Exact nature of this conflict
Ashoka Society
In article
<Pine.A32.3.94.960804...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, David
Smith <davs...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
> I just recently started attending teachings sponsored by NKT. Now I am
> seeing in this newsgroup some controversy surrounding the NKT and the
> relationship between the Dalai Lama and the NKT. Would someone please
> explain to me what is the exact nature of this conflict if there indeed is
> one. As I am fairly new to all of this, it would be helpful if the
> explanation is in fairly simple terms and not filled with hair-splitting
> variations between different traditions.
Dear Mr. Smith,
In response to your question, here is a brief outline of the issues;
1. Protectors- there are two sorts of protectors in Tibetan
Buddhism, mundane and transmundane. The former may be any entity,
either on the path of application or, on the path of cultivation,
the first seven 'impure' Bodhisattva stages. The latter may only be
on the pure Bodhisattvas stages, that is the eighth, ninth and tenth
stages. For example, Mahaakaala is a tenth stage Bodhisattva. Bear
in mind however, that tenth stage Bodhisattvas are, for all intents
and purposes, Buddhas. It is taught in the Abhisamaya-ala.mkaara:
Whoever has wisdom beyond the ninth stage,
Abides on the stage of Buddhahood;
Understand that Bodhisattva stage
Is the tenth stage.
2. The conflict began when His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, began in
1978 to publicly express his grave doubts concerning the reliability
of Gyalpo Shugden as a protector, as well as leveling criticism at
those who took this entity as an enlightened being. The reason given
for this were two-fold; a) Shugden conflicts with Palden Lhamo,
Dorje Dragden, and also Damchen Chogyal b) His Holiness has
concluded that propitiation of Gyalpo Shugden is inimical to Tibetan
personal and National interests-- it goes without saying that His
Holiness also feels that any Westerner who adopts the propitiation
of Shugden is playing 'Russian roulette'. Within the past six years,
however, there has been a steadily rising reaction to His Holiness's
wishes concerning this practice, with some, like Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso, defying His Holiness and publishing books on the practice,
marrying it with the Sakya tradition of Vajrayogini practice, and so
on. Due to this open defiance, His Holiness has now come out
forcefully and Internationally on this issue.
3. In essence, His Holiness' message is this -- If you wish to
preserve your refuge vow, do not take Shugden as an enlightened
Dharma protector. If you wish for the independence of Tibet, do not
propitiate Shugden at all. If you have received any Highest Yoga
empowerments from His Holiness, such as Kalacakra-- he, as your Root
Guru, is commanding you to never take up propitiating Shugden, or,
if you have, to immediately cease, otherwise you have will damaged
your commitments with His Holiness.
So at this juncture, the concerned parties have two choices, they
can either accede to the wishes of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama or
remain in obstinate dissent, in which case they are seen by the
Tibetan ecclesiastical and political authorities as betraying their
basic religious and national obligations.
4. Why is there so much outrage on the part of the NKT/SSC, and
others, you ask? The propitiation of Gyalpo Shugden as carried out
by NKT/SSC, etc., rose to its present level of popularity due to the
overwhelming influence of a controversial early twentieth century
Gelugpa master, Pabhonghka Rinpoche, the author of the main
extensive Lamrim manual used today, 'Liberation in the Palm of Your
Hand" [Wisdom, 1991].
Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to the root
text of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage. Many devoted disciples
believe that Pabhongka Rinpoche himself had direct access to this
text, via Shugden. This 'text' is reputed to have been entrusted
into the care of the Gyalpo Shugden during the eighteenth century.
You should understands that this notion of entrusting texts to the
care of protectors derives from the Nyingma tradition, who hold that
Guru Padmasambhava entrusted his 'treasure' texts to various local
protectors throughout Tibet, until the time was right for the text
to be taken out. But this notion is not a Nyingma invention. In
Indian Buddhism, the Naagaas, a class of highly intelligent
'serpent' entities, were believed to have been entrusted with the
Mahaayaana teachings, which were eventually revealed by Naagaarjuna,
or so legend holds.
But it should understood, however, that His Holiness, the Dalai
Lama, has also publicly expressed his doubts about the authenticity
of such a text in "The Union of Bliss and Emptiness', pp. 68-69.
[Snow Lion 1988] You may also read more about this text, its
traditions and the early Gelugpa masters associated with Ganden
Mahaamuudra lineage in "Enlightened Beings", Willis, Wisdom, 1995.
His Holiness points out that in the entire eighteen volumes of
Tsongkhapa's collected works there is not a single word mentioning
the Ganden Emanated Volume.
The alternate point of view, favored by His Holiness, is that the
Ganden Mahaamuudra tradition is nothing more nor less than the
combined practice of the Yidams Guhyasamaja, Chakrasamvara and Vajra
Bhairava with their attendant oral instructions, etc.
Thus, it is felt by more fanatical students of the Pabhongkha
lineage that criticizing Shugden is the same as attacking the very
heart of the Gelugpa tradition. His Holiness' actions have given
rise to much bitterness on the part of these few, who are deeply
attached to their views. They genuinely feel His Holiness, the Dalai
Lama, is a Nyingma-influenced renegade out to destroy the Gelugpa
tradition, as insane as that may sound to those of us who know
better.
5. As far as your situation is concerned, Mr. Smith, it seems quite
impossible to avoid the practice of Gyalpo Shugden if you are an NKT
student. If one adopts the practice of Gyalpo Shugden, one will be
%100 opposing the wishes of His Holiness. If you wish in future to
take teachings from His Holiness, such as the Kalacakra, etc., or
any masters who support His Holiness' views, it would probably be
best for you not to undertake the practice curricula of NKT. NKT
introduces the practice of Shugden immediately to their new
students, as a set of praises and requests attached the 'One Hundred
Deities of Ganden' Guru Yoga of Tsongkhapa-- this treatment may be
found in the book 'Heart Jewel'. You may view NKT's SSC's views on
the origins and purpose of Shugden practice as well as the text of
the practice found in 'Heart Jewel' in it's entirety at the SSC's
Shugden Web site [url]. On the other hand, of you feel that the
practice curricula of the NKT matches your needs and that you have a
link with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, then by all means continue to study
with NKT. But you must make up your mind whether you wish to follow
His Holiness in this matter or not. Please take your time, and
review the voluminous posts on this issue from Deja View, etc.
We can offer you only this advice-- please make an effort to visit
as many centers as you can, without however taking any teachings
requiring samaya commitments; in other words, please feel
comfortable taking lower tantra initiations such as Manjushri, Tara
and Avalokiteshvara- these only come with refuge and Bodhisattva
vows, but for present, until you have settled on a lineage and
teacher, avoid taking Highest Yoga Tantra initiations, as these come
complete with Vajrayaana samaya. In sum, Hasty decisions are never
well made. Good luck Mr. Smith.
In closing, We of the Ashoka society would like to say we do not
accept Venerable Gareth Sparham's analysis. From our point of view
entities like Shugden, etc., have genuine conventional existence,
and therefor can have effect in the genuine conventional world.
We feel that to reduce this debate to 'religious symbolism' the
'politically naive' Tibetans can understand, in order to sever
political aspirations of a 'fundamentalist party', can be understand
as quite insulting to His Holiness, loyal Tibetans, and also those
in dissent. This point of view renders Tibetan religious history
into a media game carried out over centuries rather than months. In
fact we feel the reverse is true, Tibetan politics is no place for
naive Westerners, who have been succored on Democratic institutions.
Tibetan politics, religious and secular, are Byzantine and
treacherous. "Treading on the tiger's tail, be very cautious and it
will turn out all right" -- I Ching
In Dharma
Ashoka Society
"I have therefore a duty to carry out the legacy of the Great Fifth
and the 13th Dalai Lama. This is my responsibility, although some
people may not like it. But then, this is not a matter of what is in
the Dalai Lama's interest, but what is in the interest of the
Tibetan nation and its religion."
-- His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso 3/21/96
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Ashoka Society is an independent, non-affiliated body of
concerned netizens supporting the interests, aims and goals
of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Leonne Nault
Right on...............................
Kurt Keutzer
In article <4u8kel$t...@scream.ing.com>, Ashoka....@dierking.com wrote:
Thank you for your substantive and informative post - I would appreciate
it if you could answer a few questions:
<snip>
> If you have received any Highest Yoga
> empowerments from His Holiness, such as Kalacakra-- he, as your Root
> Guru, is commanding you to never take up propitiating Shugden, or,
> if you have, to immediately cease, otherwise you have will damaged
> your commitments with His Holiness.
Are you certain about this? I have heard HHDL has asked people who are
practicing Shugden to leave his teachings. I have not heard that he
considers it an infraction of your samaya with him to practice Dorje
Shugden. It is really the nature of samaya here that I am interested in.
More below ... but first
<snip>
> Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
> concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to the root
> text of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage. Many devoted disciples
> believe that Pabhongka Rinpoche himself had direct access to this
> text, via Shugden. This 'text' is reputed to have been entrusted
> into the care of the Gyalpo Shugden during the eighteenth century.
Could you elaborate on this. The use of ``asserted'' in your statement
``Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to the root text
of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage.'' I thought that a prior Panchen Lama
(Panchen Chos kyi Gyaltsan?) wrote the root text of the Ganden Mahamudra
Lineage.
<snip>
> We can offer you only this advice-- please make an effort to visit
> as many centers as you can, without however taking any teachings
> requiring samaya commitments; in other words, please feel
> comfortable taking lower tantra initiations such as Manjushri, Tara
> and Avalokiteshvara- these only come with refuge and Bodhisattva
> vows, but for present, until you have settled on a lineage and
> teacher, avoid taking Highest Yoga Tantra initiations, as these come
> complete with Vajrayaana samaya.
Samaya is a very broad concept but IMHO it seems to me that two different
types of samaya have been confounded here. In Highest Yoga Tantra
initiations one takes the samaya of the five Buddhas. As soon as one has
taken any dharma teaching whatsoever from a teacher one has begun to
establish some samaya with that teacher. There is a definite sense that
the depth of this samaya (this connection) increases as one takes tantric
teachings of any kind with a teacher. Why? Because these tantras say it is
so. OTOH I do not see a sharp gap in the samaya between Kriya, Carya and
Yoga Tantra on one side and Highest Yoga Tantra on the other. I am
somewhat certain that one will find in tantric works of the 3 lower
classes of tantra words describing the the importance of obedience to the
teacher. Do you disagree - or do you see it differently?
Sarvam Mangalam,
Kurt
Ashoka Society
In article <keutzer-0908...@keutzer-mac.synopsys.com>,
keu...@synopsys.com (Kurt Keutzer) wrote:
Dear Mr. Keutzer,
Thank you for your reply. We shall endeavor to address your
concerns given below.
> <snip>
> > If you have received any Highest Yoga
> > empowerments from His Holiness, such as Kalacakra-- he, as your Root
> > Guru, is commanding you to never take up propitiating Shugden, or,
> > if you have, to immediately cease, otherwise you have will damaged
> > your commitments with His Holiness.
>
> Are you certain about this? I have heard HHDL has asked people who are
> practicing Shugden to leave his teachings. I have not heard that he
> considers it an infraction of your samaya with him to practice Dorje
> Shugden. It is really the nature of samaya here that I am interested in.
> More below ... but first
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama stated on March 21st, 1996 "...This is
the reason why I suggested yesterday that it would not be
appropriate for those who propitiate Dolgyal to attend this
empowerment. * When the protector concerned is disloyal to its
commitments, the person concerned becomes disloyal in turn *. As I
said yesterday, this gives rise to a breach of commitments which
carries with it a definite threat to the life of a Lama". Further,
His Holiness stated "Therefore, it is totally inappropriate for the
great monasteries of the Gelug tradition, the Upper and Lower
Tantric Monasteries and all other affiliated monasteries which are
national institutions ever to propitiate Dolgyal"; and also "Lamas,
Geshes, religious students, and laity need not fear that they will
be harmed if they stop propitiating Dolgyal. Nothing will happen. I
will face the challenge. As Gelugpas, recite the "Migtse-ma prayer,
it will be enough if you also recite the Condensed Extensive Praise
to Dharmaraja (Choegyal Gyi Toepa Kyangkumma). No harm will befall
you".
It seems to us that these statements support our contention.
> <snip>
>
> > Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
> > concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to the root
> > text of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage. Many devoted disciples
> > believe that Pabhongka Rinpoche himself had direct access to this
> > text, via Shugden. This 'text' is reputed to have been entrusted
> > into the care of the Gyalpo Shugden during the eighteenth century.
>
> Could you elaborate on this. The use of ``asserted'' in your statement
> ``Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
> concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to be the root text
> of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage.'' I thought that a prior Panchen Lama
> (Panchen Chos kyi Gyaltsan?) wrote the root text of the Ganden Mahamudra
> Lineage.
In Enlightened Beings, an abbreviated translation of the rnam.thar
of the early siddhas of Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage by Professor Jan
Willis, we find this passage on pg. 36 "...the Ganden Miraculous
Volume, containing the complete detailed practice instructions of
the Oral Tradition that quintessentially abridges the pith teachings
of the path of both suutra and tantra was given directly by the
Venerable Lord Ma~nju`srii only to Je Rinpoche [Tsongkhapa], to this
Lama [Jampal Gyatso] and a few of the gods of Ganden [i.e.
protectors of Ganden monastery].
It is asserted by Pabhongka on pg. 244 "Liberation in the Palm of
Your Hand" [Richards, Wisdom, 1991] that the supplication prayer
given in the An Adornment for the Throats of the Fortunate is taken
directly from the Ganden Miraculous Volume.
It is also mentioned in the Willis book that the first Panchen Lama
[Lozang Chokyi Gyaltsen] was thought to be the last recipient of
this text by some, others believe the master Khache Gyaltsen was the
last, until Pabhongka in this century.
It must be pointed out that the First Panchen Lama's text is
explicitly on the controversial system of "suutra mahaamuudra", and
not the Mahaamuudra connected with the meditation of the two stages
in Highest Yoga tantra-please see "Four Essential Buddhist Texts",
LTWA, 1982.
> <snip>
> > We can offer you only this advice-- please make an effort to visit
> > as many centers as you can, without however taking any teachings
> > requiring samaya commitments; in other words, please feel
> > comfortable taking lower tantra initiations such as Manjushri, Tara
> > and Avalokiteshvara- these only come with refuge and Bodhisattva
> > vows, but for present, until you have settled on a lineage and
> > teacher, avoid taking Highest Yoga Tantra initiations, as these come
> > complete with Vajrayaana samaya.
>
> Samaya is a very broad concept but IMHO it seems to me that two different
> types of samaya have been confounded here. In Highest Yoga Tantra
> initiations one takes the samaya of the five Buddhas. As soon as one has
> taken any dharma teaching whatsoever from a teacher one has begun to
> establish some samaya with that teacher. There is a definite sense that
> the depth of this samaya (this connection) increases as one takes tantric
> teachings of any kind with a teacher. Why? Because these tantras say it is
> so. OTOH I do not see a sharp gap in the samaya between Kriya, Carya and
> Yoga Tantra on one side and Highest Yoga Tantra on the other. I am
> somewhat certain that one will find in tantric works of the 3 lower
> classes of tantra words describing the importance of obedience to the
> teacher. Do you disagree - or do you see it differently?
We disagree. Samaya is a very narrow doctrine--one receives samaya
dependent only upon receiving the Vajra Master abhi.seka; this
abhi.seka exists in both Yoga tantra and Highest Yoga tantra. As the
Vajra Master consecration does not exist in Kriya and Carya tantra,
therefor, there are no vows in Kriya and Carya beyond pratimok.sa
[refuge] and Bodhisattva vows and therefor, there are no samaya vows
in the two lowest tantra divisions.
For the Gelugpa authority on this issue please see "Introduction to
Tantric Buddhist Systems", Lessing and Wayman, Wieser, 1980.
Khedrup Je writes "Not having attained the bestowal of abhi.seka of
the two higher divisions of tantra, but having attained just Kriya
and Carya abhi.seka, there is no Secret Mantra vow to protect aside
from the Bodhisattva vow".
As far as properly following a teacher is concerned, devotion to a
teacher is recommended in Suutra, and is a part of the Bodhisattva
vows. But this is under the rubric of a training, rather than a
commitment; further, there is no enjoinder upon a common Mahaayaana
practitioner to see his teacher as an actual Buddha, primarily
because the notion of cultivating pure vision is not a part of
common Mahaayaana teachings. Indeed Candrakiirti teaches in the
Madhyamaka-avataara that that the common person can only infer, by
means of an independent syllogism, the realizations of Bodhisattva
on the stages by their deeds, but not directly--"Although the gift
of his flesh is earnestly made, the appearance [of qualities] is not
suitable, but inferred". However, the Vajrayaana disciple is
generally instructed to see his Guru as an actual Buddha,
irrespective of outer signs.
As to your suggestion "As soon as one has taken any dharma teaching
whatsoever from a teacher one has begun to establish some samaya
with that teacher. There is a definite sense that the depth of this
samaya (this connection) increases as one takes tantric teachings of
any kind with a teacher. Why? Because these tantras say it is so";
we would willing agree that when one has taken any form of teaching
from any teacher that one has entered or strengthened a dependent
origination with that person; but we disagree with your suggestion
that there is any samaya attendant upon taking any general
Mahaayaana or `Sravakayaana teachings. We suggest in turn that your
suggestion possibly confuses the crucial distinction between the
three vows.
We are not saying that an unripened Mahaayaana student should be
without devotion to their teacher, but we do feel that it is
mistaken for an unripened Mahaayaana student to feel the same *
obligation * towards such a teacher as the ripened student ought to
feel towards his or her Vajrayaana master.
Thus, as far as we understand it, whether or not one can be
considered to have a Guru, in the Vajrayaana sense of the word,
depends quite specifically upon receiving abhi.seka from a Guru; and
whether or not one is obligated to samaya vows depends upon whether
or not one has received the Vajra master abhi.seka in Yoga and
Highest Yoga tantra systems. We would like to add this citation from
Sakya Pandita's "Analysis of the Three Vows", folio 25/ab, volume
Na, Sa.skya bKa'.'bum:
For example, if ordination is not done,
likewise there is no designation 'abbot';
similarly, if the bestowal of abhi.seka is not attained,
the designation 'Guru' will not occur.
Having created devotion for
a non-secret mantra Guru,
though the triple accomplishment of happiness and felicity
and the cause of gradual accomplishment are possible;
he is not able to grant Buddhahood
in this life or the intermediate state.
It may be taught
in the textual systems of Paaramitaa--
'See the Guru as a Buddha";
but [he] is not taught to be an actual Buddha.
"The Guru is the Buddha"
is from having attained the bestowal of abhi.seka.
If there is no connection with the bestowal of abhi.seka, and the
vows,
although [he] may be excellent, [he] is a Paaramitaa [Guru].
Without ordination,
there is no abbot;
without bestowal of abhi.seka,
there is no Guru;
without vows,
there is no continuum of virtue;
without refuge, there is no spiritual practitioner.
Three are thieves of the Buddha's teachings--
the srama.na without vows,
the jinaputra not having attained creation of bodhicitta,
and the tantrika without abhi.seka.
A few general remarks follow--Mr. Keutzer should not feel that these
are in any way aimed at him, as we are making no presumption about
his knowledge in such matters.
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, notes in his commentary on the First
Panchen Lama's Lam rim text, "Path To Bliss", "There are scriptural
sources in which Buddha Vajradhaara says he will take the form of
spiritual masters in future times". pg. 85, Snow Lion 1991, . We
would observe however, the name "Vajradhaara" occurs nowhere in any
suutra; and strictly refers to the Sa.mbhogakaaya teaching
Vajrayaana doctrine in the Akani`sta Ga.n.davyuha pure realm; this
being so, we must understand then that this teaching can only refer
to Vajrayaana gurus from whom one has received abhi.seka, and in no
case is this a reference to the common Mahaayaana spiritual friend.
One needs to understand that in Vajrayaana, one's Nirmaa.nakaaya
Guru is related to, and derives from Sa.mbhogakaaya Vajradhaara;
similarly in Mahaayaana, `Saakyamuni Buddha is related to, and
derives from, to Sa.mbhogakaaya Vairocana, in the manner in which an
illusion is related to, and derives from, an illusionist. In other
words, the Guru is to be considered an emanated aspect [rnam.sprul]
of the Sa.mbhogakaaya--a skillful means of Vajradhaara and nothing
more-- in the same way that `Saakyamuni Buddha is not the definitive
Buddha, but of manifestation of Sa.mbhogakaaya Vairocana's skillful
means, merely a provisionally emanated aspect for the purpose of
leading beings into the path. of course it may be understood that
Vajradhaara and Vairocana are for all intents and purposes
identical. This is what is meant when it is it said in Vajrayaana
"The Guru is the Buddha". Further, one also needs to understand that
the Sa.mbhogakaaya emanates from the Dharmakaaya; as it is taught in
the Tattvasa.mgraha;
E ma ho, I, spontaneous Samantabhadra,
teach Bodhisattvas;
in order to teach them, though I have no body,
I transform into the body of Bodhisattva.
Therefor, we may understand a crucial point of Guru Yoga in all of
this--namely, we receive the principles of the Dharma from the
Nirmaa.nakaaya Guru; generally, but not exclusively, we visualize
the Guru in the form of Sa.mbhogakaaya in our practice; and when we
unify our mind with the Guru, it is the Dharmakaaya Guru that we are
unifying with-- the nature of our minds. The inseparability of
these three Kaayas may also be understood as the ultimate union of
clarity and emptiness, bliss and emptiness, awareness and emptiness,
etc., according to the terminology of the various schools.
However,
a) as the practice of Guru Yoga does not exist in Suutra systems,
this is not something to be practiced without abhi.seka
b) if one does not understand the relationship between the Gurus of
the Three Kaayas as well as their inseparability, one might
mistakenly take one's Nirmaa.nakaaya Guru for the definitive
Vajradhaara, etc., or mistake the relative Ruupakaaya for the
ultimate Dharmakaaya, etc., and that would be a great error. If on
the other hand one perceives correctly and sincerely that one's Guru
is actually a manifested emanation of Vajradhaara's skillful means,
in turn, an emanation of Dharmakaaya Samantabhadra-- no matter how
that Nirmaa.nakaaya Guru appears, wrathful, decadent, peaceful,
loving, angry, etc., and one has correctly received abhi.seka from
that Guru, realizing that the Guru is in reality a manifestation of
Sa.mbhogakaaya Vajradhaara, etc., then one may be said to be
properly employing the practice of pure vision regarding that Guru,
and immeasurable benefit will ensue, for example liberation in this
life or the intermediate state. Needless to say however, the state
of mind that can properly enter into such devotion is difficult to
cultivate and therefor we have many means of purification in
Vajrayaana, entirely absent in Mahaayaana, as a preliminary.
We feel often that the sometimes unbalanced emphasis on the sanctity
of the Mahaayaana teacher arising from Western Gelug students occurs
because they have studied Lam rim teachings before they have studied
general Mahaayaana, often before they have taken Vajrayaana
teachings. As a result, we often observe some confusion arises in
them about the distinction between the Mahaayaana Kalyaa.namitra,
dGe.ba'i.bshes.gnyen, [Geshe], a 'Spiritual Friend', if you will,
and the Vajrayaana Guru, as Ms. Ghul had noted earlier; though in
fairness, the term 'Guru' does occur very occasionally in Mahaayaana
suutras as a title for a respected Buddhist teacher.
Finally, it would be well to recall--in the general order teachings
are given in the Monastic system, with fair uniformity, uncommon
texts like Lam rim Chenmo, Legs.bshad.snying.po, etc., Sapan's
sDom.gsum, etc., Longchenpa's Grub.mta'. mDzod, etc., Gampopa's
Jewel Ornament of Liberation, etc., usually come at the end of
having studied the common texts of the Indian masters, Naagaarjuna,
Aaryadeva, Candrakiirti, and Maitreya, Asa.nga and Vasubandhu,
Dharmakiirti, etc. In other words, one is generally taught the
uncommon doctrines of one's lineage at the very end of one's common
studies.
In the West, sadly, this order is often reversed, and in our opinion
provides fertile ground to produce naive, bigoted, sectarian
students. These fertile conditions are endemic in all lineages in
the West, and as a result we do see students engaged in vigorous
debates without any idea about how they are deriving their
opinions, and the general and specific context of these opinions.
In closing, we will note that the great confusion dominating this
discussion of the Gyalpo Shugden affair arises in large part to the
deplorable, but understandable, ignorance of the part of many of the
participants about the precise nature of the three vows and the
principles of how to identify what a Guru is, how a Guru may be
taken, and who is qualified to have a Guru. This absence of
knowledge of this subject has lead to many erroneous claims by some
subscribers of a.r.b.t. We would wish that everyone concerned please
spend some time either reading, or inquiring of their teachers,
about the specifics of the three vows etc., so that they will be
more responsible netizens in future. It is hoped our brief discourse
above has at least stimulated some interest in these topics
ruth
Kurt Keutzer wrote:
>
> teachings of any kind with a teacher. Why? Because these tantras say it is
> so. OTOH I do not see a sharp gap in the samaya between Kriya, Carya and
> Yoga Tantra on one side and Highest Yoga Tantra on the other. I am
> somewhat certain that one will find in tantric works of the 3 lower
> classes of tantra words describing the the importance of obedience to the
> teacher. Do you disagree - or do you see it differently?
>
I HAVE READ MANY TANTRAS AND THE SAMAYAS BETWEEN THEM ARE ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME. SORRY FOR THE CAPITALS.
NGAWANG RABGYE
> Sarvam Mangalam,
> Kurt