[On 25th June, 1980, His Holiness gave a talk to a gathering of senior representatives of all the four main Tibetan Buddhist traditions. The following is an excerpt from that talk.]
If you have unique karmic connections with Gyalchen, and have experientially realised how beneficial propitiating him is, and if it were the case that your own Lamas have seen great merits in this practise and instructed you to propitiate him, and as you are free to practise religion, you also have freedom to choose your own religion. Whatever kind of protector you want to propitiate or not is entirely up to you. Nobody will force anything on you. However, as I have mentioned just now, for someone who considers the Five King Protectors and Kali Devi as his/her main protectors, Gyalchen’s practice is not good for you. Therefore, I feel that it would be good for the monasteries as organisations to be careful. If you have no proper knowledge about this issue, you cannot be wholly blamed. In my own case, I almost got carried away by this blunder. I had very sincerely conducted the rituals of praise and propitiation in association with Gyalchen. I even requested for the life-entrusting initiation in connection with Gyalchen. However, it occurred to me that I had to be careful. I then performed the urn-rotating divination and did other predictions. Totally convinced, I completely stopped the practice in 1975. I did not experience even a slight sign of rancor.
[On 3rd March, 1986, His Holiness touched upon the issue of Dolgyal when he gave a commentarial teaching on the ‘Guru-Yoga’ practice at Dharamsala. The following is an excerpt from that talk.]
Without proper analysis, if you simply follow others’ hearsay or your whims and refer to Gyalchen as a protector of Tsongkhapa’s tradition, it is not good for the political wellbeing of the Tibetans. There is definitely something wrong with Gyalchen. Although I am not exactly sure how things went wrong, the fact still remains that to the appearance of ordinary beings, he has taken a wrathful form. Based on this appearance, we have to deal with him. The extremely subtle and inconceivable secrets are beyond our perception. For those who have reached a certain level of stability with regards to their attainments of method and wisdom, and have actualised subtle realities within themselves, and can access other’s subtle realities directly, it is a different matter. However, so long as such subtle inconceivable realities remain obscured to us, we have to follow what is commonly known or accepted. Thus, Gyalchen Shugden’s initial birth was a result of his falling out with the Great 5th Dalai Lama, and not because of any good reason.
His Holiness the Great 5th Dalai Lama is the one who founded the Gaden Phodrang government in Tibet. The fact that many Tibetans in Tibet still look up to me with hope, calling me Gyalwa [the Buddha] Tenzin Gyatso, can be attributed to the contribution of the Great 5th Dalai Lama. Although I am not capable, and I am not somebody who can shoulder the weight of the situation at such a critical juncture in our history, it is due to my past karma and prayers, as well as our unique karmic connections, that a child like me from such a remote place in Amdo got recognised as the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Generally speaking, I sit on the throne of the 5th Dalai Lama, and anyone who sits on his throne has to continue his work. That Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen and his residence ‘the Upper Chamber’ fell out with the Great 5th Dalai Lama, resulting in his birth as a wrathful spirit, makes it untenable for us to propitiate Gyalchen through the force of interdependence. Personally, I have no reason to state how good or bad Gyalchen is. I too, was associated with Gyalchen in the past. However, as we need to be consistent with the mainstream of the Buddha-Dharma, and as it concerns the wellbeing of the Buddha-Dharma in its entirety, propitiating Dolgyal was not something that I felt comfortable with. Not just that, but also in connection with Tsongkhapa’s own tradition, I found it unacceptable. It appears that we would only be inviting the displeasure of Dharma Raja by associating ourselves with Gyalchen. Therefore, whatever we do, we should not remain oblivious to worldly convention, and should know how to practise without ignoring it.
I feel that the concept of ‘conventional truth’ as propounded and upheld by the Geluk tradition is precious. In this concept of ‘conventional truth’, we give importance to the perception of ordinary beings. The reason for this is that we cannot override the law of cause and action: It should be at the foundation of our practice. The Zogchen [or the great perfection] practice speaks more of the resultant stages of attainment. The Sakya’s view of ‘the union of luminosity and emptiness’ and ‘the indivisibility of samsara and nirvana’ speak from the experiential dimensions of practitioners while they advance on the paths to enlightenment. The ‘conventional truth’ as taught by Tsongkhapa is particularly based on the appearances experienced by ordinary beings like us. So, this kind of interpretation has its own basis. Individually, whether to practise religion or not, or to practise religions of any kind is entirely up to you. Whatever choice of protectors or tantric deities you feel appropriate for yourself individually is your own free choice. Nobody can complain about that. However, when it comes to the general wellbeing of Tibet as a nation, or when the political and the spiritual wellbeing of Tibet as a nation becomes a concern, Kali Devi is the main protector that we have to propitiate. After her are the Five King Protectors. When it concerns the wellbeing of the Geluk tradition, Mahakala and Dharma Raja are the main protectors, and of these two, Dharma Raja is the main. This is something that you must keep in your mind.
[The following is an excerpt from His Holiness’ talk on Dolgyal at Gaden Jangtse Monastery in south India. This talk was given to a huge congregation of monks and lay people when he gave a Guhyasamaja empowerment there.]
I used to have a friend to play with when I was a small child. He used to recite verses from Cache Phalu’s advice. One of them is,
‘I, Cache Phalu, have given you my heartfelt advice.
Whether to listen to them or not is entirely up to you.’
As far as this issue of Gyalchen was concerned, at first I smelt a rat about it, which was based on evidence and experiences. However, I did not speak about it, thinking it was better to keep it to myself. Later, circumstances became such that I had to speak out. I had conducted many thorough investigations into the matter, and had many experiences in this regard. Having seen all these, if I did not tell you, it would be my mistake. Therefore, I started talking about this issue with genuine altruism. However, it is entirely up to you, whether to listen to me or not. It would not be proper on my part to force it on you like a dictator. However, as the saying goes, ‘if there is complete reliance, there would be complete response in return, while for half, the return would also be half’, similarly, the same applies in my case. Some people seem to remember me in critical times, but normally turn a deaf ear to my advice. If you use your two eyes and two ears, you will see who those are. It is important for you to always endeavour with sincere altruism. It is not proper to think very narrowly, or give in to stupid thoughts. You should not be preoccupied with limited thoughts, but think at large. We Tibetans are at a very critical juncture in our history. Until now, everybody has done their best. Still, you should all continue with the same zeal. As for the issue of Gyalchen, I have done a divination on whether I should speak on this matter today or not. This is what I usually do when it comes to speaking about this issue. The divination indicated a good result. Yesterday, the abbot of Gaden Jangtse Monastery told me that they had erased Gyalchen from a Guhyasamaja and a Vajra Bairava thangka painting. Going by accounts of experiences, keeping his [Gyalchen’s] thangka seems to invite internal conflicts. So, it is good that they erased him from those two thangkas.
[On 1st April, 1987, after the end of the Lamrim teaching, His Holiness gave an extensive talk to Tibetans from all parts of the world, especially to those who had come from Tibet to see him, and to the western audience attending the teaching and the talk. The following is an excerpt from that talk.]
I am sure that those of you from Tibet might know about this: The fundamental practice of Buddhism is carried on by relying on the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. With reliance on this basic refuge, we then apply the concept of ‘the law of cause and effect’ into our daily lives. However, when stricken with mishaps or sicknesses, we tend to believe that such things are harms inflicted on us by spirits or nagas. Attitudes of this kind are not good for us as Buddhists because they degrade the lustre the practice of Buddhism really has. As remedies for such mishaps, people resort to propitiating different spirits under the name of Dharma protector. This is not good. One hears of strange mishaps faced by people who put emphasis on such propitiations. There were many such stories from the past. Even now, one hears similar tragic experiences being suffered by people in Tibet as well as in India. You should look more intrusively into such stories and the truth will come to light.
Generally, when it concerns the wellbeing of Tibet as a nation, we Tibetans should think more broadly [by not limiting one’s thoughts to one’s own personal interest]. The Gaden Phodrang [Institution] founded by His Holiness the Great 5th Dalai Lama has now become democratic. Great changes have taken place. The feudal system of governance in which aristocratic families ruled people is no more. We are now moving forward towards a genuinely democratic system. In future, our course will aim towards complete democracy: I have neither any wish to continue the past feudal system of governance, nor do I wish to revive the hierarchy that existed in the past. Even if I wished so, there is no way it can succeed. As inevitable changes are happening around the world, there is no way we can remain secluded from the rest of the world.
As the Dalai Lama is leading the Tibetans now and so long as this continues, somehow, there is no way Gaden Phodrang, as founded by the 5th Dalai Lama, does not concern the Tibetans. Therefore, spreading rumours here and there about Gaden Phodrang or the Tibetan Administration will bring no real benefit. You will gradually realise who will be at the losing end. If what you do now became a source of remorse in future, it will not be good for you. All of you need to keep this in mind. Think of the more important things rather than being preoccupied with very small concerns. There is no way we can only think of one individual Lama’s legacy, saying my Lama is this and that when the whole of the six million Tibetans are facing an upheaval. The issue is not limited to just one or two individual Lamas, or one or two monasteries. When the whole of Tibet is facing a situation in which Tibet in its entirety is being turned upside down, the present Dalai Lama also needs to think of preserving the good work of the 5th Dalai Lama. Disillusioned and with thoughts about preserving one’s own tradition [of Dolgyal], some of you might consider my talks as only courteous, or might even view my points as expressions based on mere guts. There is no guarantee that you won’t see my talks in this light. However, investigate the points that I have talked about thoroughly without any bias. Explore history in detail; hear both sides of the story and think with no prejudice. Then the truth will gradually become clearer. It would not be good if you are not careful about this issue.
[On 8th May, 1996, His Holiness gave an extensive talk on Dolgyal at Dharamsala. This is an excerpt from that.]
In the beginning, I had kept this issue at a low profile. However, when things started getting more serious with many manipulations [by some of the staunch Shugden proponents], although I would be able to avoid excessive talks by keeping quiet, and in such a case, there would be less irritation for me personally, however, since this issue has political as well as religious implications, nobody else would be able to speak on this issue as much as I could: It is too sensitive. Thus, this responsibility lies on my shoulder. I am considered the political as well as religious leader of the Tibetans; whatever this means, the fact remains that I am somebody who has poked his head both into the world of the gods as well as the humans. As such, although my experience about the world of gods is not exactly direct, through many experiences and by looking at things critically, I can draw inferences, and make some precise assumptions. Thus, if I were to let it go even when I see things going wrong, it would be my fault. However, if people do not listen to me despite my repeated clarifications, it would not be my fault.
From my part, I will point out whatever political and spiritual shortcomings which come to my notice.
However, in the advice of Cache Phalu, it says thus:
‘I, Cache Phalu, have given you my heartfelt advice.
Whether to listen to me or not is entirely up to you’.
As such, whether you take my advice seriously or not is entirely in your hand. I cannot force anything on you; neither would there be any forceful endorsement. That is why I am being so emphatic when explaining my points.
[On 10th Sept. 1998, His Holiness gave a talk on Dolgyal to the participants of a meeting of representatives from the three provinces of Tibet. The following is an excerpt from that talk. Note: Although it may appear repetitive since the following talk also appears in the section of ‘the Geluk and its unique qualities’, it is cited here again because it also touches the issue of religious freedom.]
Looking at the trend by which people seem to get carried away, there is a risk that this pristine Buddha Dharma that we have at present might slowly give in to the practice of propitiating spirits and nagas. Recently when I visited the US and some European countries, some Dolgyal proponents came demonstrating against me, asking me to give religious freedom. This is not an issue of religious freedom. We all know the practice and philosophy of Buddhism in general, and specifically of Tsongkhapa’s tradition.
The past Kadampa masters would say that the Geluk tradition as established by Lama Tsongkhapa and his spiritual heirs is something that is really pure from inside and out. This tradition does not consider propitiation of gods and aquatic gods as important. Machen Pomra, Tsongkhapa’s own land-god, was given place outside Gaden Monastery and was not kept inside. Being the god of his birth place, although it occurs to us that Tsongkhapa should have given Machen Pomra special privileges, he did not do that. Although Tsongkhapa should have given special attention to Machen Pomra since he hailed from Amdo, however, being a bhikshu following Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings, he never considered worldly gods as important. Not only that, he was also not interested in appeasing the Chinese emperor at the time. When he was invited by the Chinese emperor, he sent Jamchen Choeje on his behalf. These are signs of Tsongkhapa’s genuine attitude as an outstanding follower of Buddha Shakyamuni. Tsongkhapa was never swayed by any of the eight worldly thoughts. Machen Pomra, being the land-god of Tsonghapa’s birth place, followed him [from Amdo in Eastern Tibet to U-Tsang in Central Tibet], Tsongkhapa gave him a cairn [a dwelling for worldly god] outside Gaden Monastery; he did not consider Machen Pomra as a sacred object of veneration. This is the genuine approach of Geluk practitioners.
Generally, gods or deities are of two types, worldly and trans-worldly. Mahakala and Dharma Raja were Tsongkhapa’s main protectors during his lifetime. Together with them, he entrusted Vaishravana with the responsibility of protecting his tradition. These three are trans-worldly protectors. Beside them, Tsongkhapa never took any interest in worldly gods. The Five King Protectors are worldly deities, and whatever their true nature might be — as emanations of the five kinds of Buddhas or not — they have the external appearance of wrathful worldly-gods: Thus we should treat them as worldly wrathful-gods. Although we propitiate the two red and black protectors as these two are protectors of Gaden Phodrang [name of the Tibetan government], we do not propitiate Nechung by considering him as a sacred object of refuge. All the Dalai Lamas, and especially me, we all have a unique connection with Nechung. However, as Nechung is a worldly wrathful-being, I only treat him with the respect a wrathful being is due, and propitiate him with the same attitude. As far as Nechung Dorji Dhakden is concerned, being one of the Five King Protectors, he is considered a genuine protector by all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. However, all of the Five King Protectors are attributed the respect a worldly wrathful-being deserves. They are not considered as objects of refuge. As for Dolgyal, he is not only a worldly wrathful-being, but a controversial one, who was considered a spirit with strained commitments by the Great 5th Dalai Lama, a perfidious king-spirit by Trichen Ngawang Chogden, Yongzin Yeshi Gyaltsen, Thuwuken Choeki Nyima and Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk. Many Sakya Lamas also considered him as a spirit who needs to be fed with ritual cakes; thus, he was never considered an object to take refuge in by those masters. However, Dolgyal practitioners in England consider him as a tantric deity and consider worshipping him as an essential part of the Geluk tradition. I have explained to them that this is not the case. There are many others with similar kinds of misconceptions.
Although many of them are speaking of wanting religious freedom, this is not an issue of religious freedom. If these Dolgyal proponents are to declare themselves as not part of the Geluk tradition and pioneer a new religion in the 21st century, it is in their right to do so. I have no objection towards it. However, if they still maintain their identities as Buddhists and Gelukpas, my argument is that they have to practise what is consistent with the Geluk tradition, and not doing this is unacceptable. If they were to accept that they do not belong to the Geluk tradition, or declare themselves as another unique Gelukpa with aberrant practice, or consider themselves superior than Gelukpas, I have nothing to protest against. What is repugnant to me is their deviance from the mainstream of the Geluk tradition and practice while still claiming to be strictly following the guidelines given by Tsongkhapa and his two spiritual heirs. This is not a matter of religious freedom; it concerns the right to propitiate a god within Tsongkhapa’s own tradition. In this context, the god is a controversial one, recognised [by many emiment masters from the past] as a perfidious spirit with strained commitments, or as a demon, or as a pitiable king-spirit. Considering such a spirit as sacred is an inconsistency over which I have been raising my objection.
[On 6th Dec. 2000, His Holiness gave a lengthy speech to the participants of ‘International Geluk Conference’. The following is an excerpt from that talk.]
All of you must have heard about it. Nowadays, Dolgyal proponents are making an issue of religious freedom, saying opposing Dolgyal is a violation of religious freedom. In this regard, I want to share here one of my own experiences. When I came across Kunu Lama Rinpoche’s work In Praise of Bodhichitta, I was spontaneously and genuinely moved with faith, and asked him to grant me the transmission of this text. As I had already received the transmission of some of the texts of The Thirteen Great Treatises from Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, I sought the transmissions of the remaining treatises from Kunu Lama Rinpoche Tenzin Gyaltsen. At that time, I really wanted to receive from him the transmission of The Essence of Miraculous Secrets [Gyutrul Sangwang Nyingpo], one of the most important sets of Tantras of Nyingma tradition. So, I told Ling Rinpoche about it. Ling Rinpoche told me that this may not be good as doing so is associated with many speculations. As Ling Rinpoche had such a cautious mindset, he felt that receiving this teaching might invite Dolgyal’s wrath. The set of treatises known as The Essence of Miraculous Secrets are categorically arranged among the authentic Tantras of the old translation teachings, named with the Tibetan alphabetical labels ‘Za, Wa, S’ha’, and had been edited [for grammatical accuracy] by the omniscient Buton Rinpoche, one of the top scholars of the new translation school. These sets of teachings are considered as authentic translations of the Buddha’s own words. When I was aspiring to receive these sets of teachings, Ling Rinpoche was wary of Dolgyal’s wrath and told me that it was better not to receive it as doing so would be associated with many speculations. So, at that time, although I had wished to receive the transmission of The Essence of Miraculous Secrets, my religious freedom was deprived by Dolgyal. After this, I did successive investigations into whether or not I should continue Dolgyal’s propitiation, and finally conducted an urn rotating-divination that resulted in my taking a decisive stand of giving up Dolgyal’s propitiation. I also conducted the same examination by means of urn-rotating divinations to decide whether or not to embrace teachings of all traditions and for receiving the Vajra Kilaya empowerment. As the results were positive, I decided to follow my aspiration.
I am sure most of you must have heard about it earlier. Nevertheless, I will explain further about it. Considering the matter to be examined as very important, the statue of Jowo Wati Sangpo or Kyidrong Jowo was invited. This is the statue of Avalokiteshvara, the principle deity of Tibet, and is one of the two exalted statues from which the Great 5th Dalai Lama received many of his visionary teachings that are included within his work of The Sealed Secrets. The thangka [painting] of Kali Devi, the principle object of veneration of the 2nd Dalai Lama, which later became the same for all the successive Dalai Lamas was also unveiled and hung up. When His Holiness the Great 5th Dalai Lama had ceased breathing, his political minister Desi Sangye Gyatso prostrated in front of the 5th Dalai Lama’s body and called on him, wailing in distress and expressing his helplessness in the absence of the Great 5th Dalai Lama, as there was much uncompleted work such as the construction of the Potala Palace, which would not come to completion without the Great 5th Dalai Lama. On hearing that, His Holiness the Great 5th returned back into his body and spoke thus to Desi Sangye Gyatso:
‘Whatever smaller matters might there be to decide, use your intellectual skill of discernment and decide. While deciding on important matters, perform the urn-rotating divination in front of Kali Devi’s thangka that can speak and decide accordingly; [saying that, he again dissolved back into his body.]’
[This is stated in Desi Sangye Gyatso’s Supplementary to the Autobiography of His Holiness the Great 5th Dalai Lama. Desi Sangye Gyatso was one of the most renowned regents of the Great 5th Dalai Lama.]
So, the same sacred thangka of Kali Devi was also invited. The medium of Nechung Choegyal Chenpo was also invoked to come into trance. Most importantly, Yongzin Ling Rinpoche was invited to take part in the divination. Although I also wanted to invite Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, apparently, he was not in Dharamsala at that time. In the congregation of all these sublime objects of refuge, I spoke thus:
‘Yongzin Ling Rinpoche is my refuge from now until enlightenment. Jowo Wati Sangpo [Avalokiteshvara] is the principle deity of Tibet, the land of snow. Kali Devi has been the principle protector of the successive Dalai Lamas since the time of the omniscient Gedun Drupa [the 1st Dalai Lama]. She is like the mother of the Dalai Lamas. Nechung Dorji Dhakden is one of the two principle protectors of Gaden Phodrang [Tibetan government]. In front of all of you, I am going to perform this divination’.
Thinking on this, you will realise this that I had neither relied only on Ling Rinpoche alone, nor on Kali Devi or Nechung. I performed the divination in front of the three roots: the Lama as the root of blessing; the tantric deity as the root of ‘spiritual-attainment’; and the protector as the root of ‘swift-action’. The divination came positive on my receiving teachings of the Nyingma tradition in general, and particularly on receiving the Vajra Kilaya empowerment at that time. Since then, I have received the empowerment of Vajra Kilaya as well as many other teachings of Nyingma. In this way, I got my own religious freedom. Removing and tackling obstructions to religious freedom is actually the protection of religious freedom. In the philosophical reasoning of Madhyamika and Pramana [art of reasoning], we assert that negating the antithesis automatically brings to light the truth. Therefore, opposing that one which impedes religious freedom is tantamount to protecting religious freedom.
[On 11th January, 2007, His Holiness spoke on Dolgyal during his teaching at Sera Monastery to a huge audience of people from different parts of the world. The following is an excerpt from that talk.]
I trust the words of the Great 5th Dalai Lama. When I initially got suspicious about Dolgyal, I examined his issue experientially, did the urn-rotating divination and other modes of divination, and then finally made my decision. When historical documents about Dolgyal came to light later, it boosted my confidence in my decision. I felt that I have accomplished the intents of the Great 5th Dalai Lama and am happy about it. As I have continued the legacy of the Great 5th Dalai Lama, I have experienced various signs that he is pleased with me. Therefore, my decision on Dolgyal is something I had taken after having thoroughly examined it by all three modes of examination. This decision is also supported with historical evidence. I had neither taken this stance to appease the Nyingma practitioners nor have I decided by playing politics to meet my ends. Having shared my experience of examinations on this issue, those who are ignorant about it and have deviated from the right path can consider this as my guidance. For those who trifle with my advice with a disparaging and dismissive attitude, I have nothing more to say. As I have said earlier, it is my responsibility to show you the proper path with respect to what to embrace and what to abandon. Simply speaking on the pros and cons of something does not deprive anyone of their religious freedom. However, if this were the case, then as Arya Nagarjuna strongly criticised the views of those adhering to a ‘truly–existent functional-entity’ [Chittamatra, Savatantrika and Vaibhasika], one would have to say that Nagarjuna violated the religious freedom of the other schools whose views he challenged. In the same way, Tsongkhapa also challenged the view of ‘the emptiness of other’ [of the Jonang School of Tibetan Buddhism] at the end of his work, the Essence of Excellent Instructions [Lekshed Nyingpo]. However, Tsongkhapa cannot be said to have violated the religious freedom of the proponents of the view of ‘the emptiness of other’. Therefore, speaking about reality with clarifications and reasons is not a violation of religious freedom.
