Dorje Shugden

Statue of Dorje Shugden found in an NKT temple

Dorje Shugden is a Buddhist deity whose precise nature — enlightened tutelary deity (Yidam) or bound Dharma protector (Dharmapala) or an evil and malevolent force (Rakshasa) — is disputed among adherents of Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelug sect.

Overview

Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Powerful thunderbolt"; also known derogatorily as Dhol-rgyal) is a relatively recent (350 year-old), but highly controversial, deity within the complex pantheons of Himalayan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden is variously regarded

• by many Gelugpas as a wrathful aspect of Manjushri (fully enlightened being).
• as a demonic or dæmonic force (spirit)

Since the 19th century he is primarily associated with two influential lamas: Pabongka Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche of the Gelug (also Geluk) school of Tibet. According to many Gelugpa Lamas his origins can be traced back to the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri through a lineage of enlightened beings. According to the Sakya school he was regarded as a local worldy (unenlightened) spirit. In the Gelug school he was first mentioned as appearing as a Protector (Dharmapala) at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama. Whilst Dorje Shugden has never been an official practice of the Gelug institution, or any other school of Tibetan Buddhism, many Gelug monks and teachers picked up the practice after Pabongkha Rinpoche started to disseminate it. Although he was criticised by the 13th Dalai Lama, and undertook to stop teaching the practice, after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama he started to teach it again, and in the end the 14th Dalai Lama received the practice from one of his tutors, Trijang Rinpoche, though he later banned it.

Today's controversy surrounding the deity refers to a particular brand of Gelugpa diversity that emerged in Central and Eastern Tibet during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where the deity was considered to demarcate the boundaries of Gelugpa religious practice, especially in opposition to growing influence of Ri-me, literally "no lineage", thinking on mixing traditions. Many Gelugpas, as well as many Kagyupas, Sakyapas and Nyingmapas, began to follow the ideas of the Ri-me movement, but conservative Gelugpas, especially Pabongkha Rinpoche, became concerned over the "purity" of the Gelug school and opposed the ideas of Ri-me and encouraged diversity. They established instead a special Gelug exclusivism. Many sources state that disciples of Pabongkha Rinpoche destroyed Nyingma monasteries or converted them to Gelug monasteries and destroyed statues of Padmasambhava though these sources are contradicted by many other accounts.

This on-going tension has reached new heights in the Tibetan exile context, where the Fourteenth Dalai Lama started first to distance himself from Shugden and later used his position as the political and religious head of Tibet to ban the worship of Dorje Shugden.

Whereas Shugden's followers are convinced he is a Buddha and cannot be harmful in any way, opponents of Shugden call attention to his sectarian and demonical character. The latter view is shared by Gelug lamas as well, but mainly by many high lamas from other Tibetan schools, like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche who said, "most of the Nyingmas, Kagyus and Sakyas believe that Shugden is a demon. People who practice Shugden will get many money, many disciples and then many problems."

The dispute developed international dimensions in the 1990s, when the Dalai Lama's statements against the practice of Shugden challenged the British-based New Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden Devotees in India to oppose him. Geshe Kelsang said that Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden asked him to help them. As a result, Geshe Kelsang sent a public letter to the Dalai Lama, to which he did not receive any response, and subsequently created the Shugden Supporter Community (SSC), which organised protests and a huge media campaign during the Dalai Lama's teaching tour of Europe and America, accusing him of religious persecution and opposing the human rights to freedom of religious practice and of spreading untruths. According to Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the Americas of the Dalai Lama, there was no suppression of Shugden worship. "Officially there has never been any repression or denial of rights to practitioners," said Wangdi. "But after His Holiness’ advice [against worship] many monastic orders adopted rules and regulations that would not accept practitioners of Shugden worship in their monastic order.". This "advice" was backed up with strong violence and a hate campaign against Dorje Shugden practitioners that is arising again now in 2008.

In India, some protests and opposition were organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable Society with the support of SSC.

The Shugden Supporter Community (SSC) asked Amnesty International (AI) to examine the evidence for these claims, but Amnesty responded by stating that "None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within AI's mandate for action" (See below)

In February 1997, three anti-Shugden Tibetan Buddhist monks, including the Dalai Lama's close friend and confidant, seventy-year-old Lobsang Gyatso (the principal of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics), were brutally murdered in Dharamsala, India, the Tibetan capital in exile. The murdered monks were repeatedly stabbed and cut up in a manner resembling a ritual exorcism and this was blamed on those who had organized the protests against the Dalai Lama, the Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society. There was never any evidence against them and the Shugden Society in New Delhi always categorically denied any involvement in the murders. The Indian police quickly discovered that the suspects were all hundreds of miles away from the murders. Geshe Kelsang distanced himself: "Killing such a geshe and monks is very bad, it is horrible. How can Mahayana Buddhists who are always talking about compassion kill people? Impossible. There are many different possible explanations [for the murders]. There are many Shugden practitioners throughout the world, and each of them is responsible for his own actions. But definitely, we can say that these murders are very bad."

Origins

The historical origin of Dhogyal (Shugden) is unclear. Most scriptural documents on him appeared at the 19th century. There exist different orally-transmitted versions of his origins, but in the key points they contradict one another. Some references to Shugden are found in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama, so there is some agreement that the origins of Shugden stem from that time. According to a letter of the present head of the Sakya Tradition, H.H. Sakya Trizin, some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that "The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a 'jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala.". Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama of the 20th century, who received this practice from his root guru, is attributed with spreading reliance on Dorje Shugden widely within the Gelug tradition "during the 1930s and 1940s, and in this way a formerly marginal practice became a central element of the Gelug tradition."

