Bericht geantedateerd omdat het niets op mijn voorpagina heeft te zoeken, in't echt geplaatst op 07072008.
*The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy[1] 1*
By Georges Dreyfus
Williams College
Fall 1999
In recent years the community of Tibetan Buddhists has been agitated by
an intense dispute concerning the practice of a controversial deity,
Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan). Several
Tibetan monks have been brutally murdered, and the Tibetan community in
general and the Ge-luk tradition in particular have become profoundly
polarized. Outsiders have been puzzled by the intensity of this dispute,
for it concerns an unusualtype of deity, the dharma protector (chos
skyong srung ma), the concept of which is difficult to understand
within the modern view of religion as a system of individual beliefs.
Despite the importance of these events and the coverage that it has
received in both print and electronic media, modern scholars have
remained relatively silent on the subject. One reason for this is that
few scholars are willing to enter into a conflict as highly charged as
this one. Moreover, the dispute concerns a rather baroque area of the
Tibetan religious world that is neither well known nor easy for a modern
observer to conceptualize. Nevertheless, this scholarly silence is
regrettable, in that it has allowed less well-informed viewpoints to
acquire legitimacy.It has also contributed to the irrational atmosphere
that has surrounded this question.
In this essay, I will attempt to fill this scholarly gap and to promote
a more rational approach by examining the quarrel surrounding Shuk-den
and delineating some of the events leading to the present crisis.I will
examine the narrative of Shuk-den's origin, focusing on the meaning of
the hostility toward the Dalai Lama which it displays and which is
confirmed by recent events.The irony is that Shuk-den is presented by
his followers as the protector of the Ge-luk (dge lugs) school, of
which the Dalai Lama is the (de facto) leader.How can there be a
practice in the Ge-luk tradition opposed to its own leader? To answer
this question, I will examine the historical development of the Shuk-den
practice. I will first consider the events related in the Shuk-den
story.I will then turn to later historical developments, in particular
the way in which Pa-bong-ka (pha bong kha,) 1878-1941), the central
figure in the Shuk-den lineage, developed this practice in response to
contemporary events.I will also examine some of the events that took
place in India in the 1970s when the "Shuk-den Affair" started to
emerge. I will show that although the dispute concerning this deity has
an important political background, it primarily concerns the orientation
of the Ge-luk tradition and its relation to other Tibetan Buddhist
traditions. In exploring these questions, I will also seek to answer
other related questions such as: Why is Shuk-den so controversial? Is
the practice of propitiating Shuk-den different from the practices
associated with other protectors? Why has the present Dalai Lama been so
opposed to the practice of propitiating Shuk-den? These are some of the
questions that I seek to answer in this interpretive essay.What I will
not attempt to explain are the more recent events that have unfolded in
the 1990s.These events are still shrouded in controversy and will need
to be established with any reasonable degree of objectivity before they
can be interpreted.
In order to address some of the questions just mentioned, I explore the
practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as it has been understood over time.In doing
so, I follow the critical methods of the historical approach, whose
assumptions are quite different from those of the believers. I examine
how Shuk-den is presented in the rare texts where he appears prior to
the contemporary period, that is, as a wordly deity ('jig rten pa'i
lha) who can be propitiated but not worshiped.His followers often reply
that this description refers to the interpretable meaning (drang don )
of the deity, not its ultimate meaning (nges don), for in such a
dimension Shuk-den is said to be fully enlightened (nges don la sang
rgyas).[2] 2 It is this kind of normative distinction that I
leave aside in this essay intended for a modern audience.
The Founding Myth
When asked to explain the origin of the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den, his
followers point to a rather obscure and bloody episode of Tibetan
history, the premature death of Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen (sprul sku
grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1618-1655).Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was an important
Ge-luk lama who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngak-wang Lo-sang
Gya-tso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, )1617-1682).[3] 3
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen and Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso were born at a crucial
time in the Ge-luk tradition. The tradition had by then survived a
protracted civil war with the forces of Tsang (gtsang) backed by some
of the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. It had not yet won the war but
had begun to establish an alliance with Mongol groups that would allow
it to triumph two decades later.Around the same time, two of the most
important Ge-luk lamas had died: the fourth Dalai Lama and the second
reincarnation of Pen-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba (bsod nams grags pa,)
1478-1554), who was one of the most important Ge-luk teachers during the
sixteenth century. Between the two boys, Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso was
chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama over Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who was
designated by way of compensation as the third reincarnation of Pen-chen
Sö-nam-drak-ba.[4] 4 This choice did not seem, however, to have
resolved the contention between the two lamas, as they remained rivals
at the heads of two competing estates known as the "Upper Chamber" (zim
khang gong ma) under Drak-ba Gyel-tsen and the "Lower Chamber" (zim
khang 'og ma) under the Dalai Lama. During the next two decades, the
struggle between the forces of Central Tibet supported by the Mongols of
Gushri Khan and the forces of Tsang continued, gradually turning to the
advantage of the former party.Due to his connection with the Mongols,
which had been established by the Third Dalai Lama and reinforced by the
Fourth, the Fifth Dalai Lama and his party were able to establish their
supremacy. In 1642, the Fifth Dalai Lama became the ruler of Tibet and
entrusted the actual running of the state to his prime minister, Sö-nam
Chö-pel (bsod nams chos 'phal). This victory, however, still did not
eliminate the rivalry between the two lamas and their estates. Very
little is known about the events that took place in the next ten years
but it seems quite clear that there was a contentious between the two
lamas' estates. What is less clear is the reason behind this conflict.
Was Drak-ba Gyel-tsen perceived as a focus of the opposition to the rule
of the Fifth Dalai Lama and his prime minister within the Ge-luk
hierarchy?Was there a personal rivalry between the two lamas? Or was the
main reason for the tension a dispute between Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's
family, the Ge-kha-sas, and Sö-nam Chö-pel, as a recent work argues?[5]
5
What seems to be well established is that in these circumstances, in
1655, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen suddenly died.The exact conditions of his death
are controversial and shrouded in legends. Some of the Fifth's
sympathizers claimed that there was nothing extraordinary in Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's death. He had just died of a sudden illness. Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's sympathizers seemed to have disagreed, arguing that he had
died because he had not been able to bear the constant efforts from the
Dalai Lama's followers to undermine him. Others claimed that he was
killed while in the custody of the prime minister.Still others claimed
that he submitted himself voluntarily to death by strangulation or by
suffocation in order to become a wrathful protector of the Ge-luk
tradition.[6] 6 In a particularly dramatic and highly revealing
account, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death is described as occurring after a
traditional religious debate that he had with the Fifth Dalai Lama. As
an acknowledgment of his victory, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had received a
ceremonial scarf from the Fifth. Shortly after, however, he was found
dead, the scarf stuffed down his throat.
Whatever the exact details of his death, the important point is that
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death was perceived to be related to his rivalry
with the Fifth Dalai Lama. It was also taken to have been violent and
hence the kind of death that leads people to take rebirth as dangerous
spirits.According to standard Indian and Tibetan cultural assumptions, a
person who is killed often becomes a ghost and seeks revenge.In his
famous description of the demonology of Tibet, Nebesky-Wojkowitz
provides several examples of the transformation of a person into a
spirit due to a violent death.[7] 7 Such a spirit is considered
more dangerous when the person has religious knowledge, which is said to
explain the particular power of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's spirit. He[8]
8 is not just one among many protectors but a particularly
dangerous one as the vengeful ghost of a knowledgeable person who died
violently and prematurely. According to the Shuk-den legend, Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen manifested himself as a (gyel-po,) i.e., the dangerous
red-spirit[9] 9 of a person, often a religious one, who is bent
on extracting revenge against those involved in his death.Since he had
been an important lama, however, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen turned his anger from
a personal revenge to a nobler task, the protection of the doctrinal
purity of the Ge-luk tradition.According to the legend, he first
manifestated his wrathful nature by haunting his silver mausoleum, which
became animated by a buzzing noise, and by inflicting damage on his own
estate.Then the monks serving the Fifth Dalai Lama began to encounter
difficulties in performing their ritual duties.[10] 10 Finally
the Dalai Lama himself became the target.He began to hear noises such as
that of stones falling on the roof, which became so loud that it is said
that he could not eat his meals without monks blowing large horns on the
roof of his residence.Frightened by these wrathful manifestations, the
prime minister Sö-nam Chö-pel decided to get rid of the troublesome
silver mausoleum by packing it into a wooden box and throwing it in the
Kyi-chu river.Carried by the current the box reached Döl, a small pond
in Southern Tibet. It is there that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's spirit resided
for a while in a small temple built for him at the order of the Fifth
Dalai Lama, who decided to pacify his spirit by establishing a practice
of propitiation under the name of (Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den ((rgyal
chen rdo rje shugs ldan ) and entrusting it to the Sa-gya school.[11]
11
This story is striking. In particular, its undertone of hostility toward
the Dalai Lama is remarkable given that the Dalai Lama represents to a
large extent the ascendency of the Ge-luk school, also the school that
the Shuk-den rituals seek to protect.Our first task here is to explain
the meaning of this narrative, an important task given that the recent
events in India seem to illustrate its hostility toward the Dalai
Lama.The most obvious and tempting explanation is to assume that this
story is primarily a political tale reflecting the tension between a
strong Dalai Lama and a restive Ge-luk establishment.This may surprise
an outside observer for whom the institution of the Dalai Lama is a
Ge-luk creation and represents the power of this school. This
interpretation appears more credible to an insider who knows that the
Dalai Lama institution rests on a complex coalition in which the Ge-luk
school is central but which includes other people, such as members of
aristocratic families, adherents of the Nying-ma tradition, etc.
In such a coalition, the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the
Ge-luk establishment is difficult and must be carefully negotiated.The
delicacy of this situation is illustrated by the question of the
leadership of the Ge-luk tradition.The nominal leader of the Ge-luk
school is not the Dalai Lama but the Tri Rin-bo-che (khri rin po che),
the Holder of the Throne of Ga-den in direct line of succession from
Dzong-ka-ba. But in times where the Dalai Lama is strong, the leadership
of the Holder of the Throne of Ga-den, who is chosen among the ex-abbots
of the two tantric colleges,[12] 12 is mostly nominal, and the
Dalai Lama exercises effective leadership over the Ge-luk school through
his government.
The Ge-luk school and more particularly its three large monasteries
around Lhasa have played a leading role in the Dalai Lama's rule in
Tibet. They have supported and legitimized his power and have received
in return considerable socio-economic power.But this power also has been
a source of tension with the Dalai Lamas, particularly when he was a
strong personality who had his own power basis and intended to lead.In
the history of the Dalai Lamas, there have been three such politically
powerful figures: the Fifth, the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai
Lamas, and all three have had serious difficulties with the Ge-luk
establishment. It is also these same three Dalai Lamas who are said to
have had problems with Shuk-den.Shuk-den could then be a manifestation
of the political resentment of the Ge-luk hierarchy against the power of
a strong Dalai Lama seeking to restrict and control it.The dispute
surrounding Shuk-den would be a thinly disguised way for Ge-luk
partisans to express their political opposition to an institution that
does not sufficiently represent their parochial interests, an opposition
manifested in the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation
against the Fifth Dalai Lama.
I would argue that although tempting, this reading of the Shuk-den story
is inadequate for at least two reasons.First, it fails to differentiate
the stages in the relations between the Dalai Lama and the Ge-luk
establishment.It is true that these relations have often been tense.But
to run together the opposition between the Fifth Dalai Lama and the
Ge-luk hierarchy, and the tension surrounding the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Dalai Lamas fails to take into account the profound
transformations that the Dalai Lama institution has undergone,
particularly around the turn of the eighteenth century.Secondly, the
political interpretation of the saga of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful
manifestation is anachronistic, confusing the story and the events that
it narrates.Or, to put it differently, this interpretation fails to see
that we are dealing here with two stories: the story of Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen, a seventeenth century victim of the Fifth Dalai Lama's power,
and the story of Shuk-den, the spirit in charge of maintaining the
purity of the Ge-luk tradition as understood by his twentieth century
followers.The former narrative is clearly political but is not about
Shuk-den. It concerns the nature of the Dalai Lama institution and its
relation to the Ge-luk hierarchy in the seventeenth century. The latter
is about Shuk-den. It is mostly religious but does not concern the Dalai
Lama's political power.
To further clarify these two points, I will examine the political
context in which the Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story took place and the nature
of the Dalai Lama institution at that time.I will then consider the
events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's tragic death in a historical
perspective, and try to reconstruct the way in which it was understood
by his contemporaries.
The Historical Context
The events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death must be understood in
relation to its historical context, the political events surrounding the
emergence of the Dalai Lama institution as a centralizing power during
the second half of the seventeenth century.The rule of this monarch
seems to have been particularly resented by some elements in the Ge-luk
tradition.It is quite probable that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was seen after his
death as a victim of the Dalai Lama's power and hence became a symbol of
opposition.
The resentment against the power of the Fifth Dalai Lama was primarily
connected to a broad and far-reaching issue, the desire of some of the
more sectarian Ge-luk hierarchs to set up a purely Ge-luk rule.Some even
seem to have argued for the suppression of the schools against which
they had fought for more than a century, particularly the Kar-ma Ka-gy∏
tradition.[13] 13 The Fifth seems to have realized that such a
rule would have had little support and would have exacerbated the
intersectarian violence that had marred the last two centuries of
Tibetan history.To avoid this, he attempted to build a state with a
broader power base, state which he presented as the re-establishment of
the early Tibetan empire. His rule was to be supported by the Ge-luk
tradition, but would also include groups affiliated with other religious
traditions.
The Fifth was particularly well disposed toward the Nying-ma tradition
from which he derived a great deal of his practice and with which he had
a relation through his family. This seems to have created a great deal
of frustration among some Ge-luk circles, as expressed by several
popular stories.The stories frequently involve a colorful figure, Ba-ko
Rab-jam (bra sgo rab 'byams), who was a friend of the Dalai Lama. In
the stories, he is often depicted as making fun of the Fifth Dalai
Lama.For example, one day he comes to see the Dalai Lama, but the
enormous Pur-ba (ritual dagger) he wears in his belt prevents him from
crossing the door, an obviously sarcastic reference to the Nying-ma
leanings of the Fifth Dalai Lama.
In the light of this opposition, it would seem that the narrative of
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestationmakes perfect sense. Is not
the Shuk-den story about the revenge of a group, the Ge-luk hierarchy,
in struggle against the Fifth's strong centralizing power?Although
tempting, this interpretation completely ignores the historical
transformations of the Dalai Lama institution.In particular, it ignores
the fact that after the Fifth's death the Dalai Lama institution was
taken over by the Ge-luk hierarchy and radically changed. To put it
colorfully, if Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had manifested as Shuk-den to protect
the Ge-luk hierarchy against the encroachments of a Dalai Lama not
sufficiently sympathetic to the Ge-luk tradition, this vengeful spirit
would have been out of business by the beginning of the eighteenth
century when his partisans, the Ge-luk hierarchy, won the day!
As long as the Fifth was alive, the Ge-luk hierarchy had to endure his
rule, but his death changed the situation.His prime minister Sang-gye
Gya-tso (sangs rgyas rgya mtsho) at first tried to conceal this
death.When this proved impossible, he attempted to continue the Fifth's
tradition by appointing his candidate, Tsang-yang Gya-tso (tshangs
dbyangs rgya mtsho), as the Sixth Dalai Lama. But with the latter's
failure to behave as a Dalai Lama, Sang-gye Gya-tso lost the possibility
to continue the task started by the Fifth.A few years later (1705) he
was killed after being defeated by a complex coalition of Ge-luk
hierarchs involving Jam-yang-shay-ba, the Dzungar Mongols and Lhab-zang
Khan with the backing of the Manchu emperor???.[14] 14
After this defeat, the role of the Dalai Lama was transformed.His
political power was limited and the nature of the ritual system
supporting the institution was changed, as we shall see later. In these
ways, the institution of the Dalai Lama became a more purely Ge-luk
creation.Hence, it makes very little sense to speak of Shuk-den as
representing the spirit of Ge-luk opposition to the Dalai Lama
institution after the demise of the Fifth, for by then the institution
had become to a large extent favorable to the Ge-luk
hierarchy.Admittedly, there were a few incidents between the Thirteenth
Dalai Lama and some elements of the Ge-luk tradition.There was also some
resentment against the high-handedness of this ruler but these were
minor and should not be blown out of proportion.
Did Drak-ba Gyel-tsen Become a Spirit?
This interpretation is confirmed by an analysis of the view of the
contemporaries of these events.In the founding myth of the Shuk-den
practice, the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death and wrathful
manifestation is presented as the view of his followers. Given the
cultural assumptions of Tibetans, this scenario cannot be dismissed
without further analysis. Impressed by his violent and premature death,
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers may have begun to propitiate his spirit in
an atmosphere of strong hostility against those who were thought to have
been responsible.But although this scenario is culturally plausible, is
it historical? That is, did Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers think of him
in this way?This question is more difficult, given the paucity of
contemporary sources, but it needs to be asked, for we cannot simply
assume that these legendary episodes reflect the perception of
contemporaries.In fact, there are indications that they do not.
The most decisive evidence is provided by the later Ge-luk historian,
Sum-pa Ken-po ye-shay Pel-jor (sum pa mKhan po ye shes dpal 'byor),
1702-1788), who reports for the year 1657(Fire Bird) the following:
The assertion that this Tibetan spirit (bod de'i rgyal po) is
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, the reincarnation of the Upper Chamber, is just
an expression of prejudice.Thus, I believe that the rumor that it
is Sö-nam Chö-pel, who after passing away in the same year is
protecting the Ge-luk tradition having assumed the form of a
dharma protector through his ["]great concern for the Ge-luk
tradition,["] is correct.[15] 15
This passage is significant in several respects.First, it confirms the
fact that there were stories of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becoming Shuk-den
quite early on.Although Sum-pa does not mention the deity by name, it
seems quite clear that this is who he has in mind. But it also shows
that Sum-pa Ken-po does not concede the identification of Shuk-den as
the wrathful manifestation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, which he takes to be an
insult to "the reincarnation of the Upper Chamber."In what is probably a
tongue in cheek tit-for-tat, he rather identifies the troublesome spirit
with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's enemy, Sö-nam Chö-pel, the hated first prime
minister of the Fifth Dalai Lama whom he sarcastically credits with a
"great concern for the Ge-luk tradition."
Second, Sum-pa's remark is important because it reflects the view of
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's sympathizers as the respectful epithet ("the
reincarnation of the Upper Chamber") makes clear.Sum-pa was the disciple
of Jam-yang-shay-ba ('jam dbyangs bzhad pa,) 1648-1722), one of the
leading Ge-luk lamas opposing the Fifth and his third prime minister
(sde srid) Sang-gye Gya-tso.[16] 16 Thus, when he denies that
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had become Shuk-den, Sum-pa is reflecting the views of
the people who considered Drak-ba Gyel-tsen with sympathy as an
unfortunate victim of a rule they resented.The ironical remark about
Sö-nam Chö-pel ("his great concern for the Ge-luk tradition") and his
identification as Shuk-den confirms this. Sum-pa disliked Sö-nam
Chö-pel, whom he considered responsible for the Fifth's rule and Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's death.
Sum-pa's remark, however, raises a question.For, who then are the people
claiming that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen had become Shuk-den if not the followers
of this lama?Could it be that Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's followers had changed
their minds by the time Sum-pa Ken-po wrote his account (1749)?Though
further investigations may change our view, the evidence seems to
suggest that this is not the case.The people who were identifying
Shuk-den as the wrathful manifestation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen were not his
followers but his enemies, i.e., the Fifth Dalai Lama and his
followers.This seems to be the implication of comments by Sang-gye
Gya-tso when he says, referring to Drak-ba Gyel-tsen:
After [the death of] Ngak-wang Sö-nam Ge-lek (Pen-chen
Sö-nam-drak-ba's second reincarnation), [his reincarnation was
born] as a member of the Ge-kha-sa family. Although [this person]
had at first hopes for being the reincarnation of the All-knowing
Yon-ten Gya-tso (the Fourth Dalai Lama), he was made the
reincarnation of Ngak-wang Sö-nam Ge-lek and finally ended in a
bad rebirth.[17] 17
Although Sang-gye Gya-tso is not explicit, his words seem to refer to
the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation as a spirit such as
Shuk-den.This is confirmed by the Fifth Dalai Lama, who describes
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise as leading to his becoming a spirit.The Fifth
explains that:
Due to the magic of a spirit (?), the son of the noble family
Ge-kha-sa turned into a false reincarnation of Ngak-wang Sö-nam
Ge-lek and became a spirit [motivated by] mistaken prayers (smon
lam log pa'i dam srid).[18] 18
What this quote indicates is that after Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's
death the claim that he had become a spirit such as Shuk-den was not a
praise of his followers, but a denigration, not to say downright
slander, by his enemies!It is not Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's partisans who were
identifying him as Shuk-den, but his adversaries who were presenting
this scenario as a way to explain away the events following his tragic
demise.
We must wonder, however, why the Fifth Dalai Lama and his followers were
interested in propagating the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful
manifestation, a story which the latter's followers were keen to
dispel?The answer to this question is bound to be tentative and highly
speculative, and it is unlikely that any clear historical evidence will
answer this question. Nevertheless, I think that it is not unreasonable
to assume the following scenario. Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's premature death
must have been a momentous event in Tibet at that time.It must have
created a considerable malaise among Tibetans, who consider the killing
of a high lama a terrible crime that can affect a whole country (as
attested by the perception of the Re-ting affair in this century). Such
a perception of misfortune must have been accompanied by events
perceived as bad omens.There were probably stories of the possession and
destruction of objects associated with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, as reported in
the founding myth. Finally, there was the fact that the reincarnation of
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen seems not to have been* *sought for, an extraordinary
occurrence given that he was the reincarnation of Pen-chen
Sö-nam-drak-ba, one of the foremost Ge-luk lamas.[19] 19
It is in these circumstances that the story of his wrathful
reincarnation must have appeared, not as a vindication of Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen, but as an attempt by the Fifth Dalai Lama and his followers
to explain the absence of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation and to shift
the blame for the bad omen that had followed his death. These events
were not the karmic effects of his violent death but the results of his
transformation into a dangerous spirit. The Fifth Dalai Lama mentions
that after Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise his spirit started to harm people.
In order to pacify him, the Fifth had a small temple built near the pond
of Döl, but this did not help and the reports of harm continued
unabated.With the help of several important lamas such as Ter-dag
Ling-pa (gter bdag gling pa,) 1646-1714), the Fifth decided to launch
a final ritual assault and to burn the spirit during a fire ritual in
which the spectators were said to have smelled the odor of burnt flesh.
As we realize, this description of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's posthumous fate
is highly partisan and it is no surprise that his sympathizers rejected
these explanations. They were keen on keeping the blame on the party of
the Dalai Lama, arguing that the unfortunate events were not due to the
wrathful reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who had taken rebirth as
the emperor of China.[20] 20 Finally, there are other stories
that seem to hint that the evil spirit connected with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen
was already active prior to the latter's demise, even as early 1636.[21]
21 If Shuk-den was already active prior to Trul-ku Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's tragic demise, how can he be the latter's wrathful
manifestation?These conflicting stories show that what we have here is
not a unified narrative but several partly overlaping stories.The
founding myth of the Shuk-den tradition grew out of a nexus of
narratives surrounding these events and developed in accordance with the
new changing historical circumstances.It is not the account of the
followers of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, as claimed by Shuk-den's modern
followers, but it is only one of the many versions of the bundle of
stories surrounding these tragic events.In fact, the story of Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's demise as it appears in contemporary sources has little to
do with Shuk-den.It is not about the deity but about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen.
Only much later, when the significance of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story
faded, did this story resurface and get taken as the account of the
origin of Shuk-den.
The fact that the founding narrative of the Shuk-den practice is largely
mythological does not mean that we should dismiss it.Rather we should
inquire into its meaning.This is what I will do in the later pages of
this essay, where I examine the story of the violent manifestation of
Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen as the founding myth of the tradition of those
who propitiate Shuk-den. Before going into this, we need to inquire
about the history of this propitiation.For, if this practice did not
start with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death, where does it come from? And the
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story was later recast as the founding myth of the
Shuk-den lineage , when did this appropriation take place?
The Early History of a Practice
To understand the history of the Shuk-den practice, we need to examine
the way in which this deity has been considered throughout most of the
history of the Ge-luk tradition. To his twentieth century followers,
Shuk-den is known as (Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den Tsal (rgyal chen rdo
rje shugs ldan rtsal)), the "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the
Adamantine Force."[22] 22 If we look at earlier mentions,
however, we can see that Shuk-den also appears under another and less
exalted name, i.e., as (Döl Gyel (dol rgyal).Even Pa-bong-ka calls him
in this way when he says: "The wooden implements (i.e., crate) having
been thrown in the water, the pond of Döl became whitish. After abiding
there, he became known for a while as (Döl-gyel)."[23] 23 This
name helps us to understand how Shuk-den was considered in the earlier
period, that is, as a troublesome but minor spirit, an interpretation
confirmed by the explanations concerning Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's reincarnation.
The name (Döl Gyel) is quite interesting, for it yields a possible
explanation of the origin of Shuk-den.It suggests that originally
Shuk-den had a close regional connection with the area of the Tsang-po
and the Yar-lung valleys where the pond of Döl lies. There, Shuk-den
Döl-gyel was considered a (gyel po (rgyal po)), that is, the dangerous
red-spirit of a religious person, who had died after falling from his
monastic vows or had been killed in troubling circumstances.[24]
24 Shuk-den Döl Gyel would then be a spirit from Southern Tibet,
potentially troublesome like other red-spirits. No wonder then that his
identification with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was rejected by the latter's
followers as an insult to this important and unfortunate lama.
We find confirmation of Shuk-den's regional connection in the
description given in 1815 by a Nying-ma teacher Do Kyen-tse (mdo mkhyen
brtse ye shes rdo rje).While narrating his travels, he mentions the
unpleasant presence of Shuk-den in Southern Tibet.On his way to Lhasa,
after passing through the Nying-ma monastery of Dor-je Drak, Do Kyen-tse
arrived in the area of Dra-thang (grwa thang) where Gyel-po Shuk-den
(this is the name he uses) was active. Nevertheless, the spirit was
unable to interfere with his travel and he reached his destination
safely.[25] 25 Thus, the existence of a deity, Döl-gyel
Shuk-den, and his regional connection with the area of Southern Tibet
seem to have been well established quite early on.
This regional connection is further confirmed by the fact that Shuk-den
was propitiated in some of the monasteries of the same area,
particularly in Sam-ye (bsam yas), which was by then Sa-kya.There
Shuk-den appears as a minor but dangerous wordly protector. This also
suggests that this deity was first adopted by the tradition of the
monastery of Sa-gya,[26] 26 a hypothesis further confirmed by the
reference in the founding myth to his being taken over by the holder of
the Sa-gya throne Sö-nam-rin-chen (bsod nams rin chen). In one of the
versions, Shuk-den first attempts to go to Ta-shi Lhung-po, the
residence of his teacher, the First Pen-chen Lama, Lob-zang Chö-gyen
(blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan,) 1569-1662). He is prevented from
doing so by Varava?a (rnam thos sras), the supra-mundane protector
of the monastery. He is then taken in by Sö-nam-rin-chen, who pities him
and writes a text for his propitiation. This reference to the holder of
the Sa-gya throne Sö-nam-rin-chen throws some interesting light on the
story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation and the
establishment of the Shuk-den cult entrusted to the Sa-gya. It seems at
first to confirm this story until we realize that Sö-nam-rin-chen was
born in 1704, long after the events surrounding Drak-ba Gyel-sten's
tragic demise.This considerable gap suggests that the story of Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation as Shuk-den is a later creation,
which incorporates a variety of narratives rearranged in the light of
later situations. The founding myth of the Shuk-den practice is not a
historical account but one of the many versions of a nexus of stories
surrounding these tragic events, which developed gradually in the light
of new historical circumstances.
Although Sö-nam-rin-chen's role in the Shuk-den's saga is more than
questionable, his contribution to the tradition of this deity is not
deniable. The small text that is attributed to him does seem to exist.
It is the first ritual text focusing on Shuk-den that I have been able
to trace. It can be found in the collection of ritual texts for the
protectors of the Sam-ye monastery and confirms the existence of the
practice of Shuk-den early on in the Sa-gya tradition.[27] 27 Its
title ("The Request to the Gyel-po [for the] Termination of Gane˛a")
suggests that Shuk-den was considered as an effective spirit in charge
of clearing away obstacles (Gane˛a being the king of obstacles).[28]
28 Shuk-den does not seem to have played, however, a major role
in the Sa-gya tradition, where he seemed to have remained a dangerous
though minor worldly protector. This is confirmed by a story told by
Ka-lu Rin-bo-che, who mentions coming across a small Sa-gya temple for
Shuk-den in Western Tibet and the profound fear that this deity inspired
in the care-taker of this temple.[29] 29
The regional connection with Southern Tibet and the sectarian link with
the Sa-gya tradition is further confirmed by Stanley Mumford's
anthropological description of the propitiation of Shuk-den in the
Himalayan region.In his study of the religious life in the remote
village of Tsap in Nepal, Mumford describes the practice of Shuk-den as
a Sa-gya practice well established among the Tibetans of the region.In a
small text used for this practice Shuk-den is presented as a wordly
protector in charge of bestowing wealth, food, life and good fortune, of
protecting the dharma, preventing its destruction, and of repeling the
external and internal enemies of the ten regions.Finally, Shuk-denm is
invoked as a special protector of the Sa-gya tradition: "Protect the
dharma in general, and in particular the Sakyapas. I praise you, who
have agreed to be the Srungma of the Sakyapas".[30] 30
Given this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the practice of
Döl-gyel was at first a minor Sa-gya practice later adopted by the
Ge-luk tradition. But here another difficult question remains. When did
this happen? The evidence available establishes that the practice of
propitiating Döl-gyel existed in the Ge-luk tradition during the
eighteenth century.One of the clearest proofs appears in the biography
of the Ge-luk polymath Jang-gya-röl-bay-dor-jay (1717-1786), written by
his disciple Tu-gen-lo-sang-chö-gyi-nyi-ma (thu'u bkwan blo bzang chos
kyi nyi ma),1737-1802).[31] 31 Tu-gen reports that Jang-gya
mentions that Döl-gyel was propitiated by several Ga-den Tri-bas. After
several unfortunate events, another Tri-ba, Ngak-wang Chok-den (ngag
dbang mchog ldan,) 1677-1751), the tutor of the Seventh Dalai Lama
Kel-zang Gya-tso (bskal bzang rgya tsho,) 1708-1757) put an end to
this practice by expelling Shuk-den from Ga-den monastery.
This mention of Döl-Gyel is quite interesting for a number of reasons.
First, it dates the practice of propitiating this deity in the Ge-luk
tradition.This practice must have existed prior to Ngak-wang Chok-den's
intervention, and it must have had a certain extension to have been
adopted by several Ga-den Tri-bas. Second, it attests to the troublesome
character of this deity.However, no connection is made with Trul-ku
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Jang-gya was after all one of the followers of
Jam-yang-shay-ba, one of the main Ge-luk hierarchs opposed to the Fifth,
and hence not inclined to consider favorably the story of Shuk-den as
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation.Finally, this passage
illustrates the minor status of this deity in the Ge-luk tradition at
that time, as Jang-gya mentions the expulsion of this deity in passing.
This impression of small importance is confirmed by the fact that it is
so difficult to document the practice of Shuk-den prior to the beginning
of this century. But if Döl-gyel, as he is called by Jang-gya, is minor,
why did Ngak-wang Chok-den and Jang-gya oppose his propitiation?Possibly
because of its troublesome character.Jang-gya mentions that the Tri-bas
who propitiated Döl-gyel encountered difficulties but he does not
elaborate.Another possible reason for expelling Döl-gyel from Ga-den is
that no mundane deity is allowed to remain permanently in Ga-den.Even
Ma-chen Pom-ra, the local god (yul lha) of Dzong-ka-ba, the founder of
the Ge-luk tradition, is not supposed to stay in Ga-den overnight, and
must take his residence below the monastery.[32] 32 Finally, the
political connection alleged by the Fifth Dalai Lama's followers between
this deity and their nemesis, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, may have played a role,
though this is far from sure since by this time the story of the
latter's demise must have started to fade away. Jang-gya may not have
opposed the practice in general, for we find a representation of
Shuk-den in a collection of thanka paintings given to Jang-gya by the
Qianlong Emperor. Because the thanka is not dated, we cannot be sure of
the date of its appearance in the collection. Despite this uncertainty
concerning some details, an impression emerges which suggests that
around the middle of the eighteenth century Döl-gyel was a troublesome
but minor deity propitiated by some Ge-luk lamas.
The practice of Döl-gyel or Shuk-den also surfaced as an issue during
the rule of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, who put restrictions on the
oracle for Shuk-den but did not prohibit his activities completely.
Döl-gyel could be propitiated in his proper place in the order of
Tibetan gods, namely, as a minor mundane deity. His oracle was permitted
only at certain fixed locations such as Tro-de Khang-sar (spro bde
khang gsar) in Lhasa or Tro-mo (gro mo) in the Chumbi valley, but not
in any of the large monasteries. Finally, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and
his government applied pressure on Pa-bong-ka to desist from
propitiating Shuk-den.They were particularly displeased by the diffusion
of the Shuk-den practice in Dre-bung. They perceived these efforts as
attempts to displace Ne-chung, who is, as we will see later, the wordly
protector of the Dre-bung monastery and the Tibetan government. Hence,
they ordered him to abstain from propitiating Shuk-den
altogether.According to his biographer, Pa-bong-ka promised not to
propitiate Shuk-den any more.[33] 33
These events seem to indicate that the propitiation of Shuk-den had
spread to a certain extent during or just prior to the rule of the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama. This may have been due to a gradual spread of
this practice during the nineteenth century, particularly its second
half.This practice was widespread enough during the time of the
Thirteenth to raise some concern in governmental circles.But even then
references to Döl-gyel or Shuk-den remain very rare. Although the
Thirteenth opposed what he saw as an excessive emphasis on Shuk-den by
Pa-bong-ka, the issue was minor and there was little controversy
concerning the practice of this deity.
Thus, what emerges from this impressionistic survey is that Shuk-den was
a minor though troublesome deity in the Ge-luk pantheon throughout most
of the history of this tradition. This deity does not seem to have been
considered early on as Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's manifestation, except by his
enemies, who intended the identification disparagingly. Its gradual
adoption in the Ge-luk tradition does not show any relation with either
Pen-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba or his third reincarnation, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen.
Shuk-den seems to have been adopted by Ge-luk lamas because of his power
as a wordly deity, not on the basis of a connection with Pen-chen
Sö-nam-drak-ba's lineage.Lamas who are part of this lineage do not show
any special inclination toward Shuk-den. Moreover, the monks of the
Lo-sel-ling college of Dre-bung, who take Pen-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba's
works as their textbooks (yig cha) and consider him as perhaps the
foremost interpreter of Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, have had very little
connection with Shuk-den (with a few individual exceptions).
How is it then that this minor spirit coming from an obscure location in
Central Tibet has become the center of raging controversy that has cost
the lives of several Ge-luk monks and continues to threaten the unity of
the Ge-luk tradition? Moreover, how is it that this deity is now so
pervasively identified with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen by his staunchest
supporters, who take this connection as a vindication of both Shuk-den
and Drak-ba Gyel-tsen?
The Rise of a Spirit
To answer these questions, we must consider the changes that took place
within the Ge-luk tradition during the first half of the twentieth
century due to Pa-bong-ka (1878-1941) and the revival movement that he
spearheaded. Though Pa-bong-ka 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.Pa-bong-ka was also well served by his disciples, particularly
the very gifted and versatile Tri-jang Rin-bo-che (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 Ge-luk
monasteries around Lhasa.Another influential disciple was Tob-den La-ma
(rtogs ldan bla ma), a stridently Ge-luk lama very active in
disseminating Pa-bong-ka's teachings in Khams.Because of his own
charisma and the qualities and influence of his disciples, 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.
Like other revivalist figures, Pa-bong-ka presented his teachings as
embodying the orthodoxy of his tradition.But when compared with the main
teachings of his tradition as they appear in Dzong-ka-ba's writings,
Pa-bong-ka's approach appears in several respects quite innovative.
Although he insisted on the Stages of the Path (lam rim) as the basis
of further practice, like other Ge-luk teachers, Pa-bong-ka differed in
recommending Vajrayogini as the central meditational deity of the Ge-luk
tradition. This emphasis is remarkable given the fact that the practice
of this deity came originally from the Sa-gya tradition and is not
included in Dzong-ka-ba's original synthesis, which is based on the
practice of three meditational deities (Yamantaka, Guhya-samaja, and
Cakrasa?vara). The novelty of his approach is even clearer when we
consider Pa-bong-ka's emphasis on Tara Cintama?i as a secondary
meditational deity, for this practice is not canonical in the strict
sense of the term but comes from the pure visions of one of Pa-bong-ka's
main teachers, Ta bu Pe-ma Baz-ra (sta bu padma badzra), a figure
about whom very little is presently known. We have to be clear, however,
on the nature of Pa-bong-ka's innovations. He did not introduce these
practices himself, for he received them from teachers such as Ta bu
Pe-ma Baz-ra and Dak-po Kel-zang Kay-drub (dwag po bskal bzang mkhas
grub). Where Pa-bong-ka was innovative was in making formerly secondary
teachings widespread and central to the Ge-luk tradition and claiming
that they represented the essence of Dzong-ka-ba's teaching.This
pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for
Pa-bong-ka's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the
practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as the central protector of the Ge-luk
tradition. Whereas previously Shuk-den seems to have been a relatively
minor protector in the Ge-luk tradition, Pa-bong-ka 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 Ge-luk tradition that is
central to the "Shuk-den Affair."
In promoting Shuk-den as the protector of his charismatic movement,
Pa-bong-ka did not invent the practice of this deity, which he seems to
have received from his teachers,[34] 34 but he transformed a
marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition.This
transformation is illustrated by the epithets used to refer to Shuk-den.
Instead of being just "The Spirit from Döl" (dol rgyal), or even the
"Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (rgyal chen
rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal), he is described now by Pa-bong-ka and his
disciples as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord
Ma~ju˛ri (i.e., Dzong-ka-ba)" ('jam mgon rgyal ba'i bstan srung)[35]
35 and "the supreme protective deity of the Ge-den (i.e., Ge-luk)
tradition" (dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog).[36] 36
These descriptions have been controversial.Traditionally, the Ge-luk
tradition has been protected by the Dharma-king (dam can chos rgyal),
the supra-mundane deity bound to an oath given to Dzong-ka-ba, the
founder of the tradition. The tradition also speaks of three main
protectors adapted to the three scopes of practice described in the
Stages of the Path (skyes bu gsum gyi srung ma): Mahakala for the
person of great scope, Vai˛rava?a for the person of middling scope, and
the Dharma-king for the person of small scope.[37] 37 By
describing Shuk-den as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious
lord Ma~ju˛ri," Pa-bong-ka suggests that he is the protector of the
Ge-luk tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Dzong-ka-ba
himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that
Shuk-den'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
Tu?ita having entrusted the protection of the Ge-luk tradition to
Shuk-den.Thus, Shuk-den has become the main Ge-luk protector replacing
the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Ge-luk tradition, indeed
a spectacular promotion in the pantheon of the tradition.
Pa-bong-ka's promotion of this deity has several reasons.There was an
undeniable personal devotion to Shuk-den in Pa-bong-ka derived from his
early experiences, dreams or visions. This devotion was also based on a
family connection, for Shuk-den was his mother's female god (skyes ma'i
rgyud kyi lha).[38] 38 Pa-bong-ka's writings reflect this strong
devotion to Shuk-den, as is shown by the following passage:
Praise and prostration through remembering your three secrets [to
you] the violent poison for the obstacles, the enemies, [and]
those who have broken [their] pledges, [to you] the magical jewel
who fulfills the hopes and wishes of the practitioners, [to you]
the only life tree [i.e., support] in protecting Dzong-ka-ba's
tradition.[39] 39
The very real personal devotion found in many of the
Shuk-den texts written by Pa-bong-ka and his disciples
explains Pa-bong-ka's fervor in diffusing Shuk-den.From the
viewpoint of his followers, it is the most important element
of Pa-bong-ka's heritage.
There is, however, another element that must be examined in
order to understand the troublesome nature of the practice
of Shuk-den, namely, the sectarian stance that it reflects.
This is where the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becomes
relevant again.For Pa-bong-ka, particularly at the end of
his life, one of the main functions of Gyel-chen Dor-je
Shuk-den as Ge-luk protector is the use of violent means
(the adamantine force) to protect the Ge-luk tradition.
Pa-bong-ka quite explicitly states:
Now [I] exhort to violent actions Shuk-den, who is the
main war-god of Dzong-ka-ba's tradition and its
holders, the angry spirit, the Slayer of Yama (i.e.,
Yamantaka or Ma~ju˛ri in his wrathful form)....In
particular it is time [for you] to free (i.e., kill)
in one moment the enemies of Dzong-ka-ba's
tradition.Protector, set up [your] violent actions
without [letting] your previous commitments
dissipate.Quickly engage in violent actions without
relaxing your loving promises. Quickly accomplish
[these] requests and entrusted actions without leaving
them aside (or without acting impartially). Quickly
accomplish [these] actions [that I] entrust [to you],
for I do not have any other source of hope.[40] 40
This passage clearly presents the goal of the propitiation
of Shuk-den as the protection of the Ge-luk tradition
through violent means, even including the killing of its
enemies. We should wonder, however, what this passage
means?Is it to be taken literally?And who are these enemies?
To answer these questions in detail would take us beyond the
purview of this essay. A short answer is that in certain
ways the statements of this ritual text are not very
different from the ones found in similar texts devoted to
other mundane protectors. By itself, this text does not
prove very much. Combined with Pa-bong-ka's other writings,
however, the statement about killing the enemies of the
Ge-luk is more than the usual ritual incitements contained
in manuals for the propitiation of protectors.Consider this
rather explicit passage contained in an introduction to the
text of the empowerment required to propitiate Shuk-den (the
(srog gtad,)about which more will be said later):
[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely
important for holding Dzong-ka-ba's tradition without
mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the
great violence and the speed of the force of his
actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently
all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat
Tradition, whether they are high or low.[This
protector is also particularly significant with
respect to the fact that] many from our own side,
monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with
Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, which is like pure gold,
[and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ]
the mistaken views and practices from other schools,
which are tenet systems that are reputed to be
incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in
reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous
andmisleading paths.In regard to this situation, this
protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his
own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of
terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce
appearances.Due to that, a variety of events, some of
them having happened or happening, some of which have
been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some
people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart
attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety
of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated
possessions and descendants disappear without leaving
any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased,
whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything
in successive lifetimes.[41] 41
In this passage, which is based on notes taken by Tri-jang
during a ceremony given by Pa-bong-ka and published in his
(Collected Works,) Pa-bong-ka takes the references to
eliminating the enemies of the the Ge-luk tradition as more
than stylistic conventions or usual ritual incantations. It
may concern the elimination of actual people by the
protector.But who are these people?
A number of people may be included in this category.Several
Nying-ma lamas have claimed to have been the target of
Shuk-den, who is often greatly feared by the followers of
this school. In this passage, however, Pa-bong-ka seems to
have in mind less members of other schools than those Ge-luk
practitioners who mix Dzong-ka-ba's tradition with elements
from other traditions, particularly the Nying-ma Dzok-chen
to which he refers indirectly but clearly.[42] 42 The
mission of Shuk-den as defined here is to prevent Ge-luk
practitioners from mixing traditions and even visiting
retribution on those who dare to go against this prescription.
This is also the central message of the founding myth of the
Shuk-den practice as defined by Pa-bong-ka and his
followers.Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen becomes a wrathful deity
to visit retribution, not on those who caused his death, but
on those who defile Dsong-ka-ba's pure tradition. According
to the legend, Shuk-den takes the Fifth Dalai Lama as his
target because the latter was eclectic, including in his
practice many elements from the Nying-ma tradition, which
provoked the anger of Shuk-den as a guardian of Ge-luk
orthodoxy. Pa-bong-ka is quite explicit:
Because the All Seeing Great Fifth practiced and
developed all tenets of the old and new [schools],
this great protector through the power of previous
prayers produced a variety of extremely frightful
appearances to the supreme Powerful King (the Fifth
Dalai Lama) in order to protect and defend spotlessly
Dzong-ka'ba's great tradition.[43] 43
We may now understand the peculiar fate of the story of
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's wrathful manifestation as Shuk-den,
which shifted from a slander of the former into a praise of
the latter. Pa-bong-ka was aware of the stories surrounding
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's death but understood them quite
differently from the way contemporaries of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen
had. For him, the narrative was not about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen
but about Shuk-den and the identification of the latter with
the former was a way to legitimize the diffusion of a
practice that had been previously marginal.››››
The choice of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was particularly meaningful
for Pa-bong-ka, who had been pressured by the Thirteenth
Dalai Lama to renounce his practice of Shuk-den and may have
been somewhat resentful.He may have felt a communion with
Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who like him had been the object of
unwelcome attention from a strong Dalai Lama. More
importantly, however, Pa-bong-ka must have felt that Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's alleged posthumous antagonism to the Fifth Dalai
Lama's eclecticism paralleled his own opposition to the
adoption of Nying-ma teachings by some Ge-luk-bas.Shuk-den's
anger against the Fifth Dalai Lama is not directed at the
Dalai Lama institution (per se) but at the Nying-ma
leanings of the Fifth.Finally, the choice of Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen as the source of the Shuk-den lineage was an ideal
way to legitimize an originally Sa-gya practice. By tracing
back the lineage to Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, Pa-bong-ka could
present the Shuk-den practice as authentically Ge-luk and
reinterpret its undeniable roots in the Sa-gya tradition as
an interlude in an essentially Ge-luk story.
Keeping the Ge-luk Tradition Pure
We now begin to understand the main message of the founding
myth of the Shuk-den practice. We are also in a position to
grasp some of the reasons for the troublesome nature of this
deity and we understand the history of this myth, which is a
classical case of invention, or, perhaps re-invention, of
tradition in which past events are re-interpreted in the
light of a contemporary situation.Still, a few questions
remain.For example, why was Pa-bong-ka so emphatic in his
opposition to Ge-luk eclecticism? Why did he worry so much
about this limited phenomenon which was no threat to the
overwhelming domination of the Ge-luk tradition in Central
Tibet?It is true that several important Ge-luk lamas such as
the Fifth Pen-chen Lama Lob-zang Pal-den (blo bzang dpal
ldan chos kyi grags pa,)1853-1882) and La-ts?n Rin-bo-che
(lha btsun rin po che) were attracted by Nying-ma
practices of the Dzok-chen tradition. But this phenomenon
remained limited in Central Tibet.Why did Pa-bong-ka feel
the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition threatened?
To answer, we must place Pa-bong-ka in context.The idea of
keeping the Ge-luk tradition pure (dge lugs tshang ma) was
hardly new.It may even date to Kay-drub's tenure as the
second Holder of the Throne of Ga-den during the first half
of the fifteenth century. It appears that Kay-drub urged his
followers to stick to Dzong-ka-ba's views and scolded those
who did not. This approach became stronger during the
seventeenth century, probably as a result of the civil war
that led to the emergence of the Dalai Lama institution.But
even then, not all Ge-luk-bas agreed with this approach. For
example, the Fifth Dalai Lama advocated a more eclectic and
inclusive approach.
As we have seen, his approach did not meet the approval of
several Ge-luk hierarchs. After their victory at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, the more restrictive
view became dominant. It is only much later, around the turn
of the twentieth century, that this issue resurfaced in
connection with the success of the Non-sectarian (ris med)
movement in Eastern Tibet, which developed as a reaction
against sectarian abuses among Non-Ge-luk schools.It was
intended to promote a more ecumenical atmosphere among these
schools, but it was also a way for the weaker traditions to
oppose the dominant Ge-luk tradition by presenting a united
front. Their strategy was remarkably successful, and in
short order the movement revived Non-Ge-luk institutions and
greatly strengthened their position, particularly in
Khams.It also influenced several important Ge-luk lamas, as
we will see shortly.
This success could not but worry the more conservative
elements of the Ge-luk establishment. Pa-bong-ka was
particularly worried about the situation in Khams, which
influenced his view of other traditions. In an earlier
period of his life, Pa-bong-ka was rather open-minded.He had
received several Dzok-chen teachings and was eclectic
himself, despite his close personal connection with
Shuk-den, his personal deity. After receiving these
teachings, however, he became sick and attributed this
interference to Shuk-den's displeasure. He thus refrained
from taking any more Dzok-cen teaching and became more
committed to a purely Ge-luk line of practice. Nevertheless,
Pa-bong-ka did not immediately promote Shuk-den as the main
protector of the Ge-luk tradition against other schools,
perhaps because of the restrictions that the Thirteenth
Dalai Lama and his government placed on his practice of
Shuk-den. The situation changed after the death of the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1933. Shortly after, Pa-bong-ka
left Lhasa and visited several important Ge-luk monasteries
in Khams, the area where the Non-sectarian movement was the
strongest.There he could not but notice the strength of this
movement as well as the poor shape of the Ge-luk
institutions.Whereas in Amdo and Central Tibet, the Ge-luk
school's hegemony was overwhelming and the challenge of
other schools had little credibility, the situation in Khams
was quite different.Ge-luk monasteries were large but had
little to show for themselves. There were very few scholars
and most monks were almost completely illiterate.Moreover,
the level of discipline was poor.Given that situation, the
success of the Non-sectarian movement was hardly surprising.
Pa-bong-ka perceived this situation as a serious threat to
the overall Ge-luk supremacy, and this led him to a more
sectarian and militant stance. He saw the inclusion by
Ge-luk-bas of the teachings of other schools as a threat to
the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition. The task of
protecting the tradition from such encroachments was
assigned to Shuk-den, the protector with whom he had a
strong personal tie. This renewed emphasis on Shuk-den was
also made possible by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama's death
which removed the restrictions imposed on Pa-bong-ka's
practice and diffusion of Shuk-den.
The sectarian implications of Pa-bong-ka's revival movement
and the role of Shuk-den therein became clear during the
1940s, when the cult of Shuk-den spread in Khams and the
Ge-luk tradition became much more aggressive in its
opposition to the other schools. Under one of Pa-bong-ka's
disciples, Tob-den Rin-bo-che, several Nying-ma monasteries
were forcefully transformed into Ge-luk establishments and
statues of Gu-ru Rin-bo-che are said to have been
destroyed.In certain parts of Khams, particularly in Ge-luk
strongholds such as Dra-gyab and Cham-do, some Ge-luk
fanatics tried to stamp out the other traditions in the name
of Shuk-den. It is hard to know, however, what Pa-bong-ka
thought about these events, which may have been the work of
a few extremists.It is clear, however, that since this time
Shuk-den played a central role for Pa-bong-ka, who continued
to promote his practice to support Ge-luk exclusivism after
his return to Central Tibet.
We now start to understand Shuk-den's particularities and
the reason he is controversial. First is his origin as
Döl-gyel, an angry and vengeful spirit.This makes him
particularly effective and powerful but also dangerous
according to standard Tibetan cultural assumptions.Second is
his novelty as the protector of the tradition of the
victorious lord Ma~ju˛ri, the protector of a Ge-luk revival
movement who is said to replace the main supra-mundane
protector of the tradition. This promotion is all the more
controversial that it is recent, for Shuk-den was nothing
but a minor Ge-luk protector before the the 1930s when
Pa-bong-ka started to promote him aggressively as the main
Ge-luk protector.Third is his sectarian role as Do-je
Shuk-den, that is, holder of the adamantine violence now
understood to be aimed at keeping the Ge-luk tradition
separate from and above other schools. Shuk-den is now
depicted by his followers not just as the main Ge-luk
protector, but as the one in charge of visiting retribution
on those Ge-luk-bas tempted by the religious eclecticism of
the Non-sectarian movement.
Still, for many years nothing happened.Some Ge-luk teachers
may have been uncomfortable at the promotion of Shuk-den but
there was no reason to engage in a controversy with
Pa-bong-ka, who was popular but just one among many
important Ge-luk lamas. Despite some tension between him and
the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, no major differences surfaced and
the Ge-luk tradition seemed strong and united. After the
death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, there was very little
discussion concerning Shuk-den. Pa-bong-ka's promotion of
Shuk-den's cult and its founding myth were not considered
threatening to the Tibetan government or the young new Dalai
Lama, for the cult was not opposed to the Dalai Lama
institution but affirmed the primacy of the Ge-luk
tradition, a goal shared by many in the Tibetan
government.In later years, the importance of Pa-bong-ka's
lineage was further reinforced by the nomination of Tri-jang
as the Junior Tutor of the Dalai Lama.
The exile both confirmed this situation and changed it.
Pa-bong-ka's disciple Tri-jang became in exile the main
source of teaching and inspiration for the Ge-luk tradition.
The Dalai Lama was still young; his other tutor, Ling
Rin-bo-che, had a modest personality that took him out of
contention, and most of the other great Ge-luk lamas
remained in Tibet. The preeminence of Tri-jang further
strengthened the position of Pa-bong-ka's lineage as
embodying the central orthodoxy of the tradition. Moreover,
Tri-jang seems to have been personally extremely devoted to
Shuk-den. In his commentary on Pa-bong-ka's praise of
Shuk-den,[44] 44 Tri-jang devotes several pages to
explaining the many dreams of Shuk-den that he had from the
age of seven.Tri-jang stressed this practice among his
disciples and pushed the glorification of Shuk-den even
further than Pa-bong-ka, insisting on the fact that this
deity is ultimately a fully enlightened buddha who merely
appears as a mundane deity.
Ge-luk teachers who were uncomfortable with this situation
could say little against Tri-jang, the Dalai Lama's own
teacher.Moreover, everyone (myself included) was won over by
Tri-jang's astonishing qualities, his command of the Tibetan
tradition, his personal grace, his refined manners, his
diplomatic skills, and commanding presence. Finally, there
was no reason for open controversy, for there was enough
room in the tradition to accomodate several views. Ling
Rin-bo-che offered an alternative to those who did not
completely share Tri-jang's orientation. Thus, at the
beginning of the 70s, the tradition seemed to be strong and
united in its admiration of its great teachers, the Dalai
Lama and his two tutors, a trinity that almost
providentially seemed to be the mirror image of the original
relation between Dzong-ka-ba and his two disciples.Nobody
would have dreamed of the crisis that was about to come.
The Dispute Begins
The situation began to deteriorate in 1975, a year which can
be described as the Ge-luk (annus terribilis.) In this
year a book (henceforth the "Yellow Book") written in
Tibetan about Shuk-den by Dze-may Rin-bo-che (dze smad rin
po che,) 1927-1996) was published.[45] 45
Retrospectively, we can say that the whole affair started
from this book and the Dalai Lama's reaction to it. Prior to
its publication, there was no controversy concerning
Shuk-den.There may have been some tension between the Dalai
Lama and some Ge-luk-bas. Some of the more conservative
elements may have believed that the three monasteries should
rule the Tibetan state and hence have resented the power and
orientation of the last two Dalai Lamas. These elements may
have also tended toward the Shuk-den practice.Thus, elements
of resentment, suspicion and discontent provided the
background for the present crisis, but they did not create
it.The present crisis is a new phenomenon, largely a product
of contingent circumstances and even coincidence.
The Yellow Book was intended to complement Tri-jang's
commentary on Pa-bong-ka's praise of Shuk-den.[46] 46
It consists of a series of stories which the author had
heard informally from his teacher Tri-jang during the many
years of their relationship which he wanted to record for
posterity before the death of his teacher.The book
enumerates the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to
have been shortened by Shuk-den's displeasure at their
practicing Nying-ma teachings. First, the Fifth Pen-chen
Lama, Lob-zang Pal-den, is described as the object of
Shuk-den's anger because he adopted Nying-ma practices.
Despite the repeated warnings of the protector, Lob-zang
Pal-den refused to mend his ways. After an unsuccessful
ritual self-defense, which backfired, Lob-zang Pal-den died
at the age of twenty nine.[47] 47 The book cites
several other Ge-luk lamas who had similar fates.Most
noticeable is the long description of the Re-treng (rwa
streng) affair.According to this account, Re-treng's tragic
fate is not due to his real or alleged misdeeds,[48]
48 but because he incurres the wrath of Shuk-den by
practicing Nying-ma teachings.
Another particularly revealing story is that of the
preceding reincarnation of Zi-gyab Rin-bo-che (gzigs rgyab
rin po che), a lama from Tre-hor, who first studied at
Tra-shi Lhung-po where he became learned and then developed
a link with the Sixth Pen-chen Lama Tub-ten Chö-gi-nyi-ma
(thub stan chos kyi nyi ma,) 1883-1937), who asked him to
stay with him.Because of the past Pen-chen lama's eclectic
ritual practice, Zi-gyab studied and practiced Nying-ma
teachings.Later he decided to receive one of its central
teachings, Jam-gön Kong-trul's ('jam mgon kong sprul,
)1813-1899) (Rin chen gter mdzod) from Kyung Rin-bo-che
(khyung rin po che). According to the story, Shuk-den
warned Zi-gyab against this course of action. When the lama
refused to heed the protector's advice, he fell sick and
died suddenly without having been able to listen to the
(Rin chen gTer Mdzod).In short order Kyung also died
suddenly after several ominous signs of Shuk-den's
anger.Shuk-den's anger at Zi-gyab's attempt to receive the
(Rin chen gter mdzod)is particularly revealing in view of
the central place held by this collection of teachings in
the Non-sectarian movement.
Whatever the intentions of its author, the main message of
the Yellow Book is hard to miss. Ge-luk lamas should
absolutely not practice the teachings from other schools,
otherwise they will incur Shuk-den's wrath and die
prematurely.The author of the Yellow Book was repeating the
views already expressed by the two most important figures in
the tradition of Shuk-den followers, Pa-bong-ka and
Tri-jang, as illustrated by the above quote (for the former)
and claimed by the book itself (for the latter).[49]
49 The Yellow Book provided a number of cases that
illustrate this point, emphasizing that the dire warnings
were not empty threats but based on "facts."
The Dalai Lama reacted strongly to this book.He felt
personally betrayed by Dze-may, a lama for whom he had great
hopes and to whom he had shown particular solicitude. More
importantly, he felt that the Yellow Book was an attack on
his role as Dalai Lama, a rejection of his religious
leadership by the Ge-luk establishment, and a betrayal of
his efforts in the struggle for Tibetan freedom.In 1976 the
first signs of the impending crisis appeared, which I will
explore in some detail, since I do not believe that these
events have been well documented even by Tibetans. I will
use my own memories to supplement the sketchy public records.
One of the first public manifestation of the Dalai Lama's
state of mind was his refusal, after the Tibetan New Year of
1976, of the long life offerings made by the Tibetan
government.Traditionally, the Dalai Lama accepts such an
offering after the new year as a sign of the pure bond (dam
tshig tshang ma) that exists between him and Tibetans: this
bond is based on his commitment to continue his work as
Dalai Lama and the Tibetans' allegiance. His refusal
signaled in effect that he thought that the bond had been
undermined and that the behavior of Tibetans was
incompatible with his remaining as Dalai Lama. When pressed
by the National Assembly to accept the offerings, the Dalai
Lama sent back even stronger signals, mentioning dreams in
which ?akinis had entreated him to return to the pure
realms. The refusal of the offerings of long life was
already bad enough. The mention of these dreams was akin to
a declaration of intention to abandon this world and his
role therein. This sent the Tibetan community into a
veritable ritual frenzy.The state oracle of Ne-chung ordered
Tibetans to recite an enormous number of ma?i, the mantra of
the bodhisattva Avalokite˛vara of whom the Dalai Lama is
said to be a manifestation.
At that time I was living at the Rikon monastery in
Switzerland.I did not witness the scenes I am describing but
heard about them from Tibetan friends and read reports in
the (Shes Bya) review in Tibetan.I remember very clearly,
however, the emotion that the news created among the monks
living in Switzerland.Some were devastated, crying openly.I
also remember the many hours that the Tibetan community in
Switzerland spent reciting the number of required mantras.I
was puzzled by the fact that not all Ge-luk monks seemed
equally affected. Some seemed to be distinctly cool, despite
their participation in the public rituals intended to
protect the life of the Dalai Lama.Why were they so unmoved
by the news of the Dalai Lama's reaction?
The answer, about which I had no idea at the time, was that
they agreed with the views expressed by the Yellow
Book.Hence, they were less then moved by the Dalai Lama's
negative reaction. They understood that it manifested a
profound division within the Ge-luk tradition, a division
about which they could not but worry. Primarily, however,
they saw his reaction as a rejection and a betrayal of the
teachings of his tutor, Tri-jang, whom they considered to be
the main teacher of the Ge-luk tradition and the guardian of
its orthodoxy.They also may have foreseen that the Dalai
Lama would counterattack. The crisis that has agitated the
Ge-luk school since then had begun.
In the mid 1976, the Dalai Lama finally accepted the long
life offerings of the Tibetan government and the Tibetan
people.He would lead them after all, but this was not the
end of the story, for he would also take strong actions to
strengthen the loyalty of the Ge-luk establishment. His
offensive started at the beginning of 1977 when Dze-may was
publicly berated for his book. He was expelled from one of
the public teachings that the Dalai Lama gave that year.The
Dalai Lama also began to apply pressure against the practice
of Shuk-den, laying several restrictions on the practice.
The three great monasteries of Dre-bung, Ga-den and Se-ra,
which traditionally, though not unambiguously, have
supported the Tibetan government, and the two tantric
colleges were ordered not to propitiate Shuk-den in public
ceremonies.Moreover, several statues of Shuk-den were
removed from the chapels of the three monasteries. Finally,
the Dalai Lama ordered the monks of Se-ra in Bylakuppe not
to use a building originally intended for the monthly ritual
of Shuk-den.Individuals could continue their practice
privately if they so chose, as long as they remained
discreet about it.
The Ritual Basis of the Dalai Lama Institution
Many found the Dalai Lama's reaction excessive.After all,
the views expressed by the book were rather unexceptional.
The book was undeniably sectarian, but this is not rare in
any of the four (or more) Tibetan schools. Similar sectarian
views were held by Pa-bong-ka.[50] 50 Even the
Non-sectarian movement had at times used its inclusive
strategy against the dominance of the Ge-luk school. Thus,
the mere presence of a sectarian element in the Yellow Book
could not justify or explain the Dalai Lama's strong
reaction.We need to find another explanation.
Throughout the crisis, the Dalai Lama has gone to great
lengths to explain his position. At first reserved to a
limited audience, these explanations, some of which are of
great scholarly quality, are now available in Tibetan and
are invaluable to understand the present crisis.[51]
51 The Dalai Lama repeatedly points to the relation
between Shuk-den and the ritual system underlying the
institution of the Dalai Lama as the source of the problem.
The institution of the Dalai Lama is not just political, but
also rests on an elaborate ritual system, which has
undergone several transformations. When the Fifth Dalai Lama
assumed power after 1642, he attempted to build a broad-
based rule legitimized by a claim to reestablish the early
Tibetan empire.This claim was supported by an elaborate
ritual system, which sought to reenact the perceived
religious basis of the Tibetan empire. This ritual system
was not limited to the practices of the Ge-luk tradition but
included teachings and figures closely associated with the
Nying-ma tradition, the Buddhist school that for Tibetans
has a close association with the early empire.The ritual
system involves an extremely complex network of practices
which cannot be examined here.Two elements require mention,
however.
The first element is devotion to Padmasambhava, the
semi-mythical founder of the Nying-ma tradition.His role is
central to the ritual system as conceived by the present
Dalai Lama, for Guru Rin-bo-che is responsible for taming
the negative forces in Tibet. According to legend, he
started the practice of transforming pre-Buddhist deities
into worldly protectors by binding them through oaths.He is
in charge of making sure that these gods keep their word,
and he is the guarantor of all the worldly protectors of the
Tibetan world.[52] 52
The second element of this ritual system is the primacy of
the protector Ne-chung. Like most other collective entities
in the Tibetan cultural landscape, the Dalai Lama and his
government have mundane protectors, who are often described
as the "Two Red and Black Protectors" (srung ma dmar nag
gnyis). The black protector is identified as the Great
Goddess (dpal-ldan lha mo), the Tibetan equivalent of
(Maha-devi). The identification of the red protector has
varied over time, but since the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ne-chung
has been recognized as the red warrior deity protecting the
Dalai Lama institution.[53] 53 Together, they are
taken to protect the Dalai Lama and his institution,
including the Tibetan government.
Ne-chung is one in an important group of deities named "the
five kings" (rgyal po sku lnga,) lit., five king-bodies)
who are considered to be the manifestations of Pe-har, the
deity appointed by Padmasambhava as the main guardian of
Buddhism in Tibet. Among the five deities, Ne-chung is
usually identified with Dor-je Drak-den (rdo rje grags
ldan), the speech deity of the five kings.[54] 54
Because of his connection with Pe-har, the guardian deity of
Buddhism during the early Tibetan empire, the Fifth Dalai
Lama and his government have chosen Ne-chung as the "Red
Protector" thus emphasizing their connection with the early
empire and strengthening their legitimacy.This choice
further reinforced the centrality of Guru Rin-bo-che, and
reflected the Fifth Dalai Lama's personal association with
the Nying-ma tradition.
The Yellow Book and the propitiation of Shuk-den threaten
this eclectic system centered on the worship of Guru
Rin-bo-che and the propitiation of Ne-chung. By presenting
Shuk-den as a deity in charge of visiting retribution upon
those Ge-luk who have adopted practices from the Nying-ma
tradition, which is based on and closely associated with the
devotion to Guru Rin-bo-che, the Yellow Book undermines the
ritual system underlying the Dalai Lama institution, and the
present Dalai Lama's efforts to implement this system more
fully.I also believe that the timing of the Yellow Book was
particularly disastrous.
In his early years, the present Dalai Lama followed the
advice of his teachers and practiced an almost purely Ge-luk
ritual system.In doing so, he was continuing the tradition
of the last seven Dalai Lamas, who had adopted a strictly
Ge-luk ritual system as the religious basis of their
power.Important changes were introduced after the death of
the Fifth and the defeat of his party, when the role of the
Dalai Lama and the ritual system supporting the institution
were changed.Instead of an eclectic system emulating the
religious basis of the early empire, a more purely Ge-luk
ritual system was installed under the auspices of the
Seventh Dalai Lama Kel-zang Gya-tso.The monks of Nam-gyel,
the personal monastery of the Dalai Lama, were replaced by
monks from the Ge-luk Tantric Colleges and the Nying-ma
rituals that they had performed were discontinued.[55]
55 This situation continued into this century,
forming the religious practice of the young Fourteenth.
As the Fourteenth became more mature, however, he started to
question this orientation. He felt a strong appreciation for
the Fifth's political project, which he has described as a
masterplan for building Tibet into a nation able to take
part in the history of the region rather than a marginal
state governed by religious hierarchs mostly preoccupied
with the power of their monasteries and estates.[56]
56 He also felt a strong religious bond with the
Fifth and gradually came to the realization that he needed
to implement the latter's ritual system.Consequently, he
abandoned his Shuk-den practice in the mid-seventies, for he
could not keep propitiating this deity while using Ne-chung,
the protector associated with Guru Rin-bo-che and with whom
he had had a special relation for many years.[57] 57
He also attempted to promote the role of Guru Rin-bo-che in
the ritual system of the Tibetan state. Only by
strengthening this role, which he saw as vital to the
integrity of the ritual basis of the Tibetan state, could
the cause of Tibet be successful.Were not the political
difficulties experienced by Tibetans signs that this ritual
support had been undermined?
As an expression of his resolve to return to the ritual
system developed by the Fifth Dalai Lama, the present Dalai
Lama developed the role of Nying-ma rituals in the practice
of his own personal Nam-gyel monastery. The monastery's
repertoire was expanded from the usual Ge-luk tantric
rituals to include typical Nying-ma practices such as Vajra
kilaya and others.He invited several Nying-ma lamas to give
teachings and empowerments to his monks. He also ordered
them to do appropriate retreats.I remember the tongue in
cheek comments of some of my friends of the Nam-gyel
monastery about their "becoming Nying-ma-bas."They were
surprised, taken aback and uncomfortable, for the rituals of
the Nam-gyel monastery had been for many years Ge-luk, not
very different from that of the two tantric colleges.They
were ready to follow the Dalai Lama, however, despite their
obvious misgivings.
Another key element in the Dalai Lama's strategy of
returning to the Fifth's ritual system was the institution
in October 1975 of a yearly ceremony of making a hundred
thousands offerings to Guru Rin-bo-che.The collective
worship of Guru Rin-bo-che would restore the synergy that
existed between this figure and the Tibetan people, thus
strengthening the power of the gods appointed by Guru
Rin-bo-che to protect Tibetans from danger. But this event
was not very successful. Many Ge-luk monks and nuns felt
rather lukewarm, if not downright hostile, toward Guru
Rin-bo-che, and abstained from attending the event.They
profoundly resented the adoption of rituals they saw as
coming from an alien tradition.
This was precisely the time that the famous Yellow Book
first circulated, a coincidence I consider particularly
unfortunate.[58] 58 Although the connection between
the low attendance at this new ceremony and the book is hard
to establish, the Dalai Lama felt that the Yellow Book had
contributed to the lack of support among Ge-luk monks and
nuns.More importantly, he felt that the appearance of such a
book precisely when he was trying to restore the ritual
basis of the Tibetan state represented an act of open
defiance by the very people, the high Ge-luk lamas, who were
supposed to support him.These were the same people who had
thwarted the attempts of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama toward
reform with tragic consequences for Tibet.These were also
particularly difficult times for Tibet politically. The
repression in Tibet had gone on practically uninterrupted
since 1959 and there seemed no end in sight. The sadness and
even desperation thereby induced in the exile community and
the Dalai Lama must have contributed to the crisis.[59]
59
Finally, the Dalai Lama felt directly attacked by the Yellow
Book. For, after all, who was the person who was designated
as a potential target of Shuk-den, the person who was
undermining the purity of the Ge-luk tradition by adopting
practices from the Nying-ma tradition, if not himself?Also,
the Dalai Lama felt that this book was working against his
efforts to promote harmony among the Tibetan schools.The
matter was made much worse by the attribution of the
opinions expressed by the Yellow Book to Tri-jang, who, to
my knowledge, has never rejected this attribution. In fact,
everybody assumed that Dze-may had indeed reported the words
of his teacher and this is why the book was thought to be
particularly damaging.What could the Dalai Lama say against
his own teacher?
The Role of Shuk-den
If we can recognize the Dalai Lama's reasons for reacting to
the diffusion of the Yellow Book, we have yet to understand
the place of the practice of Shuk-den in this affair. Why
focus so exclusively on the propitiation of Shuk-den?We need
to consider briefly the role of mundane protectors in
Tibetan culture. Mundane protectors ('jig rtenpa'i lha)
are guardians in a universe alive with forces which can
quickly become threatening, and are considered by Tibetans
to be particularly effective because they are mundane, i.e.,
unenlightened.[60] 60 They share human emotions such
as anger or jealousy, which makes them more effective than
the more remote supra-mundane deities ('jig rten las 'das
pa'i lha), but also more prone to take offense at the
actions of humans or other protectors.Shuk-den, for example,
is presented as being hostile to those Ge-luk-bas who do not
stick to the pure tradition of Dzong-ka-ba and seek the
teachings of other traditions. Shuk-den is also said to
undermine Ne-chung, who is said to resent Shuk-den's role
and actions. Ne-chung is often depicted as acting out of
resentment against and jealousy toward Shuk-den, proding the
Dalai Lama to act against Shuk-den, to abandon the
propitiation of this deity, to ban his practice, etc. The
Dalai Lama himself has described on numerous occasions the
strength of his relation to Ne-chung and the role of this
deity in his decisions concerning Shuk-den.[61] 61
Although the decision to limit the role of Shuk-den in 1970s
cannot be solely attributed to Ne-chung, this deity has
played an important role in the Dalai Lama's decisions.
We may wonder about the meaning of these conflicts between
deities, their resentment against each other.What does it
mean to say that Ne-chung resents Shuk-den, that he asked
the Dalai Lama to ban him? For traditional Tibetans, such a
statement is perfectly clear and does not require any
further explanation, since it refers to entities whose
reality is as certain as that of the solar system is for
scientifically educated people.The propitiation of these
entities is an integral part of their culture, and the
conflict between worldly protectors or gods is a normal
occurence in a universe which is filled by entities who can
harm humans. I remember at one point becoming quite close to
a young lama and his servant.I used to eat with them, until
one day I was told that my visits were not welcome any more.
They had had bad dreams, one of the privileged channels
through which protectors communicate with humans.[62]
62 According to these dreams, their protector was
unhappy at my visits.My god apparently did not agree with
theirs!
For modern educated people such an explanation is hardly
satisfying. In the case of personal relations,
incompatibilities can be easily explained as
temperamental.But what does it mean for Shuk-den and
Ne-chung not to get along? To understand this aspect of
Tibetan culture, we need to realize that protectors are not
just individual guardians but also protect collective
entities. Monasteries, households of lamas, regional houses
in large monasteries, and clans or families have their own
protectors. This collective dimension of protectors is most
relevant to the present conflict between Shuk-den and
Ne-chung, which is quite obviously a reflection of the
conflict between two groups, the conservative Ge-luk-bas,
who resent the Dalai Lama's reliance on the Nying-ma
tradition, and the g?roups who accept or support the Dalai
Lama's eclectic approach. The relation between groups and
worldly protectors becomes clear if one remembers that the
deities who are protectors are defined as such because they
protect the person or the group, often by violent means,
from enemies. These enemies are described as the "enemies of
Buddhism" (bstan dgra); they are the "other" in opposition
to which the person and the group define their identity.The
connection between group and protector is very close.
There is, however, an important distinction to be made here.
In the case of supra-mundane protectors, enemies of Buddhism
threaten Buddhism as well as their own spiritual
welfare.[63] 63 The violence that protectors unleash
against them is said to be strictly motivated by compassion
and aims at benefiting the beings who are its target, much
like the actions of bodhisattvas described in the Mahayana
literature.[64] 64 This violence is impartial and
cannot be used for one's personal advantage. However, the
violence of mundane deities is quite different, for it
involves quasi human emotions.Since these deities experience
these emotions, they are thought to be partial and can be
enrolled in actions performed on behalf of the person or the
group who propitiates them.The term "enemies of Buddhism" is
used and the practitioner or the group will ask the
protector to get rid of these beings. But in this case the
term "enemies of Buddhism" refers less to the objects of
compassionate and impartial violence than to the being
perceived by the person or the group as threatening. An
"enemy of Buddhism" may belong to a rival Buddhist group, or
may be a member of one's own tradition, such as Ge-luk
practitioners who are interested in other schools such as
the Nying-ma.[65] 65 We now begin to understand the
close connection between group identity and mundane
protectors, and the reason why the propitiation of some
protectors can be quite troubling.
Moreover, the close connection between group and protector
is not just symbolic, it is also inscribed in the nature of
the practices relating to protectors which is based on the
notion of loyalty.The relation between a person or group and
the protector is described as being based on the maintenance
of "pure bond" or "pure commitment" (dam tshig tshang ma).
This notion of pure bond is particularly important in
Tibetan Buddhism, where there is a strong emphasis on
preserving the commitment between students and their
teachers, especially in the context of tantric practice.But
this sense of loyalty goes well beyond the domain of tantric
practice. It plays a vital role in the social life of
Tibetans, who put a great emphasis on personal friendship
and group loyalty.It also informs a part of Tibetan
political life, as we noticed earlier.
It is this same sense of loyalty that lies at the basis of
the relations between protectors and their followers.This is
particularly true regarding the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den,
a practice based on the taking of a solemn oath similar to
that of friends swearing life-long loyalty to each other.The
propitiation of Shuk-den requires a ceremony called "life
entrusting" (srog gtad), during which the followers and
the deity are introduced to each other by the guru who
confers the empowerment.[66] 66 The follower swears
his or her fidelity to Dor-je Shuk-den who in exchange
promises to serve him or her. It is clear that this practice
fosters a very strong loyalty to the deity and by extension
to the group that the deity represents.
In Shuk-den's case, devotion has been strengthened further
by the central role of the charismatic teachers Pa-bong-ka
and Tri-jang, who have transformed this formerly minor
practice into one of the main elements of the Ge-luk
tradition. Because of the central place of keeping
commitments to one's guru among Tibetans, and because of the
considerable personal qualities of these teachers, they have
succeeded in inspiring an extreme devotion in their
followers, who seem to value their commitment to these
figures more than anything else. In fact, from the point of
view of many of Shuk-den's followers, the devotion to
teachers such as Pa-bong-ka or Tri-jang is the basis for the
practice of Shuk-den. They propitiate this deity first and
foremost because it is the protector recommended by their
guru. This situation has contributed significantly to the
polarization that surrounds the issue and has further
enhanced the troubling potential of the Shuk-den
practice.For when the Dalai Lama opposes Shuk-den, the
followers of this deity feel his opposition is directed
against the founding fathers of their own tradition, and
hence an attack against their own group.They also feel
misrepresented when they are accused of being sectarian, for
in their perspective the sectarian element pales in
significance when compared to their commitment to their guru
and his tradition.
Nevertheless, groups may feel that they fit the description
"enemies of Buddhism" as defined by the Shuk-den rituals,
even if the threat they imply is not implemented or is
considered secondary by their practitioners. Thus the claim
that the practice of Shuk-den disrupts the functioning of
the Dalai Lama institution
becomes-special-character:footnote'[67]
But, as we saw earlier, a number of Nying-ma rituals are
precisely the basis of the Dalai Lama institution as
understood by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Does
it not follow that the present Dalai Lama is the "enemy of
Buddhism" as implied by the practice of Shuk-den?
Most of Pa-bong-ka's followers would answer this question in
the negative. They would argue that their practice is
primarily not directed at anybody but stems from their
religious commitments. Nevertheless, the fact that this
shocking statement seems to follow logically from the way
the practice of Shuk-den has been defined by its main
proponents explains the challenge that such a practice
raises for the leadership of the Dalai Lama.It also throws
some light on the claim that Ne-chung resents Shuk-den's
success. Since Ne-chung is taken as the preeminent protector
of the Dalai Lama, he must indeed be disturbed by a cult
that takes the very people he is meant to protect as its
target. Finally, we understand the divisiveness of the
practice of mundane protectors such as Shuk-den and the
danger of violence that it contains.For, after all, what can
one do with the enemies of Buddhism but fight them? We are
also able to answer one of the questions raised at the
beginning of this essay: is the practice of Shuk-den
different from the practices associated with other
protectors? It is clear that there are other wordly
protectors within the world of Tibetan Buddhism. It also
clear that Shuk-den as a deity does not appear to be very
different from other worldly protectors who are all
perceived to inspire awe and fear and hence have the
potential for being put to troubling uses, though the
particular cultural scenario associated with Shuk-den, i.e.,
being a spirit of a dead religious person (rgyal po), may
mark him as a particularly fierce deity. A similar cultural
scenario, however, is alleged in the case of Ne-chung, a
deity sometimes presented as the spirit of a monk who broke
his vows.[68] 68 Thus, the root of the problem raised
by the Shuk-den affair is not the particular nature of the
deity. So why is the practice of Shuk-den so problematic?
The answer is to be found in the sectarian ways in which
this practice has been defined by its founders.Shuk-den was
re-invented during this century not just to satisfy the
wordly puposes of individuals or particular institutions,
but also and mostly to affirm and defend the identity of a
revival movement opposed to other religious groups,
particularly within the Ge-luk tradition.Shuk-den is the
protector in charge not just of protecting individual
practitioners but the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition as
conceived by its most conservative elements.It is this
aggessively sectarian use of this deity that has been
particularly problematic. The practices associated with the
other protectors are different in that they are used by
monasteries, lama's estates, families, or individuals for
this-wordly purposes as piecemeal elements of a traditional
network of religious practices, not to affirm a
systematically sectarian outlook.As such they do not map
into any large-scale socio-political distinction and their
potential for abuse remains limited.
This sectarian stance is the central message of the founding
myth of the Shuk-den tradition, the wrathful transformation
of Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen into Shuk-den and his hostility
to the Fifth Dalai Lama. This hostility reflects the
attitude of a part of the Ge-luk tradition which advocates a
strictly Ge-luk practice and opposes the importation of
Nying-ma teachings into their tradition. This opposition
between two visions of the Ge-luk tradition focuses on the
figure of the Dalai Lama because of the way in which the
Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas have considered the
institution they represent, i.e., as resting on an eclectic
religious basis in which elements associated with the
Nying-ma tradition combine with an overall Ge-luk
orientation.Shuk-den, then, is less the spirit of the Ge-luk
political resentment against a strong Dalai Lama, than it is
the spirit of a religious resentment against a perceived
threat to the integrity of the Ge-luk tradition.The target
of Shuk-den is not the Dalai Lama (per se) but the
accomodation toward other schools, particularly the
Nying-ma, shown by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas,
an attitude perceived by Shuk-den's followers as a
defilement of Dzong-ka'ba's tradition.
When this sectarian orientation is combined with some of the
particularities of the Shuk-den tradition such as the
central role of charismatic figures such as Pa-bong-ka and
Tri-jang, the extreme devotion they have inspired in their
followers, as well as the intensity of the loyalty developed
by the Shuk-den cult based on the life entrusting ceremony
mentioned above, the troubling events that have revolved
around the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den become less
surprising. The strong opposition of the present Dalai Lama
also becomes more understandable. For a sectarian opposition
to the Dalai Lama institution cannot help but have strong
political implications in contemporary Tibetan society where
this institution plays such a large role. The practice of
propitiating Shuk-den threatens this institution and
undermines its ability to function as a rallying point for
Tibetans. Is it then surprising if he opposes it so vigorously?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] ref1This is a revised version of an essay
published earlier in the (Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies)(Vol., 21, no. 2
[1998]:227-270) and reprinted here with the permission of
the editors of the above mentioned journal.I would like to
thank them.I would also like to acknowledge all the people
who have helped me in this project. Due to the sensitive
nature of the topic, however, I feel that I should not
mention any name and just thank them collectively.
[2] ref2Tri-jang Rin-bo-che, (The Music that
Rejoices the Ocean of Pledge Bound, Being an Account of the
Amazing Three Secrets [of Body, Speech and Mind] of Great
Magical Dharma Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force, The
Supreme Manifested Deity Protecting the Ge-den Tradition
(dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog sprul pa'i chos rgyal
chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal gyi gsang gsum rmad du
byung ba'i rtogs pa brjod pa'i gtam du bya ba dam can can
rgya mtsho dgyes pa'i rol mo,) Collected Works, Delhi: Guru
Deva, 1978), V.5-159, 8.
[3] ref3Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's lineage is said to go
back to Dul Dzin Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, a direct disciple of
Dzong-ka-ba. This lineage is, however, a kind of spiritual
lineage and quite different from the recognized lineage of a
lama. See Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement to the Explanation of the
Preliminaries of the Life Entrusting [Ritual] )(rgyal chen
srog gtad gyi sngon 'gro bshad pa'i mtshams sbyor kha
bskong),) Collected Works, New Delhi: Chopel Legdan, 1973),
VII.517-532, 520.
[4] ref4Sang-gye Gya-tso (sangs rgyas rgya mtsho),
explains that after Ngak-wang Ge-lek (ngag dbang dge legs)
had died, the second reincarnation of Pen-chen
Sö-nam-drak-ba was found in the Ge-kha-sa (gad kha sa)
family.He adds: "Although he had hopes for being the
reincarnation of the All-knowing Yon-ten Gya-tso, he was
made the reincarnation of Ngak-wang Ge-lek" (thams cad
mkhyen pa yon tan rgya mtsho'i sprul sku yong du re yang
ngag dbang dge legs kyi sprul sku byas pas).
Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, (Vai?Ærya-ser-po) (Delhi:
International Academy of Indian Culture, 1960), 72. 5
[5] ref5Dol rgyal zhib 'jug tshogs chung, (Dol rgyal
lam shugs ldan byung rim la dpyad pa) (Dharamsala, 1998),
25-35. 6
[6] ref6Tri-jang, (Music ,) 101-109.
[7] ref7R. Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles and Demons of
Tibet).(The Hague: Mouton, 1956).
[8] ref8In this essay I will treat deities as "real
persons" since they are experienced as such by Tibetans.
[9] ref9Such a spirit is also called (tsan) (often
but not always the spirit of a monk who has either fallen
from his monastic commitment or has been killed), who lives
in rocks and must be pacified with special red offerings.
Tibetans speak of eight classes of of gods and spirits (lha
srin sde brgyad). See: Samuel, (Civilized Shaman)
(Washington: Smithsonian, 1993), 161-163.
[10] ref10Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 521.
[11] ref11Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 523 and
Tri-jang, (Music ,) 105.
[12] ref12The Tri-ba seems at first to have been
elected, which would have stenghtened his position.Later he
was selected by the Dalai Lama.When did this change
occur?Only further research will provide an answer which
will greatly help us in understanding the history of the
Ge-luk tradition.
[13] ref13E.G. Smith, "Introduction," (Kongtrul's
Encyclopedia of Indo-Tibetan Culture )(New Delhi:
International Academy of Indian Culture, 1970), 17.
[14] ref14L. Petech, Introduction to
Sangs-rgyas-rgya-mtsho, (VaidÆrya-ser-po) , xi-xii. 15
[15] ref15bod de'i rgyal po ni gzim khang gong ma
sprul sku grags rgyan zer ba ni chag(s) sdang gi gtam kho
nar zad do des na bsod nams chos 'phel ni lo 'dir 'das nas
khong dge lugs la thugs zhen ches pas chos bsrung ba'i tshul
bzung nas dge lugs pa skyong zhes grags pa bden nam snyam
mo. (Rehu mig or chronological tables)in Sum pa mkhan po,
(dPag bsam ljon bzang )(Delhi: International Academy of
Indian Culture, 1959), 70-1. 16
[16] ref16This opposition had come to the fore when
the prime minister tried to entice the Lo-sel-ling college
of Dre-bung monastery to adopt the fifth Dalai Lama's works
as its textbooks in place of Pen-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba's
works.After the college's refusal, Sang-gye Gya-tso asked
Jam-yang-shay-ba to refute Pen-chen Sö-nam-drak-ba.This was
an attempt at strengthening the government's control over
the monasteries as well as a way of removing Drak-ba
Gyel-tsen's posthumous influence, two goals with which
Jam-yang-shay-ba had little sympathy. Hence, the latter
refused to oblige.
[17] ref17(de'i rjes su gad kha sa pa'i nang so gro
(grod?) lhug thog mar thams cad mkhyen pa yon tan rgya
mtsho'i sprul sku yong du re yang ngag dbang bsod nams dge
legs kyi sprul sku byas pas mthar skye gnas mi bzang bar
gyur to) Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, (Vai?Ærya-ser-po)
(Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1960), 71-2.
[18] ref18gad kha sa lags a rgyal gyi 'phrul la brten
ngag dbang bsod nams dge legs dpal bzang gyi sku skye rdzus
ma lam du song ba smon lam log pa'i dam srid gyur te.Fifth
Dalai Lama, (Collected Works,) vol. Ha, 423-4. A similar
scenario is presented in the Fifth's autobiography.Both
passages were quoted by the present Dalai Lama in a talk
given in Los Angeles, June 1997.
[19] ref19Some stories present the Nga-ri Rin-bo-che
as the reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen but they are hard
to trace and are probably significantly posterior to the
facts here discussed.
[20] ref20In reference to the year 1655 (Wood Sheep),
Sum-pa-mkhan-po notes: "[Birth of] the Kangshi emperor
renowned as the reincarnation of Tul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen
(sprul sku grags rgyan skye bar grags pa'i khang zhi bde
skyid rgyal po) (Rehu mig ,) 70. 21
[21] ref21In his autobiography, the Fifth Dalai Lama
mentions the existence of a harmful spirit around the pond
of Döl. See (Du ku La'i gos bzang,) II. ›157.a-.b.
[22] ref22Pa-bong-ka gives the following gloss of
Shuk-den's name: "[This] great protector, who holds the
adamantine force which is all pervading regarding the
destruction of the army of the devil, [this] spirit who is a
war god, the protector of the Ge-den tradition, who assumes
the pretense of being a wordly boastful god though he is
beyond the world, is well known "Great Magical Spirit
Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (de ltar 'jig rten las
'das kyang dregs pa'i zol 'chang dge ldan bstan srung dgra
lha'i rgyal po bdud kyi sde 'joms pa la thogs pa med pa'i
rdo rje'i shugs 'chang ba bstan srung chen po rgyal chen dor
je shugs ldan rtsal zhes yongs su grags pa.(Supplement,) 528.
[23] ref23shing cha rnams chu la bskyur ba dol chu
mig dkar mor chags pas der gnas pas re zhig bar du dol rgyal
zhes grags. Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 521. 24
[24] ref24Another informant has suggested that
Shuk-den became at some point a monastic deity in charge of
eliminating rogue monks who had broken their vows but still
pretended to be pure. ›This hypothesis would account for the
monastic appearance of Shuk-den's main form (for a
description of Shuk-den's five forms, see Kelzang Gyatso,
(Heart Jewel,) 77) and provide a precedent for Shuk-den's
opposition to Ge-luk practitioners who have adopted Nying-ma
teachings.From punishing rogue monks, it is quite easy to
imagine how Döl-gyel could have been transformed into a
deity punishing "rogue Ge-luk-bas"! I have not found,
however, any source confirming this hypothesis. That such a
type of deity exists among Tibetans is well
established(Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 207), but the
connection with Döl-gyel or Shuk-den remains unfounded. 25
[25] ref25phyi'i nang du nged rang phyir ldog cing
sku tshab drung du phyin nas smon lam rnam par dag pas
mtshams sbyar nas dur khrod du zhag gcig bsdad pas tshar
slong gi mtha' rdzogs pa byung de nas theg cing btsan thang
g.yu yi lha khang du zhag gcig bsdad rim bzhin gtsang chu'i
srib ngos nas byams pa gling dang o rgyan smin grol gling
thub bstan rdor brag sogs la mchod mjal zhus lcags la'i
sras mkhan rin po che dang mjal zhing thugs yid gcig 'dres
su gyur grwa thang du rgyal po shugs ldan nas cho 'phrul
sna tshogs byung yang nye zho ma nus.Bde bar lcags zam chu
bo rir slebs.Autobiography of Mdo Mkhyen brtse Ye shes rdo
rje. Gangtok:Namgyal Institutue of Tibetology, 1974), 148. 26
[26] ref26The practice of propitiating Döl-gyel seems
to have been absent in the Ngor-ba or Tshar-ba branches of
the Sa-gya tradition. It disappeared from the tradition of
Sa-gya, perhpas due to the realization of its sectarian
implications.
[27] ref27Pl 480 IASWR microfilms 08.043. ?Dpal bsam
yas lhun gyis grub pa'i gtsugs lag khang gi srung ma phrin
las kiy mgon pa kun khyab rdo rje drag po rtsal gyi spyan
'dren bskang pa phrin bcol, 12.b-16.a.It is by no means
sure, however, that the present version is identical to the
text written by Sö-nam-rin-chen.The colophon mentions the
fact that the text was revised (bcos) by Ngak-wang Kun-ga
Lo-drö (ngag dbang kun dga' blo gros).The text is found
among a collections of ritual texts of Anye Zhab (amyes
zhabs ngag dbang kun dga',) 1597-1659).
[28] ref28rgyal gsol log 'dren tshar gcod.
[29] ref29One of the main sources in this essay is
the present Dalai Lama, who has done a great deal of
excellent research concerning Shuk-den, tracing several
mentions of this deity in the early stages of the Ge-luk
tradition.Here I am borrowing from his talk given on the 8th
of May 1996. 30
[30] ref30S. Mumford, 'Himalayan Dialogue (Madison:
Wisconsin University Press, 1989), 264. 31
[31] ref31Collected works of Thu-bkwan
Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-ma (Delhi :Ngawang Gelek Demo,
1969-1971), I.5-831, 221.b. Quoted by the Dalai Lama in his
talk of the 8th of may 1996.
[32] ref32Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 210.
[33] ref33Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong
kha ( pha bong kha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po'i
rnam par thar pa), 471.a-.b. 34
[34] ref34Ta bu Pe-ma Baz-ra and Dak-po Kel-zang
Kay-drub are often mentioned as sources of the Shuk-den
teachings. 35
[35] ref35Pa-bong-ka, Collected Works, VIII.498, 533.
36
[36] ref36Tri-jang,(Music,) 5.
[37] ref37Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 5.
[38] ref38Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong
kha,) 471.b.
[39] ref39hung blo bzang bstan pa srung ba'i srog
zhing gcig rnal 'byor 'dod pa'i re skong yid bzhin nor dam
nyams dgra gegs srog la ha la'i dug khyod kyi gsang gsum
dran pas bstod phyag tshal Pa-bong-ka, (Collection of
[Rituals] concerning the Circle of Offerings, The Special
Offering of Drinks, [and] the Exhortation to Action of the
Powerful Protectors of Buddhismand [the propitiation of]
Wealth Gods and Spirit (mthu ldan bstan srung khag gi 'phrin
las bskul gser skyems tshogs mchod sogs dang gnod sbyin nor
lha' skor 'ga' zhig phogs gcig tu bkod pa,) Collected
Works, New Delhi: Chopel Legdan, 1973), VII.451-497), 467. 40
[40] ref40hung khro rgyal gshin rje gshed 'jam mgon
bla ma tsong kha pa'i bstan dang bstan 'dzind dgra lha'i
gtso shugs ldan drag po las la bskul ... khyad par blo
bzang bstan pa'i dgra skad cig sgrol ba'i dus la bab sngon
gyi dam tshig ma gyel bar chos skyong drag po'i las la
bzhengs snying ring thugs dam ma lhod par dra po'i las la
myur du chos bskul zhing 'phrin las bcol ba'i las bstang
snyoms ma mdzad myur du sgrubs bdag la re sa gzhan med kyi
bcol ba'i 'phrin las myur sgrubs. Pa-bong-ka, (Collection
,) 468-469. 41
[41] ref41zhwa gser gyi bstan pa la log par spyod
pa'i 'gro ba mchog dman kun la drag po'i che pa thog ltar
'beb pa la 'phrin las kyi shugs shin tu myur zhing drag
shul shin tu che bas na rang phyogs kyi ser skya mchog dman
mang po zhig kyang rje'i ring lugs gser sbyangs btso ma lta
bu 'di nyid kyis go ma chod par gzhan phyogs pa'i lta grub
'khrul pa las kyang nyid 'khrul mu 'byam du song ba'i lam
log lam gol gyi grub mtha' myur myur mo dang zab zab mor
grags pa mang po zhig bse bslad byas pa la brten nas bstan
bsrung gnyan po 'dis rang gzugs dngos su bstan pa dang
khrog gtum 'jigs shing rngams pa'i rnam 'gyur mi bzad pa'i
cho 'phrul sna tshogs pas kha cig myo zhing 'bog pa dang la
la khong khrag 'dren cing glo bur du tshe'i 'du byed pa
'ga' zhig mi 'dod pa'i ngan ltas ci rigs pas dpal 'byor 'du
longs rigs rgyud dang bcas pa ltag chu chad pa'i rdzing bu
ltar rim bzhin rjes shul med par btang ba dang skye ba'i
phreng ba gzhan mar 'gar yang ci byas pa la lam du rgyu dka'
ba sogs mngon sum du byung ba dang 'byung 'gyur mang po
mthong thos kyi yul du 'gyur pa ltar lags pas blo bzang
rgyal ba'i bstan pa grub mtha' chal chol gzhan gyis bse
bslad med par 'dzin pa shin tu gal che zhing. Pa-bong-ka,
(Supplement ,) 526-527.
[42] ref42The ironical words (myur myur mo dang zab
zab mo) are clear references to Dzok-chen, which
characterizes itself as having the most profound view and
the fastest path.
[43] ref43kun gzigs lnga pa chen po grub mtha' gsar
rnying thams cad 'dzing skyong spel bar mdzad pas chos
skyong chen po 'dis sngon gyi thugs smon gyi dbang gis 'jam
mgon bla ma'i ring lugs dri ma med par bsrung zhing skyong
ba'i phyir rgyal dbang mchog la shin tu 'jigs su rung ba'i
rnam 'gyur sna tshogs ston pa'i gzigs snang byung ba na
Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement , )521. This text consists of
notes taken by Pa-bong-ka's secretary Lob-zang Dor-je during
one of Pa-bong-ka's Life Entrusting (srog gtad)
ceremonies. 44
[44] ref44Tri-jang, (Music. ) 45
[45] ref45See above for the bibliographical
reference. 46
[46] ref46Tri-jang, (Music. )
[47] ref47Or thirty according to the Tibetan way of
counting years. Dze-may, (The Yellow Book,) 4.
[48] ref48M. Goldstein, (A History of Modern Tibet,
1913-1951 )(Berkeley: University of California, 1989),
310-363.
[49] ref49When compared to Pa-bong-ka's explicit
stance, Tri-jang's stance toward other schools seems more
moderate. In fact, it is clear that for him the devotional
element is much more important than the sectarian element in
the practice of Shuk-den. This is why some of his disciples
seem to be genuinely surprised when they are accused of
being sectarian. Nevertheless, Tri-jang does point to the
connection between the Fifth Pen-chen Lama's tragic fate,
his Non-sectarian (ris su ma chad pa) orientation, and
Shuk-den's action.(Music,) 134. 50
[50] ref50The best example of Ge-luk sectarianism is
perhaps Sum-pa ken-po ye-shay-bel-jor's attack on the
Nying-ma tradition. There has been, however, another
tradition of Ge-luk thinkers who have defended and
exemplified a more enlightened and tolerant view. Tu-gen
rejected the conclusions of his teacher Sum-pa Ken-po and
defended the authenticity of the Nying-ma tradition. See M.
Kapstein, "The Purificatory Gem and its Cleansing",
(History of Religions )28 (1989) 3, 217-244. Another
example is Jang-gya. More enlightened Ge-luk thinkers such
as Tu-gen or Jang-gya should not be thought of as
eclectic.They were not arguing for a more inclusive
religious practice, as did the Fifth Dalai Lama, but for a
more tolerant outlook within a purely Ge-luk practice. 51
[51] ref51His collected speeches from 1978 to 1996 on
the subject have been published in (Gong sa skyabs mgon
chen po mchog nas chos skyong bsten phyogs skor btsal ba'i
bka' slob) (Dharamsala: Religious Affairs,
1996).(henceforth DL)
[52] ref52DL, 24.This fact is recognized even by
Shuk-den's followers. Pa-bong-ka describes how Pe-har, the
main protector appointed by Padmasambhava, is supposed to
have incited Shuk-den into protecting the Ge-luk
tradition.Pehar is depicted as saying: I have been assigned
by Guru Rin-bo-che to protect the Nying-ma tradition and
hence cannot protect Dzong-ka-ba's tradition, the only truly
faultless tradition. You should do it. (Supplement,) 519.
[53] ref53Heller, "Historic and Iconographic Aspects
of the Protective Deities," 483. 54
[54] ref54Nebesky-Wojkowitz, (Oracles ,) 107.The
five king-bodies represent the five aspects of the group of
deity: body, speech, mind, quality and action.Ne-chung is
identified with Dor-je Drak-den, who represents the speech
aspect, whereas Pe-har represents the action aspect. 55
[55] ref55gDong-thog mentions the discontinuation of
the practice of 'Jam dpal gshin rje tshe bdag.(Gong sa
skyabs mgon rgyal ba'i dbang po mchog gi lha srung bsten
phyogs bka' slob la rgol ba'i rtsod zlog bden gtam sa gzhi
'dar ba'i 'brug sgra) (Seattle: SaPen Institute, 1996), 23.
56
[56] ref56Oral interview given during the second
visit of the Dalai Lama in France (1987).
[57] ref57DL., 17-20.In his account of the genesis of
the Shuk-den affair, the Dalai Lama described his complex
relation with Ne-chung concerning Shuk-den. He first tried
to prevent Ne-chung from expressing through his oracle
resentment against the success of Shuk-den, labeling this
protector "the teacher of novelty seekers" (a sras mkhan
po), and complaining that the practice of Shuk-den weakens
him (DL, 20).The Dalai Lama ordered Ne-chung to keep silent
on this topic, realizing the conflict that would be
unleashed if he gave in to Ne-chung's requests.
[58] ref58This was also the time when the Dalai Lama
was trying to prevent Ne-chung from expressing his
resentment against Shuk-den. The Dalai Lama felt that the
publication of the Yellow Book made this self-imposed
restraint impossible. His efforts at moderation were not
recognized and imitated.Henceforth, he felt that he could
not stop Ne-chung from complaining and demanding that
Shuk-den stop his activities.See DL, 20.
[59] ref59A factor in the developments analyzed here
has been the political situation in Tibet.The Dalai Lama and
the exile community have felt a strong urgency to do
something about the situation in Tibet and that has probably
exacerbated the "affair." It is not without reason that the
most acute crises in the "Shuk-den Affair" have occurred in
moments (1975, 1996) where, for different reasons, the
situation of Tibet seemed most difficult.››› R. Schwartz
mentions the role that millenarian elements such as oracles
and protectors have played in contemporary Tibetan political
actions during the most difficult times when rational modes
of action seem impossible and hopeless. See (Circle of
Protest)(New York: Columbia University Press, 1994),
226-231. 60
[60] ref60Technically, mundane protectors are defined
as deities who have not attained the noble path ('phags
lam, aryamarga) in their spiritual development. 61
[61] ref61DL., 17-9.
[62] ref62The other channel is the possession of a
person, who is often appointed to this office.Such a person
functions as the basis (sku rten) for the deity, who
speaks oracularly through his or her mouth.
[63] ref63I am explaining the Tibetan understanding
of supra-mundane deities, who are mostly Indian in their
origin. Whether these gods were understood in India in the
same way is a different question. 64
[64] ref64The classical example in the Mahayana
sÆtras is found in the story of the bodhisattva killing the
person who was about to murder five hundred people on his
ship.See G. Chang, (A Treasury of Mahayana SÆtras) (Delhi:
Motilal, 1991), 452-465. 65
[65] ref65Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 526. 66
[66] ref66This ceremony, which does not seem to have
any source in the Indian tradition, is not unique to Dor-je
Shuk-den. It seems to exist for some other wordly gods as
well where it is called "life empowerment" (srog dbang).
It does not appear that these ceremonies are practiced in
the case of protectors such as Ne-chung, but I have not been
able to obtain clear information on this point.
[67] ref67Pa-bong-ka, (Supplement ,) 526-527.See
above.
[68] ref68Lob-zang Chö-phel, (gzhung lan drang srong
rgan po'i 'bel gtam) (Delhi: Dorje Shugden Sciety, 1997), 120.
[ Homepage ..index.html ] [ Dholgyal index.html ]
Posts
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten