Is the Dalai Lama’s Ban on Dorje Shugden Politically Motivated?

According to my understanding the Dalai Lama’s main wish is to integrate the four Tibetan traditions into one. The leaders of the other traditions will gradually disappear, leaving him alone as head of Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he will be able to control all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. In the beginning this plan was rejected by the leaders of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, while the Gelugpa remained neutral.

Later, the Dalai Lama changed his approach. He is now trying to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and change the Gelug tradition, while at the same time developing a close relationship with the other traditions, especially the Nyingmapa. Gradually he hopes to fulfil his wishes in this way.

Therefore this present situation has developed because many people did not accept the Dalai Lama’s decision to ban the practice of Dorje Shugden. I believe that right now the Gelugpas are experiencing difficulties, but that sooner or later it will be the turn of the other traditions. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, talk.religion.buddhism, 19 December 1997)

We should not think Geshe-la is simply making things up. His remarks refer to the unsuccessful United Party (1964-1973) headed by the Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup. This political campaign took steps to unite the four Buddhist traditions in Tibet (along with the animistic Bön religion) into one, with the Dalai Lama as its spiritual head. Their plan was ultimately rejected by the spiritual leaders of each tradition.

The Dalai Lama and his ministers had just lost their country. In exile, they wanted to create a unified Tibetan community. To achieve this new unity, exile leaders in their new headquarters in the Indian hill-town of Dharamsala began making plans to extend their control over the five religious schools of Tibet… When word of the United Party’s religious reform got out in 1964, the exiled government was unprepared for the angry opposition that leaders of the religious schools expressed. To them, this unification plan appeared as a thinly disguised scheme for the exile government to confiscate the monasteries that dozens of lamas had begun to re-establish in exile with funds they had raised themselves. (Erik Curren, Buddha’s Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today, © 2006)

Yet, the sentiments of the United Party still exist today. Another brother of the Dalai Lama, Thubten Jigme Norbue, has publically stated, “I think His Holiness should be limiting [Dorje Shugden worship], because he is the leader of the Tibetan people. And all these different sects, you know, Nyingmapa, Gelugpa, Sakyapa, Kagyupa—he has authority over all of these because he’s the leader of the country, the leader of the people” (An Interview With Thubten Jigme Norbu, Tricycle: the Buddhist Review, No. 27, Spring 1998, p. 80). It is no wonder, then, that the majority of people in the West so readily assume that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet, like a kind of Buddhist Pope. Yet, each tradition within Tibetan Buddhism already has its own spiritual head; however, things have begun to change in recent generations: “Since the death of Tsongkhapa in 1419, the Ganden Tripa or ‘throneholder of Ganden (monastery),’ has been the official head of the Gelukgpa sect. Traditionally, this was an elected position. The current Ganden Tripa was appointed by the Dalai Lama” (Donald S. Lopez, Jr., ibid, p. 73).

The following are a number of direct quotes, which show the Dalai Lama’s intention to combine all the different Buddhist traditions of Tibet into one practice: a single, monolithic “Tibetan Buddhism” that will unify his people and give them moral ground in their struggle against China.

• As for our own study and practice of Buddhism, depending on the direct of our interests and our capacity, we should try to study as widely as possible, and with sincere respect, as many of its traditions as we can. This helps us broaden and deepen our understanding and practice of whatever is our main tradition… Thus we must try to have a very broad and open attitude, and, based on respect and interest, study and practice as widely as we can the various traditions of Buddhism. (Dalai Lama, The Gelug/Kagyü Tradition of Mahamudra, p. 261)
• It is well known that my whole approach is non-sectarian and in the Tibetan tradition I am particularly trying to promote simultaneously the practices of Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu and Gelug. One person can embrace all the teachings. However, in following Dorje Shugden there is a tendency towards sectarianism which does not work well with my non-sectarian approach. (Dalai Lama, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Address to the Buddhist Society, The Middle Way, 16 June 1996, p. 246.)
• People usually say that in general Gelugpas are not allowed to become Nyingmas and, in particular, once people start propitiating Dolgyal [a derogatory name for Dorje Shugden], if they engage in Nyingma practices, Dolgyal will destroy them. So, when they say this, they are taking exactly the opposite line to what I say—“We should try to practice all the four traditions in a complete form within one single physical basis”. This attitude poses an obstacle to my efforts to try to introduce this good example. Therefore, I have had to put a stop to it. (Dalai Lama, Concerning Dolgyal with Reference to the Views of Past Masters and Other Related Matters, October 1997)
• In the West, where so many different Buddhist traditions exist side by side, one needs to be constantly on one’s guard against the danger of sectarianism. Such a divisive attitude is often the result of failing to understand or appreciate anything outside one’s own tradition. Teachers from all schools would therefore benefit greatly from studying and gaining some practical experience of the teachings of other traditions. (Excerpt from an open letter circulated by The Network for Western Buddhist Teachers, after a meeting between the Dalai Lama and a group of twenty-two Western Dharma Teachers, March 1993)

Based on a superficial reading of the above quotes, the Dalai Lama will always win the public relations war: it is made out to be simply a good vs. evil struggle between non-sectarianism and sectarianism. However, as noted elsewhere, to achieve non-sectarian harmony, this eclectic approach is totally unnecessary and impractical. When interviewed by Dr. Ursula Bernis, the Dalai Lama said, “non-sectarian [among the Tibetan Buddhist traditions Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug] means not only to respect but to practice [them] simultaneously” (Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis, p. 88, emphasis mine, bracketed words hers). A careful reading of both this and the above quotes shows that the Dalai Lama consistently defines the non-sectarianism approach as practicing multiple traditions. But what happens if you work out the implications of what the Dalai Lama is promoting? For example, what about non-Tibetan Buddhist traditions, or is the Dalai Lama’s non-sectarian approach merely racially motivated? And then, is one to achieve non-sectarianism with non-Buddhist traditions in the same way, by including their teachings and practices into one’s own? This must be so since the same principle would apply at both the intra-faith and inter-faith levels.

The Resolution of the Tibetan Cholsum Convention, which hopes to “ensure the fulfilment of the great religio-political visions of His Holiness the Dalai Lama,” goes so far as to claim that the Dalai Lama “is the overall head of all Buddhist traditions on this earth”! This resolution instructs Tibetans how to ostracize their fellow countrymen from Tibetan society if they happen to be Dorje Shugden devotees. Its recommendations include regarding Dorje Shugden devotees (no matter whether they are Lamas, monks, or nuns) as second-class citizens, that they be ineligible for government programs or foreign aid, that their restaurants and shops be boycotted, and that their books and literature be banned.

We should remember that such fanaticism was ratified in the name of “Tibetan freedom” and the “safety” of a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate! Also, if monks do not sign an oath that they are not Dorje Shugden practitioners, they are expelled from monasteries controlled by the Tibetan government. (Is it ‘Tibetan Buddhism’ or ‘Tibetan government-controlled Buddhism’?) If, according to the Dalai Lama, it is okay to do Dorje Shugden practice “in private,” then why are monks obligated to declare it publically?

Even the Dalai Lama’s official website (dalailama.com) has the following listed in its source code as its search engine keywords (in other words, how they want people to find the site):

Official website His Holiness Dalai Lama Tibet Buddhism Dharamsala nobel peace non violence compassion, Dholgyal, Dolgyal, Dorjee Shugden, Shukden, Dorji, NKT, Geshe Kalsang Gyatso, Dorje Shugden Charitable society, Gangchen lama, Trijang rinpoche, Kundeling, Dragon lama, Dragom lama, Dorji Shukden, New Kadampa Tradition, Dorjee

The keywords highlighted in bold above indicate that the Dalai Lama’s website aims to intercept internet users who are looking up information about topics, individuals, and organizations related to the practice of Dorje Shugden. In fact, it seems a little too preoccupied with Dorje Shugden, don’t you think? Of course, one does not see ‘Free Tibet’ listed therein, because the Dalai Lama unilaterally gave that up in the late 1980s, for which Dorje Shugden is the designated scapegoat for Tibetans to direct their anger and disappointment towards.

In contrast, kadampa.org has “Kadampa Buddhism, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, NKT, Buddhist meditation,” and tharpa.com has “books on buddhism, books on meditation, how to meditate, about Buddhism, buddhist meditation practices.” Talk about a difference in priorities!