Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden’s Enlightened Lineage or How to Make ‘History’

I gave up contributing to Wikipedia.

NKT editors were very busy to establish Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector on Wikipedia, and finally they have successfully accomplished this aim. Now this rather recent and minor view has become the main view in Wikipedia’s article on Dorje Shugden. Further, the use of sources like Xinhua News Agency and Die Weltwoche in the introduction section of Dorje Shugden Controversy are mediocre for an encyclopaedia. To be able to include these dubious sources in the introduction section the NKT editors deleted quotes from Mills’ research. There are many other dubious sources added by NKT editors which now replace formerly quoted 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

For more than one year Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented as only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.

The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for themselves. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, already gave a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating

… these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea….

and since then nothing has really changed, hence, a “fruitless case”.

Recently Rodney Billman, probably a NKT follower related to the Tushita Kadampa Buddhist Centre, has set up a website, ‘Dorje Shugden History’ under the pseudonym ‘Trinley Kalsang’ to establish a new version of history on Shugden which is more in line with the propagators of the practice, because neutral academic research clearly differs to Shugden-pas’ views. Rodney Billman or ‘Trinley Kalsang’ is not known to have academic credits or to be a scholar but is nevertheless celebrated by some NKT posters to be a scholar, and I guess it will be just a question of time when also he is used for Wikipedia as a “reliable source”….

(I just checked, he was today quoted and introduced in the German Wikipedia as the “Buddhist scholar Trinlay Kalsang”.)

To balance the information given by NKT followers on Wikipedia, I use now my own blog, this is easier and less time consuming than to work or to negotiate with people who accept only one view as “the truth”, and who delete or block what is in opposition to their own way of thinking. Since the Wikipedia articles offer now extensive accounts on the “enlightened lineage” of Shugden, I focus in this post on the “mundane lineage” of Shugden. For a balanced and proper presentation of both views see Dorje Shugden – Origin, Nature and Function.

Of course, it’s up to the reader to put all this different information together and into perspective, and to check their factual correctness and credibility.

Dorje Shugden – The Mundane Protector

Kay states in his 1997 research, which is recommended by CESNUR, that the view that Dorje Shugden is actually a worldly protector “is widely supported by representatives of non-dGe lugs traditions.”[1]; hence it is not only the view of H.H. the Dalai Lama. Kay states that those who follow this view are convinced that Shugden’s “relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and dubious circumstances of origin (i.e. from a situation of conflict between a prominent dGe lugs lama and the Fifth Dalai Lama) make him a highly inappropriate object of worship and refuge.” He continues, “Supporters of this view reject the pretensions made by devotees of rDo rje shugs ldan, with respect to his status and importance, as recent innovations probably originating during the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche and reflecting his particularly exclusive sectarian agenda.”

Both Mumford and Nebesky-Wojkowitz show clearly that Shugden is regarded also among Shugden practitioners as a mundane protector. Kay states correctly:

Scholarly English language accounts of rDo rje shugs Idan reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions [that rDo rje shugs Idan is actually a ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma (worldly protector)] emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of rDo rje shugs Idan was gradually elevated from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz presents rDo rje shugs Idan as a deity “of comparatively recent origin” (1956: 134), who is one of the main dGe lugs protective deities operating in the worldly spheres, and Mumford’s references (1989) indicate how modern-day dGe lugs and Sa skya Buddhists in Nepal still regard the deity as a popular ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma. rDo rje shugs Idan’s rise to prominence through the sectarian activities of Phabongkha Rinpoche has already been mentioned. This appears to have preceded another important development whereby, during the 1930s and 1940s, Phabongkha supporters began to proclaim the fulfilment of the tradition “that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan … will succeed Pe har as the head of all ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the worldly spheres” (de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, 1956: 134) and maintain that the Tibetan government should turn its allegiance away from Pe har, the State protector, to rDo rje shugs Idan.

It is unclear when belief in rDo rje shugs Idan as an enlightened being first developed; the likelihood is that it emerged gradually as the Dharma-protector grew in prominence. This belief seems to have been in place by the time the young Fourteenth Dalai Lama was introduced to the practice by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959.[1]

Mumford[2] states:

The Tibetan guardian deity called Shugs-ldan (or rGyal-po Shugs-ldan, rDo-rje Shugs-ldan, etc.) provides a special case study of the Tibetan Srungma and its transmutation. He is extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive. Dawa Tshering, a wealthy merchant of Tshad-med village, has done very well with Shugs-ldan as his guardian deity. He gave the following oral account of Shugs-ldan’s origin:

Long ago in Tibet, rGyal-po Shugs-ldan was a powerful, learned lama who was more popular than the Dalai Lama himself. Other lamas envied him and tried to kill him. They shot at him but could not hit him. They tried to crush him under a rock, but he did not die. They tried to burn him in a fire, but he was not burned. Shugs-ldan called his enemies before him and said: “You want me to die. All right, I will.” Then he stuffed a scarf down his own throat. Thus he died by his own hand.

The spirit of the dead lama became a demon. He attacked his own former enemies and they died. The people asked the Dalai Lama to send a lama to exorcise the demon. A Jinseg [sbyin-seg: "fire exorcism"] was prepared. But when the fire was lit, it burned the lama instead of the demon. The people called another lama. Chanting mantras, the lama tricked the demon into entering his body. Then the lama himself entered the fire and died. The demon part of Shugs-ldan was destroyed, so Shugs-ldan became a god.

and

Shugs-ldan participates in a folk belief that is regularly transmuted by the lamas: a historical person who dies a strange, sudden death is likely to become a dangerous wandering ghost having “unfinished business,” often regarded as a vindictive btsan warrior spirit. Such a warrior may, like the Ghale ancestor, become the protector of a noble clan and its dependents, but when bound by the oath of the Buddha it becomes a protector of both the kin group and the Buddhist dharma. Lamaist authority is particularly strengthened when the warrior spirit is also, like Shugs-ldan, a historical lama…. The merchant Dawa Tshering for instance does an offering once a month, but at high risk:

‘If I forget, then he’ll make me sick. But if I do not neglect him he will aid me wherever I go. When I travel I pray to him, “May sickness not come.” When I cross a bridge I ask, “May the bridge not fall.” If I do not serve Shugs-ldan he will get angry. He will kill my animals and I will lose my wealth and the members of my household will fight.’

Researcher von Brück[3] makes clear that:

[…] the whole controversy focuses on the interpretation of the status of Shugden. There is a contradiction concerning Shugden that cannot be resolved. On the one hand it is argued that Shugden is a wrathful, mundane protector deity with such and such an origin in history, and to deal with such a spirit one has to have control over him. On the other hand, those who propitiate Shugden maintain that Shugden is a high deity beyond the mundane level and therefore deserves life-entrustment (srog gtad), i.e. complete surrender, like emanations of the Buddha. Whether the sectarian issue (Gelukpa exclusivity) is connected with this problem is a different question. It depends on the interpretation of Shugden, and this varies, as has been demonstrated.

and

We could go on quoting several oral traditions which are related by Trijang Rinpoche to establish and defend the Shugden tradition. Trijang wants to show that Nechung and Shugden do not clash or, in other terms, that there is no contradiction between the general protection of the whole of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and the specific protection of the Gelukpa school only. Looking into the history of the struggle between different schools in Tibet and judging from the heat of the present controversy there is more to say. It is clear that by historical evidence the authenticity of that tradition on Shugden cannot be decided.

Some Eminent Buddhist Masters who Oppose the Claims on Shugden’s Enlightened Nature

There is a film documentary, Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy, by the TGIE which interviews the heads (or eminent lamas) of the four Tibetan Buddhist schools. They state:

H.E. Tai Situ Rinpoche, one of the four main disciples of H.H. the Karmapa – Head of the Karma Kagyu Tradition

We Kagyu followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyu followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.

H.H. Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche, the late Head of the Nyingma Tradition:

Shugden is a ghost. We Nyingma practitioner do not follow him. We propagate only those protectors that were bound by Padmasambhava. Shugden came after Padmasambhava. Shugden is a hungry ghost in the human realm.

H.H. Sakya Trizin, Head of the Sakya Tradition:

“In the beginning the Sakya throne holder Sakya Sönam Rinchen bound Shugden to protect Dharma. However, neither Shudgen nor other worldly spirits were depended upon during prayer meeting at Sakya. The statue of Shugden was in some shrine rooms but in the lowest category in the pantheon. No Sakya follower has ever taken life pledging empowerment through the medium of Shugden … Later Shugden worship decreased strongly among Sakyas due to the efforts of three leading Sakya lineage lamas” [including the root Guru of Sakya Trizin who was] “extremely unhappy with Shugden practice and advised on the demerits of Shugden practice. One of his disciples, Ngawang Yönten Gyatso, took strong actions to remove Shugden statues from the Sakya monasteries and to destroy them. Khyentse Dorje Chang Chökyi Lodrö was also very unhappy with Shugden practice, although he didn’t destroy statues, he performed rituals to banish Shugden. Since these three leading Sakya Lamas were against Shugden, this practice declined greatly among Sakya followers.”

H.H. the 100th Ganden Tripa, Lobsang Nyingma Rinpoche, late Head of the Gelug Tradition:

[..] Gelug Lamas of the past would have taken notice of Shugden if he was really the embodiment of the three refuge. But there is no historical record to show that they took any interest in Shugden. Therefore I can not accept Shugden as the embodiment of the Three Refuges.

H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama quoting the 5th Dalai Lama:

In his autobiography the 5th Dalai Lama writes that he performed a fire ritual against Shugden during which he composed a prayer to protect the deities. In the prayer the 5th Dalai Lama says that he is performing this ritual to vanquish Dorje Shugden who is harming the Buddhadharma and sentient beings. He clearly says that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s negative prayer resulted in his rebirth as Shugden.

This list can be continued endlessly, more accounts can be found in the former Wikipedia Article or in A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden (PDF), however, I will focus here mainly on a Sakya scholar, since he directly opposes Kelsang Gyatso and NKT and also Kelsang Gyatso seems to know his accounts, since he stated in an Open Letter to Newsweek (PDF) about this scholar, Dongthog Tulku:

Some scholars debate with each other, such as the well-known Gelugpa scholar Yonten Gyatso and Dongthog Tulku, a scholar from another tradition, who conducted a debate by letter over a number of years. They have written many books replying to each other’s assertions, but this does not mean they are criticising each other. They are simply clarifying the doctrines of their own traditions, with good motivation.

I will add some other sources with quotes by either eminent academic scholars or eminent Buddhist masters as an appendix, so that this blog fulfils what it promises, to be a Resource Blog.

The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word by T. G. Dhongthog Tulku Rinpoche[4]

In the Introduction of this work the Sakya scholar Dongthog Tulku states:

The circumstance that led to my studying and writing on these matters was due to my appointment as librarian at Tibet House. In the early days there were not very many Tibetan books available in India. Therefore, Tibet House borrowed the collected works of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, Yongdzin Yeshe Gyaltsen (tutor of the seventh Dalai Lama) and Thuken Chokyi Nyima from the private residence of H.H. the Dalai Lama. We also borrowed the collected works of Pawong Khapa from the lama palace of Trijang Rinpoche, and the collected works of Zhuchen Tsultrim Rinchen from the lama palace of Ngor Luding. Tibet House purchased the collected works of Kongtrul Lodo Thaye and Longdol Lama. Accordingly, our library became replete with many Tibetan books. In the course of making a modern catalogue of these books I thus had the opportunity to read many of the various books by Gadenpa Lamas. Most of these I had never read before. When I was young I had heard that Phawong Khapa promoted many sectarian discourses and even ordered some disciples to desecrate images of Guru Padma Sambhava, but at that time I could not really believe it. Now, by reading his books myself, I came to know that these reports had been true. Most of the texts that are of this sectarian nature are in Phawong Khapa’s collected works, volume Cha. These consist of letters and admonitions addressed to lamas, tulkus, geshes, Chinese and Tibetan patrons, all in promotion of this sectarian bias. Following the brief refutation that I outlined in “The Timely Shower”, I wrote still more under the title, “The Timely Flame”.

Dongthog Tulku mentions a ‘pamphlet’ by Kelsang Gyatso entitled, “A Sword that Cuts the Suffering Plaint of Tibetans-in-exile” which Kelsang Gyatso, the New Kadampa Tradition’s founder, spread in the Tibetan exile community, and states that this compelled him to write a refutation. Dongthog Tulku wrote a point-by-point response, which can be read by everybody who is interested. (A PDF Copy of The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word can be purchased.) With respect to the  claims of an “enlightened lineage” he states on page 18-19:

In later years, Phawong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo introduced the rite of “Dorje Shugden Life Entrustment”. The basis of this rite derived from an illusory dream that Tagphu Pema Dorje had which he believed was a “pure vision”. Dolgyal Shugden was thus promoted to the level of a transworthy deity and adorned with the titles, “chief protector of the teachings of Manjushri-Tsongkhapa” and “war deity of the Gadenpa doctrine”. Moreover, from his own subjective viewpoint, Phawong Khapa also introduced elaborations of Shugden such as, peaceful and wrathful forms, five-family forms, and sadhanas composed in the categories of outer, inner and secret. Phawong Khapa thus disgraced the Gadenpa tradition in a magnitude as great as Mount Sumeru by establishing this tainted system of propitiation that makes Shugden more important and favored than the traditional Gadenpa guardian deities, six-armed Mahakala, Dharmaraja and Shri Mahakali Devi.

Among the Gadenpa tradition holders Penchen Lobzang Chogyen (1570-1662) was the most outstanding and is described as the second Je Rinpoche. The Great Fifth Dalai Lama was also very kind to the Gadenpa tradition. The promotion of the wrathful incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, who broke his spiritual commitment with these two kind lamas, to the high level of chief guardian deity of Manjushri-Tzongkhapa’s doctrine is nothing less than perversity. It is amazing that Phawong Khapa said that even putting other Tibetan Buddhist books together with Gadenpa books is prohibited (his collected works, vol. Cha) and yet a spirit, rebirth of a Gadenpa pledge breaker, can be assigned to the rank of a Gadenpa chief guardian deity. In case one might think that the Sakyapa viewpoint regarding Shugden is compatible with Phawong Khapa’s view, I can say that it is absolutely different. As mentioned above, Sakya Dagchen Sonam Rinchen put Dolgyal under his spiritual custody. Following that, the great Sakyapa Kunga Lodo and Morchen composed texts to Shugden but it should be understood that this was a wise method to secure the obedience of this spirit. However, when it came to propitiating chief pardian deities and protective war-deities, Kunga Lodo, Morchen and their followers propitiated Mahakala, Tsaturmukha and Mahakali rather than Dolgyal Shugden.

The basic difference between the Sakyapa view and that of phawong Khapa is that the Sakya placate Shugden conditionally. providing him with offerings of food and shelter. We understand that the time is not right to eliminate him because he is still under the karmic repercussions of his wrong conduct. And even the Buddha is unable to undo Karma. Whereas Phawong Khapa (and you followers) propitiate Dolgyal with the idea that he came purposely in this degenerate time to protect the Gadenpa doctrine. Therefore, there is a great difference; like the difference between feeding a criminal who is being held in custody or assigning that criminal to a high rank and worshiping him. Additionally, the Sakyapa also preserved the Buddha Dharma and saved the people of Tibet from harm by annihilating or restricting other spirits as well. These include Shangbal, Nyagrong Bulongma and others. So, please remember this kindness.

After the investigation of the history of Shugden worship, the qualifications of Pabongkha Rinpoche, the omissions and additions to Tantric texts he made (e.g Lama Chöpa ritual), the reprehension of Pabongkhapa by the 13th Dalai Lama etc., Dongthog Tulku states on page 29,30:

You who claim that Dolgyal is inseparable from Manjushri, what is the source of your assertion? There is no prophesy or scriptural reference to this in any of Buddha’s teachings or in any of the works of Indian Buddhist masters or in the works of Tzongkhapa. If there is one, supply the quote. Even the primitive Tibetan deity, Machen Pomra, Tzongkhapa’s own birth deity was not accomodated within the circumambulatory path of Gaden monastery, but rather, his cairn was installed on the outskirts of the monastery.[5] There is no doubt that Dolgyal, a reborn ghost, propitiated as a chief guardian deity of the Gadenpa doctrine is not in agreement with Je Tsongkhapa’s view.

Appendix – Quotes from Other Authoritative Sources

Geoffrey Samuel, states in Civilized Shamans p.545-546

The dominant Gelugpa figure of this period, apart from the 13th Dalai Lama himself, was his near contemporary, the 1st P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e (1878-1943). P’awongk’a Rimpoch’e was by all accounts a brilliant scholar and accomplished Tantric meditator, who is remembered with devotion by his disciples. He is remembered with less favor by the Nyingmapa order in K’am where, as the Dalai Lama’s representative, his attitude was one of sectarian intolerance towards non-Gelugpa orders and the Nyingmapa in particular. [...]

P’awongk’a thus stood in a complex relationship to the 13th Dalai Lama, and in fact the two men where not personally close. The 13th Dalai Lama, like the Great 5th, was interested in the Nyingmapa and Dzogch’en traditions, and received teachings from Rimed lamas such as Terton Sogyal. His own orientation seems to have been open minded and eclectic, and was not identified with P’awongk’a’s conservative and traditionalist faction. Nonetheless, P’awongk’a was in some respects the logical expression in the religious sphere of the transformation that the 13th Dalai Lama was trying to bring about. Had the Lhasa government ever succeeded in turning Tibet into an effective cetralized state, the Gelugpa might have continued to move in this direction and might have gradually eliminated the other Tibetan religious traditions in favor of a well-controlled academic and clerical version.

In fact, P’awongk’a’s influence was strongest after his death and that of the 13th Dalai Lama, and particularly after the forced resignation of the regent Reting (Ratreng) Rimpoch’e in 1941 and his replacement by Tagtrag Rimpoch’e, who had been a close associate of P’awongk’a and shared his conservative orientation. It was at that time that P’awongk’a’s students gradually moved into the dominant position that they have held within the Gelugpa order into the 1970s and 1980s.

Excerpt from Lord of the Dance: The Autobiography of A Tibetan Lama, By Chagdud Tulku, an eminent Nyingma master, Padma Publishing, 1992, Pilgrims Publishers Edition, Kathmandu 2001, page 107

In Chamdo I first encountered the bitter dregs of sectarian friction between the Gelugpa and other traditions of Tibetan Buddhism… Although there were doctrinal differences among the traditions, sometimes strongly disputed in formal debates, in Kham there was generally both acceptance and cooperation. Since both my father and stepfather were Gelugpa lamas, my mother’s family was Sakya, and I was trained in both Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, any outer sectarian divisiveness would have inwardly fragmented me. I was spared this conflict until I listened to stories in Chamdo, and hearing them I felt uncomfortable and sad.

People told me that previously several monasteries housing statues of Padmasambhava and Nyingma texts were located near Chamdo, but then a Gelugpa lama named Phabongkhapa came from Central Tibet. He had contempt for the Nyingma tradition and thought that its doctrine was false and its practitioners wrongheaded. The dissention that ensued resulted in persecution, the destruction of many Nyingma texts and statues of Padmasambhava, and the conversion of monasteries from Nyingma to Gelugpa. This was followed by a severe drought and famine in the region.

Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro wrote to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho about Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism:

Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching.

David Jackson wrote an essay The Bhutan Abbot of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugs-ldan published by Amnye Machen Institute, 2001, Lungta #14, Review by Mark Turin

Excerpts of that essay, which has been transcribed and sent to me by a Buddhist monk living in India, Dharamsala, state:

During his abbacy, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgyamtsho failed to visit and pay respects to his teacher at the Khang-gsar lama palace. He was reluctant to do so because he was suspicious of the cult of the protector-deity Shugs-ldan, which was practiced at the monastery. He was also critical of certain old practices of Ngor Monastery, such as its tradition of sending a monastery appointed functionary to collect animals from the nomad regions for their flesh.

The senior Khang-gsar abbot, Ngag-dbang-mkhyen-rab-‘jam-dpal-smying-po, was a well known devotee of Shugs-ldan … Both he and his late uncle mKhanchen Ngag-dbang0blo-gros-snying-po visited Khams and established there in the 1890s in numerous monasteries the cult of Shugs-ldan, before the dGe-lugs-pa zealot Pha-bong-kha-pa (1878-1941) and his disciples brought the cult into disrepute through their sectarian excesses …

During these troubles, Dam-pa Rin-po-che was staying at rTa-nag giving the esoteric transmission of the Path with Its Fruit. One day, when he was reciting the text-transmission, he laid aside the text he was reading and said “Alas, the young abbot’s horse has died!” Among the more than one hundred disciples present, nobody understood what the master had alluded to. In fact, this harm to the young abbot he mentioned was caused by the rgyal-po spirit Shugden …

Dam-pa Rin-po-che, too, had on several occasions rebuked the malignant rgyal-po spirit. During the founding of the rDzong-gsar scriptural seminary seventeen years before in 1918, the same spirit had caused obstacles. At the founding of the scripture-exposition seminary at Ngor, similar obstacles had occurred. Dam-pa Rinpoche, too, was thus not at all fond of this spirit, and tension in this regard must have existed within the Khang-sar lama-palace even before Ngag-dbang-yon-tan0rgya-mtsho brought it to a head …

Evidently also during his second visit, he decided to attack at Ngor the deity Shugs-ldan, who was worshipped there as a minor protector. He explained to some of the monks how harmful this deity was. He made liberal gifts and decided to use this chance to expel the cult of Shugs-ldan from the monastery. This was one of the most important battles in what was to become a lifelong crusade against rDor-rje-shugs-ldan.

Helped by a single trusted monks … Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho threw the “life stone” (bla rdo) of Shugs-ldan from the roof of the eastern side of the central abbatial residence. People later said that the spot where the stone hit the ground seemed to be smeared with blood. He also removed the mask and thangkha of the rgyal-po spirit to the far side of the lCags pass, and thus attempted to frive out that spirit …

What can have pushed Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho to engage in open “war” against that deity? He saw Shugs-ldan as his personal enemy, blamind him for causing the premature death of his previous life. He also professed to be the rebirth of dBang-sdud-snying-po, (1763-1806?), the thirty-third throneholder of Sakya who had putted himself against Shugs-ldan and likewise had not lived to old age.

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s mother and two siblings died mysteriously while crossing the Nyungka La pass in sGa-oa south of Khri-du. Some said the three had been killed by Chinese, but no Chinese had been around at the time, and no human culprits were ever caught. It was later believed they had directly fallen victim to the vengeful Shugs-ldan.

For coercing or repelling Shugs-ldan, no lama was more powerful in those days than Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho. In direct confrontation, the lama could overpower him. But in the long run, the deity was more powerful, because he was able to harm the lama’s family members, attacking and killing his mother and two siblings …

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho also intensely disliked the particular tradition within the dGe-lugs-pa represented by Pha-bong-kha-pa, a lama who in 1940, a year before his death, continued in his sectarian machinations, decrying to a Kuomintang Governor (Lu Cun-krang) the fact that uncle ‘Jam-bdyangs-rgyal-mtshan hade published Go-rams-pa’s works …

But Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho’s main wrath was directed against the cult of the protector rDo-rje-shugs-ldan which Pha-bong-kha-pa had popularized in various dGe-lugs-pa circles. (In the early 1940s gangs of young monks in certain dGe-lugs-pa dominted areas of Khams such as Chab-mdo, Brag-gyab and Lho-rdzong were causing so much havoc through their Shugs-ldan group “possessions” that the central government’s Governor of Khams in Chab-mdo finally was compelled to punish three ringleaders by flogging …

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho explained to the Khri-du monks and people, “Shugs-ldan is no good. He is evil. He’s not a protector, he’s a ghost! He has a long history of causing harm. There’s no use invoking a ghost.” In this way he convinced the monks to cease the practice, and removed all images and articles of worship from the monastery.

At Thar-lam monastery, he summoned the monks and told them of his campaign against Shugs-ldan. That deity, he said, was not a protector of religion, but rather an evil spirit who destroyed the doctrine… He proposed to destroy, if they would agree, the mask of this deity the next morning. …He took down a revered mask of the deity from its shrine and carried it outside. He hurled it into a bonfire and drew a pistol, shooting at the mask numerous times. After annihilating the mask, he reentered the Protector’s chapel and removed the other ritual articles….

Afterward, he re-consecrated the chapel to the deity Beg-tse. He defied Shugs-ldan to take revenge. When nothing occurred, the monks lost faith in Shugs-ldan and accepted the new protective deity. In sGa-pa, Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho thus stamped out the practice of rDo-rje-shugs-ldan, at least in Sa-skya-pa circles, almost completely.

… Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho was thus highly exceptional, and he attracted all the Sa-skya-pa and even many Kagyupa and Nyingmapa adherents in sGa-pa as his disciples. If he gave them his personal blessing or a protection-cord, they would not be troubles by Shugs-ldan.

Ngag-dbang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho died in the early 1960s at the age of about 60, in a large prison near Siling holding thousands of prisoners. It is said he manifested wonders even in prison, for instance, freeing himself from his shackles.

Stephan Beyer states in The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet, University of California Press, 1978, p 238

The image was lent to a monastery of the “ancient” Nyingma sect named Kajegon and located in the capital of Dragyab, right next to another monastery of the Gelug sect. Indeed, it had been founded by the abbot of the latter monastery, an incarnation called Lord of Refuge Dragyab, who had been fascinated by the “ancient” teachings. The two neighbor monasteries shared the same facilities and officers, differing only in the performance of their rituals in their individual temples; and here the image rested in the amity of these sometimes rival sects.

When the Lord of Refuge Dragyab died, his monastery was taken over, during the minority of his reincarnation, by a regent named Zangmar toden, who was a very different sort of man from the former abbot. Zangmar has originally followed the “ancient” sect (he had been a disciple of the famous Drugu Shakyashri of Soderka) but then had moved to Ch’amdo, where he met and became the disciple of a Gelug lama named Master P’awang kawa.

Zangmar had fallen under the spell of this new and impressive personality. P’awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch’amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteries, and he was sympathetic to the concerns of the K’am people over whom he had been granted jurisdiction, a scholar and an enthusiast for all aspects of Tibetan culture. But many eastern Tibetans remember him with loathing as the great persecutor of the “ancient” sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K’am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of “ancient” books and paintings.

P’awang kawa sent his new disciple back to take charge of the Gelug monastery in Dragyab; Zangmar, with the zeal of the convert, carried with him only his master’s sectarianism and implemented only his policy of destruction. He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped up charge of treason. They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk, who carried with him by chance that day our image of Tara, tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back.[6]

Pabongkha Rinpoche about the practice of Dorje Shugden:[7]

[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely important for holding Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition without mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the great violence and the speed of the force of his actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low. [This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that] many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.

See Also

[1] The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition (1997) by David Kay, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 277-293, page 281

[2] Himalayan Dialogue : Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal (1989) by Stan Royal Mumford, University of Wisconsin Press, pages 125-130, 261-264

[3] The Tulkus and the Shugden Controversy (2001) by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück, Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, in Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent, published by Oxford University Press, 328-349

[4] The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word (2000) by Tenpai Gyaltsan Dhongthog, Sapan Institute, Washington

[5] This argument must be understood in the context of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s letter of excuse to the 13th Dalai Lama, where he states that his mother told him that Shugden was present at his birth and hence is his birth deity (lha). In this letter to the 13th Dalai Lama Pabongkha Rinpoche acknowledges his faults, he excuses for having violated the Buddhist refuge pledges and for having provoked the wrath of Nechung and he promises not to worship Shugden any more and to restrain from performing the rituals with respect to Shugden. (Von Brück’s German paper explains this more detailed. The fact of his promise to abstain from Shugden worship is also mentioned in Dreyfus (1998) and Dhongthog (2000). Von Brück states as the source for this Rigs dang dkyil ‘khor rga mtsho ‘l khyab bdag heruka dpal ngur smrig gar rolskyabs gchig pha bongkha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po’l rnam thar pa don ldan tshangs p’al dbyangs snyan, Phabongkhapa, Collected Works Vol. 14, Lhasa edition, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives , Dharamsala, Acc. 1622. Dreyfus states “According to his biographer, Pa-bong-ka promised not to propitiate Shuk-den any more.” and he gives as reference for this: Lob-zang Dor-je, (Biography of Pha bong kha (pha bong kha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa), 471.a-.b.)

[6] This quote was added on May 4th, 2009

[7] The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy (1998) by Georges Dreyfus, Professor of Religion at Williams College, published in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Vol., 21, no. 2 [Fall 1998]:227-270) – (PDF-File)

Annotation

I added the honorific term H.H. (His Holiness) where it is appropriate to add it, mainly for the Head of the Tibetan Traditions. The reason why I restrained to address Kelsang Gyatso with the title “Geshe”, an academic monastic title he claims to hold, is that three sources clearly state that he does not hold the title of a Geshe, and he himself could not give a reasonable explanation on this which is free from internal contradictions nor could he clarify what type of Geshe degree he holds.

Comments

  1. ‘Trinlay Kelsang (Rodney Billman) attacks Dreyfuss in his ‘Dorje Shugden History’ (http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/among-shugden-texts-1759.html), claiming: ‘Dreyfus claims to follow the historical approach in The Shuk-den Affair, however, dismisses nearly all Gelug Dorje Shugden texts up to Pabongkha Rinpoche. This is hardly an evenhanded approach. This assumption is quite crude, namely that up to the time of Pabongkha Rinpoche Dorje Shugden was treated as a worldly protector, and then all of a sudden he was promoted by Pabongkha Rinpoche or Trijang Rinpoche as a transworldly protector.’

    Were this true, this would seriously undermine Dreyfuss work in general and indeed, call into question his academic credentials.

    Actually, Dreyfuss writes that Pabongka’s influence brought about the centralization of a previously peripheral practice, rather than accusing him of being personally responsible for elevating the deity from mundant to supramundane status: ‘Where Pa-bong-ka was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Ge-luk tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Dzong-ka-ba’s teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pa-bong-ka’s wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as the central protector of the Ge-luk tradition. Whereas previously Shuk-den seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Ge-luk tradition, Pa-bong-ka made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. (http://www.dalailama.com/page.149.htm )

    The attack on Dreyfuss is therefore based on either an unintentional misinterpretation, or a deliberate reinterpretation of his work so as to facilitate the undermining of his academic credentials. Either way, this ‘misinterpretation’ actually calls into question the academic credentials of Mr Billman which, thus far and unlike those of Professor Dreyfuss , are not information available in the public domain. Perhaps this is not part of the academic tradition of Tushita Kadampa Meditation Centre?

  2. Tashi –

    give it up, mate.
    x

  3. Here’s another example of truth twisting from the NKTs Rodney Billman (or, ‘Buddhist academic Trinlay Kelsang [qualifications to be cited]

    Dreyfus (1998), p. 253:
    “The sectarian implications of Pa-bong-ka’s revival movement and the role of Shuk-den therein became clear during the 1940’s, when the cult of Shuk-den spread in Khams and the Ge-luk tradition became much more aggressive in its opposition to the other schools.”

    Billman

    http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/among-shugden-texts-1838.html

    Dreyfus attributes the spread of Dorje Shugden propitiation in Kham to Pabongkha Rinpoche;6 however, the colophon of Trehor Khangsar’s ritual clearly shows the practice was already present in the region before Pabongkha Rinpoche travelled there.’

    Question: Is Dreyfus denying the existence of the cult of Shugden in Kham prior to Pabongkha’s arrival or is he stating that it spread further and became more aggressive?

    Lets let Dezhung Rinpoche clarify:

    Ngag-dbang blo-gros-snying-po visited Khams and established there in the 1890s in numerous monasteries the cult of Shugs-ldan, before the dGe-lugs-pa zealot Pha-bong-kha-pa (1878-1941) and his disciples brought the cult into disrepute through their sectarian excesses…

    (from

    David Jackson’s essay The Bhutan Abbot of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugs-ldan published by Amnye Machen Institute, 2001, Lungta #14

    Seen in this light, it is clear that Dreyfuss was asserting that, due to Pabongkha’s influence, the practice of Dorje Shugden became more widespread and aggressive in Kham.

    As Rodney Billman (Trinlay Kelsang NKT) puts it:

    ‘This evidence was not found as a result of an archaelogical expedition; it is quite a shame that intelligent scholars have completely ‘ignored’ what was available in university libraries for the last 30 years.’ (http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/index.html)(PS-it's Dreyfuss [that double 's']

    Two brief attempts at undermining so-called academic ‘facts’ in Billman’s work demonstrate, with a minimum of research, the not-very-well hidden sectarian agenda of his work.

    Billman basically gathers together all of the scant information (a dozen or so texts over 3 centuries? Come on) that he can find (or that has been found for him) and then puts this forward as evidence that Shugden was widely worshipped in Tibet, sometimes as an enlightened being.

    In reality, this has never been denied. What the Dalai Lama is saying is that the deity is highly controversial and that this controversial history has existed since the very beginnings of the deity.

    Billman then pads this out with a few swipes at Dreyfuss for his intellectual inadequacies. However, with a little investigation, it becomes clear that it is Billman’s intellectual capacity which is lacking for, while he can certainly piece together quotes from a few different texts,none of these support his underlying argument that DS was widely accepted in Tibet-they simply provide one side of an argument. Moreover, his attacks on Dreyfuss are aimed, not at questioning the validity of Dreyfuss’ research, but rather undermining Dreyfuss himself, so as to discredit an academic whose work is a considerable thorn in the side of the Shugden camp. A tiny assessment of his attacks on Dreyfuss, as has been shown, demonstrate the invalidity of his comments and the inadequacy of his argument.

  4. Florence says:

    Basically, what Billman has done is locate some of the variuos propitiatory practices that arose in relation to Shugden within the Sakya and Gelug. Then he has fabricated some baseless arguments against Dreyfuss, arguments which pose questions about the validity of his research, and then answered his own questions. Its a bit cheap really. No one is denying that Shguden worship existed; all he has done is gathered together evidence of this, made up some falsities about Dreyfuss and then corrected those fabricated falsities
    In fact, his research does exactly what he criticises Dreyfuss for, for in presenting only evidence of Shugden worship, he presents only one side of a debate and ignores the historical evidence for the other viewpoint, seemingly in the belief that two wrongs make a right. Combining this with the fact that his arguments against Greyfuss are based on his own fabricated assertions about Dreyfuss’ work (see above), the seemingly intimidating nature of his work is easily seen through for the paper tiger that it is.

  5. That is why i don’t trust any resources and info provided by wikipedia about the whole shugden issue…

    After all, we are all ‘familiar’ about all these one sided ‘self-generated truth’ from NKT, and i have got enough of it.

  6. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    There is no one more blind than a sighted person who doesn’t want to see….like most of the comments here.

    The truth is, Dreyfus has obfuscated the truth through his accusations about Pabongkhapa Rinpoche and by omitting this research, the material for which has been available in libraries for decades, especially for someone who is versed in Tibetan. We can only assume that Dreyfus is either a poor academic and poor researcher or he was selective in the sources for his article.

    Furthermore, ANon says:

    Billman basically gathers together all of the scant information (a dozen or so texts over 3 centuries? Come on) that he can find (or that has been found for him) and then puts this forward as evidence that Shugden was widely worshipped in Tibet, sometimes as an enlightened being.

    But the evidence is clear…it’s only blind people who don’t want to see it. People who are blindly following the Dalai Lama’s unjustifiable view of Dorje Shugden. Trinley Kalsang has presented clear evidence to support his view whereas the Dalai Lama has presented his opinion which is slavishly adhered to by those who don’t think too much. The Dalai Lama says he ‘made investigations’…of what? where? He has presented no hard evidence that Dorje Shugden has ever been regarded as an evil spirit whereas TK has presented clear evidence that Dorje Shugden has been regarded for nearly four hundred years as a Buddha by a great many high Lamas.

    I find it incredible that those who have commented here see fit to dismiss TK’s clear academic researches yet cling to the opinion of the Dalai Lama just because of who he is. That’s irrational and unBuddhist.

  7. dorjeshugdentruth:
    “There is no one more blind than a sighted person who doesn’t want to see….”

    I agree, the question is now who is the blind and who can see ;-)

  8. florence says:

    DST
    ‘He has presented no hard evidence that Dorje Shugden has ever been regarded as an evil spirit whereas TK has presented clear evidence that Dorje Shugden has been regarded for nearly four hundred years as a Buddha by a great many high Lamas.’

    This is nonsense.You need a holiday.Then re-read what evidence the essay does and does not provide.But first, a holiday. Try to forget who you are……you are feeling very sleepy….your eyelids are getting very heavy……….you are under my control………zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  9. theblind says:

    @dst
    the blind shall lead the blind...

    Light switch, yellow fever, crawling up your bathroom wall
    Singing psychedelic praises to the depths of a China bowl
    You’ve got venom in your stomach, you’ve got poison in your head
    You should have listened to the priest at the confession
    When he offered you the sacred bread

    He knows, you know, he knows, you know, he knows, you know
    But he’s got problems

    Fast feed, crystal fever, swarming through a fractured mind
    Chilling needles freeze emotion, the blind shall lead the blind
    You’ve got venom in you stomach, you’ve got poison in your head
    When your conscience whispered, the vein lines stiffened
    You were walking with the dead

    He knows, you know, he knows, you know, he knows, you know
    He’s got experience
    He’s got experience, he knows, you know….

    ————Welcome to the Hotel New Kadampa———————–

    On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
    Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
    Up ahead in the distance, I saw shimmering light
    My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
    I had to stop for the night
    There she stood in the doorway;
    I heard the mission bell
    And I was thinking to myself,
    ‘This could be Heaven or this could be Hell’
    Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
    There were voices down the corridor,
    I thought I heard them say…

    Welcome to the Hotel New Kadampa
    Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    Plenty of room at the Hotel New Kadampa
    Any time of year (Any time of year)
    You can find it here

    Her mind is Shugden-twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
    She got a lot of pretty, pretty pure people she calls friends
    How they whisper in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
    Some talks to remember, some talks to forget

    So I called up the Captain,
    ‘Please bring me my brain’
    He said, ‘We haven’t had that spirit here since nineteen ninety one’
    And still those voices are calling from far away,
    Wake you up in the middle of the night
    Just to hear them say…

    Welcome to the Hotel New Kadampa
    Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    They livin’ it up at the Hotel New Kadampa
    What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
    Bring your alibis

    Mirrors on the ceiling,
    ex-nuns and ex-monks working hard (to purify their Karma)
    And she said ‘We are all just prisoners here, of our own device’
    And in the master’s chambers,
    They gathered for the feast
    They stab it with their steely knives,
    But they just can’t kill the beast

    Last thing I remember, I was
    Running for the door
    I had to find the passage back
    To the place I was before
    ‘Relax,’ said the night man,
    ‘We are programmed to receive.
    You can check-out any time you like,
    But you can never leave!’

  10. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Yeah, it would take hypnosis for any reasonable person to believe the Dalai Lama’s view given the complete lack of evidence, Florence, quite right! Unfortunately, when the Dalai Lama speaks, people stop thinking because he’s the God King of Tibet and totally infallible, being an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara and all….ho hum – or maybe he is hypnotising people, who knows? It’s the only reasonable explanation why a bunch of rational Westerners would believe something for which there is no evidence.

    TK’s evidence, on the other hand, speaks for itself.

  11. ‘But the evidence is clear…it’s only blind people who don’t want to see it. People who are blindly following the Dalai Lama’s unjustifiable view of Dorje Shugden. Trinley Kalsang has presented clear evidence to support his view whereas the Dalai Lama has presented his opinion which is slavishly adhered to by those who don’t think too much. The Dalai Lama says he ‘made investigations’…of what? where? He has presented no hard evidence that Dorje Shugden has ever been regarded as an evil spirit whereas TK has presented clear evidence that Dorje Shugden has been regarded for nearly four hundred years as a Buddha by a great many high Lamas.

    TKs work simply provides evidence that DS was worshipped in Tibet, occasioaally as an enlightened protector but, more generally as a worldly deity. Since the first DS text appears to have existed since around 1710, where DST gets 400 years from is not clear (bit like 4 and a half milllion Tibetans worshipping DS)Anyone who follows the DL is a ‘blind’ ‘slavish’ adherent who does not have the capacity to think for themselves. ‘He has presented no hard evidence that Dorje Shugden has ever been regarded as an evil spirit’Please, this is just untrue DL.com provides long testimonies from scholars and monks, historical and contemporary, condemning DS practice.
    Your response is dogmatic and unrelenting in its simultaneous extremism and dishonesty.
    Anyone who has studied DS will be aware of the vast evidence available supporting the view of DS as a mundane protector (TK uses nebesky Wojkowitz frequently as a reference-where in there is DS referred to as anything other than a worldly being for instance?)and that the popularisation of DS as an enlightened being and as a central Gelug practice was the responsiblitt of pabongka though the view did not originate with him. I
    If you do not see these facts before you then i sincerely worry for you. To deny this in the face of fact is a sign of illness or delusion. How can anyone discuss when the other person refuses to accept basic evidence as fact and fabricates ideas such as ‘widespread worship of DS as an enlightened being throughout Tibet and Mongolia for the last 400 years’ This is just fantasy! Again do the maths!
    TK produces evidence that DS was propitiated in Tibet and Mongolia. Never denied by the DL.
    He points to instances of references to DS as an emlightened being BEFORE Pabongka-never denied by Dreyfuss.
    KTs work then is really just a list of references to texts which refer to DS-fine, but that is all!
    It presents one side of the story and then condemns the DL side for presenting…….one side of the story!
    It makes false allgations agains Dreyfuss and claims to ‘refute’ his views-yet the initial premise is a falsification by TK-how can that be hinest or valid.
    Now, well done TK for compiling the DS references-useful to a point. The rest is flimsy non-academic argument, eily deconstructed by reference to sdcripture and academic source.As for 400 years, all that needs is a calculator.
    In short, DST, your repsonse is thorouglhy inadequate and demonstrates dogmatism, intellectual blindness, unquestioning partisanship and, in a word, madness!
    Boing-time for bed!

  12. ‘Yeah, it would take hypnosis for any reasonable person to believe the Dalai Lama’s view given the complete lack of evidence, Florence, quite right!…maybe he is hypnotising people, who knows? It’s the only reasonable explanation why a bunch of rational Westerners would believe something for which there is no evidence.’
    DST-you need to do a fair bit more reading before you make such ridiculous and easily disproven comments. ‘Complete lack of evidence’ This is just lies! Either a) You know nothing about the subject
    b) You are lying c)You are trying to deceive others by relying on their ignorance. Whichever it may be, your comments have no academic credibility and demonstrate the blind fervour of a biased zealot, rather than the measured opinion of one open to a number of views. Maybe that holiday would help-I here theyre doing tickets to Dharmasala at cut-throat prices (geddit?)

  13. hey, man… like – stop copying Dougal.

  14. Dorjeshugdentruth, I can understand that you don’t like Dreyfus since his essay may appear to you as being contradictory to the beliefs of Kelsang Gyatso and NKT.

    However, neither I, nor you or Kelsang Gyatso, or Thinley Kälsang, and the NKT people are able to hold a candle to Georges Dreyfus’ scholarship. Firstly he is the only Westerner who holds a Geshe Lharampa, the highest Geshe degree, and he accomplished it in only 15 years, secondly he is a highly acknowledged academic as well. This can’t be said about you, Kelsang Gyasto, NKT folk, me, or TK, can it?

    Here some examples what other known Professors state about him:
    – “outstanding scholarship” – Matthew T. Kapstein
    – “a leading scholar of Tibetan Buddhism” – Donald S. Lopez
    – “extraordinary person and writer” – Jeffrey Hopkins

    You trials to degrade Dreyfus and to fabricate TK as a scholar are similar to trying to tell people a lion would be a frog and a fox would be a lion.

    No matter how much you try to explain it wrongly, a lion is a lion and a fox is a fox.

  15. Kelsang Tashi –

    Dreyfus may be a brilliant scholar: that doesn’t mean he’s immune from making mistakes or from doing sloppy research or from demonstrating bias in the sources he selects or the conclusions he reaches.

    Trinley Kalsang may not hold a chair or be widely known or read, but that doesn’t make him incapable of doing his own research or reaching his own conclusions based on that research, nor does it invalidate his scholarship.

    arguments stand and fall on their merits, not on the reputation of their proponents; even be their proponent the Dalai Lama!

    whatsmore, Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is one of your Gurus: you should stop being so rude; be very careful of your karma.

    before you ask, i have never received a teaching, much less ordination, from the Dalai Lama – nonetheless, i try not to be directly rude about him. i criticise his actions – i don’t rudely omit his proper titles, nor would i do so even if his old monastery stripped him of those titles simply because he criticised another lama.

  16. dougal, my monk’s name is not Kelsang Tashi.

    You are free to rely in self-created sources, which support circled thinking in the mode of “the communist party and the party’s supreme helmsman is always right.”

    BTW TK does in no way fulfil the demands for a Wikipedia:Reliable Source, while Dreyfus and all other academics I use do. TK belongs to WP:Selfpublished Sources. Things NKT’s WP editors just ignore and do not respect.

    I do not think that I am rude towards Kelsang Gyatso – nor are my feelings rude to him. When he has no Geshe degree he has no Geshe degree, that’s it. Since he is no Lharampa Geshe nor is he an accredited professor, I think, his short excerpt on Shugden – mainly full of questionable claims – in “Heart Jewel” and his teachings on Shugden are not able to hold a candle to Georges Dreyfus’ scholarship and his research on Shugden.

    HH the Dalai Lama is both, an accomplished Yogi and scholar (Lharampa Geshe), and all those intelligent people like Hopkins, Carbezon, Thurman, and many other academics and scientists, who were very sceptical in the beginning (Hopkins thought HHDL is just a puppet of the Tibetan system) were finally amazed to see his brilliance with respect to insight, humility, profound knowledge, and many other qualities. (Not only knowledgeable scholars are able to see his qualities but also Yogis who meditated for years in solitude.)

    I agree with you:
    “arguments stand and fall on their merits, not on the reputation of their proponents; even be their proponent the Dalai Lama!”

    Since I know the arguments of both sides well, I made up my own mind; and I see clearly the faultline in the pro-Shugden argumentation, mainly too much blind belief in omniscient and unfailing Gurus and the self-made claims they made, which are not backed up by scriptures and reasoning nor by history but rather these arguments are really in contradiction to these.

    BTW if you know better maybe you can help to clarify the Geshe claims. May questions on tricycle blog are still unanswered:

    LH claimed:

    Fact: Geshe Kelsang is a Geshe . To claim otherwise is either a mistake or a downright lie.

    My questions were:

    what kind of geshe degree KG holds?
    what paper he has to proof his claim?
    why Sera Monastic University whose title as Geshe KG claims to hold has no authority to state that he is no Geshe?
    why NKT does not publish a paper showing he has a geshe degree and what type of geshe degree he holds?

    [... passage removed...]

    Since Kelsang Gyatso claimed to Newsweek:

    [Although the Newsweek article you do not refer to me as a Geshe, I am a Geshe. If you wish to understand how I became a Geshe I will be happy to provide you with details.]

    I am happy to receive the details. BTW, I think also his argument that he didn’t accept the changes which were made with respect to the procedure of receiving the Geshe degree is quite odd, if a university changes their mode of granting titles and the student does not accept and follow it, he has no title. Also he should know the fact that the procedure and demands for the Geshe title were reformed by the 13th Dalai Lama and they are applied in the three great Gelug monastic seats, Ganden, Drepung and Sera. His claim they would have nothing to do with the Dalai Lama is also quite misleading…. There are more contradictions to be investigated in that context….

  17. Geshe Kelsang explained it himself, as you quoted – what more explanation do you need? why is it important anyway?

    he gave you the name Kelsang Tashi – i know this because i was there. he gave you teachings and empowerments and you called him Guru. for you, these are sufficient qualifications, in terms of your karma. you later developed a negative mind towards him. why are you now trying to discredit your Teacher? that’s a bad karma. you should develop regret and purify. he’d accept your apology, you know.

    believe it or not, i’m your brother and i mean you no harm. i wish you’d stop harming yourself and others through this lunatic crusade of yours.

  18. Please answer my questions.

    Why is it important? Wrong title claims are elements of an offence in Western society.

    of course he gave me the name kt but my name and status of ordination changed ;-)

    If he has no Geshe title what is disrespectful to say this? You seem to know my mind quite well ;-)
    (I made a distance to Kelsang Gyatso, and I develop compassion for him, I also pray for him and Dechen, the former NKT representative of NKT in Germany. This is good Karma, isn’t it?)

    If you have good wishes for me, very nice. Thank you, maybe it does not help me directly but it helps you and probably it helps me indirectly. So thank you very much my brother (or sister) :-)

  19. ok – peace.

  20. Accept.

  21. florence says:

    Geshe Kelsang explained it himself, as you quoted – what more explanation do you need? (If KG says it, it must be absolute truth and you need not inquire further) why is it important anyway?(Why is it important to know if your ‘guru’ is a liar?Come on)

    he gave you the name Kelsang Tashi – i know this because i was there. he gave you teachings and empowerments and you called him Guru. for you, these are sufficient qualifications, in terms of your karma.(What? ‘In terms of your karma’ Only Buddha understands the intricacies of karma. What are you saying: because someone entered into a realtionship with someone that they later realised had faults, they must still maintain the illusion of perfection?) you later developed a negative mind towards him. why are you now trying to discredit your Teacher?(Maybe because the mind that cherishes and protects others is virtuous?)that’s a bad karma. you should develop regret and purify. (There we go: another unqualified NKT teacher telling others how to practice) he’d accept your apology, you know.(Yeah, hes so humble, as evidenced by his organising a world wide campaign of attacks on those who oppose his views-thats real humble)

    believe it or not, i’m your brother and i mean you no harm.(Im just trying to help you because you are soooo lost!) i wish you’d stop harming yourself and others through this lunatic crusade of yours.(This is an allegation that those who oppose your view are mentally ill and destined for hell if they do not agree with you-sound like an extremist fundamentalist view? Thats because it is!)

    Not on my roundabout!

  22. florence, for me it’s ok.
    Most NKT people can’t just do or say it differently. In a way they mean it honestly – as they understand it according to the information NKT is passing to them.
    I like the reminder to keep a respectful approach towards Kelsang Gyatso, however I will not allow this reminder to manipulate or to delude myself.

  23. lhundrup says:

    Yes, that’s correct.

    That is the tactic which NKT use, it they are not able to convict you, then they will say thIS is ‘your impure mind’ to see your guru is fault. So you will create such ‘negative karma’, and they are our brother or sister who wishes to ‘see’ us stop ‘harming ourselves’, and we should develop respect and purify, but in actual fact is they are stopping to reveal the dark side of NKT which they trying so hard to hide across the internet world.

    how can a fake geshe be genuine, how could a tradition which worship a spirit is pure and authentic, all THESE ARE JUST THE INCORRECT, ONE SIDED INFO WHICH NKT AND ITS MEMBERS CREATED IN ORDER TO HIDE THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND TO ESCAPE THE TRUTH AND REALITY.

  24. What to do lhundrup?
    If there is a group in which spiritual authority is based on solely one person, if this person fails everything becomes a mess for all those involved. It is not uncommon in Buddhism that monks or nuns take mistaken paths or think they are a Buddha or become insane.

    In a healthy Buddhist environment, where there exist a community of knowledgeable and experienced elders, this can be dealt with, but in groups where all genuine living authority has been removed and is replaced by the spiritual authority of one single person, and where there is nobody equal or higher than this single person who has the total power, then when this person fails, this can become a big problem… much more when the people do not question wrong developments, turn a blind eye on them and continue with an approach of blind or naive devotion.

  25. florence –

    you said: “If KG says it, it must be absolute truth and you need not inquire further”

    he was asked about his title and he gave an answer that for most is quite satisfactory. it’s up to you if you accept it or not. i’m happy with it because it sounds reasonable, not just because Geshe Kelsang said it – you’re seeing blind faith where there isn’t any.

    “why is it important anyway?(Why is it important to know if your ‘guru’ is a liar?Come on”

    he’s not a liar, as far as any sensible enquiry shows – his answer is perfectly reasonable. my question really is: why is a title such an important thing? this is where i think i differ from Tenzin (and you, apparently): i couldn’t care less about Tibetan monasteries and their regulations, except insofar as they have some bearing on my PRACTICE of Buddha’s teachings, i have zero interest in learning Tibetan, or reading texts in the original, or any of this scholarship UNLESS it directly helps me to understand and practise Buddha’s teachings. if there is an easier, more accessible method for gaining the experience of the spiritual path that leads to liberation and enlightenment, i’m in. how do i know if it’s valid? by checking, simply – does it contain the essential meaning of the Dharma, handed down through a lineage of masters in whom i have faith, and does it stand up to comparison with the meaning of the Sutras and Tantras? ultimately, does it increase my wisdom and compassion, and does it pacify my negative minds? it’s my belief that Buddha himself, were he alive today, would favour this approach over dry scholarship and arguing over whether someone is a “real” Geshe or not. i’m a pragmatist, and i believe Buddha is too. if you now start whining about Dorje Shugden practice not appearing in the Sutras then you’ve completely missed the point about this practice: you wouldn’t be the only one, mind.

    “What? ‘In terms of your karma’ Only Buddha understands the intricacies of karma. What are you saying: because someone entered into a realtionship with someone that they later realised had faults, they must still maintain the illusion of perfection?”

    don’t be disingenuous. every Buddhist understands the heavy negative karma involved in developing a negative mind towards someone we have previously viewed as our Guru. this isn’t NKT-speak, it’s Buddhism. and to “maintain the illusion of perfection” – what does that mean? if you think that this is the meaning of pure view and Guru devotion then you have no idea about either. Geshe Kelsang has repeatedly taught that such blind faith is harmful and inappropriate – correct reliance has nothing to do with maintaining illusions.

    “Maybe because the mind that cherishes and protects others is virtuous?”

    if that’s Tenzin’s real aim – and i suspect he’s convinced himself that it is – then at least that’s something. but harming yourself and others in the belief that you’re helping is still harming, in the end.

    “There we go: another unqualified NKT teacher telling others how to practice”

    what? i’m an NKT Teacher, am i? and anyway – what, in your opinion, makes a Teacher qualified? a fully-qualified Mahayana Guru has a list of qualifying attainments, but last i looked NKT Teachers don’t go round telling people that they’re fully-qualified Mahayana Gurus (and if some few have done this in the past, they were wrong – they know that know). Geshe Kelsang gave a good analogy to explain why NKT Teachers are qualified to teach Dharma – he said: if you have a little bit of money, you can make a donation to charity, and your donation will benefit others. you’re not saying that you’re rich, just that you have a little that you can give to help. similarly, if you’ve received one teaching on bodhichitta, you’ve understood that teaching, and you have a good intention, then you can pass that teaching on to others, and they will benefit. you’re not saying “i’m a Buddha”, just that you have received a teaching that you can now pass on to others, out of a good intention to help. you’d be qualified to do that, if your intention’s good and you have some understanding, and so would i. this is one reason the Tibetan establishment is so afraid of Geshe Kelsang: he wants everyone toteach, so that Buddha’s teachings flourish far and wide; he’s not into keeping them in-house, as jobs for the boys.

    “Yeah, hes so humble, as evidenced by his organising a world wide campaign of attacks on those who oppose his views-thats real humble”

    you’re NOT this stupid, surely? if you come for me, i’ll defend myself. the Dalai Lama is trying to wipe out Dorje Shugden practice, we of the WSS etc. are defending ourselves. WE WOULD NEVER HAVE SAID A WORD AGAINST THE DALAI LAMA IF HE HADN’T ATTACKED OUR SPIRITUAL TRADITION. he left us no choice. we didn’t want this. the moment he stops, we stop.

    “Im just trying to help you because you are soooo lost!” usually, i just go for Tenzin’s jugular. so i’m not that great of a Buddhist – sue me, i’m a beginner. but every now and again, i do actually want to help, yes. he is my brother.

    “This is an allegation that those who oppose your view are mentally ill and destined for hell if they do not agree with you”

    no it isn’t. lots of people don’t gree with me on many different points, but i have no thought at all that they’re mad or going to hell – where’d you get that notion? on the other hand, these actions of a person who has certainly suffered and had bad luck (being heavily involved in the whole Carola/Dechen/tulku thing, for a start – now that WAS cultish and crazy), over years, of massive and sustained internet activity, creating websites and blogs, continuously posting on forums, trying to monopolise the Wikipedia articles on these topics (i’ve been over there and seen some of it from a couple of years back) – that level of sheer obsession, all with a destructive intent, however noble that person may tell themself it is – that IS a lunatic campaign, by any reasonable standard.

    lastly, though this was addressed to Florence, i’ve just seen your lastest post, Tenzin – that’s just, plain and simple, incorrect. NKT is a Buddhist tradition, and ultimately Buddha is the sole spiritual authority. no, we will not, ever, invite other lamas to come and teach within NKT – why would we? we have plenty of our own, thanks. you disagree with our views on lineage and purity – fine. yiou eat your food and we’ll eat ours. but try to take our food and we will defend ourselves, so that we have food left to feed our descendants. we’ll never try to take your food, so lay off ours. you’re in the wrong here – you are the aggressor. sorry, bro, but that’s the truth.

  26. lhundrup says:

    dougal

    you say ‘he was asked about his title and he gave an answer that for most is quite satisfactory. it’s up to you if you accept it or not. i’m happy with it because it sounds reasonable, not just because Geshe Kelsang said it – you’re seeing blind faith where there isn’t any.

    A satisfactory answer may not be authentic, a reason with you feel happy about is not answer which is no doubt as this is solely told my your ‘pure bddha’.

    In fact, a devotee with blind faith will ‘believe’ whatever their ‘pure guru’ say, though they may denied but this is what happened with NKT.

    You say ‘he is not a liar’, again this is one false statment from a blind devotee in NKT. He knew for years what happened in the centre, but instead of take immidiate action to solve the problems, he told his student either SHUT UP or GET OUT the centre, and try to cover up the misdeed which done by his disciple. Those who were the member of NKT are able to testify these with their personal experience. However, NKT go to the extent to threatend the former member with law suits if those members dare to speak up…so this is how ‘pure’ your guru and your tradition have shown us

    and you say ‘the Dalai Lama is trying to wipe out Dorje Shugden practice, we of the WSS etc. are defending ourselves. WE WOULD NEVER HAVE SAID A WORD AGAINST THE DALAI LAMA IF HE HADN’T ATTACKED OUR SPIRITUAL TRADITION. he left us no choice. we didn’t want this. the moment he stops, we stop.

    Neither you are stupid, dont you?? DL has mentioned not only once but many time in different event and occasion that, HE IS NO BANNING PRACTICE OF DS BUT STRONGLY DISCOURAGING THE PRACTICE. if whoever like to continue to practice this deity, they can do so but not advice to enter the guru-disciple relationship with him by take any empowerment from him, due to the special bond of samaya.

    However, DS practitioner did not stop the malice and baseless attack against DL. ONCE AGAIN YOU LIED ON THAT. They continue to attack DL by encouraged the world protest, and never provide its member this neutral advice from DL but feed it member with hatraed to protest DL about the ban which is totally baseless.

    To you, NKT is a Buddhist tradition, but to most of us, NKT is just merely a new religion movement which solely create by your ‘one and the only pure buddha’, a NRM with dont have any authentic vinaya and samaya..

    Tenzin is right, how can an organization with ‘sole proprietor’, with many unqualified teacher. They discourage its members and student to read others book beside those written by your ‘pure guru’, how can such sectarian practice be authentic and pure.

    Yes, you eat your food and we eat mine. But as much as we can, we will not allow more misleading info with ‘poison’ which generated one-side from NKTer to delude the mind of public, especially the new people in Buddhism.

  27. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    I can see that you are easily impressed by academic qualifications. I don’t mean to be insult you, but it would seem you are more impressed with those than practice qualifications. Academics can make mistakes or be disingenuous, or be worldly and chase after titles and a good reputation whereas those who are developing wisdom in meditation are far more reliable. Geshe Kelsang, for example, is a Geshe and someone who has become realized through long years of retreat on Lamrim, Lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra. He has been a monk for seventy years. Realization counts for more than paper qualifications. Titles mean little to me – what we need is wisdom, not just learning.

    The reason why I don’t like Dreyfus’ paper is that it is a distortion of the truth and it’s harmful. I don’t like delusions for the same reasons. Dreyfus either wilfully ignored the information published on Trinley Kalsang’s website or he was ignorant of it through sloppy research. Either way, he did a bad job simply to support the Dalai Lama’s position. Dreyfus tried to propagate a view that Je Pabongkhapa was responsible for elevating Dorje Shugden to the position of a Buddha and protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition when it’s clear that he was simply continuing a tradition that had existed for 350 years.

    I don’t like distortions no matter who is responsible for them and what titles they hold. We need truth, not lies and mistakes.

  28. florence says:

    Oh dear Dougal
    Time for that holiday!You really do need a rest, you poor thing. Try seeing yourself as a buddhist rather than a member of a particular group/organisation. It really might help. In the meantime, Many are praying for you, Im sure.
    Time for bed!(and pleasant dreams where buddhists dont scream about their hard held beliefs!)

  29. florence says:

    ‘if you come for me, i’ll defend myself. the Dalai Lama is trying to wipe out Dorje Shugden practice, we of the WSS etc. are defending ourselves.’
    This first line,Dougie darling, which scripture is it from? Shantideva-Oh yea, I remember, its in the section on the patience of retaiiating against enemies: ‘If he attacks me, i should not remain silent. The Buddha’s way is to retaliate against any harms, no matter how small’
    Also I think you of the WSS are actually free to practice DS and therefore there is no need to defend yourselves!’We will fight them on the beaches( while were on holiday?)
    If the pressure is getting to much, you could go and live in China where relgious freedom is right at the top of the DS sympathising regimes agenda, INNIT?

  30. Sorry Dougal
    Your rant above cofirms all of the suspicions of many that you are in a cult.Please seek objective advice from outside the group. try to read the criticisms from a neutral perspective and think for yourself on why their might be SO many problems associated with your group.
    Ask yourself if this is what you imagined you would be doing when you got into Buddhism: protesting, shouting at people, writing angry tirades on websites, trying to make other people see it the way you do because you know you are right?-Lets face it, none of this sounds anything like the Buddhism known in the east. This is the angry emerging dharma of the NKT, a dharma which has brought more harm to the good name of the faith in less than 20 years than any other groups imaginable.Please seek help and objective advice

  31. To add on, respect a fault guru due to a special bond of samaya by keeping a distance away do not mean that one’s need to keep others in the dark when one’s know the best when a fault guru trying to mislead others with poison in dharma.

    As in one of the Bodhisattva vow stated, we will still received a downfall when we are not correcting the deluded actions of others when we are capable of doing so, but pointing out somebody’s negative habits of body or speech.

    Especially one’s who practicing bodhisattva vows, if they can stir away anybody go into a impure dharma and fault tradition, we are allow to commit these non-virtues action for the benefit of our mother sentient beings, which is another vow stated in Boddhisattva vow.

    Any one can claimed that that was the karma for those who ruined by NKT for such suffering and damage. While i dont denied the effect of karma, but this do not mean that i have to agree that those ex-NKTer have no right to shared their authentic personal experienced with others just because they have the ‘special bond of samaya’ with such fault guru….so they need to have ‘regret’ thus need to ‘purify’.

    This is such UTTERLY NONSENSE. To ‘regret’ and ‘purify’ and just ‘go along’ with the poison in dharma which NKT have spread and still spreading, that is INSANE.

    If the NKTer are happy to be ‘poison’ with the impure dharma, this is your karma…remember KARMA

    But for those who know the true insight about NKT we got ENOUGH of it

  32. @dorjeshugdentruth (April 22, 2009 6:16 am)
    if we talk about scholarship we have to be able to discriminate who is a scholar and who is not.*

    if we speak about wisdom we must be able to discriminate between corrupt wisdom and wisdom which really penetrates (or understands) its object unmistakenly.

    if we speak about Buddhas we must be able to discriminate between a Mara appearing in the guise of a Buddha (or monk) from a genuine vision of a Buddha.

    if we speak about realization we must be able to discriminate unstable and deceptive experience from profound, stable and non-deceptive realizations.

    if we speak about confusion or truth, we must be able to recognize our own confusion first and to eliminate it otherwise there is the danger to project our own confusion, lack of knowledge and our own bias onto others; + there is the risk to label our own confusion as “the truth”.

    ———
    * This doesn’t exclude that scholars make also faults. From a Buddhist perspective only Buddhas are faultless. However, the quality of a paper and the knowledge of a scholar can be evaluated and he can be correctly discriminated from someone who is not able to hold a candle to him.

  33. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    To answer the critics that WSS members behaviour is not Buddhist, I would just like to quote from Lhundrup’s previous post:

    As in one of the Bodhisattva vow stated, we will still received a downfall when we are not correcting the deluded actions of others when we are capable of doing so, but (by?) pointing out somebody’s negative habits of body or speech.

    If someone is making a mistake, it’s okay to say so, especially if that mistake affects all living beings. If wrathful actions have to be employed to do that, it doesn’t matter what people think if you are acting correctly with a pure motivation. One’s actions are always being misinterpreted anyway and being attached to reputation is a worldly concern that’s an obstacle to Dharma.

    To address Florence’s point, practising patience doesn’t mean allowing someone to punch you in the face, and because you think it’s the Buddhist thing to do, just to just keep quiet and take it – it’s about keeping a peaceful mind, free from anger,and not retaliating. It’s bad karma for that person who is punching you and so it’s in their best interest that you stop them, even if you have to hit back without anger. Being Buddhist doesn’t mean being passive, so that’s a wrong view. Real Bodhisattvas can even fight to protect living beings and to safeguard their own opportunity to attain enlightenment to benefit everyone.

    The Dalai Lama’s actions are un-Buddhist because he’s denying religious freedom to DS practitioners and he has to be told that he’s made a big mistake and for it to be made clear to everyone that’s he’s made a big mistake. WSS are protecting the Buddhadharma from degeneration and loving him by pointing that out. Any other perception you have of WSS activities is down to your delusions.

  34. dst said:
    “If someone is making a mistake, it’s okay to say so, especially if that mistake affects all living beings. If wrathful actions have to be employed to do that, it doesn’t matter what people think if you are acting correctly with a pure motivation. One’s actions are always being misinterpreted anyway and being attached to reputation is a worldly concern that’s an obstacle to Dharma.”

    I see you are able to understand why HHDL and so many other eminent Buddhist masters are pointing out the faults (demerits) and dangers of DS practice.

    With respect to your explanation on patience, there are different levels. To accept to be beaten and not to beat back is patience as well. The Vinaya lists stories about this, e.g. a Bhikshu who is hit by someone very strongly on the back on his alms round, he shows no reaction and just continues to walk, and the Buddha is praising him for this. In the Bodhisattva vows you find the Four Trainings of a Religious Person:
    1) not to criticize when someone criticizes you
    2) not to beat when someone beats you
    3) not to get angry when someone gets angry with you
    4) not to respond with slander when someone slanders you

    In general it is true, that the most important thing is to keep a peaceful mind or to respond to harm with a peaceful mind. However this is tricky. You can have “cold hate” (as we say in German ‘kalter Hass’) you can be very peaceful and happy in taking revenge, in acting non-virtuous (like stealing) or in harming others.

    Practising patience and not to respond at all is not passive, it is active. Likewise those who restrain to address the misleading and wrong accusations of WSS/NKT are not passive, they may be very active in their practice of patience and forgivingness.

    “Real Bodhisattvas can even fight to protect living beings and to safeguard their own opportunity to attain enlightenment to benefit everyone.”

    The problem starts if an ordinary being thinks he is a Bodhisattva and his actions would be in accordance with their high level of actions, and does not recognize that the own actions are not only ordinary but also discordant to the Dharma, and very destructive.

    for me your conclusion reveals a great level of confusion:
    you say:
    “The Dalai Lama’s actions are un-Buddhist because he’s denying religious freedom to DS practitioners and he has to be told that he’s made a big mistake and for it to be made clear to everyone that’s he’s made a big mistake. WSS are protecting the Buddhadharma from degeneration and loving him by pointing that out. Any other perception you have of WSS activities is down to your delusions.”

    and this contradicts clearly what you said in the same post just before:
    “If someone is making a mistake, it’s okay to say so, especially if that mistake affects all living beings. If wrathful actions have to be employed to do that, it doesn’t matter what people think if you are acting correctly with a pure motivation. One’s actions are always being misinterpreted anyway and being attached to reputation is a worldly concern that’s an obstacle to Dharma.”

    because a “protector” who is the reborn soul of a vengeful spirit creating trouble in Lhasa around the time of the 5th Dalai Lama and taking revenge to his enemies etc. is no object of Buddhist refuge. Since he also kills the own followers when they practice religious freedom by practising other Buddhist schools, he is not worthy of being practised in monasteries, and his sectarian deeds are not only violating the Dharma but also the refuge pledges of: 1. not harming other sentient beings 2. mundane deities are no ultimate object of refuge.

    You have no religious freedom when you practice Shugden, since he will kill you when you practice e.g. Nyingma (see Yellow Book) you have also no religious freedom when you follow NKT, you will finally be separated from everything which is not “made by Kelsang Gyatso”. Don’t cheat yourself.

    Now to say it in your own words:
    “Dorje Shugden’s actions are un-Buddhist because he’s killing other sentient beings who do not strictly follow the so called “pure tradition”. Since he is denying religious freedom to DS practitioners people has to be told that he’s made a big mistake and for it to be made clear to everyone that’s he’s made a big mistake. HHDL are protecting the Buddhadharma from degeneration and loving him by pointing that out. Any other perception you have of HHDL’s activities is down to your delusions.”

  35. “Dorje Shugden’s actions are un-Buddhist because he’s killing other sentient beings who do not strictly follow the so called “pure tradition”

    that is a lie – don’t be disingenuous.

    and don’t quote the Yellow Book at me either, for all the myriad reasons already given (many times) elsewhere.

    your arguments have become repetitive and circular now, falling back on mere repetition of previously refuted points – that’s unworthy of you: you can do better.

  36. lhundrup says:

    dst,

    you say ‘If someone is making a mistake, it’s okay to say so, especially if that mistake affects all living beings. If wrathful actions have to be employed to do that, it doesn’t matter what people think if you are acting correctly with a pure motivation. One’s actions are always being misinterpreted anyway and being attached to reputation is a worldly concern that’s an obstacle to Dharma.’

    So now by saying this, you have to came to agreement that DL speak with firm gesture about the spirit worship of DS which is danger not only oneself, but the whole community of Tibetan, is a wrathful action manifested to all of us but have again and again attack by ‘your one and the only pure guru’ with baseless accusation and defamation.

    But well, if you are talking about ‘your one and the only pure buddha’, well i have to admit that i will not give any damn on that any more.

    RUINED ONE’S SPIRITUAL PATH is not wrathful, but to the individual is DEVASTATING.

    MAKE ONE’S LOST THEIR INSPIRE FAITH in Buddhism is not wrathful, but is INSANE.

    THREATEN THE EX-MEMBER FOR LEGAL is not wrathful, but is just by wishing to keep the dark within the organization and not wishing to expose it.

  37. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    I agree with what you say about patience of not fighting back and someone fights with you is active and not passive, but this type of patience is the one that most people think of as patience from Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Life, and so forth. The explanation of fighting back with a compassionate mind is not so common and is more commonly misunderstood, so this is why I made the original post.

    In reality, it’s not appropriate for WSS to passively accept the destruction of the practice of Dorje Shugden by the Dalai Lama because this harms countless living beings by ultimately resulting in the destruction of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. Before Je Tsongkhapa appeared in Tibet there were many harmful misunderstandings about sutra and tantra pratice that Je T cleared up and such misunderstandings will no doubt manifest again, so without Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition – protected by Dorje Shugden – this world will be plunged into spiritual darkness. I don’t think you understand this because you consider Dorje Shugden to be a minor practice. This is not true at all.

    You state matter-of-factly that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. Where is your evidence? If you say the source of your belief is the 5th Dalai Lama this is incorrect because:

    1. it’s just the view of one person
    2. later he changed his view

    There is no other evidence that Dorje Shugden is a spirit, yet there is a wealth of scriptural and logical evidence that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition – far more than any that seemingly prove that he is a spirit. There is therefore no valid logical or scriptural basis for your view. Blind belief in the Dalai Lama is not a good reason for saying that Dorje Shugden is a spirit, but I cannot see any other reason why you would hold this view.

  38. lhundrup says:

    so do the arguments have given from NkTer become repetitive and circular now, falling back on mere repetition of previously refuted points – that’s UNWORTHY of you: you can do better EITHER.

  39. @dougal
    I wonder why you believe so much in the “400 years old Dorje Shugden Tradition” but not what the masters of this tradition have passed down and said and what devoted students like, Zemey Rinpoche, have written down. Do you reject and ignore what they have said?

    Do you ignore that Pabongkha Rinpoche said: that Shugden “punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low.” and “some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”?

    I can not see that you have refuted me, but I agree discussion in that context becomes always circling, I am a bit doubting if that is solely due to my own faults….

    @dst
    your reasoning is faulty. DS has nothing to do with Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, he did not even mention his name in a single syllable or stanza. He clearly named as the protector of his tradition Vaishravana, Kalarupa and the six-armed Mahakala. To distort this fact can be seen far more correctly as corrupting his tradition.

    DS practice is also not destructed, it is now – based on majority vote – removed from the monastic sites of the 3 Main Gelug seats, Ganden, Drepung and Sera. However, it can still be practised privately or in own monasteries and of course NKT. The monks who were expelled have their own monastery and they practice it there, they can practice it, have ffod and shelter etc., please, don’t spread too much misleading AgitProp.

    Je Tsongkhapa’s school is one of many valid schools in the Tibetan Tradition, and it is the youngest, for those who claim to follow it modesty and respect for those schools older than them, Nyingma, Kagyue and Sakya is the proper Buddhist approach. (Read what the Buddha said about respecting elders.)

    Je Tsongkhapa’s school came into existence without Shugden – this is a fact – it continued without Shugden for a long time, and we can assume it will blossom in the future also without Shugden, similar to how it started – without Shugden.

    “Spiritual darkness”, where?

    “it’s just the view of one person”, you seem to rely only on NKT and Shugden truth blogs and to turn a blind eye on everything else…Did you read my quotes above of some who see Shugden also as a spirit? Did you ever read what e.g. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and all those other masters said?

    As Dongthog Tulku pointed correctly out for Shugden’s enlightnened lineage – I use your words – “There no valid logical or scriptural basis for your view.”

    Its amazing to see how much you reject views contrary to your own…, and spin facts where there are no facts.

    I quote again Sakya scholar,Dongthog Tulku:

    You who claim that Dolgyal is inseparable from Manjushri, what is the source of your assertion? There is no prophesy or scriptural reference to this in any of Buddha’s teachings or in any of the works of Indian Buddhist masters or in the works of Tzongkhapa. If there is one, supply the quote. Even the primitive Tibetan deity, Machen Pomra, Tzongkhapa’s own birth deity was not accomodated within the circumambulatory path of Gaden monastery, but rather, his cairn was installed on the outskirts of the monastery. There is no doubt that Dolgyal, a reborn ghost, propitiated as a chief guardian deity of the Gadenpa doctrine is not in agreement with Je Tsongkhapa’s view.

  40. @Tenzin: for the millionth time: we reject and ignore your disingenuous literal interpretation of what these lamas said, in the Yellow Book and elsewhere.

    based on my understanding of his views (as seen from his own works, most notably Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, and from the works of his principle disciples and their disciples, i.e. the living lineage passed down from him) i do not believe that Je Pabongkhapa held the view that Dorje Shugden harmed any living being. the most obvious logical reason for this is that Je Pabongkhapa was a Buddhist and that he held the view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened Protector. as you know, to believe that an enlightened being, a Buddha, is harmful is to misunderstand completely the nature of the Three Jewels; it is impossible that Je Pabongkapa held such a wrong view.

    that’s the last i’ll say on this here. i maintain that you know all this very well and that your repetition of this lie is disingenuous and unworthy of your intelligence and your skill as a debater.

    @Lhundrup: have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

  41. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    I don’t think you understand the function and importance of Dharma Protectors, as I said before, but you’re not alone. You’re in the company of those who think Dorje Shugden to be a minor Deity and his practice to be of no consequence. I think this lack of understanding is more than enough evidence for the ‘spiritual darkness’ I talked about.

    Many great lineage Gurus of the Gelugpa tradition have held Dorje Shugden to be the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, and references to this can be found in texts going back hundreds of years. Are you saying they were all wrong and only the Dalai Lama and those lamas who support him either out of fear or misguided loyalty are right? We must then conclude that the Gelugpa lineage is destroyed since, if it were true, their own ‘realized masters’ couldn’t even tell the difference between a spirit and a Buddha!

    You keep going on about Dorje Shugden killing people – can you tell me one person who you know personally who was killed by Dorje Shugden? The Dalai Lama is vigorously mixing traditions and yet he is still alive, so what you say is not borne out by any evidence. I must therefore conclude that your belief is a superstitious one, born from the same silliness as having dreams of being strangled by a bearded monk.

    I do find Tibetan Buddhism is becoming more and more superstitious with its increasing reliance on oracles, dreams and portents.

  42. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear lhundrup,

    RUINED ONE’S SPIRITUAL PATH is not wrathful, but to the individual is DEVASTATING.

    Quite so – so the Dalai Lama should stop ruining the spiritual path of the Gelugpa tradition and devastating Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition by banning practices he doesn’t like based on his own wrong views.

  43. @ dougal so you reject the literally meaning of what Pabongkha Rinpoche has said, that Shugden “punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low.” and “some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.”?

    What is the interpreted meaning then of this, and why Shugdenpas killed the Director of the School of Dialectics and two other monks in Dharamsala, they probably had a more literally approach, who taught it to them that way?

    In “Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand” Pabongkha Rinpoche states “It is most unfortunate if you are now born a Muslim, for example, because you will never acquire the root virtue of reciting even one rosary of om mani päme hum, even if your life is a long one.” This is quite questionable and can easily be refuted. Reading this based on the context of the claimed supremacy of Gelug school and his own statement (quoted above) about other Tibetan Buddhist schools “practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths” it appears to be a rather dangerous and sectarian position.

    If you talk about mixing traditions, don’t forget that Pabongkha Rinpoche mixed Shugden into Je Tsongkhapa’s school, made it a central practice, and emphasised the Vajrayogini practice from Sakya school. This can not withstand the own demands of ‘purity’ or ‘not mixing’, since Je Tsongkhapa has not taught or made it central to his school of thought to practice Shugden and Vajrayogini. On top of that Pabongkha Rinpoche claimed the protectors of Je Tsongkhapa would have gone to their pure lands and have no power anymore because sentient beings Karma of our time has exhausted or changed. But if this would be true and you accept Je Tsongkhapa as omniscient than Je Tsongkhapa would have predicted that in the future the protectors he established for his school of though would be replaced by Shugden and a great lama called Pabongkha Rinpoche will change or reform his school of thought. But there is neither a prediction about Shugden or Pabongkha Rinpoche by the Buddha nor Je Tsongkhapa, hence their importance is not that big. BTW there are predictions about the Dalai Lamas and Karmapas being emanations of Chenrezig by Padmasambhava. I think, often the argumentation of Shugdenpas is like Don Quichotte’s fight against wind mills. Self-made claims which have to be defended by new self-made claims. Even the claimed praise and self-correction to Shugden by the 5th Dalai Lama does not exist, it is just not in his collected works.

    @dst
    I skip the points of the claimed importance of DS, since I am aware that there exist different views and I have no problem to let them coexist. The debatable question is how much the claims can be established as being valid by way of scriptures, history, reasoning and spiritual insight. Research offer enough material to weaken strongly the assumptions and claims of Shugdenpas. Since I dealt with this elsewhere, no need for more words.

    You said: “You keep going on about Dorje Shugden killing people – can you tell me one person who you know personally who was killed by Dorje Shugden?” read the Yellow Book. And his followers killed the Director of the School of dialectics. Personally I know one story that he tried to kill a woman (a former follower of Dechen), and a Nyingma lama with clairvoyance told this also to her, and performed rituals to protect her.

    You can call this superstitious but than you have to accept the claim of Shugden protecting Gelug school is superstitious too, “the same silliness as having dreams of being strangled by a bearded monk.” It is even much more superstitious to think he is a protector of the ‘pure’ tradition , since it is clear that he has no power to protect even the successors (Gen Thubten, Gen Samden) and NKT monks (e.g. Lodrö) and NKT nuns (e.g. Lodro’s consort or Samden’s consorts) of the most eminent Shugden lama in the West, Kelsang Gyatso, from polluting ‘the last’ ‘pure’ tradition, and bringing much harm and unhappiness to others… How did he protect them, by breaking their vows and inspiring KG to cover up the abuses so that they could continue until these abuses become finally known via E-Sangha and NKS?

    If you say: “I do find Tibetan Buddhism is becoming more and more superstitious with its increasing reliance on oracles, dreams and portents.” you have to say that also your Guru’s books are superstitious since he clearly speaks about clairvoyance, spirits, and his own uncle, Kuten Lama, is one of the oracles of Shudgen. You may claim you do not rely on oracles any more, but in reality the oracle, Kuten Lama, turned his back on NKT, and you had no choice than to renounce also oracles.

    There is also a difference in consulting oracles or mediums and using spiritual insight to judge what they say, and to rely blindly on what they say. Since you are Buddhist and accept the six realms as existent, it will be difficult to deny that there are beings in other realms who can be consulted. If you read the Vinaya or stories at the time of the Buddha, you should than also state that these holy beings and the Buddha and what they have written down is superstitious. You are free to do that ;-)

    BTW, Shugden is not part of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, and many eminent lamas oppose this as being spirit worship, see e.g. the quotes in the post you are actual commenting on.

  44. lhundrup says:

    dst,

    you say ‘Quite so – so the Dalai Lama should stop ruining the spiritual path of the Gelugpa tradition and devastating Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition by banning practices he doesn’t like based on his own wrong views.’

    it really make me wonder are your guys read the replied differ from you guy who are closed mind and ‘insist’ that your view are right or my English are just too broken for you guy to understand.

    I ever mentioned, and it not only once, but MANY TIME IT HAVE MENTION IN DIFFERENT EVENT AND OCCASION THAT FROM DL THAT, HE NEVER BAN, I REPEAT, DL NEVER BAN ANY PRACTICE OF DS BUT ONLY STRONGLY DISCOURAGE SUCH PRACTICE AMONG HIS FOLLOWER AND SUPPORTER.

    BUT NKTer JUST IGNORED SUCH NEUTRAL POINT BUT KEEP TWISTING THE WORDS WHICH SPOKEN BY DL.

    so may i know how is one spiritual path been ruined when such ban is NOT EXISTED???

    AND ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE STOP TWIST THE FACT AS DS PRACTICE IS THE TRADITION FORM JTK, YOUR IGNORANCE WILL JUST MAKE YOU A LAUHING STONE….

    well, i should be be too surprise then, as usual, and all just too familiar, when the NKTer cant prove their point to convict others, or can’t refute refute others by their close minded view, they will divert and attack DL again but INSISTED THAT he has banned the practice of DS where in actual fact there is no such ban existed, and again beat the bush around the tree.

    dougal

    how do you quite certain that i didnt spoke or even met NKT practitioner…how much YOU know about me…

  45. lhundrup says:

    some typo error, my replied above should read as ‘well i should not be too surprise then….’

  46. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    You said: “You keep going on about Dorje Shugden killing people – can you tell me one person who you know personally who was killed by Dorje Shugden?” read the Yellow Book. And his followers killed the Director of the School of dialectics. Personally I know one story that he tried to kill a woman (a former follower of Dechen), and a Nyingma lama with clairvoyance told this also to her, and performed rituals to protect her.

    Firstly, The Yellow Book is old hat. Secondly, it is not proven that Dorje Shugden practitioners killed Lobsang Gyatso, in fact the TGIE lied about a note that the Director of the School of Dialectics received from Dorje Shugden practitioners who were simply challenging him to a debate – it was read as a death threat on TV even though Geshe Helmut Gassner confirmed that the note was not a death threat. He was able to translate it and prove that Tashi Wangdi was lying. I don’t trust anything those guys says any more – Dalai Lama, Samdhong Rinpoche or Tashi Wangdi as they have all lied publicly. I believe the TGIE is corrupted by the eight worldly concerns.

    As for the one case you are able to quote, it does sound superstitious. So you don’t know anyone who has been killed by Dorje Shugden. If he does kill people as you claim, why isn’t he doing it now? He’d have a lot of people to kill given how the Dalai Lama and his followers are destroying Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition.

    Dorje Shugden is part of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition as Gelug lamas have relied on him for the past 350 or so years. What do you think? Do you think Je Tsongkhapa has retired to Tushita Pure Land and doesn’t work for sentient beings or to protect his own tradition any more? He’s a Buddha and so he is still working for the benefit of sentient beings in terms of his emanations, the lineage Gurus of the Gelugpa tradition. As I say, the consequence of not accepting that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is that Gelug Lamas have no realizations and so the tradition is already finished. I do not believe this. Dorje Shugden and his retinue are the nature of the 32 Deities of the body mandala of Guhyasamaja, so Duldzin Dorje Shugden is himself the consciousness aggregate of Je Tsongkhapa – you can’t get closer than to Je Tsongkhapa than that!

    If you deny the teachings of the great Lamas, why should we accept, for example, that Je Tsongkhapa is an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri? What evidence is there other than the teachings of the lineage? This is a degenerate age because such teachings are twisted to suit political purposes or are flatly denied altogether by the Dalai Lama and his followers who are more concerned about Tibet than the Buddhadharma. This is most shameful but it is also a reflection of the age in which we live, and it is our karma, sadly.

  47. hey Lhundrup –

    i’m not certain, mate, that’s why i asked. from what you say it seems to me that probably you haven’t ever met any NKT practitioner, but are instead relying on what you’ve been told to believe about them. but as i said i’m not certain, hence my question: have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

    then – the Dalai Lama has spoken about the “ban”. he made a ban. there is a ban. forced signature campaigns, expulsions from monasteries, etc. – if you want to call all this “advice”… well, good for you – but you’d be lying. now, ok – possibly you are completely misinformed; however i can’t help but suspect, once again, that you’re just being disingenuous.

  48. Tenzin –

    how dare you? that’s libel. a despicable action on your part.

    this is just the lowest of the low – to resort, once more, to this crude mud-slinging about those unsolved, horrendous murders. you clearly are without arguments left to make if you’re now stooping so low.

    so that’s it – i had some respect for you, once: i have no respect for you any more.

  49. “Firstly, The Yellow Book is old hat.”
    I see, what your Gurus once said is ‘old hat’ nowadays, I thought you respect so much tradition and to keep it ‘purely’?

    “Secondly, it is not proven that Dorje Shugden practitioners killed Lobsang Gyatso…”

    Interpol has issued wanted notices for two Shugden followers who are accused of having murdered Geshe Lobsang Gyatso and two other monks:
    – see Interpol on trail of Buddhist killers by The Times
    – see also investigative journalist Raimondo Bultrini’s* article A Spirit of the XVII Century

    BTW fanatical Shugden followers tried also to murder the assistant of Trijang Rinpoche’s incarnation (an event which contributed to Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche’s escape to the USA – see Bultrini’s article; the recording of the interview on the Tibetan radio station in Dharamsala is available), and they faced HH the Dalai Lama with death threats (see Dalai Lama faced with death threats by Washington Times). There is nothing funny about this.

    I leave it with this. Better to save time for more purposeful things.


    * “Raimondo Bultrini is a senior journalist of the leading Italian newspaper La Republica with over 32 years of experience in journalism… From the 70s to the 80s he investigated sensitive political corruption cases in his country and wrote many special features articles on Mafia, Red Brigates and on the new fascist bloodbath killings which occurred in Italy during those years.”

  50. as expected, when the nkter cant convict others any more, they will one sidedly ‘insisted’ those who know the issue with thorough study and intense study, talked with truth worthly person well search are ‘misinform’ and just ‘just being disingenuous.’

    But what NKT/WSS done to their self generated, one-side info and resources are ‘reliable’ and ‘worth’ to believe.

    And i am certain that the NKTer all are so ‘devoted’ to theri ‘pure guru’ that they are so BLIND TO HEAR ANOTHER SIDE ON STORY.

    Yes, this is KARMA really….

  51. they are the victims of the own spinning and the system NKT… the good news is, that distorted views on reality will finally collapse, because they are not based on reality.

  52. Lhundrup –

    “And i am certain that the NKTer all are so ‘devoted’ to theri ‘pure guru’ that they are so BLIND TO HEAR ANOTHER SIDE ON STORY.”

    yes, ok – thanks; you’re “certain”. ok.

    but have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

  53. dougal,
    I have answer you question, but since you trying to beat the bush around tree, that is nothing i can say…

    remember you once quoted this ‘your arguments have become repetitive and circular now,’

    not only that you have keep asking the question which you have asked before, that REALLY make me WONDER have all these guys with ‘a pure tradition’ are so ‘holy’ that can see a simple answer with simple English.

    as expected, when the nkter cant convict others any more, they will one sidedly ‘insisted’ those who know the issue with thorough study and intense study, talked with truth worthly person well search are ‘misinform’ and just ‘just being disingenuous.’

    But what NKT/WSS done to their self generated, one-side info and resources are ‘reliable’ and ‘worth’ to believe.

    And i am certain that the NKTer all are so ‘devoted’ to theri ‘pure guru’ that they are so BLIND TO HEAR ANOTHER SIDE ON STORY.

    Yes, this is KARMA really….

    you mean you have read my word of saying certain, but you just slip your mind to read my whole entire post…?????

    Anyway i shall not surpries by that, as this is typical ‘holy activities’ by NKTer….

  54. ermintrude says:

    I hope you dont mind if I, erm, intrude, but has anyone here stopped for a minute just to take a look at how crazy you look? I mean, in comparison to what you thought you were getting into when you found Buddhism, doesnt this all appear just the slightest bit off the mark?
    I wonder if all those middle class little old ladies that come to the NKT after theyve lost a patner or something equally traumatic, realise that, as part of their path, their mystical tibetan guru is going to ask them to scream that the Dalai lama is a liar, or if they realise if they dont, they will be thrown out? Buddhism? Sounds more like fundamentalist behaviour to most. Does a cow have buddha nature? Mooo!Oh Dougal, its time for bed.DST-youre a fundamentalist, naah nah na nah naah!

  55. ermintrude says:

    ‘Many great lineage Gurus of the Gelugpa tradition have held Dorje Shugden to be the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, and references to this can be found in texts going back hundreds of years. Are you saying they were all wrong and only the Dalai Lama and those lamas who support him either out of fear or misguided loyalty are right? We must then conclude that the Gelugpa lineage is destroyed since, if it were true, their own ‘realized masters’ couldn’t even tell the difference between a spirit and a Buddha!’
    Q
    Question-did Je Tzong Khapa hold Shugden as his protector?
    Q You state ‘references to this can be found in texts going back hundreds of years.’ references to DS as dangerous spirit can also be found-Are you saying they were all wrong?
    Q You state ‘those lamas who support him (do so) either out of fear or misguided loyalty are right’
    What about those lamas from previous centuries who denounced DS, before the birth of the Fourteenth-who were they afraid of; to whom were they being loyal?
    Q You state ‘We must then conclude that the Gelugpa lineage is destroyed since, if it were true, their own ‘realized masters’ couldn’t even tell the difference between a spirit and a Buddha!’
    Could it not be that, while the gelugpa lineage is intact, it is in danger of destruction because what were once its ‘own ‘realized masters’ couldn’t even tell the difference between a spirit and a Buddha!’I All fo youe arguments can be used against you-but for what? What is the point of this? You have relgious freedom. If you present all the facts about the issue to newcomers, both sides of the argument, then that grants them the religious freedom to make their own decisions-I wonder, is tha how it works? Or are people told the Dalai Lama is persecuting trillions of DS all over the known universe (apparently there were 479 billlion DS practitioners in Tibet you know!)

  56. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear ermintrude,

    If by ‘fundamentalist’ you mean someone who believes that everyone has the fundamental right to practise their own beliefs free from political control of a government (in this case, the TGIE) and free from criticism from people who think they know better, then, yes, I am a fundamentalist.

    I do not agree with politically controlled Buddhism.

  57. Lhundrup –

    come on: just answer the question! you HAVEN’T ever met any NKT practitioner, have you? you’re just parroting all this bile because that’s what you’ve been told to think!

    maybe i’m wrong – all you have to do to prove it is to say, honestly, that you’ve met many NKT practitioners and, in your experience, they have all proven to be exactly the kind of unthinking fanatics you’re talking about.

    of course, if you *can’t* say that, then who’s being the unthinking fanatic here, eh?

    @ermintrude – i think you’re generally full of it, but “erm. intrude” is genius!

  58. dst:
    don’t spin the facts. you and others have “the fundamental right to practise” your “own beliefs”, and neither you nor those who practice DS in India are “under political control of a government (in this case, the TGIE)”.

    The majority of monastics, Bhikshus, Geshes, Abbots and masters, have decided to remove this ‘practice’ – what they see as spirit worship and contrary to Buddhism – from the monastery sites, and you should respect this democratic decision based on majority vote. It is their right to run their places according to their understanding and according to the Dharma and Vinaya.

    Those who do not accept the majority vote had to go and can run their own places or monasteries.

    You, NKT, as well as everybody in India can practice DS at the own places. Nobody interferes with this. It is appropriate to remove a controversial practice – which is a basis of dispute, quarrel, schism and fight and which is not in accordance to the Dharma and Vinaya – from the monastic sites. There are procedures the Buddha laid down for settling disputes etc.; you can find this in the Vinaya, e.g. Mahavaggha, Kullavagga, chapters The Settling of Disputes and Schisms among the Sangha.
    In this context, I think, one could reasonably argue, that sadly instead of teaching and upholding the Vinaya and the Dharma, the leadership of NKT engages in politics and let run people who do not even belong to the Buddhist order against those who belong to the Buddhist order and follow the Vinaya, and the Dharma.

    If you wish to be “free from criticism from people who think they know better”, then, 1. don’t criticise others who know better than you, 2. respect their decisions they based on reasons and scriptures , 3. be non-partisan and get a better knowledge of the Vinaya and Dharma, and 4. base your critisism on reasoning and scriptures and not on baseless and slanderous accusations.

    If you think it is correct to criticise others and you do this, you have to accept that others may have reasons to criticise you and your decisions.

    Further I would like to ask you to investigate the situation right in front of the own doors, the NKT, and to recognize there what you accuse others, “politically controlled Buddhism.”

    I am not saying that it is correct that some shop owners in India forbid Shugden followers to buy in their shops, I think this is incorrect and this should be corrected and issued within the Tibetan exile community, likewise if there are or were other injustices. I think Robert Barnett has expressed this well already.

  59. lhundrup says:

    DELUDED MIND WILL BE ALWAYS DELUDED…what have to say for those who are spirit worshipper….

    they always ‘pick’ and ‘chose’ what’s fit for they ‘own true’ but REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE SIMPLE TRUE….

    and who is the one who ‘become repetitive and circular now,’….

    Those NKTer who i met are either too deluded to think for themselves due to the ‘devotion’ to their ‘pure guru’ or ‘who are too devastated to continued their practice due to their faith and devotion in buddhism have ruined by your ‘one and only pure lineage and pure guru’….

  60. lhundrup says:

    To add on, there are those who are having difficulties in ‘devotion’ for ‘your pure guru’ anymore, but are too afraid to move on or speak up as they will be deem as ‘have an impure mind’ and will go to hell…..

  61. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    Sometimes I wonder if you are for real! Do you really believe the stuff you post? I’m incredulous!

    So the ban was a ‘democratic decision’? There was no such thing. What about the many thousands of Dorje Shugden practitioners who are under the power of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile who had to break their spiritual commitments to their Gurus and give up their practice of Dorje Shugden or be cast out of Tibetan society? What kind of freedom is that? What kind of choice? Those who resisted were brave but they lost everything – families have been torn apart because non-Shugden practitioners had to swear an oath to Palden Lhamo to never have anything to do with Dorje Shugden practitioners spiritually or materially. The Dalai Lama is using his samaya with the Tibetan people and Protector Deity Palden Lhamo to drive through his political agenda – how completely shameful that such precious things should be used so selfishly and wrongly!

    What kind of freedom do I have when people like yourself, supported by the Dalai Lama’s popularity and public misconception of his ‘authority’, spread poison on the internet? You brand my Protector as a demon and my tradition as a cult even though we are simply trying to practice in accordance with the tradition that has been given to us by our Lineage Gurus. It’s ‘David vs Goliath’ when you take on the Dalai Lama. Even though he is completely wrong and has no historical or logical evidence to back up his position, he tends to be believed through the power of celebrity and charisma. It’s just as Geshe Kelsang says in Clear Light of Bliss:

    Nowadays, there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation, whereas a humble practitioner giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed. Buddha Shakyamuni cautioned his disciples against adopting such a mistaken attitude:

    Do not accept my teachings simply because I am called Buddha.

    What prophetic words! Don’t accept what the Dalai Lama says without evidence – and there is none. Gradually, people will come to see that this is true.

    Those who criticise Shugden practitioners in general and the NKT in particular are spreading the view that my tradition is ‘non-Buddhist’ even though our teachings are authentically Buddhist and we are trying to practice despite your interference. How much freedom do we have if people believe what you say? Again, there is a danger that people accept this simply because ‘the Dalai Lama said so’, and that’s good enough for them, never mind the facts.

    You ask me not to criticise the decision to remove the practice of Dorje Shugden from the Gelugpa tradition but it’s the Dalai Lama who started this in the first place. Not being content with stopping a practice he felt unhappy with, he felt he had the right to impose his view on others. The result of this has been nothing but division, disharmony and suffering. Who with compassion is supposed to accept that?

  62. Lhundrup –

    careful. i’m not trying to lead you into telling a lie, here.

    so you are saying that you have “met” several “NKTers” (some of whom were “deluded”, while others were “devastated”)?

    really?

    you have met NKT practitioners (not just read their posts on the internet)? were and when, exactly? forgive me, but from your English i assume that you don’t live in the West? again, maybe i’m wrong…

    my point – to be transparent about my intention here – is to check that your opinion is based on your own experience, rather than simply on a view you’ve been told to believe.

  63. also – for the record:

    i have never, ever believed that Kadampa Buddhism and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are the “one and only pure lineage and pure guru”; i have never been told this either, especially not by Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso! he has in fact stated explicitly, several times, that ours is not the only pure lineage and he has never, ever said that he is the only pure Teacher (in fact, i don’t remember him ever claiming to be *a* pure or holy being or Teacher!).

    i believe that Kadampa Buddhism is *a* pure lineage, and that Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is *a* pure Guru; they are my tradition and my Guru, but i have respect for many other traditions and Teachers.

    i wish you lot would get this through your thick heads: sincere reliance on one lineage and one Guru DOES NOT equate to a belief that all other lineages and Teachers are impure! you’re projecting this onto NKT. if you ever bothered to stop ranting and start thinking, you might see this.

  64. ermintrude says:

    Dougal
    Erm, in truth, I couldnt agree more-isnt this nicer than buddhist politics?
    DST-‘I do not agree with politically controlled Buddhism.’Then stop trying to control buddhism politically.
    If you devote say 10% of your time to genuine practice, instead of all this silly stuff, imagine the possibilities!

  65. dst:
    please get informed, your lack of knowledge is really striking…
    …even your blogs acknowledge that there was a stick referendum.

    Due to the isolation of nkt you may just miss the point how many monastics, geshes, abbots and masters support the removal of Shugden worship from the monasteries, and that they have the right to make their own places proper Buddhist practice places, as they understand it. As far as I can see and as far as I am informed, the procedure is in accordance with the Dharma and in accordance with the Vinaya. For 100% judgement one must investigate the situation in the Sangha in India unbiased, but it is not up to you who are not a member of the order to do that. However, I trust that those well educated and knowledgeable monks, abbots, geshes and masters issued the procedures correctly. That they have removed the practice based on majority vote is a fact.

    Maybe you start to cut your ties with NKT and learn more about Buddhism and the Vinaya….

    “Those who resisted were brave but they lost everything” – those who create turmoil in the Sangha and do not accept the decision of the majority can be expelled. It is incorrect to claim they lost everything. They have their places, food, accommodation, textbooks, money etc…. It is in all ways striking how much you believe the propaganda of NKT, and base your judgement on a fundamental lack of knowledge, spins, halt-truths, some truths and untruths… this cocktail actually is what has poisoned the mind of so many of the noisy protesters…

    Since you have quoted from KG’s book, maybe you read it again based on another perspective, some of the passages in his books are intertwined with his personal assumptions and beliefs, therefore his texts say sometimes much about himself. His passage you quote can be understood between the lines as follows:

    “Nowadays, there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation – like the Dalai Lama, whereas a humble practitioner – like me, GKG – giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed.”

    Those who understand the NKT context understand that this interpretation of this passage is quite likely the intended meaning.

    That you quote it here in that context and how you interpret it shows, that you have actually swallowed this underlying meaning, but dst, no authentic master would claim directly or indirectly to be humble and put himself in a better light than those, who are held in high esteem.

    You may also miss the point that HHDL and those opposing Shugden as being enlightened and of being a spirit have good arguments, and that neutral research clearly sees that the claimed ‘enlightened lineage’ has no solid basis, that Shugden was seen widely as being a mundane protector… You miss the point that there is some good reasoning (see e.g. von Brück’s research). Of course you can ignore all views and reasons, arguments and facts which oppose your view, but then, dst, don’t blame others, blame your own bias and lack of knowledge for the turmoil in your mind, not others.

    For me it appears that you seem to have read just nothing what is not made by NKT or Shugdenpas, otherwise you weren’t able to expose such a profound lack of knowledge as you do here; e.g. HHDL said clearly, that everybody can practice Shugden privately of course and he said

    “Others of you may be thinking, ‘well I am not sure of the reasons, but as it is something that the Dalai Lama has instructed, I must abide by it’. I want to stress again that I do not support this attitude at all. This is a ridiculous approach. This is a position that one should come to by weighing the evidence and then using one’s discernment about what it would be best to adopt and what best to avoid.”

    Now, my favourite technique, using your own words:
    “Those who criticise HHDL and those opposing Shugden worship in general and the monasteries and their votes in particular are spreading the view that these actions are ‘non-Buddhist’ even though our teachings are authentically Buddhist and we are trying to practice despite NKT/WSS’s interference. How much freedom do we have if people believe what you say? Again, there is a danger that people accept this simply because ‘Geshe Kelsang Gyatso said so’, and that’s good enough for them, never mind the facts.

    You ask me not to criticise you for your campaign against the decision to remove the practice of Dorje Shugden from the Gelugpa institutions but it’s Pabongkha Rinpoche who broke his promise in the first place, the promise he gave to the 13th Dalai Lama to stop propagating Shugden worship. Not being content with stopping a practice others felt unhappy with, he felt he had the right to impose his view on others, and to break his promise after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama. The result of this has been nothing but division, disharmony and suffering. Who with compassion is supposed to accept that?”

  66. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    You like to claim that NKT are ‘isolated’ but that’s not true because we have contacts in India and in the monasteries. We know the true situation whereas you, on the other hand, simply believe what the Dalai Lama has told you. You like to think you’re well informed but you’re not aware of even a fraction of the suffering experienced by Dorje Shugden practitioners who have had to separate from their families because of the Dalai Lama’s actions. You’re the one who seems out of touch with what’s going on.

    Regarding the ‘vote stick fiasco’, it was completely flawed because you don’t hold a democratic referendum in public view where everyone knows what choice you made. This doesn’t give anyone the freedom to choose something different. Ballots in Western democracies always give the participants freedom to vote in secret for a good reason. This ‘vote stick’ referendum was a travesty of democracy, designed to get the result the Dalai Lama wanted: support for his hard-line actions against Dorje Shugden practitioners. And, surprise surprise, it worked.

    The Dalai Lama has given no one permission to practise Dorje Shugden in private, where did you get that from? He didn’t even want to allow Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche to practise it – in fact he was going to throw some of his famous doughballs to see if it was okay! Does this sound like the words of someone who is tolerant towards Dorje Shugden practice, even in secret:

    Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also, continue this
    policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dhogyal is remembered.

    TP, either you are naive, ill-informed or disingenuous, I’m not quite sure which!

    You missed the point about the quotation from Clear Light of Bliss – Geshe Kelsang was not refering to himself as humble, he wasn’t refering to anyone, it was a general statement, but you’re so full of non-faith with respect to Geshe Kelsang that you want to see faults where there are none. That’s sad because he’s really a great Master, it’s only your own mind that blinds you and makes you think otherwise. With such a disparaging attitude towards your Guru I despair of you ever being able to discern the truth.

    With regard to the historical view of Dorje Shugden, it’s clear that he’s always been regarded from the beginning as a Buddha. You can check Trinley Kalsang’s research. I would like you to find me a historical quote, other than the fifth Dalai Lama (who later changed his mind) to show that it was widely regarded that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. There are none. The only quotes you gave in your article above were from contemporary Buddhist masters who are simply currying favour with the Dalai Lama by agreeing with him. This is why the Dalai Lama’s view is wrong – its the view of only one person who cannot justify why he is holding this view. And neither can you.

  67. lhundrup says:

    you say ‘my point – to be transparent about my intention here – ‘

    oh really….i shall ‘thank’ for your ‘transparent intention’ there huh….

    you say ‘i have never, ever believed that Kadampa Buddhism and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are the “one and only pure lineage and pure guru”; i have never been told this either, especially not by Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso! he has in fact stated explicitly, several times, that ours is not the only pure lineage and he has never, ever said that he is the only pure Teacher (in fact, i don’t remember him ever claiming to be *a* pure or holy being or Teacher!).’

    A typical nkter replied….no surprise there….i know i going to get the answer soon or later, now is depend who going to buy into it again…WELL NOT ME THAT FOR SURE.

    i believe that Kadampa Buddhism is *a* pure lineage, and that Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is *a* pure Guru; they are my tradition and my Guru, but i have respect for many other traditions and Teachers.’

    ya right, the are ‘such pure’ to the extent that only KG book been allow to read in all NKT centre….

    so take your point ‘sincere reliance on one lineage and one Guru DOES NOT equate to a belief that all other lineages and Teachers are impure!’

    i do agree this point, however relied on onlY lineage and one guru till the extent that making a fault accusation and baseless allegation to other spiritual head is a POSION IN DHARMA, who do nkt trying to mislead then with all these so call one-sided trustworthy info and resources….

    and i shall some amendment of what i say just for my previous post…it should be deluded may not be deluded forever, BUT FOR THOSE SPIRIT WORSHIPPER, THEIR MIND WILL BE DELUDED FOREVER…

    in return i shall say this back to you if you ever bothered to stop ranting and start thinking, you might see this.

  68. you’re lost, Tenzin.

    “Maybe you start to cut your ties with NKT and learn more about Buddhism and the Vinaya….”

    i see this everywhere you post, now, such as the New Kadampa Survivors forum, that group of vulnerable lost souls where you play Fagin.

    do you have any understanding of the effects of this action: actively encouraging people to break their vows, their samaya bond with their Guru? but then, in this perhaps you are only following your new “Teacher”, the Dalai Lama.

    well this is utterly, utterly disgusting. your thoughts and actions make me sick to my stomach.

    i used to think maybe you were just confused – but after your disgraceful lie re. the Dharmsala murders above i’m really not sure. do you actually intend harm? what are you – a Buddhist monk or a mara?

    it’s my belief that you have been so deeply emotionally scarred by Carola and everything that happened around her that you now have serious psychological problems. your vendetta against your Guru and his tradition is sick.

    you think dorjeshugdentruth has a mind in turmoil? you dare to claim to be the victims in this, as if it doesn’t start and end with the Dalai Lama’s ban? are you truly insane?

    or is your intention, in reality, evil, Tenzin Peljor?

  69. thank you dougal & dst for showing so vividly how NKT is functioning ;-)

    —-
    BTW, in the Settling of Disputes, as proscribed in the Kullavagga, they use ‘vote cards’, there is nothing about secret votes. The Bhikshus are always asked in public and directly, and they respond either by being silent (agreement) or by saying their opinion.

    The problem in this context is probably that you mix the Vinaya with worldly standards, and that you seem to know not much about the Vinaya (similar to me). Since I am aware that my knowledge is fragmented, I do not judge too much if they did wrong or correct. In general I know the Tibetan masters to be very precise, and since all accepted the procedure and all carried it out, there must be validity in this, since they are not stupid. (see also:
    The ‘Stick’ Referendum – against Buddhist and democratic principles?)

    You can continue to mix up things based on semi-knowledge, non-knowledge, some knowledge, some truths, untruths, semi-truths, bias and confusion, but better not to project this cocktail of confusion on those who are knowledgeable, wise, diligent, compassionate and experienced, the whole community of monks, masters, abbots, geshes in India who issued this formal motion. The monks from the three gelug seats are about 9.000, you should have a bit respect and restrained to slander them – at least if you follow Buddhist principles. For me, you and all NKT monks and NKT nuns they are elderly fully ordained members of the order, and it is that we have to be open to learn from them, and to be instructed by them and not to throw our own confusion onto them like you throw bombs in a dirty battle. However, if you don’t follow Buddhism, just proceed in your mode of behaviour according to the laws of your country, for you there is then no need to follow the Dharma and its principles.

  70. Agreed with you Tenzin.

    And we should be glad that we are not part of it any more…as we are not as ‘vivid’ :)

  71. ermintrude says:

    Oh Dougal, do calm cown darling!

  72. ermintrude says:

    ‘With regard to the historical view of Dorje Shugden, it’s clear that he’s always been regarded from the beginning as a Buddha. You can check Trinley Kalsang’s research. I would like you to find me a historical quote, other than the fifth Dalai Lama (who later changed his mind) to show that it was widely regarded that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. There are none.’
    Who is your audience here? Trinlsy Kelsang’s research does not affirm what you state (always a buddha from the beginning-have you read the research?) and there is clear evidence of anti Shugden quotes from various lamas-Please, are you mad?Look before you say these things; they are simply untrue and if you believe them you are undoubtedly deluded. If you are serious then you clearly cannot have a proper knowledge of the background to the deity and its history and are thus unfit to debate it. In short, if your understanding of the Dharma and the DS issue are equivalent, you just got to two in the breathing meditation!

  73. dst, some additions.
    …there is no need to “give permission to practise Dorje Shugden in private” since it is everybody’s freedom to do that. Witnesses in India reported that when HHDL made clear his point of view on Shugden, that he made also clear that this should not be understood to be followed because he said it and that people are free to do it privately or at their own places.
    A monk told me also personally that his teacher felt it difficult to give up Shugden completely and he approached HHDL, then HHDL gave him advice how to keep his commitments and to do a reduced version which fulfil the commitments he had.

    Personally I think, your and NKT’S judgement of the procedures in the three Gelug monasteries in India is either quite naive or quite arrogant or both. You have almost no knowledge about the extensive Vinaya and its procedures, you may have not even heard the name of the books and commentaries on it (e.g. by Gyaltsab Je), you have no idea how learned and free minded those masters, abbots, monks, and Geshes are, yet you project the NKT setting and your own lack of knowledge onto them, and call this confusion “the truth”.

    I don’t know where you have taken from the last quote in your post, probably from some of NKT’S/WSS’S self-generated sources…?

    However, thank you both for your posts, since they may help some to make their own mind on this.

  74. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear ermintrude,

    I could quote the praise from the 5th Dalai Lama where it is clear that the Great Fifth regards Dorje Shugden as a Buddha but you might regard this as controversial (I don’t) so let’s start with Drubwang Dre’u Lhas (17th Century) who wrote the first rituals to mention Dorje Shugden.

    First a praise to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen:

    Embodiment of all Conquerors’ wisdom and compassion power,
    In degenerate times showing in the form of a spiritual guide,
    Doctrine and beings’ sole refuge emanation body [sprul pa'i sku],
    At Dragpa Gyaltsen’s feet I bow.

    Dragpa Gyaltsen became Dorje Shugden and is honoured as a Buddha. What does that make Dorje Shugden, then?..doh, it’s a no-brainer! Thus Dorje Shugden was always a Buddha from the very beginning.

    However, more explicitly, in the invocation of Dorje Shugden and other protectors it says:

    Pure, primordial nature, free from grasping,
    Unceasing, spontaneous, timelessly unfabricated,
    From the ocean of undifferentiable bliss,
    As the single moon displays, please come here.

    Here Dorje Shugden is praised as the Truth Body and requested to come.

    I could quote all the other verses of praise of later Masters where Dorje Shugden is clearly recognised sometimes as Avalokiteshvara, sometimes as Vajrapani and sometimes as Manjushri. Thus his nature is the same as the three lineages (body, speech and mind) of Losang Dragpa (Je Tsongkhapa)

    People who dismiss the manifest truth are generally regarded as mad…so who is mad now, if you refuse to accept this?

  75. dst, I think you miss the point. The 5th Dalai Lama made a fire ritual to pacify/and or stop/destroy Shugden. In the prayer the 5th Dalai Lama composed he clearly states that Dorje Shugden “is harming the Buddhadharma and sentient beings. He clearly says that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s negative prayer resulted in his rebirth as Shugden.” (see the quote in my post above)

    Trijang Rinpoche claimed the 5th Dalai Lama would have changed his position later and he would have composed a praise to Shugden of self-correction, but such a prayer does just not exist in the collected works of the 5th Dalai Lama (see e.g. von Brück, also HHDL states that there is no such prayer of self-correction in the works of the 5th Dalai Lama).

    —–
    However, now a self-correction of what I have said. With respect to votes to settle a dispute in the Sangha, the Buddha explained three types of methods of vote of majority, the secret, the whispered, and the open method. According what I have understood, it’s up to the Bhikshu in charge to choose the method. About the open method the Buddha said:
    ‘And how, O Bhkikshus, is the open method of taking votes? If he ascertains (beforehand) that those whose opinion is in accordance with the Dharma are in the majority, the vote is to be taken undisguisedly, openly. Thus, O Bhikhsus, is the open method of taking votes.’*

    Once a dispute has been settled, and a monk complains or brings up the question of dispute again, then this is a fault of that monk.

    The method applied in this context is the fourth of the Seven Rules for the Quieting of Disputes, called “Where a majority vote is suitable, a vote is to be performed.” – according to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.

    *This information derives from “Vinaya Texts”, Part III, Sacred Books of the East, Vol 20; Edited by F. Max Müller, page 56.

  76. Atisha's cook says:

    hello Tenzin –

    my word: STILL harping on these points, even after they’ve been thoroughly refuted elsewhere! i must say, i’m pretty disappointed in you, like dougal above: i never thought even you would stoop quite so low as to claim that Ven. Lobsan=g Gyatso was murdered by Shugdenpas, when in fact nobody knows who was responsible. and i have a similar distaste for your encouragement to others to break their samaya with their Gurus! shame on you.

    anyway, that’s not my point here. my point is this: you believe the 14th Dalai Lama on this issue of the 5th, whereas i believe Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, his root Guru (according to him). this is because i find Trijang Rinpoche to be much more reliable, as a stainless Bhikkshu who never broke his commitments and promises to his Spiritual Guide – in stark contrast to Tenzin Gyatso, who has definitely incurred this great stain. so why then do you consider Tenzin Gyatso’s word to be more reliable than that of his Guru?

    what good can come from following a samaya-breaker? (and no, Je Pabongkhapa did NOT break samaya by publicly declaring his continued Dorje Shugden practice – he kept it).

  77. Hi Atisha’s cook,
    You can defame me but I would suggest you to restrain to defame HHDL.
    I’ve never said that Pabongkha Rinpoche is a Samaya breaker nor do I think so, besides the controversies on Shugden, I respect him, though I feel not very much close to him. (However, some of his teachings I find also very inspiring.)

    For ordinary beings like you and me it is – from a spiritual point of view – dangerous to accuse those masters of being Samaya breakers. What I said is that he broke his promise to the 13th Dalai Lama, and this is a fact…

    You seem not to know the accounts of students which hold different views than their teachers, and that this is completely acceptable according to Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana. To quote HHDL in this context:
    “I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche’s promotion of the worship of Dholgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dholgyal… My approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.”

    Je Tsongkhapa in his commentary on The 50 Stanzas on Guru Devotion states one should not follow “if it is an improper and irreligious command”, and he quotes the Vinaya Sutra (the Buddha): “If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it.” Also the Buddha rejected in former lives as a Bodhisattva those advice of his teachers which were not in accordance with the Dharma. Je Tsongkhapa states in his Lam Rim Chen Mo, that a qualified student must be able to discriminate wrong from correct teachings, and that one should not accept wrong teachings.

    Sorry, but you are a victim of a lack of knowledge and of having received only an abridgment of the Dharma.

    All the Buddhist masters I have met after NKT respect HHDL as a holy being and hold him in highest esteem, no matter what school they are. My main teacher, a Kagyuepa, said: “If you have questions regarding the Guru, follow the teachings of HHDL, his views are 100% in accordance with the Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana.” Later when I checked HHDL’s teachings on the Guru with Je Tsongkapa’s and other master’s texts, I recognized that this is true. I also recognized how much I was misinformed within NKT…

    So you may disagree with many things what I or HHDL say but maybe better to avoid to think you could call HHDL a breaker of Samaya. (What ever you think and state about me is your choice, I am completely ordinary, not so much faults will occur…)

    I wish you all the best in every sense of the word.

  78. Atisha's cook says:

    Tenzin –

    thank you. that’s a kind and worthy response.

    i do understand the teaching from 50 Stanzas on how, respectfully, to excuse onself from following one’s Guru’s request if we feel unable to fulfil it, and of course i agree completely with Je Tsongkhapa’s advice that one should *not* follow literally advice that appears to contradict the Dharma.

    however, in this case it simply does not make sense to say that all these great lineage Gurus of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition were “wrong – yes, wrong”, as the Dalai Lama has done. if these Lamas were in truth spirit-worshippers, then their refuge was faulty and they were not Buddhists! if this is so, then there *is* no lineage, and neither Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso *or* the Dalai Lama holds a valid lineage.

    in the context of their life’s works and teachings, i find this impossible to accept of all these great Lamas, especially as, in my experience, Dorje Shugden practice has never been about anything *other* than the sincere practise of refuge in the Three Jewels, bodhichitta and wisdom.

    unfortunately, however, it is very plain that the Dalai Lama has – by his own admission – broken the bonds he had with his Guru by rejecting his Protector and working hard to wipe out his heart practice “in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dhogyal is remembered” (he did say this, in fact – some other scholar can find the particular speech). i do not say it lightly, and i understand the dangers of defaming the holy – but i do not find the Dalai Lama to be a holy man at all. in the past, i would have kept this opinion to myself and rejoiced in others’ faith and practice if, inspired by him, they followed the path. but now that he is systematically trying to destroy the spiritual lives of hundreds of thousands, i find i must call him out. i pray that he changes and purifies his mind before he dies. i pray that you do too.

  79. fine AC, for me your response offers a basis to discuss, since we have a common ground, the acceptance of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings on Guru devotion.

    you say:
    “however, in this case it simply does not make sense to say that all these great lineage Gurus of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition were “wrong – yes, wrong”, as the Dalai Lama has done. if these Lamas were in truth spirit-worshippers, then their refuge was faulty and they were not Buddhists! if this is so, then there *is* no lineage, and neither Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso *or* the Dalai Lama holds a valid lineage.”

    let’s differentiate this, you can clearly see – e.g. from Wojkowitz, Mumford and also Brück’s research – that he was seen as a mundane protector who has to be controlled by tantric power. So your assumption that all those masters took refuge in Shugden needn’t be correct at all. Probably many of them controlled him by tantric power as they do it with other mundane protectors.

    I agree when one states that Shudgen is a demon or spirit (a common shared view among many high lamas) the question arises how Trijang Rinpoche could than propagate him to be a Buddha? This contradiction can’t be solved, I think. So every body involved has to deal with this conflict for himself and to find a mode/constructive view to deal with it. I know one lama who said for him it is not acceptable that Shugden is a demon, since this would imply that Trijang Rinpoche could not discriminate between a Buddha and a demon. On the other hand many high lamas from all four schools see Shudgen as a demon or at least as a spirit, are they no able to discriminate this either or is Trijang Rinpoche’s discrimination the only valid one and why he is correct and the other masters wrong?
    The lama I mentioned here, whose root Guru is Trijang Rinpoche, found his way to deal with it, he gave up Shugden, but does not accept the view that Shugden is a demon, since for him it is not acceptable that Trijnag Rinpoche would confuse a demon with a Buddha. Nevertheless this lama views HHDL as one of his main teachers and a holy being, HHDL is one of his root gurus too, and he is very close to HHDL.
    (In general all Gelug lamas I met or heard from say, for Westerners it is better not to get involved in this issue at all, and they say it is a Tibetan issue, which has to been solved among Tibetans. They say for Westerners this is not important, and try to keep Westerners out of this issue, because the think Westerners won’t understand, are distracted by that, and Shugden is just not that important.)

    Since there are many great lamas who either practised DS or opposed it, the argument ‘they can’t be wrong because they are so high lamas’, applies for both sides, those who practised DS, and for those who opposed DS. Both have their arguments and experience, both sides are very convinced of their view.

    Now, if there is such a controversy it has to been solved, and it should be solved in the sense of the benefit of the majority. Since other schools fear Shugden and feel harmed by that practice, and the history and inception of it is controversial from the beginning, it makes sense to discourage the practice in the institutions of the Gelug school (much more as it has not been established by Je Tsongkhapa.)

    You can read also the argumentation of the 100th Ganden Tripa, his points make sense to me:

    “The Mahayana teachings advocate an altruistic attitude of sacrificing few for the sake of many. Thus why is it not possible for one, who acclaims oneself to be a Mahayana, to stop worshipping these dubious gods and deities for the sake and benefit of the Tibetans in whole and for the well-being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the Vinaya [Buddhist code of discipline], it is held that since a controversial issue is settled by picking the mandatory twig by “accepting the voice of many by the few” the resolution should be accepted by all. As it has been supported by ninety five percent it would be wise and advisable for the rest five percent to stop worshipping the deity keeping in mind that there exists provisions such as the four Severe Punishments [Nan tur bzhi], the seven Expulsions [Gnas dbyung bdun] and the four Convictions [Grangs gzhug bzhi] in the Vinaya [Code of Discipline].”

    Contrary to this there is mainly the argument: ‘but Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche have taught it, it is a 400 years old tradition’ – but really what type of argument is this? Didn’t the Buddha say we should’t accept just because an authority or tradition says so (Kalama Sutra)?

    I use now a bit the understanding (lineage, mixing) of NKTpas:
    If you accept a lineage of Je Tsongkhapa, based on the fact that he never has taught Shugden, it follows, Shugden is not part of his lineage.

    If one investigates how this practice was mixed into Je Tsongkhapa’s school and how it developed one is faced with a pot of controversies and contradictions right from the start of its appearance at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama. (see neutral research) Since there are no such controversies with respect to the protectors Je Tsongkhapa has established (Vaisharvana, Kalarupa, Mahakala) why someone should cling to something which he never has taught, which brings so much controversy and is so much disputed, “because Trijang Rinpoche has taught it and he received it from Pabongkha Rinpoche” – what type of valid argument is the latter? It is a claim: “He has taught it, so it must be authentic.” Masters make faults, masters are rarely omniscient.

    I would hesitate to claim HHDL would have “broken the bonds he had with his Guru by rejecting his Protector” – because (as stated before) firstly it is completely acceptable to reject a teaching not in accordance with the dharma, secondly such a rejection does not qualify to be called a break of the bonds (or commitments) to the Guru. To break the commitments to the Guru in the context of HYT is rather difficult and you need an extremely negative mind to fulfil all the criteria to have done this.* It is rather very poor to think HHDL would have such an untamed and negative mind to have done that.

    Also to posit Shugden as Trijang Rinpoche’s ‘heart practice’ appears to me to be quite an exaggeration. Maybe you visit his incarnation in USA and ask him directly your questions.

    What is your source of the claim HHDL would have said “in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dhogyal is remembered”? – As long as there is no valid source for this, I don’t take this serious. NKT has generated so many wrong or spin-sources without that they are accurate in any way, that I doubt everything they say as long as I have not consulted an independent and reliable source.

    There is no problem to find HHDL not holy. Personally I am careful, if someone is praised and respected by the wise I have a strong feeling of restrain to defame that person or to think poorly about this person. The wise know it probably better than I. (Of course one should not even defame an ordinary being.) I think you can agree that it is not really in your capacity to judge if HHDL is a ‘samayabreaker’ since you don’t know his samayas and you don’t know his mind, do you?

    So if you feel that HHDL is “systematically trying to destroy the spiritual lives of hundreds of thousands” this assumption can be correct or can be wrong. Before you act it would be good to check if your assertions are correct or wrong, so that you are able to base your actions on reality and not to base them on assumptions.
    If you come – after unbiased exploration – to conclusion your assumption is correct, find a way to address your concerns in a way which is in accordance with the Dharma. To accuse HHDL to be a “samayabreaker” is not according to the Dharma, except you have clairvoyance and you know for sure, that this is a fact. But even then you should investigate if it is appropriate to state this in the internet or for a wider audience and if this will bring benefit or harm…

    Personally I don’ think that HHDL has to purify his mind, but I know for sure that I have to do it (you probably too), so lets work on ourselves.

    Thank you for your prayers.

    * see Fear of “A Breach of Guru-Devotion”

  80. ermintrude says:

    DST-well done for locating a couple of quotes which, on one occasion at least, hints at the enlightnment of DS. This however, is not the point. No one is disputing that some saw DS as enlightened. You are disputing the fact that the view of him as a worldly deity did not exist. This is obviously nonsense.

    Yes, i am mad. You are mad, the world is mad, arguing about DS is mad, dualistic thinking is mad, anger is mad….are you not mad????You are blinded by your own unwillingness to acknowledge anyones view other than your own, uninformed and zealous one. First do the history.

    If you really need it spelling out-search for references to DS as a mundane being. If you cant find then your either a liar or on dial-up!
    When the last time you actually studied anything outside the realm of pro DS propaganda? It looks like you never have.

  81. ermintrude says:

    DST-Im sure youve read (and discounted the following)
    I post it, not to demonstrate the best piece of work avaialable but rather because it is so easy to find (if you look for it)

    According to researcher Kay: „Whilst there is a consensus that this protector practice originated in the seventeenth century, there is much disagreement about the nature and status of Dorje Shugden, the events that led to his appearance, onto the religious landscape of Tibet, and the subsequent development of his cult.”[2]

    There are two dominant views:[3]

    * One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being)
    * Opposing this Position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a ‘jig nen pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector)

    Kay examines:[3]

    “One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being) and that, whilst not being bound by history, he assumed a series of human incarnations before manifesting himself as a Dharma-protector during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. According to this view, the Fifth Dalai Lama initially mistook Dorje Shugden for a harmful and vengeful spirit of a tulku of Drepung monastery called Dragpa Gyaltsen, who had been murdered by the Tibetan government because of the threat posed by his widespread popularity and influence. After a number of failed attempts to subdue this worldly spirit by enlisting the help of a high-ranking Nyingma lama, the Great Fifth realised that Dorje Shugden was in reality an enlightened being and began henceforth to praise him as a Buddha. Proponents of this view maintain that the deity has been worshipped as a Buddha ever since, and that he is now the chief guardian deity of the Gelug Tradition. These proponents claim, furthermore. that the Sakya tradition also recognises and worships Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. The main representative of this view in recent years has been Geshe Kelsang Gyatso who, like many other popular Gelug lamas stands firmly within the lineage-tradition of the highly influential Phabongkha Rinpoche and his disciple Trijang Rinpoche.”[4]

    And

    “Opposing this Position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a ‘jig nen pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector) whose relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him a highly inappropriate object of such exalted veneration and refuge. This view agrees with the former that Dorje Shugden entered the Tibetan religious landscape following the death of tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, a rival to the Great Fifth and his government. According to this view, however, the deity initially came into existence as a demonic and vengeance-seeking spirit, causing many calamities and disasters for his former enemies before being pacified and reconciled to the Gelug school as a protector of its teachings and interests. Supporters of this view reject the pretensions made by devotees of Dorje Shugden, with respect to his Status and importance, as recent innovations probably originating during the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche and reflecting his particularly exclusive and sectarian agenda. The present Dalai Lama is the main proponent of this position and he is widely supported in it by representatives of the Gelug and non-Gelug traditions.”[5]

    Regarding English scholarly discussions Kay states: “Scholarly discussions of the various legends behind the emergence of the Dorje Shugden cult can be found in Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1956), Chime Radha Rinpoche (1981), and Mumford (1989). All of these accounts narrate the latter of the two positions, in which the deity is defined as a worldly protector. The fact that these scholars reveal no awareness of an alternative view suggests that the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance.”[6]

    Although proponents of the view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being claim that the Sakya tradition also recognise and worship Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being[7], Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya tradition, states that some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions.[8] Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that “The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a ‘jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala.”[9]

    Then there are lamas who regard Dorje Shugden as a destructive and malevolent (or demonic) force, like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche[10], Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche[11], former head of the Nyingma school, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche. The latter one is head of 25 monasteries in Bhutan and holds the view: People who practice Shugden “will get many money, many disciples and then many problems.”[12]

    According to Nebesky-Wojkowitz lower class deities, known as the ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma, are mundane or worldly deities who are still residing within the spheres inhabited by animated beings and taking an active part in the religious life of Tibet, most of them by assuming from time to time possession of mediums who act then as their mouthpieces.[13]

    The view that Dorje Shugden may be a worldly protector can be indicated by the fact, that Shugden is invoked by oracles. One of these oracles is Kuten Lama, an uncle of Kelsang Gyatso, who has served as an oracle of Dorje Shugden for more than 20 years, for both monastic and lay Buddhists who saught devine assistance.[14]

  82. ermintrude says:

    For quotes on DS as a harmful spirit, see http://www.dalailama.com/page.133.html-Quotes from all the following historical figures appear

    Trichen Ngawang Chokdhen
    o Phurchok Ngawang Jampa
    o Yongzin Yeshi Gyaltsen
    o Thukan Lobsang C Nyima
    o Jigme Dhamchoe Gyatso

    There are also numerous quotes from contemporary lamas such as Jamyang Khyentse, Sakya Trizin, Dezhung Rinpoche, Mindroling Rinpoche, Chagdud Tulku, all of which are easily findable and in the public domain.

    These are pointed to to demonstrate that you DST are unwilling to acknoweldge fact to ‘win’ your silly argument.

  83. ermintrude says:

    what can be the outcome of your argument? Will it help abandon attachement to this life; to syclic existence; to selfish purposes; to wrong views? I see none of these as a consequence-How then can it be Dharma? This is JUST politics, the samw politics that gouged eyes out in Tibet, the same politics that is played by governements all over the world. So what is your intention? What are you trying to win? Religious freedom (which you already have) The fredom to condemn the Dalai lama (you already have it) the freedom to worship DS (you already have it) Tell me, what do you hope to win and how much does that have to do with REAL dharma????Youre lost people;Just try four thoughts (thats lam rim mostly) cherishing others, then non-clinging. if tha path you practice is like this, its dharma. If not, your trapped in somebody else’s political game. Which is it??

  84. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear ermintrude,

    Any ‘fact’ that appears on the Dalai Lama or TGIE’s websites definitely needs to be double checked as they have a habit of being ‘economical with the truth’.

    Of the quotes on the Dalai Lama website, at least two of them have no direct reference to Dorje Shugden at all (it shows how flimsy their evidence is when there is only a handful of quotes and two them don’t even refer to DS) I’d like to get someone independent to translate the Tibetan as….ahem….anyone who translates a request to debate as a death threat has got to have a dodgy working knowledge of Tibetan, wouldn’t you agree? :) What other ‘mistakes’ might they make, I wonder?

    I’m not denying the fact that ignorant people see Dorje Shugden as a worldly being and that this view exists. Whatever we see depends upon our karma and for those with impure minds, DS could only appear as an ordinary being. Maitreya manifested as a dog and Tilopa as an old fisherman who fried fish alive, so while our mind is imperfect, we shall see imperfect things. However, sublime beings such as Sakya and Gelugpa lamas who wrote the practices of Dorje Shugden and later lamas such as Trijang Rinpoche see the truth and they see the enlightened nature of Dorje Shugden.

  85. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    The Dalai Lama’s website claims that at the time of Trichen Ngawang Chogden, a spirit possessed a man at Draksep. This is one of the quotations where Dorje Shugden is not mentioned by name but the text erroneously claims that the spirit was Dorje Shugden. According to the story, the spirit was cast out by Tri Rinpoche.

    Trichen Ngawang Chogden’s reincarnation, Trichen Tenpa Rabgye wrote rituals associated with Dorje Shugden:

    http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/among-shugden-texts-1759.html

    Why would he write rituals for a spirit his previous incarnation had cast out? It’s therefore clear that the ‘facts’ are wrong in this case. I wonder how many others are wrong too?

  86. dst,
    I would like to suggest to you to slow down all your baseless accusations a bit (Any ‘fact’ that appears on the Dalai Lama or TGIE’s websites definitely needs to be double checked as they have a habit of being ‘economical with the truth’. or ignorant people see Dorje Shugden as a worldly being) and to mend your own blogs and websites which are full of misinformation, and have – as far as I have seen – not any reliable or valid source but are full of spins.

    If you don’t stop your accusations no further post will be approved, and the last two will be deleted. You can be furious on your own blogs.

    However, mindful and reasonable discussion is welcomed. tp

  87. Atisha's cook says:

    to respond to your points, Tenzin:

    how can the Root Guru of the majority of our Gelugpa Lamas – including almost all those who have brought Je Tsongkhapa’s doctrine to the West in the 20th century – be mistaken, at fault, and unable to distinguish a spirit from a Buddha?

    now, of course, there may be respected Lamas who hold a different view, and who agree with the Dalai Lama. there are certainly those many who have chosen to publicly support his view – however, i have grave misgivings about this. are they speaking freely, giving their true opinion, or are they acting as you suggest i should act: agreeing with this only because they believe that opposing it would cause too many problems for them and too much disharmony in the Tibetan community?

    if you say: the Tibetans have freedom because they can choose not to attend the Dalai Lama’s teachings or live in any the Three Seats i would counter that by asking you if you have ever really considered their position? let’s be honest here: for a Tibetan to speak out against the Dalai Lama is seen as treason by Tibetans in general. when the Dalai Lama says that continuing to engage in a practice will shorten his lifespan and damage the Tibetan national cause he is – knowingly – making outcasts and pariahs of those who choose to exercise their “freedom”.

    it takes a very brave Bodhisattva to put themselves and their families through such pain and conflict to uphold their spiritual tradition for the benefit of all living beings. having met *many* of these brave Tibetans i can tell you: they do not have freedom.

    if you say that NKT and western Shugdenpas have freedom then i would ask you: what freedom do we have to practise our tradition and to pass on our spiritual path to future generations when people like you – inspired by the Dalai Lama – make such efforts to “warn” people away from us, calling us a “cult” and “spirit-worshippers”? what freedom does our lineage have to bring benefit to others and liberate them from the tyranny of their delusions when the world’s most famous “Buddhist” publicly proclaims that it is not Buddhism but spirit-worship.

    there is no freedom, Tenzin. the Dalai Lama’s word is incredibly powerful; the majority of people in this world accept it without thinking (though you claim that you do not). he knows this very well, and he is fully aware of the effect his words will have.

    it was in Caux, Switzerland on July July 14th 1996, that the Dalai Lama said:

    Everyone who is affiliated with the Tibetan society of the Ganden Phodrang government should relinquish ties with Dholgyal. This is necessary since it poses danger to the religious and temporal situation of Tibet…

    Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also, continue this policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dholgyal is remembered.

    the Dalai Lama has become, over the last 50 years, the de facto spiritual leader of all Tibetans, as well as the political leader – an unprecedented position. from what we see in person, on the news and on the internet, in the minds of the vast majority of Tibetans nowadays there is no distinction between Tibet, the Dharma, and the Dalai Lama: their nationalism is religious. the Ganden Tripa’s words that you quote strike me as indicative of this. he says: “Thus why is it not possible for one, who acclaims oneself to be a Mahayana, to stop worshipping these dubious gods and deities for the sake and benefit of the Tibetans in whole and for the well-being of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.” why is the Ganden Throne Holder making a religious decision for the sake of political entities: Tibet and the Dalai Lama? why does he not mention the holy Dharma, or Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition?

    as i’ve said elsewhere, whether or not Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is, to some extent, a red herring. this issue is one of religious freedom. i believe that, contrary to your view, the Dalai Lama *is* trying to destroy religious freedom. it is disingenuous in the extreme to claim, as both you, he and representatives of the TGIE have done, that people *have* freedom to practise as they see fit. who has such freedom, to contradict the Dalai Lama without harm?

    you ask me to consider that my Gurus might not be omniscient and they might have made a mistake. i say: of course i have considered this! (have you?) i agree absolutely that we must rely on the meaning of the Kalama Sutra in all our thoughts and actions: this is why i have checked very carefully precisely what is the Dharma that i have received, who are the objects of refuge to whom i pray, and what are the effects of the practices i engage in. as i mentioned before: when i pray to Dorje Shugden i am praying to Buddha, Guru Manjushri appearing as a Dharma Protector. i am praying for spiritual protection, help and blessings to increase my conventional and ultimate bodhichitta, and for beneficial conditions for my practice – nothing else! i have a question for Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche: where’s my money and disciples?? :-)

    you say: “If you come – after unbiased exploration – to conclusion your assumption is correct, find a way to address your concerns in a way which is in accordance with the Dharma. To accuse HHDL to be a “samayabreaker” is not according to the Dharma, except you have clairvoyance and you know for sure, that this is a fact. But even then you should investigate if it is appropriate to state this in the internet or for a wider audience and if this will bring benefit or harm.”

    i say to you that i do not do this lightly. i do not speak out, write on the internet, or protest outside his “Dharma teachings” without very carefully considering all the evidence that i can find and weighing my options and my responsibilities with great care. i do not blindly follow whatever my Guru tells me to think and do – because he has told me not to do this!

    i believe – looking at *all* the evidence available to me (the very same evidence that’s available to you, bar my own personal experiene of my practice) – that the Dalai Lama’s actions are harmful and that if he is not opposed a great spiritual tradition will be destroyed. if i must tell people publicly that he is a liar and that he has broken promises made to his own Guru in order to stop him, then so be it; i will accept this karma.

  88. Atisha's cook says:

    i forgot to address your point re. the fact that Je Tsongkhapa did not teach Dorje Shugden practice.

    i don’t see that this invalidates the practice. the karma of living beings changes. we no longer have the karma to receive benefit directly fom the doctrine of Buddha Kanakamuni, for example. because Kanakamuni (presumably) did not foretell the appearance of Je Tsongkhapa, or Zen Buddhism, or the Theravada Forest Tradition, does not invalidate these things. there are many Masters and lineages that were not foretold explicitly by Buddha Shakyamuni either, but they are still valid.

    it is difficult for ordinary beings such as myself to know for certain the nature of any deity, teaching or practice. i must therefore – to an extent – rely on the word of those Teachers in whom i have faith. however, this is not sufficient; i *must* also check, using my wisdom, to the best of my ability: is this instruction in accordance with the Dharma, the extant Teachings of the Buddha of this time, Buddha Shakyamuni? if they are not, then i cannot accept the teaching. if they *are*, then in dependence on my faith in my Gurus i can wholeheartedly rely on the practice.

    the Gurus of my lineage have told me that now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden because beings of this time have a closer karma with this Protector than with others. having carefully checked that this practice is valid and appropriate and in perfect accordance with Lord Buddha’s teachings, i am very happy to rely on this Protector, understanding that he is the same nature as the previous enlightened Protectors of Je Tsongkhapa’s doctrine, but that i, personally, have a closer karma with this manifestation.

    i am also perfectly happy that others, who do not share my faith in my Gurus, do not agree with this and wish to practise their own Protectors, lineages and traditions. that is fine; we can all co-exist harmoniously in mutual respect. but when someone else tries to destroy my lineage, for reasons i find completely invalid, well then i must object.

  89. This is a corrected response to AC’s comment

    Dear AC,
    you ask:
    “how can the Root Guru of the majority of our Gelugpa Lamas – including almost all those who have brought Je Tsongkhapa’s doctrine to the West in the 20th century – be mistaken, at fault, and unable to distinguish a spirit from a Buddha?”

    Why Gurus can’t make faults? Why Trijang Rinpoche has to be unfailing in every point? Why he may not have made a fault with respect to DS? Why HE must be right, and all those opposing him must be wrong?

    Also in the Sutras there are stories that spirits or demons appeared as Buddhas, and Patrul Rinpoche states in one of his texts, that demons in the guise of a Buddha are hard to be discriminated from pure visions of Buddhas. Faults can happen.

    you say:
    “now, of course, there may be respected Lamas who hold a different view, and who agree with the Dalai Lama. there are certainly those many who have chosen to publicly support his view – however, i have grave misgivings about this. are they speaking freely, giving their true opinion, or are they acting as you suggest i should act: agreeing with this only because they believe that opposing it would cause too many problems for them and too much disharmony in the Tibetan community?”

    If you look unbiased in the records of those opposing Shugden, those high lamas have spoken against him long before HH the 14th Dalai Lama advised against the practice. This is a fact which can be easily understood and verified if one reads openly the history of Shugden. Above in the post are some records, didn’t your read them?
    In general Tibetans say their opinion freely, and they oppose the Dalai Lama, see e.g. Pico Iyer, or the actual debate of the Middle Way. Nyingmapas, who are altogether against this practice, they were almost never involved in politics, so their objection against Shugden cant be posited to derive from “politics”. Actual the Nyingmapas also urged HHDL to speak against this practice (you find this in Mills’ research). They refused to work in the Tibetan Government due to the Gelug’s involvement in Shugden worship, because they could not collaborate with a government where officials perform a practice directly harming them and their school.

    The history of Shugden opposition is long, and opposition existed long long before HH the 14th DL said anything to this. So when you ask “now, of course, there may be respected Lamas who hold a different view,” – the “now” is plain wrong in this context, because voices and opposition against Shugden exist since it appeared. The first who opposed it was the 5th DL.

    you say:
    “if you say: the Tibetans have freedom because they can choose not to attend the Dalai Lama’s teachings or live in any the Three Seats i would counter that by asking you if you have ever really considered their position? let’s be honest here: for a Tibetan to speak out against the Dalai Lama is seen as treason by Tibetans in general. when the Dalai Lama says that continuing to engage in a practice will shorten his lifespan and damage the Tibetan national cause he is – knowingly – making outcasts and pariahs of those who choose to exercise their “freedom”.”

    Firstly Tibetans have freedom, who tells you otherwise, what Tibetans do you know? I know Tibetans, I speak with Tibetans, what are you telling? There are so many lamas and monasteries they can follow…, they can set up their own monasteries as well.

    HHDL made very clear that those who wish to receive empowerments from him, should not practice Shugden, because as Pabongkha Rinpoche said (see quote in the post above) Shugden will harm those who practice also other schools (especially Nyingma) what HHDL does. This is counter-productive if the student practices something which directly harms his teacher. Moreover Tantric relations are quite tricky and the master can issue requirements which protect both sides from being harmed.

    My own teacher said, that in general though Tibetans love and respect their teachers, they don’t do what they say. So when HHDL is issuing something like this he knows that not every body will follow it. On the first glance there seems to be some truth in it, that a strong and repeated statement against Shugden may make followers “outcasts and pariahs”, on the other hand, one of the Shugden monks I know did never complained about the Dalai Lama, but his own Tibetan Shudgen lama who forbid him to have an image of the Dalai Lama. As far as I can see the Tibetan community is by far not that homogeneous as a Westerner who has never lived with them may assume. So, personally I think from a distance your argument may make sense but AC, you know nothing about Tibetans, you never lived with them, you project your assumptions from your Western armchair onto that people, based on the misinformation NKT/KG is giving (that HHDL is a mere politician, who would strive to control all, who is greedy for power and Tibetans would either fear him or like slaves follow what ever he said, like blind and stupid puppets.)

    However, to say something about this in a proper way – free from personal presumptions and narrow minded views – this needs more unbiased research. I think we both lack the knowledge to be able to judge this. But what may be different is, that I have a deep appreciation for the complexness of the Tibetan society, Buddhism and culture and, since I do not know so much, I am rather restrained to say too much about this.
    However, personally, it is not acceptable for me that there were posters with people who practice Shugden, showing their face and name. I don’t know who is responsible for this and if this is a rare case or if this happened all over in the Tibetan settlements. On the other hand since tantric practice is secret, I wonder if people run with marks on their head “I am a Shugden practitioner” to become “outcasts and pariahs”. However, the mood – on both sides – can become hysterical and unrealistic, so the Tibetan society may have to work on that. But as Tibet scholar Barnett said, if there are injustices these should be addressed and worked on in their own community. Its not up to stupid Westerners who lack almost any understanding and sensitivity of Tibetan Culture and Custom, History, cross-cultural context etc. to tell Tibetans what to do and to start such a vile media campaign as NKT did.

    You say Shugdenpas suffer on those opposing them, those opposing them say, they suffer on Shugdenpas…; the killed monks are on the side of those opposing Shugden worship….

    I know both sides and their arguments pretty good, and I know some of the lamas involved, and after investigation on my own, I came to conclusion that almost everything I heard from Shugdenpas and Shugden lamas are either exaggerations, spins, or lack substantial evidence or they just ignore certain facts which oppose their own world view or even produced facts which lack historical evidence – its amazing to observe that. Not only this, some of them and their followers seem to be the master in victimizing themselves while accusing others. These two poles of pro and con can’t be harmonized as far as I witnessed it.

    you say:
    “if you say that NKT and western Shugdenpas have freedom then i would ask you: what freedom do we have to practise our tradition and to pass on our spiritual path to future generations when people like you – inspired by the Dalai Lama – make such efforts to “warn” people away from us, calling us a “cult” and “spirit-worshippers”? what freedom does our lineage have to bring benefit to others and liberate them from the tyranny of their delusions when the world’s most famous “Buddhist” publicly proclaims that it is not Buddhism but spirit-worship.”

    firstly you can ignore me, secondly you can correct me, thirdly you can oppose me, fourthly you can suede me. So where is your lack of freedom? it is plain wrong to claim I would “inspired by the Dalai Lama – make such efforts” – my engagement to correct what I perceive as NKT’s or WSS’s misleading spins I do completely on my own. My main motivation is that I feel people should have correct information and I am convinced that NKT does just not give correct information. Actual, I hope that people have through my actions the freedom to make up their own minds.

    That I warned in an interview about NKT is inspired by being witness of the suffering people experienced and still experience through following NKT. When I say my opinion that NKT is a “cult”, I base my opinion on the criteria given by Singer. However, when I remember correctly, I’ve never called Shugdenpas “spirit-worshippers”. (Please disapprove me if I am wrong here.)
    So since I know a lot of people suffering directly based on the controversial setting of NKT, and I witnessed spiritual and even worldly live ruined by NKT, why can I not oppose the glossy self-advertisement and the perceived misinformation spread by NKT?

    NKT uses their right to state their pov, I use my right to state my pov. You have rights, I have rights.

    You ask:
    “what freedom does our lineage have to bring benefit to others and liberate them from the tyranny of their delusions when the world’s most famous “Buddhist” publicly proclaims that it is not Buddhism but spirit-worship.”

    state your opinion and pov, as HHDL does it. This is your freedom, this is his freedom.

    I could also ask you in return:
    “what freedom does HHDL’s (Je Tsongkhapa’s) lineage have to bring benefit to others and liberate them from the tyranny of their delusions when the world’s most missionary Buddhist group publicly proclaims that he is not a Buddhist but a liar, thief, saffron-robed Muslim, hypocrite, not even the Dalai Lama but a beguiler?”

    I answer it in the same way:
    HHDL should state his opinion and pov, as NKT does it. This is HHDL’s freedom, this is NKT’s freedom.

    You give a quote above, without reliable or verifiable source, that’s why I don’t accept it. NKT – especially Jim Belither in his brochure he made for NKT’s first media campaign – claimed so much wrong things, that I do nothing accept what derives from the NKT propaganda machine, as long as I have not seen a reliable and verifiable source which says this as well.

    It is true that HHDL is quite powerful, but why? He has no army, no weapons, and no PR arm like China (or NKT) nor does he manipulate people by misleading information as PRC and NKT leadership are doing. He is powerful because people trust his wisdom and compassion and have genuine respect for him, and he has something to offer for others. If he is “the de facto spiritual leader of all Tibetans, as well as the political leader – an unprecedented position.” then he is this, because the Tibetans made him to this. Why shouldn’t they, what is about their freedom to choose a person who has from their pov much integrity and they can rely upon? In their extremely difficult exile situation they need a person who has much integrity, is reasonable, a religious person, a smart politician, who is free from self-interest, and works hard for the welfare of the majority – who, as Prof Williams puts it “encourages a democratic political system for the Tibetans within which the old sectarian and regional rivalries and antagonisms could have no place”, or as Williams remarked in The Guardian:

    “The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant?”

    And why do you worry about Tibetans “in the hand” of HH the Dalai Lama and not about Tibetans “in the hands” of China, who torture, kill and oppress them? And why do you not recognize that your own Guru has far more power over his Western followers than HHDL has over any Tibetan, and that your own Guru gives far less religious freedom than HHDL does? Why not mend your own business?

    For you HHDL and Tibet maybe mere “political entities”, however for Tibetans Tibet and HHDL and the Dharma are not different entities. They are intertwined. Like you need a human body as a vessel to practice Dharma, or water needs a vessel to be preserved, the Dharma needs people and their culture as a vessel to be preserved.
    The Tibetan history is in many respects unique and before you make superficial distinctions it is better to get a deeper understanding how Tibetan Buddhism has developed.

    I think, your question: “why is the Ganden Throne Holder making a religious decision for the sake of political entities: Tibet and the Dalai Lama? why does he not mention the holy Dharma, or Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition?” is based rather on your own inner categories you’ve learned in NKT:
    1. HHDL is a politician,
    2. HHDL is no religious person,
    3. “mixing dharma with politics” is bad and defiles the Dharma
    4. Kelsang Gyatso is free from “mixing dharma with politics”, hence he is pure and does not defile the Dharma
    5. HHDL is “mixing dharma with politics” hence he is impure, and defiles the Dharma.
    6. Tibetans are stupid and blind followers of the Dalai Lama
    7. If you disagree with your root guru you break your commitments to him, then you will go to hell
    8. The root guru is always right, and Trijang Rinpoche is the root guru of all Gelugpas, and the sole root guru of HHDL
    9. HHDL differs in one point with Trijang Rinpoche, hence he has broken with him, and forces others to break with him.

    Based on these basic assumptions it follows for Kelsang Gyatso and NKT followers:
    HHDL is a politician who is destroying the ‘pure Buddhadharma’, has ‘broken with his root Guru’, and is ‘harming all sentient beings’ by destroying the ‘pure tradition’ that ‘his root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche’ ‘passed down to him’. Hence His Holiness the Dalai Lama is ‘evil and cruel’.

    Amazing, what a powerful black-and-white ‘logic’ NKT teaches others!

    I think, the Ganden Tripa’s understanding is that Shugden is a dubious practice and this practice harms the Tibetand cause by causing sectarian divisions within the different Tibetan Buddhist schools. This in turn harms the Dharma and the preservation of Buddhism, and since Shudgen likes to harm those who “mix”, the practice harms also HHDL’s life or health – especially in a Tantric context.

    However, if you came to a certain conclusion, then follow your conclusion.
    (With respect to the quote of GTR, you can’t get money and disciples without having the karmic seeds, but if you have the seeds, it is said that the ‘blessings’ of Shugden will cause them to ripen very quickly, so that you internally have quick inner results of (unstable) experience in the Dharma, which may boost your pride to think you are something very special, and outwardly it manifests by being very successful in business and / or having much material sources and disciples or charisma. But these seeds, once ripened and experienced,a are at one point exhausted and due to this exhaustion of good karma, and the mind poisons developed through a perceived “quick development”, a lot of problems will arise, and it is said by some masters, people practising Shugden will find themselves finally in a devastating situation. And actual it is mainly this spiritual reason why so many Buddhist masters, especially Nyingmapa but also Sakyapa and Kagyuepa, warn about the demerits of Shugden practice, they want to protect others from the problems which will finally arise through this practice. Enlightened protectors work very differently to this.)

    If you are careful with what you say, perfectly fine.

    For you:
    “the Dalai Lama’s actions are harmful and that if he is not opposed a great spiritual tradition will be destroyed.”

    For others
    “the Dorje Shugden’s actions are harmful and that if he is not opposed a great spiritual tradition will be destroyed by making a spirit central to it.”

    for you it follows:
    “if i must tell people publicly that he is a liar and that he has broken promises made to his own Guru in order to stop him, then so be it; i will accept this karma.”

    I think:
    I restrain do call someone a liar or samayabreaker without knowing the other person’s mind or having absolute clear evidence.
    The evidence I have is the broken promise of Pabongkha Rinpoche he gave to the 13th Dalai Lama. But this would never induce in me a thought, he is a liar or he is a samayabreaker, and since I do not have such thoughts I won’t express it, and since I do not express it, I won’t experience the karmic results of accusing others wrongly.

  90. Atisha's cook says:

    just as a personal note, you said: “But this would never induce in me a thought, he is a liar or he is a samayabreaker, and since I do not have such thoughts I won’t express it, and since I do not express it, I won’t experience the karmic results of accusing others wrongly.”

    i’m grateful to you (honestly) for reminding me to be mindful of my speech. but are you certain, beyond question, of all you have stated about your own former Guru, Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso?

    comment TP
    I said: “I won’t experience the karmic results of accusing others wrongly.” Never I’ve called KG “a liar”. BTW I corrected my reply above to you, but now its quite long…

  91. Atisha's cook says:

    ok – that last message is entirely a personal message and i don’t expect you to post it on your blog (unless you feel it adds to the debate).

    comment TP
    For me it’s a good and reasonable question!

  92. the arguments in your post April 25, 2009 at 8:21 pm are mainly:

    – a mere claim, which states that now would be the time to practice Shugden
    – my gurus said so, hence it must be true
    – since I am ordinary I can not judge
    – hence I have to believe what they say
    – believing what they say is faith

    for me this is not at all an Buddhist approach which requires critical inquiry, a non-partisan mind, and the discriminating intelligence to be able to discriminate between wrong and correct teachings. Faith is mainly to have a clean clear awareness of the real existing quality of a person or phenomenon, and is therefore based on understanding (or wisdom), and not on a lack of self-esteem or presumptions.

    you say:
    “i am also perfectly happy that others, who do not share my faith in my Gurus, do not agree with this and wish to practise their own Protectors, lineages and traditions. that is fine; we can all co-exist harmoniously in mutual respect. but when someone else tries to destroy my lineage, for reasons i find completely invalid, well then i must object.”

    I say based on your words:
    “i am also perfectly happy that others, who do not share my approach to Buddhism, do not agree with this and wish to practise blind faith and their own Protectors, lineages and traditions. that is fine; we can all co-exist harmoniously in mutual respect. but when someone else tries to misinform others and ruins others spiritual lifes, for reasons i find completely questionable, well then i must object.”

    OK, now we object each other ;-)
    Thank you for the discussion.

  93. Atisha's cook says:

    Tenzin –

    with repect, you’ve completely missed one of the main points i made regarding my faith in Dorje Shugde, which was to say that

    however, this is not sufficient; i *must* also check, using my wisdom, to the best of my ability: is this instruction in accordance with the Dharma, the extant Teachings of the Buddha of this time, Buddha Shakyamuni? if they are not, then i cannot accept the teaching. if they *are*, then in dependence on my faith in my Gurus i can wholeheartedly rely on the practice.

    once again, you – like so many other critics of NKT – are seeing blind faith where there is none. i think i was pretty explicit in my post: “i *must* also check, using my wisdom, to the best of my ability: is this instruction in accordance with the Dharma…?”

    why do you lot insist on projecting blind faith onto us? where is that coming from, i wonder?

  94. Atisha's cook says:

    just as an aside: there was a slight linguistic confusion above, which isn’t very important, buty i thought you might like to know for future reference:

    you queried my statement: “now, of course, there may be respected Lamas who hold a different view”, saying that “now is plain wrong in this context”.

    in English, we say sometimes “now” in the same way as German people say “Also”, or French people say “Alors”; it does not always imply “at this time”.

    re-reading my sentence it is clear that it’s ambiguous – even an English speaker might not have been able to distinguish how “now” was used here. i did not, however, mean to say that these Lamas are necessarily a contemporary, modern phenomenon.

    to understand more clearly, you could simply removing the word “now” from this sentence and this would not change my meaning in any way.

  95. Atisha's cook says:

    can i also suggest that you don’t change your posts retrospectively? i’ve just now seen that you’ve done this, and it makes it very difficult for us to debate meaningfully if i am unaware of changes that you’ve made to your previous arguments! it might also render the debate imopossible to follow for other readers.

    it’s your blog, and you can do as you please, but in the interests of intellectual honesty and clarity i suggest it would be better to correct yourself in new posts, leaving the originals unamended, as i’ve done just now above re. using the word “now”.

    comment TP
    yes, I was thinking to do it in a separate post as well. The main points I changed in the comment I’ve marked as being changed are grammar or spelling (e.g. ‘integer’ vs ‘has integrity’), then I added a list of nine views which I think form NKT followers’ understanding, I used italic for your quoted comments, and added Williams and made some points more precise. I added also in another comment “Never I’ve called KG “a liar”. knowing that you are aware of this addition. I did this because it was late when I responded and my mind was quite dull, so my replies were also a bit dull. However, the general meaning or arguments have not been changed. But I agree completely and accept your wish “to correct yourself in new posts, leaving the originals unamended”. Thank you for pointing this out! I will do so!

  96. Thank you AC for insisting on your point.
    When I claimed “blind faith” I was aware that you don’t see it that way.

    you say: “you’ve completely missed one of the main points i made regarding my faith…”, I accept, this is correct.
    I agree that I responded to your post only by reading it partial and biased, and ignored the point that you aim clearly to avoid blind faith. Thank you for your correction.

    However, for me, some of what you’ve stated sounds like blind faith, e.g.
    – “the Gurus of my lineage have told me that now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden because beings of this time have a closer karma with this Protector than with others”

    But how do you want to check this reason – those teachers have given – as being a valid reason? You can’t.
    So therefore I object you and say, to believe in this reason as being a valid reason, is based on blind faith, because only a Buddha knows Karma unmistakenly, and to have conviction in this reason as being a valid reason you have to assume that those who state this reason are Buddhas and know this unmistakenly. But since you can only know for sure they are Buddhas, when you are yourself a Buddha, you have to believe in this reason or argument blindly, hence you have blind faith.

    The next sentence you state following this assertion reads: “having carefully checked that this practice is valid and appropriate and in perfect accordance with Lord Buddha’s teachings…” has nothing to do with the claim, that “now is the time to practice Shudgen”.

    I could be that you strive for avoiding blind faith, but yet you apply still blind faith. However, check this for yourself.

    In general, according to my observation and knowledge, NKT is encouraging and NKT is based on blind faith, and I suffered on this as well, when I followed NKT. Former members who recently left NKT confirm this. So I do not think that I project this onto NKT.

    In general, if someone wishes to be able to check with respect to Dharma and teachers, according to Je Tsongkhapa one must have three qualities:
    – being non-partisan (not to cling to a particular view or school and / or have aversion to another)
    – possessing discriminating intelligence to be able to discriminate between wrong and correct Dharma teachings (which needs a lot of Dharma knowledge)
    – being diligent towards striving for enlightenment

    If one misses these qualities, one will see faults where there are no faults or qualities where there are no qualities; or one will see faults where there are qualities, and qualities where there are faults; and a lot of other faults will delude the checking process.

  97. “…the misinformation NKT/KG is giving…”
    &
    “…inspiring KG to cover up the abuses…”
    &
    “…manipulate people by misleading information as PRC and NKT leadership are doing…”

    “Never I’ve called KG “a liar”.”

    liar.

    comment TP
    Maybe you learn first what constitutes a lie before you accuse others wrongly of being liars. For a perfectly correct teaching on lying you can read Bhikkhu Bodhi, chapter Right Speech.

    I repeat it, as far as I know (I am conscious of and can remember), I’ve never called KG a liar. What you quote does not disapprove this, hence your accusation is wrong, based on confusion what a lie is.

  98. ermintrude says:

    Gosh, this is all to do with politics and telling others how to practice Dharma-I really love this 21st century western Dharma-Dont you? Its so different from that old Tibetan stuff. Thank goodness we have found all found the essence of the Buddha’s teaching at last, courtesy of the omniscient Kelsang Gyatso.Always remember folks, the Buddha taught that if anyone tries to destroy your tradition, the Buddhist way is to set about destroying theirs!Yeah! Right on! (Seriously, there is little here above football supporter IQ stuff, with junirs in the Dharma telling everyone else what to do and fighting with the world-You missed the point big time folks!

  99. ermintrude says:

    DST
    You state
    Trichen Ngawang Chogden’s reincarnation, Trichen Tenpa Rabgye wrote rituals associated with Dorje Shugden:

    http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/among-shugden-texts-1759.html

    Why would he write rituals for a spirit his previous incarnation had cast out? It’s therefore clear that the ‘facts’ are wrong in this case.

    Question, would the present Dalai Lama cast out a spirit if his previous incarnation (the Fifth) did not? (I have tried to locate your Fifths prayer to DS in his collected works-not there?)Seemingly, your logic tells us that because a former incarnation condemened DS, a later one one would not. by extension, why would a later incarnation condemn DS if his predecessors had not done so? cant have it both ways mate.As you say, according to your logic ‘It’s therefore clear that the ‘facts’ are wrong in this case.’Which case: both or neither?

  100. Atisha's cook says:

    i think Je Tsongkhapa’s advice you’ve quoted is perfect. clearly, however, you and i have a different understanding of faith. for the record: i do *not* believe that faith in one’s Guru means that one cannot question the Guru – there is clear advice for how to do this correctly in 50 Stanzas (which Geshe Kelsang refers to).

    i do think that there are some things which it is not possible for me to know *fully* as a sentient being (such as the subtle workings of karma, or the enlightened or ordinary nature of others’ minds) and i will not know these things perfectly until i am enlightened. this doesn’t mean that i lack self-esteem, it’s simply true. this is the reason why i need to rely on an enlightened Guru. what i *can* check, and must check, is that the instructions i receive from my Guru are in accordance with the Dharma; this is the only proper “test” that i can carry out to establish whether or not my faith in my Guru is well-placed or mistaken.

    as far as i can see, this is the only sensible way for an ordinary being to progress along the spiritual path.

    on this basis, i am very happy to follow my Gurus’ advice that now is the time (for me) to rely on Guru Manjushri appearing as Duldzin Dorje Shugden. after all, to rely on Protector Manjushri in this way is perfectly in accordance with my Refuge Vows. i believe this is a correct, Buddhist approach.

    you are wrong about NKT. i am not saying that there has not been blind faith practised and, yes, taught *wrongly* in the past by NKT people, and of course we need to be careful to prevent recurrences. people have been hurt in the past, for sure. but Venerable Geshe Kelsang himself has, repeatedly in recent years, taught on precisely this issue – that we need wisdom and faith, not blind faith and delusion; he has exhorted us all to understand this. the idea that NKT is founded on blind faith is absolutely incorrect.

    another point: i don’t know why you assume that i do not know any Tbetan people. in fact, i have many Tibetan friends: lay people, monks, Geshes, Rinpoches (and one Abbot). they are mainly, of course, Shugden practitioners. i have spoken at great length to many of them and shared much enjoyable time. i have also seen at first hand on several occasions large numbers of Tibetans (who were mostly not Shugdemn practitioners) acting like a hysterical mob because i was daring to criticise their God-King.

    in large part, i base my posts regarding the treatment and the experience of Shugdenpas in the Tibetan community on these meetings, friendships and discussions, and my criticisms of the nationalistic blind devotion to the Dalai Lama of a large portion of Tibetan society on my first-hand experiences. i am not acting in this issue simply because i have been told what to believe and what to do.

  101. As an example of how difficult it is to practice freedom of speech over this relgious issue, I note that within less than one hour of banners questioning neutrality and authenticity appearing on Wikipedia on the pages on the NKT and Dorje Shugden, the banners were removed by user Michael James (who calls himself Emptymountains, amongst other sockpuppet IDs) of Kadampa meditation centre, Norfolk, Virginia. Mr james maintains a number of seemingly neutral websites concerning Dharma wherein he preaches his version of the Buddhas teaching. One wonders how many years experience of Buddhism both outside and in the NKT Mr james has accrued under his belt, before venturing into the internet world of cyberbullying and mob rule.

  102. I wish to pick up some points which have been blurred a bit.
    I) for important changes in Buddhism, there are predictions in the scriptures of undisputed Buddhist sources, and these predictions and their fulfilment are commonly accepted among Buddhists

    e.g. the Buddhas of this aeon are predicted, Je Tsongkhapa was predicted, Buddha Maitreya is predicted – all this is commonly accepted and undisputed. Contrary to this Shugden is not established by the Buddha, nor by the Indian pandits, nor by Je Tsongkhapa nor is there any prediction about his appearance and claimed importance. Hence the argument “the karma has changed, now is the time for Shugden” is just baseless. Everybody can claim, “the karma has changed, now is the time for Bla Bla.” Since Je Tsongkhapa has established three other protectors for his school, and never mentioned or predicted Shugden, the nowadays claimed importance of him is in every way questionable. Moreover, protectors are a side issue of Tibetan Buddhism, the main point is to protect the mind by taming it.

    II) Je Tsongkhapa predicted that his school of thought will be corrupted by the rich. How this prediction was fulfilled could be seen by exploring of what happened at the time of the 13th Dalai Lama. The Gelug school was rather a ritualised and hardened institutional system, which made free minded intellectuals, like Gendun Choephel, desperados or outcasts. The aristocrats were able to bring their kids into major positions of the Gelug system, with the highest titles without that they had much understanding. The 13th Dalai Lama recognizing this started to reform this. One of his actions was to reform the Geshe education which enabled then everybody, regardless of social class, to get the highest monastic degree (Geshe Lharampa) and to make sure that those holding monastic titles are really knowledgeable and not have their titles only due to belonging to the rich aristocrats. Other reforms included the abandoning of the system of the passing on of pile of debts which made the farmer families slaves to the monasteries. Of course opposition arose from the aristocrats and those lamas representing them, and it is exactly in this context, that power struggles between these reforms and the longing for the old glorious times arose, and exactly in this setting, Shugden was introduced to have a major role to preserve the “pure” “authentic” old past. For the conservatives, everything old was good, everything new the devil, even playing football was unacceptable, they said it would be similar to playing with the head of a Buddha. (see the docu about Gendhun Choephel.)

    III) The claim of AC “the Dalai Lama’s actions are harmful and that if he is not opposed a great spiritual tradition will be destroyed.” shows a great amount of confusion, confusion he and others learn within NKT’s completely closed, narrow-minded and self-referential system.

    The great spiritual tradition of Je Tsongkhapa, AC is referring to, is not based on Shugden. Je Tsongkhapa’s school of thought is mainly distinguished by a strong emphasize on monasticism (Vinaya) and scholarship (debate + the study of important Buddhist texts, e.g. Abhisamayalamkara, Pramana, Madhyamakavatara, Vinaya, and Abhidharma, among others, like basic texts dura, lorig and tarig). Tantra was restricted to experienced monastics. From this setting NOTHING – except Madhyamakavatara a commentary by Kelsang Gyatso which is based on Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary, and KG’s lorig commentary – is present in NKT. NKT has not even one book of Je Tsongkhapa, and about his great texts often not even their names are known to NKT followers.

    It is in every sense an object of laughter to claim NKT would uphold Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition and HHDL would destroy it.

    To solve this obvious contradiction KG claims his texts would all be commentaries on Je Tsongkhapa’s texts and would present the essence. Such a claim can be debated as being misleading, and such a claim can only survive within NKT in an undisputed way, because (almost) nobody knows what Je Tsongkhapa texts are and what he emphasized. This claim will quickly collapse when faced with reality, e.g. there is no commentary by Je Tsongkhapa on Vajrayogini, the main practice in NKT, the commentaries on Ghuyasamaja written by Je Tsongkhapa – who is seen as a specialist in this – are not present in NKT (though Clear Light of Bliss uses material of Je Tsongkhapa’s Lamp throroughly Illuminating the Five Stages), his Golden Rosary (a commentary on Maitreya’s Abhisamayalamkara) and many other texts are not present in NKT, the empowerment and practice of Ghuyasamaja or Yamantaka and the practice of the unity of the three HYT Tantras (Ghuyasamaja/Yamantaka/Heruka ) emphasised and introduced by Je Tsongkhapa, is not present in NKT, Vinaya is not present in NKT, debate is not present in NKT, scholarship and monasticism is not present in NKT, all the great texts of Je Tsongkhapa, e.g. Lam Ri Chen Mo or definite vs. interpretative meaning are not present in NKT, hence my claim “It is in every sense an object of laughter to claim NKT would uphold Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition and HHDL would destroy it.” is not unjustified.

    NKT is mainly the school of Kelsang Gyatso, and he uses a selection of teachings from the Gelug school he feels important for his Western followers, and there is nothing wrong with this. However, those who preserve the “great spiritual tradition” of Je Tsongkhapa is HH the 14th Dalai Lama, the Ganden Tripas, abbots and masters and the monks in India in the three major monastic seats of the Gelug school, against NKT is so much fighting in the public and internet.

    PS: AC, I lack time to read and to respond to your last comment above. Maybe someone else can do this. If I have time, I’ll read it and will probably respond to it. What I said in this comment is mainly related to points we’ve discussed and underlay the discussion. AC, I changed this comment in the first hour of its posting with respect to phrasing, spelling, grammar and taste. Since I am no native British speaker, I recognize my faults only after having read what I commented repeatedly. I hope you can accept that. Now I leave the comment just as it is.

  103. ermintrude –

    “would the present Dalai Lama cast out a spirit if his previous incarnation (the Fifth) did not?”

    he wouldn’t. no would he try to cast out a Buddha, Duldzin Dorje Shugden.

    what does this tell you about the present DL?

    tells me he’s no reincarnation of His Holiness the Great 5th.

    you see football hooligan mentality because you want to. who’s trying to destroy the DL’s lineage? i’m not. this is not retaliation – this is protection of a great spiritual tradition for the benefit of countless living beings.

    if you happen to have possession of a rare and precious medicine that can cure the sickness of countless sick and suffering beings, and some maniac attacks you and tries to destroy the medicine – do you really think that the Buddhist thing to do is to allow them to do this? do you really think that it’s somehow un-Buddhist to try to protect this medicine?

    samsara is ugly – deal with it. but of course, we should all be like the lovely old Tibetans of yesteryear shouldn’t we? because they all lived so happily together in peace and mellowness.

  104. ermintrude says:

    ‘If the Dalai lama had not started a campaign against DS worship, we would never have protested’=this is not retaliation.????

    ‘If you happen to have possession of a rare and precious medicine that can cure the sickness of countless sick and suffering beings, and some maniac attacks you and tries to destroy the medicine – do you really think that the Buddhist thing to do is to allow them to do this? do you really think that it’s somehow un-Buddhist to try to protect this medicine?’ Read about the thalidomide drug-you sound exactly like a thalidomide salesman, even down to the claim that your detractors are mentally unstable.

    ‘samsara is ugly – deal with it.’ What a very juvenile view.Have you read the Heart Sutra recently?. Tell you what-You bring me samsara, and I’ll ‘deal with it’

    You seem to think you know exactly where Im coming from and you dont even know me, except in the context of our both starring in the Magic Roundabout????

  105. ermintrude says:

    AC’in large part, i base my posts regarding the treatment and the experience of Shugdenpas in the Tibetan community on these meetings, friendships and discussions, and my criticisms of the nationalistic blind devotion to the Dalai Lama of a large portion of Tibetan society on my first-hand experiences. i am not acting in this issue simply because i have been told what to believe and what to do.’
    No, you acting in this issue, not from first hand experience, but, as evidenced by your statement above, what you have been told by others-they may not have told you what to believe or do-they told you something, youmthought something then beleived it, then acted of your own volition. This is not ‘first hand experience’
    How much ‘first hand experience’ do you have of ‘Tibetan society’- (whatever that is)

  106. ‘If the Dalai lama had not started a campaign against DS worship, we would never have protested’

    if you feel this is a proper argument, you have to accept also this argument:

    ‘If Papongkha Rinpoche had not broken his promise to the 13th Dalai Lama and had not made (ignoring his promise) that controversial practice widespread – after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama! – there would never have been a need for the 14th Dalai Lama to correct this wrong development.’

    Therefore we can posit: the problems which NKT perceive are mainly based on a broken promise by Pabongkha Rinpoche, hence, NKT should start to redirect their campaign and attack Pabongkha Rinpoche ;-)

  107. ermintrude –

    what?? no, it isn’t retaliation. retaliation is: “you hurt me, so now i’m going to hurt you back”

    i don’t want to hurt anyone – not you, not Tenzin, not the DL. i want to protect others by preventing a valid spiritual tradition from being destroyed. in order to do this, i have felt it necessary to protest, the DL having first ignored all requests for dialogue and debate. this is not retaliation. (why did the DL refuse Venerable Geshe Kelsang’s invitation to debate the matter publicly, i wonder – he being such a great Lharampa and all, while Venerable Geshe Kelsang’s not even a proper Geshe? he’d have been able to trounce Geshe Kesang in a matter of minutes and lay the whole thing to rest years ago! funny, that.)

    and the Cook said: “i base… my criticisms of the nationalistic blind devotion to the Dalai Lama of a large portion of Tibetan society on my first-hand experiences” i’m pretty sure he/she was at those same protests, in which case (s)he’s certainly had first-hand experience of this “nationalistic blind devotion”! have you?

  108. AC I doubt your assertions with respect to Tibetan society – which you base on claimed ‘first hand experiences’ very much. They contradict my own experiences, knowledge and the accounts and reliable sources I know. However, I lack time to go into detail.

    just one small point – which does not need much words, verifiable and reliable sources or good background knowledge – and is rather obvious:

    your claim
    “i have also seen at first hand on several occasions large numbers of Tibetans (who were mostly not Shugden practitioners) acting like a hysterical mob because i was daring to criticise their God-King.”

    can be applied easily to NKT too:
    “i have also seen at first hand on several occasions large numbers of Western followers of Kelsang Gyatso (who are extreme Shugden practitioners) acting like a hysterical mob because HHDL was daring to criticise their God-King, Shugden.”

    While it will be hard for your to prove your claim, and you are forced to base it on ‘first-hand-accounts’ which have been told to you and you believe to be true, for the latter claim there are enough proofs available:

    see all the numberless websites, blogs, youtube videos, images (Flickr), press releases, comments and protests published and performed by NKT. Just google for ‘Western Shugden Society’ or ‘Dalai Lama liar’. The results you get back are striking. There is nothing similar to this by Tibetans.

    Hence, I think, you have to think over who is hysterical, and who has blind belief in the two ‘god-kings’ of NKT: Kelsang Gyatso and Dorje Shugden.

  109. ermintrude says:

    Compare
    ‘If the Dalai lama had not started a campaign against DS worship, we would never have protested’
    With
    ‘ retaliation is: “you hurt me, so now i’m going to hurt you back”’
    These are exactly the same.
    You are deceiving yourself-onto the cushion of the podium

  110. ermintrude says:

    AC How long have you lived with Tibetans-answer or porve yourself a fraud (Try not to tell porkies!)

  111. Atisha's cook says:

    Tenzin –

    for goodness’ sake! “I doubt your assertions with respect to Tibetan society – which you base on claimed ‘first hand experiences’ very much” i am NOT a liar. i have been screamed at, spat at, had bottles thrown at me and had my life threatened (in person and online), by mobs of angry Tibetans. this is my own experience, however much you may doubt my word.

    you, however, have NOT “also seen at first hand on several occasions large numbers of Western followers of Kelsang Gyatso (who are extreme Shugden practitioners) acting like a hysterical mob because HHDL was daring to criticise their God-King, Shugden.”

    shouting – loudly – without violence is a perfectly acceptable form of protest. i have experienced these protests myself – at first hand – and i can tell you, whether you choose to believe me or not, that no Shugdenpas present at any of the many protests i have attended was hysterical.

    you, ermintrude and others need to understand the difference between peaceful, lawful protest as a valid Bodhisattva action and death-threats, spitting and bottle-throwing as completely unacceptable behaviour! protesting the Dalai Lama is not a non-Buddhist action; threatening others’ lives and cursing them to take rebirth in hell most certainly is!

    “There is nothing similar to this by Tibetans.” come on! you were not present at Radio City in New York last year, but you’ve seen this on Youtube.

    so you may think me a liar – all i can tell you is that i am not: i am reporting what i’ve experienced, whether you like it or not. you may think us hysterical and angry: all i can tell you is that we are not, whether you agree with our actions or not.

  112. AC:
    “i have been screamed at, spat at, had bottles thrown at me and had my life threatened (in person and online), by mobs of angry Tibetans. this is my own experience, however much you may doubt my word.”

    I see, you refer not to the Tibetan Society but you refer to some events in NYC, at a special time and in a special setting, then lets look closer to that, and from another perspective:

    “a mob” of hundreds of noisy, screaming, offensive, fist rising NKT ‘monks’ and ‘nuns’ provoke with their abusive language and speaking choir, a group of Tibetans – who suffered much under PRC and their communist dictatorship and for whom the Dalai Lama is a sole light and hope, whom they love and revere – in a manner similar to PRC’s abusive propaganda, do you think it is realistic to expect that some Tibetans, maybe tortured and abused by the PRC, don’t get upset with such non-sensitive people whose language and behaviour reminds them on the PRC propaganda methods?
    Though not right to get angry and to yell or to “fight back”, it may be understandable that for some Tibetans this is just too much.

    However, the video I watched and which was presented by NKT/WSS on Youtube, showed nothing of what you said, and not only this, it showed only SOME Tibetans who got angry with the yelling, offensive NKT people, and one could see also other Tibetans who tried to calm them down.

    So, I think you are somewhat short-sighted, first you attack others by using offensive and abusive language, then if you get something back, you make yourself an ‘innocent victim’. (Its a bit similar to, that you first dig someone around, and then if this person uses a stronger mean to stop you, you present yourself as the ‘victim’ of the ‘offender’. Since NKT/WSS uses language as an aggressive weapon, along with megaphones, for some few of those feeling offended, obviously only bodily expression seem have to been possible.) – However, both sides’ aggressive means are non-Buddhist and questionable.
    Not only that NKT is so non-sensitive and has no problem to offend others, and wonders if some people will express their dissatisfaction, WSS/NKT spin these events to ‘a mob of thousands of hostile Dalai Lama supporters‘.

    Welcome to the NKT world or the art “to victimize yourself and to blame others”.

    you say:
    “shouting – loudly – without violence is a perfectly acceptable form of protest.”
    – not for Buddhist monks and nuns. Maybe you read the voices of Buddhists I’ve collected.

    Maybe AC, you practice a bit “exchanging yourself with others”, and you could try to put expriences into perspective, seeing them from different angles.
    You could e.g. think you are a Tibetan, think about their suffering over the last 50 years, and use your imagination that someone raises a campaign as NKT/WSS does, against your sole hope, Kelsang Gyasto, following him everywhere. If you do this suggested practice properly and if you have a good imagination, I think you would feel it completely embarrassing to present yourself as the victim of “a mob of Tibetans” and to present this as a ‘first-hand-experience’ of the Tibeten society.

    I suggested to Lineageholder, a NKT poster on Tricycle Blog, that meditation:

    Imagine a foreign power falls over NKT and NKT’s leadership, killing from 6000 NKT people 1000, cutting off the heads of those who are enemies of the ‘liberation’, forcing you to urinate and defecate on your teachers, torture and rape you and your friends in a cruel bestiality and forcing you to denounce your most treasured hope and Guru, your sole hope, as a liar, splittist, putting you into prison or torture you and your friends if you nevertheless have an image of your beloved Guru, raping you and your friends and instead of allowing you to follow your spiritual practice they force you to be brainwashed in communist seminars to denounce Kelsang Gyatso and your friends up to that they force you to beat your friends yourself, they force you to denounce your teachers and Buddhism and to praise the mass murder Mao – day and night. They force your lay friends to abort children, they force you and other monastics to copulate with each other or to urinate on the Dharma texts of Kelsang Gyatso – and if you don’t do this, they will beat you until you fall unconscious. They steal you every right of any freedom. Imagine this and more horrible things continue for half of a century. Imagine Kelsang Gyatso has to escape NKT from this foreign power for the sake to avoid more bloodshed and works day and night to help you out of that hell.

    To get an idea what you and your friends would experience watch again the third part of the video and think this could be you or one of your friends, and you or your friends’ parents work so hard to save your life by giving every money they have making even debts to those persons whose nation invaded your NKT:

    http://media.phayul.com/?av_id=147&av_links_id=323

    Then imagine there is someone who claims to be a Buddhist monk and Mahayana person using side track stories (like Shugden) telling things as LH does here in such an unscrupulous and undifferentiated manner… what would you feel?

    In a way – though not helpful – I can understand any person who gets upset with you and your bizarre statements.

  113. ermintrude says:

    ‘you, however, have NOT “also seen at first hand on several occasions large numbers of Western followers of Kelsang Gyatso (who are extreme Shugden practitioners) acting like a hysterical mob because HHDL was daring to criticise their God-King, Shugden.”’ I HAVE,OUTSIDE MANY OF THE VENUES AT WHICH HH SPOKE LAST TIME ROUND, ACROSS EUROPE AND THE US-IN CHARGE ON MOST OCCASIONS???KHENRAB-ASST ‘SPIRITUAL’ DIRECTOR OF THE NKT’

    shouting – loudly – without violence is a perfectly acceptable form of protest. i have experienced these protests myself – at first hand – and i can tell you, whether you choose to believe me or not, that no Shugdenpas present at any of the many protests i have attended was hysterical.
    YOUR PERCEPTION IS ENTIRELY SUBJRCTIVE-YOU NEED TO STAND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PICKET LINE AND THINK A LITTLE MORE OBJECTIVELY-TO MOST, YOU JUST LOOKED LIKE A BUNCH OF SCREAMING RELIGIOUS FANATICS The fantical hysterics are all over youtube (I see senior vow breaker and sexual exploiter Neil Elliott was also at lots of demos too-London Germany Nottingham, looking like he was working with the pressBut there is definitely no connection between the NKT and the WSS)

    It is a real shsme what happened with the Tibetans-What they see is a bunch of naive Westerners with very little experience or understanding of their faith (How many years have you practiced and how long did you live with Tibetans by the way? Still no answer) behaving in a manner which they see as destroying what is left of their culture. You shout words of anger at the Dalai Lama, they (some) threw bottles. BOTH WRONG!
    The tibetans made a big mistake in the US Why? Because they played right into the hands of the WSS/NKT propaganda machine, a machine well practiced in manipulating arguments based on present social mores to their advantage to grab the attention of liberals who have no knowledge of the situation. Like Rwandan child murderers who claim human rights, you are simply playing on the symapthies of the uneducated. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people-how long did you say you lived with Tibetans again?

  114. ermintrude, I think at the moment, NYC and some of the (very few) clashes could be seen a bit like in the following example:

    I deliberately bump into your pregnant girlfriend where ever she is, and a friend of mine films your angry reactions, and is publicly presenting your reactions all over the internet as a fact of your ‘evil an cruel’ nature or ‘blind devotion’ to your girl friend. While I present myself in my calm response by smiling non-violently into your and your girl-friend’s face.

    (the pregnant girlfriend symbolizes the fragile exile state of the Tibetan community and their inner wounds)

    —Back to Topic—
    Since the post is about Wikipedia and DS, thank you Bodhi for your comment, what you say about Wikipedia edits is also what I experienced. If you have reasons to add a neutrality-template the best is to give detailed reason on the talk page, and if the template is removed, complain to the Admin board. Usually the NKT editor team will claim, that the article is neutral and all editors came to agreement that it is fine… however there are rules and WP:COI (Conflict of Interest) etc. but to go through all of this and alone will be time and patience consuming. As far as I can see almost all non-NKT editors gave up. Even if you were successful, then a week later a new NKT editor pops up and reverts everything supported by the other NKT editors. Personally I think, you’re lost if you wish to have a balanced and correct article on DS, a solution could be to impose a solution on the article, but for this you need some reasonable people who know the sources and the WP rules.

    A friend of mine wrote in an email to me that he tried different times just to add the word ‘controversial’ to the portray of the deity – a fact which is correct – DS is a controversial deity – but his edits were always deleted by the NKT editor team within only 2 minutes, without any discussion…

    I wonder how this story ends, maybe Jimbo Wales writes the articles himself or pays an academic to write them and after they have been written, he blocks them from public edits. Probably this would be the best.

  115. ermintrude says:

    Yeah-like that. Funny though, see how the debate has moved away from the totally abusive manipulation of wikipedia and the phenomena of NKT mob rule in cyberspace. I just checked and Michael-James has AGAIN removed the neutrality banners from the DS and NKT pages. He demands that the disputed points be ‘discussed’ on the discussion page just like user Kt66s were before he repeatedly edited out those….Not. (anyone got a few hours theyre willing to spend arguing with someone who has already decided they are right and refuses point blank even to acknowledge anothers view and just edits it out on an hourly basis??I wouldnt waste your time if i were you)
    This is the big joke about the NKT campaign for ‘religious freedom'(which they already have).They want the fundamental human right to worship as they see fit(go for it) But exercise your fundamental right to question their perspective…Bingo-suddenly the basic right to freedom of speech goes out the window, courtesy of…the NKT!The hypocrisy is so obvious yet they dont see this.

    Its a bit like the method of fighting the Dalai Lama position of DS being a worldy spirit (a view held by as many in Tibet, arguably more, as those who considered DS a Buddha)The way to combat this position? Deny it ever existed and obliterate all reference to it wherever it appears on the internet. Buddhism No Bullshit worldy political mind games and lies-Yes!
    And yet these naive zealots, initally genuine people who came to the dharma with open hearts and minds, now spend much of their time as unquestioning footsoldiers in KGs ego battle with the Dalai Lama.
    Personally, i dont give a s**t who or what they worship; I just wish they would shut up, close the doors to their expensive temples, and get on with it AND LEAVE BUDDHISM ALONE INSTEAD OF F***ING IT UP FOR EVERYONE.
    How long did you live with tibetans for AC? How long have you been involved in dharma?What other traditions did you try before the NKT?Still no answers.
    DST 2009-400=1609 now check Dragpa Gyaltsen’s dates???
    Heres another. Tibetan population 6,000,000 divided by four sects=4,000,000 DS followers in Tibet duuuh?
    Think for yourself. Take a break BE OBJECTIVE INSTEAD OF JUST OBJECTIONABLE

  116. ermintrude says:

    So AC, your vast experience of ‘Tibetan society’ on which you base your sweeping generalisations, amounts to an encounter with a hostile group in a city in the US, some of whom threw bottles at you for supporting Chinese sentiments (you stood side by side with the Chinese, held the same placards, and shouted the same chants) attempting to destroy their religion and calling their spiritual leader a liar.(Porbably this means all Tibetans are born with weapons in their hands, like a hell, and you got a glimpse of things to come?)Insufficient knowledge IMO
    Now then, how many years/months/weeks Dharma experience and in what traditions?-just so we can see how fit you actually are to comment on the development of the Dharma in the West and determine its future direction.
    So far, its not looking good is it?
    DST-your quiet; doing some back up reading? Good idea-you need to

  117. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear ermintrude,

    You said:

    Question, would the present Dalai Lama cast out a spirit if his previous incarnation (the Fifth) did not?

    It’s simple: the fifth Dalai Lama made a mistake but later corrected it. This present Dalai Lama made the same mistake but has not corrected it yet. Let’s hope he has the wisdom to do so in the future.

  118. ermintrude says:

    I just thought-It seems clear that many, if not all, of the correspondents from the pro DS camp here and on wiki are also members of the NKT (Rodney Billman, Michael-James et al.) Since the demonstrations in the West against the Dalai Lama were organised, according to KG, by himself, lead by his senior NKT representatives in the various countries where demos took place, and populated overwhelmingly by NKT people dressing up as monks/nuns/cowboys/indians/spiderman, this means that Kelsang Gyatso’s denial that the demos were the activity, not of the NKT, but the WSS, are basically a lie! That means Kelsang Gyatso IS a liar-big time! Are these people really so easily duped by these devious lies and sophistry (reaches for dictionary)? Yes? Why? Blind faith and the suspension of critical thought?Looks like!Cant you even see that? THINK FOR YOURSELVES/OUTSIDE THE BOX/WAKE UP-YOUVE BEEN CONNED!

  119. ermintrude, lets avoid to attack them.

    Personally I think, they just do what they do, because they think it is correct. Maybe the discussion can open the mind a bit. If there are contradictions they can be pointed out.

  120. ermintrude says:

    It’s simple: This present DST made the same mistake but has not corrected it yet. Let’s hope he has the wisdom to do so in the future.

    Wow DST, you must be in a pretty enightened space to decide the DL is mistaken!No arrogance there.You must have been practicing a long time; how long?2,3,maybe even 5 years? Phew!

    PS There is no evidence that the 5th retracted his earlier view except for a text bandied around by, guess who, the NKT/WSS. The text however does not appear in his collected works.

  121. ermintrude says:

    It’s simple: This present DST made the same mistake but has not corrected it yet. Let’s hope he has the wisdom to do so in the future.

    Wow DST, you must be in a pretty enightened space to decide the DL is mistaken!No arrogance there.You must have been practicing a long time; how long?2,3,maybe even 5 years? Phew!

    PS There is no evidence that the 5th retracted his earlier view except for a text bandied around by, guess who, the NKT/WSS. The text however does not appear in his collected works.

    There is also a statue of DS that, it is claimed, was given by the DL. By…..DS supporters. No objective confirmation exists of the origins of the statue but I bet its got ‘made in China’ written on the bottom!

  122. hey ermintrude –

    easy, son. you sound almost as mad as me.

  123. ermintrude says:

    http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Becoming-a-Religious-Zealot

    http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Cults-That-May-Try-to-Convert-You

    Both these are very intereting reads; if you think that there is no need to look at these things becuase you have found the truth, a quick rethink might be in order

  124. Dear Atisha’s Cook,
    I am sorry that you had to experience to be attacked different times, and I wish you that this does not happen to you again.
    tp

  125. Atisha's cook says:

    Tenzin –

    that is a kind sentiment, thank you.

    i think none of us wants to see anger and violence, or the threat of it. i agree with you when you say that there have been angry minds generated by people of both views in this dispute, and this is shameful for all of us. i do understand how upsetting the protests have been for those faithful disciples of the Dalai Lama who’ve seen them and i can see why onlookers have sometimes developed the idea that the protesters are angry. it is a very great pity that these protests have had to take place; many, perhaps all, of the protesters – certainly all those i’ve spoken with – have joined the protests with regret, feeling that circumstances have left them with no choice. nobody relishes the task of telling a person that their object of refuge and faith is “lying”, as we have felt it necessary to do. i believe that WSS protesters have good hearts, and that they believe they are acting out of compassion.

    i understand also that you have the same belief, that your actions are compassionate.

    at least in this, perhaps, we believe the same thing.

  126. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear ermintrude,

    As far as Dorje Shugden being a Buddha is concerned, I’m prepared to go with 350 years of Lineage Gurus views of both the Sakya and Gelugpa tradition and in particular the view of Serkong Rinpoche (regarded by the 13th Dalai Lama as an emanation of Vajradhara) Domo Geshe Rinpoche (regarded by the 13th Dalai Lama as an emanation of Je Tsongkhapa), Je Pabongkhapa (an emanation of Heruka), Trijang Rinpoche (an emanation of Amitabha/Atisha) and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Are these great Masters’ views wrong? No, they are definitive and cannot be contradicted by either scripture or reasoning. This is conclusive as far as I am concerned.

    On the other hand, the Dalai Lama does not have a single convincing argument to prove that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. His view is directly contradicted by the incarnation lineage of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.

    I chose Buddhism because it made sense. I choose these Great Masters over the Dalai Lama for the same reason.

  127. FromTheHeart says:

    Just joined this blog. Very interesting. Just a quick question and hopefully I will get a quick answer!

    How is this reconciled?

    The DL saying “Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also, continue this policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dholgyal is remembered.”

    And DS practitioners remaining with religious freedom?

    Thanks for your wisdom!

  128. ermintrude says:

    hi Dougal!
    I really hope you, DST, AC and all in the NKT have a good day,contemplating Dharma and not focusing on contentious, divisive issues.

    Yes, I know I come across as crazy sometimes and this can undermine others previously elevated opinions of me (Ha!)

    I like the Milarepa quote:
    ‘When worldly people see me, they think I am crazy;
    When I see worldly people, I think they are crazy’.

    The eighth and ninth of the Ten Innermost Jewels of the Kadam are goodies too:
    ‘Expulsion from the ranks of men’ and ‘Finding oneself amongst the ranks of dogs’!
    Woof;) (Am I barking?)

  129. lhundrup says:

    FromTheHeart,

    your quote DL say “Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also, continue this policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dholgyal is remembered.”

    May i know when and where do DL ever say this?????
    any reliable source to support this is what have say by DL?????

  130. Dear AC, thank you for your kind respond.

    I think every of our actions has to do a lot with personal views, our own understanding, the influence of others, historical background and perspectives – for individuals as well as for groups; and of course, actions are based strongly on our mind in such a setting.

    We have also a certain degree of self-perception or self-awareness, indicating how our actions may reflect on others or how they may perceive these. Realistic self-perception or self-awareness serves also to determine if our own actions are in accordance with the ethical standards we wish to follow, and if they are in accordance with the ethical standards the society we live in values.

    I think, these things (inner reality) + perception or awareness of outer or ‘environmental’ reality – or in general our perception of conventional reality – determines how we act, and how we judge our and others’ actions.

    From a Buddhist point of view we are responsible for what we do, hence we have to look in our own minds.

    Now, as funny as it may be, actual I disagree with your last point:

    you say:
    “i understand also that you have the same belief, that your actions are compassionate.

    at least in this, perhaps, we believe the same thing.”

    In actuality I do not have the belief that my actions are compassionate. In general I doubt myself, I doubt, that ‘I have a good motivation’, motivations are always mixed for an ordinary being, and without clean clear self-awareness, I may perceive an action based on aversion to be ‘compassionate’.

    In general I also feel that my actions are not compassionate towards actual NKT members, they may come across very hostile and aggressive.

    Hence the only thing I can do is to get more aware of myself, and to rely on people who help me to do that.

    Since I have at least a weak awareness, that I attacked your views and beliefs here – while ignoring an painful experience you’ve shared, I felt I should at least have some compassion for your painful experience you’ve expressed above. So in a way I rather struggle to find a balance.

    PS: I made small changes in this post, because after having post it I couldn’t read & correct it due to a visitor who came.

  131. lhundrup says:

    Till date what i known of for the above quoted ‘ DL say “Until now you have a very good job on this issue. Hereafter also, continue this policy in a clever way. We should do it in such a way to ensure that in future generations not even the name of Dholgyal is remembered.” was from the ‘self-generated’ truth from the blog of WSS as they quoted DL have said this July 14th 1995, in Caux Switzerland.

  132. lhundrup says:

    And may i suggest to you FromTheHeart,

    it may be in your interest to read a more neutral view from this very blog with the title ‘Update on the Situation at Sera Monastery – Visit of H.H. the Dalai Lama’ instead of the ‘one-sided truth’ from WSS blog.

  133. boring academic view says:

    FH
    The DL HAS banned DS worship in Gelug monasteries and amongst Tibetan Governement in Exile employees of which he is the de facto head. Over zealous Tibetans, keen to impose his ban on all, regardless of present day concerns about religious freedom, have indeed discriminated against others outside theae two areas, not though with the DLs blessing or under his direction.
    I would not be surprised if he had spoken the words above (I seem to recall them). However, one must question why the words have been used. The DL is trying very hard to hold the Tibetans together as a race and is therefore bound to do whatever he can to prevent divisions between the four main sects. He has therefore spoken out against DS worship since, for those outside the NKT, along with a majority within the Gelug and the other traditions, the practice of DS has acted as a basis for division for centuries, particularly since the popularisation of the practice by Pabongka in the early 1900s.
    To try to view this situation, which is basically a medieval dispute from a society that only had one car and one radio in its capital in 1952 and which still gouged peoples eyes out when there were disagreements, from a so called ‘civilised’ western persepctive based on social mores of religious freedom etc, is ludicrous-the middle ages and the 21st centuries are completely incongruous. Perhapo the question to ask is not why did the DL say this (if he did) but rather why he said it. In this way, it is possible to come to an understanding. To view this as an issue of religious freedom is to misconstrue the issue and blind oneself to the facts of the situation. It is somewhat akin to a Muslim arguing that they should have the religious freedom to discriminate against the infidel in a multicultural society.The two dont mesh.On the other hand, if one asks the Muslim why, one might reach some form of meaningful conclusion.
    In the same way, if one simply dismisses out of hand the DLs view because it does not conform to 21st century social/religious mores, one loses the opportunity to understand why such language might be appropriate.In short, it is more important to ask why he said it rather than if he said it. Only then can one draw anything resembling a meaningful conclusion.

  134. ‘boring academic view’ thank you for your comment.

    Personally why I ask always for a quote from a reliable or verifiable source is just due to my experiences. While I was a NKT follower NKT has offered me ‘information’ which were either untrue, an exaggeration or a spin of some truths, untruths and some truths. That’s why I decided to not accept any source which is from NKT – except it is stated in a reliable or verifiable source.

    Now with respect to your statement:
    “The DL HAS banned DS worship in Gelug monasteries and amongst Tibetan Governement in Exile employees of which he is the de facto head.”
    it is not that easy. The monasteries are under guideline of the Vinaya, and HHDL has to accept the Vinaya – and he accepts it. Though the three main Gelug monasteries see him as their supreme teacher, and consult him for any greater issue, and he gives advice and suggestions (e.g. what practices or rituals to do for successful studies, to overcome hindrances or for good condition etc.) its up to the monastery to accept the advice, and to install it.

    Though HHDL has a strong stance on Bhikhsuni ordination and has supported it for 20 years now (also the other heads of the Tibetan Schools support it), since there are many Abbots and Vinaya masters directly opposing him, he has to accept.
    He can’t impose the Bhikshuni ordination on the order, this would be completely disrespectful to the Sangha and the Vinaya, hence he accepts and supports research, understanding, gives reasons etc. to open the Sangha for the Bhikhsuni ordination.

    Similar, HHDL holds a strong stance on Shugden – as other masters do as well – and since he was asked for advice after certain problems had arisen (see Jangchub’s report from Sera) he said they should be expelled. But the expulsion and procedure is supported by the abbots, masters and by the vote of majority, without this support or consent, there would be no expulsion possible.

    This I say to differentiate this issue, this doesn’t exclude “Over zealous Tibetans, keen to impose his ban on all, regardless of present day concerns about religious freedom, have indeed discriminated against others outside theae two areas” – that there is truth in this can be seen in the France 24 report, and also a source I trust, spoke of ‘witch hunt’ already with respect to former events.

    (Please correct me if I am wrong or lack a perspective.)

    I agree with all the other points, you’ve said, and I appreciate your contribution, thanks a lot.

    tp

  135. DST
    Interesting point-please, could you give a list of Sakya Lineage gurus, dating from the 17th century, who practiced devotion to DS while viewing him as an enlightened being?

    I am afraid your other points re lamas who DID see DS as an enlightened being does absolutely diddly squat to answer ermintrudes (?) earlier question concerning all those who did not. many of the lamas on both sides were higher beings than you or I-what are you saying? The ones who disagree with you were wrong?? In light of this, your statement:
    ‘Are these great Masters’ views wrong? No, they are definitive and cannot be contradicted by either scripture or reasoning. This is conclusive as far as I am concerned.’ is faulty.THINK ABOUT IT USING INFERRENTIAL REASONING. The sole inference one can make on the basis of the two opposing viewpoints at our level of development is that the two viewpoints exist. When you have unobscured valid cognition, you will perhaps be able to comment. You appear to be claiming it is possible discern what is an is not an valid and invalid object of knowledge on the basis of your deluded perception and listening to one side of a proposition. This is lacking in wisdom.Openess to more than one view is a path to wisdom. Tightly holding only onto one position is not the Buddha’s way. Openess and flexiblity are also more comfortable!

  136. 2 other points:
    “The DL HAS banned DS … amongst Tibetan Governement in Exile employees of which he is the de facto head.”

    I don’t know the details. What I know is, that Nyingmapas refused to work in the TGIE because its members practised Shugden, a practice which they see as directly harming them (see Mill’s research), hence they refused to work for or to support the TGIE. From this perspective one can argue that the practice even undermined democratic processes.

    Every government sets ethical standards for their members and employees – see e.g. Barack Obama – though from a Western context an commitment not to practice Shugden can be judged as being ‘discrimination’ one has to see it in the Tibetan cultural context which is highly religious and which has an unique socio-cultural background. What appears to be ‘discrimination’ from one perspective, mustn’t appear as ‘discrimination’ from another.

    Sadly NKT/KG completely ignore the unique socio-cultural background…

    then also, the oath practice – that each monk had to give an oath to the monastery’s specific protector not to practice Shugden – was reported to me months ago to be the initiative and idea of the abbots – not that of HHDL. It is not uncommon that Abbots do things contrary to what HHDL suggests and/or according to their own understanding, they have the freedom to do that; e.g. there are monks which undermine ethical standards and / or are really tough guys, and HHDL has suggested since years to expel them instead of ‘taming them physically’, however the far majority of abbots (or discipline masters) do not follow this advice at all, and follow the old Tibetan mode, that these monks get a beating to be tamed, and refuse to expel them, ‘because if they are expelled they have nothing’ (one has to understand a bit the phenomenon of ‘mass monasticism’ in that context too). It’s all quite more complex than NKT/WSS suggests from their Western armchair, and based on a profound lack of understanding of Tibetan culture, Vinaya, Tibetan Buddhism, Tibetan society and history…

  137. Indeed, and significantly more deviously, they employ reliance upon rather transient Western social mores to conjur up support for their position. On the part of KGs supporters, this can be attributed to naivety and a lack of understanding of Tibetan history. However, on th part of individulas such as Kelsang Gyatso, this cynical manipualtion of Westerners by reliance upon their ignorance is downright cynical and manipulative. The knowing duping of innnocent Wesrerners into fulfilling the role of footsoldiers in one’s personal battles by telling them that the DS issue is Dharma/human rights, is thoruoghly disgusting and manipulative.

  138. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear indie,

    Thanks for your points. If you want to see a list of Sakya Lineage Gurus who relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector, please see the Dorje Shugden History site compiled by Trinley Kalsang where you can read their verses of request and devotion.

    The position of all the great Gelugpas Lamas that I quoted is that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha. It therefore follows that those who see him otherwise are not doing so with valid cognition. It may be their karma to perceive him as a worldly being because that’s the best they can do but to regard him as such is wrong, in the same way that it would have been wrong to regard Tilopa as a mad old Fisherman who fried fish alive. In his book Heart Jewel , Geshe Kelsang says that some people claim that Dorje Shugden is an emanation of Manjushri who shows the aspect of a worldly being but this is incorrect, and he then goes on to describe the symbolism of Dorje Shugden’s form to be an indication of supramundane attainments. Thus Dorje Shugden has always been regarded as an enlightened protector who some consider to be showing the aspect of a worldly being but they symbolism of his form can be interpreted quite differently in line with his being the Protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition.

    The lion’s roar regarding this matter is that there is no evidence anywhere that Lamas before this present Dalai Lama regarded Dorje Shugden as a worldly protector except one verse from the Fifth Dalai Lama. George Dreyfus claims that Dorje Shugden was regarded as a worldly protector and that Je Pabongkhapa elevated him to Supramundane status but this is simply wrong. If you google ‘Dorje Shugden worldly protector’ you won’t find a single historical reference to support this view, yet if you check the Dorje Shugden history site you will see many citations from the rituals of Sakya and Gelugpa Lamas who obviously propitiated Dorje Shugden and regarded him as enlightened. This is another example of someone of high reputation (Dreyfus) being believed without any supporting evidence. Thus there is no evidence, either historically or logically to support this present Dalai Lama’s assertion that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It appears from what the Dalai Lama has said that his main reason for banning the practice of Dorje Shugden is the views the Fifth and Thirteenth Dalai Lamas, yet the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote a verse of praise to Dorje Shugden, established the temple of Trode Khangsar in Lhasa for his propitiation,and even made a statue of him with his own hands. There is talk about the Thirteenth Dalai Lama banning the practice of Dorje Shugden, yet there is no mention of such a ban in his autobiography. What is mentioned is that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama took the advice of the Dorje Shugden oracle and had the Eastern and Western stupas repaired to protect Tibet from being invaded. If the Thirteenth had such a negative view of Dorje Shugden, why did he take the oracle’s advice? Why wasn’t the oracle banned?

    Thus, if one examines the evidence, there is no support whatsoever for the Fourteenth Dalai Lama’s view and therefore no justification for his subsequent sectarian actions towards this Deity and his followers. If anyone has evidence to refute these points, please present it, otherwise please don’t continue to propagate the wrong views presented by Dreyfus and the present Dalai Lama which have no historical or logical support. Thank you.

  139. I see the WSS are now condemning the Tibetan Government for criticising the abbots of the main Gelug monasteries heavy handedness in enforcing a signature campaign not to worship DS.
    Not too long ago, they were condemning the Government for enforcing such a campaign,
    Its getting hard to keep up with all this-condemned for one thing, then condemned for doing the opposite. This is a case of ‘Damned if I do, damned if I dont’.
    What is so infuriating is the fickelness of the WSS: first using the heavy handedness of Tibetans to critique HH. Then, when HHs representative condemns those who have done this, HH and the Government are criticised for that????
    Stand still for a moment WSS/NKT-hold to one moral position. This might give people the chance to see the contradicitons in your behaviour and your desperate willingnees to transform every event into a propaganda tool for your war.
    The hypocrisy and double standards here are astounding.

  140. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear indie,

    You said:

    The hypocrisy and double standards here are astounding.

    Quite so. The Dalai Lama initiates a referendum with the sole intention of expelling Dorje Shugden practitioners from the monasteries, followed up by an enforced signature campaign that caused thousands of Dorje Shugden practitioners to break their spiritual commitments to their Gurus and then….

    …it was all the idea of the Abbots of the monasteries and they are to blame!

    I can’t help feeling you’ve missed the point here by criticising the WSS.

  141. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    Is this ‘reliable academic source’ the same Georges Dreyfus who wrongly claimed that Je Pabongkhapa promoted Dorje Shugden from a worldly Deity to a Buddha and who ignored or was simply unaware of the wealth of sources that prove that Dorje Shugden has been worshipped as a Buddha for the past 350 years?

    Please excuse me if I’m a bit sceptical regarding his reliabilty. I also find your naivety that the Tibetan monasteries are democratic institutions quite touching. I can understand that you want to defend the Dalai Lama, who it seems is abdicating responsibility for his actions and passing the buck to the Abbots, but really this is indefensible when there is a wealth of media to show that it was the Dalai Lama who initiated this persecution of Dorje Shugden practitioners and who encouraged the monasteries to expel Shugden monks.

    In reality there is no freedom and democracy in Tibetan society because the Dalai Lama controls everything; it is of no avail to pretend otherwise.

  142. dst, your standard of what is a reliable source seems to be determined by what supports your beliefs, isn’t it? Hence, what does not support your beliefs or assumptions is necessarily an unreliable source for you….

    For those interested, I can highly recommend this book.
    Matthew Kapstein states about it:

    “A remarkable tour de force. Georges Dreyfus merges personal memoir and outstanding scholarship to draw us into the intellectual life of the Tibetan monastic college, and in so doing he transforms forever our understanding of education and the cultivation of reason in traditional and premodern societies. If you read no other book on Tibetan Buddhism, immerse yourself in this one and applaud.”

  143. lhundrup says:

    I really feel how INTERESTING that the close minded NKTer like to support what are they deem as a ‘trusted’ sources to support their belief and often sceptical regarding others reliable sources which do not support their view.

    That once again, tell us how ‘vivid’ that NKT would like to spread the fault info about the whole issue regarding DS and ‘pure lineage of tradition’ do NKT have to spread the POISON in the dharma…..

  144. bogstandard says:

    I must say from an outsiders perspective, it is quite clear that Dorje Shugden Truth is, while deeply committed to his or her personal beliefs, these beliefs are clearly dogmatic ones which no amount of reason will correct. The explanation above, when considered, makes it quite clear that the problem has arisen in the monasteries because of what is referred to as the ‘over zealousness’ of Tibetans loyal to the Dalai Lama, rather than the Dalai Lama himself. Nevertheless and despite their zealousness, the abbots of the monasteries themselves have behaved in accord with tradititonal moastic procedures to root out the disharmony arising in their monasteries. I am afraid that if it is impossible for an interlocutor to understand this on the basis of providing so much evidence, then the whole debate is pointeless, since the pro Dorje Shugden/NKT/WSS contributor is completely unwilling to maintain an open, flexible position. As a Buddhist from another tradition, i would strongly advise those engaged in the debate to abandon the activity since, while the outcome of debate in a traditional context leads to the recognition of who is at fault and who is not, here at least one of the parties concerned is clearly totally unwilling to acknoweldge any viewpoint other than their own fundamentalist and dogmatic one. It is a great shame that this conflict has done so much to damage to the reputation of Buddhism in the West. A little more time meditating (or perhaps a lot more!) would not go amiss. It is certainly preferable to shouting and protesting outside Buddhist teachings in the name of ‘truth’ and relgious freedom.

  145. hey Lhundrup –

    thanks for that. i have a question though:

    have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

  146. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear bogstandard,

    What you are saying is, I’m unwilling to be open, flexible and accepting of the Dalai Lama’s position. You’re correct – Since his position is completely unsupported by scripture and reasoning and therefore completely wrong, why should I accept it? We need the truth, not mistakes.

    I have investigated this matter thoroughly and examined all the evidence. What I see is a dogmatic support for the Dalai Lama’s view based on no real logic or evidence. Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and this view is supported by history, scripture and reasoning. The other view is not. I’m not afraid of being unpopular for the sake of declaring the truth and I’m not afraid of being in a minority. For the benefit of others, a stand has to be made at this time.

    With respect, your view is typical – ‘it’s better to shut up and meditate rather than demonstrate against the destruction of Buddhadharma’ That’s simply wrong. If that view is taken, there won’t be anything to meditate on in a few generations as we are already in the last five hundred years of Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings and things are degenerating rapidly through mixing traditions and mixing Dharma with politics. I don’t think you understand the balance between inner and outer actions. It is sometimes necessary to stand up and be counted rather than slink away and keep quiet for fear of ‘rocking the boat’. In fact, it would be a bodhisattva downfall not to do so. I’m attempting to repay the kindness of my Teachers by protecting the tradition they cherished and taught. It’s important to them and it’s important to me.

    I’m wondering why you single me out to accuse me of dogmatism when it is clear that TP and others here also hold very strong, uncompromising views. I can only conclude it must be due to your own sympathies with the Dalai Lama’s position. I would therefore urge you to examine the evidence independently for yourself and come to your own conclusions rather than simply believing someone of high reputation who is undoubtedly leading people in the wrong direction. Thank you.

  147. lhundrup says:

    dougal April 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    your arguments have become repetitive and circular now, falling back on mere repetition of previously refuted points – that’s unworthy of you: you can do better.

    dougal April 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
    @Lhundrup: have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

    dougal April 22, 2009 at 10:41 pm
    Lhundrup – “And i am certain that the NKTer all are so ‘devoted’ to theri ‘pure guru’ that they are so BLIND TO HEAR ANOTHER SIDE ON STORY.”

    yes, ok – thanks; you’re “certain”. ok.

    but have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

    dougal April 30, 2009 at 11:15 pm
    hey Lhundrup -thanks for that. i have a question though:
    have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

    Funny though, the one who commented others that ‘your arguments have become repetitive and circular now, falling back on mere repetition of previously refuted points – that’s unworthy of you: you can do better.’ now kwwp repeating to ask the question again and again, though i have answer his question.

    OR this is a new tactic which NKTer use to ‘communicate’ to those who disagree with them…we shall see about that….

    dougal, PLEASE ALLOW YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN, search for the answer which i have ALREADY GIVEN on this blog, but before that, have a good sleep, or even A good holiday to clear your somehow deluded mind….

  148. florence says:

    Dougal
    have you ever spoken to, or even met, the Dalai Lama?
    What difference does it make?? Many 20th century historians never met Mussolini or any of his supporters-does this mena they were unqualified to coment on the evils of facism? I never met any mass murderers-does this mean I am unfit to comment on whether such a practice is immoral? We keep coming back to this pointless question. Personally, I have met KG, Trijang, DL, numerous NKT practitoners (and ex ones!)
    BTW
    What experience do you have of other traditions???

  149. florence says:

    Hey Dougal
    Having myself met the previous Trijang, The Dalai Lama and Kelsang Gyatso and practiced DS with the latter, I wonder whether you have met or spoken to the Dalai Lama? Again, had the majority of highly qualified twentieth century academic historians ever met or spoken to, for example, Mussolini? If not, does this mean they were unfit to comment on or judge his actions?

  150. florence says:

    DST
    ‘In reality there is no freedom and democracy in Tibetan society because the Dalai Lama controls everything; it is of no avail to pretend otherwise.’

    Since Tibetan DS practitioners in India are now setting up their own monasteries, how can you possibly claim this?

    ‘I also find your naivety that the Tibetan monasteries are democratic institutions quite touching.’

    While the above excerpts are written by former inhabitants of Tibetan monasteries, I think we both know you have never lived in any such institution. What exactly qualifies you to comment like this? Your narrow mindedness and unwillingness to examine anything other than your own perspective is equalled only by your inability to question your own fixed views.

  151. dst said:

    “In fact, it would be a bodhisattva downfall not to do so.”

    New Kadampa Survivors reported that Gen-la Kelsang Kyhenrab, the new successor of GKG, pushed those unwilling to participate the protests by claiming, if they don’t participate the protests they would break their Bodhisattva vows.

    Please dst, explain what vow this should be and how it is broken by being restrained to participate the protests. You can also post Gen-la Kelsang Kyhenrab’s explanation or an official NKT explanation.

    To discourage from a questionable and nowadays even superstitious practice – like Shugden practice, who seems to be viewed by NKTpas to be of major importance for Buddhism and to be the sole solution for all problems, and even to be ‘the heart’ of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings – does not constitute ‘the destruction of Buddhadharma’. The Buddhadharma came into existence without DS, it continued without him and it will flourish without him. For the survival of the Buddhadharma it is by far more important to work on and to tame the own mind, Shugden is no method to tame the own mind.
    If one follows the law of Karma one is protected, and as the Buddha said: ‘Be your own protector.’ (by avoiding non-virtue, practising virtue and taming the own mind), hence as bogstandard suggested, to apply mediation or antidotes for the mental afflictions is the better way.

  152. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear florence,

    I am very happy that you had the chance to meet Trijang Rinpoche and practise Dharma with Geshe Kelsang, you were very fortunate.

    There are numerous pieces of evidence to prove that the Dalai Lama completely controls Tibetan Buddhism and that people follow him unquestioningly as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara -for example the independent investigative reports of ’10 vor 10′, France 24 and Al-Jazeera, and not least the Dalai Lama’s own speeches on these issues and the sectarian actions of the Kashag who, astoundingly, have passed laws in order to discriminate against Dorje Shugden practitioners. Are you going to tell me that the Dalai Lama was not responsible for the passing of these laws and he didn’t know what was going on when he is the head of the TGIE?

    Dorje Shugden practitioners may have set up their own monasteries (no doubt without any help from the Dalai Lama or his ‘government’) and they have been able to do this because India is a free country and the Dalai Lama can’t stop them from building their monasteries, but that doesn’t mean they are free from discrimination by Tibetans. They have had to separate themselves from Tibetan society on the orders of the Dalai Lama, otherwise such a separation would never have taken place. The Dalai Lama has caused a schism in the Sangha and you’re telling me that Dorje Shugden practitioners are free to come and go and practise as they please without discrimination and that everything is okay for Dorje Shugden practitioners now because they have their own monasteries? There is still a division in the Buddhist Sangha because of the Dalai Lama’s wrong views. The Dalai Lama and his government bear total responsibility for this sad situation.

  153. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    I don’t think you understand the importance of Dharma protectors, emanations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who are not a Tibetan invention but were relied upon by Indian Mahayanists too.

    One of the main functions of the Dharma Protector is to protect the Dharma, to prevent its degeneration and to provide conducive conditions for its growth. They maintain the life and purity fo the teachings. You can contemplate this dependent relationship: No Dharma Protector —> No protection of the Dharma —-> degeneration and mixing with non-Buddhist practices —–> end of Buddhadharma.

    This has happened before in Tibet, at the time of the Tibetan king Langdarma,for example. At various times great Buddhist Teachers have had to appear to completely renew the Dharma or to clarify and correct harmful misunderstandings that have contaminated the teachings – Padmasambhava, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa were all great Teachers who performed these functions. In particular, Je Tsongkhapa clarified many important points, such as the correct view of emptiness according to Buddha Shakyamuni, Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti’s intentions, and the nature, function and methods for developing the illusory body of Highest Yoga Tantra. Many harmful misunderstandings existed before he appeared in Tibet.

    If Je Tsongkhapa’s explanations are lost, the door to liberation and enlightenment will be closed. Dorje Shugden is the protector of these explanations and his practice is not a superstitious practice, any more than the practice of Kalarupa is a superstitious practice. Dorje Shugden was enthroned as the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings by the 11th Dalai Lama had has been named such by many great Lamas such as Nyungne Lama Yeshe Zangpo and Rongchen Kirti Lobsang Trinley, long before Je Pabongkhapa promoted the practice. These facts are lost on you because you follow George Dreyfus’ misleading, incomplete and biased writings on this subject.

    Therefore, the practice of Dorje Shugden is essential for those who want to follow Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, and an attack on Dorje Shugden is an attack of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. Dorje Shugden’s practice is an essential part of the Ganden Oral Lineage teachings and his practice provides necessary supporting conditions for developing the realizations of lamrim, lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra of Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition.

  154. bogstandard says:

    There is only the need to examine one statement within your response, that which states:
    ‘Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and this view is supported by
    history, scripture and reasoning. The other view is not.’
    This is the type of blind dogmatism of which I speak. We know that both points of view can be supporteed by hstory, scripture and reasoning. Therefore, your sweeping statement concenrning the view of DS as a worldly deity is a dogmatic one, since you even refuse to acknowledge the existence of historical, scriptural and reasoned evidence supporting the opposing view.
    I still await responses on questions of what experience of other traditions you have and how long you have practiced Dharma.Perhaps you dont wish to answer these because the answer is a) none and b) a period of time which renders you thoroughly unqualified to comment on such important issues?
    Or maybe you just forgot.

  155. bogstandard says:

    Actually, there is one more statement worthy of note in your response:
    ‘Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings and things are degenerating rapidly through….mixing Dharma with politics’
    Were this not so phenomenally hypocritical it might be funny. Is standing outside DL teachingsalongside Chinese demonstrators, shouting and waving banners making political statements NOT politics? This is not funny. It is laughable.

  156. dear dst, I do not say that dharma protectors are completely unimportant, but they are not THAT important. The importance some Tibetans – and especially GKG/NKT – is giving them is heavily overexaggerated.

    Just two days ago a very very close student of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and a Hothuktu (a person responsible for the correct upholding of the Dharma) explained to us, that the Tibetans have the tendency – due to cultural aspects and superstitious beliefs – to exaggerate the role of Dharma protectors, and that the conception which is behind this exaggeration is superstition. He criticized this cultural attitude of Tibetans and he made clear that this attitude and development – to give Dharma protectors so much importance – is discordant to the Dharma and a cultural aspect of Tibet. He explained that superstition is different to faith. While the latter is based on reality the former is not based on reality. The belief an outer external source can protect or rescue us is superstitious he said, because it neglects cause and effect, the law of Karma. The main point is to protect the mind from within by applying the antidotes to the mind poisons, and living in accordance with the law of Karma.

    Since the core of Buddhism is to avoid non-virtue, to practice virtue, and to tame the mind – as the Buddha has said it – protectors have to be put into perspective. Probably the comfortable feeling an outer source will care and rescue us is appealing for Westerners who grew up in Christianity and is not very different from Christian beliefs.

    However, Buddhism is very different from this. The main point is to transform the own mind, and to live in accordance with the law of Karma, this is the supreme protection, protectors are rather an additional or secondary skilful mean.

    How wrong your assertion “No Dharma Protector —> No protection of the Dharma —-> degeneration and mixing with non-Buddhist practices —–> end of Buddhadharma.” is you can contemplate by the fact, that Gen-la Thubten, Gen-la Samden – both ‘almost’ Buddhas and gifted and appointed successors of GKG – as well as Gen Lodrö, Gen Tharpa and sooooo many other intra-famous teachers of NKT who practised Shugden daily have corrupted and “degenerated [Buddhism] and mixed [it] with non-Buddhist practices [like sex with nuns]“. Their daily and devoted Shugden practice – as well as NKT’s emphasize on Shugden – did neither help nor stop them.

    I think it is not incorrect to state that the degeneration is actually to emphasize protectors more than the Vinaya, the ethical rules for monks and nuns.

    Actually the abuse was stopped by internet, where it was make known ;-) so the internet seems to be a better protector than DS ;-)

    And how correct my statement is – that the main point is to protect the own mind from within (or as the Buddha said ‘be your own protector’) – you can contemplate by the fact, that if those intra-famous NKT teacher had really worked on taming their mind, to abandon non-virtue (keeping the Vinaya or ethical discipline), and to practice virtue (cultivating the 10 Dharma actions or study, contemplation and mediation), and would have put emphasize on taming their mind all the harm for these beings, their victims and NKT would not have happened. No external source, in this case Shugden, was able to protect them or NKT – not even the Guru, GKG, was able to prevent that harm, but if these intra-famous NKT teachers had protected their mind from within, if they had become their own protectors – as the Buddha said in one Sutra – by applying the antidotes to the mind poisons and taming their mind, they wouldn’t have contributed to the degeneration of Buddhism – or as GKG has put it “to spread sexual lineage in this world” – or as you put it “—-> degeneration and mixing with non-Buddhist practices —–> end of Buddhadharma.”

    There are many wrong assertions in your comment which are based on the common ‘NKT propaganda’ but I lack time to go into detail, to say it short, you can not compare GKG with those holy beings like Atisha, Padmasambhava or Je Tsongkhapa, because they are completely different in many aspects. Atisha, Padmasambhava or Je Tsongkhapa were predicted in the Sutras or Tantras, they were respected by all the masters of their times, they received teachings from all lineages of their times and were completely non-sectarian – all this can not be applied to GKG. I think this is very clear.

    you say:
    “If Je Tsongkhapa’s explanations are lost, the door to liberation and enlightenment will be closed. Dorje Shugden is the protector of these explanations and his practice…”

    Since NKT does not transmit or study any of the 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa’s scriptural works in NKT “Je Tsongkhapa’s explanations are [already] lost”, hence “the door to liberation and enlightenment will be closed” and “Dorje Shugden is unable to be the protector of these explanations…”

    you are funny, dst.

    Better to follow bogstandard’s advice – or at least Buddha’s advice – and tame your own mind by meditation.

  157. observer says:

    ‘ No Dharma Protector —> No protection of the Dharma —-> degeneration and mixing with non-Buddhist practices —–> end of Buddhadharma.

    This has happened before in Tibet, at the time of the Tibetan king Langdarma,for example’

    Very clever. now think: Those who practised before Langdarma relied on protectors-degeneration occured.
    Theravadins do not rely on protectors-their dharma survives.
    Conclusion? Protectors are not the essential element in preserving the Dharma.

    Andrew brown wrote over ten years ago, concerning the NKT representative S Lane

    ‘It was in Hebden Bridge, in Ruth Lister’s house, that Steven Lane, a plump young man in his twenties with monkishly cropped hair, arranged to tell me the story of the Shugden Supporters Community.

    Steven Lane talked for nearly an hour, hardly drawing breath, without notes. He had the catechetical manner you find among Scientologists or Trotskyists: people who know not only all the answers, but all the questions, too. If the wrong question came up, he simply steamed on and ignored it.’

    Have you any idea how little has changed?What is more rerrifying is how you use the language of dharma to justify your political views-blah blah blah Chandrakirti, blah blah blah Highest yoga tantra’You are simply spouting party lines in party language, language of which you know some of the words; how much of the meaning is a different matter. Ask yourself: how much of the Dharma have i really internalised? have I realised even basic lam-rim? Can I get past three in the breathing meditation?
    The great masters of the past practiced and studied for decades before commenting on their own traditions, let alone those of others-How about you? Some of those people on the demos were new to Buddhism-I have spoken to them. How about you. You still dont seem to have answered the questions above about your own experience in terms of time and traditions.As it says above, did you just forget?
    Come on, answer the question

  158. observer says:

    “If Je Tsongkhapa’s explanations are lost, the door to liberation and enlightenment will be closed. Dorje Shugden is the protector of these explanations and his practice…”
    Sectarian view. What about all the other traditions. if they survived, you are suggesting they would not keep the door to enlightenment open. You spout the party line without even seeing the blatant sectarianism that underlies it

  159. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear bogstandard,

    Well, at least we’ve got the matter of your neutrality out the way – you ain’t. You’re no ‘outsider’.

    What difference does it make whether I have experience of other traditions and for how long I have practised Dharma? Are you impressed by such things if they exceed your expectations? This is Dharma debate, not a pissing contest. Judge my statements on their merits, not on what you think you know about me.

    Truth is not dogmatism, it’s truth. Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is a statement of truth, just like “the sky lacks obstructive contact”. Believing that the sky lacks obstructive contact is not dogmatism, it’s simply the truth, apprehended by valid cognition.

    There is no evidence for the view that Dorje Shugden is a spirit other than the Dalai Lama’s pronouncements on the matter. I prefer the view of Sakya and Gelugpa Lineage Gurus of the past 350 years, supported by logic and reasoning, to the view of one person who has no means of supporting his view other than his popularity and charisma. As Buddha said in his teaching on the four reliances:

    Do not rely upon the person, but upon the Dharma.

    If you really do think there is supporting evidence to prove that Dorje Shugden is a spirit other than the empty pronouncements of the present Dalai Lama and Georges Dreyfus, then please present it. I’m looking forward to seeing what you have to say.

  160. “Dorje Shugden is a Buddha is a statement of truth, just like “the sky lacks obstructive contact”. Believing that the sky lacks obstructive contact is not dogmatism, it’s simply the truth, apprehended by valid cognition.”

    I see, if you perceive Shugden as a Buddha by valid cognition it follows you are yourself a Buddha, because only Buddhas know who is a Buddha.

    Be careful, if you claim superhuman attainments but you do not have them, this wrong claim about superhuman spiritual attainments is called “a great lie”, and if you are a monk or nun your monkhood is finished.

  161. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    Please don’t put words into my mouth, I never mentioned Geshe Kelsang along with Padmasambhava, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. I think this is what you would like me to say so that you can ridicule me but I didn’t.

    I have to disagree with you about ‘an outside force’ being able to save us. There are many stories of people who were saved from fear and danger by going for Refuge to Buddha and receiving immediate help such as a story of a man in Eastern Tibet who was caught by a tiger but who was immediately released when he went for refuge to Avalokiteshvara. When Chandragomin was thrown into the river Ganges by the henchmen of an angry King, he was saved by Tara who manifested as an island. There are many such stories of how Buddhas have helped others temporarily. Of course we have to effect our own liberation by meditating on the Dharma but to deny that Buddhas can help and protect us now is to deny that they can help all living beings and therefore to deny their power. This is a wrong view. People receive such help through the karmic connection they make in their meditation practice so there is no contradiction with the law of karma.

    Do you really think that NKT has to transmit all 18 volumes of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings in order for it to be Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition? Geshe Kelsang’s books contain the meaning of all of Je Tsongkhapa’s essential Dharma teachings, and especially the Ganden Oral Lineage. These books are very clear, straightforward and practical. They’re not written for university professors but for those who want to gain Dharma realizations. It’s this that Dorje Shugden is protecting, and he’s doing a very good job!

  162. observer says:

    ‘There is no evidence for the view that Dorje Shugden is a spirit other than the Dalai Lama’s pronouncements on the matter. I prefer the view of Sakya and Gelugpa Lineage Gurus of the past 350 years’
    Anyone can see this is utter nonsense! Please, there is a question above asking you to list the Sakya masters of tha past 350 years who viewed DS as an enlightened being.You ahve still not answered it.
    For evidence that others held the view of DS as a spirit, see for example
    Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima (1737–1802)
    On page 446 of volume Ka, Zhol edition, of the Collected Works of the great Gelugpa scholar, Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima (1737–1802) , which was reprinted in 1969 in New Delhi, the following account is found of (a conversation between) Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717–1786) and his student Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima:

    Reaching the site of the cairn to Machen, he explains in detail to Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima as follows: “Je Lama (Tsongkhapa) and his students do not propitiate worldly gods and protectors and hence even the cairn of Machen, the god of his birthplace, is not included within the parameter of the circumambulatory (path at Ganden). (However,) in the past some Ganden Throne Holders propitiated Dholgyal (Shugden) and experienced misfortunes, consequently Tri Chen Dorje Chang dismantled Dholgyal’s image and shrine and banished it from the monastery.”

  163. observer says:

    I just went to read the DS page on wiki. I often refresh pages as I read them. As I read the article, I noticed someone revised it to include a phrase concerning the regular removal of any criticism from the page. Less than a minute later, I refreshed the page and the comment was gone. Cyber vandalism=truth? Dont think so.

  164. dst:
    “Please don’t put words into my mouth, I never mentioned Geshe Kelsang along with Padmasambhava, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. I think this is what you would like me to say so that you can ridicule me but I didn’t.”

    O, this is true. I am sorry, this is my fault! I didn’t read your post careful enough. You didn’t mention Geshe Kelsang along with Padmasambhava, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.

    (But we both know that NKTpas think in this way, in some NKT centers a poster has been pinned with ‘quotes’ from ‘a Sutra': “Buddha said …in degenerate times…a great being will appear who is actually a mara and also a small being will appear who you should know is me”.)

    you say in your last comment:
    “Dorje Shugden was enthroned as the protector of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings by the 11th Dalai Lama…” even if this would be true, you ignore that the 11th Dalai Lama died when he was 18 years old, this can’t withstand matured authorities like the 5th, 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas who were opponents of that practice … and again, though DS has been mentioned here and there, it was Pabongkha Rinpoche who claimed that DS would replace the three protectors of Je Tsongkhapa and made him central for Gelugpas. Though DS was widespread before PR made him central, he was seen as a mundane spirit and nobody claimed he would be the supreme protector of Gelugpas and Je Tsongkhapa’s protectors would have turned to their pure lands.

    Your examples of Refuge are examples to help people to develop faith in Buddhism, but you have to put these examples into perspective and you should be able to discriminate what is essential in Buddhism. Even if Tara were to manifest an isle for you it does not help you really as long as you have an untamed mind and as long as you ignore the law of Karma, the isle will be the place where you create your own hell instead.

    Also the Buddhas can only help you if you have the Karma to be helped and if you accept the help, hence the importance of Karma and a tamed (or just open) mind is also main important in that context.

    Buddha’s teachings are not black and white, there are different levels of meaning and understanding. For people liking external practices certain practices may be sufficient for their level of understanding, but when the meaning of rituals (like protectors) is lost – due to lack of knowledge or superstitious beliefs – Buddhism degenerates no matter how much you pray to Shugden.

    With respect to protectors they have to be controlled and them are given commands they have to do for you, but to do that you need tantric powers and a correct Tantra practice, but NKT involves every newcomer in this practice, and claims wrongly it would be “just a prayer to develop compassion and love”.

    You leaned your NKT lesson well:
    “Geshe Kelsang’s books contain the meaning of all of Je Tsongkhapa’s essential Dharma teachings, and especially the Ganden Oral Lineage.” and how can you show me that this claim is not based on blind belief?
    Which of the 18 volumes you have studied or read, what of the oral transmission and lineages of the different tantras Je Tsongkhapa has taught and practised do you have received and practised to be able to have a correct belief, based on reality, that this claim is true?

    Everybody can claim e.g. ‘my books contain the complete Buddhadharma, there is nothing you need to read, my books have the essential meaning.’ or “my books are the essential meaning of all of Je Tsongkhapa’s essential Dharma teachings, and especially the Ganden Oral Lineage.” but how will you provide evidence for such an unhumble claim? Its just a claim, dst.

    Most of your comments offer mainly claims or beliefs NKT tell their followers, and it seems to me you believe blindly what they claim would be true.

    BTW are Je Tsongkhapa’s books written for university professors and not for those who want to gain Dharma realizations?

  165. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    you said

    Though DS was widespread before PR made him central, he was seen as a mundane spirit and nobody claimed he would be the supreme protector of Gelugpas and Je Tsongkhapa’s protectors would have turned to their pure lands.

    You learned your Dreyfus lesson well. Dorje Shugden has never been seen as a mundane spirit. There is one verse from the 5th Dalai Lama were he says that Dorje Shugden is a spirit yet Trinley Kalsang’s site shows clearly that Dorje Shugden was seen as a Buddha from the very beginning by high Sakya and Gelugpa lamas.

    Why don’t you accept this clear evidence?

    Can you tell me what meaning contained in Je Tsongkhapa’s eighteen volumes of sutra and tantra that is essential for enlightenment is not contained in Geshe Kelsang’s books? What big piece of the jigsaw are these books missing that means that its not possible to attain enlightenment through practising these teachings?

  166. “You learned your Dreyfus lesson well. Dorje Shugden has never been seen as a mundane spirit.”

    This is plain wrong dst, e.g. both Mumford and Wojkowitz who are neutral academic researcher of the Shugden cult list Shudgen as a mundane protector because even the followers and lamas practising him saw him as a mundane protector. Above are some quotes.

    There is also a quote from the head of the Sakya School who states that Shugden has been always seen as a lower deity and in the lowest category of the pantheon.

    Please read other sources and don’t abide only in NKT or NKT’s self-created sources. You can start to read the quote on my post above as a start ;-)

    You ask:
    “Can you tell me what meaning contained in Je Tsongkhapa’s eighteen volumes of sutra and tantra that is essential for enlightenment is not contained in Geshe Kelsang’s books?”

    just very quickly e.g.

    “Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows, who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken. Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result.”

    or

    “The defining characteristics of the student who relies upon the teacher”

    Aryadeva states in his Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuh-sataka):

    “It is said that one who is nonpartisan, intelligent, and diligent
    Is a vessel for listening to the teachings.
    The good qualities of the instructor do not appear otherwise
    Nor do those of fellow listeners.”

    [..]

    With respect to these three characteristics, “nonpartisan” means not
    to take sides. If you are partisan, you will be obstructed by your
    bias and will not recognize good qualities. Because of this, you will
    not discover the meaning of good teachings. As Bhavaviveka states in
    his Heart of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka-hrdaya):

    “Through taking sides the mind is distressed, Whereby you will never
    know peace.”

    “Taking sides” is to have attachment for your own religious system and
    hostility toward others’. Look for it in your own mind and then
    discard it…

    NKT has no teaching that wrong teachers have to been abandoned*, and that a qualified student has to be nonpartisan. Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan, and how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.

    So your question “What big piece of the jigsaw are these books missing that means that its not possible to attain enlightenment through practising these teachings?” I answer: NKT does not teach how to detect wrong teachers, that wrong teachers have to be distanced from, and that students must be non-partisan, hence they are disposed to follow misleading teachers and being unable to distance themselves from them… Since misleading teachers will lead their students in the wrong direction, they will turn away from enlightenment, and a great opportunity is lost.

    *correction 12 May 2009
    Actual it should read “NKT has no teaching that one has to distance oneself from wrong teachers, and that a qualified student has to be nonpartisan.” because the point stressed in the tantras is to distance oneself from wrong teachers, the tantras don’t use the word “abandon”.
    However, in oral teachings on Patrul Rinpoche’s text Words of my Perfect Teacher which we received from H.E. Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche, he said that teachers who ….. “have to be abandoned, because they lead their students to wrong paths.”

  167. Atisha's cook says:

    NKT has no teaching that wrong teachers have to been abandoned, and that a qualified student has to be nonpartisan. Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan, and how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.

    No it doesn’t. you are talking about something i do not recognize. your view of NKT is completely warped and bears no connection with conventional reality.

    your quotes above contain meanings easily understood from Kadampa Dharma books; i wonder if you’ve really understood those meanings yourself, Tenzin.

    you can rely on Dreyfus, Nebresky-Wolkowitz, and all your neutral academics. i’ll rely on Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Dorjechang and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. we’ll see which of us receives the greater benefit – that one will be back for the other anyway once they reach enlightenment.

  168. douga; james says:

    DST
    1)Explain’Reaching the site of the cairn to Machen, he explains in detail to Thukan Lobsang Choekyi Nyima as follows: “Je Lama (Tsongkhapa) and his students do not propitiate worldly gods and protectors and hence even the cairn of Machen, the god of his birthplace, is not included within the parameter of the circumambulatory (path at Ganden). (However,) in the past some Ganden Throne Holders propitiated Dholgyal (Shugden) and experienced misfortunes, consequently Tri Chen Dorje Chang dismantled Dholgyal’s image and shrine and banished it from the monastery.”
    2)List the Sakya lamas you refer to.
    Here is the evidence you ask for and here is the question you have not answered, despite repeated requests.

  169. Interested says:

    DST/Lucy(ooops-‘Dougal’/ACAC
    Below are two lists. The first is the Sakya lam dre lineage (I’ll leave you to work out what the lam dre is)and the second, the line of Sakya Trizins, dating from the approximate time of the brith of DS practice. Sometimes their is an overlap.
    Since you have claimed that Sakya lineage masters have worshipped DS as an enlightened being since the inception of the practice, and since these two lines represent the most important lineages within the Sakya, I invite you to indicate which of these, apart from Sonam Rinchen and Kunga Lodro propitiated DS and provide a supporting reference for your claim. A scriptural citation where each of the lamas you name refers to DS as an enlightened being is also welcomed, particularly in the case of the two lineage lamas already mentioned.I must apologise for asking you to do this: I have followed your instruction to examine Trinlay Kelsang Billman’s webpage but I am afraid I cannot find anything indicating what you suggest. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    1) The Sakya lam dre lineage
    Kunga Sonam (1597-1659)
    Sonam Wanchuk (1638-1685)
    Kunga Tashi (1656-1711)
    Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741)
    Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
    Ngarik Kunga Tashi (1754-1817)
    Pema Dudul Wangchuk (1792-1853)
    Ngawang Kunga Gyaltsen (1803-1841)
    Tashi Rinchen (1823-1865)
    Kunnying Samphel Norbu (1850-1899)
    Dagshul Trinlay Rinchen (1871-1936)
    # Khenchen Jampal Sangpo (1901-1961)
    # His Holiness the Sakya Trizin (1945 – )

    2) The line of Sakya Trizins
    # Kunga Tashi
    # Sonam Rinchen
    # Sachen Kunga Lodro
    # Wangdu Nyingpo
    # Pema Dudul Wangchug
    # Dorje Rinchen
    # Tashi Rinchen
    # Kunga Sonam
    # Kunga Nyingpo
    # Dzamling Chegu Wangchug
    # Dragshul Thinley Rinchen
    # Ngawang Thutob Wangchug
    # Ngawang Kunga (the current Sakya Trizin)

  170. bogstandard says:

    Hey DST
    ‘What difference does it make whether I have experience of other traditions and for how long I have practised Dharma?’
    Actually, this was one of the questions Lucy, (sorry, dougal) asked of others outside the NKT, so perhaps you could address the same response to him/her.
    Now for the meaning of your response.
    Qa) ‘What difference does it make whether I have experience of other traditions’-implict meaning? You have no experience of other traditions.
    Qb)’..for how long I have practised Dharma?’Implicit meaning? You have little or no long-term experience of Buddhism.
    Qc)’What difference does it make?’
    What difference it makes is that this lack of knowledge or experience render you thoroughly unqualified to comment on other traditions or determine the developmental direction of Dharma in the West. You have little knowledge and no experience-all you have is propaganda, dogma and intransigence, three characteristics that many in your ‘tradition’ seem to demonstrate.
    The solution? Open your mind, study and meditate. The obstacle? Compulsive and unquestioning adherence to the party line. Ever thought of trying Scientology? They could use more people like you.Your a natural!

  171. Hi AC!

    I said:
    “NKT has no teaching that wrong teachers have to been abandoned, and that a qualified student has to be nonpartisan. Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan, and how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.”

    you replied:

    No it doesn’t. you are talking about something i do not recognize. your view of NKT is completely warped and bears no connection with conventional reality.

    Some time after I had posted it, I felt ‘o maybe this is too much a claim to state “Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan, and how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.” and it is also not that precise and can be a bit superficial.’ On the other hand I wrote also in the comment you quote from “just very quickly e.g.” which indicates that I didn’t go to the bottom of this argument. However your reply offers the chance to go into detail and to investigate if this claim is correct or incorrect.

    With respect to the first part “NKT has no teaching that wrong teachers have to been abandoned, and that a qualified student has to be nonpartisan.” – is this a wrong claim for you, where and how GKG has stated that wrong teachers have to been abandoned, and that a qualified student has to be non-partisan?

    He never did as long as I was following NKT and listened his teachings and read and studied diligently his books (all together 4 years). The mere absence of even the word “non-partisan” (its meaning respectively) is what defines my NKT time. So if you can, please supply a quote or teaching by NKT, which refutes what I claimed: “NKT has no teaching that wrong teachers have to been abandoned, and that a qualified student has to be non-partisan.” As far as I know and have checked it, this is a correct statement.

    Now with respect to the second part of the quote: “Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan, and how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.”

    This is a controversial claim on the first view, because it will be difficult to find direct teachings or quotes for it, and it may not be obvious or not a direct experience for NKT followers.

    With respect to the first part “Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan” I made this quick judgement or claim based on my own remembrance that due to NKT’s influence, I gave up to look from different perspectives on events and issues, and to be open for criticism, an approach or habit I followed and I was used to as a non-Buddhist before entering NKT. So, how does NKT teach their members to be partisan, as I’ve claimed? By NKT’s skilful approach (mainly indirect speech[1] and an internalized system of body language[2]) to establish themselves as the last pure upholders of Tsongkhapa’s school, and by directly or indirectly criticizing those who uphold Je Tsongkhapa’s school, NKT’s competitors, the present Gelug masters (or FPMT) by portraying the Gelug school as “being very degenerated” and some of their masters, like HHDL or Lama Yeshe as “mixing Dharma with politics”. “Mixing Dharma with politics” is explained within NKT as corrupting the Dharma, or destroying the Dharma, and NKT is claimed to be free of this perceived fault.

    So finally due to this NKT approach and setting of NKT the newcomer will be sucked into NKT and finally he will be severed from Tibetan Buddhism and their masters. Within NKT it is also claimed NKT would be sufficient for their spiritual development – since GKG’s book would offer the ‘complete path to enlightenment’, so finally the newcomer will ‘understand’ or will have ‘faith’ – ‘faith, which goes into the correct direction’, nobody else than Kelsang Gyatso, his books and his NKT centers and NKT programs are needed for enlightenment. This process of sucking members into the supreme NKT while severing members’ ties or good thoughts to Tibetan Buddhism (and the Dalai Lama) is what I refer to as “Actual NKT teaches their members to be partisan” (being attached to NKT while being hostile towards Gelugpas) – but the way NKT do this is not easy to detect. It may be also very difficult – due to bias – to detect this partisan attitude in the own mind. Maybe the outer result is more easy to be recognized: Those who commit themselves to the NKT-IKBU are in danger to be isolated completely from the Tibetan Buddhist community, due to this partisanship.

    The amount of partisanship one can develop following NKT I know from first-hand-experience within NKT and I observed it also strongly in others. I think, ‘dst’ in this thread or ‘lineageholder’, a stubborn poster on tricycle blog, and many other internet posters of NKT give a good example what I mean with being partisan, however for some it may be difficult to trace this attitude back to NKT’s teaching and setting.

    Now with respect to the last part of the claim you object “[NKT teaches...] how to cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.” this is indeed not correct. I mixed up what I wanted to say with that what I didn’t wish to say directly, and the result is this statement. OK, I correct this:

    Since NKT teaches mainly that people who give up their Guru or Spiritual Guide will go to hell (see Joyful Path by GKG and the oral teachings within NKT) and it is commonly believed that to leave NKT is the same as giving up Kelsang Gyatso – the sole Guru or Spiritual Guide of NKT – and there is the belief due to NKT’s teachings and setting by giving up NKT one would enter the ‘degenerated world’ outside of NKT again – where the Dharma is corrupted by ‘mixing Dharma with politics’ and people are so worldly etc – it is almost impossible for someone to leave NKT without feelings of guilt. On top of that NKT has NO teaching, that it is correct to distance from a Guru or Spiritual Guide who has gone astray but instead emphasize strongly that the faults one may perceive are projections of the impure mind of the student. Therefore if someone within the self-referential teaching sytem of NKT perceives GKG as following a misleading path, he has no chance to leave him, because he has just no explanation, that this is acceptable and how he can do this. Hence – since for devoted followers books by other Buddhist masters are a taboo, such a person is spiritual condemned to follow GKG or to go to hell if he or she leaves him and his NKT.

    Now since there are lamas who clearly state that GKG has taken a misleading path – a judgement I share – NKT followers will – based on the NKT teachings – “cling to a teacher even if he has taken a mistaken path.”

    This is what I wanted to say, what I wished to avoid is to say is, that GKG is perceived to have taken a misleading path, a view I share.

    Obviously I was not able to manage what I wanted to say.

    you say:
    “your quotes above contain meanings easily understood from Kadampa Dharma books; i wonder if you’ve really understood those meanings yourself, Tenzin.”

    please provide these ‘meanings easily understood from Kadampa Dharma books’.

    you say.
    “you can rely on Dreyfus, Nebresky-Wolkowitz, and all your neutral academics. i’ll rely on Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Dorjechang and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.”
    I rely on my discriminating intelligence and try to be open to correct myself if I am wrong, further I listen to the wise and check if what they say makes sense. Also I try to be open for different perspectives and the knowledge good scholars provide, and check also this. This approach is in accordance with what the Buddha advised.

    You actual offer here again your blind belief as your personal approach to this issue – though you claimed you are not following blind belief. If two neutral, accepted, recommended and respected researcher clearly state in their research (Mumford and Wojkowitz) as a finding, that at the time of their research Shugden was classified by the own followers as a mundane protector you can only ignore this by applying stubbornness or close mindedness. Your escape in the mere blind belief “i’ll rely on Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Dorjechang and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.” is not the Buddhist approach. (see Kalama Sutra).

    you say:
    “we’ll see which of us receives the greater benefit – that one will be back for the other anyway once they reach enlightenment.”

    You will see the results in your own mind, I will see the results in my mind. Sometimes the object to be checked is very close ;-)

    [1] I explained this on tricycle using quotes by GKG. If needed I can supply more evidence here as well
    [2] e.g. if an enthusiastic newcomer who has not yet learned his NKT lesson – e.g. that HHDL is a mere ‘politician’ ‘destroying the Buddhadharma’ – speaks of praise of the Dalai Lama or a non NKT-book, as long as this person is in the process of becoming a devoted member but he is not yet formed by NKT’s beliefs, to not offend this newcomer by saying something badly, the bodily language of NKT members will be often to look down, to say nothing, or to leave the room. This is one of the ways how NKT transmits certain unspoken rules without saying it directly.

  172. dougal says:

    if you think i’m Lucy James then you really are far madder than i’ll ever be.

    i am not Lucy James.

    that’s your one and only guess. i will neither confirm or deny any further attempts.

  173. dougal says:

    bog –

    when? all i did was ask [personal attack deleted by blog owner] Lhundrup if he had ever met any NKT practitioners to base all his wild generalisations on. mind you, i might have asked those other questions, i can’t remember; but i’m not generally all that impressed by how far you can piss so i doubt it. prepared to be proven wrong, though.

    comment TP
    Dougal please restrain to attack other persons on my blog by using insulting words. As far as I have seen Lhundrup has never insulted you.

  174. dougal says:

    also, Bog –

    have you read your posts??

  175. “Your escape in the mere blind belief “i’ll rely on Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Dorjechang and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.” is not the Buddhist approach. (see Kalama Sutra).”

    how come you can’t discriminate reliance on a Spiritual Guide and their lineage from blind faith?

  176. ok, fair enough – sorry, Lhundrup.

    but you have to admit those posts were a bit fruity, eh? like mine, only more so. :-)

  177. thank you interested for your factual input. I added to the origin post a quote by Beyer – another neutral researcher – who states

    “P’awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch’amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteries…”

    Dorje has kindly provided this quote already at the tricycle blog see comment #490.

  178. lhundrup says:

    Apologies accepted, but WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE, not a bit fruity, but is the matter of fact.

  179. bogstandard says:

    Morning Dougal
    Just playing with you. Hi to you too,Lucy (Please note the absence of personal attacks, foul language-Im not a very good buddhist, but its a start)
    I do hope you are working on the questions about the Sakyas-Im really loking forward to reading the evidence.

  180. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear friends,

    To answer the point, supposedly from Changkya Rolpai Dorje that the shrine of Dorje Shugden was dismantled at Ganden Monastery because of problems, can anyone tell me who the ‘Tri Chen Dorje Chang’ mentioned is? We cannot pronounce on the validity of this statement until there is more information.

    What you have quoted is from a document called ‘A Brief History of Opposition to Shugden by the Dholgyal Research Committee. It claims that Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa, Yongzin Yeshe Gyaltsen, and Longdol Lama Rinpoche were not Dorje Shugden practitioners and in fact advised against the practice, but this is refuted here:

    http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html

    For the sake of brevity I will not post the whole refutation but essentially, the quotes from these great Masters are not conclusive because they don’t mention Dorje Shugden by name (except, apparently, the one from Khachen Yeshe Gyaltsen but we need more information about that) and in fact they are referring to Nechung and not Dorje Shugden.

    I have other misgivings about this document as follows:

    1. It is the Dalai Lama’s intention to discredit and destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and this was the sole reason for establishing the Dholgyal Research Committee. Like Dreyfus, they are not neutral because they want to establish a particular ‘truth’ that supports the Dalai Lama’s position.

    2. The TGIE have lied about other things such as the ‘death threat’ received by Ven Lobsang Gyatso before his horrific murder.

    3. Both the Dalai Lama and Samdhong Rinpoche have openly lied about Dorje Shugden practitioners being liars, terrorists, arsonists and so forth, so they are simply not to be trusted. Their motivation is none other than worldly politics.

    I wouldn’t trust any pronouncement from this ‘committee’ unless they could provide the original Tibetan source and it could be translated independently.

    comment TP
    dst, since you continue your baseless accusation with respect to “liars”, I had to decide either to reject your comment or to add something. I decided for the latter, to add a comment right below of it. Here it is.

    dst, you seem to have no idea how radical Shugden followers can be. Ven. Lobsang Gyatso and 2 of his students were murdered by them, because Ven Lobsang Gyatso had the brave to openly criticize Trijang Rinpoche for his promotion of the Shugden cult and to write his point of view in a clearly understandable Tibetan language. The establishment was upset and angry on him since he had the brave as a simple monk who didn’t belong to the establishment and aristocrats to openly criticize the Shugden cult and Trijang Rinpoche. He stated e.g.

    The worship and propitiation of Dolgyal Dorje Shugden, by promoting a rabid form of sectarianism, has caused great trouble to the fabric of of Tibetan society and hindered greatly the ability of the government to govern effectiively. It harms Buddhism and the teachings of Tsong-khapa in particular by promoting a rabid form of Gelukpa sectarianism.

    Gareth Sparham reports

    The murder was widely reported both in Indian and foreign press because Gen-la was seen as a surrogate for an attack on the Dalai Lama by a lunatic fringe of the Dorje Shugden group, a fanatical Tibetan religious sect…In particular, a number of articles he wrote about Shugden in the summer and autumn of 1996 responded to attacks on the integrity of the Dalai Lama by groups of Indian and foreign-based Shugden supporters, these appear to have been the catalyst for his murder.

    Sparham makes also clear that Ven Lobsang Gyatso has never talked with his students or at the Institute about Shugden. He did just not involve them and helped them to concentrate on their studies. He makes clear that the murders killed unarmed monks and he states

    Tibet was a rough, even violent place but elderly, unarmed monks living alone were never the victims of murderous attacks…. They came in the evening just before dark and stabbed him. They stabbed him through the eye, cut his throat, and unkindest of all, stabbed him through his heart… [with a butcher knife] The assassin had pushed it so deep inside I wondered if the knife had actually come out of Gen-la’s back…

    Gen-la was intensely loyal to the Dalai Lama, even while he was scathing his criticism of other members of the Tibetan religious establishment. In the late 1970s Gen-la wrote a book in which he criticized the Dalai Lama’s teacher Trijang Rinpoche for his propagation of the Shugden cult. Even through tame by Western standards, the Tibetan religious establishement – the gesheys and lamas – were outraged. How could a nobody like Lobsang Gyatso, who was neither from an aristocratic family nor the head of a Tibetan region, indeed, not even a full graduate of a religious university, dare to criticize in print an important establishment figure? George Dreyfus at that time remarked that in pre-1959 Tibet Gen-la would have been killed outright for his temerity. Many in the Tibetan community ostracised Gen-la, even though the Dalai Lama had already by that time begun speaking publicly against the Shugden cult.

    You can read more in the last chapter of Memoirs of a Tibetan Lama by Lobsang Gyatso (his autobiography) which he couldn’t complete due to being murdered by fanatics. The last chapter was written by Gareth Sparham who studied at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics – of which Ven. Lobsang Gyatso was the founder and director – together with Georges Dreyfus. Both of them are neutral Western observers right within the Tibetan society at that time. Unlike Kelsang Gyatso, Lobsang Gyatso has not involved his students in the Shugden issue, and Dreyfus and Sparham do not project a situation onto the Tibetan exile situation and the Tibetan society like NKT members do from their British base. They are insiders and obsevers of the situation. Both are far more qualified to state something than the “lunatic fringe of the Dorje Shugden group”.

    When the NKT and India-based Shugden group attacked the Dalai Lama in the 1996, Sparham and many others (see e.g. Tenpai Gyaltsan Dhongthog, Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche among others who just knew it better) felt compelled to correct their misinformation. Only after Gareth Sparham had written this article “in response to reports in the foreign press that the Dalai Lama was being accused of religious intolerance”, six months before Ven. Lobsang Gyatso was murdered, both came to speak about Shugden because Sparham approached Gen-la by mentioning his article. Sparham states: “I was his student and his translator for 20 years and he never mentioned this subject to me until six months before he was murdered when I told him I had written an article about Shugden…”

    This is his article:
    Why the Dalai Lama rejects Shugden (June 1996) by Gareth Sparham
    The book I have quoted from is:
    Memoirs of a Tibetan Lama by Lobsang Gyatso

    Some of Ven Lobsang Gyatso’s teachings have been translated into English, e.g. on Bodhicitta and a commentary on Je Tsongkhapa’s praise to the Buddha for His Teaching of Dependent Arising.

    Sparham quotes the grandnephew of Lobsang Gyatso, who came to Dharamsala to serve his uncle (but Lobsang Gyatso inisted he should study):

    He never said anything to me about Shugden. When he was murdered I had no thought. My mind went totally blank and I could only hear, as is it far off, a faint dull noise.

    NKT seems to have chosen the way of the fanatics who do not accept a different view to their own, and aggressively promote their “truths”. If they would be able to change the perspective they couldn’t continue with the way they have chosen. When H.E. Dzogchen Rinpoche was teaching in Berlin some years ago, he remarked: “We Tibetans have a very wild temper, and if we would not have been tamed with the Dharma, we would be the terrorists of this century.” However, obviously not all were tamed by the Dharma, and now the naive Western followers of a “fanatic” “self-proclaimed” “Geshe” contribute their part for the continuation of fanaticism. Another high lama, the very respected and deeply revered master Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche, has put it that way:

    The lamas’ influence and dominance in Tibet have not only weakened many secular aspects of Tibetan life such as art, music and literature, in which the lamas have little interest, but in some cases degraded the Dharma as well. If it were not for Buddhism’s fundamental view of non-theism, the rule of the more narrow-minded lamas could be as tyrannical as that of the Taliban.

    Despite their emphasis on an ecumenical attitude, many lamas encourage sectarianism by guarding their Tibetan disciples possessively and discouraging them from studying teachings from other traditions. Of course, they have a convenient excuse: their students will become too confused if they do this. Thus, many Tibetan students from one school have absolutely no idea of the other traditions; but that doesn’t seem to stop them slandering the others. As if it were not enough that they are doing this with Tibetans, the lamas have also coached Westerners in this sectarian game and they have been shockingly successful. They have also jealously guarded their Dharma centres in the West, although many are merely vehicles to generate financial support for the lamas and their monasteries back home. Supporting those Westerners who are genuinely pursuing the Dharma, or facilitating their studies, are not their primary interests.

  181. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear friends,

    I think I can now answer the point about ‘Tri Chen Dorje Chang’ – this refers to Changkya Rolpai Dorje’s Guru Trichen Ngawang Chogden.

    The following is from the same article from the Dorje Shugden Society website quoted in my last post:

    A second concrete reference which is quoted over and over again, is the single one mentioning of the name Dolgyal in the biography of master Changkya where the biography narrates an episode of master Changkya’s Guru, Trichen Ngawang Chogden, expelling ‘Dolgyal’ from Ganden monastery. However, the hazy portrayal of the episode in that very point is also naturally refuted and clarified by the very work of master Chankya himself in the biography of his Guru Trichen Ngawang Chogden. In this biography master Changya clearly mentions what Trichen Ngawang Chogden has expelled is a ‘Gyalpo’, instead of ‘Dolgyal’. ‘Gyalpo’ is a general name used for all the deities and spirits born as incarnation of former lamas or monks. Therefore hundreds of Gyalpos exist in the Tibetan pantheon, and the term does not only apply to the Dolgyal.

    The article continues:

    it is a well-known fact that the Gyalpo spirit, which was expelled by Trichen Ngawang Chogden, is the so-called Tagtse Gyalpo, a spirit of the Tagtse estate, which is not far from Ganden monastery. The Samlo department of Ganden monastery took over this estate, and with it, adopted that spirit of the estate as a protector deity of the department. It was then worshipped in the Ganden monastery in their department for some time, until it was expelled by the great master Trichen Ngawang Chogden, who at that time was the throne-holder of Ganden.

    There is also another supporting point. The incarnation of Trichen Ngawang Chogden was also a Ganden Throne Holder called Trichen Tenpa Rabgye. This Master’s collected works contains the first rituals and propitiations of Dorje Shugden in the Gelugpa tradition (apart from the 5th Dalai Lama’s praise), the previous rituals having been composed by various Sakya Masters. The Dolgyal Research committee have not shown much wisdom in trying to claim that Trichen Ngawang Chogden was responsible for expelling Dolgyal from Ganden monastery. Their statement clearly doesn’t make sense!

    Thus we must conclude that the Dolgyal Research Committee have ‘misinterpreted’ these statements of earlier Lamas by claiming that this gyalpo was Dorje Shugden. This ‘misinterpretation’ took place to support the Dalai Lama’s historically and logically untenable position on Dorje Shugden.

    On the subject of Longdol Lama, who the Committee claim:

    In the various records of the teachings that he had received and in the Lists of Ocean of Dharma Protectors found in the Collected Works of Long Dol Lama Rinpoche we do not find even a hint about Dolgyal. From this it can be safely concluded that he did not practise or propitiate Dolgyal

    This is not a safe conclusion at all. Longdol Lama’s Guru was Sera Je Dragri Gyatso Thaye who was a Dorje Shugden practitioner and who wrote an extensive ritual to Dorje Shugden Treasury of the Four Activities: Complete with Offerings, Praises, Fulfillment and Requests to the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden Tsel . Although it is not safe to state conclusively that Longdol Lama was a Dorje Shugden practitioner, it is usual for a student to follow their Teacher: the Fourteenth Dalai Lama is quite unusual in not trusting his Guru, so these facts, at the very least, cast doubts on the Committee’s bold claims about Longdol Lama.

    Thus we can conclude, as the Dorje Shugden society does:

    Thus, apart from such a few, misinterpreted references, there is not a single valid argument to disqualify the practice of this great Dharma protector. On the other hand, the true and clear sources affirming the extraordinary qualities of this deity are abundant among the works of earlier and later indisputable Sakya- and Gelug-masters.

    comment TP
    The website of the Dorje Shugden Society is quite sure no reliable source, neither for Wikipedia nor for correct information. BTW, the Dorje Shugden Society have conferred Gen Kelsang Dechen, the former NKT representative of Germany, who was portrayed by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso – when he expelled her from NKT – as ‘making business with Tibetan lamas’ and of being ‘very self-cherishing’, and having ‘stolen my centers and my students’ and being ‘very negative’ etc. the “Je Tsongkhapa Award“and state about this award:

    »The Tsongkhapa Award is being conferred on the Lama and Geshe who has been effectively contributing on Gelug Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Also, the Award recognize the recipient as a qualified Gelugpa Master.«

    I wonder whose perception and statements are more reliable that of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or that of the Dorje Shugden Society… What do you think? Maybe Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was wrong and expelled »a qualified Gelugpa Master« from NKT? This is sad, because maybe she would be perfectly suitable to be his successor, »a qualified Gelugpa Master« who »has been effectively contributing on Gelug Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.«

    Kundeling Lama, ‘a close friend of mine’ (GKG about KL), is also strongly affiliated with the Dorje Shugden Society and he and Lama Gangchen also received this award. So they must be reliable, since the Dorje Shugden Society is reliable for you. Hence, you should ‘not loose faith’ and see it as being also reliable what they state about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

    Kundeling Lama said to me that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso “is a dictator” “who acts like Adolf Hitler”, and Geshe Lobsang Pende, the last Geshe who visited Manjushri Institute in Ulverston before NKT closed their doors completely for all Geshes, Rinpoches, Tulkus and Buddhist masters, who lives at Lama Gangchen’s place in Italy, said about Manjushri Institute, NKT’s head center, the place “is full of spirits, even when I were asked to go there again I wouldn’t go; and I and my befriended Geshe we are specialists how to tame harming spirits but we never would go there again” and he said about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso that his “Bodhicitta has turned into a wrong direction”.

    So who is reliable? Are those strongly connected with the Dorje Shugden Society, who are also devoted Shugden Lamas, honoured by the Dorje Shugden Society with The Tsongkhapa Award reliable or is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso reliable or both or neither?

    For more details, including a link to an interesting letter Geshe Lobsang Pende sent on behalf of Lama Gangchen to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso with respect to Gen Kelsang Dechen, see.
    A former Dorje Shugden follower’s thoughts

    Don’t claim I would ‘destroy faith’. Faith is to see reality and really existing qualities, faith based on reasoning does not include to look through rose-tinted spectacles.

  182. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear friends,

    I wish to correct a mistake in one of my earlier posts. I said:

    the quotes from these great Masters are not conclusive because they don’t mention Dorje Shugden by name (except, apparently, the one from Khachen Yeshe Gyaltsen but we need more information about that)

    I should have said “(except, apparently, the one from Changkya Rolpai Dorje, but we need more information about that)”

    The statement from Master Changkya as quoted by the Dolgyal Research Committee has been shown to be false because it refers not to Dolgyal but to ‘gyalpo’, this gyalpo being the so-called Tagtse Gyalpo, a spirit of the Tagtse estate, near Ganden monastery.

    Thank you.

  183. bogstandard says:

    Heres the full quote
    This is what people are talking about when they condemn Pabongkas promotion of DS as a sectarian practice. Those of us outside see the NKTs zealous approach to proselytizing as merely a tame western version of what follows. Why is it tame? Simply because KG et al have realised that, outside Tibet, to behave like this would be counter productive. The aims remain the same: the establishment of Pabongka’s tradition as the sole tibetan Buddhist ideology.

    “P’awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch’amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteriesBut many eastern Tibetans remember him with loathing as the great persecutor of the “ancient” sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K’am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of “ancient” books and paintings

    P’awang kawa sent his new disciple back to take charge of the Gelug monastery in Dragyab; Zangmar, with the zeal of the convert, carried with him only his master’s sectarianism and implemented only his policy of destruction. He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped up charge of treason. They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk, who carried with him by chance that day our image of Tara, tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back.”
    Cult of Tara. p238

  184. Interested says:

    Still no answers to the Sakya question.
    As for Dougals dismissal of his own questions re Lhundrups experience of other traditions etc-laughable! first you ask a question , then when someone asks you the same question, you dismiss it as irrelevant!I think youll find thats called hypocrisy.
    In the words of the great Billy Bunter, ‘No, I didnt eat your beastly cake and anyway, it was horrible!’ Pathetic.
    AC/Dougal/DST
    How long have you practiced dharma and what experience do you have of other traditions?
    Please answer the questions re the Sakya masters or lose the debate.

  185. Beate Pilar says:

    I think this will be the only comment I will ever make on this website. I ended up reading most of this ….. really by chance …
    I am a student, teacher and practitioner of Kadam Lamrim, my root guru is Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for the last 12 years.
    I never had a great interest comparing buddhist traditions because I was suffering the fears of samsara and seeking a method to help myself and those around me drowning in endless mental and physical pain.
    Following my Teachers advice and lineage I choose to regard Je Tsongkapa as my Teacher and I regard Dorje Shugden as a part of JeTsongkhapa, the aspect that creates favorable conditions for my practice.
    PLEASE read my last two sentences with wisdom!
    The words ” I choose to regard” are important.
    It is working very well for my practice.
    From my point of view you are welcome to hold your own views, but please try not loose perspective on what is important in our short life.
    Others are suffering. They need our practical help.
    We need to improve ourselves to help better.
    Geshe Kelsang has never said anything then instructing on lamrim, lojong and how to practice tantra purely.
    He is also creating practically a system to offer this dharma to many people and to support dharma materially.
    I have never heard him say or do anything else.
    I go by my experience.
    He is doing his job as a spiritual guide for those who want his advice.
    Please . Please!

  186. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear Interested,

    ‘Lose the debate’- you are funny!

    It’s the Dalai Lama who’s lost the debate, being the sole person who thinks that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. 350 years of Sakya and Gelugpa history prove him wrong.

    If you want a list of Sakya Lamas who regarded Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being, you’ll have to go to the Dorje Shugden history website and do your own research.

  187. Interested says:

    DST
    You made the claim. i have investigated, in accord with your advice, and have been unable to find the references. Since you made the claim, you should be able to provide the supporting evidence. I am afraid if you cannot, then your claims can only be considered false. If you refuse to provide this evidence, then your view will be considered, as Tenzin Paljor asserts. to be a dishonest partisan rewriting of buddhist history. From an outsiders perspective, should you or your colleagues ever make these claims again, then the evidence that you cannot provide appropriate supporting evidence is here, in public for all to see. The assertion that numerous Sakya lineage gurus worshipped DS as an enlightened being is here proven to be a lie, based on nothing more than falsehoods. Oh Tsaaaa!

  188. Dear dst, I added my two comments to two of your comments, since I felt I should directly address it. Since my blog aims to correct the misinformation of NKT and it does not aim to offer NKT members a forum to spread them, I had the choice either to not approve them or to add a comment right below it.

    I hope this is ok for you. Thanks tp

  189. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    I respect your decision to publish my comment, considering you are so vehemently opposed to what I’m saying. I noticed you had held it back and I was wondering if you would publish it. I appreciate your endorsement of free speech, so thank you.

    What you’ve posted about the murder of by Gareth Sparham is very emotive, because obviously he was deeply affected by the murder of his Teacher. The blame for these murders was laid at the door of Dorje Shugden practitioners from the very beginning by the TGIE. There is no evidence to prove that they did it and there are other suspects that were never investigated.

    I’m sorry to have to say this, but as Geshe Helmut Gassner says, Ven Lobsang Gyatso had enemies other than Shugden practitioners because he was a very outspoken critic of anyone who opposed the Dalai Lama:

    The Director of the Dialectics School was well known for his slanderous writings in which he would drag
    through the mud anything that veered even slightly from the course established by the government-in-
    exile: famous masters, the big monastic universities and even the Tibetan guerilla were his targets. In one
    of his last articles he wrote, “…these people will not cease to criticize the Dalai Lama until blood flows from their bodies….”

    Given the character of the assassination and the humiliations the Tibetan guerilla movement had been
    subjected to in earlier years, one could have assumed that the search for the murderer would eventually
    also lead to them. But that obviously did not occur; already the next day, Dharamsala’s local newspaper
    claimed that the murderer would certainly be found among the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi. Aside
    from who committed the murders, this gruesome act was exploited to the hilt by the government-in-exile
    with only one aim in mind: Resorting to all possible means they tried to incriminate the Dorje Shugden
    Society in Delhi in order to put its leading monks behind Indian bars.

    He goes on to say:

    On a Swiss TV program discussing the subject of the murders I than had the opportunity to admire my old friend, the government-in-exile minister Tashi Wangdu, exhibiting evidence in front of the camera.

    According to the commentator it was a death threat sent by Dorje Shugden followers to the murder victim.
    I could not resist stopping the video to copy the Tibetan text and translate it. It contained no death threat at all, simply an impertinent letter containing a challenge to debate the issue so as to settle the difference.

    I don’t know what your definition of lying is, but mine would be what Tashi Wangdi did: distorting the facts to give a false impression. This is also what the ‘Dolgyal Research Committee’ have done too. Is it any wonder that no one can accept anything that the TGIE says on face value?

    You falsely accuse the NKT of being fanatical and not accepting the facts, but when ‘the facts’ are lies put forth by the TGIE, why should they be accepted? Don’t you think if there was any real evidence of the murder of Lobsang Gyatso by Shugden extremists he wouldn’t have to trump up evidence by lying about a simple invitation to debate?

    comment TP
    – I wonder since when Helmut Gassner is a Geshe?
    – Who is the ‘Tibetan Guerilla’ he is referring to?
    – Helmut Gassner maybe deeply effected by his Shugden teachers as well – much more than Sparham, because Gassner’s teacher vehemently propagated Shugden, unlike Ven Lobsang Gyatso who did not even mention Shugden to his students or at the Institute. One of Helmut Gassner’s teachers, Gonsar Rinpoche, said to the Swiss TV, that he does “not understand the Dalai Lama” (I wondered why others – including ignorant persons like me – are able to understand the Dalai Lama and the controversial setting of DS and if Gonsar Rinpoche is just following the common Shugdenpa’s approach to close his eyes to everything contradicting the own view) – so if you use this argument it applies also to Helmut Gassner, whoes teacher may cling to only one perspective and do not understand another one…. How can Helmut Gassner be more reliable than Sparham? Also Gassner’s personal doubts with respect to the Dalai Lama he portrayed to the Goethe Society he based on his feelings and emotions, hence he is also ‘emotive’ (and unreliable, which is the intended meaning of your usage of ‘emotive’)
    – that he may speculate as a Shugdenpa, that Shugdenpas didn’t kill Ven Lobsang Gyatso is understandable, however Interpol is clearly a neutral institution neither affiliated with pro-shugden and contra-Shugden and they have issued red wanted notices for two Shudgenpas as being the murders who escaped to Chine see: Interpol on trail of Buddhist killers by The Times (June 22, 2007)
    – by the way Ven Lobsang Gyatso is portrayed to be a practical and critical man, also self-critical to himself, and he was against the Tibetan Government and felt secular and religious leadership should be separate, and that if this were to be, the Tibetans had an army which could have fight against the Chinese. He clearly differs here with the Dalai Lama’s non-violent approach. Gassner may portray him one-sided. Also Gassner’s theory that a ‘Tibetan Guerilla’ would have killed him is his personal speculation which is different to the Indian police’s view and Interpol, and no authoritative source share this personal view on him.
    – with respect to the threat the TGIE has presented, I assume that Gassner is true in this, however, this is rather a rare event of a failure. My Western monk in India, who speaks fluently colloquial Tibetan, said to me that even nowadays his abbot received death threats from Shugdenpas, and these threats were quite likely more intense at that heated time of the 1970s in Dharamsala. So the TGIE may not have lied about the death threats but could have presented a wrong evidence, which is of course a fault. Also Pico Iyer reports in The Open Road about documents which give evidence to death threats. A newspaper article which reports about death threats against the Dalai Lama from Shugden fanatics was published by Washington Times, Dalai Lama faced with death threats.

    So this is just to add another perspectives to Helmut Gassner’s perspective.

    – Again please be careful with what you state as lies. I do not know how you can come to conclusion that Tashi Wangdi would have lied or the TGIE would have lied, to lie includes to deliberately state something, you know to be untrue.
    What I know from first-hand-experience is the dishonesty of so many of the Shugden-lamas I encountered, but even with respect to them I am very restrained to claim they have lied. Rather I try to show contradictions.

    If you wish to know what lying is please read the excellent Teaching by Bhikkhu Bodhi on Right Speech.

    additional notes 12 May 2009
    – Mr. Gassner is no Geshe, this he has confirmed himself
    – I meant Friedrich Naumann Foundation not “Goethe Society”
    – Gassner’s theory about that the Tibetan Guerilla would have killed Lobsang Gyatso is mere speculative, there is no evidence for such a theory
    – His claims about Lobsang Gyatso, e.g. “The Director of the School of Dialectics, was well known for the calumnies he wrote, dragging everything in the mud that was not absolutely in line with the course prescribed by the government in exile; famous masters, the great monastic universities, even the Tibetan resistance…” is really awkward, since Lobsang Gyatso was equally critical with himself and the Tibetan Government (though he defended the Dalai Lama) , and being critical is not “dragging everything in the mud”. His auto-biography shows how he thinks, and to portray his critical mind as “dragging everything in the mud” seems to be quite unfair and a questionable (mud-slinging) post-mortem attack.
    – It should be also noted in that context how vile some Shugden fanatics are, e.g. Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche had to escape from Shugdenpas, since they tried in a crude conspiracy to murder his assistant and had planed to put the blame for this assassination into the shoes of HHDL and the TGIE. In an radio interview in Dharamsala Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, the tulku of Trijang Rinpoche, said himself

    “In my own Labrang I have recently witnessed a kind of factionalism and I have discovered that one person in particular was planning an evil conspiracy. This plan was to murder my assistant, Tharchin, and to implicate His Holiness’s government in exile with this odious crime. The conspirator aimed to become chakzoe [manager] of my estate. Tharchin has been very kind to me, more so than my own parents, and has taken care of me since I was three years old. As well as managing the affairs of my Labrang.

    With my own ears I heard this person discussing on the telephone a plan to assassinate Tharchin. It is really a matter of great sadness and surprise, especially since the person involved in this ploy has been very close to me as well. If he succeeds in his plan, it would be a cause of great trouble for the Labrang, as well as a cause of disgrace to the Tibetan government and His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

    These are not lies, but true facts which I want everyone to know. That is why I made this statement.”

    Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche concluded his message urging the followers of the Protector to stop seeking him. He said: “I do not wish to be in touch with you.”. In the same radio speech he said also:

    “Some have told me, ‘If you abandon the Protector [Shugden], there is no knowing what will happen. We will not consider you a lama [as guru]. The people of Chatreng are strange, very wild and unruly. We do not know what they may do.’ It is very clear my life might be in danger. So I have decided to leave my Labrang and disrobe, so that none of the Shugden worshippers can ask me to be their leader. I hope that this way I can respect the wishes of the Dalai Lama and still revere the protector, practicing in private and far from everyone. I intend to follow a middle way, neither for nor against Shugden. I appeal to both parties not to contact me.”

    After this statement in Dharamsala Radio Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche moved to the United States.

  190. interested –

    dude.

    anyway, if it makes you feel better, here are your answers:

    15 years/15 minutes total/none – i’m not sure which.

    none, and i neither need nor want any, for precisely, exactly the same reason Beate so beautifully gave above. i am happy to respect other traditions, living together harmoniously with them while getting on with my own. until, that is, some mad politician decides to destroy my tradition, at which point i’m forced to act in its defence.

    so go on then, get it out and see how far you can pee and we’ll all be suitably impressed.

    what has “length of service” got to do with Dharma debate?? i’ve seen long-term practitioners of many different religions and traditions go belly up, and i’ve heard profound insights and seen excellent examples set by newbs and “non-religious” types. i’m impressed by Dharma practice, not diplomas. “how long have you been practising?” Pathetic? yes.

    i asked Lhundrup (over and over again, with semi-irony) if he’d ever even met any NKT practitioners cos he was coming out with all these wild generalisations, proclaiming authoritatively on the nature and intention of NKT-ers. i still want to know where he gets his ideas from.

    so anyway, Lhundrup, back to the matter at hand: have you ever spoken to, or even met, any NKT practitioner?

  191. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    You can put any comments you like on my posts, no problem.

    The question is not so much whether the Dorje Shugden society is reliable or not but rather whether Master Changkya’s biography does mention that Trichen Ngawang Chogden expelled the Tagtse Gyalpo from Ganden Monastery and not Dorje Shugden as the Dolgyal Research Committee have said.

    Obviously, if this is found to be the case, it will be yet another example of TGIE influenced research being used to mislead people in much the same way as ‘the ‘Shuk-den Affair – Origins of a Controversy’ by Dreyfus has been used to mislead Tibetan Buddhists for over ten years.

    If every deception and dark corner of the TGIE’s false arguments are illuminated in a systematic matter, people will eventually come to see the truth.

  192. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear Interested,

    The information is available on the website if you can be bothered to read it. Surely I don’t have to cut and paste everything for you?

    http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/among-shugden-texts.html

    Read the truth.

  193. lhundrup says:

    This may be in the interest to let people who wish to know another side of the whole DS issue.

  194. Dear dst,
    thank you very much for

    “Dear TP,
    You can put any comments you like on my posts, no problem.”

    I will only do this if you state strongly arguments usually given by NKT. However, I try to avoid to let become this a habit.

    Thank you very much for your flexibility.

    you say:

    “The question is not so much whether the Dorje Shugden society is reliable or not but rather whether Master Changkya’s biography does mention that Trichen Ngawang Chogden expelled the Tagtse Gyalpo from Ganden Monastery and not Dorje Shugden as the Dolgyal Research Committee have said.”

    Yes of course it is more important what actually is the fact, but since sources state facts, one must investigate what source is reliable.

    As you can see I rely mainly on dispassionate Western academic sources.

    With respect to the contradiction you state in your post, I lack knowledge to say something, hence I can’t discuss it with you. BTW your language sounds also very ‘emotive’ when you claim “If every deception and dark corner of the TGIE’s false arguments are illuminated in a systematic matter, people will eventually come to see the truth.”

    What you claim wrongly “‘the ‘Shuk-den Affair – Origins of a Controversy’ by Dreyfus has been used to mislead Tibetan Buddhists for over ten years” is really a ridiculous claim. Dreyfus and his essay is highly accepted and often quoted by academic researchers who – unlike the hobby historians of NKT (like the website you have just given a link to) with their strong bias and blindness towards everything contradicting their own pov – are in general knowledgeable, well educated specialists in their fields, able to see things from different perspectives, to use multiple sources, who are learned to discriminate reliable from unreliable sources, and to put them – together with self-published sources – realistically into perspective. NKT and their followers have until today not shown any of their qualities or standards, yet compete with them… funny or just laughable…

  195. “the hobby historians of NKT (like the website you have just given a link to) with their strong bias and blindness towards everything contradicting their own pov”

    um…? wow.

    firstly, Trinley Kalsang isn’t NKT, afaik.

    secondly, his “hobby” history is literally crammed with direct quotes from a large number of texts – practice texts and commentaries – that, he says, are available for the reading for anyone interested who can read Tibetan, as can he.

    this research demonstrates multiple, direct references to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being by a large number of Sakya and Gelugpa Lamas of the last 4 centuries.

    Trinley Kalsang posits the very reasonable hypothesis on the basis of this plentiful evidence that reliance on Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being predated Je Pabongkhapa by some 250-300 years and tht therefore Dreyfus’ conclusions are highly suspect.

    faced with all this evidence, you say: “the hobby historians of NKT [have] strong bias and blindness towards everything contradicting their own pov”.

    that’s superb, Tenzin! outstanding. :-D

    the TGIE’s and Dreyfus’ work shows nothing like this amount of evidence; that which is does offer is seen to be largely flawed.

    who’s blind towards everything contradicting their pov again?

  196. Interested says:

    So, despite his own questions, Dougal has no experience of other traditions whatsoever. Now he claims he was being ‘ironic’. Length of service DOES matter because Dharma takes many years to work and those with little experience are certainly unqualified to determine the future direction of Dharma in the West. Those who claim the opposite are simply attempting to hide their own inadequacies.

    DSTs response re the Sakya question proves one thing: while the NKT are happy to make wild claims about the relation between DS and the Sakyas, they cannot provide evidence to support these claims despite repeated requests.

    In short, the NKTs foot soldiers in this particular skirmish are thoroughly inadequate in terms of a)experience and b) academic knowledge of the situation. They are simply parroting the party line but when pushed to justify their perspective, since they have not been told what to think and have not investigated for themselves, they cannot respond with anything more than evasion and self-justificatory condemnantion of others. Pathetic.

  197. G Mockeridge says:

    As someone with a background in Theravadin Buddhism, the dispute contained in these pages is, for me, an interesting curiosity which, fortunately, does nothing to damage the reputation of the Theravada.

    I have read through this ongoing battle, particularly the communications above.It is increasingly clear that what is happening here is that a Buddhist New Religious Movement (I hesitate to use the loaded term ‘cult’) is trying very hard to establish authority in the Western Buddhist arena through the use of political propaganda and cyber bullying. My own advice to all concerned would be to remain true to your own versions of your faith, keep your mouths closed, stay off the internet and get on with the practice of Buddhism. This perpetual bickering over a subsidiary practice can do nothing more than damage the individuals involved and undermine the credibility of the faith in general. The idea that Buddhism and fanaticism are compatible is possibly not new but that does not mean that it is valid.Just as Islamic fundamentalism has made it uncomfortable for even the most moderate of Muslims to express their views here in the West, Buddhist fundamentalism can do nothing more than inhibit the development of the Dhamma in its new home. Do any of the parties here really wish to have that on their conscience I wonder.
    Were the Buddha alive today, one must ask oneself what his views on this conflict might be.

  198. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    You just carry on with your dream of ‘academic neutrality’. Professor Robert Thurman’s ‘Why the Dalai Lama Matters’ is a fawning love letter to the Dalai Lama, devoid of any objectivity. Whatever you say, Dreyfus ignored 350 years of history. Why? Either he’s sloppy or deceptive and neither conclusion is a good one.

    Luckily, Dreyfus’ biased essay is not the only show in town any more so we can see the truth behind the distorted view he tried to present.

    Academics have delusions and make mistakes, apparently. Maybe there are neutral academics out there but I haven’t seen them yet.

    You may have confidence in academics, TP, but I’ve got more confidence in Lineage Gurus and realized Masters. I’ll stick with their views and writings, thank you.

    comment TP
    Dear dst, when you say “Professor Robert Thurman’s ‘Why the Dalai Lama Matters’ is a fawning love letter to the Dalai Lama, devoid of any objectivity.” then this is your personal judgement. I’ve never quoted or read his book which may not be an academic research but just a book where an academic heavy-weight thinks openly and gives reasons ‘why the Dalai Lama matters’. So what is the problem? As long as he has sound reason, there is nothing wrong with this. I guess why you and the NKT ‘truth’ team do not like his book is, that NKT preaches the opposite of what Thurman thinks and writes, for NKT the Dalai Lama is an ‘evil oppressor’ who is ‘cruel’ and a ‘destroyer of the Buddhadharma’, and based on such a hostile and unrealistic perspective Thurman’s book may appear to you as a “fawning love letter to the Dalai Lama, devoid of any objectivity”. But maybe your own hostility and lack of objectivity lead you to such a judgement? At least it could, until today I have seen no serious and knowledgeable person who takes NKT members’ judgements in any way as being objective or creditable…

    Also your claim “Whatever you say, Dreyfus ignored 350 years of history. Why? Either he’s sloppy or deceptive and neither conclusion is a good one.” is based on the bias and distortion of judgement people following NKT will finally adopt. Dreyfus’ research is well documented, recommended, often quoted and in the bibliographies of other reputable scholars. McCune’s thesis (2007) states

    “Dreyfus’s work [The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy] has been the most thorough. It asks the most insightful questions and employs many diverse means of answering these queries…”.

    For more see my collection of academic papers:
    Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy & New Kadampa Tradition

    You say:
    Academics have delusions and make mistakes, apparently. Maybe there are neutral academics out there but I haven’t seen them yet.
    You may have confidence in academics, TP, but I’ve got more confidence in Lineage Gurus and realized Masters. I’ll stick with their views and writings, thank you.

    dst, of course academics have delusions and make mistakes, as you and I have delusions and make mistakes, and also lineage gurus and realized masters have delusions and make mistakes. only buddhas are free of mistakes and delusions; and only foe-destroyers are free of delusions (but not free of faults). Hence it is good to apply what Aryadeva, Chandrakirti and Je Tsongkhapa strongly advice, to make sure one has the qualities of a Mahayana student: 1. discriminating intelligence which enables one to discriminate wrong from correct teachings 2. being nonpartisan, which means not to be attached to one side and to have aversion to another 3. being diligent in striving for enlightenment, because if you don’t have all three of these qualities you will see faults where there are no faults, you will see faults where there are qualities, you will see qualities where there are no qualities and you will see qualities where there are faults.

    I think, an example of the confusion which arises due to a lack of those qualities is to perceive HHDL as sectarian while he is defacto non-sectarian and to perceive fanatic Shugdenpas as being pure while many of them are defacto just deluded by attachment and pride to the own Gelug school and its assumed supremacy and by aversion to non-gelug schools, and those who ‘mix’ the ‘pure tradition’.

    And then finally I wish to remark – since you’ve said “You may have confidence in academics, TP” – I have confidence in those who have qualities (more qualities than faults), are knowledgeable or learned and / or show a behaviour in accordance with the Dharma. Actual this is the meaning of ‘faith’.

  199. florence says:

    If one ask for historical evidence-it is not forthcoming
    If one asks for evidence of qualification-none is given
    If one relies on a neutral source-it is condemned as inferior academia
    If one relies on academia-it is condemned as biased and uninformed
    If one relies on the words of lamas-they are condemned as puppets of the Dalai lama
    If one points to scriptural reference-it is said to be a lie fabricated by the Tibetan Government in exile

    Im beginning to see a pattern. it is based on dogmatism, intolerance and bigotry.

    Still no answers to the Sakya question

  200. lhundrup says:

    I have answer the question which have been asked…which keep repeating the FOURTH time…i going to see how the record be break, though.

    I am not in NKT now, I can answer the way i wish without anybody tell me ‘how should i do’ or ‘how should i think’…or my answer is too generalize so i much answer in a ‘specific way’ which fix anybody EGO MIND jus b’cos it accord to ‘geshe-la’….i certainly NOT GOING TO BUY INTO IT ANYMORE.

    If anybody claim it is to generalize and don’t feel ‘satisfy’ about it, that is YOU AND YOUR PROBLEM….

  201. @dougal
    “firstly, Trinley Kalsang isn’t NKT, afaik.”

    As far as I know Trinley Kalsang is called Rodney Billman. The information that he is from NKT could be wrong, maybe you have details?

    Unlike Prof. Dreyfus, Trinley Kalsang seems to have not any academic credit, has he?
    What has he published, who is his publisher, and what of his publications has been quoted by any other researcher? As far as I know he has published nothing and he is not mentioned or quoted in any research – at least all the research I read related to Shudgen or NKT.
    What I read by Trinley Kalsang on his website didn’t sound very knowledgeable, though he seems to know Tibetan, hence to call him a hobby historian may not be injustice but maybe a bit provocative.

    When we speak about scholars they should have an academic degree, and they should have published something which fulfils scholarly standards. Usually a scholar should be seen by other scholars as a scholar as well, and one has to be careful when a researcher establishes fringe theories.

    The qualifications needed, I couldn’t recognize until now with respect to Thinley Kalsang or Rodney Billman.

    So If I am wrong please provide details about his education, publications and where he makes research, which universtity he is working for or affiliated with? And of course reviews or recommendation by other researchers makes it more easy to judge his qualification. So please provide details.

    As far as I know until today, unlike the academic sources I use – which are all written by accepted academic scholars, almost all of them are quite reputable Professors at certain Universities, and their papers are recommend, reviewed, and often quoted – Thinley Kalsang or Rodney Billman has nothing to offer similar, has he?

    Since he had opened his website, he has been enthusiastically celebrated by NKT posters as a “scholar”; posters I observed – like ‘lineageholder’ – to be extremely narrow minded and to be heavily rejective to any qualified academic source. Hence my impression the hobby historians of NKT with their narrow-mindedness celebrate one of their brothers as a “scholar” is not that unrealistic. However, I do not know for sure that he is from NKT, but – as far as I know – I’ve never said ‘he is’, I said ‘probably’ he is from NKT.

    I think, the labelling of the term ‘hobby-historians’ onto NKT member’s effort – and now also Rodney’s effort with his personal website (from where NKT editors will probably quote – against the rules of Wikipedia – in Wikipedia) – to establish a new history on Shudgen is justified. It may be much more justified based on the background that most of what NKT posters claim strongly contradicts or spins what accepted and published academic research state, and NKT is quite famous too in publishing selective ‘history’ writings with respect to their own organisation. As researcher Kay has put it

    “Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships. (Coney 1997)

    Leaderships exclude memories by expelling individual malcontents or by simply not referring to unwelcome historical facts until they ‘cease to be part of the group repertoire of memories’. Changing the name of the leader or group also allows memories associated with previous designations to fade whilst promoting the creation of new memories. The project of deliberately excluding histories, however, is not always completely successful because repressed memories ‘can return to haunt the margins of a discourse and continue, despite their apparent absence, to influence its structure’. Alternatively, competing versions of events may only become temporarily submerged within the dominant account and may later ‘rise again to the surface of the collective memory’.

    The NKT is a religious movement in which the dynamics of history construction, as outlined by Coney, are well exemplified.

    dougal, don’t think I write this for you. May engagement is not to convince you or dst, but I use rather the chance to give arguments opposing NKT’s claims for those NKT or ex-NKT members who are open to check and to revise what they have learnt in NKT.

  202. An old friend says:

    Trinlay Kelang is Rodney Billman, an affiliate of Tushita Kadampa Meditation Centre, Thousand Oaks, CA in the US. He has a reasonable working knowledge of Tibetan but he is not a published academic, other than his own web-based publication. In short, Rodney is no more a recognized academic than Helmut Gassner is a geshe. However, in the absence of such qualifications, these are fabricated to grant creedence to Shugden supporters assertions. This is all part of the NKT propaganda war on the net, which this page alludes to in its title

  203. Interested but not that interested says:

    Dear Beate,

    ‘The words ” I choose to regard” are important.’ you state, and indeed they certainly are because they demonstrate a fundamental way in which KG tricks his students into adhering to the practice of DS, namely ‘So what? Whether or not DS is a demon doesnt matter. if I see him as a Buddha, I will get the blessings of the Buddha’

    While this certainly IS an old Buddhist addage (frequently found within the context of guru devotion teachings), it is here perverted for the purpose of deceipt.

    This attitude egotstically grants the mind an all powerful atatus it does not possess and is akin to Mind Only philosophy. Yes, everythig is mind, but mind itself is not an ‘entity’. To claim otherwise is to follow the views of a school which your own claims to be inferior. As any good Prasangika knows, even the mind is just another samsaric appearance, with no more reality than any other.

    Ask yourself, if this almighty mind of yours thinks ‘There is no bus’ and you step out in front of one, would any ordinary sentient being like ourselves survive the impact?

    Again, if one were to meet a demon posing as a Buddha and ask it for advice,would that advice be the advice of a demon or a Buddha? Relatively speaking, if you request the blessings of a Buddha from a Buddha, you will receive the blessings of a Buddha.If you request the blessings of a Buddha from a demon posing as a Buddha, how can you possibly receive the blessings of a Buddha? The demon is simply unequipped to grant them.In short, if you pray to a demon who you believe to be a Buddha and ask for the Buddha’s blessing, what you get is cursed by a demon……….wait and see!

    To claim that all is mind and other than that there is no objective reality, is to deny the existence of dependently arisen ‘external’ objects at the relative level; it is halfway towards nihilism. To claim that this mind is the origin of all phenomena is to posit excessive potential to what is merely another samsaric appearance.It is halfway towards eternalism.

    Remember, valid cognition of objects at the relative level depends on all three levels of dependent arising being in accord, not just the most subtle of ‘dependent on mental labelling’)

  204. dorjeshugdentruth says:

    Dear TP,

    Trinley Kalsang is a scholar because he can read and translate Tibetan and all his research is referenced and verifiable from original sources. Anyone who reads Tibetan can go to the same sources that he did and find the information that he did – including Dreyfus. What is the point of being called a Professor or Geshe if your published work distorts the facts and misleads others? I must, once again, quote Geshe Kelsang from Clear Light of Bliss:

    Nowadays, there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation, whereas a humble practitioner giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed.

    This is precisely the case regarding Dreyfus vs Trinley Kalsang. It’s not about qualifications, it’s about truth.

    The point is, either there was a lineage of regarding Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being before Je Pabongkhapa’s time, or there wasn’t. The evidence that TK has uncovered shows that there was and this was not an invention of Je Pabongkhapa as Dreyfus has implied. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. Providing that TK did not fabricate this evidence, you must accept this as the truth. Any reasonable person would then also conclude that either Dreyfus was ignorant of the facts or he tried to distort them. Either way, what he said was wrong, and I don’t care if he’s a Geshe or a Professor or whatever, HIS VIEW IS WRONG.

    It seems to me that anyone who refuses to accept these facts is being unreasonable.

  205. Dear dst,
    Trinley Kalsang is not a scholar because he is (until know) not known to be a scholar, nor is it known if he was even educated as a scholar, nor is he accepted among scholars, it is not even known if he has any academic credit or if he has any skills which qualify him to compete with scholars or to be put into this category of highly educated and knowledgeable professionals.

    Maybe he is a student at a university? Maybe he has an academic degree, maybe he has not. At least he knows Tibetan and knows some sources, but this is not sufficient to qualify him as a ‘scholar’.

    At a moment it appears to me, Trinley Kalsang could be just another example of how NKT knocks out or ignores conventional realities by labelling assumed things or events (they strongly belief in), in an unrealistic way as something they desire to be true, because it is so appealing to the own way of thinking, while at the same time the object which is labelled is not suited to be a proper basis for imputing the term. In this case, though there is no scholar Trinley Kalsang, for NKT there is a need to push Trinley Kalsang to be seen as a scholar, hence, ignoring conventions, they label him ‘scholar’. After this desired label is fixed, quickly NKT clings to this as “the truth”, and everything opposing this desired ‘reality’ is perceived as being wrong or ‘unreasonable’, ‘biased’ etc, and those correcting NKT are perceived as hostile enemies who want to destroy NKT etc.*

    As far as I can see it, Trinley Kalsang is a private person who can read and translate Tibetan. He is a Shugden follower, and probably a NKT follower as well. Trinley Kalsang or Rodney Billman feels Prof. Dr. Dreyfus’s, who holds also a Lharampa Geshe degree, paper or essay The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy to be wrong or misleading, although or maybe even because it is highly accepted and very often quoted and referenced by academic and Buddhist scholars. Because Trinley Kalsang feels that Dreyfus is wrong, he wishes to write something against Deyfus’ paper on his website, and he states:

    Although this is not organized as a refutation, this presentation will draw out and explain various relevant points to show how they refute many of the fallacious ideas written in existing essays on this subject, especially The Shuk-den Affair.

    This is his private business and right of course, however, this does not qualify him as a scholar, nor is his website a Wikipedia:Reliable Source but a Wikipedia:Selfpublished source, about which Wikipedia states:

    Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

    Trinley Kalsang’s website may also belong to ‘Extremist and fringe sources’ about which Wikipedia states:

    Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

    1. it is not unduly self-serving;
    2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
    5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

    An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory’s level of acceptance.

    Though TK referenced from original sources, he may exclude deliberately views which contradict his aim to show that Dreyfus and other researchers are wrong. However, academic scholars are able to use different sources, to verify and judge them and to give them the proper weight. Just because one source claims something, this is not sufficient for a scholarly research. A source may include wrong claims, may be invalid, and when it is valid, it may just present a minor view held by a particular person or fringe group at a certain time, and the source may be not that relevant from a broader historical perspective. Also what concludes from a certain source has as well as all the complex information to be put into perspective. There are reasons, why there are few highly respected scholars and experts, because it requires a lot of intellectual capability and methodological skills and proper education to finally function as a good scholar. If you look e.g. on Dreyfus’ education: he studied for 15 years hardly within the Gelug school to accomplish the highest degree of them, then he made his PhD under Jeffrey Hopkins which probably took him again five years, than he worked for some years as an assistant professor before he finally was accredited as a full professor at Williams College. He is much respected in the academic and Buddhist world and some of his works have been published. What of this credits has TK?

    Scholarly sources which Wikipedia prefers – and I follow that standard – are described as

    Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.

    * Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
    * Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
    * The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution.
    * Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.

    While Dreyfus’ paper or essay fulfils all the requirements of a WP:reliable source, Trinley Kalsang, who wishes to refute Dreyfus, does not. Hence I call this a case of ‘a fox who competes with a lion’.

    I do not claim that Trinley Kalsang has nothing to offer, what I oppose is that a no-name is put by NKT posters into the pantheon of scholars, without much of a basis. Not only this, I doubt strongly that Trinley Kalsang will be able to compete with neutral accepted research (e.g. Mills, Brück, Kay, Samuel, Wojkowitz, Mumford etc.) much more as TK seems as rejective to unwelcome facts as so many other Shugdenpas do. My alarm bell rings when TK states:

    “Dreyfus also imputes a derogatory sectarian agenda as the motivation behind Pabongkha Rinpoche’s alleged promotion of the practice, with very little sources or evidence noted.”

    The sectarian agenda is widely reported, and can be found in Pabongkha’s own texts (see Dreyfus or Dongthong Tulku) from which Dreyfus quotes, and events of forceful conversions – even by violence if necessary – are documented in different academic research. Some people have also interviewed eyewitnesses, who reported about these events with tears in their eyes, and all of this evidence is ‘refuted’ by Shugdenpas nowadays as jealousy of those who would be jealous of Pabongkha Rinpoche’s success.

    I wonder what evidence Trinley Kalsang has to refute Beyer, Samuel, and other academic sources (see my post above with some quotes) who clearly report about these forceful conversions, including the destruction of religious artefacts of the Nyingma school? (Even the regent of Dagyab confirmed this to his students, when they asked him. However, he added that Pabongkha Rinpoche would have not contributed directly to the violent events.) Then there are a lot of Nyingma sources which report about the harm they received, will TK include them as well or will he ignore them to establish his beliefs as “the truth”, from which then NKT editors will quote in Wikipedia?

    I understand when you say “I don’t care if he’s a Geshe or a Professor or whatever, HIS VIEW IS WRONG.” of course his view IS WRONG, because Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s or NKT’s VIEW IS RIGHT. Since all the available academic research are largely in contradiction to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s, NKT’s and Shugdenpa’s views or claims, NKT members may now feel relief that someone writes now a ‘research’ more concordant with their own RIGHT views and claims. Of course now TK may even be the last hope for NKTpas to ‘poof’ that they are RIGHT, and the Dalai Lama and all those ‘biased academics supporting him’ are WRONG.

    However, though Trinley Kalsang or Rodney Billman maybe good in supporting arguments of Shugdenpas or to add some new information, sources or new perspectives, he may lack the requirements and qualifications that the label ‘scholar’ can be imputed on him, because he may just lack to be a proper basis for that imputation. Rather, I assume, it is correct to state that Trinley Kalsang or Rodney Billman is not “an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” and “caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.” see Self-published sources (online and paper)

    you say:
    “Nowadays, there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation, whereas a humble practitioner giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed.” it follows for you “This is precisely the case regarding Dreyfus vs Trinley Kalsang. It’s not about qualifications, it’s about truth.”

    from a Buddhist or realistic pov, the truth is relative. (And the ultimate truth has no characteristics.)
    Let’s look onto your words to get a better understanding:

    you say:
    The point is, either there was a lineage of regarding Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being before Je Pabongkhapa’s time, or there wasn’t.

    If this is “the truth” then you have already failed, because there are more possibilities.

    – only an enlightened lineage before Pabongkha Rinpoche
    – no enlightened lineage before Pabongkha Rinpoche
    – both an enlightened lineage and a non-enlightened lineage before Pabongkha Rinpoche
    – neither, e.g. a mixed lineage, where some claimed he is enlightened, some claimed he is mundane

    You base your judgement of the truth on an unrealistic basis, by claiming wrongly “The point is, either there was a lineage of regarding Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being before Je Pabongkhapa’s time, or there wasn’t.” Since your basis of investigation is wrong what you conclude is also wrong: “The evidence that TK has uncovered shows that there was and this was not an invention of Je Pabongkhapa as Dreyfus has implied. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. Providing that TK did not fabricate this evidence, you must accept this as the truth. “ We can see you didn’t comprehend the truth since the facts provided by neutral academic research indicate that quite likely “both (existed), an enlightened lineage and a non-enlightened lineage before Pabongkha Rinpoche”. Hence what “TK has uncovered” is nothing new but rather emphasize a neglected aspect, that some rare beings saw Shugden as enlightened before Pabongkha Rinpoche. You miss also the point that Pabongkha bases his claim of Shugden’s enlightened nature mainly on a vision of his Guru.

    So your wrong conclusions should be a reminder for you to be more careful in your claims of “the truth”, because you concluded wrongly “Any reasonable person would then also conclude that either Dreyfus was ignorant of the facts or he tried to distort them. Either way, what he said was wrong, and I don’t care if he’s a Geshe or a Professor or whatever, HIS VIEW IS WRONG.”
    Dreyfus focused on the main view, which is that Shugden was wildly regarded as a mundane protector before Pabongka Rinpoche, a view which is correct, and this view is backed up by (field) research e.g. Wojkowitz, Mumford. There is not the slightest contradiction, as far as I can see.

    So actually your “truth” is not tenable, because there are sources before Pabongkha Rinpoche which state that Shugden is a spirit, a mundane protector, a tamed demon and – as far as I know – there are some rare cases of Buddhist practitioners who claimed that Shugden is enlightened. So what “TK has uncovered shows” that he uncovered what was already known, that some saw him also as enlightened.

    What Dreyfus correctly states is, that Pabongkha made Shugden central to the Gelug school, and Pabongkha gave Shugden an importance Shugden had not before by claiming that the origin protectors of Je Tsongkhapa had gone to their pure lands and beings of this time would have no Karma with Je Tsongkhapa’s protectors any more, hence for Pabongkha “now was the time to rely on Shugden”. The conception of Shugden would be enlightened, Pabongkha Rinpoche based mainly on a vision his Guru had, on the other hand he admits to the 13th Dalai Lama he has violated the refuge vows by propagating Shugden, and in some texts he states that Shugden has to be controlled by tantric power. On top of that before the 13th Dalai Lama died, Pabongkha reports himself that Shugden possessed a medium, and Shugden via medium expressed ecstatically, with a high pitch tone, his joy about the coming death of the 13th Dalai Lama.

    The truth is relative, dst. What you can perceive from “the truth” depends on many causes, conditions and perspectives. Remind the example with the blinds who had to report to the king what an elephant is, and those blinds touching the leg of the elephant said: he is like a tree, those touching his tail, said, no, he is like a rope, those touching his trunk, said “no, he is like..” those who touched his body strongly objected all of them and said; “no, he is like…”

    * The same process can be recognized how NKT labels the Dalai Lama as the ‘evil’ ‘destroyer of the Buddhadharma’ and label themselves as the ‘pure practitioners’ who ‘preserve Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition’. Unrealistic labelling of desired reality which fulfils the internal ideology of NKT is a powerful brand of NKT. But these unrealistic cultivated views within NKT clash with the outer NKT world, who in general accepts conventions, hence NKT must establish their own versions of ‘histories’ and ‘truths’ to nourish or ‘validate’ the own internal fabricated system. And of course, since there is a strong clinging or attachment to the own internal fabricated system, members will quite likely perceive everything opposing the own views or fabricated ‘truths’ as hostile attacks…. I think, this is a samsaric cycle of NKT, may they be able to break through it!

  206. florence says:

    Setting aside KGs very obvious self-serving quote based on the pride of humility, (Dzongsar Khyentse said that humilty can be a sign of a gigantic spiritual ego whereas percieved arrogance can be a sign of high realisation) being able to translate from one language to another does not make one a scholar, nor does translating scripture. My Asian friend often discusses the Koran with his Urdu speaking mother-does this make him an academic or a reliable source (he does a mean curry, mind you.)
    Finally, anyone who doesnt accept the facts according to you is being unreasonable-cant you hear those alarm bells ringing?
    PLEASE LISTEN Dreyfuss does not assert Pabongka invented the teaching on DS as enlightened-he states that he popularised it and centralised it in the latter day Gelug-it looks suspiciously like you havent read Dreyfuss

  207. Thanks florence, I needed more words ;-)
    I’ve just adjusted my reply to make it more precise, and I added some additional thoughts.

    May it be helpful.

  208. oh dear, Tenzin!

    me, i couldn’t give a monkey’s whether TK is a “scholar” or not – you can call him an aardvark if you like. what matters is: is what TK writes true or false? remember that Kalama Sutra you’re always banging on about? maybe read it.

    if Trinley Kalsang has not made the whole thing up, then we have to conclude, based on this evidence, that Dreyfus’ implication that Dorje Shugden practice was marginal – even unorthodox – prior to Je Pabongkhapa’s “popularisation” is wrong.

    i mean – that’s eminently reasonable, however you slice it. to simply say: “not listening! not listeniong! you’re not a proper scholar anyway” is – um – unreasonable, isn’t it?

    by the way: you’ve misread dst (maybe linguistic problem?). his/her statement: “The point is, either there was a lineage of regarding Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being before Je Pabongkhapa’s time, or there wasn’t.” does not preclude the possibilities you listed. the statement *doesn’t* imply that the enlightened lineage was either the only lineage or non-existent; it means that it either existed, with or without a contemporary non-enlightened lineage, or it did not, as you so lengthily explain.

    comment TP
    Hi dougal, I think there is nothing wrong in saying that Shugden to be celebrated as an enlightened being and central to Gelug school is due to the inventions of Pabongkha Rinpoche, and before him, though Shudgen was widespread, DS was widely seen as mundane, and the supramundane three protectors Je Tsongkhapa has established, Kalarupa, Vaishravana and the six-armed Mahakala,were clearly seen by the far majority of Gelugpas as the main protectors of the Gelug school. The claim of Shugden’s enlightened status Pabongkha based on a vision of his Guru (this is just one generation before himself), and Pabongkha also claimed that the origin protector which Je Tsongkhapa has established, Kalarupa, Vaishravana and the six-armed Mahakala, would have no power any more, because the Karma of the beings of this time would have been exhausted with respect to them, “hence now is the time of relying on DS”. By these claims, and ignoring that the enlightened status was not a wide spread view he made DS central to Gelug school. Not only this he wrote himself the Life entrustment practice, because as he openly admits, there existed none at his time. He claimed also there would have been existed one before but Sakya’s say they have never ever practised a Life entrustment to Shugden. Please remind the scolding Pabongkha Rinpoche received by the 13th Dalai Lama for establishing this controversial practice – especially Life entrustment – and that Pabongkha had admitted to have gone against the refuge pledges and unnecessarily provoked the wrath of Nechung, the head of the mundane protectors. Lama Pabongkha’s followers also strongly believed that Shugden would replace Nechung as the head of the mundane protectors, once Nechung attained full enlightenment, and please remind that Pabongkha was himself in contradiction with the rituals to Shugden he has established. This set of different views at the same time indicates clearly that the view of Shugden’s enlightened status was just in the process of forming and widely seen differently, and even Lama Pabongkha was not so clear about it. For details see academic research.

  209. FromTheHeart says:

    Hi interested:

    You mentioned in your post:

    “So what? Whether or not DS is a demon doesnt matter. if I see him as a Buddha, I will get the blessings of the Buddha’”

    Are you assuming Beate is thinking this? Maybe she “chose to regard” Dorje Shugden as a Buddha because she feels the evidence points towards this truth. She’s not imputing anything on anything but rather a Enlightened Buddha upon what she feels a completely suitable basis.

    On another point – you said “if you pray to a demon who you believe to be a Buddha and ask for the Buddha’s blessing, what you get is cursed by a demon……….wait and see!”

    Nothings happened for 12 years – just what exactly should I be looking out for? will hairs grow out my ears? my delusions increase? I’ll keep a look out and let you know.

    Best Wishes.

    However, you obviously think the basis is not suitable and if you were correct it wouldn’t be suitable to label

  210. zebedee says:

    Just to remind you……The old ‘we have nothing to do with the murders’ line appeared yesterday on the DS controversy discussion page at Wikipedia. The line was in a letter from a supposed independent academic who,it later transpired, was the teacher at Atisha centre in Geneva. Claiming to be an ‘expert’ on the Shugden issue,he stated that there was no relationship between Shugden devotees and the Dharamsala murders.
    The article below from the Times,which is at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1968987.ece
    tells us that, in 2007 the Indian police asked Interpol to issue red notices for two known Shugden devotees who they believe were responsible for the murders. So, whil NKT ‘independent academic experts’ claim there is no relationship between their cause and these acts, the Times, Interpol and the Indian police state that there is. I wonder which is the most reliabler source?
    Do be careful if you quote this: I watched it appear and be edited out of the discussion page yesterday
    (no doubt in the interest of relgious freedom and free speech)

    INTERPOL ON TRAIL OF BUDDHIST KILLERS

    Jane Macartney in Beijing
    The Times (London)
    June 22, 2007

    Interpol has issued wanted notices for two followers of a Tibetan sect accused of the ritualistic killing a decade ago of one of the Dalai Lama’s closest associates.

    The attack, in which two students were also killed, was apparently in revenge for the Nobel peace laureate’s decision to ban the group after more than three centuries of mystic controversy.

    The Interpol Red Notices for Lobsang Chodak, 36, and Tenzin Chozin, 40, issued at the request of the Indian police, are believed to be among the first demands by another country to arrest Chinese citizens living within their own country’s borders. A Red Notice is not an arrest warrant but is a means by which Interpol notifies member nations that an individual is wanted in another country.

    The notice leaves Beijing in a difficult position since China has been an active member of Interpol, frequently turning to the organisation for help to try to capture its citizens who have fled abroad.

    Several Communist Party or government officials wanted for corruption have been returned to China in recent years. However, it is far from clear whether China will want to set a precedent by allowing its citizens to be sent abroad for trial. Yesterday China had no immediate response.

    The murders provide a rare glimpse into the complex political and religious rivalries and debates within Tibetan Buddhism and around the Dalai Lama, who has been living in exile in northern India since an abortive uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet in 1959.

    Indian police have accused Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin of stabbing Lobsang Gyatso, a close aide of the Dalai Lama and head of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, and two of his students on February 4, 1997, in the northern Indian town of Dharmsala.

    They were killed in ritualistic murders in which as many as five men are believed to have taken turns to stab the prominent 70-year-old academic, who was an outspoken critic of the Dorje Shugden sect.

    The suspects had arrived only days before from China, following a path well worn by Tibetan faithful eager for a glimpse of their exiled god-king at his home in Dharmsala. The murders, only 200 yards from the Dalai Lama’s private residence, prompted an immediate tightening of security around him.

    The Dalai Lama banned the Tibetan Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden in 1996 and forbade worship of this angel-demon spirit, saying that the deity was a threat to his personal safety as well as to the future of Tibet. That decision provoked political strife within the Tibetan community and has given birth to factions fiercely opposed to his action, including the British-based Shugden Supporters Community.

    The deity has been a source of controversy within Tibet since the 17th century and is a “protective” spirit, or one that is believed to be able to bring down its wrath upon enemies of its followers. Followers have been reported to have issued death threats against the Dalai Lama.

    The divisive worship of Shugden has gained momentum in Tibet over the past few decades, leading to some speculation that Chinese authorities have favoured a sect that is highly critical of the authority and methods of the Dalai Lama. China brands the spiritual leader a separatist who seeks to use his religious authority and meetings with international leaders to gain independence for his homeland.

  211. Florence says:

    Still no answers to the Sakya question. Here it is again DST. You made the assertions-now answer the question please. If not, it is clear that your assertion is untenable. here it is again.

    Since you have claimed that Sakya lineage masters have worshipped DS as an enlightened being since the inception of the practice, and since these two lines represent the most important lineages within the Sakya, I invite you to indicate which of these, apart from Sonam Rinchen and Kunga Lodro propitiated DS and provide a supporting reference for your claim. A scriptural citation where each of the lamas you name refers to DS as an enlightened being is also welcomed, particularly in the case of the two lineage lamas already mentioned.

    1) The Sakya lam dre lineage
    Kunga Sonam (1597-1659)
    Sonam Wanchuk (1638-1685)
    Kunga Tashi (1656-1711)
    Sonam Rinchen (1705-1741)
    Kunga Lodro (1729-1783)
    Ngarik Kunga Tashi (1754-1817)
    Pema Dudul Wangchuk (1792-1853)
    Ngawang Kunga Gyaltsen (1803-1841)
    Tashi Rinchen (1823-1865)
    Kunnying Samphel Norbu (1850-1899)
    Dagshul Trinlay Rinchen (1871-1936)
    # Khenchen Jampal Sangpo (1901-1961)
    # His Holiness the Sakya Trizin (1945 – )

    2) The line of Sakya Trizins
    # Kunga Tashi
    # Sonam Rinchen
    # Sachen Kunga Lodro
    # Wangdu Nyingpo
    # Pema Dudul Wangchug
    # Dorje Rinchen
    # Tashi Rinchen
    # Kunga Sonam
    # Kunga Nyingpo
    # Dzamling Chegu Wangchug
    # Dragshul Thinley Rinchen
    # Ngawang Thutob Wangchug
    # Ngawang Kunga (the current Sakya Trizin)

  212. Florence says:

    Well its some time now since the request for NKT fantical editors to provide the evidence requested above. What has happened?Are they all on holiday?Have all of them had a nasty accident? Perhaps theyve agreed to vury the hatchet and accept others differences?Actually, the real reason for the silence is that, despite the repeated claim that Sakyapas worshipped Shugden as an enlightened being, those who propound such views havent been able to point to any scriptural references to support this claim (I actually found one, yes one!)So the answer to the question asking for the references supporting the Sakya claim is, ‘Well, we make the claim repeatedly but we really have very little evidence, if any, to support the cliam’. Actually, this is not surprising. Generally, DS fantics will lie til the cows come home about their protecotrs origins and rely on the ignorance of others as the supporting condition for establishing their credibility. Scratch the surface and the whole thing falls to pieces. Just a quick reminder-Buddha said lying was bad karma. This might be a better starting point to practice from, rather than throwing oneself unquestioningly into the zealous and fantical worship of a deity, just because someone dressed as a monk and speaking in an archetypically humble voice tells you to do so. (Actually, Ive got agreat idea for a business: lets get the bloke from th local Chinese chippy, dress him up as a monk and tell him to speak softly in an oriental language. We could make a lot of money! Has it worked before???Take a look at the profits of the NKT. Yes, were on a winner; people raally are that gullible!

  213. Florence says:

    Still no answer to the sakya question-All together now-Oh its all gone quiet over there, oh its all gone quiet over there, oh its all gone quiet, all gone quiet,etc.etc Final score: World 1-NKT/WSS 0

  214. Maybe NKT has to been banned from Wikipedia, as it has now been done with Scientology:

    “In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.

    Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately.”

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/

  215. Wow what a battle of wills. Maybe if we all care so much about Buddhism that we have so much energy for debate this is good! Maybe someone will attain enlightenment!

    Good luck everyone

  216. Gelug Monasteries and How They Are Governed in India

    As I have already mentioned, the idea that HHDL would rule the Gelug monasteries is not tenable, also the conception of NKT/WSS that the abbots and monks would be his blind followers and HHDL would be the sole power over them who can act like a “21st Century Buddhist Dictator” is as well just plain wrong and lacks any understanding.*

    To correct these wrong claims I gave already differentiated information, and I wish now to add here a quote from a reliable academic source, which clean clear states how the monasteries are governed.

    A Tibetan monastery is an association of the individual monks (or nuns) who are a part of the monastery. They own and govern it in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Vinaya and the monastic constitution. That Tibetan monasteries are corporate in nature is in keeping with the canonically recommended monastic individualism. Monks enter the monastery to pursue their own spiritual goals; they belong to the community as individuals who are free to leave at any time. But Tibetan monaster¬ies are often enmeshed in political and economic relations that involve complex bureaucratic structures, mandatory activities, and onerous duties. Such involvement in the life of the world, which the Vinaya had sought to avoid, is an important dimension of monasticism in Tibet, as in many other Buddhist countries. It is to manage this dimension that most monasteries are set up as associations.

    Since a monastery is typically an association, mere residence does not qualify an ordained person to be a member. A monk must be formally accepted by the monastic authorities after fulfilling the criteria of admission; these vary from monastery to monastery, but the basic requirement is the ability to read and memorize the monastery’s rituals. Once admitted, a member gains certain rights and privileges. For instance, he can share in the wealth of the monastery and participate in making decisions governing the life of the community, provided that he has acquired a certain level of seniority. Together with these rights come certain duties. He must attend the rituals of the monastery and may be appointed by the association to any of the monastic offices, which sometimes involve extremely demanding tasks.

    This side of monastic life is often overlooked in the depiction of Tibetan society as feudal, administered by a small autocratic elite of aristocrats and lamas. But monks govern themselves, most of the time through chosen representatives. The abbot or lama who leads the monastery certainly has some power, but he cannot do as he pleases; he has to follow the traditions of the monastery and the wishes of the monks, whose representatives can nullify the leader’s actions. Large monasteries in particular were governed by complex bureaucracies appointed by an assembly (tshogs ‘du) composed by representatives of the constituent elements of the monastery. Gen Lob¬zang Gya-tso (blo bzang rgya tsho; see figure 1), one of my teachers, used to remark with great pride on the “capitalist” and “democratic” nature of the large Tibetan monasteries, which are powerful self-governing associations with large financial assets.

    Monks are very aware of the privileges they enjoy as members of a monastery. Some are financial, though such benefits often do not amount to very much.35 But however small they are, these privileges always give I he monks a proprietary outlook. They feel that they own the monastery; and when the monastic officers do not perform their duties adequately, the monks are ready to criticize them, sometimes quite harshly. The monks also tend to be conservative and stubborn, prone to decry any changes as “inventions” (rang bzo) that subvert the traditions of their monastery— remember the resistance of some of the Nam-gyel monks to my residency at the monastery. This conservatism can be very frustrating for outsiders who wish to help or for enlightened leaders who are attempting to promote needed changes. The Dalai Lama has tried to push through many changes, but even in his own monastery he has had limited success; his ability to promote changes in other monasteries is more limited still. Traditionally, he controls some aspects of monastic life, such as the appointment of abbots and the regulation of monastic exams, but outside of these established domains all changes must be agreed to by the monks. In exile, their conservative outlook is little more than an irritating oddity. In Tibet, however, it had disastrous consequences, as when monks put an end to many of the reforms of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.

    The source of this is “The Sound of Two Hands Clapping” by Prof. Georges Dreyfus, page 42-43.

    * Personally, I assume, this idea of autocrat or dictator like leadership NKT accuse HHDL may mainly derive on the basis of NKT members’ own experience within NKT, and is rather a projection of NKT’S own internal situation, where Kelsang Gyatso governs as he likes to do with unquestioned and total power, and KG does not base his decisions on votes of majority, democratic processes or the Vinaya.** NKT’s wrong accusations may be also based on a lack of knowledge and / or misinformation NKT passes to their members.

    The following passage was extended and made more clear after the comment had appeared:
    ** To underline this point, here a short example. In my own case Kelsang Gyatso removed our NKT Resident Teacher without vote or democratic process and ignored the wishes of the majority. He claimed without any proper investigation that the resident teacher would have broken and lost all her nun’s vows, all her Bodhisattva and Vajrayana vows, and he threatened those monks and nuns who wish to follow her, that they would loose all their monks and nuns vows + their Bodhisattva and Vajrayana vows too, if they follow her. (The reason why she allegedly lost all her vows was, that some Tibetan Shugden lamas recognized her as a tulku, and NKT does not allow tulkus in their constitution + that Kelsang Gyatso felt she is ‘doing business with Tibetan lamas’ + that KG felt that she had ‘stolen his disciples and his NKT centers’ from him – though at the festivals he said repeatedly it would be our centers.)
    The arbitrary removal and installation of NKT Resident Teachers by Kelsang Gyatso is a dominating power tool of him. It is very often applied to those who show not enough obedience to him or do not follow his orders or understanding. Every resident teacher must fear to be removed from one day to another from his or her position, if he/she is not ‘devoted’ enough. In Berlin 2000 he demonstrated that he can do what ever he likes and he answered the question ‘Who is NKT?’ with ‘I am, I am the NKT!’. As far as I know the last person to whom such an arbitrary removal was applied is Lucy J., she was removed because she questioned the NKT/WSS protests to be political and contrary to statements Kelsang Gyatso made after the last campaign (1996-98), and because she didn’t encourage her students enough to participate the protests. There could be said much more but I think this is sufficient to support my claim of ‘autocrat leadership’.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden's Enlightened Lineage or How to Make … There is no prophesy or scriptural reference to this in any of Buddha's teachings or in any of the works of Indian Buddhist masters or in the works of Tzongkhapa. If there is one, supply the quote. Even the primitive Tibetan deity [...]

  2. […] ** From 2008 onwards the campaigning by the NKT students of Kelsang Gyatso included the manipulation of Wikipedia articles. […]

  3. […] might have noticed that I pointed out in a specific case on this blog how Wikipedia articles are […]

  4. […] of a ‘fight for religious freedom and against religious persecutions’, and includes the manipulation of Wikipedia. Most media in the US have fallen pray to the Shugden group’s distorted allegations quoting the […]

  5. […] again in 2008 via Western Shugden Society. For the Western Shugden Society campaigning NKT editors took over and manipulated all related Wikipedia articles in April 2008 (and these articles are still a mess […]

  6. […] articles critical of both Dorje Shugden and the NKT movement. Tenzin Peljor mentions on this blog how NKT posters to wikipedia  fought tooth and nail against any academic or historic sources and pa…. They managed, in fact, to completely re-write the history of Shugden into that of a fully […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 333 other followers

%d bloggers like this: