XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan, talk.politics.tibet   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism   
   From: peter.terpstra7@gmail.com   
      
   The Dorje Shugden Conflict: An Interview with Tibetologist Thierry Dodin   
      
   May 8, 2014   
      
   What is the Dorje Shugden conflict actually about?   
   This conflict arose in the 17th century and since then has played out on many   
   levels. In essence, the question is whether the four main   
   schools of Tibetan Buddhism, – Nyingmapa, Sakyapa, Kagyupa and Gelugpa –   
   are equal or whether one of them, the Gelugpa School, is   
   more “pure” and therefore outranks the others. Incidentally, the Gelugpa   
   School is the one to which the Dalai Lama belongs.   
      
   So does the Dalai Lama wish to make his own school dominant?   
   No, on the contrary! Within the Gelugpa School there are two tendencies, one   
   – for the most part Dorje Shugden supporters – that   
   maintains that this school is superior to the other schools, and another that   
   – like the Dalai Lama – represents a tolerant approach. The   
   Dalai Lama has promoted and deepened concord and cooperation with the other   
   schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The adherents of the   
   Dorje Shugden cult oppose this. They regard this as a defamation of the   
   Gelugpa School and accuse the Dalai Lama of watering down   
   the “pure doctrine.”   
      
   So is this a purely religious conflict?   
   Actually, no. Between the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism there are no   
   significant differences in terms of teachings, and most   
   definitely not within one and the same school. What is a source of problems   
   are what we call the “lineages”: within the individual   
   schools, teachings and instructions are passed down from teacher to student   
   and from one generation to the next in uninterrupted   
   succession. Sometimes very crass rivalries exist between these different lines   
   of transmission, which often function as some kind of ‘old-   
   boy’s network’. Overwhelmingly central here is ‘group identity’, the   
   feeling of belonging and togetherness. This can readily be assigned   
   to the category of politics, if only because power issues are bound up with   
   it. At stake here is for instance ownership of monasteries,   
   and/or, in old Tibet, their estates, etc. The greed for power, status and   
   wealth, the “unholy trinity,” does not spare even Buddhist   
   monastic orders – human beings are and always will be human beings.   
      
   Still, beyond this essentially political and very human trait, there is also a   
   religious dimension to consider. This is related to the primordial   
   role that the teacher-student relationship plays in Tibetan Buddhism. Loyalty   
   to one’s teacher is felt very deeply. This in turn makes it   
   very difficult for students to critically question traditions they have   
   received from their teachers – such as the Dorje Shugden cult – let   
   alone distance themselves from it.   
      
   Isn’t this in crass contradiction to the injunction of the Buddha to his   
   students to subject even his words to question over and over and   
   again?   
   Yes, clearly, there is contradiction to this cardinal point in the teachings   
   of the Buddha here. But then, human beings are not exclusively   
   rational creatures. Even if they know better, they will always find good   
   reasons to believe things that, one way or another, keep them in   
   their comfort zones. It is always easier to spirit something away through   
   belief than to question familiar notions, and thereby incur   
   pain. This applies to both religious and non-religious people.   
      
   How did the conflict arise historically?   
   In the 17th century, The Fifth Dalai Lama united Tibet politically, and in   
   doing so, for reasons of realpolitik, made use of his school, the   
   Gelugpa School, as an institutional support and primarily favoured it with   
   offices and areas of responsibility. But in religious terms he was   
   genuinely tolerant: in fact, a few of his most important teachers belonged to   
   other schools.   
      
   He therefore not only took his own Gelugpa School into consideration in the   
   creation of the Tibetan state – his great political   
   accomplishment – but also entrusted a few institutions and state rituals to   
   other schools as well. However, this gesture alarmed and   
   outraged powerful members of the Gelugpa School who professed the exclusivity   
   and superiority of their own school. They formed a   
   faction united around the cult of what is called a “protector deity”, one   
   hitherto rather unknown: Dorje Shugden. This, by the way,   
   does not necessarily mean that this faction was set up around specific   
   religious positions. Rather, it was customary in old Tibet to place   
   even decidedly secular matters under some kind of sacralised protection.   
      
   Following the death of the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1682, the cult spread rapidly   
   and broadly within the Gelugpa School, particularly among   
   those in political positions. Thus, in the course of time, followers of the   
   Shugden cult came to almost completely dominate the state   
   institutions of old Tibet. They also set the tone in exile institutions during   
   the initial years of exile in India and Nepal until well into the   
   1970’s. Essentially, the Shugden cult ascribed a religious dimension to a   
   clear separation between the Gelugpa and non-Gelugpa schools.   
   But the central endeavour was the monopolisation of power and resources in the   
   hands of a tightly-knit group; in other words, it was   
   very definitely a political matter.   
      
   What role does the current Dalai Lama play in this conflict?   
   It is due to his efforts that a more tolerant, pluralistic and democratic   
   practice emerged in the 1970’s, and gradually prevailed over the   
   conservative “old guard” – mostly Shugden followers. At about the same   
   time, the Dalai Lama began to express scepticism about this   
   cult. With time, his position here became increasingly evident. Today, Shugden   
   supporters have become politically almost completely   
   insignificant in the exile community.   
      
    The Shugden adherents accuse the Dalai Lama of having prohibited this   
   practice and therefore repressing religious freedom. Is this   
   accusation justified?   
   No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here.   
   No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is   
   repressing religious freedom. The issue here is power and influence. The Dalai   
   Lama simply advised against this cult. He is also very   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)