THE GELUGPA ‘ONE-WAY STREET’ SECTARIANISM: The misuse of ‘non-sectarian’ (Ri-mey) terminology to stifle dissent and critique, and defend Gelugpa Sectarianism and political and religious domination in Tibet, pre- and post-1959, in the name of ‘unity’

“Even though most followers of Genden [Gelug] by shunning alcohol, drugs and so on, makes them role models of the teachings.  Yet, as most also see no faults in killing and maiming. Such hateful hostility is a huge enemy, so please be careful!”

དགེ་ལྡན་པ་ཕལ་ཆེར་ཆང་ནག་སོགས་འཛེམ་པས་བསྟན་པའི་མིག་ལྟོས་ལེགས་ཀྱང༌།
ཕལ་ཆེར་གསོད་གཅོད་ལྷུར་ལེན་པ་ལ་སྐྱོན་དུ་མི་ལྟ་བས། ཞེ་སྡང་འདི་དགྲ་ཆེ་བས་གཟབ་འཚལ།
–Jigme Lingpa

“A person who doesn’t know their lineage is like a monkey in the forest. One who doesn’t know their family history is like a fake turquoise dragon. One who doesn’t know the great deeds of the ancestors is like a lost child from the region of Mon.” –17th Karmapa (July 2024)

“Regardless of the region we are from, the religion we follow, or the views or positions we hold, for the benefit of Tibet as a whole, we must do what is important and let go of what is minor—it is important not to mistake gold for brass or to reduce sandalwood to ash before selling it.” –17th Karmapa (August 2024)

A few days ago, I wrote about the Mongol-Gelug Shadow over Tibet and its six-decades failed alliance with the US government, including US politican, Nancy Pelosi’s recent ‘undiplomatic’, inflammatory and divisive public statements this year at a Dharamsala event, attended by the 14th Dalai Lama.

This article is a follow-up to that piece, focusing on the many examples of Gelugpa sectarian domination and bias not only in Tibet pre-1959, but also in exile.  Yet, whenever such Gelugpa bias and sectarianism in exile (as well as in Tibet) is raised, they immediately accuse people of sectarianism, division, and tell everyone to forget about that because unity is important. Completely failing to account for (and being blind to) the Gelugpa dominance in exile and in Tibetan affairs, media and institutions, which has been the worst and most pervasive religious sectarianism and authoritarianism in the history of Buddhist Tibet.

This stifling of legitimate dissent and critique in the name of a non-existent ‘unity’, and the hijacking and misuse of the Rimey (non-sectarian) movement language to prop up and perpetuate such Gelugpa dominance is wearing thin now though in India too, as more people are increasingly becoming aware of how this strategy to conflate the Dalai Lama institution with Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism is not only false, but also not helping Tibetan relations with India or China, or further dialogue or progress on Tibet.

Below, I list just a few of the many examples of Gelug bias and sectarianism in exile, gained not only after direct experience of years of living and studying in  Dharamsala, India, but also as an objective observer to certain ‘facts’, rather than the mainstream narrative given in the media by Tibetans and their naive and undiscerning ‘orientalist’ western allies.

There was never any real unity in Tibet, and the idea is that the 5th Dalai Lama/Gelugpas created that unity is a false narrative perpetuated by the ‘violent victors’.  It was a unity imposed by the foreign Mongolian army invaders. If anything they set the ball in motion for the Qing Dynasty to take full control of Tibet, which they did.  Also, although some people counter this with ‘past is past’ and it is ‘all water under the bridge’, these examples show that it is not ‘past’ and how can there be water under the bridge, when the bridge of genuine non-sectarianism and equality among the Tibetan Buddhist lineages was never built?

Gelug sectarianism: pre- and post- 1959 and the Rimey (non-sectarian) movement in Tibet

One person wrote in response to the Mongolian-Gelug Shadow article, that the 14^th Dalai Lama had done ‘more than anyone in exile’ to remove sectarianism in Tibetan Buddhism. This is a bizarre (and almost laughable) claim to make as, again the reality is different.

The people who did the most to end sectarianism in Tibet,  were the 19^th Century Rimey (non-sectarian) movement started in Tibet by masters like the 1^st Jamgon Kongtrul and Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, as a reaction to the prevailing Gelug sectarianism and domination in Tibet. That movement was also suppressed by the Gelugpas and not allowed to become powerful politically, ironically with the Gelugpas citing the cause of non-sectarianism to suppress it.

For those who speak Tibetan, one can hear in this speech how and why the 14th Dalai Lama /Gelugpas use that language to justify their suppression and destruction of a lineage like Drugpa Kagyu, for example.  Here is another video (Tibetan only) in which a young and brilliant 17th Karmapa, not that long out of Tibet, bravely addresses the 14th Dalai Lama and the Gelugpa patriarchs,  on the Gelugpa bias when it comes to texts and study in monasteries and exile culture. The head of the Gelug lineage, Ganden Tripa, seated next to the 17th Karmapa listening, even falls asleep while he is speaking,  how disrespectful is that?

Unelected and unaccountable: Gelugpa-staffed and biased educational and media institutions and powerful figures like Geshe Lhagdor and Samdhong Rinpoche

Also, in political exile, up until recently the 14^th Dalai Lama maintained spiritual and political power and almost all the Tibetan exile media and institutions were predominantly staffed by Gelug followers and Geshes.

For example, the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala (which I studied at for a couple of years), has had only Gelugpa-trained Geshes teaching  the Gelugpa view of emptiness as Prasangika-Madhyamika, and other Gelugpa biased texts, since its foundation. Inside its main shrine and teaching hall there, is a huge photo of the 14th Dalai Lama but no other lineage heads or teachers, and yet it is supposed to be for all Tibetans and all lineages, right?

The director of the Library (a staunchly biased Gelugpa sectarian, Geshe Lhagdor also told me (angrily and in person, as if I were a small child ) that after my book Taranatha’s Commentary on the Heart Sutra (a Shentong, non-Gelug and Jonang text) was published by the LTWA,  they would not publish a second edition of my ‘tiny book’, because ‘I criticised Tibetans and Tibetan society’ too much, and demanded I get out of the room before I had a chance to respond.  I emailed Geshe Lhagdor afterwards to explain that any book that contained an accurate rendering of Buddha Dharma is precious, and that I did not think how he spoke to me was appropriate or fitting for someone in his position, especially as I was an adult woman alone in the room with him. He did not respond.

This is not the first time I have been ghosted and gaslighted by powerful men with influence for merely trying to express an alternative viewpoint to the prevailing Gelugpa narrative there. However, for a Geshe Lharampa, who spent years training in skilled debate,  his lack of ability to engage in mature and respectful communication in person, at the very least allowing me to respond to his accusations in a calm and dignified way, is odd to say the least.

More generally though, Geshe Lhagdor also erroneously conflates any critique of the Gelugpas/Dalai Lama institutions and history (which is in the Introduction of the Taranatha book), with a critique of Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. Thus rendering all challenges to their bias and domination obsolete. Can you imagine if Prince Charles or the Royal Family of the UK were deemed to be inseparable from the identity of the British people and the United Kingdom? Millions would laugh and object at such a ridiculous and inappropriate assertion and equivalence.

TCV schools and Gelugpa bias and the case of Samdhong Rinpoche

The situation is no different at younger ages, in the Tibetan exile schools. All schools have prominent photos of the 14th Dalai Lama on display, but none of the 17th Karmapa or the other main lineage heads.

Recently, during an inter-schools TCV debate, a student participant was told to recite the work and words of Samdhong Rinpoche (another staunch Gelugpa) whom the student had never read or knew anything about. Worse, than that, I have also been informed by a reliable source in Indian government that there are genuine concerns about the conduct of this Rinpoche around young boys in India too. That there have allegedly been concerns of Dob-Dob types of abusive conduct raised (which the Gelugpa are renowned for in Tibetan culture) but that the young Tibetan children were not willing to expose him publicly.

One cannot underestimate the domineering power and influence of these unelected and publicly unaccountable Gelugpa monks have had in exile India as well, accountable to no one other than themselves, until there were recent democratic elections.

One young Tibetan man progressive who worked for the TCHRD briefly, told me he felt ‘brainwashed’ by the education in ‘religious’ bias for the 14th Dalai Lama, and he was annoyed and frustrated with Samdhong Rinpoche for his unhelpful (and some say sinister) influence on Tibet and its culture and political situation.

 Higher throne a Chinese tradition and/or more Gelugpa domination in exile?

After the recent 17th Karmapa photos with the 14th Dalai Lama were published, a couple of people told me that it is a Chinese tradition that an elder Lama sit on a higher throne and the younger on a lower. The 17th Karmapa also taught about this before too.

However, if that is the case, then why is the 14th Dalai Lama following this Chinese tradition too, and why is he always seated higher than all the Tibetan Buddhist masters, even when the master was older than him?

Photo and long-life prayers for the 14^th Dalai Lama in every Tibetan Buddhist monastery in exile

If there really is no continuing Gelug sectarianism in Tibetan exile, then why  are only photos of the 14^th Dalai Lama on every shrine of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and not of all the main lineage heads? Why do Gelug monasteries not have photos of the main lineage heads on their main shrines? Because these are all pre-1959 habits and customs of Mongol-Gelug absolute rule there. Yet, ironically, and karmically, the Chinese government have banned any photos of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan monasteries.

Similarly, long life prayers for the Dalai Lama are regularly recited in all Tibetan Buddhist monasteries (another habit from Gelug absolute power there pre-1959), yet it is not  regular practice for Gelug monasteries to recite long-life prayers for the other lineage heads or great non-Gelug masters, such as the 17^th Karmapa, Jonang, Sakya or Nyingma lamas. Why not?

Media manipulation to serve whose interests? The 17th Karmapa’s ‘sudden’ and brief public meeting ‘on his knees’ with the 14th Dalai Lama photos in August 2024

In August 2024, there was a ‘surprise’ meeting (after almost seven years of no public in-person teachings or appearances) of the 17^th Karmapa with the 14^th Dalai Lama in a 5 star hotel in Zurich, Switzerland.  Since it was published, the 17^th Karmapa then issued a lengthy statement (in Tibetan) in which he praises the Dalai Lama (which he has done many times before), as well as speaking about the old age and frailty of the Dalai Lama but that he was happy to meet him, wishing him a long-life and so on. He also wrote about the Dalai Lama’s wishes to visit China and return to Tibet. The 17^th Karmapa concluded his message with a request that Tibetans stay united and:

“Regardless of the region we are from, the religion we follow, or the views or positions we hold, for the benefit of Tibet as a whole, we must do what is important and let go of what is minor—it is important not to mistake gold for brass or to reduce sandalwood to ash before selling it.”

Indeed. Considering the 17th Karmapa has recently taught about the degeneration of the status of nuns, of Mind-Only and Vajrayana in Tibet, of the mass destruction of Karma Kagyu monasteries in central Tibet, as well as mass empowerments being contrary to the Tantras and advice about examining a Vajrayana guru well, this sentence resonated the most (with me at least).

Although it was helpful to read the 17th Karmapa’s words to clarify the meeting, there was still no explanation at all as to why the 17th Karmapa was able to suddenly attend it,  yet did not attend the recent cremations of important Karma Kagyu teachers, of his father in Tibet (although that is more understandable), or visit the Karma Kagyu monasteries and nunneries in India, Nepal and Asia personally.

In any case,  after several years of almost total public/in-person absence of the 17^th Karmapa, it is not clear why these three laypeople were at this meeting and photo shoot, with such esteemed and senior Tibetan Buddhist teachers, while the hundreds Karma Kagyu followers and monastics still have no public access at all. It was also noticeable that all three laypeople had there heads above those of both the 17th Karmapa and the 14th Dalai Lama, considered to be bad etiquette and ‘impolite’ in Tibetan Buddhist circles.

The 17th Karmapa’s statement may also have been issued after some pressure from Gelug-biased Dharamsala people, as people were criticising the Dalai Lama Office privately as the 17th Karmapa was ‘on his knees’ in the photos. After all, one does not see such long statements from other lineage heads after they meet the Dalai Lama. Although, the 17th Karmapa in his great humility, often writes such praises to Tibetan Buddhist teachers, including the two Karma Kagyu teachers who recently passed away.

After these photos and statement by the 17^th Karmapa had been published,  intuitively it seemed as if these images and words were being used manipulatively to serve another agenda, that of the  14^th Dalai Lama institution, and by proxy the ongoing Gelug sectarianism and domination of Tibetan exile politics, culture and religion. For example, Tibetan exile media outlets, like Voice of America are funded by the US government and generally full of news about the 14th Dalai Lama’s trips and statements.

Dalai Lama/Gelugpa focused Tibetan exile Parliament

As I recently wrote about in THE STRUGGLE FOR A MODERN TIBET: Anniversary of Tibetan Democracy Day (Mangtso Duchen) and the ideals of a liberal, ‘free speech’ secular democracy, the four main lineages of Tibetan Buddhist are represented in the  Tibetan exile parliament (apart from Jonang, which is still not included for some unknown reason), it seems to care little about representing the interests and situations of one of the most important spiritual and political figures in the history of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, never mind in exile. 

A public petition on the return of the 17th Karmapa to Sikkim was launched two months ago which now has over one thousand signatures and sent to the CTA. There was no response.

On September 11th 2024, a Tibetan exile representative, Dorje Tsetan, for the first time in a CTA session it seems, raised the issue as to what conversations and discussions had recently taken place with the 17th Karmapa about his return to India and other matters, when he met with the 14th Dalai Lama in Switzerland and what the CTA were doing to ensure his return to Sikkim.

The Sikyong (leader) Penpa Tsering first replied that he had not been privy to any discussions between the 17th Karmapa and the 14th Dalai Lama in Europe, so was unable to answer that. He then replied that the CTA could not do anything about the Karmapa’s return to Sikkim as it was in the Indian government’s control and between them and the 17th Karmapa.

However, a reliable source in the Indian government informed me that it was not correct, and that in fact the main obstacle facing the 17th Karmapa’s return to Rumtek and Sikkim are the pending court cases of Thaye Dorje and his group of mainly European followers, who refuse to withdraw the cases, unless it seems the 17th Karmapa does a ‘joint Karmapa’ deal with them. For more on that see article here.

Yet, the question still remains, why are the CTA representatives not trying to do more about the 17th Karmapa’s situation, and helping and supporting the Karmapa to return to Sikkim? After all, it is not for the 14th Dalai Lama or Gelugpas in exile to decide whether he can or not.

One-way support, praises and condolences

The great Je Tsongkhapa (considered to be the founder of the Gelugpa lineage) wrote a praise to the 5th Karmapa, Dezhin Shegpa, in a letter to him, which is preserved in the Collected Short Works of Je Tsongkhapa. In this letter it says: “For the teachings of the Buddha to flourish, there is no one greater to do that than Dezhin Shegpa, the Karmapa”.  Along with the letter, he sent a statue of Buddha Shakyamuni sitting in the seated position of Maitreya from Reting monastery. The Sixteenth Karmapa brought the statue with him when he fled Tibet and it is kept at Rumtek Monastery, Sikkim (for more on that, see here).

Yes, since the seventeenth century takeover of Tibet by the Mongolian-Gelugpa forces, all praises, birthday wishes and public support offered by other lineage heads to the 14th Dalai Lama is also one-way, and non-existent the other way.

For example,  14th Dalai Lama and his office never even released a statement of condolences about the recent death of 17th Karmapa’s father, or the passing of one of 17th Karmapa’s teachers Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche (who had been appointed by the 14^th Dalai Lama to act as his tutor).

Yet, when the 14^th Dalai Lama was facing widespread global condemnation for his inappropriate actions with the Indian boy last year, the 17th Karmapa was one of the first lineage heads to issue in writing his support and concern for the Dalai Lama, again praising his qualities. This one-way praise and attention is a Gelug sectarian habit from pre-1959 Tibet. Has anyone ever seen any photo, video or event, where the Dalai Lama has bowed down and prostrated to a Tibetan teacher from one of the other main lineages?

If the 14th Dalai Lama is a humble and great Buddhist master then why has he also not been regularly (verbally and in writing) praising, venerating, and wishing long lives to all such masters from other Tibetan Buddhist lineages, over the past six decades too?