Dorje Shugden/Dalai Lama/Now Magazine
Madhyamaka Centre
The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ON THE OUTS
By JOHN GOETZ
LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland -- For many of his western supporters, the Dalai
Lama represents sanity in a world gone awry. Yet few have asked themselves
about the way he runs his exile government or even about what Tibet looked
like when he did rule it.
Consider the case of Gonzar Ripoche, the spiritual head of a temple that
faces the snowy Swiss Alps high above Lake Geneva. A gentle-spoken man in a
red robe, Gonzar Ripoche heads one of the largest Tibetan Buddhist
monasteries in the exile community outside India.
Guiding me through his sanctuary, he indicates the most prominent shrine in
the place - the one dedicated to the Dalai Lama.
But his words are fraught with an almost crushing ambivalence.
"I have spent many years in exile and have a great reverence for His
Holiness, the Dalai Lama," he tells me. "But now he is abusing our freedom
by banning Shugden. It makes me very sad."
Indeed, just metres away from the photo of Tibet's spiritual head sits a
statue of Dorje Shugden, to which Gonzar prays daily.
"We are not doing anything wrong, we are just keeping on with this practice
which we have received through great masters. I respect His Holiness very
much, hoping he may change his opinion," he says.
Gonzar, who is seen as the incarnation of a former lama and whose
recognition was, he says, confirmed by the Dalai Lama himself, left Tibet in
1959, within days of the leader's famous exodus. It was the Dalai Lama who,
he says, persuaded him to learn English and who sent him to Switzerland to
teach Buddhism.
"He was very kind to me in Dharamsala. Just to have a glimpse of him was
regarded as a great blessing. Now he speaks in hard ways. The exile
government is forcing us to choose between His Holiness and our personal
protector deity.
"I cannot accept this ban on Shugden. If I accept this, then I accept that
all of my masters, wise great masters, are wrong. If I accept that they are
demon worshippers, then the teachings are wrong, everything we believe in is
wrong. That is not possible."
It's the painful dilemma created for many Tibetans by the Dalai Lama's new
hard line.
Few question the Dalai Lama's right and responsibility to make decisions
concerning the Tibetan religious belief system. Every religion has leaders
who decide what belongs in the cannon. But it is the Dalai Lama's confusion
of his roles as head of the exile government and religious leader that
angers Shugden-believers most of all. It is his ability to translate his
religious ideas into government policy that they believe bodes ill for a
future free Tibet
This is exemplified by the enthusiasm with which the exile government has
taken up the prohibition promulgated by the Dali Lama's office, which
declared belief in Shugden "one of the greatest dangers to the cause of
Tibet and the life of His Holiness.''
The department of health, for example, wrote on April 18, 1996: "If there is
anyone who worships Dorje Shugden they should repent and stop worshipping.
In case there is anyone who does not abide by the address of his Holiness,
then such a person should submit their resignation.''
The Dalai Lama has even gone so far as to call for Tibetans to spy on each
other. The office of His Holiness ordered the superiors of the Sermey
monastic college in Bylakuppe, India, "If there is anyone who continues to
worship Dhogyal (Shugden), make a list of their names.''
"The myth of the Dalai Lama is stronger than the truth -- it creates a
shadow over the truth," says Ursula Bernis, a doctor of philosophy now in
Delhi doing research for her book Exiled From Exile.
Psychic warfare
Bernis recounts, for example, the story of a family whose home in the
Tibetan settlement of Clementown, India, was firebombed and stoned because
they were Shugden believers. "There have been other homes, stones thrown,"
she says. But the Tibetans are more likely to use psychological warfare,
like character defamation.
"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are excluded
from society," Bernis says. "Exclusion from society is almost worse than
death."
Wanted posters for the people believed to be Shugden leaders have been put
up in monasteries, settlements and in Dharamsala. "They list their
addresses, the whereabouts of their families and the family members'
pictures," Bernis says. Posting private information on the leaders is an
"invitation to harm them," she says.
P.K. Dey, a human rights lawyer from Delhi, has also travelled throughout
India taking the statements of 300 who claim to have been threatened for
praying to Shugden. "Those worshipping Shugden are experiencing tremendous
harassment. It is not in a particular part of the country but everywhere
where there are Tibetans. Dalai Lama supporters are going house to house
searching,'' he says.
But if the Dalai Lama came to his prohibition against Shugden as a
consequence of heeding his oracle, it's not clear at all how he made the
decision to drop independence from China as a political goal in 1989,
favouring autonomy instead.
To this day, this remains a sore point in the Tibetan exile community.
Lhasang Tserjing is the director of the respected Amnye Machen Institute for
the Study of Neglected Aspects of Tibetan Culture, in Dharamsala, and was
publisher of the leading independent Tibetan newspaper called Mangtso
(Democracy). Tserjing is critical not only of the decision to give up
independence as a goal but also of the way the decision was made.
"Concerning democratization, I can only say that the efforts of the exile
government have been half-hearted. The executive has made decisions on the
issue of independence all alone. Not even the exiled parliament has been
consulted, let alone the people."
Despite the long tradition of western literature describing Tibet as a
centre of wisdom and a lost paradise, pre-occupation Tibet had little in
common with the Shangri-La of orientalist imagination.
Tibetans were indentured servants, and education was the exclusive privilege
of the monks who ruled the country along with a corrupt aristocracy. Tibet
scholar Jens Uwe Harmann of Humboldt University in Berlin is an enthusiastic
supporter of the Dalai Lama, yet he strongly objects to the image of old
Tibet as a paradise.
"The society was organized in a very strict, hierarchical way. There was a
form of serfdom, there were draconian punishments up to the point of
physical mutilation, whippings and the like. And all of this shows us that
this society cannot have been quite as ideal as has been continually
presented to us.''
Then there is the matter of the Dalai Lama's writings on sexuality, which
have upset his gay supporters. In his 1993 book Beyond Dogma, he declares,
"The inappropriate parts of the body are the mouth and the anus, and sexual
intercourse involving those parts of the body, whether a man or a woman, is
considered sexual misconduct.''
Last June, a group of gay Buddhists in San Francisco asked for and received
a private audience with the Dalai Lama. Here the leader confirmed his
position and asked, "Sex is for procreation, right?'' Those present
responded with silence.
Steve Peskind, coordinator of the Buddhist AIDS Project in that city and an
attendee at the meeting, says, "Gay Buddhists hear such comments and ask
themselves, 'What the hell is this?''
For too long, the discussion of Tibet has employed two main orientalist
cliches - the evil, atheist Chinese hordes and the good, religious, peaceful
Tibetans. The Chinese occupation has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of innocent people through Maoist social engineering. The national
"autonomy'' the Chinese claim has been granted to the Tibetans is a farce,
and the Cultural Revolution resulted in the destruction of countless wonders
of Tibetan culture.
But it cannot be forgotten that in Tibet it was the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) that enforced the abolition of indentured servitude and built the
first public schools. It was also the PLA that kept careful watch as
bonfires engulfed the records of the debts owed by common people to the
aristocracy.
Any movement to support a free Tibet that forgets the role played by the
Chinese Communists in abolishing Tibetan feudalism runs the risk of falling
into the trap of those who supported the Ayatollah against the Shah in 1979
or the Mujahadin against the Soviet-supported Najibullah government in
Afghanistan. The tragedy of Tibet is not only the brutal Chinese occupation
but also the desperation that has led so many to believe that return to the
Dalai Lama is the only alternative.
NOW JANUARY 22-28, 1998
Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
MagwepNYC
>The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>
>
>By JOHN GOETZ
Hmmmmm... I'd be interested in knowing what John Goetz' usually covers in his
journalistic career. What other articles have appeared under his byline? In
what other magazines? Also, who owns and publishes "Now" Magazine? What
subjects does the magazine cover? Who advertises in this magazine?
Thanks!
Mary
Rabten
MagwepNYC wrote in message
<19980218155...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>
>>ON THE OUTS
>>
>>By JOHN GOETZ
>
>Hmmmmm... I'd be interested in knowing what John Goetz' usually covers in
his
>journalistic career. What other articles have appeared under his byline?
In
>what other magazines? Also, who owns and publishes "Now" Magazine? What
>subjects does the magazine cover? Who advertises in this magazine?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Mary
I don't know much about John Goetz or Now Magazine but they have a web page
at www.now.com I guess you can find out from there.
Rabten
Rita Gold
Wonder if the author did any independent interviews other than with Dorje
Shugden supporters? I don't see any comment from the Dalai Lama's office.
<<Any movement to support a free Tibet that forgets the role played by the
Chinese Communists in abolishing Tibetan feudalism runs the risk of falling
into the trap of those who supported the Ayatollah against the Shah in 1979 or
the Mujahadin against the Soviet-supported Najibullah government in
Afghanistan.>>
Bet the Chinese really appreciate this article!
corn...@hayboo.com
In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>,
zmad...@rmplc.co.uk (Madhyamaka Centre) quoted John Goetz's article in NOW
magazine:
> Then there is the matter of the Dalai Lama's writings on sexuality, which
> have upset his gay supporters. In his 1993 book Beyond Dogma, he declares,
> "The inappropriate parts of the body are the mouth and the anus, and sexual
> intercourse involving those parts of the body, whether a man or a woman, is
> considered sexual misconduct.''
>
> Last June, a group of gay Buddhists in San Francisco asked for and received
> a private audience with the Dalai Lama. Here the leader confirmed his
> position and asked, "Sex is for procreation, right?'' Those present
> responded with silence.
>
> Steve Peskind, coordinator of the Buddhist AIDS Project in that city and an
> attendee at the meeting, says, "Gay Buddhists hear such comments and ask
> themselves, 'What the hell is this?''
Now, I have no real wish to get drawn into the ongoing Shugden brouhaha, but
the above passage is clearly aimed at alienating lesbian, gay, bi, and
transgender (LGBT) Buddhists (and straight Buddhists sympathetic to LGBT
people) from HH the Dalai Lama. In this, it is similar to other passages in
the article -- for example, those which seek to horrify democratic Westerners
with tales of indentured servants in traditional Tibet, etc. etc., and raise
the spectre of the Dalai Lama returning to power, reinstituting servitude, and
becoming a Tibetan version of the Ayatollah Khomeini (?!?!?!) -- which
likewise cynically seek to alienate various Western pro-Tibet constituencies
from HHDL.
Madhyamaka Centre, let me be blunt: Speaking as a practitioner who is also a
gay man, this tactic is much more likely to backfire on you badly, at least
among LGBT Buddhists. The quoted passage greatly and transparently
misrepresents both the tenor and the substance of the San Francisco meeting
with HHDL in order to try to paint HHDL as a medieval despot, a falsehood
which best suits the Shugden supporters' political agenda.
On the contrary, HHDL has opened an ongoing dialogue with the LGBT Buddhist
community regarding the development across all Buddhist traditions of a modern
understanding of what comprises "sexual misconduct." It should also be
pointed out that HHDL has expressly acknowledged that the prohibitions on
anal, oral, and manual sex (whether between individuals of the same sex or
opposite sex, or individually) may be rooted in a historical context that no
longer applies. Moreover, it appears that the ultimate scriptural source for
the sexual prohibitions under discussion is the Lamrim Chenmo, a text not
shared by non-Tibetan Buddhist traditions and of greatest importance in
Tibetan Buddhism specifically within the Gelugpa tradition. The question then
arises -- given the NKT's seeming view of itself as the only remaining pure
stream of Gelug teachings -- what exactly does the NKT itself make of the
Lamrim Chenmo passages which HHDL is now opening for discussion and modern
interpretation? Forget misportraying HHDL's position on the Lamrim Chenmo's
sexual prohibitions -- what do Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT say about these
prohibitions found in a text so fundamentally important to Gelug?
In addition, HHDL's response to this issue actually undermines the NKT's
attempts to portray him as a despot. HHDL has repeatedly stressed that he is
not a Buddhist "pope," nor even a *Tibetan* Buddhist "pope," and simply does
not have the authority himself to unilaterally modify or confirm traditional
teachings for all practitioners. This is why he has explicitly called for
extensive discussions and for the development of a "new consensus" on the
teachings in question. Contrary to the NOW magazine article, HHDL has
responded to the LGBT Buddhist community on this issue with consistent
compassion and openness.
Ven. Gelong K.T. Shedrup Gyatso, a frequent contributor to a.r.b.t., was among
those who participated in the San Francisco meeting; he may wish to dispel the
false portrayal of HHDL and the meeting given in this article by countering it
with first-hand testimony. Until then, a more accurate portrayal of the
meeting is available at the website of New York's Maitri Dorje Gay and Lesbian
Buddhist Society (http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9033/minutesf.html),
where the official minutes provided by Steve Peskind's organization, Buddhist
AIDS Project (BAP), are posted. I also reproduce below the press report that
BAP released after the meeting.
May all beings benefit,
David
______________________________________________________________________________
BUDDHIST AIDS PROJECT -- E-MAIL REPORT:
THE DALAI LAMA MEETS WITH LESBIAN AND GAY LEADERS, JUNE 11,1997
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 1997
In a historic meeting in San Francisco on June 11, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama, for the first time ever, discussed issues of homosexuality, human
rights, and Buddhism with a small group of gay and lesbian Buddhists and human
rights activists. The Dalai Lama expressed his strong opposition to
discrimination and any form of violence against gay and lesbian people. He
voiced his support for full human rights for all, regardless of sexual
orientation. He encouraged gay and lesbian activists to rely on Buddhist
principles of rigorous investigation and non-violence as the foundation in
their struggle for full equality. Participants were heartened by the Tibetan
leader's willingness to re-examine traditional Buddhist teachings on sexual
misconduct and homosexual behavior in light of modern scientific research,
psychology, and changing cultural mores.
Attending the meeting were Steve Peskind, Co-ordinator of the Buddhist AIDS
Project; Eva Herzer, President, International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet;
Jose Cabezon, Buddhist scholar and Associate Professor, Iliff School of
Theology; Tinku Ali Ishtiaq, Co-Chair, International Gay and Lesbian Human
Rights Commission; Lourdes Arguelles, Professor of Education, The Claremont
Graduate School, and Board Member, Buddhist Peace Fellowship; K.T.Shedrup
Gyatso, Spiritual Director, San Jose Tibetan Temple; and Rabbi Yoel Kahn,
leader in the national lesbian/gay Jewish community. The Dalai Lama proposed
the private meeting in response to a letter from Steve Peskind requesting
clarification of teachings in two recent books by His Holiness, Beyond Dogma
(North Atlantic Books, 1996) and The Way To Freedom (Harper Collins for the
Library of Tibet, 1994).
Welcoming participants, the Dalai Lama started the meeting saying, "Thank you
for trusting me in coming here." Reading the Tibetan text from Tibetan
Buddhist Lam Rim ethics, he noted that the traditional teachings, dating back
to the Indian Buddhist scholar, Ashvaghosha, assert that sexual misconduct for
all Buddhists, heterosexual and homosexual, is determined by "inappropriate
partner, organ, time, and place." Inappropriate partners include men for men,
women for women, women who are menstruating or in the early stages of nursing,
men or women who are committing adultery, monks or nuns, or prostitutes paid
for by a third party and not oneself. Sex with the"inappropriate organs" of
the mouth, anus, and "using one's hand" also constitutes sexual misconduct for
all Buddhists. Inappropriate places include Buddhist temples and places of
devotion. Proscribed times include sex during daylight hours and "sex more
than five consecutive times for heterosexual partners." In his recent
publications the Dalai Lama reiterated these teachings with no qualifications
for cultural context, personal relationship, modern scientific findings and
social history.
Regarding his letter sent to the Dalai Lama through the Office of Tibet in
January of this year, Peskind expressed serious concern about the
"consequences of these teachings by the Dalai Lama which are being published
for world-wide distribution." Peskind said that he considered that their
presentation "supports the climate of international psychological, spiritual,
physical, social, and political violence, discrimination and human rights
violations against gay people and others."
His Holiness was clearly moved by the personal statements of Herzer,
co-planner of the meeting with the Office of Tibet's Dawa Tsering, and
Cabezon, an old friend and personal translator in India. Herzer spoke of the
great difficulties she experienced in her family's response to her coming out
as a lesbian. Cabezon, protesting the discriminatory impact of the proscribed
behaviors for gay and lesbian Buddhists, asked, "Why are heterosexuals allowed
sex up to five consecutive times and homosexuals zero!?" Although the
trictures do not mention homosexual orientation, they include most of the
sexual behavior of gay people. Cabezon noted that the prohibitions are found
in all four of the major Tibetan Buddhist lineages.
The Dalai Lama acknowledged Cabezon's question with a hearty laugh but did not
answer his question. When Peskind asked, "Which of the proscribed behaviors
-- regarding partner, organ, or excessive frequency' -- do you personally
consider most important?", the Dalai Lama did not respond. He did offer,
later, that sexual expression, homosexual or heterosexual, is much preferable
to harming oneself or another due to pent-up sexual frustration.
In a public press conference on Tuesday, June 10, the day before the private
meeting, His Holiness stressed that, "The Buddha is our teacher", the
historical reference for all Buddhists. Peskind asked during the forty-five
minute meeting, "When and where did the Buddha give these teachings on sexual
misconduct?" His Holiness, chuckling, responded, "I don't know." He also
noted that he, personally, is not empowered to change Buddhist tradition,
though he has said in the past, "If science points to or proves a truth
contradictory to Buddhist teaching, then Buddhist teaching must change." He
urged all attendees to meet with Buddhist teachers from all the Buddhist
schools and practice lineages and to discuss issues of sex, gender, and
diversity with their sanghas and personal communities. And he welcomed
participants' suggestion that these issues be explored in conjunction with
upcoming conferences.
The Dalai Lama made it clear that violation of any of the moral precepts,
including killing, does not and cannot disqualify someone from being a
Buddhist. And, according to Peskind, "He did not clarify during this meeting
how sex as an expression of emotional intimacy, moderate recreational sex, or
gay tantric sex in any way impedes the path to full awakening, freedom, and
peace of heart."
Following the meeting Jose Cabezon stated, "It is wonderful to see a religious
thinker of the caliber of His Holiness the Dalai Lama grappling with issues of
sexual ethics and especially the rights and responsibilities of gay and
lesbian people in such and open, empathetic, and rigorous fashion." Said Steve
Peskind, "We cannot control tradition and politics. We cannot control
psychological and physical violence born of delusion. But Buddha's way is not
about the control of suffering. It is about responding honestly with open
awareness to the whole display of our experience including suffering. Our only
freedom as human beings is in the fullness and integrity of our response. When
one perceives harm or questionable discrimination embedded in a spiritual
tradition, no one can walk away. No one can hide on a meditation cushion, or
in a pew, or in another branch of the same tradition, particularly one
emphasizing the interrelatedness of all beings. We can only be in the truth of
who we are and respond from this truth."
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
> The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ON THE OUTS
>
> By JOHN GOETZ
>
> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland --
> NOW JANUARY 22-28, 1998
>
> Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
ANSWER: His lips are moving.
Best,
Kunzang Dorje
Don Martin
In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>,
Madhyamaka Centre <zmad...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
> The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ON THE OUTS
> By JOHN GOETZ
> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland -- For many of his western supporters, the Dalai
****** ( stifles huge yawn )
If John Goetz is not himself a member of nkt, and this of course
is quite possible, then he has obviously been fed this tosh from them. Same
old phrases,same old story, Just goes to show that even an otherwise
respectable magazine could be taken in by a 'story' and not do much about
checking sources or obtaining other veiwpoints.. Do the nkt really think
that anyone reading these groups cannot see their involvement? It was even
the Madhyamaka Centre that happened to post this item.To six newsgroups.
Could it be perhaps that they were awaiting it's publication? Perhaps Now
magazine is delivered regularly to their centres? Dont bother responding
to their denials, or reading how they just happened to hear of this
article, sent to them by a concerned.........yawn. Yawn. zzzzzzzzzz
--
Don, Trying to live like a sword
The Born-Again Buddhist in water, but behaving
(..and again & again..) more like a thick plank.
The Puddies
Madhyamaka Centre wrote in message <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are excluded
>from society," Bernis says.
He DOES tend to inspire that kind of loyalty doesn't he?
Evelyn
khyenrab
In article <sattara-ya0240800...@news.dimensional.com>,
sat...@sattara.com says...
>> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ON THE OUTS
>>
>> By JOHN GOETZ
>>
>> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland --
>>
>> Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
>
>
>
>
>
>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>
>
>Best,
>Kunzang Dorje
NKT people are not lying when they point out the suffering being caused by
the Dalai Lama's actions. I think you should apologise for your slur on the
many thousands of people who are daily suffering through the actions of
Tibet's political leader. Cheap jibes cannot hide the truth.
best wishes
Khyenrab
khyenrab
In article <6cfk9t$d8u$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>>permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
excluded
>>from society," Bernis says.
>
>
>Evelyn
>
Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century history
and fanaticism?
Khyenrab
David Golden
I'm new to this group, and to news groups as a whole, so please forgive
any errors on my part. These nasty exchanges are so inconsistant with
Buddhist values. Aren't they?
David Golden
I'm new to this group, and to news groups as a whole, so please forgive
any errors on my part. These nasty exchanges are so inconsistant with
Buddhist values. Aren't they?
D.Golden
craig s. bialick
Khyenrab asks:
>Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century
history
>and fanaticism?
fanatic; derivedfrom Latin -fanaticus- inspired by a deity
thick, thick irony here
-craig
Chris
> Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century history
> and fanaticism?
view of this matter just as frightening.
- Chris
Rabten
corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6cf9ij$mj7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> HHDL has repeatedly stressed that he is
>not a Buddhist "pope," nor even a *Tibetan* Buddhist "pope," and simply
does
>not have the authority himself to unilaterally modify or confirm
traditional
>teachings for all practitioners.
And yet the Dalai Lama has unilaterally banned the worship of Dorje Shugden.
Rabten
************
As the conclusion to the Dorje Shugden Coalition Press Release says:
http://www.he.net/~shugden/pres-eng.htm
The Dalai Lama is an outstanding, charismatic personality, and it is largely
due to him that there is now such widespread understanding of the desperate
Tibetan situation. He has done much for the Tibetans in exile, and his
Buddhist teachings have led to an increased appreciation of the fundamental
Buddhist values of tolerance, love, and compassion.
Given his reputation, it seems reasonable to expect that his actions should
accord with his words. For example, the proposed constitution of a free
Tibet as laid down by him in 1963 states:
Religious Freedom - Article 17
All religious denominations are equal before the law.
Every Tibetan shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. The right includes freedom to openly believe, practice, worship
and observe any religion either alone or in community with others.
If the Dalai Lama lived by his words, the conflict in Tibetan society would
immediately end. If he demonstrated the values he preaches of tolerance,
love, and compassion to the Dorje Shugden practitioners in his community by
restoring religious freedom, unity and harmony would immediately be
restored. This would benefit both Tibetans and western Buddhists, and would
ensure that his reputation and the reputation of Tibetan Buddhism could
remain untarnished.
The Dorje Shugden Coalition has no aim other than the restoration of
religious freedom. It is our wish that all four Tibetan Buddhist traditions
flourish in harmony, free from sectarianism, and that Tibetans and all other
living beings may live in freedom.
It is hoped that this press release will contribute to a balanced coverage
of the Dalai Lama's actions concerning Dorje Shugden. It is also hoped that
it will show the need for a more differentiating analysis of the Dalai Lama
and his government-in-exile, and the need to judge him not only by his words
but also by his actions.
Alan Bird
On 18 Feb 1998 21:37:01 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>Madhyamaka Centre wrote in message <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>>permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>>"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are excluded
>>from society," Bernis says.
>
>He DOES tend to inspire that kind of loyalty doesn't he?
>
>Evelyn
>
Evelyn are you saying this is good, bad or neutral.
Personally I find it appalling lack of judgement to say to people that
they should not consider themselves represented by their Government
merely because of a religious practice.
We would not stand for this in the West, yet for some reason because
it HHDL who says these things, it is seen as wrong to point out that
it abuses human rights.
this ban needs to be removed, politics and religio9n do not mix, nor
should they.
Best wishes
Alan
Alan Bird
>In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, zmad...@rmplc.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ON THE OUTS
>>
>> By JOHN GOETZ
>>
>> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland --
>> NOW JANUARY 22-28, 1998
>>
>> Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
>
>
>
>
>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>
>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>
>
Meanwhile facts are to be ignored?!?!?
Blaming the doctor for disgnosing a disease is foolish.
Alan
iw...@chicagonet.net
In article <19980218172...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Presumably we're thinking of the propaganda machinery of PRC!
# ig
Kent Sandvik
David Golden <dav...@wcf.net> wrote:
I totally agree. We should all stop cultivating our three poisons.
Mangalam, Kent
Mike Austin
In article <6cf16p$om6$1...@eros.clara.net>, Rabten <bodhi...@clara.net>
writes
>
>I don't know much about John Goetz or Now Magazine but they have a web page
>at www.now.com I guess you can find out from there.
>
>Rabten
I checked it out, but not much there. I did a search for John Goetz and
(apart from some deceased fellows, a baseball player and someone who
writes stories about spanking!), it transpires that John Goetz and
Jochen Graebert are the authors of the Swiss Panorama program.
So, it appears to be a rehash, repeat or whatever. Yawn. I think I'll go
read about spanking.....!
--
Mike Austin
x...@nospam.dircon.co.uk
Extracted from: <http://www.tibet-society.org.uk/aptrans.html>
(Transcript of His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama 'The Need to Balance
Spiritual and Material Values', Saturday 20 July, 1996,
Alexandra Palace, London. )
====================================================
Translator: How can the Dorje Shugden crisis be resolved?
His Holiness:
Now, you see, as some of you I think already know, my position is the
protector. This story last three hundred years. Not something new to
Tibet, but three hundred years. Then out of three hundred years only
last about sixty years, you see, this somehow is rapid sort of
propagate. So that creates some consequences. Now the main, you see,
reason is: number one: Tibetan Buddhism has many now Western Buddhist
scholars now, you see, realise, accept the Tibetan Buddhist tradition
is quite profound. You see, that tradition, now eventually to some
people it become like, there's danger degenerate from the Buddhist
essence, eventually become like spirit worship. That, I think, great
tragedy. And then second: well-known, to many people, you see, my
whole approach is non-sectarian principle, particularly within Tibetan
Buddhist tradition. I'm promoting the tradition which, you see, all
four Tibetan Buddhist traditions by one person simultaneously
practised. So this, I feel, is not only good for harmony, but also
individual practitioners. This, you see, help a lot, according my own
experience. Simultaneous practice is very very useful. So, the story
of Shugden, there are stories, how say, they dislike that kind of
non-sectarian practice or approach. So according to stories: eighth
Panchen Lama, now he practise some Nyingma tradition so as a result,
the story goes, Dorje Shugden harmed on his life. Then also, the
regent, who ....
Translator: He's the lama who was responsible for recognising His
Holiness.
His Holiness: You see, that regent also, the story goes, because of
his involvement or practise in the Nyingma tradition, you see, he
eventually got in trouble because of Dorje Shugden. That's the story
which...
Translator: This is the kind of understanding which is promoted in the
practice of Dorje Shugden.
His Holiness: So therefore, you see, that spirit and you see, my whole
approach of promotion of non-sectarian not go well. Second point: in
fact, you see, if we carry more research into all the unhappy
incidents which are due to this protector in Kham area and also in
Southern Tibet, in many part of Tibet, you see the sectarian conflict.
So you see, that's the second reason. The third: since fifth Dalai
Lama, the relations with this spirit is not always positive.
Therefore, you see, since fifth Dalai Lama, no Dalai Lamas, you see,
associate with this spirit. You see, I think disgraceful. I think,
when I was sixteen years old you see, since then I practise with this
spirit, till two years ago. Then I, you see, due to greater awareness,
then I notice, "Oh, now, there is something wrong." So, then through
some spiritual investigation the indication was I should stop
completely. Then I stop. So therefore, you see, and then the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama also put severe, how say, restrictions on his
practice. So therefore, you see, because recently , due to, I think
ignorance, bit I think propagate to extreme. Actually, I think, since
eighteen years, last eighteen years, I, you see, remind Tibetan
community and also practitioner this negative consequences. So you see
many people listen, but some people you see don't pay much attention.
So, you see, I repeated this warning. So this time I give early year's
warning, you see early part of this year. So this case our exiled
parliament and also the exiled government and various Tibetan
communities responded quite forcefully, quite effectively. So, you
see, this complaint happened in some areas by a few people. So, you
see, my position is right from the beginning that it is my
responsibility to make clear what is positive and negative - and
whether people listen or not is up to them. So that's my position, for
the last eighteen years that is my basic position. So, my suggestion
or advice is: "Please, those individual who practice or who have
interest about this should take more research work, more
investigation; listen various views and stories. Should not be
one-sided, then you get, you see, more and more clear picture. Then,
you see, you can take, I think, right decision, that's up to you."
========================================================
Michael McLoughlin
In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, zmad...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
says...
More than usually vitriolic SSG/NKT drivel snipped:
Can't you guys see beyond the ends of your noses. You are merely stooges
for PRC. There were supposed to be TAR officials coming to visit Britain
a while back to denounce HHDL and say what a wonderful socialist paradise
Tibet is. They cancelled when the Govt. could not guarantee that they
would not meet public demonstrations. Personally, I think they didn't
come because the could see the NKT were doing their work for them. It is
exactly the kind of character assassination indulged in this article that
PRC propagandists have been involved in. When will the British students
of GKG realise that they are being used as pawns in a political power
struggle within the Tibetan refugee commnunity (and the Gelugpa sect in
particular) by people who have no real interest in the welfare (as far
as I can see) of Tibetans in or out of Tibet? What exactly does the
NKT do to help Tibetan refugees? Is it involved in raising money to
help people in Tibet or does all its money go on rubbishing HH and
prosletyzing? The massive expansion of numbers of centres in the NKT is a
means of apparently showing how many DS supporters there are in the UK.
Alledgedly many of these centres are temporary (Cf numerous posts by
Avyorth) and do not represent the spontaneous flowering of devotion that
is claimed. Wise up guys! You are being used in a game you know
absolutely nothing about.
Rabten
Thank you Chris for posting the Dalai Lama's words.
x...@nospam.dircon.co.uk wrote in message
<34ebcfb0...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>
>Extracted from: <http://www.tibet-society.org.uk/aptrans.html>
>
>(Transcript of His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama 'The Need to Balance
>Spiritual and Material Values', Saturday 20 July, 1996,
>Alexandra Palace, London. )
>
>====================================================
>
>Translator: How can the Dorje Shugden crisis be resolved?
>
To summarize the Dalai Lama's answer:
Shugden practice is wrong because:
1. It makes Tibetan Buddhism like spirit worship rather than profound
Buddhism.
2. It goes against the idea of mixing all four traditions together
Therefore
Shugden practitioners should study more, listen to those who oppose Shugden
worship and then (probably) give up their practice.
****************
1)
I disagree strongly with point one. If we read how to rely on Dorje Shugden,
for example in Heart Jewel by Geshe Kelsang http://www.he.net/~shugden/, we
will see that it is not at all like spirit worship.
Moreover within Gelugpa society it is the highest scholars who have most
propagated this practice. Great Masters such as Pabongkha Rinpoche, Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten etc etc.
2)
With regards to point two, there are different ways of practising Buddhism
within Tibetan Buddhism. One way, that the Dalai Lama is proposing, is to
mix all four traditions together and practice them all at once. Another way
is to investigate the four traditions to see which one we are most suited
to, find a teacher within that tradition that we have a strong link with,
and rely sincerely on that teacher.
Since there are many people who have achieved enlightenment through this
second method, it would be unwise to suggest that it is not a good way of
practising.
With regard to to the Dalai Lama's conclusion it is always good advice to
tell someone to learn more about their practices. The more I learn about the
practice of Dorje Shugden, the happier I become and the more confident I
become in my practice.
With regards to listening to those who are opposed to the practice, it is
important to see whether they have good reason or not, but beyond that just
because someone disagrees is no reason to stop.
There are many Christians who believe by practising Buddhism I will go to
hell. However on examination I find that I will go to hell if I die with
heavy non-virtuous karma ripening whether I calll myself a Buddhist or a
Christian.
I draw a few conclusions from this speech by the Dalai Lama:
1) His main reasons for banning the worship of Dorje Shugden change
depending on who he is talking to.
2) His position changes delpending on who he is talking to. In the west he
claims to be advising against the practice in India he openly tries to
eradicate the practice.
3) He seems to be projecting his faults onto others. He relies very heavily
on oracles, dough-balls, prophesies, dreams etc that make Tibetan Buddhism
look like spirit worship and not very profound at all. He claims that
worshipping Dorje Shugden causes sectarian division, but there has never
been such sectarian division like that brought about by his ban on the
worship of Shugden. It seems his non-sectarian practice is extremely
sectarian.
I wish the Dalai Lama would talk to the people concerned and try to come to
a solution. Without the Dalai Lama's help this situation will continue to
deteriorate. On this issue Tibetan Buddhism is gradually causing the
reputation of Buddhism everywhere to decline, which is shameful. There must
be a way to discuss this openly with the Dalai Lama.
Rabten
PS. I can see clearly the self-referential Lojong trap in my conclusion
number three that makes it impossible to talk of another's faults, I deserve
all the flaming I get for that, but still think the point is worth making.
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6cfmpi$47a$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>In article <sattara-ya0240800...@news.dimensional.com>,
>sat...@sattara.com says...
>>
>>In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, zmad...@rmplc.co.uk
wrote:
>>
>>> The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>>> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ON THE OUTS
>>>
>>> By JOHN GOETZ
>>>
>>> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland --
>>> NOW JANUARY 22-28, 1998
>>>
>>> Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>>
>>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>>
>>
>>Best,
>>Kunzang Dorje
>
>NKT people are not lying when they point out the suffering being caused by
>the Dalai Lama's actions. I think you should apologise for your slur on the
>many thousands of people who are daily suffering through the actions of
>Tibet's political leader. Cheap jibes cannot hide the truth.
>
>best wishes
>Khyenrab
Khyenrab,
You NKT people in your mad quest to discredit HH Dalai Lama, the most kind
and good person alive..... is a slur. Your actions cause him suffering.
Your constant presence and non-stop discreditation of HH cause those of us
who respect and love him suffering.
Give it a rest... You are obviously all high on yourselves.
Evelyn
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6cfmuj$47a$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>In article <6cfk9t$d8u$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>>
>>
>>Madhyamaka Centre wrote in message <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>>The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>>>permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>>
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>>"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are
>excluded
>>>from society," Bernis says.
>>
>>He DOES tend to inspire that kind of loyalty doesn't he?
>>
>>Evelyn
>>
>
>Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century history
>and fanaticism?
>
>Khyenrab
No, Khyenrab, I find it frightening that the individuals who have become
almost addicted to an obviously corrupt practice with bad intent, use their
fanaticism to discredit and harm one of the kindest and gentlest individuals
alive today.
Evelyn
The Puddies
David Golden wrote in message <34EB67...@wcf.net>...
>I'm new to this group, and to news groups as a whole, so please forgive
>any errors on my part. These nasty exchanges are so inconsistant with
>Buddhist values. Aren't they?
Hi David,
They certainly are inconsistent, but if you notice who is doing the nasty
exchanges, and who is trying to discredit HH Dalai Lama, you will notice
that they "protest too much" and reveal their lack of buddhist values.
I am not usually one to quote Xtian scripture (those who know me may howl
with surprise) but there is a saying "by their fruits ye shall know them"
and it is one shoe that obviously fits here!
Those who do buddhist practices usually end up more loving, more kind, more
compassionate. This is a good example of why HH Dalai Lama has asked his
friends not to do this practice. You can see the type of mind set it
generates.
Regards,
Evelyn
khyenrab
In article <6chc2f$296o$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>
>
>khyenrab wrote in message <6cfmpi$47a$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>In article <sattara-ya0240800...@news.dimensional.com>,
>>sat...@sattara.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, zmad...@rmplc.co.uk
>wrote:
>>>
>>>> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By JOHN GOETZ
>>>>
>>>> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland --
>>>> NOW JANUARY 22-28, 1998
>>>>
>>>> Published with persmission of NOW magazine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>>>
>>>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>Kunzang Dorje
>>
>>NKT people are not lying when they point out the suffering being caused by
>>the Dalai Lama's actions. I think you should apologise for your slur on
the
>>many thousands of people who are daily suffering through the actions of
>>Tibet's political leader. Cheap jibes cannot hide the truth.
>>
>>best wishes
>>Khyenrab
>
>
>
>Khyenrab,
>
>You NKT people in your mad quest to discredit HH Dalai Lama, the most kind
>and good person alive..... is a slur. Your actions cause him suffering.
>Your constant presence and non-stop discreditation of HH cause those of us
>who respect and love him suffering.
>
>Give it a rest... You are obviously all high on yourselves.
>
>Evelyn
>
>
of his own? What do you mean please?
Khyenrab
The Puddies
Alan Bird wrote in message <34eb71f6...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>On 18 Feb 1998 21:37:01 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
>wrote:
>>Madhyamaka Centre wrote in message <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>>"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are
excluded
>>>from society," Bernis says.
Evelyn said,
>>He DOES tend to inspire that kind of loyalty doesn't he?
Alan asked;
>Evelyn are you saying this is good, bad or neutral.
I am saying that it simply IS SO. I am also saying that you can fool some
of the people some of the time, and not all of the people all of the time.
In the case of HH Dalai Lama, from the postings on the newsgroups on this
subject over the last few months it is obvious that the practice of Dorje
Shugden does not foster lovingkindness, compassion or any other buddhist
values that I can see.
HH Dalai Lama however has been a living example of those values. If he has
the respect and love of many, and he does, it is because he has earned it.
This whole thing is obviously about something more than a visualized
practice, unless the practice has become more important than the attitudes
it was intended to foster.
>Personally I find it appalling lack of judgement to say to people that
>they should not consider themselves represented by their Government
>merely because of a religious practice.
Whose government? Not yours surely, and not mine. To me HH Dalai Lama is
a religious leader, and in that role he has not failed at all. As a
political figure, it is not hard to figure out who his enemies are, and why
they would take any stance against him. Power, money and fame are heady
intoxicants.
>We would not stand for this in the West, yet for some reason because
>it HHDL who says these things, it is seen as wrong to point out that
>it abuses human rights.
What rock have you been hiding under!!!!!! The pope says no "birth
control", and millions of women all over the world become victims of their
own biology. The pope likewise says "no abortion" and millions of unwanted
unloved babies are born and languish in orphanages, or become street
children. We not only STAND for this in the west, we allow and permit and
even many endorse it!!!!
The Dorje Shugden ban, harms NO ONE.... they are harming themselves by not
understanding that this is a VISUALIZED practice. They can simply
visualize SOMETHING ELSE!!!!! Get a life!!!!
>this ban needs to be removed, politics and religio9n do not mix, nor
>should they.
If HH Dalai Lama felt this was a harmful practice, and it obviously is at
the very least not a constructive one, it is his right, his prerogative, his
perfectly legitimate place to say so. It is likewise your right to be so
immured in ritual and superstition that you have no idea what these
practices are really about, nor do you understand them on a deep level, and
you can either keep on doing what is not helping, and keep on pushing this
issue on the newsgroups, in hopes of getting someone to support it, or you
can wake up and smell the coffee, get off your high horses, and go back to
square one, and learn what visualizations ARE and how they are supposed to
be used.
In my honest and simple opinion, I have read all of this stuff for months
now, and I have yet to see you convince anyone that from a buddhist
standpoint this practice has any value. It is founded in ignorance and all
it fosters is negativity.
Evelyn
The Puddies
Alan Bird wrote in message <34eb72bf...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:04:30 -0700, sat...@sattara.com (Sat Tara S.
>Khalsa) wrote:
>
>>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>>
>>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>>
Alan said;
>Meanwhile facts are to be ignored?!?!?
>Blaming the doctor for disgnosing a disease is foolish.
If it looks like s**t, smells like s**t, it must BE s**t.
Evelyn
The Puddies
Hello Rabten,
I have been following this debate for months now, and have seldom if ever
commented on any of it. Recently though, I have finally felt informed
enough to do so. I have done that a couple of times today.
Rabten wrote in message <6ch554$64v$1...@eros.clara.net>...
>Thank you Chris for posting the Dalai Lama's words.
Yes, HH DL's actual words on the matter clarified a lot. Interesting, but
I got a totally different take on it. I am going to share that with you
now.
>To summarize the Dalai Lama's answer:
>
>Shugden practice is wrong because:
>1. It makes Tibetan Buddhism like spirit worship rather than profound
>Buddhism.
Yes, it certainly does. Just following the posts here of the last few
months makes it totally clear that this is not JUST a visualization
practice. It has an obsessive quality to it that seems to take away the
transformative value of that type of practice, and leaves in its stead an
attachment to this particular practice, that is like a form of brainwashing
or sick obsessiveness of some kind. It doesn't seem like a right view at
all.
>2. It goes against the idea of mixing all four traditions together
So? What is so wrong with that? For years the four traditions have
worked together and all buddhist practices that I have been in contact with
seem to work to tear down the divisions, the walls, the discriminating views
that separate living beings. You want a private hate club? A secret
order of DS worshippers? That is not what buddhism is all about. It
seems to me that HH DL is simply exercising his position as the hub, the
focal point, the center of all the traditions here, to turn people away from
what he sees to be a mistaken view, harmful to the dharma as he understands
it. I have no problem with that at all, and having given fair attention
to all the months of postings have not changed that.
It really looks to me like you are doing something wrong. I don't know
what that something may be, but HH seems to know what it is. Maybe you
ought to listen to him.
>Therefore
>Shugden practitioners should study more, listen to those who oppose Shugden
>worship and then (probably) give up their practice.
Tsk Tsk..... ego ego..... I knew a zen master who used to say
".... 'Don't know' mind, is true zen mind" It is only when you open
your mind to the possibility that maybe there IS something wrong with DS
practice, that you may learn something. Exercising ego, carrying on here
on the newsgroups for months, insisting that HH DL is a bad guy, you play
right into the hands of not only his enemies, but the enemies of the dharma
in general (China) ......
I have never been to a NKT center. I think much of what I have heard
privately sounds like they have some very good ideas about connecting
western minds with the dharma.
Yes you folks seemed to have some good ideas, but giving such exceptional
importance to this one practice of Dorje Shugden, and opposing HH Dalai Lama
is not one of them.
Regards,
Evelyn
The Puddies
Rabten,
I have decided to reply a second time to your further descriptions on the
issue.
>1)
>I disagree strongly with point one. If we read how to rely on Dorje
Shugden,
>for example in Heart Jewel by Geshe Kelsang http://www.he.net/~shugden/, we
>will see that it is not at all like spirit worship.
The very obsessive quality about it is a dead giveaway that it is just a bit
"off" from everything I have ever understood about Tibetan Buddhism. You
would not really know if it was like spirit worship, if you have been doing
it for a long time..... I would think that a change in practice would do you
some good anyway, to help to broaden your views.
>Moreover within Gelugpa society it is the highest scholars who have most
>propagated this practice. Great Masters such as Pabongkha Rinpoche, Kyabje
>Trijang Rinpoche, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten etc etc.
Never mind about past masters who have done whatever. Look at what is
happening TODAY! With the NKT posters here....... Not good at all. Maybe
it worked for them, that is no guarantee that it is right at this time for
you.
>2)
>With regards to point two, there are different ways of practising Buddhism
>within Tibetan Buddhism. One way, that the Dalai Lama is proposing, is to
>mix all four traditions together and practice them all at once. Another way
>is to investigate the four traditions to see which one we are most suited
>to, find a teacher within that tradition that we have a strong link with,
>and rely sincerely on that teacher.
Not a very strong argument at all here. Nobody is forcing anyone to do
anything. He is within his rights as the focal point, the one who unites
all the traditions. They all have value, sharing the wealth can only be
enriching to all..... unless separation and divisiveness is your aim.
>Since there are many people who have achieved enlightenment through this
>second method, it would be unwise to suggest that it is not a good way of
>practising.
You got that part right ! I guess it is true about how even a broken clock
is right twice a day!!!!!
>With regard to to the Dalai Lama's conclusion it is always good advice to
>tell someone to learn more about their practices. The more I learn about
the
>practice of Dorje Shugden, the happier I become and the more confident I
>become in my practice.
And the more attached, the more adamant, and the more it becomes like a
spirit worship. Buddhism is not always about becoming confident. When we
get too confident it is because we have managed to construct more little
boxes around our psyche that make us think we KNOW. Sometimes it is good
to question, and to maybe take a back seat now and then, or change a
practice if we are too hooked on it. You guys all sound like junkies or
born againers at times.
>With regards to listening to those who are opposed to the practice, it is
>important to see whether they have good reason or not, but beyond that just
>because someone disagrees is no reason to stop.
Then why bother with being 'buddhists' why not be 'Shugdists' ..... or
'Geshists'.... If you want to use Tibetan methods, part and parcel of that
is to listen to those whose realizations are greater than your own and take
their advice.
>I draw a few conclusions from this speech by the Dalai Lama:
>1) His main reasons for banning the worship of Dorje Shugden change
>depending on who he is talking to.
That is a perfectly human thing to do. EVERYONE does that. We change our
methods of addressing people to the way we think they will understand best.
>2) His position changes delpending on who he is talking to. In the west he
>claims to be advising against the practice in India he openly tries to
>eradicate the practice.
Well what do you think a diplomatic leader would do? Of course he speaks
differently to Tibetans in India, they are his people, his nationality, his
followers.... We are not, we westerners are converts. We need a different
approach. We should listen to him simply from our hearts. For the
Tibetans, there is another history there, another kind of relationship. I
don't see this as even a half way valid criticism. He is not a "God" in
the Judeo/Xtian sense, but a human being, a monk, and a leader of the
tibetans in exile, as well as the uniting focal point of the religious
traditions of tibet. Get your definition of the man straight, please!
>3) He seems to be projecting his faults onto others. He relies very heavily
>on oracles, dough-balls, prophesies, dreams etc that make Tibetan Buddhism
>look like spirit worship and not very profound at all.
REALLY Rabten???!!!!!!! Did you maybe expect he would use a Oija board,
or the Tarot perhaps? or maybe a crystal ball? The man is a TIBETAN.....
of COURSE he uses the traditional means of divination that his people have
developed over the centuries. That was almost funny it was so flat of an
argument!!!
Not to start another issue up here, but many religions, many traditions use
various methods of divination to connect with intuitive wisdom. I see
nothing wrong with it at all. He is a Tibetan, and it has long been done
that way. It might be odd however if he did NOT use traditional methods.
He claims that
>worshipping Dorje Shugden causes sectarian division, but there has never
>been such sectarian division like that brought about by his ban on the
>worship of Shugden. It seems his non-sectarian practice is extremely
>sectarian.
No not at all. I don't hear anyone else carrying on about this excepting
your own group. It just so happens that not a word is said about it in
other traditions. So it would seem to me that it is obvious just who is
being sectarian about it.
>I wish the Dalai Lama would talk to the people concerned and try to come to
>a solution. Without the Dalai Lama's help this situation will continue to
>deteriorate. On this issue Tibetan Buddhism is gradually causing the
>reputation of Buddhism everywhere to decline, which is shameful. There must
>be a way to discuss this openly with the Dalai Lama.
I cannot believe it..... we are in agreement here finally. But stop
blaming him. He is living up to his role, his conscience, his traditional
place in Tibetan buddhism. It is only the NKT who is making it a big deal
and an "issue". If people are being turned off by it, I cannot blame them
a bit. I am turned off myself. Newbies come to these newsgroups to learn
about Tibetan Buddhism, and instead they have to read about the NKT's dirty
laundry and criticisms of our most loved icon.
Keeping it in the right forum and in the right perspective and addressing
the right people seems to be the biggest problem here. The NKT is going
about it all wrong.
I sincerely hope that this issue is either resolved soon, or taken off the
newsgroups to be dealt with in the proper ways with the proper people.
Bashing the Dalai Lama, and beating this issue to death all by yourselves is
a waste of time since no one is convinced in this manner.
I personally am very attached to the 1000 arm Chenresig practice and the
Homage to the 21 Taras. Neither of these practices seems to engender any
of the obsessive attitudes you guys seem to have. If HH said that we
should stop doing those practices and instead do something else, I would do
it immediately. I am not so obsessed, so wildly attached, so involved, as
to be so harmful to such a good man.
Maybe you ought to re-think this whole thing...... try doing some other
practice for a while and see if your views alter a bit. HH saw something
there.... maybe you ought to stop complaining about it and give some
consideration to the thought he may be right!
It comes down only to respect...... I KNOW he is more aware, more practiced,
more enlightened than I am..... I will listen to him without a question.
Regards,
Evelyn
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6chdip$5th$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>
>>
>Are you saying the Dalai Lama is the highest of the high?
How many other Dalai Lamas do you know of?
Is he in a class
>of his own?
Yes, I would say so.
> What do you mean please?
I have replied to other messages in detail today.... please refer to them
for a more full explanation of my views of His Holiness. But for now, yes,
I think he is a pretty special guy, without parallel, or peer, in many
senses of the word.
Evelyn
>Khyenrab
>
corn...@hayboo.com
In article <6cfrt7$2rd$1...@eros.clara.net>,
"Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net> wrote:
>
>
> corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6cf9ij$mj7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > HHDL has repeatedly stressed that he is
> >not a Buddhist "pope," nor even a *Tibetan* Buddhist "pope," and simply
> does
> >not have the authority himself to unilaterally modify or confirm
> traditional
> >teachings for all practitioners.
>
> And yet the Dalai Lama has unilaterally banned the worship of Dorje Shugden.
>
> Rabten
On the contrary, I look at the same facts and see HHDL simply speaking his
(very persuasive and influential) convictions and conclusions about Shugden,
and making it clear that if one has samaya with him (HHDL) or otherwise takes
him (HHDL) as a teacher, Shugden propitiation would be inconsistent with the
relationship with HHDL. As for the anti-Shugden-practice positions taken by
the Gov't-in-Exile and the exile community generally, these seem rooted in the
massive respect accorded to HHDL's teachings and views -- which is something
other than the purported HHDL-orchestrated "ban" that the NKT claims has been
imposed.
To repost some of HH's own words from the 1996 talk at Alexandra Palace:
" . . . . Actually, I think, since eighteen years, last eighteen years, I, you
see, remind Tibetan community and also practitioner this negative
consequences. So you see many people listen, but some people you see don't pay
much attention. So, you see, I repeated this warning. So this time I give
early year's warning, you see early part of this year. So this case our exiled
parliament and also the exiled government and various Tibetan communities
responded quite forcefully, quite effectively. So, you see, this complaint
happened in some areas by a few people. So, you see, my position is right from
the beginning that it is my responsibility to make clear what is positive and
negative - and whether people listen or not is up to them. So that's my
position, for the last eighteen years that is my basic position. So, my
suggestion or advice is: 'Please, those individual who practice or who have
interest about this should take more research work, more investigation; listen
various views and stories. Should not be one-sided, then you get, you see,
more and more clear picture. Then, you see, you can take, I think, right
decision, that's up to you.'"
To my (ex-Catholic) ears, Rabten, this hardly sounds like a "pope" issuing
unilateral, binding commands. So cling to your seeming attachment to Shugden
practice, and keep on propitiating -- just understand that to do so is to harm
your relationship with HHDL. This is not a "ban" pronounced by HHDL; this is
simply HHDL calling it the way he sees it, and leaving it up to the Shugden
supporters to decide how they wish to respond: drop Shugden and reconcile with
HHDL, or maintain Shugden but abandon your relationships with HHDL. As HHDL
said, "that's up to you."
All the best,
David
khyenrab
In article <6chdhg$1pc0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>
>In my honest and simple opinion, I have read all of this stuff for months
>now, and I have yet to see you convince anyone that from a buddhist
>standpoint this practice has any value. It is founded in ignorance and
all
>it fosters is negativity.
>
>Evelyn
>
>Evelyn, are you saying that when the Dalai Lama practised Dorje Shugden for
many years he was ignorant? Please, I don't understand what you really
mean.
Khyenrab
khyenrab
In article <34eb70c0...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk
says...
>
>
>> Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century history
>> and fanaticism?
>
>view of this matter just as frightening.
>
>- Chris
Chris, could you perhaps detail something about your fears please? In my own
case I have been horrified seeing TV footage of the suffering in Tibetan
society at the hands of the Dalai Lama's followers. This is the frightening
aspect of fanaticism in th cult of the Dalai Lama we are seeing very clearly
now.
Khyenrab
>
khyenrab
In article <6ci0d6$143a$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>
Nobody is forcing anyone to do
>anything. He is within his rights as the focal point, the one who unites
>all the traditions.
Evelyn, I understand that you love and respect the Dalai Lama very much like
many other people. He is a special being. But where did he get his power to
control the spiritual life of so many people?
Before there were Dalai Lamas the four Tibetan traditions were well
established. The Dalai Lamas began as a political force within that
society promoted by Mongolian Khans. The present Dalai Lama has no lineage
from spiritual teachers that says he is the supreme spiritual authority as
far as I know - if you can put me right on this please do so.
best wishes
Khyenarb
khyenrab
In article <6cgtrv$ds7$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
>
When will the British students of GKG realise
I realise very well that there is no evidence to support the ban. If there
were why hasn't it been produced?
HH Dalai Lama is intelligent. He should be able to explain more clearly the
evidence he is meant to have collected. Why can he not do this? The answer
must be that he has no real evidence - only signs in dreams, messages from
Nechung and the outcome of throwing balls of dough.
Would you like to be sentenced to jail on the basis of this "evidence"?
Khyenrab
Alan Bird
Alan Bird
Sadly Evelyn, this does not change facts.
As I posted before, if any other political figure was acting in this
way you would ask what is going on>
However, since it is HHDL you seem to think it is wrong to point out
errors of judgement that is causing people suffering.
HHDL is wrong in this ban, all that is being asked is that the ban be
lifted. politics abd religion do not mix.
For any government to have a law that bans religious beliefs is wrong.
The fact that the government is led by HHDL does not change that.
regards
Alan
Alan Bird
>In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>,
> Madhyamaka Centre <zmad...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote:
>> The following article has been submitted to the newsgroups with kind
>> permission of ‘Now Magazine’.
>
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>> ON THE OUTS
>
>> By JOHN GOETZ
>
<snip>
>> LAKE GENEVA, Switzerland -- For many of his western supporters, the Dalai
>****** ( stifles huge yawn )
> If John Goetz is not himself a member of nkt, and this of course
>is quite possible, then he has obviously been fed this tosh from them. Same
>old phrases,same old story,
Gonzar Ripoche, is he to a member of the NKT?!?!
Swiss News programme, German panorama, all these are members or
influenced by the NKT?
Don, you can keep claiming this as the work of the NKT, but one can
understand why people may begin to feel skeptical.
Alan
Alan Bird
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:47:09 -0600, corn...@hayboo.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>On the contrary, I look at the same facts and see HHDL simply speaking his
>(very persuasive and influential) convictions and conclusions about Shugden,
>and making it clear that if one has samaya with him (HHDL) or otherwise takes
>him (HHDL) as a teacher, Shugden propitiation would be inconsistent with the
>relationship with HHDL. As for the anti-Shugden-practice positions taken by
>the Gov't-in-Exile and the exile community generally, these seem rooted in the
>massive respect accorded to HHDL's teachings and views -- which is something
>other than the purported HHDL-orchestrated "ban" that the NKT claims has been
>imposed.
When HHDL told his exiled parliment and they by government that this
ban was damaging his health and was harming the cause of the free
Tibet/, he must have known what the responce would be.
The ban is being politically enforced, HHDL as not spoken against
this, nor as he asked that the original Tibetan consitution be upheld.
Meanwhile the ban is being enforced. Judges have to swaer that they
are not worshippers of dorje Shugden before they can take office.
Medical staff are removed from position unless they too do not worship
the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden. This is wrong. HHDL, if he respects the
rights of Tibetans to freedom of worship, should ask his government to
life the ban.
There is no little doubt that the parliment would, if he asked them
to.
>
<snip>
>
>To my (ex-Catholic) ears, Rabten, this hardly sounds like a "pope" issuing
>unilateral, binding commands. So cling to your seeming attachment to Shugden
>practice, and keep on propitiating -- just understand that to do so is to harm
>your relationship with HHDL. This is not a "ban" pronounced by HHDL; this is
>simply HHDL calling it the way he sees it, and leaving it up to the Shugden
>supporters to decide how they wish to respond: drop Shugden and reconcile with
>HHDL, or maintain Shugden but abandon your relationships with HHDL. As HHDL
>said, "that's up to you."
It ios a ban, see above.
If this is all his HH was saying, they would be no problem.
HHDL as told Tibetans that if they do not stop relying upon Dorje
Shugden, that they are not representyed by his government. what has
this to do with Samaya relationships.
It is political, and HHDL will best serve the interests of all
Tibetans, by encourageing his government to respect freedom of
religion.
Alan
Alan Bird
On 19 Feb 1998 13:35:52 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
Asking for religious liberty to be respected is not wrong: is it
Evelyn?
People are writing to ask that the ban be lifted. For that they are
often slandered and vilified.
So be it.
But truth is still truth. Tibetans are being forced out of homes,
posters supplying the names and addresses of Dorje Shugden worshipers
are still being posted on walls in exiled Tibetan communities in
India. Threats of violence have been advertised in papers.
These sadly are facts, asking for this to stop is not wrong.
Alan
Alan Bird
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:39:08 GMT, cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk (Chris)
wrote:
>
>> Don't you find that rather frightening knowing about 20th Century history
>> and fanaticism?
>
>I find the NKT's unquestioning acceptance of Geshe Kelsang Gyyatso's
>view of this matter just as frightening.
>
>- Chris
>
Chris, there are other Tibetan Lama's, Abbots amd Tulku's whostill
continue to worshio Dorje shugden and are perplexed to understand why
HHDL as imposed a ban.
But as Gandhi said, "It is cowards who take refuge in numbers."
If something is morally wrong, and only one person speaks out against
it, it is still morally wrong. If thousands of others also think it is
wrong, this does not make it more so.
Banning religious freedom thorugh political and judicial measures is
wrong.
Alan
Fred Little
On 19 Feb 1998, khyenrab wrote:
> In article <6ci0d6$143a$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> pud...@frontiernet.net says...
> >
> Nobody is forcing anyone to do
> >anything. He is within his rights as the focal point, the one who unites
> >all the traditions.
>
> Evelyn, I understand that you love and respect the Dalai Lama very much like
> many other people. He is a special being. But where did he get his power to
> control the spiritual life of so many people?
The power of the Dalai Lama comes from the devotion of individuals.
Individuals who wish to have a spiritual relationship with HHDL will heed
his advice in this matter. The complaint seems to turn on the wish of
some individuals to continue their spiritual relationship with HHDL *and*
continue a practice which he has asked those who have samaya bonds with
him to set aside. French intellectuals used to call this kind of attitude
"existential bad faith." My mom was a little bit more to the point,
telling me that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too.
> Before there were Dalai Lamas the four Tibetan traditions were well
> established. The Dalai Lamas began as a political force within that
> society promoted by Mongolian Khans. The present Dalai Lama has no lineage
> from spiritual teachers that says he is the supreme spiritual authority as
> far as I know - if you can put me right on this please do so.
Dearest Khyenrab--
I would feel more comfortable if you didn't hide behind the orientalist
pretension of an adopted dharma name, but I suppose that's my problem. In
any case, unless you have taken samaya vows with HHDL, you are under no
obligation to regard him as the "supreme spiritual authority." As for me,
I've got no samaya vows with anybody but the Buddha. That may have its
disadvantages, but for the moment, my hands are clean on the question of
whether or not I'm propagandizing for a teacher or spiritual friend to
whom I have binding obligations. So let me make this perfectly clear: To
date, the positions and tactics taken by the NKT/SSC/James Burns/Lucy
Burns/Alan Bird/Khyenrab/Rabten/Madhyamaka Center/etcetera etcetera
etcetera crew have consistently evidenced ignorance, malice, arrogance,
bone stupidity, and petulant whininess so profound that the only useful
suggestion I can make to you is this: Shut the fuck up and get your
skanky asses back to the nearest meditation cushion. Forget your precious
visualizations and your sadhana and your hideously objectified Gyalpo
Dholgyal unless it is to recall the pogroms that were carried out in his
name and beg forgiveness from whatever you hold as holy for the suffering
that Eastern Tibetans associate with the name Shugden. And if that's too
much of a huge pile of steaming shit for your delicate olfactory
apparatus, then just follow your breath in and out until your hate-filled
projections soften into something approaching bodhicitta and you're more
interested in flipping a smile and a quarter to a sidewalk grifter than
you are in complaining about interference with your right to publicly
discuss and practice something which was never meant to be public in the
first place.
Fred Little
fa...@columbia.edu
Aikido of the Hudson Valley/Palisades Aikido Club
http://www.j51.com/~annie/aikiclub.html
914/398-8005
Kent Sandvik
The Puddies <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> So? What is so wrong with that? For years the four traditions have
> worked together and all buddhist practices that I have been in contact with
> seem to work to tear down the divisions, the walls, the discriminating views
> that separate living beings. You want a private hate club? A secret
> order of DS worshippers? That is not what buddhism is all about. It
> seems to me that HH DL is simply exercising his position as the hub, the
> focal point, the center of all the traditions here, to turn people away from
> what he sees to be a mistaken view, harmful to the dharma as he understands
> it. I have no problem with that at all, and having given fair attention
> to all the months of postings have not changed that.
Speaking of the four traditions, it's a way to classify teaching
lineages, and there are multiple sub-traditions and such, not to speak
of all the traditions under Nyingmas and such, so it's kind of futile to
even try to unite everything, has never worked, will never work, and
there's a reason there are multiple teachings and lineages available to
sentient beings.
I have followed HH Dalai Lama's teachings and activities for a while,
and so far I have never heard or read that HH Dalai Lama wants to unite
all these 'four' traditions into one.
Now, there's the notion of newcomers becoming confused if they hear
various teachings and take a lot of commitments from different
traditions with different approaches. That's not constructive. But at a
certain point a practitioner just have to appreciate and honor all the
possible traditions, and that includes even Theravada, Zen, Pure Land
and various other Buddhist traditions. There are even Bodhisattva vows
pointing out this fact.
As for Gelugs, one might think that this tradition is pure and single,
but there are all kinds of influences from Kague, Nyingmas and Sakyas
with various practices and sadhanas (not to even speak of the big
influence of Kadampas), so maybe one way to look at a unified tradition
is to look at Gelugs. And even inside this tradition, depending on the
monastery, you have various focuses and different ways to recite and so
forth.
All together, anyone who thinks that it's possible, or has a paranoid
idea that someone is going to unite all Buddhist traditions, well, I
guess somone might have such ideas :-). Maybe it's their karmic
background and being used to think in such terms.
Mangalam, Kent
Alan Bird
On 19 Feb 1998 13:53:52 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>Alan Bird wrote in message <34eb71f6...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>>On 18 Feb 1998 21:37:01 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Madhyamaka Centre wrote in message <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>
>
>>>>"If you say someone is against the Dalai Lama, that means they are
>excluded
>>>>from society," Bernis says.
>
>Evelyn said,
>
>>>He DOES tend to inspire that kind of loyalty doesn't he?
>
>
>Alan asked;
>>Evelyn are you saying this is good, bad or neutral.
>
>I am saying that it simply IS SO. I am also saying that you can fool some
>of the people some of the time, and not all of the people all of the time.
>In the case of HH Dalai Lama, from the postings on the newsgroups on this
>subject over the last few months it is obvious that the practice of Dorje
>Shugden does not foster lovingkindness, compassion or any other buddhist
>values that I can see.
That is your opinion, obviously I disagree but they seems little point
argueing about it.
>
>HH Dalai Lama however has been a living example of those values. If he has
>the respect and love of many, and he does, it is because he has earned it.
I am sure this is true. HHDL is a special person, I agree. However, I
do not believe he is infallible or inerrent. He has made a mistake in
using political means to impose a religious ban.
>This whole thing is obviously about something more than a visualized
>practice, unless the practice has become more important than the attitudes
>it was intended to foster.
Evelyn, I agree with you about the visualisation practice. Why is HHDL
making such heavy weight of this issue? Practitioners who rely upon
Dorje Shugden as their Dharmapala visualise Dorje Shugden as an
emanation of Buddha Manjustri. Why does HHDL want to ban Tibetans from
doing this?
>
>>Personally I find it appalling lack of judgement to say to people that
>>they should not consider themselves represented by their Government
>>merely because of a religious practice.
>
>Whose government? Not yours surely, and not mine.
Tibetans. HHDL as told Tibetans who continue this practice that they
cannot consider themselves to come under the auspices of the Tibetan
Government in Exile.
>To me HH Dalai Lama is
>a religious leader, and in that role he has not failed at all. As a
>political figure, it is not hard to figure out who his enemies are, and why
>they would take any stance against him. Power, money and fame are heady
>intoxicants.
His enemies are not necessarily those who are asking him to lift this
ban. Personally I do not believe this ban will benefit HHDL or the
cause of Tibet. That is another reason I hope this ban will be lifted
soon.
>
>
>>We would not stand for this in the West, yet for some reason because
>>it HHDL who says these things, it is seen as wrong to point out that
>>it abuses human rights.
>
>What rock have you been hiding under!!!!!! The pope says no "birth
>control", and millions of women all over the world become victims of their
>own biology. The pope likewise says "no abortion" and millions of unwanted
>unloved babies are born and languish in orphanages, or become street
>children. We not only STAND for this in the west, we allow and permit and
>even many endorse it!!!!
Disagree. The Pope is not the head of any government. Unless you take
into account Vatican City. But then the Vatican state is not a
democracy.
In Ireland for example, steps have been taken by the International and
specifically European community to ensure that the Irish constitution
recognises basic human rights.
Evelyn, if the Senate was to pass a law banning Buddhism as being
anti-american would you oppose it? Or would you claim it is acting
illegally by breaking the American constitution?
>
>The Dorje Shugden ban, harms NO ONE.... they are harming themselves by not
>understanding that this is a VISUALIZED practice. They can simply
>visualize SOMETHING ELSE!!!!! Get a life!!!!
Tell that to people who have been attacked, whos homes have been burnt
down! Tell it to Tibetans who have their names and addresses posted on
walls in Tibetan communities in India naming then as Dorje Shugden
supporters.
The practice is only a visulisation, so why has is HHDL decided to ban
it by political means?
I hope he lifts this ban soon.
If you take that to mean that I am anti-HHDL and see him as an enemy
you are mistaken. Your resons for drawing such a conclusion lack any
basis in logical argument.
HHDL surely does not believe that teachers like HH Trijang Rnpoche
were sectarian. Trijang Rinpoche taught his disciples to rely upon
Dorje Shugden, wrote sadnhas praising this Dharmapala and give many
empowerments on many occasions. This surely is proof that reliance on
this Dharmapala is not based on sectarianism.
If HHDL, knows of any Tibetans who use belief in this Dharmapala to
promote sectarainism it would have been helpful if he originally said
this when he imposed the ban rather than, as he did, talk about dough
ball divinations and the Nechung oracle.
If HHDL would teach people how to rely upon this Dharmapala correctly
he would have the support of those Lama's who now oppose the ban.
This would unite the Tibetan community in exile and also respect the
human rights of all concerned
wishing you happiness
Alan
>
>>this ban needs to be removed, politics and religio9n do not mix, nor
>>should they.
>
>If HH Dalai Lama felt this was a harmful practice, and it obviously is at
>the very least not a constructive one, it is his right, his prerogative, his
>perfectly legitimate place to say so. It is likewise your right to be so
>immured in ritual and superstition that you have no idea what these
>practices are really about, nor do you understand them on a deep level, and
>you can either keep on doing what is not helping, and keep on pushing this
>issue on the newsgroups, in hopes of getting someone to support it, or you
>can wake up and smell the coffee, get off your high horses, and go back to
>square one, and learn what visualizations ARE and how they are supposed to
>be used.
>
Alan Bird
On 19 Feb 1998 18:41:05 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>I have been following this debate for months now, and have seldom if ever
>commented on any of it. Recently though, I have finally felt informed
>enough to do so. I have done that a couple of times today.
>
>Yes, HH DL's actual words on the matter clarified a lot. Interesting, but
>I got a totally different take on it. I am going to share that with you
>now.
>
>>To summarize the Dalai Lama's answer:
>>
>>Shugden practice is wrong because:
>>1. It makes Tibetan Buddhism like spirit worship rather than profound
>>Buddhism.
>
>Yes, it certainly does. Just following the posts here of the last few
>months makes it totally clear that this is not JUST a visualization
>practice. It has an obsessive quality to it that seems to take away the
>transformative value of that type of practice, and leaves in its stead an
>attachment to this particular practice, that is like a form of brainwashing
>or sick obsessiveness of some kind. It doesn't seem like a right view at
>all.
Even if you are correct here, this does not justify a political ban on
a religious belief.
Firstly, you draw this conclusion merely because people oppose a
religious ban being enforced by political means. I know many
practitioners who rely upon Dorje Shugden. They are warm, kind and
humorous people. I hope you will understand if i take my judgement of
this practice by the qualities of those practitioners who rely upon
Dorje Shugden.
Secondly, teachers like Trijang Rinpoche, a lama who was greatly loved
and repected by Tibetans also relied upon Dorje Shugden and encouraged
his disciples to do so. He certainly had none of the characteristics
that you mention here.
He give many empowerments to disciples, most of whom would not have
been highly realised individuals. If Dorje shugden, does the harm HHDL
claims, this teacher would not have been so willing to give such
empowerments.
>
>
>>2. It goes against the idea of mixing all four traditions together
>
>So? What is so wrong with that? For years the four traditions have
>worked together and all buddhist practices that I have been in contact with
>seem to work to tear down the divisions, the walls, the discriminating views
>that separate living beings. You want a private hate club? A secret
>order of DS worshippers? That is not what buddhism is all about.
You are right that Buddhism is not about a private hate club, and that
is not what Rabten wrote.
By practicing a tradition purely one is not thereby discriminating
living beings. One is not passing judgements upon the worth of any of
the traditions and claiming that one traditrion is better than
another.
All one is saying is that one is practicing according to one of the
traditions. They are countless living beings, and just as through
karma not all are drawn to practice the same religion, which is why
religious diversity is a good thing, so all living beings are not
drawn to practice only one type of Tibetan Buddhism. Living beings
will be drawn to different traditions according to their Karma. All
four schools have produced many fully enlightened individuals.
One hopes that the different religions keep there own beliefs,
cultures etc., as this benefits all living beings, since not all
beings are drawn to the same things. However, one also hopes that the
different religions can live in friendshipo with each other, showing
mutual respect and a shared kindred.
In a similar way, whichever school of Tibetan buddhism -or lineage
within those schools- practitioners belong to, one hopes that they
will live in peace and friendship. Untill, this ban, they did.
For example, Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realised
Master of the Sakya tradition encouraged his disciples to rely upon
Dorje Shugden. It is wrong to accuse Gelugpa's who rely upon the
Dharamapala Dorje Shugden of being sectarian.
It
>seems to me that HH DL is simply exercising his position as the hub, the
>focal point, the center of all the traditions here, to turn people away from
>what he sees to be a mistaken view, harmful to the dharma as he understands
>it. I have no problem with that at all, and having given fair attention
>to all the months of postings have not changed that.
If that was all he was doing, then he would not be abusing human
rights. However, his government his imposing this ban by political and
judiciary means, this is wrong!
He should respect those who disagree with his view and wish to follow
the teachings of their own root guru's and continue relying upon
Buddha Manjustri emanating as the Dharmapala, Dorje Shugden. If the
great teachers of the past can be wrong on this issue, according to
HHDL, then surely people can also draw the conclusion that HHDL may
himself be wrong.
>
>It really looks to me like you are doing something wrong. I don't know
>what that something may be, but HH seems to know what it is. Maybe you
>ought to listen to him.
If Tibetans disagree with him, what then? Are they exiled from the
Tibetan government in exile, or do they still come under its auspices.
According to HHDL they are no longer under the auspices of his
government. This makes them exiles within an exiled people.
>
>
>>Therefore
>>Shugden practitioners should study more, listen to those who oppose Shugden
>>worship and then (probably) give up their practice.
>
>Tsk Tsk..... ego ego..... I knew a zen master who used to say
> ".... 'Don't know' mind, is true zen mind" It is only when you open
>your mind to the possibility that maybe there IS something wrong with DS
>practice, that you may learn something. Exercising ego, carrying on here
>on the newsgroups for months, insisting that HH DL is a bad guy, you play
>right into the hands of not only his enemies, but the enemies of the dharma
>in general (China) ......
Evelyn, you insist upon the language of bad guy, not necessarily those
who oppose the ban. I do not believe HHDL is a bad guy. However, I
believe he as made a grave error of judgement.
It is sad that you see HHDL as being so essential to Buddhism that if
someone criticises him for making a grave mistake, you accuse them of
being enemies of Dharma.
I did not realise that blind devotion (Not that I am accusing you of
blind devotion) to HHDL was part of Buddha Dharma.
>
>I have never been to a NKT center. I think much of what I have heard
>privately sounds like they have some very good ideas about connecting
>western minds with the dharma.
From my own experience I would strongly agree with you. But that is
something for people who do make contact with a NKT Centre to decide
for themselves.
>
>Yes you folks seemed to have some good ideas, but giving such exceptional
>importance to this one practice of Dorje Shugden, and opposing HH Dalai Lama
>is not one of them.
Evelyn, the exceptional importance is having made contact with a
disciple of Trijang Rinpoche, we wish to remain faithful to the
lineage and teachings that HH Trijang Rinpoche received from his own
teachers and passed on to his own disciples.
(Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso is not the only Tibetan disciple of this
great teacher, who disagrees with HHDL on this issue. Neither is he
the only disciple of HH Trijang Rinpoche who teachers westerners to
rely upon the Dharmpala, Dorje shugden.)
Speaking for myself, I feel very fortunate to have received Dharma in
this lineage. I hope you will understand that I feel as grateful to my
kind guru, Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso, as you do to your guru.
Wishing you happiness
Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6ci82e$lps$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>In article <6chdhg$1pc0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>pud...@frontiernet.net says...
Khyenrab,
>>Evelyn, are you saying that when the Dalai Lama practised Dorje Shugden
for
>many years he was ignorant?
All of life involves change.... something changed somewhere to make him
believe that this was a practice that created bad situations. He simply
adapted to that change. We are all ignorant of some things at some times.
If he decided that it was not a good practice, and changed, he made himself
wiser.
Please, I don't understand what you really
>mean.
Do you really think he simply arbitrarily decided one day to do this without
serious thought or consideration? He had a reason it seems fair to assume.
What I mean is that if it were the simple harmless practice you folks seem
to think it is, why would he bother after all? Just for something to flex
his muscles on? The fact he did decide to go to such great ends, and to
risk as much as he did, speaks volumes to me. This is a practice I would
avoid like Anthrax!!!
Evelyn
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6ci9pf$mot$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>In article <6ci0d6$143a$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>>
> Nobody is forcing anyone to do
>>anything. He is within his rights as the focal point, the one who unites
>>all the traditions.
>
>Evelyn, I understand that you love and respect the Dalai Lama very much
like
>many other people. He is a special being. But where did he get his power to
>control the spiritual life of so many people?
Khyenrab,
What does it matter where he exactly got it..... I think that for our
purposes here, his credentials are not worth questioning. The fact is that
he actually does not "control the spiritual lives of so many people".
He is only saying that if you are going to do DS practice, that you are not
going to get his approval.
I am pretty sure that if he thought it was just fine that you continue this
practice, you would not be questioning his credentials either.
Regards,
Evelyn
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6ciaav$mot$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>In article <6cgtrv$ds7$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
Khyenrab,
You said;
>I realise very well that there is no evidence to support the ban. If there
>were why hasn't it been produced?
He really does not need any evidence any more than you "need" his approval.
But you cannot jam it, and force him, by means of public humiliation on the
internet to give it either.
>HH Dalai Lama is intelligent. He should be able to explain more clearly the
>evidence he is meant to have collected. Why can he not do this? The answer
>must be that he has no real evidence - only signs in dreams, messages from
>Nechung and the outcome of throwing balls of dough.
Now that you mention it, any one making a comment of this nature should
consider that in reading any stories of Tibetan historical personages, one
comes across some very fanciful descriptions; things like beings appearing
in the middle of a sacred lake in a giant lotus etc etc. So this is a
place you had better not go, unless you want to throw out the bulk of
tibetan historical matter.
If you are going to complain of his methods of divination, having had some
personal experience with these things, I can only tell you that the
particular media used have very little to do with the revelations received.
Human beings have been known to toss stones or sticks with symbols on them,
view the innards of birds and other animals, shuffle and lay out tarot
cards, move a planchette across a ouija board, experience prophetic dreams,
focus the attention on a crystal ball, and too many other methods to mention
here. The method is unimportant.
I do know that those who practice divination, by whatever method all claim
results.
>Would you like to be sentenced to jail on the basis of this "evidence"?
Certainly not, but there are injustices everywhere, and I am sure there is
more to it than that. I would say that HH has long lived in a state of
siege and his life has been threatened for years. I can understand that
his defenders could get overzealous about it. I do know that in principle,
he does not endorse violence. His entire life has been devoted to that
principle.
But again, as for divination, if you had a ticket for a flight tomorrow
morning and you had an awful dream about a plane crash, and it was very
vivid and seemed to have other corroborating facts that tied it to your
intended flight, would you cancel it? I surely would, and I would bet many
people would.
Every time there is a disaster you hear of someone whom this happened
to..... I think it is a fairly common experience to have hunches and dreams
that are true. Some people have it more often than others, and some
cultivate the ability, train it, and have greater success with it.
So telling people how HH came to decide on this ban by use of divinatory
methods, doesn't really say much.
I am really sorry for you and all the members of the NKT who seem to feel
that the rug has been pulled out from under them by this ban. I should
think that it might serve to awaken you to the fact that perhaps too much
has been made of this particular deity practice. Which is exactly what HH
is saying!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Evelyn
The Puddies
Alan Bird wrote in message <34ecb625...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>On 19 Feb 1998 13:58:39 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>Sadly Evelyn, this does not change facts.
>
>As I posted before, if any other political figure was acting in this
>way you would ask what is going on>
Not really, Alan..... my own country is at this point concerned about far
greater threats to the peace of the world by far worse political figures.
Wouldn't it be nice if HH DL governed for instance ...Iraq? or Libya?
>However, since it is HHDL you seem to think it is wrong to point out
>errors of judgement that is causing people suffering.
Alan, I am sure he considered the ban the lesser of evils. We do not know
his mind, only to either trust his motives or not. I trust his motives.
>HHDL is wrong in this ban, all that is being asked is that the ban be
>lifted. politics abd religion do not mix.
He is not banning the practice. He is simply saying that he does not
consider those who do it to be his friends, and that he genuinely believes
this practice to have become a sort of spirit worship. IMHO that is losing
the point of what these practices are all about, and he was correct in
dropping the practice if that was what he was seeing.
>For any government to have a law that bans religious beliefs is wrong.
>The fact that the government is led by HHDL does not change that.
This reminds me of the old Abbot and Costello skit....
Abbot says "I am the boss and you are nothin'..."
So Costello says "....So you're the boss of nothin'..." (canned laughter
here)
Come on and face it. HH DL is not any longer that much of a political
figure, not really. He has been long a man without a country to govern.
What he IS, without a doubt, is a religious figure.... that is for sure.
And without a doubt this is a religious matter. He is definitely within
his rights and his element here.
Regards,
Evelyn
The Puddies
Alan Bird wrote in message <34ecbf77...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>On 19 Feb 1998 13:35:52 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
>wrote:
>
>Asking for religious liberty to be respected is not wrong: is it
>Evelyn?
Certainly not, Alan, but expecting others to agree with your views is wrong.
HH DL is not going to agree with you. He has his own reasons for the ban,
obviously.
>People are writing to ask that the ban be lifted. For that they are
>often slandered and vilified.
That is a shame, but in every tradition there are those who misunderstand
and in their zeal to perhaps protect HH, they over react. Not every
buddhist is wise, and it is no guarantee of being highly evolved,
understanding people. I would still venture to say that if people want to
be affiliated with HH DL, they ought to understand that he doesn't want this
practice done, for his own reasons, which sounded like very good ones to me.
>But truth is still truth. Tibetans are being forced out of homes,
>posters supplying the names and addresses of Dorje Shugden worshipers
>are still being posted on walls in exiled Tibetan communities in
>India. Threats of violence have been advertised in papers.
These people have lived under conditions that are not so great for a long
time, they have been pushed out of their homes in Tibet, so you can
understand that they draw together when threatened. If HH DL feels that
the practice of DS is a threat, the zealous ones are going to perhaps
overreact. That is not his fault, it is human nature.
>These sadly are facts, asking for this to stop is not wrong.
No, but that is not what is being asked..... What is being asked is for HH
to remove the ban, and reinstate the practice. That is wrong.
Regards,
Evelyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chris
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:21:04 GMT, alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird)
wrote:
...
> For example, Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realised
> Master of the Sakya tradition encouraged his disciples to rely upon
> Dorje Shugden.
Alan, lamas of the glorious Sakya tradition have never relied on
Shugden as anything more than a worldly protector ranked lower
than Polnlop Satrap and Pehar. They never did consider Shugden
an object of refuge. Furthermore Shugden was propitiated
by only one branch of the Sakya tradition and in that tradition
he has a completely different iconagraphy, liturgy and history
than that used by those modern day Gelugpas who have
elevated the entity Shugden to the status of a "Wisdom Buddha".
Secondly Jeff Watt has mentioned here that he carefully read the
extensive biography of Morchen Kunga Lhundrub (Lamdre Collection,
Volume #5, folios 451-625) and found only one reference to Shugden
(which occurs on folio 577) where Morchen Kunga Lhundrup makes
reference to making an offering to Dorje Shugden Tsal "so that oaths
are maintained."
He also examined the very long detailed lists of teachings that
Morchen received and the detailed lists of the teachings etc Morchen
gave at various places and to specific students. Nowhere in these
lists it seems is Shugden mentioned as a teaching or a scriptural
reading (lung) received or transmitted. On this evidence it hardly
sounds like any type of Shugden worship or propitiation was central
to the spiritual practice of Morchen Kunga Lhundrup or his disciples.
I know that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso "quotes" Morchen Kunga
Lhundrub in his book "Heart Jewel" - but nowhere does he
provide a refrerence for this "quote" of his. Perhaps you
could ask the Venerble Geshe-la to let us kow just where he
found this passage. In the meantime, I think I'll rely on authentic
masters of the Sakya tradition for information regarding the practice
of Shugden in that school.
The noted Sakya historian and scholar T. G. Dhontog Rinpoche
has written three books concerning Gyalpo Shugden - if you
want an authentic Sakya view on this entity I suggest that
you try to read these works.
Sometime ago Dorje Gyurme <redg...@aol.com> posted in arbt the
views of Prof. Namkha'i Norbu Rinpoche who was educated in the Sakya
tradition at Dzongsar Gonpa where, in one section of the monastery,
regular offerings were made to Dorje Shugden (this has also been
confirmed to me by another source):
<< " Like all masters educated in the Sakya tradition,
Norbu Rinpoche says that Shugden is a worldly deity.
He further states that Gyalpos in general are very
difficult protectors to control, and advises it is
perhaps best to avoid them. Norbu Rinpoche also levels
this criticism at Pehar, etc. This is not to say that
Norbu is critical of all worldly protectors, like the
Tenma, Tsiu Marpo, etc., but mainly those of the
Gyalpo class. They have bad track record, so to speak.
This is what I have heard from the mouth of Rinpoche
himself. So you see it is Gyalpos in general that
Norbu is critical of, and not Gyalpo Shugden in
particular.
" Norbu Rinpoche personally practiced the Sakya
version of Shugden quite briefly until he became very
ill from doing this practice, and ceased doing this
practice under advisement from his uncle, a Sakyapa
Abbot by the name of Khyentse Choskyi Wangchuck, who
was also one of his main Root Gurus. This may be read
in his available published writings, if one will only
look." >>
I mentioned these things in my post on arbt to Ven. Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso but he did not bother to (or perhaps could not)
respond to these particular points.
Regards
- Chris
The Puddies
Fred said it best!!!!!!
Evelyn
****************
Fred Little wrote in message ...
>On 19 Feb 1998, khyenrab wrote:
>
>> In article <6ci0d6$143a$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>> pud...@frontiernet.net says...
>> >
>> Nobody is forcing anyone to do
>> >anything. He is within his rights as the focal point, the one who
unites
>> >all the traditions.
>>
>> Evelyn, I understand that you love and respect the Dalai Lama very much
like
>> many other people. He is a special being. But where did he get his power
to
>> control the spiritual life of so many people?
>
Michael McLoughlin
In article <6ciaav$mot$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
says...> When will the British students of GKG realise
Come on Khyenrab you're not stupid! Whatever spiritual reasons aside, the
DL has very clear political reasons for not allowing the Shugden faction
and those associated with the Pabonkhapa lineage to gain the ascendancy
in the Gelug school and the political structures of the Tibetan govt. in
exile. He sees it as being detrimental to all the schools and to the
Buddhist culture in Tibet as a whole. Whether he is right about this or
not will of course depend on where you stand but there is no lack of
historical precedent as has been shown in this NG on numerous occasions.
Those lamas who do not agree with HH are crying foul because of the loss
of influence they suffer within Tibetan politics. The Western Students of
GKG have been dragged into this with no knowledge of Tibetan culture,
politics or history other than what they have been told by through the
NKT. You are not being stopped practising if you so wish. But you are
all involved in a situation of which you know very little when you start
accusing HHDL of breaking vows, oppressing his people etc.. If you want
to help Tibetans, send them some money, protest against Chinese
oppression or at least stop colluding in it!
>
>I realise very well that there is no evidence to support the ban. If
there
>were why hasn't it been produced?
>
>HH Dalai Lama is intelligent. He should be able to explain more clearly
the
>evidence he is meant to have collected. Why can he not do this? The
answer
>must be that he has no real evidence - only signs in dreams, messages
from
>Nechung and the outcome of throwing balls of dough.
>
>Would you like to be sentenced to jail on the basis of this "evidence"?
>
>Khyenrab
>
Michael McLoughlin
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95L.98021...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>,
fa...@columbia.edu says...
>
RIGHT SAID FRED!!! WAY TO GO!!!
>Dearest Khyenrab--
>
>I would feel more comfortable if you didn't hide behind the orientalist
>pretension of an adopted dharma name, but I suppose that's my problem.
In
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95L.98021...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>, Fred
Little <fa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 1998, khyenrab wrote:
his usual whine
Nice one, Fred.
Best,
Kunzang Dorje
Kazzamil
Fred Little wrote:
To
> date, the positions and tactics taken by the NKT/SSC/James Burns/Lucy
> Burns/Alan Bird/Khyenrab/Rabten/Madhyamaka Center/etcetera etcetera
> etcetera crew have consistently evidenced ignorance, malice, arrogance,
> bone stupidity, and petulant whininess so profound that the only useful
> suggestion I can make to you is this: Shut the fuck up and get your
> skanky asses back to the nearest meditation cushion. Forget your precious
> visualizations and your sadhana and your hideously objectified Gyalpo
> Dholgyal unless it is to recall the pogroms that were carried out in his
> name and beg forgiveness from whatever you hold as holy for the suffering
> that Eastern Tibetans associate with the name Shugden. And if that's too
> much of a huge pile of steaming shit for your delicate olfactory
> apparatus, then just follow your breath in and out until your hate-filled
> projections soften into something approaching bodhicitta and you're more
> interested in flipping a smile and a quarter to a sidewalk grifter than
> you are in complaining about interference with your right to publicly
> discuss and practice something which was never meant to be public in the
> first place.
Reply: And how would you characterize your posting?
gemini
Before I knew anything about tibetan buddhism (not that I know much now) I
met a monk and he was talking about the different schools, and about another
monk who was just happier in the Nyingmas tradition, even though he started
out training in the Gelupa traditon. But I didnt know what he was saying,
and I thought he was talking about a school known as the "Enigma" traditon,
a mistake which was quite appropriate to my level of understanding! I
thought they were all pretty enigmantic.
Anna Shparberg
It was the Great Fifth Dalai Lama himself who wrote the first prayer
to Dorje Shugden acknowledging him as the Enlightened Protector he
is. The first sentences of this prayer say:
" Though You are never shaken from the sphere of this spontaneous
voidness, your forceful power and the destructive powers are speedier
than thundering; and You are endowed with the Great power and the
confidence to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. So I invite
you to come to this place with all my devotion."
Also, following are the first lines in a prayer written to Dorje Shugden
by His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama himself (the current Dalai
Lama):
"You who are powerful, powerful Protector of the teaching of
Manjushri Naga" (that means Je Tsongkhapa,) "have arisen as the
powerful protector of the teaching of the Manjushri-Naga, as the Lord
of all Protectors, all the wrathful Protectors, with the glory of the
wisdom, compassion and power of Infinite Buddhas. I invite you from
the Tushita-heaven as well as from the land of Dakinis. And I
prostrate to you with my three bodies, body, speech and mind; and out
of my delusions, whatever I have contradicted with your mind, I
respectfully confess them, and be patient, and show your smiling
face." Etc.
Regards,
Jeff
N Williams
The Puddies <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote in article
<6chcfo$1jp2$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>
> David Golden wrote in message <34EB67...@wcf.net>...
> >I'm new to this group, and to news groups as a whole, so please forgive
> >any errors on my part. These nasty exchanges are so inconsistant with
> >Buddhist values. Aren't they?
>
> Hi David,
>
> They certainly are inconsistent, but if you notice who is doing the
nasty
> exchanges, and who is trying to discredit HH Dalai Lama, you will notice
> that they "protest too much" and reveal their lack of buddhist values.
>
> I am not usually one to quote Xtian scripture (those who know me may howl
> with surprise) but there is a saying "by their fruits ye shall know
them"
> and it is one shoe that obviously fits here!
>
> Those who do buddhist practices usually end up more loving, more kind,
more
> compassionate. This is a good example of why HH Dalai Lama has asked
his
> friends not to do this practice. You can see the type of mind set it
> generates.
>
> Regards,
> Evelyn
>
>
>
Dear Evelyn
I am new to this news group and news groups in general. I have been
following the postings for a few days now.
In the above message you write "...if you notice who is doing the nasty
exchanges...". May I draw your attention to:
>If it looks like s**t, smells like s**t, it must BE s**t.
>Evelyn
and
>Give it a rest... You are obviously all high on yourselves.
>
>Evelyn
and
>REALLY Rabten???!!!!!!! Did you maybe expect he would use a Oija
board,
>or the Tarot perhaps? or maybe a crystal ball? The man is a
TIBETAN.....
>of COURSE he uses the traditional means of divination that his people have
>developed over the centuries. That was almost funny it was so flat of
an
>argument!!!
>
<snip>
>
>Regards,
>Evelyn
and
>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>
>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>
>
>Best,
>Kunzang Dorje
and
>.....So let me make this perfectly clear: To
>date, the positions and tactics taken by the NKT/SSC/James Burns/Lucy
>Burns/Alan Bird/Khyenrab/Rabten/Madhyamaka Center/etcetera etcetera
>etcetera crew have consistently evidenced ignorance, malice, arrogance,
>bone stupidity, and petulant whininess so profound that the only useful
>suggestion I can make to you is this: Shut the fuck up and get your
>skanky asses back to the nearest meditation cushion. Forget your precious
>visualizations and your sadhana and your hideously objectified Gyalpo
>Dholgyal unless it is to recall the pogroms that were carried out in his
>name and beg forgiveness from whatever you hold as holy for the suffering
>that Eastern Tibetans associate with the name Shugden. And if that's too
>much of a huge pile of steaming shit for your delicate olfactory
>apparatus, then just follow your breath in and out until your hate-filled
>projections soften into something approaching bodhicitta....
>
<snip>
>
> Fred Little
> fa...@columbia.edu
> Aikido of the Hudson Valley/Palisades Aikido Club
> http://www.j51.com/~annie/aikiclub.html
> 914/398-8005
The above quotes are all in the same thread of "Dorje Shugden/Dalai
Lama/Now Magazine".
It appears clearly to me that the people that are not for NKT or for the
Dorje Shugden practice that are posting abusive remarks and comments.
Regards
N Williams
The Puddies
Anna Shparberg wrote in message <34EE0C...@kiva.net>...
Jeff, that is all well and good, excepting he has changed his mind. He is
within his rights to do that.
Evelyn
Avyorth Rolinson
corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6cf9ij$mj7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6cemli$h6f$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>,
> zmad...@rmplc.co.uk (Madhyamaka Centre) quoted John Goetz's article in
NOW
>magazine:
>
>> Then there is the matter of the Dalai Lama's writings on sexuality, which
>> have upset his gay supporters. In his 1993 book Beyond Dogma, he
declares,
>> "The inappropriate parts of the body are the mouth and the anus, and
sexual
>> intercourse involving those parts of the body, whether a man or a woman,
is
>> considered sexual misconduct.''
>
>Now, I have no real wish to get drawn into the ongoing Shugden brouhaha,
but
>the above passage is clearly aimed at alienating lesbian, gay, bi, and
>transgender (LGBT) Buddhists (and straight Buddhists sympathetic to LGBT
>people) from HH the Dalai Lama.
>
>Madhyamaka Centre, let me be blunt: Speaking as a practitioner who is also
a
>gay man, this tactic is much more likely to backfire on you badly, at least
>among LGBT Buddhists. The quoted passage greatly and transparently
>misrepresents both the tenor and the substance of the San Francisco meeting
>with HHDL in order to try to paint HHDL as a medieval despot, a falsehood
>which best suits the Shugden supporters' political agenda.
>
Hi David,
You're spot on about the intentions of Madhyamaka's posting.
In '93 at the nkt agm held at Manjushri Centre after the Summer Festival,
this very issue of sexual prejudice against gay and lesbian sexuality was
raised by a lesbian centre director (she later left the nkt after witnessing
the suffering caused by Kelsang Gyatso unjustifiably banning someone from
nkt centres). She quoted passages from Kelsang Gyatso's lam rim teachings
which labelled various sexual activities unskillful and karmically negative.
Thanks to her courage (many people were very critical of her action) the
offending passages were left out of the second edition of Kelsang Gyatso's
"Joyful Path". So the nkt has encountered this very same issue of sexual
preference as a traditional/agrarian belief system (Tibetan buddhism) comes
into contact with modern liberal societies.
Of course the nkt can't acknowledge their history with this issue. Instead,
as you point out, they're much more interested in scoring political points
and are quite willing to lie, distort and misrepresent facts in their
campaign to have Kelsang Gyatso proclaimed Pope of the one pure buddhist
lineage
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>May all beings benefit,
>
>David
Avyorth Rolinson
khyenrab wrote in message <6cfmpi$47a$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>>QUESTION: How can you tell if an NKT member is lying?
>>
>>ANSWER: His lips are moving.
>>
>>Best,
>>Kunzang Dorje
>
>NKT people are not lying when they point out the suffering being caused by
>the Dalai Lama's actions. I think you should apologise for your slur on the
>many thousands of people who are daily suffering through the actions of
>Tibet's political leader. Cheap jibes cannot hide the truth.
>
Hey khyenrab,
you must be slipping in your old age! You haven't given KD a date by which
to issue his apology before you begin legal action against him! Or perhaps
it simply means that you've already issued instructions to your lawyers?
teh hee hee - and they call you 'venerable'? They must be using a different
dictionary from me!
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>best wishes
>Khyenrab
>
Avyorth Rolinson
Rabten wrote in message <6ch554$64v$1...@eros.clara.net>...
>However on examination I find that I will go to hell if I die with
>heavy non-virtuous karma ripening whether I call myself a Buddhist or a
>Christian.
>
What on earth have you been examining, Rabten?
I don't know, you throw some dough balls around inside your skull and, lo
and behold!, we get the gospel of saint rabten! Next you'll be labelling the
resultant 'valid reasons'!
How we love to dress up our fanciful opinions as gospel truth! Come down off
your throne, mate, the dough's rising.
>Rabten
>
>PS. I can see clearly the self-referential Lojong trap in my conclusion
>number three that makes it impossible to talk of another's faults, I
deserve
>all the flaming I get for that, but still think the point is worth making.
>
Yep, we're all familiar with the brand of nkt buddhism - "lojong is
something we preach to others, not what we practise ourselves."
Avyorth Rolinson
Alan Bird wrote in message <34eb71f6...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>
>this ban needs to be removed, politics and religio9n do not mix, nor
>should they.
Funny that, Alan, given the mix of politics and religion that go on in the
nkt. I've mentioned before the nun who was also a manager at Manjushri nkt
Centre who disrobed, resigned as manager and left the Centre (with much
sadness as she'd done a three year retreat at Tharpaland with kelsang
gyatso). She, being elderly, was fed up attempting to combat the
unconstitutional and undemocratic activities engaged in by the junta at the
Centre.
Letters she wrote were removed from the internal mail box before they could
be read by Council members, notices she put up on the community noticeboard
were taken down, etc. She even wrote to the Charity Commision about
irregularities at the Centre. So, come off it Alan, you don't have a clue
about what you're on about. Odd how you haven't come back with a reply to
Chris Fynn's correction to kelsang gyatso's distortion of the Sakya's
position vis a vis Doris Shugden. Well, perhaps not so odd, given that you
played the same selective myopia with other posters.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>
>Best wishes
>
>Alan
Avyorth Rolinson
Alan Bird wrote in message <34ecda78...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>One hopes that the different religions keep there own beliefs,
>cultures etc., as this benefits all living beings, since not all
>beings are drawn to the same things.
Hey Alan,
Are you talking off the top of your head or what? Do you know how many
religions have practised human sacrifice, never mind animal sacrifice? And
what about the religious beliefs and practices of the Ku Klux Klan, and a
million other 'pure' religious traditions? Religion has probably brought as
much suffering into the world as have politics, economics, and human
sacrifice - oops, that was religion!
So let's continue to apply the same old nitric acid test recommended by Sid
Gautama!
Yours in the Dh (ark),
Avyorth
>
>Alan
Atisha's cook
Dear Fred,
I try, to the best of my ability, in accordance with my vow, not
to lie. In using the term "ban" I am following the example of His
Holiness, who said in his address to the Drepung Lama Camp on November
20th (I think this was in 1997, but I am not certain):
"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."
I think that it would be difficult to claim that no such ban
exists, despite the fact that His Holiness has used softer language when
addressing western audiences. Perhaps you could contact the Tibetan
Government in Exile, and the abbots of the various Tibetan monasteries
in India to confirm the actual status of this ban/advice.
With regard to your points - it was kind of you to assume that
my meditations resemble anything approaching "meditative equipoise"(!),
but I have given these points some thought. I think that you are
absolutely right in saying that HHDL has the right:
1. to engage in skillful compassionate activity.
2. as a vajra master, to make binding requests on those who wish to
regard themselves as his students.
3. as a religious leader, to make statements regarding the internal
affairs of his religious order.
4. as a private citizen, to freedom of speech, thought, religious
practice, and association.
I also think that he has the right : "as a political figure, to
oppose practices, associations, and organizations which have clearly
demonstrated by their past actions opposition to the course of
modernization and universalization of education which both he and his
immediate predecessor have pursued" in so far as this opposition is
legal, demonstrably justified and not the cause of violence and/or
alienation.
It is in the implementation of this opposition that, I feel, His
Holiness' government has acted wrongly. If it *were* simply a
"request", or a piece of advice, then HH would be well within his rights
to issue it. However, HH has stated that he is enforcing a *ban*. He
has not given concrete evidence to support his reasons for doing this,
and he refuses to enter into dialogue on this issue.
This is the Twentieth century, and, I hope, each of us has the
right "as a private citizen, to freedom of speech, thought, religious
practice, and association". It is this right that I feel is being
denied to those who wish to engage in these practices, given to them by
their own Lamas. It is no wonder that for many, who love and respect
HHDL, and who have entered into samaya bonds with other great Lamas to
practise Dorje Shugden, this situation has created "conflicted
loyalties". We need to "carefully examine these points with
discriminating awareness" in order to establish who has what rights and
whose rights are being abused.
I understand that for His Holiness' faithful disciples this is
as unpleasant an issue as it is for the practitioners of Dorje Shugden
(and, in particular, for those who are both faithful disciples of His
Holiness *and* faithful practitioners of Dorje Shugden). However, I
don't believe that Geshe Kelsang and his followers wish to give offence
to anyone. Speaking for myself (as I am not a spokesperson for either
the NKT or any of the Dorje Shugden supporters' groups), I think that
the only purpose in trying to highlight the nature and the effects of
this ban is to overcome the suffering and disharmony that it has caused.
Yours, with respect,
Atisha's cook, Jigme
P.s. Dear Don,
Thankyou for your reply. As soon as I have worked out how to
find Deja news I will look up this material, which I did not see first
time around.
P.p.s. Dear Evelyn,
Thankyou for your reply.
khyenrab
In article <6ck1oc$2hd$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
>, the
>DL has very clear political reasons
I agree that this appears to be true.
And any politician proven to be forcibly suppressing religious freedom is
contravening human rights - don't you agree?
Khyenrab
wizdumbd...@usa.net
"doris" shudgen? A sister to doris day perhaps?
wizdumbd...@usa.net
The Puddies wrote:
> Hello Alan,
>
> I am not attacking anyone. I am trying to reason with a bunch of fanatical
> spammers who are dumping huge amounts of repetitive postings on this
> newsgroup in order to publicize their particular beef, and trying to "shame"
> HH the Dalai Lama to change his mind to let them have their cake and eat it
The good news is that the demographics are against these morons:
it is estimated that less than 5% of households acutally use the
internet. Now, think of the odds of what percentage of all net users
even read a.r.t.b.
Now think of what are the odds that people who do read this newsgroup
will have their opinions changed by childish and intellectually
insulting repeated spam.
So let NKT trolls spam away. All the time they spend playing with
themselves here means less time spent plotting against HHDL.
think of it as your dharma practice to tolerate their spam.
Alan Bird
On 21 Feb 1998 02:07:09 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>>It was the Great Fifth Dalai Lama himself who wrote the first prayer
>>to Dorje Shugden acknowledging him as the Enlightened Protector he
>>is. The first sentences of this prayer say:
>>
>evotion."
>>
>>Also, following are the first lines in a prayer written to Dorje Shugden
>>by His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama himself (the current Dalai
>>Lama):
>>
>>"You who are powerful, powerful Protector of the teaching of
>>Manjushri Naga" (that means Je Tsongkhapa,) "have arisen as the
>>powerful protector of the teaching of the Manjushri-Naga, as the Lord
>>of all Protectors, all the wrathful Protectors, with the glory of the
>>wisdom, compassion and power of Infinite Buddhas. I invite you from
>>the Tushita-heaven as well as from the land of Dakinis. And I
>>prostrate to you with my three bodies, body, speech and mind; and out
>>of my delusions, whatever I have contradicted with your mind, I
>>respectfully confess them, and be patient, and show your smiling
>>face." Etc.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jeff
>
>Jeff, that is all well and good, excepting he has changed his mind. He is
>within his rights to do that.
>Evelyn
Indeed HHDL is, but he is not within his rights to enforce his
religious orthodoxy through political means.
Does this mean that if HHDL once again changed his view, and once
again recognises Dorje Shugden as an emanation of Buddha Manjustri,
that you will no longer be attacking those who wish for this ban to be
lifted?
If HHDL believes something is Buddha Dharma, then stops beliving it,
are you saying because HHDL no longer believes it, it is no longer
Buddha Dharma?
If HHDL should happen to once again believe in it, then once again it
is Buddha Dharma?
Alan
Alan Bird
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:18:04 -0500, Fred Little <fa...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>
>The power of the Dalai Lama comes from the devotion of individuals.
>Individuals who wish to have a spiritual relationship with HHDL will heed
>his advice in this matter. The complaint seems to turn on the wish of
>some individuals to continue their spiritual relationship with HHDL *and*
>continue a practice which he has asked those who have samaya bonds with
>him to set aside. French intellectuals used to call this kind of attitude
>"existential bad faith." My mom was a little bit more to the point,
>telling me that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too.
Fred, this is not all that is happening.
HHDL as told Tibetans who continue to worship Dorje Shugden that they
no longer come under the auspices of his government.
This as nothing to do with Samaya bonds.
The Tibetan constitution has been changed since the ban, it includes a
clause forbidding judges to be worshippers of Dorje Shugden?
Can you explain to me what being a Judge as to do with Samaya bonds?
If you think this issue is only to do with Samaya bonds, can you
please explain how Samaya bonds justifies these political measures.
>
>Dearest Khyenrab--
>
>I would feel more comfortable if you didn't hide behind the orientalist
>pretension of an adopted dharma name, but I suppose that's my problem. In
>any case, unless you have taken samaya vows with HHDL, you are under no
>obligation to regard him as the "supreme spiritual authority."
Fred you are correct, but HHDL is also the political head of Tibet. He
cannot use that position to enforce religious orthodoxy amongst
Tibetans, as is presently being done.
> So let me make this perfectly clear: To
>date, the positions and tactics taken by the NKT/SSC/James Burns/Lucy
>Burns/Alan Bird/Khyenrab/Rabten/Madhyamaka Center/etcetera etcetera
>etcetera crew have consistently evidenced ignorance, malice, arrogance,
>bone stupidity, and petulant whininess so profound that the only useful
>suggestion I can make to you is this:
I have not read any mailings written attacking HHDL in the
inflammatory , personal way you describe here.
If they was no political ban, they would be no postings on this
subject.
If asking HHDL to respect human rights is taken by you to be a sign of
malice then we have a different understanding of the word malice.
The political ban is harming Tibetan's who rely upon Dorje Shugden, it
is an attack on basic human rights.
Wishing you happinness
Alan
Alan Bird
I was paraphrasing HHDL in the book "A policy of Kindness" 1990,
published by snow Lion. Edition pg 63.
Wishing you happiness
Alan
Rabten
corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6ci27r$m70$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>This is not a "ban" pronounced by HHDL; this is
>simply HHDL calling it the way he sees it, and leaving it up to the Shugden
>supporters to decide how they wish to respond: drop Shugden and reconcile
with
>HHDL, or maintain Shugden but abandon your relationships with HHDL. As
HHDL
>said, "that's up to you."
Whose ban is it that the Dalai Lama is talking about when he says:
'You might feel that by publishing letters, pamphlets, etc against this ban
that the Dalai Lama will revoke this ban. This will never be the case. If
you take a hard stand, I will tighten this ban still further.'
-Drepung Lama Camp, November 1996
>All the best,
>
>David
>
If the Dalai Lama was true to his teachings there would be no problem here.
Everyone everywhere should be allowed to practice their religion freely, and
all religions should live in harmony.
March is the anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The Dalai lama
always teaches at this time, often emphasizing the importance of pacificism
and religious freedom. Can you think of a good reason why he shouldn't use
this opporunity to solve this present crisis within the Tibetan community by
saying that though he disagrees with people who worship Dorje Shugden,
nevetheless they should be treated with respect and allowed to carry on
their worship without any fear of reprisal.
A Swiss journalist recently asked why the Dalai Lama doesn't do this. The
Dalai Lama refused to admit there was a problem even though the reporter
insisted he had seen calls for violence towards Dorje Shugden practitioners
*with his own eyes*.
Please see what the Dalai Lama says at http://www.tibet-internal.com/ under
Videos, Still Images, Text, Wednesday 7th January 1998.
Thank you,
Rabten
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
The Puddies
khyenrab wrote in message <6cnk83$rr2$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
Khyenrab,
This is NOT what is happening. He is not suppressing you or anyone ......
He simply will not give you his blessings in approving the practice of DS.
You are managing to create this big issue because you don't like what he
tells you.
It is like a child who claims child abuse because his parent will not allow
him to have candy when he wants it.
Evelyn
>
The Puddies
Alan Bird wrote in message <34ef6ed5...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>On 21 Feb 1998 02:07:09 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff, that is all well and good, excepting he has changed his mind. He
is
>>within his rights to do that.
>
>>Evelyn
>
>Indeed HHDL is, but he is not within his rights to enforce his
>religious orthodoxy through political means.
>
>
Alan replied,
>Does this mean that if HHDL once again changed his view, and once
>again recognises Dorje Shugden as an emanation of Buddha Manjustri,
>that you will no longer be attacking those who wish for this ban to be
>lifted?
Hello Alan,
I am not attacking anyone. I am trying to reason with a bunch of fanatical
spammers who are dumping huge amounts of repetitive postings on this
newsgroup in order to publicize their particular beef, and trying to "shame"
HH the Dalai Lama to change his mind to let them have their cake and eat it
too.....Meaning to practice Dorje Shugden practice and still remain in HH
good graces, after he has stated that he feels it is a harmful practice.
That is what is really going on here.
Evelyn
Alan Bird
On 22 Feb 1998 03:36:13 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>>
>>And any politician proven to be forcibly suppressing religious freedom is
>>contravening human rights - don't you agree?
>>
>>Khyenrab
>
>
>Khyenrab,
>
>This is NOT what is happening. He is not suppressing you or anyone ......
>He simply will not give you his blessings in approving the practice of DS.
>You are managing to create this big issue because you don't like what he
>tells you.
>
>It is like a child who claims child abuse because his parent will not allow
>him to have candy when he wants it.
>
>Evelyn
Evelyn,
One more attempt.
Is is simply not true to say HHDL is not surpression Tibetans who
continue to rely upon the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden.
Why as the Tibetan constitution been amended to no longer recognise
freedom of religious expression?
Why does HHDL tell Tibetans that if they continue to worship Dorje
Shugden that they are no longer under the auspices of his government?
Why as his HHDL told Tibetans that if they do not conform to the ban
he will enforce the ban even more vigourously?
Evelyn, for around 18 yesrs HHDL as spoken against the practice of
Dorje Shugden, through all that time I very much doubt that you even
heard about the issue.
It as only been since the attempt, to impose religious orthodoxy by
political means that people have began to speak out.
Posters displaying the names of Dorje Shugden practioners, their
addresses, the family member details are being posted on walls, naming
them as traitors.
This Evelyn is wrong. I cannot understand why you think this action is
ok, merely because it is being instigated by the wishes of HHDL.
Alan
>
>
Michael McLoughlin
In article <6cnk83$rr2$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
says...
>
>In article <6ck1oc$2hd$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
>>, the
>>DL has very clear political reasons
>
>I agree that this appears to be true.
>
Michael McLoughlin
Apoligies for double posting. Toaster gone haywire again.
Khyenrab,
It is blatantly obvious to me that your Shugden practice is doing
you no good whatsoever. Your mind is closed, your attachment to your
precious lineage overwhelming your commonsense. NO wonder HHDL seeks to
ban it. With people like you in charge the Tibetan exile community would
be in even greater shit than it is. Look outside the immediate concerns
of the NKT and the Shugdenite struggle for influence. You are a westerner
fighting somebody else's battle for control in a sphere that has nothing
to do with you. There are bigger battles to be fought. Against the
Chinese destruction of Tibetan culture and Dharma, against the poverty
and ill-health of the refugee communities and, especially now, against
the humanitarian disaster caused by the worst winter in decades in
Northern Tibet. The scrabble for power in the Tibetan govt. in exile
which is mostly what the ban is all about is very small beer. Do
something useful for other beings, Khyenrab! Hang up your attachments and
help.
Mick
Avyorth Rolinson
wizdumbd...@usa.net wrote in message <34EFC2...@usa.net>...
>"doris" shudgen? A sister to doris day perhaps?
more like a sister to doris dazed (and confused)!!
Avyorth Rolinson
Alan Bird wrote in message <34ef7a77...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>
>I was paraphrasing HHDL in the book "A policy of Kindness" 1990,
>published by snow Lion. Edition pg 63.
>
You sure were, Alan, just like the other nkt posters have been paraphrasing
the Tibet Offices attempts to eradicate the doris shugden sectarianism. With
paraphrasers like the nkt who needs enemies?
Yours in the Dh (ark),
Avyorth
>Wishing you happiness
Thanks, Alan, I wish you happiness as well.
>
>Alan
Avyorth Rolinson
khyenrab wrote in message <6cnk83$rr2$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>I agree that this appears to be true.
>
>And any politician proven to be forcibly suppressing religious freedom is
>contravening human rights - don't you agree?
I absolutely agree with you, Khyenrab, that kelsang gyatso's forcible
suppression of freedom of religious practice at Manjushri nkt Centre is
wrong. How come the junta there are allowed to repeatedly abuse the
residents, the social security system of the UK, etc and kelsang gyatso does
nothing about it? Quite the opposite, he even silenced those who had
criticised eg Roy Tyson's hurtful actions - were you present at the talk he
gave at Manjushri at lama chopa before he went off to the States?
Am I glad to see that you've finally woken up to the repeated abuses the
kelsang gyatso has perpetuated! Welcome back to the land of the living.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
ps should you need another driver, let me know.
>
>Khyenrab
>
Rabten
Chris wrote in message <34ecf500...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:21:04 GMT, alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird)
>wrote:
>...
>> For example, Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realised
>> Master of the Sakya tradition encouraged his disciples to rely upon
>> Dorje Shugden.
>
>Alan, lamas of the glorious Sakya tradition have never relied on
>Shugden as anything more than a worldly protector ranked lower
>than Polnlop Satrap and Pehar. They never did consider Shugden
>an object of refuge.
Chris, did you ever find time to respond to Gen Losang's comments of 22nd
December 1997. I missed your reply if you did. The comments were:
During my stay in India back in the the 80's ...
In the monasteries, all those I met who relied upon Dorje Shugden
considered him to be an enlightened emanation of Manjushri. Even when I
visited Geshe Kelsang's nephew in the Sakya monastery in Rajpur I found
that they relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector. They made
prayers and offerings to him which were in essence the same as those
offered to Mahakala who all schools believe to be an enlightened being. I
also saw on the private shrines of some of the monks the image of Dorje
Shugden. This surprized me as normally the Protector shines are kept
seperate. This image of Dorje Shugden was basically the same as the Gelugpa
aspect except that he was riding a horse. Perhaps it is only when he rides a
snow lion that he becomes harmfull! I was so surprized when I later heard
the Sakyapas saying that they only gave Dorje Shugden cakes so that he would
not get angry with them. I notice on the Sakya calander that they no
longer practice Dorje Shugden. If they truly believed he was such a demonic
being and feared him so much then why do they not continue to appease him
with cakes? I believe it is the tibetan politicians that they fear more
than Dorje Shugden. His Holiness Sakya Trinzen spent a large part of his
time at this monastery so surely he knows the real situation.
best wishes,
Rabten
>
>Regards
>
>- Chris
The Puddies
Michael McLoughlin wrote in message <6cp7j2$lvg$3...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>...
>In article <6cnk83$rr2$2...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
>says...
>>
>>In article <6ck1oc$2hd$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
>>>, the
>>>DL has very clear political reasons
>>
>>I agree that this appears to be true.
>>
>>And any politician proven to be forcibly suppressing religious freedom
>is
>>contravening human rights - don't you agree?
>>
>>Khyenrab
>>
>
>Apoligies for double posting. Toaster gone haywire again.
>
>Khyenrab,
> It is blatantly obvious to me that your Shugden practice is doing
>you no good whatsoever. Your mind is closed, your attachment to your
>precious lineage overwhelming your commonsense. NO wonder HHDL seeks to
>ban it. With people like you in charge the Tibetan exile community would
>be in even greater shit than it is. Look outside the immediate concerns
>of the NKT and the Shugdenite struggle for influence. You are a westerner
>fighting somebody else's battle for control in a sphere that has nothing
>to do with you. There are bigger battles to be fought. Against the
>Chinese destruction of Tibetan culture and Dharma, against the poverty
>and ill-health of the refugee communities and, especially now, against
>the humanitarian disaster caused by the worst winter in decades in
>Northern Tibet. The scrabble for power in the Tibetan govt. in exile
>which is mostly what the ban is all about is very small beer. Do
>something useful for other beings, Khyenrab! Hang up your attachments and
>help.
>Mick
>
Well said, Mick..... !!!!!!
Evelyn
corn...@hayboo.com
In article <6cnuif$gu7$1...@eros.clara.net>,
"Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net> wrote:
>
>
> corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6ci27r$m70$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >This is not a "ban" pronounced by HHDL; this is
> >simply HHDL calling it the way he sees it, and leaving it up to the Shugden
> >supporters to decide how they wish to respond: drop Shugden and reconcile
> with
> >HHDL, or maintain Shugden but abandon your relationships with HHDL. As
> HHDL
> >said, "that's up to you."
>
> Whose ban is it that the Dalai Lama is talking about when he says:
>
> 'You might feel that by publishing letters, pamphlets, etc against this ban
> that 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.'
> -Drepung Lama Camp, November 1996
Rabten, in order for me to accept this statement as support for your
and the NKT's interpretation that HHDL has imposed a totalitarian "ban"
on Shugden practice among all Tibetans (and among all non-Tibetan
practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism), *each* of the following things *must* be
true:
1. The quote is taken from a reliable tape or transcript of HHDL's remarks.
Please tell us your source for this quote, and why we should feel assured of
the source's authenticity and reliability.
2. The translation of the remarks must be 100% accurate. (Presumably, HHDL
was not speaking to the lamas in English.) *In particular, the word
translated as "ban" must have been accurately translated.* Please post on
a.r.b.t. the (properly transliterated) Tibetan original of HHDL's remarks at
Drepung, in order that scholars of Tibetan on a.r.b.t. can accurately gauge
whether "ban" is the most appropriate English translation of the Tibetan term
HHDL actually employed.
3. The quote is not out of context. It may be that in other parts of HHDL's
remarks at Drepung, parts which you have not provided us, HHDL makes clear
what he means by the word translated above as "ban." Thus, for example, even
if "ban" were one possible accurate English translation, fuller context may
clarify whether by that term he meant the sort of totalitarian "ban" the NKT
asserts is the case, or whether he simply meant he is banning those who have
samaya with him (and *only* those people) from practising Shugden -- as is his
right as a vajra master. Thus, please post on a.r.b.t. *the full, unedited
text* of HHDL's comments at the Drepung Lama Camp -- in English translation,
for the benefit of most readers of a.r.b.t., and in transliteration of the
original Tibetan, so that scholars and speakers of Tibetan on a.r.b.t. may
assess for themselves (and for a.r.b.t.), in full context, the accuracy of the
translation provided.
Rabten, you and other NKT posters on a.r.b.t. have repeatedly relied on the
passage quoted above as proof that HHDL says one thing to Westerners and
another to Tibetans, and that in fact he has imposed a totalitarian "ban" on
Shugden practice, something freely stated by HHDL to Tibetans but covered up
in front of Westerners. It therefore follows that you should be fully
prepared to back up your use of this excerpted remark, and demonstrate its
authenticity, the accuracy of its translation, and it greater context.
Please do so.
May all beings benefit,
David
> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Don Martin
In article <34EFC2...@usa.net>,
****** Wouldn't that have been Dorje Day?
--
Don, Trying to live like a sword
The Born-Again Buddhist in water, but behaving
(..and again & again..) more like a thick plank.
Chris
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:41:54 -0000, "Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net>
wrote:
> Chris, did you ever find time to respond to Gen Losang's comments of 22nd
> December 1997. I missed your reply if you did. The comments were:
>
> During my stay in India back in the the 80's ...
> In the monasteries, all those I met who relied upon Dorje Shugden
> considered him to be an enlightened emanation of Manjushri. Even when I
> visited Geshe Kelsang's nephew in the Sakya monastery in Rajpur I found
> that they relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector. They made
> prayers and offerings to him which were in essence the same as those
> offered to Mahakala who all schools believe to be an enlightened being. I
> also saw on the private shrines of some of the monks the image of Dorje
> Shugden. This surprized me as normally the Protector shines are kept
> seperate. This image of Dorje Shugden was basically the same as the Gelugpa
> aspect except that he was riding a horse. Perhaps it is only when he rides a
> snow lion that he becomes harmfull! I was so surprized when I later heard
> the Sakyapas saying that they only gave Dorje Shugden cakes so that he would
> not get angry with them. I notice on the Sakya calander that they no
> longer practice Dorje Shugden. If they truly believed he was such a demonic
> being and feared him so much then why do they not continue to appease him
> with cakes? I believe it is the tibetan politicians that they fear more
> than Dorje Shugden. His Holiness Sakya Trinzen spent a large part of his
> time at this monastery so surely he knows the real situation.
Your Gen Losang must have been misinformed or misinterpreting things.
The Sakya have *always* considered Shugden a worldly protector - in
the Sakya protector prayers his name comes after Ponlop Satrap and
Pehar.
If you don't beleive me please ask HH Sakya Trizin or HH Sakya
Dagchen Rinpoche.about this.
- Chris
The Puddies
Hello again.....
Alan Bird wrote in message <34f008db...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>Evelyn,
>
>One more attempt.
Some people never get tired of saying the same things over and over no
matter how many people tell them that they are wrong.
>Is is simply not true to say HHDL is not surpression Tibetans who
>continue to rely upon the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden.
He has made a decision of his own conscience about something he genuinely
believes to be harmful to you and others. He has this right. You should
be thanking him for this, not behaving as his enemy.
>Why as the Tibetan constitution been amended to no longer recognise
>freedom of religious expression?
Because he believes that DS practitioners are doing something harmful to
themselves and others. He is protecting you from yourselves, and you
refuse to be protected.
>Why does HHDL tell Tibetans that if they continue to worship Dorje
>Shugden that they are no longer under the auspices of his government?
That is also his right. Those who support him, and are loyal to him
deserve the "auspices of his government"..... those who do not,.... quite
simply do not.
>Why as his HHDL told Tibetans that if they do not conform to the ban
>he will enforce the ban even more vigourously?
Because he believes this practice is harmful.....He is protecting them.
>Evelyn, for around 18 yesrs HHDL as spoken against the practice of
>Dorje Shugden, through all that time I very much doubt that you even
>heard about the issue.
And for 18 years your group has not listened.
>It as only been since the attempt, to impose religious orthodoxy by
>political means that people have began to speak out.
After 18 years of warning people and their not listening, a lesser man would
have given up on you all. After 18 years of your ignorance, your speaking
out doesn't mean much, nor does it make the practice right to do. It just
shows that ego rules some people, and even if something is harmful to them
and to others, they will do it anyway.
>Posters displaying the names of Dorje Shugden practioners, their
>addresses, the family member details are being posted on walls, naming
>them as traitors.
I am sure there is good reason for this. HH DL's supporters must honestly
see these people as some sort of traitors, and feel they are a threat of
some kind. They are protecting themselves from being harmed by these
obsessed, compulsive, spirit worshippers, who have literally lost their
minds.
>This Evelyn is wrong. I cannot understand why you think this action is
>ok, merely because it is being instigated by the wishes of HHDL.
I think he is a wise and good man. I think he has compassionate reasons
for everything he does. I also think it is so sad that your group is so
enmeshed in egocentric clinging to this practice that you are willing to
shame HHDL whose kindness and compassion is legendary, playing into the
hands of his enemies, hurting a good person with your challenges and
demands.
I also think there is not one among your entire trouble making organization
who could win a Nobel Peace prize, or who is good enough to clean his shoes.
I think you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves beyond words, and spend
the rest of your lives doing practices for the benefit and peace of all
living beings, of which HH DL is among the finest that ever lived.
I further believe all of you are obsessed, brain washed, from this
unspeakable practice which has turned all your brains to jelly, incapable
of any rational consideration of the issues, spouting the same junk over and
over, like parrots.
You all need to give this sick practice up, do something different, get a
new teacher, get a life, dump your sick egos, and develop some humility.
Cultivate some regret for your actions and for every word you have spewed
against a good man who only has your benefit and the benefit of all beings
as his aim, and been attacked viciously by you for it.
But none of you is capable of doing any of that. You are too screwed up
from this weirded out practice.
I am truly deeply sad for you all..... I mean this not as a sarcastic
remark, but truly from the bottom of my heart, I am sad for you. The
karmic repercussions from such actions must be some awful stuff. I could
not harm one little mousie, much less such a good man who has only lived his
life helping his people survive one of the greatest tragedies of our times.
His Holiness The Dalai Lama, is right........ the practice of Dorje Shugden
is a depraved spirit worship that harms the minds of its practitioners at
the core, and blinds them to the truth.
I sincerely pray for your minds to be healed from the effects of this
practice..... the results of it are almost scary.
Regards,
Evelyn
Yeshe Tsultrim
I heard that the Nechung Oracle was the source of HHDL instigating this ban
on Dorje Shugden. If this is the case and the Oracle says that the
practice endagers HH I (am ignorant but) don't understand why people
persist in the practice. I also don't understand why religious practice is
being so politicized.
Is there any indication why the Oracle made this pronoucement, any
corollary staements or clarifications? Publication of these might help to
unmuddy the waters.
You can find dejanews at www.dejanews.com
Alan Bird
On 23 Feb 1998 00:48:38 GMT, "The Puddies" <pud...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
>I sincerely pray for your minds to be healed from the effects of this
>practice..... the results of it are almost scary.
>
>Regards,
>Evelyn
>
>
>
>
Evelyn,
All that I have written is that it is wrong to enforce a religious
orthodoxy by political mean.
If you see that as "scary" then I wonder what has happened to your
view of human rigfhts.
I hope for all oursakes, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama's, that
they wuill always be some to scare who when religious liberty is
abused
Alan Bird
>
>I sincerely pray for your minds to be healed from the effects of this
>practice..... the results of it are almost scary.
>
>Regards,
>Evelyn
>
>
>
>
Evelyn,
All that I have written is that it is wrong to enforce a religious
orthodoxy by political means.
If you see that as "scary" then I wonder what as happened to your view
of human rights.
I hope for all oursakes, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama's, that
they will always be some to scare us when religious liberty is abused.
Wishing you happiness
Alan
Rabten
Chris wrote in message <34f0be3...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:41:54 -0000, "Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Even when I
>> visited Geshe Kelsang's nephew in the Sakya monastery in Rajpur I found
>> that they relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector. His
>>Holiness Sakya Trinzen spent a large part of his
>> time at this monastery so surely he knows the real situation.
>
>Your Gen Losang must have been misinformed or misinterpreting things.
>The Sakya have *always* considered Shugden a worldly protector - in
>the Sakya protector prayers his name comes after Ponlop Satrap and
>Pehar.
Surely this is not the best you can do Chris.
>If you don't beleive me please ask HH Sakya Trizin or HH Sakya
>Dagchen Rinpoche.about this.
This is the point you are trying to establish. I don't believe you. I
believe the personal testimony of one of my teachers. He says he encountered
many Sakyas relying on Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector.
If you can get in contact with these two great Sakya lamas to prove your
point that would be very helpful. However it seems very unlikely that many
generations of stainless Sakya lamas would have invested so much time and
energy into propiating something they regard as a very low being. It would
be much more consistent with their high-brow practice if they regarded Dorje
Shugden as a Buddha, after all they do the Dorje Shugden Kangso sadhana
every month.
all the best,
Rabten
>- Chris
>
Rabten
corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6cq666$i30$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>Rabten, you and other NKT posters on a.r.b.t. have repeatedly relied on the
>passage quoted above as proof that HHDL says one thing to Westerners and
>another to Tibetans, and that in fact he has imposed a totalitarian "ban"
on
>Shugden practice, something freely stated by HHDL to Tibetans but covered
up
>in front of Westerners. It therefore follows that you should be fully
>prepared to back up your use of this excerpted remark, and demonstrate its
>authenticity, the accuracy of its translation, and it greater context.
>
>Please do so.
Dear David,
It will take a little while to get all the things you've asked for. Please
be patient. In the meantime you might ask yourself why when asked the
following questions the Dalai Lama did not just say 'Actually there is no
ban'.
Q:Why this BAN?
Q:Are you aware the extent to which your BAN can lead to violence when
Tibetans think that your life is in danger?
The Dalai Lama's replies as well as interviews with some of the many
Tibetans who are suffering from it can be found at
http://www.tibet-internal.com/
May all rifts within spiritual communities be healed and may everyone have
freedom to practice the Dharma they have received from their kind spiritual
masters.
Rabten
Rabten
Yeshe Tsultrim wrote in message <6cr3au$o...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>I heard that the Nechung Oracle was the source of HHDL instigating this ban
>on Dorje Shugden. If this is the case and the Oracle says that the
>practice endagers HH I (am ignorant but) don't understand why people
>persist in the practice. I also don't understand why religious practice is
>being so politicized.
It is important to remember that no one, not even the Dalai Lama regards
Nechung as a Buddha. On the other hand a great number of Gelugpas regard
Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang as an enlightened being. Thus the teachings given
by Trijang Rinpoche carry much more weight than any pronouncemnets by the
Nechung oracle. Trijang Rinpoche taught that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha and
advised all his disciples to rely on Dorje Shugden as their principal
protector. He continued to teach this after the pronouncements by the
oracle, and after the Dalai Lama gave up his practice. (I am assuming you
know who Trijang Dorjechang is and how important he is to the Gelugpa
tradition).
Politics and religion never mix. Unfortunately Tibetan history is full of
mixing religion and politics. The present situation arises because the Dalai
Lama has some very strong views which he wants others to hold and is using
his political position and prestige to try to achieve that aim. If he just
didn't teach the practice but maintained respect for those who do there
would be no problem. Those who want to follow the Dalai Lama's example
should do so, but those who want to follow other teachers should be equally
free to do so.
This is causing a lot of suffering, please take the time to visit
http://www.tibet-internal.com and find out a bit more.
>Is there any indication why the Oracle made this pronoucement, any
>corollary staements or clarifications? Publication of these might help to
>unmuddy the waters.
There is a transcript of the Dalai Lama relating what the oracle said, and
the results of the various dough-ball divinations and so forth the Dalai
Lama used to come to his conclusions. It was at a private meeting at his
residence in the late seventies. I no longer have a copy of the whole
transcript, perhaps some kind person might post it.
best wishes,
Rabten
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
In article <6cqh16$9jg$1...@node17.frontiernet.net>, "The Puddies"
<pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
more alan bird/Dholgyal drivel snipped
> I sincerely pray for your minds to be healed from the effects of this
> practice..... the results of it are almost scary.
>
> Regards,
> Evelyn
Come on Ev, don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think.
Nice post.
Best,
Kunzang Dorje
corn...@hayboo.com
In article <6crkna$dbh$1...@eros.clara.net>,
"Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net> wrote:
>
>
> corn...@hayboo.com wrote in message <6cq666$i30$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
> >Rabten, you and other NKT posters on a.r.b.t. have repeatedly relied on the
> >passage quoted above as proof that HHDL says one thing to Westerners and
> >another to Tibetans, and that in fact he has imposed a totalitarian "ban"
> on
> >Shugden practice, something freely stated by HHDL to Tibetans but covered
> up
> >in front of Westerners. It therefore follows that you should be fully
> >prepared to back up your use of this excerpted remark, and demonstrate its
> >authenticity, the accuracy of its translation, and it greater context.
> >
> >Please do so.
>
> Dear David,
> It will take a little while to get all the things you've asked for. Please
> be patient.
Hmmm..... Given the NKT's frequent prominent citation of this remark, one
would have thought that the backup materials to support the NKT's
reported version of the remark would be readily available.
> In the meantime you might ask yourself why when asked the
> following questions the Dalai Lama did not just say 'Actually there is no
> ban'.
>
> Q:Why this BAN?
> Q:Are you aware the extent to which your BAN can lead to violence when
> Tibetans think that your life is in danger?
Rabten, Rabten, Rabten. I know it has fast become a cliche on a.r.b.t. and
the other ngs y'all from the NKT post to, but "Yawn."
Rabten, frankly, you appear to have zero sense of nuance or context in
language use. Let me therefore be painfully simple about all this. When I
say, "There is no 'ban,'" what I am saying is "*As the NKT understands and
employs the term 'ban,'* it is inaccurate to describe what it is that HHDL has
stated about Shugden, and the effects of those statements."
Now of course, I could also employ the term "ban" and mean by it something
utterly different from the purported totalitarian ban the NKT claims exists.
Thus, I could properly use the word "ban" in connection with the more
innocuous description of his statements and actions that HHDL has provided
publicly -- in other words, a "ban" that in the final analysis extends really
only to those who hold samaya with HHDL but which imposes no prohibition on
those who do not desire a relationship with HHDL. (Again, as HHDL has said,
"It's up to you"; hardly sounds like a "ban" *as the NKT understands the
term*.)
Simply bandying about the highly malleable term "ban" (and not even referring
to whatever the actual Tibetan terminology used by HHDL has been) sheds
absolutely *no* light on the question of *what kind* of a "ban" are we talking
about. Is this a totalitarian "ban," as the NKT argues, or is it a more
"surgical" "ban" well within HHDL's authority to impose on those who hold
samaya with him, and which was voluntarily picked up even by those without
samaya but with tremendous respect for HHDL?
In short, you can throw out as many quotes as you like, demonstrating such
things as "HHDL responded without objection to a question which characterized
his Dorje Shugden statements and actions as a 'ban.'" You still haven't
proven that, in context, HHDL and the NKT are even using the word "ban" to
mean the same thing at all.
This is extraordinarily specious reasoning on your part. Please reexamine it
and clean it up before posting more of the same. A "ban" is not necessarily a
"ban" is not necessarily a "ban" -- it all depends upon context and the
speaker's intention.
May all beings benefit,
David
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
khyenrab
In article <6cspu5$rig$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, corn...@hayboo.com says...
>
>This is extraordinarily specious reasoning on your part. Please reexamine
it
>and clean it up before posting more of the same. A "ban" is not
necessarily a
>"ban" is not necessarily a "ban" -- it all depends upon context and the
>speaker's intention.
>
>May all beings benefit,
>
>David
You have used a lot of words.
Why not try looking at the TV pictures as families weep after their homes
have been smashed up; as the monk bodyguards who led the Dalai lama out of
Tibet weep in bewilderment because he now destroys the practice of the Deity
that guided him out of Tibet safely; the monks who wish they had died before
this ban happened; the Lamas who are astounded by what is happening in
Tibetan Buddhism. How the teachings of the Guru count for nothing. How
families are sent away for safety because there are wanted posters of them
on walls because they worship this Deity?
Actions speak volumes and these pictures and their commentaries are worth
thousands of words. Everyone who sees them understands that there is
something very wrong going on.
wizdumbd...@usa.net
poor Rabten wrote:
> This is the point you are trying to establish. I don't believe you. I
> believe the personal testimony of one of my teachers.
so even tho Chris reads to you from the Sakya lineage prayer, you call
him a liar? Maybe your teacher was the victim of wishful thinking -
hoping that his visit reified his vision of DS.
My Sakya Lama who was an abbot at a Monestary in Tibet, Laughed out loud
when I read him your accusation.
Alan Bird
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:32:53 -0600, corn...@hayboo.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>In short, you can throw out as many quotes as you like, demonstrating such
>things as "HHDL responded without objection to a question which characterized
>his Dorje Shugden statements and actions as a 'ban.'" You still haven't
>proven that, in context, HHDL and the NKT are even using the word "ban" to
>mean the same thing at all.
>
>This is extraordinarily specious reasoning on your part. Please reexamine it
>and clean it up before posting more of the same. A "ban" is not necessarily a
>"ban" is not necessarily a "ban" -- it all depends upon context and the
>speaker's intention.
>
David,
the Constitution of the Government in exile has been amended , so that
it now reads
"The presiding judge of the Judiciary
Commission ... must not be a worshipper of Gyalchen
Shugden ..."
You wrote
> -- in other words, a "ban" that in the final analysis extends really
>only to those who hold samaya with HHDL but which imposes no prohibition on
>those who do not desire a relationship with HHDL. (Again, as HHDL has said,
>"It's up to you"; hardly sounds like a "ban" *as the NKT understands the
>term*.)
Can you explain to me what being a judge has to do with 'samaya'
relationships?
Medical staff have to swear to not being worshippers of Dorje
Shugden? What as this to do with 'samaya' relationsips?
Sadly there is a ban, it is injuring Tibetans who worship Dorje
shugden and it goes against human rights as expounded in the UN
charter.
It is inevitable that this ban will come more and more to the
attention of the world media as time continues. This will not benefit
the Tibetan cause or prove beneficial to the spread of Buddhism in the
West.
If HHDL would lift the political ban that was imposed in 1996 and go
back to merely asking people who wish to have 'samaya' relationships
with him not to rely upon Dorje Shugden this issue would come to an
end.
Wishing you happiness
Alan