RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA

102 views
Skip to first unread message

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


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

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


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

jcp...@sclc.ecosur.mx

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

>
> 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?
>

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso also explained in another post that:

"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 Dharma, Bosco
>
>
Juan Carlos de la Parra

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

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

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

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...

Maitri, Kent

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.

jcp...@sclc.ecosur.mx

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

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

What I have heard is that faith is a naturally virtuous mental factor,
indispensable for all spiritual realisations. It is said that tantric
realisations are accomplished mainly through the force of faith and
correct imagination. But I agree that the christian idea of faith is
somehow confusing meaning perhaps something different. I think in Joyful
Path Of Good Fortune it is defined as a mind that sees no faults in a
virtuous object.

Juan

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..."

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

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

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
>

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