H.E. The 25th Tsem Tulku Rinpoche.
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, has for decades travelled the globe with a message of peace, love and compassion that has won him countless followers and admirers, made him one of the most recognised and respected religious leaders on the planet and earned him the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize.
“Love, kindness, compassion and tolerance are qualities common to all the great religions,” he wrote on his Facebook page in October. He has brought his message to Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders, including Catholic Popes john Paul II and Benedict XVI, and recently spoke on behalf of the Rohingya muslims as they suffer fierce persecution in their largely Buddhist Myanmar home, sometimes at the hands of Buddhist monks.
But the Dalai Lama’s tolerance does not appear to extend to devotees of Dorje Shugden, a controversial Buddhist deity to whom the Dalai Lama himself has admitted that he once used to offer prayers before declaring it to be a malign spirit. Such appears to be his aversion to Shugden practitioners that he has publicly asked them not to attend spiritual gatherings where he is present.
He has since 1976 affirmed on various occasions that the practice of paying devotion to Dorje Shugden shortens the life of the Dalai Lama, encourages sectarianism among Buddhists and represents a “danger to the cause of Tibet”. Through such comments, Tibet’s de facto spiritual leader effectively issued a prohibition against the practice, leading to ostracism of its practitioners by the broader Tibetan Buddhist community.
Some Shugden practitioners say this is akin to the Pope threatening excommunication for those who promote devotion to the Virgin Mary or Saint Francis. Such high-handed action would meet with fierce resistance both from individuals and from orders such as the Franciscans and the Marists. All would no doubt still consider themselves practising Catholics despite their apparent disobedience to a figure who, in Catholic doctrine, is God’s representative on earth.
A question of emphasis
The Dorje Shugden deity is considered by some to be one of several protectors of the “Geluk”, or “yellow hat” school of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong and whose adherents are called “Gelukpas”. Critics say worship of the deity fosters divisions among the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism, all of which share the same fundamental philosophy, and whose differences lie mainly in the emphasis they place on different Buddhist scriptures.
“The hub of the dispute is contrasting views on sectarianism and the correct path for Yellow Hat Buddhism,”[1] wrote M.A. Aldrich in a December 2016 article in The Diplomat. “The Shugden followers insist upon an aggressive purge of heterodox forms of Tibetan Buddhism while the Dalai Lama has called for non-sectarian cooperation among all branches of Tibet’s religions.”
Shugden practitioners have worshipped among “Yellow Hat” Buddhists for some 350 years. If they have pursued an “aggressive purge” of other forms of Buddhism, as their accusers say, how is it that all four main schools of Buddhism generally flourished over such an extended period?
Moreover, given that Shugden devotion was an accepted practice for most of this period, what has changed since the Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese Rule?
“The Dalai Lama believes that aggressive sectarianism threatens Tibetan unity,” wrote Aldrich. “He has decreed that while the followers of Dorje Shugden may continue to worship the deity, his own followers should not permit devotees of Shugden to be initiated into the Kalachakra.”[2] The Kalachakra is a complex system of philosophy and meditation in Tantric Buddhism and exclusion from it is seen by many as a heavy penalty.
While the Dalai Lama has said his statements do not amount to a ban on the practice, the Central Tibetan Authority – the Tibetan government in exile in India – taking its lead from the spiritual leader – has made a number of moves to ostracise Shugden practitioners. A 1996 CTA resolution includes a clause that says: “if individual citizens propitiate Shugden, it will harm the common interest of Tibet, the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and strengthen the spirits that are against the religion.”
Other branches of the exiled government quickly fell into line following this resolution. For example, a 1996 directive from the CTA’s department of health said “if there is anyone who worships Dorje Shugden, they should repent the past and stop worshipping. They must submit a declaration that they will not worship in the future.”
Demonizing worshippers
Jamyang Norbu, a Tibetan political activist who favours the independence of the region rather than greater autonomy under the Chinese government, says that while the Dalai Lama has every right to object to Shugden practices on theological grounds, Buddhists should be free in their devotional practices.
“The trouble is that the Tibetan government has been inducted to implement the Dalai Lama’s proscription of Shugden worship,”[3] wrote Norbu. “The Tibetan government claims it has not issued any orders or appeals to people to harass or fight Shugden worshippers. Yet it has produced and distributed literature and videos demonizing Shugden worshippers.”
Norbu is however highly critical of those vocal Shugden activists who have picketed several of the Dalai Lama’s public appearances, attempting to drown out his words, chanting abuse while making no effort to engage into dialogue. He has said, nonetheless, that more effort could be made to reach an understanding with those Shugden acolytes who continue to accept the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader.
One such is Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, the Malaysian based ‘spiritual advisor to Kechara’ Buddhist Temple and Shugden practitioner, who earlier this year said he was “ecstatic” about what he understood to be a perceived softening of the Dalai Lama’s stance vis-à-vis Shugden practitioners.
A number of Shugden centres, including Kechara, say they are not at all active in the autonomy debate, nor have they any interest in overtures from China.
Tsem Tulku Rinpoche says he has for years resisted the scapegoating of the Shugden religious practice, seeking a peaceful end to a conflict which has already weakened the beleaguered community of Tibetan refugees and their Tibetan government in exile. Moreover, supporters say, the exclusion of Shugden practitioners is not compliant with the Tibetan constitution, nor with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which embodies the concept of religious freedom.
Another prominent Shugden exponent to come under pressure is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, spiritual leader of the New Kadampa Tradition. Supporters maintain these two leaders have worked tirelessly spread of the Geluk tradition worldwide. But while the New Kadampa tradition has protested the Dalai Lama vociferously, Tsem Tulku’s Kechara followers have sought to avoid this conflict.
Nonetheless, the vilification of their practice continues. In late 2016, an official letter from the Tashi Dargyeling Monastery – as translated on a Shugden-leaning website – appeared to encourage measures against Shugden practitioners which bear all the hallmarks of religious persecution. Those who continue to worship the deity, or simply maintain relationships with practitioners, are told that the monks of the monastery will not perform prayers in their homes or funeral rights for members of their household – somewhat equivalent to being excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Earlier in 2016, a Monastic University in the Tibetan exile community said it had introduced an identity badge system for its monks to indicate that they were not “Dolgyal propitiating monks”. Dolgyal is a derogatory term used for Shugden devotees. Monks who practiced devotion to the Dorje Shugden were not welcome at the monastic university, it was understood.
More alarming still, there have also been widespread reports of beatings, vandalism and death threats aimed at practitioners, many of whom say they have been forced to the margins of their own communities, or even to leave them altogether.
A Chinese angle
“There’s a lot of passion around this (issue) from Shugden practitioners, and the Chinese have fostered this Shugden worship as a way to split Tibetans,” said Kelley Currie, a senior State Department advisor on Asia and Tibet from 2007 to 2009, told Reuters in a December 2015 report.[4] Currie has previously worked for the International Campaign for Tibet, an advocacy group promoting human rights for Tibetans.
In recent years, Dorje Shugden practitioners have been increasingly denounced as stooges of China who support Beijing rule in Tibet. They are accused of allowing China to exploit divisions among Tibetan Buddhists, or worse, accepting Chinese backing to foment discord among the exiled Tibetan community.
Their most virulent opponents have launched a series of attacks via social media, including a large number of heavily-worded insults and threats on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, couched in an occasionally violent language rarely associated with Buddhism. Shugden proponents who discuss their religious practices online say they risk a co-ordinated deluge of often ad hominem attacks.
The timeline of events also indicates that it was the edicts and pronouncements against the Shugden practice which created the discord within the Buddhist ranks in the first place. If Shugden acolytes were allowed to continue their worship practices unmolested by other factions within the Buddhist community, as they have done freely for 350 years, there would arguably be no schism to exploit.
In effect it appears it was only after the Dalai Lama spoke against the practice that the Chinese government made its first tentative approaches to Shugden practitioners, possibly sensing an opportunity to exploit the rift and weaken the push for Tibetan autonomy.
Even so, China isn’t involved in the demonstrations, said Sonam Rinchen, a U.S. based Tibetan national, as quoted in the Reuters piece. “I am sure they are pleased, but we do not protest to please China,” he said. “We are interested in getting our religious freedom back.”[5]
[2] ibid
[5] ibid