrab's manipulation the spirit could not be burnt, that Setrab was asked to read the order and that a prayer "Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity....". was composed. If the Dalai Lama possessed such power that Setrab, to whom the wrathful spirit turned for help, was so completely petrified that even his headgear shook with fear when he received the document containing the order, it is illogical to say that the Dalai Lama made a confession and composed a prayer to propitiate the spirit. The Sangwa Gyachen (the Collection of Extensive Secrets) of the Fifth Dalai Lama comprising four inner volumes and 21 outer or later volumes does not mention anything about a document containing an order to Setrab and the composition of the prayer "Unwavering from spontaneous eternity...."

A list of some of the prominent non-sectarian scholars who have placed restrictions on Dolgyal's practice.

1.      His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama
2.      Choegyal Terdag Lingpa
3.      Do Drag Rigzin Pema Thrinley
4.      Gadong Ngagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho
5.      Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse
6.      Choeje Vugja Lungpa
7.      Palri Tulku
8.      Drigung Tulku
9.      Katsak Zurpa Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup
10.    The 54th Gaden Throne Holder Thrichen Ngawang Chogden
11.    Volkha Jedrung Losang Thrinley
12.    Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa
13.    The Fifth Panchen, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk
14.    Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Zhenphen Nyingpo
15.    The Fourteenth Karmapa
16.    Ngor Khangsar Khenpo Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho
17.    Ngor Luding Khenpo Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen
18.    Zongsar Jamyang Khyentse Choekyi Lodro
19.    Panchen Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima
20.    The Sixteenth Karmapa
21.    The Fourteenth Dalai Lama

Thus, many well-known great and learned lamas, who are unbiased in their religious outlook and the systems of philosophical tenets they propound have placed direct restrictions on this Dolgyal. Therefore, it is not just important, but imperative that those who want to review the history of Dolgyal should break out of the confinement of their one sided version to develop and promote a more complete picture.

Footnotes

1. An excerpt from a talk given by His Holiness 18th July 1980 at Sera Monastery to a selected group containing abbots, ex-abbots and senior monks of Sera Jey and Sera Mey and the members of the standing committee of the Tibet Youth Congress, Bylakuppe. See page 99 of the book Collection of All the Talks by His Holiness on the Propitiation and Practice of Dharma Protectors
2. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 157 back, line 5
3. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 239 front, Line 1
4. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 257 front, line 1
5. The original Tibetan can be found on page 148 front and back (English pages 423 and 424) of the volume Da of his Collected Works published in Gangtok, Sikkim
6. Thrichen Ngawang Chogden also known as Chentsha Ngawang Chogden (1677-1751) entered Sera Samlo Monastery when he was 15. He became the disciplinarian of the Gyume Tantric College when he was 29 and became the abbot of Tholing Monastery in Ngari. He then restored thousands of stupas which are constructed during Lochen Rinchen Zangpo. At 43 he became the abbot of Gyumed Tantric College. At 52 he became the tutor of His Holiness Gyalwa Kelsang Gyatsho, the Seventh Dalai Lama. He gave all his profound teachings to Changkya Rolpai Dorjee. In 1739 when he was 63 he became the 54th Ganden Throne Holder.
7. Changkya Rolpai Dorjee (1717-1786) was a scholar of great reputation and was recognised as the reincarnation of Changkya Losang Choedan by Konchog Jigme Wangpo. He wrote more than 189 major and minor works. He had many eminent students like Thukan Losang Chokyi Nyima.
8.The biography of Ganden Throne Holder Achi Thu Nomenhan, whose actual name is Trichen Ngawang Chokden, composed by Changkya Rolpai Dorje entitled the Melodious Speech of Realised Sky farers called The Great Drum of the Celestial Being, Chinese Publication, Folio 66 back last line.
9. Thukan Losang Chokyi Nyima (1737-1802) was recognised as the reincarnation of Thukan Ngawang Choekyi Gyatsho by Konchog Jigme Wangpo. He received novice monk ordination from Changkya Rolpai Dorjee when he was 13 and entered Drepung Gomang Monastery when he was 19. He studied with more than 30 eminent scholars like Panchen Palden Yeshe, Kunchen Jigme Wangpo, Phurchog Jhampa Rinpoche, Changkya Rolpai Dorjee, Sakya Dagchen Kunga Lodro etc. He was appointed as the abbot of Zhalu Monastery by the Tibetan Government and also became the 34th abbot of Gonlung Monastery. When he was 53 he became the throne holder of the Kumbum Monastery. He wrote more than 500 treatises, which are preserved in 15 wood block printed volumes.
10. In the biography of Changkya Rolpai Dorjee found in the Collected Works of the great Gelugpa scholar, Thukan Chokyi Nyima, Lhasa Publication, Folio 121 to 122.
11. Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa was born in 1682 in Chabdo and passed away in the year 1762 at the age of 81. He received his Bhikshu ordination from Panchen Losang Yeshe at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery. He was the 53rd lama of the lamrim lineage and was author of 52 published works.
12. In the Catalogue of the Establishment of the Four Monastic Seats and the Upper and Lower Tantric College composed by Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa entitled White Lotus Garland, Wood Block Print Folio 13 back line 1.
13. Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen was born in 1713 and passed away in 1793. He received his novice monk ordination from Panchen Losang Yeshe at the age of seven and received Bhikshu ordination from the accomplished master Losang Namgyal. At the age of 21 he visited central Tibet and received teachings from Phurchok Jhampa Rinpoche. At the age of 62 he became the tutor to the eighth Dalai Lama, Gyalwa Jhampal Gyatsho. When he was 77 he established the Dip Tsechok Ling Monastery. He passed away at the ripe age of 81. His published works consist of 19 volumes containing compositions on 159 sections.
14. The biography of Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen entitled The Day Light Opening the Lotus of the Buddha's Teaching composed by the Eighth Dalai Lama, Jhampal Gyatsho Folio 187.
15. The biography of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorjee entitled: Chariot of Faith composed by Minling Lochen Dharma Shri, Page 77.
16. One who enjoys offerings of others, while leading a morally corrupted life.
17. An emphatic way of summoning or calling someone.
18. Derge Zongsar Khyentse Jamyang Choekyi Lodro's composition: Inducement Dedicated to the Perfidious Evil Spirit and Kordag, volume III, English page no. 359.
19. Biography of the Fifth Panchen Lama, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk Page 223 back.
20. In the 11th volume of the series of the Key Opening the Door to One Hundred Lores of Land of Snow under the title Collection of Code of Rules, page 125.
21 Tsetan Zhabdrung was born in 1910 in Dhomey in Zunha district near Machu river and passed away in 1985 at Tashi Khyil Monastery. He studied with many eminent lamas, including primarily Jigme Dhamcho Gyatsho, and his learning and scholarship was renowned throughout the three provinces of Dhoto, U-tsang and Kham. He also served as Professor at the Universities of Nationalities at Tso-ngon and also at West North Nationalities University. He spent his whole life educating and encouraging his people and he published more than fifty works dealing with biography, history, religion, astrology, poetry, grammar etc.
22. First volume of the Collected works of Tsetan Zhabdrung, Tso-Ngon Publications page 394 to 395.
23. Mongolians from the lower region like Tso-ngonpo / Kokonor are called Med-hor and those from the upper areas like Sichuan are called Tod-hor.
24. The Birth Story of Arya Avalokiteshvara entitled Annals of the Garland of Gems. Volume V, page 620.
25. Account found on pages 471-2 front and back of the Tibetan text of the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo entitled The Meaningful and Melodious Song of Brahma composed by his student, Denma Losang Dorje and published by the Nyimo Publisher Palden, Lhasa in a woodblock print. In the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo published in India the above appeal is not found.
26 Zhide refers to Reting Monastery and Tazur refers to the retired Ta Lama of that monastery. .
27. On page 72 back, line 1 of the appendix/supplement to the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo composed by Denma Losang Dorje.

ABBOTS' RESOLUTION ON THE PRACTICE AND PROPITIATION OF PROTECTOR-DEITIES

On 1 January 1998 Jangtse Choeje Rinpoche, the abbots and ex-abbots of Drepung, Sera, Gaden (the three main seats of learning), the abbots and ex-abbots of Gyume and Gyuto Monastery, Gyume Lama U-zed, the abbots and ex-abbots of Namgyal Monastery, the abbots of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery and Tawang Monastery met at the office of Sera Lachi, Sera Thekchenling Monastery under the chairmanship of the Gaden Throne Holder and unanimously passed the following resolution on the practice and propitiation of protector-deities.

Far from listening to the repeated advice that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has given until now on the worship of protector-deities, keeping in view Tibet? spiritual and political interests, a handful of Shugden protagonists have turned a deaf ear. Because they dislike His Holiness? advice, they have misapprehended his advice as being interpretative and (asserted) that everyone has religious freedom etc. Sometimes, they have directly criticised His Holiness the Dalai Lama, making many unworthy and derogatory remarks, while at other times they pretend to be criticising Tara la, secretary to His Holiness, and have cast insupportable aspersions against His Holiness to hurt His feelings. So, directly and indirectly, they have used an aggressive flood of harsh speech exaggerating and denying reality. They have presumptuously put it about that right from the Gaden Throne Holder down, many abbots and ex-abbots, lamas, tulkus and geshes are all one in being wordshippers of Dolgyal and have even issued a list of their names. Thus, they have attempted to give an impression that all the Gelugpas taken the same stand not to give up the worship of Dolgyal. They have thus issued many such whimsical documents, mixing up fish and turnips as if they were one and the same thing, and still they continue to distribute such false materials

As a result, the general public are saying that Gelugpa leaders will remain smiling even when the wind snuffs out the butter lamp or a dog eats the ritual cake offerings. What they mean is that our inactivity and failure to give the proper guidance that our seniority and position in the hierarchy behoves us to do,raises doubts in their minds. Therefore, it is quite possible that today our rightful leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and the general Tibetan public might suspect that all Gelugpas have joined hands and implicitly or explicitly take a unanimous view (supporting) the worship of Dolgyal.

Therefore, it is important that it should be known that many of us here ?abbots and ex-abbots, lamas, tulkus and geshes ?have never been Dolgyal worshippers. Those who did worship Dolgyal in the past have relinquished the practice in accordance with His Holiness? advice and are now opposing such worship directly and indirectly, in line with the unanimous stand of the people of the three provinces of Tibet. Even if Dolgyal activists create documents sufficient to load down a dzo (a cross between a yak and a cow), with an intention to create far reaching disturbances and misunderstandings, until they run out of ink and paper we will not believe or trust them. Moreover from now on, we will completely give up ties with those who worship Dolgyal and will have nothing more to do with them, as the Tibetan saying goes: distinguish the mouth from the moustache, drink different water and live in a different place.

We therefore take an oath that we will unhesitatingly follow the advice given by His Holiness the Dalai Lama for the long and short-term well-being of the Tibetan people. We will ensure that none of us makes the slightest attempt, even so much as the buzz of a fly to misinterpret His Holiness’ advice on grounds of what may be suitable or unsuitable and pass this resolution with our signatures attached:

Losang Nyima, Gaden Throne Holder,
Thubten Nyima, Jangtse Choeje
Tenpa Tenzin, ex-abbot of Gomang Monastery
Ngawang Thekchok, ex-abbot of Sera Mey Monastery
Ngawang Legden, ex-abbot of Sera Je Monastery
Jhampa Dhonyo, ex-abbot of Sera Mey Monastery
Losang Thubten, ex-abbot of Sera Je Monastery
Jhampa Yeshe, ex-abbot of Gaden Shartse Monastery
Thubten Wangchuk, ex-abbot of Gaden Shartse Monastery
Losang Tsering, ex-abbot of Sera Je Monastery
Losang Tenpa, ex-abbot of Gomang Monastery
Ogyen Tsetan, ex-abbot of Gyume Monastery
Losang Tenzin, ex-abbot of Gyume Monastery
Dorjee Tashi, ex-abbot of Gyume Monastery
Losang Tenzin, ex-abbot of Gyuto Monastery
Locho Rinpoche, ex-abbot of Namgyal Monastery
Jhampa Thekchok, Abbot of Sera Jey Monastery
Losang Chojor, Abbot of Gaden Jangtse Monastery
Tsultrim Phuntsog, Abbot of Gomang Monastery
Konchok Paksam, Abbot of Drepung Loseling Monastery
Konchok Tsering, Abbot of Gaden Shartse Monastery
Losang Rabga, representative of the abbot of Sera Mey Monastery
Jado Tulku, abbot of Namgyal Monastery
Thrinley Topgyal, abbot of Gyume Monastery
Kachen Losang Tsultrim, abbot of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery
Tengye Tulku, abbot of Tawang Monastery

POINTS OF THE KASHAG'S STATEMENT CONCERNING DOLGYAL

After nearly forty years in exile under the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the chances of achieving our goal of freedom for Tibet continues to improve. Tibetans stand out among all the refugees in the world for their unique achievements. This is no doubt the result of the Tibetan people's courage and perseverance in attempting to restore the freedom of their country, which they enjoyed for more than two thousand years of its recorded history. However, we are yet to achieve the ultimate triumph. Obstructive factors of various kinds, emanating from beings of both the form and formless realms, continue to hinder our efforts.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has investigated these obstructions and their causes for many years. One of the findings of his investigations is that depending on the spirit, Dolgyal, otherwise known as Dorje Shugden or Gyalchen Shugden, conflicts with Tibet's two protector-deities (Nechung and Palden Lhamo) as well as the protector-deity of the Gelugpa tradition, Pledge-holding Dharmaraja (Damchen Choegyal). The inclination of this spirit is to harm, rather than benefit, the cause of Tibet.

Understanding this, His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself made a complete break with the Dolgyal in 1976. Since then, His Holiness has regularly explained to the Tibetan people why depending on the Dolgyal was inappropriate. Many Lamas, abbots, geshes, as well as the general Tibetan public, both lay and ordained, heeded his advice and stopped propitiating Dolgyal. As a result, the Tibetan situation has taken a turn for the better.

However, some people have continued to propitiate Dolgyal, either because they failed to appreciate the threat it poses to the Tibetan cause or because they have decided to disregard it. There are yet others who not only propitiate Dolgyal themselves, but also actively encouraged others to follow suit. This has impaired the sacred relationship between the people of Tibet and their protector-deities. Today, this is one of the greatest dangers to the cause of Tibet and the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

During this spring teaching this year, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said that it was very important at this point in our struggle that the people and protector-deities of Tibet maintain a harmonious relationship based on their mutual commitments to each other. He repeated what he had declared on many previous occasions that just as a person's breach of honour can create difficulties, so can a breach of commitments among the protector-deities. He reiterated that what he has previously announced remains unchanged. He conceded that restrictions on Dolgyal would not apply to any monastery, lama's household or private individual who have no concern for the general interest of Tibet. His Holiness made this absolutely clear.

His Holiness clearly explained the point again on 21st March 1996 during the preparatory ritual for the Very Secret Hayagriva (Tamdin Yang-sang) empowerment. He said: "Recently I have conducted a number of prayers for the well being of our nation and religion. It has become fairly clear that Dolgyal is a spirit of the dark forces. Therefore, during the Hayagriva invocation last year, I specifically mentioned Dolgyal by name and an incantation was made to ward him off." He continued: "I wonder if any among you here today continue to propitiate Dolgyal and still feel comfortable receiving this Hayagriva empowerment. This is the reason why I suggested yesterday that it would not be appropriate for those who propitiate Dolgyal to attend this empowerment. When the protector concerned is disloyal to its commitments, the person concerned becomes disloyal in turn. As I said yesterday, this gives rise to a breach of commitments which carries with it a definite threat to the life of a Lama.

"If any among you here are determined to continue propitiating Dolgyal, it would be better for you to stay away from this empowerment, get up and leave this place. It is improper for you to continue to sit here. It will not benefit you. On the contrary it will have the effect of reducing the life span of Gyalwa Rinpoche (The Dalai Lama), which is not good. However, if there are any among you who hope that Gyalwa Rinpoche will soon die, then you can stay." Therefore rejecting Dolgyal has become a matter of the highest importance to the cause of Tibet, which is dependent on the personal security of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

His Holiness also remarked: "The biography of His Holiness the Great Fifth Dalai Lama contains a reference to discord between him and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (whose spirit is alleged to have become Dolgyal). The matter is made very clear in the Great Fifth's Extensive Collection of Secrets (Sangwa Gyachen). On the basis of this evidence, the 13th Dalai Lama imposed restrictions on Dolgyal. I am a successor to the Great Fifth Dalai Lama and, likewise, have a unique karmic relationship with the previous Dalai Lama. I have therefore a duty to carry out the legacy of the Great Fifth and the 13th Dalai Lama. This is my responsibility, although some people may not like it. But then, this is not a matter of what is in the Dalai Lama's interest, but what is in the interest of the Tibetan nation and its religion.

"When it comes to the interests of the Tibetan nation, I will carry through to completion the work I have begun. I will not back off because of a few disgruntled individuals. I am determined to implement the conclusions of my careful research and will not let it be. In the great monastic universities - Drepung, Sera and Ganden, the majority are faultless. However, it is clear that a tiny number among them are stubborn. Even private individuals may later have cause for regret if you take this lightly now in the hope that perhaps things will turn out all right after all. ...Some of you feel that your business and ability to earn a living do better if you propitiate Dolgyal. This is ill-omened talk. It is an example as the notable lama and writer Gung-thang Tshang remarked, of how we human beings end up embracing evil friends."

Propitiating spirits is a practice originating in pre-Buddhist Tibet. However, when Guru Padmasambhava was helping to establish Buddhism in Tibet in the 8th century, He recruited some spirits such as Nechung, the State Oracle, to protect the Buddhist doctrine. Due to his high spiritual attainments, he was able to subdue such spirits and bind them by oath. Propitiating of spirits, therefore, is not a Buddhist practice itself, but a means to help sustain spiritual practice. Over the centuries the practice of propitiating spirits has instead become widespread as a means to achieve fame, fortune and the general well-being for this life, concerns that run counter to general Buddhist outlook.

His Holiness has commented on this too: "Those who can afford us protedtion and bounty in this life alone - be they humans, deities and nagas, mountain-dwelling protectors, and so forth - are all objects for whom we might feel compassion. There is no reason for holding them in awe. Seeking refuge in them is a disgrace to the Gelug tradition. It is disgraceful to seek refuge in such beings while failing to see benefit in the Six-armed Mahakala (Gonpo Chagdrug) and Pledge-bound Dharmaraja (Damchen Choegyal), the worthy appointed guardians of the immensely valuable teachings of Je Tsongkhapa." Allaying any fears Tibetans may have about ceasing to propitiate Dolgyal, His Holiness said: "Lamas, Geshes, religious students, and laity need not fear that they will be harmed if they stop propitiating Dolgyal. Nothing will happen. I will face the challenge. As Gelugpas, recite the migtse ma prayer, it will be enough if you also recite the Condensed Extensive Praise to Dharmaraja (Choegyal Gyi Toepa Kyangkumma). No harm will befall you."

It is the duty of the Tibetan Government-in-exile to encourage compliance with any advice given out of concern for the cause of Tibet, the security of its head of state and the honour of all Tibetan Buddhist traditions including the Gelug tradition. Consequently, it has initiated a programme to be prevail upon those still following Dolgyal to make a break with it. We are doing so out of concern for the greater welfare of Tibet and so that the Gelugpa teachings of Je Tsongkhapa remain pure. Representatives visited Tibetan religious seats in South India to read out His Holiness the Dalai Lama's statements. Most people with connections to Dolgyal have come to understand that propitiating him undermines the cause of Tibet, compromises the personal security of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and brings harm to the individual propitiator himself or herself. Many of them stood up amidst the assembly of Lamas, Geshes, and the general body of monks to state that they were giving it up. Likewise, many letters undertaking to cease propitiating Dolgyal have arrived from monasteries, public and private organisations and the general public. We consider this an acceptance of responsibility for the greater good of Tibet.

However, a few Lamas, Geshes, lay people and organisations have adopted an extremist posture and continue to follow Dolgyal thinking that what they are doing accords with Gelugpa practice. Besides these, a handful of people are seeking to exploit the issue to create discord within the Tibetan community. They are spreading baseless rumours and accusations in the international community, thereby playing into the enemy's hands. We, therefore, request them to stop.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has raised concern about the question of propitiating Dolgyal only because it has a great bearing on the cause of Tibet. It is precisely because of this that he has conducted extensive research and investigation on the matter for more than two decades. He explained his findings to his tutor, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Rinpoche. The tutor graciously acceded to it, acknowledging that the findings were entirely faultless. This should be firmly borne in mind by all concerned.

In one of his recent statements His Holiness said: "You should not think that dangers to my life come only from someone armed with a knife, a gun, or a bomb. Such an event is extremely unlikely. But dangers to my life may arise if my advice is constantly spurned, causing me to feel discouraged and to see no further purpose in living." In subsequent statement, he said: "I am now a man in his sixties. Owing to some merit accumulated in my past lives, I do not see any substantial danger to my life. ...In the light of the Tibetan people's plight and the tragic situation in Tibet, I will try to live long so that I can share in their sufferings and console them as well as I can. Apart from that, I have no personal interests whatsoever." All Tibetans should think hard about this both as individuals and communities.

It is pointless to pay lip-service to religious freedom and democracy if a lack of trust amongst ourselves undermines our cause and the personal security of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. There is no question of His Holiness the Dalai Lama ever trampling upon or neglecting any aspect of religious freedom. In fact, no one has ever attempted to prevent any Tibetan from embracing Buddhism or a non-Buddhist religion, or any school of Tibetan Buddhism. This is why Christians, Muslims, followers of the four great traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön enjoy complete religious liberty in the Tibetan community. What needs to be stressed here is that there never has been, nor could there be, any attempt to impose Buddhist, Christians and Muslims. Similarly, religious freedom has never been used as a pretext to impose Kagyu, Sakya or Gelug doctrines and practices on Nyingma monasteries. On the contrary, there is a law which lays down that Christians and Muslims should follow their own respective religious doctrines and practices and that the doctrines of other religions, and practices inconsistent with their own character should not be imposed on these religious centres. This is a spiritual tradition that accords with the principles of democracy and freedom.

According to Tibetan religious tradition, it is the responsibility of the founding lama or leader of monastery of any sect to give spiritual guidance as to what guardian protector, practices and doctrines the monastery should follow. But monks of the monastery do not question that guidance in the name of religious freedom. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the supreme religious and temporal head of Tibet. It is his responsibility, in his capacity as the spiritual leader, to give spiritual guidance for the benefit of the Tibetan people. As the temporal head of Tibet, it is his responsibility to give political direction to the Tibetan people and to seek to restrain activities that would bring harm to the cause of Tibet. Fulfilling his responsibility in this way cannot amount to a violation of religious and democratic freedoms.

The essence of His Holiness' advice is this: "Propitiating Dolgyal does great harm to the cause of Tibet. It also imperils the life of the Dalai Lama. Therefore, it is totally inappropriate for the great monasteries of the Gelug tradition, the Upper and Lower Tantric Monasteries and all other affiliated monasteries which are national institutions ever to propitiate Dolgyal. The public should be thoroughly informed so that they can gain a clear appreciation of the situation themselves. However, everyone is completely free to say: "If the cause of Tibet and the Dalai Lama's life are undermined so be it. We have religious freedom. We are a democracy. We are free to do as we please. We will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal." The overwhelming majority of the Tibetan people will remain steadfast, keeping in mind the greater good of the Tibetan cause, and contribute as best as they can to fulfill His Holiness the Dalai Lama's wishes. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that far from restricting religious freedom, the choice is left open to the individual concerned.

Dharamsala - May 31, 1996

HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA - POSITION OF PROTECTORS

His Holiness the Dalai Lama made the following remarks clarifying the position of protectors in the Gelugpa tradition during an explanation of the Offering to the Spiritual Master at the main temple in Dharamsala to a large gathering of Tibetan and Western disciples in 1986.

"..Concerning the Gelugpa protectors, there are protectors of the people of the three scopes, Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa. In the centre of the row is six armed Mahakala, the wrathful aspect of Avalokiteshvara, who protects practitioners of highest scope. Vaishravana is appropriate for those who observe pure morality. There is special reason for this, for although all protectors must be good for such people, Vaishravana is particularly pleased by purity. As those of middling scope are primarily concerned with ethical purity, Vaishravana is the appropriate protector for them. Those of lowest scope are primarily concerned with observing the law of cause and effect. As Dharmaraja is the witness of wholesome and unwholesome actions he is their protector. As has been said "Damchen (Dharmaraja) treasures the judgement of wholesome and unwholesome actions more than his life." So, in the Gelugpa tradition it is said that one should practise according to the presentation of the persons of the three scopes.

The most important protectors are Mahakala and Dharmaraja of which Dharmaraja is exclusive to the Gelugpa. It is he who is the Guru Manjushri, Yidam Manjushri and the Dharma- protector Manjushri. Among the external, internal and secret practices of Dharmaraja, the most important is the inner practice. Although Je Rinpoche also did the secret practice, the inner practice is the most important.

These three being fundamentally important there is no need of a protector other than these for the Gelugpas. Amongst Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Vaishravana, Mahakal and Dharmaraja are the most important, and of them Damchen Choegyal (Pledge-holding Dharmaraja) is the most important. I used to say by way of a joke, "Geugpas will only need to look look for a new protector on the day that offerings and requests for prayers come because Damchen Choegyal is dead." Until then Gelugpas do not need another Dharma-protector. This statement carries some weight.

It won't do any good to rely on a new deity or any others while customarily accepting a Dharma protector who Je Rinpoche bound by oath and who was also specifically bound by Je Sherab Seng-ge. This is something to be examined, not merely accepted because it appears to be good. Nevertheless, some highly realised lamas do rely on various Dharma protectors according to their personal preference. This reflects their own inconceivable practice, but this is none of our business, is it?

As the Dalai lama, although I am not qualified, I am the only person to uphold the common cause of Tibet. Because this relates to our common cause I have no choice but to talk, even though it may seem like a slap in the face for some. Anyway, there have lately been some problems concerning the protector Gyalchen Shugden, those of you who live in India know well about this and I don't have to repeat it to you. But, if those of you from Tibet accept him merely on the basis of his reputation as a great protector of the Gelugpas, it will not do any good for Tibet, either religiously or politically.

As I have already mentioned one should rely on the category of wrathful protectors according to the form in which they appear to the disciples. As this is the case and as the most inconceivable matters are beyond our perception, the situation will only change when we have gradually gained insight into wisdom and method on our mind streams and have reached a point where we are individually capable of analysing each and every situation with wisdom. Until we reach a point where we understand the most inconceivable secrets, we must go along with what conventionally appears to us as disciples. Therefore this is the basis on which I am talking to you now.

When we speak of the origins of the present Gyalchen Shugden, he arose out of a conflict with the great Fifth Dalai Lama, not out of his closeness with the Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama was the founder of the Ganden Phodrang government and becuase of that, even today people in Tibet refer to me as Gyalwang (Powerful Lord) Tenzin Gyatso. Although I am not up to the job, especially in the present crucial circumstances for Tibet, I am the person who has to bear the responsibility. Due to my prayers in past lives and due to my special karmic connections with the Tibetans in general, I was selected as a small boy in a remote part of Amdo as the reincarnation of the Gyalwa Rinpoche (The Dalai Lama), and so I came to central Tibet. So, whatever I am as an individual according to the level of my own personal practice, from amongst the common mass of Tibetans I have come to sit on this throne of the Dalai Lamas. By holding the position of the Fifth Dalai Lama I am supposed to follow what he did, this is the reason I have to interfere.

Due to the antagonism between the Ganden Phodrang of the Fifth Dalai Lama and the upper chamber of Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen and because of inner and outer inauspiciousness this problem arose. There is no reason why I personally should say "Gyalchen Shugden you have done good or bad" - for I personally do have some relationship with him, but after sometime this became inappropriate in my dealing with questions of Tibet's religion and politics. Not only that, but even in terms of merely Gelugpa matter it seems there is some problem in the context of Damchen Choegyal's position. Therefore, we should deal with these things based on an awareness of their conventional appearance to ordinary disciples. We Gelugpas consider the validity of conventionality to be very important, don't we? When we speak of the validity of conventional appearances, the importance lies in the perception of the initial level of beings. Why? because reasons should accord with the principles of causality.

Isn't the great Tsongkhapa's view that conventional validity is explained primarily from the point of view of the mode of apprehension of a sentient being on the ordinary level? These are some points to think about.

There is still one thing I should tell you, we are not forbidden to rely on these categories of wrathful deities, local protectors and earth deities, we are permitted to propitiate them. But when propitiating them we do so in the way we would treat our close friends. For instance, if we hire a worker, we give him food and ask him to help for just that day, which is not like relying on a guru or even like a refuge. We simply hire a fellow. Similarly, offer a ritual cake to those wrathful protectors at the place where you practise and seek their virtuous activity. This is the way it is permissible to rely on them."

TIBET OFFICE LONDON'S STATEMENT ON DOLGYAL

Statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Representative Mrs Kesang Y Takla

His Holiness has not forced anyone to stop pursuing this practice. Instead he has emphasized that people are free to make their own choice. There are rumours also of religious persecution by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. These are totally baseless allegations and we would be happy to invite anyone to visit any exile Tibetan community and ascertain the truth for himself or herself.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama recently explained to the Tibetan people the place of certain spiritual practices in the context of Tibetan history. It seems that a number of foreigners may have misunderstood what His Holiness said. This misunderstanding has resulted in certain differences of opinion. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the following brief clarification.

His Holiness always believes that different religions exist to fulfill the unique needs of different peoples and that all religions have the potential to contribute greatly to the human community. This is why His Holiness has tried his utmost to promote interfaith dialogues and understanding between all religions. Furthermore, since all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism are vehicles for achieving ultimate happiness, His Holiness not only respects and practices all of them himself, but also encourages the Tibetan people to do so. His Holiness is also an admirer of democracy and has worked hard through a series of initiatives to encourage our Tibetan Administration to function along demoractic lines.

His Holiness has advised specific religions to maintain the purity of their traditions, without letting them become mixed with other influences. If this contradicts the notion of religious freedom, then we must say that the advice regarding taking refuge in the Three Jewels - the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha - which cautions us against taking refuge in other gods or goddesses, also goes against the fundamental right of religious freedom.

The current issue is related to the history and well-being of the Tibetan people. Its cause goes back to the seventeenth century and is related to the Fifth Dalai Lama, who was very broad-minded and followed the practices of all four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Unfortunately, this earned the displeasure of those who advocated a more sectarian approach. It is in this context that the Fifth Dalai Lama did not get on well with Dolgyal. Dolgyal, in turn, began harming the cause of Tibet. It is precisely for this reason that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama placed restraints on the propitiation of Dolgyal.

Dolgyal conflicts with Tibet's two protector-deities (Nechung and Palden Lhamo) as well as the protector-deity of the Gelugpa tradition, Pledge-holding Dharmaraja (Damchen Choegyal). The inclination of this spirit is to harm rather than benefit, the cause of Tibet.

Most reputed, highly-realized lamas of the Gelug school have also discouraged the propitiation of Dolgyal. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has the responsibility to provide guidance in matters relating to Tibet and the welfare of its people as well as the Gelug tradition.

There was a time when His Holiness too propitiated Dolgyal. Based on his experience at that time, he conducted a series of investigations over many years which led to clear spiritual indications that propitiating Dolgyal brings more harm than good. His Holiness reported these, and instances relating to them, to his tutor Trijang Rinpoche, who also propitiated Dolgyal. Trijang Rinpoche gave His Holiness his unequivocal approval.

Finally, in 1978, His Holiness made a public statement on this matter to the Tibetan people. But some individuals thought that his statement did not reflect His Holiness' own true feelings. Therefore, during this year's spring teaching, His Holiness had to issue a clarification, based on his experience over the years during which time the facts have become even clearer. His Holiness the Dalai Lama's principal wish is to advise the Three Great Seats of the Gelugpa tradition (Gaden, Drepung and Sera), the Lower and Upper Tantric Monasteries, and all the members of those monasteries that they should not propitiate Dolgyal, since to do so brings more harm than good.

Rumours abound that as a result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's statement discouraging the propitiation of Dolgyal, homes in Tibetan settlements have been broken into and the thangkas and statues of Dolgyal have been burned or hurled into rivers. We have investigated all reports and found the rumours to be baseless. Moreover, such coercive measures would not at all accord with what His Holiness said. His Holiness will express his strong disapproval should such incidents ever occur.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama's statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal complies with views expressed in valid texts. It does no conflict with his lineage Lama's thoughts or their approach to spiritual practice. His Holiness has not forced anyone to stop pursuing this practice. Instead he has emphasized that people are free to make their own choice. There are rumours also of religious persecution by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. These are totally baseless allegations and we would be happy to invite anyone to visit any exile Tibetan community and ascertain the truth for himself or herself.

Finally, we would like to assure you that His Holiness the Dalai Lama's statement was made in the spirit of peace and in full consideration of the welfare of the Tibetan people and other practitioners.

London- 7 June 1996

THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF DHOLGYAL DEVOTEES AND CLARIFICATIONS

An organization, called Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society, has been spreading a great deal of misinformation, alleging that the Tibetan Administration in exile is persecuting the devotees of a certain spirit, known as Dholgyal, otherwise known as Shugden. It has, therefore, become necessary for the Tibetan Administration to explain the facts in order to prevent this organization from misleading the general public.

At the outset, let us explain the genesis of this issue. After 20 years of painstaking research and investigation, His Holiness the Dalai Lama found that the propitiation of this spirit by the Tibetan people harms the Tibetan national cause and endangers his own personal security. Therefore, he has urged the Tibetan people to stop propitiating this spirit.

However, a small number of people, including a few Western practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism have adopted a fundamentalist stand and are carrying out a campaign of defamation against the Exile Tibetan Administration and the person of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. They have made allegations of human rights violations against the Tibetan Administration, which are totally baseless as the following facts will show:

First, there has been no forced signature campaign of any kind against the propitiation of this spirit. Soon after His Holiness the Dalai Lama advised the Tibetan Buddhists to stop propitiating Dholgyal, the Kashag issued a circular explaining why heeding his advice is in the best interest of the Tibetan national cause and the personal security of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan people responded to His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice by voluntarily submitting signed statements: the majority saying that they have never propitiated the spirit while some vowing to give up this practice for good. This is now being misinterpreted by vested interests as a forced signature campaign.

Second, the claim that the Exile Tibetan Administration threatened to withhold financial Support provided by Western aid agencies to Tibetan refugees who refuse to give up the spirit devotion is totally untrue and lack any basis whatsoever. Such a threat has never been made.

Third, the allegations against the Tibetan Women's Association and Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) are totally false and defamatory. These are the two largest non-partisan grassroots Tibetan NGOs functioning in a totally democratic manner. They are actively involved in socio-economic and political issues confronting the Tibetan people. Following His Holiness' advice, the TYC held a general body meeting to chalk out a course of plan to educate the Tibetan people about the need to stop propitiating Dholgyal. The exile Tibetan administration can vouch for the fact that they have made no house-to-house searches, nor have they removed or destroyed the images of the spirit, nor have they beaten up, coerced or intimidated any propitiators of the spirit. A number of people have, of course, got rid of images of this spirit from their own homes. But this is purely a voluntary action and no one can say that they have no right to do so.

Fourth, another disinformation is the claim that children of parents propitiating this spirit have been thrown out of schools and Tibetan administration employees doing likewise have lost their jobs. We challenge the authors of this misinformation to produce just one evidence or case pointing to this.

We will welcome any kind of impartial on-the-spot investigation by any agency or organization to ascertain which side is telling the truth. In fact, we strongly urge such an investigation by those concerned or interested in this issue. It is easy to make sweeping allegations, but difficult to produce evidence unless one has the truth on one's side.

The exile Tibetan administration only persuades through education and information on the need to stop propitiating this spirit. It has gone no further than that and never intends to do so. The administration condemns any act of violence or coercion by anyone on anybody.

Finally, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Administration have a responsibility to advice the Tibetan people on matters affecting our national interests. However, it is up to the individuals concerned to implement or not to implement this advice.

Department of Information and International Relations
Central Tibetan Administration
Gangchen Kyishong
Dharmasala 176 215
INDIA

5 July 1996

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DHOLGYAL DISPUTE FORMED

On 15 July the Cabinet of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile issued an announcement stating that it had formed a Special Committee to deal with disputes on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation. The following is the full text of the announcement:

The Tibetan Administration has instituted a nine-member Special Committee to look into allegations of religious persecution against the devotees of a particular spirit, known as Dholgyal (Dorje Shugden).

The Tibetan Administration's basic policy on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation was spelled out in the unanimous resolution passed on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies. The resolution stated that the government departments and their subsidiaries, as well as monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration, should be strictly forbidden from propitiating this spirit. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed of the demerits of propitiating this spirit, but be given freedom "to decide as they like". The resolution, however, requested the propitiators of this spirit not to receive vajrayana teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The allegation of Dholgyal devotees being dismissed from government jobs and schools, and of humanitarian assistance being denied to them were found to be totally baseless. As a matter of fact, at the Tibetan Children's Village School in Dharamsala and Tibetan schools elsewhere in India, there are many children of Tibetans spearheading the anti-Tibetan Administration campaign over this issue. Furthermore, the Tibetan Administration has invited anyone to visit Tibetan settlements and ascertain the truth.

Despite these facts, vested interest groups have continued with their campaign of allegation against the Tibetan Administration.

We have, therefore, set up this committee to enable all to bring their complaints and establish the truth. From now on, any genuine complaint of persecution against Dholgyal devotees must be addressed to:

Mr Lobsang Dhargye Shewu
Chairman, Special Committee
C/o Department of Education
Central Tibetan Administration
Dharamsala - 176215, H.P.
India.

Issued by:
The Kashag
Central Tibetan Administration
Gangchen Kyishong
Dharamsala - 176215, H.P.
India.

15 July 1996

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE THE GADEN TRI RINPOCHE (HEAD OF GELUKPA SECT) REGARDING THE WORSHIP OF GODS AND PROTECTORS

As stated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his recent speeches regarding the worship of gods and protectors, the six major monasteries summoned gatherings at every level - monastic assembly, monastic administrators, monastic sections, individual monks - wherever deemed necessary. Signatures and finger prints of every individual monk supporting the ban on worshipping such dubious deities by any individuals or groups had been submitted. I myself attended these meetings and made essential clarifications on merits and demerits of such worship. Consequently, I had a deep satisfactory feeling that this controversial issue was finally solved, creating a peaceful atmosphere "as stainless as the sky and as pure as the earth." But unfortunately a handful of monks from certain monasteries committing "the downfall of negligence (breach of an ordained monk for neglecting the correction of their faults)" created more imbroglio and crisis in our community by sticking misleading information and distributing pamphlets without any sense of loss over their time, energy and money.

This polemic is not similar to the communal conflicts between the Hindus and the Muslims. This is an inter-sectarian theological strife caused by misunderstandings, which certainly can be solved through clarifications and correcting the things by reminding their misunderstandings and the faux pas. Thus, everyone must strive in understanding the truth by which we can gradually solve this issue. By just stating the practice of its worship by the earlier great lamas and vying for the right to faith and belief does not validates the stand. As the great Lamas of the past visualized the union of the mind of peaceful and the wrathful deities, it appears to them in a pure form. It is completely different from the worship by an ordinary person like us whose mind is filled with continuous flow of deluded emotions.

Contemptuously grave is the act of alleging rift between His Holiness and the great masters of the past with reference to this worship. This demeanous act of presuming one's lama as an ordinary person and misconcievingly over-estimating and under-estimating the realities is a heinous act, committed out of one's delusion-ignorance. Thus, it is advisable to be conscientious.

If it (shugden) were a real protector, it should protect the people. There may not be any protector such as this, which needs to be protected by the people. Is it proper to disturb the peace and harmony by causing conflicts, unleashing terror and shooting demeanous words in order to please the Dharma protector? Does this fulfills the wishes of our great masters? Try to analyze and contemplate on the teachings that had been taught in the Lamrim (stages of path), Lojong (training of mind) and other scriptural texts. Does devoting time in framing detrimental plots and committing degrading act, which seems no different from the act of attacking monasteries wielding swords and spears and draining the holy robes of the buddha with blood, fulfil the wishes of our great masters?

The Mahayana teachings advocates altruistic attitude of sacrificing few for the sake of many. Thus why is it not possible for one, who acclaims oneself to be a Mahayana, to stop worshipping these dubious gods and deities for the sake and benefit of the Tibetans in whole and for the well-being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the Vinaya (Buddhist code of discipline), it is held that since a controversial issue is settled by picking the mandatory twig by "accepting the voice of many by the few" the resolution should be accepted by all. As it has been supported by ninety five percent it would be wise and advisable for the rest five percent to stop worshipping the deity keeping in mind that there exists provisions such as the four Severe Punishments (Nan tur bzhi), the seven Expulsions (Gnas dbyung bdun) and the four Convictions (Grangs gzhug bzhi) in the Vinaya (Code of Discipline).

If we abide and adhere to the vows and teachings and is able to protect, preserve and flourish the teachings, we need not feel doubtful and confused when we have countless deities as numerous as the stars in the boundless sky. And it is quite possible that a fake deity may appear to us caused by our ignorance and contaminated actions. As Horton Chenmo's (Hor ston chen mo) Mind Training Like the rays of Sun (Blo sbyong nyi ma`i od zer) States:

At this period, when this realm of existence is filled with beings whose actions of body, speech and mind are engaged in harming others, the Dharma protectors, the gods and the Nagas have left for other universe to protect the teachings and the four categories of Buddha's disciples. And on the other hand, the power and the spells of the devilish non-humans, who enkindle the the evils, increase and become powerful. They, assuming the form of religious practitioners, causes every calamities and sufferings in this world and causes various obstacles to the Dharma practitioner.

There are many gods and Nagas assuming the form of the powerful ones and granting boons. What certainty is there in god whose appearances are ever changing, obstacles befell on persons who had the vision of evil spirit in the form of white Manjushri. In the past, Tendar, a slain Mongolian abbot of Sera Je monastery, too is said to have had the vision of an image similar to that of Je Tsongkapa, but had to undergo many obstacles. And, in our ritual texts, it had been said that there are many demons and spirits who assumes the form of a deceased and inflict sufferings to their surviving relatives. And many fire sacrificial rites are meant to banish and ward off these outer evil forces. Even amongst the retinue of the great protector, Vaishravana, there hides many terrifying demons. And, as for the fifteen directional protectors, there are `the fifteen evil protectors' that are to be subdued through Phurba rituals and the `fifteen godly protectors.' And as for the sixty two Chakrasamvaras with reference to the subduables and the subduers, it is held that there are sixty two evils that are to be subdued. And if the practitioner does not abide by the vows and if he were not free from desire and attachment, the power of the evil deities would increase and would cause more harm than good.If we worship or invoke gods and protectors with a mind focussing on the nine apprehensions of conceit as the center of our meditation and practice, then it is said that the god and protectors, if good and real would never fulfill your wishes but would be as dangerous as holding a burning thunderbolt in your hand. His Holiness clearly quoted from the life story of Changkya Rolpai Dorjee, the banishment of Dolgyal from the Gaden area by the great throne-holder Ngawang Chokdhen out of his innately pure mind which is free from any misconception. And, the life story of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo written by Dho Drupchen relates:

While Khyentse Wangpo was imparting Tantric teachings (rgyud brtag pa gnyis pa) at Derge Lhundrup, Shugden approached to listen to the teachings saying, "As your explanations are good and the teaching are elegant, I felt desirous in listening to it." Thus not only humans, but even the ferocious non-human too swarm around the nectar of his teachings.

When such great Rimey Lamas (non-sectarian lama) forbids the worship, it must be known that it is undoubtedly true that these arises out of our own misconception. What certainty there is in such misconceived appearances? Once when Arhat Upgupta was giving teachings, an evil spirit tried to interrupt him but found him invincible. Upgupta then said, "I had never seen the buddha. Thus, evil one, assume the form of the Buddha." The demon instantaneously assumed the form of the Buddha. Out of deep reverence, when the great Arhat was about to prostrate, it is said that the demon unable to bear the sight changed himself into his real form. And in Khedrup Rinpoche's text `The Great Explanation of Kalachakra (Dus' khor tik chen)' states that the devil Garab Wangchuk tried to interrupt Galo in his practice by assuming different forms and protecting him and at times approaching him for teachings. But Galo sought the initiation of Shemar, and therefore, turned invulnerable. Thus, there are numerous other analogies proving fallible nature of these spirits and demons, who assume godly images and fulfill some trivial wishes.

And at times, worshipping of gods even if it be real, had to be stopped. During the 21 days Molam festival in Lhasa, performing invocations and trance rituals of deity Karmasha of Lhasa was prohibited. It is held that Chushur Tenpa Tsering, a cruel chieftain, died and was born as an evil spirit in the locality of Samye Pekar. This evil spirit dropped poison in the utensil meant for the monk assembly at the Molam festival. But the Dharma protector Nechung perforated a hole from beneath the utensil with cloth- spear by which the afternoon tea could not be served. If candidly expressed, Karmasha was held guilty as the accusation and allegement fell on him. During the commencement of the Molam congregation, the disciplinarian of Drepung monastery sternly declared his warning in the Karmasha invocation hall:

"No one shall, during the 21 days Monlam festival, burn even an iota of incence as dimunitive as the breath of a guinea pig nor shall one offer Torma as small as the tiny thump. No musical instrument shall be played. How can Chushar Tenpa Tsering, a man who had entered the heart of evil-spirit, be the minister Jatri Chanchik (Karmasha)?"

Thus, there is no certainty in the appearances caused by our Karmas as the saying goes:

A single object conceived with disparate mind Is held to be a non-established existence

When one is attached to the doctrines, it is no different for getting attached to wealth and riches. It is stated in Abhidharmakosa (Mngon pa mdzod) as:

Pride, arrogance and haughtiness Are out of attachment to one's attributes [Thus,] such mind are fully obscured.

And, the great Je Tsongkapa had stated:

It had been said that if one does not meditate analytically on the tenets with an unbiased analytical mind, by abandoning discrimination out of attachment towards oneself and aversion towards other, one would forever be tightly bound in this cyclic existence. Thus, we must understand that this statement is a unique teaching given to us out of great compassion.

Thus, our disputes and arguments are out of attachment and if keenly examined with an unbiased mind, we would come to know that there is not a single good thing that is in confirmity with the Dharma.

Whatever may it be, god or evil spirit, there is no restriction in worshipping it. One had not understood the basic definition of the universally acclaimed `Right to faith and belief.' A short definition of it can undo the knots and clarify the misunderstanding of this principle. An individual has complete freedom whether to have faith in a particular religion or not. Again, an individual has complete freedom whether to have belief in a particular religion or not. Thus, according to this principle, no one can be forced into particular religious system. This itself becomes an answer to their allegement.

We most probably say, " we have solemn faith and belief in our religion." Whatever religion may it be, no difference of accessibility and restrictions had been made. Everyone is guaranteed with the right to faith and belief. One may insists, "I have complete right to faith and belief and no one can restrict me from worshiping any gods and protectors." But, if citizens feigning right to faith and belief, violates the constitutional laws of his country in such manner, it would cause an unruly state "where people violates the law and horse shakes off its saddle." And to them, it might also be appropriate for a Buddhist to practice the religion of the Hindu and the Muslim. If one enters Buddhism but practices in an overtly opposite manner to the Buddhist principles and tenets, then one violates the principal hallmark of Buddhism and feigning right to faith and belief does not help. Hence it is said, "When in Yala Shampo, worship god Yala Shampo" and "When one drinks the water of the land, so must one adhere to the laws of the land". Thus when one seeks refuge in the Buddha, one does not seek refuge in other gods; when one seeks refuge in the teachings of the Buddha, one should not commit ill deeds: and when one seeks refuge in the Buddha's community, one does not befriend a person with wrong and distorted views. Thus, the enforcement of this right to faith and belief encompasses only to a certain limited spheres.

If right to faith and belief had not been limited monastic rules might have not been possible. In Tibet, law of the monastery proclaims that postulant monks shall seek admission only in their respective monastic sections. Law again states that the great Lamas and Tulkus through their numerous incarnations shall not change their monastic sections or monasteries, but had to stick to a particular monastic section. Many cases caused by such misunderstandings had been reported. Here too, some monastic sections had been filing such cases. Thus, with a clear understanding of this right to faith and belief, we should strive to settle such cases and must prevent such false cases to rise.

The act of pronouncing one's strong faith in worldly gods is no different from publicizing your faults and downfall in your adherence to "the advice or refuge-seeking." Moreover, there is none amongst us who had not received teachings from His Holiness. Likewise every of us had received many Tantric initiation, instructions and transmissions. Thus, disfiguring and demeaning one's Vajra Guru would cause results so inconceivably grave and unbearable. And it is sarcastic on finding a person, who upholding the laws of cause and effect not having even the slightest regrets and doubts over blindly committing a grave blunder and also drowning everyone in it. It would be wise to contemplate and practice in cultivating reverence to one's master as had been taught in Dorjee Chang's Lamrim (stages of path). The root text of Guhyasamaja Root Tantra (Gsang `dus rtsa rgyud) states:

If sentient beings commits an action
As grave as the heinous crimes
He [still] can attain the superior Vajra Vehicle
But who from within disregards his master
Shall never attain, even if exerted.

And also in the tantra of Vajrapani Initiation (Lag na rdo rje dbang bskur ba`i rgyud):

If we, Tantric practitioners, do not think on the immensely grave demerits of disregarding one's master, who would?

This demeanous act of ignoring the advice of His Holiness on spiritual and temporal ground intended for the benefit of Tibetans and masterminding certain detrimental activities in finding slightest differences to your view clearly signifies ones lack of patriotism. Does the sour reality of governmental official needing police and security to escort them on their visit to the monasteries, centers of peace and religion, not become a cause for shame and embarrassment to the Tibetans in general and the monastic centers in particulars? Thus, it is timely to stop this strife by being aware of the grave outcome and essenceless nature of this root of disagreement. But without sound conscience, if one adamantly tries to oppose it, then like "a hundred birds flying east: and the pak bird flying west" one would turn into our enemy's best friend for having a same adverse standpoint and strategy. And, one would face the same consequences as did the adamant Pelsur Jholak. Thus, it is wise for everyone, ordained and the laymen, to bear some minor loss on this ground.

If Je Rinpoche had introduced this New Kadampa Tradition in order to distinguish between the worshipper of this Red god and the rest, then it would be appropriate. But, it should be known that Je Rinpoche did not introduce this tradition in order to distinguish the worshippers from the rest. It is quite improper if one does not have any understanding on these extreme consequences. If one continuously swaggers on acquiring some wealth and status like a little son rejoicing on receiving some gifts from his parent, we need not explore the whole world to find an example to wholly prove and validate Je Rinpoche's prophecy:

"My teaching will be destroyed by wealth and riches."

Kindly ponder over the contents and practice it as this had been written out of strong resolute intention by a person inept in politics.

20 Sep 1996

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S POSITION ON ALLEGED ABUSES AGAINST WORSHIPPERS OF TIBETAN DEITY DORJE SHUGDEN

AI Index: ASA 17/14/98
June 1998

Amnesty International (AI) has received and studied a large amount of material alleging human rights abuses against worshippers of the Tibetan Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden. These alleged abuses are reported to have happened largely in Tibetan settlements in India.

None of the material Al has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within Al's mandate for action -- such as grave violations of fundamental human rights including torture, the death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials.

While recognizing that spiritual debate can be contentious, Amnesty International cannot become involved in debate on spiritual issues.

AI campaigns on the grave violations of human rights in Tibet, as well as the rest of the People's Republic of China. In 1997 a widespread crackdown on Tibetan nationalists and religious groups continued. At least 96 Tibetans, most of them Buddhist monks and nuns, were reported to have been detained during the year for peacefully exercising fundamental freedoms. A continuing "patriotic reeducation campaign" in monasteries and nunneries has led to expulsions and arrests. Prison conditions remain harsh in Tibet and prisoners are often ill-treated for minor infringements of prison regulations.

==========================================================================