This issue has a long history and involves not only the Fourteenth Dalai Lama but also the Thirteenth and the Fifth Dalai Lamas. This history is discussed extensively in an article by Professor Georges Dreyfus.

The "founding myth" behind Shugden worship involves a lama named Drakpa Gyaltsen (1618-1655) who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Lobsang Gyatso (1617-1682). In fact the former seems to have been a candidate to become the Fifth Dalai Lama himself (i.e., while a child, some lamas proposed him as the reincarnation of the Fourth) but he was passed over. Their rivalry continued, however, and according to legend resulted in the early death (perhaps the murder) of Drakpa Gyaltsen. Later Trijang Rinpoche said that in reality there was no rivalry and pointed to that event as a "skilful means" (to tame the mind of disciples).

Among the different stories of the origins of Dorje Shugden is the idea that murder victims often become transformed into vengeful spirits, and as such Lama Drakpa Gyeltsen was able to transform his wrath to religious ends, namely the protection of the Gelugpa tradition against the influence of other schools. Hence his transformation into the "protector deity" Shugden to protect the "Purity" of the Gelug school. Georges Dreyfus doubts the historicity of this legend because there are no reliable scriptural sources of the historical background for this. The legend was written about later by apologists of Shugden.

In the 18th and 19th centuries rituals related to Dorje Shugden began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, skal bzang thub bstan 'jigs med rgya mtsho), an important Lama and a tutor (yongs 'dzin) to the 9th Dalai Lama wrote a torma offering ritual. Also, the Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 - 1813, blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug 'jigs med rgya mtsho), the head of Gelug sect in Mongolia also wrote a torma offering to Shugden in the context of Shambhala and Kalachakra.

Key figures in the modern popularization of worshipping Dorje Shugden are Je Pabongkha (1878-1944), a charismatic Khampa lama who seems to have been the first historical Gelugpa figure to promote Shugden worship as a major element of Gelugpa practice; and Trijang Rinpoche (1901-1981), a Ganden lama who was one of the tutors of the present Dalai Lama. The Lama Pabongkha put great emphasis on spreading this practice and thus made the practice quite popular in the Gelug tradition. Je Phabongka was scolded by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama for doing so and promised to stop, however after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, he began to spread the practice even more than previously.

In the beginning Dorje Shugden was seen by Pabongkha Rinpoche as a worldly deity who has to be controlled by tantric power, later he introduced him as an emanation of Manjushri. According to Lama Pabongkha's view Drakpa Gyeltsen was an incarnation of Dorje Shugden but his death is not the cause of Dorje Shugden. He established a line of arguments argueing that Shugden has a very close connection to practitioners of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition and is now their powerful protector and able to bestowing blessings and create appropriate conditions for Dharma realisations to flourish. To do this he established the idea that the original three protectors of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition (Kalarupa, who was bound by Tsongkhapa himself, Vaisravana and Mahakala) have gone to their pure lands and have no power anymore because the Karma of the Gelug adepts has changed and they should now follow Shugden.

Dreyfus wrote in his research:

"Pabongkha suggests that he is the protector of the Gelug tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tsongkhapa himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shugden'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 Tushita having entrusted the protection of the Gelug tradition to Shugden. Thus, Shugden has become the main Gelug protector."

"Though Pabongkha 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. Pabongkha was also well served by his disciples, particularly the very gifted and versatile Trijang Rinpoche (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 Gelug monasteries around Lhasa. Another influential disciple was Tob-den La-ma (rtogs ldan bla ma), a stridently Gelug lama very active in disseminating Pabongkha's teachings in Khams. Because of his own charisma and the qualities and influence of his disciples, Pabongkha had an enormous influence on the Gelug tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Gelug tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shugden as the protector, and Pabongkha as the guru."

"Where Pabongkha was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Gelug tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Tsongkhapa's teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pabongkha's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dorje Shugden as the central protector of the Gelug tradition. Whereas previously Shugden seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Gelug tradition, Pabongkha 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 Gelug tradition that is central to the "Shugden Affair."

The conflict and refutations cannot be understood fully without seeing the complex historical, religious, social, scientific, and cultural background and the struggle of the reformers, conservatives, and traditionalists in Tibet. The practice of Shugden involves family relations too. For instance one Shugden oracle (Kuten lama) is the uncle of Kelsang Gyatso the founder of New Kadampa Tradition. On the other hand Tibet was quite isolated, and there was not much modern scientific outlook. Even at the time when the Chinese took over Tibet, Buddhist teachers in Tibet taught (and this was also taught to HH the Dalai Lama) that the earth was flat, that the moon shone from itself and was the same distance from the Earth as the sun is, and the texts on the "history" of Tibet told about building a thousand stupas in one day, and the like.

The dispute itself

Since its inception, the practice has been disputed within all four Tibetan Buddhist Schools. There has been a dispute in the Gelug tradition as to whether he is a Buddha or a Demon; also, most masters from the other Tibetan Buddhist schools (Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya) see Shugden (Dhogyal) as a Demon. Pabongkha Rinpoche was himself contradictory on Shugden. In his first commentaries on the practice, he dealt with him as worldly (unenlightened) Dharmapalas are dealt with: the disciple has to control him by his Tantric Power and give him orders. Later Shugden was considered to be a manifestation of the enlightened Buddha Manjushri.

The dispute can be summarized as follows:

• Today his adherents say Shugden is an enlightened being similar to many others of the Mahayana tradition — a Dharmapala, an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri.

• His detractors say Shugden is not an enlightened being. Some say he is a "worldly" protector spirit, but many others see him as a demon and thus an inappropriate object of Buddhist worship.

Driving this dispute is the inherent nature of Dorje Shugden, which is to "protect" the Gelug lineage from adulteration by the traditions of other lineages, especially the Nyingmapa. His practice includes a promise not even to touch a Nyingma scripture, and several pro-Shugden lamas have said Shugden will kill those who violate this vow. "Conservative" Gelugpas may find such language congenial to their views, while "liberals" are more likely to stress the arbitrary nature of such sectarian divisions. The dispute appears mainly theological; however the extent to which theology dovetails with more secular interests of particular monasteries, families, and other power-holders should not be overlooked.

Though the roots of the Dorje Shugden controversy are more than 360 years old, the issue surfaced within the Tibetan exile community during the 1970s. After Zemey Rinpoche published the Yellow Book, which included stories passed by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, members of the Gelugpa sect who also practiced Gelug and Nyingma teachings and were killed by Shugden. After publication of the Yellow Book, the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion in several closed teachings that the practice should be stopped, although he made no general public statement. Finally, in 1995, he felt the necessity to make his opinion of the practice public and did so during open teachings, during which he made it clear that to practice Dorje Shugden was to oppose the Tibetan cause and harm his life, effectively obliging institutions, including monasteries, to abandon the practice or make the practice secret and personal. He further requested that anyone pursuing this practice should no longer attend his Teachings, stressing that it would go against the close bond between student and teacher if the student were to do practices harmful to their teacher. Some lamas such as Gonsar Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso protested against this because they felt an implied loss of freedom caused by The Dalai Lama's public statements. Mainly the NKT organised demonstrations and a press campaign, which attracted international media attention to the issue during the 1990s. NKT founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from Sera Monastery because of his behavior against the Dalai Lama.

There have been high Gelug Lamas like the senior tutor of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, and others who not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice. The prominent Dzogchen master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche "has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults" and started to warn his followers relating to that cult and people who follow it.

The Fourteenth Dalai Lama advised this although he has in the past received Shugden empowerments from one of his teachers, Trijang Rinpoche and practiced it. That's why he has been criticized by NKT members and some Shugden adherents (who strongly emphasize Guru obedience). They argued that he has failed to observe the vows given by one of his teachers and has "broken with his Guru" and that he has forced others to do likewise.

On the other hand the decisions of the Dalai Lama can be seen in accordance with the advice of the Buddha in the Kalama Sutra only to accept what is reasonable, well checked, and accords with the Dharma and not just because tradition or teachers taught it. His actions can also been seen as being in accordance with the commentaries on Guru devotion by Tsongkhapa, the Kalachakra Tantra and the Vinaya. Especially the Kalachakra Tantra has a passage which is related to such topics.

After Kay had introduced and investigated both views on Shugden he summarized the two positions: "Scholarly discussions of the various legends behind the emergence of the Dorje Shugden cult can be found in Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1956), Chime Radha Rinpoche (1981), and Mumford (1989). All of these accounts narrate the latter of the two positions, in which the deity is defined as a worldly protector. The fact that these scholars reveal no awareness of an alternative view suggests that the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance."

The political dimension

According to Kay, “whilst the conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment have often resented the inclusive and impartial policies of the Dalai Lamas towards revival Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Dalai Lama has in turn rejected exclusivism on the grounds of that encourages sectarian disunity and thereby harms the interests of the Tibetan state.” Thus the Dalai Lamas have spoken out against what he saw as spiritually harmful as well as nationally damaging. Especially during Tibet’s present political circumstance the present Dalai Lama felt the urge to speak against Dorje Shugden practice. In sum the Dalai Lama’s main criticisms of Shugden practice is that the "practice fosters religious intolerance and harms the Tibetan cause and unity".

There are different political interpretations of that conflict.

In the context of the Tibetan history Kay states: "The political policies of the Dalai Lamas have also been informed by this inclusive orientation. It can be discerned, for example, in the Great Fifth's (1617-82) leniency and tolerance towards opposing factions and traditions following the establishment of Gelug hegemony over Tibet in 1642; in the Great Thirteenth's (1876-1933) modernist-leaning reforms, which attempted to turn Tibet into a modern state through the assimilation of foreign ideas and institutions (such as an efficient standing army and Western-style education); and in the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's promotion of egalitarian principles and attempts to 'Maintain good relations among the various traditions of Tibetan religion in exile' (Samuel 1993: 550). This inclusive approach has, however, repeatedly met opposition from others within the Gelug tradition whose orientation has been more exclusive. The tolerant and eclectic bent of the Fifth Dalai Lama, for example, was strongly opposed by the more conservative segment of the Gelug tradition. These 'fanatic and vociferous Gelug churchmen' (Smith 1970: 16) were outraged by the support he gave to Nyingma monasteries, and their 'bigoted conviction of the truth of their own faith' (Smith 1970: 21) led them to suppress the treatises composed by more inclusively orientated Gelug lamas who betrayed Nyingma, or other non-Gelug, influences. Similary, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama's political reforms were thwarted by the conservative element of the monastic segment which feared that modernisation and change would erode its economic base and the religious basis of the state. His spiritually inclusive approach was also rejected by contemporaries such as Pabongkha Rinpoche (1878-1943)...As with his predecessors, the current Dalai Lama's open and ecumenical approach to religious practice and his policy of representing the interests of all Tibetans equally, irrespective of their particular traditional affiliation, has been opposed by disgruntled Geiug adherents of a more exclusive orientation. This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through a dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden."”

Another view more looking to the present situation is: “it has been suggested that the Dalai Lama, in rejecting Dorje Shugden, is speaking out against a particular quasi-political factions within the Gelug tradition-in-exile who are opposed to his modern, ecumenical and democratic political vision, and who believe that the Tibetan government” “should champion a fundamentalist version of Tibetan Buddhism as a state religion in which the dogmas of the Nyingmapa, Kagyupa, and Sakyapa schools are heterodox and discredited.” According to this interpretation, Dorje Shugden has become a political symbol for this “religious fundamentalist party”. From this point of view, the rejection of Dorje Shugden should be interpreted "not as an attempt to stamp out a religious practice he disagrees with, but as a political statement". According to Sparham: "He has to say he opposes a religious practice in order to say clearly that he wants to guarantee to all Tibetans an equal right to religious freedom and political equality in a future Tibet."

Dreyfus argues that although the political dimension forms an important part of that dispute it does not provide an adequate explanation for it. He traces back the conflict more on the exclusive/inclusive approach and maintains that to understand the Dalai Lamas point of view one has to consider the complex ritual basis for the institution of the Dalai Lamas, which was developed by the Great Fifth and rests upon "an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nyingma tradition combine with an overall Gelug orientation" This involves the promotion and practices of the Nyingma school. The 5th Dalai Lama was criticized by and has been treated in a hostile manner by conservative elements of the Gelug monastic establishment for doing this and for supporting Nyingma practitioners. The same happened when the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava, central to the Nyingmas, and when he introduced Nyingma rituals at his personal Namgyal Monastery (Dharmasala, India). Whilst the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava for the purpose of unifying the Tibetans and "to protect Tibetans from danger", the "more exclusively orientated segments of the Gelug boycotted the ceremonies", and in that context the sectarian Yellow Book was published.

Other analysts argue the opposite view, that it is the Tibetan Government in Exile which seeks to create a homegenity of belief. Wilson argues that the TGIE is a theocracy which he identifies by the following features, "religious freedom is restricted because state power is marshaled in favour of a particular set of religious beliefs (and, by extension, against others), the intention being to eradicate alternative beliefs and pursue national homogeneity of belief.".

According to Wilson the pursuit of religious homogeneity have been illustrated during "The last thirty years" which have "witnessed the growing ascendancy, both in exile and within Tibet, of the Dalai Lama as either the direct root–guru of all those firmly interested in Tibetan independence (often through the numerous mass Kalachakra empowerments he has given since 1959) or, more commonly, the indirect apex of an increasingly unified pyramid of lamaic (guru-disciple) relationships, many of which transcend the sectarian divides which became entrenched within Tibetan Buddhism during the centuries following the 5th Dalai Lama’s establishment of centralized Gelugkpa rule in Central Tibet." In this context, by criticising the practice of Shugden, the TGIE is asserting "the functional role of religion within the constitution for a sacral political life centered on the Dalai Lama and held together primarily by acts of ritualized loyalty." or as Helmut Gassner (Swiss), a former interpreter of the Dalai Lama and a Shugden follower, argues "...for most Tibetans nothing is more important than the Dalai Lama's life; so if one is labelled an enemy of the Dalai Lama, one is branded as a traitor and therewith 'free-for-all' or an outlaw."

Wilson argues that "the Dalai Lama’s request that Shugden worshippers not receive the tantric initiations — the foundation of the ‘root-guru’ relationship — from him, effectively placed them outside the fold of the exiled Tibetan polity." He establishes this view by arguing that the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) is a theocracy and that the Dalai Lama's statements in Spring 1996 "during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was an “evil spirit” whose actions were detrimental to the “cause of Tibet”" reflect the Dalai Lama's decision to "move more forcefully" in response "to growing pressure – particularly from the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project".

Jane Ardley writes, concerning the political dimension of the Shugden controversy. "…the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this."

Ardley references the following directive published by the Tibetan Government in Exile to illustrate the "interwoven" nature of the politics and religion:

"In sum, the departments, their branches and subsidiaries, monasteries and their branches that are functioning under the administrative control of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile should be strictly instructed, in accordance with the rules and regulations, not to indulge in the propitiation of Shugden. We would like to clarify that 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."'

In his concluding remarks, Wilson observes that "…the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of differing understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of state life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated line between theocratic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as category." In particular he sees the main failing of the Shugden Supporters Campaign as arising from their erroneous assertion of "the separation of religion and state as the basis for the understanding of religious freedom and denied any legitimate functioning role to Buddhism within the constitution of that state."

Whereas Kay states "The Dalai Lama opposes the Yellow Book and Dorje Shugden propitiation because they defy his attempts to restore the ritual foundations of the Tibetan state and because they disrupt the basis of his leadership, designating him as an “enemy of Buddhism” and potential target of the deities retribution."

Another point of the political dimension is the involvement of the Chinese, interested to use this conflict to undermine the unity of the Tibetans and their faith towards the Dalai Lama. So for example when the official Xinhua news agency said 17 Tibetans destroyed a pair of statues at Lhasa's Ganden Monastery on 14 March 2006 depicting the deity Dorje Shugden, the mayor of Lhasa blamed the destruction on followers of the Dalai Lama. On the other side, according to BBC, analysts accused China of exploiting any dispute for political ends. According to BBC "...some analysts have accused China of exploiting the apparent unrest for political gain in an effort to discredit the Dalai Lama. Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority. 'There is a fault line in Tibetan Buddhism and its traditions itself, but it is also exploited for political purposes'..."

Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

Historically the Gelug tradition, founded by Je Tsongkhapa, has never been a completely unified order. Internal conflicts and divisions are a part of it and are based on philosophical, political, regional, economic, and institutional interests. In the 17th century the Gelug order became politically dominant in central Tibet. This was through the institutions of the Dalai Lamas. Although he is not the head of the Gelug school — the head is the Ganden Tripa, the abbot of Ganden Monastery — the Dalai Lama is the highest incarnate Lama of the Gelug school, comparable to the position of the Karmapa in the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Because of his responsibility as the political and religious leader of the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama's duty is to balance the different interests and be sensitive towards the different traditions and relationships. "It is necessary also to reflect on what the development of such a sectarian cult has meant and continues to mean for the Dalai Lama and for all the Tibetans in exile (and also for the Tibetans in occupied Tibet, for whom the repercussions of this matter are many and of more than secondary import)." There were power struggles from the 14th century onwards "competing for political influence and economical support" and a tendency of a strong sectarian interpretation of the Buddha's doctrine. This sectarian attitude was encountered in the open approach of the Dalai Lamas, especially the 5th, 13th and 14th, and through the development of the Rimé movement at the end of the 19th century, which Gelug lamas also followed.

The founder of the Gelug school, Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419), had an open, ecumenical and eclectic approach. He used to go to all the great lamas of his time from all the different Buddhist schools and received Buddhist teachings from them. But his first successor, Khedrubje (mKhas grub rje) (1385-1483) became "quite active in enforcing a stricter orthodoxy, chasting... disciples for not upholding Tsongkhapa's pure tradition".

According to David N. Kay

"from this time, as is the case with most religious traditions, there have been those within the Gelug who have interpreted their tradition 'inclusively', believing that their Gelug affiliation should in no way exclude the influence of other schools which constitute additional resources along the path of enlightenment. Others have adopted a more 'exclusive' approach, considering that their Gelug identity should preclude the pursuit of other paths and that the 'purity' of the Gelug tradition must be defended and preserved.

In the past the different approaches of Pabongka Rinpoche (1878-1943) ('exclusive' religious and political approach) and the 13th Dalai Lama (1876-1933) ('inclusive' religious and political approach) were quite contrary. Especially at that time, the conservative Gelugpas feared the modernisation and the reforms of the 13th Dalai Lama and tried to undermine them. As a sign of that modernisation from within the Tibetan society, the Rime movement won strong influence, especially in Kham (Khams, Eastern Tibet),

"...and in response to the Rimé movement (ris med) that had originated and was flowering in that region, Pabongkha Rinpoche (a Gelug agent of the Tibetan government) and his disciples employed repressive measures against non-Gelug sects. Religious artefacts associated with Padmasambhava — who is revered as a 'second Buddha' by Nyingma practitioners — were destroyed, and non-Gelug, and particularly Nyingma, monasteries were forcibly converted to the Gelug position. A key element of Pabongkha Rinpoche's outlook was the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden, which he married to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies."

According to Samuel Pabongka Rinpoche, who was a "strict purist and conservative", "adopted an attitude of sectarian intolerance" and "instituted a campaign to convert non-Gelug gompa (monasteries) in Kham to the Gelugpa school, by force where necessary." Pabongkha Rinpoche and his disciples prompted the growing influence of the Rimé movement by propagating the supremacy of the Gelug school as the only pure tradition. He based his approach on a 'unique understanding' of the Shunyata view in the Gelug tradition.

Although Trijang Rinpoche (1900-1981), one of Pabongkha Rinpoche's famous disciples, had a more moderate view on other traditions than Pabongkha, nevertheless "he continued to regard the deity (Dorje Shugden) as a severe and violent punisher of inclusively orientated Gelug practitioners." Trijang Rinpoche, as the Junior Tutor of HH the Dalai Lama introduced the Dorje Shugden practice to His Holiness in 1959. Some years later the 14th Dalai Lama recognized that this practice is in conflict with the state protector Pehar and with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and the Tibetan people, Palden Lhamo (dPal ldan lha mo), and that this practice is also in conflict with his own open and ecumenical (Rimé) approach and religious and political responsibilities. After the publication of Zemey Rinpoche's sectarian text The Yellow Book on Shugden, he spoke publicly against Dorje Shugden practice and distanced himself from it.

The conflict in the west

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition

These ideological, political and religious views on an exclusive/inclusive approach or belief were brought to the west and were at large expressed in the west by the conflicts (1979-1984) between Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who developed at Manjushri Institute an ever increasing 'exclusive' approach, and Lama Yeshe, who had a more 'inclusive' approach and had invited Geshe Kelsang in 1976 to England at his FPMT centre and later lost this centre, Manjushri Institute, to Geshe Kelsang and his followers.

However, these conflicts didn't appear to the public. But the issue about the nature of Dorje Shugden became visible to the broader public by the NKT media-campaign (1996-1998) on Dorje Shugden against the 14th Dalai Lama, after the Dalai Lama has rejected and spoken out against this practice. He has described Shugden as an evil and malevolent force, and argued that other Lamas before him had also placed restrictions on worship of this spirit. Geshe Kelsang teaches that the deity Dorje Shugden is the Dharma protector for the New Kadampa Tradition and is a manifestation of the Buddha and commented that this practice was taught him and the Dalai Lama by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, that's why, he concludes, they can not give it up, otherwise they would break their Guru's pledges.

In 1996 Geshe Kelsang and his disciples started to denounce the Dalai Lama in public of being a "ruthless dictator" and "oppressor of religious freedom", they organized demonstrations against the Dalai Lama in the UK (later also in the USA, Swiss and Germany) with slogans like "Your smiles charm Your actions harm". Geshe Kelsang and the NKT accused the Dalai Lama of impinging on their religious freedom and of intolerance, and further they accused the Dalai Lama "of selling out Tibet by promoting its autonomy within China rather than outright independence, of expelling their followers from jobs in Tibetan establishments in India, and of denying them humanitarian aid pouring in from Western countries." Newspapers like The Guardian (Britain), The Independent (Britain), The Washington Post (USA), The New York Times (USA), Die TAZ (Germany) as well as other newspapers in different countries picked up the hot topic and published articles, reported about the conflict and especially the Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) and NKT. Besides these and CNN also the BBC and Swiss TV reported in detail about these conflicts. The Guardian: "A group calling itself the Shugden Supporters Community - the majority of whose members are also NKT - has mounted a high-profile international campaign, claiming the Dalai Lama's warnings against Dorje Shugden amount to a ban which denies religious freedom to the Tibetan refugee settlements of India. And NKT members have been handed draft letters to send to the Home Secretary asking for the Dalai Lama's visa for the UK to be cancelled, arguing that he violates the very human rights - of religious tolerance and non-violence - which he has spent his life promoting." According to the Independent: "The view from inside the Shugden Supporters Community was almost a photographic negative of everything the outside world believes about Tibet and the Dalai Lama." Regarding the facts SSC (NKT) spread, the Independent said: "It was a powerful indictment, flawed only by the fact that almost everything I was told in the Lister house was untrue." In support of the NKT, the SSC published a directory of supporters ("Dorje Shugden Supporter List"), which included monasteries in India and other non-NKT Western-based centers, associated with known Tibetan Buddhist teachers. This list was part of the second press pack, released on 10 July 1996. The listing of western-based groups and their Buddhist teachers may have been misleading as well. Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance did not express his support for the campaign and was shocked to hear that he had been listed as a supporter. Also Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche was put on the list without he had been asked for and even after he had complained to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso individually, his name and his organisation's name weren't remove from the list. According to a German Buddhist Magazine there were a number of names of Tibetan teachers and their organisation on the list who never gave their support or even were asked for it.

As a result of the aggressive campaign the NKT was faced with hostile press articles. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. commented: "The demonstrations made front-page news in the British press, which collectively rose to the Dalai Lama’s defense and in various reports depicted the New Kadampa Tradition as a fanatic, empire-building, demon-worshipping cult. The demonstrations were a public relations disaster for the NKT, not only because of its treatment by the press, but also because the media provided no historical context for the controversy and portrayed Shugden as a remnant of Tibet’s primitive pre-Buddhist past."

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his followers are convinced that the actions of the Dalai Lama in that dispute are solely politically motivated. In November 2002 he wrote in an open letter to The Washington Times: "in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT." However, according to the The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, in September 2002 NKT members held a news conference at which they said: "The Dalai Lama and his soldiers in Dharamsala are creating terror in Tibetan society by harassing and persecuting people like us. We cannot take it lying down for long."

A main feature of the exclusive approach among Shugden devotees is a total reliance on one Guru and his tradition, which was fortified by Panbogkha Rinpoche by the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) practice on Shugden. Although "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: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru." The imperative of total reliance on one Guru was enhanced once more by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west - although the Life Entrusting (srog gtad) ceremony is not given by him. According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must "be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once" and "Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely relying upon one Teacher, practicing only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector." According to Kay: "Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this."

In 2006 Geshe Kelsang claimed in public, during the annually NKT summer festival, that:

Dorje Shugdän is a Dharma Protector who is a manifestation of Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa appears as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugdän to prevent his doctrine from degenerating.

Je Tsongkhapa himself takes responsibility for preventing his doctrine from degenerating or from disappearing...To do this, since he passed away he continually appears in many different aspects, such as in the aspect of a Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage. Previously, for example, he appeared as the Mahasiddha Dharmavajra and Gyälwa Ensapa; and more recently as Je Phabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He appeared in the aspect of these Teachers.

Other Tibetan Lamas

There are other Tibetan Gelug-Lamas in the west who follow the Dorje Shugden practice like Gonsar Rinpoche (Swiss), Dagom Rinpoche (Nepal/USA), Panglung Rinpoche (Germany), Gyalzar Rinpoche (Swiss), Kundeling Rinpoche (India/Netherlands), and Lama Gangchen Rinpoche (Italy), all of them with their own approach and attitude but more moderate than Geshe Kelsang and NKT. Except Kundeling Rinpoche who is not official recognized by the Dalai Lama as a Tulku, the other Lamas do still respect the 14th Dalai Lama but cannot accept his reasoning. A main argument of Dagom Rinpoche and Gonsar Rinpoche is they do not really understand the Dalai Lama advising against the practice. Gonsar Rinpoche said, "I have spent many years in exile and have a great reverence for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, but now he is abusing our freedom by banning Shugden. It makes me very sad... We are not doing anything wrong; we are just keeping on with this practice, which we have received through great masters. I respect His Holiness very much, hoping he may change his opinion... I cannot accept this ban on Shugden. If I accept this, then I accept that all of my masters, wise great masters, are wrong. If I accept that they are demon worshippers, then the teachings are wrong, everything we believe in is wrong. That is not possible." Geshe Kelsang also argued in the same way when he said: "If the practice of Dorje Shugden is bad, then definitely we have to say that Trijang Rinpoche is bad, and that all Gelugpa lamas in the Dalai Lama’s own lineage would be bad." From their point of view and for many of the Shugden followers it is a painful dilemma. But it has to be stated that although Pabongkha Rinpoche "married the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies", lamas like Lama Gangchen Rinpoche and Lama Yeshe (who in the past also practiced Dorje Shugden) nevertheless follow an inclusive approach. It has to be further stated that an exclusive approach does not necessarily include the idea of having a sectarian view.

Kay states: "Examples of such lamas, who have taught in the West, include Geshe Rabten, Gonsar Rinpoche, Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, Lama Thubten Yeshe, Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Geshe Thubten Loden, Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, Lama Gangchen and Geshe Lhundup Sopa. It should be remembered that their association with this particular lineage-tradition does not necessarily mean that they are exclusive in orientation or devotees of Dorje Shugden. Some lamas, like Geshe Kelsang and the late Geshe Rabten, have combined these elements, whereas others, like Lamas Yeshe and Zopa Rinpoche and Lama Gangchen, came into exile with a commitment to the protector practice but not to its associated exclusivism." Lama Gangchen Rinpoche for instance, a Gelug Tulku and close disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, had been called even, metaphorically, the "motherland of syncretism".

Obedience towards the Guru

Because a main argument in the conflict at the site of the Shugden followers is that their Gurus (Lamas) (e.g. Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche) revealed the Shugden practice and gave obligations on it, one has to follow it, whereas the Shugden opponents in Gelug school cite Buddha in the Kalama Sutra and Je Tsongkhapa, the Gelug founder, who said one should not follow "if it is an improper and irreligious command", which is based on the Vinaya Sutra: "If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it." and refer on the sectarian nature of the Shugden practice which is seen by them as a contradiction to Buddhist ethics, one can also sum up the conflict as the religious scientist Michael von Brück (University of Munich) has done:

"We can conclude that the present controversy reveals the contradiction between the imperative of critically establishing the validity of (one's own) opinions and the obedience towards the Lama (Guru)"

Summary

By these examinations, it becomes clear that the religious and political conflict around Dorje Shugden is mainly based on a polarisation of an exclusive/inclusive approach. According to Kay: "This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through the dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden." The exclusive/inclusive approach can be traced back to Tsongkhapa's and Khedrub Jey's different approaches and the frictions deriving from these two different approaches are a part of the Gelug history, transferred to the west and are related strongly to personal, philosophical, political, regional and institutional views, interests and struggles.

Arguments for and against

Arguments by opponents of Shugden

The Dalai Lama has said that:

(1) Shugden is a worldly spirit.

(2) Shugden practice has the potential to promote sectarianism.

(3) Shugden practice harms the health of the Dalai Lama and is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan people.

(4) The Nechung State Oracle (bound by Padmasambhava) stated that it is harmful.

(5) Tibetan people using divination have received bad omens to the effect that Shugden is harming them.

(6) The Fifth Dalai Lama said: He will talk over and over again and not stop to say: Shugden is a negative force. And the Fourteenth Dalai Lama said that he sees himself in the footsteps of the Thirteenth and Fifth Dalai Lamas.

None of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism today accepts Shugden as a Dharmapala, citing his origin and activities against other schools. Masters from the other Tibetan Buddhist schools (Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya) agree with the view of the 14th Dalai Lama that Shugden (Dhogyal) is a worldly spirit with demonic power. Shugden was not mentioned by the Buddha, Atisha, or Tsongkhapa, or any Indian Tantric yogi or Indian pandit who developed the basis for Tibetan Buddhism. Shugden was not accepted as an official part of the Gelug school by the Ganden Tripa, the head of the Gelug school. Because the worship of Shugden has led to conflicts within the Tibetan Buddhist community (for instance, it is said that disciples of Lama Pabongkha destroyed Nyingma monasteries and statues of Padmasambhava and converted these monasteries into Gelug monasteries – and not only Nyingmapas had many difficulties with that spirit, also Kagyu practitioners made cleaning rituals after they visited Gelug monasteries), the 14th Dalai Lama used his status as the spiritual and political head of the Tibetan people to speak out about the practice. Then he asked Shugden followers not to come to his teachings, because there is no basis for a faithful teacher-disciple relationship if they don't believe him. He also advised Gelug monasteries to stop the practice and to promote harmony within the Tibetan Buddhist community. In Tibetan Buddhism everyone is free not to follow the Dalai Lama's advice, so he asked that people do the practice in private if they cannot give it up. There are now members of the Gelug school (for instance in Sera Monastery, India) who follow his advice, and some who do not.

