Response to the refutation
of Tenzin Wangdak by an anonymous Shugden supporter
The article that this is a
response to is found at: https://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/refutation-of-the-ticking-time-bomb-that-took-23-years-to-explode-part-2-by-tenzing-wangdak/
I would like to reply to
the above. I don’t do this with anger or resentment, or because I am partisan
to Tenzin Wangdak, or that I belong to one side in this dispute. Anger,
indignation, partiality and resentment will only entrench a position, and
prevent any understanding or consideration of the other side. Anger, in
particular, fogs the mind and obscures any rational and middle-way thinking.
In that spirit, I do hope
you publish this reply. If you are sure of your views, there is nothing to fear
in publishing those views that disagree with yours. For a discussion to proceed
both positions must be aired. If for some reason you do not publish this reply,
I will publish it elsewhere, together with your article for all to see.
In your very first sentence
you prefix the title Dalai Lama with the derogatory “false.” You do this
throughout the article, and indeed in most articles posted online and elsewhere
you cannot refer to him without using this prefix. If you think that by
bombarding the public and your followers with this appellation it will
gradually come to be accepted as true, you woefully underestimate the
intelligence of your target audience. You might think that if you say it enough
it will be accepted as fact, but most intelligent readers will just become
tired of it. Moreover, they will compare your assertion with what they know of
the Dalai Lama from their own personal experience and observation of him, and
rely upon that for their assessment of him, because mere name-calling is
childish and baseless.
You might refute this by
saying you have published a book “proving” that the Dalai Lama is a false
incarnation. But it seems to me that this book is mere retaliation for the
Dalai Lama labeling Shugden as a malevolent spirit or a ghost. You regard Shugden
as a manifestation of Mañjuśrī, and so any denigration of him is not going to
be taken kindly. (I know that Trijang Rinpoche and Phabongkha Rinpoche both
proclaimed him thus but we can deal with that later). Just as the Dalai Lama
addresses him as a worldly spirit or as Dölgyal, so you seek to retaliate by
addressing the Dalai Lama as “false” in all mention of him. This is a childish
way of dealing with criticism.
Your book, The False Dalai Lama, comes across as a
predetermined conclusion seeking justification. You have already decided that
he is false and so you set about finding “proof” to back up that claim. If that
is not the case, and I am making baseless allegations, then why several years
after the Dalai Lama stated his doubts about Shugden do you suddenly produce
this book? Would you have produced it if the Dalai Lama had not said the things
he did?
Moreover, the Dalai Lama
has set out clearly reasons for his stance that Shugden is not an exclusive
protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings or the Geluk tradition, not an emanation
of Mañjuśrī, and that he is a spirit who does more harm than good. Therefore, your
book seeks to mirror that process by setting out reasons why the Dalai Lama is
not a genuine Tülku entrusted with the welfare of the Tibetan people, and not
an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, and just a politician and dictator who harms
the Tibetan people. Again, this just seems like childish tit for tat. Unable to
deal with the criticism of your protector, you respond by lashing out instead
of employing careful thought and consideration of the issues.
Moreover, look at the
motivations for the Dalai Lama’s position on Shugden and your position on the
Dalai Lama. He did not denigrate Shugden from some perceived slight, or out of
resentment for what someone had said, or from any innate dislike of Shugden. He
too was a believer in Shugden for many years. The doubts surfaced in the 70’s from
circumstances that have been well documented elsewhere, and he felt it was his
responsibility to act upon what he had discovered. He explained everything to
Trijang Rinpoche before taking any action, because he felt his conscience would
not allow him to do otherwise. Your motivations for deriding him as false,
however, seem far removed from those. They appear to come from an open hostility
to the Dalai Lama, and his public pronouncements on Shugden.
If you think for a minute
that your book provides reliable proof of the Dalai Lama being false, and that
it is a shining example of non-partisan, academic scholarship, then think
again. This is not the place to go through the book chapter by chapter, but
some of the reasoning is laughable. He is a Marxist? He is a Muslim? He lost
his temper when he was a child? These are proofs? He is not a Marxist ideologue
to the exclusion of everything else. He is first and foremost a Buddhist, and
spends every morning from 3.30am onwards engaged in Buddhist practice, the most
fundamental of which is going for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. He
is a Buddhist monk and keeps his vows purely (despite your slanderous
accusation of lying, which is a root downfall for a monk). Just because he
expresses sympathy for Marxist economics does not disqualify him from being a
Buddhist!
The book states that he
lost his temper when he was a child, thereby casting doubt on his suitability
as an emanation of Avalokiteśvara. Well, emanations of enlightened beings act
in worldly ways, something that you would attest to when pronouncing Dorjé Shugden
to be a manifestation of Mañjuśrī. However, if that is a reason for proclaiming
the Dalai Lama to be false, then how false must Shugden be when engaging in
killing and bring sickness to many lamas who “strayed” to Nyingma teachings? It
is no good dismissing these allegations as “superstition,” as you do, because
they are the claims of Trijang Rinpoche written down by Zemé Rinpoche in his
Yellow Book. They are there for all to see. Trijang Rinpoche even repeats some
of these in his own writings.
It is true that protectors
sometimes engage in wrathful actions for good reasons, but to condemn as
worldly a little boy for getting angry while justifying the violent actions of
a protector as enlightened, or dismissing them as “old wife’s tales to stop Gelugpas
from mixing traditions” as you do is a contradiction.
I am not even going to
bother dealing with the allegation that the 14th Dalai of Tibet is
in fact a Muslim!
Therefore, it is hard to
escape the conclusion that this book is written out of spite, and any reason,
no matter how flimsy, is thrown in to bolster an already predetermined outcome.
You say, “Dorjé Shugden is
an emanation of Mañjuśrī and the principal protector of Lama Tsongkhapa’s
teachings in this age.” Phabongkha Rinpoche and Dakpo Kalsang Khedrup, the
author of the verses of praise that Trijang Rinpoche commented, did assert that
Shugden was an emanation of Mañjuśrī, and consequently so did Trijang Rinpoche.
However, before that most masters in the Sakya tradition, where devotion to Shugden
began, regarded him as a powerful spirit. Moreover, several Geluk masters
regarded him as a spirit. I realize that these are assertions with no back up
of scriptural reference, but to do that would turn this article in to a lengthy
book. One day such a book, well researched and complete with references, will
be published.
However, for now this short
response is to introduce the fact that there are doubts abut the claims
surrounding Shugden. There have been doubts all throughout the past three
hundred years, from his beginning as Drakpa Gyaltsen in in the 17th
century. All parties accept that Drakpa Gyaltsen was the origin of Shugden, but
at that time, the 5th Dalai Lama and those around him had their
doubts. You may dismiss the 5th Dalai Lama as being unaware of the
activities of his Desi’s supposed involvement in Drakgyen’s murder, or even as
being complicit in it, but the written evidence at that time, as opposed to
hearsay and rumour, points to other explanations. There is even no written
evidence at that time that Drakgyen was actually killed.
You back up the claim that Shugden
is the principal protector of the Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings with a quote from
Trijang Rinpoche’s commentary on Dakpo Kalsang Khedrup’s verses of praise to
Dorjé Shugden, which states that the 11th Dalai Lama enthroned him
as such together with the Chinese emperor. The 11th Dalai Lama
passed away when he was only seventeen, hardly a mature age to be making
decisions on who is the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings. It is telling
that you choose a Dalai Lama as an authoritative source to back up your position.
You ignore the stances of the three most influential Dalai Lamas: the 5th,
13th and 14th , and hone in on a young Dalai Lama who
almost certainly had little or no influence in affairs. But then these three Dalai Lamas don’t follow
your views on Shugden and so they are denounced and ignored.
If you say that the mention
of the 11th Dalai Lama as someone who enthroned Shugden was a
comment made by Trijang Rinpoche, that is true, but one (among many)
differences between you and Trijang Rinpoche is that he had the greatest of
respect and devotion for all the Dalai Lamas. He didn’t cherry pick those who
supported his views. In his commentary to these verses of praise he goes out of
his way to show nothing but total respect to the Great Fifth. Moreover, in his
works and teachings he repeatedly praised the 14th Dalai Lama,
urging his disciples to dedicate themselves to him. If you claim you are
followers of Trijang Rinpoche, why don’t you follow his advice?
You say that Trijang
Rinpoche “regarded the upholding of the Shugden practice to be very important.”
Maybe, but he also regarded devotion to the 14th Dalai Lama as very
important. So why don’t you follow that advice too? You berate Tenzin Wangdak for
not bowing to Trijang Rinpoche, but it seems that you don’t either.
You
say that the reason Dorjé Shugden is preferable these days to Kālarūpa, Vaiśravana and six-armed Mahākāla is, “The Dharma Protector
who has the strongest karmic connection with the practitioners of Lama
Tsongkhapa’s tradition in this modern times is Dorjé Shugden. He is the one who
is most able to help.” Really? And how does he help? By picking on those who
practice any tradition other than the Geluk? These days in exile unity among
the Tibetans is more important than ever. The last thing they want is some
puritanical protector terrifying those who wander between spiritual traditions.
Harmony between the main religious traditions is essential. Shugden hardly fits
the role of a mediator or peace-bringer, does he?
If you respond by
saying that it is the Dalai Lama who has caused divisions in the Tibetan
community by introducing restrictions (no, not a ban) on Shugden practice, you
should know that no-one has worked harder than him to bring all traditions
together. Just look at his record in doing this since they arrived in exile.
Just for once, be fair. Give him some credit. He has organized inter-tradition
conferences, regularly welcomes, visits and shows respect to leaders of other
traditions. He even included the Bon in Tibetan traditions. In teachings he
will often try to bring the various philosophical traditions together
(Dzokchen, Mahamudra, Mādhyamika) by unpicking the tradition-specific
terminology and finding common ground. Isn’t this working for the unity of the
Tibetan communities?
It was in this
spirit of responsibility that he expressed his thoughts on Shugden. In 1975 the
local Tibetans in Dharamshala were frightened to attend a Padma Saṃbhava
offering ritual in the temple because they were afraid of what Shugden would do
to them. Is this how Shugden helps? That was the catalyst for Dalai Lama’s
embarking on an investigation into Shugden, culminating with the pronouncements
he made. How can this be seen as anything other than a genuine concern for the
unity of the Tibetan people? It is the unfortunate response of others that has
caused the problems we have now.
These days in
exile, and in the 21st century, the days of petty sectarianism are
over. There is no place for each tradition to tightly cling to their own tradition
to the exclusion of others. That may have worked in Tibet but not now in the
modern world. The tradition of Tsongkhapa is open to everyone. The traditions
of the Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyü are open to everyone. Does Shugden facilitate
that? If so, please let me know.
You say, “You are
all lost and confused because you have broken your Guru devotion by abandoning
your reliance on the great Masters of the Gelugpa tradition such as Je
Pabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche. You don’t trust your Gurus, you trust
politics.”
What nonsense this
is. And what an insulting judgment to pass on others you don’t even know. Guru
devotion (as in the Fifty Verses on the
Guru) allows for disagreement with the guru on certain points, as long as
that disagreement is not based on anger or prejudice. If it is allowed in guru
devotion practice, it must be something that exists within that practice and
does not constitute an abandonment of the guru. Ling Rinpoche said he regarded
Phabongkha as a perfect Buddha but when the Shugden issue came up he was
uneasy. Did he too abandon his guru? The Dalai Lama has said many times that he
has never lost devotion for Trijang Rinpoche as his guru. However, you believe he
is a false Dalai Lama, and so you wouldn’t believe him. It is very convenient
for your position if the person you are disagreeing with is damned as
unreliable from the outset, because then you don’t have to disprove anything he
says, as to your eyes he is almost certainly lying!
Your insults such
as “lost and confused,” “wrongheaded,” “betrayers and purveyors of wrong views,”
(the last one sounds almost evangelical!) are built on the notion that people
such as Tenzin Wangdak have abandoned and defame great Geluk masters such as
Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche. But they have nothing but respect for these
masters as great practitioners. And they also are devoted to the Dalai Lama.
The only people who are denouncing great lamas are you and your group who
regularly turn up at events where the Dalai Lama is speaking and engage in your
childish chant of “False Dalai Lama stop lying!”
Your proof that Shugden
does not punish people is that if he did, “the False Dalai Lama would be dead
for all the harm he has done to Tibetan Buddhism in general and the Gelugpa
tradition in particular.” Goodness, where did you learn logic? The reason is
based on the assumption that the Dalai Lama is false and that he has caused
harm. As these are not accepted by those you are aiming the logic at, it falls
rather flat. I could just return the logic: Shugden has not harmed the Dalai
Lama because he can’t, because he is not false, and because he has not harmed
Buddhism.
However, as I said
above, read the Yellow Book. It is full of terrifying punishments meted out to
those who practiced Nyingma teachings. As I said before, sometimes protectors
can be violent, but please don’t paint Shugden as portraying only a peaceful
aspect. If, as you say, Shugden’s “fearsome reputation is superstition: old
wife’s tales to stop Gelugpas from mixing traditions,” then you are tagging
Trijang Rinpoche’s writing as “old wives’ tales,” and that would be denigrating
the words of a great Geluk master, something you would never do, surely!
You say that Shugden
followers have no religious freedom because they must choose between breaking
away from Shugden and breaking commitment to their gurus, or risk being
ostracized from their families. Thousands of Tibetans have given up their Shugden
practice, and enjoy plenty of religious freedom. They are not breaking their samaya with their gurus, as explained
above. Those who continue the practice are free to do so. That is their choice.
If there has been discrimination against Shugden followers in the Tibetan
community that is wrong.
But look at this.
Buddhist practice takes place in the mind. What you do in your mind is your
choice. No one can stop you, and no one knows what you are doing. Think back to
those brave Tibetans who spent years in Chinese prisons. Did they suffer the
loss of religious freedom you complain about? Or were they able to practice
bravely in the privacy of their own minds, away from the vicious hands of the
prison guards? Palden Gyatso (author of Fire
Under the Snow) spent over thirty years in prison. He managed to practice
love and compassion for his jailers. I know him and he has told me these things
personally. Such people did not let the vicious oppression of the Chinese daunt
them. They used it to further their practice. In the face of that I find your
cries of persecution rather hollow.
Recently I met a
western NKT nun here in the UK. She told me she had nothing to do with the
politics of the Shugden issue, but quietly went about her devotions to Shugden.
Does she not have religious freedom? Nobody was stopping her from doing her
practice. As I said, if there are those in the Tibetan community who
discriminate against Shugden practitioners, that is not right. But before they
complain, think about Palden Gyatso.
You talk a bit
about Tibetan history, in which you say that, “this practice has been passed
down for three hundred and fifty years from Teacher to Student and was
practiced by all the great Gelugpa Lamas and Sakya throne holders.”
Tibetan history is
a hall of mirrors. You are never sure what you are looking at. The secretive
nature of Tibetan society and its tendency for interpretation (outer, inner,
secret, and so on) of events make it difficult, but not impossible, to come
down on one side or the other. The Dorjé Shugden history site looks well
researched, and I will take some time to read it.
However, it is not
the case that ALL great Geluk lamas and Sakya throne holders practiced Shugden
as you maintain. Moreover, much of the practice before Phabongkha centered on Shugden
as a fierce worldly spirit, rather than an emanation of Mañjuśrī, even though
the two may not be contradictory. Moreover, if this practice has been handed
down for 350 years, that would mean it began around 1665, nine years or so
after Drakpa Gyaltsen’s death. But the first recorded contact between a lama
and Shugden was some 54 years after his death when he appeared before a Sakya
Lama. Minor point maybe, but you would probably pick me up for it.
Maybe we should
pool our research and thrash these issues out at a conference some time. What
do you think? These points of history need to be sorted out in a calm and
rational fashion.
You mention the
murder of Ven. Losang Gyatso, and cast doubt on his killers being Shugden
supporters. Yes, there have been no convictions, and without a trial it cannot
be conclusively determined either way. But, come on. Is your doubt based on a
fair appraisal of the available evidence or is it a product of your bias toward
Shugden? You level the same charge at the Tibetan government, but is there no
bias in your stance of attempting to exonerate Shugden supporters of this
crime?
Having said that, I
must declare an interest here. He was my teacher for eight years at the
Institute of Buddhist Dialectics. I owe him a great debt of gratitude. He
allowed me, a layman, to enter the school and join in the classes and debate
sessions. I value my time at that school highly. It helped me make sense of the
Dharma. So maybe I am biased too, but look at the evidence.
He was indeed
outspoken. Many in the Geluk tradition complained about him as you say. And who
are the most puritanical of the Geluk? Who are those who would not take kindly
to criticism of the tradition? He had received threats from the Dorje Shugden
Charitable and Religious Society. This letter is for all to see. And what about
the obscene letter received after the murder in which the sender asks if they
enjoyed the three carcasses of meat as a Losar present, and that there would be
more carcasses if the present practice is continued? Although it is not signed,
the contents make it clear on whose behalf the letter is written.
You suggest that
Namgyal Monastery might have committed the murder. Are you serious? Namgyal is
the monastery of the Dalai Lama, who appointed Ven. Losang Gyatso as principal.
What possible motive could they have? The proof offered is that there was a movie
being played at Namgyal the night of the murder, and that this was unusual and
could have been set up to drown out the noise of the act. Is this a serious
piece of evidence!
The Indian press
reported on the murders, quoting the police as clearly linking the murders to Shugden
followers, and even naming four of the accused. The whole story of the taxi
pursuit from Delhi and the phone call to the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi is
there. I will not go into detail here, as it is too lengthy, and this has been
well documented. Also you could, and probably would, just dismiss it as
uncorroborated, and so we would enter the back and forth process of discussion
and argument.
In conclusion, your
vilification of the Dalai Lama is unprecedented in the long history of this
institution. Never before has there been such a focused attack on a Dalai Lama
because of one particular action he has taken. Even if you disagree with his
stance on Shugden, which of course you are perfectly entitled to, why then do
you proceed to condemn the whole person with claims that he is a false
incarnation, a liar, a mere politician, a harmer of the Geluk tradition, and so
on. What excessive defamation just because of his stance on a particular
protector. Have you never looked at the whole of his character, his dedication
to world peace, the Tibet struggle? Are the hundreds of institutions who have
showered awards upon him blind? Are the millions who revere him stupid? And are
you, and Chinese communist party, the only ones who see the truth?
If you see someone
as wholly bad because of one action that he or she has taken, then you will
interpret everything they do as bad. Nobody can know everything about a person,
but you can come down on one side or the other by looking at the whole person,
not just one action he has committed, and making a sensible choice. I have been
around the Dalai Lama since the early seventies. I have met him several times.
I have taken teachings from him many times, I have examined what he teaches, I
have observed him closely, and my conclusion is, at the very least he is an
honourable man, an ethical person, a good monk, a kind hearted soul who puts
others first, a great thinker, someone who takes his responsibility as Dalai
Lama very seriously, and everyday tries tirelessly to put every Buddhist
teaching he has learned into practice. How many of us can claim the same?
You could of course
just dismiss me as a Dalai Lama cheerleader, and that is up to you. Or we could
try and work this out, settle it once and for all. We could sit around a table
and talk about it. A meeting was held in California recently. It didn’t get very
far, because it was only the first one. But who knows what is possible if we
only try?
Gavin Kilty
UK
September 2015.
