Do Sakyas rely upon Dorje Shugden?

289 views
Skip to first unread message

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to

Hello Namdrol, here’s a few observations on some of your recent posts
on the issue of whether or not some Sakyas rely on Dorje Shugden as an
enlightened Protector of the Dharma.

You said:

>No Sakya Lama has ever taught that Shugden is enlightened Protector.
>This is what Sakya Trizin says, and additionally, what my teacher says, who
>was resident at Sakya Monastery in Rajpur/Derhadun as the Secretary of the
>Sakya order between 1982-1989.

I asked a few people to lend their knowledge to this debate. Although I’m
not quoting my sources I can tell you they’ve been in Tibetan Buddhism
for up to 20 years, know many Lamas, lived in India, speak Tibetan etc. In
other words, I take them as authoritative.

One of them told me the following:

“In his talk in 1978 the present Dalai Lama repeated as a 'common story'
that a throne-holder of the Sakya tradition developed a connection with
Dorje Shugden. I (that’s my friend) understand that this was the 17th
century Dagchen Dorje Chang Sonam Rinchen. Sakya masters at that time
such as Sakya Dagchen Kunga Lodo (Sachen Kunlo) and Morchen Dorje
Chang also wrote sadhanas which have been practised within the Sakya
Tradition since then. Dorje Shugden, in particular in the aspect of riding
a black horse, has been a Dharma Protector of the Sakya Tradition from
that time until now.

Because of the pressure of the Dalai Lama's government this practice
has now been suppressed within the Sakya Tradition. However, according
to one oracle of Dorje Shugden, Kuten Choyang Duldzin, many Sakya
Lamas - including the father of the present Sakya Trizin - relied on Dorje
Shugden and requested advice from the Dorje Shugden oracle, including
advice concerning the present Sakya Trizin.

Many people have stated that they have been present during Shugden pujas
with Sakya Lamas including Sakya Trizin in the Sakya Temple in Mussourie,
India. In Lo, Nepal, they do (or did) an annual Dorje Shugden dance, and
according to eye-witness accounts Chogye Trichen the Teacher of both Sakya
Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama, offers a katag to the dancer. The eye-witness
account said the abbot of Lo Monastery told him that in Tibet, in Samye,
they
used to perform a dance with 32 dancers representing the 32 Deities of the
Dorje Shugden Mandala plus dancers representing Pehar and Tsemara.
But nowadays they only have one dancer.”

So this is one account that differs from your view. Who should we believe?
Also you quoted from an old post by Losang last year where he said:

>>"Even when I
>>visited Geshe Kelsang's nephew in the Sakya monastery in Rajpur I found
>>that they relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector. They made

In response to this you said:

>Nonsense. rTa.nag is not considered to be a enlightened protector by the
>Sakyapa, I ought to know, I studied in the Sakya tradition for eight years.

Namdrol, were your eight years prior to 1978 by any chance? How can you
be certain that Sakya teachings since then haven’t undergone revision in
light
of the Dalai Lama’s view? How do you know written records eg sadhana
booklets weren’t destroyed? And how can you be sure that you studied
everything in the Sakya tradition in those 8 years?

Again you quote:

>>prayers and offerings to him which were in essence the same as those
>>offered to Mahakala who all schools believe to be an enlightened being. I

Your response:

>How can you possibly know this? You don't know Tibetan.

Sorry, Namdrol, but Losang does know Tibetan. Although I can’t
read that language I know of several Western Dorje Shugden practitioners
who can read and speak it. And then there are Tibetan practitioners who
can also read and speak English.

Again you quoted:

>>aspect except that he was riding a horse. Perhaps it is only when he rides
>>a snow lion that he becomes harmfull! I was so surprized when I later
heard
>>the Sakyapas saying that they only gave Dorje Shugden cakes so that he
>>would not get angry with them. I notice on the Sakya calander that they no
>>longer practice Dorje Shugden. If they truly believed he was such a
demonic
>>being and feared him so much then why do they not continue to appease him
>>with cakes? I believe it is the tibetan politicians that they fear more
>>than Dorje Shugden. His Holiness Sakya Trinzen spent a large part of his
>>time at this monastery so surely he knows the real situation."

And then you said:

>Yes, Sakya Trizin is my root Guru. He maintains that Shugden is a) harmful
>b) mundane. The fact is that Shugden is deity practice in Sakya mainly by
>the Khon family in Sakya monastery proper. The Ngorpas and the Tharpas
>have never adopted this practice.

Perhaps I could put forward the following ideas here. There are 3 possible
explanations:

1.You are lying
2. Sakya Trizin is lying
3. There are two ways of regarding Dorje Shugden in the Sakya lineage -
openly and secretly.

Then as both you and Sakya Trizin are Buddhists and would not lie,
we have to conclude that the third is the only reasonable explanation for
the differences between us on this matter.

Also, can you say for sure that Sakya Trizin has never explained to any of
his
other disciples a different way of perceiving Dorje Shugden? Are you
omniscient? Namdrol, you may know a lot but I suspect you do not
know everything. Or are you claiming to be enlightened?

As a great Teacher, Sakya Trizin would explain what is most
beneficial according to the karmic connections of each of his students.
Even Buddha himself taught in this way.

You also said:

>BY claiming a Sakyapa origin for your views, you are in effect
>misrepresenting and attacking Sakya.

No-one here is attacking Sakya. Relax. We are telling you what our lineage
gurus have explained to us.

You also said:

>Anyone who has studied in the Sakya tradition knows that Gorampa did not
>believe that Tsongkhapa's visions of Manjushri were authentic. Why? Because
>in Gorampa's opinion, Tsongkhapa's explanations of Buddhism were incorrect,
>and therefor, his "Manjushri", from whom Tsongkhapa credits with all of his
>insights, kmust have been a mara. This is not sectarian-- this is one
>scholar criticizing and passing judgements on another scholar.

Then what does Gorampa think of Buddha Shakyamuni’s prediction
that a boy living at that time, an emanation of Manjushri, would become
a monk called Losang Dragpa (Tsongkhapa’s ordained name) at a place
called Ganden? Does Gorampa think that Buddha made a mistake? Does
Gorampa not accept Buddha’s endorsement that Tsongkhapa is, in fact,
an emanation of Manjushri?

Namdrol, why should written records, even Tibetan ones, be such an
authoritative source of knowledge? People can write down anything -
that does not make it a truth. Oral lineages remain oral because there’s
no karma for them to be written down. It doesn’t mean that they are
wrong. Buddha himself and his immediate disciples maintained
only oral lineages.

BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas
said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely
upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person
didn’t wish to be quoted publicly. Why not? In the current climate in
Tibetan Buddhism does that question really need an answer? Why
should a high Sakya lama rely secretly? Why do people not want
to be quoted publicly? Why are we having this debate?

Khyenrab


Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to Kelsang Khyenrab
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> Hello Namdrol, here’s a few observations on some of your recent posts
> on the issue of whether or not some Sakyas rely on Dorje Shugden as an
> enlightened Protector of the Dharma.

Sakya considers it as a worldly protector, not an enlightened protector.
We have prayers which say to have the abilities to ward off this worldly
protector.


--
Regards,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)

email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://home3.pacific.net.sg/~geleg/index.htm

Lobsang

unread,
Sep 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/2/98
to
Hi Rabten la and Khyenrab la,

I don't know, but I think it's a safe bet that Dagchen Rinpoche blames Namdrol
for bringing the Sakya lineage into the arbt/Shugden debate in the first place
and has commanded him to shut up.

Best regards.

Lobsang

Rabten wrote:

> Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <6sjfcg$8hd$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
> >
> >
> >Hello Namdrol,
>
> Also while you're at it Namdrol, perhaps you could shed some light on the
> following references to Shugden worship (as a Buddha) within the Sakya
> tradition.
>
> What I've quoted below is a transcript of an oral teaching given by Gonsar
> Rinpoche. Because it is an oral teaching when copied down verbatim it sounds
> a bit rambling please be patient with this.
>
> ********************
>
> Gonsar Rinpoche said:
> ... And this protector [Dorje Shugden], as I said before, in nature is
> Manjushri, as we see in the prayers. But some masters regard him also as the
> emanation of Avalokiteshvara. Here I can give you one account. This is the
> biography, the autobiography of the great Shakyapa-master, who is the
> present Shakya-throneholder, and he is the one before him, and the one
> before him, two Shakya-Trinzins before: he was a very great master, his name
> is Tragshu Cholu Rinchen: He was a really very great master in the
> Shakya-tradition. He lived also quite old. And he, in his autobiography, he
> says something extremely interesting. That is, he is speaking about his
> father and grandfather and so on. The Shakya-lineage goes always to a
> heritor. And there he said that, before his father was born, his
> grandfather, who was a throne-holder, I think, had no son whatsoever, had no
> son, and the son was very very necessary, they tried everything, you know,
> every means, but they had no son. But finally there was a son, and this was
> his father. And he is explaining here that his father is Avalokiteshvara in
> nature. It says here: "And the reason for that is, because he is the
> emanation of Gyalchen. Because he is the emanation of Gyalchen, he is
> Avalokiteshvara." That is what he is trying to prove here. He says here: "My
> Venerable father is the emanation of the one with the lotus in hand. There
> is no question about it." And he says: "The reason for that is, when his
> father asked the Mahasiddha Pedul" this was a very great master "he asked
> him to pray for a quick birth of a son, lineage-holder, an then at one time,
> in the temple of Mugchung", mugchung is the temple of this protector in
> Shakya-monastery, "during a puja in the Mugchung-temple, in between the
> sessions, once this mahasiddha Pedul has told the father, nowadays, in this
> age of degeneration, I have not found anybody else coming", I have found
> nobody else to come, "but now, the old Shugden himself will definitely come
> as your son." He says, in this age of degeneration, I have found not anybody
> else who will come, but the old Shugden, he will come himself as your son.
> And then, his father was very happy hearing this, and then he also started,
> from this time on, the tradition of lighting many many lamps of their
> temple, just like they do in the Tsongkhapa's Ganden Ngachö, they do in the
> same way, the Shakya-tradition to burn so many lamps on the roof, just like
> in the Ganden Ngachö. "And then he lighted many many lamps, and then played
> trumpet and horn, and lots of incense and so forth on the roof, did a lot of
> pujas on the roof: and at the same time, his wife has conceived, and then
> soon, my venerable father was born." So, that means, it was really Gyalchen
> himself who came, and that was his father. And then he says further: "This
> protector Dorje Shugden in essence is Avalokiteshvara, because in the
> Nyingma-Tantra Rinchen Nadun" This is a Nyingma-Tantra, Nyingmapas have many
> Tantras that are not usually included in the Kangyur, and in one such
> Nyingma-Tantra which is called Rinchen Nadun, the seven jewels, it says:
> "the so-called King of Dol is not somebody who has mistaken the path of the
> liberation, because his essence is the great compassionate one." So that
> means, the King of Dol, that is another name for Gyalchen, because as I told
> you, the body of that lama was carried by river, and it was fished by
> somebody there, in the place called Dol, and there the first temple was
> erected. And since then, the protector is also called Dol Gyel, that means
> king of Dol. In this Nyingma-Tantra, there is prophecy that the so-called
> King of Dol is not somebody who has mistaken the path of liberation, because
> his essence is Avalokiteshvara. So he says: "With this quotation it is
> proved that my venerable father is Avaolokiteshvara." So this is the word of
> a very great Shakya-master Tragsho Cholu Rinchen, one of the most
> outstanding masters in our recent time.
>
> ******************
>
> I apologise for the length of the quotation, but it seems very helpful in
> this discussion about whether the Shakya tradition has relied upon Dorje
> Shugden as an enlightened protector in the past.
>
> Namdrol, since you are a scholar of the Shakya-tradition, do you recognise
> the outstanding Shakya master of recent times that Gonsar is referring to?
> are you familiar with his son's autobiography?
>
> This would appear to be a direct quote of a previous Sakya Throneholder
> declaring that the protector Gyalchen Dorje Shugden is the same as
> Avalokiteshvara. Any comments?
>
> Rabten


Rabten

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to

Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)

unread,
Sep 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/3/98
to Kelsang Khyenrab
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> Maybe you didn't read the post fully. There appear to be Sakyas who disagree
> with you.

No, I did monitor what you guys are talking about. It seems that you're
either misinformed or trying to rewrite the Sakya history and view in
regarding the Dolgyal - the one who rides a black horse. I don't deny
that this worldly deity is part of the retinue of Caturmukha - another
aspect of Mahakala. Although Dolgyal is part of the retinue, Dolgyal is
NOT an enlightened deity.

Regarding annual drubchos (grand rituals), I only know that His Holiness
Sakya Trizin holds the Vajrakilaya Drubcho annually, from the eleventh
day of the seventh Tibetan lunar month for 11 consecutive days, the
Hevajra Drubcho, 8 days from the thirteenth day of the ninth Tibetan
lunar month, the Mahavairocana Drubcho, eleventh day of the fourth
Tibetan lunar month for 5 consecutive days, it includes the changchok
rituals for the deceased, Vajrayogini Drubcho, eighth day of first
Tibetan lunar month for three days. Gu-tor is held from twenty-third day
of the lunar month for seven consecutive days and is performed with the
main deity as Vajrakilaya. Dhamtsig-kangso is an unique feature of Sakya
Monastery in Tibet and is held in alternative years at the end of the
Tibetan lunar year and lasts for seven consecutive days. Finally,
Dhus-tor (Mahakala Day) is held every month for five consecutive days
from the twenty-sixth day of the Tibetan lunar month.

No mention of individual ritual specially in honor of the Dolgyal, the
worldly protector, like the Gelugpas used to hold.

Perhaps you have nothing to argue about, based on Namdrol's explanation.
Therefore, you're trying to fool us by rewriting the facts. If not,
perhaps you're being misinformed by those people who are heavily
involved with Tibetan politics.

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
On 2 Sep 1998 12:57:52 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang
Khyenrab) wrote:


>BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas
>said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely
>upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person
>didn’t wish to be quoted publicly.

>Khyenrab

Complete utter crap.


P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:49:38 +0100, "Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net>
wrote:

>shed some light on the
>following references to Shugden worship (as a Buddha) within the Sakya
>tradition.

Rabten,

No such reference exists within the Sakya tradition, AFAIK.

There is about as much of a chance of a Sakyapa viewing
Gyalpo Shugden as a Buddha as there is a Sakyapa accepting
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Kelsang Khyenrab

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
In article <35f23278....@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
pmdierkin...@eternal.net says...

>
>On 2 Sep 1998 12:57:52 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang
>Khyenrab) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas
>>said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely
>>upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person
>>didn’t wish to be quoted publicly.
>>Khyenrab
>
>Complete utter crap.
>
>
Why? Because you don't believe it?


Rabten

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to

P.M. Dierking wrote in message
<35f23546....@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...

>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:49:38 +0100, "Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net>
>wrote:
>
>>shed some light on the
>>following references to Shugden worship (as a Buddha) within the Sakya
>>tradition.
>
>Rabten,
>
>No such reference exists within the Sakya tradition, AFAIK.
>


Gonsar Rinpoche was quoting the autobiography of Tragshu Cholu Rinchen a
recent Sakya Throne-holder. He established that his father was
Avalokiteshvara, because he was Gyalchen Shugden. And he established this as
a valid reason by using the authority of the Nyingma Tantra called Rinchen
Nadun.

This appears to be a reference to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
(Avalokiteshvara) within the Sakya tradition. Are you familiar with this
text?

best wishes,
Rabten

PS. Are Namdrol's views on Lama Tsongkhapa and the validity of the Ganden
Oral Lineage common Shakya views, or just mainly his own views? I had
previously thought there was enormous mutual respect between the two
traditions.

Lobsang

unread,
Sep 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/6/98
to
I guess you missed my post where I shared a conversation I had with H.E.
Dagchen Sakya Rinpoche in the summer of 1987.

I had the pleasure of spending several days with him and his wife in the
summer
of 1987. The conversation in question took place while he and I waited in
the
car while his wife was buying some groceries (unfortunately there were only
the
two of us in the car). I asked him about his youngest sister given by him
for
marriage to Tagtser Rinpoche. She was 16 at the time. He answered that the
two
families (Dalai Lama's family and Khon) sharing the same protector was an
important part of his decision. I asked who is Dorje Shugden, i.e. Mahakala
is
Chenrezig, Yamantaka is Manjushri, etc.? He answered Dorje Shugden is an
emanation of Chenrezig in the form of a protector.

Not so long ago, H.E. Dagchen fell ill. almost comatose and could not get
out
of bed. Doctors did not know what was wrong. After exhausting all medical
remedies, the family requested the Kuten for Dorje Shugden to come and
perform
Tara puja for the Dagchen's health. The very next day after the puja was
performed, H.E. Dagchen was up and back to normal. I'll bet he hasn't
forgotten this.

Best regards,

Lobsang

P.M. Dierking wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:49:38 +0100, "Rabten" <bodhi...@clara.net>
> wrote:
>
> >shed some light on the
> >following references to Shugden worship (as a Buddha) within the Sakya
> >tradition.
>
> Rabten,
>
> No such reference exists within the Sakya tradition, AFAIK.
>

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:14:05 -0500, Lobsang <lobs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I guess you missed my post where I shared a conversation I had with H.E.
>Dagchen Sakya Rinpoche in the summer of 1987.
>
>I had the pleasure of spending several days with him and his wife in the
>summer of 1987.

Dear Lobsang,

As you are already personally acquainted with H.H. Jigdal Dagchen
Sakya and his wife H.E. Dagmo Kusho Sakya, I'm sure they'd be glad
to confirm your assertions for you in writing. Give him a call at his
monastery in Seattle (206) 789-2573.

Hurry Lobsang, call before September 22, because they are going
on pilgrimage to India!

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
On 6 Sep 1998 17:29:16 GMT, in alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan you
wrote:

>>>BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas
>>>said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely
>>>upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person
>>>didn’t wish to be quoted publicly.

>>>Khyenrab
>>
>>Complete utter crap.
>>
>>
>Why? Because you don't believe it?

It doesn't even qualify as hearsay.

At least your friend could identify the "high Sakya Lama".
Why not do that? We can then write/call the "high Sakya Lama"
to confirm this statement.

Better yet, have your friend go public and give a legal affidavit.
If they agree, you've won your point Bhik.su Khyenrab.
If they disagree, a crucible of truth will occur, and one of
them will be a liar.

But which one, good Bhik.su, which one?
Together, let's be partisans for the truth.
I'm not afraid to look.
Are you?


P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 1998 22:10:50 +0100, in alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
you wrote:

>>>following references to Shugden worship (as a Buddha) within the Sakya
>>

>>No such reference exists within the Sakya tradition, AFAIK.
>

>Gonsar Rinpoche was quoting the autobiography of Tragshu Cholu Rinchen a
>recent Sakya Throne-holder.

That sounds like Dragshul Thrinley Rinchen, the current Sakya Trizin's
grandfather. I have not read his hagiography.

>This appears to be a reference to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
>(Avalokiteshvara) within the Sakya tradition.

Huh, well that would do little to support the NKT/Phabongkha assertion
that Gyalpo Shugden was an emantion of Manjusri.

I think it would be rather silly for H.H. Sakya Trizin to cease the
propitiation of Avalokitesvara in Sakya monasteries. Instead, they
ceased the propitiation of Gyalpo Shugden, a mundane dharmapala
assigned to the outer retinue of the lesser Mahakala--Caturmukha.

Again, I've personally never seen nor heard of any Sakya practitioner
or Lama refer to Gyalpo Shugden as anything but a mundane dharmapala.

>PS. Are Namdrol's views on Lama Tsongkhapa and the validity of the Ganden
>Oral Lineage common Shakya views, or just mainly his own views?

I've not even a discernable fraction of Mr. Smith's considerable
knowledge of the Sakya tradition--but as I recall he more often
than not backs up his assertions with ample textual support.

As I recall Mr. Smith may have been refering to Gorampa Sonam Senge's
analysis--which in fact, AFAIK, is the generally accepted view in
Sakya.

Lobsang

unread,
Sep 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/7/98
to
Not my job to get it confirmed. But, since you have his phone number, why
don't you call him yourself. If H.E. Jigdal Dagchen Sakya wishes to
confirm or refute he is free to do so.

Lobsang

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 17:07:38 -0500, Lobsang <lobs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Not my job to get it confirmed.

No, Lobsang, your unwillingness to substantiate any of your specious
claims well confirms that "Lobsang's statements cannot be trusted".

That's all we really need to know.

Lobsang

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
You are like the child who doesn't want to take the bad tasting medicine.
Truth is like medicine. Sometimes it doesn't taste good but it's still medicine.

I named my source. That is enough from my side of this debate.

Andrew Crompton

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
P.M. Dierking wrote:

> >This appears to be a reference to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
> >(Avalokiteshvara) within the Sakya tradition.
>
> Huh, well that would do little to support the NKT/Phabongkha assertion
> that Gyalpo Shugden was an emantion of Manjusri.

Since you do not try to refute the statement that Dorje Shugden is an
emanation of Avalokiteshvara, you presumably accept it. You are right to do
so: Dorje Shugden is indeed an emanation of Avalokiteshvara.

However, your statement that "that would do little to support the
NKT/Phabongkha assertion
that Gyalpo Shugden was an emantion of Manjusri" implies that you see some
contradiction in Dorje Shugden being simultaneously an emanation of
Avalokiteshvara and an emanation of Manjushri. There is, of course, no
contradiction here. To say that DS is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara simply
means that he has a Buddha's compassion. To say that DS is an emanation of
Manjushri simply means that he has a Buddha's wisdom. If you accept one of
these views of DS, you must necessarily accept the other. Since you have
accepted that DS is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, that means you also
accept that he is an emanation of Manjushri. Excellent! - it's taken you some
time to get there, but better late than never!

Usual best wishes,

Andrew Crompton


Ts...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
In article <35f23278....@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,

pmdierkin...@eternal.net (P.M. Dierking) wrote:
> On 2 Sep 1998 12:57:52 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang
> Khyenrab) wrote:
>
> >BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas
> >said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely
> >upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person
> >didn’t wish to be quoted publicly.
> >Khyenrab
>
> Complete utter crap.

I just recieved teachings this weekend on the different protectors. Sakya
relys on Mahakala as an enlightened protector..

>
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

ole

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to

Ts...@my-dejanews.com schrieb in Nachricht <

>I just recieved teachings this weekend
>on the different protectors. Sakya
>relys on Mahakala as an enlightened protector..


Aha -

and maybe you can give us also some other secret details - what do you
do when you have sex? what exactly are you doing in the bathroom every
morning?

Why do you think that it is written that one should keep secrecy about
these things?

Jeff Watt

unread,
Sep 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/8/98
to
In article <35f4a4a9....@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, pmdierkin...@eternal.net (P.M. Dierking) wrote:

Dear Patrick D.,

here are a few thoughts based on the postings of the last few weeks.

It has been correctly pointed out many times that Sakya, specifically the Khon
family, played a role in the early development of the Shugden cult. The
worldly spirit (in Tibetan 'gyalpo' meaning king, a type of ghost) having one
face and two hands mounted on a black horse was grouped with the senior
worldly protectors of the town of Sakya namely Tsi'u Marpo and Dorje Setrap
(these two are Nyingma in origin and not exclusive to Sakya). This trio is
called the 'Gyalpo Sum' - the Three King Spirits. In the town of Sakya there
is a small temple called the Mug chung Gong khang where the offering service
of Shugden was carried out by a monk appointee. This small structure was just
north of the Zhi tog Pho drang (Sakya Government Building).

Sakya Trizin Sachen Ngawang Kunga Lodro (1729-1790?) composed an new offering
service for Shugden based on the 'torma throwing' ritual of the 'Three Kings.'
Later, Sakya Trizin Trakshu Thinley Rinchen (1871-1936) in his personal
diaries written on scraps of paper starting from the age of 8 years records
all his thoughts, dreams and miscellaneous experiences. After his passing
these were collected and added to his biography. In these diaries, amongst
many other topics, he muses over the nature of Shugden and the relationship
between Shugden, his father (S.T. Kunga Nyingpo) and his grand-father (S.T.
Tashi Rinchen) of whom Trakshu Thinley Rinchen was the incarnation. These are
regarded as an interesting curiosity within the Drolma Podrang of the Khon
family as well as being their personal family business.

It has of course been pointed out by others as well as myself that H.H. Sakya
Trizin (of the Drolma Podrang) does not himself practice Shugden - this based
on the instructions of his root guru, nor does his sister follow the worldly
protector practice. I personally have also spent a great deal of time with the
two Gongma Lamas of the Phuntsok Podrang and although Mahakala, Magzorma (the
Podrang's family protector), Tsi'u Mara and even the Sakya Barmo witches were
discussed many times, I cannot recall one conversation about Shugden. All of
this however was prior to 1984 before the Dalai Lama began to speak out about
the worldly protector. At the Sakya Monastery in Seattle, Wash., Dagchen
Rinpoche has not included any worldy protectors in the regular Mahakala &
Protector Pujas, subsequently the 'Three Kings' are absent.

The personal anecdote offered to ARBT relating to Sakya Dagchen Rinpoche and
Shugden was very nice and is definitely worth following up, but it is just an
anecdote. An anecdote is like one half of a wheel. It just doesn't get you
very far.

As for the notion of a 'secret line' of Shugden practice/practitioners within
Sakya, this is absurd. Tibetan culture, Buddhist and otherwise, has many
secrets and many that should have been kept secret but this half-baked idea
enters the realm of fantasy and science fiction.

Now to the matter of Gorampa. To this day, the refutations against
Tsongkhapa's madhyamika view by Gorampa Sonam Senge have not even been replied
to by the great Gelugpa scholars of the past few hundred years. Instead, the
defenders of Tsongkhapa have attacked the intellectual juniors of Gorampa such
as Taktsang Lotsawa, Shakya Chogden and others (see Jeffrey Hopkins,
Meditation on Emptiness). Also, Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo (the founder of Ngor), a
contemporary, critisized Tsongkhapa's understanding of Tantra. Please
understand that these are not ramblings or sectarian explitives but are
commonly known to all who have studied Madhyamika within the greater family of
the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition. For the Sakya School Sakya Pandita is the
definitive scholar and teacher. Gorampa Sonam Senge is the definitive scholar
in explaining the difficult meanings of Sakya Pandita's works. Many Gelugpa
monasteries banned outright Gorampa's works from entering their premises. The
works of some other Sakya lamas which critisized Tsongkhapa or seemed at odds
with those views were banned from publication entirely within Tibet and were
only preserved secretly and re-published openly from Bhutan after 1959.

Just to clarify an item that has been mentioned more than once. Mahakala is
not the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. There is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara
which arose in the form of Mahakala and this is the Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala
with one face and six arms, in a standing posture. This form was later adopted
by Tsongkhapa and followers as the main protector of the Gelugpa School.
Mahakalas can arise from various sources namely Vajradhara and the
Anuttarayoga Tantras but are not generically Avalokiteshvara.


--- J.Watt

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 13:46:01 +0100, Andrew Crompton
<Andrew....@Nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:

>> >This appears to be a reference to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
>> >(Avalokiteshvara) within the Sakya tradition.
>>
>> Huh, well that would do little to support the NKT/Phabongkha assertion
>> that Gyalpo Shugden was an emantion of Manjusri.
>
>Since you do not try to refute the statement that Dorje Shugden is an
>emanation of Avalokiteshvara, you presumably accept it. You are right to do
>so: Dorje Shugden is indeed an emanation of Avalokiteshvara.

Ignoratio elenchi!

A "Dorje" or "enlightened" Shugden ( eigth bhuumi or above) has never
been established.


P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 07:38:52 -0500, Lobsang <lobs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I named my source. That is enough from my side of this debate.

You may have named yours, but what are the rest of us to do?
"Lobsang from Usenet" isn't a reliable or valid source.

If your statement is true, you should give a legal affidavit, with
your real name. Then we have a source. Don't you think that
would help your cause?

If you speak the truth, why do you need to hide?

P.M. Dierking

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <
>I asked a few people to lend their knowledge to this debate. Although I’m
>not quoting my sources I can tell you they’ve been in Tibetan Buddhism
>for up to 20 years, know many Lamas, lived in India, speak Tibetan etc. In
>other words, I take them as authoritative.
>
>One of them told me the following:
>

Hi Steve,

Funny you should mention it, but likewise I've asked a few people .... I can
tell you that they've been in the nKt for some years ... In other words, I
take them as authoritative.

They were invited to the 'Poke the Dalai Lama in the eye' meeting at
Manjushri nKt Centre during the nKt summer festival. They were told that
kelsang Paisley gyatso was very worried about the light Namdrol was casting
upon gyatso's penny novel 'Heart Jewel'. Apparently Namdrol was
demonstrating that gyatso's scholarship was non-existent and a campaign was
to be launched to try to shut Namdrol up.

Those at the meeting, you'll remember, were asked to post various lies about
the Sakya situation - the material would be provided by the nKt.

The people that I spoke with don't wish to be quoted publicly. Why not? In
the current climate in the nKt does that question really need an answer?
Anyway, they have not posted the material sent to them as they do not agree
with the hate campaign against the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately they have been
attending an nKt centre for some years and been on one of the training progs
for yonks, and there is not another buddhist group in the area. (Poor sods,
if you ask me.)

Anyway, I'm sure that you, kelsang rabid and all will continue the campaign
until confronted by evidence that even you back down from (as has happened
on this ng so many times now) - then you'll begin posting all the old drivel
again.

Yours in the Dh (ark)

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to

Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <
>Why do people not want
>to be quoted publicly? Why are we having this debate?


Uh? 'debate'? Are you referring to the endless drivel and lies that you get
silly people like Alan and co to post to this ng? Of course, why am I
suprised that the nKt consider this a debate? Having been involved in the
nKt from 1992-96, lived at two nKt centres, been your driver, been on TTP,
and been a nKt teacher, this is exactly the level of 'debate' that occurs
within the nKt itself.

Keep taking the tablets, Steve.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Sep 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/9/98
to

Lobsang wrote in message <35F5255C...@hotmail.com>...

>I named my source. That is enough from my side of this debate.

Ah, the tantrum-throwing Lobsang that we have come to love so well!

Rabten

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to

Jeff Watt wrote in message <55rJ1.4458$w4.15...@newsgate.direct.ca>...

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for your informed comments.

>Later, Sakya Trizin Trakshu Thinley Rinchen (1871-1936) in his personal
>diaries written on scraps of paper starting from the age of 8 years records
>all his thoughts, dreams and miscellaneous experiences. After his passing
>these were collected and added to his biography. In these diaries, amongst
>many other topics, he muses over the nature of Shugden and the relationship
>between Shugden, his father (S.T. Kunga Nyingpo) and his grand-father (S.T.
>Tashi Rinchen) of whom Trakshu Thinley Rinchen was the incarnation. These
are
>regarded as an interesting curiosity within the Drolma Podrang of the Khon
>family as well as being their personal family business.


Perhaps you could elucidate on S.T. Trakshu Thinley Rinchen's musings. Do
you feel a previous Sakya Trizen's musings have a relevance to the Sakya
tradition?

>
>Now to the matter of Gorampa. To this day, the refutations against
>Tsongkhapa's madhyamika view by Gorampa Sonam Senge have not even been
replied
>to by the great Gelugpa scholars of the past few hundred years.

Presumably (I apologise for my ignorance), Gorampa Sonam Senge had some
objection to Je Tsongkhapa's commentary to Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.
Perhaps you could point out which verses are the bone of contention and why.
So far all I've seen on this newsgroup explaining the difference was a
terrible misquote of Lama Tsongkhapa posted by Namdrol.


>--- J.Watt

Whatever the Sakya tradition's current position on the worship on Dorje
Shugden and on Tsongkhapa's madhyamika philosophy, it must still maintain
the mahayana doctrine of compassion.

Are you not appalled by the suffering the Tibetan woshippers of Gyalchen
Shugden are being subjected to just for not giving up their belief?

It seems to me that whatever view of this protector one holds, the more
important issue is that people are being harassed simply because they refuse
to break their bonds with their gurus. Do you agree?

best wishes,
rabten

Edita

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to

Rabten wrote:

Whatever the Sakya tradition's current position on the worship on Dorje

> Shugden and on Tsongkhapa's madhyamika philosophy, it must still maintain
> the mahayana doctrine of compassion.
>
> Are you not appalled by the suffering the Tibetan woshippers of Gyalchen
> Shugden are being subjected to just for not giving up their belief?
>
> It seems to me that whatever view of this protector one holds, the more
> important issue is that people are being harassed simply because they refuse
> to break their bonds with their gurus. Do you agree?

Rabten,

not many people really care about this suffering, because it is not politically
correct. Most Westerners prefer to shut their eyes and concentrate on their
Dharma practice, such as developing bodhicitta. Who cares how many people are
kicked out of their jobs or have their houses burned?

Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the Christian God, have
apparently substituted HH the Dalai Lama for this position of infallibility. In
their minds, His Holiness is omniscient and is always right, whatever he does or
says. Western Buddhists still want to believe in something, and God just
doesn't fill the bill anymore, so HH takes the vacant place. The idea that he
is human and therefore not immune to mistakes and bad judgement is anathema.
The Buddha's precious advice to strenuously examine even his own words just
isn't relevant in this environment. This allows many Western Buddhists to forgo
the principles of democracy (i.e., separation of church and state, freedom of
conscience etc.) when His Holiness is concerned. You see, he just cannot make a
mistake so no democracy is required.

It follows the people who say they had their civil rights violated either don't
exist or are liars or have deserved it (the latter idea was expressed by a few
people who have given advice on many Buddhist topics on this very newsgroup.)


Mike Austin

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <35F89947...@indiana.edu>, Edita <ashparbeNO-
SP...@indiana.edu> writes

>Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the Christian God,
>have
>apparently substituted HH the Dalai Lama for this position of infallibility.
>In
>their minds, His Holiness is omniscient and is always right, whatever he does
>or
>says. Western Buddhists still want to believe in something, and God just
>doesn't fill the bill anymore, so HH takes the vacant place. The idea that he
>is human and therefore not immune to mistakes and bad judgement is anathema.
>The Buddha's precious advice to strenuously examine even his own words just
>isn't relevant in this environment. This allows many Western Buddhists to
>forgo
>the principles of democracy (i.e., separation of church and state, freedom of
>conscience etc.) when His Holiness is concerned. You see, he just cannot make
>a
>mistake so no democracy is required.

When someone has already proved reliable on many occasions in the past
then I think it is quite reasonable to take seriously anything he says.
This does not indicate blind acceptance or a view that he is infallible
- just a willingness to suspend immediate judgment until one has chance
to get the full picture oneself.

I think this is true for anyone, whether you consider them a teacher or
not. You surely have similar experiences. Your teacher says things that
are difficult to follow - or even appear to be wrong - but after you've
spent some time investigating, the doubt about what was said gradually
turns into a realisation that the teacher was right and you were wrong.
We should never forget this process - and I think you are right in that
we must not automatically assume he is right. But, it would be equally
hasty to assume he is wrong without enough investigation.

So, what we have to deal with is our confidence and our patience. If we
start with little confidence, we will assume the worst and will not put
much effort into investigation. If we are impatient, we will not spend
enough time checking, and anything that appears wrong in the short term
will be taken as an indication of the long term result. So, as you say,
strenuous examination is necessary. In the meantime, we just don't know
one way or the other, so it's best not to speak in a critical manner.

Regarding in particular the situation of His Holiness' advice about the
Shugden practice, I had my doubts about how this could be sectarian and
harmful to His Holiness. I suspended my doubts, observed, reflected and
now I have confidence he was right - but I never assumed this at first.

On the BBC2 programme last night, His Holiness said the following about
the controversy that's arisen around this:

"I think there's more interest and more investigation. That's good.
If, you see, these things remain, how to say, hidden, it is more,
more dangerous. Now it become public. It become open. I think very
good."

Personally, I have felt the correct way is no engagement. After initial
discussions on these newsgroups, I am of the opinion that this is being
escalated into a problem that can hurt everyone. Everyone can catch the
same cold without one person being cured. So, for me, this is something
I've got to sit with. I am not automatically agreeing. I'll confess one
thing though. Based on what he said, I began transcribing the programme
with a view to posting it on the newsgroup. But I began to feel uneasy.
I stopped because it doesn't feel right for me at the moment. Apart from
that, I'll bet someone else has done it by the time I post this!
--
Mike Austin

James Burns

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <v4xOdCAJ...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk>, Mike Austin
<mi...@lamrimbristol.demon.co.uk> writes

>
>Regarding in particular the situation of His Holiness' advice about the
>Shugden practice, I had my doubts about how this could be sectarian and
>harmful to His Holiness. I suspended my doubts, observed, reflected and
>now I have confidence he was right - but I never assumed this at first.
>
>On the BBC2 programme last night, His Holiness said the following about
>the controversy that's arisen around this:
>
> "I think there's more interest and more investigation. That's good.
> If, you see, these things remain, how to say, hidden, it is more,
> more dangerous. Now it become public. It become open. I think very
> good."
>

Thank you Mike for a very balanced post. I respect your spiritual
sentiments.

The quote that you give above sounds very good, open and balanced. It
implies a willingness to talk and enter into discussion. Compare these
words with what actually happened when the Dorje Shugden Society tried
to attend the United Cholsum Meeting. Compare also with the many efforts
made by various individuals and organisations to have a dialogue with
His Holiness in the past.

=======================================
May You Be Filled With Loving Kindness,
May You Be Well,
May You Be Peaceful And At Ease,
And May You Have Happiness
=======================================

James Burns

no_s_pam@no_s_pam..com

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:30:15 -0500, Edita
<ashparb...@indiana.edu> wrote:

> Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the Christian God, have
> apparently substituted HH the Dalai Lama for this position of infallibility. In
> their minds, His Holiness is omniscient and is always right, whatever he does or
> says. Western Buddhists still want to believe in something, and God just
> doesn't fill the bill anymore, so HH takes the vacant place. The idea that he
> is human and therefore not immune to mistakes and bad judgement is anathema.
> The Buddha's precious advice to strenuously examine even his own words just
> isn't relevant in this environment.

Edita, couldn't someone just as easily write:

" Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the

Christian God, have apparently substituted Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for
this position of infallibility. In their minds, GKG is omniscient


and is always right, whatever he does or says. Western Buddhists
still want to believe in something, and God just doesn't fill the

bill anymore, so for some of them GKG takes the vacant place. The


idea that he is human and therefore not immune to mistakes and bad
judgement is anathema. The Buddha's precious advice to strenuously
examine even his own words just isn't relevant in this environment. "

Regards

lodro...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
RE: the Sakya attitude to Shugden - it seems they have always considered this
entity to be (at best) a worldly spirit.

For example, in the biograhy of rNgor-chen Kun-dga' Lhun-grub (b. 1654) on
folio 288v. in the fifth volume of the sDe-dge edition of the Lam-'bras slob-
bshad, Shugs-ldan is clearly referred to as an angry spirit:

<<
sde pa zur khang nas kyang rab ston 'bul ba rgya nag gi dgang blugs sogs dpag
med stsal/ rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal la phrin bcol dang dmod nas phul bas dgyes
bzhin srung mar zhal gyis mdzad.
>>

Lodro

Alan Bird

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:01:45 GMT, no_s_pam@no_s_pam..com wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:30:15 -0500, Edita
><ashparb...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>> Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the Christian God, have
>> apparently substituted HH the Dalai Lama for this position of infallibility. In
>> their minds, His Holiness is omniscient and is always right, whatever he does or
>> says. Western Buddhists still want to believe in something, and God just
>> doesn't fill the bill anymore, so HH takes the vacant place. The idea that he
>> is human and therefore not immune to mistakes and bad judgement is anathema.
>> The Buddha's precious advice to strenuously examine even his own words just
>> isn't relevant in this environment.
>
>Edita, couldn't someone just as easily write:
>
>" Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the
>Christian God, have apparently substituted Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for
>this position of infallibility.

Noname


You appear not to know that Edita is not a disciple of Geshe
Kelsang Gyatso.

Take care

Alan
"Yet, while many Tibetans would never
publicly challenge the Dalai Lama,
the worship of Dorje Shugdan remains
widespread, and there is nothing to
suggest that the controversy will
quickly subside"
Donald Lopez.

Avyorth Rolinson

unread,
Sep 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/23/98
to
Alan Bird wrote in message <

>>Edita, couldn't someone just as easily write:
>>
>>" Many Western Buddhists, who have abandoned the belief in the
>>Christian God, have apparently substituted Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for
>>this position of infallibility.
>
> You appear not to know that Edita is not a disciple of Geshe
>Kelsang Gyatso.


What on earth difference does it make whether Edita is or is not a drone of
kelsang gyatso, Alan? Many western buddhists have indeed substituted kelsang
gyatso for God in a position of infallibility. True! Full stop!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages