> I really worry about the use of the word "faith". That is a very Western, IE > Christian idea. All of Buddhism is supposed to be tested by our own > experiences.
> Mick
What I have heard is that faith is a naturally virtuous mental factor, indispensable for all spiritual realisations. It is said that tantric realisations are accomplished mainly through the force of faith and correct imagination. But I agree that the christian idea of faith is somehow confusing meaning perhaps something different. I think in Joyful Path Of Good Fortune it is defined as a mind that sees no faults in a virtuous object.
Juan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>>I think it would be useful to bring to mind the three basic reasons he >>gave for discontinuing the propitiation of Dorje Shugden:
>>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit >>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can >>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.
>We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we >ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our >teachers to help us form these ideas. Therefore while it is fine for the >Dalai Lama to say that he no longer believes Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha, >this cannot be taken as a valid reason for suppressing others' belief that >he is (particularly when this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje >Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).
I really worry about the use of the word "faith". That is a very Western, IE Christian idea. All of Buddhism is supposed to be tested by our own experiences.
In article <347b9e36.11695...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk writes
>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone >all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will >contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern Philosophy."
Cheers, Bob -- :: Bob Knight, Hendon, London, UK :: b...@drakkar.demon.co.uk :: http://www.drakkar.demon.co.uk :: "Here be Dragons..."
>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone >>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will >>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called >Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but >was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for >example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern >Philosophy."
As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has make decisions on this kind of basis.
I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco. We just finished our monthly practice of extensive Dorje Shugden sadhana--a beautiful puja indeed. The 19 people who attended it were very happy.
There's only one problem: the Dalai Lama says this practice is evil. This is wrong. I have been doing this practice regularly for several years--long enough to realize its positive effect in my life, in my Dharma practice, in my ability to control my own delusions.
I have been encouraging others to take refuge in Dorje Shugden because I know they too can benefit immensely from this practice. To me Dorje Shugden is a real close friend, so I like to introduce him to others.
I'm sorry to say this but I believe the Dalai Lama is making a very big mistake. And he is not alone. There are many lamas saying terribly wrong things about this practice. I believe this amounts to religious persecution and harassment. The other day a student at our Center was receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman, because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things. Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust that our motivation is pure. So she attended the puja tonight and was very relieved. We prayed repeatedly for all diseases, conflicts, and obstructions from malevolent spirits to be pacified!
Who is responsible for this nonsense about Dorje Shugden being an evil spirit? I'm afraid it's mainly the Dalai Lama. He is the one who has the power and who is using it to attack our practice. I wouldn't mind if he didn't go public with it, but now he is using the press even in the United States to persecute our practice. This feels like a witch hunt. This is wrong. Especially coming from a Nobel Prize winner.
Does anyone have one single good argument (based on evidence) to justify the actions of the Dalai Lama against the NKT and Dorje Shugden practice? Why is it that most of the postings, instead of explaining why there can be no religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practice, are picking on NKT? If you don't like what we do, that's absolutely fine. We're not asking anyone to like what we do. All we need is for new students to have the freedom to come to our classes without fearing our "evil practice"--because we have none! Once people come, what they find is a supportive community working hard to control delusions and benefit others. Students are constantly talking about how fortunate we are to have such good Dharma friends, etc.
This ban and the Dalai Lama's access to the media to express whatever he wants against Dorje Shugden (and against NKT) are trying to label our Dharma practice as something cultish. This is terribly wrong. Why is he doing this? What is his motivation? Does the so far lost Tibetan cause need a scapegoat?
We need religious freedom. We are real people who are working hard to rid the world from the three poisons. We rely on Dorje Shugden. It's our choice. We are not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do. But I need to let others know that the Dalai Lama's judgement is incorrect in this matter. If I say nothing now, soon it will be too late as this practice will have been completely misunderstood.
With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious freedom.
>>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone >>>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will >>>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called >>Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but >>was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for >>example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern >>Philosophy."
>As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so >is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has >make decisions on this kind of basis.
The point is that *because* it is full of inconsistencies (as you agree), it cannot be used to achieve the effect it sets out to achieve. This is why it was abandoned.
"A leader trying to do a good job" will therefore need another methodology if only an ad hoc one that treats each new situation pragmatically. The implication is that situations can always arise when in order to help some, you cause disadvantage to others. A just society is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able to cope with it.
>I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco. We just finished >our monthly practice of extensive Dorje Shugden sadhana--a beautiful >puja indeed. The 19 people who attended it were very happy. >There's only one problem: the Dalai Lama says this practice is evil. >This is wrong. I have been doing this practice regularly for several >years--long enough to realize its positive effect in my life, in my >>Dharma practice, in my ability to control my own delusions. >I have been encouraging others to take refuge in Dorje Shugden because >I know they too can benefit immensely from this practice. To me Dorje >Shugden is a real close friend, so I like to introduce him to others. >I'm sorry to say this but I believe the Dalai Lama is making a very big >mistake. And he is not alone. There are many lamas saying terribly >wrong things about this practice. I believe this amounts to religious >persecution and harassment. The other day a student at our Center was >receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some >horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible >for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman, >because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things. >Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust >that our motivation is pure. So she attended the puja tonight and was >very relieved. We prayed repeatedly for all diseases, conflicts, and >obstructions from malevolent spirits to be pacified!
Listen there are plenty of people around that say all Buddhism is evil that the Buddha is a devil -( maybe even some ex-Buddhists.) I certaily don't agree with them at all but I don't think they are guilty of religious repression. They are free to say what they wish.
>Who is responsible for this nonsense about Dorje Shugden being an evil >spirit? I'm afraid it's mainly the Dalai Lama. He is the one who has >the power and who is using it to attack our practice. I wouldn't mind >if he didn't go public with it, but now he is using the press even in >the United States to persecute our practice. This feels like a witch >hunt. This is wrong. Especially coming from a Nobel Prize winner. >Does anyone have one single good argument (based on evidence) to >justify the actions of the Dalai Lama against the NKT and Dorje Shugden >practice? Why is it that most of the postings, instead of explaining >why there can be no religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practice, are >picking on NKT? If you don't like what we do, that's absolutely fine. >We're not asking anyone to like what we do. All we need is for new >students to have the freedom to come to our classes without fearing our >"evil practice"--because we have none! Once people come, what they find >is a supportive community working hard to control delusions and benefit >others. Students are constantly talking about how fortunate we are to >have such good Dharma friends, etc. >This ban and the Dalai Lama's access to the media to express whatever >he wants against Dorje Shugden (and against NKT) are trying to label >our Dharma practice as something cultish. This is terribly wrong. Why >is he doing this? What is his motivation? Does the so far lost Tibetan >cause need a scapegoat?
The NKT or NKT members did a pretty good job of raising this issue in the media in the first place. I doubt if there ever would have been any mention of Shugden in the ewestern press let alone widespread mention if this issue had not been raised by Shugden worshippers in the first place.
>We need religious freedom. We are real people who are working hard to >rid the world from the three poisons. We rely on Dorje Shugden. It's >our choice. We are not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do. >But I need to let others know that the Dalai Lama's judgement is >incorrect in this matter. If I say nothing now, soon it will be too >late as this practice will have been completely misunderstood.
There are those that pray to Lucifer to benefit themselves and others, and say that he is completly misunderstood, and those that say he is the manifestation of evil. Religious freedom means that people are entitled to hold both these views and to state them - similarly with Gyalpo Shugden.
>With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious >freedom. >Togden >Saraha Center (NKT) >San Francisco, CA
If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise you for this.
>>>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone >>>>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will >>>>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>>>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called >>>Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but >>>was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for >>>example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern >>>Philosophy."
>>As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so >>is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has >>make decisions on this kind of basis. >The point is that *because* it is full of inconsistencies (as you >agree), it cannot be used to achieve the effect it sets out to achieve. >This is why it was abandoned. >"A leader trying to do a good job" will therefore need another >methodology if only an ad hoc one that treats each new situation >pragmatically. The implication is that situations can always arise when >in order to help some, you cause disadvantage to others. A just society >is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able >to cope with it. >Bob
actually, thus far there is not one political philosophy that will suit everyone. Additionally, while one can blend Chris's original contention that the Dalai Lama is trying to do the most good for most people as *summum bonum* a la Behnam and John Stuart Mills, it is only one of the points amount many from the perceiver's perspective. From another political theorist's perspective, the Dalai Lama can easily been seen as the enlightened action of a Philosopher King. Therefore, it is quite inconclusive to say this is utilitarianism - and much less the conclusiveness that it has to be abandoned even if it is the sole purpose, as categorical denial is as futile as categorical acceptance in face of the particular moment and set of circumstances.
While I am responding from a.r.b.t. from the perspective of religion (but this is x-posted to the political threads,) I would only wish to briefly digress (i.e., nothing relating to this thread in particular,) the so-called "A just society is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able to cope with it" sounds to me possessing at least some superficial resemblance to the economic model of jusrisprudence theory quite popular in the U.S. (at least, since I am quite ignorant about the situation elsewhere.) There is a lot of personal injusry cases in which the plainiffs were rewarded with financial compensation just because the defendent is an insurance co etc. While it may be a pragmatic justice, obviously, it does not dramatic the idea of what makes right right or what is the greatest good
In article <3481546e.10657...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk says...
>If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others >are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free >to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise >you for this.
But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to try to destroy our practice? Khyenrab
>I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco.
Well gen Togden, who would have believed it, you resident teacher at SF Centre. Following ani Brenda from Buxton, a hard act to follow. I see you're still warming the act up.
>The other day a student at our Center was >receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some >horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible >for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman, >because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things. >Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust >that our motivation is pure.
Ok, here's one from me. The other day a young woman came to see me - she wore a red outfit with a hood - no not a nun. Anyway she'd met this wolf in the woods who'd asked her where she was heading. Being a person of pure faith she told him. When she got to her grandmother's house something seemed amiss. The person in the bed claiming to be her grandmother just didn't seem quite what they claimed. When she expressed her concerns to this person they kept demanding that she justify her concerns using VALID REASONS.
Fortunately she saw through the deception and screamed for help. A passing woodsman rushed to her aid and, acting out of pure bodhicitta motivation, dispatched the wolf in sheep's clothing. When an autopsy was held the wolf was found to be a certain theological monk from south England wanted in connection for deceptive ng postings.
Beware Kelsang Togden, after many prayers we dispatched the red-hooded maiden and woodsman in the direction of San Francisco.
Yours in the Dh (ark) Avyorth
>With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious >freedom.
I really do think you should get yourself a new script writer - Khyenrab, Rabten and co have been telling the same old jokes for a couple of weeks now, and nobody's laughed yet!
Tara Centre wrote in message <65sjce$um...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>... >But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to >try to destroy our practice? >Khyenrab
It's so funny (in an ironic fashion) to read such postings from you, K. Given all of the pious teachings I sat through at Tara Centre from you about how only we ourselves were responsible for the events that happened to us. How all unfortunate events that others seemed to inflict upon us actually were only our own karma ripening upon us.
So how come you don't apply the same preaching to yourself? Why aren't you in the gompa doing purification practice rather than sitting in front of a comptuter screen whining about how you're being persecuted?
Nobody can destroy your practice but yourself - and you seem to be doing a damned good job at attempting to do so (IMO).
Bob Knight wrote in message ... >A just society >is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able >to cope with it.
>Bob
Interesting arguement, Bob, but one small point? Just who decides who are the disadvantaged and who are most able to cope with it? Perhaps "Natural Selection"?
>>If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others >>are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free >>to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise >>you for this. >But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to >try to destroy our practice?
1. Who has used force to try and destroy your practice?
2. Your own practice is based on the totallly unfounded argument "Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha". People can hold whatever opinions they want of your practice based on any kind of argument they find convincing.
In <34824c91.598...@news.dircon.co.uk> cf...@dircon.co.uk writes: >1. Who has used force to try and destroy your practice?
>2. Your own practice is based on the totallly unfounded >argument "Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha". People can >hold whatever opinions they want of your practice based >on any kind of argument they find convincing.
Chris,
Yes, people can hold whatever views they wish. Personally I think viewing anyone as a Buddha is more virtuous than viewing them as an evil spirit. But, of course, that's our freedom, isn't it. We have the freedom to suffer and to create suffering or to be happy and create happiness.
My concern, as I stated previously, is that the Dalai Lama's views are not just his own. He forces his views upon thousands, making use of *his* power and *their* faith. As I said, I know he is wrong in what he says about NKT and Dorje Shugden, from my own experience. Not even Avyorth can place a doubt about it in my mind. But many will not have such freedom if the Dalai Lama's views of evil beings pervading NKT get to them first. Therefore, we can say they never had the benefit of experiencing for themselves. Taking away one's freedom in this way goes completely against Buddha's teachings. Moreover, you know fully well how much difficulty the DL is creating for all the Lamas (and their students) who have been practicing Dorje Shugden.
Avyorth, for example, feels he had an unpleasant experience with NKT. That's fine. To each his own.
But I'm still hoping someone will address the real issue here: is it correct for *anyone* to impose a ban on *any* religious practice? As you say, let Lucifer worshipers believe whatever they wish. This is a free country (USA) after all.
Chris, please try to focus on this aspect of it or else these postings get completely mucky and senseless.
I do hope this debate will develop into something a little more enlightening, or at least somewhat logical.
>Not even >Avyorth can place a doubt about it in my mind. But many will not have >such freedom if the Dalai Lama's views of evil beings pervading NKT get >to them first >Avyorth, for example, feels he had an unpleasant experience with NKT. >That's fine. To each his own.
Dear Togden,
You miss my point - perhaps necessarily in order to 'protect' your mind.
I had many experiences during my time with the NKT - some unpleasant to be sure, and others of sublime beauty. Believe it or not, as I have mentioned in other postings, I found and still find many of the ideas introduced to me by G Kelsang to be of great interest and use. Likewise with some of the meditation practices.
BUT, I came to the conclusion that the NKT is a nefarious organisation, that deliberately deceives people for its own cancerous benefit.
First: the NKT, despite all of its cries for valid reasoning, teaches an absolutist and imperious dogma. It promotes a closed mind, something that I personally believe is contrary to Dharma/Truth/Spirituality/ or whatever you would want to call it.
Second: because of this it attracts (and breeds) zealots ie fundamentalist religious fanatics
Third: it promotes sectarianism. This sectarianism runs deep (and usually silently as far as its public image goes).
Fourth: it promotes a return to a totalitarian, freudalistic and Closed (ala Popper) society. The NKT is parasitical upon western democratic society - it abuses the privileges of Western democratic societies (eg in the UK, the social security and housing benefit systems) whilst seeking to undermine them.
Fifth: as an organisation the NKT sees itself as accountable to no one other than G Kelsang ('the Third Buddha') - it has no system of mediation or redress, no forums or tribunals, no procedures to address grievances or injustices. It is anti-democratic.
I could go on, but, although unlikely, you may get my point.
One point of interest for me when I was reflecting upon whether to remain within the NKT was this - How come G Kelsang has no peers, no friends? Why, when all the other lamas and Geshes are surrounded by spiritual 'equals', is he so alone? Why does he seem so unable to bear those who might just be able to challenge him and his decisions? Even that arch-devil (to the NKT) the Dalai Lama has his circle of spiritual 'equals and peers'!
Yet G Kelsang is so isolated, and instead surrounds himself with a small circle of sycophants. Even his own uncle, the Dorje Shugden oracle, has abandoned him.
Does G Kelsang see himself as without equal, as above and beyond the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist community? Or is he simply "a jealous god"? ("For I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous god" - the bible). Or is his desire to be a 'big fish' so great that he is willing to abandon everything that challenges himself, create a small pond, and fill it with Western 'minnows'?
You can probably deduce, using valid reasoning I hope, the conclusion that I came to.
>Many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind later >[about their practice of Dorje Shugden]
It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many groups, including Kopan Monastery, therefore stopped their worship and pujas. Many of these Lamas, including Lama Zopa had received the life empowerment of Dorje Shugden from their root Guru, so they have broken their commitment because of the Dalai Lama's repression. Many statues and thangkas were removed from Temples and destroyed because of the Dalai Lama's repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds changed because they were influenced by the Dalai Lama's wrong view but still many practitioners in many places, including Sera and Ganden monasteries, are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and harrassment.
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. This should be his main job because he is the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any direction. Everyone can see this situation now.
Kent, you wrote that:
>Trijang Rinpoche changed [his] mind later [about the practice of Dorje >Shugden].
This is completely untrue. There are three reasons to prove this: 1. His extensive commentary to Dorje Shugden prayers was composed late in his life, when he was very old. This clearly indicates that he did not change his mind. 2. As I have already said previously, a few months before his death I met with him in Southern India, and he told me that he was very disappointed with the Dalai Lama's decision to suppress the practice of Dorje Shugden. 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually until he passed away.
Mike Austin wrote, 27th November:
>'His Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden, and gave three >reasons for discontinuing his worship': >1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit >detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can >degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.' >2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism. >3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the >Tibetan people.
The Dalai Lama has repeated these three reasons endlessly, and at the same time his supporters are also repeating them again and again. I wrote to him a number of times myself, and to his government in Dharamsala, and asked how this practice could possibly harm the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan people. I have not received any clear reply.
Also, the Dalai Lama said many times that if people engage in the worship of Shugden, it would shorten his life. He actually said 'if you want me to die soon, then you should continue with your practice of Dorje Shugden.' So I asked him for proof that this worship would shorten his life, and again he never replied. I have never received a clear reply from either the Dalai Lama or his government or any of his supporters. People just repeat these same three reasons over and over again.
How can he prove that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit? I also asked in these letters for proof that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, but again I have never received any clear reply. The only reason that has been given is that some other Lamas have said this. This is not a valid reason, some other Lamas say Dorje Shugden is the wisdom Buddha.
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.
Now I have three questions:
1. When the Dalai Lama first came to Dharamsala he was sincerely practising Dorje Shugden, everyone knows this. Now, this Dalai Lama who was sincerely practicing Dorje Shugden, was he relying on an evil spirit?
2. Did his worship of Dorje Shugden harm the interest of Tibet and the Tibetan people? We are now worshipping Dorje Shugden in exactly the same way as did the Dalai Lama.
3. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama and his followers who practised Dorje Shugden were sectarian?
According to the Dalai Lama's present view, it now seems that during his entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people and cause them problems and suffering.
Chris Fynn wrote, 16th November:
>Did not Phabongkhapa and a number of his followers who were devoted to >Dorje Shugden use their political power to destroy and take over many >monasteries .............. didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and >tradition of Padmasambhava?
Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever. When I lived in Tibet I checked very carefully with local Geshes about the truth or falsity of these assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet (Kham) and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the same time some local people jealous of his success spread rumours, saying that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.
It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation of this precious Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually degenerate times. Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.
So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters, could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then I would be happy to debate with you.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso <madhy...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote
> So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters, > could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship > of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of > times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he > harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then I > would be happy to debate with you.
> Kent Sandvik wrote, 27th November: > >Many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind later > >[about their practice of Dorje Shugden]
> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their > mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has > been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like repression.
How about if Christian leaders of the KKK or Nazi groups feel repressed when Christian spiritual leaders advise such Christians against KKK or Nazi rallies because it is rightly or wrongly perceived as some as divisive? Is that also repression?
> Many > groups, including Kopan Monastery, therefore stopped their worship and > pujas. Many of these Lamas, including Lama Zopa had received the life > empowerment of Dorje Shugden from their root Guru, so they have broken their > commitment because of the Dalai Lama's repression.
Respectfully, Jetsun Lama Zopa Rinpoche's commitments are not your responsibility Geshe Kelsang, and you fail to establish with evidence how any change in Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche's practice is because of repression, if such were indeed established. WHEN DID YOU BECOME THE KARMA POLICE????? On the contrary, Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche's devotion to HH the Dalai Lama is very well established via proven examples; nevertheless his decisions regarding his personal practice are his alone, not HH the Dalai Lama's, and certainly not yours or anyone else's. Why are you concerned about other practitioners' commitments??? Do you think that Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche is not qualified to make decisions about his own personal practice; about being able to determine the benefits of practices and what the consequences of his actions are??
This smear tactic of trying to drag other pure Lama's names in your own mud creations does not help your cause at all and I strongly advise abandoning it, since it all it does is make your case lose credibility. For example, for all the people that disagree with you Geshe Kelsang, I have yet to see anyone make personal attacks on you. Furthermore, there are plenty of Dorje Shugdan supporters, including famous Lamas with mostly foreigner disciples, who feel no need to try to criticize others in preserving or supporting their respective decisions to continue or propagate the DS practice.
By the way, didn't you get to the position you have today through the kindness of the late Lama Yeshe and the FMPT? Trying to criticize Kopan Monastery and Je Lama Zopa is a strange way to repay that isn't it?
> Many statues and thangkas > were removed from Temples and destroyed because of the Dalai Lama's > repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds > changed because they were influenced by the Dalai Lama's wrong view but > still many practitioners in many places, including Sera and Ganden > monasteries, are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally > pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and > harrassment.
Still you have not established any repression. As in South African apartheid, Negro slavery, Nazi ethnic cleansing, etc. As residents of the mother state of India, all are expected to abide by the laws of that democratic state, and any victims of criminal acts or discrimination are entitled to use the avenues of legal recourse available. If the monastery leadership decided to make changes due to HH the Dalai Lama's wishes, that is their freedom, no??? So what if anyone is continuing their practice in secret and pretending otherwise? No one is stopping them from starting a new branch monastery somewhere else are they? Also it appears that they have decided that pretending is more skillful than your strategies, for example.
> 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. This should be his main job because he is > the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any > direction. Everyone can see this situation now.
Well Geshe, what have YOU done for Tibetan independence lately??? If you watch the news you would see that the situation of Tibetans has become well known around the world and in the forefront of foreign government attention than ever before largely due to the efforts of HH the Dalai Lama alone.
> Kent, you wrote that: > >Trijang Rinpoche changed [his] mind later [about the practice of Dorje > >Shugden].
> This is completely untrue. There are three reasons to prove this: > 1. His extensive commentary to Dorje Shugden prayers was composed late in > his life, when he was very old. This clearly indicates that he did not > change > his mind.
Composed, or printed and published? We can give you the benefit of the doubt however.
> 2. As I have already said previously, a few months before his death I met > with him in Southern India, and he told me that he was very disappointed > with the > Dalai Lama's decision to suppress the practice of Dorje Shugden.
Where there witnesses to this? Do we have to rely on your personal credibility to accept this?
> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje > Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually > until he passed away.
OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others. But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
> Mike Austin wrote, 27th November: > >'His Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden, and gave three > >reasons for discontinuing his worship': > >1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit > >detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can > >degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.' > >2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism. > >3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the > >Tibetan people.
> The Dalai Lama has repeated these three reasons endlessly, and at the same > time his supporters are also repeating them again and again. I wrote to him > a number of times myself, and to his government in Dharamsala, and asked how > this practice could possibly harm the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan > people. I have not received any clear reply.
Well I certainly am not qualified to guess others' answers. But as a foreigner outsider my impression was mainly that the practice of Dorje Shugdan, for reasons which are right are wrong, was *perceived* [at least] as offensive to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, i.e., Nyingma, Kagyu, etc., and at a time when Tibetan people as a group should be unified in their cause of Tibet and survival in exile, that divisive elements such as DS practice and/or perceptions of it are better off abandoned. That is, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for the Tibetan society as a whole. Like slavery was abandoned in the USA, despite its popularity in the name of Christian service, to the dismay of many, for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Furthermore do you deny that Dorje Shugdan is the spirit of the monk Sonam Dragpa from Drepung who killed himself in the 1600's? Historically this monk has had some conflict with the Tibetan government, so again the idea is that there is more benefit to Tibet and Tibetans to abandon any practice of such.
> Also, the Dalai Lama said many times that if people engage in the worship of > Shugden, it would shorten his life. He actually said 'if you want me to die > soon, then you should continue with your practice of Dorje Shugden.' So I > asked him for proof that this worship would shorten his life, and again he > never replied. I have never received a clear reply from either the Dalai > Lama or his government or any of his supporters. People just repeat these > same three reasons over and over again.
Obviously His Holiness sees no benefit from debating you at this time. But as previous writers have said, you were free to question HH in public forum during a recent visit to the UK but did not.
> How can he prove that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit? I also asked in > these letters for proof that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, but again I > have never received any clear reply. The only reason that has been given is > that some other Lamas have said this. This is not a valid reason, some other > Lamas say Dorje Shugden is the wisdom Buddha.
Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong? Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields. But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
...
I have been following your postings recently hoping that you would post clear answers to Jangsem’s questions. Jangsem asked for valid reasons proving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are pure beings, Buddhas. Although you have given a lot of information about Tibetan religious and political history (which I am not so interested in) so far you do not seem to have given clear answers to his questions. Some of the information you have given is incorrect and some does not seem to me to be directly relevant being unrelated to Jangsem’s original question. But I do understand from your postings that you are implying that you are happy to support the Dalai Lama in destroying the practice of Dorje Shugden, the Gelug tradition, and the New Kadampa Tradition. I don’t wish to spend my time in wordy debate but I would like precise answers to some essential questions.
Here is a question that I would like an answer to: I have seen a copy of a letter that was given to an Englishwoman by some Tibetans while she was traveling in Nepal in 1995. (This letter was originally sent to the Dalai Lama, and copies are available in English and Tibetan). Much of the information contained in this letter is widely known within the Tibetan community both in India and Nepal, and the letter was intended to have a wide distribution everywhere, including Western countries. It says in this letter that the Dalai Lama’s government in exile, out of jealousy, accused Dujom Rinpoche of being a Chinese spy, and he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned by the Indian Government. I have checked this carefully and understand that Duzom Rinpoche was not involved in any political or illegal activity. So my question is - If the government in exile had Duzom Rinpoche imprisoned, who gave these orders to the government ministers? I find it very sad that lamas are causing lamas so many problems. Why is the Dalai Lama doing this? If you deny that the Dalai Lama was responsible for giving these orders, then please tell me why Duzom Rinpoche was arrested by the police, and who gave them wrong information?
In <65ukd1$6r...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, On 1 Dec 1997 15:16:49 GMT, madhy...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) wrote:
>Some clarification surrounding the present debate regarding the Dalai Lama >and Dorje Shugden by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
(entire post omitted to keep this short)
>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
Dear Ven Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso -
I am glad your willingness to grace this thread (a.r.b.t.) with your presence. 1st, let me state this at the very beginning, I ve no wish to debate with you. However, I feel I owe it to everyone to let you know that the internet is not the best place for debate. much less finger pointings and personal accusations, especially for a person with your stature. I say this not out of disrespect, but because I don't know if you are told about the nature of the internet, which tends to cover a lot of grounds and make genuine debate by 2 parties alone almost impossible. Just my humble opinion.
Dear Geshe-la, again, a crow like me has no interest in getting in a fight of the peacocks, and humbly believe neither should many of your disciples, since they are not as free of many trappings of samsara as you are. As you can see, instead of focusing on the problematic practice, they ve chosen to attack people, including HH the Dalai Lama and other great Lamas. Or, maybe it is just my western outlook, as I ve been taught to tackle the issues and not personal attacks, especially when these methods of attacks are quite unbecoming of a buddhist. And I would go so far as to say personal attacks only have a place in dictatorial regime like the one currently occupying the Land of Snow.
Dear Geshe-la, if DS were a wisdom buddha, surely it would not allow many of its proponents to possess such a venomous attitude toward anyone, much less HH the Dalai Lama and other great lamas. Anyway, my musing aloud is way ahead of myself.
While I do not doubt a single second of your authenticity, it may be worthwhile for you to let your translator (if you are using one) know to include his/her name in the posting. Just a thought, as it is customary toacknowledge translators/editors of their efforts.
Finally, while I am a homeless beggar (in the Dharma sense,) I ve received great kindness from a lot of people, including tibetan lamas from Sera Mey. While formally Sera Mey has decided not to communicate with you at this time (according to a posting in Snow Lion a few months ago,) unlearned individuals like myself do not see much of a impediment on occasions, so you can be rest sure that absolute repressive force against you is unfounded absolutely. Dear Gesha-la, one final thing. You ve promised to ask your followers to withdraw from political dealings and concentrate on their Dharma practices (circa Sep 96?) what has changed your mind?
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote in message <65ukd1$6r...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
In the light of the current debate, I decided to dig deep in the Daze-a-u Archives as my miracle powers told me clarification lay close at hand. Behold, look what emerged - seems some things just don't change! Perhaps we've found the one small chink in the law (ala Kazzamila) of impermanence?
And I thought the spiritual path was about change? Oh well, back to the drawing board!
Enjoy: Some 'clarification' - "The Vedic Thymes" Issue No 3,749,274,529
It is correct that many brahmins, kshatriyas and lay people changed their mind about the practice of Vishnu, Shiva and the other holy deities. This is because Shakyamuni Buddha has been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many groups therefore stopped their worship and pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression. Many statues and thangkas were removed from Temples and destroyed because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds changed because they were influenced by Buddha Shakyamuni's wrong view but still many practitioners in many places are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and harrassment.
Buddha Shakyamuni has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by his brahmin guru but he is very ignorant and foolish. This should be his main job because he is the Shakya political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any direction. Everyone can see this situation now.
Buddha Shakyamuni 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 Vishnu, Shiva and all the other deities and then to change the entire Shakya tradition. He wants to integrate all the four schools into one so that the leaders of the other traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of Hinduism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of all practitioners of Hinduism. I know this is his wish; he has been working towards this for many years.
Now I have three questions:
1. When Siddhartha Gautama first came he was sincerely practising Vedic rituals, everyone knows this. Now, this Gautama who was sincerely practicing Vedic rituals, was he relying on an evil spirit?
2. Did his worship harm people? We are now worshipping in exactly the same way.
3. Are you saying that Gautama Shakyamuni and his followers who practised vedic rituals were sectarian?
According to Gautama Shakyamuni's present view, it now seems that during his entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people and cause them problems and suffering.
<Avyo...@btinternet.com> wrote: >...It is correct that many brahmins, kshatriyas and lay people changed their >mind about the practice of Vishnu, Shiva and the other holy deities. This is >because Shakyamuni Buddha has >been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many >groups therefore stopped their worship and >pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life >empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their >commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression...
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <3482829F.5...@mindless.com>... >Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote: >> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their >> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has >> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
>I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For >example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like >repression.
Please read the thread: "repression? What repression?" since the Tibetan exile government do not deny that they are supressing the worship of Dorje Shugden, why should you?
>> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje >> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually >> until he passed away.
>OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly >pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others. >But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly >around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that >DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of >criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner >Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS >Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
When Lama Yeshe set up Manjushri Centre he gave them a commitment to do Dorje Shugden practice. Kyabje Zong Rinpoche gave the Life Empowerment of Dorje Shugden at Manjushri Centre.
There are many Geshes who have set up dharma Centres around the world, is there something wrong in spreading the dharma?
Gonsar Rinpoche has spoken against the ban on Dorje Shugden worship.
>Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong? >Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of >the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon >placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields. >But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their >DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja >than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know >who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS >to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been >Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.
You should check two things: 1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden? 2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?
>> 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.
>This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of >trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change >the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from >branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.
Since Gelugpas believe that a lineage is passed down as a lineage of instructions and a lineage of realisations then for this generation of Buddhists the Gelugpa lineage has been embodied by Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang Dorjechang. Both these precious lamas taught that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha. They advised their followers to rely on him as their principal Protector. As a result the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha was very widespread in all the monasteries of the Gelug tradition.
Now the Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and bans the worship of Dorje Shugden in all gelugpa monasteries.
This is changing the Gelug tradition.
Worse than this he now claims that his actions accord with Trijang Rinpoche's teaching. This is the worst deception. The Dalai Lama has been trying to stop the worship of Shugden for nearly twenty years but only now do we have this new statement. Previously he said that Trijang Rinpoche accepted his decision to stop practising. Of course Trijang Rinpoche accepted this choice, it was not trijang Rinpoche's nature to force his disciples to do anything.
If Trijang Rinpoche had decided that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he would have told all his disciples. He would have made sure that they understood that their previous instructions to rely on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha were incorrect and harmful. And yet no one heard this from Trijang Rinpoche. Instead his close disciples continued to worship Dorje Shugden, teach that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, and give empowerments into the practice of Dorje Shugden.
I would love to think that the Dalai lama's words on this point are not a deliberate attempt to deceive others, but so far I have not a single reason not to make that conclusion.
> I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For > example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like > repression.
This information was recently spread by first German television (ARD):
/The Tibetan exile parliament actually changed the constitution after the Dalai Lama's religious ban; until that point it had said in article 63 of the Tibetan exile constitution - quote: "The chairing judge of the court and the two juries shall be Tibetans." - now the following has been added: "and shall furthermore not believe in the deity Shugden."/
Imagine such a sentence in a constitution of any democratic country: "...and shall furthermore not believe in Jesus." - or in Allah or in Buddah or in whoever. What is this if not suppression? Religious freedom?
In article <01bcff6a$b6d10860$548aa19d@pcoliver>, o...@deos.com ("Ole") wrote:
> Imagine such a sentence in a constitution of any democratic country: > "...and shall furthermore not believe in *Jesus*." - or in *Allah* > or in *Buddah* or in whoever. > What is this if not suppression? Religious freedom?
****** But surely we are not talking about the founder or central character of a faith here, we are discussing a minor Gyalpo on the fringes of the Buddhist pantheon. A more acurate analogy would be to compare H.H. Dalai Lama's actions to ...say..the Pope having examined again the evidence for the canonisation of a saint and then declaring that it is no longer appropriate to continue the worship of St Leger or whoever. In a democratic country most would see such a declaration as being quite reasonable as the originator of the said declaration is acknowledged to be in a suitable position to issue such guidance. On the other hand if this minor Gyalpo shugden IS the most central figure of the propitiants faith then from my viewpoint it would be more appropriate to discribe it as Gyalpoism, rather than Buddhism. This whole issue of shugden should be seen in it's correct context. Any practice,sadhana,mantra or whatever is only an aid on the route to enlightenment. There are many thousands of such aids at the disposal of competent Dharma teachers.If a particular practice does not work for a particular pupil then the skilful teacher recommends a suitable alternative. The value of the practice can be measured in it's effect on the practitioner. It seems that from the viewpoint of some posters to these threads that the practice is the goal.
Don, Never go by appearances, The Born-Again Buddhist. I look intelligent. (....and again and again)
|
