September 16, 2008

Dorje Shugden: Deity or Demon?

In 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

Dorje Shugden page 1 Dorje Shugden page 2

 

[UPDATE: Thanks to Danny Fisher for pointing out the Wikipedia link on the controversy above.]

Share with a Friend

Email to a Friend

Already a member? Log in to share this content.

You must be a Tricycle Community member to use this feature.

1. Join as a Basic Member

Signing up to Tricycle newsletters will enroll you as a free Tricycle Basic Member.You can opt out of our emails at any time from your account screen.

2. Enter Your Message Details

Enter multiple email addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
dhruv's picture

thanku it was really useful

dhruvthukral's picture

Great Posts sir.... will be hearing to you further
by http://lifeofnichiren.com/

Tenpel's picture

The students of 'Geshe' Kelsang Gyatso have started again – as they say – "impassioned protests against the Dalai Lama" when the Dalai Lama met Barack Obama in February 2014. I have compiled some background information together with a response by Robert Thurman here: http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2014/02/27/kelsangs-monks-and-nuns-...

It should be mentioned too, that the Wikipedia article about Dorje Shugden Tricycle recommends has been heavily manipulated by the students of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso since 2008. A summery of those manipulations can be found at the same blog I linked above.

Dolgyal's picture

Petitioning New Kadampa Tradition...please see:
http://www.change.org/petitions/new-kadampa-tradition-we-request-that-yo...

We request that you immediately cease the provocative protests and yelling at the public teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
. Petition by
J. Khedrup 
Canada

The current campaign is provocative and disruptive, aimed at preventing the transmission of Buddhism and upsetting the Tibetan people, who as refugees have endured enough. It uses yelling insults at extremely high volume during demonstrations  also and uses racist language in its publications such as "saffron robed Muslim" and "backward Tibetans."

These well financed protestors, many of whom appear at the demonstrations in monastic garb, are mostly the same group of people who are being flown around the world and provided with food and accomodation. They have provided no transparent report of their finances and have no email address on their website for those with concerns.
The teachings of Buddhism in general, and Tibetan Buddhism in particular, are beginning to dimish and are in danger of disappearing from this world. These protests are destroying the image of Buddhism internationally and making efforts at its preservation more difficult.
In addition, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the most well-known Buddhist figure in the world today, and his activities to preserve Tibetan culture and promote peace and understanding have benefitted countless people. These loud and disrespectful demonstrations disrupt these beneficial activities of the Dalai Lama which make a real contribution not just to the cause of the preservation of the unique Tibetan culture and religion, but also to greater peace and understanding in the world.
 Not only do these provocative demonstrations disrupt the transmission of Buddhist teachings, they also bring the image of Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, into disrepute. The long-term effect is that the image of all Buddhist organizations, including your own, will suffer.
 The misinformation that is distributed at these campaigns undermines the Tibetan people at a critical time in their history, when their culture, language and religion are in real danger of extinction.

Namkhah's picture

'Lineageholder' the pandita at IP 89.241.242.124 already paid a visit to the above-listed thread, one wonders if he is paid to do this sort muckraking full time. In the course of debating Chinese ultra-nationalists I noticed some very slick pros and even engaged with someone who was very intelligent, hinted he was Oxford educated –perhaps a supervisor of a large cohort of online Chinese 'opinion shapers'. Taking the guise of a Tibetan or pious Buddhist is a common deceit for these masked moles, sometimes their research is quite good if not skewed. Their overlords know the decentralized structure of the internet makes it difficult for the totalitarian CPC to police the web, their strategy is to inundate chat forums with a tsunami of posts, overwhelming the enemy. It is a certainty the Chinese funnel money through the Shugden Society in Delhi: causing trouble is easy and cheap. Who pays the airfare for 'the NKT singing nuns' junkets to America and the continent? Is it from charitable donations or does the money eminate from Beijing. As the goose-stepping troops, tanks and missiles roll by under Mao's portrait today, rest assured, oh cadres of the Communist Party of China, despite your attempts to meddle in recognizing reincarnate lamas, imprison our teachers, dismantling the infrastructure of our civilization, we will prevail.

Lineageholder's picture

Gyalpo,

When are you going to understand that Dharma is not Tibetan?

You seem to have some kind of deluded pride believing that only Tibetans can practise Dharma. I hope you're not typical.

There are lots of Geshes in the NKT in terms of their understanding and experience of Dharma, but not in terms of having a big name and having to be approved by the Dalai Lama. Geshe Potowa didn't need a big name and approval by the Dalai Lama either, and neither did any of the other Kadampa Geshes whose example NKT practitioners try to emulate.

emptymountains's picture

Dear LH,

The NKT ordination vows are the condensation of the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk in the Mulasarvastivastin tradition followed by the Tibetan traditions.

I always say, tell me one of the 253 vows, and I will tell you which one of the 10 vows it fits under.

Also, in Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, Je Phabongkhapa said, “Nothing is said to be better than Lamrim for taming the mind” (p. 72).

em

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

Well, I'll let you and TP duke this out, because as far as saying Rime is a tradition goes, I'm damned by him if I do, and damned by you if I don't.

em

Tenzin's picture

I also think Dorje is missing the point when it comes to the persecution of religious practitioners who have never done anything violent or sectarian, but devoted their lives to serving others and trying to attain enlightenment for their sake.

As Friend of Truth put it earlier:

"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."

Dorje's picture

Looking at what sectarianism is, ie. attachment to one's tradition at the expense of other traditions and their followers, we can see the real oposites are the traditional attachment/aversion. Em's idea that if you are not attached to your own tradition you have aversion for it sounds all too much like George W's 'you are either with us or against us.' This is nonsense.

The Dalai Lama's real position is that, in a celebration of the Buddhadharma, it is possible and desirable for one person to take practices from all traditions without contradiction. He says,
it should be possible for all different schools of tenets in general and in particular the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug) Sakya, Kagyu, and Nyingma - to be incorporated into the spiritual practice of a single individual. This would really be a remarkable thing, a tribute to the glory and beauty of the dharma.
This is because the Buddha's teaching is not contradictory and the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism do in fact compliment each other. As Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen says:
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.

Lineageholder's picture

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

Tenzin Peljor's picture

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:

The author describes directly from his own experience all the stages of the path to enlightenment. Never before in the history of Buddhist literature has such a clear, profound, and comprehensive guide been published. From the depths of our hearts, we thank Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for his inconceivable kindness in composing this book.

(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

Gen Hur's picture

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

Brian's picture

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.

Gyalpo's picture

Here is an excerpt from Digital Tibetan Buddhist Altar:
"A hostile foreign intelligence service has within its arsenal a well-known battery of tactics and techniques. Chinese intelligence, in particular, is more than capable of fielding operations of subtle sophistication. They are some of the most darkly talented clandestine operators in the world, and of that I have absolutely no doubt.
When I examine the Dorje Shugden controversy in detail, I see that it has all the hallmarks of a put-up job. I am left with the conclusion that the Dorje Shugden affair is a Chinese clandestine service-run black operation designed to destroy His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Buddhism as practiced in Tibet.

Actually, it is a classic of its type. They teach it in certain schools.

For Westerners, who may feel, rightly or wrongly, that they "don't have a dog in the fight," the matter should be very simple:
(1) On the one hand, we have some sectarian zealots who want to worship a hungry ghost.
(2) On the other hand, we have His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and the heads of every school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Who do you want to back? Who gets your vote? It really is that easy: either you side with the covertly managed ghost-worshippers, or you side with the Dalai Lama.

It makes me sick to my stomach when I see Westerners, dressed up like monks and nuns, protesting against the Dalai Lama in the name of some idiocy that doesn't belong to them. There's a real arrogance attached to this, wherein these people believe they "know better" simply because they invested themselves in something."

Read the whole article:
http://tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/2009/09/dorje-shugden.html

Gyalpo's picture

Here is a typical example of a shugden supporter:

http://www.youtube.com/user/douboymk2

"Sign the petition:
http://www.westernshugdenso...
others:
http://www.michaelparenti.o...
http://daliar.wordpress.com

Tranlsations of dalai:
Da(大) in chinese means big.
What does LAI(phonetic pronounciation) mean in english?
Mr BIG LIE"

Note the similarity in rhetoric as the WSS cyberpunks

Dorje's picture

This artificial demarcation of the first 5 vows beings vows and the latter 5 vows being mere ‘aspirations’ comes solely from Tenzin Peljor, not from GKG, who teaches *10* vows (not 5 vows + 5 aspirations).
The wording obviously suggests aspirations rather than vows. The vow to abandon killing is clear. One will not kill. If one kills the vow is broken. The five later 'vows' are less clear cut. "I will reduce my desire for worldly pleasure" is an aspiration. It has no externally verifyable standard. How does one break that vow? It is not a vow like any others in the vinaya, it is an aspiration. If TP said it was as well, he is correct. Also "I will practice contentment". How is that a vow and how does one know if it is broken?

In any case, I've already said that these five 'vows' should be persued by all Buddhists anyway and their addition to the five basic vows with celibacy does not make the holder of these vows ordained sangha.

How do these vows differ from the actions of a upasaka brahmacharya? Holders of the Upasaka Brahmacharya vows are not 'ordained' sangha, so why should NKT 'monks' and 'nuns' be?

Dorje's picture

We know whether we ourselves are Buddhas. If we are not, we cannot go about creating our own personal synthesis of Buddha’s teachings, since we do not have the necessary discriminating wisdom. For example, I am not a Buddha so it is inappropriate of me to add to my tradition from other traditions
This seems to be your most important point and the one that distinguishes Je Tsongkhapa's synthesis, which you take as valid, and the Rime synthesis, which you take as eclectic and therefore invalid. However, this assumes that Rime practitioners just go around taking this or that teaching indescriminately and without the guidance of enlightened teachers or a tradition of study and practice. This is not the case. Just as Tsongkhapa's synthesis included things that worked together to back up his vision of the importance of pratityasamurpada and shunyata and a practtice of sutra and tantra together, so Jamgon Kongtrul's synthesis included the practices and teachings that best express his vision of the unity of the ultimate amongst the various practices and teachings of the Tibetan tradition. He thereby included and emphasised those practices and teachings that complemented this, such as the Shentong philosophy of the Jonang tradition, whilst excluding the Gelug style interpretation of emptiness which reduces the ultimate to a mere negation. He also brought in Dzogchen interpreting it in the light of his understanding, unifying it with the highest teachings, such as Mahamudra of the Sarma traditions.

Previously on E-Sangha, Namdrol quipped that Rime was essentially just Sarma lamas practising Dzogchen. This is not accurate but there is some truth in it, as Dzogchen was given a very central place in the Rime tradition by Sarma lamas for the first time.

This all points to not just a new approach but a whole new philosophical position held by the Rime lamas, one of Dzogchen and Shentong strongly influencing Sarma lineages of practice based on the enlightened vision that the ultimate found in the practice of Dzogchen was identical to the ultimate found in the practice of Mahamudra or Lamdre, and the same as the ultimate pointed to in the philosophy of Shentong and Madhyamaka.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Dorje,

To avoid the ping-pong, move the discussion forward and explain how you justify Phabongkhapa’s teachings. If the NKT reject the teachings on violence and sectarianism that was integral to this protector worship, have the NKT issue a statement that their lineage lamas were wrong.

Firstly, you seem to think that I'm some official NKT spokesperson. I'm not. I'm an ordinary practitioner of no real note. Everything I've expressed on this blog has been my own understanding alone, not some official statement you can draw conclusions about 'NKT view' from (if there is such a thing!)

You're obsessed with your negative view of Pabongkha and you're prepared to trash a whole spiritual tradition just because of one person. You think it's important, I don't. There's nothing to explain and justify. That was then, this is now, and it's all different.

When Duldzin Dorje Shugden re-estabished Kadam Dharma in the West, of course things were different to how they were in Tibet because the karma of Westerners is different to the karma of Tibetans. My view is that system of teaching and practice we have now for relying upon Dorje Shugden is completely appropriate to modern day Western Kadampas. It's perfect.

You seem to think that it has to be the same, that Dorje Shugden has to appear and act in exactly the same way that he did in Tibet, but he doesn't have to fall in with your expectations. You're stuck in this past, things have moved on. I'm not really interested in your view of Pabongkha or your criticisms of him because they're really not relevant to Protector practice today or to the NKT. The teachings on 'violence and sectarianism' as you see it are not part of NKT literature because they're not relevant for Westerners. Out with the old and in with the new.

You've got to have a flexible approach to practice Dharma. Buddha gives you the medicine that's most appropriate for you. Apparently, life entrustment and the extremely wrathful appearance and actions of the Tibetan incarnation of Dorje Shugden are not longer necessary or relevant. I think you should get over yourself and move with the times.

Dorje's picture

Tenzin, from em's first post here he has wanted someone to pipe up and say that the opposite of sectarianism is eclecticism and therefore they are both extremes and both wrong and the true middle way between them is a exclusivism but with respect for other traditions, just as Kelsang Gyatso claims.

The problem with this argument is that it is totally bogus. It presupposes that the opposite of an unvirtous extreme is another unvirtuous extreme.

Okay, so if we play along with em's silly game, we can say that sectarianism is the exclusive adherence to one's own tradition whilst disparging other traditions and forcing their conversion. The extreme opposite to this would be something like disparaging one's own tradition, speaking highly of all other traditions and forcing the conversion of the followers of one's own tradition.

At this point em would jump in and say that it follows that this is what the Dalai Lama and others are doing in rejecting Phabongkhapa's sectarianism, and in fact, the best response would be Kelsang's who is both exclusive, not mixing, and inclusive, respecting other traditions.

This argument, which em has been peeing himself to share with us for over 24 hours is piffle. Nothing more.

The idea that taking teachings from more that one tradition in anyway disparages one's own tradition is idiotic. The idea that the Dalai Lama or anyone else is disparaging the Ganden tradition by taking Nyingma teachings cannot be established. Indeed, as Phabongkhapa explicitly stated that other traditions lead to hell, the opposite would have to include the act of explicitly stating that one's tradition leads to hell. As it is, em has falsely inferred a dissatisfaction with one's own tradition, so this does not constitute an opposite extreme even if em's bizarre idea that taking other traditions necessitates that.

That Kelsang Gyatso's opinons on this matter are only of interest to his poor unfortunate cult members also seems lost on em.

Again I have asked em what is wrong with taking Mahayana teachings from different traditions, but again, he refuses to answer.

Dorje's picture

"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.

namkhah's picture

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!

namkhah's picture

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.

dougal's picture

"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.

Gyalpo's picture

Now here is a refreshing link to read: http://tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/2009/09/dorje-shugden.html

Lineageholder, we know what high esteem you hold the hat man, that explains why his image is places higher than Lord Buddha in your NKT centres. I still don't understand the guy with a rifle in the painting, must be some secret meaning. On a personal note, you sound quite shrill and stressed out, dude, why not take a break at one of the fabulous NKT hotels? You could sink a few putts or something or go to to spa...ask for the special.

namkhah's picture

Meanwhile, the patron of the god Shugden, China, Detains 81 Ahead of 50th Anniversary of Tibetan Uprising
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 28, 2009
BEIJING (AP) — Chinese authorities have begun a security sweep in Tibet ahead of the region’s most sensitive anniversary in years, with state media saying at least 81 people have been detained.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/world/asia/29tibet.html?_r=1

emptymountains's picture

Dear Harry,

It would be interesting to look into what Thich Nat Hahn says about Buddha suggesting the removal of the vows of lesser importance. I would like to know if this can be traced back to a Sutra.

Yes! "If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules" (Maha-parinibbana Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html, Part 6, Section 3).

Once again, my main question is does NKT ordination really differ from what Buddha intended for monastics? If Buddha appeared in the west in the 21 century instead of India 2600 years ago, what would his vows look more like, the original ones or the NKT ones?

When Buddha first gave ordination vows, the person being ordained needed only to recite a refuge prayer three times, with no precepts. Precepts were only added "whenever a bhikkhu violated the spirit of the Way of Enlightenment and Liberation" (Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Path, White Clouds, pp. 160-161, 315-316).

em

SeekingClarity's picture

Hi Dorje

Thanks for #1691

If and when you've finished the Rime debate (!), I'd appreciate your thoughts on #1555.

SC

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Dorje,

To avoid the ping-pong, move the discussion forward and explain how you justify Phabongkhapa’s teachings. If the NKT reject the teachings on violence and sectarianism that was integral to this protector worship, have the NKT issue a statement that their lineage lamas were wrong.

Firstly, you seem to think that I'm some official NKT spokesperson. I'm not. I'm an ordinary practitioner of no real note. Everything I've expressed on this blog has been my own understanding alone, not some official statement you can draw conclusions about 'NKT view' from (if there is such a thing!)

You're obsessed with your negative view of Pabongkha and you're prepared to trash a whole spiritual tradition just because of one person. You think it's important, I don't. There's nothing to explain and justify. That was then, this is now, and it's all different.

When Duldzin Dorje Shugden re-estabished Kadam Dharma in the West, of course things were different to how they were in Tibet because the karma of Westerners is different to the karma of Tibetans. My view is that system of teaching and practice we have now for relying upon Dorje Shugden is completely appropriate to modern day Western Kadampas. It's perfect.

You seem to think that it has to be the same, that Dorje Shugden has to appear and act in exactly the same way that he did in Tibet, but he doesn't have to fall in with your expectations. You're stuck in this past, things have moved on. I'm not really interested in your view of Pabongkha or your criticisms of him because they're really not relevant to Protector practice today or to the NKT. The teachings on 'violence and sectarianism' as you see it are not part of NKT literature because they're not relevant for Westerners. Out with the old and in with the new.

You've got to have a flexible approach to practice Dharma. Buddha gives you the medicine that's most appropriate for you. Apparently, life entrustment and the extremely wrathful appearance and actions of the Tibetan incarnation of Dorje Shugden are not longer necessary or relevant. I think you should over yourself and move with the times.

Tenzin Peljor's picture

dear em,
i am sorry, maybe i have a certain type of resistance to use a scheme to come to determination with respect to exclusivism/inclusivism/sectarianism or middle way, I am also completely unfamiliar with this scheme. What is the aim of the scheme? To determine a middle way? A middle way about what?

If I look on your suggestion:
"4. In terms of non-sectarianism, Buddhism posits a middle way between the extremes of exclusivism/sectarianism and ???. To maintain the middle way and not fall into one of these extremes, we need both inclusivism/eclecticism and ??? together."

what do you want to achieve with this?
Sectarianism is an extreme because it does not accord with reality. Non-sectarianism is no extreme because it accords with reality. sectarianism is based on the mind poisons, to avoid sectarianism one has to apply the Dharma, which aims to reduce and finally to overcome the mind poisons. With the 2 Bodhicittas, there is no sectarianism. I think that's easy and reasonable.

So what do you wish to achieve for insights with this model?

I just insert something in your question marks:
"4. In terms of non-sectarianism, Buddhism posits a middle way between the extremes of exclusivism/sectarianism and New-Age-hodgepodge. To maintain the middle way and not fall into one of these extremes, we need both inclusivism/eclecticism and New-Age-hodgepodge together."

Do you mean something like this? This example sounds quite strange, doesn't it? How do we get more clarity and understanding from it? Have you a reasonable example, which improves clarity and understanding and is reasonable?

It appears to me that Kagyupa and Dorje understand what you want to achieve with this or where it will lead to but both feel it is not helpful in that context. I have to admit, I don't understand it, though I have a vague idea. So it looks like we can not continue this type of discussion... as Kagyuepa said: "It’s a bit of a distraction, really."

Dorje's picture

"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."

Brian's picture

That post was so rife with hypocrisy, I'm speechless

TheFinalTruth's picture
SeekingClarity's picture

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

Dorje's picture

The sectarian practice of worshipping a spirit praised for killing people that take teachings from other traditions is the epitome of Dharma mixed with politics and Dharma misuded. In ridding his tradition of this sectarian cancer, the Dalai Lama has helped remove the very politics that you feign to condemn.

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.
- the liar Gyatso.

Dorje's picture

Declaration of Expulsion of Kelsang Gyatso from Sera Je Monastery.August 22, 1996

This is a message to all non-sectarian friends of the Dharma in the world, especially all Tibetans, inside and outside Tibet.

His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the embodiment of the compassion of all Buddhas, the golden flower in the land of snows, Tibet, the form of the deity who has appeared in Tibet, the representative of Buddha Shakyamuni, the spiritual leader of all Buddhists in the world, and the great advocate of non-violence.

For those who come from the land of snow mountains, to find in His Holiness our sacred source of refuge for this and future lives is truly our inborn nature, like our eyes which give us sight and our innermost heart.

However, as it says in The Well-spoken Advice:

If you keep striving at faults,
There will never be any room for virtues,
Like a deluded person with a strainer,
You think that the dregs are actually the juice.

So, a person who acts with a mistaken understanding of which actions should be undertaken and which should be abandoned is the definition of an evil person. These days, [in Kelsang Gyatso] the demonic cloud of overwhelming arrogance displays itself with a mass of deluded pride, like a bat who thinks he is above the sky.

He upholds the lineage of Bhikshu Legpai Karma (Legs Pa'i skar ma), who in ancient times used perverted prayer. This demon with broken commitments, Kelsang Gyatso, burns with the flame of unbearable spite towards the unsurpassed omniscient 14th Dalai Lama, the only staff of life of religious people in Tibet, whose activities and kindness are equal to the sky. Since his own Guru [His Holiness] is without fault, he is throwing away the practice of guru devotion, the eight benefits of following one's spiritual teacher, the eight disadvantages of not following him, and so forth, just as one would cast away a stone.

Possessed by a terrible demon, without shame, embarrassment, or modesty, he doesn't have even the slightest care or concern for any of the commitments of the three vows [pratimoksha, bodhicitta, and tantric] which he undertook.

He continuously broadcasts blatantly shameless mad pronouncements, attacking with baseless slander His Holiness the Dalai Lama, whose kindness for us, the people of Tibet, has been greater that the Buddhas of the three times. These unimaginable statements which defame the name of His Holiness have created an urgent adverse situation which no Tibetan can tolerate.

Therefore, all those connected with Sera Je College, lamas and tulkus, abbots, former executives, senior and junior geshes, together with the leaders of the individual khangtsen [regional houses], all together, in agreement, with one voice, hereby proclaim that on this day, August 22, 1996, Kelsang Gyatso, the one with broken commitments and wrong view, is cast out with the "ritual nine expulsions," and is thereby banished from this place, and the being a part of the rule of our College.

This means that we request all of our brothers and sisters, the Tibetan people inside and outside Tibet, to completely sever and relationship with him. Concerning the practice of worshiping divine protectors at this Monastery in particular, the protector who was directed by the previous great masters to advise, command, and look after our Monastery is the Dharma protector Dregpa Chamsing [Dregs Pa lCam Sring). Aside from this protector there has traditionally been no worship of Dolgyal [Dorje Shugden].

These days, we keep in the honored position on the crown of our heads the instructions of our Government, the great Ganden Potrang. Therefore, all sangha who reside here, as evidence of their commitment not to worship the protector Dolgyal, have freely signed such a pledge, and offered it before the clear eye of His Holiness. Beyond that, anyone who is not blind should be able to comprehend this with their ordinary eye of understanding and mind of attachment and aversion; as they say, no one needs a lamp to make things clear in the light of the sun and moon.

For the future, we publicly make the strongest request to everyone not to associate the good name of Sera Je Monastery with this holder of broken commitments and wrong view.

Sealed by the General Assembly of Sera Je Monastery
August 23, 1996
Translated by Sera Je Geshe Gendun Gyatso and David Patt

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Harry,

You made some good points in your last post. You commented:

It would be interesting to look into what Thich Nat Hahn says about Buddha suggesting the removal of the vows of lesser importance. I would like to know if this can be traced back to a Sutra.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
look at note 56

The NKT ordination vows are the condensation of the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk in the Mulasarvastivastin tradition followed by the Tibetan traditions. This article shows how:

http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/answering-those-who-disp...

In his Friendly Letter, Nagarjuna says:

Train yourself always in superior morality,
Superior wisdom and superior concentration.
These Three Trainings include the more
Than 250 precepts.

NKT monks and nuns have a vow to practise the three higher trainings so everything is covered.

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

Until you give a definition of what you mean by ‘tradition’, there is no way to preceed with this irrelevant side-track of yours. As you may have guessed by the words at the top of this page, this discussion is about a protector deity, not your views on my tradition.

Actually, Drefyus, Kay, Batchelor, and others seem to think that the question of Rime eclecticism is at the very heart of the DS debate. I’m surprised you never noticed this before.

I looked at the Rime wikipedia article and noticed that the discussion had been bizarrely sidetracked into a pointless exchange about this Gelug protector. I even noticed there was actually a section about this protector spirit at the end of the Rime article. This just makes a complete mockery of wikipedia. No wonder most people consider it a joke if it allows editors to add things that are so clearly part of their own manic obsessions.

Actually, it was a staunch Rime practitioner who added all that in. User Thegone has since been banned from editing on Wikipedia because he did become a joke.

em

namkhah's picture

harry (gandul): The dharma flourished long before NKT and their books came along (or Lobsang Rampa's books, whom some have also attributed as instrumental spreading the dharma in the west). Hinduism neither advanced nor declined along with the Hare Krishna movement once in every airport of every city, except perhaps in India.

Kagyupa's picture

I'm not sure your Middle Way Paradigm can be applied to every factor, EM. I can see where you're going with this, and it's an interesting direction....but I don't find it germane to the issue of Dolgyal. It may apply, to some degree, to the "culture" of the NKT vis a vis the vast majority of other Tibetan Buddhist Organizations in the West, but that's not the main issue here. It's a bit of a distraction, really.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Dorje,

You said:

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.

Geshe Kelsang is not lying. This is what he actually said:

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. Some scholars debate with each other, such as the well-known Gelugpa scholar Yonten Gyatso and Dongthog Tulku, a scholar from another tradition, who conducted a debate by letter over a number of years. They have written many books replying to each other's assertions, but this does not mean they are criticising each other. They are simply clarifying the doctrines of their own traditions, with good motivation. There is nothing wrong with this. I would like to ask: what is the problem between the Nyingma and Gelug traditions? There is none. The majority of people from both traditions naturally live in harmony, so why is HH the Dalai Lama destroying this harmony by saying things like "Shugdens say you should not even touch a Nyingma document"? Although we concentrate on our own tradition we respect all other Buddhist traditions, including the Nyingma, and we rejoice very much in their sincere practice.

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.

Tenzin Peljor's picture

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:

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.

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:

According to Kay, Geshe Kelsang was gravely concerned that the purity of Tsongkhapa's tradition was being undermined by the lingering inclusivism of his Western students, something he had been outspoken for some years, "but he now acted more forcefully in his opposition to it by discouraging his students both from receiving guidance from teachers of other traditions and from reading their books."[24] Kay states that another result of these "radically exclusive policies" was that after the foundation of NKT the Manjushri Institute Library, with over 3000 books,[25] was removed.[26] Kay goes on to state that, "this began with non-Gelug books being removed, but as Geshe Kelsang's vision crystallised, even books by Gelug teachers became unacceptable to him and the library disappeared altogether. He thus became convinced that the Tibetan Gelug tradition as a whole no longer embodied Tsongkhapa's pure teachings and that he and his disciples must therefore separate from it. From this point onwards, Tibetan Gelug lamas would no longer be invited to teach within his network. This perceived degeneration extended to include its highest-level lamas, and so even veneration for the Dalai Lama was now actively discouraged."[26] The pictures of the Dalai Lama were removed from the gompas and shrines of Geshe Kelsang's centres.[26] In 1990 Geshe Kelsang became also outspoken against the Geshe Studies Programme[24], and "made the pursuit of his new programmes compulsory."[24] According to Kay "As it was no longer possible for students to follow the programmes of both Geshes, the basis of Geshe Konchog's teaching programme at the Institute was undermined, and in 1991 he retired to Gyuto Monastery in Assam, India."[24]

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-researche...

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.

Friendoftruth's picture

"... 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.

namkhah's picture

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.

Namkhah's picture

Your views are clearly non-Kadampa, look after your own defilements and shortcomings before judging other's intimate relationships with their teachers that you did not know. If this is the drivel former geshe instructed you to spread around the world, I pity your destiny as you will labour under the results of this Mara for a very long time. What a bitter failure and negative traitor KG is.

Gyalpo's picture

NKT has produced not one geshe despite hundreds of 'centres', you are not in a position to evaluate monastic academic standards. Even your bjg shugden scholar Rodney has a poor grasp of the language and terminology, let alone qualified to set us right on Tibetan history. Spiteful is an adjective very appropriate to former geshe-la who is waging the nasty smear campaign with the willing and creative participation of his minions, manufacturing evermore outrageous porkies.

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

These are not listed as vows, more aspirations, as far as I understand it.

This artificial demarcation of the first 5 vows beings vows and the latter 5 vows being mere 'aspirations' comes solely from Tenzin Peljor, not from GKG, who teaches *10* vows (not 5 vows + 5 aspirations).

The ASA picked this up also, which tells me who instigated their letter.

em

emptymountains's picture

TP and Dorje,

First off, it was you who first raised the question of Rime in this discussion, not me. Interestingly, in post 1150, you said, “It is wrong what WSS claims that Rime would be a separate Buddhist tradition, it is an approach.”

The definition of tradition as posited by em in #1225 ... is not very applicable, because of using a vague term like ‘perfect’ which invites fuzziness...

I said, “Buddhadharma is always perfect in terms of being free from (doctrinal) error.”

... and because of the claim that it is “presented by an enlightened being” - the latter can’t be determined by an ordinary being, because only a Buddha knows who is a Buddha, it follows only a Buddha can determine what is a tradition and what not.

We know whether we ourselves are Buddhas. If we are not, we cannot go about creating our own personal synthesis of Buddha’s teachings, since we do not have the necessary discriminating wisdom. For example, I am not a Buddha so it is inappropriate of me to add to my tradition from other traditions.

If there is indeed a Rime ‘tradition’ (and I’m still waiting on something other than DJ’s word on that), then it is fine. But if it is nothing other than an eclectic approach (which is how TP, Ringu Tulku and others have explained it), then this raises serious issues.

Still, if the eclectic approach itself is considered the middle way, then we still need to identify what the second extreme (sectarianism being the first) would be. At what point is “all-inclusivism” taken too far?

The subject, Rime is a tradition because it is a synthesis of Buddha’s teachings presented by an enlightened being, a special set of Dharma instructions uniquely suited to that tradition’s practitioners, according to the needs and dispositions of its practitioners.

...

So what Dorje said is correct, based on your definition. But If you quote in that context RTR this is just a distraction or manoeuvre to avoid the consequence of your own position, that if you posit tradition in this way it follows Rime is a tradition. You have to accept this consequence.

But, as I quoted from Ringu Tulku (and to which you have previously agreed), there is no special set of Dharma instructions for Rime. There is just the four sets of Dharma instructions from the other four traditions, which unenlightened practitioners feel free to pick-and-choose from. Again from Samuel:

Rimed was not a school with a definite doctrinal position. (p. 537) Nor, as we have already seen, did the Rimed movement have any common philosophical standpoint. (p. 543)

You cannot be sectarian towards eclecticism, just as you cannot be sectarian towards sectarianism.

em

harry (gandul)'s picture

TP,

"What would change for your if Geshe-la himself wrote the manifest of the 21st Buddhist Century Dictator - what would you think then?"

What is the purpose of this question? Would you like to believe that KG wrote it or do you have any evidence?

Personally i am open to the possibility. Although i have my reasons to doubt it.

If he did write it i don't have a major problem with this. I wouldn't be happy of course. Maybe it's because i am new generation, i don't know, but i view KG as a human being as well as my spiritual guide. He has said things before which i did not agree with. As far as i'm concerned he is a man, who like all of us makes mistakes. I try to keep an open mind, with respect to apparent mistakes.

Dorje's picture

I think the model you have proposed is nonsense. You have used dodgy logic to come up with a model that ignores reality.

You still haven't explained why taking teachings from other traditions is in any way undesirable.

If one is faithfully practicing any teachings of the Buddha, defined by their adherence to the four seals, how is this a problem? Are you seriously suggesting, as your lineage lamas did, that following Mahayana Buddhist practices leads to unfortunate results?

Do you consider yourself to be a Buddhist following the Buddha's teaching or are you just a follower of Kelsang Gyatso?