Dorje Shugden: Deity or Demon? September 16, 2008
Posted by tricycleblog in : General , trackbackIn case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a lot of activity on this blog and elsewhere around the Buddhist web relating to the Dorje Shugden controversy. While we take no position on this rather arcane sectarian dispute, we have covered it in the past. In order to shed some light on the controversy, we reproduce here the opening two pages of a special section from the Spring 1998 issue with links to the section’s contents, including interviews with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, leader of the New Kadampa Tradition, and Thubten Jigme Norbu, the recently deceased brother of the Dalai Lama. Click on the images below to see larger versions of the opening spread, and the links below that to read the articles themselves.
- The Editors
 |
 |
- Letting Daylight into Magic by Stephen Batchelor
- Two Sides of the Same God by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.
- An Interview with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
- An Interview with Thubten Jigme Norbu
[UPDATE: Thanks to Danny Fisher for pointing out the Wikipedia link on the controversy above.]
Comments»
The anti-Shugden/WSS/NKT propaganda onslaught from Tenzin Peljor and friends will begin in 5, 4, 3, 2…
To immunise yourself against this, may we advise dropping attachment to the view that the Dalai Lama is GOD ALMIGHTY and whatever he says is therefore inherently true, and actually Thinking for Yourself, as a certain Indian monk advised, 2500 years ago.
It may be tempting to dismiss it as an “arcane sectarian dispute” and I agree that the polemics are hard to grasp at first glance, but the reason this issue has hotted up again is due to the political actions surrounding this arcane dispute. The Dalai Lama has used his political power to ban the practice of Dorje Shugden. Whatever reasons he uses — and Shugden practitioners do not agree with any of them — they are not justification for his theocratic actions in this modern world and they are causing needless suffering. For that reason alone, this dispute is worth not dismissing but investigating again. A lot has happened since Tricycle wrote their article in the 1990s, not least the fact that with the growth of the Internet it is easier for Shugden practitioners to have their voices heard (not possible in the 1990s, when it was more like David v. Goliath in the media).
Check out a recent TV documentary by France 24 that does its best at presenting both sides of the dispute: http://www.france24.com/en/20080808-dalai-lama-demons-india-buddhism-dorje-shugden
Also, I don’t know if you happened to see the four New Statesman blogs about it, which generated a great deal of interest: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2008/08/dalai-lama-china-tibet
This last paragraph of Stephen Batchelor is very interesting and seems to point to the heart of the problem:
“Yet history also teaches us that Buddhism possesses a remarkable capacity to reimagine itself in response to the challenges posed by new historical and cultural situations. … If it is to survive, it will have to find a way of preserving the heartfelt, single-minded commitment at its core within multicultural societies that reject the totalizing and potentially repressive demands of any single claim to truth.”
What has happened since the time he wrote this is that the single claim to truth that Dorje Shugden is a spirit and not a Buddha has become the ascendant view among Tibetans in exile, following the words of the Dalai Lama. This has led to repressive demands that the practice of Dorje Shugden be banned and its followers removed from Tibetan society. However, as SB also points out, there are saintly people on both sides of the divide. Wherever one stands on the issue i.e. whether you believe Dorje Shugden is a spirit or a Buddha, it is still wrong to impose that view on others through political actions. Dorje Shugden practitioners have been saying again and again that we need to learn to live and let live. Right now, that is not happening, and in this instance it is not the fault of the Dorje Shugden practitioners but of the Dalai Lama, as he is the one who instigated this conflict in this century and the one who has caused great disruption and disharmony because of it. The Gelugpas and Nyingmapas were getting on harmoniously before… as SB says, Dilgo Khyentse and Trijang Rinpoche admired and respected each other. All that mutual admiration and respect has shrivelled up and turned into intolerance and ostracism due to the repressive political actions of the Dalai Lama.
Here are some helpful websites on this issue:
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/
Is this an act of cowardice on the part of the editors of Tricycle? This is a subject that Buddhist around the world wish for clarification on. Yet, Tricycle just posts an article that is 10 years old.
Come on Tricycle, you’re starting to seem like the mainstream Western media that won’t actually investigate corruption in Washington. As a result, the corruption just keeps getting worse.
Here’s a link to the part of the France 24 documentary that gives of voice to Shugden practitioners who have been outcast in India.
http://shugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/dorje-shugden-practitioners-outcasts-in-india-video/
You may want to read this article which is related to your blog:
http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A146102
I pray that the Dalai Lama will recover soon from his sickness and that all Dorje Shugden practitionars in India can get help from their hospitals like the Dalai Lama does.
Regards
Go_H_Di
I take Goldenmala’s point about taking the time to investigate further, when it is such an important issue on many levels. I don’t think Tricycle can be blamed for an act of cowardice in bringing up the old article — hopefully they are trying to evoke more interest in the subject again after remaining quiet on it for a decade. So, I am grateful to the Tricycle editors for bringing this subject up. It is not easy to bring up controversial articles about the Dalai Lama, even if you are self-proclaimed neutral in this dispute. Hinting at any criticism of His Holiness, even if that is reporting other people’s criticisms, brings the wrath of his loyal followers upon your head.
Dear Geoff,
It’s obvious they know about the discrimination. They published a post titled “Strange Happenings at Sera Monastery”
http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/strange-happenings-at-sera-monastery/
Why don’t they want to look into it again? I think they are afraid of the Dalai Lama’s followers. They have good reason to be, but having a publication called “The Buddhist Review” entails some responsibility toward the general Buddhist community. Not just the Dalai Lama’s followers.
They’ve probably published hundreds of positive articles about the Dalai Lama. All the Buddhist mags are happy to publish anything positive about the Dalai Lama. That’s part of the problem.
It’s great that they have the courage to post these little mentions of the Dorje Shugden Controversy. I just wish they had the courage to do a real thorough and honest investigation for the benefit of all Buddhists.
Tricycle has no qualms about reporting the repression of monks in Myanmar. This year hundreds of monks in India were thrown out of their monasteries at the behest of the Dalai Lama. For the last twelve years a program of systematic persecution has been implemented against lay and ordained Shugden practitioners. It has culminated in the issuance of identity cards that are need to procure all manner of services. For a Tibetan exile to obtain the card they must sign an oath stating that they will neither practice Dorje Shugden nor associate in any way with those that do.
So Tricycle Magazine does not find these events to be worthy of investigation? You say “we take no position on this rather arcane sectarian dispute.” Perhaps you should consult Buddhist teachings on compassion to motivate some interest in your heart. If you remain silent on this issue, refusing to take a stance, this indicates you posses political motivations and not spiritual ones.
For the other side of the story:
scholarly:
Shuk-Den Affair Origins of a Controversy:
http://www.newkadampa.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=68
personal anecdote:
http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_Choegyal_Namkhai_Norbu.html
opinion:
http://www.westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com
A complete updated list of Academic Researches on the Dorje Shugden Controversy:
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/
Don’t NKT shugdenites sound like spoilt little school children, stamping their feet and wailing for their own way, “You must do this!” or “If you don’t say something it means this!”. Now they threaten the editors of Tricycle to ‘make their stand’ or be counted as enemies.
Who’s next? George Bush? Putin? Will everyone in any position of responsibility have to declare their position on the propitiation of a Tibetan entity or risk the horror of being classed as its enemy?
Little temper tantrums aside, how this tiny minority has such a loud voice mystifies me. Considering that for the overwhelming majority* of Tibetans and Vajrayana practitioners, past and present, the propitiation of Dolgyal was (and is) an irrelevance with no bearing on their life and practice, why do we have to listen to the nonsense bandied about on message boards everywhere?
Seeing as the neo-Shugdenites aren’t even Tibetan Buddhists and have broken away from the Gelugpa tradition they quixotically claim to maintain, why is this an issue? Why not just get on with whatever it is they do without making such a song and dance? Good luck to you!
Why can’t they cut through the ideology and propaganda that perverts their understanding of the truth and realise that in reality there is only the issue here: that there are individuals, purporting to be Buddhist practitioners, who seem to exist solely to create a headache for the larger Buddhist community, who have to suffer the brainwashed, delusional rantings of adult human beings who should know how to behave in public places.
*of course, NKT ’statistics’ claim that millions of Tibetans have been affected; how this figure has been arrived at remains a mystery.
There is enormous bias in the Buddhist community towards the Dalai Lama such that it becomes an obstacle to objectively investigating his actions in India. I agree that these blogs are filled with positive (and political) stories about the Dalai Lama but no one wants to investigate the shadow side of the Dalai Lama’s leadership. I can understand this. No small child wants to find out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist - it’s a massive disappointment, a blow to the magical world they believed existed in their imagination
But it’s time to grow up now. It’s time to objectively examine the Dalai Lama’s actions of ostracism and oppression in his own community and report the truth for the good of Buddhism, even if it’s disappointing to discover that the champion of tolerance and religious freedom is a political and religious dictator who is harming the lineage of his own Root Guru.
The France 24 investigation revealed this clearly but it’s not enough - someone in the Buddhist community needs to blow the whistle on these activities that are destroying Buddhism. Tricycle needs to be honest here and investigate. You might think that this is an ‘arcane sectarian’ dispute but you aren’t seeing dependent relationship and what this is going to lead to in the future. It’s no good burying your head in the sand until Tsongkhapa’s tradition has been destroyed. Simply have the courage to report what you see.
There is also an enormous biasness in you believing that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is correct too! :p
To immunise yourself against this, may we advise dropping attachment to the view that the Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is GOD ALMIGHTY and whatever he says is therefore inherently true, and actually Thinking for Yourself, as a certain Indian monk advised, 2500 years ago.
Well there are a lot to say about these people, first propagating something that is not widely accepted throughout the four major traditions of buddhism, next forcing His Holiness to do something that he doesn’t wish to do, and claims that they are fighting for their “human rights”, when they are not giving His Holiness human rights at all … :p Dictatorship???
It is quite appalling the level of ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by the supporters of the Dalai Lama. They level accusation after accusation that are utterly illogical and baseless.
They accuse others of being dictatorial but just look at what happens to anyone who dares not accept an edict from the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama employs a whole governmental bureaucracy and legions of sycophants to attack the transgressor. Who is dictatorial? Who is unable to tolerate the slightest disobedience?
Where is the independent thinking recognizing the the mutual exclusivity of religion and politics from the side of the supporters of the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama is the embodiment of mixing these two opposites. His activities show the unequivocal example of the corruption of religion. Politics seeks to enhance samsara, with the hope that it will become pure. Religion seeks to escape samsara understanding that samsara can never be pure - understanding that purity of body, speech, and mind arise only through destroying our own samsara.
Do the followers of the Dalai Lama regard politics as part of the spiritual domain? If so they shall never escape samsara.
If you say Shugden practitioners are also political this is incorrect, because fighting to prevent the extinction of ones’ spiritual practices and beliefs is a religious action with a religious motivation. It is not an action to improve samsara.
Arguing that the popularity of one practice over other practice is a valid criteria that determines authenticity is simply stupid. Jesus was neither popular with the Romans nor the majority of Jews. By this standard it would mean that he, his teachings, and his practices should be considered invalid.
It is the followers of the Dalai Lama who have shown themselves to be both intolerant and biased. They cannot accept that their emperor has no clothes. They abide in a state of denial because they would have to admit they made a big mistake in judgment. They would have to admit the Dalai Lama is wrong to implement the most childish of solutions in initiating a ban on Dorje Shugden.
If defending ones’ spiritual beliefs is considered to be the act of ’spoilt little school children,’ this speaks volumes about the depth and understanding of the mind of faith that such critics hold. Pointing out that Tricycle’s decision in all likelihood comes from a political motivation does not make them the enemy of Shugden practitioners. It simply shows the climate of fear that exists and the consequences one may face if they challenge the Dalai Lama.
@Ron Cook:
Your arguments apply as well to yourself and GKG’s followers:
“It is quite appalling the level of ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by the supporters of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. They level accusation after accusation that are utterly illogical and baseless.”
Also I feel, the intimidating and blackmailing tactics of WSS and you are not very helpful in this process.
It’s fine that Tricycle offered two of the four articles now for the public. The complete stuff is quite complex. Actual criticism is mainly coming by NKT’s former members and this has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama but the New Kadampa Tradition and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
A number of 750 members of the New Kadampa Survivors Forum says a lot about this. See also their statement to this debate:
http://buddhismnewkadampa.wordpress.com/
Best Wishes.
Dear Tenzin,
It has everything to do with the Dalai Lama - If, in 1996, the Dalai Lama had not taken steps to demonize Dorje Shugden by emotively linking the practice to the failure of Tibetan independence and adversely affecting his health there would be no ban on Dorje Shugden, there would be peace and harmony in the Buddhist community, no WSS and no protests.
This present ugly situation in the Buddhist community is of his making. He is solely responsible for all of this. He thought he could sweep Dorje Shugden away and no one would oppose him. He’s used to getting his own way but this time he made a big mistake. That miscalculation is resulting in the gradual destruction of his reputation; it’s already under way and only he can stop it.
Regarding Kadampa Survivors - there are 750 members because people like gossip and that’s where they’re going to get it from. As you know, there are very few active members on that forum.
Best Wishes.
My accusations and the accusations of others come from the words and actions of the Dalai Lama, his government, and his followers. They are not baseless nor illogical.The activities of these three are riddled with intentions contrary to Buddhadharma. They are mixed with political agenda, tactics, and aspiration. The Dalai Lama is quite accomplished at destroying his own reputation. I and others merely expose the contradiction, lies, and hidden motivations.
No doubt your retort will be that you are doing the same.
Since Mr. Thurman has not provided any proof of his accusations, and having 12 years to assemble the proof, what is the obvious conclusion? Similarly, the Dalai Lama has not provided any proof of his accusations. He has had 30 years to accomplish this. As for yourself, your proof of the allegations you assert ultimately boil down to two things. Your personal experience and the experience of others.
If Shugden traditions actually existed in the way that you and others have portrayed them no one would ever attend their centers or become involved with them. The fact that they keep growing and are beginning to flourish worldwide indicates that what you and others say is false.
If you Tenzin Peljor, the Dalai Lama, or Robert Thurman feel that it is blackmail to provide actual proof of your accusations, this shows that you do not know the meaning of the word. It indicates that you have no real proof, that you are lying, and wish to continue your nefarious intention of slander and harm completely unopposed. If any of you had actual proof of you would provide it forthwith as a means to enhance your reputation and status as defenders of the truth.
What I believe Tenzin really means when he says it is ‘not very helpful’ to try and force critics to provide their proof, is that it makes it difficult for him and others to perpetuate their endless lies and deception.
Friend,
Are you honestly asserting that every single person who has had a bad experience in the NKT is simply badmouthing and gossiping, rather than expressing real concerns? There was an account recently posted on NKT world a monastic (Ven. Jampa Tashi)who was evicted from an NKT centre for not abiding by the one life, one teacher policy - because he went to visit his preceptor. I am not saying who was responsible (I don’t know as Im not an NKT survivor), or that this happens at all of your centres, but clearly unfair actions happen to a degree in the NKT as well.
Clearly, these problems exist to one degree or another in many large organizations, but the polemic of your post indicates your organization is not willing to examine its own problems, and that all the problems of Shugden have to do with the Dalai Lama.
This is also not the case, the Shugden problems have many historical factors, both religious and political behind them. Part of the problems stem from some of the liturgies and commentaries connected with the Shugden practice, for example, someone posted this by Trijang Rinpoche at another discussion:
“This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Tsongkhapa’s tradition, which is like pure gold, and have mixed and corrupted this tradition with the mistaken views and practices from other schools which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are in reality mistakes among mistakes, falulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form of a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some see through a variety of inauspicious signs their wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving a trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some find it difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”
For any honest discussion these historical documents, widely available in Tibetan and now being translated into English, must be considered if any agreement regarding the current situation is to be reached.
I think that Tricycle is wise to stay out of this dispute, as its complete nature and implications cannot be understood properly except by those with a vast knowledge of Tibetan history and able to read the Tibetan texts from a wide variety of sectarian sources.
I think using the term “arcane sectarian dispute” reveals Tricycles lack of understanding of current events happening within the Buddhist communities in India. Its a shame since it affects so many faithful Buddhists in the Tibetan exiled community and elsewhere. I’ve studied Buddhism for many years and it now breaks my heart to discover the horrible injustices lead by the Dalai Lama merely for political control. I could have never imagined this would happen in my lifetime. His recent denounciation of Trijang Rinpoche, his spiritual guide, has convinced me that he has lost his mind. Hundreds of thousands of Tibetan Buddhists consider Trijang Rinpoche their spiritual father. He lived his life transmitting pure Buddhism and showing a perfect example. I can’t accept what the Dalai Lama says anymore. He should be ashamed of himself.
What everyone seems to forget is that orginially, the Dalai Lama requested all those who intend to take teachings from him to not do this practice. It is within a vajra master’s rights to choose their disciples and furthermore, practitioners of mantra will know that to break samaya is to harm the lama’s life. This is standard advice. So when Shugden practitioners, even after the Dalai Lama made his request, continued to attend initations conferred by him, things became more difficult to deal with.
@Buddhist friend. Who claims a single person is the cause for difficulties one may be faced with has not understand even the basics of Buddhism and is following wrong views. Wrong views neglect cause and effect and dependent arising, the interrelatedness of phenomenons.
@Ron Cook. I save my time by avoiding senseless discussion with you. Even such a claim like “Who is unable to tolerate the slightest disobedience? ” is baseless. HHDL encourages Tibetans to oppose him. He may not encourage regarding Shugden to oppose him, but he is also in this issue far more tolerant than you and NKT portray him. I leave it with this. The reader will decide and my main aim is just to balance the misleading spins of NKT/WSS for the sake of Buddhist newcomers who may be misled by them.
If you wish to have a more balanced view on Tibetan society and HHDL I suggest to read “The Open Road - the journey of the 14th Dalai Lama” by Pico Iyer. This excellent journalist avoids black-and-white thinking and exaggerations, and Iyer is devoted to draw a portray which respects the complexities of it’s subject matter.
Bye.
@ Tenzin - my main aim is just to balance the misleading spins of NKT/WSS for the sake of Buddhist newcomers who may be misled by them.
That’s funny, that’s my main intention too - to stop Buddhist newcomers being influenced by your wrong views and anti-NKT spin. Furthermore, I think you are denying cause and effect if you think that the Dalai Lama banning Dorje Shugden isn’t conventionally the cause of all these problems. Whereas he paints himself as a purveyor of unity and harmony, he’s actually the purveyor of division and disharmony. I’m not denying that this is coming from my karma - obviously he’s not the sole cause of these problems, but that doesn’t mean I have to roll over and accept it either. I can and should take actions to change things, especially when it affects countless people both now and in future generations. If someone takes an action that causes Buddha’s teachings in this world to degenerate, that affects everyone from now until Buddha Maitreya. The teachings are dying off in this world as it is without someone as influential as the Dalai Lama helping them along.
@JM Lee - I don’t have a problem with the Dalai Lama saying that he doesn’t want his students to do this practice, that implies a ‘live and let live’ kind of attitude, but that’s far from the reality of the situation. In truth he’s trying to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and his government, a secular government, is formulating policy and passing resolutions to ban the practice in society. This is illegal in India. He is also responsible for Shugden monks being ejected from their monasteries and ostracizing and demonizing Shugden practitioners in Buddhist society. He’s not really giving anyone a choice. I’ve got a big problem with that.
@ Khedrup - There was an account recently posted on NKT world a monastic (Ven. Jampa Tashi)who was evicted from an NKT centre for not abiding by the one life, one teacher policy - because he went to visit his preceptor.
This is a very deceptive account. Firstly, Jampa Tashi is not a monk because he doesn’t hold any Pratimoksha vows, not even the five precepts. I think his ordination is of the Rabjung type. Secondly, he was not evicted from the centre in question. He had chosen to ‘ordain’ with another Teacher and was not attending any classes. As he says himself he was ‘non-NKT’ so what was the point of him being in an NKT Center? He had chosen another spiritual direction and for that reason it was suggested that he leave and he did.
I do believe that some of the NKT Survivors do have genuine concerns, may have been mistreated and have some valid points about how to improve NKT but not 750 of them as Tenzin tried to imply. The number of posters on that forum is actually quite small and so I was trying to provide an explanation for why there are so many members - probably a desire for gossip. There may be people who joined there just to get a flavor of what is going on but they aren’t active members. As someone pointed out, if NKT is so bad, flawed and evil, why is it growing? Why are there more and more centers? Because Kadam Dharma as presented by Geshe Kelsang works.
Best wishes to all.
I won’t say NKT is evil but I don’t think that growth is necessarily the sign of a pure organization. If that were the case, then the Unification Church, Boston Church of Christ et al we could argue are pure because they have grown quickly and have thousands of branches. I also think the growth can be explained by the way NKT teachers are trained - very quickly and also put out in the field very quickly. This is a different approach from most other Buddhist organizations, and may explain the growth of the centres as well. For me, the health of an organization isn’t determined by the number of centres, but by the turnover of members. But that is just an opinion.
Also, the Rabjung ordination IS a Praktimoksha ordination, so you are incorrect here. Rabjung means one has completed the “leaving home” preliminary ordination, or “tonsure” as they refer to it in the Chinese tradition. This is an accepted vinaya tradition and is used for many of the young monks in Tibetan monasteries before novice ordination you can read about it here:http://www.thubtenchodron.org/Publications/PreparingForOrdination/PFO_Appendix1.html. In the Jampa’s account it his clear from his POV it was not “suggested” he leave, but he was met at the door with an eviction notice. Anyways, unless either of us actually witnessed the event speculation is useless.
Finally, the live and let live attitude was practiced by HH Dalai Lama and the abbots of Den Sa Sum (Sera, Drepung, Ganden). In 1996 the Dalai Lama asked Shugden devotees not to take tantric initiations, but they still came. Even this was tolerated, but then Shugden monks began more aggressively propagating the practice, ordering statues of the deity, and also printing prayers that were handed out to monks. While a monk at Sera Mey, I can tell you that many monks at Pomra Khangtsen (the regional house with strong alliance to Shugden), there were many monks who didn’t want to participate in Shugden pujas. They were fined 50 rupees a pop, which could add up to several hundred rupees in a month, essentially for following the wishes of their vajra master and in some cases ordination preceptor. So clearly, there were some escalations.
I am all for an agreement being hammered out, and as I’ve said elsewhere maybe it would be good for the monasteries to sign over the dorm houses and kitchens and shrines of the Shugden houses (Pomra at Sermey, Dokhang at ganden) and also draft resolutions ensuring that monks can purchase necessities. However, WSS’s campaign was completely unnecessary because both sides in the dispute will meet in Delhi, or even before if there is an agreement. I think WSS tactics have offended more than anything, and I find the use of terms like “saffron-robed muslim” in their literature very inappropriate, even if it is just repeating the words of someone else.
Well I just find it amusing that Buddhism actually teaches violence o show that they do not approve of some policy. As I have explained earlier to some, Venerable Lobsang Gyatso, Director of Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, was killed by the people from Dorje Shugden Charitable and Religious Society, and there has been a letter sent to prove that they were the ones who do it. Why? Because he spoke against the propitiation of Dhogyal. So who is being dictatorial here, dear Ron? Who is suppressing who?
“If you say Shugden practitioners are also political this is incorrect, because fighting to prevent the extinction of ones’ spiritual practices and beliefs is a religious action with a religious motivation.”
Well, Ron, you haven’t read a lot of stuff, but just believed what your lama tells you. You know what Geshe Kelsang said when he was interviewed regarding this incident?
“If Dalai Lama right, then up to now, this practice we have done for 20 years, everything wasted: time lost, money lost, everything lost. That is the big issue.”
Furthermore, collaboration with the Chinese government to bring down His Holiness, can anyone please enlighten me in what way is this act not political? :p
Since Mr. Thurman has not provided any proof of his accusations, and having 12 years to assemble the proof, what is the obvious conclusion? Similarly, the Dalai Lama has not provided any proof of his accusations. He has had 30 years to accomplish this. As for yourself, your proof of the allegations you assert ultimately boil down to two things. Your personal experience and the experience of others.
Well, it is not that there is no proof, but like what our friend Dougal has suggested,
To immunise yourself against this, may we advise dropping attachment to the view that the Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is GOD ALMIGHTY and whatever he says is therefore inherently true, and actually Thinking for Yourself, as a certain Indian monk advised, 2500 years ago.
And I am quite saddened that he didn’t even know who actually gave this advice, either that or he is too ashamed to write it out, because he is finally enlightened and feel that he himself is too violent to be fit to be called a Buddhist. :p
Furthermore, since you said,
If you Tenzin Peljor, the Dalai Lama, or Robert Thurman feel that it is blackmail to provide actual proof of your accusations, this shows that you do not know the meaning of the word. It indicates that you have no real proof, that you are lying, and wish to continue your nefarious intention of slander and harm completely unopposed. If any of you had actual proof of you would provide it forthwith as a means to enhance your reputation and status as defenders of the truth.
It just goes to show you wont believe anyone who speaks against the practice of Dhogyal. So why bother putting your comments? It would be better of if you just disappear and let someone who is more calm minded to discuss this incident. :p
“You guys are really great. With evidence right in front of you, you deny it. Without evidence, you immeditately believed it. Have you ever went to ask teachers like Ganden Trisur or Tri rinpoche, the head of the Gelugpa tradition? Or you have just been thinking that Geshe Kelsang is the head of the Gelug tradition, and no one can take over his position? For your information, the Ganden throne holder is the RIGHTFUL successor to Je Tsongkhapa. Nobody else, including His Holiness Dalai Lama, can overwrite the spiritual authority of Tri Rinpoche. Now the 100th and 101th Ganden Tripas have already pledged their allegience to His Holiness Dalai Lama. Who is Geshe Kelsang to disobey the orders of his gurus? So do you think he broke his vows?
Or you still think that he is following his guru’s instructions? So if your guru makes an error, do you follow blindly with that error? Trijiang Rinpoche is a bodhisattva, he commits a mistake so that we can be careful with such as mistake. His Holiness Dalai Lama also said, if his instructions are of use, then take it to heart. If his instructions are not of use, then forget it. So have you examined what your teacher says very carefully? Or you are just relying on him with pure blind faith? Furthermore, this is stated in a Sutra that Devadatta is actually the emanation of the Buddha’s teacher to show sentient beings the wrong deeds so as to prevent them from doing the same thing again! So are you going to follow Devadatta, and try to start killing the Buddha as well?”
Well, this was what I have said to one of my dear friends, Dougal. Anyway, as I was saying, my friends were very close to the late 100th Ganden Trisur Rinpoche, and I am quite close to Drepung Loseling’s Khensur. We have asked of their views towards this incident, and they have shown their support to His Holiness action. So what is your big idea of kicking such a big fuss? :p
Buddhist -
i would never normally insult someone on a messageboard directly, but you - you are an idiot.
either you are incredibly ignorant, or you’re deliberately and maliciously trying to mislead people.
your statement that it was members of the Dorje Shugden Charitable and Religious Society who committed the despicable murders of Ven. Lobsang Gyatso and his associates is completely untrue, libellous and almost as disgusting as the murders themselves.
you are liar, or a fool. shame on you.
regarding those murders, before “Buddhist” posts any more lies and misinformation, please see the Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society’s own statement regarding the incident at: http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1997EN.html
and lastly, Buddhist -
i think it’s clear, from the many astonishing misunderstandings of my and others’ posts that you’ve demonstrated in your own,that English isn’t your first language. on the one hand, i regret reacting so strongly to some of these earlier on this board, and i apologise for it; i would have no chance of understanding anything in your first language, whatever that may be. on the other hand, you’ve posted some outrageous mistakes, and therefore, if you’ve any sense of shame at all, i suggest strongly that you check your understanding of these posts with an English speaker before writing your responses. i’m not being sarcastic - this is serious advice. at least, it would save you from coming across as a complete fool.
having said that, my remark about your unforgivable slander regarding the murders in 1997 stands - there is simply no excuse for this.
dougal: Regarding the Shugden cult murders, a crime which I remind you has no statute of limitations, Interpol has an open file. If you fundamentalist fanatics have no culpability, you have nothing to fear except of course the consequences of your speech and actions in life.
As in law or medicine, standards are upheld in Buddhism. The Australian Buddhist Society has deemed NKT Shugden ‘monks’ and ‘nuns’ as no longer Buddhist. They are free to do whatever they like, but just as Scientology is not considered within the western tradition proper, NKT is no longer Buddhist but a breakaway sect that many, including organs of the British Government are investigating as a fraudulent cult. Their cause has been adopted with a lot of squawking by the Chinese ‘Communist’ Party ruling clique and their sons (mostly) studying abroad (for baldly political reasons and not out of any great interest in either Buddhism or human rights) but no matter how much money the NKT Shugden cultists spend on their slick PR ‘victimization’ campaign, people will not be swayed when they learn the truth about this demon cult.
Dear Gyalpo,
Firstly, it’s clear that these horrible murders were not the work of Dorje Shugden practitioners. There is no evidence and as Helmut Gassner said, Lobsang Gyatso had many enemies, including the Tibetan guerillas, so why was the finger pointed at Shugden practitioners for this heinous crime? Only because it suited the Tibetan Government in Exile’s purpose of demonizing these pure spiritual practitioners. It was a shameful political action by the TGIE and you believed it.
Who put the Australian Sangha Association in charge (or you for that matter) to decide what is and what is not Buddhist? Neither you nor anyone else has any authority to pronounce on another person’s beliefs. Their action was purely politically motivated. The Dalai Lama also has no authority to ban the practice of Dorje Shugden and has broken the law in doing so, something that will become very clear in time with the court case in Delhi. It’s so sad how pure Dharma is being destroyed by being mixed with politics.
If you are saying that NKT is not Buddhist then neither is the Dalai Lama since both come from the same root, Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. In criticising his own root Guru, the Dalai Lama has invalidated his own Buddhist credentials because (according to his view) he was taught by a non-Buddhist spirit worshipper. What nonsense!
Dougal: Chushi Gangdruk members are mostly Khampas, so was the late Geshe Lobsang Gyatso. Chushi Gangdruk are Buddhists and many sacrificed their lives for their faith, their culture and their country. Many of them were and are Gelugpas, unlike NKT neophytes. If you wish to antagonize, accuse them as well, good luck to you.
Geshe Lobsang Gyatso was a school principal for many years, beloved and respected for his dedication and honesty, you and one micron thin veneer pseudo-gelong Gassner obviously did not know him personally. To cast aspersions is therefore highly inappropriate. He was also an actual Geshe unlike you, Gassner-ji and above all your MahaRudra “English” squire of the manner who, as they say in India, sat but not passed. He himself has broken damtsig with the Dalai Lama from whom he received many initiations and teachings so ought to be a wee bit more prudent when sending his costumed harpies out to America to shout ‘liar’ and ‘hypocrite’. I shouldn’t have to tell you what happens to major samaya breakers, I assume you know that much about Buddhism. But then, maybe not.
Finally, who appointed you as spokesperson for the late Khyabje Trijang Rinpoche who died in the early 80’s? The new incarnation has refused to study, preferring to drive his BMW around Europe at high speeds. NKT is analogous to Jenny Craig franchises, except the pre-packaged food-like substances you are peddling you is tainted with melamine. The NKT sales pyramid is going down for good this time–good riddance.
Buddhist friend –
Do you want to see the letter? I could scan it up for you you know.
But you would be too ashamed to put anything on this board again. Very simply because you misled people with your false and limited information.
I admit that my English sucks, but at least I know how to read books written by His Holiness and teachers from other tradition, like Drikung Kyabgon or Mindrolling Tirchen Gyurme Dorje, unlike someone who has such powerful command of language but only cramp himself in the world of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, because “whatever he says must be correct”. Shame on you for wasting your literacy on something bad. You should give up your knowledge to people who can put it into good use.
Buddhist Friend,
The murderers were not the heads of the Shugden society, but the prime suspects are Shugden devotees (contrary to what friendly Buddhist claims). This can be confirmed by a quick visit to the Interpol site and check out Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin. The have red notices issued for them as the suspects in the murders and asked that they be remanded for questioning. Both are now in Chinese occupied Tibet and have strong links to the Shugden dispute.
http://secrettibet.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/06/27/interpol-warrants-2-chinese.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31346417_ITM
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200706171859.htm
If the Hindu Newspaper isn’t a neutral enough confirmation for this, I don’t know what is. The only reasonable suspects in the murders are the two with the Interpol Red Notices against them.
It is far from “clear the murderers were not Shugden practitioners”. Is Mr. Gassner now more qualified to comment on murder suspects than Interpol and the Indian police?
Innocent till proven guilty but, please, let’s be honest about the two primse suspects with the most motive. They ARE connected to Shugden worship.
Gyalpo, I think you’re too angry and too disrespectful to discuss with. I also don’t think it would make any difference because you have such strong negative views - no value. Thank you and bye.
Buddhist friend: I’m not actually terribly angry but here is a short description of ’someone’ who apparently is to help readers decide the question at Dorje Shugden, Diety or Demon?
“From his shoulders hangs a garland of fifty, freshly severed, blood dripping heads. A human skin serves as his carpet…Inside the palace, corpses of men and carcasses of horses are spread out, and the blood of men and horses streams together forming a lake. Human skins and hides if tigers are stretched into curtains. The smoke of the ‘great burnt offering’,(i.e. human flesh) spreads into the ten quarters of the world.. ..on all sides are hung up as tapestries fresh skins of elephants…” and so forth
–excerpted from ‘Oracles and Demons of Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities’ by Rene De Nebesky-Wojkowitz.)
Buddhist,
I don’t think that your English sucks. I always admire people who can speak more than one language, unlike myself. Good on you.
I’m happy to see any evidence you would like to provide, but if what you have says that Ling Rinpoche regarded the practice of Dorje Shugden as wrong I would have to disagree with him in the same way that I disagree with the Dalai Lama because my experience tells me otherwise. I don’t care who says it’s a wrong practice because I’ve got EXPERIENCE that tells me otherwise. Do you have experience of Shugden to tell you that it’s wrong? Did you actually read the words of the practice? Did you try the practice to see how it changes your life? No one can tell me that the sky is green because I have valid experience to the contrary and there are no valid reasons to prove that it is green. It’s the same with Dorje Shugden - I have valid experience of the practice and there are no valid reasons to prove otherwise - end of story.
I don’t know why followers of the Dalai Lama think it’s a wonderful thing to know and mix the teachings of other traditions! That’s fine for you if you want to be a Professor of Buddhism. I can know every scrap of knowledge in this suffering world and it doesn’t bring me one iota closer to enlightenment. Better the practice the teachings of one tradition than to know the teachings of many traditions in my opinion, it was good enough for Buddha Shakyamuni’s direct disciples!
Please rest assured that I’m using my literacy for the benefit of all sentient beings. I’m not cramped in the world of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - it has the infinite spaciousness of the Dharmakaya and the vast richness of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition which are all I need to attain enlightenment, but thank you for your concern.
Sincerely, all good wishes.
Buddhist friend -
i think “Buddhist” was actually directing a fair bit of his last post at me, mistaking us for the same person. unlike you, i have allowed myself to become emotional, out of attachment, under this provocation. therefore, i apologise to you, and also to Gyalpo and to Buddhist: there’s no excuse for anger.
that is not to say that anything i have posted is incorrect, it’s just a little roughly-presented. i stand by all the points that i’ve made.
Buddhist - i’m serious: if you want to debate in a oreign language then, like Buddhist friend, i applaud you for it. but you need to be very careful that you’ve understood our points correctly or you will continue to make serious mistakes and appear foolish. also, i’m not Buddhist friend, as i’ve already told you. he/she is a lot more patient than i. i’m the one who insulted you, and frankly i think you deserved it.
Gyalpo - i cast no aspersions and accuse no-one. all i meant by saying that Lobsang Gyatso had also criticised the Khampa guerillas is that it was completely baseless and inappropriate for elements within the TGIE to abuse the horrible event of the murders - on the very tenuous grounds that he had publicly criticised Shugdenpas. by the same token, he had also criticised the Tibetan guerillas, but they were never suspected. the whole affair is very sordid and reeks of underhand politics. no evidence was ever found and the police and Interpol still have open files on the matter. even the less obsessive elements in the TGIE threw out a debate on the issue owing to the lack of hard evidence, saying that it was inappropriate to discuss rumour.
to bring up these baseless rumours again in a blatant attempt to smear Shugden practitioners is, frankly, about as low as it is possible to get.
dougal: Let’s let Interpol decide who was responsible and not speculate who the brutal murderers were, although it seems unlikely China will co-operate by extraditing the suspects. Furthermore I am sure your Indian law firm is very happy to represent you in court in what may well be an extremely protracted and very, very costly dead end litigation. I suppose it would help if Amnesty International or a legitimate NGO supported your case but they found no evidence.
Lastly, I propose that since NKT long ago broke away from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, their clergy wear green, or some other colour of their choice (perhaps paisley) and discard the monastic costume of a foreign culture they have aggressive and even proactive disdain and contempt for (and yet have appropriated selected vestiges of for their own ‘pure’ usage.) That way people will not mistake you for genuine Buddhist lineage holders and practitioners or by your exotic imported costumes and names.
No matter what anyone says, Interpol has red notices out for the two murders, and they are linked to Shugden worship. They are not, however, the heads of the Shugden society. We can see that Interpol and the Indian police have as their prime suspects Shugden devotees, this is simply a fact and can be verified by visiting the Interpol website.
Since links are difficult to post here I recommend people simply google the names of the two suspects Lobsang Chodak, 36, and Tenzin Chozin, 40. If Interpol and the Indian police are not neutral enough sources I have no idea to say.
While these men are innocent until proven guilty, it is
ridiculous to say this “Firstly, it’s clear that these horrible murders were not the work of Dorje Shugden practitioners.”.
It is not clear these murders were not the work of those affiliated with Shugden. They remain the prime suspects. No Red Notices have been issued for the Tibetan Guerrilas. Are you saying we should trust Mr. Gassner’s opinion over that on the Indian police and Interpol? Surely they are a more neutral source than Mr. Gassner.
Sorry for the double post, I had problems posting links before so thought it didn’t go through. I welcome the mods to delete the above post, sorry for the inconvenience.
Khedrup,
I did indeed check on the Interpol website and their names are included under the red notices. I stand by my initial statement that these horrible crimes are not the work of Shugden practitioners because, if these men did do this and they claim to be Shugden practitioners they are not even Buddhists because they have taken life and broken their refuge commitments. The murders were a horrible act and I deplore them.
However, I am extremely suspicious. On the France 24 programme Samdhong Rinpoche openly lied and this is a link to a Helmut Gassner article where he wonders if Tashi Wangdu lied in a television report on the murders by misrepresenting the evidence:
http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/HelmutGassner02.pdf
Tashi Wangdu lied at Colgate University when he said “there is no ban”. It seems that the TGIE have no problem with being ‘economical with the truth’. This makes me doubt their truthfulness in other areas too.
My question would therefore be, what evidence is there that these two men who are now presumably in the Tibet Autonomous Region are responsible for these murders? If it’s the same kind of evidence as debunked by Helmut Gassner, these truly are false accusations against the innocent.
It’s also convenient that these men are now in Tibet where they can’t be questioned. For as long as a question mark remains over their innocence or guilt the TGIE and it’s followers can continue to defame Dorje Shugden practitioners by calling them murderers. That suits their purpose too.
It all stinks more than a month old fish in the sun
Buddhist Friend: Yes, ritual murders not brought justice stinks, so don’t blame the victims or defame their reputation or try to deflect it on to someone else. NKT’s public relations budget would be better spent helping to clear this matter up which is still sticking to your shoes rather than going on the offensive. Helmut Glassner your ‘expert’ is or was ostensibly a monk, his publishing viscious gossip is quite unseemly.
There were several other death threats made, and at least two physical assaults on senior and learned lamas, one of which was an attempted strangulation on other occasions. The Himachal Pradesh police did not apprehend anyone, but their investigation established a strong link in the triple murder case with the Shugden Society office in New Delhi.
Gyalpo, Helmut was reporting truth, not gossip. He was pointing out a big fat lie by the TGIE
And that’s how it’s going to be from now on….
Khedrup -
i went to the Interpol website a few weeks ago and checked as best i could but found no reference whatsoever to Shugden in relation to their Wanted list. please - post a link to this information *on their site*. it’s not that hard to post links here! just type it out.
i’m not saying that it’s impossible that supposed “Shugden practitioners” are suspects, or even guilty (although i would have to say that those who *are* guilty are not actual Shugden practitioners, because real Shugden practitioners are Buddhists who do not harm others) - what i’m saying is that the initial suspicion on the part of the police arose as a direct result of a cynical attempt by the TGIE to use this terrible event to further their worldly goals by smearing Shugdenpas. the fact is that they did this - passing names to the Indian police - with absolutely no valid evidence at all. they attempted to pass off a letter from tthe DSDCRS to Ven. Lobsang as evidence, saying that it contained a threat, but when this letter was translated from the Tibetan it was found to contain no such thing. their accusation was entirely baseless - and this, to my mind, is disgustingly cynical behaviour on the part of the TGIE.
were “Shugdenpas” to blame? who knows. the fact is that in the absence of any evidence there’s no valid reason at all to suspect them any more than any other group, and certainly no validity in accusing them.
please do post the link to the current Interpol info., if it will further our understanding one way or the other. otherwise, please - for shame - stop repeating baseless accusations. i think you, from your posts, are at least a decent person.
as i have just prayed in my daily puja to my Protector: Now is the time to dispel false accusations against the innocent.
Gyalpo -
what kind of name is that for a Buddhist?
you are not worth talking to, so i’ll stop.
looks like Buddhist friend found the info. - still, i’d appreciate a link so that i can see it myself.
however, i do agree with Buddhist friend’s questioning of Samdhong and Tashi Wangdu - i’ve seen both men directly stating things as facts that they know to be untrue, as i have the Dalai Lama. so please excuse me if i don’t trust them as far as i could throw the lot of them.
i’d be interested to know why those guys are on Interpol’s list. does Interpol have evidence, or are they simply listing these guys as a best guess - suspected on hearsay from the TGIE?
finally - being a suspect does not make one guilty, but whoever did it, as Buddhist friend says, was no Buddhist.
Dougal,
Here are the links:
http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/2005/48/2005_36748.asp
http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/2005/42/2005_36742.asp
This is just from the names that Khedrup posted, it doesn’t say anything about why they are wanted or what evidence there is. If the Indian Police could be duped by Tashi Wangdi into stating on television that a threatening note was sent to Lobsang Gyatso when its content was non-threatening, it’s within the bounds of possibility that the information given to the Indian Police/Interpol is trumped up by TGIE as well. There’s no way to know.
dougal or is it dolgyal: I’m not conversing with you for your benefit but for the general reader, your invective is quite revealing if one was able to step outside one’s own ego… one wouldn’t call the Pope a liar to a group of Poles for example, and expect a warm reception so why not just keep your negativity towards Tibetans to yourself or regard it in the true Kadampa way.
Gyalpo -
i apologise - my last post was just rude, and not constructive.
i’ve nothing against Tibetans - my Guru and lineage Gurus are Tibetan, and i’ve many Tibetan Sangha friends.
and i may not be much of a Kadampa, but i disagree that “the true Kadampa way” involves rolling over and accepting the destruction of a valid path to liberation; that’s not a Bodhisattva’s action, and i do aspire to become a Bodhisattva one day.
anyway - looks like we’re both posting for the general reader. you and i aren’t going to see eye to eye because you regard the DL’s word as law, and i regard him as a liar. you regard the Kadampa Buddhism practised by NKT as non-Buddhist: i regard it as quintessentially Buddhist.
i know full well the effect this is having on our reputation (which isn’t helped by my getting irritated with you lot…) but for as long as the DL’s followers continue to repeat his lies and slander, we cannot, and we will not, stop.
he’ll never get away with it unopposed again. the Emperor has no clothes, and people are starting to see it.
Dougal, you want to know something?
You ARE NOT a buddhist.
Not because you practice Dhogyal, but simply because you focus too much on the practice of this “protector”.
First of all, let us just establish this fact first. Whether you believe it or not, or whether you like it or not, the fact is, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, 102th Ganden Tripa (Kyabje Rizong Rinpoche), His Holiness Gyalwa Karmapa, His Holiness Sakya Trizin, His Holiness Penor Rinpoche, His Holiness Mindrolling Khenchen, His Holiness Kathok Khenchen Lhoga Rinpoche, His Holiness 12th Drukchen Rinpoche, His Holiness Drikung Kyabgon, and many many many other eminences have all agreed on this point: Dhogyal is a mundane protector, and it is not to be propitiated. This is NOT the opinion of His Holiness ONLY: it is the opinion of the whole Buddhist community. Unless you say that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the only valid Buddhist community in the whole wide world, which I will then deem you as a sectarian, and this leads me to further believe that you “only cramp himself in the world of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, because “whatever he says must be correct”.”. Then, in the case, you don’t even deserve to speak in this BUDDHIST forum, because you do not even know the basic principles of Buddha’s teaching.
Next, EVEN IF Dhogyal is a supermundane protector, you are STILL NOT a buddhist. Why? Very simple, you have too many attachment to the deity you practiced. In actual fact, according to you favourite “Kadampa” stand, one is NOT allowed to practice any protector practice unless one has gain certain realisations within the generation stage. This is said also by His Emience Dagyab Kyabgon: in fact, he refuses to give the mantras of Setrap after the initiation. He requested his disciples to practice on generation stage; until their generation stage is stable, then can they rely upon a protector’s practice. Your mind is filled with anger, you do not even have a Bodhicitta, and here you are, trying to learn like Trijiang Rinpoche, practicing Dhogyal?! I admit I do not have Bodhicitta at all, but at least I do not rely on a protector until I gain some realisations, because very simply I am not stable in generation stage, and what’s more I do not even have the basic renunciation! How can I compare myself to the great and mighty Trijiang Rinpoche?
Furthermore, if you have not read this line, I state again by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso:
“If Dalai Lama right, then up to now, this practice we have done for 20 years, everything wasted: time lost, money lost, everything lost. That is the big issue.”
Can you please tell me, does he have a loving concern for all sentient beings, or does he have more loving concern for his own practice?! Is he utterly pacified and serene, as well as not being discouraged easily when he chases people out of his community just because they took teachings from other rinpoches? Have you read Lam Rim Chen Mo written by JE TSONGKHAPA? Or you just read Lam Rim Chen Mo written by GESHE KELSANG GYATSO?
Honestly speaking, I am not afraid of telling you, my dear friend: I am not a pure Gelug. I am not a pure Sakya, neither am I a pure Kagyu or Nyingma. But what I do is to follow teachers that are respectable, who possess the TEN qualities that a teacher is supposed to have. In fact, I read Pabongka’s works; I read Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s works, and I see a HUGE difference in them: Pabongka’s works came from his realisation; but Geshe Kelsang Gyatso works came from copying Pabongka’s realisation, but not his at all. This is my feel: perhaps you can say I am biased, but to tell you truthfully, I am biased. I am biased against those who are in the wrong and who don’t admit their wrongdoings, and still argue for the sake of arguing. Worse, they argue until they become so hot-headed that they start cursing their opponent, just like one of the stories written in the sutras of the Buddha. And this I meant purely YOU, Dougal.
To Buddhist Friend,
I just like to say something.
The great and almighty Losang Drakpa Je Tsongkhapa, the first Ganden Throne Holder, has basically mixed three traditions together: Kagyu, Sakya and Nyingma. He basically took Chakrasamvara from from Sakya (perhaps from Rendawa Shonu Lodro, his good friend and teahcer), his Ghuyasamaja lineage and his Bhikshu vows from the Kagyus (Bhikshu vows he took it from The Fourth Gyalwa Karmapa Rolpai Dorje) , and he also took Nyingma teachings. What he did was to synthesized these teachings into one sitting, and that consists of two major works: Lam Rim and Ngag Rim. He started and founded the Ganden Monastery, and handed his throne to the next in line Khedrup Je.
I know we are just ordinary beings; we cannot emmunerate the deeds of the Buddhas like Tsongkhapa, but what I want to say that the teachings you are now studying DOES NOT come from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. It comes from Je Tsongkhapa (you know it) and thus it comes from other tradition. So what is your big idea of saying things like “I don’t know why followers of the Dalai Lama think it’s a wonderful thing to know and mix the teachings of other traditions! “?!
Of course, “Better the practice the teachings of one tradition”, but it is good to know all the other traditions as well, because all are Buddhists and you know it is wrong to criticise or discriminate Buddhist teachings. However, practising the essence — one lineage will be more than good enough. Buddhist friend, being a calm-minded and patient person, I suppose you would be able to understand this and come out of petty secterianism. And the first step in doing is to forgo the practice of Dhogyal.
And to Dougal, pls read the post before this. thank you.
Buddhist -
hey - just cos i’m a bad example of a Buddhist doesn’t make the lineage i try to practise bad or non-Buddhist, does it?
my delusions did not arise from my practice - quite the opposite: you should have met me before i started practising! if my lineage was the root of my delusions, then Buddhist friend, who also practises this lineage (much more sincerely than i), would also be a bad example, and he’s not.
as we’ve tried to tell you over and over again: you’re welcome to mix traditions and practise as you and your Teachers see fit - good luck to you. but who appointed you, or the DL or any other of those Lamas you list for that matter, the judge of what others should be allowed to practise? or of what’s Buddhist and what’s non-Buddhist?
Buddhism is the practice of Buddhadharma, is it not? practising sincerely the meaning of the Four Noble Truths, at it’s most basic. we choose to practise this according to the lineage of Kadampa Buddhism, and we choose to rely on the Wisdom Buddha, Duldzin Dorje Shugden to help and protect our practice (goodness knows some of us need this help!). we have never criticised any other tradition, so why should ours be criticised? who do you lot think you are to judge others in this way?
and who is the Dalai Lama, to force others to abandon their heartfelt Buddhist practice for his own political gain? who give him this right? not me.
Dear Dougal,
Thanks. I do think I am a decent person, struggling against the defilements of course but I have no malicious intent when posting in these discussions. As you want to defend Shugden, I also want to present the views of HHDL (one of my teachers) and also protect the reputations other teachers of mine, like Khensur Rinpoche of Sera and Karmapa Urgyen Trinley Dorje (roped in on a WSS supporter’s site because HHDL recognized him), who, purposely or not purposely, have been maligned by WSS and “unofficial” WSS websites, in the name of furthering your cause. As I said above, my opinion on NKT isn’t particularly strong or the main point, my beef is with it’s current campaign and its position as the main insitutional supporter of the WSS, whose tactics I find crass and objectionable.
Let’s be honest. Many practitioners regard HH Dalai Lama’s word as law, and you and other NKT students regard Geshe Kelsang’s word as law. This is simply how it is, the NKT has no right to accuse HHDL’s students of over-reliance when in the NKT system Geshe Kelsang’s word is final - I don’t think anyone in NKT would argue this point, either. Whether or not Guru reliance is over-emphasized in EITHER situation would probably be best decided by those who are not Vajrayana practitioners, as we all know that proper Secret Mantra practice and even a complete Lam Rim practice require a certain level of faith and devotion. I myself am a real liberal when it comes to guru reliance, though I think it’s important, I practice more along the lines of how Tsongkhapa and Berzin outline rather than Phabongkhapa and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
As for Interpol, Dougal, you know as well as I do that they don’t post the spiritual inclinations of the people in red notices. However, the Indian police and the Hindu newspaper both linked the men to Shugden worship. If the Hindu and the Indian police are not “non-Tibetan” enough to be sufficiently reliable to at least outline the sympathies of the main suspects, that shows that you are attached to your view. As I said, my beef is not that people should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty - I’m not a vigilante justice crackpot, but I was reponding in particular to this statement that you made, that because of what Mr. Gassner says it is “clear the murderers have no links to Shugden”. They are the prime suspects, innocent until apprehended and proved guilty in a court of law.
That being said, I don’t think an extensive discussion of Gen Lobsang Gyatso really goes to the heart of the matter, so perhaps we should focus our discussion back on the Shugden controversy and WSS campaign. My main problem, as I’ve said before, with Shugden, is that from the writings of many lineage masters, including Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche, there is an indication that part of Shugden’s duties include inflicting a sort of “purificatory” harm on Gelug students who propitiate him and study and practice teachings from other traditions. This widely circulated quote would be useful for the discussion:
This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Tsongkhapa’s tradition, which is like pure gold, and have mixed and corrupted this tradition with the mistaken views and practices from other schools which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are in reality mistakes among mistakes, falulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form of a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some see through a variety of inauspicious signs their wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving a trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some find it difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”
Now, some Shugden devotees have stated that these are simply “stories” to encourage people to practice purely. But I have met monks in India at Sera Monastery who believe that these stories are true. In fact, when HH Karmapa came to Sera to give a talk, one monk cited these stories as his reason for not deciding to go.
The answers presented by Shugdenpas so far to these statements to me present a quandary. If the words of Phabongkhapa and Trijang Dorjechang are wishfulfilling gems, and they are completely reliable, how can they say that people are foolish for taking these claims at face value?
In addition, how can they criticize the many Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyu teachers who critique Shugden practice as harming their traditions, when the writings above indicate that Shugden punishes those Gelugs who dare to explore their systems?
As someone who incoporates elements of the Gelug, Kagyu and Vipassana traditions in my practice, I’m interested in this issue. (It also might help steer the discussion in a more useful direction, rather than back and forth over Gen Lobsang Gyatso).
It is not at all “convenient” that these men are in China. Having been in Dharamsala and returning there this coming month, I can tell you that everyone in the town wants the perpetrators apprehended. Gen Lobsang Gyatso was an extremely popular and well loved monk, a gifted teacher as well as an unafraid critic of all aspects of Tibetan culture he found suspect. So please, don’t twist the matter to make it seem
Sorry, last paragraph was meant to be deleted. I am on the market for a new keyboard.
Purity and Mixing
————–
The great masters, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa, on who the fanatics among Shugden followers are so proud of were all “mixing” traditions and had many masters from different tenets or schools as their teachers.
What e.g. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - who made himself the sole spiritual authority in the New Kadampa Tradition - advises to his followers they should rely “upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. If we mix traditions many obstacles arise and it takes a long time for us to attain realizations.” is completely contradicting the example Atisha and Tsongkhapa had given with their more than 100 masters from different traditions.
Atisha and Je Tsongkhpa searched and received teachings from all the great masters of their time regardless of what Buddhist lineage. (As far as I know Atisha recieved also Hindu teachings.)
Atisha “mixed” the lineage of the wide and profound path together with the lineage of Shantideva. He made three lineages into one.
Je Tsongkhapa was even more creative, he “mixed” the Kadampa lineage with that of Machig Laptrön, Kalachakra Tantra, Kagyue and Sakya teachings, was sceptical on any Tibetan author and relied mainly on the texts of the great Indian panditas. He offered an unification of three Highest Yoga Tantras and “mixed” the Tantra into the Sutra and changed thereby Atisha’s presentation on the stages of the path fundamentally and the order of explanation by emphasizing (in the context of experienced monastic tantric practitioners) the importance of the Guru.
I think, those master would not suit and fulfil the criteria the purists and fundamentalists among Shugden followers, and of course both of them never taught this Shugden ‘practice’ which is famous for being able to kill those who “mix the pure teachings’.
Imagine Je Tsongkhapa would enter NKT, what a fun. He can not even study his own works but only the books of Geshe Kelsang yatso and must always state: “Geshe-la says…”, “Geshe-las says…” like a spiritual robot. I guess sooner or later NKT would expel him because his mind doesn’t fit into the NKT perspectives.
In the context of Dharma, I think, it is a completely misconception to establish the idea of “pure Dharma” as it has been done by some of the purists especially Geshe Kelsang Gyatso who stated:
“The ugly, unfortunate result of not understanding pure Dharma and of following misleading teachings that pretend to be pure Dharma is sectarianism. This is one of the greatest hindrances to the flourishing of Dharma, especially in the West. Anything that gives rise to such an evil, destructive mind should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.”
Such claims and concepts have no support in the authentic Buddhist scriptures. Maitreya/Asanga taught in the Uttara Tantra Shastra:
“The Dharma is without defilement… it fully defeats attachment, aversion, and dull indifference with regard to the objects of perception. [..] it is free from attachment and frees from attachment.”
Also Je Tsongkhapa makes no distinction in “pure” and “impure” Dharma. He - who was criticized to be an eclectic - stated:
“if you do not have the mental force to distinguish between correct paths of good explanation and counterfeit paths of false explanation, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have the intelligence that understands both of these. By this account you will give up what is unproductive, and then adopt what is productive.”
If one explores the statements and the approach of HHDL and these masters there is a high congruence while some of those who claim to uphold their “pure lineage” are far away from these master’s open mindedness, wisdom, compassion and clarity.
Roberts Lifton pointed out that the root of fundamentalism is often based on beliefs and an emphasize on “purity”. I think such things should be considered in that context too.
I think the Tricycle point of view “this [is a] rather arcane sectarian dispute” is correct. Thanks for keeping neutrality.
Dear Buddhist: I agree with your assessment of Lobsang Drakpa. i would add that if you simply look at the lineage of many practices like naro chodruk and including most tantras in the Gelug sylabus, you see they come directly through Marpa Lotsa. Also most of the Kagyu gompas that were comandeered with the help of the Mongol forces kept quite a bit of their traditions. The socalled pure Gelug practice is already ‘mixed’ and eclectic whether you know it or not and always has been from the beginning.
I also think people also need to be a little more flexible when regarding the spiritual lineage of teachers, for example the Panchen Lama is said to stem from Sapan and back to Shambhala Rigden Manjusrikirti and before that the Arhat Subhuti in Lord Buddha’s time. The Dalai Lama is supposed to descend from Chogyal Srongbtsan Gampo and so on. Sonam Dragpa’ ghost is supposed to descend from Indian Drubchen Biwawa. These hagiographies are largely apocryphal, I’m not saying its entirely made up but you don’t have to take them too literally. So when people revise the Lama Chopa and Gelugpa lineage tree to include Dolgyal painted in the bottom as a worldly protector its really just petty. It reminds me of the Gelugpa hegemonist and revisionist Sherab Gyatso who attempted in the early 20th century to edit out the old parts of the Kangyur for which he was ultimately exiled and became infamous as one of the great traitors of Tibet and Chinese collaaborator, a distinction now challenged by KG.
It is also worthy to note that the modern Gelug monasteries today also incorporate the study of a wide variety of texts and authors. This is different than the NKT system where using the texts of more than one author in the study programmes would be seen as “Mixing”. The fact is that as part of the Geshe studies curriculum students use a variety of Indian texts by several different authors:
Abhisamayalamkara by Maitreya for Pefection of Wisdom Studies
Supplement to the Middle Way by Chandrakirti for Madhyamika study
A Commentary to Validly Cognizing Minds by Dharmakirti for valid cognition
A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge by Vasubhandu for Abhidharma study
The Vinaya Sutra by Gunaprabha for the Study of Vinaya
These are supplemented by yig-cha or the monastic manuals, but all monks are required to memorize and study vast passages of the above works, which they then use in debate. It is clear that this provides as broad foundation.
In addition to the study of the above commentaries emphasized by Lama Tsongkhapa, monks receive regular training in the Lam Rim and Lojong paths from their teachers, and usually at Sera at least once a year a Venerable lama will give a month long extensive teaching on a Lam Rim text. In addition, many monks attend the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he comes to south India, where they study a broad corpus of literature including the Sutra Alamkara on the bodhisattva bhumis for example.
In terms of tantra, the three systems emphasized by Tsongkhapa: Yamantaka, Chakrasamvara and Guhyasamaja are studies in the tantric colleges, with a special emphasis on Guhyasamaja. But many Gelug monks practice systems outside the general corpus of Gelug tantra, and derive great benefit from it. For example, the Sera Jey monks receive initiations and learn the systems of Hayagriva (Tamdrim) a Nyingma system introduced to Sera Jey by an abbot with Nyingma training. Sera Mey takes as it protector Thaog, one of the deities tamed by Padmasambhava, and recites a Padmasambhava prayer before his propitiation. None of this has ever caused confusion, but has led to generally more open-minded and better educated monks.
This broad but systematic approach ensures that monks are familiar with a variety of tenet systems and practices. While individual practice may be very focused, monastic training ensures a broad outlook. This is the very system that has produced the well educated Geshes that are able to teach and tame fickle Westerners, this eclictic education that “mixes” a variety of sources.
The Tibetan laypeople generally take teachings from different lamas that they feel connections to, and it is very unusual for a Tibetan layperson to not go and see a Lama because they are of a different lineage. In fact, whenever an eminent lama is in town, no matter what traditions, people will go and listen to teachings. This is a wonderful development and from what I’ve seen with the Tibetan laypeople, has not hindered their practice at all.
So, in my opinion, these dire warning about “the dangers of mixing” and the yellow book’s promises of retribution for those who do, are completely baseless and a great hindrance to spiritual progress.
All I see on this board is a lot of judgement
Just because you study a range of texts, you think this approach is superior to just following one Teacher and one tradition. That’s fine for you, I think differently but you’re not respecting this. This is sectarianism at its worst. So much for the Dalai Lama’s ‘non-sectarian’ approach! Everyone is forced to be Rigme or they are condemned as sectarian.
We each have the right the follow what is best for our own spiritual development. If you try to impose your eclectic multi-traditional approach on me, that’s not what I want. True non-sectarianism is respecting the rights of everyone to be able to practise in the way that they choose and giving them that right instead of trying to be superior and take it away.
I rejoice if you think you are superior. You can eat your food and we will eat our food.
Buddhist Friend: It’s rime not rigme. You don’t seem to understand that all the lineages and notably including the Bon tradition will survive this way. Think of it as biodiversity. If you are not under TGIE administration your unsolicited judgement from afar is irrelevant and unless you reside in China, you are quite free to pursue whichever path you wish.
However, if a person practices their daily protector recitation and then dashes off a few emails accusing senior teachers of lying as we saw here yesterday, what’s wrong with this picture? Not much bodhicitta and certainly not very Kadampa would be one answer.
The latest activity on the WSS website confirms what myself and many others have suspected. That the WSS’s expressed mandate to protect Shugden worship in fact does not reveal its true intentions. The latest libelous article indicates that its real intent, all along, has been the overthrow of HH the 14th Dalai Lama by false allegation which at the top of the article are listed as “The following information has been compiled from various sources”
So, no sources. No eyewitnesses. No documents. No evidence. Just another bald faced lie that reveals your true intentions.
I don’t think there is anyone in their right mind who can now try to portray WSS as non-political. I, and I am sure huge numbers of others Buddhists, am completely disgusted.
The Western Shugden Society / New Kadampa Tradition proof more and more how wicked they are. After Ron Cook “proofed” already that HH the Dalai Lama is no Buddhist, WSS published some days ago an even more distorted essay about the 5th, 13th and 14th Dalai Lama which aims just to spin the history that it suits the own imagination of it. Actual WSS/NKT top this by claiming the present Dalai Lama is the wrong one: http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/false-dalai-lama
All this fits to the claims he would “be the saffron-robed Muslim” “who has stolen the teachings from Trijang Rinpoche” and so on.
To put this into context it is good to read Kay’s research on NKT’s history where he explores how NKT has an own way of interpreting history. Some of the points he states I collected here:
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/new-kadampa-tradition-multiple-histories/
WSS is just in line with this yet still do not recognize who is lying and deceiving people or who are the hypocrites…
Rewriting history until it proofs the own views that the Dalai Lama is “evil and cruel”, the “enemy of the Buddhadharma” and of course the NKT the last pure tradition on earth “in these degenerated times”.
What a mess.
everybody -
a question: do you believe that WSS would be taking this step, attacking as the best form of defence, if our tradition wasn’t threatened?
do you really think we’d be criticising the Dalai Lama if he’d just allowed Shugden practitioners to get on with their practice unmolested, instead of gunning for us so openly?
what would we have to gain by sowing dissent and undermining the DL if our tradition wasn’t threatened? in fact, we’re losing much, obviously. we didn’t pick this fight, but we’ve no choice but to defend ourselves. in my view, the DL’s a fool. if he’d just left Shugdenpas alone, then very few people would ever have found out about what lies behind his mask. as it is, he leaves us no choice but to expose him.
i agree with Buddhist friend - you’re welcome to your food: we don’t care if you want to practise rig-med, however you spell it. we’d happily live side by side with you. we are not the ones being sectarian here - the sectarian is the DL. he started this: either he ends it, or we take him down, in the eyes of the world. it’s his choice.
It is clear that the WSS’s campaign is not only about Shugden. The latest article barely mentions Shugden. The purpose now is to overthrow HH Dalai Lama. Why else would they publish such an article, that has nothing to do with Shugden?
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/western-shugden-society-sowing-dissent-through-baseless-allegations/
http://www.nktworld.org/crazy.html
I don’t even think that WSS really cares about the monks in India. If anything, this article will make the general Tibetan public more suspicious of them. This article shows a tremendous lack of foresight and I think does tremendous harm to your cause.
“either he ends it, or we take him down, in the eyes of the world. it’s his choice.”
Almost parallel words to the Chinese premier Zhou Rongji. How very telling.
“then very few people would ever have found out about what lies behind his mask”
This implies the baseless allegations, quoted from one source by an uknown writer, and posted anonymously carry more weight than the words of the late and current Ling Rinpoche, the late Trijang Rinpoche, HH Sakya Trizin, HH Karmapa and many others as outlined in the above essay.
In fact, if these allegations were true, it would mean your lineage guru, Trijang Dorjechang is a liar who allowed a phony to occupy the throne of the Dalai Lama, and Trijang Rinpoche hid this from the people. In fact, through this latest tactic you in effect say that your lineage guru knowingly misled the world.
How very, very sad.
I’ve noticed our friend Dougal is not mentally stable, alternately pugnaciously aggressive then apologetic. I wonder if he is on suitable medication, that can be effective for some people. I hope he can sort himself out so he is not a danger to others and himself.
i do fancy some med.s occasionally, as it goes, Gyalpo, but i’m kinda not allowed them anymore
as i said above - i was rude to you earlier, out of frustration. i see no shame in speaking frankly, and attacking when appropriate - but i am ashamed of becoming frustrated and acting out of frustration, and that’s what i apologised for.
re. Trijang Rinpoche: i’d think it quite possible that he felt that, firstly, he didn’t have sufficient political backing to expose the mistake and secondly, he didn’t think it a good time to create such an internal crisis, in Tibet in the 50’s with the Chinese on the doorstep. that’s pure speculation on my part, of course, but just because he didn’t expose the phony at the time, but tried instead to inculcate some basic Buddhist principals into the boy, doesn’t necessarily make him an invalid object of refuge, now, does it?
WSS is digging itself a pretty big hole, especially considering this “article” has no stated author and quotes from only one dubious source. The conclusion we can all reach now is that the WSS, far from being a spiritual organization, is a political movement seeking to overthrow HH Dalai Lama and marginalize all the lamas who support him (which is the majority of Lamas outside of Tibet, BTW).
This political stance takes away from your credibility, from Trijang Rinpocheys credibility and from the NKT’s credibility. If WSS or the NKT were truly non-political they would not have resorted to such tactics, which resemble the smear campaign of whispers started by conservative Southern republicans ‘Hey, Obama’s a Muslim, don’t vote for him”. Most people will see through these tactics, and even the most hardened WSS protestors will begin to question these politics.
And the newspapers and other media that read this story will conclude what most of us already have, that your organization is more about overthrowing a well respected religious leader with an important part to play in an agreement between Tibet and China, rather than marginalized monks in South India. In my opinion, WSS has sold out the credibility right out from under them. Clearly, their welfare is trumped by political expediency and rumour mongering.
Congratulations on completion of your course in Hard Copy journalism.
Khedrup -
why? what do we gain? do you think we’d continue if he lifted the ban and spoke out against the ostracising of Shugdenpas? any of us? why, man? think… we’d have *nothing* to gain.
our aim has always been, and remains, to protect our own and others’ religious freedom, nothing more. there is no political goal that would benefit us, and we have no political agenda. why would we? what would we gain?
Why don’t u speak up for Islamic extremist as well? they also want religious freedom.
Go support Osama Bin Laden! Support his actions of the 911 incident then! :p
Buddhist friend, I thought you were calm enough to talk to. I was wrong. Terribly wrong.
You have no right view, no realisation of emptiness, no stable realisation in generation stage, and you even DARE to propitiate Dhogyal?
“Next, EVEN IF Dhogyal is a supermundane protector, you are STILL NOT a buddhist. Why? Very simple, you have too many attachment to the deity you practiced. In actual fact, according to you favourite “Kadampa” stand, one is NOT allowed to practice any protector practice unless one has gain certain realisations within the generation stage. This is said also by His Emience Dagyab Kyabgon: in fact, he refuses to give the mantras of Setrap after the initiation. He requested his disciples to practice on generation stage; until their generation stage is stable, then can they rely upon a protector’s practice. Your mind is filled with anger, you do not even have a Bodhicitta, and here you are, trying to learn like Trijiang Rinpoche, practicing Dhogyal?! I admit I do not have Bodhicitta at all, but at least I do not rely on a protector until I gain some realisations, because very simply I am not stable in generation stage, and what’s more I do not even have the basic renunciation! How can I compare myself to the great and mighty Trijiang Rinpoche?”
You did not even read my post before writing your replies. You are the one with a lot of judgements, not us!
“Just because you study a range of texts, you think this approach is superior to just following one Teacher and one tradition. That’s fine for you, I think differently but you’re not respecting this. This is sectarianism at its worst. So much for the Dalai Lama’s ‘non-sectarian’ approach! Everyone is forced to be Rigme or they are condemned as sectarian.”
Well, I am sorry, but Je Tsongkhapa is also a Rime practitioner, and His Holiness the late 100th Ganden Trisur is a Rime practitioner. If you hate Rime so much(which says a lot about your Buddhist practice), then dont even practive Tsongkhapa’s teachings, cause it is mixed with other traditions. According to your definition, it is so polluted!!! It is even mixed with Kagyu and Sakya!!! Why you practice it??? :p
True non-sectarianism is respecting the rights of everyone to be able to practise in the way that they choose and giving them that right instead of trying to be superior and take it away.
Ya, so are you respecting His Holiness rights in not giving initiations to Dhogyalpas??? You yourself blabber so much about rights and freedoms and you don’t even give the freedom to others. Karma, my friend. It will turn around and bite you.
Dougal –
If you said I never read your post, then you also never read my post as well! So who is the black sheep here? A pot calling a kettle black. You don’t even answer my questions!! You are just evading them, because deep in your heart you know that we are presenting the right view here, and you are the one distorting the facts. Read my earlier posts carefully.
“and who is the Dalai Lama, to force others to abandon their heartfelt Buddhist practice for his own political gain? who give him this right? not me.”
Firstly, His Holiness does not have any political gain in splitting the Buddhist community up. What gain does he have? more trouble??? But look at the quote from GESHE KELSANG GYATSO:
“If Dalai Lama right, then up to now, this practice we have done for 20 years, everything wasted: time lost, money lost, everything lost. That is the big issue.” He has more loving concern for his practice than the welfare of all beings! Who is more likely to have a political motive, His Holiness or Geshe Kelsang Gyatso?! Pls do not treat this as a blind word, admit if he says it. Do not avoid the discussion again and again Dougal.
Next, this so-called heartfelt practice is only heartfelt into two monasteries: Ganden Shartse and Sera Jey. Now not even Sera Jey and Ganden Shartse practice them. The previous abbot of Ganden Shartse, Khensur Lati Rinpoche, has related to us how he tried to advise his students not to propitiate Dhogyal, but they are ignorant to his words. As an abbot of the monastery he does not even support the practice, so what can we say about general Gelug now? Don’t tell me Gelugpas are Geshe Kelsang Gyatso followers: that is plain TRASH.
Lastly, who gave him the power? Blame in on your anscestors who gave His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama the full authority over the whole of Tibet and since then he has been the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet. Maybe you can do something unorthodox: get Geshe Kelsang to recognise you as the new Ganden Tripa and try to overthrow His Holiness. Perhaps you can rewrite the history. :p
(By blame I don’t really mean blame: I just wrote it on the point of view of Dougal.)
And lastly, show me evidence the Kadampa tradition is linked to the practice of Dhogyal, and requires Dhogyal to protect. (Don’t tell me what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says, like I would never tell you what His Holiness says.)
Lastly, DON’T evade the topics again. Understand before answering the questions. If you need help in translation I can help you get an Enlgish tutor. :p
Dear friends,
I think we can see from your reactions that you have a great deal of attachment to the Dalai Lama. Maybe you are more attached to the Dalai Lama than the truth?
I’m as surprised by the article on the WSS website as you are. It’s quite a thing to claim that Lhamo Dhondup is not the true heir to the throne of the Dalai Lama. If it’s true, a great and terrible mistake has been made.
My question is: why do you automatically assume it is lies and where is your evidence that it is not true? Does it not seem strange to you that the 13th Dalai Lama would choose to be born into a muslim family?
Buddhism, as you are aware, takes evidence and comes to careful conclusions based on it. With respect, all I see here in these last few posts is a lot of name calling and a massive emotional overreaction. I would appeal for calm. I suppose the truth will be revealed sooner or later
Buddhist -
ok, so let’s make one last attempt to discuss reasonably:
i do try to read every post carefully, including yours, but i honestly can’t understand some of your points, or the views that they seem to arise from.
what questions or topics exactly do you think i’ve not replied to earlier? please state them simply, to help me understand. if they’re new points, or points i’ve not replied to yet, as opposed to just rehashing old debates, then i’ll try to reply to them as best i can.
then, in the interests of fairness, would you please give your answers to my questions, which you’ve not replied to so far:
what does WSS have to gain, politically or otherwise, from destroying the DL’s reputation, other than protecting our lineage?
you referred in the “Dalai Lama in Indian Hospital…” comments to “repeated attempts to assassinate His Holiness”. i asked: who has made repeated attempts to assassinate the DL? when did these attempts take place?
i also asked:
you seem to think it’s un-Buddhist to speak out against injustice and oppression? why?
you seem to think that Geshe Kelsang has disobeyed his Gurus’ advice. why?
you seem to think that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibet. why?
you seem to think that demonstrating for religious freedom is “violent”. why?
you seem to think that there’s no persecution going on, that no-one’s been expelled from monasteries, etc. why?
and i’ll add:
you seem to think that we’re somehow infringing on the rights of the DL by deciding not to follow his advice and questioning its validity. why?
thank you.
This latest tactic has nothing to do with the Shugden issue and you know it. I think WSS ran out of exaggerated material to post about India on its website and, terrified the campaign was losing steam, decided to play nasty.
And do you really expect anyone to take an article that doesn’t cite sources, have an author, or provide any evidence apart from one dubius opinion at face value? If you included such an article even in a Grade 6 assignment you’d receive a failing grade.
Why do we think it isn’t true?
Because it would mean one of two things about all the Tibetan Lamas in the world who support His Holiness the Dalai Lama:
1)They have no realizations and have been duped by a false Dalai Lama
2)They knew he was a fake and allowed Tibetans and the entire world to be misled, which would make them liars and charlatans.
Sorry, we won’t to believe this about our teachers.
It would mean the following great lamas are liars and charlatans, and only Kelsang Gyatso and Kundeling Losang Yeshe are pure teachers (while, ironically not long ago NKT sued students of Losang Yeshe):
Lamas who Support Tenzin Gyatso as HH DALai Lama:
HH Karmapa
the late Trijang Rinpoche
the current Trijang Rinpoche (see photo on website)
the late ling Rinpoche
the current Ling Rinpoche
HH Karmapa
HH Sakya Trizin
the late Minling Trichin Rinpoche
HH Penor Rinpoche
HH Phakchog Rinpoche
Kyabje Choden Rinpoche
Kyabje Lati Rinpoche
Kyabje Zopa Rinpoche
the late Kirti Tzenshap Rinpoche
the late and current Zong Rinpoche
the late and current Serkong Rinpoche
Khen Rinpoche (abbots) of the main Gelug monasteries:
Sera Mey and Jey
Ganden Shartse and Jangtse
Drepung Gomang and Loseling
Tashi Lhunpo
Dzongkhar Choede
Namgyal Dratsang
Dialectics Institute
So, all these people are liars and only Kelsang Gyatso and Nga-Lama Kundeling Yeshe are reliable? KG who changes the Vinaya single-handedly without consulting monastics, and Losang Yeshe who defends the Cultural revolution in Tibet and whose students your own organization sued?
Of course, this would also mean that Trijang Rinpoche is a fake and a liar, allowing a pretender to the throne to be trained and placed with great responsibility.
You’ve done him a disservice. And BTW, if this article were really true, why doesn’t it cite any sources? And why isn’t the author proud to put his name to it?
You have revealed WSS for what it is, a front group trying to destroy mainstream Tibetan Buddhism in order to portray Shugden to naieve Western followers as the only “pure tradition”. This article barely mentions Shugden, and shows that the WSS mandate isn’t about Shugden worship, but the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism.
Now that your mandate is clear, perhaps what you see as anger is just people’s decision not to be polite with an extremist group. I put your tactics in the same category as the “Fair Game” tactics of the Church of Scientology. “Oppose us and we’ll spread lies without sources or evidence”.
This latest tactic reveals you as desperate, extremist fundamentalists. While I have compassion for those who have been duped by your organization, I can no longer be polite about this campaign whose goal has become glaringly obvious.
Hi dougal! Different times you and other Shugden followers asked: ‘Why?’ ‘We can not understand the Dalai Lama!’ “Why he is doing this?” “Why Dalai Lama, why?”
Personally I try to follow this approach: If I do not understand another person it is my own inability and a reflection of my own ignorance.
So if I do not understand others, what can be done in such a case?
I think, to improve my understanding and to try to understand the other person.
I received this teaching from a 13 year old girl. She was terrible from my perspective. Quite frustrated I asked her: Is there any adult you can deal with? She replied: Yes. I asked who is this? She: My teacher in physical education. I asked what makes this person different from the other adults? She replied: He accepts me as I am, and understands me.
Nice teaching. I learnt from it, it is my own fault if I do not understand others not the fault of the other person. I have to blame my own inability not the person who I do not understand.
Khedrup,
I can see your list of Lamas, but maybe they are like Trijang Rinpoche. They just want to get on with their spiritual lives. They realize how much devotion your average Tibetan has for the Dalai Lama and they want a quiet life. It’s like the abbots of the Gelugpa monasteries in Southern India - they never acted to expel Dorje Shugden practitioners and only acted when the Dalai Lama forced them to act, so how much faith did they have the Dalai Lama’s view? It was the Dalai Lama who purged the monasteries - whatever was done was done in his name.
People have been killed for opposing the Dalai Lama such as Gungthang Tsultrim of the thirteen settlements. It’s not a good idea if you want a long life.
From the Swiss TV documentary:
An advertisement that appeared in the “Times of Tibet” and in the magazine “Knowledge”:
“Anyone who is against the Dalai Lama must be opposed without hesitation with men, money and possessions. That is to say with by any means, including violence.”
Therefore, just because they support the Dalai Lama doesn’t mean that these Lamas don’t have realizations or that they are liars, maybe they are just being skilful by not rocking the boat. They are doing the best for their traditions and their students and trying to minimise interference by the Dalai Lama. Maybe they genuinely have no choice. So therefore just because these Lamas ’support’ the Dalai Lama, that doesn”t mean that he isn’t a fake, so your reasons don’t hold.
I’d like to see more evidence on both sides.
dougal: If Shugdenpas indeed have no political agenda, you can stand down, close your obnoxious rumour-mongering websites and establish a positive peaceful dialogue. Why would individuals like you, allow yourselves to be pawns in k. gyatso’s personal vendetta– he obviously is extremely bitter about being turfed out of his monastery and lies in ambush for his imaginary enemies. His methods are unskillful–the antithesis of a Kadampa practice. As well Kelsang Gyatso is the greatest living traitor in Tibetan society. Many of the younger generation of Tibetans do not follow the paradigm of non-violence, some live in virtual or real ghettoes, a few get involved in substance abuse and like any population, some suffer mental illness. If NKT continues to goad and provoke them, I fear one day you’ll see what damage a single matchstick can do, gilt plastic dorjes and all.
“I can see your list of Lamas, but maybe they are like Trijang Rinpoche. They just want to get on with their spiritual lives. They realize how much devotion your average Tibetan has for the Dalai Lama and they want a quiet life.”
This goes against your own assertion that Trijang and Shugden are Buddhas, because surely with clairvoyance they would have seen HHDL would speak against the Shugden worship that they see as “essential for preserving the lineage”. So they would have had to speak out. The only logical conclusions are that A)Trijang and Shugden aren’t Buddhas. or B)They believe Tenzin Gyatso is the true Dalai lama C)Neither Shugden nor Trijang are Buddhas, which makes your lineage invalid. D) Shugden isn’t as important as you make him out to be and he is dispensible.
My reasons hold because these lamas have written books, long life prayers and praises to HHDL. How HHDL was chosen is outlined in countless works, many avialable in English, for example the works of Mullin and Laird. It is not my burden of proof. Check the books and read them yourself. WSS is making the accusations so the burden of proof is on them. It is your reasons that dont hold. All you have to prove your case in an unverifiable “document” with no evidence, no research and no works to support this claim which is aimed at destabilizing Tibetan society in exile, and which goes to harm their chance at reaching a deal with China. How very selfish.
As for quoting people advocating violence, I find this funny since the Yellow Book talks about Shugden’s violent actions against those dangerous “mixers who threaten purity”. But of course, NKT says that the Yellow Book is a fake, even though it was advocated by Trijang Rinpoche. Whether crazies say crazy things or not on either side isn’t the point. As I’ve said before, no faction will win an award for right speech.
As for what you say about the abbots, it simply isn’t true. How do I know? I speak Tibetan and have spoken to abbots at both Drepung and Sera. The former and current abbots at Sera Mey are my teachers, with whom I have regular contact.
These abbots were happy to let the Shugdens stay, but the Shugdens agitated increasingly, growing more militant and causing disharmony. I have outlined this in many other posts that were conveniently ignored by NKT members, presumeably because none of you have been to India or speak Tibetan.
Due to the disharmony caused, the abbots wanted to seperate the Shugdens into their own community, because the growing militancy was threatening the stability of the monastery. They were not content with a simple life propitating shugden in peace. They agitated to increase Shugden worship and propagate it amongst younger monks. Members of houses from regions where Shugden was popular, were fined 50 Rupees a pop for not going to Shugden pujas, despite the fact we were observing our samaya with HHDL and our abbot and root teacher was against the practice. So please, don’t presume to tell me what happened at Sera and why the abbots made their decision. I was there and have talked to them about it. You have only the reports of Kelsangs Gyatso and Pema, who visited India after the dispute had already reached boiling point, so they didn’t oberve the agitations. Also, they went with the express mission of “proving allegations” rather than finding out the truth.
Today I got a call from Ganden monastery because a monk there, a friend of mine, needs me to send money to buy meds for his mom. When I told him about the latest WSS fiasco, he laughed and said so much documentation was available about the selection of HHDL in Tibetan, you could only get away with such flimsy research with Injees. When I told them there was no author listed and only one source, without a publication date, he laughed even harder and said that WSS should follow the example of Tsongkhapa and produce many sources.
When I told them that the website has no known author or supporters he said “Konchok Sum, Ha Ley Phey Khen Tsapo Duk” (In the name of the three jewels, beyond strange! In fact, he thinks WSS’s latest stunt will help the TGIE prove in Delhi court that the mandate of the Shugden society has been to wrestle control of the monasteries from the TGIE, HHDL< the majority of monks and the abbots, and establish a Shugden hegemony despite the fact 90% of the monks want nothing to do with Shugden.
From this passage in the Yellow Book we can see even the most virulent and sectarian of Shugdenpas think the current Dalai Lama is the correct selection. (Posted elsewhere by a kind a resourceful Buddhist. Translation C.TYC 1996)
The Yellow Book talks about Reting in glowing terms and acknowledges his recognition of the correct Dalai Lama. It says that things only went wrong when Reting took Nyingma and Dzogchen teachings. The episode reads as follows:
THE RETING RINPOCHE
Regent Reting Rinpoche had to suffer punishment with the king’s order. The misfortune was caused by the miraculous power of the Dharma protector great Dorjee Shugden. Let me explain. The fourth Reting Rinpoche, Ngawang Yeshi Tenpai Gyaltsen, offered the entire possession of Reting Ladang to the Tibetan Government and requested His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, not to search for the future Reting reincarnation. But His Holiness Thubten Gyatso returned everything back to the Ladang and asked them to search for the reincarnation. Accordingly the search party found the reincarnation in a simple family in Dakpo. This Rinpoche had made his foot prints on rocks. I saw one in the Reting monastery. One day while his mother was away the soup started boiling and overflowed from the earthen pot. So he closed the pot with his shoe lace. He displayed such miraculous powers while he was only a child. On the advice of His Holiness Thubten Gyatso, he was recognized as the 5th Reting Rinpoche and named Thubten Jampel Yeshi Gyaltsen. He was admitted to Sera Je College where he completed his religious education. When H.H. Thubten Gyatso visited the Reting monastery in the water- monkey year, it seemed that he left some instructions to Reting Rinpoche concerning the governance of the nation.
His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away in the water-bird year. For about two months the Prime Minister and the Kashag held the responsibility of the Government. After that the General Assembly nominated the Reting Rinpoche, Gaden throne Holder Yeshi Palden and Yongzin Phurchok Jamgon Rinpoche for the regency. The Reting Rinpoche’s name was confirmed with traditional tests were done in front of Lord Avaloketeshvara in the Potala Palace. Accordingly he was enthroned as the Regent on the 10th day of the first month of the wood-dog year. Thus he held the responsibility to head the Gaden Phodrang, the Tibetan Government. He took particular interest in the construction of the tomb of the thirteenth Dalai Lama and the search for the next reincarnation. He personally went to the precious lake and saw the visions which gave clear signals of the reincarnation. He then recognized and enthroned the right reincarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Those were indeed some of his wonderful deeds.
On the fourth day of the tenth month of the earth-hare year, the Reting Rinpoche did the hair cutting ceremony of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. In the last month of that year, he resigned from the post of regency after seven years of service. He had the traditional responsibility to uphold pure Kadampa tradition. His own monastery was the seat of Dromton Gyalpai Jungne. Moreover since the first Reting Rinpoche, Trichen Ngawang Chokden, tutor of His Holiness Kelsang Gyatso, the subsequent reincarnations preserved and propagated pure Gelug tradition. Many illustrious Gelug masters including Je Phaphongka exhorted and persuaded him to maintain and promote the stainless tradition of the great Lama Tsongkhapa. But the Reting Rinpoche did not pay any heed and he sought a number of hidden-treasure teachings of the Nyingma order from Tsenyi Tulku of Chamdo. He also received full transmission on Dzongchen from Sangye Dorjee. Thus the Reting Rinpoche departed from the tradition of his masters.
The final misfortune began to show up when the Reting Rinpoche had disagreement with the then Regent, Tadak. The government found evidence that the Reting Rinpoche had plotted against the life of the Regent Tadak. So, Kalon Surkhang Wangchen Gelek and Kalon Lhalu Gyurme Tsewang Dorjee went to the Reting monastery along with their force and arrested the Reting Rinpoche. Headed by Tsenyi Tulku, many monks from the Sera Je college revolted against the Tibetan government with arms. As the tension grew between the Sera Je College and the government, the latter increased its force and an intense fighting continued for days. Under the command of Kalsang Tsultrim, the government army fired at the Reting monastery and cause much destruction.
When the Reting Rinpoche and his friend Khardo Tulku was interrogated by the General Assembly, the latter confessed that they were guilty. The Reting Rinpoche also acknowledged his mistakes and pleaded for a chance to confess to the Regent himself. The appeal was sent through the Kashag with the endorsement of the General Assembly. But the appeal was rejected. The Reting Rinpoche was kept in Sharchen Chog under tight security with the officials, Lhungshar Orgyen Namdol and Rupon Kalsang Damdul in command. While he was in confinement, he suddenly passed away in the night on the 17th of the third month. No outsider had any knowledge of the cause of his death.
So, NKT is bucking even Shugdenpas recognition of the 14th Dalai Lama and taking this sectarianism and campaign to sow dissent to greater heights than ever seen in Tibetan society.
Here is an example of the Shugdenpa’s scholarly allies in today’s Globe and Mail. Don’t ask me what he’s on about.
Mr. Darcy from Canada writes: Yishey Choden: You make me laugh whenever you spew out your hatred against China and resort to name calling games. You always twist fact don’t you just like the Tibetan riot back in this March. What took you so long to realize that “Water” is a fictional story?????? It took you to days to google it? As a Canadian of Indian background as you disguise yourself to be, you don’t even know about Deepa Mehta who is a Canadian and her movies made all reflecting the problems existing in India. You are in your severe denial mode. Relax, it’s only a cyberworld here. TOO MUCH HATRED NOT GOOD FOR YOUR KARMA. THANKS AGAIN FOR REVEALING YOUR HATRED AGAINST CHINA. YOUR DISCRIMINATED MENTALITY DUE TO YOUR CULTURE, NOT OF AN INDIAN BUT A TIBETAN TELLS US HOW MUCH YOU DIFFERENTIATE PEOPLE OF YOUR OWN RACE. BE IT WHEN YOU PRETEND TO BE AN INDIAN, YOU MAKE CONDESCENDING COMMENTS ON SIKHS. BE IT WHEN YOU ARE TIBETAN, YOU MAKE CONDESCENDING COMMENTS ON YOUR FELLOW DORJE SHUGDEN FOLLOWERS, WORST PART IS YOU INSULT THE WITE PEOPLE WHO CHOSE TO PRACTISE DORJE SHUGDEN AS FAKE MONKS AND NUNS??? YOU ARE A REAL DISCRIMINATIVE RACIST. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO HIJACK THIS FORUM WITH YOUR CIA FUNDED CHINA BASHING PROPANGANDA. HEY I AM ACTUALLY WITH YOU. BOYCOTT BEIJING OLYMPICS!
:) 
:) Thanks for the entertainment! 
Moniker with exceptional “oral” skill 
Posted 29/09/08 at 1:28 PM EDT
Some translated excerpts of the Yellow book have been found and posted by someone more resourceful than I, so I cut and paste as they are relevant here:
Praise to you, the protector of the Yellow Hat tradition, you destroy like a
pile of dust; Great adepts, high officials and ordinary people; who defile and
corrupt the Gelug order.
With this quotation from the praise to Dorje Shugden, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang
Dorjeechang told me some highly interesting accounts which he had not written
for publication. As is clear from the above mentioned praise, the protector has
punished those who corrupted the Gelug order:
TEHOR ZIG-GYAB RINPOCHE
Tehor Zig-gyab Rinpoche worshipped Dorjee Shugden as the Chief of all deities.
He completed his Dharma education at Tashi Lhunpo and earned the coveted Kachen
degree. Then he went to Kham and propagated the Dharma and became very popular
there. He again came back to Tashi Lhunpo and paid his respect to Panchen Losang
Thubten Choekyi Nyima. The Panchen Lama became very fond of this scholar and
asked him to be the abbot of Kunkyobling. Later the Panchen Lama gave his text
of Nyingmapa teachings and some rituals tools. Due to that reason, he studied
various Nyingmapa teachings. During that time a Nyingmapa tantric practitioner
called Kyungtul came to see him. This visiter told him that if he learned
Nyingma teachings he could become famous like the 5th Dalai Lama. So Zig-gyab
Rinpoche decided to get teachings on Rinchen Terzod from the tantric master.
Dorjee Shugden on several occasions asked him not to study and meditate on
Nyingmapa teachings. And if he
did not heed to the deity’s advice, the Rinpoche would suffer from many
hardships and could even shorten his life span. But Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not
pay any attention. One day Dorjee Shugden was greatly annoyed and told the
Rinpoche that, “I may not pierce you with my deadly claws, but if I did, I
cannot take them out.” In this way the deity persuaded the Rinpoche to uphold a
pure Gelug tradition. But the latter did not pay any heed and said that he has
to abide but the instructions of his Lama. Zig- gyab Rinpoche rented a house
near Lhasa and received many Nyingma teachings and transmissions from the
tantric master, Kyungtul. Gyalchen Shugden created a variety of miracles in
their presence. So they decided to do a retreat. During that time Prime Minister
Sheta Paljor Dorjee suddenly became very ill. So he requested for Zig-gyab
Rinpoche to bestow an initiation for him. When the Rinpoche returned home after
giving the initiation, he became very ill and
after one day he passed away. If Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not practice Nyingmapa
teachings and remained a proper practitioner of pure-gold like Gelug tradition,
he could have a long life and his meritorious deeds could have spread far and
wide. Kyabje Trijang Dorjeechang told me these accounts who in turn has heard
from Tehor Losang Gyatso, an attendant of Zig-gyab Rinpoche until his last days.
PHAGPA LHA
Phagpa Lha Losang Thubten Mepham Tsultrim Gyaltsen was a great scholar and as
such he should have upheld and propagated pure Gelugpa tradition. But he
corrupted his philosophical stand and moral conduct and consequently lost his
monk’s vow. He thus had to face the punishment by His Holiness the Dalai Lama,
Thubten Gyatso; and he was deprived of his religious and political powers. Later
he lived in his house in Chamdo. One day while he was on his way to the toilet,
he fell down and a broken bicycle piece pierced near his male organ and no
amount of medication was of any help. After a long illness he succumbed to the
injury. He had to face these difficulties, because he annoyed the deity Dorjee
Shugden. When Je Phaphongkha was on his tour of the Kham area, he stayed over
night at Phagpa Lha’s house. During the night he had a very ominous dream in
relation to his host. Je Phaphongkha told about the dream to his secretary, Dema
Losang Dorjee. All these
accounts were told to my ever kind teacher, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang
by Chamdo Gyara Rinpoche.
WSS doesn’t want hegemony - we are very happy for others who want to practise their traditions. how would hegemony benefit us? we believe everyone has the right to practise their own path, and that any path that leads to the realization of ultimate truth is a valid path to enlightenment. all we want is freedom to practise our own.
the DL has refused to allow this; he is using the power of his speech to smear the stainless reputations of our lineage Gurus and destroy our spiritual lineage, which is a valid path to enlightenment. up until very recently Trijang Rinpoche was held by Tibeatans and Buddhists of ALL schools to be one of the best-loved and greatest masters of his generation. this is indisputable. but now his memory is being blackened by his most famous disciple’s treachery.
he is using his speech as a weapon to destroy a pure Dharma. therefore, we are left with no choice but to defend our lineage by destroying the power of his speech. we are left with no choice but to destroy his reputation.
is the WSS article true? i don’t know. i too would like to hear more evidence. but this is - by a very long way - nothing like the worst i have heard about him. there are many stories that i have heard told by Tibetans, some of whom have firsthand knowledge. perhaps these people will not for a long time feel safe enough to put their names to these stories, but nonetheless they are starting to be more publicly told.
the only person who can save the DL’s reputation now is himself. if he continues to attack our lineage, then we’ve really no choice but to disempower him completely. not to engage in a wrathful action to benefit others, when appropriate, is to break the Bodhisattva’s vow.
Dougal,
“is the WSS article true? i don’t know”
Exactly, whether it is true or not doesn’t matter, as it is a tactic to protect the “only pure Dharma”.
“there are many stories that i have heard told by Tibetans, some of whom have firsthand knowledge”
Rumours exist in all societies about well loved leaders. No leader has universal approval, and people spread nasty stories in order to take away from their appeal. If you follow NKT of course the stories you hear about HHDL will be hateful, your Guru has already called him evil.
“there are many stories that i have heard told by Tibetans”
Do you speak Tibetan? How many? With whom are these Tibetans allied? Do they have EVIDENCE? The burden of proof is on WSS and NKT now, not us.
“if he continues to attack our lineage, then we’ve really no choice but to disempower him completely.”
Does it matter to you if this is done through lies, gossip and “Fair Game Tactics” or does the ends justify the means?
In light of the yellow book and countless accounts of sectarianism,how can you continue in your right mind to believe that Shugden is worth sacrificing everything, even if it is done through lies, rumours and gossip mongering?
So far Shugdenites have proved that those who ally with this deity cause nothing but division, strife and instability. Before, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least as far as your motivation. But after examining the writings and actions of your leaders, Kelsang Gyatso and Nga-lama Kundeling Losang Yeshe, the most generous I can be is that you have been duped by ambitious leaders who seek to discredit all of Tibetan Buddhism in order to procure followers.
Unless you can provide any proof of your preposterous allegations, I can only come to the conclusion that WSS believes that lies and rumours are fair game in the name of Shugden. What a strange Buddha, that would require such actions from his followers.
Khedrup -
that’s a misquote. i have NEVER said that our tradition is the “only pure Dharma”. i have never heard this said about our tradition, either.
as it happens, i don’t believe that the end justifies the means because i believe in the law of karma. motivation is by far the most important factor, but it’s not the only one.
for these reasons i don’t think that “lies and rumours” are fair tools to use and that’s why i’m waiting for more evidence before deciding on this article. to be honest, knowing many of the people involved, i would be very surprised if they’ve knowingly posted falsehoods or even hearsay unless they have good reasons to give it credit. but until i hear more, i’ll reserve judgement.
i don’t speak Tibetan. all of my Tibetan friends speak at least some English.
i am not going to post their names or their titles and monasteries/places of residence here, for very obvious reasons.
incidentally, i do not regard Kundeling Rinpoche as my leader. i regard Gese Kelsang as my Guru, but have never felt that he “requires” anything of me. i try to follow his advice, which is invariably to practise Dharma, but i do so of my own free will. if he ever advised me to do something that i felt was wrong, such as to break my vows, then i would refuse, whatever the consequences. happily, i feel that’s extremely unlikely.
it s not only from Geshe Kelsang that i have formed my view of the Dalai Lama, but from many others (not including Kundeling Rinpoche, as it goes) and from directly observing his own behaviour. for me, that’s more than enough evidence.
i am honestly very sorry for all those who have faith in him, and i am sorry that i have to be a condition for the pain that his actions have caused you.
he has betrayed you all utterly.
“he has betrayed you all utterly.”
You maintain this despite yourself saying that the allegations of WSS have yet to be proven. Attachment to views? I have many teachers, not just one, so far from thinking I am invested in my belief in the Dalai Lama, my concern is for what undermining his holy work does to the Tibetans.
The teachings and initiations I have received from HHDL are wonderful and meaningful in my practice, whether or not the system of reincarnation is important has never been a factor in my practice. I look at the excellence of his teachings.
This isn’t about me. If it were, I wouldn’t bother postinig comments. This is about how the actions of the WSS are designed to create discord and strife in the Tibetan community in exile, putting at risk the Sino-Tibetan negotiations, and the future of Tibetan Buddhism and culture, all in the name of a god whose origins are, most diplomatically put, highly contested.
The WSS cares nothing for the feelings of millions of Tibetans, for the Sino-Tibetan conflict to be resolved peacefully, for the good name of the hundreds of lamas and geshes who support HHDL, or for the good name of Tibetan Buddhism abroad.
All you care about is your unfortunate mascot, whose true nature is plain for all to see in the yellow book (written by a Shugden devotee no less, so please don’t claim unfair sources), which, thankfully, is now available for all of us to view and make an informed opinion about Shugden’s nature and function.
BTW,
Are the people involved who know so well, the ones behind the WSS website, students of Geshe Kelsang?
Goes to motive your honour….
AS a reminder what you are defending, more stories of Shugden’s wrath as told by Trijang Rinpoche and compiled by Zemey Tulku:
TATSAK RINPOCHE
In accordance with the prophecy of the deities and lamas, Kundeling Tatsak Rinpoche Losang Thupten Jigme Gyaltsen was recognized as the reincarnation of his predecessor. He completed his religious education from the Gomang College of Drepung monastery. He had the traditional responsibilities to practice and promote a pure Gelug order. But he departed far away from the stainless system
of Gelug practice and received treasure text teachings from Lhatsun Rinpoche and received certain corrupted initiations known as the father’s experience and the mother’s dream which originated from Mongolia. These activities greatly annoyed the king of Gelug Dharma protectors, Dorjee Shugden, and as such Tatsak Rinpoche was accordingly punished. One day he suffered an acute pain in his chest. After consulting many deities and lama, he was told that it was caused by Dorjee Shugden. So, the oracle of the deity was invited and with invocation, he confessed his mistakes with the support of Lhatsun Rinpoche. It was of no help and in that place Lhatsun Rinpoche was scolded for his impure practice. Tatsak Rinpoche’s illness was more serious and he in much pain. So he sent Kundeling Oser Gyaltsen to invite Kyabje Trijang Dorjeechang. Another appeal was made via Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. I personally witnessed the event. During that time the great Dorjee Shugden said that since he had committed himself to protect the Gelug doctrine, there wasn’t much he could do. However, when such evolved Gelug master is supporting, he would see what could be done. But mainly the whole thing depended on how Tatsak Rinpoche behaved. The deity then asked Tatsak Rinpoche, “What will you do in the future ?” Tatsak Rinpoche wept bitterly and replied that he confessed his past mistakes and promised that henceforth he will stop the practice of Nyingma teachings. After that he recovered to some extent. Because he did not keep his promise, his health deteriorated again. Tatsak Rinpoche then left for India for medical treatment and as well as for the purpose of pilgrimage. He went to a big hospital in Calcutta for treatment. Even that was of no avail and he passed away.
The Yellow Book
BQ4890.R37 D93 00
DZE SMAD BLO BZANG DPAL LDAN, 1927-
COVER TITLE: BSTAN SRUNG RDO RJE SHUGS LDAN RTZAL GYI BYUNG BA
BRJOD PA PHA RGOD BLA MA’I ZHAL GYI BDUD RTZI BZHUGS.
i honestly don’t care about the Yellow book. again - please listen - i believe it was written for credulous yakherders and clueless Tibetan aristocrats. i go on my own experience of Dorje Shugden practice and Dorje Shugden practitioners, and of the instructions of my Teachers.
you said, again “the actions of the WSS are designed to create discord and strife in the Tibetan community in exile, putting at risk the Sino-Tibetan negotiations, and the future of Tibetan Buddhism and culture, all in the name of a god whose origins are, most diplomatically put, highly contested.” i ask you, again: why? what on earth would we have to gain from these things?
you said: “The WSS cares nothing for the feelings of millions of Tibetans, for the Sino-Tibetan conflict to be resolved peacefully, for the good name of the hundreds of lamas and geshes who support HHDL, or for the good name of Tibetan Buddhism abroad.” that’s actually not true. we have no wish to hurt anyone’s feelings, or to cause anyone any difficulty. but we sincerely believe that these mundane aims you list are less important in the long term than preserving a valid path to liberation for the benefit of countless living beings in the future. anyone who would disagree on this point disagrees with Buddha.
all we want is religious freedom. if we have to destroy the DL’s reputation to secure it because he refuses even to discuss the issue, that’s nobody’s fault but his.
some of those in WSS i know are indeed students of Geshe Kelsang, but not all of them are, by any means.
and in fact the DL’s betrayal has nothing to do with his not being the correct reincarnation (and frankly, this is clear from his actions alone, with no need for accounts of the manner of his recognition for verification). he has betrayed those who put their faith in him by acting in complete opposition to Lord Buddha’s doctrine and his Guru’s advice.
i’m really not that interested in all this scholarship and history, if i’m honest. experience tells me the nature of my Protector, and observation of the DL’s behaviour tells me his. that’s what counts, at the end of the day, if we’re claiming to be responsible, thinking Buddhist practitioners.
i made a mistake in my post above. i didn’t mean to call “the good name of the hundreds of lamas and geshes who support HHDL, or for the good name of Tibetan Buddhism abroad” mundane aims.
clearly, the reputation of Dharma and its Teachers is very important for the liberation of living beings, and i regret the damage this controversy is causing to the good name of Buddhism in the world. i know that everyone i know within WSS shares this regret. but we are compelled to act, as the lesser of two evils.
remember - the controversy begins and ends with the DL’s ban. we didn’t pick this fight.
Buddhist friend, you are not answering my question:
“Well, I am sorry, but Je Tsongkhapa is also a Rime practitioner, and His Holiness the late 100th Ganden Trisur is a Rime practitioner. If you hate Rime so much(which says a lot about your Buddhist practice), then dont even practive Tsongkhapa’s teachings, cause it is mixed with other traditions. According to your definition, it is so polluted!!! It is even mixed with Kagyu and Sakya!!! Why you practice it??? :p”
Dougal, I have answered your questions in the other posts, but you never read it properly. In fact, you changed your contents of the questions! Shall I show you the original question you asked?
“you seem to think that demonstrating for religious freedom is violent. why?”
“you seem to think that we’re somehow infringing on the rights of the DL by deciding not to follow his advice and questioning its validity. why?”
So now you agreed that His Holiness is giving you religious freedom, so where does the argument arise now?
U people think that I, Khedrup, Gyalpo are too attached to His Holiness’ words rather than the truth. But the truth is, you are too attached to Geshe Kelsang’s words rather than the truth. If you want to blindly follow him, then go ahead. Nothing we say will ever please you. Just like Osama Bin Laden. Will he listen to what other Muslim leaders say about world peace? Further you point your fingers at us, Buddhist friend, for believing in His Holiness rather than the truth, but the actual fact is, we have more than one teacher. We believe in what ALL our teachers say. But what about you? Just because ONE teacher (whom the whole world except WSS questions his authencity) you believed him easily. U are so guilible. What can I say about ignorant sentient beings, except to pray that may the light of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings dispel the darkness of your ignorance, and might the truth prevail. By the power of the truth, may the torch of wisdom dispel these beings ignorance! May the realise their folly!
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/false-dalai-lama
read about the politics involved in choosing this imposter Dalai Lama
Refutation of the above baseless article which lists no sources, and fails to aknowledge Shugden fave Trijang Rinpoche recognized the Dalai Lama:
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/
Here is another sample comment from today’s Globe, indicitive of the entrenched position of Chinese ultra-nationalists. There’s literally many millions of Chinese bloggers who thrive in the irresponsible anonymity of blogsites, since they have no political franchise in Communist China. They obviously are informed by pro-NKT sites and it suits their anti-Tibetan agenda and fictive historicity perfectly. The damage to the Tibetan cause of this supposedly ‘apolitical’ personal vendetta by (former) Geshe killsang gyatso of is inestimable.
“Mr. Darcy from Canada writes: Tibetan buddhists including Dala Lama himself practised Dorje Shugden until he decided to ban it. NKT Shugden is founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in England in 1991. We now have Western Dorje Shugden, an association with Western monks and nuns and some Tibetans. We also have Dorej Shugden Association. These two groups are different and separate from NKT Shugden. Learn more about these two groups. They are the Tibetan (Western and Tibetans) Buddhists that have been practising Dorje Shugden for many years, even before NKT Shugden developed. These Dorje Shugden followers attended the same school with any other Tibetan buddhist. They don’t want to give up practising Dorje Shugden and then they became the subject of ostracism and oppression. Where are their freedom of religion??? Why are they being ostracised like the Indian widows in India???? Good thing you pointed out NKT Shugden is considered as a Cult by some Western countries, eventhough NKT Shugden is a different group from these Dorje Shugden followers. This is a big lesson for you to learn about our Western ways and values here in Canada.”
Posted 01/10/08 at 1:10 AM EDT
[...] Dorje Shugden - Deity or Demon by Tricycle [...]
The Dalai Lama: The devil within - on Al Jazeera
The Dalai Lama has imposed a ban on the worship of a 500-year-old deity called Dorje Shugden
Across the world 4 million Buddhist Tibetans worship this particular deity. The ban has created tension and dissent amongst the one million Tibetans living in India and in May 400 monks were thrown out of monasteries because of their religious beliefs.
In the Tibetan refugee camps, Shugden worshippers have been turned away from jobs, shops and schools. Posters with the message “no Shugden followers allowed” cover hospital and shop fronts.
The tension has been fueled by the Tibetan exile government who brandish Shugden worshippers as terrorists closely linked to China.
Shugden followers in India have decided to take matters into their own hands, taking the Dalai Lama to court for religious discrimination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqON2lxArek
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), Nov. 16, 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/
By Umarah Jamali in New Delhi
In the northern Indian town of Dharamsala, where the Tibetan government-in-exile has its headquarters, posters threatening to kill the Dalai Lama have appeared. They say he and his followers in India will face death if they do not leave the country.
Police suspect a Tibetan cult, Shugden, is behind the threats against the Dalai Lama, who fled to Dharamsala from Tibet in 1959, and have tightened security around him.
The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) branch of the Shugdens, established by Kelsang Gyatso in 1991, has its headquarters in Britain. For some years relations between it and the Dalai Lama have been strained.
The cult worships a 350-year-old wrathful Tibetan deity, Dorje Shugden, often depicted wearing a necklace of 50 severed human heads and having four fangs. With three blood-red eyes he is a sword-wielding warrior figure, riding a snow lion through a sea of boiling blood.
His followers consider themselves guardians of Tibetan Buddhism, and some have described them as the Taliban of Buddhism because of their extremism.
Shugdens from the Gelukpa (Yellow Hats) sect do not like the Nyingmapa (Red Hats) sect, and consider it a sin even to talk to Red Hats or touch their religious works. They have branded the Dalai Lama, 67, a traitor to the Yellow Hats for befriending other branches of Buddhism.
Kelsang Gyatso and his followers in NKT accuse the Dalai Lama of selling out Tibet by promoting its autonomy within China rather than outright independence, of expelling their followers from jobs in Tibetan establishments in India, and of denying them humanitarian aid pouring in from Western countries.
The Dalai Lama says Shugdens pose a serious threat to Tibetan unity in exile. He has urged Tibetans not to worship Dorje Shugden, saying it fosters religious intolerance and turns Buddhism into a cult of spirit worship.
Many followers of the Dalai Lama believe that the Shugdens have links with Chinese intelligence, and suggest China is exploiting the controversy to undermine the Dalai Lama’s influence and weaken support for Tibet’s independence.
The chairman of the Tibetan parliament, Toma Jugney, said: “It’s a deliberate attempt to create differences, not just between Indians and Tibetans, but amongst Tibetans too.”
However, he did not say the cult was behind the death threats.
In September in Kathmandu, NKT members held a news conference at which they said: “The Dalai Lama and his soldiers in Dharamsala are creating terror in Tibetan society by harassing and persecuting people like us. We cannot take it lying down for long.”
However, an official who handles Tibetan affairs in India’s Home Ministry in New Delhi said: “We don’t think that there is any Chinese conspiracy behind this death threat against the Dalai Lama.
“Probably it is fallout from infighting among the exiled Tibetans. However, we have beefed up the security cover around the Tibetan leader.”
B Friend: Four million, interesting figure, the refugee population in Nepal and India is around 180,000 total, maybe just over one million in TAR, please don’t tell me there’s 3.9 million Shuggies in Mongolia. NKT must be joking with that oriental fantasy of an estimate.
another oldie but goodie: May 10, 2006
BEIJING (Reuters) - Tibetan Buddhist monks loyal to the exiled Dalai Lama stormed a monastery near Lhasa and attacked statues of a deity denounced by him, Chinese state media reported in a rare glimpse of religious dissension in disputed Tibet.
Seventeen lamas entered the Ganden Monastery on March 14 and tore down two statues, including an image of Dorje Shugden, a deity criticized by the Dalai Lama since the 1970s, the Xinhua news agency reported on Wednesday.
Police were mobilized to prevent crowds of Buddhists from going to the large monastery, government officials told a news conference in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, on Tuesday.
The dispute between the Dalai Lama and the much smaller Shugden stream of his Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism is part of complex doctrinal currents dating back four centuries.
But China’s authorities used the latest incident to criticize the Dalai Lama — the most senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism who has been in exile since 1959 and campaigned for autonomy for Tibet.
He, not they, was restricting religious freedom, the authorities said.
“What the Dalai Lama has done violates the religious freedom of believers,” Zhang Qingli, the acting Communist Party secretary of Tibet said, according to Xinhua.
In 1996, the Dalai Lama called on his followers to reject the Shugden deity, calling it a divisive offshoot.
The Mayor of Lhasa, Norbu Dunzhub, told the news conference that the Dalai Lama, who is revered by most Tibetans, was using the dispute to stir conflict in tightly controlled Tibet.
“The Dalai clique supported by hostile Western forces is introducing into China the overseas conflict between followers and opponents of the Shugden deity to provoke conflict between monks and followers of different faiths,” he said.
China took control of Tibet in 1951 and for decades it exercised harsh, often brutal, rule over its overwhelmingly Buddhist population. In recent decades, China has restored temples but tightly controlled their activities and has sought to install its own hand-selected senior lamas loyal to Beijing.
Tibet now has more than 1,700 places of worship and 46,000 Buddhist monks and nuns, the overseas edition of the People’s Daily reported on Wednesday.
Tibetan monks guilty of terrorist activity, including bombing the house of a Dorje Shugden practitioner:
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/tibetans-10022008095355.html
Samdhong Rinpoche says that Shugden practitioners are terrorists, but these ‘monks’ are the real terrorists
More shameful lies from the Tibetan Government in Exile. They bring disgrace to Buddhism.
Buddhist ‘Friend’: The French Resistance were labelled terrorists by the Nazi occupation forces, Nelson Mandela, M.K. Ghandhi, there’s a long list…you just can’t abide Tibetans, so any traitor to their cause is your hero. Why don’t you move to China and change your fake monk costume for a fake mao suit?
Those who read Tibetan, can download this document: Kyabje Sangye Dorje Rinpoche’s Rain of Adamant Fire as PDF file (8.85MB so may be a little slow)
sangs-rgyas rdo-rje, bya-bral (1979). dga-’ldan shar-rtse dze-smad sprul-sku blo-bzang dpal-ldan gyi smra-ngan gi sa-bon gzhom-pa’i ‘bel-ktam. lung-rigs rdo-rje me-char.
[Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche. The Rain of Adamant Fire. A Holy Discourse based upon scriptures and reason, annihilating the poisonous seeds of the wicked speech of Dzeme Trulku Lobsang Palden]
Gantok: Sherab Gyaltsen, Palace Monastery, and Delhi: Lakshmi Printing Works
http://www.reting.org/DorjeMechar.pdf
I have a question: if Shugden is such a major deity, why does he not appear in the Beijing (Gelug) 300 icons, not appear in the 500 (Gelug) icons of Narthang, not present in the Pantheon of the Mongolian Kangyur (509 Gelug images), in fact Lokesh Chandra’s Buddhist Iconography has, with some duplication, in total 2,503 images…no Shugden whatsoever. Too minor to include it seems, so what is the big stink about jettisoning a marginal and insignificant mascot?
David Canada
2 Oct 08 at 2:23 am
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/western-shugden-society-sowing-dissent-through-baseless-allegations/
regarding post #102
Dear Buddhist Friend, please stop to spread such wrong propaganda and to denounce the ordained Sangha, inlcuding Samdhong Rinpoche.
This is a report about official CCP point of view or official Chinese government propaganda and the term “terrorist actions” is in apostrophe. It does not say anything that the allegations are true.
Personally I think, as you and GKG/NKT/WSS claim to be ‘pure Kadampas’ you should expose your own faults and praise the qualities of others otherwise you just abuse the name of this noble tradition and depreciate even the old Kadam masters by your rude and dishonest behaviour.
A balanced view on the issue of Religion & Politics can be read here:
Tibetan Religion and Politics by Samten G. Karmay
http://www.phayul.com/news/tools/print.aspx?id=22803&t=0
Samten G. Karmay is Director of Research emeritus, National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), Paris.
Please Buddhist Friend try to find a Buddhist approach for your actions. At the moment your name “Buddhist friend” appears to me to be a mere fraud.
A ‘New Kadampa Survivor’ published this advice by Longchenpa. As Buddhists we can apply it.
Thirty Pieces of Advice From the Heart
By Gyalwa Longchenpa
One engages in controversies, defending one’s point of view and
contradicting the other’s thinking thus to preserve the purity of the Teachings.
But in such a way one induces impure thoughts.
To remain silent is my advice from the heart.
Thinking one is rendering service,
one support in a partisan way one’s Guru’s lineage and philosophical views.
But to praise oneself and belittle others ripens one’s attachments and hatred.
To leave these things is my advice from the heart.
http://www.purifymind.com/AdviceFromHeart.htm
Best Wishes.
Further iconographical note: http://www.tharpa.com/us/ art-Dorje.Shugden-1938.html, look at the bottom right corner of this westernised and poorly executed illustration: a money tree and fanatic armed with a rifle…portents NKT/Shudenpa fanatics final form?
Gyalpo -
you plonker! you can’t buy anything with blossom, that i’m aware of, but if you want some, i’ll give you a good exchange rate.
get your eyes tested, son!
and that there’s a wrathful attendant in the picture. find me a thangkha of a wrathful deity with *no* weapons, fangs or claws depicted.
plonker.
dougal: Norlha or wealth deities are the lowest form of buddhist divinities: answer my question why Dolgyal, who you experts claim is worshipped by four million people, is not present in any published Tibeto-Mongol pantheon. You need a rifle, how jejeune, like Song Rinpoche packing heat and wearing gunbelts when he left Tibet, the frito bandito lama!~
GKG’s Expulsion Letter (1996)
To the Tibetan Buddhists around the world and fellow Tibetan compatriots within and outside Tibet:
His Holiness The Dalai Lama is the undisputed leader of the six million Tibetans and a world renowned Buddhist leader as well as a respected statesman of great charisma for which he was awarded the prestigious 1989 Nobel Peace Prize among many others. His genuine concern for the welfare of the Tibetan people, the weak and the down trodden and his teachings on compassion to bring about a more humane and harmonious world and his call for the protection of all forms of life on our planet and their habitat in the form of what he termed as ‘Universal Responsibility’ has caught the imagination of the world and is held in great esteem by virtually the whole world irrespective of their religious affiliations or political ideology. However, it is a measure of profound sorrow that a so called “Geshe” Kelsang Gyatso and his English supporters have embarked upon a ruthless smear campaign to tarnish the International stature of His Holiness The Dalai Lama in the name of alleged “religious persecution”. It is nothing short of blasphemy in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the six million Tibetans. At such a critical juncture of our history does it behove the fanatical supporters of the controversial medieval spirit to damage the reputation of the leader of the very people whose religion they have adopted and have benefitted from it? You claim that “what the Tibetan people need, as a country, is to gain Independence from China. We are one hundred percent in support of the Tibetans achieving this goal”. Does your action of tarnishing the Dalai Lama’s image really help to achieve the Tibetans their goal or does it make it even further? Who is benefitting from this mud slinging campaign and how do you explain that you all are infact “hundred percent in support of the Tibetans achieving their goal?.” Actions speak louder than words and we are under no illusion with whom your sympathies are despite your statements to the contrary. The Tibetans all over the world were deeply distressed by your attempt to portray the Dalai Lama as a “ruthless dictator” an “oppressor of his own people” and smash his International stature so that the Tibetan struggle will be like a rudderless ship tossing helplessly in the sea of international intrigues
and treachery. From where did you borrow your vocabulary to malign the Dalai Lama? Are they not straight from the Chinese propaganda dictionary? Is this the way the English people repay their gratitude to those whom they owe a measure of good will? We understand that you did it at the behest of Kelsang Gyatso who is today a pariah in the Tibetan community and it is important to know something about this person so that your own life is not completely destroyed in the frenzy of blind loyalty to this apostate. Without going into a lengthy story about this man, atleast for the moment, here are a few facts which may be worth pondering about for your own future good. As Buddhists, the Guru and the chela relationship is the basis of all Buddhist practise and without a healthy Guru, chela relationship there is absolutely no question of realisation or attaining any path. The Great Lamrim teaching lays great emphasis on this aspect and begins with: How to rely on a spiritual friend, which is the root of the path. It then proceeds with eight benefits of relying on a spiritual friend, the eight shortcomings of not relying on spiritual friend and the eight shortcomings of relying wrongly upon ones spiritual friend.
The last one i.e. eight shortcomings of relying wrongly are:
1) Despising, abusing or leaving the Guru, one despises all the victorious Ones
2) If one generates angry thoughts towards the Guru; because of having destroyed the root of virtue; one will be reborn in the hells for as many aeons as the number of moments one was angry
3) Although relying on the Mantra Path, one will not obtain the supreme state
4) Although one practices with effort in order to attain the aim of tantric practise, one will attain rebirth in the hells on and on
5) All the good qualities not generated before will not be generated and those already generated will decay
6) In this life, many things that you don’t desire, such as sickness will befall you
7) In this next life you will wonder endlessly in evil migrations
As Buddhists all you must be aware of the consequences of despisisng ones Guru and abusing him since Kelsang must have taught you for these many years and you have exalted him to the status of the “third Buddha”. But what you may have not been told is that Kelsang himself has transgressed the eight shortcomings of relying wrongly upon his own spiritual master H.H. The Dalai Lama. According to the circular released by the Sera Jhe Tsangpa Khangtsen, to whom Kelsang belonged, he had received both sutra and tantric teachings from H.H. The Dalai Lama when he was in Tibet. He had received the fifth Dalai Lama’s Lamrim Jampel Shalung at the Norbu Linka summer palace and the Kalachakra Initiation in 1956 from H.H.The Dalai Lama which incidently was the first Kalachakra
initiation by the fourteenth Dalai Lama. As it were, there is simply no question of his not being a desciple of H.H. The Dalai Lama but he has ignored this aspect and launched a blistering attack on the Dalai Lama in the name of “religious persecution” along with his gullible followers. The outcome of all this attempt to denigrate the person of the of Dalai Lama by Kelsang clearly transgressed his spiritual relationship with the Dalai Lama and though he has mentioned in his letter that “all of us are destined to go to hell”, we are in no doubt that he will infact be the one who will land in hell. We have therefore stripped him of his membership from our Sera Jhe Dratsang since the holy scriptures have clearly prescribed to evict such apostates who will foul the Sanga community’s spiritual purity and serenity and will have a negative influence for the whole community. To quote from one of the Tantric treatises:
Those who abuse and disparage the Guru
Let them not be seen even in dreams
The ones who denigrate the Guru
Will be possessed by demons and devils
The evil doer who indulges in such heinous acts
Must be shunned by the wise.
Owing to the above reasons contained in the holy Tantric treatises, the Sera Jhe Dratsang’s Abbot and ex-abbots, Reincarnations of holy Lamas, Geshes, and the House Masters of the fifteen different Houses unanimously decided to strip Kelsang Gyatso of his membership in the Sera Jhe Dratsang and his own House had earlier done the same. If Kelsang insists that we are the ones who would go to hell; then our answer would be, if by obeying the words of our precious Guru, we are destined for hell while, Kelsang who spewed venom on his Guru is exonerated, You may indeed brag that as the true way of the “New Kadampa Tradition”. If however he disavows any spiritual links with the Dalai Lama; how is he going to disapproave the statements made by his own House, the Sera Jhe Tsangpa Khangtsen who knows him the best? Or is it that when he arrived in England he was able to dry clean the spiritual link between the Dalai Lama?
Kelsang Gyatso in his letter addressed to the Democratic Party of Tibet based in Dharamsala, the Regional Assembly of Rajpur and the Regional Swiss Tibetan Assembly written in July, he said there was no democratic rights in the exile Tibetan community implying that the Dalai Lama is still holding all the reigns of power. To start with, what did the Tibetan people really do to achieve democracy in our community? Has Kelsang so much as spared a breath for the sake of democracy? Who was responsible for making the first draft of the Tibetan National Democratic Constitution in the beginning of 1960s and initially announcing the Democratic Constitution on 10th October 1961 and formally in 1963? Infact a clause in the constitution where the Dalai Lama would be relieved of his duty by a majority vote in the parliament was received with great alarm by the Tibetan people and had to be redressed. Is it not the Dalai Lama who is the main force behind the democratization of the Tibetan community in exile? Besides H.H. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly voiced his willingness to abdicate his present position and has transferred his power upon the forty-seven member elected representatives of the Tibetan people which is known as Assembly of Tibetan peoples Deputies. Today it is the most powerful political structure in the Tibetan community. A constitution for the Tibetan Exiles has been promulgated and all the rights that a free and open society enjoys is enshrined within the limits of our existing situation. Therefore the allegation of having no democratic freedom thus inferring that the Dalai Lama is holding all the reigns of power does not hold water. It is nothing but a crude form of debasing the Dalai Lama for his own selfish ends. To be frank he does not know anything about the workings of a democracy and is only tutored by his gullible followers and he gives the nod to dish out an anti-Dalai Lama sloganeering. We have nothing but pity for your ignorance. We know that he is holding a British and he has gone on record saying he is not a Tibetan. What business has he got in poking his nose into the Tibetan exile’s internal problem? Since he does not accept the authority of the exile Government in his centers, why is he showing so much interest in the monasteries which are under the jurisdiction of H.H. The Dalai Lama’s Government? Why not mind his own business and do what he likes in his own bigoted kingdom? The Dalai Lama has specifically made it clear during the Spring teachings at Dharamsala that restrictions on Dolgyal (Shugden) would not apply to any monastery, Lama’s household or private individuals, “who does not support the Exile-Government headed by him and those who have no concern for the general interest of Tibet”. Since Kelsang does not even regard himself as a Tibetan and bans the DalaiLama’s photoes like his Chinese counterparts and treats the Tibetan Government with contempt, how could anyone expect his concern for the welfare of the Tibetans? Under the circumstances his nefarious activities against the Tibetan people and against the Dalai Lama in foreign lands is suspect in the eyes of the Tibetan people. Under the guise of a crusader for the medieval spirit, he is infact out to destroy the Dalai Lama as the Chinese say, to kill a snake, it must crush the head. Otherwise, what is the need for this bigot to make a mountain out of a mole when the Dalai Lama has said, if anyone has valid reasons for the worship of this controversial spirit, the door is open for discussions. It vindicates the popular Tibetan saying, his is not craving for the apricot but destruction of the branch.
He has asked how does the propitiation of Dolgyal harms the Dalai Lama’s life? To start with we would like to ask him if Dolgyal is provoked by an individual holy Lama which results in a rancour between t he two, will the rancour continue with
the successive incarnations or will it disappear? If your answer is that it will disappear, we advise you to go through Phagoed Lamae Shal-lung; the spine
chilling and controversial book written by the late Zemed Trulku in 1976. If on the other hand your answer is that the rancour will continue, then don’t pretend that
you are ignorant of the rancour Dolgyal nurses against the fourteenth Dalai Lama since there existed a rancour between his predecessors the fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Losang Gyatso and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso. It is not true that H.H. The Dalai Lama was responsible for this present predicament. You
know it and you have also heard of it. If you haven’t heard, find somebody else if possible who will explain the real cause of this situation. Besides, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, in his capacity as the spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people is only guiding us concerning the spirit Dolgyal in the larger interest of the Tibetans. Is it not therefore fair that just as you want your freedom of speech respected, the Dalai Lama’s freedom of speech be equally respected?
He states that for the last eighteen years the Dalai Lama has done nothing!!!
His hatred towards the Dalai Lama obscures him from seeing any merit of the Dalai Lama. There is nothing really surprising about it because we have historic evidence of people like Kelsang who have seen only fault even in the holy person of the Buddha and Lama Tsongkhapa during their life time. It is not the fault of the holy Buddha, nor Lama Tsongkhapa nor H.H.The Dalai Lama but the beholder like
Kelsang Gyatso whose demonic instinct get the better of them and are thus overwhelmed by them and see even Buddhas in a darklight. He is an object of pity and nothing else. Apostate Kelsang has had the audacity to say that we will land in hell as if he knew in advance but does he know where he will go after this life? Well, if he doesn’t know here is a guide which would give him a fairly good idea of
where he is headed for hereafter.
If after listening to even a verse
One does not regard him as Guru
After being born as dog for hundred times
Will he be reborn as ones that eats ones own flesh.
While conscious of being ones own Guru
Knowingly insults and disparages him
It amounts to insulting all the Buddhas
Such a person will forever experience sorrow.
He also goes on to say that H.H. The Dalai Lama has not mentioned independence in any of his declarations. It is merely an accusation though he does not know head or tail about politics or the international political scenario. However, if he is really interested we will give him a reply that might help him so that he does not remain
a blind lunatic marooned in a Victorian Gothic mansion. Frank Anthony the welknown Editor of the Indian Express News Paper writes in his book “The Revolt in Tibet” “Two months later, on June 20, the Dalai Lama chose to receive press correspondents at Mussoorie and to circulate a two-thousand-word statement which went specifically and categorically far beyond his Tezpur statement.
NOTHING SHORT OF THE PRE—1950 STATUS OF TIBET, he flatly declared, would be acceptable to him, and this would be a condition precedent to the reopening of negotiations with the Chinese, wherein he would welcome a foreign mediator”. For Kelsang’s information the so called “17 point agreement” was signed on May 23, 1951. Therefore the Dalai Lama’s pre-1950 status means
complete Independence. You should not hold the Dalai Lama responsible for your own ignorance.
In the widely acclaimed “FIVE POINT PEACE PLAN FOR TIBET” envisaged by the Dalai Lama and presented at the U.S. Congress on September 21, 1987. He wrote, “The Chinese authorities have attempted to confuse the issue by claiming
that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is untrue. Tibet was a fully Independent State when the People’s Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/1950”.
In the Strasbourg Proposal announced in the European Parliament on June 15, 1988, he said “Our history, dating back more than two thousand years, has been one of Independence. At no time, since the founding of our nation in 127 B.C., have we Tibetans conceded our sovereignty to a foreign power”.
During an interview with the Times of India reporter Sabina Sehgal on December 13, 1991, after the conclusion of the Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng’s visit to India, he was asked about the reference to Tibet in the joint communiqué signed between India and China where China had insisted the inclusion of Tibet as part of China. H.H. The Dalai Lama was asked, What do you feel about it? He answered: “TIBET IS NOT A PART OF CHINA”. So Kelsang should try to open his eyes rather than his foul mouth and attempt to diminish the stature of the Dalai Lama by his vituperative outbursts. He cannot cheat and mislead everybody like he does his fawning disciples.
On numerous ocassions H.H. The Dalai Lama said that the Chinese were trying to pressure him to recognise Tibet as part of China but he cannot do it because he said, he was a Bikshu and he cannot tell a lie and even if he did, it will only make a fool of himself. The historical aspect of Tibet having been and independent sovereign nation cannot be erased, he said. But Kelsang refuses to hear the Dalai Lama’s statement and then creates his own brand of tirade to blaspheme the holy person of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama’s steadfast adherence to the true historical fact of Tibet and his non-violent movement has won him laurels and good will of the international community for his tireless effort to solve the Tibet problem which has gained urgency owing to the massive influx of Chinese into Tibet which will finally seal the fate of Tibet by swamping the indigenous Tibetan population by Chinese settlers. As a consequence the United States Congress adopted a resolution on 23, May 1991, declaring the whole of Tibet and occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. So Kelsang’s canard that the Dalai Lama “has made no declaration of independence and having done nothing for the last eighteen years” is like the owl saying there is no sun even in daylight. We would further ask him to go through the Chinese monthly periodical so called “China’s Tibet”, Vol. No.1 Spring 1990 where they have discussed the Strasbourg Proposal in depth and Vol.6No.1 1995, where they have discussed in detail what the Dalai Lama is doing to achieve Tibetan Independence. To quote for the benefit of Kelsang, “In the
1960s and 1970s, the world had little knowledge of Tibetan separatists in exile in India. Since the 1980s, however, the world has gained an increasing understanding of their existence largely because of the Dalai Lama’s separatist efforts in the international community. In the 1980s and especially since the mid-1980s the Dalai Lama has redoubled his efforts in regard to Tibetan Independence. He has travelled extensively each year, with visits to dozens of countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas. He has met with Government leaders and offered numerous interviews with correspondents, all the while talking glibly about Tibetan Independence. Ironically, his separatist efforts won him a Nobel Peace Prize. He has emerged as a religious figure who has gained increasing influence internationally, and has impressed the world as a mature and experienced statesman and diplomat”. We sincerely hope that the cult leader and his fanatical supporters go through this and think twice before their vitriolic outpourings on the holy person of the Dalai Lama. We believe you would trust the Chinese version more than ours and because of this we took the liberty to quote from the Chinese communist periodical. It would be even better if you would care to go through the whole article and you will be surprised that even the Chinese communists have far greater respect for the Dalai Lama than cult leader Kelsang Gyatso and his cultists in Cumbria, England!!!
The cultists have used the Strasbourg Proposal which the Dalai Lama usually refers to as the “Middle Path” the whipping horse tofurther malign the Dalai Lama.
In the Strasbourg Proposal, the final verdict is left with the Tibetan people and the Dalai Lama envisaged it as a basis for talks with China and keep the issue of Tibet alive in the international arena. As a leader he has to take the initiative and manoeuvre and towards that end he has brought about the proposal but it has long been dead and what is the necessity of digging it up? The Tibetan people are gearing up for a referendum to either demand Independence, self-determination, the Middle Path or Satyagraha. Why not work to that end instead of slurring the fair name of the Dalai Lama? We know that as far as that is concerned he will care two hoots for it. He is like a sieve which collects only the dirt and allows all the wholesome ingredients pass through.
He also goes onto allege that it was the relief organisations which has sustained the exile community and that the Dalai Lama and his government has done nothing. Whose vision was it that created the Tibetan dispora and helped the presevation of our culture through these tumultuous years and the many schools that gave education to thousands of Tibetan children and whose fruits we are now benifitting with the whole work force of the Exile-Government being manned by our up coming new educated generation. If the Dalai Lama is not responsible for the prosperity and welbeing of the Tibetan exiles who is responsible, will he tell us? More than eight thousand new monk students who have joined their respective traditional monasteries in India are given and annual allowance of five hundred rupees and some seven thousand students from Tibet have joined different schools affiliated to the Department of Education of the Tibetan-Exile- Government to give
a sample for his perusal. On the other hand, what has this obscure man done for these past thirty or forty years of exile? When the Sera Monastery was transferred to south India from Buxa, he left the monastery for Mussoorie (a hill station in theIndian state of Uttar Pradesh) andstayed there as a chronic T.B. patient. When he was picked up by the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of
theMahayanaTradition,found bythe late LamaYeshe) togo toEngland, henot only
went there but he usurped the FPMT centre and made it his own NKT!!What does this demonstrate of the nature of this lean and hungry looking man in a religious garb?What does it smack of?Vulgarity or purity?On top of it he has used his stay
in Mussorie as a publicity stunt as having “meditated in the IndianHimalayas for
fifteen years”!!!
Though he has been in foreign land for some twenty years, what has he done to support the the Tibetan people? He is known to have some two hundred centers but
all these years he has been stashing away the millions of pounds extracted from his credulous desciples for his own insatiable greed. He has only recently renewed his contact with his house (SeraJhe, Tsangpa House) and asked young monk’s photoes to be send. But most of the monks from the Tsangpa Khangtsen already knew the sacrilege he was committing by banning the photos of the Dalai Lama and even the utterance of his name in the premises of his cult kingdom. It is an unheard piece of news which every Tibetan will condemn with the severest indiction. The motivation behind this act was, he was now planning to wean away innocent, unsuspecting, young minds towards his cultist school called the “New Kadampa Tradition” which imposes a ban on Tibet’s Spiritual and Temporal leader the Dalai Lama and thus undermine his authority even in the exile community. His single minded motivation now is to undermine the authority of the Dalai Lama and maroon the Tibetan people. This is unacceptable to the six million Tibetans and we will challenge him for this.
As for his allegation that the Dalai Lama is using Kalachakra as a means of congregating masses, it is nothing but jealousy. If he were able to do it like the Dalai Lama, will he hesitate to do it?
We advise him to accept the fact that he is an ordinary being and stand no chance whatsoever to challenge the Dalai Lama. He is not even a Geshe. The so called “third Buddha”is a figment of imagination conjured up by his fawning desciples as
a propaganda tool to attract more people to his centre and that it should not go to his head. It is said in the holy scriptures that:
No matter howsoever sharp a thorn may be
If poked against a rocky face, it will be blunted
If by jealousy, one disparages a holy being
It will only self-destruct and insult oneself
His venomous invectives against the Dalai Lama is unbecoming of a Buddhist and he should have atleast remembered the time when he escaped to India from Tibet. According to Dr. Dawa Norbu’s book, (Red Star Over Tibet) were it not for the dramatic escape of the Dalai Lama and his seeking sanctuary in India, the Tibetans may have faced great uncertainty in the aftermath of the rounding up of Tibetans in India at the beginning of 1959, before the Dalai Lama escaped into India. But ofcourse all those are forgotten as a bad dream by cult leader Kelsang as he is now basking in the glory of the“third Buddha”. In his apparent ecstasy, he even disowns being a Tibetan and works against the very people where he was born. He has also recognised the reincarnation of his own mother in the daughter of an English couple, Ruth Lister and Ron. The incongruency about the whole thing was she was made to hold a ritual bell and a vajra (scepter) in her tender hands ! Not many mothers do that, atleast among the Tibetans. But with Kalsang anything goes, after all he is the “third buddha” in the British Isles. What’s more, if any one disagrees with his “pure” cult, he gets the boot. When an ex-member was overheard telling a visitor that he admired the Dalai Lama; within 40 minutes he was thrown out of his centre. Another family who had close contact with the centre for 15 years was banned from the centre because they had other spiritual teachers. All other Tibetan Buddhist traditions are anathema to him. It would not be out of place to confer upon him the second title, the Mohammed of Gazni the second.
Another former member wrote to Kelsang with a number of concerns about the NKT, but in his reply, Kelsang rejected all criticism and threatened with legal action if any of the criticisms were ever published. He shot back a letter to the grieved follower saying, “you are going against my spiritual wishes and as you say………….rebelling against my system, such a thing has never happened in Buddhist history”. But when he himself rebels against the Dalai Lama that is altogether another matter according to this bigot. Complete subservience to the “third Buddha” was expected and dissent was met with severe indicment. Any activitiesby the members whoquestioned Kelsang’s integrity or the centre’s way of
conducting things was shown the door. But this despotic person and these very intolerant people around him are making a hue and cry about alleged “religious persecution” of the Dalai Lama. Who is calling the kettle black?
It is our sincere hope that he will cease to indulge in acts that goes against the interest of the Tibetan people. The future of six million Tibetans lies in the welbeing of His Holiness The Dalai Lama and it is our bounden duty to support and protect the person of His Holiness for our own interest for this life and hereafter. We expect Kelsang and his fellow travellers not to harm the Tibetan People’s struggle even if they cannot support it.
Gyalpo -
not having read any published Tibeto-Mongol pantheons (and having no plans to) i have no idea why Dorje Shugden’s not listed in them, and i don’t care. i trust my lineage Gurus and i trust my personal experience when it comes to the validity or otherwise of Deities and practices. as it goes, i, personally, have absolutely no interest in published Tibeto-Mongol pantheons. why should i? if i choose to rely on a deity not approved by you or some mad politician, or an entire gang of Lamas and Rinpoches who through choice or otherwise support him, that’s my right and my business, and i couldn’t care less what you lot think. i have no right to infringe on your freedom of conscience - you have no right toinfringe on mine. neither does the Dalai Lama, but that’s what he’s doing, and he’s bang out of order. why the hell should i take it lying down? i won’t.
for me and most normal folk (and the media) this is about religious freedom. everybody but you lot can and will understand clearly that the Dalai Lama’s actions are totalitarian and a breach of basic human rights. people don’t care about published Tibeto-Mongol pantheons, but they do care about human rights and abusive politicians
you can go argue about published Tibeto-Mongol pantheons with the scholars, and good luck to you.
Namkha -
yeah, we all read that a long time ago. you have a point?
all that letter proves is that in the late 90’s Sera had no spine and was completely under the control of the Dalai Lama and the CTA.
one can only hope that they’ve since developed a sense of shame.
Dougal: I guess you white folks prefer “dharma lite” since it’s not your culture and the whole thing is rather challenging. That does not give you the right to hurl insults. Try reading something other than the pablum dished out by non-Geshela or is calling people ‘plonker’ what passes as debate and scholarship in the neo-kadampa ‘tradition’.
G -
no, that’s just me. NKT folks would probably tell me off for not controlling my mind and restraining my speech. plonker’s fairly harmless, actually - it means something like “silly person”, rather than anything more offensive.
you’re from Czech Republic, no?
Dougal, it’s okay we’re friends. I did have to look that word up _ originally it meant a guy who lets his girlfriend sleep with his friends. Non-Slav, sorry.
It doesn’t matter how long we debate about the polemics of whether Dorje Shugden is a Buddha or a spirit. None of this alters the fact that the political ban on Dorje Shugden is very wrong.
Please check out this article by a non-Shugden, non-NKT Tibetan woman who is interested in the cause of Tibet — she seems to have hit the nail on the head.
http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/2008/10/evil-sp...
One extract: “The way Tibetans have been handling the Dholgyal/Shugden issue says quite a bit about the state of our democratic values. We Tibetans are okay with dissenters being forced into obedience. We see nothing wrong with this political style. We have no issues with the Dalai Lama exerting pressure on dissenters by using secular government organs and tolerating oaths and signature actions in his name. Some even believe it is their duty to expose Dholgyal/Shugden supporters and slander them.
Until recently I thought, the more we talk about this conflict, the worse it becomes. I have changed my mind. I know now that it is wrong to remain silent. All genuine Tibetan democrats must speak up in the political debate over Dholgyal/Shugden. When a few are forced to take on the view of many, we’re going down a dangerous path. It is our duty to speak up. Our young democracy will remain in bad shape if we let this happen without a reaction.”
Gyalpo -
i didn’t know that about plonkers. as i say, round our way it’s not a strong word.
came across a monk in the Czech Republic online the other day called Gyalpo and i thought of you, but i guess you’re not him, then.
it’s sad: i really feel like there are many potential Sangha friendships that are now much more difficult to develop with this current circumstantial condition of the ban. such a shame. thank you for being civil in the face of my earlier abuse - that’s impressive whatever our differences.
Shugden is a main cause célèbre for Chinese ‘Astroturfers’, see below:
http://tinyurl.com/48y6w6
SOURCE: Far Eastern Economic Review article by David Bandurski of Hong Kong University’s China Media Project.
They have been called the ‘Fifty Cent Party’ the ‘red vests’ and the ‘red vanguard’. But China’s growing armies of Web commentators - instigated, trained and financed by party organizations - have just one mission: to safeguard the interests of the Communist Party by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing Chinese Internet. They set out to neutralize undesirable public opinion by pushing pro-Party views through chat rooms and Web forums, reporting dangerous content to authorities.
By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as 280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious China’s leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More importantly, they offer tangible clues about China’s next generation of information controls - what President Hu Jintao last month called ‘a new pattern of public-opinion guidance.’
namkahahah -
an interesting, if somewhat bonkers claim. i checked the article you link to here, as well as the source article it’s taken from, and found no reference to either Shugden (nor even the Dalai Lama) whatsoever.
you have some evidence for this statement: “Shugden is a main cause célèbre for Chinese ‘Astroturfers’”, or are you just making sh*t up?
Okay Dougal. here are excerpts from Wen’s Fan diatribe of today:
“Religious apartheid is becoming a reality among the Tibetans in exile. Such events are unprecedented in Tibetan Buddhist history and are completely unacceptable in most countries of this modern world. This forced segregation has no part in the Buddhist way of life or in a democratic society. Falun Gong, I consider as a cultist group, but I have no problem with communicating with any of these individuals. So for the Tibetan exiles especially Dalai Lama who keep insisting the West ways and values are what they want and they value human rights and democracy, then, they would be contradicting themselves by ostracising these Dorje Shugden followers. We in the West have seen such attempts to demonize and marginalize religious groups in the past and have rightly condemned them and resoundingly rejected them. I’ve see those (YouTube) video clips posted above. They are all video taped this July and August. It’s about time that Amnesty International do another investigation of what’s going on in the Tibetan exile community in India nowadays.
After all, this laughable ’stick votes’ just happened this year……..
Also, if you have to keep insisting that I am from China making comments with some kind of propaganda, show me the proof.
If it’s merely suspicion, well, I can continue to surmise that you are CIA funded shills, most likely Tibetan exiles, here spewing hatred against China and Chinese.”
It is abundantly clear the ‘NKT/Shugden issue’ has been adopted very fiercely by Chinese ultra-nationalists to serve their own agenda.
Search ‘People’s Daily online’, http://www.people.cn, there’s reams and reams of Chinese Shugden nonsense, postings by “Thomas Canada”. I personally don’t like getting reamed but there it is.
i know Thom Canada - he’s kinda crazy, but he’s most definitely not Chinese - he’s all-American! also, he was once a good friend of the DL’s family. he gave 100 acres of his land to the DL to start a Dharma Center in order to preserve the Dharma and the Tibetan tradition, then later realised the DL’s true nature when he found out about his disgusting actions wrt the Shugden issue. since then he’s been posting online a lot, and while he can be kinda stream-of-consciousness :-), the points he makes are often perfectly valid. he sometimes posts as “Geronimo”.
mind you, i quite agree that the PRC will be loving this and likely trying to capitalise on it, and thank you for showing your evidence - i accept it. but whose fault is that? Shugden practitioners and supporters can’t be held responsible; we didn’t give the PRC this opportunity, the DL did. if he wants them to stop using this situation to their advantage, then he’d better lift the ban pronto.
Ya, right, NKT is not itself in politics or lawsuits because they would lose their charitable status in the UK. Either did Benedict Arnold. K. Gyatso is assured a special place in the Traitors’ Hall of Shame. China will erect a statue of him holding a human heart and a dagger.
When a group of some people attacks a government and their representatives, I think this has to put into perspective. Why are these few radical people given so much weight?
That’s why I suggest the statements of the The Tibetan Administration on Controversy Surrounding Dorjee Shugden Practice:
http://tibet.com/dholgyal/index.html
and neutral sources e.g.: Tibetan Religion and Politics by Samten G. Karmay, Director of Research emeritus, National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), Paris:
http://www.phayul.com/news/tools/print.aspx?id=22803&t=0
So, who do you have? Thom Canada, Nga Lama Kundeling, Gangchen and K. Gyatso…that’s the best the pure lineage you can manage?
i’d choose one Thomas Canada over a hundred of your political lamas and rinpoches.
he has a good heart and he tries sincerely to practise Dharma (and no, he’s not NKT).
them? not so much, apparently…
hey kt66 -
is that a website about religion, or politics?
Dougal: Pity Thomas Canada– he will not be able to buy enlightenment, no matter how much money he spends and even the CPC in Beijing cannot give it to him.
More importantly, you fail you understand that even after the Red Guards dynamited any building not already destroyed in Tibet, the loss of the monastic infrastructure did not affect ngagpas much, most of whom are non-celibate lay people. Neither did it affect the geomantic power of the land to spiritually nourish its inhabitants. Not all dharma is found in centres, on the contrary not much nowadays.
I omitted one star from the list Trijang, it’s end of the line I’m afraid with junior.
Tenzin Peljor, in what way are these “radical people” given much weight? All Shugden practitioners are doing is letting people know their side of the story after literally years of you slandering them, their tradition, their masters. You are not alone in this, but you are certainly the most vociferous and you keep repeating the same points without giving an inch despite pages of reasoned discussion with you.
Even you admitted somewhere the other day that it is not good for shopkeepers not to allow Shugden practitioners into their shops. Surely you have to admit that persecution on religious grounds is *never* good, even if you don’t like the beliefs or the people that are being discriminated against? This whole thing comes down to human rights. The polemics, honestly, are neither here nor there now that this religious conflict has spilled over into the political sphere and become ugly, exaggerated and unconstitutional.\
Check out http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2008/10/al-jazeera-news-documentary-video.html for a transcript of the recent Al Jazeera footage.
Tenzin: Those websites are hardly what one would call unbiased. Have you been to Byalakuppe? What about Kollegal? How many years did you live there and how many relatives do you have there? I can help you find it on a map. Turn left at Conishead Priory and keep going.
Generally few people consider Al jazeera to a reliable source of information, it’s like Fox News in the US…bollocks.
Namkhah -
you’re wrong. Al Jazeera - whilst a media company and therefore as ultimately unreliable as any samsaric institution - has a very good reputation amongst pundits and journalists for the integrity of its reporting. for example, during the last Gulf War it was one if the very few media providing relatively disinterested coverage; so much so that a few journalists left BBC etc. to go work for them.
it’s also very popular, so *lots* more people have now heard of the Dalai Lama & TGIE’s illegal persecution.
dougal: Keep spinning. Good luck with your will-o’-the-wisp bourgeois manufactured issue fought remotely from the UK. India: a country where hundreds of people are trampled to death in temples, brides set alight daily, bonded labour and child labour is still prevalent and Naxalites are fighting the government sometimes even with bows and arrows. You can kiss all that money for legal counsel goodbye, hopefully brings your spurious movement down for good.
Dear Tenzin, I do not support the exaggerated claims of WSS/NKT and some few radical Tibetan Shugden followers. The WSS is presenting only one side of the story, rejecting historical events they do not like, spin history and facts just for the sake to portray HHDL as the “21st Century Buddhist Dictator”.
I do not support the trial to point out HHDL as the sole cause of the problems as GKG tells his followers repeatedly while implying indirectly he would be Je Tsongkhapa or “more pure”. In my eyes and the eyes of other former NKT members, NKT/GKG just abuses this topic for the sake to cover up the own scandals within NKT. There is no good motivation behind these actions, they are just based on selfish delusion and hostility towards the Dalai Lama. NKT should help the own members to make their mind free and to live according to Buddhism. This would be a greater deed, I think.
Of course WSS or Kundeling were again successful to present their “facts” to Al Jazeera or France 24 TV. Serious press, like BBC they could not convince. A “Dalai Lama controversy” sells just well. There are not 4 million Tibetans practising it etc. etc. Another perspective what happened in Sera can be read here:
http://www.nktworld.org/A%20monk%20from%20Sera%20Monastery%20describes%20Shugden%20controversy.pdf
Also Swiss TV was a victim of their joy to be able to offer a “controversy about the Dalai Lama” and believed too much Shugden followers, instead of contacting serious researchers or specialists they over took the wrong claims from DSS or some Shugden followers.
Many radical Shugden followers never tell the other side of the story e.g. that this Swiss TV contribution has raised itself a controversy in Swiss and that there were five contributions and that they had to correct themselves. see: http://www.tibetfocus.com/shugden/index.html Google translation may be suited to translate it into English - or that they have beaten up other monks opposing them up to killing their detractors.
However, there is already a lot of research about it and there will be more in the future. The TGIE and the monastery have done WSS a favour by being unwilling to issue a statement or to invite reporters to investigate and to offer a fair report. By this they offered the propaganda machine of WSS to reach its heights. However, I think they didn’t do it because they have something to hide but because they think “it is a Tibetan issue” and “a monastery issue” and are maybe unable to over look what such gap of offering proper information for confusion can create.
This situation will change, I hope it changes into a good direction which is of benefit to all.
Hi dougal:
is this a website about religion or politics:
http://westernshugdensociety.org ?
Why Shugden lamas wished to replace the state oracle Nechung by Shugden if not for political reasons?
Hey Tenzin Peljor,
I thought you said on your website that you were going to stop engaging with these issues? I wish you would make your mind up - since you said that you have posted on Wikipedia and now on this thread?
Are you giving up or not?
You need to be a man of your word or not make such statements!
Katie66 -
http://westernshugdensociety.org? is about religion. only. 100%.
how can i say that? because the aims, intentions and motivation of the site is 100%, exclusively religious - to get the ban on a spiritual tradition lifted.
there is no other aim. the very moment this aim is accomplished, WSS will dissolve and disappear, as will its websites etc. - regardless of who holds the political power in Tibetan society.
so long as the political leaders give religious freedom to Shugden practitioners, we don’t care who it is - Tenzin Gyatso can have another 68 years in power for all i care, so long as he gives religious freedom.
if you’re incapable of understanding or believing this, there’s nothing more i can do to help you.
ps. re. Shugden lamas wanting to replace Nechung oracle with Shugden oracle: i have no idea, i wasn’t there. however, because they were Buddhists one might reasonably assume that they would have preferred their political leaders to receive advice from an enlightened being rather than a worldly being, no?
dougal: Questions I expect you will opt to evade: How may refugees did you help to physically bury in the Sixties? This is a nice parlour game for you neophyte self-proclaimed “practitioners” but you would have nothing without TGIE and the Tibetan community, who in your rush to demonize seem to have forgotten as real human beings.
Who is going to select the tulku of k. gyatso, the Communist Party of China or his perhaps his family? There’s money so there will be a candidate. He will die soon enough but you harpies better start planning how to divide the spoils now.
Namkhah -
i’m 36, so i have no idea whether i helped to bury (physically or otherwise) any refugees in the Sixties, having no idea where i was back then. also, what the hell are you talking about?
i haven’t forgotten anybody as a real human beings: i’m trying to protect some from persecution and others from their own delusions and negative karma. even the Dalai Lama. when i’m not being flippant and rude, i do actually hope that guy can see the error of his ways and purify his actions before he dies, i really do.
NKT-IKBU Internal Rules say something along the lines of because it’s so open to abuse for political and material ends, there’ll be no system of recognition of reincarnations in this tradition, and that General Spiritual Directors will be chosen from among their peers by their peers based on their merits, with none serving more than a four-year term.
anyway - that’s entirely off-topic. this is about the Dalai Lama’s illegal ban on Dore Shugden practice.
dear Namkhah,
Just to let you know that NKT does not rely on tulkus so there is no question of finding Geshe Kelsang’s reincarnation, it won’t be an issue.
Did Je Tsongkhapa’s followers rush around trying to find Je Tsongkhapa’s reincarnation? No, Gyaltsabje and Khedrubje just got on with continuing Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. So it will be with the NKT.
When did tulkus become important for the Gelugpa tradition anyway? It obviously wasn’t important for Je Tsongkhapa so why was it necessary for the Dalai Lama?
dougal: If you had been out of short pants that’s what was happening–I mean corpse, shovel, dig hole in earth, do you get it yet laddy? Working on road construction even learned people, vey hard life. These are the ones who fed your idle ‘geshela’ for many years with their hard labour and what does he do?, send white guys out to slag them off, its an absolutely despicable betrayal and stinks of the ambiguity you NKT people who dress up as monks and nuns and ring your little bells feel toward non-whites.
Buddhist Friend: Fickle organization it seems:Gen Thubten…toast, Gen Samten…toast, Lucy James, I guess not I imagine there are other yet to get the boot.
other than that, no comment
dougal: ” i do actually hope that guy can see the error of his ways and purify his actions before he dies, i really do.”
Are you actually serious? Do you have any idea how pompous that statement is? Do you learn anything at all about Kadampa teaching at ‘New Kadampa’? Apparently not. Maybe it’s a cultural attribute that values humility that’s missing, maybe it’s just everso thrilling to opine as if you are the authority, I’m not certain. I suggest you stop prostrating to your own ego and re-examine the basics before passing judgement based on what daddy tells you.
hey Gyalpo -
i see somebody creating a huge and terrible karma (like, say, knowingly causing the biggest schism ever seen amongst Buddha’s followers) - an action that will lead to the most horrendous consequences - and, yes, i hope he can purify it as quickly as possible.
i’m not much of a Kadampa, but i’m not inhuman and i do have some small modicum of compassion.
why - do you do differently?
Namkhah -
i still have no clue what you’re talking about.
you seem to know a lot about NKT, though. maybe save that for Survivors, eh? this here’s about the Dalai Lama’s crime.
so you don’t like NKT. fair enough, each to their own. but that in no way changes one iota the fact of the matter which is that the Dalai Lama is a liar who has split the Sangha and is destroying the spiritual lives of thousands (including you and i, apparently). just because you don’t like those calling him out and calling the world to witness, doesn’t make them wrong.
the pair of you (and Tashi, wherever he’s lurking) -
you think that criticising the Dalai Lama makes me and others by definition wrong and badly-motivated.
examine that thought. what reason do you have for that view, other than “but he’s the Dalai Lama!”?
you think that being the Dalai Lama makes him by definition right and purely-motivated.
examine that thought. what reason do you have for that view, other than “but he’s the Dalai Lama!”?
i call you out.
Years ago, a Sakya lama warned that to teach Western people was a bad idea, it would never be fruitful –I tend to think he was correct. It’s an experiment that not only didn’t work work out, it’s badly backfired. So I will continue to be more interested in buddhism in the perspective of 2500 plus years alive in actual buddhists not this recent perversion of a ‘promoted into a full buddha’ obscure dratsang mascot , which by the way don’t exist anyway.
You know in Germany there’s people who imitate the Sioux tribes of North America, live in teepees the whole bit, that’s fine but they’ll always be germans and they’re not attacking the people they emulate. You can pretend to be tantrikas or great logicians or whatever but its just the same as the German branch of the New Sioux. So leave us alone or pay the consequences, we have the numbers and depth to bury you. Monks are running away from Gangchen’s gompa for being forced to do Shugden, leave them alone, too. Stop aiding and abetting the Chinese.
Gyalpo -
you don’t seriously think only Asians can be Buddhists, do you? mind you, that’s what the Dalai Lama has been saying recently: people should stick to the religions of their native countries (like Bon for the Tibetans, i guess).
on what grounds?
are you seriously implying that westerners are by nature unqualified to speak out against a political leader’s policy of religious persecution?
do you think Lord Buddha would agree?
on the other hand:
“The Dalai Lama has donated tens of thousands of pounds to charity after unexpectedly making a huge profit from his recent visit to Nottingham.” BBC, 9th October 2008
i’ll try to answer your questions:
1 - that’s great, and i applaud it;
2 - NKT/WSS/other Shugden organisations also benefit others, but they do so solely through the promotion of religion, namely the Kadampa Buddhism of Atisha and Je Tsongkapa as passed down through Je Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and others - they do not usually make similar donations to secular organisations;
3 - in common with many Shugden practitioners, i have made and do make personal donations to secular charities from time to time;
4 - no, i don’t know the Dalai Lama or TGIE’s motivation for making these public donations at this critical time right before his appearance in court - my good siode wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, however;
5 - doing a bad thing doesn’t make one incapable of ever doing a good thing, and vice versa - making a donation to charity doesn’t make banning a spiritual tradition and splitting a community ok;
6 - no, i don’t really think it’s relevant here, but i wanted to post this just so i can refer back to it and not have to type all this out 84 times for each one of you.
i hope that covers it. any questions, please see above.
dougal: It seems you are the monkey in Yama Raja’s court who weighs the black pebbles versus the white pebbles with a scale. That’s a good job until your own personal account comes due, at which time they find another monkey.
Hi Tenzin Peljor (again!),
You said: “The WSS is presenting only one side of the story”
But you are presenting one side of the story too and until a few months ago this was the only side people were hearing. People can read both and make up their own minds. The only reason I blog about these subjects is to help people who are being persecuted and ostracized in India, who have no voice because the Dalai Lama is the one who is persecuting them, with the help of the repressive TGIE. I don’t know why you do all this blogging for I’m sure the Dalai Lama can stick up for himself, he is the one who has all the power.
“I do not support the trial to point out HHDL as the sole cause of the problems”
Why not? Why should the Dalai Lama be above the law? If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear from going to court.
“as GKG tells his followers repeatedly while implying indirectly he would be Je Tsongkhapa or “more pure”.”
GKG himself rarely talks about the subject. And I have never ever, in decades, heard him say he would be Je Tsongkhapa or more pure. This is just spin you keep repeating to try and turn people against him.
“In my eyes and the eyes of other former NKT members, NKT/GKG just abuses this topic for the sake to cover up the own scandals within NKT.”
Well, those are your eyes. I don’t see the world the same way as you do. Don’t you think it would be a rather preposterous way to go about drawing less attention to yourself though?!
“There is no good motivation behind these actions, they are just based on selfish delusion and hostility towards the Dalai Lama.”
And I suppose that statement about Geshe Kelsang, along with hundreds of others you have made, are not based on selfish delusion or hostility? Examine your own motivation. Let Geshe Kelsang examine his.
“NKT should help the own members to make their mind free and to live according to Buddhism.”
I agree, and that is exactly what the teachers and study programs are aimed toward — to help people find inner peace and mental freedom and live in accordance with the beautiful teachings of Buddha.
“Of course WSS or Kundeling were again successful to present their “facts” to Al Jazeera or France 24 TV.”
To remind you again, WSS and Kundeling are not in cahoots, they are acting separately. And the WSS had nothing to do with either documentary and were not interviewed.
“Serious press, like BBC they could not convince.”
Pretty racist, don’t you think. Al Jazeera is also serious press. 40 million viewers in the Arab world.
“Many radical Shugden followers never tell the other side of the story e.g. that this Swiss TV contribution has raised itself a controversy in Swiss ..”
The thing about the Swiss documentary that is powerful is the actual footage of people talking about what they had been through. It’s actually heart-breaking.
“This situation will change, I hope it changes into a good direction which is of benefit to all.”
Me too. It looks like more people are understanding now that there is a genuine problem. The best way to end that problem would simply be for the Dalai Lama to lift the ban, stop the persecution, and let everyone practice their religion in peace. Ideally, before he has destroyed his own reputation irreparably.
Tenzin: The ultimate ego trip for you, eh? You are such an asshole.
wow Gyalpo, what can we possibly say to such vajra-like reasoning?
clearly, the debate’s over - you win.
Get used to being defeated, its your destiny.
What’s fascinating to me is that a hallmark of the Kadampa tradition was it’s reliance on the “Buddha’s Word.” Heck, the name of this lineage reflects that focus. Historically, the a major impetus of the Sarma lineages was an effort to rely on the Indian sources of Sutra and Tantra, to “get back to the source, so to speak.” Tsong Khapa’s synthesis of various lineages of practice and theory, including the Kadampa lineages, was always predicated on the authenticity of the Indic roots from which these practices and theories arose. And yet, to my knowledge, no one on the WSS / NKT side has given references to any Indic sources for this “protector practice” they defend. However, it has surpassed the main Dharmapalas mentioned time and again by Tsongkhapa–Mahakala, etc., and become the focal point of NKT practice. The NKT websites contain images of various HYT deities and mandalas, and almost invariably Dolgyal’s image is there in the protector’s place, if not at the center. To my knowledge, there’s no iconographical history for such depictions–has anyone seen such iconography that dates even to the time of Pabongka, if not before?
I’d recommend that those of you who don’t read Tibetan, learn it. Then, you can research Pabongka’s history and the histories of DolGyal in the Sakya, etc.–
If one really investigates this dispassionately, there’s only one conclusion you can come to. But it’s pretty hard to withhold judgement, when faith is involved.
Cone Beckham: Apparently Dolgyal has been inserted into a revisionist version of the Lama Chopa tsog shing, circa 2008. Reminds me of the communists used to insert and remove political figures from photos depending on whim also.
Hi Cone
No relation of David, I take it?!
Re #156, you say no Shugdenpa has given an Indic source for the Shugden practice. Is it your view that no source has been given becauase there is no source to give i.e. Shugden does not appear in the tantras.
That Shugden doesn’t appear in the tantras presumably carries weight as a criticism only if Dharma Protectors generally do appear. Is it your understanding that this is so?
BTW, if one were to study Tibetan full-time, how long would it take to learn well enough to read the relevant texts. Of course, I suspect most folk - and I include myself in this - couldn’t study anything like full time. But I agree that it is difficult to fully engage in this debate without a knowledge of Tibetan.
SC
“it is difficult to fully engage in this debate without a knowledge of Tibetan”
that depends on whether this is a scholarly debate about the origins of Shugden practice and the perceived nature of Dorje Shugden (as the name of the original post might imply), or a debate about the *right* of individuals to pursue their own spiritual practice unmolested and without fear of persecution.
i leave the former to those of you who read, or are willing to learn, Tibetan.
reading Tibetan has *NO* relevance to the latter debate.
dougal: Who is molesting you, do you live in India? No, NKT, Scientologists, Charles Mansonites are free to do as they wish. That does not mean we have to support your view and can counter your abberations as much as we like.
Dougal
Think there are two distinct questions re Dorje Shugden (DS), which, roughly speaking, are these:
(1) What is the nature of DS: enlightened being or spirit?
(2) Given that the Dalai Lama (DL) believes that the nature of DS is that of a spirit, what actions is it legitimate for him to take?
I would simply observe that showing that (some of) the DL’s actions have not been legitimate does not prove DS is an enlightened being. (And conversely showing that the DL’s actions have been legitimate does not prove DS is a spirit.) Whilst this is perhaps obvious, I can’t help feeling that sometimes the issue of DS’s nature and that of the legitimacy of the DL’s actions get inappropriately conflated.
Brian -
whatever. see above. i’m tired of repeating myself.
SeekingClarity -
absolutely agree.
Dougal-
Question number one can only be answered by understanding Tibetan. Or, second best, by discussing the issue with a wide variety of Tibetan masters who have really researched the issue.
As for question number two, that is the crux of the issue…especially if you come to the only conclusion available after pursuing question number one. Dolgyal is a spirit, intent on sowing discord and “punishing” those who do not follow a certain curriculum. Given that HH The Dalai Lama is the Spiritual Head of all Tibetans, and has a responsibility towards all lineages, the only legitimate action for him to take is the one he has taken. It is quite simple, really–but thanks for asking the important questions, and allowing me to answer them!
Cone -
great. more of the same. please see above and elsewhere if you’ve any kind of openness of mind at all on this.
if not, thanks for playing.
“the Spiritual Head of all Tibetans…”
…
i’m speechless.
Dougal-
The Spiritual Head of all Tibetan Buddhists, except the Dolgyal supporters, to be more precise.
Get around some, you’ll soon see…..
Question: What is it about this practice that makes folks so “gung ho” to spend such energy supporting it? No one prior to Pabhonghka spent any time or energy, really, promulgating this practice….why can’t those who claim to be followers of Tsong Khapa go back to the root, read his texts, follow his instructions, and just leave behind the worship of Dolgyal? Why can’t those who claim to follow the Kadampa way discover which protectors the glorious Kadampa gurus practiced, and make efforts to develop ties to those?
Cone,
It’s like this: Dorje Shugden is Je Tsongkhapa appearing in the form of a Protector to protect the Ganden tradition. Both Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden are Manjushri so how can you have one and not the other? Rejecting Dorje Shugden is rejecting Tsongkhapa, so how can someone who rejects Dorje Shugden claim to be following Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, having rejected an aspect of the Founder? It’s like claiming to follow the Nyingma tradition while rejecting Padmasmabhava!
In this degenerate age, without Dorje Shugden’s protection and help, the Ganden tradition will not survive. The Dalai Lama is already introducing Dzogchen and other teachings that Je Tsongkhapa never gave and so is destroying Tsongkhapa’s tradition. The Dalai Lama is also destroying the special qualities of the other lineages as well through mixing.
It’s not true that no one prior to Pabongkha spent energy supporting the practice - it’s been a key practice of the Gelugpa tradition for four hundred years. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t even know the name ‘Dorje Shugden’ today. Where did Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche and Pabongkha get the idea to spread this practice widely? Because it was already around and had been supported for a long time. Dorje Shugden arose as a Dharma Protector at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama because the 5th was the first political Dalai Lama and he was mixing traditions, both disastrous for the spread of pure Dharma.
No one who sincerely wants to practise Tsongkhapa’s tradition these days can reject the practice of Dorje Shugden because they will be led into degeneration. It’s already happening.
I want to make another point as well. We need to maintain different traditions of Buddhism in accordance with the different karma of sentient beings. Buddha taught in accordance with the needs and inclinations of his various disciples and sometimes seemed to contradict himself as a result. However, there is no contradition if you understand lamrim and that it’s a manifestation of Buddha’s skilful means.
I am not saying that Gelugpa is better than Nyingma. The teachings that the Dalai Lama is introducing into the Gelugpa tradition existed at the time of Tsongkhapa, so why didn’t he transmit them? Because different students have different karma. It’s karmically appropriate for Nyingmapas to rely on Padmasambhava and the teachings of Nyingma lamas and it’s karmically appropriate for Gelugpas to rely on Tsongkhapa and the teachings of Gelugpa lamas, such as the practice of Dorje Shugden.
We shouldn’t criticise and reject one in favour of the other, but we don’t need to mix them either. Each tradition has its own perfect path to enlightenment and the choice and karma of sentient beings should be understood and respected. Nyingmas are not wrong and Gelugpas are not right. Dorje Shugden practitioners are not wrong and their critics are not right. It’s wrong to criticize and look down on other Mahayana traditions. There is no place for arrogance and superiority; let’s respect all Buddhist traditions as manifestations of Buddha’s skilful means.
It’s like this analogy: we don’t need to make coffee drinkers into tea drinkers just because we think it’s only right to drink tea. We simply respect their right to drink coffee as being karmically appropriate for them. Not wanting to drink tea is not an implicit criticism of tea drinkers either - drinking either tea or coffee is right because it’s what is karmically appropriate for each person. Understanding this and practising it is true non-sectarianism. Receiving teachings from many different traditions and mixing them together is not non-sectarianism but a path to disaster. We don’t need to mix tea and coffee together, they taste much better on their own.
Buddhist Friend: You have a simplistic view about ‘mixing’ which is essentially dualistic. I have never heard anyone including Ris.med lamas condone a mish-mash of practices. The only person who wanted Gelugpa hegemony was the previous Trijang Rinpoche, who advocated that since the tradition is endangered everyone should become Gelug. This is not certainly what the Dalai Lama has done in encouraging the Tibetan traditions as a whole.
Many western students tend to selectively ‘cherry pick’ as if eclectic teachings are consumer choices or fashion statements that is not the issue.
The Kadampa teachings went directly into the Kagyu tradition from Atisha himself. The first preceptor of Tsong Khapa, the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje merged the Kagyu Mahamudra and Nyingma Maha Ati streams into one, yet each retain their own distinct character. While quite a number of minor lineages and teachings did not and ultimately will not survive the diaspora following the Chinese invasion, other unimportant or troublesome practices can also be discarded now in the present environment to ensure the health and diversity of the whole. This would not be the first time: Before in Tibet, it was customary to offer livestock to lamas, not as a sacrifice but as economic currency. Eventually too many animals ended up in the custody of lamas and it was disruptive so the custom was banned.
In post 167 above, Buddhist Friend compared Dorje Shugden to Padmasambhava, the fully enlightened Buddha who pacified all the negative forces in Tibet and successfully established the Dharma there for the first time.
Give me a break. Name one positive thing that this entity has accomplished. If he hasn’t even protected your lineage from what you define as “degeneration”–then what exactly has he accomplished?
namkhah -
you’re missing the point: we’ve nothing against Rime per se - it’s just a different way of practising. we can live together happily so long as neither party tries to get rid of the other, claiming superiority. as i read it, Buddhist friend is simply stating *our* reasons for practising as we do, and showing clearly that this is in no way a sectarian approach.
advocating Rime over and above another tradition *would* be sectarian. i should add that i don’t really understand Rime and wouldn’t want to comment on it in itself. if you say that the “mixing” described by Buddhist Friend isn’t Rime, i’ll accept your word for it. as you’ve indicated, mixing everything up into a mish-mash is clearly undesirable from everyone’s pov.
now, whether or not the Dalai Lama’s way can validly be called Rime i leave for the Rime people to decide, but what is beyond dispute is that it is *he* who is being sectarian by claiming that the Gelugpa lineage of Shugden practitioners is inferior and should be abolished.
lastly - watch it. are you lot sure that you really want to start down the path of speaking negatively about HH Trijang Rinpoche, one of the most highly respected lamas of the last century and the root Guru of a very large percentage of the lamas responsible for the flourishing of the Dharma since the diaspora - a lineage Guru for many, if not a majority, of us?
this is a very sad development that’s now beginning owing to the Dalai Lama’s more and more forthright slandering of his own root Guru.
you said: “The only person who wanted Gelugpa hegemony was the previous Trijang Rinpoche, who advocated that since the tradition is endangered everyone should become Gelug.” really? please show your evidence, or retract that accusation. otherwise, be known for a liar.
dougal: I don’t think you in any way represent the late Trijang Rinpoche, who I don’t expect you knew personally and hence i am surprised when you people criticize his students but nevertheless here is your answer. There was an emergency meeting of senior lamas of all schools in Dharamsala I think, (I’ll need to check this because they had just relocated from Mussoorie and it may also have been at Simla ) in 1961. One can see a photo of the participants at the below link:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mrtn/lamas.htm
At that forum, according to accounts of a number of the participants, the junior tutor advanced a proposal that all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism be subsumed under a central Gelug administration, in other words Gelug hegemony. Naturally, HH Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche, HH the Sixteenth Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, HH Sakya Trinzin, Khyabje Kalu Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Nenang Pawo Tulu, Drukpa Tukse Rinpoche among others did not find this idea at all acceptable. That in brief is what happened.
Trijaing said at that meeting that the Gelugpa should be the outer face of Tibetan Buddhism to the world. The other schools could continue to do their practices privately.
They all sat in stunned silence until a brave Sayka Khenpo stood and stated that each of the others schools had a valuable doctrine, none had anything to be ashamed of. He reportedly said that if this caused confusion to anyone then he would be happy to explain the differences and commonalities to them. The meeting then disbanded.
Actually, we should be thankful to Trijang Rinpoche for putting it out there like that, as well as the Sakya khenpo. That meeting had the unintended consequence of ending the longstanding domination of the other schools by the Gelugs.
Namkhah, Sidney
Re #172, 173 - very interesting. Thanks for the info. I’m wondering if there’s anything academic or otherwise published on the meeting?
Namkhah,
You said:
other unimportant or troublesome practices can also be discarded now in the present environment to ensure the health and diversity of the whole.
Who has the wisdom to decide this, then? None of Buddha’s teachings are unimportant or troublesome.
Secondly, the meeting in 1961 that you mentioned was not Trijang Rinpoche’s proposal, it was the Dalai Lama’s wish to assume ultimate control over all four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism, a move that was opposed by the Thirteen Tibetan Settlements under the spiritual leadership of the 16th Kamarpa who stood up for the independence of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions. In March 1977, settlements leader Gungthang Tsultrim was shot several times at point-blank range. It is widely reported that the murderer said he received 300,000 rupees from the Tibetan government-in-exile.
Buddhist Friend: You are clearly out of your cultural idiom and depth. I don’t see you in the group picture (see link above) and you were not the photographer, either. Secondly, to counter a question with a non sequitor and speculative gossip is simply, absurd. What is your source: Asiaweek, or People’s Daily? You are echoing what the Chinese are saying and its unfounded rubbish. In no way was the 16th Karmapa, who eschewed politics, affiliated in any way with the 13 Groups organization as you claim, being occupied in Sikkim with more important matters. Thirdly, Dolgyal is a recent and minor practice and certainly not mentioned in either the Kangyur or Tangyur. It neither originated in India nor is it even remotely part of Lord Buddha’s corpus of teaching. Therefore to discard it is not a big deal.
namkhah -
so far, your “proof” above s no more valid than Buddhist Friend’s “speculative gossip: what’s your source, that makes what you say any more valid? were you there? did you take the photograph?
i also heard - more sopeculative gossip, that Trijang Rinpoche, faced with the Dalai Lama’s discontented and stubborn determination to go to receive certain teachings from outside his own lineage offered to receive those teachings first himself and then pass them on to the Dalai Lama, thereby protecting the DL from the karma of sisregarding his Guru’s advice. the *Ganden Throne Holder* offered to prostrate himself at the feet of another Lama, from another tradition, in order to try to protect his student from the effects of that student’s uncontrolled and deluded mind. the DL, in his arrogance, ignored this and went to get the teachings himself.
now, that’s just hearsay too and i have no verifiable source, but if true it demonstrates that Trijang Rinpoche was a true Kadampa. perhaps, if your account of this meeting is accurate, he was doing the same here - protecting the Dalai Lama’s reputation and good standing.
course, you can set me straight, can’t you, being such an authority, with you having been present at all these events and all.
is any of this relevant and does it prove or disprove your accusation? i don’t know. so far - all we’ve come up with between us is, to quote the DL, “rumours”. burden’s on you to provide proof, though, as accuser.
Namkhah,
The source of part of the story is the Karma Kagyu tradition itself:
In 1961 the Tibetan government in exile proposed to merge the four Tibetan schools into one religious body headed by Your Holiness. This policy inflicted serious spiritual suffering on much of the Tibetan exile community. Rallying behind Karmapa’s authority, thirteen Tibetan settlements challenged the Exile Government’s plan and as a consequence the whole scheme was abandoned. Later in the seventies Karmapa came under blame because he had chosen to defend the autonomy of the three other lineages.
from http://www.ikkbo.org/open-letter.php
So what you say about the 16th Karmapa is incorrect. In any case, the Karmapa would not be acting politically but to protect his tradition against the Dalai Lama, much as the Western Shugden Society is doing right now.
The murder of Gunthang Tsultrim and the claim that his assassin was paid by the TGIE is well known in Tibetan society. Indeed, I first saw this claim in a letter addressed to the Dalai Lama called “The Mongoose Canine letter” that was given to an American woman visiting Nepal by a Tibetan in 1995 However, you are right - I personally have as much evidence to make this claim about the TGIE as the TGIE has to claim that Lobsang Gyatso was killed by Shugdenpas, in other words, none so I shall desist.
The practice of relying upon Guru Rinpoche and is not mentioned in the Kangyur or the Tengyur either, so not being part of the corpus of Buddha’s teachings shall we get rid of this ‘minor practice’ as well?
Shall we do the same with Dzogchen for the same reasons?
Oh do spare us the comparisons and faulty conclusions particularly if you are going to cite Shamar’s website. I personally attended (as a photographer) a private meeting of the Dalai Lama and the 16th Karmapa in 1980. They were good friends. The 17th Karmapa is living Gyuto, they couldn’t be less on the same page.
Another thing you can do is stop spreading malicious nonsense. I would like you to honestly state your affiliation here, your political muckraking puts your motivation for doing so into question.
Every society has people who establish and follow paranoid fringe groups. Tibetan society is no exception to this. Here you are quoting one splinter group’s conspiracy theory to establish the validity of another.
I would suggest that people get out more and talk to mainstream Tibetan secular people and lamas, especially older ones.
so you have no proof for your allegation about Trijang Rinpoche, then?
are you Bob Thurman, namkhah?
‘cos you seem to be about as unbiased and clear-thinking.
why is it so utterly impossible for you people to accept that the Dalai Lama might be acting wrongly?
why does everybody stop thinking when the DL speaks? you’re supposed to be Buddhists.
Remember the estimate of 200,000 plus professional 50-centers (Chinese Communist trolls)? How can we know if ‘Buddhist Friend’ is not one of those, he’s towing the same line and fomenting trouble, making him neither Buddhist nor Friend, really. I don’t actually expect an honest answer from a little weasel miscreant in the shadows like him. If he is not Chinese, he may as well be as the personal vendetta of cashiered former geshela and his cultists is a complete betrayal of the Tibetan people and is totally a mainstay in the CPC ideological arsenal.
dougal: I have only the word of some of the (late) lamas I mentioned who took part in the summit meeting. They had no reason to deceive and oral tradition is totally valid. If anyone cares to ask any of the surviving people there it would be interesting, but apart from HH the Dalai Lama and HH Sakya Trinzen, anyone I can recognise from the photo have long since passed away. I don’t know of any academic study of this conference.
BTW Many people have been Ganden Tripa. The Dalai Lama’s main spiritual rather than ceremonial guru I would contend was Kunnu Rinpoche Tenzin Gyaltsen, for sure.
Last point: one doesn’t go around saying “this one is a samaya breaker”, liar or hypocrite because you’ve just done it yourself by saying that!
“one doesn’t go around saying “this one is a samaya breaker”, liar or hypocrite because you’ve just done it yourself by saying that!”
??? please explain how i’ve done this and the Dalai Lama hasn’t.
he referred to Trijang Rinpoche as one of his Root Gurus - did he not break samaya with him by abandoning his advice, knowingly and willingly breaking his commitment? what’s more he then subsequently told the world on television that Trijang Rinpoche was “wrong, yes, wrong.” he continually talks about religious freedom and dialogue, but he’s persecuting and ostracising a large section of his people on religious grounds. he has refused to enter any dialogue whatsoever with Shugden practitioners.
it’s on this basis that i call him out: am i wrong? at least, this is how it appears to me, so i’m not lying. i’ve not done such things myself, so i’m not a hypocrite. and for all my many and various faults, i’ve never intentionally broken my commitments to my teachers.
the Dalai Lama’s actions are his own - we’re simply pointing them out, as a last resort in our attempt to win freedom and parity for Dorje Shugden practitioners. i’m sorry that it upsets you - genuinely. but the DL has created this situation, not us.
Namkhah,
I’m not going to insult you as you did me because because I don’t know who you are. I am a monk and supporter of the Western Shugden Society. I have no interest in Tibetan-Sino politics so please spare me these familiar and rather wearisome accusations. I’m not Chinese but in your world it seems to be a crime to be. You may perceive what I write to be political but I assure you that I have no political motivation. All I want is complete freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners worldwide. When the Dalai Lama rescinds his ban on the practice and stops badmouthing practitioners of his own Guru’s tradition, all this internet discussion can end - and that will be a glorious day. Alternatively, if the Dalai Lama doesn’t stop, I think things can only get worse for him, sadly.
It’s my strong wish and prayer that this disagreement will end amicably, with Buddha’s teaching being the winner.
I think you are in denial. When anyone criticises the Dalai Lama or his actions you file under ‘chinese stooge’ so you don’t have to think about what he’s doing and really ask yourself “is it right? Is it Buddhist?” It’s about time you stopped the denial and thought for yourself.
Can you really endorse spiritual apartheid? Can you really have faith in a Dalai Lama whose actions are completely the opposite to his public speeches in the West and whose actions are contradictory to Lord Buddha’s teachings? Like Dougal, I find it hard to understand how when the Dalai Lama speaks, people stop thinking. How can the ‘Buddha of Compassion’ harm others?
This is the complete opposite of what Buddha taught.
I am a Tibetan living in the west, that will tell you something. The kind of speech you have been broadcasting is extremely rude in our estimation of respectful and polite manners, that is engrained in our cultural upbringing. So now you take the moral high ground after basically defecating in the kitchen. Sorry, you are in an indefensible position–there really is no appropriate response until your arrogant attitude improves. I really don’t see who appointed you the arbiter of Lord Buddha’s teaching or judge, jury and hangman combined of his disciples. Who asked you to be an imitation Tibetan monk? Inconceivable! Stop claiming all these great lamas like the late Yongdzin Ling Rinpoche is ‘on our side’ because it’s nonsensical. He was a true Kadampa. However not all of our countrymen are as advanced as he was. Therefore you NKT/WSS people ought to be careful––New Yorkers are restrained compared to the reception you may get if you persist in staging media stunts in future, if you get thrashed, you may regret not heeding this tip.
If you truly have no interest in Sino-Tibetan politics, we can look forward to some peace and quiet for a change.
Buddhist Friend says: “It’s like this: Dorje Shugden is Je Tsongkhapa appearing in the form of a Protector to protect the Ganden tradition. Both Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden are Manjushri so how can you have one and not the other? Rejecting Dorje Shugden is rejecting Tsongkhapa, so how can someone who rejects Dorje Shugden claim to be following Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, having rejected an aspect of the Founder? It’s like claiming to follow the Nyingma tradition while rejecting Padmasmabhava!”
First, there are plenty of Gandenpas, Gelukpas, who do not equate Dolgyal with Tsong Khapa. In fact, Dolgyal was a minor oathbound protector, really, until the last 100 years or so. Your example would be like Padmasambhava being an aspect of some local mountain spirit, really. Your comparison does not hold. Guru Rinpoche is said to have tamed the demons of Tibet, subjugating many of them to the Dharma. Dolgyal, by comparison, was a minor oathbound one, who has been somehow promoted to equal status with Tsong Khapa, and Manjusri. Your example is exactly backwards. Yes, you can say Dolgyal is Tsongkhapa, who is Manjusri, this is the teaching of NKT and Dolgyal supporters. But it is not supported by the historical records.
If you read Tsongkhapa’s writings, he clearly explains the appropriate protector practices for his lineage. The pre-eminence of Dolgyal is a much later fabrication by clearly sectarian lamas.
Buddhist Friend writes: “In this degenerate age, without Dorje Shugden’s protection and help, the Ganden tradition will not survive. The Dalai Lama is already introducing Dzogchen and other teachings that Je Tsongkhapa never gave and so is destroying Tsongkhapa’s tradition. The Dalai Lama is also destroying the special qualities of the other lineages as well through mixing. ”
Buddhist Friend-
Although the Dalai Lama teaches Dzokchen (and also Kagyu and Sakya traditions) he does not mix them. If you read his books or listen to his teaching, you will find that he is clear about the seperate and distinct systems of practice. As for Tsong Khapa himself, he was, and is, the most famous syncretic Lama in Tibetan history. The Geluk/Ganden tradition, as you must know, found it’s impetus in the Kadampa lineages and practice-yet Tsong Khapa studied and practiced Marpa Kagyu methods, Shangpa Kagyu methods, and Sakya presentations as well. In fact, his commentaries restructured many of these practices, from other lineages, through the unique lens of his own interpretation. Thus, we have the “Kagyu/Geluk Tradition of Mahamudra,” and the Geluk Tradition of the “Six Yogas of Naropa,” and the Geluk practice of Mahakala Chakdrupa, and so forth. Honestly, if anyone in Tibetan history could be said to have “mixed traditions” without maintaining seperate and distinct streams, it would be he. The Dalai Lama himself, in my opinion, is much more careful to elucidate the seperation of such practice lineages.
Buddhist Friend continues: “It’s not true that no one prior to Pabongkha spent energy supporting the practice - it’s been a key practice of the Gelugpa tradition for four hundred years. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t even know the name ‘Dorje Shugden’ today. Where did Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche and Pabongkha get the idea to spread this practice widely? Because it was already around and had been supported for a long time. Dorje Shugden arose as a Dharma Protector at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama because the 5th was the first political Dalai Lama and he was mixing traditions, both disastrous for the spread of pure Dharma.”
Well…..the very name “Dalai Lama” comes from Mongolian, not Tibetan, really. So it would seem to me that there is politics involved throughout the history of the Dalai Lama. Dharma and Politics were pretty much always intertwined, historically, in Tibet–in fact, I see the present Dalai Lama as attempting to create some seperation between the two at this time. Again, I don’t think the Great Fifth was “mixing traditions.” Yes, he was a Nyingma Terton, as well as a Geluk practitioner…but prior Dalai Lamas wrote about and studied systems ane methods of practice from lineages outside the tradition of Tsong Khapa as well…the Second, for example, is well-known for some commentaries on the Shangpa Kagyu system, as well as some Nyingma methods too. I’d be interested to read some primary sources regarding the “arising” of Dolgyal during the time of the Great Fifth, in Tibetan, if you can provide those sources. Would you, please?
Buddhist Friend concludes: “No one who sincerely wants to practise Tsongkhapa’s tradition these days can reject the practice of Dorje Shugden because they will be led into degeneration. It’s already happening.”
Well, so says the NKT and the minority. The vast majority of Gelukpas would say otherwise. Tsong Khapa himself would say otherwise, I think. The Degeneration you speak of, in my view, occurred when Dolgyal became the primary, defining practice of the so-called “New Kadampa” lineage.
I do find it ironic that the most syncretic practice lineage in Tibetan history, that of Glorious Je Tsong Khapa, is felt by some to be in such danger of degeneration that they must change the name of their lineage to “New Kadampa” and focus the majority of their efforts on a practice which was not mentioned by Tsong Khapa, or the original Kadampas, for that matter, and that this so-called “protector” is primarily concerned with “non-mixing” of “other teachings” with a stream of blessings and methods which see their sources in pre-existing lineages of Dharma transmission stretching back to those intrepid Lotsawas who made the perilous journey to India and back.
Those whose eyes and ears are open, who are not forbidden from studying the vast and wide range of Tibetan Dharma, will soon see what “Rimay” means…..it is clear that each lineage has a unique and valuable presentation of methods and theory, and it is also clear that one must practice and maintain one’s connection to lineage in a clean and clear way. The “Rimay” movement is clear that “mixing” is not valid Dharma practice. One can say that the understanding of “Rimay” is to appreciate the myriad lineages, and practices, each being seperate, while practicing those one has a karmic connection with, without denigrating the others. Unfortunately, there are some who do not see this, who are not allowed, or are at least discouraged, from seeing this. That much is clear from reading this thread.
namkhah, Cone, etc. -
im experiencing a rare moment of civility, so while it lasts:
you’re never going to agree with us wrt Dorje Shugden. you’ve clearly done a lot of reading and your practice is based on a wide knowledge. that’s great and i wish you well with it - i say that without sarcasm.
i’m a different animal - i’m not much of a scholar and i’m not much interested in Tibetan history. my practice is based on simply trying to get out of samsara and become a Buddha. i’ll take the most effective path i can find, and once i’ve found one, happily stick to it exclusively, seeing no need to read outside my chosen path.
now, you may feel that i’m naive, and that my chosen path is invalid, or whatever. i may have my own views on historians and scholars. we’re perfectly within our rights to disagree with each other and hold whatever views we wish.
BUT i don’t have the right to denigrate you or persecutre you for your beliefs, and you don’t have the right to denigrate or persecute me for mine.
politicians do not have the right to dictate to either of us what we can or cannot believe, either through explicit laws or through using their influence to apply societal pressure.
this is basic human right to freedom of conscience.
now, it seems to me that you believe that *because in your view our path is invalid* the Dalai Lama somehow has the *right* to ban it.
further, you seem to believe that we *do not* have the right to defend ourselves, and that calling the Dalai Lama’s motivation and judgement into question is somehow an inherently wrong or evil action.
you’ll never agree with our view on Dorje Shugden, it seems, and you feel that we’re entirely misguided in our belief. fine. i don’t care, really, what you think. perhaps, in less politically-charged times (when there’s no ban!) it might make an interesting topic for debate. but how dare you - how dare Tenzin Gyatso - persecute any other living being for their religious belief.
where is YOUR compassion? whatever you believe about the rights and wrongs of Dorje Shugden practice, how can you possibly be so blind as to continue to endorse the Dalai Lama’s evil actions of persecution and sectarianism?
look into your hearts. you know his behaviour is wrong. as a Buddhist, you should speak out against it too.
something i read today, reminding me of the newsgroup debates ten years ago, that inspired my post above:
“I found an article on the internet today, Through the Eye of Dorje Shugden Buddhists in which the author has compiled a number of resources on the Dorje Shugden controversy.
I was struck by one contribution in particular from James Burns, a great unsung hero of the 1998 internet debate on the newsgroup alt.religion.buddhism.tibet:
Burns explained his feelings in a post on Sept. 15, 1998:
“In the UK how would you feel if you were not allowed to travel abroad because you are a Buddhist?
How would you feel if you were not allowed to hold a legal, government or medical post because of your religion?
How would you feel if your children and relatives were banned from attending state schools?
How would you feel if someone was sick in your family but you were frightened to ask for medical help because people would find out what your religion was?
How would you feel if people boycotted your business or profession just because you held certain beliefs?
How would you feel if your relatives and friends were encouraged to spy on you and report what you did just because of what you believed?
How would you feel if people came into your house uninvited and removed those things that you held most sacred?
How would you feel if you lost your pension and state benefits just because you were a Buddhist?
How would you feel if, on the same basis, your UK citizenship was removed?”
Burns concludes his post with a question for the person who he was replying to:
” Is this shocking enough for you Mike? ”
It is shocking. What is so, so sad is that nothing has changed in ten years. This was the experience of Dorje Shugden practitioners in India in 1998 and it still is.
How can anyone who has compassion read this, realize that this is what Dorje Shugden practitioners are going through in India and not be moved to stop it?
Is the Dalai Lama made of stone?
How can he be the Buddha of Compassion, much less a Buddhist leader when he is directly responsible for this terrible suffering?
In another post, James writes:
“The people on this newsgroup who continue to support the Dalai Lama’s efforts in persecuting a section of his own people are a disgrace to Buddhism and to humanity. Such people are not Buddhists. If they were then they would do what they could for those in distress. The sectarian and fundamentalist attitudes that these people complain of can most clearly be seen in their own ranks. The right of all people to enjoy freedom of spiritual belief and practice must be universally proclaimed. Where such freedoms are not to be found it must be condemned with the utmost energy. Tyranny in any disguise must be recognised for what it is and firmly opposed.”
Dalai Lama, please give religious freedom.
”
original blog entry: http://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/at-least-ten-years-of-persecution/
To tell you the truth, many people, like Amdos for example, practice Shugden in the hope they will get wealthy. NKT even printed a poster of Shugden depicting a money tree. I’m sorry it didn’t work out for everyone but then their motivation was not exactly unselfish either.
Dougal
Re #189.
In #161 I suggested that there were essentially two questions with regard to DS
(1) What is the nature of DS: enlightened being or spirit?
(2) Given that the DL believes that the nature of DS is that of a spirit, what actions is it legitimate for him to take?
My main interest has to date been in (1) because, as a former DS practioner, I felt I needed to clarify whether it was appropriate for me to continue to remain so.
From your post #189, it’s clear that your main interest - quite legitimately - is (2). I’m not particularly qualified to discuss (2) but, for the following reasons, it does seem to me that, in principle, the DL /TGIE was justified in banning the DS practice in Gelug monasteries in India. The way I think of it is like this.
Imagine a C of E vicar announcing to the C of E that she was disillusioned with Christianity so she was going to convert the church where she was vicar into a Buddhist centre. Furthermore, she claimed that if the C of E prevented her from doing so, it was infringing her freedom of conscience to practice the religion of her choice.
The C of E replied that it respected her freedom of conscience and she was free to go and practise in an existing Buddhist Centre or, indeed, topurchase a property and turn it into a Buddhist Centre. But it owned the church and it had the right to decide what religion was practised on its property.
This seems to me to be an entirely reasonable response to the vicar’s spurious claim about freedom of conscience. Of course, there is freedom on conscience but there are also property rights.
So, if the TGIE is the entity that ultimately owns or controls the Gelug monasteries in India, surely - in principle, at least - it has the right to determine what is and isn’t practised in those monasteries, including banning the DS practice.
Now, I accept that there is a whole host of stuff going on in the wider Tibetan community outside the monasteries and your #190 makes reference to thid. But this post is simply about what rights the TGIE has or doesn’t have in relation to the Gelug monasteries.
Dear Cone,
Thank you for your long and considered response.
If my view of mixing traditions is simplistic, I would like to improve my understanding. I rejoice that the purpose of Rime is to emphasise the commonality between different traditions without mixing but I have some questions for you:
1. How can you receive many teachings and empowerments from different traditions and not be mixing? I don’t see how it’s possible not to mix.
2. How, by receiving teachings from many different traditions, does this fit into an overall path to enlightenment? Whose path are you following?
3. Where is that path and how do you follow it? Who says definitively what it is?
4. Presumably by receiving teachings of different traditions you will be receiving teachings that are based on different views of emptiness, for example, if you receive Sakya teachings you will be following the view of Gorampa and if you receive Gelugpa teachings you will be following the view of Tsongkhapa. How do you reconcile these completely contradictory views and how to do you decide whose view to follow?
5. If each tradition of Buddhism has its own path to enlightenment, why receive teachings from many different traditions? Surely one path to enlightenment is enough and is less confusing that trying to integrate many different teachings? (for no real reason)
Thank you!
Dougal-
It is not clear to me that Dolgyal practitioners are being repressed, though I have not done research on this issue. And I will, because I feel it’s important to educate myself as best I can about such things. But I have heard the Dalai Lama, in his own words, indicate that people are free to practice as they please, but those who practice this particular practice are requested not to take teachings from him. I also know of the petitions and movements to ban such practices from several of the main monastic institutions of the Gelukpa in India, and I know of HH’s request to the FPMT people to cease practicing and propitiating Dolgyal. I don’t feel these are “repressive” actions. You may disagree. My knowledge is limited, but I seek to increase it.
But what you, and others, fail to understand is that this practice, itself, was and is a result of sectarian conservatism and efforts to intstall a homogenous “face” of Tibetan Buddhist (i.e., State-sanctioned Gelukpa) authoritarianism. It was, and is, at bottom, borne of a sectarian, especially Anti-Nyingma, impetus. It would seem to me that HH the Dalai Lama would certainly want to discourage Tibetans from such clear sectarian practices, especially when those practices reflect a vioelent temperment. I grant you that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and NKT’s position is that the function and essence of Dolgyal is not at all as described, but it does seem that the literature and history surrounding Dolgyal is strongly indicative of such character. Pabongka even wrote that Dolgyal’s multiple manifestations appeared to the Great Fifth (DL) due to the DL’s practice of all schools, with the intent of protecting and defending Tsong Khapa’s tradition. Why Tsong Khapa’s tradition, which is syncretic in essence, would need such protection aside from the protection of the Protectors of the Three Scopes, is beyond me, as these three protectors have vowed to protect the True Dharma since the beginning. What more protection could be needed?
Anyway, I see you will not consider any view of this other than the one you have already received, and so I will look into the so-called “ban” itself, and the allegations of “repression.” In the meantime, consider what I’ve said regarding the sectarian impetus, and whether that can be said to be a pure motivation absent any discrimination.
Dear Cone,
Oh, and another thing - I think you’ve got a wrong idea about the NKT. Our principal practice is not Dorje Shugden. We have three practices:
Lamrim, lojong, Vajrayana mahamudra.
Our principal practice is going for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and in this context, trying to practise these three Dharmas. Our practice is supported by reliance on the Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa to receive the blessings and inspiration of Je Tsongkhapa, since he is the source of the teachings we receive, and the prayers to the Wisdom Dharma protector Dorje Shugden to protect the Dharma realizations in our mind and to create good conditions for our Dharma practice.
This is in complete harmony with the meaning of Dharma as transmitted by Buddha Shakyamuni through Atisha, the Kadampa Geshes, Je Tsongkhapa and our lineage Gurus.
Cone -
thank you for that response. i’ll consider what you’ve said but, honestly, what was done - or, more accurately, what modern Tibetan historians with their own interests, biases and influences, say was done - in the past doesn’t interest me much. i have my own reasons, based on my own limited experience (which in turn derives from my own careful contemplation and subsequent attempts at faithful practice of my lineage Gurus’ instructions) for having faith in Dorje Shugden as a valid Protector and the Ganden Oral Tradition as a valid path to enlightenment. this is enough for me. if others disagree, based on your histories, or whatever, i’ve no problem with that at all. i believe we should be free to disagree, and able to respect one another’s choices. this, i believe, is the true meaning of non-sectarianism.
please, please do check about the persecution. i have seen it with my own eyes and i have spoken personally to many Tibetan monks and laypeople who have experienced it directly.
my sincere hope, just as Buddhist Friend, is that together we can prevent this injustice. in the end, i want truth to prevail, and if i am wrong, then i’ll be pleased to be corrected. but we’re not wrong - this persecution and defamation is happening right now, and the evidence is there for anyone who has the courage to open their eyes.
it’s not just “advice”, it’s not just a Spiritual Guide trying to dissuade his disciples from entering a wrong path. it’s spiritual apartheid that’s spilling over into every secular aspect of Tibetan society, and even western society.
how awful, for example, that Lama Yeshe’s elder students now are not welcome in Lama Yeshe’s own Dharma Centers. even he, were he alive, would not now be welcome! read this, from an old FPMT monk: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/lamazopa.htm
we’re not about politics. we don’t care if the DL remains in power for another 68 years. we’re not anti-Dalai Lama: if he were to work solely for the spread of Dharma and the benefit of the Tibetan people then i’d be the first to appreciate and support him. we care ONLY to have this horrible ban lifted, and for the defamation of our lineage and its modern day practitioners to cease.
the very moment we achieve this, all of this activity will cease and we can get back to our study, practice and work, in harmony and with mutual respect, as it should be. how wonderful!
Buddhist Friend
Re #193. You write
–”If each tradition of Buddhism has its own path to enlightenment, why receive teachings from many different traditions?”—
Now I entirely accept that GKG has stated that all schools have a complete path to enlightenment. But this was certainly not Phabongkha’s view. In his letter to the novice Nyu’u Tshalmo Trang he writes
—“Apart from the doctrine of Manjughosha Tsongkhapa alone, these days the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous. They are not even Svatantra or Cittamatra, let alone the view of Prasanga Madhyamaka– meditating only the nihilist view like tirthikas and Hashang. If one upholds the nihilist view, the result is nothing other than going to Avichi hell. Since they can’t recognize subtle lethargy, even their meditation is defective. Apart from the thunderous noise of their pretentious boasting about profound secret mantra, they don’t even know the direction of bliss and emptiness, luminosity, union and so on. Since for them liberation and path of omniscience does not exist, realization will not arise even if they practice for a thousand years, as pointless as wishing for butter by churning water.”—
I’m wondering how you resolve this disparity between GKG and Phabongkha? Sorry if this reads like a facetious question, but I am genuinely interested to know how you deal with seemingly profound disagreements between lineage holders.
Dear SeekingClarity,
You said:
So, if the TGIE is the entity that ultimately owns or controls the Gelug monasteries in India, surely - in principle, at least - it has the right to determine what is and isn’t practised in those monasteries, including banning the DS practice.
How (or why) should a secular government ‘own’ or control a monastery? Don’t you think that’s dodgy and the poisonous mixing of Dharma with politics? This is precisely the problem.
Futhermore, your analogy about the C of E Vicar deciding to change to Buddhism is incorrect because it was traditional for the Gelug tradition to rely on Dorje Shugden before the Dalai Lama banned the practice. You imply with your analogy that Shugden practice is something outside Buddhism that someone who has never practised it before has suddenly decided to change to but that’s wrong. It’s the Dalai Lama who has broken with tradition.
Therefore, the analogy is more like this: The Prime Minister, who sometimes doubles as the Archbishop of Canterbury when it suits him, decides that some essential practice of C of E is harmful and should be banned. He goes to all the churches and says “you must give up this practice which is harming my health or you will be thrown out of our churches”.
The poor Vicar says “But Prime Minster/Archbishop/whoever you are, we’re only following tradition, the tradition you yourself were given. I want to carry on doing this practice, why can’t I You’re a politician and you don’t have to power to interfere with my religious freedom”
The Prime Minister/Archbishop/Self assumed spiritual authority then says “OUT WITH YOU!!! I have decided that it’s wrong and you must do as I say, or leave. I don’t care that it’s traditional, all my predecessors were wrong”
The Prime Minister/Archbishop/Politico-spiritual leader then enforces a ban on the essential practice of the Church of England. He makes everyone believe that it was a sectarian practice, demonizes the practice and its followers and passes a law to make it illegal to do the practice or for those who continue to do the practice to hold any position in Government. He also makes it impossible for children of practitioners to have places in schools. He makes it impossible for those practitioners to receive travel visas, enter certain shops, receive medical treatment at hospitals.
He gets his government to post ‘wanted’ pictures of prominent practitioners of the C of E who didn’t give up the practice with the hope of inciting violence against them.
Oh, and then he says there is no ban, only advice!
He then travels the world, talks about ‘love, compassion, tolerance, religious freedom’ and makes lots and lots of money. He’s the darling of Hollywood, a PR success and a spiritual pin up boy.
And all the time…..people suffer because of what he did by breaking with tradition. For no valid spiritual reason.
Welcome to the real world.
Togme -
what poster?
Buddhist Friend:
Your statement:
“Oh, and another thing - I think you’ve got a wrong idea about the NKT. Our principal practice is not Dorje Shugden”
Seems to contradict this one,
From kadampa.org:
This sadhana includes two practices revealed by the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri. The first is a special Guru yoga in which we visualize our Spiritual Guide as Je Tsongkhapa, who himself is a manifestation of Manjushri…
The second practice is a method for relying upon the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. Through this, we can overcome obstacles to our practice and create favourable conditions so that we can nurture and increase our Dharma realizations…
These two practices are the VERY ESSENCE of the New Kadampa Tradition of Mahayana Buddhism. (caps mine)
also, Brian -
if reliance on Dorje Shugden makes you wealthy, then i’m clearly doing it wrong.
where’s my cut of all this PRC money, for a start?
Also, Buddhist friend,
Please answer Seeking Clarity’s question about this quote:
“Apart from the thunderous noise of their pretentious boasting about profound secret mantra, they don’t even know the direction of bliss and emptiness, luminosity, union and so on. Since for them liberation and path of omniscience does not exist, realization will not arise even if they practice for a thousand years, as pointless as wishing for butter by churning water.”—
I’m wondering how you resolve this disparity between GKG and Phabongkha?
Also, how does GKG explain the Yellow Book, which is a transcript from teachings of Trijang Rinpoche, in which ruinous illnesses happen to those Gelugpas who worship Shugden and mix other lineages? Does GKG think Trijang Rinpoche was lying to scare people? Is this why Lucy James calls these teachings “superstitious claptrap”?
Confused -
yes, you are. reliance on the Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa is, principally, for blessings to help our practice of Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra, and reliance on Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden is, principally, to protect the realizations of Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra gained through our practice, and to arrange suitable conditions for success in these practices.
without the practice of Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra there is nothing that Je Tsongkhapas blessings can do, much, and nothing for Dorje Shugden to protect. there is no reliance on Je Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden separate from Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra.
whilst the practice of Lamrim, Lojong and Mahamudra is not uncommon, reliance on the Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa and the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden *is* somewhat uncommon and it is this that distinguishes NKT from, say, the Gelugpas at Drepung. it’s the very essence of what makes NKT NKT.
dougal: The same place the Chinese purported CIA money is for Tibetans. The trickle down effect from nowhere is not happening.
Doofus -
you ask “Also, how does GKG explain the Yellow Book”?
i dunno. i explain it as Zemey Rinpoche relating (supposed) tales of Trijang Rinpoche that are no more than common or garden fireside fairy stores for credulous yak-herders and clueless Tibetan aristocracy. they served a purpose, i guess, just as the depiction of Palden Lhamo seated on the skin she flayed off her own son served a purpose.
nowadays they are, to all intents and purposes, superstitious claptrap. was Zemey Rinpoche lying? are you lying, if you tell a child a bedtime story about ghosts and giants?
i’m going to bed.
I’m rather certain that the Gelugpas at Drepung also practice the Ganden Lhagyama/ Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa. And they would likely do so in tandem with the practice of their own protectors.
My confusion is from your language. You say that Shugden/Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga is the VERY ESSENCE of what makes NKT NKT. VERY ESSENCE indicates that these are the main practices.
I guess my question is, which sadhana is most recited at NKT centres. What is the first practice given to newcomers? Is it the Shugden/Tsongkhapa practice called “Heart Jewel”? What is the tsog puja most frequently performed at NKT Centres? Is it the Wishfulfilling Jewel?
From looking at the frequency of when these pujas are performed, it would seem that the main practice at NKT is Heart Jewel, along with Lam Rim. I guess you would add Vajrayogini to that for those who have the initiation… Am I incorrect in thinking this?
NKT seems to have streamlined things so that Heart and Wishfulfilling Jewels are the most commonly chanted pujas. How do I know this? Visiting the websites of your centres.
Dougal
A few preliminary points
1. As I said, my post was simply confined to the issue of the monasteries. I don’t condone what appears to be going on in wider Tibetan society in India.
2. If the DL was pro-Shugden, I doubt whether DS practitioners would be railing against the fact that the DL’s position is neither entirely political or spiritual. I say this because it’s important to distinguish between whether your beef is with (1) the DL’s attitude to DS or (2) the set-up of the DL’s position irrespective of his attitude to DS.
3. Given the history of the Gelug goes back 500 years or so, I’m not sure that DS is such a traditional practice.
4. And certainly, it wasn’t the case that “all” the DL’s predecessors were wrong as by no means all of them practiced Shugden.
5. If breaking with tradition were such a crime, we’d never have seen the ordination of women in the C of E.
However, to my main point. Perhaps the meaning of my story re the C of E wasn’t entirely clear. But what I was getting at was that there is ultimately some govenor or governance body at the head of any institution that has authority to say what can and can’t happen on the property of that institution. (This is certainly so in NKT centres.)
I must confess that I’m not au fait with the exact set up of the Gelug monasteries. Perhaps someone can advise. But presumably there is some govenor or governance body of the monasteries (an abbot?) that, in principle, has the authority, in the final analysis, to ban a particular practice.
I guess all I’m getting at is that preventing a religious practice from being practised in a particular institution doesn’t necessarily equate to infringing someone’s religious freedom.
That said, I do accept that banning a practice that monks have been practising since they can remember must be incredibly upsetting and is not something to be taken lightly.
uh oh, Brian’s trolling again, just like he did on Buddhachat
Don’t feed the trolls!
Brian -
but there’s no CIA record documenting payments to me.
“I guess all I’m getting at is that preventing a religious practice from being practised in a particular institution doesn’t necessarily equate to infringing someone’s religious freedom.”
Especially considering the Dalai Lama is the aknowledged patron of the 3 big Yellow Hat monasteries in India and gives full ordination to almost all the monks that live there. My friend told me as much and she organizes lots of monk tours so knows the situation well.
Saying the DL cannot decide spiritual policies of monasteries who list him as their patron, whose monks have received ordination from him, is like saying the pope cannot decide about the spiritual programs of Catholic monasteries. It makes no sense.
That being said, if the monks want to set up their own monasteries and some Tibetan laypeople want to support them, this of course is their right. I think the more conservative elements in Tibetan lay society would be against this and some may act wrongly. But the majority of Tibetans I know are secular rather than religious and don’t so much care. And this seems the trend to which Tibetan society is heading.
Anyway, thanks to for your take on the Yellow Book, even though you did call me doofus. That was the main question I came here asking. So, kudos to all and good luck with the discussion.
Dear Confused/SeekingClarity,
There is no need to resolve any apparent conflict between GKG and Pabongkha. My job is not to judge whether other traditions are following a correct path but to make sure that I’m following a correct path. The purity or impurity of other traditions is no concern of mine; it’s not my business.
I simply need to respect the religious freedom of everyone to practise whatever they choose.
Now, if I was receiving teachings from other traditions, it would be a concern but following one tradition while respecting other traditions keeps things very simple. This, for me, is the problem with mixing traditions - contradictions arise and it gets very complicated because you’ve got to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s compatible and what’s not. Lamrim makes everything very simple.
As long as I’m clear on my own path, others have the freedom to practise whatever they choose and it’s their job to ensure that their path is correct, not mine.
Dougal
In her Master’s thesis, Lindsay McCune makes the following point about breaking with tradition.
—”Tsongkhapa suggested three primary meditational deities for his disciples: Guhyasamāja, Yamāntaka, and Cakrasaṃvara. The foremost of these, and therefore the one around whom most meditative practices center, is Cakrasaṃvara. In fact, he is often considered the primary meditational deity of the Gelukpa sect. Furthermore, traditionally, the primary Gelukpa protectors were Penden Lhamo (the Glorious Goddess), Bektsé, Mahākāla, and the State Oracle (Nechung/Pehar). Of these, Lhamo is usually considered to be the most powerful. Thus, many Gelukpa schematizations list Cakrasaṃvara as the meditational deity (yi dam), Lhamo as the protector, and Jé Tsongkhapa as the guru.
For his part, Pabongkha saw fit to adjust Tsongkhapa’s specifications. He created an entirely new schematization of the Gelukpa tradition, in which Vajrayogini was the main meditational deity, Shukden the protector, and Pabongkha the guru. This is a
particularly pioneering schematization because it differs significantly from Tsongkhapa’s original vision. Thus, as Dreyfus notes, “whereas previously Shuk-den seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Ge-luk tradition, Pa-bong-ka made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition.” Moreover, whereas Tsongkhapa had always been looked to as the central holder of the Gelukpa teachings, Pabongkha had elevated himself to that position.”—
Confused -
no harm intended! you have to excuse my mouth, please…
SeekingClarity -
that’s lovely, but - so what?
Hi Dougal
My #212 was in response to your remark in the #198 that
—”[i]It’s the Dalai Lama who has broken with tradition.[/i]“—
Dougal
Slightly off topic but would you be willing to reveal how to italicize text when posting a message?!!?
Thanx!
SeekingClarity -
use html tags.
i didn’t write #198.
is that you, Adam? you sound like Adam…
now i AM going to bed.
Dougal-
Apologies, no you didn’t write #198. And hence, I - whom am not Adam - should have addressed my responses (#207 and #212) not to you but to #198’s author, Buddhist Friend.
Looks like I should have gone to bed earlier!
SC
Buddhist Friend: Since you seem to be of the english persuasion, don’t you realize that in the Westminster system, to call someone a liar will get you ejected from the Parliament until you apologize? You Waffen SS ought to tone it down, you are way over the top. Non- political?, ya right.
[Buddhist Friend writes: "There is no need to resolve any apparent conflict between GKG and Pabongkha. My job is not to judge whether other traditions are following a correct path but to make sure that I’m following a correct path. The purity or impurity of other traditions is no concern of mine; it’s not my business.
I simply need to respect the religious freedom of everyone to practise whatever they choose."
In my opinion, a path does not exist in isolation. I would think it was to the practitioner's benefit to maintain open-mindedness while exploring issues from as many sides as possible, before making a final decision.
Furthermore, when it is the very nature of a given path, and/or of the practices on that path, to express explicit condemnation of other paths, for perceived "faults" (in this case, "mixing" traditions), when the very path in question is found to be "faulty" in the same way (a "mix" of traditions), I would think an intelligent person would want to examine his or her decisions closely.
Again, this is even more apparent when one talks of following the tradition of a great teacher, when in fact that teacher's advice and instructions regarding what practices are to be carried out are replaced by innovations which come, in large part, from other traditions, as well.....not only do the NKT not practice an "unmixed" tradition, they don't even practice the tradition of the Kadampa or the Gelukpa as elucidated by Tsong Khapa.
Leaving aside the issue of Dolgyal for the moment, and exploring the underlying ideas, I would think such self-education, analysis, and self-reflection would be appropriate for all practitioners on any Buddhist path.
@ SeekingClarity,
Lindsay McCune is mistaken in what she says. The glorious Je Pabongkhapa would never be so crass as to suggest that he should replace Tsongkhapa, I think she has misunderstood, and possibly misinformation has been spread by those who are jealous of Pabongkha.
The three reliances are the Guru, Yidam and Protector. Guru is your root Guru, not Pabongkha, who is seen as one with Tsongkhapa. For example, in the practice of Offering to the Spiritual Guide one’s root Guru is visualized at the centre of the Field of Merit in the aspect of Lama Losang Tubwang Dorjechang - essentially with the same nature as Tsongkhapa, Buddha Shakyamuni and Conqueror Vajradhara.
It is one’s own Guru who is visualized in this way, not Pabongkha.
Heruka is the same nature as Vajrayogini (they are the same person) so there’s no real difference between their practices either. Actually, both are practised in the Gelugpa tradition. It doesn’t really matter whether one practises Heruka or Vajrayogini, the results are the same. The main reasons why Pabongkha decided to promote Vajrayogini is that it is easier to practise while producing the same results as Heruka practice, and Pabongkha was told directly by Heruka that his disciples would be able to achieve enlightenment within seven lives by practising Vajrayogini.
The issue of the Protector has been covered so many times before. Dorje Shugden is the Dharma Protector who is most effective in helping living beings at this time. However, even though Dorje Shugden is the main protector of the Ganden tradition, offerings to Palden Lhamo, Mahakala, Mahakaruna and other Dharma protectors are made every month in NKT Dharma Centres. No one has abandoned Palden Lhamo in favour of Dorje Shugden.
@ Cone,
You’re the one who is condemning other people’s spiritual paths, not me. There is no implicit condemnation of anyone’s spiritual path by the NKT, however many people groundlessly condemn the NKT. This is a very sad, sectarian situation.
You should investigate the roots of NKT, and Pabongka’s tradition, Buddhist Friend. On the one hand, you say Tsong Khapa is the guru, but on the other you say that Pabongkha was told that Vajrayogini was a more appropriate practice.
Tsong Khapa didn’t say this. Gelukpas didn’t practice Yogini as a widespread practice, though, I grant you, some certainly did–up until Pabongkha, when he changed things up and instituted the traditions GKG propagates.
I can’t believe you, and others, are so ignorant of your lineage history. Other lamas would expect their students to understand where their practices come from. That’s sad. But perhaps it’s a factor of revisionist history that such things are minimized.
Buddhist Friend: From your passive-aggressive lip service, transparently you need work. It doesn’t matter what you big deity you claim to practice, the dharma will diminish if there is no compassion, and the so-called sangha holds arrogantly to ego enhancing attachment rather than cultivating a panoramic view. As a person born into a buddhist family, I will never regard someone like you as a monk, but rather as a symptom of degeneration of the tradition. The consummate rudeness of NKT’s unskillful and shrill political activity has assured no rapprochement. You unite in victimhood while self sabotaging any possibility of settling the ‘issue’.
To conclude, for me there is only one answer to the question of this discussion…demon.
Hi Buddhist Friend
Re #220, I agree that McCune does get everything right. However, nevertheless, I thought it worth posting as it does illustrate that Pabongka broke with tradition, in the sense that he advocated a different yidam and protector to those advocated by Tsongkhapa. Now you may argue that he had good grounds for doing so, but whether this is so or not, the fact is he broke with tradition.
In #198, one of your criticisms of the DL was as follows:
It’s the Dalai Lama who has broken with tradition.
So my point is simply that, if breaking with tradition per se is a fault, then it is one of which Pabongka is guilty. If you say that Pabongka is not guilty because he had good reason to break with tradition, then of course the same claim can be made about the DL. That he banned DS practice in monasteries because, after thorough investigation, he felt the had good reason to do so. (Also see my point 3 in #207 about just how traditional DS practice is.)
Re #223
CORRECTION
Should read “…McCune doesn’t get everything right”.
Dear SeekingClarity,
Thank you, you’re right when you say that breaking with tradition per se is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on what you are changing and why. We also have to look at the consequences of the change - is it a change to presentation or is it a change to substance? A change to the presentation of Buddha’s teachings is often necessary because the teachings are given in accordance with the karma of living beings and in accordance with the norms of society. This is one reason, for example, that Geshe Kelsang has simplified the presentation of the ordination vows for monks and nuns in the NKT, but this hasn’t changed the meaning of the vows. The result? The vows of Kadampa ordination are now less based on specific physical and verbal rules that restrict the ability to benefit others in this modern age. They are easier to hold and maintain, especially when conjoined with lamrim practice, so this is a good result.
We can also see that reliance on Dorje Shugden is a good thing because the essence of Tsongkhapa’s teaching is spreading throughout the world and reaching many people in different countries who would not normally have access to it. This is because, in this degenerate age, reliance on Dorje Shugden creates the best conditions for Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings to flourish throughout the world. Just look at the results of such reliance - Dharma is increasing in an otherwise decreasing time from a spiritual point of view! In a time when good qualities and moral discipline are degenerating, the Kadampa Sangha is growing. More people are trying to maintain moral discipline in the midst of every day society, even though it is not easy with so many distractions in this modern age.
If that doesn’t prove the skilful means and power of Dorje Shugden I don’t know what does. It also shows that it was perfectly correct for various Sakya and Gelugpa lamas to promote this practice by saying “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”. The beneficial results of such reliance are undeniable.
Now, let’s look at the results of the Dalai Lama’s ban of the practice - division of the Sangha, disharmony, the scapegoating of great Lamas and attempts to destroy their reputations, the mixing of Dharma with politics, abuses of human rights, restrictions of religious freedom and an increasingly public quarrel between the Dalai Lama and those who wish to maintain their traditional practice of Dorje Shugden that threatens to destroy the good reputation of both the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in this world. Clearly, the results are not good. Can the Dalai Lama show even one good result from this ban?
The Dalai Lama’s actions are clearly mistaken because he’s created a lot of negativity and suffering, whereas the Lamas who encouraged the practice of Dorje Shugden were right because the results for living beings have been great.
Coming back to Pabongkha, his change to the presentation of Gelugpa teachings was also beneficial. His promotion of Vajrayogini practice made tantric practice more accessible for others. He didn’t tell people not to practise Heruka, he simply gave the option to be able to do a less complicated but equally powerful practice. Because Heruka and Vajrayogini are inseparable, when one accomplishes Vajrayogini, one accomplishes Heruka so everything is attained but the practice is easier. This shows Pabongkha’s wisdom and skill.
So I would say, look at the results when changes are made to decide whether that change is beneficial or not. Results speak for themselves and are there for any intelligent person to see. I rest my case.
what he said ↑
Dear Cone,
I have a simple solution to this conflict between Shugden practitioners and the Dalai Lama. Why don’t you practise your tradition and leave Shugden practitioners alone, and Shugden practitioners with complete freedom granted by the Dalai Lama, practise their tradition and leave you alone?
It’s called live and let live. It’s the implementation of the Dalai Lama’s teaching on love, compassion, tolerance and freedom.
All DL has to do is allow religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners and this would all be over.
Hi Buddhist Friend
In #225 you write
This would be true if DS was (a) a supramundane protector and (b) the most appropriate supramundane protector of JSK’s tradition. However both (a) and (b) are highly contested.
You also write
It is also, to say the least, contested to what extent Sakyas have ever relied on DS as a supramundane protector. I’ll tackle this last point in a separate post.
SC
Buddhist Friend
The following is a slightly adapted extract of something I posted on a New Statesman thread.
In his book Heart Jewel, GKG specifically mentions two Sakya lamas, Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup and Sachen Kunlo, who he seems to imply regarded DS as an enlightened being. Elsewhere [http://www.dharmaprotector.org/othertraditions.html], he states
I have to say that I find this last remark rather puzzling as, along with Chatral Rinpoche and Lobsang Gyatso, Dhongtog Tulku is well-known as an author of works forcefully arguing that DS is a worldly spirit! One of his works has been translated into English and goes by the title of Earth shaking thunder of true word: a refutation of attacks on the advice of HH Dalai Lama regarding the propitiation of guardian deities.
In Heart Jewel, GKG writes that Morchen told his disciples “Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden”. However, according to Morchen’s namthar (spiritual biography) he himself did not rely upon DS! Instead he relied upon Panjaranatha, Shri Devi and Caturmukha, the usual protectors of the Sakya Order.
During the late 90s there was an ongoing debate regarding DS on the Google group, “talk religion”. I’ve looked at some of the postings there recently. In Dec 97 [see http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.buddhism/browse_frm/thread/afe317295cba1a71?scoring=d& Chris Fynn (#14) wrote the following to GKG.
It seems noteworthy that, in his reply to Chris Fynn, GKG (#23, 24) did not provide the exact reference that Chris Fynn requested.
In Feb 98 [see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan/browse_frm/thread/3f0b6e4a7efc18bb?scoring=d&,Chris Fynn (#122) posted the following (not this time to GKG).
Of course, this situation may have changed since the late 1990s but I’m not aware that any Shugden supporter has yet come up with such a quote. Any clarification would be welcome.
With regard to Sachen Kunlo (Sakya Trizin Kunga Lodro), in #117 [same thread as Chris Fynn’s #122] the poster quotes a statement by Sakya scholar, Jeff Watt. It’s a little long, I’m afraid, but I quote it here in full as I think it’s instructive.
There is no doubt that Sonam Rinchen and Sachen Kunlo wrote torma offerings to Dorje Shugden. But equally, there is no doubt that these were offerings not to an enlightened protector but to a worldly protector.
SC
Dear SeekingClarity,
I don’t care what is contested, the results (as I said) speak for themselves.
It’s undeniable that the ‘evil spirit’ is doing a great job for Buddha’s teachings which proves that DS is both supramundane and the best protector for Tsongkhapa’s teachings.
Clearly the DL is wrong. Results prove it.
this is what you people keep failing to understand: we don’t care what’s contested and, so long as you’re happy with your ractice, we don’t care what you think of ours.
why should we? your practice is your concern, our ractice is our concern.
your practice is not our concern, our practice is not yours.
if only everybody could agree to differ, there would be no problem. when the DL banned our practice he created this problem and you lot sticking your noses into our business only serves to exacerbate it.
as soon as he lifts the ban, and we all agree to practise tolerance, non-sectarianism, love and compassion - end of problem.
this is not about you lot persuading us that our practice is invalid, and it’s not about us persuading you that it is (although, how you can look at the evidence, as Buddhist Friend says, and not see this is frankly staggering). i’m sorry, Sino-Tibetan history buffs - we don’t care what you think, we just want us all to be happy!
spelling and syntax errors aside, you know what i meant.
dougal: “as soon as he lifts the ban, and we all agree to practise tolerance, non-sectarianism, love and compassion - end of problem.”
So, you are admitting your political activities and are obnoxious and non-buddhist!
BF: NKT’s vows ‘lite’ is not the Kadampa tradition, in fact it is a dilution of it. In any case the dharma transmitted by Atisha is not the exclusive property of anyone, least of all NKT.
Buddhist Friend-
You asserted
It also shows that it was perfectly correct for various Sakya and Gelugpa lamas to promote this practice by saying “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”.
My post #229 specifically addressed your assertion. My only point, and I think a reasonable one, is that you should perhaps desist from your assertion about Sakyas unless you can answer the sorts of points I raised in my post.
Dougal-
I do entirely understand that you personally are not interested in a historical analysis of Shugden. But if Buddhist Friend is going to make historical assertions, I think it’s reasonable to address them.
Buddhist Friend
You write
But surely rate of growth is not a measure of goodness. If it were, Christianity and Islam - the two fastest growing religions in terms of new adherents - would be the two best religions! Goodness, then, is determined by factors other than rate of growth. That is, rate of growth is welcomed because what is growing is judged, independently of the growth to be good…
And, of course, according to many, one factor that makes DS practice lack goodness is that DS is a worldly spirit.
So I don’t really think it’s appropriate to use Sakyas or rate of growth as reasons why you think DS practice is good!
Dear SeekingClarity,
I was not saying that just because something is growing, that is good. I think we can all agree that Je Tsongkhapa’s Dharma is good, I don’t think I need to prove that point to anyone. My point was that the growth of something good is good and the reason why Tsongkhapa’s Dharma is spreading so effectively throughout the world for the benefit of all living beings is the enlightened activity of Dharmapala Dorje Shugden and that the fact that this Dharma is spreading so effectively and quickly ‘against the odds’ of this degenerate age is due to Dorje Shugden’s actions.
It’s really very simple: it is the Dharma protector’s job to cause the Dharma to flourish. If the Dharma is flourishing, especially in adverse conditions, this shows two things:
1. The Dharma protector is performing his enlightened deeds
2. He is especially powerful to be able to produce such amazing results
There is yet more reasoned evidence for the second assertion: It’s clear to me that if this Dharma Protector has such power to make something that is by nature extremely rare (because one needs a lot of merit to be able to meet it) easy to meet and practice, he is especially powerful and effective. Only a Buddha could achieve such extraordinary results, therefore this shows that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and is performing the 27 deeds of a Buddha, just as Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche said in Infinite Aeons his praise to Dorje Shugden.
The practice of Dorje Shugden is filled with goodness because:
1. Dorje Shugden himself is a Buddha, as evidenced from his enlightened previous incarnations. Also, If someone relies on Dorje Shugden with sincere faith, they will know this through their own experience.
2. The practice came from our enlightened Gurus and the words and aspirations of the practice are filled with goodness. Check the sadhana and see for yourself.
I take your point about the Sakyas. Not being a Sakya I cannot say categorically that they relied on Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector but we can say that they did rely on him in the past.
Dear Steve,
You said:
NKT’s vows ‘lite’ is not the Kadampa tradition, in fact it is a dilution of it. In any case the dharma transmitted by Atisha is not the exclusive property of anyone, least of all NKT.
You don’t understand the meaning and purpose of ordination. There’s no such thing as vows ‘lite’ because all vows are a serious undertaking and are meant to be respected and kept.
I think it’s better to keep even one vow well than 253 badly or not at all.
Secondly, I was not claiming that Atisha’s dharma is anyone’s exclusive property. If we love all sentient beings we don’t want Atisha and Je Tsonghkapa’s presentation of Dharma to be exclusive but rather we want to give it to all living beings so they can be happy and free from suffering. It is NKT’s intention to do this and they are doing it very well.
I’m not sure what you mean that the J Tsongkhapa’s Dharma is flourishing. I think you may be referring to there being a bunch of NKT centers in various countries. Although I am not a Gelugpa, I thought Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition was that of monks that keep strict traditional monastic vows.
Just in case some readers are unaware, let me be explicit. You say “In a time when good qualities and moral discipline are degenerating, the Kadampa Sangha is growing” above. What you mean is that since few people in the West can keep real monastic vows, especially celibacy, Kelsang Gyatso made up new vows that he thought people could keep. Then, he called these people monks and nuns and gave them robes. Now we have “monks” and “nuns” all over the world doing all manner of things that break the vows of real monastics.
On the old “Dharma Date” website there was a “nun” in LA advertising for a sex partner with a picture of herself in her robes. So, your argument is that this is pure moral conduct because she is not breaking the vows she took from KG!
I would rather see only 10 fully ordained Gelongs in this world than 1,000,000 or these “monks.”
Yes, moral discipline is degenerating and good qualities are decreasing, and no where is this more evident than in the rise of the New Kadampa tradition.
Sidney -
are you ordained? if not, what do you know? nothing.
you’re quite wrong. Geshe Kelsang didn’t “make up new vows” at all: the meaning of NKT vows in is complete accordance with Buddha’s intention, as described in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras. for an introductory explanation of NKT ordination please visit: http://www.newkadampatruth.org/newkadampa4a.php
your example of this “nun” in LA - i’ve not heard of this but, clearly, if what you say is true then this behaviour is in complete contradiction to her vow to “abandon engaging in sexual conduct”. when individuals act in breach of their vows, this does not invalidate the institution of the vows themselves, it only highlights their own inability to keep them. it is a Bodhisattva precept not to discuss “degenerate limbs” - talking about such things negatively, with a bad or frivolous motivation.
who appointed you the arbiter of Buddhist precepts? who do you think you are to pass judgement?
look to your own mind, fool.
Rational discussion won’t take place here, when people can choose to just ignore history, practice what they think is right without examining the roots, claim that since they’ve had “good results” the practices themselves must be good, and call each others “fool” with invective and such ironic instructions as “look at your own mind.”
Dolgyal as “supramundane protector” was an innovation……GKG and his NKT are full of innovations…and the “new ordination” is just the most recent “innovation.”
Those who wish to practice Buddhism in its Tibetan, Vajrayana form, would do well to compare all of these innovations with the traditions of the FPMT, for the Gelukpa, and with other lineages, and make an informed decision.
To those who’ve already “made up their minds” to practice the NKT “brand,” I wish you all the best of luck. Thanks for listening, to those that did……
BF
I read what you’d written in #225 too hastily. Entirely agree that you weren’t using rate of growth to show goodness.
You write in #236
I think it’s more accurate to say that from research done thus far (that I’ve read, at least), there is firm evidence that Sakyas relied on DS as a mundane protector and little or no evidence that they relied on him as a supramundane protector.
You write
As you know, the DS reincarnation lineage is much disputed. Sakyas hold, for example, that Virupa took no further rebirths and regard it as insulting to say that he was reborn as Sakya Pandita. I have yet to hear a convincing pro-DS explanation as to why Sakyas have been utterly and completely wrong about their precious lama for 700 or so years.
You write
Given that you accept Pabongka as an enlightened Guru, do you accept that he is speaking the truth when, in his letter to the novice Nyu’u Tshalmo Trang he writes
That said, what you write about the spreading of JSK’s dharma gives me pause for thought and I shall contemplate it.
Sidney,
I think you are a bit presumptuous in assuming the moral high ground for ordination in the Tibetan tradition, if that’s what you are doing by disparaging Kadampa ordination.
Your expression of preference is based on faulty reasoning and ignorance of the real meaning of ordination. In truth, you have no more reason to believe that Gelongs are keeping all their vows purely than you have reason to believe that NKT monks and nuns can’t keep their vows.
Keeping celibacy is a perennial problem of human nature and it’s a problem that is shared by all traditions who try to keep celibacy. Naturally there are some who can and some who can’t. I could pick one or two examples of famous Teachers and monks in the Tibetan tradition who are said to have engaged in misconduct, but to tar everyone with the same brush is hardly fair, is it? No doubt there are many monks and nuns in the Tibetan tradition who are doing their best to keep their vows. Similarly, there are 700 ordained Sangha in the NKT all of whom are doing their best to practise purely.
No one gets ordained with the intention of breaking their vows and so, if it happens, it’s due to strong delusions, a product of these challenging times. It’s therefore shameful for you to disparage ordination and other’s efforts to keep moral discipline: at least they are trying.
Did Namkah really say this: “Therefore you NKT/WSS people ought to be careful––New Yorkers are restrained compared to the reception you may get if you persist in staging media stunts in future, if you get thrashed, you may regret not heeding this tip.”?
Threatening us on a Tricycle editor’s blog may not be the most skillful thing to do but at least it is a case in point that Shugden practitioners are being threatened and ostracized. Tibetan followers of the DL, including yourself Namkah in your posts, are very aggressive and quick to anger about this issue. There is no similar language being used by Dougal or Buddhist Friend or any other people speaking up for Shugden practice on this editor’s blog. Check out this page for some more examples of aggression against Shugden practitioners for daring to question the Dalai Lama’s policy: http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden28.php
Namkah’s bad-mouthing and lack of logic or content on this blog speak volumes. (Hey, could this be a replay of Republicans versus Democrats! Kidding.) Shugden practitioners are speaking up in defence only, using reason and logic and appealing to human decency, whereas Dalai Lama followers are on the attack, incredibly negative toward Shugden practice and practitioners.
Who cares whether people think Dorje Shugden is a spirit or a Buddha? A lot of people don’t believe in Catholic Saints, for example, but they don’t use political power to ban them — not since the Middle Ages at least. The real point is that everyone should be allowed to practice their religion and not ostracized or demonized for doing so.
This whole struggle is Tibeto-theocracy (political ban of religious practice accompanied by persecution) coming up against modern democracy and freedom of religion (live and let live, which is all Shugden practitioners are requesting). Luckily, if modern history is any guide, the more humanistic values will triumph.
Dear Cone,
Your wrote:
Tsongkhapa was full of innovations too, and in time people came to see after initially criticising him that what he was doing was valid. People naturally have resistance to anything new, especially in these degenerate times it seems very difficult for Tibetan practitioners to understand and accept the validity of NKT practices. I guess our karma is different. If you want to stick to what you see as more valid that’s fine, but you should allow people the freedom of practise without interference or criticism, then, as I said, there would be no problems.
This especially applies to E-Sangha.
When you read the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk, you can ask yourself whether, in this modern age, it is actually possible to observe them to the letter? It is arguable whether there is one single monk on this planet who is even attempting to follow them all literally. (And full ordination for women in the Tibetan tradition died out centuries ago, rendering nuns as second class monastics.)
check this out: http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/answering-those-who-disparage-the-nkt-ordination-part-two/
It is helpful to understand that the 253 Vinaya vows arose gradually, one by one, in dependence upon the needs of the emerging monastic community and the societal norms of Buddha Shakyamuni’s world 2500 years ago. However, it is possible to observe purely and sincerely the spiritual principles behind these vows and adapt these principles practically to our very different society. This can be done without losing any of the meaning and function of the full set of 253 vows, and in full accordance with the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni and all other great Buddhist Masters. This is what Kadampa ordination does, and it makes it both authentic and suitable for our modern day world.
A mistake people make is to try and pigeonhole the 10 Kadampa ordination vows variously into the 5 vows of a lay woman or lay man (Tib. Genyenma/Genyenpa), the 8 vows of a reunciate (Tib. Rabjung), the 10 or 36 vows of a novice nun or monk (Tib. Getsulma/Getsulpa), or the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk (Tib. Gelong). However, the vows of Kadampa ordination are to be regarded as a practical condensation of the essential meaning of the ordained vows. As such, we should look to see how the 253 vows of a Gelong, for example, are subsumed under the more broadly encompassing 10 vows, rather than the other way around.
There are no doubt different ways of doing this, and many of the 253 vows will fall under more than one of the 10 Kadampa vows. Check out the page above for one example of how all the novice and full ordination vows are naturally included within the comprehensive yet succinct vows of Kadampa ordination. (The Sramanera/Sramanerika Precepts are used as the reference for the novice vows, and Advice from Buddha Shakyamuni will be used as the reference for the full ordination vows.)
Tenzin -
“There is no similar language being used by Dougal”
um - thanks for the vote of confidence but to be fair, out of my frustration with these plonkers, doofuses and fools i have called them “plonkers”, “doofuses” and “fools”.
that’s not aggressive or threatening language, but it’s not very polite either. sorry.
i would like to take this opportunity to own these commennts and the delusion that gave birth to them: it would be quite wrong of anyone to tar every Dorje Shugden practitioner with the same brush they may reasonably tar me.
in the main, i think Dorje Shugden practitioners such as yourself and Buddhist Friend have been incredibly patient and reasoned in your responses, and, for all my faults, my faith in Dorje Shugden and those who rely sincerely on him has increased as a result of reading your posts.
they are plonkers, though.
hey, doofuses -
this, posted by Rabten at http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/answering-those-who-disparage-the-nkt-ordination-part-two/:
In case its of interest I came across a sutra where a fully ordained monk says to the Buddha that he doesn’t have the capacity for 253 vows.
Buddha’s response is to ask him if he can practice the three higher trainings. The Monk replies that he can.
Buddha goes on to explain that all the 253 vows are included within the three higher trainings. The monk engages in this practice. Buddha continues to consider him a fully ordained monk and later the monk overcomes his delusions.
What do the legalists make of that? Could there be a higher authority validating the Kadampa ordination than Buddha himself?
Anguttara Nikaya… scroll to verses 85 - 89
http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikanipata/009-samanavaggo-e.html
I am a simple Mahayana Upasaka of five precepts. But I am so excited to see that according to the Ten Vows of the Kadampa, I qualify to don saffron and burgundy and strut around as a “nun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
I am a simple Mahayana Upasika of five precepts. But I am so excited to see that according to the Ten Vows of the Kadampa, I qualify to don saffron and burgundy and strut around as a “nun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Forceful evacuation in Gangchen Monastery
Sonam Wanglak from Shigatse, Saga County, Drashuk township, reached Nepal on 30 May 2000. He is a 32-year-old former monk of Gangchen Monastery. Born into a farming family in Gangchen village of Drashuk township, Saga County, Sonam never had any schooling opportunities as there were no schools in his village.
In Gangchen village, there are 53 Tibetan families and most of them are farmers. Of these, 37 families face cereal shortage due to small landholdings, unfavourable climate and heavy taxes. At the age of 20, Sonam became monk of Gangchen Monastery, located in Saga County of Shigatse Prefecture and did intensive study of religious scriptures since then. Gangchen Monastery suffered complete destruction during the Cultural Revolution, and saw renovation in 1987 when local Tibetans and some elder monks took collaborative actions. Until March 1997, Gangchen Monastery had 29 monks, but the number has now reduced to 12 monks. In 1997, Sonam was appointed as a member of the Democratic Management Committee and tru-ren (Vice-President) of the Religious Committee of Gangchen Monastery. A six-member work team came to the monastery in March 1997, and stayed for three and a half months to conduct re-education. The members banned the pictures of the Dalai Lama and set a limit of 19 monks. No arrests were reported at the time. In June 1997, Gangchen Lama, a close associate of the Chinese authorities, visited the monastery. He called a special meeting of the monks whereby he gave instructions on showing loyalty and patriotism for PRC.
Gangchen Lama visited the monastery again on 3 December 1999, and instructed the monks to worship shugden deity (Shugden is a spirit which the Dalai Lama discourages to propitiate). He claimed himself as the re-incarnation of Panchen Sang Tashi, the founder of Gangchen Monastery, and called the monks to respect and worship him. He distributed booklets to the monks that has detailed explanation about his re-incarnation. However, no monks accepted him at the time.
Later, Gangchen Lama called 10 officials from the County Religious Department and PSB to instruct the monks to worship shugden and to respect him. A meeting was held in the monastery that very same day where the officials threatened the monks with arrest, detention and imprisonment if they oppose Gangchen Lama. Furthermore, refusal on the monk’s part would be deemed political and they would be investigated for crime against the nation. Since the beginning of 1999, Gangchen Lama had started building a new monastery of his own on the northen valley of Gangchen Monastery. The officials of County Religious Department and PSB forcefully evacuated the monks of Gangchen Monastery to the new monastery on 27 December 1999. Two new statues of the shugden deity placed in the prayer hall by Gangchen Monastery were met with protest by the monks. The statues were later taken by the monks who hid them in a nearby cave, which was used for meditation. There has been no history of shugden worship by the monks of Gangchen Monastery.
Owing to constant pressure to worship the deity and orders to carry out the instructions of Gangchen Lama, seven monks fled the monastery. Sonam fled from his monastery on January 1999, and stayed in Shigatse for two months. He escaped to Nepal in a group of eight Tibetans by paying 1800 yuan to a guide. He wishes to
join a monastery in India.
http://www.tchrd.org/publications/hr_updates/2000/hr200006.html#evacuation
The Dalai Lama was entirely correct for denouncing Dorje Shugden. Several important Shugden lamas in Gyatso’s claimed lineage openly talked about how Shugden punished those who strayed from the Gelug. The Yellow Book described Shugden shortening the lives of several lamas who had strayed from the Gelug. Gyatso and Shugdenpas will tell you that the Yellow Book is a collection of superstitions - but they have to, or they would not have a single leg to stand on in defending Shugden. Why would superstitions be penned by a prominent Shugdenpa - it would appear very frivolous and unnecessary to pen a colection of superstitons. The author ceased to teach after the Yellow Book fell into the hands of the Dalai Lama in 1975/6. The Dalai Lama was a Shugden practioner until this point, but almost refused his long life offerings after realising this betrayal. He then spent 20 years researching texts into Shugden before finally denouncing his practice. Lord Buddha himself had to deal with schisms within his growing sangha, and inefvitably there was always a side that was left displeased. The charges that Gyatso has levelled against the Dalai Lama are grossly oversimplified and the very fact that the NKT has never mobilised itself for anything apart from the Shugden issue is testimony to their sectarian nature. What is more, many new NKT members are drawn to Gyatso’s centers because they have been personally inspired by the Dalai Lama. They then find themselves ignorantly sitting in a supposed Gelug school with no pictures of the Dalai Lama, no other books on offer apart from Gyatso’s and no idea that Gyatso is attacking His Holiness so viciously. Gyatso ordered that the long life offerings that used to be present in some of his books be removed. He clearly does not want His Holiness to have a long life anymore. So much for universal compassion. Instead line drawings of Gyatso are placed in his books alongside great lamas of the past. Apparently this is because ‘his students requested it’ - perhaps he should have explained to his over zealous students who have no exposure to any other form of Buddhism that it would not be appropriate because he must demonstrate more humility. Instead he happily attempts to immortalise, even deify himself within his own lifetime. History should decide whether this man is a saint or a pariah. Most lay NKT members are lied to by omission and they do NOT know about the issue unless they find out for themselves - and when they do, many of them leave, like myself. This demonstrates a lack of courage and integrity on Gyatsos behalf - he knows full well he would lose most of the NKT membership if his hidden agenda were announced in class. He has also left many NKT teachers in a very awkward position, far from all of them agree with the manner in which Gyatso is leading his assault. The nastiness spewed on the WSS website goes far beyong the issue at hand and is basically a deply personal attack. People have suffered in India as a result of the denouciation, that I will not deny, but this is due to overzealous guru devotion, Tibetans love the Dalai Lama and have persecuted Shugden practioners. But before Gyatso blames the Dalai Lama for this he should look at his own following, who are just as zealous in their love for him. The lawsuit by the Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious Society is pending in Delhi’s high court. I am confident the case will be thrown out. No doubt Gyatso will blame this on the Dalai Lamas resources and evil influence, never willing to evem concede the remotest possibility they may be wrong. Amnesty International has already found nothing actionable - nice of Gyatso to waste their resources. Shugdenpas should realise that many, many people are suffering in this world a great deal more than ostracized Shugdenpas. Buddhists are supposed to care for sentient beings everywhere, but Shugdenpas are only prepared to act on behalf of their own kind. Every time Gyatso throws mud at the Dalai Lama the NKT gets damaged, its teachers, many of whom genuinely want to just spread the dharma and probably weren’t Shugden practioners until they joined the NKT, are all tarred with the same brush and it makes their life very difficult. Thats why they have had to set up a website to defend themselves from allegations of being a personality cult and a deity cult. The defense of these allegations is poor for anyone who has been an NKT member and knows better. Gyatso’s rise has been tainted by his actions also, he is far from faultless.
see, Vaughn, Steve, Cone, etc. -
your points are completely irrelevant. you’re off-topic.
the point, and the only point that really matters, is that the Dalai Lama has indefensibly created the biggest schism that Lord Buddha’s Sangha has ever seen and caused untold suffering amongst his own people and across the world. he is guilty of a crime against fundamental human rights - the right to freedom of conscience.
you may be too blindly devoted to him to see this, but that doesn’t excuse all these attacks on NKT. they have no relevance here anyway.
you can whine about NKT all you want, but it doesn’t change the simple fact of the Dalai Lama’s clearly apparent wrongdoing.
most of the general publiuc have never heard of NKT, Geshe Kelsang or even Dorje Shugden, for that matter, and they don’t care. they HAVE heard of the Dalai Lama, and they do understand dictatorship and repression and human rights. throw all the mud you like - some of it might stick - but it’s ultimately futile. you cannot draw attention away from the real villain of the piece, HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th etc.
unless he lifts the ban, he’ll fall. truth will prevail in the end.
so there.
Failed geshe K Gyatso is a bitter senile, old fart, he’s going down to his own private pure land. Maybe next time he’ll be the janitor at Tiger Balm Gardens in Singapore.
Tenzin: I thought DS was this big tough guy awash in a sea of blood, skulls, dead animals and all that nonsense, so why are you such a wimp?
Dear Gyalpo and namkhah,
I’m really sorry to say this, but your rough, insulting language and lack of coherent and logical arguments demonstrates rather well the effect of the Dalai Lama’s ban on Dorje Shugden.
This is another result we can consider. There can only be degeneration now.
Buddhist Friend: The following, I suppose is an example of NKT corporate dharma logic from http://www.dorjeshugden.com
“Then from China , Dorje Shugden’s practice will spread to the multitudes of Chinese speaking areas of Asia , then the world. Everyone respects China either for monetary, business or cultural reasons. It is after all one of the greatest cultures known to man past and present. It will be the number one culture in the world as it has been in ancient times in the near future due to economic growth. Everything Chinese will be respected and proliferated in the world. Just like now Mcdonald’s is popular in China because the USA is powerful and influential therefore the Chinese for now are interested in the American cultural identities. In the near future, the tide will turn towards the east and that is China . Everything Chinese will be sought after, praised and valued. Even today, many governments do not wish to offend the Chinese government in hopes of securing lucrative deals. After all, isn’t bring prosperity one of the main functions of any governments whether Democratic or Socialist? The Dalai Lama is his own capacity is making Dorje Shugden bigger, more well known, more heard of and very high profile. Does he not know or understand he is doing that? Highly unlikely. He is indirectly making Dorje Shugden the most popularly known Buddhist deity next to Kuan Yin in China at this time. ”
Indefensible treachery and convulted thought is not superior logic, monk. Sure, you zealots have been blogging well over a decade and use professional PR, that does not hide the fallacies in your campaign. Yoy have been insulting Tibetans for so long you are no longer even aware of dong it. Mc Donald’s indeed.
G -
http://www.dorjeshugden.com, while an excellent resource, is nothing to with NKT. it’s main writer is not an NKT practitioner.
where on earth did you get the idea that NKT is anti-Tibetan? NKT has never made any statement that could be considered to be anti-Tibetan.
and what is wrong with the passage you’ve quoted? does it anger you simply because it makes some fairly reasonable sociological points about the likely ascendancy of Chinese culture in the world’s near future? why? are you anti-Chinese?
you’re sounding less and less sane. well done for spotting that Buddhist Friend is a fully-qualified monk, though.
Dear Gyalpo,
Firstly, no one in the NKT wrote that.
Secondly, you have to face the fact that the power of China is rising in this world. I can understand that you regard the happiness of Tibetans to be of primary importance but I value the happiness of all living beings.
Thirdly, NKT has not been blogging for well over a decade, this is a recent development, but the Dalai Lama’s followers have been baselessly critcising the NKT and other Shugden practitioners for this period.
Neither the NKT nor the Western Shugden Society have a wish to insult Tibetans or anyone. When they call the Dalai Lama a liar, it’s simply a statement of fact, not an insult. For example, If a house is painted yellow, and I say it is yellow, that’s stating he truth. Similarly, someone who has told untruths is a liar, that’s a simple statement of fact.
The Dalai Lama has lied, that’s undeniable, therefore he is a liar. Sad but also true.
and another thing:
NKT doesn’t use professional PR, afaik!
fries with that?
Buddhist Friend: I see you wish to distance NKT from that taitorous essay, but do not disagree with it either. I expect k gyatso will never be welcome in India again, he will die a double exile.
You wrote “Thirdly, NKT has not been blogging for well over a decade” Unlike the vague accusations of ‘liar’ that you so easily exude, that statement is absolutely false–see post 229 and also Dougal’s post about the ‘hero’ blogger of NKT in the 90’s in which extracts from the first NKT defamation campaign are cited. So you mask your own mistatement with another accusation…nice Gelug logic, folks. How stupid do you think people are to beleive that WSS is not simply a front for NKT so you don’t lose your charitable status. Must be melamine in your McDharma.
Douygal: GKG’s ghost written letter to the Washington Times editor is posted on this site:
http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_02_1125-dalailama.shtml
Send2press is a for-profit press release service and PR agency.
G -
NKT pretty much stopped blogging and commenting on this issue in ‘98. some NKT members like myself started up again this year. do the math.
here, i’ll help:
2008-1998=10
then, please explain: “traitorous”
actually - sorry. i’m just feeding the trolls, here.
you’re not going to be reasonable, so don’t bother explaining.
forget about it.
For my part, I work for a living and do not get dole or a government housing allowance, so see you later.
yeah, i have to go beat up some old ladies and steal candy from some babies on the way to cash in all my ill-gotten government funds!
witness the storm of ranting unleashed by even the slightest criticism of the Dalai Lama! what is wrong with you people?
we’re SORRY for you that he’s lying and causing such disharmony, but we CANNOT let it stand, just because it’ll upset you if we speak out. PLEASE try to understand that criticising the Dalai Lama does not make us your enemy, nor does it imply that we are anti-Tibetan, anti-Nyingma, anti-Dalai Lama, pro-PRC, sectarian, angry, murderers, spirit-worshippers, any other of the hundred and one different accusations you keep throwing at us.
we’re here defending our position because it’s under attack! not because we want to hurt anyone.
even you two, Gyalpo and namkhah - i’ve nothing against you as individuals, even if i do reply sharply to your inane comments. my intention, and that of all Dorje Shugden practitioners active online, is simple: to overturn the illegal ban on Dorje Shugden practice and to win back equal status for Dorje Shugden practitioners - in other words, to establish religious freedom for everyone and to preserve our own pure lineage. what is so wrong in that?
i’m sorry for your pain, genuinely. but it’s the Dalai Lama who has let you down, not us.
It’s odd that Buddhist Friend cited Shamar to support his case. The current Shamar Rinpoche, in his letter to Ladakh Lama Chime Rinpoche’s monastery, said: “We Kagyud and Nyingma followers believe that even our bad dreams are caused by Shugden. Years ago, I visited Dharamsala with the late Karmapa. At that time, I stayed at Gangchen Kyishong guest house. There I dreamed that Shugden was trying to harm me. Later, I performed Padmasambhava’s wrathful riruals to counter Shugden’s attempts.” Clearly, he is among the contras.
Gylapo
Though not myself sympathetic to many of the pro-Shugden arguments, and though there has been some pretty forthright language used in this thread, I have to say that I think your #254 crosses the line and is not helpful.
Buddhist Friend
In #236 you write
As I mentioned in #241, the DS reincarnation lineage is hotly contested. In #230 you write that you don’t care what is contested but it seems to me that if you are going to use hotly contested claims (such as your claim about Sakyas) to justify your position on DS, then you need to be able to defend such claims against those who (hotly) contest them.
In #241 I mentioned that the claim by DS adherents that Virupa took rebirth as Sakya Pandita flys in the face of 700 years of Sakya tradition. So I’m wondering on what basis DS adherents hold Sakyas to have been so wrong for so long?
You hold the “glorious” (#220) Pabongka to be one of your “enlightened gurus”. Given that, I’m wondering whether you hold the statement taken from his letter to Nyu’u Tshalmo Trang and quoted in #241 to be unequivocally true?
Seeking Clarity: The offending straw man posts were meant to be that way. My point is the Shugdenpas don’t seem to have any sensitivity to Tibetan manners. Otherwise they might try dialogue instead of shrill rhetoric and broken record arguments. If the posts caused a little cognitive dissonance, it may serve to demonstrate the Golden Rule, if I may put it that way, since the whole lojong thing seems to be lost on many of you. Anthropomorphic arguments, like ‘Shugden is a buddha and doesn’t involve himself in politics’ are being quoted by Chinese now, this non-involvement by an imaginary being is absurd and transparently incorrect, unless one is a primitive theist.
namkhah -
“Otherwise they might try dialogue”
you have to be joking. you do understand, don’t you, that WSS demonstrations began only once the deadline had passed for the DL’s office to respond to the WSS request for dialogue?
of course you do - you’re just being disingenuous, which is itself a weak and desperate rhetotical tactic.
NKT and WSS and the DSDCRS have all requested several times to engage in dialogue on this issue.
Geshe Kelsang publicly challenged the Dalai Lama to debate the issue!
he has never responded to any of these requests for dialogue; hence, the demonstrations.
also, what are you talking about? the rest of your post is completely nonsensical (though you get points for “Anthropomorphic” - a lovely, big word).
Namkah
Not sure I entirely follow your post. Are you suggesting that #254 is somehow knowingly mimicing the postings of the Shugdenpas on this thread in a bid to show them the error of their ways?
Personally speaking, I’ve found Buddhist Friend, for example, willing to engage in civilized debate.
Are you suggesting the WSS should stop putting forward arguments it believes in simply because the Chinese are picking up on them?
And it may be that Shugdenpas are, as we post, desperately seeking to become highly attuned to Tibetan manners so as to avoid a damn good thrashing at the hands of your countrymen (#187). You never can tell!
The smarmy new kadampa, cute. You are only 36 and already a cranky curmudgeon.
namkhah -
Samdhong said that Shugdenpas are terrorists: i once heard the Dalai Lama say that the best way to deal with terrorists was to listen to them. now, we’re *not* terrorists, so why won’t he listen to us? isn’t he always banging oin about dialogue?
if he has valid arguments, we’ll be defeated in debate, won’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
dougal: I can’t speak for others but imagine three monks hacked to death ritualistically in the house next door to yours. Others threatened with the same end in letters. Himachal Pradesh Police establish a link with Delhi office, Shugden Society. Suspects sheltered by China.
Bad mojo.
@ Dougal,
Good points, Dougal, all logical. Logic is always the way to defeat the enemy of ignorance.
Tsongkhapa would be happy
@ SeekingClarity,
Thank you, I’ve always felt that you are open minded and willing to discuss and debate without having prejudged the situation. Even though you may not be very sympathetic to pro-Shugden arguments, thank you for considering them.
I’m sure you realize that whether the Sakya relied on Dorje Shugden or not is not important to me and I’m not using it to justify anything. You correctly pointed out that I do not have incontrovertible evidence that the Sakyas relied on DS as an enlightened protector and I agreed, so I’m not claiming that. My own Guru has said that Morchen Kunga Lhundrup said “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”, that’s all I know.
About Pabongkha, you have to understand his world view to know that he’s not being sectarian. Pabongkha’s concern is correct view of emptiness . According to Pabongkha, Tsongkhapa’s teaching on emptiness is the most sublime and perfectly embodies the meanings of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti’s intentions in clarifying the meaning of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras of Buddha. Since it is impossible to attain liberation or enlightenment unless one understands and realizes Nagarjuna’s view, those who are not following Tsongkhapa’s view cannot attain liberation or enlightenment. So, from Pabongkhapa’s point of view, for example, it would be impossible for the students of the Sakya teacher Gorampa to attain liberation or enlightenment. This is the reason for his comments.
As to what I think about that, it’s true that if one follows a view contrary to the Madhyamika-Prasangika view, liberation and enlightenment is impossible. Not having received teachings from and studied these different schools, I cannot possibly comment as to whether they follow the correct view of emptiness or not, and frankly, it’s not my concern. I say ‘live and let live’. What is taught and what is practised depends on the karma and mental capacity of living beings. Everyone is free to practise whatever they want.
Dear SeekingClarity,
I didn’t answer a couple of your points. About Virupa, or Mahasiddha Biwawa, I hadn’t heard before that the Sakyas claim that he never reincarnated.
I don’t have any evidence to prove the contrary, just my faith in Trijang Dorjechang as an enlightened being (there is a long list of his incarnations too) who knows these things. Do you know why the Sakyas claim that he took no further rebirths?
I found this in a biography of Virupa by Keith Dowman:
Just because he went to the paradise of the Dakinis does not prove that he did not take any more incarnations. Also, if it thought that Virupa was a manifestation of Manjushri, and Sakya Pandita too was a manifestation of Manjushri, they are obviously both in the same mental continuum and so Virupa did take further rebirths. We could say according to ordinary appearances Virupa did not take any further rebirths, but since Manjushri can manifest countless emanations, and Virupa is in the same continuum as Manjushri, obviously he did.
Hi Buddhist Friend
I’ve always found focused discussion much more enjoyable and rewarding than mudslinging!
Re #277.
In “The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way” by Sonam Thakchoe it says
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iBjuSQ7FfqkC&dq=Gorampa&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&sig=ACfU3U3n4mGPj5sBcolMC1Wb5kQYLLZBiw&q=prasangika#PPP1,M1
No great point to make here. Just think it’s quite interesting that there are contested (that word again!) views of the Madhyamika Prasangika. (In case you’re thinking I’m rather well-read, I haven’t read this book, just looked at some of the first few pages!)
I absolutely agree that there is no fault in saying: “I believe my view of emptiness is correct and yours is not” or “I believe followers of Gorampa cannot attain full enlightenment”. So I entirely agree that Phabongka is not being sectarian in favouring one view of emptiness over others. (This would, after all, be a pretty crazy definition of sectarianism.)
Now if Phabongka was saying “well, the other schools have a jolly good try, but they don’t quite get emptiness right” - in other words, close, but no cigar - I’d have no problem. But he isn’t saying that. He’s saying the other schools have no value and are pretty much worse than useless.
Pretty strong stuff! And that’s what I find somewhat disquieting. And I think it’s the strength of Phabongka’s condemnation that leads some to label Phabongka as “sectarian”.
To clarify, when I asked you whether you view Phabongka’s words as unequivocally true, I was not suggesting that your view should be based on what you personally know or don’t know about the other schools. Instead, what I was asking was whether you accept it as true simply because Phabongka said it - in other words on the basis of faith in your lineage guru.
Dear SeekingClarity,
I have read the book that you quoted and I’m pretty clear in my own mind that Gorampa’s view is not correct. It is, as you say, another interpretation of the Madhyamika-Prasangika view where all conventional truths are seen as objects of abandonment.
I’m not quite sure what Pabongkha is refering to when he says They are not even Svatantra or Cittamatra, let alone the view of Prasanga Madhyamaka – meditating only the nihilist view like tirthikas and Hashang. If one upholds the nihilist view, the result is nothing other than going to Avichi hell.
Geshe Kelsang teaches in his books that Hashang taught a view that all conceptual minds are harmful and are to be abandoned. Just as both black and white clouds obscure the sky, so positive and negative conceptual minds obscure the mind and should be abandoned. He taught a meditation which involved blanking the mind. This is probably the nihilism that is being referred to. Gelugpa scholars in the past have criticised practitioners of Dzogchen (which was not taught by Buddha Shakyamuni) for following Hashang’s nihilistic view, so maybe for Pabongkha any school that teaches Dzogchen would be subject to this stinging criticism. He clearly seems to be saying that they are not following any view of emptiness at all, only nihilism. The effect of holding nihilistic views is rebirth in hell, as he says.
I personally do accept that Pabongkha had knowledge of these schools and their meditations and was thus commenting on their lack of suitability as a path to enlightenment. I don’t have any personal experience of them to be able to agree or disagree.
namkhah -
i wanted to leave this, because SeekingClarity and Buddhist Friend are engaged in a reasoned discussion attempting to clarify and thereby finally prove or debunk the modern revisionist view of Je Pabongkhapa as a sectarian, but your latest post is inexcusable.
STOP SLINGING THAT MUD ABOUT MURDERS. it’s the lowest - the most despicable - calumny, and it reeks of your desperation.
without ANY evidence you hope to denigrate Shugdenpas using these horrible murders. you should be ashamed of yourself.
if you really are a Tibetan who’s been around the higher echelons of government since the sixties, as you claim, even if only as a photographer, then you know damn well that you’re lying, and what’s more, YOU KNOW THE DALAI LAMA IS TOO.
didn’t you take vows? and you dare question the authenticity of others’ ordination?
you disgust me.
Buddhist Friend -
i’m sorry. i can’t abide that particular lie. i haven’t your patience.
Buddhist Friend
Re #280
I see you’re the one who’s rather well read! I shall engage with your note after sleeping. Would just mention that I’ve read that Dzogchen appears in the Guhyagarbha tantra.
more poop scoop:
“All these horrible situations have developed through the power of your evil actions. This is our valid evidence to prove that you are not Buddhist. Because of this, we also believe that you are the saffron robed Muslim. Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that your real nature is cruel and very evil. Copyright © 2008 WesternShugdenSociety.org.”
Buddhist Friend
Re #278
Apparently, according to Virupa’s namthar by Jetsun Rinpoche, at the end of his life Virupa dissolved into a statue of Avalokiteshvara.
Why are there no reincarnations of Virupa? Because, seemingly, fully realized beings don’t have reincarnation. According to Namdrol, posting on the LazyBuddhist site
Note too that Sakyas hold that Sakya Pandita was not reborn as Buton - one of the rebirths listed in the DS reincarnation lineage.
These points were put to GKG by Chris Fynn in 1997 - see #14 on the following thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.buddhism/browse_frm/thread/afe317295cba1a71?scoring=d&
In his replies (#23,24) GKG response is confined simply to restating the DS reincarnation lineage.
Dear SeekingClarity,
What Namdrol says does not make any sense. The whole reason for following the Mahayana path is to attain a non-abiding nirvanawhereby one is able to emanate in any aspect whatsoever for the benefit of all living beings. To deny that Buddhas emanate in this way is to negate the very reason for attaining Buddhahood and is an implicit denial of the Buddhist teaching that Buddhas can benefit all living beings without exception.
The main way in which Buddhas help us is to emanate as Spiritual Guides such as Virupa and Sakya Pandita to guide living beings to enlightenment.
It is true that highly realized beings do not appear in just one aspect, and they do not appear sequentially. Even a first ground Bodhisattva is able to emanate a hundred forms as Chandrakirti says in Guide to the Middle Way, and Bodhisattvas on higher grounds can emanation millions of forms. What need is there to say how many forms Buddhas can emanate?
Even at the time of Buddha Shakyamuni, Manjushri was already enlightened. He has attained enlightenment many aeons before as a Buddha called Tathagatha Lamp of the Nagas. Therefore all his subsequent incarnations were already fully enlightened Buddhas. This is one reason why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha. According to common appearance, manifestations of Manjushri like Sakya Pandita and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen were born and had to learn the Dharma, and then became enlightened, but this is just like a play that Buddha manifests to show us the path.
Buddha Shakyamuni himself was already enlightened when he descended from Tushita Pure Land to this world, and he showed the twelve deeds of a Buddha. When he passed into Nirvana, that again was only according to common appearance. Buddha’s emanations exist even today in this world because he will never stop appearing in various forms to benefit others until all beings are enlightened.
As Chandrakirti says in Guide to the Middle Way :
Sorry about the blockquote formatting error - of course only the first verse is Chandrakirti’s!
Buddhist Friend
I think it it necessary to distinguish between emanations and reincarnation. Clearly, being an emanation of Manjushri is not sufficient to be included in the DS reincarnation lineage. If it were, then JSK would necessarily be included in the DS reincarnation lineage. And, clearly, he isn’t.
As Namdrol puts it
The 13th Dalai Lama is said to have been reincarnated as the 14th. But no-one, likewise, says Buddha Shakyamuni reincarnated specifically as such-and-such a person. Of course, that’s not to say that Buddha Shakyamuni can’t emanate in numerous forms. No Buddhist, I think, questions this.
Here’s another way I’ve thought about it. In “Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors” (pp14-5), Trijang writes that DS is an emanation of Manjushri and goes on to say he’s an emanation of Vajrapani. He then says
From this, it seems that to say a high lama is an emanation of Manjushri is to say that they are an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, Vajarpani, etc. In which case one could reasonably say that all high lamas are an emanation of Manjushri! But it would surely be meaningless to say that because all lamas are an emanation of Manjushri, they are all therefore part of the same reincarnation lineage. Hence, it would seem that something different is required for various persons to form a reincarnation lineage.
As I understand it, reincarnation is the process of birth, death and rebirth within a particular mental continuum. In the DS reincarnation lineage Buton (1290-1364) is said to have reborn as Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsan (1350-1413). But as you see the latter was born some years before the former. In other words rebirth is said to have occured before death. A strange sort of reincarnation, some argue!
I’ve written this rather hastily as I’m going away for three or four days. So the fact that I don’t reply to any of your postings promptly doesn’t mean I’ve lost interest in discussion!
Buddhist Friend
Correction to #288.
The penultimate para should read “But as you see, the latter was born some years before the former died“.
Buddhist Friend
One more thing before I go. A quote from a post by Namdrol on ESangha from 2005 setting out Sakya attitudes to the DS reincarnation lineage.
Full post (#308) at
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34974&st=300
namkhah -
right. you got me. well done.
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
just in case anyone but us is reading and is unclear: the crime of the horrible murders of Lobsang Gyatso and his two assistants in Dharamsala has never been solved. acting on an unsubstantiated tip-off from the Tibetan Government in Exile, the Dharamsala police held and interviewed several members of the Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society, based in Delhi, for a week, before releasing them without charge. “evidence” produced by the TGIE, in the form of a letter from the DSDCRS, when translated, turned out to contain no threat, only an invitation to debate. two individuals on Interpol’s suspect list, purported to be pro-Shugden, are said to now be somewhere in Tibet. Lobsang Gyatso had been an outspoken critic of Shugdenpas; he had also been an outspoken critic of many other groups, including the notoriously war-like Tibetan Khampa guerillas, though unlike the Shugdenpas these others have never been singled out as suspects. these murders took place in the evening in Dharamsala in rooms very close to the Dalai Lama and other members of the government, but apparently, despite this, no-one saw or heard anything.
this unproven and unsubstantiated allegation is brought up time and time again in a blatant, facile attempt to denigrate Shugdenpas. to abuse such a horrible crime for one’s own political ends in such a way is unspeakably low, and only brings the basest shame on those who continue to do it, such as yourself, namkhah.
i realise that you threw this in just when i had asked you a particularly sticky question, and that you resorted to this abhorrent tactic in an attempt to evade it. therefore i’ll ask you again:
“if he has valid arguments, we’ll be defeated in debate, won’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?”
Dougal: I have already informed Chushi Gangdruk offices in new Delhi, that WSS/NKT is insinuating they may be the culprit for these unsolved murders. Chushi Gangdruk culpability is highly improbable: firstly, Geshe Lobsang Gyatso was Khampa (all of whom generally are outspoken) and many, many of whom are Gelugpa–just look at every Gelug Dratsang’s roster, Khampas are very heavily present. I don’t think you understand the kinship bonds of multi-generational buddhists. Secondly no group is more loyal to the Tibetan cause than Chushi Gangdruk to the extent of laying down their lives and fighting under very difficult conditions for years, as opposed to just running away.
This WSS/NKT political entanglement may be a fun parlor game for nameless NKT bloggers, but the consequences are serious, so I suggest you inform yourself better before meddling again. I never said you lot were responsible for the murders, that is your inference. I don’t necessarily advocate what I am reporting.
Last point, I didn’t even mention the attempted murder by strangulation on the over ninety year old Ven. Chatral Sanjay Dorje Rinpoche in Nepal by a muscular western man. Chatral Rinpoche of course is the author of Rain of Adamantine Fire (Dorje Me Char), an anti-Shugden polemical refutation of Dzeme Tulku’s writings. Those who read Tibetan can download a pdf http://www.reting.org/DorjeMechar.pdf
The above mentioned incident in Nepal may be coincidental, again we don’t know for certain what possible motive a wester man would have to kill a saintly vegetarian yogin, who releases thousands of fish every year into Calcutta harbour.
Gyalpo -
“I have already informed Chushi Gangdruk offices in new Delhi, that WSS/NKT is insinuating they may be the culprit for these unsolved murders.”
then you’re an idiot, aren’t you? we’ve insinuated no such thing.
my point - which i hope would be clear to anyone reasonable - is that it was *only* Shugdenpas who were suspected when in fact there are many other groups who might reasonably arouse the same, albeit small, suspicion, there being no evidence to incriminate *any* group.
i have absolutely no reason to believe that Chushi Gangdruk are responsible or even more likely to be responsible than Shugden practitioners. my point is that the suspicion that the TGIE placed on Shugdenpas was entirely disproportionate and unwarranted. why blame Shugdenpas but *not* the pretty fearsome guerillas, who Lobsang Gyatso had also criticised? it makes no sense to blame Shugdenpas any more than anyone else - it was just a political move to capitalise on a very sad event.
go stir somewhere else. have you never heard of karma? think what you’re creating for yourself.
Gyalpo -
again - instead of stirring and slinging mud, how about you answer a question with valid reasoning for once, if you’re up to it:
if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
I really appreciate the considered discussions of Seeking Clarity and Buddhist Friend — for centuries these kinds of things have been debated respectfully and it allows for the Buddhist tradition to breathe and different traditions actually to get along better — appreciating each other more and also appreciating their own tradition more. People with different karma need different traditions. Trijang Rinpoche was fond of discussing philosophy with his Nyingma friends and they had tremendous mutual admiration and respect.
However, although everyone is welcome to their position on the nature and origin of Dorje Shugden and can discuss it all they want, I do believe that polemics should NEVER be used as an excuse to interfere in people’s religious freedom.
Shugden practitioners and those who wish to suppress his practice naturally have different ideas of the history and origin of Dorje Shugden because the former see him as an enlightened being whereas the latter do not. In any religion, there is dispute over holy beings — this is because not everybody has faith in the same holy beings. But this is not a reason to ban the spiritual practice of those who hold different beliefs.
I do not see that it matters very much what non-Shugden practitioners think of Dorje Shugden, except in so far as it can make for interesting discussions. Practitioners rely upon him as a powerful Dharma Protector, an enlightened being, and they gain beneficial spiritual results from this practice. There are plenty of people in this world who do not believe in the power of the Catholic saints, but this does not affect the faith of Catholics who believe in them and know their good qualities through their own experience.
Religious freedom should be granted to Shugden practitioners regardless of their beliefs. Let people worship a tree if they want. If we could all just agree on this simple point, the problem would be solved.
“have you never heard of karma?” The cultists chanting the DL is a liar and evil is asking me this question, very funny indeed.
Gyalpo -
if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
G -
ok - i asked you that because it looks like you created a harmful action of divisive speech. what was your motivation for informing “Chushi Gangdruk offices in new Delhi, that WSS/NKT is insinuating they may be the culprit for these unsolved murders”, if not to create division?
then - i call the Dalai Lama a liar because he has lied. i am not lying - this is the truth.
i haven’t personally called him “evil” yet, but that’s just coincidental. i believe his intention is harmful and his motivation selfish, which means that “evil” would be a quite appropriate adjective to use to describe him presently.
that doesn’t mean i wish him harm. people can change - i hope he changes, and avoids the consequences of his current evil actions. this is why i demonstrate.
finally - stop evading the question:
if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
namkhah -
if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
any of you?
do you want to hear my guess?
go ahead, you know you want to
because he hasn’t any valid arguments. he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in serious debate, even against me. i say that without pride - i’m no greatr debater - it’s just that his reasons are so transparently bogus.
here are his reasons for his ban, and some answers, by me and others:
“Worshipping this evil deity is a danger for my life and for the freedom of Tibet…”
answer:
one of the 8 benefits of taking refuge in the Three Jewels is that one is protected from harm by humans and non-humans. if the Dalai Lama is a sincere Buddhist, relying on enlightened Protectors such as Palden Lhamo, he has nothing to fear from Dorje Shugden, if is Shugden an evil spirit.
if Dorje Shugden is a danger for the freedom of Tibet, that would make him, a worldly spirit in the Dalai Lama’s view, more powerful than the enlightened Protectors of Tibet, such as Palden Lhamo. this is clearly nonsense.
“…in order to save this pure and profound Tibetan Buddhism from degenerating into spirit worship…”
answer (taken from http://www.shugdensociety.info:
“This ban is applied in order to promote peace and harmony between the four Tibetan Buddhist traditions.”
answer, also from shugdensociety.info:
“…to give me the transmission of the Sangwa-Nyingpo-Tantra. I consulted my teacher Ling Rinpoche about it, and he responded negatively, saying, there is a lot of discussion about it. Actually my teacher was afraid of Dolgyal (Dorje Shugden). Thus I lost my religious freedom.”
answer:
from me: Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was afraid of a spirit??!
from shugdensociety.info:
I met and took teachings from Kyabje Ling Rinpoche. I didn’t know the late Trijang Rinpoche personally. I still don’t feel anyone speaks for either of the late tutors or can a) interpret their outward actions or b) judge their students so many years later with authority, particularly from second hand information (Okay, maybe Dougal does but no one else, particularly legions of Chinese ultra-nationalist bloggers who probably only heard of Trijang from propaganda sites)
For what its worth, I feel HHDL had tradition imposed on him as a small boy, which was beneficial but relationships are not static and permanent things. In maturity he had affinity with other teachers like Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse and especially Negi Lama (Kunnu Rinpoche) probably the best lama of the 20th century. After all, the Dalai Lama outranks both his senior and junior tutors and his duties are not solely Gelugpa anymore so don’t judge him by irrelevant criteria. He has been kind to Tibetan Muslims over the years as well, that does not diminish anyone.
By the way Dzogchen is not Hvashang’s teaching and is certainly not nihilism, that is incorrect but I will leave such questions to specialists as should Buddhist Friend who has grossly mispoken several times here
Anyway at least you guys cannot accuse me of preaching to the converted!
Dear SeekingClarity,
There’s no question that, since Manjushri is a fully enlightened being, all his ‘incarnations’ are in fact emanations appearing to take rebirth from ordinary parents. There is no contradiction here because Buddha Shakyamuni also appeared to take rebirth from ordinary parents, even though he was fully enlightened.
Why is it important to make a distinction between reincarnation and emanation? Buddhas can manifest any appearance in dependence upon what living beings need.
There’s no problem in my mind with saying that Virupa, Sakya Pandita and so forth were all emanations of Manjushri appearing as ordinary beings and were in a dream-like ‘reincarnation lineage’ that also included Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen who became Dorje Shugden. They are all simply appearances manifested by Manjushri to benefit living beings just as a magician can make illusions appear to an audience.
There is only a problem if we cling to ordinary view and regard these appearances of Teachers as individual sentient beings saying “that person did not reincarnate as that person”, such as the case of Virupa and Sakya Pandita. My question is: why couldn’t they? We’re grasping at individual people and individual mental continuums when we think like this.
Manjushri can manifest these appearances of multiple sentient beings reincarnating where they are not really multiple or reincarnating at all. Because these Teachers are all simply the illusory play of Manjushri’s mind, they are in the same mental continuum.
I request that NKT members who have not taken teachings about Dzogchen or received the relevant transmissions please refrain from slandering these teachings. Since you haven’t received them and your knowledge perhaps only comes from glancing through books, please don’t insult or put down what you don’t understand.
Thank you.
As for debates……………….
The Dalai Lama did debate the practice of Dorje Shugden with many Gelug Lamas, they had meetings where he quoted many texts and relevant historical happenings. Those Lamas were convinced… So a debate with the die-hards, who have already called him a liar and say he is a fake Dalai Lama, would seem counterproductive. Don’t you think?
Dear Dzogchen,
No one from the NKT is slandering Dzogchen teachings. I was merely pointing out that Gelug Lamas in the past have accused Dzogchen of being the nihilistic view of Hashang. For example, Khedrubje said this:
[blockquote]Many who hold themselves to be meditators of the Snow mountains [of Tibet] talk, in exalted cryptic terms, of theory free from all affirmation, of meditative realisation free from all mentation, of [philosophical] practice free from all denial and assertion and of a fruit free from all wishes and qualms. And they imagine that understanding is born in the conscious stream when - because in a state where there is no mentation about anything at all there arises something like non-identification of anything at all - one thinks that there exists nothing that is either identical or different. By so doing one has proclaimed great nihilism where there is nothing to be affirmed according to a doctrinal system of one’s own, as well as the thesis of the Hashang in which nothing can be the object of mentation[/blockquote]
From this article:
http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang-mahayana/
It is not my intention to criticise Dzogchen and I apologise if you think I have.
Dear Dzogchen,
You say:
[blockquote] The Dalai Lama did debate the practice of Dorje Shugden with many Gelug Lamas, they had meetings where he quoted many texts and relevant historical happenings. Those Lamas were convinced… So a debate with the die-hards, who have already called him a liar and say he is a fake Dalai Lama, would seem counterproductive. Don’t you think? [/blockquote]
Not so. The “diehards” are still open to be convinced if he has valid reasons. I personally feel that none of the reasons he has given thus far are valid or convincing and I doubt if he has any more.
Some of his reasons fly in the face of reason, strange for someone schooled in logic and debate, don’t you think?
In reality, the Gelug Lamas have no choice but to agree with the Dalai Lama because no one can disagree with him and remain within Tibetan society, which is an autocracy.
Dzogchen -
“I request that NKT members who have not taken teachings about Dzogchen or received the relevant transmissions please refrain from slandering these teachings.”
fair enough, but entirely redundant. i request that people from Wales who have not studied the beneficial effects of coffee consumption please refrain from slandering coffee drinkers.
no NKT member has *ever* slandered Dzogchen, that i’m aware of, at least. why do you think they have? can you cite an example?
i for one know next to nothing about Dzogchen and so have no possible cause to comment on it other than to say that, clearly, it is a venerable practice tradition that a great many people have faith in. so if you have faith in it and if it works for you, i sincerely rejoice.
what’s with the NKT-phobia? this isn’t about NKT. it’s about the DL’s illegal ban on Dorje Shugden practice.
you say:
“The Dalai Lama did debate the practice of Dorje Shugden with many Gelug Lamas, they had meetings where he quoted many texts and relevant historical happenings. Those Lamas were convinced…”
really? in that case he has valid logical reasons, as no Gelug Lama free to make up his own mind would be convinced by anything less.
there remain Gelug Lamas unconvinced, however - presumably because they have not been exposed to these valid reasons. for example, senior disciples of Lama Yeshe wrote to the Dalai Lama requesting clarification of the apparent discrepancies between the Dalai Lama’s points concerning Dorje Shugden practice, and their late Lama’s teachings on the same subject. as far as i know, they never received a reply. Geshe Kelsang offered to debate *publicly* the issue with the Dalai Lama, allowing for peer review of the reasonings used and for the winning argument to be decided according to the classic rules of debate by those peers. Geshe Kelsang stated, as is proper, that if valid arguments were brought forth to prove that, for example, the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful to the Dalai Lama’s health, then as a non-harmful Buddhist he would immediately renounce his practice and advise his students to do the same.
why do you think the Dalai Lama declined to take that opportunity to clarify and prove, once and for all in the eyes of the Buddhist community and the world, the validity of his reasons?
i for one would like to vow, here and now, to renounce my practice of Dorje Shugden the moment i am presented with valid reasoning to show that Dorje Shugden practice is injurious to the health of the Dalai Lama.
or of the validity of any of his “reasons”, for that matter. it’s been 12 years and i’m still waiting, but i like to think i’m not unreasonable.
“I apologise if you think I have.”
Interesting way to phrase an apology.
Dougal, the reasons have been outlined by others far better versed in Gelug doctrine than I. You have chosen not to accept any of those reasons. However, don’t say that reasons haven’t been provided (including many quotes that show the discrepancies as to how Shugden arose as a Buddha). If you don’t like the reasons, fine, but don’t say they haven’t been given.
As to Shugden adversely affecting the Dalai Lama’s health, this is a matter of samaya AFAIK. Shugden monks were disobeying the Dalai Lama’s advice about abadoning the practice, and still attending his tantric initiations even though he asked them not to. Such a samaya breach is widely known to cause illness in the initiating Lama.
Because I don’t know much about Gelug history, I’ll stop my comment here. I don’t want to be brow-beaten by those who believe my path is nihilistic and false
Dzogchen,
Are you implying that Shugden practitioners are responsible for the Dalai Lama’s gallstones? Perhaps he touched a Nyingma text and they were given to him by Dorje Shugden! A tad superstitious, no?
Let’s make Shugden practitioners the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong…takes me back to 1930’s Germany.
My apology was sincere. I have no wish to critcise Dzogchen or its practitioners, I was simply trying to explain Pabongkha’s perspective.
Dzogchen -
now listen - NOBODY IN NKT HAS SAID THAT THE DZOGCHEN PATH IS NIHILISTIC AND FALSE - those are your words, not ours. stop trying to falsely apportion blame. i say again, NOBODY IN NKT HAS SAID THAT THE DZOGCHEN PATH IS NIHILISTIC AND FALSE.
you are correct that reasons have been given by the Dalai Lama. i am asking, as are all those who follow logic, for valid reasons. no valid reasons have been given so far. just because there are those who, through political expediency or plain sycophancy, have chosen to accept invalid reasons does NOT make those who do not accept those invalid reasons unreasonable.
i will accept valid reasons, whether i like them or not. provide some.
I didn’t say Shugden practitioners were responsible for the Dalai Lama’s gallstones. I was trying to say it was a generally accepted doctrine that those who take tantric initiations and then deliberately take commitments from the initiating master and break them, are said in the texts to sometimes cause illness in the tantric master. I didn’t assign any blame for gallstones, this is what I said……:
“Shugden monks were disobeying the Dalai Lama’s advice about abadoning the practice, and still attending his tantric initiations even though he asked them not to. Such a samaya breach is widely known to cause illness in the initiating Lama.”
Unless we are a realized being we can’t say what karma caused what illness. I can’t know that perhaps it wasn’t monks the Dalai Lama ordained who maybe decided to disrobe or not practice that didn’t cause the gallstones. Or that the karma of the world did so. Who knows. That doesn’t change the fact that doctrinally, taking initiations and deliberately breaking the commitments of those initiations (in the case of the Shugden monks, taking the initiation and continuing the practice despite the Dalai Lama asking them not to), is believed in Vajrayana to cause illness in the master. I am sure in NKT this must be taught as well, it is in the tantras as well as explained in several commentaries I have perused about the tantric vows.
Dougal, as a Dzogchen person, the Yellow Book, from an oral history passed by Trijang Lama To Dzemey Lama, is more than enough proof for me this practice is sectarian and causes division. If you choose to ignore such a relevant document in this dispute that evidence Shugden’s utility for a least SOME of those who practice him, that is your perogative. Further more, I believe the account of Chatral Rinpoche, one of the teachers of my teachers.
For most Nyingmapas and Kagyupas, the Yellow Book is all the proof we need that this practice of Shugden isn’t a peace practice, but a purity enforcing practice.
Still, these and many other reasons have been given. You will not believe them because Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has told you to ignore the Yellow Book and that Shugden is a Buddha. That is your right, but it doesn’t lead for very fruitful debate. And Dougal, I have seen you try to spread what you aknowledge are rumours without evidence about the Dalai Lama on another thread about this issue.
If you are willing to do that, it’s pretty darn clear(as Sarah Palin would say) that you are “palling around” with fundamentalists who want to harm the Dalai Lama in whatever way they can. You will listen uncritically to those people, but not even give the reasons outlined here a chance. You choose to ignore historical problems with the practice in favor of “personal experience”.
For this reason, I feel debate with you about this issue is a waste of time. Indeed, Im embarassed i posted this much and will use the time instead now to meditate.
Final comment here: “No one in NKT has said the Dzogchen is false”,true- to my face. They’ve only posted passages from their own lineage lamas here indicating this. Lineage lamas who they believe are Buddhas. I can connect the dots. And please, enough melodramatic comparisons to 1930s Germany. There are no gas chambers involved in this dispute. Trying to use the murders of the Jews (my people, incidentally - I wasn’t born Buddhist) to garner support for your cause is counterproductive and won’t win you many supporters in the Jewish community.
Dzogchen -
i wasn’t trying to spread those rumours, i was making a point to another Shugden practitioner that we (WSS) had NOT in fact been using unsubstantiated rumour to slander the DL - that the information given about his background and possibly false recognition was intended to throw doubt on his infallibility (which is used by many of his supporters, whether they admit it or not, as their “valid reason” for believing whatever he says. i said that if we wanted to spread unsubstantiated rumour indiscriminately, there are FAR more damaging rumours that we could use, such as that about his govenment’s alleged assassination of his opponents, or the one about his illegitimate daughter by his young oracle. i stated clearly that these were simply rumour. the point was that WSS was not in fact rumour-mongering.
please read above in this thread for more on the Yellow Book. such stories abound within Tibetan Buddhism, about many different deities and protectors. they are not taken literally by the learned. for example - please think: you can accept that Trijang Rinpoche believed Dorje Shugden to be an enlightened Protector; you can also accept that Trijang Rinpoche had a clear understanding about the non-harmfulness of enlightened beings, whose very nature is compassion. on this basis, it is impossible to credibly posit that Trijang Rinpoche believed that Dorje Shugden harmed anyone, ever.
use your brain, please. you accuse me of peddling rumour and misunderstanding and then do precisely that yourself in your post. not good.
i will not listen uncritically to anyone, including my lamas, because they have taught me never to do so. i still have seen little or no evidence of you and your fellow DL apologists thinking in any critical way whatsoever about his ban. if you even begin to do so, his illogical “reasons” for his ban evaporate like mist in the midday sun.
and stop reading between the lines and joining the dots and listen clearly! WE’VE NOTHING AGAINST DZOGCHEN. THE DENIGRATION AND SECTARIANISM YOU SEE IS A PRODUCT OF YOUR OWN WISH TO BELIEVE WE’RE YOUR ENEMY.
we’re not your enemy. our only enemy is delusion and lies.
Dougal…This will be my last post and that is a promise, but your contradiction here is so self-evident you need to be called on it. The post of yours, ironically, i found in the comments section of a blog that you or another NKT posted a link to in order to support your argument.
NOW you say THIS: “wasn’t trying to spread those rumours, i was making a point to another Shugden practitioner that we (WSS) had NOT in fact been using unsubstantiated rumour to slander the DL”
On the BLOG, someone posted your comments on a Shugden website and you explained them THIS WAY:
“that was me who posted that on another blog, and i’ll admit i have no evidence whatsoever - i was repeating hearsay. i did state clearly (which you’ve not copied and pasted) that these are just rumours, nothing more. but i’ll admit that i was being mischievous, and that my motivation probably wasn’t 100% clean and pure - sorry.”
I venture to say your anger has crippled your ability to be an effective spokesperson for your cause. You aknowledge your own motivation is tainted in some of the things you have posted. This indicates to me you are trying to practice Buddhism, as am I. It also indicates both of our time would better be spent cultivating dharma that discussing this. So, I wish you good results in your cultivation.
yes, i was being somewhat mischievous. i probably was above, also, when i stated what the rumours were. sue me.
the point remains that my intention was to show that WSS wasn’t indiscriminately peddling rumour.
my motivation’s not 100% pure 100% of the time, and won’t be ubtil i’m a Bodhisattva. i do try to make sure that there’s a valid point to (most of) my comments, and i can say that my main motivation, underlying is always good.
i’m here because there’s *so much* misinformation and slander currently on the net regarding this issue. i feel some duty to try to redress this. i take your point re. meditation, though - my *main* duty, after all, is to train my mind for the benefit of others.
Hi dougal
“i’m here because there’s *so much* misinformation and slander currently on the net regarding this issue”
yes, you’re spreading it yourself.
in post# 303, you said
“Kyabje Ling Rinpoche was afraid of a spirit??! ”
and you supported you claim by quoting from the india’s shugdensociety site “…to give me the transmission of the Sangwa-Nyingpo-Tantra. I consulted my teacher Ling Rinpoche about it, and he responded negatively, saying, there is a lot of discussion about it. Actually my teacher was afraid of Dolgyal (Dorje Shugden). Thus I lost my religious freedom.”
what you probably don’t know is it was a huge spin from the original speech.
what the Dalai Lama actually said in July, 2008, New York:
“in the late 60’s I still practice it then I already started receiving teaching from Kuunu Lama Rinpoche [on] Shantideva’s text. Then he very much non-sectarian. He received many many different teachings from different traditions.So i want to receive one teaching, Nyingma Tradition, Nyingma sort of teaching from him. Firstly i asked Ling Rinpoche since I already received some teaching from him so now i want to receive Gyu Sangwa Nyingpo, Nyingma sort of text (translator jumps in: Tantra). Then Ling Rinpoche a little bit cautious because of this spirit. Although Ling Rinpoche never worshipped this spirit. He himself very very cautious about this spirit. Not like Trijang. Trijang is sort of very close [to] this spirit. However, as Ling Rinpoche recalls this story about a Gelug lama received teaching from Nyingma tradition then this spirit will destroy you. So Ling Rinpoche a little bit scared. (Laughter) So Ling Rinpoche advised me ‘be careful, be careful’. He don’t allow that. Therefore i failed to receive teaching from him.”
now you know you are simply repeating the lies of shugdensociety and it will be better if WSS can stay away from them for their own reputation.
Best
Shaza
Shaza -
hello again, Shaza. all the gang’s here, eh?
i’ve heard that “Dharma” talk, yes. i don’t understand, though: what point that i made does this quote disprove?
if you’re saying that shugdensociety.info is wrong or lying in saying that “Ling Rinpoche’s answer has therefore nothing to do with protector Dorje Shugden”, and that the DL’s word is true: “So Ling Rinpoche a little bit scared” (even if he did laugh about it he still said, according to the DL: “be careful. be careful” - implying he had reason to be concerned), then you *are* saying that Ling Rinpoche was afraid of a spirit.
whether or not shugdensociety.info is correct, are you really saying that Ling Rinpoche was afraid of a spirit, Shaza?
ps. another example of the DL’s subtle and not so subtle (”wrong. yes, wrong”) campaign to undermine his own Root Guru’s reputation: “Ling Rinpoche” and “Trijang”??
that’ll be “Trijang Rinpoche” to you, your Holiness.
i’m going to stop posting here in a bit. i can’t believe anyone whose mind’s for changing is sill reading, and i’m pretty satisfied that any who do read through this stuff will see all the arguments laid out clearly here. it’s getting so that i’m just rehashing the same old explanations and refutations for the same old tired nonsense from an endless round of new (and not-so-new, Shaza) nincompoops.
none of you’s answered my question yet, either:
if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?
Hi dougal,
“i’ve heard that “Dharma” talk, yes. i don’t understand, though: what point that i made does this quote disprove?”
so you knew all along the shugdensociety quote is a fabrication of DL’s original speech but still insisted to use it as if it was true?
“whether or not shugdensociety.info is correct, ”
shugdensociety was lying of course. they put words in DL’s mouths he never said in that speech. For example, “I consulted my teacher Ling Rinpoche about it, and he responded negatively, saying, there is a lot of discussion about it.” This is added to the speech so shugdenshugden could go on and explain why Ling Rinpoche advised DL not to learn Nyingma because Ling was critical of Nyingma tantras etc.
And you took that bait.
“are you really saying that Ling Rinpoche was afraid of a spirit, Shaza?”
Context please.
DL says “However, as Ling Rinpoche recalls this story about a Gelug lama received teaching from Nyingma tradition then this spirit will destroy you.”
So Ling Rinpoche was afraid that Shugden might harm DL for learning Nyingma because Shugden is sectarian.
“if the DL has valid arguments to support his ban, we’d be defeated in debate, wouldn’t we? so why do you think the Dalai Lama has ignored all requests for dialogue and debate on this issue?”
Yes it’ll not be easy to debate with you. You can’t even listen to your opponents’ views properly.
And if i am not mistaken, you are probably having a kick misrepresenting your opponents’s views.
Best
Shaza
We all know that the Dalai Lama has lied about many things. What’s to say he hasn’t misrepresented his conversation with Kyabje Ling Rinpoche at this teaching in New York in 2008? No one can dispute it because this Master is no longer with us.
The problem is you can’t believe a liar on anything. If they lie once, you can’t really trust anything they say because you don’t know what’s true and what’s false. I wouldn’t trust the Dalai Lama on anything, frankly.
I’m sorry if that causes offence, it’s not my intention. What the Dalai Lama says is not always ‘Gospel truth’, or any kind of truth for that matter. This is the same Dalai Lama who said:
These are lies, I’m afraid.
I’m convinced that what Ling Rinpoche meant was for the Dalai Lama to be ‘careful’ about mixing traditions. Some people believe that the Dalai Lama mixing Gelug and Nyingma teachings broke Ling Rinpoche’s heart, literally.
Hi Buddhist Friend,
“”I’m convinced that what Ling Rinpoche meant was for the Dalai Lama to be ‘careful’ about mixing traditions. Some people believe that the Dalai Lama mixing Gelug and Nyingma teachings broke Ling Rinpoche’s heart, literally.”"
I think dougal would disagree with you because he seems to agree that Ling Rinpoche was questioning the authenticity of that Nyingma tantra, not that Ling’s against “mixing” Gelug and Nyingma’s teachings.
dougal quotes from shugdensociety in #303:
“Kyabje Ling Rinpoche’s comment that ‘there are a lot of discussions about this Tantra’ refers to these discussions of many earlier and later Tibetan scholars about the authenticity of the Sangwa-Nyingpo-Tantra.”
So who should i believe, you or dougal?
Best
Shaza
Buddhist Friend, You may as well throw in the maroon toga, you are totally out of order and have broken your samaya by indulging in gratuitous divisive speech. I’m sure you can get a job doing something beneficial, why not go to Sudan and help the refugees or something?
namkhah,
:)) You’re so funny! Thanks for giving me a laugh.
I don’t have any samaya with the Dalai Lama.
I’m not engaging in divisive speech, just pointing out some important truths. I have no intention to cause a schism in the Sangha as the Dalai Lama has done….bad mojo!
@ Shaza,
Nice to see you! I’m pretty sure that Ling Rinpoche would have a big problem with mixing Gelugpa and Nyingma teachings.
Hi Buddhist Friend,
“Nice to see you! I’m pretty sure that Ling Rinpoche would have a big problem with mixing Gelugpa and Nyingma teachings.”
why?
Hi Shaza,
Because, if you take two pure things and mix them together, what do you get? One impure thing.
Nyingma and Gelugpa practices are best kept separate and enjoyed separately otherwise the special qualities of each are lost. Each tradition has its own path to enlightenment and to mix them causes confusion.
I feel it’s best to have one root Guru and to practise their teachings because it keeps everything simple, clear and effective; that’s my own experience. Then you don’t have to wonder what path to follow and you don’t get confused by apparent contradictions.
You just need one path to enlightenment. You don’t need a spiritual supermarket situation where you take a bit of this and a bit of that in accordance with your whim and end up with something that doesn’t work.
Yur Geshela did have samaya with HHDL, he ought to go to Sudan also.
namkhah,
No he didn’t Trijang Rinpoche was his root Guru
Incorrect. GKG took the Kalachakra from His Holiness in the Norbu lingka in Lhasa in 1954.
Namkhah,
I’m not sure if what you are saying is true. I remember once in a teaching GKG explained that he had no karma to receive teachings from the Dalai Lama. He said he had tried to go to one of the Dalai Lama’s teachings but he became sick and couldn’t go.
Even if he did receive empowerment from him, Buddhism teaches that you need to act appropriately. If someone is destroying the Buddhadharma you don’t just sit back and think “it’s okay because he’s my Guru”. You have to take appropriate action, even if you think that person is a Buddha. You can’t do nothing if someone is trying to destroy your tradition and who appears to have no respect for the person you regard as your root Guru. GKG is justified in opposing the Dalai Lama.
We don’t know how GKG really views the Dalai Lama, but it’s pretty clear what he thinks of his actions!
Trijang Rinpoche is GKG’s main Teacher and root Guru. It’s clear that he received most of his initiations and instructions from Trijang Rinpoche. It is Trijang Rinpoche who inspired Geshe Kelsang and whose teachings he is now spreading in the West. It was also Trijang Rinpoche who gave GKG the permission to change the presentation of the teachings for Westerners and who originally asked him to come to England as Resident Teacher of Manjushri Institute.
“Buddhism teaches that you need to act appropriately. If someone is destroying the Buddhadharma you don’t just sit back and think “it’s okay because he’s my Guru”. You have to take appropriate action, even if you think that person is a Buddha.”
It is also very clear that the Dalai Lama, whilst having respect for Trijang Rinpoche and Phabongkha Rinpoche, saw their action of spreading the worship of a sectarian worldly spirit as harmful for the Gelugpa tradition and the Buddhadharma generally. Most Tibetan lamas would agree with this.
The Dalai Lama’s position in this dispute receives the most backing from the sectarian writings of Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche who praised their gyalpo spirit protector for killing people for not following their own political agenda. The Dalai Lama’s position is nothing more than a natural response to the words of these lamas.
Hi Buddhist Friend,
“Because, if you take two pure things and mix them together, what do you get? One impure thing.”
Vajrayogini as practiced by Gelugs today originally came Sakya, do you call this practice an ‘impure thing’ ?
Best
Shaza
Dear Namgyal,
‘Sectarian worldly spirit’ - we’ve only got the Dalai Lama’s word for that. His word against the holy Lineage Gurus of the Gelugpa tradition means nothing to me.
Don’t you see that by asserting that Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche were deluded you invalid the Dalai Lama who was a product of their teachings and the lineage itself? This argument has been repeated many times already but people just don’t get it.
What is harmful for the Gelugpa tradition is what the Dalai Lama is doing now - encouraging Gelugpas to mix traditions. He’s not protecting the tradition but destroying it.
As I said before, people agree with the Dalai Lama because they have no choice. The TGIE is a theocracy and the Dalai Lama dictates what people do and what they believe. Only someone outside Tibetan society such as GKG can disagree with the Dalai Lama and even that is dangerous.
Dear Shaza,
Every practice in the Gelugpa tradition comes from somewhere because there is a lineage going back to Buddha Shakyamuni. It’s true that the Naro Khacho lineage of Vajrayogini was maintained by various Indian and Tibetan Gurus, including the Sakyas, but that doesn’t make it a Sakya practice because it didn’t originate with them, it originated with Naropa. What is uniquely Sakya practice is Lamdre, a particular presentation of the teachings.
Similarly, what is uniquely Gelugpa is the combination of lamrim, lojong and Vajrayana mahamudra practised within the framework of the Guru Yoga of Je Tsongkhapa and the Vajrayogini sadhana written by Pabongkhapa.
An example of mixing traditions is not a Gelugpa doing Vajrayogini practice that happened to be passed through a lineage of Sakya and Gelugpa Gurus but a Gelugpa who tries to practice lamrim and lamdre together, or lamrim and Dzogchen. It’s Gelugpas relying on Nyingma termas, receiving teachings from so many different sources and having so many different Lamas that you begin to wonder “what is the path?” “From whom do I receive definitive guidance?”. It’s losing the system.
Someone will say “but Je Tsongkhapa had lots of different teachers”. True. He needed to receive transmission of all the practices that he would then formulate into his own ’system’ of teaching and practice. He didn’t mix systems but formulated his own. He was an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri so he had the wisdom to do this - to receive the teachings, correct misunderstandings and to re-present the teachings in a different form suitable for those practitioners who had karma with him.
Atisha had previously done this too when he went to Tibet. His system of teaching and practice was called ‘lamrim’. Those who made lamrim their main practice were called ‘Kadampas’. Tsongkhapa’s system was an elucidation of Atisha’s teachings that became known as the ‘New Kadampa’
Basically, you need a ’system’ for your enlightenment. Each tradition has its own unique combination of practices, or ’system’ of practice that is unique. By following that system, encouraged and educated by the Gurus who practise it single-pointedly, we are led to enlightenment. Otherwise, if we mix systems, there is no system! Confusion and doubts will arise: “should I do this practice, or should I do that practice?”. It’s no longer clear because we’ve created our own system which is a mish-mash of different practices that we don’t know how to combine to produce results.
Great beings like Atisha, Longchenpa, Sakya Pandita, Milarepa, Gampopa and Tsongkhapa, already transmitted the ’system’ of practices that are unique to a particular tradition . Why do we need to mix them? If we just pick and mix, we don’t know the order of practice and tend to practice only those things that make us feel good or that we feel drawn to. This is a big mistake! It’s better to stick to the established system of whatever tradition we choose to practice and single-pointedly practice that system until we attain the result of enlightenment.
It is a big mistake to mix and thereby destroy these systems simply in the name of being non-sectarian. To be non-sectarian means to practice one system while having respect for all the others. There’s no contradiction whatsoever between practising one tradition purely and being non-sectarian. These days the Dalai Lama is promoting a very strange version of non-sectarianism which involves receiving teachings from all the Tibetan schools of Buddhism and practising them. This is crazy! It’s the destruction of the pure systems of practice that I mentioned before. As I said: what do you get if you take one pure thing and mix it with another pure thing? one impure thing - a mish-mash of your own making.
The Dalai Lama is seriously misleading people because he doesn’t really understand what it means to be non-sectarian. It will be very sad if he destroys the Buddhadharma through this mixing of traditions.
Hi Buddhist Friend
You ask
Well there clearly is a distinction. As I said, Je Tsongkhapa is held to be an emanation of Manjushri but he is not part of the DS reincarnation lineage (DSRL).
I’m not sure if during their lives and soon afterwards, Virupa and Sakya Pandita were held to be emanations of Manjushri by Sakyas. But let’s assume, for the sake or argument, that they and every member of the DSRL were held to be an emanation of Manjushri during their lives or soon after. Even then, it would be the case that
(1) all members of the DSRL were emanations of Manjushri BUT
(2) Not all emantations of Manjushri were members of the DSRI.
I’m not sure that you referring to the DSRL as “dream-like” is actually doing any useful work. After all, the fact it is dream-like, makes it no different to anything else including my cousin. And as GKG points out in “Understanding the Mind”, it can’t be the case that my cousin can both be male and female. And equally it can’t be the case that Virupa was both reborn as Sapan and not reborn as Sapan.
So my point is that for 750 years before the arising of DS, the Sakyas had held that Virupa did not take further rebirths. Given that it cannot be the case both that Virupa was and was not reborn as Sapan, the implication of the DSRL is that the Sakyas were dead wrong for at least 750 years. Would you agree?
Just imagine if it had been announced that the 14th DL had been discovered before the 13th DL had died. People would have said that this so-called 14th DL couldn’t possibly be the reincarnation of the 13th DL as the 13th DL hadn’t yet died! Reincarnation is the process of birth, death and rebirth and so it makes no sense to posit rebirth taking place before death. But isn’t this exactly what’s being posited in the DSRL where Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsan is said to be a reincarnation of Buton?
a slightly different point re. mixing:
you may say: “we believe that HHDL is a holy being who is now using his omniscient wisdom to refine and amalgamate disparate traditions into one that is particularly suited to practitioners of this modern world - you shouldn’t say he is “”mixing”; how do you know he isn’t enlightened and able to do such things correctly, just like Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa before him?”
that’s a fair question. the answer is: i can’t. if that’s your belief - great.
however. afaik, neither Atisha nor Je Tsongkhapa organised sectarian witch-hunts to destroy those who chose *not* to follow their new, synthesised traditions but instead to remain faithful to their old traditions. for many, the new way was appropriate, and worked. for others, presumably, the old way was preferable.
now, i can have my own opinions on the suitability or otherwise of the DL to do this, but that doesn’t mean i won’t respect everyone else’s right to follow him if they feel that it works for them.
what i cannot respect is his sectarian actions of destroying an old, valid tradition. he has no authority to do this and i won’t accept it.
lastly, SC -
i get that you’re trying to check whether GKG’s listing of Sakya Lamas as proponents of the enlightened nature of DS, but i’m not convinced it matters that much. whatever the Sakyas believe is fine - i don’t feel a need to convince thenm otherwise. i’ll believe my Guru, they can believe theirs, and we can all live together happily. after all, i hold beliefs that a wildly contrary to those held by practitioners of other faiths, but that doesn’t mean we can’t respect each other. i don’t feel the need to prove anything to them.
Buddhist Friend
In #192, I wrote
In #198, you replied
It’s taken me a while to formulate the beginnings of an answer, taken from three posts by Namdrol on ESangha.
In #297
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34974&st=280
Namdrol writes
In #309
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34974&st=300
He continues
He continues in #473
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34974&st=460
Dougal
I guess whether something matters very much depends on what the question is. If the question is: “What is the nature of DS”, then whether particular Sakya lamas held DS to be enlightened perhaps does not matter so much. What matters more is why those who hold DS to be enlightened (whether they include particular Sakya lamas or not) do so.
As I say in #229, GKG mentions three Sakya lamas who he claims hold DS to be enlightened. However, as I also say, one (Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen) clearly doesn’t, and the weight of evidence suggests that neither did the other two. I think this does matter, to the extent that it shows that one can’t necessarily take GKG’s comments on DS uncritically - as I think some do. But clearly this “some” doesn’t include your good self for, as you say in #318
Dear SeekingClarity,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think there is a distinction between emanation and reincarnation when it comes to Manjushri because Manjushri is an enlightened being. ‘Dream-like’ is actually very significant because it means that what you think is happening is not really happening at all. If we take the term ‘reincarnation’ this conjures up the image of a mind being in one body, then that person dying, the mind leaving that body and incarnating in another body. This is not what is happening in the case of the ‘reincarnation’ lineage of Dorje Shugden because Manjushri is not a sentient being.
My point is, we are trying to apply ordinary rules to a Buddha, and it’s inappropriate to do so. There is no real ‘reincarnation’ taking place, only an appearance of one. Virupa was not really born as Sapan. Manjushri produced two emanations at different times, one called Virupa and one called Sapan. It isn’t as if Virupa’s mind left his body and reincarnated as Sapan; that isn’t what is happening. There is no Virupa mind and no Sapan mind because they are both equally Manjushri. All that happened was that the emanation that was Virupa disappeared and later an emanation that was Sapan appeared but according to tradition we can say that ‘later Virupa was born as Sapan’.
This is one reason why there’s no problem with both Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen and Buton being alive at the same time, both in the ‘reincarnation’ lineage of Dorje Shugden because they are both emanations. They don’t have two separate minds because they are both Manjushri. They don’t have to arise sequentially, like a seed and a sprout, because they don’t have to follow ordinary rules. They are emanations. Manjushri can manifest any form to benefit living beings, including the appearances of a ‘reincarnation lineage’
Do I think the Sakyas were right or wrong? I agree with Dougal. We can both be right with respect to the tradition we have received. Buddha, for example, described the universe in different ways to different people. If you ask “yes, but which appearance is the right one?”, that’s assuming that there is one absolute universe that’s true for everyone. There is no such thing. All the appearances that Buddha described, even though they were contradictory, were valid for the people who had the karma to receive them.
uncritically? no. but when it comes down to a choice of who to believe, GKG or Namdrol - i’ll pick GKG, thanks.
Hi Buddhist Friend
Here are some initial thoughts with regard to #343.
Regarding the translation of “Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors”, it states on http://www.dorjeshugden.com
Given that this is so, I take it that (1) when the translators use the term “(re)incarnation lineage” they do so accurately, (2) when they use the term “emanation” they do so accurately and (3) the two terms are not interchangeable, for if they were Trijang would, for clarity, have used a single term (or at the very least pointed clearly to their interchangeability).
But, essentially, your explantation amounts to saying that the two terms are interchangeable/mean the same thing/are synoyms. You are saying that what happened is simply that Manjushri emanated in the form of Virupa, Sapan, Buton and so forth, that the term “reincarnation lineage” adds nothing to this explanation and, if anything, just confuses matters.
According to your explanation, if follows that Longchempa, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen and Je Tsongkhapa - apparently all well-known emanations or Manjushri - are all members of the (re)incarnation lineage. But if so, why doesn’t Trijang list them?
Given that GKG’s books are designed to communicate Dharma clearly, why have a chapter in Heart Jewel entitled “Previous Incarnations of the Dharma Protector” when it could simply have been entitled “Previous Emanations of the Dharma Protector”? And why write sentences such as (p80)
In Heart Jewel (p75) GKG writes
According to your argument, Hinayanists, non-Buddhists and non-humans are all part of the DS (re)incarnation lineage. So, again, why don’t they appear? To me, all this points to something more than “(re)incarnation lineage” and “emanation” being synonyms.
The various DL’s are said to be emanations of Avalokiteshvara. However, even though there are countless emanations of Avalokiteshvara, there can only be one single incarnation of any particular DL. So the incarnation lineage of DL’s is a lineage of enlightened beings that is a very small subset of the set of emanations and follows the “ordinary rules” of reincarnation i.e. death coming before rebirth.
Your “synonym argument” does in fact make the Shugdenpa view compatible with the Sakya view as, in both cases, neither hold there was a rebirth in the ordinary sense. However, as of this moment, I don’t buy your synonym argument.
Hi Buddhist Friend,
Thanks for your thorough reply.
“It’s true that the Naro Khacho lineage of Vajrayogini was maintained by various Indian and Tibetan Gurus, including the Sakyas, but that doesn’t make it a Sakya practice because it didn’t originate with them, it originated with Naropa.”
Well, according to your logic, Lamdre should cease to be a Sakya practice because it originated from the Indian Mahasiddha Virupa.
“An example of mixing traditions is not a Gelugpa doing Vajrayogini practice that happened to be passed through a lineage of Sakya and Gelugpa Gurus but a Gelugpa who tries to practice lamrim and lamdre together, or lamrim and Dzogchen.”
GKG’s version of Vajrayana Mahamudra (VM) is essentially about the two stages. The tantric part of Lamdre is essentially about the two stages. I don’t see why Lamrim practitioner can learn VM while not Lamdre if they have received the teachings.
“Someone will say “but Je Tsongkhapa had lots of different teachers”. True. He needed to receive transmission of all the practices that he would then formulate into his own ’system’ of teaching and practice. He didn’t mix systems but formulated his own.”
so you are saying it’s OK to mix as long as it’s well formulated? If that’s what you meant, “mixing” is not exactly the problem, the problem seems to be that they need to be properly mixed, right?
“Basically, you need a ’system’ for your enlightenment. Each tradition has its own unique combination of practices, or ’system’ of practice that is unique. By following that system, encouraged and educated by the Gurus who practise it single-pointedly, we are led to enlightenment.”
I don’t see why you cannot learn Lamdre while you are learning Atisha’s Lamrim. It’s not about “mixing systems”. It’s about the option to learn from other traditions.
“Otherwise, if we mix systems, there is no system! ”
There is no shortage of such mixing in NKT. Although Vajrayogini is a complete system in itself with eleven yogas and its own completion stage practices, GKG still mixes it with his version of Vajrayana Mahamudra. (Cf p.127, Tantric Grounds and Paths)
“It is a big mistake to mix and thereby destroy these systems simply in the name of being non-sectarian.”
GKG is certainly not non-sectarian, but i would not say he destroys both VM and Vajrayogini as a result of this mixing.
Best
Shaza
Dougal
GKG writes
In contrast, Namdrol (#144) writes
http://lazybuddhist.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/dirty-laundry/
Who to believe on this one? In fact, you don’t need to simply believe either as you can look at the translation of part of Dhonthog Tulku’s book on the web and see that Namdrol is correct.
In Heart Jewel, GKG writes that Morchen told his disciples “Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden”. However, Namdrol says that he’s read Morchen’s namthar (spiritual biography) and it says that Morchen himself did not rely upon DS! Instead he relied upon Panjaranatha, Shri Devi and Caturmukha, the usual protectors of the Sakya Order. According to Sakya scholar, Jeff Watt there are records of the initiations Morchen gave and there is no record of him ever giving DS. Furthermore, in the ten years since GKG was asked to provide a reference for his Morchen quote, neither he nor any other Shugdenpa has obliged. And given the acrimony of the debate, I’m pretty certain that if one could be found, Shugdenpas would put it out there pretty quickly. I know I would!
So GKG says Morchen told his disciples to rely on DS. Namdrol says no? Who to believe? It seems reasonable to me to go with Namdrol on this one. But maybe you see it differently?
Dear SeekingClarity,
It seems you have a lot of faith in Namdrol. I have faith in GKG. I think we can agree to disagree. There’s no meaning in debating these points because they don’t add anything to anyone’s spiritual practice.
You will realize the truth through your practice, not through anyone’s version of history. Although this seems unbearably simplistic for most people, I go with what Buddha said: “come and see”. If I come and see and experience the good results of a particular spiritual practice, I can know that it is good and genuine. The problem here is that most people are debating the merits and demerits of Dorje Shugden practice, history and so forth without having ever tasted the product.
It’s like someone telling me that a certain brand of chocolate that I have tasted and found delicious is unwholesome simply because someone they trust claims to have tasted it and found it unwholesome. I’VE TASTED THE CHOCOLATE! What do other people’s opinions matter about how it tastes, especially when they haven’t tried it and are relying on a third party?
Are we going to live our lives through other people’s knowledge and perceptions? I don’t think so.
My view is that you can talk about something you’ve got experience of. Everything else is polemics and rather pointless!
Hi Buddhist Friend
I sense our exchange coming to a close. Anyway, a few short responses.
REPOSTED AFTER FORMATTING MADNESS ABOVE!
Hi Buddhist Friend
I sense our exchange coming to a close. Anyway, a few short responses.
As Dougal noted, faith does not mean uncritically accepting what one’s guru says. In fact, it’s an interesting question about how one has faith whilst maintaining a crticial perspective.
You have faith in GKG. But when you critically assess his statements about Dhontong Tulku and Morchen in the face of the opposing case put by Namdrol and others, where does that leave you? I was left thinking that GKG is incorrect with regard to Dhontong and that the balance of evidence suggested he was not correct about Morchen. That’s not a case of blindly favouring Namdrol over GKG on every point at issue. It’s simply making a best judgement on a case-by-case basis. I think that’s reasonable.
Some of the arguments of the WSS (and its opponents) centre around Tibetan history earlier this century (and in previous centuries) that we don’t have direct experience of. Hence we sometimes end up having to relying on others’ knowledge/testimony.
Of course, direct experience is vital but this does not preclude reasoning and relying on the testimony of others. Indeed, direct experience, reasoning and the testimony or reliable individuals are thre three means of acquiring valid knowledge in Buddhism.
Wouldn’t this preclude some NKT teachers - and indeed teachers from other schools - from talking about deeply hidden phenomena?! ?!
But seriously…you’ve given me much to think about during our exchange. (For example, I’m definitely pondering your #343 and don’t consider my #345 was an entirely adequate response.) And I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been conducted.
All the best
SC
Dear SeekingClarity,
It’s been delightful discussing with you. Thanks for your civility and attention to detail at all times, it’s good to think more deeply about these things and you don’t really do that unless you are pushed, so thanks for helping me!
All good wishes,
Lineageholder
friends (and you are my friends, in the end) -
i’m off for a bit, now. but i did want to say something first, if you’ll indulge me; funnily enough, Buddhist Friend has just made a very similar point, in the post above!
anyway: one senior (and well-liked and respected, being a very mellow guy with few enemies) disciple of Geshe Kelsang once told me the following story.
years earlier, when Song Rinpoche had been visiting Geshe Kelsang’s Centres in the UK, this monk had the opportunity to meet him towards the end of his visit. i think he said this was in London, but i’m not sure. so he turned up for the appointment and was shown into Song Rinpoche’s room, only to find the Lama sitting on the bed meditating. not entirely sure what to do, he sat quietly and waited. then, Song Rinpoche opened his eyes and asked the monk in Tibetan to pass him the incense that was sitting in an incense holder, together with a beautiful, ornate cigarette-lighter on the table. this the monk did, and then watched Song Rinpoche make an elaborate ritual out of waving the lighter about, opening the lighter and striking the sparking wheel, as if performing hand mudras. the lighter failed to light. so Song Rinpoche, in a calm, measured manner, closed the lighter, before going through the same, elaborate process and failing to light the lighter again. he repeated this whole performance a third term, with the same result. he then put down the lighter, pulled a box of matches out of his pocket, struck one, and lit the incense. he blew it out and threw it away. then he said to the throughly bemused western monk: “Now go away and think about that.”
the monk told me that he did as he’d been asked (i never met him, but from those who did i get the impression that that’s what you generally did when Song Rinpoche told you to do something). he said he understood pretty quickly and very clearly that this was Song Rinpoche’s comment on Geshe Kelsang’s Kadam Dharma, that he had just witnessed first hand in his Centres. it may not be as elaborate and ornate as the Tibetan tradition, but it works.
you may not have faith in this - you may feel that, for example, Kadampa ordination is invalid because it doesn’t follow the letter of the Vinaya. you may feel that because this text and that Lama says this, that and the other that the scriptural authenticity of our Kadam Dharma is suspect. you may read texts intended to increase faith with a mind of non-faith, looking for holes to pick, and then feel that these texts are unqualified.
that is your loss.
for my money, Geshe Kelsang has Buddha Shakyamuni’s permission, in his words to Ananda, to change the presentation of the ordination now that times have changed. he has not changed its meaning. Kadampa ordination is fully qualified in Buddha’s eyes, and that is good enough for me.
Geshe Kelsang has his Root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche’s direct permnission to change the presentation of the Dharma to suit the fortunate degenerates of this modern world (like me!), so that they can have the chance to taste its meaning. how wonderful! he has not changed one atom of its meaning.
Dorje Shugden is the Protector of this holy Kadam Dharma. he arose, i believe, specifically at this time to guard the doctrine from degeneration at the hands of these political lamas. Geshe Kesang s not the only one promoting pure practice through reliance on Dorje Shugden. i have met and been seriously impressed by the quality of monks, Geshes, lay people and Rinpoches of the Tibetan tradition who rely sincerel on our Dharmapala. but Geshe Kelsang’s students are by far the most visible portion of the Shugden supporters thus far.
all thesepeople, Tibetans and westerners alike, have one good quality that marks them: the sincerity of their practice and the goodness of their hearts. i am quite honestly humbled to stand with them and shout for the world to bear witness to the madness of samsara’s fools trying to destroy this pure lineage.
if you choose to see differently, that is your choice. how sad. wishing you nothing but peace i have to destroy the facade of your false God.
the Dalai Lama is mad. he is trying to destroy this holy lineage. i have seen him lie directly. i have heard him applaud the tearing apart of the monasteries and approve his followers creating the most horrendous causes for their own nd others suffering, splitting the Sangha in two and destroying countless people’s faith. how can you defend this? how can honestly not see what he’s doing?
i don’t know what else i can say. you’ll tear my words apart and call me a deluded fool and a fanatic and a devil-worshipper. ok, ok. i’ll not defend myself any more.
be happy and keep a good heart. i’m sorry i called you names. maybe one day we can do puja together.
“‘Sectarian worldly spirit’ - we’ve only got the Dalai Lama’s word for that. His word against the holy Lineage Gurus of the Gelugpa tradition means nothing to me.
Don’t you see that by asserting that Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche were deluded you invalid the Dalai Lama who was a product of their teachings and the lineage itself? This argument has been repeated many times already but people just don’t get it.
What is harmful for the Gelugpa tradition is what the Dalai Lama is doing now - encouraging Gelugpas to mix traditions. He’s not protecting the tradition but destroying it.”
No Buddhist Friend, we have the sectarian writings of Phabongkha, Trijang and others as well as the sectarian actions of Phabongkha’s followers, especially in Kham and Chamdo. As westerners, we also have western academics who recount Phabongkha and follower’s sectarian behavior.
The Dalai Lama is not acting alone. He is following the example of many Gelug lamas, such as Ngulchu Dharmabhadra, Gen Lamrimpa, Geshe Lobsang Gyatso as well as his immediate predecessor, all of whom opposed the spread of this sectarian spirit worship.
The main propitiators of this spirit taught that this spirit killed Gelugpas that took teachings from other traditions. This was their clear political agenda, enforced by Phabongkhapa, the political governor of Chamdo.
You are repeating the point that Gelugpas taking teachings from other traditions destroys the Gelugpa tradition. This position is what this spirit and its followers stand for and what the Dalai Lama and many other lamas oppose.
The debate essentially comes down to that point. Should those that hold the position that non-sectarianism destroys Tsongkhapa’s tradition (despite Tsongkhapa’s own ecclecticism and the fact that Phabongkha mixed Tsongkhapa’s tradition with a number Sakya practices) be able to spread a protector practice that explicitly threatens others with death?
The Dalai Lama thinks not and most reasonable people would agree with him.
Namgyal
Thanks for your informative post. You say
I’d be interested to read the work of these academics. Any chance you could provide some references.
I’ve spent some time doing a bit more research on the net, regarding the “ban” on the practice of Dolgyal.
From what I have seen thus far, it is true that, in the Gelukpa monasteries which HH has authority over, there is an injunction, a “ban” if you will, on this practice. And further, there are reports of individuals in Tibetan society who refuse service, or refuse to associate, with Dolgyal supporters. But much of this press comes from Al Jazeera, I note. To date, I haven’t seen any hard evidence of blatant discrimination, or real human rights abuses, in other media, and I note that Amnesty International, in fact, have indicated that there is no cause for them to declare any human rights violations relating to this issue. WSS and the pro-Dolgyal blogs seem to use Al Jeezera as their primary sources in most cases, in fact. When given the choice, I’d rely on Amnesty International’s findings over those of Al Jeezera. Perhaps others may disagree.
Also, the media reports of the violent acts of the Dolgyal supporters come from much more reliable sources. That is not to say that these violent individuals in any way represented an “official” pro Shugden group such as WSS or NKT–I haven’t seen any proof of that.
However, although it’s clear that there are indications of a “ban” in some places, under some circumstances, it is also clear, from what I’ve seen so far, that HH has not declared some sort of all-encompassing “law” which makes such practice illegal.
What he has said, the position that he has taken, and the position that you find reflected here in this thread by most of the anti-Dolgyal/Pro HH participants, is that such practice is rooted in sectarian antinomy, in general, and, specifically, in the sectarian and exclusivist position of Pabongkha Rinpoche and his followers, including GKG and Trijang Rinpoche. As titular head of the Tibetan People, in the public eye, it would seem obvious to me that HH has a responsibility to discourage any practice which has it’s roots in such positions. To be clear, he has never said “You can’t practice this..” he has only said “You can’t be my student if you have,” and “you can’t practice this in the monasteries for which I am ultimately responsible.” You may call such a position a “ban,” and you may argue it is a violation of rights, but in reality, I find otherwise. Granted, there has been violence and mayhem from both sides, but HH has never condoned such violence in his suport. These acts are the responsibilities of individuals, just as the violence allleged to have been perpetrated by the allegedly pro-Dolgyal murderers was, as far as we know, solely their own responsibility.
To those who plead that, whatever you think of our Deity, you can’t escape the fact that Human Rights Abuses are being perpetrated against us, and we have no freedom of religion, I would reply that, first off, that is untrue. NKT exists, WSS exists, and I am sure there are plenty of other places where this practice is encouraged and promoted. You are free to practice in such circumstances. But you are not free to practice in others, and that, to me, seems fitting. Monasteries and religious establishments have the right to dictate which practices are, and aren’t, embraced or allowed. If one does not wish to practice Lam Dre, for example, one does not go to a Sakya Center. If one wishes to practice Islam, one does not go to a Christian Church. That does not mean that there is no freedom of religion.
There is a great deal of good information here, on this thread, and elsewhere, regarding Tsong Khapa’s tradition, the nature of the Gelukpa tradition, and the irony of NKT, in particular, in upholding some forms of “mixing” while vehemently opposing others. A rational person, when confronted with this evidence, could really only come to one logical conclusion. I do note, however, that GKG, when interviewed, continues to deny the impetus of exclusivity of this practice, in particular, and his NKT, in general. But when weighing his interviews and statements with the positions of other Dolgyal supporters, and the historical records and documents, one really has to question whether he is being candid, naive, or just canny.
You can post links to as many academic or traditional Tibetan sources as you want, but,when those Dolgyal supporters say that “the proof is in the pudding,” or “I will rely only on my own good experience,” or “I will rely on the words of my Gurus in NKT,” parroting the words ‘ Shugden is an emanation of Manjusri and Tsong Khapa,” etc., and not even listen to the contrasting histories, there is no real benefit to discussing objective histories and contrasting accounts. In my experience, you can usually spot such folks by the tone of their dialogue–the “pity,” barely concealing arrogance and feelings of superiority, they express towards those who can’t see the truth of their way, and the hollow-sounding wishes of goodwill following close on the heels of emotional insults and invective.
To those, there is nothing to say. To them who can think and analyze, and maintain an open mind, this discussion may do some good. I sincerely hope so.
Well, this is one place to start to see the discrimination:
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden28.php
As for the supposed sectarianism of Shugden practitioners, the real irony is how the FPMT don’t allow Shugden practitioners to be teachers, be ordained and, most recently, even attend Lama Zopa’s teachings. This means that Lama Yeshe himself would not be allowed to attend FPMT teachings now, and he was the person who founded the FPMT.
Care to explain that? I’m sure you have some clever Carl Rove like explanation but the fact is it is blatant discrimination, blatant sectarianism and really the most extraordinary display of intolerance.
From a letter from a very senior FPMT monk who was a close disciple of Lama Yeshe:
“We of FPMT, especially the people who joined after Lama Yeshe’s passing, should think of the future from a wide scope. Our founding father was a sound Dorje Shugden practitioner, and his legacy was passed to Lama Zopa, who was invested as a Tulku by Dorje Shugden. Our lineage lamas all practiced Dorje Shugden as their principal protector. We must not criticize this protector in any way.”
“Many, many, many of the older Lama Yeshe students have gone underground with their practices of Dorje Shugden. Some like me do not really go to the centers here in the USA anymore. They will not abandon their practice of Dorje Shugden because of their great devotion to Lama Yeshe and are somewhat flabbergasted at the direction that some new FPMT centers’ are going with their arrogant witch hunts. What is important to remember is JUST BECAUSE YOU ATTEND THE DALAI LAMA’S TEACHINGS, OR HAVE TAKEN PHOTOS WITH HH DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY VALIDATE YOU AS A SPIRITUAL POLICEMAN AND GO ON WITCH-HUNTS. We must practice the essence of what HH teaches as did Lama Yeshe, which are tolerance, compassion, forgiveness and not ever slandering any lama, dharma, lineage or practice. As the karmic retributions will fall onto us. We should never mislead new FPMT students toward this line of thought. We are destroying our organization slowly if we do so.”
“We shouldn’t practice or not practice what the current political situation pressures us to or not to. We should do what our lama says. So during Lama’s life Dorje Shugden is good and now Lama is dead, so Dorje Shugden is bad??? Wouldn’t that infer that lama was wrong, had bad degenerate practices, lacking in wisdom, had no refuge, had no attainments and wasted his life praying to a spirit?? So if lama gave us Heruka initiation and practice, then it had no blessings because lama’s refuge degenerated due to his practice of Dorje Shugden?? Since Dorje Shugden is a spirit and Lama kept up his ‘sogtae’ (Dorje Shugden’s initiation) or life entrustment practices his whole life, then all of the other practices lama did was degenerated and ineffective when passed to us.
So any practices Lama Zopa received from Lama Yeshe and passes it to others would logically be degenerate also??? Wouldn’t it?
The implications are quite big if we choose to believe that way….So that would mean many of the practices that Lama Zopa does now and gives others that are directly from Lama Yeshe are degenerated because Lama Yeshe was degenerated?? Of course not. Very dangerous line of thought. Very ruinous direction we are heading toward. I watched Lama Zopa get brow-beaten into ‘giving’ up his Dorje Shugden practices.”
Please go to the http://www.DorjeShugden.org for the full letter. This monk is really brave to speak up and I applaud him. May all religious traditions be free to practice in peace.
Cone,
You said:
I don’t intend to get into a big debate about this because it’s already all been said, but there’s only one reason why NKT and WSS exists: THE DALAI LAMA HAS NO POWER TO PREVENT IT. If he could, he would.
The exiled community is ruled by the Dalai Lama and whatever he says goes. It’s a theocracy. Thank goodness I’m not a Dorje Shugden practitioners in India, because then I would have no freedom to practice at all and my basic human rights would be infringed.
The Dalai Lama cannot ban the practice of Dorje Shugden for NKT practitioners as he does in India because he has no power, but even so he is trying in his own way to engender a certain destructive view by saying that GKG is acting like a true cult leader and indirectly implying that NKT is a cult, so he’s trying to control NKT in a different way by influencing how people regard Kadampa Buddhists, so how is NKT free?
NKT are not free to practice because they are being slandered and interfered with by the Dalai Lama’s fanatical supporters in the West. As a moderator of E-Sangha you know that recently there was a thread where Tibetan Buddhists openly admitted to defacing and destroying NKT publicity, defacing GKG’s books in bookstores to prevent them from being sold, contacting places where NKT classes were being held to inform them that they were hosting the activities of a non-Buddhist cult, and so on.
Admittedly there were some who posted that such actions were going too far. Thank goodness there are some people who are trying to practise Buddha’s teachings!
Why can’t you and the Dalai Lama allow people the freedom to practise what they want without slander? NKT has suffered ten years of such interference from Tibetan Buddhists so how are they free?
Cone
Now you’re back around, do you have an opportunity to reply to Buddhist Friend/Lineage Holder’s #193, which I thought contained some interesting questions?
Thanx
So the NKT/WSS are allowed to discredit and slander everyone and everything who stand in their way through their aggressive media campaign and rapid response team…..
yet they cannot tolerate anyone or anything critical said about them or have any isight into why others may want to protest against them.
One of the principle reasons people are contacting places where the NKT hold meetings is that NKT’s advertising of their classes makes no reference to the fact that the classes are organized by the NKT and no one would ever know that those ordained in the NKT were not directly associated with Tibetan Buddhism in general and HHDL in particular. The fact that said monks and nuns protest against HHDL and call him a liar, a hypocrite and not even a Buddhist should be known to people attending NKT classes. The NKT should do this themselves and explain why so that people can make up their own minds. If they do not then it is entirely reasonable that others may see this hypocrisy for what it is and take action themselves. This is the real world NKT - ordinary rules apply.
It is the NKT’s lack of transparency - it’s concealment of their identity through their political wing - the WSS that is the cause of their critics - the effects of this are coming back like a boomerang and hitting them on the head.
My advise - stop throwing the boomerang……
Finally I think the NKT are developing a certain amount of paranoia. Many of their critics - particularly those in the UK are former members who through seeing their actions against HHDL are now questioning the organisation and looking back at the way the organisation has treated them and other members. In the main they were followers of the NKT and not HHDL. If they now have any allegiance to HHDL then it is because of the NKT.
Since I distanced myself from the NKT any advice from followers of HHDL has never contained one word of criticism against the NKT - just kindness.
Dear holder of the feather,
Was it, or was it not, the Dalai Lama who started this by banning the centuries old practice of Dorje Shugden that he himself had engaged in for forty years without noticing there was ’something wrong’ with it?
He threw the boomerang, so perhaps he should stop throwing it. Tibetan Buddhists continue to interfere with NKT activities, so perhaps you should ask them to stop throwing the boomerang too. No NKT people are phoning venues where Tibetan Buddhist classes are being held in the hope of getting them stopped.
You said:
It’s not just monks and nuns who are calling the Dalai Lama a liar and a hypocrite. Lay people, including many Tibetans are also saying that of him.
Contrary to what you’re saying, it’s not just NKT people who hold this view .
It’s correct to say that NKT is nothing to do with Tibetan Buddhism or the Dalai Lama, so what’s the issue? It’s only important because you think the Dalai Lama is so important. If people realized why all Shugden practitioners (Western and Tibetan) are calling the Dalai Lama a liar and a hypocrite, they might well agree, but it’s hardly relevant to the Buddhist teaching they are about to receive because the Dalai Lama not an NKT lineage Guru and has nothing to do with the tradition.
I suspect your real reason for saying this is that you hold the view that Tibetan Buddhism is the real deal and people shouldn’t confuse that awful, degenerate NKT stuff for the ‘real’ thing. If that’s true, you are displaying the sectarianism that the Dalai Lama has said he’s against but actually practises.
I didn’t see those questions in #193, but perhaps it is a good idea to identify what “Rimay” really means, by answering them, so here goes:
1. How can you receive many teachings and empowerments from different traditions and not be mixing? I don’t see how it’s possible not to mix.
When one is talking of philosophical views, it’s true that the different lineages maintain various views which do seem at odds. In fact, even within a single lineage, say, for example, the Karma Kagyu, there are differences of opinion regarding various philosophical tenets, amongst great masters. In fact, even in some cases one great master may seem to espouse more than one “side!” See Karmapa Mikyo Dorje’s works in this regard.
The ultimate point, however, upon which all the great masters agree, as far as I can tell, is that the Absolute Dharmadhatu, Dharmakaya, is inexpressible, beyond concepts. It defies analysis. So, from the point of view of “views,” philosophical stances, if one starts with the premise that none can be right, ultimately, yet all may be valuable, it seems beneficial to me, to understand as much as possible regarding the different viewpoints.
But the real crux of Rimay traditions, in general, is the practice. Now, we’re talking Tantra, here. As you likely know, Tantra itself can be broken down in a number of different ways–the typical “Sarma” fourfold classification, with further elaborations regarding Highest Yoga Tantra into Father, Mother, and nondual classes, –or the Nyingma Yana system. But what’s interesting, here, is that even within one lineage, the “view” espoused by the various levels of Tantra is subtly different. There is a “development,” if you will….and, in fact, oen could say that even for someone practicing, say, Gelukpa Tantric Paths, there is a difference in understanding between a practice of Kriya Tantra and a practice of Anuttarayogatantra. Subtle, perhaps, but different nonetheless.
My point, here, is that in both philosophical discourse, and tantric practice, it’s likely that, even within a single lineage, there will be apparent contradictions.
Now…the Karma Kagyu, for example, are Rimay, or consider themselves Rimay, following after Kongtrul Lodro Taye in particular. However, you will find that those seriously engaged in practice, in this lineage, will maintain the Karma Kagyu Mahamudra as their essential “core” as it were…..as well as the “Path of Means,” the two stages and the Six Yogas. However, they will also practice Vajrakilaya, Guru Rinpoche, and other Nyingma sadhanas. When practicing these given methods, the instructions are followed and there’s no “mixing” of other instructions or methods. This is because, at the time of practice, there shouldn’t be a lot of analytical analysis. From the POV of Gelukpa practice, this may be a vital difference, and I cannot speak to that.
2. How, by receiving teachings from many different traditions, does this fit into an overall path to enlightenment? Whose path are you following?
The path of such great Gurus as Kyabje Kalu Rinpoche, Karmapa Rangjung Ripai Dorje, Kongtrul Lodro Taye, Khyentse Wangpo, Jetsun Taranatha, Karmapa Mikyo Dorje, Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, Glorious Khyungpo Naljor, and Glorious Tsong Khapa, amongst others. All these great realized beings, in fact, studied and practiced a great many things, from a great many masters. In fact, that last mentioned teacher, as pointed out previously in this thread, was quite eclectic, having taking ordination with the Karmapa, studied Sakya tenets, practiced the Six Yogas of Naropa from the Marpa Kagyu, and the cycle of Mahakala Practices, amongst other practices, from the Shangpa Kagyu…but then, those who follow Tsong Khapa’s path wouldn’t need to be told of his history and practice.
To be Rimay means, to me, to appreciate the variety of methods, which are, after all, expedient means, and to practice that which one feels a connection with. It also means maintaining a connection with my Lama, who considers himself Rimay. It does not, however, mean running about and obtaining teachings and empowerments from any Lama who passes through town. In my opinion, this is okay, but it’s impossible to practice everything one has been given. But one maintains respect for all, and does not denigrate other traditions or methods, regardless of who one studies with or takes empowerment from. I, myself, have had empowerments and teachings from all four schools, and I hold the pure blessings of the various genuine Dharma lineages in high regard, and would undertake no practice which denigrates or seeks to oppress or supress any of them. From the point of view of practice, I maintain only a few practices which my teacher recommends, and for which I have an inclination.
3. Where is that path and how do you follow it? Who says definitively what it is?
Well, paths of practice are expedient…..but I follow my Lama’s advice, to the best of my ability. Though there are many Lamas who espouse Rimay views, this doesn’t mean one runs around, making only glancing connections with a large number of teachers. You’ll find that serious practitioners who claim to be Rimay develop strong relationships with a small number of primary teachers.
4. Presumably by receiving teachings of different traditions you will be receiving teachings that are based on different views of emptiness, for example, if you receive Sakya teachings you will be following the view of Gorampa and if you receive Gelugpa teachings you will be following the view of Tsongkhapa. How do you reconcile these completely contradictory views and how to do you decide whose view to follow?
See my answer to your question number one, above, fro some clarification on this.
But…..you understand that “view” as you’re describing it is a construct, conceptual elaboration, right? I don’t “hold” to any conceptual construct too tightly, especially when I’m practicing. To answer your question directly, there is no reconciliation, really….there is merely a relaxation into the expanse beyond conceptual elaboration, when things are going right, that is!
It’s worth noting that, in the realm of conceptual discourse, which is where your question belongs, Nagarjuna’s writings have as their object, in large part, the refutation of a variety of Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems. In order for Nagarjuna to refute such sysetms, he first had to develop an understanding of their positions. He did not just assert a certain position–instead, he studied and understood the basic premises of various systems, adn then refuted those systems. I don’t see why studying and attempting to understand various Tibetan formulations and elaborations of The Madhyamika, for example, would be a bad thing. We’re all still learning, until we reach the stage of No More Learning. Right?
5. If each tradition of Buddhism has its own path to enlightenment, why receive teachings from many different traditions? Surely one path to enlightenment is enough and is less confusing that trying to integrate many different teachings? (for no real reason)
In actuality, each person has their own unique path, along with their own unique Karma. In reality, I see Vajrayana Buddhism as one great tradition, a multifaceted jewel, whcih can be viewed from infinite points of view. But I agree that each person must find their path, and there is the possiblity of great confusion. But again, no one is really saying “Rimay” means integrating a bunch of disparate views or teachings into some unified whole. And, to be fair, I would ask you to ask your question of the great Tsong Khapa himself? Why did he feel the need to “integrate” various paths into an innovative system he developed? After all, it is said of all practices that I have encountered, including Heruka, or Guhyasamaja, etc., that “This is a complete practice which can take you to the Ultimate Goal.” Simply stated, the great masters, headed by Buddha Shakyamuni, out of their kindness, have made available a myriad number of methods available. It is due to our karma, and our effort, diligence, etc., (which, some would say, boils down to our karma as well), whether a given practice will prove to be the Ultimate Benefit. I think you’ll find some good answers to this question if you study Tsong Khapa’s writings on Tantra.
I hope that helps.
Dear Cone,
I think we’re agreed on at least two things:
(1) We need to follow our Lama’s advice to follow any path to enlightenment
(2) While doing this, we need to respect the other traditions and ways of practice.
Your Lama is a Rimay practitioner so rightly you follow his advice. Mine is a Gelugpa who follows only the Gelugpa teachings that come from Je Tsongkhapa through his lineage Gurus Je Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche, so rightly I follow his advice and do the same.
The proof is in the pudding. I feel that I am making progress and am very content with my tradition, which works well for me. You likewise seem to feel the same way. We can both respect each other and keep practicing.
Wonderful.
Dear Cone,
Thank you for your comprehensive answers to my questions and explanation of Rimay, it’s not as ‘free’ as I first understood it to be. As you explained, it’s not about running around receiving teachings from any Teacher.
On the points that you wrote:
If I correctly understand what you are saying, someone who is Karma Kagyu is always rooted in Karma Kagyu. They may practise some methods from the Nyingma tradition but it is integrated into the framework of their tradition. I also understand you to say that if you adopt a practice it is on the advice of your Guru, so I assume you would have one main Guru whose advice you rely upon?
I certainly agree that it is necessary to know the tenets of the various philosophical schools from the point of view of how they assert conventional and ultimate truths. We need to understand the Vaibashika, the Sautrantika, the Chittamatrin and the Madhyamika schools in order to arrive at the correct view of emptiness and its important to understand the differences between them. Gelugpas study the tenets of these schools partly within the context of Lorig (the nature and function of mind) but especially in the context of studying Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti’s works on emptiness, such as Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way and Guide to the Middle Way
Those following Tsongkhapa place great emphasis on having a correct conceptual understanding of ultimate truth, whereas I understand you to say that when you practice you try to go beyond conceptions. That’s a considerable difference between the Gelugpas and the other schools if the other three schools hold this view of an inexpressible non-conceptual Dharmakaya, however, everyone is free to practice in accordance with their own tradition and teachings.
I agree with Jimmy - we probably agree on more things than we disagree on. I’m certainly in favour of respecting all traditions and ways of practice while relying on one main Teacher and a smaller number of Teachers who share the same view, and I also think everyone should have the freedom to practise whatever they choose.
Anyone who wants to understand Rimay should read “Jamgon Kongtrul’s Retreat Manual”. Within the pages of this tome one can read about how in three years with careful balance and supervision one can build realizations by practices rooted in a variety of lineages.
Jamgon Kongtrul faced great obstacles in his time trying to promote such an open-minded program. If you read this book, you will understand how the label “purity” serves to marginalize rather than unite. True non-sectarianism requires at least a glance knowledge of other paths.
People who have their heads buried in books by only one author are attached to views. In no modern Buddhist tradition aside from NKT have I heard of monks studying teachings by only one teacher.
Theravada monks study the Buddha’s Tripitaka in addition to commentaries by the likes of Buddhaghosa and works by modern masters like Ajahn Chah and Sayadaw U Pandita. In addition, monks from Ajahn Chah’s tradition are known to attend the Dalai Lama’s teachings and Ch’an retreats.
Mahayana bhikshus and bhikshunis in most of the Chinese and Japanese traditions study the Mahayana Sutras in addition to kung-ans and commentaries by several different masters - Bodhidharm, Lin Chi and others. The sects in Japan that emphasize the teachings of only one master - such as Nichiren, are regarded by most Japanese as heterodox New Religious Movements with close-minded attitudes.
Even among the Gelug purists of the major monastic universitie, as noted above, students study a variety of texts by several different authors, in addition to monastic manuals and teachings on Sutras and Lam Rims.
NKT is the only organization rooted in the Tibetan tradition where the books of only one master are used in the classes. FPMT, Shambhala, Jewel Heart, the Dzogchen Community, Nithartha - the list goes on and on - all these organizations use texts from a variety of sources and teachers.
NKT is alone in asserting that a complete path to Enlightenment is contained in the books of only one author - who happens to also be the only ordination master and the Guru of the whole tradition.
Would such a highly centralized, exclusivist approach not set up alarm bells? Especially when this is not the practice of any other Vajrayana tradition?
As to the revised ordination of NKT. Changes to the Vinaya must be done as part of a council - an assembly of senior monastics. Such unilateral changes to the Vinaya are also unheard of in the history of Buddhism. Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the main advocates of adapting to the Vinaya in modern times, formulated his precepts as part of a consultative process with several senior monks.
Geshe Kelsang took this step unilaterally. He has never given the specifics of what changes Trijang Rinpoche OK’d. Only a general statement about it being okay to change things.
Such unilateral decisions and centralized doctrine and practice reveal that in fact while the WSS and NKT accuse the Dalai Lama of autocracy, in NKT the buck stops with Geshe Kelsang. The Dalai Lama’s decisions are far more consultative, in fact, than those that take place in the NKT. For example, he has said he cannot change aspects of the Vinaya without an agreement from reps of the various Buddhist traditions.
Geshe Kelsang has overstepped his position, in my view. He is neither a high Geshe (he didn’t collect his certificate), nor a Tantric College graduate, nor a Vinaya scholar. Yet in his decisions, he wears the hats of all these positions.
All Traditions are Rime,
I agree that all traditions should be Rime from the point of view of respecting all teachings and all traditions, but it’s my choice to rely on one Teacher and, if you are practising the spirit of Rime which respects all paths and traditions, why are you criticizing this? Surely everyone has the right to practise the way they wish to? I won’t criticize you if you decide to receive teachings from many Teachers because that’s your right.
You say “people who have their heads buried in books by only one author are attached to views” but what if the teachings of that author cause one to drop attachment to all views? Don’t you think that someone who thinks that the only way to enlightenment is to receive teachings from many teachers is also attached to views? There are many different paths in accordance with the karma of living beings.
I’d like to offer you a challenge: can you prove to me that the whole path to enlightenment is not contained within Geshe Kelsang’s books? If you have perfect reasons to prove this I’d like to hear them.
It’s your right to say that, in your view, Geshe Kelsang has overstepped his position, but then you go on to display spiritual snobbery by saying that he isn’t a high Geshe and so forth as if that’s all that matters. Was Buddha Shakyamuni a high Geshe or a Tantric College graduate, or a Vinaya scholar? What you’re saying is that if Buddha appeared in this world today, you wouldn’t take him seriously unless he met your expectations by having the highest paper qualifications! Isn’t that a very ordinary way of viewing things? Do you think that Geshe Potowa, Geshe Langri Tangpa Geshe Sharawa and Geshe Chekhawa had paper Geshe qualifications? Do you view them as unqualified? Lama Yeshe wasn’t a high Geshe either but it didn’t stop him gaining deep understanding of Buddha’s teachings and acting as a spiritual guide to thousands of students. Buddha’s emanations can appear in any form to benefit others.
I think we have to be careful not to accuse others of being attached to views whilst being attached to views ourself. I’m including myself in that too.
You are missing my point, Lineageholder.
My point is the fact that NKT is the ONLY Buddhist organization in the Vajrayana tradition (perhaps the only Buddhist tradition at all in the world, I haven’t studied enough to know) that uses the books of only one master as the final authority is dangerous. Why is the NKT approach so exclusive? Why does it buck the trend of the last few centuries of Buddhist practice in looking at a variety of texts in favour of the teachings of only one master?
It would seem that this is to consolidate Geshe Kelsang’s authority within his own organization. This is deeply disconcerting and a point for those interested in NKT to examine very carefully. Why are no other Buddhist organizations in the West functioning in the same way? What does this say about NKT.
Why is Geshe Kelsang instituing this completely self-referential system for the first time in the history of Vajrayana Buddhism? Is this the act of a (according to NKT’s website) “humble man”?
I have done some digging over the past couple of days as to how your organization operates on the internet, and this is what has led me to examine more carefully Geshe Kelsang’s actions. Since I have you attention, how do you respond to the lies spread by your supporters that I uncovered in this thread?
DT : Are you aware of the demonstrations against the DL ?
Geshe XX : He has no right to ban the practice of Dorje Shugden. One does not have to ask for his permission to practice Dorje Shugden. In no way is it the practice of a worldly spirit. He and I both received the Dorje Shugden empowerment previously. It is as if he has become crazy and what he is doing is damaging to the Tibetan cause. It is really no good at all. Do not go to Nantes.
DT said at the time that neither the Ganden Tripa, nor this Geshe, planned to attend the DL’s teachings in Nantes.
My response:
don’t believe what you say about the Ganden Tripa’s Center. Why? Look at this link: http://www.thardeuling.com/evenements_bouddhistes_472.htm
If the person in charge (Geshe XX) felt that the Dalai Lama was bad and his disciples shouldn’t go to the Nantes classes why, why the heck would his center’s website have a banner on it linking to the Nantes teachings?
Don’t go to the teachings students- but find the link on our website. I don’t how you think people can believe such a contradiction. It is a against common sense. Please, people, visit the site and see for yourselves.
My only conclusion is that this exclusivist approach has blinded you to the rest of the buddhist world and led to tunnel vision which indicates WSS is willing to post anything to destroy the Dalai Lama. Your friend Dougal mentioned days ago in this thread he was still waiting for WSS to present documentation that the current Dalai lama is an impostor on the throne. It still hasn’t been produced…
What are we to think, Lineage holder? How are we supposed to trust the motives of WSS and NKT supporters given your recent behaviour on the internet?
As for Geshe Kelsang’s books, I haven’t read enough of them to say whether they are valid or not. What I question is why a humble man would institute only his books as the study program in an organization, when no other lama has taken this step. If a uni professor asked his students to purchase a reading list made up entirely of his titles, what would you have us think.
My conclusion is that NKT and WSS think that anything goes in this debate as long as it furthers the aim of Shugden. My question if, if this isn’t fundamentalism, what is?
Lama Yeshe was a great practitioner despite having no academic qualifications. The point is moot because he didn’t try to single handedly change the Vinaya or introduce a world-wide movement based on his writings alone. He decided to show an example of humility.
It’s true Geshe Kelsang’s papers etc. aren’t the main point. However, since he’s taken actions that indicate he has a large amount of authority, lacking these qualification makes these actions suspect in my view.
http://blog.tricycle.com/?p=718
Above is the quoted thread I was referring to with the false allegations.
Facts about the Dalai Lama’s religious persecution and Human rights abuses!
Millions of Buddhist across the world carry out the practice of an ancient well loved prayer to the Buddhist Deity Dorje Shugden.
The Dalai Lama has illegally banned this prayer even though he himself practiced it for most of his life and was taught to him by his Spiritual Guide before him. Since banning the prayer in 1996, the Dalai Lama has set about instigating and endorsing a series of non-democratic and vehement campaigns toward Shugden practitioners causing tremendous pain and great schisms within the Buddhist community worldwide.
His campaign has intensified since January this year when over a 1000 monks were unconstitutionally expelled from their monasteries, Tibetans-in-exile were forcibly intimidated to engage in public signature and swearing campaigns, and since which Shugden devotees have experienced having identity cards and visa applications withheld, they have been denied basic needs and necessities such as food, water and medical assistance, and there have been instances of thuggish attacks against persons and arson against their property simply because they wish to maintain their spiritual beliefs.
The Dalai Lama continues to campaign for support to seek religious freedom from the Chinese. Yet, millions of Shugden practitioners worldwide are also seeking religious freedom - from the Dalai Lama.”
Ever thought about why the Dalai Lama is acting in very unholy and un-Buddhist ways- even though he is supposed to be a re-incarnation of Avalokiteshvara -the Buddha of compassion? Is it possible that perhaps he is not the re-incarnation of Buddha of Compassion? Yes it is possible! Is it possible that the Shangri-la was never the Shangri-la westerners thought it was? Yes it is possible!
Perhaps the Dalai Lama is not really the Dalai Lama? Check out this really interesting article called ‘Reting Lama - How he chose the false Dalai Lama’. Explains a hell of lot!
Here is the web address;
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org…lse-dalai-lama
If that is a possibility - then it is also possible that the Dalai Lama’s actions and behaviour are completely contradictory to Buddhism or even to humanity! Check out this excellent article by Ron cook called ‘Six principal reasons why the Dalai Lama is not a Buddhist’ on http://www.westernshugdensociety.org…not-a-buddhist.
It is hard to accept but the evidence is there if you care to look!
ATAR -
said i was waiting to “hear more”, not waiting for “WSS to present documentation”. i’m trying to retire, here. don’t misquote me.
this issue is not about NKT or Geshe Kelsang - you lot are just trying to deflect attention from THE DALAI LAMA’S CRIME.
it won’t work.
dougal out.
WSS website said it was 400 monks. Now you are saying 1000. You have not responded to my questions. I can see further participation here is useless. You are not concerned with truth, merely having a forum on which to re-broadcast the same old PR statements. Goodnight.
My final comment:
How can NKT or WSS expect anyone to take them seriously when the “facts” presented are inevitably variable and unverifiable. What a laugh this campaign is.
the biggest schism ever seen in Lord Buddha’s Sangha caused by the one man most people see as the most high-profile example of Buddhism?
hilarious.
Ummmm… Are you forgetting the Third Council? Learn some history.
Dear All Traditions are Rime,
You said:
NKT follows the teachings of many Masters: Buddha Shakyamuni, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Atisha, Geshe Chekhawa, Geshe Langri Tangpa, Milarepa, Shantideva, Je Tsongkhapa, Guntang Rinpoche, Kelsang Gyatso (the seventh Dalai Lama), Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, Longdol Lama, Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and all the other Buddhist masters who have transmitted the teachings and who are quoted in Geshe Kelsang’s books.
NKT students do look at a variety of texts because many texts are quoted in Geshe Kelsang’s books. If you can show me that these teachers have been misquoted or that the methods taught in Geshe Kelsang’s books are not what was taught by these Teachers then there is some basis for disagreement. Otherwise, where is the problem? If Geshe Kelsang’s books perfectly transmit all the stages of the path to enlightenment, why is it not possible to attain enlightenment by relying upon these explanations alone?
I’ve read books by other Teachers in the Gelugpa lineage and none of them have contradicted Geshe Kelsang’s books.
I agree that NKT is a unique development of Buddha’s teachings in these times. Has any other author compiled all the instructions of Sutra and Tantra that lead to enlightenment before, and presented them in a way that makes them easy to practise? Even the Dalai Lama has not done that.
Let me just ask you: Have never attended any of Geshe Kelsang’s teachings? Have you have read his books? If not, then you have no basis to criticize GKG, the teachings or those who follow them. If you say that following the teachings of one person is ‘dangerous’, please give logical reasons why, not simply ‘this hasn’t happened before’
You seem to imply that Geshe Kelsang is on some kind of ego trip. If you met the man, you would realize how wrong you are. He doesn’t view the teachings as his own. (unlike the way that Robert Thurman portrays all the benefits of Buddha’s teachings as being attributable to the Dalai Lama). They are the teachings of the Ganden Oral Lineage, received from his own Teacher Trijang Dorjechang. If you read the preface to Joyful Path of Good Fortune you will see that he says that the teachings do not come from him but from Trijang Rinpoche. Does that sound like an ego trip to you? In contrast, if you check the Dalai Lama’s website, you won’t find any mention of his lineage or his Teachers. Both Geshe Kelsang and the Dalai Lama share the same root Guru but the Dalai Lama rarely mentions him, except to say that he was ‘wrong’.
Who is the one who is showing pride and arrogance?
I doubt very much if even Buddha Shakyamuni would have claimed that the teachings he gave were his - he received them from all his Gurus through countless previous lives. No one owns the teachings, not even Buddha.
further - if you check NKT-IKBU Internal Rules, you’ll see that GKG isd due to retire in summer next year. he has systematically disempowered himself over the last few years, handing over effective control of the organisation he created to the Education Council, the assembly of all the Resident Teachers of NKT-IKBU Centers worldwide. this council, right now, has the power to remove GKG from office asGeneral Spiritual Director of NKT-IKBU if his behaviour were to be found to be harmful to the development of Buddhadharma in this world.
he has consistently taught publicly and privately over the years that we need to apply wisdom in our reliance on our Gurus, and to check that their instructions are in accordance with Lord Buddha’s doctrine. he as told his disciples directly that we *should not* blindly follow anyone, including himself, but that we should develop our own wisdom to discriminate correct advice to follow, and incorrect advice to reject.
sounds like the actions of an insecure, power-humgry despot to me, eh? what do you think?
you do think, right?
THE DALAI LAMA HAS LIED REPEATEDLY. HE HAS CREATED A SCHISM IN THE SANGHA. HE IS DESTROYING A PURE BUDDHIST TRADITION. HIS ACTIONS ARE STEALING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS, OF PEOPLE. HE MUST BE STOPPED.
just in case you’d forgotten what this is about…
“this council, right now, has the power to remove GKG from office asGeneral Spiritual Director of NKT-IKBU if his behaviour were to be found to be harmful to the development of Buddhadharma in this world.”
They wouldn’t dare, and you know it. We have seen what happens to those who dare to question the actions of Geshe Kelsang:
Letter by Geshe-la to Lucy James:
“I am very sorry that you have not trusted me. Because you do not trust me I cannot work with you therefore my conclusion is that you should resign from being an NKT Resident Teacher.”
Was the committee consulted on this decision according to the NKT-IKBU internatl rules? If Geshe Kelsang asked for a teacher to be removed for questioning his actions, who would dare oppose him?
Guru devotion as taught in many Vajrayana traditions (I won’t single out NKT in this) trumps any other sort of rules. In this case, anyone who broke Guru devotion in NKT would be ousted, this is very clear from the actions of your organization.
“NKT students do look at a variety of texts because many texts are quoted in Geshe Kelsang’s books.”
Doesn’t cut it - Tsongkhapa’s books also contain quotes from many masters. His students still studied heaps of other texts. Your assertion does not change the fact that Geshe Kelsang is the first guru to instal a system of complete reliance on his tomes alone as the authority in his organization, in the entire history of Tibetan Buddhism.
“You seem to imply that Geshe Kelsang is on some kind of ego trip. If you met the man, you would realize how wrong you are”
I met him in in the USA in the mid 1990s before this mess. Although I practice mostly Karma Kagyu these days I have read several of his books: Joyful Path, Tantric Grounds and Paths, Understanding the Mind and Guide to Dakini Land.
“he has consistently taught publicly and privately over the years that we need to apply wisdom in our reliance on our Gurus, and to check that their instructions are in accordance with Lord Buddha’s doctrine.”
I have attended 5 teaching events over the years with HH Dalai Lama in North America. He says exactly the same thing, and ironically it is this reasoning that he has used in order to explain why he disagrees with Trijang Rinpoche on Shugden.
“Both Geshe Kelsang and the Dalai Lama share the same root Guru but the Dalai Lama rarely mentions him”
To use your reasoning, how many teachigs of HH have you attended? Obvisously none, because he mentiones Trijang Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche, Dilgo Kyentse Rinpoche and his other teachers with gratitude frequently. I doubt HHDL is the webmaster of his own website anymore than Geshe Kelsang is the webmaster of Kadampa.org
“If you say that following the teachings of one person is ‘dangerous’, please give logical reasons why, not simply ‘this hasn’t happened before”
Because when only one person’s texts are used as the final authority for all teachings delivered in the temples of a world-wide movement it leads to stagnation and lack of flexibility.
“If Geshe Kelsang’s books perfectly transmit all the stages of the path to enlightenment, why is it not possible to attain enlightenment by relying upon these explanations alone?”
It would be the first time in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. And this statement of yours reveal why I feel his ego is involved here. Where did you learn this statement? Is this how your Geshe trained his students to respond?
“Has any other author compiled all the instructions of Sutra and Tantra that lead to enlightenment before, and presented them in a way that makes them easy to practise? Even the Dalai Lama has not done that.”
Obviously you haven’t read many of the books by the Dalai Lama and the published works of the Dalai Lama’s teachings. They cover everything from the Lojong Teachings to the Guru Puja to Mahamudra to Madhyamika to Generation Stage practice. Do you have any idea how many transcripts and books by the Dalai Lama have been published and what topics they cover? Probably not…
“HIS ACTIONS ARE STEALING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS, OF PEOPLE. HE MUST BE STOPPED.”
Nice practice of patience with the online “yelling”. How many are we talking about? NKT/WSS can’t even agree on the numbers.
-First it was 1000 monks in the monasteries.
-But some said 400 had been asked to stay away from the prayers.
-Then it was millions.
How many Tibetans live in India again? How many are Gelugpas? Then it was tens of thousands…. Pick a number and stick with it. The inability of your campaign to do even this reveals your lack of real knowledge about the whole situation.
“you do think, right?”
In turn yelling and making personal attacks. I can see why many on the web say it is pointless to engage with NKT “Dharma Students”.
“just in case you’d forgotten what this is about…”
My point is, why doesn’t NKT address the very real abuses within its own organization instead of attacking others on a situation it clearly has only shaky facts about. But instead, NKT promotes former sexual harassers to positions of power in this campaign:
Is NKT Going Crazy?
As previously discussed on this web site, NKT/WSS appears to be using a contrived Shugden controversy as a ploy to overthrow The Dalai Lama, either because Gyatso cannot recover from his Dalai Lama envy or because NKT/WSS - as many have reported - is alligned with the Chinese government against The Dalai Lama’s leadership of the Tibetan people (the jury is still out about whether NKT and the Chinese government are cooperating in their goals to remove The Dalai Lama).
Kundeling Rinpoche, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against The Dalai Lama in India (this lawsuit is endorsed by NKT/WSS) stated, “I approve the Chinese presence in Tibet. What we are living with the Dalai Lama today shows how authoritarian his theocratic regime must have been in the past. It was much more violent than what Tibetans are living today under Chinese rule…If we had to live with him (The Dalai Lama), we could have possibly been crucified.” The newscast in which Kundeling presented support for China’s occupation of and cultural genocide in Tibet also reviewed horrific graphic details of the brutal murders of 3 monks loyal to to The Dalai Lama at the hands of Shugdenites (according to police in India). A 10/2/08 news story reported that Tibet’s capital is under heavy security, religious activity had mostly gone underground, and Exile groups say that “patriotic education” in schools and monasteries is requiring Tibetans to reaffirm their loyalty to the state and denounce the Dalai Lama. (for more information on this Shugdenite violence against associates of The Dalai Lama click here)
NKT/WSS has just released a new attack against The Dalai Lama (a month ago, they said he was not a Buddhist; now, they are saying he is not The Dalai Lama).
September 29, 2008, about a month after proclaiming that The Dalai Lama is not a Buddhist, NKT/WSS’s headline article claimed that The Dalai Lama (14th and current) was selected as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama based on deceit (the 13th Dalai Lama died in 1933). According to NKT/WSS’s latest sorcery, The Dalai Lama is now - all of a sudden - a false Dalai Lama. Just as NKT/WSS twisted history to promote Shugden, it now twists history again to illegitimize The Dalai Lama (paralleling tactics of the Chinese government to end The Dalai Lama’s influence over Tibet that a dozen Dalai Lamas have exercised for 400 years).
NKT/WSS claims that Reting Lama, worried about his position in Tibet’s government, devised a scheme to select the wrong boy as the reincarnated 13th Dalai Lama in a Muslim villiage on the border with China (1938). When threatened with civil war, the ministers of the Tibet’s government acquiesced to the blackmail. When it came time for Reting Lama to grant the false reincarnation his ordination vows, Reting Lama claimed he could not because so many people knew of his sexual and other immoralities.
Reting Lama selected his teacher, Taktra Rinpoche, to ordain and teach the boy. But, according to WSS/NKT, the boy never accepted Buddhism and showed no interest in any spiritual practice. Frustrated by his failures, Taktra Rinpoche selected two other teachers for the boy, Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche.
For lying about his bogus selection of the new Dalai Lama, Reting Rinpoche was imprisoned and eventually confessed the truth to Tibet’s Chief MInister. Reting Rinpoche died soon thereafter (May 8, 1947); NKT/WSS suggest that he was executed by the Tibetan government.
Because of fear that China was about to invade Tibet and the false reincarnation had improved his spiritual qualifications because of his teachings from Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, Taktra Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche persuaded the Tibetan government to delay removal of the boy as the reincarnated Dalai Lama.
In 1959, because of the Chinese overthrow of Tibet, the purportedly false Dalai Lama escaped to India to set up a Tibetan Government in Exile, which has hidden the truth about the false Dalai Lama, who (according to NKT/WSS) “for over forty years has spread only false information that has exaggerated the good qualities of this false Dalai Lama throughout the world. In truth, they are lying. Their policy of mixing religion with politics has caused great damage to the reputation of Buddhism in general. We can see how all of Lhamo Dhondup’s (i.e., NKT false Dalai Lama) opportunities came from the supreme kindness of his two teachers – Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche – yet how did he return their kindness? In The Ocean of Truth Explained it says: ‘Later, in Dharamsala, India, Ling Rinpoche died of a heart attack because the Dalai Lama refused his request to stop giving encouragement that Gelugpas should practise the Nyingma tradition. And Trijang Rinpoche died of a heart attack because the Dalai Lama refused his request to stop banning the practice of Dorje Shugden.’”
In this amazing story of lies (according to NKT/WSS), NKT/WSS does not explain why Trijang Rinpoche went along with the purported lie which ultimately caused Trijang Rinpoche to die of a heart attack (NKT/WSS believes that Trijang was a reincarnation of Shugden/Tsongkhapa/Manjushri and that Shugden is a Buddha).
According to Zemey Tulku’s Yellow book published in the 1970s, Reting Rinpoche was killed by Shugden for receiving Nyingma teachings. Notably, NKT/WSS asserts that “Ling Rinpoche died of a heart attack because the Dalai Lama refused his request to stop giving encouragement that Gelugpas should practise the Nyingma tradition. And Trijang Rinpoche died of a heart attack because the Dalai Lama refused his request to stop banning the practice of Dorje Shugden.’” Apparently, consistent with Shugden lore and Pabongkha’s depoloyment and promotion of Shugden to a Buddha to harm and murder, Shugden is a serial killer, who NKT embraces as its primary deity. Despicable.
The full Tibetan title of Zimey Rinpoche’s text translates as ‘Account of the Protective Deity Dorje Shugden, Chief Guardian of the Gelug Sect, and of the Punishments meted out to Religious and Lay Leaders who incurred His Wrath’. The book was published in 1973 but not circulated publicly until 1975. For the portion of the Yellow Book translated into English click here.
The Yellow Book talks about Reting in glowing terms and acknowledges his recognition of the correct Dalai Lama. It says that things only went wrong when Reting took Nyingma and Dzogchen teachings.
YELLOW BOOK EXERPT
Regent Reting Rinpoche had to suffer punishment with the king’s order. The misfortune was caused by the miraculous power of the Dharma protector great Dorjee Shugden. Let me explain. The fourth Reting Rinpoche, Ngawang Yeshi Tenpai Gyaltsen, offered the entire possession of Reting Ladang to the Tibetan Government and requested His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, not to search for the future Reting reincarnation. But His Holiness Thubten Gyatso returned everything back to the Ladang and asked them to search for the reincarnation. Accordingly the search party found the reincarnation in a simple family in Dakpo. This Rinpoche had made his foot prints on rocks. I saw one in the Reting monastery. One day while his mother was away the soup started boiling and overflowed from the earthen pot. So he closed the pot with his shoe lace. He displayed such miraculous powers while he was only a child. On the advice of His Holiness Thubten Gyatso, he was recognized as the 5th Reting Rinpoche and named Thubten Jampel Yeshi Gyaltsen. He was admitted to Sera Je College where he completed his religious education. When H.H. Thubten Gyatso visited the Reting monastery in the water- monkey year, it seemed that he left some instructions to Reting Rinpoche concerning the governance of the nation.
His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away in the water-bird year. For about two months the Prime Minister and the Kashag held the responsibility of the Government. After that the General Assembly nominated the Reting Rinpoche, Gaden throne Holder Yeshi Palden and Yongzin Phurchok Jamgon Rinpoche for the regency. The Reting Rinpoche’s name was confirmed with traditional tests were done in front of Lord Avaloketeshvara in the Potala Palace. Accordingly he was enthroned as the Regent on the 10th day of the first month of the wood-dog year. Thus he held the responsibility to head the Gaden Phodrang, the Tibetan Government. He took particular interest in the construction of the tomb of the thirteenth Dalai Lama and the search for the next reincarnation. He personally went to the precious lake and saw the visions which gave clear signals of the reincarnation. He then recognized and enthroned the right reincarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Those were indeed some of his wonderful deeds.
On the fourth day of the tenth month of the earth-hare year, the Reting Rinpoche did the hair cutting ceremony of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. In the last month of that year, he resigned from the post of regency after seven years of service. He had the traditional responsibility to uphold pure Kadampa tradition. His own monastery was the seat of Dromton Gyalpai Jungne. Moreover since the first Reting Rinpoche, Trichen Ngawang Chokden, tutor of His Holiness Kelsang Gyatso, the subsequent reincarnations preserved and propagated pure Gelug tradition. Many illustrious Gelug masters including Je Phaphongka exhorted and persuaded him to maintain and promote the stainless tradition of the great Lama Tsongkhapa. But the Reting Rinpoche did not pay any heed and he sought a number of hidden-treasure teachings of the Nyingma order from Tsenyi Tulku of Chamdo. He also received full transmission on Dzongchen from Sangye Dorjee. Thus the Reting Rinpoche departed from the tradition of his masters.
The final misfortune began to show up when the Reting Rinpoche had disagreement with the then Regent, Tadak. The government found evidence that the Reting Rinpoche had plotted against the life of the Regent Tadak. So, Kalon Surkhang Wangchen Gelek and Kalon Lhalu Gyurme Tsewang Dorjee went to the Reting monastery along with their force and arrested the Reting Rinpoche. Headed by Tsenyi Tulku, many monks from the Sera Je college revolted against the Tibetan government with arms. As the tension grew between the Sera Je College and the government, the latter increased its force and an intense fighting continued for days. Under the command of Kalsang Tsultrim, the government army fired at the Reting monastery and cause much destruction.
When the Reting Rinpoche and his friend Khardo Tulku was interrogated by the General Assembly, the latter confessed that they were guilty. The Reting Rinpoche also acknowledged his mistakes and pleaded for a chance to confess to the Regent himself. The appeal was sent through the Kashag with the endorsement of the General Assembly. But the appeal was rejected. The Reting Rinpoche was kept in Sharchen Chog under tight security with the officials, Lhungshar Orgyen Namdol and Rupon Kalsang Damdul in command. While he was in confinement, he suddenly passed away in the night on the 17th of the third month. No outsider had any knowledge of the cause of his death.
The Yellow Book also chronicles injuries, unending disasters and 22 other assassinations at the hands of Shugden against those straying from a sect of Gelug fundamentalists. On the other hand, the Yellow Book describes Pabongkha’s recovery from strange dreams and poisoning caused by Shugden after Pabongkha abandoned Nyingma teachings and dedicated himself “to practice and propagate pure Gelug tradition free of defilements.” Accordingly, Shugden serves to harm and murder enemies of fundamentalism but will protect those who promote fundamentalism.
According to the Yellow Book, Pabongkha’s conversion occurred after Chinese troops had entered Tibet, which would have been during the 1950s.
Will NKT/WSS give Shugden credit for The Dalai Lama’s current illness and cancellation of his public appearances, and ultimately his death - the purported fate of other Lamas and government officials because they advised against Shugden worship?
On August 26, 2008, NKT’s Lucy James described the Yellow Book as a “superstitious claptrap.” This is remarkable because the book’s contents are scripture-like teachings of Gyatso’s root guru, Trijang Rinpoche about his training from Pabongkha (who elevated Shugden to a Buddha to harm and murder rival Lamas and government officials to promote a fundamentalist sect within Tibetan Gelugpa).
In his letter to the editor in Newsweek responding to two 1997 Newsweek reports about NKT’s controversial campaign against The Dalai Lama, Gyatso wrote, “If the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful then it follows that Je Phabongkhapa was not an authentic Buddhist master, and if he was not then there is no doubt that his heart disciples, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (the Senior and Junior Tutors of HH the Dalai Lama) were also not authentic. These three Lamas are the most important Gelugpa Lamas of recent times. If these three are not pure Teachers then there is no doubt that the entire practice of the Gelug Tradition is invalid.”
WOW. Gyatso’s root gurus as well as many other Lamas and the Tibetan people have recognized that Shugden’s purpose is harmful and murderous. And, Gyatso’s reason to create NKT in England was that Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the Gelugpa, had degenerated (”invalid” according to Gyatso in 1997), thereby necessitating Gyatso’s creation in 1990 of the only pure form of Buddhism in the world. Gyatso also claims that he is the only protector of Pabongkha’s theology. Apparently, however, in 1997 Gyatso abandoned Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha because they were not authentic Buddhist masters. Gyatso’s latest claim against The Dalai Lama (that he is a false Dalai Lama) indicates that Gyatso’s schizophrenia is intensifying. NKT/WSS, representing Gyatso, claim surreal political melodrama: “Shugden practitioners are currently ‘the jews of Buddhism’, a persecuted minority for no real reason.” Next, Gyatso may blame lack of the world’s support for Shugdenism the cause of global warming and financial melt downs.
Contradicting NKT/WSS’s new attack on The Dalai Lama as fake, Gyatso wrote a dedication in Meaningful to Behold to The Dalai Lama (later editions removed this dedication).
If NKT/WSS is correct in its novel and new announcement that The Dalai Lama is a false Dalai Lama, then not only its lineage guru (Trijang Rinpoche) was lying in his recognition of the validity of The Dalai Lama, so have countless Tibetan Lamas and respected organizations, e.g., HH Karmapa, the current Trijang Rinpoche (reincarnation), the late Ling Rinpoche, the current Ling Rinpoche, HH Sakya Trizin, the late Minling Trichin Rinpoche, HH Penor Rinpoche, HH Phakchog Rinpoche, Kyabje Choden Rinpoche, Kyabje Lati Rinpoche, Kyabje Zopa Rinpoche, the late Kirti Tzenshap Rinpoche, the late and current Zong Rinpoche, the late and current Serkong Rinpoche, Khen Rinpoche (abbots) of the main Gelug monasteries:, Sera Mey and Jey Monasteries, Ganden Shartse and Jangtse Monasteries, Drepung Gomang and Loseling, Tashi Lhunpo, Dzongkhar Choede, Namgyal Dratsang, Dialectics Institute, and more , as well as hundreds of millions of Buddhists around the world, hundreds of Buddhist monasteries and organizations, the Nobel prize organization, thousands of academic researchers, thousands of book stores around the world, hundreds of newspapers and book publishers, over a billion non-Buddhists, and at least a hundred heads of state. In effect, NKT/WSS under Gyatso’s ‘leadership’ claims virtually everyone else in this world and many living beings Gyatso considers as enlightened are lying. Preposterous, just as Gyatso’s worship of Shugden’s mythic supremacy.
Without coroner reports, it cannot be determined whether the NKT/WSS diagnoses are correct of heart attack deaths caused by The Dalai Lama instead of coronary artery disease or other medical pathology. The Dalai Lama has never been criminally charged or found guilty of the murders purported by NKT/WSS to have been caused by The Dalai Lama. It would appear, therefore, that once again, NKT/WSS is publishing libel against The Dalai Lama about never-before alleged or adjudicated criminal conduct. Is anything NKT/WSS says against The Dalai Lama true? Probably not. Is anything NKT/WSS says about the basis for Shugden worship as a Buddha true? Probably not.
Since Gyatso abandoned Tibetan Buddhism because in his view, marketed as a Buddha’s view by NKT, that Tibetan Buddhism is degenerate, Gyatso’s battle with The Dalai Lama (who Gyatso considers a false Dalai Lama) is clearly a battle to overthrow The Dalai Lama. Thus, NKT protests along side Chinese government representatives at The Dalai Lama’s public appearances (their goals are the same).
Interestingly, in 2000, The Dalai Lama (who NKT/WSS considers fake and not a Buddhist) refused to accept the validity of the 2 year old boy installed by the Chinese government as the reincarnation of Reting Lama. (Also, China kidnapped the rightful Panchen Lama and installed its puppet in 1995 to mandate Shugden worship as a tactic to diminish The Dalai Lama.)
In an open letter to The Dalai Lama, Reting Hutuktu representing himself as the 6th Reting, a Tibetan not installed by China’s government as the living reincarnation of the 5th Reting Lama, wrote July 2006, (selections; for full letter click here)
“Great lies have been circulated about my former incarnation, circulated by those who seek to hide their wrongdoings and evil nature. Foul propaganda was spread to denigrate the 5th Reting Hutuktu and to muster support for the slaughter of his disciples.
All that you have by way of authority was initiated and bestowed by my predecessor at great sacrifice to himself. Your family enjoyed his protection, and that you even survived at the hands of your captors is owed to his blessing.
Although young at that time you are none the less the true incarnation of the Dalai Lama and as such have the presence of mind to discern for yourself.
Shugden lies at the heart of all the discord. Shugden is the sole source of the conflicts during my reign.
Your thirteenth incarnation, great and strong, who was the source of refuge to my own incarnation, led fearlessly the battle to cast Shugden from the hearts and minds of all would-be dharma practitioners. You as the great Thirteenth rebuked the root of the poisonous lineage at that time only to become caught in the branches of that poisonous lineage tree in your next incarnation!
Trijang was the force who spread the doctrine of downfall to all peoples of high and low status, Tibetan and of other races. The greatest servant of Shugden in our entire history, he succeeded in destroying the living tradition of Je Tsong Kapa. This fact is obvious to any person who studies logic with a clear mind.
May all beings that seek true Dharma meet with authentic and qualified teachers and not fall into the hands of spiritual rapists and frauds.”
NKT’s Shugden heros Trijang and Pabongkha have some explaining to do.
Postscript:
A poignant comment was posted about NKT’s new attack a few hours after its publication:
Firstly, from a personal perspective, I see the NKT’s highly politicised attack on HH for ‘mixing politics with religion’ as ludicrous. How could it be otherwise? HH is the spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan peoples. ‘Spiritual AND temporal’. I therefore see no reason for HH NOT to mix politics with religion-that’s his job.
Secondly, it should be remembered that Reting Rinpoche, who was HH’s earliest mentor and who had strong Nyingma leanings, eventually died in the hands of the Tibetan establishment, an establishment which was largely controlled by two of Pabonka’s closest disciples, Taktra and Trijang Rinpoche. The murder of Reting was a clear act on the part of Pabonka’s descendants to regain control of Tibetan religion/politics after the Thirteenth had dared to speak out against the Gelug political establishment/Pabonka/the practice of DS. Just as Pabonka himself immediately siezed the opportunity to reinstigate the practice of DS in Gelug monasteries after the death of the 13th, his descendants attempted to further re-establish their influence through persistent attacks on, and the eventual murder of, Reting at a time when HH was still very young and perhaps naive about the political machinations of those appointed as his teachers and advisors.
In repeating these attacks on Reting, the NKT are simply continuing the battle of that small group of Gelug fundamentalists who, for the last three generations, have been trying to sieze back the power that was taken away from them during the reign of the 13th. They therefore show themselves to be exactly what they are: megalomaniacs intent on controlling Tibetan Dharma at the expense of the genuine followers of the four major Buddhist traditions. This is exactly what Pabonka was up to and, perhaps through a liitle too much unquestioning devotion and a little less political intent, Trijang after him. In attacking Reting, the NKT are simply demonstrating to the world that they are the descendants of that small group of Gellug fundamentalists who had been playing politics with Tibetan religion for centuries. They are clearly the inheritors of a perverse and highly politicised approach to Tibetan Dharma first demonstrated by Pabonka and his disciples.Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
NKT
If The Dalai Lama is Not The Dalai Lama, Why Do You Call Him The Dalai Lama?
NKT’s US spiritual leader Dekyong protesting The Dalai Lama
reading NKT’s assault weapon, The Tibetan Situation Today
Editor’s Note:
October 2, 2008, a couple days after this essay was posted, a Shugdenite blog response was published (click here).
The proffered distinction between NKT and WSS is not credible. Note the photograph above showing Dekyong, one of only 2 ‘Gen-las’ in NKT, the highest rank in NKT below Gyatso. See the photograph below for Gyatso’s other Gen-la (who Gyatso selected as his heir) is pictured at a protest also displaying The Tibetan Situation Today. In April, prior to the wave of protests, Gyatso wrote “I personally will organise demonstrations against the Dalai Lama directly. I requested Kelsang Pema and Kelsang Thubchen to do this job for me and they have accepted.” Pema is the lead PR agent and media spokesperson for the protests.
A statement relied upon by the blogger is precious - “There are potentially hundreds of thousands of WSS supporters worldwide and over the coming months (or years if needs be) they will engage in more and more activities to bring the Dalai Lama’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions to light..In May 2008, at the Spring Festival at Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (the Spiritual Director of the NKT) explained that he was supporting these demonstrations because the spiritual lives of Shugden practitioners throughout the world are in danger and he wants to help them..Finally, it is worth noting that NKT practitioners are free to attend the demonstrations or not as they choose (and they do choose), as these have nothing to do with the NKT organization.” In April, Gyatso fired the most senior Kadam in NKT, Lucy James, for questioning the potests and not supplying anyone from NKT in Florida for the Colgate protest. Also, in April, the Administrative Director for Lucy Jame’s KMC in Florida resigned because of the political nature of Gyatso’s protests. October 2, NKT/WSS sent the Tibetan Government in Exile (in India) another ultimatum like it did in April - stop The Dalai Lama or the protests will continue (for letter click here).
“According to a NKT insider, “I was under the impression everyone was aware WSS is based at Manjushri run by Neill Elliott under Gyatso’s instructions. I was sitting next to him when he was talking to Pema organising future demos. At the moment he has been asked to attack HHDL in anyway he can ie his teachings, speeches etc from Gyatso. Under him are 2 sangha and Lucy James. Everyone is aware it is Neill. I was living there when it was set up. It was discused openly enough.” (Neill Elliott, aka Thubten, is one of the Gyatso heirs involved with sexual abuse as a senior NKT monk; the next Gyatso heir caught up in sexual abuse is Stephen Wass, aka Samden).”
Clearly, NKT has some house cleaning to do. Now, if you can tell me in all honesty the above paragraph sent to NKTworld is a fabrication, and you have first hand knowledge of this,I will listen.
Otherwise, arguing religion with you is as pointless as arguing it with my cousin. (My cousin is a Jehovah’s Witness).
Good day.
I would like to enter this lengthty discussion just to recall some simple facts.
Since March 1996 there is a political/religious ban against a Deity and against its practitioners.
The Draft Constitution of Tibet, supposedly for a future democratic Tibet, was changed in order to ban the Gelugpas practicing Dorje Shugden from public offices.
Tibetan families and Tibetan monks around the world are being demanded from the Tibetan organizations following the injonctions of the Dalai Lama and the TGIE to take an oath against the Deity in front of other deities and to swear that they are not going to have any human relation whatsoever with the practitioners.The repercussions of this segregation in the daily lives of people that are utterly dependent on their community are difficult to describe -and to imagine too, unless you are Tibetan.
This simple list contains just words. These words have been repeated in so many blogs around the world that they might not be rendering any more the sound of suffering, the anguish of the ostracized, that they should, instead, convey.
The Dalai Lama has been inflicting immeasurable pain in his own people and also in many like myself, a non Tibetan practitioner, that love him dearly and are crushed by his actions.
I sincerely do not think it’s proper to back the Dalai Lama in his wrong behaviour. If the Guru-disciple relationship makes you incapable of condemning his actions then it would be decent to just keep quiet. I’m not even talking about Buddhist behaviour, just plain human decency, a minimum or respect for those suffering from the Dalai Lama’s actions.
I suggest that we all sincerely pray and dedicate our merit -also- for the end of this sad tale, this religious tragedy.
Best to all.
Friendoftruth: Do you know the annual salary range of these TGIE ‘public offices’? It is probably less than you get in a month, maybe even weekly. The vicarious anguish you feel from your upholstered western seat is misplaced. All these socalled reports from foreigners are highly overblown, its a sort of compassion imperialism you are preaching after having cherry picked the bits of tibetan culture you like.
Dear Space,
There is a Mexican saying: “Hot pepper in the other person’s eye doesn’t hurt”.
You are probably young and inexperienced, and hopefully quite at ease in life. You still don’t know the true suffering of suffering. When it will come, and it will come, such is the nature of things in this world, may be then you will learn to respect the pain of others.
The Draft Constitution information it’s just an objective example of the political persecution. A civil rights transgression.
The religious part and the human side of this tragedy you don’t understand. Enjoy your beatific ignorance, it will pass.
Dear Friendofthetruth,
I think you read far too much of NKT propaganda.
It is very true what they claim “are just words”. By continuously repeating “these words” “in so many blogs around the world” they become not more true nor turn there words magically into facts. NKT can play the “the sound of suffering” well, there is no doubt about it, and WSS can ostracise “the sound of suffering” in multiple blogs, comments and websites, yet it does not become more true of a fact.
Instead of requesting to stop to “back the Dalai Lama” it would be better NKT members stop to back Kelsang Gyatso. It is he who “has been inflicting immeasurable pain in his own people” by misinforming them, misleading them, by oppressing their religious freedom, and teaching them that the Dalai Lama is the “enemy of the pure Buddhadharma” while suggesting indirectly he is the last pure lineageholder of Je Tsongkhapa, and leading NKT devotees to a distorted view on Tibetan Buddhism, the role of NKT, and himself. What a tragedy.
I agree with you:
“If the Guru-disciple relationship makes [NKT members] incapable of condemning his actions then it would be decent to just keep quiet. I’m not even talking about Buddhist behaviour, just plain human decency, a minimum or respect for those suffering from [Geshe Kelsang's cultish] actions.
I suggest that we all sincerely pray and dedicate our merit -also- for the end of this sad tale, this religious tragedy.
Best to all.”
I meant:
NKT can play the “the sound of suffering” well, there is no doubt about it, and WSS/NKT devotees can orchestrate “the sound of suffering” in multiple blogs, comments and websites, yet it does not become more true or a fact, just because they “have been repeated in so many blogs around the world”.
—
BTW, it is NKT who is oppressing religious freedom by banning other than Kelsang Gyatso’s book as the object of study, by actively discouraging members to go to other Buddhist teachers, or to read other Dharma books than those of Kelsang Gyatso, by banning the veneration of the Dalai Lama, by banning the Vinaya and the texts of Atisha, Tsongkhapa, the Kalachakra Tantra and many many other Dharma treasures, and by oppressing the own members to raise their concern about NKT’s own internal scandals etc. What a mess!
I agree again with you:
“I suggest that we all sincerely pray and dedicate our merit -also- for the end of this sad tale, this religious tragedy.”
Best to all.
Williams, Professor of Indian and Tibetan Philosophy, states:
“The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant?”
http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-4.html
And Makransky, professor of Buddhism and Comparative Theology at Boston College, states:
“A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the “protector” deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their “religious freedom” to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.”
Maybe, Friendofthetruth, “you are probably young and inexperienced” and under the influence of a Tibetan monk “who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects!”….
“The religious part and the human side of this tragedy you don’t understand. Enjoy your beatific ignorance, it will pass.”
Friendoftruth: I grew up in India, I think I know the difference between bourgeoise western sentimentality and human (and animal) suffering both mental and physical. Also at 53, I have some experience of life, not to mention considerable years exposure to Buddhist teachers. Yet I am still a beginning student and consider humility to be admirable, which perhaps is why the arrogance of NKT astonishes me so profoundly.
Dear namkhah,
Some simple facts for you to consider:
1. Geshe Kelsang has never said that the Dalai Lama is the enemy of Buddhadharma. It is easy to come to this conclusion for yourself when you consider that the Dalai Lama’s actions are the same as Devadatta’s, a schism in the Sangha, and just as harmful.
2. Geshe Kelsang has never said that he is the he is the last pure lineageholder of Je Tsongkhapa or has ever implied it. It is sadly true that if there are pure Teachers of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition in Tibetan Buddhism they have to subjugate themselves to the Dalai Lama’s political wishes and keep their practice of Dorje Shugden secret.
3. You seem to talk as if the NKT were the only body of Shugden practitioners who have a problem with the Dalai Lama’s banning of the practice. This is simply not true. The Western Shugden Society (WSS) is an alliance of all Shugden practitioners who wish to oppose the Dalai Lama’s political actions in this regard. The WSS has both Western and Tibetan members. Many Tibetans were unable to attend the demonstrations against the DL but they supported the WSS materially by donating money to supporting the activities. WSS and NKT are not the same.
4. As soon as the DL gives religious freedom to Dorje Shugden practitioners, WSS will dissolve and that will be the end of the matter. There is no politically motivated opposition to the DL - WSS was formed only to solve the Dorje Shugden problem. No-one has anything personally against the DL and he is free to do as he chooses within his own tradition as long as it doesn’t adversely affect the spiritual practice of others.
Dear Khorwa Lineageholder: Don’t try to snow me, mate, I’m from the Land of Snows.
WSS press speaker: Kelsang Pema (NKT)
WSS front man and leader in the USA: Kelsang Khyenrab (present successor of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso)
WSS front woman and leader in USA: Kelsang Dekyong (NKT USA representative)
WSS front man and leader in Germany: Kelsang Ananda (NKT representative in Germany)
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the New Kadampa Tradition, has requested all his students by email to participate the WSS protests.
To answer Namkhah’s post, please check out this first-hand account of a WSS demonstration:
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2008/08/conversation-with-tibetan-western.html
From a Tibetan who dared to stand up and demonstrate:
“They accuse us of being Chinese agents and against Tibet, but we love our country. Of course we want a free Tibet. This is why we bring the Tibetan flags to our demonstrations. It is because of the Dalai Lama’s words that we have been thrown out of Tibetan exile communities. Now we are like refugees among refugees.”
All of a sudden, the atmosphere in the bus changed and the Tibetans began speaking amongst themselves in hushed tones. Some of them started texting and making phone calls. Clearly something had come up.
One of the Tibetans who spoke good English came and sat down next to me and explained that they had just received a text. All their photos had been posted on the wall of a Tibetan restaurant in Queens, wanted posters, along with sentences such as: “These people are paid by the Chinese”, “These people are bad”, and other implicit and explicit threats.
For a while the Tibetans discussed what to do, but then they decided that they could not run from this.
As Lobsang explained to me: “Where am I going to go now? I’ve already left India for America. There is no place else to run. Now is the time for me to make my stand. I have to do this even though I have a mother in India and they have threatened her, and told her that she must stop all contact with me, her son. My wife and children don’t want me to do this but I feel I have no choice. The Dalai Lama and his government and security forces are destroying our lineage. They are killing our Gurus.
We have to take these threats in Queens very seriously. They have killed people. For example, it is an open secret — everyone in the Tibetan community talks about this — that Dagom Rinpoche was quite possibly poisoned in 2006. Two or three days afterward, one of the oracles of Dorje Shugden was killed in similarly mysterious circumstances. They can use sophisticated poisons; after all they are trained by the CIA. When two young and healthy pro-Shugden leaders die for such unexplained causes, this is a strange coincidence. [NB No autopsy was performed and the cause of death remains unknown.]
Lobsang continued: “Most of the Tibetans on this bus do not have family in India. Their families are in Tibet. Most Dorje Shugden practitioners in the West who still have families in India feel that they are not able to stand with us in public demonstrations because it puts their families in danger. However, they call me and thank me for what we are doing. They say they want to help, for example with money.
There are hundreds of Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners in the New York area. There are hundreds in the Madison area. All of them are behind us, but mostly they cannot show their support in public.
In Tibet, there are still whole regions where people practise Dorje Shugden and so there is no danger in those areas at this time. However they have begun to bring the oath swearing to Tibet as well.
They are very skilful. They have one piece of paper that is kept hidden and the other one that is legal. The secret one is the Dalai Lama’s saying that you have to sign this. The legal one is how would you like to have a vote in which you decide whether to do this or not?
Most of the Tibetans here used to be monks. We were all forced to leave our monasteries after what happened in 1996 when the Dalai Lama first implemented and enforced the ban on Dorje Shugden.
For example, for one of the Tibetans, what took place during the New York demonstrations [when thousands of Tibetans started shouting and pelting us with spit, water bottles and coins] was nothing in comparison to what happened to him in India. He said: “Oh that was nothing. When the monks demonstrated against the ban in 1996 in India, we were pelted with stones and sixty monks had to be taken to hospital.”
All we want to do is practice our lineage in peace. Lately the Dalai Lama has been giving a new justification. He says: “I give religious freedom and they take it away.” This is completely untrue. We don’t want to restrict anyone’s right to practice their religion. Why should we? We are just trying to protect our own lineage from being destroyed. Now we need to make a stand. We had a big meeting in which we decided this and now we will see it through. What else can we do?
All of us on this bus and elsewhere have had to flee India for America. Now that they are bringing in the signature campaign and destroying our lineage even here in America, I have nowhere else to run to. When you know that they are destroying your lineage and killing your Gurus, you have to make a stand. I have no choice. I don’t care if I myself die. Of course I am worried about my wife, children and mother. But I have taken out life insurance so then I don’t need to worry.
Many of these people here don’t have a wife or children because they used to be monks until they were expelled from their monastery and home. I used to run my own monastic community. A small monastery that practiced Dorje Shugden. Now I work twelve hours a day, six days a week, in a restaurant.”
[Another Tibetan, who was actually a Rinpoche, laughingly told me that he used to debate for twelve hours a day in a monastery. Now he spends twelve hours a day cutting vegetables.]
Lobsang continued: “We were very happy to come to America because at least we have freedom here to do our spiritual practice. But even now here in America we are completely ostracized from our communities. My child cannot go to a school where there are other Tibetan children because they have been told to ignore any child connected with a Dorje Shugden practitioner.
We have been discussing these threats against us in Queens. And we have made a decision. We will contact Radio Free Asia and let them know that these threats have been issued and let them know that if anything should happen to any one of us, it will be the Dalai Lama’s responsibility. Previously we would never have said it like this but now we have no choice. It is his responsibility to protect his people but instead he is doing the opposite.”
I reflected to myself on the reasons articulated in the recent New York Times article for the Dalai Lama’s defence of his position on the practice of Dorje Shugden, where he had said that 99 percent of his people are with him and only 1 per cent against him. He said: “I am for freedom of expression so let them have freedom of talk.”
It is considerably more than 1 percent of his people who are against him. Once upon a time, the practice of Dorje Shugden was relied upon by almost every Gelugpa, which was the largest of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. However, even if it was only 1 percent, any normal Western politician would actually have said that the 1 percent is very precious to our democracy and that they need to be protected. They wouldn’t just be given freedom to talk but freedom to practice.
The Dalai Lama’s statement “give them freedom to talk” was actually patronizing and dismissive and clearly did nothing to curb the anger of the Tibetans listening to him, who came out in New York and promptly attacked us. It is amazing how people are bedazzled by his words and overlook his contradictory actions.
I thanked Lobsang for his explanation and first-hand stories. He replied: “I know it is useful to hear personal first-hand accounts. When you just read the various words, it is easy to develop doubts and therefore we feel the need to tell our stories.”
Sorry, meant to mention also: Pictures of the Wanted posters and the Shugden monks brutalized in the 1990s during their peaceful demonstration can also be found on that blog article:
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2008/08/conversation-with-tibetan-western.html
Some people are on the payroll, simple as that. Shame for you the present Tomo Geshe Rinpoche (I am not referring to the American woman) will not be a Shugden practitioner, on the other hand, unlike
Trijang’s namesake, he will actually get a proper Buddhist education. Who’s left? Ganjong…what a joke.
Marsden: Wanted posters happen after brutal cult murders and multiple death threats, there is nothing unusual about that. There’s still an outstanding Interpol warrant on Shugdenites, see previous posts.
One thing, one has to admit, the Dalai Lama and his followers have in common: their liberality about the notion of truth. It seems that this poor truth has been reduced by them to a fonction quite simple: if it serves us, we use it, if not, we deny it, if necessary, we invent it.
I am writing these words with shame. That a Buddhist has to point a finger and call other people manipulators of truth is quite sad. I beg the pardon of the readers who are reading these posts in order to try to find the truth. I am only doing this for the sake of truth. This is nothing personal. There is a sublime tradition that some are trying to destroy, there are Lamas that some are trying to demean, there is a Deity, so beneficial, that is being sacrilegeously slandered. I’m sorry, my Western upbringing does not allow me to shut up and allow this to go unnoticed.
This issue is also destroying among many immature people the best of our Western heritage, the heritage of the “other” Enlightenment. That people around here belonging to nations without tradition of human rights find it normal what the Dalai Lama is doing… it’s understandable. That people brought up in democracy follow the Dalai Lama in his unrelenting civic and religious persecution of a sector of Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists is astonishing and again, sad, very sad.
_____________________________________
In March 1996, the Dalai Lama pronounced a ban against the Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden, declaring that worshipping this Deity posed a “danger to his life and the cause of Tibet.”
THE BAN
Tibetans, at least Tibetans post-1959, worship the Dalai Lama, and the idea that this king-priest-father of the nation could be in danger makes them crazy, because for some reason they have transformed him in the sole owner of their identity. Talk about cults! That’s why the Dalai Lama has deliberately given as a reason for justifying the ban on Dorje Shugden, the outlandish and cruel accusation that the worshipping of this Deity was putting his own life in danger. No doubt, a ban proclaimed on the basis of such accusation triggered the heaviest of discords among Tibetans and the relentless persecution of the Gelugpas faithful to their religious commitments.
Now, let’s see a few of the things that happened right after the proclamation of the ban in March 1996.
His Private Office issued a decree for everyone to stop practising Dorje Shugden, with instructions to make people aware of this through government offices, monasteries, associations, etc.
The Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies (Parliament) passed a resolution banning the worship of Dorje Shugden by Tibetan government employees.
The Dalai Lama personally encouraged the Tibetan Youth Congress and the Women Association to enforce the ban.
Consequently a group of nuns dragged into the street a Dorje Shugden statue, consecrated by some of the highest Tibetan Lamas, by using a rope attached to its neck. They spat at the statue, sat on it, broke it up into pieces, and threw the remains into the town’s garbage dump.
The Tibetan Freedom Movement and the Guchusum Organization barred the worship of Dorje Shugden among their members.
All government employees were ordered to sign a declaration to the effect that they do not / will never worship Dorje Shugden. Those who didn’t comply lost their jobs.
The Tibetan Department of Health gave a special notice to doctors and staff:
“We should resolve not to worship Shugden in the future. If there is anyone who worships, they should repent the past and stop worshipping. They must submit a declaration that they will not worship in the future.”
Employees of the Tibetan Children’s Village were urged to take oaths against Dorje Shugden.
The Dalai Lama made it mandatory for administrators and abbots of all major Tibetan monasteries to enforce the ban. A campaign of intimidation and forced signatures set the stage for many acts of violence against the practitioners in the various monasteries. Through his private office the Dalai Lama commissioned Sera Je monastery 21 days of wrathful exorcisms against Dorje Shugden and his practitioners.
The Tibetan Youth Congress implemented the ban in every Tibetan settlement, with house to house searches, desecration and burning of statues, paintings, and other holy objects.
THE DENIAL
All of this and much more happened in the first two months after the ban.
Then some voices from the West started asking questions, wondering what was going on.
As a result, on May 14 1996 the Kashag (Tibetan Cabinet) issued a statement declaring that nothing resembling a religious suppression had ever taken place.
This was the first denial.
From that time on the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government in exile and all Tibetan institutions never stopped the persecution of the faithful Gelugpas, simultaneously denying that the ban ever even had existed.
______________________________________________
Something must be really bad, if one follows the symptoms.
How do you explain that after those and myriad similar documented facts -documented ad nauseam- the Dalai Lama and his followers deny that there ever was a ban, and that there ever was a persecution?
The answer is simple: the denial is the best declaration of guilt. The denial is the symptom of guilt.
The facts are clear and proven, the proofs are there. To deny them only shows that the Dalai Lama and company perfectly know that in our culture what he has done, what they have done, deserves public condemnation.
What can we say more?
Go on denying.
__________________________________________________
Of course, they do more than denying.
They invent truths.
Cult murders? Interpol? But who declared that those murders were cult murders? Who pointed to the police that poor monk Chimey Tsering and the handful of dedicated monks whose only crime was to try to help the victims of the Dalai Lama through the Charitable Shugden Society? The Dalai Lama and his government, of course. It suited their purposes, to accuse the faithful Gelugpas, so they accused them.
After so many years, where are the “shugdenites” condemned by the Indian courts? They were not condemned.
After so many years, where are the “shugdenites” that nobody arrested? Conveniently disappeared in the mists of the Tibetan plateau? Of course. Who said? The Dalai Lama and his government.
Obviously the Dalai Lama and the members of his TGIE were there when the murders happened and they saw everything. Why they didn’t intervene to defend those monks nobody knows. Ah? They weren’t there? Sorry! Of course, if they weren’t there then they could not have helped them. But if they were not there, how come they immediately, immediately phoned the Indian police and accused the members of the Dorje Shugden Charitable Society of the crimes?
What can we say more?
Go on inventing the truths that suit your purposes.
_____________________________________________________
A rather arcane sectarian dispute? May be. But the persecution is not a dispute, it’s a persecution. And it’s not arcane, it happens in the present tense, in day light.
A child can understand it.
Actually, a child -a Tibetan child- not long ago astonished her teacher in a New York high school, explaining in a paper that the Dalai Lama was a tyrant and that he persecuted people for his religious beliefs. The adult members of her family were astonished, they had not talked to her about the issue. She had heard, and what she heard was simple enough for her to understand. You believe in Dorje Shugden, the Dalai Lama persecutes you. This child should ashame the adults who see arcanes disputes where there is such a simple, sad truth.
Go to sleep now, we all need some rest from this crazyness.
Good night.
Friend: None of your allegations are referenced. I do not accept WSS/NKT websites as valid citations. NKT is target-painting around where the knife wound fell. Until the murders are solved the excommunication of semi-geshe Gyatso will stand so those of you carrying out his personal senile revenge trip are barking at the moon. Go have a few pints and get laid, celibacy doesn’t work.
Friendoftruth: You are not a native english speaker are you? Don’t tell me…mainlander? I can show you India on a map if you wish to visit and check out this gossip and second hand arguments you are publishing. There are few Priories there but the people are kind.
Gyalpo: Yes, that is a good observation: the similarity to such incoherent ramblings from supposedly pro-Shugdens and the People’s Daily is striking. Thought disordered to say the least, like the below nasty example:
http://posts.people.com.cn/bbs_new/filepool/data/html/2f6100987f2b5162c7f9e1fbb66c3c16cf41bbb8/b3307899/d_3307899_26737.html
namkhah: There are certain hallmarks of the Indian usage of English that are easy to identify. Similarly, Chinese bloggers are easy to spot, the numerous grammatical and spelling errors are one, but also professional Chinese communist propagandists seem to get paid by the word and drone on interminably.
Lineageholder, or dear NKT truth team, just to clarify some points from # 388:
NKT tells or told their followers that the Dalai Lama is the enemy of Buddhadharma, because “he is destroying the ‘pure tradition’ of his root Guru” As in NKT there is only one policy: the truth is what “Geshe-la says”. It is very clear from whom this view derives. It was also Geshe Kelsang who claimed:
It is also Geshe Kelsang who separated from the Sangha, and made all NKT members completely dependent on himself by not allowing teachers from the own school (Gelug school), respected elders, Tulkus, Rinpoches etc. to teach the Dharma, Buddha’s teachings.
He denounced his own school by claiming that the “Gelug school is very degenerated” and by claiming that the NKT is “very pure”. He may not said the latter point directly but by claiming that the Gelug school is “very degenerated” and postulating the Dharma he teaches (and thereby NKT) as “very pure” or “pure teachings” or “pure tradition” and warning on “mixing its essential purity” by other Dharma teachings (not from him) he established this concept by indirect means and this view is still very present and dominating within NKT. It is a dominating view, that NKT has something like an “essential purity”. Also in his ordination talk from 1999 he puts down his own school to establish NKT’s supremacy:
Also point 2 you bring up in post #388: Geshe Kelsang may not say this directly but by indirect means, by using hints. Point 2 shows how this is established, you show the way to do it yourself: “if there are pure Teachers of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition in Tibetan Buddhism they have to subjugate themselves to the Dalai Lama’s political wishes and keep their practice of Dorje Shugden secret.” This implies there almost no “pure teachers” any more because either they have to “subjugate themselves to the Dalai Lama’s political wishes”, which means from NKT’s perspective they act politically and are therefore impure, and it also implies that those who do not practice Shugden and especially the Dalai Lama are no “pure teachers”. NKT is also a master of hints and establishing their views by implication.
WSS is 90-95% NKT and maybe 20-30 Tibetans. “The problem” was set up and is issued forth mainly by NKT, Geshe Kelsang’s Western followers, because they have the interest to “expose the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama” (see WSS- website). I doubt that Tibetans support NKT financially.
Different media reported that probably China supports NKT and this makes much more sense than claiming Tibetans would support them, because:
1. NKT fulfils the political wishes or visions of China but not that of Tibetans. (Of course NKT skilfully guise their actions in a “religious freedom”-issue while neglecting that Shugden worship is no religion)
2. In general Tibetans have less opportunity to support Westerners financially!!!
WSS and NKT is the same. WSS is a front group of NKT as the former Shugden Support Community (SSC) was a front group of NKT. By the way also at that time (1996-98) NKT claimed wrongly SCC is not made of NKT but by Western Tibetan Centers or Tibetan teachers, like Lama Gangchen and others. They did all to deceive the media and the public and to hide the fact that SSC is NKT. Their claim that Lama Gangchen or other Western Tibetan Centers would support them, was just untrue. NKT members deceived the media by claiming wrongly they are not NKT members but “concerned Buddhists”. This was the NKT tactic 10 years ago. Nowadays there is not much difference, the only point is that NKT does not list other Tibetan Lamas who would support them (of course they claim this is due to the “immense fear they have” – one of the many half-truths NKT is operating with.)
NKT / WSS is blackmailing HHDL. Shugden can be practiced privately and also in those monasteries where only Shugden followers live. The majority of the other monasteries decided to have no Shugden worship at their place. This is their very right. Also NKT bans what they see as harmful in their centres like other Buddhist teachers, other Dharma books, images of the Dalai Lama, people who have broken their NKT ordination etc. Also this bans are a lack of religious freedom, but no Buddhist organizes protests against this. Rather they see it as the NKT approach and let live them with this. If I would be the Dalai Lama I would not give power to people who blackmail me and are rather religious fundamentalists. So I guess you /NKT waste money and time. That the Shugden conflict is political is the view of Geshe Kelsang or did he lie when he said in 2002:
It is very clear from Geshe Kelsang’s statement and WSS’s denigration campaign that he and NKT have something personally against the HHDL. It is also Shugden worship which adversely affects the spiritual practice of others (see history and views of majority), and not the restriction of it. So your campaign is just non-sense to say the least.
Dear FriendsOfTheTruth, if you are a friend of the truth you should not believe what NKT claims. NKT is not famous for being honest being able to discriminate correctly, and this is also the impression and experiences of the media.
What you claim in post # 394 is true for NKT:
“One thing, one has to admit, the NKT and their followers have in common: their liberality about the notion of truth. It seems that this poor truth has been reduced by them to a function quite simple: if it serves us, we use it, if not, we deny it, if necessary, we invent it.”
You should be ashamed to put a spin on the facts but I guess you are under the heavy influence of NKT’s propaganda and there is no hope for getting the things correctly, and in the full context. Of course you quote from NKT sources to “verify” your claims. I think you rely on the wrong source of information.
Read The Independent, an independent and not easy to manipulated source:
http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-5.html
TheFinalTruth: Thank you for your post, I dispute the Independant’s 100,000 figure. The latest Chinese census puts the TAR number at 2.5 million Tibetans and claims Tibet’s population was 1.14 million in 1951, though estimates vary pre-invasion. Kham and Amdo have no cities as such, just small towns , the vast Changthang region and western Tibet is even more sparsely populated. The diaspora population in India, the only and strictly limited jurisdiction of the TGIE is still only 100,000. There’s about 4000 each in New York and Toronto (not under TGIE influence in any real sense) and smatterings here and there, like Suisse, of course. So now we have 30 percent maximum of 100,000 (not one full lakh) as the basic number. Of those 30K, the number of hardcore Dolgyal people is certainly not synonymous with every Gelugpa family, since every major dratsang has ceased the practice years ago. So from the fabulous 4 million estimate, the realistic figure has dwindled into something quite modest, I would venture probably less than a couple of hundred ethnic Tibetans are now affected, maximum. HHDL has not set foot in Tibet for 50 years, he has obviously no political power neither there, nor in Mongolia or Siberia. Even so monks are risking their lives running away from Gangchen the disco lama imposition of Shugden practice! The writing is on the wall: face it, it’s over, ghost, you’re finished.
How many words!
The more you use words -you hope- more the truth about the Dalai Lama’s persecution should become buried, hidden, ignored, forgotten.
You don’t need to go to such efforts, trust the world to do that spontaneously. Journalists, Academia people, politicians … they are not easily going to admit that they have been deceived, that they are wrong. After all, to back a civic and religious persecution does not do any good for their good name, so it’s normal to go and feign to believe that there is no persecution.
But no matter what, the beans have been spilled, and those who are innocent and still not members of the media-cult of the Dalai Lama are seeing and understanding. The truth cannot be hidden forever.
You should go to some blogs. It’s a pleasure to see some non-Buddhists fighting for “the Shugden people”, just because they’ve understood that they are victims of the Dalai Lama’s power.
Now, let’s face it: the beens have been spilled by the WSS. I salute the WSS for the demonstrations. They know very well that I am not in agreement with some of their actions, but I applaud their demonstrations that told the world about the Dalai Lama’s persecution of the faithful Gelugpas.
I don’t know any ot the NKT people but I respect Geshe Kelsang Gyatso because I’ve read some of his Dharma books and they are excellent! Thank you, old Lama, you honour the lineage with your Dharma writings.
Beyong this, I’m just a lone ranger, as some people know in the electronic Protector´s community. But let me sit down for a moment and smile. I am being treated as what? A possible Indian spy working for the Chinese government? This is delicious. Please tell me how they pay, by the hour? The recession is coming upon us, I might follow your inspiration and go to the next available Chinese consulate or something, and tell them look, these guys here think I’m a spy working for you, would it be possible to have such position?
I’ve also wondered about those 4 million, though. But then again, I don’t know anything about Tibetan population matters. I’m just a Western Buddhist trying to do my practice and from time to time help the world know the truth about my holy lineage, my holy Lamas, their holy teachings that I hope to embody one day.
One thing I know: there are Tibetan monks and Lamas that have publicly given up the Protector practice, and externally show respect for the Dalai Lama, but continue in their hearts being secretly faithful. Let me give you a clue: look for those that do not talk against the Protector, that do not persecute others. Sometimes they are surrounded by fanatic followers that do persecute others, but they themselves just keep silent, and with great patience and compassion they plant seeds in those poor ignorant ones. They do not slander the faithful Gelugpas, they do not profer sacrilegious words again the Protector, they are hidden practitioners. I don’t know how many they are, but I know a few of them, and I can infer very easily about several others. I don’t believe they are hidden out of fear, they are hidden in order to be able to continue teaching and benefitting others without being destroyed by the DL’s followers shenanigans.
Dear Lamas, I know sometimes some young spirits among the Protector’s practitioners have a poor opinion of your silence. But many more understand your compassionate, difficult position. Anyway, shenanigan-doers, I would not be so quick with the champagne. Do not rejoice too early about the end of the Protector’s practice … you might be surprised in the future.
I don’t have time to read all the writings, I just glance and jump from one to the other. Beyond the liberality with the truth there seems to be quite a bit of plain misinformation. Nobody needs to be a monk to be a practitioner. So the childish, gross invitation to sexual activity is certainly misdirected and not needed. Such bad manners!
I hope you don’t get offended by my slight teasing. It’s really boring, guys, to try and refute always the same litanies of untruthfulness. Aren’t you fatigued yet?
Good night! Dream about little angels.
@Friendoftruth.
sounds quite strange… hidden news from hidden practitioners who rescue in the future the pure lineage and the world? those who have faith in the gelug lineage don’t need shugden. Je Tsongkhapa, Gyaltsab Je and Khedrub Je, the authorities in the Gelug school, mentioned this gyalpo neither with one word nor one letter.
i expect that in the future some try to re-establish Shugden worship in the gelug school but they will fail completely. i won’t be surprised if some try it, I expect that even. but they will have no power besides if they get money or special conditions from the PRC and lure poor people, and people are so weak to get attracted by the money or PRC’s promises.
that there is in general no need for shugden from a spiritual point of view and that the practice didn’t bring much goodness but many quarrels is obvious nowadays and proofed by facts.
so time to say good bye, as Gyalpo puts it:
@gyalpo: I accept your refutation. The statement is about 12 years old and the situation changed a lot. Mainly I wished to refute the claim of 4 millions as stated by Al Jazeera and other news agancies who didnt’t contact specialists and took over wrong information from shugden followers.
Friendoftruth: I don’t understand most of your long winded posts, but the main point seems to be you assume you possess judgmental insight into other’s motivation and thoughts without knowing their language and culture, let alone knowing them personally. Much like your speculative recreation of the Shugden cult murder scene in Dharamsala–simply not helpful and I agree it is reminiscent of the diatribes supporting Dolgyal in the Beijing People’s Daily. ‘The Protector’ please…so melodramatic, but then I expect its all just an online game for you. Sorry to inform you, these efforts will bear bitter fruit, oh self-righteous one.
Well, ‘the final truth’, that’s a pretty nasty thing to say — “fact it, it’s over, ghost, you’re finished!!” Actually, it is far from over and your name, eerily reminiscent of the ‘final solution’, is not portentous — Shugden practice will never be destroyed by ignorance and cruelty as the very nature of Dorje Shugden is compassion and his function is to destroy ignorance.
There are two really good articles showing the witch hunt of Shugden practitioners as typified in your ignorant and discriminatory comment: http://wisdomjunkie.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/the-buddhist-witch-part-two/ You may or may not recognize yourself amongst a group of medieval-type accusers, but that is how you and other fervent supporters of the anti-Shugden brigade appear to those condemned as witches without a trial i.e. Shugden practitioners:
An extract: “Well, let’s remove the Shugden scenario from its current political and religious context and examine it in stark academic terms. The fact is, once you’re familiar with examples of witch persecution around the world, the similarity with the kind of social ostracism and persecution that’s being visited on Shugden practictioners in the Exiled Tibetan Community in India, and indeed in the West too, becomes all too apparent.
Like ‘witches’, Shugdenites are accused of conducting harmful practices. In the language used, the nature of this harm is often vague, but it includes a general harm against other practitioners and against unwitting Shugden worshippers too. And just as with accusations against so-called ‘witches’, actual proof of this harm is rather scant. In fact, there is none. Not even the most ardent detractors of Shugden worship have been able to show any tangible evidence of the harmful and destructive nature of Shugden practice.
Of course, around the world, witches are usually accused of causing specific misfortunes - unexpected deaths, natural disasters, or unexplained accidents . Likewise, Shugden worshippers too are often accused of specific misfortunes, despite the fact that no visible link connects them. From cattle disease to harming the life of the Dalai Lama, a host of evil consequences have been attributed to this practice. Of course, the notorious Yellow Book is considered by some to be a comprehensive history of the kind of harm meted out by Shugden to wayward worshippers themselves. And no hard evidence exists to confirm any of it. At least, not the sort of evidence that would stand up to academic scrutiny. Not the sort of proof that would be entered as any kind of exhibit in a court of law.
This is a very important point to understand. Like ordinary witchcraft trials the world over, no evidence has been needed to confirm the guilt of Shugden worshippers in perpetuating what is considered a harmful practice . With witch persecution, the effectiveness of the accusation has never depended on actual or reliable evidence. The same is the case here. For the most part, the claim of harmful practice against Shugdenites is reliant on hearsay and hypothesis, and the same would be true at any witch trial. It is given authority by numerous lamas, including the Dalai Lama, just as once inquisitors and sometimes even the Pope lent weight and authority to allegations of witchcraft and heresy.”
Marsden: Wow, Nazi aspersions in the first sentence, and downhill for the rest of your unreferenced opine. Your argument is spurious: it was indeed the deb serpo which claimed several Gelugpas died sudden deaths for the misdemeanor of what NKT calls ‘mixing’ (apparently even dear old Ling Rinpoche was apprehensive about this rumor), so you just shot yourself in the foot, metaphorically speaking. How is that an argument in your favour? Talking of the insubstantiality of mental events, you god is also a mere figment of your imagination, unless of course you are not a Buddhist whatsoever but rather eternalist theists or alternately nihilists which is ostensibly the case with NKT.
Finally, no hard evidence is found in a book if you can’t read the language, that much is correct.
Words and more words to defend a religious and civic persecution. I wonder who or what makes you so fanatic, guys. Because on the “Shugden” side are the persecuted. So, that they defend their lineage, their beliefs, those who suffer in harsher ways the tyranny from Dharamsala, it’s understandable. Even the DL’s terrible actions I am willing to trace to obvious things … his difficult young years, the extraordinary influence of oracles and bad advisors, the suffering of exile, the debts he has with certain government … But his followers? Mainly his Western followers, how can they back up a persecution? Why this sad perseverance? What is the gain in persecuting others?
May be you really are fanaticized by a cult figure and you have to defend it, lest you loose your identity. What a picnic for Dr. Sigmund you would be! Calling the Protector’s people the “Shugden cult” … what a case of projection!
By the way, I just received a couple of news from Southern India. Probably the WSS and the CRS are going to post them, but for those charitable ones that read this blog, let me transcribe them.
_________________________________________________________
“November 7, 2008,
A meeting was held in Gaden Lachi. They have discussed about the dispensary run by Shartse monastery. “The dispensary has relationship with dholgyal organization. Some Shugden monks come to the dispensary. Therefore, the dispensary must post a letter on its door, announcing that Shugden devotees are not allowed in the dispensary.”
November 11, 2008, Shartse monastery convened a meeting. It was attended by abbot, disiplinarain, chanting master, and so on. The Chanting master Tenzin Namdak reportedly said:
“Some Shugden devotees and non shugden devotees are friendly like before they were separated. They ride motorcycle and jeep together. We should stop this friendship and company between monks from Shar Gaden monastery and Gaden Shartse monastery.”
_______________________________________________________
To split the Sangha … now, this is a bitter fruit.
So by all means, go on with the utterance of words upon words upon words. You need to hide such sad events from public scrutiny, no doubt, and mainly from the scrutiny of your own hearts. What a difficult judge to face, your own mind. Yeah, I understand that you cover the web with words, and your own ears with words. To face this truth … aïe!
__________________________________________
A western hare krishna clone is telling Tibetans how to conduct their own religion and culture without even being able to read and write the language themselves… that’s just ethnocentic cultural imperialism. Get an afterlife, white boy.
Gen Hur, the Buddhist religion does not belong to the Tibetans! The intention of Buddha was for Buddhism to protect all living beings. You are the one who is engaging in ethnocentric cultural imperialism.
Namkah, there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere of Dorje Shugden harming anyone, whether they mix different schools of teaching or not. Show me evidence if you have it — no one else has ever managed to come up with any. But that hasn’t seemed to matter to fanatic followers of the ban and persecution. It is precisely this kind of spurious claim backed up by blind fanaticism that has caused this witch hunt and a very real persecution of Shugden practitioners.
Everything is projected by the mind, it is true, but Wisdom Protector Dorje Shugden still functions to protect living beings from ignorance and suffering. To deny the existence of conventional truth is for you to fall into the extreme of nihilism.
Marsden: Interesting that you deny your own side’s superstitions about Shugden practice: personally I prefer to avoid teachings about precisely what Lord Buddha intended from neophyte recent converts with broken lineage (like NKT). If its all the same to you, we live in separate mileiu: I will never automatically respect a dress-up novice even as sangha. Stay ‘very real’ it merely furthers the pretense you are heavily invested in.
Gen Hur: Don’t worry, their very celibacy ensures that these first generation Shugdenoids will die out very soon. In dharmic time, the blinking of an eye.
Jimmy the Westerners are very dependent on the transmission of Buddhism by the societies who were able to keep Buddhism alive. This is very true to every form of Buddhism, also for Tibetan Buddhism.
I think, it is a type of megalomania to think one Geshe is able to transfer Buddhism - especially the so deep and vast type of Indian-Tibetan Buddhism - to the West, not only this but also to praise this own set of teachings while belittling the Tibetan Buddhist tradition from which NKT derives and is completely dependent from.
It is also cultural megalomania to tell the Tibetans what they do wrong and spread the own cut and dried opinions about them via internet and press issues. Much more as almost no NKT people know Tibetan language or anything valid about the Tibetan history and culture. Almost all of them are unable to read the original Tibetan or Sanskrit sources and have to rely completely on 22 books (some of them are just a copy and paste editions from other boos of Geshe Kelsang) - NKT’S founder - while being discouraged to study the Tibetan or Sanskrit texts of the great Indian and Tibetan pandits, and being actively discouraged to study even texts by other authors than Kelsang Gyatso.
To adopt the Indian-Tibetan Buddhism to the West - if Westerners are ever able to fully understand and appreciate it - will take some hundred years. It was the same when the Indian Buddhism came to Tibet, it took some hundred years to give it a solid and valid ground there. The heritage and the deepness and vastness of Indian-Tibetan Buddhism, the Tibetans offer to the world, can’t be measured. And no words can be found to really praise and express the gift they offer to the world. I am deeply and heartfelt grateful to all of the Tibetans who were able to keep that Buddhist heritage, I am deeply in debt to them and I will do - as a Westerner - what ever I can to repay their kindness, and to support them in any way possible.
It is clear that HH the Dalai Lama and other high realised Lamas play an important role in that transmission and adoption process, and that they are not only the hope of Tibetans but also the hope for Westerners who try to comprehend and to practice the complete three vehicles of Tibetan Buddhism, and strive for great enlightenment to benefit all sentient beings.
Although Buddhism does not belong to the Tibetans with respect to Tibetan Buddhism only the Tibetans are those who will guarantee a proper transmission process, and such a process will take time. You can see the healthy development in the Theravada Tradition in the West: there is still a great admiration and exchange with the masters from Thailand, Sri Lanka etc., great respect for the Sangha of those countries and the people there. And there is no doubt about that they are the elders and lineage holders and genuine Buddhist authorities. The same is true for Tibetan Buddhism. (- but not for NKT of course, they are “completely independent”).
From a historical point of view, Westerners are the younger to all the Buddhist traditions. To the Theravada, Mahayana of all countries. As a younger one should respect the elder, this is what the Buddha has taught. If this is not done only faults will be the result. Even worldly beings are able to foresee the results of such a hubris.
With respect if Shugden is harming others read just Pabongkha Rinpoche in an introduction to the practice:
It would be good to lay down arrogance and disrespect to other nations.
“… all the participants, as Tibetan citizens should discuss in a spirit of equality, cooperation and collective responsibility the best possible future course of action to advance the Tibetan cause. This meeting should take place in an atmosphere of openness, putting aside partisan debate. Rather, it should focus on the aspirations and views of the Tibetan people. I appeal to everyone concerned to work together to contribute as best as they can.
This Special Meeting is being convened with the express purpose of providing a forum to understand the real opinions and views of the Tibetan people through free and frank discussions. It must be clear to all that this special meeting does not have any agenda for reaching a particular predetermined outcome.
The Dalai Lama
14 November 2008″
___________________________________________________________
I wonder to whom this special message is directed.
The faithful children of the Dalai Lama’s Lamas are forbidden to even attend, let alone participate.
This is one more proof of the duplicity of the Dalai Lama’s assertions, one version for the Press, for the world, a different policy for Tibetans. The meeting in Dharamsala is not a meeting for Tibetans, it’s not a meeting of Tibetans. There are Tibetans forbidden to be there because of their religious beliefs and commitments.
The world is learning, little by little, about this persecution.
I am not writing here to try to convince you, you who write on this blog to back up the persecution of innocent Protector’s devotees, of innocent faithful Gelupgas. For you I pray that one day you wake up. Sometimes I tease you because it gets too boring to answer the same old calumnies. But I write here for those who read to understand this issue, because they need to know the truth, and everything we say here helps them understand where the truth is to be found.
The world needs to know that the greatest Lamas that brought Buddhism to the West were Dorje Shugden practitioners. Not only Buddhism: they brought the Dalai Lama to the West.
Even in plain human terms of decency … the lack of respect and gratitude for those holy Lamas shows where is the truth of this matter.
It’s not on the side of the persecutor, the Dalai Lama and his TGIE and followers.
The truth is on the side of the persecuted, the Gelugpas who refuse to give up their commitment to their own Lamas, to Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche, Domo Geshe Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Yeshe, and so many others. These immaculate Lamas left us the divine practice of the Supreme Dharmapala Dorje Shugden, and those who are faithful to their samaya are persecuted.
Little by little the world is being informed. One day it will take notice for good.
Time will take the side of the truth.
for an India update see:
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/india-update-present-situation/
Friendoftruth: “The world needs to know that the greatest Lamas that brought Buddhism to the West were Dorje Shugden practitioners. Not only Buddhism: they brought the Dalai Lama to the West.”
Quite the contrary: nobody came without the Dalai Lama’s auspices and would have not even heard the word ‘dharma’ had it not been for him: you are putting the cart before the horse. Similarly, Khyabje Trijang Rinpoche and any of the other names I am confident you do not one iota of authority to speak on behalf of, were in service of Gaden Phodrang, not the other way around. I suppose you are going to tell us the fairy story of how Dolgyal allowed HHDL to safely escape Tibet.
On a personal ad hominem note, I think you are an arrogant windbag to dictate so but that’s not important. Tibetans will decide their own destiny not ignorant neophyte WASP’s dressed up in red.
A Day in the Life of an NKT Devotee:
6:00am Morning prayers
7:00am Dolgyal mantras until stupified
9:00am dash off a few hate e-mails and chat online
11:00am stray to naughty pervert websites
11:03 sleep
1:00pm change into civilian clothes, pickup dole cheque and housing allowance
2:00 pm unpaid slave work for org
11:00 pm dash off a few more hate e-mails and chat online
The meeting in Dharamsala is not a meeting for Tibetans, it’s not a meeting of Tibetans. There are Tibetans forbidden to be there because of their religious beliefs and commitments.
The faithful Gelugpas, the children of the Dalai Lama’s Lamas, are forbidden to attend because of their religious beliefs and commitments.
Dear Friendoftruth,
I don’t know if this is true what you claim. The problem for me is, that NKT / WSS spread so many wrong information that even if something is true I take the benefit of the doubt.
Suppose it is true. Then I think it looks quite strange from an outer perspective, why them is not allowed to come.
On the other hand experience shows that many of those practitioner seem to view the world only from a Dorje Shugen-purity tunnel perspective. For a national meeting where self-centredness should be absent, this is rather destructive. In the world of most Shugdenpas the Dalai Lama is a politician, ‘mixing Dharma with politics’ hence ‘impure’, and is seen as the enemy of the Buddha- Dharma ‘because he has abandon the tradition of his root guru’, and some accuse him he would not be even able as a politician to achieve Tibet’s independence. As far as I can see most Shugdenpas think they are “pure practitioners” and the Dalai Lama is on the opposite an “pure practitioners” and it is he who is to be blamed for all the problems they perceive.
So why inviting people who do not wish to act politically? Why inviting people who have no trust that the Dalai Lama is able to act for the benefit of Tibetans? Why inviting people who are rather hostile when thinking on the Dalai Lama? Why inviting people who seem to have only one topic in their mind: Dorje Shugden, a practice perceived by the majority as being harmful?
Not inviting them seems to fulfil even the vision of Shugdenpas: “to practise purely, without mixing Dharma with politics”. So where is the problem?
correction:
As far as I can see most Shugdenpas think they are “pure practitioners”, because they do ‘not mix Dharma with politics’ and this implies that HH the Dalai Lama is on the opposite an “impure practitioners”, because is is ‘mixing Dharma with politics’. On top of that Shugdenpas expressed any times, it is HHDL who is to be blamed for all the problems they perceive.
Paranoid are we? If you are Tibetan, everyone is invited and encouraged to participate in this meeting. I got my message to attend also. Englishmen, Jamaicans, Bangladeshis and so forth should attend their own respective discussions if they wish.
I would add that Tibetans in exile, while still working on it, have made considerably more progress in developing democracy than China, where assemblies of two or more people are considered illegal and dissent is punished by imprisonment and torture. A suitable ally for fascist cultist loonies it seems.
Friendoftruth: “The meeting in Dharamsala is not a meeting for Tibetans, it’s not a meeting of Tibetans. There are Tibetans forbidden to be there because of their religious beliefs and commitments. The faithful Gelugpas, the children of the Dalai Lama’s Lamas, are forbidden to attend because of their religious beliefs and commitments.”
The WSS ‘leaked’ that Tibetans in Madison would be coerced into signing a document en masse this past summer. Never happened, that was a complete falsehood. Now you are trying o tell us Gelugpas are not welcome at this open discussion, again absolutely a fabrication from a foreigner who clearly has no ‘inside information’, no ‘conspiracy news flash’, as exciting as that may seem to idle NKT shills. This infantile gossip and speculation is really very neurotic, you ought to look into getting a grip on reality.
The meeting in Dharamsala is not a meeting for Tibetans, it’s not a meeting of Tibetans. There are Tibetans forbidden to be there because of their religious beliefs and commitments. The faithful Gelugpas, the children of the Dalai Lama’s Lamas, are forbidden to attend because of their religious beliefs and commitments.
The faithful Gelugpas started being persecuted in the open in 1996, in the way briefly described above in message 394.
Last winter this persecution was renewed and intensified starting with the disruption of the Winter Retreat. After the unprecedent action of some monks that refused to participate in the usual debate with other fellow monks (just because of their religious beliefs), upon the Dalai Lama’s orders the abbots and disciplinarians of the great monasteries organized the “voting” -where the votes were cast under the attentive eyes of everybody- against the Protector Deity Dorje Shugden and his practitioners. Afterwards all the monks, even adolescents, had to take an oath in front of different Deities. The oath consisted on swearing that one was not going ever to worship Dorje Shugden, nor ever going to have any human relashionship with his practitioners.
Dear reader that are new to this subject, you can find in You Tube the films that capture for history the voting and the taking of the oath.
From the great monasteries of Southern India the obligatory oath was extended to the Tibetan communities both monastic and lay under the form of signature campaign. It reached Northern India and even Switzerland, not to mention the Dharma Centers that spontaneously, in the West, adhered to this campaign of segregation, sending to oblivion the best of their culture’s values. To please the Dalai Lama, who commended all those who did this.
The Tibetans persecuted by the Dalai Lama’s campaign against a Deity are barred from any civic life. No public offices for them, it’s been forbidden since 1996. But nowadays nobody can even talk to them … at least in theory. When people dare not follow this policy they are publicly called to revert to good behavior and stop befriending the Tibetans that have a religious belief that displeases the Dalai Lama.
This very moment there is a meeting in Dharamsala to decide important matters about Tibet. These Tibetans cannot attend.
Their only sin is to be faithful to the samaya they have with their Lamas. It doesn’t matter if they themselves or members of their families were prisoners back in the land, or tortured, or even if they were freedom fighters or children of freedom fighters. If they worship Dorje Shugden they cannot be talked to by other Tibetans, they don’t have the right to be present when matters of the land are addressed.
This is just one more chapter of the civic and religious persecution established by the Dalai Lama against a segment of the Tibetan population.
____________________
Friendoftruth: You seem to write Tibetan issue blog entries an awful lot, no power cuts in India these days or are you (as I suspect) in some comfortable western suburb with nothing to do? This meeting is really not in your constituency unless you are a tax-paying Tibetan exile, its basically (how shall i put this?) none of your fucking business.
Friendoftruth ” they don’t have the right to be present when matters of the land are addressed.”
What you don’t seem to understand as a foreigner is that we don’t have a land. Neither are there jobs to deny your elusive ‘outcastes’ that are so vivid in your imagination but oddly are nowhere to be found, not in the millions, not in the thousands not in even the hundreds. Your speculation about the Tibetan community, of which you clearly have little firsthand knowledge, is just plain ignorance: a political agenda motivated by GKG’s personal vendetta and spread by viral fear marketing to bond the NKT together.
It it unbelievable that Shugden practitioners are not allowed to attend the meeting about the future of their own country. Many of the people who did the most work in the Tibetan diaspora population were Shugden practitioners. This is truly shameful. Karmically, as well, the TGIE are not creating the causes to have their own voices heard by the Chinese, and they are creating the causes for continued human rights abuses — the wheel of sharp weapons always turning.
Here is a new report from Southern India to show more continuing hypocrisy between the TGIE words and deeds:
(1) Denying medical care to Buddhist monks at their own monastery
A meeting was held in Gaden Lachi to discuss the dispensary run by Shartse monastery. They came to this conclusion:
“The dispensary has a relationship with the Dholgyal organization and some Shugden monks are coming to the dispensary. Therefore, the dispensary must post a notice on its door, announcing that Shugden devotees are not allowed in the dispensary.”
(2) Deliberate destruction of friendships between Buddhist monks
On November 11, 2008, Shartse Monastery convened a meeting, which was attended by the Abbot, Disciplinarian, Chanting Master, and so on. The Chanting Master Tenzin Namdak reportedly said:
“Some Shugden devotees and non-Shugden devotees are friendly like before they were separated. They ride motorcycles and jeeps together. We should stop this friendship and company between monks from Shar Gaden monastery and Gaden Shartse monastery.”
This last incident is both distressing and curiously hopeful, showing that once the Dalai Lama has lifted his illegal and unconstitutional ban on Shugden practice and stopped the witch hunt of Shugden practitioners, perhaps life may return to normal for all the monks relatively quickly? This and other reports from the monasteries of South India are indicating that no one is happy with the ban, Shugden and non-Shugden practitioners alike, and that Abbots and so on are only going along with it as mandated by the TGIE and Dalai Lama. As shown on the documentary on the Al Jeezera News Report earlier this year, the Dalai Lama says:
“Recently monasteries have fearlessly expelled Shugden monks where needed. I fully support their actions. I praise them. If monasteries find taking action hard, tell them Dalai Lama is responsible for this.”
(Found on http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com
“Jimmy Marsden - November 19, 2008
It it unbelievable that Shugden practitioners are not allowed to attend the meeting about the future of their own country.”
I stopped reading your drivel there.. yes it is unbelievable because it is not true, you moron. Unless you think a bunch of NKT monks areentitled and dictate to Tibetan the direction they wish to proceed on.
Forceful evacuation in Gangchen Monastery
Sonam Wanglak from Shigatse, Saga County, Drashuk township, reached Nepal on 30 May 2000. He is a 32-year-old former monk of Gangchen Monastery. Born into a farming family in Gangchen village of Drashuk township, Saga County, Sonam never had any schooling opportunities as there were no schools in his village.
In Gangchen village, there are 53 Tibetan families and most of them are farmers. Of these, 37 families face cereal shortage due to small landholdings, unfavourable climate and heavy taxes. At the age of 20. Sonam became monk of Gangchen Monastery, located in Saga County of Shigatse Prefecture and did intensive study of religious scripture since then. Gangchen Monastery suffered complete destruction during the Cultural Revolution, and saw renovation in 1987 when local Tibetans and some elder monks took collaborative actions. Until March 1997, Gangchen Monastery had 29 monks, but the number has now reduced to 12 monks. In 1997, Sonam was appointed as a member of the Democratic Management Committee and tru-ren (Vice-President) of the
Religious Committee of Gangchen Monastery. A six-member work team came to the monastery in March 1997, and stayed for three and a half months to conduct re-education. The members banned the pictures of the Dalai Lama and set a limit of 19 monks. No arrests were reported at the time. In June 1997, Gangchen Lama, a close associate of the Chinese authorities, visited the monastery. He called a special meeting of the monks whereby he gave instructions on showing loyalty and patriotism for PRC.
Gangchen Lama visited the monastery again on 3 December 1999, and instructed the monks to worship shugden deity (Shugden is a spirit which the Dalai Lama discourages to propitiate). He claimed himself as the re-incarnation of Panchen Sang Tashi, the founder of Gangchen Monastery, and called the monks to respect and worship him. He distributed booklets to the monks that has detailed explanation about his re-incarnation. However, no monks accepted him at the time.
Later, Gangchen Lama called 10 officials from the County Religious
Department and PSB to instruct the monks to worship shugden and to respect him. A meeting was held in the monastery that very same day where the officials threatened the monks with arrest, detention and imprisonment if they oppose Gangchen Lama. Furthermore, refusal on the monk’s part would be deemed political and they would be investigated for crime against the nation. Since the beginning of 1999, Gangchen Lama had started building a new monastery of his own on the northen valley of Gangchen Monastery. The officials of County Religious Department and PSB forcefully evacuated the monks of Gangchen Monastery to the new monastery on 27 December 1999. Two new statues of the shugden deity placed in the prayer hall by Gangchen Monastery were met with protest by the monks. The statues were later
taken by the monks who hid them in a nearby cave, which was used for meditation. There has been no history of shugden worship by the monks of Gangchen Monastery.
Owing to constant pressure to worship the deity and orders to carry out the instructions of Gangchen Lama, seven monks fled the
monastery. Sonam fled from his monastery on January 1999, and stayed in Shigatse for two months. He escaped to Nepal in a group of eight Tibetans by paying 1800 yuan to a guide. He wishes to join a monastery in India.
“…. after months and months of inquiries, the Indian police identified a group of six people who they suspected of having killed (Gen Lobsang Gyatso and his two students). They have concluded that all six have since returned to Tibet. Among the group were a couple of monks from the Pompora Khamtsen at Sera Med and a couple more from Ganden Dhokhang Khamtsen. The majority were Chatrengpas, one was from Lithang and couple were from elsewhere. They were all relatively newly arrived from Tibet. So, when we look at it from this angle, it is also very saddening, isn’t it? A few newcomers from Tibet, who didn’t know anything, were deceived either with money or misinformation. It was done in a really poor way. However it was done, these people were deceived. It is really a disgrace.
What’s more, it’s being said that, some of the Shugden supporters have met again recently to discuss what steps to take against those people who continue to speak out against them. I don’t know whether this is true, this is what I have heard. Shortly after people were killed in Dharamsala, letters were posted which said, “We have offered three chunks of meat for Losar, we have still more to offer.” See how callous they are. Disturbing emotions are really so disgusting. This kind of behaviour should really be blamed on disturbing emotions, not on the human beings. But if we don’t take care of people who are under the sway of disturbing emotions it is also no good.”
excerpted from http://www.dalailama.com/page.156.htm
Concerning Dholgyal with reference to the views of past masters and other related matt
Here is a quote from SS demonstrating clear sectarian bias based on secondhand shoddy scholarship, replete with flse and misleading statements ” Many great earlier Tibetan scholars, especially those with a precise knowledge of Sanskrit, such as master Jangchub Woe, translator Goe, translator Chak, great Sakya pandita, the great master Bhutoen, etc., have classified a number of Tibetan Tantras as lacking the authenticity of being original Indian Buddhist Tantras. These texts, including the Tantra in question, were classified separately. Kyabje Ling Rinpoche’s comment that ‘there are a lot of discussions about this Tantra’ refers to these discussions of many earlier and later Tibetan scholars about the authenticity of the Sangwa-Nyingpo-Tantra.
Ling Rinpoche’s answer has therefore nothing to do with protector Dorje Shugden. Ling Rinpoche neither had any reason to be afraid of the deity, nor did he have any reason to frighten His Holiness of such a deity. ”
http://www.shugdensociety.info/HHsWordsEN.html
Firstly, in no way is this nameless editor the heir or spokesperson for the previous Khyabje Ling Rinpoche (of whom I was also a student) and yet they seem to know more about his private conversations than people who were present. That’s preposterous. The central point I will refute here by referring readers to this excerpt “In any case, if Sakya scholars have not tended to join in these attacks on the Guhyagarbha tantra’s authenticity, it may be because Śākyaśrībhadra, the Kashmiri guru who taught Sakya Paṇḍita, verified a Sanskrit manuscript of the tantra which had been found at Samyé (this is mentioned in a 12th or 13th century Sakya biography of Śākyaśrībhadra). The manuscript was passed from hand to hand until it reached Gö Lotsawa Zhönu Pal, author of the Blue Annals, who wrote:
When the Great Kashmiri Pandita [Śākyaśrī] arrived at Samyé, he discovered the Sanskrit text of the Guhyagarbha. Later it came into the hands of Tatön Ziji, who presented it to it Shagang Lotsawa. The latter sent the manuscript to Chomden [Rigpai] Ralgri, who accepted it and composed The Flower to Ornament the Accomplishment of the Guhyagarbha. He showed the text at an assembly of tantrikas at Mamoné, and highly praised it. After that Tarpa Lotsawa made a translation of the Subsequent Guhyagarbha Tantra which had not been found before. Most of the pages of the manuscript were damaged. The remaining pages of the Sanskrit manuscript are in my hands.
So the authenticity of the Guhyagarbha tantra seems to be rather a non-issue, despite all the polemical activity devoted to the question over the centuries in Tibet. ” http://earlytibet.com/2007/08/27/in-search-of-the-guhyagarbha-tantra/
Thirdly the novel rendering of Tibetan names in the SS piece: “Jangchub Woe, translator Goe, translator Chak, …..the great master Bhutoen,” betrays a simple lack of knowledge of the Tibetan alphabet, Wylie or other conventions, or even phonetic rendering of Tibetan , let alone invoking the authority of Sanskrit scriptures. Very shabby scholarship…are we supposed to be awed by your learning? Hardly.
David Canada, that story you tell has little relevance to the widespread and dreadful persecution of Shugden practitioners (and it also happened a long time ago.) Just last year and this year, many monks have been expelled from their monasteries and also stopped from entering the monasteries in the first place.
Here is a story about sixteen young Tibetan refugees denied entry by other Tibetans (please show some compassion and at least read what they have to say): http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2008/11/story-of-16-young-tibetan-refugees-in.html
Extract:
I then was escorted to Room no. 5, where I gave an interview again. The staff asked my name, my parents’ names and my fatherland, and I answered them. They also asked the monastery and monastic section (Khamtsen) of my choice. I said I would go to join Pomra Khamtsen at Sera Mey. I was then asked if I worship Dorje Shugden, and I replied that I do.
I was then told that I would have to sign a statement renouncing my faith and practice in Dorje Shugden if I wanted to go to Pomra Khamtsen at Sera Mey.
I appealed to him not to force me to sign.
The staff member conducting this phase of the interview said:
“You are a Chinese spy. You dislike the Dalai Lama. If you worship Shugden, you are against the Dalai Lama.”
I denied those allegations, saying that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual master of Tibet and he is also my guru. Dorje Shugden is a Deity who is worshipped by our monastery and our province and our family.
I was pushed again regarding my reasons for refusing to sign the statement renouncing Dorje Shugden. And I repeated my earlier statement that the Deity Dorje Shugden is worshipped by our monastery and province, and that my family also has worshiped the Deity for several generations. I strenuously denied that my worship of Dorje Shugden meant I disliked the Dalai Lama. I begged him to have sympathy for me and not force me to give up my religious faith.
I was then told that I needed to think carefully about this matter, as there was no way I would be admitted to the monastery if I didn’t sign. He refused to give me a reference letter, which would have stated that my admission to Sera Mey was sanctioned by the Dalai Lama and the Kalon Tripa, head of the Tibetan cabinet.
Our purpose in risking escape from Tibet was to have an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and to join the monastery where we could study Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. We had no purpose apart from that.
We stayed for two months in Kathmandu without getting a reference letter from the TRC.
We are grieving.
Namkah, insult me as much as you want, but Shugden practitioners (Tibetans) are not allowed to attend the meeting about the future of their country taking place. They are not allowed to do much of anything at all these days.
Tibetan politics are as far removed from democracy as they ever were, and not getting a step closer with this deliberate policy of shutting down all dissension and not even contemplating points of view other than that of the TGIE (as directed by HHDL).
Maybe you should read about what democracy actually is as it is practiced in a democratic country e.g. check out the founding fathers and the US constitution and what Thomas Jefferson would make of all this (for an article on that, http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/dalai-lama-article-what-would-thomas-jefferson-think-of-the-14th-dalai-lama/). I am not trying to be rude; I really do think there is a lack of understanding, probably understandable, amongst many Tibetans of how religion and politics cannot mix. Not mixing religion and politics is a founding principle of democracy as it is practiced today.
I congratulate those with whom I cannot debate (phyi rgol yang dag ma yin) for their perseverance in the use of distraction and calumny.
One thing, though, I find quite amusing. You don’t know, do you, the one who is behind the piece about Ling Rinpoche? Go and try to find nowadays a finer Tibetan scholar. So, after all, the deep knowledge about Tibetans was like the rest of it … not a calumny in this case, just bravado.
Jimmy: So you are telling us about church and state shouting through a megaphone? Talking of insults, oh noble novices, you guys take the cake: liar is a biggy, terrorist, blah blah need I go on? All under false names. NKT is losing respect from Asians and westerners alike the longer this hatchet campaign continues.
Fiendof truth: If your scholar has any integrety, he can publish under his real name although no one but Tharpa would likely print his books. Regardless of who he is, in no possible way can he speak for the deceased senior or junior tutors unless he is suffering from delusions of grandeur– a distinct possibility since it is trickling down from the top of the priory.
There is no attribution to the story it could be entirely apocryphal since NKT/WSS sites are not a reliable or objective sources. Chances are very high “Lobsang Tsultrim” does not spek english, so who wrote it down?
Note to self: NKT/WSS sites are not a reliable source.
Jimmy Marsden: American, close your torture camps and withdraw from Iraq and I will consider reading about Jefferson.
from Jan. 5/99 The Tribune
“The First Secretary in the Chinese embassy, Mr Tau Wenching, and his wife to the Tibetan settlement at Mundgod, in South India, on December 24, was another indication of the alleged links that exist between the Shugden supporters and the Chinese embassy. “The fact that the First Secretary was accompanied by Thupten Palsang, who is an active member of the Shugden group is a clear indication that the Chinese embassy has close links with the Shugden activists,” commented an official. Palsang, also known as Nagpo Chenpo, is a former monk of Pomra House of Sera Mey College in the Tibetan settlement of Bylakuppe in South India.
A release by the Tibetan Government said that they had concrete evidence of the links between the Shugden supporters and the Chinese authorities. The latest visit of the Chinese embassy official, was another indication of the “close links” they shared.
For the past some time, the Tibetan Government has been alleging that China was trying to rake up the cult controversy, to divide the Tibetan community, and was even funding the Shugden Society.”
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99jan06/himachal.htm#1
“For twenty years, Captain Edmund Bacon served as chief overseer of slaves and the working plantation at Monticello. In this chapter (of his memoirs), “Mr. Jefferson’s Servants,” Bacon begins: “Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. . . He would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped.”"
for an intresting discussion of Jefferson fathering several children of a slave woman see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/
ཁྲ་ཆུང་སྐོར་མགོ་མ་ཤེས་ན།
དགྲ་དང་གཉེན་ལ་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་ཆེ།
བསམ་གཏན་སྒོམ་ལུགས་མ་ཤེས་ན།
ལྷ་བདུད་གཉིས་ལ་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་ཆེ།
Thom “Pharmabucks” Canada’s ally: activities this spring
“On April 10 in the afternoon, security forces detained 550 monks from Drepung monastery, took them to the Nyethang Military School, and detained them on the school campus. Then, on the night of April 14, a huge contingent of Chinese security forces arrived at Sera monastery and took away about 400 monks and detained them at a military prison in Tsal Gungthang (near Lhasa). On April 17, a group of monks from Ganden was also rounded up and detained somewhere in Lhasa.”
The 675 Tibetan monks were put on a train from Lhasa on April 25. The source continues, “Among those 675 monks, 405 were from Drepung, 205 were from Sera, and eight were from Ganden.” The remaining 57 monks from outlying areas were said to have been taken from smaller Lhasa monasteries.
“They were transported to a military detention center in Golmud in the Haixi (in Tibetan, Tsonub) Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai. All the monks who came originally from the Qinghai region were (then) deported to their respective towns. They are still detained there in their hometown prisons or detention centers.” Monks originally from monasteries in the Kham region in Sichuan province are still being held in Golmud the source reported.
After the March demonstrations, China sent in more paramilitary troops and closed off the Tibetan Autonomous Region and the ethnic Tibetan regions of China from the rest of the world. Journalists have no free access, Tibetans within Tibet are afraid to receive or place phone calls outside Tibet and the internet is monitored. Therefore, the number of those still in detention in Tibet cannot be independently confirmed.
According to the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD), “more cases the enforced and involuntary disappearance of Tibetans are beginning to surface of there are at least more than a thousand Tibetans whose current whereabouts and well being remains completely unknown to their family members and their affiliated monasteries.”
Source:
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/monks-08282008164711.html
China is like an overly amorous lover pursuing NKT/WSS…did you notice they closed the reader comments section of their website around the time of the Olympics after receiving an enormous influx of postings from Chinese ultra-nationalists claiming to be sympathetic. Many of which were in pinyin which the culties can’t read. They now maintain a page in Chinese about their hate culture and one cannot post any response to any of their many organs without censorship, how Jeffersonian is that?
When this tryst with China was consummated is not clear but certainly it is a marriage made in hell with shugden carrying a bouquet of human entrails and a severed heart.
A monk from Sera Monastery wrote about the present situation:
- The Shugden portion from Pomra Khangtsen at Sera Mey (about 120-130 monks and novices) is not attracting any new Tibetan monks as those who come into exile do so in the spirit of being close to HHDL.
- Most of the Tibetan Pomras have left the Khangtsen and re-joined Sera Mey. Especially the young monks want no part in the vitriol of the more militant leaders who now largely control the breakaway faction. The nasty rhetoric spewing forth from several of the leaders of the faction against the Dalai Lama, in the words of this monk “literally had the monks running out the door back to the majority faction of the monastery.” The nasty comments and lies are so poisonous even many monks loyal to Shugden cannot stand it and have left the monastery altogether.
- Because of lack of numbers, Shugden practising Pomras have been going to Nepal to recruit young children (7-12) to join their house. They do this because most Tibetans wishing to ordain cannot take the taste of their vitriol against the Dalai Lama. The Nepali children are sent to the monastery by their parents because there is free room and board, but are usually called back by their parents when old enough to work in the fields. For this reason, they don’t finish their studies but serve only the purpose of bolstering the numbers of the Shugden faction in Pomra Khangtsen.
- From a young age these Nepali children are being taught to hate the Dalai Lama, that he is a destroyer of dharma, etc. In fact, one monk told me the Shugden leaders of Pomra are making use of the tension between Nepali and Tibetan monks to further their cause.
- Some Tibetan Shugdens at Sera who are not part of the militant wing have been shocked by the claims on the WSS website that this is a false Dalai Lama. They believe the tactics of these Western neophytes to Buddhism have harmed their cause more than helped it. This is according to one Shugden follower I spoke to in Delhi.
- Despite threats from Shugden worshippers, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will perform hundreds of bhikshu ordinations for novice monks of both Sera Mey and Jey this year around Losar at Sera Monastery.
- His Holiness has continued to withdraw from any political responsibilities in order to allow the Tibetans to take charge of their own future. This indicates all the talk about him being a dictator is baseless. The current meeting is being held largely in his absence, and on Phayul you can read a document where he begs the Tibetans to discuss every option openly.
- The above information comes from 3 members of Sera Mey monastery and 1 Geshe from Sera Jey monastery. In addition, I spoke with one monk loyal and a layperson to Shugden in Majnu Katilla settlement, Delhi.
- By all accounts the situation at Sera, despite the anti-Dalai Lama vitriol of some Shugden monks in the breakaway faction of Pomra Khangtsen, is largely peaceful. In fact, the demands of WSS have already been met! Both sides are continuing their practices without interruption and, through the division into two monasteries , there has been little conflict to mention the past two months. Both sides have kept all their own buildings and no one is homeless as a result of this dispute.
- The seperation has in fact eased tensions and made it easier for both sides to focus on their divergent goals.
Annotation
France 24 TV and Al Jazeera claimed there would be 4 million Buddhist Tibetans worshipping Shugden. It seems both media didn’t verify the claims they took over from Shugden supporters for their reports. More than 10 years ago the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and their members spread already this wrong information via their sub-organisation Shugden Supporters Community (SSC). Two British media consulted specialists and pointed out that this claim is grass exaggeration.
Andrew Brown from The Independent wrote:
“The figure of four million worshippers of Shugden was preposterous. There are only about six million Tibetans in the world at most, of whom less than half are members of the Gelugpa order (Steven Lane estimated 30 per cent), where the veneration of Shugden is concentrated. Even among the Gelugpa, only monks can be initiated into the cult of Shugden, and only a minority of those actually are. Most of the experts I talked to thought that about 100,000 people at most could be affected by the Dalai Lama’s ban.”
Peter Unwin stated:
“The figure of four million worshippers is grass exaggeration, experts estimating the figure to actually be around 100,000 or less than 2% of the Tibetan population, a large proportion of whom abandoned propitiation of the deity after the Dalai Lamas pronouncements.”
http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/india-update-present-situation/
Dear another point:
Regarding Pete Unwin’s estimate, the base number of six million is still very much questionable. The PRC did not do a population census in Tibet until around 1962 and came up with a number in the area of 1 million only which they retroactively applied to 1950, aware of the charges of genocide against China in the invasion of Tibet by the International Commission of Jurists. Even if one were to believe the Communist’s numbers, it would be a stretch to find five million more shugden adherents, anywhere.
On the other hand, Dharamsala tried to enhance the case for mass Tibetan genocide (1 million plus claimed dead) with a study that may well have had methodological flaws–because of family kinships and in the absence of birth or death records, it is quite possible some deaths were counted more than once. So if there are 100,000 Dolgyal people in the world (virtually 100 percent of the total population of Tibetans in India), therefore they must be for the most part under Chinese rule an under no legal jurisdiction whatsoever of the tiny refugee administration and HHDL who has not set foot in Tibet for over 50 years. So the NKT/WSS, rather than kowtow to communist China, ought to aim their defamation campaign at Beijing where the legal responsibility for human rights violations actually lies.
The only logical conclusion here is that clearly NKT/WSS have grotesquely distorted the facts.
Letter of the day ion NKT/WSS site ” And wouldn’t China promote it bigger and better than anyone. After all they have economic power base that is growing by the month. So when we keep mentioning that this practice is not good..are we really fulfilling the purpose of suppressing the practice or making it grow bigger. We have to look beyond this generation alone. We have to look at China and her relationship with Dorje Shugden long after the Dalai Lama has passed on. Long after we have passed on.
Dear Marc USA: Genocide in Tibet by PLA troops was recognized 50 years ago by the International Commision of Jurists, Read their report entitled “The Position of Tibet in International Law”, their findings are very clear:
“1) Systematic disregard for the obligations under the Seventeen-Point Agreement of 1951;
2) Systematic violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Tibet;
3) Wanton killing of Tibetans and other acts capable of leading to the extinction of the Tibetans as a national and religious group, to the extent that it becomes necessary to consider the question of Genocide.
It is submitted, with a full appreciation of the gravity of this accusation, that the evidence points at least to a prima facie case of Genocide against the People’s Republic of China. This case merits full investigation by the United Nations.”
Many young Tibetans take the attitude: if NKT are actively attacking our struggle for self-determination, sobeit, we will oppose you at every turn, we will expose the cowards and hypocrites collecting money in the name of chos and shut them up permanently.
Trijang was the force who spread the doctrine of downfall to all peoples of high and low status, Tibetan and of other races. The greatest servant of Shugden in our entire history, he succeeded in destroying the living tradition of Je Tsong Kapa. This fact is obvious to any person who studies logic with a clear mind.
As Reting Rinpoche says: “Trijang was the force who spread the doctrine of downfall to all peoples of high and low status, Tibetan and of other races. The greatest servant of Shugden in our entire history, he succeeded in destroying the living tradition of Je Tsong Kapa. This fact is obvious to any person who studies logic with a clear mind.Now people masquerade as monks and nuns or lay teachers of Je Tsong Kapa’s doctrine, all of them lacking the transmission of a living lineage. You have upheld the deceit, a willing partner in the continuance of lies and broken, baseless lineages.”
http://www.reting.org/openletter.html
I just read that open letter. Is that Reting Rinpoche for real?! He sounds completely megalomaniacal and mad. That website has to be a spoof, surely?
Even reading between the lines of this monk’s account from Sera Monastery (given above), there is something really quite sinister going on in this enforced segregation of monks. It is also not made any the less sinister by a Buddhist monk attempting to justify it:
- By all accounts the situation at Sera, despite the anti-Dalai Lama vitriol of some Shugden monks in the breakaway faction of Pomra Khangtsen, is largely peaceful. In fact, the demands of WSS have already been met! Both sides are continuing their practices without interruption and, through the division into two monasteries, there has been little conflict to mention the past two months. Both sides have kept all their own buildings and no one is homeless as a result of this dispute.
- The seperation has in fact eased tensions and made it easier for both sides to focus on their divergent goals.
In fact, the WSS aims have not been met at all. It is most regrettable that the monks should be separated. Segregation did not work out too well in the South of the U.S. or in South Africa.
However, if the choice is between “separate but equal” (Jim Crow) or being deprived access to basic social services, then separate but equal is better. The question is then whether Shugden practitioners are still denied access to shops and medical care within the monasteries and nearby communities? It would appear that yes, they are, and there are accounts to show this.
If within the monastery they wish to keep things separate to keep the peace, this is better than nothing, despite the sad irony that the peace was only shattered in the first place by the forced signature campaign. But if in the larger Tibetan community, Shugden practitioners are shunned and denied equal access to public places, then clearly there is a problem.
- The Shugden portion from Pomra Khangtsen at Sera Mey (about 120-130 monks and novices) is not attracting any new Tibetan monks as those who come into exile do so in the spirit of being close to HHDL.
This is actually a pretty disquieting statement. To see why, and what is going on here, please read the account of the sixteen young refugees who escaped Tibet last year to come to Pomra Khangtsen but were turned away (and beaten) by the ironically named “Tibetan Reception Center” as they would not renounce their worship of Dorje Shugden. This might explain why Pomra Khangtsen is “not attracting any new Tibetan monks”!
Here is another update from India from some bhikkshus who are living through the ban and segregation and others who are witnessing it. This report answers the specific points made in Tenzin Peljor’s monk’s report:
More recently, no Tibetans have been able to come into exile because of the recent uprisings in Tibet. Once things calm down, refugees will again try and come to India for schooling and monastic education. But what will happen when they arrive in Nepal? They will approach the Tibetan Reception Center (TRC) in Nepal, and later in Dharamshala. They will be asked if they are worshippers of Dorje Shugden or not. If they are, and if they do not sign their names to saythey will give up their religion, they will be accused of being enemies of the Dalai Lama and they will not be given the necessary recommendation letter to join any monastery in India. Without this letter, no Abbot is permitted to admit them.
On February 23rd, 2007, Tsering Dondup, the General Secretary of the Department of Religion & Culture (from the Tibetan Government in Exile) sent a letters to the Abbots and staff of every Gelug monastery. It read:
“Even at the head Tibetan Reception Center they are explaining why H.H. the Dalai Lama has banned the worshipping of Dholgyal (Dorje Shugden) to our brothers who newly arrived from Tibet.” … The Reception Center must explain as before why H.H. the Dalai Lama has imposed a ban on worshipping Dholgyal. If, despite your explanations, they don’t listen and take a strong stand, there is no way to let them go to any of the Gelug monasteries, including Sera, Drepung and Ganden, as has been happening until today.”
Tenzin Peljor’s monk continues:
- Most of the Tibetan Pomras have left the Khangtsen and re-joined Sera Mey. Especially the young monks want no part in the vitriol of the more militant leaders who now largely control the breakaway faction. The nasty rhetoric spewing forth from several of the leaders of the faction against the Dalai Lama, in the words of this monk “literally had the monks running out the door back to the majority faction of the monastery.” The nasty comments and lies are so poisonous even many monks loyal to Shugden cannot stand it and have left the monastery altogether.
Now, lets ask why monks from Pomra Khangsten would leave? If you were a Shugden practitioner, treated as a pariah by your former friends and Abbots and made to live in separate quarters, falsely accused of being a demon worshipper, a Chinese traitor and an enemy of state, how brave would you have to be to stay put? How soon would you succumb to the pressure to renounce your faith so that you can return to the main part of the monastery and be on the side of right and might again? Especially if you were young and saw your whole life ahead of you as one of exile, an object of suspicion and contempt? It takes a great deal of courage to stand up for your religious beliefs against those in power, as has been seen throughout history in many different parts of the world.
It is not rather cynical to call the Shugden monks a “breakaway faction”?! These are the same poor monks who were forcibly expelled from their monastery for refusing to renounce their faith in the forced signature campaign. They did not leave because they wanted to! They were pushed out. They were not trying to start a new movement – they just wanted to continue in peace with the practice that had been done for generations in the monasteries.
In terms of supposedly spreading vitriol against the Dalai Lama, lets face it — anyone whoever questions the Dalai Lama about anything is accused of this. The fact is that all Shugden monks were friends of the Dalai Lama and respected him, many used to have great faith in him; and having to defend themselves against him is incredibly painful.
The position of Shugden practitioners is that everyone should be free to practice as they wish and they seek mutual tolerance and respect between the different traditions, something they themselves are denied. However, there is nothing wrong with informing people of the Dalai Lama’s actions and explaining why they are self-contradictory and harmful. Then others are free to decide.
Besides, as the sources in India point out:
Many monks have indeed left Pomra, and many monks still remain in Pomra. But those who left Pomra did so under pressure and fear of being deported from India. The word has been spread widely: “If Shugden devotees do not give up, they will be thrown into the street”. Not only that, but they have been threatened with being driven out of India in the name of an organization called the “Himalayan Cultural Association”.
Pomra monks have no animosity toward these monks who have left. People are free to practice or not as they choose, and will not be asked to give up that choice.
These days, monks who want to join a monastery come from Tibet. For Tibetans living in exile and abroad, it is very rare for them to ask for their children to be admitted into the monastery these days. They are not prepared to send their children. They prefer sending them to school and college. They have seen too many who have disrobed, and monks who disrobed earlier had no other skills and therefore no choice but to join the army divisions or sell sweaters on the street.
Now due to too many problems in the monastery, monks from both sides are not happy. They do not feel like staying in the monastery, so they leave and, when they can, go to America and Europe. You can now find hundreds of ex-monks, including many Geshes, in New York and other places in America and Canada. They are working as laborors in restaurants, shops and factories. Some of the more fortunate monks, or those who have a link with the Buddhist Centers, have the opportunity to teach Buddhism.
Most of the monks who joined the monastery at the beginning of 80 are hardly found in the monastery any more. There only remain a few senior monks who came to India in 1959. Many have passed away.
There are many monks who stayed in the monastery for three years and then left for abroad. Every day, two or three monks from all the Tibetan monasteries go abroad to Europe, America, Canada, South America, Asia. (American visas are difficult to get. Some apply three or four times. If you get an American visa, people think you get a ticket to paradise.) If a Shugden monk has an Indian passport, then he can go. Otherwise, as a Tibetan refugee, a Shugden monk is not issued the Identity Card or Certificate, which is the necessary traveling document for Tibetan refugees.
Every year, fewer and fewer monks join the monasteries, so most Tibetan monasteries now have a lot of Nepali monks.
As for the false claim that Pomra is recruiting Nepali children and then teaching them to hate the Dalai Lama, this is denied.
Pomra now has over 400 monks, over two hundred of whom are living outside the monastery. The majority are Tibetan. There are almost 100 Nepali monks. No one was made or taught to worship Shugden. They came to the monastery to learn Buddhism. They are taught to respect all religious beliefs, and never speak badly about other religious beliefs. The monks usually study the five texts, Valid Cognition, Perfection of Wisdom, The Middle Way, The Treasure of Knowledge and the Vinaya. Dorje Shugden is the Dharma Protector of Pomra. He is propitiated in the assembly hall once a month and at the end of puja.
No one is against the Dalai Lama. No one has developed enmity towards him despite the persecution and discrimination over more than a decade.
Tenzin Peljor’s monk continues:
- Despite threats from Shugden worshippers, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will perform hundreds of bhikshu ordinations for novice monks of both Sera Mey and Jey this year around Losar at Sera Monastery.
What threats?! Where is there any sign of threats? This is typical propaganda. Of course HHDL would love to perform hundreds of bhikshu ordinations for novice monks, and that’s fine – but in which case, how can the Shugden monks be hypocritically accused of bolstering their numbers? One thing is for certain: none of these novices will ever hear a good word about Dorje Shugden.
The Bhikkshus continue:
Monks in Sera and Ganden are not happy that the Dalai Lama is about to visit again. Every time he goes there, he stirs up the Shugden issue, and then there is a problem. There are many monks who are not from Pomra who are also complaining: “Why is the Dalai Lama coming to the monastery so often?” A month to go, and people are expecting worse things to happen in the monastery. They think: “The Dalai Lama is coming. He will definitely make the matter worse. He is making this visit as an excuse to retaliate for the worldwide protests and Delhi High Court Case.” Whenever the issue calms down a bit, the Dalai Lama comes along and says something to raise the issue again. Every time he comes, he says something that provokes people.
Tenzin Peljor’s monk says:
- His Holiness has continued to withdraw from any political responsibilities in order to allow the Tibetans to take charge of their own future. This indicates all the talk about him being a dictator is baseless. The current meeting is being held largely in his absence, and on Phayul you can read a document where he begs the Tibetans to discuss every option openly.
The Dalai Lama said he has withdrawn from political responsibility but he is still the political head and he always will be. Although the present meeting about Tibet’s future is called a public meeting, eventually they will do what the Dalai Lama wants. He himself avoided attending the meeting to try and show that he is not involved. They are holding the meeting now. I will give you their resolution: their resolution will be that the majority of public want to follow the Dalai Lama’s way.
Pomra monks have to seek food, water, medicine etc themselves. Mostly they are supported by Pomra. No one else supports them. But they are fine with these things, they have faith, as Buddha said: “My practitioners will not starve.”
The situation is relatively peaceful in Sera for the time being. But peace can be destroyed at any time. Shugden and non-Shugden monks live in separation. I don’t think Shugden monks will be allowed to live peacefully.
Jimmy: Are you in India? Do you speak Tibetan? I think you grossly overestimate your own powers of clairvoyance in knowing what is going on from ‘all accounts’ We do not particularly need you to report to us, based on your vast experience of mystic meditation, about the Dalai Lama’s intentions or motivation or future plans if its all the same to you. Your hubris runneth over.
Jimmy Marsden (not his real name) has written another long-winded post that is instructive in that it reveals how NKT/WSS spread misinformation. There are no names, dates, stats cited. There are no quotes, even anonymous ones, no references and it is filed under an assumed name. How is that trustworthy? One shugden site showed a photo of Sera monks filling water bottles with the caption that Shugden monks are being denied water. That is false, everyone–monks and families have a seasonal water shortage annualy in Byalakuppe settlements, which is quite arid. We are not starry eyed seekers going to an NKT love festival with a bunch of hastily trained, ill-qualified novice ‘teachers’, Mr ‘Marsden’ so if you have any personal integrity or ethics left, you will refrain from trying to deceive us.
Gail McFadden: People tend to get upset and use strong language when murder touches their lives perhaps moreso when justice is not served. This is the case with the 5th Reting Rinpoche, this is the case with the Principal of Tibetan Institute of Buddhist Dialectics and his two disciples. However despite multiple stab wounds, Geshe Lobsang Gyatso managed to grasp onto a bag belonging to one of the assailants…”which contained a pair of gloves, a handkerchief and a torch, besides some explosive documents about the Dorje Shugden Deity brought out by the cult contingent in New Delhi, which indicated the possibility of the involvement of the Dorje Shugden followers in the incident. The documents cited the use of bloodshed to silence the opposition to the worship of the deity.
The Police Commissioner said that the late Lobsang Gyatso had returned from abroad on 31 January. An attendant of the deceased admitted that the late Lobsang Gyatso received threats from the Dorje Shugden followers and admitted having requested him to be more cautious. On the basis of this information, the police identified the top-rung leaders of Dorje Shugden society in Majnu-Ka-Tilla in Delhi and asked five people, including Chemi Tsering, to come to Dharamsala and assist them in their investigation.
It was the police in Majnu-Ka-Tilla, who came to know that six Tibetan youth had left for somewhere in a taxi (THA-4283) on the night the deceased had left for Dharamsala from Delhi.
According to Mr Singh, when, on the basis of this information, a search was conducted for the taxi, its driver, Mangat Ram, confessed that six youth had asked him to go to Dharamsala and follow the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. Upon his enquiry, the driver was reportedly told by the youth that they had left their baggage in the vehicle they were pursuing. The taxi however broke down in Ambala and they hired another taxi. But not before they made a call from an STD booth.
Because the call was made very late in the night, it was traced to the phone number 2932536 in Majnu-ka-Tilla, Delhi, which belonged to Chemi Tsering. This information further boosted the pace of investigation. After interrogating in various hotels in Kangra and Dharamsala, it was found that on 1 February, the six youth had stayed at Grand Hotel in Kangra before leaving on 4 February. They had identified themselves as hailing from Dharamsala and gave excursion as the purpose of their visit. Hotel workers mentioned a canvas bag and a torch in their belongings, which they identified later. In this way the police came to know that the six youth were the culprits.
Mr Singh said that some pictures were recovered after a raid in certain followers’ residents in Suja, Mandi districts, and Dharamsala. The crime fell on the six youth after the hotel workers and the taxi driver identified two youth from the pictures.
The names of the two assailants are Lobsang and Tenzin, aged between 22 and 25, and both hailing from Mundgod Settlement in Karnataka. They have been regularly travelling between India and Nepal.
When an investigation party was despatched to Karnataka, they came to know that Tenzin hailed from the Sera monastery in Bylakuppe and with the help of the local police, it was found that his full name is Tenzin Choezin and he came to India on 29 March 1985. His registration number is 308 and green book number is 312. He hails from Chatring in Tibet and is notorious for his involvement in violence against the Dorje Shugden opposition. Despite having been expelled from the monastery, he had been living there.
After an investigation in Gaden Shartse monastery in Hubli, it was found out that the other assailant is Lobsang Choedrak from Chatring in Tibet, who came to India in 1991. The investigation further revealed that Lobsang has an uncle in Dharamsala and some years ago, he had left the monastery on the excuse that he had to look after his uncle.
The police Commissioner said that there is a strong contingent of Dorje Shugden followers in Karnataka with some influential persons as top-rung leaders, and on account of this they couldn’t get much assistance from the Tibetan community there in the investigation. He believes that all the assailants have escaped to Nepal.
Pictures of the Tenzin and Lobsang have been circulated around the country and assurance of help has been sought from the Interpol, which gives some hope that the two will be caught sooner or later.”
–excerpt from a translation of a report in the Chandigarh edition of the Indian Hindi-language national daily, Jansatta, 28 April 1997
People do “tend to get upset and use strong language when murder touches their lives perhaps moreso when justice is not served. There is no statute of limitations on murder, the case is still open and further cases (see below) are open.”
Exhibit A: Here is an excerpt from the NKT/WSS site: 仔细思量……不要冷落或排斥习修持多杰雄登护法（Dorje Shugden）的人，应该善待他们，欢迎他们，逐步开导他们，心无恐惧地授他们以智慧和逻辑，然后他们会认为这一法门是“错误的”，从而及时地放弃这种修持。这种做法对所有“有罪错者”来讲不正是符合佛教教义的吗？实际上，多杰雄登习修者没有犯错误。但试想，如果他们在犯错误，而以宽厚之心包容和接纳他们，这岂不是更善良、更符合佛教精神的举动吗？所以与多杰雄登意见相左的那些人在阅读本网站内容后应该细思这一点。正在习修多杰雄登的人应以极大的耐心和毅力来忍辱，并持守你的誓约。正如所预言的那样，习修多杰雄登的时代将要到来，全世界都会信奉这个法门，它将成为众多苍生普遍习修的一门佛法。
对多杰雄登护法产生负面念头与言论的很多人会后悔，并且发现多杰雄登佛主的益处和正觉开悟的本性，这位佛主是同时示现三界的明王之王！！毕竟，如果达赖喇嘛会说，他的上师赤江仁波切（Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche）习修这一法门是犯错误，那么，他会使人不由得产生一种怀疑，即达赖喇嘛自己也可能是错误的。什么导致达赖喇嘛正确，而他的上师错误？如果他的上师犯错误，那么达赖喇嘛的弟子可能说，达赖喇嘛也是错误的。如果我们同意这个观点，事情就变得一团糟了。
It is no secret that NKT/WSS and trust fund nutbar Thom ‘Pharmabucks’ Canada are openly schmoozing China, there is plenty of evidence of this. Canada (the heiress’s husband, not the country) is going to Beijing for talks.
Exhibit B: This is evidence of China’s treatment of Tibetans this past spring (2008): WARNING! Contains graphic images
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
This is what real as opposed to imaginary or trumped up human rights violations look like. Why are the Shugden people betraying the Tibetan people? Why did former Geshela (aka the third buddha) chose this particular time to relaunch his personal retaliation attack on the TGIE?
Everyone should see past the hype and behold the true face of China, the true face of former Geshela.
Indeed, everyone should see those photos and reflect on the shocking message they convey about NKT wooing China. One thousand meaningless words of WSS propaganda websites evaporate in a split second.
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
Sickening, how can anyone not condemn the Chinese authorities for murdering innocent civilians? Why would a group like NKT stoop so low as to enlist China’s help? I am absolutely appalled by NKT.
“Luckily we know that everything is projection of mind and no one’s opinion is truly valid or invalid.” –Guru jimmy Marsden
Then how can we know? What a crock of intellectual dishonesty. I guess with that attitude its okay to collect money from punters and build garish wedding-cake kitsch temples in Brasil, US and UK, beats working this dharma teacher gig eh Jimmy? Did you you look at the photos Jimmy? This is your ‘third buddha’ doing Pope Pius XII one better–completely selfish moral irresponsibility. Oh, we forgot Dorje Shugden doesn’t get involved in politics….what a cop-out!I was neutral about this silly NKT trip for a long time, I read most of the nonsense they posted (I printed a whole stack of it) in the 1990’s but did not contribute even one word. Now they have succeeded in completely alienating me –I will actively do as much as I can to fight the NKT campaign of misinformation, commercialization, gossip and perversion of the dharma.
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
One prominent lama, whom I shall not name here said, half jokingly< ‘where one finds Kagyu lamas there is a big mansion,
where one finds Nyiningma lamas there are a bunch of kids running around,
and where one finds Gelug lamas–murder.
The following passage from http://www.dorjeshugden.com
is an example of NKT corporate franchise expansion strategy:
“Then from China , Dorje Shugden’s practice will spread to the multitudes of Chinese speaking areas of Asia , then the world. Everyone respects China either for monetary, business or cultural reasons. It is after all one of the greatest cultures known to man past and present. It will be the number one culture in the world as it has been in ancient times in the near future due to economic growth. Everything Chinese will be respected and proliferated in the world. Just like now Mcdonald’s is popular in China because the USA is powerful and influential therefore the Chinese for now are interested in the American cultural identities. In the near future, the tide will turn towards the east and that is China . Everything Chinese will be sought after, praised and valued. Even today, many governments do not wish to offend the Chinese government in hopes of securing lucrative deals. After all, isn’t bring prosperity one of the main functions of any governments whether Democratic or Socialist? The Dalai Lama is his own capacity is making Dorje Shugden bigger, more well known, more heard of and very high profile. Does he not know or understand he is doing that? Highly unlikely. He is indirectly making Dorje Shugden the most popularly known Buddhist deity next to Kuan Yin in China at this time. ”
Reflect on this strategy as you look at these pictures:
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
Gyalpo,
I thought you should know that http://www.dorjeshugden.com is nothing to do with the Western Shugden Society or the NKT, so your claim that the words on that site represent the NKT’s position is incorrect and misleading.
Brian,
I take it the person who said this was not a Gelugpa? So much for the Dalai Lama’s vision of non-sectarian love, peace and harmony, eh? He’s blamed Dorje Shugden for so long for disharmony, who’s he going to blame next when the Tibetan Traditions don’t get on with each other?
Dear anti-WSS people,
I think you’ve missed the point that NKT has no political affiliations, including China. WSS does not involve itself in Tibetan-Chinese relations and politics.
Lineageholder: I am still waiting to still hear a word of condemnation of the mass killings of Tibetan Buddhists at the hands of Chinese police . How can you have so little simple garden variety human compassion, let alone parade yourselves a neo-Kadampa, cloaked in self-righteouness?
Now NKT will suffer the consequences of generating numerous deceits, politicking under false names and operating covertly, since NKT apparently lacks the moral courage to conduct itself openly using real names. NKT’s feigned neutrality for the sake of cosmetics/saving your charitable tax status is morally lame has proven their treachery for the Tibetan people and the Buddhist tradition they are profiting from. We have photos of the bullhorn novices in Madison, PA and NYC, we can easily see the NKT hand behind WSS as urged to over 200 cult centres by former Geshe-la. NKT/WSS clearly has absolutely no scruples as to who it will ally itself to.
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
Lineageholder: Only negative comment is from you, but then NKT/WSS is making a career from negative blogging. Not everyone is as whitebread as the Shugden cultists, they can’t stand Tibetans actually or other wogs, and started saying things like ‘we are not interested in Tibetan samsaric culture’ early on, around the time Manjusri priory was commandeered by the cultists. Now the excommunicated and disgraced Geshela’s personal revenge campaign has turned as extreme and ugly as his owns senile delusions.
China’s cyber warriors a challenge for India
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
By Abanti Bhattacharya
Asia Times
November 27, 2008
NEW DELHI - India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in a speech to the National Defense College in New Delhi on November 3, said China posed a new set of challenges to India with its growing capabilities in outer space and its frenzied search for new resources. But an equally potent and dangerous challenge the minister overlooked is the new threat of Chinese cyber-nationalism.
China has in recent times witnessed staggering growth in
cyber-nationalism, a new kind of nationalism with immense and
sometimes dangerous power. This cyber-nationalism could be also
described as a part of China’s psychological warfare. It encapsulates the strategy of China’s Sun Tzu (722-481 BC) of defeating the enemy without waging a war.
Illustrating the immense popularity of the Internet in China, Cai
Mingzhao, the vice minister of the State Council Information Office
of the People’s Republic of China said on November 6 that the number of Internet users in China is increasing by 240,000 per day, and that its Internet population would reach 500 million in about three or four years.
China had 210 million Internet users at the end of 2007 and its
online population is likely to become the world’s largest by 2008,
according to a recent article by the state-run newspaper Xinhua.
Along with these impressive figures, if overseas netizen groups are
also added, then the enormity of China’s global netizen population
and its potential impact is incredible.
At present, the Internet plays a key role in promoting Chinese
nationalism. This was particularly discernible in the 2008 Tibetan
uprising and the Beijing Summer Olympic Games in August. On both the occasions, the power and scale of nationalistic responses of the Chinese spread through Internet chat rooms, mobile text messages and blogs was eye-catching and unprecedented.
In this Olympic year, when China sought to project its best face,
cyber-nationalism was as an easy tool used by the government to
mobilize public support and shore up party solidarity. It was a
powerful medium to tell people not to forget history and the “century of humiliation” that the West inflicted on it. It was a tool to portray China as the inheritor of a glorious civilization and a great ancient power and thereby its present has a rightful claim to the status of being a great power. This power of cyber-nationalism is apparently a new feature of Chinese contemporary nationalism.
The power of cyber-nationalism is manifold. It instantly links people all across the globe and mobilizes them at a minimal cost. The immense speed and maximized impact of cyber-nationalism was glimpse by the anti-CNN website that was launched in response to the alleged Western media bias on the news coverage of the March Tibetan uprising. Almost at blitzkrieg speed, the site became the leading engine for Chinese cyber-nationalism in appealing for all Chinese to boycott Western commercial outlets and stage demonstrations.
Cyber-nationalism can also be lethal, as nationalist messages can be
amplified to generate hatred between countries. During the March
Tibetan uprising, Chinese nationalism assumed a significant
anti-Western character. The obscene and abrasive words used by the netizens to give vent to nationalistic feelings snowballed into a
wave of hatred and united most Chinese across the globe in a war of words. The Olympic torch relay was thus effectively portrayed as a war between “pro- and anti-China forces”.
Further, the cyber-nationalists are not only techno-savvy people but also young and impressionable minds and therefore amenable to influence. Thus, during the Tibetan uprising, the Chinese government could easily mobilize public opinion and churn up historical memories and weave it into a nationalist historiography and propaganda-style literature. Moreover, in the case of China, where netizens do not have the freedom of speech, cyber-space often gives them virtual freedom. Therefore, cyber-zealots often do not act at the behest of the government. At times such messages are liable to go out without the government’s control.
Arguably, had there not been the devastating earthquake in Sichuan province in May, the upsurge in nationalism would have taken an ugly turn and gone beyond Beijing’s control. Cyber-nationalism is thus a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be used by the government to buttress its foreign policy positions as well as to mobilize public support. On the other, nationalism can often get out of hand and spark off violent reactions that could be detrimental to social stability and a nation’s international image.
Chinese cyber-nationalism is a new challenge for India’s security and strategic interests. While India-China relations have witnessed a period of growing rapprochement, the issues of border dispute and Tibet remain primary irritants. Arguably, as both countries were victims of imperialism, they uphold territorial integrity and
sovereignty as their supreme national interests. Rooted in their
competing territorial claims is the fact that before their encounter
with the West both were civilizational states and not political
nation states with fixed boundaries. In their quest for modernity,
both India and China approached the notions of territorial nationhood from their respective definitions of nationalism imbued with strong historical and civilizational underpinnings.
Therefore, there exists a strong difference in perceptions between
the countries on the border issue and the Tibetan question. Their
differences in the perception of the concepts of nation and
territoriality caused friction between the two in the 1960s and led
to the 1962 war. In the contemporary period, this difference in
perception persists.
The different systems of government in each country further bolste r
such perceptions. This is particularly true in the case of
authoritarian China, where the regime effectively uses nationalism to promote a historiography which is often distorted and misleading.
Indeed, at the core of India-China tension is the difference in
perceptions between the two and it is here that the psychological
warfare or psyops plays the crucial role.
As psyops is often defined as management of perceptions, a distinct part of psychological warfare is the strategic use of propaganda through the Internet, media and print literature. China in recent times is developing psychological warfare as a new strategy for both wartime and peacetime uses. Cyber-nationalism thus is a part of psyops which the Chinese government uses to bolster its strategicpolicies and to reinforce its domestic legitimacy.
Paradoxically, despite China being an authoritarian, closed regime,
the power of cyber-nationalism is very strong. At any given moment there could be a mobilization of Chinese people in massive numbers both from inside and outside its borders. And it could coalesce into a unified Chinese response at a global level. This epitomizes the power of cyber-nationalism which the Chinese government has skillfully appropriated so far, be it during the 1999 bombing of its embassy in Belgrade, the 2005 Japanese textbook issue or the recent Tibetan uprising. During the March Tibetan uprising, the power of Chinese cyber-nationalism was most conspicuous and worrying. India, therefore, needs to be cautious about Chinese cyber-nationalism.
Today, due to a revolution in information technology and globalization, there is a new contingent of Chinese cyber-warriors,
millions in number, spreading across the globe. In the post-Olympic China, with its burgeoning confidence, the power of cyber-nationalism is likely to be immense. Chinese cyber-nationalism could exert enough pressure to demoralize and agonize the Indian psyche. That means without a war, China could defeat India and recreate its borders according to its strategic interests. The challenge of Chinese cyber-nationalism is a new security threat for India, which will need more sophisticated ways of dealing with the “new China”.
Abanti Bhattacharya, PhD, is associate fellow, Institute for Defense
Studies and Analyses (IDSA).
Once GKG was exiled and his organization was destabilized by internal sex-abuse scandals, he went on an external warpath and as part of a Faustian deal with China, NKT took the dog-and-pony slander campaign global. But as we saw with Rev. Jim Bakker, just when the organization seems to have peaked financially, its collapse is imminent.
“WSS does not involve itself in Tibetan-Chinese relations and politics.’ –Lineageholder
I am sure you prefer your own websites that have no response facilities or moderator censorship, but NKT cannot stop us from pointing out your fallacies. When NKT cultists encounter something you don’t like to read, its like a child who puts his hands over his ears and starts repeating ‘I’m not listening to this!’ Another strategy is to invoke emptiness, samsara, impermanence or some other random ‘dharma teacher training 101′ prattle that you use to fool people into donating money to NKT.
Dear Alaska Bob and everyone,
I’m on the side of truth- it’s true that WSS has no interest in and no involvement with Tibetan politics.
If you don’t like the truth, it’s not the fault of truth, is it? I simply feel bound to point out the fallacies about the WSS and NKT that are being expressed here because they are misleading and lead to a false impression of these two organizations, that’s all. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected and that’s all I’m doing. I wish you peace.
Lineageholder: Your platitudes do not undo the fact that if NKT/WSS eschews politics, the only way to prove it is to renounce religious extremism. NKT/WSS can’t avoid the consequences of its own improper and highly inappropriate activities, the chickens are now coming home to roost.
NKT/WSS boss in the dock:
UN Panel Orders Inquiry into China’s Repression in Tibet
Monday, November 24 2008 @ 08:03 am UTC
Geneva: A United Nations (UN) watchdog investigating torture has ordered a thorough and independent inquiry into China’s excessive use of force against peaceful Tibetan protestors particularly monks in Kardze county, Ngaba county, and the Tibetan capital of Lhasa.
The Chinese government violent clampdown on peaceful Tibetan protestors since 10 March this year in Tibet, left 218 Tibetans dead, 1290 injured and 6705 arrested or detained.
The UN Committee against Torture’s forth-periodic review on China was held from 7 to 10 November in Geneva, Switzerland. In its concluding observations, the UN Committee against Torture issued a set of recommendations to China on 21 November.
The panel called for prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment and should ensure that those responsible are prosecuted.
It asked the Chinese government to ensure that all Tibetan detainees should be provided prompt access to an independent lawyer and independent medical care and the right to lodge complaints in a confidential atmosphere, free from reprisal or harassment.
It ordered investigations or inquests into the deaths, including deaths in custody, of persons killed in the March 2008 events in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and neighbouring Tibetan prefectures and counties.
On the issue of enforced disappearance, the UN committee underlined the need to adopt all necessary measures to prohibit and prevent enforced disappearances, to shed light on the fate of missing persons, including Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and prosecute and punish perpetrators, as this practice constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention.
Outlining follow-up measures, the UN committee against torture said it invite Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Special Rapporteurs on Tibet.
The Committee of independent experts will review China’s next report on the implementation of torture convention in November 2012.
During the current review prominent former political prisoners Phuntsok Nyidron had testified before the Committee. She was tortured during her 15 years imprisonment.
Mr. Li Baodong, head of the Chinese Government delegation at the UN, reported several amendment and new regulations introduced in China’s legal system.
However, Mrs. Felice Gaer, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the reports of China and the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions, expressed serious information gap in the delegation’s responds. She particularly mentioned about the discrepancies between legislative protections against torture and their implementation on the ground. She expressed frustration at the lack of data on police actions against Tibetans. She held a booklet and said that it contained names of 817 Tibetans who had disappeared following the protests in Lhasa this year and demanded China provide information on their whereabouts. China stated that due to the State Secrets Law they were not able to provide details.
Ms. Gaer also demanded information on two religious figures Bishop Su Zhimin and Gendun Choekyi Nyima who had been missing or disappeared since May 1995.
In testifying before the Committee Mr. Li Baodong, said “We have zero tolerance for torture”.
Mr. Li said that he has transmitted the details of the 817 Tibetans to relevant department for verification and assured to investigate on it.
However, he expressed difficulty in verifying over 200 people in the list due to inadequate information including identity number and proper address.
With regard to specific cases including the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, he said that he will refer back to Beijing for information.
reference http://www.tibetcustom.com/article.php/20081124080357146
Lineageholder: Its going to take a lot more sincere effort than a few weasel words like “I’m on the side of truth” to wriggle out of the well your third buddha frog has put you in. Which Dorje Shugden truth are you referring to: WSS is not in politics? Dalai Lama is an evil terrorist? How you can use the words ‘point out the fallacies’ in the same breath is astonishing.
Dear Gen Hur,
It’s Samdhong Rinpoche who uses words like ‘terrorist’ in relation to innocent Dorje Shugden practitioners, not the WSS in relation to the Dalai Lama. The WSS ask the Dalai Lama to stop lying, but that’s because he has actively misled people in relation to Dorje Shugden issue. The Dalai Lama is not a terrorist, but he is misguided and he is causing a lot of problems by mixing Buddhism with politics. Ir’s a very sad situation he’s caused and it’s even more sad that he doesn’t have the humility to admit his mistake and put it right. It goes against everything he teaches in public, which is why the WSS also accuses the Dalai Lama of hypocrisy.
Both charges are entirely valid with clear evidence to support them.
Lineageholder: Even Mao Zedong said seek truth from facts 实事求是
Entirely valid with clear evidence?’ Because I say it is so’, does not come under the category of valid argument. Pramana (rtags rigs & blo rigs) is apparently not the lineage you claim to hold.
1. I read most of the first salvo of NKT anonymous attack posts in the 1990’s. There was no WSS shadow org behind which to hide at that time, so NKT has clearly been politicking since then. Changing one false name for another does not absolve NKT of responsibility for its own actions. Neither will NKT participants escape the consequences.
2. By whom has the Dalai Lama been misguided? Name the person in Tibetan Buddhism who outranks His Holiness. You are implying that outside of narrow Gelug chauvinism, any of the other diverse streams are erroneous. On the contrary, Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche and Negi Lama Kunnu Rinpoche could hardly be said to have misguided the Dalai Lama unless you consider bodhicitta as soomething to avoid and to not cultivate. Except for those with no first-hand experience of actual Tibetan Buddhism, outside of staying home and studying ghost-written Tharpa publications exclusively, one hardly need mention the fact that the 14th Dalai Lama is the head of all the schools (including Bon) with a mandate to ensure the survival of all religious traditions and moreover has had a beneficial and cordial relationship with the small Tibetan Muslim community over the years. Even the late Trijang junior tutor was a servant of Ganden Phodrang–not vice versa as your Chinese allies claim. It is an odd, and downright impudent accusation coming from students of a disgraced monk who never even finished his exam and Chinese communist ultra-nationalists that he was a bad student of Trijang Rinpoche. The present incarnation of Trijang Rinpoche is a non-starter as a Buddhist teacher since declining the golden opportunity to study , although at least he does not wear robes. If you are really so concerned about preserving your 17th century tradition, you ought to be on his case. If you are really so concerned about preserving your 17th century tradition, you ought to reign in the philandering butterball Gangchen Tulku and his groupies.
The words of Andrew Brown in The Independent, London, 15 July 1996 resonate ominously again today in 2008: “The only lasting winners from the row will be the Chinese, who have mounted a fresh campaign of repression inside Tibet this spring. And Dorje Shugden himself, aching for worshippers inside his lake of boiling blood.”
Dear namkhah,
Not ‘because I say so’ but because the evidence is from the Dalai Lama’s own words. If you choose to ignore the wealth of evidence that has been presented on WSS websites showing that the Dalai Lama is dishonest, I think that’s foolish. If the Dalai Lama says “there is no ban of Dorje Shugden, I’m just giving advice” to Western media and then in India and throughout the Tibetan community worldwide he has instigated a signature campaign to force practitioners to give up the practice and encourged the abbots of Gelugpa monasteries to expel monks who practise Shugden, isn’t that lying? Even though the Dalai says there is no ban, he has used the word ‘ban’ in relation to Dorje Shugden for over ten years since in instigated a ban on the practice in 1996.
He’s trying to protect his own reputation like an ordinary person would. The Dalai Lama is lying, that’s simply the truth. Lay people who have taken Pratimoksha vows have a commitment not to lie, so why is the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist monk and revered spiritual leader, obviously lying? He’s misleading others and he’s untrustworthy.
That’s all I’m going to say on this subject because, if you refuse to accept the obvious evidence, this debate is circular and pointless.
Lineageholder: Once more: you do not live in Byalakuppe, you do not speak Tibetan and although you may fancy yourself the new age Aleister Crowley by appropriating select vestiges of Tibetan culture, you simply do not have the right to dictate to us how to conduct our religion and our polity. Actually in our culture it is considered bad fortune to even hear the insults and name calling NKT novices indulge in behind false names like little social miscreants. NKT/WSS has lied repeatedly–everything you write is therefore suspect. An example: it was rumored by NKT/WSS that there would be a ‘forced signature’ document in Madison last summer, neither did it happen, nor was there any intent to do so. My relatives reside in Mysore District: none of the religious repression rumors NKT/WSS is spinning for uninformed western consumers is evident whatsoever. Be honest, its not about human rights really is it, otherwise NKT/WSS would not be wooing China so ardently.
To address your statement No. 470, wealth is not an appropriate adjective for rubbish, no matter the quantity. I certainly refuse to accept any undocumented, unsubstansiated fantastic material from foreign NKT/WSS websites, which also ignore callously (as you have) the actual human rights violations suffered by Tibetan Buddhists. Indeed NKT/WSS is praising the murderers! Oh China! you are so wonderful! Not.
I have yet to hear even one of the four million (haha) Dolgyal cultists respond to these photos, so here it is again in case there is anyone with an ounce of moral courage amongst you lot;
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
NKT/WSS is like as urine and pus, cannot be separated and no amount of either is acceptable in clear water.
Dear namkhah,
Why do you keep misrepresenting WSS’s position? Where has WSS said that China is wonderful, and in what manner is WSS ‘wooing China so ardently’ as you put it?
I challenge you to find a single positive comment about China on the WSS website. It is not WSS’s function to support China but to gain religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners and to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. Maybe you have assumed that because WSS disagrees with the Dalai Lama on this issue, WSS supporters must be Chinese apologists? Certaintly not!
Your view is that If someone disagrees with the Dalai Lama they must be against him and siding with China. This is a wearisomely common view amongst a great many Tibetans and it’s wrong. Just as the Dalai Lama’s disciples have smeared the NKT, you are now smearing the WSS but such tactics won’t get you anywhere. It’s clear what WSS stands for.
Lineageholder: Don’t play the old shell game with us: we don’t believe WSS/NKT has the four million adherents you claim nor is there so many factions that you can honestly distance your position from the below statements on your sites. Here are two examples from http://www.dorjeshugden.com, which has clear links to both http://www.shugdensociety.info and http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org
“And wouldn’t China promote it bigger and better than anyone. After all they have economic power base that is growing by the month. So when we keep mentioning that this practice is not good..are we really fulfilling the purpose of suppressing the practice or making it grow bigger. We have to look beyond this generation alone. We have to look at China and her relationship with Dorje Shugden long after the Dalai Lama has passed on…China is making Dorje Shugden bigger and bigger. ” from Marc (USA) Oct 22, 2007
Second editorial example from http://www.dorjeshugden.com
“Then from China, Dorje Shugden’s practice will spread to the multitudes of Chinese speaking areas of Asia, then the world. Everyone respects China either for monetary, business or cultural reasons. It is after all one of the greatest cultures known to man past and present. It will be the number one culture in the world as it has been in ancient times in the near future due to economic growth. Everything Chinese will be respected and proliferated in the world. Just like now Mcdonald’s is popular in China because the USA is powerful and influential therefore the Chinese for now are interested in the American cultural identities. In the near future, the tide will turn towards the east and that is China. Everything Chinese will be sought after, praised and valued. Even today, many governments do not wish to offend the Chinese government in hopes of securing lucrative deals. After all, isn’t bring prosperity one of the main functions of any governments whether Democratic or Socialist?…making Dorje Shugden the most popularly known Buddhist deity next to Kuan Yin in China at this time. ”
My main point is expressed visually in the link below,
http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
NKT/WSS refusal to respond to real as opposed to virtual human rights abuses against Tibetan Buddhist brothers and sisters has not gone unnoticed and is simply not acceptable. Explain how this a smear on NKT/WSS if such a thing is even possible toward a defamation campaign. You have engineered your own moral disgrace and will pay the price.
Dear namkhah,
I can only say once again that http://www.dorjeshugden.com is not a WSS website and the person who authored your quotations is not connected with WSS.
Speaking as an individual, I find all suffering unacceptable. Don’t you think that Chinese people, as well as Tibetans, as well as everyone else, are suffering now and will suffer in the future? Please explain to me how your outrage at Chinese abuses of human rights is going to solve this suffering? Becoming a Buddha will solve this problem, but to do that, you’ve got to get rid of your outrage. When you have as much compassion for the perpetrators of these atrocities as you have for the victims, you will be on the right track. ALL suffering has to end. Indignation achieves nothing.
From People’s Daily online:
Tibetan Youth Congress = a terror group
April 12, 2008
Equation 1: so-called “NGO” + “Snow Lion flag” + “People’s Uprising” = ?
Since its founding, the TYC has been a terrorist group for the “total independence of Tibet”. Tendzin Choegyal, Dalai Lama’s younger brother and follower, said: “Terrorist activities can be most effective at the lowest cost.” At a meeting of its “central executive committee” in Dharamsala, India, the TYC approved a decision to “start a guerrilla movement as soon as possible to secretly enter China and carry out armed struggles”. The organization also made preliminary plans to prepare personnel, funding and arms to steal into China through the China-Nepal border. Some ringleaders even claimed they could sacrifice at least 100 Tibetans to achieve a “thorough victory”. Wow! All those lead us to think about the Black Widows, bin Ladens, East Turkistans, human bombs, and September 11 terrorists…
Equation 2: Tendzin Choegyal + Dharamsala “central executive committee” + personnel, financing and arms purchasing plans + 100 Tibetans = ?
In the 1970s, the TYC instigated “Free Tibet” activities when Dalai Lama dispatched a visiting group to Tibet with the approval of China’s central government. In the 1980s, it instigated a series of serious riots in Lhasa. In the early 1990s, it audaciously claimed that Tibet would be independent in five to ten years. In the late 1990s, the TYC staged a ban on worshipping the protective deity “Dorje Shugden”. This year, the TYC of the Dalai Clique claimed in a March 10 statement that it would “never give up the struggle for a free Tibet” and organized the serious violent incident of beating, smashing, ransacking and arson on March 14. We can see all these can be applied at the right side of the equation.
Equation 3: 1970s+1980s+1990s+2008+ . . . = ?
The TYC has been organizing such classes as “blast technique trainings” for terrorists. Speeches by the Dalai clique in 2007 revealed the “Students for a Free Tibet” (SFT) held its eighth “free Tibet campaign” in North America and has so far trained 450 terrorists. They committed appalling and ghastly crimes in Lhasa on March 14. Then the same kind of violence including beating, smashing, looting and arson also broke out in several Tibetan-inhabited areas like Aba of Southwest China’s Sichuan Province and Gannan of Northwest China’s Gansu Province. Displaying the snow lion flag of the so-called “Tibetan government in exile,” rioters vowed to pursue “Tibet independence” at any cost. They attacked government offices, hospitals, schools and shops, smashed and burned vehicles, utilities and residences. Innocent civilians were hacked and beaten to death, in an atrocious and brutal way. The sabotage led to losses of 250 million yuan ($36 million) and 400 casualties.
Equation 4: Blast technique training class + “free Tibet campaign” + 450 terrorists + March 14 Lhasa riot + $36 million + 400 casualties = ?
The police recently found 178 guns, 13,013 bullets, 359 swords, 3,504 kilograms of dynamite, 19,360 detonators and two grenades in the residence of some lamas in Tibet. Since March 10, 18 Chinese embassies and consulates in some foreign countries have harassed and attacked by the Tibetan separatists and some so-called international “pro-Tibet activists.”
Lineageholder: that is truly bizarre advice from someone waging a defamation campaign : how is destroying Tibetan Buddhism which I daresay NKT novices are only on the outermost periphery of going to help? Here is a quote from a student of the late Tomo Geshe:
“If the Chinese aren’t involved in this, they’ve got to be thanking their lucky stars. This is totally dividing the Tibetan community.”
Outrage is appropriate incetain cases. For example, I think people should be outraged at the situation in Darfur, after everyone said about the genocide in Rwanda: we can’t let this scenario happen again. Who is one of the foremost lobbyists for this cause: HH the Dalai Lama– quietly behind closed doors of presidents and such that he has the ear of. He is not seeking publicity for this, it is not even widely known. So, the person you insult as “Hollywood Lama’ and liar is doing something concrete, you can ask Archbishop Desmond Tutu or Mia Farrow. So how is NKT helping collecting money for your own enjoyment? making gilded plastic resin idols, building giant ugly temples in the west? And you idiots deride him!
namkhah: Don’t mess with this dude Lineageholder, he’s going to be enlightened really soon. Well, not this lifetime, but soon at least in geologic time.
I propose to conclude we vote, Jeffersonian style on the question at hand–no, make that Obamian style–so the slaves can vote too. Despite the fact there are ‘4 million’ of the other side, I am willing to procede with this poll.
The Tricycle blog question is: Dorje Shugden: Deity or Demon?
I vote: the latter
Hi there,
there is a helpful article by Prof. P. Williams (Bristol University) from 1996 available, which according to my own understanding describes quite fair and insightful the difficulties with the Dorje Shugden Controversy.
For those interested, see please “A quick note on Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan)” http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_note_Paul_Williams.html
Best Wishes, tp
I wouldn’t take a sermon from a KKK behind a sheet, I don’t need one from an NKT either.
my vote on the question:
the latter
Dear TP,
Prof. Williams article contains a number of inaccuracies such as:
• Phabongkha was not sectarian, he just disagreed with the views of emptiness and some other practices performed by other Buddhist traditions, claiming that they were nothing short of nihilism. He had a right to disagree if he felt that their views were not in accordance with Buddha’s teaching. Whether they were or not is a matter of discussion.
• The practice of Dorje Shugden is in no way aimed at Gelugpa triumphalism or in causing harm to any Buddhist school but is a practice to help protect and flourish Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings for the benefit of all living beings. Why do other Buddhist traditions see it as some kind of competition?
• The article says that Trijang Rinpoche encouraged the Dalai Lama to do the practice but he refused. This is incorrect because the Dalai Lama did the practice well into his forties; he says so himself.
• NKT does not regard itself to be the ‘true Gelugpa tradition’ but simply a Gelugpa tradition that has remained faithful to their Gurus’ teachings and practices .
• The feeling one gets from the article is that the Dalai Lama is a non-sectarian reformer, as if that’s a good thing. It might be and it might not be. If reform means ignorantly destroying an important Buddhist practice, it’s not a good thing. Buddhist traditions don’t need reforming unless they’re wrong; they need preserving.
• All Buddhists should be traditionalists because it is the responsibility for Buddhists to maintain the purity of Buddha’s teachings in this world. Please see this article for more information:
http://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/fundamentalism-or-traditionalism/
my vote: the latter
tot much bad behavior, foolish speech by NKT/WSS
Lineageholder: It really has not twigged on you how arrogant and pompous you sound, has it. You just love to hear yourself pontificate, that’s just inflated ego. In other words who the fuck do you think you are?
Neil: Don’t be too hard on Lineagebreaker, anyway he’s not buddhist, just NKT. Hasn’t your name come up before in this context?
Oh now I recall: Neil Elliott, aka Thubten one of only 4 ‘gelongs’ amongst the NKT novices, is one of the Gyatso heirs involved with sexual abuse as a senior NKT monk; the next Gyatso heir caught up in sexual abuse is Stephen Wass, aka Samden
Lineageholder :
“Oh no
I don’t believe it
You say that you think you know
The meaning of love
You say love is all we need
You say
With your love you can change
All of the fools
All of the hate
I think you’re probably
Out to lunch
Oh no
I don’t believe it
You say that you think you know
The meaning of love
Do you really think it can be told?
You say that you really know
I think
You should check it again
How can you say
What you believe
Will be the key to a
World of love?
All your love -
Will it save me?
All your love -
Will it save the world
From what we can’t understand
Oh no
I don’t believe it
And in your dreams
You can see yourself
As a prophet saving the world
The words from your lips
I just can’t believe you are such
A fool”
lyrics by Frank Zappa
Dear Lineageholder,
it is you who is wrong with your arguments, not Prof. Williams.
I take just the first point:
Mr. Williams states that Pabongkha Rinpoche is seen that way, what is true and can be found also on other research and reliable sources or by just reading some passages of PR’s works related to that. A Swiss Professor, Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, stated that PR can be described as a “religious fundamentalist”, I heard this also from Gelug scholars.
I save my time to reply to the other points you made. I think, these points and way or reasoning come just through a lack of knowledge or rejecting historical facts which do not accord with the version of narrow minded and distorted history NKT or some radical Shugden followers offer. I think it makes no sense to take you too serious or to engage to discuss the other points with you.
What you can do with people unable to be open for a different perspective?
Being silent, may be the best. Those with a open mind will check and find out for themselves what is reasonable and what not. It was for them that I offered this article.
Best wishes, tp
Dear TP,
So you just believe what you read, do you? Not a great policy for someone aspiring to be a Gelugpa scholar. In the past, Gelugpas had incisive minds and great powers of logic and reasoning. These days they simply do what the Dalai Lama tells them to, and believes what the Dalai Lama tells them to believe. How shameful that it’s come to this.
Many people can say that a thoroughbred horse is a donkey, but it doesn’t make it so. Such perceptions are not verified by valid minds. Similarly, ’scholars’ can say that Phabongkha was sectarian but it doesn’t make it so. When are you going to think for yourself and investigate these claims instead of simply quoting David Kay, et al? An ounce of experience is worth a ton of research by those who have no direct experience.
You can disparage your Lineage Gurus if you like but don’t expect any good results.
Lineageholder: ‘disparage your Lineage Gurus’ that’s what you are doing full time it seems, good luck with Yamaraja, you’re going to need it. What lineage exactly do you hold–is it slander or perfidy?
Lineage Holder, I have met lamas and other Tibetans who have directly experienced Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism. I have been given examples of this experienced first hand from people who were present when the Nyingma gompas in Kham were forced to convert to Gelug. I have also heard from people present when Phabongkhapa had an old woman removed from his teachings because she recited the Vajra Guru mantra.
Accounts of Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism were widespread before this current controversy arose. In a passage about a Tara image, Stephan Beyer described him as follows (forgive his idiosyncratic transliteration)
“The image was lent to a monastery of the “ancient” Nyingma sect named Kajegon and located in the capital of Dragyab, right next to another monastery of the Gelug sect. Indeed, it had been founded by the abbot of the latter monastery, an incarnation called Lord of Refuge Dragyab, who had been fascinated by the “ancient” teachings. The two neighbor monasteries shared the same facilities and officers, differing only in the performance of their rituals in their individual temples; and here the image rested in the amity of these sometimes rival sects.
When the Lord of Refuge Dragyab died, his monastery was taken over, during the minority of his reincarnation, by a regent named Zangmar toden, who was a very different sort of man from the former abbot. Zangmar has originally followed the “ancient” sect (he had been a disciple of the famous Drugu Shakyashri of Soderka) but then had moved to Ch’amdo, where he met and became the disciple of a Gelug lama named Master P’awang kawa.
Zangmar had fallen under the spell of this new and impressive personality. P’awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch’amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteries, and he was sympathetic to the concerns of the K’am people over whom he had been granted jurisdiction, a scholar and an enthusiast for all aspects of Tibetan culture. But many eastern Tibetans remember him with loathing as the great persecutor of the “ancient” sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K’am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of “ancient” books and paintings
P’awang kawa sent his new disciple back to take charge of the Gelug monastery in Dragyab; Zangmar, with the zeal of the convert, carried with him only his master’s sectarianism and implemented only his policy of destruction. He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped up charge of treason. They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk, who carried with him by chance that day our image of Tara, tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back.”
Cult of Tara. p238
LN, you say we shouldn’t blindly believe what we read, and this is true, but surely it is acceptable to inform our opinions by taking on board the accounts gathered by respected scholars such as Beyer as well as talking to people that were around eastern Tibet during the first half of the 20th century.
The other points you make against Williams’ article are also open to question.
For example Trijang Rinpoche mentions in his Gyalchen Toddrel an incident were Tomo Geshe Rinpoche employed shugden rituals against another religious community in the area. This type of behaviour was accepted by the followers of this practice
The Dalai Lama performed minor praises to this protector but never took the full life entrustment. This is what Williams is referring to. The full life entrustment enables one to perform the full practices of this protector, something which is generally only taught in secret in very small groups, according to Phabongkapa’s instructions.
The Dalai Lama is nonsectarian and is teaching the traditional Gelug path that Tsongkhapa taught (three main yidams and three main protectors, etc.) In this way he is a traditionalist following Tsongkhapa’s example.
Phabongkhapa, on the other hand, was a reformer, bringing in new teachings and practices, such as Naro Khacho, Chittamani Tara and Shugden. His sectarian approach was at odds with Tsongkhapa’s example but was essentially modern, in that it aimed to unify the political and religious power of the Gelugpa school under the umbrella of a new centralised Tibetan state. This was Lhasa’s response to China, but it came far too late.
Dear Dorje,
My first Teacher told me that because of jealousy at Pabongkha’s power and influence as a Teacher, the stories that Pabongkha and his disciples destroyed Nyingma monasteries were made up to destroy his reputation. I have no reason to believe otherwise unless there is firm evidence.
it’s clear from Pabongkha’s writings that had enormous respect for Tsongkhapa and Buddha Shakyamuni. If Nyingmapas follow the genuine teachings of Lord Buddha, why would Pabongkha attack them?
Many people believe that Pabongkha was an emanation of Heruka and there are stories about how Pabongkha communicated directly with Heruka. Again, why would Heruka attack those who are practising Buddha’s teachings? It doesn’t make sense.
Nowadays, people paint him as some frothing-at-the-mouth sectarian but he was a holy meditation Master and highly realized - that’s evident from his teachings, so why would he attack other Buddhists?
As I said before, Pabongkha believed that other Buddhist traditions had views of emptiness that were incompatible with Tsongkhapa and Buddha’s ultimate view, and they performed other meditations similar to those of Hashang that were nihilistic. For these reasons he disparaged them very strongly, but does that make him sectarian? As far as he was concerned, he was only trying to show living beings the correct path and to avoid wrong views and wrong practices. Everyone has choice, but surely it’s better for living beings to avoid wrong paths? He wasn’t refuting out of hatred but refuting out of concern for the degeneration of Buddhadharma. I don’t think that makes him sectarian. We can argue about whether he was right in his views of the practices of other traditions, but that was his reason.
On the point of Tomo Rinpoche using Dorje Shugden against another community, if we don’t know the circumstances and reason for its use, we can’t say that it was being used for harmful purposes. Bodhisattvas can employ wrathful actions for the benefit of others, so without knowing more, we cannot interpret what was done as negative. Again, Tomo Rinpoche was very highly realized, so it doesn’t make sense that he would use Dorje Shugden practice with a harmful intention. Milarepa had many contests with Bon practitioners, but his intention wasn’t to harm to but to show the superiority of Buddha’s teachings.
You say that the Dalai Lama performed minor praises - Actually he himself WROTE a praise to Dorje Shugden which is not quite the same thing, is it? It shows that his faith in Dorje Shugden was stronger than you implied. He also relied on Dorje Shugden to escape from Tibet in 1959, even though he changed history to suit himself afterwards and attributed it to Nechung:
http://dorjeshugdentruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/dorje-shugden-saved-the-dalai-lamas-life/
I expect that NKT has the same level of Dorje Shugden practice that the Dalai Lama practised because it doesn’t have a life entrustment empowerment but NKT practitioners do offer daily praises and requests. Dorje Shugden is seen as a major practice in the NKT, so it was probably so for the Dalai Lama before he abandoned it. Why did it take decades for the Dalai Lama to ‘realize’ that it was a harmful practice? It doesn’t make sense. There is a lot of evidence that he strongly relied on Dorje Shugden because he came to the wrong conclusion that it was a harmful practice.
On the subject of Pabongkha introducing new practices, Je Tsongkhapa was also a reformer. He introduced the practices of the Ganden Oral Lineage which he received from Manjushri in the Kadam Emanation Scripture, so just because a highly realized being introduces new practices, that’s not necessarily negative. Nyingmas rely on termas or hidden treasure texts so they are introducing new practices and no one bats an eyelid, they just accept that they were concealed by Guru Rinpoche. The question is whether they are genuine Buddhist practices and if they contain Buddhist practices such as going for refuge, generating bodhichitta, Guru yoga and so forth, then they are. They have to be traced, in essence, back to the Sutras and Tantras.
Many people rely on Dzogchen that was not even taught by Buddha and claim it to be a Buddhist practice even though it’s not taught in either the Sutras of Buddha Shakyamuni or the Tantras of Buddha Vajradhara, so introducing new Buddhist practices is not a problem. Vajrayogini, Chittamani Tara and Dorje Shugden are unquestionably Buddhist practices, so why is it a problem that Pabongkha introduced them? The karma of living beings is always changing and flexibility is required in order for the greatest benefit to be received.
Evidence is found in the very Nyingma monasteries that were forcibly converted, such as those in Chamdo and Dhartsedo.
You say that your “first Teacher told me that because of jealousy at Pabongkha’s power and influence as a Teacher, the stories that Pabongkha and his disciples destroyed Nyingma monasteries were made up to destroy his reputation. I have no reason to believe otherwise unless there is firm evidence.”
This is highly debatable, but it seems the standard of proof you hold for yourself is far lower than that you apply to Tenzin Paljor. Okay, so your teacher said it, but this amounts to nothing and yet you demand evidence to prove him wrong. Assuming your first teacher was a Gelugpa student of Phabongkhapa, we can’t accept his word without some kind of evidence, or is this the shameful state that Gelugpa scholasicism has fallen to?
The remainder of your post seems to contradict your earlier position that traditionalism is preferable to reform. Maybe you have become confused.
“Many people believe that Pabongkha was an emanation of Heruka and there are stories about how Pabongkha communicated directly with Heruka. Again, why would Heruka attack those who are practising Buddha’s teachings? It doesn’t make sense.
Nowadays, people paint him as some frothing-at-the-mouth sectarian but he was a holy meditation Master and highly realized - that’s evident from his teachings, so why would he attack other Buddhists?”
The fact that some people believed Phabongkhapa was an emanation of Heruka, or that he gave nice teachings is no proof that he was not a “frothing-at-the-mouth sectarian”. We can see that he held sectarian attitudes by the things he said, the actions he performed and the actions he encouraged in others.
If you feel we do not have enough evidence in these areas you should address that, not irrelevant points about what his followers thought about him, which really have no bearing on the question of his sectarianism.
If your point is that all reports of Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism come from the jealousy of Nyingmapas who may or may not be following authentic Buddhist teaching, I see that you are a true heir of Phabongkhapa’s sectarian lineage.
Dear Dorje,
Sure, I was asking for evidence. I don’t just accept what people say but I was simply recounting that I was told that these stories were made up. If you can provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will consider it - otherwise it’s just another story contrary to the story I’ve already been told, isn’t it?
Traditionalism is preferable to reform except if there has been some degeneration of a tradition or there is a pressing karmic reason for a change. An example of reform to correct degeneration was Je Tsongkhapa’s clarification of the nature and causes of the illusory body. A case in point of change for karmic reasons is the introduction of Dorje Shugden as the main protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. Many high Lamas of the Gelugpa tradition felt that it was not Kalarupa but Dorje Shugden that had become the main protector because of the change in karmic conditions. They felt that living beings of this age had a stronger karmic connection with Dorje Shugden and could therefore receive help from him more easily, so they said “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”.
Not anybody can or should change a tradition. It can only be done by the highest Teachers for valid reasons.
“He wasn’t refuting out of hatred but refuting out of concern for the degeneration of Buddhadharma. I don’t think that makes him sectarian. We can argue about whether he was right in his views of the practices of other traditions, but that was his reason.”
Phabongkhapa’s motives were essentially political. He was the political Governor of the Lhasa regime in Chamdo and his main interest was strengthening the political power base of the Lhasa Gelugpa authorities in eastern Tibet. This was especially pressing given the rise of the Rime movement in Kham at that time aligned largely to other the power centres such as the royal house of Dege.
It’s all politics and his protector was used simply to give a religious face to his political campaign.
“Sure, I was asking for evidence. I don’t just accept what people say but I was simply recounting that I was told that these stories were made up. If you can provide me with evidence to the contrary, I will consider it - otherwise it’s just another story contrary to the story I’ve already been told, isn’t it?”
But you are holding one story as more valid than another. If you have no evidence that Nyingmapas were jealous so decided to slander Phabongkhapa, best keep quiet.
If you have no evidence that Phabongkhapa was sectarian or not, best keep quiet.
My evidence, as I said, comes from the converted monasteries. This is not just about buildings but people. For example, you will find long Nyingma tulku lineages in eastern Tibet that suddenly became Gelugpa early last century. Dhardo Rinpoche, of Dhartsedo gompa is one example. In his last Gelug incarnation, he became a student of Phabongkhapa and was the officiating lama of the Shugden oracle seances described by Rene De Nebesky-Wojkowitz. Befoe that, he was Nyingma all the way, as was his gompa.
Evidence?
He was the Tibetan government’s man sent to the east to strengthen their power base. It was his job and his official role. He wrote to the local Chinese general pretty much spelling out his intentions to help the Gelugpas at the expense of the others.
Thank you Lineage Holder for some very well reasoned, humble and patient responses to a slew of antagonism and insults directed toward your precious, beloved Protector Buddha.
I think this point you made should be examined further — it seems to get to the crux of the matter:
“So you just believe what you read, do you? Not a great policy for someone aspiring to be a Gelugpa scholar. In the past, Gelugpas had incisive minds and great powers of logic and reasoning. These days they simply do what the Dalai Lama tells them to, and believes what the Dalai Lama tells them to believe. How shameful that it’s come to this.
Many people can say that a thoroughbred horse is a donkey, but it doesn’t make it so. Such perceptions are not verified by valid minds. Similarly, ’scholars’ can say that Phabongkha was sectarian but it doesn’t make it so. When are you going to think for yourself and investigate these claims instead of simply quoting David Kay, et al? An ounce of experience is worth a ton of research by those who have no direct experience.”
We will never agree with Namkah and Gyalpo and Tenzin and others who, in a cheap dig, pretend to be those they are not (e.g. Neil Eliot); and they will never agree with us. They believe the Dalai Lama, who says Dorje Shugden is a spirit. We believe our own Guru and our own personal experience that Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha. That is the way it is going to be. I know you are not trying to get them to change their minds, their view is their view, they are entitled to it. I know you write for others on here who may be looking in, and they can decide themselves what view to hold.
All that remains is the fact of religious persecution. Until this is resolved, and the illegal and unconstitutional ban on Dorje Shugden practice is lifted, kind and wise Buddhist practitioners in the lineage of Trijang Rinpoche will have to continue to argue their case for the sake of all living beings.
In your case, as shown on these comments, it is sharpening your debating skills and it is evident how skilful and patient you are being in the face of some others’ blind faith and hostility. I appreciate it very much.
It has occurred to me on many occasions that a lot of the antagonism toward those who try to defend Shugden practice and the NKT comes from jealousy. Tibetan Buddhists don’t seem to much like the success enjoyed by the NKT, which has so many happy, contented and apolitical Dharma students taking Buddha’s teachings to heart in their everday lives.
It often feels like the people who won’t let it go, who keep criticizing, have this feeling that Dharma belongs to Tibetans — how else to explain their horror and disgust when anyone tries to spread Dharma to those who do not swear allegiance to the Tibetan leader?
This shows up particularly strongly when Westerners are empowered to teach and be the principal teachers in their Centers, as opposed to leaving that to the Tibetan Geshes. These Western teachers are helping many thousands of people. Yet they are called inexperienced and unqualified (as in a comment above), even when many of them have been studying and practicing for decades — “but they must be inexperienced because they are not Tibetans”!! Even the Dalai Lama holds a dim view of Westerners training as teachers and even getting that far in their Dharma practice, saying in one speech that the views of Western Buddhists can basically be disregarded because they don’t know if they are walking on their hands or their feet.)
This could be a form of growing pains as Dharma moves to the West and shakes off its Tibetan shackles while retaining the goodness of the doctrine passed to us by our Indian and Tibetan lineage Gurus. This is threatening to Tibetans and Tibetan sympathizers, but it does not need to be, and times will change.
Je Tsongkhapa himself received a lot of criticism from the three other schools of Buddhism as he tried to do something new and different. The jealousy of his Gelugpa tradition lasted for a hundred years. It really took that long for the Gelugpa tradition to be accepted. Then of course it was well loved for many centuries, right until the present day. This is my tradition, as a follower of Dorje Shugden, and I am proud of it.
I have compassion for those who resent my tradition, my lineage Gurus, my root Guru and my practice. I don’t feel threatened by them, and I pray they can live and let live and stop criticizing other Mahayana traditions (thus breaking their Bodhisattva vows, if they have them on their continuum). But I also am confident that the hostility, resentment and jealousy will someday lift, perhaps in the next generation, and we will all live in peace, practicing Dharma according to our own karma and predispositions. That will be a beautiful day. Until it arrives, and as long as I am alive, I will mainly practice this priceless tradition, but I will also defend it and everybody’s right to practice it.
“It has occurred to me on many occasions that a lot of the antagonism toward those who try to defend Shugden practice and the NKT comes from jealousy.”
Actually Geoff, if you care to take a broad look at the various discussions about the NKT across the internet you will find that most antagonism towards the NKT comes from ex-members who have been treated badly in one way or another.
It is not just the high profile cases of sexual abuse involving Kelsang Gyatso’s highest western students, but also the bullying and manipulation that many have experienced that have turned them against the NKT.
Your point that the criticism of NKT teachers being inexperienced is due to a kind of Tibetan racism may be true in some cases, but there are a number of highly experienced and respected western teachers of other traditions who do not face this criticism. The behaviour of some of the most senior NKT teachers may have something to do with the criticism, don’t you agree, or do you think the NKT’s critics are describing a situation that doesn’t exist?
The lenghth of time the average NKT teacher spends training before being sent out to teach is a concern for many ex-members, or so I have read. If they actually spend three years in retreat before setting out to teach, as is customary in other traditions, could you tell me how many NKT teachers are currently engaged in long term retreat preparing to teach?
Dear Gail and Geoff,
Thanks for your kind words of support. Apparently it took a hundred years for Je Tsongkhapa’s reforms to be accepted and for antagonism to die down towards the Ganden Tradition. We are nothing if not patient, so it will take as long as it takes….
It does amaze me that people are so angry and negative towards Shugden practitioners and the NKT. It also amazes me that people preach non-sectarianism while at the same time taking every opportunity to brand NKT a ‘cult’ with no justification whatsoever. I guess we live in a time of double standards.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Dalai Lama actually practised what he preaches and stopped his vendetta against Dorje Shugden and his followers? We could all live in peace and get on with our practice without having to spend hours on the internet justifying our tradition and our practices for the benefit of others. Sadly, it’s our karma but I don’t suppose any of this does Buddhism any favours whatsoever.
I pray that one day there will be acceptance and tolerance - live and let live - and we can all just get on with our practice in peace. When the Dalai Lama stops, we will stop. Let’s pray for that day.
“We could all live in peace and get on with our practice without having to spend hours on the internet justifying our tradition and our practices for the benefit of others.”
You don’t have to do any such thing, but you are driven to do it by your self-cherishing mind. You see criticism of YOUR tradition as a threat to YOU. If you think you are doing this for anyone else, you are fooling yourself but no one else.
Geoff: On the contrary, sex scandals, coverups, slanderous speech, people are leaving NKT in droves after the inevitable disillusion with hypocrisy unqualified inflated-ego teachers. Next will come your financial demise. No one is jealous of your money just asnooneis jealous of Scientology’s money– sure you will pick up a few stray Tibetans, but they are basic sleazebags that will just as readily abandon NKT’s ship, when it sinks.
Lineageholder: NKT/WSS can try and drape itself in the stars and stripes and Jefferson, but will America really buy in to your worldly protector god? This will be a impossible to sell”
“From his shoulders hangs a garland of fifty, freshly severed, blood dripping heads. A human skin serves as his carpet…Inside the palace, corpses of men and carcasses of horses are spread out, and the blood of men and horses streams together forming a lake. Human skins and hides if tigers are stretched into curtains. The smoke of the ‘great burnt offering’,(i.e. human flesh) spreads into the ten quarters of the world.. ..on all sides are hung up as tapestries fresh skins of elephants…”
(excerpted from ‘Oracles and Demons of Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities’ by Rene De Nebesky-Wojkowitz.)
Middle America, the target for your corporate expansion plans will certainly regard NKT as a cult when the soft soap washes off.
Hi All,
While we appreciate your interest in posting your views, we would like to remind you that on this site, civil discourse is essential. As Buddhists, we can consider Right Speech and use discussion as a means of coming closer to the truth.
We understand that passions run high, but if our practice is worth anything, it can surely calm them. Divisive speech–if our experience of the last eight years is any guide–will get us nowhere.
Many thanks for your participation and may all beings be happy.
Sincere best wishes,
–The Editors
Dear Dorje,
It’s very nice that you think you know my mind, but you don’t. The reason why many of us are engaged in defense of the NKT on the internet is because for over ten years, those who are loyal to the Dalai Lama and others have sought to besmirch the reputation of the NKT, whether out of jealousy or wrong view is uncertain, and to interfere with the spreading of Buddhadharma. Such interference has included contacting the managers of venues where NKT classes are being held to inform them that they are hosting ‘cult like’ activities, the taking down and defacing of publicity and vandalism of Geshe Kelsang’s books in bookstores to ensure that they do not sell. ‘Buddhist’ people are doing this - it is absolutely unbelievable!
Such activities originate from the Dalai Lama’s views and of those who follow him. It’s very sad that those who preach Mahayana values and non-sectarianism are trying to destroy people’s faith in the NKT and its practices. It’s sad that there’s a need for a site like http://www.newkadampatruth.org/ but there has to be some way to counter the lies that are being spread about NKT by members of other Buddhist traditions.
I would therefore say there are two reasons why this kind of activity on the internet is necessary - firstly, to protect the faith of NKT practitioners who are often confused and distressed when they encounter the vitriolic writings of NKT detractors on various websites, and to put the record straight so that those who are interested in learning about Buddhism don’t develop a negative or wrong view of the NKT due to this harmful and inappropriate activity. Just practising patience with these actions of divisive speech won’t make it go away, and it won’t stop people developing negative views of the NKT.
I know that those who write on this Tricycle blog who harbor negative views of the WSS, Dorje Shugden and the NKT won’t be convinced by one word that I write, but I’m not writing for them - I’m writing for those with more open minds who can be convinced by reasoned arguments and who will read and consider the refutations that I write. Then it’s up to them, having been given both sides and not just one, to make up their own minds.
Dear Editors,
It’s nice to know that you are monitoring this blog. Thanks for the timely reminder about right speech.
May all beings be happy!
Best wishes to you all.
I’m all for civil discourse, therefore we should expect links to sectarian and defamation hate sites posted by Lineageholder will be deleted. To call someone a liar using your own name is one thing, using false names demonstrates the deficit of intellectual capital of the self-styled NKT “Gelugpa scholars”.
As I said, much of the criticism of the NKT on the internet comes from ex-members who have been mistreated or seen others mistreated by the group. The NKT has dealt with its various scandals with denial and obfuscation. Often a mea culpa response is the best way to diffuse criticism, but Kelsang Gyatso has chosen to accept none of the responsibility for the actions of those closest to him that were in positions of power through his choice alone.
The defence that you and others have used for your protector practice seems based on confusion and ignorance of Tibetan culture, history and politics. Just saying that this practice is valid because you have been told it is carries no weight. You dismiss criticism of this protector as people blindly following the advice of the Dalai Lama. This is judging others by your own low standards.
I oppose this practice because of its sectarian roots and history and the opinions of the Dalai Lama have no bearing on this. I am satisfied by the testimony of people closer to these events than anyone in the NKT, including Kelsang Gyatso who was not in Kham during Phabongkhapa’s sectarian purges. I also note that the sectarianism ascribed to Phabongkhapa by those opposed to him is echoed in his own writings and those of his followers.
Dear Dorje,
This thread is about Dorje Shugden, not the NKT…let’s get back on topic.
Yes, of course you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. And so am I. You said:
Your statements are full of negative assumptions about Dorje Shugden practitioners and I find your words a little patronising. I have personal experience of Dorje Shugden practice and all it’s benefits, I’m not doing it just because my Guru told me to. What personal experience do you have of the harmful effects of this practice? None whatsovever is my guess, only what you’ve been told or read. Have you ever done Dorje Shugden practice? If not, you really have nothing to talk about because you have no experience. Also, to assert that the Dalai Lama’s opinions of the practice have not influenced you is disingenuous because he’s your Spiritual Teacher and you’re bound to be affected by what he says. I’d be very interested to know if you even had a view about Dorje Shugden before the Dalai Lama banned the practice in 1996, and if you had a view about Pabongkha before the Dalai Lama published “A CASE TO STUDY” By Tenzin Ragyal. The Dalai Lama has been instrumental in the widespread defamation of Pabongkha, quite a shameful thing for him to do.
I can quote you concrete examples from documentaries of people simply following the Dalai Lama’s view because of who he is, so it’s not wrong to assert that at least many Tibetans are doing this.
All this stuff about Pabongkha’s sectarianism - again, there is no evidence, only what you’ve read or been told. Have you received personal testimony about Pabongkha’s sectarian purges from people who were there? Let’s see it, let’s see some statements - otherwise don’t say such things. There’s nothing concrete anywhere on the internet to corroborate your view so your view is no better than mine.
It’s not sectarian to point out the faults in another person’s spiritual view. Was Nagarjuna sectarian for pointing out the faults in the views of the Chittamatrin school? In Guide to the Middle Way, Chandrakirti says:
‘If the works of others are discredited, there is no fault”
In his letter to Lu Chu Tang, Pabongkha said:
He’s quite clear that he believes that the other schools are not following Nagarjuna’s view and he’s either correct or he’s incorrect. He’s not sectarian to point out that he feels there is deficiencies in the view of the other Buddhist schools, any more than Nagarjuna is sectarian in pointing out faults in the Chittamatrin school’s assertions. If you think otherwise, then you have to accept that that Dalai Lama and those who follow his view are sectarian for criticizing Dorje Shugden practice.
“I’m not doing it just because my Guru told me to.”
So, your Guru didn’t tell you to? Did he tell you not to?
“Also, to assert that the Dalai Lama’s opinions of the practice have not influenced you is disingenuous because he’s your Spiritual Teacher and you’re bound to be affected by what he says.”
No he’s not.
I opposed this practice before the Dalai Lama spoke out agianst it in 1996. The accounts of the divisiveness of this practice and sectarian excesses of Phabongkhapa were written about before the Dalai Lama spoke out against it first in 1976.
The accounts of the forced conversions of Nyingmapa gompas in Kham by Phabongkha can be found in other academic studies, as well, such as Civilized Shamans by Geoffrey Samuel. The fact remains, these gompas still stand as Gelug gompas. Why did this happen? Phabongkhapa’s violent sectarian purges.
Thanks Lineageholder for your continued logic, patience, and knowledge. I am not particularly impressed by people bringing up supposed NKT scandals in order to score points — people have disrobed in all traditions and some are still respected teachers. It is human failing, but it has nothing to do with the ban on Dorje Shugden.
Thanks Tricycle Editors’ for monitoring this discussion. I would dearly love you to do another article on it — the last one you did was over ten years ago and since then there has been a lot of water under the bridge. You have enough comments here on this Editor’s blog to fill a book, let alone an article! And there is so much more material now from neutral third-party sources that you could draw from for the article.
For me, it is quite simple, as it just comes down to religious freedom. I don’t care what people think about my Protector and how long-windedly they discuss polemics about his existential status - the practice still works for me, has made me a better person, and I love it. It is the ban on this practice, which affects thousands of fellow practitioners, that I find unacceptable. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. People can say what they like, just so long as they don’t support the religious discrimination and cruel persecution that is taking place against Shugden practitioners in India and elsewhere. (We have experienced some physical effects also in the West, as mentioned above, including the defacing of publicity, name-calling, ostracism from Buddhist groups, cancellation of venues, open policy of discrimination against us in FPMT centers and so on — but none of these compare to what is experienced by ordained and lay Tibetan Shugden practitioners).
I personally have no desire to criticize any other Buddhist tradition but I will defend my own tradition, without attachment or anger, until the ban is lifted. I believe there are many people like me, hundreds of thousands in fact. It seems that this is such a good subject for further analysis in Tricycle. Please let people understand both points of view.
And Dorje, it makes no sense to keep going on about Je Phabongkhapa and what he did almost a century ago when what is happening in India right now, today, in 2008 is so much much worse than anything he has been accused of (which, in any case, is not backed up by any evidence, just hearsay.)
We are talking persecution in the present day. We are talking about thousands of people who are being forcibly converted to another tradition by being made to abandon their Protector and their own Gurus — if they refuse, they are made to leave the monastery or their lay community. We are talking about the creation of an underclass, of second-class citizens, of pariahs. This is happening right now. As we speak.
Even if you don’t like Je Phabongkhapa and believe that stuff about him, and even if it was true, you surely would agree that two wrongs do not make a right?
Even non-Shugden Tibetans can see that this ban and persecution is wrong, simply all wrong. Check out this blog, for example: http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
Tenzin:” Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.” Original thought that also applies to Tibetans, do you actually think your NKT/WSS defamation websites are an appropriate way to influence us?–because it is obviously backfiring extremely badly. Every time Lineageholder gives a sermon or assumes the illusion of the high moral ground for tactical reasons, he disgraces himself dharmically. because there is no way that a real Kadampa would slander, accuse a senior teacher. My impression is he is thought disordered individual and a sort of sociopath in robes. Don’t forget psychopaths can be charming, convincing and function very well in society.
“it makes no sense to keep going on about Je Phabongkhapa and what he did almost a century ago”
Phabongkhapa was the source of this protector practice in the Gelug. His character and actions are very important in determining his qualifications in reforming and changing the Gelug tradition. That he was sectarian and persecuted other traditions, leading to murder and imprisonment of others, is significant as teachings given about this protector also contain his sectarian bias.
The reason for the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s restrictions against this practice and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s restrictions are precisely because of Phabongkhapa’s violent politically motivated sectarianism.
Dear Dorje,
Not so, because Dorje Shugden manifested at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Dalai Lama himself wrote a praise to DS and made a statue of the Protector with his own hands, as well as establishing Trode Khangsar, a Temple dedicated to Dorje Shugden in Lhasa. Later, the 11th Dalai Lama established Dorje Shugden as the main protector of the Gelugpa Tradition as explained by Tagpo Rinpoche:
it was Pabongkha’s Guru Tagpo (or Dagpo) Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche who received the instructions on the empowerment and practice of Dorje Shugden directly from Tsongkhapa in Tushita Pure Land, similar to how Asanga received his five treatises from Maitreya in Tushita. It was Tagpo who also wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden that Trijang Rinpoche’s work “Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors” is a commentary to.
All baseless slander.
At least the 5th, 11th, 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas have all relied on Dorje Shugden at various times. Many people believe that it is due to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s following of Dorje Shugden’s advice to restore the Eastern and Western stupas that Tibet remained safe from Chinese invasion until 1959. We will never know if the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s abandonment of the Protector was a major factor contributing in the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese - if you abandon the Protector, how can you be protected?
As I have shown, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama relied on Dorje Shugden to escape from Tibet. As the Dalai Lama’s translator Helmut Gassner said in his address to the Naumann Foundation:
How sad that this Dalai Lama has now turned his back on his previous Refuge and Protector! How ungrateful he is when he owes his presence in this world to Dorje Shugden. When you understand this, his ban of Dorje Shugden and his persecution of those who follow the practice is even more inexplicable.
Lineageholder: In the Westminster parliamentary system, if someone a member a liar, they are ejected until they publicly apologize. NKT/WSS is using tactics more akin to Republican attack ads. So your feigned endorsement of civil discourse is simply insincere and cynical. Now at a critical time of eclipse of our traditional culture, imperfect as it may be, many thousands of Chinese ultra-nationalists are deriding and insulting the Dalai Lama for their own political reasons, using the slogans NKT/WSS provided. Not to mention imprisoning Buddhist monks en masse with the attendant well-documented torture, both physical and psychological. Amnesty International has not, on the other hand, found any evidence whatsoever of persecution of Shugden people in India. If this negative campaign is your idea of accumulating merit, you really do worship a perverse devil. The words used to describe NKT/WSS extracurricular activities in this forum are mild, Phayul.com comments are rather more strident commensurate with the rubbish emanating from NKT/WSS. With lots of photos of WSS members a clearer picture of the culprits behind NKT/WSS smear campaign has emerged.
Lineageholster: As predicted, the fairy tale of how Dorje Shuden supposedly provided safe passage to the Dalai Lama out of Podyul is retold. It had nothing to do, I suppose, with the armed Chushi Gangdruk escort, the usual historical explanation in the real world, no, no, it was a three-eyed 17th century fanged ghost riding a snow lion and holding a human heart, presumably ripped out of the chest of some errant infidel who dared to defy him. Tibetans don’t buy this story but I suppose Englishmen and Americans might… or not.
The Yarlung Kings and Indian pandits secured Tibet to be dharma realm, many centuries before Shugden was imagined. Gaden Phodrang has a red and a black protector, Drakden, aka Pehar and Palden Lhamo, respectively. From the point of view of worldly protectors, (who their very nature simply cannot be ‘promoted’ to be Buddhas), Tibet was geomantically secured by a whole network of protectors, valley by valley and mountain by mountain. The recent mascot of Gelugpa chauvinists, Shugden, had or has no role in this function. It has been stated that neglect of the ancient protector underpinnings of Tibetan civilization ultimately led to its vulnerability. Indeed, the 13th Dalai Lama, who predicted the danger of Chinese invasion, met stubborn opposition to modernise the Tibetan military and generally begin to advance Tibet into the 20th century from the purely Gelugpa ultra-conservative and reactionary clique in Lhasa.
It is ironic that your semi-literate authority Glassner bills himself as the Dalai Lama’s translator. He certainly was no such thing officially, (he may have interpreted a couple of times) and yet he uses the prestige that acrues from this to enhance his attack on the Tibetan government and Chushi Gangdruk whom he attempts to shift blame for the Shugden cult murders.
So much of the ‘evidence’ presented by the Shugden camp is apocryphal. For example, if one were to search the Fifth Dalai Lama’s collected works nowhere would one find a single verse of praise to this protector spirit. The verses often bandied about by them are first mentioned in Trijang Rinpoche’s writings centuries later.
The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s supposed reliance on this spirit comes from nothing more than a episode that Phurchog Tulku Jhampa Tenzin, his tutor, included in his biography. It is just says that a prophecy from the Shugden oracle had been passed on, oracles give out prophecies all the time. Your claim that this led to the Chinese invasion being put off until 1959 is odd.
LH, are aware that the Chinese invaded Tibet in 1950? Something you might also be aware of: Phabongkhapa was the Lhasa appointed governor of Chamdo, eastern Tibet. He was the main proponent of Shugden and many of his followers who lived around him worshipped this protector. The Chinese army invaded Chamdo in 1913 destroying the large Gelug gompa there. It was again the first place the PLA invaded in 1950. So, could we conclude that this protector isn’t that good at keeping out the Chinese?
The episode you say proves that the 13th Dalai Lama relied on Shugden is debatable, his letter telling Phabongkhapa to stop relying on worldly spirits is not.
“I feel that your seeking the support of a wrathful worldly spirit (to secure benefits in) this life specifically contradicts the precepts of taking refuge. Therefore, your statement, ‘I want to say from the depths of my heart that it is only due to my being confused by ignorance and not that I have knowingly entered an unwholesome path and led others onto the same path.’ is contradictory.”
I am aware that Phabongkhapa’s lineage of this protector came from a vision his lama had of Tsongkhapa in Tushita but it was Phabongkhapa that popularised it from there, making it widespread. It was also him, his teacher and his student Trijang that seemed to revise the history to the Gelug to make this protector appear much more important than he had previously been. The idea that the 11th Dalai Lama made it the most important Gelug protector is nonsense, based on nothing more than Dagpu’s claim.
You reject accounts of Phabongkhapa’s violent sectarianism as baseless slander and imply that all these accounts have been fabricated by jealous Nyingmapas, yet you provide no evidence either way.
The great non-sectarian lama, Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro wrote to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho about Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism
“Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching.”
Is your position that the great non-sectarian lama Khyentse Rinpoche is simply jealous of Phabongkhapa? Are you claiming his accusations are baseless? Are you also saying the earlier account I gave from Stephan Beyer is also baseless.
Helmut Gassner’s campaign against the Dalai Lama is fueled more by bitterness than anything else. Your better off using more reliable sources. But in any case, as, after the Chinese invaded Lhasa
the Tibetan government moved to Dromo near the Indian border for obvious reasons. The route south suppoesedly chosen by one oracle of another was really the only possible one to take.
Dear Namkhah,
Just to address a couple of the points you made. Firstly, with respect to civil discourse, I’ve never insulted you, have I? The same cannot be said of you, unfortunately.
With respect to Amnesty International, they didn’t say that there was no evidence of persecution of Dorje Shugden practitioners, what they said was:
They didn’t say there wasn’t any abuse, they said it didn’t fall within their remit and they didn’t want to get involved in spiritual debates.
I am truly sorry that suffering is being experienced by monks and nuns under the Chinese authorities and I pray that this will stop. As for the Dalai Lama being insulted by the Chinese using WSS slogans, I can only say that he has brought it upon himself. If he had not ignored the request for dialogue by WSS, there would have been no demonstrations and if there were no demonstrations there would be no slogans and the Chinese would not be able to use them. He is the architect of his own misery, sadly. If he had not chosen to irrationally ban the practice of Dorje Shugden and interfere in the spiritual lives of millions, I wouldn’t even be writing these words. It is a very unfortunate situation but the Dalai Lama could change it tomorrow by revoking his ban. He alone has the power to change this situation.
“If he had not chosen to irrationally ban the practice of Dorje Shugden”
The Dalai Lama has advised against worshipping this protector because of the sectarianism it spreads. You may believe that the accounts of sectarianism are motivated by jealousy and choose not the agree with them, but you cannot reject the actions of someone that believes them as irrational.
If the accounts of Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism are true, as both high lamas and reputable scholars have claimed, with support from historical evidence (the forced conversion of Nyingma gompas in Kham, etc.) the Dalai Lama’s actions are entirely rational.
That you have nothing to back up your claim that these accounts are motivated by the jealousy of Nyingmapas other than what your teacher said, puts your position closer to the irrational.
LH: You are writing under an assumed, constructed identity, how is it even possible to insult a pseudonym, an alter-ego? I only dispute your fallacies and misconceptions for example, here we go again with “spiritual lives of millions.” If there are indeed four million Shugden fans, then you outnumber all Tibetan Buddhists including Drukpas, Tamangs, Ladakhis, Kamluks, etc. by roughly 38 to 1– which sort of ruins your victimised minority act.
The Dalai Lama is for us, be we religious or not, a real person NKT/WS whom constantly insults. If your experience of him is only through the electronic media, then you have devalued him into a sort of commodity rather than a human being. Many of us regard him really very much like a cherished family member. So-called sects are more emphasized in the west for some reason, many of us never even thought of the tradition in this conceptual way.
Unfortunately for you, NKT/WSS is neither in a position to dictate ultimatums nor is it even remotely appropriate for the destiny of Tibetan culture and religion to be guided by a few foreigners– It simply is not your nation, not your constituency, which dooms the NKT/WSS enterprise to failure. And in case you haven’t noticed, we do not actually have a country any more, that is an important distinction you may pause to consider when collaborating, either passively or actively, with Communist China.
Dear Dorje,
You said
No, they aren’t - as Tenzin said, you’re living in the past. There have been no sectarian actions by Dorje Shugden practitioners in recent times. Dorje Shugden practitioners have peacefully engaged in their practices without harming anyone. This cry of ’sectarianism’ is merely a smokescreen for the Dalai Lama to enact his political wishes, there is no justification for it in reality.
I’d like to quote Helmut Gassner again:
Would you please quote some incidents that have occured in the past fifty years that means that the Dalai Lama is justified in banning Dorje Shugden on the grounds of sectarianism? In truth, there is no justification whatsoever for this ban.
Dear Namkhah,
You said:
Unfortunately, it’s bigger than Tibet. Whatever made you think that Buddhism is Tibetan or exclusively owned by Tibetan culture? That’s such an arrogant attitude. It reminds me of the Dalai Lama’s dismissive attitude towards Westerners as expressed in Caux in 1996:
To ordinary appearances, Buddha Shakyamuni was Indian, not Tibetan. Buddhism is more important than Tibet as a country. When the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden he affected Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition which isn’t just Tibetan. Sure, there are some Tibetans practising but it’s global and it has a direct effect on the happiness of all living beings. The path to enlightenment is not owned by any one nation or culture, and the Dalai Lama has no authority or right to adversely affect Buddhadharma.
Some of us care about these teachings and their future because it directly affects the lives of all living beings throughout the universe, both now and in the future. That’s why such strong action has been taken against the Dalai Lama. The teachings are not his to do with as he pleases, and certainly not to use them to abuse others. He will reap what he sews.
The protector practice that Phabongkhapa spread is inextricably mixed up with his own sectarianism. The teachings regarding this protector, from the life entrustment to Trijang Rinpoche’s Gyalchen Toddrel to the Phago Lama’i Shelung all teach violent sectarianism.
The followers of Phabonkhapa engaged in violent sectarianism and this spread to the Tibetan government after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama. The conservative faction purged other traditions in the east and violently suppressed dissent in its own ranks, leading to the imprisonment and murder of lamas such as Gendun Choephel and Retreng Rinpoche and the violent raid on Retreng Gompa.
The conservative faction remained in control of the Tibetan government for some time and shaped the early career of the Dalai Lama. It was only the Dalai Lama’s actions and advice that has prevented further violent excesses of the Shugden faction. Despite this, the followers are still implicated in violent assualt, arson and murder.
The sectarian roots of this practice is the reason for the Dalai Lama’s position, and if he hadn’t acted to put an end to the sectarianism in his own tradition, who can say what would have happened.
“Some of us care about these teachings and their future because it directly affects the lives of all living beings throughout the universe, both now and in the future. That’s why such strong action has been taken against the Dalai Lama. The teachings are not his to do with as he pleases, and certainly not to use them to abuse others. He will reap what he sews.”
Tsongkhapa never advocated the worship of Gyalpo Shugden.
Tsongkhapa’s teachings were never Phabongkhapa’s to do with as he pleased, and certainly not to use them to abuse others. He will reap what he sewed as will his followers.
Lineageholder: “He will reap what he sews.”
He’s not a tailor, he’s our leader. Whether he sews with a needle and thread or not is of no consequence.
This is my final comment.
Dear Dorje,
No, this just doesn’t wash I’m afraid. There is no justification. What was the Dalai Lama afraid of - that a bunch of peace-loving Dorje Shugden practitioners would become suicide bombers if he didn’t destroy their tradition? I don’t think so.
There was no sectarianism in this century before the Dalai Lama created it. Geshe Kelsang has told stories about how he did retreats with Nyingma practitioners, how he read their texts and gave them his take on them. If you believe some people, he shouldn’t even touch a Nyingma text, so why didn’t Shugden strike him dead? His own brother in law is a Nyingma Lama and they used to do puja together. Sadly It’s the Dalai Lama who has stirred up inter-tradition hatred by slandering Shugden practitioners and blaming them for shortening his own life and the failure to achieve Tibetan independence in order to justify his political ban. He’s the one who has made Shugden ‘bad’ and its practitioners worse in the minds of Tibetans of other traditions.
From the Al Jazeera documentary:
Who’s telling the lies? None of what he says is true The Dalai Lama is, indeed, responsible - responsible for all this sectarian hatred.
There’s not a shred of evidence of sectarianism associated with Shugden practice these days, even if you think there was in the past. The Dalai Lama’s ban is therefore utterly indefensible.
“There was no sectarianism in this century before the Dalai Lama created it.”
The accounts I posted above from Stephan Beyer and Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro both predate the Dalai Lama’s opposition to this protector practice. I have heard other accounts from people who were in Kham early last century. Your idea that there has never been any problems of Nyingmapas suffering persecution from the Gelugpa authorities is untrue.
Many Nyingma gompas such as the major gompa Dorje Drak have been destroyed a number of times by Gelugpas and their mongol backers. The connection between sectarian violence and the Shugden cult can be established when one looks at the people commiting these acts, as shown in Beyer’s account above.
Phabongkhapa clearly had a big problem with Nyingma practice and praised his protector for killing Gelugpas who adopted Nyingma practice.
“[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely important for holding Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition without mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the great violence and the speed of the force of his actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low.[This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that] many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous andmisleading paths.In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances.Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”
He further had images and texts related to the Nyingma tradition destroyed and monasteries converted. If this doesn’t constitute sectarianism, I’m not sure what does.
Phabongkhapa was the primary propagator of this practice and allied it to his sectarian biases. Those that have followed after him, such as Trijang Rinpoche and Dzemey Tulku have continued to spread these ideas. The protector cult and the sectarian ideas that underpin it are inseparable. The Dalai Lama had no choice but to rid his tradition of this.
Just to add to Dorje’s above comment, in the time of the 13th DalaI Lama, a new Lhasa Shol edition of the Kangyur was commissioned. Since the blocks of the Nartang edition of Kangyur were worn out, and Litang and Derge editions of Kangyur were scarce in U-Tsang, a new edition was planed. The Gojo Rinpoche donated 1,015 liang of silver and held a prayer ceremony for it. The 13th Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government gave material support. The editor-in chief was a Drepung Geshe Sherab Gyaltsen from Amdo, who took it upon himself to expunge, (or as some would have it, purify), any Old School references entirely. This angered the 13th Dalai Lama so much, the Gelugpa Geshe was obliged to move to Chungking. He subsequently was a major collaborator (or as some would have it, traitor) first with the Koumintang, and then with the Maoists, and was active in the state -run Chinese Buddhist Association. He attempted to return to Tibet in 1936 with a load of material goods, money and Chinese ’students’ to infiltrate the monasteries but the Taktra regent did not grant the ’students’ entry, so Geshe Gyatso stayed in China.
Oh, c’mon. You all know the Shugden folks, the NKT and WSS, don’t need to hear all that history. It doesn’t matter what’s happened in the past, what’s important is only the present. Surely there’s no sectarian agenda with Shugden now–I mean, c’mon, it’s not like they’ve removed themselves from calling themselves “Gelukpas” or created their own organization or re-named themselves or anything like that.
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
You are right, Kagyupa, the NKT themselves seem to be true heirs of Phabongkhapa’s sectarian lineage. We can see some of this from “lineageholder’s” views expressed above, questioning the validity of Nyingma practices.
I have heard this kind of thing from NKT members before, including misrepresentations of the history of Buddhism’s introduction to Tibet.
The NKT may not be violently sectarian but the way they set themselves apart from other western Buddist groups is in line with Phabongkhapa’s intentions for the Gelugpas, hence all the threats of death to Gelugpas that mix that he and his followers issued.
Dear Kagyupa,
NKT is Gelugpa and proud of it. Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition was also known as the New Kadampa, so it’s clear where NKT is coming from. I feel very privileged to have received Tsongkhapa’s teachings, a truly sublime, clear and profound explanation of Buddha’s intention.
It’s Tibetan Buddhists who are claiming that NKT is not Gelugpa, not anyone in the NKT. As Geshe Kelsang said in his interview with Donald Lopez Jr in 1998, “We are pure Gelugpas”, so your criticism is invalid.
Dear Lineageholder,
NKT claims mainly to be the old Kadmapa school and when it is suited then they claim to be the pure successors of Je Tsongkhapa. However in fact NKT is an organisation based completely on the teachings and leadership of one person: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, trained in the Gelug school, and his 22 books. Not any commentary of Je Tsongkhapa or Atisha is present in NKT, only the books and views of one person: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Such an approach and dependence on one single person has nothing to do with the the Gelug school or Kadam school, such a complete self-referential system is uncommon in Indian-Tibetan Buddhism.
What people is taught in NKT is the understanding of Tibetan Buddhism (or Gelug school) according to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and this is in some cases very different and most often rather superficial with respect to the origin sources of Je Tsongkhapa or Atisha. Only a person who knows both schools can compare both approaches.
The problem with the identity of NKT is that it derives from Gelugpa but split from it. Then the NKT leadership had to give themselves a distinctive identity. So they founded something “new” but then they had the problem to be taken serious as being rooted in an old tradition, so therefore they claimed they would be the “pure” successors of the old Kadam school (while the Gelugpas are impure in the sense of ‘mixing Dharma with politics’) and started to call everything what is related to them as “Kadampa”, e.g. “Kadampa Buddhism”.
There are a lot of changes in the explanations of what NKT is due to their identity struggle. So it is NKT who also claimed about themselves:
A list of different claims can be read here:
http://info-buddhism.com/#The_identity_of_the_NKT
This identity struggle has been expressed also in different research. Prof Bluck comments:
Best wishes, tp
Question:
Is there any single Human Right Group supporting WSS/NKT’s exaggerated claims?
Answer:
No.
“while the Gelugpas are impure in the sense of ‘mixing Dharma with politics’”
What a delightfully ironic observation from supposed followers of Phabongkhapa, the politician who was responsible for the spread of the politically motivated Shugden cult.
The confusion of these western Shugden proponents is summed up well by Professor John Makransky
“A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the “protector” deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their “religious freedom” to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.”
Dear TP,
‘Kadampa’ means someone whose main practice is lamrim, the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. Whether we are talking about old Kadampa or New Kadampa, there’s no difference in this regard. Atisha wrote ‘Lamp for the Path’, the first Lamrim text, but it is only a few pages long. Tsongkhapa wrote ‘Lamrim Chenmo’ is a detailed commentary to lamrim practice. Both Atisha and Tsongkhapa are ’singing from the same hymn sheet’ as we say and are completely complementary. It’s like a work of art - Atisha drew the outline of the picture and Tsongkhapa painted in the detail. Do you see a contradiction?
NKT is Kadampa because the main practice of NKT practitioners is lamrim.
Geshe Kelsang’s books are not his teachings alone but are the teachings of Atisha, Geshe Chekhawa, Geshe Potowa, Geshe Sharawa, Geshe Langri Tangpa, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Tsongkhapa and Shantideva among others, presented by him and being completely in harmony with the Gelugpa tradition as passed to him by Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang.
When it comes to Buddhadharma, no one owns the teachings. People simply take their place in the lineage, passing on what their Teacher taught without leaving anything out or imposing their own interpretation. That’s how pure Dharma remains from generation to generation.
Since ‘Kadampa’ and ‘Gelugpa’ are synonyms, how can NKT be a split from the Gelugpas? WE ARE Gelugpas. The meaning of the teachings is the same as Tsongkhapa taught. If you compare Lamrim Chenmo and Joyful Path of Good Fortune you won’t see any contradictions.
NKT are Gelugpas following Gelugpa teachings. The main difference between the NKT (a global Gelugpa tradition) and the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition is cultural in that there is a different presentation. Also the NKT is non-political because NKT has no political affiliations.
Dear Dorje,
I’m not confused. The quote by Makransky is from TP’s website (so now we know your affiliations) and it’s wrong. Makransky says that the purpose of Dorje Shugden is sectarian, which is wrong. Is a Dharma Protector being sectarian by being the main Protector of one tradition? That’s just karma, surely? Actually, Dorje Shugden’s job is to protect all living beings because he’s a Buddha. He’s impartial and he doesn’t play favorites.
Makransky says:
‘force conformity’ = prevent degeneration. Isn’t that what Dharma Protectors do? They are supposed to protect the Dharma and its traditions from degeneration. Dorje Shugden doesn’t force conformity to those who don’t want to practise Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. If you don’t want to practise the Gelugpa tradition and go elsewhere, Dorje Shugden isn’t going to hunt you down and drag you back, kicking and screaming to a Gelugpa monastery! Everyone has choice. Dorje Shugden’s job is to prevent mixing of traditions, with therefore to avert the degeneration that would take place for both traditions.
As for ” asserting power over competing sects”, this is laughable and goes back to what I said before - why do Buddhist traditions see it as some kind of competition for followers? No one is competing for anything. How can enlightenment become a competition? That’s a completely stupid and worldly attitude.
Some people have karma, to practice Nyingma - great!
Some people have karma to practice Sakya - great!
Some people have karma to practice Kagyu - great!
Some people have karma to practice Gelugpa - great!
You can examine our Dorje Shugden prayers. At no point do we ever say “Oh, and by the way, Dorje Shugden, please convert all the vile unbelievers of those degenerate non-Gelug traditions to the correct path of Tsongkhapa - Amen!”
I’m joking about it because what Makransky says is competely absurd and it doesn’t help to spread such misunderstandings.
“Dorje Shugden doesn’t force conformity to those who don’t want to practise Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. If you don’t want to practise the Gelugpa tradition and go elsewhere, Dorje Shugden isn’t going to hunt you down and drag you back, kicking and screaming to a Gelugpa monastery!”
Phabongkhapa and his followers that worshipped this protector forced Nyingma gompas to practice Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. They destroyed Nyingma images and burnt Nyingma texts. The account I quoted above from Stephan Beyer shows just one example of a Nyingma monastery being forced to adopt the Gelug tradition, there are many more, such as in Dhartsedo and Chamdo.
Recently in Tibet Lama Gangchen forced the monks of Gangchen gompa to worship Shugden. Those that refused were either arrested by the Chinese authorities or forced to flee.
Phabongkhapa’s actions to protect Gelug political power were two-fold. Firstly, he consolidated the Gelug power base by enforcing exclusive adherence to Gelug practice by existing Gelugpas. He used death threats as shown above to to this.
secondly, the non-Gelug traditions were criticised and their practices questioned. This culimated in violent purges against them and forced conversions of their institutions.
These actions helped Phabongkhapa strengthen the power of the Lhasa based Gelug government over large areas of eastern Tibet that were in danger of falling under the power of other Tibetan rulers, such as the Sakya/Rime King of Dege, or the Chinese who had been invading Chamdo periodically for years before. It may not seem much to you, but having a large monastic complex filled with a thousand or so loyal followers carries some political wieght in a sparsely populated area like Kham.
As I said before, Phabongkhapa was the political governor of Chamdo appointed by the Lhasa authorities to enforce adherence to Gelug loyalty and Ganden Phodrang allegiance.
Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever. When I lived in Tibet I checked very carefully with local Geshes about the truth or falsity of these assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet (Kham) and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the same time some local people jealous of his success spread rumours, saying that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.
It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation of this precious Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually degenerate times. Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.
So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters, could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama’s life then I would be happy to debate with you. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, talk.religion.buddhism, 01 December 1997)
Sad - nothing has changed in over ten years. The same invalid reasons for banning Dorje Shugden are being used today.
Another thing is that some Tibetans and others severely criticize Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo because he practiced Shugden, making him out to be some kind of demon. However, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo wrote incredible teachings on sutra and tantra; on Heruka, Tara Cittamani and many other topics. All these amazing teachings were written purely from his experience. So it’s impossible that he can really be some kind of evil being, as those extremists accuse him of being. There’s no way he could have done the negative things they say he did. - Lama Zopa Rinpoche
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=455
“Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever.”
This is not true. There were a number of other political powerful people in Tibet. I have already mentioned the royal house of Dege, who were very influencial in promoting the Rime movement. There were many other smaller states in eastern Tibet, far from Lhasa’s authority. Phabongkhapa was appointed political governor by the Lhasa administration to reassert their power in Kham.
After the 13th Dalai Lama’s death Phabongkhapa’s personal power became much greater with his senior students put into the positions of the greatest power, removing rivals for power such as Retreng Rinpoche.
The picture that Kelsang Gyatso paints above is simply untrue and unbelievable. If anyone imagines that one man can control a country the size of western europe with no real communications infrastructure or standing army, they really need to read a little more.
Regarding Lama Zopa’s comments, as I said above, what the supporters of Phabongkhapa thought of him or what nice teachings Phabongkhapa wrote have no bearing on deciding whether he was sectarian or not. For this we have to look at his sectarian words, actions and those of his followers.
Regarding Dorje’s comment No. 544:
Melvyn C. Goldstein’s ‘A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State’ details the extent of conservative opposition to reforms the Thirteenth Dalai Lama initiated: the small English school in Lhasa closed, electric generator imported from India delayed and staunch opposition to updating Tibet’s military (for the first time in about a thousand years!) and so forth. The 13th could barely get anything done even in Lhasa town, so he was far from what one would call a tyrant. They had a postal system, but it took 3 weeks to get a letter just to Kalimpong!
Prof. Goldstein, who, by the way, is not someone who tows Dharamsala’s line, is a fluent Tibetan speaker and interviewed the last of the old aristocrats and monastic officials before they passed away. It is probably as close as we will get to hearing the inside story as told in the missing history manuscript of the late Serkhang, whose daughter Prof. Goldstein was married to.
The Dolgyal Research Committee
Measures Taken by Various Learned Non-sectarian Scholars and Great Practitioners Against the Practice and Propitiation of Dolgyal or Shugden
Edited and Compiled by The Dolgyal Research Committee
PREFACE
This leaflet, dealing with the measures taken by various learned scholars and great practitioners against the practice and propitiation of Dolgyal or Shugden, has been extracted from the book: Research on the Evolution of Shugden Entitled: Clouds of Offering Pleasing the Impartial for direct and easy reference.
Dolgyal Research Committee C/O Department of Religion and Culture Central Tibetan Administration Dharamsala 22 October 1998
Although some general accounts and stories about gods and spirits may be related to (somebody’s) pure vision, most of them arise because of the variety of human perception and imagination, thus, they are obscure phenomena. If we regard everything as pure vision and disregard day to day, ordinary, worldly human experiences, we will have no way to explain these things. Moreover, (the worship of Dolgyal) is a crucial issue that we cannot just sit back and ignore, without investigating whether such practice has harmed or helped our society.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has stated in one of his talks on the process of practice and propitiation of dharma protectors, “If it is said that there are uncommon and inconceivable secret events, let us first develop a refined consciousness capable of experiencing such mystical things. If we had such a consciousness we could then make use of them, but we simply have to go by popular conventions. If the person is at an ordinary level, but the object of experience is something of inconceivable secrecy, then he cannot experience it.”(1) As His Holiness the Dalai Lama points out, even though people who recognise Gyalchen Shugden as reliable, and particularly those who say that Shugden is the protector of Gelugpas, assert that this is a profoundly secret issue, it has created and is creating many problems on an ordinary human level. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has farsightedly given advice and guidance regarding the practice and propitiation of dharma protectors. The validity of this advice is proved and supported by actual historical events.
The second volume of the Heavely Garment (Dukulai Gosang) describes how the Great Fifth Dalai Lama performed peaceful and wrathful activities in 1674, the wood-tiger year:
“The Gyalpo of Dol Chumig Karmo has intensified its harmful activities and also many deceptive activities of this evil and hostile spirit are being observed. In Namgyal Monastery, following the specifically targeted ritual, a ritual fire offering was lead by the Vajra Acharya Dra-na Cho-je (Brag-sNa-Chos-rJe)(2).”
Also in 1675, the wood-rabbit year:
“Because of strong indications of disturbances from disembodied beings, recitation of 10,000,000 wrathful mantras targeting evil forces in general and particularly the interfering spirit of Chumig Karmo have been recited, followed by the performance of a ritual fire offering according to the practice of Rigzin Dorje Drag-po-tsal by Namgyal Monastery at which Gelong Lodro Gyalwa acted as Vajra Acharya. Thus, means ensuring the welfare of the citizens of Tibet have been accomplished.”(3)
Again in 1675, the wood-rabbit year: “It is well known that at Dol Chumig Karmo a very powerful perfidious interfering spirit (dam sri), born due to distorted prayers, has been harming the teaching of the Buddha and sentient beings in general and in particular. The harmful activity has intensified since the fire-bird (year) [1636] and (the spirit) has been successful in many of his missions. But hardly anyone has taken any action, as if this did not concern them. So, at the end of the earth-bird (year) [1648] a new shrine was constructed at Dol Chumig Karmo and articles were placed there in the hope that it would become a place for the Gyalpo to settle. However, his harmful activities only intensified and recently many lay and ordained people have been afflicted with diseases and a few monks have died. Therefore, all the monks unanimously decided that a fire ritual should be performed.
Consequently, two groups of practitioners were organised. One was led by Nagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho, who acted as the Vajra Acharya of (a performance of) the Dorje Drolo ritual and the other was led by Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse, who acted as the Vajra Acharya of (a performance of the) Yangsang Karma Dragpo ritual. Likewise Rigzin Pema Thinley of Dorje Drag, Dharma King Terdag Lingpa, Vugja Lungpa, Drigung Tulku Rinpoche, Katshal Zurpa Ngari Konchok Lhundup and Palri Tulku performed the Wrathful Lama, Yamaraja, Phurba, Loktri practice for seven days, at the conclusion of which a fire-ritual was performed during which the ‘perfidious interfering spirit’ and his entourage were burnt. Everybody was convinced (of its success because of) the appearance of wonderful signs and the smell of burning flesh that everybody witnessed. Thus, many sentient beings were explicitly granted the gift of fearlessness because their lives were saved. And indirectly these creatures (byung po) were delivered to the peaceful state of being released from having to experience the intolerable suffering of bad states of rebirth due to their increasing negative actions.
At that time a testimony was written to indicate that these creatures or evil spirits were without protection and refuge and (consequently) Namgyal Monastery, Dorje Drak Monastery, Dardhingpa Monastery recited mantras to negate the evil forces.”(4)
As mentioned above, this testimony is found in the volume Da of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Collected Works under the title Compendium Of Offerings, Fulfillment, Confessions And Eulogies etc. to the Unobstructed Wrathful and Powerful Committed Ocean of Dharma Protectors Entitled “Spontaneous Fulfillment of The Four Sublime Activities”.
“Because of the meddling of Lag Agyal of Gekhasa (his mother), the false reincarnation of Tulku Sonam Geleg Palzang (Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen) got his way and because of distorted prayers he became a perfidious interfering spirit (dam sri) and brought serious harm to sentient beings. Therefore, a total of seven groups of practitioners led by Dorje Drag Tulku Rinpoche ( the fourth rDo-Drag-Rig-’Zin Pema Thrinley), Choegyal Terdag Lingpa, Choeje Vugja Lungpa, Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup, Palri Tulku and two groups of practitioners of Phende Legshe Ling (Namgyal Dratsang) performed a ritual fire offering and burnt the interfering spirit. This is the testimony I have written at that time:
To the deities, Six Armed Mahakala, Karmaraja and Magzor, To the oathbound protectors The Four Faced Mahakala, Chamdral Begtse, etc. Who have been propitiated and whose practice (has been done) I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
To the female protectors like Nodjin Yangghaza, etc. and Gyalpo Ku-nga, Khyabjug, Dorje Leg and particularly Nechung and his entourage I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
To Tse-mar etc. and the seven Barwa brothers And likewise Setrab of Sangphu etc.- the wrathful gods and spirits among whom this negative spirit seeks support - I offer this sublime libation. The so-called Drakpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being, even though he is not, And since this interfering spirit and creature of wrong prayers Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings - Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
Having agreed before the root and lineage lama Vajra Dharas To increase what is good and beneficial to sentient beings and the dharma, If you protect this perfidious interfering spirit, Will you not cause your own past pledges to degenerate?
There are groups of evil spirits who display various unsuitable miracles In the form of human and, cattle disease, hailstorms, famine, and drought. May their power and ability Their body, speech and mind be smashed into tiny particles.(5)
As is evident here, from 1657 the fire-bird year, a perfidious interfering spirit at Dol brought harm to the teaching and the sentient beings in general and in particular. In 1669, the earth-bird year, activities to pacify the spirit were performed with the construction of a new house and the placing of (relevant) articles, but to no avail. In the beginning of 1674, the wood-tiger year, and 1675, the wood-rabbit year, two specifically targeted rituals were performed and finally, at the end of 1675, the wood-rabbit year, seven groups of practitioners performed fire rituals and destroyed it forever.
Subsequently, many indisputably learned scholars and great practitioners who purely practised and maintained the philosophical views and tenets of the Gelugpa also continued to act against it. For example, in the biography of Trichen Ngawang Chokden(6) composed by Changkya Rolpai Dorje(7) entitled The Melodious Speech of Realised Sky Farers called The Great Drum of the Celestial Beings he states:
“Earlier, a very vicious and evil spirit ( here it doesn’t mention that this spirit is Dolgyal, but that it is Dolgyal who is referred to is clear from the biography of Changkya. Also, the time refers to the period when Trichen Ngawang Chokden was the Ganden throne-holder) possessed a man from Draksep (a place very near to Ganden) and some unstable former-abbots, and monastic hostels also worshipped it by simply invoking and propitiating it. On the top of the Jangtse mountain a cairn for invoking spirits was also built. Seeing these as extremely inappropriate he issued an edict to the assembly of monks that from the time of Je Tsongkhapa there had been no tradition of propitiating worldly spirits and protectors within the premises of this seat of learning and so, henceforth, nobody would be allowed to engage in such deeds. The cairn was also destroyed (this is very clearly mentioned in the biography of Changkya) and the stones and earth of which it was made were taken back to the places from where they had been taken. The medium was invoked to come into trance and was then ordered not to come into trance henceforth. Dolgyal too said, ‘If this is Tri Rinpoche’s order, I have no choice but to accept.” This evil spirit then fled to sTag-rTse-Zhol. (Tri Rinpoche) himself then went into retreat for some time and subsequently established the practice of Dharma Raja’s ritual cake offering composed by the Omniscient Gendun Gyatso (the second Dalai Lama) as a regular religious practice of monastic assembly. As a result of having transgressed Dharma Raja’s words, a former-abbot who had propitiated this evil spirit immediately expired. The monastic hostels also experienced many misfortunes and this led to the end of such practice and became a contributory factor in the purification of the monastery and the place.”(8)
As is evident in the above statements Trichen Ngawang Chogden placed restrictions (on the practice of Dolgyal) and asked monks not to practice or propitiate such evil spirits within the Ganden complex. It was in 1740, the iron-monkey year and the second year of his incumbency as the Ganden Throne Holder that he dismantled the cairn of the spirit situated on the peak of the Jangtse mountain.
What is the source to prove that this evil and harmful spirit whose practice was restricted in Ganden was none other than Dolgyal? In the biography of Changkya Rolpai Dorje composed by Thukan Choekyi Nyima (1737-1802)(9) entitled Beautifying Ornament of Ganden we read:
Reaching the site of the cairn to Machen, he explained in detail to Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima as follows:
“Je Lama (Tsongkhapa) and his students do not propitiate worldly gods and protectors and hence even the cairn of Machen, the deity of his birthplace, is not included within the limits of the circumambulatory (path at Ganden). (However,) in the past some Ganden Throne Holders propitiated Dolgyal (Shugden) and experienced misfortunes, consequently Tri Chen Dorje Chang dismantled Dolgyal’s image and shrine and banished it from the monastery.”(10)
As mentioned here, when Changkya Rolpai Dorje went on a pilgrimage to Ganden Monastery he clearly mentioned the name of Dolgyal to Thukan Choekyi Nyima. This clearly proves the point.
Again in the Toe-’Bril by the late Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche we find: “In the central part of Tibet shortly after the passing away of Phurchog Je Ngawang Jhampa, Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen, and Longdol Lama Rinpoche, the survival of the tradition of listening and instruction on the stages of path to enlightenment was in a critical condition. It was at that time that Nyungne Lama Yeshe Wangpo intentionally appeared to uphold and disseminate this teaching. This sublime being received ordination from Yongzin Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen and thus received the name Yeshe Wangpo.”
As the text clearly shows, the three lamas mentioned above were at that time the principal practitioners and teachers of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment and also the ones who sustained the practice of the pure Gelug tradition. Thus, they enhanced the Yellow Hat teaching and their being universally worthy of respect and veneration is undisputed. Let us analyse these three eminent lamas’ views of Dolgyal.
In Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa’s(11) (1682-1762) work The Catalogue of the Establishment of the Four Monastic Seats and the Lower and the Upper Tantric College entitled “White Lotus Rosary” we find at the end of the account of the history of the Ganden Monastery:
“Thus, at the time when Je (Tsongkhapa) himself was alive, apart from those dharma protectors who are bound by oath and are mentioned in the tantras themselves, no objects for propitiating or seeking the help of harmful negative worldly spirits, who would express their wrath on even very minor matters, were ever installed within the premises of this monastic seat. As a result, all the members of the community, both Lamas and disciples lived in harmony and the tradition of study and practice flourished. Even (the cairn) to the spirit of Tsongkhapa’s birthplace was placed outside the monastery. However, nowadays, many people who consider themselves to be followers of Tsongkhapa, and who adopt the three robes of a fully ordained Buddhist monk, go for refuge in ghostly spirits. They will have to face the consequence of meeting with great misfortune. Therefore, if we, the ordained sangha, properly guard our precepts and vows, the guardians who are bound by oath and who have earlier seen the Buddha will help and support us without hesitation.”(12)
Phurchok Ngawang Jampa’s statement, “nowadays, many people who consider themselves to be followers of Tsongkhapa, and who adopt the three robes of a fully ordained Buddhist monk, go for refuge in ghostly spirits. They will have to face the consequences of meeting with great misfortune” clearly indicates that they will encounter misfortunes and thus he strongly criticised this practice. That this ghostly spirit referred to by Phurchog Jampa is none other than Dolgyal is clearly indicated by the two accounts of Changkya and Thukan.
The biography of Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen(13) entitled The Day Light Opening the Lotus of the Buddha’s Teaching composed by the Eighth Dalai Lama, Jhampel Gyatsho, also says:
“With regard to Dharma protectors too, it is not enough to have the name of a dharma protector. The three, Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Vaishravana, who were exclusively appointed by Je Tsongkhapa, are sufficient. This is because the lineages of all the Buddhas can be summarized into three lineages: Tathagata, Vajra and Lotus. The wrathful manifestation of these three are: Dharmaraja, Vaishravana and Mahakala. This is so because Dharmaraja (Damchan Choegyal) is the one who distinguishes between wholesome and unwholesome deeds, therefore he is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of initial mental scope, in which the main teaching concerns the law of cause and effect , what is to be adopted and what is to be discarded. Vaishravana is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of middling mental scope in which the principal teaching concerns the three higher trainings. And Six Armed Mahakala (Yeshekyi Gonpo Chagdruk) is the dharma protector of the path of the individual of great mental scope, in which the primary teaching is the instruction on meditation on the awakening mind or bodhichitta. We need no other dharma protector than these three.”
Again, in the above biography, after giving instructions to Panchen Rinpoche’s attendants about how Panchen Rinpoche should study and practise, we find: “Especially those from Tashi Lhunpo are being misled by this new dharma protector. Therefore, the dharma protectors which were practised and propitiated by Panchen Losang Choegyen should be enough. On the other hand, if you newly propitiate an evil ghost, it will become a great source of trouble, therefore you should all pay special attention to this.”(14)
Thus, he gave clear guidance based on his innermost feelings. The statement, “if you newly propitiate an evil ghost, it will become a great source of trouble,” refers only to Dolgyal for there is no other spirit to which it could refer.
In the various records of the teachings that he had received and in the Lists of Ocean of Dharma Protectors found in the Collected Works of Long Dol Lama Rinpoche we do not find even a hint about Dolgyal. From this it can be safely concluded that he did not practise or propitiate Dolgyal.
Thus, among those who practised the pure Gelug teaching Phurchog Ngawang Jampa and Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen had actually raised objections to the practice of Dolgyal and Long Dol Lama Rinpoche never practised or propitiated it. When we reflect carefully on how those who maintained Gelugpa thought and practice purely have clearly pointed out the mistakes of going for refuge to wrathful worldly spirits (and protectors) other than Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Vaishravana, who were appointed by Je Tsongkhapa himself, it is clear that there is not an element of truth in contemporary statements that it is improper for a Gelugpa not to propitiate Dolgyal, or the claim that those who do not propitiate Dolgyal are either not Gelugpas or that the Gelugpas will not be able to manage their own affairs.
Likewise, many great and non-sectarian lamas from the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism have advised against this practice. Here are a few examples. We have recounted earlier that during the time of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) many great lamas and practitioners performed ritual fire offerings and eliminated Dolgyal forever. Particularly in the work of Min-ling Lochen Dharma-Shri (1654-1717) the Biography of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorjee entitled: Chariot of Faith we find:
“From the 10th of the sixth month he accomplished the retreat and mantra recitation of Phurba and the perfidious evil spirit known by the name Dolgyal was destroyed so completely by means of a fire ritual, that only the name remained. At that time, on the occasion of summoning and entrance the lamentation of a dying person (could be heard), and on the occasion of the offering through the overpowering recitation of Ho, there was a clear indication when everyone became aware of the smell of a burning corpse.”(15)
It is also clearly mentioned in the related documents that Do Drak Rigzin Pema Thrinley (1640-1718), a contemporary of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorje, performed a wrathful ritual fire offering, so we did not repeat it here.
Because some followers of Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup propitiated Gyalchen Shugden, gradually some Gelugpa lamas also began to propitiate it. When various calamities and disturbances arose because of the propitiation of Shugden, Derge Zongsar Khyentse Jamyang Choekyi Lodro, alias Pema Yeshe Dorje, who was a non-sectarian practitioner who mainly practiced the Sakya tradition, wrote in his composition: Inducement Dedicated to the Perfidious Evil Spirit and Kordag(16):
“Kye(17)! I offer this ransoming ritual cake of spine joints In lieu of flesh, blood, body and life To all existent and visible evil spirits, To Gyalpo Shugden, the Kordag, To Dawa Senge Zang, the annihilator To the Gyaldre and the nine hosts of Bagu and his retinues, To Tegyal, Lakyab and Dragdre, To the Gyalgong, Evil Spirit and the perfidious ones and To the male and female ghosts of the dead and the living.(18)
If we examine these verses then it becomes very clear that what is known among many learned lamas and practitioners as Gyalchen Shugden is categorised here as Kordag, Gyalgong, Byungpo, Perfidious Spirit, Ghost of the Dead and is treated as someone who has to be bribed and paid off. Moreover, the Khangsar Khenpo, Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho, the sixty-sixth throne holder of Ngor Aewam Choedan, who was the student of Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Shenphen Nyingpo (1876-1952) and Ngor Klu Ding Khenpo, Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen, and many renowned and learned Sakya Lamas have even performed wrathful practices to destroy the shrines of Shugden and have banished him.
Also, the biography of the fifth Panchen Lama, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk (1855-82) states:
Also, in the code of rules of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery composed by Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk in the 15th Rabjung of the fire-rat year (1876) we find the following statement:
“Recently, it seems some cases of invoking ghosts (through mediums) within the compound of the monastery have taken place. In future, except for special dharma protectors like the Lamo Choekyong,(or Lamo Tsangpa, a special protector of the Tashi Lhunpo Monastery) summoning different kinds of spirits to enter into mediums will be prohibited. Dharma protectors should be Vajra protectors possessing transcendental wisdom. Propitiating and taking refuge in evil spirits and ghosts like Dolgyal, that are wandering hungry spirits, contradicts the fundamental precepts of taking refuge in the Three Jewels, which is what distinguishes a Buddhist. Therefore, such practices should be given up. I have also observed that while passing through certain precipitous paths, which are the abodes of harmful hungry ghosts, ordinary lay people dismount from their horses, make prostrations and pay homage. In this connection, those of us who are followers of the Buddha should abandon such practices and instead generate virtuous thoughts like kindness, peace and benevolence when we reach such places and should give teachings reflecting on all conditioned phenomena being like the light of a star, a haze, a lamp etc. Then offer incense smoke as a way of making a gift. Apart from that, it is absolutely improper to act like an ordinary worldly person by making prostrations, dismounting from your horse, removing your hat and praying for short term and long term happiness. The inappropriateness of such actions is mentioned in many authentic treatises. So without undertaking these practices you should sustain your practice until it is accomplished.”(20)
Biography of Jigme Dhamchoe Gyatsho by the Dhomey scholar Tsetan Zhabdrung(21)(1910-1985)
“Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching.”(22)
This letter of request is a letter sent by Jamgon Choekyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, a great scholar of the recent past from the Kham area, to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho of Dhomey (1898-1947). We can clearly see in this letter that by propagating inappropriate behaviour, some followers of Kyabje Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo greatly harmed Je Tsongkhapa’s teaching, therefore a request was made that an instructive epistle should be composed, carved on a wooden block and distributed to the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham.
Then there is also a letter of complaint that Kyabje Phabong Kha received entitled “The Logic of Diamond Slivers” whose author is unknown. We have not seen the contents of that letter in detail, but Kyabje Phabong Kha received another letter of complaint from one by the name Choeze Thubten Losang of Domey entitled “The Chariot Pulling the Three Modes of Reasoning: An Appeal made to Kyabje Phabong Kha when he was staying at Chabdo” Later, Denma Losang Dorjee wrote a rejoinder entitled “Drum Stick Invoking the Sound of the Consequence of the Great Drum Bringing a Smile to the face of the Intelligent”: An annotated description of the result of analysis of the false letter titled An Appeal Made to Kyabje Phabong Kha when he was staying in Chabdo” In that rejoinder the contents of the letter sent to Kyabje Phabong Kha are cited without missing, adding or repeating the meaning of a single word. When we reflect on the meaning of that letter it seems very probable that Jigme Dhamcho Gyatsho wrote it under a pseudonym for special reasons at the request of Jamgon Chokyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. Whatever the case may be, that rejoinder is found in the volume Na, Lhasa block print, an appendix of Kyabje Phabong Khapa’s collected works where you can read it in detail. Anyway, there must have been some purpose and reason for these indisputable and non-sectarian scholars to place restrictions (on this practice).
Some people have tried to prove that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatsho (1876-1933), did not place any restrictions on Dolgyal. In support of their assertion they cite “The Biography of Gyalwa Thubten Gyatsho entitled The Amazing Precious Garland” composed by his tutor Phurchog Tulku Jhampa Tenzin wherein it is stated:
“In the Water Dog year (1922) before the lama in charge of Dungkar Gon, the spiritual teacher Ngawang Kelsang, who abides in the natural discipline of an accomplished one, and who is respected as a lama by all sentient beings in outer Tibet, the melodious bell of whose fame resounds from place to place, Gyalchen Dorje Shugden, who is extremely strict in his commitment and pledge to guard the teaching of Jamgon (Tsongkhapa) entered the body of a human being and said, “Now is the time when the Med-hor(23) are rising and if you wish to stop them it is important immediately to restore the stupas to the east and west of the central land of Tibet. This clear vajra prophecy is being brought to the notice of His Highness (Gongsa Chenpo) by the Geshe, through Governor of Dromo.”(24)
On the basis of this statement it is said that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, far from placing restrictions on the practice of Dolgyal, in fact propitiated it. This makes it very clear that these people have failed to understand the import of the account, because the biography of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was written by his tutor Phurchog Tulku Jhampa Tenzin. He has simply recorded how at that time the Dromo Geshe passed this information through the Governor of Dromo. He did not write that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama practised Dolgyal. This is nothing more than a prophecy of Shugden being brought to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama=s notice through the Governor of Dromo.
As an example of how the Thirteenth Dalai Lama placed strong restrictions on the practice and propitiation of new gods and protectors and particularly on Dolgyal because of its being very controversial in the past, Denma Losang Dorje in his composition, “The biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo entitled “The Meaningful and Melodious Song of Brahma” records:
“(Here is) an appeal from me, Phabong Khapa, holding the name of an incarnate, in accordance with an instruction that I have received from you through Tse Khendron Chenmo. (I am glad that) you have received my application of 22nd of the 12th month last year, and I am grateful that you have kindly clarified each and every point therein. It was entirely my mistake and I have absolutely nothing to say (to defend it). It will be my endeavour in the future to take the meaning of your instructions earnestly to heart and I ask your forgiveness for whatever mistakes I have made in my appeal.”
Phabong Khapa quotes the Dalai Lama’s letter: “With regard to the three points mentioned here, there is still much ground for debate, both in logical and scriptural terms, but this is enough for the time being. With regard to your reference to making endeavour in the practice of taking refuge, first of all you are propitiating Shugden as a protector. Since they received Lamrim teaching from you at the Drepung Monastic Religious Centre last year and so made a connection with you, propitiation of Shugden among students there has greatly increased. The Great Nechung Choegyal who from the very beginning was commanded and entrusted to protect and guard this monastery, expressed his displeasure to the Drepung Lachi several times, saying that (due to propitiating Shugden) the degeneration of the Buddha dharma had been speeded up. This is the source of his displeasure. I feel that your seeking the support of a wrathful worldly spirit (to secure benefits in) this life specifically contradicts the precepts of taking refuge. Therefore, your statement, ‘I want to say from the depths of my heart that it is only due to my being confused by ignorance and not that I have knowingly entered an unwholesome path and led others onto the same path.’ is contradictory.”
Phabong Khapa answers: “You have therefore instructed me to give you an answer. I have propitiated Shugden until now because my old mother told me that Shugden is the deity of my maternal lineage. I wish to inform you that henceforth, with intense regret (for what is past) and (with the intention of) restraining my faults (in the future), I will never again propitiate (Shugden) or make daily offerings and supporting prayers and that I will wholeheartedly keep this commitment in the core of my heart. Whatever mistakes I have committed until now, such as having become a cause for the mental displeasure of the Great Nechung Choegyal, contradicting the precepts of taking refuge and so forth, I request you, the supreme protector, who is especially compassionate to the lowly, to regard me with love and great compassion and patiently to forgive me. With great respect I here offer one silk scarf as a medium of request and five silver coins (to contribute to the) mandala offering.”(25)
The contents of this appeal constitute an apology from Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.
Since the practice of Shugden prevailed among the followers of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo (1878-1941), the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had issued a proclamation about the inappropriateness of such a practice. In response Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo accepted his mistakes and sent an informal appeal to His Holiness making a confession, expressing his remorse and asking for his forgiveness while promising not to propitiate the spirit or do the practice in the future. The reason that restrictions were placed on the practice is that to do it contradicts the precepts of Taking Refuge and the Great Dharmaraja Nechung had expressed an antipathy towards it. This is very clear from this appeal.
Now let us examine Dolgyal’s attitude towards the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. The biography of Je Phabong Khapa composed by Denma Losang Dorje states: “In the seventh month of Hor before the Zhide Tazur(26) I heard someone, who seemed to be a monk in trance, (possessed by) Shugden, say twice in high triumphal tones: “It is (to be) on the Namgang (30th) after completion of the 9th” I asked Je Lama (Phabong Khapa) about this in detail and later, on the 30th of tenth month of Hor the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away. Therefore, (Phabong Khapa) said that this earlier pronouncement seemed to state that His Holiness would pass away on 30th of the 10th month after the completion of the 9th month.”(27)
If we analyse this, of the two possible subjects, oneself and others, the verb ‘is (to be)’ refers to one’s own action. In terms of meaning it indicates one’s mentally deciding and making a commitment to do something. So here too, if he were not setting the time, he should have said: “It will be on 30th after the completion of the 9th” and not ‘It is (to be)’. This usage is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the Tibetan language. Moreover, he said it twice, very distinctly, in a triumphal raised voice. This indicates his confidence in announcing that he is going to accomplish an important task on the 30th .
It is only fear of the Tibetan Government that prevents the author from relating this story explicitly, but what it seeks to imply is that His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was also destroyed by Shugden. Therefore, it is very clear that this spirit is harmful in thought and deed and is bent on harming and hindering those great spiritual teachers who have realised the non-contradictory nature of all the teachings. Subsequently, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has spoken about the fact that propitiation of Dolgyal conflicts with Nechung, and that such practices contradicts the precepts of Taking Refuge. The truth of this is implicitly confirmed by events since the time of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.
Let us discuss the assertion found in the Toe-’Bril: “When it was not caught during the fire ritual, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama in a wrathful aspect asked Setrab to announce the order in the protector chapel of Sangphu. It is said that while reading the document containing the order, even the dharma protector’s headgear shook with fear,” and, “the display of miraculous power increased even after the fire ritual (had been performed), therefore, the Great Fifth composed a short prayer of propitiation, “Hum! Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity…”.
In the earth-bird year (1669), the Fifth Dalai Lama constructed a new shrine at Dol and tried to reform the spirit through peaceful means. Since those actions did not produce a positive result, he subsequently performed several specifically targeted practices and finally a ritual fire ceremony was conducted by seven groups of practitioners. Through such deeds many living beings were provided with the gift of life and such hungry ghosts were indirectly liberated to the state of peace, free from the severe sufferings of the unfortunate realms.
The preface to (the great Fifth Dalai Lama’s Testimonial Statement) also states: “this testimonial account was written at the time when the evil spirit was destroyed during a fire ritual”. Thus, when it is stated so clearly in the Heavenly Garment (Dukulai Gosang) that the spirit was destroyed, it is unacceptable that due to Setrab’s manipulation the spirit could not be burnt, that Setrab was asked to read the order and that a prayer “Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity….”. was composed. If the Dalai Lama possessed such power that Setrab, to whom the wrathful spirit turned for help, was so completely petrified that even his headgear shook with fear when he received the document containing the order, it is illogical to say that the Dalai Lama made a confession and composed a prayer to propitiate the spirit. The Sangwa Gyachen (the Collection of Extensive Secrets) of the Fifth Dalai Lama comprising four inner volumes and 21 outer or later volumes does not mention anything about a document containing an order to Setrab and the composition of the prayer “Unwavering from spontaneous eternity….”
A list of some of the prominent non-sectarian scholars who have placed restrictions on Dolgyal’s practice.
1. 3 His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama
2. 3 Choegyal Terdag Lingpa
3. 3 Do Drag Rigzin Pema Thrinley
4. 3 Gadong Ngagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho
5. 3 Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse
6. 3 Choeje Vugja Lungpa
7. 3 Palri Tulku
8. 3 Drigung Tulku
9. 3 Katsak Zurpa Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup
10. 3 The 54th Gaden Throne Holder Thrichen Ngawang Chogden
11. 3 Volkha Jedrung Losang Thrinley
12. 3 Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa
13. 3 The Fifth Panchen, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk
14. 3 Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Zhenphen Nyingpo
15. 3 The Fourteenth Karmapa
16. 3 Ngor Khangsar Khenpo Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho
17. 3 Ngor Luding Khenpo Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen
18. 3 Zongsar Jamyang Khyentse Choekyi Lodro
19. 3 Panchen Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima
20. 3 The Sixteenth Karmapa
21. 3 The Fourteenth Dalai Lama
Thus, many well-known great and learned lamas, who are unbiased in their religious outlook and the systems of philosophical tenets they propound have placed direct restrictions on this Dolgyal. Therefore, it is not just important, but imperative that those who want to review the history of Dolgyal should break out of the confinement of their one sided version to develop and promote a more complete picture.
Footnotes
i. An excerpt from a talk given by His Holiness 18th July 1980 at Sera Monastery to a selected group containing abbots, ex-abbots and senior monks of Sera Jey and Sera Mey and the members of the standing committee of the Tibet Youth Congress, Bylakuppe. See page 99 of the book Collection of All the Talks by His Holiness on the Propitiation and Practice of Dharma Protectors
ii. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 157 back, line 5
iii. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 239 front, Line 1
iv.. Dukulai Gosang, Volume Kha, Tibetan Publication, Folio 257 front, line 1
5. The original Tibetan can be found on page 148 front and back (English pages 423 and 424) of the volume Da of his Collected Works published in Gangtok, Sikkim
6. Thrichen Ngawang Chogden also known as Chentsha Ngawang Chogden (1677-1751) entered Sera Samlo Monastery when he was 15. He became the disciplinarian of the Gyume Tantric College when he was 29 and became the abbot of Tholing Monastery in Ngari. He then restored thousands of stupas which are constructed during Lochen Rinchen Zangpo. At 43 he became the abbot of Gyumed Tantric College. At 52 he became the tutor of His Holiness Gyalwa Kelsang Gyatsho, the Seventh Dalai Lama. He gave all his profound teachings to Changkya Rolpai Dorjee. In 1739 when he was 63 he became the 54th Ganden Throne Holder.
7. Changkya Rolpai Dorjee (1717-1786) was a scholar of great reputation and was recognised as the reincarnation of Changkya Losang Choedan by Konchog Jigme Wangpo. He wrote more than 189 major and minor works. He had many eminent students like Thukan Losang Chokyi Nyima.
8.The biography of Ganden Throne Holder Achi Thu Nomenhan, whose actual name is Trichen Ngawang Chokden, composed by Changkya Rolpai Dorje entitled the Melodious Speech of Realised Sky farers called The Great Drum of the Celestial Being, Chinese Publication, Folio 66 back last line.
9. Thukan Losang Chokyi Nyima (1737-1802) was recognised as the reincarnation of Thukan Ngawang Choekyi Gyatsho by Konchog Jigme Wangpo. He received novice monk ordination from Changkya Rolpai Dorjee when he was 13 and entered Drepung Gomang Monastery when he was 19. He studied with more than 30 eminent scholars like Panchen Palden Yeshe, Kunchen Jigme Wangpo, Phurchog Jhampa Rinpoche, Changkya Rolpai Dorjee, Sakya Dagchen Kunga Lodro etc. He was appointed as the abbot of Zhalu Monastery by the Tibetan Government and also became the 34th abbot of Gonlung Monastery. When he was 53 he became the throne holder of the Kumbum Monastery. He wrote more than 500 treatises, which are preserved in 15 wood block printed volumes.
10. In the biography of Changkya Rolpai Dorjee found in the Collected Works of the great Gelugpa scholar, Thukan Chokyi Nyima, Lhasa Publication, Folio 121 to 122.
11. Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa was born in 1682 in Chabdo and passed away in the year 1762 at the age of 81. He received his Bhikshu ordination from Panchen Losang Yeshe at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery. He was the 53rd lama of the lamrim lineage and was author of 52 published works.
12. In the Catalogue of the Establishment of the Four Monastic Seats and the Upper and Lower Tantric College composed by Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa entitled White Lotus Garland, Wood Block Print Folio 13 back line 1.
13. Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen was born in 1713 and passed away in 1793. He received his novice monk ordination from Panchen Losang Yeshe at the age of seven and received Bhikshu ordination from the accomplished master Losang Namgyal. At the age of 21 he visited central Tibet and received teachings from Phurchok Jhampa Rinpoche. At the age of 62 he became the tutor to the eighth Dalai Lama, Gyalwa Jhampal Gyatsho. When he was 77 he established the Dip Tsechok Ling Monastery. He passed away at the ripe age of 81. His published works consist of 19 volumes containing compositions on 159 sections.
14. The biography of Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen entitled The Day Light Opening the Lotus of the Buddha’s Teaching composed by the Eighth Dalai Lama, Jhampal Gyatsho Folio 187.
15. The biography of Terdag Lingpa Gyurme Dorjee entitled: Chariot of Faith composed by Minling Lochen Dharma Shri, Page 77.
16. One who enjoys offerings of others, while leading a morally corrupted life.
17. An emphatic way of summoning or calling someone.
18. Derge Zongsar Khyentse Jamyang Choekyi Lodro’s composition: Inducement Dedicated to the Perfidious Evil Spirit and Kordag, volume III, English page no. 359.
19. Biography of the Fifth Panchen Lama, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk Page 223 back.
20. In the 11th volume of the series of the Key Opening the Door to One Hundred Lores of Land of Snow under the title Collection of Code of Rules, page 125.
21 Tsetan Zhabdrung was born in 1910 in Dhomey in Zunha district near Machu river and passed away in 1985 at Tashi Khyil Monastery. He studied with many eminent lamas, including primarily Jigme Dhamcho Gyatsho, and his learning and scholarship was renowned throughout the three provinces of Dhoto, U-tsang and Kham. He also served as Professor at the Universities of Nationalities at Tso-ngon and also at West North Nationalities University. He spent his whole life educating and encouraging his people and he published more than fifty works dealing with biography, history, religion, astrology, poetry, grammar etc.
22. First volume of the Collected works of Tsetan Zhabdrung, Tso-Ngon Publications page 394 to 395.
23. Mongolians from the lower region like Tso-ngonpo / Kokonor are called Med-hor and those from the upper areas like Sichuan are called Tod-hor.
24. The Birth Story of Arya Avalokiteshvara entitled Annals of the Garland of Gems. Volume V, page 620.
25. Account found on pages 471-2 front and back of the Tibetan text of the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo entitled The Meaningful and Melodious Song of Brahma composed by his student, Denma Losang Dorje and published by the Nyimo Publisher Palden, Lhasa in a woodblock print. In the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo published in India the above appeal is not found.
26 Zhide refers to Reting Monastery and Tazur refers to the retired Ta Lama of that monastery. .
27. On page 72 back, line 1 of the appendix/supplement to the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo composed by Denma Losang Dorje.
However, Phabongkhapa’s sectarian forced conversion of Nyingma gompas in Kham was related to the 13th Dalai Lama’s modernising programme. In extending the Gelug political power he was aiding the task of creating a Gelug ‘established church’ for the nascent centralised Tibetan state.
As Geoffrey Samuel says,
“The dominant Gelugpa figure of this period, apart from the 13th Dalai Lama himself, was his near contemporary, the 1st P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e (1878-1943). P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e was by all accounts a brilliant scholar and accomplished Tantric meditator, who is remembered with devotion by his disciples. He is remembered with less favor by the Nyingmapa order in K’am where, as the Dalai Lama’s representative, his attitude was one of sectarian intolerance towards non-Gelugpa orders and the Nyingmapa in particular.
[...]
P’awongk’a thus stood in a complex relationship to the 13th Dalai Lama, and in fact the two men where not personally close. The 13th Dalai Lama, like the Great 5th, was interested in the Nyingmapa and Dzogch’en traditions, and received teachings from Rimed lamas such as Terton Sogyal. His own orientation seems to have been open minded and eclectic, and was not identified with P’awongk’a’s conservative and traditionalist faction. Nonetheless, P’awongk’a was in some respects the logical expression in the religious sphere of the transformation that the 13th Dalai Lama was trying to bring about. Had the Lhasa government ever succeeded in turning Tibet into an effective cetralized state, the Gelugpa might have continued to move in this direction and might have gradually eliminated the other Tibetan religious traditions in favor of a well-controlled academic and clerical version.
In fact, P’awongk’a’s influence was strongest after his death and that of the 13th Dalai Lama, and particularly after the forced resignation of the regent Reting (Ratreng) Rimpoch’e in 1941 and his replacement by Tagtrag Rimpoch’e, who had been a close associate of P’awongk’a and shared his conservative orientation. It was at that time that P’awongk’a’s students gradually moved into the dominant position that they have held within the Gelugpa order into the 1970s and 1980s.”
Civilized Shamans p545-546
Rollo - TGIE propaganda, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker - yuck!
If the 5th Dalai Lama was a realized being, and Dorje Shugden was just a perfidious spirit, why was he unable to destroy him with his fire pujas? It’s not as if he didn’t try many times -and failed. What does that tell you?
Dorje - if you’ve never studied Je Pabongkhapa’s teachings and practised the sadhanas he wrote, you will never understand that what Lama Zopa Rinpoche said is true. I’m sure you kinow as well as I do that it’s not just about what you believe but what you’ve experienced. I have experienced enough of Pabongkha Dechen Nyingpo to know in my heart that these demonizing claims are false.
It’s not just about ‘historical’ facts, is it? We’re talking also about Pabongkha’s qualifications as a Teacher and yogi and you’re never going to understand those unless you are a Gelugpa who has experienced them through his works.
Just as what someone writes and what their followers say about them is no true indicator of whether they are sectarian or not, neither is someone else’s subjective experience of these teachings or views.
To know if Phabongkhapa was sectarian we have to look at whether he propagated a sectarian view, acted in a sectarian way and encouraged his followers to do likewise.
I think we have enough evidence from accounts given to show that he was sectarian and committed violent sectarian acts with a political motivation.
Donald Rollo, thanks for posting an entire book in here!! Generally, I think that is called trolling. Would not an extract and a URL or other reference have sufficed?!
Meantime, to answer accusations that the NKT are not real Gelugpas or that they have split away from the Tibetan mainstream, please see:
http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/are-nkt-practitioners-real-gelugpas/
and
http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/has-the-nkt-broken-away-from-the-mainstream/
BTW, thanks for some great debating skills and lots of useful information, Lineageholder. Thanks all of you for some entertaining reading.
I can’t help thinking the arguments for using a political bandstand to actually ban a religious practice are just too flimsy, even when repeated an infinitum. This is the twenty-first century, last time I looked, and Tibet is allegedly trying to move away from its old theocratic model. Though some have their doubts about that, see for example: http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/2008/11/he-has-got-it-wrong-or-what-could-have.html or the article ‘Tibetan Religion and Politics’ , by Samten G Karmay: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=Tibetan+Religion+and+Politics&id=22803
This mistreatment of Shugden practitioners is not helping the Tibetan cause. I know of a growing number of Tibetans now who are not Shugden practitioners but who are dismayed with what the Dalai Lama is doing as it is so counter-productive.
See for example “Evil Spirit Puts Tibetan Democracy to Test” by a Tibetan lady calling herself Mountain Phoenix http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
Since 1959 the Dalai Lama has had ample opportunity to introduce a democratic system of government into the Tibetan community in exile. Why hasn’t it happened? Could it be because he wants to continue the union of politics and religion for his own ends?
More and more Tibetans see the faults with this system. For example, in an article called “He Has Got It Wrong” (on pro-Tibetan Phayul, taken from the Times of India), Eliot Sperling says of the recent meeting (November 2008) about Tibet’s future in Dharamsala:
And while the Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that the Tibet issue is not about him but about all Tibetans, the end result of the special meeting bears out China’s stance: in spite of his democratic rhetoric, the Dalai Lama has never empowered Tibetans to feel comfortable taking stands at variance with him. Accusations of disloyalty to the Dalai Lama remain a weapon in political and personal feuds in Dharamsala.
In her article commenting on this newspaper opinion piece, a Tibetan woman calling herself Mountain Phoenix says:
So when we look at the outcome of this “special meeting”, there was nothing special about it, let alone “historic”. The ultimate decision was again not to decide but to leave the decision to the Dalai Lama.
In the article ‘Tibetan Religion and Politics’, posted on Phayul, Samten G Karmay makes a powerful case for separation of church and state based upon the incompatibility of the role of head of democratic government with being a spiritual master:
In this theocratic system the head of the state was not only the political leader of the people, but also their spiritual master. In other words, the whole population was subjected and put in the position of spiritual disciple to the master. Within the context of this essentially religious bond no devotee would ever dream of opposing the view of the master, because that would be tantamount to breaking the sacred relationship between the master and the disciple. How does this fit with the discussion of democracy among the Tibetans in exile for whom HH the Dalai Lama is the political leader, but who nonetheless bestows on them the Kalachakra initiation?
This ties in with the Mongoose-Canine letter, in which the writer says:
Moreover, to challenge Lamas you have used religion for your aim. To that purpose you had to develop the Tibetan people’s blind faith. In the end you adopted the same activity that you yourself had pointed out was mistaken in other Lamas. For instance, you started the politics of public Kalachakra initiations. Normally the Kalachakra initiation is not given in public. Then you started to use it continuously in a big way for your politics. The result is that now the Tibetan people have returned to exactly the same muddy and dirty mixing of politics and religion of Lamas which you yourself had so precisely criticised in earlier times.
The implication is that the Dalai Lama has used his position as a Spiritual Leader through Kalachakra initiations to keep the Tibetan people docile because they would never challenge their Teacher with whom they have ’samaya’ (sacred bond) through initiation. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso of the New Kadampa Tradition has been branded ‘a samaya breaker’ for the very reason that it is claimed that he received this initiation from the Dalai Lama in 1954 and has subsequently spoken out against him (N.B. he never received this initiation, nor indeed any teachings from the Dalai Lama).
The point of the Dalai Lama using Kalachakra for political purposes is mentioned again later in the Mongoose-Canine letter:
Nowadays you have given the Kalachakra initiation so many times you have made the Tibetan people into donkeys. You can force them to go here and there as you like. In your words you always say that you want to be Gandhi but in your action you are like a religious fundamentalist who uses religious faith for political purposes.
Samten G Karmay’s article was well read and received many supporting comments from Tibetans. Some examples:
religion and politics should be separated in order to have a true democratic system.people will more freely speak out when its a religious person most people don’t want to speak freely.the present tibetan govt needs to listen to people and stop calling people who give their opinion as chinese spy etc.this is not democracy
**************
As you know, Tibetan government in exile, in realty there is no democracy. It’s like still old Tibet style empire rules, Lama Rules or one of the linage rule. One man leader for ever and at the same time they call it real democracy. In fact no Democracy and it’s like banana democracy. Young educated Tibetans have no chances to become a Top leader of Tibet as a ‘President”.
**************
You are right — majority Tibetans has no power to tell or comment to the head of the exile. Because our head leader is Religious one. One of the four linage of mahayana Tibetan Buddhism. If you do so there is Dhamtsik Samaya breaking between a guru and the deciple.
Since the Dalai Lama alone has the power to determine whether democracy is introduced or not, and there is no democracy, the facts speak for themselves. Thurman should not whitewash this situation by pretending that the Dalai Lama is pro-democracy when his clear lack of action in this area shows that he is not. Either the Dalai Lama is fooling Thurman, or Thurman is fooling us.
- Pabongkha Dechen Nyingpo
Heartspoon - Encouragement through recollecting impermanence
Lyara: I gather you are not a Tibetan, but that won’ stop you from amateur social engineering and imposing your bourgeois liberal values on the small Tibetan community in India. Why aren’t you out protesting political prisoners held at “Gitmo”? Britain and the US are running roughshod over Iraqi civilians, based on a cooked up lie.
Not to indulge in cultural relativism too much, the point is: democracy is an ideal we all strive for, its not just spontaneously arisen. During the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Students for a Free Tibet, for example, (who have (published) funding from a series of pop concerts and not the CIA as the PRC claims,) openly took an independent boycott stance, disagreeing with the Dalai Lama who supported the games. At least the Tibs in India are beginning on the democratic road, something 1.3 billion Chinese dare not even speak about. TGIE has not even one policeman, let alone a military: contrast this with 3 million army, air force and navy personnel in China not counting 1.5 million paramilitary troops. The only limited legal powers of the Tibetan Exile Adminstration pertain to health, education and religious affairs for about 100,000 people the size of one medium sized town only. The amount of tax they collect is paltry, which in turn makes it difficult to pay competitive salaries for civil servants, even by Indian standards. A large number of Tibetans have never paid a penny in taxes in fifty years, financial resources are non-existent.
If one looks at British history, it took several centuries for a democratic culture to evolve– it did not pop up overnight like a mushroom. British peasants toiled and served and suffered under the aristocratic class for hundreds of years.
I assume you have a country in which to live, which has a civil infrastructure. Therefore, I expect it is relatively easy for you to be an armchair buddhist and fantasize about this massive tyrant of the east, recycling the phantoms of the Protestant Christian past of your culture.
By the way, Mr. Thurman does not actually speak for Tibetans, and naturally neither do I. Nor does your idle Western Oriental Gentleman, your third buddha, who incidentally, ate the food and took the medicine and lived shelter provided to him for by the TGIE and Tibetan refugee working people for many years before becoming a UK lord of the manor.
As a part of the general monastic community around Lhasa, GKG attended many public teachings, including the 14th Dalai Lama’s Lamrim Jampel Shalung at the Norbu Linka summer palace and in 1954 and 1956, along with most of the monks and public from the area, he received the Kalachakra Initiation from 14th Dalai Lama (this was the first Kalachakra initiation by the 14th Dalai Lama). “Geshe” Kelsang’s denial is not surprising, considering he has touted himself as a full Geshe all these years, when he never took the requisite exam.
Lyara: So Samten Karmay’s article was put on Phayul.com for people’s consideration…where is the political repression in that?, thats sounds like normal freedom of speech and presenting a diversity of views. Your projections onto this are your own, probably just NKT/WSS indoctrination baggage.
“I can’t help thinking the arguments for using a political bandstand to actually ban a religious practice are just too flimsy”
Jeremy, the practice in question had a political function for Phabongkhapa from the start. It was used by him to justify Gelug supremacy and bolster the Gelug hegemony. This has continued in Trijang Rinpoche’s writings and those of his followers.
I’m not judging him, but I feel that Lineage Holder’s great debating skills come down to him denying the sectarian roots of this protector practice just because Phabongkhapa was wonderful (in LH’s opinion). I think this is a logical fallacy referred to as an appeal to authority.
Gen Hur, I hope you are right and that things will move in the right direction, toward democracy and a separation of church and state for Tibetans. Maybe it will take time. I just think that it is a shame that Shugden practitioners have to suffer in the meantime. And just because I am a Westerner does not make my views less valid.
Dorje, I know you have a great distaste for Je Phabongkhapa, but please at least acknowledge that there exist very different views of him and that many trusted and reliable people have revered him as a holy being.
The first question is, did Je Phabongkhapa use political power against the Nyingmapas?
According to you, yes. According to other people, no.
Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa, and Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava; so it would be impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava or his followers.
As for the source of these rumors, when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet (Kham), many people came to his teachings. He was widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the same time some locals, jealous of his success, spread rumours, saying that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth. People are now using this rumor to try and destroy the reputation of a highly qualified and revered Lama.
Even Lama Zopa, who has backed the Dalai Lama’s ban on Dorje Shugden, in October 2000 dismissed these rumors:
“Another thing is that some Tibetans and others severely criticize Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo because he practiced Shugden, making him out to be some kind of demon. However, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo wrote incredible teachings on sutra and tantra; on Heruka, Tara Cittamani and many other topics. All these amazing teachings were written purely from his experience. So it’s impossible that he can really be some kind of evil being, as those extremists accuse him of being. There’s no way he could have done the negative things they say he did.”
Je Phabongkhapa did not interfere in the freedom of others to worship as they choose. He never banned anyone’s spiritual practice using political power. The Dalai Lama has undeniably banned a spiritual practice, and evidence of this is everywhere.
The Dalai Lama has freedom to do as he chooses in his own practice. If he wants to stop Dorje Shugden practice and choose other practices through receiving certain indications such as dreams and so forth, then he is free to do so. I would never criticize him for this, but because he is interfering in the freedom of others to worship as they choose.
In the same way if Je Phabongkhapa, through his dreams and other indications stopped certain practices, including some Nyingma practices, then this was his choice. It may be that in his dreams he felt Dorje Shugden was telling him to stop some of his Nyingma practices, but this does not imply that Dorje Shugden does not like the Nyingma tradition. It merely indicates that Je Phabongkhapa had no karmic connection with the Nyingma tradition. If there is no karmic connection with a particular practice, then one will not receive any good results.
It is possible that Je Phabongkhapa encouraged some of his disciples to stop their Nyingma practice, but again it does not mean that Je Phabongkhapa was telling them that Nyingma practice is not pure, but rather to encourage them to concentrate on their own tradition. Teachers of all traditions and all religions encourage their people to concentrate on their own tradition. What is wrong with this?
Lyara, I have acknowledged that there were two different views of Phabongkhapa. Both Beyer and Samuel agree also.
Undoubtedly, his supporters thought he was marvellous. By the same token it is not unsuprising to see why those he used his political power to suppress and coerce were less than impressed with him.
I have given a few accounts of his sectarian behaviour and that of his followers. It would be wrong to dismiss these accounts as coming from the jealousy of others without any proof. These accounts do come from both high lamas and reputable scholars.
For evidence that these accounts are true, I have pointed to his political position and the fact that many Nyingma gompas in Kham, especially Dragyab, Chamdo and Dhartsedo were forced to follow the Gelug tradition. This included the change of allegiance of tulkus who were previously Nyingma. Maybe Lama Zopa would have a view on that.
“Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa, and Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava; so it would be impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava or his followers.”
You would think so wouldn’t you? But in practice is doesn’t follow. I have already quoted Phabongkhapa above saying that other traditions especially Dzogchen are “faulty dangerous and misleading paths.” Lineage Holder seemed to agree with this point.
By the way, Phabongkhapa didn’t just visit eastern Tibet. He was sent there by the Tibetan government to sure up support for the Lhasa regime in the face of fequent invasions by the Chinese and the growing power of other local political entities, such as the Royal house of Dege, who were busy supporting the Rime movement. Phabongkhapa was a politician doing a politician’s job. In doing that, he forced many Khampas to kowtow again to the Dalai Lama’s government.
I just noticed you are quoting Kelsang Gyatso. I’m sorry, but I think it is lacking in ‘manners’ to quote large tracts of someone else’s speech and not attribute it to them.
And also, you do not know that I have a great distaste for Phabongkhapa. We are debating a point of history, not our personal tastes. I can see there is more than enough historical evidence to show that Phabongkhapa was deeply sectarian and used his political power to force others act accordingly.
Lyara writes “People are now using this rumor to try and destroy the reputation of a highly qualified and revered Lama.”
Excuse me, but this happened, like 80-90 years ago. Lyara, were you there in Tibet at that time to report with such certainty, wow, he died in 1941. Were you with the late Trijang Rinpoche to qualify you to pass judgement on his students? No, I didn’t think so.
In the meantime we lost our country and have other rather more pressing priorities…like simple survival for starters and the future–if any, of our culture, and not just for the entertainment of a few bored Europeans. I personally am least concerned about the reputation of a long dead lama, the ghost of a rival of Gyalwa Ngapa and other exotic spiritual trivia.
If you read the Dalai Lama’s comments to the Gelugpa Conference, he admires Phobangka’s teachings on Lamrim and similarly respects his former junior tutor, also an astute commentator on the Lamrim. It is certainly not up to NKT novices (or indeed the many Chinese ultra-nationalist fanatic Tibet detractors) to comment on the Dalai Lama’s relationship with the previous Trijang Rinpoche–this is highly inappropriate, as it is based at best on primarily on remote personal surmise rather than adequate evidence of their relationship.
In any case, His Holiness points out that Atisha himself differed with his master Serlingpa who was a cittamatrin, but nonetheless learned from him more importantly bodhicitta, the central practice that distinguishes Mahayana from other mundane tenets. You can read it for yourself in the below link, but I figure the NKT/WSS, the masters of the target painter’s fallacy, have already selectively taken snippets to fit their own aberrations, the same way they are attempting to press Samten Karmay’s editorial into service for their defamation campaign. Why don’t you ask Samten Karmay himself his assessment of NKT/WSS, you may not like the answer you get. Why not fully share with us what people on Phayul.com are saying about NKT/WSS?…you may not like that either.
So, to return to your quote it really sounds like what NKT/WSS is doing now than anything else.
Speech by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to the Second Gelug Conference (Dharamsala, 6 Dec 2000)
http://www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm
“People are now using this rumor to try and destroy the reputation of a highly qualified and revered Lama.”
Phabongkhapa had a very bad reputation amongst those he oppressed from the very time of his sectarian purges. Ask any Kagyu or Nyingma lama from Kham what they think of him.
Dear all,
I find it very strange that the Dalai Lama is constantly going on about non-sectarianism while at the same time doing a hatchet job on his own root Guru and Lineage Gurus, and many of you are doing the same. Surely there’s some contradiction here?
If the DL was truly non-sectarian he would allow Dorje Shugden practitioners the freedom to practise their tradition. Why do traditions have to criticise each other? I understand that you think that Pabongkha was sectarian. I don’t believe he was because he was a holy being with great knowledge and experience of Buddhadharma and he would never mix religion and politics, but even if he was, he passed away in 1941. The question I asked Dorje was “can you give me some examples of modern day sectarian behaviour by Dorje Shugden practitioners?” He didn’t reply, but simply replied with more stuff about Pabongkha.
Surely if Pabongkha is the only example of Shugden sectarianism you can come up with it was wrong for the Dalai Lama to ban the practice on the basis of sectarianism? I believe this was a smokescreen for the Dalai Lama to justify his political action. If I could talk to him I would ask him the same question - can he name Shugden practitioners and their actions to prove their sectarianism?
Let’s look at famous Shugden practitioners - Trijang Rinpoche, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Tomo Geshe Rinpoche, Geshe Ngawang Dhargye, Lama Yeshe, not to mention all those Gelugpa Lamas who have given up their practice under pressure from the Dalai Lama such as Lama Zopa Rinpoche and Gelek Rinpoche as well as many others. None of these guys was sectarian. There’s a famous picture of Trijang sitting in front of a thangkha with Guru Rinpoche in the background. I know because we’ve got a copy of it in our Dharma centre, so where is this charge of sectarianism coming from?
Here’s the challenge - if Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian, quote me some examples of sectarianism other than Pabongkha. Quote me some examples from the past fifty years and show me that the Dalai Lama was right.
The teachings that Phabonkhapa gave were repeated again by his students like Trijang Rinpoche and Zemey Tulku.
The point of the protector was first to stop Gelugpas taking teachings from other traditions. This emphasis on exclusive adherence is not common amongst Tibetan practitioners, as many non-sectarian lamas can testify. The next step, which Phabongkhapa took above, as I showed, is to emphasise that the Gelug tradition is ‘best’ and the others are “faulty dangerous and misleading paths.” This is again reinterated by the followers of Phabongkhapa, such as Trijang Rinpoche in the Gyalchen Toddrel.
The last step of sectarianism is to convert followers of other traditions through force. Phabongkhapa was able to do this but since the Chinese invasion it has become more difficult. That’s not to say that it has not happened. I already pointed out the example of Lama Gangchen forcing the monks of Gangchen gompa to worship this protector. That was a lot less than fifty years ago.
“If the DL was truly non-sectarian he would allow Dorje Shugden practitioners the freedom to practise their tradition. Why do traditions have to criticise each other?”
The Dalai Lama is not criticising another tradition, he is removing the sectarian influence in his own tradition. There is a big difference between doing that and forcing a monastery of another tradition to destroy their texts and images and have them adopt your own tradition wholesale.
Dear Dorje,
You said:
The Dalai Lama is responsible for the destruction of images of Dorje Shugden and forcing others to adopt his view. Under his view, Tibetans have destroyed such images and thrown them into the trash:
The Dalai Lama himself is guilty of such crimes:
http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1996EN.html
What’s the difference between his actions and those you accuse Pabongkha of? The Dalai Lama has attempted to force Shugden practitioners to renounce their practice and adopt his view through an enforced signature campaign, all because he has the view that Shugden is an evil spirit. If you condemn Pabongkha, you must also condemn the Dalai Lama, or is sectarianism and the desecration of holy images acceptable depending upon who is doing the destroying and persecuting?
Dear Dorje,
You said:
I found an account of this event:
http://www.tchrd.org/publications/hr_updates/2000/hr200006.html#evacuation
One part of the account in particular does not ring true:
Reformated!
Dear Dorje,
You said:
I already pointed out the example of Lama Gangchen forcing the monks of Gangchen gompa to worship this protector. That was a lot less than fifty years ago.
I found an account of this event:
http://www.tchrd.org/publications/hr_updates/2000/hr200006.html#evacuation
One part of the account in particular does not ring true:
The monastery existed before the Chinese invasion. Shugden practice was central to the Gelugpa tradition before the Dalai Lama began destroying the practice and Lama Gangchen himself is renowed as a devoted Shugden practitioner (he has received a lot of criticism for it). All of this leads me to believe that the account is untrue in this respect. There must have been a history of Dorje Shugden worship at this monastery.
If that is the case, is it not reasonable to expect those who are at a Dorje Shugden worshipping monastery to worship Dorje Shugden? Why else would they be there? It’s like monks being at the Gelugpa monastery saying “I’m not going to do Gelugpa practices, I want to be Kagyu”. Fine - then go to a Kagyu monastery! Of course I don’t think it’s right to force anyone to follow a practice that they don’t want to do, but where’s the evidence for this?
Furthermore, why would the monks refuse to practise Shugden? Only because the Dalai Lama has badmouthed the practice and most people want to do what the Dalai Lama says out of blind faith. He’s ultimately responsible for this schism because if people regarded Dorje Shugden as a Buddha, they would have no problem with doing the practice. It’s the Dalai Lama who is spreading the wrong view that DS is an evil spirit and discouraging others from practising, so he’s ultimately responsible.
The DL forces people to make a choice - it’s either him or Dorje Shugden and what Tibetan would turn their back on the Dalai Lama unless they had no attachment and strong wisdom realizing that he was wrong and that stopping attending his teachings was a small price to pay for continuing with their Protector practice?
Many Tibetans are between ‘a rock and a hard place’ when it comes to making a choice between the DL and Dorje Shugden. Whichever way you cut, the Dalai Lama’s actions have created a horrible schism in the Sangha and a lot of spiritual conflict in his followers. It’s horrible!
Lineageholder: “All of this leads me to believe …If that is the case, is it not reasonable to expect”
…that is all highly speculative, you have no first-hand or even second-hand knowledge of Gangchen monastery–just projecting from internet factoids and then making a broad unrelated political judgment. That is not sound reasoning and is a waste of readers time.
Dear namkhah,
All the rubbish that people have posted about Pabongkha is baseless slander and unverifiable, but that hasn’t stopped people posting it again and again and again…now THAT is a waste of readers’ time.
On the other hand, the desecration and persecution that the Dalai Lama has visited on Dorje Shugden images and practitioners has eyewitness accounts and is verifiable, however in your eyes the Dalai Lama is a Buddha and Pabongkha is a sectarian demon….now isn’t that strange?
Lineageholder: Idols are not important unless one is an idolater, that dispatches the first part. I have no interest in some obscure evangelist self proclaimed whatever. Rasputin was hard to put down too, but he got his.
Your last statement is not axiomatic in the least, just absurd. What is the main point and what are minor trivialities not to get fixated on it may be wise to ponder. When presented with extensive scriptural references, you dismiss wholesale them as propaganda or rubbish, that is not argument just automatic gainsaying as a segue to repeat your slogans. The sad fact is you are outgunned if you cannot read primary sources, maybe you should live in Dharamsala for a couple of decades and become literate.
Dear namkhah,
A commitment of refuge is to ‘regard any image of Buddha as an actual Buddha’ For me, Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and to descrate his image is to destroy a Buddha image, the opposite of Buddhist refuge. Anyone who does so is breaking their refuge commitment.
It’s like this - even if you don’t regard Shugden as a Buddha it would be wrong to desecrate his image because it’s important to respect others, their beliefs and their feelings. Even though images of Hindu gods, Jesus or the Virgin Mary have no religious significance for me, I would never desecrate them because those images are very meaningful and are objects of worship for members of those religions, and as a trainee Bodhisattva I should respect the feelings and beliefs of members of those religions.
What the Dalai Lama and his followers have done is therefore not Buddhist, it’s not the Bodhisattva’s way of life and is, in fact, barbaric.
“I would never desecrate them because those images are very meaningful and are objects of worship for members of those religions, and as a trainee Bodhisattva I should respect the feelings and beliefs of members of those religions.”
What Phabongkhapa and his followers have done is therefore not Buddhist, it’s not the Bodhisattva’s way of life and is, in fact, barbaric.
“All the rubbish that people have posted about Pabongkha is baseless slander and unverifiable, but that hasn’t stopped people posting it again and again and again…now THAT is a waste of readers’ time.”
The accounts I have posted regarding Phabongkhapa’s sectarian purges come from reputable scholars and high lamas. The account from Beyer was written before the Dalai Lama spoke out against this protector practice in 1976. Accounts of Phabongkhapa’s sectarian activity can also be verified by looking at the Nyingma gompas and tulkus that were converted to Gelug. This is not baseless, it is significant in this debate because the sectarianism of Phabongkhapa, as passed on through this protector practice, is the reason for the controversy of the past hundred years, during which time the last two Dalai Lamas placed restrictions on it.
“What’s the difference between his actions and those you accuse Pabongkha of? The Dalai Lama has attempted to force Shugden practitioners to renounce their practice and adopt his view through an enforced signature campaign, all because he has the view that Shugden is an evil spirit. If you condemn Pabongkha, you must also condemn the Dalai Lama, or is sectarianism and the desecration of holy images acceptable depending upon who is doing the destroying and persecuting”
If you accept that Phabongkhapa was sectarian and his protector practice was a vehicle for this sectarianism, as the lamas and scholars I have quoted above do, the Dalai Lama’s actions are absolutely reasonable, as he is removing the cause for further sectarian activity within his own school. Removing sectarianism from one’s own tradition is quite different from forcing your own tradition onto another independent one. This
“The monastery existed before the Chinese invasion. Shugden practice was central to the Gelugpa tradition before the Dalai Lama began destroying the practice and Lama Gangchen himself is renowed as a devoted Shugden practitioner (he has received a lot of criticism for it). All of this leads me to believe that the account is untrue in this respect. There must have been a history of Dorje Shugden worship at this monastery.”
The worship of this protector was not observed uniformly amongst all Gelug gompas. Some were very dedicated followers, like the seats of the various oracles, others had ties with other protectors. Phabongkhapa’s influence was not all pervasive. Some Gelug lamas had been very critical of this new adoption of a protector.
Lama Gangchen had not been recognised and accepted as the true tulku of that monastery by the monks in it. They were forced to accept him by the Chinese authorities, as the text in question makes clear.
Lineageholder: Whoa, dude “it’s important to respect others, their beliefs and their feelings.’
Excuse me, reality check time: NKT/WSS is hurting the feelings and insulting Tibetans, Sherpas, Mongolians and so forth daily on multiple websites. In fact you are devoting all your creative energies to negative attack sites, much to your own detriment, you have virtually guaranteed that unless former Geshela, apologizes sincerely and retracts his position, he and you his mouthpieces will be the losers.
I don’t think your entrail-draped, sea of blood smell of burning human flesh etc. ‘protector’ is the equivalent of the Virgin Mary, maybe Kalima.
“Lineageholder” writes:”Here’s the challenge - if Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian, quote me some examples of sectarianism other than Pabongkha. Quote me some examples from the past fifty years and show me that the Dalai Lama was right.”
If you go back and read the thread, you’ll find an account of a meeting with the heads of all the lineages, post-Tibetan Diaspora. It’s pretty clear that attempts were made by Trijang Rinpoche, at that time, to “install” the Geluk as the “outward” face of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. Some claimed this was the Dalai Lama’s “scheme,” but accounts are clear that this came from Trijang Rinpoche, If I recall. In any case, until the last twenty years or so, academia in the West embraced and reflected the “mainstream” Gelukpa interpretation of most issues of doctrine and practice, apart from Evans-Wentz, perhaps, and it is only now that we are seeing a wider variety of divergent views being published.
Regarding the “New Kadampa” tag, one would question why a new organization, with a new “lineage designation,” needed to be made. It is true that Lam Rim is emphasized in Gelukpa. However, Atisha’s traditions, and those of his heirs, are found in all four institutional lineages to this day. Taranatha wrote a Lam Rim. Gampopa’s Lam Rim is deservedly famous. To say Gelukpa practice focuses on Lam Rim does not really differentiate it from the other lineages. Paltrul Rinpoche’s “Words of My Perfect Teacher” is also a Lam Rim, in part. And the Sakyas have the Triple Vision, see Dezhung Rinpoche’s “Three Levels of Spiritual Perception” for their take on Lam Rim.
In fact, I’d argue that all the institutional lineages share common roots in the Sutras, from which Lam Rim teachings stem. It is when we discuss tantric practice, and View, especially regarding Sunyata and Buddha Nature, that the lineages differ. It does appear, from what I’ve read and studied, that NKT does maintain the Madhyamika interpretation of Tsong Khapa, as do all Gelukpas. This, in fact, is one of the defining characteristics of Gelukpa lineage since Tsong Khapa’s time. but from the POV of Tantric practice, it’s clear that Pabongkha instituted some practices which were not part of Tsong Khapa’s lineage, and he emphasized certain practices, including Dolgyal, who replaced the Three Protectors of Tsong Khapa. If you pick up any books regarding Tantric practice published by NKT/Tharpa Publications, you’ll find no mention of Tsong Khapa’s protectors of the three scopes.
So I think it’s clear that post-Phabongkhapa “Gelukpas” have a substantially different practicum than the mainstream Gelukpas.
Tenzin Peljor, I just noticed this sentence in one of your earlier posts:
“What people is taught in NKT is the understanding of Tibetan Buddhism (or Gelug school) according to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and this is in some cases very different and most often rather superficial with respect to the origin sources of Je Tsongkhapa or Atisha. Only a person who knows both schools can compare both approaches.”
Could you give examples of those “some cases” where Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s understanding differs from that of Je Tsongkhapa and Atisha? Can you give examples of “most often” where his works are “rather superficial”? What do you mean by “both schools” and “both approaches”? And are you one of those people who feels they are in a position to make this comparison?
Generally, Geshe Kelsang’s books are accepted as being very close to Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings, and they have received high praise for their clarity and profundity (including from those who do not agree with his position on Dorje Shugden). People often criticize Geshe Kelsang but they rarely criticize his books (unless they haven’t read them). So I was curious to find out exactly what you were referring to? Thank you.
Lyara: Regarding Tharpa books: I am guessing they substantially are ghost written and heavily edited, having heard former Geshela’s spoken english. I am certain Tharpa books are not distributed by Snow Lion since GKG’s expulsion, nor will they accept paid advertising from them.
Dear Kagyupa,
You said
Some people will stop at nothing to blacken the names of Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche for their own nefarious political purposes. I have learned many things about the Dalai Lama in my research, such as he has definitely lied about many things and he likes to hide behind others in order to protect his own reputation. I’m really sorry to have to say that and I don’t want to offend anyone, but it’s true. The Dalai Lama tends to hide behind the TGIE, even though they carry out his will without question. In 1993 he disowned responsibility for the CIA’s support of the Tibetan guerillas when later it was revealed that he was on the CIA payroll to the tune of $186,000 a year. The Dalai Lama is a politician and politicians are well known for lying or spinning the truth to accomplish their goals. The Dalai Lama has done both, sadly. I can prove it.
So, given this, when people accuse Trijang Rinpoche of being responsible for something that was the Dalai Lama’s idea, these are lies. This scheme to unite all schools of Tibetan Buddhism under the Dalai Lama failed spectacularly when it was opposed by the 16th Karmapa and the Thirteen Tibetan Settlements. This is from Asiaweek in October 2000:
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/1020/is.tibet.html
The Dalai Lama is not interested in Gelugpa hegemony, he’s interested in Dalai Lama hegemony and he wants to unite all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism under him, calling it ‘the Nalanda Tradition’. These days the Dalai Lama only talks about this, not about individual schools of Tibetan Buddhism. This is from an interview with the Dalai Lama in Nottingham 2008:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/realmedia/2008/05/dalai_lama_sumeer_kalyani.ram
The Dalai Lama’s call for harmony and non-sectarianism is simply his smokescreen to create one Nalanda Tradition headed by him. As you are aware, he’s not the head of any Tibetan tradition of Buddhism presently.
The Dalai Lama knew that such a move would be opposed by Gelugpas who do not want to mix traditions, and so he weakened the Gelugs by banning their protector Deity Dorje Shugden. This is the real reason why he banned the practice, not because it was causing disharmony - it was simply standing in the way of his consolidating all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism under him.
Lineageholder: Asiaweek is a Chinese magazine, they are not infallible. As a lay student of the Sixteenth Gyalwa Karmapa, I can give a little sketch of the lifelong, cordial relationship between himself and the present Dalai Lama:
In 1954, the Dalai Lama and the Sixteenth Karmapa travelled together to Beijing at the invitation of Mao’s regime. Following his return to Tsurphu, which is near Lhasa, Karmapa constructed a special residence for the Dalai Lama and requested he visit Tsurphu. Upon the arrival of the 14th Dalai Lama, H.H. Karmapa asked for the initiation of Thousand Arm Chenresigs from him, and the Dalai Lama in turn asked Gyalwa Karmapa to perform the Vajra crown ceremony for the large gathering of people sharing in the festivities. Also a Padmasambhava Tsam was danced at this time. The two also commemorated the 2500th anniversary of Lord Buddha’s Parinirvana in India in 1956. At around this time in Kham, Chusi Gangdruk who were responsible for the Dalai Lama’s safe passage to india in 1959, offered a beautiful and extremely precious golden throne to the 14th Dalai Lama out of profound devotion and respect. In 1959, when the political situation had deteriorated badly, so, after sending his young tulkus to safety in Bhutan, H.H. Karmapa notified the Dalai Lama of his intention to leave Tibet, and finally deciding on The Kingdom of Sikkim for his new home.
So as you can see, until Karmapa Rangjung Rikpe Doje’s death in 1981, the two lamas were very good friends…this is dharma activity, I don’t know what it is you practice…it just seems to be muckraking and vile gossip.
I’ve seen the allegations regarding Karmapa and the meeting of the four lineages, but I’m not confident of the source. How does one reconcile that with this quote, from earlier in the thread:
“After the Diaspora, Trijiang Rinpoche, appointed to the task of setting up the TGIE, wanted all the exile schools to be administered by the TGIE. Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma would not assent to this, and the Dalai Lama sided with them– in a youthful display of independence from the junior tutor.
So, Trijiang Rinpoche settled for bringing the administration of the three main schools of the Gelugpas under the centralized adminstration of the TGIE with the Dalai Lama as the head of the everything.
So if you have a complaint about how things are set up in India, blame Trijiang– he set up the TGIE.”
Phabongkhapa was a politician and politicians are well known for lying or spinning the truth to accomplish their goals. Phabongkhapa has done both, sadly. I can prove it.
After the 13th Dalai Lama asked Phabongkhapa to stop propagating the worship of his protector, Phabongkhapa wrote back
“I have propitiated Shugden until now because my old mother told me that Shugden is the deity of my maternal lineage. I wish to inform you that henceforth, with intense regret (for what is past) and (with the intention of) restraining my faults (in the future), I will never again propitiate (Shugden) or make daily offerings and supporting prayers and that I will wholeheartedly keep this commitment in the core of my heart. Whatever mistakes I have committed until now, such as having become a cause for the mental displeasure of the Great Nechung Choegyal, contradicting the precepts of taking refuge and so forth, I request you, the supreme protector, who is especially compassionate to the lowly, to regard me with love and great compassion and patiently to forgive me. With great respect I here offer one silk scarf as a medium of request and five silver coins (to contribute to the) mandala offering.”
“The Dalai Lama’s call for harmony and non-sectarianism is simply his smokescreen to create one Nalanda Tradition headed by him. As you are aware, he’s not the head of any Tibetan tradition of Buddhism presently.
The Dalai Lama knew that such a move would be opposed by Gelugpas who do not want to mix traditions, and so he weakened the Gelugs by banning their protector Deity Dorje Shugden. This is the real reason why he banned the practice, not because it was causing disharmony - it was simply standing in the way of his consolidating all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism under him.”
This is a fiction with absolutely nothing even remotely approaching evidence to back it up. The Dalai Lama advised against this sectarian practice precisely because it is sectarian. No monastic institutions of other traditions have fallen under his authority at all. If I am incorrect in this, name them.
The Dalai Lama’s authority extends to the Ganden Phodrang alone. All major Gelugpa gompas receive funding and fall under the authority of the Ganden Phodrang of which the Dalai Lama is the head.
It is true that all Tibetan traditions are heirs to the great Nalanda Tradition as the great Indian scholars of the past formulated the philosophical and logical basis to all Tibetan schools. This is nothing strange. It just shows that the Dharma in Tibet has its sources in the great scholars of Nalanda like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asangha and Vasubandu.
Lieageholder: Italians have their Anti-Defamation League, Jews have b’nai brith to defend their interests, perhaps it is time for Tibetans to stand up for their own rights. Imagine launching multiple websites attacking is Holiness the Pope’s every utterance, you would surely be hearing from legal counsel. In the country I reside in, attacking an identifiable ethnic group is considered a hate crime and, for example:
“Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” Further, “A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”
Accusing the Dalai Lama of conspiracy to murder the 16th Karmapa clearly fits this definition.
You ought to be more prudent in your speech or you’ll be trading red for stripes.
Gen Hur,
No, the books are certainly not ghost-written.
Geshe Kelsang receives editorial help for expressing in Western languages the spiritual meanings contained within the texts he writes, but he writes the texts themselves. As anybody who has worked with Geshe Kelsang can attest, the process of converting the teachings into texts, and the texts into books is a very involved process, going back and forth many times with Geshe Kelsang to ensure that editorial changes do not distort in any way the spiritual meanings he intends to convey.
From http://www.newkadampatruth.org/newkadampatradition2.php#25
Gyalpo,
“A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”
This could equally well apply to the libel against Shugden practitioners, who are vilified on a daily basis, called demon worshippers, cultists, sectarians, Chinese agents, and murderers.
Imagine what that feels like.
Dear Dorje,
Everyone believes what the Dalai Lama says, so who hasn’t fallen under his authority? You’re proving it. Who questions the wisdom of the Dalai Lama’s actions? Very few Tibetans or Tibetan Buddhists I’ve come across.
As Dougal said earlier in this thread “why does everybody stop thinking when the DL speaks? you’re supposed to be Buddhists”. If the DL’s tradition really was the Nalanda Tradition many people would possess the incisive minds and logical powers of great Masters like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and Aryadeva would easily be able to see through what the Dalai Lama’s doing, but very few object, so that must tell you something.
Dear Gyalpo,
I’m not accusing the Dalai Lama of attempting to murder the 16th Karmapa, I was quoting an article in Asiaweek. You can find discussion about the Dalai Lama’s involvement in this controversy on many websites. Just Google ‘Gungthang Tsultrim murder’ and see what I mean.
Dorje Shugden practitioners are always being unjustly accused of the murder of Lobsang Gyatso, so how does it feel now? Perhaps you have a taste of the injustice of such an accusation if you believe the Dalai Lama is innocent of any involvement.
“Everyone believes what the Dalai Lama says, so who hasn’t fallen under his authority?”
What non-Gelug monastic institutions have fallen under the authority of the Dalai Lama?
Dear Kagyupa,
Yes, I am aware that there is lamrim in other traditions, but do they regard lamrim as their main practice? Anyone who has lamrim as their main practice is Kadampa and this is the special emphasis of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.
Dear Dorje,
Implicitly, they all are because who would disagree with or go against the Dalai Lama?
This is not true and certainly does not amount to a merging of all four schools under the Dalai Lama.
Lineageholder: “Dorje Shugden practitioners are always being unjustly accused of the murder of Lobsang Gyatso, so how does it feel now?”
Thats should read Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, who unlike your CEO was an actual Geshe. There is an important distinction in the case of the Shugden cult murders: Himachal Pradesh police had a mobile phone left by one of the perpetrators that linked them to the Shugden Society in Delhi, where they were also seen. Secondly, Interpol has an outstanding warrant on two of the Shugden cult murderers who fled to China, this is well known and reported by BBC and others. There is, therefore, solid evidence and the case is open.
How you can make such a deceitful accusation and sleep at night is astonishing. I guess you’ve meditated yourself into a state of enhanced stupefaction.
Tenzin: “Imagine what that feels like.’
Yes, imagine what it feels like to have your school principal, the Head of the School of Dialectics and your next door neighbor brutally slashed with two others by cult murderer thugs, with clear ties to the NKT/WSS colleague, the Shugden Society in Delhi.
…imagine
Dear Gyalpo and Namkhah,
I think you’re forgetting that the Tibetan Government in Exile actively tried to deceive everyone about the link between the terrible murders of Ven Lobsang Gyatso and his assistants and Dorje Shugden practitioners.
This is from Helmut Gassner:
If TGIE is prepared to lie about something like this, what else are they lying about? Actually, they’ve lied about many things. For example, on this video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b-j-c5u50nw
you can see Tashi Wangdu again, this time saying “there’s no ban [of Dorje Shugden]” This is a blantant lie when the Dalai Lama has used the word ‘ban’ himself in public speeches in India.
Basically, TGIE can’t be trusted so when people go on about how there’s a definite link to Dorje Shugden practitioners who are wanted by Interpol and so on and so on, I have to take it ‘with a pinch of salt’. I don’t trust their stories and I don’t trust their ‘evidence’. A history of lies and deceit on the part of TGIE gives me no confidence in anything they say.
I don’t consider Helmut, the erstwhile ‘translator’, a reliable source, or Youtube videos generally–you’re going to need to do better than that. My kids are not allowed to cite Wikipedia in public school essays, why should anyone rely on dodgy sources speaking of pinch of salt?
“This is a blantant lie when the Dalai Lama has used the word ‘ban’ himself in public speeches in India.” As one can safely assume assume he was not speaking in English, it begs the question what precisely are the original words and who rendered this as ‘ban’, its pretty vague with no references, don’t you think?
“in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT.”
–Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
so what is WSS, chopped liver?
Reason Number 29) At the demonstrations certain members of ordained sangha had to wear lay clothes inorder to do security work. I guess a monk in robes wouldnt be able to “take some one down” fast enough.
http://kelsangbrat.blogspot.com/
Dear Namkhah,
I’m amazed! You’re denying the manifest truth. Whatever you think of Youtube, there’s still the appearance of Tashi Wangdu (undeniably) saying “there’s no ban”. If you won’t believe the evidence of your own senses it makes me wonder what you would accept as true.
It’s like someone with their fingers in their ears saying “I can’t hear anything!”
As for ban, you might try to introduce a doubt as to whether it was translated correctly, but consider these:
March 10th, 1996
During annual teachings at the Thekchen Choeling Temple in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama imposes a ban on worshipping Dorje Shugden, ‘Whether outside of Tibet or within Tibet, this deity is discordant with our government and all our deities; this is serious in the context of the common cause of Tibet. It will be good if you comply (with what we are saying) without our having to resort to this last step. It will be the last resort if we have to knock on your doors (if you do not follow this advice).’
November 19th-21st, 1996
The Dalai Lama travels to South India to visit Tibetan monasteries at Mundgod, without the traditional request, which is unprecedented for a Dalai Lama. The Dorje Shugden Society holds off a peaceful demonstration in the hope of reconciliation with the Dalai Lama. They petition the Dalai Lama, but they are denied an audience. The Dalai Lama speaks in even harsher terms about the ban, and threatens, ‘You might feel that by publishing letters, pamphlets, etc. against this ban, the Dalai Lama will revoke the ban. This will never be the case. If you take a hard stand, I will tighten this ban still further.’
A further description of what the Dalai Lama said:
On November 20th the Dalai Lama gives a talk at Drepung Lama Camp from 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. In this talk the Dalai Lama says that he is no longer striving for complete independence for Tibet from China. Tibetans, in view of their small population, large land mass, lack of natural resources, need for industrialization, should therefore be striving more for genuine autonomy under China rather than complete independence. As times change later on, independence can be mooted.
He also says, ‘During this year’s New Year teachings, I spoke against the worship of Shugden, and expressed my feeling. I did not ask the Tibetan exile Cabinet or the exile Tibetan parliament to enforce the ban. However, they voluntarily supported me. I appreciate their show of support. Likewise, among the abbots, there have been many who gave up worship of Shugden after my talks; I give them my thanks for their compliance.’
August 27th, 1998
At the Annual Convention of the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) at the Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV), Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama, in the course of his opening address, says: ‘I have imposed this ban for three reasons: (1) Throughout history this worship has been at odds with the Ganden Phodrang ruling government of Tibet, (2) Buddhism, which is very profound, is in danger of degenerating into spirit worship, and (3) worship of Dholgyal (Shugden) creates sectarianism. For these three reasons I have imposed the ban. You, the younger generation, should be careful. It is dangerous. I was informed that more than a hundred worshippers
of Dholgyal were coming.’
January 13th, 1999
The Dalai Lama pays a visit to Trijang Labrang, the residence of His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche (1900-1981), his tutor. At a gathering of the Labrang’s monks, the Dalai Lama says: ‘…during my visit to Switzerland, Lobsang asked that the current Choktul Rinpoche be allowed to worship Dorje Shugden like his predecessor, without a decision through the dough ball divination. He also told me that the ban on Shugden worship is causing widespread suffering to everyone, and that it may be revoked. This is ridiculous talk. My reason for banning the Protector is in the interest of Tibetan’s politics and religion, as well as for the Gelug tradition. In our face-to-face meeting, I also told Rinpoche to understand that we may be meeting each other for the last time.’
During this private audience with the Dalai Lama, Ven. Choezed-la, the eldest official at Trijang Labrang, humbly points out that the religious ban has created an unprecedented atmosphere of hostility against both Shartse monastery and against Trijang Labrang, which is not very different from the atmosphere of the Cultural Revolution in Tibet. He requests that, to lift the suffering within the Tibetan public from this atmosphere, would the Dalai Lama kindly consider
revoking the ban.
To this, the Dalai Lama angrily replies, ‘There will be no change in my stand. I will never revoke the ban. You are right. It will be like the Cultural Revolution. If they (those who do not accept the ban) do not listen to my words, the situation will grow worse for them. You sit and watch. It will grow only worse for them.’
January 14th, 1999
During the first public address of his visit to Drepung Monastery, the Dalai Lama touches briefly on the Tibetan issue, and dwells on his ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden. An excerpt reads: ‘The Dorje Shugden Society play games with me wherever I go. They have published an announcement. They think that I will back off. That I will never do. If not in this life, a successor will be appointed to sustain this ban.’
L: Is there source for this interpretive chronology or is it simply apocryphal?
Is someone willing to put their actual name to it or is from a ‘deep throat’ in a parking garage?
Dear namkhah,
Here’s a link for the complete chronicle:
http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html
Here’s another link for a YouTube video that has audio recordings of the Dalai Lama and Kalon Tripa’s speeches about the ban:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xqsrHiSa7Zc
You can deny this evidence if you wish but it’s there for everyone to see.
As a final word on this issue, people sometimes ask why Geshe Kelsang decided to create a new, separate Buddhist tradition called the New Kadampa Tradition. Based on the evidence on this blog, I think it’s obvious!
There are people on this blog who believe that precious Lamas such as Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, the two greatest Gelugpa Lamas of the last century were hateful, political activists who destroyed monasteries and tried to control the other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism.
There are people who believe that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit, the worship of whom harm the Dalai Lama’s health and the cause of Tibetan independence and there are those who believe that Dorje Shugden devotees have committed murder. Who wouldn’t want to separate from a tradition that holds such views?
If you are a Gelugpa under the Dalai Lama, there is no possibility to practise Dharma free from political interference and no freedom to engage in traditional Gelugpa practices unless you are prepared to separate from your family and friends and have nothing to do with them. Your great Lineage Gurus are made scapegoats for the Dalai Lama’s mistakes and to justify his views, and you’re personally made a scapegoat for all the problems of Tibetan society. And yet, despite all this, the Dalai Lama claims to be non-sectarian. If that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is!
If you were a Gelugpa under Phabongkhapa, there was no possibility to practise Dharma free from political interference and no freedom to engage in traditional Gelugpa practices.
Instead, Phabongkhapa forced his followers to adopt foreign practices taken from the Sakya tradition and elsewhere. He did this for political purposes, to force people into exclusive adherence to his own interpretation of Je Tsongkhapa’s Dharma, an interpretation that Je Rinpoche would not recognise.
If anyone wants to engage in traditional Gelugpa practices, such as Guhyasamaja and the other yidams and protectors Je Rinpoche recommended, they would be better off turning their back on Phabongkhapa’s sectarian faction.
“There are people on this blog who believe that precious Lamas such as Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, the two greatest Gelugpa Lamas of the last century were hateful, political activists who destroyed monasteries and tried to control the other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism.”
There are accounts of Phabongkhapa’s sectarian purges in Kham predating the current controversy. Reputable academics and lamas have testified to this. I have provided some quotations from these above.
Lineageholder: So we have a link but still no author’s name, Regardless, there is nothing in your post No. 602 that I find objectionable, its straightforward to me. Don’t forget the soft approach was tried for several years, but was defied openly by Song Rinpoche and others, it didn’t work.
In a different but somewhat related question, if the god Shugden allowed safe passage out of Tibet for the Dalai Lama and party, why did Song Rinpoche and party wear lay person’s chupa, and need to carry firearms and ammunition belts when they left Tibet? Just curious.
NKT divorced itself in the 90’s…so now do you want to get back together? Obviously not, NKT/WSS is on the warpath to cement its failing, scandal-ridden pyramid scheme back together by distracting the inmates. You can cry like Tammy-Faye Bakker as much as you like, Jimbo’s going down.
from http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/05/27/karmapa-and-the-cranes/
“MIPHAM | JUNE 2ND, 2008 | 7:01 PM
Dhogyal or shugden is in sharp decline in Tibetan communities both in exile and in Tibet despite the efforts put to propaagte it by China and shugden organisations and self acclaimed lamas such as Gangchen lama, kesang gyatso, Nya lama etc.
These tibetan traitor lamas and invididuals are now left with western phsychologically bankrupt and weak western worshippers, who do not even know how to dress up or talk sense. The shameful and disruptive protests by shugden during HHDL’s visit to US and UK n EU in collaboration with Chinese govt. are evidence that these self acclaimed lamas are now reduced to only phsychologically bankrupt westerns rather us Tibetans.
I would imagine we should not give platform at all to shugden here on this blog as this blog Jamyang rightfully said is for discussion of ideas regarding freedom, independence of Tibet.”
This is not the first time that Shugden supporters, led by the Delhi based Dorje Shugden Soceity has carried out misinformation and attacks against His Holiness. In fact, they tried to drag HH into court at an earlier ocassion also on the basis of an anonymous threat letter that Geshi Konchok Gyaltsen, the Vice President of the Society had purpotedly recieved. And this sounds totally unjustified to throw the responsibilty on HH. But these are premeditated and planned campagin against HH to redicule and discredit him and these people will go on and on…
What happened to the case the Shugden Society had filed to the Indian Human Rights Commission…..with lots of lies to base their case! Like china, Shugden soceity and its office bearers and supporters rant on that HH has banned Shugden worshippiing……But since 1996 when the Shugden supporters claim this ban was launched, how many days did the Shugden monasteries, particularly Dokhang and Pomra, have passed without performing the invocation and other rituals associated with Shugden? None….in fact, in the past more than 12 years, they have expanded their activities, in total disregard of the majority of the monk community. It is therefore, the majority decided to part with indulging in any congregation along with the Shugdenites. This is their right as Shugdenites have the right to continue with their rituals, but not at the cost of others.
They claim of ban, persecution and destruction, which are all unfounded. If one goes to South India, one can see that it is the Shugden propitiating houses which have expanded far more than other houses, with new Shugden chapels, hostels and dukhangs being built or in the pipeline. These facts competely refute Shugdenites claim as empty and without substance.
Shugdenpas also claim that by naming Shugden as Dholgyal, the opponents are using a derogatory term. But the extended name they use for Shugden is Gyalchen Dorje Shugden Tsal. While terming Shugden as “Gyalchen” means it is Great Gyalpo (spirit). Dholgyal is simililarly used because Shugden happened to menifest himself in a place called Dhol, therefore Gyalpo of Dhol or Spirit from Dhol. Like these things, shugden supporters tend to spread lots of misinformation and their primary target is HH. Why not? they are being paid for this job only by the communist masters….in China. Bod Gyalo!!!!
Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University has denied Time Magazine’s obvious suggestion, in a Jul 18 online posting, that he alleged denial of exile Tibetan government help for worshippers of the controversial Shugden spirit in obtaining Indian government ID card. In an email to this magazine and others, Mr Barnett said he had clearly written to the weekly magazine’s correspondent David van Biema, “ID cards are not given out by the exile administration, but by the Indian authorities”.
He also said he wrote to the correspondent: “I also made it clear that the Western Shugden group’s allegations are problematic: they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics. The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility, since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries – while its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community instead of opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama in order to provoke misinformed publicity for their sect.”
http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?id=632&search_url=%2Fsearch.php%3Fq%3Dshugden%26
murari - nice propaganda on behalf of the Tibetan Government in Exile. I hope your masters are happy.
“There are people who believe that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit”
Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and other lamas that propitiated this protector taught that it killed people that did not adhere exclusively to Phabongkhapa’s interpretation of Gelug practice. They may say it is a Buddha, but still teach that it behaves in a harmful way.
Lineageholder: Here’s an extremely nasty bit of fictive narrative from a site you that recommend:
“Events in 1997
Feb, 5, 1997
The monk director of the Dialectic school, who entertains close ties with Taiwan, was murdered in Dharamsala, together with two of his assistants right in the midst of their school during daylight. The Indian Press, informed by the Exile Government, immediately linked the murder with Shugden devotees. ”
It is inappropriate and a deliberate slight to refer the late Geshe Lobsang Gyatso, merely as a ‘monk’ in view of the fact he was firstly an eminent Geshe and secondly murdered along with two others. You’ll notice the anonymous writer observes the Tibetan custom of not uttering the name(s) of the deceased, but still cannot refrain from insulting them: “entertains close ties with Taiwan” is code for ‘of dubious character, in Tibetan society at this time before relations with ROC were normalized.
So here we have a triple insult, in a mockingly disrespectful and incomplete account of the Shugden cult murders from a group that remains the chief suspect: Dorje Shugden Society, House No 105, Old Tibetan Camp, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi 54, India.
The fictive history continues…”Feb. 14, 1997
The five leaders of Shugden society go to Dharamsala voluntarily to cooperate with the investigation. They are held illegally under tight security in a hotel (to avoid habeas corpus which only covers being held in a police station) for nearly two weeks, interrogated eight hours daily without food, water, or any facilities, or permission to see their lawyer, or contact with their families.”
Wow, two weeks without food and water, I can believe that story, these Shugden guys are really shug chenpo or perhaps just full of it.
Forget the three cult murder victims, they really suffered.
‘If that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is!’
Well it seems you don’t know what it is when you sell us the manifest lies of NKT/WSS
From an NKT sectarian website, under the heading “Profiles of People who Post on the Internet Against the NKT”:”There are other people behind the lies, including: Namkhai Norbu, a Dzogchen teacher”
Lineagehoder, NKT/WSS mouthpiece on this thread earlier attempts to use Samten Karmay’s thoughts on the future of Tibetan polity to attack the Dalai Lama but consider these quotes:
“Even though Tibetan civilization is now being eradicated in its own land under foreign domination, it is most encouraging to note that, on the basis of eclectic thought…it prevails…under the auspices of its leading masters like Rev. Namkhai Norbu”
And furthermore:
“The tradition of rDzogs chen of Padmasamhava has been accepted as a genuine teaching by the dGe lugs pa master, the 1st Pan-chen Lama Blo-bzang chos-kyi rgyal-mtshan (1567-1662) in his famous work dGe ldan bka’ brgyud rin po che phyag chen rtsa ba rgyal ba’i gzhung lam” which , as the title suggest, also verifies the validity of the view of Mahamudra which was transmitted to the Gelugpa from the Kagyu tradition.
(quotes from The Great Perfection, by Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, E.J.Brill, Leiden 1988
Dear Chris,
Both Namkhai Norbu and his student Raimondo Bultrini have been explicitly critical of Dorje Shugden practice. Dorje Shugden practitioners do not criticise Nyingma or Dzogchen, so why is he so hostile? Allegedly he has verged on the superstitious by teaching his students certain mudras to ward off evil spirits if they ever find themselves in the presence of the evil ‘Dholgyal’ practitioners! That’s laughable!
Doesn’t anyone see the contradiction between claiming to be non-sectarian’ while at the same time banning or at least criticizing a legitimate and respectable religious tradition? It’s so ludicrous and sad!
As for the legitimacy of Dzogchen, I can’t say I know anything about it so it’s not an issue. The banning of Dorje Shugden practice is an issue though as it has caused suffering to millions.
Lineageholder: Millions, is that a fact? Where are we to find these untold millions since the entire exile Tibetan community hovers around a mere 100,000. The truth of this claim, challenged here before met with no response, do you care to prove it? Otherwise we shall assume this claim is spurious. On the other hand, it is certain this year the Chinese rounded up and detained the majority of monks in the Lhasa region, many of whom will be ‘relocated’ permanently. Yet there is no great hue and cry about their rights from your ranks. That aloof and effete claim of non-interest in politics is simply unacceptable and morally untenable.
Hi Chris,
I am a Shugdenpa and i don’t really know how many Shugden practitioners there are or there aren’t. I agree that “millions” sounds a bit, if not a lot, off the mark.
But wether HH is right or wrong about Shugden, i think it is safe to say that millions of Buddhists (and probably many non-Budhists too) around the world are experiencing confusion, anger, fear about the whole issue. These experiences can definitely be classified as suffering. Spiritual doubts can be in my experience as, or more painful than say broken bones.
Generally speaking some believe that the cause of all this turmoil is HH and co, others believe it is DS and co or KG and co, or both. I tend to believe that in any given dispute both parties are partially responsible. Of course, there are many exceptions, such as when someone strong abuses someone weak. But, although i don’t think the sun shines out of the WSS’s arse, in this situation i do personally believe that HH is mainly responsible. Like you have many good reasons to believe that KG and DS are the main criminals, i have many good reasons to believe otherwise, such as a few from Ron Cook’s most recent article.
Lastly, about the monks in Lhasa, I don’t understand how the fact that millions of people are suffering as a consequence of this turmoil and that Shugdenpas didn’t let off a “great hue and cry about their rights” implies that Shugdenpas are politically motivated.
Personally as a Shugden practitioner, i don’t want this practice, which i consider to be precious and beneficial to all living beings, to disappear. Also i believe that the rights of many people are being violated by HH. This is why i add my voice, because i want to help make a difference. Does the fact that i didn’t make a big fuss about the monks in Lhasa mean i am politically motivated? Do you think i couldn’t care less about these people? Chris, we are human, limited beings. As much as one would like to help every single person on this planet, the task is impossible. Unless you are enlightened of course
Your criticism is a bit like dissing someone who is campaigning for human rights in Africa, for not campaigning for human rights in South America.
Harry
“Dorje Shugden practitioners do not criticise Nyingma or Dzogchen”
Phabongkhapa referred to Dzogchen as “reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths” as quoted above.
Phabongkhapa had a serious problem with Nyingma practice and forced the conversion of many Nyingma gompas such as the one in Kham, the account of which I posted above.
Earlier, lineageholder said, “Many people rely on Dzogchen that was not even taught by Buddha and claim it to be a Buddhist practice even though it’s not taught in either the Sutras of Buddha Shakyamuni or the Tantras of Buddha Vajradhara”.
The claim that LH has nothing to say about the legitimacy of Dzogchen is not true.
Just another well known fact that LH seems to be unaware of, Namkhai Norbu trained in the Sakya tradition. The protector LH worships started its career as a Sakya worldly protector. Therefore, Namkhai Norbu’s opinion about this protector is at least worthy of a hearing.
“a legitimate and respectable religious tradition”
The tradition of worshipping this protector in the Gelug was first popularised by the sectarian politician Phabongkhapa early last century. Since that time it has been criticised by high Gelug lamas and lamas from other traditions. It has never been widely established as either respectable or legitimate.
I made a mistake.
“Lastly, about the monks in Lhasa, I don’t understand how the fact that millions of people are suffering as a consequence of this turmoil and that Shugdenpas didn’t let off a “great hue and cry about their rights” implies that Shugdenpas are politically motivated.”
The “millions” concept isn’t really relevant to my point (and i muddled the sentence up anyway!), although i understand it was part of your point. So i will only refute “monks in Lhasa”. Please read:
“Lastly, about the monks in Lhasa, I don’t understand how the fact that Shugdenpas didn’t let off a “great hue and cry about their rights” implies that Shugdenpas are politically motivated.”
Cheers
Dear Chris,
Actually, it’s billions…countless beings in fact, are affected by this ban. I don’t know how many are directly affected because they practise Dorje Shugden, but there are many who have heard about and are upset or angry about this disagreement between Shugden practitioners and the Dalai Lama, as Harry said. Then there’s all living beings. Anything that affects the Dharma directly or indirectly affects countless living beings. Dependent relationship is subtle and unfathomable in cases such as this.
I have compassion for the suffering of those in Tibet, but I’ve observed far too much attachment to what is a relatively small issue. There are countless living beings suffering in samsara, experiencing terrible torment for inconceivably long periods of time and by banning the practice of the Dharma Protector who is most powerful at this time to maintain and spread the Dharma in this world, the Dalai Lama is creating incalculable harm for all living beings by reducing their chances for liberation.
We’re in the last five hundred years of Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings and after this it will be a long time until Maitreya comes. We have a duty to keep pure Dharma in this world for as long as we can and many high lamas have said “now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden”. The anthropologist Mumford observed that there are Nyingmapas who do this practice, as well as Gelugpas and formerly, Sakyas. Here’s some small evidence of this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M-j-nsyFk4w
May all beings find the Dharma and become free from suffering.
Dear Dorje,
You’ve got a one track argument that begins with ‘P’.
Furthermore, what I said about Dzogchen is not a criticism, it’s true, and I understand that there are many people who do the practice and receive benefit, and it’s their choice what to practice.
About Dorje Shugden being ‘respectable and legitimate’, until the Dalai Lama started to destroy the reputation of this practice it was both widespread and mainstream in the Gelugpa tradition. You believe too much what the Dalai Lama says. He’s wrong.
“About Dorje Shugden being ‘respectable and legitimate’, until the Dalai Lama started to destroy the reputation of this practice it was both widespread and mainstream in the Gelugpa tradition”
You mean the 13th Dalai Lama who criticised and restricted this practice in the first few years of its propagation or are you talking about another Dalai Lama?
“We’re in the last five hundred years of Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings and after this it will be a long time until Maitreya comes. We have a duty to keep pure Dharma”
We’re in the age of the five degenerations, when degenerate practices and innovations are spread as ‘pure Dharma’ and when people are misled by false guides that think they should rewrite Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. If you care at all about the precious tradition of Ganden, I suggest you follow the teachings and practices that Je Rinpoche himself taught.
“many high lamas have said “now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden”. ”
Many? Who? A sectarian politician and his close student. Hardly counts as many, does it?
It could be good to listen to the masters of Tibetan Buddhism, what they state about Shugden. I transcribed a bit the statements by HH Sakya Trizin to balance the quite misleading Wikipedia article on Dorje Shugden.
The head of the Sakyapa’s stated:
Sakya Trizin concludes: “Since these three leading Sakya Lamas were against Shugden, this practice declined greatly among Sakya followers.”
HHDL states in the same docu:
My blockquote technique failed a bit
when I was referring to “the quite misleading Wikipedia article on Dorje Shugden” I meant this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden&oldid=255425849
This included wrong and even misrepresented quotes like this one what was suggested to be Glenn Mullin’s saying:
“Over the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden practice has been a central Protector practice of almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.”[22]
And claims like this:
“The practice of relying upon Dharma Protectors began in ancient India as part of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, and spread to Tibet[23] and Japan.”
the reference links to the NKT Shugden blog http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden-about.php which is probably run by “Lineageholder”. I guess this NKT site is exactly what Wikipedia would not call a reliable source…
Mainly NKT editors work on those articles. Maybe some with better knowledge can help to improve them.
Annotation to my last post:
It is of course correct that the “The practice of relying upon Dharma Protectors began in ancient India as part of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, and spread to Tibet” but it has to be read in the context that the title of the section is “History” and it reads:
-History-
“Over the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden practice has been a central Protector practice of almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[22] The practice of relying upon Dharma Protectors began in ancient India as part of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, and spread to Tibet[23] and Japan. The main purpose of relying upon Dharma Protectors is to avert the inner and outer obstacles that prevent practitioners from gaining spiritual realizations, and to arrange all the necessary conditions for their practice.[23] The practice of Dorje Shugden is most commonly associated with Gelugpas, where he is considered to be a special protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings. There were also Sakya[24] and Nyingma[25] practitioners of Dorje Shugden.”
Another section stated:
-Protector of Buddhism-*
“According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, Dorje Shugden is said to be the successor of Nechung (Pehar) as the head of the wrathful forces protecting Buddhism against evil.[17] According to this view, Dorje Shugden is a particularly important deity in the Tibetan pantheon, since he would replace the present state oracle, Nechung.[18]”
* the section title suggests that Shugden is the protector of Buddhism.
Very funny.
“Over the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden practice has been a central Protector practice of almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[22]”
This is manifestly and demonstrably untrue. Who is spreading these lies and where?
“There were also Sakya[24] and Nyingma[25] practitioners of Dorje Shugden.”
If all they have to show as evidence for Nyingma worshippers of this protector is that picture, they must be desperate. The picture itself proves nothing other than what a painter chose to paint. I have seen paintings in Kathmandu of female deities with beards. What are we to conclude from that?
The fact is the Nyingmapas had very specific practices to deal with the protector worshipped by their oppressors. Generally the only place you’ll see Guru Rinpoche positioned above this protector is when he’s in his wrathful form:
http://www.arcanology.com/images/dorje-drollo-thangka-4.jpg
From Sakya Throne Holder Kunga Lodro’s autobiography, Lamdre Lobshe series, volume 6 page 222:
“From the Nyingma tantra Rin chen sna bdun: Dolgyal, Dolgyal he who is thus called is by nature undeceiving, because he is the Great Compassionate One himself.”
Correction to previous post, that would be page 322.
With respect to Wikipedia, I corrected as good as I could some of the misleading points in the main article on Dorje Shugden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden
The problem I see and other see is, that mainly the NKT ‘truth team’ or editors from NKT work on the articles.
The last spin was to quote from a Russian newspaper which quoted the official PRC news agency, that HHDL would have referred to Shugden as a “Chinese Spirit”. The sentence read:
The Dalai Lama sometimes refers to him as a “pro-Chinese demon”.[4] — and this is the source for it: http://en.rian.ru/world/20081212/118827618.html
Everyone with academic 3rd party sources and knowledge can improve the article and the related ones, like that linked by the Tricycle Editor Team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_Controversy
In the film docu I mentioned already “Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy” http://dalailama.com/page.157.htm also other masters state their point of view. Not only is HH Sakya Trizin is very clear about this subject and HHDL corrects the wrong claims made by Shugden followers with respect to the 5th Dalai Lama, but also two other eminent Tibetan Masters are very clear that Shugden is no object of Buddhist worship.
Tai Situ Rinpoche:
HH Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche:
Dorje: That painting reproduced on YouTube is in the collection of Mischa E. Jucker, who did an art book with Serindia ‘Kathmandu Valley Paintings’ and another entitled ‘Tibetan Paintings’, republished by Shambhala in 2001. It is a hastily painted provincial oddity, either for some hill tribe or just for the tourist bazaar. If a so-called thangka is not drawn to the proper measurements or done for with inappropriate intent, it is just a painting–and this particular one is poorly done. The quote from from ‘Himalayan Dialogue’ by Stan Mumford and subsequent far fetched conclusion is therefore just plain meaningless.
Dear Tenzin Peljor,
“We Kaygu followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyu followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.”
Evidence? None. Hilarious! What does anyone under the protective care of the Three Jewels have to fear from an inferior spirit, which is how they regard Dorje Shugden?
Tai Situ’s statement about Dorje Shugden definitely applies to the Dalai Lama though! We fear him because he does cause obstacles to spiritual practice (by destroying peace and harmony in the Buddhist community through his sectarian actions) and brings discord in families (by not allowing Shugden and non-Shugden members of a family to have anything to do with each other) and among the community of monks (by demanding segregation, or demanding that Shugden monks be expelled from their monasteries)
The Dalai Lama is provably guilty on all charges whereas Tai Situ’s fear is unfounded, unproven and superstitious. If this is what Tai Situ fears, he should fear the Dalai Lama more than Dorje Shugden!
Case dismissed - another example of you blindly following whatever you are told. When are you going to start thinking for yourself?
Yes I have evidence:
- 1st this is one of the foremost masters of Kagyue school and this is clearly what he says (or are only Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s pov true?),
- secondly this view has been repeatedly reported to me by different Kagyuepa masters,
- thirdly it was confirmed in a personal communication with a Tibetologist of the University of Hamburg,
- fourthly, also Mumford states: Dorje Shugden is “extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.” Mumford 1989:125-126.
I think your statements are hilarious, because you believe only your self-published sources or your Guru, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Of course he does not tell this his followers…
You suggest that all the genuine Tibetan Buddhist masters and Tibetan Buddhist are the blind slaves of HHDL or somewhat irrational? I think you do this because this is the situation within NKT, isn’t it?
So what is “true”what is “projection” what is ” hilarious”?
Dear Tenzin,
Do you even know what Buddhist Refuge is and what benefits it confers? You make me wonder sometimes. I know these are degenerate times, but hey, come on! Anyone who goes for refuge doesn’t need to fear so Tai Situ’s comment is hilarious, as I said.
Actually for ‘hilarious’ read ‘absurd’.
What does Tai Situ or any other Master of another Buddhist tradition know about the Gelugpas or Dorje Shugden? You amaze me - you won’t believe the words of your Guru, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, but you believe someone you probably haven’t even met just because of their status. I’m speechless. Did Buddha teach his followers to be so gullible? I think not!
Also, you seem to believe any utterance by a Tibetologist or academic without question. What makes them right? I don’t care if anyone is ‘Dr’ this or ‘Professor’ that, you need to check. How much do they know, but more importantly, how much do they experience? Only Buddha doesn’t make mistakes and what did he teach, even about his own infallible teaching? CHECK CHECK CHECK!
Dear “Lineageholder”,
Of course it is said that in general Buddhist refuge protects from harm, but does this mean if you take refuge you are protected from being tortured, abused or to become a victim of a fraud? How literal do you take the texts? Do you think you have more knowledge and understanding than Tai Situ Rinpoche or the Dalai Lama?
It is true that I didn’t meet Tai Situ Rinpoche, but I have asked different Rinpoches from the Kagyue tradition who exactly said this, not only this, they give their followers the strong recommendation to remove all books and material from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and NKT from their flat, because it creates hindrances for their spiritual practice and life.
There are reasons why the Vajrayana has vows to avoid at all costs to have contact with negative companions who have broken their vows. It is said, for those seeking realisations, you should not even come into their shadow.
This you can find similar advice also in the Sutra stated by the Buddha himself:
If there would be no danger with negative companions and negative forces (Mara or Demons) why the Buddha has taught about this? If refuge is sufficient he should have taught ‘just take refuge than all things will be solved’, but he didn’t. Buddhism, the teachings of the Buddha, are far more complex, than Geshe Kelsang teaches to his devotees.
You spin the facts, when you claim I would believe my sources without question. This is just your assumption. What do you know?
Do you know how much good experience cult members had with Shoko Asharas or the Guru from the Jonestown? They had a lot of good experience with their gurus, so much that some of them even clung to them even after they recognized how crazy and mental sick their gurus were. It could be good to read some cult literature - especially Lifton. If you are subscribed to Tricycle-online you can read the interview Shainberg/Lifton: http://www.tricycle.com/from-mysticism-murder - this could be very helpful.
If you wish to check, you need an open, unbiased mind and intelligence. This is what Je Tsongkhapa said. If you are bound by being partisan or lack of discriminating intelligence, you can recognize nothing but the wrong, you can not even recognize your own bias, pride and presumptions.
So CHECK CHECK CHECK - yes! - but also acquire beforehand the qualities to be able to check. Sadly this teaching by Aryadeva/Chandrakriti/Tsongkhapa about the three defining characteristics a Mahayana student should possess is not taught by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
BTW, I just recognized this peak of confusion by one of NKT’s blogs:
“Evidence of Deception: In the Dalai Lama’s Own Words” http://shugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/evidence-of-deception-in-the-dalai-lamas-own-words/
Maybe a sign of the degenerate times is that the wise are perceived by the infants as childish and the childish are perceived by the infants as wise?
For the quote about the three defining characteristics a Mahayana adept should have see:
http://buddhism-and-fundamentalism.blogspot.com/
it’s somewhere in the middle after I quoted Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
Keep your chins up, t
Kyabje Situ Rinpoche knows more about the Gelukpas, and Dolgyal, than you do.
Lineageholder, there are many things to fear. you have not comprehended refuge correctly if you think there’s nothing to fear, merely having taken refuge.
Surely the Dharma teaches us, at a certain level, what to avoid and what to embrace. Often those things we should avoid, we can even say we should fear. Amongst the things we should constantly guard against, and fear, is refuge in those who are not Fully Awakened. Our position, borne out by the historical records, and the words of Glorious Lamas from all four lineages, recited and laid bare here and in many other places, is that your Dolgyal is not a proper object of refuge. Your position, based on the words of GKG and Pabongkha, and the minority position of those who follow their misguided view, is mistaken.
You should fear taking refuge in ghosts and demons.
“Evidence? None. Hilarious! What does anyone under the protective care of the Three Jewels have to fear from an inferior spirit, which is how they regard Dorje Shugden?”
The quotation from Tai Situpa that Tenzin Paljor provided was evidence of Kagyupa attitudes towards this protector. You can find similar attitudes voiced by senior lamas of all four traditions, Gelug, Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu. This shows that the respectability and legitimacy of this protector has been questioned in all Tibetan religious traditions.
The image you try to paint of a practice that was widely accepted until the Dalai Lama ruined its reputation is false.
The point that taking refuge confers protection from spirits comes from a sutra where the Buddha says that those that take refuge cannot be harmed by humans and non-humans. Elsewhere he says that those that take refuge will not suffer hunger or starvation but will have their needs met.
To understand these teachings we have to understand whether they are definitive or provisonal. Looking at history we can certainly see examples of those who have taken refuge suffering harm from others and starving to death. So, was the Buddha lying or speaking to inspire faith in his teaching?
The view that this protector could harm and kill people that had taken refuge was shared by Phabongkhapa, who said that it would cause those Gelugpas that took teachings from other traditions to “have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”
You are free to dismiss Tai Situpa’s comments as absurd, but it would then follow that you should dismiss Phabongkhapa teachings regarding this protector on the same grounds.
The only reason the heads of lineages say this publicly is because if they don’t the Dalai Lama will dispatch a group of Tibetans to throw stones at their monastery.
Dear Kagyupa,
you said
Really?? Are you a Buddhist? You don’t believe that going for refuge eradicates all suffering and all fear? I think it’s you that doesn’t comprehend Refuge correctly. Of course, because of self-grasping, fear will arise but that’s the reason for going for refuge, isn’t it? My main point is, if you go for Refuge sincerely you are protected from harm by humans and non-humans, so if you believed that Dorje Shugden was an inferior spirit, you would have nothing to fear from him. This ‘he who should not be named stuff’ is the most superstitious piffle!
I don’t care who says Dorje Shugden is not a correct object of Refuge, they’re wrong, plain and simple. He’s a manifestation of the Wisdom Buddha. I know through experience the benefits of relying upon this Buddha, you don’t. Certainly the words of Lamas from other traditions (some of whom clearly have an axe to grind against Gelugpas) are not going to convince me. I’m afraid I have to go back to what I said before - you have no experience of the practice and since Tai Situ Rinpoche also has no experience of the practice, neither of you are qualified to make pronouncements. You’re trying to tell me that the sky is black when I’ve seen that it’s blue - if you haven’t seen it for yourself, don’t tell me I’m wrong based on someone else’s words!
Dear Dorje,
Do you know what? I really don’t care if non-Gelugpas don’t accept Gelugpa practices. What does that matter to me? I’m not going to give up my practice based on the words of the head of a another tradition, no matter how great their reputation is and how many titles they have.
I’d also argue that just because a view is widely held, it doesn’t make it true. Almost everyone believes that worldly pleasure is real happiness, but their belief is incorrect. Based on my faith in my Gurus and Dorje Shugden that has come from investigation and experience, if everyone in this world believes that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit, I will never change my view. I’m not going to bend with the wind: it’s no good arguing that white is black, I know it’s not. If everyone in this world believed that Buddha’s teachings were wrong, would you agree with them and give up your practice? Only a foolish person would do this.
It’s like this: you have a belief, based on the words of some people that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit. I have experience that he’s a Buddha, so what could you do to convince me otherwise?
On your point about someone going for Refuge and starving to death, I know stories of people who looked like they were going to starve and when they gave up their self-cherishing and went for Refuge, they were protected and didn’t starve. I’m a Buddhist - I KNOW that going for Refuge to the Three Jewels eradicates all suffering and all fear. You don’t believe this? I’m amazed.
“The only reason the heads of lineages say this publicly is because if they don’t the Dalai Lama will dispatch a group of Tibetans to throw stones at their monastery.”
This is simply not true. Nyingmapas and Kagyupas especially have opposed this practice and seen it as harmful since it was first propagated by Phabongkhapa, precisely because it was used by those that oppressed them.
The Nyingma and Kagyu schools have specific practices to reduce the harmful influence of what they see as this evil spirit. Both schools have suffered persecution at the hands of the Gelug hegemony and their Mongol backers.
Sakyapas have also widely condemned the Gelugpa version of this spread by Phabongkhapa. I quoted Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro earlier, but also the Sakya scholar T.G Dhongthog Rinpoche has written a few books on the subject of why this practice is bad.
The opposition to this protector predates anything the Dalai Lama has said about it.
“It’s like this: you have a belief, based on the words of some people that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit. I have experience that he’s a Buddha, so what could you do to convince me otherwise?”
As quoted above, Phabongkhapa said that this protector killed people. Buddhas don’t tend to murder people. By Phabongkhapa’s reasoning, Tsongkhapa should have been killed for taking teachings from Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu lamas.
It seems we have come to the crux of your argument. You believe this protector is a Buddha because of your own personal experience of worshipping it. This is fine, assuming you are on one of the higher bodhisattva bhumis or at least on the path of seeing, but if you have not yet reached that level, your argument becomes problematic. We are in samsara and samsara is marked by delusion. Beings are open to all sorts of delusion and their subjective experience cannot be trusted. Many people hold beliefs they feel are confirmed by their personal experience, this does not make them true.
Supposing for a moment that the object of your worship is actually a harmful spirit. How would you know? Would it tell you so? Would it make you feel bad and unhappy, or would it help increase your confidence and give you dreams, visions and experiences that you feel could only come from a Buddha?
Some people marry the person that later kills them, based on their feelings and personal experience of the person. Is it not feasible that a powerful spirit could also have people fall in love and become proudly devoted to it?
Regarding the benefits of taking refuge, I believe that the Buddha shows us the way, the rest is up to us. No doubt, some people have experienced good karma ripening at times of danger, but the number of monks and nuns that starved to death in the Cambodian famine or were butchered by the Chinese invaders in Tibet suggests refuge is not a universal defence from physical harm, unless we dismiss those that were killed as lacking in refuge. And if we do that, how can we assume that we are somehow better?
Lineageholder; A true buddha is way beyond the network of concepts, it may be exciting to think you have encountered one in a mundane place like a supermarket or bus station or that you are well on the way to practically becoming one yourself, but that experience is exceedingly rare and subtle, its much more likely you experienced a series of mundane mental event well within the realm of samsara.
Thanks to Dorje and Kagyuepa for clarification.
For me as an ex-NKT the problem lies straight within NKT and its root in ‘Gelugpa fundamentalism’.
My understanding is that the organisation functions a bit like a narcissist.
As the mirror to reflect again and again the own prettiness and purity functions the complete self-referential system of the organisation’s literature - the 22 books of GKG* - which is seen by the members as ‘extremely pure’ and unfailing. This includes that of what “Geshe-la said” is the truth, everything else is untrue or can be ignored.
*(The 22 books are praised by the organisation as the first presentation of the complete Buddhist Path to Enlightenment available in any Western language.)
The mirror for the own reflection has been expanded now to numerous new truth-websites and truth-blogs with truth-bloggers. And when Al Jazeera or France 24 TV exaggerate events and support the own thinking this is praised as “the truth”. — As long as the members see the own views or prettiness reflected then this is “the truth” and one is happy, and as soon as someone opposes that self-image, this person is denounced as a liar, hypocrite or a stupid follower of the Dalai Lama ‘who has too much blind devotion’.
I think, the foundation of a self-centred attitude which is based on a feeling of supremeness and uniqueness was laid when NKT was founded and has its root in the schism from FPMT and in the thinking of its founder. It is also strongly related to the ‘Gelug fundamentalism’ heritage which was exported to the West by some Gelug teachers.
While researchers (like Bluck, Kay, Prohl) refer to the foundation of NKT as a schismatic event, (which is according to Kay “rooted in conflict and schism”) NKT literature ignores this poisonous root and uses euphemisms to announce the events as:
The former NKT secretary Belither states:
The first successor of GKG, Neil Elliiot / Gen Thubten referred in the NKT magazine Full Moon to GKG as the Third Buddha, because
At the same time NKT leadership didn’t get tired to announce again and again how degenerated the Gelug school or Tibetan Buddhism would be, to establish itself as more supreme and more pure to its followers and newbies. (This is usually called “to praise oneself while criticizing others” - to do this based on attachment to respect, gain and praise is the very first root downfall for a Bodhisattva.). For this approach different concepts were applied like that of “mixing Dharma with politics” or “practising purely” without “mixing the Dharma” with that of other traditions (non-NKT teachings or teachings not given by GKG and his devotees).
To establish the supremacy of NKT the “first fully qualified Tantric Teacher in the West” (NKT literature about GKG’s successor Gen Thubten / Neil Elliot) claimed:
Although the organisation has leaned to keep this kind of thinking about the own supremacy more secret, I think the founding views of NKT are still there but difficult to recognize for newcomers or outsiders.
As more as one perceives oneself as supreme, the more aggressively one will attack those opposing the own supremacy.
However for his followers, in his teachings these views of the own purity and the degeneration of others (especially the own roots, the Gelug school) can still be detected. In 1999 GKG explained in his talk about his NKT ordination:
From the pov of the principle of the elder, while the Tibetan Buddhists have to respect the Theravada Buddhists and the schools elder than Tibetan Buddhism, like those from China, Sri Lanka etc., the Gelugpas would do good if they respect the elder schools, especially their practitioners like the Nyingmapas, Sakyapas, and Kagyupas. Showing disrespect to them is against the spirit of the Dharma. Moreover the Gelugs owe almost everything to them.
With respect to the Westerners, we the younger to those elder from the Buddhist countries, should respect them and learn from them, like the Western Theravada followers do it.
With respect to NKT, NKT is the newest and most recent Buddhist movement, they should be humble and show respect to all other Buddhist schools and their representatives, like HHDL, Tai Situ Rinpoche, HH Sakya Trizin etc.; and especially to the own root the Gelugpas who them owe everything. Sadly NKT leadership and its food soldiers show one of the most disrespectful and noisiest behaviour of all the Buddhist schools. The criticism towards this “Ultra-Ego” I think is quite appropriate. If it will help is another question.
However, from the pov of compassion, I think it is important to put also GKG into perspective. He grew up in a rather fundamentalist and extreme situation within the Gelug school and the situation in exile.
When the 13th Dalai Lama died the Gelug purist were successful to gain more power. Pabongkha broke his promise towards the 13th Dalai Lama to stop propagating Shugden (strongly beloved especially among the aristocrats) and could increase the power of the most conservative Gelugpas.
As the Dharma was used to justify and increase power, it is difficult to differentiate for Westerners what is what. The claim by the Gelug purists they would “not mix dharma with politics” is for me nothing else than politics itself.
However, GKG grew up in a certain environment, later pushed by naive Western followers to be the third Buddha himself, all these things have an impact and will result in effects.
Dear Tenzin,
What did the Dalai Lama say? He doesn’t disrespect his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, he simply says that respect to Dorje Shugden, he was wrong.
I can say the same then. I respect the Teachers, students, teachings, activities and realizations of all schools of Buddhism, but I can say that if one of them says that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha, they are wrong.
As much as many of you might like to dismiss my experience of Dorje Shugden as a delusion, you can’t because I alone know what I’ve experienced. I’m nothing special, but all detractors are like mara at the moment of enlightenment saying to Buddha “what gives you the right to be enlightened?”. Having tried in every way to de-rail Buddha from his task, mara left doubt to last of all.
I have no doubt about Dorje Shugden, so that won’t work. As Buddha touched the earth, asking it to bear witness to the causes he had created for enlightenment, I touch the truth of my experience which comes from virtue, not from delusion. Through the blessings of my Gurus, I’ve had the good fortune to have that experience.
Anyone who has never experienced Dorje Shugden practice is just like a parrot of the Dalai Lama squawking “Dorje Shugden is bad!”. They are the people who have never tasted chocolate, yet regard themselves are confectionery experts.
Get some experience and then tell me I’m wrong.
Dear Tenzin Peljor,
Where will disparaging the words of your Guru get you? Please tell me where the faults lie in Geshe Kelsang’s books. If you think you can prove that they are not Buddhadharma and not Je Tsongkhapa’s teaching, go ahead. They are mainstream Gelugpa teachings, albeit with a different presentation.
Do you regard the books containing the Sutras and Tantras as a ’self-referential system?’ They are the works of one Teacher as well.
Was the development of the Gelugpa tradition of Je Tsongkhapa a schismatic event? No, it was a re-presentation and clarification of previous teachings for the benefit of the people of those times in Tibet. So it is with the NKT, it’s simply a re-presentation and clarification of Buddha’s teachings, based on Je Tsongkhapa’s commentaries, for the benefit of beings living today.
If you criticise Geshe Kelsang and the NKT, you have to criticise Je Tsongkhapa and what he did, for their actions have the same meaning. Like NKT, Je Tsongkhapa also had problems with the jealousy of traditions existing at that time. It’s said that it took a hundred years for that jealousy and sectarianism to die down.
When you are going to get it into your head that Buddhadharma is not some kind of competition, with traditions scrabbling for devotees? NKT is for those who have the karma for NKT, Tibetan Buddhism is for those who have karma for Tibetan Buddhism. There’s no need for jealousy, Tenzin P. Live and let live.
mhm.
to denounce the Dalai Lama as a “saffron robed muslim”, “who is evil and cruel”, a “liar”, “hypocrite” who “has stolen the teachings from Trijang Rinpoche” and is “deceiving the world to be a holy being” is not only libel and wrong, it is also very different from the approach HHDL holds with respect to Shugden and its propagators.
HHDL not only states
HHDL really lives this.
Slanderous, depreciating statements as issued by the NKT/GKG/WSS and its food soldiers against the Dalai Lama can’t be found by him.
The motive to “expose the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama” (see WSS website) is also no Dharma practice or proper motivation of a Buddhist.
With respect to experience: I had 6 1/2 years experience with Shugden and its propagators, I found what has been said by opponents as being true, especially as a Nyingma lama summed it: “first you have many disciples, then many money, then many problems”. Demons can appear as Buddha’s and can bring success to the practitioner until his ego is getting bigger and bigger and he/she thinks to be something very special. This trick is one way how demons work. You can find this in a text by Patrul Rinpoche.
GKG and Je Tsongkhapa and their writings are not the same for me in any way - NKT just claims it would be the same. For me they are not.
As NKTees are encouraged only to study GKG’s books, and to follow only his teachings, how can they really compare to be able to judge this? It is like a frog in the well who gets visit from a frog living near the ocean. The frog in the well won’t understand the ocean as long as he stays in his well and believes there would and can’t be any difference between his beloved well and the ocean.
So if I criticize NKT/GKG’s approach and claims I do not criticize Je Tsongkhapa, because for me they are not the same entity. (I studied within and outside of NKT.)
The 22 books are a self-referential system. Every book starts with praises to GKG’s extreme kindness, and advises always GKG’s other books. And at the end of each book only his books are advised again and his centers and no further reading besides GKG’s books is suggested. There is not even a bibliography on which origin works he has based his texts. Although GKG states the sources of quotes and states here and there that this can be found in that or that Tibetan text. In NKT there is the attitude to put down even translations of those texts as not being “authentic” because either the author is an academic or has no pure lineage or another lineage (no member of NKT) or there is a dedication to the long life of HHDL, like in the Lam Rim Chen Mo, so it is not authentic or better not to be read.
So at the end the devoted NKT follower, who wishes to keep NKT’s “essential purity” is caught in this total self-referential system of GKG’s 22 books, backed up by wrong teachings of a bodhisattva vow, which claims it would violate the Bodhisattva ethics when “Preferring to rely on books, rather than to rely on our spiritual guide”, a commentary which is plain wrong.
The books of my non-NKT teachers start instead with expression of gratitude by the author to their teachers, not with devotional praise of his students to push up the author. Also they include in general clearly from which origin text they derive and has further readings they advise texts also by other authors.
I think, it speaks for itself that, besides about 5-10 pages, there is no origin work of Je Tsongkhapa, Atisha, Nagarjuna, Asanga/Maitreya available in NKT. It appears funny for me to hear the claim of NKT that these 22 books would present the entire and complete path to enlightenment. When GKG had only 15-18 books they also were announced as the entire and complete path to enlightenment, it follows it became more complete by the additional 4 books or were it already complete with three of his books?
With respect to competition and jealousy, I am not competitive to NKT or you or GKG in any way. I think this is a mere projection.
People who are convinced to be special usually interpret criticism as the jealousy of others, because they are so supreme and have so many amazing qualities, the other person can only be jealous of them.
“Live and let live”?
mhm, sounds good, but why do you not practice this with respect to the freedom of the Tibetan monastic communities to ban harmful ’spirit worship’ from their places?
Dear Lineagegholder, you’ve asked, “Please tell me where the faults lie in Geshe Kelsang’s books.”
see here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A255G3TT5J4Y07/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
and such claims by GKG:
Statements by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso which probably invite a narrow-minded perspective and blind faith include:
According to Geshe Kelsang spiritual success is based on
uups my formatting failed, here again…
Dear Lineagegholder, you’ve asked, “Please tell me where the faults lie in Geshe Kelsang’s books.”
see here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A255G3TT5J4Y07/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
and such claims by GKG:
Statements by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso which probably invite a narrow-minded perspective and blind faith include:
According to Geshe Kelsang spiritual success is based on
Regarding sectarianism he states:
If you know Je Tsongkhapa’s biography a little bit, and his teachings on relying on a teacher, the qualities a student should possess and Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary on Guru devotion, it becomes obvious that there is a huge difference between Je Tsongkhapa and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
It becomes also obvious that HHDL is far more close and in accordance with the teachings and approach of Je Tsongkhapa than Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
[17] Kelsang Gyatso: Great Treasury of Merit: A Commentary to the Practice of Offering to the Spiritual Guide, 1992, p 31
[18] Kelsang Gyatso: Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 75
[19] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 107
[20] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 106
[21] Kelsang Gyatso: Guide to Dakini Land: The Highest Yoga Tantra Practice of Buddha Vajrayogini, 1996: p 18
[22] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 167
[23] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 166
[24] Kelsang, Clear Light of Bliss, 1982, p 154
Those of us who’ve practiced for any extended period will agree, I think, that one’s Gurus always advise that talking about one’s experiences, etc., is not really “appropriate.” In fact, it’s often detrimental to one’s practice to discuss such things publically. In the Vajrayana traditions of Tibet, such things are usually only “laid bare” at very special points, or in secret writings, etc.
Lineageholder, however, feels that he’s had some “special experience” or realization with respect to his so-called “protector” and he trumpets it here, on this forum, and for the express purpose of proving his argument. In fact, he’s now stated that this experience of his is the prime factor in his argument! In other words, his own experience (as well, we assume, as the words of his Guru and his Guru’s followers), trumps the documented historical record and the vast corpus of material antithetical to his view.
You can’t really argue this, in the same way that you can’t argue faith with Evengelical Christians.
Dear Tenzin P,
Yes they can, but there aren’t many because the DL likes to make the bullets and get other people to fire them. His common tactic is to stay in the background and allow other people to give his message - like Sera Monastery’s expulsion letter for example, or Robert Thurman’s criticisms of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The extremely negative tone of the 1998 Newsweek article ‘Cult Mystery’ can have only one source, but those words are not attributed directly to the DL - they can be attributed to Thurman or Clifton but not the DL. He’s very clever - he always puts himself in a position where if he needs to deny something, he can, although his negative propaganda against Shugden practitioners has been well documented recently by France 24 and Al Jezeera, where he says:
This is slander and deprecation. This is not how the Shugden believe at all.
Then you say:
Dear Kagyupa,
My point in mentioning my own experience was that you are criticising something you don’t have any experience of, not that I’m special or having blinding spiritual experiences. Surely the ultimate test of any spiritual practice is that it gives the results that it says it will? My small experience is testimony to that. I have never been deceived by my Gurus or by the practice.
Those who criticise the practice of Dorje Shugden are refuted by many different approaches such as:
1. Historical information
2. Logic and reasoning
3. Scriptural references
4. Personal experience of practitioners
and maybe other things I haven’t thought of. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Dalai Lama’s reasons for banning the practice are contrary to history, logic, scripture and experience.
Dear Tenzin Peljor,
Where, in Geshe Kelsang’s books does it say we should be narrow or develop blind faith? You can practice a selection of teachings deeply, or you can read lots of different teachings and gain no real experience of any of them. What Geshe Kelsang is advocating is deeply practising lamrim because when you gain experience of lamrim, you gain experience of all Buddha’s teachings. By focusing on the ‘narrow’ as you put it, your experience becomes vast.
When Venerable Atisha was in Tibet, he said something like “you Tibetan Buddhists practice hundreds of Deities and do not receive the attainments of even one, whereas we India Buddhists practice one Deity and receive the attainments of hundreds”
Faith is explained very clearly in Joyful Path, Transform Your Life and Understanding the Mind and is obviously the result of contemplation, meditation and experience, not blind belief. Nowhere in his books does Geshe Kelsang advocate just believing something because we’re told to. Developing deep faith in the Spiritual Guide for example comes gradually as a result of many years of contemplating and meditating on correct reasons, not a snap decision.
On the other hand, I find your unswerving faith in the Dalai Lama, despite the fact that he’s caused a schism in the Sangha and is persecuting spiritual practitioners to be blind and in defiance all logic. Your summation of the Dalai Lama’s good qualities is admirable, but we can see that he doesn’t live up to them. I’m sure if you really contemplated his actions and example against what you believe about him, you would see there’s something seriously inconsistent, but that’s a matter for you, not me. Such blind belief is not possible when you practise correctly.
I’m puzzled by the inconsistencies you seem to see in Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings and Geshe Kelsang’s. Can you quote directly from Tsongkhapa where his view differs from those given in Geshe Kelsang’s books? You haven’t given any concrete examples, just general criticism. Furthermore, such criticism is unique to you. I haven’t seen anyone else who has knowledge and experience of Dharma criticizing Geshe Kelsang’s books - in fact, they are used by an number of Tibetan teachers.
Dear Tenzin Peljor,
Firstly, I’d like to apologise with reference to my comments about your faith in the Dalai Lama. It’s your choice who your Teacher is of course and it’s none of my business who you develop faith in.
I’ve been thinking about what you said about a ’self-referential system’. There is no valid Buddhist self-referential system except Buddha Shakyamuni and Conqueror Vajradhara’s teachings. Even these are not truly self-referential because they are the teachings of the Buddhas of the three times and the ten directions and not their own ideas.
Similarly, Geshe Kelsang’s books do not contain his own ideas but they do contain many, many scriptural citations from great Buddhist writers such as Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Milarepa, Shantideva, Atisha to name just a few in the context of mainstream Buddhist teachings. All of these teachings are traceable to the Buddhist sutras and tantras, so how are Geshe Kelsang’s books ’self-referential’?
You are correct when you say some of Geshe Kelsang’s books contain some praise of his achievements at the beginning, but this is not unusual. I’ve read other Buddhist books that have been edited by someone other than the author and they always praise the author of the book - for example in the book ‘The Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas’ by Geshe Sonam Rinchen, which is a commentary to Aryadeva’s four hundred, Ruth Sonam praises Geshe Sonam Rinchen for his good qualities. It’s common for students to do this, no?
Also, I think that Geshe Kelsang is worthy of praise because only he has produced such a comprehensive and internally consistent presentation of the path to enlightenment for Westerners. You cannot deny this fact. Geshe Kelsang himself does not take credit for this, though. He often praises his own root and lineage Gurus. For example, he says that Joyful Path of Good Fortune is not his teaching but the teaching of Trijang Dorjechang.
As for references and further reading, you must understand that Geshe Kelsang’s books are not principally written for scholars (even though some of the subjects are very scholarly - such as Understanding the Mind and Ocean of Nectar) but as practical guides and meditation manuals for those who are seeking enlightenment. They are not written for University professors but for people with little time and lots of responsibilities, such as jobs and families who want to gain Dharma realizations. It’s certainly enough for me to have all the stages of the path to enlightenment explained with unparalleled clarity - I don’t need references. I said that the presentation of Dharma by Geshe Kelsang was different and more suited to Westerners, and this is one way in which it is. Generally, people want to be told what to practice and how to practice. They want to know how to unmistakenly enter, make progress and complete the path to enlightenment. If the presentation isn’t academic enough for you, there are plenty that are, so try them - but don’t criticize the books for being practical!
As for ‘further reading’, you’d have to read every book you recommend in order to ensure that it was genuine and had no mistakes in order to be able to recommend it. Also, generally, people don’t need help in finding new books to read! You’ve only got to look at a website selling Buddhist books to see that there are hundreds and everyone wants to read ‘the latest thing’ that everyone else recommends, which is fine, but depth and not breadth is a better approach I feel. Everyone has choice though. I think it best not to criticize other people’s choices just because they don’t suit you.
Dear LH, some points to your last posts.
There are a lot of differences between the foundation of NKT and what later formed the Gelugpas and GKG/Je Tsongkhapa.
A short list:
- Je Tsongkhapa is and was respected in all Tibetan schools (he is also in my Kaygue refuge tree) – this is not true for GKG
- Je Tsongkahapa was so brilliant that even his teachers became his students – GKG has only Western students who in general didn’t study Buddhism before following NKT and his “fully qualified” successors failed even in his very presence…
- While Je Tsongkhapa clarified the teachings and had many teachers from all Tibetan Buddhist schools, GKG interprets the teachings in a way that all his followers become solely dependent on him, his 22 books, and his NKT and its centers
- Je Tsongkhapa emphasised the Vinaya, GKG has abandoned the Vinaya
- Je Tsongkhapa emphasised that Tantric Teachings are restricted to only learned monastics who have a proper foundation – NKT advises even for newcomers his Vajrayogini or Heruka initiations (as soon as they took it, them is taught, “now Geshe-la is your root Guru” and “if you leave your root guru, you will go to hell” (of course a bit more skilful than I state but in that way)
- Je Tsongkhapa was prophesied by the Buddha, GKG not
The list can be continued if wished.
With respect to
The quote form Al Jazeera and France 24 TV by HHDL:
“Shugden followers have resorted to killing and beating people. They start fires. And tell endless lies. This is how the Shugden believe. It is not good.”
1. He does not speak about Trijang Rinpoche in that context.
2. Why did Interpol issue wanted notices for Shugden followers when they are not accused of having killed the scholar Ven. Lobsang Gyatso and two other monks?
3. It has been reported different times that Shugden followers have beaten up´others and fanatical Shugden groups even posted posters with death threads against the Dalai Lama
4. that Shugden followers have forcefully destroyed Nyingma monasteries and destroyed statues of Padmasambhava and converted them to Nyingma monasteries, can be found in different 3rd party academic research (Samuel has been quoted here already in that context) but also e.g. in the biography of Chagdug Tulku “Lord of the Dance” this can be found
5. That Shugden followers lie without shame seems to be quite obvious (although I restrain to speak from lies, rather I use the phrase “spreading untruths”), just the fake claim that the 5th Dalai Lama would have written a prayer of self-correction to Shugden is not true
6. Some of them are so aggressive that even their icon H.E. Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche had to escape from them to USA. According to journalist Bultrini:
The problem with NKT leadership and its closest devotees - and some of the Shugden followers - is their fundamentalism; they can just only accept their own version of history and events and accuse everybody who opposes them as liars. By this they deceive themselves by having only a fraction of the full image and finally believe that those correcting them or opposing them are wrong and lie.
Another problem I see is that NKT’s leadership and the closest devotees seem to think they are the only and last true possessor of “the truth” and based on the own narrow-mindedness, bias and fragmented knowledge they judge those who have a broad mind and vast knowledge, like HHDL or academics, which they can’t comprehend as hypocrites, liars or as being biased or what else is suited to disparage them.
All this is very different from a statement by HHDL about the destructive actions of Shugden followers, which are verifiable and can be found also in records of Tibetan Buddhist history by 3rd party academic sources.
I know that GKG and NKT believes that HHDL destroys the Buddhadharma, but actual he is preserving the Buddhadharma by pointing out what practice is not a Buddhist practice or a proper object of refuge. His opinion in that is shared by the vast majority of Gelug and non-Gelug masters and Tibetan Buddhists. Only a very small fraction of Gelugpas disagree with him. And this disagreement does not justify slander like that what I’ve quoted - libel, exaggerations, untruths, spins which has been spread via NKT/WSS all over the world including to news magazines, TV stations, youtube and and and…
With respect to doctrinal disputes about the differenced between GKG/NKT and the Gelug school/Je Tsongkhapa as addressed in your last post #657. I will think about if I go into details or not and if there is a use in doing this. In general I am inclined to suggest to receive teachings about Je Tsongkhapa’s text e.g. from Geshe Kelsang’s own teacher, Geshe Lhundup Sopa in the USA, and find out the differences yourself.
If you can not see the differences in the Guru approach of GKG and Je Tsongkhapa even after I gave quotes and referred to a passage in the Lam Rim Chen Mo, as well as on some points I made in my Amazon reviews, I wonder what more work will bring. I gave my hints already.
Keep you chin up!
Dear Tenzin,
I asked you to prove that, scripturally, Geshe Kelsang’s books are divergent from Tsongkhapa’s teachings. You didn’t give me any practical examples, just a list of vague criticisms of Geshe Kelsang where you compare him unfavourably to Je Tsongkhapa. Of course, there are two sides to every story and I could show that they have more in common than you think.
I asked you to quote from Tsongkhapa’s teachings to prove your assertion, otherwise it’s vague and unjustified. ‘Just go and receive teachings from Geshe Sopa and see for yourself’ doesn’t do it.
You can just use Lamrim Chenmo if you want, but if you don’t want to take the time to do it (or can’t!) don’t make vague accusations without evidence to back it up otherwise people will assume that you can’t prove your case. I personally believe you don’t have any such evidence.
“Furthermore, such criticism is unique to you. I haven’t seen anyone else who has knowledge and experience of Dharma criticizing Geshe Kelsang’s books - in fact, they are used by an number of Tibetan teachers.”
Yes, the first point is true. It looks like I am the only one who criticizes some of GKG’s books or who found a fault like that with the Bodhisattva vow.
I met two Gelug teachers who see no problem for their students to use them. But both never were a part of NKT and know how this set of teachings is functioning for the mind and how the mind is more and more bound to NKT/GKG and more and more separated from the Gelug school and Tibetan Buddhism or how they increase sectarianism and pride.
Although these two Gelug teachers do not perceive GKG as a reliable teacher, they said their students can use his texts. I have my doubts with this approach, because as shown, his views are well expressed in his books and the setting of NKT and the books of GKG function - according to my own experience and investigation, also based on the reports and talks with other former members - rather like “brainwashing”, not as a path to free the mind from the mind-poisons.
Someone stated in a anonymous interview “if you follow NKT you loose more and more your freedom and this is the opposite of what Buddha has taught.” this lost of freedom is based on GKG’s teachings and this includes his books.
Of course it depends also upon the person what benefit or demerit he gains by reading the books.
Can you proof your claim that “in fact, they are used by an number of Tibetan teachers.”? I never met one. The knowledge of Tibetan teachers is far more broad, deep and vast than what GKG offers. I wonder who may use his books? I never heard even an account of such an instance.
A well-known Western Gelug teacher and scholar rather holds the position that the NKT presentation is very superficial and is not able to present the depths of vastness of Buddhism. A view I share.
Dear TP,
If the Gelugpa teachers you are talking about don’t regard Geshe Kelsang as a reliable Teacher, why would they let their students use his books? What you say doesn’t make any sense.
All this stuff about ‘brainwashing’ is rubbish. People have freedom to study or not to study Geshe Kelsang’s books but to claim that people get ‘brainwashed’? It sounds irrational. I’ve got complete choice over what I read and I live in an NKT Center. I choose Geshe Kelsang’s books because they are deep, clear and practical. You saying that Geshe Kelsang’s presentation of Dharma is superficial reminds me of Gelugpa ’scholars’ who used to look down on those who practised lamrim, thinking that it was ‘Dharma for simpletons’
There is nothing deeper and more profound than lamrim. A word of warning to the scholars: don’t look down on the Three Principal Aspects of the Path in favour of studying ‘Commentary to Valid Cognition’ or Abhisamayalamkara because it won’t do you any good at all. Dharma is about changing your mind, not intellectual knowledge.
Okay, so here we are again: what depths and vastness of Buddhism does Geshe Kelsang’s presentation miss out? Give me some practical examples and explain how that knowledge is needed to attain enlightenment.
Hello Tenzin,
“Can you proof your claim that “in fact, they are used by an number of Tibetan teachers.”? I never met one. The knowledge of Tibetan teachers is far more broad, deep and vast than what GKG offers. I wonder who may use his books? I never heard even an account of such an instance.”
I have met a Geshe (Lharampa) who said that in his monastery KG’s books were studied. This was about 4 years ago when i lived in Keajraland Retreat Centre in Granada, Spain. He had been invited by a non-NKT group to give teachings nearby, and he payed Keajraland a visit. He highly praised KG’s books and said he believed KG to be a manifestation of Je Tsongkhapa.
Unfortunately I cannot name him, as he asked us to please keep his visit quiet.
I have tried to retell this account roughly as i remember it. I cannot remember the Geshe’s exact words so i hope that you can simply trust me on this. I believe this was the meaning of his words. Of course, the old resident teacher (who was there) may be able to provide a more accurate account, if mine is deemed untrustworthy.
Another example of putting down the Gelug school (and Tibetan Buddhism) while praising the own NKT can be found in GKG’s ordination talk from 1999 from which I already quoted, I just found this:
The meaning is: the non-NKT Tibetan schools have not the unique presentation of NKT, therefore “it would be impossible for us to make any progress.” (note the term “degenerate times” in that context). But if you follow my system, the NKT, you will become an enlightened being. No PR campaign could make it better… (see also my post # 648 in which I already quoted two passages from the same source. I think most will get an idea how NKT is functioning.)
Lineageholder
I said this already and gave a link with respect to the 34th Bodhisattva vow. As wished, here the details:
The Bodhisattva Vow: A Practical Guide to Helping Others by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso page 23 states as the 34th Bodhisattva:
Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary on Asanga’s Chapter on Ethics in the “Bodhisattva Bhumi”, which explains the Bodhisattva vows, called “The Basic Path to Awakening” (translated by Mark Tatz), states as the 34th secondary vow of a Bodhisattva:
“Deprecating him and referring to the letter.”
Asanga: “To deliberately discount the person speaking doctrine - not sincerely conceiving of him as a spiritual adviser and a teacher - and to fail to pay respect to him with one’s body, while ridiculing him with humiliating [questions] and making sarcastic remarks with harsh words,, and referring to the literary expression in the sense of making much of it, is a defiled fault.”
Commentray by Je Tsongkhapa:
“Briefly, if the words are not good but the meaning is good he fails to rely upon the meaning, whereas if the words are good but the meaning is not he does rely upon it. Some would have it that the deprecation amounts to saying to the preacher that his teaching is only literary expression, without meaning, or that the meaning is incomprehensible—in other words, failing to enter into the spirit of the letter. This should be taken as explained earlier in the Bodhisattva Bhumi in context of the four points of reference.
Jinaputra and Samudra further gloss this as a misdeed of “disrespect for the doctrine.
These three misdeeds are explained by the new commentary as failing, respectively, in eliminating bad view, in application to study, and in service to the lama, [all] as part of collecting wholesomeness. “Makes his reference the letter” is explained as relying upon the literary expression in the sense of discounting the person who is speaking doctrine.”
Another example of GKG’s teachings which do not accord with Je Tsonkhapa are his claims in the ordination talk of 1999 and his general attitude to NKT ordination:
GKG
Je Tsongkhapa in the same text:
“Not training for the sake of others’ faith.”
Asanga: “The bodhisattva trains himself as do the hearers [Hinayana] - not refusing to conform by distinguishing himself from them - according to what has been legislated by the Lord as trainings in the Pratimoksa, the source work, and in other vinaya texts such as the Vibhanga that are commentaries to it, to be reprehensible by precept (which means, those [rules] not reprehensible by nature), in order to guard the thought of others.”
JTS’s comment: “He renounces whatever the hearers renounce.”
Asanga: “In order that those previously without faith may have faith, and those previously faithful may develop it further,”
JTS: “there are precepts for not drinking alcohol, abstinence from eating at the wrong time and so forth, as well as [not] digging the soil, making a fire, etc. You must train yourself in these as do the hearers, for if you fail to do so, not only does a fault develop contradicting the pratimoksa - a misdeed also develops contradicting the bodhisattva vow.”
Asanga: “The reason for this is that the hearers, intent as they are upon their own welfare, train themselves in trainings that guard the minds of others. How much more so must the bodhisattvas, intent as they are upon the welfare of others!”
“Rejecting the hearers vehicle.”
Asanga: “To hold oneself, and espouse to others the view that ‘A bodhisattva does not listen to doctrine that is associated with the vehicle of the hearers; he should not guard the words and the sense of it, nor should he train himself sustainedly in it. There is no need to do these things’ - is a defiled fault.
JTS: “To hold the opinion that it is necessary for someone of the lesser vehicle to listen etc. to the hearers’ vehicle, but it is not necessary for the bodhisattva, does not constitute a fundamental rejection of the vehicle of the hearers. It looms especially large, however, as the seminal transgression of causing others to reject the pratimoksa.”
Asanga: “The reason that this results in transgression is that if the bodhisattva need apply himself even to tirthika treatises, what need to mention the exalted word of the Buddha?”
JTS: “To maintain that those of little familiarity with doctrine, so long as they belong to the Greater Vehicle, need not train themselves in pratimoksa, is a great pitfall that accumulates obstacles whose karmic maturation is a paucity of doctrine. This precept is the best guideline for avoiding it.”
With respect to the wrong claims on the 34th BS vow by GKG and the wrong comment, in Geshe Sönam Rinchen’s “The Bodhisattva vow” this vow is correctly explained, as it has been explained by Je Tsongkhapa and Asanga.
[quote]I have never been deceived by my Gurus or by the practice.
Those who criticise the practice of Dorje Shugden are refuted by many different approaches such as:
1. Historical information
2. Logic and reasoning
3. Scriptural references
4. Personal experience of practitioners
and maybe other things I haven’t thought of. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Dalai Lama’s reasons for banning the practice are contrary to history, logic, scripture and experience.[/quote]
Well, I have not seen any evidence from areas 1, 2, 0r 3…and the post I was referring to basically says “Personal experience trumps all.”
How do you know you have not been deceived by your gurus or your practice? Can you answer that question?
History, logic and scripture (if interpreted widely to include Tibetan commentators) time and time again refute your Shugden practice. This thread contains a great deal of historical research on the issue, as well as logical and scriptural arguments against the practice. I have not seen any such arguements, from these three areas, supporting the practice, other than quotes from GKG’s books and websites.
Seriously. You’re sidestepping the issues–
BTW, I hope my last posts, especially # 664 answers also earlier claims I made and who were picked up and questioned in Lyra’s post # 580.
For more on this see my comments on NKT ordination at my WSS-unlocked block.
So far.
Good insights. Keep well.
“Those who criticise the practice of Dorje Shugden are refuted by many different approaches such as:
1. Historical information
2. Logic and reasoning
3. Scriptural references
4. Personal experience of practitioners
and maybe other things I haven’t thought of. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Dalai Lama’s reasons for banning the practice are contrary to history, logic, scripture and experience.”
This is not true. The position of those that oppose this practice is that it is rooted in sectarianism and sectarianism is to be rejected.
Proof that those lamas were sectarian can be found in the historical accounts of their sectarian activities, such as the forced conversion of non-gelug gompas in Kham by Phabongkhapa and his followers.
The teachings and claims made by Phabongkhapa and his followers also show their sectarianism and they themselves ally their protector to this political sectarian cause.
The claim that subjective personal experience validates this practice is meaningless unless one looks at exactlt what is being experienced and what the result was. For example, can we say that Phabongkhapa became a better follower of the Buddhadharma after worshipping this protector for much of his life, or did he instead become a powerful and charismatic politician who engaged in violent purges of other followers of the Buddha?
Looking at the senior students of Kelsang Gyatso, such as Gen-la Thubten Gyatso, Gen-la Samden Gyatso and Gen Kelsang Lodro, can we say that this protector helped them in keep their practice ‘pure’? These were some of the foremost western exponents of this dharma protector practice, but it seems that their dharma practice was not protected from their delusions at all.
If, having run out of historical, political and doctrinal justifications for this practice, we are forced to turn to our personal experience, these are the kinds of questions we must ask.
I do have personal experience of worshipping this protector and nothing in that experience tells me that this is a valid dharma practice. Of course, other’s experience may differ, as subjective experience is notoriously unreliable when dealing with such matters.
Dear Kagyupa and Dorje,
To address your posts about the Protector practice, there is historical, scriptural, logical and experiential reasons why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha. I’m frankly amazed if you haven’t come across logical refutations of the Dalai Lama’s dodgy reasons for banning the practices such as ‘it’s harming my health and the cause of Tibetan independence’. There is the logical argument that if Pabongkha and Trijang were confused about what is and what is not a suitable object of refuge, the whole Gelugpa tradition is called into question and loses its validity, since its lineage Gurus are not realized.
Trijang Rinpoche also gives many logical reasons why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha in his text ‘Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors’, as well as historical information (the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden and support from the 5th and 11th Dalai Lamas, to name just a couple of things). I’m not going to repeat all that information there, you can find it all over the internet.
Dorje has a one-track argument called ‘Phabongkha was sectarian’ - is that your reason for banning the practice? It’s a very poor one. As I explained there are no modern day examples of sectarianism from Dorje Shugden practitioners, but there is a very BIG example of sectarianism from the Dalai Lama, but you don’t condemn him. Even if Pabongkha destroyed Nyingma monasteries as you claim (and I don’t accept), at least he didn’t destroy a whole tradition of Buddhadharma as the Dalai Lama is doing. In fact, it can be argued that the Dalai Lama is destroying Buddhadharma in general. What worse crime can there be?
I personally feel you have exaggerated my statements on personal experience of the practice to the point where you feel that is the only evidence for Dorje Shugden being a Buddha. That’s an extreme, and one you should avoid. As I said there is a wealth of other evidence if you want to examine it. Personally, I’m surprised you are prepared to dismiss personal experience as deceptive and unimportant. When Buddha said ‘come and see’ do you think he was just talking about doing academic research? Do I have to explain to you what realizations are and what characterizes them? I can do, but perhaps you’d be better studying lorig texts and understanding what a valid cognizer is. Geshe Chekhawa, in Training the Mind in Seven Points gave various criteria to measure success in the practice of training the mind, one of which is:
The measurement of having trained our mind is that we are always calm and happy. I have found that relying on Dorje Shugden has led to increasing calmness and happiness, that’s how I know it’s not deceptive. If delusions agitate the mind and Dharma pacifies it, it’s not difficult to work out if your practice is successful or not. On the other hand, if your practice causes you to develop intellectual pride, jealousy or anger, this is a mara or obstruction and you are ‘turning a god into a demon’ as Geshe Chekhawa says. This would also include using Dharma for worldly purposes as the Dalai Lama is doing.
I’m astonished that you think so little about personal experience. There is an expression ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, but you guys seem to think that:
* The proof of the pudding is whether a Master Chef tells you its okay or not - if not, you can’t eat it!
* The proof of the pudding is whether the recipe looks good and is backed up by scriptural references
* The proof of the pudding is whether the ingredients come in nice packaging or not.
When Buddha asked his followers to test his teachings as they would test gold, he was encouraging them to investigate from all points of view, but also from experience of putting the teachings into practice. If you label all such experience as deceptive, one wonders what Nirvana would be for you? Of course there are deceptive minds and there are deceptive experiences, but Buddha explains how to tell the difference between them. From my experience, Dorje Shugden practice fulfills the criteria for a non-deceptive experience. If you’ve tried it and found otherwise, it’s not for you. If you haven’t tried it, there’s nothing to talk about other than other people’s ideas.
Dear Kaygue-pa,
for quotes take „blockquote“ and „/blockquote“ and use to embrace the word.
Dear Lineageholder,
before I am tired of writing more, some other points mentioned by you or others.
With respect to NKT’s total self-referential system your explanation in post # 658 brings it to the point:
Yes, for GKG only his books and his views are acceptable as being “genuine” and “authentic”, only they are suited for Westerners and all other books not written by him may be no “practical guides and meditation manuals for those who are seeking enlightenment.”, but are rather for intellectual entertainment?
NKT members have no real choice, there is only one reliable fully qualified, fully accomplished meditation master: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his books.
There are different reasons why GKG discourages actively his devoted students — who are encouraged by the him and NKT to keep the “essential purity” of his teachings ‘purely’ (‘not mixing them’ with non-NKT texts) — from reading other books.
According to himself (see quote in post # 653) “studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions.”[22] “The practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.”[23]
Who wants to loose direction? Who wants not follow the advice of the fully accomplished Spiritual Guide, GKG, purely? Isn’t he omniscient?
With the PR stunt of NKT that Geshe Kelsang’s books would be “the most comprehensive presentation of the Buddhist path to enlightenment available in any Western language”.(Bluck 2006 : 138) and there would be no need to study other texts, members are discouraged from reading other texts. Consequently no other texts are available in the library or bookshop of the Manjushri Institute (Bluck 2006 : 138), NKT’s head center. Also the resident NKT teacher Gen Kelsang Pagpa, confirmed this in an interview with Prof. Bluck and explained this as being “encouraged to stick to your own tradition .. to avoid confusion.”(Bluck 2006 : 138).
Although officially NKT members – especially sceptical newbies - is said they could study other texts, from those devoted students (and especially NKT-monks and NKT-nuns) it is expected that they do “not mix” the texts of “Geshe-la”. The problem in that context is also the double truth and double standards within the organisation, there are a lot of unspoken rules, unspoken etiquettes which differ greatly from what is said to outsiders and in the public. On top of that GKG acts like a autocrat and removes resident teachers or teachers from there positions as soon as the do not follow his policies. This autocrat leadership creates a lot of insecurity and the ability to punish those not following devotedly his wishes. (I have some examples for this, including were a GP teacher was removed after the teacher advised in the GP a non-GKG book. For a quick check read this example about the official main editor of GKG’s books: http://nktworld.org/Lucy.html
The funny point in this craziness of totally reliance on one author is, that even when GKG had just written 4or 5 books he removed all other books from the library of the FPMT’s former ‘crown jewel’ the Manjsuhri Institute. The following passage has been of course deleted by NKT members from the Wikipedia article although based on reliable academic research:
It follows GKG views himself and his books as the only reliable source of Dharma. Don’t tell me that this is a common approach. I leave it with this.
Another example – not related to the books and approach of “pure” study – of the duplicity of NKT - is that for GKG it seems to be no problem if his “fully qualified” successors (two of them), “pure Kadampa” teachers, have manifold active sexual relationships with NKT-nuns for a long time (covered up by himself until finally made public via internet or threatened to make public) as long as these successors attract new members for the organisation. It is even more awkward that one of them engages in the protests of WSS to denounce the Dalai Lama as a “hypocrite”. There is something rotten in Denmark, isn’t it?
For more see: http://info-buddhismus.de/new_kadampa_tradition.html and my list of 3rd party researches: http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/
Especially Kay’s research from 1997 is used in almost every research on NKT or New Religious Movements (NRM) and has been strongly recommended by CESNUR (a NRM research group which is usually accused of being a ‘pro-cult’ research group). The research Kay, David N. (1997) ‘The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition‘, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12(3) (October 1997), 277-293 is referenced in 32 academic texts. The research is also in the ‘further readings’ of Helen Waterhouse’s entry on NKT in Prof. Clarke’s ‘Encyclopaedia of New Religious Movements’ (Routledge, 2005).
(Of course such research are invalid for NKT because it is not a text by GKG and it does not teach the Dharma purely, its just an academic text not based on the true experience. The NKT goes so far to even denounce that researcher as being “heavily biased”, to be a “disgruntled ex-member” and puts the word “academic” in apostrophe.)
So far with respect to NKT and their own confusion. For independent information people can contact INFORM in UK, who are actual doing an own research on NKT.
That post was so rife with hypocrisy, I’m speechless
Lineageholder: Don’t pervert the Kadampa maxims for your own political agenda. What a load of nonsense! You obviously don’t get it, this must be New Kadampa thinking. No wonder Atisha was reluctant to teach lojong at all because he deemed that very few would understand it!
Dear LH,
thank you for your hint with Ruth Sonam. I checked the text. It is true that she clearly praises Geshe Sonam Rinchen, based on her own experience. It is also true, that such praises to authors can be found here and there. However in the completely self-referential system of NKT such praises have a taste of self-praise and are sometimes a bit over the top.
Initially a woman who run a NKT center – I guess she is still devoted to GKG – expressed her worry about the praises in the books of GKG, she felt they are not really helpful. At that time I ignored. After my NKT time I recognized the differences between the Tibetan Buddhist masters and GKG, and was amazed to see, that they instead of receiving praises were very keen only expressed their own gratitude either to all of their teachers, those people who helped them or the Dharma in general. In the context of NKT where GKG is the central element of devotion statements like these have a somewhat questionable taste – at least for me:
(Clear Light of Bliss)
However in general, this should be no real object of criticism, because it is also a matter of taste and that is always individual.
So thanks for your correction.
Best Wishes, t
with resect to LH’ claims in post # 668.
You claim this would be a “logical argument”
If both were ‘confused’ with respect to Shugden than this is not nice but there are other lineage masters who made faults and were corrected by their own students. So it is not that uncommon. Moreover there are Gelug lineage masters who opposed Shugden worship very much and one Gelug abbot installed also a ban of Shugden in a monastery.
According to Lama Zopa Rinpoche
A fault of a lineage master doesn’t make a lineage invalid, it is just a fault and a faults can be corrected by those who recognize them. There are many incidents were students corrected their masters, disagreed and opposed their masters or even were asked by their own master to explain it correctly, because the student obviously was more knowledgeable.
see also some examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelsang_Gyatso#POV_.22One_of_the_strongest_tenants_of_Buddhism_is_to_never_forsake_your_teachers_teachings..22
Your logic is rather an expression of fundamentalist beliefs, that the lineage masters, especially Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, are unfailing and can’t have made ever any fault. Of course they can, and such a fault doesn’t make a lineage invalid.
Also the lineage of Je Tsongkhapa has no Shugden worship. Je Tsongkhapa bound Kalarupa for the Gelug school, the three main protectors were from the beginning: Kalarupa, Vaishravana and Mahakala. These three protectors were never seen as controversial by anybody. In opposition to this fact Shugden is a newfangled and very controversial practice. To justify this newfangled practice a lot of stories were created and passed orally as “the truth”. The problem with these stories is, they lack historical evidence and are rather a matter of belief - like the claims about the incarnation lineage.
As I know both sides I have to say it is striking to recognize how many made-up stories were told by Shugden followers to me which lack verifiability and historical evidence and how disrespectful it is to pass this ‘practice’ - controversial from the very start - to the 14th Dalai Lama, although his predecessor was a strict opponent and Pabongkha promised to him to stop its propagation - a promise he clearly broke. It is even more striking for me to see that the claimed “praise of self-correction” to Shugden by the 5th Dalai Lama does just not exist in his works and was probably foisted on the 5th Dalai Lama as the practice has been foisted on the 14th. This is just strange. Who applies reasoning are not the Shugden supporters but the Dalai Lama. You can find this in this research at the end: http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html.
von Brück: “In order to investigate the canonical status of Shugden and his practice, he applies basically three methodological devices or arguments: (1) historical evidence, (2) political reason, (3) spiritual insight.”
Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche are of course realised but there are different levels of Tulkus and different levels of realisations. So what for the highest beings is obvious mustn’t be for others. In that context it is helpful to listen to the highly realised masters of other schools. All of them agree with HHDL and not with Trijang Rinpoche or Pabongkha Rinpoche. The self-correction with respect to Shugden worship has also taken place in the Sakya school by their own masters.
I wonder what “many logical reasons” there are why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha? This is just a claim! It is funny to hear a being who was creating trouble in Lhasa, the soul of a murdered lama, who had to be tamed, pacified and transformed because he created so many problems, is a Buddha. Since what Buddhas have to been tamed and pacified?
With respect to modern sectarianism, you claimed “there are no modern day examples of sectarianism from Dorje Shugden practitioners”.
How is it with NKT? I think they are a very present modern example of sectarianism.
Statements like the mahamudra claim by Gen Thubten
and GKG’s claims about the degeneration of Tibetan Buddhism and the purity of his schools, especially these:
indicate quite clearly sectarianism.
Dzongzar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche: “many lamas encourage sectarianism by guarding their Tibetan disciples possessively and discouraging them from studying teachings from other traditions. Of course, they have a convenient excuse: their students will become too confused if they do this.”
It is more amazing to see how GKG created an own definition of sectarianism by claiming: “It is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism , and he discourages the reader of doing so, stating “studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions.” “The practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.”
for more see:
http://www.siddharthasintent.org/Pubs/West.htm
http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/nonsect.htm
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye
My last post didn’t pass through the filter. So I send it again in two parts. Myybe this works. Both parts are related with LH’s post # 668
1. part: The ‘logic’ in the dispute of Shugden worship
with resect to LH’ claims in post # 668.
You claim this would be a “logical argument”
If both were ‘confused’ with respect to Shugden than this is not nice but there are also other lineage masters who made faults and were corrected by their own students. So it is not that uncommon. Moreover there are Gelug lineage masters who opposed Shugden worship very much and one Gelug abbot installed also a ban of Shugden in a monastery, are they invalid or inauthentic because they hold a different view to both of them? Moreover both lamas are just two of many lineage lamas – of course very influential ones – but they are not the only ones.
According to Lama Zopa Rinpoche
A fault of a lineage master doesn’t make a lineage invalid, it is just a fault and faults can be corrected by those who recognize them. There are many incidents were students corrected their masters, disagreed and opposed their masters or even were asked by their own master to explain it correctly, because the student obviously was more knowledgeable.
see also some examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelsang_Gyatso#POV_.22One_of_the_strongest_tenants_of_Buddhism_is_to_never_forsake_your_teachers_teachings..22
Your logic is rather an expression of fundamentalist beliefs, that the lineage masters, especially Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, are unfailing and can’t have made ever any fault. Of course they can, and such a fault doesn’t make a lineage invalid.
Also the lineage of Je Tsongkhapa has no Shugden worship. Je Tsongkhapa bound Kalarupa for the Gelug school, the three main protectors were from the beginning: Kalarupa, Vaishravana and Mahakala. These three protectors were never seen as controversial by anybody. In opposition to this fact Shugden is a newfangled and very controversial practice. To justify this newfangled practice a lot of stories were created and passed orally as “the truth”. The problem with these stories is, they lack historical evidence and are rather a matter of belief - like the claims about the incarnation lineage.
As I know both sides I have to say it is striking to recognize how many made-up stories were told by Shugden followers to me which lack verifiability and historical evidence and how disrespectful it is to pass this ‘practice’ - controversial from the very start - to the 14th Dalai Lama, although his predecessor was a strict opponent and Pabongkha promised to him to stop its propagation - a promise he clearly broke. It is even more striking for me to see that the claimed “praise of self-correction” to Shugden by the 5th Dalai Lama does just not exist in his works and was probably foisted on the 5th Dalai Lama as the practice has been foisted on the 14th. This is just strange. Who applies reasoning are not the Shugden supporters but the Dalai Lama. You can find this in this research at the end: http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html.
von Brück: “In order to investigate the canonical status of Shugden and his practice, he applies basically three methodological devices or arguments: (1) historical evidence, (2) political reason, (3) spiritual insight.”
Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche are of course realised but there are different levels of Tulkus and different levels of realisations. So what for the highest beings is obvious mustn’t be for others. In that context it is helpful to listen to the highly realised masters of other schools. All of them agree with HHDL and not with Trijang Rinpoche or Pabongkha Rinpoche. The self-correction with respect to Shugden worship has also taken place in the Sakya school by their own masters.
I wonder what “many logical reasons” there are why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha? This is just a claim! It is funny to hear a being who was creating trouble in Lhasa, the soul of a murdered lama, who had to be tamed, pacified and transformed because he created so many problems, is a Buddha. Since what Buddhas have to been tamed and pacified?
I see, this worked, then now part 2 related with LH’s post # 668
“Modern Sectarianism by Shugden followers”
With respect to modern sectarianism, you claimed “there are no modern day examples of sectarianism from Dorje Shugden practitioners”.
How is it with NKT? I think they are a very present modern example of sectarianism.
Statements like the mahamudra claim by Gen Thubten
and GKG’s claims about the degeneration of Tibetan Buddhism and the purity of his schools, especially these:
indicate quite clearly sectarianism.
Dzongzar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche: “many lamas encourage sectarianism by guarding their Tibetan disciples possessively and discouraging them from studying teachings from other traditions. Of course, they have a convenient excuse: their students will become too confused if they do this.”
It is more amazing to see how GKG created an own definition of sectarianism by claiming: “It is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism , and he discourages the reader of doing so, stating “studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions.” “The practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.”
for more see:
http://www.siddharthasintent.org/Pubs/West.htm
http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/nonsect.htm
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye
Lineageholder writes:
“I personally feel you have exaggerated my statements on personal experience of the practice to the point where you feel that is the only evidence for Dorje Shugden being a Buddha.”
Here is post #649 quoted in full. Your words speak for themselves. Regardless of what HH The Dalai Lama, or anyone else, says about this practice, your refutation here is entirely based on your personal experience. I see no exaggeration. Here’s your post:
“Dear Tenzin,
What did the Dalai Lama say? He doesn’t disrespect his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, he simply says that respect to Dorje Shugden, he was wrong.
I can say the same then. I respect the Teachers, students, teachings, activities and realizations of all schools of Buddhism, but I can say that if one of them says that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha, they are wrong.
As much as many of you might like to dismiss my experience of Dorje Shugden as a delusion, you can’t because I alone know what I’ve experienced. I’m nothing special, but all detractors are like mara at the moment of enlightenment saying to Buddha “what gives you the right to be enlightened?”. Having tried in every way to de-rail Buddha from his task, mara left doubt to last of all.
I have no doubt about Dorje Shugden, so that won’t work. As Buddha touched the earth, asking it to bear witness to the causes he had created for enlightenment, I touch the truth of my experience which comes from virtue, not from delusion. Through the blessings of my Gurus, I’ve had the good fortune to have that experience.
Anyone who has never experienced Dorje Shugden practice is just like a parrot of the Dalai Lama squawking “Dorje Shugden is bad!”. They are the people who have never tasted chocolate, yet regard themselves are confectionery experts.
Get some experience and then tell me I’m wrong.”
In other words, in short, no matter what you hear, from anyone, “they are wrong” and you are right, because of your experience.
You cannot turn back on this now, really.
Lineageholder writes: “Trijang Rinpoche also gives many logical reasons why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha in his text ‘Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors’, as well as historical information (the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden and support from the 5th and 11th Dalai Lamas, to name just a couple of things).”
Let’s leave Gyalwa Ngapa out–that has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere, the Sixth through Eighth, perhaps another time. But briefly, the Ninth Dalai Lama only lived 15 years, the Tenth Dalai Lama lived 21 years, the Eleventh Dalai Lama lived 17 years, not even reaching the age of majority–all likely due to foul play…where is the protection in that?
The invented retroactive “lineage” of Shugden, supposedly going back to Indian Mahasiddha Biwawa, Sakya Pandita, Butön Rinchen Drub, is an old Tibetan trick (used by others as well) to imbibe ‘authenticity’ and authority to a new teaching. To be honest, such ‘lineages’ are not within the usual spatio-temporal framework of reality: in other words, its all just made up. Such ‘reasons’ certainly do not have a logical basis, one could only say perhaps a hagiographical or mythological basis at best.
Hi,
I have to agree with LH.
KG says that if i rely upon DS, he (DS) will remove obstacles to my practice and lay good conditions for my spiritual development.
HHDL says that DS worshipers will get many money, and many disciples.
My experience is that i have become more peaceful and focused over the years, and gradually less attached to worldly concerns. On the other hand i have less money than 6 years ago when i began practicing, and have the same number of disciples: zero.
So my natural conclusion: for me DS has functioned as the Buddha that KG refers to, and not the wealth-giving spirit that HH talks about. Conclusion drawn from my own experience.
I’m not saying that DS is one or the other. I can’t stand all your bickering “i am right, you are wrong”. I am just expressing my personal experience with DS practice.
“There is the logical argument that if Pabongkha and Trijang were confused about what is and what is not a suitable object of refuge, the whole Gelugpa tradition is called into question and loses its validity, since its lineage Gurus are not realized.”
The Gelugpa tradition was endangered by Phabongkhapa’s innovations that sought to change Tsongkhapa’s Dharma and neglect the teachings that he passed down. This was serious, but there are still lineages within the Gelug that were untouched by these changes.
“Trijang Rinpoche also gives many logical reasons why Dorje Shugden is a Buddha in his text ‘Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors’, as well as historical information (the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden and support from the 5th and 11th Dalai Lamas, to name just a couple of things).”
Trijang Rinpoche’s argument is essentially that as the previous incarnations of this protector were enlightened masters, it is impossible for these enlightened masters to be reborn as a harmful spirit. This ‘logic’ falls down when one realises that Phabongkhapa manufactured this incarnation lineage to give validity to the protector practice that he was propagating. To the followers of these great Sakya lamas, it is inconceivable that Sakya Pandita was reborn at all, let alone as Buton or Drakpa Gyaltsen. Nowhere prior to Phabongkhapa will one find the claims that Virupa reincarnated as Sapan and Sapan as Buton, etc. In short, Phabongkhapa made it up.
“Dorje has a one-track argument called ‘Phabongkha was sectarian’ - is that your reason for banning the practice? It’s a very poor one. As I explained there are no modern day examples of sectarianism from Dorje Shugden practitioners”
My argument is that Phabongkhapa changed the Gelug tradition, and, as a sectarian politician, he was not qualified to do so. The changes he introduced and especially his protector practice, were tainted with sectarianism and used to perpetuate this sectarianism. If anyone wishes to practice the Ganden tradition purely, as Je Rinpoche taught, they should not adopt Phabongkhapa’s innovations. Those that oppose this practice are the true protectors of Tsongkhapa’s Dharma. Actions lamas such as Lama Gangchen are more recent examples of the sectarianism spread by those that worship this protector.
“The measurement of having trained our mind is that we are always calm and happy. I have found that relying on Dorje Shugden has led to increasing calmness and happiness, that’s how I know it’s not deceptive.”
Subjective experience is deceptive until we have reached the path of seeing. According to Buddhist belief, devas and pretas are able to create all kinds of experiences in our minds. Meditation experiences can also be very deceptive, leading us to believe we have made more progress than is the case. This is why we need to follow an authentic teacher who can guide us through these pitfalls and blind alleys. His sectarianism and naked political ambition show us that Phabongkhapa was not qualified to reform Je Rinpoche’s tradition or guide those on the path.
“The proof of the pudding is whether a Master Chef tells you its okay or not - if not, you can’t eat it!”
The proof of the Dharma is whether it comes from an authentic source or not. This protector practice, shaped by Phabongkhapa’s politically motivated sectarianism does not.
1. Name one “innovation” Pabongkha made? The Naljorma tradition in Gelug was started by Ngulchu who wrote many works for that. It was Nyungne Lama Yeshe Zangpo, a student Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen, that coined the title Protector of the Second Conqueror Manjunatha. In Serkong Dorje Chang’s kangso and Pabongkha’s works it is written there is an earlier jenang of Shugden going back to Rinchen Wangyal of Sera monastery, a contemporary of the Second Retreng Rinpoche Trichen Tenpa Rabgye. The second Retreng Rinpoche also himself wrote that Shugden was an emanation of Vajrapani, as can be found in volume ga of his collected works published by Tibetan Works and Archives.
2. Name one monastery “destroyed” or “converted” by Pabongkha? In Chatreng, Kham there were 113 Kagyu and Nyingma monasteries until under the 5th DL they were absorbed into one Gelug monastery Ganden Sampeling when Gushri Khan sent a faction of his army commanded by his cousin General Khandro Tenkyong to the region.
3. The claim that the 13th DL banned Shugden is complete non-sense. The only reference provided by Dharmasala to back this ridiculous claim is some biography of Pabongkha published in Tibet only. Can anyone tell us which year this so called letter was written? The content of the so-called letter is nearly comical. Why would his biographer Lobsang Dorje, obviously a Pabongkha and Shugden devotee himself, include a letter rebuking Pabongkha from the 13th DL that was later deemed too sensitive by later followers of Pabongkha and remove it from the later publications? It is because it doesn’t exist, it is lies from Dharamsala in their attempt to discredit Pabongkha and Shugden.
4. Even Samuel (1993: 545) said “Pawongka Rimpoche was not an originator of new teachings or approaches. His significance for the Gelugpa was as a transmitter and codifier of the Gelugpa tradition. He stood for strict and pure continuation of the tradition of Tsongkhapa as it had developed in the great Gelugpa monasteries in central and east Tibet.”
This would also include Vajrayogini, as one of the lamas whom he received the Gelug transmission of this from was Trehor Khangsar Rinpoche, of Minyag, Kham. Trehor Khangsar’s collected works were published by Dhongthog Rinpoche, which ironically also includes a propitiation to Shugden in which he states Shugden is Manjushrigarbha’s Dharma Protector.
Dear Harry,
HHDL didn’t say, if you practice Shugden “you will get many disciples, many money, and then many problems”, this was said by a Nyingma master from Buthan, head of 25 monasteries. He started his answer by stating: “I and most Kagyuepa, Nyingmapa and Sakyapa believe, he is a demon, if you practice Shugden, then […]”.
In your own case this may be disapproved but not in others’. It is always good to extend the view. Look how many disciples, many money NKT/GKG got initially and now, how many problems both have. Shugden could not even protect the most gifted successors of GKG, not even the abused nuns, he was not even able to stop GKG from covering up the abuse. If you look on the newkadampatruth-site of NKT they list so many problems that it looks like Shugden failed completely to protect them.
The previous Ganden Tripa, Head of the School of Je Tsongkhapa, who stayed after his death for 18 days in clear light/ thukdam*:
I think he is very right, Shugden is a protector who has to be protected by his own people, isn’t it? Such an instance is not reported about any other protector.
So in your case it may not be confirmed, but this does not say much. Like a thieve who has stolen from 100 people is still a thieve although is has not stolen from the rest of human mankind. It is a wrong argument to claim because the thieve has not stolen from the rest of human mankind he would be no thieve.
* http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=22935
some points to Rodney’s post #679, some sources and some additional thoughts
1. the unverifiable made-up stories are at the side of Shugden proponents
2. the case of the rebuke of Pabongkha by the 13th DL is documented in Dharma Losang Dorje’s biography. This biography contains also the letter of excuse & promise to the 13th Dalai Lama in Vol 14 (Lhasa edition), page 471 ff. The letter has no date and says only that it was written after the 39. year, this means, after 1917 (information derived by von Brück’s German research, which is more extended than the English one.)
3. with respect to the destroyed artefacts of Nyingma monasteries and the conversion and sectarianism: again, there are a lot of academic research (including Samuel) who confirms this, second you find this also in other texts, like the autobiography of Chagdud Tulku “Lord of the Dance” (all this has been mentioned already), thirdly, also a very high Gelug lama and close disciple and devotee of Trijang Rinpoche (whose name I wish not to mention in this context) confirmed this to his students but added that the action were not initiated by Pabongkha Rinpoche. So it is not only a report by those opposing Shugden worship.
4. with respect to the details which monasteries exactly have been converted and which statues of Padmasambhava have been destroyed, I have no details. But it would be good to specify this. In Chagdud Tulku’s autobiography he just mentions that the local people there (in Kham when I remember correctly) told him personally that a Lama Pabongkha from central Tibet and that they destroyed statues and texts, converted monasteries and afterwards they had a great famine. The people were very upset.
I just checked via amazon.com (The passage I read some years ago in the German edition). Here the extract from page 107, it was in Amdo, not Kham:
5. by claiming that the three protectors of Je Tsongkhapa have gone to their pure lands and people of our time would have no karma with them anymore while they would have Karma with shugden (a claim also GKG tells his students), and replacing the three origin protectors established by Je Tsongkhapa by Shugden worship + replacing the central element of Vajrayana practice in Gelug school (also as taught by Je Tsongkhapa himself) - the union of the practices of the three HYT deities: Chakrasambhava, Ghuyasamaja and Yamantaka – with the practice of Vajra Yogini, Pabongkha Rinpoche replaced two major elements of the Gelug school with two minor elements which are rather recent (although Vajrayogini practice exists since Tilopa/Naropa, it was rather new in Gelug school.) Dreyfus stated correctly:
What makes the things for me even more bizarre is the fact of the life-entrustment with the vow to never ever give up the guru from whom you received it and to be always devoted to him. There is an exaggeration in the guru devotion in that context that seems to ask for absolute obedience. I think this commitment is one of the tools by which Pabongkha Rp. made himself as the central Guru of that time as well. Who ever received the life-entrustment by him had to regard him as the highest. For me it looks like, if you had 20 Gurus and the life-entrustment to Shugden by PRp. then PRp. would be your most important lama. This would also explain why so many people with life-entrustment had their struggle with the rejection of Shudgen by HHDL and other masters. It would also explain the narrow-minded attitude in NKT and among some Shugden followers, that there is only one “root Guru”. With this conception they try to proof that HHDL is wrong because he would have broken with “his root guru” Trijang Rinpoche, although HHDL has many root Gurus, and Trijang Rinpoche is just one of them, his junior tutor.
I heard - but have no proof - that some of GKG’s earlier students received this life-entrustment from him. If this is true this would also explain a lot of the NKT background to me.
The pattern of absolute obedience and seeing the Guru in the literally sense as a Buddha, and putting him into the center of worship, can be found also in NKT. Outside the Shugden worshippers this extreme I’ve never found or recognized. All of them have a much more relaxed and realistic approach.
Again here some results from academic research:
1. Samuel: Pabongka Rinpoche, who was a “strict purist and conservative”, “adopted an attitude of sectarian intolerance” and “instituted a campaign to convert non-Gelug gompa (monasteries) in Kham to the Gelugpa school, by force where necessary”. “The dominant Gelugpa figure of this period, apart from the 13th Dalai Lama himself, was his near contemporary, the 1st P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e (1878-1943). P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e was by all accounts a brilliant scholar and accomplished Tantric meditator, who is remembered with devotion by his disciples. He is remembered with less favor by the Nyingmapa order in K’am where, as the Dalai Lama’s representative, his attitude was one of sectarian intolerance towards non-Gelugpa orders and the Nyingmapa in particular.”
2. Kay: “…and in response to the Rimé movement (ris med) that had originated and was flowering in that region, Pabongkha Rinpoche (a Gelug agent of the Tibetan government) and his disciples employed repressive measures against non-Gelug sects. Religious artefacts associated with Padmasambhava — who is revered as a ’second Buddha’ by Nyingma practitioners — were destroyed, and non-Gelug, and particularly Nyingma, monasteries were forcibly converted to the Gelug position. A key element of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s outlook was the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden, which he married to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies.”
3. Barnett “…since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries…”
4. Mills: “The object of the controversy - the deity Dorje Shugden, also named Dholgyal by opponents of its worship - had been a point of controversy between the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism since its emergence onto the Tibetan scene in the late seventeenth century, and was strongly associated with the interests of the ruling Gelukpa order…Despite this, the deity retained a controversial quality, being seen as strongly sectarian in character, especially against the ancient Nyingmapa school of Tibetan Buddhism: the deity was seen as wreaking supernatural vengeance upon any Gelukpa monk or nun who ‘polluted’ his or her religious practice with that of other schools, most particularly those of the Nyingmapa…The deity thus became the symbolic focus of power struggles, both within the Gelukpa order and between it and other Buddhist schools.”
I can give exact details for the sources if wished and I can add more.
Personally I think, the problem of those opposing the claims of Shugden followers is that they are often confronted with fundamentalists who offer made-up stories which are a matter of blind belief or “experience” and being faced with their strong rejection of historical facts, evidence, and sources not written by themselves or Pabonkha Rp./Trijang Rinpoche. This can be observed also in this thread. At the end it comes always back to the main arguments by Shugden followers: these two lamas can’t have failed so therefore those opposing this particular view of Shugden being a Buddha must be wrong + ‘my experience proofs he is a Buddha’. By fading out the opinions, reasons and conviction of all the other high lamas from all the Tibetan schools who support HHDL in his position, they portray the Dalai Lama as the sole source of problems, the “enemy of the Buddhadharma” and so on. Such a blaming of HHDL as being the sole source of the problems is against any Buddhist principle (see the 16 aspects of the Four Noble Truths) and it is completely unrealistic.
I think these rejections against obvious facts is exactly what constitutes fundamentalism as defined by Richard Dawkins ‘clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.‘
There are reasons why the majority of Tibetan Buddhist masters and practitioners from all school, including their very heads, and also researcher agree with (or at least do not disapprove) the position of HHDL or the opponents of Shugden worship, because of either it’s sectarian nature, controversial appliance against other schools, abuse to establish Gelug supremacy or controversial inception and history. The active denial of a conventional truth is usually referred to as ‘Nihilism’ in Buddhism and it is called an “extreme view” which has to be given up. “Extreme views” who do not accord with reality also undermine compassion and Bodhichitta, the essence of Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism.
Because the Kayguepas fear Shugden and see him as a negative force who brings discord into families and the monastic community, Nyingmapas, the 5th Dalai Lama & 14th Dalai Lama see him as harming Buddhism and sentient beings (see interviews in the film documentary), and also the Sakyapas do not approve him to be practiced, but rather as being harmful + the majority of Gelugpas shares a similar view, if still a minority wishes to practice it, it is their freedom. They can do it, they have the freedom to do it – but at their own places or privately.
However from the pov of Bodhisattva attitude why not giving up what harms sentient beings? Or at least, why not accepting their position and freedom that it should not be practised at their monastery sites? What is about their rights to protect themselves? What is about the right of the spiritual elders to put restrictions on what is seen by them as being harmful, backed by the majority of Tibetan Buddhists?
Again the 100th throneholder of Je Tsongkhapa, the Ganden Tripa, Lobsang Nyima Rinpoche:
“1. Name one “innovation” Pabongkha made?”
Phabongkhapa took different elements of previously minor significance to the Gelug tradition and gave them central importance, allying them with his own vision of exclusive adherence and sectarian intolerance. In doing this he changed Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition to something Je Rinpoche would not recognise.
“2. Name one monastery “destroyed” or “converted” by Pabongkha?”
Above I mentioned the Nyingma gompas of Chamdo, central administrative town in Kham where Phabongkhapa was the political representative of the Lhasa regime. I also mentioned the Nyingma gompa in Dhartsedo and quoted an account of the conversion of Kajegon gompa in Dragyab. These are just a few examples. There were many more.
“3. The claim that the 13th DL banned Shugden is complete non-sense.”
There is textual evidence for this claim. Kelsang Gyatso also accepts it where he says that the 13th Dalai Lama used his political power to further his ends and indicates that Phabongkhapa was on the receiving end of this.
Your fourth point seems to be a restatement of your first point with specific emphasis on Vajrayogini. Tsongkhapa however did not emphasise Vajrayogini, and looking at the lamas that make up the Naro Kacho lineage coming through Phabongkhapa, it is clear that Sakya lamas are the source of this, with it only becoming a major Gelug practice with Phabongkhapa’s instigation.
If anyone has the wish to preserve Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, it would be absurd to disregard the practices that Je Tsongkhapa taught.
Dear Dorje,
Regarding Vajrayogini practice, what you say is not true. Of the lineage Gurus of this practice, there are seven before Pabongkhapa who are Gelugpas, including Ngulchu Dharmabhadra who is also a mahamudra lineage Guru of the Gelugpa tradition. This shows that the practice of Vajrayogini was already within the Gelugpa tradition. Pabongkha is most widely associated with the practice because he encouraged it and wrote the self-generation sadhana that is used by Gelugpas these days.
On the E-Sangha forum, Padkar Rinpoche explained a very special reason why the lineage as passed on by Pabongkhapa is especially powerful:
It therefore makes perfect sense to practice Vajrayogini as a Gelugpa with Pabongkhapa as one’s lineage Guru because of both the power of the practice and the fact that the meditations of Vajrayogini practice are easier to accomplish but just as profound and powerful as those of Heruka Five Deities and Heruka Body Mandala.
This story also demonstrates that all the stories about Pabongkha destroying Nyingma monasteries are just manufactured. How could someone to whom Heruka made such a promise of realizations be unrealized? How could he be capable of the evil actions that you claim? It is impossible.
Dear TP,
You’ve written a lot, but keeping it simple, it still comes down to two things:
1. There is no evidence that Dorje Shugden is a spirit - either historical, logical
or scriptural. It’s just the Dalai Lama’s distorted view. However, there’s a lot
of evidence to show that he’s a Buddha
2. There is no evidence for banning the practice on the grounds of
sectarianism when there is no sectarianism.
It’s simple, really
Dear all,
I’d really like to know where this ‘Gelugpa supremacy’ that everyone’s talking about exists and why do people think that:
1. It’s a big problem in Tibetan Buddhism
2. it’s associated with Dorje Shugden
This is a quote from Kay that TP gave earlier:
Okay, let’s assume that Pabongkha was a bad boy, as some would have us believe and he did have an axe to grind against other traditions because they weren’t ‘pure’. He’s not here anymore, so where’s the exclusivism today?
Just understanding that Dorje Shugden is the protector of the Gelugpa tradition and asking him to protect this tradition is not exclusivism. I, for one, also make prayers for the flourishing of Buddhadharma throughout the world, which would include all Buddhist traditions. How am I being ‘exclusivist’ by practising Dorje Shugden? I’m not, therefore there is no justification in banning it.
Do other traditions also make prayers for the flourishing of the Gelugpa tradition, or just for their own? Just curious!
My understanding is that just wanting to practice your own tradition and not mix with others is not being a ’supremacist’. Why should it cause any problems? Surely it’s my choice to mix or not to mix? Some people may want to practice by mixing and some by not mixing and that’s their choice.
Surely Gelugpas can think they are supreme if they want to? Wouldn’t it be wiser to feel sorry for such people instead of creating a schism in the Sangha?
Lineage Holder
Re #686, discussions of sectarianism and exclusivism are slippery if they are not very carefully defined. But the key question is raised in #685: what is that nature of DS. It seems to me absurd to state (1) there is NO evidence - historical, logical or scriptural - that DS is a spirit and (2) that the claim DS is a spirit is simply down to the DL’s distorted view.
If (2) was true then no-one prior to the DL would have claimed DS was a spirit whereas very many did. One such person was Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen, the person who (Sakyas claim) tamed DS. This in my book counts as (potential) historical evidence for (1). Re logical and scriptural evidence, DS is, unlike other high protectors, not mentioned in sutra or tantra. This point about scripture, might - logically speaking - raise some pretty serious questions about the validity of DS practice. Oh, and then there’s the deeply contested nature of Trijang’s “reincarnation lineage” of DS. More (potential) historical evidence…
Dear SeekingClarity,
It’s nice to see you on the list again. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the inclusion of Sakya Pandita, Virupa and so forth in the incarnation lineage, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa who is held to be enlightened, so how could Dorje Shugden, who is his incarnation, be a spirit? As Trijang Rinpoche says in his text:
Therefore, claiming that Dorje Shugden is a spirit goes against scripture (the accounts of the lives of these great beings), Buddha’s teachings on karma and implicitly asserts that it’s possible for an enlightened being to become a hungry ghost. It’s simply absurd.
The unfailing logic of the communist party:
because the leader said it, it is the truth.
what others say must be untrue.
the party is always right,
those opposing it are always wrong.
Because Trijang Rinpoche said it, it is the truth.
What all the other masters say is not true.
Because Trijang Rinpoche has written down his views, his views are authentic ’scriptures’ therefore who disagrees with him, is going against the scriptures.
The loop of the narrow-minded or the desperate.
Dear TP,
I’m sure you realize that the same can be said of you - you simply believe what the Dalai Lama says. What others say is untrue.
There are two questions that must be answered in the affirmative to prove what I said is true:
1. is Tulku Dragpa Gyatsen the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa?
2. is Panchen Sonam Dragpa enlightened?
Trijang says ‘yes’ to both of these questions. What does the Dalai Lama say and what evidence does he have to the contrary?
I’m afraid there is a point at which we do have to believe or not believe what someone is telling us based on what we think of them, because what they say is not verifiable by our own experience. You choose the DL every time this happens, I choose his infinitely wiser Teacher.
Manjushri says that Tsongkhapa is the crown ornament of the Scholars of the Land of the Snows and that he’s the manifestation of Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani. How do you know it’s true? You cannot directly know that it’s true unless you’re very highly realized, so until then, what do you do? You have to trust someone - a Teacher, a Lineage Guru, having proven to yourself that they are a reliable source. I have faith in Trijang Rinpoche because I have faith in Geshe Kelsang, and I know that an extraordinary student must have an extraordinary Teacher. I’ve also read and contemplated on Trijang’s previous incarnations and his present good qualities.
Your argument for why someone should give up the practice of Dorje Shugden is that Dorje Shugden is a spirit because the Heads of the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism and other scholars say so. You even accept the word of academic scholars like Kay, but when I quote Trijang Rinpoche, you scoff, simply because you don’t have faith in the source, even though he was the Ganden Tripa and the most eminent Gelugpa Master of the last century. You accept the word of Sakya Trizin, but not Trijang Rinpoche.
All that’s happening is that you’ve got faith in the DL and Sakya Trizin, but not Trijang Rinpoche. What you claim - that Dorje Shugden is a spirit - is unprovable. You’re simply accepting the word of the DL and some eminent Tibetan scholars and practitioners. At the end of the day, we’re both doing the same. The question we have to ask ourself is “Do I believe that Trijang Rinpoche is a holy meditation master and do I believe what he says about Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Panchen Sonam Dragpa?”
I say “yes”, you say “no”. We all make our own choices and then we live with them.
“This story also demonstrates that all the stories about Pabongkha destroying Nyingma monasteries are just manufactured. How could someone to whom Heruka made such a promise of realizations be unrealized? How could he be capable of the evil actions that you claim? It is impossible.”
For this we can decide one of two things. 1: Phabongkhapa was a realized Heruka practitioner or 2: He was a sectarian politician that converted the monasteries of other traditions.
We have textual and historical evidence of the latter. We have his word and that of his followers for the former.
Your ‘evidence’ is all self referential. Quoting the words of another supporter of Phabongkhapa and his protector really means very little other than that Phabongkhapa’s followers thought he was great, and we already knew that.
“There is no evidence that Dorje Shugden is a spirit - either historical, logical or scriptural.”
There are Phabongkhapa’s claims that this protector harms and kills sentient beings. There are also the words of the Sakya lamas that first bound this protector under oath.
“There is no evidence for banning the practice on the grounds of
sectarianism when there is no sectarianism.”
There are accounts of Phabongkhapa and his followers’ sectarian actions as well as their sectarian teachings dismissing other traditions as faulty, dangerous and misleading paths.
“My understanding is that just wanting to practice your own tradition and not mix with others is not being a ’supremacist’. Why should it cause any problems? Surely it’s my choice to mix or not to mix? Some people may want to practice by mixing and some by not mixing and that’s their choice.”
Phabongkhapa said that those that chose to ‘mix’ would be killed by his protector. He also had those that chose to practice other traditions forcibly converted to his tradition, such as the monks of Kajegon gompa in Dragyab, as mentioned above.
“Regardless of what anyone thinks of the inclusion of Sakya Pandita, Virupa and so forth in the incarnation lineage, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa who is held to be enlightened, so how could Dorje Shugden, who is his incarnation, be a spirit?”
Where is your proof that this protector was the incarnation of Dragpa Gyaltsen? The first people to say that Dragpa Gyaltsen took rebirth as this protector were his opponents who claimed this to malign him and ‘prove’ that he was not enlightened. This was until Phabongkhapa fabricated a whole absurd incarnation lineage going back to Virupa.
Dear TP,
Oh, and another thing - why do you always assume that the majority is right? One of your arguments is that Dorje Shugden must be a spirit because a lot of people think so.
Even if everyone in the world thinks that everything is inherently existent (and they do!), it doesn’t make it right. Buddha alone is correct in knowing that things are not inherently existent.
It’s not always good to be in the majority.
“It’s not always good to be in the majority.”
I am happy to recognize that you realised that the majority has a different view.
I think this is a good outcome of our discussion.
Dear TP,
Yes, the majority are wrong. Here ya go:
http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/2008/12/ten-simple-reasons-why-dorje-shugden-is.html
Dorje Shugden rocks! Enjoy the truth!
“1. Dorje Shugden is the last incarnation in a lineage of enlightened Masters ”
According to an incarnation lineage frabricated by Phabongkhapa, the charismatic, sectarian politician.
“2. Dorje Shugden could not be subdued by the 5th Dalai Lama or other Lamas”
Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen subdued it.
“3. Dorje Shugden’s form teaches the paths of Sutra and Tantra”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician who also claimed that this protector harms and kills sentient beings.
“4. Dorje Shugden is the incarnation of the five Buddha families”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician.
“5. Dorje Shugden is the same nature as Manjushri, Je Tsongkhapa, Mahakala and Kalarupa”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician.
“6. Dorje Shugden’s mandala Deities are the same nature as the body mandala Deities of Lama Losang Tubwang Dorjechang”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician responsible for destroying and forcibly converting gompas of other traditions in Kham.
“7. The practice of Dorje Shugden was taught by Je Tsongkhapa in Tushita Pure Land”
According to Lama Tagpo, the teacher of Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician, who claimed to have a vision of this whilst in a trance.
“8. Dorje Shugden has been relied upon by the highest Lamas, who themselves have been recognized as enlightened”
Well, Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician and his followers who have recognised themselves as being enlightened.
“9. Dorje Shugden performs the twenty-seven deeds of a Buddha”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician who also claimed that this protector harms and kills sentient beings.
“10. Relying upon Dorje Shugden leads to supramundane results”
According to Phabongkhapa, the sectarian politician, as well as western teachers like Gen-la Thubten Gyatso, Gen-la Samden Gyatso and Gen Kelsang Lodro, all of whom relied on this protector and abused the trust of the naive NKT members who were taught to view them as Buddha emanations along with this protector.
Self-praise really is no recommendation.
Dorje,
Your reasoning is non-existent!
Still. I wish you a happy holiday season anyway.
This is a nice article too, giving more history to the practice:
Some Thoughts on the History of a Practice
http://truthaboutshugden.wordpress.com/some-thoughts-on-the-...
Meanwhile, even non-Shugden practitioners just trying to get to the bottom of this problem by checking out articles on the Internet are coming to the inevitable conclusion that the Dalai Lama’s ban is just wrong. Plain wrong. For example,
http://maramyfriend.blogspot.com/2008/12/dorje-shugden-part-...
http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/2008/10/evil-sp...
The Dalai Lama will not be able to get away with this for much longer, and religious freedom will be restored whether he likes it or not.
All we want from you for Christmas in 2008, Dalai Lama, is religious freedom.
Sorry, links didn’t come out. Here they are again:
http://mountainphoenixovertibet.blogspot.com/
and
http://maramyfriend.blogspot.com/
To quote some from the blog article I mentioned:
http://truthaboutshugden.wordpress.com/some-thoughts-on-the-history-of-a-practice/
I was struck dumb with the perverse audacity of our present Dalai Lama and his misguided attempt to suppress this amazing practice that he himself received from his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche.
It occurred to me how the DL is actually cutting himself off from the blessings of his own teachers, his own lineage, and defaming them in the process. He argues on his own website, rather mawkishly and unconvincingly, that he has faith in the lineage and deep respect for his teachers, but when you take a good long look at his actions, this stance seems increasingly hard to credit.
If he were simply claiming that one or two teachers had made a minor mistake, as he seems to want to do, this might be one thing, but in fact this practice has pervaded the Gelug tradition at least since the sixteen hundreds (for you non-Gelugs) and indeed since it’s very inception (if you are a Gelugpa with faith in your lineage gurus…).
….And what about the high abbots that practiced and revered Dorje Shugden from the depths of their hearts? I can think of many abbots of the great Gelug monasteries and tantric colleges that were devoted Dorje Shugden practitioners.
What about the great Gelug yogis of the twentieth century, a list that overlaps with the other two in many places? What about Zong Rinpoche, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Lama Yeshe, Khen Rinpoche Losang Tharchin, Geshe Rabten, Geshe Lhundrub Sopa, Lati Rinpoche, Ribur Rinpoche, Gelek Rinpoche, Serkong Rinpoche, Gonsar Rinpoche, Zasep tulku etc etc etc? What about Kyabje Domo Geshe Rinpoche, who the Thirteenth Dalai Lama himself regarded as an emanation of Je Tsongkhapa? What about the previous Serkong Rinpoche, who the Thirteenth Dalai Lama regarded as being Vajradhara himself, adding the appellation “Dorjechang” (Vajradhara) to his name?
What about the many thousands of tantric disciples of these lamas, those who held samayas with them and revered them as living buddhas? It is enough to make your heart crack in two when you consider the sadness they must have felt at the Dalai Lama’s actions.
What about Ngulchu Dharmabhadra? Ngulchu Dharmabhadra is a lineage guru in Je Tsongkhapa’s Ganden ear-whispered Mahamudra lineage, and in his collected works he refers to “Manjushri Dorje Shugden” and identifies him as having arisen from the continuum of great beings that includes Duldzin Drakpa Gyaltsen, Panchen Sonam Drakpa and Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.
If your mahamudra lineage gurus can’t tell the difference between a malicious ghost and Manjushri himself, what you have is a dead lineage, and when you examine it, this is what the Dalai Lama is claiming. He even claims Je Dharmabhadra is “against the practice” on his website. We can only pray that his scholarship is merely sloppy, because otherwise we are forced to accept that this man is deceptive in the extreme.
Finally, it looks like we are talking about the cream of the Gelug tantric tradition. When one considers all the great beings that have venerated this supreme emanated protector, it gives tremendous faith, and also forces one to examine the Dalai Lama’s words and actions. This Dalai Lama presents the issue as though it were extremely clear cut, and would have it that the great yogis of the past all agree with him, but in fact it is much, much more complex than he lets on. Even his historical evidence is very shoddy (more on this later).
It is almost…as if…. there were a…. political motivation behind his actions…
Scholars and yogis, please check!
“in fact this practice has pervaded the Gelug tradition at least since the sixteen hundreds (for you non-Gelugs) and indeed since it’s very inception (if you are a Gelugpa with faith in your lineage gurus…)”
This is not a fact. It is a fabrication invented by Phabongkhapa. This protector was not widely worshipped in the Gelug tradition until early last century, and even then it was not universal.
“It is almost…as if…. there were a…. political motivation behind his actions”
There was a political motivation for Phabongkhapa propagating this protector worship. He taught that it would kill Gelugpas that took teachings from other traditions. He also taught that other traditions were inferior. This helped him to ensure exclusive adherence from Gelugpas and encourage the conversion of non-Gelugpas. His political motivation was to strengthen the power of the Gelug hegemony.
Re: Khajegon, according to this source it was Zangmar not Pabongkha that did this. This story is told is questionable, namely that Zangmar “fell under the spell” of Pabongkha, the way it is told is definitely one sided and one left grasping for more details. The author is obvious relying on an account, most likely Khamtrul Rinpoche who he mentions in the book.
Second, regarding Dhartsedo, you are incorrect: “The late Dhardo Rinpoche (1917-90) was recognized as an incarnation, or tulku, of the chief abbot of Losel-ling College, Drepung Monastery located in central Tibet. He was the second tulku in the Gelugpa lineage and eleventh in the Nyingmapa lineage. ” Note he was the SECOND Gelugpa in his reincarnation lineage, therefore the conversion was BEFORE Pabongkha became renown.
Third, can you clarify if the 13th Dalai Lama banned Shugden or rebuked Pabongkha? Regarding the first there is no evidence. Regarding the second all there is a unverifiable claim to a publisher called Palden Publisher Nyimo I can find no information on. Dharmasala also says “In the biography of Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo published in India the above appeal is not found. ” Very suspicious indeed.
Dear Rodney,
We know that the Tibetan Government in Exile is not above manufacturing evidence and lying if that furthers their cause. For example, they have lied by saying that there is no ban on Dorje Shugden practice. They also lied after the terrible murder of Ven Lobsang Gyatso by presenting a letter on TV claiming that it was a death threat from Shugden practitioners. The Dalai Lama’s ex-translator Helmut Gassner translated the note and found it to be a challenge to debate the issue and not a death threat at all.
The Dalai Lama has tried to rewrite history by saying that it was the Nechung Oracle who was responsible for his safe passage from Tibet to India when it was, in fact, Dorje Shugden. This lie was even published in his autobiography.
Both Samdhong Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama have lied to defame the character of Dorje Shugden practitioners to justify their ban of the practice. The whole affair stinks of politics.
There are many more lies that could be recounted here - suffice to say if someone lies once, you have to doubt their capacity for the truth. If TGIE or their scholars said that the 13th Dalai Lama did ban Shugden I would not be confident that it was true. The TGIE use the pronouncements of the 5th Dalai Lama as justification for their ban of the practice when we’ve subsequently discovered that later in his life he changed his mind, he wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden, established Trode Khangsar, the first Temple of Dorje Shugden, and even made a statue of the Protector with his own hands.
When someone is prepared to lie so comprehensively, or just to present certain ‘facts’ that support their view, you can’t trust them. I don’t trust TGIE one bit.
Dear TP,
I feel bound to correct a couple of misunderstandings regarding Kadampa practice that you mentioned in your previous posts.
NKT doesn’t practice the union of Heruka, Yamantaka and Guhyasamaja
This is not true. The heart practice of a Kadampa is to rely upon Je Tsongkhapa, who is the synthesis of Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani. These three beings are inseparable from Yamantaka, Heruka and Guhyasamaja respectively. Je Tsongkhapa himself is the union of all these holy beings and to receive his blessings is to receive the blessings of all Buddhas.
In Offering to the Spiritual Guide, one generates oneself as Heruka and regards Lama Losang Tubwang Dorjechang, the principal Field for Accumulating Merit as the nature of Yamantaka whilst visualizing the 32 Deities of Guhyasamaja within his body. These are the same Deities that appear as the principal Deities of Dorje Shugden’s mandala.
NKT have retired the three principal Protector Deities of Je Tsongkhapa and rely only upon Dorje Shugden
Again, not true. The three principal protectors of Je Tsongkhapa are Kalarupa, Palden Lhamo and Mahakala. Mahakala and Kalarupa are the same nature as Dorje Shugden because they are emanations of Manjushri, so when Kadampas rely on Dorje Shugden they are relying on these two Protectors as well. Explicitly, all three are relied upon in the monthly practice of Kangso where offerings are made to them all, and making torma offerings of Palden Lhamo is a regular daily practice for those who engage in the extensive Vajrayogini self-generation sadhana. However,relying upon Dorje Shugden as the synthesis of all protecting Deities is the daily practice of Kadampas
Hi LH (you were BF when we last exchanged posts!)
Thanks for your welcome back. In #688 you write
I take your argument to be as follows (P=premise and C=conclusion)
P1: Panchen Sonam Dragpa was enlightened
P2: Incarnations of enlightened beings are necessarily enlightened
P3: Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was an incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa
C1/P4: Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was enlightened
P5: Dorje Shugden is an incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen
C2: Dorje Shugden is enlightened.
Years ago I was told that a sound argument is one where the conclusion is entailed by the premises and a valid argument is one where, in addition the premises are all true. The above argument is sound but I’m not clear it’s valid. I’ve not seen P1 questioned by anyone and I assume all would hold both P2 and P5 to be true. The problem arises as it’s not clear that P3 (and, thus, P4) is true.
In her thesis McClune writes
So there is a clear suggestion here that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was not really the fourth incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa.
Dear SeekingClarity,
Yes, that is the implication of McCune’s words, but where is the evidence? There is no evidence because only highly realized beings can know whether someone is an incarnation of another great Master.
I’m afraid I’ve got to take the word of an emanation of Buddha Amitabha and incarnation of Atisha, Gyalwa Ensapa, Geshe Langri Tangpa and many others holy beings, former Ganden Tripa and foremost Lineage Guru of the Gelugpa tradition over the word of an MA student. When did the words of an MA student outweigh the clear declarations of such a holy meditation Master as Trijang Rinpoche who was the Spiritual Guide of thousands of Gelugpas from the greatest Masters to the most humble novices? It’s laughable!
It’s a sad world when the words of university students like McCune and Kay are taken seriously as evidence of flaws in holy Mahayana traditions and as evidence for the non-existence of holy beings. Don’t we just know we’re living in degenerate times!
LH
McCune references Samten Karmay as her source for the statement that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was originally held to be the incarnation of the Fourth Dalai Lama. Admittedly she doesn’t explain why she conjectures that his subsequent recognition as the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Drakpa may have been a “conciliatory move on the part of the Gelukpa hierarchs”. But the general point is that there was some uncertainly as to the past identity of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.
I’m not quite sure what your argument is. Is it
P1 Everything Trijang says is true
P2 Trijang said Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Drakpa
C: It is true that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Drakpa
If you hold P1 to be true, then presumably you must hold that
1. Sakya Pandita was the incarnation of Virupa and that the Sakyas got it wrong for several hundred years.
2. Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen got it completely wrong about DS
3. GKG’s statement that the Yellow Book (YB) is a collection of ordinary people’s superstitions is not true. Trijang says the same things about DS in Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors (MDOP) as is said in the YB and so what GKG’s holds to be true of the YB he must hold to be true of MDOP i.e. that Trijang is recounting the superstitions of ordinary people. However, Trijang says absolutely nothing in MDOP to suggest that his statements about the actions of DS are simply statements about the superstitions of ordinary people.
Lineageholder: “If someone lies once, you have to doubt their capacity for the truth”
Yes indeed, the millions that became parlayed into billions of Shugdenoids presumably on other planets, far, far away–there’s an excellent start to the total incredulity right there, but wait, it gets better folks….
Publicly disclosing and chatting about tantric practices…when did that become acceptable? Since novice NKT teachers are giving Shugden and god knows what other teachings to anyone who can cough up $15, you (and no one else) will be responsible for your own ‘pure’ tradition declining in record time.
Lineage holder said:” Don’t we just know we’re living in degenerate times!”
Yes. Aside from perversions of genuine Dharma Traditions, there’s obvious evidence–these days, you can go to a Borders or Barnes and Noble Bookstore and read sadhanas of Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara, translated into English, without any need for empowerment. Published by GKG and Tharpa, of course.
A sure sign of degenerating times.
….and, Oh–no need for empowerments to reaad those sadhanas, by the way.
Dear LH, I think you misunderstood something with respect to your post # 700. I was referring to the changes Pabongkha Rinpoche made. I didn’t investigate what NKT does with the three main HYT deities or their protectors.
However, I think it is obvious that NKT leadership and some of their followers would thoroughly embarrass every old Kadampa master with their arrogant, scurrile behaviour, and the practice of a perversion of what the old Kadam masters have taught: being humble, to praise the qualities of others, respect others, honour the Three Jewels and the wise, and to expose the own faults and weaknesses, and to stop to praise oneself.
So much hypocrisy as the NKT nowadays shows has nothing to do with Kadampa, its a shame or an object of laughter.
In post 700 you add some claims of what NKT would do.
Ok, lets check. I see. NKT practice all three deities because they would “rely upon Je Tsongkhapa, who is the synthesis of Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani. These three beings are inseparable from Yamantaka, Heruka and Guhyasamaja respectively. Je Tsongkhapa himself is the union of all these holy beings and to receive his blessings is to receive the blessings of all Buddhas.”
I see, the logic is unfailing, because the mantra OM MANI PÄME HUM is the compassion of all Buddhas, and includes every deity by just reciting it, I practice also the union of the three deities, and every other practice. Because A is seen as the letter from which ever thing derive, by just reciting A I practice all deities and keep the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. How easy it is to keep a tradition. Probably Je Tsongkhapa was a bit too busy to have taught so much and he made it rather a bit difficult to get the essence, how fortunate we are that GKG is more wise and offers such an easy path removing what has been emphasised by Je Tsongkhapa to make it more suit to our world, yet still ‘very authentic’, ‘very pure’, sadly the monasteries who really preserve Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition are ’so degenerated’. What a good luck, that there is the supreme pure NKT.
Just NKT propaganda.
I know that NKT practice in general once a month Khangso. However the daily practice and the main point is Shugden, and this being is not mentioned with one letter by Je Tsongkhapa. You offer the same logic, because Shugden is in the nature of…
OK if you believe your logic so much, then just renounce Shugden, practice Kalarupa (bound by Je Tsongkhapa) because both have the same nature. If everything is so much the same, why clinging on Shugden?
Kadampas do not rely on Shugden, that name didn’t even exist at their time. NKT relies on Shugden, don’t spin the facts. To rely on Shugden is their right.
However this has nothing to do with the Kadampas.
The belief of a sparrow to be an eagle, does not make a sparrow to be an eagle. Regardless how much the sparrow claims and believes he would be an eagle, it is still a sparrow, not an eagle.
Lineage Holder writes:
“NKT doesn’t practice the union of Heruka, Yamantaka and Guhyasamaja
This is not true. The heart practice of a Kadampa is to rely upon Je Tsongkhapa, who is the synthesis of Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani. These three beings are inseparable from Yamantaka, Heruka and Guhyasamaja respectively. Je Tsongkhapa himself is the union of all these holy beings and to receive his blessings is to receive the blessings of all Buddhas.”
The heart practices of the Kadampas, as far as I know, where Lojong, Lamrim from Atisha, and the “Secret Drops” sadhana, in general. But I thought someone said the “main practice” of the New Kadampas was “Lam Rim?” This is what I was told, when I made reference to the original Gelukpa practices of the Three Yidams and the Three Protectors. To be fair, I didn’t mention Tsong Khapa Guru Yoga, which I also understand to be one of the Gelukpa Heart Practices, if not the main one.
Lineage Holder continues:
“In Offering to the Spiritual Guide, one generates oneself as Heruka and regards Lama Losang Tubwang Dorjechang, the principal Field for Accumulating Merit as the nature of Yamantaka whilst visualizing the 32 Deities of Guhyasamaja within his body. These are the same Deities that appear as the principal Deities of Dorje Shugden’s mandala.”
And who, pray tell, was the first to write about the “principal deities of Dorje Shugden’s mandala,” and to compare them with the 32 deities of Guhyasamaja? Certainly not a Kadampa, or even a Gelukpa prior to Pabongkha….
LH continues:
“Again, not true. The three principal protectors of Je Tsongkhapa are Kalarupa, Palden Lhamo and Mahakala. Mahakala and Kalarupa are the same nature as Dorje Shugden because they are emanations of Manjushri, so when Kadampas rely on Dorje Shugden they are relying on these two Protectors as well.”
Who told you that Kalarupa and Mahakala are emanations of Manjusri? You should check on this…..perhaps go back to Tsong Khapa’s writings on Mahakala and find out where you are mistaken. Or perhaps you’re just parrotting some mistaken instruction you’ve had….Tsong Khapa’s Mahakala is most assuredly not associated with Manjusri.
DH concludes:
“However,relying upon Dorje Shugden as the synthesis of all protecting Deities is the daily practice of Kadampas”
Nope. Find me any original text from the original Kadampas that even mentions Shugden. Or find me any text, pre-Pabongkah, that recommends Shugden as a “Geluk” practice. It’s more appropriate for you to say “Dorje Shugden as the synthesis of all protecting Deities is the daily practice of the New Kadampa tradition.” You can’t legitimize it, historically, by conflating NKT with pre-Pabonkha Geluk practice, much less the original Kadam lineage.
No Kagyupa, respectfully I must disagree with you.
The sixteen drops of the Kadampas are included in Shugden practice. Because he is in the nature of the sixteen drops. Although Mahakala is said to be an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, Avalokiteshvara is inseparable from Manjushri and Manjushri inseparable from Shugden, therefore if we practice Shugden we practice also Mahakala and the sixteen drops. It’s very easy, we practice the essence.
Also the six texts of the Kadampas:
- The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga
- An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt. Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga
- A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt. Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva
- A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way (Skt. Bodhisattvacharyavatara) by Shantideva
- A Garland of Birth Stories (Skt. Jatakamala) by Aryasura, and
- The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt. Udanavarga)
are all in Geshe-la’s books. Actual only the Bodhisattvacharyavatara is present in NKT but this doesn’t matter the essence is there. Its just essence - pure essence. There is not more needed than this.
That the Gelug monasteries, the Ganden Tripa and the Dalai Lama still keep these so called “deep and vast (extensive)” lineages, teachings and transmissions, including the sixteen drops, the texts of Je Tsongkhapa, Gyaltsab Je, Maitreya, Nagarjuna, Vinaya, the union of the three HYT deities etc., is because they are so degenerated. They have not understood much. This is very sad. They mix Dharma with politics. How sad.
We are so fortunate to have met NKT who preserves in one tradition two traditions, the Kadampa and the Gelug school - very purely. How much good Karma we have! Very special, very pure.
We have also Lamrim and Lojong, and Geshe-la’s Lamrim text includes everything - even the Vinaya and the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. Its all there. He has brought this all into the West and its all in his books. Its the essence. So there is no need for the Vinaya nowadays or the commentaries on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, because its too old fashioned and it takes too much time and GKG got permission from Trijang Rinpoche to make the pure tradition more suit to our times. So its very pure, and very easy, and its especially suited for Westerners. In Tibet and in Indian exile Buddhism died out, the left over is very corrupt. This is very sad.
If you follow the pure example of NKT this makes it very easy, as Geshe-la said, enlightenment in your armchair. Very easy, very quick. Very suited to our modern times.
If you give me your email I can advice you a pure and very authentic Dharmabook and a Buddhist center nearby your place.
(There are 22 pure and authentic Dharmabooks and 1100 pure Buddhist centers.)
mySmallPropagandaPackage: They’ve got you bad, son, you need to be deprogrammed post haste if you are to salvage your sanity and not ruin your life.
Dear TP,
You said:
and lots of other stuff which is critical of NKT
I can’t believe it, you’re virtually frothing at the mouth! I love it when you show your true colours! Most of the time you try to be polite saying ‘best wishes’ and even claiming that you’re neutral, just like the academic researchers you like to quote from so much, and then you let something like this slip where you show how you really feel. Your real agenda is to destroy the NKT.
It must be so hard for you with these arrogant, impure NKT people stealing the name of the pure Kadampa lineage! Horrifying! tsk tsk! Get over it: anyone who practises lamrim as their main practice is a Kadampa. NKT people are not saying they are like the old Kadampas, they are simply trying to emulate them as examples of extraordinary spiritual purity and sincerity. Everything else is merely your own projection.
…and now, back on topic
Dorje Shugden.
Dear Kagyupa,
On your point about Mahakala, Geshe Kelsang says in Heart Jewel page 91:
This is one reason why I WON’T be giving up my practice of Dorje Shugden and just relying on Kalarupa as TP suggested.
Brian, you do understand that mySmallPropagandaPackage is no NKTer, right?
Tsong Khapa’s Main practice of Mahakala was not, and is not, the Four-Faced One. Your “Geshe” knows this, therefore he must qualify his statement to make it seem that Shugden encompasses two of the main Historical Protectors of Tsong Khapa’s lineage. Neat trick.
SmallProp, thanks for the offer, but I have my own sadhanas, which all the authentic lineages represent as pure and undistorted. No matter what Handful Harry says, I’ve never seen a better spokesperson for the NKT way. “We transmit the eseence, everything else is unnecessary, and, in fact if you read between the lines, degenerate.” The Vinaya is Old Fashioned, indeed. All other Tibetan, and Indian, Buddhism is corrupt. It’s only these 22 pure Dharmabooks, practiced at these 1100 pure Buddhist Centers.
Then again, it’s possible Harry has a point….someone could be masquerading as an NKT Troll just to point out the absurdity of the NKT position…..what’s interesting is how close this Troll’s words and positions are to some of the long-time pro-NKT posters here.
(No, it’s not me, folks…..)
Brian, this is false accusation against the innocent.
You must be one of the Mob of Thousands of Hostile Dalai Lama Supporters who himself is persecuting millions of Shugden followers.
I think you feel justified in you activity, regrettably, because you follow the Dalai Lama, who for political reasons started many of the rumors against the NKT himself. Due to your intense and blind loyalty to the Dalai Lama, you inspire hatred of the NKT.
Probably you are one of those accusing NKT of being spirit worshippers and cultists, even murderers, even of causing the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain.
Tell me, are you wearing protective ribbons, chant, and make mudras (hand gestures) merely upon encountering a pure Kadampa?
Tell the truth!
Hi mySmallPropagandaPackage,
My name is Harry Behrens, i am 25 and i live in Nottingham, UK.
You can find me in Akshobya Buddhist Centre, or online on Facebook or on the New Kadampa Tradition Discussion Group.
Care to verify the truth?
And what is with Brian? I talked to Brian!
Hello???
mySmallPropagandaPackage,
Sorry i think i may have misunderstood,
I thought only the first line was addressed at Brian and the rest of the charade at moi.
Dear Kagyupa,
Do you have to see a negative agenda in everything?
I don’t think that’s Dharma.
mySmallPropagandaPackage: You are pure Chinese I expect, the only mudra make toward you is not permitted by the editor. As for ribbons, thats rather a personal question, but yes we have ribbons.
Kagyupa,
You know i can understand how some people must feel when Newkadampatruth repeatedly use the word truth. But it certainly raises some eyebrows when your reaction to someone pointing out an obvious fact is to call them names. Hell, you even agreed with me! But you couldn’t resist calling me “Handful Harry” could you? I suppose i’m lucky that you didn’t disagree with me
Talking of neat tricks. At the end of your post you state that you are not Smallprop. However the way you used Smallprop’s fraudulent post to air your own views indicates that you would probably consider such tactics yourself (i do wonder). Your gleeful praise is certainly unmissable.
It’s odd you know, us NKTers are supposed to be the spinners. If i see an NKTer posting from such a deceitful angle you bet i’ll get on his case like a stone.
What Smallprop has done is wrong on any account. It doesn’t matter what side of the issue he or she is on. If Smallprop and his celebrator had been NKT, you guys would be hyperventilating.
So, you disavow Smallprop’s posts, but if it is parody, it is almost indistinguishable from Lineageholder’s bizarre take on Tibetan Buddhism: millions of repressed Shugden worshippers (although no one to date can tell us where they are) And we are ‘Mob of Thousands’ No, its called a nation and no matter how many centres NKT erects, it will always be artificial, like a hothouse tomato–red but tasteless.
Namkhah,
There is no “if”, it is a joke. Otherwise Smallprop could prove his identity as an NKT practitioner. If he can i will eat my own words, perhaps with some tasteless tomatoes.
Perhaps LH’s take on Tibetan Buddhism is bizarre, i don’t know. I don’t know that much about Tibetan Buddhism. For this reason i navigate this affair with the use of a bullshit detector. With it i sniff out nonsense like Smallprop’s deceitful post, and Kagyupa’s rejoicement in such caricaturizations. I think that the claim that there are 4 million Shugden adherents is nonsense too.
Overall i find LH to be sincere in what he says, i.e. he doesn’t resort to things like abusive speech (like many on this forum), which usually convey a less than honest, altruistic intention.
In my view, elaborations about history and lineage start to smell once they start interweaving with abuse and deceit.
harry: Calling one’s national leader a liar (and worse) is abusive, extremely rude, and ethnocentric– make no mistake about that. Can’t your shit detector smell that? What about the sneering arrogance of neophytes boasting of their deep knowledge of the tradition? Screaming insults through megaphones! Response in kind is only natural. I don’t find feigned manners and sincerity to be polite, when the message is analogous to a masked KKK bigot. Is the appropriate response is to acquiesce and swallow their nonsense, no way, never!
It is quite appalling the level of ignorance and hypocrisy, the level accusation after accusation that are utterly illogical and baseless.
Who is dictatorial? Who is unable to tolerate the slightest disobedience?
I suspect your real reason for saying this is that you hold the view that [...] is the real deal and people shouldn’t confuse that awful, degenerate […] stuff for the ‘real’ thing. If that’s true, you are displaying the sectarianism that the [..] has said he’s against but actually practises.
Nothing good ever comes from dwelling on our own qualities and others’ faults. All that happens is that we develop a highly distorted, self-important view of ourself, and an arrogant, disrespectful attitude towards others. As a result of regarding ourself as superior and others as inferior we perform many negative actions that will later ripen as rebirth in the lower realms. Due to this haughty attitude, even when we finally take rebirth again as a human being we shall be of a low social status, living like a servant or slave. Out of pride we may regard ourself as highly intelligent, but in reality our pride makes us foolish and fills our mind with negativity.
Therefore, whereas ordinary beings look for faults in others, Bodhisattvas look solely for good qualities. As Atisha said it:
“Do not look for faults in others, but look for faults in yourself, and purge them like bad blood. Do not contemplate your own good qualities, but con¬template the good qualities of others, and respect everyone as a servant would.”
We need to think about our own faults because if we are not aware of them we shall not be motivated to overcome them. It was through constantly examining their minds for faults and imperfections, and then applying great effort to abandon them, that those who are now enlightened were able to release their minds from delusions, the source of all faults. Buddha said that those who understand their own faults are wise, whereas those who are unaware of their own faults yet look for faults in others are fools. Contemplating our own qualities and others’ faults serves only to increase our self-cherishing and diminish our love for others.
Since we regard our self or I as so very precious and important, we exaggerate our own good qualities and develop an inflated view of ourself. We find it very hard to accept our mistakes and shortcomings. We spend so much time contemplating our real or imagined good qualities that we become oblivious to our faults. In reality our mind is full of gross delusions but we ignore them and may even fool ourself into thinking that we do not have such repulsive minds. This is like pretending that there is no dirt in our house after sweeping it under the carpet.
The truth is, that the Dalai Lama is a very fortunate liar and persecutor. He has unceasingly inflicted heavy and unjust punishment on the practitioners of Dorje Shugden —all of whom are completely innocent practitioners. Using his people like an army, the Dalai Lama has destroyed all Shugden Temples and shrines, caused millions of people to experience inhumane situations and unbearable feelings of pain, and expelled all Shugden practitioners from the Tibetan community. He has separated innocent people from their families, friends and community. As a result of these actions, thousands of Shugden practitioners have been forced to become refugees for the second time in their life as they try to escape such inhumane actions that exist in this modern world by seeking exile in other countries.
Instead of putting Buddha’s teachings of universal love, compassion and equanimity into practice the Dalai Lama inflict discrimination, persecution and intolerance. He is cheating people’s faith.
Dalai Lama, you are the only 21st Century “Buddhist” Dictator.
Far from showing the exemplary behavior of a religious leader, the Dalai Lama shows what it means to be a degenerate spiritual practitioner. In reality, his collective actions have the function of destroying Buddhism in this world. Therefore the Dalai Lama is not a Buddhist.
It is the truth what Geshe-la had said: “I can guarantee that the NKT and myself have never performed inappropriate actions and will never do so in the future, this is our determination. In October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT. We made our decision public at this time — everyone knows the NKT and myself completely stopped being involved in this Shugden issue at all levels. I hope people gradually understand our true nature and function.”
It is a very evil smear, that Geshe Kelsang has made mistakes in establishing the manner of his succession, the truth is Geshe Kelsang has shown great skill in establishing the manner of his succession.
For more read
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/hypocrite-dalai-lama-report-from-india/
http://newkadampatruth.org/newkadampatradition4.php#47
+ Ron Cook’s Six principal reasons why the Dalai Lama is not a Buddhist + Eight Steps To Happiness, p 58-61 by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso + Ron Cook’s post No 16. These are all very authentic, very pure sources.
The truth is out there. This is my ´doha of the truth, the doha of New Kadampa Truths.
Gyalpo,
I’m not sure if a war would be a very good way to resolve this conflict.
I agree, WSS can stand down, they are a disgrace to western buddhism. No one is repressing anyone in England or America in this regard by any stretch of the imagination. In Tibet itself, we know the culprit for human rights violations including aborting fetuses, forced sterilization, incarceration electrocution of monks and other unspeakably brutal acts against Tibetan Buddhists, yet WSS seeks their help and sings their praises! Despicable treachery against their own brothers and sisters. Abuse indeed.
Hi Smallprop,
Yes very elaborate. I even agree with some of your implied criticisms of NKT. Problem is you’re lying from the start, which kinda turns the whole thing into a lie, no?
Smalprop: Get a life, poser. Hate mail is illegal in this part of the world, generally two years or deportation to where you came from is the result of such malicious speech.
namkha: this is really false accusation against the innocent. I am completely innocent.
Hi harry, you understand my true nature and function. However, Problem is WSS is lying from the start, which kinda turns the whole thing into a lie, no? Do they not lie completely about their identity, no?
Luckily the great motherland China can appreciate the efforts of the Western Shugden Society: http://chinadorjeshugden.wordpress.com/
It is very important that the great effort for human rights of the Western Shugden Society is not wasted and effective.
mySmallPropagandaPackage: There’s a saying: Bullshit baffles brains’
I’m not certain more nonsense like the NKT/WSS spews forth will improve the environment, but rather just cause further confusion.
Smallprop: I would be more willing to listen to your claims if i hadn’t noticed you engaging in the same tactics that you so heavily condemn.
Next time try and be more sneaky.
Good luck to you resolving this issue as a secret undercover Dharma cop.
Ha ha, i have a feeling i know who you are now… you’re writing style is giving you away. Of course i could be wrong though, so i better not say.
Ok and here another thing that pisses me off.
Of course the Chinese are bloody happy with WSS!!! The WSS is a threat to HHDL and therefore the Chinese are happy. Yes?? 1+1=2 right???
Of course opportunist NKT detractors are jumping at the opportunity to once again point their fingers to where they want the spotlight to hover. As a result now rumours are flying around the place, like that the NKT is funded by the Chinese!
People are even going to the extent of inventing fake articles, in order to spread misinformation. Smallprop’s link is an example. It is quite easy to tell that it is fake for a few good reasons, the most obvious being that it doesn’t mention which news source it comes from.
harry: I don’t think NKT/WSS is funded by the Chinese–why should they when they are serving their purpose of causing disruption in the Tibetan Buddhist world for free! A dream come true for them. All this is consistent with Beijing’s avowed strategy, drawn up at secret official meetings in Chengdu in May 1993 and in Beijing in July 1994, to provoke sectarian and regional divisions within the Tibetan exiled community, in order to undermine the Tibetan freedom struggle.
But make no mistake, if, like the WSS extremists you think China will help establish a 1,000 year Shugden epoch–once the political expediency is finished, the PRC will do to WSS what they did to Falun Gong if they get the chance: imprisonment, torture, the lot.
That is correct, Gyalpo-la, people like Lineageholder, so reticent to comment on the evidence of Tibetan Buddhists murdered by the Chinese this spring is playing right in to the PRC’s hands. He who eschews politics so vehemently has in fact been playing it all along. It is well known that Chinese embassy officials toured the few Shugden Dratsangs in Karnataka, hosted by the Shugden Society and the NKT/WSS websites have praised China. Lineageholder and other self-appointed mahapanditas can gossip all they like, the realpolitik of the issue is demonstrated below:
The photos say it all: http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
Dear all,
It’s my guess that mySmallPropagandaPackage is our good friend TP, who having failed completely to provide valid logical reasons to support the Dalai Lama’s illegal ban of Dorje Shugden, has resorted to parody and derision of WSS instead. It’s such a complete and utter admission of failure, thank you.
I doubt that anyone will be taken in by his attempts to falsely link WSS with the PRC. It does however show that he’s doing the same work as the Tibetan Government in Exile who are desperate to prove such a link, even though one doesn’t exist. I think I said something already about degenerate times….
I only have one word for all of this: pathetic.
Lineageholder”: You are a slippery weasel aren’t you, or just plain intellectually dishonest. If you sincerely have no interest in politics, disown WSS otherwise just ‘fess up:
The following passage from http://www.dorjeshugden.com
is an example of NKT/WSS pro China posturing:
“Then from China , Dorje Shugden’s practice will spread to the multitudes of Chinese speaking areas of Asia , then the world. Everyone respects China either for monetary, business or cultural reasons. It is after all one of the greatest cultures known to man past and present. It will be the number one culture in the world as it has been in ancient times in the near future due to economic growth. Everything Chinese will be respected and proliferated in the world. Just like now Mcdonald’s is popular in China because the USA is powerful and influential therefore the Chinese for now are interested in the American cultural identities. In the near future, the tide will turn towards the east and that is China . Everything Chinese will be sought after, praised and valued. Even today, many governments do not wish to offend the Chinese government in hopes of securing lucrative deals. After all, isn’t bring prosperity one of the main functions of any governments whether Democratic or Socialist? The Dalai Lama is his own capacity is making Dorje Shugden bigger, more well known, more heard of and very high profile. Does he not know or understand he is doing that? Highly unlikely. He is indirectly making Dorje Shugden the most popularly known Buddhist deity next to Kuan Yin in China at this time. ”
Here is the reference from Jan. 5/99 The Tribune
“The First Secretary in the Chinese embassy, Mr Tau Wenching, and his wife to the Tibetan settlement at Mundgod, in South India, on December 24, was another indication of the alleged links that exist between the Shugden supporters and the Chinese embassy. “The fact that the First Secretary was accompanied by Thupten Palsang, who is an active member of the Shugden group is a clear indication that the Chinese embassy has close links with the Shugden activists,” commented an official. Palsang, also known as Nagpo Chenpo, is a former monk of Pomra House of Sera Mey College in the Tibetan settlement of Bylakuppe in South India.
A release by the Tibetan Government said that they had concrete evidence of the links between the Shugden supporters and the Chinese authorities. The latest visit of the Chinese embassy official, was another indication of the “close links” they shared.
For the past some time, the Tibetan Government has been alleging that China was trying to rake up the cult controversy, to divide the Tibetan community, and was even funding the Shugden Society.”
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99jan06/himachal.htm#1
“The WSS is a threat to HHDL”
You’re joking, right?
I have been away from this discussion for a day or two and it has taken a bizarre turn.
I would like to point out one obvious misunderstanding that has arisen. The WSS has done nothing to harm the reputation of the Dalai Lama. The NKT seem to think that people other than them and their detractors actually care about these on-line disputes. The WSS protests attracted a little media attention for a few moments. The public attention was even less. The Dalai Lama’s position in the Tibetan community is a central today as it was this time last year before Kelsang Gyatso began these protests.
“You are a slippery weasel aren’t you, or just plain intellectually dishonest. If you sincerely have no interest in politics, disown WSS”
Lineageholder is in a difficult position. She was publicly castigated by her spiritual guide who said
“This clearly shows that the students have seriously misunderstood the demonstrations through receiving wrong information from you – their Resident Teacher.
You directly told me that the NKT was involving in political activities and that this was against the NKT and Dharma Centre constitutions; this is completely untrue.”
Since then she has been bending over backwards to please Kelsang Gyatso and support his political activities. She couldn’t stop even if she wanted to.
She has also been lying about the nature of this dispute, claiming millions of Shugden worshippers for hundreds of years, and denying Phabongkhapa’s political role in spreading this protector worship.
It’s all a bit of a mess that recently has become a bit messier.
Dorje: I think you may have missed the latest revelation: the original estimate of millions of Shuggies has been upwardly revised to billions by Lineageholder (623). Please, get your facts straight!
Today is Je Tsongkhapa’s anniversary and I’d like to take the opportunity to make aspirations that Je Rinpoche’s authentic teachings flourish without the political accretions and degenerations added by later scholars and politicians who were reputed to be great but were in fact small-minded sectarians.
May Je Tsongkhapa’s true teachings on lamas, yidams and protectors pervade the ten directions.
The reason for my posts was exactly as Kayguepa said: a Troll, just to point out the absurdity of the NKT position…
It’s completely absurd.
I used the same logic, tactic. phrases and words as WSS, Kelsang Gyatso or Lineageholder use.
It’s rather a speech & tactic collage of WSS’s or Kelsang Gyatso’s own speech. If it upsets some of the members I wonder why it does not upset them to read the nonsense on westernshugdensociety.org, and why they turn two blind eyes on the obvious discrepancy between what they claim to be - pure Kadampas - and the actual abusive deeds.
However, for a constructive discussion it will be probably better to continue to exchange arguments not tactics.
Yes, Dorje. Thank you.
Je Tsongkhapa the non-sectarian master, who received teachings from all genuine masters of his time, regardless what particular lineage they belonged to.
My aspiration is this:
»And from this day on in every life, with the special motivation that holds others dearer than self, bless me to protect the Buddha’s teaching like my life, as you Mahatma, have done.
And you in whose heart or pure appearance there is no sectarian prejudice please clear away the trouble to the Buddha’s teaching raised by the specter of sectarianism in those who become partisan when they hold you as supreme.«
From the final two verses of Taktsang Lotsawa’s Biography of Je Tsongkhapa
Namkhah,
Please don’t spread misinformation. LH did not say that there are billions of Shugden practitioners (Shuggies as you call them, he he). She said that billions are a affected by the ban from the point of view that DS is the protector of JT’s doctrine.
I think that even if you disagree with this claim it is certainly worth considering.
Well i’m considering it anyway, as i’m not really sure who to believe usually. Everyone points their finger anywhere but at themselves.
“Everyone points their finger anywhere but at themselves.”
Like Smallprop, lol, who just got all holy on us, since we didn’t fall for his act.
Oops, i suppose i am pointing my own finger now, right??
Dear mSPP,
If you think that being a Kadampa is about being quiet, meek and bowing down to the destructive will of a person who is decimating the very tradition you cherish, I don’t think you understand Buddha’s teaching. In his past lives, Buddha killed when he had to in order to protect others. I therefore don’t think he would be adverse to shouting the truth to those who are too deaf to hear it spoken quietly.
I do rejoice in your wish to protect Buddha’s teachings.
For others here, I’m neither a small slippery mammal nor am I Lucy James. I’m far less important than that.
dear lineageholder, look on WSS’s own smear site this has nothing to do with the old kadampas. it’s a horrible and abusive speech.
if the majority is convinced that shugden is a harmful force or a spirit or even a demon, one can disagree but this does not justify to call those who genuinely wish to protect others from harm liars or hypocrites. this is neither correct with respect to the facts (views are no lies) nor has this anything to do with a pure kadampa attitude.
you said:
“I don’t think you understand Buddha’s teaching. In his past lives, Buddha killed when he had to in order to protect others. I therefore don’t think he would be adverse to shouting the truth to those who are too deaf to hear it spoken quietly. I do rejoice in your wish to protect Buddha’s teachings.”
Buddha killed, yes do you know what a the commentaries of the Bodhisattva vows say when it is allowed to kill or to use abusive speech for a Bodhisattva - the 7 non-virtuous actions?* There is a clear statement, what powers the Bodhisattva must have.* Do you know these powers and do you have these powers? Moreover, we speak about a Bodhisattva, a person who has realised at least calm abiding and bodhicitta. But even with this he may not be qualified to perform such a deed.
Do you have the perception and wisdom of a Bodhisattva? The Buddha could read the mind of the helmsman. Do you can do that?
If a fox emulates a lion and hunts a donkey for food, the hoof of the donkey will probably smash the head of the fox. Likewise if a dharma fox emulates the deeds of the Dharma lions, the dharma fox could ruin his spiritual life.
If the majority of the wise masters of all lineages agree that Shugden is no Buddha, it would be better for the infants to listen. Even when some disagree, such disrespect and false accusation against the wise and highly respected members of the Buddhist order, is nothing else than foolish and self-destructive. This is no Bodhisattva deed.
You or WSS do not shout the truth, you shout your own confusion. A view can be seen as wrong (like Shugden is a demonic force) but to hold such a “wrong” view is not a lie. there are internet forums who state in their rules that it is against the rules to call someone else a liar, because, even when the person is wrong, to be sure that this person lies, you must know the person’s mind.
this is very basic dharma or even worldly understanding, when even such basics are violated and not understood, there are many questions what else has been understood.
if there was a proper and balanced investigation in a certain subject matter, and finally there is agreement by different parties or a clean clear perception, based on an investigation which includes much knowledge and different perspectives, and one comes to the point, there is injustice and can do something directly, one should act. there is nothing wrong with this.
my criticism is WSS lack all what would allow them to be engaged. they lack the moral background, the Buddhist understanding, they lack knowledge about the Vinaya, monasteries, Tibetan history, Tibetan culture, Tibetan customs, Tibetan Buddhism, the controversial history of Shugden, they lack respect for elders, respect for the Tibetans (whom they owe everything), respect for the Dalai Lama, etc. all this and more lead NKT/WSS in a second pr mess based on deluded one-sided perceptions.
I have no real wish to protect buddha’s teachings. i just like the prayer. i have only one wish to have more compassion. if this increased then this is sufficient for me. if there is more compassion, naturally one will act in a way that it protects the buddha’s teachings.
the lojong teachings state this even. in a quote of the Compendium of Perfect Doctrine it is said:
“O Subduer, similarly, wherever the great compassion of a Bodhisattva exists, there also exists the Buddha’s doctrine.”
of course every one-sided practice is also a one-way route. buddhism is quite complex.
* i found the explanation in the commentary of Khensur Lobsang Tharchin Rinpoche, a close student of both, Pabonkha and Trijang Rinpoche.
Dear mSPP,
If you are attached to the Dalai Lama, yes, it probably reads as horrible and abusive speech. The Kadampa tradition is billions of times more important than the Dalai Lama though. We’re hoping it will still be around when we’ve all gone. The Dalai Lama is one single person - unimportant. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to think so and will destroy a pure spiritual tradition because of his attachment to his wrong view.
The spiritual life of one person is unimportant. I fully accept the karmic consequences of what I’m doing because stopping the Dalai Lama is important. I’d just like to say you don’t know who is qualified to do what because you don’t know who is and who is not realized. Don’t judge a book by its cover in the same way that you and others judge Dorje Shugden by his aspect.
It’s not necessary to know someone’s mind to know that they are a liar. If someone utters untruths when they clearly know that what they are saying is contrary to the truth and their action benefits no-one but themselves, they are a liar. A case in point - the Dalai Lama’s lies about the Deity who helped him to escape from Tibet. He knows who that was and his lie in this respect benefits no one except to prevent his own embarrassment. Imagine what would happen if it became widely known that the Dalai Lama’s life was saved by the Deity he has now banned! He would certainly have some questions to answer. Furthermore, it was a lie. As Lobsang Yeshe said when he heard that the Dalai Lama denied the help of Dorje Shugden
Contradicts the law of truth = lie, false and deceptive.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it that the Dalai Lama lied, but the facts are the facts. You don’t seem to want to face those facts.
Your dismissal of the spiritual knowledge and realizations by members of the WSS is a big mistake. I completely disagree with you that WSS lacks respects for elders - they place Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang at the very crown of their heads. WSS has shown no disrespect to Tibetans but let me say that BUDDHISM IS NOT ABOUT TIBET. It’s because that people have held that Tibet is more important than Buddhadharma that his whole sorry mess has come about in the first place.
I try to respect everyone but to hold that a people or a country is more important than the method to attain permanent liberation from suffering is insane. By mixing Buddhadharma with Tibetan politics the Dalai Lama is closing the door to liberation for countless future generations of living beings and that’s why people will not sit by and allow the Dalai Lama to continue on his course. In reality, we are loving the Dalai Lama by trying to stop him from creating terrible karma for himself. If someone is engaged in harmful actions, they need to be stopped but one must not lose love and compassion for the perpetrator. This is an area I need to work on, definitely.
If Tibetans are upset about WSS’s accusations towards the Dalai Lama, then I’m sorry but they need to examine their own minds and deal with their own attachments. Shantideva said that all such attachment is like dry grass that connects one house with another that is on fire - without removing it, the fire will spread to the house that is not on fire. Similarly, with the grass of attachment, our perception of ‘mistreatment’ of those closest to us causes the fire of anger to spread to us.
By mixing Buddhadharma with Tibetan politics Phabongkhapa and his followers closed the door to liberation for countless future generations of living beings and that’s why people will not sit by and allow Phabongkhapa’s followers to continue on his course. In reality, we are loving the followers of Phabongkhapa by trying to stop them from creating terrible karma for themselves. If someone is engaged in harmful actions, they need to be stopped but one must not lose love and compassion for the perpetrator.
The Dalai Lama is propagating the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa as taught by Je Tsongkhapa. If anyone says that this will lead to the degeneration of the Dharma, they really insult Je Rinpoche and his tradition.
Dear Dorje,
The Dalai Lama is teaching the ‘Nalanda tradition’, a tradition of Buddhism that is of his own making and involves mixing the various traditions of Tibetan Buddhism together (except the bits he does not like) so that anyone can practise anything they feel like. Je Rinpoche taught only lamrim, lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra as the path to enlightenment, therefore it’s not really Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition that the Dalai Lama is propagating.
The sacking of Lucy James is documented below as well as the inextricable link between KKT and WSS is established through NKT’s own internal communications, in case anyone is still too naive (or daft) to see that denial of the relationship of the supposed “two” entities is for PR optics and preservation of NKT’s charitable tax status, vital for running a pyramid scheme scam.
http://www.nktworld.org/Lucy.html
“The Dalai Lama is teaching the ‘Nalanda tradition’, a tradition of Buddhism that is of his own making and involves mixing the various traditions of Tibetan Buddhism together”
Nonsense. The Dalai Lama has taken teachings from teachers of all traditions and passes them on according to the advice of those traditions. He focuses especially on the teachings and tradition of Je Tsongkhapa and this is what he teaches as Tsongkhapa taught it. He is teaching the Ganden Tradition, from lamrim chenmo, ngakrim chenmo, sadhanas and vinaya authenticly just as Tsongkhapa taught them, and in a way that is unavailable in the NKT.
The tradition of Nalanda, for the information of semi-novices like Lineageholder, is no one’s recent invention, unless you consider the Six Ornaments and Two Excellents as unimportant in Buddhism, not to mention abbots like Sri Naropa.
Keep talking, Lineageholder, you are demonstrating the breathtaking breadth of your ignorance and discrediting your ridiculous cause every time you post, apparently for the billions of imaginary friends of the NKT cult out there, somewhere.
Dear Dorje,
No, he’s cut himself off from tradition by denying the validity of his own Teachers. If his own Teachers were wrong about Dorje Shugden it means they couldn’t even discern a suitable object of Refuge which means that they didn’t have clairvoyance, which means that they didn’t have tranquil abiding, which means that they had no realizations and the lineage was broken. That means that the Dalai Lama didn’t receive anything so he can’t pass anything on. Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition is dead if the Dalai Lama is right.
But luckily, he isn’t. The Dalai Lama is out for himself. Look at his website and see if it mentions the lineage from which he received the teachings, the kindness of his Senior and Junior Tutors. No, it’s all about him, not about the Lineage.
“No, he’s cut himself off from tradition by denying the validity of his own Teachers. If his own Teachers were wrong about Dorje Shugden it means they couldn’t even discern a suitable object of Refuge which means that they didn’t have clairvoyance, which means that they didn’t have tranquil abiding, which means that they had no realizations and the lineage was broken.”
The Dalai Lama had more than one teacher. His main teacher regarding bodhicitta for example was the great non-sectarian lama Kunu Lama Tenzin Gyalsten. Many of the transmissions that the Dalai Lama received were from Retreng Rinpoche, his first teacher. Neither of these lamas relied on this protector.
This worship of this protector was by no means universal in the Gelug tradition.
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds for the Dalai Lama to say that Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche were great Teachers, yet they went for Refuge to an evil spirit? That would mean that they weren’t even Buddhists, let alone great Teachers because they broke their refuge commitments. If we believe the Dalai Lama, it means he received his Buddhist education from devil worshipping non-Buddhists with no realizations.
Now, that is absurd, isn’t it?
What is absurd is that both Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche go for refuge to a protector they call gyalpo or gyalchen and praise for killing sentient beings. Their position is contradictory.
Hi LH,
no, probably I am expecting too much modesty or integrity from people who have taught me an initial understanding of the dharma.
It is still shocking to see the discrepancy between the words of Dharma and the actual deeds. When I have a problem with this then this is rather that I expect too much from others.
I agree also attachment to HHDL could be the source but is not.
“The Kadampa tradition is billions of times more important than the Dalai Lama though.” Yes, I know this is the fundamental belief of NKT ideology. Thank your for pointing it out that clearly. It follows, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who has brought the Kadampa tradition to the West and is its prime sole upholder is “billions of times more important than the Dalai Lama though.”, and also NKT and all its members and “upholders” are billions of times more important than the Dalai Lama though.” I think this is exactly the result of contemplating and exaggerating the own good qualities, supremacy and importance and others faults, unimportance and inferiority, a contemplation of the sectarian partisan which increases the feeling of self-importance and hostility to those who interfere that perception. As Geshe-la puts it, it is “a highly distorted, self-important view of ourself, and an arrogant, disrespectful attitude towards others. As a result of regarding ourself as superior and others as inferior we perform many negative actions that will later ripen as rebirth in the lower realms. Due to this haughty attitude, even when we finally take rebirth again as a human being we shall be of a low social status, living like a servant or slave. Out of pride we may regard ourself as highly intelligent, but in reality our pride makes us foolish and fills our mind with negativity.”
Why are some (not all!) Shugden followers seen socially so low nowadays? This is also Karma, from having boost to be supreme in the past. This is not what I say, this is what Geshe-la teaches, but seems to forget when it comes to the own situation.
In general, with me an others, with everyone, all problems derive from a lack of compassion (which includes the demerits of partial compassion) and a lack of wisdom, which includes the understanding of karma and dependent arising.
For those Shugden followers suffering on social contempt it is important to have compassion, but this has to be seen also in perspective. When the majority fears Shugden and clearly sees it as harmful or at least not as an object of Buddhist refuge or worship, it shows also a lack of compassion by the Shugden adepts not to accept their wishes to have no interference with this practice. I think the words of the 100. Ganden Tripa which have already been quoted bring this very to the point.
I received two days ago a report from a monk from sera, he stayed with us for two weeks. Maybe I will share what he said.
It’s amazing to see again how your “logic” unfolds again in such a distorted way, and you seem to have even forget what you already recognized. You claim: “The Dalai Lama is one single person - unimportant. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to think so and will destroy a pure spiritual tradition because of his attachment to his wrong view.” LH. really it is impossible to discuss with you because you are not able even to accept established facts. HHDL is the chosen and beloved teacher, and highest spiritual authority of the Tibetans. To be a Dalai Lama is an office. He is most important to the Tibetans (about 6 millions), and the present Dalai Lama - whom NKT is so keen to denounce with the same and even more vile words than the CCP - is also very important to a vast number of people of this world - not only the Tibetans, He is an upright example and inspiration to many people be they religious or non-religious, he is venerated and respected by a high number of Buddhists from all schools as well, including the Theravadins, he is highly respected by religious practitioners from all faiths and their realised being, he is cherished, respected also by the yogis who live in solitude and seek his advice, and he is respected and a source of inspiration also for researcher, and simple people. (Just some facts, LH.)
Moreover you have already acknowledged that the majority of Tibetan Buddhists and their masters share his view on Shugden, you have read what the other high masters, head of their lineages state, they agree with HHDL. You even made fun of HE Tai Situ Rinpoche, and you were corrected, yet still you fool yourself and the reader by repeating your baseless view?
LH, your “logic” lacks any basis, and is just the typical NKT spin or close-mindedness of the facts. As you were able to acknowledge that the majority is against Shugden worship, including the heads of the schools, such a concluding claim: “The spiritual life of one person is unimportant.” is either an expression of pure confusion or fundamentalism, as defined to be ‘clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.‘
I think it is better to save my time to read more of your post or to write more, this is rather a senseless trial. Probably better to follow again my satire exercises, some people are not predisposed for reasons and facts
Open your mind.
Come on Tenzin, you can stop dressing up as Smallprop now.
I see my point about the article you linked being fake has gone past with no defence. I find it curious that although “spin” is one of your most common accusations against WSS, you are found to be using the technique quite frequently of recent. First through Smallprop, and then by posting a link to a false article.
My question is, if it is true that there are clear links between NKT and WSS, and the PRC, where is the need to fabricate false evidence for this?? Why not rely on real evidence?
Can you explain how the article is authentic? If not can you explain why you linked it?
“If we believe the Dalai Lama, it means he received his Buddhist education from devil worshipping non-Buddhists with no realizations.”
For any discussion to be meaningful it is necessary for the participants to debate in good faith. I have just pointed out that the Dalai Lama had a number of teachers that did not worship this protector, but instead of addressing it, you just ignore it and repeat your point again. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misread my point. I’ll say it again: the Dalai Lama had more than one teacher. None of the teachers that he chose, such as Lama Khunu, rather than those chosen for him by ‘doughball divination’ such as Taktrag Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, worshipped this protector.
Dear Dorje,
I didn’t ignore your point, I simply posted additional points after some thought. My posting was therefore not a response to yours, which I had not seen. You always assume the worst of me.
It is true that the Dalai Lama did have Teachers other than Trijang Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche and Taktra Rinpoche. Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen, while a great Master, was not the Dalai Lama’s root Guru - Trijang Rinpoche was. How can the Dalai Lama’s root Guru have been a devil worshipper?
Furthermore, it’s not as if Trijang Rinpoche was a slouch when it came to bodhichitta - he himself was an incarnation of Atisha who had sailed 13 months to Sumatra to receive teachings on bodhichitta from Lama Serlingpa and who realized those teachings completely - Oh, but he can’t tell the difference between a Buddha and an evil spirit, I forgot. :))
The Dalai Lama received teachings on bodhichitta from Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen, not the transmission of all the practices of the Gelugpa tradition, Lama Tsongkhapa’s view, meditation and action, which he would have received from his non-Buddhist demon propitiating Gelugpa Gurus.
As I said, either the Dalai Lama is wrong, or he has no Lineage to pass on. Totally absurd.
Lineageholder: You are not authorized or in anyway qualified to say whom is someone’s root teacher, which is like love, it defies judgement and pidgeon=holing. Trijang was not infallible, nor is your self proclaimed 3rd buddha who is responsible for sowing discord, permitting sexual exploitation from his heirs and intense cupidity.
hi harry, it looks like it is better to be anonymous. there is always a big risk with nkt to be listed at their truth website with a bizarre history and claims. also, as the majority prefers to be anonymous here, I prefer this as well. i think you can understand this?
i am looking for new ways to work with propaganda. it seems to be my life issue. the communists plucked the microphone and forbade me to speak when I started to tell them that it is not correct what they claim. finally i had to be faced with the communist secret service. honourable men.
i am far away to have found a way of satire or humour with stubborn propaganda, but maybe its worthwhile a try. if you have a good idea send a post or comment.
with respect to your questions:
1. the link between NKT and WSS is clear from the internal emails of NKT and the images WSS published and the press releases and spokes persons etc etc
2. i do not posit a link between NKT and China. there is a link between Dorje Shugden lamas - like Nga Lama / Gangchen lama and China and also between Tibetan Shugden practitioners in India and China. there is also a link (according to Interpol) between the murderers of the three monks and Shugden followers and China
3. that I put the NKT logo in the chinese flag is due to the fact that the propaganda of WSS/NKT is the same as that of PRC (sometimes even more rude), and that the protests are doing a big favour to PRC.
as some people are not receptive for reasons but propaganda i try to reverse that process by making a type of reversed phantom-view-propaganda which uses the same means as the origin. if you have ideas and suggestions how to improve that or what should be avoided or adopted i am happy to hear them. you can also become a co-editor if you have good ideas.
“You always assume the worst of me.”
I’m not sure where you get these ideas from. You are definitely assuming something of me that is not there. Always? We know each other?
The Dalai Lama’s primary lama was Retreng Rinpoche, the lama that recognised him, and gave him his primary training and ordination. He definitely did not worship this protector.
Trijang Rinpoche was the Dalai Lama’s junior tutor who only started to teach him after he had received all the major empowerments and transmissions of Tsongkhapa’s tradition.
“it’s not as if Trijang Rinpoche was a slouch when it came to bodhichitta”
It is true, Trijang Rinpoche is praised by his followers who claim he was an incarnation of Atisha. I’m not sure how much proof is put forward for this claim, though. Trijang Rinpoche did explicitly praise his protector for killing sentient beings, so…
Dear Gen Hur,
1. The Dalai Lama himself refers to Trijang Rinpoche as his root Guru in his book ‘the union of bliss and emptiness’ Lama Zopa Rinpoche said of the reincarnation of Trijang Rinpoche, Choktrul Rinpoche:
2. Geshe Kelsang is not a self-proclaimed Third Buddha - he has never used this title in relation to himself. One rather awestruck and over enthusiastic student did so many, many years ago in a defunct NKT publication called “Full Moon” magazine and this was unearthed and unfairly used against GKG, principally in the Sera Explusion Letter. It’s not a view that Geshe Kelsang would agree with.
3. Geshe Kelsang has never sowed discord - unlike the Dalai Lama who has split the Sangha. Everything that Geshe Kelsang has done in relation to the Dalai Lama has been done solely because of the Dalai Lama’s actions. The Dalai Lama brought all this upon himself through political actions.
4. Geshe Kelsang never permitted sexual exploitation. Perhaps you can quote me a passage from Geshe Kelsang’s books where he says that sexual misconduct is a laudable action? People act in accordance with delusions. You should be careful - people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. There are many cases of sexual misconduct in the Tibetan tradition that I could quote but, humans beings humans, such things will always happen. Even Buddha was powerless to prevent it.
5. So Geshe Kelsang permits ‘Intense cupidity’? - are you saying that Geshe Kelsang is responsible for his student’s delusions? It’s all his fault! Do you know anything about Buddhism? It’s about taking personal responsibility. We’re all responsible for our own minds. In the scriptures it says that even Buddhas cannot remove our faults like washing away dirt with water. Spiritual Guides show the way and we have to follow it. I’ve never heard anyone accuse a spiritual Teacher of being responsible for their disciples’ delusions before!
Dorje: If Trijang is Atisha, he is in the Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya tradition as well. HHDL points out the sagacity of Trijang’s commentary on the LamRim, but diverges on Dolgyal, a peripheral, recent and minor practice.
I personally am sick of Chinese ultra-nationalists and NKT know-it-all egomaniacs judging the personal relationship of these two that ended twenty-seven years ago, they were not present, they probably had no relationship whatsoever with Trijang or the Dalai Lama or laid eyes on either of them_Its all idle gossip, which leads me to beleive LH is a woman after all.
Dear Dorje,
Where’s your evidence? Reting Rinpoche did not give ordination to the Dalai Lama because he himself had problems with his vows:
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/false-dalai-lama
Since, it seems the Reting Rinpoche was not above deception and had problems with his vows, how could the Dalai Lama have received the transmission of Tsongkhapa’s tradition from him? It seems clear he was unrealized. Also, who was Reting Rinpoche’s root Guru? It’s not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.
“It seems clear he was unrealized”
Retreng Rinpoche was recognised by the thirteenth Dalai Lama. He also received dzogchen teachings from the great Nyingma lama Jadral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche. This was a dangerous thing to do when Phabongkhapa’s sectarians controlled much of the Lhasa regime, and there are reports that Jadral Rinpoche had to be smuggled into the Potala after dark to be able to give these teachings.
Retreng Rinpoche later died at the hands of the conservative Gelug faction before the Dalai Lama could secure his release.
In any case, Retreng Rinpoche did pass a number of teachings on to the new Dalai Lama, and oversaw his enthronement. He resigned before full ordination was given but I understand he played a part in the Dalai Lama’s getsul ordination.
It is not unusual for high practitioners of dzogchen to return their monastic vows, but Retreng Rinpoche paid a high price for going against Phabongkhapa’s vision of exclusive adherence to Gelug tenets, and Phabongkhapa’s followers have praised their protector for killing Retreng Rinpoche.
The new blog Scholars and Yogis, Please Check,
http://truthaboutshugden.wordpress.com/some-good-advice-from-lama-zopa/
posted an article today entitled ‘Good Advice from Lama Zopa…‘. This article sheds light on some of the history of the founders of the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) and their reliance on Dorje Shugden in the past. Both Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa relied upon Dorje Shugden as their Dharma Protector. Lama Yeshe relied upon Dorje Shugden until his death. Even against the advice of the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately, Lama Zopa has followed the Dalai Lama’s advice and now he enforces the ban on Dorje Shugden within the FPMT.
There is so much more to this whole issue than meets the eye, but the truth of it is very simple — it is simply wrong to ban someone else’s religious tradition. It goes right against the teachings of Buddha. If the Dalai Lama had not banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, we would not be having these discussions. He started it. He didn’t expect any resistance — but this is where theocratic Tibet meets the modern world.
I think everybody knew that Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa worshipped this protector. This is not news. Why do you imagine that the fact that these two worshipped this protector necessarily means that this protector practice is valid?
“it is simply wrong to ban someone else’s religious tradition.”
The Dalai Lama is not banning someone else’s religious tradition. He is saying what should be practiced in his own tradition. This is a little different from forcibly converting other tradition’s monasteries to follow your own tradition, for example.
What is wrong is for lamas like Phabongkhapa to completely change the practice of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition by adopting new yidam and protector practices and displacing those given central importance by Je Rinpoche yet still claiming to follow the Ganden tradition.
If Phabongkhapa had not adopted practices of dubious origin, we would not be having these discussions.
Whether Trijang was or was not the DL’s main teacher is perhaps an interesting question but not one directly relevant to the nature of DS. After all, debate about the nature of DS was raging long before either was born.
In #757, 759 and 764 LH notes that the implication of arging DS is a spirit is that great lamas like Pabongka and Trijang were in fact unable to tell the difference between a Buddha and a spirit. However, I’m not sure how far this really gets us. For the implication of arguing DS is a Buddha is that a very large set of lamas in the Gelug, Sakya, Nymingma and Kagyu schools who many regard to be as great as LH holds Pabongka and Trijang to be, were unable to tell the differene between a Buddha and a spirit.
I’d like to put again my question of #705 to LH. Is it your view that everything Trijang says in MDOP re DS is correct? If so, then you are committed to the view that
1. Sakya Pandita was the incarnation of Virupa, that Buton was the incarnation of Sakya Pandita and that the Sakyas were entirely wrong about this for several hundred years.
2. Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen got it completely wrong about DS
3. GKG’s statement that the Yellow Book (YB) is a collection of ordinary people’s superstitions is not true. Trijang says the same things about DS in Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors (MDOP) as is said in the YB and so what GKG’s holds to be true of the YB he must hold to be true of MDOP i.e. that Trijang is recounting the superstitions of ordinary people. However, Trijang says absolutely nothing in MDOP to suggest that his statements about the actions of DS are simply statements about the superstitions of ordinary people.
If you do not hold that everything that Trijang says in MDOP re DS is true, then presumably you cannot be so sure that Tulku Draga Gyaltsen was uncontroversially the fourth incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa.
Dear Dorje,
You said
Since the Dalai Lama is not the head of any of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, he doesn’t have the right to say what should be practised by them. He has no right to dictate - unless his own tradition is the ‘Nalanda tradition’, his own made up tradition with himself at the head.
This kind of interference by the Dalai Lama is not appreciated by the other schools. For example, the Dalai Lama’s interference in the choosing of the new Karmapa was unprecedented. The Dalai Lama, it seems, is unable to stop interfering in things that he has no responsibility for. Where is his spiritual authority to dicate what should be practised and what should not practised? He has no authority unless it is self-assumed.
No, if the Dalai Lama had allowed people the religious freedom to follow their own traditions and practised the non-sectarianism he’s always going on about we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Dear SC,
I believe that what Trijang Rinpoche says in his text is correct. I have faith in the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden as related by Trijang Dorjechang and if we have to agree to disagree with the Sakyas because of that, that’s fine. Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa and was therefore a fully enlightened being and manifestation of Manjushri.
Regarding the yellow book, I think too much is being made of this. It’s not really important. I believe the Yellow Book was an attempt to protect Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition by discouraging the Dalai Lama from mixing traditions, but it didn’t stop him anyway. The Dalai Lama was angry with the publication of the Yellow Book because he was guilty of what it was saying. Each tradition of Buddhism has the right to preserve its own special lineage and characteristics, something the Dalai Lama doesn’t seem to understand or to appreciate.
Please give me an example of someone recently who was killed by Dorje Shugden for mixing traditions? If Dorje Shugden did this kind of thing, the Dalai Lama should be dead but he’s not, so what does that tell you? It’s sad that the Dalai Lama has spread superstitions by claiming that people having dreams of being strangled by bearded monks and so forth are being harmed by DS. He relies on doughballs and oracles and then he says that Buddhism is very scientific, even though he incorporates some very primitive Bon practices. Boy, is he confused!
—the root guru claim of nkt (post 768)—
it has been said many times that HHDL (and also other masters) has/have many root gurus. (there are also different definitions of what a root guru is). by referring to one guru in a particular context - the transmission and practice of the Lama Chopa - to Trijang Rinpoche as one’s root Guru, doesn’t indicate that HHDL is referring to him as his main teacher. HE Dagyab Rinpoche, a hothuktu, and close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche, stated that every lama who gives you teachings can be seen as your root guru, and that naturally one has different root gurus. In the Kagyue/Nyingma school the root guru is the one who points out the nature of a person’s mind. My lama has two root gurus: HH Karmapa and HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. In general according to gelug one could say, every lama who gave you complete transmission, empowerment and commentary in one particular tantric lineage can be seen as a root guru. The head of the Drikung Kagyue school, Drikung Chetsang Rinpoche, says, that the root guru is a rather intimate topic and is nothing which is dependent on rituals or empowerments but the relation from past lives and goes a long with a very special deep feeling, and both of them, the guru and the student know when they have met.
This has been discussed already on beliefnet and other places. And also here someone here has already pointed out that the root guru is rather a very private and intimate topic, nothing for the public.
However as in NKT there is only one root guru and the issue is abused to thread people not to leave the root guru (kelsang gyatso) because otherwise the hell is waiting for you, it is of course logical, that also HHDL could have had also only one root guru and that he failed by not showing complete obedience. this misconception has been expressed also different times in the past NKT’s media campaign via SSC.
The misunderstandings of the root guru issue has been repeated since 12 years by NKT and some Shugden followers to verify their propaganda how wrong the Dalai Lama is to oppose a particular view of one of his Gurus, regardless of the facts that he may have many root gurus, and even if Trijnag Rinpoche would be his very sole root guru, it is still correct to disagree with him when the teaching is not in accordance with the dharma or it is a wrong religious command. (Je Tsongkhapa states this clearly). It’s even correct to distance yourself from a root guru or ‘the root guru’ - according to the Kalachakra Tantra - when it is not possible - based on good reasons - to keep up the relation. All this is not taught to NKT members, hence another natural confusion they shout into the world as “the truth”.
As long as NKT members are not able to look beyond their dharma propaganda line they won’t get the points, like the Chinese communists still “believe” or claim that they have liberated Tibet.
LH, I think, you are clearly working here for the NKT propaganda machine. What strikes me is, that you repeat false arguments even when you learned it elsewhere or here better.
http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12371&page=3
In his autobiography “Freedom from Exile” published 1990 page 68 HHDL states clearly that
This autobiography was published 2 years after the book ‘the union of bliss and emptiness’. The latter is mainly a transcript of a teaching he gave in 1986 in Dharamsala and has to be seen in the context what audience he had there and what the setting of the teaching was, and how the Lama Chopa is usually explained in Gelug school. As you noticed that HHDL had many teachers and therefore probably many root gurus, please notice and keep in mind, that he said clearly:
Don’t forget this again, please tell this also Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and your NKT friends. The root Guru is no weapon. Also the Dharma is no weapon.
“He relies on doughballs and oracles and then he says that Buddhism is very scientific, even though he incorporates some very primitive Bon practices. Boy, is he confused!”
People who can’t understand dependent arising, the teachings on emptiness and Tantra won’t understand that there is no contradiction between a rational scientific approach and a shamanic approach. Both can work well together. For a Westerner this maybe hard to comprehend, for the masters there is no contradiction.
(Girl, you express your own confusion all the time… Who is your master and how long are you with him? What did you learn, pure Dharma-Agit-prop?)
Hey mSPP
In #186 Buddhist Friend says
In #351 Buddhist Friend signs himself Lineageholder
So as far as I can see BF = LH = bloke = not Lucy James
Whilst I disagree with many of LH’s positions, I don’t think it’s fair to call him Lucy!
Dear mSPP,
It’s clear that since the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, he has been trying to distance himself from Trijang Rinpoche so it hardly surprises me that the Dalai Lama would say one thing in 1986 and something completely different in 1991. Things had changed for him.
It is not ‘NKT’s claim’ that Trijang Rinpoche is the Dalai Lama’s root Guru. Why would Lama Zopa Rinpoche say:
The lama or all Tibetan people. That’s quite a statement. It’s because all Tibetan people received the kindness of Trijang Rinpoche through his extensive activities for the Dharma, but especially ‘His Holiness’
The Dalai Lama has treated Trijang Rinpoche and his incarnation shamefully. He tried to blackmail him into giving up his practice of Dorje Shugden by denying him the opportunity to ordain and study in a Gelugpa monastery unless he changed his mind. At Graz, in Austria in 2003, the Dalai Lama said to his Guru,
As a Buddhist, one wouldn’t treat anyone in the way that the Dalai Lama treated his Guru, with threats and promises to control them, but this person is his Guru! It shows that the Dalai Lama’s platitudes of respect for his Spiritual Master are nothing but mere words. It is the worst example of any Buddhist in this world whose main practice is to rely sincerely upon their Spiritual Teacher, in whatever tradition they practice in.
Who is Thatag Rinpoche? I’m unable to find any information about him.
Hi LH
Thanks for #776 to which I shall respond when I get a moment. But given that you take to be true what Trijang says in MDOP, can I ask whether you take as true the following statement by GKG.
-(post 768)-
4. Geshe Kelsang never permitted sexual exploitation.
he just threatened people who complaint to him about the sexual abuse, claiming they would “harm countless sentient beings and the Buddhadharma” by complaining to him about the abuse. he tolerated the abuse by his non-actions, and by putting for a long time a blind eye on it. he acted only when the reputation of NKT was in danger after people asked about this issue in the internet. it came up with the question: ‘is it allowed for a lineageholder who is a monk to have sexual relationships’? (see E-Sangha & nktsurvivors)
by the active covering up kelsang gyatso at least encouraged or supported indirectly sexual exploitation
3. Geshe Kelsang has never sowed discord…
of course he has. and of course rather he has split the Sangha than anybody else; much more by establishing an own ordination lineage ‘Kadampa ordination’ and abandoning the vinaya. all nkt members are separated from the sangha if they follow NKT ‘purely’. and no NKT ordained can ever attend the sojong of the Sangha because Sojong is alllowed only for getsul and gelongs. those who follow nkt will finally be separated from the Sangha and their masters, and the wise, not only this they will even denounce them, and claim to know more. what a mess.
thanks SeekingClarity post 779.
A monk is no girl, I agree
however, your logic indicates only a correct point when the statement “I am a monk and supporter of the Western Shugden Society.” is true or reliable.
I take the benefit of the doubt. In the past posters appeared who claimed to be concerned Tibetans to only spread the common NKT Agit-prop. So I am a bit sceptical.
However, LH has the right for his/her privacy as anybody else, no matter what he/she states. For me it is important to learn to respect and accept this.
Dear SeekingClarity,
Yes, I accept that Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen said that Dorje Shugden is a bodhisattva. There are many different views of Dorje Shugden according to karma, some see him as an evil spirit, some as a mundane Protector, some as a Bodhisattva and others as a Buddha appearing as a supramundane Protector.
Dear mSPP,
On a couple of points:
I have some understanding dependent arising - where did Buddha teach that if you have no wisdom, it’s okay to rely on worldly beings through oracles? I think that kinda breaks your Refuge commitment, no? Isn’t Buddha’s wisdom good enough for the DL? Why does the DL have to rely on a worldly spirit for advice? Surely he’s if he’s a Buddha he doesn’t need such contrivances because he possesses omniscience wisdom? Maybe he’s doing it to show a good example but it’s not a good example to rely on anything other than the Three Jewels is it?
The Dalai Lama says not to rely on a worldly being because it degenerates Buddhism into spirit worship and then he goes and relies on a worldly being…do as I say, not do as I do.
You’re got no evidence that Geshe Kelsang ‘covered up’ Why? Because he didn’t. Where’s the evidence of these threats? Did he write to people threatening them, or is this just hearsay from the land of New Kadampa Survivors?
Kadampa ordination has not abandoned the Vinaya, it simply doesn’t explicitly follow the system of vows explained in the Vinaya Sutra, even though it does follow them implicitly. Vinaya is moral discipline, so how could any Buddhist abandon the Vinaya? The three higher trainings are higher moral discipline, higher concentration and higher wisdom, so Vinaya in a general sense is vitally important. It’s the whole foundation of the path and this is how Je Tsongkhapa treated it.
The problem you have is that you cannot recognize a system other than the one you are following to be valid because, generally, you’ve missed the whole meaning of ordination. I really don’t think you understand what it means to be ordained and what the nature and function of ordination is, so, being confused, you criticize a system that embodies the very essence of vinaya and ordination. Just because NKT doesn’t follow the designations of Getsul and Gelong and have 253 for a fully ordained person doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid. In reality, for a fully ordained person there will be more than 253 vows because their vow is to abandon all faults. Do you think that 253 is a magic, inherent number that mustn’t be changed? I think you’ve missed the point of the ‘rules’. It’s like people who cling to ritual because ‘we’ve always done it this way’ They don’t understand why it was done that way in the first place! They’ve lost the meaning, so they cling to the form as some kind of inherent truth.
Hi Tenzin,
I respect your wish for privacy. Even though one of your two given reasons for privacy, “as the majority prefers to be anonymous here, I prefer this as well.”, is a bit dubious on the logic side. Especially for someone who repeatedly condemns the logic of others. However, sMPP is hardly anonymous is he? Or do you think people will forget that he is you after some time? I know somebody who certainly won’t.
With respect to your propaganda. I’m a bit shocked to be honest. The whole thing seems a bit… desperate?? It seems more and more clear that your mission is totally one-sided, Tenzin. I started off thinking you were very objective, over time that view started wearing off, but i still gave you the benefit of the doubt and did my best to hear what you had to say. With this whole propaganda business i think you have lost the plot. I’ve lost the little faith that i had.
I have little doubt that you wouldn’t mind NKT being associated with China, even if you know there is no evidence of this. If somehow your satire makes people believe this, i guess you will be quite glad. Desperate measures indeed. Perhaps the WSS do engage in these tactics which you have for so long condemned. But if you start employing them yourself… what else can i say???
SC seems to me to be the only shining example around of someone who is strictly looking for the truth of the situation without getting attached to one or another side of the conflict. Of course you can never really know someone’s real intentions, but he/she certainly doesn’t let him/herself down with blaming, bickering, and pointing fingers. It’s “lets get to the point”. I hope i can become more like that, for at the moment i am still relatively attached to NKT.
Best to you,
Harry
By the way, i have noticed already two non-NKT posters also expressing distaste at your parodies.
LH
Re #776, thanks for the clarification re Trijang. We agree on the fact that to hold Trijang’s reincarnation lineage to be valid is to hold that Sakyas have for hundreds of years been entirely wrong about their most precious lamas. Perhaps where we disagree on the significance of this fact.
With regard to the Yellow Book, I don’t feel you’ve fully addressed my point. GKG is on record as saying
http://www.dharmaprotector.org/othertraditions.html
The basic message of YB is that practitioners that mix non-Gelug with Gelug teachings get punished by DS. So GKG is saying that the notion that DS punishers “mixers” is ordinary people’s superstition.
My points is that what Trijang writes about DS and what Pabongka writes about DS has the same basic message as the YB i.e. DS punishes mixers. So if GKG regards YB as describing ordinary people’s superstitions, he must necessarily regard the writings of Trijang and Pabongka as describing ordinary people’s superstitions.
The trouble is that that there is NOTHING in the writings of Trijang or Pabongka that remotely suggests that they are describing the views of ordinary people. Nowhere do they write words to the effect of: “in this document I am setting out not my view on DS but the (superstitious views) of ordinary people“. From my reading of Trijang and Pabongka, they are very clear setting out not the views of others (i.e. superstitious ordinary people) but their OWN views.
So in summary
(1) If GKG regards YB as setting out the superstitious views of ordinary people then he is committed to regarding Trijang and Pabonkga’s writing as similarly setting out the superstitious views of ordinary people
(2) There is absolutely no basis for such a reading of Trijang and Pabongka’s writing as in those writings they are clearly expressing their own views.
Given (2) and given that you take as true everything that Trijang writes in MDOP it seems to me that you are therefore logically committed to agreeing with Trijang (MDOP, pp121-2) that
“though he incorporates some very primitive Bon practices.” more sectarian hate-mongering delusions from Lineageholder–give it a rest, one day you will not be able to clamber up from the deep hole you are digging yourself.
Lineageholder: “In addition to Reting Rinpoche as Senior Tutor, I was appointed a Junior Tutor, Tathag Rinpoche, was an especially spiritual man and very warm and kind. […] These arrangements did not last long, however, for soon after I began my novitiate, Reting Rinpoche gave up the Regency, mainly on account of his unpopularity. Despite my being only six years old, I was asked who I thought should replace him. I nominated Tathag Rinpoche. He then became my Senior Tutor and was replaced as Junior Tutor by Ling Rinpoche.”
(pp. 18f)
Dalai Lama (1990, 1998). Freedom in Exile. The autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet. London: Abacus
Dear namkhah,
Thank you for the information on Tathag Rinpoche from the Dalai Lama’s autobiography, is he the same as Taktra Rinpoche? My understanding is that the Dalai Lama had Reting Rinpoche as a Teacher, who then passed this responsibility onto Taktra Rinpoche and he then passed the responsibility onto Ling Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche
I’ve never heard of Tathag Rinpoche.
I lack time and wish not to over engage.
@ Henry, answer follows.
@ LH, I am not much interested in reading more about your lack of knowledge. I glanced the first paragraph and will add something to it and leave it with that. You seem to lack any knowledge or understanding…
“I have some understanding dependent arising - where did Buddha teach that if you have no wisdom, it’s okay to rely on worldly beings through oracles? I think that kinda breaks your Refuge commitment, no? Isn’t Buddha’s wisdom good enough for the DL? Why does the DL have to rely on a worldly spirit for advice? Surely he’s if he’s a Buddha he doesn’t need such contrivances because he possesses omniscience wisdom? Maybe he’s doing it to show a good example but it’s not a good example to rely on anything other than the Three Jewels is it?”
Where did the Buddha teach if you have wisdom, you should not go for the doctor for help, if your body is sick? Likewise, when you have wisdom and you can receive further help by someone else, why not using it? If you have no wisdom and you ask others for help and they are not properly qualified, then there is a risk of course, like a fake doctor or a doctor who is not properly qualified or lacks knowledge. If they are qualified they can help you. So why not using their help?
I think, your first sentence is already confused, and shows a lack of discriminating understanding:
“I have some understanding dependent arising - where did Buddha teach that if you have no wisdom, it’s okay to rely on worldly beings through oracles?” –> To ask someone else for help is not contradicting dependent arising, no? To ask a doctor for help is not contradicting Buddhist refuge, no? Likewise to ask an oracle for help which has certain abilities, does not violate Buddhist refuge, no? HHDL does not take refuge in Nechung nor does he see Nechung as a Buddha, nor does he blindly follow its stating but checks if this makes sense.
Why did Padmasambhava bound Nechung and put it into the service of the Tibetans, did he also have no wisdom and violated Buddhist refuge? Why does Lama Gangchen and other Shugden adepts ask the oracle of Shugden for advice, are they also violating Buddhist refuge?
I think, your wrong concepts are based on a lack of understanding of ultimate refuges, temporal refuges etc. and the nature of oracles etc., also you seem to lack understanding about how HHDL uses Nechung and what history is there with respect to oracles.
Again, HHDL does not see Nechung as a Buddha as geshe kelsang gyatso and his followers do it with Shugden, so there is no violation of refuge. HHDL never claimed he is omniscient or a Buddha or that Nechung would be this. The confusion in all of that may come from superficial teachings within NKT about Guru/Buddha/Refuge etc. and a lack of knowledge with respect to Indian-Tibetan Buddhism etc.
As far as I can see, the rest of the first passage follows the same lack of understanding or confusion as the first two sentences. I think some points are responded by this short reply. I am not sure if it is helpful to go into details, in general you forget so quick what you already heard. I would take time to read your post in full and to reply in full, with proper sources, quotes and links, but all your posts indicate this is just wasted time, because you do not listen or you forget quickly what does not fit into the ‘partyline’ of the ‘politburo’.
I think this sounds quite arrogant, but I don’t know besides some frankness what is the best way to discuss with you. Maybe its easier to talk or discuss with a tree.
If you are interested in more, the Berzin archives offer proper teachings on refuge according to gelugpa and also about how to see a teacher as a buddha - not in the literally sense but how he can function as a Buddha, if there is a genuine teacher, although he actual is no Buddha. There is also a film on nechung and HHDL states much about this in his autobiography Freedom in Exile. So use the (non-NKT) sources if you are interested to learn more or to refine and improve your understanding.
I guess Kagyuepa, dorje and nakhah know far more than i about this and can add more details and offer a far more differentiated understanding, so maybe you have the good luck that they add some points.
so long.
Dear SeekingClarity,
For me, the Yellow Book is not very important. I’m not sure whether the stories contained within it are the superstitious views of ordinary people or the wrathful protective actions of Dorje Shugden.
It’s my own personal view that If Dorje Shugden was going to protect the Ganden tradition, he would, on occasion have to perform some wrathful actions. Such actions do perform a useful function although they are not readily understood by those on the ‘outside’. An example would be Pabongkha becoming sick when he received Nyingma teachings. This has been misinterpreted as a slur on the Nyingma tradition but I see it differently. Dorje Shugden maybe realized that it would be better for Pabongkha to just follow the teachings of Je Rinpoche so that he could become a powerful and influential Gelugpa teacher later on, or that maybe it wasn’t his karma to be connected with the Nyingma teachings so he made Pabongkha sick as a way of ‘hooking him back’ onto the best path for him.
Protectors do perform this function of directing living beings onto the best paths for their karma. In Heart Jewel Geshe Kelsang quotes Gyara Tulku Rinpoche from Drepung Loseling Monastery who said, in his prayer of gratitude to Dorje Shugden:
Lineageholder: Yes its the same person, the regent, I’m not sure of the variance in English spelling. There was a sixth Reting Hutuktu who stayed in behind in Tibet and passed away in 1997. The Chinese selected a Seventh, still disputed by the Tibetans. There is yet another Sixth Reting somewhere in India, who maintains the candidate that was left behind was abandoned in an attempt to squelch the lineage by the faction that gained the upper hand in the late fifties. Which arguably, is what we are still arguing about! Reting Monastery, founded by Dromtön, was blown to smithereens (don’t get to use that word enough) in the Cultural Revolution by Red Guards.
ooops, reformated version
Dear SeekingClarity,
For me, the Yellow Book is not very important. I’m not sure whether the stories contained within it are the superstitious views of ordinary people or the wrathful protective actions of Dorje Shugden.
It’s my own personal view that If Dorje Shugden was going to protect the Ganden tradition, he would, on occasion have to perform some wrathful actions. Such actions do perform a useful function although they are not readily understood by those on the ‘outside’. An example would be Pabongkha becoming sick when he received Nyingma teachings. This has been misinterpreted as a slur on the Nyingma tradition but I see it differently. Dorje Shugden maybe realized that it would be better for Pabongkha to just follow the teachings of Je Rinpoche so that he could become a powerful and influential Gelugpa teacher later on, or that maybe it wasn’t his karma to be connected with the Nyingma teachings so he made Pabongkha sick as a way of ‘hooking him back’ onto the best path for him.
Protectors do perform this function of directing living beings onto the best paths for their karma. In Heart Jewel Geshe Kelsang quotes Gyara Tulku Rinpoche from Drepung Loseling Monastery who said, in his prayer of gratitude to Dorje Shugden:
‘Wrong path’ here doesn’t necessarily mean not valid, it means not the best path for him. It’s the same for Pabongkha - he was stopped from following Nyingma teachings, not because those teachings were not valid but because, karmically, they weren’t the best for him to become what he needed to become to benefit the greatest number of people. Because Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, he has the ten forces, one of which is the force knowing all paths and where they lead to. Dorje Shugden can therefore see which path is the best match for our karma at any given moment and has the power to direct us down that path if we rely on him. I’ve definitely had this experience myself. He also has a wrathful power to hook us back onto the best path if we’ve, in our ignorance, taken a less than optimal path.
As for ‘punishment’, Dorje Shugden is not a jealous, worldly being so he doesn’t go around spitefully punishing people. Sometimes it is necessary to stop someone forcefully from doing something that will harm them and others a great deal. An example is Buddha’s former life as a captain in which he killed a merchant who was planning to kill 499 other merchants. He did this solely out of compassion and so he did not incur any negative karma as a result. Perhaps it would be necessary to kill someone to stop them from doing great harm to themselves and others and if you had the compassion and wisdom to know when this was appropriate, you had clairvoyance to know that it would lead to a beneficial result and the courage to do it, you could benefit many people through an action of killing.
Being an ordinary person, I could never make such judgements but maybe its possible that Dorje Shugden, through his omniscient wisdom knew when to engage in such actions and did so, I don’t know. These are just my beliefs and understandings. In any case, I have utmost faith in Dorje Shugden as a Buddha and feel that, although the stories in the Yellow Book are not important, they could be explained in a number of ways that do not imply that Dorje Shugden is either sectarian or a jealous, vengeful spirit.
Hi LH
Thanks for your reply in #795.
I DON’T have a problem with Shugdenpas holding that DS is a Buddha who performs enlightened wrathful actions which, on occasion, include killing people.
However, I DO have a big problem with Shugdenpas holding that descriptions of DS wrathfully killing people are merely superstitious folk tales. Why? Because in my view there is nothing, nada and nought in the YB nor in the writings of Trijang or Pabongka to support this view. Zemey is very clear in the YB that he is recounting stories told to him by Trijang. And it is very clear from Trijang’s own words in MDOP that he is giving his view on DS not that of superstitious ordinary folk.
So here’s why I believe you are absolutely committed to holding that DS has killed people.
P1: LH believes that everything Trijang says in MDOP is true
P2: Trijang says in MDOP that DS peforms wrathful enlightened actions that have included killing people
C: LH believes that DS peforms wrathful enlightened actions that have included killing people
So, in summary, I’m saying why don’t Shugdenpas just come out and say that DS kills people (in a wrathfully enlightened manner, of course). To say “well he doesn’t really kill people, that’s just folk tales” seems to be a wilful misreading of Trijang, Pabongka and Tagpo and a tad (or two) disingenuous.
Or maybe I’ve misread Trijang et al. Maybe they say words to the effect of “Look here, I’m not recounting my views about DS. I’m simply setting out the absurd superstitions of those ordinary folk who know no better”. If they do, I’d be delighted if someone were to point it out to me my misreading!
Hi SC,
Perhaps, in the case that DS were a Buddha, given that Buddhism has become a Western religion as well as a Tibetan one, DS has decided to stop engaging in such actions because in the West this would not be accepted, much less comprehended.
It seems quite clear to me that in the NKT, people who don’t strictly adhere to the lineage don’t get struck down by lightning, or suffer from other such punishments.
I for one, used to be relatively committed and am now leading a more samsaric lifestyle, and i haven’t had any disgraceful occurrences as a result. On the contrary, life keeps offering me new chances to renew my practice within NKT.
A couple of things that may reinforce my point. In NKT these views that DS kills or harms ones who take a wrong turn in their paths, are not taught. At least not explicitly, perhaps i am not aware of it, and implicitly they are to be found. I certainly can’t find anything of the sort in the short and middling sadhanas.
In the DS short and middling sadhanas (NKT) the most “wrathful” it gets is in these few paragraphs:
“But to subdue demons and obstructors he displays a wrathful manner”
“Please… and subdue immediately all traitors, enemies, and obstructors who cause harm and injury, by performing the appropriate actions swiftly and without delay.”
There are a couple more in the same vein. I take note of the word “appropriate”. If DS is enlightened, no doubt he can judge what is an appropriate course of action whatever the given situation is. Also one may raise an eyebrow at “subdue… all traitors”, but if you read on it specifies “who cause harm and injury”. Now we may ask “yes, but “cause harm and injury” to whom and what?”. I think since the whole sadhana’s main point is the protection of JT’s tradition (trust me if you read it you won’t fail to see my point. It vigorously stresses this aim quite a few times), it is safe to assume that this passage means “cause harm and injury” to the tradition and to those upholding it.
Also another thing that only just occurred to me is KG’s request for DS thangkas and statues to be made with softer, less wrathful features. Perhaps one of his reasons for doing this is because he feels that DS has changed his methods to suit modern times.
Anyway, sorry for the ol ramble, hope this adds something useful to the pot.
Peace,
Harry
Dear SC,
As I have said, it’s unimportant what the Yellow Book says, it’s not part of my tradition. If the stories are true and Dorje Shugden did kill people, it would be for a good reason; if they are superstitious views of ordinary people it wouldn’t matter and if the whole thing was concocted to prevent the Dalai Lama from mixing traditions it obviously didn’t work. The Yellow Book and its contents is not part of my daily practice. If it was important, no doubt Geshe Kelsang would have included something about it in his book Heart Jewel and he didn’t, so as far as I’m concerned it’s not worth expending too much energy on.
I can understand why this is a sensitive issue because killing people is a serious matter and is easily misused and misunderstood, but as I said, such actions can be beneficial. This is what Lama Zopa said:
I believe it’s possible that Dorje Shugden has had to do these things in order to protect Tsongkhapa’s tradition and to benefit those who are in danger of degenerating it and these are the stories that Trijang Rinpoche told and that Zemey Rinpoche recorded in the Yellow Book, but I don’t know. It’s just my view and maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they are the views of ordinary beings. I know that in the past, when people have dreamt of a bearded monk strangling them, Dorje Shugden has been blamed. All that stuff that TP quoted from Tai Situ Rinpoche, the ‘he-who-should-be-named’ that everyone is afraid of - the Voldemort stuff - seems to have a similar source: superstition. Therefore, if Dorje Shugden did perform wrathful actions such as killing it wouldn’t be the kind of thing that Gelugpas would shout from the rooftops because Dorje Shugden’s nature and function seems to be so easily misunderstood anyway.
Hi Harry
You make good points. If we assume DS is a Buddha, it’s entirely plausible that he has changed his modus operandii with his move westward. Knocking of a lama here and there in Tibet might not raise an eyebrow but would hardly be regarded as politically correct around these parts.
But I guess my gripe has been with those Shugdenpas who rather uncritically repeat the line that YB is simply superstitious folk tales. To repeat myself, I just don’t see any evidence for this view. Zemey says he got the stories from Trijang and Trijang clearly says DS has killed people. Pabongka is even more direct. The passage below (taken from the Dreyfus paper) has been quoted many a time but is worth repeating.
Best
SC
SC,
I agree. It would seem that, perhaps for a lack of a better answer, Shugden proponents have dismissed these stories as mere superstition. Thanks for clarifying this.
“Since the Dalai Lama is not the head of any of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, he doesn’t have the right to say what should be practised by them.”
The Dalai Lama is the head of the Ganden Phodrang and the Ganden Phodrang has ultimate authority over the major Gelug monasteries that receive funding from the Ganden Phodrang.
“the Dalai Lama’s interference in the choosing of the new Karmapa was unprecedented”
The Karmapa was recognised by the regents of the last Karmapa. These regents have disagreed, so we have two Karmapas. Both of them have been recognised by the one group or another of the highest Karma Kagyu lamas, including Tai Situpa, Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche.
“if the Dalai Lama had allowed people the religious freedom to follow their own traditions”
Everyone is free to practice the tradition that Je Tsongkhapa set down for future generations. They are in no way restricted from following Je Rinpoche’s teachings. The problem comes when people start messing with the Ganden tradition and mixing in a bunch of sectarian nonsense that Je Tsongkhapa would not recognise.
Lineageholder writes:
“As I have said, it’s unimportant what the Yellow Book says, it’s not part of my tradition. If the stories are true and Dorje Shugden did kill people, it would be for a good reason; if they are superstitious views of ordinary people it wouldn’t matter and if the whole thing was concocted to prevent the Dalai Lama from mixing traditions it obviously didn’t work. The Yellow Book and its contents is not part of my daily practice. If it was important, no doubt Geshe Kelsang would have included something about it in his book Heart Jewel and he didn’t, so as far as I’m concerned it’s not worth expending too much energy on.”
Who is credited with speaking the words of the Yellow Book? Isn’t that Lama actually one of the fountainheads of your tradition? Or do you only read or study those portions of that author’s works which you are told to read? Or do you believe that Zemay was misrepresenting Trijang Rinpoche’s words?
I mean, you guys continually make it a point of contention that HH claimed TR as a “root guru” and yet he disagrees with him about the practice of DS….yet you have no problem glorifying TR while somehow discrediting this particular portion of his teaching? I know what GKG has said about the Yellow Book, but has he said that in fact TR did not “tell those stories?”
Or is it possible that GKG, and therefore you, are admitting that a Lineage Lama may be incorrect about some things, and still an object of veneration?
Dear Kagyupa,
I’ve already made it clear that I accept everything that Trijang Rinpoche wrote in MDOP. I’m not discrediting Trijang Rinpoche’s teaching and I have given various possible explanations as I see them for the stories of Dorje Shugden killing people or otherwise seeming to cause them.
harm
Phabongkhapa said that this protector kills and harms those that mix their Gelug practice with practices from other traditions. He describes these other traditions as ‘faulty, dangerous and misleading paths.’
Trijang Rinpoche agrees and teaches the same. His stories of specific people being killed by this protector for taking teachings from other traditions are compiled by Zemey Tulku.
The NKT think they can disregard Trijang Rinpoche’s stories as compiled by Zemey Tulku. In doing this, they are simultaneously adopting a protector practice taught by Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche but rejectin the teachings that these two lamas gave about this protector.
The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, accepts the teachings that Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche gave, concerning view that their protector harmed and killed sentient beings, and consequently rejected the worship of this protector.
The very worst that can be said about the Dalai Lama’s actions is that they come as a result of a very honest difference of opinion. Instead, the WSS accuse him of lying.
I personally see the NKT’s position as far less intellectually honest, as they dismiss the teachings of the lineage lamas, that this protector kills sentient beings, that they use as justification for worshipping this protector.
“HH the Dalai Lama says: “That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me.” This is also completely untrue. We would like to ask HH the Dalai Lama: who are these Shugden practitioners saying these meaningless things?”
Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Zemey Tulku. Kelsang Gyatso must have known that when he wrote his letter to Newsweek. How much honesty does this show?
Dear Dorje,
It’s not true at all. Dorje Shugden does not harm Gelugpas who want to practise Nyingma, otherwise the Dalai Lama would be dead. Apart from the Yellow Book there are no modern day stories of people who have been harmed by Dorje Shugden. If there are, I’d like to hear them, other than superstitious tales of people dreaming of being strangled by a bearded monk. What a load of nonsense!
The very worst we can say about the Dalai Lama’s actions is that he has lied, caused a schism in the Sangha, completely disrespected his root Guru and tradition and has acted against everything he has said publicly about love, compassion, tolerance, non-sectarianism and dialogue. The Dalai Lama is not being honest at all, I’m afraid, and I can prove it.
LH
In #808 you argument appears to be as follows (Argument 1):
P1: The DL is a mixer
P2: If DS kills mixers he’d have killed the DL
P3: DS has not killed the DL
C: DS does not kill mixers
However contrast this with the following (Argument 2)
P1: What Trijang says in MDOP is true
P2: In MDOP Trijang says DS kill mixers
C: DS kills mixers
Surely you can’t have it both ways! Or have I mischaracterized your Argument 1?
Dear SeekingClarity,
I feel that Dorje is trying to characterise Dorje Shugden as someone who kills people who mix traditions. I don’t support this view. Trijang Rinpoche and the Yellow Book teach that Dorje Shugden did kill certain people in the past and if that happened it would have been for specific beneficial reasons, but that doesn’t mean that Dorje Shugden is a killer whose practice should be banned because it restricts religious freedom. If it were true that Dorje Shugden kills mixers then those Gelugpas who received Guru Rinpoche empowerment from the Dalai Lama in Nantes earlier this year should be dead but they aren’t. I asked for someone to give an example of a recent killing of someone by Dorje Shugden - I’m still waiting.
This is the kind of exaggeration that may explain why certain Shugden practitioners would rather say that the stories of Dorje Shugden killing people is the superstitious view of ordinary people. It’s as I said: people do not understand such actions and go to an extreme because of their misunderstanding - therefore it’s safer to deny that such things have happened as a skillful means.
My point is, if it’s not very clear, is that Dorje Shugden may have killed certain people for certain specific reasons in the past but he does not kill per se. He’s not an indiscriminate killer, he’s a Buddha who sometimes has to perform very wrathful actions to protect the Buddhadharma and specific sentient beings.
We can witness that he alone was responsible for the Dalai Lama getting safely from Tibet to India. He told the Dalai Lama the safe route for the escape. Because Dorje Shugden is a Buddha who can see the three times, he must have clearly known that the Dalai Lama would cause later cause a schism in the Sangha and jeopardize the Gelugpa tradition, but he still protected him. Wouldn’t it have made a lot of sense for Dorje Shugden to have killed him or allowed him to be killed? He didn’t. You can’t second guess a Buddha because their actions are beyond our understanding.
LH
I agree that it is important to be specific. I agree that it is wrong to characterize DS as killing all mixers. However, according to Trijang and others, he has (wrathfully/beneficially) killed some (perhaps only a small number of) people in the past and those people were killed because they were mixers.
Do we agree on this?
SC
Dear LH, with respect to the open questions post 780 ff.
- a proper qualified student must reject teachings which do not accord with the dharma, this is stated by Je Tsongkhapa himself. The reasoning and history with respect to the sectarian Shugden worship and the veneration of a worldly being as a Buddha + the controversial history and threats to the followers “not to mix” Dharma with Dharma + falsely taking a spirit as an object of refuge is sufficient for such a rejection. There is no fault in this
- HHDL has many many many Gurus and as said he himself says that Tathag Rinpoche (who is different from Taktser Rinpoche, his brother) is his most important one
- The overemphasize on Trijang Rinpoche is rather inappropriate, because there are many Gelug lineage lamas, and many root lamas, including HHDL’s senior tutor Ling Rinpoche etc. Trijang Rinpoche is also the servant of HHDL and the Podrang. To make this more clear, here an example: Even when HE Tai Situ Rinpoche would have given all transmissions to HH Karmapa, the head and authority is the Karmapa for the Karma Kagyue school, not Tai Situ Rinpoche. although he is his teacher and maybe even his root lama. It as an object of laughter to imagine the Karma Kayguepas would start protests against HH Karmapa because he rejects a wrong teaching which he may have received from Tai Situ Rinpoche. Nobody with common sense and understanding would do that. However, some very political gelugpas seem to have no shame to perform such improper actions.
- NKT and some Shugden fanatics bend Trijang Rinpoche to a weapon, who ever disagrees with him is destroying his lineage. But even GKG disagrees with him by rejecting the oral teachings of Shugdens murder activities against followers who “mix” the “pure” teachings with other schools, especially Gelugpa. If GKG can reject such teachings (including the life entrustment, which is not applied in NKT) also HHDL has this right.
- NKT spins the facts by over exaggerating Trijang Rinpoche as the sole and lasting Gelug lineage master in Gelug school. 1. there are many Gelug lineage masters 2. Trijang Rinpoche became just more popular than others, also due to the exile situation and the passing of Shugden worship to all of the refugees and his rather strict emphasize on Guru obedience 3. also GKG has many teachers, and it was not Trijang Rinpoche who taught him all his knowledge but other Gelug teachers, like Geshe Lhundup Sopa, still alive, living in USA, whom he visited in the past to offer service but has not contacted since his self-isolation. Almost no NKT follower is aware of the fact that Geshe Lhundup Sopa is his main teacher of GKG and that Trijang Rinpoche just taught a fraction of Buddhism to GKG, and that GKG had many different teachers.
- The distorted impression NKT teaches its followers is, there were only two high gelug masters, and only those are the Gelug lineage masters: Trijang Rinpoche + Pabongkha Rinpoche. This is incorrect. On top of that misconception NKT tries to give the impression that the only heir of those two masters - and hence the gelug school / Je Tsongkhapa - is GKG (all other teachers are corrupt or have abandoned Shugden) hence he is the sole “pure” lineage holder of Je Tsongkhapa. To justify the many changes he made and to justify and hide the inability of one man to transmit a some hundred years old, vast and profound lineage he established the idea that Trijang Rinpoche gave him “persmission” to make the “pure lineage” appropriate to our times, and that what ever he says and writes is the essence.
- Based on these spin of the facts, he appears to be the supreme lineage holder of Je Tsongkhapa’s school, while HHDL and all other masters are either enemies of the Buddhadharma or corrupted because “they have destroyed the pure lineage” (Shugden) and “mix Dharma with politics”.
- The naïve Western followers - especially youngsters - who naturally have suspicions with respect to authorities believe this tale. The small David fights for the pure Dharma against the evil Goliath. Some of them even believe they would be lineageholders of Je Tsongkhapa themselves, without recognizing that they just may hold 22 books of a very controversial Gelug teacher, who was expelled from 15 abbots and geshes from his monastic community.
- NKT and its PR machine completely fade out that HHDL had so many teachers as some books of GKG have pages, and it is up to HHDL to decide who is / are his main teacher/s or main source of inspiration or root guru/s, if he has many or one root guru. In this context it is quite likely that his root guru is Buddha Shakyamuni himself, as for Je Tsongkhapa the root Guru was Manjushri. The issue of teacher/guru/root guru is far more flexible, and vast than NKT teaches its followers (with the main aim to bind them to GKG and to separate them from the rest of the Buddhist world and their masters.)
That there is no fault to use Nechung as long as one sees him not as a Buddha and object of Buddhist refuge, was already explained (post 792).
With respect to the covering up of the sexual abuse: This has been reported by those who received such threats by GKG on NKS and this has been reported also to INFORM. It is unlikely that this is not true, because what kind of explanation will reconcile the fact that with respect to both successors the abuse took place over years? Also in another example of abuse I know, GKG said to the abusing teacher: “I don’t believe these people who complain about you. I rupture all the letters I receive.“ Such a ignoring of facts can be also observed with his unwillingness to accept that his followers wish to disrobe. Instead of listening to them and to give them either encouragement or ease (the Buddha allowed to disrobe!) he just said: “I am not interested to hear these wishes.” Based on this and other patterns it is unlikely that the reports are not correct.
With respect to “Kadampa Ordination” (which does not exist), as long as people have not studied the Vinaya and Pratimoksha and only listen to an expelled monk who is eager to justify his controversial actions and autocrat system, there is not much hope that they will ever understand. It is like a child in the first class, having no understanding about infinitesimal calculus, believing their teacher who dislikes infinitesimal calculus, that there would be no need for infinitesimal calculus, and believing his claims to be able to count to 100 is fully sufficient to be a fully qualified mathematician. The statement of the ASA is clear and according to the Buddha’s own teachings:
http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
NKT applies the same old tactic, because they would have the essence, and Trijang Rinpoche allowed GKG to change what he likes to change, what ever they do and claim is correct, because they have the essence, and Trijang Rinpoche gave permission.
correction:
- NKT and some Shugden fanatics bend Trijang Rinpoche to a weapon, who ever disagrees with him is destroying his lineage. But even GKG disagrees with him by rejecting the oral teachings of Shugdens murder activities against followers who “mix” the “pure” teachings with other schools, especially Gelugpa.
should read:
- NKT and some Shugden fanatics bend Trijang Rinpoche to a weapon, who ever disagrees with him is destroying his lineage. But even GKG disagrees with him by rejecting the oral teachings of Shugdens murder activities against followers who “mix” the “pure” teachings with other schools, especially Nyingmapa.
there are also some grammar errors but I think the content is clear.
dear harry, with respect to your criticism, thank you very much. I will look what I can improve.
I still think it is a good idea to reverse propaganda to show its absurdity. As I said, some people don’t seem to be very receptive for reasoning, maybe to overexaggerate the exaggerations can help. In one of your previous posts, you said yourself: “I even agree with some of your implied criticisms of NKT. Problem is you’re lying from the start, which kinda turns the whole thing into a lie, no?”
Taken this as a honest statement, it follows that you understood some points. So there is already some benefit. As soon as I recognize that the blog is destructive or not really helpful, I’ll delete it. At the moment I think it’s a half-way good parody of WSS/NKT tactics and exaggerated claims.
Dorje: re:807, GKG is a spinmeister extraordinaire,
“When HH was about to give the Kalachakra Initiation in Lhasa (1956), I tried to join this teaching but unfortunately there were no places left, it was full. For a short while I waited with some lay people, and then I returned home. My uncle Kuten Lama knows this is true, because he was with me. So I never received the Kalachakra Initiation from HH.”
I attended the Kalachakra in Budh Gaya in 1972 and others: these are large public gatherings, basically if you show up, you get it–that is the way I was told it works. So GKG showed up, he got it even if he was with lay people, these were not ticketed indoor events, no one is turned away.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion.buddhism.nkt/msg/4e76df4b3c6293ec
Dear mSPP,
You’ve written a lot of stuff, but I’ve only got one question for you:
Do you believe that Trijang Rinpoche practised and taught things that were not in accordance with the Dharma?
if your answer is “yes” than according to Je Tsongkhapa he was not a qualified Dharma student because he was unable to distinguish and reject teachings that were not in accordance with the Dharma, therefore, how could he be a great Master?
Lineageholder, perhaps you should look toward the current incarnation of Trijang Rinpoche for an answer to your question above.
I think, with respect to Shugden worship, Trijang Rinpoche was wrong, as HHDL and all the other high masters from all the schools say. But to make a fault does not disqualify him in the other fields. You can find faults in explanations also by other lineage masters, they were corrected either by their students or later masters of the same lineage.
It is not black and white, like: if you make one fault, everything else you’ve done is also a fault. The same is true for everybody else. As long as one is not fully enlightened faults happen. It’s better to be open to recognize them and to correct them, instead of wasting much energy to deny or justify them.
You can also see that HHDL never blamed Trijnag Rinpoche for his involvement in Shugden worship, he said: “due to my ignorance I practised it.”
With respect to Shugden it is still unclear how it came that finally Trijang Rinpoche saw him as enlightened. For the most part of the history Shugden was not seen as enlightened - as HH Sakya Trizin said, “he was in the lowest category in the pantheon”. This rather new development even surprised one of my Nyingma masters, he could not really believe that there are Gelugpas who would regard him as enlightened.
I can not speak for Trijang Rinpoche and his perception, but as the majority of masters from all school agree and as the history shows, the weight to doubt Shugden worship as being authentic or as being a Buddha is higher than the claims of the proponents. Far more as no Indian pandit or Je Tsongkhapa and his early heirs have ever taught this practice.
for more see: http://www.dalailama.com/page.156.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelsang_Gyatso#POV_.22One_of_the_strongest_tenants_of_Buddhism_is_to_never_forsake_your_teachers_teachings..22
I don’t like these yes and no questions, some things are rather complex and the answer depends much on the perspective and the knowledge. A good advice will always be to respect Trijang Rinpoche and to respect HH the Dalai Lama.
I think, NKT/GKG/WSS should think about why they have no support from Gangchen Lama (who gathers many ‘NKT refugees’ - its their terminology), Gonsar Rinpoche or the followers of Dagom Rinpoche. Although they strongly disagree with HHDL they still follow the Dharma to respect the masters, even when they disagree. Maybe this could be a role model for NKT too.
Dear Kagyupa,
There are two possibilities:
1. Trijang Rinpoche practised and taught that which is not compatible with Dharma and was therefore not a qualified student and therefore not a great Master
2. Trijang Rinpoche always practised and taught that which is compatible with Dharma and was a great Master
I’m asking mSPP to say what his own view is.
Dear mSPP,
Sorry, I didn’t see that you answered. Actually, you can’t have it both ways. I’ve already explained that if someone is unable to discern a correct object of Refuge this means that they have no clairvoyance, therefore they have no tranquil abiding which means they don’t have spontaneous renunciation, bodhichitta or a correct view of emptiness which means that they are an ordinary, deluded being. Does this sound like a good description for Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche?
Furthermore, we would have to conclude that if he was wrong about Dorje Shugden practice that he was unable to discern what is and what is not a valid Dharma teaching, and lacking such qualities,could not be a qualified Mahayana disciple or a qualified Mahayana Spiritual Guide. That means the kiss of death for the Gelugpa tradition.
I’m afraid you cannot be like the Dalai Lama and fudge the issue by saying that some of his activities were excellent and some of them were completely wrong. The consequences are clear.
“Small Package” (sorry, I couldn’t resist!) identified other alternatives. Perhaps you cannot see that. for the record, though, my view is neither 1 nor 2. If you get around a bit, you might be able to see beyond your black-and-white. Good luck!
Dear SC,
I don’t think that those who were, according to Trijang Rinpoche, killed by Dorje Shugden were just mixers. They were people who were in a position to damage the lineage of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings.
Hi LH
Wasn’t suggesting those killed were justmixers. If just being a mixer was the criterion for being killed then all mixers would meet that fate. Was suggesting that mixing was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
So perhaps we can say that DS does not kill all mixers. However, according to Trijang and others, he has in the past (wrathfully/beneficially) killed some (perhaps only a small number of) mixers who were in a position to damage the lineage of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings.
Does this formulation work for you?
Hi LH
I’d like to follow up a remark you made in #795. Sorry if this post is a little long but it contains rather a lot of quotes. In #795 you say
I wonder what you mean here by “valid”? The natural reading, for me at least, is to interpret valid teachings as those leading to enlightenment. However this was most definitely not Pabongka’s view of Nyingma teachings.
In his letter to Lu Chu Tang (Earth Rabbit Year) Pabongka writes
Whilst the practices of the other schools can lead to liberation, Pabongka holds that only the practices of the Gelug school can lead to Buddhahood. As he says in his letter to Lu Chu Tang (Earth Rabbit Year)
But whilst in theory the practices of the other schools can at least lead to liberation, in practice Pabkongka holds ( letter to the novice Nyu’u Tshalmo Trang) that
Thus I take Pabongka’s argument to be
P1: The best practice of other (i.e. non-Gelug) schools leads to liberation (but not enlightenment)
P2: In the present day (of Pabonkga), the practice of most practioners in other schools is not best practice but is instead the practice of meditating on nothingness
P3: Meditating on nothingness is the cause to be reborn in Avichi hell
C: Most practitioners of the other schools will be reborn in Avichi hell
In #280 you wrote
Can I push you a little further on this? As a lineage guru, do you take all of Pabongka’s words to be true? If so, you must hold it to be true that in Pabongka’s day, most practitioners in non-Gelug schools were, as a result of their practice, making the causes to be reborn in Avichi Hell.
And if the practice of non-Gelug schools has not changed since Pabongka’s day, then you must hold that most most practitioners in non-Gelug schools are today, as a result of their practice, making the causes to be reborn in Avichi Hell.
Correction to #825: There are (at least) two letters from Pabongka to Lu Chang. The first quote was taken from the letter written in the Earth Rabbit Year but the second was taken from the letter written in the Earth Tibet Year.
–reply to 821–
Dear LH,
your logic is following a black-and-white pattern. Let’s relax that a bit. I start with a story.
I translated for a lama with clairvoyance. He was living for a month in our household, and treated many sick people or people having hindrances. When he was in Swiss - his niece told us this story - there was a man having many difficulties, he approached him because he was known for his powers especially with respect to spirits. He said him clearly: your problems come because you practice Shugden. The man replied: I don’t practice Shugden! The Yogi (17 years in solitary retreat with not more than 2 hours sleep a day) replied: Don’t lie, in your room at that an that place you make the offerings to him.
I witnessed while I was translating for him his abilities, he had clearly clairvoyance and powers to heal. He could not only see the causes of a certain sickness or problems, or what profession or situation the person has (without that they told to him) but also certain karmic dispositions. Everyone got a different advice. I witnessed many amazing situations. Although he was in some cases very precise and very correct, in some cases he also said, that he can not see the cause or in some cases he was also wrong. So clairvoyance has limitations and there seem to be different levels of clairvoyance or abilities what can be perceived. With respect to Shugden, he had the power to free people from its influence, and to those full of fear of Shugden he joked: ‘oh is he the devil?’ and laughed to relax them, however, there was one person (ex-NKT) where he said: he tries to kill you. This was also the feeling of the woman who lost on the way to him a tyre of her car and had almost driven over her dog. If you believe that or not is up to you, I witnessed that for a month.
What I wish mainly to emphasize with this story is, that clairvoyance helps to be more clear about certain points but not all points, there are limitations to clairvoyance, otherwise the person would already be a Buddha, omniscient. If this is true for this and other lamas, it is also true for Trijang Rinpoche.
So if there is disagreement that does not turn a person who may have a limited perspective a non-Bodhisattva or all what he said and did being wrong. It is clear as there are many levels of realisations, that masters will have different insights. Please let go the belief that every master is a Buddha and unfailing.
I wish to add, that this Yogi was a disciple of Dujom Rinpoche, and that his root guru with respect to the Vajrayana practices is HH Sakya Trizin. This Yogi, when he spoke of HHDL, he only called him Chenrezig. For him both are the same. There was nothing superficial in this, for him this was just a fact.
Even when you disagree with that story or you disagree with what that Yogi said or thinks, you can learn from this, that clairvoyance does not lead to a 100% correct perception in every case. In that context I wish to add a point which I felt NKT members are not aware of: the yogis of all schools, those meditating in the mountains, are seeking the advice of HHDL when they come out of retreat. HHDL also sponsors some and some he asked to finish their retreat to help sentient beings. Out of their immense respect to him, the Yogis in general accept, and do what he asks them.
I think NKT members should really think about the point why HHDL is respected, honoured and looked at in highest esteem by the Yogis, the wise, the masters of all Buddhist schools (including Ajahn Sumendo, Thich Nhath Hanh, and and and), and the realised beings of other religions and even the worldly beings, and researchers, + + + +
Now after these points, LH, if you think your ‘weapon-logic’ is valid, it follows, HHDL, HH Ganden Tripa, HH Sakya Trizin, Tai Situ Rinpoche and all the Kayue and Nyingma masters, the majority of the highest masters from all the Tibetan Buddhist school, who see Shugden as not enlightened, and rather harmful or a worldly being,
“…they have no clairvoyance, therefore they have no tranquil abiding which means they don’t have spontaneous renunciation, bodhichitta or a correct view of emptiness which means that they are an ordinary, deluded being.”
Does this sound like a good description of the masters of the four Tibetan Buddhist Schools? Is it because NKT and Trijang Rinpoche are so right that all the other must be so wrong?
If your your ‘weapon-logic’ is valid, it follows also,
“Furthermore, we would have to conclude that if [they] was wrong about Dorje Shugden practice that [they] [were] unable to discern what is and what is not a valid Dharma teaching, and lacking such qualities, could not be a qualified Mahayana disciple or a qualified Mahayana Spiritual Guide. That means the kiss of death for [all the four Traditions of Tibetan Buddhism].”
If you would be like the Dalai Lama, your would be a compassionate, wise, and very open person, with an immense amount of tolerance and generosity to all faiths, and amazing ability to differentiate and look on issues from different angles. “The consequences are clear”, you would be a better person, a true lineageholder and master of Buddha’s doctrine.
Maybe you read again the differentiated view HHDL expresses here:
http://www.dalailama.com/page.155.htm
sorry for my the amount of spelling and grammar errors in #827 and other posts. just ignore them. i’ll try to improve that.
“The very worst we can say about the Dalai Lama’s actions is that he has lied, caused a schism in the Sangha, completely disrespected his root Guru”
The Dalai Lama has acted on the advice of his root guru, who taught that this protector harmed and killed sentient beings. The Dalai Lama’s position is based precisely on his root guru’s claims that this protector kills sentient beings. It is Kelsang Gyatso and you that are disregarding Trijang Rinpoche’s words and denegrating his teaching that this protector kills sentient beings.
Dear mSPP,
Thank you for the story of the Yogi, it’s interesting. Of course I don’t believe that clairvoyance is completely infallible, but I’m talking about omniscient wisdom and not clairvoyance. There is a small booklet that has been published in Tibet that Geshe Kelsang talks about in Eight Steps to Happiness where the names of all of Trijang Rinpoche’s previous incarnations are listed. I can’t remember all the names right now, but I remember Chandra, the servant of Buddha Shakyamuni, Atisha, Gyaltsabje, Gyalwa Ensapa (who said that he attained enlightenment in three years and three months) and Geshe Langri Tangpa to name but a few. These are very illustrious Masters and lineage Gurus, who themselves were enlightened.
If you and the Dalai Lama are right about Dorje Shugden being a worldly spirit, you are implicitly saying that Trijang Rinpoche was not enlightened and was not the incarnation of these great beings or that Trijang Rinpoche was an enlightened being but he knowingly propagated an inferior and non-Buddhist practice that would cause the degeneration of Je Rinpoche’s tradition, so which is it?
A similar situation exists with respect to Je Pabongkhapa who is widely held to be an incarnation of Heruka. I’m not familiar with the incarnation of lineage of Je Pabongkhapa, however, so I don’t know the beings who would be included in this.
It’s impossible for a lineage to be propagated by mere words alone, it has to be the Dharma of scripture and realization that is passed on from generation to generation. A lineage Guru receives the instructions, gains complete realization of them and then passes them on to others. If your argument about Dorje Shugden is correct, then these great Masters were not the incarnations of those great beings who they were said to be and the Gelugpa tradition is over because there is Dharma of scripture but not realization. Either that or they wilfully caused the degeneration of Je Rinpoche’s tradition into spirit worship. These are inescapable consequences.
I’m just asking for someone to agree that these are the unacceptable consequences of asserting that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit or to prove them wrong.
Dear Dorje,
If the Dalai Lama abandoned the practice of Dorje Shugden because his root Guru said that he killed people, why didn’t his root Guru abandon it for similar reasons when he was taught it by Je Pabongkhapa?
Do you think that the Dalai Lama has more wisdom than his root Guru?
Dear Dorje,
Also, Trijang Rinpoche never advised the Dalai Lama to give up the practice of Dorje Shugden, this was his own idea. Apparently, Trijang Dorjechang was greatly disappointed that the Dalai Lama made this decision.
“has acted against everything he has said publicly about love, compassion, tolerance, non-sectarianism and dialogue. The Dalai Lama is not being honest at all, I’m afraid, and I can prove it.”
In removing the worship for a protector praised for killing sentient beings from his tradition, the Dalai Lama is acting entirely consistently with everything he has said publicly about love, compassion, tolerance, non-sectarianism and dialogue.
The worship of this spirit was spread by Phabongkhapa to ensure exclusive adherence to his narrow interpretation of the Gelug tradition. Threats of death to those that opposed this approach and violently converting those of other traditions have been a part of Phabongkhapa’s protector cult from the start. This is why the Dalai Lama has acted to remove this worship from his tradition.
“If the Dalai Lama abandoned the practice of Dorje Shugden because his root Guru said that he killed people, why didn’t his root Guru abandon it for similar reasons when he was taught it by Je Pabongkhapa?”
You would have to ask Trijang Rinpoche why he chose to worship a protector that he praised for killing beings rather than have comnpassion for those beings, but it is clear that this is exactly what he did.
“Also, Trijang Rinpoche never advised the Dalai Lama to give up the practice of Dorje Shugden, this was his own idea. Apparently, Trijang Dorjechang was greatly disappointed that the Dalai Lama made this decision.”
Ultimately, one has to follow the teachings of the Buddha and if one’s lama’s advice contradicts the Buddhadharma, so be it. Needless to say, worshipping a protector whilst praising it for killing sentient beings, including people that one knows, does contradict the Buddha’s teaching.
Dear SC,
With respect to your posting of Je Pabongkhapa’s words, I completely accept that it is impossible to attain liberation or enlightenment without practising the correct view of emptiness of the Madhyamika Prasangika school.
I also agree that if one meditates on nihilism, it it he cause of a lower rebirth. (I understood it to be the cause of a rebirth in the cold hells)
As to whether the schools of Buddhism other than the Gelugpa school meditate on views other than the Madhyamika Prasangika, or meditate on nihilism, I do not know. The views of other schools do not concern me except where they encroach or affect my own practice, as the ban on Dorje Shugden practice has done and so I’ve nothing to say on this due to lacking knowledge.
Dear Dorje,
You’re twisting the words of Trijang Rinpoche rather disingenuously. Dorje Shugden is praised for being the protector of the Ganden Doctrine, not for killing people. Dorje Shugden is worshipped for his great kindness in preserving Buddha’s teachings in the form of the Ganden tradition and is also requested to perform this function.
Perhaps you’d like to say where Trijang Rinpoche’s advice contradicted the Buddhadharma? You’re therefore saying that Trijang Rinpoche was not a great Master and a corrupter of Buddha’s teachings?
Dear Dorje,
By your logic, when Naropa saw Tilopa frying fish alive he should have taken off in search of a genuine Buddhist Master because his actions contradicted the Buddhadharma.
“You’re twisting the words of Trijang Rinpoche rather disingenuously. Dorje Shugden is praised for being the protector of the Ganden Doctrine, not for killing people.”
Praise to you, the protector of the Yellow Hat tradition, you destroy like a pile of dust; great adepts, high officials and ordinary people…
“Perhaps you’d like to say where Trijang Rinpoche’s advice contradicted the Buddhadharma?”
See above.
“By your logic, when Naropa saw Tilopa frying fish alive he should have taken off in search of a genuine Buddhist Master because his actions contradicted the Buddhadharma”
This does not follow.
Dear Dorje,
Why?
This is what Dorje Shugden is being praised for. In order to do this, he occasionally has to engage in wrathful actions.
Have you really got nothing better to do than criticize other Mahayana traditions?
Naropa saw Tilopa frying fish. It isn’t that Tilopa said that these fish deserved to die because of supposedly bad things that they had done.
The people that Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche praised their protector for killing were said to be killed because they chose to take teachings from other traditions of Buddhadharma. They were killed as punishment. This is explicitly stated by Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche.
“Have you really got nothing better to do than criticize other Mahayana traditions?”
Maybe you should be asking your lineage gurus that very question. As Phabongkhapa referred to other Mahayana traditions:
“the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths.”
Lineageholder asked:
“Do you think that the Dalai Lama has more wisdom than his root Guru?”
Yes.
This is not uncommon–some Root Gurus have even proclaimed their students will be “better.”
LH
Re #836
You have no direct knowledge that Virupa was reborn as Sakya Pandita but yet you readily accept it to be true on the word of Trijang.
So my more general question is this. If Pabongka says X, where X is something that you cannot or do not know from direct experience, do you necessarily accept X to be true on the grounds that it was said by Pabongka?
SC
Dear SC,
I don’t accept something just because someone said it, even someone I admire. If there is no other way of knowing something, for example that Virupa was reborn as Sakya Pandita, I am inclined to believe someone in whom I have a lot of faith. I have a lot of faith in Trijang Dorjechang so I am inclined to believe what he says about the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden because there’s no other way of knowing it. Also, the incarnation lineage of Dorje Shugden is of special interest to me and directly affects my practice so I have to come to a conclusion on it.
As to whether Madhyamika Prasangika is practiced in other traditions or not and as to whether they meditate on nihilism or a correct view, I don’t know but I could find out for myself through extensive study. I’m not particularly interested and it doesn’t concern me, so I won’t. I therefore remain opened minded but uninterested concerning these issues.
What’s rather more sad is that the Dalai Lama himself has been responsible in recent years for blackening the name of Pabongkha. I suspect it’s to justify his ban of Dorje Shugden on the grounds that Pabongkha/Dorje Shugden are sectarian. Others may argue that he already had this reputation with Nyingmas, but it’s sad that the DL is harming the reputation of one of his own lineage Gurus. As Geshe Kelsang says, the blackening of Pabongkha’s name indicates that we are living in degenerate times.
“If there is no other way of knowing something, for example that Virupa was reborn as Sakya Pandita, I am inclined to believe someone in whom I have a lot of faith.”
Rather than Sapan himself or his immediate students. Do you imagine that Trijang Rinpoche had more of an idea who Sapan was than Sapan? This is bizarre.
“As Geshe Kelsang says, the blackening of Pabongkha’s name indicates that we are living in degenerate times.”
Spreading a sectarian practice and praising a protector for killing beings that do not accept this indicates that we are living in degenerate times.
Hi sMPP,
Thanks for your open response. I guess i would question who is your target audience? If you are hoping that this technique will simply help people see the view of NKT that you hold, i don’t have a problem with this. My problem is that some people are going to believe the content of your blog to be true, not just as an exaggeration aimed at conveying the real situation.
You can see how easily false rumours develop. I grew up in a small rural village, and i understand this only too well. You yourself kindly pointed out a falsity that i was speaking in a previous post. The one where i said that HHDL has said that DS worshipers get many moneys and many disciples. My quote was incomplete, and from the wrong person!! And i knew when i was writing it that i wasn’t too sure about where or whom it came from. Best to abstain usually if this is the case.
For this reason i still think your reverse propaganda is incorrect. Some people are already speaking falsities and trying to draw links between NKT and China. They are going to love your article about Hu Jintao praising NKT (for anyone who isn’t already aware, this article is fake. or should i say reverse propaganda?), and i can just see how these rumours can only be reinforced. It’s just not morally correct to knowledgeably spread misinformation, even if it is about people who we believe to be wrongdoers. In a sense your reverse propaganda functions just like propaganda. And it does so for the very reason that you use to put it out there: people won’t listen to common sense.
Dear Dorje,
Did Sapan say “I am not the incarnation of Virupa”? I understand that its other people who are saying that he wasn’t.
“Did Sapan say “I am not the incarnation of Virupa”? I understand that its other people who are saying that he wasn’t.”
He didn’t say he wasn’t George W Bush either. What are we to infer from this? Please try to be sensible.
Dear Dorje,
You said:
I’m trying to establish the source of your belief that Virupa did not take rebirth as Sapan and how reliable it is. If Sapan didn’t make a definite statement about it, why did you imply that he did? You can’t blame me for picking up on your inference.
I would like to give this last piece of news to the people who are reading these messages in order to understand the “Dorje Shugden issue”.
For centuries there was something called the “Winter Retreat”, an occasion when monks belonging to the big monasteries of Tibet would gather for the study and practice of logic debate. The last Winter Retreat a year ago was destroyed by people who –willing to please the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan Government in Exile– refused to engage in debate with monks that would worship a particular deity, an action without precedents in history. The deity of course was the holy Protector of Je Tsongkapa’s teachings and emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri, Dorje Shugden.
Thus started the end of the Tibetan Sangha, i.e., the culmination of the schism imposed by the Dalai Lama and his government in exile with their campaign of oaths and signatures. The world does not know the terrible misfortune that such actions entail, but its sentient beings are, no doubt, the first and foremost victims. When Dharma was starting to bloom for them, thanks to the efforts of some incarnated Buddhas that appeared in the West, following the prophetic vision of Domo Geshe Rinpoche Ngawang Kelsang, comes the Dalai Lama and imposes a schism in the Sangha. The Dharma has stopped its happy course. Now it painfully flows from the ones who did not participate in such unfortunate behaviour, and let’s hope it will gain back sometime in the future its joyful pace, now lost.
Those who are sincerely trying to understand should read this information. This is the first Winter Retreat after the great schism, and this is how the unhappy ones that had to follow their political leader rejoice in the unthinkable.
_______________________________________________________
Bokyi Bangchen (Tibetan Newspaper)
2008-12-27, Dharamshala
Page: 8
Except:
Dawa Sangpo, the disciplinarian of Gaden Jantse monastery said to the reporter: “As for the past years, there were many who attended Jamyang Gunchoe (Winter Debate Session); however no good quality was there because of the integration of Dholgyal worshippers and non-worshippers. Then, His Holiness the Dalai Lama came here and gave profound instructions; accordingly the monasteries voluntarily complied with the diktat; and have separated moustache and mouth. Therefore we all are comfortable now.”
“Three great seats, Tashilunpu, Rathoe, and Upper and lower tantric college; these monasteries have attended before. This time, we have additional attendee, such as Dhakpo Dratsang, Namgyal Daktsang, Zonkhar choede, and Drikung Kagyu from other tradition. Not only that, it was successful in terms of the discussion on how to study together, disciplinarian and behaviors and so on. In future, we have strong hope that all Sakya, Kyagyu, Nyingma, Gelug, and Bonpo would come and attend together”
________________________________________________________
In this way, Bonpos and all the venerable sects of Tibetan Buddhism are welcome from now on to the old Gelugpa Winter Retreat. Everybody is welcome, except the faithful Gelugpas, the ones who kept their samaya with their Lamas. They are forbidden to attend. They are the children of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the Dalai Lama’s root Guru, and because they keep their samaya pure, they have become the pariahs of Tibetan society.
Tibetan Buddhism can be declared now officially gone. It might be Tibetan, but not Buddhism. It obviously cannot survive such schism.
Those who are reading with an equanimous mind, just to gather information, please remember all of this. Remember, in order that whatever survives pure from the pure teachings does not get stained in your minds because of the slander of the powerful ones of this unhappy world. Remember with gratitude and devotion all our compassionate, pure Lamas, our Buddhas. Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, Kyabje Domo Geshe Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten Rinpoche, Lama Tubten Yeshe, Dragom Rinpoche, and all the others that compose the jewel garland of this sacred lineage.
May all beings be happy.
“The deity of course was the holy Protector of Je Tsongkapa’s teachings and emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri, Dorje Shugden.”
The deity is the protector that the sectarian politician Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche praised for killing sentient beings. Are you at all surprised those that do not share the violent sectarian attitudes of these lamas are not willing to sit down and debate with those that follow them?
You may call it “the holy Protector of Je Tsongkapa’s teachings”, but Je Rinpoche never recognised it as such. Those who are reading with an equanimous mind, just to gather information, please remember all of this. Remember, in order that whatever survives pure from the pure teachings does not get stained in your minds because of the slander of the powerful ones of this unhappy world.
Hi LH
Re #847.
I asked you to express your view on the truth of Pabongka’s view that the practice of most pracitioners in non-Gelug schools is the cause of rebirth in Avichi hell.
In #491 your write
Arguing involves expressing a view, and in #491 you say that you are willing to do so. However, in #847 you say that you are not.
You say you won’t accept someone’s word on something you could in theory find out yourself, were you so minded to do. However, in fact, we accept the word of others all the time on things we could find out for ourselves. Do the countries Gabon and Mali actually exist (rather than being a figment of cartographers’ imagination). I could get on a plane and find out but I’ve not much interest in doing so and so don’t. However, my conclusion is not
I’m happy to accept Gabon and Mali exist and I’m sure you are too. And I’m sure Pabongka’s views are of more relevance to you that Gabon or Mali. He is one of your lineage gurus and you are clearly concerned in #847 about his reputation.
One of the claims made about Pabongka was that monasteries were with his knowledge forcibly converted by his followers. Now if Pabongka wanted conversions to occur, surely it’s plausible to suggest that it was because of his views of non-Gelug practices. Unless he was the jealous type he would hardly want to convert monasteries which had practices that led to enlightenment as quickly or quicker even than Gelug practices. But if they had practices which sent practitioners to Avichi hell, then one could begin to see a rationale for conversion.
Similarly why would DS be so concerned to prevent mixing if non-Gelug paths lead to enlightenment as quickly or quicker even than Gelug paths. But if non-Gelug paths lead to Avichi hell, then preventing mixing begins to make sense. Hence, one can see why Pabonkga would be such a strong advocate of Shugden practice.
So my point here is that Pabongka’s views on non-Gelug practices are pretty closely related to issues that very much concern you.
In #830 you write
Clearly you regard Pabongka as an incarnation of Heruka. Are you seriously suggesting that Heruka’s views on non-Gelug practices could be anything other than correct?
If
(1) Pabonkga’s view on non-Gelug practices are non entirely irrelevant to matters that concern you and that you are prepared to debate at some length on this thread,
(2) you’ve previously expressed a willingness to give your view on the truth or otherwise of Pabongka’s view
(3) the opportunity costs of doing the research into non-Gelug practices yourself is too high, and
(4) Pabonkgha’s views are those of Buddha Heruka
then why do you not accept that view as true?
Dear Friendoftruth,
Your post is beautiful and eloquent, but also very sad. Thank you for posting this information.
Dear SC,
There are many different paths in accordance with the karma of living beings and everyone has a right to practise what he or she wants to. I don’t have a right to pronounce on the validity of others’ paths and I don’t have the knowledge to do so. I accept that Pabongkha found fault with the views of other traditions and as I said, if others follow a view of emptiness other than the Prasangika or meditate on nihilism, then of course they will not be able to achieve liberation or enlightenment.
I don’t like it when people brand me as spirit-worshipping non-Buddhist and because of this, I am sensitive to sectarianism. Of course this is my karma for having done similar things in the past and I accept that, but it’s still highly unpleasant. Whether others’ paths are valid or not is beyond the scope of my knowledge and it is also irrelevent as to whether Dorje Shugden is a Buddha or not. I’ve seen the ugly effects of such sectarian pronouncements. On E-Sangha there was a thread where people openly admitted to defacing NKT publicity, calling the venues where classes were being held to get them cancelled and defacing Geshe Kelsang’s books in bookstores so that they wouldn’t sell. Thankfully, there were the sane few who expressed their disagreement with these actions. Unfortunately, their view was still that NKT was a cult but they felt that such interference was a step too far.
It’s my karma to practise Kadampa Buddhism and to have Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as my holy Spiritual Guide. I am happy beyond words to have found this precious tradition and precious Teacher and just want to practise my own tradition without interference from others. My reason for posting on this thread is to counter the negative arguments against Dorje Shugden and his practice (and, when it has arisen, NKT, although that’s off topic) so that Shugden practitioners will not be discriminated against and simply dumped in the bin ‘non-Buddhist spirit worshipper who goes against the Pope of Buddhism the Dalai Lama’
I think if everyone had a bit more respect and tolerance for the views of others and were not so keen to impose their own views, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. Buddha taught that we should cherish others and view their freedom and happiness as important. If we all did this, there wouldn’t be a ‘Dorje Shugden issue’.
If Phabongkhapa had a bit more respect and tolerance for the views of others and was not so keen to impose his own views, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. Buddha taught that we should cherish others and view their freedom and happiness as important. If we all did this, there wouldn’t be Dorje Shugden sectarian protector worship in the Gelug school.
Dear Dorje,
Just put yourself in the position of someone who has just had one of their main spiritual practices banned and pronounced as spirit worship by the most famous Buddhist in the world who everyone naturally believes without question.
Even better, put yourself in the position of a Shugden monk in Southern India who is denied food, medical care, a visa for travel and other necessities, who is denied contact even with their families who have had to swear an oath not to have anything to do with this Deity and those who worship it. Imagine having to face constant accusations of being a traitor against the Dalai Lama and in league with the Chinese Government, and living in constant fear of being made homeless by the very person who ordained you and who should be your refuge and protector.
It’s theory as far as you are concerned, but not for those who have to suffer such discrimination and persecution. Is that situation acceptable to a compassionate Buddhist like yourself?
Dear LH with respect to your reply in post # 830.
You’ve talked about clairvoyance not omniscient wisdom.
If you wish to talk about omniscient wisdom and not clairvoyance, there is another basis for discussion, so don’t mix this two issues.
With respect to the Tibetan custom (especially in the Gelug school since Pabongkha Rinpoche) there was much competition whose guru is higher. As a result the students compete which throne of which lama has to be higher, and even when they finally found agreement, than a ‘clever’ student foisted a cushion on the seat of his favour lama so that his favour lama sits at the end higher than the other lamas. Such were the main concerns of Dharma practitioners. There was much degeneration - as GKG said correctly. In that context it should be understood, that a part of this competition was to find an endless incarnation lineage which finally ended to show the lama as a student of the Buddha himself. From the point of the student, the higher his lama is, the more immportant he is himself. I see this rather as ego games, than reliable claims, though in some cases it could be true.
To judge such often exaggerated incarnation lineages (in some cases nothing more than propaganda of the student or the lama), the Tibetans check if there was a prediction by the Buddha. With respect to Je Tsongkhapa there is prediction, with respect to HHDL and HH Karmapa there is prediction by Padmasambhava.
Especially the Gelug school since Pabongkha Rinpoche appears to me full of claims and exaggerations combined with a hallowed speech, which gives a good religious feeling of dignity but seems to be also some times very unrealistic. It reads like this: “and then when he opened his holy lips the these holy words…” This hallowed phrasing undermines the Buddha’s emphasize to check the validity of what has been said by hallowing the speech from the very beginning.
So with respect to your incarnation lineage, I think you should see that in the historical context and not take it too literally. It is clear that HHDL and HH Karmapa have the most important tulku lineage and are seen in general as the two greatest masters, and their teachers are seen as their servants.
The competition among students to ‘proof’ that their masters were enlightened seem to have be further supported by the Vajrayana teachings to see the teacher as a Buddha (which was by some interpreted literally) and their willingness to show other people what perfect pure view they have, because they could see their own Gurus as fully enlightened. Also here seems to be some degeneration, because usually the views in Vajrayana are secret, there is nothing to debate in public. HHDL has also pointed out how there is a certain dynamic in the fact to see the teacher as a Buddha and the claims of the student, that their masters were enlightened.
I’ve recognized that HHDL and my Kague, Nyingma and Sakya masters have a far more realistic approach in all of this and they have also far less problems than I witnessed in NKT with their rather evangelistic absolute belief-approach “he said this so it must be true”, “Geshe-la said it” he is a Buddha, so it must be true.
You say:
“If you and the Dalai Lama are right about Dorje Shugden being a worldly spirit,”
to correct you again, HHDL and the majority of all the masters from all the Tibetan schools, including their very heads! see Dorje Shugden being a worldly spirit. Don’t spin it as a view of only HHDL (or me), this is incorrect (this is the third time I remind you this fact).
You say:
“If you and the Dalai Lama are right about Dorje Shugden being a worldly spirit, you are implicitly saying that Trijang Rinpoche was not enlightened…”
Yes, as I said to you, you should let go the idea that all the masters were enlightened and unfailing. If you would study the classical texts, e.g. Abhhisamayalamkara and their commentaries this is just obvious by hearing and reading the commentaries. I also gave you a link to Wikipedia with a discussion about how the lineage masters opposed each other or students corrected their masters. You can also think about that it is said that Nagarjuna was a Bodhisattva on the 7th level but appeared (when I remember correctly) as a Bodhisattva in the third level in this world. When even Nagarjuna was not fully enlightened (according to this record) why should have been Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche fully enlightened?
As long as you follow the one-sided NKT propaganda and their fundamentalist Dharma approach, which lacks differentiation, which lacks different perspectives, which lacks to put things into perspective, and rather claims to be pure and unfailing, and you don’t read other sources to get more perspectives, to get a differentiated understanding, to broaden your perspectives you will be caught in a narrow minded belief system, with the typical black and white patterns, you’ve shown here.
So, lets assume what is far more realistic, that only very few masters were / are fully enlightened (omniscient). Such a view has the support of Sutras* which says in “degenerate times” there will be few teachers who have more qualities than faults and many teachers who have more faults than qualities.
* I read this in a commentary by Jamgon Kongtrul, if you are interested I can try to find the quote.
Maybe “Trijang Rinpoche and was not the incarnation of these great beings”… who knows? Isn’t this rather a fact of blind believe? It makes me also wonder what NKT applies as logic. On the one hand tulkus are banned in NKT, and Trijang Rinpoche’s incarnation Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, and any other incarnation (including the Dalai Lama) is not accepted, but when it comes to the own case, the identity of NKT, and the masters they rely upon, all is very authentic, very pure, and very enlightened. Propaganda or the truth?
Your logic is also contradicting other beliefs. You say: “A similar situation exists with respect to Je Pabongkhapa who is widely held to be an incarnation of Heruka.” ok, and HHDL as incarnation of Chenrezig, so it follows Chenrezig contradicts Heruka, what a fun!
The point is that HHDL and his lineage has a prediction as HH Karmapa has and both are said to be in that prediction (I think based on Padmasambhava, I have to check this again) to be manifestations of Chenrezig. On the appearance level of what ordinary beings can proof, we have the 17th Karmapa and the 14th Dalai Lama, there is only the 2nd Pabongkha Rinpoche and the 2nd Trihang Rinpoche.
So the lineage of HHDL is far more old and far more able to be checked than all the claims of this person has this and this secret incarnation lineage as all these hagiographies claim. In that context it would be wise to respect the lineage of HHDL as the elder one.
“A lineage Guru receives the instructions, gains complete realization of them and then passes them on to others.” If he really “gains complete realization” is a mere claim. Gen Thubten and Gen Samden, two famous lineage gurus of NKT have already shown that this claim is not true or were their activities an expression of “complete realization”?
you say.
“If your argument about Dorje Shugden is correct, then these great Masters were not the incarnations of those great beings who they were said to be and the Gelugpa tradition is over because there is Dharma of scripture but not realization. Either that or they wilfully caused the degeneration of Je Rinpoche’s tradition into spirit worship. These are inescapable consequences.”
if you have a fundamentalist approach with black and white beliefs, this is the consequence. If you have a differentiated realistic approach (like HHDL and other masters) you won’t have such a consequence, that “the lineage is over” just because someone makes a fault or is not fully enlightened.
Also with respect to NKT and the failings of the fully qualified first Western Tantric Teacher, Gen-la Thubten, and the other fully fully qualified (almost a Buddha) successor, Gen-la Samden, it follows “NKT is over because there is Dharma of scripture but not realization”
“Either that or they wilfully caused the degeneration of Je Rinpoche’s tradition into sexual lineage. These are inescapable consequences.”
“I’m just asking for someone to agree that these are the unacceptable consequences of asserting [that all lineage lamas are enlightened and unfailing] or to prove [they are not].”
Merry Christmas!
Losing the debate on the history and natuire of this worship, you turn to exagerating the situation of those that continue to worship this sectarian protector, praised for killing sentient beings.
Why do you think those that worship this would face the apparent intolerance of others? Why would they perceive those that oppose them as such bitter oppressors? You don’t think the history of this practice and how it was used and the karmic effects of that are now baring fruit?
If any Buddhist blames another being for his suffering, he really misunderstands the teaching of the Buddha and perpetuates wrong views. Those enmired in false view, whilst worshipping a protector linked to violent sectarianism, praised for killing beings, should think very clearly about why they find themselves in the position they do.
I hope and pray that they will find the truth and reject this cause of harm and suffering to themselves and others, and cause of degeneration to the Buddhadharma.
On a personal note, LH. When you first started practicing the Buddha’s teachings, did you ever imagine that one day you would be spending hours a week on the internet arguing in favour of the worship of a deity praised for killing?
It’s Christmas time folks!!! Now be nice to each other
Happy festivities to all you who are celebrating.
I look forward to coming home in a few days to catch up with your comments.
X X
Dear Dorje,
No one has lost the debate, except in your own mind which wasn’t open to being convinced anyway.
I read your post to say ‘you’re getting what you deserve’ Where is your empathy and your compassion? Yes, of course this situation is a dependent arising, coming from negative karma but just because someone is experiencing the results of their negative karma is no reason not to be compassionate. I see no compassion and no empathy in your post.
Regarding the situation of the monks in India, it is no exaggeration. If you want to ignore the manifest evidence of the situation, that’s your choice.
mSPP
#860 was very interesting. Thanks.
BTW, given that you’re doing a lot of quoting, you may like to know that you can use the HTML “blockquote” tag to make text appear in quotes as in for example #855. See
http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp
SC
LH
Re #857, I agree that defacing posters etc is not good.
I take it that in your view one can never be sectarian simply as a result of one’s beliefs. For instance Pabongka believing that the practice of most non-Gelugs is a cause for rebirth in hell or the DL believing that DS is a spirit does not make them sectarian.
Thus I take it that in your view sectarianism has to consist of certain physical actions based on ones beliefs. Thus, if (and note I say if) Pabongka was complicit in forced conversions of monasteries this would make him sectarian. Equally, defacing NKT posters would be sectarian. (I have not given an example including the DL here as I think his position is more complex and this would require another post.)
Dorje
Re #861 and others
The fact that DS has killed people is surely not proof that he is not a Buddha for, as has been pointed out, it is said that Buddhas have killed out of compassion and wisdom. And, presumably, if one holds DS to be a Buddha (who has wisely and compassionately killed) then it is legitimate to praise him.
To be clear, I’m not arguing DS is a Buddha, simply that him having killed is not proof he’s not.
SC
LH
In #857 you say
But in #795 you do pronounce on the validity of Nyingma teachings stating
And - BTW - you still haven’t told me what you mean by “valid”!
Dear mSPP,
You said
Trijang Rinpoche was the Throne holder of Je Tsongkhapa’s teaching. The original Gendundrub was a student of Je Tsongkhapa and this present Dalai Lama was Trijang Rinpoche’s disciple. When did the student become more important than the Master? I don’t remember that in Buddha’s teaching on relying upon the Spiritual Guide! It’s surely only for obscure reasons of Tibetan custom and culture that the Dalai Lama has assumed such great importance? It’s also mainly because, since the 5th Dalai Lama, the role of Dalai Lama has been politicized and associated with the protection and welfare of the Tibetan people. This is surely a case of putting an extra cushion on the Guru’s throne, as you said!
I definitely agree with you on ‘hallowed speech’. It’s not right for people to say publicy that their Guru is a Buddha because it’s a Mahayana view that should be keep privately and I agree with you that it possibly biases the important checking process that all students should engage in with respect to their Teachers but in any case, this booklet listing the previous incarnations of Trijang Rinpoche exists, whether one chooses to believe it or not.
You say:
This is a misrepresentation of NKT but to be fair, It may have bene true many years ago when you were involved. It’s no longer true. Geshe Kelsang has said in public teachings in recent years that no one should say that they are a Buddha and no one should say that their Teacher is a Buddha because it’s unskilful. Geshe Kelsang has also encouraged students to question their Teachers if they think they have made some mistake and not to see them as infallible. I do admit that many years ago, I think NKT students were unskilful and a little too enthusiastic in declaring Geshe Kelsang and other Teachers to be Buddhas. NKT was a young tradition and made many mistakes, as we all do. This is where the whole ‘Third Buddha’s thing comes from that continually haunts Geshe Kelsang and the NKT. Geshe Kelsang would definitely dismiss such a view as being unrealistic.
You say:
It depends where you think the lineage is coming from. According to Trijang’s incarnation lineage, he was Chandra, Prince Siddhartha’s trusted servant. I’m not sure whether the implication here is that he was enlightened at that time. The Dalai Lama’s lineage is old, yes, but there’s no way to prove that all these Dalai Lamas were indeed incarnations of one another. There’s no way to prove that the present Dalai Lama is the incarnation of the others and, as you know, he’s rather controversial due to the actions of Reting Rinpoche, so why should he simply be accepted as the 14th Dalai Lama - just because people say he is? As you also know, the 17th Karmapa is open to debate too because there are two candidates. This is the reason why NKT will not rely on Tulkus. I also heard other stories such as incarnations of certain masters being recognised before the previous incarnation had even died!
Now we get to your argument. You seem to be asserting that Buddha’s teachings can be transmitted from generation to generation without the previous generation having experience of them. Is that your assertion? So we have no need of realized Masters in order for the Buddhadharma to remain in this world? It’s an interesting proposition and one that could be debated.
I don’t believe that it is possible for Buddhadharma to remain in this world without beings gaining experience of it, which I suppose is the reason why we are in the final five hundred years of Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings. I therefore assert that my previous consequences still stand, unless you can prove that something can be transmitted without experience. If we give something without experience, what are we giving? We’re not giving any blessings because blessings come from experience so we’re not really transmitting anything, so Buddhadharma is dead apart from intellectual knowledge of it which is not sufficient to carry us to liberation and enlightenment.
Merry Christmas!
Dear SC,
Just to clear up a couple of things. By ‘valid’ I mean ‘Buddha’s teaching that can lead to liberation and enlightenment’ A teaching is valid if it is Buddha’s teaching and can thus lead to these results. I realize that Buddha gave many teachings that don’t lead directly to liberation and enlightenment, such as the initial scope teachings of lamrim and the teachings the four philosophical views of Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Chittamatrin and Svatantrika but I’m concerned with supramundane results.
In that post, I wasn’t pronouncing on the validity of Nyingma teachings. Nyingma teachings are great for those who have the karma for Nyingma teachings. If someone was to be a pure Nyingma Spiritual Guide I wouldn’t think that Gelugpa teachings were the best for them, but that’s not putting down Gelugpa teachings. Hence, my argument concerning Pabongkha can be reversed to apply to someone in the Nyingma school.
Thank you LH for your reply post 868.
When I said that the teachers of those high lamas are seen as their servants, which is correct from the pov how the two Tulku lineages are set up, and the amount of spiritual authority they have, I had an intention. This is not the only perspective. I named this perspective with a certain intention. The intention was to undermine the wrong attitude of NKT and some Shugden fanatics, to portray HHDL as inauthentic because he disagrees in one subject to one of his teachers. In general, every teacher sees his own teachers as higher than himself, this is also true with respect to HHDL. However, this respectful attitude does not include that the view of the teacher is always correct or that the student should not correct the teacher when his view is wrong. At the end of my post I add some examples which she light on this topic and give a more differentiated picture on the student-teacher-approach. What I completely dislike is that NKT and some Shugden fanatics apply Trijang Rinpoche as a weapon against HHDL, not only that they abuse Trijang Rinpoche as a person who must be in all ways correct and enlightened but they abuse him also to show that HHDL would have broken with him and “destroyed the pure Gelug lineage”. They do this by overexaggerating the role Trijang Rinpoche had, by fading out how many high realised other masters HHDL had, and the freedom of HHDL to choose for himself which position is to be accepted and which is to be rejected, and the fact that HHDL spiritual, political and historical view on Shugden is shared by the majority. The view that Shugden is a Buddha is rather recent, and Kay in his research from 1997 shows:
The rather recent and marginal belief that he is a Buddha, is not that of the majority and it is of recent provenience. It is up to the highest spiritual authorities to judge this issue. HHDL has not only the right to do that, this is also his duty as he has the responsibility for the welfare of the Tibetans and the harmony among the Tibetan schools, and he is seen as the highest spiritual authority in the Gelug school, like HH Karmapa in the Karma Kagyue school. Of course there are the Ganden Tripas, and they have their opinions, the 100. Ganden Tripa has been quoted already in his view. The fact that HH the Dalai Lama is the highest authority is underlined by the facts, that he appoints the abbots and also confirms the Ganden Tripa (as far as I know), although the list with the proposals of the abbots and Ganden Tripa are made by the monasteries and have a particular procedure. Someone else already mentioned that all the three Gelug seats are sponsored or are under the leadership of the Ganden Podrang (when I remember correctly), also this indicates that HHDL is the supreme head or the highest authority like HH Karmapa in the Karma Kagyue school. The overemphasize of Trijang Rinpoche, one of the tutors of HHDL, and the overemphasize on his importance have only one aim, to undermine the role of the Dalai Lama and to establish the own view with respect to Shugden as 100% authentic, and HHDL as 100% failure. This is also what you tell all the time. However this distorts the reality and is a very one-sided and narrow minded approach, an extreme which continues to create conflict and quarrel.
It is also clear that those promoting Shugden had the interest to get worldly power or why should they have put so much emphasizes to replace the worldly state protector Pehar by Shugden? Such a replacement would have given them more influence and more political power.
OK, these are some points why I mentioned this point of the role of Trijang Rinpoche, as being a servant of the Ganden Podrang. However, as in so many other cases this is of course only a part of the complete picture.
That this provokes a reaction by you is clear and correct. However, you fall into the same narrow minded pattern by claiming “Trijang Rinpoche was the Throne holder of Je Tsongkhapa’s teaching.” He was one of the throne holders of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings, and in general HHDL is seen as the highest authority. There is so much lack of knowledge in NKT that it is sometimes just striking. The importance of the Dalai Lamas derives mainly from his deeds, and what spiritual practitioners see as qualities in him. It is clear in that context, that his non-partisanship to Gelug school and his unbiased approach to all schools and all religions (he also helped the Muslims) is a thorn in the eye of those who cling on Gelug supremacy. So of course there are frictions.
It is nice to hear that there are changes in NKT, I heard this also elsewhere. I don’t know if this is really true. Maybe the duplicity increased. By saying something in the public which is contradicted by the application within the organisation, this does not indicate a real change. Maybe I am wrong, but I have two reasons for my doubt. A woman which recently disassociated from NKT reported to me that in the summer or spring festival two years ago, GKG taught in such a way the “pure view”-approach that he clearly indicated, that he would have this realisation, “to see every being as a Buddha and the world as a pure Buddha field” (a view also Ole Nydahl claims to have). This makes me sceptical if there is really change. As I witnessed and as I could proof by other witnesses, GKG appears still to be the master of indirect speech, which suggests that he is a holy being. An example I recognized myself is this one from 2006 (published via NKT video):
In the context of NKT only GKG is the “Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage” and in the same context, the outer NKT world is degenerated, GKG said himself, “If we followed the example of the Tibetan tradition, of degenerate times, it would be impossible for us to make any progress.” It follows GKG is the one in which Je Tsongkhapa has manifested, because “since [Je Tsogkhapa] passed away he continually appears in many different aspects, such as in the aspect of a Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage. Previously, for example, he appeared as the Mahasiddha Dharmavajra and Gyälwa Ensapa; and more recently as Je Phabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He appeared in the aspect of these Teachers.” So who is his last incarnation? Probably not HHDL
I take still the favour of the doubt, but I am open to be corrected. At the present I can not observe a change. How NKT dealt with Gen-la Samden’s case does not indicate a real change, also the protests organized via WSS appear to be far more aggressive and abusive than those from 1996-98. At that time the members were at least from the outer appearance peaceful, now they raise their fists and yell over hours HHDL would be a liar…, and also how NKT spreads wrong claims about HHDL and FPMT would have organised a campaign against NKT or are “behind the lies” is an extreme that has no basis in reality.
With respect to the incarnation lineages also Geshe Lobsang Gyatso (yes, the Head of the School of Dialectics) said correctly that incarnation lineages are a matter of belief. I think there is not much to add, because this is a valid argument, except for those with unfailing direct perception of rebirth. As others and I said already the position of Shugden followers are full of claims and made-up stories. Even researchers recognized this, von Brück:
And if you look in the texts of Trijang Rinpoche: mainly these are just claims. How can you proof that? You have to believe it or not. Because it is a matter of belief Shugdenpas are keen to establish Trijang Rinpoche as omniscient only by this belief his claims can be seen as correct, but the belief that he is omniscient, is nothing else than a not-verifiable claim, like that of the incarnation lineages.
I agree this is also true with respect of the incarnation lineage of HHDL. That’s why common sense and unbiased investigation should be applied what is authentic and what not, and it is also good in an intra-Gelug conflict to listen to those masters from other traditions. No other protector has raised so much controversy and schism and lacks sources and lacks the verification by the Indian pandits as Shugden does. This is no claim, this is a fact.
You say:
LH, please read the examples I add, and put your own view into perspective. To make it short, there are masters, like Tsongkhapa, Vimuktisena, Dharmakirti and others who surpassed their teachers. It follows they were higher realised than their lamas, not only that they also corrected their lamas. Some of the teachers of Je Tsongkhapa even became his students. You still cling on a black and white approach: either the masters are fully enlightened and have full experience of the path or otherwise they are not qualified. A realized master is not necessarily a fully enlightened Buddha or has to be unfailing, nor has the student to be lower in realisation than his teacher or can’t surpass his teacher in his realisations. The term “experience” is also very vague, and can be easily misunderstood. The appearance of a Buddha is an experience but it can be the blessings of a demon, who just wishes to increase your ego by giving you the impression you have made progress. I think you always tend to extremes: either he was fully enlightened or he has no realisations, or you use fuzzy words like “experience” and confuse yourself, and conclude into the next extreme view: “Buddhadharma is dead apart from intellectual knowledge of it which is not sufficient to carry us to liberation and enlightenment.” I think, this is black and white logic. I call this ‘weapon-logic’ because either it shoots into your own feet or the head of others and stops you to think in a differentiated way, it does not help the mind to let go narrow minded and wrong views.
Here my examples to think upon.
Thank you for your enormous patience and effort to discuss with all of us here. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
(HHDL in his commentary on the Heart Sutra)
http://www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm
(I read the biography of Dharmakirti it is correct what HHDL says, its also correct with respect to Arya Vimuktisena and Vasubandhu and the other examples. It was never claimed e.g. that the founding lineage lamas e.g. Asanga, Nagarjuna, Vasubhandu were fullly enlightened. Also some of the lineage masters are portrayed as having “just” attained the path of accumulation like Ven. Vimuktisena (this is not Arya Vumuktisena who is portrayed of having attained the path of seeing). Gyaltsab Je states about the former “Vimuktisena, who abided on the ground of faith, the path of accumulation.”)
http://www.berzinarchives.com/bioghaphies/short_biography_lama_tsongkhapa.html
I pray that 2009 will be the year of reconciliation for all Buddhist practitioners. May sectarianism cease and may everyone have the freedom to practise in their traditions without criticism or interference.
May the Buddhadharma flourish forevermore as the sole medicine for the sickness of living beings and may everyone posting and reading here have a happy and peaceful Christmas.
Some one asked if there are prayers for all Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Yes there are. On of them was written by HHDL.
It can be found in this prayerbook page 26 ff.
http://www.dalailamainaustralia.org/pdfs/dalailama_prayerbook.pdf
Notes
1 Heart essence refers to a Nyingma practice.
2 The four deities are Shakyamuni, Avalokiteshvara, Tara and Achala. The three texts are Vinaya, Sutra and Abidharma.
3 Shepa Dorje is Milarepa.
4 The ordination name of Lama Tsong Khapa.
5 Budon and Jolug are Kalachakra traditions.
6 Shije is a Kagyu practice from Padampa Sangye for pacifying suffering.
7 The three wheels refer to listening, thinking and meditating.
“Tibetan Buddhism can be declared now officially gone.” according to ‘Friendoftruth’s’ reading of a Tibetan newspaper report. Since he is not a native speaker, not in or anywhere near the monastic community (apart from being a legend in his own mind), I think its safe to say rumours of its death are highly exaggerated. It is easy and dramatic to invoke long dead teachers as being on your side, the side of purity, its just not very honest or helpful.
I have been trying to rely on Dorje Shugden as my Dharma Protector for nine years now, and my life just keeps getting more and more meaningful. Time after time, virtuous wishes which I had thought to be impossible have been fulfilled, and whenever I have wanted to undertake some activity to further my practice or give spiritual help to others, all obstacles have fallen away and all necessary conditions have come easily to hand. I don’t have much money, and have plenty of challenging situations, but my happiness increases as the days and years go by, thanks to the kindness of my Lama in giving me Buddha Shakyamuni + Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings, and of Dorje Shugden in protecting and nurturing my practice. I know many other Dorje Shugden practitioners and this is their experience too. I know of not one person who has received or inflicted harm through relying upon Dorje Shugden. Anyone with experience of doing this practice and receiving Dorje’s compassionate blessings would see the ridiculousness of such a suggestion. Shugden practitioners see him as a Buddha in dependence upon valid reasons, and so he functions as a Buddha. Therefore for us he is a Buddha. Others see him in less pure ways, of course this is bound to happen. We can all choose how we discriminate objects, and it is up to each of us to choose the most beneficial way.
To deny this and assert that Dorje Shugden is impure regardless of how he is viewed, would seem to contradict Buddha’s essential message on dependent relationship and fly in the face of Nagarjuna’s view of emptiness.
Personally I’m very content with the way my precious Guru has taught me to view Dorje Shugden, and I’m enjoying the opportunity the present situation affords to deepen both my faith in this heart jewel of Protectors and my appreciation of my Teacher and my good fortune.
mirage: I’m happy you are happier and happier, but is slander and lying not inflicting harm, because clearly NKT/WSS internet political smear campaign is doing just that.
“To deny this and assert that Dorje Shugden is impure regardless of how he is viewed, would seem to contradict Buddha’s essential message on dependent relationship and fly in the face of Nagarjuna’s view of emptiness.”
To assert that objects function based on how we view them alone is to contradict Buddha’s essential message on dependent relationship and fly in the face of Nagarjuna’s view of emptiness. Things do not arise because we want them to or think they should. They arise due to causes and conditions. How a being functions is due to past training, not another being’s subjective experience.
You have fallen into the extreme of nihilism which denies causes and their effects
“The fact that DS has killed people is surely not proof that he is not a Buddha for, as has been pointed out, it is said that Buddhas have killed out of compassion and wisdom. And, presumably, if one holds DS to be a Buddha (who has wisely and compassionately killed) then it is legitimate to praise him.”
There are stories of Bodhisattvas killing a particularly harmful sentient being to stop that being creating enormously negative karma for itself and to avoid harm to others. This is a compassionate act, such as when, during his bodhisattva training, the Buddha killed a thief who was planning to kill many bodhisattvas.
However, when Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and others talk about their protector killing beings, harming them and depriving them of wealth and good health, this is worded like a punishment, without any referrence to the benefit for the victim of these actions.
Traditionally, there are a number of criteria that a target of wrathful activity should possess. These show that the being in question is causing others immense suffering and in turn would otherwise suffer greatly themselves.
The targets of Phabongkhapa’s protector’s violence do not fall into this category at all. They are simply Gelugpas that take teachings from other traditions. In doing this, they do no harm to anyone else. Even if you think mixing practices from traditions will ultimately bear no good fruit, then we can say that their practice will not go as well as it would had they just taken Gelug teachings, but since when was not being a very good practitioner punishable by death?
It is clear by his words that Phabongkhapa wasn’t praising his protector for benefiting beings by killing them and thereby preventing them from committing some terrible act, he was prasing his protector for punishing beings for going against his own sectarian agenda of exclusive reliance on his own interpretation of Je Tsongkhpapa’s tradition.
This was a political teaching, designed to strengthen the Gelug hegemony. Quite different from a bodhisattva acting to prevent a being from falling into the lower realms for countless aeons.
Indeed, Phabongkhapa praises his protector for not only killing beings. He says those that go against his sectarian agenda of exclusive reliance on his own interpretation of Je Tsongkhpapa’s tradition “find it difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes”.
This is obviously in complete contrast to bodhisattvas that liberate very harmful beings to pure Buddha fields so that they may attain enlightenment rather than suffer from the harmful actions that they were prevented from commiting.
Dear mirage,
thank you for your wonderful propaganda package, I couldn’t have delivered it better
Its always good to close the eyes with respect to facts and to spread good news about the wonders of Dorje Shugden. (For risks and side-effects read the package insert and ask your doctor or pharmacist.)
With respect to your classical NKT ‘logic’:
“Shugden practitioners see him as a Buddha in dependence upon valid reasons, and so he functions as a Buddha. Therefore for us he is a Buddha. Others see him in less pure ways, of course this is bound to happen. We can all choose how we discriminate objects, and it is up to each of us to choose the most beneficial way.”
If I see a poisonous snake, let’s name it Fred, as a belt, and use it to fix my trousers, the poisonous snake, Fred, won’t function like a belt, but as a poisonous snake, therefore Fred will bite me and I will be inflicted with the poison of the snake Fred. No matter how “pure” I see Fred. But probably you would argue: “Others see Fred in less pure ways, of course this is bound to happen. We can all choose how we discriminate objects, and it is up to each of us to choose the most beneficial way.” So lets see Fred as enlightened and as an object we can use to fix our trousers.
If this is not obvious to you, then you can apply your logic also to an extreme: Hitler - he also emphasized the importance not to mix pure aryan blut with that of other races + he emphasized how important it is to keep the aryan race pure and rebuked those who didn’t follow his commands. A pure follower of him would probably see “him as a Buddha in dependence upon valid reasons, and so he functions as a Buddha. Therefore for us he is a Buddha. Others see him in less pure ways, of course this is bound to happen. We can all choose how we discriminate objects, and it is up to each of us to choose the most beneficial way.”
The problem with that logic is that it denies dependent arising and conventional truths. It is based on the extreme of Nihilism. A table functions as a table for a human being but not as a shower to clean his body, likewise a demon functions as a demon for an ordinary being but not as his protector.
The only thing which can be argued about is if the table is a table or a shower. In general beings are able to discriminate this correctly. With respect the Shugden, its nature is a subtle object. It’s not that easy to discriminate if Shugden is a demon, worldly being or a Buddha. To find this out one has to apply reasoning and knowledge based on an open attitude to investigate it thoroughly.
Personally I think one should also listen to the arguments of the highest masters of all schools. There is no protector, not one, who is seen as that controversial and that questionable as Shugden. For me this is already enough to let it go, far more as there are enough uncontroversial and Je Tsongkhapa and Buddha never have taught that being.
BTW, its the function of demons to make things more successful to you or even to appear in visions as Buddhas. Things are more complex than some propaganda suggests.
Dear Dorje,
You’ve obviously got a ‘thing’ about Pabongkha because what you think he did or didn’t do if your one track response to everything. However, you have yet to give any real examples of how Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian and how this sectarianism is happening today. The reason why you don’t is because you can’t.
You said:
They are harming themselves and others. They harm themselves through confusing their spiritual path. What will they do if they receive two contradictory spiritual instructions? What to practise and what to reject? Furthermore, they are harming their tradition and others by implicitly giving the message that the Gelugpa tradition is not a complete and practical path to enlightenment in itself.
My question would be: if a tradition contains all the instructions needed to attain enlightenment, why would it be necessary to seek instructions from other traditions? Isn’t that actually a lack of faith and wisdom? The way to attain realizations is to practise a small number of instructions deeply rather than being discontented and seeking new teachings all the time.
I really don’t see why it’s necessary to receive teachings from other traditions when you’ve decided to practice within one. If you haven’t decided, sure, shop around, but sooner or later you’ve got to make your choice, decide on one and get on with getting enlightened.
Dear all,
Let’s try this logic: Dorje Shugden is a Buddha because he’s a mere appearance to mind and the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri can appear in any form to benefit living beings, therefore he appears as Dorje Shugden. When we worship mere Dorje Shugden and impute Buddha Manjushri, he exists and functions as Manjushri.
Simple, eh? Or are you going to argue that there’s something inherently impure from the side of Dorje Shugden that makes him inherently a demon? Good luck with the extreme of existence!
This protector doesn’t have to be inherently existent or have inherent impurities to make it harmful. Jack the Ripper was not inherently bad, but neither did he function as an good client for the prostitutes that initially believed he was.
Can you tell me why Buddha Manjushri cannot appear in the form of Dorje Shugden?
Hi LH
Re #880, #865 et al. Can you provide a working definition of “sectarian(ism)”? It’s bandied around so much that I think it would be useful to try and pin it down.
SC
We’re not back to you trying to get me to prove another negative are we, LH? did you get this new logic trick from a christmas cracker?
Sapan didn’t say he wasn’t Virupa, therefore he was. Manjushri can appear in any form, therefore he appeared as you protector.
We can reasonably say that Manjushri wouldn’t appear as a being praised for killing others as he had bodhicitta.
“Can you provide a working definition of “sectarian(ism)”? It’s bandied around so much that I think it would be useful to try and pin it down.”
I think sectarianism is belief that other traditions are inferior and then acting on that belief to suppress these traditions.
For example, Phabongkhapa praised his protector for killing those of his own school that took teachings from other traditions he rejects as faulty dangerous and misleading paths. In using this protector to spread the idea of the supremacy of his own tradition, he sought to restrict other traditions. This is sectarianism.
“They are harming themselves and others. They harm themselves through confusing their spiritual path. What will they do if they receive two contradictory spiritual instructions?”
Nonsense. The various tenets of the four schools of Tibetan buddhism are all similar enough not to confuse anybody. The differences that do exist are easy enough to understand with a little bit of study and understanding. In any case, even if someone is of particularly low intelligence to get confused, is this any reason to kill them?
“Furthermore, they are harming their tradition and others by implicitly giving the message that the Gelugpa tradition is not a complete and practical path to enlightenment in itself.”
Nonsense. Many Kagyupas practice Nyingma teachings, for example. Nobody thinks that this means that Kagyu tradition not a complete and practical path to enlightenment in itself. People are free to practice from whatever tradition they see fit. This should never be a problem and definitely not a reason for harming, killing, depriving of wealth and ruining future births. Absolutely absurd.
“My question would be: if a tradition contains all the instructions needed to attain enlightenment, why would it be necessary to seek instructions from other traditions? Isn’t that actually a lack of faith and wisdom? The way to attain realizations is to practise a small number of instructions deeply rather than being discontented and seeking new teachings all the time.”
People can choose to practice from whatever tradition they feel connected to. If they what Kagyu, then Gelug and then Nyingma practice, this is up to them and certainly not for a novice like you to judge. Your position does nothing but show your ignorance of how the Buddhadharma all leads to one result. That you should use this as a justification for killing sentient beings is shameful.
“I really don’t see why it’s necessary to receive teachings from other traditions when you’ve decided to practice within one. If you haven’t decided, sure, shop around, but sooner or later you’ve got to make your choice, decide on one and get on with getting enlightened”
BS spoken by a novice with no understanding outside his own narrow tradition. LH, you really don’t have to see anything. What traditions others choose to practice is not up to you. That you say their choice that you fail to understand is a good enough reason for them to be killed is deeply regretable, especially as it is supposed to be coming from a Buddhist.
As the great non-sectarian Gelugpa -Nyingmapa yogi, Shabkar Tsogdruk Rangdrol once sang
“In the snow ranges of Tibet,
Owing to the kindness of sublime beings of the past,
Many profound teachings were taught.
These days most practitioners
Hold the various teachings to be contradictory
Like heat and cold.
They praise some teachings and disparage others.
Some holy beings have said that
Madhyamika, Mahamudra and Mahasandhi
Are like sugar, molasses and honey:
One is as good as the other.
For this reason, I have listened to
And reflected on all of them without partiality.
Sectarian practitioners with aversion and attachment,
Please don’t reprimand me.
When the immaculate white snow mountain
Of Madhayamika, Mahamudra and Mahasandhi
Is bathed in the sunlight of pure perception,
The stream of blessings will certainly flow.”
Although many different names have been given-
Great Perfection (Dzogchen), Great Seal (Mahamudra) and Great Madhyamaka,
Path and Fruit, Object of Cutting, and Pacification -
When they are investigated by a Yogin
Who has cultivated them experientially,
He arrives at just one intention.
- Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen
The various doctrinal views found in the provinces of U, Tsang and Ngari
Are all the very teaching of the Victorious One.
How fine if, not allowing the demon of sectarianism to ignite animosity,
The radiance of the jewel of pure perception would encompass all.
- Panchen Lobsang Yeshe
Dear Dorje,
Yes, of course it’s everyone’s choice what they want to practice, but I’m saying ‘what justification is there for practising more than one tradition?’
People can choose to throw themselves off a tall building, of course they have freedom but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to do so.
Please give me a spiritual justification for why the practice of teachings from different traditions is required to attain enlightenment.
There is no reason not to and if one feels inclined to take teachings from other traditions this is up to the individual.
Je Tsongkhapa took teachings from many traditions. He put these together to form his own tradition. These practices compliment each other and lead the individual to realisation.
Buddhadharma is Buddhadharma. To say it is harmful and confusing to practice different elements of the Buddhadharma together is harmful and misleading. It is a lie.
No harm created by Dorje Shugden? - then read this.
Here is an account written down from historical records by David Jackson. He is Professor of Tibetan in the Asia and Africa Institute of the University of Hamburg. He received his doctorate in Buddhist Studies from the University of Washington.
From: Lungta Magazine #14
Aspects of Tibetan History
Spring 2001
Published by Amye Machen Institute
McLeod Ganj, Dharamsala
Article: The “Bhutan Abbot” of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugs-ldan
By David Jackson
“During his abbacy, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgyamtsho failed to visit and pay respects to his teacher at the Khang-gsar lama palace. He was reluctant to do so because he was suspicious of the cult of the protector-deity Shugs-ldan, which was practiced at the monastery. He was also critical of certain old practices of Ngor Monastery, such as its tradition of sending a monastery appointed functionary to collect animals from the nomad regions for their flesh.”
The senior Khang-gsar abbot, Ngag-dbang-mkhyen-rab-‘jam-dpal-smying-po, was a well known devotee of Shugs-ldan… Both he and his late uncle mKhanchen Ngag-dbang0blo-gros-snying-po visited Khams and established there in the 1890s in numerous monasteries the cult of Shugs-ldan, before the dGe-lugs-pa zealot Pha-bong-kha-pa (1878-1941) and his disciples brought the cult into disrepute through their sectarian excesses…
During these troubles, Dam-pa Rin-po-che was staying at rTa-nag giving the esoteric transmission of the Path with Its Fruit. One day, when he was reciting the text-transmission, he laid aside the text he was reading and said “Alas, the young abbot’s horse has died!” Among the more than one hundred disciples present, nobody understood what the master had alluded to. In fact, this harm to the young abbot he mentioned was caused by the rgyal-po spirit Shugden…
Dam-pa Rin-po-che, too, had on several occasions rebuked the malignant rgyal-po spirit. During the founding of the rDzong-gsar scriptural seminary seventeen years before in 1918, the same spirit had caused obstacles. At the founding of the scripture-exposition seminary at Ngor, similar obstacles had occurred. Dam-pa Rinpoche, too, was thus not at all fond of this spirit, and tension in this regard must have existed within the Khang-sar lama-palace even before Ngag-dbang-yon-tan0rgya-mtsho brought it to a head…
Evidently also during his second visit, he decided to attack at Ngor the deity Shugs-ldan, who was worshipped there as a minor protector. He explained to some of the monks how harmful this deity was. He made liberal gifts and decided to use this chance to expel the cult of Shugs-ldan from the monastery. This was one of the most important battles in what was to become a lifelong crusade against rDor-rje-shugs-ldan.
Helped by a single trusted monks… Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho threw the “life stone” (bla rdo) of Shugs-ldan from the roof of the eastern side of the central abbatial residence. People later said that the spot where the stone hit the ground seemed to be smeared with blood. He also removed the mask and thangkha of the rgyal-po spirit to the far side of the lCags pass, and thus attempted to frive out that spirit…
What can have pushed Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho to engage in open “war” against that deity? He saw Shugs-ldan as his personal enemy, blamind him for causing the premature death of his previous life. He also professed to be the rebirth of dBang-sdud-snying-po, (1763-1806?), the thirty-third throneholder of Sakya who had putted himself against Shugs-ldan and likewise had not lived to old age.
Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s mother and two siblings died mysteriously while crossing the Nyungka La pass in sGa-oa south of Khri-du. Some said the three had been killed by Chinese, but no Chinese had been around at the time, and no human culprits were ever caught. It was later believed they had directly fallen victim to the vengeful Shugs-ldan.
For coercing or repelling Shugs-ldan, no lama was more powerful in those days than Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho. In direct confrontation, the lama could overpower him. But in the long run, the deity was more powerful, because he was able to harm the lama’s family members, attacking and killing his mother and two siblings…66
Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho also intensely disliked the particular tradition within the dGe-lugs-pa represented by Pha-bong-kha-pa, a lama who in 1940, a year before his death, continued in his sectarian machinations, decrying to a Kuomintang Governor (Lu Cun-krang) the fact that uncle ‘Jam-bdyangs-rgyal-mtshan hade published Go-rams-pa’s works…
But Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s main wrath was directed against the cult of the protector rDo-rje-shugs-ldan which Pha-bong-kha-pa had popularized in various dGe-lugs-pa circles. (In the early 1940s gangs of young monks in certain dGe-lugs-pa dominted areas of Khams such as Chab-mdo, Brag-gyab and Lho-rdzong were causing so much havoc through their Shugs-ldan group “possessions” that the central government’s Governor of Khams in Chab-mdo finally was compelled to punish three ringleaders by flogging.”….
Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho explained to the Khri-du monks and people, “Shugs-ldan is no good. He is evil. He’s not a protector, he’s a ghost! He has a long history of causing harm. There’s no use invoking a ghost.” In this way he convinced the monks to cease the practice, and removed all images and articles of worship from the monastery.”
“At Thar-lam monastery, he summoned the monks and told them of his campaign against Shugs-ldan. That deity, he said, was not a protector of religion, but rather an evil spirit who destroyed the doctrine… He proposed to destroy, if they would agree, the mask of this deity the next morning.
…He took down a revered mask of the deity from its shrine and carried it outside. He hurled it into a bonfire and drew a pistol, shooting at the mask numerous times. After annihilating the mask, he reentered the Protector’s chapel and removed the other ritual articles….
Afterward, he re-consecrated the chapel to the deity Beg-tse. He defied Shugs-ldan to take revenge. When nothing occurred, the monks lost faith in Shugs-ldan and accepted the new protective deity. In sGa-pa, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho thus stamped out the practice of rDo-rje-shugs-ldan, at least in Sa-skya-pa circles, almost completely.
… Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho was thus highly exceptional, and he attracted all the Sa-skya-pa and even many Kagyupa and Nyingmapa adherents in sGa-pa as his disciples. If he gave them his personal blessing or a protection-cord, they would not be troubles by Shugs-ldan.”
Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho died in the early 1960s at the age of about 60, in a large prison near Siling holding thousands of prisoners. It is said he manifested wonders even in prison, for instance, freeing himself from his shackles.
Dorje
In #877 you say
It seems to me that this is to massively underplay how Pabonkga saw it. For him other traditions were, in the words of Chris Rea, the road to hell. As he says
Given he took this view one would imagine he also held that DS took this view. And if DS takes this view, then actions to prevent thismixing, wrathful if necessary, would logically be the order of the day.
Presumably, you don’t hold Pabongka’s view per se to constitute sectarianim? It would be, for example, his followers acting on his view to forcibly convert monateries that would constitute sectarianism?
Even if Pabongkas views of the other traditions are not in themselves sectarian, they are pretty jaundiced and it seems to me that this goes to the heart of the matter. It’s this jaundiced view that, presumably, serves as a rationale for DS to prevent mixing.
“Presumably, you don’t hold Pabongka’s view per se to constitute sectarianim?”
I do. They are. And he acted on them.
Dorje
In #866 you say
Now you seem to be saying that simply to believe other traditions to be inferior is enough to consitute sectarianism. But this would surely mean that as Gorampa believed Je Tsongkhapa’s view of the two truths to be inferior to his own, he was being sectarian?
Dear Tenzin P,
Yeah, right, more ‘neutral’ stuff from academics? Nope. More propaganda from the Tibetan Government in Exile. Anything from Dharamsala can be throughly rejected.
LH
It’s not the job of academics to be neutral. It’s their job to do thorough, rigorous research. What would interest me is whether Lungta magazine has a blind reviewing policy.
LH
On the back cover of “How to Solve our Human Problems”, the book is endorsed by two of those “neutral” academics you so despise.
# 889 & 890
dharma is dharma and the dharma is pure. by ‘mixing’ dharma with dharma the result will be dharma nothing impure.
there is no tradition which is not a ‘mix’ from different other lineages or traditions. this is especially true for the gelugpas the youngest among all the Indian-Tibetan traditions.
Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche:
Maitreya in the Uttara Tantra Shastra
Jamgon Kontrul Lodro Thaye again:
There is no fault if an individual wishes only to follow one school of thought*, as long as he has no sectarian attitude: attachment to the own school and hostility to others. However, as beings are individual it must be allowed also to practice other schools without being punished or that this is declared as being wrong or ‘confusing’ and an ‘obstacle’.
For a Bodhisattva who wishes to help all sentient beings, the better he knows all schools the better he can help other sentient beings according to their dispositions. Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa, both practised all school of their time available to them under its respective greatest masters.
*The problem I see with NKT is that NKT is no tradition or school in the sense like the other Buddhist traditions, its rather ‘Gyatsoism’, based on GKG’s books, understanding and what he selected as being important and what he rejected as being unimportant (e.g. the Vinaya). NKT has not produced genuine and acknowledged masters nor is it praised by any genuine Buddhist master or the wise nor does any master advice to learn within NKT. All this is very different from what a genuine school is. Because NKT and its teachings are not complete, and it has no genuine and respected master from any school among its followers - not even from the Gelugpas; and many origin teachings of the Gelug school and Kadam school are missed and not transmitted or are explained sometimes in a rather superficial way; I think, it is much advisable to be open to receive at least teachings from the own school, the Gelugpas, and their masters, and to read the origin texts of Je Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Atisha etc. and the commentaries. To argue within the system of NKT, one should only practise in one tradition (NKT) appears to me like a spiritual suicide. I don’t believe that this will really function, and the past successors have not proofed it either.
For me It is also quite strange that since GKG is in the West (1977), more than 3 decades, none of his followers has published a Dharma text. I wonder what the future will bring. Such a poverty in writing is not known by other schools. I also wonder what will happen when e.g. Gen Kelsang Khyenrab should have a vision of a Dakini and receives teachings from her. Probably he would refuse, “because it’s not in Geshe-las books” and could make the “pure tradition” impure?
# 895
please LH note that Jackson just reports about historic records of what some Sakya lamas did with respect to Shugden and what their views were. This has nothing to do with propaganda. Propaganda is mainly to spin the facts to repress unwelcome historical events or to give one-sided, misleading or exaggerated information.
Propaganda is e.g. the claim, that there “was never any tension between the schools with respect to Shugden worship” or “all the problems are due to the activities of the Dalai Lama.”
Maybe you read these records in the light of what GKG wrongly claimed:
“HH the Dalai Lama says: “That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me.” This is also completely untrue. We would like to ask HH the Dalai Lama: who are these Shugden practitioners saying these meaningless things? His words are causing disharmony between Shugden practitioners and Nyingma practitioners. Why is HH the Dalai Lama creating this new problem? Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism.”
“Now, my main point is that people should know that all the present problems regarding Dorje Shugden within the Mahayana Buddhist world have no creator other than HH the Dalai Lama. He is the source of all these problems because it was he who first publicly claimed that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit who harms both himself and Tibetan independence, and many Tibetans believe what he said. It is HH the Dalai Lama’s wish to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden, and to fulfil his wish Tibetan people within the exile community have removed statues and destroyed them, coercing other Tibetans to abandon this practice. If HH the Dalai Lama had not engaged in this policy of religious discrimination there would have been no basis for these problems. I clearly understand that the responsibility for this lies with HH the Dalai Lama.”
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/fr99/gkg.htm
If you proof these claims of GKG with history and the many sources given here and elsewhere about the opposition to Shugden worship, including from the heads of the schools, it is clear who gives the wrong information.
When there was so many harmony, why the heads of the schools and especially the Nyingmapas put so much pressure on HHDL to put restrictions on Shugden worship, and why the ’samayas’ in the Shugden sodge practice included ‘not even to touch Nyingma scriptures’? Such a ‘vow’ is actual oppressing religious freedom.
That academics report the facts is no propaganda.
“Now you seem to be saying that simply to believe other traditions to be inferior is enough to consitute sectarianism. But this would surely mean that as Gorampa believed Je Tsongkhapa’s view of the two truths to be inferior to his own, he was being sectarian?”
Yep, absolutely. One is a sectarian view, the other a sectarian act. However, to discern just how sectarian a view is, we must understand the corollary of the view. Most inter-sectarian debates are about very minor disagreements. These disagreements are inevitable, as scholars are trying to use language to describe something that is beyond description. So you end up with mildly nihilistic or mildly eternalistic ways of pointing to the middle way. Here there is still room to accept that people became enlightened through following these subtly flawed words. This is completely different from saying that an entire tradition leads to avichi hell. This should be obvious.
Very few Tibetan scholars outside the Gelug tradition agree with Je Tsongkhapa’s take on Prasangika Madhyamaka, but most Tibetans, including scholars, agree that he reached a high level of realisation. Je Rinpoche’s anniversary has just gone by. It is the only lama’s anniversary that is universally observed by all Tibetans. This should tell us something. Even if Gorampa disagreed with what the subtle object of negation was, and so on, it’s really not so much of a big deal.
Scholars like to make mountains out of semantic molehills. It’s their job. But rejecting an entire tradition as one that sends people to hell is more the job of the politician, and Phabongkhapa was a politician first and scholar second.
PS. you will notice Phabongkhapa’s rage at the republishing of Gorampa’s works mentioned above in (the highly respected academic) David Jackson’s article. A scholar would debate Gorampa’s points. A politician would argue for them to remain banned.
“Yeah, right, more ‘neutral’ stuff from academics? Nope. More propaganda from the Tibetan Government in Exile. Anything from Dharamsala can be throughly rejected”
David Jackson is a highly respected academic who has done much to explain the inter-sectarian debates, especially from a Sakya point of view. You cannot dismiss an account just on the basis of where it came from, just as you cannot accept a point of view based only on where it came from. These are logical falacies, as you are no doubt aware.
If you disagree with Jackson’s explaination of how your protector and its Gelugpa followers were viewed by Sakyapas, show us where and give evidence. Dismissing an article because of where its publisher is situated is surely beyond even you.
Dear Tenzin,
As usual, what you say is exaggerated and inaccurate.
‘Gyatsoism’ as you put it is pure Gelugpa teachings. It’s Buddhism. Geshe Kelsang always quotes scriptural sources, so his books are also a synthesis of the instructions of countless other Buddhist masters which he received through his Spiritual Guides.
It is a tradition: it’s the Kadampa tradition.
Geshe Kelsang does not judge the Vinaya to be important. I think you have a very narrow idea of what Vinaya is. For you, Vinaya is a book with a bunch of rules and if you don’t see those rules in the form that you expect, you make outrageous claims that NKT has abandoned the Vinaya. This is because you don’t really understand what Vinaya, which to me is astounding considering you’re a Buddhist monk. It’s this kind of ignorance of the real meaning of Dharma that does lead me to conclude that Buddha’s teachings are degenerating - you’re following the words and not the meaning because you don’t know the meaning. It’s all rather sad.
‘Geshe Kelsang does not judge the Vinaya to be important’ in the last post should read, of course, ‘Geshe Kelsang does not judge the Vinaya to be unimportant’
Another academic source:
correction to my last formatting error…# 904 the content is the same.
Another academic source:
M Kapstein (2000) The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory Oxford University Press p143
post # 902
1. I made clear that this is my position, I didn’t claim this is a truth. This is a dissimilar approach than that of NKT and WSS who state their positions as facts without having even sources.
2. My position is not as yours that “‘Gyatsoism’ as you put it is pure Gelugpa teachings”. On the most accurate base I would agree that NKT follow a number of Gelug teachings which are seen by GKG as being essential. However, his views do in some aspects not present Je Tsongkhapa’s school (e.g. teacher-student-relationship or the definition of sectarianism and the lack of emphasize of the union of the three HYT tantras, the lack of the Kalachakra Tantra and other tantras, the lack of the lineage of Machig Labtroen, and the reduded emphasize on Mahakala, Vaishravana, Kalarupa the lack of open debate and emphasize on the Indian texts etc., the lack of being critical with one’s gurus teachings etc.) and NKT misses also a lot of Je Tsongkhapa’s own teachings and texts on different subjects, e.g. Golden Rosary, the Commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara - probably ‘the essence’ of this is in GKG’s book on the Heart Sutra
The ‘essence claim’ is one of the most important features of NKT to explain why something is missed.
From all of Je Tsongkhapa’s works, there are only about four pages of Je Tsongkhapas texts available in NKT: his stages on the path prayer and his root text Namtso Lam Sum (the three principles of the path). I wonder how this can keep his tradition ‘purely’?
From Je Tsongkhapa’s 18 volumes not even one is present, not even one of his major works e.g.:
* The Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path (Lam-rim chen-mo),
* The Great Exposition of Tantras (sNgag-rim chenmo),
* The Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretive and Definitive Teachings (Drang-nges legs-bshad snying-po),
* The Praise of Relativity (rTen-’brel bstodpa),
* The Clear Exposition of the Five Stages of Guhyasamaja (gSang-’dus rim-lnga gsal-sgron) and
* The Golden Rosary (gSer-phreng).
3. it is nice to see the first time the plural: “his Spiritual Guides”. thank you.
4. I agree with “his books are also a synthesis of the instructions of countless other Buddhist masters which he received through his Spiritual Guides.” Although ’synthesis’ sounds like ‘mix’, doesn’t it
5. I strongly disagree with “It is a tradition: it’s the Kadampa tradition.” Its NKT or ‘Gyatsoims’ but not the Kadampa tradition. There is too much missed of what the the Kadampas are: there is not even Atisha’s ‘Lamp on the path’ and his auto-commentary available. There is no monastic ordination available. The main texts the Kadampas studied are also not available, Achala and the Sixteen drops; and many precious texts of the Kadampas are also not available. The NKT uses the name of the Kadampa Tradition but by using a name it is not the Kadampa Tradition. For what the Kadampas held for lineages please read this article: http://info-buddhism.com/kadampatradition.html
Of course ‘Geshe Kelsang does judge the Vinaya to be unimportant’ that’s why he said “Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which belongs to the Hinayana tradition. Personally I find this strange. We are Mahayana Buddhists so why are we following the Vinaya – the Pratimoksha vows - of the Hinayana tradition?” (Such a claim is also in contradiction to the Bodhisattva vows, as I have shown earlier by using Je Tsongkhapa’s own work - see #664.)
As you have not studied the Vinaya and repeat only the faulty NKT claims, I think you shouldn’t talk about it, and judge based on your own ignorance that others would be ignorant or to try to convince me that it is me who has no understanding.
Although I have indeed less understanding, at least I know enough about the Vinaya and received enough teachings about the Vinaya to be able to judge the NKT position as being wrong. It is clear that other monks and Geshes hold the same position. I think you won’t hesitate also to judge them of being ignorant and not to have understood the meaning of ordination?
How do you know what I see as the essence of the Vinaya? I never stated my view about this, yet still you claim wrongly: “For you, Vinaya is a book with a bunch of rules and if you don’t see those rules in the form that you expect, you make outrageous claims that NKT has abandoned the Vinaya.”
The first part is not my position, that NKT has abandoned the Vinaya is my position. My reasons are, when there is no getsul and gelong ordination, then there is no order of monks and nuns anymore, then there is no-one whom is allowed to ordain, no sojong can be performed and the vinaya lineage dies out completely. So the Vinaya has been abandoned.
For the correct position and refutation from learned and elected elder monks read their statement: http://info-buddhismus.de/Australian_Sangha_Association_Statement.html
To study the Vinaya takes about four years in the Gelug tradition, and such a study is not done in weekend courses. That Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa strongly emphasized the vinaya is also a sign that those how claim to follow them should not ignore it.
Of course NKT has ‘the essence’ and puts the Vinaya in 10 vows and the Lamrim text of GKG… Probably Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa lacked the wisdom to do that.
Dorje
I found #900 very helpful. I have to say that it does seem to me to be a slightly unnatural use of language to call any minor disagreement between scholars of different schools “sectarian”. However, I entirely take you point that there is the world of difference between saying that another school has good some nuanced point slightly wrong and saying the practices of another school lead to Avichi Hell.
Clearly, one needs to meditate on the correct view of the two truths to attain enlightenment. Given that the view of the two truths differs between schools - for example. Gorampa/Sayka v JSK/Gelug - I have for a long time wondered whether one school held that other schools with views it regarded as subtly incorrect were nevertheless paths to full enlightenment. You say in #900
To clarify, are you saying that though, for example, Sakya scholars disagree with Gelug scholars regarding the two truths, they regard the “subtly flawed” views of Gelug scholars as close enough to the truth to lead the sincere practitioner who meditates on these subtly flawed views to full enlightenment?
Realisation is beyond concepts, so all concepts are flawed to some degree, but those taught by the four Tibetan traditions are close enough to the truth to point the way. Some of these are a little nihilistic, others are a little eternalistic. Whether one refutes inherent existence or the four extremes actually doesn’t make that much difference. Scholars like to argue about these things and sometimes these arguements get quite heated, but they don’t really amount to much of anything.
LH
In #847 you say
In #781 I asked whether you regarded as true the statement by GKG that
In #784 you said you did. Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen is a living author, well-known for his view that DS is a spirit. His work is heavily referenced in McCune’s thesis. On p40 she quotes the following passage from p17 of his book “The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word: A refutation of attacks on the advice of H.H. the Dalai Lama regarding the propitiation of guardian deities.”
And on p39 McCune states
Thus, on investigation, it would appear that the truth of the matter is the opposite to what GKG states. Given this, it would seem that you have, contrary to your statement in #847, accepted the truth of GKG’s statement just because it was said by someone you admire.
I practiced in the NKT for some considerable time but when I (rather belatedly) got around to investigating the DS issue, the fact that GKG’s statement re Dhongtog seemed so inaccurate made me think that I couldn’t simply assume that everything he (or, for that matter, others) said on the issue was beyond question.
Dear SC,
It’s my laziness that I didn’t check, as you said I just assumed that what Geshe Kelsang said about Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen was true, but now we’re both assuming that Geshe Kelsang’s statement refers to this book, “The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word: A refutation of attacks on the advice of H.H. the Dalai Lama regarding the propitiation of guardian deities.” when it might refer to something else that he had written, I don’t know.
I personally don’t care much if people write negative things about Dorje Shugden because I have experience of the practice they are denigrating so I know differently. What does concern me is the doubt their statements create in the minds of sincere practitioners who are in danger of being misled due to fixation on the qualifications of some scholar. Contrary to your previous statement, I don’t despise scholars, I just don’t have faith in their pronouncements, especially concerning spiritual matters. Those without eyes of faith are generally blind to the most important things in life and academic treatises are based on ‘facts’ which do not sum up the entirety of a spiritual issue. Spiritual life is like an iceberg, with 9/10ths of it only being able to be seen by those who have faith and who practice.
Hi SC
The original source of the GKG quote (an e-mail he posted on google groups) in unclear as to which of Dhontog’s books on DS he is referring to but I decided it didn’t really matter as they all make a similar sort of case.
Re scholars, some are of course pracititoners too. And the work of those that are not can I think be useful in marshalling certain information. I guess one just has to appraise everything with a critical eye. And I’m sure you don’t despise scholars - I was just indulging in a little hyperbole!
Dear LH, I think the dilemma expressed in post #909 and elsewhere is the misunderstanding about what faith is.
Faith is exactly “belief in facts” and it arises when someone recognizes clean clear the real existing qualities of an object.
There are certain issues were doubt is just very correct, e.g. when there is a phenomenon praised of having qualities which it does not possess, like a doctor who is not able to cure people or samsara as being a pleasure grove. To let go harmful objects one contemplates the faults of the object, there is nothing negative in this when the object really possesses these negative aspects and functions and one does not over exaggerate the faults. Correct doubt protects from being harmed. Another event is when people are lying then these persons can be doubted to state the facts according to reality or to be a reliable source of information. The Buddha also encouraged doubts (see Kalama Sutra).
“Faith” is another topic in NKT which is taught in a superficial manner or which is not explained thoroughly or even misleading and wrongly. The correct explanation about faith, according to all Indian-Tibetan Buddhist schools, based on Abhisamyalamkara or Abhidharmasamuccaya can be found e.g. at Alex Berzin’s website or the origin sources. Some of them have been translated into English.
The definintion of faith (skt. shradda, tib. dad-pa) is:
Here a more detailed explanation by Berzin:
Related with faith is the mental factor “Firm conviction (tib. mos-pa)” – the second of the mental factors of what GKG has translated as the ‘Five Object-ascertaining mental factors’, he translated mos-pa in ‘Firm apprehension’. According to the Gelug sources used by Berzin “‘Firm conviction (mos-pa)’ focuses on a fact that we have validly ascertained (nges-pa) to be like this and not like that. Its function is to make our belief (dad-pa) so firm that others’ arguments or opinions will not dissuade us. For Vasubandhu, this subsidiary awareness means regard. It merely takes its object to have some level of good qualities - on the spectrum from no good qualities to all good qualities - and may be either accurate or distorted.”
The detailed explanation by Berzin based on origin sources states:
If you apply this correct Dharma understanding in the context of NKT and the Shugden debate there will be more clarity about what is an object of faith and what is not an object of faith. Correct faith can’t be destroyed, because correct faith is based on facts / reality. But wrong views can be destroyed and undermined because they base upon delusions and do not accord with facts or reality.
From this Dharma pov there is no need to worry about things like you’ve stated: “What does concern me is the doubt their statements create in the minds of sincere practitioners who are in danger of being misled due to fixation on the qualifications of some scholar…Those without eyes of faith are generally blind to the most important things in life and academic treatises are based on ‘facts’ which do not sum up the entirety of a spiritual issue….”
If the researchers state facts and they give evidence that e.g. there was strong opposition to Shugden worship, that there were sectarian and violent actions, then this is in the first case no spiritual matter, these are just facts. It becomes a spiritual matter for those spiritual practitioners who wish to judge whose statements are more according to reality, those of GKG or those of HHDL. To judge an object one has to thoroughly to understand it. The more perspectives are included in the judgement, the better it is. Researcher can be of great help for that. Like someone can be of great help to you to recognize the kindness of your mother by telling you what she actual took upon herself for hardships to raise you up, although the person who tells you this maybe not spiritual at all. The Bodhisattva vows and the example of some of Buddha’s students make this clear by emphasizing to see every being as one’s teacher.
To sum it: real faith can’t be undermined, wrong views can be undermined. Real faith is unshakeable, wrong views will collapse if one sees reality as it is. Faith will increase if one sees reality as it is. From that pov HHDL usually emphasizes “Buddhism means to come more close to reality.” or “Wrong views will sooner of later collapse because they are not based on reality.”
With respect to what the essence of Vinaya is, there is an “Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya”, composed by Je Tsongkhapa:
http://westernshugdensociety.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/the-essence-of-the-vinya-ocean-by-je-tsongkhapa-and.doc
With all problems and issues we’ve discussed here, I think, we come more close to Je Tsongkhapa, all the Buddhist masters, and the Buddha who say, that all problems come from ignorance (or delusions) and none other source.
I hope with our engaged discussion here at Tricycle some of GKG’s wrong views, e.g. “Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism.” or “Now, my main point is that people should know that all the present problems regarding Dorje Shugden within the Mahayana Buddhist world have no creator other than HH the Dalai Lama. He is the source of all these problems because it was he who first publicly claimed that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit…I clearly understand that the responsibility for this lies with HH the Dalai Lama.” will collapse in some of his followers who wrongly over took them based on blind belief or lacking other sources. If such wrong views collapse in some of GKG’s followers, actual this is no loss of faith this is the destruction of wrong views which do not accord with reality.
This can be seen as a joyful event, because wrong views are the source of suffering and the source of the causes of suffering: harmful actions.
Dear Tenzin,
I think it’s funny that you say that NKT has a shallow or superficial explanation of faith, but then you go on to give a completely dry and intellectual presentation worthy of a University Professor.
Tell me truly, Tenzin - how does all this knowledge improve your life? Does it help you to realize your own mind? A bit of lamrim meditation would do you the world of good.
How to develop admiring faith (simply)
1. Sit in front of a statue of image of something you consider to be pure or holy with admirable qualities
2. Contemplate those qualities
3. Become aware of your pure and clear state of mind - that’s faith.
For all your intellectualizing about faith, what you say is actually incorrect. It’s possible for faith to be damaged if it’s on the level of correct belief. This would require me to go into a long explanation of valid and non-valid cognizers but you can read Understanding the Mind as well as I can so I’ll spare you. Suffice to say there are many different levels of faith before a correct belief transforms into a valid cognizer and before a realization becomes introvertible, because the mind doesn’t fully realize its object, it’s possible for that faith to become non-faith through the arising of doubts tending away from the truth.
It’s to prevent the arising of non-faith towards the Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden that I’m engaging in this debate on Tricycle - to refute the incorrect information and dodgy reasoning concerning both of these so that someone with an open mind can consider this different information and reasons and come to their own conclusions, and to protect the faith of Kadampa practitioners who find the kinds of things you are saying disturbing.
Do you know what that disturbance is? It’s doubt and non-faith. Such things are indeed possible, despite your denials. It’s vital for one to get to know their own mind through experience as well as books.
LH
In #830 you write
It seems to me that the above is a specific form of a more general argument which you you reject. This argument goes as follows:
P1: Enlightened beings are omniscient and are therefore unmistaken about spiritual (and all other) matters
P2: Pabongka held that X, where X is a spiritual matter
P3: X is untrue
C: Pabongka is not an enlightened being
In #830 X was DS is a Buddha. However, given that it is a spiritual matter, it seems that X could equally be the practices of non-Gelug schools in his time led to Avichi Hell.
In order to reject the general argument it seems to me that you have to reject P3 i.e. you have to reject that Pabongka could ever have been mistaken about a spiritual matter. Thus it seems to me that you must reject the contention that Pabongka was mistaken about non-Gelug practices of his time leading to Avichi Hell.
And if (1) you reject the general argument and (2) the practices of non-Gelug schools have not changed since Pabongka’s time, then it seems to me that you personally are committed to holding that these practices are the cause for rebirth in Avichi Hell.
I suppose alternatively you could hold that Pabongka was wrong about non-Gelug practices and still hold he was enlightened if you reject P1 and argued that sometimes enlightened beings give the appearance of being mistaken. But I’m not sure you would argue this?
Dear SC,
As I said in an earlier post, the practices of other traditions are of no interest to me. I’m only interested in establishing the validity of the Gelugpa lineage Gurus in general and the practice of Dorje Shugden in particular.
Dorje Shugden practitioners in general, and in particular the great Je Pabongkhapa have been accused of sectarianism. The statements that Je Pabongkhapa were made in private letters. It is the Dalai Lama who has been instrumental in making these letters widely known in the Tibetan Buddhist community, I believe with only one aim in mind: to destroy Je Pabongkhapa’s reputation and to justify his own political action of banning the practice of Dorje Shugden on the grounds of sectarianism.
This is completely false. I challenged Dorje a few posts ago to give some modern day examples of the sectarianism of Dorje Shugden practitioners and he failed to do so. Every time he levels an accusation of sectarianism it’s against Pabongkha and his opposition to certain Nyingma monasteries. Even if that were true, it’s no reason to ban a centuries old spiritual practice, arguing that ‘Dorje Shugden practice is inherently sectarian’ because there are no other examples he can give. It’s a smokescreen by the Dalai Lama. As you probably know, the more something is repeated, the more it becomes regarded as the truth so the Dalai Lama is hoping to associate sectarianism with Dorje Shugden practice, even though there is only one example that anyone mentions.
I’m afraid there’s no valid basis there at all. Even if Je Pabongkhapa was sectarian, he’s just one of thousands who do (or did) this practice. It’s not right to ban a religious practice on the strength of the outspoken views of just one practitioner. We have an expression for this: tarring everyone with the same brush. If a practitioner of a particular Nyingma protector said that all Gelugpas are going to Avichi Hell because their practice of emptiness is nihilistic, would it be right to ban the practice of this protector? Should we ban the texts of Gorampa for being a heretic because he disagrees with Je Tsongkhapa? I would say, resoundingly, “no”. There’s room for many views and no one has the right to dictate the spiritual practices of anyone else. Everyone is entitled to spiritual freedom.
very simple Lineageholder. when i clearly perceive the (really existing) qualities of an object then there is faith.
i think you would also jugde Je Tsongkhapa’s works as “completely dry and intellectual presentation worthy of a University Professor.”
to understand the positive emotion of faith one can also indicate the signs of the different levels of faith. inspired faith brings tears into your eyes, makes you to get goose skin or makes your hairs standing up. faith of conviction gives you the deep clean clear confidence, conviction or certainty that this quality is really a fact. This conviction is so deep that no one in this world is able to shake you in that conviction. Based on these perceived qualities, enthusiasm arise to develop these qualities in yourself.
as long as there are misunderstandings or superficial explanations in the terms or definitions of topics like devotion, faith, guru, root gurus, vinaya, pure view etc - all this lack of discriminating intelligence give rise to projections, wrong views, afflictive emotions, confusion and misunderstandings. this is the opposite of a liberating path. that’s why the masters like Je Tsongkhapa and all the lineage lamas, Asanga, Vasubandhu. Nagarjuna, Aryadeva etc. and also HHDL and contemporary masters are very precise in what they state.
Thank you for your correction with respect to the possibility that faith can be damaged. This is correct. However, I think it depends on the depths of one’s insight and one’s merit + certain mental habits (like a tendency to over analysis) if it can be damaged or not. So, I agree that faith could be damaged even after one perceived the qualities of an object with a valid cognizer; e.g. like after one has perceived clean clear a blue shape and based on confusion or the influence of others, a lack of self-esteem or many people who oppose your valid perception and tell you the opposite (e.g. that it was a white shape), one could doubt maybe it was white? This can happen.
———
If you wish to prevent “the arising of non-faith towards the Kadampa Tradition [better to say NKT] and Dorje Shugden that I’m engaging in this debate on Tricycle” I would suggest NKT leadership to show a good example of Buddhist behaviour, e.g. to stop to slander the wise and the monastic order, to stop to misinform people, to be self-critical and practice like a Kadampa: exposing the own faults and praising the qualities of others. For me most of the actions performed by NKT indicate not so much qualities, though there are inspiring exceptions of individual practitioners. Faith is a dependent arising phenomenon, not a one way route.
I think, also to excuse for the slander and misinformation and to put one’s own house in order will increase faith. Geshe-la had already such an attitude in the past when he stated:
He said this in an ‘interview’ with one of his students, a nun Kelsang …, her real name is Yvonne Nilles. see: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.religion.buddhism.nkt/msg/4e76df4b3c6293ec
Also to follow his former promise can help to restore faith:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2260704/Open-Letter-From-Geshe-Kelsang.html
you asked:
“Do you know what that disturbance is? It’s doubt and non-faith.” Yes, this is an aspect of the path to experience confusion, and it is better to be able to accept and to be able to face and work with this.
There are subjects were doubt is appropriate. e.g. when the object lacks qualities, increases the mind poisons or is deceptive, like Devadatta (although he may have demanded also faith from his followers). GKG names this “correct doubt”, ‘doubt which goes into the correct direction’. To doubt GKG and NKT could be also correct doubt, going into the correct direction, but it could be also wrong doubt, going into the wrong direction. That’s why to check openly and unbiased, based on discriminating intelligence and a proper dharma understanding is the advice of the masters, including Je Tsongkhapa.
Also the Buddha showed that doubt can be very appropriate, e.g. in such a situation (which seems to be not very different from what we are faced with):
The answer of the Buddha:
for the full sutra: http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/kalama_sutra.html
————
I wish you all the best and I think there is not much more to say for me any more.
Dear mSPP
Re 879
My post was not intended as a ‘propaganda package’. I don’t know who you think i am or why you think I’m here. It was my first time posting and i was simply sharing something based on my own experience. Actually I hadn’t realized what a world of alias and intrigue I’d stepped into. Some (or one) of you is quite the political animal.
I had assumed sincere posts with no ulterior motive were permissable…?
I hadn’t realized you were such an authority on ‘classic NKT logic.’ I don’t know how you find the time to master other traditions in between your practice of all those different Deities, your study of all those texts, and your pervasive web-presence. Even with my naive NKT practice of integrating all Yidams into one and all teachings into Lamrim practice I can only marvel at how you do it
Whilst I understand your analogy of the snake, I don’t agree that it is analogous to the point I was trying to make.
My point is :
If I sit down to make prayers to Buddha Manjushri, with a mind of refuge in the Three Jewels and as good a bodhichitta motivation as I can muster (just like you do when you do your prayers), vizualising him as a monk of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, on a lion symbolizing his fearlessness, wearing ordained robes symbolizing moral discipline, holding a heart symbolizing great compassion/ great bliss, wearing a hat symbolizing Nagarjuna’s view and carrying a sword symbolizing the wisdom realizing emptiness, and i make sincere prayers to him to increase my realizations and to help many living beings through the Dharma…
are you saying that despite Manjushri’s power, despite my motivation and faith, a spirit who you believe in (we don’t) named Dorje Shugden is going to intercept my prayers and prevent Manjushri from answering them, and that this spirit is instead going to kill people, harm the Dalai Lama and harm the Tibetan cause, even though I didn’t ask for such a thing? And all this simply because I happen to refer to Manjushri by the name Dorje Shugden who you believe is a spirit?
Where’s the cause and effect in that?
“Dorje Shugden practitioners in general, and in particular the great Je Pabongkhapa have been accused of sectarianism. The statements that Je Pabongkhapa were made in private letters.”
He referred to other traditions as “faulty, dangerous and misleading paths” and “mistakes among mistakes” in his commentary to the life entrustment ritual that he composed for his protector. That he made the other sectarian statements, that other traditions lead to vajra hell, for example, in private does not diminish the fact that these were his beliefs. They were made public by Trijang Rinpoche, who compiled Phabongkhapa’s collected works and published them as the Sung Bum Dechen Nyingpo.
“I challenged Dorje a few posts ago to give some modern day examples of the sectarianism of Dorje Shugden practitioners and he failed to do so. Every time he levels an accusation of sectarianism it’s against Pabongkha and his opposition to certain Nyingma monasteries. Even if that were true, it’s no reason to ban a centuries old spiritual practice, arguing that ‘Dorje Shugden practice is inherently sectarian’ because there are no other examples he can give.”
Other than the forced conversion of Nyingma gompas in Kham, I also mentioned the recent intervention of Lama Gangchen, who forced minks at Gangchen Gompa to worship his protector and had those that refused arrested by the Chinese security services. Besides this, we can see the implied death threats made to Gelugpas that chose to take teachings from other traditions is another aspect of the sectarianism that is integral to this protector worship.
This practice in the form promulgated by Phabongkhapa is not centuries old. It is only one century, if that. Phabongkhapa used it as a vehicle to spread his own form of sectarianism. He is the root of this and his actions are the reason why it is not a valid practice.
As T.G. Dhongthog Rinpoche, who Kelsang Gyatso falsely claimed was a supporter of this protector, said in his Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word,
“In reading my previous refutations some may have thought that my ridicule of Phawong Khapa’s ideology (and others’) was not relevant to the subject since those works were purported to be refutations of Dzeme. So it must be pointed out that it was Phawong Khapa who founded the doctrine that elevates Dolgyal to king of guardians of the Ganden tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, it was also Phawong Khapa who defined Shugden’s specific role as the one who punishes those Gandenpas who develop faith in the Nyingma (ancient) tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Dzeme was merely following this doctrine.
“According to the Buddhist epistemological tradition epitomized by the great logicians, Dignaga and Dharmakirti, in order to establish the Buddha Dharma as perfect, it is necessary to first establish its founder as perfect. In the same way, in order to reveal the imperfection of the doctrine of Dolgyal as a transworldly protector, it is necessary to first establish the imperfection of that doctrine’s founder.”
“And all this simply because I happen to refer to Manjushri by the name Dorje Shugden who you believe is a spirit?
Where’s the cause and effect in that?”
If someone stands in the street and calls out for a really good person, hoping to invite that really virtuous person to them to have a chat and a cup of tea but instead of using that person’s name calls out the name of a murderer, would you be surprised if the murderer thought that person was calling them?
Names are believed to have special significance, especially in the practice of sectret mantra. What you call out for may have little to do with what you expect. You are, after all, calling out for a sentient being. Why wouldn’t it answer? Where’s the cause and effect in that?
Your question suggests a greater problem. You seem to be disregarding the teachings about this protector given by the lamas of its lineage. Phabongkhapa and his followers taught that this protector kills sentient beings. If you reject what they said about this protector, why would you continue to worship this protector and claim its validity based on the lamas whose teaching you reject?
Dear Dorje
You said
Is this the best you can do? Of all the thousands and thousands (some say millions!) of Dorje Shugden practitioners, this is all you’ve got to support your claim that Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian?
Regarding your last point - if it were true (and it’s not) that Dorje Shugden kills everyone who chooses to take teachings from other traditions no one would practice it. Who in their right mind would? Who is going to say “oh, I think I need a very dangerous spiritual practice that might result in my death ‘cos I think I want to mix traditions”
No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying “you must worship Shugden, but if you step out of line, he’ll kill you” but the Dalai Lama has effectively put a gun to people’s heads to make them stop practising this Deity. He’s done worse - he’s made them break their spiritual commitments which will harm them for countless lifetimes, which is a worse crime than murder for those who understand actions and their effects.
This ’sectarianism’ is all nonsense created by the Dalai Lama and blindly repeated by his followers. In ancient India there was a sect called the Charavakas who believed that, basically, what you can’t see doesn’t exist and so they denied karma, past and future lives, enlightened beings and so forth. The founder of this tradition wrote a long text of a hundred thousand lines to justify this ‘philosophy’ but he did this only to justify his own non-virtuous lifestyle. Similarly, the Dalai Lama cries ’sectarian’ with respect to Dorje Shugden and all this writing on the internet is to justify his philosophy but there’s no evidence. It’s just a smokescreen for the Dalai Lama’s political activity based on wrong views. It’s just as Helmut Gassner says:
You’ve come up with two, congratulations! If we accepted that what you said was true, that’s two out of tens of thousands of practitioners but I doubt that what you say is true. If it were true and widely accepted as you say, why didn’t the Dalai Lama’s secretary mention Je Pabongkhapa’s actions?
Let me give you an analogy to show how ridiculous the Dalai Lama’s position is. If there was a community of tens of thousands of people called ‘ithquas’ and two of the Ithquas were rumoured to have stolen some goods, even if it were true, would it be right to say ‘ all ithquas are thieves’? Of course not. Would it be right to ban all Ithquas from entering shops? No, of course not. But we see a very similar situation happening in India at this present time.
There is no way the Dalai Lama can justify his claim that Dorje Shugden is sectarian - it’s hogwash, a smokescreen for the Dalai Lama’s political action of weakening the Gelugpa tradition so that he can control it, his policy of divide and rule, nothing more.
Dear Dorje,
You also said of Je Pabongkhapa:
So what? We’re all entitled to our own beliefs, surely? Perhaps you’ve expressed views or opinions in letters to other people that you wouldn’t want to become widely known? What matters is if your beliefs are wrong or harmful and you express them openly. Pabongkha did not do so. In his Lamrim teaching he criticizes the Bon tradition’s beliefs but as far as I know he didn’t criticise any tradition of Buddhism. As to the validity of his beliefs, I don’t know.
The letters may have been collected by Trijang Rinpoche and published as part of Pabongkha’s collective works but it’s ‘A Case to Study’ by Tenzin Ragyal that was published by the Dalai Lama’s office that spread this information far and wide. Do you really think that if the Dalai Lama hadn’t, basically, instigated a smear campaign against Je Pabongkhapa that the contents of these private letters would be widely known? No, they would not. They would be known by a few Gelugpas who would be interested in reading Pabongkha’s collected works.
The Dalai Lama has instigated this smear campaign because the article was published by his office. He’s effectively acted to stir up negative views towards Pabongkha. If I found some letters from my grandfather that were sent to someone else and those letters contained controversial statements, I wouldn’t be going around telling everyone who would listen ‘look at what my grandfather said, isn’t he bad?’ or even publishing the letters in a newspaper so that as many people as possible would read them and develop a negative view of my grandfather. How shameful that the Dalai Lama is doing just this, trying to smear his lineage Gurus in order to justify his own views and actions - this is not the Buddhist way where respect and reliance on the Spiritual Guide is the foundation of all spiritual realizations.
“No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying “you must worship Shugden, but if you step out of line, he’ll kill you” ”
Lama Gangchen is.
“Of all the thousands and thousands (some say millions!) of Dorje Shugden practitioners, this is all you’ve got to support your claim that Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian?”
Phabongkhapa was the source of the belief that this protector was an enlightened being that punished Gelugpas that developed faith in other traditions. Phabongkhapa isn’t just one of the thousand followers, he is the source of it, and the source of it was a sectarian politician.
Of course, even though the sectarian views come from Phabongkhapa, his followers like Togden Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche and Dzeme Tulku continued to spread these sectarian views and act them out. Accounts of the sectarian activities of Phabongkhapa and his followers predate the current Dalai Lama’s rejection of this protector worship by a long way, so your claim that this view comes from him is a nonsense that serves only to show your ignorance.
Phabongkhapa’s letters were published by Trijang Rinpoche. They were in the public domain. Some texts pertinent to this issue were translated into English to allow people that cannot read Tibetan to understand the situation better. If these things had not been translated the NKT could still be hiding behind Kelsang Gyatso’s false and misleading lies about this protector practice.
When Kelsang Gyatso said there was never a problem between Gelug and Nyingma traditions, he was lying. When he said that no Gelug lama had ever claimed this protector would harm a Gelugpa that took Nyingma teachings, he was lying. When Kelsang Gyatso said that the idea that this protector was harmful started with the Dalai Lama, he was lying. When Kelsang Gyatso said that the view that Phabongkhapa and his protector were sectarian started with the Dalai Lama, he was lying.
We now know that many of Kelsang Gyatso’s remarks about this protector are lies because we can read the accounts and words of those that lived before the Dalai Lama, such as Ngawang Yonten Gyatso or Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, mentioned above, who totally opposed this protector worship on the basis that it is a spirit that spreads sectarianism.
Some additional thoughts related to the previous discussion and some spiritual matters came to my mind.
1. experience
In general experience is no valid proof, its just experience. Experience can be deceptive as well. That’s why there is the approach by the Buddhist masters to not to cling to experiences or to proof their validity by further investigation and analysis.
To elaborate this point:
- some one who took drugs may have different experiences and convictions, but almost all of them are rather of deceptive nature
- a good beguiler will be always kind to fulfil his aims, he will be convincing and speak in a convincing manner, he may be also very generous to his future victims. There will be some who experienced to be betrayed and some not. The latter experience is no proof that the person was no beguiler, nor is the experience of the person who experiences the “kindness” of the beguiler before he actual cheats the victim, a valid proof, that the beguiler is a reliable person. The same example applies to an adult who abuses children or an abusive teacher. Therefore experiences have to be put in context and to be investigated from different perspectives
- westerners tend to cling on experiences. i met western people who had experiences of visions of buddhas, mandalas, padmasambhava etc. what struck me was that they were not really happy, and appeared to be rather confused or weird. When they asked genuine Tibetan lamas about their experiences (which in deed were quite amazing, I translated for them) these lamas said in all cases their problem is that they cling on those experiences and that Tibetans know this phenomenon and that this clinging will lead them to go crazy, therefore the lamas’ advice was in all cases to let go that experience. They also explained when someone starts with a spiritual path and meditation, there are certain “energy movements”, these lead to such experiences and they should not be taken seriously.
- In this context it is good to remind Je Tsongkhapa who had visions of Manjushri and who double checked it with Lama Umapa and the scriptures.
- Also the followers of Shoko Asahara (Aum Cult) and the people form the Jonestown Temple reported about their good experiences with their leaders and the good experiences in the context of their cults, but this didn’t proof their leaders to be holy beings, and the cults to offer valid ways to liberation.
2. scholarly approach
Another point is the rejection of a scholarly approach as being dry or as lacking experience. I think it should be kept in mind, that to be a scholar and a practitioner is not mutually exclusive. There are many scholars who are high realised practitioners, e.g. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, HH the Dalai Lama, the Ganden Tripas and so forth, and of course also Je Tsongkhapa or Atisha. Je Tsongkhapa is referred to be the “Crown Jewel of Scholars of the land of Snow (Tibet).” The Gelugpas believe that if one does not understand a topic properly one can not meditate on it, therefore they put emphasize on a precise understanding, to reject this as dry and superficial is somewhat foolish if one claims to be a follower of Je Tsongkhapa.
3. logic
With respect to mirage’s logic in # 916. If Manjushri and Shugden are one being then there is no problem. If they are not of one entity and Shugden is not enlightened and harmful than there is a problem. Like one’s mother and one’s dog are of two different entities, if one calls the own mother and the dog, probably both will come, and both will perform different functions according to the situation and their predispositions and one’s karma etc. So if you invite Shugden and he is not enlightened and harmful he will perform his function, like if you invite a thieve to show your treasures.
BTW, thank you Dorje for your contributions.
The wrong claims of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with respect to history are not tenable any more. I hope lineageholder will report this to Geshe Kelsang, and he changes the slogans of the WSS campaign: “Please give us Wisdom!”, “We learnt that you are no liar, Thank you!”.
Dear Dorje,
You said:
Geshe Kelsang is not lying. This is what he actually said:
I think you’re distorting the facts. There is no problem between Nyingmas and Gelugpas is there? Geshe Kelsang was saying that as far as he was concerned there was no problem between Nyingmas and Gelugpas. If you want to hold a grudge against Pabongkha (it seems as if you do) that’s up to you but it’s not a general problem, is it? I’d be very concerned if it was because it would mean that someone is not practising Dharma.
It’s the Dalai Lama who is saying that if you touch a Nyingma text, Dorje Shugden will harm you. This is nonsense! If so, I should be dead because I’ve studied the teachings of Longchenpa. The Dalai Lama should be dead because he’s mixing traditions.
Your claim that Dorje Shugden kills people who mix traditions is wrong.
“HH the Dalai Lama says: “That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me.” This is also completely untrue. We would like to ask HH the Dalai Lama: who are these Shugden practitioners saying these meaningless things?”
Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche, Dzeme Tulku, etc. etc.
“Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism.”
Well, there was than the sacking of Dorje Drak gompa, a major Nyingma monastery destroyed by the Gelug hegemony, and the forced conversion of a number of Nyingma gompas in Chamdo and other areas of Kham. Phabongkhapa didn’t only criticise the Nyingma tradition, he said that Nyingma practice would take people to Avichi hell.
“so why is HH the Dalai Lama destroying this harmony by saying things like “Shugdens say you should not even touch a Nyingma document”?”"
Actually, it was Phabongkhapa that said this in the teachings he gave in the life entrustment he composed to his protector.
“Your claim that Dorje Shugden kills people who mix traditions is wrong.”
That was Phabongkhapa’s claim, and Kelsang Gyatso knows it. In saying that these claims come from the Dalai Lama, Kelsang Gyatso is lying.
“many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”
“The wrong claims of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with respect to history are not tenable any more. I hope lineageholder will report this to Geshe Kelsang, and he changes the slogans of the WSS campaign: “Please give us Wisdom!”, “We learnt that you are no liar, Thank you!”.”
I agree, Tenzin. It seems to me that the NKT largely base their position on this protector on the fact that their lineage holders were realised so could not be mistaken about this protector. Kelsang Gyatso however has shown that he doesn’t even know what his closest students and ‘heart-sons’ are up to. Let alone the rather abstruse question of whether this protector is enlightened or not, Kelsang doesn’t even know if his closest students are sexually exploiting their assistants. How can anyone believe what Kelsang has to say, especially as he is known to lie so much.
Dear Dorje,
Okay, so why am I not dead? I even read (gasp!) never mind touched a Nyingma Text. Name me someone in the past fifty years who was killed by Dorje Shugden for mixing traditions. Now you’ll probably go and quote the Yellow Book because that’s all you’ve got.
It’s like all your claims - there’s about two examples to back them up. That’s not statistically significant. It’s people like you are creating this sectarian divide with your wild claims
This is not my claim. It is Phabongkhapa’s claim. If you follow Phabongkhapa in worshipping this spirit, how can you reject the teachings he gave about it?
“It’s people like you are creating this sectarian divide with your wild claims”
It was Phabongkhapa that created this sectarian divide. These were his wild claims. If he is wrong, what does that say about your lineage?
reply to # 925.
“Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism.”
Wrong.
“That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me.” This is also completely untrue.”
Wrong.
The sodge practice includes the samaya not even to touch Nyingma scriptures. According to a witness at Manjushri Institute when Zong Rinpoche gave the empowerment there he gave also this pledge. GKG should know this.
“I would like to ask: what is the problem between the Nyingma and Gelug traditions? There is none.”
Wrong.
Prof. Williams
“Your claim that Dorje Shugden kills people who mix traditions is wrong.”
Wrong.
Mills:
The stories of the killing were passed down orally by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche. Zemed Rinpoche just wrote it down as he heard it and published it then in the Yellow Book. All this has been discussed already.
Also Pabongkha stated this:
LH, you seem to forget quickly (or repress your memory about) what does not suit your or the NKT version of history.
for more evidence see the quotes from academic sources in posts:
# 548
# 560
# 682
# 891
or read the thread again. It starts here:
http://blog.tricycle.com/?p=741
Dear TP and Dorje,
I’m surprised you want to create a sectarian divide where there is none. Why do you want to hold onto various claims about what Pabongkhapa did and didn’t do and what the Yellow Book says when it’s clear that none of these things have any relevance today and are simply being used by people like yourselves, following the view of the Dalai Lama to create a sectarian divide to justify the ban on Dorje Shugden practice.
If you don’t have any real evidence for your claims then there’s no point discussing. Don’t keep quoting ancient history because it’s not relevant. Neither of you have given any reasonable evidence to justify the Dalai Lama’s actions.
I find it very strange that the Dalai Lama says he banned Dorje Shugden practice because it’s sectarian when it seems to have nothing but increase sectarianism, witnessed by your views. Why can’t you just let people get on with their spiritual practices instead of keeping some ridiculous sectarian division going simply to justify the views of your Spiritual Teacher? It’s as if you want there to be problems so you’re creating them where there are none.
This is a reply to Tenzin’s section on logic in post #920:
“With respect to mirage’s logic in # 916. If Manjushri and Shugden are one being then there is no problem. If they are not of one entity and Shugden is not enlightened and harmful than there is a problem. Like one’s mother and one’s dog are of two different entities, if one calls the own mother and the dog, probably both will come, and both will perform different functions according to the situation and their predispositions and one’s karma etc. So if you invite Shugden and he is not enlightened and harmful he will perform his function, like if you invite a thieve to show your treasures.”
Logic indeed! I have yet to see satisfactory explanations for this denial.
Are Buddhas not able to manifest in any form they may choose?? Do you think Manjushri, with his infinite wisdom and compassion is going to get confused because we got his name and appearance wrong??? If i have no knowledge of Buddhism, and yet i call upon higher divine powers to guide me, is no holy being going to answer because i don’t know his name?
Mirage is correct. In NKT we don’t rely on this famous spirit Dholgyal. We pray to Manjushri, who we visualize in the wrathful aspect of a protector whose function is to protect the holy teachings of Je Tsongkhapa. We use the name Dorje Shugden to address him, but Manjushri ain’t no spirit. I honestly don’t see how Manjushri would find fault with this, regardless of wether we got the right name or not. I don’t think he is concerned with names and appearances. I think he wouldn’t have a problem dressing up as someone else in order to answer the prayers of one who wishes to practice and spread JT’s teachings. Isn’t this what Buddhas do anyway? They emanate in various forms that suit the inclinations of sentient beings.
You’re going to have to provide some better explanation as to how a Buddha won’t aid someone who gets his name wrong.
“I’m surprised you want to create a sectarian divide where there is none. Why do you want to hold onto various claims about what Pabongkhapa did and didn’t do and what the Yellow Book says”
I am merely repeating the claims of those that promulgated the view that this protector worship is valid. You are rejecting the teachings of your lineage lamas, yet for some reason still hanging on to the worship of a protector they praise for killing sentient beings.
“If you don’t have any real evidence for your claims then there’s no point discussing. Don’t keep quoting ancient history because it’s not relevant.”
As T.G. Dhongthog Rinpoche said in his Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word, (p4)
“In reading my previous refutations some may have thought that my ridicule of Phawong Khapa’s ideology (and others’) was not relevant to the subject since those works were purported to be refutations of Dzeme. So it must be pointed out that it was Phawong Khapa who founded the doctrine that elevates Dolgyal to king of guardians of the Ganden tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, it was also Phawong Khapa who defined Shugden’s specific role as the one who punishes those Gandenpas who develop faith in the Nyingma (ancient) tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Dzeme was merely following this doctrine.
“According to the Buddhist epistemological tradition epitomized by the great logicians, Dignaga and Dharmakirti, in order to establish the Buddha Dharma as perfect, it is necessary to first establish its founder as perfect. In the same way, in order to reveal the imperfection of the doctrine of Dolgyal as a transworldly protector, it is necessary to first establish the imperfection of that doctrine’s founder.”
The founder of this protector worship and the claims he made for it are very relevant to this discussion. The fact remains that this protector worship was very controversial before the Dalai Lama first spoke out against it in the 1970s. Your continual claim that this opposition originates with the Dalai Lama is a lie.
“You’re going to have to provide some better explanation as to how a Buddha won’t aid someone who gets his name wrong.”
The problem isn’t the Buddha not turning up when you call (even if this is a rather theistic view of a Buddha’s function). The problem comes when the spirit turns up because you call it to you. No matter what you think of a sentient being, and how many good qualities you wish to impute onto it, they will act according to their causes and conditions. Call a harmful spirit, and that’s what you get, no matter what you think you are calling. To deny this is to deny cause and effect and fall into nihilism.
Lineageholder writes “Don’t keep quoting ancient history because it’s not relevant.’ Phobanka is recent history in Tibetan Buddhism, which predates your practice by well over one millennia. If you wish to discard history you ought to also jettison the apocryphal Shugden lineage going supposedly back to an Indian mahasiddha, Sapan, Buton and so forth…its all just retroactively made up nonsense…any rational person would agree.
Dear LH,
I think, this is not true what you claim (#932). I think, there is still much sectarianism among Shugden followers (but not among all!). Based on my own experience within NKT and the reports by former NKT members - including all the emails I receive - I judge NKT to be quite sectarian. I gave also quotes made by NKT leadership to proof my claim, see # 675.
I think the issue isn’t over as you claim in # 932, I think its still relevant. However, maybe it mustn’t be discussed all the time. However, as NKT started via WSS to spread misinformation, the opposition to those claims mady by NKT / WSS has been awaken
Moreover you can’t escape the consequence of our discussion and the evidence given that many of GKG’s claims are plain wrong and misleading.
There are also many radical Shudgen groups in India and Nepal, and there were three Shugden opponents murdered. The murderer are still searched by Interpol and accused of the crimes are radical Tibetan Shugden followers by the Indian police. NKT members may not be as radical as them (maybe in no way) but this doesn’t proof that those groups or some of their representatives are not very violent and fanatical. Due to NKT’s own cross-cultural confusion to be unable to discriminate the own approach from that of quite radical Nepali and Tibetan Shugden followers, they came already ‘under fire’. Most of NKT have no idea about the Tibetan exile community and the temper of some fanatics. Due to this lack of information they can’t understand the quite radical counter measures against the fanatics.
see also:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1968987.ece
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2002/nov/23/20021123-102101-6259r/
CESNUR, a research group usually accused by counter cult movements of being ‘pro-cults’, advised for a better understanding of this issue the study of these texts:
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/NKT.htm
One of the advised researches Kay’s ‘97 research (this work is referenced in 32 other academic researches) states:
David Kay, “The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition”, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 279-80
The origin sectarian ideas are well installed in NKT. I gave already quotes by GKG and Gen Thubten on this. see # 675.
You say:
“I find it very strange that the Dalai Lama says he banned Dorje Shugden practice because it’s sectarian when it seems to have nothing but increase sectarianism, witnessed by your views.”
As you could witness in our discussion and the evidence given, the majority sees Shugden as harmful and repressive measures have also been made in the Sakya School by their eminent masters. The Nyingma see him as a hungry ghost and a demon, and the Kagyuepa’s see him also as being harmful + they fear him. (I received today an Email from a Kyguepa, who asked me not to forward information about Shugden to him, because his lama (a very high one) says, one should neither speak nor write down his name. What exactly accords with what H.E. Thai Situ Rinpoche states.) From all this you can understand that Shugden is regarded by the majority of Buddhist masters and Tibetan Buddhist as being harmful and measures to remove the practice from the Gelug monasteries (as decided by the abbots and majority there themselves) as well as measures to remove it form the government who aims to serve all Tibetans are just appropriate. As Tibet scholar Robert Barnett of Columbia University has put it: “its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries”.
Also there is no general ban, there are local bans or restrictions. The recent ban and swears in the Gelug monasteries were made based on the decision of the abbots, not HHDL. It should be noted that there were events which preceded the recent ban in the monasteries and until the begin of 2008 the practice was still performed by some monks in the monasteries. Without full information fully qualified judgement will be impossible. In general everyone can practice it in private and the monks who still want to practice it, are doing it at their places without further interferences with those who do not wish to be involved.
you say:
“Why can’t you just let people get on with their spiritual practices instead of keeping some ridiculous sectarian division going simply to justify the views of your Spiritual Teacher? It’s as if you want there to be problems so you’re creating them where there are none.”
my reply:
Why can’t you just let the monasteries and Tibetans in exile and their elected exile government get on with their spiritual practices + their freedom of decisions + their right to protect themselves from harmful practices instead of keeping some ridiculous sectarian division going simply to justify the views of your Spiritual Teacher, GKG? It’s as if NKT has enough own problems and internal scandals and to escape them your you’re creating new problems to distract the members from them. Leave that issue to Tibetans. NKT claims to be “completely independent” and to not “mix dharma with politics” so why they engage in something they have separated from and which is according to GKG just politics?
Dorje,
If you call beer wine does it become wine?
Hi LH
Re #912, I fear we may be speaking (or at least writing) at cross purposes. You say
I absolutely and entirely accept that (a) the practices of other schools are of no interest to you and consequently (b) you know little about them. However, even though this is the case, I nevertheless think you are committed to sharing Pabongka’s view.
In #830, it seems to me that you implicitly make the following argument
P1: Enlightened beings are unmistaken about spiritual matters
P2: Pabonkga was an enlightened being
P3: Pabongka held DS to be an enlightened being
C: DS is an enlightened being
The practices of other traditions are as much a spiritual matter as the nature of DS. Therefore it seems ot me that if you are committed to the above argument you are committed to the following
P1: Enlightened beings are unmistaken about spiritual matters
P2: Pabonkga was an enlightened being
P3: Pabongka held that the practices of non-Gelug schools are the cause for rebirth in Avichi Hell
C: The practices of non-Gelug schools are the cause for rebirth in Avichi Hell
Now both of the above arguments are sound (i.e. the conclusion is entailed by the premises). And in both P3 is uncontroversial. Furthermore P2 is true as far as you are concerned. Therefore, if you hold P1 to be true you are committed to the conclusions.
So I’d be grateful if you could you let me know whether you regard the above arguments as valid (i.e. the premises are true and the conclusion is entailed by the premises.)
Let me reiterate that I absolutely and entirely accept that (a) the practices of other schools are of no interest to you and consequently (b) you know little about them. So I am simply asking whether you regard the above arguments as valid.
“The problem comes when the spirit turns up because you call it to you. No matter what you think of a sentient being, and how many good qualities you wish to impute onto it, they will act according to their causes and conditions. Call a harmful spirit, and that’s what you get, no matter what you think you are calling.”
We are not imputing good qualities onto a spirit, we are naming and visualizing Manjusri as DS. There is a distinct difference.
Perhaps there is a spirit called Shugden. If there is, i have no doubt Manjushri DS will scare him away if he also joins the party. Manjushri is omniscient, and i doubt this spirit is stupid, so i’m sure they both know they’re place very well.
Also does the fact that there is a spirit called Shugden mean there can’t be a Buddha called Shugden? I’m sure you’ve met more than one Fred in your life right? Do all Freds get confused because so many others have the same name as them? When you call one Fred do all of the other Freds in the world run along too?
Thank you Harry for your opposition! # 933
You say:
Related to my example #923 (3): Does the mother manifest in the dog? Are the mother and the dog of one entity or different entities? This is the crucial point, I think. There is nothing wrong in my logic.
Although a Buddha (Manjushri) can manifest as a dog or another being, as long as the other being is no manifestation of the Buddha, there are two different beings / entities and they will perform their respective different functions, like one’s mother and one’s dog.
The crucial point is, that Mirage started his logic by a contended claim that Manjushri and Shugden would be the same being and therefore if he calls him by one of his names there is no damage. This is only true if they are the same being, and exactly this is what is not believed and what is contended by the majority of masters.
So if they are of different entities, like the mother and the dog, the consequence is as I pointed it out. (Another issue to consider is, even if they are of same entity, not every emanation of a Buddha or Bodhisattva shows the actions of an enlightened being.)
So if Shugden is of different entity and harmful and you call Manjushri and Shugden together then this is very risky, like inviting a powerful king and a hungry lion. It depends also on your karma what will happen, if Manjushri can protect you or a harmful Shugden will actual harm you. As we can see only prayers and taking refuge may be not sufficient to receive no harm. Usually there is no Buddhist who does not experience harm, not even the so called ‘pure Kadampas’ (NKT). Don’t they have proper refuge or is Manjushri to weak to help them?
You say:
NKT relies on Dorje Shugden, who is known also under the name Dholgyal. What are you telling me? You pray to Dorje Shugden, who is known also under the name Dholgyal. You see him as inseparable from Manjushri. But what if they are different, as the majority of masters belief? There will be certain consequences, and the logic of mirage and you collapse. This is what I pointed out.
(BTW, I think at the moment DS is not so much spreading Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings (within the NKT system) but 22 books of GKG and his NKT organisation and centers. The question is here again, are NKT and Je Tsonghapa’s school of one entity or different entities? Of course for NKT everything in their system is the same and the essence. For me not.)
You say:
“You’re going to have to provide some better explanation as to how a Buddha won’t aid someone who gets his name wrong.”
Your post does in no way disapprove what I said:
Harry
It seems to me that Tenzin is right. You can’t simply assume what is being contested i.e. whether Manjushri and DS are the same being. Now Trijang goes to great lengths in MDOP to show that the two are the same being by means of the so-called reincarnation lineage. However, as has been discussed at great length on this thread and elsewhere, this lineage is highly contested. Sakyas absolutely reject it as they hold that Sapan was not the incarnation of Virupa and Buton was not the incarnation of Sapan. LH wants to argue that even if this is so, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was definitely the incarnation of the enlightened Panchen Sonam Dragpa and so DS must be enlightened. But as has been discussed, this matter too is hotly contested.
Sakyas hold that because Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen died in an unfortunate manner he arose as the spirit DS. If this is so, then DS is not a suitable basis of imputation for “Buddha”, in the same way that a toy snake is not a suitable basis of imputation for a real snake. I think it’s important not to throw common sense out of the window and realize that it is possible simply to be mistaken about the nature of an object. Even if you believe with all your heart and soul that a toy snake is a real snake…it just isn’t. You’ve made a mistake, imputed on a faulty basis. In the same way, if DS is a spirit that arose from the unfortunate death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, then, as I say, DS is simply not a suitable basis for the imputation of “Buddha”.
Of course you may claim that Pabongka was an enlightened being who could not be mistaken about the nature of DS. In that case he was also unmistaken about the fact that the practices of non-Gelug schools leading to rebirth in Avichi Hell, and so you too would be committed to that view!
“If you call beer wine does it become wine?”
If you stand in a bar and call for beer, why be surprised when you don’t get wine?
Tenzin and SC,
Thanks for your points, i will think about them and get back to you.
“If you stand in a bar and call for beer, why be surprised when you don’t get wine?”
We’re talking to Manjushri, not boneheaded barmen.
Harry
You say
If you call a spirit Buddha does it become Buddha?
If you call a toy snake, real snake does it become a real snake?
SC,
If you went up to Buddha and called him Fred, do you think he would get confused about who you were talking to and therefore he wouldn’t answer your questions?
This is my point. I don’t care so much if history says DS is a Buddha or a spirit. I have my lineage and i don’t want to swap traditions over some petty historical disputes. I don’t want to break my samaya to a tradition and guru who other than this seem to me to work fine.
Like i said, perhaps historically there is a spirit named Shugden.
But in NKT this spirit is not who we rely on. It’s important to look at the present day as well as the past. I don’t see any of the evils DS is accused of happening to people within NKT. Therefore i believe that it is Manjushri who answers our prayers and not this spirit, Dholgyal.
Harry
The justification for DS being Manjushri is entirely historical i.e. the reincarnation lineage. Why do you think Trijang and GKG spend so much time setting out this lineage?
The Dorje Shugden you pray to is the incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. In Heart Jewel, GKG is clear about this. So the question is: what is the nature of the incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. If this incarnation is an enlightened being then you are correct to regard it as such. If it is a spirit, then you are mistaken.
SC,
Yeah sure, i agree. But i think that history is something very relative. I’m not saying it doesn’t need to be checked.
But one has to take all aspects into account. Being an NKTer i have to check if the claims HHDL makes about Shugden (and also about NKT) are verifiable in the present day.
I don’t see the sectarianism which we are accused of. I also don’t see the other negative effects which we are warned against. LH points out that he has studied Nyigma texts and he hasn’t been struck down by lightning. Etc…
So one begins to wonder if someone, or some people, are fomenting disharmony…
“Also does the fact that there is a spirit called Shugden mean there can’t be a Buddha called Shugden? I’m sure you’ve met more than one Fred in your life right? Do all Freds get confused because so many others have the same name as them? When you call one Fred do all of the other Freds in the world run along too?”
I don’t recall actually meeting anyone called Fred, but…
Your position that there are two protectors that share the same name is disingenuous. Since Phabongkhapa validated his protector by referring to its past Sakya incarnations and by misquoting Morchen Kunga Lhundrup saying it was the time to worship this protector, it is clear that the protector that Phabonkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and others worshipped was the same as the protector Sakyapas relied on as a worldly spirit.
It is also clear that, as the NKT worship this protector because it was worshipped by Kelsang Gyatso’s lama Trijang Rinpoche and his lama Phabongkhapa, the NKT are still worshipping the same protector that these two lamas praised for killing sentient beings. If it is the case that the NKT are not worshipping the same protector as the Sakyapas or the same protector that punishes Gelugpas for developing faith in other traditions, as Phabongkhapa taught, how can the NKT claim to be following the tradition of their lineage?
If the protector that the NKT worships is totally different from the worldly spirit the Sakyapas bound under oath and Phabongkhapa later praised for killing wayward Gelugpas, what lineage does this NKT protector have? Was it just invented by Kelsang Gyatso? Or is it the case that Kelsang watered down this controversial protector worship, stripping it of its violent past, making it more palatable to his new western followers so that he could then make the false claim that the sectarianism and violence integral to this protector worship were all imagined by the Dalai Lama?
The statements the NKT make about this protector worship, that it is not controversial and that it is a prayer like the Lord’s Prayer simply fly in the face of the evidence and statements made about it by Phabongkhapa, the very lama that popularised its worship in the Ganden tradition.
“I don’t care so much if history says DS is a Buddha or a spirit. I have my lineage and i don’t want to swap traditions over some petty historical disputes. I don’t want to break my samaya to a tradition and guru who other than this seem to me to work fine.
Like i said, perhaps historically there is a spirit named Shugden.
But in NKT this spirit is not who we rely on.”
If the NKT are not worshipping the same protector that the Sakyapas considered a gyalpo spirit and that Phabongkhapa praised for harming and killing sentient beings, you have rejected your lineage and broken your samaya to Trijang Rinpoche’s tradition.
Thanks, you do all make good points.
Since i don’t yet feel the urge to become versed in this issue from a historical point of view, is there any practice i can engage in, so as to understand the nature of DS, without leaving NKT? I mean perhaps i could make extensive offerings to Manjushri or JT and make strong prayers in order to receive signs that may indicate the nature of this protector. Of course, not so that i can then come online to prove anything, lol. Just for myself, so that i can be assured that either DS is a Buddha as i believed, or if not that he is indeed a spirit.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Dear SC,
You said to harry:
The DL claims that Pabongkhapa Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche did not understand the nature of the Deity they were worshipping and went for refuge to a spirit. If it’s true, this completely invalidates their status as Buddhists and destroys the Gelugpa tradition despite what others have said earlier, because they don’t understand the consequences. To think that they were great Masters but they simply made a mistake with respect to Shugden doesn’t hold because their mistake means they were not Buddhists.
As you say above, Sakyas hold that Dragpa Gyaltsen died in a an unfortunate manner and became a spirit. So why should we accept their view of Dragpa Gyaltsen and Dorje Shugden as valid but say that Trijang Rinpoche’s view was wrong? This is an issue that is never going to be resolved because the true nature of Dorje Shugden cannot be known by ordinary people. To say that Trijang didn’t know it is to say that he was ordinary. To say that the Sakyas did know it is to say that they had realizations. To say that the DL knows the nature of Dorje Shugden is to say he is realized when his teachers are not, another strange consequence.
This will always be a matter of faith. When you’ve taken the reasoning as far as you can, at the end of the day it’s a question of whether one believes the incarnation lineage of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, whether one believes that he was an incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa, whether one believes that Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche received the instructions on Dorje Shugden practice from Je Tsongkhapa in Tushita Pure Land and therefore whether one believes that Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche were unmistaken in their practice. The consequences of the opposite view are very unfortunate in that if they are true, the Gelugpa tradition is finished. This isn’t the reason to reject them, it’s just that, at the end of the day, it will be about who you believe. It comes down to who you have faith in.
Do you believe the DL or do you believe Trijang Rinpoche?
I know where my faith is.
Hi Harry
Thanks for #945. You say
Not sure what you mean by “relative”? The history is certainly highly contested though!
I was struck by a post by a michaelb on esangha (see http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34974&st=540, post #541) who wrote
To me what’s important is the strength of the arguments that DS is a spirit/Buddha, not who makes them. For example, one could imagine a situation where one held that the DL made bad arguments as to why DS is a Buddha but that others made good arguments.
You say
Sectarianism is such a slippery term, you’d have to specify what you mean. Dorje holds that Pabongka was sectarian in view because he held that the practices of non-Gelug school led to rebirth in Avichi Hell. And given that Pabongka is a lineage guru on might argue that this view permeates the entire lineage.
Nobody claims that DS strikes down every single person who mixes teachings or studies a non-Gelug text. But LH holds that Trijang’s account in MDOP is true and thus even he holds that DS has killed some (though perhaps only relatively few) people who mixed teachings.
Trijang says in MDOP (pp121-2)
Thus we can see that Trijang’s specific claim is that out of ALL who have mixed teachings, MANY have met some sort of unpleasant wrathful punishment and of the many that have been punished some have been punished by suffering untimely death.
CORRECTION
#950 should, of course, read
Dear harry,
From a purely historical perspective, it’s a question of who you believe and how valid you believe the Gelugpa lineage was before the DL tried to destroy it.
The unmistaken way to know who Dorje Shugden is is simply to do the practice and to observe the effects for yourself. Despite what people say here about discounting experience, there are valid and non-valid cognizers. If you believe TP, experience is deceptive but both Geshe Chekhawa and Dharmakirti prove him wrong. Experience can be deceptive but Understanding the Mind and Universal Compassion clearly explain what is valid and what is non-valid experience and how to tell the difference between them. For me, the ultimate test of whether something works is whether your virtuous minds and inner peace are becoming stronger and whether your delusions are becoming weaker. Relying on Dorje Shugden has definitely done this for me, even though I have only a slight experience.
Most of the stuff on here is intellectualizing. Do the practice and see for yourself.
“To say that the DL knows the nature of Dorje Shugden is to say he is realized when his teachers are not, another strange consequence.”
This is not a strange consequence. The Dalai Lama had a number of other teachers.
“The consequences of the opposite view are very unfortunate in that if they are true, the Gelugpa tradition is finished.”
Nonsense. There are a number of Gelug lamas that never touched this practice. The lineage coming through the 13th Dalai Lama, for example.
Wasn’t Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche’s biggest fault that they thought an enlightened emanation would support their own sectarianism? They held that other traditions lead to hell and enrolled their ‘enlightened’ protector to support this attack on other Mahayana traditions. Enlightened protectors would NEVER act in this way.
Hi LH
A short (and incomplete) response to #949.
One again, you explain that you hold Pabongka to be realized and umistaken master. Thus, I’d be grateful if you would give your views on the validity of the arguments I set out in #935.
Dear Dorje,
The Gelugpa tradition is finished if the DL is right because the lineage of all Gelugpa teachings came from Pabongkhapa or Trijang directly or indirectly. I think you underestimate (or maybe don’t understand) how powerful and influential these two Teachers were.
You say:
You’re wrong. The function of Dorke Shugden is to protect the Ganden tradition not to attack other traditions. This sectarianism is a figment of your own imagination.
Dear SC,
Your logic is correct in that if Pabongkhapa is realized then he’s unmistaken but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the practices of other traditions lead to Avichi Hell. Enlightened beings possess skilful means and so they may give one piece of advice to one person and they may give a completely different piece of advice to another person because they understand what is karmically needed for each individual.
The letters that Je Pabongkhapa wrote to the Chinese General were personal advice for him. Perhaps he needed to hear these things to increase his faith in the Gelugpa tradition and in Je Tsongkhapa but now this private correspondence is being used by Dharamasala to destroy the reputation of a great Master, a very sad state of affairs indeed.
“I think you underestimate (or maybe don’t understand) how powerful and influential these two Teachers were.”
I think you underestimate (or maybe don’t understand) how large Tibet is. The idea that all Gelugpas took their teachings from these two lamas is a practical impossibility. There were many lamas that passed on Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition.
“The function of Dorke Shugden is to protect the Ganden tradition not to attack other traditions. This sectarianism is a figment of your own imagination.”
Phabongkhapa made it clear that the function of this protector was to kill and punish Gelugpas that develop faith in other traditions. It does this because other traditions are viewed as dangerous and misleading, sending those that practice them to hell. These views are not my imagination. They are found in Phabongkhapa’s own words in his written teacings, not just the ‘private’ letters that Trijang Rinpoche published.
Just to add, accounts of the sectarian excesses of Phabongkhapa and his followers were circulating well before the Dalai Lama spoke against this protector worship. A number of scholars and lamas (Stephan Beyer, Geoffrey Samuel, David Jackson, T.G Dongthog Rinpoche, Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodron etc.) have been quoted already mentioning Phabongkhapa’s sectarian actions. This cannot possibly be dismissed as simply my own imagination. To do so would be dishonest and misleading.
Hi SC,
When i say history is relative i mean that our understanding of it often depends more on who wrote it than on what actually happened.
“To me what’s important is the strength of the arguments that DS is a spirit/Buddha, not who makes them.”
Thanks, i agree. This seems elemental, yet unfortunately it would seem most of us are too attached to our respective traditions/masters to follow this approach. Because of attachment, people naturally hold their preferred party to be completely right, and the other one to be wrong.
“Sectarianism is such a slippery term, you’d have to specify what you mean. Dorje holds that Pabongka was sectarian in view because he held that the practices of non-Gelug school led to rebirth in Avichi Hell. And given that Pabongka is a lineage guru on might argue that this view permeates the entire lineage.”
I don’t think GKG holds these sectarian extremes that Pabongkhapa did. It’s a sad assumption that nothing within a lineage can be bettered or corrected. I think there is a lot of confusion on this forum about lineage because people are grasping very strongly at what it is or what it isn’t. Personally i find the view that a realized lineage guru cannot make mistakes completely ridiculous. We live in a messy world and the day that you start seeing completely pure teachers shining with light, ya won’t be in samsara anymore. Faults appear in everything, so i don’t see how even high meditation masters aren’t going to appear to make mistakes.
When i say NKT doesn’t seem sectarian i mean that we don’t diss other lineages and traditions as being incorrect. For example with regards to the reincarnation lineage of DS, you won’t hear anyone saying that Sakyas are incorrect about their version of the story. Also although NKT have recently criticized FPMT, you won’t hear us criticizing the actual lineage and teachings of FPMT as being incorrect. What has been criticized has been the behavior of several members. I think there is an important distinction here. Personally i have always been encouraged to respect other traditions, and i have always been discouraged from criticizing them.
“Thus we can see that Trijang’s specific claim is that out of ALL who have mixed teachings, MANY have met some sort of unpleasant wrathful punishment and of the many that have been punished some have been punished by suffering untimely death.”
And my point is that i don’t see ANY people in NKT suffering such consequences. You don’t hear any such occurrences from elsewhere either. If DS did engage in these actions once, it would seem like he has changed his modus operandi.
Hi LH,
Thanks for your comments, on the whole i agree with you. I have also found my spiritual inclinations improved after practicing DS for 6 years. And i have not become more wealthy or anything either. Samsara is a bit better than 6 years ago, but i believe this is because i have a bit less attachment and aversion in my mind, so i am able to enjoy the good and endure the bad with less ups and downs in my mind.
I agree that personal experience of a practice has a degree of validity. However i sometimes wonder if this is enough. I think SC has a correct attitude in listening to the points of view that seem sensible and logical without too much emphasis about who says them.
People condemn each other for holding blind faith. But actually i think this mind is extremely easy to fall into. Especially if like me your ignorance is quite strong, because rational constructive thought is a skill that takes many years to master. Therefore for someone like me, it’s is often easier to simply trust and forget about thinking. Don’t get me wrong, i do trust GKG. He is my root Guru. But i think it is important to look out of the box too.
Hi Dorje
In #961 you write
I’d be very interested to know where in his written teachings Pabongka sets out his view that the practices of other traditions lead to hell. And does he do so in teachings which have been translated into English.
Thanx.
He refers to other traditions as “mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths” in his teachings on the life entrustment. The reference to avichi hell comes from the letter you quoted above.
Fine discussion here.
One point in #956 by LH
you say:
“The unmistaken way to know who Dorje Shugden is is simply to do the practice and to observe the effects for yourself. Despite what people say here about discounting experience, there are valid and non-valid cognizers.”
What is this for an argument?
Suppose the practice is harmful and makes you a bit dull or even mad (that it makes people mad is e.g. a position by a well known Dzogchen master), then by practising it without having it checked beforehand it is like drinking poison “to observe the effects for yourself”. And if you became dull or mad due to the side-effects of the practice, you may not be able to judge the validity of the practice any more. Then there is also no valid cognizer.
Said this, my point is, that I see your argument as invalid. Another example, unrelated to DS: If it is disputed if mercury fillings for damaged teeth affect the health in a bad way or not, to advice “The unmistaken way to know the effects of mercury fillings is simply to use them and to observe the effects for yourself.”
Very funny.
you say:
“If you believe TP, experience is deceptive but both Geshe Chekhawa and Dharmakirti prove him wrong. Experience can be deceptive but Understanding the Mind and Universal Compassion clearly explain what is valid and what is non-valid experience and how to tell the difference between them. For me, the ultimate test of whether something works is whether your virtuous minds and inner peace are becoming stronger and whether your delusions are becoming weaker. Relying on Dorje Shugden has definitely done this for me, even though I have only a slight experience.”
I said, experience can be deceptive, and that there is a danger to cling to experience. There is nothing wrong in this and this isn’t disapproved by Geshe Chekhawa and Dharmakirti as you wrongly claim. Stating this in post # 923, I made clear, that mere experience is not sufficient for a check of a certain phenomenon’s validity. You can also perceive two moons or certain lights if you press on your eyes, but does this prove that there are two moons or the lights because you experience them?
However, experience can be an indicator or valid, but it mustn’t be. That’s why to analyse them and to put them into context is advised - or just to let them go, without any clinging.
I agree with you here:
“For me, the ultimate test of whether something works is whether your virtuous minds and inner peace are becoming stronger and whether your delusions are becoming weaker.”
But is this the result of applying Dharma or antidotes to delusions or of your prayers to DS? What is cause and what is effect?
The Dharma is very powerful so it will help in any way for those who apply it. That the dharma works has nothing to do (or mustn’t have anything to do) with DS, but with the Buddha and the power of his teachings. There are many Buddhists who experience that their “virtuous minds and inner peace are becoming stronger and” their “delusions are becoming weaker.” without “relying on Dorje Shugden”. So this is no proof for the efficiency of DS but the teachings of the Buddha, the Dharma.
In that context I wish to add, that I also experienced a great deal of improvement of mind states initially within NKT, however, later when I analysed this process I understood that the improvements were mainly, that my horizon from being very selfish broadened to the horizon of the organisation’s welfare. By this extension of perspective and care, I had improvement. However, my perspective was still very limited because it was a prisoner of the small horizon of the NKT world, where nothing else has space than NKT, GKG and his books and views, and to spread this NKT world “to help all sentient beings”. It is similar to the process of an unmarried man who has no child, when he marries and has a child, in most cases he has a broader perspective, and more care, joy and compassion, and thereby a certain improvement, however his mind is still limited to the horizon of the welfare of his family and usually not able to go beyond this limitations. That’s one of the reasons why I said that experiences have to be put into context / perspective (or should be analysed), otherwise there is a risk that they deceive one about the facts.
you say:
“Most of the stuff on here is intellectualizing.”
It was the Buddha and it was also Je Tsongkhapa and all the other holy masters who put strong emphasize on investigation and analysis. Also GKG’s Universal Compassion, quoting Geshe Chekhawa’s root text, says “be released by two: investigation and analysis”. There is a reason for this: Wisdoms means to develop discriminating intelligence. The whole lamrim meditations are based on this process. If one lacks discriminating intelligence, one is not able to follow ethic, to judge what is right and what is wrong, to overcome doubt and to develop special insight etc. A lack of discriminating intelligence, or a lack of investigation and analysis, supports dullness, naivity and foolishness. The funny thing is that foolishness can even provide a deeper feeling of peace or easiness (remind what I said about the deceptiveness of experiences), because one has fewer worries, just lives in the presence (like a dog), does not care for the food of tomorrow, however, with a lack of discriminating intelligence one will be easily the victim of others who are interested to use or abuse oneself for selfish purposes.
My example is a dumb fish in the deep ocean swimming here and there without ability to discriminate what is going on: oil in the water, his colleagues are caught and eaten by others - but he does not care and is unable to look beyond his small horizon of life, too lazy or unable to think and understand the whole situation, and to put his own situation into perspective.
Dear TP,
You say
Oh, right, I must be barking mad by now, eh, if this Protector makes you mad?! No…sorry to disappoint you. ); I’ve got no interest in what a well known Dzogchen master who has no experience of this practice has to say about something I understand very well. I might as well ramble on about Dzogchen which I’ve got no experience of either, but that would be pointless….what this Master says is simply more superstition, bogey man stuff. I mean - ‘he who should not be named’….it’s laughable!
I would never suggest that anyone do something if I thought it was going to be cause them suffering. Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, no doubt, so my suggestion to harry was to experience that for himself through the practice.
You said,
We’re talking about two completely different things here. You’re giving examples of wrong awarenesses whereas I’m talking about experiences through valid cognition, or what Tsongkhapa called ‘authoritative cognition’, something that is known non-deceptively. The Lorig teachings explain what such cognition is. It arises from faith, concentration and wisdom, not ignorance, so it’s non-deceptive. Later on you talk about investigation and analysis - valid cognition is the result of this process, where you know something without error.
I think you’re showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature and function of a Dharma Protector here. A Dharma Protector is an emanation of a Buddha or Bodhisattva whose function is to protect the Dharma both externally and internally and to cause it to flourish in both cases. The blessings of the Dharma Protector cause Dharma to grow and flourish externally (witness the phenomenal growth of the NKT), those blessings also protect the Dharma and prevent its degeneration, and they also function to protect Dharma experience in the minds of practitioners who rely on that Protector and causes that experience to flourish too. It is because the Dharma Protector averts obstacles and creates good conditions eternally and, more importantly, internally that the Protector has to be an emanation of a Buddha or Bodhisattva - mundane worldly protectors cannot perform such a function.
Therefore, that you say that the power of Dharma has nothing to do with the Dharma Protector reveals a fundamental underestimation of the importance of relying upon a such a Protector and a lack of understanding of the relationship between Dharma experience and the Dharma Protector.
It’s because of the fundamental importance of reliance on a Dharma protector such as Dorje Shugden that giving up this practice is complete anathema. By giving up reliance on a being who is the source of the Dharma, how can Dharma flourish? How can one’s practice be successful? It’s like taking Buddha out of the Buddhadharma and expecting it to still perform the same function! Dharma doesn’t exist from its own side - it depends upon conditions to be powerful. It’s the nature of wisdom, but powerful blessings are needed by a practitioner in order for it to take root and grow within the mind. Those blessings come from Buddha generally, but from a Dharma Protector in particular (who is a Buddha)
Why did great Masters say “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”? Dorje Shugden has great power right now, in this degenerate age, to cause the Dharma to remain and flourish. Relying on Dorje Shugden creates the best karmic conditions to realize the Dharma as taught by Je Tsongkhapa. Sincerely relying on this Protector creates the cause to gain powerful wisdom and compassion quickly. This is why the great Masters have promoted the practice. NOW is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden and they know this.
You say:
I wasn’t being anti-intellectual and I’m not decrying investigation and analysis, but we Westerners have a particular talent for ‘paralysis by analysis’. It’s very easy for us to learn things and not put them into practice and to investigate merely out of intellectual curiosity. Dharma teachings are not just information but a method to attain permanent freedom from all suffering. If learning is not combined with meditation, learning itself becomes an obstacle because the ‘learned one’ can develop pride and become attached to being regarded as learned. This is, as Geshe Chekhawa says, turning a god into a demon. In such circumstances, Holy Dharma is used for improving worldly life and may even become mixed with politics which has happened in Tibetan Buddhism. This is the result of not putting the Dharma into practice and leaving it on the level of mere intellectual knowledge.
It’s possible for someone to spend 20 years studying to be a Geshe, for example, but it’s possible that all they’re doing is learning and passing exams, hoping for a higher title and higher position. Because there is no program of meditation it all becomes very ordinary, just like being at a Western university. This is what I meant about the dangers of intellectualizing. Dharma is about the heart, not the head.
Dear LH,
the point I was making is that your argument
“The unmistaken way to know who Dorje Shugden is is simply to do the practice and to observe the effects for yourself. Despite what people say here about discounting experience, there are valid and non-valid cognizers.”
is deceptive and not valid.
Before you try something - maybe a surgery without anaesthesia or a specific drug or medicine - it is better to check beforehand if this is worth the try or if there is a risk. For worldly matters there are government institutions who rule this, and it is clear that a seller or the pharmacy will praise their product and its benefit and wishes to deny probably adverse effects, yet still they are forced to announce the adverse effects so that people are well-informed beforehand, and can make a free decision or know the risk, and are prepared when the adverse effects appear, and can apply counter measures. If there is a controversial medicine about which exist a lot of records that people were damaged, or when its healing potential is controversial among the doctors with the highest capacity, no compassionate and wise doctor would advise to his patient:
“The unmistaken way to know the effect of this medicine is simply to do use it and to observe the effects for yourself. Despite what people say here about discounting experience, there are valid and non-valid cognizers.”
because there is too much risk for the patient.
–related to this is—
The problem with spiritual products is, that there is no government who rules that spiritual market, so it is up to the individual to check this out and those who have spiritual authority to announce their opinion. it is also clear that opponents and proponents have their arguments and announce either the advantages or the disadvantages of the controversial spiritual medicine. So it is hard for a seeker to get clarity, if he is not well informed or has no reliable spiritual authority he can approach.
you say:
“I would never suggest that anyone do something if I thought it was going to be cause them suffering.”
Maybe this is true with respect to your intention, but there are people, like drug addicts, who are very skilled to fade out the adverse effects of their ‘medicine’, praise the wonders of experience the drugs give to them, and invite others also to take these drugs.
you say:
“Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, no doubt, so my suggestion to harry was to experience that for himself through the practice.”
for you. But maybe he is not, and maybe he is even harmful. Then your advice will damage harry.
Instead of “suggestion to harry was to experience that for himself through the practice.” or to take the controversial medicine or drug, rather I think it should be suggested to get well informed, to be unbiased, to listen to all sides, to check the information and the sources of information about its reliability, to look what the wise doctors say on this and then to judge for himself. If there is a risk, the practice can be also left aside until there is more clarity.
What I contend is your advice.
My contention with respect to experience is that I do not agree with your claim that experience is sufficient. It can be, but it mustn’t be. I think this point is clear now. Another issue is what is a valid perception and what not.
Your points with the dharma protectors appear to be exaggerated. I do not deny their existence and functions, but the main point of progress is the application of the doctrine on the own mind and to follow the law of karma. so if you apply dharma then the peace of mind is due to this application, it can also be due to blessings, it can also be to your mere openness of mind but all this is no valid proof that DS is the cause of positive changes or experiences. You just claim without valid proof that he would be the source. This is a mere belief of you, or success of the propaganda within NKT about the wonders of DS, and probably such a propaganda make the followers completely dependent on shugden because they may think: without shugden I would not have this peace or virtuous mind, and so they start to cling on him and make themselves dependent on him. the point i was making all these experiences are mainly to the power of the Buddha, and his teachings, that’s why also people who do not rely on DS or even reject DS have the same experience. It follows your conclusion, that your “virtuous minds and inner peace are becoming stronger and your delusions are becoming weaker” would be due to “relying on Dorje Shugden”, he “has definitely done this for me, even though I have only a slight experience.” is not tenable. Because there are other Buddhists or religious practitioners from allk faith who do not rely on DS and have the same development or experiences.
You say:
“By giving up reliance on a being [DS] who is the source of the Dharma, how can Dharma flourish? How can one’s practice be successful?”
DS is not the source of the Dharma. Buddha is the source of Dharma.
The Buddha stated you should take refuge in the buddha, dharma and sangha, and follow the law of karma: or “Abandon evil, do good, and tame your mind. This is the essence of my doctrine.” There is no need to overemphasize a certain Dharma protector. A Dharma protector it is just one of the many tools of (Indian-Tibetan) Buddhist practice, it is not its main tool at all - and there are many dharma protectors. To read your pathetic statement brings the warnings of HHDL to my mind, that for most of the followers of Shugden, Shugden becomes so central that they even forget the Buddha as the main refuge.
You say:
“Why did great Masters say “now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden”?”
You mean some masters said this, but we should not forget the majority of great masters of all Tibetan schools oppose them. I see you learnt how to praise his benefits, others learnt to announce its adverse effects. DS’s nature is wisdom or is he ‘very evil and cruel’? Or is HHDL’s nature wisdom or is he ‘very evil and cruel’? Who knows, maybe better to check thoroughly. Relying on Je Tsongkhapa’s uncontroversial protectors Vaishravana, Kalarupa and Mahakala (without exaggerating such a practice) will probably be much more secure, than relying on something he and no indian master has ever taught and which is so much controversial.
you say:
“but we Westerners have a particular talent for ‘paralysis by analysis’.”
maybe this is true, and cults have a tendency to discourage people to use their common sense, to be open to their doubts, to discourage them to investigate things thoroughly and unbiased from all angles, they encourage them to repress or distrust their feelings and doubts, and they wish ‘to protect’ them from being well-informed by using information from all sides - because this would lead to a loss of faith (in the cult). By this they undermine the need of investigation and analysis or the use of common sense, and put emphasize to believe the group propaganda blindly. Maybe this is not true for NKT but I am well aware about tactics to make people devoted blind followers by undermining their intellectual capacity disguised in ’spiritual massages’ like: “We practice from heart. You don’t need to think so much. Don’t be so intellectual.” etc.
you say:
“Dharma teachings are not just information but a method to attain permanent freedom from all suffering. If learning is not combined with meditation, learning itself becomes an obstacle because the ‘learned one’ can develop pride and become attached to being regarded as learned. This is, as Geshe Chekhawa says, turning a god into a demon. In such circumstances, Holy Dharma is used for improving worldly life and may even become mixed with politics which has happened in Tibetan Buddhism. This is the result of not putting the Dharma into practice and leaving it on the level of mere intellectual knowledge.”
Of course the Dharma has to be applied after one had understood it. Does anybody say something contrary to this? (It sounds a bit what you state is what you think others may do, but you may oversee that what you accuse others of doing is actual what you or NKT is doing…)
Doesn’t even GKG say, if someone has a good motivation and helps sentient beings, this is a good action? If this is true, if someone has a good motivation and helps other sentient beings by making good politics to improve their lives or the life of a people or by providing good conditions for an ethical life, is this against the Dharma? Why did the Buddha as a Bodhisattva also govern different times his people as a king and had a kingdom? Wasn’t he also “mixing Dharma with politics”? Why did Buddha’s former lives as a Bodhisattva king lead him finally to enlightenment too? Do not even the Bodhisattva vows clearly state, that a Bodhisattva action is even to give