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 Historical content remains viewable.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

RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA
by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

A response to the posting by Tseten Samdup: 'Shugden versus pluralism and
national unity controversy and clarification',
which came from the Department of Information and International Relations,
Central Tibetan Administration, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala 176 215, INDIA

===========

Concerning whether or not Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, there can
be no final
conclusion through negative debate, mixing religion with political aims.
This is because from
the point of view of many people he is a worldly being, but at the same time
from the point of
view of many other people he is the Wisdom Buddha. This reasoning applies
not only to
Dorje Shugden, but to all holy beings.

If someone asked you how to prove that the fifth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas
are Buddhas,
you would most certainly find it difficult to give clear reasons. On the
other hand, if someone
asked you how to prove that these two lamas are not Buddhas, you could
easily give a clear
answer. You could say: they are not Buddhas because they need translators,
they get sick,
they are unable to come to their own decisions but have to rely on those of
oracles, and
sometimes they even get angry. How can a Buddha get angry, get sick, and so
forth?
Buddhas do not need oracles? So talking about this subject is completely
meaningless, and
only destroys peace and harmony in Buddhist circles.

Therefore, I do not wish to respond to all the allegations mentioned in the
letter distributed by
Tseten Samdup from the Central Tibetan Administration, although there are
many that are
untrue. However, I would like to clarify two points:

1. I understand that in this letter you are saying that Dorje Shugden is
harming the Tibetan
national cause. In many previous letters, and in the Dalai Lama's public
talks it says that
Dorje Shugden harms Tibetan independence, and the Dalai Lama's health. This
is
completely untrue. If this were true, then the Dalai Lama is contradicting
himself. In many
previous newspapers, and on TV interviews given recently in the USA he said
that he has no
intention of working for Tibetan independence but for autonomy under Chinese
rule. This is a
contradiction; how can he say that it is Dorje Shugden who is endangering
the cause for a
free Tibet? The Dalai Lama is not working to free Tibet; his wish is for the
Tibetans to live
under Chinese rule.

2.You say in your letter: 'Trijang Rinpoche told His Holiness that Palden
Lhamo would never
deceive anybody, therefore it would be better to cease propitiation of
Shugden'. Of course
HH Trijang Rinpoche gave permission to the Dalai Lama to stop engaging in
his personal
Dorje Shugden practice. HH Trijang Rinpoche never tried to control his
disciples, but always
gave them freedom of choice. I clearly understood that HH Trijang Rinpoche
never gave
permission to ban the worship of Dorje Shugden within Tibetan society. A few
months before
his death I met HH Trijang Rinpoche in South India. He told me everything
about the
situation between Dorje Shugden and the Dalai Lama. He was very disappointed
with the
Dalai Lama, that he was not allowing other people to practice Dorje Shugden.

In conclusion, until now there have been no problems between the majority of
Buddhists of
the four schools such as Gelugpa, Nyingmapa and so on. We live naturally in
harmony,
respecting each other's tradition and we would like this state of affairs to
continue. Therefore
I would like to request to the Dalai Lama, the Central Tibetan
Administration in Dharamsala
and the Tibetan people: could you please stop completely this meaningless
talking and give
everyone religious freedom to worship whoever they choose.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
13th November 1997


Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote in message <64hir3$hmp$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

Hello Geshe Kelsang,
Hope this posting finds you well.

I read your posting concerning the dharma protector Dorje Shugden - as well
as having followed the wranglings between the Shugden Supporters Group (ala
Nick Gillespie) and the supporters of the Dalai Lama over the last year or
so.
I find it quite fascinating especially in the light of the teachings and
training I received as one of your students between January 1993 and
September 1995.
From your teachings I learned that Dorje (ie Vajra = Mind of Great Bliss
realising Emptiness) Shugden (ie most powerful) was none other than
Manjushri, the Wisdom Buddha. Wow, what greater protector of our mind of
Dharma could we hope for? Only that degree of Wisdom would protect us from
samsaric delusions. So I felt most priviledged to receive the blessing
empowerment of Dorje Shugden from you at Madhyamaka Centre, from which your
e-mail seems to have been sent. I also received the Highest Yoga Tantra
empowerments of Heruka and Vajrayogini, the Body Mandala of Heruka, and many
others from you.

As one of your students, I taught Dharma in Greater Manchester for a time -
the publicity that the NKT put out for this descrlbed me as a "close
disciple" of yourself - most flattering of them really.
I also taught on ocasion in Macclesfield, Stockport, Birmingham, Burton upon
Trent, and so on - quite an eventful time.
I was also a student on the Teachers Training Programme (TTP) from Sept 1993
to Sept 1995. I lived in both Tara Centre and Manjushri Centre for over 2
years.
So, it's probably fair to say that I have some knowledge of the New Kadampa
Tradition.

I was therefore interested in your plea to the Dalai Lama for religious
freedom.
In September 1995 on returning from my mother's funeral to my home at
Manjushri Centre, I was given notice to leave the centre by Roy Tyson-the
director (also signed by Peter Davis- Educational Programme Co-ordinator,
and Samten Kelsang -principle teacher after yourself). Apparently my
questioning of the principal doctrines and dogmas of the NKT was felt to be
disruptive to the community. For instance I'd tried to engage people in the
issue of the Shentong-Rangtong debate, as I felt that the Prasangika
vajrayana (as opposed to the Prasangika sutra) teachings were much closer to
Shentong rather than Rangtong view.

We were told by Samten Kelsang during one of the TTP classes that you were
very concerned that TTP students were reading the books, following the
teachings, etc of other buddhist teachers (yes, even other Gelugpa teachers)
and that this would have a very negative effect upon the NKT and yourself -
perhaps even damaging your health. Samten told us that we should cease from
any contact with the teachings and practices of other teachers, and learn to
rely only upon yourself. Given that a number of students had received
teachings and empowerments from other lamas (eg Lama Yeshe who'd actually
founded Manjushri Centre), the instruction from Samten was a very heavy
weight - and many students said in private that they could not abandon their
other teachers and the commitments that they'd received from them. All in
all it was not a well-received instruction.
It also became known that the practice that a number of people had of
keeping a picture of the Dalai Lama on their shrines was inauspicious. And
several ordained people told me that this had been pointed out to them.

So, Geshe Kelsang, whilst I rejoice in your plea for religious freedom (and
may it be granted to all beings), I am concerned. Concerned that whilst you
ask for religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners, that you do not
offer the same freedom to those who live within your domain. Is it right
that someone in your position asks from another that which they themselves
will not give to others. To say, as I've heard NKT people say, that those
who want to worship other than in the NKT manner, should leave the NKT
centres, is surely little different from the intolerance you accuse the
Dalai Lama of?

May you continue to benefit all beings,
Avyorth in the Dh (ark)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

In article <64j1g7$m...@argon.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com says...


Response to Avyorth Rolinson by Geshe Kelsang

Dear Avyorth,

Thank you for your letter and information. I agree very much with what you
say but there are some misunderstandings. The NKT people have complete
choice to read whatever books they choose, to follow other Teachers and to
practise in whatever way they want. There are no rules limiting people's
freedom. However, I have understood according to experience that many
Westerners find themselves in conflicting situations because of following
many Teachers who give them opposite advice. Therefore they find serious
obstacles in their spritual path. But still individuals have choice to
practise in the way they choose.

About the photos of the Dalai Lama, in NKT Dharma Centres we do not put his
photos on the shrines or public areas indicating that he is not our Guru,
but there is no other negative attitude in this action. Individually people
have freedom to do as their wish.

Thank you and best wishes,
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?

Over eighteen years ago the Tibetan teachers such as Lama Thubten Yeshe,
Geshe Rabten, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and many other
disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche taught Buddhism extensively to western
students. Thousands of western practitioners came to rely upon their
teachings. Since all these Gelugpa lamas were disciples of HH Trijang
Rinpoche they relied upon Dorje Shugden, in the same way their western
students also relied sincerely upon Dorje Shugden. As western students
we came to realize that their Dharma teachings and the blessings of
Dorje Shugden are immensely valuable and help us in our daily life. The
holy Dharma we received from these kind teachers was the most meaningful
gift we could have received and transformed our lives.

Some ten years ago we heard that the present Dalai Lama was not allowing
Tibetan people to engage in the practice of Dorje Shugden, saying that
anyone who engages in this practice cannot be a friend of his. We also
heard that a precious statue of Dorje Shugden which had been offered to
the monks at Ganden Monastery by HH Trijang Rinpoche, and was in the
main temple, had been removed at the orders of the Dalai Lama. We saw
copies of his public talks where he indicated that the practice of Dorje
Shugden was no longer acceptable. This disturbed our inner peace and joy
in the practice of Dharma, causing us many difficulties in our spiritual
life. This has continued now for over ten years.

Then in 1996 the Dalai Lama began to increase the persecution of Dorje
Shugden practitioners, publicly saying that Dorje Shugden is an evil
spirit who is harming both the cause for a free Tibet and the Dalai
Lama’s life. Due to this, in order to fulfil his wishes his followers
began removing Dorje Shugden statues from temples, destroying images and
statues of Dorje Shugden, and intimidating people physically and by
using signature campaigns to force them to stop their practice. In this
way much disharmony and divisiveness was created in the Tibetan
community and now in the larger Buddhist world.

We understand clearly that the source of this problem is the fifth,
thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Firstly, the fifth Dalai Lama
indicated that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit and this falsehood
spread throughout Tibet. People believed him because he was both their
king and spiritual leader. The thirteenth Dalai Lama, following the view
of the fifth Dalai Lama, also did not allow the practice of Dorje
Shugden. In particular he caused many difficulties for Je Phabongkhapa
by using his political power to prevent him from engaging in the
teaching and practice of Dorje Shugden. The fourteenth Dalai Lama has
carried on this persecution even more virulently than his predecessors,
showing little or no regard for religious freedom and no compassion for
the Tibetan and western practitioners suffering as a result of his
actions.

I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and
we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
be debated are:
1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.
2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit
or not.
3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.

If we can clarify the first issue then the others will naturally follow.

In Newsweek magazine (April 97), Robert Thurman publicly criticized and
humiliated both practitioners of Dorje Shugden and members of the New
Kadampa Tradition. We understand that he is acting like the Dalai Lama’s
representative and trying to destroy both Dorje Shugden practice and the
credibility of the NKT. Therefore we recognize him to be the actual
representative of the Dalai Lama. Also the Central Tibetan
Administration in Dharamsala and Fred Little seem to be acting as the
Dalai Lama’s representatives.

There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.

1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?
2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?
3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?

If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
of mixing Dharma with politics.

Kelsang Jangsem,
Resident Teacher,
Vajralama Buddhist Center

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote in message <346F75...@ix.netcom.com>...


>Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?

>If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that


>they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
>need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
>of mixing Dharma with politics.


Greetings Jagsem, you old NKT dog! Still in Seattle I see, and still up to
your old tricks with Mr Nick Gillespie of the NKT's Shugden Support Group.
You boys always did stick together at Madhyamaka NKT Centre (Pocklington,
for non UK readers).

So not giving clear answers to those questions nullifies the belief in the
DL being a pure being, hmm!

Ok, whilst in the NKT I, and your good self, frequently heard and no doubt
repeated that Geshe Kelsang was the Third Buddha of this Age. Gen Thubten
Gyatso (your old and much loved teacher, and GK's Heart Disciple) was
particularly fond of this saying, I'm sure you remember.

So, is Geshe Kelsang the Third Buddha, or any Buddha for that matter?
Please answer with VALID reasons. Your failure to do so will indicate that
he is not a Buddha, not a pure being! Wow, get your debating hat out, J!

Nice speaking to you again,
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
> regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
>
> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
>
> If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
> need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
> of mixing Dharma with politics.

Lati Rinpoche gave us a wonderful guru devotion teaching this weekend,
and I do think Rinpoche answered the questions above: If you regard your
root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
irrelevant.

Maitri, Kent
PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
that don't get involved in this political game, rather spent time with
dharma practices.

Jeffrey D. Nelson

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

Dear Friend in Dharma,
I feel that this particular schism over the Dorje Shugden scandal
will ultimately have to be brought into the arena of public discussion and
debate between the two apparent heads of the two feuding constituancies,
these being the Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The question over who
is or is not a "Buddha" is entirely secondary to the propigation of the
eternal Dharma. There are many advanced Bodhisattvas here, no Buddhas. This
is relative reality, remember? As such, we are all subject to the
misinterpretations of samsara.
If this topic proves out to be a temporal theocratic issue, then lets
bring it into the light of day, see it for what it is, and then get on to
more important things. I like the concept of Rime. Lets get over the
sectarian crap!

Ole

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Kent Sandvik <san...@best.com> wrote

> Lati Rinpoche gave us a wonderful guru devotion teaching this weekend,

...

> PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
> that don't get involved in this political game, rather spent time with
> dharma practices.

We all would like to have it nice and easy... but it's a fact that HH the
Dalai Lama is continuosly trying to ban the protector practice of the
Ganden Oral Transmission Lineage and that this is the only cause for all
this trouble. If he would stop this ban and his public statements (see the
homepage of the London Tibet office), the problem would immediately be
resolved.

He did say and is still saying the following thing:

"If any among you here are determined to continue propitiating Dolgyal
<...> it will have the effect of reducing the
life span of Gyalwa Rinpoche (The Dalai Lama), which is not good. However,
if there are any among you who hope that Gyalwa Rinpoche will soon die,
then you can stay."

This is a heavy accusation which has to be investigated in debate according
to the tradtion - as debate is practiced in all of the Gelug monasteries.
The problem is, that HH the Dalai Lama is refusing to debate this issue.
For instance last year there was a meeting of Gelug masters in Germany
where a letter was composed to ask HH the Dalai Lama to talk about this
issue. The letter was written in a very traditional, humble and polite
form. It was composed by 19 Rinpoches and Geshes of the Gelug tradition.
The request was refused and in the reply letter it was stated that these
masters would better study the scriptures of Lama Je Tsongkhapa... This was
told to Geshes with Lharampa degree and Rinpoches who had been educated by
Masters like Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche since the age of 5.

Now either the Dalai Lama has officially to stop this ban or he has to
acceppt a public debate. It is inacceptable to give such official
statements as the one mentioned above and not accepting a debate about it.

---

In one thing, Kent, you are right: "...we should follow the excellent
examples of our Gelug gurus"- During this year I had the opportunity to be
there several times when Lati Rinpoche was doing the prayers of Dorje
Shugden. He is not making a lot of fuzz about it, but he is rock solid in
his practice and he would not give up a practice that was given to him by
his own Master.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Kent Sandvik wrote in message <347140...@best.com>...

>: If you regard your
>root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
>them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
>regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
>irrelevant.

IMO, Kent, this issue has little to do with one's "root guru", an entity not
to be found sitting up on a very large cushion, wearing tibetan robes. The
root guru is 'your' own innate seed of wisdom and compassion that might just
move you that little bit further towards integrity - system theorists call
them strange or chaotic attractors. Worshipping anything else is idolatry.
Jangsem's questions were directed to that human (and IMO cool dude) the
Dalai Lama.

>Maitri, Kent


>PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
>that don't get involved in this political game

This bit had me falling off my cushion with laughter - thanks Kent!

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote in message <3470D9...@ix.netcom.com>...

Greetings Jangsem,

- I can see that you
>spend a great deal of time wandering in cyber space - one of the weirder
>realities of our time.
Come off it my old vajra-brother! What of the weird phenomenon of seeing
Western people dressed up in Tibetan gear offering marzipan to statues of
indo-tibetan deities? And that's just for starters - the marzipan, I mean!


>I would prefer to wait and see what
>they come up with before I engage in a debate about whether Venerable
>Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha or not.
Yeh, definitely safer. If they do come up with some good points, you can
then use them to support your belief that Geshe Kelsang is also a
Buddha/pure being/or whatever. If they don't, then you're reticence covers
your posterior. Good thinking.

>Perhaps you could attempt to answer my questions since you seem so fond
>of this medium.
hey! have you something against this "medium" - again understandable, the
NKT doesn't exactly like people talking back to them. Pity that, because
they're going to have to get used to it.

Yours in the Dh (ark),
Avyorth
>Kelsang Jangsem

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
> Kent Sandvik wrote in message <347140...@best.com>...
> >: If you regard your
> >root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
> >them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
> >regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
> >irrelevant.
> IMO, Kent, this issue has little to do with one's "root guru", an entity not
> to be found sitting up on a very large cushion, wearing tibetan robes. The
> root guru is 'your' own innate seed of wisdom and compassion that might just
> move you that little bit further towards integrity - system theorists call
> them strange or chaotic attractors. Worshipping anything else is idolatry.
> Jangsem's questions were directed to that human (and IMO cool dude) the
> Dalai Lama.

Guru devotion is not idolatry at all, this is a big misunderstanding and
most likely a misinterpretation.

As Nagarjuna stated:
If a person fell from the peak of the king of mountains,
he would still fall, even though he thought, "I shall not fall."
If you receive beneficial teachings through the kindness of the guru,
you will still be liberated, though you think "I shall not be.".

Atisha had many hundred gurus, and maybe most of us agree that Atisha
was a very special buddhist practitioner.

For me, I do think guru devotion is very suitable for westeners, as we
have the mentality that we could do anything, learn anything, without
the help of others, leading to a very dualistic view of the world,
forgetting the interbeing part and what enlightenment really is about.



> >Maitri, Kent
> >PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
> >that don't get involved in this political game
> This bit had me falling off my cushion with laughter - thanks Kent!

I've received a huge amount of wonderful teachings the last three months
from wht I consider the top of the Gelug teachers, and never did these
lamas mention this controversy, and there's no need to extend it either,
as most of us have seen, better practice than get involved in this
issue.

Terry Stone

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Dear kelsang-la,
I saw your posting and thought that I might make a contribution.
Regarding questioning the realization of the Dalai lamas,from an external
point of view of course enlightened qualities are difficult to perceive. In
the vinaya it is stated that although the presence of fish in a lake is not
immediately apparent, their presence may be inferred from ripples on the
surface.
Therefore, using inference one may(as an ordinary being ) reconize inner
qualities from the activities of the lama.
Part of your lineage relies upon upon holy beings who have stated quite
clearly that the particular Dalai lamas that you mention were authentic
manifestations of Chenresig and realised beings.
Purchok Jampa Gyatso said of the great 13th, that "he was truly the
incarnation of Avalokiteshvara".
Ling Rinpoche was tutor to both the 13th and 14th Dalai lamas both in his
last incarnation and the one prior to it(where he was lineal guru to losang
lungtok tenzin trinlay,guru of Pabongka).
The last Ling rinpoche (97th Ganden tripa) said in 1980 " from the moment I
saw his face I knew that he was the true incarnation of chenresig"
Incidentally as further inference can be drawn from the writing of realized
beings, Pabongka in his lam rim zindri - edited and comiled by Trijang
rinpoche, relies upon the 5th dalai lamas Jampel zhelung (southern and
extended lineages) along with the 2nd Panchen`s nyurdze lam.
My question is this, if your own lineage gurus relied upon and accepted
these incarnations as authentic and realized, then how can you disparage
them ?
Your own lama relied upon Ling rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche as his root guru
accepted the Lam rim la gyud as a golden rosary of enlightened beings.For
surely if they were not then the blessing power of the lineage would fade
and dissappear.
I hope you will accept my contributions with kindness even if you do not
agree with them.
with kind regards
Terry Stone
vajralama buddhist center <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3470D9...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Dear Avyorth,
>
> Hello there! I wondered what had happened to you - I can see that you

> spend a great deal of time wandering in cyber space - one of the weirder
> realities of our time.
>
> Having asked the representatives of the Dalai Lama to be forthcoming
> with valid reasons establishing the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth
> Dalai Lamas as Buddhas, pure beings, I would prefer to wait and see what

> they come up with before I engage in a debate about whether Venerable
> Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha or not.
>
> Perhaps you could attempt to answer my questions since you seem so fond
> of this medium.
>
> Kelsang Jangsem
>

Irmela Biehler

unread,
Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97
to


Dear Ole,

> For instance last year there was a meeting of Gelug masters in Germany
> where a letter was composed to ask HH the Dalai Lama to talk about this
> issue. The letter was written in a very traditional, humble and polite
> form. It was composed by 19 Rinpoches and Geshes of the Gelug tradition.
> The request was refused and in the reply letter it was stated that these
> masters would better study the scriptures of Lama Je Tsongkhapa...

Will you please be so kind to give the exact date and place,
where this 'meeting of Gelug masters' did take place in Germany?

I am seriously interested -

thank you

Irmela


john pettit

unread,
Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97
to

> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is
> a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is
> a
> Buddha, a pure being?

The Dalai Lamas have always been involved in politics to one degree or
another, with the exception of the first and second, who were recognized
posthumously with that title. It is thanks largely to them, especially
the Great Fifth, that the Kadam-Gelug tradition became the largest and
most politically powerful Buddhist tradition in Tibet. So whether you
think he was a Buddha or not, you owe him and the other Dalai Lamas a
debt of gratitude.

And as for politics, all the high lamas of the three seats -- Sera,
Drepung and Ganden -- have always been involved, whether they wanted to
or not. Large monasteries endowed with large estate holdings providing
their financial and other resources could not possible avoid political
controversies. So before you go pointing your finger at the Dalai Lamas,
why don't you read up a little on the political history of Central
Tibet? It's always been a jungle.



> If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume
> that
> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings.


The absence of a clear answer does not constitute a disproof. This is
taught in the first chapter of the Pramanavarttika, under the subject of
"evidence of non-perception" (mi dmigs pa'i rtags). Dharmakirti states
that the absence of evidence does not constitute a disproof of the
existence of something else unless all the right conditions for
perceiving that something else are present. In the case of judging the
Dalai Lamas to be Buddhas, the only condition for perceiving whether
they are Buddhas or not is to be a Buddha, or at least a 10th-bhumi
Bodhisattva, yourself.

Are you, in fact, going to claim that you are a 10th level Bodhisattva?

I doubt it.

Just because someone else fails to answer your question hardly
constitutes a disproof.

Lamas are Buddhas because we imagine them that way. It's a matter of
faith.
The reason we think the Dalai Lamas are Buddhas is the same reason you
think your Lamas are Buddhas. Are you really so naive as to think this
is a subject for proof or disproof?

JAMES LOVE

unread,
Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97
to

JOHN you stand corrected, you are pure buddha, forget about the lama's pay
attention to your life and wake up. There's no reason you can't realize no
attainment now
john pettit wrote in message <3474A1BC...@columbia.edu>...

>> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is
>> a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is
>> a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>
>The Dalai Lamas have always been involved in politics to one degree or
>another, with the exception of the first and second, who were recognized
>posthumously with that title. It is thanks largely to them, especially
>the Great Fifth, that the Kadam-Gelug tradition became the largest and
>most politically powerful Buddhist tradition in Tibet. So whether you
>think he was a Buddha or not, you owe him and the other Dalai Lamas a
>debt of gratitude.
>
>And as for politics, all the high lamas of the three seats -- Sera,
>Drepung and Ganden -- have always been involved, whether they wanted to
>or not. Large monasteries endowed with large estate holdings providing
>their financial and other resources could not possible avoid political
>controversies. So before you go pointing your finger at the Dalai Lamas,
>why don't you read up a little on the political history of Central
>Tibet? It's always been a jungle.
>
>> If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume
>> that
>> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings.
>
>

Mark Dunlop

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

In article <34759DE7...@columbia.edu>, john pettit
<jw...@columbia.edu> writes
>I'm reluctant to your message on the newsgroup because your response to
>me is all mixed up with a lot of personal raving and invective which I
>think is unbecoming of anyone who would call himself a Buddhst,
Is this guy replying to his own post?
snip
><<much angry insane raving snipped>>
snippetty snip..
--
Mark Dunlop

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

john pettit wrote in message <34759DE7...@columbia.edu>...


>I'm reluctant to your message on the newsgroup because your response to
>me is all mixed up with a lot of personal raving and invective which I

>think is unbecoming of anyone who would call himself a Buddhst, whatever
>the basis in fact may be. Frankly, and I mean this with kindness, I wish
>you'd leave the dirty laundry out. I'm sure there's a lot of it but it
>does not good to drag it out like you're doing.

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback, and I can understand your plea for keeping the
'dirty laundry' hidden. After all dirty laundry points to rather unsavoury
functions of reality.

Yes, there is a lot of it - and believe me - I try to handle it
hygienically, as best I can. Nevertheless, as any visit to the local
hospital will quickly bring to your attention, 'dirty laundry' doesn't go
away. Rather it spreads leading to more serious complications. Fortunately
we have medications that can often clear up such suppurating sores. But in
order to do so the initial process can be rather unpleasant as the 'dirty
laundry' is exposed, lanced and then cleaned up. If you have no experience
of this process, then a brief talk to any doctor or nurse will quickly
confirm my point.

If only 'senior' people within the eg NKT had been willing to address the
'dirty laundry' as it came up then the situation would be very different.
Personally I was fortunate and was not directly 'hurt' by any of it. But I
did see quite a number of people who were. DOUBLY HURT!

Once by the incident, and then by the refusal of the organisation to look
at, and attempt to address, the 'dirty laundry'. Those who persisted in
bringing out the 'dirty laundry' were, quickly or slowly, dumped - and in
the process often dumped upon. One very fine elderly nun at Manjushri Centre
comes to mind - she's no longer there I might add as her life was made very
unpleasant until she disrobed and left. Her continual willingness to address
'dirty laundry' issues against the consolidated stonewalling of the
'authorities' at the Centre still continues to inspire me.

Some people were also 'spiritually' hurt. By that I mean that they now
associate Dharma with buddhism and/or buddhist organisations, and now have
nothing to do with either. That is a very great pity.

So John, I would be interested in your suggestions as to how the 'dirty
laundry' should be addressed, because it's not going to go away by itself.
There is yet more 'dirty laundry' gathering in the shadows,even as I type
this, and (so I've heard) is close to bursting.

Some of the other issues, perhaps more peripheral to this central point,
I'll address in other postings.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Really Ayforth, people like you give Buddhism a bad name. Have some
>sense of decency!
PS Quite the contrary, I think you're mistaking Vipaka and Karma ie effect
for cause!

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to


Reply to Terry Stone from Khyenrab

Hello Terry

Jangsem asked for valid reasons to prove that the 5th and 14th Dalai
Lamas are Buddhas. Terry replied that we could say that these Lamas are
Buddhas because other Lamas said so.

Let's see if this reasoning works. In general we could say for instance that the 14th Dalai
Lama is a Buddha because HH Ling Rinpoche recognised him as such. But for the same
reason we can say that Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha because HH Ling
Rinpoche, HH Trijang Rinpoche (the 5th Dalai Lama at the end of his life
and the 14th some years ago) recognised him as such. So this reason does
not function as a valid one.

In the Sutras Buddha said: 'You should test my words as a jeweller assays
gold', I think that we should apply Buddha's advice here too. His words mean
that in order to prove a statement it is not enough to say 'this is true
because Buddha said so', so we need to examine the facts we can see now.

What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
Buddha?

Khyenrab


Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:

> In the Sutras Buddha said: 'You should test my words as a jeweller assays
> gold', I think that we should apply Buddha's advice here too. His words mean
> that in order to prove a statement it is not enough to say 'this is true
> because Buddha said so', so we need to examine the facts we can see now.

Agree.

> What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
> freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
> everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
> worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
> destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
> union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
> Buddha?

From Pahbonka Rinpoche's Liberation in the Palm of your Hand, and
Pabhonka Rinpoche supported HH Dalai Lama XIII:

"There is a danger that some may think, 'Spiritual guides are not really
buddhas, so we must rethink this section of the Lam-rim on devotion to a
spiritual guide'. But the point of this heading is that we should not
put wrong concepts such as these into the deepest recesses of our mind.

You should think as follows. The Guru is the Buddha but you do not
perceive it. The reason is as follows. Vajradhara is at present among
us, takin the form of gurus. Havajra's Royal Tanta says:

In future times, my physical form
Will be that of masters...

Also, for five millenia
I will take the form of masters
Think that they are me,
and develop respect for them
In these times...

In future degenerate tims,
My form shall be that of churls;
These are the various means I shall employ,
I will show myself in these forms. ".

---
In addition, from my side, the scriptures say that Buddhas could
manifest as *anything*, persons, trees, enemies, deities, dogs, whatever
is needed for the emanation body to tame and redirect sentient beings in
regenerate times. I.e, never, never, never make assumptions about
others, as this just shows the degeneration of not thinking everything
as pure and perfect, all such thoughts are the results of our inpure and
deluded minds.

Please, let us all stop with this name calling and such on this
newsgroup. It does not help any sentient beings, quite the opposite.
Imagine someone interested in Buddhism, has the first small tingle of
bodhichitta, then opens up this newgroups and reads about Buddhists
speaking of ill will with other buddhists, and about other buddhists. If
we turn this sentient being that has the first step towards not only his
or her own salvation, but also might become a buddha and save countless
other sentient beings from suffering forever, then what we have done is
against the Bodhisattva vows, and even creates huge karmic obstacles for
many sentient beings, including oneself, later.

This is the last thing I have to say about this all, and I'm happy to
share the little, tiny bits I know about buddha-dharma, but not get
involved in negativities, and I've already in this due to responding to
a posting.

May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of
suffering, Kent


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

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <654l34$dis$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>Reply to Terry Stone from Khyenrab

>What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
>freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
>everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
>worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
>destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
>union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
>Buddha?


Greetings o noble Khyenrab,

I hope that you are well and enjoying life.
So, let's see. Geshe Kelsang tells us that in a previous life the (to-be)
buddha whilst travelling on a boat, knowing that a person onboard was
planning to kill many fellow travellers in order to rob them, killed this
person. So superficially we can say that this person (a very holy being)
acted unskilfully. How could we say that such a person is a Buddha-to-be?
Yet according to Geshe Kelsang, this being was worthy of the highest praise.
By his apparently unskilfull act, he prevented great harm to many, many
beings. How wonderful!
In his commentary to the Boddhisattvacharyavatara (Meaningful to Behold"),
Geshe Kelsang reminds us that Buddha Shakyamuni points out that it is more
important to prostrate to the new moon (ie a Boddhisattva, one about to
become a Buddha) than to the full moon (a Buddha). So you, seeing the Dalai
Lama acting in a way that is (to you) unskilfull, want to deny his being a
holy person? Yet you do not see that those he acts against are perhaps just
like that robber who wanted to kill his fellow travellers. How can we hold
that you are following your own teacher's advice?

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>
>Khyenrab
>

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to


Reply to Kent Sandvik from Khyenrab

I agree with everything in your quote from Je Phabongkhapa’s Lamrim teaching
about guru devotion. It is also clearly explained by Ven Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso in “Joyful Path of Good Fortune”. I try to put these teachings into
practice myself and regard my root guru as a manifestation of Buddha
Vajradhara.

The thing that Terry and Jangsem were debating is not how to rely upon our
spiritual guide but one particular issue regarding Dorje Shugden and the
present Dalai Lama. I appreciate that you don’t want to put negative things
on the newsgroup and I agree with you. However, our problem is this: over
the past nineteen years the Dalai Lama has continually tried to destroy the
practice of Dorje Shugden and has been indirectly attacking the Dharma
taught by Je Phabonkhapa and HH Trijang Rinpoche (his own root guru).

If the Dalai Lama were to stop the persecution then there would be no basis
for this debate. Did you read the recent article from Tseten Samdrup of the
Tibetan government-in-exile? It was extremely disturbing for many people
and the accusations in it were false. So for as long as this abuse and
humiliation continues to the Gelug tradition passed down to us by Je
Phabongkhapa and HH Trijang Rinpoche we must reply and tell the truth. We
hope that if we explain the real situation to people then soon the Dalai
Lama and his government will end this repression.

Let me ask you some questions:
1. What do you think about Dorje Shugden - do you think that he is an evil
spirit because the Dalai Lama said so?
2. Or do you think that he is the Wisdom Buddha because Je Phabongkhapa said
so?
3. How will you decide which one is reliable - or are they both reliable?

Khyenrab


Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

Otherwise I would not respond, but there were questions asked directly
to me, and I'm bound to respond due to this. Let's see if I could manage
this without causing negativities to anyone...

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
> The thing that Terry and Jangsem were debating is not how to rely upon our
> spiritual guide but one particular issue regarding Dorje Shugden and the
> present Dalai Lama. I appreciate that you don’t want to put negative things
> on the newsgroup and I agree with you. However, our problem is this: over
> the past nineteen years the Dalai Lama has continually tried to destroy the
> practice of Dorje Shugden and has been indirectly attacking the Dharma
> taught by Je Phabonkhapa and HH Trijang Rinpoche (his own root guru).

I have not seen such a problem, and those teachers I've had teachings
from, Lati Rinpoche, Ribur Rinpoche, Zopa Rinpoche and many other top
Gelug teachers you could find on this planet, and who have HH Trijang
Rinpoche as their root guru, are also 100% loyal and behind HH Dalai
Lama. Thus the whole issue what's been mentioned above is totally
irrelevant and without any references for me.

> 1. What do you think about Dorje Shugden - do you think that he is an evil
> spirit because the Dalai Lama said so?

Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and argued
about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general, there's
a reason they should be secret.

> 2. Or do you think that he is the Wisdom Buddha because Je Phabongkhapa said
> so?

I follow the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa, and that includes of course
Pahbonka Rinpoche, HH Trijang Rinpoche and anyone who belongs to the
Gelug tradition, and not excluding any other Tibetan traditions either.
I'm a simple practitioner, Bodhichitta is an excellent dharma protector,
same with the three jewels. As for other dharma protectors, those are
personal choices and should not be argued about and so forth.

> 3. How will you decide which one is reliable - or are they both reliable?

If someone wants to cause controversies, it's all doable. It's much
harder to create equanimity and peace amongst all sentient beings,
something that is part of a Buddha activity.

Maitri, Kent

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Kent writes:

>>>...I have not seen such a problem, and those teachers I have had


teachings from, Lati Rinpoche, Ribur Rinpoche, Zopa Rinpoche and many other
top Gelug teachers you could find on this planet, and who have HH Trijang
Rinpoche as their root guru, are also 100% loyal and behind HH Dalai Lama.
Thus the whole issue what's been mentioned above is totally irrelevant and

without any references for me,..>>>

Dear Kent,

I think you must know that previously in Kopan monastery they used to
practice group puja of Dorje Shugden, and in the temple there was also a
statue and tangkha of Dorje Shugden placed there by Lama Yeshe. Lama Zopa
himself received life empowerment of Dorje Shugden and he also sincerely
engaged in this practice. Now they have stopped the practice in Kopan and
removed the statue and tangkha. Lama Zopa himself also stopped this
practice. If there is no problem, then why did Lama Zopa remove the statue
and tangkha of Dorje Shugden from the temple, why was the group puja stopped
and why has Lama Zopa broken his heart commitment?

You said: 'Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and


argued about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general,

there's a reason they should be secret.'

I agree with you, so then why is the Dalai Lama publicly discrediting the
Dharma protector Dorje Shugden? It was he who first began to discuss this
issue publicly and continues to discredit the practice around the world.
Check out
Office of Tibet web sites for example.

You said: 'As for other Dharma protectors, those are personal choices and
should not be argued about and so forth'

Thank you for supporting us here. We, the practitioners of the Dharma
taught by HH Trijang Rinpoche, choose Dorje Shugden as our Dharma protector.
But the Dalai Lama has not allowed people to engage in this practice and
has continually repressed many Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden and
they have thereby lost their religious freedom - including the practitioners
in
Kopan.


Khyenrab

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/23/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:

> You said: 'As for other Dharma protectors, those are personal choices and
> should not be argued about and so forth'
>
> Thank you for supporting us here. We, the practitioners of the Dharma
> taught by HH Trijang Rinpoche, choose Dorje Shugden as our Dharma protector.
> But the Dalai Lama has not allowed people to engage in this practice and
> has continually repressed many Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden and
> they have thereby lost their religious freedom - including the practitioners
> in
> Kopan.


Khyenrab, I truly pray that you will get the pure view concept of
everyone being pure and pristine, and there being no problems other than
those generated by mental afflictions, and that the natural view of the
world is of happiness and bliss.

Sarva mangalam, Kent

Fred Little

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to


Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:

I think you must know that previously in Kopan monastery they used to

> practice group puja of Dorje Shugden, and in the temple there was also a
> statue and tangkha of Dorje Shugden placed there by Lama Yeshe. Lama Zopa
> himself received life empowerment of Dorje Shugden and he also sincerely
> engaged in this practice. Now they have stopped the practice in Kopan and
> removed the statue and tangkha. Lama Zopa himself also stopped this
> practice. If there is no problem, then why did Lama Zopa remove the statue
> and tangkha of Dorje Shugden from the temple, why was the group puja stopped
> and why has Lama Zopa broken his heart commitment?
>
> You said: 'Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and
> argued about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general,
> there's a reason they should be secret.'
>
> I agree with you, so then why is the Dalai Lama publicly discrediting the
> Dharma protector Dorje Shugden? It was he who first began to discuss this
> issue publicly and continues to discredit the practice around the world.

Dear Khyenrab--

I take it from your words above that if I choose to embrace a karma mudra in
your meditation hall you will have no objection. After all, it would be a
personally chosen tantric practice, and you have already taken a stand against
publicly discrediting personal practices simply on the basis of one's own
feelings because of the hurt that may be caused to the faith and aspirations of
others.

Fred Little


Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to


Avyorth wrote to Khyenrab:

“I used to be your personal driver, taking you to and from Tara Centre
in Buxton and Madhyamaka Centre in Pocklington. Strange how spiritual
friendship is so dependent upon loyalty to the group-mind!”

You were very kind to give your time to drive me and luggage to the
rail station
in Sheffield so I could catch the train to York. Thank you Avyorth. I
enjoyed our
conversations on those trips. I remain your friend and am happy to give
my time
to try to be of assistance to you if you want.

You also said:

“.. and anyone who questions or disagrees with his position
is seen as obviously deluded.”

All living beings are deluded whether in agreement with someone else or
not.
We are simply trying to protect the lineage we have received from our
root gurus Je
Phabongkhapa, HH Trijang Rinpoche and Ven. Geshe Kelsang. Whether or
not you
agree with us we believe that our lineage is under threat of
destruction through forcible
repression of the practice of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden and bad
information
being spread worldwide by the Dalai Lama. If the Dalai Lama would
change his mind and stop this then immediately we would stop raising
this issue.
It’s that simple. Apart from this single issue we have no other debate
with the Dalai Lama.

Then:

“Even the very Articles of Association of NKT Centres demonstrate the
unwillingness of the NKT to be open to democratic processes. Let me
quote
article 19b):
"where a resolution is proposed which if passed would result in the
amendment of this Article 19, or Article 2, Article 11, Article 18, or
the
amendment of more than one of the aforesaid then any Member voting
against
such amendment (whether the Member is voting for or against the
relevant
resolution) shall whether present in person or by proxy be entitled to
one
million votes."

You need not worry. For example, if you read the twenty pages of
the constitution you can see it is democratic. How do I know this?
I know a little about this having registered one society with the
government in the UK. Many societies and organisations include in their
main objects clause (usually clause 2 or 3) a phrase to the effect that
“ the main
object is fixed and cannot be changed”. This means that the main
purpose for
which that society was set up cannot be changed without winding-up the
organisation
and starting again. The clause you point out above is another way of
saying the same thing.
That’s all. They are democratic in their functioning and are accepted
as such by the Charity Commisioners.

Avyorth , you clearly disagree with NKT in general and I respect your
right
to do so. We can discuss these differences either privately or publicly
and
I am happy to meet with you at any time to talk about them.

Khyenrab


cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:35:43 -0800, vajralama buddhist center
<vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?

He doesn't claim to be one.

...


>We understand clearly that the source of this problem is the fifth,
>thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Firstly, the fifth Dalai Lama
>indicated that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit and this falsehood
>spread throughout Tibet. People believed him because he was both their
>king and spiritual leader.

>The thirteenth Dalai Lama, following the view
>of the fifth Dalai Lama, also did not allow the practice of Dorje
>Shugden.

The 6th-12th Dalai Lamas probably never had much opportunity
to prohibit this practice.

>In particular he caused many difficulties for Je Phabongkhapa
>by using his political power to prevent him from engaging in the
>teaching and practice of Dorje Shugden.

Did not Phabongkha and a number of his followers who were devoted to
this Gyalpo Shugden use their own political power to destroy and take
over many monasteries and temples of other traditions esp. in the
region around Chamdo and other parts of E. Tibet? In particular
didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and tradition of
Padmasambhava - through whose enlightened activity Buddhism
gained hold in the land of Tibet?

[c.f. Beyer, Stephan "The Cult of Tara"; Samuel, Geoffrey "Civilized
Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies".]

Frankly speaking, if these reports are even partially true (and I have
spoken to Tibetans who witnessed some of these events and the
aftermath) - then I don't find it very difficult to understand why a
Dalai Lama would oppose a practice largely promoted by
Phabongkha.

Of course Phabongkha was one of the most brilliant commentators
on the teachings of the Gelugpa tradition, an extremely popular
teacher and a powerful political figure. That doesn't mean that
he was automatically always right or that he was an enlightened
Buddha.

For the most part the thirteenth Dalai Lama seems to have represented
a more liberal, tolerant and reforming side of the Gelugpa
establishment than that represented by Phabongkha (though the 13th
Dalai Lama too extended the hegonomy of the Gelugpa school). If many
of his reforms had not been undone following his death, and Tibet
once more became more inward looking, Tibet might have gained more
international recognition and stood more chance of retaining it's
independence.

>The fourteenth Dalai Lama has
>carried on this persecution even more virulently than his predecessors,
>showing little or no regard for religious freedom and no compassion for
>the Tibetan and western practitioners suffering as a result of his
>actions.

The senior incarnate lama [HHDL] and the highest office holder [Ganden
Tripa] of the Gelugpa tradition have prohibited worship of this
particular entity in the monasteries, temples and other institutions
of their tradition. This might be compared to the Pope derecognizing
certain Xtian Saints, and forms of worship within the Roman Catholic
Church - and it seem to be no more religious repression for the Dalai
Lama and HE Ganden Tripa to forbid a particular religious practice
within their Buddhist denomination than it is for the Pope to prohibit
particular practices within the Roman Catholic Church.

>I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and
>we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
>public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
>fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
>accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
>be debated are:

>1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.

Now just what would constitute valid proof of this as far as you are
concerned? AFAIK the Dalai Lama has never claimed to be an
Enlightened Buddha - though his devotees may look upon him that way.
HHDL usually refers to himself as a Buddhist monk not as a Buddha.

You are the one who is maintaining that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha
- the current leaders of all the main traditions of Tibetan all say
this is not so. Who are we supposed to believe? HH the Dalai Lama,
the Ganden Tripa and the main teachers of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma
traditions or you, Geshe Kelsang and Jim Burns?

If you can establish your claim that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha then
I'm sure someone will be able to establish that HHDL is a Buddha too
( a claim which, afaik, he himself has never made).


>2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit or not.

If you believe in things like harmful spirits - then there is prob. as
much evidence of Gyalpo Shugden causing harm as there is
of harm caused by any other spirit.

Even if Shugden is perfectly benign - that doesn't make him a Buddha
or an object of Refuge.

>3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.

Buddhism has pretty well always been mixed with politics and what you
have engaged yourself in here is very much a kind of politics too.

Although you may wish to believe that the Gelugpa tradition rose
to prominence in Tibet simply through the great merit of Je Tsongkhapa
there is a great deal of evidence that this was mostly accomplished
by political (and military) means.

Every Tibetan Buddhist school has been involved in politics at one
time or another - in recent centuries, the Gelugpa more than any
other. The surviving tradition that has probably been the least
involved in politics (anyway since the time of Rinchen Zangpo) is
probably the Nyingmapa - and they have often suffered materially
as a result.

From all accounts I've heard it seems that your teachers Phabongkha
and Trijang Rinpoche were at times very much involved in politics too.
You may consider their engagement in this field "skilful means" or
"Buddha activity" but that does not mean it was not politics.


>If we can clarify the first issue then the others will naturally follow.

>In Newsweek magazine (April 97), Robert Thurman publicly criticised and


>humiliated both practitioners of Dorje Shugden and members of the New
>Kadampa Tradition.

Big deal, Prof. Robert Thurman may be considered to be an authority on
the Gelugpa tradition by a few people in the western academic world of
Tibetan Buddhist studies but outside of that rather small circle, I
doubt if anyone pays much more attention to what he says than to what
you or I say here.



>We understand that he is acting like the Dalai Lama's
>representative and trying to destroy both Dorje Shugden practice and the

>credibility of the NKT. Therefore we recognise him to be the actual


>representative of the Dalai Lama. Also the Central Tibetan
>Administration in Dharamsala and Fred Little seem to be acting as the
>Dalai Lama's representatives.

Isn't the Central Tibetan Administration supposed to be HHDL's
Government just as the British Govt. is supposed to be Her Majesty's
Govt.?

Fred Little the Dalai Lama's representative? - come on now.
(And before you accuse me of the same thing I can assure you
that I only represent myself.)


>There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
>regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.

>1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?
>2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?
>3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?

Perhaps you can tell us first what you consider to be valid reasons
for saying that any lama is a tulku, a Buddha or a pure being? We
need to establish just what you mean by "valid reasons" here -
otherwise any reasons that may be put forward you can simply declare
as invalid.

>If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
>they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
>need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
>of mixing Dharma with politics.

Your opinion of the Dalai Lama is beginning to sound like the Rev. Ian
Paisley's opinion of the Pope.

You don't _have_ to accept HHDL's views on Dholgyal Shugden just
as Catholics now don't _have_ to accept the views of the Pope (in this
day and age they are free to go away and join another church or set up
one of their own). Whenever we are members of something like a
religious body or a political party sometimes we have to accept the
dogma, doctrine, creed or policy as it is set forth or interpreted by
the _current_ leaders of that religious body or political party. If
the leadership insists on a doctrine, dogma or policy that we cannot
in all conscience accept then, even if we have devoted our whole life
and resources to that organisation, we may have to go away and form
our own church or party - in time perhaps we may even be regarded by
the majority as the ones who were right.

So long as the Dalai Lama is not forcibly preventing you or others
from purchasing land and establishing there monasteries or temples
where you can worship Shugden to your heart's content I think your
charge of religious repression on his part does not hold any water.
To compare this to the repression suffered in Tibet during the
cultural revolution etc is outrageous.

There may of course be some hotheads who disagree with your
views on this issue so much that they stoop to issuing (or even
carrying out) threats of violence. This is reprehensible but I have
seen no evidence at all that HHDL has condoned anyone or anything
like this.

Similarly there seem to have been threats made by hothead devotees of
Shugden against those who are known to oppose their views. (In one
case it is alleged that people like this are responsible for the
murder of the Ven abott of the Dialectics School in Dharmsala and two
of his students.) Now I don't think that Geshe Kelsang has anything to
do with these threats nor would he condone them.

>Kelsang Jangsem,
>Resident Teacher,
>Vajralama Buddhist Center

If you truly believe that Gyalpo Shugden is an emanation of Manjusri
you could always try worshipping a form of that Buddha which everyone
accepts in his stead. Je Tsongkhapa and all those who preceded him
going right back to the Buddha seem to have managed quite well without
Gyalpo Shugden. Why are you so attached to this particular form?

Lama Zopa and many other worthy teachers, also disciples of Trijang
Rinpoche, seem to have accepted the Dalai Lama's policy, views and
wishes on this matter - perhaps at first with some regret. I expect
though that in the end they decided that he knew best and that the
divisions being caused by continuing this practice did more harm than
any benefit that might accrue.

Of course I can see why Geshe Kelsang may be so committed to this
practice - after all his uncle is an oracle (Kuten) of Gyalpo Shugden
- and I expect that Shugden is also his family protector. If
Shugden is called by some "a harmful spirit", he may see this as a
direct insult to his whole family and tradition and it is only human
if he is upset.

Similarly Gyalpo Shugden was considered to be a special protector of
Trijang Rinpoche's monastery in Chatreng so naturally he made daily
offerings and pujas to him.-Iin Tibetan eyes if this protector gained
status and influence so did his monastery - If it looses status in
some peoples eyes so do they.

Does this mean that Geshe Kelsang and lamas who are students of
Trijang Rinpoche and their students should be initiating student's
into this practice or calling on them to take their side in this
affair?

Can you blame an average western dharma student who has never seen a
Shugden - benign or malign - in the flesh for suspecting that there
may be some fierce Tibetan tribal loyalties operating here and that
there maybe those who are trying to rope us in to an arcane, rather
bizarre, Tibetan factional struggle that has probably been bubbling
along since one faction's candidate got chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama

and the other faction's cadidate lost ?

Sure this entity Gyalpo Shugden is supposed to have been around
since that time (he's alleged by his devotees to be the spirit or
embodiment of the losing candidate) - but as far as I have been able
to determine until fairly recently everyone considered him to be just
another one of Tibet's innumerable worldly religious protectors -
somewhere beneath the status of Gyalpo Pehar. There may have been
many people who considered him to be the special protector of their
family, locality or monastery and made offerings to him daily in order
that he would help them succeed in their endeavours but that does not
necessarily mean they considered him to be a wisdom deity or took
refuge in him .

It seems that only after Phabongkha (this centtury) had a "vision" of
Dragpa Gyaltsen (the losing candidate for the position of the fifth
Dalai Lama - subsequently recognized as a tulku of Panchen ) that
Shugden was suddenly elevated to the status of a "wisdom protector"
and emanation of Buddha. There are even those who claim this "vision"
of Phabongkha is apocryphal and that it was Trijang Rinpoche himself
who is largely responsible for elevating Gyalpo Shugden to the status
of enlightend being and object of refuge.

Even at the time Nebesky Wojkowitz gathered material for his book
(1950-53) - which devotes moe than a whole large chapter to Shugden -
there seems to have been no widespread belief (at least amongst
Tibetans in Kalimpong & Sikkim) that Shugden was an enlightend
protector as there is no mention of this in his book where he is
treated like Pehar, Tsi'u mar etc as a . This is strange as his main
informants seem to have been Dhardo Rinpoche , Tratung Rinpoche
and Lhagpa Dondrub (an Oracle of Shugden). Surely in the three years
he was going over this material with these informants they would
have mentioned that Shugden was an enlightend protector if they
believed this to be so.

Anyway, whatever the case, do we in the west really need purely
Tibetan protectors like Gyalpo Shugden? If we need Dharma protectors
can't we get along perfectly well with those protectors which have a
long and far less controversial pedigree going back at least to the
great maha siddhas of India and the tantras themselves?

Regards

- Chris


Bosco Ho

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

With my little understanding of Dharma and Tibetan Buddhism, I cannot
speak for Kent, but...

In <65abng$g2$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, On 23 Nov 1997 22:46:08 GMT,
khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang Khyenrab) wrote:

>Dear Kent,

>I think you must know that previously in Kopan monastery they used to
>practice group puja of Dorje Shugden, and in the temple there was also a
>statue and tangkha of Dorje Shugden placed there by Lama Yeshe. Lama Zopa
>himself received life empowerment of Dorje Shugden and he also sincerely
>engaged in this practice. Now they have stopped the practice in Kopan and
>removed the statue and tangkha. Lama Zopa himself also stopped this
>practice. If there is no problem, then why did Lama Zopa remove the statue
>and tangkha of Dorje Shugden from the temple, why was the group puja stopped
>and why has Lama Zopa broken his heart commitment?

that reminds me of an american historical figure named 'George
Washington.' You see, when he was young, he was a rather mischievous
chap, so one day he chopped down a cherry tree. Realizing what he had
done, he confessed his misdeed - and never done it again - and went on
to become one of the greatest American Presidents.

The moral of the story is that the ability to change - whether he is
George Washington, Rechungpa or Lama Zopa - to the sign of a great
being. OTOH, to hang on to the fading glory and self aggrandizing past
can only an endless wandering in Samsara (pardon for the mixed
metaphors.)

>You said: 'Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and
>argued about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general,
>there's a reason they should be secret.'

>I agree with you, so then why is the Dalai Lama publicly discrediting the
>Dharma protector Dorje Shugden? It was he who first began to discuss this
>issue publicly and continues to discredit the practice around the world.

>Check out
>Office of Tibet web sites for example.

Well, actually, if your vajre brother Messr Mark Gilespie didn't start
waving banner in London last year or someone raved about the DS
practice during the Spring Festival (as reported by Namdrol) two years
ago, I suspect many people outside of the circle wouldn't know what is
DS.

That reminds me of the recent american jurisprudent scene. A mugger
was shot by the police - and has become paralyzed. The mugger turned
around and sue the police for the cause of his paralysis.

The moral of the story is that the so-called 'Freedom Foundation',
which really comprised of NKT and other DS groups, has tried to
politically forced HHDL's hand.

>You said: 'As for other Dharma protectors, those are personal choices and
>should not be argued about and so forth'

>Thank you for supporting us here. We, the practitioners of the Dharma
>taught by HH Trijang Rinpoche, choose Dorje Shugden as our Dharma protector.
>But the Dalai Lama has not allowed people to engage in this practice and
>has continually repressed many Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden and
>they have thereby lost their religious freedom - including the practitioners
>in
>Kopan.

Analogous to the George Washington example, just because human beings
were a savage beast once in the prehistoric time, should we behave
like one too?

AFAIK, the previous Kyabie Trijang Rinpoche has acceded to HHDL's
reasoning. I understand Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (or whoever spoke in
his name) has replied to Chris Flynn that Ven GKG has not witnessed
this in person and therefore refused to accept that. To digress a bit,
that brings up an interesting point, if Ven GKG has refused to accept
the incident simply because he didn't witness it himself, how else
should the followers of HHDL behave if they have never met the
previous Kyabie TR or Pabangka Rinpoche?

>Khyenrab

in Dharma, Bosco

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to


Fred Little wrote:

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:

I think you must know that previously in Kopan monastery they used to

> practice group puja of Dorje Shugden, and in the temple there was
also a
> statue and tangkha of Dorje Shugden placed there by Lama Yeshe. Lama
Zopa
> himself received life empowerment of Dorje Shugden and he also
sincerely
> engaged in this practice. Now they have stopped the practice in Kopan
and
> removed the statue and tangkha. Lama Zopa himself also stopped this
> practice. If there is no problem, then why did Lama Zopa remove the
statue
> and tangkha of Dorje Shugden from the temple, why was the group puja
stopped
> and why has Lama Zopa broken his heart commitment?
>

> You said: 'Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be
discussed and
> argued about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in
general,
> there's a reason they should be secret.'
>
> I agree with you, so then why is the Dalai Lama publicly discrediting
the
> Dharma protector Dorje Shugden? It was he who first began to discuss
this
> issue publicly and continues to discredit the practice around the
world.

Dear Khyenrab--

I take it from your words above that if I choose to embrace a karma
mudra in
your meditation hall you will have no objection. After all, it would
be a
personally chosen tantric practice, and you have already taken a stand
against
publicly discrediting personal practices simply on the basis of one's
own
feelings because of the hurt that may be caused to the faith and
aspirations of
others.


Dear Fred

Thanks for your reply. Maybe you would find the comments of HH Dalai
Lama and his goverment suitable as a reply?

“...In addition, ensure total implementation of this decree by each and
every one...In implementing this policy, if there is anyone who
continues to worship Dorje Shugden, make a list of their names, house
name, birth place, class in the case of students, and the date of
arrival in case of new arrivals from Tibet. Keep the original and send
us a copy of the list.”

This from the Private Office of the Dalai Lama to the Abbot of Sermey
Monastic College March 30th 1996

And then:

“It will be the last resort if we have to knock on their doors to stop
them from worshipping Shugden”

This from the Dalai Lama at the Tamdrin empowerment March 21st 1996.

BTW the Tibetan originals of these documents were authenticated for
German national TV and used in a programme shown there last week(Nov
20th 1997).

What a shame that so many people are now suffering because of these
words and actions from the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile.

Khyenrab

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Dear Terry,

Thanks for your posting. I feel that Khyenrab has addressed your first
point about the Dalai Lama's being recognized as realized beings by
Lama's of our tradition.

The second point about Je Pabonkhapa relying on the works of the Dalai
Lama for his Lamrim we also cannot use as a valid reason. To be a valid
reason we would then have to say necessarily that Je Pabongkhapa was an
infallible being, a Buddha. Being an infallible being all his actions
would be infallible. Therefore his reliance on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
would also be infallible. As we can see just because Je Phabongkhapa
claims that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is not accepted as a valid reason
by many, including the present Dalai Lama, that he is a Buddha.

Also if Je Pabongkapa relied on the works of the fifth Dalai lama for
his Lamrim as you claim this does not necessarily mean that he regarded
him as a Buddha. He may have recognized him as a great scholar whose
works he deeply respected.

I like very much the quote you use from the Vinaya about how the
presence of a fish in a lake can be inferred from the ripples on the
surface, and in the same way one can infer the inner qualities of a lama
from their outer actions. This is precisely my point. The outer
activities of the present Dalai Lama with respect to the Dorje Shugden
issue (and many others) has caused much suffering and disharmony amongst
Tibetans and the wider Buddhist community.

Yours sincerely,
Jangsem

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> The fact that the Ganden Tripa is now appointed personally by the Dalai
> Lama as are all the abbots (whereas previously they were elected by the
> monks) discredits any position they may take on the Dorje Shugden issue.

As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.

> I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
> years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
> has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
> or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
> the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
> Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
> to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.

So what about the other Gelug dharma centers in the west, ACI, Heart
Jewel, FPMT, and many others? Do you have the perception that these
wonderful dharma centers and teachers operating at these centers are not
protecting the pure tradition of Je Tsonkhapa? I'm kind of curious to
know your point, especially as all these centers share teachers and
lamas, and I personally wish NTK could join this collaborative
environment, but if your concensus is that you alone are protecting Je
Tsongkhapa's teachings, that's sad. It also makes it harder for the
members to get wonderful teachings from various teachers in the Gelug
tradition if you want to be alone and not have connections to the
tradition of Gelug instituted by Je Tsongkhapa. How sad.

> Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
> initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
> Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
> with others.

Based on your earlier statements about you and your members suffering
due to this controversy concerning the specific dharma protector, I
would not think that what you say above is inline with the reality,
sorry.

Hopefully everything will be resolved using compassion, and especially
using taking and giving!

Maitri, Kent

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:35:43 -0800, vajralama buddhist center
> <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?
>
> He doesn't claim to be one.

He may not claim to be one but he is regarded as such by his followers,
including fanatics in his government and elsewhere who implement his
wishes without even the slightest question of their validity.

>
> The 6th-12th Dalai Lamas probably never had much opportunity
> to prohibit this practice.
>

Please explain why they had no such opportunity.

>
> Did not Phabongkha and a number of his followers who were devoted to
> this Gyalpo Shugden use their own political power to destroy and take
> over many monasteries and temples of other traditions esp. in the
> region around Chamdo and other parts of E. Tibet? In particular
> didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and tradition of
> Padmasambhava - through whose enlightened activity Buddhism
> gained hold in the land of Tibet?
>
> [c.f. Beyer, Stephan "The Cult of Tara"; Samuel, Geoffrey "Civilized
> Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies".]
>
> Frankly speaking, if these reports are even partially true (and I have
> spoken to Tibetans who witnessed some of these events and the
> aftermath) - then I don't find it very difficult to understand why a
> Dalai Lama would oppose a practice largely promoted by
> Phabongkha.
>

In his 'In the Presence of My Enemies' Tsipon Shuguba describes becoming
assistant to the Governor of Chamdo in 1940. He talks of a ‘monastery
rebellion’, ‘a few monks … claiming to be possessed by the local spirit
Shugden’ disturbing local farmers and stealing possessions. He reports
that in 1940 fifteen monks destroyed a statue of Padmasambhava, while
forcing the local residents to give them food, and then broke down the
doors of Chamdo Monastery’s storehouse, and destroyed the book-keeping
records and smashed furniture.

Even if Shuguba's account is true, while it is all deplorable it hardly
points to mass sectarianism. The 15 monks were arrested, given at least
200 lashes each, while hanging up by their feet, their screams proof, as
Shuguba says, that their possession was not genuine, and the incident
was finished. Indeed, Sugaba claimed to have destroyed this ‘local
spirit cult’.

Interestingly enough, he makes no mention of Je Pabongkhapa, either
positive or negative throughout the whole book, yet according to other
accounts Je Pabongkhapa was destroying Nyingma monasteries in eastern
Tibet around the turn of the Second World War. Je Pabongkhapa died in
1941.

Considering the general lawlessness in eastern Tibet at that time, it is
hardly fair to blame all practitioners of Dorje Shugden for rumours
about the actions by a few distressed monks in that part of Tibet nearly
60 years ago. Although the monks are accused of being motivated by
sectarian aims, they seemed more interested in acquiring food and
destroying book-keeping records. Shuguba mentions nothing about
monasteries and temples of other traditions being destroyed or taken
over.

Anyway since the events are disputed, and the present-day Shugden
practitioners have no-anti Nyingma agenda, isn't it time to forget these
grudges?

>SNIP<

> The senior incarnate lama [HHDL] and the highest office holder [Ganden
> Tripa] of the Gelugpa tradition have prohibited worship of this
> particular entity in the monasteries, temples and other institutions
> of their tradition. This might be compared to the Pope derecognizing
> certain Xtian Saints, and forms of worship within the Roman Catholic
> Church - and it seem to be no more religious repression for the Dalai
> Lama and HE Ganden Tripa to forbid a particular religious practice
> within their Buddhist denomination than it is for the Pope to prohibit
> particular practices within the Roman Catholic Church.

The fact that the Ganden Tripa is now appointed personally by the Dalai


Lama as are all the abbots (whereas previously they were elected by the
monks) discredits any position they may take on the Dorje Shugden issue.

One can safely assume that the Dalai Lama will appoint those who are
towing the party line on this issue. We also know how dangerous it is to
speak out on this issue even if one does disagree (cf. threats to the
life of Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang). We also know
it is not just a question of giving some advice and leaving it at that,
there is an active ban against the practice of Dorje Shugden,
persecution of those who continue to practice and discrimination against
them in public office.


>
> >I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
> >public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
> >fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
> >accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
> >be debated are:
>
> >1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.
>
> Now just what would constitute valid proof of this as far as you are
> concerned? AFAIK the Dalai Lama has never claimed to be an
> Enlightened Buddha - though his devotees may look upon him that way.
> HHDL usually refers to himself as a Buddhist monk not as a Buddha.
>

Valid proof would be proof that could establish beyond doubt that these
Lamas are Buddhas. So far not one single valid reason has been
forthcoming from anyone, whether they are a representative of the Dalai
Lama or not.

> You are the one who is maintaining that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha
> - the current leaders of all the main traditions of Tibetan all say
> this is not so. Who are we supposed to believe? HH the Dalai Lama,
> the Ganden Tripa and the main teachers of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma
> traditions or you, Geshe Kelsang and Jim Burns?
>
> If you can establish your claim that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha then
> I'm sure someone will be able to establish that HHDL is a Buddha too
> ( a claim which, afaik, he himself has never made).
>

This issue was debated at great length in this news group and their is
obviously a profound difference of opinion. However it is not the issue
of this present debate. What we are trying to establish is whether the
Dalai Lama has the authority to ban a centuries old religous practice.

> >2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit or not.
> If you believe in things like harmful spirits - then there is prob. as
> much evidence of Gyalpo Shugden causing harm as there is
> of harm caused by any other spirit.
>
> Even if Shugden is perfectly benign - that doesn't make him a Buddha
> or an object of Refuge.
>
> >3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.
> Buddhism has pretty well always been mixed with politics and what you
> have engaged yourself in here is very much a kind of politics too.
>
> Although you may wish to believe that the Gelugpa tradition rose
> to prominence in Tibet simply through the great merit of Je Tsongkhapa
> there is a great deal of evidence that this was mostly accomplished
> by political (and military) means.
>
> Every Tibetan Buddhist school has been involved in politics at one
> time or another - in recent centuries, the Gelugpa more than any
> other. The surviving tradition that has probably been the least
> involved in politics (anyway since the time of Rinchen Zangpo) is
> probably the Nyingmapa - and they have often suffered materially
> as a result.
>
> From all accounts I've heard it seems that your teachers Phabongkha
> and Trijang Rinpoche were at times very much involved in politics too.
> You may consider their engagement in this field "skilful means" or
> "Buddha activity" but that does not mean it was not politics.
>

This may all be true, not being a great expert on Tibetan history I
cannot say. What I can say is that with the Dharma moving to the West we
have a great opportunity to practise dharma unmixed with politics. It is
said that when Dharma moves from one country to another that it is a
great time to gain realizations, because the Dharma is fresh, unmixed
with politcal agendas and so forth. The great tragedy we see now is that
the horrible mess of Tibetan politics is coming to the West and is
causing enormous distress to many Western Buddhists. Destroying their
faith and spiritual practice.

>SNIP<


> Isn't the Central Tibetan Administration supposed to be HHDL's
> Government just as the British Govt. is supposed to be Her Majesty's
> Govt.?
>
> Fred Little the Dalai Lama's representative? - come on now.
> (And before you accuse me of the same thing I can assure you
> that I only represent myself.)
>

As you can probably appreciate Chris we would dearly love to debate this
issue with the Dalai Lama himself. Yet he consistently refuses to
discuss it. Therefore in pursuit of a debate we are trying to find
people who would represent the Dalai Lama. Its very difficult to debate
with a vacuum!

> >There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
> >regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
>
> >1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
> >2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
> >3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
>
> Perhaps you can tell us first what you consider to be valid reasons
> for saying that any lama is a tulku, a Buddha or a pure being? We
> need to establish just what you mean by "valid reasons" here -
> otherwise any reasons that may be put forward you can simply declare
> as invalid.
>

See above comment.

>SNIP<


>
> You don't _have_ to accept HHDL's views on Dholgyal Shugden just
> as Catholics now don't _have_ to accept the views of the Pope (in this
> day and age they are free to go away and join another church or set up
> one of their own). Whenever we are members of something like a
> religious body or a political party sometimes we have to accept the
> dogma, doctrine, creed or policy as it is set forth or interpreted by
> the _current_ leaders of that religious body or political party. If
> the leadership insists on a doctrine, dogma or policy that we cannot
> in all conscience accept then, even if we have devoted our whole life
> and resources to that organisation, we may have to go away and form
> our own church or party - in time perhaps we may even be regarded by
> the majority as the ones who were right.
>
> So long as the Dalai Lama is not forcibly preventing you or others
> from purchasing land and establishing there monasteries or temples
> where you can worship Shugden to your heart's content I think your
> charge of religious repression on his part does not hold any water.
> To compare this to the repression suffered in Tibet during the
> cultural revolution etc is outrageous.

It is true that Buddhist practitoners in the West have freedom of
practice, but this is not at all the case amongst the Tibetans. There
has been considerable violence and intimidation already used. As you
suggest any group that does not agree can form their own tradition (in
the West). This is exactly what the NKT has done, and yet we are
continually vilified for being sectarian just because we follow one
teacher and tradition. Moreover it is becoming increasingly difficult
for people to come to our meetings without having heard some horrible
things about our devil worshipping cult. Is this the price you have to
pay for splitting off from the herd and not paying homage to the
political leader of the Tibetans?


>
> There may of course be some hotheads who disagree with your
> views on this issue so much that they stoop to issuing (or even
> carrying out) threats of violence. This is reprehensible but I have
> seen no evidence at all that HHDL has condoned anyone or anything
> like this.
>

Of course the Dalai Lama has not condoned these actions. But it his
words that have inspired these people to act in this way. He must be
aware of the suffering amongst his people, what kind of leader would he
be if he wasn't? So why doesn't he do anything? It would be so easy for
him to say that everyone is free to practice whatever Protector they
choose, and this whole problem would dissolve.

> Similarly there seem to have been threats made by hothead devotees of
> Shugden against those who are known to oppose their views. (In one
> case it is alleged that people like this are responsible for the
> murder of the Ven abott of the Dialectics School in Dharmsala and two
> of his students.) Now I don't think that Geshe Kelsang has anything to
> do with these threats nor would he condone them.
>

The connection between the murders and Dorje Shugden practioners is as
you say just alleged. There are other motives that could have occasioned
such a reprehensible act but these have received very little mention.
For example, the Abbott had just retruned from a trip to Taiwan. Given
that many sponsors of the Tibetan Buddhists are Taiwanese it is
reasonable to assume that he may have returned with substantial amounts
of cash. Now you know how poor people in India are and how the Tibetans
are the objects of much jealousy amongst the native population...

>SNIP>

> If you truly believe that Gyalpo Shugden is an emanation of Manjusri
> you could always try worshipping a form of that Buddha which everyone
> accepts in his stead. Je Tsongkhapa and all those who preceded him
> going right back to the Buddha seem to have managed quite well without
> Gyalpo Shugden. Why are you so attached to this particular form?
>

Because it is the form of the Wisdom Buddha practiced by our venerable
lineage Gurus Je Pabongkapa and Trijang Rinpoche. To reject this
practice as inauthentic is to reject their lineage.

> Lama Zopa and many other worthy teachers, also disciples of Trijang
> Rinpoche, seem to have accepted the Dalai Lama's policy, views and
> wishes on this matter - perhaps at first with some regret. I expect
> though that in the end they decided that he knew best and that the
> divisions being caused by continuing this practice did more harm than
> any benefit that might accrue.
>

If the Dalai Lama is a Buddha then he knows best and we would be obliged
to follow. But where are the valid reasons that he is a Buddha?

> Of course I can see why Geshe Kelsang may be so committed to this
> practice - after all his uncle is an oracle (Kuten) of Gyalpo Shugden
> - and I expect that Shugden is also his family protector. If
> Shugden is called by some "a harmful spirit", he may see this as a
> direct insult to his whole family and tradition and it is only human
> if he is upset.
>

I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.

> Similarly Gyalpo Shugden was considered to be a special protector of


> Trijang Rinpoche's monastery in Chatreng so naturally he made daily
> offerings and pujas to him.-Iin Tibetan eyes if this protector gained
> status and influence so did his monastery - If it looses status in
> some peoples eyes so do they.
>

So now you are attributing worldly motives to Trijang Rinpoche, the root
Guru of innumerable Gelugpa Lamas. Interesting.

> Does this mean that Geshe Kelsang and lamas who are students of
> Trijang Rinpoche and their students should be initiating student's
> into this practice or calling on them to take their side in this
> affair?
>

Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
with others.

> Can you blame an average western dharma student who has never seen a


> Shugden - benign or malign - in the flesh for suspecting that there
> may be some fierce Tibetan tribal loyalties operating here and that
> there maybe those who are trying to rope us in to an arcane, rather
> bizarre, Tibetan factional struggle that has probably been bubbling
> along since one faction's candidate got chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama
> and the other faction's cadidate lost ?
>

There may be some tribal loyalty operating here as you say. But I
believe that Geshe Kelsang's motives are pure. Why else would he risk
everything including his life to protect a practice which he considers
indispenable to our tradition?

> Sure this entity Gyalpo Shugden is supposed to have been around
> since that time (he's alleged by his devotees to be the spirit or
> embodiment of the losing candidate) - but as far as I have been able
> to determine until fairly recently everyone considered him to be just
> another one of Tibet's innumerable worldly religious protectors -
> somewhere beneath the status of Gyalpo Pehar. There may have been
> many people who considered him to be the special protector of their
> family, locality or monastery and made offerings to him daily in order
> that he would help them succeed in their endeavours but that does not
> necessarily mean they considered him to be a wisdom deity or took
> refuge in him .

As far as you are aware does not wash. In her book Enlightened Beings
Janice Willis notes that Dorje Shugden is believed to have held the
Kadam Emanation scripture, protecting the Dharma. Do you think that such
a holy scripture which cannot even be seen by worldly beings would be
entrusted to an oath-bound evil spirit? He wouldn't even be able to see
it, never mind protect it!

> It seems that only after Phabongkha (this centtury) had a "vision" of
> Dragpa Gyaltsen (the losing candidate for the position of the fifth
> Dalai Lama - subsequently recognized as a tulku of Panchen ) that
> Shugden was suddenly elevated to the status of a "wisdom protector"
> and emanation of Buddha. There are even those who claim this "vision"
> of Phabongkha is apocryphal and that it was Trijang Rinpoche himself
> who is largely responsible for elevating Gyalpo Shugden to the status
> of enlightend being and object of refuge.

Whatever the truth of these matters we have to acknowledge that Je
Pabongkpapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche relied on Dorje Shugden
as a Buddha. Even the the fifth Dalai Lama later on in his life and the
present Dalai Lama earlier in his life viewed Dorje Shugden as a Buddha.

>
> Even at the time Nebesky Wojkowitz gathered material for his book
> (1950-53) - which devotes moe than a whole large chapter to Shugden -
> there seems to have been no widespread belief (at least amongst
> Tibetans in Kalimpong & Sikkim) that Shugden was an enlightend
> protector as there is no mention of this in his book where he is
> treated like Pehar, Tsi'u mar etc as a . This is strange as his main
> informants seem to have been Dhardo Rinpoche , Tratung Rinpoche
> and Lhagpa Dondrub (an Oracle of Shugden). Surely in the three years
> he was going over this material with these informants they would
> have mentioned that Shugden was an enlightend protector if they
> believed this to be so.
>
> Anyway, whatever the case, do we in the west really need purely
> Tibetan protectors like Gyalpo Shugden? If we need Dharma protectors
> can't we get along perfectly well with those protectors which have a
> long and far less controversial pedigree going back at least to the
> great maha siddhas of India and the tantras themselves?
>

It really is a question of lineage. If we start tinkering with the
lineage of realization that we have received where will it stop. We
already have eminent scholars propounding Buddhsim without beliefs.
Pretty soon we will be reinventing the whole Buddhist cannon with our
old friend ego at the the helm. Our destination? Yet another samsara
nightmare.
> Regards
>
> - Chris
Thanks for your posting,
Jangsem

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Tingli Pan

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
Sounds like Mao, when he started the Cutural Revolution.

Hopefully, it is what you said instead of Dalai Lama.
--
Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼

Lucy James

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <65gb68$1atm$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu
says...
>Marquess of Chu ЕЛНўАс

It did seem to be an unusual posting from Chris (unusual in its brevity, for
one thing:-))

Were you perhaps being ironic, Chris? Why else would you want to make the
Dalai Lama sound like a dictator, albeit a benign one?

I would like to know what reason you have for supposing (if you do) that the
Dalai Lama alone has the right to decide what is the greatest good for the
greatest number of people? In a democratic government there would at least
be some room for debate as to what the greatest good was.

However, the one thing that we do all seem to agree upon (I think!) is that
the Dalai Lama is not willing to entertain the slightest debate or
opposition on why he has banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. There has
been no vote, no referendum, no anything other than orders. AFAIK he has not
even answered any letters asking him why he is doing what he is doing, and
has refused to engage in any verbal debate with anyone.

If I am wrong on this, and he has had open debates with others, perhaps
somone could post a transcript of these on the newsgroups.

I would suggest that it is far from `the greatest good’ that seems to have
come from this ban - all that seems to have arisen from it so far are pain,
confusion, disharmony, and loss of spiritual direction. As for the cause of
Tibetan independence, removing obstacles to the Dalai Lama’s lifespan, and
the end of sectarianism (to my knowledge, the three reasons that the Dalai
Lama has given so far on why he has stopped people practising this Deity), I
see no evidence that this ban has helped any of these! Do you have any?

It is indeed difficult for one politician to please everyone all of the time
- this is one reason why we opt for democracy in the West; that way we know
we are at least trying to take in the wishes and needs of the majority,
while still allowing everyone else to be represented and heard as well.

Lucy James

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
> all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
> contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>
If as you say the Dalai Lama is acting for the greatest good then why
does he seem so fixed on championing the Tibetan cause for freedom at
the cost of destroying a pure spiritual lineage in the process? It is
said that thousands of beings have attained enlightenment following the
Ensa Whispered Lineage of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition. Is that worth
destroying to achieve some tenuous political harmony amongst the
Tibetans in exile so that maybe they can return to a Tibet devastated by
40 years of Chinese tyranny? There are only 6 million Tibetans whereas
there are 5 billion other humans in this world.

Surely the greatest good is to allow all people to practice whatever
they wish without trying to impose one's views upon them?

Jangsem

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Kent Sandvik wrote:

> As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
> the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.
>

I would be delighted if you could provide proof of this and thereby help
to restore some of my faith in the modern day Tibetan system.



> > I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
> > years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
> > has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
> > or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
> > the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
> > Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
> > to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.
>

> So what about the other Gelug dharma centers in the west, ACI, Heart
> Jewel, FPMT, and many others? Do you have the perception that these
> wonderful dharma centers and teachers operating at these centers are not
> protecting the pure tradition of Je Tsonkhapa? I'm kind of curious to
> know your point, especially as all these centers share teachers and
> lamas, and I personally wish NTK could join this collaborative
> environment, but if your concensus is that you alone are protecting Je
> Tsongkhapa's teachings, that's sad. It also makes it harder for the
> members to get wonderful teachings from various teachers in the Gelug
> tradition if you want to be alone and not have connections to the
> tradition of Gelug instituted by Je Tsongkhapa. How sad.
>

This seems to be such a common mis-perception of the NKT! Just because
we say we are trying to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa does
not mean that we are saying others are not. I can praise English as a
wonderful language, and yet imply no criticism whatsoever of other
languages. I can appreciate a fine Darjeeling tea without mixing it with
chamomile tea, and in no way denigrate the qualities of chamomile. Being
a student of Geshe Kelsang I can only speak with confidence about his
tradition, but that does not mean I cherish perverse views of other
traditions.

> > Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
> > initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
> > Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
> > with others.
>

> Based on your earlier statements about you and your members suffering
> due to this controversy concerning the specific dharma protector, I
> would not think that what you say above is inline with the reality,
> sorry.
>

One cannot say that it is our Protector who is causing these problems,
since a Wisdom Buddha could never create problems for anyone. The source
of all this suffering is the machinations of the Tibetan political
machine.



> Hopefully everything will be resolved using compassion, and especially
> using taking and giving!
>
> Maitri, Kent
>
> --
> Remove z from my email address above if you want to respond directly
> (this is to avoid spam emails).

I also hope we can resolve this issue using compassion and reasoned
debate so that all practitioners are able to practice whatever they wish
in peace and harmony.

Jangsem

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Lucy James wrote:
> Were you perhaps being ironic, Chris? Why else would you want to make the
> Dalai Lama sound like a dictator, albeit a benign one?
>
> I would like to know what reason you have for supposing (if you do) that the
> Dalai Lama alone has the right to decide what is the greatest good for the

> greatest number of people? In a democratic government there would at least
> be some room for debate as to what the greatest good was.

This is an odd position. As you are aware, in the spiritual domain
coerning practices and such we all follow the guidelines of spiritual
guides. We don't start arguing about the commitments and vows taken, or
start debating whether it's better to do a five-round guru yoga instead
of six rounds, and so forth...

> It is indeed difficult for one politician to please everyone all of the time
> - this is one reason why we opt for democracy in the West; that way we know
> we are at least trying to take in the wishes and needs of the majority,
> while still allowing everyone else to be represented and heard as well.

Unfortunately, this is not how the Mahayana system, actually not even
Buddhism in general, is set up. Maybe this is one of those things that
clashes with the culture in West now that Buddhism is coming over...

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> Kent Sandvik wrote:
>
> > As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
> > the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.
> >
> I would be delighted if you could provide proof of this and thereby help
> to restore some of my faith in the modern day Tibetan system.

Sure. I could ask him when he's over here in the Bay Area in about a
month. So far the information I provided was based on actually the monks
of Sera Me that elected Kham Rinpoche, and want him back, and he's just
now in Canada and USA.

> This seems to be such a common mis-perception of the NKT! Just because
> we say we are trying to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa does
> not mean that we are saying others are not. I can praise English as a
> wonderful language, and yet imply no criticism whatsoever of other
> languages. I can appreciate a fine Darjeeling tea without mixing it with
> chamomile tea, and in no way denigrate the qualities of chamomile. Being
> a student of Geshe Kelsang I can only speak with confidence about his
> tradition, but that does not mean I cherish perverse views of other
traditions.

Good. This means that NKT students could happily attend the teachings
and pujas of other traditions without getting worried. I'm glad you
stated this. Same with purchasing books of other wonderful Dharma
teachers, maybe NTK centers coud also sell such books to anyone that
wants to purchase them. Cool. This is a nice new wonderful start of
something beautiful where NTK is becoming a member of the Tibetan
Buddhist traditions world-wide.


> One cannot say that it is our Protector who is causing these problems,
> since a Wisdom Buddha could never create problems for anyone. The source
> of all this suffering is the machinations of the Tibetan political
> machine.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. However, it's clear that
talking about this specific dharma protector causes all kinds of
suffering, so that's mainly I'm trying to avoid it at all means.

Mike Austin

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <65huka$4d$4...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, Lucy James
<ati...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> writes

>However, the one thing that we do all seem to agree upon (I think!) is that
>the Dalai Lama is not willing to entertain the slightest debate or
>opposition on why he has banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. There has
>been no vote, no referendum, no anything other than orders. AFAIK he has not
>even answered any letters asking him why he is doing what he is doing, and
>has refused to engage in any verbal debate with anyone.
>
>If I am wrong on this, and he has had open debates with others, perhaps
>somone could post a transcript of these on the newsgroups.

At the teachings on the Four Noble Truths in London last year, His
Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden. He welcomed any sincere
questions. Also, at the audience afterwards with representatives of the
Network of Buddhist Organsations UK, he was asked several questions on
this matter. He explained his standpoint very clearly and gave some
helpful advice.

I think it would be useful to bring to mind the three basic reasons he
gave for discontinuing the propitiation of Dorje Shugden:

1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.

2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism.

3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the
Tibetan people.

In the NBO interview, he was told how Dorje Shugden was described as an
enlightened being by Geshe Kelsang and asked how practitioners could
decide between conflicting teachings from two lamas. His initial reply
was that we should consider what standpoint the majority of Gelug
masters have taken over the 300 years or so of this practice. He also
said that the rapid spread of the Dorje Shugden practice is a phenomenon
which has happened only over the last 60 years or so. He suggested that
what was needed on our part was some more 'research'.

During this audience, as he began to elaborate on the sectarian aspects,
the video tape ran out and had to be changed. I remember at the time how
'strange' this was. It means that no one has a taped copy of his advice
on this important second point.

In my simple, uninformed opinion, whatever practice we do, we should
seek to distance ourselves from worldly attitudes and 'spirits'. Here I
mean spirits not as deities, protectors and so forth, but as our own
attitudes, motivations and feelings. If the results of our practice lead
to worldly behaviour, worldly ambitions, worldly goals etc., then maybe
this indicates our practice is worldly. Could this mean that our chosen
deities are also worldly? Or are we just practising badly?

I feel, on a 'suck it and see' approach, we could get an idea of where
we and our deities are really coming from. Maybe this is the sort of
research we should be doing.
--
Mike Austin

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

>Sounds like Mao, when he started the Cutural Revolution.

Gee - soon I'll have Gui as my follower then?

>Hopefully, it is what you said instead of Dalai Lama.

Yes.

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Dear Kent,

I thought you might be interested in the following which relates to the
issue I mentioned of the Dalai Lama personally appointing Abbots, as
opposed to them being elected by the monks.

World Tibet Network News
Saturday, April 20, 1996 - Issue ID: 96/04/20 22:00 GMT
Dalai Lama Appoints Geshe Lobsang Jamyang as Abbot of Seramey College

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dalai Lama Appoints Geshe Lobsang Jamyang as Abbot of Seramey College
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zbiggy Modrzejewski
Toronto, April 20, 1996 -- With great pleasure, the Manjushri Buddhist
Centre of Scarborough announces that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has
appointed its spiritual director, Geshe Lobsang Jamyang, as Abbot of
Seramey College of Sera Monastic University in Mysore, India. Sera is
one of the great universities of Tibetan Buddhism.

This is the first time that a Tibetan lama residing in Canada has been
appointed to such a highly esteemed position. Geshe Jamyang will
continue to make Canada his permanent home but will be travelling to
India this summer for the official enthronement ceremony to be held at
Seramey. A
representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will preside.

Sincerely,
Jangsem

Bodhisattva Centre

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Thank you for your post Mike.

Mike Austin wrote in message <$nwjALAp...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>...


>I think it would be useful to bring to mind the three basic reasons he
>gave for discontinuing the propitiation of Dorje Shugden:
>
>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.

We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we
ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our
teachers to help us form these ideas. Therefore while it is fine for the
Dalai Lama to say that he no longer believes Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha,
this cannot be taken as a valid reason for suppressing others' belief that
he is (particularly when this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje
Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).

>
>2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism.

This reason is not valid.
Sectarianism only arises from the minds of deluded beings. The sadhanas of
Dorje Shugden begin with going for refuge, generating bodhichitta and end
with dedicating for the benefit of all living beings.

>
>3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the
>Tibetan people.
>

Did the Dalai Lama offer any evidence to support this?


Rabten

Mike Austin

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <65jv5r$77k$2...@eros.clara.net>, Bodhisattva Centre
<bodhi...@clara.net> writes

>Thank you for your post Mike.
snip

>We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we
>ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our
>teachers to help us form these ideas.
snip
I agree. My faith is in His Holiness.
--
Mike Austin

Mick_G

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bodhisattva Centre wrote in message <65jv5r$77k$2...@eros.clara.net>...


>Thank you for your post Mike.
>

>Mike Austin wrote in message
<$nwjALAp...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>...
>>I think it would be useful to bring to mind the three basic reasons he
>>gave for discontinuing the propitiation of Dorje Shugden:
>>
>>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
>>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
>>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.
>

>We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we
>ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our

>teachers to help us form these ideas. Therefore while it is fine for the
>Dalai Lama to say that he no longer believes Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha,
>this cannot be taken as a valid reason for suppressing others' belief that
>he is (particularly when this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje
>Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).


I really worry about the use of the word "faith". That is a very Western, IE
Christian idea. All of Buddhism is supposed to be tested by our own
experiences.

Mick

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote:
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> I thought you might be interested in the following which relates to the
> issue I mentioned of the Dalai Lama personally appointing Abbots, as
> opposed to them being elected by the monks.
>
> World Tibet Network News
> Saturday, April 20, 1996 - Issue ID: 96/04/20 22:00 GMT
> Dalai Lama Appoints Geshe Lobsang Jamyang as Abbot of Seramey College

I think there's a difference between appointing, and having a vote on
who will become the abbott. I think you agree too, otherwise the US
President would in your eyes be a dictator.

With metta, Kent

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bodhisattva Centre wrote:

> We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we
> ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our
> teachers to help us form these ideas. Therefore while it is fine for the
> Dalai Lama to say that he no longer believes Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha,
> this cannot be taken as a valid reason for suppressing others' belief that
> he is (particularly when this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje
> Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).

No, you must agree that we are talking about words against words. As
reported many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind
later. And you either believe this or not, and it's a personal choice to
believe former or latter. It can't be used as a logical argument, sorry.

Bodhisattva Centre

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Kent Sandvik wrote in message <347DD8...@best.com>...


>Bodhisattva Centre wrote:
>>this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje
>> Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).
>
>No, you must agree that we are talking about words against words. As
>reported many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind
>later. And you either believe this or not, and it's a personal choice to
>believe former or latter. It can't be used as a logical argument, sorry.
>

Come on, Kent, this idea that Trijang Rinpoche changed his mind on the
nature of Dorje Shugden is a new invention. As you know there was virtually
no one closer to Trijang Rinpoche than Zong Rinpoche. Zong Rinpoche had
perfect devotion to Trijang Rinpoche and great opportunity to discuss
spiritual issues with Trijang Rinpoche right up until Trijang Rinpoche
passed away. If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind then Zong Rinpoche
would have known about it. However after Trijang Rinpoche passed away Zong
Rinpoche gave life empowerments of Dorje Shugden and taught openly that
Dorje Shugden is a Buddha.


>With metta, Kent

Rabten


Kent Sandvik

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bodhisattva Centre wrote:

> Come on, Kent, this idea that Trijang Rinpoche changed his mind on the
> nature of Dorje Shugden is a new invention. As you know there was virtually
> no one closer to Trijang Rinpoche than Zong Rinpoche. Zong Rinpoche had
> perfect devotion to Trijang Rinpoche and great opportunity to discuss
> spiritual issues with Trijang Rinpoche right up until Trijang Rinpoche
> passed away. If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind then Zong Rinpoche
> would have known about it. However after Trijang Rinpoche passed away Zong
> Rinpoche gave life empowerments of Dorje Shugden and taught openly that
> Dorje Shugden is a Buddha.

OK, if we follow your logic then (I would not call it logic myself) both
the current rebirths of Zong Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche have been in
close connection with HH Dalai Lama about this issue, and so far I have
not heard anything from either of them condemning HH Dalai Lama's
decision in this issue. If they would have condemned, then your position
would indeed be valid.

I would let Zong Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche, HH Dalai Lama and all the
other realized masters speak for themselves, instead of using them
indirectly as a logical tool to provide one's own positions in this
matter. I'm sure they would appreciate it as well. Only reason I quote
HH Dalai Lama is based on the official statements he has made. Please
respect their wish as a way to do guru devotion.

Mick_G

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bodhisattva Centre wrote in message <65jv5r$77k$2...@eros.clara.net>...
>Thank you for your post Mike.
>
>Mike Austin wrote in message
<$nwjALAp...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>...
>>I think it would be useful to bring to mind the three basic reasons he
>>gave for discontinuing the propitiation of Dorje Shugden:
>>
>>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
>>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
>>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.
>

>We cannot KNOW whether another being is enlightened or not, unless we
>ourself are enlightened. All we have is our faith and our reliance on our
>teachers to help us form these ideas. Therefore while it is fine for the
>Dalai Lama to say that he no longer believes Dorje Shugden to be a Buddha,
>this cannot be taken as a valid reason for suppressing others' belief that

>he is (particularly when this was taught by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Kyabje


>Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Thubten Yeshe etc etc).

Bob Knight

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
writes

>
>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called
Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but
was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for
example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern
Philosophy."

Cheers,
Bob
--
:: Bob Knight, Hendon, London, UK
:: b...@drakkar.demon.co.uk
:: http://www.drakkar.demon.co.uk
:: "Here be Dragons..."

Mike Austin

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65l95d$3...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, Mick_G
<mic...@email.msn.com> writes

>I really worry about the use of the word "faith". That is a very Western, IE
>Christian idea. All of Buddhism is supposed to be tested by our own
>experiences.
>
>Mick

The sort of faith that I refer to is best described in three parts.

Firstly, one has to have some initial, perhaps instinctive, faith to
investigate something or someone. A goldsmith doesn't test rocks for
example. Secondly, having found something of value, there is more faith,
or confidence, to return to the same source for more. Thirdly, if that
source appears to yield something of no value, it is not discarded but
put aside until a better test method is found.

Thus my faith in His Holiness the Dalai Lama is because I have already
gained something valuable from him - something I have tested already.
This faith would lead me to return to his teachings and advice. If I do
not understand it, I stay with it and try looking at things differently.

At the end of the day, I have no more faith in my test methods than the
teachers or teachings. One has to refine one's testing as one develops.
Small pieces of gold cannot be tested the same way as large pieces. In a
similar way, testing the more subtle teachings cannot be tested the same
way as the more gross (is that the right word?) teachings.

We all have a lot on our dharma 'in-tray' like this and I'm sure we all
sift through teachings which we have not retained to find something
valuable later. The act of retaining such teachings, and retaining
confidence in the source, is what I would call faith.
--
Mike Austin

PS. I have removed all newsgroups except a.r.b.t from this posting

Mick_G

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Mike:
I think we are probably arguing semantics here. I just don't like the
baggage associated with the use of the word "faith". In the west faith when
we are talking religious matters involves blind acceptance. I remember when
I did a stint in a Catholic school, I would ask questions in my religion
class, the answer was always, "well it is a matter of faith". This you can
interpret as, "Don't ask these difficult questions, shut up and do what I
tell you."

I don't know what word I would use other than "faith", but what goes on in
Buddhism is definitely different than Western uses of the word. It always
involves reducing the teachings in the crucible of our own experience. Monks
constantly, as you know have debates about the dharma. Testing always
testing just exactly what they have learned. I think this is the reason for
the long time spent with a Guru. One needs to know from experience that the
Guru really is someone you can put your trust in. Then you can make a full
commitment to him or her. Course who am I to talk about such things anyway,
I'm a rank amateur.

Peace in every endeavor

Mick


Mike Austin wrote in message ...

Mike Austin

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

In article <65n8i8$g...@argentina.earthlink.net>, Mick_G
<mic...@email.msn.com> writes

>Mike:
>I think we are probably arguing semantics here. I just don't like the
>baggage associated with the use of the word "faith". In the west faith when
>we are talking religious matters involves blind acceptance. I remember when
>I did a stint in a Catholic school, I would ask questions in my religion
>class, the answer was always, "well it is a matter of faith". This you can
>interpret as, "Don't ask these difficult questions, shut up and do what I
>tell you."

I understand what you mean. I don't really like the word 'faith' myself
for the same reasons. It does tend to have a 100% ring to it. In that
sense, maybe the word 'confidence' is more suitable. I guess we are
dealing with probabilities here as we turn the doubting consciousness
around from the spiritual path to samsara.

Another word that I don't like is 'refuge'. It conjures up visions of
homeless, helpless beings huddled together waiting for someone to save
them. I think Alex Berzin used the phrase 'safe direction'.
--
Mike Austin

Mick_G

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

Mike Austin wrote in message <6oqSjFA9...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>...

Mike:
I however do like the word refuge. I think it describes the process very
well. Being homeless, with no solid ground to walk on seems real close to
what needs to happen. "Throw away all your conventional thought ye who enter
here". Course this also does not mean to become stupid. Again challenge your
thinking in ever way.

Mick

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:43:28 +0000, Bob Knight
<b...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
>writes
>>
>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
>>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
>>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
>
>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called
>Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but
>was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for
>example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern
>Philosophy."

As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so
is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has
make decisions on this kind of basis.

- Chris


Saraha Buddhist Center

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Dear friends,

I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco. We just finished
our monthly practice of extensive Dorje Shugden sadhana--a beautiful
puja indeed. The 19 people who attended it were very happy.

There's only one problem: the Dalai Lama says this practice is evil.
This is wrong. I have been doing this practice regularly for several
years--long enough to realize its positive effect in my life, in my
Dharma practice, in my ability to control my own delusions.

I have been encouraging others to take refuge in Dorje Shugden because
I know they too can benefit immensely from this practice. To me Dorje
Shugden is a real close friend, so I like to introduce him to others.

I'm sorry to say this but I believe the Dalai Lama is making a very big
mistake. And he is not alone. There are many lamas saying terribly
wrong things about this practice. I believe this amounts to religious
persecution and harassment. The other day a student at our Center was
receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some
horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible
for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman,
because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things.
Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust
that our motivation is pure. So she attended the puja tonight and was
very relieved. We prayed repeatedly for all diseases, conflicts, and
obstructions from malevolent spirits to be pacified!

Who is responsible for this nonsense about Dorje Shugden being an evil
spirit? I'm afraid it's mainly the Dalai Lama. He is the one who has
the power and who is using it to attack our practice. I wouldn't mind
if he didn't go public with it, but now he is using the press even in
the United States to persecute our practice. This feels like a witch
hunt. This is wrong. Especially coming from a Nobel Prize winner.

Does anyone have one single good argument (based on evidence) to
justify the actions of the Dalai Lama against the NKT and Dorje Shugden
practice? Why is it that most of the postings, instead of explaining
why there can be no religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practice, are
picking on NKT? If you don't like what we do, that's absolutely fine.
We're not asking anyone to like what we do. All we need is for new
students to have the freedom to come to our classes without fearing our
"evil practice"--because we have none! Once people come, what they find
is a supportive community working hard to control delusions and benefit
others. Students are constantly talking about how fortunate we are to
have such good Dharma friends, etc.

This ban and the Dalai Lama's access to the media to express whatever
he wants against Dorje Shugden (and against NKT) are trying to label
our Dharma practice as something cultish. This is terribly wrong. Why
is he doing this? What is his motivation? Does the so far lost Tibetan
cause need a scapegoat?

We need religious freedom. We are real people who are working hard to
rid the world from the three poisons. We rely on Dorje Shugden. It's
our choice. We are not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do.
But I need to let others know that the Dalai Lama's judgement is
incorrect in this matter. If I say nothing now, soon it will be too
late as this practice will have been completely misunderstood.

With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious
freedom.

Togden
Saraha Center (NKT)
San Francisco, CA

Bob Knight

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

In article <34800b95...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
writes

The point is that *because* it is full of inconsistencies (as you
agree), it cannot be used to achieve the effect it sets out to achieve.
This is why it was abandoned.

"A leader trying to do a good job" will therefore need another
methodology if only an ad hoc one that treats each new situation
pragmatically. The implication is that situations can always arise when
in order to help some, you cause disadvantage to others. A just society
is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able
to cope with it.

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

On 30 Nov 1997 10:07:48 GMT, sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist
Center) wrote:

>Dear friends,
>
>I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco. We just finished
>our monthly practice of extensive Dorje Shugden sadhana--a beautiful
>puja indeed. The 19 people who attended it were very happy.


>There's only one problem: the Dalai Lama says this practice is evil.
>This is wrong. I have been doing this practice regularly for several
>years--long enough to realize its positive effect in my life, in my
>>Dharma practice, in my ability to control my own delusions.

>I have been encouraging others to take refuge in Dorje Shugden because
>I know they too can benefit immensely from this practice. To me Dorje
>Shugden is a real close friend, so I like to introduce him to others.

>I'm sorry to say this but I believe the Dalai Lama is making a very big
>mistake. And he is not alone. There are many lamas saying terribly
>wrong things about this practice. I believe this amounts to religious
>persecution and harassment. The other day a student at our Center was
>receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some
>horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible
>for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman,
>because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things.
>Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust
>that our motivation is pure. So she attended the puja tonight and was
>very relieved. We prayed repeatedly for all diseases, conflicts, and
>obstructions from malevolent spirits to be pacified!

Listen there are plenty of people around that say all Buddhism is
evil that the Buddha is a devil -( maybe even some ex-Buddhists.)
I certaily don't agree with them at all but I don't think they are
guilty of religious repression. They are free to say what they
wish.

>Who is responsible for this nonsense about Dorje Shugden being an evil
>spirit? I'm afraid it's mainly the Dalai Lama. He is the one who has
>the power and who is using it to attack our practice. I wouldn't mind
>if he didn't go public with it, but now he is using the press even in
>the United States to persecute our practice. This feels like a witch
>hunt. This is wrong. Especially coming from a Nobel Prize winner.

>Does anyone have one single good argument (based on evidence) to
>justify the actions of the Dalai Lama against the NKT and Dorje Shugden
>practice? Why is it that most of the postings, instead of explaining
>why there can be no religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practice, are
>picking on NKT? If you don't like what we do, that's absolutely fine.
>We're not asking anyone to like what we do. All we need is for new
>students to have the freedom to come to our classes without fearing our
>"evil practice"--because we have none! Once people come, what they find
>is a supportive community working hard to control delusions and benefit
>others. Students are constantly talking about how fortunate we are to
>have such good Dharma friends, etc.

>This ban and the Dalai Lama's access to the media to express whatever
>he wants against Dorje Shugden (and against NKT) are trying to label
>our Dharma practice as something cultish. This is terribly wrong. Why
>is he doing this? What is his motivation? Does the so far lost Tibetan
>cause need a scapegoat?

The NKT or NKT members did a pretty good job of raising this issue in
the media in the first place. I doubt if there ever would have been
any mention of Shugden in the ewestern press let alone widespread
mention if this issue had not been raised by Shugden worshippers in
the first place.

>We need religious freedom. We are real people who are working hard to
>rid the world from the three poisons. We rely on Dorje Shugden. It's
>our choice. We are not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do.
>But I need to let others know that the Dalai Lama's judgement is
>incorrect in this matter. If I say nothing now, soon it will be too
>late as this practice will have been completely misunderstood.

There are those that pray to Lucifer to benefit themselves and others,
and say that he is completly misunderstood, and those that say he is
the manifestation of evil. Religious freedom means that people are
entitled to hold both these views and to state them - similarly with
Gyalpo Shugden.

>With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious
>freedom.

>Togden
>Saraha Center (NKT)
>San Francisco, CA

If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others
are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free
to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise
you for this.


Bosco Ho

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

In <JYSREBAm...@drakkar.demon.co.uk>, On Sun, 30 Nov 1997

>Bob

actually, thus far there is not one political philosophy that will
suit everyone. Additionally, while one can blend Chris's original
contention that the Dalai Lama is trying to do the most good for most
people as *summum bonum* a la Behnam and John Stuart Mills, it is only
one of the points amount many from the perceiver's perspective. From
another political theorist's perspective, the Dalai Lama can easily
been seen as the enlightened action of a Philosopher King. Therefore,
it is quite inconclusive to say this is utilitarianism - and much less
the conclusiveness that it has to be abandoned even if it is the sole
purpose, as categorical denial is as futile as categorical acceptance
in face of the particular moment and set of circumstances.

While I am responding from a.r.b.t. from the perspective of religion
(but this is x-posted to the political threads,) I would only wish to
briefly digress (i.e., nothing relating to this thread in particular,)
the so-called "A just society is presumably one in which the
disadvantage is placed on those most able to cope with it" sounds to
me possessing at least some superficial resemblance to the economic
model of jusrisprudence theory quite popular in the U.S. (at least,
since I am quite ignorant about the situation elsewhere.) There is a
lot of personal injusry cases in which the plainiffs were rewarded
with financial compensation just because the defendent is an insurance
co etc. While it may be a pragmatic justice, obviously, it does not
dramatic the idea of what makes right right or what is the greatest
good

regards, Bosco


Tara Centre

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

In article <3481546e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
says...

>If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others
>are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free
>to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise
>you for this.
>

But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to
try to destroy our practice?
Khyenrab


Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Saraha Buddhist Center wrote in message
<65rdtk$a...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...


>Dear friends,
>
>I'm a monk at Saraha Center (NKT) in San Francisco.

Well gen Togden, who would have believed it, you resident teacher at SF
Centre. Following ani Brenda from Buxton, a hard act to follow. I see you're
still warming the act up.

>The other day a student at our Center was
>receiving teachings from another Center in town and was told some
>horrible things, with implications that Dorje Shugden is responsible
>for the war in Tibet, AIDS, etc. She was horrified, the poor woman,
>because she respects the Dharma teacher who told her these things.
>Fortunately, she has been coming to our Center long enough to trust
>that our motivation is pure.

Ok, here's one from me. The other day a young woman came to see me - she
wore a red outfit with a hood - no not a nun. Anyway she'd met this wolf in
the woods who'd asked her where she was heading. Being a person of pure
faith she told him. When she got to her grandmother's house something seemed
amiss. The person in the bed claiming to be her grandmother just didn't seem
quite what they claimed. When she expressed her concerns to this person they
kept demanding that she justify her concerns using VALID REASONS.

Fortunately she saw through the deception and screamed for help. A passing
woodsman rushed to her aid and, acting out of pure bodhicitta motivation,
dispatched the wolf in sheep's clothing. When an autopsy was held the wolf
was found to be a certain theological monk from south England wanted in
connection for deceptive ng postings.

Beware Kelsang Togden, after many prayers we dispatched the red-hooded
maiden and woodsman in the direction of San Francisco.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth


>With love and a sincere wish for all living beings to enjoy religious
>freedom.

I really do think you should get yourself a new script writer - Khyenrab,
Rabten and co have been telling the same old jokes for a couple of weeks
now, and nobody's laughed yet!

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Tara Centre wrote in message <65sjce$um7$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

>But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to
>try to destroy our practice?
>Khyenrab


It's so funny (in an ironic fashion) to read such postings from you, K.
Given all of the pious teachings I sat through at Tara Centre from you about
how only we ourselves were responsible for the events that happened to us.
How all unfortunate events that others seemed to inflict upon us actually
were only our own karma ripening upon us.

So how come you don't apply the same preaching to yourself? Why aren't you
in the gompa doing purification practice rather than sitting in front of a
comptuter screen whining about how you're being persecuted?

Nobody can destroy your practice but yourself - and you seem to be doing a
damned good job at attempting to do so (IMO).

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Bob Knight wrote in message ...


>A just society
>is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able
>to cope with it.
>
>Bob

Interesting arguement, Bob, but one small point? Just who decides who are
the disadvantaged and who are most able to cope with it? Perhaps "Natural
Selection"?

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

--

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

On 30 Nov 1997 20:47:10 GMT, ta...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Tara Centre)
wrote:

>In article <3481546e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
>says...
>
>>If you wan religious freedom then you have to accept that others
>>are equally free to disagree with you - if you want to be free
>>to worship Shugden then you have to allow others to criticise
>>you for this.

>But why should we allow others to use force and unfounded argument to


>try to destroy our practice?

1. Who has used force to try and destroy your practice?

2. Your own practice is based on the totallly unfounded
argument "Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha". People can
hold whatever opinions they want of your practice based
on any kind of argument they find convincing.

>Khyenrab
>


Saraha Buddhist Center

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

In <34824c9...@news.dircon.co.uk> cf...@dircon.co.uk writes:

>1. Who has used force to try and destroy your practice?
>
>2. Your own practice is based on the totallly unfounded
>argument "Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha". People can
>hold whatever opinions they want of your practice based
>on any kind of argument they find convincing.

Chris,

Yes, people can hold whatever views they wish. Personally I think
viewing anyone as a Buddha is more virtuous than viewing them as an
evil spirit. But, of course, that's our freedom, isn't it. We have the
freedom to suffer and to create suffering or to be happy and create
happiness.

My concern, as I stated previously, is that the Dalai Lama's views are
not just his own. He forces his views upon thousands, making use of
*his* power and *their* faith. As I said, I know he is wrong in what he
says about NKT and Dorje Shugden, from my own experience. Not even
Avyorth can place a doubt about it in my mind. But many will not have
such freedom if the Dalai Lama's views of evil beings pervading NKT get
to them first. Therefore, we can say they never had the benefit of
experiencing for themselves. Taking away one's freedom in this way goes
completely against Buddha's teachings. Moreover, you know fully well
how much difficulty the DL is creating for all the Lamas (and their
students) who have been practicing Dorje Shugden.

Avyorth, for example, feels he had an unpleasant experience with NKT.
That's fine. To each his own.

But I'm still hoping someone will address the real issue here: is it
correct for *anyone* to impose a ban on *any* religious practice? As
you say, let Lucifer worshipers believe whatever they wish. This is a
free country (USA) after all.

Chris, please try to focus on this aspect of it or else these postings
get completely mucky and senseless.

I do hope this debate will develop into something a little more
enlightening, or at least somewhat logical.

Thank you.

Togden


Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Saraha Buddhist Center wrote in message

<65ttup$a...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...


>Not even
>Avyorth can place a doubt about it in my mind. But many will not have
>such freedom if the Dalai Lama's views of evil beings pervading NKT get
>to them first

>Avyorth, for example, feels he had an unpleasant experience with NKT.


>That's fine. To each his own.

Dear Togden,

You miss my point - perhaps necessarily in order to 'protect' your mind.

I had many experiences during my time with the NKT - some unpleasant to be
sure, and others of sublime beauty. Believe it or not, as I have mentioned
in other postings, I found and still find many of the ideas introduced to me
by G Kelsang to be of great interest and use. Likewise with some of the
meditation practices.

BUT, I came to the conclusion that the NKT is a nefarious organisation, that
deliberately deceives people for its own cancerous benefit.

First: the NKT, despite all of its cries for valid reasoning, teaches an
absolutist and imperious dogma. It promotes a closed mind, something that I
personally believe is contrary to Dharma/Truth/Spirituality/ or whatever you
would want to call it.

Second: because of this it attracts (and breeds) zealots ie fundamentalist
religious fanatics

Third: it promotes sectarianism. This sectarianism runs deep (and usually
silently as far as its public image goes).

Fourth: it promotes a return to a totalitarian, freudalistic and Closed (ala
Popper) society. The NKT is parasitical upon western democratic society - it
abuses the privileges of Western democratic societies (eg in the UK, the
social security and housing benefit systems) whilst seeking to undermine
them.

Fifth: as an organisation the NKT sees itself as accountable to no one other
than G Kelsang ('the Third Buddha') - it has no system of mediation or
redress, no forums or tribunals, no procedures to address grievances or
injustices. It is anti-democratic.

I could go on, but, although unlikely, you may get my point.

One point of interest for me when I was reflecting upon whether to remain
within the NKT was this - How come G Kelsang has no peers, no friends? Why,
when all the other lamas and Geshes are surrounded by spiritual 'equals', is
he so alone? Why does he seem so unable to bear those who might just be able
to challenge him and his decisions? Even that arch-devil (to the NKT) the
Dalai Lama has his circle of spiritual 'equals and peers'!

Yet G Kelsang is so isolated, and instead surrounds himself with a small
circle of sycophants. Even his own uncle, the Dorje Shugden oracle, has
abandoned him.

Does G Kelsang see himself as without equal, as above and beyond the rest of
the Tibetan Buddhist community? Or is he simply "a jealous god"? ("For I the
Lord, thy God, am a jealous god" - the bible). Or is his desire to be a 'big
fish' so great that he is willing to abandon everything that challenges
himself, create a small pond, and fill it with Western 'minnows'?

You can probably deduce, using valid reasoning I hope, the conclusion that I
came to.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Togden
>

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Some clarification surrounding the present debate regarding the Dalai Lama
and Dorje Shugden by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

===================================================


Kent Sandvik wrote, 27th November:
>Many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind later
>[about their practice of Dorje Shugden]

It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their
mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has
been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many
groups, including Kopan Monastery, therefore stopped their worship and
pujas. Many of these Lamas, including Lama Zopa had received the life
empowerment of Dorje Shugden from their root Guru, so they have broken their
commitment because of the Dalai Lama's repression. Many statues and thangkas
were removed from Temples and destroyed because of the Dalai Lama's
repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds
changed because they were influenced by the Dalai Lama's wrong view but
still many practitioners in many places, including Sera and Ganden
monasteries, are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally
pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and
harrassment.

The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious
tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by
his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at
achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is
the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any
direction. Everyone can see this situation now.


Kent, you wrote that:
>Trijang Rinpoche changed [his] mind later [about the practice of Dorje
>Shugden].

This is completely untrue. There are three reasons to prove this:
1. His extensive commentary to Dorje Shugden prayers was composed late in
his life, when he was very old. This clearly indicates that he did not
change
his mind.
2. As I have already said previously, a few months before his death I met
with him in Southern India, and he told me that he was very disappointed
with the
Dalai Lama's decision to suppress the practice of Dorje Shugden.
3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
until he passed away.


Mike Austin wrote, 27th November:
>'His Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden, and gave three
>reasons for discontinuing his worship':


>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can

>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.'

>2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism.

>3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the
>Tibetan people.

The Dalai Lama has repeated these three reasons endlessly, and at the same
time his supporters are also repeating them again and again. I wrote to him
a number of times myself, and to his government in Dharamsala, and asked how
this practice could possibly harm the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan
people. I have not received any clear reply.

Also, the Dalai Lama said many times that if people engage in the worship of
Shugden, it would shorten his life. He actually said 'if you want me to die
soon, then you should continue with your practice of Dorje Shugden.' So I
asked him for proof that this worship would shorten his life, and again he
never replied. I have never received a clear reply from either the Dalai
Lama or his government or any of his supporters. People just repeat these
same three reasons over and over again.

How can he prove that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit? I also asked in
these letters for proof that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, but again I
have never received any clear reply. The only reason that has been given is
that some other Lamas have said this. This is not a valid reason, some other
Lamas say Dorje Shugden is the wisdom Buddha.

The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over
like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He
is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds
are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to
fulfil his wishes. His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the
four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other
traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of
Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has been
working towards this for many years.

Now I have three questions:

1. When the Dalai Lama first came to Dharamsala he was sincerely practising
Dorje Shugden, everyone knows this. Now, this Dalai Lama who was sincerely
practicing Dorje Shugden, was he relying on an evil spirit?

2. Did his worship of Dorje Shugden harm the interest of Tibet and the
Tibetan people? We are now worshipping Dorje Shugden in exactly the same way
as did the Dalai Lama.

3. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama and his followers who practised Dorje
Shugden were sectarian?

According to the Dalai Lama's present view, it now seems that during his
entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and
harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to
the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a
world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people
and cause them problems and suffering.


Chris Fynn wrote, 16th November:
>Did not Phabongkhapa and a number of his followers who were devoted to
>Dorje Shugden use their political power to destroy and take over many
>monasteries .............. didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and
>tradition of Padmasambhava?

Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in
Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his
office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever. When I lived in Tibet I
checked very carefully with local Geshes about the truth or falsity of these
assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet
(Kham) and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was
widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the
same time some local people jealous of his success spread rumours, saying
that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.

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

So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters,
could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship
of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of
times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he
harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then I
would be happy to debate with you.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Bob Knight

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

In article <65t5kc$i...@argon.btinternet.com>, Avyorth Rolinson
<Avy...@btinternet.com> writes

>
>Bob Knight wrote in message ...
>>A just society
>>is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able
>>to cope with it.
>>
>>Bob
>
>Interesting arguement, Bob, but one small point? Just who decides who are
>the disadvantaged and who are most able to cope with it? Perhaps "Natural
>Selection"?

Quite so. It is not an easy question to answer. I think if we observe
the political scene we will see that policies frequently do not produce
the results they were intended to produce and often produce unacceptable
side effects that no one realized they would produce.

This points up the difficulties inherent in deriving policy according to
some simple formula such as "the most good for the greatest number of
people."

The Dalai Lama (who was the subject of the original psot to which I
replied) is in a position of authority over large numbers of people. He
is also, we assume, well schooled in Buddhist philosophy. Is there any
indication that he has derived a system of policy making that is clearly
superior to that of other politicians?

Bob

Ole

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to


Geshe Kelsang Gyatso <madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk> wrote

> So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his
supporters,
> could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the
worship
> of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of
> times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that
he
> harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then
I
> would be happy to debate with you.
>
> Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Thank you.

Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>
> Some clarification surrounding the present debate regarding the Dalai Lama
> and Dorje Shugden by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Looks more like mud-slinging. Debate calls for established claims/
pervasions, something rarely seen here.


>
> ===================================================
>
> Kent Sandvik wrote, 27th November:
> >Many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind later
> >[about their practice of Dorje Shugden]
>
> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their
> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has
> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.

I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like
repression.

How about if Christian leaders of the KKK or Nazi groups feel repressed
when Christian spiritual leaders advise such Christians against KKK or
Nazi rallies because it is rightly or wrongly perceived as some as
divisive? Is that also repression?

> Many
> groups, including Kopan Monastery, therefore stopped their worship and
> pujas. Many of these Lamas, including Lama Zopa had received the life
> empowerment of Dorje Shugden from their root Guru, so they have broken their
> commitment because of the Dalai Lama's repression.

Respectfully, Jetsun Lama Zopa Rinpoche's commitments are not your
responsibility Geshe Kelsang, and you fail to establish with evidence
how any change in Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche's practice is because of
repression, if such were indeed established. WHEN DID YOU BECOME THE
KARMA POLICE????? On the contrary, Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche's devotion to
HH the Dalai Lama is very well established via proven examples;
nevertheless his decisions regarding his personal practice are his
alone, not HH the Dalai Lama's, and certainly not yours or anyone
else's. Why are you concerned about other practitioners' commitments???
Do you think that Je Lama Zopa Rinpoche is not qualified to make
decisions about his own personal practice; about being able to determine
the benefits of practices and what the consequences of his actions are??

This smear tactic of trying to drag other pure Lama's names in your own
mud creations does not help your cause at all and I strongly advise
abandoning it, since it all it does is make your case lose credibility.
For example, for all the people that disagree with you Geshe Kelsang, I
have yet to see anyone make personal attacks on you. Furthermore, there
are plenty of Dorje Shugdan supporters, including famous Lamas with
mostly foreigner disciples, who feel no need to try to criticize others
in preserving or supporting their respective decisions to continue or
propagate the DS practice.

By the way, didn't you get to the position you have today through the
kindness of the late Lama Yeshe and the FMPT? Trying to criticize Kopan
Monastery and Je Lama Zopa is a strange way to repay that isn't it?

> Many statues and thangkas
> were removed from Temples and destroyed because of the Dalai Lama's
> repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds
> changed because they were influenced by the Dalai Lama's wrong view but
> still many practitioners in many places, including Sera and Ganden
> monasteries, are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally
> pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and
> harrassment.

Still you have not established any repression. As in South African
apartheid, Negro slavery, Nazi ethnic cleansing, etc. As residents of
the mother state of India, all are expected to abide by the laws of that
democratic state, and any victims of criminal acts or discrimination are
entitled to use the avenues of legal recourse available. If the
monastery leadership decided to make changes due to HH the Dalai Lama's
wishes, that is their freedom, no??? So what if anyone is continuing
their practice in secret and pretending otherwise? No one is stopping
them from starting a new branch monastery somewhere else are they? Also
it appears that they have decided that pretending is more skillful than
your strategies, for example.


>
> The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious
> tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by
> his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at
> achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is
> the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any
> direction. Everyone can see this situation now.

Well Geshe, what have YOU done for Tibetan independence lately??? If you
watch the news you would see that the situation of Tibetans has become
well known around the world and in the forefront of foreign government
attention than ever before largely due to the efforts of HH the Dalai
Lama alone.

>
> Kent, you wrote that:
> >Trijang Rinpoche changed [his] mind later [about the practice of Dorje
> >Shugden].
>
> This is completely untrue. There are three reasons to prove this:
> 1. His extensive commentary to Dorje Shugden prayers was composed late in
> his life, when he was very old. This clearly indicates that he did not
> change
> his mind.

Composed, or printed and published? We can give you the benefit of the
doubt however.

> 2. As I have already said previously, a few months before his death I met
> with him in Southern India, and he told me that he was very disappointed
> with the
> Dalai Lama's decision to suppress the practice of Dorje Shugden.

Where there witnesses to this? Do we have to rely on your personal
credibility to accept this?

> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
> until he passed away.

OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly
pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others.
But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly
around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that
DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of
criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner
Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS
Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?


>
> Mike Austin wrote, 27th November:
> >'His Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden, and gave three
> >reasons for discontinuing his worship':
> >1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
> >detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
> >degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.'
> >2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism.
> >3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the
> >Tibetan people.
>
> The Dalai Lama has repeated these three reasons endlessly, and at the same
> time his supporters are also repeating them again and again. I wrote to him
> a number of times myself, and to his government in Dharamsala, and asked how
> this practice could possibly harm the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan
> people. I have not received any clear reply.

Well I certainly am not qualified to guess others' answers. But as a
foreigner outsider my impression was mainly that the practice of Dorje
Shugdan, for reasons which are right are wrong, was *perceived* [at
least] as offensive to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, i.e., Nyingma,
Kagyu, etc., and at a time when Tibetan people as a group should be
unified in their cause of Tibet and survival in exile, that divisive
elements such as DS practice and/or perceptions of it are better off
abandoned. That is, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for the
Tibetan society as a whole. Like slavery was abandoned in the USA,
despite its popularity in the name of Christian service, to the dismay
of many, for the benefit of the society as a whole.

Furthermore do you deny that Dorje Shugdan is the spirit of the monk
Sonam Dragpa from Drepung who killed himself in the 1600's? Historically
this monk has had some conflict with the Tibetan government, so again
the idea is that there is more benefit to Tibet and Tibetans to abandon
any practice of such.

>
> Also, the Dalai Lama said many times that if people engage in the worship of
> Shugden, it would shorten his life. He actually said 'if you want me to die
> soon, then you should continue with your practice of Dorje Shugden.' So I
> asked him for proof that this worship would shorten his life, and again he
> never replied. I have never received a clear reply from either the Dalai
> Lama or his government or any of his supporters. People just repeat these
> same three reasons over and over again.

Obviously His Holiness sees no benefit from debating you at this time.
But as previous writers have said, you were free to question HH in
public forum during a recent visit to the UK but did not.


>
> How can he prove that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit? I also asked in
> these letters for proof that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, but again I
> have never received any clear reply. The only reason that has been given is
> that some other Lamas have said this. This is not a valid reason, some other
> Lamas say Dorje Shugden is the wisdom Buddha.

Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong?
Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of
the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon
placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields.
But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their
DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja
than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know
who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been
Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.


>
> The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over
> like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He
> is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds
> are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to
> fulfil his wishes.

If his disciples happily follow his wishes how is this misleading? Maybe
they are practicing devotion to their Guru and rely on his best wishes
and it is part of their practice to help him to fulfil them?

> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the
> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other
> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of
> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has been
> working towards this for many years.

This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of
trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change
the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from
branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.

Yet again there is no evidence that HH the Dalai Lama wants to control
the spiritual life of all practitioners. Nor is there evidence of your
ability to know His Holiness' wishes. If we remember from Tenets
Buddhism is known as an 'inner' practice. How can anyone control the
inner practice of others?

Furthermore do you claim that His Holiness wants to control the
spiritual life of your disciples and DS practioners? The evidence is
that His Holiness does not want to give initiations and become the guru
of such people. So if someone is not your Guru how do they influence
your spiritual life? The other alternative is that such people are not
Tibetan Buddhists. Is that a consequence?


>
> Now I have three questions:
>
> 1. When the Dalai Lama first came to Dharamsala he was sincerely practising
> Dorje Shugden, everyone knows this. Now, this Dalai Lama who was sincerely
> practicing Dorje Shugden, was he relying on an evil spirit?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Why is it your or my business of HH private
personal practice, or your private practice for that matter, how is it
the business of others? Also this was the past. Nothing to do about that
now.


>
> 2. Did his worship of Dorje Shugden harm the interest of Tibet and the
> Tibetan people? We are now worshipping Dorje Shugden in exactly the same way
> as did the Dalai Lama.

>From my understanding His Holiness has said that the benefit is in
question. If there was benefit then why should he go to the
inconvenience of abandoning it and advising his disciples to do so
similarly? By the way, the Sakyas I am told similarly abandoned this
practice a very long time ago, say hundreds of years? Anyone have the
data on this?


>
> 3. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama and his followers who practised Dorje
> Shugden were sectarian?

I don't know about what other people say. I haven't seen any evidence
that this is true. But I *have* heard that the practice and some of the
famous DS Lama practioners were PERCEIVED as sectarian among others,
particularly from other sect-branches of Tibetan Buddhism. Can anyone
bring data to clarify this point?


>
> According to the Dalai Lama's present view, it now seems that during his
> entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and
> harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to
> the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a
> world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people
> and cause them problems and suffering.

This is a very interesting result indeed; too bad it is not established.
Nevertheless it is not one that I have ever heard His Holiness the Dalai
Lama has denied. It is clear that His Holiness concluded that there was
no benefit.

Nevetheless the reasons are not well established to force the
conclusion. For example, regarding sectarianism, if the protector or
some of its practioners are sectarian by holding sectarian views, this
doesn't mean ALL practioners NECESSARILY do so. I.e., there is no
pervasion. Regarding relying on an evil spirit, that is your trickery in
debate to substitute the word "evil" for "worldly". Are all worldly
spirits necessarily evil? Again, no pervasion. Again the same trick is
used to substitute "harming his country and his people" with "contrary
to the interests of Tibet and Tibetans". Is contrary to the interests of
Tibet and Tibetans mutually inclusive with "Harming his country and his
people"??? If so, then we can accept the conclusion. And also therefore
we can accept that all Tibetans, including Geshe-la, have been harmed by
HH the Dalai Lama's past practice of Dorje Shugdan. How is it then that
a Dorje Shugdan practioner be harmed by another's Dorje Shugdan
practice? Is that an absurd consequence?


>
> Chris Fynn wrote, 16th November:
> >Did not Phabongkhapa and a number of his followers who were devoted to
> >Dorje Shugden use their political power to destroy and take over many
> >monasteries .............. didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and
> >tradition of Padmasambhava?
>
> Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in
> Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his
> office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever.

Are you saying that Kyabje Phagongkha Dechen Nyingpo had no political
power or influence? Even though his principal disciples included Retring
Rinpoche, the regent of the office of HH the Dalai Lama, and the senior
and junior tutors Kyabje Ling and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoches? This is not
to claim that he was involved in politics; neverthelesss he established
Tashi Choling Gompa, and Sangkhung ANi Gompa of Lhasa was run by his
niece until her unfortunate passing last year. Furthermore how is it you
can claim that there was no freedom of speech? How did Kyabje Phabonkhga
Rinpoche preach the Buddhadharma across Tibet without it?

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

Therefore no evidence of this claim has been established. Furthermore
anyone who has ever studied texts by Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo
would know of his disapproval of defacing holy objects.


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

Not only this but it is generally accepted that Je Tsongkhapa is an
incarnation of Padmasambhava himself.


>
> So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters,
> could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship
> of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of
> times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he
> harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then I
> would be happy to debate with you.
>

I personally don't give any reason or make any effort to tell anyone how
to practice unless they ask me for advice. But as those who choose not
to stop practicing Dorje Shugdan should be free to do so, so should
those who choose not to practice, or choose to stop. However HH the
Dalai Lama should also be free to choose who are his disciples, and be
free to choose not to associate with Shugdan and DS practioners, and
freedom to advise his disciples and the Tibetan Government how he sees
fit. Every teacher should have that freedom. It is each individual's
personal responsibility if/how to use the advice.

So, in conclusion, could you please stop criticizing HH the Dalai Lama
other Lamas. There is a saying in English, "hate the action and not the
person". Could you please in future disagree with His Holiness the Dalai
Lama's or other Lama's actions and advice without criticizing their
person? That would help a lot.

Otherwise from your dharma books it is clear that you are a very good
writer and can explain the traditional subjects well. I am not the enemy
of Dorje Shugdan and I am not the devotee either. Same regarding
yourself. From what I know, you don't live in Tibetan society and mostly
your students are foreigners so His Holiness' advice regarding Dorje
Shugdan doesn't even apply to you or your foreigner disciples. So no
need to take offense at it. If you wish to be political instead of
continuing your activities of explaining dharma, please use the legal
methods available instead of name calling and accusing.

Thank you very much in advance.

~Lozang Trinlae


Shakyamuni Buddhist Center

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

To Chris Fynn,

I have been following your postings recently hoping that you would
post clear answers to Jangsem’s questions. Jangsem asked for valid
reasons proving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas
are pure beings, Buddhas. Although you have given a lot of information
about Tibetan religious and political history (which I am not so
interested in) so far you do not seem to have given clear answers to
his questions. Some of the information you have given is incorrect and
some does not seem to me to be directly relevant being unrelated to
Jangsem’s original question. But I do understand from your postings
that you are implying that you are happy to support the Dalai Lama in
destroying the practice of Dorje Shugden, the Gelug tradition, and the
New Kadampa Tradition. I don’t wish to spend my time in wordy debate
but I would like precise answers to some essential questions.

Here is a question that I would like an answer to:
I have seen a copy of a letter that was given to an Englishwoman by
some Tibetans while she was traveling in Nepal in 1995. (This letter
was originally sent to the Dalai Lama, and copies are available in
English and Tibetan). Much of the information contained in this letter
is widely known within the Tibetan community both in India and Nepal,
and the letter was intended to have a wide distribution everywhere,
including Western countries.
It says in this letter that the Dalai Lama’s government in exile, out
of jealousy, accused Dujom Rinpoche of being a
Chinese spy, and he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned by the
Indian Government. I have checked this carefully and understand that
Duzom Rinpoche was not involved in any political or illegal activity.
So my question is - If the government in exile had Duzom Rinpoche
imprisoned, who gave these orders to the government ministers? I find
it very sad that lamas are causing lamas so many problems. Why is the
Dalai Lama doing this? If you deny that the Dalai Lama was responsible
for giving these orders, then please tell me why Duzom Rinpoche was
arrested by the police, and who gave them wrong information?


Dekyong


Bosco Ho

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

In <65ukd1$6rp$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, On 1 Dec 1997 15:16:49 GMT,

madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) wrote:

>Some clarification surrounding the present debate regarding the Dalai Lama
>and Dorje Shugden by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

(entire post omitted to keep this short)

>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Dear Ven Geshe-la Kelsang Gyatso -

I am glad your willingness to grace this thread (a.r.b.t.) with your
presence. 1st, let me state this at the very beginning, I ve no wish
to debate with you. However, I feel I owe it to everyone to let you
know that the internet is not the best place for debate. much less
finger pointings and personal accusations, especially for a person
with your stature. I say this not out of disrespect, but because I
don't know if you are told about the nature of the internet, which
tends to cover a lot of grounds and make genuine debate by 2 parties
alone almost impossible. Just my humble opinion.

Dear Geshe-la, again, a crow like me has no interest in getting in a
fight of the peacocks, and humbly believe neither should many of your
disciples, since they are not as free of many trappings of samsara as
you are. As you can see, instead of focusing on the problematic
practice, they ve chosen to attack people, including HH the Dalai Lama
and other great Lamas. Or, maybe it is just my western outlook, as I
ve been taught to tackle the issues and not personal attacks,
especially when these methods of attacks are quite unbecoming of a
buddhist. And I would go so far as to say personal attacks only have a
place in dictatorial regime like the one currently occupying the Land
of Snow.

Dear Geshe-la, if DS were a wisdom buddha, surely it would not allow
many of its proponents to possess such a venomous attitude toward
anyone, much less HH the Dalai Lama and other great lamas. Anyway, my
musing aloud is way ahead of myself.

While I do not doubt a single second of your authenticity, it may be
worthwhile for you to let your translator (if you are using one) know
to include his/her name in the posting. Just a thought, as it is
customary toacknowledge translators/editors of their efforts.

Finally, while I am a homeless beggar (in the Dharma sense,) I ve
received great kindness from a lot of people, including tibetan lamas
from Sera Mey. While formally Sera Mey has decided not to communicate
with you at this time (according to a posting in Snow Lion a few
months ago,) unlearned individuals like myself do not see much of a
impediment on occasions, so you can be rest sure that absolute
repressive force against you is unfounded absolutely. Dear Gesha-la,
one final thing. You ve promised to ask your followers to withdraw
from political dealings and concentrate on their Dharma practices
(circa Sep 96?) what has changed your mind?

in Dharma, Bosco

Mike Austin

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

In article <348282...@mindless.com>, Lozang Trinlae
<xlo...@mindless.com> writes

...snipped...

Thank you Ani-la.
--
Mike Austin

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote in message <65ukd1$6rp$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...

In the light of the current debate, I decided to dig deep in the Daze-a-u
Archives as my miracle powers told me clarification lay close at hand.
Behold, look what emerged - seems some things just don't change! Perhaps
we've found the one small chink in the law (ala Kazzamila) of impermanence?

And I thought the spiritual path was about change? Oh well, back to the
drawing board!

Enjoy: Some 'clarification' - "The Vedic Thymes" Issue No 3,749,274,529

It is correct that many brahmins, kshatriyas and lay people changed their
mind about the practice of Vishnu, Shiva and the other holy deities. This is
because Shakyamuni Buddha has


been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many

groups therefore stopped their worship and
pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life
empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their
commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression. Many statues and
thangkas
were removed from Temples and destroyed because of Buddha Shakyamuni's


repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds

changed because they were influenced by Buddha Shakyamuni's wrong view but
still many practitioners in many places are continuing with their practice


in secret, while externally
pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and
harrassment.

Buddha Shakyamuni has been very successful in destroying this ancient


religious
tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by

his brahmin guru but he is very ignorant and foolish. This should be his


main job because he is

the Shakya political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any


direction. Everyone can see this situation now.

Buddha Shakyamuni is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over


like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He
is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds
are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to

fulfil his wishes. His main wish is to destroy the practice of Vishnu, Shiva
and all the other deities
and then to change the entire Shakya tradition. He wants to integrate all
the
four schools into one so that the leaders of the other


traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of

Hinduism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
all practitioners of Hinduism. I know this is his wish; he has been


working towards this for many years.

Now I have three questions:

1. When Siddhartha Gautama first came he was sincerely practising
Vedic rituals, everyone knows this. Now, this Gautama who was sincerely
practicing Vedic rituals, was he relying on an evil spirit?

2. Did his worship harm people? We are now worshipping in exactly the same
way.

3. Are you saying that Gautama Shakyamuni and his followers who practised
vedic rituals were sectarian?

According to Gautama Shakyamuni's present view, it now seems that during his


entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and
harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to
the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a
world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people
and cause them problems and suffering.

Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth

>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
>
>

Tyree Hilkert

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Awesome. Perfect. Incredible.
- Ty

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:03:37 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>...It is correct that many brahmins, kshatriyas and lay people changed their


>mind about the practice of Vishnu, Shiva and the other holy deities. This is

>because Shakyamuni Buddha has


>been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many

>groups therefore stopped their worship and
>pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life
>empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their
>commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression...

Rabten

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Dear Ani-la,

Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348282...@mindless.com>...


>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their
>> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama
has
>> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
>
>I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
>example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like
>repression.
>

Please read the thread: "repression? What repression?" since the Tibetan
exile government do not deny that they are supressing the worship of Dorje
Shugden, why should you?


>
>> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
>> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
>> until he passed away.
>
>OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly
>pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others.
>But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly
>around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that
>DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of
>criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner
>Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS
>Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
>>

When Lama Yeshe set up Manjushri Centre he gave them a commitment to do
Dorje Shugden practice.
Kyabje Zong Rinpoche gave the Life Empowerment of Dorje Shugden at Manjushri
Centre.

There are many Geshes who have set up dharma Centres around the world, is
there something wrong in spreading the dharma?

Gonsar Rinpoche has spoken against the ban on Dorje Shugden worship.


>
>Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong?
>Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of
>the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon
>placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields.
>But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their
>DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja
>than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know
>who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
>to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been
>Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.
>>

You should check two things:
1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?

>
>> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
>> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all
the
>> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the
other
>> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
of
>> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
>> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has
been
>> working towards this for many years.
>
>This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of
>trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change
>the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from
>branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.
>

Since Gelugpas believe that a lineage is passed down as a lineage of
instructions and a lineage of realisations then for this generation of
Buddhists the Gelugpa lineage has been embodied by Je Pabongkhapa and
Trijang Dorjechang. Both these precious lamas taught that Dorje Shugden was
a Buddha. They advised their followers to rely on him as their principal
Protector. As a result the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
was very widespread in all the monasteries of the Gelug tradition.

Now the Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and bans the
worship of Dorje Shugden in all gelugpa monasteries.

This is changing the Gelug tradition.


Worse than this he now claims that his actions accord with Trijang
Rinpoche's teaching. This is the worst deception. The Dalai Lama has been
trying to stop the worship of Shugden for nearly twenty years but only now
do we have this new statement. Previously he said that Trijang Rinpoche
accepted his decision to stop practising. Of course Trijang Rinpoche
accepted this choice, it was not trijang Rinpoche's nature to force his
disciples to do anything.

If Trijang Rinpoche had decided that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he
would have told all his disciples. He would have made sure that they
understood that their previous instructions to rely on Dorje Shugden as a
Buddha were incorrect and harmful. And yet no one heard this from Trijang
Rinpoche. Instead his close disciples continued to worship Dorje Shugden,
teach that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, and give empowerments into the
practice of Dorje Shugden.

I would love to think that the Dalai lama's words on this point are not a
deliberate attempt to deceive others, but so far I have not a single reason
not to make that conclusion.

Rabten

>
>~Lozang Trinlae
>

Richard P. Hayes

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:03:37 -0000, "Avyorth Rolinson"
<Avy...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>...It is correct that many brahmins, kshatriyas and lay people changed their
>mind about the practice of Vishnu, Shiva and the other holy deities. This is
>because Shakyamuni Buddha has

>been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many
>groups therefore stopped their worship and
>pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life
>empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their
>commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression...

Mr Rolinson may be unaware of the subtle but importent distinction
between repressing a practice and showing that a practice is worth no
more than a leaky earthen jar filled with alligator droppings. Quite a
few Vaishnavites and Shaivites over the years have awoken from the
dogmatic slumbers that allowed them to put confidence in life
empowerments from root gurus, an idea more absurd than which nothing can
be conceived. Waking up to the good sense of Buddhism and leaving the
childishness of life empowerments behind is not entirely the same thing
as being repressed.

--
Richard P. Hayes <rha...@wilson.lan.mcgill.ca>

Ole

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Lozang Trinlae <xlo...@mindless.com> wrote

> I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
> example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like
> repression.

This information was recently spread by first German television (ARD):

/The Tibetan exile parliament actually changed the constitution after the
Dalai Lama's religious ban; until that point it had said in article 63 of
the Tibetan exile constitution - quote: "The chairing judge of the court
and the two juries shall be Tibetans." - now the following has been added:
"and shall furthermore not believe in the deity Shugden."/

Imagine such a sentence in a constitution of any democratic country:
"...and shall furthermore not believe in Jesus." - or in Allah or in Buddah
or in whoever. What is this if not suppression? Religious freedom?


Don Martin

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <01bcff6a$b6d10860$548aa19d@pcoliver>,

o...@deos.com ("Ole") wrote:

>
> Imagine such a sentence in a constitution of any democratic country:

> "...and shall furthermore not believe in *Jesus*." - or in *Allah*
> or in *Buddah* or in whoever.


> What is this if not suppression? Religious freedom?

****** But surely we are not talking about the founder or central
character of a faith here, we are discussing a minor Gyalpo on
the fringes of the Buddhist pantheon. A more acurate analogy
would be to compare H.H. Dalai Lama's actions to ...say..the
Pope having examined again the evidence for the canonisation
of a saint and then declaring that it is no longer appropriate
to continue the worship of St Leger or whoever.
In a democratic country most would see such a declaration
as being quite reasonable as the originator of the said
declaration is acknowledged to be in a suitable position
to issue such guidance.
On the other hand if this minor Gyalpo shugden IS the most
central figure of the propitiants faith then from my viewpoint
it would be more appropriate to discribe it as Gyalpoism,
rather than Buddhism.
This whole issue of shugden should be seen in it's correct
context. Any practice,sadhana,mantra or whatever is only an
aid on the route to enlightenment. There are many thousands
of such aids at the disposal of competent Dharma teachers.If
a particular practice does not work for a particular pupil
then the skilful teacher recommends a suitable alternative.
The value of the practice can be measured in it's effect on
the practitioner.
It seems that from the viewpoint of some posters to these
threads that the practice is the goal.

Don, Never go by appearances,
The Born-Again Buddhist. I look intelligent.
(....and again and again)

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <348282...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
>
>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed
their

>> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai
Lama has

>> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.

Lozang Trinlae replied:

>I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
>example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more
like
>repression.

How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
because of their
religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?

Although the Kashag maintains there is no threat to jobs it is a fact
that the Tibetan
Constitution was changed to specifically exclude those who worship
Dorje Shugden from
posts in the judiciary and health service. Yes - it's discriminatory
and repressive.

>SNIP<

>Well I certainly am not qualified to guess others' answers. But as a
>foreigner outsider my impression was mainly that the practice of
Dorje
>Shugdan, for reasons which are right are wrong, was *perceived* [at
>least] as offensive to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, i.e.,
Nyingma,
>Kagyu, etc., and at a time when Tibetan people as a group should be
>unified in their cause of Tibet and survival in exile, that divisive
>elements such as DS practice and/or perceptions of it are better off
>abandoned. That is, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for the
>Tibetan society as a whole.

It follows from what you say here that each time a religious practice
threatens the unity of the
state then you believe that practice must be destroyed. From your
reasoning here you show
everyone very clearly that you believe national politics are more
important than personal
religious faith and practice. You believe that the political leader of
a country can unilaterally
decide without any consultation whatsoever what the religious beliefs
and practices of his
people can and cannot be.

Kelsang Khyenrab

>~Lozang Trinlae
>


cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
...

> it is a fact that the Tibetan Constitution was changed to
> specifically exclude those who worship Dorje Shugden from
> posts in the judiciary and health service.

Kelsang, so that we can verify this "fact" would you kindly post us
the clauses of the Tibetan Constitution which "specifically exclude


those who worship Dorje Shugden from posts in the judiciary and
health service."

BTW, where is this Tibetan "Judiciary" and where are their courts?

-chris

cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA:
===================================================================

Please see: <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

- chris


<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>


cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 01:31:37 GMT, Dekyong <Sha...@ix.netcom.com>
(Shakyamuni Buddhist Center) wrote:

>To Chris Fynn,

>I have been following your postings recently hoping that you would
>post clear answers to Jangsem’s questions. Jangsem asked for valid
>reasons proving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas
>are pure beings, Buddhas.

I think that I replied that no one can *prove* the Dalai Lamas are
pure beings or Buddhas just as no you cannot *prove* that
Shugden is a Buddha. HHDL has never claimed to be a Buddha
and I have never claimed that he is a Buddha. On the other hand
you and others have claimed that Shugden is a Buddha
so I think the onus of proof is on you as there is not a single
Buddhist scripture which claims this.

> Although you have given a lot of information
>about Tibetan religious and political history (which I am not so
>interested in) so far you do not seem to have given clear answers to
>his questions.

I do not have time to answer each and every posting from an NKT member
or proponent of the cult of Dholgyal Shugden. I spend no more than an
hour a day reading and answering email and usenet postings
and it is not my job to do so.

>Some of the information you have given is incorrect and
>some does not seem to me to be directly relevant being unrelated to
>Jangsem’s original question.

Which information I have given is incorrect?

>But I do understand from your postings
>that you are implying that you are happy to support the Dalai Lama in
>destroying the practice of Dorje Shugden, the Gelug tradition, and the
>New Kadampa Tradition. I don’t wish to spend my time in wordy debate
>but I would like precise answers to some essential questions.

We all know that HHDL actively discourages the worship of Gyalpo
Shugden and that he has proscribed the worship of this entity in
Gelugpa monastaries temples . To say that he is destroying the Gelugpa
Tradition though is ridiculous - unless you think that Shugden worship
is an essential part of following the teavhings of Je Tsongkhapa if so
on what do you base this belief

As for the "New Kadampa Tradition" what do you mean by that? In
Tibetan "New Kadampa", is synonomous with "Gelugpa" and "Gadenpa" -
if you mean the organisation founded by Geshe Kelsang and his students
then I heard HHDL say that Geshe Kelsang and the NKT are free to
worship whatever they want however they want. Nearly all Geshe
Kelsang's students are westerners and the NKT is active almost
entirely outside the Tibetan community. Many NKT members have said
that the NKT is not a *Tibetan* Buddhist group so HHDL has no
spiritual or political authority over the NKT and doesn't claim to
have any. As far as I'm concerned I wish Geshe Kelsang and all his
students well.

> Here is a question that I would like an answer to:
>I have seen a copy of a letter that was given to an Englishwoman by
>some Tibetans while she was traveling in Nepal in 1995. (This letter
>was originally sent to the Dalai Lama, and copies are available in
>English and Tibetan). Much of the information contained in this letter
>is widely known within the Tibetan community both in India and Nepal,
>and the letter was intended to have a wide distribution everywhere,
>including Western countries.

>It says in this letter that the Dalai Lama’s government in exile, out
>of jealousy, accused Dujom Rinpoche of being a
>Chinese spy, and he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned by the
>Indian Government. I have checked this carefully and understand that
>Duzom Rinpoche was not involved in any political or illegal activity.
>So my question is - If the government in exile had Duzom Rinpoche
>imprisoned, who gave these orders to the government ministers? I find
>it very sad that lamas are causing lamas so many problems. Why is the
>Dalai Lama doing this? If you deny that the Dalai Lama was responsible
>for giving these orders, then please tell me why Duzom Rinpoche was
>arrested by the police, and who gave them wrong information?

It is well known that many years ago HH Dudjom Rinpoche was wrongfully
arrested. Afaik the cause of this has usually been blamed on a
political faction associated with Gelugpa chauvanism.

From what I have heard HHDL was instrumental in getting HH Dudjom
Rinpoche released after a learned Nyingma khenpo came to see him
and informed him that Dudjom Rinpoche had been arrested.

The best people to ask about this would surely be members of HH Dudjom
Rinpoche's own family. It seems inconceivable that HH Dujom Ripoche's
son Shenpen Dawa would have invited HHDL to give extensive teachings
at his centre in France if there was even the slightest suspicion in
his mind that HHDL had in any way been responsible for the wrongful
arrest of his father.

Invoking HH Dudjom Rinpoche's name in defence of Shugden worship
and against HHDL is really beneath contempt and worse than a sick
joke.


- Chris


cf...@dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

<<<
=============================================================

Shugden versus pluralism and national unity
======================================
controversy and clarification
========================

Deities and spirits in Tibetan Buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism generally believes in two types of deities and
spirits: transcendental beings and worldly beings. Although worldly
beings can be positive or negative by nature, transcendental beings
belong to the same category as the Buddhas, which means we can take
refuge in them, propitiate them and make them of"rings. Worldly
beings, on the other hand, are like our servants. In return for
certain short-term services, we pay them by making ritual of"rings to
them. We should neither take refuge in them, nor should we worship
them to the extent that they become more important than the Buddha.


Origin of worldly deities and spirits

The tradition of propitiating worldly beings as protectors is roughly
as old as Tibetan Buddhism itself. It dates back to the ninth century
when the Tibetan king, Trisong Detsen, invited Shantarakshita from
India to teach Buddhism in Tibet. The local spirits proved hostile to
this foreign religion and actively obstructed the efforts of the
Indian spiritual master. Shantarakshita then advised the Tibetan king
to invite Guru Padmasambhava, a tantric adept from India, to deal with
these hostile spirits. Accordingly, Padmasambhava (also known as Guru
Rinpochey) came to Tibet and subdued the most powerful spirits. Once
vanquished, the spirits were bound by oath to act as Dharma
Protectors. Thus, worldly protectors began to play a role in the
Tibetan Buddhist pantheon.

One day, before the king and his ministers, Padmasambhava summoned one
of the Four Great Kings, (the protectors of the four directions often
depicted around the doors of Tibetan temples) into the body of a young
man. Using the youth's body as a medium, the clairvoyant deity
identified the spirits who were creating trouble. The deity pronounced
that the spirit Thangla was responsible for the lightning strike on
Marpori (the Red Hill that became the site of the Potala Palace) and
that the spirit Yarla Shempo had provoked the flood which washed away
the Phangthang Palace. This was the first occasion in Tibet in which a
worldly deity was summoned into the body of a human being, who acted
as its physical medium. Through the medium, the deity gave predictions
and advice. Subsequently other protectors have also come to be used as
oracles.


Dorje Shugden

Worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's
emergence coincided with the founding of the Ganden Podrang Government
of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in
conflict with the Ganden Podrang Government and sought to undermine
Tibet's national cause. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result
of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku
Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of
harm and interference. Rituals were undertaken to oppose him and since
that time the Fifth and Thirteenth Dalai Lamas and several Ganden
Throneholders, spiritual heads of the Gelugpa tradition, have placed
stringent restrictions on the propitiation of Shugden.

Propitiation of Shugden goes against the wishes of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama and is ultimately harmful to the Tibetan people for two
reasons. First, although His Holiness works for harmony amongst his
people and encourages a non-sectarian view of religious tradition,
Shugden is notoriously sectarian and disruptive of communal harmony.
Secondly, such practice leads to the degeneration of the vast and
profound teachings of Buddhist tradition. The Buddha's teachings are
based on his explanation of the Two Truths and the Four Noble Truths.
He advised his followers to take refuge only in the Buddha (the Fully
Awakened Being), the Dharma (his doctrine) and the Sangha (the
spiritual community). Propitiation of Shugden, as it has recently
developed, results in Buddhist practice degenerating into little more
than spirit worship.

The threat that propitiation of Shugden represents to the life and
well being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not that he is at risk of
attack from an evil spirit. The hazard arises when the bond of
spiritual trust between the Tibetan people and His Holiness is broken.
Similarly, there is a danger when a disciple enters a spiritual
relationship with a lama, but fails to heed, or defies, his advice.
His Holiness has been particularly critical of the hypocrisy of paying
him respect to his face, and even praying for his long life, but
behaving contrary to his advice behind his back.

Earlier in the present century, stalwart proponents of Shugden
encouraged the belief that their protector was particularly swift and
effective in doling out material rewards to his supporters. This has
led to a great increase in the numbers of ordinary people propitiating
Shugden over the past sixty years or so.

In order to exaggerate Shugden's importance, proponents also sought to
portray the spirit as the exclusive protector of the Gelug school of
Tibetan Buddhism. This flies in the face of the fact that the
protectors recognised by Je Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelugpa, as
guardians of his tradition are Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa or
Dharmaraja - not Shugden. Despite this, proponents of Shugden have
resorted to intimidation and deception to support their case. They
warned that swift though the spirit was in bringing material
enrichment, he was equally quick to punish so-called apostasy. Great
misfortunes, they warned, would be visited upon any practitioner who
supplemented or replaced his or her "pure Gelugpa practice" with
practices from other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Shugden advocates
have ascribed the deaths and misfortunes of many lamas and political
figures to Shugden's vengeance on just these grounds. However,
contemporary and historical research suggests that association with
the practice of Shugden itself attracts misfortune and that those who
strongly rely on him are eventually subject to various calamities,
whatever they may do.

Nevertheless, stories from many parts of Tibet are replete with
accounts of the religious intolerance of powerful Shugden
practitioners. Propitiation of Shugden has taken on the
characteristics of a fanatical cult, in which there is no place for
the views or practices of other schools of Tibetan Buddhism,
particularly those of the ancient Nyingma tradition founded by
Padmasambhava. Naturally, such divisiveness does not sit well with
Tibetans "need to unite to withstand external threats to their very
identity. Consequently, the Dalai Lamas who are responsible for the
welfare of Tibet and all its people have spoken forcefully against it.

Of late, proponents of the Shugden cult have elevated their spirit to
such heights that the worship of Shugden is equated with, mixed up or
even given more importance than, taking refuge in the Buddha (the
fully awakened being), Dharma (his teaching) and Sangha (the spiritual
community, represented by monks and nuns), the practice which defines
a Buddhist. In other words, a worldly spirit is equated or has become
more important than the doctrine it is supposed to protect. It is as
if a mere bodyguard to a head of state were to be paid more respect
than the head of state he is hired to protect.


Discouraging the practice

Owing to the innately disruptive and divisive nature of this practice,
which runs counter to the need for the Tibetan people to be united and
to the rights of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon to respect
and equal treatment, Tibetan leaders have long discouraged reliance on
Shugden. Prominent among them were the Fifth and the Thirteenth Dalai
Lamas. Therefore, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama's recent advice to abjure
this practice has historical precedence. Not only is he responsible
for keeping all Tibetan Buddhist traditions alive, when they are
threatened with extinction in our homeland, he is also the leader of
the Tibetan people at this critical time when unity is imperative.
Furthermore, as one of the world's foremost Buddhist leaders, His
Holiness is concerned that Buddhism in general, with its rich and
profound potential for developing the human mind, should not
degenerate into mere superstition and spirit worship.

The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, like his predecessors, is primarily a
Gelugpa, but he has deep respect for all other schools of Buddhism. He
sets an example of non-sectarianism and has received teachings and
initiations from all traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Although His
Holiness personally abandoned any connection with Shugden in 1975, he
decided not to counsel others likewise to avoid the spiritual turmoil
that might result.

In the meantime, however, Zemey Rinpochey, a highly regarded and
erudite lama, compiled and published a book entitled the Oral
Transmission of the Competent Father (pha-rgod bla-ma'i zhal-lung). In
it he stated that Shugden would destroy any Gelugpa practitioner, be
he an ordinary person, a highly-realised lama or even a ruler, if he
supplemented his Gelugpa practice with the practice of other spiritual
traditions. Similar assertions were made by other lamas and proponents
of Shugden. As a result of such intimidation, in 1975, a group of
Gelugpa monks and nuns were too scared to participate in special
prayers to Guru Padmasambhava - who established Buddhism in Tibet and
who is also especially associated with the Nyingma School of Tibetan
Buddhism - that were organised as a contribution to the Tibetan
people's struggle for freedom. His Holiness thought it, "extremely
unfortunate that one sect should go about intimidating the public,
discouraging them from creating sectarian harmony by being eclectic in
their spiritual practice."

There had also been several indications that Palden Lhamo and Nechung
were displeased by the burgeoning practice of propitiating Shugden.
Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama consulted Palden Lhamo by means
of divinations and so forth to discover whether the propitiation of
Shugden could be continued or should be prohibited. The clear answer
was that the propitiation of Shugden should be brought to an end
immediately.

The Fifty Stanzas on the Guru says, "If the master's purpose is not
understood, clarify it verbally."His Holiness consulted Trijang
Rinpochey and discussed the matter with him. Trijang Rinpochey told
His Holiness that Palden Lhamo would never deceive anybody, therefore
it would be better to cease propitiation of Shugden. Consequently, His
Holiness removed the thangka of Shugden he had in his chambers and
gave it to Trijang Rinpochey. When other lamas consulted Trijang
Rinpochey on this matter, he told them that Palden Lhamo was
displeased with Shugden and that this had to do with the affairs of
the Tibetan government.

While addressing a gathering at Drepung monastery, he also said, "We
should follow His Holiness' advice on the propitiation of protector
deities. Whether we are able to promote our religious and secular
affairs during this difficult period depends on whether we follow the
path His Holiness has shown to us. It also depends on how far we are
able to stand firmly by our cause."

In the past too, great Indian and Tibetan masters have preserved the
Buddhist doctrine and freed it from the wrong views that people have
developed from time to time. Whenever they saw the danger of wrong
views creeping into the mainstream of the doctrine they took steps to
correct those whose views were mistaken.

In 1978, His Holiness spoke out publicly for the first time on the
attendant risks of propitiating Shugden and since then has referred to
the issue regularly in the course of his periodic public teachings. He
made it clear that "everybody has the right to propitiate whichever
deity he or she chooses to. However, propitiating Gyalchen (Shugden)
.. for matters relating to our national cause is unbecoming."A large
number of Tibetans followed their leader's advice and gave up
propitiating Shugden. Many high lamas, including the head of the Sakya
School of Tibetan Buddhism, the Ganden Throne Holder or the head of
the Gelug School, the Jangtse Choje, who is the second Gelug hierarch,
wrote to His Holiness to express their support for his advice.
However, a small number of very vocal and assertive followers of
Shugden continued to exploit people's "ars to discourage them from
giving it up.

While His Holiness was visiting the Tibetan settlement at Hunsur,
South India, in December 1993, a large number of lay Tibetans from
very poor families sought an audience with him. They asked for His
Holiness"s help. They told him of their sleepless nights and bouts of
anxiety, of how they lived in a state of fear, as a result of warnings
they had been given of Shugden's displeasure. His Holiness was very
disturbed by this crude kind of psychological blackmail.

In the spring of 1996, he urged those who wished to follow him as a
spiritual master, and those willing to work for the cause of Tibet, to
give up propitiating Shugden altogether. He asked those who wished to
continue their propitiation of Shugden not to take tantric
empowerments from him. Tantric empowerment requires a sense of
implicit trust between the lama and disciples. It also involves the
giving and taking of vows and pledges, not least the pledge to abide
by the lama"s advice, breach of which will rebound negatively on the
life of the lama.

Subsequently, the Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala and the
regional chapters of major Tibetan non-governmental organisations set
out to make His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice clear to all Tibetans
living in settlements across India. In some settlements, supporters of
Shugden threatened to beat and kill any visiting Tibetan officials. As
a result, officials called for police protection.


Campaign of violence

Over the past year, Shugden activists have become increasingly
virulent in their threats of violence against the critics of the
practice. Circulars have been sent to offices of the Tibetan
Administration, threatening to unleash acts of terror and death. One
letter, dated April 1996, said: "The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan
donkey-officials should resolve the problem truthfully, or we will be
forced to resort to bloodshed."On 30th April 1996, the Secretary of
the Department of Religion & Culture and a representative of the
Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama went to Mundgod to explain His
Holiness' advice to the residents of the settlement there. A package
was delivered to them containing a knife and the message, "We were
unable to meet you this time, but we hope to get you next time."

These were no empty threats. On the night of 27 May 1996, an
unsuccessful attempt was made in mundgod, South India, to kill the
Venerable thupten wangyal, a former abbot of the jangtse College of
Garden Monastery, by setting fire to his house while he was inside it.
In January 1997, Geste Thinly of Jangtse College, Garden Monastery,
was brutally beaten in the Tibetan camp in Deli. On 9 January 1997,
Jangtse College's barn and granary in Mundgod were set afire. It is
apparent that these violent incidents were aimed at harming and
intimidating critics of the propitiation of shugden.

On 4 February 1997, the Director of the Institute of Buddhist
Dialectics, a fearless and outspoken critic of Shugden practice, and
two close students were found brutally murdered in the Director's room
in Dharamsala. Prolonged and painstaking investigations by the Kangra
District Police led them to identify two of the six assailants, both
of whom are believed to have escaped to Tibet. Quoting police sources,
Jansatta, a Hindi-language daily, reported that during their journey
to Dharamsala, the assailants had made a phone call, later traced to
Chime Tsering, Secretary of the Shugden Supporters Society in Delhi.

About a month after the murders, a circular purportedly issued by
Lobsang Jungney of Sera Monastery, South India, was sent to various
departments of the Tibetan Administration. Addressed to His Holiness
the Dalai Lama and the Chairman of the Tibetan Parliament, the
circular threatened: "you will be treated to many more carcasses if
you continue the present practice."


Smear campaign

Simultaneously, foreign proponents of Shugden, mostly based in the UK,
embarked on a highly aggressive and sophisticated smear campaign
against His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his exiled administration.
They flooded the Internet, the international media and political
circles with allegations of religious persecution and physical threats
being made against devotees of Shugden. The Tibetan Administration was
accused of dismissing Shugden supporters from their posts in the
government and of expelling their children from Tibetan schools. It
was also alleged that the Tibetan Administration was withholding
humanitarian aid from followers of Shugden.

As a result of this intense lobbying, several reporters and columnists
took up the story and conducted their own investigations. The
consequent media coverage was largely negative to the Shugden
activists themselves, portraying them as members of an intolerant and
pretentious cult. The enraged activists then accused the newspersons
of bias and distortion. Following her lengthy investigative piece, the
religious correspondent of The Guardian was accused of belonging to a
rival Buddhist sect. Actually, The Guardian correspondent is a devout
Catholic, as the The Independent newspaper from London later
testified.

In the meantime, the Tibetan Administration received protest letters
from many individuals, who had been "d the story of
Administration-sponsored "religious persecution" in the exile
community. The Administration's response has been to invite such
critics to independently visit Tibetan settlements and ascertain the
truth for themselves after speaking to a cross-section of people.


The administration's stand

The Tibetan Administration's basic policy on the question of
propitiating Shugden was spelled out in a resolution passed
unanimously on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People's
Deputies (the Tibetan parliament in exile). The resolution forbade the
propitiation of Shugden by government departments, their subsidiaries,
and monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control
of the Central Tibetan Administration. Individual Tibetans, it said,
must be informed of the imprudence of propitiating this spirit, but
must be given the freedom "to decide as they like". In September 1997,
the Assembly passed another resolution which reaffirmed its June-1996
resolution and urged the people of Tibet to oppose, through lawful
means, the Beijing-inspired campaigns of a handful of Shugden
supporters.

The Tibetan Administration also instituted a nine-member Special
Committee to look into the Shugden activists' allegations of religious
persecution. The committee found that allegations that Shugden
devotees had been dismissed from government jobs or that their
children had been expelled from schools, and that humanitarian
assistance was being denied to them, were totally without substance.
In fact, it was established that the children of several leaders of
the Shugden Society in Delhi, including its President, remain enrolled
at the Tibetan Children's Village Schools in Dharamsala and at Tibetan
institutions elsewhere in India. The office of the Tibetan Children's
Village and the Central Tibetan Schools Administration, which runs all
the schools for Tibetans funded by the Government of India, issued
written denials that any children have been expelled from their
schools because their parents propitiate Shugden. A repudiation of the
dismissal of any Tibetan Administrative personnel on similar grounds
was issued by the Public Service Commission of the Tibetan
Administration.


China's hidden hand

Beijing lost no time in trying to exploit the situation to its
advantage. The official Chinese media made much of the criticism of
His Holiness and the exile Administration by pro-Shugden groups in
India and Europe. In specific reference to this issue, the official
Chinese periodical, China's Tibet, supported the contention of Shugden
activists by saying, "Tibetan compatriots living in India and Nepal
joined in a collective protest opposing the Dalai Lama's decision and
banded together to protect monasteries, lamas and nuns from hounding
by the Dalai and his men."

Another piece of Chinese propaganda recently featured a photograph of
Gangchen Rinpochey, a prominent proponent of Shugden based in Italy
and Nepal, seated alongside the child the Chinese government has
imposed in the place of the Panchen Lama. (The Panchen Lama recognised
by His Holiness the Dalai Lama remains under house arrest in China).
Elsewhere, a publication brought out by Shugden supporters implies
support for the Chinese stand over recognition of the new Panchen
Lama. It is believed that in recent months other Shugden advocates
have visited China and that they are receiving substantial funding for
their activities in India and overseas from China. Reports from
several sources confirm that visa application forms for Tibetan
refugee monks applying for permission to visit Tibet include the
question, "Are you a Shugden practitioner?" It is said that a visa is
more likely to be granted if the answer is "Yes".

All this is consistent with Beijing's avowed strategy, drawn up at
secret official meetings in Chengdu in May 1993 and in Beijing in July
1994, to provoke sectarian and regional divisions within the Tibetan
exiled community, in order to undermine the Tibetan freedom struggle.


Conclusion

The Tibetan Administration calls on all Shugden activists to consider
first and foremost the greater good of the Tibetan cause and to desist
from their campaign of misinformation and violence, which will benefit
nobody but China.

Although the Tibetan Administration will continue to declare the
drawbacks of propitiating Shugden, how individuals respond to that
advice in private is a matter for their own conscience. Following His
Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice and the Assembly resolutions, the
Administration will strictly discourage group invocation of Shugden to
further sectarian divisions or to arouse fear in others. For its part,
the Administration has never used, or encouraged the use of, coercion
against Shugden practitioners in the past, nor will it do so in the
future.


2 November 1997

Department of Information and International Relations
Central Tibetan Administration
Gangchen Kyishong
Dharamsala 176 215
INDIA
========================================================
This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the
official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web
page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be
altered. Last updated: 10-Nov-97
=======================================================

>>>
================================================================================


Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Rabten wrote:
>
> Dear Ani-la,
>
snip

> >
>
> Please read the thread: "repression? What repression?" since the Tibetan
> exile government do not deny that they are supressing the worship of Dorje
> Shugden, why should you?
>

I should be clear that I am not a Tibetan and am not governed by the
Tibetan exile government. Even if I was I am not bound to agree with
everything they do or say. In any case actions of the exile government
are the responsibility of the government legislators. The Tibetan people
can voice their opinion at the next Kashag election if they don't agree
with the actions of their elected representatives.


> >
> >> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
> >> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
> >> until he passed away.
> >
> >OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly
> >pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others.
> >But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly
> >around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that
> >DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of
> >criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner
> >Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS
> >Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
> >>
>
> When Lama Yeshe set up Manjushri Centre he gave them a commitment to do
> Dorje Shugden practice.
> Kyabje Zong Rinpoche gave the Life Empowerment of Dorje Shugden at Manjushri
> Centre.

And it appears that Geshe Kelsang and his followers disagree with HH the
Dalai Lama's advice on DS practice.

No Lama I have heard of, including Kyabje Zong Rinpoche Yangtse nor any
FPMT Lama, has gone to any NKT center to endorse NKT statements.


>
> There are many Geshes who have set up dharma Centres around the world, is
> there something wrong in spreading the dharma?

But not many Geshes have set up dharma centers around the world and
spread Dorje Shugdan practice.

>
> Gonsar Rinpoche has spoken against the ban on Dorje Shugden worship.

Interesting. Did he speak to the Kashag?? Isn't that what cause you are
trying to take up, to separate HH the Dalai Lama from the Tibetan
government and to prevent and/or stop any legal discrimination against
DS practioners in the exile government? Perhaps you can ask him to do
that.

>
> >
> >Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong?
> >Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of
> >the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon
> >placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields.
> >But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their
> >DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja
> >than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know
> >who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
> >to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been
> >Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.
> >>
>
> You should check two things:
> 1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
> 2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?

I don't need to check these things but DS practioners should! They
should check up very well to be sure they hold on to the roots and not
only the branches of what Buddha taught. They don't need to check or
decide for anyone other than themselves.


>
> >
> >> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
> >> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all
> the
> >> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the
> other
> >> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
> of
> >> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
> >> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has
> been
> >> working towards this for many years.
> >
> >This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of
> >trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change
> >the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from
> >branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.
> >
>
> Since Gelugpas believe that a lineage is passed down as a lineage of
> instructions and a lineage of realisations then for this generation of
> Buddhists the Gelugpa lineage has been embodied by Je Pabongkhapa and
> Trijang Dorjechang. Both these precious lamas taught that Dorje Shugden was
> a Buddha. They advised their followers to rely on him as their principal
> Protector. As a result the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
> was very widespread in all the monasteries of the Gelug tradition.

It was very widespread but they never said that all Gelugpas have to be
Dorje Shugdan practioners or that DS was the only Buddha either. Those
students of Je Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche
have to decide for themselves how or if to continue their practices, and
frequently do so from what I've seen.


>
> Now the Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and bans the
> worship of Dorje Shugden in all gelugpa monasteries.

For best results, please kindly give actual quotations for what His
Holiness the Dalai Lama has said.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama said publicly that Dorje Shugdan is a
"worldly" spirit and has advised those monasteries accordingly.
Obviously insofar as those monasteries have taken respective action,
they have *chosen* to follow His Holiness' advice and/or wishes. Gelugs
who don't agree with monastery policies or decisions can start their own
new Gelug monasteries in a new branch lineage. They don't even have to
be in favor with His Holines the Dalai Lama or the exiled government.


>
> This is changing the Gelug tradition.

But it does not mean that HH the Dalai Lama is trying to "change the
*entire* Gelug lineage" which was what was claimed. Lamas give advice.
Students follow or don't follow.

dus byed tam cad mi tag pa-all conditioned things are impermanent.


>
> Worse than this he now claims that his actions accord with Trijang
> Rinpoche's teaching. This is the worst deception. The Dalai Lama has been
> trying to stop the worship of Shugden for nearly twenty years but only now
> do we have this new statement. Previously he said that Trijang Rinpoche
> accepted his decision to stop practising. Of course Trijang Rinpoche
> accepted this choice, it was not trijang Rinpoche's nature to force his
> disciples to do anything.

And no one is forcing you to agree with HH the Dalai Lama. Some of us
are simply waiting for those who disagree to find the effective way to
handle your disagreement. HH the Dalai Lama's relationship with Trijang
Rinpoche is not your or my relationship with Trijang Rinpoche. There is
no need or basis to say there is deception, but you are free to think
that if you want. Others wish to agree with or accept or follow HH the
Dalai Lama's advice and are also free to do so.

>
> If Trijang Rinpoche had decided that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he
> would have told all his disciples. He would have made sure that they
> understood that their previous instructions to rely on Dorje Shugden as a
> Buddha were incorrect and harmful. And yet no one heard this from Trijang
> Rinpoche. Instead his close disciples continued to worship Dorje Shugden,
> teach that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, and give empowerments into the
> practice of Dorje Shugden.

Again the 'evil' word. Are all worldly spirits always evil?

Those who are the direct disciples of Trijang Rinpoche and HH the Dalai
Lama can check for themselves the advice from both Gurus and decide
their actions accordingly.

>
> I would love to think that the Dalai lama's words on this point are not a
> deliberate attempt to deceive others, but so far I have not a single reason
> not to make that conclusion.
>

Let's try to look at the point again:

You assert:


His Holiness' says his actions accord with Trijang Rinpoche's teaching.
[which particular teaching or to whom is not specified so we have to
assume generally]

Trijang Rinpoche did not advice his disciples to stop DS practice.

As a consequence His Holiness is trying to decieve others.


In order for this consequence to be true, Trijang Rinpoche would have to
have taught that His Holiness must never advise his students not to
practice Dorje Shugden.

In other words actions of HH the Dalai Lama must be something that
Trijang Rinpoche advised his disciples otherwise HH is trying to deceive
others.

Then if we generalize we get the consequence that anything anyone does
which was not advised by someone else is deception. That deception means
doing something someone else did not advise. But since that is not the
definition of deception the argument cannot be correct. So you don't
have to believe the consequence.

So there is no reason to accept the consequence. But you said you have
no reason NOT to accept it. One reason not to accept it is the
definition of deception. If you want more pervasion then we should find
some situation whereby the definition of deception (= misleading) is
*never* 'doing something someone else did not advise'. The only way that
could be true is if Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche only advised one thing one
time only. Then any thing ever done besides that one thing would
necessarily be leading away from that one advice and therefore
deception. But Kyabje Trijang advised lots of things on many occasions.
So therefore you have the reason not to accept that His Holiness is
trying to deceive others. Now *if* Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche taught that
HH must *never* advise *any* students to not practice DS, so that
advising such was opposite to that teaching, then it would be impossible
to say that such an act was in accord with the teaching, and then the
argument of deception *could* be true in theory (i.e. you would still
need to prove that HH is *trying* to deceive others)

However, you *can* say that you don't agree or like His Holiness's
actions, and that you prefer Trijang Rinpoche's advice, and maybe even
also if it is true that you wish people held the same preferences as
yourself.

Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
see that it is possible to believe such.

Sincerely,

ani lozang trinlae


Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> In article <348282...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
> >
> >Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
> >> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed
> their
> >> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai
> Lama has
> >> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
>
> Lozang Trinlae replied:
>
> >I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
> >example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more
> like
> >repression.
>
> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
> because of their
> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?
>
> Although the Kashag maintains there is no threat to jobs it is a fact

> that the Tibetan
> Constitution was changed to specifically exclude those who worship
> Dorje Shugden from
> posts in the judiciary and health service. Yes - it's discriminatory
> and repressive.

Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so. That government,
in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a part
of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if that
is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice. In any case the
Kashag belongs to the Tibetan people and it is for them alone to decide
to belong to it and/or abide by the way it operates.

The other problem with this point is that it assumes that the Kashag and
Tibetan exile government is a full-fledged democratic operation, when it
is more like a theocracy in transition to a democracy, all within the
framework of binding laws of the Government of India. In any case those
resolutions are voted on by representatives elected by exile Tibetans,
which come from diverse sections of the exiled society and traditions.
Your vote nor my vote counts. The Tibetans know that and they don't care
what you or I think about it.


>
> >SNIP<
>
> >Well I certainly am not qualified to guess others' answers. But as a
> >foreigner outsider my impression was mainly that the practice of
> Dorje
> >Shugdan, for reasons which are right are wrong, was *perceived* [at
> >least] as offensive to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, i.e.,
> Nyingma,
> >Kagyu, etc., and at a time when Tibetan people as a group should be
> >unified in their cause of Tibet and survival in exile, that divisive
> >elements such as DS practice and/or perceptions of it are better off
> >abandoned. That is, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for the
> >Tibetan society as a whole.
>
> It follows from what you say here that each time a religious practice
> threatens the unity of the
> state then you believe that practice must be destroyed.

No, respectfully sorry, *none* of it follows because what I said was
that "my impression" of the situation was 'blah blah blah'. Sorry if I
was misleading. I neither asserted any belief or claim of my own nor
asserted any conclusion to draw from it.

> From your
> reasoning here you show
> everyone very clearly that you believe national politics are more
> important than personal
> religious faith and practice.

Ditto. No reasoning was given since no argument was made. I merely gave
a summmary of appearances, and did not claim to believe or dis-believe
them or any part of them.

> You believe ...snip...

Ditto.

Your assumptions of my beliefs, while not valid, are nonetheless
interesting topics worthy of debate. Certain questions are begged, such
as:

When are national politics more important than religious faith and
practice?

Should a religious practice be destroyed if it threatens the unity of
the state?

Can a religious practice be destroyed?

Etc., etc., etc.

Thank you for your feedback.

~ani lozang trinlae

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <3484c610...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
says...

>Kelsang, so that we can verify this "fact" would you kindly post us

>the clauses of the Tibetan Constitution which "specifically exclude


>those who worship Dorje Shugden from posts in the judiciary and
>health service."
>

>BTW, where is this Tibetan "Judiciary" and where are their courts?
>
>
>-chris

Dear Chris,

You ask for evidence of the change in the Tibetan Constitution last
year to discriminate
against and repress practitioners of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden. Thank
you very much
for this opportunity of showing this vital evidence once again.

I indicated that the constitution mentions people who work in the
health service. This does
not appear to be the case and I apologise for my misleading claim.
However you can see the
documents below ( in 2) unequivocally threaten Shugden worshippers that
they must resign
unless they give up their practice.

These documents were sent from India to Manjushri Centre last year.
These included:

1 A copy of a letter notifying modifications to Article 63 Clause 2 of
the
Tibetan Constitution. The letter original is letter-headed Pema Jungney
(Member of Parliament), Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies (Tibetan
Parliament-in-exile) Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai
Lama, Dharamsala, etc.

The English translation is headed 'Modifications introduced into the
Tibetan Democratic
Constitution by the 12th Session of the Assembly of Tibetan People's
Deputies Parliament,
Dharamsala' and reads Article 63, Clause 2:

Original form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission should
be a
Tibetan, should have ... in a court of law ... do not have to consult
...'

New wording: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission, *and the
two
juries*, should be a Tibetan, should have ... in a court of law ... do
not
have to consult ...'

Final modified form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission,
*and
the two juries*, should *in addition to being Tibetans, should not be a
worshipper of Gyalchen, should be a presiding Chief Judge of a high
court
continuously for five years ...'*


2 A copy of a 'Special Notice to Doctors and Staff Members' written on
paper
letter-headed Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of
His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala etc. The English
translation that accompanied this read:

"As we all know our exile govt. oracles pointed out repeatedly and in
naked
words that the worship of Dorje Shugden pose danger to the wellbeing of
the
Dalai Lama, besides posing danger to the cause of Tibet.

Above all, in the recent Lamrim and Tamdrin Yangsang addresses, His
Holiness has again
emphasised on the worship of Dorje Shugden. Herewith we bring out an
extract
of the addresses. Regarding this, all government employees in
Dharamsala
have already passed resolution in favour of it. Since it concerns the
cause
of the Tibetan people and above all His Holiness wellbeing, we cannot
leave
it as it is.

Therefore if we do not have amongst us [anyone] who worships
Dorje Shugden, we should resolve not to worship Shugden in the future.
Whereas if there is anyone who worships Dorje Shugden they should
repent the
past and stop worshipping. They must submit a declaration that they
will not
worship in the future. In case there is anyone who doesn't abide by the
addresses of His Holiness to give up Shugden worship, then, since there
is
nothing more important than the wellbeing of the Dalai Lama and the
Tibetan
cause, such person should submit their resignation. There is no other
alternative for such [a] person.

One should also take stringent responsibility to urge relatives who
worship Shugden to
abandon this worship. At the gathering of the relevant staff members,
make this
announcement. And make sure that no one comes up with excuses of not
having
heard it. We also request you to send us the signed resolution at once
from
each and every one.

from the Department of Health
Dated: April 18, 1996
c.c. Welfare Officer

Signed by Assistant General Secretary and bearing Seal of the
Department of
Health

Copies of both documents were received by the German Television
Company,
ARD, who had these and other documents authenticated by Tibetologists
at
Hamburg University.

If you or others would like then copies of both documents in English
and Tibetan can be
obtained by sending a stamped addressed envelope, or internationally
recognised postal
credit slip, to The NKT Secretary, Conishead Priory, Priory Road,
Ulverston, Cumbria, LA12
9QQ, England.

You ask about the judiciary and where the courts are - you will have
to ask the government
about this.

These documents illustrate graphically "and in naked words" the
frightening and
authoritarian methods used by the Dalai Lama's government and their
real meaning is in
vivid contrast to the official view outlined in the article by Tseten
Samdrup that you posted
today.

From these words we can see the actual nature of the Dalai Lama's
government. From the
beginning the Dalai Lama has made no attempt to explain the supposed
relationship that he
claims exists between worshipping Dorje Shugden and the "various
calamities" (from
Nechung's words quoted in 1978 by the Dalai Lama) that were meant to
have "befallen many
people." And yet he and his government have presided over the
destruction of an entire
religious tradition as a result. On top of this Western practitioners
are accused continuously
of "worshipping dark forces" and are associated with the loathsome
murders of Ven.
Lobsang Gyatso and his assistants (from "Student Direct" Nov 24 1997 -
the official student
newsaper for Greater Manchester).

In short, this unelected and unopposed leader has acted as if he were
the arresting police
officer, the jailer, the prosecution (no defence allowed), the judge
and the jury without
reference to any other human being, for a crime that only he has
perceived.

Why, Chris, do so many people have to suffer because of the view of one
person? Can you
please tell me?

Thank you
Khyenrab


Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <3484E6...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
>
>Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:

>SNIP<

>> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
>> because of their
>> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?

Lozang Trinlae replied:


>Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so.

Thanks for your reply though I have to disagree with you here;
"repressive" means "to put into
a state of subjugation/subservience/submission" and I believe that
governments that exclude
their citizens from jobs because of the religious beliefs they hold are
repressive as defined.
The citizens are subservient to the wishes of the state and its leaders
with regard to an
unproven issue on the advice of one man which has had no public debate
and against which
there is no appeal.

>That government,
>in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a
part
>of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
>responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if
that
>is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
>lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
>criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice.

If you are implying from this that HH Dalai Lama has no power over the
activities of the
Kashag then, respectfully, I must disagree. If he has no power then why
is he the leader of
the Tibetan people?

>SNIP<

>Your assumptions of my beliefs, while not valid, are nonetheless
>interesting topics worthy of debate. Certain questions are begged,
such
>as:
>
>When are national politics more important than religious faith and
>practice?
>
>Should a religious practice be destroyed if it threatens the unity of
>the state?
>
>Can a religious practice be destroyed?
>
>Etc., etc., etc.
>
>Thank you for your feedback.
>
>~ani lozang trinlae
>

best wishes
Khyenrab


Lucy James

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA:
===================================================================

Please see www.he.net/~shugden/

Lucy

In article <3484cc10...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk says...

Don Martin

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <3484F...@mindless.com>,
xlo...@mindless.com (Lozang Trinlae) wrote:

> >
> > You should check two things:
> > 1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
> > 2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?
>
> I don't need to check these things but DS practioners should! They
> should check up very well to be sure they hold on to the roots and not
> only the branches of what Buddha taught. They don't need to check or
> decide for anyone other than themselves.

****** As they keep on about pure lineage, it would also be informative
if they checked up on what Je Tsongkhapa had to say specifically
about the worship of Dorje Shugden. ;-)

--

vajralama buddhist center

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

A Broader Threat

It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
have received no reply.

Why is this important? Because an entire spiritual practice is steadily
being wiped out of existence in dependence upon the word of these three
Lamas. If there were valid reasons establishing them as Buddhas we would
have to say they are non-mistaken, however no reasons have been
forthcoming.

If you ask why the practice of Dorje Shugden has been banned you are
told that it is bad for the cause of Tibet and that it harms the Dalai
Lama’s health. If you ask what reasons do you have to establish this you
are told “Because the Dalai Lama says so.” That’s it, end of argument,
end of debate. It seems that the word of the Dalai Lama is now gospel.
It cannot be questioned in any way. Doesn’t this sound like
fundamentalism?

The Dalai Lama refuses to debate the issue with anyone even though this
is the traditional way to resolve such issues. Even when 19 Gelug
masters, Geshes and Rinpoches, wrote to the Dalai Lama politely
requesting to discuss this issue he refused. What is he so afraid of?
Why won’t he debate this issue? Does he feel that his authority now
trancends all questioning?

The centralisation of power in the hands of the present Dalai Lama is
quite frightening. He is both the spiritual head and the unelected
political leader of the Tibetan people. Such a union of church and state
is anathema to the western world. We know the consequences from the
horrors of the middle ages. Yet we unquestioningly accept this union of
politics and religion in the present Dalai Lama.

Is it not reasonable to expect that there will be a clash of interests
between the cause of securing a free Tibet and the preservation of pure
spiritual lineages in the Tibetan tradition? What we see today is a
gradual melding together of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism into
one tradition. Sometimes known as the Rime tradition, or non-sectarian
tradition. And who will be the supreme head of this one unified
tradition?
You guessed it, His Holiness himself.

It is the political imperative of the Tibetans that is demanding such a
homogenisation of the four traditions. The Tibetans will thus be united
with one voice, one leader and this, they feel, will give them the
political might to free Tibet. In order to effect such a transition to
one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
“perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
dispensable in the face of political needs.

My question is, if the Dalai Lama is willing to destroy the lineage of
instruction that he received from his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, where
will he stop? If his own Guru’s lineage can be legislated out of
existence for political ends then is anything sacred? Watch out, your
tradition may be next.

When Dorje Shugden practitioners throughout the world stand up in the
name of religious freedom, they do so not just for themselves. They are
representing every one’s fundamental right to practice the lineage of
instruction they have received from their Masters, of whatever school of
Tibetan Buddhism.

Jangsem

PS There is an interesting interview in the present issue of Tricycle
with the Dalai Lama which shows the extent to which he relies upon
oracles. Apparently the Nechung oracle says “The wish-fulfilling jewel
will shine in the West.” The Dalai Lama interprets this as follows:
“..the meaning is that the Dalai Lama is the jewel. The jewel cannot
shine from Tibet. So that jewel will go to the West and from the West it
will shine. The complication is in one way it looks as if the shine will
appear in the West. Not in Tibet. Not that meaning. The jewel will go to
the West. From there, it will benefit Tibet.”

In other words the shining jewel that is the Dalai Lama will come to the
West, not to benefit the West, but to benefit Tibet. Is that a spiritual
or a political imperative?

Don Martin

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <3485E1...@ix.netcom.com>,
vaj...@ix.netcom.com (vajralama buddhist center) wrote:

> A Broader Threat

****** What cobblers! Now answer this. Did you work out all of the above
for yourself, or is this how Geshe la explained H.H.Dalai Lama's
motives to you?

Robin Faichney

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Bob Knight wrote:
>
> In article <34800b95...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
> writes
> >On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:43:28 +0000, Bob Knight
> ><b...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
> >>writes
> >>>
> >>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
> >>>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
> >>>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
> >>
> >>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called
> >>Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but
> >>was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for
> >>example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern
> >>Philosophy."
> >
> >As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so
> >is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has
> >make decisions on this kind of basis.
>
> The point is that *because* it is full of inconsistencies (as you
> agree), it cannot be used to achieve the effect it sets out to achieve.
> This is why it was abandoned.

This is garbage. It was found that any logical system
based upon the Utilitarian principle would not be
consistent. If the principle is being used as a general
guide in an informal way, there is no problem whatsoever.

Robin Faichney

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Je Tsong Khapa (praise his name) was a very amazing practitioner. Anyone
interested in finding out all about all the practices Je Tsonkhapa did,
I would recommend to read Khaybdrub's Haven of Faith, and Geshe Ngawang
Dhargey wrote a a short biography based on this material, and this one
has been translated to English as the first chapter in Robert Thurman's
Life and Teachins of Tsong Khapa (available from Snow Lion and similar
distribution channels).

With metta, Kent

Kent Sandvik

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

vajralama buddhist center wrote:
>
> A Broader Threat
>
> It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
> prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
> Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
> though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
> have received no reply.

Sorry, but this is initially an artificial question. This because:
a) scriptures tell us that only Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the highest
level could fully qualify another Buddha.
b) Someone who takes another person as the guru considers this person to
be a Buddha, whether this person is a buddha or not (and sometimes the
person might get enlightened before the guru, as in the case of Maitreya
and Shakyamuni Buddha, and still consider the guru as the guru).
c) Ultimately in the pure view practices everyone is considered a
buddha.

Hopefully this helps. Maitri, Kent

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

Rabten

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <3484F...@mindless.com>...

>
>Let's try to look at the point again:
>
>You assert:
>
>
>His Holiness' says his actions accord with Trijang Rinpoche's teaching.
>[which particular teaching or to whom is not specified so we have to
>assume generally]
>


Dear Ani-la,

I wasn't sufficiently clear.

1. I assert that the Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with
him that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.

2. I assert that Trijang Rinpoche never taught this, but in fact taught
the opposite: Dorje Shugden is a wisdom Buddha.

3. I conclude the Dalai Lama is lying. Furthermore lying in the full sense
of the lying: ie declaring that which he knows to be false with the
intention of deceiving others into believing it.

The direct conclusion is that the Dalai Lama is declaring that which he
knows to be false, the context in which he makes this declaration leads to
the conclusion that his intention is to deceive.


To establish point one:
Part A: The Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.

"Worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's
emergence coincided with the founding of the Ganden Podrang Government
of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in
conflict with the Ganden Podrang Government and sought to undermine
Tibet's national cause. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result
of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku
Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of
harm and interference. "

Quoted from: <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

Part B: The Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with his view.
"There was a time when His Holiness too propitiated Dolgyal. Based on his
experience at that time, he conducted a series of investigations over many
years which led to clear spiritual indications that propitiating Dolgyal
brings more harm than good. His Holiness reported these, and instances
relating to them, to his tutor Trijang Rinpoche, who also propitiated
Dolgyal. Trijang Rinpoche gave His Holiness his unequivocal approval."

Quoted from:

Tibet Office London's statement on Dolgyal

Statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal
by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's
Representative Mrs Kesang Y Takla


To establish point two:

Since this is a negative phenomena (that Trijang Rinpoche never taught that
Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit) we need to rely on an inference, for which
we need a sign.

It is very clear that Trijang Rinpoche did not agree with the Dalai Lama's
view on Dorje Shugden because after 1978 (When the Dalai Lama publicly aired
his views) he continued to teach that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha and relied
on him as such.

I think it is very easy to gain the inference that Trijang Rinpoche never
changed his mind by using the reasoning: Trijang Rinpoche did not change his
mind because he did not tell his close disciples that he had changed his
mind. If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind his mind he would have told
his close disciples. The difference between relying on a Protector who is a
Wisdom Buddha and having been duped by an evil spirit that causes suffering
to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people etc etc is rather large. Since
Trijang Rinpoche had immense love for all his students he would never have
kept such knowledge a secret from them, rather he would have told them
directly. However none of Trijang Rinpoche's disciples were told this. For
example Zong Rinpoche came to England to give Dorje Shugden empowerment
after Trijang Rinpoche passed away and taught that Dorje Shugden was a
Buddha and the principle protector of Trijang Rinpoche's lineage.


>
>Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
>to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
>see that it is possible to believe such.
>

Ani-la, I would much rather not hold this view. If my view is correct then
the Dalai Lama is rewriting history and making a mockery of the teachings of
his root guru. Furthermore if he succeeds he will extinguish the belessings
of the Gelug lineage that came from Trijang Dorjechang. Please show me
incontrovertibly how I am wrong.

best wishes

Rabten

>Sincerely,
>
>ani lozang trinlae
>

Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> In article <3484E6...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
> >
> >Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> >SNIP<
>
> >> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
> >> because of their
> >> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?
>
> Lozang Trinlae replied:
> >Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so.
>
> Thanks for your reply though I have to disagree with you here;
> "repressive" means "to put into
> a state of subjugation/subservience/submission" and I believe that
> governments that exclude
> their citizens from jobs because of the religious beliefs they hold are
> repressive as defined.

I don't have a dictionary but my MS word thesaurus gives 'control' as a
synonym of repress, and so I think it is fair to say that trying to keep
certain people from holding a job is trying to control the situation is
repressive, and therefore if it is proven that the government has indeed
engaged in discriminatory acts it would be fair to say it has been
repressive. (You have given evidence of such in another post-it wasn't
clear however if all the evidence is conclusive; more info is needed for
that, but it certainly *appears* that way)



> The citizens are subservient to the wishes of the state and its leaders
> with regard to an
> unproven issue on the advice of one man which has had no public debate
> and against which
> there is no appeal.

There is too much generalization here. Willful following of advise is
not subserviance or represssion. Discrimination of others on the basis
of whether they are following it *is*. However if the Tibetan people
don't care to change that, it is also their choice to have repression.


>
> >That government,
> >in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a
> part
> >of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
> >responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if
> that
> >is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
> >lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
> >criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice.
>
> If you are implying from this that HH Dalai Lama has no power over the
> activities of the
> Kashag then, respectfully, I must disagree. If he has no power then why
> is he the leader of
> the Tibetan people?

I think HH the Dalai Lama CAN and DOES have tremendous influence, but
that doesn't mean that he is personally involved in every action of
every legislator who works in the exiled government. As far as I have
heard an effort is underway to remove the person of HH the Dalai Lama
from any government function, and that this is also his personal
preference. What I was trying to say is that legislators can take
actions without HH the Dalai Lama ordering them, and usually do so.
Those legislators are the ones who have to answer to the Tibetans they
represent why they act in certain ways.

Unless there is conclusive evidence that HH the Dalai Lama has
personally ordered particular legislators to write and vote
discriminating legislation into the government, there is no
justification for suggesting that such acts are HH's wish or of HH's
personal initiative.

Sincerely,

lozang trinlae

>
> >SNIP<
>

Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Dear Kelsang-la,

CONGRATULATIONS and THANK-YOU!! It appears that you have (pretty much)
succeeded in showing your disagreement with the policies of HH the Dalai
Lama and the exiled Tibetan Government by critizing specific,
well-documented, established acts and without criticizing the actual
person of HH the Dalai Lama or anyone else! Thank you very much!

I think that you and others like you will find that this manner will get
your views much further mileage and support among those with interests
in the Tibetan community! People who might be in a position to do
something to help but who would otherwise be alienated may come forward
due to this improved manner of public discourse.

The next step will be to include some specific suggestions on if or how
you think the specific problems you identify can be resolved, as a
starting point for further *polite* discussion!

See further comments below:

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
..snip..

> Dear Chris,
>
> You ask for evidence of the change in the Tibetan Constitution last
> year to discriminate
> against and repress practitioners of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden. Thank
> you very much
> for this opportunity of showing this vital evidence once again.
>
> I indicated that the constitution mentions people who work in the
> health service. This does
> not appear to be the case and I apologise for my misleading claim.
> However you can see the
> documents below ( in 2) unequivocally threaten Shugden worshippers that
> they must resign
> unless they give up their practice.

Very responsible way to handle yourself! Thank-you! This kind of
communication will give you more credibility.


>
> These documents were sent from India to Manjushri Centre last year.
> These included:
>
> 1 A copy of a letter notifying modifications to Article 63 Clause 2 of
> the
> Tibetan Constitution. The letter original is letter-headed Pema Jungney
> (Member of Parliament), Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies (Tibetan
> Parliament-in-exile) Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai
> Lama, Dharamsala, etc.

> ...snip...


>
> Final modified form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission,
> *and
> the two juries*, should *in addition to being Tibetans, should not be a
> worshipper of Gyalchen, should be a presiding Chief Judge of a high
> court
> continuously for five years ...'*

Was this amendment voted and ratified? Was it debated?

Is there a law in the Tibetan constitution guaranteeing protection from
discrimination due to religious association?

If yes, then there should be a case. If not, perhaps you have a reason
to lobby for such.

How does this legislation sit with the laws of the government of India?
Are the laws of the Government of India bearing on the business of the
Kashag???

How do other democracies handle the legal job descriptions of Chief
Justices? Say, for a hypothetical example, that US Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas is an active member of a satanic cult and is a "devil
worshipper". Does the US via its legal code care?? What are the
precedents in other countries for similar scenarios (unpopular religous
practices vis a vis holding public office) I know that as a school
teacher in the US even as a Buddhist I am expected to not only say the
pledge of allegiance (blah blah blah one nation under god blah blah
blah) but to lead it, although not in the job description. Of course
there are still sneaky ways for people to get rid of you if they don't
like your religion that are not blatantly legally discriminatory.

This above cited legislation appears silly because what if the Chief
Judge was not a worshipper of Gyalchen, but rather a worshipper of Mao
Tse Tung for example? (It could be some kind of perverted Taoist
practice for example) Would that be better or worse? But I don't know
how many of those Kashag legislators have any qualifications as lawyers
or writers of legal codes, so in that case we shouldn't be too surprised
at poorly written legislation either.

On the other hand if we assume a purely representative democratic system
and if the elected representatives of the majority of exiled Tibetan
people feel that this legislation is acceptable, there may be no
alternative for Gyalchen worshippers but to give up their "citizenship"
and allegiance to the exiled government (if they haven't already), or
petition their representative appropriately. For best results this
should be done without alienating people via criticizing individual
persons but rather by pointing out the specific undesired item; i.e.,
that legislation re Chief Judges. Unfortunately a lot of mud-slinging
has occured so it may not be easy to find much sympathy at the moment.
In that case a better strategy would be to try to find support among
NON-DS "worshippers" to present your case for you; thereby getting your
views accross via a neutral medium. Of course, if you aren't Tibetan,
there is no obligation or compulsion for anyone to listen to you!


>
> 2 A copy of a 'Special Notice to Doctors and Staff Members' written on
> paper
> letter-headed Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of
> His
> Holiness the Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala etc. The English
> translation that accompanied this read:
>

> .snip..

No individual name was signed?? Strange!

This sounds very much like the political re-education campaign going on
in Tibet whereby monks and nuns have to sign a paper saying that HH the
Dalai Lama is the head of the serpent, etc., etc., etc. (there are 5
points I recall they have to sign on). The problem of course is that
anyone can sign it while crossing their fingers, etc., i.e., that it
doesn't in fact reflect their views.

The question of course is what is the desired result, and what is the
best way to get it??

If certain health professionals of the Tibetan Government want to
express their support for HHDL's advice, it seems that they could all
sign an unofficial (i.e., not on company letterhead which expressed any
formal policy) letter to him saying such, and then publish it in the
relevant medias to make it known. That way those who don't care to sign
it, while still being a bit ostracized by default, should still not face
any formal discrimination. Medical professionals in USA do this
frequently on ethics issues, etc., as we see them take out full page ads
of their signatures in major newspapers.

It *appears* from the evidence supplied here that a policy of
discrimination has been loosely or otherwise formulated, at least with
respect to the government Department of Health. (I.e., private health
institutions, where they exist, are not bound by such policies).


Again it seems to come down to the question of: is it legal?? Is there
any legislation forbidding such acts? How about in the Indian
government. If it is illegal then any person who feels discriminated by
the policy should be able to bring a lawsuit, and the Tibetan Exiled
Administration and/or Indian government would appear to be responsible
for hearing the case.
>
>...snip...


>
> You ask about the judiciary and where the courts are - you will have
> to ask the government
> about this.
>

Actually I think that this is something those who want to take up the
cause will want to do. Those who are merely seeking to inform themselves
about the issue may not have any inclination to lobby for or against it.

> These documents illustrate graphically "and in naked words" the
> frightening and
> authoritarian methods used by the Dalai Lama's government and their
> real meaning is in
> vivid contrast to the official view outlined in the article by Tseten
> Samdrup that you posted
> today.

There appears to be a contradiction between the noted official view and
the documents. However the best way to deal with it is to remember that
the government is made up of individual representatives who have a
responsibility to their constituents (I think maybe the Kashag is still
set up according to Tibet region representation), and to find
representatives who are in a position to do something about resolving
the discrepancy.

However those who have a grievance of discrimination should first see
what the legal recourse is. Most democratic legal systems rely on
precidence quite a bit, something which there may not be much of in the
relatively new exiled government. There may be more recourse via Indian
courts.

Another way to approach the matter is to find Tibetans who are
interested in a non-discriminatory legal code for their exiled
government, but who don't necessarily care much one way or the other
about the DS issue. Personally I suspect you may find a larger number of
sympathizers for that than the DS issue. However it will still be
necessary to handle the matter in a way that doesn't alienate potential
sympathizers.


>
> From these words we can see the actual nature of the Dalai Lama's
> government. From the
> beginning the Dalai Lama has made no attempt to explain the supposed
> relationship that he
> claims exists between worshipping Dorje Shugden and the "various
> calamities" (from
> Nechung's words quoted in 1978 by the Dalai Lama) that were meant to
> have "befallen many
> people."

That is His Holiness the Dalai Lama's choice. We may or may not agree
with it. No one who does not agree is obligated to accept any such
claims.

> And yet he and his government have presided over the
> destruction of an entire
> religious tradition as a result.

This still sounds a bit hysterical but I think it is more effective in
the way you use "presided over" which is more realistic than alternative
inflamatory ways to say it such as "he and his government have
destroyed....". You may think that is just semantics; actually I think
it is politics! How you say it has EVERYTHING to do with the results you
will get from the words! (presumably you would like desired results vs.
undesired results)

Nevertheless, the Tibetan exiled government is notorious in its
inability to separate itself and its business from the person of HH the
Dalai Lama, something HH the Dalai Lama has mentioned many times as a
desirable thing, not to mention desired by untold numbers of Tibetans.
Therefore what I am trying to say is that HH the Dalai Lama can hold
personal positions and give public advise and/or statements regarding
them, and the Tibetan exiled government may go over the top in trying to
incorporate them into government policies. I can't recall any other
specific cases (ask a Tibetan who keeps up with such things, like the
Tibetan Youth COngress for example) but it has happened before on many
other issue many times, not just for DS issues.

These habits are deeply ingrained into a centuries-old way of doing
business, and are difficult to change quickly. Those involved in
affecting positive changes have to be willing to apply gentle pressure
over a very long time with a lot of patience. If you don't mind I would
like to share a personal example, which while not directly any matter of
the exiled government reflects some arcane problems trying to change
things in Tibetan society:

As a way of returning my Gurus' kindnesses I have been trying to improve
the conditions of young monks studying the modern subjects at Sera and
Ganden Monasteries for about 6 years now. One of the areas of
improvement is curriculum materials. So I devised a system to gradually
replace the current (poor quality) curriculum materials with higher
quality ones over a period of years. For the first year of this program
at Sera Mey Thoesam School, the first thing to do was to get the
principal to commit to using new books. He insisted that he would be
most happy to use them. Therefore I purchased and has delivered new sets
of books for the 1st grade English class (about USD$100 worth). Some
months later when I returned to check on the use of the books, I was
very disappointed to see them sitting in boxes in the principals'
office, even though they had been delivered some long time before. I was
a little angry, and asked that if I had given them a $100 dollar bill
would they leave it lying on the floor. I was very frustrated for a few
days wondering why those books hadn't been used yet after my efforts to
get them (without any rich sponsors to pay for them either). Then it
occured to me that the monastery has been running for about 700 years,
and all during that time until only a few years ago there has never
really been any special school for young boy monks to learn math,
English, social studeies, etc., and that those old Geshes and Gen-la's
probably have no idea what those boys do during the day there and have
very little idea of any value to it, since they survived without it for
so long. (The general monastery administration takes virtually no
interest in the school operations other than having donated the land to
build it on). So I concluded that it is unrealistic to expect them to
accept my ideas of new ways very quickly, and that if I want to help
improve things I should be prepared for them to take 10 years to use my
new books! They will not change anything if I have any angry tantrums,
but they may if gentle pressure is applied consistently and patiently
over a very long time. In the meantime of course the next generation of
Geshes is getting a better education and may be able to speak English
well!

So you see for that exiled Tibetan government, it may similarly take
time for them to really be instinctively independent of HH the Dalai
Lama's wishes and be fully democratic. That doesn't mean that those who
want to improve it should just sit by and do nothing. But it may be
realistic to be gentle and patient. That is my point. Angry tantrums are
not likely to get anyone very far.

> On top of this Western practitioners
> are accused continuously
> of "worshipping dark forces" and are associated with the loathsome
> murders of Ven.
> Lobsang Gyatso and his assistants (from "Student Direct" Nov 24 1997 -
> the official student
> newsaper for Greater Manchester).

Tibetan Buddhists of all kinds are considered godless devil worshippers
by many. However it has been DS supporters who keep changing 'worldly
spirit' to 'evil spirit' in posts I read referring to DS.

Regarding Ven. L. Gyatso that story really hasn't come out yet, and may
never in entirety. Even if those murderers were angry Shugden
supporters, and were acting on behalf of somebody, it doesn't
*necessarily* mean that they were acting on behalf of *all* Shugden
practioners/supporters. But it seems that they had a lot of money
indicating that someone may have sponsored them. There also appears to
be evidence in that telephone call that they have a connection with the
Shugden Society or whatever they are called. This will make the public
relations efforts more difficult for Shugden supporters/devotees.

Those murders are extremely tragic. It should be pointed out that they
are not the first incident of horrible violence in the exiled Tibetan
community.


>
> In short, this unelected and unopposed leader has acted as if he were
> the arresting police
> officer, the jailer, the prosecution (no defence allowed), the judge
> and the jury without
> reference to any other human being, for a crime that only he has
> perceived.

It seems you couldn't help blowing steam here, which was a shame because
it was going so well until then. It sounds very emotionally hysteric,
but nevertheless the main problem is that your claims of acting like
police, jailer, etc. are not supported with any observable facts. It is
very difficult to be generous in giving credibility to such types of
(email) oration.


>
> Why, Chris, do so many people have to suffer because of the view of one
> person? Can you
> please tell me?
>

No case has been produced yet (in this post at least and anywhere else
as far as I know) to show anyone suffering. Therefore it is difficult to
accept your claim.

Sincerely,

lozang trinlae

Lozang Trinlae

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Rabten wrote:

>snip<


>
> Dear Ani-la,
>
> I wasn't sufficiently clear.

That's ok. Presumably a motivating benefit of this discussion is to
bring some clarity to the varying viewpoints. I.e., those who elect to
agree or disagree with the different views can do so on the basis of
accurately assessing them as best as possible, as opposed to emotional
reactions to ranting and raving, so that any prevailing hostility can be
reduced, or better yet, eliminated.


>
> 1. I assert that the Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with

> him that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.

I don't accept that this assertion is established with the evidence
supplied (see below). I have never heard of HH the Dalai Lama calling
Dorje Shugden an 'evil spirit'. However, I have heard of HH referring to
Dorje Shugden as a 'worldly spirit'.

This distinction may be hard to appreciate. Those unfamiliar with
Tibetan should know that 'worldly spirit' is a Tibetan Buddhist
technical term used generally to classify different dharma protectors,
while 'evil spirit', generally speaking at least, is not, although
theoretically, assistance of dharmapalas and wrathful dieties can be
used for 'black magic' aka 'destructive magic'.

Dharma protectors can be generally classified into divisions: "jig rten
las 'das pa'i srung ma" or dharma protectors who have gone beyond the
six realms of existence, and "jig rten pa'i srung ma", those belonging
to the six realms of existence. The former are known in English (in
typical translation) as 'transcendental' spirits, the latter 'worldly'
spirits. There is historically some debate over the classifications, but
generally the former include protectors such as: Palden Lhamo, 70-odd
classes of mGonpo, rNam-to-se, Zhambhala, Shin-je, Jam-sring and so
forth. The latter division is said to include Pehar Gyalpo, Dorje
Shugdan, Dorje Legpa, Phyin dkar po, Tsiu Marpo, etc. It should be noted
that according to the Buddhist view any sentient being, including
protector "spirits" can eventually go beyond the six realms of existence
with liberation and enlightenment.

Therefore if we can use the words interchangeably such that all 'evil
spirits' are 'worldly spirits' and vise-versa, then Dorje Shugdan is no
more or less an evil spirit than other worldly spirits such as Pehar
Gyalpo and so forth, for example, whose worship, etc., is not at issue
at present.

>
> 2. I assert that Trijang Rinpoche never taught this, but in fact taught
> the opposite: Dorje Shugden is a wisdom Buddha.
>

It is difficult to establish what Trijang Rinpoche never taught.
Nevertheless I can accept your assertion that Trijang Rinpoche never
publicly taught that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, since I have
never heard of any evidence of this. I also accept that he may have
taught that DS was a wisdom Buddha (sounds probable but I can't say for
sure). In addition I also think that it is possible he could have said
that DS is a dharma protector of the wordly spirit class, at least at
one time or another, publicly or privately, to HH the Dalai Lama and/or
others.



> 3. I conclude the Dalai Lama is lying. Furthermore lying in the full sense
> of the lying: ie declaring that which he knows to be false with the
> intention of deceiving others into believing it.

I don't accept this conclusion, first of all because I think the
assertion #1 above is not established, as mentioned, with the evidence
given (below). Secondly no consequence of lying follows from the
evidence supplied; i.e., Trijang Rinpoche not ever teaching something
does not mean he never agreed with HH the DL's views on the matter, even
privately. The act of lying, i.e., HH claiming to have heard Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche say or otherwise indicate something which he in fact
did not, does not follow.

Furthermore I think it is possible that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, when
speaking about DS, did not necessarily *always* teach to *everyone* that
DS is a wisdom buddha.

Moreover, I think given suitable contexts it is possible that when
speaking about DS, Trijang Rinpoche could have (explicitly or
implicitly) taught that DS is a wisdom Buddha AND a jig rten pa'i srung
ma-worldy dharma protector. For example, just by reading the title of
popular Shugden liturgical texts, which include phrases for example:
"chos skyong rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan: Dharma protector
great-victor Dorje Shugdan " (from dga' ldan bstan srung ldan dgra tshar
gcod) or "bstan srung sprul pa'i rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan:
doctrine-protector-emanation great-victor Dorje Shugdan" (From skang
Chog), one could easily make that impression.

Moreover, there is precedent for such a member of one class to be
accepted in another class, such that both could be accepted as true, or
at least not in contradiction to eachother. For example, the 16 Elder
Arhants are by convention regarded as Listener-Arhants, but are
nonetheless accorded greater status when we regard them as fully
enlightened Buddhas emanating as Arhants.


>
> The direct conclusion is that the Dalai Lama is declaring that which he
> knows to be false, the context in which he makes this declaration leads to
> the conclusion that his intention is to deceive.

Ditto as before.


>
> To establish point one:
> Part A: The Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.
>
> "Worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's
> emergence coincided with the founding of the Ganden Podrang Government
> of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in
> conflict with the Ganden Podrang Government and sought to undermine
> Tibet's national cause. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result
> of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku
> Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of
> harm and interference. "
>
> Quoted from: <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>

The first problem is that the above-quoted statements are not the words
of The Dalai Lama but rather Kent Sandvik. It is a mere but nevertheless
incomplete historical account of the origins of Shugden practice from
popular legend of events said to have occured in the 1600's. What is
missing is the information on how the Shugden practice evolved from the
above (which nevertheless has inaccuracies). From the popular legend as
related by Nebesky-Wojkowitz: "...Since all subsequent trials [to catch
and destroy the spirit] proved again in vain, the Tibetan Government and
the spiritual leaders of the dGe lugs pa sect, who by now had discovered
that the cause of all the misfortune was the injustice they had done to
bSod nams grags pa, decided to request his spirit to make peace with
them, and instead of causing further harm to become a protective deity
of the Yellow Hats. To this the spirit agreed, and under the name rDo
rje shugs ldan he became one of the chief divine protectors of the dGe
lugs pa order and a dutiful guardian of its monasteries", (1956, SMC
Publishing).

Nevertheless the historical account, while suggesting an origin of
conditions of conflict, does not state that Dorje Shugdan is an evil
spirit. One can also note the date which precedes the Tibetans going
into exile.

This point is not established because it is not a teaching of HH the
Dalai Lama indicating HH the Dalai Lama's views, and also does not seek
to claim that Dorje Shugdan is an evil spirit.


>
> Part B: The Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with his view.
>
> "There was a time when His Holiness too propitiated Dolgyal. Based on his
> experience at that time, he conducted a series of investigations over many
> years which led to clear spiritual indications that propitiating Dolgyal
> brings more harm than good. His Holiness reported these, and instances
> relating to them, to his tutor Trijang Rinpoche, who also propitiated
> Dolgyal. Trijang Rinpoche gave His Holiness his unequivocal approval."
>
> Quoted from:
>
> Tibet Office London's statement on Dolgyal
>
> Statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal
> by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's
> Representative Mrs Kesang Y Takla
>
> To establish point two:
>
> Since this is a negative phenomena (that Trijang Rinpoche never taught that
> Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit) we need to rely on an inference, for which
> we need a sign.

The need to show this doesn't follow, because what is established via
the claim from the above quote is that Trijang Rinpoche is claimed to
have given his approval to HH the Dalai Lama's spiritual indications
that more harm than good will come from propiating Dorje Shugdan, not
that he gave his approval that Dorje Shugdan is an evil spirit. In any
case the statement is in the context of HH the Dalai Lama's personal
practice, and does not imply that the same indications necessarily apply
to anyone or everyone other than HH.


>
> It is very clear that Trijang Rinpoche did not agree with the Dalai Lama's
> view on Dorje Shugden because after 1978 (When the Dalai Lama publicly aired
> his views) he continued to teach that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha and relied
> on him as such.

I don't see how this follows. For example, if I have indications that
more harm than good will come from doing prostrations, in my personal
practice, my Guru can give his 'unequivocal approval', and still
continue to teach that doing prostrations is a path of purification
(when done properly) leading to liberation and enlightenment. There is
no contradiction.


>
> I think it is very easy to gain the inference that Trijang Rinpoche never
> changed his mind by using the reasoning: Trijang Rinpoche did not change his
> mind because he did not tell his close disciples that he had changed his
> mind.

What needs to be established is that Trijang Rinpoche did not give his
approval of HH the Dalai Lama's spiritual indications regarding
propiating DS. No claim has been made that Trijang Rinpoche changed his
mind so there doesn't appear to be anything to refute here.

> If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind his mind he would have told
> his close disciples. The difference between relying on a Protector who is a
> Wisdom Buddha and having been duped by an evil spirit that causes suffering
> to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people etc etc is rather large. Since
> Trijang Rinpoche had immense love for all his students he would never have
> kept such knowledge a secret from them, rather he would have told them
> directly. However none of Trijang Rinpoche's disciples were told this. For
> example Zong Rinpoche came to England to give Dorje Shugden empowerment
> after Trijang Rinpoche passed away and taught that Dorje Shugden was a
> Buddha and the principle protector of Trijang Rinpoche's lineage.
>

That may be true. But it has not been established that anyone claimed
that DS was an evil spirit nor that Trijang Rinpoche otherwise had any
reason or occasion to have changed his mind.

> >
> >Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
> >to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
> >see that it is possible to believe such.
> >
>

> Ani-la, I would much rather not hold this view. If my view is correct then
> the Dalai Lama is rewriting history and making a mockery of the teachings of
> his root guru. Furthermore if he succeeds he will extinguish the belessings
> of the Gelug lineage that came from Trijang Dorjechang. Please show me
> incontrovertibly how I am wrong.

Again I must say that I am not qualified. Nonetheless I don't think it
is necessary to hold these views. I'm not sure yet if it is possible to
prove to you incontrovertibly how you can give up your views, and if so
that I could do such myself.

I don't think that we have to say that there is no alternative and that
the only possibilities are that HH the Dalai Lama is lying or that
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was lying so that we are forced to choose only
one of them as having a valid position. I think that it is entirely
possible that Trijang Dorje Chang's advice to his disciple HH the Dalai
Lama is completely true and that Trijang Dorje Chang's teachings and
advice to his other disciples are also completely true and valid.

I have no inside information on the reasons for the actions of HH the
Dalai Lama or the exiled government or Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.

I have concluded from the statements from HH the Dalai Lama that for his
own personal situation, primarily with respect to his central
relationship to the Tibetan government and society, that HH has decided
that it is better that he does not engage in DS practice, and that he
received approval directly from his guru Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to
discontinue such practice directly.

In my view, if it were the case that HH the Dalai Lama never had any
particular karmic relationship to the Tibetan government, then that
perhaps no conditions for him to discontinue his personal DS practice
would ever have come up. Also if HH the Dalai lama *did* have a
particular karmic relationship with the Tibetan government and society
but was *not* a Buddhist teacher and Guru, any changes he would make in
his personal practice would have no implications for anyone else but His
Holiness' self alone.

Such scenarios are not the actual case. For better or worse the
situation that we actually have is very complex and complicated. That is
why it is so difficult and uncomfortable.

I believe it is possible to hold a viewpoint such that no individual
need be regarded as an enemy or with hostility, be it HHDL, Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche, or Dorje Shugdan himself or DS practioners. It may
take effort to protect such a view point from potent propaganda from
many directions. But it *is* possible, and I am confident it is the most
beneficial and least harmful approach.

I don't think that there is any reason to fear for the blessings of the
Gelug lineage. Due to their personal relations with HH the Dalai Lama
some Gelugs who might have otherwise become DS practioners may not come
to do so, and some who have been DS practioners may give it up, but that
is no indication that the teachings and blessed lineages are not being
passed down and practioners are not studying and contemplating and doing
the great retreats and not getting the realizations. Each Gelug student
in the line of Kyabje Trijang and Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo
Rinpoche, whether doing DS practice or not, should nevertheless continue
the other practices of studying and meditating the Lam Rim and monastic
subjects, getting the initiations in the blessed lineages of Yamantaka,
Heruka, and Guhyasamaja, getting the transmissions and commentaries, and
doing the great retreats to accomplish the practices, in addition to the
regular monthly pujas of Tsechu, 4 Round Mandala offering to Tara,
Medicine Buddha, and 16 Arhants, and regular Jorcho practice. If we look
at those direct disciples and Labrangs of Phabonkha Rinpoche and Trijang
RInpoche and the monasteries and nunneries they personally established,
that is what we can see that they do. For Kang-so protector puja it is a
choice, to do Dorje Shugdan or leave Dorje Shugdan out. But if we do not
practice Dorje Shugdan it does not mean we believe he is an evil spirit
or that we are an enemy of DS. It can be just neutral. Each Gelug must
choose for him or her self. Each can decide for him or her self alone,
and/or with the advice and/or example of any particular root gurus. But
if we decide to practice DS we should also respect HH the Dalai Lama's
wishes regarding his own personal karma and not mix up our own DS karma


with HH the Dalai Lama.

Sorry I can't think of any more to say about this now. Please try not to
be angry with HH the Dalai Lama. It is all of our karma all mixed
together and we all have a share in responsibility for it. The best
thing you and I can do for the situation is to get enlightened as soon
as possible, and in the meantime not do non-virtuous deeds and do only
virtuous deeds and subdue our own minds. That is what Buddha taught and
I'm sure is the wish of all our valid Gurus, even if we perceive them to
disagree with eachother or ourselves.

Most sincerely,

~ani lozang trinlae


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages