The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the school of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong. Dorje Shugden has become the symbolic focal point of a conflict over the "purity" of the Gelug school and the inclusion of non-Gelug teachings, especially Nyingma ones.
In the 1930s, Pabongkhapa Déchen Nyingpo, who favoured an "exclusive" stance, started to promote Shugden as a major protector of the Gelug school,
1930s-1940s Pabongkha
Promotion of Dorje Shugden
In the 1930s, Pabongkhapa Déchen Nyingpo started to promote Dorje Shugden. According to Kay, Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a violent protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against other traditions,
This change is reflected in artwork, since there is "lack of Dorje Shugden art in the Gelug school prior to the end of the 19th century."
Persecution of the Rimé movement
Dorje Shugden was a key tool in Pabongkhapa's persecution of the flourishing Rimé movement, an ecumenical movement which fused the teachings of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma, in response to the dominance of the Gelug school. Non-Gelug, especially Nyingma, monasteries were forced to convert to the Gelug position.
Pabongkhapa feared a decline of Gelug monasteries, and induced a revival movement, which promoted the Gelug as the only pure tradition. He regarded the practice of non-Gelug teachings by Gelug monks as a threat to the Gelug tradition, and opposed the influence of the other schools, especially the Nyingma. He coupled Dorje Shugden to Gelug exclusivism, using it against other traditions, and against Gelugpa's with eclectic tendencies. The main function of the deity was presented as "the protection of the Ge-luk tradition through violent means, even including the killing of its enemies."
Response by the 13th Dalai Lama
The abbot of Drepung Monastery and the 13th Dalai Lama were opposed to Pabongkapa's propitiation of Shugden.
According to Georges Dreyfus, the sectarian elements of The Yellow Book were not unusual and do not "justify or explain the Dalai Lama's strong reaction." This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school. Kay reminds us, "[W]hen traditions come into conflict, religious and philosophical differences are often markers of disputes that are primarily economic, material and political in nature."
1980s
Bluck notes the activity regarding Dorje Shugden practice in the 80s: "In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may reflect some opposition to his ecumenical approach."
1990s
Initiations by the 14th Dalai Lama
With the urging of the other schools who have long been opposed to Shugden, and his senior Gelug tutor who always doubted the practice, the 14th Dalai Lama asked the increasing number of western Shugden practitioners who were newly being proselytized primarily in Britain to refrain from attending his teachings. George Chryssides, quoting Stephen Batchelor, states:
New Kadampa Tradition
The New Kadampa Tradition, founded by Kelsang Gyatso in 1991, has continued the worship of Dorje Shugden. Kelsang Gyatso regards his school to be the true continuation of the "pure" teachings of Je Tsongkhapa, rejecting the "inclusivism" of the Dalai Lama. Thurman notes that members of the New Kadampa Tradition, responded by trying
Martin Mills states that:
DSRCS and SSC/WSS
In India, some protests and opposition were organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable Society (DSRCS) with the support of the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC), now called Western Shugden Society.
In 1996, the SSC attempted to obtain a statement from Amnesty International (AI) that the TGIE (specifically the 14th Dalai Lama) had violated human rights. However, the AI replied that the SSC's allegations were as yet unsubstantiated. Two years later, the AI stated in an official press release that complaints by Shugden practitioners fell outside its purview of "grave violations of fundamental human rights" (such as torture, the death penalty, extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials), adding that "while recognizing that a spiritual debate can be contentious, [we] cannot become involved in debate on spiritual issues." In itself, the nuanced statement neither asserted nor denied the validity of the claims made against the TGIE, just that they were not actionable according to AI's mandate.
The DSRCS and Kundeling Lama filed a petition against the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and the Dalai Lama, accusing them of harassment and maltreatment. On 5 April 2010, Justice S. Muralidhar dismissed the petition, stating that allegations of violence and harassment were "vague averments" and that there as an "absence of any specific instances of any such attacks."
Murder of Lobsang Gyatso and two students
On February 4, 1997, the principal of the Buddhist School of Dialectics, Lobsang Gyatso, was murdered along with two of his students in Dharamshala. Kay notes "The subsequent investigation by the Indian police linked the murders to the Dorje Shugden faction of the exiled Tibetan community."
In a small 1978 pamphlet, Lobsang Gyatso alluded to a "knotless heretic teacher", which some people took as referring to Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso and his advocacy of Shugden. According to Lobsang Gyatso's biographer, Gareth Sparham, many geshes and lamas were outraged over his criticism:
Georges Dreyfus added, "Despite being hurt by the polemical attack, Tri-jang Rin-po-che made it clear that violence was out of the question. Gradually, tempers cooled down and the incident was forgotten—or so it seemed."
In June 2007, the Times stated that Interpol had issued a Red notice to China for extraditing two of the alleged killers, Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin. Robert Thurman adds that the alleged killers had their origin within China as well. The Seattle Times reported, "The two men suspected of stabbing their victims are believed to have fled India. Five others, all linked to the Dorje Shugden Society in New Delhi, were questioned for months about a possible conspiracy. No one has been charged."
Kelsang Gyatso denied the involvement of any of his followers in the murder, and condemned the killings. Matthews notes that "In spite of speculation, no connection has been found between New Kadampa Tradition and the murders in Dharamsala"
2000s-present
Attempted murder
Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche revealed an attempt to frame the Central Tibetan Administration with murder:
Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche's declaration disturbed the image of a peaceful community, and the polemics against the Dalai Lama diminished for a long while.
Schism within the Gelug school
The Gelugpa school has three great monasteries, namely Sera, Ganden, and Drepung. In 2008, the Dorje Shugden controversy led to formal schism within the Gelug school. Pomra Khangtsen, one of the sixteen sections of Sera monastery, legally separated itself in India from the rest of Sera, continuing as "Serpom Monastic University" at Bylakuppe. Also in 2008, a section of Ganden Shartse at Mundgod similarly separated itself from Ganden and is now known as "Shar Ganden Monastery". In these institutions, the monks continue to worship Dorje Shugden as well as follow traditional curricula and other religious practices of their parent institutions. A few smaller Gelug monasteries have affiliated themselves with these two monasteries rather than with mainstream Gelug.
The present abbot of Serpom is Kyabje Yongyal and its acting abbot is Jampa Khetsun. The present abbot of Shar Ganden is Lobsang Jinpa.
Protests
Hundreds of western Shugden practitioners have staged numerous demonstrations against the Dalai Lama, most recently in 2015 when he opened the Aldershot Buddhist Centre and in Cambridge, and 2014 in San Francisco, Berkeley, Washington, D.C., Oslo, Rotterdam, and Frankfurt.
In response, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) published different statements and corrections to the protesters' claims. They also posted two lists of Tibetan participants of the protests and a declaration by former NKT members and ex-practitioners of Dorje Shugden. International Campaign for Tibet also condemned the protests, stating in February 2015, "The way the group has been denigrating the Dalai Lama is an affront to the Tibetan people and is causing great damage to the broader Tibetan issue."
Views
Views of opponents of Dorje Shugden practice
Ling Rinpoche
Ling Rinpoche, who was the Ganden Tripa and senior Gelug tutor to the 14th Dalai Lama, was opposed to Shugden as he hailed from Drepung Monastery.
Views of the 14th Dalai Lama
The 14th Dalai Lama himself said in 2008, that he never used the word "ban", but "he strongly discourages Tibetan Buddhists" in practicing Shugden and "restricting a form of practice that restricts others’ religious freedom is actually a protection of religious freedom. So in other words, negation of a negation is an affirmation". The advice of the 14th Dalai Lama was approved by the Central Tibetan Administration and the Parliament in exile in 1996. It was then gradually implemented into a ban starting from 1997 by the Tibetan Youth Congress including enforcement measures like imposing all spiritual masters to stop worshipping Shugden "in the interest of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Independence" or urging all other Tibetan organizations and communities to expel anyone who venerates Shugden.
Several reasons for the 14th Dalai Lama's stance have been given. According to John Makransky,
According to Kapstein, the 14th Dalai Lama is "focused upon the role of Shugden as a militantly sectarian protector of the Gelukpa order, and the harm that has been done to Tibetan sectarian relations by the cult's more vociferous proponents."
According to Dreyfus, the 14th Dalai Lama stance stems from his favoring the traditional Gelug traditions and protectors rather than Shugden:
Views of Shugden practitioners
Kelsang Gyatso
In an interview with scholar Donald Lopez on the controversy, Kelsang Gyatso explains:
In the interview, Kelsang Gyatso states:
According to Kelsang Gyatso,
According to David Kay, Kelsang Gyatso departs from Pabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche by stating that Dorje Shugden's appearance is enlightened, rather than worldly. According to Kay, "Geshe Kelsang takes the elevation of Dorje Shugden’s ontological status another step further, emphasising that the deity is enlightened in both essence and appearance." He quotes Kelsang Gyatso on Dorje Shugden's appearance: "Some people believe that Dorje Shugdan is an emanation of Manjushri who shows the aspect of a worldly being, but this is incorrect. Even Dorje Shugdan’s form reveals the complete stages of the path of Sutra and Tantra, and such qualities are not possessed by the forms of worldly beings." According to Kay, Kelsang Gyatso downplays the oracle of Shugden, since it conflicts with his notion of Shugden being a Buddha:
Third-party views
Dorje Shugden Practitioners
According to Dreyfus, "The irony is that Shuk-den is presented by his followers as the protector of the Ge-luk (dge lugs) school, of which the Dalai Lama is the (de facto) leader."
Chryssides goes on to explain the claims specifically:
Ardley explains the political nature of the controversy:
Rejection of New Kadampa Tradition / Western Shugden Society claims
Some scholars reject the claims of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and the Western Shugden Society (WSS). Robert Thurman, for example, states, "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute." Some scholars reject NKT/WSS claims that the 14th Dalai Lama has suppressed religious freedom, indicating that the situation is actually the opposite. Thurman says, "They then went on the attack, claiming they had been 'banned' and 'excommunicated', etc., when in fact the Dalai Lama was exercising his religious freedom by not accepting students who reject his advice, and actually go so far as to condemn him!"
Thurman explains:
Regarding NKT/WSS claims that there is prohibition of Shugden, and therefore a repression of religious freedom, Thierry Dodin states, "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom."
Similarly, Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University states that "ID cards are not given out by the Tibetan government in exile, but by the Indian authorities".
Barnett comments: