The heart of the controversy lies in a painful succession dispute within the Karma Kagyu school following the passing of the 16th Karmapa, Rangjung Rigpe Dorje. Two different candidates were put forward as the 17th Karmapa, each supported by eminent lamas and large communities of followers. Ogyen Trinley Dorje was recognized by Tai Situ Rinpoche and formally endorsed by the 14th Dalai Lama, and his recognition was also accepted by the Chinese authorities, who enthroned him at Tsurphu Monastery in Tibet. Trinley Thaye Dorje, by contrast, was recognized by Shamar Rinpoche, traditionally regarded as the second-highest figure in the Karma Kagyu lineage. This divergence of recognitions created not only two Karmapas, but also two interpretive visions of how the lineage should be continued in a time of exile and political pressure.

A central point of contention concerns a prediction letter said to have been left by the 16th Karmapa to guide the search for his reincarnation. Supporters of Ogyen Trinley Dorje affirm that this letter, brought forward by Tai Situ Rinpoche, authentically indicated his rebirth and thus legitimized his recognition. Shamar Rinpoche and those aligned with him questioned the authenticity of this letter and, by extension, the process that led to Ogyen Trinley Dorje’s identification. The debate is therefore not merely about a single document, but about the integrity of traditional procedures and the proper guardianship of a sacred lineage.

The involvement of powerful institutions deepened the rift. Historically, the Karmapa lineage recognized its own incarnations with relatively little intervention from the Dalai Lama, yet in this case the Dalai Lama’s explicit endorsement of Ogyen Trinley Dorje was seen by some as an overreach into Karma Kagyu affairs. At the same time, the recognition and support extended by the Chinese government to Ogyen Trinley Dorje raised concerns among critics about political motivations and the possibility of external control over a key Tibetan spiritual figure. These overlapping layers of religious authority and political influence have made the controversy especially sensitive and enduring.

As a result, the Karma Kagyu school has experienced a long-lasting division, with monasteries, centers, and practitioners aligning themselves with one or the other Karmapa. This has led to competing institutional structures and ongoing disputes over authority and property, including important seats of the lineage. For many practitioners, the situation has become a testing ground for faith, discernment, and patience, as they navigate conflicting claims while seeking to remain true to the essence of the teachings. The controversy thus reflects not only a question of who holds a particular title, but also a deeper struggle over how an ancient lineage adapts and maintains its authenticity amid exile, political pressure, and divergent visions of spiritual leadership.