One member of the Tibetan Government in Exile (Kashag) suggested that practitioners of Dolgyal should not be allowed to hold public office within the Tibetan Government in Exile, but this was not taken up.

The 14th Dalai Lama was given that practice by one of his teachers without respecting what the 13th Dalai Lama and 5th Dalai Lama had to say about it. Because the practice of Dolgyal is sectarian and propagates a special Gelugpa exclusiveness which does not fit to the views, behavior, and tasks of a Dalai Lama and his function as the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, he told his teachers about his conflict and they agreed that he stop the practice.

The Dalai Lama doesn't deny anyone's freedom to practice Shugden worship, but he insists on his right to ask those accepting Vajrayana teachings and empowerments from him to abstain from such practices. In addition, he sees discussion of the problem of "sectarianism" within the Tibetan community as his responsibility in his capacity as the spiritual and political leader of Tibet.

Arguments by followers of Shugden

Shugden supporters responded point-by-point as follows:

(1) The statement that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit is unsubstantiated and contradicts the view of many spiritual masters of the Gelug tradition who hold him to be a manifestation of the Wisdom Buddha.

(2) Furthermore, the essential Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the emptiness of persons requires that one should not attribute inherently existent qualities to any being. Thus, Shugden like any other being has the qualities that one's own mind sees in him.

(3) Prior to instigating this ban, there was no history of disharmony between practitioners of Dorje Shugden and other traditions – it is the ban itself that is a manifestation of sectarianism.

(4) There is no evidence to support the claims that the Dalai Lama's health and the interests of the Tibetan people have been affected.

(5) Divination is not a reliable means of deciding such issues. Furthermore, evidence from oracles is not admissible either.

(6) The Dalai Lama might claim that his teachers agreed to him stopping the practice, but in reality they had no choice but to accept, as to go against the Dalai Lama results in grave consequences. It is said that Trijang Rinpoche in particular was 'very disappointed' that the Dalai Lama abandoned his practice of Dorje Shugden.

Pro-Dorje Shugden Gelug teachers have asked the Dalai Lama to present valid reasons supporting these claims and, in the absence of any response, have continued to engage in the practice.

Shugden supporters accuse the Dalai Lama of "banning" them, with the following specifics:

(1) Such practitioners are discouraged from attending teachings by the Dalai Lama.

(2) Practitioners of Dorje Shugden are not allowed to hold public office within the Tibetan Government in Exile.

(3) Many monasteries and individuals publicly engaging in the practice have been pressed to stop.

(4) The official ban on this practice has sparked debate within the Tibetan community and widespread public pressure upon those maintaining the practice.

Shugden-followers claim there is documentary evidence to support this. The Tibetan Government in Exile reject the claims (2)-(4).

Statement by the Ganden Tri Rinpoche (Head of the Gelug School)

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 Dharmapala? Does this fulfill 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, fulfill the wishes of our great masters?

The Mahayana teachings advocate an 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].

Amnesty International

The Shugden followers tried to obtain a statement from Amnesty International (AI) that the Tibetan Government in Exile (specifically the 14th Dalai Lama) had violated human rights. However, AI replied in an official press release:

None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within AI'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.

This neither asserts nor denies the validity of the allegations against the CTA (Central Tibetan Administration), nor finds either side culpable. Amnesty International regards "spiritual issues" and state affairs as separate, whilst seeing the command-based nation-state as the fundamental framework for understanding the category of "actionable human rights abuses". Fundamental to this were linked criteria of state accountability and the exercise of state force, neither of which could clearly be identified within the CTA context.

See also

• Dharmapala
• Gyalpo Sum
• Cult
• Religious discrimination
• Anti-cult movement
• Opposition to cults and new religious movements

External links

Common links on Dorje Shugden

• The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy by Georges Dreyfus, Associate Professor of Religion at Williams College
• Schisms, murder, and hungry ghosts in Shangra-La: internal conflicts in Tibetan Buddhist sect by Mike Wilson
• Official statement of Amnesty International (AI)
• It's Dalai Lama vs Shugden - Leave It to Tibetans by Deepak Thapa
• Why the Dalai Lama Rejects Shugden by Gareth Sparham
• The Battle of Buddhists by Andrew Brown in The Independent, London
• A Critical Newsweek Article and two open letters from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso from the CESNUR homepage
• Letting Daylight into Magic by Stephen Batchelor, from Tricycle
• Lama Zopa's Advice Book Concerning Dorje Shugden
• Two Articles presenting both views (see left and right of page)

Supporters of Dorje Shugden

• The Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden at the New Kadampa Tradition's site
• The nature and function of Dorje Shugden explained by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, NKT-Summer-Festival Videos 2006
• Autobiography of Kuten Lama a Dorje Shugden Oracle
• Interview with Lobsang Yeshe (Kundeling Rinpoche) - described as a self-proclaimed Lama [15], [16]
• www.dorjeshugden.com - An anonymous website devoted to the propagation of Dorje Shugden
• Speech by a previous interpreter to the Dalai Lama, Helmut Gassner, Swiss (Source from an anonymous website)

Dorje Shugden critics

• Articles and Speeches by the Dalai Lama Detailed History of the Shugden Affair (Including a Documentary Film)
• Statement of His Eminence the Ganden Tri Rinpoche the Head of the Gelugpa
• Collection of statements by the Tibetan Government in Exile