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.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Dorje's picture

LH, you have claimed that Phabongkhapa's teachings do not represent the true nature of this tradition. Specificly, you have said:

1. It is no longer correct to rely on the Life Entrustment
2. It is no longer the case that this protector has the conventional appearance of a worldly spirit, contradicting the teachings of Phabongkhapa and your lineage lamas.
3. It is no longer the case that this protector harms and kills sentient beings for 'mixing' teachings, contradicting the teachings of your lineage lamas.

Are we to assume that you are talking for the NKT and are voicing Kelsang Gyatso's own reinterpretation of his lineage lamas?

Even if you are talking for the NKT, how can you assume you are talking for the Tibetans in India that propitiate this protector?

Was it dishonest of Kelsang Gyatso to obfuscate and deny the teachings above given by his own lineage lamas?

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

Actually, I think it was a good word choice on your part. I took it to mean "discriminating wisdom" (not any prejudicial discrimination).


Dorje's picture

"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.

Lineageholder's picture

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.

Lineageholder's picture

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.

dougal's picture

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.

Namkhah's picture

Panchen Lama, Yellow Book Zimey and other cult stooges have been installed by the Communist Party of China. 'Nga Blama' Kundeling went one better and installed himself, very lucrative to be a traitor these days, with wide eyed western cultists throwing money at you in one direction and CPC in the other.

The following is the text of New Tulku Regulations in China, I know its longwinded but very telling about the degree to which the Communist Party of China intends to meddle in reincarnation and lama politics.

State Religious Affairs Bureau Order
Order No. Five

These “Management measures for the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism” were passed at the administrative affairs conference of the State Administration of Religious Affairs on July 13, 2007, and will be implemented on September 1, 2007.
Bureau Director, Ye Xiaowen
July 18, 2007

Article 1: These measures have been formulated in accordance with the “Regulations on Religious Affairs” in order to guarantee citizens’ freedom of religious belief, to respect Tibetan Buddhism’s practice of inheriting living Buddha positions, and to regulate the management of living Buddha reincarnation affairs.

Article 2: Reincarnating living Buddhas should respect and protect the principles of the unification of the state, protecting the unity of the minorities, protecting religious concord and social harmony, and protecting the normal order of Tibetan Buddhism.

Reincarnating living Buddhas should respect the religious rituals and historically established systems of Tibetan Buddhism, but may not re-establish feudal privileges which have already been abolished.

Reincarnating living Buddhas shall not be interfered with or be under the dominion of any foreign organization or individual.

Article 3: Reincarnating living Buddhas should have the following conditions:
(1) A majority of local religious believers and the monastery management organization must request the reincarnation;
(2) The inheritance lineage should be real and have continued to the present day;
(3) The monastery applying for the living Buddha reincarnation must be the monastery at which the living Buddha monk is registered, it must be registered as a Tibetan Buddhist place of religious activity, and it must have the ability to train and raise living Buddhas.

Article 4: Applicants to be reincarnating living Buddhas who have any of the following conditions may not be reincarnated:
(1) Reincarnations which are not regulated by the religious doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism;
(2) Those in city-level people’s governments and above with delineated districts, which ordered no reincarnations to be permitted.

Article 5: Reincarnating living Buddhas should carry out application and approval procedures. The application and approval procedure is: the management organization at the monastery applying for the living Buddha reincarnation where the monk is registered, or the local Buddhist Association, should submit applications for reincarnations to the local religious affairs departments at the level of people’s government above county-level; once the people’s government above county-level has made suggestions, the people’s government religious affairs department reports upwards, and examination and approval shall be made by the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government religious affairs department. Living Buddha reincarnations who have a relatively large impact shall be reported to the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government for approval; those with a great impact shall be reported to the State Administration for Religious Affairs for approval; those with a particularly great impact shall be reported to the State Council for approval.

Verification and authorization of the living Buddha application should solicit the opinions of the corresponding Buddhist Association.

Article 6: When there is debate over the size of a living Buddha’s impact, the China Buddhist Association shall officiate, and report to the State Administration of Religious Affairs to be put on the record.

Article 7: Once an application for a living Buddha’s reincarnation has received approval, depending on the size of the living Buddha’s impact, the corresponding Buddhist Association shall establish a reincarnation guidance team; the management organization at the monastery where the living Buddha is registered, or the corresponding Buddhist Association, shall establish a search team to look for the reincarnate soul child, and search affairs shall be carried out under the leadership of the guidance team.

The reincarnate soul child shall be recognized by the provincial or autonomous regional Buddhist Association or the China Buddhist Association in accordance with religious rituals and historically established systems.

No group or individual may without authorization carry out any activities related to searching for or recognizing reincarnating living Buddha soul children.

Article 8: Living Buddhas which have historically been recognized by drawing lots from the golden urn shall have their reincarnating soul children recognized by drawing lots from the golden urn.
Requests not to use drawing lots from the golden urn shall be reported by the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government religious affairs departments to the State Administration of Religious Affairs for approval; cases with a particularly large impact shall be reported to the State Council for approval.

Article 9: Once a reincarnating living Buddha soul child has been recognized, it shall be reported the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government religious affairs department for approval; those with a great impact shall be reported to the State Administration for Religious Affairs for approval; those with a particularly great impact shall be reported to the State Council for approval.

Reincarnating living Buddhas who have been approved by the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government religious affairs departments or by the autonomous regional people’s government shall be reported to the State Administration of Religious Affairs to be put on record.

Article 10: When the reincarnating living Buddha is installed, a representative of the approving authority shall read out the documents of approval, and the corresponding Buddhist Association shall issue a living Buddha permit.

Living Buddha permits shall uniformly be issued by the China Buddhist Association and reported to the State Administration of Religious Affairs to be put on record.

Article 11: Persons and units who are responsible for being in contravention of these measures and who without authority carry out living Buddha reincarnation affairs, shall be dealt administrative sanction by the people’s government religious affairs departments in accordance with stipulations in the “Regulations on Religious Affairs”; when a crime has been constituted, criminal responsibility shall be pursued.

Article 12: When the reincarnating living Buddha has been installed the management organization at the monastery where he is registered shall formulate a training plan, recommend a scripture teacher, and submit the plan to the local Buddhist Association, which shall report upward to the provincial or autonomous regional people’s government religious affairs department for approval.

Article 13: Provinces and autonomous regions which are involved in affairs of reincarnating living Buddhas may formulate and implement detailed measures in accordance these measures, and report them to the State Administration of Religious Affairs to be put on record.

Article 14: These measures shall be implemented from September 1, 2007.

Ron's picture

Lineageholder: I can only conclude from your distorted perception of TGIE that you have either never lived in India or spent only a few days or minutes there. If one actually read previous posts here, the conspiracy theories soon vanishes into thin air when one understands that this so-called government is a tiny entity that collects no taxes and has zero policemen let alone military forces for a small and shrinking constituency–85,000 maximum and that is a stretch since many Tibetans don't care much about their own polity, and have never contributed or voted.
Religious tension in India is a reality, I suggest you research for example the number of Christian churches burned and priests killed in recent years all over the country. In light of this I am sure your ridiculous lawsuit will only drain your coffers. Meanwhile your cult is flourishing and building new facilities in south India with Chinese and western financial support. I fail to understand how spurious victimization claims benefit anyone in the long run, New Kadampa must really be going down for the count if this online "dharma porn' is the best you can muster to distract your students from teacher sex scandals.

Lineageholder's picture

Continually posting links to a very biased and inaccurate BBC documentary won't help either :)

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Dorje,

Previously you said the vinaya that the Buddha devised is no loonger appropriate for the modern western world. Why on earth do you imagine dressing in Tibetan monks robes, shaving the head and changing your name to a Tibetan name is in any way appropriate to the modern western world? You’re just keeping the appearance and discarding the content.

You Tibetan Buddhists love acting all affronted and going to extremes, exclaiming that NKT has 'abandoned the vinaya". That's simply not true because it would mean that moral discipline had been abandoned and that's not true. In the sutras Buddha said

Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good,
And control the mind
That is the teaching of the enlightened ones

'Vinaya' means 'to control' and refers to controlling the mind, which is the essence of all Buddha's teachings. Therefore, since lamrim is the main method by which we can control our mind, and lamrim is the main practice of the NKT, how can NKT have abandoned the vinaya? That's nonsense!

Kadampa monks and nuns wear robes. These robes were designed by Je Tsongkhapa, so therefore, being followers of Tsongkhapa, we are entitled to wear them. Shaving the head has the same meaning it always has - to renounce worldly concerns and to live a simple life which is an explicit commitment in the Kadampa ordination (to practise contentment) but is not formally included in the Hinayana system of vinaya that Tibetan Buddhism is based on. The change of name is traditional - it's function is to allow the ordained person to forget their previous life and habits. As to the names, they could be seen as Tibetan, but really they are just sounds with particular meanings, although some of them do have very beautiful meanings. Some of the names are also Sanskrit, not just Tibetan.

In the Dhammapada it says:

Not therefore is he a bhikkhu
Merely because he begs from others.
Not by adopting the outward form
Does one truly become a bhikkhu.
He who wholly subdues evil,
Both small and great,
Is called a monk (bhikkhu)
Because he has overcome all evil. Dhp 266, 267

How can someone who has merely taken 253 and is struggling to remember them all, let alone keep them, a Bhikkhu, (Gelong) as is the case in the Hinayana system of Vinaya followed by the Tibetan tradition? Is such a person "one who has overcome all evil"? 'Gelong' must surely be a measure of realization, not just how many vows you are holding. In the Kadampa system, one becomes a Gelong or Gelongma through deepening renunciation, not simply by holding a certain number of vows. I feel this system is much closer to what is described in the Dhammapada. It is important to change one's mind, not just to wear robes and hold vows. To change the mind is real vinaya - everything else is just a show.

Your criticism of Kadampa ordination comes as a result of your not understanding what the Vinyana really is and not understanding the nature and function of ordination, but this is a common problem these days, even amongst those who study the Vinaya Sutra, it seems, who prefer to cling to tradition and words and fail to recognise the validity of anything that deviates from what they know.

emptymountains's picture

Dear KP,

I’ve satisfied myself regarding the authenticity of my practices, and of the various sources from which they have come. That, I believe, is what you, and everyone else, should do.

I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps I can illustrate this using one of TP's favorite debate techniques, the word switcheroo:

Dorje’s not one of my lineage lamas. I’m not reallly interested how he chooses to understand Dorje Shugden.


Dorje's picture

"destroying the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa"

Sectarian spirit worship has NEVER been part of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition.

tell the world the truth. Nothing has been fabricated, Pabongkhapa has said and done all the things the respected western scholars and lamas have reported about him.

Dorje's picture

The relevance of Kelsang Gyatso's position on this discussion it very apt to your whole approach, as you put one of his phrases up as a supposed example of your moderate exclusivism. Yet, I don't see the point in discussing the position of a western fringe cult, as they are not following the tradition that Phabongkhapa founded and that has caused so much controversy in Tibetan society.

regarding post 1150, I will withdraw the word 'indiscriminately'. After all, we have no way of knowing whether someone is discriminating in their choices or not.

Tenzin Peljor's picture

# 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."

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.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Kagyupa,

you said

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.

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!

namkhah's picture

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.

namkhah's picture

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.

Haras's picture

Mara manifest daily, its no big deal. Where do we send the money, Kate?

JoeAnne's picture

Some people only concern is to have the latest wigs model, other people are interested to make money, but there are those people who enjoy sitting in front of the computer to play a good game. That's why I chose the late part as well and I gotta say my favorite game is World of Warcraft. I saw this list and the only game I played is Granado Espada but due to the fact that it was released only in Beta version, I decided to quit it. Anyway I don't think people should judge a guy addicted to games. After all it's not like we are killing people or destroying marriages because of that. Drugs and Alcohol are doing this.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Dorje,

You can try to change history, but it is to no avail, sorry.

Kagyupa's picture

I don't care about their refutations. Dressing as Gelongs, while not holding the vows of Gelongs, is disrespectful to Gelongs, no matter what they say. There are some who DO believe the Vinaya is not "outdated" --they, IMO, are the only ones for whom the robes are appropriate.

To say nothing of the anger openly displayed by the shouting NKT protestors at the demonstrations......

Kagyupa's picture

Oh, for Pete's sake....

EM, you're right, in that "Rimay" is not a "tradition" in the institutional sense you want it to (not) be. It is not Nyingma/Sakya/Kagyu/Geluk/Bon/Jonang.

It's also not one of the Eight Great Chariots.

However, when one examines each of these "institutional traditions," one quickly finds that their "lineages" of transmission and the practices they undertake are ALL a Synthesis of various "lineages" and "practices." This point has been made by me recently, but I can't be bothered to find the's here, though.

The Geluk institutional lineage is, at bottom, a collection of various is a synthesis.

Pabongkhapa's tradition is different in several respects from that of Tsong Khapa's. NKT's is diffferent in several respect from both Pabongkhapa's tradition, and from Tsong Khapa's, as this thread has proven.

At bottom, every single Lama maintains their own tradition, if you want to get down to brass tacks. Affiliation and Loyalty are interesting concepts, as is "purity."

I, myself, am more interested in practice, and in examinng these notions of "belonging," "Purity of lineage," "Affiliation to lineage," and "Loyalty," in my own continuum, at this point, than I am in defining what is exclusivism, inclusivism, sectarianism, and such, for others. At the same time, however, I've satisfied myself regarding the authenticity of my practices, and of the various sources from which they have come. That, I believe, is what you, and everyone else, should do.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Harry,

The Western Shugden Society exists because of the Dalai Lama.

Perhaps the Abbots of Sera Monastery would like to apologise for their explusion letter which is far worse than anything the WSS has written about the Dalai Lama?

As for the 'dictator' letter making things worse, things couldn't be much worse. The Dalai Lama has spent 30 years destroying the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa and he's not going to stop or even discuss it because attempts have been made to engage him, but he arrogantly ignores them. There can be no compromise because he's not going to compromise.

There's only one thing to do in that situation - tell the world the truth. Nothing has been fabricated, the Dalai Lama has said and done all the things that WSS have reported about him.

What part of the 'dictator' letter did you disagree with?

I feel the wheel is coming around again, we're just going to end up going back over everything has already been said.

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

Regarding your post # 1151, I have not failed to answer your question, just as Buddha in the Ananda Sutta did not fail to answer Vacchagotta's questions "Is there is a self? [Buddha responds with silence] ... Then, is there no self? [Buddha again responds with silence]." This is because Vacchagotta and Buddha were not speaking the same 'language', which is the language of the middle way. So, I said that your questions had to be postponed until we can agree on what are the two extremes flanking non-sectarianism.

In post #1150, you say "the other extreme is attempting to adopt all other religious and philosophical traditions indescriminately, Buddhist and non-Buddhist..." You imply then that it is okay to adopt all Buddhist traditions *discriminately* (since the other extreme is doing so *in-discriminately*). What exactly do you mean by this?


Tenzin Peljor's picture

# 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:

»A wise person will have faith in the teachings of all orders, will love the Dharma found in each just as a mother cherishes all her children. A wise person's mind is vast like the sky, with room for many teachings, many insights, many meditations. But the mind of an ignorant sectarian is limited, tight, and narrow like a vase that can only hold so much. It is difficult for such a mind to grow in Dharma because of its self-imposed limitations. The difference between the wise Buddhist and the sectarian Buddhist is like that between the vastness of space and the narrowness of a vase.«

Maitreya 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.”

Jamgon Kontrul Lodro Thaye again:

»Just as a king overpowered by self-interest
Is not worthy of being the protector of the kingdom,
A sectarian person is not worthy of being a holder of the dharma.
Not only that, he is unworthy of upholding even his own tradition.«

»The noble ones share a single ultimate view,
But arrogant ones bend that to their own interests.
Those who show all the teachings of the Buddha as without
contradiction can be considered learned people. But who would be
foolish enough to think that those who cause
discord are holders of the dharma?«

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?

Rodney Billman's picture

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.

TheFinalTruth's picture

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?"

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."

Tenzin's picture

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 for a transcript of the recent Al Jazeera footage.

Kate Walker's picture

Exciting News! Anyone even vaguely interested in Dorje Shugden... guess what? His Lama incarnation is BACK! That's right. Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen is alive and well...

See this news post:

Gyalpo's picture

Lineageholder: I stand corrected on the attribution, it does not however justify your headlong leap down a slippery slope argument. The political campaign of WSS/NKT is of very little interest to 99.9% of Tibetans young and old alike, it is simply a misguided and pointless self-discrediting discourse. Rude, arrogant and outrageously stupid swiftboat arguments from your websites are not effective, even Phayul readers have lost interest in your non-issue. I suggest you people grow up and move on.

Dorje's picture

This is complete nonsense, LH. The Dalai Lama left Tibet by an obvious route, irrespective of what any oracle said whilst in trance. He left via Southern Tibet after staying at Dunkar gompa, a seat of one of the oracles of this protector, so it's hardly surprising if he this oracle did a seance at this time. Nor is it evidence of the oracle's veracity.

By the way, does your point signify a new position for the NKT on spirit possession and oracular seances? Previously (after Kelsang's uncle turned his back on kelsang) the NKT seemed to reject the validity of oracles.

Tibetan Buddhists, especially those of non-Gelug traditions, have held that this protector is evil for a very long time without any help from the Dalai Lama. Your repeated claims to the contrary just show what a good job Kelsang has done in brainwashing you. I'll post a few excerpts to help you see that the view that this protector is evil was widespread before the Dalai Lama started to question it.

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.

Before the Dalai Lama opposed this sectarian spirit worship Stephan Beyer wrote an account showing the sectarianism found amongst Phabongkhapa’s followers

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.

Before the Dalai Lama opposed this spirit worship, it was fiercely opposed by Ngawang Yonten Gyatso. David Jackson writes

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.
Impartial readers will notice that LH often tries to claim that the Dalai Lama is responsible for the 'demonisation' of this protector. The fact is, it was seen as an evil spirit spreading sectarianism long before the Dalai Lama spoke out against it. LH continues regurgitating these views because they are the lies spread by his cult leader Kelsang Gyatso.

To find out more about the dishonest and exploitative actions of the Kelsang, please watch the BBC documentary “An Unholy Row” found on the following website:

Dorje's picture

their 'refutations' are nothing more than a bunch of self-serving bs. If a person is not a monk they shouldn't wear the robes of a monk. That it is different from the vinaya taught by the Buddha does make it invalid.

I agree that some aspects of the vinaya may not be totally appropriate for modern times, but how is wearing robes or shaving the head any more appropriate than these? It is nothing more than dressing-up. Falsely impersonating the monastic sangha leads to a degeneration of the Dharma. The fact that the many of the high profile NKT 'monks' including two of the most senior monks and other senior teachers had sex with their female assistants and other students shows the value of NKT ordination.

emptymountains's picture

Dear Dorje,

In response to your post 1658, I am glad you suggested Geoffrey Samuel’s book Civilized Shamans, as I happen to have a copy. You cite him as an example of someone describing Rime as a ‘synthesis’. However, exactly what does Samuel say is being synthesized? He says that both the Gelug tradition and the Rime approach can be situated somewhere on the clerical-shamanic spectrum. He says the neither is 100% clerical or 100% shamanic, but each combines certain elements of the two into its own ‘synthesis’ or approach:

Gelugpa and Rimed as they exist today are two different approaches to the question of how to reconcile the two polarities I have sketched within Tibetan religious life: the academic, scholarly, monastic, and clerical polarity; and the yogic, shamanic, and visionary polarity. They represent two different ways in which Tibetans frame their own traditions. (pp. 546-547, punctuation changed to make it more readable)

I have already suggested several times that Rimed and Gelugpa can be considered as the two major and contrasting syntheses of clerical and shamanic elements within premodern Tibetan religion. (p. 537)

We can see Rimed as a new attempt at a synthesis of academic and shamanic aspects of Tibetan religion that maintained the academic tradition but retained a much more central place for the shamanic vision than the Gelugpa synthesis allowed. (p. 542)

When I use the word synthesis (as in post 1225), I use it specifically in the sense of a new presentation of Buddha’s teachings, not in the sense of an anthropologist's estimation of cleric and/or shamanic elements. Samuel seems to use the word synthesis in the former sense very rarely, for example:

Perhaps the most useful perspective on Tsongk’apa is to regard him as the creator of the most influential of all Tibetan syntheses between Sutra and Tantra practice. (p. 507)

So, does Samuel think of Rime as a new synthesis of Buddhist teachings and practices? That’s questionable:

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)

Rimed today does not constitute an organized monastic order with its own gompa. (p. 537)

The lamas who carry the Rimed tradition today continue to come from Sakyapa, Nyingmapa, and Kagyudpa gompa, and to continue the specific lineages and practices of their own gompa as well as the general Rimed practices. (pp. 537-538)

I want to address your concerns with the word eclectic, as Samuel brings this up as well:

The term rimed is sometimes translated as ‘eclectic’; Seyfort Ruegg has suggested that this is an inadequate rendering. “in fact this rimed movement was not exactly eclectic but universalistic (and encyclopedic), rimed (pa) (the antonym of risu ch’edpa) meaning unbounded, all-embracing, unlimited, and also impartial” (Ruegg 1989:310). It can be seen why Dzogch’en appealed to the Rimed masters; its emphasis on an unlimited, all-embracing Enlightened state within which all partial teachings could find their goal provided the basis for their synthetic orientation. (p. 538)

Clearly, the Rimed lamas did not regard these practices and teachings as exclusive alternatives, but as a body of partial descriptions and approaches, each of which might help to provoke the central insight of the shamanic vision. (p. 541)

It is interesting that in spite of Ruegg’s alternate rendering of rimed, Samuel continues to use the word eclectic in subsequent pages! But that’s not the main point I want to make. If each of the pre-existent traditions is not an ‘exclusive alternative’ but only a ‘partial description’ of the path, then they are each incomplete! So, ironically, the ‘universalistic’ approach fractures the Buddhadharma. Creating a universal super-tradition is the exact opposite of seeing the whole of Buddha's teachings in each of its parts.


harry (gandul)'s picture

Hi LH,

I accept most of the points that you make. There is quite a bit of evidence, including videos (can't photoshop video :)), that indicate wrongdoing from the part of HHDL and the TGIE.

It's just a bit tricky to asses the situation when both parties are involved in blame games. Even here, which i assume is one of the few places where people from both parties are engaging in dialogue, there is little exchange of ideas and debate, instead we have a lot of we-are-right-and-you-are-wrong-ing.

I also see WSS has done some odd things, for instance claiming 4 million DS practitioners. And the "dictator" letter... Generally, when you look at any confrontation between individuals or between groups, you can never really blame everything on one party. I.e. for a fight you need the participation of more than one entity.

So overall, i think this tricky situation cannot be entirely blamed upon the DL. WSS have made mistakes too. Personally i think apologies are owed to the DL for material such as the "dictator" letter. This letter is completely wrong, and i doubt in the least that it has helped the situation. No, i think if anything it's made things worse.

emptymountains's picture

Dear TP,

Just to clarify, bodhichitta (= conventional bodhichitta + ultimate bodhichitta) is NOT an extreme, I agree with you. Such a holistic mind is free from extremes.

However, *misconstrued* bodhichitta is a result of either one of two extremes: (1) wisdom without compassion, or (2) compassion without wisdom. To avoid the first extreme, we aspire to become Bodhisattvas and not just Foe Destroyers (Skt. Arhat). And in order to avoid the second extreme, we finally aspire to become Buddhas and not just remain as Bodhisattvas.

I think it is important when identifying something as the middle way that we be able to show both of its two aspects (as I did in #'s 1-4 above). That said, true non-sectarianism is NOT an extreme. What I am trying to point out is that one aspect of non-sectarianism (i.e., inclusivism) CAN be taken to an extreme, just as exclusivism taken to an extreme produces sectarianism.


SeekingClarity's picture


On the back cover of "How to Solve our Human Problems", the book is endorsed by two of those "neutral" academics you so despise.

Dorje's picture

"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.

TheFinalTruth's picture

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.

namkhah's picture

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.

Haras's picture

From Wikipedia:

” The reason why the Dalai Lama didn’t sue over ‘A Great Deception’ is because every word is referenced to third party publications and is true! You can’t sue if someone publishes the verifiable true about a particular issue. The Dalai Lama is guilty as charged…”

it is really an eye opener how far the ‘brainwashing’ in the NKT can lead one away from the facts.

First of all:
The Dalai Lama has not being found guilty. The Indian Court said

” Justice S. Muralidhar dismissed the writ petition and application on the grounds that the allegations of violence and harassment were ‘vague averments’ and that the raised issues ‘do not partake of any public law character and therefore are not justiciable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.’

Citing the ‘absence of any specific instances of any such attacks’ on Dorjee Shugden practitioners, the Court noted the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, referring to ‘an understanding reached whereby it was left to the monks to decide whether they would want to be associated with the practices of Dorjee Shugden.’

Closing the doors on the possibility of similar complaints in the future, Justice Muralidhar concluded that the ‘matters of religion and the differences among groups concerning propitiation of religion, cannot be adjudicated upon by a High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.’

2. There is no evidence from any reliable source that the wrong Dalai Lama was chosen (as the “Great Deception” and other WSS propaganda publications claim), such a claim is even against what Trijang Rinpoche said, Kelsang’s own root Guru. The book “Great Deception” is indeed a great deception because it exploits academic sources to spin the facts according to the imagination of the NKT leadership. Rewriting of history is a well recognized tool of New Religious Movements which NKT apply as well as other cults do.

3. To make it not too long: The only reason why the Dalai Lama or any body else do not sue NKT or Kelsang is that they can—unlike NKT—bear that there are different opinions about them, even if it is untrue or defamation. It is a sign of cult leaders to threaten to sue ex-members or critics because they are full of themselves, they think they are godlike or Buddhalike. Because Kelsang Gyatso is a cult leader (the Third Buddha of our time) and NKT is a cult they threaten forums, academics and individuals to sue them.
Because the Dalai Lama is not a cult leader but a relaxed and open minded person, it is no problem for him if he is slandered, he just will not take any lawyer to defend himself. He is also used to be defamed by China’s leadership and press and other hostile human beings. He takes it with ease and humour, because—unlike cult leaders—he has no exaggerated feeling of self-importance as cult leaders have.

Hence what the Dalai Lama says about the Western Shugden Society expresses his qualities: “I am extremely happy that they can enjoy freedom of expression.” No lawsuit threat, no lawyer, only peace"

Ron's picture

I'm only appalled by the disgraceful behavior and speech of novice NKT dress up 'monks'. Carbon footprint of flying these "Singing Nuns' around the West?.....way too high.

Lineageholder's picture

Dear Tamdrin,

Fact: The holy speech of Dorje Shugden saved the Dalai Lama's life in 1959. Even though the Dalai Lama has brainwashed most Tibetan Buddhists into believing that DS is evil, without his omniscient help at a time when the Nechung oracle was powerless to do anything, your world of Tibetan Buddhism would be a much different today.

Dorje Shugden saved the life of someone who would go on to create all the problems of sectarianism you are experiencing today. Something for you to ponder.

harry (gandul)'s picture

Hi KP,

Have you read Newkadampatruth's refutations of the criticisms of NKT ordination? Emptiness is not part of the refutations.

SeekingClarity's picture


Should read " it does not seem that Dhongthog was correct..."

Dorje's picture

If you think praising a protector for killing sentient beings is what great lamas do, fair enough. Of course, this would completely destroy your bodhisattva vows. If you are happy that, good luck.

Dorje's picture

Also, em, you have failed to answer my question regarding the relevance of Kelsang Gyatso's reinterpretation of his tradition on modern Gelug practice and why his diluting of his own tradition makes the sectarian practices of that tradition more acceptable.

SeekingClarity's picture


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.

Kagyupa's picture

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.

TheFinalTruth's picture

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."

dougal's picture

hey kt66 -

is that a website about religion, or politics?