RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA
by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
A response to the posting by Tseten Samdup: 'Shugden versus pluralism and
national unity controversy and clarification',
which came from the Department of Information and International Relations,
Central Tibetan Administration, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala 176 215, INDIA
===========
Concerning whether or not Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, there can
be no final
conclusion through negative debate, mixing religion with political aims.
This is because from
the point of view of many people he is a worldly being, but at the same time
from the point of
view of many other people he is the Wisdom Buddha. This reasoning applies
not only to
Dorje Shugden, but to all holy beings.
If someone asked you how to prove that the fifth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas
are Buddhas,
you would most certainly find it difficult to give clear reasons. On the
other hand, if someone
asked you how to prove that these two lamas are not Buddhas, you could
easily give a clear
answer. You could say: they are not Buddhas because they need translators,
they get sick,
they are unable to come to their own decisions but have to rely on those of
oracles, and
sometimes they even get angry. How can a Buddha get angry, get sick, and so
forth?
Buddhas do not need oracles? So talking about this subject is completely
meaningless, and
only destroys peace and harmony in Buddhist circles.
Therefore, I do not wish to respond to all the allegations mentioned in the
letter distributed by
Tseten Samdup from the Central Tibetan Administration, although there are
many that are
untrue. However, I would like to clarify two points:
1. I understand that in this letter you are saying that Dorje Shugden is
harming the Tibetan
national cause. In many previous letters, and in the Dalai Lama's public
talks it says that
Dorje Shugden harms Tibetan independence, and the Dalai Lama's health. This
is
completely untrue. If this were true, then the Dalai Lama is contradicting
himself. In many
previous newspapers, and on TV interviews given recently in the USA he said
that he has no
intention of working for Tibetan independence but for autonomy under Chinese
rule. This is a
contradiction; how can he say that it is Dorje Shugden who is endangering
the cause for a
free Tibet? The Dalai Lama is not working to free Tibet; his wish is for the
Tibetans to live
under Chinese rule.
2.You say in your letter: 'Trijang Rinpoche told His Holiness that Palden
Lhamo would never
deceive anybody, therefore it would be better to cease propitiation of
Shugden'. Of course
HH Trijang Rinpoche gave permission to the Dalai Lama to stop engaging in
his personal
Dorje Shugden practice. HH Trijang Rinpoche never tried to control his
disciples, but always
gave them freedom of choice. I clearly understood that HH Trijang Rinpoche
never gave
permission to ban the worship of Dorje Shugden within Tibetan society. A few
months before
his death I met HH Trijang Rinpoche in South India. He told me everything
about the
situation between Dorje Shugden and the Dalai Lama. He was very disappointed
with the
Dalai Lama, that he was not allowing other people to practice Dorje Shugden.
In conclusion, until now there have been no problems between the majority of
Buddhists of
the four schools such as Gelugpa, Nyingmapa and so on. We live naturally in
harmony,
respecting each other's tradition and we would like this state of affairs to
continue. Therefore
I would like to request to the Dalai Lama, the Central Tibetan
Administration in Dharamsala
and the Tibetan people: could you please stop completely this meaningless
talking and give
everyone religious freedom to worship whoever they choose.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
13th November 1997
Avyorth Rolinson
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote in message <64hir3$hmp$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
Hello Geshe Kelsang,
Hope this posting finds you well.
I read your posting concerning the dharma protector Dorje Shugden - as well
as having followed the wranglings between the Shugden Supporters Group (ala
Nick Gillespie) and the supporters of the Dalai Lama over the last year or
so.
I find it quite fascinating especially in the light of the teachings and
training I received as one of your students between January 1993 and
September 1995.
From your teachings I learned that Dorje (ie Vajra = Mind of Great Bliss
realising Emptiness) Shugden (ie most powerful) was none other than
Manjushri, the Wisdom Buddha. Wow, what greater protector of our mind of
Dharma could we hope for? Only that degree of Wisdom would protect us from
samsaric delusions. So I felt most priviledged to receive the blessing
empowerment of Dorje Shugden from you at Madhyamaka Centre, from which your
e-mail seems to have been sent. I also received the Highest Yoga Tantra
empowerments of Heruka and Vajrayogini, the Body Mandala of Heruka, and many
others from you.
As one of your students, I taught Dharma in Greater Manchester for a time -
the publicity that the NKT put out for this descrlbed me as a "close
disciple" of yourself - most flattering of them really.
I also taught on ocasion in Macclesfield, Stockport, Birmingham, Burton upon
Trent, and so on - quite an eventful time.
I was also a student on the Teachers Training Programme (TTP) from Sept 1993
to Sept 1995. I lived in both Tara Centre and Manjushri Centre for over 2
years.
So, it's probably fair to say that I have some knowledge of the New Kadampa
Tradition.
I was therefore interested in your plea to the Dalai Lama for religious
freedom.
In September 1995 on returning from my mother's funeral to my home at
Manjushri Centre, I was given notice to leave the centre by Roy Tyson-the
director (also signed by Peter Davis- Educational Programme Co-ordinator,
and Samten Kelsang -principle teacher after yourself). Apparently my
questioning of the principal doctrines and dogmas of the NKT was felt to be
disruptive to the community. For instance I'd tried to engage people in the
issue of the Shentong-Rangtong debate, as I felt that the Prasangika
vajrayana (as opposed to the Prasangika sutra) teachings were much closer to
Shentong rather than Rangtong view.
We were told by Samten Kelsang during one of the TTP classes that you were
very concerned that TTP students were reading the books, following the
teachings, etc of other buddhist teachers (yes, even other Gelugpa teachers)
and that this would have a very negative effect upon the NKT and yourself -
perhaps even damaging your health. Samten told us that we should cease from
any contact with the teachings and practices of other teachers, and learn to
rely only upon yourself. Given that a number of students had received
teachings and empowerments from other lamas (eg Lama Yeshe who'd actually
founded Manjushri Centre), the instruction from Samten was a very heavy
weight - and many students said in private that they could not abandon their
other teachers and the commitments that they'd received from them. All in
all it was not a well-received instruction.
It also became known that the practice that a number of people had of
keeping a picture of the Dalai Lama on their shrines was inauspicious. And
several ordained people told me that this had been pointed out to them.
So, Geshe Kelsang, whilst I rejoice in your plea for religious freedom (and
may it be granted to all beings), I am concerned. Concerned that whilst you
ask for religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners, that you do not
offer the same freedom to those who live within your domain. Is it right
that someone in your position asks from another that which they themselves
will not give to others. To say, as I've heard NKT people say, that those
who want to worship other than in the NKT manner, should leave the NKT
centres, is surely little different from the intolerance you accuse the
Dalai Lama of?
May you continue to benefit all beings,
Avyorth in the Dh (ark)
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
In article <64j1g7$m...@argon.btinternet.com>, Avy...@btinternet.com says...
Response to Avyorth Rolinson by Geshe Kelsang
Dear Avyorth,
Thank you for your letter and information. I agree very much with what you
say but there are some misunderstandings. The NKT people have complete
choice to read whatever books they choose, to follow other Teachers and to
practise in whatever way they want. There are no rules limiting people's
freedom. However, I have understood according to experience that many
Westerners find themselves in conflicting situations because of following
many Teachers who give them opposite advice. Therefore they find serious
obstacles in their spritual path. But still individuals have choice to
practise in the way they choose.
About the photos of the Dalai Lama, in NKT Dharma Centres we do not put his
photos on the shrines or public areas indicating that he is not our Guru,
but there is no other negative attitude in this action. Individually people
have freedom to do as their wish.
Thank you and best wishes,
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
vajralama buddhist center
Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?
Over eighteen years ago the Tibetan teachers such as Lama Thubten Yeshe,
Geshe Rabten, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and many other
disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche taught Buddhism extensively to western
students. Thousands of western practitioners came to rely upon their
teachings. Since all these Gelugpa lamas were disciples of HH Trijang
Rinpoche they relied upon Dorje Shugden, in the same way their western
students also relied sincerely upon Dorje Shugden. As western students
we came to realize that their Dharma teachings and the blessings of
Dorje Shugden are immensely valuable and help us in our daily life. The
holy Dharma we received from these kind teachers was the most meaningful
gift we could have received and transformed our lives.
Some ten years ago we heard that the present Dalai Lama was not allowing
Tibetan people to engage in the practice of Dorje Shugden, saying that
anyone who engages in this practice cannot be a friend of his. We also
heard that a precious statue of Dorje Shugden which had been offered to
the monks at Ganden Monastery by HH Trijang Rinpoche, and was in the
main temple, had been removed at the orders of the Dalai Lama. We saw
copies of his public talks where he indicated that the practice of Dorje
Shugden was no longer acceptable. This disturbed our inner peace and joy
in the practice of Dharma, causing us many difficulties in our spiritual
life. This has continued now for over ten years.
Then in 1996 the Dalai Lama began to increase the persecution of Dorje
Shugden practitioners, publicly saying that Dorje Shugden is an evil
spirit who is harming both the cause for a free Tibet and the Dalai
Lama’s life. Due to this, in order to fulfil his wishes his followers
began removing Dorje Shugden statues from temples, destroying images and
statues of Dorje Shugden, and intimidating people physically and by
using signature campaigns to force them to stop their practice. In this
way much disharmony and divisiveness was created in the Tibetan
community and now in the larger Buddhist world.
We understand clearly that the source of this problem is the fifth,
thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Firstly, the fifth Dalai Lama
indicated that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit and this falsehood
spread throughout Tibet. People believed him because he was both their
king and spiritual leader. The thirteenth Dalai Lama, following the view
of the fifth Dalai Lama, also did not allow the practice of Dorje
Shugden. In particular he caused many difficulties for Je Phabongkhapa
by using his political power to prevent him from engaging in the
teaching and practice of Dorje Shugden. The fourteenth Dalai Lama has
carried on this persecution even more virulently than his predecessors,
showing little or no regard for religious freedom and no compassion for
the Tibetan and western practitioners suffering as a result of his
actions.
I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and
we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
be debated are:
1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.
2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit
or not.
3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.
If we can clarify the first issue then the others will naturally follow.
In Newsweek magazine (April 97), Robert Thurman publicly criticized and
humiliated both practitioners of Dorje Shugden and members of the New
Kadampa Tradition. We understand that he is acting like the Dalai Lama’s
representative and trying to destroy both Dorje Shugden practice and the
credibility of the NKT. Therefore we recognize him to be the actual
representative of the Dalai Lama. Also the Central Tibetan
Administration in Dharamsala and Fred Little seem to be acting as the
Dalai Lama’s representatives.
There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?
2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?
3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
Buddha, a pure being?
If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
of mixing Dharma with politics.
Kelsang Jangsem,
Resident Teacher,
Vajralama Buddhist Center
Avyorth Rolinson
vajralama buddhist center wrote in message <346F75...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?
>If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
>they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
>need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
>of mixing Dharma with politics.
Greetings Jagsem, you old NKT dog! Still in Seattle I see, and still up to
your old tricks with Mr Nick Gillespie of the NKT's Shugden Support Group.
You boys always did stick together at Madhyamaka NKT Centre (Pocklington,
for non UK readers).
So not giving clear answers to those questions nullifies the belief in the
DL being a pure being, hmm!
Ok, whilst in the NKT I, and your good self, frequently heard and no doubt
repeated that Geshe Kelsang was the Third Buddha of this Age. Gen Thubten
Gyatso (your old and much loved teacher, and GK's Heart Disciple) was
particularly fond of this saying, I'm sure you remember.
So, is Geshe Kelsang the Third Buddha, or any Buddha for that matter?
Please answer with VALID reasons. Your failure to do so will indicate that
he is not a Buddha, not a pure being! Wow, get your debating hat out, J!
Nice speaking to you again,
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
Kent Sandvik
vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
> regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
>
> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
>
> If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
> need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
> of mixing Dharma with politics.
Lati Rinpoche gave us a wonderful guru devotion teaching this weekend,
and I do think Rinpoche answered the questions above: If you regard your
root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
irrelevant.
Maitri, Kent
PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
that don't get involved in this political game, rather spent time with
dharma practices.
Jeffrey D. Nelson
Dear Friend in Dharma,
I feel that this particular schism over the Dorje Shugden scandal
will ultimately have to be brought into the arena of public discussion and
debate between the two apparent heads of the two feuding constituancies,
these being the Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The question over who
is or is not a "Buddha" is entirely secondary to the propigation of the
eternal Dharma. There are many advanced Bodhisattvas here, no Buddhas. This
is relative reality, remember? As such, we are all subject to the
misinterpretations of samsara.
If this topic proves out to be a temporal theocratic issue, then lets
bring it into the light of day, see it for what it is, and then get on to
more important things. I like the concept of Rime. Lets get over the
sectarian crap!
Ole
Kent Sandvik <san...@best.com> wrote
> Lati Rinpoche gave us a wonderful guru devotion teaching this weekend,
...
> PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
> that don't get involved in this political game, rather spent time with
> dharma practices.
We all would like to have it nice and easy... but it's a fact that HH the
Dalai Lama is continuosly trying to ban the protector practice of the
Ganden Oral Transmission Lineage and that this is the only cause for all
this trouble. If he would stop this ban and his public statements (see the
homepage of the London Tibet office), the problem would immediately be
resolved.
He did say and is still saying the following thing:
"If any among you here are determined to continue propitiating Dolgyal
<...> it will have the effect of reducing the
life span of Gyalwa Rinpoche (The Dalai Lama), which is not good. However,
if there are any among you who hope that Gyalwa Rinpoche will soon die,
then you can stay."
This is a heavy accusation which has to be investigated in debate according
to the tradtion - as debate is practiced in all of the Gelug monasteries.
The problem is, that HH the Dalai Lama is refusing to debate this issue.
For instance last year there was a meeting of Gelug masters in Germany
where a letter was composed to ask HH the Dalai Lama to talk about this
issue. The letter was written in a very traditional, humble and polite
form. It was composed by 19 Rinpoches and Geshes of the Gelug tradition.
The request was refused and in the reply letter it was stated that these
masters would better study the scriptures of Lama Je Tsongkhapa... This was
told to Geshes with Lharampa degree and Rinpoches who had been educated by
Masters like Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche since the age of 5.
Now either the Dalai Lama has officially to stop this ban or he has to
acceppt a public debate. It is inacceptable to give such official
statements as the one mentioned above and not accepting a debate about it.
---
In one thing, Kent, you are right: "...we should follow the excellent
examples of our Gelug gurus"- During this year I had the opportunity to be
there several times when Lati Rinpoche was doing the prayers of Dorje
Shugden. He is not making a lot of fuzz about it, but he is rock solid in
his practice and he would not give up a practice that was given to him by
his own Master.
Avyorth Rolinson
Kent Sandvik wrote in message <347140...@best.com>...
>: If you regard your
>root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
>them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
>regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
>irrelevant.
IMO, Kent, this issue has little to do with one's "root guru", an entity not
to be found sitting up on a very large cushion, wearing tibetan robes. The
root guru is 'your' own innate seed of wisdom and compassion that might just
move you that little bit further towards integrity - system theorists call
them strange or chaotic attractors. Worshipping anything else is idolatry.
Jangsem's questions were directed to that human (and IMO cool dude) the
Dalai Lama.
>Maitri, Kent
>PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
>that don't get involved in this political game
This bit had me falling off my cushion with laughter - thanks Kent!
Avyorth Rolinson
vajralama buddhist center wrote in message <3470D9...@ix.netcom.com>...
Greetings Jangsem,
- I can see that you
>spend a great deal of time wandering in cyber space - one of the weirder
>realities of our time.
Come off it my old vajra-brother! What of the weird phenomenon of seeing
Western people dressed up in Tibetan gear offering marzipan to statues of
indo-tibetan deities? And that's just for starters - the marzipan, I mean!
>I would prefer to wait and see what
>they come up with before I engage in a debate about whether Venerable
>Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha or not.
Yeh, definitely safer. If they do come up with some good points, you can
then use them to support your belief that Geshe Kelsang is also a
Buddha/pure being/or whatever. If they don't, then you're reticence covers
your posterior. Good thinking.
>Perhaps you could attempt to answer my questions since you seem so fond
>of this medium.
hey! have you something against this "medium" - again understandable, the
NKT doesn't exactly like people talking back to them. Pity that, because
they're going to have to get used to it.
Yours in the Dh (ark),
Avyorth
>Kelsang Jangsem
Kent Sandvik
Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
> Kent Sandvik wrote in message <347140...@best.com>...
> >: If you regard your
> >root gurus as Buddhas you get the blessings of Buddhas, if you regard
> >them as Bodhisattvas you get the blessings of Bodhisattvas, and if you
> >regard them as humans you get the blessings of a human. Anything else is
> >irrelevant.
> IMO, Kent, this issue has little to do with one's "root guru", an entity not
> to be found sitting up on a very large cushion, wearing tibetan robes. The
> root guru is 'your' own innate seed of wisdom and compassion that might just
> move you that little bit further towards integrity - system theorists call
> them strange or chaotic attractors. Worshipping anything else is idolatry.
> Jangsem's questions were directed to that human (and IMO cool dude) the
> Dalai Lama.
Guru devotion is not idolatry at all, this is a big misunderstanding and
most likely a misinterpretation.
As Nagarjuna stated:
If a person fell from the peak of the king of mountains,
he would still fall, even though he thought, "I shall not fall."
If you receive beneficial teachings through the kindness of the guru,
you will still be liberated, though you think "I shall not be.".
Atisha had many hundred gurus, and maybe most of us agree that Atisha
was a very special buddhist practitioner.
For me, I do think guru devotion is very suitable for westeners, as we
have the mentality that we could do anything, learn anything, without
the help of others, leading to a very dualistic view of the world,
forgetting the interbeing part and what enlightenment really is about.
> >Maitri, Kent
> >PS: I think we should follow the excellent examples of our Gelug gurus
> >that don't get involved in this political game
> This bit had me falling off my cushion with laughter - thanks Kent!
I've received a huge amount of wonderful teachings the last three months
from wht I consider the top of the Gelug teachers, and never did these
lamas mention this controversy, and there's no need to extend it either,
as most of us have seen, better practice than get involved in this
issue.
Terry Stone
Dear kelsang-la,
I saw your posting and thought that I might make a contribution.
Regarding questioning the realization of the Dalai lamas,from an external
point of view of course enlightened qualities are difficult to perceive. In
the vinaya it is stated that although the presence of fish in a lake is not
immediately apparent, their presence may be inferred from ripples on the
surface.
Therefore, using inference one may(as an ordinary being ) reconize inner
qualities from the activities of the lama.
Part of your lineage relies upon upon holy beings who have stated quite
clearly that the particular Dalai lamas that you mention were authentic
manifestations of Chenresig and realised beings.
Purchok Jampa Gyatso said of the great 13th, that "he was truly the
incarnation of Avalokiteshvara".
Ling Rinpoche was tutor to both the 13th and 14th Dalai lamas both in his
last incarnation and the one prior to it(where he was lineal guru to losang
lungtok tenzin trinlay,guru of Pabongka).
The last Ling rinpoche (97th Ganden tripa) said in 1980 " from the moment I
saw his face I knew that he was the true incarnation of chenresig"
Incidentally as further inference can be drawn from the writing of realized
beings, Pabongka in his lam rim zindri - edited and comiled by Trijang
rinpoche, relies upon the 5th dalai lamas Jampel zhelung (southern and
extended lineages) along with the 2nd Panchen`s nyurdze lam.
My question is this, if your own lineage gurus relied upon and accepted
these incarnations as authentic and realized, then how can you disparage
them ?
Your own lama relied upon Ling rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche as his root guru
accepted the Lam rim la gyud as a golden rosary of enlightened beings.For
surely if they were not then the blessing power of the lineage would fade
and dissappear.
I hope you will accept my contributions with kindness even if you do not
agree with them.
with kind regards
Terry Stone
vajralama buddhist center <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3470D9...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Dear Avyorth,
>
> Hello there! I wondered what had happened to you - I can see that you
> spend a great deal of time wandering in cyber space - one of the weirder
> realities of our time.
>
> with valid reasons establishing the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth
> Dalai Lamas as Buddhas, pure beings, I would prefer to wait and see what
> they come up with before I engage in a debate about whether Venerable
> Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha or not.
>
> of this medium.
>
>
Irmela Biehler
Dear Ole,
> For instance last year there was a meeting of Gelug masters in Germany
> where a letter was composed to ask HH the Dalai Lama to talk about this
> issue. The letter was written in a very traditional, humble and polite
> form. It was composed by 19 Rinpoches and Geshes of the Gelug tradition.
> The request was refused and in the reply letter it was stated that these
> masters would better study the scriptures of Lama Je Tsongkhapa...
Will you please be so kind to give the exact date and place,
where this 'meeting of Gelug masters' did take place in Germany?
I am seriously interested -
thank you
Irmela
john pettit
> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is
> a
> Buddha, a pure being?
> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is
> a
> Buddha, a pure being?
The Dalai Lamas have always been involved in politics to one degree or
another, with the exception of the first and second, who were recognized
posthumously with that title. It is thanks largely to them, especially
the Great Fifth, that the Kadam-Gelug tradition became the largest and
most politically powerful Buddhist tradition in Tibet. So whether you
think he was a Buddha or not, you owe him and the other Dalai Lamas a
debt of gratitude.
And as for politics, all the high lamas of the three seats -- Sera,
Drepung and Ganden -- have always been involved, whether they wanted to
or not. Large monasteries endowed with large estate holdings providing
their financial and other resources could not possible avoid political
controversies. So before you go pointing your finger at the Dalai Lamas,
why don't you read up a little on the political history of Central
Tibet? It's always been a jungle.
> If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume
> that
> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings.
The absence of a clear answer does not constitute a disproof. This is
taught in the first chapter of the Pramanavarttika, under the subject of
"evidence of non-perception" (mi dmigs pa'i rtags). Dharmakirti states
that the absence of evidence does not constitute a disproof of the
existence of something else unless all the right conditions for
perceiving that something else are present. In the case of judging the
Dalai Lamas to be Buddhas, the only condition for perceiving whether
they are Buddhas or not is to be a Buddha, or at least a 10th-bhumi
Bodhisattva, yourself.
Are you, in fact, going to claim that you are a 10th level Bodhisattva?
I doubt it.
Just because someone else fails to answer your question hardly
constitutes a disproof.
Lamas are Buddhas because we imagine them that way. It's a matter of
faith.
The reason we think the Dalai Lamas are Buddhas is the same reason you
think your Lamas are Buddhas. Are you really so naive as to think this
is a subject for proof or disproof?
JAMES LOVE
JOHN you stand corrected, you are pure buddha, forget about the lama's pay
attention to your life and wake up. There's no reason you can't realize no
attainment now
john pettit wrote in message <3474A1BC...@columbia.edu>...
>> 1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>> 2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is
>> a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>> 3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is
>> a
>> Buddha, a pure being?
>
>another, with the exception of the first and second, who were recognized
>posthumously with that title. It is thanks largely to them, especially
>the Great Fifth, that the Kadam-Gelug tradition became the largest and
>most politically powerful Buddhist tradition in Tibet. So whether you
>think he was a Buddha or not, you owe him and the other Dalai Lamas a
>debt of gratitude.
>
>And as for politics, all the high lamas of the three seats -- Sera,
>Drepung and Ganden -- have always been involved, whether they wanted to
>or not. Large monasteries endowed with large estate holdings providing
>their financial and other resources could not possible avoid political
>controversies. So before you go pointing your finger at the Dalai Lamas,
>why don't you read up a little on the political history of Central
>Tibet? It's always been a jungle.
>
>> that
>> they are not Buddhas, not pure beings.
>
>
Kelsang Khyenrab
Reply to Terry Stone from Khyenrab
Hello Terry
Jangsem asked for valid reasons to prove that the 5th and 14th Dalai
Lamas are Buddhas. Terry replied that we could say that these Lamas are
Buddhas because other Lamas said so.
Let's see if this reasoning works. In general we could say for instance that the 14th Dalai
Lama is a Buddha because HH Ling Rinpoche recognised him as such. But for the same
reason we can say that Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha because HH Ling
Rinpoche, HH Trijang Rinpoche (the 5th Dalai Lama at the end of his life
and the 14th some years ago) recognised him as such. So this reason does
not function as a valid one.
In the Sutras Buddha said: 'You should test my words as a jeweller assays
gold', I think that we should apply Buddha's advice here too. His words mean
that in order to prove a statement it is not enough to say 'this is true
because Buddha said so', so we need to examine the facts we can see now.
What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
Buddha?
Khyenrab
Kent Sandvik
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
> In the Sutras Buddha said: 'You should test my words as a jeweller assays
> gold', I think that we should apply Buddha's advice here too. His words mean
> that in order to prove a statement it is not enough to say 'this is true
> because Buddha said so', so we need to examine the facts we can see now.
Agree.
> What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
> freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
> everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
> worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
> destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
> union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
> Buddha?
From Pahbonka Rinpoche's Liberation in the Palm of your Hand, and
Pabhonka Rinpoche supported HH Dalai Lama XIII:
"There is a danger that some may think, 'Spiritual guides are not really
buddhas, so we must rethink this section of the Lam-rim on devotion to a
spiritual guide'. But the point of this heading is that we should not
put wrong concepts such as these into the deepest recesses of our mind.
You should think as follows. The Guru is the Buddha but you do not
perceive it. The reason is as follows. Vajradhara is at present among
us, takin the form of gurus. Havajra's Royal Tanta says:
In future times, my physical form
Will be that of masters...
Also, for five millenia
I will take the form of masters
Think that they are me,
and develop respect for them
In these times...
In future degenerate tims,
My form shall be that of churls;
These are the various means I shall employ,
I will show myself in these forms. ".
---
In addition, from my side, the scriptures say that Buddhas could
manifest as *anything*, persons, trees, enemies, deities, dogs, whatever
is needed for the emanation body to tame and redirect sentient beings in
regenerate times. I.e, never, never, never make assumptions about
others, as this just shows the degeneration of not thinking everything
as pure and perfect, all such thoughts are the results of our inpure and
deluded minds.
Please, let us all stop with this name calling and such on this
newsgroup. It does not help any sentient beings, quite the opposite.
Imagine someone interested in Buddhism, has the first small tingle of
bodhichitta, then opens up this newgroups and reads about Buddhists
speaking of ill will with other buddhists, and about other buddhists. If
we turn this sentient being that has the first step towards not only his
or her own salvation, but also might become a buddha and save countless
other sentient beings from suffering forever, then what we have done is
against the Bodhisattva vows, and even creates huge karmic obstacles for
many sentient beings, including oneself, later.
This is the last thing I have to say about this all, and I'm happy to
share the little, tiny bits I know about buddha-dharma, but not get
involved in negativities, and I've already in this due to responding to
a posting.
May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of
suffering, Kent
--
Remove z from my email address above if you want to respond directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).
Avyorth Rolinson
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote in message <654l34$dis$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
>Reply to Terry Stone from Khyenrab
>What we see now is that the present Dalai Lama is destroying the spiritual
>freedom of thousands of people, violating their basic human rights, forcing
>everybody through unacceptable methods to follow his beliefs, relying on
>worldly spirits and oracles while going against his own root Guru's advice,
>destroying the harmony amongst his people, ruling under the manipulative
>union of State and Church, etc., so how can we say that such a person is a
>Buddha?
Greetings o noble Khyenrab,
I hope that you are well and enjoying life.
So, let's see. Geshe Kelsang tells us that in a previous life the (to-be)
buddha whilst travelling on a boat, knowing that a person onboard was
planning to kill many fellow travellers in order to rob them, killed this
person. So superficially we can say that this person (a very holy being)
acted unskilfully. How could we say that such a person is a Buddha-to-be?
Yet according to Geshe Kelsang, this being was worthy of the highest praise.
By his apparently unskilfull act, he prevented great harm to many, many
beings. How wonderful!
In his commentary to the Boddhisattvacharyavatara (Meaningful to Behold"),
Geshe Kelsang reminds us that Buddha Shakyamuni points out that it is more
important to prostrate to the new moon (ie a Boddhisattva, one about to
become a Buddha) than to the full moon (a Buddha). So you, seeing the Dalai
Lama acting in a way that is (to you) unskilfull, want to deny his being a
holy person? Yet you do not see that those he acts against are perhaps just
like that robber who wanted to kill his fellow travellers. How can we hold
that you are following your own teacher's advice?
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>
>Khyenrab
>
Kelsang Khyenrab
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
Otherwise I would not respond, but there were questions asked directly
to me, and I'm bound to respond due to this. Let's see if I could manage
this without causing negativities to anyone...
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
> The thing that Terry and Jangsem were debating is not how to rely upon our
> spiritual guide but one particular issue regarding Dorje Shugden and the
> present Dalai Lama. I appreciate that you don’t want to put negative things
> on the newsgroup and I agree with you. However, our problem is this: over
> the past nineteen years the Dalai Lama has continually tried to destroy the
> practice of Dorje Shugden and has been indirectly attacking the Dharma
> taught by Je Phabonkhapa and HH Trijang Rinpoche (his own root guru).
I have not seen such a problem, and those teachers I've had teachings
from, Lati Rinpoche, Ribur Rinpoche, Zopa Rinpoche and many other top
Gelug teachers you could find on this planet, and who have HH Trijang
Rinpoche as their root guru, are also 100% loyal and behind HH Dalai
Lama. Thus the whole issue what's been mentioned above is totally
irrelevant and without any references for me.
> 1. What do you think about Dorje Shugden - do you think that he is an evil
> spirit because the Dalai Lama said so?
Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and argued
about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general, there's
a reason they should be secret.
> 2. Or do you think that he is the Wisdom Buddha because Je Phabongkhapa said
> so?
I follow the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa, and that includes of course
Pahbonka Rinpoche, HH Trijang Rinpoche and anyone who belongs to the
Gelug tradition, and not excluding any other Tibetan traditions either.
I'm a simple practitioner, Bodhichitta is an excellent dharma protector,
same with the three jewels. As for other dharma protectors, those are
personal choices and should not be argued about and so forth.
> 3. How will you decide which one is reliable - or are they both reliable?
If someone wants to cause controversies, it's all doable. It's much
harder to create equanimity and peace amongst all sentient beings,
something that is part of a Buddha activity.
Maitri, Kent
Kelsang Khyenrab
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
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
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
Avyorth wrote to Khyenrab:
“I used to be your personal driver, taking you to and from Tara Centre
in Buxton and Madhyamaka Centre in Pocklington. Strange how spiritual
friendship is so dependent upon loyalty to the group-mind!”
You were very kind to give your time to drive me and luggage to the
rail station
in Sheffield so I could catch the train to York. Thank you Avyorth. I
enjoyed our
conversations on those trips. I remain your friend and am happy to give
my time
to try to be of assistance to you if you want.
You also said:
“.. and anyone who questions or disagrees with his position
is seen as obviously deluded.”
All living beings are deluded whether in agreement with someone else or
not.
We are simply trying to protect the lineage we have received from our
root gurus Je
Phabongkhapa, HH Trijang Rinpoche and Ven. Geshe Kelsang. Whether or
not you
agree with us we believe that our lineage is under threat of
destruction through forcible
repression of the practice of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden and bad
information
being spread worldwide by the Dalai Lama. If the Dalai Lama would
change his mind and stop this then immediately we would stop raising
this issue.
It’s that simple. Apart from this single issue we have no other debate
with the Dalai Lama.
Then:
“Even the very Articles of Association of NKT Centres demonstrate the
unwillingness of the NKT to be open to democratic processes. Let me
quote
article 19b):
"where a resolution is proposed which if passed would result in the
amendment of this Article 19, or Article 2, Article 11, Article 18, or
the
amendment of more than one of the aforesaid then any Member voting
against
such amendment (whether the Member is voting for or against the
relevant
resolution) shall whether present in person or by proxy be entitled to
one
million votes."
You need not worry. For example, if you read the twenty pages of
the constitution you can see it is democratic. How do I know this?
I know a little about this having registered one society with the
government in the UK. Many societies and organisations include in their
main objects clause (usually clause 2 or 3) a phrase to the effect that
“ the main
object is fixed and cannot be changed”. This means that the main
purpose for
which that society was set up cannot be changed without winding-up the
organisation
and starting again. The clause you point out above is another way of
saying the same thing.
That’s all. They are democratic in their functioning and are accepted
as such by the Charity Commisioners.
Avyorth , you clearly disagree with NKT in general and I respect your
right
to do so. We can discuss these differences either privately or publicly
and
I am happy to meet with you at any time to talk about them.
Khyenrab
cf...@dircon.co.uk
>Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?
He doesn't claim to be one.
...
>We understand clearly that the source of this problem is the fifth,
>thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas. Firstly, the fifth Dalai Lama
>indicated that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit and this falsehood
>spread throughout Tibet. People believed him because he was both their
>king and spiritual leader.
>The thirteenth Dalai Lama, following the view
>of the fifth Dalai Lama, also did not allow the practice of Dorje
>Shugden.
The 6th-12th Dalai Lamas probably never had much opportunity
to prohibit this practice.
>In particular he caused many difficulties for Je Phabongkhapa
>by using his political power to prevent him from engaging in the
>teaching and practice of Dorje Shugden.
Did not Phabongkha and a number of his followers who were devoted to
this Gyalpo Shugden use their own political power to destroy and take
over many monasteries and temples of other traditions esp. in the
region around Chamdo and other parts of E. Tibet? In particular
didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and tradition of
Padmasambhava - through whose enlightened activity Buddhism
gained hold in the land of Tibet?
[c.f. Beyer, Stephan "The Cult of Tara"; Samuel, Geoffrey "Civilized
Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies".]
Frankly speaking, if these reports are even partially true (and I have
spoken to Tibetans who witnessed some of these events and the
aftermath) - then I don't find it very difficult to understand why a
Dalai Lama would oppose a practice largely promoted by
Phabongkha.
Of course Phabongkha was one of the most brilliant commentators
on the teachings of the Gelugpa tradition, an extremely popular
teacher and a powerful political figure. That doesn't mean that
he was automatically always right or that he was an enlightened
Buddha.
For the most part the thirteenth Dalai Lama seems to have represented
a more liberal, tolerant and reforming side of the Gelugpa
establishment than that represented by Phabongkha (though the 13th
Dalai Lama too extended the hegonomy of the Gelugpa school). If many
of his reforms had not been undone following his death, and Tibet
once more became more inward looking, Tibet might have gained more
international recognition and stood more chance of retaining it's
independence.
>The fourteenth Dalai Lama has
>carried on this persecution even more virulently than his predecessors,
>showing little or no regard for religious freedom and no compassion for
>the Tibetan and western practitioners suffering as a result of his
>actions.
The senior incarnate lama [HHDL] and the highest office holder [Ganden
Tripa] of the Gelugpa tradition have prohibited worship of this
particular entity in the monasteries, temples and other institutions
of their tradition. This might be compared to the Pope derecognizing
certain Xtian Saints, and forms of worship within the Roman Catholic
Church - and it seem to be no more religious repression for the Dalai
Lama and HE Ganden Tripa to forbid a particular religious practice
within their Buddhist denomination than it is for the Pope to prohibit
particular practices within the Roman Catholic Church.
>I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and
>we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
>public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
>fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
>accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
>be debated are:
>1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.
Now just what would constitute valid proof of this as far as you are
concerned? AFAIK the Dalai Lama has never claimed to be an
Enlightened Buddha - though his devotees may look upon him that way.
HHDL usually refers to himself as a Buddhist monk not as a Buddha.
You are the one who is maintaining that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha
- the current leaders of all the main traditions of Tibetan all say
this is not so. Who are we supposed to believe? HH the Dalai Lama,
the Ganden Tripa and the main teachers of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma
traditions or you, Geshe Kelsang and Jim Burns?
If you can establish your claim that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha then
I'm sure someone will be able to establish that HHDL is a Buddha too
( a claim which, afaik, he himself has never made).
>2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit or not.
If you believe in things like harmful spirits - then there is prob. as
much evidence of Gyalpo Shugden causing harm as there is
of harm caused by any other spirit.
Even if Shugden is perfectly benign - that doesn't make him a Buddha
or an object of Refuge.
>3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.
Buddhism has pretty well always been mixed with politics and what you
have engaged yourself in here is very much a kind of politics too.
Although you may wish to believe that the Gelugpa tradition rose
to prominence in Tibet simply through the great merit of Je Tsongkhapa
there is a great deal of evidence that this was mostly accomplished
by political (and military) means.
Every Tibetan Buddhist school has been involved in politics at one
time or another - in recent centuries, the Gelugpa more than any
other. The surviving tradition that has probably been the least
involved in politics (anyway since the time of Rinchen Zangpo) is
probably the Nyingmapa - and they have often suffered materially
as a result.
From all accounts I've heard it seems that your teachers Phabongkha
and Trijang Rinpoche were at times very much involved in politics too.
You may consider their engagement in this field "skilful means" or
"Buddha activity" but that does not mean it was not politics.
>If we can clarify the first issue then the others will naturally follow.
>In Newsweek magazine (April 97), Robert Thurman publicly criticised and
>humiliated both practitioners of Dorje Shugden and members of the New
>Kadampa Tradition.
Big deal, Prof. Robert Thurman may be considered to be an authority on
the Gelugpa tradition by a few people in the western academic world of
Tibetan Buddhist studies but outside of that rather small circle, I
doubt if anyone pays much more attention to what he says than to what
you or I say here.
>We understand that he is acting like the Dalai Lama's
>representative and trying to destroy both Dorje Shugden practice and the
>credibility of the NKT. Therefore we recognise him to be the actual
>representative of the Dalai Lama. Also the Central Tibetan
>Administration in Dharamsala and Fred Little seem to be acting as the
>Dalai Lama's representatives.
Isn't the Central Tibetan Administration supposed to be HHDL's
Government just as the British Govt. is supposed to be Her Majesty's
Govt.?
Fred Little the Dalai Lama's representative? - come on now.
(And before you accuse me of the same thing I can assure you
that I only represent myself.)
>There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
>regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
>1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?
>2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?
>3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
>Buddha, a pure being?
Perhaps you can tell us first what you consider to be valid reasons
for saying that any lama is a tulku, a Buddha or a pure being? We
need to establish just what you mean by "valid reasons" here -
otherwise any reasons that may be put forward you can simply declare
as invalid.
>If we do not receive clear answers to our questions, we can assume that
>they are not Buddhas, not pure beings. If this is the case there is no
>need to accept their views on Dorje Shugden, or to follow their example
>of mixing Dharma with politics.
Your opinion of the Dalai Lama is beginning to sound like the Rev. Ian
Paisley's opinion of the Pope.
You don't _have_ to accept HHDL's views on Dholgyal Shugden just
as Catholics now don't _have_ to accept the views of the Pope (in this
day and age they are free to go away and join another church or set up
one of their own). Whenever we are members of something like a
religious body or a political party sometimes we have to accept the
dogma, doctrine, creed or policy as it is set forth or interpreted by
the _current_ leaders of that religious body or political party. If
the leadership insists on a doctrine, dogma or policy that we cannot
in all conscience accept then, even if we have devoted our whole life
and resources to that organisation, we may have to go away and form
our own church or party - in time perhaps we may even be regarded by
the majority as the ones who were right.
So long as the Dalai Lama is not forcibly preventing you or others
from purchasing land and establishing there monasteries or temples
where you can worship Shugden to your heart's content I think your
charge of religious repression on his part does not hold any water.
To compare this to the repression suffered in Tibet during the
cultural revolution etc is outrageous.
There may of course be some hotheads who disagree with your
views on this issue so much that they stoop to issuing (or even
carrying out) threats of violence. This is reprehensible but I have
seen no evidence at all that HHDL has condoned anyone or anything
like this.
Similarly there seem to have been threats made by hothead devotees of
Shugden against those who are known to oppose their views. (In one
case it is alleged that people like this are responsible for the
murder of the Ven abott of the Dialectics School in Dharmsala and two
of his students.) Now I don't think that Geshe Kelsang has anything to
do with these threats nor would he condone them.
>Kelsang Jangsem,
>Resident Teacher,
>Vajralama Buddhist Center
If you truly believe that Gyalpo Shugden is an emanation of Manjusri
you could always try worshipping a form of that Buddha which everyone
accepts in his stead. Je Tsongkhapa and all those who preceded him
going right back to the Buddha seem to have managed quite well without
Gyalpo Shugden. Why are you so attached to this particular form?
Lama Zopa and many other worthy teachers, also disciples of Trijang
Rinpoche, seem to have accepted the Dalai Lama's policy, views and
wishes on this matter - perhaps at first with some regret. I expect
though that in the end they decided that he knew best and that the
divisions being caused by continuing this practice did more harm than
any benefit that might accrue.
Of course I can see why Geshe Kelsang may be so committed to this
practice - after all his uncle is an oracle (Kuten) of Gyalpo Shugden
- and I expect that Shugden is also his family protector. If
Shugden is called by some "a harmful spirit", he may see this as a
direct insult to his whole family and tradition and it is only human
if he is upset.
Similarly Gyalpo Shugden was considered to be a special protector of
Trijang Rinpoche's monastery in Chatreng so naturally he made daily
offerings and pujas to him.-Iin Tibetan eyes if this protector gained
status and influence so did his monastery - If it looses status in
some peoples eyes so do they.
Does this mean that Geshe Kelsang and lamas who are students of
Trijang Rinpoche and their students should be initiating student's
into this practice or calling on them to take their side in this
affair?
Can you blame an average western dharma student who has never seen a
Shugden - benign or malign - in the flesh for suspecting that there
may be some fierce Tibetan tribal loyalties operating here and that
there maybe those who are trying to rope us in to an arcane, rather
bizarre, Tibetan factional struggle that has probably been bubbling
along since one faction's candidate got chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama
and the other faction's cadidate lost ?
Sure this entity Gyalpo Shugden is supposed to have been around
since that time (he's alleged by his devotees to be the spirit or
embodiment of the losing candidate) - but as far as I have been able
to determine until fairly recently everyone considered him to be just
another one of Tibet's innumerable worldly religious protectors -
somewhere beneath the status of Gyalpo Pehar. There may have been
many people who considered him to be the special protector of their
family, locality or monastery and made offerings to him daily in order
that he would help them succeed in their endeavours but that does not
necessarily mean they considered him to be a wisdom deity or took
refuge in him .
It seems that only after Phabongkha (this centtury) had a "vision" of
Dragpa Gyaltsen (the losing candidate for the position of the fifth
Dalai Lama - subsequently recognized as a tulku of Panchen ) that
Shugden was suddenly elevated to the status of a "wisdom protector"
and emanation of Buddha. There are even those who claim this "vision"
of Phabongkha is apocryphal and that it was Trijang Rinpoche himself
who is largely responsible for elevating Gyalpo Shugden to the status
of enlightend being and object of refuge.
Even at the time Nebesky Wojkowitz gathered material for his book
(1950-53) - which devotes moe than a whole large chapter to Shugden -
there seems to have been no widespread belief (at least amongst
Tibetans in Kalimpong & Sikkim) that Shugden was an enlightend
protector as there is no mention of this in his book where he is
treated like Pehar, Tsi'u mar etc as a . This is strange as his main
informants seem to have been Dhardo Rinpoche , Tratung Rinpoche
and Lhagpa Dondrub (an Oracle of Shugden). Surely in the three years
he was going over this material with these informants they would
have mentioned that Shugden was an enlightend protector if they
believed this to be so.
Anyway, whatever the case, do we in the west really need purely
Tibetan protectors like Gyalpo Shugden? If we need Dharma protectors
can't we get along perfectly well with those protectors which have a
long and far less controversial pedigree going back at least to the
great maha siddhas of India and the tantras themselves?
Regards
- Chris
Bosco Ho
With my little understanding of Dharma and Tibetan Buddhism, I cannot
speak for Kent, but...
In <65abng$g2$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, On 23 Nov 1997 22:46:08 GMT,
khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang Khyenrab) wrote:
>Dear Kent,
>I think you must know that previously in Kopan monastery they used to
>practice group puja of Dorje Shugden, and in the temple there was also a
>statue and tangkha of Dorje Shugden placed there by Lama Yeshe. Lama Zopa
>himself received life empowerment of Dorje Shugden and he also sincerely
>engaged in this practice. Now they have stopped the practice in Kopan and
>removed the statue and tangkha. Lama Zopa himself also stopped this
>practice. If there is no problem, then why did Lama Zopa remove the statue
>and tangkha of Dorje Shugden from the temple, why was the group puja stopped
>and why has Lama Zopa broken his heart commitment?
that reminds me of an american historical figure named 'George
Washington.' You see, when he was young, he was a rather mischievous
chap, so one day he chopped down a cherry tree. Realizing what he had
done, he confessed his misdeed - and never done it again - and went on
to become one of the greatest American Presidents.
The moral of the story is that the ability to change - whether he is
George Washington, Rechungpa or Lama Zopa - to the sign of a great
being. OTOH, to hang on to the fading glory and self aggrandizing past
can only an endless wandering in Samsara (pardon for the mixed
metaphors.)
>You said: 'Dharma protectors are personal, and should not be discussed and
>argued about openly. This is true of any tantric practices in general,
>there's a reason they should be secret.'
>I agree with you, so then why is the Dalai Lama publicly discrediting the
>Dharma protector Dorje Shugden? It was he who first began to discuss this
>issue publicly and continues to discredit the practice around the world.
>Check out
>Office of Tibet web sites for example.
Well, actually, if your vajre brother Messr Mark Gilespie didn't start
waving banner in London last year or someone raved about the DS
practice during the Spring Festival (as reported by Namdrol) two years
ago, I suspect many people outside of the circle wouldn't know what is
DS.
That reminds me of the recent american jurisprudent scene. A mugger
was shot by the police - and has become paralyzed. The mugger turned
around and sue the police for the cause of his paralysis.
The moral of the story is that the so-called 'Freedom Foundation',
which really comprised of NKT and other DS groups, has tried to
politically forced HHDL's hand.
>You said: 'As for other Dharma protectors, those are personal choices and
>should not be argued about and so forth'
>Thank you for supporting us here. We, the practitioners of the Dharma
>taught by HH Trijang Rinpoche, choose Dorje Shugden as our Dharma protector.
>But the Dalai Lama has not allowed people to engage in this practice and
>has continually repressed many Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden and
>they have thereby lost their religious freedom - including the practitioners
>in
>Kopan.
Analogous to the George Washington example, just because human beings
were a savage beast once in the prehistoric time, should we behave
like one too?
AFAIK, the previous Kyabie Trijang Rinpoche has acceded to HHDL's
reasoning. I understand Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (or whoever spoke in
his name) has replied to Chris Flynn that Ven GKG has not witnessed
this in person and therefore refused to accept that. To digress a bit,
that brings up an interesting point, if Ven GKG has refused to accept
the incident simply because he didn't witness it himself, how else
should the followers of HHDL behave if they have never met the
previous Kyabie TR or Pabangka Rinpoche?
>Khyenrab
in Dharma, Bosco
Kelsang Khyenrab
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
Dear Terry,
Thanks for your posting. I feel that Khyenrab has addressed your first
point about the Dalai Lama's being recognized as realized beings by
Lama's of our tradition.
The second point about Je Pabonkhapa relying on the works of the Dalai
Lama for his Lamrim we also cannot use as a valid reason. To be a valid
reason we would then have to say necessarily that Je Pabongkhapa was an
infallible being, a Buddha. Being an infallible being all his actions
would be infallible. Therefore his reliance on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
would also be infallible. As we can see just because Je Phabongkhapa
claims that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is not accepted as a valid reason
by many, including the present Dalai Lama, that he is a Buddha.
Also if Je Pabongkapa relied on the works of the fifth Dalai lama for
his Lamrim as you claim this does not necessarily mean that he regarded
him as a Buddha. He may have recognized him as a great scholar whose
works he deeply respected.
I like very much the quote you use from the Vinaya about how the
presence of a fish in a lake can be inferred from the ripples on the
surface, and in the same way one can infer the inner qualities of a lama
from their outer actions. This is precisely my point. The outer
activities of the present Dalai Lama with respect to the Dorje Shugden
issue (and many others) has caused much suffering and disharmony amongst
Tibetans and the wider Buddhist community.
Yours sincerely,
Jangsem
Kent Sandvik
vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> The fact that the Ganden Tripa is now appointed personally by the Dalai
> Lama as are all the abbots (whereas previously they were elected by the
> monks) discredits any position they may take on the Dorje Shugden issue.
As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.
> I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
> years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
> has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
> or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
> the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
> Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
> to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.
So what about the other Gelug dharma centers in the west, ACI, Heart
Jewel, FPMT, and many others? Do you have the perception that these
wonderful dharma centers and teachers operating at these centers are not
protecting the pure tradition of Je Tsonkhapa? I'm kind of curious to
know your point, especially as all these centers share teachers and
lamas, and I personally wish NTK could join this collaborative
environment, but if your concensus is that you alone are protecting Je
Tsongkhapa's teachings, that's sad. It also makes it harder for the
members to get wonderful teachings from various teachers in the Gelug
tradition if you want to be alone and not have connections to the
tradition of Gelug instituted by Je Tsongkhapa. How sad.
> Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
> initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
> Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
> with others.
Based on your earlier statements about you and your members suffering
due to this controversy concerning the specific dharma protector, I
would not think that what you say above is inline with the reality,
sorry.
Hopefully everything will be resolved using compassion, and especially
using taking and giving!
Maitri, Kent
vajralama buddhist center
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:35:43 -0800, vajralama buddhist center
> <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Is the Dalai Lama a Buddha?
>
> He doesn't claim to be one.
He may not claim to be one but he is regarded as such by his followers,
including fanatics in his government and elsewhere who implement his
wishes without even the slightest question of their validity.
>
> The 6th-12th Dalai Lamas probably never had much opportunity
> to prohibit this practice.
>
Please explain why they had no such opportunity.
>
> Did not Phabongkha and a number of his followers who were devoted to
> this Gyalpo Shugden use their own political power to destroy and take
> over many monasteries and temples of other traditions esp. in the
> region around Chamdo and other parts of E. Tibet? In particular
> didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and tradition of
> Padmasambhava - through whose enlightened activity Buddhism
> gained hold in the land of Tibet?
>
> [c.f. Beyer, Stephan "The Cult of Tara"; Samuel, Geoffrey "Civilized
> Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies".]
>
> Frankly speaking, if these reports are even partially true (and I have
> spoken to Tibetans who witnessed some of these events and the
> aftermath) - then I don't find it very difficult to understand why a
> Dalai Lama would oppose a practice largely promoted by
> Phabongkha.
>
In his 'In the Presence of My Enemies' Tsipon Shuguba describes becoming
assistant to the Governor of Chamdo in 1940. He talks of a ‘monastery
rebellion’, ‘a few monks … claiming to be possessed by the local spirit
Shugden’ disturbing local farmers and stealing possessions. He reports
that in 1940 fifteen monks destroyed a statue of Padmasambhava, while
forcing the local residents to give them food, and then broke down the
doors of Chamdo Monastery’s storehouse, and destroyed the book-keeping
records and smashed furniture.
Even if Shuguba's account is true, while it is all deplorable it hardly
points to mass sectarianism. The 15 monks were arrested, given at least
200 lashes each, while hanging up by their feet, their screams proof, as
Shuguba says, that their possession was not genuine, and the incident
was finished. Indeed, Sugaba claimed to have destroyed this ‘local
spirit cult’.
Interestingly enough, he makes no mention of Je Pabongkhapa, either
positive or negative throughout the whole book, yet according to other
accounts Je Pabongkhapa was destroying Nyingma monasteries in eastern
Tibet around the turn of the Second World War. Je Pabongkhapa died in
1941.
Considering the general lawlessness in eastern Tibet at that time, it is
hardly fair to blame all practitioners of Dorje Shugden for rumours
about the actions by a few distressed monks in that part of Tibet nearly
60 years ago. Although the monks are accused of being motivated by
sectarian aims, they seemed more interested in acquiring food and
destroying book-keeping records. Shuguba mentions nothing about
monasteries and temples of other traditions being destroyed or taken
over.
Anyway since the events are disputed, and the present-day Shugden
practitioners have no-anti Nyingma agenda, isn't it time to forget these
grudges?
>SNIP<
> The senior incarnate lama [HHDL] and the highest office holder [Ganden
> Tripa] of the Gelugpa tradition have prohibited worship of this
> particular entity in the monasteries, temples and other institutions
> of their tradition. This might be compared to the Pope derecognizing
> certain Xtian Saints, and forms of worship within the Roman Catholic
> Church - and it seem to be no more religious repression for the Dalai
> Lama and HE Ganden Tripa to forbid a particular religious practice
> within their Buddhist denomination than it is for the Pope to prohibit
> particular practices within the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that the Ganden Tripa is now appointed personally by the Dalai
Lama as are all the abbots (whereas previously they were elected by the
monks) discredits any position they may take on the Dorje Shugden issue.
One can safely assume that the Dalai Lama will appoint those who are
towing the party line on this issue. We also know how dangerous it is to
speak out on this issue even if one does disagree (cf. threats to the
life of Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang). We also know
it is not just a question of giving some advice and leaving it at that,
there is an active ban against the practice of Dorje Shugden,
persecution of those who continue to practice and discrimination against
them in public office.
>
> >I have discussed this religious issue with many other practitioners, and we have decided that now is the time to clarify this situation through
> >public debate. We also understand that until the fifth, thirteenth and
> >fourteenth Dalai Lamas are clearly proven to be Buddhas that we cannot
> >accept their views. Therefore I would like to suggest that the issues to
> >be debated are:
>
> >1. Whether these three lamas are Buddhas, pure beings or not.
>
> Now just what would constitute valid proof of this as far as you are
> concerned? AFAIK the Dalai Lama has never claimed to be an
> Enlightened Buddha - though his devotees may look upon him that way.
> HHDL usually refers to himself as a Buddhist monk not as a Buddha.
>
Valid proof would be proof that could establish beyond doubt that these
Lamas are Buddhas. So far not one single valid reason has been
forthcoming from anyone, whether they are a representative of the Dalai
Lama or not.
> You are the one who is maintaining that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha
> - the current leaders of all the main traditions of Tibetan all say
> this is not so. Who are we supposed to believe? HH the Dalai Lama,
> the Ganden Tripa and the main teachers of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma
> traditions or you, Geshe Kelsang and Jim Burns?
>
> If you can establish your claim that Gyalpo Shugden is a Buddha then
> I'm sure someone will be able to establish that HHDL is a Buddha too
> ( a claim which, afaik, he himself has never made).
>
This issue was debated at great length in this news group and their is
obviously a profound difference of opinion. However it is not the issue
of this present debate. What we are trying to establish is whether the
Dalai Lama has the authority to ban a centuries old religous practice.
> >2. Whether we accept their view that Dorje Shugden is a harmful spirit or not.
> If you believe in things like harmful spirits - then there is prob. as
> much evidence of Gyalpo Shugden causing harm as there is
> of harm caused by any other spirit.
>
> Even if Shugden is perfectly benign - that doesn't make him a Buddha
> or an object of Refuge.
>
> >3. Whether Buddhists accept the mixing of Dharma and politics or not.
> Buddhism has pretty well always been mixed with politics and what you
> have engaged yourself in here is very much a kind of politics too.
>
> Although you may wish to believe that the Gelugpa tradition rose
> to prominence in Tibet simply through the great merit of Je Tsongkhapa
> there is a great deal of evidence that this was mostly accomplished
> by political (and military) means.
>
> Every Tibetan Buddhist school has been involved in politics at one
> time or another - in recent centuries, the Gelugpa more than any
> other. The surviving tradition that has probably been the least
> involved in politics (anyway since the time of Rinchen Zangpo) is
> probably the Nyingmapa - and they have often suffered materially
> as a result.
>
> From all accounts I've heard it seems that your teachers Phabongkha
> and Trijang Rinpoche were at times very much involved in politics too.
> You may consider their engagement in this field "skilful means" or
> "Buddha activity" but that does not mean it was not politics.
>
This may all be true, not being a great expert on Tibetan history I
cannot say. What I can say is that with the Dharma moving to the West we
have a great opportunity to practise dharma unmixed with politics. It is
said that when Dharma moves from one country to another that it is a
great time to gain realizations, because the Dharma is fresh, unmixed
with politcal agendas and so forth. The great tragedy we see now is that
the horrible mess of Tibetan politics is coming to the West and is
causing enormous distress to many Western Buddhists. Destroying their
faith and spiritual practice.
>SNIP<
> Isn't the Central Tibetan Administration supposed to be HHDL's
> Government just as the British Govt. is supposed to be Her Majesty's
> Govt.?
>
> Fred Little the Dalai Lama's representative? - come on now.
> (And before you accuse me of the same thing I can assure you
> that I only represent myself.)
>
As you can probably appreciate Chris we would dearly love to debate this
issue with the Dalai Lama himself. Yet he consistently refuses to
discuss it. Therefore in pursuit of a debate we are trying to find
people who would represent the Dalai Lama. Its very difficult to debate
with a vacuum!
> >There are three questions to be addressed to these representatives
> >regarding the first issue: Whether these three lamas are Buddhas or not.
>
> >1. What are valid reasons for saying that the fifth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
> >2. What are valid reasons for saying that the thirteenth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
> >3. What are valid reasons for saying that the fourteenth Dalai Lama is a
> >Buddha, a pure being?
>
> Perhaps you can tell us first what you consider to be valid reasons
> for saying that any lama is a tulku, a Buddha or a pure being? We
> need to establish just what you mean by "valid reasons" here -
> otherwise any reasons that may be put forward you can simply declare
> as invalid.
>
See above comment.
>SNIP<
>
> You don't _have_ to accept HHDL's views on Dholgyal Shugden just
> as Catholics now don't _have_ to accept the views of the Pope (in this
> day and age they are free to go away and join another church or set up
> one of their own). Whenever we are members of something like a
> religious body or a political party sometimes we have to accept the
> dogma, doctrine, creed or policy as it is set forth or interpreted by
> the _current_ leaders of that religious body or political party. If
> the leadership insists on a doctrine, dogma or policy that we cannot
> in all conscience accept then, even if we have devoted our whole life
> and resources to that organisation, we may have to go away and form
> our own church or party - in time perhaps we may even be regarded by
> the majority as the ones who were right.
>
> So long as the Dalai Lama is not forcibly preventing you or others
> from purchasing land and establishing there monasteries or temples
> where you can worship Shugden to your heart's content I think your
> charge of religious repression on his part does not hold any water.
> To compare this to the repression suffered in Tibet during the
> cultural revolution etc is outrageous.
It is true that Buddhist practitoners in the West have freedom of
practice, but this is not at all the case amongst the Tibetans. There
has been considerable violence and intimidation already used. As you
suggest any group that does not agree can form their own tradition (in
the West). This is exactly what the NKT has done, and yet we are
continually vilified for being sectarian just because we follow one
teacher and tradition. Moreover it is becoming increasingly difficult
for people to come to our meetings without having heard some horrible
things about our devil worshipping cult. Is this the price you have to
pay for splitting off from the herd and not paying homage to the
political leader of the Tibetans?
>
> There may of course be some hotheads who disagree with your
> views on this issue so much that they stoop to issuing (or even
> carrying out) threats of violence. This is reprehensible but I have
> seen no evidence at all that HHDL has condoned anyone or anything
> like this.
>
Of course the Dalai Lama has not condoned these actions. But it his
words that have inspired these people to act in this way. He must be
aware of the suffering amongst his people, what kind of leader would he
be if he wasn't? So why doesn't he do anything? It would be so easy for
him to say that everyone is free to practice whatever Protector they
choose, and this whole problem would dissolve.
> Similarly there seem to have been threats made by hothead devotees of
> Shugden against those who are known to oppose their views. (In one
> case it is alleged that people like this are responsible for the
> murder of the Ven abott of the Dialectics School in Dharmsala and two
> of his students.) Now I don't think that Geshe Kelsang has anything to
> do with these threats nor would he condone them.
>
The connection between the murders and Dorje Shugden practioners is as
you say just alleged. There are other motives that could have occasioned
such a reprehensible act but these have received very little mention.
For example, the Abbott had just retruned from a trip to Taiwan. Given
that many sponsors of the Tibetan Buddhists are Taiwanese it is
reasonable to assume that he may have returned with substantial amounts
of cash. Now you know how poor people in India are and how the Tibetans
are the objects of much jealousy amongst the native population...
>SNIP>
> If you truly believe that Gyalpo Shugden is an emanation of Manjusri
> you could always try worshipping a form of that Buddha which everyone
> accepts in his stead. Je Tsongkhapa and all those who preceded him
> going right back to the Buddha seem to have managed quite well without
> Gyalpo Shugden. Why are you so attached to this particular form?
>
Because it is the form of the Wisdom Buddha practiced by our venerable
lineage Gurus Je Pabongkapa and Trijang Rinpoche. To reject this
practice as inauthentic is to reject their lineage.
> Lama Zopa and many other worthy teachers, also disciples of Trijang
> Rinpoche, seem to have accepted the Dalai Lama's policy, views and
> wishes on this matter - perhaps at first with some regret. I expect
> though that in the end they decided that he knew best and that the
> divisions being caused by continuing this practice did more harm than
> any benefit that might accrue.
>
If the Dalai Lama is a Buddha then he knows best and we would be obliged
to follow. But where are the valid reasons that he is a Buddha?
> Of course I can see why Geshe Kelsang may be so committed to this
> practice - after all his uncle is an oracle (Kuten) of Gyalpo Shugden
> - and I expect that Shugden is also his family protector. If
> Shugden is called by some "a harmful spirit", he may see this as a
> direct insult to his whole family and tradition and it is only human
> if he is upset.
>
I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.
> Similarly Gyalpo Shugden was considered to be a special protector of
> Trijang Rinpoche's monastery in Chatreng so naturally he made daily
> offerings and pujas to him.-Iin Tibetan eyes if this protector gained
> status and influence so did his monastery - If it looses status in
> some peoples eyes so do they.
>
So now you are attributing worldly motives to Trijang Rinpoche, the root
Guru of innumerable Gelugpa Lamas. Interesting.
> Does this mean that Geshe Kelsang and lamas who are students of
> Trijang Rinpoche and their students should be initiating student's
> into this practice or calling on them to take their side in this
> affair?
>
Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
with others.
> Can you blame an average western dharma student who has never seen a
> Shugden - benign or malign - in the flesh for suspecting that there
> may be some fierce Tibetan tribal loyalties operating here and that
> there maybe those who are trying to rope us in to an arcane, rather
> bizarre, Tibetan factional struggle that has probably been bubbling
> along since one faction's candidate got chosen as the Fifth Dalai Lama
> and the other faction's cadidate lost ?
>
There may be some tribal loyalty operating here as you say. But I
believe that Geshe Kelsang's motives are pure. Why else would he risk
everything including his life to protect a practice which he considers
indispenable to our tradition?
> Sure this entity Gyalpo Shugden is supposed to have been around
> since that time (he's alleged by his devotees to be the spirit or
> embodiment of the losing candidate) - but as far as I have been able
> to determine until fairly recently everyone considered him to be just
> another one of Tibet's innumerable worldly religious protectors -
> somewhere beneath the status of Gyalpo Pehar. There may have been
> many people who considered him to be the special protector of their
> family, locality or monastery and made offerings to him daily in order
> that he would help them succeed in their endeavours but that does not
> necessarily mean they considered him to be a wisdom deity or took
> refuge in him .
As far as you are aware does not wash. In her book Enlightened Beings
Janice Willis notes that Dorje Shugden is believed to have held the
Kadam Emanation scripture, protecting the Dharma. Do you think that such
a holy scripture which cannot even be seen by worldly beings would be
entrusted to an oath-bound evil spirit? He wouldn't even be able to see
it, never mind protect it!
> It seems that only after Phabongkha (this centtury) had a "vision" of
> Dragpa Gyaltsen (the losing candidate for the position of the fifth
> Dalai Lama - subsequently recognized as a tulku of Panchen ) that
> Shugden was suddenly elevated to the status of a "wisdom protector"
> and emanation of Buddha. There are even those who claim this "vision"
> of Phabongkha is apocryphal and that it was Trijang Rinpoche himself
> who is largely responsible for elevating Gyalpo Shugden to the status
> of enlightend being and object of refuge.
Whatever the truth of these matters we have to acknowledge that Je
Pabongkpapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche relied on Dorje Shugden
as a Buddha. Even the the fifth Dalai Lama later on in his life and the
present Dalai Lama earlier in his life viewed Dorje Shugden as a Buddha.
>
> Even at the time Nebesky Wojkowitz gathered material for his book
> (1950-53) - which devotes moe than a whole large chapter to Shugden -
> there seems to have been no widespread belief (at least amongst
> Tibetans in Kalimpong & Sikkim) that Shugden was an enlightend
> protector as there is no mention of this in his book where he is
> treated like Pehar, Tsi'u mar etc as a . This is strange as his main
> informants seem to have been Dhardo Rinpoche , Tratung Rinpoche
> and Lhagpa Dondrub (an Oracle of Shugden). Surely in the three years
> he was going over this material with these informants they would
> have mentioned that Shugden was an enlightend protector if they
> believed this to be so.
>
> Anyway, whatever the case, do we in the west really need purely
> Tibetan protectors like Gyalpo Shugden? If we need Dharma protectors
> can't we get along perfectly well with those protectors which have a
> long and far less controversial pedigree going back at least to the
> great maha siddhas of India and the tantras themselves?
>
It really is a question of lineage. If we start tinkering with the
lineage of realization that we have received where will it stop. We
already have eminent scholars propounding Buddhsim without beliefs.
Pretty soon we will be reinventing the whole Buddhist cannon with our
old friend ego at the the helm. Our destination? Yet another samsara
nightmare.
> Regards
>
> - Chris
Thanks for your posting,
Jangsem
cf...@dircon.co.uk
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
In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
Hopefully, it is what you said instead of Dalai Lama.
--
Marquess of Chu 潘廷礼
Lucy James
In article <65gb68$1atm$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu
says...
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
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.
>
does he seem so fixed on championing the Tibetan cause for freedom at
the cost of destroying a pure spiritual lineage in the process? It is
said that thousands of beings have attained enlightenment following the
Ensa Whispered Lineage of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition. Is that worth
destroying to achieve some tenuous political harmony amongst the
Tibetans in exile so that maybe they can return to a Tibet devastated by
40 years of Chinese tyranny? There are only 6 million Tibetans whereas
there are 5 billion other humans in this world.
Surely the greatest good is to allow all people to practice whatever
they wish without trying to impose one's views upon them?
Jangsem
vajralama buddhist center
Kent Sandvik wrote:
> As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
> the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.
>
I would be delighted if you could provide proof of this and thereby help
to restore some of my faith in the modern day Tibetan system.
> > I know Geshe Kelsang very well, having been a student of his for eleven
> > years and having met him numerous times. He is not risking everything he
> > has worked for over the last twenty years on the basis of some personal
> > or tribal grudge! He sees clearly that the Gelugpa school as taught by
> > the two Fathers of the modern Gelugpas, Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
> > Rinpoche is under a concerted attack. His motivation is entirely pure -
> > to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkapa.
>
> So what about the other Gelug dharma centers in the west, ACI, Heart
> Jewel, FPMT, and many others? Do you have the perception that these
> wonderful dharma centers and teachers operating at these centers are not
> protecting the pure tradition of Je Tsonkhapa? I'm kind of curious to
> know your point, especially as all these centers share teachers and
> lamas, and I personally wish NTK could join this collaborative
> environment, but if your concensus is that you alone are protecting Je
> Tsongkhapa's teachings, that's sad. It also makes it harder for the
> members to get wonderful teachings from various teachers in the Gelug
> tradition if you want to be alone and not have connections to the
> tradition of Gelug instituted by Je Tsongkhapa. How sad.
>
This seems to be such a common mis-perception of the NKT! Just because
we say we are trying to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa does
not mean that we are saying others are not. I can praise English as a
wonderful language, and yet imply no criticism whatsoever of other
languages. I can appreciate a fine Darjeeling tea without mixing it with
chamomile tea, and in no way denigrate the qualities of chamomile. Being
a student of Geshe Kelsang I can only speak with confidence about his
tradition, but that does not mean I cherish perverse views of other
traditions.
> > Since this is our lineage and heart practice of course we are going to
> > initiate people into it. We know how beneficail it is to rely on Dorje
> > Shugden from our own experience so of course we are going to share that
> > with others.
>
> Based on your earlier statements about you and your members suffering
> due to this controversy concerning the specific dharma protector, I
> would not think that what you say above is inline with the reality,
> sorry.
>
One cannot say that it is our Protector who is causing these problems,
since a Wisdom Buddha could never create problems for anyone. The source
of all this suffering is the machinations of the Tibetan political
machine.
> Hopefully everything will be resolved using compassion, and especially
> using taking and giving!
>
> Maitri, Kent
>
> --
> Remove z from my email address above if you want to respond directly
> (this is to avoid spam emails).
I also hope we can resolve this issue using compassion and reasoned
debate so that all practitioners are able to practice whatever they wish
in peace and harmony.
Jangsem
Kent Sandvik
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
> greatest number of people? In a democratic government there would at least
> be some room for debate as to what the greatest good was.
This is an odd position. As you are aware, in the spiritual domain
coerning practices and such we all follow the guidelines of spiritual
guides. We don't start arguing about the commitments and vows taken, or
start debating whether it's better to do a five-round guru yoga instead
of six rounds, and so forth...
> It is indeed difficult for one politician to please everyone all of the time
> - this is one reason why we opt for democracy in the West; that way we know
> we are at least trying to take in the wishes and needs of the majority,
> while still allowing everyone else to be represented and heard as well.
Unfortunately, this is not how the Mahayana system, actually not even
Buddhism in general, is set up. Maybe this is one of those things that
clashes with the culture in West now that Buddhism is coming over...
Kent Sandvik
vajralama buddhist center wrote:
> Kent Sandvik wrote:
>
> > As I was told, the new abbott of Sera Me, Kham Rinpoche, was selected by
> > the monks. Please correct me if this information is wrong.
> >
> I would be delighted if you could provide proof of this and thereby help
> to restore some of my faith in the modern day Tibetan system.
Sure. I could ask him when he's over here in the Bay Area in about a
month. So far the information I provided was based on actually the monks
of Sera Me that elected Kham Rinpoche, and want him back, and he's just
now in Canada and USA.
> This seems to be such a common mis-perception of the NKT! Just because
> we say we are trying to protect the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa does
> not mean that we are saying others are not. I can praise English as a
> wonderful language, and yet imply no criticism whatsoever of other
> languages. I can appreciate a fine Darjeeling tea without mixing it with
> chamomile tea, and in no way denigrate the qualities of chamomile. Being
> a student of Geshe Kelsang I can only speak with confidence about his
> tradition, but that does not mean I cherish perverse views of other
traditions.
Good. This means that NKT students could happily attend the teachings
and pujas of other traditions without getting worried. I'm glad you
stated this. Same with purchasing books of other wonderful Dharma
teachers, maybe NTK centers coud also sell such books to anyone that
wants to purchase them. Cool. This is a nice new wonderful start of
something beautiful where NTK is becoming a member of the Tibetan
Buddhist traditions world-wide.
> One cannot say that it is our Protector who is causing these problems,
> since a Wisdom Buddha could never create problems for anyone. The source
> of all this suffering is the machinations of the Tibetan political
> machine.
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. However, it's clear that
talking about this specific dharma protector causes all kinds of
suffering, so that's mainly I'm trying to avoid it at all means.
Mike Austin
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
>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
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
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
In article <65jv5r$77k$2...@eros.clara.net>, Bodhisattva Centre
<bodhi...@clara.net> writes
>Thank you for your post Mike.
>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.
I agree. My faith is in His Holiness.
--
Mike Austin
Mick_G
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
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
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
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
Bodhisattva Centre wrote:
> Come on, Kent, this idea that Trijang Rinpoche changed his mind on the
> nature of Dorje Shugden is a new invention. As you know there was virtually
> no one closer to Trijang Rinpoche than Zong Rinpoche. Zong Rinpoche had
> perfect devotion to Trijang Rinpoche and great opportunity to discuss
> spiritual issues with Trijang Rinpoche right up until Trijang Rinpoche
> passed away. If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind then Zong Rinpoche
> would have known about it. However after Trijang Rinpoche passed away Zong
> Rinpoche gave life empowerments of Dorje Shugden and taught openly that
> Dorje Shugden is a Buddha.
OK, if we follow your logic then (I would not call it logic myself) both
the current rebirths of Zong Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche have been in
close connection with HH Dalai Lama about this issue, and so far I have
not heard anything from either of them condemning HH Dalai Lama's
decision in this issue. If they would have condemned, then your position
would indeed be valid.
I would let Zong Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche, HH Dalai Lama and all the
other realized masters speak for themselves, instead of using them
indirectly as a logical tool to provide one's own positions in this
matter. I'm sure they would appreciate it as well. Only reason I quote
HH Dalai Lama is based on the official statements he has made. Please
respect their wish as a way to do guru devotion.
Mick_G
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
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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Some clarification surrounding the present debate regarding the Dalai Lama
and Dorje Shugden by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
===================================================
Kent Sandvik wrote, 27th November:
>Many high lamas, including Trijang Rinpoche, changed their mind later
>[about their practice of Dorje Shugden]
It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their
mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama has
been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many
groups, including Kopan Monastery, therefore stopped their worship and
pujas. Many of these Lamas, including Lama Zopa had received the life
empowerment of Dorje Shugden from their root Guru, so they have broken their
commitment because of the Dalai Lama's repression. Many statues and thangkas
were removed from Temples and destroyed because of the Dalai Lama's
repression, otherwise why should they have been destroyed? People's minds
changed because they were influenced by the Dalai Lama's wrong view but
still many practitioners in many places, including Sera and Ganden
monasteries, are continuing with their practice in secret, while externally
pretending that they have stopped in order to avoid problems and
harrassment.
The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious
tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by
his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at
achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is
the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any
direction. Everyone can see this situation now.
Kent, you wrote that:
>Trijang Rinpoche changed [his] mind later [about the practice of Dorje
>Shugden].
This is completely untrue. There are three reasons to prove this:
1. His extensive commentary to Dorje Shugden prayers was composed late in
his life, when he was very old. This clearly indicates that he did not
change
his mind.
2. As I have already said previously, a few months before his death I met
with him in Southern India, and he told me that he was very disappointed
with the
Dalai Lama's decision to suppress the practice of Dorje Shugden.
3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
until he passed away.
Mike Austin wrote, 27th November:
>'His Holiness answered questions on Dorje Shugden, and gave three
>reasons for discontinuing his worship':
>1. Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit. To seek help from such a spirit
>detracts from the Buddhist way of relying on one's own efforts and can
>degenerate into a kind of spirit worship.'
>2. Dorje Shugden practice has the potential for sectarianism.
>3. Dorje Shugden practice is contrary to the interests of Tibet and the
>Tibetan people.
The Dalai Lama has repeated these three reasons endlessly, and at the same
time his supporters are also repeating them again and again. I wrote to him
a number of times myself, and to his government in Dharamsala, and asked how
this practice could possibly harm the interests of Tibet and the Tibetan
people. I have not received any clear reply.
Also, the Dalai Lama said many times that if people engage in the worship of
Shugden, it would shorten his life. He actually said 'if you want me to die
soon, then you should continue with your practice of Dorje Shugden.' So I
asked him for proof that this worship would shorten his life, and again he
never replied. I have never received a clear reply from either the Dalai
Lama or his government or any of his supporters. People just repeat these
same three reasons over and over again.
How can he prove that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit? I also asked in
these letters for proof that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, but again I
have never received any clear reply. The only reason that has been given is
that some other Lamas have said this. This is not a valid reason, some other
Lamas say Dorje Shugden is the wisdom Buddha.
The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over
like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He
is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds
are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to
fulfil his wishes. His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the
four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other
traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of
Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has been
working towards this for many years.
Now I have three questions:
1. When the Dalai Lama first came to Dharamsala he was sincerely practising
Dorje Shugden, everyone knows this. Now, this Dalai Lama who was sincerely
practicing Dorje Shugden, was he relying on an evil spirit?
2. Did his worship of Dorje Shugden harm the interest of Tibet and the
Tibetan people? We are now worshipping Dorje Shugden in exactly the same way
as did the Dalai Lama.
3. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama and his followers who practised Dorje
Shugden were sectarian?
According to the Dalai Lama's present view, it now seems that during his
entire early life he was being sectarian, relying on an evil spirit, and
harming his country and his people. The same reasons apply just as much to
the situation then as they do now. It is difficult to believe that such a
world famous figure could unknowingly make such a mistake, mislead people
and cause them problems and suffering.
Chris Fynn wrote, 16th November:
>Did not Phabongkhapa and a number of his followers who were devoted to
>Dorje Shugden use their political power to destroy and take over many
>monasteries .............. didn't they suppress the ancient teachings and
>tradition of Padmasambhava?
Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in
Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his
office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever. When I lived in Tibet I
checked very carefully with local Geshes about the truth or falsity of these
assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet
(Kham) and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was
widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the
same time some local people jealous of his success spread rumours, saying
that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.
It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation
of this precious Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually
degenerate times. Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je
Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to
show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.
So, in conclusion I would like to say to the Dalai Lama and his supporters,
could you please stop giving these same old reasons for stopping the worship
of Dorje Shugden. You have already repeated these reasons thousands of
times. If you have valid reasons to prove that he is an evil spirit, that he
harms Tibetan independence, and that he harms the Dalai Lama's life then I
would be happy to debate with you.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
Bob Knight
In article <65t5kc$i...@argon.btinternet.com>, Avyorth Rolinson
<Avy...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>Bob Knight wrote in message ...
>>A just society
>>is presumably one in which the disadvantage is placed on those most able
>>to cope with it.
>>
>>Bob
>
>Interesting arguement, Bob, but one small point? Just who decides who are
>the disadvantaged and who are most able to cope with it? Perhaps "Natural
>Selection"?
Quite so. It is not an easy question to answer. I think if we observe
the political scene we will see that policies frequently do not produce
the results they were intended to produce and often produce unacceptable
side effects that no one realized they would produce.
This points up the difficulties inherent in deriving policy according to
some simple formula such as "the most good for the greatest number of
people."
The Dalai Lama (who was the subject of the original psot to which I
replied) is in a position of authority over large numbers of people. He
is also, we assume, well schooled in Buddhist philosophy. Is there any
indication that he has derived a system of policy making that is clearly
superior to that of other politicians?
Bob
Ole
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dear Ani-la,
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348282...@mindless.com>...
>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed their
>> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai Lama
has
>> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
>
>I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
>example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more like
>repression.
>
Please read the thread: "repression? What repression?" since the Tibetan
exile government do not deny that they are supressing the worship of Dorje
Shugden, why should you?
>
>> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
>> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
>> until he passed away.
>
>OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly
>pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others.
>But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly
>around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that
>DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of
>criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner
>Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS
>Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
>>
When Lama Yeshe set up Manjushri Centre he gave them a commitment to do
Dorje Shugden practice.
Kyabje Zong Rinpoche gave the Life Empowerment of Dorje Shugden at Manjushri
Centre.
There are many Geshes who have set up dharma Centres around the world, is
there something wrong in spreading the dharma?
Gonsar Rinpoche has spoken against the ban on Dorje Shugden worship.
>
>Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong?
>Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of
>the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon
>placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields.
>But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their
>DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja
>than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know
>who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
>to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been
>Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.
>>
You should check two things:
1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?
>
>> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
>> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all
the
>> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the
other
>> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
of
>> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
>> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has
been
>> working towards this for many years.
>
>This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of
>trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change
>the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from
>branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.
>
Since Gelugpas believe that a lineage is passed down as a lineage of
instructions and a lineage of realisations then for this generation of
Buddhists the Gelugpa lineage has been embodied by Je Pabongkhapa and
Trijang Dorjechang. Both these precious lamas taught that Dorje Shugden was
a Buddha. They advised their followers to rely on him as their principal
Protector. As a result the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
was very widespread in all the monasteries of the Gelug tradition.
Now the Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and bans the
worship of Dorje Shugden in all gelugpa monasteries.
This is changing the Gelug tradition.
Worse than this he now claims that his actions accord with Trijang
Rinpoche's teaching. This is the worst deception. The Dalai Lama has been
trying to stop the worship of Shugden for nearly twenty years but only now
do we have this new statement. Previously he said that Trijang Rinpoche
accepted his decision to stop practising. Of course Trijang Rinpoche
accepted this choice, it was not trijang Rinpoche's nature to force his
disciples to do anything.
If Trijang Rinpoche had decided that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he
would have told all his disciples. He would have made sure that they
understood that their previous instructions to rely on Dorje Shugden as a
Buddha were incorrect and harmful. And yet no one heard this from Trijang
Rinpoche. Instead his close disciples continued to worship Dorje Shugden,
teach that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, and give empowerments into the
practice of Dorje Shugden.
I would love to think that the Dalai lama's words on this point are not a
deliberate attempt to deceive others, but so far I have not a single reason
not to make that conclusion.
Rabten
>
>~Lozang Trinlae
>
Richard P. Hayes
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
>been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years. Many
>pujas. Many of these brahmins had received the life
>empowerment of Shiva from their root Guru, so they have broken their
>commitment because of Buddha Shakyamuni's repression...
Mr Rolinson may be unaware of the subtle but importent distinction
between repressing a practice and showing that a practice is worth no
more than a leaky earthen jar filled with alligator droppings. Quite a
few Vaishnavites and Shaivites over the years have awoken from the
dogmatic slumbers that allowed them to put confidence in life
empowerments from root gurus, an idea more absurd than which nothing can
be conceived. Waking up to the good sense of Buddhism and leaving the
childishness of life empowerments behind is not entirely the same thing
as being repressed.
--
Richard P. Hayes <rha...@wilson.lan.mcgill.ca>
Ole
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
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
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
>> 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
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
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
>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
<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
Rabten wrote:
>
> Dear Ani-la,
>
snip
> >
>
> Please read the thread: "repression? What repression?" since the Tibetan
> exile government do not deny that they are supressing the worship of Dorje
> Shugden, why should you?
>
I should be clear that I am not a Tibetan and am not governed by the
Tibetan exile government. Even if I was I am not bound to agree with
everything they do or say. In any case actions of the exile government
are the responsibility of the government legislators. The Tibetan people
can voice their opinion at the next Kashag election if they don't agree
with the actions of their elected representatives.
> >
> >> 3. Every month a group of monks would go to his house to worship Dorje
> >> Shugden. I know that they never missed this puja; they came continually
> >> until he passed away.
> >
> >OK, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was a DS practitioner and he did monthly
> >pujas. So did Gen. Rinchen Gompo of Ramoche in Tibet and many others.
> >But isn't it also interesting what they *didn't* do? They *didn't* fly
> >around the world setting up dharma centers and telling foreigners that
> >DS should be their practice, and they didn't make a practice out of
> >criticizing HH the Dalai Lama. Even today among known DS practioner
> >Lamas, they don't do these things. Why is that? Why haven't other DS
> >Lamas signed their names to endorse your crusade?
> >>
>
> When Lama Yeshe set up Manjushri Centre he gave them a commitment to do
> Dorje Shugden practice.
> Kyabje Zong Rinpoche gave the Life Empowerment of Dorje Shugden at Manjushri
> Centre.
And it appears that Geshe Kelsang and his followers disagree with HH the
Dalai Lama's advice on DS practice.
No Lama I have heard of, including Kyabje Zong Rinpoche Yangtse nor any
FPMT Lama, has gone to any NKT center to endorse NKT statements.
>
> There are many Geshes who have set up dharma Centres around the world, is
> there something wrong in spreading the dharma?
But not many Geshes have set up dharma centers around the world and
spread Dorje Shugdan practice.
>
> Gonsar Rinpoche has spoken against the ban on Dorje Shugden worship.
Interesting. Did he speak to the Kashag?? Isn't that what cause you are
trying to take up, to separate HH the Dalai Lama from the Tibetan
government and to prevent and/or stop any legal discrimination against
DS practioners in the exile government? Perhaps you can ask him to do
that.
>
> >
> >Are you saying that DS was not historically among the class Chos Skyong?
> >Even if he is a wisdom dharma protector, he is still at the bottom of
> >the merit field, no? Even Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo frowned upon
> >placing protectors over Buddhas, etc. in one's refuge and merit fields.
> >But the foreigner western DS practioners I've seen appear to make their
> >DS the center refuge of their puja practices, seeming to do more DS puja
> >than Tara, Heruka, etc, let alone skang Gso. But even the Lamas I know
> >who do DS practice faithfully do not appear to do this elevation of DS
> >to the exclusion of other practice. Their main puja practices have been
> >Heruka, Yamantaka, Tara, Medicine Buddha, 16 Arhants practice, etc.
> >>
>
> You should check two things:
> 1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
> 2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?
I don't need to check these things but DS practioners should! They
should check up very well to be sure they hold on to the roots and not
only the branches of what Buddha taught. They don't need to check or
decide for anyone other than themselves.
>
> >
> >> His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden
> >> and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all
> the
> >> four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the
> other
> >> traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader
> of
> >> Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of
> >> all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has
> been
> >> working towards this for many years.
> >
> >This sounds hysterical. No evidence is given to support this claim of
> >trying to be the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism or of trying to change
> >the entire Gelug tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from
> >branching off to start their own branch of the Gelug lineage.
> >
>
> Since Gelugpas believe that a lineage is passed down as a lineage of
> instructions and a lineage of realisations then for this generation of
> Buddhists the Gelugpa lineage has been embodied by Je Pabongkhapa and
> Trijang Dorjechang. Both these precious lamas taught that Dorje Shugden was
> a Buddha. They advised their followers to rely on him as their principal
> Protector. As a result the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden as a Buddha
> was very widespread in all the monasteries of the Gelug tradition.
It was very widespread but they never said that all Gelugpas have to be
Dorje Shugdan practioners or that DS was the only Buddha either. Those
students of Je Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche
have to decide for themselves how or if to continue their practices, and
frequently do so from what I've seen.
>
> Now the Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and bans the
> worship of Dorje Shugden in all gelugpa monasteries.
For best results, please kindly give actual quotations for what His
Holiness the Dalai Lama has said.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama said publicly that Dorje Shugdan is a
"worldly" spirit and has advised those monasteries accordingly.
Obviously insofar as those monasteries have taken respective action,
they have *chosen* to follow His Holiness' advice and/or wishes. Gelugs
who don't agree with monastery policies or decisions can start their own
new Gelug monasteries in a new branch lineage. They don't even have to
be in favor with His Holines the Dalai Lama or the exiled government.
>
> This is changing the Gelug tradition.
But it does not mean that HH the Dalai Lama is trying to "change the
*entire* Gelug lineage" which was what was claimed. Lamas give advice.
Students follow or don't follow.
dus byed tam cad mi tag pa-all conditioned things are impermanent.
>
> Worse than this he now claims that his actions accord with Trijang
> Rinpoche's teaching. This is the worst deception. The Dalai Lama has been
> trying to stop the worship of Shugden for nearly twenty years but only now
> do we have this new statement. Previously he said that Trijang Rinpoche
> accepted his decision to stop practising. Of course Trijang Rinpoche
> accepted this choice, it was not trijang Rinpoche's nature to force his
> disciples to do anything.
And no one is forcing you to agree with HH the Dalai Lama. Some of us
are simply waiting for those who disagree to find the effective way to
handle your disagreement. HH the Dalai Lama's relationship with Trijang
Rinpoche is not your or my relationship with Trijang Rinpoche. There is
no need or basis to say there is deception, but you are free to think
that if you want. Others wish to agree with or accept or follow HH the
Dalai Lama's advice and are also free to do so.
>
> If Trijang Rinpoche had decided that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, he
> would have told all his disciples. He would have made sure that they
> understood that their previous instructions to rely on Dorje Shugden as a
> Buddha were incorrect and harmful. And yet no one heard this from Trijang
> Rinpoche. Instead his close disciples continued to worship Dorje Shugden,
> teach that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, and give empowerments into the
> practice of Dorje Shugden.
Again the 'evil' word. Are all worldly spirits always evil?
Those who are the direct disciples of Trijang Rinpoche and HH the Dalai
Lama can check for themselves the advice from both Gurus and decide
their actions accordingly.
>
> I would love to think that the Dalai lama's words on this point are not a
> deliberate attempt to deceive others, but so far I have not a single reason
> not to make that conclusion.
>
Let's try to look at the point again:
You assert:
His Holiness' says his actions accord with Trijang Rinpoche's teaching.
[which particular teaching or to whom is not specified so we have to
assume generally]
Trijang Rinpoche did not advice his disciples to stop DS practice.
As a consequence His Holiness is trying to decieve others.
In order for this consequence to be true, Trijang Rinpoche would have to
have taught that His Holiness must never advise his students not to
practice Dorje Shugden.
In other words actions of HH the Dalai Lama must be something that
Trijang Rinpoche advised his disciples otherwise HH is trying to deceive
others.
Then if we generalize we get the consequence that anything anyone does
which was not advised by someone else is deception. That deception means
doing something someone else did not advise. But since that is not the
definition of deception the argument cannot be correct. So you don't
have to believe the consequence.
So there is no reason to accept the consequence. But you said you have
no reason NOT to accept it. One reason not to accept it is the
definition of deception. If you want more pervasion then we should find
some situation whereby the definition of deception (= misleading) is
*never* 'doing something someone else did not advise'. The only way that
could be true is if Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche only advised one thing one
time only. Then any thing ever done besides that one thing would
necessarily be leading away from that one advice and therefore
deception. But Kyabje Trijang advised lots of things on many occasions.
So therefore you have the reason not to accept that His Holiness is
trying to deceive others. Now *if* Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche taught that
HH must *never* advise *any* students to not practice DS, so that
advising such was opposite to that teaching, then it would be impossible
to say that such an act was in accord with the teaching, and then the
argument of deception *could* be true in theory (i.e. you would still
need to prove that HH is *trying* to deceive others)
However, you *can* say that you don't agree or like His Holiness's
actions, and that you prefer Trijang Rinpoche's advice, and maybe even
also if it is true that you wish people held the same preferences as
yourself.
Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
see that it is possible to believe such.
Sincerely,
ani lozang trinlae
Lozang Trinlae
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> In article <348282...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
> >
> >Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
> >> It is correct that many Lamas, Geshes, monks and lay people changed
> their
> >> mind about the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is because the Dalai
> Lama has
> >> been gradually repressing this practice for the past eighteen years.
>
> Lozang Trinlae replied:
>
> >I think 'advising against' is more appropriate than 'repressing'. For
> >example, when negro slaves where not allowed to read, that is more
> like
> >repression.
>
> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
> because of their
> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?
>
> that the Tibetan
> Constitution was changed to specifically exclude those who worship
> Dorje Shugden from
> and repressive.
Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so. That government,
in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a part
of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if that
is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice. In any case the
Kashag belongs to the Tibetan people and it is for them alone to decide
to belong to it and/or abide by the way it operates.
The other problem with this point is that it assumes that the Kashag and
Tibetan exile government is a full-fledged democratic operation, when it
is more like a theocracy in transition to a democracy, all within the
framework of binding laws of the Government of India. In any case those
resolutions are voted on by representatives elected by exile Tibetans,
which come from diverse sections of the exiled society and traditions.
Your vote nor my vote counts. The Tibetans know that and they don't care
what you or I think about it.
>
> >SNIP<
>
> >Well I certainly am not qualified to guess others' answers. But as a
> >foreigner outsider my impression was mainly that the practice of
> Dorje
> >Shugdan, for reasons which are right are wrong, was *perceived* [at
> >least] as offensive to other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, i.e.,
> Nyingma,
> >Kagyu, etc., and at a time when Tibetan people as a group should be
> >unified in their cause of Tibet and survival in exile, that divisive
> >elements such as DS practice and/or perceptions of it are better off
> >abandoned. That is, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for the
> >Tibetan society as a whole.
>
> It follows from what you say here that each time a religious practice
> threatens the unity of the
> state then you believe that practice must be destroyed.
No, respectfully sorry, *none* of it follows because what I said was
that "my impression" of the situation was 'blah blah blah'. Sorry if I
was misleading. I neither asserted any belief or claim of my own nor
asserted any conclusion to draw from it.
> From your
> reasoning here you show
> everyone very clearly that you believe national politics are more
> important than personal
> religious faith and practice.
Ditto. No reasoning was given since no argument was made. I merely gave
a summmary of appearances, and did not claim to believe or dis-believe
them or any part of them.
> You believe ...snip...
Ditto.
Your assumptions of my beliefs, while not valid, are nonetheless
interesting topics worthy of debate. Certain questions are begged, such
as:
When are national politics more important than religious faith and
practice?
Should a religious practice be destroyed if it threatens the unity of
the state?
Can a religious practice be destroyed?
Etc., etc., etc.
Thank you for your feedback.
~ani lozang trinlae
Kelsang Khyenrab
In article <3484c610...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
says...
>Kelsang, so that we can verify this "fact" would you kindly post us
>the clauses of the Tibetan Constitution which "specifically exclude
>those who worship Dorje Shugden from posts in the judiciary and
>health service."
>
>BTW, where is this Tibetan "Judiciary" and where are their courts?
>
>
>-chris
Dear Chris,
You ask for evidence of the change in the Tibetan Constitution last
year to discriminate
against and repress practitioners of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden. Thank
you very much
for this opportunity of showing this vital evidence once again.
I indicated that the constitution mentions people who work in the
health service. This does
not appear to be the case and I apologise for my misleading claim.
However you can see the
documents below ( in 2) unequivocally threaten Shugden worshippers that
they must resign
unless they give up their practice.
These documents were sent from India to Manjushri Centre last year.
These included:
1 A copy of a letter notifying modifications to Article 63 Clause 2 of
the
Tibetan Constitution. The letter original is letter-headed Pema Jungney
(Member of Parliament), Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies (Tibetan
Parliament-in-exile) Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai
Lama, Dharamsala, etc.
The English translation is headed 'Modifications introduced into the
Tibetan Democratic
Constitution by the 12th Session of the Assembly of Tibetan People's
Deputies Parliament,
Dharamsala' and reads Article 63, Clause 2:
Original form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission should
be a
Tibetan, should have ... in a court of law ... do not have to consult
...'
New wording: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission, *and the
two
juries*, should be a Tibetan, should have ... in a court of law ... do
not
have to consult ...'
Final modified form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission,
*and
the two juries*, should *in addition to being Tibetans, should not be a
worshipper of Gyalchen, should be a presiding Chief Judge of a high
court
continuously for five years ...'*
2 A copy of a 'Special Notice to Doctors and Staff Members' written on
paper
letter-headed Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of
His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala etc. The English
translation that accompanied this read:
"As we all know our exile govt. oracles pointed out repeatedly and in
naked
words that the worship of Dorje Shugden pose danger to the wellbeing of
the
Dalai Lama, besides posing danger to the cause of Tibet.
Above all, in the recent Lamrim and Tamdrin Yangsang addresses, His
Holiness has again
emphasised on the worship of Dorje Shugden. Herewith we bring out an
extract
of the addresses. Regarding this, all government employees in
Dharamsala
have already passed resolution in favour of it. Since it concerns the
cause
of the Tibetan people and above all His Holiness wellbeing, we cannot
leave
it as it is.
Therefore if we do not have amongst us [anyone] who worships
Dorje Shugden, we should resolve not to worship Shugden in the future.
Whereas if there is anyone who worships Dorje Shugden they should
repent the
past and stop worshipping. They must submit a declaration that they
will not
worship in the future. In case there is anyone who doesn't abide by the
addresses of His Holiness to give up Shugden worship, then, since there
is
nothing more important than the wellbeing of the Dalai Lama and the
Tibetan
cause, such person should submit their resignation. There is no other
alternative for such [a] person.
One should also take stringent responsibility to urge relatives who
worship Shugden to
abandon this worship. At the gathering of the relevant staff members,
make this
announcement. And make sure that no one comes up with excuses of not
having
heard it. We also request you to send us the signed resolution at once
from
each and every one.
from the Department of Health
Dated: April 18, 1996
c.c. Welfare Officer
Signed by Assistant General Secretary and bearing Seal of the
Department of
Health
Copies of both documents were received by the German Television
Company,
ARD, who had these and other documents authenticated by Tibetologists
at
Hamburg University.
If you or others would like then copies of both documents in English
and Tibetan can be
obtained by sending a stamped addressed envelope, or internationally
recognised postal
credit slip, to The NKT Secretary, Conishead Priory, Priory Road,
Ulverston, Cumbria, LA12
9QQ, England.
You ask about the judiciary and where the courts are - you will have
to ask the government
about this.
These documents illustrate graphically "and in naked words" the
frightening and
authoritarian methods used by the Dalai Lama's government and their
real meaning is in
vivid contrast to the official view outlined in the article by Tseten
Samdrup that you posted
today.
From these words we can see the actual nature of the Dalai Lama's
government. From the
beginning the Dalai Lama has made no attempt to explain the supposed
relationship that he
claims exists between worshipping Dorje Shugden and the "various
calamities" (from
Nechung's words quoted in 1978 by the Dalai Lama) that were meant to
have "befallen many
people." And yet he and his government have presided over the
destruction of an entire
religious tradition as a result. On top of this Western practitioners
are accused continuously
of "worshipping dark forces" and are associated with the loathsome
murders of Ven.
Lobsang Gyatso and his assistants (from "Student Direct" Nov 24 1997 -
the official student
newsaper for Greater Manchester).
In short, this unelected and unopposed leader has acted as if he were
the arresting police
officer, the jailer, the prosecution (no defence allowed), the judge
and the jury without
reference to any other human being, for a crime that only he has
perceived.
Why, Chris, do so many people have to suffer because of the view of one
person? Can you
please tell me?
Thank you
Khyenrab
Kelsang Khyenrab
In article <3484E6...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
>
>Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>SNIP<
>> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
>> because of their
>> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?
Lozang Trinlae replied:
>Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so.
Thanks for your reply though I have to disagree with you here;
"repressive" means "to put into
a state of subjugation/subservience/submission" and I believe that
governments that exclude
their citizens from jobs because of the religious beliefs they hold are
repressive as defined.
The citizens are subservient to the wishes of the state and its leaders
with regard to an
unproven issue on the advice of one man which has had no public debate
and against which
there is no appeal.
>That government,
>in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a
part
>of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
>responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if
that
>is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
>lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
>criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice.
If you are implying from this that HH Dalai Lama has no power over the
activities of the
Kashag then, respectfully, I must disagree. If he has no power then why
is he the leader of
the Tibetan people?
>SNIP<
>Your assumptions of my beliefs, while not valid, are nonetheless
>interesting topics worthy of debate. Certain questions are begged,
such
>as:
>
>When are national politics more important than religious faith and
>practice?
>
>Should a religious practice be destroyed if it threatens the unity of
>the state?
>
>Can a religious practice be destroyed?
>
>Etc., etc., etc.
>
>Thank you for your feedback.
>
>~ani lozang trinlae
>
best wishes
Khyenrab
Lucy James
Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA:
===================================================================
Please see www.he.net/~shugden/
Lucy
In article <3484cc10...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk says...
Don Martin
In article <3484F...@mindless.com>,
xlo...@mindless.com (Lozang Trinlae) wrote:
> >
> > You should check two things:
> > 1. How did Je Pabongkhapa teach to rely on Dorje Shugden?
> > 2. How do Geshe Kelsang's students rely on Dorje Shugden?
>
> I don't need to check these things but DS practioners should! They
> should check up very well to be sure they hold on to the roots and not
> only the branches of what Buddha taught. They don't need to check or
> decide for anyone other than themselves.
****** As they keep on about pure lineage, it would also be informative
if they checked up on what Je Tsongkhapa had to say specifically
about the worship of Dorje Shugden. ;-)
--
vajralama buddhist center
A Broader Threat
It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
have received no reply.
Why is this important? Because an entire spiritual practice is steadily
being wiped out of existence in dependence upon the word of these three
Lamas. If there were valid reasons establishing them as Buddhas we would
have to say they are non-mistaken, however no reasons have been
forthcoming.
If you ask why the practice of Dorje Shugden has been banned you are
told that it is bad for the cause of Tibet and that it harms the Dalai
Lama’s health. If you ask what reasons do you have to establish this you
are told “Because the Dalai Lama says so.” That’s it, end of argument,
end of debate. It seems that the word of the Dalai Lama is now gospel.
It cannot be questioned in any way. Doesn’t this sound like
fundamentalism?
The Dalai Lama refuses to debate the issue with anyone even though this
is the traditional way to resolve such issues. Even when 19 Gelug
masters, Geshes and Rinpoches, wrote to the Dalai Lama politely
requesting to discuss this issue he refused. What is he so afraid of?
Why won’t he debate this issue? Does he feel that his authority now
trancends all questioning?
The centralisation of power in the hands of the present Dalai Lama is
quite frightening. He is both the spiritual head and the unelected
political leader of the Tibetan people. Such a union of church and state
is anathema to the western world. We know the consequences from the
horrors of the middle ages. Yet we unquestioningly accept this union of
politics and religion in the present Dalai Lama.
Is it not reasonable to expect that there will be a clash of interests
between the cause of securing a free Tibet and the preservation of pure
spiritual lineages in the Tibetan tradition? What we see today is a
gradual melding together of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism into
one tradition. Sometimes known as the Rime tradition, or non-sectarian
tradition. And who will be the supreme head of this one unified
tradition?
You guessed it, His Holiness himself.
It is the political imperative of the Tibetans that is demanding such a
homogenisation of the four traditions. The Tibetans will thus be united
with one voice, one leader and this, they feel, will give them the
political might to free Tibet. In order to effect such a transition to
one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
“perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
dispensable in the face of political needs.
My question is, if the Dalai Lama is willing to destroy the lineage of
instruction that he received from his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, where
will he stop? If his own Guru’s lineage can be legislated out of
existence for political ends then is anything sacred? Watch out, your
tradition may be next.
When Dorje Shugden practitioners throughout the world stand up in the
name of religious freedom, they do so not just for themselves. They are
representing every one’s fundamental right to practice the lineage of
instruction they have received from their Masters, of whatever school of
Tibetan Buddhism.
Jangsem
PS There is an interesting interview in the present issue of Tricycle
with the Dalai Lama which shows the extent to which he relies upon
oracles. Apparently the Nechung oracle says “The wish-fulfilling jewel
will shine in the West.” The Dalai Lama interprets this as follows:
“..the meaning is that the Dalai Lama is the jewel. The jewel cannot
shine from Tibet. So that jewel will go to the West and from the West it
will shine. The complication is in one way it looks as if the shine will
appear in the West. Not in Tibet. Not that meaning. The jewel will go to
the West. From there, it will benefit Tibet.”
In other words the shining jewel that is the Dalai Lama will come to the
West, not to benefit the West, but to benefit Tibet. Is that a spiritual
or a political imperative?
Don Martin
In article <3485E1...@ix.netcom.com>,
vaj...@ix.netcom.com (vajralama buddhist center) wrote:
> A Broader Threat
****** What cobblers! Now answer this. Did you work out all of the above
for yourself, or is this how Geshe la explained H.H.Dalai Lama's
motives to you?
Robin Faichney
Bob Knight wrote:
>
> In article <34800b95...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
> writes
> >On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:43:28 +0000, Bob Knight
> ><b...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <347b9e36...@news.dircon.co.uk>, cf...@dircon.co.uk
> >>writes
> >>>
> >>>The Dalai Lama, like any other being, cannot possibly please everyone
> >>>all of the time. He has to act in the way do that he considers will
> >>>contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
> >>
> >>Interesting. I think this is a definition of the philosophy called
> >>Utilitarianism which was in vogue in the middle of the 19th century but
> >>was later discredited because of internal inconsistencies. See, for
> >>example, Chapter 16 of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern
> >>Philosophy."
> >
> >As a philosophical view it is indeed full of inconsistencies -but so
> >is life. I'm sure any leader sincerly trying to do a good job has
> >make decisions on this kind of basis.
>
> The point is that *because* it is full of inconsistencies (as you
> agree), it cannot be used to achieve the effect it sets out to achieve.
> This is why it was abandoned.
This is garbage. It was found that any logical system
based upon the Utilitarian principle would not be
consistent. If the principle is being used as a general
guide in an informal way, there is no problem whatsoever.
Robin Faichney
Kent Sandvik
Je Tsong Khapa (praise his name) was a very amazing practitioner. Anyone
interested in finding out all about all the practices Je Tsonkhapa did,
I would recommend to read Khaybdrub's Haven of Faith, and Geshe Ngawang
Dhargey wrote a a short biography based on this material, and this one
has been translated to English as the first chapter in Robert Thurman's
Life and Teachins of Tsong Khapa (available from Snow Lion and similar
distribution channels).
With metta, Kent
Kent Sandvik
vajralama buddhist center wrote:
>
> A Broader Threat
>
> It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
> prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
> Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
> though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
> have received no reply.
Sorry, but this is initially an artificial question. This because:
a) scriptures tell us that only Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the highest
level could fully qualify another Buddha.
b) Someone who takes another person as the guru considers this person to
be a Buddha, whether this person is a buddha or not (and sometimes the
person might get enlightened before the guru, as in the case of Maitreya
and Shakyamuni Buddha, and still consider the guru as the guru).
c) Ultimately in the pure view practices everyone is considered a
buddha.
Hopefully this helps. Maitri, Kent
--
Remove z from my email address above if you want to respond directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).
Rabten
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <3484F...@mindless.com>...
>
>Let's try to look at the point again:
>
>You assert:
>
>
>His Holiness' says his actions accord with Trijang Rinpoche's teaching.
>[which particular teaching or to whom is not specified so we have to
>assume generally]
>
Dear Ani-la,
I wasn't sufficiently clear.
1. I assert that the Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with
him that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.
2. I assert that Trijang Rinpoche never taught this, but in fact taught
the opposite: Dorje Shugden is a wisdom Buddha.
3. I conclude the Dalai Lama is lying. Furthermore lying in the full sense
of the lying: ie declaring that which he knows to be false with the
intention of deceiving others into believing it.
The direct conclusion is that the Dalai Lama is declaring that which he
knows to be false, the context in which he makes this declaration leads to
the conclusion that his intention is to deceive.
To establish point one:
Part A: The Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.
"Worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's
emergence coincided with the founding of the Ganden Podrang Government
of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in
conflict with the Ganden Podrang Government and sought to undermine
Tibet's national cause. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result
of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku
Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of
harm and interference. "
Quoted from: <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>
Part B: The Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with his view.
"There was a time when His Holiness too propitiated Dolgyal. Based on his
experience at that time, he conducted a series of investigations over many
years which led to clear spiritual indications that propitiating Dolgyal
brings more harm than good. His Holiness reported these, and instances
relating to them, to his tutor Trijang Rinpoche, who also propitiated
Dolgyal. Trijang Rinpoche gave His Holiness his unequivocal approval."
Quoted from:
Tibet Office London's statement on Dolgyal
Statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal
by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's
Representative Mrs Kesang Y Takla
To establish point two:
Since this is a negative phenomena (that Trijang Rinpoche never taught that
Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit) we need to rely on an inference, for which
we need a sign.
It is very clear that Trijang Rinpoche did not agree with the Dalai Lama's
view on Dorje Shugden because after 1978 (When the Dalai Lama publicly aired
his views) he continued to teach that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha and relied
on him as such.
I think it is very easy to gain the inference that Trijang Rinpoche never
changed his mind by using the reasoning: Trijang Rinpoche did not change his
mind because he did not tell his close disciples that he had changed his
mind. If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind his mind he would have told
his close disciples. The difference between relying on a Protector who is a
Wisdom Buddha and having been duped by an evil spirit that causes suffering
to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people etc etc is rather large. Since
Trijang Rinpoche had immense love for all his students he would never have
kept such knowledge a secret from them, rather he would have told them
directly. However none of Trijang Rinpoche's disciples were told this. For
example Zong Rinpoche came to England to give Dorje Shugden empowerment
after Trijang Rinpoche passed away and taught that Dorje Shugden was a
Buddha and the principle protector of Trijang Rinpoche's lineage.
>
>Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
>to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
>see that it is possible to believe such.
>
Ani-la, I would much rather not hold this view. If my view is correct then
the Dalai Lama is rewriting history and making a mockery of the teachings of
his root guru. Furthermore if he succeeds he will extinguish the belessings
of the Gelug lineage that came from Trijang Dorjechang. Please show me
incontrovertibly how I am wrong.
best wishes
Rabten
>Sincerely,
>
>ani lozang trinlae
>
Lozang Trinlae
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> In article <3484E6...@mindless.com>, xlo...@mindless.com says...
> >
> >Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
> >SNIP<
>
> >> How about Tibetan subjects not allowed to work in government jobs
> >> because of their
> >> religious beliefs? Isn't that repression? Political repression?
>
> Lozang Trinlae replied:
> >Discriminatory maybe....repressive...I don't think so.
>
> Thanks for your reply though I have to disagree with you here;
> "repressive" means "to put into
> a state of subjugation/subservience/submission" and I believe that
> governments that exclude
> their citizens from jobs because of the religious beliefs they hold are
> repressive as defined.
I don't have a dictionary but my MS word thesaurus gives 'control' as a
synonym of repress, and so I think it is fair to say that trying to keep
certain people from holding a job is trying to control the situation is
repressive, and therefore if it is proven that the government has indeed
engaged in discriminatory acts it would be fair to say it has been
repressive. (You have given evidence of such in another post-it wasn't
clear however if all the evidence is conclusive; more info is needed for
that, but it certainly *appears* that way)
> The citizens are subservient to the wishes of the state and its leaders
> with regard to an
> unproven issue on the advice of one man which has had no public debate
> and against which
> there is no appeal.
There is too much generalization here. Willful following of advise is
not subserviance or represssion. Discrimination of others on the basis
of whether they are following it *is*. However if the Tibetan people
don't care to change that, it is also their choice to have repression.
>
> >That government,
> >in exile as it is, is not binding on anyone who elects not to be a
> part
> >of it. Furthermore the activities of Kashag and its legislation is the
> >responsibility of the legislators, and not HH the Dalai Lama. So if
> that
> >is the real problem then why isn't energy of protestors put into
> >lobbying those legislators rather than blowing hot air trying to
> >criticize the person of His Holiness for giving advice.
>
> If you are implying from this that HH Dalai Lama has no power over the
> activities of the
> Kashag then, respectfully, I must disagree. If he has no power then why
> is he the leader of
> the Tibetan people?
I think HH the Dalai Lama CAN and DOES have tremendous influence, but
that doesn't mean that he is personally involved in every action of
every legislator who works in the exiled government. As far as I have
heard an effort is underway to remove the person of HH the Dalai Lama
from any government function, and that this is also his personal
preference. What I was trying to say is that legislators can take
actions without HH the Dalai Lama ordering them, and usually do so.
Those legislators are the ones who have to answer to the Tibetans they
represent why they act in certain ways.
Unless there is conclusive evidence that HH the Dalai Lama has
personally ordered particular legislators to write and vote
discriminating legislation into the government, there is no
justification for suggesting that such acts are HH's wish or of HH's
personal initiative.
Sincerely,
lozang trinlae
>
> >SNIP<
>
Lozang Trinlae
Dear Kelsang-la,
CONGRATULATIONS and THANK-YOU!! It appears that you have (pretty much)
succeeded in showing your disagreement with the policies of HH the Dalai
Lama and the exiled Tibetan Government by critizing specific,
well-documented, established acts and without criticizing the actual
person of HH the Dalai Lama or anyone else! Thank you very much!
I think that you and others like you will find that this manner will get
your views much further mileage and support among those with interests
in the Tibetan community! People who might be in a position to do
something to help but who would otherwise be alienated may come forward
due to this improved manner of public discourse.
The next step will be to include some specific suggestions on if or how
you think the specific problems you identify can be resolved, as a
starting point for further *polite* discussion!
See further comments below:
Kelsang Khyenrab wrote:
>
..snip..
> Dear Chris,
>
> You ask for evidence of the change in the Tibetan Constitution last
> year to discriminate
> against and repress practitioners of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden. Thank
> you very much
> for this opportunity of showing this vital evidence once again.
>
> I indicated that the constitution mentions people who work in the
> health service. This does
> not appear to be the case and I apologise for my misleading claim.
> However you can see the
> documents below ( in 2) unequivocally threaten Shugden worshippers that
> they must resign
> unless they give up their practice.
Very responsible way to handle yourself! Thank-you! This kind of
communication will give you more credibility.
>
> These documents were sent from India to Manjushri Centre last year.
> These included:
>
> 1 A copy of a letter notifying modifications to Article 63 Clause 2 of
> the
> Tibetan Constitution. The letter original is letter-headed Pema Jungney
> (Member of Parliament), Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies (Tibetan
> Parliament-in-exile) Central Tibetan Administration of H.H. the Dalai
> Lama, Dharamsala, etc.
> ...snip...
>
> Final modified form: 'The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission,
> *and
> the two juries*, should *in addition to being Tibetans, should not be a
> worshipper of Gyalchen, should be a presiding Chief Judge of a high
> court
> continuously for five years ...'*
Was this amendment voted and ratified? Was it debated?
Is there a law in the Tibetan constitution guaranteeing protection from
discrimination due to religious association?
If yes, then there should be a case. If not, perhaps you have a reason
to lobby for such.
How does this legislation sit with the laws of the government of India?
Are the laws of the Government of India bearing on the business of the
Kashag???
How do other democracies handle the legal job descriptions of Chief
Justices? Say, for a hypothetical example, that US Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas is an active member of a satanic cult and is a "devil
worshipper". Does the US via its legal code care?? What are the
precedents in other countries for similar scenarios (unpopular religous
practices vis a vis holding public office) I know that as a school
teacher in the US even as a Buddhist I am expected to not only say the
pledge of allegiance (blah blah blah one nation under god blah blah
blah) but to lead it, although not in the job description. Of course
there are still sneaky ways for people to get rid of you if they don't
like your religion that are not blatantly legally discriminatory.
This above cited legislation appears silly because what if the Chief
Judge was not a worshipper of Gyalchen, but rather a worshipper of Mao
Tse Tung for example? (It could be some kind of perverted Taoist
practice for example) Would that be better or worse? But I don't know
how many of those Kashag legislators have any qualifications as lawyers
or writers of legal codes, so in that case we shouldn't be too surprised
at poorly written legislation either.
On the other hand if we assume a purely representative democratic system
and if the elected representatives of the majority of exiled Tibetan
people feel that this legislation is acceptable, there may be no
alternative for Gyalchen worshippers but to give up their "citizenship"
and allegiance to the exiled government (if they haven't already), or
petition their representative appropriately. For best results this
should be done without alienating people via criticizing individual
persons but rather by pointing out the specific undesired item; i.e.,
that legislation re Chief Judges. Unfortunately a lot of mud-slinging
has occured so it may not be easy to find much sympathy at the moment.
In that case a better strategy would be to try to find support among
NON-DS "worshippers" to present your case for you; thereby getting your
views accross via a neutral medium. Of course, if you aren't Tibetan,
there is no obligation or compulsion for anyone to listen to you!
>
> 2 A copy of a 'Special Notice to Doctors and Staff Members' written on
> paper
> letter-headed Department of Health, Central Tibetan Administration of
> His
> Holiness the Dalai Lama, Gangchen Kyishong, Dharamsala etc. The English
> translation that accompanied this read:
>
> .snip..
No individual name was signed?? Strange!
This sounds very much like the political re-education campaign going on
in Tibet whereby monks and nuns have to sign a paper saying that HH the
Dalai Lama is the head of the serpent, etc., etc., etc. (there are 5
points I recall they have to sign on). The problem of course is that
anyone can sign it while crossing their fingers, etc., i.e., that it
doesn't in fact reflect their views.
The question of course is what is the desired result, and what is the
best way to get it??
If certain health professionals of the Tibetan Government want to
express their support for HHDL's advice, it seems that they could all
sign an unofficial (i.e., not on company letterhead which expressed any
formal policy) letter to him saying such, and then publish it in the
relevant medias to make it known. That way those who don't care to sign
it, while still being a bit ostracized by default, should still not face
any formal discrimination. Medical professionals in USA do this
frequently on ethics issues, etc., as we see them take out full page ads
of their signatures in major newspapers.
It *appears* from the evidence supplied here that a policy of
discrimination has been loosely or otherwise formulated, at least with
respect to the government Department of Health. (I.e., private health
institutions, where they exist, are not bound by such policies).
Again it seems to come down to the question of: is it legal?? Is there
any legislation forbidding such acts? How about in the Indian
government. If it is illegal then any person who feels discriminated by
the policy should be able to bring a lawsuit, and the Tibetan Exiled
Administration and/or Indian government would appear to be responsible
for hearing the case.
>
>...snip...
>
> You ask about the judiciary and where the courts are - you will have
> to ask the government
> about this.
>
Actually I think that this is something those who want to take up the
cause will want to do. Those who are merely seeking to inform themselves
about the issue may not have any inclination to lobby for or against it.
> These documents illustrate graphically "and in naked words" the
> frightening and
> authoritarian methods used by the Dalai Lama's government and their
> real meaning is in
> vivid contrast to the official view outlined in the article by Tseten
> Samdrup that you posted
> today.
There appears to be a contradiction between the noted official view and
the documents. However the best way to deal with it is to remember that
the government is made up of individual representatives who have a
responsibility to their constituents (I think maybe the Kashag is still
set up according to Tibet region representation), and to find
representatives who are in a position to do something about resolving
the discrepancy.
However those who have a grievance of discrimination should first see
what the legal recourse is. Most democratic legal systems rely on
precidence quite a bit, something which there may not be much of in the
relatively new exiled government. There may be more recourse via Indian
courts.
Another way to approach the matter is to find Tibetans who are
interested in a non-discriminatory legal code for their exiled
government, but who don't necessarily care much one way or the other
about the DS issue. Personally I suspect you may find a larger number of
sympathizers for that than the DS issue. However it will still be
necessary to handle the matter in a way that doesn't alienate potential
sympathizers.
>
> From these words we can see the actual nature of the Dalai Lama's
> government. From the
> beginning the Dalai Lama has made no attempt to explain the supposed
> relationship that he
> claims exists between worshipping Dorje Shugden and the "various
> calamities" (from
> Nechung's words quoted in 1978 by the Dalai Lama) that were meant to
> have "befallen many
> people."
That is His Holiness the Dalai Lama's choice. We may or may not agree
with it. No one who does not agree is obligated to accept any such
claims.
> And yet he and his government have presided over the
> destruction of an entire
> religious tradition as a result.
This still sounds a bit hysterical but I think it is more effective in
the way you use "presided over" which is more realistic than alternative
inflamatory ways to say it such as "he and his government have
destroyed....". You may think that is just semantics; actually I think
it is politics! How you say it has EVERYTHING to do with the results you
will get from the words! (presumably you would like desired results vs.
undesired results)
Nevertheless, the Tibetan exiled government is notorious in its
inability to separate itself and its business from the person of HH the
Dalai Lama, something HH the Dalai Lama has mentioned many times as a
desirable thing, not to mention desired by untold numbers of Tibetans.
Therefore what I am trying to say is that HH the Dalai Lama can hold
personal positions and give public advise and/or statements regarding
them, and the Tibetan exiled government may go over the top in trying to
incorporate them into government policies. I can't recall any other
specific cases (ask a Tibetan who keeps up with such things, like the
Tibetan Youth COngress for example) but it has happened before on many
other issue many times, not just for DS issues.
These habits are deeply ingrained into a centuries-old way of doing
business, and are difficult to change quickly. Those involved in
affecting positive changes have to be willing to apply gentle pressure
over a very long time with a lot of patience. If you don't mind I would
like to share a personal example, which while not directly any matter of
the exiled government reflects some arcane problems trying to change
things in Tibetan society:
As a way of returning my Gurus' kindnesses I have been trying to improve
the conditions of young monks studying the modern subjects at Sera and
Ganden Monasteries for about 6 years now. One of the areas of
improvement is curriculum materials. So I devised a system to gradually
replace the current (poor quality) curriculum materials with higher
quality ones over a period of years. For the first year of this program
at Sera Mey Thoesam School, the first thing to do was to get the
principal to commit to using new books. He insisted that he would be
most happy to use them. Therefore I purchased and has delivered new sets
of books for the 1st grade English class (about USD$100 worth). Some
months later when I returned to check on the use of the books, I was
very disappointed to see them sitting in boxes in the principals'
office, even though they had been delivered some long time before. I was
a little angry, and asked that if I had given them a $100 dollar bill
would they leave it lying on the floor. I was very frustrated for a few
days wondering why those books hadn't been used yet after my efforts to
get them (without any rich sponsors to pay for them either). Then it
occured to me that the monastery has been running for about 700 years,
and all during that time until only a few years ago there has never
really been any special school for young boy monks to learn math,
English, social studeies, etc., and that those old Geshes and Gen-la's
probably have no idea what those boys do during the day there and have
very little idea of any value to it, since they survived without it for
so long. (The general monastery administration takes virtually no
interest in the school operations other than having donated the land to
build it on). So I concluded that it is unrealistic to expect them to
accept my ideas of new ways very quickly, and that if I want to help
improve things I should be prepared for them to take 10 years to use my
new books! They will not change anything if I have any angry tantrums,
but they may if gentle pressure is applied consistently and patiently
over a very long time. In the meantime of course the next generation of
Geshes is getting a better education and may be able to speak English
well!
So you see for that exiled Tibetan government, it may similarly take
time for them to really be instinctively independent of HH the Dalai
Lama's wishes and be fully democratic. That doesn't mean that those who
want to improve it should just sit by and do nothing. But it may be
realistic to be gentle and patient. That is my point. Angry tantrums are
not likely to get anyone very far.
> On top of this Western practitioners
> are accused continuously
> of "worshipping dark forces" and are associated with the loathsome
> murders of Ven.
> Lobsang Gyatso and his assistants (from "Student Direct" Nov 24 1997 -
> the official student
> newsaper for Greater Manchester).
Tibetan Buddhists of all kinds are considered godless devil worshippers
by many. However it has been DS supporters who keep changing 'worldly
spirit' to 'evil spirit' in posts I read referring to DS.
Regarding Ven. L. Gyatso that story really hasn't come out yet, and may
never in entirety. Even if those murderers were angry Shugden
supporters, and were acting on behalf of somebody, it doesn't
*necessarily* mean that they were acting on behalf of *all* Shugden
practioners/supporters. But it seems that they had a lot of money
indicating that someone may have sponsored them. There also appears to
be evidence in that telephone call that they have a connection with the
Shugden Society or whatever they are called. This will make the public
relations efforts more difficult for Shugden supporters/devotees.
Those murders are extremely tragic. It should be pointed out that they
are not the first incident of horrible violence in the exiled Tibetan
community.
>
> In short, this unelected and unopposed leader has acted as if he were
> the arresting police
> officer, the jailer, the prosecution (no defence allowed), the judge
> and the jury without
> reference to any other human being, for a crime that only he has
> perceived.
It seems you couldn't help blowing steam here, which was a shame because
it was going so well until then. It sounds very emotionally hysteric,
but nevertheless the main problem is that your claims of acting like
police, jailer, etc. are not supported with any observable facts. It is
very difficult to be generous in giving credibility to such types of
(email) oration.
>
> Why, Chris, do so many people have to suffer because of the view of one
> person? Can you
> please tell me?
>
No case has been produced yet (in this post at least and anywhere else
as far as I know) to show anyone suffering. Therefore it is difficult to
accept your claim.
Sincerely,
lozang trinlae
Lozang Trinlae
Rabten wrote:
>snip<
>
> Dear Ani-la,
>
> I wasn't sufficiently clear.
That's ok. Presumably a motivating benefit of this discussion is to
bring some clarity to the varying viewpoints. I.e., those who elect to
agree or disagree with the different views can do so on the basis of
accurately assessing them as best as possible, as opposed to emotional
reactions to ranting and raving, so that any prevailing hostility can be
reduced, or better yet, eliminated.
>
> 1. I assert that the Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with
> him that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.
I don't accept that this assertion is established with the evidence
supplied (see below). I have never heard of HH the Dalai Lama calling
Dorje Shugden an 'evil spirit'. However, I have heard of HH referring to
Dorje Shugden as a 'worldly spirit'.
This distinction may be hard to appreciate. Those unfamiliar with
Tibetan should know that 'worldly spirit' is a Tibetan Buddhist
technical term used generally to classify different dharma protectors,
while 'evil spirit', generally speaking at least, is not, although
theoretically, assistance of dharmapalas and wrathful dieties can be
used for 'black magic' aka 'destructive magic'.
Dharma protectors can be generally classified into divisions: "jig rten
las 'das pa'i srung ma" or dharma protectors who have gone beyond the
six realms of existence, and "jig rten pa'i srung ma", those belonging
to the six realms of existence. The former are known in English (in
typical translation) as 'transcendental' spirits, the latter 'worldly'
spirits. There is historically some debate over the classifications, but
generally the former include protectors such as: Palden Lhamo, 70-odd
classes of mGonpo, rNam-to-se, Zhambhala, Shin-je, Jam-sring and so
forth. The latter division is said to include Pehar Gyalpo, Dorje
Shugdan, Dorje Legpa, Phyin dkar po, Tsiu Marpo, etc. It should be noted
that according to the Buddhist view any sentient being, including
protector "spirits" can eventually go beyond the six realms of existence
with liberation and enlightenment.
Therefore if we can use the words interchangeably such that all 'evil
spirits' are 'worldly spirits' and vise-versa, then Dorje Shugdan is no
more or less an evil spirit than other worldly spirits such as Pehar
Gyalpo and so forth, for example, whose worship, etc., is not at issue
at present.
>
> 2. I assert that Trijang Rinpoche never taught this, but in fact taught
> the opposite: Dorje Shugden is a wisdom Buddha.
>
It is difficult to establish what Trijang Rinpoche never taught.
Nevertheless I can accept your assertion that Trijang Rinpoche never
publicly taught that Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit, since I have
never heard of any evidence of this. I also accept that he may have
taught that DS was a wisdom Buddha (sounds probable but I can't say for
sure). In addition I also think that it is possible he could have said
that DS is a dharma protector of the wordly spirit class, at least at
one time or another, publicly or privately, to HH the Dalai Lama and/or
others.
> 3. I conclude the Dalai Lama is lying. Furthermore lying in the full sense
> of the lying: ie declaring that which he knows to be false with the
> intention of deceiving others into believing it.
I don't accept this conclusion, first of all because I think the
assertion #1 above is not established, as mentioned, with the evidence
given (below). Secondly no consequence of lying follows from the
evidence supplied; i.e., Trijang Rinpoche not ever teaching something
does not mean he never agreed with HH the DL's views on the matter, even
privately. The act of lying, i.e., HH claiming to have heard Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche say or otherwise indicate something which he in fact
did not, does not follow.
Furthermore I think it is possible that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, when
speaking about DS, did not necessarily *always* teach to *everyone* that
DS is a wisdom buddha.
Moreover, I think given suitable contexts it is possible that when
speaking about DS, Trijang Rinpoche could have (explicitly or
implicitly) taught that DS is a wisdom Buddha AND a jig rten pa'i srung
ma-worldy dharma protector. For example, just by reading the title of
popular Shugden liturgical texts, which include phrases for example:
"chos skyong rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan: Dharma protector
great-victor Dorje Shugdan " (from dga' ldan bstan srung ldan dgra tshar
gcod) or "bstan srung sprul pa'i rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan:
doctrine-protector-emanation great-victor Dorje Shugdan" (From skang
Chog), one could easily make that impression.
Moreover, there is precedent for such a member of one class to be
accepted in another class, such that both could be accepted as true, or
at least not in contradiction to eachother. For example, the 16 Elder
Arhants are by convention regarded as Listener-Arhants, but are
nonetheless accorded greater status when we regard them as fully
enlightened Buddhas emanating as Arhants.
>
> The direct conclusion is that the Dalai Lama is declaring that which he
> knows to be false, the context in which he makes this declaration leads to
> the conclusion that his intention is to deceive.
Ditto as before.
>
> To establish point one:
> Part A: The Dalai Lama teaches that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit.
>
> "Worship of Dorje Shugden began in the seventeenth century. Shugden's
> emergence coincided with the founding of the Ganden Podrang Government
> of Tibet by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This wrathful spirit arose in
> conflict with the Ganden Podrang Government and sought to undermine
> Tibet's national cause. The Fifth Dalai Lama declared that as a result
> of distorted prayers, a being masquerading as the incarnation of Tulku
> Dakpa Gyaltsen had arisen as a wrathful spirit that was a source of
> harm and interference. "
>
> Quoted from: <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>
The first problem is that the above-quoted statements are not the words
of The Dalai Lama but rather Kent Sandvik. It is a mere but nevertheless
incomplete historical account of the origins of Shugden practice from
popular legend of events said to have occured in the 1600's. What is
missing is the information on how the Shugden practice evolved from the
above (which nevertheless has inaccuracies). From the popular legend as
related by Nebesky-Wojkowitz: "...Since all subsequent trials [to catch
and destroy the spirit] proved again in vain, the Tibetan Government and
the spiritual leaders of the dGe lugs pa sect, who by now had discovered
that the cause of all the misfortune was the injustice they had done to
bSod nams grags pa, decided to request his spirit to make peace with
them, and instead of causing further harm to become a protective deity
of the Yellow Hats. To this the spirit agreed, and under the name rDo
rje shugs ldan he became one of the chief divine protectors of the dGe
lugs pa order and a dutiful guardian of its monasteries", (1956, SMC
Publishing).
Nevertheless the historical account, while suggesting an origin of
conditions of conflict, does not state that Dorje Shugdan is an evil
spirit. One can also note the date which precedes the Tibetans going
into exile.
This point is not established because it is not a teaching of HH the
Dalai Lama indicating HH the Dalai Lama's views, and also does not seek
to claim that Dorje Shugdan is an evil spirit.
>
> Part B: The Dalai Lama claims that Trijang Rinpoche agreed with his view.
>
> "There was a time when His Holiness too propitiated Dolgyal. Based on his
> experience at that time, he conducted a series of investigations over many
> years which led to clear spiritual indications that propitiating Dolgyal
> brings more harm than good. His Holiness reported these, and instances
> relating to them, to his tutor Trijang Rinpoche, who also propitiated
> Dolgyal. Trijang Rinpoche gave His Holiness his unequivocal approval."
>
> Quoted from:
>
> Tibet Office London's statement on Dolgyal
>
> Statement on the issue of propitiating Dolgyal
> by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's
> Representative Mrs Kesang Y Takla
>
> To establish point two:
>
> Since this is a negative phenomena (that Trijang Rinpoche never taught that
> Dorje Shugden was an evil spirit) we need to rely on an inference, for which
> we need a sign.
The need to show this doesn't follow, because what is established via
the claim from the above quote is that Trijang Rinpoche is claimed to
have given his approval to HH the Dalai Lama's spiritual indications
that more harm than good will come from propiating Dorje Shugdan, not
that he gave his approval that Dorje Shugdan is an evil spirit. In any
case the statement is in the context of HH the Dalai Lama's personal
practice, and does not imply that the same indications necessarily apply
to anyone or everyone other than HH.
>
> It is very clear that Trijang Rinpoche did not agree with the Dalai Lama's
> view on Dorje Shugden because after 1978 (When the Dalai Lama publicly aired
> his views) he continued to teach that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha and relied
> on him as such.
I don't see how this follows. For example, if I have indications that
more harm than good will come from doing prostrations, in my personal
practice, my Guru can give his 'unequivocal approval', and still
continue to teach that doing prostrations is a path of purification
(when done properly) leading to liberation and enlightenment. There is
no contradiction.
>
> I think it is very easy to gain the inference that Trijang Rinpoche never
> changed his mind by using the reasoning: Trijang Rinpoche did not change his
> mind because he did not tell his close disciples that he had changed his
> mind.
What needs to be established is that Trijang Rinpoche did not give his
approval of HH the Dalai Lama's spiritual indications regarding
propiating DS. No claim has been made that Trijang Rinpoche changed his
mind so there doesn't appear to be anything to refute here.
> If Trijang Rinpoche had changed his mind his mind he would have told
> his close disciples. The difference between relying on a Protector who is a
> Wisdom Buddha and having been duped by an evil spirit that causes suffering
> to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people etc etc is rather large. Since
> Trijang Rinpoche had immense love for all his students he would never have
> kept such knowledge a secret from them, rather he would have told them
> directly. However none of Trijang Rinpoche's disciples were told this. For
> example Zong Rinpoche came to England to give Dorje Shugden empowerment
> after Trijang Rinpoche passed away and taught that Dorje Shugden was a
> Buddha and the principle protector of Trijang Rinpoche's lineage.
>
That may be true. But it has not been established that anyone claimed
that DS was an evil spirit nor that Trijang Rinpoche otherwise had any
reason or occasion to have changed his mind.
> >
> >Sorry I am only an amateur pretend logician. But you said you would love
> >to believe that there is no deception and I'm just trying to help you
> >see that it is possible to believe such.
> >
>
> Ani-la, I would much rather not hold this view. If my view is correct then
> the Dalai Lama is rewriting history and making a mockery of the teachings of
> his root guru. Furthermore if he succeeds he will extinguish the belessings
> of the Gelug lineage that came from Trijang Dorjechang. Please show me
> incontrovertibly how I am wrong.
Again I must say that I am not qualified. Nonetheless I don't think it
is necessary to hold these views. I'm not sure yet if it is possible to
prove to you incontrovertibly how you can give up your views, and if so
that I could do such myself.
I don't think that we have to say that there is no alternative and that
the only possibilities are that HH the Dalai Lama is lying or that
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was lying so that we are forced to choose only
one of them as having a valid position. I think that it is entirely
possible that Trijang Dorje Chang's advice to his disciple HH the Dalai
Lama is completely true and that Trijang Dorje Chang's teachings and
advice to his other disciples are also completely true and valid.
I have no inside information on the reasons for the actions of HH the
Dalai Lama or the exiled government or Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.
I have concluded from the statements from HH the Dalai Lama that for his
own personal situation, primarily with respect to his central
relationship to the Tibetan government and society, that HH has decided
that it is better that he does not engage in DS practice, and that he
received approval directly from his guru Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to
discontinue such practice directly.
In my view, if it were the case that HH the Dalai Lama never had any
particular karmic relationship to the Tibetan government, then that
perhaps no conditions for him to discontinue his personal DS practice
would ever have come up. Also if HH the Dalai lama *did* have a
particular karmic relationship with the Tibetan government and society
but was *not* a Buddhist teacher and Guru, any changes he would make in
his personal practice would have no implications for anyone else but His
Holiness' self alone.
Such scenarios are not the actual case. For better or worse the
situation that we actually have is very complex and complicated. That is
why it is so difficult and uncomfortable.
I believe it is possible to hold a viewpoint such that no individual
need be regarded as an enemy or with hostility, be it HHDL, Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche, or Dorje Shugdan himself or DS practioners. It may
take effort to protect such a view point from potent propaganda from
many directions. But it *is* possible, and I am confident it is the most
beneficial and least harmful approach.
I don't think that there is any reason to fear for the blessings of the
Gelug lineage. Due to their personal relations with HH the Dalai Lama
some Gelugs who might have otherwise become DS practioners may not come
to do so, and some who have been DS practioners may give it up, but that
is no indication that the teachings and blessed lineages are not being
passed down and practioners are not studying and contemplating and doing
the great retreats and not getting the realizations. Each Gelug student
in the line of Kyabje Trijang and Kyabje Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo
Rinpoche, whether doing DS practice or not, should nevertheless continue
the other practices of studying and meditating the Lam Rim and monastic
subjects, getting the initiations in the blessed lineages of Yamantaka,
Heruka, and Guhyasamaja, getting the transmissions and commentaries, and
doing the great retreats to accomplish the practices, in addition to the
regular monthly pujas of Tsechu, 4 Round Mandala offering to Tara,
Medicine Buddha, and 16 Arhants, and regular Jorcho practice. If we look
at those direct disciples and Labrangs of Phabonkha Rinpoche and Trijang
RInpoche and the monasteries and nunneries they personally established,
that is what we can see that they do. For Kang-so protector puja it is a
choice, to do Dorje Shugdan or leave Dorje Shugdan out. But if we do not
practice Dorje Shugdan it does not mean we believe he is an evil spirit
or that we are an enemy of DS. It can be just neutral. Each Gelug must
choose for him or her self. Each can decide for him or her self alone,
and/or with the advice and/or example of any particular root gurus. But
if we decide to practice DS we should also respect HH the Dalai Lama's
wishes regarding his own personal karma and not mix up our own DS karma
with HH the Dalai Lama.
Sorry I can't think of any more to say about this now. Please try not to
be angry with HH the Dalai Lama. It is all of our karma all mixed
together and we all have a share in responsibility for it. The best
thing you and I can do for the situation is to get enlightened as soon
as possible, and in the meantime not do non-virtuous deeds and do only
virtuous deeds and subdue our own minds. That is what Buddha taught and
I'm sure is the wish of all our valid Gurus, even if we perceive them to
disagree with eachother or ourselves.
Most sincerely,
~ani lozang trinlae
cf...@dircon.co.uk
On 23 Nov 1997 22:46:08 GMT, khye...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Kelsang
Khyenrab) wrote:
..
>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.
Actually it was Zemey Rinpoche, Geshe Yonten Gyatso and others who
first brought this issue into public discussion with the publication
of ther books which were widely circulated in the 1970's and
discussed. Previous to that Lamas did not want to discuss these
things.
cf...@dircon.co.uk
Khyenrab:
From the heading on what you posted ("Modifications introduced
into..") it is not very clear whether this ammendment was actually
passed or only proposed and discussed. Be that as it may, there are
two things to keep in mind here:
1. The Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies is an elected not an
appointed body and they are responsible to the people who elected
them. If there are Tibetans who elected them who don't agree with
this resolution then they should try to elect representatives who
do represent thier views in future.
2. AFAIK this "Tibetan Constitution" has no legal force anywhere
it's only a proposed constitution for a free Tibet.
IMHO If the wording of the Tibetan Constitution has been changed as
you say it has then that wording is silly. Since it seems that they
basically view Shugden as a goblin it's almost like saying:
"The Presiding Judge of the Judiciary Commission, *and
the two juries*, should *in addition to being Tibetans, should not be
a worshipper of Goblins, ..."
I'm not a lawyer, but I think they could have effectively accomplished
the same thing by saying that officers and employees of the Tibetan
Government have to swear and keep an oath of allegiance to HHDL
and additionaly that officers in important and sensitive positions
have to be positively vetted.
That would be no different from the situation in many countries most
people consider to be democratic.
(Do you think anyone would stand a chance of being appointed as a
judge in the UK or US if it was known that they worshipped the
Archangel Lucifer?)
Anyway isn't it a bit rich for people like me and you who live in
the UK where we don't even have a written constitution to be telling
Tibetans what they should put in theirs?
Tibetans living in India and Nepal are mostly stateless people
and refugees in that situation often have a siege mentality -
an "if you are ot with us your against us" sort of thing. To many
Tibetans His Holiness the Dalai Lama is their only real hope
of some kind of independence and they get very upset with
anything they feel threatens the embodiment of that hope.
It's just conjecture, but this kind of reaction may also be indicative
of a resentment many Tibetans have for those lamas who they see as
selfishly enriching themselves from Western and overseas Chinese
patrons while seemingly caring little for the situation many Tibetans
find themselves in or for Tibetan independence. HHDL on the other
hand is probably the one lama who the ovewhelming majority of
Tibetans see as selflessly working for their interests.
Of course there are some Tibetans, including some Shugden
worshippers, who don't hold HH the Dalai Lama in such high
regard - but I know of no other leader anywhere who enjoys
the kind of support that he does - and there is good reason for this.
HH Dalai Lama does make mistakes - he would probably
be the first to admit it. This Shugden ban is certainly not
a step he has taken lightly and without a great deal of thought.
HHDL certainly knows far more about Shugden than you or I do.
Whatever you think of it that ban does not affect you
directly and you are perfectly free to worship and promote the
practice of Gyalchen (even though there may be those such as myself
who express disagreement with your views).
I think you do your cause and the cause of other Shugden worshippers
no good at all by personally attacking HH the Dalai Lama - by doing
this you will only succeed in hardening the attitude of most Tibetans
against Shugden worship and those who promote it. The majority
of Tibetans probably have as much sympathy for you as Polish
Catholics have for people who attack the present Pope.
I also think that you your cause no good by overstating the
seriousness and effects of this prohibition I am very familiar with
the situation in Byallakuppe near Mysore in South India where
there is the largest and probably the oldest Tibetan refugee settlment
in India. It is true that the Tibetan Womens Organisation and other
groups have staged noisy protests there against Shugden worship and
berated some people who continue it, it is also true that in the 6th
(old) camp there is a temple shared by both a Nyingma group
and a Gelugpa group from which a statue of Shugden (which had been
there for sometime) was removed after the majority of the people
using the temple (including the majority of Gelugpas) decided to
follow HH's advice although this was resisted by the minority who
wished to keep the statue of Shugden installed in that Temple and
to continue worshipping Shugden there. There was also some
trouble at Sera when this prohibition was introduced. Shugden had
been fairly widely worshipped or propitiated in Sera Mey college and
to a lesser extent by some monks in Sera Je. When this prohibition was
introduced most monks agreed but there was one khangtsen which
did not and protested vocally. It's true that there was apparently
some fighting over this though accounts of who started it vary. While
this fighting was apparently over this issue it probably had as much
to do with long standing rivalries between various khantsen and
colleges as it actually has to do with Shugden worship and this ban.
There are some young monks who have always fought violently
motivated by this sort of rivalry and I suspect this issue has just
provided them with an excuse.
Despite this "ban" there are still a number of Tibetan families in
Byallakuppe who continue to worship or propitiate Shugden - everyone
knows who they are yet they remain unmolested - (though many people
may now think badly of them) It seems that Shugden is still worshipped
in some smaller temples there too.
From what I have heard from those who have been there the situation in
other Tbetan settlements is similar. The position of those who have
decided Shugden worshipers may be somewhat uncomfortable - but there
does not seem to be the campaign of oughtright and orchestated
repression of the sort you allege actually taking place.
Do you really think it is wise for us to get involved with an issue in
Tibetan religious politics that has been going on since the time of
the 5th Dalai Lama? Are you doing this because of a real concern
for human rights or trying to show how much you are devoted to your
gurus? By making such an issue of Shugden worship aren't you
engaging in the very polotics which you claim to disdain.
Some time ago we heard from Dewang that Ven Geshe Kelsang
had asked his students to stop the protests that had bee going on
and the posts on the Internet about this. It appears this policy has
for some reason changed again. I wonder what has provoked this
latest round of postings? Surley the content of Tseten Samdup's post
does not justify the number of posts by GKG's students and the
language and personal attacks in found in some of them.
There also seems to be a new tactic in these posts which attack not
only the present Dalai Lama but now also the 5th and the 13th too. It
is well known that to even an amature student of Tibetan history that
these three Dalai Lamas have been the most effective out of all the
Dalai Lamas - and also that all three have been interested in Nyingma
teachings as well as those of their own Gelugpa tradition.
Do you think that the good name of Gyalchen Shugden more important to
Tibetans and Gelugpas than the good name of HH the Dalai Lama? Indeed
do you actually think that Gyalchen Shugden & his worship are more
important to the Gelugpa tradition than His Holiness the Dalai Lama?
Which has benefitted the Tsongkhapa's tradition more Gyalchen Shugden
or HH the Dalai Lama and his predecessors the 5th and 13th Dalai
Lamas?
- Chris
craig s. bialick
In article <3485E1...@ix.netcom.com>, vajralama buddhist center
<vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
A Broader Threat
........In order to effect such a transition to
> one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
> tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
> destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
> previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
> practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
> “perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
> dispensable in the face of political needs..........
>Watch out, your tradition may be next.
> Jangsem
Jangsem, Kelsang Khyenrab, Rabten and friends,
I would like to know if there is ANY basis to the claims which i have
caught a hint of here and there in some of these postings, that the
worship of Dorje Shugden includes prayers or wishes for the decline and
destruction of the Nyingma lineage. Do you have any idea how or why these
sentiments might be entertained or justified? Perhaps there is nothing to
these notions, just more divisive rumor. But if there is any truth to
this, it certainly reeks of black magic, spiritism and historical
politics. As far as i know, each of the major lineages has protector
deities that are exclusive and not commonly practiced by all traditions.
If there is a Rimé conspiracy as you imply, why are these other protectors
not also coming under fire?
interested,
shugchang
vajralama buddhist center
Don Martin wrote:
>
> In article <3485E1...@ix.netcom.com>,
> vaj...@ix.netcom.com (vajralama buddhist center) wrote:
>
> > A Broader Threat
>
> > The centralisation of power in the hands of the present Dalai Lama is
> > quite frightening. He is both the spiritual head and the unelected
> > political leader of the Tibetan people. Such a union of church and state
> > is anathema to the western world. We know the consequences from the
> > horrors of the middle ages. Yet we unquestioningly accept this union of
> > politics and religion in the present Dalai Lama.
> >
> > Is it not reasonable to expect that there will be a clash of interests
> > between the cause of securing a free Tibet and the preservation of pure
> > spiritual lineages in the Tibetan tradition? What we see today is a
> > gradual melding together of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism into
> > one tradition. Sometimes known as the Rime tradition, or non-sectarian
> > tradition. And who will be the supreme head of this one unified
> > tradition?
> > You guessed it, His Holiness himself.
> >
> > It is the political imperative of the Tibetans that is demanding such a
> > homogenisation of the four traditions. The Tibetans will thus be united
> > with one voice, one leader and this, they feel, will give them the
> > one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
> > tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
> > destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
> > previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
> > practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
> > “perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
>
> ****** What cobblers! Now answer this. Did you work out all of the above for yourself, or is this how Geshe la explained H.H.Dalai Lama's
> motives to you?
>
>
Your response may be taken a little more seriously if you gave reasons
establishing cobblers! Observing the Tibetan political scene and their
increasing desperation to make headway towards Tibetan freedom after
nearly 40 years of getting absolutely nowhere, it is obvious that this
is now the primary goal of the Dalai Lama and his government. Spiritual
issues have become subservient to the greater political cause. Anyone
with an open mind can see this.
Sincerely,
Jangsem
vajralama buddhist center
craig s. bialick wrote:
>
> In article <3485E1...@ix.netcom.com>, vajralama buddhist center
> <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> A Broader Threat
>
> > one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
> > tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
> > destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
> > previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
> > practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
> > “perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
>
> >Watch out, your tradition may be next.
>
> > Jangsem
>
> Jangsem, Kelsang Khyenrab, Rabten and friends,
>
> I would like to know if there is ANY basis to the claims which i have
> caught a hint of here and there in some of these postings, that the
> worship of Dorje Shugden includes prayers or wishes for the decline and
> destruction of the Nyingma lineage.
Within the practices of the NKT, Dorje Shugden is worshipped as the
protective aspect of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri. As such we rely upon
him to help us to gather the necessary external and internal conditions
to gain Dharma realizations. Our intention is to benefit others through
our spiritual practice, and in none of the sadhanas is there any mention
of wishing to see the Nyingma lineage destroyed. We respect all four
schools of Tibetan Buddhism as offering a valid spiritual path, so it
would be contrary to our bodhichitta to wish for them to decline.
>Do you have any idea how or why these sentiments might be entertained or >justified?
My personal opinion is that such notions have been stirred up over the
centuries in Tibet which as we all know was rife with superstition and
fear of evil spirits. Seven Years in Tibet gives a glimpse into how
superstitious Tibetan society actually was/is.
>Perhaps there is nothing to
> these notions, just more divisive rumor. But if there is any truth to
> this, it certainly reeks of black magic, spiritism and historical
> politics.
I agree. I think this whole debate is an attempt to separate out the
pure Dharma practices from the centuries of intrigue and politics that
surrounded and nearly suffocated them in Tibet.
>As far as i know, each of the major lineages has protector
> deities that are exclusive and not commonly practiced by all >traditions. If there is a Rimé conspiracy as you imply, why are these other protectors not also coming under fire?
Perhaps they are not perceived as being so directly in the way of a
unification of the four schools. Perhaps their time is yet to come...
> interested,
> shugchang
Sincerely,
Jangsem
Pagpa
‘Exploding the myth that the Dalai Lama’s ban is not affecting those in the
West’
I’d like to relate a few experiences that myself and others have had
recently. I am the teacher at the New Kadampa Tradition Centre in Edinburgh,
Mahakaruna Centre. One of my students, who lives there has a twin brother
who’s been living at Samye Ling Centre (Kagyu tradition) in Scotland. He is
now living back in Edinburgh but is afraid to come and visit his brother
(who he’s very close to) because of what his Lama has told him about the
practice of Dorje Shugden. He feels that ‘we are slowly killing ourselves
and can’t bear to watch.’
This is the kind of crazy, hysterical and paranoid response that the Dalai
Lama’s actions are creating from his followers which is setting Buddhist
brother against Buddhist brother, both literally and otherwise. At no stage
has anyone from this NKT Centre discouraged people from visiting Samye Ling
or any other Buddhist Centre, why can’t it be the other way around?
Also someone who attends the NKT classes in Dundee met a monk from Samye
Ling who, when he became aware that she was in the NKT, proceeded to perform
spirit dispelling mudras (hand gestures) towards her - laughable if not so
tragic.
Another sad situation that occurred in Edinburgh was that I was prevented
from putting up an NKT poster in a shop because it was ‘affiliated to the
Dalai Lama who said that the NKT is negative.’
Yet another farcical event was when I was searching out at an NKT branch in
Durham which was disrupted by a Nyingma practitioner who interrupted the
class to warn everyone present of what they were letting themselves in for
by getting involved within the NKT. Fortunately no one really took him
seriously because he was so obviously misinformed of the whole Dorje
Shugden/Dalai Lama issue. Just among people I know there are several other
NKT teachers and students who have had similar experiences to my own.
Clearly this whole messy business is affecting the daily lives and spiritual
faith of not only thousands of oppressed Tibetans but also practitioners in
the West. I truly hope that it will soon be over so that we can all get on
with our Dharma practice in peace.
Kelsang Pagpa
Madhyamaka Centre
Pagpa
In article <6678r8$ilo$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
says...
>
>‘Exploding the myth that the Dalai Lama’s ban is not affecting those in the
>West’
>
>
>Durham
Sorry for the typo! The person who typed this in for me misread my hand
writing. 'searching out' should say 'teaching'. Just thought I would clarify
this in case anyone thought it was some kind of new NKT Speak!
Kelsang Pagpa
>Kelsang Pagpa
>Madhyamaka Centre
>
Avyorth Rolinson
Shakyamuni Buddhist Center wrote in message <65vlip$o8c$1...@lynx.unm.edu>...
>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.
>Some of the information you have given is incorrect and
>some does not seem to me to be directly
>but I would like precise answers to some essential questions.
>
Grass shrivels and trees shed their leaves when k dekyong, the NKT's answer
to Cu Chulainn, passes by. I jest not, k dekyong was Education Programme
Co-ordinator at Tara Centre during my stay there - winter lay upon the land
during the whole of that time.
So, Mr C Fynn, the fact that you're still posting must be something to do
with the luck of the (southern) Irish.
Well, Dekyong, hard to believe but it is patently true that you have
actually developed your Schottky effect.
Do you remember the time you stood in the car park at Tara Centre screaming
hysterically at me? Holding thumb and forefinger a couple of millimetres
apart, you shouted, "Compared to the Education Department [ie yourself] this
is the amount of influence you have!!!!"
Ah, the dastardly crime that I'd committed? I'd requested Khyenrab to give
teachings on G Kelsang's book "Understanding the Mind" without having asked
your permission to request this! Furthermore, I'd actually gotten the other
students at Tara Centre to sign a card to him for the request! My god, I
certainly deserved to be whipped to within an inch of my life - and you did
your damnedest to accomplish that.
But then, lashing men to within an inch of their lives was somewhat of a
speciality on your part. Gosh, the crap that Stuart and Chris H put up with
from your good self!!!!! Perhaps I do you a disfavour re the men, you
certainly gave ani Chondzin one hell of a rough ride. Could that be anything
to do with her disrobing, do you think???
Mark you, J was your protege, and she ran off with a monk and later
disrobed. We always saw her as one of the 'Miss Jean Brody' girls - again,
look what happened to them!
> Here is a question that I would like an answer to:
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?
I confess, dear dekyong, it were I. More, more!!!!
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>Dekyong
>
>
>
Michael McLoughlin
In article <6678r8$ilo$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
says...
If anyone was in any doubt about the "blessings" of DS then they need
only read the following paranoid collection of hearsay and probably
libellous nonsense.
>
>‘Exploding the myth that the Dalai Lama’s ban is not affecting those in
the
>West’
>
>I’d like to relate a few experiences that myself and others have had
>recently. I am the teacher at the New Kadampa Tradition Centre in
Edinburgh,
>Mahakaruna Centre. One of my students, who lives there has a twin
brother
>who’s been living at Samye Ling Centre (Kagyu tradition) in Scotland. He
is
>now living back in Edinburgh but is afraid to come and visit his brother
>(who he’s very close to) because of what his Lama has told him about the
>practice of Dorje Shugden. He feels that ‘we are slowly killing
ourselves
>and can’t bear to watch.’
>
>This is the kind of crazy, hysterical and paranoid response that the
Dalai
>Lama’s actions are creating from his followers which is setting Buddhist
>brother against Buddhist brother, both literally and otherwise. At no
stage
>has anyone from this NKT Centre discouraged people from visiting Samye
Ling
>or any other Buddhist Centre, why can’t it be the other way around?
Can you believe this? I am sure from my experience of SL that no
suggestion of the kind would ever be made by any of the teachers there.
>
>Also someone who attends the NKT classes in Dundee met a monk from Samye
>Ling who, when he became aware that she was in the NKT, proceeded to
perform
>spirit dispelling mudras (hand gestures) towards her - laughable if not
so
>tragic.
This is tosh! There are no spirit-dispelling mudras!
>
>Another sad situation that occurred in Edinburgh was that I was
prevented
>from putting up an NKT poster in a shop because it was ‘affiliated to
the
>Dalai Lama who said that the NKT is negative.’
I wonder response you'd get an NKT centre if you wanted to put up a
poster for a Dalai Lama gig?
>
>Yet another farcical event was when I was searching out at an NKT branch
in
>Durham which was disrupted by a Nyingma practitioner who interrupted the
>class to warn everyone present of what they were letting themselves in
for
>by getting involved within the NKT. Fortunately no one really took him
>seriously because he was so obviously misinformed of the whole Dorje
>Shugden/Dalai Lama issue. Just among people I know there are several
other
>NKT teachers and students who have had similar experiences to my own.
>
>Clearly this whole messy business is affecting the daily lives and
spiritual
>faith of not only thousands of oppressed Tibetans but also practitioners
in
>the West. I truly hope that it will soon be over so that we can all get
on
>with our Dharma practice in peace.
I was not aware that the Dharma was reducible to a protector practice.
>
>Kelsang Pagpa
>Madhyamaka Centre
>
Shakyamuni Buddhist Center
Hello Chris,
As I have already said I am not able to participate in many different
debates because of lack of time but I would like to clarify a few
points in reply to your posting.
For the past 18 years the Dalai Lama has continually said that the
practice of Dorje Shugden is bad. This has gradually destroyed the
reputations of the leading Gelugpa Lamas , Je Pabongkhapa, HH Ling
Rinpoche, and HH Trijang Rinpoche, by implication that they were
practicing incorrectly (because our Dorje Shugden practice comes form
these lamas). Then recently the Dalai Lama removed their names from
the list of Lamrim lineage gurus, and replaced their names with his
own name.
If these three Gelugpa lamas are wrong then the entire Gelugpa
tradition is wrong, because all present day Gelugpas are either
directly or indirectly disciples of these three lamas. Also due to
the view held by the Dalai Lama, the Gelugpas receive a very bad press
these days. The Dalai Lama has already destroyed the reputation of the
Gelugpa tradition.
For these reasons, it is very clear therefore that the Dalai Lama is
destroying the Gelug tradition. For the same reasons, he is also
gradually destroying the reputation of the New Kadampa Tradition. Who
was it who first said that the NKT was sectarian? Now many people,
following the view of the Dalai Lama, believe this. There can be no
doubt that the reason he says these untruths is to destroy the NKT.
Why else does he say them? His followers have also been responsible
for spreading a lot of wrong information about the NKT, and again,
because it comes from the Dalai Lama, everyone believes it.
> Re: the wrongful arrest of HH Dujom Rinpoche, you said “Afaik the cause of this has usually blamed on a political faction associated with Gelugpa chauvanism.
In reality, these things are very difficult for westerners to
understand because this is a Tibetan political problem. In the letter
referred to (see previous posting) it says that HH Dujom Rinpoche was
imprisoned by the Tibetan government in exile. This letter came from
Tibetan people who know the real situation, not from westerners. I
also asked Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso if it there was any truth in
your statement that the wrongful arrest of HH Dujom Rinpoche was due
to Gelugpas. He said that he had never heard this before and added
that Gelugpas do not have political factions and that he could prove
this. He said that your statement was completely incorrect.
Dekyong
Rabten
Dear ani-la,
still having problems with the Dalai Lama's view, can you help in this
instance?
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <3485DB...@mindless.com>...
>I have never heard of HH the Dalai Lama calling
>Dorje Shugden an 'evil spirit'. However, I have heard of HH referring to
>Dorje Shugden as a 'worldly spirit'.
>
POINT ONE: THE DALAI LAMA'S VIEW
"If you ask then who is he? It seems that he is someone who made evil
prayers. For this reason anyone who strongly relies on Gyalchen is
eventually subject to various calamities, whatever he may do."
-Dalai Lama, July 13th 1978
"We actually mentioned him [Dorje Shugden] by name in our exorcisms based on
Tamdrin. [...] Others have reported dreaming of a bearded monk strangling
them: this is very clear indication that Shugden is a spirit, far from being
a deity"
-Dalai Lama March 21st 1996
The Dalai Lama is very clear on this point.
POINT TWO: THE VIEW OF HIS ROOT GURU
(part one: establishing Trijang Rinpoche's view)
"HUM
Realizing that all appearances, sounds and minds
Arise as the Deity, mantra and Truth Body,
O Supreme Deity, we practitioners and our followers
Honour you [Dorje Shugden] as the interpretive and definitive Vajradhara.
You are the Guru who teaches the excellent path of abandonment and practice,
The Yidam who bestows the common and supreme attainments,
The Dharma Protector who assists us with the four actions;
We honour you as the embodiment of the Guru, Yidam, and Protector."
-Kangso, the sadhana Trijang Rinpoche performed every month until the end of
his life.
Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang wrote an extensive commentary to the practice of
Dorje Shugden with the intention of preserving the practice for many future
generations. This text explicitly teaches that Dorje Shugden is the Wisdom
Buddha Manjushri.
(part two: establishing that Trijang Rinpoche is the Dalai Lama's root Guru)
‘I received the transmission of the guru yoga from my root guru, the late
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.’
-from The Union of Bliss and Emptiness, Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, Snow Lion
Publications, 1988
POINT THREE: CONCERNING GURU DEVOTION
‘Merely having a relationship with a guru does not help; it is necessary to
have proper reliance, because if there is a breach in guru devotion it is
very dangerous. .’
-from The Union of Bliss and Emptiness, Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, Snow Lion
Publications, 1988
"The Path begins with strong reliance
On my Kind Teacher, source of all good,
O, bless me with this understanding,
To follow him with great devotion."
-Je Tsongkhapa
CONCLUSION:
We must conclude that the Dalai Lama now regards Trijang Dorjechang as an
ordinary being who could not tell the difference between an evil spirit and
a wisdom Buddha.
Rather than think that perhaps his dough-balls and his worldy oracle Nechung
may be incorrect he has dismissed one of the heart practices of his
Spiritual Guide.
Rather than just change his own practice, he is making a concerted effort to
change the practice of others. He has repeatedly taught that others should
not rely on Dorje Shugden. He has threatened those who rely on Dorje
Shugden. He has banned the worship of Dorje Shugden in gelugpa monasteries.
[To establish these points please read the Dalai Lama's speeches 1986, 1996
and the posting by Tseten Samdup all are on the net, I can post them to you
if you wish].
Ani-la,
it seems that the Dalai Lama has abandoned the teachings of his root guru
and is imposing his new views on his root guru's students and their
students. Where is the mistake in my reasoning?
Rabten
cf...@dircon.co.uk
On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:47:28 -0800, Jangsem, vajralama buddhist
center <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>A Broader Threat
>It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
>prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
>Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
>though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
>have received no reply.
For ordinary beings this is a matter of faith or belief not one of
fact or proof. Can you prove that any being that ever lived is a
Buddha? If not, why are you asking the question? If you can, what
the basis of your proof?
>...
>The Dalai Lama refuses to debate the issue with anyone even though this
>is the traditional way to resolve such issues. Even when 19 Gelug
>masters, Geshes and Rinpoches, wrote to the Dalai Lama politely
>requesting to discuss this issue he refused. What is he so afraid of?
>Why won’t he debate this issue? Does he feel that his authority now
>trancends all questioning?
I'd like to see the text of that "polite request" and the text of HH's
"refusal".
HH the Dalai Lama has on numerous occassions discussed this matter
with groups of senior Gelugpa geshes, tulkus and abbots and they have
had an opportunity to reply.
Furthermore, debate can always be conducted by the written word- in
fact there is a long tradition of polemical writing like this in
Tibet. Geshe Kelsang or any one (or all) of these 19 Gelug masters
can always write a reply to the published speeches and writings by HH
the Dalai Lama on this or any other subject and publish this for
everone to read. If reasonable and convincing objections are raised
to the Dalai Lama's views in such a publication and he has not already
addressed these objections then I think that HH would be almost
compelled to reply.
>The centralisation of power in the hands of the present Dalai Lama is
>quite frightening. He is both the spiritual head and the unelected
>political leader of the Tibetan people. Such a union of church and state
>is anathema to the western world. We know the consequences from the
>horrors of the middle ages. Yet we unquestioningly accept this union of
>politics and religion in the present Dalai Lama.
Unless there is a revolution, the seperation of church and state is
not something that takes place overnight - for instance in this
country (UK) there is still an established church. In the US, where
church and state are supposedly seperated, right-wing Christianity has
tremendous political influence (probably far more than in the UK where
there is no seperation of Church and State). As far as the Tibetan
situation goes it should be up to the Tibetans themselves to decide
when and if they want such a separation - something which HH the Dalai
Lama has been actively encouraging.
There is a considerable body of opinion even in the west which
believes that it is impossible to seperate religion and politics. If
this is the case then a situation where govt & religion have a proper
working relationship might be better than one where there is no
settled relationship.
>Is it not reasonable to expect that there will be a clash of interests
>between the cause of securing a free Tibet and the preservation of pure
>spiritual lineages in the Tibetan tradition?
The parts of Tibetan Dharma and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism that have
been transmitted to the West or Westerners represent only a very,
very small fraction of the whole. The more one learns about Tibetan
Buddhism the more one is amazed by the number of different
instruction lineages and practices - even within a single school. Even
in India conditions for passing on and practicing these traditions are
nowhere near as favourable as they were in Tibet and many lineages
have already died out and more are on the verge of extinction.
Securing a free Tibet is probably the best way to ensure as many pure
lineages of Tibetan Dharma as possible are preserved.
This is a bit like the difference between trying to save wildlife
species by saving their native habitat and trying to save them
by keeping a few of them in western zoos.
>What we see today is a
>gradual melding together of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism into
>one tradition. Sometimes known as the Rime tradition, or non-sectarian
>tradition. And who will be the supreme head of this one unified
>tradition?
>You guessed it, His Holiness himself.
You completly misunderstand the meaning of Rime - it is not at all
about merging or homogenising all the Tibetan traditions into one.***
In fact one of the whole points of what is generally called the Rime
movement was (and is) to preserve individual instruction and practice
lineages that were in danger of disappearing.
By Rime I mean of course the renowned movement associated with
the group of teachers active in E. Tibet during the 19th C.
which included Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro
Thaye, Chogyur Dechen Lingpa, Dza Paltrul, Mipham, Jamyang
Loter Wangpo, Khenpo Shenga, Rigdzin Tsewang Norbu, Shardza
Tashi Gyaltsen, and others.
Their successors in recent times include Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi
Lodro, Kalu Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
These teachers encouraged followers of the different traditions
not to remain confined in the particular philosophical
viewpoints espoused by their individual schools but to study
and practice all the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Khyentse
and Kongtrul in particular gathered together, practiced,
committed to writing and taught all of the principal extant
teachings of the so-called "drub rgyud shing rta rgyad" - the
eight (Vajrayana) instruction lineages of attainment (or great
chariots of accomplishment) that came to Tibet (and their associated
instruction lineages (shad rgyud)):
1 The Long lineage of the Nyingmas or Ancient Translation School
whose instructions and Tantras, taught by the great knowledge
holders of India, come down in unbroken succession from
Padmasambhava, Shantarakshita, Vimalamitra, Vairocana and so on
right down to the present day.
2 The Kadampa or the teachings brought to Tibet by the
Venerable master Atisha, and passed down by Dromton and his
successors; and the New Kadampa tradition of Lord Tsongkhapa
and his followers.
3 The Sakya tradition which includes the profound instructions
of the Path and Fruit, which is the essential lineage of the
Mahasiddha Virupa and passed down to Gayadhara, Drogmi Lotsawa
and then to the great Sakyapa including Khon Kunchok Gyalpo,
Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen and so on.
4 The "four great" and "eight minor" traditions of the Kagyu
which descend from Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa, Rechungpa, and
their followers. The Kagyu teachings include the "Six yogas" of
Naropa; the Mahamudra tradition of Tilopa and Naropa and of
Saraha, Nagarjuna, Shavari, and Maitrepa; the lineages of
Tantras and instructions by Marpa and by Rechungpa.
5 The glorious Shangpa Kagyu which is the lineage of the golden
doctrines the learned and accomplished master Khyungpo Naljor
received from Niguma, Sukkhasiddhi, the Phamtingpa brothers,
Maitrepa, Rahulagupta and many others. These teachings
include the six yogas of Niguma; the yogas of Sukkhasiddhi
the doctrines of the five Tantras of Chakrasamvara, Hevajara,
Mahamaya, Guhyasamaja and Vajrabhairava; the and teachings on
Mahamudra.
6 The Six-limbed Yoga tradition of the King of Tantras,
Kalachakra, and numerous other teachings which come through
the Jonangpa Tradition of Yumopa Mikyo Dorje, Kunpang Thugje
Tsundru, Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, Bodongpa Chogle Namgyal,
Taranatha and others.
7 The tradition of "Pacification of Suffering" (Zhi byed) and
its branch Chod which is the tradition originating from
Vajradhara, Prajnaparimita, Tara, Buddha Shakyamuni and
Manjushri; taught by the dakini Sukkhasiddhi, Nagarjuna and
Lopon Aryadeva brought to Tibet by Padampa Sangye and
taught by Kyoton Sonam Lama, Machik Labdron and so on.
8 The Kalachakra tradition known as "The Odiyana tradition of Ritual
and Attainment" (Orgyen Nyen Drub) of the Three Vajras which
Vajra Yogini bestowed on Orgyenpa Rinchen Pal.
These eight traditions encompass all the oral traditions of
Secret Mantra or Vajrayana which came from India to Tibet and
passed down in unbroken succession to the present day.
Kongtrul also collected together in his Rinchen Terdzod the
most important parts of the Terma teachings revealed by the
great "treasure finders" who were incarnations of the twenty
five main disciples of Padmasambhava.
Furthermore, teachers like Dza Paltrul and Khenpo Shenga (and in India
his student Kunnu Rinpoche) taught a non-sectarian approach to the
Sutras and Shastras explaining, from a nonsectarian viewpoint,
fundamental Buddhist texts texts such as the Pratimoksasutra,
Vinayasutra, Abhidharma samuccaya, Abhidarmakosa, Madhyamakavatara,
Catuhsatakashatra, Bodhicaryavatara, Abhisamayalamkara,
Mahayanasutralamkara, Madhyantavibhanga, Dharmadharmavibhanga
and the Mahayanottaratantra.
Although people speak of a "rime movement" in conection
with the masters Khyentse, Kongtrul and so on, there is absolutely no
evidence that they or their successors intended to create a new
tradition or school that encompassed all the various Tibetan Buddhist
schools - so there is no organized or "official" rime or non-sectarian
tradition. However, perhaps it is significant that these great masters
gathered together practiced and taught all the teachings of
these different lineages at a time when there had been great
sectarian strife in Tibet and many lineages were almost
extinct. This was also shortly before our own time when the
communist Chinese virtually wiped out many Buddhist traditions
in Tibet and many of these lineages would have certinly dissapeared
if it had not been for their work.
The teachers of this "rime movement" did not advocate some kind
of mixing together of various traditions and teachings but
practiced and taught teachings of many lineages side by side
while maintaining the purity of each tradition. Their clear
A non-sectarian or eclectic approach is of course not confined to
lamas normally considered part of the rime movement.
Je Tsongkhapa himself was of course on the most eclectic Lamas in the
whole history of Tibetan Buddhism and it is well known that he not
only revitalized the tradition of Atisha but also followed the
Sakya teachings which he received from Redawa; practiced Heruka
the six yogas of Naropa and Mahamudra from the Kagyu Tradition;
Shangpa teachings including the six yogas of Niguma and the six
armed Mahakala; the Chod tradition of Machik Labdron;
Kalachakra and other teachings from the Jonangpas; and Nyingma
teachings which he received from Lekyi Dorje, etc.
There are numerous other great teachers, throughout almost the
whole history of Tibetan Buddhism, who have displayed a similar
unbiased non-sectarian approach. Teachers including Longchenpa,
the Third Karmapa, Taranatha, Thangtong Gyalpo, Panchen Lobsang
Chokyi Gyaltsen, Karma Chagme, Shabkar Tsogdruk Rangdrol, come to mind
though there are numerous others of all schools.
If we look too at the lives of some of the most imortant Indian
Buddhist maha-siddhas we see that many of them received and practiced
different instruction lineages from different gurus.
>It is the political imperative of the Tibetans that is demanding such a
>homogenisation of the four traditions. The Tibetans will thus be united
>with one voice, one leader and this, they feel, will give them the
>political might to free Tibet. In order to effect such a transition to
>one Tibetan tradition it is necessary to remove the aspects of each
>tradition that is not recognized by the rest, even if that means
>destroying the lineage of instruction that has been received from
>previous generations. That is exactly what we see today. Because the
>practice of Dorje Shugden is not practiced by all four traditions and is
>“perceived” as harmful by some it must go. Spiritual practice is
>dispensable in the face of political needs.
Please give us some examples which support or prove your contention
that the Dalai Lama is demanding a "homogenisation" of the four
traditions.
Is this an example of the kind of thing which HH has written that
upsets you?
"As for our own study and pracice of Buddhism, depending
on the direction of our interests and our capacity, we should
try to study as widely as possible, and with sincere respect
as many traditions as we can. This helps broaden and
deepen our understanding and practice of whatever is our
main tradition. For example if Gelug practitioners study
a dzogchen text, they gain a special and unique
understanding of the Nyingma teachings on the basis of
their Gelug training that can further enhance their Gelug
studies and practice. The same is true of dzogchen
practitioners who study a Gelug text, and so forth.
Thus we must try to have a very broad and open
attitude, and based on respect and interest, study
and practice as widely as we can the various traditions
of Buddhism."
- HHDL "The Gelug / Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra" p 261
I see no "demand for homogenisation" or threat to either the Gelugpa
or Nyingma traditions in this. It seems to be in line with what other
Gelugpas have written in the past e.g.:
"Although many different names have been given-
Great Perfection (Dzogchen), Great Seal (Mahamudra)
and Great Madhyamaka,
Path and Fruit (Lamdre), Object of Cutting (Chod),
and Pacification -
When they are investigated by a Yogin
Who has cultivated them experientially,
He arrives at just one intention."
- Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsan
>My question is, if the Dalai Lama is willing to destroy the lineage of
>instruction that he received from his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, where
>will he stop? If his own Guru’s lineage can be legislated out of
>existence for political ends then is anything sacred? Watch out, your
>tradition may be next.
The practice of Shugden is only one of the inumerable things HE
Trijang Rinpoche taught If a person finds that a particular teaching
is not suitable does it follow that he rejects everything else he has
received the same teacher? How can you say HH is trying to destroy
the lineage of instruction he received from his guru? This is outright
slander. Along with your shoes, you seem to have left your brains at
the door of your temple. Je Tsongkhapa disagreed with many of his
teachers and did not accept everything they taught. Was he trying to
destroy their instruction lineages?
No one except a Samyak Sambuddha is perfect. Doctors make mistakes,
teachers make mistakes, mechanics make mistakes and even gurus make
mistakes - no matter how experienced they are. I'm sorry to
disillusion you, but even Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche were
human - as has been every other Tibetan Lama who ever lived including
the Dalai Lama . That doesn't mean you shouldn't have faith in your
teachers simply that you should carefully examine everything they
teach you and make up your own mind.
Buddhism is about accepting responsibility and thinking for yourself
not about surrendering to your reasoning to some cosmic dictator or
guru including Phabongkha, Trijang Rinpoche, HH the Dalai Lama or
Geshe Kelsang.
Of course, if you choose to be part of an organised religious body
then you may have to go along with the rules of that religious body
while you are part of it . If you can't accept particular rules and
dogma of that religious body which are considerd compulsory then you
can (and perhaps should) leave it - taking with you whatever teachings
you do find useful. Rules and dogma which you might not be able
to agree with include HH the Dalai Lama's restrictions on Shugden
worship and Geshe Kelsangs alleged resrictions on revering HH the
Dalai Lama in NKT centres.
>When Dorje Shugden practitioners throughout the world stand up in the
>name of religious freedom, they do so not just for themselves. They are
>representing every one’s fundamental right to practice the lineage of
>instruction they have received from their Masters, of whatever school of
>Tibetan Buddhism.
The Nyingmapas, Sakyas and Kagyupas, can all do without your kind of
help. They certainly haven't asked for it.
Nyingmapas, Sakyas and Kagyupas and most Gelugpa are not afraid
of rime or of HH the Dalai Lama. You people sound a bit like a Mc
Carthyite who sees a red under every bed or the Rev. Ian Paisley
talking about the Pope. IMO what you are trying to promote and
preserve is a narrow minded, chauvanistic intolerant view of the
Buddhist / Gelugpa tradition which does not accord with the example
set by Je Tsongkhapa himself. It may be true that HH is trying to
destroy that kind of narrow minded sectarianism. If so, I think most
Tibetan Buddhists of all traditions would welcome it.
Regards
- Chris
***[In fact if anybody has tried to join all the schools of Tibetan
Buddhism into one then that person might be Trijang Rinpoche who in
the 1960's apparently tried to subsume all the Tibetan traditions into
the Gelugpa using the argument that since Tibetan Buddhism had nearly
been destroyed it was no longer feasible to have various competing
schools. I was informed of this by the late
Kalu Rinpoche who incidentally had a great deal of respect for Trijang
Rinpoche and the Gelugpa tradition. There is a well known photograph
which was taken at the convocation of senior lamas of all the
traditions where this proposal of Trijang Rinpoche's was discussed.
Many of the lamas have since passed away but HH Sakya Trizin was
certainly there and he should be able to confirm this.]
cf...@dircon.co.uk
=================================================================
"The various doctrinal views found in the
provinces of U, Tsang and Ngari
Are all the very teaching of the Victorious One
How fine if, not allowing the demon of sectarianism
to ignite animosity,
The radiance of the jewel of pure perception
would encompass all."
- Panchen Lobsang Yeshe
==============================================================
On Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:41:04 -0600, bia...@usit.net (craig s.
bialick) asked:
>I would like to know if there is ANY basis to the claims which i have
>caught a hint of here and there in some of these postings, that the
>worship of Dorje Shugden includes prayers or wishes for the decline and
>destruction of the Nyingma lineage. Do you have any idea how or why these
>sentiments might be entertained or justified? Perhaps there is nothing to
>these notions, just more divisive rumor. But if there is any truth to
>this, it certainly reeks of black magic, spiritism and historical
>politics. As far as i know, each of the major lineages has protector
>deities that are exclusive and not commonly practiced by all traditions.
>If there is a Rimé conspiracy as you imply, why are these other protectors
>not also coming under fire?
>
>interested,
>shugchang
Craig
Below is an example of something written by the late Zeme Rinpoche,
who says he is quoting HE Trijang Rinpoche, which was published in
India. I'll leave it for you to judge if this sort of thing is not
designed to turn people against Nyingma teachings.
THE LATE ZEME RINPOCHE ON SHUGDEN:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<
"I praise to you - the protector of the Yellow Hat tradition You
destroy like a pile of dust; Great adapts, high officials and
ordinary people; Who defile and corrupt the Gelug order."
With this quotation from the praise to Dorjee Shugden, Kyabje
Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang told me some highly interesting
accounts which he had not written for publication.
As is clear from the above mentioned praise, the protector has
punished those who corrupted the Gelug order. The symptoms were
clear with various episodes of punishments from the king,
entanglement with the law and untimely death for many powerful
lame regents, incarnate tulkus, highly adept scholars, high
officials and rich and powerful people.
While being followers of Lama Tsongkhapa tradition, they have
corrupted it with other tenets and traditions. Since Kyabje
Rinpoche told me about these with great compassion it is very
precious for me. With these accounts as the basis, I compiled
other reliable material and added to the Ocean of Praise to the
Protector.
THE PANCHEN LAMAS
======================
All knowing Losang Palden Choekyi Dakpa was the lord of the
Doctrine and from a very young age proved himself as an eminent
scholar. He thus had great potential to serve the Dharma and
sentient beings. But he did not make the flawless and well
established teachings of the Dharma Raja Lama Tsongkhapa as his
principal practice. But instead he studied many treasure texts
of Nyingma order and did meditation on those teachings. These
were mentioned in his autobiography. Dorjee Shugden repeatedly
asked him not to do that. He got annoyed with the deity and
performed a wrathful and despicable ritual to burn it. Along
with other ingredients he put a thanka of deity in the fire.
But the fire could not consume the thanka. Then he took out the
thanka and put it under the steps of his door in Tashi Lhunpo.
Because of those actions, the Panchen Rinpoche became ill and
eventually passed away in the water-sheep year of the 15th
rapjung when he was only thirty years of age. In this way the
Panchen Rinpoche was unsuccessful in his Dharma propagation
deeds.
His successor, Panchen losang Thubten Choekyi Nyima Gelek
Namgyal too faced a great deal of problems (as a consequence).
Because of misunderstanding between his monastery and the
Tibetan Government, he had to escape to Mongolia. Later he
wished to come back to U- Tsang, but there were unsurmountable
hurdles and he could not succeed. At the age of fifty five, in
the year fire-ox, he passed away in Kyigudo. A year before he
passed away, Je Phaphongkha Rinpoche Dechen Nyingpo came to pay
his respects. During that meeting, the Panchen Rinpoche told
Phaphongkha Rinpoche that since Phaphongkha Rinpoche was the
incarnation of Lodo Balpa, the Tashi Lhunpo monastery naturally
had respect and faith in him The Panchen Rinpoche asked him to
give teachings and also asked him to take out the thanka of
Shugden deity which was buried by the previous Panchen
Rinpoche. In accordance with the instructions of the Panchen
Rinpoche, Je phaphongkha went to Tashi Lhunpo monastery in the
year of iron-dragon of the 16th rapjung. There he gave many
religious sermons including the lamrim teachings. He also took
out the thanka of the Shugden deity and put it in a shrine in
the Tashi Lhunpo and worshipped it. Phaphongkha Rinpoche
composed a text which was a kind of agreement and understanding
between the monastery and the deity.
The next Panchen Rinpoche, Panchen Losang Thinley Lhundup
Choekyi Gyaltsen was born in Amdo. He displayed various
remarkable deeds which were clear signals of his greatness.
When he came to U-Tsang, certain impediments delayed his
enthronement. Soon after his arrival to Tashi Lhunpo, he
composed a prayer to Dorjee Shugden which helped creating
harmony between the deity and the Panchen Rinpoche. However,
later things changed. There was a statue of Shugden in a shrine
in the palace. When it was seen by the spiritual tutor of the
Panchen Rinpoche, Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima, he told one of the
attendants to take out the devil's statue from there. When it
was referred to the Panchen Rinpoche, he told the attendant to
keep it where the teacher could not see. The tutor disliked
Shugden and often told the Panchen Rinpoche that they practice
pure kadampa tradition and that if he sought many deities, it
could ruin him. The tutor banned the usual practice of
propitiating Gyalchen Shugden at Tashi Lhunpo and the oracle
karma, too, was banned from invoking the deity. The special
invocation during the new year was also banned. Since then many
bad omen occurred one after the other. A battle broke between
the Shikatse soldiers and the Tashi Lhunpo subjects. The Tutor
Ang Nyima himself fell from his horse two times. Several
ominous incidents happened during the opening ceremony of the
new palace, Dechen Phodrang. Because of these, they had to
restore the practice of worshipping Gyalchen Shugden. On the
invitation of China, the Panchen Rinpoche left for China in the
wood-horse year. Soon after the Panchen Rinpoche had departed
from Tsang, unprecedented flood rushed from Gyaltse. The
flooding totally washed away Kunkyobling, the main residential
complex for many Panchen Lamas. Yongzin Ang Nyima could not
return home and finally succumbed to an insect bite. Because
the Panchen Rinpoche did not practice a pure philosophical
tenet, unending disasters followed one after the other.
TEHOR ZIG-GYAB RINPOCHE
=======================
Tehor Zig-gyab Rinpoche worshipped Dorjee Shugden as the Chief
of all deities. He completed his Dharma education at Tashi
Lhunpo and earned the coveted Kachen degree. Then he went to
Kham and propagated the Dharma and became very popular there.
He again came back to Tashi Lhunpo and paid his respect to
Panchen Losang Thubten Choekyi Nyima. The Panchen Lama became
very fond of this scholar and asked him to be the abbot of
Kunkyobling. Later the Panchen Lama gave his text of Nyingmapa
teachings and some rituals tools. Due to that reason, he
studied various Nyingmapa teachings. During that time a
Nyingmapa tantric practitioner called Kyungtul came to see him.
This visiter told him that if he learned Nyingma teachings he
could become famous like the 5th Dalai Lama. So Zig-gyab
Rinpoche decided to get teachings on Rinchen Terzod from the
tantric master. Dorjee Shugden on several occasions asked him
not to study and meditate on Nyingmapa teachings. And if he did
not heed to the deity's advice, the Rinpoche would suffer from
many hardships and could even shorten his life span. But
Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not pay any attention. One day Dorjee
Shugden was greatly annoyed and told the Rinpoche that, "I may
not pierce you with my deadly claws, but if I did, I cannot
take them out." In this way the deity persuaded the Rinpoche to
uphold a pure Gelug tradition. But the latter did not pay any
heed and said that he has to abide but the instructions of his
Lama. Zig- gyab Rinpoche rented a house near Lhasa and received
many Nyingma teachings and transmissions from the tantric
master, Kyungtul. Gyalchen Shugden created a variety of
miracles in their presence. So they decided to do a retreat.
During that time Prime Minister Sheta Paljor Dorjee suddenly
became very ill. So he requested for Zig-gyab Rinpoche to
bestow an initiation for him. When the Rinpoche returned home
after giving the initiation, he became very ill and after one
day he passed away. If Zig-gyab Rinpoche did not practice
Nyingmapa teachings and remained a proper practitioner of the
pure-gold like Gelug tradition, he could have a long life and
his meritorious deeds could have spread far and wide. Kyabje
Trijang Dorjeechang told me these accounts who in turn has
heard from Tehor Losang Gyatso, an attendant of Zig-gyab
Rinpoche until his last days.
PHAGPA LHA
============
Phagpa Lha Losang Thubten Mepham Tsultrim Gyaltsen was a great
scholar and as such he should have upheld and propagated pure
Gelugpa tradition. But he corrupted his philosophical stand and
moral conduct and consequently lost his monk's vow. He thus had
to face the punishment by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thubten
Gyatso; and he was deprived of his religious and political
powers. Later he lived in his house in Chamdo. One day while he
was on his way to the toilet, he fell down and a broken bicycle
piece pierced near his male organ and no amount of medication
was of any help. After a long illness he succumbed to the
injury. He had to face these difficulties, because he annoyed
the deity Dorjee Shugden. When Je Phaphongkha was on his tour
of the Kham area, he stayed over night at Phagpa Lha's house.
During the night he had a very ominous dream in relation to his
host. Je Phaphongkha told about the dream to his secretary,
Dema Losang Dorjee. All these accounts were told to my ever
kind teacher, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang by Chamdo
Gyara Rinpoche.
THE RETING RINPOCHE
======================
Regent Reting Rinpoche had to suffer punishment with the Gyalpo's
order. The misfortune was caused by the miraculous power of the
Dharma protector great Dorjee Shugden. Let me explain. The
fourth Reting Rinpoche, Ngawang Yeshi Tenpai Gyaltsen, offered
the entire possession of Reting Ladang to the Tibetan
Government and requested His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama,
Thubten Gyatso, not to search for the future Reting
reincarnation. But His Holiness Thubten Gyatso returned
everything back to the Ladang and asked them to search for the
reincarnation. Accordingly the search party found the
reincarnation in a simple family in Dakpo. This Rinpoche had
made his foot prints on rocks. I saw one in the Reting
monastery. One day while his mother was away the soup started
boiling and overflowed from the earthen pot. So he closed the
pot with his shoe lace. He displayed such miraculous powers
while he was only a child. On the advice of His Holiness
Thubten Gyatso, he was recognized as the 5th Reting Rinpoche
and named Thubten Jampel Yeshi Gyaltsen. He was admitted to
Sera Je College where he completed his religious education.
When H.H. Thubten Gyatso visited the Reting monastery in the
water- monkey year, it seemed that he left some instructions to
Reting Rinpoche concerning the governance of the nation.
His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama passed away in the
water-bird year. For about two months the Prime Minister and
the Kashag held the responsibility of the Government. After
that the General Assembly nominated the Reting Rinpoche, Gaden
throne Holder Yeshi Palden and Yongzin Phurchok Jamgon Rinpoche
for the regency. The Reting Rinpoche's name was confirmed with
traditional tests were done in front of Lord Avaloketeshvara in
the Potala Palace. Accordingly he was enthroned as the Regent
on the 10th day of the first month of the wood-dog year. Thus
he held the responsibility to head the Gaden Phodrang, the
Tibetan Government. He took particular interest in the
construction of the tomb of the thirteenth Dalai Lama and the
search for the next reincarnation. He personally went to the
precious lake and saw the visions which gave clear signals of
the reincarnation. He then recognized and enthroned the right
reincarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Those were indeed
some of his wonderful deeds.
On the fourth day of the tenth month of the earth-hare year,
the Reting Rinpoche did the hair cutting ceremony of His
Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. In the last month of that year,
he resigned from the post of regency after seven years of
service. He had the traditional responsibility to uphold pure
Kadampa tradition. His own monastery was the seat of Dromton
Gyalpai Jungne. Moreover since the first Reting Rinpoche,
Trichen Ngawang Chokden, tutor of His Holiness Kelsang Gyatso,
the subsequent reincarnations preserved and propagated pure
Gelug tradition. Many illustrious Gelug masters including Je
Phaphongka exhorted and persuaded him to maintain and promote
the stainless tradition of the great Lama Tsongkhapa. But the
Reting Rinpoche did not pay any heed and he sought a number of
hidden-treasure teachings of the Nyingma order from Tsenyi
Tulku of Chamdo. He also received full transmission on
Dzongchen from Sangay Dorjee [Chattral Rinpoche]. Thus the
Reting Rinpoche departed from the tradition of his masters.
The final misfortune began to show up when the Reting Rinpoche
had disagreement with the then Regent, Tadak. The government
found evidence that the Reting Rinpoche had plotted against the
life of the Regent Tadak. So, Kalon Surkhang Wangchen Gelek and
Kalon Lhalu Gyurme Tsewang Dorjee went to the Reting monastery
along with their force and arrested the Reting Rinpoche. Headed
by Tsenyi Tulku, many monks from the Sere Je college revolted
against the Tibetan government with arms. As the tension grew
between the Sera Je College and the government, the latter
increased its force and an intense fighting continued for days.
Under the command of Kalsang Tsultrim, the government army
fired at the Reting monastery and caused much destruction.
When the Reting Rinpoche and his friend Khardo Tulku was
interrogated by the General Assembly, the latter confessed that
they were guilty. The Reting Rinpoche also acknowledged his
mistakes and pleaded for a chance to confess to the Regent
himself. The appeal was sent through the Kashag with the
endorsement of the General Assembly. But the appeal was
rejected. The Reting Rinpoche was kept in Sharchen Chog under
tight security with the officials, Lhungshar Orgyen Namdol and
Rupon Kalsang Damdul in command. While he was in confinement,
he suddenly passed away in the night on the 17th of the third
month. No outsider had any knowledge of the cause of his death.
KHARDO TULKU
============
A similar case can be narrated about Khardo Tulku Kelsang
Thubten Nyendak. Initially he sought teachings from Je
Phaphongkha. But later, he corrupted his philosophical view and
practice. He received many Nyingma teachings from Tsenyi Tulku
along with the Reting Rinpoche. He was arrested with the Reting
Rinpoche on the charges of plotting against the life of the
then Regent Tadak. Later he was imprisoned in a dark cell with
his legs in chains. After four years in jail, he was released
during the amnesty announced when His Holiness the 14th Dalai
Lama was enthroned. After that he was free to live according to
his wish, but soon he was passed away. So in short, all his
deeds were unsuccessful which was purely due to the miraculous
power of Dorjee Shugden.
TATSAK RINPOCHE
===============
In accordance with the prophecy of the deities and lamas,
Kundeling Tatsak Rinpoche Losang Thupten Jigme Gyaltsen was
recognized as the reincarnation of his predecessor. He
completed his religious education from the Gomang College of
Drepung monastery. He had the traditional responsibilities to
practice and promote a pure Gelug order. But he departed far
away from the stainless system of Gelug practice and received
treasure text teachings from Lhatsun Rinpoche and received
certain corrupted initiations known as the father's experience
and the mother's dream which originated from Mongolia. These
activities greatly annoyed the king of Gelug Dharma protectors,
Dorjee Shugden, and as such Tatsak Rinpoche was accordingly
punished.
One day he suffered an acute pain in his chest. After
consulting many deities and lama, he was told that it was
caused by Dorjee Shugden. So, the oracle of the deity was
invited and with invocation, he confessed his mistakes with the
support of Lhatsun Rinpoche. It was of no help and in that
place Lhatsun Rinpoche was scolded for his impure practice.
Tatsak Rinpoche's illness was more serious and he in much pain.
So he sent Kundeling Oser Gyaltsen to invite Kyabje Trijang
Dorjeechang. Another appeal was made via Kyabje Trijang
Rinpoche. I personally witnessed the event. During that time
the great Dorjee Shugden said that since he had committed
himself to protect the Gelug doctrine, there wasn't much he
could do. However, when such evolved Gelug master is
supporting, he would see what could be done. But mainly the
whole thing depended on how Tatsak Rinpoche behaved. The deity
then asked Tatsak Rinpoche, "What will you do in the future ?"
Tatsak Rinpoche wept bitterly and replied that he confessed his
past mistakes and promised that henceforth he will stop the
practice of Nyingma teachings. After that he recovered to some
extent. Because he did not keep his promise, his health
deteriorated again. Tatsak Rinpoche then left for India for
medical treatment and as well as for the purpose of pilgrimage.
He went to a big hospital in Calcutta for treatment. Even that
was of no avail and he passed away.
JE PHAPHONGKHA
==================
Our very kind and exalted master Phaphongkha Dechen Nyingpo,
the holder of the vajra, too, received transmission on the
secret Hayagriva and the Great Exposition on Pure Vision by the
Dalai Lama from Dagri Rinpoche Thinley Pema Kunsang Chogyal,
great mahasidhi Ose Thekchog Dorjee, Gungtul Rinpoche Khenrap
Palden Tanpai Nyima, Menyak Rekhu Rinpoche Lobsang Chodak
Gyatso and others during his early life. Moreover he received
initiation on Dupthap Dojoi Bhum-sang from Gungtul Rinpoche.
Later Je Phaphongkha received many transmissions and teaching
from Nyingma tradition. In those days he used to have strange
dreams. Sometimes he saw in his dreams bearded monks and at
other times grandly robed monks showing unhappy moods. One
night he slept on the bed which was on the east of the room,
but when he woke up he found himself on the bed which was on
the west side of the room. One night when he was not able to
sleep he heard some strange and ominous voices of a woman and
another person shouting alternately around mid-night. The noise
seemed to be coming from a distant place coming closer to his
home, finally he saw a red hand sticking through the curtain.
He thought it was due to the miraculous power of Dorjee
Shugden. He confessed and asked to be forgiven and the noise
returned the way it came.
In the water-mouse year, when the Chinese troops had already
entered Tibet, the Tibetan Government decided to do some
religious service for the peace and safety of the nation. With
the instruction from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, JePhaphongkha
gave the transmission Kagyur in the Gaden Hall. Soon after that
teaching, he was so seriously ill that he almost passed away.
The sickness was due to certain poison. When he recovered, his
whole body had become bluish. Dorjee Shugden also used other
means to persuade Je Phaphongkha to practice and propagate pure
Gelug tradition free of defilements. Finally he stopped taking
and practicing Nyingma teachings and did not propagate what he
had learned. He kept his promise and maintained pure Gelug
tradition.
Therefore, during the later part of his life, his Dharma deeds
spread even to places outside Tibet like China and Mongolia.
SURKHANG PEMA WANGCHEN
=============================
Now let me reveal some accounts of powerful officials who
received wrathful punishment from Dorjee Shugden. Surkhang Pema
Wangchen became a Cabinet Secretary, because of his corrupted
view and conduct his life was short lived. He was born in a
noble family which had special links with the deity. From a
very young age he was highly talented and well versed in
Tibetan language. He was proficient in Chinese language too. If
you read his Tibetan poetry, it is enchanting.
He was referred to as a pundit. At the age of fourteen, he
entered the public service and soon afterwards got promotion.
Because of his talent, His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama became
fond of him and posted him to the rank of the Cabinet
Secretary. That was indeed a great honor for him and obviously
a great achievement in worldly affairs.
But he did not keep his family tradition of the practice of
Dorjee Shugden worship nor did he maintain a pure Gelug
tradition. In the Surkhang family, they worshipped Dorjee
Shugden on every special occasion. They observed the
propitiating of the deity on the eight day of every new year.
When invoking the deity, very special offerings were made on
that day. The family used to invite all their relations for the
occasion, and after the worship they had a great feast. So, he
had the responsibility to practice Gelug teachings and worship
Dorjee Shugden. But his views and practice were corrupted and
he showed much interest in the Nyingma teachings. Because of
his influence, his father Sonam Wangchen sought teaching on the
`treasure-text' from Nyarong Terton Sogyal and due to that he
died suddenly at the age of thirty seven.
Pema Wangchen sought many Nyingma initiations and teachings
from Lama Pawo Rinpoche. He also sought many other Nyingma
Lamas, including lama Tenzin Dakpa from whom he received a
great deal of Dzongchen teachings. He reprinted `Yonten Dzod'
which was written by Kunkhen Longchen. Pema Wangchen had a good
relationship with Geshe Sharab Rinpoche. Since this Geshe was a
scholar of pure Gelug order, he refuted certain thesis written
by Lama Tenzin Dakpa. Owing to Pema Wangchen's persuasion, the
Geshe did not complete his composition. In that place, the
Geshe advised Pema Wangchen by way of some beautiful poems that
the latter should follow the flawless doctrine of the Dharma
Raja Lama Tsongkhapa.
The Geshe further added that he was not sectarian and his
instructions were proper. But Pema Wangchen was adamant and
paid no heed to what the Geshe said. Because he did not enter
the proper path and abandon the wrong one he fell ill as a
result. So with the invocation of Dorjee Shugden the advice was
sought for treating the sickness.
Dharma protector Dorjee Shugden told him to make the statues of
Lama Tsongkhapa and his two chief disciples. He was also asked
to do many ritual services. On top of that the deity advised
him to eliminate the wrong path and exhorted the need to enter
the proper way. As he did not act in accordance with those
instructions he suffered from another disease. This time he got
sores on his body. Thamcho Palden, the physician to H.H. the
Dalai Lama, treated him. When one sore was cured another
appeared and the pain was excruciating. In the mean time, his
son, too, died due to the same disease. Pema Wangchen suffered
with the pain and misery of that disease for about a year.
With the help of some Lamas, he confessed to Dorjee Shugden
many times.
One time the deity was invoked and Pema Wangchen confessed. But
the deity declared his final decision. Dorjee Shugden said that
he was helpless. People like him, highly educated and holding
high post in the government, but who did not practice pure
Gelug tradition could harm Gaden Phodrang, the Tibetan
government as well as the Gelug doctrine. All his efforts,
taking medical treatment, performing religious services and
engaging in every possible means proved of no help. The
punishment of Dharma protector Dorjee Shugden struck and he
died at the age of twenty two.
LHALU JIGME WANGYAL
=======================
Originally the Lhalu family practiced pure Gelug tradition. But
Lhalu Jigme Namgyal entered Nyingma order and practiced the
teaching to the best of his ability. His spiritual master was a
tantric practitioner who lived in Bari retreat. Along with
himself, Jigme Namgyal's mother also received a good deal of
Nyingma teachings. But the master committed adultery with his
mother. Yangzom Tsering of Shetra was married to Lhalu Jigme
Namgyal. She had much faith in the Gelug doctrine and
worshipped Dorjee Shugden as the protector. So there remained a
discord between the husband and wife. When he was young he
suffered from a disease and was infested with lice. The pain
and misery were immense and finally through numerous miracles
of the deity he had to take the long path to the life beyond.
Soon his son Phuntsok Rabgyal also died and Yangzom Tsering was
left behind. There was no heir to continue the family.
TSEPON LUNGSHAR
====================
The staff working for the Lhalu family collectively made an
application to the Tibetan government stressing the problems in
that family. So with instruction from H. H. the 13th Dalai
Lama, Tsepon Lungshar was appointed incharge of the Lhalu
family.
Since the lady in the family, Yangzom Tsering was true to her
faith and the deity, there was a clash of faith with Tsepon
Lungshar. The man practiced an impure faith as he had heard a
great deal of Nyingmapa teachings and received their
initiations. Since Lungshar was fairly dogmatic about the
Nyingma faith, the lady had to shift the statue of Dorjee
Shugden from their house to Tashi Choeling.
Later Tsepon Lungshar was ill for a long time. They saw many
evil omens during that time. One day a vulture actually landed
on their house top which was considered very ominous.
He consulted many great lamas and was told to do many ritual
services including Lama Chopa offerings. The later part of
Lungshar's life became more tense as he was caught up in
political intrigues. He had some differences with certain
cabinet ministers regarding the governance of the nation. So
with the support of some officials, he formed his own group and
wrote to the Regent, the Prime minister and the Kashag about
their proposals. Along with that letter he made allegations
against Trimon Kalon. According to another version, Kendung
Lobsang Tenkyong and Tsepon Lungshar were jointly commissioned
to look after the provisions for the enlarged Tibetan military.
The National Assembly had outlined the source of income for the
military.
According to that stipulation, the commission scrutinised the
estates of the ministers and other high officials. They made
good progress, but later they were accused of partiality and
favoritism. His colleague Kendung Lobsang Tenkyong, passed away
in the mean time. During that political back-stabbing, Lungshar
was arrested and put behind the bars. His eye balls were taken
out and in their place boiling oil was poured. The intensity of
his pain and misery were beyond imagination. The last few years
in he prison were most pathetic. Finally he died in prison.
KALON TRIMON NORBU WANGYAL
Kalon Trimon Norbu Wangyal got into the public service during
the reign of His Holiness the 13th Dalai Lama. He was very
efficient and was therefore promoted to higher posts in the
bureaucracy. Soon he was raised to the rank of Tsepon. He was
chief of the army when the Chinese troops were ousted from
Tibet in the water-mouse year and his outstanding job during
the time was rewarded. He became knowledgeable in the art of
administrations and politics.
His Holiness Thubten Gyatso was very pleased with Kalon
Trimon.So later he was appointed as the Governor of Domey with
the rank of cabinet minister. He was by all accounts crowned
with great success and honor.
Despite his official title and success, he had great faith in
the Nyingma tradition and sought various teachings from many
Nyingma lamas. He maintained them as his principal practice.
These activities annoyed the Gelug Dharma protector Dorjee
Shugden and consequently Kalon Trimon became insane. Even when
he still had the title of a minister, he did many crazy things.
One time he went to the market place and started beating all
the cymbals that were arranged for sale. One day he wore a
while lower garment which usually used by Nyingmapas and red
upper shawl. In those garments he went straight to see the then
regent Reting Rinpoche. The regent said in a mater of jest
that he was in the dress of a treasure-test master. And asked
what treasure he had. Since he had many sons, he said, " I have
the treasure of human beings."
So he was out of his senses and did not know what was right and
what was wrong. Not only did he suffer, the life for his wife
and children were very hard. He did not care for the family
property and wealth. He wasted them like anything. So the boys
had to leave the home with whatever share they could get. In
the process, Kalon Trimon literally became a poor man heavily
indebted and at last he had to leave this world.
>>
Furthermore, Zeme Rinpoche wrote "The Nyingma Kagyu
and Sakya are the root of corruption" In view of Jangsem's recent
rant against Rime and his accustions that HHDL is spoiling the "pure"
Gelugpa tradition - it seems that some members of the NKT hold
similar views.
I'm sure any intelligent person will recognize this kind of thing for
what it is. Don't be sucked in by the divisive anti Dalai Lama, anti
Nyingma propoganda of these people who call themselves "pure"
followers of the noble lord Atisha and of Jamgon Tsongkhapa. Neither
Atisha or Je Tsongkhapa harboured the sectarian views which some of
these self -styled followers of their tradition maintain and neither
advocated the practice of Gyalpo Shugden.
I beleive that HH Dalai Lama sees a sectaran attitude arising again
among certain lamas, and as the leader of his people, is trying to
prevent it's divisive consequences from getting more serious. He is
*not* trying to prevent students from practising proper devotion to
their root lama or Buddhist tradition. HH is trying to prevent the
spread of harmful and divisive ideas which seems to be
embodied in this entity Dorje Shugden.
"To be able to practice the Dharma is due to the
unique kindness of Padmasambhava, who bound under
oath all negative forces in Tibet."
- Arik Geshe Jampa Gelek Gyaltsen
"Although many different names have been given-
Great Perfection (Dzogchen), Great Seal (Mahamudra)
and Great Madhyamaka,
Path and Fruit, Object of Cutting, and Pacification -
When they are investigated by a Yogin
Who has cultivated them experientially,
He arrives at just one intention."
- Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsan
"As for our own study and pracice of Buddhism, depending
on the direction of our interests and our capacity, we should
try to study as widely as possible, and with sincere respect
as many traditions as we can. This helps broaden and
deepen our understanding and practice of whatever is our
main tradition. For example if Gelug practitioners study
a dzogchen text, they gain a special and unique
understanding of the Nyingma teachings on the basis of
their Gelug training that can further enhance their Gelug
studies and practice. The same is true of dzogchen
practitioners who study a Gelug text, and so forth.
Thus we must try to have a very broad and open
attitude, and based on respect and interest, study
and practice as widely as we can the various traditions
of Buddhism. " -HHDL
- Chris
=========================================================
"the'u rang lha ru mthong ba'i dus bod sdug pa'i dus la babs pa yin"
("When goblins are taken for deities, a time of suffering will fall
upon Tibet"). - Padmasambhava
========================================================
cf...@dircon.co.uk
Could an NKT spokesperson provide us with the name of the first person
to Practice Shugden.
Can they tell us who was it that decided that Shugden was enlightened?
Can they tell us why is the history of Shugden from the time of the
Tulku of Panchen Sonam Dragpa not provided in Geshe Kelsangs book
"Heart Jewel"?
Can they tell us why is it that the circumstances of Tulku Sonam
Dragpas death not provided in "Heart Jewel"?
cf...@dircon.co.uk
On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:47:28 -0800, vajralama buddhist center
<vaj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It’s been over two weeks since I originally asked for valid reasons
>prooving that the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are
>Buddhas, pure beings. So far I have received no valid reasons. Even
>though I have written personally to Robert Thurman and Tsetsen Samdrub I
> have received no reply.
The premise that anyone including HH the Dalai Lama
is a Buddha cannot be established by anyone - it is only a
matter of faith. Therefore even if someone personally believes
HH to be a Buddha it is fruitless for them to argue that HH Dalai
Lama is entitled to prohibit Shugden worship because he is a
buddha as nobody is forced to accept that view .
However it can be established that HHDL is the accepted
leader of the Tibetan people in India. Furthermore it can be
established that HH the Dalai Lama, the Ganden Tri Rinpoche
and the Jangtse Chode are the leaders of the Gelugpa
religious body. Does not this give them the necessary
temporal authority to determine what kind of worship is permitted
within institutions belonging to that body?
- Chris
GT
This will change too !
Live the PRESENT !
GT
I would strongly suggest a meditation on your respiration !
Think: This will change too !
and be happy !
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 0
....
GT
GT
I would strongly suggest a meditation on your respiration !
Think: This will change too !
and be happy !
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 0
....
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
Reply to Ani Lozang Trinlae from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
=====================================================
Ani Lozang Trinlae 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.
I have already mentioned that the Dalai Lama gave an interview to the BBC
(16th July 1996) in which he specifically said: '... I started some
restriction. Then, beginning of this year (1996), ... once more I repeated
this. This time our exile government and many big monasteries made some
effort.' These are his actual words on record. The Dalai Lama therefore says
that he did not simply 'advise against' but that 'effort' was applied in
enforcing his 'restriction'. This is surely the meaning of repression. If
the Dalai Lama himself accepts that repression took place, then why can’t
you? If this is not repression, then what was the Dalai Lama's intended
meaning?
>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??
You are right, Lama Zopa's decisions are none of my business, nor are they
any of the Dalai Lama's business. If you check carefully, your praise of
Lama Zopa in the foregoing paragraph is actually denigrating him. My
comments about Lama
Zopa indicate that in reality he did not choose to break his commitments,
but gave up his practice of Dorje Shugden due to pressure from the Dalai
Lama. He had no choice. This is what I believe, but now you are saying that
he chose to break his commitment himself, so therefore this is worse. He
received life empowerment from his root Guru, which he cannot ignore. So
you should think
carefully, who in reality is criticising Lama Zopa? My intention is not to
criticize other Lamas, but what I am saying here is the truth - in reality
they all have no choice.
>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?
I have already said that I never criticise these other Lamas. Instead of
this I have great sympathy for them because they have had to stop their
daily practice of Dorje Shugden, which is their commitment. They have no
choice about this. Day and night I pray how wonderful it would be if these
Lamas could have religious
freedom. Because we all are disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche, these Lamas
are my vajra brothers, we have the same spiritual father.
The main reason why I have involved myself in this debate, and why I am
telling the truth about the Dalai Lama, is in the hope that his mind will
change and he will give these Lamas and other practitioners the freedom to
worship in the way they wish. It is my choice to help in this way.
Do you know what was Lama Yeshe’s intention in organizing Dharma Centres in
the west and inviting Tibetan teachers? It seems that you do not understand
this. His intention was to spread Buddhadharma throughout western countries,
and with this intention he invited me to come to Manjushri Institute in
England. He then requested HH Trijang Rinpoche to ask me to come to England.
Finally, at Trijang Rinpoche’s request I accepted this invitation. I arrived
in England in 1977 and since that time I have worked very hard to spread
Buddhadharma and can show very good results. In this way I have fulfilled
Lama Yeshe’s wishes. Your comment makes no sense, so I think you need to
improve your understanding about Lama Yeshe's main intention.
>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.
You are of course right that if Tibetans experience harm or repression while
living in a democratic country such as India, they have the right to call
the police, etc. They have already done this many times and in many places
such as Delhi and southern India. Perhaps you have heard about this. If
there is no repression then why are Tibetans in India fighting amongst each
other; Tibetans fighting Tibetans - this is horrible. The point is that the
source of these problems and conflicts is the Dalai Lama's view and wishes.
In order to fulfil his wishes his followers are putting a great deal of
effort into stopping people from engaging in the practice of Dorje Shugden,
and this has destroyed harmony and good relationships within the Tibetan
community in India.
>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.
You are right, if we look in the news and on TV, we are always hearing about
Tibet. We are hearing just empty words; what has the Dalai Lama actually
achieved to gain Tibetan freedom since 1959? Can you tell me?
The only thing that has improved is the power and reputation of the Dalai
Lama himself, but the illusion of Tibetan independence is like a rainbow. So
much money has been collected for the freedom of Tibet. Where is all this
money now? The Tibetans have been hearing from the exiled government for
over 40 years now that, through the kindness of the Dalai Lama, freedom is
coming soon! Finally this year the Dalai Lama said publicly that he is no
longer working for independence; this clearly indicates that he is paralyzed
in his policy of working for Tibetan independence.
>>Geshe Kelsang said:His (HH Trjang Rinpoche) 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.
He definitely wrote this book. It has been both printed and published and is
available in Tibetan, even in western countries. I have a copy myself.
>>Geshe Kelsang said: As I have already said previously, a few months before
>>his (HH Trijang Rinpoche) 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?
Yes, I do have witnesses, but you can also rely on my personal credibility.
>>Geshe Kelsang said: 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?
What they do is their choice and what I do is my choice; it is not your
business.
>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.
This is your projection due to lacking knowledge of the actual situation.
What you are saying is the opposite of what is actually happening. Before
the ban on Dorje Shugden practice there was no problem. Tibetans of all four
traditions lived side by side peacefully. It is the ban itself that is
causing division and problems.
Within the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions some people following the Dalai
Lama's view may not have liked the practice of Dorje Shugden, but this is
their choice. The majority had no problems until the ban was implemented
last year.
>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.
I think you do not have much knowledge about Tibetan history. Sonam Dragpa,
or Panchen Sonam Dragpa, was the throne holder of Je Tsongkhapa and a very
great scholar. Many great monasteries including Drepung study his books. He
never commited suicide; no-one has ever said this. You can ask any Tibetan
scholar. Later, Sonam Dragpa’s reincarnation called Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen,
was murdered by the 5th Dalai Lama’s ministers. This is the truth but the
ministers publicly stated that he commited suicide.
>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.
I have never received any invitation from the Dalai Lama to debate. When he
was in London a letter was written strongly requesting him to lift the ban
on Dorje Shugden but he refused.
>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.
Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, a holy object of refuge. He is the
synthesis of Gurus, Yidams, and Dharmapalas (Chos Skyong). So of course we
can put him as the principal object of the Lama Chopa field of merit.
However, the 13th Dalai Lama, using his political power, did not allow Je
Phabongkhapa to put Dorje Shugden into the Lama Chopa field of merit. So, in
this way the Gelugpas lost their freedom to place Dorje Shugden in the Lama
Chopa field of merit. Since the 14th Dalai Lama follows the 13th Dalai
Lama's view, Tibetan practitioners have to accept the lower position of
Dorje Shugden. They have no choice. Since I have freedom to do this, NKT
practitioners can keep Dorje Shugden on their shrine as an object of refuge.
We will be putting Dorje Shugden into the Lama Chopa field of merit; soon
you will be able to see a thangka of this.
Because the 13th Dalai Lama abandoned the Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden, I
believe that he had no wisdom and no knowledge about how to protect Tibet
and her people. During his life he already knew about the threat and
possible takeover of Tibet from the Chinese. His English friend Charles Bell
gave him advice and encouragement to protect Tibet which he always ignored
due to pride. He did nothing to protect his country; so I can say that the
Tibetans lost their country because the 13th Dalai Lama made a big mistake.
Now the present Dalai Lama says that it is the worship of Dorje Shugden that
caused the loss of Tibet. This is complete nonsense! I believe the complete
opposite of this is the truth. I believe that Tibet was lost because the
practice of the Wisdom Buddha was banned! Because of this these two leaders
had no wisdom and no knowledge about how to protect their country.
If you check carefully, you can find replies to your remaining comments in
my previous postings.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
Lozang Trinlae
Rabten wrote:
>
> Dear ani-la,
>
> still having problems with the Dalai Lama's view, can you help in this
> instance?
>
Dear Rabten-la,
My limitations notwithstanding, I will give it some more effort. (I'm
moving cities and also going out of the country for a month, so may not
have much more time to work on this matter for a while).
I don't think it is necessary that you accept the Dalai Lama's view, nor
that it is unbearable that you disagree with it. From my side a more
realistic goal is to perhaps reach a point where you need not hold the
view that HHDL's acts are deliberate to cause only harm, such that your
noble vital energies may move on to more badly needed efforts and
service.
One possibility is to abandon the concept of there being only the two
possibilities of Dorje Shugden as either 1: a worldy spirit or 2: a
wisdom Buddha, and accept a common view that the situation of the nature
of Dorje Shugden is both secret and inconceivable and thus he may appear
to different people differently according to their karma; or different
emanations under the same name, like we have two Karmapas and two
Panchen Lamas. In the Lam Rim we hear of the story of how a glass of
water appears to be nectar to Gods, water to ordinary humans, and blood
to hungry ghosts.
In this way of thinking, the Dorje Shugden you practice is Dorje Shugden
the wisdom Buddha, and the Dorje Shugden that HH the Dalai Lama does not
practice and advises disciples not to practice is Dorje Shugden the
worldy dharma protector, and therefore there is no conflict.
In any case whatever we decide on how and what to practice the best
thing is to get on with it having decided and not worry about it and
rather rely on the guidance of our virtuous friends to help us achieve
the path we choose.
.
> Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <3485DB...@mindless.com>...
> >I have never heard of HH the Dalai Lama calling
> >Dorje Shugden an 'evil spirit'. However, I have heard of HH referring to
> >Dorje Shugden as a 'worldly spirit'.
> >
>
> POINT ONE: THE DALAI LAMA'S VIEW
>
> "If you ask then who is he? It seems that he is someone who made evil
> prayers. For this reason anyone who strongly relies on Gyalchen is
> eventually subject to various calamities, whatever he may do."
> -Dalai Lama, July 13th 1978
Although this quote does not state incontrovertibly that Dorje Shugdan
is an evil spirit as if his only job is to cause others harm, it is
taken out of context and rather than a statement by HHDL of his own
views is rather a part of a summary of statements of the Nechung Oracle.
I.e., the paragraph from which this quote is taken goes thus:
"Accordingly, a summary of the outcome of the questions and doubts
presented to Nechung incidentally during the course of trance is as
follows: ....What's more, it seems that the present Gyalchen, who has an
aggressive nature, is neither an incarnation of Panchen Sonam Dakpa nor
an incarnation of Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsan [the original spirits who were
bound as protector under the name Dorje Shugdan in the 1600s]. If you
ask, then who is he...."
>
> "We actually mentioned him [Dorje Shugden] by name in our exorcisms based on
> Tamdrin. [...] Others have reported dreaming of a bearded monk strangling
> them: this is very clear indication that Shugden is a spirit, far from being
> a deity"
> -Dalai Lama March 21st 1996
>
> The Dalai Lama is very clear on this point.
Here HHDL is stating his view of Shudgen being a spirit. I don't know
which Tamdrin text HH is referring to, but in the Padma Yang gSang Las
Byang there is some exorcising line naming "evil harms of all makers of
magic power, spirits, 8 kinds of violent deities, elementals" so
including Dorje Shugden's name here is to banish any interfering
energies, but still like a gZhi bdag or spirit can be pleased or
displeased and cause interference that doesn't make them inherently
evil. Nevertheless, I have come across a quotation from a speech on the
same day, 21/3/96, whereby he said, "It has become fairly clear that
Dolgyal is a spirit of the dark forces". But I never heard him say that
Manjushri is so. So therefore if you regard DS as an emanation of
Manjushri the wisdom Buddha then there is no need to feel any conflict.
I remember monks of the late Ven. Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk (formerly of
SerMey Pomra, whose Khamsten is said to regard DS as a khamsten
protector), who like Geshe-la at the time lived at the Norbulingkha
grounds in Lhasa (former summer residence of the Dalai Lama), told me in
person that they tried to leave DS out of Kangso puja and said they had
nightmares in the evening so as a result they didn't do that again. (No
mention of bearded men or strangling however). It doesn't *prove*
anything but *can* like HHDL says indicate that DS is a spirit, at least
in the context of that conventional appearance.
Lastly, from later in the same 1978 lecture cited above, HHDL states,
"...However, Palden Lhamo is pre-eminent, below are Gyalpo-Ku-nga like
the treasurer who holds chief responsibility in a family, while Shugden
should be seen as an ordinary store-keeper working under him. In other
words, if he is regarded like a local deity or a personal birth deity
and is propitiated and invoked in that way, I think that it would be all
right...."
>
> POINT TWO: THE VIEW OF HIS ROOT GURU
>
> (part one: establishing Trijang Rinpoche's view)
>
> "HUM
> Realizing that all appearances, sounds and minds
> Arise as the Deity, mantra and Truth Body,
> O Supreme Deity, we practitioners and our followers
> Honour you [Dorje Shugden] as the interpretive and definitive Vajradhara.
>
> You are the Guru who teaches the excellent path of abandonment and practice,
> The Yidam who bestows the common and supreme attainments,
> The Dharma Protector who assists us with the four actions;
> We honour you as the embodiment of the Guru, Yidam, and Protector."
> -Kangso, the sadhana Trijang Rinpoche performed every month until the end of
> his life.
So here Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche is praising an emanation of Vajradhara.
Is he not referring to the wrathful Manjushri taking the name Dorje
Shugdan? No one doubts that Manjushri is a wisdom Buddha. There is no
mention that Vajradhara is the definitive equivalent of the spirit of
Panchen Sonam Dakpa or Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsan, or any spirits
masquerading under their names, taking the name DS.
Furthermore, even for propitiation of a spirit, if a practioner, such as
Kyabje Phabonkha or Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, is beyond samsara and
delusions, there should be no fear to results of negative karma and
suffering.
>
> Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang wrote an extensive commentary to the practice of
> Dorje Shugden with the intention of preserving the practice for many future
> generations. This text explicitly teaches that Dorje Shugden is the Wisdom
> Buddha Manjushri.
This may be Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's skillful manner to guide DS
practioners away from propitiating DS the worldly spirit.
What else has Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche said?
Regarding DS the worldly spirit, HHDL said, "In general, conflict
between Palden Lhamo and Shugden is impossible, but the present discord
between them is probably connected with Tibet's spiritual and political
affairs. Trijang Rinpoche did not believe there was a conflict in
general between the two, but that the present circumstances arose from
the spiritual and political affairs concerning the Government. During
the reign of the Fifth Dalai Lama many common and uncommon circumstances
occured which could have given rise to this. Such was the explanation
Trijang Rinpoche gave". (13th July 1978) So if Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche
is not talking about Dorje Shugden the spirit here, then who else could
it be?
>
> (part two: establishing that Trijang Rinpoche is the Dalai Lama's root Guru)
No question is made of this point nor is there any doubt about this.
>
> ‘I received the transmission of the guru yoga from my root guru, the late
> Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.’
> -from The Union of Bliss and Emptiness, Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, Snow Lion
> Publications, 1988
>
> POINT THREE: CONCERNING GURU DEVOTION
>
> ‘Merely having a relationship with a guru does not help; it is necessary to
> have proper reliance, because if there is a breach in guru devotion it is
> very dangerous. .’
> -from The Union of Bliss and Emptiness, Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, Snow Lion
> Publications, 1988
>
> "The Path begins with strong reliance
> On my Kind Teacher, source of all good,
> O, bless me with this understanding,
> To follow him with great devotion."
> -Je Tsongkhapa
HHDL did not receive Life Entrustment Empowerment of DS, from Kyabje
Trijang Rinpoche or any others, so there is no question of having any
samaya to break in this case.
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> We must conclude that the Dalai Lama now regards Trijang Dorjechang as an
> ordinary being who could not tell the difference between an evil spirit and
> a wisdom Buddha.
No evidence is supplied to suggest that the Dalai Lama regards Trijang
Dorjechang as an ordinary being and thus the conclusion doesn't follow.
On the contrary, HHDL said (in the same 1978 lecture as cited
previously), "...Trijang RInpoche's life, deeds, and beneficial activity
have been nobly fulfilled throughout and as long as the Buddha's
teachings do not decline in Tibet, Kyabje Rinpoche's manifestations must
come because of his compassionate thought and the firm pledges he has
made."
Furthermore, from Phabonkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche's Liberation in the
Palm of the Hand text:
"In other words, because of our evil karmic instincts, we dwell only on
our guru's faults. Instead, we should dwell on his good qualities, and
this will automatically stop any thoughts of seeing his faults, just as
the sun outshines the moon in the sky."
Yet we have never heard HHDL criticize or fault Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.
Instead the qualities he ascribes to TR are becoming of a Buddha and
Bodhisattva.
Finally, any apparent contradiction (of referring to DS as a wisdom
buddha and simultaenously a spirit) can be described similarly thus, "In
the past, Ra-lotsawa, Darma Do-de, Nyan-lotsawa, and so on killed each
other through their magical powers. Killing one another is the final
result of disharmony. Yogis were killing eachother, yet inasmuch as they
had become adept in the higher levels of Secret Mantra, it is impossible
that they had not developed the mind of enlightenment in their
mindstreams. A qualified tantric practitioner who possesses Bodhicitta,
the altruistic mind to become fully enlightened for the sake of others,
will generally not harm even the life of an insect. Accounts of yogis
who killed each other in demonstration of their magical powers are
controversial, yet such things are inconceivable to the minds of
ordinary people like us. Such things occur for another reason and
purpose. " (HHDL, same lecture as before, 1978)
>
> Rather than think that perhaps his dough-balls and his worldy oracle Nechung
> may be incorrect he has dismissed one of the heart practices of his
> Spiritual Guide.
He dismissed the practice for himself and his [tantric] followers, but
not for his Spiritual Guide. "Trijang Rinpoche's reliance on Gyalchen is
not something he has begun anew in this life, for he has relied on him
since his previous incarnation and there is no need for him to stop
now", HHDL, 7/13/78. Indeed, if HHDL believed DS is inherently an evil
spirit, then it would seem that only a view of Trijang Rinpoche as a
fully enlightened Buddha would make him qualified to practice such
without risks. Perhaps HHDL doesn't doubt that Trijang Rinpoche sees
Dorje Shugdan as a wisdom Buddha? But he might (correctly) doubt that
his students at a level of attainment like myself could.
>
> Rather than just change his own practice, he is making a concerted effort to
> change the practice of others. He has repeatedly taught that others should
> not rely on Dorje Shugden. He has threatened those who rely on Dorje
> Shugden. He has banned the worship of Dorje Shugden in gelugpa monasteries.
> [To establish these points please read the Dalai Lama's speeches 1986, 1996
> and the posting by Tseten Samdup all are on the net, I can post them to you
> if you wish].
I am not a DS practioner nor do I seek to become one or feel as though I
am missing anything in my Gelug lineage practices by lacking such, so no
need to establish anything further for *my* own views.
We humans are not robots and are free to make our own decisions and
actions. How about Gelugpa monasteries in Nepal and India of DS
practicing Lamas? No ban being followed there as far as I have known. If
we regard NKT centers with ordained people as gelug monasteries no ban
followed there either.
No need to feel bad about the fact that HHDL enjoys a large following of
disciples, and that monasteries count a majority of them among their
numbers. That situation is due to all of our karma. Leaders, especially
religious, have a lot of influence on their followers. This is why the
Communists hate religion isn't it? (But like the Grinch Who Stole
Christmas they can take away all they want and it doesn't change the
hearts of the people. But if some of the Whos in Whoville start fighting
with eachother then they won't be coming together to sing and hold hands
now will they?)
Among Christians, for example, there are plenty who don't follow orders
of Ralph Reed the leader of Christian Coalition, or the Pope, even among
those who count themselves as members of the respective organizations.
People get on with their own lives without getting too stuck.
>
> Ani-la,
> it seems that the Dalai Lama has abandoned the teachings of his root guru
> and is imposing his new views on his root guru's students and their
> students. Where is the mistake in my reasoning?
>
In my opinion as a mere bystander there are two or three errors. One is
a view that HHDL was bound by his guru Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to
practice DS. Another is a potentially existing view that a student
cannot under any circumstances obtain permission from his guru to excuse
him or herself from a practice, much like a monk can give ordination
vows back to his preceptor. Finally is the view that Kyabje Trijang
RInpoche's students are being imposed upon by HHDL's words. I don't like
to name names, but I can think of at least 4-5 fairly well known Gelug
lamas with Labrangs and monasteries, who make no effort whatsoever to
hide the fact that they continue DS practices along with their monks.
Not counting inside Tibet. THey count themselves as Trijang R students
and do not appear imposed upon in the least.
If you are a man with two girlfriends and one asks you to choose between
them as it is inconvenient for her to share you with the other girl, it
doesn't reflect on any animosity between the two girls.
Sometimes situations in life come up where we have to choose to have
either one way or another but not both. A Buddhist monk (except in Japan
maybe) has to choose between Buddha and an active sex life. We don't
think that Buddha is trying to impose his view on all Buddhists. Just
those who choose to be monks make the choice of their own free will.
Those who don't choose can still be Buddhists but they can't be monks.
The best thing I think that you can do is channel your efforts to get
Tibetans to make their exiled government fully independent of HHDL and
his office, and likewise thereafter have those big monasteries become
independent (financially and otherwise) of the exiled government also.
Perhaps the easiest way for this to happen is for them to find a way to
return to Tibet. That is maybe the best way to prevent any situation
like this happening again in the future, and could go a long way to help
deal with the present case too. But just like the negative campaign ads
turn off the voting public, campaigning against HHDL may just make the
Tibetans and the exiled government stick closer to His Holiness, so that
the desired result is harder and takes longer to be achieved.
Best of luck,
~ani lozang trinlae
Don Martin
In article <348721...@ix.netcom.com>,
vaj...@ix.netcom.com (vajralama buddhist center) wrote:
> >
> > ****** What cobblers! Now answer this. Did you work out all of the above
> > for yourself, or is this how Geshe la explained H.H.Dalai Lama's motives
> > to you?
> Dear Don,
>
> Your response may be taken a little more seriously if you gave reasons
> establishing cobblers!
****** Debate has now reached a new philosophical high. We are now being
requested for valid reasons for establishing cobblers.
It has been noted however that you refrain from revealing whether
you think up cobblers for yourself or whether this is what Geshe
Kelsang is teaching you.
--
Don, Never go by appearances,
The Born-Again Buddhist. I look intelligent.
(....and again and again)
Robin Faichney
On 6 Dec 1997 13:21:07 GMT, madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk (Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso) wrote:
> I arrived
>in England in 1977 and since that time I have worked very hard to spread
>Buddhadharma and can show very good results.
You are, indeed, to be congratulated upon the number of NKT centres
across this country (UK) and others. And, of course, all this would
be wasted if Shugden worship had to stop, would it not?
>You are right, if we look in the news and on TV, we are always hearing about
>Tibet. We are hearing just empty words; what has the Dalai Lama actually
>achieved to gain Tibetan freedom since 1959? Can you tell me?
>
>The only thing that has improved is the power and reputation of the Dalai
>Lama himself, but the illusion of Tibetan independence is like a rainbow. So
>much money has been collected for the freedom of Tibet. Where is all this
>money now? The Tibetans have been hearing from the exiled government for
>over 40 years now that, through the kindness of the Dalai Lama, freedom is
>coming soon! Finally this year the Dalai Lama said publicly that he is no
>longer working for independence; this clearly indicates that he is paralyzed
>in his policy of working for Tibetan independence.
It is indeed sad to see such a respected Buddhist teacher behaving in
such a way.
>Now the present Dalai Lama says that it is the worship of Dorje Shugden that
>caused the loss of Tibet. This is complete nonsense! I believe the complete
>opposite of this is the truth. I believe that Tibet was lost because the
>practice of the Wisdom Buddha was banned!
Of course, many Westerners, even among those who count themselves
Buddhists, will find both propositions unacceptably superstitious
and/or fundamentalist. On the other hand, His Holiness could be
considered to be speaking largely to Tibetans who have not had the
"benefit" of a Western-style education. But then look at some of
those who have!
Robin Faichney
Don Martin
****** All of a sudden the nkt postings appear to have stopped.
( unless of-course there is a fault on my news server,
or they have all gone to church on a Sunday).
Hopefully this is the end of the present series of
mischievious ( being polite here ) postings. If there
was any doubt however that this smear campaign has
carefully orchestrated and controlled, let it be noted
that it stopped just as suddenly as it started. Will
this be the end? I sincerely hope so, but I do have a
feeling that we will only have to wait a month or two
before the next round. Oh for a moderated group.
--
Don, Trying to live like a sword
The Born-Again Buddhist. in water, but behaving more
(....and again and again) like a thick plank.
Lozang Trinlae
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>
> .snip<..
>
> ... This is surely the meaning of repression. If
> the Dalai Lama himself accepts that repression took place, then why can’t
> you? If this is not repression, then what was the Dalai Lama's intended
> meaning?
I was speaking comparatively with respect to other situations known in
the world with the label "repression". I don't have a dictionary for
English but as my MS-Word thesaurus gives 'control' as a synonym of
repress, I think I can agree with you that it there is an effort to
'control' DS practice. But 'repress' has some additional meaning
suggesting there is no alternative to being 'controlled', which I think
is not the case here, since those who wish to continue DS practice are
free to do so, without fear of arrest and imprisonment by the
government. Also, it should be noted that HH Dalai Lama's acceptance of
the word is not the same as my own; i.e., that I am not bound to blindly
agree with HH or anyone else's words without analyzing for myself and
making my own conclusions.
I am very glad to see the idea of no criticism of anybody. Also if you
check what I wrote, I never indicated or suggested what Je Lama Zopa's
personal decisions have been regarding his own personal practice,
because quite frankly I have no idea and wouldn't dare suppose such and
will not speculate. I think none of us should do so and should with-hold
judgement and resulting conclusions until Je Lama Zopa tells us himself,
should he ever choose to do so.
In any case I cannot accept that people have no choice in their
decisions regarding their practice and that we must consider others
advice, even from a Guru, as pressure. For example, many lamas advise
their students for years and years to do things and not to do things,
and some of their students will do it and some not, some sooner and
others later. It is according to their own application of the advice.
Pressure means some force, which implies an opposing force. If there is
no willful opposing force there is no pressure. Thats all.
>
> >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?
>
> I have already said that I never criticise these other Lamas. Instead of
> this I have great sympathy for them because they have had to stop their
> daily practice of Dorje Shugden, which is their commitment. They have no
> choice about this. Day and night I pray how wonderful it would be if these
> Lamas could have religious
> freedom. Because we all are disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche, these Lamas
> are my vajra brothers, we have the same spiritual father.
While I respectfully disagree that they have no choice, I appreciate
very much any statements about efforts not to criticize anybody,
including HHDL, who also shares the same spiritual father Kyabje Trijang
Dorjechang Rinpoche. I think if your compassion comes through in your
other communications like it does here, which show how you disagree with
actions and views of HHDL and/or others, without any criticism or
disparaging, it not only will be the most beneficial thing generally,
but will set a good example for others who share your views, and as a
result the public and persons who are not trying to promote one view
over another will respect you for your differing viewpoints, even when
they don't agree with them.
>
> The main reason why I have involved myself in this debate, and why I am
> telling the truth about the Dalai Lama, is in the hope that his mind will
> change and he will give these Lamas and other practitioners the freedom to
> worship in the way they wish. It is my choice to help in this way.
I think it is very good that your aims are clear stated, since I think
there is generally a lot of confusion about this. I think that a hope to
change the HH Dalai Lama's mind is in theory not unreasonable. The
problem with the method of 'telling the truth about the Dalai Lama' is
that it very easily *appears* to be a general disagreement with the
general person of the Dalai Lama, in attracting attention to perceived
faults, while at the same time any qualities are regarded as irrelevant
and thus not under description. An alternative I respectfully propose
would be to isolate specific actions for which you wish to indicate
disagreement with the causes and conditions for them, perceived as
stemming from HH the Dalai lama. For example, "Those disciples of
Trijang Rinpoche with Dorje Shugdan commitments who also wish to follow
HH the Dalai Lama and/or their monastery leadership appear to be giving
up their Dorje Shugden practice so that they can take empowerments
and/or otherwise please HH the Dalai Lama or their monasteries. I wish
no one felt they had to choose between DS practice and HHDL. I wish that
instead such persons would request HH the Dalai Lama to permit them to
continue their Dorje Shugden practice, or just continue their Dorje
Shugden practice and stop taking empowerments from HHDL, even if they
had to start a new monastery due to lack of permission from their
monastery Abbots. I would like to make efforts so that this can happen
one day." So therefore your position is very clear and there is no risk
for alienation of potential sympathizers or for others who do or do not
share your views but who may be less skillful to respond in a way which
is not negatively criticizing or disparaging anybody.
>
> Do you know what was Lama Yeshe’s intention in organizing Dharma Centres in
> the west and inviting Tibetan teachers? It seems that you do not understand
> this. His intention was to spread Buddhadharma throughout western countries,
> and with this intention he invited me to come to Manjushri Institute in
> England. He then requested HH Trijang Rinpoche to ask me to come to England.
> Finally, at Trijang Rinpoche’s request I accepted this invitation. I arrived
> in England in 1977 and since that time I have worked very hard to spread
> Buddhadharma and can show very good results. In this way I have fulfilled
> Lama Yeshe’s wishes. Your comment makes no sense, so I think you need to
> improve your understanding about Lama Yeshe's main intention.
It is quite true I never knew Lama Yeshe and know little or nothing
about his intentions. I don't know what are all the results of your work
but I can personally say that some of your books I've seen are very
helpful and I thank you for your efforts in that area. I appreciate your
advice to improve my understanding since it does need it.
>
> >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.
>
> You are of course right that if Tibetans experience harm or repression while
> living in a democratic country such as India, they have the right to call
> the police, etc. They have already done this many times and in many places
> such as Delhi and southern India. Perhaps you have heard about this. If
> there is no repression then why are Tibetans in India fighting amongst each
> other; Tibetans fighting Tibetans - this is horrible. The point is that the
> source of these problems and conflicts is the Dalai Lama's view and wishes.
> In order to fulfil his wishes his followers are putting a great deal of
> effort into stopping people from engaging in the practice of Dorje Shugden,
> and this has destroyed harmony and good relationships within the Tibetan
> community in India.
>
It may not be your intention, but I think it is overly simplistic to
imply that all the causes and conditions for any problems and conflicts
among Tibetans, where they exist, are all due to HHDL's views and wishes
alone. There have been enough other instances of disharmony and lack of
good relations among Tibetans in India, even in recent history, which
have nothing to do with HHDL's views whatsoever. (I.e.,
Chu-bshi-kang-druk Taiwan money, incidents regarding relations with
Indians in South, Delhi, Dharmasala; not to mention religion-related
matters) It is true that individuals' choosing to continue or
discontinue Dorje Shugden practice is influenced by HHDL's wishes, and
peer pressure from the society, and that collectively it is an
uncomfortable adjustment period for the Tibetan society, but any
conflicts are also due to their own individual karmic predispositions
and influences too. However I also have heard of people and Lamas who
continue Dorje Shugden practice in India and Nepal, and if the situation
is to be looked at objectively that should be acknowledged too.
Again,
> >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.
>
> You are right, if we look in the news and on TV, we are always hearing about
> Tibet. We are hearing just empty words; what has the Dalai Lama actually
> achieved to gain Tibetan freedom since 1959? Can you tell me?
I am a scientist by training and have no qualifications in history or
politics and furthermore am not Tibetan or Chinese, so I do not care to
speculate here. I would merely like to point out that there should be
nothing to stop other Tibetans organizing and finding other leaders to
work on their efforts. That is, anyone who does not feel satisfied by
HHDL's efforts should make some effort of their own, either via exiled
government or otherwise.
Personally my unqualified opinion on the matter is that the answer to
the Tibet problem is money. Exiled Tibetans should get all their money
together and start investing and buying up what exists and starting
businesses in Tibet via their relatives there. The Tibetan diasporic
community is very well situated to support such an effort, since a
multinational network already exists via the relatives all over the
globe. But as I said it is my mere unqualified opinion. I am not an
activist on the matter and instead have focused my efforts on improving
education in the modern subjects like English and math, etc., in Tibet
and also in the exiled community. My belief is that when people are
educated and literate they can easily inform and decide for themselves
how to live and then don't need to rely on political leaders too much,
which is also an important kind of freedom.
>
> The only thing that has improved is the power and reputation of the Dalai
> Lama himself, but the illusion of Tibetan independence is like a rainbow. So
> much money has been collected for the freedom of Tibet. Where is all this
> money now? The Tibetans have been hearing from the exiled government for
> over 40 years now that, through the kindness of the Dalai Lama, freedom is
> coming soon! Finally this year the Dalai Lama said publicly that he is no
> longer working for independence; this clearly indicates that he is paralyzed
> in his policy of working for Tibetan independence.
I disagree that the only improvements have been for the person of the
Dalai Lama himself. I don't know how much money has been collected for
freedom. A lot of people however have put a lot of money into improving
conditions for Tibetans in India, Nepal, and Tibet, and that the results
have been mostly successful. I think it is silly if Tibetans are
thinking that they can blindly do nothing and let HH the Dalai Lama do
everything. Extreme reliance on HHDL's efforts alone without any
contributions of their own may be more an influence on problems
acheiving real results than any particular effort of HHDL alone. But I
think foreigners like myself can see clearly that the biggest reason for
lack of results is that China is a major world superpower of billions
and the Tibetans are just a small ethnic group. Taiwan similarly has had
no results, nor other groups such as Mongolians or Turkestanis, and many
have given up any idea of independence. Nothing peculiar about Tibetans'
situation and no reason to feel bad about HHDL's efforts, even if one
doesn't find them satisfying. The late Namdrol Rinpoche of Tashi Choling
gompa once asked me why the USA didn't drop an A-bomb on Beijing. THat
definitely would have changed things, and would have had nothing to do
with Tibetans or the Dalai Lama at all.
>
> >>Geshe Kelsang said:His (HH Trjang Rinpoche) 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.
>
> He definitely wrote this book. It has been both printed and published and is
> available in Tibetan, even in western countries. I have a copy myself.
>
Ok.
> >>Geshe Kelsang said: As I have already said previously, a few months before
> >>his (HH Trijang Rinpoche) 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?
>
> Yes, I do have witnesses, but you can also rely on my personal credibility.
Ok, thank-you. I welcome your invitation.
>
> >>Geshe Kelsang said: 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?
>
> What they do is their choice and what I do is my choice; it is not your
> business.
>
Yes that is fair and what they do is indeed not my business. I merely
was indicating that others *can* disagree and hold a different view than
HHDL and that carrying on without criticizing HHDL personally *may* be
an alternative way to proceed than accepting HHDL's views and wishes.
>
> >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.
>
> This is your projection due to lacking knowledge of the actual situation.
> What you are saying is the opposite of what is actually happening. Before
> the ban on Dorje Shugden practice there was no problem. Tibetans of all four
> traditions lived side by side peacefully. It is the ban itself that is
> causing division and problems.
I agree that it was entirely my projection and I made no attempt to hide
that fact. As mentioned above, there have been plenty of problems in the
Tibetan exile community and deciding how to handle Dorje Shugden
practice is merely one of them. I will not try to refute your opinions
but it doesn't imply I agree with them.
>
> Within the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions some people following the Dalai
> Lama's view may not have liked the practice of Dorje Shugden, but this is
> their choice. The majority had no problems until the ban was implemented
> last year.
>
Ok maybe the majority. But I do know for a fact that nuns in Tibet have
changed their behavior as a manner of following HHDL's wishes, not only
on the matter of DS practice but also vegetarianism, etc., from many
many years ago before HH started requesting his disciples to not
practice DS.
> >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.
>
> I think you do not have much knowledge about Tibetan history. Sonam Dragpa,
> or Panchen Sonam Dragpa, was the throne holder of Je Tsongkhapa and a very
> great scholar. Many great monasteries including Drepung study his books. He
> never commited suicide; no-one has ever said this. You can ask any Tibetan
> scholar. Later, Sonam Dragpa’s reincarnation called Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen,
> was murdered by the 5th Dalai Lama’s ministers. This is the truth but the
> ministers publicly stated that he commited suicide.
Very true that I have little knowledge of Tibetan history. The account I
referred to is mentioned in a book published in English in 1956. But I
also know he was esteemed in the monastery. I was shown his house
location at Drepung in Tibet, and also told some very strange other
stories by the monks which I have never heard before or since.
>
> >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.
>
> I have never received any invitation from the Dalai Lama to debate. When he
> was in London a letter was written strongly requesting him to lift the ban
> on Dorje Shugden but he refused.
How about if you could just have an interview, maybe that would be a
good place to start. Maybe you could request an interview, or some
intermediate person could arrange it.
>
>
> >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.
>
> Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, a holy object of refuge. He is the
> synthesis of Gurus, Yidams, and Dharmapalas (Chos Skyong). So of course we
> can put him as the principal object of the Lama Chopa field of merit.
> However, the 13th Dalai Lama, using his political power, did not allow Je
> Phabongkhapa to put Dorje Shugden into the Lama Chopa field of merit. So, in
> this way the Gelugpas lost their freedom to place Dorje Shugden in the Lama
> Chopa field of merit. Since the 14th Dalai Lama follows the 13th Dalai
> Lama's view, Tibetan practitioners have to accept the lower position of
> Dorje Shugden. They have no choice. Since I have freedom to do this, NKT
> practitioners can keep Dorje Shugden on their shrine as an object of refuge.
> We will be putting Dorje Shugden into the Lama Chopa field of merit; soon
> you will be able to see a thangka of this.
Thank you for your clarification of your views on this point. I don't
know much about the previous history, but I agree that different lamas
have different views about the status of different dieties and
Dharmapalas. I think each practitioner should choose for themself. But I
don't agree that Gelugpas have lost any freedom since many Lamas in and
out of Tibet don't accept any low position and you can see their
thangkas and photos and statues of Dorje Shugden very easily. Each
person has to have their own merit field according to their own practice
and lineages. There doesn't have to be only one, even among Gelugpas.
>
> Because the 13th Dalai Lama abandoned the Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden, I
> believe that he had no wisdom and no knowledge about how to protect Tibet
> and her people. During his life he already knew about the threat and
> possible takeover of Tibet from the Chinese. His English friend Charles Bell
> gave him advice and encouragement to protect Tibet which he always ignored
> due to pride. He did nothing to protect his country; so I can say that the
> Tibetans lost their country because the 13th Dalai Lama made a big mistake.
The 13th Dalai Lama did the best he could and maybe someone else could
have done better, but it is all speculation now. But many political
leaders have a lot of wisdom and knowledge about how to protect their
countries without relying on any religion. Most westerners will think it
is very silly to say for example that because John F. Kennedy may have
damaged his religion through his behavior that he had no qualifications
to protect America from getting involved in Vietnam. Maybe things could
have been different, but they weren't and we have to get over it. What
benefit is there to say the loss of Tibet was because of the 13th Dalai
Lama? Actually the loss was around the time of the regent, Retring
Rinpoche, who was strongly under the influence of Phabonkha Rinpoche,
but there is no benefit to suggest that he or his practice of DS (or
lack of it) has anything to do with it.
>
> Now the present Dalai Lama says that it is the worship of Dorje Shugden that
> caused the loss of Tibet. This is complete nonsense! I believe the complete
> opposite of this is the truth. I believe that Tibet was lost because the
> practice of the Wisdom Buddha was banned! Because of this these two leaders
> had no wisdom and no knowledge about how to protect their country.
>
What is the benefit to say that the Dalai Lama's have no wisdom or
knowledge about how to protect their country? HH the 14th Dalai Lama was
raised as a monk and no tutors were brought in to teach him government
affairs, law, administration, or any useful diplomacy subject like that,
from what I've learned. HH the 14th Dalai Lama, along with his advisers
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche, Zemey Rinpoche, and others like
HH Panchen Rinpoche did what they could with the situation at hand. We
cannot change the past.
You are entitled to your belief but I think even among modern Tibetans
few people in the world nowadays believe that a country can be won or
lost due to relying on any specific kind of worship, and westerners may
find the idea down right silly, so I don't think your aim of changing
the Dalai Lama's views can be achieved by spreading this belief. Sorry
that is only my humble opinion. Instead what happens is that nearly all
anyone hears about you is that you only have these views which disagree
with all the Dalai Lamas and so they think you just have some personal
dislike of the Dalai Lamas so they think if they listen and agree with
you they will have to be an enemy of the Dalai Lamas. So then most will
not even take any time to look at anything substantial you have to say.
I'm not saying that this is reasonable, but I am afraid that this is
going to be the result most of the time due to believing false
appearances. Then because of misconceptions also the public image
relations may be difficult, also for your students.
So many of us among western Buddhist students, we admire and respect
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and also we admire and respect HH the Dalai Lama.
We don't like anybody to criticize either one and we only want everyone
to respect both. So as the teacher you can give the example to help your
students and all the others work to help us do this.
Respectfully,
~ani lozang trinlae
Saraha Buddhist Center
In "Mother Jones" Dec/97 page 31 HHDL says:
...
"Up to now my involvement in the Tibetan freedom struggle has been part
of my spiritual practice, because the issues of the survival of the
Buddha Teaching and the freedom of Tibet are very much related. In this
particular struggle, there is no problem with many monks and nuns,
including myself, joining".
...
"However, if the situation is such that there was only one learned lama
or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the
whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life,
then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it
might be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated--if there was
no other way".
Now, theoretically speaking, who would be this *one person* whose death
would cause the whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist
way of life? You guessed it! Read the first quote again and it's not
hard to figure it out.
So, who are HHDL's top enemies these days--I mean, in his own mind,
based on his words and actions? Of course, it's got to be Dorje Shugden
and China (I'm afraid possibly in this order). So whose actual names
are on the hit list? I'm sure Ven. Geshe Kelsang must be pretty close
to the top these days, seeing that he is the most vocal proponent of
Dorje Shugden practice.
And everyone knows that Tibetan Buddhist and political history has been
pretty bloody, plagued with intrigue, hatred, jealousy, and murders.
Nothing new here.
Then, HHDL concludes (on violence):
"I could justify violence only in this extreme case, to save the last
living knowledge of Buddhism itself".
Now, please read this carefully. Is this a pure Dharma teaching? Isn't
our very first and most important precept "not killing"? Did Buddha
mention certain exceptions? What kind of karma would be associated with
saving Buddhadharma with violence? What meaning?
And then a big contradiction in HHDL's teaching in "Snow Lion" Fall
1997 page 8:
...
"Most of the students replied that they would do just as the teacher
said, but the student who was to become Shakyamuni Buddha remained
silent.
The teacher asked him, "You are my student. When I have such
difficulty, why are you not saying anything?"
The student said, "You, my teacher, have instructed us to steal, but
according to the general teachings stealing is completely improper.
Although you have said to do it, it doesn't seem right."
The teacher was very pleased and said, "I said this in order to test
you all. He is the one who has actually understood my teaching. He has
not been led foolishly anywhere like the front of a rivulet of water,
but has examined what his teacher has said, and made his own
determination. He is the best among my students."
I certainly agree with the purity of this teaching from the "Twelve
Buddha Birth Stories" refered to by Je Tsongkhapa. What is sad, though,
is that all the other students (other than Buddha Shakyamuni) were
ready to go out and steal because the teacher said so. This is
precisely the problem with students who have blind faith and lack
discriminating wisdom following a teacher who has little wisdom and
mixed motivation.
Also from Snow Lion by HHDL as above...
"At the end of the section on special insight in the "Great
Exposition", Venerable Tsongkhapa mentions that if disciples have
strong faith but do not have intelligence they can be led foolishly
anywhere, just like the front of a rivulet of water. They will do
whatever they are told. We should not be like this."
Now let's look at what HHDL says in "George" Dec/97 page 104:
...
"Even if we have 100,000 rifles and sufficient ammunition, to the
Chinese this is nothing. If we involve 100,000 Tibetans, several
thousand people will be killed, and for the Chinese, losing a few
thousand people is nothing. Even 20,000, 30,000 people is nothing to
them. Suppose 100,000 Chinese are killed. Then the Chinese immediately
bring in another 200,000 soldiers. The result is more suppresion, more
oppresion, more publicity and headlines in major newspapers for a week
or two, and that will be all. It is very easy to say we want to fight
the Chinese, but in reality the implementation is not easy".
HHDL is saying nothing about being against violence, but is merely
doing a strategic analysis of the feasibility of resolving this
conflict through military means.
I'm sorry about this posting, but these are the very words of the most
famous Buddhist teacher in the world.
Good luck to us all.
Love (and I do mean it, from my heart).
Togden
Rabten
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348A8B...@mindless.com>...
>Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
>> I have never received any invitation from the Dalai Lama to debate. When
he
>> was in London a letter was written strongly requesting him to lift the
ban
>> on Dorje Shugden but he refused.
>
>How about if you could just have an interview, maybe that would be a
>good place to start. Maybe you could request an interview, or some
>intermediate person could arrange it.
Dear Ani-la,
Doesn't tradition dictate that issues of this nature should be discussed by
open letter? Surely the usenet is as good a forum as any for a debate by
open letter.
I think most of the postings by NKT students have been hoping that the Dalai
Lama would see fit to explain his views and debate. Then perhaps there
could be progress. Without some open debate on the matter then this
situation will continue forever.
If there is a disagreement within a spiritual community it needs to be
addressed, repressing it has the same effect as repressing a delusion.
Temporily it becomes unmanifest but later it appears again twice as
powerfully.
I understand that the Dalai Lama is very busy. However this issue of the
freedom to worship Dorje Shugden is very important. Many people are affected
and many people are suffering. Do you think it is unreasonable to request
him to debate the issue? Is it really too much to ask?
best wishes,
Rabten
>Respectfully,
>
>~ani lozang trinlae
>
>
Avyorth Rolinson
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote in message <3488a996...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
Hi Chris,
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for your very lucid and
knowledgeable postings.
>Unless there is a revolution, the seperation of church and state is
>not something that takes place overnight - for instance in this
>country (UK) there is still an established church. In the US, where
>church and state are supposedly seperated, right-wing Christianity has
>tremendous political influence (probably far more than in the UK where
>there is no seperation of Church and State
>There is a considerable body of opinion even in the west which
>believes that it is impossible to seperate religion and politics. If
>this is the case then a situation where govt & religion have a proper
>working relationship might be better than one where there is no
>settled relationship.
I've snipped most of your text because I want to address this one issue - I
hope I haven't misrepresented your point in the process.
IMO the separation of 'church' and 'state', or religion and politics is of
great importance. If there is to be a genuine move towards 'the global
village' then there must surely be room, as it were, for peoples of all
belief systems - theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, non-theistic, and so on
and on.
If the state/government is allied to one faith in particular, as here in the
UK, then it is biased towards the views of those who hold this belief
system. For example, in the UK christian clergymen (any women amongst
them??) gain political influence and power via the House of Lords, simply
because they are christian clergymen. No other reason. How many moslem,
hindu, jewish, buddhist, atheist, pagan, etc people sit in the House of
Lords simply because they are moslem, hindu, jewish..... leaders? None that
I know of. Hardly a basis for a fair and democratic society. Wonder what
that looks like to a eg black, female moslem?
IMO, Chris, what we need to do is find common principles that people of all
views can subscribe to (or at least as close to all as possible, 'cause
would one want to build fascist, racist and similar principles into the
articles of government?). That, to me, is the beauty of liberal democracies.
People of whatever moral or religious persuasion are then free to promote
their views - as long as they uphold the right of others to be able to do
the same. This is of course where our fascists, racists, and other
'extremist/fundamentalists' fall down.
What we could work towards is an understanding of the interdependence of our
Views and political activities. This is IMO not the same as having
government/politics in the same bed as religion. In fact one might want to
suggest that it is only with the weakening of the bond between 'church' and
'state' that such open discussion is possible. How many buddhist centres do
you know of in Saudi Arabia? What would it have been like practising as a
buddhist in medieval Europe? And ever wondered what it might have been like
trying to set up and run a synagogue in Lhasa?
Re the power of the right-wing christians in the USA surely has little to do
with the supposed separation of church and state in that country. What would
it be like if their 'clergymen' automatically had a seat in the Senate?
M & V
In <19971207....@rainbows.demon.co.uk> d...@rainbows.demon.co.uk
change...actually a few! One is: Just when you learn the answers,
they change the questions. The other is a story, sort of! If you
leave a bar stool to go get sober, you will miss nothing. For, when
you return to the bar, the same people will be there, doing the same
thing as when you left. Nothing changes about it. However, you can
change or grow away from it. There are people in this world who will
never, ever, never GET IT. I feel for them. They are the unfortunate
who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.
The latter sentence has been taken, paraphrased, from the Big Book of
Alcoholics Anonymous.
Victoria
Robin Faichney
Saraha Buddhist Center wrote:
>
> So whose actual names
> are on the hit list? I'm sure Ven. Geshe Kelsang must be pretty close
> to the top these days, seeing that he is the most vocal proponent of
> Dorje Shugden practice.
I guess the NKT campaign can't be as well orchestrated
as I thought: unless the whole organisation really is
this paranoid? Otherwise such silliness would surely
not be allowed out in public.
As for the rest of this stuff, I'm not well up on the
old folk-tale side of things, but is not the Buddha
himself, in a previous life, supposed to have killed
one man in order to save many others (and to save that
man from the karma he would have accrued)?
Robin Faichney
Don Martin
In article <19971207....@rainbows.demon.co.uk>,
d...@rainbows.demon.co.uk (Don Martin) wrote:
> ****** All of a sudden the nkt postings appear to have stopped.
****** Oops. Me and my big mouth.
Gui
In article <66ggm6$8...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com> sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist Center) writes:
>In "Mother Jones" Dec/97 page 31 HHDL says:
>...
>"Up to now my involvement in the Tibetan freedom struggle has been part
>of my spiritual practice, because the issues of the survival of the
>Buddha Teaching and the freedom of Tibet are very much related. In this
>particular struggle, there is no problem with many monks and nuns,
>including myself, joining".
>...
>"However, if the situation is such that there was only one learned lama
>or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the
>whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life,
>then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it
>might be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated--if there was
>no other way".
>
>Now, theoretically speaking, who would be this *one person* whose death
>would cause the whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist
>way of life? You guessed it! Read the first quote again and it's not
>hard to figure it out.
>
>So, who are HHDL's top enemies these days--I mean, in his own mind,
>based on his words and actions? Of course, it's got to be Dorje Shugden
>are on the hit list? I'm sure Ven. Geshe Kelsang must be pretty close
>to the top these days, seeing that he is the most vocal proponent of
>Dorje Shugden practice.
>
>pretty bloody, plagued with intrigue, hatred, jealousy, and murders.
>Nothing new here.
>
>Then, HHDL concludes (on violence):
>
>"I could justify violence only in this extreme case, to save the last
>living knowledge of Buddhism itself".
>
>Now, please read this carefully. Is this a pure Dharma teaching? Isn't
>our very first and most important precept "not killing"? Did Buddha
>mention certain exceptions? What kind of karma would be associated with
>saving Buddhadharma with violence? What meaning?
>
Without commenting on the religious aspects of the dispute
mentioned above, I think it is fair to say that neither the CCP
nor His Holiness the Dalai Lama is innocent of extreme violence.
Since we have listened long enough to enough alleged victims of
the CCP, it is high time that we paid attention to those who may
have a valid claim to having fallen victim to the Dalai Lama's
enforcers.
Lozang Trinlae
Rabten wrote:
>
> Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348A8B...@mindless.com>...
> >Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote:
> he
> >> was in London a letter was written strongly requesting him to lift the
> ban
> >> on Dorje Shugden but he refused.
> >
> >How about if you could just have an interview, maybe that would be a
> >good place to start. Maybe you could request an interview, or some
> >intermediate person could arrange it.
>
>
> Doesn't tradition dictate that issues of this nature should be discussed by
> open letter? Surely the usenet is as good a forum as any for a debate by
> open letter.
In theory I agree but in your case I have my doubts because the
constituency you want to reach doesn't appear to be engaged in this
medium. And never mind about tradition! (except for tradition of
etiquette and generating virtuous karma :) ) That is, as far as I can
see you need discussion with the Tibetan community and it appears to be
entirely lacking here.
>
> I think most of the postings by NKT students have been hoping that the Dalai
> Lama would see fit to explain his views and debate. Then perhaps there
> could be progress. Without some open debate on the matter then this
> situation will continue forever.
Thanks to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's recent reply-post, for the first time I
think I am beginning to see what the desired aim actually is. (Not at
all apparent in the myriad posts of late-a lot of time and energy of
ranting and raving could have been avoided if some such clarity of focus
was apparent from the beginning) What I derived was:
The aim of GKG (and NKT students???) is for the Dalai Lama to change his
mind so he will end the ban on Dorje Shugden practice [for his disciples
and/or their monasteries].
His stated method is to 'tell the truth about the Dalai Lama' which is,
according to GKG [my summary however-see other posts for details]:
1. The 13th Dalai Lama made a mistake to dis-allow DS practice.
2. The 14th Dalai Lama made a mistake to dis-allow DS practice.
3. All the [perceived] misfortunes resulting from these [perceived]
mistakes namely:
a. loss of Tibet and failure to achieve Tibetan independence
respectively
b. lack of freedom of religion for DS practioners
c. damage to (Gelug) DS lineage
[summary of relevant parts of the recent post entitled in content 'Reply
to Ani Lozang Trinlae']
So the questions are what of this method can help achieve the stated
aim, and how? What of this method can harm the achievement of the stated
aim, and how to avoid doing that? What other harm can be avoided
generally to anyone who comes into contact with this method either as
speaker, listener, etc?
Since Geshe Kelsang is an intelligent person we can assume he would not
establish this aim if he did not think there was any hope that it could
theoretically be achieved. For this reason alone, even without use of
any above-mentioned-'method', it would seem that it is likely that there
are only two possibilities for it to happen:
1. it could happen as a passive occurence due to unspecified process
over some time period
2. It could happen quickly due to logical conclusion as a result of
active debate
Therefore, if it could happen at all it would be more likely to occur
sooner than later via some debate. (Such debate need not be public but
could occur privately between HHDL and GKG alone)
Likewise, if HHDL does not ever change his mind, it could be due to:
1. failure to be convinced in some particular debate or due to
2. unspecified process over time,
and GKG is more convenienced to be satisfied sooner with the 1st
process.
So it appears to me from this vantage point that an *opportunity* to try
to change HHDL's view via debate would be the most reasonable thing to
work towards at this point. Note that as the challenger GKG has the
burden to invite and persuade HHDL to debate and otherwise HH is not
obligated.
The next question is why would HHDL agree to such a debate?
This is impossible for anyone other than HHDL to know, but out of pure
speculation some considerations could be:
1. What would be the benefits and potential harm? For HHDL? For GKG? For
Tibetans in general?
2. If the debate fails to change any views will anyone/everyone be
satisfied with that? I.e., will the challenges for debate continue to be
issued indefinitely?
3. If the time is not appropriate at present could a suitable time occur
in the future?
4. What are the benefits and harms of not engaging in such a debate?
Note that this is not a call for more speculation on the answers please!
This should be done by GKG or whomever is attempting to achieve the
stated aim privately and they should formulate an agreeable effective
strategy similarly amongst themselves, as a convenience to the rest of
us.
In summary, what can GKG do to persuade HHDL to consider to agree to a
debate? What can be done to avoid things that will minimize the chance
of that occuring?
>
> If there is a disagreement within a spiritual community it needs to be
> addressed, repressing it has the same effect as repressing a delusion.
> Temporily it becomes unmanifest but later it appears again twice as
> powerfully.
I think I agree with you here, at least generally speaking. As you may
be aware, this is not a common tradition in Tibetan Buddhist culture,
and the general (perceived) fear of starting or enflaming a schism (one
of the 5 heinous crimes for Buddhists) I think has a lot to do with it.
If a forum could be established within the spiritual community to
address disagreements without fear of schism, I think it need not take a
long time to be accepted. (However it may be too much to ask for a new
tradition to be accepted in traditionally archaic social systems very
quickly! Even a simple thing like dietary changes can take a generation
to see in working acceptance in the monasteries-and part of the reason
may still be due to schism-fear; i.e., pushing change to quickly).
>
> I understand that the Dalai Lama is very busy. However this issue of the
> freedom to worship Dorje Shugden is very important. Many people are affected
> and many people are suffering. Do you think it is unreasonable to request
> him to debate the issue? Is it really too much to ask?
>
>
I don't think it is unreasonable. Actually if Geshe Kelsang would be
satisfied with the outcome, i.e., that HHDL would change his view [to
keep a ban of DS practice among his disciples, etc.] or, he would not, I
think in theory it is a good idea. (There are doubtless many other
considerations which I cannot fathom) But I think for it (the request
for debate) to be successful it must be done very carefully and very
skilfully. At present it may be difficult because of the highly charged
emotions surrounding the issue for various reasons, many of which may
have nothing to do with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso at all.
In any case care should be taken and while the other 'telling the truth
about the Dalai Lama' method is continued, for best results a clear (and
neutral or virtuous) method of communication (such as the outline
summary method) politely indicating the aim and main points of
disagreement should be used. That is my opinion.
Otherwise the best thing to be done is the successful dharma practice.
Sincerely,
Lozang Trinlae
Robin Faichney
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 03:31:06 +0800, Lozang Trinlae
<xlo...@mindless.com> wrote:
>Rabten wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ani-la,
>>
>> Doesn't tradition dictate that issues of this nature should be discussed by
>> open letter? Surely the usenet is as good a forum as any for a debate by
>> open letter.
>
>In theory I agree but in your case I have my doubts because the
>constituency you want to reach doesn't appear to be engaged in this
>medium...That is, as far as I can
>see you need discussion with the Tibetan community and it appears to be
>entirely lacking here.
It took a long time for the penny to drop, but now I understand why
the NKT people said these strange things about treating people as His
Holiness's representatives. What they really wanted was for his
*official* representatives, or even His Holiness himself, to come here
and debate the issues in a.r.b.t!!!
Yes, and starting next week, we have President Bill Clinton and UK
ex-Environment Minister John Selwyn Gummer debating CO2 emissions
legislation in sci.environment, the winner to eat a big mac on camera
(webcam), and the loser 2 big macs, decided by a simple majority of
readers -- counted by an official Usenet vote-counter, of course --
and the outcome to be binding upon all participants. My money's on
Gummer, actually. US gas guzzlers, expect to go THIRSTY!!
Hey, maybe that's not so silly. Would GKG agree to be bound by a
Usenet vote?
Robin
Kent Sandvik
Joseph Crea wrote:
> Hello, Togden!
> sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist Center) wrote:
> >Now, please read this carefully. Is this a pure Dharma teaching? Isn't
> >our very first and most important precept "not killing"? Did Buddha
> >mention certain exceptions? What kind of karma would be associated with
> >saving Buddhadharma with violence? What meaning?
>
> Yogaacaarya-Bhuumi-Shaastra of Maitreya-natha. In this document we find
> the following teaching (Taishoo 1501, p. 1112; translated by The Buddhist
> Association of the United States, Garma C.C. Chang, general editor):
Yes.
There's even a secondary Bodhisattva vow that tells one that a
bodhisattva needs to break any of the other rules, this of ultimate
compassion.
It is *imporant* to note that one needs to know what the outcome is, and
how this single act that is not in accord with bodhisattva vows will
actually assist in combination with ultimate compassion. Only highly
developer bodhisattvas -- and I do personally think that HH Dalai Lama
is one of them -- would be able to handle such a case.
I would recommend the Asian Classics Institute's tape course on the
Bodhisattva vows, as a lot of this is explained in this wonderful
commentary (by Geshe Michael Roach), and he pointed out time after time
that don't do this unless you are indeed a highly realized bodhisattva.
Maitri, Kent
PS: Going on retreat, so sorry if I can't respond to any of the postings
for a while.
--
Remove z from my email address above if you want to respond directly
(this is to avoid spam emails).
Joseph Crea
Hello, Togden!
sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist Center) wrote:
>Now, please read this carefully. Is this a pure Dharma teaching? Isn't
>our very first and most important precept "not killing"? Did Buddha
>mention certain exceptions? What kind of karma would be associated with
>saving Buddhadharma with violence? What meaning?
I assume that you are unaware of the teachings found in the
Yogaacaarya-Bhuumi-Shaastra of Maitreya-natha. In this document we find
the following teaching (Taishoo 1501, p. 1112; translated by The Buddhist
Association of the United States, Garma C.C. Chang, general editor):
"Those Bodhisattvas who observe the pure Bodhisattva precepts well
may, as a skillful means to benefit others, commit some major misdeeds.
In doing so, they do not violate the Bodhisattva precepts; instead, they
generate many merits.
"For example, suppose a Bodhisattva sees that a vicious robber
intends to kill many people for the sake of wealth; or intends to harm
virtuous Shraavakas, Pratyekabuddhas, or Bodhisattvas; or intends to do
other things that will cause him to fall to the Uninterrupted Hell. When
seeing this, the Bodhisattva will think, 'If I kill that person, I will
fall to the hells; if I do not kill him, he will commit crimes which
will lead him to the Uninterrupted Hell, where he will suffer greatly. I
would rather kill him and fall to the hells myself than let him undergo
great suffering in the Uninterruppted Hell.'
"Then, deeply regreting the necessity for this action, and with a
heart full of compassion, he will kill that person. In doing this, he
does not violate the Bodhisattva precepts; instead he generates many
merits." (found in __A Treasury of Mahaayaana Suutras__, page 279).
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
Josep...@worldnet.att.net>
Rabten
Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348AF9...@mindless.com>...
>Rabten wrote:
>> I understand that the Dalai Lama is very busy. However this issue of the
>> freedom to worship Dorje Shugden is very important. Many people are
affected
>> and many people are suffering. Do you think it is unreasonable to request
>> him to debate the issue? Is it really too much to ask?
>>
>>
>I don't think it is unreasonable. Actually if Geshe Kelsang would be
>satisfied with the outcome, i.e., that HHDL would change his view [to
>keep a ban of DS practice among his disciples, etc.] or, he would not, I
>think in theory it is a good idea. (There are doubtless many other
>considerations which I cannot fathom) But I think for it (the request
>for debate) to be successful it must be done very carefully and very
>skilfully.
Dear ani-la,
Please give me some hints as to how to help bring about such a debate. So
far, in terms of requests for debate, Dorje Shugden worshippers have tried
polite letters, strongly-worded letters, peaceful demonstrations, hunger
strikes, none of which seem to have had the slightest effect.
As you know after the ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden was imposed many
letters were written to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile,
there were many internet postings, three demonstrations in Europe, two or
three in India and one or two in America.
>At present it may be difficult because of the highly charged
>emotions surrounding the issue for various reasons, many of which may
>have nothing to do with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso at all.
The Dalai Lama said that it was not appropriate to discuss the issue at that
time because emotions were too high.
Then there was silence from the followers of Dorje Shugden. We hoped that
perhaps this would give the Dalai Lama a chance to reflect on his ban and
its effects on Tibetans and Buddhists throughout the world. We hoped there
might be some good results.
Instead the ban was tightened, more anti-Shugden propanganda issued. Finally
Tseten Samdup posted the Department of Information and International
Relation's 'Clarification'., which says:
"Following His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice and the Assembly
resolutions, the Administration will strictly discourage group invocation of
Shugden"
This post came out of the blue, on an international but mainly western
forum. It seems he is telling us we will never be free to practice our
religion. But that throughout the world they will continue to discourage the
worship of Dorje Shugden.
So how do we get a debate on this?
Are we supposed to shut up and let the worship of Dorje Shugden be
destroyed?
If there are valid reasons for such a ban then please let us hear them. So
far we only have the Dalai Lama's 'private investigations over twenty years'
to establish why there needs to be such extreme measures. If there are valid
reasons then there is no need for such secrecy.
Certainly representatives of the Dalai Lama are monitoing these newsgroups,
it is part of their job, could they please suggest to the Dalai Lama that
he explain his actions.
Rabten
Lucy James
Dear Ani-la,
Ani Lozang Trinlae wrote:
>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.
We are constantly being barraged by information that 'Tibet can be saved',
'Free Tibet' etc. from the Dalai Lama's govt. in exile and its supporters.
When Jiang Zemin made his recent trip to the US, there were demonstrations
organized in Washington, LA and other places by the Dalai Lama's govt. in
exile and its supporters with many banners saying Free Tibet. There have
been huge fund-raising Free Tibet concerts, and an enormous amount of
publicity surrounding Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun. The Dalai Lama has
supported the use of demonstrations to put pressure on Beijing for a Free
Tibet.
Now recently on CNN's Larry King live, and in a host of other media,
including a recent article in The Guardian (UK), the Dalai Lama has stated
again and again that he is no longer working for a Free Tibet, but for a
Tibetan Autonomous Region under Chinese political control. In other words
the Dalai Lama is no longer working for a Free Tibet.
These two seem contradictory. Can you please tell me what is the Dalai
Lama's position on the Free Tibet issue?
Best wishes
Lucy James
Niels Steen Madsen
Hi all
It seems that one has heard this type of argument
before. Suddenly the words crusades and inquisi-
tions spring to mind.
Niels
Pagpa
In article <668rgg$pne$1...@infoserv.aber.ac.uk>, m...@aber.ac.uk says...
>
>In article <6678r8$ilo$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>, madh...@mail.rmplc.co.uk
>says...
>
>If anyone was in any doubt about the "blessings" of DS then they need
>only read the following paranoid collection of hearsay and probably
>libellous nonsense.
>
>
>>
>>‘Exploding the myth that the Dalai Lama’s ban is not affecting those in
>the
>>West’
>>
>>I’d like to relate a few experiences that myself and others have had
>>recently. I am the teacher at the New Kadampa Tradition Centre in
>Edinburgh,
>>Mahakaruna Centre. One of my students, who lives there has a twin
>brother
>>who’s been living at Samye Ling Centre (Kagyu tradition) in Scotland. He
>is
>>now living back in Edinburgh but is afraid to come and visit his brother
>>(who he’s very close to) because of what his Lama has told him about the
>>practice of Dorje Shugden. He feels that ‘we are slowly killing
>ourselves
>>and can’t bear to watch.’
>>
>>This is the kind of crazy, hysterical and paranoid response that the
>Dalai
>>Lama’s actions are creating from his followers which is setting Buddhist
>>brother against Buddhist brother, both literally and otherwise. At no
>stage
>>has anyone from this NKT Centre discouraged people from visiting Samye
>Ling
>>or any other Buddhist Centre, why can’t it be the other way around?
>
>Can you believe this? I am sure from my experience of SL that no
>suggestion of the kind would ever be made by any of the teachers there.
Dear Michael McLoughlin
Thanks for your response to my posting. I can understand your not wanting to
believe this unsavoury story. However, it *is* a true story. There are many
other people who are aware of this sad situation. The reason I related it
was to try to make people aware of what is going on rather than to concoct a
false, divisive story.
>>
>>Also someone who attends the NKT classes in Dundee met a monk from Samye
>>Ling who, when he became aware that she was in the NKT, proceeded to
>perform
>>spirit dispelling mudras (hand gestures) towards her - laughable if not
>so
>>tragic.
>
>This is tosh! There are no spirit-dispelling mudras!
I was most surprised that you don't think there are spirit-dispelling
mudras. I'm sure if you researched this subject you would find that they are
a well-established Buddhist practice e.g the Garuda mudra.
<<snip>>
>>
>>Clearly this whole messy business is affecting the daily lives and
>spiritual
>>faith of not only thousands of oppressed Tibetans but also practitioners
>in
>>the West. I truly hope that it will soon be over so that we can all get
>on
>>with our Dharma practice in peace.
>
>I was not aware that the Dharma was reducible to a protector practice.
When I said `Dharma practice' I was meaning it in a general way, not just
Protector practice.
I am reminded of Avyorth's analogy of dealing with suppurating sores (see
Nov 21st posting). It is an unpleasant process but the only way to deal with
them is to have them 'exposed, lanced and then cleaned up'. The same analogy
would seem to apply here.
Yours, still hoping...
Kelsang Pagpa
>>
>>Kelsang Pagpa
>>Madhyamaka Centre
>>
>
vajralama buddhist center
Dear Chris,
Thankyou for your posting of 5th of December. You said:
>For ordinary beings this is a matter of faith or belief, not one of fact or proof. Can you prove that any being that ever lived is a Buddha? If not, why are you asking the question? If you can, what is the basis of your proof?
The reason that I am asking for valid reasons to prove that the 5th,
13th and 14th Dalai Lamas are Buddhas, pure beings, is because so many
people are losing their faith in the present Dalai Lama, and they are
beginning to doubt whether he really is the incarnation of
Avalokiteshvara. Thousands of people, including many in the NKT, clearly
understand that he is not the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara but an
ordinary being. They have come to this conclusion simply by observing
his actions. From a spiritual point of view the present Dalai Lama is
acting against the teachings of Buddha. According to Buddha’s Mahayana
teachings, reliance on one’s spiritual guide,or guru devotion is the
root of the spiritual path. All traditions of Mahayana Buddhism teach
and practice this.
The present Dalai Lama has broken his guru devotion and caused many
other practitioners to break their commitments. As you know many
practitioners who received the life empowerment of Dorje Shugden have
broken their daily commitment. This is the direct result of the Dalai
Lama’s repression of this practice. Many western practitioners have come
to realize that reliance on the spiritual guide is our most important
practice, the root of the spiritual path. This practice is taught by all
Tibetan Lamas both directly and through their books. Buddha Shakyamuni
himself said in the Condensed Perfection of Wisdom Sutra:
“Good disciples who respect their Spiritual Guides
Should always rely upon their wise Spiritual Guides.
If you ask why, qualities of wisdom arise from them;
They reveal the perfection of wisdom.
The Conqueror who possesses all supreme good qualities says
The qualities of a Buddha depend upon the Spiritual Guide.”
The great Kadampa teacher Geshe Potawa, disciple of Atisha and
Dromtompa, says in the Blue Scripture:
“The crown of all instructions gathered together
Is not to forsake the holy Spiritual Guide.
It is the treasury of all,
The source of all good qualities such as faith and bodhichitta.”
The glorious Je Tsongkhapa says in the Condensed Meaning of the Stages
of the Path:
“The root of all that is good and auspicious,
And of all excellence now and in the future,
Is striving to rely properly in thought and deed
Upon the holy Spiritual Guide who reveals the path.
Seeing this you should please him by offering a dutiful practice,
Never forsaking him even at the cost of your life.
I who am a Yogi practised in this way,
You who seek liberation, please do the same.”
The Dalai Lama is acting completely contrary to this essential Buddhist
teaching by publicly declaring that his root Guru relied upon an evil
spirit, abandoning his own practice and forcing others to do the same by
initiating a McCarthyite witchhunt against all those who continue to
engage sincerely in his Guru’s instructions. Is this what you call
relying on your Spiritual Guide in thought and deed? Is this offering a
dutiful practice? Because he is the most famous Buddhist alive this idea
is now spreading throughout the world. He has forsaken his own Spiritual
Guide and is encouraging others to follow his example.
As a result of this we can now see many western practitioners beginning
to criticize their own Teachers, even those from whom they have received
highest yoga tantra empowerment. This is a completely new development in
the history of Buddhism. It is the Dalai Lama who has opened this
Pandora’s box. Even on the political level we can see that the Dalai
Lama’s actions are not correct. Destroying the religious freedom of many
thousands of people is against human rights and the constitutions of
democratic countries.
Because people see him acting in this way, they realize that he is just
an ordinary being. This is why I am asking you for proof that he is a
Buddha. Such proof would help people who have faith in him to maintain
their faith, and help those who have lost their faith to restore it.
The Dalai Lama and his organization also need valid reasons to publicly
prove that he is a reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara. There are two
reasons for this. One is that the Dalai Lama himself accepts that he is
the reincarnation of Avalokitashvara. He is the author of many prayers
whithin which he sometimes he uses his own name and other times he uses
the name ‘Pekar Changwa Kyë Trul’. ‘Pekar Changwa’ means
Avalokiteshvara, and ‘Kyë Trul’ means his reincarnation. This shows that
he publicly accepts that he is the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara.
The second reason is that nowadays his organization is using the name,
‘god-king’ throughout the world. My understanding of this is that god
means Avalokiteshvara and king means the king of Tibet. If there are no
valid reasons to prove that he is the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara,
then it is clear that he and his organization are deceiving people. His
high position comes from this publicity; he has so much respect from
people everywhere, offering him money and so forth. Why? Because people
believe he is a higher being based on this publicity.
Other Tibetan Lamas are very different. For example the organization of
the NKT has never said that Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha, third or
otherwise. Geshe Kelsang himself has never pretended that he is a
Buddha, to the contrary he always describes himself as a simple monk. If
his faithful disciples believe he is a Buddha that is their choice, but
that does not come from the NKT.
You said
> I’d like to see the text of the polite request and the text of HH’s refusal.
You can get these from Gonsar Rinpoche, one of the nineteen Geshes.
You said
>about the separation of church and state, it is not something that takes place overnight - ... in the UK there is still an established church...... in the US right wing christianity has tremendous political influence . As far as the Tibetan situation goes it should be up to the Tibetans themselves to decide when and if they want such a separation.There is a considerable body of opinion even in the west which believes that it is impossible to separate religion and politics................
Your explanation of the separation (or lack of) of church and state in
the UK and USA is not very clear. But a more profound point is that you
cannot apply the example of Christianity to the Buddhadharma.
Buddhadharma is the method for liberating oneself and others from
samsara, politics is the method to achieve samsaric attainments. Since
they are opposites how can you possibly mix them? The Dalai Lama is
using Buddhadharma for political purposes and he is actively encouraging
his disciples to mix Dharma and politics. This clearly indicates that he
doesn’t understand the purpose of Buddha’s teaching.
Buddha gave teachings to free living beings from samsara, while the
Dalai Lama is using Buddhadharma for samsaric attainments. So he is
misusing Buddhadharma. He understands clearly that if he doesn’t use
Buddhadharma in this way he would not have his high position of
authority. Everyone knows that his present position comes from using the
Dharma for worldly ends and it is for this reason that he has so much
attachment to his position as religious leader. Therefore when other
Lamas become famous and influential he destroys their reputation. We can
see what he did to the Panchen Lama, to Dudjom Rinpoche, the Karmapa and
now what he is doing to Geshe Kelsang.
You said
>Securing a free Tibet is probably the best way to ensure as many pure lineages of Tibetan Dharma as possible are preserved. This (situation) is a bit like the difference between trying to save wildlife species by saving them in their native habitat and trying to save them by keeping a few of them in western zoos.
Originally the different lineages of pure Dharma came from India to
Tibet, as the Dalai Lama himself has said, we are Indian disciples. At
that time the Dharma in Tibet was like your western zoo, then gradually
it spread and became Tibetan Buddhism.
We can apply the same reasoning to the development of Dharma in the
west. Due to the efforts of many Tibetan Teachers, the Dharma is now
beginning to spread throughout the western world. However it seems that
there is a serious obstacle to this. This obstacle is none other than
the Dalai Lama himself. He is engaging in political activities which are
seriously interefering with the development of pure Buddhadharma in
other countries. You imply that Tibet is the only country where Dharma
can flourish, but you miss the point entirely. In Tibet there are 6
million people and in the rest of the world there are 5 billion. So
which is more important?
You said
> You completly misunderstand the meaning of Rime - it is not at all about merging or homogenising all the Tibetan traditions into one. In fact one of the whole points of what is generally called the Rime movement was (and is) to preserve individual instruction and practice lineages that were in danger of disappearing... The teachers of this "rime movement" did not advocate some kind.of mixing together of various traditions and teachings but practiced and taught teachings of many lineages side by side while maintaining the purity of each tradition.
In the NKT Geshe Kelsang teaches his students the practice of
Avalokiteshvara according to the lineage of the great Tibetan Yogi
Drubchen Tangtong Gyalpo. Some say he is Nyingmapa, others that he is
Kagyupa. Geshe Kelsang also gives Vajrayogini teachings, the lineage of
which came from the Sakya Lamas. He gives Heruka instructions from the
lineage of Mahasiddha Ghantapa, while his Lamrim teachings come from the
Kadampa lineage.
Geshe Kelsang gives teachings according to many different traditions.
For example in his books he explains the different philosophical
traditions of the Vaibashika, the Sautrantika, the Chittamatrin and the
Madhyamika, their beliefs and their practices etc. So therefore his
teachings are not just from the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa alone, he
gives teachings from many traditions. So,according to your definition of
rime, we can say that Geshe Kelsang is also rime. Therefore what is the
meaning of the Dalai Lama’s claim that the NKT is sectarian?
You said
>Please give some examples which support or prove your contention that the Dalai Lama is demanding a "homogenization" of the four traditions.
My witness is Venerable Geshe Kelsang, he has explained this to us in
detail. When the Dalai Lama first arrived in Dharamsala, he held a
series of meetings with other senior leaders from all the traditions.
The purpose of these meetings was a proposal for the integration of all
four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one. At that time the Gelugpa did
not reject the Dalai Lama’s ideas directly because of their close
relationship, but remained neutral. It was rejected by the Sakya,
Nyingma and Kagyu Lamas. Practitioners of the other traditions were very
worried about this proposal, fearing that their traditions would soon be
destroyed. In response to this, and against the Dalai Lamas wishes, they
organized thirteen groups which formed into the thirteen Tibetan
settlements.
Over the years many conflicts developed between the Dalai Lama and these
thirteen settlements. Later, their leader, Gungthang Tsultrim was
murdered. According to a letter widely circulated amongst the Tibetan
people (called the mongoose-canine letter) he was killed by the Dalai
Lama’s organization. After their leader’s death the resistance in these
thirteen settlements gradually disappeared. However it still wasn’t easy
for the Dalai Lama to establish one unified tradition, because in
reality no-one wanted it. But he has not relented, he continues to push,
cajole and pressurize people to change their traditions.
At the present time he is trying to destroy the practice of Dorje
Shugden and change the Gelug tradition. He is developing a close
relationship with the Nyingmapas and other traditions, and they are
becoming his disciples. In this way he hopes to fulfil his wish. The
leaders of the other traditions will gradually disappear (or become mere
puppets) and he will be able to control every aspect of Tibetan
Buddhism.
You said:
>Buddhism is about accepting responsibility and thinking for yourself, not about surrendering your reasoning to some cosmic dictator or guru including Je Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche, HH The Dalai Lama or Geshe Kelsang.
I agree with you here, but this is exactly what is happening with the
Dalai Lama. He is acting like a cosmic dictator and his followers
unquestioningly accept everything he says. He does not appear to think
of the suffering and problems of others and ignores his guru’s
instructions and advice. He has received many highest yoga tantra
empowerments from HH Trijang Rinpoche and HH Ling Rinpoche. With these
empowerments came many commitments such as avoiding root and secondary
downfalls. He has broken all of these.
Instead of following his guru’s instructions he follows the Nechung
oracle. For him the Nechung oracle is more important than his root guru.
He has already said in public that Nechung is a worldly spirit. So you
can judge the real nature of the Dalai Lama for yourself. Not only has
he destroyed the practice of Dorje Shugden, but he has also removed the
name of HH Trijang Rinpoche from the list of Lamrim lineage gurus, which
indicates that his Lamrim teachings are not valid. The Lamrim was the
heart teaching of HH Trijang Rinpoche. So in reality the Dalai Lama is
destroying the reputation of his root guru.
You said
>the Nyingmapas, Sakyas, Kagyupas and most Gelugpas are not afraid of rime or of HH the Dalai Lama.
I have never heard of Dudjom Rinpoche giving teachings according to the
Gelug tradition, Sakya tradition, or Kagyu tradition. Like most Lamas he
mainly emphasized his own tradition, the Nyingma tradition. His
disciples practice pure Nyingma teachings, they don’t follow Gelug
teachings, Sakya teachings or Kagyu teachings. So he can be described as
a non-rime teacher. Are you suggesting that Dudjom Rinpoche is narrow
minded? Sectarian? Intolerant? We can also apply the same reasoning to
the Karmapa, are you saying that he is also narrow minded and sectarian?
I would like a clear answer from you when you say that the NKT is
sectarian, narrow minded and intolerant. What exactly do you mean?
The Dalai Lama tries to teach everything: Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya,
Gelugpa, Bönpo, and recently he even gave teachings on Christianity!
Later maybe he will teach on Sufism, Hinduism, Shamanism and so on. What
is his motivation here? It is clear to me that his motivation is to
gather as many disciples as possible from all these different
traditions. In this way he will become their root guru and thereby gain
more power and control.
If Nyingmapas are completely satisfied with the teachings they receive
from their own Nyingma Lamas, and the Kagyupas, Gelugpas and Sakyapas
are similarly satisfied with their own traditions, then what is wrong
with this? The Dalai Lama appears to have a voracious appetite for power
and influnce, that is why he is doing this. Otherwise these activities
of his make absolutely no sense.
Every religion and each tradition within that religion loves their own
tradition, and tries to follow their teachings purely and correctly.
There is no need for them to mix with other traditions. They are content
doing their own practices because they understand and appreciate the
uncommon qualities of their own spiritual teachings and teachers. Only
the Dalai Lama is different, it is in reality he who is sectarian!
You said
>Kalu Rinpoche told you that in the 60’s Trijang Rinpoche suggested to a meeting of senior lamas of all traditions that all the four traditions should be subsumed into the Gelugpa.
This is completely untrue, just more slander and rumour. As I explained
above, the Dalai Lama has this idea of one religion, not Gelugpa, but
his own. I do not believe that Kalu Rinpoche, a qualified teacher, would
say these things. Are you saying that HH Sakya Trizin is your witness
for this? If so, then please ask him to tell us himself on the internet.
Until then I cannot believe your claims.
You asked:
> The name of the first person to practice Dorje Shugden, and who decided that he was an enlilghtened being?
It was the 5th Dalai Lama, he not only practiced Dorje Shugden but also
wrote prayers to him. In these prayers he invites Dorje Shugden to come
from Chöku, the Dharmakaya, which clearly indicates that Dorje Shugden
is an enlightened being. He makes confession with strong regret for his
previous mistaken actions, and prostration, offerings, and many requests
for blessings. The 5th Dalai Lama first rejected Dorje Shugden due to
his misunderstanding, then later he changed his mind and began to
practice Dorje Shugden. The present Dalai Lama first practiced for many
years, he also wrote prayers to Dorje Shugden. In these prayers he says
that Dorje Shugden is the synthesis of Gurus, Yidams and Dharmapalas,
and he makes many prostrations, offerings, requests for blessings and so
forth. Now he rejects Dorje Shugden. So the present Dalai Lama is doing
the opposite. Copies of both of these prayers can be made available.
You said
>Why is the history of Dorje Shugden from the time of the Tulku of Panchen Sonam Dragpa not provided in Geshe Kelsang’s book ‘Heart Jewel’, and why is it that the circumstances of Tulku Sonam Dragpas death are not mentioned there?
Geshe Kelsang omitted this from his book because he feels that the
reputation of others is important. If I tell you publicly and clearly
the circumstances surrounding the death of the Tulku of Panchen Sonam
Dragpa, it will destroy the reputation of the 5th Dalai Lama.
But since you ask I will tell you, I received this information directly
from Geshe Kelsang. Although many Tibetans agree that the 5th Dalai Lama
was the reincarnation of the 4th Dalai Lama, many others believe that
Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen was the actual reincarnation. Authentic books
tell the following: One Lama belonged to the upper house while the other
belonged to the lower house. They had followers who disagreed with each
other and there was much jealousy and disharmony between the two sides.
Finally the Tulku of Sonam Dragpa (Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen) was murdered
by the ministers of the 5th Dalai Lama. The ministers said publicly that
he commited suicide. The question that remains to be answered is, who
ordered the ministers to kill this precious Lama? Whose interests did it
serve?
Now I have a simple question for you, “Does the Dalai Lama accept that
he is the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara?”
Could you please answer just yes or no. I don’t need details. If you do
not feel confident enough to reply you should ask the London Office of
the Dalai Lama who can contact the Dalai Lama directly and ask him.
Yours sincerely,
Jangsem
Brian J. Sines
I have some questions about Buddhism and would like to correspond with
someone who is knowledgable about Buddhism.
Brian Sines
bsi...@vt.edu
Lozang Trinlae
Robin Faichney wrote:
> It took a long time for the penny to drop, but now I understand why
> the NKT people said these strange things about treating people as His
> Holiness's representatives. What they really wanted was for his
> *official* representatives, or even His Holiness himself, to come here
> and debate the issues in a.r.b.t!!!
>
I don't know that this is so. I think that what I've been hearing is
more general frustration at lack of recognition of their specific
grievances, so that this medium is something of last-resort venue.
> Yes, and starting next week, we have President Bill Clinton and UK
> ex-Environment Minister John Selwyn Gummer debating CO2 emissions
> legislation in sci.environment, the winner to eat a big mac on camera
> (webcam), and the loser 2 big macs, decided by a simple majority of
> readers -- counted by an official Usenet vote-counter, of course --
> and the outcome to be binding upon all participants. My money's on
> Gummer, actually. US gas guzzlers, expect to go THIRSTY!!
>
> Hey, maybe that's not so silly. Would GKG agree to be bound by a
> Usenet vote?
Personally I think the matters of disagreement should be taken up, if
such were inevitable, by GKG and HHDL *privately*, and the results
published separately, on usenet or where ever.
But generally speaking the day when politicians, etc., would expose
themselves to usenet should theoretically be good for democracy, no?
Similarly, would it not be nice once and a while (or one day) to invite
a valid Buddhist teacher to give a dharma-talk via usenet? (The topic
choice could be voted by users).
>
> Robin
> >Rabten wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Ani-la,
> >>
> >> Doesn't tradition dictate that issues of this nature should be discussed by
> >> open letter? Surely the usenet is as good a forum as any for a debate by
> >> open letter.
> >
> >In theory I agree but in your case I have my doubts because the
> >constituency you want to reach doesn't appear to be engaged in this
> >medium...That is, as far as I can
Mike Austin
In article <348DC4...@ix.netcom.com>, vajralama buddhist center
<vaj...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>much unfavourable rhetoric about His Holiness the Dalai Lama
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Jangsem
Dear Jangsem,
What is it you want here, on *all* these Buddhist newsgroups? If you
have a bad opinion of HHDL (and if you *really* need to voice it),
please contact *him*. He's the only one who can change the qualities you
don't like. We cannot change him. What is the purpose of telling us? Do
you want to turn us against him? Would this be your motivation? Would it
be compassion? Would it be divisive speech? Or willful schism?
--
Mike Austin
SkyWarrior
Hun Y. Lye Email: sky...@virginia.edu
Dept of Religious Studies Phone: (804) 971-9939
University of Virginia
Charlottesville "Having slain both fear and hope,
SkyWarrior
Jangsem,
Your recent posting should be very clear to everyone where you
are coming from. I am really not sure if you really think what
you have said about the Dalai Lama will help further you and
NKT's reputation on this matter. Personally, I doubt it.
You are here, telling everyone that the Dalai Lama is a
samaya-breaker. That he has also cause other to break their
samayas - which means that many other Gelugpa lamas who have
discontinued Shugden practice are samaya-breakers (albeit
infleunced, coerced by the samaya-breaker Dalai Lama). And I
think you can call the Dalai Lama a samaya-breaker - the way
you interpret his actions and his motivations, in your mind,
your guru's mind, he is clearly a samaya-breaker. Right? And
so are the other Gelugpa lamas who have abandoned Shugden
practice - samaya-breakers.
What this all means is:
1) The Dalai Lama is a samaya-breaker. And what happens to
samaya-breakers? They ultimately end up in vajra-hell.
Meanwhile, in *your* daily practice of Shugden, you invoke
Shugden to destroy this samaya-breaker. In short: DESTROY THE
DALAI LAMA. Besides the Dalai Lama - destroy the other lamas
who break their samayas. And if Shugden is *really* swift in
his activities, bad news for many of us because His Holiness is
going to be destroyed soon - thanks to the swift activity of
Shugden (plus... of course the fact that the Dalai Lama chose
to break his samaya, so, it's not *your* fault or Shugden's).
2) At the worst case scenario, all those Gelugpa lamas who have
broken their samaya will also be destroyed. Maybe Shugden will
spare those who were clearly "forced" and "coerced" by that big
samaya-breaker Dalai Lama. But, whether forced, coerced or
otherwise, breaking a samaya is breaking a samaya.
Furthermore, all those who have received empowerments from
these samaya-breakers are also affected. They become
samaya-breakers too, don't they? So, they have to be
destroyed.
Is this Buddhism? We can all decide for ourselves. Is the
Dalai Lama evil? Is NKT evil? We can decide for ourselves,
can't we?
SkyWarrior
(Hun Y. Lye) - in case you want to include me on your "list" of
"enemies of the Dharma" in your Shugden practice.
Charlottesville, VA.
"Having slain both Fear and Hope,
In the Open Sky the Warrior rests"
--
Rabten
SkyWarrior wrote in message <66l7t2$pj7$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>Meanwhile, in *your* daily practice of Shugden, you invoke
>Shugden to destroy this samaya-breaker. In short: DESTROY THE
>DALAI LAMA. Besides the Dalai Lama - destroy the other lamas
>who break their samayas.
Dear SkyWarrior,
It seems you are not very familiar with the Dorje Shugden sadhana. If you
have never read this sadhana it is on a web site (I can't remember the
address but if you search under 'Shugden' it is bound to come up).
If you have read this sadhana then perhaps you don't understand some of the
verses. If you would like to quote which verses you are referring to then I
would be happy to explain them (to the limits of my ability).
I do Dorje Shugden practice every day and do not have the intention to
destroy anything except delusions and samsara. Whatever actions the Dalai
Lama engages it is my job, as a Buddhist who relies sincerely on Dorje
Shugden, to have only compassion and love for him.
If you do not understand why Dorje Shugden worshippers are trying to debate
the views and actions of the Dalai Lama please read Geshe Kelsang's open
letter posted on Tuesday.
Please read this open letter and answer the following questions:
Do you think it is unreasonable of Dorje Shugden worshippers to request that
the Dalai Lama debate his views and his actions?
Can you think of a good reason why the Dalai Lama would not wish to discuss
his views and actions?
Thank you,
Rabten
Alex Wilding
Rabten wrote in article <66m9sl$out$1...@eros.clara.net>...
>
>Can you think of a good reason why the Dalai Lama would not wish to discuss
>his views and actions?
Yes:
No-one with a serious view to represent (in any field or on any subject)
will be likely to debate it in usenet. This is a place for the infantile
graffiti of squabbling fools like me and you.
________________________________
Alex Wilding, Translation (Ge->En)
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~alex_w/
Tel +44 (0)411 33 64 85
Fax +44 (0)1492 585163
SkyWarrior
Rabten,
I was addressing Jangsem's specific posting. I have been
following this issue on Shugden for as long as it has been on
the web. Before it started on the web, I have already been
following this issue - not as early as the late 70's but
relatively early enough. As my name indicates, I am Asian and
grew up in Asia and so have *some* idea of how debates on this
issue have gone on there way before it came to the Net or the
west. And *some* of the "arguments" used for this debate are
probably "superstitious" in the eyes of the West. But, I'll
leave that out. And so, I will not debate with you on the
different levels that are involved in protector prayers and
practices. But if you are interested and you read Tibetan, go
read some of the "Dharma-histories" and you will know what I am
referring to.
I am not eloquent and have no intentions of debating Jangsem,
you or anyone else. But my first posting, like I said, is a
response to Jangsem's most recent posting. And yes, I read
Geshe Kalsang Gyatso's "Open Letter." In fact, I thought
Geshe-la's open letter was well written and has to be given
some attention. But when I continued reading the other posts
and ran into Jangsem's most recent posting; that was when I
decided to respond to Jangsem.
Jangsem was essentially telling us that the Dalai Lama is a
samaya-breaker and so are the other Gelugpa lamas who have
abandoned Shugden practice. If NKT wants to resolve this
matter, it does not help to characterize the Dalai Lama as a
samaya-breaker. I question Jangsem's specific posting and the
negativity it contained. I question the wisdom of accusing the
Dalai Lama and other Gelugpa lamas as samaya-breakers. You are
probably going to tell me that Jangsem did not use the word
"samaya-breaker" but like we have a saying "when you draw
a picture of a man, you don't have to draw his internal organs
as well." So, it is clear what Jangsem was referring to in his
most recent posting.
If I followed Jangsem's reasoning, let me ask you this
question: Did Geshe-la ever sit in a highest yoga tantra
empowerment given by the Dalai Lama way back in the 60's? Did
Geshe-la at any point receive highest yoga tantra empowerments
and teachings from the Dalai Lama as Geshe-la's vajra-master?
The answer to that question is really none of my business
but I think it is Jangsem's business, your business and NKT's
business because Geshe-la is your spiritual master. And if you
insist on characterizing the Dalai Lama and other Gelugpa lamas
as samaya-breakers based on the type of reasonings and partial
understanding (some of you call it "pure understanding," I
think) without taking into consideration the last thousand
years of cultural and historical context, then you have to ask
yourselves and Geshe-la some serious questions.
Should I open another can of worms? Has anyone responded to
Chris Fynn's rough translation of Zemey Tulku's "classic"
writing on the efficacy of Shugden? It seems to me that the
other question that no one has asked and no one wants to bring
up is: what was the previous Trijang Rinpoche's role on the
elevation of Shugden to the position Shugden has today among
certain quarters of the Gelugpa tradition? Chris was being
elusive in his postings and it shows his sensitivity. I
respect that I do not want to drag him into this specific
matter any further. Perhaps someone is now working on a
translation of Zemey Rinpoche's work and perhaps someone else is
also working on Chatral Rinpoche's response to Zemey Rinpoche's
work - that's when it gets interesting. But do we really want
to go there and do we need to go there? I don't think so and I
don't think it is necessary. A smaller can of worms is: what
happened between Lama Yeshe and Geshe-la? Obviously both NKT
and FPMT wants to steer clear from that.
But, let's stop calling others samaya-breakers - at least not
publicly. If meaningful dialogue is to take place, we have to
stop characterizing others as samaya-breakers. It probably
means nothing to you but I *do* believe that Geshe-la is motivated
by what he truly and sincerely believes is an attack on the
tradition. And he is pained by it. But I *also* believe that
the Dalai Lama's actions is not motivated by a wish to
melt-down the different lineages and make himself the supreme
leader - that thesis makes the other lineage holders look like
idiots and helpless puppets that will let the Dalai Lama
manipulate them and take over. So, what I am saying is they
are both motivated by ultimately good intentions. But the
irony of samsara is when these intentions are translated into
actual action and the actions do not agree between each other,
we run into problems of this sort.
SkyWarrior
p.s. and yes I have read Heart Jewel and read it many times.
And also read some other Shugden prayers not in Heart Jewel.
--
Sylva Simsova
>Thousands of people, including many in the NKT, clearly
>understand that he is not the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara but an
>ordinary being.
Please forgive me for asking this question which may be naive:
If all these thousands understand it so clearly - what has happened to
their humility? Or are they a reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara
themselves? I was under the impression that a person's spiritual level
can be assessed only by those who are on a higher level than that
person.
--
Sylva Simsova
Lozang Trinlae
Rabten wrote:
> Dear ani-la,
>
> Please give me some hints as to how to help bring about such a debate. So
> far, in terms of requests for debate, Dorje Shugden worshippers have tried
> polite letters, strongly-worded letters, peaceful demonstrations, hunger
> strikes, none of which seem to have had the slightest effect.
I'm not really sure what is most effective here, but certainly that
which might be sure to be detrimental can be ruled out.
I would think that a scaled-down approach could be tried; i.e., instead
of pushing for a big debate right away or a request by a huge
organization maybe first you could work toward a private interview
between GKG and HHDL as a starting point. On such an occasion any other
ideas such as debates, etc., could be entertained in theory.
>
> As you know after the ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden was imposed many
> letters were written to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile,
> there were many internet postings, three demonstrations in Europe, two or
> three in India and one or two in America.
>
> >At present it may be difficult because of the highly charged
> >emotions surrounding the issue for various reasons, many of which may
> >have nothing to do with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso at all.
>
> The Dalai Lama said that it was not appropriate to discuss the issue at that
> time because emotions were too high.
>
> Then there was silence from the followers of Dorje Shugden. We hoped that
> perhaps this would give the Dalai Lama a chance to reflect on his ban and
> its effects on Tibetans and Buddhists throughout the world. We hoped there
> might be some good results.
Well as you know a lot of other stuff has happened that rightly or
wrongly seems to have been connected (via a telephone call) to a Shugden
group, and here I'm referring to the Dharamsala murders. That is very
bad publicity for all Shugden followers, even while it most likely has
nothing to do with the majority of followers. Even without such a
horrific even, a couple of years is not a very long time in the overall
scheme of history.
>
> Instead the ban was tightened, more anti-Shugden propanganda issued. Finally
> Tseten Samdup posted the Department of Information and International
> Relation's 'Clarification'., which says:
>
> "Following His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice and the Assembly
> resolutions, the Administration will strictly discourage group invocation of
> Shugden"
>
> This post came out of the blue, on an international but mainly western
> forum. It seems he is telling us we will never be free to practice our
> religion. But that throughout the world they will continue to discourage the
> worship of Dorje Shugden.
>
> So how do we get a debate on this?
I'm not sure but as I mentioned why not work for a simple meeting first.
But I'm afraid one problem is your word "we". As a religious matter it
is one thing but as a political matter I can't help wondering how any
attention will be given to a constituency of foreigners (if that is
indeed what "we" means). So I think some analysis of the situation from
that point of view could be made to inform your strategies too.
>
> Are we supposed to shut up and let the worship of Dorje Shugden be
> destroyed?
I don't know, but it seems that via your own practice there is plenty
you can do to prevent that from happening, without taking any other
actions.
>
> If there are valid reasons for such a ban then please let us hear them. So
> far we only have the Dalai Lama's 'private investigations over twenty years'
> to establish why there needs to be such extreme measures. If there are valid
> reasons then there is no need for such secrecy.
>
Again I think the problem here may be the definition of "us". If "you"
do not regard yourselves as disciples of HH the Dalai Lama then you are
outside his obligations as a religious leader and if you are not
Tibetans then you are similarly outside the obligations as a
(state-less) political leader. If this is the case then I think the best
you can hope for, at least to begin with, is a private meeting between
HHDL and Geshe Kelsang.
Also there are some cultural subtleties to consider perhaps similar to
dealing with Chinese. Asian society has different rules for negotiating
all these relationships with leaders, etc., which may yield certain
political strategies common to the west as unproductive. I don't have
any qualification in this area but enough experience to be able to say
that it is so.
> Certainly representatives of the Dalai Lama are monitoing these newsgroups,
> it is part of their job, could they please suggest to the Dalai Lama that
> he explain his actions.
Is that really certainly so? Maybe I am too naieve. But I am sure that
in any case your polite demeanor will get you much further than the any
of the other ranting and raving disparaging approaches. Also it prevents
the other non-virtuous replies of retaliation, so it sets a good example
and I appreciate that effort and hope that others including myself can
find respectful ways to communicate about issues for which there are
strong feelings emotionally.
Sincerely,
Lozang Trinlae
>
> Rabten
>
> Lozang Trinlae wrote in message <348AF9...@mindless.com>...
Rabten
SkyWarrior wrote in message <66mm35$i6l$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
Dear SkyWarrior,
Thank you very much for your post. I definitely think that it is possible to
resolve this situation. I think Geshe Kelsang's open letter is much more
representative of the NKT view than Jangsem's post. Geshe-la outlined
clearly a number of points that need to be addressed, he did so politely and
respectfully. I hope that the Dalai Lama will respond. If there is some
dialogue between these two lamas then hopefully the situation can resolve
itself. Otherwise probably we will be having this same conversation in
another twenty years and views will be even more entrenched, and probably
much more bitter. I think that if the situation is not resolved it will get
worse.
>Jangsem was essentially telling us that the Dalai Lama is a
>samaya-breaker and so are the other Gelugpa lamas who have
>abandoned Shugden practice. If NKT wants to resolve this
>matter, it does not help to characterize the Dalai Lama as a
>samaya-breaker. I question Jangsem's specific posting and the
>negativity it contained. I question the wisdom of accusing the
>Dalai Lama and other Gelugpa lamas as samaya-breakers.
I agree with you. Again I would refer you to Geshe Kelsang's open letter,
this is most representative of the NKT view.
A different point that I felt the need (probably unwisely) to rant about was
the claim from the Dalai Lama's camp that Trijang Rinpoche had changed his
mind and rejected Dorje Shugden practice at the end of his life. Such a
claim would be a lie and reek unpleasantly like rewriting history.
Nevertheless this is not the main point.
>If I followed Jangsem's reasoning, let me ask you this
>question: Did Geshe-la ever sit in a highest yoga tantra
>empowerment given by the Dalai Lama way back in the 60's? Did
>Geshe-la at any point receive highest yoga tantra empowerments
>and teachings from the Dalai Lama as Geshe-la's vajra-master?
>
Since you ask I will give you the answer. I know the answer because there
were some suggestions to this effect made by some people from Sera-Je
monastery. We asked Geshe-la whether this was true and he replied that he
had intended to receive Kalachakra initiation in 1956 at the Norbu Linka
summer palace but there was no space left when he arrived so he returned
home. Also later he intended to receive instructions on the Great Exposition
of the Stages of Tantra from the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, but was too ill
to travel. Finally the Dalai Lama was invited to teach at Manjushri Centre,
but was unable to come.
Of course Geshe Kelsang has attended general public talks by the Dalai Lama
but this is quite different from entering into a guru-disciple relationship.
>Should I open another can of worms? Has anyone responded to
>Chris Fynn's rough translation of Zemey Tulku's "classic"
>writing on the efficacy of Shugden?
I considered responding but I am hardly qualified to do so. I have not read
the text, so I only have Chris Fynn's excerpts to go on. However some NKT
disciples did ask Geshe Kelsang some questions about the Yellow Book. Since
I have the transcript of this interview I can tell you his answer exactly.
****
Q: Geshe-la, in Zemey Tulku's 'The Yellow Book', it says that Dorje Shugden
killed many Gelugpa Lamas who engaged in practices of the Nyingma tradition.
Do you believe this?
GKG: No, I never believed this. I knew Zemey Tulku. However, I do not
believe the information contained in 'The Yellow Book'.
Q: Why did Zemey Rinpoche write such things?
GKG: I don't know the real reason for his writing this book. Maybe this was
his view and he was trying to prevent Gelugpa Lamas from engaging in Nyingma
practices. There are two reasons why I don't believe this. One is that Dorje
Shugden never harms any sentient being because he is a Buddha, an
enlightened being. He has compassion for all living beings without
exception, even those who try to harm him. The second reason is that the
list of Lamas in 'The Yellow Book' supposed to have been killed by Dorje
Shugden never received any harm from any spirit because they were sincerely
practicing refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
In many holy scriptures of Sutra and Tantra it says that those who are
sincerely taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, will never receive
harm from spirits. We have this guarantee from Buddha if we sincerely
practice refuge. I understand that 'The Yellow Book' causes many Nyingmapa
practitioners to become unhappy with Dorje Shugden, and because of this they
do not appreciate Dorje Shugden practitioners and sometimes criticize them.
This causes the development of disharmony within the Mahayana Buddhist
community. As we know, our harmony is important. We Buddhists need to show a
good example, we should not argue with each other. We should practice our
own tradition purely but respect other traditions. We should never try to
destroy the spiritual lives of others. Although some may say 'I am a
Nyingmapa', 'I am a Gelugpa', this is just a different way of presenting and
practicing Dharma. The real essence is the same. So I would suggest to
everybody to forget 'The Yellow Book'. 'The Yellow Book' was not written by
Buddha, so why should we believe this?
*****
From my side, all I can say is that what I have read of the Yellow book has
no relevance to my practice of Dorje Shugden. I practice according to the
instructions contained in Geshe Kelsang's text 'Heart Jewel'. For me Dorje
Shugden is a wisdom Buddha who is especially powerful in helping me practice
the spiritual path I have chosen- a spiritual path that is devoted to the
benefit of all living beings whatever their views.
Also since none of these stories are told in Trijang Rinpoche's extensive
commentary to Dorje Shugden practice, I have no reason to believe that he
shared Zemey Tulku's views.
>Perhaps someone is now working on a
>translation of Zemey Rinpoche's work and perhaps someone else is
>also working on Chatral Rinpoche's response to Zemey Rinpoche's
>work - that's when it gets interesting. But do we really want
>to go there and do we need to go there? I don't think so and I
>don't think it is necessary.
Personally I share your opinion and Geshe Kelsang's, let's forget 'The
Yellow Book'. I don't think it is related to Dorje Shugden practice, so it
is just a sad episode that brings disharmony between spiritual communities
which doesn't need to be churned over.
>A smaller can of worms is: what
>happened between Lama Yeshe and Geshe-la? Obviously both NKT
>and FPMT wants to steer clear from that.
I don't know the full answer but I do know that both Lama Yeshe and Zopa
Rinpoche continued to visit Geshe Kelsang, to do Kangso and for a few
invocations. So, the Lamas seem to have been quite amicalable about whatever
happened. As is often the case it seems that the problems are mainly in the
minds of the students not the teachers.
>It probably
>means nothing to you but I *do* believe that Geshe-la is motivated
>by what he truly and sincerely believes is an attack on the
>tradition. And he is pained by it [...] So, what I am saying is they
>are both motivated by ultimately good intentions.
Actually this means a lot to me. It means that there hope that this problem
will be resolved. If both sides are genuine and wish for the benefit of all
then there can be discussion, compromise, solutions etc.
I think Geshe-la has made this discussion as possible as he can on his own.
Now I think it is up to the Dalai Lama to make a step towards peace on this
issue.
We are all Mahayanists here, we all want an end to samsara. There should be
no anger or resentment. If we Mahayana Buddhists cannot have a debate on
this matter then surely we are an embarrassment to Buddha!
>But the
>irony of samsara is when these intentions are translated into
>actual action and the actions do not agree between each other,
>we run into problems of this sort.
>
>
the sad truth
>
>SkyWarrior
>
with much respect,
Rabten
>p.s. and yes I have read Heart Jewel and read it many times.
>And also read some other Shugden prayers not in Heart Jewel.
So then I am sure you see that from the point of view of our intention and
our way of practising, that there is no harm (but only lots of good) in the
NKT worship of Dorje Shugden.
Joseph Crea
Hello, Niels!
There is always a danger that someone could use the existence of
exceptions to the general moral rules (sila) as a means of justifying
their (otherwise inexcusable) behaviour. However, in the Buddhist
context, one who would exploit the exceptions to the rules is assumed to
be acting from compassion which arises from the exercise of undeluded
awareness (remember that karma is defined as being essentially the same
as that "motivation" or cetana which leads to action). Few, if any of
us, can honestly claim to have advanced so far along the Path that we can
be sure that our actions and motivations are not clouded by delusion.
But there are circumstances in which nearly anyone would conclude that
breaking the precepts would be justified in light of the enormously
greater suffering that would otherwise ensue.
Vishvapani
Michael McLoughlin wrote:
> If anyone was in any doubt about the "blessings" of DS then they need
> only read the following paranoid collection of hearsay and probably
> libellous nonsense.
Michael,
I have no idea whether Khyenrab is paranoid or whether his posting is
libelous. But even if this is the case I do not see that this is
necessarily ascribable to the malign influence of DS. He describes a
truly poisonous atmosphere in British Buddhist circles, and wherever the
fault for this lies it seems to me the responsibility of the British
community in general to attempt to understand what the feelings are and
to look for ways to restore trust and goodwill.
I hope this does not seem a naive aspiration. I do not think my friends
in the peace movements in Northern Ireland and Israel have an easy job
either, but I applaud their efforts.
Vishvapani
Karen Leamy
MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE NKT IS A CAUSE OF DISRUPTION OF DHARMA CLASSES IN
THE UK
I would like to add some experiences that I have had recently, to show that
Dharma classes in the UK are being affected by the Dalai Lama's ban and the
continuous misinformation that is being spread about the NKT's activities.
I presently teach NKT classes in Harrogate and the surrounding area. Early
this year, before a regular meditation and study class in Harrogate was due
to begin, a member of the local Kagyu Buddhist group (The Dechen Community)
first of all approached one of the students, and asked her how she could
participate in any NKT activity after we had been exposed as a dangerous
sect by the Dalai Lama. She replied that she had never found us to be so,
but was extremely upset by this interaction.
Shortly afterwards, the same person approached me, and said (amongst many
other similar things!)
-that that NKT was seriously misguiding people by offering them the
opportunity to practice Dorje Shugden as it would definitely harm them
-that the practice was only a worldly one
-that this practice would cause Dharma to degenerate
-that it was not suitable to practice Dorje Shugden as the Dalai Lama had
banned it
-that Geshe Kelsang was not a valid teacher because Sera Monastery had
exposed him as a fraud and I should not rely on him
but that he felt his Lama could help me if I spoke to him
There was also a great deal more unpleasant slander about the NKT in a
similar vein. (I won't give any response to these points as they have
already been addressed by other people)
A few months afterwards, the same individual came to a public talk I was
giving in Knaresborough, and gave out photocopies of the expulsion of Geshe
Kelsang from Sera Monastery ( published in Snow Lion) to people attending.
Such situations are unpleasant, and on a personal level, of course I can see
it as my karma, but it is worrying in a more general sense that people are
being harassed because they are involved in the NKT and/or because they
choose to engage in a particular practice. In this instance I felt there was
an attempt to frighten myself and others into stopping attending NKT events
and this practice. Such incidents are by no means isolated events in my
knowledge.
I find them extraordinary, as they are totally unfounded in my own
experience of Geshe Kelsang, the NKT, or the practice of Dorje Shugden. I
have lived at Madhyamaka Centre, Pocklington, for 7 years, and have been
involved in the NKT for 11 years. I don't recognise the tradition I am
familiar with in any of the images given on the net and elsewhere.
People already involved in the NKT are able to use their own wisdom and
experience to decide if such information is true or not. New people find it
hard to decide what to believe, and may well feel the Dalai Lama must be
right as he is more prominent and respected - or they may feel Buddhism
isn't what they expected at all.
It seems what Vishvapani wrote (11th Dec) is relevant here - that there is
an `increasingly poisonous atmosphere in British Buddhist circles' and we do
need to take responsibility to try to understand what is happening and to
`find ways to restore trust and goodwill'. This can happen very quickly for
everyone, if the Dalai Lama would lift the ban on the practice of Dorje
Shugden.
Karen Leamy
Jangsem
Dear Mike,
I would dearly love to talk to the Dalai Lama about these issues. But
what do you think would be the possibility of that? He has consisitently
refused to debate this issue with anyone who might have an opposing
view, so why should I fare any better?
My motivation in posting about the Dalai Lama is to tell the other side
of the story. We seem to have swallowed fully the media-packaged image
of the Dalai Lama that has been so carefully presented to us by his
organisation. As a result we have completely mythlogised the man and his
country. This probably reflects a deep need in our psyche for perfection
in the human realm, but we should not allow that to prevent us from
seeing what is actually going on.
My motivation is compassion because I see the Dalai Lama's activities
destroying a living lineage of instruction and realization that has
enormous potential to benefit the people of this world. Should I stand
idly by while the Gelugpa tradition of Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang
Dorjechang is denigrated and destroyed?
As a Buddhist monk I fully understand the consequences of willfully
creating a schism in the Sangha. I can assure you that I have no such
intention whatsoever.
Sincerely,
JangsemMike Austin wrote:
>
> In article <348DC4...@ix.netcom.com>, vajralama buddhist center
> <vaj...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >
Mark Vetanen
Jangsem wrote in message <349067...@ix.netcom.com>...
>As a Buddhist monk I fully understand the consequences of willfully
>creating a schism in the Sangha. I can assure you that I have no such
>intention whatsoever.
It is my understanding that the SECTS are not to be considered the True
Sangha. Are these not just materialistic notions, political ideologies as
well as just a collection of opinions? From what I have read and understood
the True Sangha is those that enter into the mind-stream, and to casue a
schism here would to preach and teach that Materialism is the only true
path, purswading sentient beings to NOT enter into the Mind stream.
Mark Vetanen
Robin Faichney
Lozang Trinlae wrote:
>
> But generally speaking the day when politicians, etc., would expose
> themselves to usenet should theoretically be good for democracy, no?
Good, perhaps, yes, but when will it happen?
Cynicism is unBuddhist, but then so is fake naivety.
I say, don't hold your breath.
Similarly, I say to the NKTites, there is no way either
His Holiness or an official with decision-making powers
is going to debate this issue with you in this forum.
For one thing, it (Usenet) is notoriously bad at
achieving a concensus on even the most trivial matters.
Divisions are normally multiplied and deepened here,
rather than healed. Not to mention the consideration
of precedent-setting. There's a reason why, in *any*
of the ng's, you almost *never* get the "people who
count" taking part. Or rather, many reasons. Usenet
just ain't that kind of beast.
> Similarly, would it not be nice once and a while (or one day) to invite
> a valid Buddhist teacher to give a dharma-talk via usenet? (The topic
> choice could be voted by users).
Yes, nice idea, except: who decides who is a "valid
Buddhist teacher"?? :-)
Robin
Robin Faichney
Lucy James wrote:
>
> We are constantly being barraged by information that 'Tibet can be saved',
> In other words
> the Dalai Lama is no longer working for a Free Tibet.
>
> These two seem contradictory. Can you please tell me what is the Dalai
> Lama's position on the Free Tibet issue?
This is very simple: Tibet can be relatively free
(that is, compared with current conditions) without
being wholly independent. Is that so difficult to
understand?
Robin
Avyorth Rolinson
Karen Leamy wrote in message <66p9lq$68m$1...@panther.rmplc.co.uk>...
Hello Karen,
I hope that you're well. How's the song and dance routine doing? You know, I
can't but see or hear your name and the image of you on the stage at the
Festival Review (NKT Summer Festival ) pounding out those songs comes back
to my mind just as if it were yesterday!
Anyway, Karen, it's not to call forth another encore that I write now, but
rather to address some of your points:
>I would like to add some experiences that I have had recently, to show that
>Dharma classes in the UK are being affected by the Dalai Lama's ban and the
>continuous misinformation that is being spread about the NKT's activities.
The DL's ban is NOT the cause for the NKT's problems. Had G Kelsang kept his
nose out of Tibetan politics, as he always told us he would, then the NKT
could have carried on business as usual. GKG told us many times that he was
no longer a Tibetan, but was a UK citizen, and that the political/religious
machinations of the Tibetan buddhist community was none of his business.
Hasn't he said on numerous occassions that the NKT is not a Tibetan buddhist
organisation? By breaking his own good advice he has very clearly brought
the condemnation of most good people down upon his own and the NKT's heads.
> after we had been exposed as a dangerous
>sect
I think that many people reading the NKT postings will have come to the
conclusion (obviously based upon valid reasons) that being involved with the
NKT does seem to be dangerous, in that it leads to deceptive and unwholesome
obssessive mental states eg kelsangs rabid, jangsem. Who would now believe
that I used to be a quiet, softly spoken and kind person before becoming
involved in the NKT?
>
>gave out photocopies of the expulsion of Geshe
>Kelsang from Sera Monastery ( published in Snow Lion)
The point is that G Kelsang was expelled from Sera monastery - why? Why are
so many renowned tibetan teachers criticising him? Are you asking us to
believe that they're wrong and that G kelsang is right?
Are you denying the right of Sera monastery to expel one of its members for
actively working against it and its principles? G Kelsang has expelled many
people from NKT Centres for activities nowhere as serious as the one's he's
been engaging in.
>people are
>being harassed because they are involved in the NKT and/or because they
>choose to engage in a particular practice.
Again a distortion of the facts, Karen. People are absolutely free to engage
in whatever practices they choose. Unlike the regime at NKT Centres you have
the freedom to worship whatever gods, deities or worldly spirits that you
want.
NKT people are being harrassed because they have created the causes and
conditions to be harrassed, by vehemently attacking a world-renowned and
admired figure. The NKT's hate campaign has rebounded upon themselves, and
now you all squeal like startled pigs.
>People already involved in the NKT are able to use their own wisdom and
>experience to decide if such information is true or not.
This is true - people have been e-mailing me directly confirming eg G
Kelsang's Heart Disciple Gen Thubten Gyatso's sexual activities with NKT
nuns. Also concerning the alleged NKT students' social security and housing
benefit abuses.
This can happen very quickly for
>everyone, if the Dalai Lama would lift the ban on the practice of Dorje
>Shugden.
Ah, the old GKG script slipped in at the end!
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>Karen Leamy
>
>
Avyorth Rolinson
Vishvapani <10004...@compuserve.com> wrote in message ....... I do not
think my friends
>in the peace movements in Northern Ireland and Israel have an easy job
>either, but I applaud their efforts.
>
Whilst you're at it Vishvapani, we shouldn't forget those people who have
risked all to whistle-blow about the corruption in organisations throughout
the world eg sexual abuse in the christian churches and other religious
institutions. They too have not had an easy job - I trust that you also
applaud their efforts?
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>Vishvapani
Avyorth Rolinson
Rabten wrote in message <66m9sl$out$1...@eros.clara.net>...
>Please read this open letter and answer the following questions:
>
>Do you think it is unreasonable of Dorje Shugden worshippers to request
that
>the Dalai Lama debate his views and his actions?
>
>Can you think of a good reason why the Dalai Lama would not wish to discuss
>his views and actions?
Can you give me one good reason why G Kelsang has refused to discuss, never
mind debate in private, the reasons why people are expelled or banned from
NKT Centres? I know of several people expelled or banned from NKT Centres
who received no reply when they sought an explanation from GKG. Also NKT
people who wrote to him questioning unwholesome NKT activities.
Please answer the following question: do you think it unreasonable of people
to write to their Spiritual Guide to request that he, G Kelsang, debate his
views and actions that are causing suffering to sentient beings.
Let me give you one example: a nun J at Manjushri Centre was given notice to
quit, although she'd lived there for many years. Why was she told to leave?
Because she challenged the right of the NKT authorities to cut the tv aerial
cable of a elderly (in her 80s) resident at the Centre. The story........
It was decided, apparently by GKG, that there should be no tvs at Manjushri
Centre, unless the tv was for children. So whilst GKG was safely tucked away
in the USA, Roy Tyson afaik instructed Mike Singeton to cut the tv cable to
the elderly lady's flat.
When Kelsang D. one of the Centre Managers, found out she told Mike to
reconnect the cable as he may well have been acting illegally by cutting
someone's cable. Rather sheepishly Mike complied. When Roy (I'm the law
round here) Tyson heard of this, he apparently went out himself and cut the
cable again.
Now this action against an elderly lady was causing her considerable
distress, yet the lady was in no position to challenge the powers that be -
she'd lived at the Centre for many years, her friends were there, and where
would she go anyway? Nun J then took up the good fight on behalf of the
elderly lady and sought legal advice on the Centre's act. When Roy found out
what she'd done, that was it - the famous expulsion letter.
Nun J was very distressed - she'd lived there for years, from the old FPMT
days. Also she'd apparently built much of the D Shugden gompa and shrine
cabinets, and so on. Eventually she was able to get hold of GKG on the phone
in USA. No discussion - if she wanted to stay then she must make many many
apologies to Roy!!! This she did - accompanied by Kelsang D as a witness on
her behalf, she went before Roy, Samten and co. Kelsang D told me that they
were very uncharitable to J. She was allowed to stay, but they took away her
workshop that she rented at the Centre so with no means of livelihood she
had to leave the Centre anyway.
To this day the whole episode still causes J much suffering.
An interesting aside: tvs are allowed at Manjushri for children there. Sue
(of Paul and Sue J who do have a child) is working in the kitchen cheerfully
telling all present of all the wonderful movies on the tv over the christmas
period that they are able to watch. Of course she and Paul and favoured
friends are able to watch all the tv they want. J, an elderly lady in her
80s, can't watch any - bet she just loves to hear Sue rave on about all
those wonderful tv progs!
Jim Belither also has tv - supposedly for the daughter away at university
who visits occassionally!
Tessa and Malcolm also have tv - but do they watch tv? No, they watch
videos! They have friends in Ulverston video the tv programmes that they
want to watch, and then they watch the video!!!!
So G kelsang, let's have an open letter from you explaining why so much
suffering is being caused by your activities.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
These facts were told to me by nun J, Kelsang D (a Centre Manager), Kelsang
J (a monk), AB (a resident at Manjushri at the time), and various other
Manjushri residents.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Rabten
>
>
Jangsem
Saraha Center wrote:
In Mother Jones Dec 97 page 31 HHDL says:
" However if the situation is such that there was only one learned lama
or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the
whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life,
then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it might
be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated-if there was no
other way."
Every time I read these words my stomach churns. It seems that the
dominant feeling in this newsgroup is that it's OK for a Bodhisattva to
kill and scripture has been quoted to back up this view. People also
seem to be saying that since the Dalai Lama is obviously a high
bodhisattva/Buddha then it is fine for him to talk about eliminating
enemies since his motivation must be pure. So my question is, will the
Dalai Lama personally eliminate these enemies himself since he is the
bodhisattva in question? Or does he have a group of high level
bodhisattva assasins who will murder upon his command?
If we look at these words more closely we can see that the one learned
Lama who can save Buddhism is also the one learned Lama who can save
Tibet. The religious and political are inextricably linked. So would
these eliminations be for political or spiritual ends? Also, the very
words " one or 10 enemies to be eliminated" remind me of Gulf war-speak
(vis. collateral damage). To speak honestly we would have to say "one or
10 kind sentient beings to be murdered". Also, what is so special about
10? Why stop there?
It is hard to believe that these words were uttered by the spiritual
head of Tibetan Buddhism and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. But it is even
more chilling to see that they have been published and are blithely
accepted as the words of a pure being. How could Robert Thurman, a
renowned Buddhist scholar himself, let such words get into print? It
almost feels as if the ground is being prepared for some "necessary"
murders.
Sincerely,
Jangsem
Henrik Clausen
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:35:59 -0800, Jangsem <vaj...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Saraha Center wrote:
>
>In Mother Jones Dec 97 page 31 HHDL says:
>
>" However if the situation is such that there was only one learned lama
>or genuine practitioner alive, a person whose death would cause the
>whole of Tibet to lose all hope of keeping its Buddhist way of life,
>then it is conceivable that in order to protect that one person it might
>be justified for one or 10 enemies to be eliminated-if there was no
>other way."
>
>Every time I read these words my stomach churns. It seems that the
>dominant feeling in this newsgroup is that it's OK for a Bodhisattva to
>kill and scripture has been quoted to back up this view.
This is in the context of protecting. If someone physically attacks
your lama, protect him by all means. If that means killing the
attacker, do so. If that means loose your own life, do so as well.
>People also
>seem to be saying that since the Dalai Lama is obviously a high
>bodhisattva/Buddha then it is fine for him to talk about eliminating
>enemies since his motivation must be pure.
The primary enemy the Dalai Lama needs to deal with at the moment
is the Dorje Shudgen spirit that causes him so much trouble. Since
this can be done easily by abandoning the practice, there's nothing
like murder needed to do this, unless the DS practitioners try to
assasinate HHDL or his people.
>So my question is, will the
>Dalai Lama personally eliminate these enemies himself since he is the
>bodhisattva in question? Or does he have a group of high level
>bodhisattva assasins who will murder upon his command?
Now you're getting crooked. You don't need to murder a spirit, just
to let the followers know they're doing something harmful. Being
Buddhists, they should naturally quit and switch to some more useful
practice. Simple.
>To speak honestly we would have to say "one or 10 kind sentient
>beings to be murdered".
If this is vital to protect a valuable lama, the problem is not
that great. Remember Buddha himself told of a previous life where he
killed a pirate in order to save many people's life? Killing is not
absolutely excluded, if done for the good of all sentient beings?
>Also, what is so special about 10? Why stop there?
Feeling blood lust these days?
>It is hard to believe that these words were uttered by the spiritual
>head of Tibetan Buddhism and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Uh, HHDL is the head of one of the four lineages of Tibetan
Buddhism. I happen to belong to another lineage, but I believe HHDL to
be pretty much right here. If you had read your background material on
Buddha Shakyomoni, you'd know the story I'm referring to above.
>But it is even
>more chilling to see that they have been published and are blithely
>accepted as the words of a pure being. How could Robert Thurman, a
>renowned Buddhist scholar himself, let such words get into print?
Because they make sense. If someone is trying to kill your lama,
protect him by whatever means you've got.
>It
>almost feels as if the ground is being prepared for some "necessary"
>murders.
Sowing seeds for paranoia, are you?
BTW, the situation with only one learned lama alive is quite
remote. There are four fully working lineages of Tibetan Buddhism
these days.
-Henrik
Vishvapani
> Whilst you're at it Vishvapani, we shouldn't forget those people who have
> risked all to whistle-blow about the corruption in organisations throughout
> the world eg sexual abuse in the christian churches and other religious
> institutions. They too have not had an easy job - I trust that you also
> applaud their efforts?
>
> Avyorth
Naturally, and whilst you are at it I hope your is happier now that the
beatings have stopped.
Vishvapani
Henrik Clausen
On 30 Nov 1997 10:07:48 GMT, sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist
Center) wrote:
>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?
Yes.
I've noted that practically every post from NKT members express
hatred and/or envy towards HHDL.
This makes mee agree with HHDL that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha
aspect, but more likely a negative ('evil') spirit-thing (whatever
that might be).
>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?
As above.
Even HHDL states that people are free to practice Dorje Shudgen,
but that this practice will be harmful towards him and the Tibetan
cause.
-Henrik
Saraha Buddhist Center
In <349973d9...@news.inet.tele.dk> hcla...@post4.tele.dk (Henrik
Clausen) writes:
>
>On 30 Nov 1997 10:07:48 GMT, sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist
>Center) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> Yes.
>
> I've noted that practically every post from NKT members express
>hatred and/or envy towards HHDL.
>
> This makes mee agree with HHDL that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha
>aspect, but more likely a negative ('evil') spirit-thing (whatever
>that might be).
Dear Henrik,
I'm very sorry you think this is so. It is not true that I feel either
hatred or envy towards HHDL. I have a lot of sympathy for him. I simply
and *firmly* believe that he is making a very big mistake. Your
reasoning above is incorrect. By saying this I do not hate you
whatsoever. By saying HHDL is wrong with regards to placing a ban on
Dorje Shugden practice and not following his spiritual guide's advice
but rather going with what the Nechung oracle tells him, I'm not in any
way being disrespectful, envious, or hateful. Please understand this.
If you live close to San Francisco I would love to invite you to
meditate with us or I could send you a recorded teaching. I cannot
imagine you'd feel the same way about my postings if you and I met
personally. Of course posting on the Internet can lead people to
misinterpreting.
> Even HHDL states that people are free to practice Dorje Shudgen,
>but that this practice will be harmful towards him and the Tibetan
>cause.
But why can he not give reasons? Would it not be reasonable to ask for
reasons when everyone, myself included, cares about HHDL's life and the
Tibetan cause? I care about these and I rely on Dorje Shugden for
wisdom realizations. It is *impossible* for my practice to be harmful
towards HHDL and Tibet, impossible. HH Trijang Rinpoche made this very
clear.
Please, Henrik, try to understand this is not at all about being
against anyone. It's about protecting an old and precious practice.
With love and best wishes.
Togden
Avyorth Rolinson
Vishvapani <10004...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>Naturally, and whilst you are at it I hope your is happier now that the
>beatings have stopped.
Hello Vishvapani,
I've just read the above 'response' and have to admit that I can't make head
or tail of it. Would you please explain, in just a little more detail, what
you're referring to and about, so that I can follow your line of arguement?
Thank you.
Yours in the Dh (ark)
Avyorth
>
>Vishvapani
cf...@dircon.co.uk
===========================================================================
From: "Tibet" by Lama Chime Radha, Rinpoche ("Head of the Tibetan Section, British
Library") in M. Lowe & C. Blacker "Divination and Oracles", London, George, Allen &
Unwin , 1981.:
{pg. 31-33}
=============================================================================
"Another important oracle and protector of the Gelugpa School is Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan
[Dorje Shugden] who came to prominence relatively recently"... "A subsequent
incarnation was Sprul-sku Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan [Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsan], a
contemporary of the great Fifth Dalai Lama, during whose reign the shrine at Nechung
was established. Sprul-sku Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan was prominent in both religion and
politics. This made him enemies among those whose interests clashed with his policies
and actions. Accusations were brought against him and the government made so many
difficulties for him that eventually he took his own life, suffocating -- or,
according to another interpretation, hanging -- himself with a white ceremonial
scarf. His life having ended in this violent and inauspicious manner his
consciousness joined the ranks of the wrathful demons and he became known as Rdo-Rje
Sugs-Ldan. This whole area of Central Tibet was under the control of Pe-har and
Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan could stay there only with his permission. One view, although not
favoured by the Gelugpa school, is that Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan performed propitiatory
rites to Pe Har, who by this time had reached a high degree of enlightenment and
withdrawal from the things of this world, and obtained his permission to take his
place as the chief protector of the Dharma or Buddhist Teachings in Central Tibet.
Viewed thus, it is Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan rather than Pe Har himself who functions as the
State Oracle at Nechung, which as we have seen was founded at the time that Rdo-Rje
Sugs-Ldan first came int prominence. Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan is certainly one of the most
popular protective deities among the Gelugpas, while receiving little or no
recognition among the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
"A Gelugpa account of the history of Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan is given in the collected
works of Pha bon Khapa [Phabongkha], according to whom the following events succeeded
the suicide of Sprul-sku Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. The remains of the dead abbot were
placed inside a stupa in his room. One month after his death, cries and screams were
heard coming from this room, the walls and ceilings collapsed and the stupa fell
over. A stream of white water flowed out of the room. Subsequently, many disasters
occurred in the surrounding area of Central Tibet, with a loss of life and property.
The Dalai Lama and his chief monks made many attempts to placate the demonic spirit
responsible for these calamities, who was discovered to be Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan, but all
their efforts failed. So they enlisted the aid of the head of the Sakyapa school of
Tibetan Buddhism, Sakya Sonam Rinchen, who performed fire pujas (rituals) and
succeeded in subduing the angry demon. Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan appeared in the form of a
monk with several eyes and, declaring himself to Sonam Rinchen, said, 'I am the
destructive aspect of the Protector of the Gelugpas'. Having thus been overcome,
Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan was first made a protector of the main Sakya monastery near the
Dor-ja River in Central Tibet (Perhaps identical with the Kyichu River mentioned in
the Pe Har legend). Someone who stole the ritual ornaments of the protective deity
from this monastery died shortly afterwards in mysterious circumstances.
"In attributing Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan's submission to the head of the Sakyapas, Pha bon
Khapa is perhaps accommodating history to Gelugpa sensibilities and prejudices. Of
the three older schools of Tibetan Buddhism, the Sakyapa are the most congenial to
the Gelugpas in doctrine and practice, but the weight of historical evidence strongly
indicates that it was in fact the head of the Nyingmapa school who had to be called
in to vanquish Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan. Considerable research on this subject has been
Carried out by Dongthog, a Sakyapa lama now living in the U.S.A., and a copy of his
findings is available at the British Library in London.
"Pha bon Khapa mentions other dire events that occurred in the period of Rdo-Rje
Sugs-Ldan's destructive activity before he was converted into a protector of the
Dharma. At Nam-je ta-tsong near Drepung, the shado of a hand was seen by many people
and was followed by the death or sickness of most of those to whom it appeared.
Further deaths followed upon the apparition of a monk with the body of a man and the
head of a donkey. Some monks and lamas died after being visited by Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan
in the guise of a sick man seeking medical treatment. At this time the Fifth Dalai
Lama and his secretary, Rje-drun [Jedrung], were in meditation at the Potala Palace
and monastery in Lhasa. The Dalai Lama sent Rje-drun on a mission to visit Rdo-Rje
Sugs-Ldan in the spirit world and deliver a letter to him. He conferred upon the
secretary two supernatural gifts: the power of psychic vision to see demons, ghosts
and spirits, and a magic hat that made the wearer invisible. After a daunting journey
through the spirit world, Rje-drun reached the awesome and forbidding palace of
Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan. His way was barred by two Indian demons who refused him entry, but
donning his magic hat he slipped past them unseen.
"Passing through the palace, he came upon a room containing a throne upon which sat
the imposing figure of a monk wearing three ceremonial robes. This was the human form
of the abbot of Drepung who had taken his own life and become possessed by the
demonic spirit of Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan. Attendant spirits entered and, paying homage to
their king, declared their intention of revenging themselves upon people for earlier
wrongs that had been done to them. Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan gave them a handful of white
mustard seed which, when they threw it towards the earth, fell from the sky in the
form of huge hailstones which completely destroyed the harvest. Taking off his hat,
Rje-Drun revealed his presence and handed over to Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan the letter from
the Dalai Lama. In graceful and conciliatory terms, this letter requested Rdo-Rje
Sugs-Ldan to be reconciled to the Gelugpa school and to become the divine protector
of its teachings. Appeased, Rdo-Rje Sugs-Ldan accepted the invitation and took up
residence in a new temple built by the Fifth Dalai Lama near the Dorja River."
==========================================================================
cf...@dircon.co.uk
Here's something which was posted a while bback on TIBET-L by
Bruce G. Seidner, - I'm reposting it here as we all deserve a little relief.
- Chris
================================================================
I have been baffled to find my in-box filled with rDo rje shugs
ldan mail even after the generous and thoughtful comments of
Chris Fynn and the to the point, if somewhat impatient,
comments of the Ven. John Powers. The threatening tone of the
letter that Chris shared jogged my memory and sent me to the
shaggy and dog eared copy of De Nebisco-Wojkowitz that sat in
my stacks. As the current row over religious tolerance gets
curiouser and curiouser it might be better understood in light
of an earlier conflict. The scholars and historians among you
will recall a similar conflict among the devotees of Dorje
Meshugena, guardian and protector of a small but insecure band
of Not Quite Old but Not Quite New Translation zealots. The
Dharma was still relatively new to Tibet in the 9th century and
cultural structures had yet to develop which would contain the
inflation and subsequent paranoia that often accompanies
transference ladden relationships with charismatic teachers.
The enthusiastic students of bSod nams grand pa (the elder)
therefore decided upon a tried and true hermeneutic to trust in
the person of the teacher rather than the teaching. (This can
be found in contemporary self help manuals such as Drawing on
the Empty side of your Brain).
bSod nams grand pa, a minor tulku and narcissistic projection
of Manjushri, was in constant hot water for his divisiveness
among the teachers of his day and for his insistence on the
Mashugena-nature doctrine. Something of a conspiracy freak he
decided to suicide rather than be assassinated by what he
imagined to be jealous and threatened members of the Dominant
Other. He settled on suffocating himself and did so by placing
his foot in his mouth. His spirit then manifested as Dorje
Ganz Meshugena. The thin skinned and fanatical students of bSod
nams grand pa put a good deal of energy in the propitiation of
Dorje Meshugena feeling that in addition to the safety and
material well being to be gained by keeping the associated
vows, he legitimatized their teachers bead on the One True and
Apostolic Dharma. Structurally one always finds this sort of
dynamic in Cults (can I still use this term). In these cults
there is an over concern for doctrinal, read literal, purity
and fear of detrimental influences coming from the outside. In
this case the concern was over the influences of the Old
Translation school identified with Padmasambhava and the Post
Modern New Translation school teachings just tricking into
Tibet from the south.
Dorje Meshugena had been causing a good deal of turmoil among
the Tibetans and reinforcing unproductive suspicion, sectarian
pride, and even threats of well being to "rival" sects. This
unatamed fundamentalist impulse that manifested in Meshugena
was such a problem that several royals from the Kohen Clan
traveled to Ming ding o ling to supplicate and request help
from Dog du gyatso. Dog du was thought to be the only one
capable of capturing and taming Ganz Meshugena. By the time the
royals arrived however it was too late. As it so happened,
earlier in the week Dog du had been relaxing after an arduous
retreat and was kicked back knitting one of those hanging
macrame pant holders. Muttering to himself about the human
propensity to defensively project and reify mental constructs
he was surprised to find a miniature Ganz Meshugena entangled
in his pot holder. This vertically challenged Meshugena was
cursing and using his ears to whip up those black wind storms
Raksanas' are so fond of. He was carrying on as any self
respecting Raksana would but was really no match for the crazy
logic master himself. Dog du in fact, drawing on a good deal of
personal recognition and compassion, was mildly amused at this
miniature Meshugana who was clearly upset with the prospect of
being captive to an Old Translation School adept. Being
generous of spirit and knowing that the Meshugena impulse only
becomes more entrenched by resistance, he released the still
struggling, gurgling miniature Oracle.
Naljorpa Ber-a once called lDog Du a riddle wrapped in a
paradox enclosed in a Nyingma but this expression of wisdom and
compassion is something of an example for us today. When the
Royals arrived lDog du gave a Dharma talk on the magicians show
that is our experience, the humor of phenomenal existence, and
reminded them that there would always be a small medium at
large.
Be Well and Happy!
Bruce
Bruce G. Seidner, Ph.D.
bsei...@cris.com
================================================================
Avyorth Rolinson
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote in message <34976ced...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>Here's something which was posted a while bback on TIBET-L by
> Bruce G. Seidner, - I'm reposting it here as we all deserve a little
relief.
Many thanks for such a bundle of laughs. Funny though, my mind kept drifting
back to when I lived at Conishead Priory as I read the posting. Wonder why?
cf...@dircon.co.uk
Last year in response to an enquiry by David Smith, the Ashoka Society
posted a summary of the issues involved in this contoversy to this list. Since this
whole issue has flared up again I think it is worthwhile reposting here
for those who missed it then.
- chris
<<
==============================================================
1. Protectors- there are two sorts of protectors in Tibetan
Buddhism, mundane and transmundane. The former may be any entity,
either on the path of application or, on the path of cultivation,
the first seven 'impure' Bodhisattva stages. The latter may only be
on the pure Bodhisattvas stages, that is the eighth, ninth and tenth
stages. For example, Mahaakaala is a tenth stage Bodhisattva. Bear
in mind however, that tenth stage Bodhisattvas are, for all intents
and purposes, Buddhas. It is taught in the Abhisamaya-ala.mkaara:
Whoever has wisdom beyond the ninth stage,
Abides on the stage of Buddhahood;
Understand that Bodhisattva stage
Is the tenth stage.
2. The conflict began when His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, began in
1978 to publicly express his grave doubts concerning the reliability
of Gyalpo Shugden as a protector, as well as leveling criticism at
those who took this entity as an enlightened being. The reason given
for this were two-fold; a) Shugden conflicts with Palden Lhamo,
Dorje Dragden, and also Damchen Chogyal b) His Holiness has
concluded that propitiation of Gyalpo Shugden is inimical to Tibetan
personal and National interests-- it goes without saying that His
Holiness also feels that any Westerner who adopts the propitiation
of Shugden is playing 'Russian roulette'. Within the past six years,
however, there has been a steadily rising reaction to His Holiness's
wishes concerning this practice, with some, like Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso, defying His Holiness and publishing books on the practice,
marrying it with the Sakya tradition of Vajrayogini practice, and so
on. Due to this open defiance, His Holiness has now come out
forcefully and Internationally on this issue.
3. In essence, His Holiness' message is this -- If you wish to
preserve your refuge vow, do not take Shugden as an enlightened
Dharma protector. If you wish for the independence of Tibet, do not
propitiate Shugden at all. If you have received any Highest Yoga
empowerments from His Holiness, such as Kalacakra-- he, as your Root
Guru, is commanding you to never take up propitiating Shugden, or,
if you have, to immediately cease, otherwise you have will damaged
your commitments with His Holiness.
So at this juncture, the concerned parties have two choices, they
can either accede to the wishes of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama or
remain in obstinate dissent, in which case they are seen by the
Tibetan ecclesiastical and political authorities as betraying their
basic religious and national obligations.
4. Why is there so much outrage on the part of the NKT/SSC, and
others, you ask? The propitiation of Gyalpo Shugden as carried out
by NKT/SSC, etc., rose to its present level of popularity due to the
overwhelming influence of a controversial early twentieth century
Gelugpa master, Pabhonghka Rinpoche, the author of the main
extensive Lamrim manual used today, 'Liberation in the Palm of Your
Hand" [Wisdom, 1991].
Presently, the cult of Shugden is very much tied to the mysticism
concerning the famed 'Ganden Emanated Volume', asserted to the root
text of the Ganden Mahaamuudra lineage. Many devoted disciples
believe that Pabhongka Rinpoche himself had direct access to this
text, via Shugden. This 'text' is reputed to have been entrusted
into the care of the Gyalpo Shugden during the eighteenth century.
You should understands that this notion of entrusting texts to the
care of protectors derives from the Nyingma tradition, who hold that
Guru Padmasambhava entrusted his 'treasure' texts to various local
protectors throughout Tibet, until the time was right for the text
to be taken out. But this notion is not a Nyingma invention. In
Indian Buddhism, the Naagaas, a class of highly intelligent
'serpent' entities, were believed to have been entrusted with the
Mahaayaana teachings, which were eventually revealed by Naagaarjuna,
or so legend holds.
But it should understood, however, that His Holiness, the Dalai
Lama, has also publicly expressed his doubts about the authenticity
of such a text in "The Union of Bliss and Emptiness', pp. 68-69.
[Snow Lion 1988] You may also read more about this text, its
traditions and the early Gelugpa masters associated with Ganden
Mahaamuudra lineage in "Enlightened Beings", Willis, Wisdom, 1995.
His Holiness points out that in the entire eighteen volumes of
Tsongkhapa's collected works there is not a single word mentioning
the Ganden Emanated Volume.
The alternate point of view, favored by His Holiness, is that the
Ganden Mahaamuudra tradition is nothing more nor less than the
combined practice of the Yidams Guhyasamaja, Chakrasamvara and Vajra
Bhairava with their attendant oral instructions, etc.
Thus, it is felt by more fanatical students of the Pabhongkha
lineage that criticizing Shugden is the same as attacking the very
heart of the Gelugpa tradition. His Holiness' actions have given
rise to much bitterness on the part of these few, who are deeply
attached to their views. They genuinely feel His Holiness, the Dalai
Lama, is a Nyingma-influenced renegade out to destroy the Gelugpa
tradition, as insane as that may sound to those of us who know
better.
5. As far as your situation is concerned, Mr. Smith, it seems quite
impossible to avoid the practice of Gyalpo Shugden if you are an NKT
student. If one adopts the practice of Gyalpo Shugden, one will be
%100 opposing the wishes of His Holiness. If you wish in future to
take teachings from His Holiness, such as the Kalacakra, etc., or
any masters who support His Holiness' views, it would probably be
best for you not to undertake the practice curricula of NKT. NKT
introduces the practice of Shugden immediately to their new
students, as a set of praises and requests attached the 'One Hundred
Deities of Ganden' Guru Yoga of Tsongkhapa-- this treatment may be
found in the book 'Heart Jewel'. You may view NKT's SSC's views on
the origins and purpose of Shugden practice as well as the text of
the practice found in 'Heart Jewel' in it's entirety at the SSC's
Shugden Web site [url]. On the other hand, of you feel that the
practice curricula of the NKT matches your needs and that you have a
link with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, then by all means continue to study
with NKT. But you must make up your mind whether you wish to follow
His Holiness in this matter or not. Please take your time, and
review the voluminous posts on this issue from Deja View, etc.
We can offer you only this advice-- please make an effort to visit
as many centers as you can, without however taking any teachings
requiring samaya commitments; in other words, please feel
comfortable taking lower tantra initiations such as Manjushri, Tara
and Avalokiteshvara- these only come with refuge and Bodhisattva
vows, but for present, until you have settled on a lineage and
teacher, avoid taking Highest Yoga Tantra initiations, as these come
complete with Vajrayaana samaya. In sum, Hasty decisions are never
well made. Good luck Mr. Smith.
In closing, We of the Ashoka society would like to say we do not
accept Venerable Gareth Sparham's analysis. From our point of view
entities like Shugden, etc., have genuine conventional existence,
and therefor can have effect in the genuine conventional world.
We feel that to reduce this debate to 'religious symbolism' the
'politically naive' Tibetans can understand, in order to sever
political aspirations of a 'fundamentalist party', can be understand
as quite insulting to His Holiness, loyal Tibetans, and also those
in dissent. This point of view renders Tibetan religious history
into a media game carried out over centuries rather than months. In
fact we feel the reverse is true, Tibetan politics is no place for
naive Westerners, who have been succored on Democratic institutions.
Tibetan politics, religious and secular, are Byzantine and
treacherous. "Treading on the tiger's tail, be very cautious and it
will turn out all right" -- I Ching
In Dharma
Ashoka Society
"I have therefore a duty to carry out the legacy of the Great Fifth
and the 13th Dalai Lama. This is my responsibility, although some
people may not like it. But then, this is not a matter of what is in
the Dalai Lama's interest, but what is in the interest of the
Tibetan nation and its religion."
-- His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso 3/21/9
==========================================================
>>
Chris
To everyone posting in this "Debate"
As there are quite a few readers of these newsgroups who aren't
the least bit interested in this controversy and/or find it tiresome
perhaps we could become considerate net citizens and try to confine
the discussion to a single thread instead of constantly spawning new
threads and almost overwhelming these newsgroups.
The original thread seems to have been this one
(RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA)
and i suggest that anyone making a new post on this subject
do so in this thread.
regards
- Chris
Alan Bird
>The original thread seems to have been this one
>(RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA)
>and i suggest that anyone making a new post on this subject
>do so in this thread.
>
>regards
>
>- Chris
>
Dear Chris,
This makes good sense, however out of those other threads
which have already started people are responding to them and will not
Know to look here if they wish to continue this debate.
Any suggestions as to the best way to approach this? May be the best
we can hope for is that people start no new threads, and any new
points to the debate be mailed here?
Best wishes
AlLan
P.M. Dierking
For all the iterations of discussion that have taken
place, it seems lost on several participants that
the existence of a "Dorje Shugden" has not been
established, textually or otherwise.
There is, however, ample textual and oral historical
evidence of a "Gyalpo Shugden" aka Gyalchen aka
Dol.gyal, a gyalpo (or king spirit) having been propitiated
by certain lineages or labrangs within the Gelug, and
portions of the Dzongpa subsect within the Sakya.
The difference in the terminiology between
"Gyalpo Shugden" and "Dorje Shugden" is
significant, in that "Dorje Shugden" carries
with it the connotation (and concession) that
Shugden is an enlightened (eighth bhuumi or
above) continuum.
Historically, this is clearly not the case.
Therefore, the term "Gyalpo Shugden" should be
maintained in discussion unless one concedes
this point.
Those contributing from a neutral position would
best be served by using the term "Shugden" alone.
--P.M. Dierking
Chris
>Those contributing from a neutral position would
>best be served by using the term "Shugden" alone.
>
>--P.M. Dierking
You're right Patrick so how about:
"Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA"?
- Chris
Chris
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 13:05:14 GMT
In message <34a64438...@news.dial.pipex.com>
[Subject: Re: The FINAL call for debate]
alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan Bird) wrote:
>do you accept that reliance upon Dorge Shugden does not therefore been
>a sectarian approach to Dharma and specificlly to the Nyingma
>tradition ?
>Please note your positive answer will not be read by me at least to
>mean that therefore there are no people who rely upon Dorge Shugden
>who are not sectarian.
Alan
Although a remarkable number of the prominent lamas who have advocated
Shugden worship have also publicly expressed strong anti-Nyingma /
sectarian views and, in the past, this has apparently resulted in the
destruction of Nyingma monastaries etc*, - of course it does not
follow that all those who worship / rely on Shugden are sectarian.
I'm sure that the majority of Geshe Kelsang's students (and many
others who worship Shugden) have no bad feelings toward the Nyingma
tradition. However I do think they are still mistaken in relying on
this entity as an object of refuge.
Claims by some NKT members to be following the "only pure lineage" of
the teachings comming from Buddha- Nagarjuna- Atsha- Tsongkhapa seem
to imply that all other lineages are somehow impure. Whether this
reflects the views or teachings GKG gives to his students I don't
know.
sarva mangalam
- Chris
* cf Beyer, S. "The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet" p 238-9
Chris
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:46:16 +0000,
In message <t$uKdEAYo...@metanode.demon.co.uk>
[Subject: Re: The FINAL call for debate]
>In article <34a61c6f...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk writes
>>
>>As for this so-called "debate", I first got involved due to the
>>virulently anti-Nyingma postings of some "Shugden supporter"
>>(allegedly Tibetan) calling himself "Sam" which appeared in these
>>newsgroups shortly before the visit of HHDL to the UK in 1996.
>
>Sorry to correct you Chris but you Namdrol and a few others were putting
>out virulent anti-Shugden postings long before that. (At least eighteen
>months). Most of these postings have been deleted for some reason from
>Deja News. "Sammy's" posts brought a ray of 'humour' into what was going
>on at the time. So lets not bring revisionism into the newsgroup. Some
>of us have been hanging around for a long time.
AFAIC the discussion in arbt at that time was a different one - as it
was not focussed on HHDL's views re Shugden and, as I recall, did
not involve the kind of personal attacks we have seen since the
threads started by Sam / Sammy about 18 months ago.
I can't speak for Namdrol, but as I recall all my posts at that
(earlier) time were in response to messages advocating the worship of
Shugden - I did not initiate any of the discussions of this entity.
(BTW I think that these were about 8 or 10 months before Sammy's
postings not 18 months]. These posts were only in arbt - not
ukrb too.
Anyway I happen to think that all the real evidence points to the
conclusion that Shugden is a worldly spirit therefore relying on him
as an object of refuge is a disastarous step for a Buddhist. So
it is likely that I will express that opinion whenever someone
publicly advocates that practice. Generally I think that discussion
of one's personal protector practice is unwise for anyone following
the Vajrayana unless that discussion is with someone already doing
the same practice. I also personally think it unwise for anyone
practicing the Vajrayana to advocate the practice of any particular
protector (whether a worldly entity or manifestation of an arya
bodhisattva) either in a public forum like usenet or in books
intended for general circulation.
BTW while you may have regarded "Sam" / "Sammys" antics as
humourous I don't think many other people did. Since, from what you
say in another message, you seem to regard the prohibition of
Shugden worship as somehow equiv. to the Nazi holocaust I also
fail to understand how you find any humour in this situation at all.
- Chris
[Followup set to:
alt.religion.buddhism.nkt,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
only.]
Alan Bird
Chris,
You have crested the same heading on the NKT list, as far as I know
the NKT list has nothing to do with NKT. However, regardless of the
founding of that particular newsgroup, it can be safely assumed that
NKT students like myself are not nutral on this matter.
I am far from knowing a great deal about newsgropus, so do not know if
it is possible to create a heading on the NKT list which includes the
name "Dorge Shugden".
By your silence over the xmas period I presume you where away, I hope
you had a good holiday.
Regards
Alan
Chris
On 30 Dec 1997 08:11:59 GMT, "Togden" sar...@ix.netcom.com
(Saraha Buddhist Center) wrote:
>In <34a89c5f...@news.dircon.co.uk> cf...@nospam.dircon.co.uk
>(Chris) writes:
>>Anyway I happen to think that all the real evidence points to the
>>conclusion that Shugden is a worldly spirit therefore relying on him
>>as an object of refuge is a disastarous step for a Buddhist.
>Was it disastrous for HH Trijang Rinpoche? HH Ling Rinpoche?
>How could they have been mistaken? And if they were, what lineage does
>HHDL hold to pass on to his disciples?
<<
By just stating the practice of its
worship by the earlier great lamas and vying for the right to
faith and belief does not validate the stand. As the great
Lamas of the past visualized the union of the mind of peaceful
and the wrathful deities, it appears to them in a pure form. It
is completely different from the worship by an ordinary person
like us whose mind is filled with continuous flow of deluded
emotions.
- HE Ganden Tri Rinpoche
>>
Because great lamas of the past engaged in some profound
spiritual practice should those of us who have not yet reached
their stage of development simply go out and imitate everything
they do?
As I'm sure you know, many lamas of the past relied on a secret
consort and engaged in the practice of union. Lots of justification
can be found for this practice. For instanceTsongkhapa wrote "A female
companion is the basis of accomplishment of liberation." [sbas don
kun gsal, f. 316]. More recently, Lama Thubten Yeshe wrote: "There
is a certain point in the mastery of the completion stage where
physically embracing a consort is neccessary..." [Introduction to
Tantra, p. 147] , Geshe Ngawang Thargey wrote: "it is indespensible
for a yogin to meditate in union with an actual consort" [A Commentary
on theKalachakra Tantra, p 137] and your own teacher, Geshe Kelsang
Gyatso, writes: "In fact, a person.... must accept an action seal
[i.e. karmamudra / human sexual partner], if he or she is to achieve
the isolated mind of ultimate example clear light before death"
[Clear Light of Bliss, p. 126]
Based on quotes like these, one could easily make a convincing
argument that all those who wished to practice Mahamudra should
rely on a physical consort and engage in the practice of union. As
you know though, I am leaving something important out, which is a that
a such a consort should only be relied on by a qualified and
sufficiently advanced practitioner. Wouldn't it be disastarous
if reliance on a karmamudra was made general advice for
all Buddhist practitioners - especially the ordained sangha? In Tibet
physical union was considered inappropriate for most practitioners
- as Atisha wrote: "The Secret and Insight Initiations should not
be taken by religious celibates, because it is emphatically forbidden
in the Great Tantra of Primal Buddha" [A Lamp for the Path and
Commentary, trans. R. Sherburne, p 12] and Khaydrubje wrote that a
human consort consort should be substituted for bty a visualised one
as "Nowadays we do find such heirophants, neophytes, along with a
vidya [consort], that possess the complete characteristics that have
been set forth." [Introduction to Buddhist Tantric Systems, trans.
Lessing and Wayman, p. 323]
In fact this practice was generally prohibited throughout Buddhist
monastaries in Tibet. Was this prohibition "religious persecution"?
After all, the practice of union was sanctified in numerous Buddhist
Tantras (something which cannot be said for Shugden worship)
and many great lamas in the past had engaged in this practice.
If, for example, monks and nuns in the NKT heard, that HE Trijang
Rinpoche had had a secret consort would they assume that they were
capable of relying on a secret consort and start engaging in this
practice? I don't think so. [Neither would most loose faith in Trijang
Rinpoche - despite what Atisha and Kaydrubje wrote- since they would
believe that he was a sufficiently advanced practitioner to rely on a
human consort without breaking any of his vows.]
Similarly great siddhas of the past have drunk alcohol, hunted,
murdered people, lied and stolen - but it would be disatarous
if ordinary Buddhist practitioners copied or were encouraged to do
these things. Even if a certain great teacher at a certain time has
encouraged people to do certain things - surely we cannot
necessarily apply that advice generally or to the present
circumstances. HH the Dalai Lama is the living teacher of most
Lamas in the Gelugpa tradition. Unfortunately no one can go and
ask Trijang Rinpoche what he would do in the current circumstance
so I think it is probably best to rely on one's living teacher.
HHDL said "it is permissable for a yogi who has really
reached a high level of spiritual insight to rely on Gyalchen
[Shugden]" do you think he is criticising Trijang Rinpoche?
On the other hand, just because a yogin like Trijang Rinpoche
relied on Shugden does that mean that it is automatically
appropriate for all his followers (and their followers) to do
so too? HE Trijang Rinpoche may have been able to actually
see all beings as Buddha - not simply to visualise them
as such. If so, he could perhaps experience all Shugden's activities
(and the activities of people like you and me) as Buddha activity
or as the play of enlightend mind. As for myself I'm still stuck in
conventional reality - and I suspect you and most NKT
members are too. In such a situation don't we have to rely on
conventional appearances and distinctions? Conventionally
speaking, Shugden is a worldly spirit. Even Shugden devotees
admit that he at least takes the form of a worldly spirit. Now if a
someone disguises himself as a servant presumably he has
a reason for this and expects to be treated like a servant while
wearing that disguise.
If, right from start, the you want to treat conventional appearances
as pure perhaps you should be practicing Dzogchen (or the teachings of
Hashang) not Lam Rim.
Other people posting on this list like Kent and Bosco have said
that they have Gelugpa teachers who like Geshe Kelsang were
students of HE Trijang Rinpoche - but these teachers, unlike Geshe
Kelsang, are apparently 100% behind HHDL. Last year Lama
Zopa posted a message to ths list asking his students to follow
HHDL's advice on this matter. So it seems it is perfectly possible to
be a devoted student of Trijang Ripoche and to support His Holiness.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
As for HE Ling Rinpoche he seems to have advisd HHDL not to rely on
Shugden.
>Even if you think Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit, do you think HHDL
>can issue a ban on this practice? Surely there are countless worldly
>spirits being practiced by Tibetans.
Yes there are countless worldly protectors in Tibetan Buddhism and
and lamas in all the Tibetan traditions propitiate some of these.
Most Tibetan Buddhists accept that entities like these have
conventional existence, and therefore can have effect in the
conventional world. A worldly protector may even be on the path of
application or, on the path of cultivation, the first seven
bodhisattva stages -but only when they reach at least the eighth
stage should they be considerd as a reliable object of Refuge.
Other worldly spirits too are sometimes looked upon like Shugden
as being emanations of Buddha - for instance Pehar / Nechung has five
forms coressponding to the five Buddhas of the mandala - but people
don't normally place him amongst the field of refuge.
Even the five guardian kings - usually depicted in thangkhas of the
16 arhats - who are supposed to have received teahing from
the Buddha- are not even considered suitable objects of Refuge.
BTW, do you think that Shugden is more reliable than Palden Lhamo?
>Also, Chris, when I asked in my previous message about your motivation,
>I was actually very interested in your answer. It appears based on what
>your admirers have posted that you are not paid by either the Office of
>HHDL or the Tibetan Gov't. Then my question is--what is your
>motivation? Why spend so much of your precious free time on this issue?
Frankly, I sometimes wonder myself why I keep bothering about this.
>Even though this controversy is very close to my heart because it is at
>the very core of my spiritual practice, I find myself unable to spend
>the kind of time you seem to have for research and writing extensive
>messages.
If, as you say, Shugden worship is the very core of your spiritual
practice perhaps you really should take the time to do some extensive
research of your own and not rely on the words of one or two teachers.
HHDL has spent a great deal of time thoroughly investigating this
matter. In many of his statements he has quoted from numerous
Gelugpa masters regarding Shugden to back up his point of view.
Through this research and his own experience he has reached certain
conclusions. He has not merely relied on the words of oracles and
divination - though I don't think many lamas would completly discount
the importance of these things as some people have tried to do in
these newsgroups. (After all, according to the Tibetan tradition
Nagarjuna wrote texts on divination - if it were a complete waste
of time would he have done this?)
You don't have to accept HH's conclusions but I think it is very
unfair for people to accuse him of acting in bad faith. I expect that
if you were to go and meet him and ask him the reasons he has
prohbited this practice you would at least be convinced of his
sincerety.
Just as HHDL lets Geshe Kelsang Gyatso run his centres as
he sees fit - wouldn't it be best if you let HHDL run the monastaries,
temples and so on which he is responsible for as he sees fit?
> Please do explain what motivates you so much. This will help
>myself and others (I hope) to read your messages and understand what
>motivation supports each of them.
I know I'm probably not going to convice you - you are Geshe Kelsang's
student and you look upon his speech as pure Dharma. But perhaps
I can prevent one or two others from rejecting the teachings of HH the
Dalai Lama and turning to Shugden. I really think that most people
would benefit far more from following HH's teachings than they would
benefit by worshipping Shugden.
>Thank you,
>Togden
Regards
- Chris
Saraha Buddhist Center
Reply to Chris:
I'm not sure why HE Ganden Tri Rinpoche was so unclear in his message,
but obviously the thousands of people practicing Dorje Shugden under
the guidance of great masters such as HH Trijang Rinpoche couldn't
possibly all have been beyond ordinary. I cannot imagine their minds
were not "filled with continuous flow of deluded emotions". Or do you
disagree?
>As I'm sure you know, many lamas of the past relied on a secret
>consort and engaged in the practice of union.
Chris, there is no need to exaggerate. The practice of Dorje Shugden is
one important aspect of our daily practice because he protects our
Dharma wisdom, it's a practice anyone can do--it's the practice of
wrathful Manjushri. Why are you comparing this with consort practice?
It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and pineapples!
>...Conventionally speaking, Shugden is a worldly spirit.
Not true. In my own practice he is the wisdom Buddha Manjushri in his
wrathful aspect. If others believe him to be otherwise, clearly that's
up to them and their practice. As long as they don't harm others they
should be free to do as they please.
>Other people posting on this list like Kent and Bosco have said
>that they have Gelugpa teachers who like Geshe Kelsang were
>students of HE Trijang Rinpoche - but these teachers, unlike Geshe
>Kelsang, are apparently 100% behind HHDL.
The key word is "apparently". But then again, isn't it all an
appearance to mind? :-)
>BTW, do you think that Shugden is more reliable than Palden Lhamo?
No, I don't. It's like asking if I think Manjushri is more reliable
than Tara. I just have a stronger karmic connection with Dorje Shugden
at this time and his function is different from Palden Lhamo's--no
contradiction here, no competition between Deities. They complement
each other. We are very fortunate.
>If, as you say, Shugden worship is the very core of your spiritual
>practice perhaps you really should take the time to do some extensive
>research of your own and not rely on the words of one or two teachers.
While I have spent most of my life searching for a qualified Spiritual
Guide, having had many excellent teachers along the way, when I finally
decided, upon careful investigation--including a personal interview in
which I asked the most challenging questions I held in my heart--to
take Ven. Geshe Kelsang as my Root Guru, the search was over and the
real hard work had begun. No, thank you, I no longer need to search.
Kind of tired of being a migrating being, if you know what I mean.
>You don't have to accept HH's conclusions but I think it is very
>unfair for people to accuse him of acting in bad faith.
HHDL knows people are suffering. He knows what's going on in this ng
and horrible things in monasteries and in the Tibetan settlements. Many
people have asked him to please stop this problem. But he hasn't. He
has said he would increase the force if necessary. And he has given no
convincing reasons to back his own position. I'm very sorry he has
chosen to proceed this way.
>I really think that most people would benefit far more from following
>HH's teachings than they would benefit by worshipping Shugden.
I'm not sure. It depends on people's karma. It would be fair to
everyone if they had the choice, without being scared to check out all
available options. You know this is true. It comes with our freedoms
and endowments--otherwise we wouldn't even have a precious human life!
Take good care.
Togden
Chris
On 16 Jan 1998 10:04:21 GMT, sar...@ix.netcom.com (Saraha Buddhist
Center) wrote:
> >As I'm sure you know, many lamas of the past relied on a secret
> >consort and engaged in the practice of union.
>
> Chris, there is no need to exaggerate. The practice of Dorje Shugden is
> one important aspect of our daily practice because he protects our
> Dharma wisdom, it's a practice anyone can do--it's the practice of
> wrathful Manjushri. Why are you comparing this with consort practice?
> It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and pineapples!
I wasn't comparing the two practices at all - I was just saying that
the practice of union was prohibited by Atisha and in most Tibetan
monastaries - and asking you if you thought this prohbition
amounted to religious persecution. This was to illustrate that
a practice which is sanctiond by the scriptures and which may
be appropriate for some advanced practitioners may be
prohibited.
You're right though that these practices are not comparable - one
is clearly based on the teachings of numerous Tantas and can
lead to realisation while the other has no real scriptural basis and
may cause one to abandon one's refuge vows.
If one wants to practice wrathful Manjusri then why not practice one
of the forms of wrathful Manjusri taught by the Buddha himself?
- Chris
Chris
"Why the Dalai Lama rejects Shugden"
copy of Tibetan Review article by Gareth Sparham
posted to:
<http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~cfynn/GSparham.htm>
Also see:
Position of Protectors in the Gelugpa Tradition - HH the Dalai Lama
<A HREF="<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/dholgyal3.htm
Shugden versus pluralism and national unity: controversy and
clarification.
<http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/deities-spirits.html>