[On 11th Jan, 2009, His Holiness spoke on Dolgyal at his teaching in Sarnath Tibetan University. The following is an excerpt from that.]
For those who barely know anything about Dolgyal and are propitiating him blindly, or those who do that impulsively will have no benefit by doing so. However, if you still maintain that you saw benefits in worshipping him and want to continue his propitiation, it is your own right and you have every religious freedom of doing so. If anyone wants to consume poison voluntarily with the knowledge that it is poison, it is their right. I have nothing to tell them other than that it is totally their own freedom. In the same way, whether to propitiate Dolgyal or not is your own freedom. However, without any knowledge of the risks and benefits, or with very limited knowledge, if you impulsively propitiate him, there is no benefit; if you do not listen even when all risks have been explained to you, it is only your own loss.
[On 13th Nov. 2009, His Holiness gave a talk on Dolgyal at Tenzin Ghang Tibetan settlement at Bomdilla in Arunachal Pradesh. The following is an excerpt from that]
Individually, if any of you find it genuinely useful in propitiating Dolgyal, I have no objection. However, some claim that keeping a consecrated wealth-vase of Dolgyal would bring success in business and so forth. This, I think, is very nonsensical. We are Buddhists and for us, our object of refuge, guardian, and support is Buddha Shakyamuni. Considering an ordinary wrathful being as our refuge is wrong. Even more so, if you rely heavily on a wrathful being that is detrimental to the wellbeing of the Buddha Dharma and sentient beings, and submit your lungs, hearts and chests in their entirety to it, it will only amount to putting a noose around your own neck. This is not good.
I am speaking with genuine altruism for the wellbeing of the Tibetan people and have no intention of creating mayhem. I am speaking on this matter out of desperation and not because I take great pleasure in it. I had never made it public when I personally gave up Dolgyal. I kept an absolute silence on the matter at that time. However, later Gaden Jangtse Monastery experienced some tragedies and asked Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche about it. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s divination pointed out that the tragedies were signs of Kali Devi’s displeasure. After that, they approached me for divination and told me about Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche’s divination. As I heard about it, based on my prior knowledge of inviting Kali Devi’s displeasure by associating with Dolgyal, it occurred to me that perhaps their experience of tragedies might be related to the monastery’s propitiation of Dolgyal. The main protector of Gaden Jangtse Monastery is Kali Devi. So, then I conducted the urn-rotating divination [in front of Kali Devi’s thangka]. First, I examined if the tragic experiences were due to Kali Devi’s displeasure and the answer was ‘yes’. Secondly, I examined if it was due to their propitiation of Dolgyal or for some other reason. The result came positive for the first point. I had no choice but to explain it to Gaden Jangtse Monastery. I had to tell them that their strong propitiation of Dolgyal was the reason behind Kali Devi’s displeasure.
Then some of the proponents of Dolgyal started accusing me of banning Dolgyal and then founded the ‘Dorji Shugden Devotees’ Charitable and Religious Society’, based in Delhi. After that, three monk scholars in Dharamsala were killed. This year, at the inauguration of Serkong Khangtsen of Gaden Jangtse Monastery, two Shudgen followers, one with a knife in his hand and the other carrying a stone, disrupted the ceremony there, and one of the staff members of the house was hospitalised. He was attacked with a knife and stone. The Indian police’s report says that it was an attempt on his life. The Indian police in Dharamsala had found out that the six murderers of the three monk scholars in Dharamsala were connected to the Dorji Shugden Devotees’ Charitable and Religious Society in Delhi. People connected with this crime were legally tried [but they ran away without completing the trial]. Groups such as this engage in creating social disruptions. It also appears that they are receiving financial assistance from China. They also seem to have connections with the Chinese embassy in Taiwan, Singapore, USA and elsewhere. This is really dangerous. Gangchen Lama from Italy visits China often, and attends meetings there as their special guest. Therefore, it is important for all of you to be careful.
