Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Message for Simon Heath

191 views

Skip to first unread message

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

Message to Simon Heath

Dear Simon

I was sorry that you were put off by what you see on the Internet but it’s
good to read that you’re still interested in searching for a Teacher. The
books of Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are very clear and accessible; they have
received high critical acclaim from many reliable sources. Also his Centres
in the UK are, in general, very happy and open places.

If you visit them you will not be met with anyone forcing you to engage in
Dorje Shugden practice - or any practice for that matter - whatever you may
have heard to the contrary. We are not a cult; we belong to a precious and
authentic lineage of Je Tsongkhapa following all the methods of training the
mind taught by Buddha Shakyamuni. People freely choose to visit and leave as
they wish.

The only thing that’s really new about Geshe Kelsang’s Centres is that they
present Dharma study and meditation in a systematic way suitable to Western
people. Right now, for example we are doing our traditional Winter retreats
to complement the study terms we do throughout the rest of the year. Try one
Centre and see for yourself if you like. Visitors are always welcome - even
when we’re on retreat - the energy is so peaceful. There are Centres in most
UK cities and towns.

On one post you said

“It's just that nowadays the Internet is the best way of gaining a view on
something.”

This interested me. Why? Because people like myself have been trying to
engage in a meaningful debate on the Internet to inform both ourselves and
others about something we feel is very important to clarify in public.
However, one remark to you from "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net> I
feel represents a view that would like very much to stop free speech about
this matter and therefore stop people such as yourself forming a view by
consulting the Internet. Evelyn said in response to you:

“I am sorry you happened upon the newsgroups when a lot of nonsense is
obviously going on. That unfortunately cannot be helped. Many sincere
people have tried and failed to stop it. Either we are being sabotaged by
trolls or these are simply individuals with axes to grind. Do not judge
buddhism by these people”

I believe that it is these types of remark that point to the root of this
debate - freedom of religious expression by way of public speech (for “these
people, trolls etc”) VERSUS repression and stopping of religious expression
by political or whatever means possible (by those “sincere people”). And I
guess that it is this kind of interchange you find unpleasant.

Needless to say, my view is that Evelyn is free to say what she likes. But
if I were you Simon I would be asking myself why she tries to STOP others
having the same right ? (The word STOP is pretty unambiguous.)

I have asked this question on this newsgroup a number of times and received
a number of personal insults but no valid reply. Of course others may be
tired of this repetitive debate but no one is forcing them to join it so I
can’t see their difficulty. (The insults, by the way, I find helpful for my
practice - though this isn’t an invitation for more!)

Maybe you’ve also noticed how some people try to STOP cross-posting to other
newsgroups ; Mike Austin has mentioned it again recently but it appeared
many times before. Why this desire to stop and control others? As I said
earlier no-one is forced to read this; I am simply putting my point of view.
My intention in responding to you is to provide a balance to some of the
other responses you received. I don’t want to stop you or anyone expressing
their views. Dharma is about controlling our own minds not those of others.

Like Evelyn I am also sorry you’ve met this aspect of Dharma practitioners’
discussion-style before meeting a Teacher and hope you find what you need in
the near future.

with best wishes
Khyenrab

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

Kelsang Khyenrab <khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:

> The only thing that's really new about Geshe Kelsang's Centres is that they
> present Dharma study and meditation in a systematic way suitable to Western
> people. Right now, for example we are doing our traditional Winter retreats
> to complement the study terms we do throughout the rest of the year. Try one
> Centre and see for yourself if you like. Visitors are always welcome - even
> when we're on retreat - the energy is so peaceful. There are Centres in most
> UK cities and towns.

Hmm. Most traditions based in the west would have the same
qualifications, at least the Tibetan Buddhist centers I've visited.
Nothing wrong with NKT, but to state it's kind of exclusively designed
for Westeners do not take into account that most if not all Tibetan
Buddhist centers placed in West are indeed designed for... Westeners.

Maitri, Kent

The Puddies

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Hello Kelsang, This is Evelyn replying to your comments to poor Simon, and
your snide remarks about my post to him.
.

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <69geh3$590$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>
>Message to Simon Heath
>
>Dear Simon
>
>I was sorry that you were put off by what you see on the Internet but it’s
>good to read that you’re still interested in searching for a Teacher. The
>books of Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are very clear and accessible; they have
>received high critical acclaim from many reliable sources. Also his
Centres
>in the UK are, in general, very happy and open places.

I am sure they are, and I have never said ONE word against or about you or
your teacher or your centers. And as to reliable sources, I consider HH
Dalai Lama a very reliable source. Lots of other people do too. This is
my very First comment on the subject since the start of this whole thread.

>If you visit them you will not be met with anyone forcing you to engage in
>Dorje Shugden practice - or any practice for that matter - whatever you may
>have heard to the contrary. We are not a cult; we belong to a precious and
>authentic lineage of Je Tsongkhapa following all the methods of training
the
>mind taught by Buddha Shakyamuni. People freely choose to visit and leave
as
>they wish.

I have never spoken a word to the contrary about this either. I try not to
say something about things I don't know about, and having never been to your
centers, I can only judge them by the people they seem to be turning out.
If you are an example of this, you ought be more considerate of the
attitudes you project in public forums.

>The only thing that’s really new about Geshe Kelsang’s Centres is that they
>present Dharma study and meditation in a systematic way suitable to Western
>people. Right now, for example we are doing our traditional Winter retreats
>to complement the study terms we do throughout the rest of the year. Try
one
>Centre and see for yourself if you like. Visitors are always welcome - even
>when we’re on retreat - the energy is so peaceful. There are Centres in
most
>UK cities and towns.

I am sure they are .... and if I ever went to the UK, I would not have any
qualms about checking those centers out. I would hope there were some
genuinely nice people there too besides the argumentive ones.

>On one post you said
>
>“It's just that nowadays the Internet is the best way of gaining a view on
>something.”
>
>This interested me. Why? Because people like myself have been trying to
>engage in a meaningful debate on the Internet to inform both ourselves and
>others about something we feel is very important to clarify in public.
>However, one remark to you from "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net> I
>feel represents a view that would like very much to stop free speech about
>this matter and therefore stop people such as yourself forming a view by
>consulting the Internet. Evelyn said in response to you:
>
>“I am sorry you happened upon the newsgroups when a lot of nonsense is
>obviously going on. That unfortunately cannot be helped. Many sincere
>people have tried and failed to stop it. Either we are being sabotaged
by
>trolls or these are simply individuals with axes to grind. Do not judge
>buddhism by these people”
>
>I believe that it is these types of remark that point to the root of this
>debate - freedom of religious expression by way of public speech (for
“these
>people, trolls etc”) VERSUS repression and stopping of religious expression
>by political or whatever means possible (by those “sincere people”). And I
>guess that it is this kind of interchange you find unpleasant.

At this point I have to clue you in.......since in your zeal you seem to be
clueless..... most people find this endless argument unpleasant. I have
personally totally refrained from any of the discussion of any of of the
Dorje Shugden business, or any of the complaints about anyones dharma
centers or any such thing, because I feel it is not constructive, and if it
is not constructive it is not worth my time or my comments. But if you are
going to jump all over me about it, you will hear my comments now.

I am sorry that you took exception to my comments so intensely, but if the
shoe fits, wear it. Since you CHOSE to wear it, I bow to your superior
knowledge of the subject.

As to your freedom of religious expression, we have all been subjected to it
ad infinitum for weeks now....... endlessly. Even the newbies are
complaining!!!!!!!! I do not call this religious expression, I call this
being a pain in the butt by shouting on a soapbox in the middle of a very
public forum, so no one else can discuss anything else but your problems.
You are being a hog, to put it plainly. If you think that by going on
like this you are winning friends or convincing anyone of anything other
than that you have an axe to grind, you are sadly mistaken. It has all
been said, Kelsang.... several times now at least.

>Needless to say, my view is that Evelyn is free to say what she likes. But
>if I were you Simon I would be asking myself why she tries to STOP others
>having the same right ? (The word STOP is pretty unambiguous.)

I haven't STOPPED anyone. I am simply finding the same material gone over
again and again and all the "attitude" over it downright tiresome!!!!!!!!!
So, if you are free to go on and on and take offense at the slightest thing,
then I am likewise free to skip over all this controversy and that is
exactly what I do!!! When I see Dorje Shugden in the subject line I SKIP
that message. I read them all for the first two months, after that it all
became repetition.

The man was complaining about WHAT A TURNOFF IT IS!
He was trying to learn about the DHARMA! (remember that word, Kelsang?)

I know you never got HIS message since you were so punchy over my
COMMISERATING with the man. I continue to commiserate with him.

>I have asked this question on this newsgroup a number of times and received
>a number of personal insults but no valid reply. Of course others may be
>tired of this repetitive debate but no one is forcing them to join it so I
>can’t see their difficulty. (The insults, by the way, I find helpful for my
>practice - though this isn’t an invitation for more!)

In case you haven't noticed, and I am SURE you haven't in fact, I never gave
you ANY insults, no matter how long this business drones on. The merest
HINT of a complaint however, and you come out swinging like Mike Tyson,
ready to bite my ear off. I think you are getting just a bit punchy, and
swinging at the wrong person.

>Maybe you’ve also noticed how some people try to STOP cross-posting to
other
>newsgroups ; Mike Austin has mentioned it again recently but it appeared
>many times before. Why this desire to stop and control others? As I said
>earlier no-one is forced to read this; I am simply putting my point of
view.
>My intention in responding to you is to provide a balance to some of the
>other responses you received. I don’t want to stop you or anyone expressing
>their views. Dharma is about controlling our own minds not those of others.

I think that when people go on and on about something to this degree it is
EXACTLY that, trying to control others minds. We all have heard you loud
and clear and many many times. I have never bashed your centers, your
teachers, your teachings, any thing about it. You TOOK offense where none
was GIVEN or intended. I must tell you that if I never hear the names
Dorje Shugden, NKT, or Maitreya either again, it would be too soon!!

>Like Evelyn I am also sorry you’ve met this aspect of Dharma practitioners’
>discussion-style before meeting a Teacher and hope you find what you need
in
>the near future.

Well, now that you have identified yourself plainly as one of the
individuals he took exception to, and defended yourself, while swinging at
me. I am still not the slightest bit surprised that the guy was turned
off, and my advice to him still stands. Sorry if you don't like that, but
then, that is my freedom of religious expression too. I don't mind you
believing whatever you like, practicing whatever you like, or whatever, but
if you think you are going to CONVINCE people that HH Dalai Lama is wrong,
you better start your own newsgroup, and I will avoid it like the plague.
Meanwhile, I continue to skip all posts with Dorje Shugden in the subject
line. If you will notice, this one did not have it there, and that is why
I even read it or replied to it, in the first place.

Evelyn

>
>with best wishes
>Khyenrab
>

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <69geh3$590$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

Hello Simon,

I'd like to address some of the points raised by Steve Booth aka Khyenrab
concerning the NKT. I was involved with the NKT from 1992-96 during which
time I lived at Tara NKT Centre and at Manjushri NKT Centre. I was initially
a student on the Foundation Programme and then on the Teachers Training
Programme (from 1993) - I was also a NKT teacher for a time (in fact
Khyenrab gave the public talk in which I was introduced to some of the good
people of Manchester as their teacher). So I know a little about the NKT.

>Also his Centres
>in the UK are, in general, very happy and open places.
>

. We are not a cult; we belong to a precious and
>authentic lineage of Je Tsongkhapa

>People freely choose to visit and leave as
>they wish.

Whether the NKT is or is not a cult is a very difficult point to answer -
just what constitutes a cult? But what I will say is that, in my experience
(and many who have been involved will agree), the NKT is sectarian and
elitist (ie they hold that the NKT alone holds the pure Buddhadharma :

Let me quote from a teaching, called 'Introduction to Mahamudra',
that Gen Thubten Gyatso gave at Vajravarahi NKT Centre (Preston),
"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the Dharma
transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was
referring to this practice [he's talking here about Mahamudra] - this is the
inner practice of the NKT. Only the NKT holds the pure lineage of the
Mahamudra today."

As for NKT Centres being "open" (in the sense of non-dogmatic), this is most
patently a lie - and I don't use this word lightly. In case you are new to
the ng and missed my earlier postings I'll briefly mention one or two
incidents:

When I first became involved at Amitabha NKT Centre I met a chap, Richard,
who served as the NKT contact in Bristol. We took several empowerments
together, including Heruka-Vajrayogini, and were Foundation Programme
students together. Richard was banned from all NKT Centres - no warning, no
discussion, with instant effect! Why? Because he'd discussed some stuff he'd
heard about HHDL and the Shugden controversy. The teacher at Amitabha Centre
told me that she'd discussed this with Kelsang Gyatso and he'd told her to
ban him. He was told that if he went to KG on his knees then he MIGHT be
forgiven!

When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in the class
by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong that
TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
action would damage GK's health. If we were true students of GK then we
would rely soley upon his teachings!

The library at Manjushri NKT Centre was destroyed - books (including many by
Gelugpa teachers and others such as Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti) were either
burnt or given away to non-NKT buddhist centres. Only GK's books were
'kosher'. The shop at the Centre was told not to stock any books other than
GK's.

I was told by Samten at Manjushri Centre to refrain from talking with
students at the Centre because my questioning of GK's interpretation of
buddhadharma might damage students' faith - I felt that the Shentong
approach was more suited to the understanding of tantric practice than the
Rangtong; and that GK's teachings on tantric prasangika madhyamika (vs
sutric prasangika madhyamika) were actually a form of Shengtong! KG is very
strictly Rangtong. Anyway Samten said I might greet people when I met them,
but that I shouldn't enter into conversation with them.

>
>

>Why this desire to stop and control others?
>

>I don’t want to stop you or anyone expressing
>their views. Dharma is about controlling our own minds not those of others.
>

I can assure you, Simon, if you took KG as your teacher and you became
seriously involved with the NKT then you'd find that KK and co would slowly
but surely seek to control your mind, your reading material, your contact
with other buddhist teachers and teachings - look at the fury when it seemed
that some NKT students were thought to have taken Dzogchen empowerment
recently!

Of course, should you decide to visit a NKT Centre then you will most
certainly find it warm and friendly. Try visiting a Moonie Centre,
Scientology Centre, or whatever - all will greet you with warmth and
friendliness. I wonder why?

Here's a quote from the instructions that I and other NKT student teachers
received during our training:

"We should not worry about converting people at the beginning. To start with
we need to agree with people, to show that we understand where they are at,
not to resist them or argue with them. If we have a wild horse, the best way
to tame it is to mount it, to go with it. We need to build up a rapport. If
we feel that the Teacher understands us and is sympathetic to us, we will
naturally feel close to him or her, and keep coming back."

So Simon, if you want to be 'converted' or have your 'wild horse tamed', the
NKT will comply.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Khyenrab
>

Chris

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

On 14 Jan 1998 00:41:46 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

<SNIP>

> I don't mind you
> believing whatever you like, practicing whatever you like, or whatever, but
> if you think you are going to CONVINCE people that HH Dalai Lama is wrong,
> you better start your own newsgroup, and I will avoid it like the plague.

There is already a newsgroup for the NKT - alt.religion.buddhism.nkt -
if NKTmembers and their freinds posted their views on the Dalai Lama
only to that newsgroup most people would be quite happy to leave them
to it.

- Chris

GT

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER
WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING !
CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER
WARNING !

DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !
DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !

On 13 Jan 1998 19:15:47 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang
Khyenrab) wrote:

>received high critical acclaim from many reliable sources. Also his Centres

>in the UK are, in general, very happy and open places.
>

<snip> - all the Bull Shit from NKT Inc. trying to attract innocent
victims from other Newsgroups that theirs !

IMOM
- All they want is your money to survive !
- All they want is to create division among Tibetan Traditions, so
they could abuse the "Tibetan" trade mark !
- All they want is to keep the little privilege and power they have
managed to steel from innocents !
- You will not find Love and Compassion there !
- Their talk is only about hatred, censure, manipulation, all centred
around themselves !
- They don't use Truth, they use illusions, lying, egoistic
manipulations and ignorance !
- Protect yourself and your children !

There !

But that is just my humble opinion, you should investigate the matter
by yourself carefully before risking yourself with a
group that doesn't have any support from other Buddhist or Tibetan
Organizations.

Please ask more questions on this Newsgroup !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With metta, G T

I am here to be used by others.

--
Remove the "w" from my email address if you want to respond directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).

met...@cam.org

Mick_G

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

I don't think this message contributes anything to the discussion.

Mick

GT wrote in message <34bcad07...@nntp.hip.cam.org>...

lita

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to Avyorth Rolinson

Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
>
> When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in the class
> by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong that
> TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
> action would damage GK's health.

I find this fascinating, especially in light of the recent Mirabella
article about abuses at another Tibetan Temple. According to the
article, the Tulku/Teacher used similar threats when she wanted one of
her followers to act on her advice. In that case, the teacher also
allegedly told students that if they failed to follow her advice or
instructions, they would either get cancer or that the teacher herself
would suffer severe, possibly deadly illness.

I wonder whether this indicates a pattern in some Tibetan traditions.
A pattern wherein the teacher is able to control both the spiritual and
the personal lives of their followers. It is also a wonderful means by
which to keep a student from leaving or sometimes from even questioning
the dictates of the teacher. I do not mean to imply that this sort of
behavior is customary nor that it is sanctioned by most Vajrayana
teachers; only that it has happened on more than one occasion and said
by more than one Lama.

I have much repect for GKG and I do not know if the allegations of
Avyorth are true. I simply note that other teachers have used a similar
threat If the allegations true, then maybe we should look beyond any
one particlar teacher and address the issue (of threats made by lamas
and intended to ensure a student acts in accordance with the teacher's
directive) itself and not what certain teachers have or have not said or
implied.

peace, lita

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:38:07 -0800, "Mick_G" <mic...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

>I don't think this message contributes anything to the discussion.
>
>Mick
>

Mick,

We can agree on somethings :-)

Take care

Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:19:41 GMT, met...@cam.org (GT) wrote:

>CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER
>WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING !
>CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER WARNING ! CONSUMER
>WARNING !
>
>
>DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS BULL SHIT ! It is a Marketing Scam !

>
>With metta, G T
>

Please, be happy. Smile and laugth at us if you want, but don't upset
yourself. Its always feels better to have a happy mind.

Regards

Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:43:38 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Avyorth,

You have not posted for a while, I hope all is well with you.

I have sniped most your mail, as you know I strongly disagree with how
you choose to paint the NKT, my experiences certainly does not match
yours. But there seems little point in going over the same ground. And
poor Simon, if he is still reading this newsgroup will have to make up
his own mind, without any further help from us.

But I did want to comment on this part
snip

>
>Here's a quote from the instructions that I and other NKT student teachers
>received during our training:
>
>"We should not worry about converting people at the beginning. To start with
>we need to agree with people, to show that we understand where they are at,
>not to resist them or argue with them. If we have a wild horse, the best way
>to tame it is to mount it, to go with it. We need to build up a rapport. If
>we feel that the Teacher understands us and is sympathetic to us, we will
>naturally feel close to him or her, and keep coming back."

What do you find so alarming about this?

How do you attract people to Dharma, by being rude, disagreeing and
argueing with them? Make sure you do not build up a rapport, and never
ever being sympathetic?

If people come to a general programme class at a NKT centre, they
obviously have some interest in meditation and may well be interested
in learning about Buddhism.

May be they just want to learn some simple relaxation techniques or
maybe they are going through some crises and hoping that they may
find some answers. Nearly all, have their own world view and and may
well disagree with many aspects of buddhism such as karma or rebirth
etc.,

The purpose of providing General Programme classes is not to convert
people but hopefully share some Dharma with them that will help them
develop greater inner peace and well being. They may come for a few
classes or for years and not wish to take their interest in Buddhism
any further. That is great, if it benefits them in some way, then that
is a cause for rejoicing.

Also, we may find ourselves agreeing with people in order not to
disturb their peace of mind. Being in London, we have many people come
to class with all kinds of beliefs. Sai Baba devotees, Vaisnaivas
Spiritualists etc. Why disagree with their beliefs, how would that
benefit them?

I remember having a conversation with a spiritualist and he was
telling me about mediumship experiences he had. He definately believed
he was contacting the dead and he asked me over a cup of coffee, what
buddhism made of that. I asked him if he found his belief helpful, and
if it was encourageing him to be gentle, generous etc. He said it was,
and that was certainly the impression he give. I told him that
buddhism teaches that conciousness does not end at death, and nothing
more. I think he may well have gained the impression that I shared his
belief that he was contacting the dead. But what would have been
gained by disagreeing with him. It would have only disturbed his peace
of mind and but him on the defensive.

Then they are others who take an interest in Dharma, who genuine
express an interest in learning more, sometimes this happens after
only a few visits, or after attending General Programme classes for a
year or more. If they express such an interest then obviously we have
a duty to share Dharma with them, and encourage them to practice
Dharma to the best of their ability. Are we not, with compassion,
always to encourage others to go for refuge?

This is what Geshe-la says

"If we help someone else tactfully in this way, without being
arrogant or impatient, we shall bring them real benefit. It is never
certain that the material gifts we give to others actually help them.
Sometimes they even cause other people to increase there delusions.
The perfect way to help others is by leading them along spiritual
paths. If we cannot teach extensively we can at least give proper
advice to those who are unhappy and help them solve their problems by
means of Dharma."

This is how my teacher helped me to practice Dharma, I try to repay
her kindness by following her example.

Take care,

Alan

Chris

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

These days most people in the west are within reach of centres of
several different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Instead of just
trumpeting how wonderful ur own teacher / centre/ tradition is perhaps
we should suggest to people like Simon that they check out teachers
& centres in all the different Tibetan Buddhist traditions -at least
to read books about all of them. I would even advise checking out
different centres and teachers belonging to the same tradition - after
all the way Trungpa Rinpoche and Kalu Rinpoche presented the
Karma Kagyu tradition was very different - suitable for different
types of students - the same thing applies for other traditions.

If Simon hasn't looked at other forms of Buddhism - Theravada, Pue
Land, Zen etc then he should look at these too before deciding which
tradition ( combination of traditions) and teacher suits him best..

What's the matter are we all competing for followers, members or
something? If we really want people to benefit from the Buddhist
teachings shouldn't we encourage them to discover for themselves
the form of those teachings most suited to them?

- Chris

Mike Austin

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

In article <34be812c...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Alan Bird
<alan...@dial.pipex.com> writes

>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:43:38 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
><Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

>>Here's a quote from the instructions that I and other NKT student teachers
>>received during our training:
>>
>>"We should not worry about converting people at the beginning. To start with
>>we need to agree with people, to show that we understand where they are at,
>>not to resist them or argue with them. If we have a wild horse, the best way
>>to tame it is to mount it, to go with it. We need to build up a rapport. If
>>we feel that the Teacher understands us and is sympathetic to us, we will
>>naturally feel close to him or her, and keep coming back."
>

>What do you find so alarming about this?
>
> How do you attract people to Dharma, by being rude, disagreeing and
>argueing with them? Make sure you do not build up a rapport, and never
>ever being sympathetic?

..snip..

> Also, we may find ourselves agreeing with people in order not to
>disturb their peace of mind. Being in London, we have many people come
>to class with all kinds of beliefs. Sai Baba devotees, Vaisnaivas
>Spiritualists etc. Why disagree with their beliefs, how would that
>benefit them?

..snip..

I see nothing wrong in encouraging others and putting them at ease.
After all, in the Lam Rim, it is a bodhisattva practice - the meditation
known as "The Four Means of Attraction" or "The Four Ways of Gathering
Disciples". Pabongka Rinpoche quotes from Maitreya’s Ornament to the
Sutras:

"I declare these to be:
Acting generously, so that they will take teachings;
Speaking sweetly, so that they will follow you;
Working for their benefit; and practising what you preach."

I am wondering if there may be a subtle distinction here between
practising these in order to attract/gather new students or to
attract/gather students who have already shown an interest.

If the emphasis is on 'conversion', then the interests of others may
become subordinated to the desire to promote one's own views. They could
thus be easily distorted by 'giving in order to receive'. That is,
giving a passing acquiesence in order to get one's own views accepted in
the end. This may be the point behind Avyorth's comment.
--
Mike Austin

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:23:05 +0000, Mike Austin
<mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>I see nothing wrong in encouraging others and putting them at ease.
>After all, in the Lam Rim, it is a bodhisattva practice - the meditation
>known as "The Four Means of Attraction" or "The Four Ways of Gathering
>Disciples". Pabongka Rinpoche quotes from Maitreya’s Ornament to the
>Sutras:
>
> "I declare these to be:
> Acting generously, so that they will take teachings;
> Speaking sweetly, so that they will follow you;
> Working for their benefit; and practising what you preach."
>
>I am wondering if there may be a subtle distinction here between
>practising these in order to attract/gather new students or to
>attract/gather students who have already shown an interest.
>
>If the emphasis is on 'conversion', then the interests of others may
>become subordinated to the desire to promote one's own views. They could
>thus be easily distorted by 'giving in order to receive'. That is,
>giving a passing acquiesence in order to get one's own views accepted in
>the end. This may be the point behind Avyorth's comment.
>--
>Mike Austin

Hi Mike,

Engaging in a bodhisattva's actions include training in the six
perfections to ripen our own mental continuum and as you refer to in
your posting, training in the four ways of gathering to ripen the
mental continuum of others.

The purpose of teaching Dharma is to benefit others, not in the hope
of getting anything in return. In my original posting I give examples
of people who I know who are interested in attending classes because
they enjoy listening to Dharma and meeting with Dharma practitioners.
But they are not buddhist and do not hold too many buddhists tenants
such as rebirth, karma etc.

That is fine, we are just glad that they find it helpful to come. If
they do not wish to take their interest in buddhism further that is
not a problem.

The purpose of class is not to "convert" but to share Dharma. If
someone expresses a genuine interest and asks for more, my experience
is that they are encouraged to start a regular meditation session,
using the 21 Lamrim meditations. Everything else develops from there.
Looking at my own experience, it was always me who took the inititive.
I asked about taking Refuge, later I asked to take Pratimoksha vows
and then also asked to take Boddhisattva vows etc., I know that my
experience is far from being exceptional.

>That is,
>giving a passing acquiesence in order to get one's own views accepted in
>the end.

Personally, I do not see what there is to object to in this.

One tries to be polite and friendly and create a happy enviroment
for people. Sometimes people will express all kinds of views which as
buddhists we would not accept. For example, people on their first
aquittance with Dharma often struggle with the idea that "Anger serves
no useful purpose and is always a cause of suffering". They will
often state quite firmly, that anger often serves a useful purpose,
and that anger can often be a healthy emotion.

On hearing this, one will often just have to smile and nod's ones'
head, as often there is nothing to be gained from arguing the point.
However, if they keep attending and become more acquintted with Dharma
one hopes that they will change their view. What is wrong with that?
It is to their benefit that they should change their view, as anger
will only be a cause of suffering in this and future lives.

The quote about "conversion" came from Avyorth, , which I presume will
be from her notes, unless she says she was given this quote as written
material. This seems unlikely as this is not how Classes usually take
place. A teacher will give a commentry on a Dharma book, students take
notes and discuss things in pairs, and then together as a group. So it
may be that her notes are not well written.

Or it may be that her notes are good, but then it seems that she is
not quoting it in its full context. Teachers may not necessarily
always express themselves very well. That is why one needs to always
consider statements within the full context of a Dharma teaching.

This is also why we study Geshe-la's books and not teachers notes. The
books have been carefully edited to make sure that they clearly
express dharma. In a class, statements out of context, often do not
give the full flavour of a Dharma teaching.

My quote from Geshe-la is very clear and speaks for itself

Take care

Alan

Dave Simpson

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Why is there so much pain in these news groups?
I am new to Buddhism, I have only been studying Dharma for 18 months and
I have met many nice people at a Dharma Centre in NE England.
I feel sorrow for the individuals who look to these news groups as a way
of looking for the Path, we show little respect for the words of Buddha
we split the Sangha and cause Dharma to decay and bring on degenerate
times.
I recommend all who wish to find Buddhism to read books from several
teachers and if you can, attend different centres. I received this
advice at my first teaching given by an NKT teacher. Please do not let
some writers put you off trying ANY tradition all only wish to end
suffering. However like all religions use your mind before committing
yourself. Unlike some religions faith is not enough as a Buddhist we
have to change ourselves by study and meditation and therefore it is
important to understand and accept the teachings of your chosen
tradition. It is also helpful if you can avoid ‘Mix and Match’ the
Buddha may be pointing us all in the same direction but their are many
paths and the route is easier if we stick to one.
There are many Teachers, most only wish to help us escape Samsara, some
may misuse their positions. Sadly that is true for all religions and
traditions do not judge a religion or a Tradition because one teacher
abuses his or her power. I speak hear primarily of those practices to
bring about personal pleasure, sex abuse, or those for increased
personal wealth.
When the second wave of Christians came to England (Augustine) they had
to build a pure tradition their tales are told by Bede in his History of
the English Church. Is it not the same with KGK?
He is trying to bring to a foreign land a new tradition if its purity is
lost so soon and becomes mixed with other traditions it cannot flourish.
I believe Buddhism like Christianity can only flourish when it mixes
with the culture but that takes time otherwise the culture kills the
tradition.
If students living in a Dharma Centre no longer accept the teachings of
that tradition it is good that they leave in order to prevent the
generation of bad Karma in themselves and others.
Should we not all rejoice in the virtue of all?
Why attack that Tradition with which you no longer agree do you care
more for your name and pride than the end to Samsara?
To read that that Teachers should not try and convert but be open and
none assertive detailed like a conspiracy is without virtue. If we are
to help any human from suffering physical, mental , or spiritual pain
we should not be harsh and judgmental. It is not conspiratorial to
accept all without attachment.
If a student wishes to learn more it must be from their side not the
teachers. But when the right conditions arise and the student does wish
to learn more the teacher should help the student to find
Enlightenment.
Is this not true of all Buddhist traditions?
I do not understand, nor wish to understand Tibetan politics. I have no
wish to cause harm to HHDL or the Pope or any other Sentient Being.
The HHDL has said a practise I perform is wrong, for those who accept
HHDL as their Teacher they should listen to what he says. I will listen
to my Teacher.
When the Pope demoted St George it did not stop England or Malta from
still having George as their patron Saint. I know of some who still
worship St Christopher although he was similarly demoted.
We should not allow Dharma to decay because different traditions accept
different buddhas. As one person wrote in one of these News Groups all
appearance is to mind to some the river Ganges appears as a river of
puss, to some a river of water and to others a river of nectar. Can we
not agree that our Karma is different and encourage the growth of Dharma
for the benefit of all sentient beings.
I hope I will continue to read Dharma and integrate it into my whole
life for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Dave.

The Puddies

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Hi Dave,

Dave Simpson wrote in message <34C0C4...@onyx.octacon.co.uk>...

>Why is there so much pain in these news groups?

Please read the first noble truth...... It is everywhere. In some places
it is hidden better, but the truth of suffering is always there.

>I am new to Buddhism, I have only been studying Dharma for 18 months and
>I have met many nice people at a Dharma Centre in NE England.
>I feel sorrow for the individuals who look to these news groups as a way
>of looking for the Path, we show little respect for the words of Buddha
>we split the Sangha and cause Dharma to decay and bring on degenerate
>times.

This comes from the belief that we are a separate "self".... It is ego's
clinging and a desire for uniqueness in that mistaken belief. Again, it is
everywhere. But on newsgroups which are related to the study of buddhism,
because we are getting closer to that understanding that ego makes a
stronger last stand. Sort of like getting worse before getting better.

>I recommend all who wish to find Buddhism to read books from several
>teachers and if you can, attend different centres. I received this
>advice at my first teaching given by an NKT teacher.

I am sure that there must be some teachers with some wisdom in any
tradition, but not any tradition has a guarantee that all are. Just
remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day..... Still search for
yourself and give it enough time to really know. The recommended time is
12 years!!!! No it need not be that long, but certainly a few months is
not enough.

>There are many Teachers, most only wish to help us escape Samsara, some
>may misuse their positions. Sadly that is true for all religions and
>traditions do not judge a religion or a Tradition because one teacher
>abuses his or her power. I speak hear primarily of those practices to
>bring about personal pleasure, sex abuse, or those for increased
>personal wealth.

Absolutely.....

>When the second wave of Christians came to England (Augustine) they had
>to build a pure tradition their tales are told by Bede in his History of
>the English Church. Is it not the same with KGK?
>He is trying to bring to a foreign land a new tradition if its purity is
>lost so soon and becomes mixed with other traditions it cannot flourish.
>I believe Buddhism like Christianity can only flourish when it mixes
>with the culture but that takes time otherwise the culture kills the
>tradition.

Respect for the highest teachers in that original tradition may prevent
that. HH Dalai Lama is one of the highest teachers in Tibetan Buddhism.
Disrespecting him and causing schisms is destructive. The practices that
give rise to such attitudes must certainly be tainted. The fruits of good
practice are lovingkindness and gentleness and desire to help not harm. By
their fruits are practices revealed. The attacks and endless squabbling on
the newsgroups make it easy for me at least, to see that some people
'protest too much'....to be sincere or to be right.

>I do not understand, nor wish to understand Tibetan politics. I have no
>wish to cause harm to HHDL or the Pope or any other Sentient Being.
>The HHDL has said a practise I perform is wrong, for those who accept
>HHDL as their Teacher they should listen to what he says. I will listen
>to my Teacher.

That is most certainly your right. But why choose a lesser vessel over a
greater one! I guess that the choice is less obvious for some, or simply a
case of what is near and convenient, or a case of karmic connection for good
or bad purpose. What is obvious to me may not be to you. Live and learn.

>When the Pope demoted St George it did not stop England or Malta from
>still having George as their patron Saint. I know of some who still
>worship St Christopher although he was similarly demoted.
>We should not allow Dharma to decay because different traditions accept
>different buddhas.

Diversity is fine if it doesn't harm anyone. If anyone even HINTED some
practice of mine MIGHT be harmful, I would do another practice. If HH
Dalai Lama, whom I see as a good and fine a human being that ever lived,
sees a practice as harmful and hurtful to himself and the Tibetan people, I
for one will believe him, and would NO WAY be interested in doing that
practice.

Regarding practices...... my own teacher Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche said in no
uncertain terms that "If one only does ONE practice, and does it correctly,
it is all you need" That seems pretty wide open to me, considering that
there are so many to choose from that there surely must be ONE among them
all that has no hint of a problem about it.......

IMHO insisting on doing a practice that someone such as HHDL has decried as
being destructive or harmful, or anything less than perfect, has some other
axe to grind. They obviously are doing it to be ball-busters, to call a
spade a spade..... Anyone who needs to be doing that, has something very
wrong in their foundation practices that has caused them to ENHANCE ego
rather than eliminate it. There is a name for it .... Rudra. Anyone who
has done real and valid practice under the guide of a GOOD teacher should be
able to spot it like an ugly zit on the face of the dharma.

All this NKT business, all the stubborness, all the egos, all the angry
posts tell the tale loud and clear to anyone with eyes in their head to see.
Give it up already, and every one of you who sits down to do that practice
in FULL KNOWLEDGE someone fine and good has declared it to be harmful, ought
to be damned ashamed of themselves, ought to find new teachers, ought to
start all over again somehow. It is not a good thing to do something that
is supposed to help beings, when you know that someone else is hurting
everytime you do it. That alone should spoil and taint the whole practice
for you.

As one person wrote in one of these News Groups all
>appearance is to mind to some the river Ganges appears as a river of
>puss, to some a river of water and to others a river of nectar.

The thing that differentiates it is this..... DOES IT HARM ANY LIVING BEING?
If I perceive that any thing I do in my practice hurts anyone, much less his
holiness, it is definitely a river of shit. If my practice hurts NO ONE
and benefits all, then it is nectar. For me it is that simple.

Can we
>not agree that our Karma is different and encourage the growth of Dharma
>for the benefit of all sentient beings.
> I hope I will continue to read Dharma and integrate it into my whole
>life for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Ask yourself one question and start by reading what you just wrote.... "all"
sentient beings. If ONE BEING IS HURT by your practice, you are spinning
your wheels and getting nowhere. Do a different practice, one that is not
beset by such controversy and anger. Do something that has no negative
connotations about it. Surely your teachers are not so narrow minded that
only this ONE practice is all they know?!!!!

I myself have had many many empowerments and do several practices each day.
If one does this, one realizes that there is great similarity between all
these practices. Only the names and physical attributes differ, but there
is much in common. Surely in the interest of peace ONE of these practices
might suffice?

If any one among you defenders of this practice, take the time to read the 8
verses of thought transformation please, you should find it obvious what to
do. If you don't have it let me know and I will scan it and send it off to
you. If you don't it is simply that you are too bound up in ego, and your
own personal pissing contests to care.

May ALL beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
May ALL beings be free from sorrow and the causes of sorrow.

If you can't say that and MEAN it, your practice is just empty words and
dead leaves blowing in the winds of karma..... You have my sincerest
compassion and regret.

Regards,
Evelyn Ruut

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

"Avyorth Rolinson" <Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>....... what I will say is that, in my experience
>(and many who have been involved will agree), the NKT is sectarian..

The New Kadampa Tradition cannot be sectarian; nowhere in NKT literature,
teachings or Centres is there a sectarian view promoted. Instead the
realized masters of all other traditions are praised; many examples of this
can be found in the books of Geshe Kelsang - everyone can see this quite
clearly. So how can the NKT be sectarian?

The NKT cherishes its particular view and practices like a family cherishes
its special values and precious heirlooms passed down the generations; we
are very happy that other traditions with their own special characteristics
do the same. We rejoice in all traditions and lineages coming from Buddha.
We recognize them as methods for attaining enlightenment and do not
discriminate negatively against any of them.

In this context it may be helpful to consider the advice of the 12th Century
Kadampa Geshe Zungjug Rinpoche:

'These days there are many qualified masters
Whom we can meet and recognize.
Do not run to many;
Rather, search for one qualified master
With whom you have a strong connection.
Then, having found him, devote yourself correctly
Without giving thought to worldly considerations.'

Avyorth said:

>and elitist (ie they hold that the NKT alone holds the pure Buddhadharma :
>Let me quote from a teaching, called 'Introduction to Mahamudra',
>that Gen Thubten Gyatso gave at Vajravarahi NKT Centre (Preston),
>"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the Dharma
>transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was
>referring to this practice [he's talking here about Mahamudra] - this is
the
>inner practice of the NKT. Only the NKT holds the pure lineage of the
>Mahamudra today."

Geshe Kelsang has never said that he is the only lineage holder of Mahamudra
and we do not hold that to be the case. Indeed, Geshe Kelsang is on record
on the newsgroups and elsewhere as saying that he feels that the Nyingma,
Sakya and Kagyu traditions have complete paths to enlightenment. So the NKT
cannot be elitist.

To my knowledge, and after checking with some other NKT students no-one has
heard Geshe Kelsang say that 'only the NKT holds the pure lineage of
Mahamudra today'. Geshe Kelsang has said that the central focus of practice
within the New Kadampa Tradition should be Lamrim (Stages of the Path),
Lojong (Training the Mind), and Vajrayana Mahamudra, but he has never
suggested that these are exclusive to the NKT.

I spoke about this point with Jim Belither, Secretary of the NKT. He
remembers once escorting from London to Manjushri Centre, the then abbot of
Gyurme Tantric College, an old school friend of Geshe Kelsang. This Lama
requested Geshe Kelsang to translate 'Clear Light of Bliss' into Tibetan as
such a book (so this Lama said to Geshe Kelsang) that sets out clearly and
succinctly the instructions of Vajrayana Mahamudra according to Je
Tsongkhapa's tradition doesn't exist in Tibetan.

It also contains certain instructions passed down orally which are not found
in other books. Geshe Kelsang didn't feel he had the time to do this
translation but wrote a 'Condensed Meaning' of 'Clear Light of Bliss', or
brief synopsis of its subject-matter, in Tibetan. This was printed and
distributed to a number of Tibetan Lamas. Geshe Kelsang has said publicly
that Mahamudra teachings are rarely given within Gelugpa monasteries,
although some may practise it privately, and that many Gelugpas regard
Mahamudra as a Kagyu practice.

A Gelugpa Geshe from Ganden Shartse Monastery told an NKT student that he
regarded Geshe Kelsang as his Guru for Mahamudra teachings, and that some
Tibetan monks who spoke some English, or knew monks who spoke English, were
studying and practising the instructions in 'Clear Light of Bliss'. It may
be that putting these points together has been misunderstood and taken as
'only the NKT holds the pure lineage of Mahamudra today'.

Avyorth wrote:

>As for NKT Centres being "open" (in the sense of non-dogmatic), this is
most
>patently a lie - and I don't use this word lightly. In case you are new to
>the ng and missed my earlier postings I'll briefly mention one or two

>incidents:...SNIP here....

I have no direct knowledge of the person who was told to leave Amitabha
Centre. However, I would like to give some general background here. First,
each New Kadampa Tradition Centre asks that its residents observe the five
precepts, not killing, not stealing, not lying, not committing sexual
misconduct and not taking intoxicants.

In addition to Buddha’s rules the Centre asks that members try to not
disturb other students by noisy or disruptive behaviour; the management
reserves the right to ask any disruptive individual to leave. There is
nothing wrong with this and I believe that a reasonable person would agree
it is normal practice for any orderly community. What constitutes
disruption is determined by the managers. This too is accepted practice in
any organized community. How could it be otherwise? Even pubs and clubs do
this.

When I was Admin. Director at Tara Centre, for example, I had to ask people
to leave on a number of occasions due to their disruptive behaviour.
Sometimes physical damage was done to property or people before such a step
was taken, sometimes drugs were involved, sometimes theft. On certain
extreme occasions I have had to request police assistance to remove people.
In these cases the decision was obvious and the person involved understood
clearly why they had to leave.

For others it was sometimes harder for them to understand. What was often
not appreciated was the great amount of time and energy that had been given
by the Centre managers in trying to understand their behaviour and point of
view, to avoid problems and trying to encourage them to see how they might
change so there would be less disruption of communal harmony and greater
peace of mind for all.

I see nothing wrong with asking people to change if their actions or speech
are disturbing many people. If someone makes such mistakes then I believe it
is right to point that out. This is not controlling the minds of others. It
is presenting them with the the Centre’s expectations of members and giving
them freedom to change or not - they have the freedom to decide.

Asking people to observe a certain code of behaviour is perfectly normal for
all kinds of organizations - why should Buddhist centres be any different
and have no codes ? That would be contradictory to Buddha’s intention.

I can only imagine how upsetting it must be to be asked ‘officially’ to
leave by the management of any organization and that it must be a very
unpleasant experience for the individual concerned. For this very reason it
was always with a great deal of thought and consideration that I personally
took such decisions in my capacity as Director and I believe that the same
is true of the present managers of Centres.

However, the over-riding principle guiding these decisions is always - the
greater benefit for the greater number. This means using what wisdom,
compassion and skill one has and checking one’s mind to see that delusions
are not the driving force of decision-making. The managers, I believe, try
their best to do this. They are Mahayana Buddhists so I believe their
intentions are beneficial.

Having said all of this I know it is impossible for them to avoid
accusations from the aggreived individual of being unfair, authoritarian,
narrow-minded and so forth as we have seen in the newsgroups and wider
media. I have little doubt that my present attempt to put things from the
point of view of management will serve for some readers as an opportunity to
repeat their accusations. But I believe that many readers, (not necessarily
respondents!), especially anyone who has responsibility within an
organization or community of people will understand the points I am trying
to make.

As we can see from reading newspapers it is very easy to simplify the causes
of emotive events, to blame certain parties using vivid or lurid
terminology, and in this way to move public opinion in a certain direction.
I believe that this is the effect of some of Avyorth’s postings about
certain events within NKT Centres.

Avyorth maintains he is someone ‘who knows something about the NKT’ because
he lived at some of the Centres for a while; this is true. But ‘knowing
something’ and being fully knowlegeable about all sides of a certain event
cannot be synonymous.

Avyorth’s descriptions cannot be a representative account of how things run
within those Centres. Why not? Because his experience has been relatively
limited. This is not a criticism, merely an observation of the truth.
Reading Avyorth’s descriptions alone produces a skewed and biased picture.

To take but a small example, in an earlier posting he referred to a time
when he lived at Tara Centre and described himself as my ‘personal driver’
going on to give the impression of chaffeuring me between Centres. The
truth is that for a short period of time he gave me a useful lift to the
railway station in Sheffield each week and would kindly escort me and carry
my suitcase to the platform.

I ask anyone reading Avyorth’s descriptions of events at NKT Centres to
consider my points and those of other respondents to his postings, not to
immediately believe what he is saying. I am not saying that I know the truth
and Avyorth doesn’t; I am asking that consideration be given to both sides
of events before making a judgement.

Avyorth writes:

>When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in the class
>by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong that
>TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
>action would damage GK's health.

I understand from several other people who were present at the same talk
given by Ven. Samten that this was never said. Their understanding is that
the emphasis during this talk was on encouraging students to focus on the
specific book under study at the time.

Students on the Teacher Training Programme are encouraged not merely to
study but to contemplate, meditate and then to try to integrate the meaning
into their daily lives. Occasionally when TTP teachers feel that students
are beginning to become distracted, they will try to encourage them to
re-focus their energies. This is quite normal and there is nothing sinister
about it. Students are free to follow, reject or interpret such advice as
they feel appropriate.

In a number of his books Geshe Kelsang recommends people read books other
than his own. Why would he say this if he thought it was wrong? As for the
reading of books by teachers other than Geshe Kelsang damaging Geshe
Kelsang's health, Ven. Samten simply does not believe this and, along with
students who also heard the talk to which Avyorth refers, he doesn't believe
that he said that.

Avyorth writes:

>The library at Manjushri NKT Centre was destroyed ...........Only GK's

books were 'kosher'. The shop at >the Centre was told not to stock any books
other than GK's.

The library at Manjushri Centre was not destroyed. The books were given to
Centres and libraries which studied the particular traditions contained
within them. What is wrong with this?

New Kadampa disciples study the teachings of Buddha passed down through Je
Tsongkhapa’s tradition to the modern Masters Je Phabongkhapa, Trijang
Dorjechang and Ven. Geshe Kelsang . Other Centres study Buddha’s teachings
according to their own lineage gurus. What is wrong with different spiritual
families having their own special texts? Why is this so often misconstrued
as sectarian? Why, because we are content to study and practise the path to
enlightenment given to us by our root Guru, are we accused of sectarianism?
This is plain nonsense.

In the early days at Tara Centre (nine years before Avyorth lived there,
incidentally) we had several hundred books covering the whole range of
Buddhist traditions. Each book was authentic and came from its own special
lineage; we had the Pali Canon, Zen texts and many, many others. Many
people would read these books and often the Centre would be host to
seemingly endless and inconclusive discussions about people’s personal
preferences in terms of Teachers, traditions and practices. It was very
confusing and agreement about the actual meaning of Buddha’s teachings was
very difficult to achieve.

(Around the same time I also attended seminars at Nene College in
Northampton called ‘Buddhism in Psychiatry and Psychology’ and recall having
splitting headaches after trying to concentrate for a whole day on a
discussion that could not get beyond the definition of terms from each
person’s profession and religious tradition; common ground was hard to find
in that jungle of differing interpretations of words)

Later I learned that it is accepted in Tibetan monasteries that each college
has its own “yig cha” or special understanding and interpretation of the
teachings gained by study of a specific set of texts covering the whole
Dharma within one tradition. By studying in this way clarity of meaning was
far easier to attain due to a standard set of definitions of technical terms
throughout each of the texts. (The editors at Tharpa Publications, for
example, work constantly with Geshe Kelsang to standardise the terminology
throughout his books to aid clarity of understanding for the serious
student.)

It was the mid-1980’s and I had already received lots of teachings from many
teachers of different traditions - very wonderful in itself but difficult to
get a sense of making progress in learning and practising Dharma in any
systematic and sequential way. We were students of Ven. Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso, a fully accomplished meditation Master who had received fully the
lineages of instructions within Je Tsongkhapa's tradition.

He was in the process of publishing a complete set of texts covering the
entire path to enlightenment. Each of these texts are authenticated by
reference to the works of Je Tsongkhapa. When the Teacher Training Programme
based on these books began at Tara Centre I saw the opportunity to study in
a clear and systematic way the entire range of Buddha's teachings on both
Sutra and Tantra.

Therefore I saw nothing wrong with giving away all those texts from the
library that were not part of this tradition. To me it made a lot of sense
because at last there would be clarity. I remember at the time several
people at the Centre, misunderstanding our intention, remarked that giving
away the books was wrong, narrow-minded, disrespectful etc.

To me, sending the texts to the other Centres was quite appropriate and an
action of generosity to boot! Some of those centres were very happy to
receive valuable augmentation of their libraries and wrote to thank us.
Useless heated debates about the meaning of Dharma from the point of view of
a certain Zen master versus that of a certain Theravadin master became,
thankfully, a thing of the past. Those who wished to follow Zen teachings
would go to a Zen Centre and those who wished to follow a Theravadin could
do the same and those wishing to follow Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition could
study at Tara Centre.

I know from my own experience that the action of bringing clarity to our
library and study programmes, far from being sectarian, actually reduced
sectarian feelings among the Centre members. How wonderful for all
traditions to happily enjoy the clarity and precision of Dharma
understanding that I feel is now possible to attain in New Kadampa Centres.
I have no reason to suppose that other traditions cannot do this and I
rejoice in their special characteristics.

At Tara Centre no-one has ever been, or is now, forced to stop reading the
books of other teachers; individual people were, and still are completely
free to keep and read books by any other Teachers, Buddhist or non-Buddhist
- and they do!

However, Tara Centre as an institution follows the “yig cha” according to
Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s texts and therefore on the study programmes those
books are studied and those books only are in the library and shop. There is
no need to promote the books of other traditions; if individuals wish they
can purchase them through mail-order or visit the local Waterstones, Dillons
etc.

Avyorth writes:

>I can assure you, Simon, if you took KG as your teacher and you became
>seriously involved with the NKT then you'd find that KK and co would slowly
>but surely seek to control your mind, your reading material, your contact
>with other buddhist teachers and teachings

I can assure Simon that this is completely untrue. You can find my reasons
in the foregoing. Those who study seriously under Geshe Kelsang can
certainly learn powerful methods that derive from Buddha, for freeing their
minds from the control of greed, ignorance and hatred, and for cultivating
greater love, compassion and wisdom.

Anyway, all of this is for Simon to discover for himself, or not, as he
wishes. He is responsible for his own spiritual development and free to
follow whichever spiritual tradition he wishes, as are we all.

Khyenrab

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Kelsang Khyenrab <khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
> However, Tara Centre as an institution follows the "yig cha according to

> Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatsos texts and therefore on the study programmes those

> books are studied and those books only are in the library and shop. There is
> no need to promote the books of other traditions; if individuals wish they
> can purchase them through mail-order or visit the local Waterstones, Dillons
> etc.

I understand the notion of keeping something simple and to the point.
What I don't understand is that if you want to stay in the tradition of
Je Tsonkhapa, do you sell, provide in the library, or intend to
translate many if not all of Je Tsonkhapa's great texts, Lamrim Chenmo,
treaties on Tantra? And some of these have already been translated by
for example Snow Lion and similar publications? And what about Pahbonka
Rinpoche's great instructions, are those available or for sale,
Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, and multiple other texts that
should be made available for the West. And what about Kyabje Trijang
Rinpoche's scriptures? Or Ling Rinpoche's valuable scriptures. There's
so much that needs to get done in the tradition of Je Tsonkhapa, so many
texts, not to speak of all the instructions in forms of study material
at Ganden Shartse, Sera and other monasteries that should be translated
and made available to all those who follow the tradition of Je
Tsonkhapa.

I don't want to underestimate the great effort Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has
done in forms of writing books, but just want to point out that the
tradition is very deep and long, and there are many important texts that
should be made available to anyone following the tradition of Je
Tsonkhapa, if not others. Just the notion that Lamrim Chenmo is not yet
fully translated is something that should be fixed.

Sorry for the strong tone, but it's something I've felt strong about for
a longer time -- i.e. the lack of energy helping out to publish
important texts by Je Tsonkhapa, Pahbonka Rinpoche, Kyabje Rinpoche,
Ling Rinpoche, not to speak of many other imporant Gelug lamas.

Maitri, Kent
PS: Not to speak of Nagarjuna's treaties, Chandrakiirti....

P.M. Dierking

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <69qqq8$t2$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>Geshe Kelsang has never said that he is the only lineage holder of
Mahamudra
>and we do not hold that to be the case. Indeed, Geshe Kelsang is on
record
>on the newsgroups and elsewhere as saying that he feels that the
Nyingma,
>Sakya and Kagyu traditions have complete paths to enlightenment.

Kelsang Khyenrab,

Does the NKT follow the teachings of Phabongkha, or not?

Phabongkha clearly states in his collected writings that
Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu adherents *are bound for hell*.

Please review the folowing quote:

Ashoka Society wrote in message
<32b8aeba....@news.gofast.net>:

==begin quote==
It is an established fact, which may be discerned in
Phabongkha's writings, that late in his life he was virulently
sectarian, in worst sense of the word, against Sa.skya,
bKa'.rgyud and rNying.ma; holding that whoever held the view of
any of these three lineages would go to hell. In a letter to a
Chinese disciple, Phabongkha writes:

"Presently, aside from Manjughosha Tsongkhapa's view; the views
of all Sa.skya.pa, bKa'.rgyud and rNying.mas are erroneous. What
need to mention the consequentialist madhyamaka view, without
even an autonomist [madhyamaka] or mind only view, [they]
meditate a strictly annihilationist view similar with
non-Buddhist extremists [mu.stegs.pa] and Hashang Mahaayaana. If
an annihilationist view is held, a result apart from going to
Avici hell is not warranted. Also by not recognizing subtle
sinking, meditation will be faulty...because liberation and the
non-erroneous path of omniscience will not exist for them; for
such as they, although saadhana is practiced for a thousand
years, realization will not arise; similar with wishing for
butter having churned water, the essence does not exist". [T.G
Dhongthog Rinpoche "Dus.kyi.me.lce, Timely Tongue of Flame", pp.
117-118, Delhi: 1979]

It is also clear that Phabongkha wished his views to be known,
so we feel there is no harm in spreading them-- he wrote at the
end of the letter, 'Translate the meanings of this writing into
Chinese, also proclaim this to other lay persons [dge.bsnyen,
upaasaka]. So we see here, apparently, according to Phabongkha,
only 'pure' dGe.lugs.pas gain liberation.
==end quote==

khyenrab

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

In article <1d2zycm.96k...@sandvik.vip.best.com>, san...@zbest.com
says...

>
>Kelsang Khyenrab <khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
>> However, Tara Centre as an institution follows the "yig cha according to

>> Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatsos texts and therefore on the study programmes

those
>> books are studied and those books only are in the library and shop. There
is
>> no need to promote the books of other traditions; if individuals wish
they
>> can purchase them through mail-order or visit the local Waterstones,
Dillons
>> etc.
>

>I understand the notion of keeping something simple and to the point.
>What I don't understand is that if you want to stay in the tradition of
>Je Tsonkhapa, do you sell, provide in the library, or intend to
>translate many if not all of Je Tsonkhapa's great texts, Lamrim Chenmo,
>treaties on Tantra?

All of Geshe Kelsang's books refer to these great texts. In other words the
meaning of Je Tsongkhapa's works is already available. Maybe in future if
there is time to translate this would be very good.

best wishes
khyenrab

Mike Austin

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

In article <69qmlq$29ue$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, The Puddies
<pud...@frontiernet.net> writes
..snip..

>If any one among you defenders of this practice, take the time to read the 8
>verses of thought transformation please, you should find it obvious what to
>do. If you don't have it let me know and I will scan it and send it off to
>you.

..snip..

Evelyn, I'm going to pip you to the post here! There have been a number
of times I've read these postings and considered the benefits of the
Eight Verses of Thought Transformation. I have also wondered if I should
post them. I regard them as one of the most valuable texts I have ever
encountered. My dear teacher says that everyone wants to learn about
thought transformation but no one wants to do it! How true that is!

With a determination to accomplish
the highest welfare for all sentient beings,
Who surpass even a wish-granting jewel,
I will learn to hold them supremely dear.

Whenever I associate with others, I will learn
to think of myself as the lowest among all,
And respectfully hold others as being supreme,
From the depth of my heart.

In all actions, I will learn to search into my own mind,
And as soon as an afflictive emotion arises,
Endangering myself and others,
I will firmly face and avert it.

I will cherish beings of bad nature,
And those oppressed by strong negativities and sufferings,
As if I had found a precious treasure
Very difficult to find.

When others, out of jealousy, treat me badly
With abuse, slander and so on,
I will learn to take all loss
And offer the victory to them.

When one whom I have benefited with great hope
Unreasonably hurts me very badly,
I will learn to view that person
As an excellent spiritual guide.

In short, I will learn to offer to everyone without exception
All help and happiness directly and indirectly,
And secretly take upon myself
All the harms and suffering of my mothers.

I will learn to keep all these practices
Undefiled by the stains of the eight worldly conceptions,
And, by understanding all phenomena to be like illusions,
I will be released from the bondage of attachment.

This particular translation is from "The Union of Bliss and Emptiness"
by His Holiness. For those interested, some other good references are:

"Advice From A Spiritual Friend", Geshe Rabten & Geshe Dhargyey
"Keys To Great Enlightenment", Geshe Tsultim Gyeltsen
"Four Essential Buddhist Commentaries", His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
"Training The Mind The Great Way", Gyalwa Gendun Drupa, 1st Dalai Lama
"Mind Training Like The Rays Of The Sun", Nam-Kha Pel
"The Great Path of Awakening", Jamgon Kongtrul

I particularly like the first reference which continues with "The Seven
Point Thought Transformation" by Geshe Chekawa. At our centre (Lam Rim
Bristol, UK) we study and discuss these texts every Tuesday after Tara
Puja. We have been doing this for four years and still we are learning!
--
Mike Austin

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

khyenrab <khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
> >I understand the notion of keeping something simple and to the point.
> >What I don't understand is that if you want to stay in the tradition of
> >Je Tsonkhapa, do you sell, provide in the library, or intend to
> >translate many if not all of Je Tsonkhapa's great texts, Lamrim Chenmo,
> >treaties on Tantra?
>
> All of Geshe Kelsang's books refer to these great texts. In other words the
> meaning of Je Tsongkhapa's works is already available. Maybe in future if
> there is time to translate this would be very good.

OK, so you didn't give away the texts of Je Tsonkhapa from the library?
I hope so, as it's the key of the tradition, and giving those away or
any other similar commentaries to the great texts of Je Tsonkhapa is in
my eyes a way to break away from the tradition of Je Tsonkhapa. And
that's fine, if someone wants to do it, but then one is no longer part
of such a tradition.

I do think the future is here now, any energies and talent/work and such
should be focused on Je Tsonkhapa's works, if we loose them, we loose
the tradition as well.

Maitri, Kent

khyenrab

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

In article <34c11...@news1.ibm.net>, pmdie...@nospam01.eternal.net
says...
>

>Does the NKT follow the teachings of Phabongkha, or not?
>

SNIP

>It is an established fact, which may be discerned in
>Phabongkha's writings, that late in his life he was virulently
>sectarian, in worst sense of the word, against Sa.skya,
>bKa'.rgyud and rNying.ma; holding that whoever held the view of
>any of these three lineages would go to hell. In a letter to a
>Chinese disciple, Phabongkha writes:
>
>"Presently, aside from Manjughosha Tsongkhapa's view; the views
>of all Sa.skya.pa, bKa'.rgyud and rNying.mas are erroneous. What
>need to mention the consequentialist madhyamaka view, without
>even an autonomist [madhyamaka] or mind only view, [they]
>meditate a strictly annihilationist view similar with
>non-Buddhist extremists [mu.stegs.pa] and Hashang Mahaayaana. If
>an annihilationist view is held, a result apart from going to
>Avici hell is not warranted. Also by not recognizing subtle
>sinking, meditation will be faulty...because liberation and the
>non-erroneous path of omniscience will not exist for them; for
>such as they, although saadhana is practiced for a thousand
>years, realization will not arise; similar with wishing for
>butter having churned water, the essence does not exist". [T.G
>Dhongthog Rinpoche "Dus.kyi.me.lce, Timely Tongue of Flame", pp.
>117-118, Delhi: 1979]

I believe that Je Phabongkhapa was an authentic and realized master of the
Gelug tradition; he is the root Guru of Trijang Dorjechang so naturally I
follow his teachings. But I do not accept that we can find his teachings in
the letter you have quoted. I believe it is a mistake to assume that a
definitive teaching can necessarily be seen in pieces of advice given to
individual students.

For example, do you know the story of the person who had killed his parents
and later went to Buddha for advice about his actions? Buddha told him that
it was good to kill the father and mother (meaning self-grasping and
self-cherishing). There are many examples of Teachers giving advice that
appears to be non-Dharma.

Geshe Kelsang has made it clear that the New Kadampa Tradition follows the
teachings of Je Tsongkhapa as passed down to Je Phabongkhapa and HH Trijang
Rinpoche and that he believes all the Tibetan traditions have a complete
path to enlightenment. We are trying to live happily and rejoice in the
sincere practice of other traditions. It is our sincere wish to live in
peace and harmony with all other religious practitioners.

best wishes
Khyenrab

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

On 17 Jan 1998 16:36:10 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

>
>

>>I recommend all who wish to find Buddhism to read books from several
>>teachers and if you can, attend different centres. I received this
>>advice at my first teaching given by an NKT teacher.
>
>I am sure that there must be some teachers with some wisdom in any
>tradition, but not any tradition has a guarantee that all are. Just
>remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day..... Still search for
>yourself and give it enough time to really know. The recommended time is
>12 years!!!! No it need not be that long, but certainly a few months is
>not enough.
>

Evelyn,

The 12 years recommendation may be good advice for some when they
live in a Buddhist country surrounded by Dharma practioners. However,
in the West it does not seem appropiate.

Each person is different, within six months or there about I knew that
my search for a spiritual teacher had ended with Geshe-la. I am sure
that this is true of many westerners of whichever tradition.

>
>>There are many Teachers, most only wish to help us escape Samsara, some
>>may misuse their positions. Sadly that is true for all religions and
>>traditions do not judge a religion or a Tradition because one teacher
>>abuses his or her power. I speak hear primarily of those practices to
>>bring about personal pleasure, sex abuse, or those for increased
>>personal wealth.
>
>Absolutely.....

Agree totally.
>

>
>Respect for the highest teachers in that original tradition may prevent
>that. HH Dalai Lama is one of the highest teachers in Tibetan Buddhism.

HHDL is a high teacher but he is not the highest teacher for many
lineages of Tibetan Buddhism.

>Disrespecting him and causing schisms is destructive.

Disagreement is not the same as disrespect. Causing Schisms is indeed
destructive, which is why many hope that his Holiness will stop
imposing this ban upon Dorje Shugden practitioners.

>The practices that
>give rise to such attitudes must certainly be tainted. The fruits of good
>practice are lovingkindness and gentleness and desire to help not harm. By
>their fruits are practices revealed. The attacks and endless squabbling on
>the newsgroups make it easy for me at least, to see that some people
>'protest too much'....to be sincere or to be right.

Evelyn, this works both ways. When we point a finger , we have four
pointing back at ourself.

>
>
>>I do not understand, nor wish to understand Tibetan politics. I have no
>>wish to cause harm to HHDL or the Pope or any other Sentient Being.
>>The HHDL has said a practise I perform is wrong, for those who accept
>>HHDL as their Teacher they should listen to what he says. I will listen
>>to my Teacher.
>
>That is most certainly your right. But why choose a lesser vessel over a
>greater one! I guess that the choice is less obvious for some, or simply a
>case of what is near and convenient, or a case of karmic connection for good
>or bad purpose. What is obvious to me may not be to you. Live and learn.

Blind faith is not a virtue in Buddhism, if HHDL wishes to ban a
practice that has been practicsed by many realised Lama's in the
Gelug tradition, he must supply valid reasons.

Just because it is his HHDL who bans the practice does not in itself
make it valid.

>
>
>>When the Pope demoted St George it did not stop England or Malta from
>>still having George as their patron Saint. I know of some who still
>>worship St Christopher although he was similarly demoted.
>>We should not allow Dharma to decay because different traditions accept
>>different buddhas.
>
>Diversity is fine if it doesn't harm anyone. If anyone even HINTED some
>practice of mine MIGHT be harmful, I would do another practice. If HH
>Dalai Lama, whom I see as a good and fine a human being that ever lived,
>sees a practice as harmful and hurtful to himself and the Tibetan people, I
>for one will believe him, and would NO WAY be interested in doing that
>practice.

This is your right, and I have no problems with you holding to this
position. But why disparage those who disagree with you?

When a teacher asks us to practice Dharma, we should honor and
respect them when they do so. If they do something that one perceives
to be harming other living beings and goes against Dharma one as a
duty not to obey.

I believe that reliance upon Dorje Shugden as a Dharmapala is a
powerful practice for gaining Dharma realisations, I have been taught
it by my Guru, who received the instructions from his guru who
received them from his guru and so on.

When I received this instruction I was taught to view Dorge Shugden as
an emanation of Manjustri, and that is how I perform the practice. How
can this harm HHDL or Tibet?

>
>Regarding practices...... my own teacher Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche said in no
>uncertain terms that "If one only does ONE practice, and does it correctly,
>it is all you need" That seems pretty wide open to me, considering that
>there are so many to choose from that there surely must be ONE among them
>all that has no hint of a problem about it.......

IF one searches through the history of Tibetan Buddhism one can see
many disputes, if one was to take this as a guide for what we should
or should not practice, how much would be left?

>
>IMHO insisting on doing a practice that someone such as HHDL has decried as
>being destructive or harmful, or anything less than perfect, has some other
>axe to grind. They obviously are doing it to be ball-busters, to call a
>spade a spade..... Anyone who needs to be doing that, has something very
>wrong in their foundation practices that has caused them to ENHANCE ego
>rather than eliminate it. There is a name for it .... Rudra. Anyone who
>has done real and valid practice under the guide of a GOOD teacher should be
>able to spot it like an ugly zit on the face of the dharma.

You attack many great lama's of the past and present when you write
this. Were previous Dalai Lama's who relied upon Dorje Shugden in
error? Were many of the great monastries who relied upon Dorje Shugden
as the Dharma Protector of their monsastries in error?

Dharma practices have a history, one cannot disparage it without
disparageing the tradition that holds to that practice. Many Gelug
Lama's past and present have performed this practice.

Are they all BAD teachers who have placed an ugly zit on the face of
Dharma?

>
>All this NKT business, all the stubborness, all the egos, all the angry
>posts tell the tale loud and clear to anyone with eyes in their head to see.
>Give it up already, and every one of you who sits down to do that practice
>in FULL KNOWLEDGE someone fine and good has declared it to be harmful, ought
>to be damned ashamed of themselves, ought to find new teachers, ought to
>start all over again somehow.

again Evelyn, do you apply this to all Lama's who performed this
practice in the past?

>It is not a good thing to do something that
>is supposed to help beings, when you know that someone else is hurting
>everytime you do it. That alone should spoil and taint the whole practice
>for you.

I agreee totally, if one knows it is harming other sentient beings. If
you prove to me that this is the case I will give up the practice.

But I hope you will believe me when I tell you that not for one moment
do I beleive that following the advice of my Guru is harming other
living beings. Dorje Shugden emanated to protect Buddha Dharma and in
particular Je Tsongkhapa's tradition.

When I take refuge, generate bodhichitta and dedicate virtue it is for
the benefit of ALL living beings.

> As one person wrote in one of these News Groups all
>>appearance is to mind to some the river Ganges appears as a river of
>>puss, to some a river of water and to others a river of nectar.
>
>The thing that differentiates it is this..... DOES IT HARM ANY LIVING BEING?
>If I perceive that any thing I do in my practice hurts anyone, much less his
>holiness, it is definitely a river of shit. If my practice hurts NO ONE
>and benefits all, then it is nectar. For me it is that simple.

How does it hurt HHDL?

Why is it so terrible to ask this question?

>
>
> Can we
>>not agree that our Karma is different and encourage the growth of Dharma
>>for the benefit of all sentient beings.
>> I hope I will continue to read Dharma and integrate it into my whole
>>life for the benefit of all sentient beings.
>
>Ask yourself one question and start by reading what you just wrote.... "all"
>sentient beings. If ONE BEING IS HURT by your practice, you are spinning
>your wheels and getting nowhere. Do a different practice, one that is not
>beset by such controversy and anger. Do something that has no negative
>connotations about it. Surely your teachers are not so narrow minded that
>only this ONE practice is all they know?!!!!

Evelyn, how does it hurt anyone. You may agree to give up heart
practices one receives from one's guru because someone says so.
However, I am not prepared to give up this practice unless I am
provided valid reasons? This is not unreasonable of me, neither does
it make me unkind. Why does HHDL want to insist on this ban?

Remember, it is not the case of HHDL saying he dislikes this practice,
he is actually saying that other Great Gelug Lama's living and dead
are wrong. By saying that Dorje Shugden is a sentient being he is
saying that these Lama's have encouraged people to brake refuge vows
by taken refuge in sentient beings? This is what is disturbing
peaceful co-existence. If the Dalai Lama was not saying these things
there would be no disagreement.

>
>If any one among you defenders of this practice, take the time to read the 8
>verses of thought transformation please, you should find it obvious what to
>do. If you don't have it let me know and I will scan it and send it off to
>you. If you don't it is simply that you are too bound up in ego, and your
>own personal pissing contests to care.

I do not believe that the verse "Accept defeat and offer the victory
to others" means stop practicing the Dharma practice you have received
from your guru and which comes from a pure lineage because someone
says you should.

Does that mean that because some of my priest friends who I went to
school with believe that practicing dharma is causing me harm, that I
should stop practising Dharma?

I know that my Dharma practice is causing them distress. Whcih is why
I do not speak about it with them, even when they ask.
To me that is practising accepting defeat and offering the victory.

When I meet up with them I have to listen to them praise people like
Mother Teresa (Something which I myself am happy to do) and yet
insist that it is only Christianity that can create such a
compassionate person. They belive that I am following a practice that
is harmful for my spiritual progress (Some catholics can still be
foundamentalists, even after Vatican II). To disagree with them only
causes dissent, so I remain quiet. They conclude from this that deep
down I agree with them but am not prepared to admit it.

>
>May ALL beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
>May ALL beings be free from sorrow and the causes of sorrow.
>
>If you can't say that and MEAN it, your practice is just empty words and
>dead leaves blowing in the winds of karma..... You have my sincerest
>compassion and regret.
>

Evelyn,

I can say it and I do mean it. Why should you think that people who
continue the lineage of Trijang Rinpoche and Phabongkhapa do not wish
all sentient beings to be happy?

You accuse us of being nonBuddhists, of knowingly being willing to
harm other sentient beings, and yet say we are unkind!

Please except that we have no wish to harm anyone.
We do wish for all Dharma practitioners who have been taught to rely
upon Manjustri emanating as the Dharma Protector "Dorje Shugden" to be
allowed to do so.

It is this ban which is disturbing the peace, once the ban is not
enforced by political means on Tibetans then this disturbance will
come to an end

Alan

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >Respect for the highest teachers in that original tradition may prevent
> >that. HH Dalai Lama is one of the highest teachers in Tibetan Buddhism.
>
> HHDL is a high teacher but he is not the highest teacher for many
> lineages of Tibetan Buddhism.

I have actually a funny story behind this. As many practitioner of
Tibetan Buddhism I have a picture of HH Dalai Lama on my altar. A Gyoto
monk promised to check out the altar to make sure it was proper (you
know us Westeners, don't know all the important details :-), and it was
a way for me to learn more about indepth issues of altars and such).

The first thing he did was to place HH Dalai Lama in the middle of my
guru pictures, and he strongly said that HH Dalai Lama is of the highest
possible lineage holders. This because holds lineages *across* many
various traditions, and thus is considered to be of utmost importance,
at least amongst Tibetans.

Maitri, Kent

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> The 12 years recommendation may be good advice for some when they
> live in a Buddhist country surrounded by Dharma practioners. However,
> in the West it does not seem appropiate.

> Each person is different, within six months or there about I knew that
> my search for a spiritual teacher had ended with Geshe-la. I am sure
> that this is true of many westerners of whichever tradition.

I think this differs from person to person, from not finding the teacher
in one lifetime, until the near last breath of life, and everything
between. There's no hardcoded value of 6 months and so on.

Just wanted to point out that selecting a teacher within a short time
range could either be a blessing (reconnetion with the same teacher from
past mental mindstream habituations), or then not enough testing and
verification took place. If you read stories about for example how long
Atisha took to verify that one of his main gurus. OK, here's an extract
from Geshe Acharya Thubten Loden's book Path to Enlightenment, a hard to
find but very extensive commentary on Je Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo:

From page 50 forward, origins of these teaching (longer biography of
Atisha):

"Atisha was able to perceive Tara and communicate directly with her. She
adviced that the practice of bodhichitta is most important because it
holds the essence of Lord Buddha's teachings. It is the cause of all
sentient beings' happiness, and their eventual attainment of
enlightenment. She said that practicing bodhichitta is the most direct
way to attain buddhahood. With the motivation of bodhichitta every
action becomes a direct cause of enlightenment and all virtuous deeds.
Hearing this advice, Atisha had a strong wish to receive further
teachings on bodhichitta. He investigated to establish who held the
complete lineage of these precious teachings, and found that he would be
able to receive them from the guru Suvarnadvipi (Tib. Serlingpa), who
resided on the distant island of Sumatra.

To reach this island Atisha spent thirteen months travelling by boat.
During the long journey there were many difficulties. Atisha overcame
them all by his constant practice of bodhichitta. When he first arrived
at Sumatra, Atisha did not go directly to Guru Suvarnadvipi. He first
spent fourteen days questioning people about this great teacher. He
asked Suvarnadvipi's friends and disciples about the extent of the great
guru's wisdom, compassion and realizations. He investigated the progress
of Suvarnadvipi's disciples. Althought, through his clairvoyance, Atisha
already recognized that Suvarnadvipi was a perfect guru, his careful
investigations served as an example of how to correctly establish a
guru-disciple relationship. Atish was showing that we should not be
hasty in accepting a guru, and should first carefully check the
teacher's qualities."

There's more, but I save that to the next posting. Anyway, also to note
was that Atisha had many gurus from before, and by doing the rational
decision to find the best possible guru for something that was needed in
order to get enlightened, it's quite OK to have more than one single
teacher-guru. Now, this also depends on the individual, if it's easier
to just have one single relationship to the main root guru, that's quite
OK. But the door is open, and it's actually a *requirement* to consider
all teachers as buddhas teaching, where one's root guru is the one that
one considers being the most kind, usually the first initial big
relationship wherefrom everything else progresses.

Anyway, if Atisha did all this work, it was to show to all of us that
selecting the guru for such a delicate relationship is maybe one of the
biggest choices one does in this current lifetime. And I of course
rejoice all those who have found such relationships with little ease and
are quite confident that this all works out, shows that there was a lot
of planning and good merit behind such a situation.

Maitri, Kent

G T

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:19:21 GMT, alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird)
wrote:

>>>I recommend all who wish to find Buddhism to read books from several
>>>teachers and if you can, attend different centres. I received this
>>>advice at my first teaching given by an NKT teacher.
>>
>>I am sure that there must be some teachers with some wisdom in any
>>tradition, but not any tradition has a guarantee that all are. Just
>>remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day..... Still search for
>>yourself and give it enough time to really know. The recommended time is
>>12 years!!!! No it need not be that long, but certainly a few months is
>>not enough.
>>
>

> The 12 years recommendation may be good advice for some when they
>live in a Buddhist country surrounded by Dharma practioners. However,
>in the West it does not seem appropiate.
>
>Each person is different, within six months or there about I knew that
>my search for a spiritual teacher had ended with Geshe-la. I am sure
>that this is true of many westerners of whichever tradition.
>

That proves how superficial your judgments are, and gives the just
appreciation to all of your comments on this Newsgroup !

><snip>

>Alan

Hope this help you to realize your true situation !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With metta, G T

I am here to be used by others.

--
Remove the "x" from my email address if you want to respond directly

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:58:40 -0800, san...@zbest.com (Kent Sandvik)
wrote:

Dear Kent,

>Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> The 12 years recommendation may be good advice for some when they
>> live in a Buddhist country surrounded by Dharma practioners. However,
>> in the West it does not seem appropiate.
>
>> Each person is different, within six months or there about I knew that
>> my search for a spiritual teacher had ended with Geshe-la. I am sure
>> that this is true of many westerners of whichever tradition.
>

>I think this differs from person to person, from not finding the teacher
>in one lifetime, until the near last breath of life, and everything
>between. There's no hardcoded value of 6 months and so on.

I agree that there is no hardcoded value be it six months or twelve
years.

>
>Just wanted to point out that selecting a teacher within a short time
>range could either be a blessing (reconnetion with the same teacher from
>past mental mindstream habituations), or then not enough testing and
>verification took place. If you read stories about for example how long
>Atisha took to verify that one of his main gurus.
>

Indeed, this is very true. One must examine one's teacher very
carefully, before making such a commitment.

Let me tell you my story.

From a very young age I felt a religious yearning for something in my
life. This led me at the age of six to go along to Sunday School at my
local anglican church. It was very hign and practicsed
anglo-catholicism. I normally tell people I was a catholic because
this gives them a better understanding of my childhood religious
background.

Mass on Sundays, confession on Saturdays, rosaries, pilgrimages to
Walsingham, Lourdes etc., None of my family where particularly
religious, but under my influence this did change.

I was happy with this routine until my late teenages, when I went
through a crisis, the only major crisis of my life I am pleased to
say. I will not go into details here as it does not seem the
appropiate forum. Needless to say I found that the Church was not able
to help me at this time, I was still convinced that my religious
journey was within Christianity and went through a born-again
experience at the age of sixteen.

However, this also left me seeking more, the simple answers of "just
believe in the Bible" became less and less acceptable to me and my
spiritual hunger was still not being satisfied.

It was at this time that I moved to London. I was twenty years old. I
became more and more antagonistic towards Christianity feeling that it
had let me down. I tried to hide my spiritual hunger in left-wing
politics feeling that here I was finding some useful way to add
meaning to my life. It did not take me long to realise that there was
no answers here and so for a few years I tried to but this spiritual
need I had to the back of my mind and ignore it.

Needless to say this did not work, so I began to look at other
religious traditions. Especally Vedanta and Buddhism. Buddhism
appealed to me more and I read many books of many different
traditions. I also visited different centres, and was initially
attracted to the Hinayana. I also read books by Thich Nhat Hanh, and
Sangharakshita. Living in Bethnal Green I visited FWBO main centre
many times. All this was happening between 1991-1995.

It was towards the end of that year that I began to read "Joyful
Path". Since I enjoyed the book so much and it was the first book that
had managed to get me to start a regular Dharma practice I went to
Heruka Centre, the NKT centre in Golders Green, London. There I was
fortunate enougth to receive teachng from Ven. Ani-la Kelsang Chowang,
a wonderful Dharma teacher and an exceptionally warm human being. I
cannot praise her good qualities enougth.

It was after attending two series of General Programme classes,
that I first approached Ani-la to talk about my Dharma practice. She
encouraged me to use the 21 Lamrim meditations and just carry on
coming to the Centre for GP if I was finding it helpful.

It was after attending the centre for just over six months, that I
realised that for the first time since I was a child of six I felt
complete in someway. My spiritual hunger was no longer a cause of pain
but of joy. It was being satisfied for the first time.

It was with that realisation and having studied very closely Ven.
Ani-la and other disciples of Geshe-la and examined Geshe-la's books
that I began to see him as my Guru. At the centre, I was always made
to feel welcome, I was never pressurised into doing things, nor asked
for financial contributions. My further commitments to dharma, such as
refuge vows, etc have always come after I had requested the
opportunity to take vows.

My journey, as been along one that began when I was 6, I am now
36. So for me my journey and search for a guru ended after many years.

I am extremely fortunate to have such a kind and wise Guru, faith has
never been an easy virtue for me, yet I found faith in Geshe-la came
very easy. At last I have a chance to make this precious human life
meaningful, for me and my journey it is Geshe-la who has made that
possible.

Maitreya's Ornament to the Mahayana Sutra's says

Rely on a spiritual guide who is
Subdued, pacified, most pacified,
Who has more qualities than you,
Perserverance, a wealth of scripture,
Realisation into suchness,
Who is a skilled speaker, has love,
And has given up disapointment
In his disciple's performance.

Cheers
Alan

Chris

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

On 17 Jan 1998 22:54:49 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (khyenrab)
wrote:

> SNIP

Since Phabongkhapa Dechen Nyingpo was a monk strictly upholding the
vinaya is it possible that he wrote or said something which he didn't
beleive was true?

If you care to look, then I think you'll be able to find many
statements similar to the one quoted above in Phabongkha's writings.
You might also want to look in book "Pha bong kha pa &
Intersectarian Relations in Tibet" which was published by Tomo Geshe
Rinpoche (Delhi, 1977) and at some of the accounts in Trijang
Rinpoche's own Gyalchen Toddrel, - these should be available in a
good university library.

Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo was undoubtedly one of the cleverest
and most influential Gelugpa teachers of recent times. There are many
things which he wrote which all Tibetan Buddhists can accept - at
other times he engaged in what might be called "fair criticism" of
other traditions (the kind of thing which is found in the writings of
many Tibetan scholars) unfortunately he also did say many things which
can only be seen as sectarian - and some of his actions and the
actions of some of his important follwers bear this out.

I may have said some things which some Shugden worshippers
consider sectarian (and I'll have to do a lot of Vajrasattva practice
just in case they were) - but then nobody is going to hold up what
I say as unmistakable truth and I have never criticized the Gelugpa
or any other Tibetan Buddhist sect as such or said publicly or in
private that any person who holds Gelugpa views was bound for hell.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that Phabongkha seems to have
mistakes in the latter part of his life and there are well known
accounts that he suffered difficulties during this period - and it is
often said that the circumstances of his death (and that of the next
incarnation) were inauspicious.

In order to account for the apparent differences in Phabongkha's views
and actions at different perods of his life some Tibetan lamas have
even alleged that, at the end of his life, Phabongkha's body was
possessed by a demon or by Shugden - while we may not give
much credence to fantastic stories like this, it does seem to point to
the fact that there were wide differences in the views and actions of
Phabongkha during the earlier and later parts of his career.

If this is the case, which of his views do you think are definitive?

> I believe it is a mistake to assume that a
> definitive teaching can necessarily be seen in pieces of advice given to
> individual students.

How do we determine if Phabongkha's [or Trijang Rinpoche's] teachings
on Shugden were deffinitave or simply "pieces of advice given to
individual students"?

> For example, do you know the story of the person who had killed his parents
> and later went to Buddha for advice about his actions? Buddha told him that
> it was good to kill the father and mother (meaning self-grasping and
> self-cherishing). There are many examples of Teachers giving advice that
> appears to be non-Dharma.

I can see how, in such a situation, "parents" might be used as a
metaphor for self-grasping and self cherishing - but pray tell us
Khyenrab, just what kind of metaphor do you think Phabongkha might
have been using when he referred to the Sakyapa, Kagyupa and Nyingmas
as the "source of all corruption", when he said that "presently the
views of *all* Sakyapa, Kagyupas and Nyingmas are erroneous", and when
he said that whoever held the view of any of these three lineages
would go to hell?

Is the fault of Phabongkhapa's criticism of the Nyingma, Sakyapa etc
compounded by the fact that he had previously received and practiced
many precious Nyingma and Sakya teachings which he later abandoned
to worship Shugden? You accuse HHDL of abandoning one of his
teachers, HE Trijang Rinpoche (something which I don't accept), yet
Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo seems to have done exactly that when he
rejected Nyingma and Sakya teachings . And how can you claim that he
held an authentic Mahamudra tradition - which largely came to the
Gelugpas from the Drikung Kagyu lineage - yet say that views
of all Kagyupas are erroneous and that those who hold the view of this
lineage would go to hell? In what way did the views of the Kagyupas
change between the time their Mahamudra teachings entered the
Gelugpa tradition and the time of Phabongkha that could possibly
warrant such a statement?

HH has reffered to eye-witness accounts of Phabongkha throwing a
statue of Padmasambhava into a river - [Which I suppose you
would look upon as some kind of metaphor or as the actions of
a great yogi] and I myself have spoken to a number of Tibetans who
personally witnessed the destruction of or forced conversion of
Tibetan monastaries by those acting under the command of
Phabongkha. In some cases Tibetans have cried when they told
me about these things. One woman told me how images of
Padmasambhava and books of his teachings were buried
under a footpath surrounding a monastary and they were forced
to walk over these.

I have no particular desire to drag up things which Phabongkha
Dechen Nyingpo said or did in simply to demonise him or to cause
people to loose faith in him. However those who criticise HH the
Dalai Lama and advocate the practice of Dholgyal Sugden almost
invariably critcise HH for not following the teachings of Phabongkha
and they rely on the words of Phabongkha to try and "prove" that
Shugden is an enlightend protector.

Personally, I would welcome an objective critical study of the life
and works of Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo - one which which also
examined both the views of the followers and the detractors of this
important but controversial figure. It seems more and more apparent
that we cannot properly understand many of the events which took
place in Tibet during the first half of this century and many things
which have taken place since amongst the Tibetan diaspora if we
don't take account of this figure. During this period Phabongha's
students have occupied so many important positions in both the
Gelugpa hierarchy and in the Tibetan establishment that Gefforey
Samuel has written
"In fact, P'awongk'a's influence was strongest after his death and
that of the 13th Dalai Lama, and particularly after the forced
resignation of the regent Reting (Ratreng) Rimpoch'e in 1941
and his replacement by Tagtrag Rimpoch'e, who had been a
close associate of P'awongk'a and shared his conservative
orientation (Goldstien 1989:353-363). It was at this time that
P'awongk'a's students gradually moved intothe dominant
position that they have held within the Gelugpa order into
the 1970s and 1980s." [Gefforey Samuel "Civilized Shamans:
Buddhism in Tibetan Societies" p. 546, Washington 1993]

Scholars of the Gelugpa tradition like Jeffrey Hopkins, Robert
Thurman and John Powers - who have more or less agreed with
the Dalai Lama's views about the nature of Shugden - can hardly be
said to be ill informed about or prejudiced against the Gelugpa
tradition and I think they have all met and received teachings from
Trijang Rinpoche - can you tell me the names of any well known western
scholars of Tibetan Buddhism who agree with your own view of Shugden?

Phabongkha was both a religious and political figure - occupying
important administrative and religious positions. In recent times the
hierarchs of Phabongkha monastery in Tibet were apparently appointed
by the Tibetan Cabinet (Kashag) [see: Dorje, G.: "Tibet Handbook",
1996 pg. 186] rather than being recognized as tulkus in the usual
manner.

> Geshe Kelsang has made it clear that the New Kadampa Tradition follows the
> teachings of Je Tsongkhapa as passed down to Je Phabongkhapa and HH Trijang
> Rinpoche and that he believes all the Tibetan traditions have a complete
> path to enlightenment. We are trying to live happily and rejoice in the
> sincere practice of other traditions. It is our sincere wish to live in
> peace and harmony with all other religious practitioners.

If Ven. Geshe Kelsang beleives and teaches that all the Tibetan
traditions have a complete path to enlightenment then he is clearly
at odds with some of the teachings of Phabongkha - in effect he is
saying that Phabongkha made a big mistake - at least as far as
some of his well known views on other traditions are concerned.

If so, then perhaps Phabongkha was also mistaken about Shugen?

> best wishes
> Khyenrab

Regards

- Chris

khyenrab

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <34c4116c...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk
says...
>SNIP >Since Phabongkhapa Dechen Nyingpo was a monk strictly upholding the

>vinaya is it possible that he wrote or said something which he didn't
>beleive was true?

As you know very well, Teachers sometimes do not always say what is their
actual intention
due to the views and dispositions etc, of the listeners. Buddha himself
sometimes taught
things that were not his actual view because it was appropriate for the
time. Why should Je
Phabongkhapa, as a follower of Buddha, be any different?

>If you care to look, then I think you'll be able to find many
>statements similar to the one quoted above in Phabongkha's writings.

>SNIP

, it does seem to point to
>the fact that there were wide differences in the views and actions of
>Phabongkha during the earlier and later parts of his career.
>
>If this is the case, which of his views do you think are definitive?

All the views that accord with the wisdom of Buddha Shakyamuni.

>How do we determine if Phabongkha's [or Trijang Rinpoche's] teachings
>on Shugden were deffinitave or simply "pieces of advice given to
>individual students"?

We can use Buddha's teachings on the four reliances. The last two of these
state:

Do not rely upon the interpretative meaning, but upon the definitive
meaning.
Do not rely upon consciousness but upon wisdom.

This last teaching, quoted by Ven Geshe Kelsang on pg 154 of "Clear Light of
Bliss", means
that "We should not be satisfied with impure, deceptive states of
consciousness, but should
place our reliance upon the wisdom of meditative equipoise of Superior
beings." So this
clearly depends upon who one identifies as a Superior being i.e. someone
with non-
conceptual understanding of ultimate truth.

Using these reliances Geshe-la says we can...."discriminate correctly
between what is to be
accepted and what is to be rejected, and we will thereby be protected
against faults such as
sectarianism"
Pg 155 ibid.

If we apply this criterion to the sadhanas of Dorje Shugden, for example,
then it is very clear
that the essential meaning of all the practices comes from Buddha Shakyamuni
from Going
for Refuge to the Three Jewels right up to Dedicating the merit for the
benefit of all living
beings.

While it is true to say that the aspect of Dorje Shugden was not apparent at
the time of
Buddha, the same is true for other Dieties. And all the practices related
to Dorje Shugden
can be referred to in Buddha's Sutras and Tantras: it is without doubt an
authentic Mahayana
Buddhist practice.

>- but pray tell us
>Khyenrab, just what kind of metaphor do you think Phabongkha might
>have been using when he referred to the Sakyapa, Kagyupa and Nyingmas
>as the "source of all corruption", when he said that "presently the
>views of *all* Sakyapa, Kagyupas and Nyingmas are erroneous", and when
>he said that whoever held the view of any of these three lineages
>would go to hell?

This kind of reiteration only has the power to cause problems for you
because you prefer to
not only believe it literally, which I do not, but also because through
regular repetition the
negative effect in the mind is deepened - quite the opposite effect to
reciting Dorje
Shugden's mantras. Je Phabongkhapa perceived Dorje Shugden as a
manifestation of
Buddha Manjushri - this I find very useful indeed to believe and follow.

>HH has reffered to eye-witness accounts of Phabongkha throwing a
>statue of Padmasambhava into a river - [Which I suppose you
>would look upon as some kind of metaphor or as the actions of
>a great yogi]

SNIP

> his teachings were buried under a footpath surrounding a monastary and
they were forced
>to walk over these.

You already received a reply to this point from Ven Geshe Kelsang in
December which I now
repeat:

"When I lived in Tibet I checked very carefully with local Geshes about the
truth or falsity of
these assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern
Tibet (Kham)
and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was widely
respected
and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the same time some
local people
jealous of his success spread rumours, saying that he caused the statue of
Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.

It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation
of this precious
Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually degenerate times.
Je Phabongkhapa
had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava,
so it is
impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava,
impossible."

>However those who criticise HH the Dalai Lama and advocate the practice of
Dholgyal
>Sugden almost invariably critcise HH for not following the teachings of
Phabongkha
>and they rely on the words of Phabongkha to try and "prove" that
>Shugden is an enlightend protector.

Again, we already had this debate at the end of last year. I believe
something you don't
believe - it's as simple as that - regardless of how many eminent Lamas
names or quotes
we bring in to prove the unprovable.

The Dalai Lama has no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims about Dorje
Shugden but
he nevertheless insists on using his power and influence throughout the
world to destroy the
faith of those who believe in Je Phabongkhapa and HH Trijang Rinpoche. This
is so dreadful.
His actions are benefiting no-one but instead are continuing to create
misunderstanding and
disharmony throughout the world.

>Personally, I would welcome an objective critical study of the life
>and works of Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo - one which which also
>examined both the views of the followers and the detractors of this
>important but controversial figure.

Chris, what do you mean by "objective critical study"? Can you tell me
please how such
studies can possibly get to the truth?

For me the path to the truth begins and ends with strong reliance and
devotion to the
Spiritual Guide. Isn't this what Buddha taught his followers? But the Dalai
Lama is teaching
through his actions that we don't need to follow our Spiritual Guides, that
we should rely
instead upon history books and our own opinions to destroy the sacred
Teacher-disciple
relationship.

>In recent times the
>hierarchs of Phabongkha monastery in Tibet were apparently appointed
>by the Tibetan Cabinet (Kashag) [see: Dorje, G.: "Tibet Handbook",
>1996 pg. 186] rather than being recognized as tulkus in the usual
>manner.

With this statement you appear to be supporting what Ven. Geshe Kelsang
replied to you
before:

"Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because
in Tibetan
society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his office."

best wishes
Khyenrab

James Burns

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <34c11...@news1.ibm.net>, "P.M. Dierking" <pmdierking@nospa
m01.eternal.net> writes

>
>Ashoka Society wrote in message
><32b8aeba....@news.gofast.net>:
>
>==begin quote==

>It is an established fact, which may be discerned in
>Phabongkha's writings, that late in his life he was virulently
>sectarian, in worst sense of the word, against Sa.skya,

>bKa'.rgyud and rNying.ma; holding that whoever held the view of
>any of these three lineages would go to hell.

No it is not an established fact. It is true that some people hold this
view. Much is the pity.

>In a letter to a
>Chinese disciple, Phabongkha writes:
>
>"Presently, aside from Manjughosha Tsongkhapa's view; the views
>of all Sa.skya.pa, bKa'.rgyud and rNying.mas are erroneous. What
>need to mention the consequentialist madhyamaka view, without
>even an autonomist [madhyamaka] or mind only view, [they]
>meditate a strictly annihilationist view similar with
>non-Buddhist extremists [mu.stegs.pa] and Hashang Mahaayaana. If
>an annihilationist view is held, a result apart from going to
>Avici hell is not warranted. Also by not recognizing subtle
>sinking, meditation will be faulty...because liberation and the
>non-erroneous path of omniscience will not exist for them; for
>such as they, although saadhana is practiced for a thousand
>years, realization will not arise; similar with wishing for
>butter having churned water, the essence does not exist". [T.G
>Dhongthog Rinpoche "Dus.kyi.me.lce, Timely Tongue of Flame", pp.
>117-118, Delhi: 1979]

>==end quote==
>

Putting aside the questions of validity, reference and linguistic
interpretation of the purported quote from Phabongkha Rinpoche, let us
take it at face value. The interpretation given to it by Mr Deirking,
and accepted by Mr Fynn et al., has a lot to be desired.

The argument is stated in the form of a conclusion followed by the
premisses, rather than the more normal English rendering of the
premisses followed by the conclusion. This may be due to unskillful
translation. The translator is clearly having problems in translating
other areas of the text.

In any event the conclusion appears conditional on the premisses being
correct. Nowhere in the argument is it said that the premisses *are*
correct, but it is infered that they are true of the other traditions.
The conclusion depends for its validity *on* the premisses being
correct. In other words this is an argument with it's main injunction
being not to hold wrong views rather than a pronouncement that the other
Traditions are wrong. However it follows that if the other traditions do
observe the incorrect premisses, as stated, then they are wrong since
they hold wrong views. The door is clearly open for the counter argument
and proof.

It is Mr Deirking, Mr Fynn and others who appear devisive by taking as
their emphasis a criticism of other traditions, rather than as appears
to have been the main intention, an injunction not to hold wrong views.

It is not good to put such heavy weight on this type of interpretation
when a perfectly good alternative explanation and emphasis exists more
in accord with the dharma.

To suggest that Pabongkha Rinpoche unconditionally believed that there
was no merit in the other three main Tibetan Buddhist Traditions is
stretching credibility. Clearly we know that Pabongkha Rinpoche was
aware that the premisses of this argument would be untrue when applied
in a global way to the other three traditions. So if this is an
authentic letter, we would need to look and understand what was the true
point and context of what was being said. Why was it being said and to
whom.

Otherwise there would be serious questions surrounding the validity of
the letter.

May You Be Filled With Loving Kindness,
May You Be Well,
May You Be Peaceful And At Ease,
And May You Have Happiness
--
James Burns

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:53:25 GMT, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk (Chris)
wrote:

A letter to a Chinese student. Is the letter still in existence? If it
is what circumstances led to the letter being written?

How can one judge the teachings of such a great Lama, by one letter?
Surely a teacher should be judged by his public discourses, Dharma
texts he has written and by the disciples that he taught?

>
>Since Phabongkhapa Dechen Nyingpo was a monk strictly upholding the
>vinaya is it possible that he wrote or said something which he didn't
>beleive was true?

It may be possible, depending on circumstances. A teacher will teach
what is best for his disciples without regard for his own reputation.

>
>If you care to look, then I think you'll be able to find many
>statements similar to the one quoted above in Phabongkha's writings.
>You might also want to look in book "Pha bong kha pa &
>Intersectarian Relations in Tibet" which was published by Tomo Geshe
>Rinpoche (Delhi, 1977) and at some of the accounts in Trijang
>Rinpoche's own Gyalchen Toddrel, - these should be available in a
>good university library.

Chris, are you saying that Trijang Rinpoche accussed his teacher of
being sectarian, or are you accusing Trijang Rinpoche of being
sectarian too?

>Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo was undoubtedly one of the cleverest
>and most influential Gelugpa teachers of recent times. There are many
>things which he wrote which all Tibetan Buddhists can accept - at
>other times he engaged in what might be called "fair criticism" of
>other traditions (the kind of thing which is found in the writings of
>many Tibetan scholars) unfortunately he also did say many things which
>can only be seen as sectarian - and some of his actions and the
>actions of some of his important follwers bear this out.

Chris, Your description here differs greatly from the memoir of of
Phabongkha written by Ven. Rilbur Rinpoche.

Ven Rilbur Rinpoche writes "To my mind he is the most important
Tibetan Lama of all. Everybody knows how great his four main disciples
were - well he was there teacher.

The four main disciples being "Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang
Rinpoche, Khangsar Rinpoche and Tathag Rinpoche. Tathag was the main
teacher of HHDL and Tathag's root guru was Phabongkha

>
>I may have said some things which some Shugden worshippers
>consider sectarian (and I'll have to do a lot of Vajrasattva practice
>just in case they were) - but then nobody is going to hold up what
>I say as unmistakable truth and I have never criticized the Gelugpa
>or any other Tibetan Buddhist sect as such or said publicly or in
>private that any person who holds Gelugpa views was bound for hell.

That is only as it should be.

>His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that Phabongkha seems to have
>mistakes in the latter part of his life and there are well known
>accounts that he suffered difficulties during this period - and it is
>often said that the circumstances of his death (and that of the next
>incarnation) were inauspicious.

>In order to account for the apparent differences in Phabongkha's views
>and actions at different perods of his life some Tibetan lamas have
>even alleged that, at the end of his life, Phabongkha's body was
>possessed by a demon or by Shugden - while we may not give
>much credence to fantastic stories like this, it does seem to point to
>the fact that there were wide differences in the views and actions of
>Phabongkha during the earlier and later parts of his career.

Ven Rilbur Rinpoche records Phabongkha's death as follows.

The evening before he passed way he give a Lam-Rim teaching at his own
root guru'a monastry of Dagpo Shidag Ling, in Lhoka. Having given his
last public discourse on Lamrim he retired at a house not far away.
Phabonkha complained of some discomfort in his stomach before retiring
for the night. He asked his attendents to leave the room whilst he
chanted his prayers. His attendents then heard him give a Lamrim
discourse. When he had finished and the room was silent, his
attendents returned to the room to find that he had passed away.

This is a very auspicious death.

>
>
>If this is the case, which of his views do you think are definitive?
>
>> I believe it is a mistake to assume that a
>> definitive teaching can necessarily be seen in pieces of advice given to
>> individual students.
>
>How do we determine if Phabongkha's [or Trijang Rinpoche's] teachings
>on Shugden were deffinitave or simply "pieces of advice given to
>individual students"?

by the fact that they give Dorje Shugden Empowerments and wrote
sadhana's praising Dorje Shugden.

<snip>

Cut a large part of your posting, but I was wondering how the image
you paint of Phabongkhapa matches the devotion in which he is held by
many Gelug Lama's.

Phabongkhapa is acknowledged by friends and foes to be one of the most
important Gekug Lama's of this century, and nearly every other(if not
every) Gelug Lama has been taught by him or by one of his main
disciples. He was one of the greatest and most important Gelug
Lineages holders of this century and was belived by many to be an
emanation of Heruka.

>
>> Geshe Kelsang has made it clear that the New Kadampa Tradition follows the
>> teachings of Je Tsongkhapa as passed down to Je Phabongkhapa and HH Trijang
>> Rinpoche and that he believes all the Tibetan traditions have a complete
>> path to enlightenment. We are trying to live happily and rejoice in the
>> sincere practice of other traditions. It is our sincere wish to live in
>> peace and harmony with all other religious practitioners.

>
>If Ven. Geshe Kelsang beleives and teaches that all the Tibetan
>traditions have a complete path to enlightenment then he is clearly
>at odds with some of the teachings of Phabongkha - in effect he is
>saying that Phabongkha made a big mistake - at least as far as
>some of his well known views on other traditions are concerned.
>
>If so, then perhaps Phabongkha was also mistaken about Shugen?
>

Geshe-la teaches his disciples to have respect for all Mahayana
Buddhist traditions. He received this teaching from HH Trijang
Rinpoche. HH Trijang Rinpoche was the root guru of many Gelug Lama's
who fled Tibet. Yet his own root guru, he remained devoted to through
out his life was Je Phabongkhapa.

Trijang Rinpoche would also had to have been mistaken as he to give
Dorje Shugden empowerments and taught his disciples to rely on this
Dharmapala

Regards

Alan

Richard Menninger

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Mike Austin wrote:

[ Eight Verses of Thought Transformation: deleted. ]

> This particular translation is from "The Union of Bliss and Emptiness"
> by His Holiness.

I looked for that for about a year and finally got it. Now it
just found a higher place in the to read stack. Thanks.

> For those interested, some other good references are:

> "Advice From A Spiritual Friend", Geshe Rabten & Geshe Dhargyey

That needs a higher place, as well.

> "Keys To Great Enlightenment", Geshe Tsultim Gyeltsen
> "Four Essential Buddhist Commentaries", His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

Got to get those yet. Thanks for the names.

> "Training The Mind The Great Way", Gyalwa Gendun Drupa, 1st Dalai Lama

Ah, this is quite familiar. When I had a little Visa problem
(my company botched my case a bit), I spent a week+ in
Washington D.C. trying to straighten it out. Although I did
not get it straightened out during that period and spent a
few weeks in New Jersey in addition, I did find this book early
on. I spent many hours each day practicing from it sitting on
the bed in a motel. That motel room will never be quite the
same! I liked that book and that practice.

> "Mind Training Like The Rays Of The Sun", Nam-Kha Pel

Need this one, too.

> "The Great Path of Awakening", Jamgon Kongtrul

This is a very old friend. It is the basis of much of my
practice over the years. Trungpa's "Training the Mind and
Cultivating Loving Kindness", as well as much of Pema Chodron's
stuff is based on the slogans discussed here. I now carry
Trungpa's book in my bag, but the above book is what I had to
use for a long time.

> I particularly like the first reference which continues with "The Seven
> Point Thought Transformation" by Geshe Chekawa.

Ah, another one to get.

> At our centre (Lam Rim
> Bristol, UK) we study and discuss these texts every Tuesday after Tara
> Puja. We have been doing this for four years and still we are learning!

That is a fitting sequence! One does always continue to
learn bodhicitta, all the way to the end of the path. It
is the best topic to use to experience all of the lineages
and their teachings.

Take care of yourself
Dick
rmenn...@lucent.com
PS: I NEVER EVER respond to e-mail spam,
not even when it says that is how to turn it off.
If you pay to get my address, you waste your money.

Kent Sandvik

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

> Chris, Your description here differs greatly from the memoir of of
> Phabongkha written by Ven. Rilbur Rinpoche.
>
> Ven Rilbur Rinpoche writes "To my mind he is the most important
> Tibetan Lama of all. Everybody knows how great his four main disciples
> were - well he was there teacher.
>
> The four main disciples being "Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang
> Rinpoche, Khangsar Rinpoche and Tathag Rinpoche. Tathag was the main
> teacher of HHDL and Tathag's root guru was Phabongkha

I'm happy you've read texts by Ribur Rinpoche, a very wonderful lama and
we had the amazing luck to have Ribur Rinpoche teaching here at the Bay
Area last year, and hopefully he comes back this year.

Anyway, it's also important to note that Ribur Rinpoche is very much
totally devoted to HH Dalai Lama. It's an excellent example of a lama
who had Pabhonka Rinpoche as one of Ribur Rinpoche's main lamas, and is
also devoted to HH Dalai Lama.

With metta, Kent

Chris

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

On 20 Jan 1998 22:13:45 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (khyenrab)
wrote:

Khyenrab wrote:

> all the practices related to Dorje Shugden
> can be referred to in Buddha's Sutras and Tantras

And just where in the Buddha's Sutras and Tantras
are all the practices related to Dorje Shugden referred
to?

Regards

- Chris

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:35:18 -0800, san...@zbest.com (Kent Sandvik)
wrote:

>Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris, Your description here differs greatly from the memoir of of
>> Phabongkha written by Ven. Rilbur Rinpoche.
>>
>> Ven Rilbur Rinpoche writes "To my mind he is the most important
>> Tibetan Lama of all. Everybody knows how great his four main disciples
>> were - well he was there teacher.
>>
>> The four main disciples being "Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang
>> Rinpoche, Khangsar Rinpoche and Tathag Rinpoche. Tathag was the main
>> teacher of HHDL and Tathag's root guru was Phabongkha
>

>I'm happy you've read texts by Ribur Rinpoche, a very wonderful lama and
>we had the amazing luck to have Ribur Rinpoche teaching here at the Bay
>Area last year, and hopefully he comes back this year.

Kent,

Sschh! , please don't point out this to others on the newsgroup, we
would not want to spoil their delusion that NKT people are sectarian
bigots who would not even dare look at Dharma book's not written by
Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso incase they become contaminated.

(Sorry, I could not help but poke a bit of fun.)

>
>Anyway, it's also important to note that Ribur Rinpoche is very much
>totally devoted to HH Dalai Lama. It's an excellent example of a lama
>who had Pabhonka Rinpoche as one of Ribur Rinpoche's main lamas, and is
>also devoted to HH Dalai Lama.

Kent, I have no reason to suppose otherwise. However, it would be
interesting if you could ask him if he agrees with the way his root
guru his being portrayed by some on this newsgroup.
>
>With metta, Kent
>
Best wishes

Alan

khyenrab

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

In article <34c53e95...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk
says...

>
>On 20 Jan 1998 22:13:45 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (khyenrab)
>wrote:
>
>
>Khyenrab wrote:
>
>

> > all the practices related to Dorje Shugden
>> can be referred to in Buddha's Sutras and Tantras
>

>And just where in the Buddha's Sutras and Tantras
>are all the practices related to Dorje Shugden referred
>to?
>
>Regards
>
>- Chris

You could start with the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the Guhyasamaja
Tantra as an overview. Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle is
very helpful with respect instructions on the objects of refuge - at the
beginning of every Dorje Shugden sadhana we go for refuge to the Three
Jewels; the Sutra requested by Sagaramati, White Lotus of Compassion Sutra,
King of Prayers of Superior Excellent Deeds Sutra are sources of how to make
offerings - lots of offerings are made to our Dorje Shugden - Extensive
Enjoyment Sutra explains how wishes are fulfilled by the merit collected
from making offerings.

Now I have a question for you. Can you find any practice within the Dorje
Shugden sadhanas that was not taught by Buddha?

best wishes
Khyenrab

Chris

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

On 21 Jan 1998 20:16:27 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (khyenrab)
wrote:
...

> You could start with the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the Guhyasamaja
> Tantra as an overview. Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle is
> very helpful with respect instructions on the objects of refuge - at the
> beginning of every Dorje Shugden sadhana we go for refuge to the Three
> Jewels; the Sutra requested by Sagaramati, White Lotus of Compassion Sutra,
> King of Prayers of Superior Excellent Deeds Sutra are sources of how to make
> offerings - lots of offerings are made to our Dorje Shugden - Extensive
> Enjoyment Sutra explains how wishes are fulfilled by the merit collected
> from making offerings.

Similarly in Tibetan practices to propitiate other worldly beings like
Pehar, Nechung first there is the taking of refuge in the three,
jewels, making offerings and at the end there is sharing merit.
Because these things are contained within your practice of Shugden it
does not alter his nature.

You could write a sadhana to the five Spice Girls containg these
elements and look upon them as emanations of the five wisdom
dakinis - would that make them proper objects of refuge?

> Now I have a question for you. Can you find any practice within the Dorje
> Shugden sadhanas that was not taught by Buddha?

The practice of worshpping Shugden was not taught by the Buddha.

- Chris

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:53:51 GMT, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk (Chris)
wrote:

>
>The practice of worshpping Shugden was not taught by the Buddha.
>
>
>- Chris

Chris,

This applies to many Dharma protectors and also other Mahayana
Buddhist practices.

This ground for dismissing Dorje Shugden as a Dharma protector is
meaningless.

Are we to believe that they have been no emanations of any enlightened
beings since the time of Lord Buddha Shakyamuni.

When we have highly realised Lama's admired for their teaching, seen
as pure practitioners teach reliance on a Dharmapala as a source of
refuge , how can one in any way compare that to saying, one could
write a sadhana to the Spice Girls but that would not make them a
source of refuge.

If this is meant as a humorus example it is bad taste, if it meant as
a serious comment then it underminds more than just reliance on Dorge
Shugden.

Alan

Don Martin

unread,

Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98

In article <34c6836e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Chris
<URL:mailto:cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> You could write a sadhana to the five Spice Girls containing these

> elements and look upon them as emanations of the five wisdom
> dakinis - would that make them proper objects of refuge?

****** They would sure beat some of the others in visual appeal!
--
Don, Trying to live like a sword
The Born-Again Buddhist, in water,but behaving more
(..and again and again..) like a thick plank.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98

khyenrab wrote in message <6a5l2r$tu8$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

hello khyenrab,

I'm interested in your question about the shugden sadhana. As I'm sure
you're aware, the actual sadhana is not the words of the text nor the ritual
activities we engage in. These are merely the costumes and dramas we use to
generate the real sadhana - ie the quality of our minds and lives.

First I'd like to address the issue of 'spirits'. I think trying to prove or
disprove the existence of spirits as ontological entities is a thankless
task. Instead, let's take the term 'spirit' in the sense of 'spirit of
goodwill' or 'in poor spirits' - ie a mental quality. Thus we could check
whether shugden was a 'dharma spirit' or a 'worldly spirit' without having
to embroil ourselves in too much bickering.
The dharma protector's function is to protect the budding seeds of our
realisations of wisdom and compassion.
So on that basis I'd like to examine the sadhana of the dharma protector
shugden, dorje to his friends.

Let's look at shugden's success as exemplified by the vociferous NKTers who
are devoted to the sadhana of shugden:

1) A quality of the mind of dharma is friendly and kind speech - how do
the practitioners of the shugden sadhana fair in this?

> The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient
religious
> tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught
by
> his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at
> achieving Tibetan independence.
> The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over
> like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru.
He
> is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their
minds
> are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to
> fulfil his wishes.
> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all
the
> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other
> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
of
> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has
been
> working towards this for many years.
-these are the words of Kelsang Gyatso one of the chief proponents of the
shugden cult. Are they kind, friendly or dharmic? Do we detect the spirit of
lojong here?

2) Dharmic speech should be honest and open.
What are we to make of the postings by Nick Gillespie, a senior NKTer and
spokesman for the Shugden Supporters Group, made under the name of 'Frank
Delaney'? Apparently these postings only stopped when the 'real' Frank
Delaney, a well known journalist, considered the idea of legal proceedings.

3) A mind of dharma is surely non-sectarian, non-arrogant.

"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the Dharma
transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was

referring to this practice - this is the inner practice of the NKT. Only the

NKT holds the pure lineage of the
Mahamudra today."

-the words of Kelsang Gyatso's Heart Disciple, Thubten Gyatso, from a
teaching given at Vajravahari NKT Centre.
Do these words sound as if they arise from a mind of dharma protected by an
emanation of the buddha of wisdom, Manjushri?

4) When NKT people hark on again and again how Phabonkha was the most
important lama, had endless disciples, gave the most teachings/empowerments,
and so on, does this sound like a mind of dharma or a mind obsessed with
numbers, with reputation - all qualities associated with the eight wordly
concerns?

5) Manjushri is the buddha of wisdom, and wisdom is meaningless without
compassion surely. So if shugden is an emanation of the buddha of wisdom
then we should expect to see signs of compassion in the activities of those
relying upon him as their dharma protector.
Richard D, vajra son of Kelsang Gyatso, was banned from all NKT centres
without warning - why? For raising the issue of the Dalai Lama's criticism
of shugden (this was in 1993 before the issue was widely known). Andy W,
wife and two children (both actually born at Manjushri NKT Centre) all
banned for criticising K Gyatso's attitude to the Dalai Lama. The list could
go on and on, but the question is whether these acts indicate the activity
of someone motivated by compassion.

6) Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of tibetan buddhists are
suffering at the hands of the PRC - K Gyatso is himself a tibetan by birth,
so the NKT direct their energy towards helping these people? NO. "We're not
tibetan buddhists!", the NKT scream, "and K Gyatso has taken out UK
citizenship, so it's not of his concern." Well, ok, fair enough, BUT when
the Dalai Lama as head of the tibetan state (in exile) makes proclamations
about shugden, then suddenly tibetan politics becomes the NKT's concern. A
barrage of insults, criticisms and rather nasty activities pour down upon
the head of a man who (as far as I can see) works tirelessly for the benefit
of others. All the NKT are concerned about seems to be the impediment to
their recruitment drive - how dare anyone criticise MY dharma protector! Is
this a dharma mind or a self-cherishing mind?

There are many other points that could be added, but for the purpose of our
examination I think we have enough information to come to a decision: Does
the 'spirit' of dorje shugden support and protect a mind of dharma, or does
it seem to generate and protect a worldly mind? And given that the buddha
taught dharma is it the case that the sadhana (ie the practice, quality) of
dorje shugden would have been taught by the buddha?

Answers on a plain white e-mail form to the ng of your choice, please.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

ps don't believe that KK has read any of the sutras below - he merely quotes
the titles.

>You could start with the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the Guhyasamaja
>Tantra as an overview. Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Great Vehicle is
>very helpful with respect instructions on the objects of refuge - at the
>beginning of every Dorje Shugden sadhana we go for refuge to the Three
>Jewels; the Sutra requested by Sagaramati, White Lotus of Compassion Sutra,
>King of Prayers of Superior Excellent Deeds Sutra are sources of how to
make
>offerings - lots of offerings are made to our Dorje Shugden - Extensive
>Enjoyment Sutra explains how wishes are fulfilled by the merit collected
>from making offerings.
>

>Now I have a question for you. Can you find any practice within the Dorje
>Shugden sadhanas that was not taught by Buddha?
>

>best wishes
>Khyenrab
>

khyenrab

unread,

Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98

In article <6aafqt$jpc$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com
says...

> The list could
>go on and on,.

and later:

>There are many other points that could be added,..

Avyorth, when you say these things do you mean it? If so, please list.

best wishes
Khyenrab

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98

khyenrab wrote in message <6ab2v1$ite$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>In article <6aafqt$jpc$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>,
Avy...@btinternet.com
>says...
>

>> The list could

>>go on and on,.
>
>and later:
>
>>There are many other points that could be added,..
>
>Avyorth, when you say these things do you mean it? If so, please list.

Hello Khyenrab,

Why do you want me to list further points? Perhaps it would be better if you
addressed the points I've listed so far, and then if there seemed any point
in going further, then I can list further points. Otherwise I'm just left
with the sense that you're either playing games or playing for time - and
you wouldn't want me to be left holding that, would you?

Seriously how many people do I need to list that have been unfairly banned
by GKG to make my point - 2, 5, 10?

On a less serious point, just how many of the titles you listed have you
actually read? If so, please list! :-) Annette thinks you may actually have
read some in the days before the NKT became so 'closed', personally I have
my doubts. Go on, settle the dispute and tell us!

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth

>best wishes
>Khyenrab
>

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:12:36 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>khyenrab wrote in message <6a5l2r$tu8$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>
>hello khyenrab,
>
>I'm interested in your question about the shugden sadhana. As I'm sure
>you're aware, the actual sadhana is not the words of the text nor the ritual
>activities we engage in. These are merely the costumes and dramas we use to
>generate the real sadhana - ie the quality of our minds and lives.

Little to disagree with here. Merely to say that the words are
important because they help us to generate quality of minds.

>
>First I'd like to address the issue of 'spirits'. I think trying to prove or
>disprove the existence of spirits as ontological entities is a thankless
>task. Instead, let's take the term 'spirit' in the sense of 'spirit of
>goodwill' or 'in poor spirits' - ie a mental quality. Thus we could check
>whether shugden was a 'dharma spirit' or a 'worldly spirit' without having
>to embroil ourselves in too much bickering.

Again fair enougth. But you must remember that trying to workout
motivation for sentient beings such as ourselves is difficult.
Prersonally, I try to avoid mentioning motivation, after all how does
one prove that a person acts from a good or bad motivation.

However, we can look at what attracts people, and to this end I would
ask you Avyorth, what attracts you to disagreements.
It is not only the NKT that you write unhelpful things about, you also
write unhelpful things about FWBO.

>The dharma protector's function is to protect the budding seeds of our
>realisations of wisdom and compassion.
>So on that basis I'd like to examine the sadhana of the dharma protector
>shugden, dorje to his friends.

Dorje Shugden, Enlightened being, compassionate to all beings not just
to people who rely upon him as their Dharmapala. Enlightened beings do
not have friends since they have no favorites and have compassion for
all beings equally.

>
>Let's look at shugden's success as exemplified by the vociferous NKTers who
>are devoted to the sadhana of shugden:
>
>1) A quality of the mind of dharma is friendly and kind speech - how do
>the practitioners of the shugden sadhana fair in this?

You have a duty to friendly and kind speech too, not just
practitioners who rely upon Dorje Shugden.

>
>> The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient
>religious
>> tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught
>by
>> his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at
>> achieving Tibetan independence.
>> The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over
>> like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru.

Avyorth, you are free to disagree with Geshe-la's conclusions, but you
cannot disagree with the main points.

HHDL made a public ban, enforced by political means upon Tibetans, to
stop a practice that many Tibetans of the Gelug tradition received
from their guru's.

The reason for the ban

1. It harms the health of HHDL

2. It harms the cause of a free TIbet.

Presumable the ban will be good for

1.HHDL health (May his HHDL always enjoy good health)

2. Good for the cause of Tibetan independance.

However, his holiness is mistaken to think that imposing a ban that
attacks religious freedom will help the Tibetan cause.

Is the cause for Tibetan Independance a secular issue based around the
right of nations to freely determine their own future

or is it a religious issue based around oracles and deities?

These are the questions which westerners will inevitably begin to ask.

This will not help the Tibetan community.

>He
>> is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their
>minds
>> are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to
>> fulfil his wishes.
>> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
>> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition.

His holiness as already gone on record as saying that he hopes future
generation of Tibetans will not even remember the mame "Dorje
Shugden". To justify this action he has to discredit Trijang Rinpoche
and Phabohkharpa.

>-these are the words of Kelsang Gyatso one of the chief proponents of the
>shugden cult. Are they kind, friendly or dharmic? Do we detect the spirit of
>lojong here?

Obviously you do not detect the spirit of Lojong, otherwise you would
not ask.

Sometimes one has to point out errors. For example, imagine we live in
a country where the leader of that country has just banned Buddhism.
The ban then directly begins causing Buddhists to lose their jobs and
homes,would you say it is unkind to speak out? Or would you stay
silent and submit. Remember as Buddhists, we should be prepared to die
before abandoning the three jewels.

In that situation one would have a duty to speak out, demand freedom
to go about unaccusted and to practice the religion of one's choice.

For Tibetan practitioners who rely upon Dorje Shugden this is their
experience, sorry if you believe it unkind and unjust to speak out
when others are denied basic human rights.

When this is happening through the actions of HHDL this can only cause
harm to Buddhism in general.

>
>2) Dharmic speech should be honest and open.
>What are we to make of the postings by Nick Gillespie, a senior NKTer and
>spokesman for the Shugden Supporters Group, made under the name of 'Frank
>Delaney'? Apparently these postings only stopped when the 'real' Frank
>Delaney, a well known journalist, considered the idea of legal proceedings.

Avyorth the "Frank Delaney" episode has already been gone over on this
newsgroup. Why you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure.

>
>3) A mind of dharma is surely non-sectarian, non-arrogant.
>"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the Dharma
>transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was
>referring to this practice - this is the inner practice of the NKT. Only the
>NKT holds the pure lineage of the
>Mahamudra today."
>-the words of Kelsang Gyatso's Heart Disciple, Thubten Gyatso, from a
>teaching given at Vajravahari NKT Centre.
>Do these words sound as if they arise from a mind of dharma protected by an
>emanation of the buddha of wisdom, Manjushri?

This is simply wrong. You did not hear this. I hope you had the
opportunity to read the responces to the original posting where this
supposed "quote" was made.

>
>4) When NKT people hark on again and again how Phabonkha was the most
>important lama, had endless disciples, gave the most teachings/empowerments,
>and so on, does this sound like a mind of dharma or a mind obsessed with
>numbers, with reputation - all qualities associated with the eight wordly
>concerns?

Phabonkhapa was important not because of the number of his disciples
or the number of empowerments that he give. He is important because of
the fact he was a great lineage hoolder and most Gelug Lama's chase
their lineage through him.

It is Ven. Rilbur Rinpoche who says of Phabonkhapa "I think he is the
most important Lama of all".

Are you saying that all Lama's who see Phabonkharpa as their guru or
the guru of their own teachers and who hold him in high regard suffer
from the 8 worldly concerns. Would you say this of those who describe
his 24 day Lamrim discourse as "the culmination of the Lam-Rim
tradition in Tibet".

Why should a person be jealous when another being is praised for there
good qualities?

>
>5) Manjushri is the buddha of wisdom, and wisdom is meaningless without
>compassion surely. So if shugden is an emanation of the buddha of wisdom
>then we should expect to see signs of compassion in the activities of those
>relying upon him as their dharma protector.

>Richard D, vajra son of Kelsang Gyatso, was banned from all NKT centres
>without warning - why? For raising the issue of the Dalai Lama's criticism
>of shugden (this was in 1993 before the issue was widely known). Andy W,
>wife and two children (both actually born at Manjushri NKT Centre) all
>banned for criticising K Gyatso's attitude to the Dalai Lama. The list could
>go on and on, but the question is whether these acts indicate the activity
>of someone motivated by compassion.

Who can be benefit by speaking about this in public? When one stays at
a Centre , there are certain rules one is expected to follow.
This is the same for any organisation. If people are disrupting a
community then they will be asked to leave. This does not mean that
one lacks compassion.

When I was much younger, in my first gay relationship, sometimes my
catholic friends would say things that would upset my partner. I would
at those times politely ask them to leave. That does not imply
compassion or lack of compassion. It does imply acting appropiately.

(owever, in those days there was a great lack of compassion. More the
fool me. Here were people providing me with a wonderful opportunity to
practice compassion and I wasted it.)

When one perceives an action as being harmful that is the time to
practice Lojong. If the action is harming others also, that is the
time to practice lojong but also to act appropiately. Even wrathfully,
if that is called for.

>
>6) Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of tibetan buddhists are
>suffering at the hands of the PRC - K Gyatso is himself a tibetan by birth,
>so the NKT direct their energy towards helping these people? NO. "We're not
>tibetan buddhists!", the NKT scream, "and K Gyatso has taken out UK
>citizenship, so it's not of his concern."

Obviously, you think not. There is a difference between Dharma and
Tibetan culture. There is also the risk that people may perceive that
the purpose of gaining disciples is in order to have more people to
fight for the cause of Tibetan Independance. The purpose of sharing
Dharma with Westerners is in order that they may benefit by it, not in
order to have more people but pressure on political governments around
the world about the situation in Tibet.

I am sure that Tibetan Lama's do not seek to share dharma for this
reason. However this view does noy appear to be shared by
some of their western disciples who immediately assume that Dharma and
the political struggle for a free Tibet go hand in hand, and those who
do not rally to this holy cause lack compassion and do not truly
understand Dharma.

Personally, I am of the view that this rallying call is not good for
the spread of Dharma in the West. Let those who wish to fight against
injustice, fight where ever they find it, however let us not turn
Dharma into a political rally.

>Well, ok, fair enough, BUT when
>the Dalai Lama as head of the tibetan state (in exile) makes proclamations
>about shugden, then suddenly tibetan politics becomes the NKT's concern. A
>barrage of insults, criticisms and rather nasty activities pour down upon
>the head of a man who (as far as I can see) works tirelessly for the benefit
>of others.

Unless these others, ask for religious freedom, at which time they are
branded as traitors out to harm HHDL and harm the Tibetan cause. They
are dismissed from jobs, made homeless and become refuges within a
refuge community. An exodus within an exodus.

Why is it so bad to point this out?

What is happening in Dharamsala and other tibetan communites will come
to the attention of the Western media as time progresses. This will
not be good for Tibet. Let us hope that the ban is soon lifted for the
good of all sentient beings.

>All the NKT are concerned about seems to be the impediment to
>their recruitment drive - how dare anyone criticise MY dharma protector! Is
>this a dharma mind or a self-cherishing mind?

If that is your view, fair enougth. Since we cannot see directly into
each others minds, there seems little point in name calling. "My Dad
is bigger then your dad". "My motivation is purer than your
motivation".

People criticise Dharmapala's all the time, in fact I know a few
poeple who quite happily dismiss all of Buddhism as satanical religion
in which God is denied and devils are worshipped.

If that is what people wish to think, good luck to them.
If people wish to see Dorje Shugden as an evil spirit, that is up to
them. However, if someone uses political power to enforce religious
orthodoxy that is wrong.

>
>There are many other points that could be added, but for the purpose of our
>examination I think we have enough information to come to a decision: Does
>the 'spirit' of dorje shugden support and protect a mind of dharma, or does
>it seem to generate and protect a worldly mind? And given that the buddha
>taught dharma is it the case that the sadhana (ie the practice, quality) of
>dorje shugden would have been taught by the buddha?

When I look at Geshe-la's disciples and especially at my teacher
Ani-la Kelsang Chowang I have no doubt that it generates and protects
a mind of dharma. As for me, the Sadhana helps me in my efforts to
give up a worldly mind and try to gain realisations.

>
>Answers on a plain white e-mail form to the ng of your choice, please.
>
>Yours in the Dh (ark)
>Avyorth
>
>ps don't believe that KK has read any of the sutras below - he merely quotes
>the titles.
>

OH Avyorth, you can be more generous than this.

Take care
Alan

Chris

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:43:42 GMT, alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird)
wrote:
...

> Who can be benefit by speaking about this in public? When one stays at
> a Centre , there are certain rules one is expected to follow.
> This is the same for any organisation. If people are disrupting a
> community then they will be asked to leave. This does not mean that
> one lacks compassion.

...
And one of the rules for Tibetan Gelugpa now seems to be that those
residing there should not worship Shugden. This rule has been made by
HH the Dalai Lama, HE Ganden Tri Rinpoche, HE Jangtse Choje etc.

Some Shugden worshippers in these institutions however have decided
not to follow the rules set down by the leadres of their organisation
but to launch a protest against it.

- Chris

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34c8f6de...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
Hello Alan,
Thanks for your points.

>
>Again fair enougth. But you must remember that trying to workout
>motivation for sentient beings such as ourselves is difficult.
>Prersonally, I try to avoid mentioning motivation, after all how does
>one prove that a person acts from a good or bad motivation.
>
>However, we can look at what attracts people, and to this end I would
>ask you Avyorth, what attracts you to disagreements.
>It is not only the NKT that you write unhelpful things about, you also
>write unhelpful things about FWBO.

Not quite sure why 'motivation' comes in here nor why it's such a big
difficulty - until we develop direct perceivers, we have to rely upon
inferential cognizers or valid reasons.

Next you take two situations viz the affair over the Guardian newspaper's
allegations concerning the FWBO, and the NKT's campaign against the Dalai
Lama - I have posted concerning both of these because I have been seriously
involved with both organisations and have an opinion that I wish to express
on these issues. I have not, for instance, made any postings about the
recent allegations against Jetsumma as I have no personal experience of the
woman concerned nor of her organisation. I have heard other people's views,
read the postings on the ngs and, like most of us, have my opinion. For you
to then accuse me of being atttracted to disagreements says much more about
your own mind (and motivation/attractors) and its ability to jump to wrong
conclusions than it does about me and my motivations.

You write "unhelpful' - quite a judgement, Alan. "Unhelpful" for whom? As
I've mentioned in other postings, I've received quite a number of private
e-mails from people thanking me for disclosing another side of, for example,
the NKT and saying how helpful they actually found my postings. If I'm not
mistaken I've been publically thanked on the ngs for my postings about the
NKT. Please remember not everyone views the world through your eyeballs.

>
>Dorje Shugden, Enlightened being, compassionate to all beings not just
>to people who rely upon him as their Dharmapala. Enlightened beings do
>not have friends since they have no favorites and have compassion for
>all beings equally.
>

Is that right, Alan? You seem to be in the know about such profound matters.
Perhaps you have a direct link with "Enlightened beings"? I've noticed also
how you post so authoritively (dogmatically??) about everything from karma,
to enlightened beings, the stages of the path to enlightenment. Not an 'IMO'
to be seen anywhere! Where on earth did you gain such profound realisations?

>
>Avyorth, you are free to disagree with Geshe-la's conclusions, but you
>cannot disagree with the main points.

Again, is that right, Alan? Is this by imperial decree, or something.
Actually I don't need your permission to disagree with Kelsang Gyatso's (or
anyone else's for that matter) conclusions. Likewise I'm free to disagree
with your OPINION of the main points. You seem to have a very
self-referrential outlook on the world and others, IMO :-) The word that
comes to mind is 'narcissism'.

>>2) Dharmic speech should be honest and open.
>>What are we to make of the postings by Nick Gillespie, a senior NKTer and
>>spokesman for the Shugden Supporters Group, made under the name of 'Frank
>>Delaney'? Apparently these postings only stopped when the 'real' Frank
>>Delaney, a well known journalist, considered the idea of legal
proceedings.
>
>Avyorth the "Frank Delaney" episode has already been gone over on this
>newsgroup. Why you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure.
>

This is a real joke, Alan. Where have I heard these words before? "....the
'dorje shugden' episode has already been gone over on this newsgroup. Why
you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure." Ring any bells, Alan?
Again and again and again, the same old issues are churned out by the NKT
irrespective of the requests by other ng users to keep the issue to the NKT
ng. Of course, in your book, that's ok I presumme? Also given your
disclaimer earlier about ">Prersonally, I try to avoid mentioning

motivation, after all how does

>one prove that a person acts from a good or bad motivation" why are you now
trying to figure out my motivation, Alan?

>>3) A mind of dharma is surely non-sectarian, non-arrogant.
>>"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the Dharma
>>transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was
>>referring to this practice - this is the inner practice of the NKT. Only
the
>>NKT holds the pure lineage of the
>>Mahamudra today."
>>-the words of Kelsang Gyatso's Heart Disciple, Thubten Gyatso, from a
>>teaching given at Vajravahari NKT Centre.
>>Do these words sound as if they arise from a mind of dharma protected by
an
>>emanation of the buddha of wisdom, Manjushri?
>
>This is simply wrong. You did not hear this. I hope you had the
>opportunity to read the responces to the original posting where this
>supposed "quote" was made.

I haven't seen anything of an earlier response - btinternet, my isp, has had
repeated problems with the ng server - particularly bad from just before
xmas until recently. Perhaps someone will repost it in case I can't track it
down on dejanews?

Now for the imperative "you did not hear this"! Actually, Alan, you are
wrong! Not only do I have this clearly written in my notes, I also have a
tape of the teaching, and consequently can hear it again and again should I
so wish! I have several tapes of embarrasment to the NKT including one, as
I've mentioned before, where we new TTP students at Tara Centre are told it
is ok to abuse the UK Benefits system whilst TTP students.

>Would you say this of those who describe
>his 24 day Lamrim discourse as "the culmination of the Lam-Rim
>tradition in Tibet".

Funny that Manjushri Centre should have gotten rid of Pabongka's "Liberation
in the Palm of Your Hand" then?

>>Richard D, vajra son of Kelsang Gyatso, was banned from all NKT centres
>>without warning - why? For raising the issue of the Dalai Lama's
criticism
>>of shugden (this was in 1993 before the issue was widely known). Andy W,
>>wife and two children (both actually born at Manjushri NKT Centre) all
>>banned for criticising K Gyatso's attitude to the Dalai Lama. The list
could
>>go on and on, but the question is whether these acts indicate the activity
>>of someone motivated by compassion.
>
>
>Who can be benefit by speaking about this in public? When one stays at
>a Centre , there are certain rules one is expected to follow.

Again you're jumping to your favoured assumption, Alan! Richard did not stay
at Amitabha Centre. As I posted before he lived in Bristol and kindly gave
myself and another FP student a lift through to Bath for FP each Saturday.
He didn't break any rules as such. He discussed some things he'd been told
by other buddhists about the (still very low key at this point) Dalai
Lama's criticism of the shugden practice. None of us knew anything about
these issues. We'd just recently taken Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment of
Heruka-Vajrayogini and were pretty blissed out. Poor Richard just happened
to stumble into the viper's den and was bitten most fatally. He was in tears
when he heard that he was banned. I recently met K, who took over as
'director' of the Bristol NKT group from Richard, and she told me the
treatment of Richard was one of the prime reasons why she left the NKT - in
her opinion it was totally unfair, uncharitable and unjustified.

As to who might benefit from this? Personally I know of several people who
have withdrawn their interest in the NKT after hearing about its
activities - they have chosen to become involved in non-sectarian buddhist
groups.

>When I was much younger, in my first gay relationship, sometimes my
>catholic friends would say things that would upset my partner. I would
>at those times politely ask them to leave. That does not imply
>compassion or lack of compassion. It does imply acting appropiately.

Alan, you're so off the mark here about all of this, it would perhaps be
better that you assimilated what I'm actually saying before you leap in to
'save' your beloved NKT.

>however let us not turn
>Dharma into a political rally.

Like your accusing me of going over already 'gone over' material this is
another howler. The NKT's political rallies against the Dalai Lama obviously
don't count, hmm? Just a touch self-referrential, again.

>
>
>If that is your view, fair enougth. Since we cannot see directly into
>each others minds, there seems little point in name calling. "My Dad
>is bigger then your dad". "My motivation is purer than your
>motivation".

Again if that's the case then why do you try to figure out my motivation for
mentioning the "Frank Delaney" deception? Let me quote you from above, "Why

you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure."

>When I look at Geshe-la's disciples and especially at my teacher
>Ani-la Kelsang Chowang

Ah yes the ven Sue aka Chowang- perhaps I'll let you in on some of the
goings-on at Tara Centre when she and I were both residents there.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth

>Take care
>Alan
>

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 02:18:47 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>Alan Bird wrote in message <34c8f6de...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>Hello Alan,
>Thanks for your points.
>>

>>However, we can look at what attracts people, and to this end I would
>>ask you Avyorth, what attracts you to disagreements.
>>It is not only the NKT that you write unhelpful things about, you also
>>write unhelpful things about FWBO.
>

>You write "unhelpful' - quite a judgement, Alan. "Unhelpful" for whom? As
>I've mentioned in other postings, I've received quite a number of private
>e-mails from people thanking me for disclosing another side of, for example,
>the NKT and saying how helpful they actually found my postings. If I'm not
>mistaken I've been publically thanked on the ngs for my postings about the
>NKT. Please remember not everyone views the world through your eyeballs.

Unhelpful, for many people. FWBO have done a great deal to introduce
many people to Buddhism, and a great number have taken refuge in the
Three Jewels because of their work. For this they are to be encouraged
and praised.

If thay are difficulties with some of the organisational aspects then
that is to be brought to the attention of those who can correct the
matter. However, I can see little to be gained by spreading rumours,
half-truths and mixed with some facts about who Shangarakshita may or
may not have slept with.etc The Croydon situation, (whatever that is
exactly) is one the FWBO are well aware of and seeking to correct.
I wish them well and hope they succeed, may those who are attracted to
the way FWBO practice Dharma (A method I have disagreements with, but
then organisations are not 10 dollar notes to be liked by everyone.)
benefit from being associated with them.

>>
>>Dorje Shugden, Enlightened being, compassionate to all beings not just
>>to people who rely upon him as their Dharmapala. Enlightened beings do
>>not have friends since they have no favorites and have compassion for
>>all beings equally.
>>
>Is that right, Alan? You seem to be in the know about such profound matters.

Not so profound. I believe that Dorje Shugden is an emanation of
Manjustri. Enlightened beings have compassion for all beings equally.

"That is elementry, my dear Watson" as Holmes would say:-)

>Perhaps you have a direct link with "Enlightened beings"? I've noticed also
>how you post so authoritively (dogmatically??) about everything from karma,
>to enlightened beings, the stages of the path to enlightenment.

Do my posting come across in that light? I will have to be careful how
I write in future. But anyone can write that there are 21 meditations
in Lamrim, or that their are four powers to confession etc, no great
wisdom needed for this.

Not an 'IMO'
>to be seen anywhere! Where on earth did you gain such profound realisations?

Not realisations. How I wish they were.

>>
>>Avyorth, you are free to disagree with Geshe-la's conclusions, but you
>>cannot disagree with the main points.
>
>Again, is that right, Alan? Is this by imperial decree, or something.
>Actually I don't need your permission to disagree with Kelsang Gyatso's (or
>anyone else's for that matter) conclusions.

>ikewise I'm free to disagree
>with your OPINION of the main points.

Avyorth merely my clumsy style of writing. I did not seek to imply
that you needed permission, as I think you well understood.

You seem to have a very
>self-referrential outlook on the world and others, IMO :-) The word that
>comes to mind is 'narcissism'.

If you say so.
If you belive this why the smilie, is that an indication that you rre
happy to discover that I am like this?

>
>>>2) Dharmic speech should be honest and open.
>>>What are we to make of the postings by Nick Gillespie, a senior NKTer and
>>>spokesman for the Shugden Supporters Group, made under the name of 'Frank
>>>Delaney'? Apparently these postings only stopped when the 'real' Frank
>>>Delaney, a well known journalist, considered the idea of legal
>proceedings.
>>
>>Avyorth the "Frank Delaney" episode has already been gone over on this
>>newsgroup. Why you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure.
>>
>This is a real joke, Alan. Where have I heard these words before? "....the
>'dorje shugden' episode has already been gone over on this newsgroup. Why
>you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure." Ring any bells, Alan?
>Again and again and again, the same old issues are churned out by the NKT
>irrespective of the requests by other ng users to keep the issue to the NKT
>ng. Of course, in your book, that's ok I presumme? Also given your
>disclaimer earlier about ">Prersonally, I try to avoid mentioning
>motivation, after all how does
>>one prove that a person acts from a good or bad motivation" why are you now
>trying to figure out my motivation, Alan?

I asked a question? I do not know what motivates you to write, just as
I suspect you do not know what motivates me.

Avyorth, a point which I made in a seperate reply, but I will mention
again here, you began this thread, going over the "old ground", in
fact you have also recently started nother thread. Why not just reply
to this one, why start another, than another.

People may respond to them, then you will say, "oh, there they go
again, repeating all the same stuff!". It would be better if we kept
this all to the same thread.

If people do not read mine or your postings because they are buried in
a string, does it matter. We are not writing for an audience.

If you say so. Notes, are just that notes. Of course you may be able
to write shorthand and so you have written a direct quote. But unless
that is the case then you notes are just a record of what you took to
me the "essence" of the talk. Other people have a different
recollection.

>
> >Would you say this of those who describe
>>his 24 day Lamrim discourse as "the culmination of the Lam-Rim
>>tradition in Tibet".
>Funny that Manjushri Centre should have gotten rid of Pabongka's "Liberation
>in the Palm of Your Hand" then?

Did they?

I have a copy on my dharma shelf, a wonderful book, recommened to me
by a NKT teacher. Does this mean I will get a visit from the NKT vice
squad :-)

>
>
>>>Richard D, vajra son of Kelsang Gyatso, was banned from all NKT centres
>>>without warning - why? For raising the issue of the Dalai Lama's
>criticism
>>>of shugden (this was in 1993 before the issue was widely known). Andy W,
>>>wife and two children (both actually born at Manjushri NKT Centre) all
>>>banned for criticising K Gyatso's attitude to the Dalai Lama. The list
>could
>>>go on and on, but the question is whether these acts indicate the activity
>>>of someone motivated by compassion.
>>
>>
>>Who can be benefit by speaking about this in public? When one stays at
>>a Centre , there are certain rules one is expected to follow.

>Again you're jumping to your favoured assumption, Alan! Richard did not stay
>at Amitabha Centre.

Avyorth, did you read my post?
Where do I mention Amitabha Centre?

As I posted before he lived in Bristol and kindly gave
>myself and another FP student a lift through to Bath for FP each Saturday.
>He didn't break any rules as such. He discussed some things he'd been told
>by other buddhists about the (still very low key at this point) Dalai
>Lama's criticism of the shugden practice. None of us knew anything about
>these issues. We'd just recently taken Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment of
>Heruka-Vajrayogini and were pretty blissed out.

I am glad that you had the opportunity to take empowerment. I hope you
are enjoying your practice you are very fortunate to have such an
opportunity.

HHDL has been speaking out against Dorje Shugden since the late 70's.
It was never an issue with the NKT. However, I can well see why, if
someone began stating that Dorje shugden was an eveil spirit this
would cause difficulties.

It has only been since the enforced ban by HHDL that it has become a
apublic issue. If they had been no ban we would not be having this
discussion.

Poor Richard just happened
>to stumble into the viper's den and was bitten most fatally. He was in tears
>when he heard that he was banned. I recently met K, who took over as
>'director' of the Bristol NKT group from Richard, and she told me the
>treatment of Richard was one of the prime reasons why she left the NKT - in
>her opinion it was totally unfair, uncharitable and unjustified.

Again who can benefit by talking about this in public? I would say
this of any organisation not just the NKT. As the NKT some dirty
laundry, most probably. What organisations does not have
sad incidents from time to time.

Going into the rights or wrongs of what Richard did or did not too, or
how others in the NKT responded is not helpful to anyone.

>
>As to who might benefit from this? Personally I know of several people who
>have withdrawn their interest in the NKT after hearing about its
>activities - they have chosen to become involved in non-sectarian buddhist
>groups.

I am pleased that people practice Dharma. However, why you have made
it a mission to encourage people to leave the NKT I do not know.

NKT is not sectarian.

>
>>When I was much younger, in my first gay relationship, sometimes my
>>catholic friends would say things that would upset my partner. I would
>>at those times politely ask them to leave. That does not imply
>>compassion or lack of compassion. It does imply acting appropiately.
>
>Alan, you're so off the mark here about all of this, it would perhaps be
>better that you assimilated what I'm actually saying before you leap in to
>'save' your beloved NKT.

Avyorth, the NKT does not need saving. It will survive and spread
Dharma or it will disappear. Whatever. Nothing lasts in Samsara.
Best not to grow attached to the idea of things being saved or being
destroyed. Just appreciate the chance to practice Dharma.

>
>>however let us not turn
>>Dharma into a political rally.
>
>Like your accusing me of going over already 'gone over' material this is
>another howler. The NKT's political rallies against the Dalai Lama obviously
>don't count, hmm? Just a touch self-referrential, again.

I see nothing wrong with Buddhist's being involved in fighting
oppression. Whether that be Chinese oppresion or what is happening in
Sri Lanka etc.

However, I was making the point that it is unhelpful to judge whether
a person is practicing compassion by being involved in political
campaigns around a free Tibet, which is what I perceived you where
saying in your last mailing.

>>
>>
>>If that is your view, fair enougth. Since we cannot see directly into
>>each others minds, there seems little point in name calling. "My Dad
>>is bigger then your dad". "My motivation is purer than your
>>motivation".

>Again if that's the case then why do you try to figure out my motivation for
>mentioning the "Frank Delaney" deception? Let me quote you from above, "Why
>you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure."

Again Avyorth, it is a question, not a statement.

>
>>When I look at Geshe-la's disciples and especially at my teacher
>>Ani-la Kelsang Chowang
>
>Ah yes the ven Sue aka Chowang- perhaps I'll let you in on some of the
>goings-on at Tara Centre when she and I were both residents there.

Oh Avyorth, now even I cannot resist some mild sarcasm.

I give in, everyone you met in the NKT was blind, heartless
individulas trying to control others.Or stupid and could not recognise
when they where being taken for aride.However, you are a gentle, kind
person without any prejudices whatsoever!. How did you escape so
unscratched from our clutches?!

Avyorth, I am sure you do notbelieve that everyone you bet in the NKT
is anything like the wayI characterise them in the above paragraph,
just as I a m sure you are not always gentle, kind and without
prejudices.

This is Samsara, we are sentient beings with delusions. We try to
ovecome them by practising the supreme medicine of dharma.

wishing you happiness

Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 02:18:47 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>
>This is a real joke, Alan. Where have I heard these words before? "....the
>'dorje shugden' episode has already been gone over on this newsgroup. Why
>you wish to keep going over this, I am not sure." Ring any bells, Alan?
>Again and again and again, the same old issues are churned out by the NKT
>irrespective of the requests by other ng users to keep the issue to the NKT
>ng. Of course, in your book, that's ok I presumme? Also given your
>disclaimer earlier about ">Prersonally, I try to avoid mentioning
>motivation, after all how does
>>one prove that a person acts from a good or bad motivation" why are you now
>trying to figure out my motivation, Alan?
>

Avyorth,

You posted the first message to this string. It was your fresh posting
on a new string that started this particuler exchange.

You could have kept your posting to the original string However for
whatever reason you chose not to. Seems a bit disengeneous to now
complain about old issues being constantly churned out by NKTers
(as you like to describe Geshe-la's disciples.)

You also are churning out the old issue, which is why this new string
on this subject as began elsewhere in the ng, yet again
Best wishes

Alan

James Burns

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

In article <34c94125...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Chris
<cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk> writes

>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:43:42 GMT, alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird)
>wrote:
>...

>> Who can be benefit by speaking about this in public? When one stays at
>> a Centre , there are certain rules one is expected to follow.
>> This is the same for any organisation. If people are disrupting a
>> community then they will be asked to leave. This does not mean that
>> one lacks compassion.

>...
>And one of the rules for Tibetan Gelugpa now seems to be that those
>residing there should not worship Shugden. This rule has been made by
>HH the Dalai Lama, HE Ganden Tri Rinpoche, HE Jangtse Choje etc.
>
>Some Shugden worshippers in these institutions however have decided
>not to follow the rules set down by the leadres of their organisation
>but to launch a protest against it.
>
>- Chris

Yes Chris quite so. Rules and Regulations need to be fair and just and
in accord with conscience. In a religious context they also need to be
in accord with spiritual values. Rules and regulations need to be
'tested' for correctness and if found wanting then they should be
opposed.

Just because someone has temporal power does not mean that they can use
that power in any arbitrary way that they want. This may have been
acceptable in more primitive times, and in some areas even in the recent
past, but it is not acceptable in the modern world.

The Shugden Ban is even contrary to the Exile Governments own democratic
constitution. This is a matter which I am sure you are aware of, but
never comment upon.

Yes, so rules and regulations can be very useful, especially if they are
fair, just, democratic and for the common good. But lets put them in
perspective: they need to be tested, verified, corrected and adjusted as
required.

The Tibetans that oppose this Ban by His Holiness do him a great service
at a great personal cost. He is creating great harm by what he does. His
Holiness stands for many good and just things, which now stand to be
increasingly tarnished by his actions in this respect.

He needs to now act wisely to regain lost credibility.

Best Wishes.

randy j

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

Don Martin <d...@rainbows.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<ant222157b49L5%6...@rainbows.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <34c6836e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Chris
> <URL:mailto:cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > You could write a sadhana to the five Spice Girls containing these
> > elements and look upon them as emanations of the five wisdom
> > dakinis - would that make them proper objects of refuge?
>
> ****** They would sure beat some of the others in visual appeal!

not green Tara, she's always topless!

om tare tuttare ture soha

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34c9b2f7...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>>>Dorje Shugden, Enlightened being, compassionate to all beings not just
>>>to people who rely upon him as their Dharmapala. Enlightened beings do
>>>not have friends since they have no favorites and have compassion for
>>>all beings equally.
>>>
>>Is that right, Alan? You seem to be in the know about such profound
matters.
>
>Not so profound. I believe that Dorje Shugden is an emanation of
>Manjustri. Enlightened beings have compassion for all beings equally.

>>Perhaps you have a direct link with "Enlightened beings"? I've noticed

also
>>how you post so authoritively (dogmatically??) about everything from
karma,
>>to enlightened beings, the stages of the path to enlightenment.
>
>Do my posting come across in that light? I will have to be careful how
>I write in future. But anyone can write that there are 21 meditations
>in Lamrim, or that their are four powers to confession etc, no great
>wisdom needed for this.
>

Hello again,

I'm not actually referring to the factuality of whether there are or are not
21 meditations to some Lam rim systems - I know GKG has 21 but other
teachers don't , as far as I know. What I'm pointing to is the way you make
such categorical statements about the most profound issues eg karma,
rebirth, enlightenment. Have a look through your previous postings eg the
recent thread with Ty.

Dharma, as I understand it, is not about dogma - that's the terrain
of -isms, eg buddhism. Rather, IMO, Dharma is about 'skilful means', and is
consequently often more in line with metaphor. Do you have direct
realisation of rebirth, karma, purification, bodhicitta, wisdom realising
emptiness? If not, then you have the same choice as me, ie hold your views
as 'the truth' (dogma) or hold them as 'metaphor' (agnostic). When we hold
them as 'the truth' then we fall into buddhism, when we hold them as
'metaphor' then we fall into the Dh (ark) - as I see it.

By holding our views as 'the truth' we must battle with other 'truth'
holders - eg we have to pooh pooh christians who believe in sin and 'works'
instead of karma, rather than trying to understand what these views might
actually be pointing towards. The famous finger pointing at the moon.

> Avyorth merely my clumsy style of writing. I did not seek to imply
>that you needed permission, as I think you well understood.

Yes, quite right, but I'm trying to help you chill out on the old dogma
front. See me as a sort of Atisha's cook - a pain in the butt, yet having
its use.
>

>If you say so.
>If you belive this why the smilie, is that an indication that you rre
>happy to discover that I am like this?

Come on, Alan, the smile is an attempt to say that I'm kinda joking. I don't
see you as some evil, perverted being. Don't be so 'precious' with it all.
There might even be those who see me as self-referential and narcissistic!

>
>Avyorth, a point which I made in a seperate reply, but I will mention
>again here, you began this thread, going over the "old ground", in
>fact you have also recently started nother thread. Why not just reply
>to this one, why start another, than another.
>
>People may respond to them, then you will say, "oh, there they go
>again, repeating all the same stuff!". It would be better if we kept
>this all to the same thread.

Alan, I don't know about your browser or isp, but my message quite clearly
is on the thread that runs "Does NKT follow Pabongka (was Message for Simon
Heath)" and is a reply to a posting by Khyenrab to that thread. I did not
start the thread, although as you know I have previously posted to it.

Starting the other thread (do you mean "Seeking a more balanced
perspective"?) - yes, I apologise for that. I'm rather new to the ngs and
haven't quite sussed out all the technicalities. My intention was simply to
change the heading but to keep it within the same thread. I still don't
understand the parameters of this process. Any hints?

>
>>>>3) A mind of dharma is surely non-sectarian, non-arrogant.
>>>>"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to protect the
Dharma
>>>>transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was
>>>>referring to this practice - this is the inner practice of the NKT. Only
>>the
>>>>NKT holds the pure lineage of the
>>>>Mahamudra today."
>>>>-the words of Kelsang Gyatso's Heart Disciple, Thubten Gyatso, from a
>>>>teaching given at Vajravahari NKT Centre.

>>Now for the imperative "you did not hear this"! Actually, Alan, you are
>>wrong! Not only do I have this clearly written in my notes, I also have a
>>tape of the teaching, and consequently can hear it again and again should
I
>>so wish!

>If you say so. Notes, are just that notes. Of course you may be able

>to write shorthand and so you have written a direct quote. But unless
>that is the case then you notes are just a record of what you took to
>me the "essence" of the talk. Other people have a different
>recollection.

Alan, please carefully reread my above paragraph. I have a TAPE recording of
the teaching. Your inability to see what I am writing suggests selective
myopia (something we all probably suffer from, to be sure).
>>

>I have a copy on my dharma shelf, a wonderful book, recommened to me
>by a NKT teacher. Does this mean I will get a visit from the NKT vice
>squad :-)
>

Hi Alan, don't mention vice and the NKT in one sentence to me, unless you
want to trigger off a whole new string of threads (!) with rather tabloid
headings, you should know what I'm like by now! :-) Eg "NKT monk stripped of
his robes for sex romps with nuns!"

>>Again you're jumping to your favoured assumption, Alan! Richard did not
stay
>>at Amitabha Centre.
>
>Avyorth, did you read my post?
>Where do I mention Amitabha Centre?

Correct! You did not mention Amitabha Butlins Camp (hello Claire!). But when
I posted the information about Richard's unjust banning from the NKT, you
replied about the right to expel trouble-making residents from Centres. I
replied that Richard was never a resident at the Centre in question (which
so happened to be Amitabha Centre). Richard was (and probably still is) a
very nice, friendly and kind person - he did not make any trouble at the
Centre other than discuss with some other students what he'd heard from some
other buddhists about the Dalai Lama - dorje shugden affair. At that time
the issue was contained by-and-large within the Tibetan camp - Richard's
bringing it into the light of day at a NKT Centre was seen as akin to a
betrayal of the NKT.
>

>HHDL has been speaking out against Dorje Shugden since the late 70's.
>It was never an issue with the NKT. However, I can well see why, if
>someone began stating that Dorje shugden was an eveil spirit this
>would cause difficulties.

Alan, again you are jumping to conclusions that are not true. Richard as far
as I'm aware did not state that dorje shugden was an evil spirit. He would
stay behind at Amitabha Centre after FP on a Saturday and take part in
Wishfulfilling Jewel puja which, as you know, includes the middling puja for
dorje shugden. You really don't seem to understand the incident. Richard was
a disciple of GKG, he'd recently taken Heruka-Vajrayogini empowerment, he
was a student on FP, he was a nice chap. He simply walked into an
long-running Tibetan feud and was dumped upon by his vajra-father Kelsang
Gyatso.

>>Poor Richard just happened
>>to stumble into the viper's den and was bitten most fatally. He was in
tears
>>when he heard that he was banned. I recently met K, who took over as
>>'director' of the Bristol NKT group from Richard, and she told me the
>>treatment of Richard was one of the prime reasons why she left the NKT -
in
>>her opinion it was totally unfair, uncharitable and unjustified.
>
>Again who can benefit by talking about this in public? I would say
>this of any organisation not just the NKT. As the NKT some dirty
>laundry, most probably. What organisations does not have
>sad incidents from time to time.
>

Absolutely! The point for me in all of this is that organisations need to be
accountable for their 'dirty laundry'. They have a duty in a liberal
democratic society to provide a forum where difficulties and 'sad incidents'
can be fairly and openly discussed. No longer (hopefully) is it acceptable
for organisations to ride rough-shod over people. I really believe that the
democratisation of 'religion' will improve the study and practice of Dharma.

>Going into the rights or wrongs of what Richard did or did not too, or
>how others in the NKT responded is not helpful to anyone.

Please explain the basis of this injunction, Alan.

>>
>>As to who might benefit from this? Personally I know of several people who
>>have withdrawn their interest in the NKT after hearing about its
>>activities - they have chosen to become involved in non-sectarian buddhist
>>groups.
>
>I am pleased that people practice Dharma. However, why you have made
>it a mission to encourage people to leave the NKT I do not know.

Practicing Dharma and belonging to the NKT have little in common, in my
opinion. Don't take it too personally, Alan, I've been heard exposing the
dark side of eg Scientology. As I've explained before, the NKT spends vast
sums of money and effort seeking converts/members and propagating a very
one-sided and inaccurate image. I'm barely a 'gadfly', surely. I might ask
you why you have made it a mission to encourage people to join the NKT?

>Oh Avyorth, now even I cannot resist some mild sarcasm.

"Now even I...", what's this, Alan, the true confessions of a buddhist
saint? :-)

>
>I give in, everyone you met in the NKT was blind, heartless
>individulas trying to control others.Or stupid and could not recognise
>when they where being taken for aride.However, you are a gentle, kind
>person without any prejudices whatsoever!. How did you escape so
>unscratched from our clutches?!

Now, don't get tetchy! I have never said this, nor presented such a 'black
and white' image.

>
>Avyorth, I am sure you do notbelieve that everyone you bet in the NKT
>is anything like the wayI characterise them in the above paragraph,
>just as I a m sure you are not always gentle, kind and without
>prejudices.

The old straw man technique! Please point out where I've ever suggested
this.

>
>wishing you happiness

Speak with you soon.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth
>Alan

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34c9ae2...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>You posted the first message to this string. It was your fresh posting
>on a new string that started this particuler exchange.

Hello yet again, Alan,

just to correct this point - read the thread that my posting was/is attached
to. It runs:

"Message for Simon Heath" - started by Khyenrab in reply to Simon Heath's
question. Then it continues under the name "Does NKT follow Phabongkha?"
Now unless you wish to see me as either Simon Heath or Khyenrab, then you
cannot claim that I started this thread!

>You could have kept your posting to the original string However for
>whatever reason you chose not to. Seems a bit disengeneous to now
>complain about old issues being constantly churned out by NKTers
>(as you like to describe Geshe-la's disciples.)
>
>You also are churning out the old issue, which is why this new string
>on this subject as began elsewhere in the ng, yet again

Re the posting "Seeking a more balanced perspective: re NKT", I have
explained what went wrong there. I'm still unclear of the parameters for
renaming a thread whilst carrying it on. I don't understand the actual point
where renaming a thread causes it to break and form a new one. Any ideas,
hints, advice? Obviously I can do it - hence the title of the reply here,
but that was luck and not skill!

Perhaps we newbies should have a little 'L' plate signature attached to our
postings until we pass our browser super-highway test.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Best wishes
>
>Alan

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34c9b2f7...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 02:18:47 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"

>>Alan Bird wrote in message <34c8f6de...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>>>However, we can look at what attracts people, and to this end I would
>>>ask you Avyorth, what attracts you to disagreements.
>>>It is not only the NKT that you write unhelpful things about, you also
>>>write unhelpful things about FWBO.

Hello again Alan,

Funny how you left in your point about me being attracted to disagreements
and snipped my reply. As I said I became involved with the FWBO and NKT
discussions since I've had considerable personal experience of both
organisations and consequently have opinions on both issues. I have NOT
posted on eg the Jetsumma-Mirabella disagreement as I have no personal
experience of her or her organisation. Your statement that I am atttracted
to disagreements (and there are plenty on the buddhist ngs) is patently
FALSE. I can only assume that you introduce the point as an attempt to
blacken my character and hence (hopefully?) to weaken my point of view.

>>
>>You write "unhelpful' - quite a judgement, Alan. "Unhelpful" for whom? As
>>I've mentioned in other postings, I've received quite a number of private
>>e-mails from people thanking me for disclosing another side of, for
example,
>>the NKT and saying how helpful they actually found my postings. If I'm not
>>mistaken I've been publically thanked on the ngs for my postings about the
>>NKT. Please remember not everyone views the world through your eyeballs.
>
>Unhelpful, for many people. FWBO have done a great deal to introduce
>many people to Buddhism, and a great number have taken refuge in the
>Three Jewels because of their work. For this they are to be encouraged
>and praised.

"Unhelpful, for many people" - how do you know this? How many people?
Unhelpful in what sense?
As I've said, I've received many private e-mails from people who have found
my postings helpful. Eg people involved with both the FWBO and NKT who'd
recognized some of the issues that I've raised but hadn't trusted their own
perception. By reading my postings (and the postings of others!) they have
'integrated' the ignored alarm bells and felt much better for it. Some have
decided to look elsewhere for spiritual companionship, others have decided
to contiue whilst acknowledging the Shadow-side of the organisation. Sounds
much healthier to me than believing the sun shines out your teacher's butt.
Also, as I mentioned, there have been 'thanks' for my postings actually
posted on the ng.

>If thay are difficulties with some of the organisational aspects then
>that is to be brought to the attention of those who can correct the
>matter.

Believe me, Alan, I've tried (as have many others). Whilst living at Tara
Centre, for example, I had many 'discussions' with the then director - her
responses were two-fold, "This is not open to negotiation/discussion,
Avyorth!" or "This is not a democracy, I make the rules around here." But
please remember, Alan, that no matter how theocratic the NKT is, it still
exists within a liberal, democratic society, and this is the point where the
NKT stick. They want to use the priviledges and freedoms of such societies
(eg TTP students living off State benefits, freedom to proselytize) yet will
not permit these priviledges and freedoms to those within their fiefdom.

Let me give you one example: when I lived at Manjushri Centre I had to (and
I mean HAD TO) give up my room during the NKT Summer Festival - this was
part of the rental 'agreement'. During the festival the Centre let the room,
usually to Swiss devotees, and raised lots of dosh to support NKT
missionaries going abroad. Fair enough, except I still had to pay rent for
the room for those two weeks. As I had nowhere to stay during the Festival I
had to purchase a tent and, like many other Manjushri residents, camp in the
grounds. This meant that I was unable to pay my rent on time and, as is the
agreement, was charged interest on the outstanding debt until I paid off my
rent the following month. Anyway back to the point. Many residents left
their rooms during
those two weeks (sometimes after very unpleasant pressure had been put on
them). Many of these people were having their rents paid by South Lakeland
District Council via housing benefit - lots of dosh poured into Manjushri
from SLDC every month as housing benefit, remember I was the cashier for
sometime and had the job of writing up the cheques into the ledger. At the
same time as the residents were paying Manjushri Centre for their rooms via
housing benefit (ie taxpayer's money), the visitors to the Festival were
paying NKT Charity loads of money for the same rooms. The money gained by
the NKT would go into the 'overseas teachers fund' (ie to support NKT
missionaries). So really, when you think about it the NKT were quite happily
using taxpayer's money to propagate their organisation and religion.

However, I can see little to be gained by spreading rumours,
>half-truths and mixed with some facts

Exactly my point!

Ok, I'll finish off here, Alan, and address your other points in a separate
post, otherwise this message will become rather long.

>wishing you happiness
>
Thanks, and you too.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98

Hi, Avyorth

>
>Funny how you left in your point about me being attracted to disagreements
>and snipped my reply.

I did not just copy my point, I also copied part of your reply to that
point.
Nothing sinister about this I'm afraid Avyorth. I presume people will
have read your reply. I copied what was necessary so that my responce
made sense.

>Your statement that I am atttracted
>to disagreements (and there are plenty on the buddhist ngs) is patently
>FALSE. I can only assume that you introduce the point as an attempt to
>blacken my character and hence (hopefully?) to weaken my point of view.

Not to blacken your character, or nescessarily to weaken your view.
Mainly I was asking you a question for you to consider?

>>>You write "unhelpful' - quite a judgement, Alan. "Unhelpful" for whom?

>>Unhelpful, for many people. FWBO have done a great deal to introduce

>>many people to Buddhism, and a great number have taken refuge in the
>>Three Jewels because of their work. For this they are to be encouraged
>>and praised.

>
>"Unhelpful, for many people" - how do you know this? How many people?
>Unhelpful in what sense?

Avyorth, I do not believe that this is the best medium for this kind
of discussion. Not because it is about the NKT. I believe that it is
equally the wrong medium to discuss perceived faults within FWBO or
PKT or whatever dharma group you wish to mention.

>As I've said, I've received many private e-mails from people who have found
>my postings helpful. Eg people involved with both the FWBO and NKT who'd
>recognized some of the issues that I've raised but hadn't trusted their own
>perception. By reading my postings (and the postings of others!) they have
>'integrated' the ignored alarm bells and felt much better for it. Some have
>decided to look elsewhere for spiritual companionship, others have decided
>to contiue whilst acknowledging the Shadow-side of the organisation.

We all receive private e-mails, I have recieved four within the last
week. Some who have found the responsers
by NKT people helpful as our mailings often paint a far different
image then the one painted by yourself.This as encouraged them to
continue reading Geshe-la's books, or to take a look at his books for
the first time, or visit an NKT centre.

What does this show Avyorth? I would say nothing whatsoever, apart
from people are attracted to different things and have different
perceptions. But that is something as buddhist's, we already know.

Sounds
>much healthier to me than believing the sun shines out your teacher's butt.

Not that I thought it did.

However, I do believe that the sun of Dharma radiates from his being.
But then that is why I have chosen him as my spiritual guide. you do
not perceive him as a pure spiritual guide and so do not accept him as
your teacher. No great mystery.

>
>
>>If thay are difficulties with some of the organisational aspects then
>>that is to be brought to the attention of those who can correct the
>>matter.
>
>Believe me, Alan, I've tried (as have many others). Whilst living at Tara
>Centre, for example, I had many 'discussions' with the then director - her
>responses were two-fold, "This is not open to negotiation/discussion,
>Avyorth!" or "This is not a democracy, I make the rules around here." But
>please remember, Alan, that no matter how theocratic the NKT is, it still
>exists within a liberal, democratic society, and this is the point where the
>NKT stick.

Your experience and mine are very different, also your experiences are
very different to my fellow students in FP and also differ with those
who I know who study TTP. The organisation you describe is quite alien
to the one we know.

Just as you judge according to the way you perceive your expereinces,
we judge according to the way we perceive our experiences. Heruka
Centre is a happy commuity, sure there are problems occasionally, but
then this is samsara. If you are looking for the perfect organisation
in Samsara, you will not find it. Those students who I know at
different centre's would also not recognise your description of NKT

>They want to use the priviledges and freedoms of such societies
>(eg TTP students living off State benefits, freedom to proselytize) yet will
>not permit these priviledges and freedoms to those within their fiefdom.

TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
not so good. You would need to look at each individual case. If there
was deliberate, out and out planning to abuse the system then that was
wrong.
>
<snip> cut your comments about housing benefit etc,

However, all this went into the ledger and all this is audited I
presume.

If things where half as bad as you makeout why not take your
complaints to the charity commission or whoever.

I would not be surprised if they had been some abuses of the system.
If someone turned up to stay at a Centre such as Manjustri, and where
out of work, why should they not have claimed benefit? It would be
naive to think this was not abused by some.

Mailings about this could go on for along time, I was not there so
cannot judge. I can only judge by expereinces I have had. And as I
said you paint a different NKT to the one I know.

So I will not mail anymore responces to this subject. It will be for
those who where there to give there side of the story.

>
>However, I can see little to be gained by spreading rumours,
>>half-truths and mixed with some facts
>
>Exactly my point!

Glad you agree.

wishing you happiness

Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:00:08 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>>Perhaps you have a direct link with "Enlightened beings"? I've noticed
>also
>>>how you post so authoritively (dogmatically??) about everything from
>karma,
>>>to enlightened beings, the stages of the path to enlightenment.
>>
>>Do my posting come across in that light? I will have to be careful how
>>I write in future. But anyone can write that there are 21 meditations
>>in Lamrim, or that their are four powers to confession etc, no great
>>wisdom needed for this.
>>
>
>Hello again,
>
>I'm not actually referring to the factuality of whether there are or are not
>21 meditations to some Lam rim systems - I know GKG has 21 but other
>teachers don't , as far as I know. What I'm pointing to is the way you make
>such categorical statements about the most profound issues eg karma,
>rebirth, enlightenment. Have a look through your previous postings eg the
>recent thread with Ty.

Avyorth, Ty and I had an interesting exchange in the string
"Reincarnation". It was a friendly exchange. It was nice to have an
exchange without someome always bringing it back to "Oh, your a
disciple of Geshe-la, a NKT student".

Ty's post where always far more interesting than my own. It was just
a simple exchange of views. I enjoyed it,so did Ty. Some followed
along and enjoyed it too. As was witnessed by the e-mails I received.
No doubt Ty received far more as he is a good debater. I was getting
into areas I have much to learn about, and was learning from the
exchange. It had been along time since I had read Wittgenstein or
Ayer.

It was an enjoyable experience for me, I hope it was for Ty, sorry it
was not for you. Which brings me to my point, why is your mind so
quick to perceive faults?

I am sure that the fault you find in me was there, I have many faults
sadly.

>Dharma, as I understand it, is not about dogma - that's the terrain
>of -isms, eg buddhism. Rather, IMO, Dharma is about 'skilful means', and is
>consequently often more in line with metaphor. Do you have direct
>realisation of rebirth, karma, purification, bodhicitta, wisdom realising
>emptiness? If not, then you have the same choice as me, ie hold your views
>as 'the truth' (dogma) or hold them as 'metaphor' (agnostic).

>hen we hold

>them as 'the truth' then we fall into buddhism, when we hold them as
>'metaphor' then we fall into the Dh (ark) - as I see it.

Well I am glad you but yourself firmly in the dharma camp, somehow I
thought you would but me outside of it. ;-) (Never mind, I will have
to live with the disappointment)

May be I have just "fallen into Buddhism", but when I perform my
dharma practice it is with the hope of fallen further into Dharma.

Thanks to my guru, and despite my lack of ability I am confident I
have fallen into Dharma, even if Dharma is just wetting the soles of
my feet due to my delusions and stupidity.

When I first came across Buddhism many years ago I had many doubts
about karma, rebirth etc. The more I have studied Dharma, and
specifically since studying as an NKt student the nature of my doubts
as changed.

Deluded doubts are doubts about things which are important inorder to
gain realisations. Within Kadampa, this would be, for example, the
importance of this precious human life and how it is wasted by not
practicing Dharma.The second of the ten things which are causes of
lost, as listed by Gampopa in "Precious Garland".

A deluded doubt about the preciousness of this human life would be to
deny rebirth, assume death is the end of conciousness and so ignore
Dharma.

Doubts which are the beginning of wisdom, are doubts we have about
rebirth, but on which we decide to keep an open mind until we have
investigated further.

I now have faith in rebirth, karma etc. This is one of my few good
qualities and Iconsider myself very fortunate to have developed such
faith. I but this faith down to the blessings I have received from my
kind guru. I am glad to have this faith and I hope it grows stronger
the more I study Dharma.

I hope even more that at some point I will gain actual realisations.
I am confident that if I practice dharma it will happen.

>
>By holding our views as 'the truth' we must battle with other 'truth'
>holders - eg we have to pooh pooh christians who believe in sin and 'works'
>instead of karma, rather than trying to understand what these views might
>actually be pointing towards. The famous finger pointing at the moon.

Disagree with you. My mother died a catholic, before her death I
bought her a statue of the Sacred Heart and encoureged her to pray to
Jesus. I hope taken refuge in Jesus helped her to die a peaceful
death. Looking at the way she died, I have reason to be confident that
she did have a peaceful death.

I have never pooth pooth christians, we should have respect for the
beliefs of others, and encourage them to be good christians if that
is the path they have decided to follow.

Here is how I responded to Abby when she posted on this newsgroup.

>Look to Jesus my friends! He is your _only_ hope!!
>Abby
>

Dear Abby,
Thank you for your kindness, you have our welfare at heart for that
you are to be praised.
Merry Xmas and a happy New Year
Alan

Yep, lots of pooth poothing christians there.

>
>
>> Avyorth merely my clumsy style of writing. I did not seek to imply
>>that you needed permission, as I think you well understood.
>
>Yes, quite right, but I'm trying to help you chill out on the old dogma
>front. See me as a sort of Atisha's cook - a pain in the butt, yet having
>its use.

Atisha's cook, does this mean you share his temperament ;-)

I see little need to chill out on the Dogma front. As, unlike you I do
not believe that having faith in rebirth etc is holding on to Dogma.

>>
>
>>If you say so.
>>If you belive this why the smilie, is that an indication that you rre
>>happy to discover that I am like this?
>
>Come on, Alan, the smile is an attempt to say that I'm kinda joking. I don't
>see you as some evil, perverted being. Don't be so 'precious' with it all.
>There might even be those who see me as self-referential and narcissistic!

Avyorth, whether you see me as narcisstic or not hardly matters, I
have many faullts, maybe you spotted one. I was just wondering why the
smilie. You say you were joking, fair enougth.

>
>>
>>Avyorth, a point which I made in a seperate reply, but I will mention
>>again here, you began this thread, going over the "old ground", in
>>fact you have also recently started nother thread. Why not just reply
>>to this one, why start another, than another.
>>
>>People may respond to them, then you will say, "oh, there they go
>>again, repeating all the same stuff!". It would be better if we kept
>>this all to the same thread.
>
>Alan, I don't know about your browser or isp, but my message quite clearly
>is on the thread that runs "Does NKT follow Pabongka (was Message for Simon
>Heath)" and is a reply to a posting by Khyenrab to that thread. I did not
>start the thread, although as you know I have previously posted to it.

Then we are both learning something new. On my browser your thread is
"Sadhanas as qualities of mind and living."

>
>Starting the other thread (do you mean "Seeking a more balanced
>perspective"?) - yes, I apologise for that. I'm rather new to the ngs and
>haven't quite sussed out all the technicalities. My intention was simply to
>change the heading but to keep it within the same thread. I still don't
>understand the parameters of this process. Any hints?

Sadly none.

>>
>>>>>3) A mind of dharma is surely non-sectarian, non-arrogant.

>>>

>>>Now for the imperative "you did not hear this"! Actually, Alan, you are
>>>wrong! Not only do I have this clearly written in my notes, I also have a
>>>tape of the teaching, and consequently can hear it again and again should
>I
>>>so wish!
>

>Alan, please carefully reread my above paragraph. I have a TAPE recording of
>the teaching. Your inability to see what I am writing suggests selective
>myopia (something we all probably suffer from, to be sure).

I read what you wrote, I did repost it.

I will take your word for what you say here.

However, I wonder what the whole context of the Dharma talk is.
It is easy in a talk for things not to come out the way one might
later have wished. Which is why we study Geshe-la's books and not
teachers talks.

Book's are carefully edited to make sure errors do not creep in. You
will not find such statement's in any of Geshe-la's books.

What I find interesting, is that this is the part of the talk your
mind as choosen to focus on. And you keep the tape (taken, that this
is what Thubten Gyatso meant) in order to replay it.

Whatever turns you on I suppose.

>>>
>
>>I have a copy on my dharma shelf, a wonderful book, recommened to me
>>by a NKT teacher. Does this mean I will get a visit from the NKT vice
>>squad :-)
>>
>Hi Alan, don't mention vice and the NKT in one sentence to me, unless you
>want to trigger off a whole new string of threads (!) with rather tabloid
>headings, you should know what I'm like by now! :-) Eg "NKT monk stripped of
>his robes for sex romps with nuns!"

Oh dear me, I know he should have been allowed to remain a disciple.
He was treated terribly bad by being stripped of his robes.

Whatever, are the facts of that story, it is sad for the monk
involved. Hardly a cause for another smilie.

Let us hope that he is well and happy.

>
>
>>>Again you're jumping to your favoured assumption, Alan! Richard did not
>stay
>>>at Amitabha Centre.
>>
>>Avyorth, did you read my post?
>>Where do I mention Amitabha Centre?
>
>Correct! You did not mention Amitabha Butlins Camp (hello Claire!). But when
>I posted the information about Richard's unjust banning from the NKT, you
>replied about the right to expel trouble-making residents from Centres. I
>replied that Richard was never a resident at the Centre in question (which
>so happened to be Amitabha Centre).

You have lost me completely here. I have not a clue what you are
refering too.

>ichard was (and probably still is) a
>very nice, friendly and kind person - he did not make any trouble at the
>Centre other than discuss with some other students what he'd heard from some
>other buddhists about the Dalai Lama - dorje shugden affair.

I have no resaon to think Richard is anything other than a very nice
person. Not knowing him, i have no way to tell. The fact that he was
asked to leave a centre does not mean that he must be a very unnice
person, unfriendly etc,

Talkng about the Dorje Shugden issue, when it was not public knowledge
that HHDL disapproved of the protector,to practitioners who rely upon
that protector does not appear to me to be helping those practitioners
gain confidence in their dharma practice.

At that time
>the issue was contained by-and-large within the Tibetan camp - Richard's
>bringing it into the light of day at a NKT Centre was seen as akin to a
>betrayal of the NKT.

Indeed it was by and large within the Tibetan camp. Many knew that
HHDL had stop relying upon Dorje shugden, what good would come from
bringing it out to the open. If a ban had not been enforced it would
have remined a relatively unimportant issue in the West. But the ban
as changed that, in many many ways. But let us not go over that once
again here.

>>
>
>>HHDL has been speaking out against Dorje Shugden since the late 70's.
>>It was never an issue with the NKT. However, I can well see why, if
>>someone began stating that Dorje shugden was an eveil spirit this
>>would cause difficulties.
>
>Alan, again you are jumping to conclusions that are not true. Richard as far
>as I'm aware did not state that dorje shugden was an evil spirit. He would
>stay behind at Amitabha Centre after FP on a Saturday and take part in
>Wishfulfilling Jewel puja which, as you know, includes the middling puja for
>dorje shugden.

You are right, since his HHDL did not make public statement about DS
being an evil spirit until the time of the ban (I know of none). It
seems unlikly that Richard would have hinted at such a thing.

Avyorth, I do not know Richard, or this affair which took place before
I even knew the NKT, I am not qualified to comment. Therefore it is
best If I say nothing further.

Needless to say , you have your version, I'm sure it is not the only
one.

>>
>>Again who can benefit by talking about this in public? I would say
>>this of any organisation not just the NKT. As the NKT some dirty
>>laundry, most probably. What organisations does not have
>>sad incidents from time to time.

>>
>Absolutely! The point for me in all of this is that organisations need to be
>accountable for their 'dirty laundry'. They have a duty in a liberal
>democratic society to provide a forum where difficulties and 'sad incidents'
>can be fairly and openly discussed. No longer (hopefully) is it acceptable
>for organisations to ride rough-shod over people. I really believe that the
>democratisation of 'religion' will improve the study and practice of Dharma.

May be.

However, they will still be those who enforce the rules, and in a
religious community when it comes to spiritual ma tters as opposed to
practical matters, they will be those who are teachers and those who
are students. Monasatries need Abbots etc, Dharma Centre's need
teachers and directors etc.

>
>>Going into the rights or wrongs of what Richard did or did not too, or
>>how others in the NKT responded is not helpful to anyone.
>
>Please explain the basis of this injunction, Alan.
>

Let us go back to your comments about

>Alan, don't mention vice and the NKT in one sentence to me, unless

>you want to trigger off a whole new string of threads (!) with
>rather tabloid headings, you should know what I'm like by now! :-)

How would it help my mind, to enquire about such matters, and gather
all the juicy titbits? How would it benefit your mind? How would it
benefit the minds of those who may read it on this newsgroup?

In other words,as my dear old Mum would say when she heard gossip
"Why suck on lemons, when you can enjoy the taste of honey."
She has set me many a good example to try and follow.

>>>
>>>As to who might benefit from this? Personally I know of several people who
>>>have withdrawn their interest in the NKT after hearing about its
>>>activities - they have chosen to become involved in non-sectarian buddhist
>>>groups.
>>
>>I am pleased that people practice Dharma. However, why you have made
>>it a mission to encourage people to leave the NKT I do not know.
>
>Practicing Dharma and belonging to the NKT have little in common, in my
>opinion. Don't take it too personally, Alan,

Oh, I'll survive Avyorth.

I've been heard exposing the
>dark side of eg Scientology.

You l ive in a very strange world if you are really going to start
comparing NKT with Scientology etc.,

There are sociological definations one can apply to a cult. Now they
are a few who apply those definations to almost all religious
organisations, since religion normally implies accepting an authority
of one kind or another.

However, if you apply what normally passes as a cult to the NKT they
simply are not there.

1. No outside contact with people who are not cult members.

This does not apply to NKT.

2. Replacing family loyalties with cult loyalties.

This does not happen with NKT. Within Buddhism, we have a great debt
to how parents, and we have a duty to pay them respect and to pay back
their great kindness to us.

3. Handing over, ones financil resources. For example, giving
ones chq book to cult leaders to manage one's financial affairs etc.,

This does not happen within the NKT

People may give large donations or they may give small donations, that
is up to them, (This is not uncommon, within buddhism with its
emphases on generosity).

4. Money handed over for spiritual ceremonies etc.

This certainly does not happen within NKT

5. An inability to function normally in social settings.

Those who know NKT students will have to decide thatone for
themselves.

All I know is that my family, my partner and some of my friends are
delighted I have become a Buddhist. I am an easier person to get along
with.

>As I've explained before, the NKT spends vast
>sums of money and effort seeking converts/members and propagating a very
>one-sided and inaccurate image.

If you say so. But holding a Dharma class, and giving meditation
classes etc to those who care to come along, is fairly common. I have
been to a few Hinayana centre's in the South of England, they do the
same thing.

>I'm barely a 'gadfly', surely.

I never said otherwise :-)

Here is a snip of my previous mailing

>>Alan, you're so off the mark here about all of this, it
>>would perhaps be better that you assimilated what I'm
>>actually saying before you leap in to 'save' your beloved

>> NKT!

>Avyorth, the NKT does not need saving. It will survive and
> spread Dharma or it will disappear. Whatever. Nothing
>lasts in Samsara.
>Best not to grow attached to the idea of things being saved
> or being destroyed. Just appreciate the chance to practice
> Dharma

I might ask

>you why you have made it a mission to encourage people to join the NKT?

I have not made it a mission. If people comealong to a Heruka Centre
and enjoy listening to Dharma then I would encourage them to start a
regular meditation session. After that it is up to them howmuch they
chose or not chose to get involved.

Sorry, you think that is strange.

>
>>Oh Avyorth, now even I cannot resist some mild sarcasm.
>
>"Now even I...", what's this, Alan, the true confessions of a buddhist
>saint? :-)

No, I wish I was a saint, but no halo here, mores the pity.

The "Not even I" come from the fact that I try to remember that
comments can hurt and I try not to knowingly respond with sarcasm or
in other unfriednly ways to others (Something I fail at).

However, here I was knowingly responding in that manner. I should not
have done so, and I apologise.

>>
>>I give in, everyone you met in the NKT was blind, heartless
>>individulas trying to control others.Or stupid and could not recognise
>>when they where being taken for aride.However, you are a gentle, kind
>>person without any prejudices whatsoever!. How did you escape so
>>unscratched from our clutches?!
>
>
>Now, don't get tetchy! I have never said this, nor presented such a 'black
>and white' image.

That is true, which is why the following paragraph said,
>>
>>Avyorth, I am sure you do notbelieve that everyone you met in the NKT

>>is anything like the wayI characterise them in the above paragraph,
>>just as I a m sure you are not always gentle, kind and without
>>prejudices.
>

The point I was trying to make is that you seem to have met many
people in the NKT, and with the exception of Lucy, you paint them as
rather murky characters. May be I'm to credulous for my own good, but
I find that hard to believe.

You meet unfavorable characteristics in people where I only see
pleasentness. I prefere my view.

Take care

Alan

Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

[snip]

> TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
> why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
> not so good.

Being of course a violation of the second precept.

If the state benefits in question are, for example, old age pensions,
disability allowances or child benefit supplements then there is no
problem (assuming that the claimants are in fact old, disabled or have
children). On the other hand, if we are talking about unemployment
benefit then the question of entitlement becomes rather doubtful. Is it
not the case that persons claiming such benefits in the U.K. are
required to declare themselves "fit and available for work"? Can it
truly be said that a person living in a Dharma centre and pursuing some
full-time course of instruction is "available for work". If not, then
would it not be fraudulent for such persons to claim unemployment
benefit?

This matter needs to be considered very carefully by those who are
living in such circumstances. I don't know how things stand in Britain
today, but 14 years ago I remember that most of the Tibetan-ordained
(western) monks whom I knew were supporting themselves on dole money. If
a Theravadin monk were to support himself in this manner, and if it did
indeed turn out that the dole money was fraudulently obtained, then he
would be held guilty of a parajika offence (i.e. one entailing lifetime
expulsion from the sangha). I realise that Tibetan monks adhere to a
different vinaya lineage, but from what I can recall from past readings,
in all three of the extant vinaya lineages -Theravada, Dharmaguptika and
Mulasarvastivada - the interpretations of the parajika rules contain no
important points of disagreement.

The problem IMO is that the custom of monks being supported by voluntary
donations from laypeople seems to have largely fallen into desuetude in
most branches of the Mahayana. Solely through the generosity of
laypeople all but one of the Theravadin centres in Britain are able not
only to support communities of monks (and in some cases nuns) in their
practice, but also to offer free accomodation and teaching to all who
desire it, and well-produced Dharma books for free distribution. It
should not be difficult for Tibetan centres to do likewise, if lamas
would only put their minds to reviving the custom of dana, rather than
trying to fund their centres through the sale of knick-knacks and
(sometimes) exhorbitantly priced teachings and initiations.

[snip]

Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu
bu...@vortex.is

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote in message
<1d3eysr.7t...@ras117.vortex.is>...

>Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
>> why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
>> not so good.
>

>On the other hand, if we are talking about unemployment
>benefit then the question of entitlement becomes rather doubtful. Is it
>not the case that persons claiming such benefits in the U.K. are
>required to declare themselves "fit and available for work"? Can it
>truly be said that a person living in a Dharma centre and pursuing some
>full-time course of instruction is "available for work". If not, then
>would it not be fraudulent for such persons to claim unemployment
>benefit?
>

Hello PD,

As there seems to be some uncertainty about this point, allow me to try to
clarify it drawing upon some of the cases that I personally knew about
whilst involved with the NKT (1992-96) and living at Tara and Manjushri NKT
Centres.

I am not talking about the VERY few people who lived at Centres and were
genuinely entitled to state benefits, eg oaps, the sick, and the couple who
were actively seeking work whilst receiving benefit. I'm talking about those
who were receiving benefit and had no intention to find work as they were
working full-time for the NKT. I would also include the handful of those who
were receiving 'support' from Manjushri Centre whilst working full-time for
it - the support they received was in the region of £50 per week for a
senior position (eg the Educational Programme Co-ordinator, a senior
management position). This person would then claim housing benefit because
of the low wage they were receiving. There were perhaps half-a-dozen people
in this position whilst I lived there.

Let me give some personal examples to illustrate what I'm referring to:

SD lived at Tara Centre whilst I lived there. He was a very skilled
tradesman - did much of the renovation of the new Centre they'd just moved
into at St Johns Rd, Buxton ( a 30+ bedroomed ex-hotel). Manjushri Centre
requested that he move up there to renovate the kitchen of Thubten Gyatso
(who was GKG's Heart Disciple). Initially Tara Centre was unhappy about the
request as SD was busy building the new dorje shugden gompa , but they
eventually agreed - on one condition! SD was unemployed and receiving both
social security and housing benefit, and paying rent to the Centre which was
struggling to meet its monthly mortgage payments. If he moved to Manjushri
Centre then Tara Centre would be pushed just that little closer to the
financial edge - and there wasn't much room anyway. So, it was agreed that
he'd continue to claim benefit as if he were living at Tara Centre so that
they could have his housing benefit cheque. He travelled down to Buxton once
a fortnight (or was it a month?) to register as unemployed and then went
back to Manjushri to continue his work on the kitchen. Once that job was
finished he continued to work at Manjushri Centre, working for a time on the
new Temple they were building in the old walled garden. During this time he
was, of course, registering as unemployed and actively seeking work!! All of
this was known to the NKT.

During this same period, Gen Thubten Gyatso (GKG's Heart Disciple and second
in command after GKG) and his assistant were claiming housing benefit at
Tara Centre altho' they stayed there at most 2-3 days a week. Much of the
time they'd be travelling in Germany, Switzerland, the States, etc giving
teachings and empowerments. Nevermind, the mortgage at Tara Centre needed
paying and if the Government were willing to contribute why not? I presume
that Thubten and assistant were legally entitled to claim that they were
living somewhere and claim housing benefit on that basis, so no problem?

Kelsang Th, a monk, (RF to the government), a very skilled
carpenter/cabinet maker, and very long time unemployed (about 10-12 years),
lived at Madhyamaka Centre - well that is when not travelling round the
other NKT Centres building shrine cabinets. He was a real professional. He
did some work at the new Tara Centre when I was there, but unfortunately for
them he was snatched by Manjushri Centre. He built the rather grand cabinet
for the Heruka Body Mandala - quite a piece of work! During this time he was
registered as unemployed and actively seeking work - even though he was
working full-time for the NKT. Has he completed the cabinets for the
beautiful Shakyamuni, Manjushri and Maitreya statues in the new Temple yet?
I have heard that due to him being hassled too much by Ulverston Job Centre
that Manjushri Centre has started paying him 'support' - of course it's
pretty certain that he's claiming housing benefit (correct me if I'm wrong,
Kelsang Th).

RK, previously resident at Madhyamaka Centre and unemployed for some 7(?)
years whilst at that Centre, was asked by GKG to move to Manjushri Centre to
work on the building of the new Temple. At Manjushri Centre he was a TTP
student from 9-11am and for the rest of the day a labourer - of course,
claiming state benefits. I think he was one of 3(?) people at Manjushri who
received a 'training allowance' for job-experience for a few months courtesy
of the government.

Kelsang Ch, a nun, was working full-time in the accounts office - background
in banking so very useful. Would start work sometimes around 9am and then go
to the TTP class from 11-1pm; lunch 1-2pm and then back into the office at
2pm. When a Social Security officer visited her at the Centre she had to
borrow some lay clothes to hang in the room - just in case they thought she
was ordained!

Did anyone see the photograph of the large bronze Shakyamuni Buddha statue
for the new temple that was in the Guardian and Independent newspapers (Aug
'95)? That statue required weeks and weeks of very dedicated work to achieve
such a beautiful finish. This work was principally done by two people (M &
N) both claiming benefit as unemployed and actively seeking work. Given that
they spent 5-7 hours per day, Mon - Fri in the old 'chapel' working on the
statue, didn't give them much time for seeking work. By the way when the
photograph was taken, M and N stood aside and had Kelsang D stand 'working'
on the statue - wouldn't do to have their faces fitted alongside work on the
statue in the newspaper.

Ah, the famous Roy Tyson memo! Roy is the administrative director of
Manjushri Centre. Roy sent a memo out to Manjushri residents pointing out
that those residents who were reasonably fit and healthy and registered as
unemployed should be willing to work at least 15hrs per week (ie 3 hours per
afternoon for the Centre). This would still give them time to attend TTP or
FP classes in the morning, do their meditations, study, etc. I know that a
copy of this memo was sent to some government agencies by a resident (now
ex-) who felt it unethical for someone in Roy's position to put such
pressure on people.

Kelsang Ch (SA) nun at Tara Centre who moved to 'X' Centre as their resident
teacher yet continued to claim housing benefit (and social security) for a
time from Tara Centre - such was the problems of the mortgage. This was
around Feb '94 - do records show her as resident teacher at 'X' Centre AND
claiming to be residing at Tara Centre? I wait to be corrected if I should
have my facts wrong - bit like the issue of whether Thubten Gyatso said that
only the NKT had the pure lineage of the Mahamudra! (It's all on record).

Whilst I was resident at Tara Centre there were in the region of 15 - 18
people on TTP who were registered as unemployed and actively seeking work -
quite a few of these were ordained monks and nuns. These people would attend
class 9-11am, then some would begin work within the Centre for the rest of
the day eg in the office, doing building or renovation work. A number taught
at Tara Centre's (15?) branches and would have to spend part of the day
preparing their teaching - some of these branches were a considerable
distance away and the teacher, with support person, would have to leave the
Centre mid-afternoon to drive to the branch (eg Buxton to Coventry,
Birmingham, Northampton, Liverpool) Then there would be the publicity
'blitzes' - a car load of people would go to a town where the NKT was
building up a branch and spend the day going round putting up publicity
posters.

Students of the NKT on TTP commit themselves to the 7 or 8 years of the
programme - during this time they must undertake a number of meditation
retreats each year. For example, from the beginning of January for 6 weeks
they do either a Lam rim or HYT retreat. This involves 4 sessions of
one-and-a-half hours per day - the sessions are usually 7.30-9am;
10.30-12noon; 4.30-6pm; and 8-9.30pm. This was only one of the four major
retreats per year required of TTP students. On top of this they have their
regular duties at the Centre (eg teaching). Many of these students are
claiming to be unemployed and actively seeking work!

If the ordained people within the NKT who are doing this believe that they
are doing no wrong, why do they change into lay clothes (often borrowed from
other residents) to go to the Job Centre whilst registering as unemployed
and to claim their benefit?

I won't continue giving examples as I'm sure that you will now understand
the situation that I have been referring to. I have mentioned only 2 of the
many NKT Centres where this sort of thing is going on - and remember that
the NKT is a registered charity in the UK. If people are concerned that such
behaviour brings Buddhist organisations into disrepute and that it should be
addressed, then they could contact eg their MP, local DSS office, Job Centre
or whatever. I would be quite prepared to provide specific details (eg
names, dates) to such officials if requested.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth

john pettit

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

to Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu

Dear Phra Dhammanando,

I am inclined to agree with your observation:

> The problem IMO is that the custom of monks being supported by
> voluntary
> donations from laypeople seems to have largely fallen into desuetude
> in
> most branches of the Mahayana. Solely through the generosity of
> laypeople all but one of the Theravadin centres in Britain are able
> not
> only to support communities of monks (and in some cases nuns) in their
> practice, but also to offer free accomodation and teaching to all who
> desire it, and well-produced Dharma books for free distribution. It
> should not be difficult for Tibetan centres to do likewise, if lamas
> would only put their minds to reviving the custom of dana, rather than
> trying to fund their centres through the sale of knick-knacks and
> (sometimes) exhorbitantly priced teachings and initiations.

There is, however, at least one important factor which you do not seem
to take into account here. Most serious "Mahayana" practitioners in
Western countries are laypersons. This is a rather different situation
than generally exists in Asian Buddhist countries. Since most lay
Western Buddhists are far more interested in meditation and other forms
of Buddhist practice than in business and other forms of making money,
the Dharma organizations which they support are rather less well-funded
than one would expect.

This is not necessarily either to our credit or discredit; it simply
reflects a very different social structure of Buddhist communities than
exists, for example, in Sri Lanka or Thailand, where lay supporters are
generally less committed (or perhaps, less infatuated) with the idea of
achieving enlightenment in this lifetime, and are more interested in
supporting the ordained Sangha and living a "normal" worldly life.

In my experience, while the practice of charging substantial sums of
money for retreats and initiations, selling knick-knacks and so forth is
extremely cloying, it generally a matter of necessity, at least in
American Tibetan Buddhist communities. If our lay communities were
indeed as affluent as yours would seem to be, it would be appropriate to
criticize these practices, and it would be inappropriate not to offer
free accomodation and so forth. But as we are not generally affluent,
please do not criticize the "have-nots" for customs they cannot but
engage in.

Pagpa

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

In article <6aafqt$jpc$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com
says...
>

>What are we to make of the postings by Nick Gillespie, a senior NKTer and
>spokesman for the Shugden Supporters Group, made under the name of 'Frank
>Delaney'? Apparently these postings only stopped when the 'real' Frank
>Delaney, a well known journalist, considered the idea of legal proceedings.

It would be helpful if you read the postings that people put on these ngs.
This, along with all your other observations, have been answered - at least
I can’t think of any that have not. Do you hope that new people to the ngs
might not know that you have already told the story of Richard approximately
six times, and that they might think it’s a different person each time?!

Maybe this once I will repeat what has already been explained twice about
Frank Delaney, even though I am sure we all have better things to do. Lucy
James said (Jan 12):

"Yes, if you remember, he apologized here (and to Frank Delaney) for causing
confusion. He had no idea there was an Irish journalist called Frank Delaney
when he used that name (the name came from a combination of the Hardy boys
and FDR), but he also said publicly on the newsgroup that he was sorry for
using an alias name at all. Since that time no one AFAIK has used an alias
name as , you are quite right, it is better to use one’s own name."

BTW he only made two postings under this name.

>
>4) When NKT people hark on again and again how Phabonkha was the most
>important lama, had endless disciples, gave the most
teachings/empowerments,
>and so on, does this sound like a mind of dharma or a mind obsessed with
>numbers, with reputation - all qualities associated with the eight wordly
>concerns?

Where do they do this? Where do they hark on about him being the most
important Lama, with endless disciples etc? What are you on about this time?

This ‘obsession with number, with reputation’ sounds more like a description
of certain people discussing the Dalai Lama. There are genuine disciples of
the Dalai Lama out there, but a lot of people in the west seem to be
reacting strongly to criticism of him based on his reputation alone. Just
because he is the most famous Buddhist in the world doesn’t justify his
action in banning the practice of Dorje Shugden.

In a way I understand why people are quick to criticize his detractors,
hoping against hope that they are just a bunch of wackos and therefore
everything is really alright in Shangri-la. If people were to criticize the
actions of Nelson Mandela, for example, I would question their motives and
try and see whether their criticisms had any basis in the truth, as I have
only ever heard good things about him. However, I still hope that I would
try to keep an open mind, and also not immediately accuse them of being
traitors, sectarians, devil-worshippers, or whatever.

>6) Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of tibetan buddhists are
>suffering at the hands of the PRC - K Gyatso is himself a tibetan by birth,
>so the NKT direct their energy towards helping these people? NO. "We're not
>tibetan buddhists!", the NKT scream, "and K Gyatso has taken out UK
>citizenship, so it's not of his concern." Well, ok, fair enough, BUT when
>the Dalai Lama as head of the tibetan state (in exile) makes proclamations
>about shugden, then suddenly tibetan politics becomes the NKT's concern.

Only in so far as it affects us and the future of our tradition, and in so
far as it is causing great mental and physical distress amongst fellow
Buddhist practitioners in our tradition. You only have to see the Swiss
videos to see that there is a real and terrifying problem emerging in
Tibetan society because of this ban.

Geshe Kelsang visited Tibet to rebuild his first monastery, Jampa Ling, for
which he raised the money. He has spent a lot of money helping Tibetans. He
has great compassion for the Tibetans in Tibet, and he is also not blind to
the suffering of Tibetans in India.

IMO recent events show how entirely sensible he was to take out UK
citizenship at the first possible occasion. Many other Tibetan Lamas who are
equally concerned about the ban find it very hard to oppose the government
publicly, for fear of losing everything they have worked for by being
expelled from Tibetan society.

>A
>barrage of insults, criticisms and rather nasty activities pour down upon
>the head of a man who (as far as I can see) works tirelessly for the
benefit
>of others.

These words could equally apply to Geshe Kelsang, who, as well as receiving
a barrage of insults since the day he dared to oppose the wish of the Dalai
Lama, has also received death threats. It is no wonder that so many Lamas
have gone under cover on this issue; it is positively dangerous for them to
speak up.

Meanwhile all Shugden supporters hope to achieve from criticizing the
actions of the Dalai Lama is their basic freedom to practise their faith,
(as enshrined in the would-be constitution of a free Tibet, etc). Do you
think that if the Dalai Lama realized he had made a mistake he would have
the humility to revoke this mistake? That’s what we are hoping for because,
as you know, we feel that this ban is a big mistake.

>All the NKT are concerned about seems to be the impediment to
>their recruitment drive - how dare anyone criticise MY dharma protector! Is
>this a dharma mind or a self-cherishing mind?

What recruitment drive? Don’t tell me, you will assuredly re-quote the
famous teaching skills booklet, claiming that it is general NKT policy,
whereas in fact it represented the view of just one man. Moreover, you
entirely take that quote out of context. However, you won’t listen to this,
you’ll still repeat it again, and again, and again....

>There are many other points that could be added, but for the purpose of our
>examination I think we have enough information to come to a decision: Does
>the 'spirit' of dorje shugden support and protect a mind of dharma, or does
>it seem to generate and protect a worldly mind?

We certainly have enough of your information, repeated for emphasis on many
occasions, to make a biased decision like yours. Anyone who wants to know
the other side of the story has only to visit an NKT Centre or two and check
and see if any of the people there have any of these characteristics, or
perhaps read the commentary to Heart Jewel to see whether the practice of
Dorje Shugden in any way inspires these characteristics. (of course they
might be coerced into spirit worship while they are there, and become
rampantly intolerant, but then, you did warn them).

Kelsang Pagpa

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

khyenrab wrote in message

Hello Khyenrab,

(Alan Bird, I found this via Dejanews - I assume it's the reply your were
referring to? I also found a question or two for me from Peter Hanam that
I'd not seen before - will reply asap!)
K Khyenrab:
>The New Kadampa Tradition cannot be sectarian; nowhere in NKT literature,
teachings or Centres is there a sectarian view promoted.

Avyorth:
Let me quote from a teaching, called 'Introduction to Mahamudra',
that Gen Thubten Gyatso gave at Vajravarahi NKT Centre (Preston),

"When Geshe-la said he'd formed the NKT to preserve, to
protect the Dharma
transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri, to Je Tsongkhapa he was

referring to this practice [he's talking here about Mahamudra] -

this is the inner practice of the NKT. Only the NKT holds the pure
lineage of the Mahamudra today."

KK:
To my knowledge, and after checking with some other NKT students
no-one has
heard Geshe Kelsang say that 'only the NKT holds the pure lineage of
Mahamudra today'.

I spoke about this point with Jim Belither, Secretary of the NKT.

Avyorth replies:
Well you might, as I believe that Jim is the teacher for Vajravahari Centre
and would almost certainly have been present at the teaching by Thubten
Gyatso. But nevermind, I have a tape of the teaching wherein Gen Thubten
Gyatso, Heart Disciple of GKG for many years and editor in chief of many of
GKG's books, makes this claim. The acknowledgement page of my copy of 'Clear
Light' says, "..we also extend our thanks to Gen Thubten Gyatso who has
worked closely with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso......" so we can assume that he was
fully cognisant of GKG's position on this. Also Thubten gave the commentary
to GKG's vajrayana mahamudra teachings that I (and Khyenrab, etc) attended
in 1993, so I think it's fair to assume that Thubten's version of GKG's
position is more accurate than Khyenrab's diplomacy. So what I'll try to do
is make a sound file of the quote from the tape - I have never done this
sort of thing before, but I'll try to find some instructions. Assuming that
I succeed, I'll make it available to those who want to check whether K's or
my version of this claim is correct. DON'T WORRY, all those sick to the
teeth of NKT stuff - I won't post it directly but will announce that it's
available for those interested. They can e-mail me directly and I'll send
them a copy! You too Khyenrab.

KK:
It may
be that putting these points together has been misunderstood and taken as
'only the NKT holds the pure lineage of Mahamudra today'.

Avyorth replies:
Bit of wishful thinking there, K!

Avyorth writes:
When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in
the class
by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong
that
TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
action would damage GK's health.
I understand from several other people who were present at the same talk
given by Ven. Samten that this was never said. Their understanding is that
the emphasis during this talk was on encouraging students to focus on the
specific book under study at the time.
Students on the Teacher Training Programme are encouraged not merely to
study but to contemplate, meditate and then to try to integrate the meaning
into their daily lives. Occasionally when TTP teachers feel that students
are beginning to become distracted, they will try to encourage them to
re-focus their energies. This is quite normal and there is nothing sinister
about it. Students are free to follow, reject or interpret such advice as
they feel appropriate.
In a number of his books Geshe Kelsang recommends people read books other
than his own. Why would he say this if he thought it was wrong? As for the
reading of books by teachers other than Geshe Kelsang damaging Geshe
Kelsang's health, Ven. Samten simply does not believe this and, along with
students who also heard the talk to which Avyorth refers, he doesn't believe

that he said that.

Avyorth replies:
Pity I don't have a tape of that talk! That would really set the cat amongst
the NKT pigeons!
Anyway I firmly stand by what I wrote about this. Perhaps Samten and those
to whom Khyenrab spoke were so traumatised by the events that they've
repressed their memories.
Interestingly, the warning was only given to the TTP class that I attended
(Guide to Dakiniland class held at 9am) and not to the other one (Joyful
Path class held at 11am). I presumme that this was because the class I was
in included those students who'd been around for years and had received
teachings, empowerments, etc from other lamas eg Lama Yeshe, Dalai Lama.

Anyway another student from that TTP class has agree to post their
recollection of what Samten said. Readers of the ng can then form their own
conclusions.

Avyorth writes:
The library at Manjushri NKT Centre was destroyed .........

Avyorth replies:
I've commented upon K's rationalisation of the destruction of the Manjushri
library in an earlier posting.

Khyenrab writes:
I can assure Simon that this is completely untrue. You can find my reasons
in the foregoing. Those who study seriously under Geshe Kelsang can
certainly learn powerful methods that derive from Buddha, for freeing their
minds from the control of greed, ignorance and hatred, and for cultivating
greater love, compassion and wisdom.

Avyorth replies:
As demonstrated in the NKT's activities and postings?

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>best wishes
>Khyenrab
>

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

Pagpa wrote in message <6ai923$54h$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>In article <6aafqt$jpc$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>,
Avy...@btinternet.com
>says...

>We certainly have enough of your information, repeated for emphasis on
many
>occasions, to make a biased decision like yours. Anyone who wants to know
>the other side of the story has only to visit an NKT Centre or two and
check
>and see if any of the people there have any of these characteristics,

So what's the big problem KP?

Interesting how the shugdenites can post (your self incl) ad nauseam - but
anyone criticising the NKT, oh dear, NO! NO! NO!

Pity about that because as long as you wish to exercise your right of
posting on the ng, then you'll probably find me running alongside you. How's
that for a bodhisattva offer?

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>rampantly intolerant,
>Kelsang Pagpa
>

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34ca8e6f...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>Avyorth, I do not believe that this is the best medium for this kind
>of discussion. Not because it is about the NKT. I believe that it is
>equally the wrong medium to discuss perceived faults within FWBO or
>PKT or whatever dharma group you wish to mention.

Funny that, Alan, since you don't seem to have any reservations about
discussing the perceived faults of the Dalai Lama. Still, I'm beginning to
get a sense that your rule is "do as I say, not as I do."

>
>We all receive private e-mails, I have recieved four within the last
>week. Some who have found the responsers
>by NKT people helpful as our mailings often paint a far different
>image then the one painted by yourself.This as encouraged them to
>continue reading Geshe-la's books, or to take a look at his books for
>the first time, or visit an NKT centre.
>
>What does this show Avyorth? I would say nothing whatsoever, apart
>from people are attracted to different things and have different
>perceptions. But that is something as buddhist's, we already know.

Again, Alan, we have you change direction in mid-tack. We were talking about
your criticism of my postings (as opposed to your 'helpful' postings??) as
'unhelpful'. I asked you, "unhelpful for whom?", and pointed out that in the
e-mails that I'd received, as well as postings on the ng, people had
expressed that they found my postings helpful. Now we see you take the very
point that I was making - "people are attracted to different things". Surely
a less self-referential position than you'd taken at first. With some luck
we will be reading you posting something like, "I find your postings
unhelpful". Now that WOULD be a great step forward!

>
>Sounds
>>much healthier to me than believing the sun shines out your teacher's
butt.
>
>Not that I thought it did.
>
>However, I do believe that the sun of Dharma radiates from his being.

So which part's "his being"? Could it be his little vajra, perchance? I
have heard that was the case with Thubten Gyatso, or so he liked to tell the
nuns.

>Your experience and mine are very different, also your experiences are
>very different to my fellow students in FP and also differ with those
>who I know who study TTP. The organisation you describe is quite alien
>to the one we know.

Alan, have you ever tried challenging the rose-coloured vision of
Scientologists, Moonies, supporters of the PRC, and so on? I'd bet their
comments would sound just a touch similar to yours - I know, remember, I
once wore the very same rose-tinted pair of specs you're now the proud owner
of.

>
>Just as you judge according to the way you perceive your expereinces,
>we judge according to the way we perceive our experiences. Heruka
>Centre is a happy commuity, sure there are problems occasionally, but
>then this is samsara. If you are looking for the perfect organisation
>in Samsara, you will not find it.

Good god, man, who ever said that I was looking for the perfect
organisation? I simply believe that for an organisation that preaches that
it has the pure buddhadharma, it has an awful long way to go before it comes
close to 'walking its talk'.

>TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
>why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
>not so good. You would need to look at each individual case. If there
>was deliberate, out and out planning to abuse the system then that was
>wrong.

See my separate posting earlier today.

>However, all this went into the ledger and all this is audited I
>presume.

Alan, you obviously know little about auditing if you think that an auditor
would pick up what I've been talking about. Also do you think that those
perpetuating these abuses are stupid?

>
>If things where half as bad as you makeout why not take your
>complaints to the charity commission or whoever.

Yes, this has been done, but not by me; by someone more knowledgeable than
me of the inner workings of the NKT. But remember, these investigations
sometimes take a long time as evidence is accumulated.

>I was not there so
>cannot judge. I can only judge by expereinces I have had. And as I
>said you paint a different NKT to the one I know.
>
>So I will not mail anymore responces to this subject. It will be for
>those who where there to give there side of the story.
>

Excellent, Alan, a glimmer of wisdom! :-) Hey, remember I'm not laughing at
you, just pulling your leg!

>wishing you happiness
And you.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

Alan Bird wrote in message <34ca6a36...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:00:08 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
><Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Avyorth, Ty and I had an interesting exchange in the string
>"Reincarnation". It was a friendly exchange. It was nice to have an
>exchange without someome always bringing it back to "Oh, your a
>disciple of Geshe-la, a NKT student".
>

>It was an enjoyable experience for me, I hope it was for Ty, sorry it
>was not for you. Which brings me to my point, why is your mind so
>quick to perceive faults?

Hello Alan,

you seem to be misunderstanding my point as I intended it. I am not
criticising you (nor Ty) having a bit of "a friendly exchange". I'm glad
that you, and whoever else, found it an enjoyable experience. What I was
pointing to is my perception that you tend to slip into dogmatic statements.
To my understanding this runs counter to Dharma where the concepts we use
are 'rafts' ie they carry us, NOT us having to carry them. When we carry
them they become, as I said, dogma. Whether karma is true or untrue, who
really knows? Is rebirth really TRUE? If so 'who' is reborn? My
understanding of sraddha, or faith, is that it is poles apart from
'belief' - it's more like "as if". Our 'belief' in buddhism and its
accoutrements keep us from entering the stream of Dharma, IMO.

>
>I am sure that the fault you find in me was there, I have many faults
>sadly.

Don't worry, Alan, you're constantly in my prayers!

>
>
>
>>Dharma, as I understand it, is not about dogma - that's the terrain
>>of -isms, eg buddhism. Rather, IMO, Dharma is about 'skilful means', and
is
>>consequently often more in line with metaphor. Do you have direct
>>realisation of rebirth, karma, purification, bodhicitta, wisdom realising
>>emptiness? If not, then you have the same choice as me, ie hold your views
>>as 'the truth' (dogma) or hold them as 'metaphor' (agnostic).
>
>>hen we hold
>>them as 'the truth' then we fall into buddhism, when we hold them as
>>'metaphor' then we fall into the Dh (ark) - as I see it.
>
>Well I am glad you but yourself firmly in the dharma camp, somehow I
>thought you would but me outside of it. ;-) (Never mind, I will have
>to live with the disappointment)
>

Don't worry, old boy, there's hope yet. Look at me, I was up to my neck in
the NKT only a couple of years ago!

>Disagree with you. My mother died a catholic, before her death I
>bought her a statue of the Sacred Heart and encoureged her to pray to
>Jesus. I hope taken refuge in Jesus helped her to die a peaceful
>death. Looking at the way she died, I have reason to be confident that
>she did have a peaceful death.

Strange that, Alan, same with my mum. She died on Christmas morning two
years ago. Just as the priest gave her the final absolution (or something -
I'm a bit rusty as I was brought up Church of Scotland) and said the final
"amen", she breathed out and that was it! Quite amazing really.

>I have never pooth pooth christians, we should have respect for the
>beliefs of others, and encourage them to be good christians if that
>is the path they have decided to follow.
>
>Here is how I responded to Abby when she posted on this newsgroup.
>
>>Look to Jesus my friends! He is your _only_ hope!!
>>Abby
>>
>
>Dear Abby,
>Thank you for your kindness, you have our welfare at heart for that
>you are to be praised.
>Merry Xmas and a happy New Year
>Alan
>

That's why I think that there's hope for you! :-) Just joking. Actually I
sense that you have a good heart. All we've got to do is work a bit on that
brain of yours!!

>
>Atisha's cook, does this mean you share his temperament ;-)
>

Yeh, only I'm much worse! Even as a cook! Though I did cook Khyenrab and
Chowang a rather nice dinner of lamb chops and veg at Tara Centre ONCE! No,
Khyenrab, I'm not claiming that I was your personal chef, batman, or
whatever.

>Then we are both learning something new. On my browser your thread is
>"Sadhanas as qualities of mind and living."

Yep, but if you look back at the thread you'll see that it's the same one,
only the name has been changed - to protect the innocent as they used to say
in "Dragnet". That's what I was trying to do with the other thread that I
started ("Seeking a more balanced perspective") - simply change the name yet
continue the thread.

>>Alan, please carefully reread my above paragraph. I have a TAPE recording
of
>>the teaching. Your inability to see what I am writing suggests selective
>>myopia (something we all probably suffer from, to be sure).
>
>I read what you wrote, I did repost it.
>
>I will take your word for what you say here.

If my technological fumblings come to anything you may well be able to hear
it yourself. See my other posting.

>However, I wonder what the whole context of the Dharma talk is.
>It is easy in a talk for things not to come out the way one might
>later have wished. Which is why we study Geshe-la's books and not
>teachers talks.

Careful you don't start to rationalise that which makes you feel
uncomfortable. Gen T made his comment about this on several occassions -
once in depth when I spent some time with him and a couple of others in the
Spanish mountains after the Tara empowerment in Cordoba. No slip of the
tongue, I'm afraid.

>
>Book's are carefully edited to make sure errors do not creep in. You
>will not find such statement's in any of Geshe-la's books.

Of course not! Remember that GKG 's "main wish is to .............change the

entire
>Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the four schools of Tibetan
Buddhism
>into one so that the leaders of the other
> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
>of Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life
of
> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has

>been working towards this for many years." Oops! wrong quote, that's
the Dalai Lama apparently!

>
>What I find interesting, is that this is the part of the talk your
>mind as choosen to focus on. And you keep the tape (taken, that this
>is what Thubten Gyatso meant) in order to replay it.
>

Ah, but what I find interesting is that this is the part of my point that
your mind finds interesting and focuses upon!

>Oh dear me, I know he should have been allowed to remain a disciple.
>He was treated terribly bad by being stripped of his robes.
>
>Whatever, are the facts of that story, it is sad for the monk
>involved. Hardly a cause for another smilie.
>
>Let us hope that he is well and happy.

Absolutely, Alan. Did you ever hear him teach? If so, what did you think? Us
crew at Tara Centre were pretty nuts about him! I personally preferred him
as a teacher to GKG. You know, when I first received HYT Heruka-Vajrayogini
empowerment, it was from Thubten Gyatso and what pure bliss! I would have
died a very happy person at that point. When I later received it from GKG,
god! it was so flat and boring really. With Thubten I really felt
'empowered' to the practice, with GKG it was just the opposite. Funnily
enough I was certainly not alone in that experience. And the teachings on
the union of sutra and tantra at the Spring Festival in Dorset were pure
nectar! Again, I was not alone in that view. So, I definitely do hope that
he is well and happy and found something meaningful to do with his life.
I'll tell you, Alan, leaving the NKT is not just fun and games. It's a bit
like being on amphetamines or cocaine (not that I'd know!) - a buzz at the
time and difficult to come off of. But it can be done!

>You have lost me completely here. I have not a clue what you are
>refering too.

Don't worry about it.

>I have no resaon to think Richard is anything other than a very nice
>person. Not knowing him, i have no way to tell. The fact that he was
>asked to leave a centre does not mean that he must be a very unnice
>person, unfriendly etc,

Hey Alan, watch my lips, me old china! "Richard never lived at an NKT
Centre!!!!!!!!"

He was expelled from the NKT, banned from their Centres, excommunicated
(well, almost) for inadvertantly repeating something he'd been told by some
students at a local buddhist centre.

>Talkng about the Dorje Shugden issue, when it was not public knowledge
>that HHDL disapproved of the protector,to practitioners who rely upon
>that protector does not appear to me to be helping those practitioners
>gain confidence in their dharma practice.

Why not? It's a perfect opportunity for someone with a little skill to use
it to explain the lack of inherent existence of even Dharma protectors, even
dorje shugden. But no, why be subtle when you can kick a vajra-son in the
goolies!

>But let us not go over that once
>again here.

Aye, if only it were that easy, lad!

>
>>>HHDL has been speaking out against Dorje Shugden since the late 70's.
>>>It was never an issue with the NKT. However, I can well see why, if
>>>someone began stating that Dorje shugden was an eveil spirit this
>>>would cause difficulties.

Ye gods, Alan! Richard didn't STATE that d shugden WAS an evil spirit! He
simply repeated something he'd heard and was intrigued about. Now a skilfull
teacher would surely have used the opportunity to deepen students'
understanding of Emptiness. You know, something like, "Hey, it's ok what the
Dalai Lama is saying, it's nothing to do with us. We're not Tibetans, nor
Tibetan buddhists. D shugden's just an imputation, and we're imputing
something different from the DL. For us, d shugden is an emanation of
Manjushri, for the Dalai Lama trying to hold 'his' people together through
their time of intense trouble d shugden is something else. Everything's a
projection of mind............" See what I'm trying to say?

>
>Avyorth, I do not know Richard, or this affair which took place before
>I even knew the NKT, I am not qualified to comment. Therefore it is
>best If I say nothing further.
>

Nice one, Alan!

>
>Needless to say , you have your version, I'm sure it is not the only
>one.
>

Absolutely, it's only my point of view.

>However, they will still be those who enforce the rules, and in a
>religious community when it comes to spiritual ma tters as opposed to
>practical matters, they will be those who are teachers and those who
>are students. Monasatries need Abbots etc, Dharma Centre's need
>teachers and directors etc.

Yes, and that's where the Dalai Lama, Ganden Tri Rimpoche, etc come in for
the Tibetans. They are just those "teachers, Abbots, and directors" for the
Gelugpa Order. We may or may not agree with their views, but hey, can we
expect hundreds of years of feudalistism to be sorted out overnight. The
Dalai Lama seems committed to reforming the ............... hey, I'm
treading in deep water here! Best leave this to Chris, he's much more
skilfull and knowledgeable than I am!

>In other words,as my dear old Mum would say when she heard gossip
>"Why suck on lemons, when you can enjoy the taste of honey."
>She has set me many a good example to try and follow.

Well, it seems that I going to have to disagree with your dear old mum,
Alan. Ever tried honey WITH lemon, old mate?

>Oh, I'll survive Avyorth.

Excellent, I like a man who's confident the lord of death's not crossing his
threshold tonight.

>
> I've been heard exposing the
>>dark side of eg Scientology.
>
>You l ive in a very strange world if you are really going to start
>comparing NKT with Scientology etc.,

You probably wouldn't believe just how strange my world really is - don't
worry, I'll keep taking the medicine!

>All I know is that my family, my partner and some of my friends are
>delighted I have become a Buddhist. I am an easier person to get along
>with.

Now, that's got to be a good thing! :-)

>
>>I'm barely a 'gadfly', surely.
>
>I never said otherwise :-)
>

Hey, thought you'd leap to my defence here!

>Take care

Kate Charles

unread,

Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98

In article <6ai30p$5h3$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com
says...

>
>
>Phra Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote in message
><1d3eysr.7t...@ras117.vortex.is>...
>>Alan Bird <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>> TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
>>> why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
>>> not so good.
>>
> >On the other hand, if we are talking about unemployment
>>benefit then the question of entitlement becomes rather doubtful. Is it
>>not the case that persons claiming such benefits in the U.K. are
>>required to declare themselves "fit and available for work"? Can it
>>truly be said that a person living in a Dharma centre and pursuing some
>>full-time course of instruction is "available for work". If not, then
>>would it not be fraudulent for such persons to claim unemployment
>>benefit?
>>
>
>Hello PD,
>
>As there seems to be some uncertainty about this point, allow me to try to
>clarify it drawing upon some of the cases that I personally knew about
>whilst involved with the NKT (1992-96) and living at Tara and Manjushri NKT
>Centres.
>

The model at Madhyamaka Centre (York, UK) is repeated in other large
residential NKT centres. Therefore I would like to give a few facts
concerning job creation at Madhyamaka Centre.

Madhyamaka Centre has a current residential community of around 50 people.

The British government, both under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair has
encouraged those unfortunate enough to have to claim Social Security to use
enterprise initiatives to create new jobs for themselves.

Madhyamaka Centre has been a shining example of nurturing job creation in
ways exactly encouraged by our Prime Ministers.

Since 1986, Madhyamaka Centre has created over 40 new jobs for people who
were previously claiming Social Security. These jobs include full-time
sponsorships for new Teachers either abroad or at other developing UK
centers; editors; graphic designers; craftsmen; builders; accountants;
financial managers; artists; sculptors; and so forth...

Current Madhyamaka Centre residents support themselves in a variety of ways,
such as retirement pensions, full-time employment, private savings,
bursaries, sponsorships, part-time employment, and Social Security.

How a resident supports himself or herself is entirely their own
responsibility.

The UK Social Security Department allows claimants to work up to 16 hours
declared voluntary work per week without affecting their claims.

Using unemployed time to train in skills that could conceivably lead to new
employment is praised by politicians of all parties.

All current claimants of Social Security benefits in the UK must abide by
incredibly strict (some say draconian) rules in which every week they must
prove to the satisfaction of the local Social Security Department that they
are actively seeking work. Anyone who fails to prove this has their Social
Security benefits terminated with immediate effect. It follows that anyone
currently resident in any NKT centre and claiming any Social Security
benefit is actively looking for work.

In the current climate of a critical shortage of accommodation for rent in
the UK, Madhyamaka Centre has provided accommodation and shelter for many
who would otherwise be homeless.

Similar statistics on this and other centers have been posted many times
before.

Yours sincerely
Kate Charles

Kate Charles

unread,

Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98

In article <6ab4e2$3j4$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com
says...
>
>
>khyenrab wrote in message <6ab2v1$ite$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>>In article <6aafqt$jpc$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>,
>Avy...@btinternet.com
>>says...
>>

>>> The list could

>>>go on and on,.
>>
>>and later:
>>
>>>There are many other points that could be added,..
>>
>>Avyorth, when you say these things do you mean it? If so, please list.
>
>Hello Khyenrab,
>
>Why do you want me to list further points? Perhaps it would be better if
you
>addressed the points I've listed so far, and then if there seemed any point
>in going further, then I can list further points. Otherwise I'm just left
>with the sense that you're either playing games or playing for time - and
>you wouldn't want me to be left holding that, would you?

Yes, I would have thought that he would be happy for you to list as many
points as you can, just so we can see if they have any basis in fact. If
they do, and there is something that can be done about them, something will
hopefully be done. The NKT has nothing to hide and has never been a
secretive organization.

As for addressing your previous points, that has already been done, it’s
just that you don’t listen to the answers.

>Seriously how many people do I need to list that have been unfairly banned
>by GKG to make my point - 2, 5, 10?

Try ten. Why in fact were you banned? It clearly hurts, whatever it was.
Maybe it was unfair. Let’s hear it, and then we can decide.

Is it just the management of NKT Centres you find so difficult to stomach,
or everyone in the NKT?

>
>On a less serious point, just how many of the titles you listed have you
>actually read? If so, please list! :-) Annette thinks you may actually have
>read some in the days before the NKT became so 'closed', personally I have
>my doubts. Go on, settle the dispute and tell us!
>

When did the NKT become so ‘closed’?! Most people in the NKT live and work
in the open community, in a huge variety of areas, with or without families.
There is a huge range of people in the NKT, the majority of them trying to
use Dharma to transform their daily lives. If you were to visit them, you
might be pleasantly surprised at their big bookshelves, not to mention their
other accoutrements of modern society. It is perhaps one of the most open
organizations there is - anyone can visit, anyone can ask any questions,
anyone can leave whenever they want. There is no centralized control, every
centre is independent financially and legally, and every centre is very
different. The teachers vary widely, men, women, lay, ordained, some living
in centres, some living outside.

You said once that you were banned for discussing `shen tong’ versus `rang
tong’ - but that is hard to believe, perhaps you could post your banning
letter where it says that. In reality, it takes a lot to get yourself banned
from the NKT, and indeed no one is ever completely banned, they are always
welcome to come to teachings (try it and see!) providing they are not blind
drunk or armed or something! Discussion in NKT centres is always encouraged
(as Gema tried to explain to you before she gave up banging her head against
a brick wall), and in reality NKT people are by and large friendly and
tolerant and good company - characteristics they share with practising
Buddhists everywhere. It’d be impossible to monitor and control the
conversations between all NKT students, everywhere, all over the world, even
if anyone was foolish enough to want to try. As you can see from these ngs,
NKT people are very happy to carry on discussing and debating, even when
faced with a barrage of insults.

Yours sincerely
Kate Charles

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/28/98

Sound file of Gen Thubten Gyatso (who was G Kelsang Gyatso's Heart Disciple)
insisting that only the NKT have the pure lineage of vajrayana mahamudra -
now available. It's 650kb and of good audio quality.

For your free copy, send an e-mail to Avy...@btinternet.com

Please write your e-mail address without any anti-spam devices in the main
body of the text to make it as easy as possible for me to reply to you.

Thank you.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/28/98

Kate Charles wrote in message <6alon3$dpp$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>In article <6ai30p$5h3$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>,
Avy...@btinternet.com
>says...
>>

>>As there seems to be some uncertainty about this point, allow me to try to
>>clarify it drawing upon some of the cases that I personally knew about
>>whilst involved with the NKT (1992-96) and living at Tara and Manjushri
NKT
>>Centres.

>The model at Madhyamaka Centre (York, UK) is repeated in other large

>residential NKT centres. Therefore I would like to give a few facts
>concerning job creation at Madhyamaka Centre.
>
>Madhyamaka Centre has a current residential community of around 50 people.

>Madhyamaka Centre has been a shining example of nurturing job creation in

>ways exactly encouraged by our Prime Ministers.
>
>Since 1986, Madhyamaka Centre has created over 40 new jobs for people who
>were previously claiming Social Security.

Hello Kate,

40 new jobs in 12 years!

Sure a considerable number of ex-Madhyaka people are now abroad as NKT
teachers eg Bobbie aka Jangsem the well-know anti-Dalai Lama poster to this
ng. These teachers receive money from the NKT fund. Much of this money comes
from Manjushri Centre double-letting rooms during the Summer Festival. The
rents on many of these rooms have already been paid by housing benefit as I
mentioned in my posting. So the UK taxpayer is paying to send unemployed
(but not actively seeking work!) NKT teachers abroad to spread the NKT. Hey!
you guys must really dig that sort of job creation.

So when we take out the overseas teachers from your figures, I wonder just
how many shining successes are left?

And the teachers developing NKT centres in the UK - wonder how many of their
recruits are now TTP students on benefits. Bit like a chain letter, or do I
mean pyramid selling? For every new job created you draw in several new
students living (and working for the NKT) on benefits.

>How a resident supports himself or herself is entirely their own
>responsibility.

I'm afraid that when someone claims benefit as unemployed their 'support' is
no longer simply their responsibility. Our wonderful prime ministers
Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (wonder why you left out John Major?)
insist that they have to meet certain standards in their attempts to find
work.

Now paying someone in a senior management position of an organisation, with
the NKT's financial turnover, approx £50 per week since you know that the
government will then pay that persons rent may well be considered unethical.
Wonder how many of the jobs created require that the person still claim
housing benefit - eg how many of those working for Madhyamaka Centre or
Tharpa publications claim housing benefit? I've mentioned that at Manjushri
Centre the Education Programme Co-ordinator and several other key figures
receive £50 per week and claim housing benefit. When I was at Tara Centre
both the EPC and the Centre Administrative Director claimed both housing
benefit and social security/unemployment benefit. Both probably were working
at least 40 hours a week for the NKT.

I also mentioned in another posting that the EPC at Manjushri Centre was
willing to give up his support to a young woman working in the Education
Dept whom the Job Centre offered a training course to. As she was willing to
take the offer of the course it would have meant that the Education Dept
would be without her. So she was given his support and he signed on as
unemployed and LOOKING FOR WORK whilst working full-time as a senior manager
of Manjushri Centre. GKG knew of this.

Don't know whether you're the Kate that I'm thinking of at M Centre - if so,
you'll know RK whom I mentioned in my posting. Unemployed for some 7 years
at MC (on TTP and doing all sorts of jobs for the NKT) before he was asked
to move to Manjushri Centre to work full-time on the new Temple - whilst
claiming social security benefit.

You must also know RF, Kelsang Th, from M.C - unemployed for 12 years at MC!
Went to Manjushri Centre to build the shrine cabinets for the new Temple and
Heruka B Mandala. Working full-time upon them whilst claiming benefit. I
know since I was cashier at the time. I heard that he had to be given
support (£50 per week I bet) as the Job Centre were harrassing him. So I
suppose you have him down as one of your shining success stories? Still it
only took 12 years to get him off benefit. No, sorry, I tell a lie as he's
probably still receiving housing benefit.

>The UK Social Security Department allows claimants to work up to 16 hours
>declared voluntary work per week without affecting their claims.

Ok, interesting point! Wonder how many students on TTP are on benefits? They
have classes of 8 hours per week. When they are on retreat as they are now,
their meditation sessions are 6 hours per day ie 30 hours per week - wow for
6 whole weeks from Jan into Feb, all paid for by the British taxpayer! Now
given that the Centres all actively 'encourage' residents on benefits to
work for the centre during part of the day eg Roy Tyson's memo to those on
benefits at Manjushri Centre saying they should work at least 15 hours per
week. Hmm! don't know about your arithmetic, Kate, but we seem to be well
passed the 16 hours. And we haven't taken into account the teaching
responsibilities of the students.

We all surely have read of the phenomenal number of NKT branches in the UK,
and each one requires a teacher and his/her assistant(?) to go there at
least weekly. This requires much preparation eg of the teaching, publicity
blitzes (perhaps a whole day), travelling (eg Madhyamaka started a branch in
Edinburgh -the teacher would travel there by train, teach, stay overnight
and then return the next day - hardly available for work! Actually this sort
of thing is not uncommon - just check out where the teacher for some of the
branches actually comes from.)

>
>All current claimants of Social Security benefits in the UK must abide by
>incredibly strict (some say draconian) rules in which every week they must
>prove to the satisfaction of the local Social Security Department that they
>are actively seeking work.

Madhyamaka Centre was always considered a soft touch. It is outside the
range for the resident to have to go into York to sign on. One fills in a
slip and posts it to the Job Centre - hassle free! Of course the Centre's
stuck out in the countryside where there's very little work, and the bus
service is poor.

"Incredibly strict rules" - could tell you many tales of NKT teachers
including ordained people 'playing' these actually quite simple procedures.

>Anyone who fails to prove this has their Social
>Security benefits terminated with immediate effect. It follows that anyone
>currently resident in any NKT centre and claiming any Social Security
>benefit is actively looking for work.

Definitely not valid reasoning! Most of the residents that I came across in
the NKT were definitely far too busy working for the NKT to have time to
look for work - even if they'd wanted to.

Anyone interested in checking this out only has to go to a Centre such as
Madhyamaka or Manjushri on a 'working holiday' and keep their eyes and ears
open. A few discrete questions of those on TTP and working at the Centre
should turn up one or two (!) interesting facts. I've always wondered why
the DSS has never sent undercover inspectors on 'working holidays'
especially to cast an eye over the monks and nuns.

>
>In the current climate of a critical shortage of accommodation for rent in
>the UK, Madhyamaka Centre has provided accommodation and shelter for many
>who would otherwise be homeless.

Definitely not true, the NKT is not a charity for the homeless,
down-and-out, or socially marginalised. Again a cursory check of any Centre
would support my point.

>
>Similar statistics on this and other centers have been posted many times
>before.

Similar statistics and facts on dorje shugden have been posted many times
before! So what, does posting something many times make it true? Personally
I'd always prefer to check statistics - especially from the NKT.

One example of statistics: after some reports of benefit abuse at Manjushri
Centre appeared in the local newspaper, a spokesperson for Manjushri claimed
that there were 'x' number of residents, of whom 'y'% were in full-time
work, etc, etc - sounded quite wonderful. I know that one of the Centre
managers went to this person and told her that the figures that she'd given
to the paper were fabricated. Nice to know that there was someone at
Manjushri who had the integrity to want the truth stated if anything was to
be stated. This person, a nun who'd done a 3 year retreat with GKG, disrobed
and left the NKT and Manjushri Centre because of this and many other NKT
activities.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth

>Yours sincerely
>Kate Charles
>
>
>
>

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:18:31 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>
>Hello Alan,
>
>you seem to be misunderstanding my point as I intended it. I am not
>criticising you (nor Ty) having a bit of "a friendly exchange". I'm glad
>that you, and whoever else, found it an enjoyable experience. What I was
>pointing to is my perception that you tend to slip into dogmatic statements.
>To my understanding this runs counter to Dharma where the concepts we use
>are 'rafts' ie they carry us, NOT us having to carry them. When we carry
>them they become, as I said, dogma. Whether karma is true or untrue, who
>really knows? Is rebirth really TRUE? If so 'who' is reborn?

Avyorth,

Needless to say , I disagree with your view here.

I have a simple mind, and tend to work with simple concepts. I cannot
see the need to try and complicate things unnecessarily.

You write "Is rebirth really TRUE? If so 'who' is reborn?"

Let me ask you a question.

"Is death really TRUE?" If so 'who' really dies?"

Impure minds experience death, karma, rebirth etc. Ultimately, this is
all emptiness, but unless we have gianed a direct and immovable
realisation of emptiness, we are stuck with Samsara.

My
>understanding of sraddha, or faith, is that it is poles apart from
>'belief' - it's more like "as if". Our 'belief' in buddhism and its
>accoutrements keep us from entering the stream of Dharma, IMO.

When I first came into to contact with the teaching "That all living
beings are mother beings". I did not have faith in it. I had to keep
an open mind, and realise that for the purpose of training in the
sevenfold cause and effect, I had to meditate "as if" it was true..
However, my confidence in Buddhism as grown and I train to develop
faith based on the authority of Sutra.

When I read that the universe is continually expanding according to
modern physiics, I have no way to prove that for myself. I accept it
based on authority. I have no direct perception of rebirth or karma,
but I have faith in Buddha's teaching.

Whether, you wish to classify that faith as 'blind faith', or 'dogma'
I do not mind.However, I do believe it benefits my mind, there are
some unskillful things I no longer do because of my belief in Karma.
This can only be to my benefit.

>
>>
>>
>>>Dharma, as I understand it, is not about dogma - that's the terrain
>>>of -isms, eg buddhism. Rather, IMO, Dharma is about 'skilful means', and
>is
>>>consequently often more in line with metaphor. Do you have direct
>>>realisation of rebirth, karma, purification, bodhicitta, wisdom realising
>>>emptiness? If not, then you have the same choice as me, ie hold your views
>>>as 'the truth' (dogma) or hold them as 'metaphor' (agnostic).

I also have the option of faith in Buddha's words.

>>
>>>hen we hold
>>>them as 'the truth' then we fall into buddhism, when we hold them as
>>>'metaphor' then we fall into the Dh (ark) - as I see it.
>>
>>Well I am glad you but yourself firmly in the dharma camp, somehow I
>>thought you would but me outside of it. ;-) (Never mind, I will have
>>to live with the disappointment)
>>
>Don't worry, old boy, there's hope yet. Look at me, I was up to my neck in
>the NKT only a couple of years ago!

Up to your neck "IN" the NKT. You must have had a strange conception
of the NKT if you saw it as being "IN" something. I am not "IN" the
NKT. I am a dharma practictioner trying to be a good student of my
teacher, Geshe-la. To be "IN" would imply that I am therefore "OUT" of
something else. What did you perceive yourself as being "OUT" of.

In a posting on another thread, you used the term "marginal people"
implying that when you were a NKT student, you saw some students as
marginal and other students as not marginal. I presume, you always saw
yourself as not being marginal.

Why do you divide people up as being "IN" or as "Marginal"?

>
>>I have never pooth pooth christians, we should have respect for the
>>beliefs of others, and encourage them to be good christians if that
>>is the path they have decided to follow.
>>
>>Here is how I responded to Abby when she posted on this newsgroup.
>>
>>>Look to Jesus my friends! He is your _only_ hope!!
>>>Abby
>>>
>>
>>Dear Abby,
>>Thank you for your kindness, you have our welfare at heart for that
>>you are to be praised.
>>Merry Xmas and a happy New Year
>>Alan
>>
>That's why I think that there's hope for you! :-) Just joking. Actually I
>sense that you have a good heart. All we've got to do is work a bit on that
>brain of yours!!

Strange that you see me as being Dogmatic,
here is what you wrote

>By holding our views as 'the truth' we must battle with other 'truth'
>holders - eg we have to pooh pooh christians who believe in sin and 'works'
>instead of karma, rather than trying to understand what these views might
>actually be pointing towards.

yet, I do not need to battle with other truths as you yourself
acknowledge in this mailing.

Avyorth, you came to this conclusion from what I wrote, yet I am
manifestly not intolerent of christians etc.,

I am beginning to believe that you hear what others say, but interpret
it according to your view, and so internally you hear something
completely different.

A bit like hearing in a teaching that the NKT has a pure lineage and
dharma, and you immediately interpret that as a claim to
"exclusiveness". When that is not what is being claimed.

As for working on my brain, that territory is off limits. Only I work
on my brain, in as far as that is possible for any of us.

>>
>>Atisha's cook, does this mean you share his temperament ;-)
>>
>Yeh, only I'm much worse! Even as a cook! Though I did cook Khyenrab and
>Chowang a rather nice dinner of lamb chops and veg at Tara Centre ONCE! No,
>Khyenrab, I'm not claiming that I was your personal chef, batman, or
>whatever.

If you did I hoped they enjoyed it.

>>>Alan, please carefully reread my above paragraph. I have a TAPE recording
>of
>>>the teaching. Your inability to see what I am writing suggests selective
>>>myopia (something we all probably suffer from, to be sure).
>>
>>I read what you wrote, I did repost it.
>>
>>I will take your word for what you say here.
>
>If my technological fumblings come to anything you may well be able to hear
>it yourself. See my other posting.

Not unless you mail it to this newsgroup. Even then I would not waste
my time downloading it. The real qestion, has others have tried to
point out, is not what he said, but what was his meaning. You insist
upon giving his words a meaning that is not recognised by others who
also heard him teach.

>
>>However, I wonder what the whole context of the Dharma talk is.
>>It is easy in a talk for things not to come out the way one might
>>later have wished. Which is why we study Geshe-la's books and not
>>teachers talks.
>
>Careful you don't start to rationalise that which makes you feel
>uncomfortable. Gen T made his comment about this on several occassions -
>once in depth when I spent some time with him and a couple of others in the
>Spanish mountains after the Tara empowerment in Cordoba. No slip of the
>tongue, I'm afraid.

Nothing to rationalise, nothing to feel uncomfortable about.
If Gen T taught as you say, then he was mistaken. However, I wonder
how much is what he said, and how much is what you understood him to
have said.

Others do not share your recollections.

Also, you will not find such statements in Geshe-la's books

>
>>
>>What I find interesting, is that this is the part of the talk your
>>mind as choosen to focus on. And you keep the tape (taken, that this
>>is what Thubten Gyatso meant) in order to replay it.
>>
>Ah, but what I find interesting is that this is the part of my point that
>your mind finds interesting and focuses upon!

Because you keep mentioning it.

>
>>Oh dear me, I know he should have been allowed to remain a disciple.
>>He was treated terribly bad by being stripped of his robes.
>>
>>Whatever, are the facts of that story, it is sad for the monk
>>involved. Hardly a cause for another smilie.
>>
>>Let us hope that he is well and happy.
>
>Absolutely, Alan. Did you ever hear him teach? If so, what did you think? Us
>crew at Tara Centre were pretty nuts about him! I personally preferred him
>as a teacher to GKG. You know, when I first received HYT Heruka-Vajrayogini
>empowerment, it was from Thubten Gyatso and what pure bliss! I would have
>died a very happy person at that point. When I later received it from GKG,
>god! it was so flat and boring really. With Thubten I really felt
>'empowered' to the practice, with GKG it was just the opposite. Funnily
>enough I was certainly not alone in that experience. And the teachings on
>the union of sutra and tantra at the Spring Festival in Dorset were pure
>nectar! Again, I was not alone in that view. So, I definitely do hope that
>he is well and happy and found something meaningful to do with his life.

Glad you where able to enjoy Dharma. Interesting that you recevied
your Tantra empowerments and commentries from Gen T. So most of
the Dharma discourses you head came from Gen T and not Geshe-la. Yet,
even if we assume that your recollections of some of Gen T's
statements are correct, you are happy to universalise them and apply
them to Geshe-la, despite not reading such things in Geshe-la's books
or hearing them spoken by him in his Dharma discourses.

My understanding would be that any teaching or empowerments you
received from any NKT perceptors, actually came from Geshe-la. He
would therefore have been your teacher and Tantric Master.

It seems that not only did you not acknowledge that fact, put you
found others who shared your view. I hope that in any teachings I
receive from Geshe-la I will always seek out those who will praise his
good qualities and his great kindness in providing the gift of Dharma
It is this mind of faith that will benefit me most.

Apprehend your master's qualities.
Never seize on his faults.
You will gain siddhis
When you apprehend his good qualities;
You will not get siddhis
When you seize on his faults
from ''Vajrapani Initiation Tantra''

>I'll tell you, Alan, leaving the NKT is not just fun and games. It's a bit
>like being on amphetamines or cocaine (not that I'd know!) - a buzz at the
>time and difficult to come off of. But it can be done!

One goes to a NKT centre/centre's and stays or leaves as one wishes,
receive teachings or not as one wishes. The only committments are
those one makes oneself.

>
>
>>You have lost me completely here. I have not a clue what you are
>>refering too.
>
>Don't worry about it.
>
>>I have no resaon to think Richard is anything other than a very nice
>>person. Not knowing him, i have no way to tell. The fact that he was
>>asked to leave a centre does not mean that he must be a very unnice
>>person, unfriendly etc,
>
>Hey Alan, watch my lips, me old china! "Richard never lived at an NKT
>Centre!!!!!!!!"

?!?!?!
Presumably, he was attending a centre, and presumably he was asked not
to. At least this is what I take you to be claiming.

>
>He was expelled from the NKT, banned from their Centres, excommunicated
>(well, almost) for inadvertantly repeating something he'd been told by some
>students at a local buddhist centre.

I shall ask, but I find it hard to believe that if he turned up for a
teaching he would be asked to leave.

>
>
>>Talkng about the Dorje Shugden issue, when it was not public knowledge
>>that HHDL disapproved of the protector,to practitioners who rely upon
>>that protector does not appear to me to be helping those practitioners
>>gain confidence in their dharma practice.
>
>Why not? It's a perfect opportunity for someone with a little skill to use
>it to explain the lack of inherent existence of even Dharma protectors, even
>dorje shugden. But no, why be subtle when you can kick a vajra-son in the
>goolies!

Is this a lesson you are willing to teach HHDL?

Again, taken your version of events at face value, I find it almost
impossible to believe that if he approached senior disciples of
Geshe-la or Geshe-la himself with his concerns, answers would not have
been forth coming. If he was undermining people's faith in their
Dharmapala and in Geshe-la as a spiritual teacher, then they would
have been little alternative.

>
>>
>>>>HHDL has been speaking out against Dorje Shugden since the late 70's.
>>>>It was never an issue with the NKT. However, I can well see why, if
>>>>someone began stating that Dorje shugden was an eveil spirit this
>>>>would cause difficulties.
>
>Ye gods, Alan! Richard didn't STATE that d shugden WAS an evil spirit!

Something I acknowleged in the mailing you are replying to, but which
has been snipped. I wrote

>You are right, since his HHDL did not make public statement
>about DS being an evil spirit until the time of the ban (I know of

> none).

>It seems unlikly that Richard would have hinted at such a thing.

>simply repeated something he'd heard and was intrigued about. Now a skilfull
>teacher would surely have used the opportunity to deepen students'
>understanding of Emptiness. You know, something like, "Hey, it's ok what the
>Dalai Lama is saying, it's nothing to do with us. We're not Tibetans, nor
>Tibetan buddhists. D shugden's just an imputation, and we're imputing
>something different from the DL.

(Hope your not getting dogmatic here Avyorth, or is it metaphor;-) )

Up until the ban, possibly, but not since the ban.

Why would HHDL want to impute "evil spirit", when he could impute
"Manjustri" which is how he recived the practice from his teacher
Trijang Rinpoche.

How could this imputation harm HHDL or the Tibetan cause.

Some of his HHDL's statements since the ban has been enforced have
made it clear, that he believes that those who impute "Manjustrui"
onto Dorje Shugden are making a grave error and thus are breaking
refuge vows by seeking refuge in a sentient being.

>For us, d shugden is an emanation of
>Manjushri, for the Dalai Lama trying to hold 'his' people together through
>their time of intense trouble d shugden is something else. Everything's a
>projection of mind............" See what I'm trying to say?

The Ban has ripped the TIbetan community apart, what else do you call
it when you have thousands of monks refusing to give up a Dharma
practice they have received from their root guru's.When people are
removed from government posts, when judges must first swear that they
do not rely upon Dorje Shugden before they can take office etc., When
poeple's family details are posted on walls branding them traitors.
There was no 'conflict' until the ban came into place.

>
>>
>
>>However, they will still be those who enforce the rules, and in a
>>religious community when it comes to spiritual ma tters as opposed to
>>practical matters, they will be those who are teachers and those who
>>are students. Monasatries need Abbots etc, Dharma Centre's need
>>teachers and directors etc.
>
>Yes, and that's where the Dalai Lama, Ganden Tri Rimpoche, etc come in for
>the Tibetans. They are just those "teachers, Abbots, and directors" for the
>Gelugpa Order. We may or may not agree with their views, but hey, can we
>expect hundreds of years of feudalistism to be sorted out overnight. The
>Dalai Lama seems committed to reforming the ............... hey, I'm
>treading in deep water here! Best leave this to Chris, he's much more
>skilfull and knowledgeable than I am!

And those Abbots and Tulku's who continue the practice, are they too
to be seen as traitors?

>
>>In other words,as my dear old Mum would say when she heard gossip
>>"Why suck on lemons, when you can enjoy the taste of honey."
>>She has set me many a good example to try and follow.
>
>Well, it seems that I going to have to disagree with your dear old mum,
>Alan. Ever tried honey WITH lemon, old mate?

What would this be, faith with non-faith,

A pure view of one's guru, mixed in with an impure view.

One's Dharmpala as a enlightened being, sending down light and nectar
mixed with the view that he is an evil spirit out to cause harm?

>
>>Oh, I'll survive Avyorth.
>
>Excellent, I like a man who's confident the lord of death's not crossing his
>threshold tonight.

Told you I lacked realisations, thanks for the reminder. The only
thing seperating me from death is a single heart beat.

>
>>
>> I've been heard exposing the
>>>dark side of eg Scientology.
>>

Avyorth,

This will be my last reply to you. Your comment about "his little
Vajra" was too much for me. Using Dharma terms to make sexual inuendos
seems to me to be very unskilful, personally I think you would be wise
to refain from doing so in the future.

Wishing you happiness

Alan

Alan Bird

unread,

Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:29:44 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>Funny that, Alan, since you don't seem to have any reservations about
>discussing the perceived faults of the Dalai Lama. Still, I'm beginning to
>get a sense that your rule is "do as I say, not as I do."

Avyorth,

HHDL as political power, that power is being used to overide basic
human rights.

>
>>
>>We all receive private e-mails, I have recieved four within the last
>>week. Some who have found the responsers
>>by NKT people helpful as our mailings often paint a far different
>>image then the one painted by yourself.This as encouraged them to
>>continue reading Geshe-la's books, or to take a look at his books for
>>the first time, or visit an NKT centre.
>>
>>What does this show Avyorth? I would say nothing whatsoever, apart
>>from people are attracted to different things and have different
>>perceptions. But that is something as buddhist's, we already know.
>
>

>Again, Alan, we have you change direction in mid-tack. We were talking about
>your criticism of my postings (as opposed to your 'helpful' postings??) as
>'unhelpful'.

Avyorth, I'm sure people find my postings unhelpful, just as they find
yours unhelpful. I am sure that some find yours helpful and some may
even find mine helpful.

I asked you, "unhelpful for whom?", and pointed out that in the
>e-mails that I'd received, as well as postings on the ng, people had
>expressed that they found my postings helpful. Now we see you take the very
>point that I was making - "people are attracted to different things". Surely
>a less self-referential position than you'd taken at first. With some luck
>we will be reading you posting something like, "I find your postings
>unhelpful". Now that WOULD be a great step forward!

Ok, I find your postings unhelpful.

>
>>
>>Sounds
>>>much healthier to me than believing the sun shines out your teacher's
>butt.
>>
>>Not that I thought it did.
>>
>>However, I do believe that the sun of Dharma radiates from his being.
>

>So which part's "his being"? Could it be his little vajra, perchance? I
>have heard that was the case with Thubten Gyatso, or so he liked to tell the
>nuns.

This is what I meant by unhelpful, if you think this helps anyone,
then you are free to do so, I am also free to think it helps no one
least of all yourself.

>
>>Your experience and mine are very different, also your experiences are
>>very different to my fellow students in FP and also differ with those
>>who I know who study TTP. The organisation you describe is quite alien
>>to the one we know.
>

>Alan, have you ever tried challenging the rose-coloured vision of
>Scientologists, Moonies, supporters of the PRC, and so on? I'd bet their
>comments would sound just a touch similar to yours - I know, remember, I
>once wore the very same rose-tinted pair of specs you're now the proud owner
>of.

Avyorth, you could accuse your local methodist church of being a cult,
if they deny it, you could then always say, "But, you would wound'nt
you". This would not make them a cult.

If you want to share my rose-tinted specs, I am happy to share:-)

We all wear specs of one kind or another, I do not believe that you
have escaped the phenomena.

>
> >
>>Just as you judge according to the way you perceive your expereinces,
>>we judge according to the way we perceive our experiences. Heruka
>>Centre is a happy commuity, sure there are problems occasionally, but
>>then this is samsara. If you are looking for the perfect organisation
>>in Samsara, you will not find it.
>

>Good god, man, who ever said that I was looking for the perfect
>organisation? I simply believe that for an organisation that preaches that
>it has the pure buddhadharma, it has an awful long way to go before it comes
>close to 'walking its talk'.
>

Avyorth, it is you who says the NKT has "The pure Buddha Dharma" not
the NKT. If you remove the definate article and instead wrote "..has
a pure Buddhadharma" then that would be closer to the truth.

I see many within the NKT "walking the talk". And it is their example
I aspire to follow.

>>TTP living of State benefits, if they are entitled to the benefits,
>>why not? If they were some not entitled to the benefit then that is
>>not so good. You would need to look at each individual case. If there
>>was deliberate, out and out planning to abuse the system then that was
>>wrong.
>

>See my separate posting earlier today.

I did. I have also seen Kate's replies.

Wishing you happiness

Alan

barry...@online.rednet.co.uk

unread,

Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98

What on earth does all this MEAN?

Do you HONESTLY think that making a tape of someone available on the internet
for 'downloading' is going to make the blindest bit of difference to anything
at all? All it serves is to further all these incredibly child-like 'I am
Right, You are Wrong' arguments (my Conker is bigger than your Conker etc
etc) even further....

I can't wait to see what is served up next!!! A 24MB video clip of someone
breaking a precept????

I always thought the point of the Buddhist path is to transcend our Selves,
not propagate them all over the Internet in this immature and childish way?

:-)

Barry

ps I was reading some Internet Lawyers' publications the other day and there
was a case of someone getting successfully sued for publishing someones
lecture on the Internet via email without their permission.

Chris

unread,

Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 03:09:11 GMT, am...@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks)
wrote:

...
> Furthermore it simply is not necessary to debate HERE.
>
> Just use cc or make a group alias for those who must wrangle on -- but
> privately.

There was a group created in an attempt to keep excessive discussion
of the NKT and their so called protector Shugden off the newsgroup
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan where many people have said they are
offended by the attacks on HH the Dalai Lama (largely made by people
associated with the NKT) made simply because HHDL has placed
restrictions and prohibitions on the worship of this particular
"protector" by Tibetans.

That usenet group is called alt.religion.buddism.nkt

- Chris

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98

hello mr b hill,

do ya know why I always mistake you for mr benny hill - because you always
have me rollicking with wild laughter, just like your old dad used to!
brilliant!!!!

barry...@online.rednet.co.uk wrote in message
<6ath5q$mc7$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...

>What on earth does all this MEAN?
>
>Do you HONESTLY think that making a tape of someone available on the
internet
>for 'downloading' is going to make the blindest bit of difference to
anything
>at all? All it serves is to further all these incredibly child-like 'I am
>Right, You are Wrong' arguments (my Conker is bigger than your Conker etc
>etc) even further....
>

Nothing to do with 'conkers', benny, you obviously haven't been able to
follow the point of the thread. Personally I do believe that providing a
VERY SHORT PIECE of a taped talk makes a difference because it clearly
substantiates a point that I had made and that Khyenrab claimed was
spurious. Such is the process of debate and clarification.

>I can't wait to see what is served up next!!! A 24MB video clip of someone
>breaking a precept????
>

Totally irrelevant to the discussion, benny.

>I always thought the point of the Buddhist path is to transcend our Selves,
>not propagate them all over the Internet in this immature and childish way?
>

You mean, just like you've done in this posting?

Best you stick to playing with your conkers!

Yours in the Dh (ark)

your old Iron John buddy, Avyorth

>:-)
>
>
>Barry
>
>ps I was reading some Internet Lawyers' publications the other day and
there
>was a case of someone getting successfully sued for publishing someones
>lecture on the Internet via email without their permission.

got me and everyone else on this ng shaking with fear there, mate. Gosh, you
don't mince your words. Being sued for releasing a 59 sec piece of a 3 hour
talk to support a point in a discussion with the organisation
concerned???!!! ha, ha, ha, ha! golly gosh, you sure know how to tell 'em!
Nice to see you've outgrown your minimalist 'box' stage.

James Burns

unread,

Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98

The Dorje Shugden debate is one of concern to most Tibetan Buddhists
particularly those following the Gelugpa Tradition. The NKT are only one
of many Buddhist groups that carry out devotions involving Dorje
Shugden.

The NKT newsgroup was not set up by the NKT but by Mr. Dierking to try
and marginalise the Dorje Shugden issue. As far as I am aware, the
newsgroup is not used to any great extent by the NKT. The main
discussion on Dorje Shugden has continued on this and other associated
newsgroups since it became an issue.

Some time ago there was a concerted effort by certain supporters of His
Holiness to polarise and marginalise the topic along the lines explained
in the final post below. Attempts to speak openly about this question
and let people know the facts are labelled as *attacks* on His Holiness.
If the *truth* can attack His Holiness, then indeed there is something
far wrong. Even the most active Shugden Devotees still have high regard
for His Holiness and wish him well. All they are really asking is that
he reciprocates in this regard by removing the Ban.

The Dorje Shugden issue can be seen as the beginning of a series of
changes intended by His Holiness to alter the Gelugpa Tradition in an
extremely radical way. It is an issue which is of major concern to those
people in India that are experiencing the effects of the Ban. The
details of this are a bit upsetting, especially if you have sympathy and
regard for His Holiness. Many people find it hard to accept and
difficult to even believe.

To help people realise the full extent of what is going on, I will
compile and post later some details of the events that have taken place.
It would be easy, convenient and simplistic to think of this Issue in
the terms posited by Mr Fynn.

Unfortunately the truth is a bit more disconcerting.

In article <34d263e0...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Chris
<cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk> writes

May You Be Filled With Loving Kindness,

khyenrab

unread,

Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98

In article <34d3a...@news1.ibm.net>, pmdie...@nospam70318.eternal.net
says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>James Burns wrote in message ...

>>The NKT newsgroup was not set up by the NKT but by Mr. Dierking to try
>>and marginalise the Dorje Shugden issue. As far as I am aware, the
>>newsgroup is not used to any great extent by the NKT.
>

>The alt.religion.buddhism.nkt newsgroup was set up in the summer of
>1996 because the discussion threads posted by members of the NKT
>were off topic for alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan.

The issue of the ban on Dorje Shugden practice by the Dalai Lama is on-topic
for any newsgroup interested in the Dharma.
>
>In spite of the establishment of this group, individuals indentifying
>themselves as NKT members have continued to cross post off
>topic material to alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan--not because they
>do not have a forum for doing so--but because they have a
>rhetorical point to further their political motives (more rightly
>addressed in talk.politics.tibet ).

The issue of the ban on Dorje Shugden by the Dalai Lama is a religious
issue.

best wishes
Khyenrab

James Burns

unread,

Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98

In article <Qdwl1LAX...@metanode.demon.co.uk>, James Burns
<jimb...@METANODE.DEMON.CO.UK> writes

>
>To help people realise the full extent of what is going on, I will
>compile and post later some details of the events that have taken place.
>It would be easy, convenient and simplistic to think of this Issue in
>the terms posited by Mr Fynn.
>
>Unfortunately the truth is a bit more disconcerting.

Devotion to Dorje Shugden has been one of the main practices of the
Gelugpa tradition for a long time. Some of these devotions were also
carried publicly until 1978 when they were curbed by the actions of His
Holiness The Dalai Lama. Until recently most Gelugpa followers could
trace their lineages unambiguously to Dorje Shugden Practitioners such
as Phabongka Rinpoche or one of his Four Main disciples.

One of the reasons why the Dorje Shugden issue is so controversial is
because of the radical nature of the actions taken by His Holiness The
Dalai Lama. To many middle aged and older people in the Gelugpa
Tradition, the actions of His Holiness are quite unacceptable and
unfounded. They see his efforts as nothing less than an attempt to
destroy the Tradition.

In Tibetan society uncritical and unquestioning loyalty to the Dalai
Lama has traditionally been one of it's hallmarks. To see therefore
Tibetans motivated to confront the Dalai Lama directly about this issue,
just shows how serious the situation is. Matters would probably have
remained non-confrontational if it had not been for the extraordinary
events that commenced in the spring of 1996 and continued throughout
that year:-

On the 10th March 1996, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, started to talk
about Dorje Shugden during the annual teachings at the Thekchen Choeling
Temple. He said that Dorje Shugden was a deity which was not in accord
with the Governments deities, and that therefore devotion to Dorje
Shugden had serious repercussions for the cause of Tibet.

His Holiness urged the Dorje Shugden devotees to stop their practices
and warned them that unless this was done, house to house searches would
be carried out to force people to comply. He went on to emphasise that
no one would be exempt, regardless of whither they lived in monasteries,
or were eminent spiritual teachers or private individuals.

He concluded that people who relied on Dorje Shugden, did not have the
best interests of Tibet at heart, and insisted that all people in favour
of himself, the exiled Government, and the cause of Tibet would give up
this practice.

At the Tadrin Yangsang and Sangdrub empowerments, at Dharamsala on the
21st March, His Holiness orders the worshippers of Dorje Shugden to
leave the temple and bars them from attending. He further announces that
Dorje Shugden is related to Chinese Spirits and that continued reliance
on him, by others will affect the length of his life. He continues by
threatening those Spiritual Masters and private monks that continue to
worship Dorje Shugden that they will have a 'day of regret'. He says
that for those that remain firm 'things will not be good if we have to
knock on your doors'.

Posters are put up round Dharamsala recounting the Dalai Lama's words
and people are interrogated in the street regarding their views. An
elderly and highly venerated master and Dorje Shugden practitioner,
Geshe Thubten Samdrub, has his monthly stipend from the Government
suspended as an example to others.

On March 30th, the private office of the Dalai Lama issues a decree that
everyone is to stop practising devotions in relation to Dorje Shugden.
Further instructions are given to make sure that everyone is aware of
the decree through the local social infrastructure.

Simultaneously the Tibetan Parliament passes a resolution banning any
Dorje Shugden worshipper from being employed by the Government.

===============================================================

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98

Avyorth Rolinson wrote in message <6ai9hs$bfo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>khyenrab wrote in message

Hello, my name is Annette and I have been following the postings on the NKT
with some interest and often amusement. I lived at NKT centres from 1993 -
96, and was a student on TTP during this time (resident at Manjushri centre
'95 - 96).

>Avyorth writes:
>When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in
>the class
>by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong
>that
>TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
>action would damage GK's health.

Yes, I was also there in that class (studying 'Guide to Dakini Land') when
Samten delivered his speech. The class consisted mainly of people who'd
been at the priory when Lama Yeshe was the spiritual guide and who had
received initiations and teachings from other teachers. Some of these
students, it could be argued, had a root-guru other than GKG. Samten made
it very clear that, whatever initiations people had received in the past and
commitments they had taken, they had to accept GKG as their root-guru,
practice their sadhanas in such a way as to put GKG at the centre of it
(rather than visualizing their previous' gurus blessings) and stop relying
on non-NKT books IF pure buddha-dharma (GKG's version) was to remain alive
in this world. And yes, Samten did claim that continuing to include other
teachers in our practice would have an adverse effect on GKG's health,
possibly shortening his lifespan. Samten told us that these instructions
came from GKG himself. The seriousness of Samten's words and the tone of
his voice made many of the students uncomfortable and the atmosphere was
subdued. Samten himself seemed embarrassed and uncomfortable having to
deliver this talk. I was disturbed enough by the announcement to cycle to
Ulverston Library after the class and drop off my one and only non-NKT
dharma book ('Songs of Change' by the 7th Dalai Lama) to comply with my root
guru's instructions.

>Khyenrab said:
> I understand from several other people who were present at the same talk
>given by Ven. Samten that this was never said. Their understanding is that
>the emphasis during this talk was on encouraging students to focus on the
>specific book under study at the time.

I find it very difficult to believe how those Khyenrab spoke with could have
forgotten such unprecedented talk. I still have the clearest image of
Samten on the throne looking white and even shaking as he issued GKG's
instructions.

>In a number of his books Geshe Kelsang recommends people read books other
>than his own. Why would he say this if he thought it was wrong?

The funny thing about the NKT is that it prints one thing and does another.

Hoping this helps clarify some of the points raised

Annette

James Burns

unread,

Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98

The way His Holiness addresses the issue of Dorje Shugden to his own
people is in marked contrast to the Hollwood/Gandhi type image that is
carefully nurtured for his western audience. This makes it doubly
difficult for people in the West to understand the real nature of what
is taking place.

As can be seen from part one of this post, His Holiness invokes
superstitious and illogical beliefs in order to further his case. He
says that devotion to Dorje Shugden injures his health and damages the
cause of Tibet and incites his own people to aggressive acts that must
inevitably cause violence.

He uses his political power to institute statutes that are, contrary to
those of the United Nations, the country in which he lives, and his own
democratic constitution.

The details of the ban imposed in Dharamsala at the end of march, are
conveyed by letter from the private office of the Dalai Lama to the
abbots of the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in the South of India.

These letters condemn the continued widespread devotion to Dorje
Shugden, despite the Dalai Lama's efforts over the past years to curtail
it. He further blames the practice for 'instability' within the Gelugpa
tradition and he makes it clear that he will no longer listen to those
voices that have repeatedly urged him to stop raising this issue because
of it's divisive nature.

The letters conclude by stipulating to the monastic authorities that
they have the charge to insure that each and every monk is made aware of
the recent pronouncements in Dharamsala on Dorje Shugden so that they
will not have the excuse of not having heard it. In addition they are
charged with the duty of ensuring the total implementation of the decree
by everyone under their authority.

In the event that worship of Dorje Shugden continues, despite the
warnings, the authorities are instructed to make a list of all the names
of the people so doing. In particular they are to record name, house
name, birthplace together with class designation, if they are students,
or date of arrival, if the devotee has just come from Tibet. The private
office finishes by instructing that the list should be sent to them in
Dharamsala.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98

I posted this yesterday using Avyorth's account. As I now have my own I
have decided to repost it under my name.

Greetings, Annette

Avyorth Rolinson wrote in message <6b5kvo$fhq$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...

>
>Avyorth Rolinson wrote in message
<6ai9hs$bfo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>>khyenrab wrote in message
>
>
>Hello, my name is Annette and I have been following the postings on the NKT
>with some interest and often amusement. I lived at NKT centres from 1993 -
>96, and was a student on TTP during this time (resident at Manjushri centre
>'95 - 96).
>

>>Avyorth writes:
>>When I was a TTP student at Manjushri NKT Centre we were told in
>>the class
>>by Samten (the senior monk there) that KG had said that it was wrong
>>that
>>TTP students were reading books by teachers other than GK, and that such
>>action would damage GK's health.
>
>

>Yes, I was also there in that class (studying 'Guide to Dakini Land') when
>Samten delivered his speech. The class consisted mainly of people who'd
>been at the priory when Lama Yeshe was the spiritual guide and who had
>received initiations and teachings from other teachers. Some of these
>students, it could be argued, had a root-guru other than GKG. Samten made
>it very clear that, whatever initiations people had received in the past
and
>commitments they had taken, they had to accept GKG as their root-guru,
>practice their sadhanas in such a way as to put GKG at the centre of it
>(rather than visualizing their previous' gurus blessings) and stop relying
>on non-NKT books IF pure buddha-dharma (GKG's version) was to remain alive
>in this world. And yes, Samten did claim that continuing to include other
>teachers in our practice would have an adverse effect on GKG's health,
>possibly shortening his lifespan. Samten told us that these instructions
>came from GKG himself. The seriousness of Samten's words and the tone of
>his voice made many of the students uncomfortable and the atmosphere was
>subdued. Samten himself seemed embarrassed and uncomfortable having to
>deliver this talk. I was disturbed enough by the announcement to cycle to
>Ulverston Library after the class and drop off my one and only non-NKT
>dharma book ('Songs of Change' by the 7th Dalai Lama) to comply with my
root
>guru's instructions.
>
>>Khyenrab said:

>> I understand from several other people who were present at the same talk
>>given by Ven. Samten that this was never said. Their understanding is that
>>the emphasis during this talk was on encouraging students to focus on the
>>specific book under study at the time.
>

>I find it very difficult to believe how those Khyenrab spoke with could
have
>forgotten such unprecedented talk. I still have the clearest image of
>Samten on the throne looking white and even shaking as he issued GKG's
>instructions.
>
>

>>In a number of his books Geshe Kelsang recommends people read books other
>>than his own. Why would he say this if he thought it was wrong?
>

>The funny thing about the NKT is that it prints one thing and does another.
>
>Hoping this helps clarify some of the points raised
>
>Annette
>
>

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98

Apologies..my attempt to post under my name was unsuccessful.. looks like I
have to go back to the drawing board again.

Ciao, Annette

Alan Bird

unread,

Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98

Hi Annette,

Are you related to Avyorth in anyway?

Is he your parner?

Alan

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,

Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98

James Burns wrote in message ...
>

>The way His Holiness addresses the issue of Dorje Shugden to his own
>people is in marked contrast to the Hollwood/Gandhi type image that is
>carefully nurtured for his western audience. This makes it doubly
>difficult for people in the West to understand the real nature of what
>is taking place.
>

Hello James,

Why the use of "doubly difficult" - what was the previous cause of
difficulty that makes the "marked contrast" number two difficulty?

>As can be seen from part one of this post, His Holiness invokes
>superstitious and illogical beliefs in order to further his case. He
>says that devotion to Dorje Shugden injures his health and damages the
>cause of Tibet and incites his own people to aggressive acts that must
>inevitably cause violence.

James, have you ever heard of 'skillful means'? Or even of speaking to
people in terms of reference that they might understand? The Dalai Lama
walks a double-edged sword. On the one hand he is the spiritual and temporal
ruler of a people which still live largely within a feudalistic and
magico-mythic worldview. On the other hand he must enter into a political
world largely dominated by modern, rational-based societies eg the USA. The
future and culture of the Tibetan people, rightly or wrongly, rest to a
considerable extent with him and his ability to steer between the Scylla and
Charybdis of the 'two sword-edges'.

The Dalai Lama has not prevented anyone from following the tenets of Buddha
Shakyamuni - quite the opposite; he has played not a small role in the
propagation of (Tibetan) Buddhism. The banning of shugden practice by those
involved in the Tibetan 'state-in-exile' falls (for the time being) totally
and legally within the Dalai Lama's right as head of that state. In all
states, democratic or otherwise, the head of the state, party or whatever
sets boundaries on the views and activities of its officers of state, party,
etc. Try changing the iconography, pujas, or whatever of shugden and see how
your teachers respond!

Shugden practice, as Chris Fynn has repeated, is nowhere near a core tenet
or activity of the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism. It has often been
associated with intolerant and fanatical views and activities on the part of
shugden devotees - witness the NKT for one! The Dalai Lama's ban on this
practice by state officers seems to be an attempt on his part to create a
more open and inclusive platform for Tibetan society, of course like all
societies there will always be those who are unable or unwilling to practice
toleration and openness. In the UK for instance we have laws preventing
members of fascist organisations from holding government jobs. These people
are nevertheless free to hold their views (within the bounds of other
considerations eg the race relations acts).

Also, James, in your obvious antagonism towards the Dalai Lama (your sweet
words do not lay sufficient smokescreen) you again and again fail to mention
that the ban is not the work of the Dalai Lama alone. It has been instigated
by all the senior officers of the Gelugpa institution. As has been pointed
out repeatedly these officers are acting within the authority that their
position entitles them to act.

>
>He uses his political power to institute statutes that are, contrary to
>those of the United Nations, the country in which he lives, and his own
>democratic constitution.

If this were true, James, then why have none of the most vocal objectors to
the Dalai Lama, AND other senior Tibetan officers, not taken legal action
against such a ban? The very fact that such a step has not been taken (to
the best of my knowledge) demonstrates the falsehood of your above claim.

>The letters conclude by stipulating to the monastic authorities that
>they have the charge to insure that each and every monk is made aware of
>the recent pronouncements in Dharamsala on Dorje Shugden so that they
>will not have the excuse of not having heard it. In addition they are
>charged with the duty of ensuring the total implementation of the decree
>by everyone under their authority.

Dear James, rightly or wrongly, such practices occur in all social groups.
For example, many societies have a ban on the consumption of alcohol by
minors (juveniles) - this ban is repeated endlessly and statements can be
seen in many public places. The practice of alcohol consumption is
nevertheless widely engaged in by minors, and equally it is continuously
attacked by the state authorities. Those found guilty of breaking the ban,
be they minors or adults, are dealt with by the authorities. Why, just
recently here in Bristol, several shopkeepers were found guilty of supplying
alcohol to minors. They were fined, lost their licences to sell alcohol, had
their photographs published in the local paper.................... The
social consequences of allowing minors to consumme alcohol and the practice
of shugden devotion do actually seem to have much in common!

>May You Be Filled With Loving Kindness,
>May You Be Well,
>May You Be Peaceful And At Ease,
>And May You Have Happiness

May you one day understand the meaning of these words.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth

> --
>James Burns

James Burns

unread,

Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98

Spring 1996
===========

Having Formally implimented the ban on Dorje Shugden, the Dalai Lama
sets about rallying support for his ban. In Dharamsala on the 5th of
April he addressed The Women's Association and Tibetan Youth Congress
encouraging them to take up the task of enforcing the ban. During his
address he talks in praise of people giving up there life for him in the
furtherance of this cause.

On the same day a great act of religious vandalism takes place at the
Ganden Choeling Nunnery in Dharamsala. In this nunnery is a statue of
Dorje Shugden which has been consecrated and blessed by Kyabje Ling
Rinpoche, the senior tutor of the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche,
the junior tutor of the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Rato Rinpoche, and the
Venerable Kyabje Song Rinpoche.

The statue is stolen from the cell of the abbess during her absence and
dragged into the street by ropes attached to its neck. The statue is
desecrated and destroyed. It is spat on , sat on, broken into pieces and
thrown into the rubbish dump. The desecration is carried out by Losang
Dechen, the disciplinarian of the nunnery, assisted by Tenzin Tselha and
a newly arrived nun from Tibet Drolma Yangdzom.

The occupants of the local branch monastery of Ganden Shartse (Shartse
Khangsar) are subject to threats and intimidation because of their
devotion to Dorje Shugden. Due to the words and acts of His Holiness,
most of the sponsors of the monastery feel it is best to withdraw their
support.

The Dalai Lama's tactic in enforcing the ban is to ensure that as far as
possible the social, religious and political systems rallied to give
active support. These are the organisations over which he has economic
and cultural influence and control.

At the individual level he would attempt to ensure that the various
cultural organisations vetted their membership so that no Dorje Shugden
devotees were present. The campaigns main tools were signature campaigns
with the threat of loss of livelihood or even violence for those that
did not comply. Intimidation campaigns and trickery were also employed
to achieve the desired end. In some cases there were offerings of
'rewards' for those who would undertake the bidding of His Holiness.

Following the Government resolution of the 30th March banning all Dorje
Shugden devotees from being government employees, a signature campaign
is instituted requiring every government employee to sign a declaration
saying that they do not, and will not, ever worship Dorje Shugden. By
the middle of April a number of requests have arrived saying that some
people require more time to think about it. These requests land on deaf
ears, and the Government insists that these individuals need to choose
between their religious beliefs and His Holiness The Dalai Lama.
Effectively what this means is that if they do not give up Dorje Shugden
worship they will lose their jobs. All results and reports are sent to
the Private Office of the Dalai Lama.

Having allowed a further month for this process to become fully
effective the Kashag responds to accusations of religious repression on
the fourteenth of May by saying that.. 'there is not a single Government
employee who follows Dorje Shugden, as such losing jobs because of this
reason does not arise.'

In accord with the Dalai Lama's wishes, organisations such as the
'Tibetan Freedom Movement', the 'Guchusum Movement' and the 'Toepa
Association' ban the worship of Dorje Shugden within it's membership. On
the eighteenth of April a letter arrives from the Department of Health,
Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, to all
medical staff requiring them to make a written declaration that they do
not worship Dorje Shugden.

The employees of the Tibetan Childrens Village are required to take
loyalty oaths, and a door to door visitation is made in nearby Forsyth
Ganj declaring that those who continue to worship Dorje Shugden are
anti-Tibetan.

By the last week in April representatives from the Private Office of the
Dalai Lama start arriving in the monasteries and Tibetan settlements in
South India to attempt to enforce the ban. Serious friction and tension
develops between sections of the population and the government officers.

At Sera Monastery Mr Losang Khendrup of the Religious Council and Mr
Tenpa Zoepa from the Private Office of His Holiness meet with tha Abbot.
Mr Zoepa informs the Abbot that he is just a volunteer and is present in
an informal capacity. On this basis the Abbot allows Mr Zoepa to address
the monks in the main prayer hall regarding the recent government policy
on Dorje Shugden. During his presentation, Mr Zoepa announces that he is
present on Official Business and leaves blank forms for each monk to
sign. The forms require a declaration from each monk saying that they do
not and will not worship Dorje Shugden. The delegation then leave to
obtain signed declarations from the Government Employees in the
surrounding Tibetan settlements, saying that they will return at a later
date to collect the declarations from the monastery.

On the 26th April, Bari Rinpoche, a highly respected teacher, is asked
to preside over a 21 day exorcism against Dorje Shugden and the
practitioners of Dorje Shugden at Sera Monastery. The private office of
the Dalai Lama offer Bari Rinpoche special permission to be a candidate
at the following years Geshe Lharampa examinations, plus exemptions from
any further examinations of the Gelugpa Cultural Society, if he
complies. Bari Rinpoche finding the situation intolerable leaves for
Nepal

At Drepung Monastery the principle Abbot states that everyone must abide
by the ban, after the decree is officially read out. Drepung Loseling
College distrubutes the forms stipulating that anyone who does not sign
will immediately be expelled. In response a number of monks, including
the highly respected Buddhist master Dragpa Rinpoche, move to the nearby
Indian town.

The following day at Drepung Gomang College, in the main assembly hall
there is an announcement on the strict ban on the practice of Dorje
Shugden. The atmosphere throughout the monastery is one of intimidation
and repression. The monks are required to sign a declaration that they
will stop the worship of Dorje Shugden.

In the evening the house of the well known Dorje Shugden practitioner
Dagom Rinpoche is vandalised. Dagom Rinpoche is in Nepal at the time,
and his disciples complain to the Abbott about the destruction. The
Abbott ignores the complaints.

On the 25th of April, at Ganden Shartse Monastery the head monks convene
to discuss the situation surrounding the Dorje Shugden ban. They decide
that they will not do anything that will curtail the religious freedom
of its monks.

On the 1st of May the administrators of the Monastery are concerned that
there may be an adverse reaction to the impending visit of the
government in exiles representatives to discuss the Dorje Shugden ban.
The administration have no sympathy with the ban but are anxious that
nothing takes place that could result in damaging the monasteries
reputation. A resolution is passed that: ''If during the announcement
[by representatives of the government-in-exile] there is any action on
the part of anyone that will smear the reputation of Ganden Lachi, that
person will be expelled from the monastery."

In a similar vein the resolution urges no one to voice an opinion or ask
any questions of the delegation but to remain silent during the
presentation. Likewise anyone who may have any sympathy with the ban, or
supports the views of His Holiness, are asked to leave the monastery.

The representatives of His Holiness arrive the same morning accompanied
by approximately thirty armed police from Karnataka State Police force
and forty monks who support the Dalai Lama who are armed with clubs and
metal bars. This 'delegation' surround the main prayer hall and force
the resident monks to enter with their hands held up 'chinese style' as
they enter. The irony of the situation is not lost on those present.

During the reading of the ban, the armed police wander amongst the monks
in an intimidsating manner. Signature forms are distributed and the
Abbot urges the monks to sign.

Local children are told that the declaration forms are for foreign
sponsorships and are urged to sign. Not knowing any better some of them
do so. Officials return to the schoolroom at lunchtime to collect the
signatures.

When all the forms from Ganden Shartse are returned only 200 out of an
approximate 900 are signed. All this despite armed intimidation,
trickery and economic and political coercion.

May 4th:

Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, the 13-year old reincarnation of the Dalai
Lama's own Spiritual Guide, is called to the Private Office of the Dalai
Lama in Dharamsala. Among others, he is accompanied by Norbu Choepel and
Losang Tharchin the manager of Trijang Labrang.

The Dalai Lama explains his thoughts regarding Dorje Shugden to the
young Trijang Rinpoche. He further informs him that a divination by
lottery (messages wrapped in balls of dough which are picked out of a
vase) will be held to determine how the young monk is to proceed with
regard to Dorje Shugden. The divination is to take place in front of the
venerated statue called 'Kyirong Jowo' in the Dalai Lama's private
chapel.

The slips of paper to be wrapped in the dough balls will have only the
following options:-

1. Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche should stop worshipping Dorje Shugden;

2. Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche can worship, but only in total secret.

The boy is told that the divination will take place within the next few
days 'as soon as Venerable Lati Rinpoche returns from Mundgod (south
India) on the 7th'. He is told that whichever slip comes out during the
divination it will be final. He is further informed that even if the
dough ball containing the injunction: 'can worship, but only in total
secrecy' should come out, he amongst all Tibetans will be the only
exception.

During the meeting the Dalai Lama says that the 'old man' (referring to
the previous Trijang Rinpoche) had a 'green brain' (a Tibetan term for
senility). He also states that there is no reason for the young
reincarnation to follow the activities of the previous incarnation.

A day or so after this, and before Lati Rinpoche returned to Dharamsala,
the young Rinpoche and his attendants leave Dharamsala for south India.

The divination is never carried out, and the young re-incarnation does
not return to Dharamsala.

=======================================

May You Be Filled With Loving Kindness,
May You Be Well,
May You Be Peaceful And At Ease,
And May You Have Happiness

--
James Burns

James Burns

unread,

Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 1

The vehemence of the Ban and the intransigence of His Holiness caused
considerable suffering and concern in many sections of the exiled
community. On the 9th of May representatives of Shugden practitioners
from various parts of India convened a meeting in New Delhi to discuss
what action to take. They resolved to counter the persecution and try as
far as possible to convince the Dalai Lama and the exiled Government to
remove the ban. In the hope of opening up dialogue with His Holiness
they send a letter and petition to him the next day.

A further letter is sent as a follow up on the 20th of May. On the 23rd
May the Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society (Dorje
Shugden Society) is formally registered in Delhi. The next day the Dorje
Shugden Society receives a Tibetan original of a decree from the Kashag,
announcing that there will now be a complete ban on the worship of Dorje
Shugden. The decree is dated May 22nd and is authorised under the name
of Kalon (Cabinet Minister) Sonam Topgyal,

The ban emphasises that 'concepts like democracy and freedom of religion
are empty when it concerns the well-being of the Dalai Lama and the
common cause of Tibet'. The ban quotes extensively from the March 21st
address, but there are a number of serious alterations in the original
message from the Dalai Lama.

At about the same time that Dorje Shugden Society holds it's pre-
inaugural meeting, the Tibetan Youth Congress holds a special meeting
with representatives from all of their branches. They pass a resolution
that they will help implement the Dalai Lama's Ban in every Tibetan
settlement. A campaign of House to House searches is initiated, and
statues, paintings and other holy objects relating to Dorje Shugden are
removed, burned or desecrated from ordinary peoples homes.

In Dharamsala the Dalai Lama gives a talk in the main temple to about
600 people. The Dalai Lama refers to an alleged supplement to the
biography of Phabongkha Rinpoche, which he had brought with him. The
supplement supposedly alleges that during an invocation of Dorje Shugden
by a Shugden oracle there was an announcement about the impending death
of the 13th Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama interprets the words 'announced
in a high-pitched voice' to be 'an unbridled exclamation of joy'. The
Dalai Lama then asks whether a deity that rejoiced at the impending
death of a Dalai Lama is worthy to be considered a deity at all'.

This address causes consternation among Shugden worshippers and creates
an increased atmosphere of resentment against them within the local
Tibetan community.

Matters are made more inflammatory by the wide distribution of tapes of
this and other similar talks. A small pamphlet containing the utterances
of the Dalai Lama's oracles is also distributed along with a book
containing a selection of the Dalai Lama's addresses against Dorje
Shugden. A video of one of the Dalai Lama's talks on Dorje Shugden is
also made readily available.

Despite all of this the Dorje Shugden Society again write to His
Holiness on the 30th May and the 5th June in order to try and upon up
negotiations to try and reconcile matters. They also write to a wide
range of Tibetan support groups and cultural centres to make then aware
of what is happening. They hope that some support may be forthcoming.
The governments' decrees are also translated into English and sent to
human rights groups, religious freedom groups, and Buddhist groups in
the west.

On the 28th of May Geshe Cheme Tsering, Secretary of the Dorje Shugden
Society tries to travel to the west to make people more aware of the
situation. He is unable to do so because The Kashag Secretariat in New
Delhi blocks the provision of the necessary documentation.

At a meeting in Dharamsala in June, a retired Tibetan Minister, Mr
Kundeling expresses his concern about the Governments new policy
regarding the suppression of Dorje Shugden. A few days later he is
stabbed and badly wounded in an attack at his house in Rajpur.

Despite the letters and petitions sent to The Dalai Lama Office and
Tibetan Government Departments no meaningful communication is
established. Similarly requests for audiences are made on several
occasions and all are refused. The Dorje Shugden Society feeling that
they have met a complete impasse are therefore compelled to write to the
Indian authorities to make them aware of what is happening.

Letters are sent:-

On June 16th to the Governors of Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka states.

On June 17th to:-

The President of India,
The Prime Minister,
The Minister for External Affairs,
The Minister for Home Affairs,
The National Human Rights Commission (also additional fax),
National Commission for Women

On June 28th to the Indian Intelligence Bureau.

On July 1st to the Indian Human Rights Commission.

==================================================

James Burns

unread,

Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 2

On the 13th of July Samdong Rinpoche, Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament,
meets with local Tibetan Dignitaries in New Delhi. He advises them how
they should address the local Tibetan community regarding the Dorje
Shugden issue, and how they should convey the Dalai Lama's views. He
says that the explanation should be clear and that there should be no
use of abusive words. No pressure should be used, but the Tibetans in
the Delhi area need to be persuaded to give up the practice of Dorje
Shugden. He advises that the dignitaries need to be careful not to
quarrel with the people they speak to, but they need to make it clear
that a choice needs to be made between the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden.

Samdong Tulku also lets it be know that the Government are well aware of
the impending demonstrations in the area. He urges them to convince the
public not to take part in any demonstration and that they should do
what they can to have them stopped. He lets them know that a
demonstration is planned in Mundgod, and that the exiled government is
doing everything to block it. He says "Therefore they will not succeed."

The reference of Samdong Rinpoche to a demonstration in Mundgod, was to
a peace march that had been planned by ordinary monks in the area. The
plan was to make their grievances known to the Tibetan and local Indian
public about what they regarded as the 'ignoble' ban of the Dalai Lama
against their religious freedom.

The local representative of the Dalai Lama however had contacted the
Indian authorities and misinformed them that the demonstrators were
'pro-Chinese', 'anti-Dalai Lama' and against the Tibetan cause. The
Dalai Lama's representative in South India Mr Samkhar, said that the
march would 'start fighting among Tibetans in Mundgod'. Mr. Samkhar
while trying to convince the organisers to call of the march, made it
clear that the Tibetan Kashag would, never the less, show no flexibility
towards the concerns of the marchers.

At Drepung Gomang monastery, anonymous posters appeared saying that the
leaders of the planned peace march should be stoned to death.

The local authorities, more under deference to the representatives of
the Dalai Lama, than out of any conviction of their own, consult with
their superiors in Bangalore and impose a dawn to dusk curfew in the
entire Mundgod Tibetan settlement. The curfew is also extended to the
local Indian population, many of whom wanted to take part in the peace
march the next day.

An announcement is also made within the settlement that any Tibetan monk
who participated in the peace march would be expelled from their
monastery.

Despite the tremendous pressures that are mounted, the next morning July
14th around four hundred monks from Ganden Shartse, Gaden Jhangtse and
the Dorje Shugden Society start a peace march between 5am and 6am
throughout the Tibetan settlement at Mundgod.

As a result of the march pressure is exerted on the Abbot and
Disciplinarian of Ganden Jhangste Monastic college by the supporters of
His Holiness The Dalai Lama. Both the Abbot and the Disciplinarian were
threatened with 'dire consequences' if they did not fall in line with
the Ban of the Dalai Lama. As a result the Abbot reluctantly agrees to
expel eleven monks who had taken part in the march. The charge for the
expulsion is 'protesting against the Dalai Lama'.

On July 29th nine hundred monks from Sera Monastery conduct a peaceful
demonstration in protest at a speech given by Samdong Rinpoche which
reiterates the Dalai Lama's Ban on the Practice of Dorje Shugden.

On July 30th seven hundred monks from Ganden Monastery conduct a
peaceful demonstration against the Dorje Shugden Ban.

===================================================================

Mick_G

unread,

Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98

Why is it that this whole message just stinks like week old fish?

Mick

James Burns wrote in message ...
>

The Puddies

unread,

Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98

Mick_G wrote in message <6bsnau$7...@bolivia.earthlink.net>...

>Why is it that this whole message just stinks like week old fish?
>
>Mick

Hi Mick,

It is because the whole thing IS old and getting older by the day. Some
people think they will convince people by the "in your face" method.

Evelyn

Saraha Buddhist Center

unread,

Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98

In <6bsrjl$o6c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> "The Puddies"

<pud...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>
>Mick_G wrote in message <6bsnau$7...@bolivia.earthlink.net>...
>>Why is it that this whole message just stinks like week old fish?
>>
>>Mick
>
>Hi Mick,
>
>It is because the whole thing IS old and getting older by the day.
Some
>people think they will convince people by the "in your face" method.
>
>Evelyn

This issue is not old, neither is it fishy.

In fact, my understanding is that the Spring issue of Tricycle magazine
will report quite extensively on this controversy. Within a week or two
we will have an opportunity to read about it for the first time (I
think) in a reputable national (US) magazine. I am very glad about this
because while some people in this ng may be tired, that does not make
the issue old for those who are affected by it.

We can continue to practice patience happily and give everyone who
needs it an opportunity to seek resolution to this issue. I believe it
will be resolved as soon as it becomes clear that the practice of Dorje
Shugden is authentic and of great benefit to all living beings. He is
Manjushri, the Buddha of Wisdom. Those who believe otherwise need not
worry because Dorje Shugden never has and never will harm anyone but
constantly protects all living beings without discrimination.

May everyone be happy and free from misery.

Togden

Mick_G

unread,

Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98

No Saraha, I'm not talking about the issue, but the original post. I pay
very little attention to personal posts couched as though they were
authoritative news reports. Brings up many questions, who is this person,
are they in New Delhi to read a local paper about the Indian Parliament, if
not who did write the original article, was it maybe written by an anti HHDL
group???? Maybe the PRC propagandist?

Mick

Saraha Buddhist Center wrote in message
<6btgff$9...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...

James Burns

unread,

Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 3.

An Indian Newspaper commenting on the Dorje Shugden ban during July
estimates that somewhere in the region of twenty percent of the exiled
community in Indian are devotees of Dorje Shugden. It goes on to state
that "probably because of their refugee status and the Dalai Lama's
public image, the Indian Government has not extended any support to
these monks who claim that their fundamental right to have religious
freedom is being violated by their own leader".

The Dalai Lama stakes much on his own influence and prestige in being
able to introduce such radical reform into the Gelugpa Tradition of
Tibetan Buddhism. News of the extent Dalai Lama's actions mainly become
apparent to people in the West through Internet postings. The Western
media do not realise the full extent of what is happening mainly due to
the fact that most information is initially gathered second hand from
the 'official', 'semi-official' and informal sources of the Exiled
Government. This of necessity gives a one sided view of the situation.

None the less there are also minor demonstrations in the West, and
concern is felt by westerners following the Gelugpa Tradition. The Dalai
Lama is keen to marginalise any opposition and expresses his views
clearly at a meeting at Caux, Switzerland on July 14th.

The Dalai Lama in a closed meeting speaks to the legislative members of
the Tibetans in Switzerland. An extract from the working papers
circulated after the meeting reads:

'Everyone who is affiliated with the Tibetan society of the Ganden
Phodrang government (Tibetan government), should relinquish ties with
Dhogyal. This is necessary since it poses danger to the religious and
temporal situation of Tibet. As for foreigners, it makes no difference
to us if they walk with their feet up and their head down. We have
taught Dharma to them, not they to us. ...

'Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also,
continue this policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to
ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dhogyal is
remembered.'

Around the same time an inflammatory resolution is passed in the Tibetan
exiled Parliament. It is tabled by Yonten Phuntsog and seconded by
Tsering Phuntsog. It reads as follows:-

'In essence, government departments, organisations/associations,
monasteries and their branches under the direction of the exile Tibetan
government should abide by the ban against the worship of Dhogyal. For
individual 'natives', the harm to the cause of Tibet, harm to the
wellbeing of the Dalai Lama and encouragement of the spirits of China,
should be explained to them through reason and quotes. What they decide
for themselves thereafter is only up to them; to use coercion may be
inappropriate. However, if the person is a worshipper of Dhogyal, they
should be urged never to come to any teachings, such as Tantric
empowerments, given by the Dalai Lama.'

This document states that 'coercion may be inappropriate'. This
statement falls far short of what it could have said: 'coercion is
inappropriate'. It would give the impression to some people that under
certain circumstances 'coercion would be appropriate'. In diplomatic
terms such statements are usually interpreted as incitements to
aggression.

The twelfth session of the assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies
Parliament in Dharamsala proposes the following modification to the
Tibetan Democratic Constitution, Article 63, Clause 2. The Modified
Form to read:-

"The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission, and the two juries,
should in addition to being Tibetans, should not be a worshipper of
Gyalchen Shugden.."

The school of Dialectics in Dharamsala sends out a recruitment letter to
various monasteries at the end of July looking for prospective
candidates. The letter stipulates that the candidates must not be
worshippers of Dhogyal (derogatory term for Dorje Shugden).

One of the most consistently critical oracles of Dorje Shugden devotion
is the female oracle for the long life protectoress Tsering Chenma.
During preparations for the Kalachakra initiation in Lahul Spiti, this
oracle alleges that some thirty members of the Dorje Shugden Society
will attack the Dalai Lama during the initiation. On the basis of the
Oracles pronouncements, alarm is fuelled and elaborate security measures
are taken. No weapons are found and there is nobody from the Dorje
Shugden Society present.

In August, The 'Secret Society of Eliminators of the External and
Internal Enemies of Tibet' makes public its death threats against the
two young incarnations of highly realised masters, lineage holders of
the tradition which Dorje Shugden protects, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (age
13), and Song Rinpoche (age 11). Thus following on from the inconclusive
meeting between His Holiness The Dalai Lama and the young reincarnation
of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche in May the two young lamas are forced to
leave their traditional studies in India and travel to the west.

The document from the Society reads:-

'Anyone who goes against the policy of the government must be singled
out one-pointedly, opposed and given the death penalty ... As for the
reincarnations of Trijang and Song Rinpoche, if they do not stop
practising Dhogyal and continue to contradict with the word of H.H. the
Dalai Lama, not only will we not be able to respect them, but their life
and activities will suffer destruction. This is our first warning.'

On the 4th-6th of October, the Council of Gelug Masters in Europe, hold
their 14th council at Lagenfield. They are concerned about the disunity
and lack of harmony in the Tibetan communities that is being caused by
the Dorje Shugden issue. The feel that the situation has escalated to an
extent where 'indifference bears unacceptable risks'. The meeting passes
a resolution unanimously to bring their concerns to His Holiness The
Dalai Lama. The council seek to have an audience with His Holiness
concerning the issue, and to put forward their point of view.

The special appeal is made to His Holiness The Dalai Lama by:-

H.E. Dayab Kyabgon Rinpoche.
Ven. Dagpo Rinpoche.
Ven. Gonsar Rinpoche.
Ven. Thomtog Rinpoche.
Ven. Panglung Rinpoche.
Ven. Gyelsur Rinpoche.
Ven. Phukang Kentrul Rinpoche.
Ven. Dragom Rinpoche.
Ven. Zaseb Rinpoche.
Ven. Geshe Thubten Trinlay.
Ven. Geshe Jampa Gyatso.
Ven. Geshe Tamdin Gyatso.
Ven. Yonten Gyatso.
Ven. Geshe Jampa Senge.
Ven. Geshe Ngwawang Sherab.
Ven. Tenzin Yangdak.

The audience is denied.

In India, the Dorje Shugden Society meets with abbots from the great
monastic universities. In a similar manner to their counterparts in
Europe, the Abbots request an audience with the Dalai Lama to discuss
the issue.

The audience is denied.

All previous requests directly by the Dorje Shugden Society for
audiences concerning this matter were also denied.

=======================================

James Burns

unread,

Feb 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/18/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 4.

The events in the latter part of 1996 have been quite well documented on
the Internet. The actions of the Tibetan Youth Congress and anonymous
groups caused consternation, concern and suffering throughout the exiled
Community. Many Dorje Shugden devotees found themselves outcasts within
their own society and subjects of ridicule and abuse.

In other areas where the predominant social groupings were those of
Dorje Shugden devotees, they found themselves, through know fault of
their own, being cut off from the 'official' social bodies which
harboured their sincerest wishes and aspirations for their Tibetan
homeland. These were the families of people who had travelled vast
distances, experienced great hardship, and given up everything to follow
His Holiness to India. To them His Holiness was or had been the symbol
of hope for the future of their culture. It is difficult to image how
perplexed and bewildering the full extent of the Dalai Lama's actions
must have had on these people.

The Dorje Shugden Society was active distributing, as best it could,
information relating to the Ban. It showed the invalidity of the Ban on
ethical, religious, political and humanitarian grounds. Most, if not all
of the points raised, remain unanswered.

The respected Tibetan scholar Dr. Losang Thubten was one of the
contributors to this process. Although Dr Thubten is only one of many
individuals to suffer at the hands of His Holiness's 'enforcers', the
way that he has been harried and persecuted casts a sad reflection on
the exiled community. Despite the fact that what happened to Dr. Thubten
and his family has been widely publicised in the Press in India, and
also on the Internet, the Dalai Lama still maintains that he is unaware
of any such violence directed at Dorje Shugden devotees as a result of
his Ban.

On the night of November 7th 1996, Dr. Thubten's house in Clementown is
attacked by a group of approximately fifteen masked men. Dr Thubtens
daughter and her cousin are inside the house. Barricades are erected on
the outside so that they cannot escape. A petrol bomb is thrown at the
door. Somehow the fire fails to spread. The house is bombarded by rocks
for several hours, while the assailants shout that the whole family will
be killed if they do not stop worshipping Dorje Shugden. The attackers
speak in an Amdo-Tibetan dialect. Death is repeatedly threatened as the
consequence of not abiding by the Dalai Lama's Ban.

The authorities in Delhi raise the incident with the exiled Government
in Dharamsala and they agree to hold an enquiry. However this never
takes place and His Holiness subsequently maintains that no such
incidents have ever occurred.

There is concern regarding the stance taken by the local Tibetan
Represenatative Office, Tibetan Youth Congress and Tibetan Womens'
Association towards Dr. Thubten and his family. The local police inform
him that the do not think that they will be able to protect him and his
family, but will try and protect his house. On this advice he goes and
lives with friends in Delhi.

In an uprecedented move for a Dalai Lama, he travels south on November
19th-21st to the monastic universities without any traditional
invitation.

In the hopes of a reconciliation speech, devotees of Dorje Shugden call
off a proposed peace march at that time. They published this intention
in the local paper so that everyone is aware of their actions and hopes.
They call personally on the Deputy Commissioner as well as the SP of
Karwar to assure the concerned authorities about this good will gesture.
The headquarters of the Shugden Society in Delhi even send a delegation
to request an audience with the Dalai Lama, in the hope that there may
be a reconciliation during the visit.

The Private Secretary, Mr Lobsang Jinpa, tells the delegation there is
no point in seeing His Holiness unless they give up their worship of
Dorje Shugden.

On Nov. 20th, at Drepung lama camp, the Dalai Lama gives teachings and
talk from 8am to 11am. The highlight of his talk is two topics:

a) On his part, the Dalai Lama said, he was no longer striving
for complete independence for Tibet from China. Tibetans, in
view of their small population ,large land mass, lack of natural
resources, need for industrialisation, should therefore again
much more by striving for genuine autonomy under China
rather than complete independence. As times change later on,
independence can be mooted;

b) During this year's new year teachings, I spoke against the
worship of Shugden, and expressed my feeling. I did not ask
the Tibetan exile. Cabinet or the exile Tibetan parliament, to
enforce the ban. However, they voluntarily supported me. I
appreciate their show of support. Likewise, among the abbots,
there have been many who gave up worship of Shugden after
my talks, I give them my thanks for their compliance.

In significant contradiction to allegations made by the exile
Tibetan govt. earlier this year that the worship of Dorje
Shugden poses danger to the Dalai Lama's well-being, the Dalai
Lama himself assured the public that 'there in no need to
worry about his well being', adding further that 'he is
confident of living up to the age of eighty' at least.

Address By The Dalai Lama
Nov. l9th - 2lst Lama Camp
No.1 Main Prayer Hall.

Excerpts:

'When I was visiting sera monastery (in Byalakupee, Nov.15-
18, 1996), a representative of Shartse and Jhangtse monastery
called upon me, formally inviting me to visit these two
Monasteries. I playfully asked them about recent demonstration
against my officers...

'This time I will visit Shartse; in the future, however, if the
monastery continue to worship Dorje Shugden, build images
of this deity, then I must decline to visit Shartse. In that case,
neither they should invite me, nor will I come even if invited.

'Likewise, in Tibet in the future, if any Monastery worships
Dorje Shugden, neither they should entertain any hopes of
inviting me, and even if invited, I shall not feel comfortable
accepting such invitations.

'Likewise if there are still people who feel they cannot give
up this worship who feel they will continue to worship Dorje
Shugden, I do not see any benefit for them to remain under
the auspices of Ganden Phodrang Tibetan govt.

'You might feel that by published letter, pamphlets etc., against
this ban, the Dalai Lama will revoke this ban. This will never
be the case. If you take a hard stand, I will tighten this ban
still further.'

After these words, the Dalai Lama stood up from this throne, and
pointing at his left and the right, asked' which is Shartse and
which is Jhangtse '. Then, pointing towards the Shartse section
,His Holiness remarked:' I warn you, elder monks of Shartse. You
must not say one thing and do another. The elder monks should
change their mind, and guide the junior monks'.

James Burns

Mick_G

unread,

Feb 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/18/98

Do you expect anyone to pay attention to this. You start your post with the
line:

"The events in the latter part of 1996 have been quite well documented on

the Internet. " Now I'm sorry but this kind of an opening does nothing for
me but throw up red flags. This could very well mean nothing more than you
have posted previous messages, that could for all I know have been total
fabrications. How am I to deduce this entire message? Who are you, what are
your motives, how were any of the so called facts have been found out. Is
there any article in a newspaper, or TV or radio or anywhere where I can
confirm anything you are saying? I find your post vaguely suspicious of the
usual anti HHDL propaganda that is distributed regularly by the Communist
Government in Beijing in an effort to diminish the standing of the Tibetan
Government in Exile.

Now if this is nothing more than your suppositions about the subject then
couch it as such. Don't post this as some kind of authoritative post, like
it was a news report. I'm afraid for most thinking people you are not
helping your cause one bit.

Mick

James Burns wrote in message ...
>

James Burns

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 5.

Many believe that His Holiness is unduly influenced by Oracles
in particular the virulent anti- Dorje Shugden Oracle Tsering
Chenma. This oracle has been found to be unreliable and deficient in
the past.

It is remarkable that His Holiness 'seems' to have been making very
important decisions based on the pronouncements coming from this oracle.

Earlier in the year a nun went missing from the Ganden Choling Nunnery
in Dharamsala. People were concerned about her and asked the oracle of
Tsering Chenma to discover what had happened to her.

The oracle declared that 'she was no longer of this world' and
recommended that funeral rites be performed for her. This
was duly done. Then two days after her possessions were sold in
the market place in Macleod Ganj, she turned up safe and sound.

November 96:

The Dalai Lama attends the last day of six weeks of practices in
connection with the invocation of Tamdrin Yamtsang, the day on which the
rituals that include the 'removal of the tormas' are performed.

Those present included 75 monks from Sera-je, monks from Nechung
Monastery, and also 6 or 7 oracles of 'deities' regarded as holy
by the Dalai Lama. They proceeded to go into trance.

One of these is the female oracle of the deity Tsering Chenma. It was
this oracle which originally made the statement, accepted by the Dalai
Lama, that practice of Dorje Shugden is against the cause of Tibet. The
oracle again began attacking Dorje Shugden concluding that 'even within
this congregation there are still those who practise Dorje Shugden'.

Another female oracle, that of a deity called Yudonma, then began
pointing to a highly venerated Lama called Jangmar Rinpoche from
Drepung Loseling, aged late 60's - early 70's, and originally
from Gyeltang in Eastern Tibet, and began shouting 'This Lama
is bad, he is following Dorje Shugden, take him out, take him
out'.

She then started pulling his robes and grabbing his head.
He then got up and slapped her twice. A scuffle then broke out
between Jangmar Rinpoche and his assistants on one side, and the
oracle and monks from Nechung Monastery on the other.

There was uproar in the Temple; all of this going on in front
of the Dalai Lama. Jangmar Rinpoche was shoved out of the Temple
and the scuffle between him and the oracle continued outside.

Jangmar Rinpoche was heard to say that 'It is you spirits who
are causing all this mess. It is you who is causing disharmony.
You spirits cannot be trusted.' He then threatened to take the
oracles to court.

Later, the Dalai Lama told Jangmar Rinpoche that it was the oracles and
not Jangmar Rinpoche who were at fault and requested him not to take
them to court.

Jangmar Rinpoche finally agreed.

His Holiness had began the Ban by making it clear that Dorje Shugden
devotion was damaging both to his own health and the Cause of Tibet. By
the last week in November he had refuted the first claim and put the
responsibility for its proliferation at the feet of his Government. The
latter argument, regarding damage to the Tibetan cause, still seemed to
hold a tenuous relevance for His Holiness.

The rationality given to the Ban was based on the proclamation of the
Oracles and personal divination. These arguments lacked any great
reliability or credibility, especially when exposed to rational,
historical or ecclesiastical scrutiny. The Dalai Lama was therefore
urged to consider other possible explanations for the phenomena that
inspired him with such weight and relevance.

I quote from a document that went into circulation in late November. The
document questioned the validity of the emphasis placed on Dorje Shugden
by the Dalai Lama and the lack of a proper rationale in the debate :-

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

The Tibetan Government asserts that Gyalchen Dorje Shugden is
seeking vengence on the 14th Dalai Lama as a result of the jealousy
of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen towards the 5th Dalai Lama and because
of the jealousy between the Upper and Lower Labrangs in Drepung.

Let us examine the situation more closely:-

Is this true, or are the Tibetan Government distorting the facts in
order to avoid responsibility for their own negative actions? If there
really is a protector harming the Dalai Lama could it be a case of
mistaken identity? Could it be that another aggrieved protector is
seeking vengence on the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government and that
Gyalchen is being falsely accused of these actions?

Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, who was assasinated by the Tibetan Government
and then arose as the protector Dorje Shugden led a blameless
and pure monastic life without any interest in politics or mundane
affairs. We can read in his biography and other historical accounts
that he spent his life in meditation, retreat and teaching the
dharma.

His only *crime* was to be such a pure and perfect lama that he
began to receive offerings and respect from the Mongolians and
the general Tibetan people equal to that of the Fifth Dalai Lama.
This was the period when the Dalai Lamas were consolidating their
political power in Tibet and so the attendants of the Fifth Dalai
Lama were worried that such a popular and pure lama as Tulku Dragpa
Gyaltsen might represent a threat to the Dalai Lama power as he
had the people's affection. For this reason they assasinated him
and completely destroyed his labrang and even threw his stupa
in a river.

Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a manifestation of the Bodhisattva Manjushrui
as well as the reincarnation of many great scholars and siddhas
like Mahasiddha Biwapa, Sakya Pandita, Dulzin Dragpa Gyaltsen
and Panchen Sonam Dragpa whose philosophical works are still studied
by the monks of Drepung to this day. His main interest while
reincarnated in human form was to preserve the pure lineages of the
Buddha's sutra and tantra teachings and after he arose in the form of a
dharma protector he still maintained his great bodhisattva mind
and his strict sense of monastic purity according to the vinaya
- therefore of the lamas and lay people who were punished by him
it was because they degenerated or harmed the gelugpa lamas, teachings
or sangha.

Gyalchen Dorje Shugden as the mind generation of Manjushri is
incapable of acting out of base worldly motives such as vindictiveness
or revenge.

There are plenty of other protectors who acted as the personal
protectors of lamas who were truly opposed to the Tibetan Government
and the Dalai Lama and so who may truly be seeking vengence against
the Tibetan Government, for example:-

1. In Tibet the Tibetan government destroyed the Timo Labrang
(the Labrang of Gelek Rinpoche's father) and confiscated its land,
greater than a kingdom; naturally the labrang's protector was
furious. This protector called Nyching Tsingmara was subdued and
bound to the dharma by Guru Rinpoche and originates from Samye
together with Pehar. After the destruction of Timo Labrang this
protector refused to speak anymore to the Tibetan Government through
his human oracle and would just make wrathful gestures, faces
and sounds towards the government representatives - perhaps the
Tibetan Government should consider this more closely.

2. When Gyalpo Sumo Ling, a high lama of Sera-Me received a lot
of problems from the Tibetan Government, his protector Tawa Chogyal
was furious with the Tibetan Government - perhaps the Tibetan
Government should consider this more closely.

3. When the regent of Tibet, Reting Rinpoche, the one who was
recognised the 14th Dalai Lama, was killed in a very cruel way
by the Tibetan Government and his monastery was completely destroyed,
all the protectors of Reting monastery were furious with the Tibetan
Government - perhaps the Tibetan Government should consider this
more closely.

4. At the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama the Tibetan Government
completely destroyed the Jonangpa sect headed by Jonang Taranatha
and issued an official declaration sealed by the Fifth Dalai Lama
banning the propitiation of Mahakala Trashik, the Jonangpa protector.
Mahakala Trashik was naturally furious with the Tibetan Government
- perhaps the Tibetan Government should consider this more closely.

5. When the monastery of Gyalwa Sharmapa was destroyed by the
Tibetan Government and they officially banned the recognition
of his future incarnations; Chapamela and all the other Kargyu
protectors were furious - perhaps the Tibetan Government should
consider this more closely.

6. When in the 50s the monastic college of Sera-je sided with
Reting Rinpoche and fought with the Tibetan Governmernt, the lamas
and monks of Sera-je made many requests to their protector Tamdrin
Chamsin to destroy the Tibetan Government by the power of the
truth - perhaps the Tibetan Government should consider this more
closely.

7. When the Tibetan Goverment ordered the military to go to Tashilhunpo
and bring back the head of Panchen Chokyi Nyima to Lhasa he had
to flee and spent the last years of his life in exile in Mongolia
and Tibet. All the protectors of Tashilhunpo (including Dorje
Shugden) were furious with the Tibetan Government - perhaps the
Tibetan Government should consider this more closely.

8. These days in Dharamsala, the Gadong protector is manifesting
through the Gadong kuten but is refusing to speak - why is this?
Perhaps the Tibetan Government should consider this more closely.

9. Guru Rinpoche destroyed most of the Bon divinities and gurus
when he came to Tibet on the invitation of king Songtsen Gampo
(who is considered to be a previous incarnation of the present
Dalai Lama) the Bon protectors were furious and vowed to destroy
the Tibetan Government, many bad signs arose - perhaps the Tibetan
Government should consider this more closely.

10. Nabtrul (Nara Chagtul) Rinpoche tried to kill the 13th Dalai
Lama by black magic, but government agents discovered a magic
mandala in the heel of Nabtul Rinpoche's boot with the Dalai Lama's
name on it and removed it. He was executed in the Barkor by slowly,
over many days, having small strips of flesh cut from his body.
Before he died he vowed to arise as a gyalpo divinity who would
destroy the Tibetan Government and nowadays the Gyalpo Nara Chagtul
is very powerful and active in carrying our his previous dedication.
For example, many times the Nechung Oracle, the protector of the
Tibetan Government gives bad advice as the Gyalpo Nara Chagtul
goes inside the body of the oracle and pretends to be Nechung.
Gyalpo Nara Chagtul is a very powerful spirit and even Ling Rinpoche,
the manifestation of Yamantaka was unable to destroy him - perhaps
the Tibetan Government should consider this more closely.

11. In the Palden Lhamo divination text written by Gendun Gyatso,
the 2nd Dalai Lama, many times the answer of the mo is Gyalpo
Pehar is harming you! Who said this? - Palden Lhamo!

In summary there are many protectors who have reason to harm both
the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government and for them because
they live for thousands of years, whether one year or a thousand
years have passed is of no importance if they have not finished
what they set out to achieve; therefore we think that before the
Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government blame Gyalchen Dorje Shugden
for the harms they are receiving (not even mentioning of course
their own karma) they should also research what all the above
mentioned protectors are doing. - perhaps the Tibetan Government
should consider this more closely!!!!!

The Puddies

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

Hello again James,

James Burns wrote in message ...

>Many believe that His Holiness is unduly influenced by Oracles
>in particular the virulent anti- Dorje Shugden Oracle Tsering
>Chenma. This oracle has been found to be unreliable and deficient in
>the past.

Duhhhhh..... No! you mean a psychic was actually WRONG????? I wonder why I
am not surprised by this..... But you cannot expect to change the cultural
traditions of a whole group of people to suit yourselves. Consulting
oracles is a part of that culture and I hardly think your complaints will
change that.

>It is remarkable that His Holiness 'seems' to have been making very
>important decisions based on the pronouncements coming from this oracle.

In almost all countries, in all traditions, in all cultures, some form of
divination is used.
There is no guarantee that it is accurate. Sometimes it is incredibly
accurate for one person and utterly innaccurate for another.

In cultures like that of Tibet, it is not at all unusual for leaders to
consult traditional oracles or in modern terminology, a "psychic" to receive
guidance on some difficult situation or other. It serves many purposes,
first it gives the people an endorsement from what is perceived as 'the
other world', and secondly it takes the onus off the leader if they make a
wrong decision. In some cases there is some genuine insight.

Complaining about the process can be said to have some validity in OUR
society, but in Tibetan culture, it is as respectable as 'market research'
would be here.

You folks are aware that we are talking about TIBETANS here, are you not?

What surprises me no end, is that here you are, doing a mind practice which
shows all the earmarks of spirit worship, mind control, obsession (and
rudrahood), and yet you complain about an oracle? Somehow this strikes me
as awfully hypocritical.

(rest of this endless ranting snipped)

>In summary there are many protectors who have reason to harm both
>the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government and for them because
>they live for thousands of years, whether one year or a thousand
>years have passed is of no importance if they have not finished
>what they set out to achieve; therefore we think that before the
>Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government blame Gyalchen Dorje Shugden
>for the harms they are receiving (not even mentioning of course
>their own karma) they should also research what all the above
>mentioned protectors are doing. - perhaps the Tibetan Government
>should consider this more closely!!!!!

You have been told and re-told many times, that visualized deities are not
'real' excepting for the reality you lend them by your mental energies.
None of your group seems to understand that basic fact.

However, the harm done by your insistence on doing this practice is very
real indeed. It harms the cause of Tibet, harms HH Dalai Lama, and harms
the dharma.

Give it up and find another practice which is not controversial, one which
has no negative connotations. The Tibetan Government is not going to
change its mind. There are good reasons, which are obvious to those who do
NOT do this practice, and seemingly invisible to those who DO it. Many
people have told you this.

It is so sad that you cannot hear any of them.

Evelyn

James Burns

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 6.

The end of 1996 and the beginning of 1997 see the widening of serious
divisions within the exiled community. Sections of the population are in
open revolt against His Holiness.

On the 5th February 1997, the Director of the Buddhist school of
Dialectics in Dharamsala the Ven. Lobsang Gyatso is found murdered with
two of his attendants. The murders take place in the middle of
Dharamsala at the Dialectics School which is adjacent to and immediately
below Namgyal monastery. The Exiled Government immediately links these
murders with the Dorje Shugden Society despite the fact that there is
no evidence whatsoever to provide a connection.

On the 9th of February approximately forty police officers, including
the police Chief from Dharamsala travel down to Delhi to arrest the
leaders of the Dorje Shugden Society. The arrest is made at
approximately one o'clock in the morning. The Dharamsala police have the
intention of taking the accused directly to Dharamsala without informing
the local authorities. Due to some good fortune this intention is
thwarted and the five accused appear soon after in a Delhi Court where
they are released without charge on anticipatory bail.

On February 14th, the five leaders go voluntarily to Dharamsala to co-
operate with the investigation and clear their names. Despite their
willingness to co-operate, they are held illegally under strict security
for nearly two weeks without proper food, water or facilities. They are
refused permission to see their lawyer and since they are not detained
in a police station a writ of habeas corpus cannot be raised on their
behalf.

The Tibetan Government alleges that fourteen of its members have
received death threats and that a 'hit' list has been prepared by the
Dorje Shugden Society which includes His Holiness The Dalai Lama.
Despite such claims being taken up by the local Indian newspapers no
evidence is ever produced that backs up such claims.

An American citizen, Tina Westbrook, arrives in Delhi on the 24th
February 1997. She is a personal friend of one of the detainees and is
alarmed at the information that she receives regarding his treatment.
She travels to Dharamsala to talk with him and see for herself what is
happening. She finds that the five detainees are being kept under tight
surveillance and subjected to continuing interrogation.

Her intervention in the affair is very timely. As a Christian and an
American her contact with the detainees is significant and possibly has
a bearing on them being freed three days later. As a Westener, familiar
with the 'Western' type of image of His Holiness and his exiled
Government, she is deeply affected by what she experiences and reports
her visit on the Internet.

She reports that the actions of the local police are highly suspect and
that there is a real fear of assassination of the Dorje Shugden Society
leaders. She reports of the arrest of a young man named 'Kelsang' who
has known personal problems in an attempt to link him with the Dorje
Shugden Society. She feels that there is a pervasive agenda to eliminate
the society under any pretext.

She says: "after I spent three days in Dharamsala, the police released
the members to return to Delhi. The fear of assassination of the society
members was running high and the Indian police supplied armed guards for
the trip to the Himachal Pradesh border. I personally sat in the car
with a policeman with a machine gun. I felt that this was an incredible
experience, especially as, during this period, His Holiness was in
Dharamsala giving teachings, presumably on love and compassion".

On the pretext that the Dalai Lama is in danger from the Dorje Shugden
Society, the Indian government donate Rs 4.6 million to increase
security in Dharamsala.

At the Dorje Shugden Society headquarters in Delhi, Tina Westbrook makes
the following comments before returning back to the USA:-

"I have talked with the leaders here and know that violence against His
Holiness is contrary to everything that they believe in. They are using
legitimate means to address this problem and since they are having
success, the stakes in this situation are increasing. I can only view
the receipt of the Rs 4.6 million as a very resourceful method of
funding the ongoing campaign against Dorje Shugden worship. I am very
impressed by the level of practice that has been shown by the members
here. Even after all the things that have happened, society members have
not voiced any statements of a violent nature against His Holiness. In
the main office, His Holiness' picture, along with those of Trijang
Rinpoche, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dorje Shugden hang from the walls. In the
temple, pictures of His Holiness still hang".

On the second of March, Jampal Yeshe, President of the Dorje Shugden
Society issues a press release refuting any allegation that the society
was involved in any way with the murders in Dharamsala..

On the 12th of March the American journalist of Tim McGirk of Time
Magazine, reports that sources within the Tibetan exiled Government have
informed him that they have no proof of any involvement of the Dorje
Shugden Society with the Dharamsala murders. Tim McGirk reports that the
exiled Government believes that the Chinese committed the murders.
Despite this, allegations by the Tibetan Government connecting the Dorje
Shugden Society with the murders continue to be made up until the end of
1997.

These allegations are circulated through World Tibet News and the
Tibetan Government Department of information and International
relations.

On March 13th the leaders of the Dorje Shugden Society appear in the
High Court in Delhi. The court decides that there is no evidence of any
wrong doing on the part of the devotees. The court reprimands the police
officers responsible for the illegal detention in Dharamsala.

=======================

James Burns

unread,

Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 7.

The murders in Dharamsala are a tragic and distressing affair. The shock
of the murders reverberated throughout the community. The Exiled
Government lost no time in accusing the Dorje Shugden Society of
involvement using at best the most tenuous of pretexts without any
evidence.

Tension and feeling had already been high before they Government had
resorted to this tactic and their actions had the immediate effect of
making matters more volatile. It is clear from the account of Tim McGirk
of Time magazine,that the Exiled Government were well aware from almost
the beginning that the Dorje Shugden Society had nothing to do with the
murders. Despite this a whole stream of invective and false accusation
came through official, semi-official and sympathetic news sources making
accusations against the Devotees.

This rhetoric had the affect of inflaming the passions of the younger
elements of the community especially those sworn to carry out the
enforcing of the Dalai Lama's ban such as those in the Tibetan Youth
Congress and Tibetan Womens Association. House to house searches
continued and Dorje Shugden religious objects are confiscated and
destroyed. Dorje Shugden devotees are harassed, insulted, humiliated and
assaulted. Parents are pressurised into giving up worship of Dorje
Shugden so that their children can continue to be educated. Religious
persecution is rife and there are clear violations of human rights.

This propaganda campaign and enforcement strategy has the effect of
drawing attention away from the significant policy changes that the
Dalai Lama was making towards China. In effect he was making a dramatic
policy 'U' turn and conceding Tibetan Sovereignty to the Chinese. This
policy happens without consultation with Parliament and without debate.
Such a radical change would have previously attracted considerable
criticism from particularly those sections of the community that were
now occupied with enforcing the Dorje Shugden ban. The Ban could
therefore be seen as a 'scapegoat' for past foreign and internal policy
failures and at the same time as acting as a diversion for the natural
critics within the community.

The more aware could see the transparency of this. However the Dalai
Lama had severely under estimated the devotion of the Dorje Shugden
devotees and had severely over-estimated his own prestige and standing
in comparison with that of previous Gelugpa lineage Gurus.

Those same principles of Freedom, Democracy, Integrity and Truth that he
so liked to speak about would not be silenced just because he chose, on
this occasion, to ignore them. What he had planned to be a local issue
was becoming a global matter that was eroding his own integrity. Not for
the first time there had been a gross miscalculation of the issues at
hand.

The Prejudice Expressed against the Dorje Shugden Devotees is sanctioned
at the highest echelons of the Tibetan Administration. At an address to
recent arrivals from Tibet in the second week of March 1997, His
Holiness himself encourages aggressive opposition to Dorje Shugden
followers.

March 1997 sees the visit of His Holiness The Dalai Lama to Taiwan.
There are few Dorje Shugden practitioners in Taiwan, but prior to his
visit statements against Dorje Shugden worship and certain masters of
the Gelugpa Tradition are circulated. In return an open letter is sent
to Taiwanese press by local Buddhists urging His Holiness to heal the
split in the Gelugpa. Publication of the letter is refused.

At the end of March Cabinet Minister Sonam Topgyal tries to raise the
question of Dorje Shugden Society involvement with the Dharamsala
murders in the Tibetan Parliament. To their credit the Parliament refuse
to entertain this debate, as they are aware that there is no evidence to
support the allegations.

Throughout this time the leaders of the Dorje Shugden Society give full
co-operation to the investigation into the murders. Despite the fact of
their poor treatment in February and early March, they travel back to
Dharamsala on two occasions in April to see if they can be of
assistance.

The April edition of the Tibetan Government sponsored Tibetan Review
continues the propaganda campaign against Dorje Shugden worshippers in
general and the Dorje Shugden Society in particular.

It reports allegations first circulated in the February edition of
'India Express' and puts them forward as 'news'. It alleges that the
Dorje Shugden Society of inciting violence, arson and murder. It makes
accusations of the Society provoking the increase in tension between the
Tibetan and Indian communities. It talks of the recovery of 'secret'
documents linking the Dorje Shugden Society with the murders in
Dharamsala and of there being a 'hit list' of fourteen people including
the Dalai Lama. This list has supposedly been prepared to target the
Dalai Lama and all of his key supporters. The President of the Dorje
Shugden Society is mentioned by name in these connections.

These same allegations continue to be broadcast by the World Tibet News
and the Tibetan Government Department of Information and International
Relations up until November 1997. There are no secret documents. Despite
the whole thing being a fabrication it has the effect of inciting the
supporters of His Holiness to aggressive and violent behaviour.

On April 9th the Tibetan exile government Internet service World Tibet
News reproduces an article that appeared in the Indian magazine Blitz.
It reiterates the false allegations given above and states that the
murders were committed by Dorje Shugden members who are 'backed, even
sponsored, by the Chinese government'. It further states that this cult
has '... offices in, among other places, Italy and Britain, where it
operates under the banner of the Shugden Supporters Community'. It
continues by saying that the 'Indian headquarters are in Majnu-Ka-Tilla'
and reports that Shugden practitioners are under surveillance by the
Indian police.

On the 1st of May 1997 a compilation by Tseten Samdup at Tibet House
London is first issued through World Tibet News. The article is a
translation from the Indian newspaper Jansatta.

The report claims that there is a major breakthrough in the case of the
murders in Dharmsala. The report purports that the Commissioner of the
Kangra Police, Rajeev Kumar Singh, has revealed that two out of the six
murderers have been identified, and mentions their names. People are
branded and identified as murderers even though no one has even been
charged!

Despite the immoderate nature and prejudicial aspect of the translation
from the Hindi, Tibet House sanctions the distribution of the text.

The report continues in an incredulous vein saying that the 'murderers'
left a bag behind at the scene of the crime with documents that directly
linked them to the Dorje Shugden Society. Further the article continues
that these documents cited the use of bloodshed to further the aims of
the Society. Despite the preposterousness of such a notion, the Tibetan
administration clearly hopes that such statements will sway those that
are unthinking and naive. Needless to say there is no such documents and
the article is an artistic interpretation of the rather tenuous original
subject matter.

The article further states that an assistant of the deceased principle
'admits' that the late Lobsang Gyatso received threats from the Dorje
Shugden Society and that he was urged by them to be more cautious. The
wording of the report suggests that the Dorje Shugden Society have
actually threatened violence to Lobsang Gyatso, and that the attendant
has been somehow reluctantly convinced to speak up on the matter.

What the truth is however is that the Dorje Shugden Society wrote to
Lobsang Gyatso regarding his published works on Dorje Shugden. They
pointed out to him that his views were incorrect and that if he
researched more carefully into the scriptures he would be able to see
his errors. They also said that they would be willing to come to
Dharamsala to debate the matter with him, or that, if he felt it more
suitable, he could come to Delhi and they could resolve the truth of the
matter with him there.

However the context, and way in which this was presented, in the World
Tibet News bulletin gives the impression that there was a violent and
aggressive intent.

The bulletin goes on to forge a connection between the secretary of the
Dorje Shugden Society (Geshe Cheme Tsering) and the supposed murderers.
The article gives a telephone number that the alleged assailants
supposedly used linking them with Geshe Cheme Tsering. This however is a
complete fabrication, as Geshe Cheme Tsering has never had a telephone
listed in his name, ever! He subsequently posts on the Internet to this
effect and expresses his disappointment at the repeated dissemination of
this mis-information by the Tibetan Administration.

It is clear that the bulletin is designed to try and advertise a
connection between the Dorje Shugden Society and the Dharamsala murders.
This connection does not exist and the Tibetan Administration is at that
time well aware of this. However the great danger and obvious purpose is
that some people reading this article will believe it to be true. This
was most probably the motivation of the Exiled Government. It certainly
did nothing to pacify the situation in India and did everything to
inflame it. This is to their great dis-credit.

The summer months sees ferment in the Tibetan Exiled Community. Serious
violence breaks out again. On the legal front, during the month of July,
the Dorje Shugden Society are exonerated from any connection with the
Dharamsala murders. As violence spreads against Dorje Shugden Society
members, they have no option but to raise a writ in the High Court in
Delhi to protect the lives and property of their members. The threats,
intimidation and violence come from the activities of those Tibetan
factions supporting the Dalai Lama's ban. The court accepts and upholds
the writ on the 25th of July.

=====================================

Mick_G

unread,

Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98

Yawn, saw this all already posted here.

Mick

James Burns wrote in message ...
>

James Burns

unread,

Mar 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/7/98

Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 8.

Due to various pronouncements and dis-information coming from the
Tibetan Administration, tension mounts between the sections of the
Exiled Community and the Dorje Shugden Devotees. Despite all the efforts
of His Holiness, considerable portions of the community, including
Ganden Shartse, openly continue with the worship of Dorje Shugden.

None the less, the Governments efforts do have effect and tension runs
high throughout the community. There are a number of disturbing
incidents.

One such episode involves Dr. Losang Thubten. As previously reported Dr.
Thubten vacated his family home at No. 65 Clement Town, Dehradron on
the 8th November 1996 due to intimidation and threats from the local
Tibetan population.

On July 2nd 1997 Dr Thubten received news that his House had been broken
into and damaged. Disturbed at the news, Dr. Thubten decides that he
will go and examine his property. Dr Thubten and members of his family
go to Clement Town on the 3rd of July to assess what has happened.

Due to the previous militancy, Dr. Thubten returns with an escort of
four policemen. When they go into the house they find that a lot of
damage has been done and some possessions have been stolen. This has
happened despite the fact that the property was under police
surveillance and had been well secured.

While Dr. Thubten is in the house a crowd of several hundred local
Tibetans gather outside. They attacked the Taxi driver, Vinod Kumar, who
has brought Dr Thubtens party from Delhi. They stone and damaged his
vehicle. Mr. Kumar is also stoned, and has to run away, bruised and
bleeding, as the crowd work itself up into an angry frenzy.

Two policeman stationed outside the house are attacked and have to run
away as the mob converged on the House. The assailants managed to enter
the house but the two remaining policemen managed to beat them back and
barricade themselves and the members of the Thubten family inside. In
the fracas four people in the group are injured. These include Dr.
Thubten and his son. The most serious injury is to a monk accompanying
Dr Thubten who receives a head wound that requires treatment in a
hospital in Delhi.

It takes two hours for the police to arrive with reinforcements and
during that time the mob smash all the windows in the house and threaten
the occupants. A local journalist, Mr Madan Maurya, arrives on the scene
to report on the incident and is beaten up by the mob. He receives
injuries to his hands and has his camera and writing materials are
confiscated.

Two jeep loads of police arrive and after a period of time the police
are able to escort Dr. Thubten and his family to safety. The whole
incident is a terrifying ordeal for those involved. The head of Tibetan
Colony, Arjun Dorji, paraphrasing the Dalai Lama's propaganda, accuses
Dr Thubten of being a Chinese agent. He also accuses him of engaging in
activites against His Holiness and the Tibetan Cause. The whole incident
is ugly and is reported in several Indian Newspapers.

The Dorje Shugden issue is of growing concern. It is discussed in the
Exiled Parliament during the summer session. The Parliament consists of
a total of 45 deputies, two each from five major religious traditions,
ten each from the three Tibetan provinces, and five (originally only
three) direct appointees made by the Dalai Lama.

On Saturday, September 20, almost the entire day is consumed in a heated
exchange centring on the controversy over the Government's ban on the
worship of Dorje Shugden. The controversy is now regarded as having an
international dimension.

The fiery and bitter exchange begins as a discussion on the fact that an
unprecedented amount of literature is being published that "criticises
the Dalai Lama and belittles the Tibetan Exile Government." One of the
items under discussion is the reply to the earlier book published by
Dharamsala titled "Clarification of the Dolgyal Issue." The rejoinder
was published by the Delhi-based Dorje Shugden Charitable and Religious
Society.

The contention of the deputies is that the written word remains, and
that this particular book is "extremely dangerous." Before long,
however, the focus shifts to Dharamsala's part in the controversy.

Excerpts:

Deputy Sonam Topgyal (known to be straight-forward and bluntly honest):

"This is now what we have on our hands. When they first approached
Dharamsala with deference, none of us listened to them. This has been
the trend until now in the case of every major controversy. When things
then get out of control, then we tend to discuss here.

The Parliament submitted two letters to the Kashag (Cabinet) that the
sore inside the mouth should be healed within the mouth. ( This alludes
to the matter being internal in nature.) Instead, the Kashag went ahead
with a signature campaign against Shugden worship, saying that in this
way we can pinpoint the Shugden devotees and marginalise them with ease.
What did we accomplish by this signature campaign?"

He points his finger at the head of the Exile Kashag while making this
point:

"What is our plan for taking this second signature campaign; what do we
plan to accomplish?"

(The second campaign occurred September 17, 1997. Signatures were again
collected from Tibetan Government Employees stating that they were not
worshippers of Dorje Shugden).

Seventeen other deputies spoke after Sonam Topgyal, defending his candid
observations. They said, among other things, that Dharamsala had
created the situation under which the devotees of Shugden were virtually
left with no other choice but to start a society in which to voice their
concerns.

Deputy Namgyal Wangdu opposed this stand. He said that the
government's stand had been correct on every way and reiterated that
Dharamsala should pursue this stand against Shugden devotees and the
Society. About seven other deputies spoke in this support.

The remaining members kept silent. At this point, the speaker of the
Parliament (Ven. Samdong Rinpoche) observed that, unlike usual
situations, this issue directly concerns Dharamsala's policy. He noted
that remaining silent in this case will not be interpreted as neutral or
abstaining that all will be counted either pro or con.

At this point Deputy Tsultrim Tenzin pointed to Namgyal Wangdu and
castigated him:

"Even now it is not too late to bring harmony within Tibetan society,
and hard and stubborn stands as emphasised by the speaker bear no
concern and sensibility for fellow Tibetans."

He added that "even Shugden religious society members are 'tsampa
zaken.'" (Eaters of tsampa, the Tibetan national food: that they are
fellow Tibetans) "Even they will understand a reasoned approach. It is
not too late even now."

He went on to make some uncomplimentary remarks against Deputy Namgyal
Wangdu's personal mode of living. The speaker of the parliament then
adjourned the meeting by clapping his hands.

On Monday, September 22 the assembly resumed its deliberations.

In the interim it had been decided to take these matters out of the
hands of the Tibetan Parliament. Rather than let the issues be resolved
by a vote made by the members, the entire assembly is told that they
would consult the Tibetan State Oracle, as well as the two new oracles.

No one is under any illusion as to exactly what that means.

(In March 1996, the Dalai Lama quoted these same oracles as his
authority to announce that Shugden worship poses danger to his well-
being and the freedom of Tibet.)

======================================

Rabten

unread,

Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98

Mick_G wrote in message <6dn8mt$3...@suriname.earthlink.net>...

>Yawn, saw this all already posted here.
>
>Mick
>
>James Burns wrote in message ...
>>
>>Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 7.
>>

Dear Mick,

Why are you yawning? Are you actually reading what James Burns is posting?

Are you telling us that you are not interested in other's suffering? That
people having their freedom to practice and teach their religion taken away
is boring and not worthy of discussion? That state supported persecution
should be overlooked?

None of us want what is happening to be true, but clinging to an idealised
view of how the exile community is being run doesn't help anyone.

Open your eyes and look at the situation, then think if you can do anything
to help resolve it. Or if you find it too unbearable buy yourself another
layer of cotton wool.

I don't mean to offend you, I just can't understand why you and so many
others want to dismiss the suffering that is going on.

please explain,

Rabten

Mick_G

unread,

Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98

Yes, I read through it. I am yawning because this issue is a private matter
in the Gelugpa lineage. Now I know that there is no newsgroup for this
specific lineage. There is only one Tibetan Buddhism newsgroup to my
knowledge, but this subject has been beaten to death. The two sides of this
issue have lined up, circled their wagons, and fired their volleys and
neither side is going to change.

Next these posts follow with regularity every few weeks when the subject has
died down. I usually post a small comment about my general disinterest with
the subject, and invariably a NKT member will challenge me about my comment.
Why, I have no idea, obviously it touches a nerve, because it is such an all
consuming issue of them. But everyone of these posts are nothing more than
propaganda, and rumor. Why do I say this, because the post I responded to
was posted by someone, who had zero first hand knowledge about the subject.
Where they got their information, I can not say, but where ever it was they
bought it, with zero critical analysis, something I might add that you seem
to have also done, because the post fits your ideas about the conflict you
assume it must be true. Well how much of the story do you personally know
are accurate facts, I'm sure almost none of the post. This post also was
posted not as an opinion, but as a news article. When someone does this,
they should give some reference to where someone can find out the
information for themselves.

My other problem with this post and the entire NKT position is the continued
use of the paraphrase, "HHDL is squashing my religious freedom." This is
crap! Religious freedom is a secular concept which has nothing to do with
religion, and the Guru / student relationship. All of the NKT members have
the same religious freedom, that anyone else has in the West. A NKT member
can practice anything they want to practice. HHDL will continue to
disapprove, which is his prerogative, being to a degree, the head of the
Tibetan Buddhist community. You may not like it, but it is a fact of life.

I think after reading the recent interviews and articles in Tricycle, that
this whole issue is more related to Tibetan Buddhism's movement into the
West more than any thing else. For centuries, Buddhism was able to evolve in
isolation in Tibet. Now many new ideas have flooded into TB. New people with
Western ideas who for instance, bring concepts like "Religious Freedom" are
brought into the mix. From this come challenges to accepted ideas.
Challenges that in the end will make TB stronger and in all likely hood much
different from the way it was practiced in it's native land.

Mick

Rabten wrote in message <6dubqo$l8n$1...@eros.clara.net>...

>
>Mick_G wrote in message <6dn8mt$3...@suriname.earthlink.net>...

>>Yawn, saw this all already posted here.
>>
>>Mick
>>
>>James Burns wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Dorje Shugden Ban -- Reaction and Repression Part 7.
>>>
>
>
>
>

Mick_G

unread,

Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98

Total crap.

Mick

James Burns wrote in message ...
>
>

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages