What made you decide to write a book about the 10th Karmapa and why now?
Shamar Rinpoche: We started writing the book for the Bodhi Path Buddhist centers. The 10th Karmapa’s path was very fascinating. He is a very unique bodhisattva. Among many lamas, he is considered the ideal bodhisattva. Buddhist lamas always say compassion. Compassion, compassion, compassion and lamas always say selflessness. So we should not be selfish. So how can one be an unselfish bodhisattva? There are many great bodhisattvas as examples. The 10th Karmapa was baselessly blamed by others at the time, but he didn’t care. That was not his problem. He was simply enjoying his bodhisattva practice. So when any blame came to him, though it was baseless, he simply enjoyed his Bodhisattva practice. Therefore, he is a good example.
There is a statement in the book about his state of mind that says he is never overcome by praise and is never consumed by criticism and that this is a sign of his accomplishment.
It is a sign that the bodhicitta mind is fully in his blood. It was not some kind of subject that he was borrowing. It was in his blood.
Being the 10th Karmapa, was he naturally born with it?
No, no, no. It is training. It is not just because he was the Karmapa. Yes, of course it was because he was the Karmapa. That is okay to say; that is the spiritual perspective. But for worldly matters, it was how he was trained and that is how he came to show these qualities.
And this is the influence of his root teacher the 6th Shamarpa?
Well, it was the Shamarpa who was training him like that. Shamarpa trained him because he had that method. The Shamarpa always taught him how to be a qualified bodhisattva rather than train him as a scholar. The 6th Shamarpa was a great scholar, but he did not train Karmapa that way. He trained him as a pure bodhisattva. That is why he always selected the life story of the Buddha as the topic of his teachings to Karmapa. This is because Buddha was a bodhisattva, and Shamarpa always taught that. Since the time he was a baby, Karmapa always carried that nature, and Shamarpa trained him according to his nature.
So he saw that it would be more beneficial to train Karmapa in this way than to spend a lot of time with texts and philosophy?
It seems that way.
It was an interesting time in history to do that, primarily because there was this political situation with the Mongols and the 5th Dalai Lama, and there were a lot of misunderstandings between the Gelug and Kagyu sects.
Not the Gelug and Kagyu sects. The fighting was not between the sects. The fighting was between the lamas’ administrators, for hierarchy and prestige. This happened because, years before, the 3rd Dalai Lama had gone to the 9th Karmapa and did prostrations to him. The administrators expected that Karmapa would then stand up from his throne and come down to the ground to receive the Dalai Lama, but he did not do that. Karmapa was just a young boy on the throne; I think he was about eight years old, and he was regarded as the highest lama in Tibet. He was the one who initiated the King’s coronation, so the government of Tsang got offended that the 9th Karmapa did not come down from the throne to receive the 3rd Dalai Lama. It was just about protocol. The sects were not fighting; it was not religions fighting. It was fighting between the hierarchies.
Do you think that Karmapa or the Dalai Lama were ever involved? Did they ever offend each other? Or was it just something that happened between the administrators?
I don’t know what the 3rd Dalai Lama said, but the 4th Dalai Lama did not feel that way. You know, if a lama is already dead, then his reincarnation cannot be brought into it. The 3rd Dalai Lama had already passed away. The 4th Dalai Lama was a new man. So the 4th Dalai Lama was not insulted. The 3rd Dalai Lama was insulted. But the administrators still considered that the 4th Dalai Lama was automatically responsible to get revenge for them.
So the governments didn’t necessarily understand the difference between the 3rd and the 4th Dalai Lama and carried a grudge?
They carried a grudge because of the 9th Karmapa’s treatment. It was very bad for their prestige. The 9th Karmapa was sitting on the throne, and the 3rd Dalai Lama was doing prostrations on the ground. It was too much for them, and they took it as a threat to their prestige. It was so very small-minded, and it is not important for the majority of people, but it was very important to the administrators. As if, today, I were treated badly, then all the surrounding people or administrators would be affected.
Is this, then, why they made this political alliance with the Mongols to take over the political power of Tibet?
That is what I mean. Let’s say the Dalai Lama treats me badly. The Dalai Lama made me pick up some piece of garbage and bring it to him. Then, my administrator is very angry. To get revenge, he collaborates with China and brings the army in and destroys the Dalai Lama. Is it proper? No, it is not proper. It is not good for the country, and it is not good for sentient beings. It is not good for the people. At the time of the book it was also not proper, but they did it because if their boss was undermined then all of his administrators were—and it affected their power. They were all very proud and ambitious. They wanted to be powerful through the name of their guru. So they brought in the Mongolians. It was not good for sentient beings, not good for the country, and not good for the people. But they did it because they were angry.
And what about the Karmapa and the Dalai Lama? Were they involved?
The lamas didn’t have that kind of power. They were young boys, put into that position. A young boy doesn’t know much about what his parents have decided to do. Then, when the young boy grows up, he’s stuck in that situation; he is totally trapped. This kind of thing happened often in Tibetan history.
Was the 5th Dalai Lama trapped?
Of course.
Even though, for the first time in Tibetan history, he became the spiritual and the political leader of the culture?
Of course. Spiritual leader of Gelugpas first, political leader afterwards. Then, his administrators became more and more ambitious.
So we really don’t criticize the Dalai Lama at this time in history? The criticism is more of the administrators.
It is not that we are not criticizing the Dalai Lama for diplomatic reasons. It was like that. The 5th Dalai Lama was trapped. He had to break through somehow, and how could he do that when so many would be affected?
So many people depend on his prestige.
So many did. There were the branch monasteries, and then a lot were administrators. All of them would be affected.
Do you think that he didn’t break through in the way that you described because he was trying to help these people that had trapped him? Because, here in the West, we always see the person at the top as the most responsible.
This is a different era, but yes. That was the Middle Ages, not nowadays. At that time in the world, there was no democratic system.
But we can’t say that the 5th Dalai Lama was responsible for what his administrators did?
The 5th Dalai Lama actually said that he did not want the Mongolian army to come to Tibet.
And they did this against his wishes?
He couldn’t stop them because his administrators were so powerful at the time.
So we have the 5th Dalai Lama, who was trapped, and the 10th Karmapa, who was free.
Yes, he was very free because he was traveling alone. His lifetime was free because he was traveling alone in Nepal in this area.
Do you think that the bodhisattva activity and the way in which it is exemplified by the 10th Karmapa is always expressed best outside of society?
The 10th Karmapa carried on with a very bodhisattva character. If you claim yourself to be a bodhisattva, then you should be like a bodhisattva.
Not involved in the world?
You can be involved in the world, but you should not be angry. The 10th Karmapa was not angry.
I see. So he was not caught…
By his own emotions.
Karmapa created a lot of artwork for his students. One of the paintings that he often made was of Buddha and the sixteen arhats. The paintings that he created seem to be mentioned most often. Is there significance to why he painted it so much—why he might have given it to so many people?
He painted everything very charming. With this painting he wanted to express peace. There could be many meanings to this, but mostly, he wanted to show the compassionate and peaceful environment. That is what he painted the most, a lot of peaceful environments.
Do you think there is a parallel to what we see today, where there is still a lot of politics in the lineage?
It is still going on. It is still there. Prestige is still there. Most people are very gullible nowadays; they are easy believers, and a spiritual teacher can mislead them very easily. Most people like Buddhism, but they are very gullible. The majority of the people in the world are very gullible. In the Chinese community, the Chinese are very easy believers, very gullible. Then spiritual leaders take advantage of that and mislead them very easily. There are many examples of this, in Europe and in America. Spiritual leaders can mislead people easily. People are really gullible.
Also, sometimes very critical people from the West want to see Buddhism as something that is perfect. But then they see some of the politics, and they become discouraged.
There are only a handful of critical people. Gullible people are the majority. As in America, there is celebrity worship. It’s very easy. If I have a celebrity disciple, then everybody thinks I am great because of this celebrity. Americans are a very gullible society. I know it.
What would you say to the critical people that look at Tibetan history? Maybe they even have some admiration for the qualities of Shamar Rinpoche and Karmapa, the qualities of bodhisattvas.
Saying that it is Tibetan does not mean it’s ideal Buddhism. The Tibetan people put priority on politics or money. I don’t think Buddhism should be introduced through human history. Buddhism should be introduced through Buddha’s teachings. Humans should not be the ideal for Buddhism, unless there is a person like Milarepa. He has teachings. He has practiced the practice. So he is an example.
And the 10th Karmapa would be an example?
Yes, he was like that [a bodhisattva]. No historian has said that he was not like that, including the 5th Dalai Lama in his autobiography. He was completely down to earth and associated with many common people—beggars, women—even though he was a disrespected lama for it.
One last question. The 6th Shamarpa and the 10th Karmapa were very close. And today, you are the teacher to the 17th Karmapa. Is it a similar relationship?
That depends on Karmapa. I made him totally free. I did not put him into the traditional control. So he has freedom. So yes, it is pretty much the same. It is spontaneously going on the same track.
Do you have a wish for the Karmapa controversy or for some of the disputes that are happening right now as to how they could be resolved?
I did not give up protecting the Karmapa Charitable Trust. The Karmapa Charitable Trust became the legal successor of the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa. So the Karmapa Charitable Trust has the responsibility to take care of everything. When everything was okay, I agreed to be a trustee as the Shamarpa. I recognized Thaye Dorje as Karmapa, and he is now grown up. He has become a person with both a Tibetan and an English education. But I never used him for the Trust to challenge anything. I kept him out of that. It is my responsibility to protect him and not throw him into hot water.
We are certainly all very grateful for the work that you have done. Thank you very much for this interview.
“Afterword” from A Golden Swan in Turbulent Waters: The Life and Times of the 10th Karmapa Choying Dorje (Lexington, Virginia: Bird of Paradise Press, 2012):
After the passing of four centuries, what are we to make of the 10th Karmapa’s life? First and foremost, he is the ideal bodhisattva, like a golden swan graceful and serene even in turbulent waters. The swirling currents of politics and military aggression in 17th-century Tibet did not divert him from the path of a bodhisattva. Nor was he deterred from carrying out bodhisattva activities and fulfilling his primary responsibility as the head of the Karma Kagyu sect, namely passing down the lineage transmissions intact to the next generation.
The only times the Karmapa interjected himself in the turmoil of his day were to act as a peacemaker. This was in keeping with his bodhisattva nature of nonviolence and protecting lives. As early as age seven, when he urged the Mongolian warlord Dai Ching to stop killing, he evidenced his commitment to pacifism. Much later in his life, when he was in exile in Lijiang, the king offered to dispatch his army into Tibet to attack the Gelug government and regain the many Karma Kagyu monasteries and temples that the government had converted to their sect. In declining this offer, the Karmapa remarked that further fighting would only bring on negative karma.
The Karmapa consciously avoided becoming entangled in the affairs of state. He did, however, perform religious ceremonies for political leaders such as the Tsang Desi, but only upon their request. He did not always comply with these requests, though, especially if he thought that the political figure did not deserve the benefits of a religious ritual. For example, he and the 6th Shamarpa initially refused to perform funeral rites in 1621 for the Tsang Desi Phuntsok Namgyal, who had ignored the Shamarpa’s request not to invade several smaller kingdoms.
Perhaps the most telling example of the Karmapa abstaining from politics occurred in 1660 when he turned down the Qjng emperor’s offer of the same title that a Ming emperor famously bestowed on the 5th Karmapa. When the 6th Situ urged him to accept the title, the Karmapa berated him, saying: “I don’t need these things. You people are after the Chinese silks and brocades. As for me, in my wisdom, I see the lakes in China filled with human blood.” For the Karmapa, titles such as this and political power were a distraction from his bodhisattva mission.
In worldly terms, Karmapa was not street-smart or diplomatic. He was honest and forthright to a fault. A case in point is the exchange between him and the Dalai Lama’s chief administrator, Sonam Chopal, after the Mongols invaded Tibet and installed the 5th Dalai Lama as the political leader of the country in 1642. Sonam Chopal asked the Karmapa to swear that he would not oppose or take any future action against the Gelug sect. Instead of agreeing to this, the Karmapa responded that there was no need for him to swear for the future, but he could swear that he had never done anything bad to the Gelugpas in the past.
In his diary as extensively quoted in this book’s final chapter, the 5th Dalai Lama portrayed the Karmapa in terms that clearly reveal the Karmapa’s true nature. According to the Dalai Lama, he dressed in simple layman’s clothing, and he wore his hair long. In other words, he had no pretensions. This conforms to Bey Lotsawa’s description of the Karmapa who in many instances chose to travel as a beggar rather than in a style commensurate with his high status.
The Dalai Lama also recounts that contrary to the custom of other religious leaders of the time, the Karmapa traveled in the company of nuns and young men and women. For this, he was scorned because women were generally looked down upon. The Dalai Lama, however, interprets the Karrnapa’s unusual practice to be an act of compassion. The Dalai Lama’s interpretation substantiates the many instances Bey Lotsawa cites of the Karmapa being generous to beggars, common people and animals alike. From an early age, Karmapa studied the deeds of past bodhisattvas. He wanted to emulate their achievements of helping sentient beings regardless of whether they responded to the bodhisattva’s acts of compassion. Throughout his life he seemed to be very conscious of his responsibilities as a bodhisattva. One small example demonstrates this point. In 1650 when he was searching for the reincarnation of the Shamarpa, he lost everything to a band of robbers. He did not even have a cup, and so a poor person offered him a broken wooden cup tied together with string. Rather than use it to drink, Karmapa filled it with soil upon which he drew an image of the Buddha. He offered this to the Buddha with the wish that he would be able to accomplish the bodhisattva practice.
In some ways, the Karmapa romanticized the life of a bodhisattva as one who wanders in the forest communing with nature, is in harmony with the universe, and shows compassion to all sentient beings including animals. Many of Karmapa’s poems and art works reflect this sentiment. Two of his gurus encouraged his inclination to retreat into the isolated purity of the natural world. Pawo Rinpoche Gawey Yang advised him, when invited to visit the Tsang capital in the early 1620’s, not to stay long there for fear that he would be corrupted and distracted from his bodhisattva activities. The 6th Shamarpa was similarly wary of contact with political states and urban areas which he considered “places of samsara.”
In sum, the 10th Karmapa was very much true to himself and to the dharma. In other words, he was not a man of his time. He did not abide by normal customs. His manner of dress, his habit of traveling in the company of women, and his disdain for politics were all as eccentric by worldly standards as were his highly original works of art.
Instead, Karmapa was a man for all times. His focus was directed toward being a bodhisattva and acting only for the benefit of all sentient beings. From his early years studying with the 6th Shamarpa, nothing fulfilled him more than practicing bodhisattva ways.
With his boundless compassion and unparalleled artistic talents, the 10th Karmapa was, indeed, a glorious golden swan for the ages.
Photo credit: Ginger Neumann
