Disharmony Within the Sakya?
(By Tsem Rinpoche and Pastor Niral)
On May 8, 2014, His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin Ngawang Kunga Wangyal and His Holiness the late Dagchen Jigdral Ngawang Kunga issued a joint statement regarding the amendment of the traditional rule of lifetime succession within the Sakya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Acting on advice given over 50 years ago by Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, the term of office for the throne holder of the lineage has been amended to a three-year term, after which the post passes to the next designate from one of the two Sakya Podrangs or ‘palaces’.
This decision has a significant impact on the Sakya tradition, since it drastically changes the established term in which a Sakya Trizin governs the lineage. It is a change that has raised many questions amongst Buddhist practitioners. In writing this article, we seek to analyse the points raised in this statement which can perhaps provide clues as to why such a drastic change has been implemented.
Tsem Rinpoche and Pastor Niral
Brief overview of the Sakya tradition
The origins of the holy Sakya tradition can be traced back to the Indian Mahasiddha Virupa of the 9th Century. In the scriptures he has several other names, including Birwapa, and his life is recounted as one of the 84 great Mahasiddhas in terms of his miraculous attainments.
The origins of the Sakya Tradition trace back to the Indian Mahasiddha Virupa
His main teachings are called the Lamdre, which literally means the ‘Path and the Fruit’ teachings. Lamdre forms the core of teachings within the Sakya tradition. These teachings were brought to Tibet by the Indian scholar Gayadhara (994 – 1043 CE) and were translated by his Tibetan disciple and translator, Drogmi Lotsawa Shakya Yeshe (992 – 1072 CE). Drogmi Lotsawa in turn transmitted these precious teachings to his main disciple Khon Konchok Gyalpo (1034 – 1102 CE). In 1073 CE, Khon Konchok Gyalpo founded the Sakya monastery in the Tsang region of central Tibet. It was named Sakya, which means ‘grey earth’ due to the colour of the surrounding soil. Thus, the Sakya lineage was born and came to be closely linked to the Khon family lineage, who are believed to be celestial beings.
The Sakya tradition was established and proliferated by the five great early Sakya masters – Sachen Kunga Nyingpo (1092 – 1158 CE), his two sons Sonam Tsemo (1142 – 1182 CE) and Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen (1147 – 1216 CE), his grandson Sakya Pandita (1182 – 1251 CE) and Sakya Pandita’s nephew Chogyal Pakpa (1235 – 1280 CE). These Sakya lamas became so famous that the Mongol emperors of China became their patrons. In 1253 CE, the Mongol emperor of China, Kublai Khan conferred the dominion of Tibet upon his lama, Chogyal Pakpa. The Sakya rule of Tibet during this period lasted for approximately a century.
Apart from the Lamdre teachings, which were derived from the Hevajra Root Tantra, is a set of teachings known as the 13 Golden Dharmas, especially treasured by the various Sakya lineage holders. This set of 13 Tantric practices originated from India and were compiled by Sachen Kunga Nyingpo. They consist of:
- the Three Vajrayogini initiations – the Naro, Indra and Maitri traditions
- the Three Great Red Ones (Marpo Kor Sum) – Kurukulle, Maharakta Ganapati and Takiraja
- the Three Small Red Ones (Marchung Kor Sum) – Kurukulle, Red Vasudhara and Tinuma
- and the four additional initiations of Singhananda, Shabala Garuda, Black Manjushri and Red Dzambala
In addition, there are several other important Higher Tantric systems besides the Vajrayogini Tantras that are featured in the 13 Golden Dharmas. These include the Hevajra, Vajrakilaya and Guhyasamaja Tantras, each of which has their own special Dharma protectors. The important wisdom protectors practiced within the tradition are Panjaranatha Mahakala (the special protector for the Hevajra Tantras), Citipati (the protectors of the Vajrayogini Tantras) and Four-Faced Mahakala (the protector of the Guhyasamaja Tantras).
Besides these protectors, there are several other general protectors practiced within the tradition including Palden Lhamo, Ekajati and Chamsing (a protector practice proliferated by Sachen Kunga Nyingpo). The Sakyas also rely on the Three Kings (Gyalpo Sum) which consists of Dorje Shugden, Dorje Setrap, and Tsi’u Marpo (Kache Marpo). Finally, unique to the Sakya tradition is the practice of the three Bamo witches who are powerful unenlightened oath-bound protectors.
Lineage of succession within the Sakya tradition
Having been established by Khon Konchok Gyalpo, the Sakya tradition is closely linked to the Khon family. As such, the Sakya lineage throne holder has always hailed from this family line. Once a throne holder is chosen, this position is held for life. When the current Sakya throne holder (the Sakya Trizin) passes away, it falls to the next in line to assume leadership of the lineage and this throne holder will hold the position for life.
The 33rd Sakya Trizin Pema Dudul Wangchuk established the Dolma Podrang, one of the two ‘palaces’ of the Sakya tradition. He was also an ardent practitioner of Dorje Shugden.
In the 14th Century, Tishri Kunga Lodro Gyaltsen (1299 – 1327 CE), who was the eldest grandson of Sakya Pandita’s brother, established four dynastic houses, of which only Ducho Ladrang has survived to this day. In the 18th Century however, Ducho Ladrang was split between two ‘palaces’, namely Dolma Podrang and Phuntsok Podrang. Pema Dudul Wangchuk established the Dolma Podrang, whilst Phuntsok Podrang was established by his youngest son, Kunga Rinchen. Ever since then, the leadership of the Khon Family (and therefore the Sakya tradition) has alternated between Dolma Podrang and Phuntsok Podrang.
The current head of Dolma Podrang is His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin, Ngawang Kunga Wangyal. When he passes away, leadership of the Sakya tradition will fall to the head of Phuntsok Podrang, His Eminence Avikrita Vajra Rinpoche who will become the 42nd Sakya Trizin. According to the traditional plan of succession, Avikrita Vajra Rinpoche would have held this office until his own passing. With the current Sakya Trizin’s announcement however, that will no longer be the case and a centuries’ old tradition has ceased to exist.
Members of both Sakya Podrangs and the line of succession for the position of Sakya Trizin. Click to enlarge.
New directive concerning the future leadership of the Sakyas
His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin is also the head of Dolma Podrang. Together with His Holiness Dagchen Jigdral, he implemented a change, that fundamentally alters the term of succession within the lineage.
On May 8, 2014, the 41st Sakya Trizin released a statement regarding a discussion between Dolma Podrang and Phuntsok Podrang. The statement is titled ‘A Private Discussion between the Dolma Phodrang and Phuntsok Phodrang about a Resolution and New Directive Concerning the Future Role of the Sakya Trizin, the Head of the Sakya Order of Tibetan Buddhism‘. In the directive, the Sakya Trizin addressed the role of the Sakya throne holder. The tradition of holding lifetime office of the Sakya Trizin has formed an integral part of the Sakya tradition since the inception of the lineage by Khon Konchog Gyalpo. Meanwhile, the lineage’s leadership alternating between the two Podrangs has taken place since the palaces were established centuries ago.
This new directive however, marks a fundamental change to the line of succession within the lineage. Before his passing in 1959, Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro suggested that “the post of Sakya Trizin be made like the four Labrangs of the Ngor Monastery, which take turns every three years”. Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, a great practitioner of the past who had received teachings and transmissions from all four major Tibetan Buddhist traditions, was primarily a Nyingma practitioner. Though he had significant influence due to his role as a great teacher, his suggestion was not immediately implemented at the time. However, it was this suggestion that the Sakya Trizin used as the basis for their change, announcing that both Podrangs have agreed to implement a new system of three-year terms for the office of Sakya Trizin, alternating between the senior members of each Podrang.
The resolution and new directive issued jointly by both Sakya Podrangs informing the public about the change in the rules of succession. This is the English version, click to enlarge.
The resolution and new directive issued jointly by both Sakya Podrangs informing the public about the change in the rules of succession. This is the Tibetan version, click to enlarge.
The implementation of this directive has a number of implications and repercussions, not in the least that the position of Sakya Trizin is no longer a lifetime office. Out of all the heads of the various lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, this would make the office of Sakya Trizin the shortest. The role of Karmapa, head of the Karma Kagyu tradition or the Gyalwang Drukpa, head of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition for example are all lifetime offices. Even in the case of the Gelug tradition, the Gaden Tripas, hold office for a seven-year term. This office however is not hereditary, like the Sakya tradition, nor a line of recognised reincarnations as is the case in the Karma Kagyu; the office of the Gaden Tripas is an elected office.
Regardless of which lineage is being addressed, the rules of succession for their leadership have existed since the beginning of each respective lineage. Therefore, since the Sakya Trizin’s recently-announced directive changes a centuries-established tradition of the Sakya lineage, it is natural to wonder why these rules are being changed so dramatically from a lifetime to such a short period.
Some people may feel that the reason for this new directive is to ensure all members of the family have the opportunity to teach the Dharma through their position as the Sakya Trizin. However, it has never been the case that a lama needs a high position or title in order to teach the sacred Dharma, uphold the lineage and make a true mark on the spiritual landscape, as seen in many examples throughout all Tibetan Buddhist traditions.
His Holiness the late Dagchen Jigdral Rinpoche (centre) with two of his grandsons, Avikrita Vajra Rinpoche (left) and Asanga Vajra Rinpoche (right) who are both in line for the position of the future Sakya Trizin.
Why now?
It bears further investigation as to why an established tradition is being changed and why now, given that the suggestion by Jamyang Kyentse Chokyi Lodro was made more than 50 years ago. In fact, if the Sakya Trizin or other high lamas intended to change the tradition in this manner, and thought such a change was a good idea, it would have made more sense to change the tradition soon after the statement was made. Instead they waited over 50 years to implement it. This most obviously brings up the question as to why this change is being implemented now.
The question of timing is intimately linked to the question of why this change needs to be implemented in the first place, since the established lifetime term of the Sakya Trizin has been successful in the past. It has been effective for centuries in allowing previous throne holders to uphold and spread their holy lineage, as a throne holder is supposed to do. So why would a change even be necessary and to put it simply, why fix something that is not broken?
His Holiness the 41st Sakya Trizin (centre) with his two sons, Ratna Vajra Rinpoche (left) and Gyana Vajra Rinpoche (right) who are both in line for the position of the future Sakya Trizin.
We may find the answer if we compare the office of a throne holder with a system that the majority of us would be more familiar with, that of political office. Whenever terms of office for political leaders are changed, it is usually to curb the duration in which a politician can exert their power and influence over a country.
In the United States of America, for example, the Congress passed in 1947 the 22nd Amendment to the American Constitution. This Amendment limits the number of times someone can run for and sit as the President of the United States, and it was in response to the case of President Franklin D. Roosevelt who decided to run for a 4th term despite his ill health. The Amendment limits the number of terms to two terms of four years each, following in the example of President George Washington who stepped down after two terms in office to avoiding the presidency from becoming a lifetime institution like the monarchy. Washington was also serious about preventing any one person from exercising totalitarian power and staying in office to the point of becoming uncontested.
In a more recent example, the Indonesian parliament restricted both the positions of President and Vice-President to two terms of five years, following the resignation of President Soeharto. His presidency, which lasted for 31 years, was marred by corruption and the oppression of those who opposed him. He resigned from his office after violent riots broke out against his rule in May 1998.
Whereas the examples given above are secular in nature, they have some relevance to the limitation of power that is taking place among the Sakyas now. It again begs the question as to why the new term of office for the Sakya Trizin is so short. Even the secular Presidencies of the USA and Indonesia are four- and five-year terms, respectively, and candidates can be elected for a second term as well.
A three-year term hardly seems long enough for a throne holder to ensure their medium to long-term plans to effectively administer their lineage are carried out with the desired results, as the previous thrones holders have done. Three years also opens the lineage to the danger of instability due to policies frequently changing between one Sakya Trizin to another.
What is more troubling though, is when measures to restrict a term of office are being taken in response to accusations of office bearers taking advantage of their position. In this case we find that in the Sakya Trizin’s own announcement, the Sakya Trizin himself states that he has “been seen to have benefited from privileges”. It is clear from his statement that there are people who criticise him for taking advantage of his position as the throne holder of the Sakya lineage. Who or how these allegations were made are not mentioned in the letter itself. However, the allegations troubled the Sakya Trizin enough to address them in the same statement where he announces the change of the lineage’s succession plans.
One has to wonder why the Sakya Trizin felt it was necessary that he address these allegations in the announcement. Were the allegations so vociferous and frequent that it became a matter of urgency that they should be addressed? Is there some truth to the rumours that the Sakya Trizin felt it necessary to quash the allegations as soon as possible?
Whatever his reasons are for addressing the accusations, what can definitely be concluded is that the relationship between both Podrangs has become strained. Accusations were made that the Sakya Trizin exploited his position and enough people had voiced their unhappiness about this, to a point where even the succession of the Sakyas had to be changed in order to quell the arguments. To give everyone an equal chance to assume the leadership and have access to all the resources, power and influence that such a position entails, changes had to be made to the Sakya line of succession.
It is a distant possibility that two Podrangs’ leaders made this announcement to herald a new, more open era in the succession plan of the Sakya Trizins. This is unlikely though, because the succession lineage is still limited within the two Podrangs and no one else is allowed to be considered for the role of the Sakya Trizin. Similarly, the succession is still limited by the rules of primogeniture; female offspring of the Sakya Trizins are never considered in any succession plans, even though they are said to be as attained as the Sakya Trizins themselves.
One would also assume that given the significance of this directive, the authors would have put more effort towards giving better reasons for the changes. It cannot be overstated how significant this change is. It is not minor in the way of considering whether tea should be served at pujas; it addresses one of the fundamental tenets of the Sakya tradition, and that is the succession of their leaders based on the fact they are emanations of Manjushri. However, the authors of the directive saw it fit to provide (in passing, no less) just one reason for changes to something so integral to their tradition – because Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro suggested for them to do so. In fact, more of the directive was devoted to the 41st Sakya Trizin addressing criticisms about him, than to providing legitimate reasons for making such a significant change to the Sakya Trizin succession.
What is interesting to note is that these tensions have probably existed since the founding of the two Podrangs. Remember that Dolma Podrang and Phuntsok Podrang, the two current households, were previously one household – Ducho Ladrang (household). After their split, it was only a matter of time before each Podrang would vie for the position of Sakya Trizin since each Podrang’s leader is equally entitled to the position. And while the Podrangs may be led by attained beings, they are not populated by enlightened staff and students who are susceptible to power struggles and games. Perhaps tensions between both Podrangs have been slowly growing since the time of their split, and these tensions came to a head with the allegations directed against the 41st Sakya Trizin as referenced to above.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the statement issued regarding the change in rules of succession between both Sakya Podrangs has repercussions for the office of Sakya Trizin. This much shorter term of office hardly seems long enough for a Sakya Trizin to carry out the traditional roles expected of this position. The fact that this change has been implemented recently, as opposed to over 50 years ago when the suggestion was first made by Jamyang Chokyi Lodro also confounds the issue.
Upon analysis of the situation, this change could be a precautionary measure against the possibility of any one Sakya Trizin developing totalitarian power over the lineage. The change has come about because of growing tensions between both Podrangs, which has existed since Ducho Ladrang split into two. Hence this decision was made in an attempt to curb the power and authority of a lifetime throne holder, and to give everyone equal access to the power, influence and resources that accompany the office of the Sakya Trizin. Whatever the case may be, both of these issues have a significant impact on the lineage, and only time will tell the far reaching consequences of these actions, not only for the Sakya tradition but Tibetan Buddhism as a whole.
Addendum
Over the course of history there have been a number of Sakya Trizins who practiced and propagated Dorje Shugden. These include:
- 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741)
- 31st Throneholder Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
- 33rd Throneholder Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
- 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871-1935)
These great masters viewed Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. This was confirmed by the 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen, who quoted a Nyingma tantra titled Rinchen Nadun as saying, “The one known as Dolgyal is not mistaken on the path to liberation, he is by nature the Great Compassionate One.” The text thus establishes Dorje Shugden as being of the same nature as Avalokiteshvara.
Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936), the 39th Sakya Trizin, was a strong practitioner of Dorje Shugden. Researching his family history, he even proved that his holy father, the 37th Sakya Trizin Kunga Nyingpo (1850–1899), was an emanation of Dorje Shugden.
Therefore, of the 42 supreme throne holders throughout the history of the Sakya tradition, six of the thrones holders are confirmed to have practiced Dorje Shugden. They are known to have built chapels to him, composed prayers and pujas (kangsols) to him and propagated his practice amongst their disciples. The entire Sakya lineage and their sacred practices such as the 13 Golden Dharmas of Sakya, the Lamdre – the Path and its Fruit, the tantric practice of Hevajra, and other numerous teachings and practices have descended down through these six lineage holders who have proven themselves to be highly attained and erudite incarnations. From these great lamas, the teachings have been passed down to the current throne holders, lamas, and great practitioners of the Sakya tradition.
If someone were to say that these six Sakya thrones holders were wrong or mistaken for their propitiation of Dorje Shugden, for their composition of liturgical texts to him, or for the building of chapels in his honour, then they are saying the Sakya throne holders were ordinary. They were fallible, were not erudite, did not have high spiritual attainments, could be mistaken, and therefore we should not rely on them. If they were just ordinary men adorned with brocade silk hats and expensive robes, while sitting on big thrones, then what is the point to call them lineage holders or masters?
What is the point to practice the ‘tainted’ Sakya tradition in modern times? They were definitely very attained and not ordinary human beings by far. If these six Sakya lineage holders could have made such a huge mistake, then the entire Sakya lineage that has passed through them is tainted and without blessings. So according to that line of thinking, if we were to practice the Sakya lineage today, there will be no blessings and no results. This is because the Sakya lineage as it exists was passed down through these six throne holders without exception. This is neither logical nor possible as they were highly attained masters.
The holy Sakya Monastery, mother monastery of the Sakya tradition. Above the monastery, slightly to the right, you can see the multi-tiered Mug Chung, the most sacred temple to Dorje Shugden within the tradition. When we invoke Dorje Shugden, this is one of the places we invite him from. The Sakya throne holders cannot have been mistaken about Dorje Shugden’s benefit in Dharma practice.
Now, the Tibetan leadership is fond of saying that if you practice Dorje Shugden, then you break your refuge and your divine connection with the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Consequently, you will be damned to take rebirth in the three lower realms, as an animal, a spirit or in one of the hell realms. If that is the case, these six great Sakya throne holders must have taken rebirth in the three lower realms too. But this is impossible! They all practiced Dorje Shugden and there is a lot of research and evidence that confirms this. Some even composed long pujas to Dorje Shugden which are still in use today. In actual fact these six great Sakya throne holders were highly attained beings, and they were definitely not ordinary.
The 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936), head of the Sakya lineage, was a strong practitioner of Dorje Shugden. He is known for spreading the practice of Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition.
It is because of their extraordinary spiritual attainments, that they were easily able to discern which formless beings were Buddhas and which were negative beings that caused harm. They would have known that Dorje Shugden is definitely not negative and therefore, they had encouraged Dorje Shugden’s practice and composed pujas and prayers to him. They had the clairvoyance to see the very nature of Dorje Shugden, or they could use their wisdom to debate and determine the nature of Dorje Shugden by way of logic. I am sure they did both and arrived at the same conclusion. The simple deduction is that Dorje Shugden is not a harmful being and that is why these six erudite masters both practiced and promoted Dorje Shugden within the sacred Sakya lineage.
I myself have tremendous faith and respect for the exalted Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936), the 39th Sakya Trizin, and the other five throne holders too. I pray they bless me so I may gain full enlightenment. When I see Dragshul Trinley Rinchen’s photo, I feel as if I have met him or had the great honour to have practiced his teachings in a past lifetime. In any case, great faith arises spontaneously in me for Dragshul Trinley Rinchen as it does for other great masters such as Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche, Kyabje Dilgo Kyentse Rinpoche and other great masters of their respective lineages.
Tsem Rinpoche
Hevajra (central figure)
The 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741) (top leftmost), the 31st Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Kunga Lodro (1729-1783) (top second from the left), Buddha Shakyamuni (top middle), Naro Kechari Vajrayogini (top right), Yellow Dzambala (middle leftmost), The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936) (middle second from the left), Citipati Lord and Lady of the Charnel Ground (middle right), Panjaranatha Mahakala (bottom left), Dorje Shugden Tanag (bottom right)
Hevajra is one of the main highest yoga tantric meditational deities of the Sakya tradition and the 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen featured as the largest of the three Sakya Trizins depicted here enthroned Dorje Shugden as a protector of the Sakya tradition. The 31st Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Kunga Lodro was his son and the emanation of Dorje Shugden who composed the Dorje Shugden fulfilment ritual text (kangso) that is used to propitiate Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Dharma Protector within the Sakya tradition up until today. Both the 30th and 31st Sakya Throneholders are highly respected and revered for their mastery of the Buddhist teachings, and their ability to teach others.
The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen was a renowned master, erudite scholar and lineage holder who also taught hundreds of scholars, masters and great practitioners. He was an ardent practitioner of Dorje Shugden and proliferated the practice throughout the Sakya tradition. Aside from the three aforementioned Sakya throneholders, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag and these include the following:
- 33rd Throneholder and Mahasiddha Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
The 31st Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Kunga Lodro (1729-1783) (central figure)
Hevajra (top left), Naro Kechari Vajrayogini (top right), Panjaranatha Mahakala (bottom left), Dorje Shugden Tanag (bottom right)
The 31st Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Kunga Lodro was the son of the 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen. He was considered to have been an emanation of Dorje Shugden at that time and an erudite scholar, accomplished Tantrika and a great lineage holder of the Sakya tradition. He was the teacher of hundreds of scholars, masters and great practitioners. He composed the 149 page Dorje Shugden fulfilment ritual text (kangso) that is used to propitiate Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition even until today. He is also known as a lineage holder of the Naro Kechari Vajrayogini practice within the Sakya tradition. Aside from Kunga Lodro, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag, the special form of Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition, who rides on a black horse. These great masters include:
- 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741)
- 33rd Throneholder Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
- 39th Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936)
Dorje Shugden Tanag (central figure)
The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936) (top left), Naro Kechari Vajrayogini (top right), Panjaranatha Mahakala (bottom left), Citipati Lord and Lady of the Charnel Ground (bottom right)
Dorje Shugden Tanag literally means ‘Dorje Shugden riding on a black horse’. He is a unique form of Dorje Shugden that arose within the Sakya tradition, is one of the earliest forms of the protector deity and is propitiated as an enlightened Dharma Protector.
The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen was a renowned master, erudite scholar and lineage holder. He taught hundreds of students who became scholars, masters and great practitioners by following his teachings. He was also a great practitioner of Dorje Shugden and proliferated this practice throughout the Sakya lineage. Aside from Dragshul Trinley Rinchen, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag within the Sakya tradition. These great masters include:
- 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741)
- 31st Throneholder Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
- 33rd Throneholder and Mahasiddha Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
The 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (main figure)
The 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen, Hevajra, Vajrayogini, Mahakala of the Doors, Palden Lhamo, Gonpo Tramsuk (Brahmarupa), Dzambala and Sakya Dorje Shugden Tanag.
The 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen enthroned Dorje Shugden as a protector of the Sakya tradition and establish the Dorje Shugden Tanag lineage. Sachen Kunga Nyingpo (1092–1158) was the first of the Five Founding Fathers of the Sakya Lineage.
Aside from Sonam Rinchen, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag, the special form of Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition, who rides on a black horse. These great masters include:
- 31st Throneholder Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
- 33rd Throneholder Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
- 39th Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936)
The 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (main figure)
Buddha Shakyamuni, Hevajra, Vajrayogini, Mahakala of the Doors, Gonpo Tramsuk (Brahmarupa),and Sakya Dorje Shugden Tanag.
The 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen enthroned Dorje Shugden as a protector of the Sakya tradition and establish the Dorje Shugden Tanag lineage. Furthermore, Hevajra and Vajrayogini are the main higher tantric practices of Sakya tradition. In addition, Mahakala of the Doors is the main protector of the Sakya School and Gonpo Tramsuk (Brahmarupa) is an emanation of 4-face Mahakala as those who are uninitiated within the Sakya tradition are not allowed to behold the face of this Mahakala.
Aside from Sonam Rinchen, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag, the special form of Dorje Shugden within the Sakya tradition, who rides on a black horse. These great masters include:
- 31st Throneholder Sachen Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
- 33rd Throneholder Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
- 39th Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (1871–1936)
6 Sakya Trizins (central lama figures)
37th Sakya Trizin Kunga Nyingpo (top left), 39th Sakya Trizin Dragshul Trinley Rinchen (top middle), 30th Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (top right), 31st Sakya Trizin Sachen Kunga Lodro (middle row left), 33rd Sakya Trizin Padma Dudul Wangchug (middle row middle), 35th Sakya Trizin Tashi Rinchen (middle row right), Mahakala Panjaranatha (bottom left), Vajrayogini (bottom middle), Sakya Dorje Shugden Tanag (bottom right)
The 30th Sakya Throneholder Sonam Rinchen enthroned Dorje Shugden as a protector of the Sakya tradition and establish the Dorje Shugden Tanag lineage. The 31st Sakya Throneholder Ngawang Kunga Lodro was his son and the emanation of Dorje Shugden who composed the Dorje Shugden fulfilment ritual text (kangso) that is used to propitiate Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Dharma Protector within the Sakya tradition up until today. Both the 30th and 31st Sakya Throneholders are highly respected and revered for their mastery of the Buddhist teachings, and their ability to teach others.
The 39th Sakya Throneholder Dragshul Trinley Rinchen was a renowned master, erudite scholar and lineage holder who also taught hundreds of scholars, masters and great practitioners. He was an ardent practitioner of Dorje Shugden and proliferated the practice throughout the Sakya tradition. Aside from the three aforementioned Sakya throneholders, there were many other great Sakya throneholders who practised and proliferated Dorje Shugden Tanag and these include the following:
- 33rd Throneholder and Mahasiddha Padma Dudul Wangchug (1792-1853)
- 35th Throneholder Tashi Rinchen (1824-1865)
- 37th Throneholder Kunga Nyingpo (1850-1899)
Tsiu Marpo
A protector with an intimate link to the Sakya lineage and Dorje Shugden is the protector Tsiu Marpo. Tsiu Marpo has a long history within Tibetan Buddhism and was propitiated in a triad of protectors known as the Gyalpo Sum or the Three Kings, together with Dorje Shugden and Dorje Setrap. Christopher Paul Bell has written an excellent thesis on Tsiu Marpo, which can be downloaded by clicking the button below.
Click here to download Tsiu Marpo: The Career of a Tibetan Protector Deity
For more interesting information:
- The Sakya Lineage & Dorje Shugden
- Sakya Trizin’s Dorje Shugden Prayer
- Shangmo Dorje Putri – the Bamo of Sakya
- Dharma Protectors of Tibetan Buddhism
- Karma Kagyu’s Lodreu Rabsel Rinpoche Asks the Dalai Lama for Religious Freedom
- The Prophecy of the 16th Karmapa
- Who is Kache Marpo?
Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:
If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team
You may need to look in a different direction for some answers to your well reasoned questions and surmises. This most unfortunate and sad “dispute” began at least 29 years ago when Sakya Monastery challenged the position of Sakya Trizin. Some facts might help clarify. At that time wealthy American supporters of Sakya Monastery wielded considerable power and influence and continue to do so. As teachers, they often boasted that the head of the monastery at that time was second only to the Dalai Lama (and continue to do so) . To this day, no photograph of Sakya Trizin has been displayed and his name is rarely, if ever, mentioned by lay teachers. On the other hand, monks in residence have never made this boast or discussed this issue and have always been knowledgeable, kind and compassionate teachers. When this challenge to Sakya Trizin occurred, another Sakya center on the East coast had just begun plans to create an American Seat for Sakya Trizin. Yet Sakya Trizin has assumed full responsibility for what happened. Why would such an excellent person as His Holiness do that?
. The Sakya tradition is one of the five major religious traditions that existed in Tibet. Power struggles can occur in any everywhere in politics and even in monasteries. That’s sad where politics should not mixed with religion. As in the Sakya tradition its complicated and I am still trying to absorb rather understand it. Since the founding of the two Podrangs, tension have probably existed. Hopefully the change in the Sakya Trinzin succession have a happy ending in long run.
Thank you Rinpoche and Pastor Niral for this great blog post.
དོལ་རྒྱལ་བསྟེབ་མཁན་གྱི་དགེ་ལུགས་པ་ཁྱེད་ས་སྐྱ་ལ་་བྱུས་གཏོགས་མ་གནང་། ལར་ནས་ས་སྐྱའི་ཕོ་བྲང་ནང་ཁུལ་རྙོག་དྲ་གང་ཡང་ཡོད་མ་རེད།
Interesting article of the Sakya Trinzins and Sakyas in history and the changes made. Involving in politics and religion is seen here. Based on the new Resolution and Directive of the role of the Sakya Trizin, they will only hold the post for a duration of 3 years. The term of office for the throne holder of the lineage has been amended where the old tradition will longer to exist anymore. There is always a case of power struggle happening anywhere but for most as long as practitioners do not suffered any hardship, disharmony within it is alright. Interesting and informative read.
Thank you Valentina and Pastor Niral for this sharing.
This beautiful painting (thangka) is in Sakya Monastery in Tibet’s protector chapel. It is Dorje Shugden Tanag or Dorje Shugden riding on a black horse. This is the Sakya version of Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden is originally Sakya and still practiced in Sakya and came to Gelug and Kagyu practitioners later.
8 pictures of the Sakya Monastery to share, where Protector temple Mug Chung is located. This is the monastery where Dorje Shugden was enthroned first as a Dharma protector in Tibet over 400 years ago by the highest Sakya throneholders and masters. Since then when people are doing Dorje Shugden prayers and pujas, they invoke his holy wisdom presence from Mug Chung Protector Chapel in Sakya Monastery in Tibet.
Here we see a Bhutanese woman confirming that His Holiness the 4th Zhabdrung Rinpoche wrote prayers to Dorje Shugden. At first people did not believe that Zhabdrung Rinpoche actually composed the prayers, but people went to check with their monastic authorities, and they confirmed that the prayers were real. Before this, she had vehemently said that there were no such prayers and that she would go to check and then prove that the prayers were false. She must have gone to check and ask about Zhabdrung Rinpoche’s prayers to Dorje Shugden. As we said, the prayers are real but she still cannot accept the fact, even with all the proof.
Some Bhutanese feel like they cannot openly acknowledge that the article on Zhabdrung Rinpoche’s composition of prayers to Dorje Shugden is true, because it would mean that the Je Khenpo and Bhutanese sold and betrayed their own lineage. So even though they now admit that they prayers are real, they keep saying that he is just a minor deity and in any case, the Je Khenpo banned the practice. But if Dorje Shugden was just a minor deity, why would both Zhabdrung Rinpoche and Drubwang Tenzin Zangpo have composed such extensive prayers to Dorje Shugden? If Bhutan’s founding fathers like Zhabdrung Rinpoche promoted the practice of Dorje Shugden, why is someone like the Je Khenpo, whose position was originally created by the 1st Zhabdrung Rinpoche, banning the practice? Why do they want to go against what Zhabdrung Rinpoche did? If they do that, why do not they ban the entire country of Bhutan, because he founded that too.
They also claim that thangkas of Zhabdrung Rinpoche with Dorje Shugden are fake. However, there is no such thing as a fake thangka, because when someone has faith, they commission it, place it on their shrine and accept it. How can a thangka be fake when it has been individually commissioned? There is no rule or guideline what someone can or cannot put on a thangka. It is up to a person’s personal choice. That means there is no such thing as a fake thangka.
This woman came back on social media and confessed that the prayers are real. Even though she was still shocked, angry and dismayed, she told the truth. She could have kept quiet but she did not. Through all her debates and denials, she still had the honesty to leave a comment and admit that the prayers were real. When people can accept something, even though it may make them uncomfortable or angry, it means that they are practicing the Dharma. Dorje Shugden was practiced by the 4th Zhabdrung, and even though it may be an uncomfortable thought to some, it is clear and proven to be the case.
The 4th Zhabdrung Rinpoche of Bhutan and Dorje Shugden
https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/the-4th-zhabdrung-rinpoche-of-bhutan-and-dorje-shugden.html
不丹国第四世夏仲仁波切与多杰雄登
https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/dorje-shugden/the-4th-zhabdrung-rinpoche-of-bhutan-and-dorje-shugden-chinese.html
འབྲུག་གི་ཞབས་དྲུང་བཞི་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་དང་རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན།
https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/the-4th-zhabdrung-rinpoche-of-bhutan-and-dorje-shugden-tibetan.html
The section from Christopher Paul Bell’s “Tsiu Marpo the Career of a Tibetan Protector Deity” that mentioned Tsimar is another name of Tsiu Marpo. He mentioned that Tsimar name was given by Padmasambava
Sonam Tsemo
At the age of 41, on the eleventh day of the Tibetan month of Malpo in the Male Water Tiger year (1182), the great Loppon Sonam Tsemo directly entered Sukhavati. As he passed into parinirvana, he manifested two different aspects of his body for the benefit of beings. The first aspect is described in the Supplication with a Mournful Melody: “During the evening of the tenth day, the two holy brothers performed a tsok offering. The next morning Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen visited his brother’s room and found only a Dharma robe left behind, for Loppon Sonam Tsemo had departed to the Kechari realm without abandoning his body. Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, with great fervor, recited the Supplication with a Mournful Melody and through it he received a special prophecy which emerged from the Dharma robes like the sound of a bee.”
The second aspect was described by an old woman who witnessed Loppon Sonam Tsemo depart. Standing on a rock at the holy spring near Sakya known as Chumik Dzingka, his body ascended gracefully into the sky, still holding his dog. Even today the footprints of Loppon Sonam Tsemo and the dog can be clearly seen in the rock, left for the benefit of living beings as a field from which to accumulate merit. This holy site was decorated by the great master Mantradhara Ngawang Kunga Rinchen. Other accounts say that he ascended from Gorum Library near Chumik Dzingka spring. A stupa containing his holy relics was erected there.
http://www.hhthesakyatrizin.org/tradition_founder2.html
And another version:
Biography: Sonam Tsemo
Sonam Tsemo, 1142-1182, also called Lobpon Sonam Tsemo (bsod nams rtse mo) of the Khon family was the second of the Sakya Jetsun Gongma Nga, (sa skya rje btsun gong ma lnga) who were the five founding patriarchs of the Sakya order. He was also the fourth Sakya throne holder, although he served as active head of the monastery for only a few years. His mother was called Machig Odron (ma gcig ‘od sgron). Like his father he remained a layman throughout his life, although he never married or had children. He was identified as the reincarnation of the Indian scholar Durgachandra (or Durjayachandra) the master of Drogmi Lotsawa Shakya Yeshe’s (‘brog mi lotsawa shakya ye shes) teacher Viravajra, in India.
During his childhood, Sonam Tsemo’s main teacher was his father Sachen Kunga Nyingpo (sa chen kun dga’ snying po), who was the first Sakya patriarch and the third throne holder. His studies with his father focused on esoteric topics, and it is said that he could recite fourteen esoteric scriptures, including the Hevajra and Samvara tantras by the age of sixteen. He received oral Lamdre (lam ‘bras) instructions from Sachen during this time. After Sachen passed away, Sonam Tsemo’s education was strongly inflected by the Indian monastic model. At seventeen he went to the Kadampa monastery Sangpu Neutog (gsang phu ne’u thog) to study Madhyamaka philosophy and epistemology with the great master Chapa Chokyi Sengge (phya pa chos kyi seng ge). This teacher had disciples from several of the most prominent families in Central Tibet and Sonam Tsemo’s biography claims that he became the most accomplished of the students. He studied with this master on and off for eleven years and became well versed in Mahayana texts such as Pramanavinischaya and Bodhicharyavatara. Sonam Tsemo also received some instruction from the Indian or Nepali Acharya Shri Anandagharba.
Sonam Tsemo’s work Chola jugpai go (chos la ‘jug pa’i sgo), which he composed at the age of twenty-six at Nalatse, was extremely influential on the work of his nephew Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen (sa skya paN+Di ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan), the fourth Sakya patriarch and a widely renowned scholar. Sonam Tsemo’s written works address topics including the Bodhicharyavatara, a schematization of the tantra; an explanation of the last two chapters of the Hevajra root tantra; a commentary on the Samputa tantra; instructions for reading Sanskrit, and commemorative texts for his main teachers.
Sonam Tsemo first gave the Lamdre teachings in Sakya at the age of twenty-eight. Many famous masters attended the teaching, and he became renowned as a clear and skilled teacher, but his biographical data reflect a career more focused on study, practice and composition of texts than on teaching. His few close disciples included his brother Dragpa Gyaltsen (rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan), Ngodrup (dngos grub), Chagkyi Dorje (lcags kyi rdo rje), and Tsugtor (gstug tor). He was the active Sakya throne holder for only three years, after which he passed the responsibility on to his younger brother Dragpa Gyaltsen, in order to devote the rest of his life to study and retreat.
Sonam Tsemo passed away in 1182 at the age of forty. The details of his death are unclear, but it is recorded that his body disappeared and he left nothing but his robe and a footprint behind.
https://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setid=400
I think sometimes change is inevitable, but hopefully this change in the Sakya Trinzin succession was motivated by altruistic motivation. Perhaps in the past people had shorter lifetimes due to many factors, and now people lived much longer, so the opportunity to serve as Sakya Trinzin could be difficult to come across.
Thank you so much for the post Valencia lah. I don’t know the true reason for the change but it is odd to me to change such system which embodies the upholding of the lineage and the related attainments for the benefits of the sentient beings. But in one way i feel the enlightened beings make the decisions only for the benefits of others.
I pray for the better future fo the Buddha Dharma _()_
One of the things I like about Rinpoche’s blog is, the posts are varied in subject matter. I must admit that this post has created more awareness in me with regards to the Sakya lineage and its own share of issues. Going through this post, some thoughts popped into my mind:
1) I believe that all heads of the individual lineage are highly attained masters and will have the best interests of the lineage at heart. The change of the lineage’s succession plan that has remained unchanged until now, seems rather odd to me. Why would a highly attained master “been seen to have benefited from privileges”? It suspiciously sounds like a smear campaign to me.
2) The change in succession plans to a 3-year term, on the surface, sounds like a fair arrangement giving equal opportunities to both podrangs. However, I am not sure how well this will work out as 3 years seems like too short for any policies to be implemented and run properly.
3) The short 3-year term where policies cannot fully “mature to reap its benefits” may create instability which could lead to the weakening of the Sakya lineage. Am wondering if this is the real intention of the people behind the change.
I am not really at the level to say for sure if this change would bring benefit or otherwise but I hope that it is not what it seem to the ordinary people like me and has a deeper hidden benefits to the Sakya lineage and Tibetan Buddhism as a whole in the long run.
Thank you for this post, Valentina, Pastor Niral and everyone involved in this post.
I would assume that the throne holders are either highly attained beings or enlightened beings. As such, regardless of their behaviours and any changes they make, it is ultimately for the benefit of sentient beings.
Policies and structures of a religious systems are in place to make it easier for practitioners to study and practice the Buddhadharma. Methods to spread the teachings can change in accordance to the people’s karma. We see this all the time with great lamas.
Furthermore, for HH the Sakya Trizin to make this major change, it shows that he is not attached to his title and position. Highly attained beings do not need big titles and positions to spread the holy dharma.
Very sad to read about another article about politics in religion. I believe a spiritual leader should focus on benefiting others. means the teachings should be the most important tasks in their daily life. No matter how high the position the lama is holding if he has no attainment due to no pure motivation, clean samaya, vows and devotion to his guru that make no different or meaning of who is becoming the next throne holder.
If the coming throne holder or the successor has a pure heart of spreading the pure Dharma and the lineage of Sakya, he will benefits countless people even though just three years he’s allowed to be the next Sakya Trizin. There are many great and attained lamas out there without any name nor position, spreading Dharma and their lineage purely to benefits countless people all over the world. Buddha himself started His teaching journey with nothing, not even shoes on his feet, but with his pure heart to liberate all sentient beings hence we are practicing his teachings until today. So I do not see any problems with it.
Thanks Rinpoche, Valentina and Pastor Niral for the article.
Throughout the history, Tibetan society accepted politics + religion in their daily living. I guess maybe spirituality plays important part in Tibet hence everything including politics are filled with the religious elements. Only this few years we saw the news of Dalai Lama resigned from political head taken over by lay prime minister. But we know Dalai Lama’s decision still play important role for Central Tibetan Administration.
Personally I think instead of blind faith, people nowadays start to think about logic and judge thing from secular point of view. Transparency of how the religion operates has become something people gauge their faith. This is so different during the Buddha’s time, where people has tremendous faith. I think this is nothing wrong as different era there are different development of Buddhism. With all the questioning and preventing “monopoly”, I believe these are part of how this new term come about.
I am not sure how this 3 year term can preserve Sakya lineage, but to think about people do question for “unquestionable” rules indicates that people are concerning about the importance of keeping a lineage pure. This makes me think perhaps people would like to preserve the pure lineage of Dorje Shugden and Tsongkhapa’s teachings in Gelug worth to be considered too.
I don’t have much interest reading about political articles. After the sharing of this topic with KFR team, i am glad to know more that’s not just politic inside this topic, when go deeper thinking i agree what Pastor Henry said :
And spiritual organisations and places of worship are not spared. There are bound to be people because of wanting power who will do anything to satisfy their greed. For example, the controversy surrounding the unjust ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden is among one of the political games played by the Tibetan leadership. They could not care less who got hurt as long as they remain in power.
Thank You to Valentina and KFR team..!!
_/\_
Eric kksiow
Why is the change never happened 5 years ago is quite obvious. It was when the tibetan just fled to India and lost all their monasteries, their privileges. Being a “Sakya Trizin” that time means more jobs and more difficulties to overcome since they need to start everything again from nothing. No one will want to take over the position and get their hands dirty. Now that things have been established and settled down, people would start to jealous of the privileges and power of Sakya Trizin and start criticising Him and forgot about His Holiness’ efforts in reestablishing the Sakya monastery in India and holding the Sakya linage. I sincerly wish that this change will not be influenced by any third party’s game of power so that the following Sakya Trizin can focus on their holy mission of turning the Dharma wheel.
Thank you
Sakya lineage are unit blessed by lord Manjushiri pass down their lineage and tradition to the next generation over centuries. Currently the two prodrang are take term of every 3 year as the Sakya Tenzin roll to up hold the whole Sakya lineage, which seen difficult to organize efficiency in such short term. I sincere hope both Sakya prodrang can be united and harmony to up keep their precious tradition without interrupt by any political issue.
When I read this article, that is only one word came to my mind —“power”. What happened since to be like is more power issues. As the writers pointed out “hence the decision was made in attempt to curb the power and authority of a lifetime throne holder”. Is that they are worry that they cannot control Sakya Trizin to do as they wish? This Is just my guess.
But to my surprise is that how can Sakya Trizin so easily denounce Dorje Shugden as a Sakya deity?? Is that also political and power??
The tradition of changing the leadership between the two Podrangs is very old and successful. A long lineage of succession is stated in the article. This is why it is astonishing that all of a sudden such a big change has been announced. The change from a lifetime commitment to 3 years is not easy to understand.
It seems that there is disharmony within the Sakya and such a short commitment does not seem beneficial. Whatever the reasons are, the effect will hopefully bring those two families closer together as it does not seem beneficial to rule three years without intense cooperation.
Thank you Rinpoche, and thank you Valentina for elucidating the interesting history of the Sakya Trinzins and Sakyas and the drastic changes that are happening right now.
“The origins of the holy Sakya tradition can be traced back to the Indian Mahasiddha Virupa of the 9th Century. His main teachings are called the Lamdre, which literally means the ‘Path and the Fruit’ teachings. Lamdre forms the core of teachings within the Sakya tradition.”
This is the confusing part. It is said that Mahasiddha Virupa is one of the previous existences of Dorje Shugden (http://www.dorjeshugden.org/overview/the-previous-existences-of-dorje-shugden) therefore, if the lineage is based on His teachings, how come they renounce the practice? On one hand, they are following Virupa’s teachings and then on the other hand, they do not practice Dorje Shugden (who IS also Virupa) because, perhaps, HHDL said so? And then what about the 31st and 37th Sakya Trizin? They are also said to be the emanation of Dorje Shugden.
Religions should not be based on politics. We as practitioners, want to practice and not be pulled into conflicts. As the head of Sakya, perhaps He could have said something to help lift the ban instead of doing what HHDL is doing.
Dorje Shugden ban is real and much sufferings and segregation is happening now as we speak. Please help to stop that instead. Help lift the ban.
Not sure how this three-year term able to serve best for the Sakya but personally is obvious that this decision is more to control on power monopoly. When politic come into the picture it always ruins the essence of the pure truth be it in spiritual. As time changes policy change accordingly to suit what needed to achieve at that particular time.
What important especially in spiritual aspect, we can change in whatever way but the essence of the spiritual practice should not. If it does then it is too bad just like what happen to the Dorje Shugden ban which only causes suffering.
Where there are humans, there are politics. Government, in communities, at work, at home. And spiritual organisations and places of worship are not spared. There are bound to be people because of wanting power who will do anything to satisfy their greed. For example, the controversy surrounding the unjust ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden is among one of the political games played by the Tibetan leadership. They could not care less who got hurt as long as they remain in power.
Throughout our history, religions have never been truly free from the strong influences of politics and personal interests. It is naive for anyone to expect differently. However, while the management and policies of any religious organization may change, in most cases the fundamental teachings and practices do not.
It is somewhat interest why the policy for the Sakya Trizin throne was changed and the complete true stories may never be revealed. Religious organizations keep just as many “secrets” as any governments. We rarely practice truth or honesty being the best policy.
Impermanence is one of the core principle of Buddhism. As such I guess we should also not be surprised with any form of changes that could manifest.
“However, while the management and policies of any religious organization may change, in most cases the fundamental teachings and practices do not.”
I’m agree with you on what you stated above , Pastor Moh Mei. People are people, we would easily change our minds just in split second due to external or internal factors. Thus, wrong decision could be make as our minds are not trained and strong enough. However, the teachings of Buddha(who has found enlightenment) would definitely be the only source that we could rely on and we should work hard and keep ourselves on the path. Personally, I think that nothing else is matter when one’s motivation behind any action is right and positive.
As a follower of the Gelug lineage, I would like to think that Sakya is one of the other lineages that is closer to us relatively speaking, mainly because of the intertwined teachings, e.g. the Dharmapala practices of Dorje Shugden, Setrap, and Kache Marpo. Sakya lineage has a rich line of throne-holders who assert influences in both spiritual and secular matters for over a millennium. The core teachings of Sakya is called the lamdre and can be traced back to the great Mahasiddha Virupa (also known as Birwapa). Thus, it is very sad for me to read the announcement by the current Sakya Trizin that change the fundamental policies regarding succession of the lineage. According to traditional succession plan, the Sakya Trizin, once ascend to the throne, will hold this position until his passing. The new directive by H.H. the 41st Sakya Trizin effectively reduce the life term of the throne holder to just 3 years.
While this is highly unusual, H.H. the 41st Sakya Trizin mentioned in the same breathe of his announcement that he has been accused of benefitting from his position. This implies 2 things; (1) the decision to change the centuries old succession policy is to address the issue of the abuse of power by the current Sakya Trizin, and (2) the resolution of long term policy for Sakya lineage may no longer resides with the Sakya throne holders since 3 years term is hardly significant. Since the Sakya throne holder alternate between the 2 Podrangs, it would also mean that differing policy would be arbitrated by a third party, possibly of the ruler of the Tibetan Buddhism. Regardless of how the future will pan out for the Sakya school, it is a pity that the succession tradition established centuries ago has to give way now to implausible reason and sacrifice a tradition that existed since the beginning of the lineage.
Thank you Rinpoche and Valentina / Pastor Niral for this article.
Humbly, bowing down,
Stella Cheang
This is an interesting intrigue that has everyone guessing as to why would the current 41st Sakya Trizin amend the inherited lifetime throne holder position even if it had been suggested over 50 years ago by Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro. What had happened in the interim from 1959 until now for that advice to be taken. If it had any importance, then it would have been implemented back in 1959 or thereabouts.
As Grace Leong mentioned, could the new ruling had been done in favour of the 41st Sakya Trizin’ s own heirs as if going by seniority of age and accomplishments, then both his sons would be the immediate next two successive throne holders from year 2017. And yet the letter had the signatures and seals of both Phodrangs, the Dolma and Phungtsok, which means that they agreed together on the terms of office. Somewhere there was a rumour of the possibility of forgery but it may just be that. a rumour.
“Ever since I assumed the responsibility of the leadership, just before the “change of time”, 1959 – and a long time had passed since then – it may be possible that at times I, as Sakya Trisin, have been seen to have benefited from privileges. In reality, as soon as I assumed the responsibility, the “change of time” took place. When I arrived as a refugee, there was nothing in terms of monasteries and community in India that we could depend upon. For everything we needed or had depended upon, we had to ask of acquaintances and had to face many hundreds of difficulties for a long period of time. This is neither a “boast’ nor have I anything to show of accomplishment, and yet, as all can see for themselves, I have at least maintained the presence and the name of the Sakya Order.”
What strikes me from this statement was that in 1959 when the 41st Sakya Trizin escaped Tibet, he was only 14 years of age (born in 1945). From what he had written, they had no established monastery or community in India and had to depend on “acquaintances for necessities and help. Could he had received help from the “acquaintances” that explains his latter declaration of protector Dorje Shugden as being the “devil” and toeing the line of these acquaintances. Maybe now with the wisdom of “age”, he may have realised his errors and to prevent further degeneration of the Sakya Order, he is helping to prevent further control by the acquaintances. If that is the case then it would be like he had “sold his soul to the devil” and is trying to recoup the damage before he departs.
However I do agree that a 3 year term is awfully short to implement any beneficial plans for their order as the next Sakya Trizin may not agree and just scrape and replace his own. And so it goes with nothing really accomplished.
Whatever it maybe, the 41st Sakya Trizin is suppose to be an attained being and as such I do hope he is implementing the changes for the benefit of his Sakya Order.
In 2008 the 41st Sakya Trizin publicly insulted and degraded Dorje Shugden on behalf of his new boss the 14th Dalai Lama. What Sakya Trizin did was back the BAN by refusing to fight for this SAKYA DHARMAPALA. By doing this he attacked all three of the Sakya “Gyalpo Sum” or the three “King Spirits”. The three Sakya “King Spirits” are Dorje Shugden, Setrap and Tsui (Kache) Marpo.
We all know that Tsiu (Kache) Marpo is the “First Minister” to Lord Dorje Shugden.
We know that Setrap saved Dorje Shugden from death at the hands of Mindrolling Tulku and his “Fire Puja”. It was Setrap who lead Dorje Shugden to his new home with the Sakya. It was the 30th Sakya Trizin who enthroned Dorje Shugden as a dharmpala and made him the third member of the “Gyalpo Sum”. We know of the love and devotion the 30th,31th,32nd,33rd,35th and 39th Sakya Trizins held for Dorje Shugden. They also loved and were devoted to Setrap and Tsiu (Kache) Marpo. But not this 41th Sakya Trizin who has shown all of them total disrespect.
The Dalai Lama is more important that the Sakya “Gyalpo Sum.
I believe by doing all this Sakya Trizin has created massive “Black Karma” not only for himself but also the Sakya Sect. I have never heard of the now deceased head of the Phuntsok Phrodrang (Palace) His Holiness Dagchen Tulku Rinpoche ever speak out AGAINST Dorje Shugden.
Will the three “King Spirits”, Dorje Shugden, Setrap and Kache Marpo now act as true “Dharmapalas”? Will they seek revenge against this evil 41st Sakya Trizin and his Dolma Phrodrang (Palace) family lineage? Does all this Sakya Trizin really care about is the continued power of the Dolma CORPORATE LINEAGE. Is his FAMILY CORPORATE BUSINESS more important then the Sakya teachings or his three “King Spirits”. It appears it is more important for him to be buddy, buddies with the Dalai Lama then hold true to the Sakya beliefs and teachings.
Could there be in the very near future two 42nd Sakya Trizins. Will there be a split between these two palaces and there three year period of rule be declared VOID.
Will the new 42nd Phuntsok Sakya Trizin declare the 3 year term void and return to the “OLD TRADITION”. The old tradition of the Sakya Trizin holding his title for LIFE.
We will all have to wait to see how the “SAKYA GAME OF THRONES” play out.
Can there be two separate palaces but only one KING. Or will we see two self declared 42nd Sakya Trizin’s, one from the Dolma and one from the Phontsok?
Stay tuned for the continuing drama of the Dalai Lama and his employee the 41st Sakya Trizin.
Dear Harold,
It also surprises me that the Sakya Trizin spoke against the Dorje Shugden practice when the three Kings/ Gyalpo Sum of Dorje Shugden, Setrap and Tsiu (Kache) Marpo are Sakya protectors, and Dorje Shugden was first enthroned as a protector in Sakya. I have heard that many Sakya Monasteries, especially in Tibet were surprised and reluctant to give up Dorje Shugden practice because the practice has such a long tradition in the lineage.
It does seem that the current Sakya Trizin is friendly with the 14th Dalai Lama, but I don’t think that is a good reason to be a ‘traitor’ to the lineage by going against the Dorje Shugden practice that is practised by many Sakya Trizins, and some were even emanations of Dorje Shugden! Let’s hope there is not more drama to add to the many dramas in the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
We have two 17th Karmapa’s.
We will have in the future two 15th Dalai Lama’s. One will be from Tibet who will be pro Dorje Shugden and one from Indian who will continue the ban against Dorje Shugden.
Why can’t we have two 42nd Sakya Trizin’s?
The Dolma 42nd Sakya Trizin will be ANTI Dorje Shugden and the Phuntsog 42nd will be PRO Dorje Shugden.
As you stated to me that the 41st Sakya Trizin is a “TRAITOR TO THE LINEAGE BY GOING AGAINST THE DORJE SHUGDEN PRACTICE.”
To the best of my knowledge this never happened under the leadership of the late H.H. Dagchen Tulku Rinpoche of the Phuntsog Palace.
I believe that the 41st Sakya Trizin is a “Traitor” to Dorje Shugden,Setrap and Tsiu (Kache) Marpo. By going against Dorje Shugden he also went against Setrap and Tsiu (Kache) Marpo. They are THREE BROTHERS who all work together and especially helping Dorje Shugden against the Dalai Lama’s EVIL LINEAGE.
He has publicly insulted the 30th,31st,32nd,33rd,35th,37th and the 39th Sakya Trizin. Does he now claim that they were all WRONG in the practice of Dorje Shugden? His answer to that is simply, YES. The puppet Sakya Trizin agrees with his puppet master the 14th Dalai that Dorje Shugen is evil and must be banned.
Will he now claim that the Dharmapalas Setrap and Tsiu (Kache) Marpo are just as evil as Dorje Shugden? Should they be BANNED by the Sakya for the help they have and continue to render to Lord Dorje Shugden.
So the new future of Tibetan Buddhism is that the Gelug,Sakya and the Karma Kagyu will all have TWO heads and not ONE head. Just imagine TWO 15th Dalai Lama’s, TWO 42nd Sakya Trizin’s and TWO 17th Karmapa’s. How long before the Nyingmapa join in?
The accusation that HH Sakya Trizin denounced Shugden on the advice of HH Dalai Lama is misleading. Campagin against Shugden has been going on at least since late nineteenth century in Sakya Order. The eminent masters like Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, and Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro spoke against practice of Shugden, and even the root guru of current Sakya Trizin Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Shenphen Nyingpo dismantled alter of Shugden in Ngor Evam Monastery. Therefore, though it seems like HH Sakya Trizin has acted on the advice of HH Dalai Lama, in fact there was a long tradition of campaign against Shugen in Sakya Sect. HH Saky Trizin clearly said this in an interview.
Thank you Valentina and Pastor Niral for this informative blog post. What stood out for me the most were the following points:
1) as you so rightly pointed out, nothing significant can be achieved with a three-year term. Whatever the 42nd Sakya Trizin does is in danger of being undone by the 43rd Sakya Trizin, and the 43rd’s edicts being undone by the 44th, and so forth.
2) so as you said, it almost feels like the Sakya succession will become racked with problems here on out, because there is danger of great confusion arising. What happens if the 42nd Sakya Trizin says something is wrong, then the 43rd Sakya Trizin says something is right. Who do you follow?! After all, it was just three years ago that the 42nd proclaimed something as wrong, that the 43rd is now saying is good.
3) what if one of the future Sakya Trizins decides to undo the whole directive, and revert back to the lifetime term? Will the Sakya Trizin that is supposed to succeed him kick up a fuss?
4) and if all of this takes places, what impact will it have on practitioners and on their confidence in the lineage when they see those at the top fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their power? How will it impact their confidence in the teachers when they see those at the top contradicting one another? Samsaric life is confusing enough as it is, without having to create further confusion to add to it!
No wonder real practitioners eschew rank, position and power, because it comes with so much politics and power wrangling. So much time is wasted on all of this politics when it could be devoted to study and practice.
Based on the new Resolution and Directive of the role of the Sakya Trizin, whereby from 2017 onwards, they will only hold the post for a duration of 3 years after which the post must be turned over to the new designate without fail. Based on the Sakya Podrang’s line of succession, the following should be the sequence of the Sakya Trizin leaders:-
1st in line :- H.E Sakya Dhungsey Avikrita Vajra Rinpoche (born in 1993)(Phuntsok Podrang). If he assumes the Sakya Trizin position he would be 24 years of age.
2nd in line :- Ratna Vajra Rinpoche (born in 1974)(Dolma Podrang).If he assumes the Sakya Trizin position he would be 46 years of age.
3rd in line :- H.E. Khondung Abhaya Vajra Sakya (born in 1997)(Phuntsok Podrang).If he assumes the Sakya Trizin position he would be 26 years of age.
4th in line :- Gyana Vajra Rinpoche ( born in 1979)(Dolma Podrang).If he assumes the Sakya Trizin position he would be 47 years of age.
5th in line :- H.E Khondung Asanga Vajra Sakya Rinpoche (born in 1999)(Phuntsok Podrang). If he assumes the Sakya Trizin position he would be 30 years of age.
Note that there seems to be a big difference in the age of the successors between the two podrangs; the leaders from the Dolma Podrang are older then those from the Phuntsok Podrang.
In the Resolution and Directive, it was stated that both generation of the Podrangs take turns assuming the responsibility of the role of Sakya Trizin by “SENIORITY OF AGE” coupled with the required “QUALIFICATIONS”. The qualifications are quite extensive http://www.sakya.org/pdf/HHST_Letter_Eng.pdf
Not an easy task to achieve by the age of 24 !!
Also, if the new directive is based on “SENIORITY OF AGE” then the Phuntsok Podrang successors will not be enthroned until the Dolma Podrang successors have completed their terms ie 6 years time in year 2023 !!
The Resolution and Directive is not very clear on some of the facts above. If it ends up favouring one Podrang from the other then conflict and controversies will arise !! I hope that will not be the case.
The intention and motivation for the changes in the system of enthroning Sakya Trizin should be concentrated purely on benefiting more sentient beings. It should not be tainted by the 8 Worldly concerns !!
As with the denouncement of the Dorje Shugden practice made by the 41st Sakya Trizin – that clearly is tainted, as he prefers to remain “safe and popular” with the majority !!
successors between
Wow Grace… Good observation!
It is indeed true what you say that the change of the system of enthronement such raises a lot of eyebrows and give questionable doubt especially the way the resolution and new directive has been written.
For the current Sakya Trizin to actually make such a s statement “been seen to have benefited from privileges” in the letter is very uncalled for. It makes the whole change in the Sakya’s enthronement system look like there is some kind of disturbing dispute going on, and that this change was a manifestation because of it. If this is the case then I would think this is just the beginning of much bigger problem and conflict.
It sure is interesting how Sakya Trinzin could slam down the practice of his forefathers who basically wrote prayers and enthroned Dorje Shugden from the very beginning. Why would you do that and isn’t that like saying Manjushri is wrong too since they are supposedly emanations of Manjusri?
So many things actually points at the fact that the current Sakya Trinzin is more concern about his status and his fame than the truth and his own lineage fathers. How sad is this, another sign of the degenerate times? So I couldn’t agree with you more when you say “The intention and motivation for the changes in the system of enthroning Sakya Trizin should be concentrated purely on benefiting more sentient beings. It should not be tainted by the 8 Worldly concerns !!”
Dear Grace,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts as I didn’t think about the age factor earlier. The whole purpose of the Sakya Trizin institution was to benefit sentient beings. If this turns into a power struggle, or any of the future Sakya Trizin declare the 3 year term void and return to the old system for their own sake, that would cause a religious turmoil.
I am also of the opinion that a 3-year term may not be very beneficial for the continuation of long term projects, and there will be instability due to differences in policies by different Heads of school. Nevertheless, I do hope that the leaders in Dolma Podrang and Phuntsok Podrang can work together, like a council to protect the lineage and tradition. I agree with Valentina that Lamas do not need high position or title in order to teach the sacred Dharma, but perhaps the benefits that the current Sakya Trizin has “been seen to have benefited” have created much problems, and the only way to satisfy all parties is this 3-year term which the leaders have agreed on.
This is yet another unusual development in Tibetan Buddhism. We have seen the Gelug lineage divided because of the Dorje Shugden issue; we have seen the chaos in the Karma Kagyu school due to the lineage now having two heads or Karmapas; we have seen how the largely shamanistic Bön suddenly became an official Buddhist tradition and now we see the Sakya sounding so ‘corporate’ and secular.
What amazes me most about the Sakya Trizin is how he can so easily denounce Dorje Shugden as a Sakya deity. I don’t know if it is mere coincidence but the Sakya clan seems to have declined in its stature since the Sakya throne holder abjured the clan’s own Dorje Shugden heritage.
I read the Sakya Trizin’s announcement and was quit surprised to see that the head of the Sakya sought the blessing (or was it permission) of the Dalai Lama for a matter that is exclusively for the Sakya to decide. But then again, I see the Dalai Lama’s involvement in the creation of the 2 Karmapas. I cannot say for sure if all these involvements by His Holiness the Dalai Lama was necessary to keep things today, or whether His Holiness’s interference precipitated the chaos.
Anyway, His Holiness is Avalokiteshvara and should ‘know better’.