Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 1

political dimension

high robertect, thank you for opening a section on that theme. I extended the section to give different views. I expelled the passage: Further expression to the desire for religious homogenity can be seen in the formation and activities of the United Party between 1964 and 1973. This party was established by Gyalo Thundup [7]the brother and representative of the Dalai Lama. Amongst its objectives was the creation of "a single reformed Buddhist temple for all the sects [7] ". The 16th Karmapa in particular was instrumental in opposing this movement, organising what become known as the Thirteen Settlements see also [8] and [9].

I do not understand what this passage is for, especially it is not reasonable to me why the creation of "a single reformed Buddhist temple for all the sects" is a sign for "the desire for religious homogenity". The same could be argued to the Rime movement. I understand that Geshe Kelsang is accusing HHDL for only being interested in gaining power and control over all Tibetan schools and their adepts - which is based mere on his belives than facts, I think and with that opinion he is quite alone. However if you can reasoning this passage we can reinlcude it, please discuss it here or make the passage more clear, thank you very much, --Kt66 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I removed the Geshe Kelsang quote because it is now out of context, in this quote he is referring specifically to the United Party. If you read in more detail about the United Party you will see that the idea was to consolidate all of the resources and followers of the different schools under one school, headed and controlled by the Dalai Lama and as such it is not related to the Rime movement. However it is a controversial topic and I understand if it is not included. Best wishes (Robertect 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)).

Hi [User:Robertect|Robertect]], thank you. I agree the United Party must not be directly related to the Rime Movement but I think the idea is the same. But for this I have to read it in detail as you still said. The idea of seeing in this a political attempt of gaining power ("controlled by the Dalai Lama") I can not follow, outsite of NKT, Trimondis, Ole Nydahl, Shamar Rinpoche and Shugden followers the Dalai Lama is a high respected spiritual person, also to Theravadins and other Buddhist traditions and religious poeple and even scientists; for that people it is natural to see him as a head of such an idea of an open non secterian school or temple without including the idea to see this as a political power attempt. There exist a nunnery for western nuns in Dharamsala with this approach and natural they see HHDL as their head yet. But of course it may be "a controversial topic" here. Nevertheless I felt to include your citation of GKG POV, expressed in his letter. It fits in the section of GKG/NKT so I remove it there. many regards. --Kt66 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

I used Kays research to add a new section to have a better background and to understand the conflict more deeply, especially from the view of westerners. Please feel free to imrpove it by Wikipedia:reliable sources or please give your comments - who are most welcome - here please. --Kt66 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC

Very well

-But I fail to understand why you post the last Ganden tripa's personnal views in the middle of this page. So many past ganden tripas have worshipped Shugden as a buddha why don't you post their views as well? BTW, the current ganden tripa is a well known Dorje Shugden practionner, this is why Dharamsala was not pleased with his nomination and tried to have him removed. Why don't you post his views as well on this page?

He is the head of the Gelugpas and he is the successor of Tsongkhapa, so his opinion/reasoning matters - especially how to solve conflicts according to the Vinaya. Also his view is not listed in the middle, it is posted after the Shugden followers view before AI statement, so nearly at the end. Please check it again. I think you are quite desinformed about the Ganden Tripa and his practice, perhaps you try to get first proper information. There is an interview with the present Ganden Tripa and he is as clear as in the article with renouncing Shugden. Check it yourself:

Does Your Holiness practise the controversial protector Shugden banned by HH the Dalai Lama?

Answer HH the Ganden Tripa: Did you not hear of the announcement made by HH the Dalai Lama in front of nearly 300,000 people in Bodhigaya in December 2002 about this? I did not do the practice of this protector. [laughin] see: PDF file

So I think your problem is - ecxuse please my straightforwardness - that you are onesided informed and do not know much of the different sides of that conflict. However when I was under the influence of Shugden Lamas I had the same problem... --Kt66 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

-Also The Amnesty internationnal's report is irrelevant (it' just copy/past from the GIE's website) since they do not investigate cases of religious persecution. They focus on torture, prisonnners and executions of civilians and combattants. They have nothing to do with Dorje Shugden and everything to do with Guantanamo (13: 20 6/7).

You are right in a way, they said what they said and Robertect put a comment on it, however the involvement of AI is a part of the history in that conflict and can be mentioned of course. --Kt66 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Phabongkha on Shugden - Source needed

The quote was from Pabonkha's introductory remarks in the Dorje Shugden sadhana.

BTW, I have noticed this page has been used in a copy/paste format using the tibetan exile governement's website's sources. This is highly deplorable as wikipedia is supposed to be focused on objectivity and consensus and everyone knows the Tibetan exile governement's arguments on Dorje Shugden are anything but objective and consensual. Instead, they are highly biased, political and non-consensual to say the least. This is why about half the monks in the Sera and Ganden in south India have kept the practice despite Dharamsala's edicts and almost all (save fpmt) monks and lama abroad who have some freedom of religion have kept it, wether openly or in secret.

the page is mainly based on different sources. there are three scientific sources and there are also statements an views of the Shugden followers included. Also the fact that "the monks in the Sera and Ganden in south India have kept the practice despite Dharamsala's edicts" is in the article and is represented in the sentence: "Nowadays there are members of the Gelug school (for instance in Sera Monastery, India) who follow his advice and there are some members who do not." and that person can and do practice it in secret too is represented in the sentence: "But of course in Tibetan Buddhism every one has the personal freedom not to follow his advice and the Dalai Lama asked the Tibetan Buddhists to do the practice in private if they can not give it up." Although I reject your claim of "almost all (save fpmt) monks abroad have kept it", this is quite not in accordance to reality, I think, however if they do it secretly, one can claim what ever one wants to claim and this is no reliable source...--Kt66 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

-Most of the sources used on this page are political whether or not they come from a 'man of science' starting with the Dreyfuss article. George Dreyfuss didn't bother to investigate the matter on both sides (by questioning DS practicing lamas for example or refering the material they refers to in order to support their validity claims) and the sources he refers to are only the sources used by or supporting the views of the Gov. in exile. It is completely one sided as are the rest of the materials used on this page. I coorect many undergrads 'scientific' papers who work exactly like Dreyfuss; they write a paper reflecting their views and afterwards quote or use only sources that support their claims. Any scientific project starts with: I don't know! the second step in a scientific project is a correct and tourough review of litterature presenting arguments pros and cons in an unbiased manner. The Dreyfuss paper has either been ordered by Dharamsala or it's a poor unscientific attempt to please the politicians. In any case it has nothing to do with science. I hav'nt read the other 'scientific' sources you quote (13:05 6/7).

Perhaps you start to read the WP guidlines? Did you still read the scientific sources openly or are you yourself just onesided? They are based on historical sources and also other researches (especially Kay) as it is common and wished at WP. Especially there are many quotes from Shugden Lamas in the article and also two sections of the opponents and proponents view. The proponents view was put up by Shugden followers. You should clearhealdy tell what special source you have which can shed a diffrent light or give a different fact or shows the opposite which still is in the article or what makes clear that there is any fault in the article. Than I like to remind you just propagating Pabongkhas view is also mere onesided ;-) I think it would be good to respect the work of that article and you should stop changing and deleting complete passages which you don't like. It won't be be helpful if the only thing you can argue against the article is to put down Dreyfus' article which is based on many different original sources. Than it would be good if you start to read David N. Kay who wrote almost the same which is now in the article. I saw no contradiction, especially Kays research is well acknowledged by religious scientists. So I reverted and ask for cooperation. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On your talkpage the following information was given to you:

Your recent edit to Dorje Shugden (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So you changes are seen and fit to WP vandalism and I ask you to first catch the rules of WP before deleting complete articles or passages. --Kt66 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many scriptural sources establishing without doubt that Dorje Shugden is a special manifestation of Manjushri arisen as a protector in order preserve the Ganden-Ensa ear whispered lineage.

That Shugden is seen as a Buddha by some Gelugpas is still mentioned but however why not add sources for it. What sources do you have? --Kt66 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to start this page afresh using valid, objective data based on scripture and well known facts, rather than the present style copy/paste from Dharamsala's page.

this is surely not the case ;-) --Kt66 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we try to establish a first chapter on the history and source of the practice from the time of Tsongkhapa and Je Dulzin (15th century) up to Pabonkha (who was, by the way, the main lineage holder of all major gelug tantric and scriptual systems; Yamantaka, Chakrasamvara, Guhyasamaja, Lam Rim , Lojong & Mahamudra). Any Lama (including H.H.) using or granting an empowerment in any of these systems must be very carefull in their relationship with such lineage Lamas (which includes Trijang Dorje Chang).

if you want to do this first start to read the scientific sources of Dreyfus, Kay and Brück, than you will see that Pabongkhas and Trijang Rinpoche religious sources are mainly based on their claims and views, some of them are not verifiable at all and are biased too and were also not accept by different masters from different schools even from Gelug school and you will also see that although both Lamas were very influential, they were not the only lineage lamas of Gelug school and there were high lamas opposing Shugden... --Kt66 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

-The lineage transmittions of Yamanka, Guhyasamaja, Heruka, Lam Rim and Mahamudra in Gelug tradition was only passed through Pabonkha Rimpoche and Trijang rimpoche. They were the main and only holders of theses lineages. This is because of their purity and that was recognized by almost all before 1996. This is why they were so popular, not because they had a nice haircut or spoke good tibetan. Any tibetan monk of gelug trad. would have told you so prior to 1996. After 1996, people don't talk because if they do, they get kicked out of monasteries by Dharamsala goons. I personally know a few such stories myself (13:08 6/7).

What source validates this claim, that "The lineage transmittions of Yamanka, Guhyasamaja, Heruka, Lam Rim and Mahamudra in Gelug tradition was only passed through Pabonkha Rimpoche and Trijang rimpoche. They were the main and only holders of theses lineages" ??? It is for sure that there are many lamas (like the 13th Dalai Lama) who are Gelug lineage holders without receiving teachings from Pabongkha. Pabongkha - allthogh quite popular - was not seeen as that high ranking lama. He himself added his person to the lineage-Gurus-line, although there are and were many other lineage lamas in Gelug more eminent than him. He himself and his followers overemphasised his person via Guru devotion and the Sodge Practice - as so far I understood this correctly. (see Dreyfus, Geshe Kelsang and the like). But however this can be discussed if needed.--Kt66 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From the first chapter we can move on to other more recent and controversial events. I am not a member of the NKT, if that is a cause of relief for you, nor am I a die hard dorje Shugden 'drone'. I do the practice and I have information (as many practitionners have) that is rarely or never considered by the opponents of the practice. It might just help us shed some light on an important issue and make this page a little more objective, balanced and consensual (which would be nice on a topic like this).

why remove it. the controversy has drawn attention because of the NKT media campaign...--Kt66 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to remove the article as it is because it is biased and one sided. This is not right on wikipedia. There is already the G.I.E. 's website for biased political views. Wikipedia should be consensual. In the way you posted the article, it is not (13:12 6/7).

I think the article is not onesided but you seem to see only through eyes with a political filter and recognize everything as politics, I think. However I appreciate if you can contribute by showing what is onesided or what in the article has to been improved. You're most welcome at WP, Thank you, --Kt66 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I feel, you are right here too; we should include a passage, what Pabongkha Rinpoche and his followers argue on Dorje Shugden, this is still missed. Perhaps Robertect and you can work out a section? I think this will improve the article. --Kt66 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pabongkha Rinpoche's view on Shugden

To add such a section in the article we can use the quote from Pabonkha's introductory remarks in the Dorje Shugden sadhana. Before doing this it would be good to discuss this and try to find out the exact title of the text which the quote is refering to and if the translation is from a reliable source. I myself trusted in the past on a wrong translation of a misleading source. Who has this information relating to the quote below? At what date/year it was written? Before the death of the 13th DL or after it? The quote given was:

Some see this supreme deity, Emanated Gyalchen, as not different from an ordinary monk spirit or king spirit, a priest or monk who has died and taken a spirit body out of negative karma, and proclaiming this in a loud voice, make fun of not only the deity but of others who rely on him also; there seem to be many as well as a great many who, following their lead, hold very tightly to this mistaken view. They are speaking just out of supposition without really understanding the source.

This very dharma protecting 'gyelpo' is reknowned as the unmistaken emanation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the unmistaken succeding incarnation of Panchen Sônam Dragpa and Je Dültzin (Lord of Vinaya Holders) Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thus, those great beings were great elder holders of the vinaya who did not transgress even the slightest rule of the Buddha and were great beings who cherished others more than themselves. They were great lords of masters who reigned over the ocean-like treatises of sutra and tantra as well as the ordinary sciences. That they were great lords of siddhas who perfected the supreme realization of tantra's two stages is well proven and known to all. For that very being to arise in the body of a wrathful deity is the mere display of a form for a very special purpose through the power of compassion and prayers and for him, rather, to have taken birth, like other ordinary beings, out of evil karma as a sky-walking preta; how would that be possible? If one says that he was born like that then it would follow that one meets with karma uncommitted by oneself or that deeds done are wasted, etc., so one would be expounding falsity of the law of causality, etc., which would be the worst kind of nihilistic view. Furthermore, Lord Dültzin Dragpa Gyaltsen was fully established to be the emanation of the omniscient Bütön and Lord Bütön was fully reknowned beyond dispute, based on many valid scriptural and biographical source books, as the succeeding incarnation of the lineage including Manjusri, the mahasiddha Birwapa, and Sakya Pandita. Therefore, to think that the succeeding incarnation of those great pandits and siddhas, who were as reknowned throughout India and Tibet as the sun and the moon, could take birth in the low evil body of an actual preta and to propound such is a misconception slandering those great beings and the cause of an unbearable unfortunate rebirth. So everyone should be careful in such matters.

Furthermore, the story of how Nechung, the Emanated Dharma King, Great Dorje Dragden, again and again urged Panchen Sônam Dragpa to arise in the form of a protector uncommon to the Gelugpa by not abandoning his promise and mind generation of previous incarnations is in his biography. Again, it is suitable to worship because, as is said in many valid sutras and commentaries, even animals who are emanations of the Tathagatas such as 'Ru Ru', the golden stag, are a supreme field of worship; this is similar. Thus, this very great Dharmapala is established without doubt to be peaceful and wrathful Manjusri himself arisen in the form of a terrifying wrathful one (dregpa) in order to protect one's teachings. Therefore, wherever there is stainless teaching and practice of the Geden he guards and protects without dependence upon his being relied upon or worshipped.

thank you for your cooperation and trial to improve the article. --Kt66 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV from Article

The root Guru topic

Trijang Rinpoche was not HH Dalai Lama's root guru, he was a tutor. Avanze 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He was his junior tutor, his senior tutor was Kybje Ling Rinpoche but HH the Dalai Lama mentions Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche also as his root guru in "Union of Bliss & Emptiness", ISBN 0-937938-69-6. He states at page 26: "I received the transmission of the guru yoga from my root guru, the late Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche." My feeling is Rabten Choeling is using this topic to critisize HHDL in their way by citing this source at Rabten Forum. But they stay as the most of Pabongkhas/Shugden followers (like Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) on their Guru approach on a quite radical (or even surfaced) level. Let's look deeper to that:

His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama had two regents during his minority. They taught him extensively and conferred upon him numerous tantric empowerments. They also engaged in a power struggle and had their followers take up arms against each other. His Holiness has explained that on his meditation seat, he had no problem in focusing with conviction on the good qualities that each regent in fact had. He also had no problem in appreciating the kindness that each had shown him. Yet, when he arose from his meditation seat, he publicly denounced his regents' political intrigues. His Holiness has described that he felt no contradiction in doing this and did not find it emotionally upsetting. see Dr. A. Berzin (a close disciple of Tsenshab Serkong Rinpoche, who was a master debate-servant of HH the Dalai Lama) at [1]

Also, many of Pabongkha/Shugden followers cling (and defend) deeply to the idea to follow the root Guru at all costs which is not seen as common and isn't in accordance to the scriptures: According to the Kalachakra Tantra and other sources there is no fault to distance yourself from a root Guru, if you can not follow him anymore, even when you received Highest Yoga Tantra Empowerment from him.

Some Westerners face similar situations with several of their spiritual teachers. For example, some famous masters disagree strongly about the status of a controversial Dharma-protector and the consequences of propitiating it. They abuse their positions as spiritual mentors and, with threats of hell, forbid their disciples to have anything to do with teachers on the opposite side of the dispute. Other famous masters disagree violently over the identification of the incarnation of the highest lamas of their lineage. A few have even taken police action against each other's claims over inherited property. Sutra-level guru-meditation, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama has experienced, may help traumatized Western Dharma students to deal with these difficult, perplexing circumstances. It may also help those who have been sexually abused by their spiritual teachers or exploited by them for power or money. It may apply as well to disciples of abusive teachers, who have not been personally maligned, but have been devastated by learning of the actions of their teachers. ::Many disciples find such situations too difficult to handle, especially if they have already built disciple-mentor relationships with both parties in a dispute. The Abbreviated Kalachakra Tantra advised that if disciples find too many objective faults in their spiritual mentors and they can no longer support close relationships with them, they need not continue studying with these teachers. They may keep a respectful distance, even if they have received highest tantra empowerments from them. [2]

The same you can find also in Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye "Treasury of Knowledge" Book five on "Buddhist Ethics", ISBN 155939191X and an excerpt at ISBN 1559390964 in "The Teacher-Student Relationship". But this important topic is normally not taught by the Gurus which follow Pabongkha Rinpoche. Instead Dreyfus showed:

Pa-bong-ka had an enormous influence on the Ge-luk tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru. Like other revivalist figures, Pa-bong-ka presented his teachings as embodying the orthodoxy of his tradition. But when compared with the main teachings of his tradition as they appear in Dzong-ka-ba's writings, Pa-bong-ka's approach appears in several respects quite innovative.

I think the problem is just deriving from less and surfaced knowledge (ignorance) and that many Lamas which follow Shugden/Pabongkha Rinpoche do teach the Guru topic on a more surfaced or radical level, and some of them even misuses this topic. I think in that context it is quite embarrassing that Pabongkha Rinpoche bound the people to himself by the Sodge practice on Shugden which is connected with the oath to follow the Lama the rest of your life (so it was told me by a Shugden Lama). And from this it is quite understandable that the 13th Dalai Lama forced Pabongkha Rinpoche to stop that Sodge practice. (for more see Dreyfus' research article and also Kays research: NKT exclusivism and the uncommon of NKT Guru Yoga

Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.(e.g. Geshe Kelsang)

From this one can conclude that these controversial topics are based on different views how to approach the Dharma and the Gurus. The problem even is increasing by the approach of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso/NKT and some exclusive orientated Shugden Lamas to give the impression there were only two high Lamas in the past: Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche other high or even higher Lamas of Gelug, Kagyue or Sakya school are not even mentioned or known. That HH the Dalai Lama is the highest Gelug Tulku - like HH the Karmapa in the Kagyue tradition - and his first incarnation was Gendun Drup, a famous disciple of Je Tsongkhapa and that HHDL is revered by all the great masters of the present time some of them do neglect completely, especially GKG/NKT who like to portray him as a unsuccessful (worldy) politician which a NKT follower can neglect relating the Buddhadharma. To verify this claim let's hear Geshe Kelsang Gyatso on HH the Dalai Lama:

Prof. LOPEZ: So in your opinion, the Dalai Lama is not a Gelugpa, and therefore has no right to tell Gelugpas which dharmapala they can worship?

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: That’s right.

LOPEZ: And the Dalai Lama is not Gelugpa because he rejects Dorje Shugden?

GKG: You can ask him whether he is Gelugpa or not. I don’t know, but I believe he is not. It looks as if he humiliates the Gelugpas, as if he destroys the dharma of the Gelugpas. It’s not only about Dorje Shugden. If Dorje Shugden is bad, then all those Gelugpa lamas who engaged in the practice of Dorje Shugden are impure. Then, without doubt the Gelugpa dharma is impure. He publicly destroys the Gelugpa dharma, so how can he say he is a Gelugpa lama?

Prof. LOPEZ: What is the role of the Dalai Lama?

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso: He is the political leader of the Tibetans.

LOPEZ: The present Ganden Tripa has also denounced the worship of Dorje Shugden.

GKG: He has to follow the Dalai Lama’s view, otherwise there is danger. He has no choice, no power. Even my uncle, who is the medium for the dharmapala Dorje Shugden, has to follow the Dalai Lama, otherwise there is danger. They cannot remain within Tibetan society. (Tricycle Interview)

by the way: Do enlightend beings (Shugden) communicate by mediums? And to renounce Shugden or warn on him one is no Gelugpa? Tsongkhapa, Khedrubje and Gyaltsab-Je and many other Gelug masters didn't practice Shugden, were they no Gelugpas and are impure too?

also we find from Geshe Kelsang: The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any direction. Everyone can see this situation now... (Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, "Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA", 01/12/1997)

However I reverted back all the changes. The article before was quite better than with the anonyoumous and undiscussed changes. --Kt66 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV from Article

I would like to propose the following changes:

Delete: With Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama, the worshipping was brought into Gelug School" (This point of view is speculative and contradicted by other sources such as Heart Jewel by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe George Dreyfuss).

where you see the contradiction? When PR root Guru gave this practice to Pab. Rp. it was Pb.Rp. and not his root Guru who spread the practice widley and bound people by the sodge practice to his own person. Perhaps we can say:

With Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama, the worshipping was brought and spreaded into Gelug School. Shugden was taught him by his Guru Thagp Rp."

or something like this...Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: "Meanwhile, the vast majority of Shugden worshippers are members or supporters of the New Kadampa Tradition." There is no reliable statistical source for this claim.

Yes there is no statistic source for it. So we can leave it aside.Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete and replace (with text below)the following sentence: "killed by Shugden, the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama felt the necessity to make his opinion of that practice public and advised Buddhists to stop it. His opinion became more public and attracted international media attention during the 1990's when Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his organisation NKT organised demonstrations to protest against the "ban of Shugden". Suggested replacement text:

killed by Shugden. After publication of the Yellow Book the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion that the practice should be stopped in several closed teachings, although he made no general public statement. Finally in 1995 he felt the necessity to make his opinion of the practice public and did so during open teachings during which he made it clear that to practice Dorje Shugden was to oppose the Tibetan cause and harm his life (see point 3 Arguments of the Opponents of Shugden) effectively obliging institutions including monastries to abandon the practice or make the practice secret. Lama's such as Gonsar Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso protested against the implied loss of freedom caused by His Holinesses public stance. In particular, the NKT organised demonstrations and a press campaign which attracted international media attention to the issue during the 1990's. NKT founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from Sera Mey Monastery because of his behaviour against the Dalai Lama.

my suggestion is more:

killed by Shugden. After publication of the Yellow Book the current (fourteenth) Dalai Lama expressed his opinion that the practice should be stopped in several closed teachings, although he made no general public statement. Finally in 1995 he felt the necessity to make his opinion of the practice public and did so during open teachings during which he made it clear that to practice Dorje Shugden was to oppose the Tibetan cause and harm his life effectively obliging institutions including monastries to abandon the practice or make the practice secret. Some Lama's such as Gonsar Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso protested against it because they felt a implied loss of freedom caused by His Holinesses public stance. Mainly the NKT organised demonstrations and a press campaign which attracted international media attention to the issue during the 1990's. NKT founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from Sera Mey Monastery because of his behaviour against the Dalai Lama.

I changed only slide. Do you can agree? Why I changes MAINLY NKT? Because NKT was the main power behind this and even Geshe Kelsang felt free to put a high Gelug Lama, H.E. Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche (a close disciple of Kybje Trijang Rinpoche), on the list of the supporters. Allthough he protested many times against this behavoiur, GKG didn't remove him from the list of the "supporters". I think it is correct to state mainly NKT. Kt66

Delete as POV: "For this he has been criticized by Shugden adherents." ........ which comes after the sentence "He followed the advice of the Buddha (Kalama Sutra) only to accept what is reasonable, well checked and in according to the Dharma and not just because tradition or teachers taught it." Nobody has ever criticised the Dalai Lama for following the Kalama Sutra.

He was criticized by Shugden followers not to do what one of his teachers said, of course not because he is following the Kalama Sutra. So perhaps it is better to make this more clear. The main point is, that Shugden followers believe, they have to do what the Lama says otherwise they'll get no attainments. Quite subtle theme but clear if you know the context. Tha's why they where so perplex that HH spoke even against what one of his teachers taught. By the way it is common not to follow what is not in accordance with the teachings, in all traditions and of course Tsongkhapa did the same. He refuted misunderstandings - even when taught by his teachers. This is not given up the Guru or breaking the Tantric Vows as NKT/GKG - Shugden followers - claim. Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think people criticised the Dalai Lama for abandoning the practice, although many people may have been disappointed. They criticised him for the way he spoke about Trijang Rinpoche, which the percieved as lacking the quality of respectfully disagreeing which is essential in the teachings of both Aryadeva and Je Tsongkhapa. (Robertect 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)).

No I'm sorry, the Shugden followers I know see HH as a Demon or something like this and argue that he has broken his tantric vows to his Guru and also that he is no Buddhist because he fears harm by demons and the like and in that way they loose respect towards him. Of course some are also more moderate to that. I think HH was quite respectfull and moderte to his teacher Trijang Rinpoche. Whereas GKG said: the Dalai Lama misleads people, destroys the "pure" Buddhadharma... here the citation: "The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any direction. Everyone can see this situation now. The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to fulfil his wishes. His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has been working towards this for many years." Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, "Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA", 01/12/1997 - never HH talked in that way! Kt66 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly being disrespectful is calling the heart practice of your teacher "a spirit of the dark forces", compare that to Lama Zopa who says: "This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil. " I agree that he is also considered by some to have broken his vows which is why I left that in the main article.

What do you mean with: disrespectful is calling the heart practice of your teacher "a spirit of the dark forces" I do not understand the meaning or intention. Kt66 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the Dalai Lama called Dorje Shugden, a spirit of the dark forces. Not a very nice thing to say concerning the practice which is so close to the heart of Trijang Rinpoche. Lama Zopa on the other hand also advises against the practice, but does so very respectfully and with humility. Remember this disucssion arose to clarify exactly what the Dalai Lama was criticised for. I said it was not for relying on the Kalama Sutra, you said some claim HH broke Tantric Vows and I agreed, but gave the reason as what was viewed as a disrespectful attitude by the Dalai Lama to his teacher, and tried to illustrate the point. Mainly however he was criticised for denying genuine freedom of choice on this issue with the Tibetan exile community. You know it does not mean that I think these things, personally I have no idea of the mind or vows of the Dalai Lama and do not have an opinion either way. But lets leave this, I know we will not get anywhere! (Robertect 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)).

Secondly, perhaps this next part should be moved elsewhere? EG GKG discussion? However, for the record, I am not sure of your source when you refer to destroying "pure" Buddhadharma? With reference to the quote from Religious Issues, what is wrong with the statement by Geshe Kelsang? Honestly, i'm not being funny, treat me like an idiot and spell it out because I don't see a problem (perhaps blinded by my own views??). I can't see anything but factual statements.

You know I was with NKT and demonstrated. NKT people and GKG said: HH is destroying the "pure" Buddhadharma and he said more, like he is no holy being because he is in anger and one of representatives said: HH is possesed by a demon and the like. NKT was quite fanatical and the citation above reflects this. I'm sorry for you if you can not see that, but I think this is due to Shugden practice, people get blinded in seeing the underlying matters I think. I will stop discussion I waste my time. But I discuss further if you want to improve the article and have reasons for it. I'd like to ask you to discuss directly what line you wish to change and give short reasons. Thank you for your patience with me, yours Kt66 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record. I have also heard simillar things, I do not like these comments and personally do not agree with them. (Robertect 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

The statements concerning Dorje Shugden practice are certainly correct, or is he not trying to destroy the practice? Also he is misleading in claiming that by practicing Dorje Shugden a person is sectarian and harms the Tibetan cause, descends into spirit worship or is necessarily relying on an evil spirit. Even the Ganden Tripa doesn't say these things. Just look at Lama Yeshe's life to abandon such notions. The statement on Tibetan independence is correct, sadly, although I think harsh; however on this point he refers to the Dalai Lama as a politician and not a Guru. Lastly the integration of the different schools and changing the Gelug practice also has verifiable sources.

That is how I see it today please correct me or agree to disagree if you are tired of this discussion (I know I am). I don't want any bad feelings on either side which is often the result of this conversation. As you kindly gave me links with different views, I will also offer you a couple from Tibetan sources: http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2000/10/17_2.html and http://www.karmapa-issue.org/politics/book_erik_curren.htm Thanks and best wishes as always, Robert (Robertect 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)).

Oh Robert. GKG names HH foolish and ignorant. You feel this is appropriate? Ok. For me not. I'll stop here. yours Kt66 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Ling Rinpoche's name from the sentence: "But there were also high Gelug Lamas like the senior tutor of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche," the only claim that any evidence so far produced could concieveably support would be that Ling Rinpoche viewed Dorje Shugden as a "minor protector".

This was stated by Lama Zopa Rinpoche, and I think he didn't lie or is deceived in that. We can add: "According to Lama Zopas Rinpoche...." Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No no no! I didn't see that source, of course I would accept what Lama Zopa says. Can you point me to the quote so I can check it myself, thanks. (Robertect 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Robert here you'll find the quote: "But there have been many Gelug lamas who without practicing Shugden, spread Buddhadharma, spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa like the sky. Lamas like Their Holinesses the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen—a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice." http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamazopa/shugden.shtml

Kt66 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This point is still not clear, I read the quote as referring in the final part to Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen only, in other words he specifically advised against the practice whilst Ling Rinpoche merely refrained from the practice and was a great practitioner of Dharma. Can we agree or shall I write to Lama Zopa for clarification? I know I labour the point but Ling Rinpoche as one of the close disciples of Je Phabongkha and as the Ganden Tripa, is a very significant name to include. (Robertect 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you. You are right. It is not clear. Please ask Lama Zopa Rinpoche for clarification. Kt66 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, just to let you know that until the 26 Jan 2006 it is not possible to e.mail any FPMT.org addresses, I will update this point as soon as I have any more information. Hope you are having a good new year, best wishes Robert(Robertect 10:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Change the existing sentence or delete it entirely, it is misleading: "every one has the personal freedom not to follow his advice." so that it reads: "every one has the personal freedom not to follow his advice, albeit that in the case of Dorje Shugden practitioners are viewed by Tibetan society in general as acting against the health of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan cause." Freedom in this case has a very specific and unique context, to my mind it is the equivalent of saying in the USA you have freedom to urinate on the Stars and Stripes. Even in this discussion section Dorje Phurpa refers to a ban: "Only the sect "New Kadampa tradition" is worshipping Shugden in spite of the Dalai Lamas bann. Dorje Phurpa 19.06.05 11:21 CET" which illustrates the fragility of the freedom referred to.

"every one has the personal freedom not to follow his advice" I can agree of course. The Tibetans are different in that subject, only a minority follows Shugden. Other Tibetans agree to the secterian thoughts of that practice and that Shugden is a demon, because also high Lamas form other traditions see Shugden as a demon. The main beliefe is not that he destroys the Health of HH, the main beliefe is, that practising it is against the harmony in the Tibetan Community and disturbs the action to the benefit of the Tibetans by HH. The health point is related to the oath of Shugden to kill people who "mix" traditions especially Nyingma and Gelug. But most Tibetans are covinced that he can not really harm HH now. Many tibetans especially Nyingmas believe that Shugden destroys also the Dharma. Thats why Nyingma Yogis made rituals to destroy the Shugden spirit. This was done the last time about two years ago. A high Kagyue Lama, one Tulku-son of Urgyen Tulku Rinpoche told this to me. Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I don't think you read my point above properly, I have strong reservations regarding the sentence and propose it is either deleted or changed. Can you confirm your opinion on this. thanks (Robertect 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps we can delete I can not see the problem. But what you wrote about the view of Tibetans I can not agree. Do you know Tibtans? I know. One Kagyue Lama said from all the Dalai Lamas, the 14th is the greatest and many see it in that way. Other Kygue Lamas (Tulku Rinpoches - not "normal" Geshe or Lama) of mine and also Nyingma Lamas see him as enlightend, as Cherezig. Of course my Gelug Lamas too. What Tibetans say or think normally no NKT follower can say because there is only one Tibetan in NKT and most don't have any contact to a Tibetan. The only Tibetan in NKT is GKG and he tells Tibetans are foolish because they believe the Dalai Lama, and I think the most followers of GKG believe this too. You know: even high realised Yogis who live in solitude for centuries ask HH for advice...so please be careful to state what Tibetans think about him. In Swiss HH said once more, that "every one has the personal freedom not to follow his advice" "but when they want to receive Tantric Empowerments by him hey should not do, because if they don't follow his spiritual advice on that how than they can establish the Tantric Relationship?" By the way what oen other Tibetan than GKG thinks you can read here: http://www.south-asia.com/himal/September/dorje.htm summerized: Leave it to Tibetans! Kt66 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, if you read carefully what I said you will see I agree with you regarding the view most Tibetans have of the Dalai Lama. I said Tibetans in general will believe what the Dalai Lama teaches. I did not criticise the Dalai Lama, but I did point out the inevetiable consequence of the Tibetan's faith in His Holiness which is that the freedom to practice Dorje Shugden, carries a heavy cost for those that chose to do so in Tibetan society. Is my reasoning wrong? (Robertect 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Move the following sentence out of the Arguments of Followers of Shugden to the section Arguments of the Opponents of Shugden because it is clearly out of context in its present location. : The Dalai Lama has denied attempting to abridge anyone's freedom to practice Shugden worship, but insists on his right to ask those accepting Vajrayana teachings and empowerments from him to abstain from such practices. In addition, he sees discussion of the problem of "sectarianism" within the Tibetan community as his reponsibility, in his capacity as the spiritual and political leader of Tibet. (Robertect 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)).

Feel free to remove it at another place. yours Kt66 13:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article based on my points above. I would like to change further the reason (ref Kalama Sutra ) for other practitioners criticising the Dalai Lama, but see my comments above. Of course revert anything you are not happy with. (Robertect 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)).

quite fine, well done, thank you. I think now it is more balanced than before. Thank you for your effort and patience to improve the article. Kt66 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links - Please balance

I don't see that arranging the links into 'External links' and 'Pro Shugden links' is particularly balanced. Please put them back into one list, and take out the word 'pro' from those links whose page titles don't contain it.

Completely agree. It is done. (20040302)

---

I've added a temporary page at Dorje Shugden/Temp.

Dorje Shugden is not worshipped within the conventional Gelug and Sakya-tradition anymore. The previous Dalai Lama and also Sakya Trizin gave clear statements to this case. The Dalai Lama statet that the activity of this spirit works against the other schools of tibetan buddhism and strengthens sectarian positions. Only the sect "New Kadampa tradition" is worshipping Shugden in spite of the Dalai Lamas bann. Dorje Phurpa 19.06.05 11:21 CET

---

Nowadays only members and supporters of the rich, western, but minor sect that calls itself New Kadampa Tradition (which split from Gelug in the 1990s after their leader was expelled) worship Shugden. The New Kadampa Tradition see this spirit as a Dharma Protector and regard him as an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri.

This was removed for being POV - would someone like to explain just which part is POV? (20040302)

The part that seems POV to me are 'rich', 'minor' and 'calls itself' which individually and seperately sound derogatory and non-encylopoaedic. I believe the 'on;y' might be disputed by non NKT Dorje Shugden worshipers. Please try and rephrase NPOV way. Try to balance NKT supporters and oponents POV. You can give their POV provided it is attributed to them. Quoting sources also helps. Billlion 12:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the NKT are rich - as is evidenced by the large number of properties they have bought. They are minor, as is evidenced by the lack of members compared to the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It is also a fact that they call themselves the 'New Kadampa Tradition', as is evidenced by looking at any of their publications. The Geluk have objected to the name, as it is a synonym of the Geluk (see New Kadampa ), and many Geluk consider it to be deliberately confusing. As for the accusation that the additional article is non-encylopoaedic, I cannot disagree, but the claim of POV remains unfounded IMO. However, in order to be conciliatory regarding this, how about:

Since the 1990s, the vast majority of Shugden worshippers have been members or supporters of the Western sect known as the New Kadampa Tradition which split from the traditional Gelug school in the 1990s after their leader, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso was expelled for encouraging Shugden worship. Under the Geshe's guidance, they see this spirit as a Dharma Protector and regard him as an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha, Manjushri.

I trust you find this acceptable? (20040302 13:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

Looks fine to me. Billlion 08:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

someone put on the article board:

"Actually, the Dalai Lama is the political head of all of Tibet, not the spiritual head. I believe that he is not even the head of the Gelugpa school (that being the Panchen Lama), and I know he is not the head of the Kagyu school (the Karmapa) or the Nyingma school."

this should be discussed, but not put on the article board that?s why I canceled it and put it on discussion board.

As far as I know it is as followed: HH the Dalai Lama is the spiritual and political head of Tibet. The head of Gelugpa is the Ganden Tripa. The head of Kaygupa HH Karmapa The head of Sakyapa HH Sakya Trizin Rinpoche The head of Nyingmapa in Exile: HH Mindoling Trichen Rinpoche Is there anybody who has different informations???

New Changes

someone made great changes after a big discussion at Talk:Dorje_Shugden_Controversy and made a redirect from Shugden Controversy. so now i made some corrections to that. --Kt66 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Root of the conflict

The root of the conflict is the view of "conservative" Gelugpas that the "root teacher" is a Buddha and they take this very literally. So if the root teacher of a person taught Shugden is a Buddha than of course the desciple has to accept this and practice it. Because "he is a Buddha, me not." And to think like that is "pure view".

On the other hand the wide range of "liberal" Dharma practitioners (of all tibetan traditions!) are accepting that they are at their own responsible to check what them was taught: if it is according to the Dharma and makes sence and don't accept when it is not and that the statement that the teacher is a Buddha is not to take literally. To accept only what was proper checked by the disciple was taught in the Kalama Sutra by Buddha and also by Tsongkhpa in different texts. Not to take the view "the teacher is a Buddha" literally comes from the oral lineage and is secret because it is Vajrayana and Vajrayana texts are never to take literally they hide their meaning and even give wrong expression to protect it from misusing.

So the conclusion of conservatives is, because His Holiness the Dalai Lama didn't follow his "root teacher" he neclected him, broke his vows and has "impure view" to him. This is neglecting two things: Only the Dalai Lama himself knows who are his root teachers - he had many and the root teacher are not fixed by rituals or how much they taught to someone - and his responsibility of proper checking what was taught, which is one of the three main qualities of a proper Mahayana student.

The same pattern you find within NKT: Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha (Tsongkhapa!). So he is right. What he says is true. I have "pure view" because I believe him, I believe he is a Buddha. Of course the Dalai Lama has "impure view", because he didn't believe what his "root teacher" taught on Shugden. So I'm good, he is bad. Quite simple logic.

Also if it is fixed by "seeing someone as a Buddha" is "pure view" than one who sees Adolf Hitler as a Buddha has "pure view" and the people who say he is one of the greatest murder have "impure view". So just to say: I beliefe Shugden is Buddha, I believe Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha is to simple.

To understand the pattern and conflict more deeply the concepts of "pure view" and "impure view" has to be discussed from experts in Buddhism or one should contact different sources. Most part of the conflict are based on misunderstandings of the main ideas of Vajrayana and taking them to literally or complete misunderstood it. --Kt66 10:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many interesting ideas here, Kt66, though some I am dubious about some.

I disagree with the importance you place on the 'conservative/liberal' dichotomy based on the grounds that the 'conservatives' assert that one's lama is literally a Buddha outside of the context of the conventions of the vase of HYT (where all beings are Buddhas).

In the LRCM Je Rinpoche states (and this view is far from being solely Gelugpa): Also, in the Sutras and the Vinaya it is taught that you must think of the guru as being the Teacher. The meaning of their statements is as follows. When you recognise someone to be a Buddha, you will not discern faults in that person, and you will pay attention to his or her good qualities. So, the purpose of identifying one's Guru as a Buddha is to keep a positive attitude towards them. However, he then goes on to say Once you have conditioned yourself to this, you may notice that your guru has a small number of faults. However, this does not impede your faith because you will be used to focussing on the good qualities. Therefore one can easily see that (outside of the vase, etc) the identity of one's Guru as Buddha is done for the purpose of generating a positive mind only. It is not correct view to truly believe that your Guru has the qualities of a Buddha (such as omniscience, etc).

As you point out, the kalama sutra (and many other sources, textual, oral, and secret) tells Buddhists to think for ourselves. Not to do so weakens our discriminating awareness. Certainly we are encouraged (by Asvagosha, Atisha, Je Rinpoche and many others) to do what we can to follow our teachers. And in following our teachers, we must exercise discriminating awareness, which means needing to question the statements of our teachers, rather than blindly accept them.

I understand that the statement "I believe Shugden is Buddha" is a simple one, yet the point I was making on the controversy talk was not based on that. It appears that Gen Kelsang Pagpa (resident teacher of Vajravarahi Kadampa Centre) has a faulty (indeed nihilistic) view, and this is much more important and far more damaging than any belief about an invisible spirit, and whether or not it is a Buddha.

I disagree with you that it is a necessary distinction (within HYT) that Adolf Hitler is a Buddha but not one of the greatest murderers. Within the context of the vase, he may still be one of the greatest murderers as well as being a Buddha! I would prefer to explain within a more private environment.

Also, I am not too sure I understand your dichotomy of 'pure/impure' view. What is the Tibetan word that this refers to? Or (if easier) what defines this dichotomy? Are you talking about the distinction between right/wrong view dichotomy as identified by the ten nonvirtuous actions, or by the 'common/divine' view dichotomy, or something else completely?

I very am curious about the statement that within NKT GKG is recognised as being Tsongkhapa. Does this mean that the NKT do not believe Je Rinpoche to be in Tushita? If so, this makes his guruyoga hard to recite! The very first word is 'Ganden' (Tushita)!! (20040302 11:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Hi 20040302 you make me smile :-) I agree to you, also your critics. I just focussed to make some points clear which only people can understand who are involved in "NKT-Dharma" ideas and this was just more adressed to them not to people who have a broader and deep Gelug perspective and knows the scriptures of Tsongkhapa. If one follows Tsongkhpa (and his scriptures) there is no problem at all with all these topics. Why I said this: I was with NKT for 4 years and propagators of Shugden all togehter 6 1/2 year. Their main logic is: The Guru is a Buddha (literally) and so if Trijang Rinpoche says Shugden is Manjushri than we have to follow that. And who does not follow that view has "impure view" (do not see the teacher as a Buddha). And also they say: One who sees Shugden as a Buddha has "pure view", one who do not has "impure view". I think also: the deepest cause is a misunderstanding on emptiness/reality and is a perhaps a nihilistic view. The same thinking is within NKT: Geshe-las is a Buddha (Tsongkhapa) so if he says this - we have to accept this and if he says to do that - we have to do that ("Guru Yoga"), because he knows (can see the future), we don't. So for instance he has done really non-buddhist deeds in Berlin - quite hard to believe - and even NKT practioners I know do have also problems with that, but they help themselfs by the thoughts: "oh only Geshe-la can see the future, so he knows why he has done this. We have not the wisdom and can not see the future to understand his actions" and the like. This kind of thinking is quite simple and dangerous. And I learned it within NKT and Shugden lamas who I named for simplification as "conservatives" (ok I agree this doesn't suit well and even accuses really learnt/realised Gelug-masters who practice Shugden). It was just for simplifications. I needed over 3 years and many many teachings from different high lamas of all schools to get rid of the wrong views I learned in the past from NKT about "pure view", "Guru Yoga", "Root-Teacher", "Emptiness" and "Seeing the Teacher as a Buddha" but there are many people who suffers on this also this time. To them I adressed these points because NKT practitioners (who normally only read GKG books and say these are not different from Tsongkhapas scrpitures or even are translated scriptures of Tsongkhapas! (***)) follow this discussions and have a great interest to have articles in their ideas, so this is a good oppurtunity to help their minds by understanding (wisdom) and to untighten some of their views. I'm not quite sure if you can follow me and catched my points? thank you for your contribution and ask more if you like or are not satisfied. (***) "All of Geshe Kelsang's books are commentaries to Je Tsongkhapa's teachings. Indeed, Geshe-la has remarked that he regards all these books as coming from Je Tsongkhapa, with himself as being like a cassette recorder into which the Wisdom Buddha, the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugdän, has placed the cassette of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings" you find this at http://www.meditateinireland.com/html_pages/Modern%20Day%20Kadampas.htm and "Geshe Kelsang has translated Lama Tsonkharpa's influential books and commentaries into English, and these have in turn been translated into other languages." at BBC(!!!) http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/features/kadampa/ --Kt66 09:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Kt66. So if I understand correctly, the terms pure/impure view are technical terms used within the NKT to indicate whether or not you believe that GKG/Shugden is a Buddha or not? Thanks for your link also. What I am curioius about is the claim that these books are commentaries of Je Tsongkhapa's works. Looking at the list of works, they seem to be commentaries of Sutra, Atisha, Shantideva, and others. The major omissions appear to be one of the great masterworks of Tsongkhapa, the Lam Rim Chenmo. The LRCM is a great preventer of false views and error. Snowlion have published (3 vols) an excellent and definitive translation. (20040302)

You understood correctly. It is just as quite simple as that. So we got problems in Berlin, because we saw also the NKT female teacher as a Buddha. And then GKG wanted to expell her and accused her to steal his students and centers and the like. So we had problems with two Buddhas who fight each other... and keep "pure view". ;-) GKG very based books are on Shantideva and Chandrakirti. The other are on oral lineage and his understanding of it. I don't agree to that his Lamrim is a commentary of Tsongkhapa, it is more in Pabongkha kind of presantation. One of the problems is also that he never list the sources of his book in the end of a book. So every one can say what ever he likes what it is. How ever they are more based on the oral teachings he received than on Tsongkhapa though he mentioned Tsongkhapas scriptures as very clear. I think he want to spread his understanding and the oral lineage he received, more than the basics of Tsongkhapa. And believes there is no difference. --Kt66 11:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, when you find links like the one from the BBC, you can normally contact the editorial team and inform them of any mistakes in the text. (20040302)

oh i did! BBC didn't react. I think someone of NKT made this article and BBC just believes. It is full of false facts (like they are Kadamapa lineage, his books are Tsongkhapa works and so on.) I advised them to contact a spcialist not NKT. BBC didn't reply... Perhaps they listen to you? --Kt66 11:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

After I was asked by a friend to complain to BBC realting the NKT article, they wrote some days ago:

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate that you have noticed some errors on the Religion website on bbc.co.uk relating to the New Kadampa Tradition.

I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and I can assure you that I have forwarded your comments to our site owner of the following website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/features/kadampa/

I cannot guarantee that you will receive a direct response from the site owner, but I can assure you that the matter has been brought to his attention for his consideration.

In the meantime, thank you once again for contacting the BBC.

Regards

Paul Hunter

BBC Information

So as far as I understand this reply BBC did not wrote the article and NKT must be the owner and writer of that BBC article. Perhpas NKT pay for it and are themselves responsible for it. As with the discussed 'conservative/liberal' dichotomy above Kays researches show this clearly but he is using the terms of "inclusiveness" and "exclusiveness" for that things. --Kt66 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

delete

I deleted "which split from the traditional Geluk school in the 1990s over the issue of the Dalai Lama's ban." Becasue this was not the reason of the split and also NKT call it a "ban" but infact this is an advise.

Different high Gelug Lamas didn’t practice Shugden and also advised against the practice

"Lamas like Their Holinesses the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen—a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.

Purchog Jampa Rinpoche, a very high lama of Sera Je Monastery and an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, wrote against the practice of Shugden in the Monastery’s constitution. Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced." quote taken from Lama Zopa Rinpoche. Kt66 21:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Also: Ling Rinpoche (the Senior Tutor to His Holiness the Dalai Lama) said on this subject. “When we have such powerful protectors like Dharma Raja and Mahakala that have been with the Mahayana since the beginning why should we trip over minor ones like Dhoegyal?”

Kt66 14:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard that Ling Rinpoche performed a blessing ceremony when the statue of Dorje Shugden was installed in Sera Mey India. Perhaps someone can confirm if this is true or not. If that is correct there is some ambivalence to the statement above regarding Ling Rinpoche's sentiment towards Dorje Shugden and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia artcicle. (Robertect 18:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)).

Pointlessness of Arguing if Dorje Shugden is or is not a Buddha

The following is taken from internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997: "Concerning whether or not Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, there can be no final conclusion. This is because from the point of view of many people he is a worldly being, but at the same time from the point of view of many other people he is the Wisdom Buddha. This reasoning applies not only to Dorje Shugden, but to all holy beings.

If someone asked you how to prove that the fifth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are Buddhas, you would most certainly find it difficult to give clear reasons. On the other hand, if someone asked you how to prove that these two lamas are not Buddhas, you could easily give a clear answer. You could say: they are not Buddhas because they need translators, they get sick, they are unable to come to their own decisions but have to rely on those of oracles, and sometimes they even get angry. How can a Buddha get angry, get sick, and so forth? Buddhas do not need oracles? So talking about this subject is completely meaningless, and only destroys peace and harmony in Buddhist circles."(Robertect 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

delete

I deleted the Sadhana link. There is no need to linke prayertextes in Wikipedia, isn't it? Kt66 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Pabhongkha's Sectarianism

This is a letter sent by Pabonkhapa to the Chinese General Lu Chu Tang in the Earth Rabbit Year. You can follow the whole statement on this issue by the added link to the E-Sangha Forum but you must log in there...

Honest expression of the General presentation of Inner and Outer Tenets of the World.

In general there are many religions in this world. Every follower thinks that his own faith is the best. However, if we honestly examine, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM are barbarism and therefore are the worst and there is no other religion worse than these. The non- Buddhist systems like that of Kapila and Sankhya are slightly better than the aforementioned faiths but they do not have the path to liberation. They may undertake great hardships like self-immolation and jumping upon a trident but there is no path to liberation. It opens the gate to the lower realm. The so-called Bonpo is also not at all different from the other non-Buddhist faiths. Far from achieving liberation it opens the door of the lower realm. Since Confucianism is also not the teaching of the Buddha it simply gives temporary happiness but not liberation. As all these systems are opposite to the Buddha's teachings, leave aside achieving Buddhahood, they do not at all have the path to liberation. One cannot show even a single example of one who has achieved liberation after having practiced these faiths. Without exception most of them fall into the unfathomable lower realms. It is only Buddhism which is the path of liberation. Even in Buddhism, the compassionate Buddha Shakya Muni knew that if the profound and ultimate truth of emptiness is taught right at the outset, it would not be understood by the followers. Just as children are gradually taught, starting from the alphabet, in the same way at first easily understandable teachings are taught. Therefore he first taught the Vaibhashika Tenet System which explains grosser meanings of selflessness of persons. After that he taught the Sautantrika Tenet System which is more profound than the previous one. Then he taught the Mind Only School, which is again more profound and which teaches the grosser selflessness of phenomena. It is this school which Thangsen Lama propagated in China. After that he taught the Madhyamika Tenet System which explains the subtle selflessness, the ultimate view. Here also we have Indian Acharya/Masters Bhavaviveka; Shantarakshita, who even though they have entered the Madhyamika philosophy could not fathom the meaning of very subtle emptiness, the ultimate intention of the Buddha. Thus they are mid-dling Madhyamikas and they are known as the Svatantrika Madhyamikas.

And we also have Indian Acharyas like Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti who had unmistakenly fathomed and realised the ultimate intention of the Buddha, which was trail-blazed by Nagarjuna, and they are called Prasangika Madhyamikas. Regarding the path of liberation and Buddhahood, there are two parts: wisdom and method. All those tenet systems below the Svatantrikas have found the unmistaken path of the method but have failed to realise the ultimate view which is the wis- dom aspect, and therefore they have not realised the ultimate emptiness but just a facsimile. Hence it is only the Prasangika Madhyamika System which realises the unmistaken subtle emptiness, the ultimate thought of the Buddha.

There is not even a single individual who has realised the subtle emp-tiness without entering into the Prasangika System. In the absence of this realisation it is not possible to attain enlightenment. Therefore this Prasangika Madhyamika System, the system of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is the best, the supreme and the peak among the four Buddhist Tenet Systems. In Tibet there are many systems of Buddhist teachings like Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Jonang, Bodong and others. All these are Buddhist teachings and they all have wonderful methods of accumulation of merits, purification of obstructions, meditation on deities and recitation of mantras. Through these practices one can achieve liberation. Therefore these are a hundred thousand million times better than Christianity, Islam and other non-Buddhist teachings. However, there is no system like that of Tsongkhapa's, which is complete, unmistaken, profound and fast.

Although each of the Tibetan philosophical schools feel and assert that their own philosophy is that of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and thus the philosophy of Prasangika, but, because of its very subtlety the followers could not realise the main intention of their preceding learned scholar practitioners and have thus erred. Most of them have become like the philosophy of Hvashang Mahayana. By becoming so one will fall into nihilism and will become the cause for hell. Therefore, in Tibet, except Tsongkhapa's philosophy, all others are mistaken. As such I can affirm that at present on this earth and be-neath the sky it is only the refined gold, like Manjushri Tsongkhapa's system which is alone totally faultless in every aspect, be it the philosophical view, the meditation or the conduct. It is complete, profound and extensive and if one has the knowledge and the ability to practice this teaching properly then one will be able to attain Buddha-hood within twelve human years or even in three years and three fortnights. This can be sustained through thousands of reasonings and references. The core of the teaching is the path to enlightenment alone. While this wonderful philosophy is existent many unfortunately adhere strongly to inferior teachings. Many such people are there in Tibet as well, which is a clear indication of lack of merit. The establishment of Tsongkhapa's teaching, the core of the Buddha's teachings, in your country is such a rare priviledge that even tens and hundreds of millions of merits accumulated by Lord Indra and Brahma cannot equal even a portion of this merit. This is really fortunate.

Kt66 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to add: I got the information that this letter is dipsutable and seems not relyable at all. For more see: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=414690 and check it out yourself. I am very sorry if I used an unrelyable source! I will avoid this in the future. Please excuse me. Kt66 13:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Part Two

Why didn't you counter with the writing of Trijang Rinpoche found in one of the empowerment texts for the protector and attributed to Pabongkha Rinpoche, which can be found in George Dreyfus' article you archived in your site:

"[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 andmisleading 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."

Dorje Shugden as a Worldly Protector and Enlightened Being

Taken from Internet correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997: "Regarding Dorje Shugden, there are two different ways of perceiving him. These two appearances came originally from the 5th Dalai Lama. First Dorje Shugden appeared to him as a harmful spirit which he tried to destroy, (albeit unsuccessfully), and because of this many people cam to view Dorje Shugden as a harmful spirit. In this way the ordinary appearance of Dorje Shugden developed. Later, the 5th Dalai Lama realised that he had misunderstood the real nature of Dorje Shugden, and he then began to engage in the practice and composed prayers to him. In these prayers he he invites Dorje Shugden to come from Chöku, the Dharmakaya, clearly indicating that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being. Since that time the appearance of the qualified practitioner developed.

Later Lamas such as Tagphu Dorje Chang and Je Phabongkhapa perceived Dorje Shugden as a manifestation of Buddha Manjushri. These Lamas realised that Dorje Shugden is the same mental continuum as Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen. Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen is the same mental continuum as Sakya Pandita who is a manifestation of Manjushri. For followers of Je Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche, including myself, it is impossible that Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen, the manifestation of Manjushri could be reborn in an uncontrolled way as a worldly spirit. Not only Gelugpa lamas believe this, some Sakya Lamas also believe that Dorje Shugden is a holy being. In the book by Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen he say that Dorje Shugden cannot be a worldly spirit because he is a Bodhisattva. He says that Dorje Shugden is a protector Deity of the Sakya tradition. Previously the Sakya monastery in Rajpur, India always used to practise Dorje Shugden puja, but maybe nowadays that has changed.

Although Je Phabongkhapa’s view is that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, the 13th Dalai Lama, using his political power, did not allow Je Phabonghapa to publicise this view, so he had to accept the lower position of Dorje Shugden. Therefore, at that time Gelugpa practitioners lost their freedom to say publicly that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being. To the majority of ordinary Tibetans Dorje Shugden appeared as a worldly spirit. At that time there were many stories and rumours about how Dorje Shugden would help some people, harm others and so forth, all according to the ordinary appearance of the majority of people, most of whom were very superstitious. The stories mentioned in Zemey Tulku’s “Yellow Book” are just superstitions. He was not necessarily expressing his own view in this book, but telling may different superstitions according to ordinary peoples appearance of Dorje Shugden. Of course the view of Dorje Shugden as a harmful spirit was neither Trijang Rinpoche’s view, (nor was it Je Phabongkapa’s)." (Robertect 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)).

Stories of the Harm Caused by Dorje Shugden

Taken from Internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997: "As mentioned above, according to the ordinary appearance of Tibetan people there are many stories, in reality superstitions, about Dorje Shugden, how he harms people etc. But such stories also abound about other protector deities. For example Gyalwo Behar, Nöjin Tsemar, Therang Dorlek are very popular protector deities in the Nyingma tradition. Many Nyingmapas engage in the practice of these protector deities. There are many stories of how Gyalwo Behar harmed people, even high lamas. It is said that he tried to destroy Padmasambhava by throwing huge stones onto his head. Similarly with Nöjin Tsemar, he also harmed people including high lamas; the 5th Dalai Lama said that he killed the Karmapa Mikyo Dorje. Nojin Tsemar is the protector deity of Samye monastery. Such stories are very common in all four traditions." (Robertect 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)).

Adds on Pabhongkha's and Shugden's Secterianism

Biography of Jigme Dhamchoe Gyatsho by the Dhomey scholar Tsetan Zhabdrung(21)(1910-1985)

"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."

This letter of request is a letter sent by Jamgon Choekyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, a great scholar of the recent past from the Kham area, to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho of Dhomey (1898-1947). We can clearly see in this letter that by propagating inappropriate behaviour, some followers of Kyabje Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo greatly harmed Je Tsongkhapa's teaching, therefore a request was made that an instructive epistle should be composed, carved on a wooden block and distributed to the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham.

for more seee please: http://www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx?postID=105199 84.190.190.29 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The reader can find more at the wiki discussion board of the article Dorje_Shugden_Controversy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_Controversy.

There is also mentioned that even the empowerment on Shugden includes secterian thoughts: Not even you find in the Article of Geshe George Dreyfuss this statement of not touching Nyingma scriptures and the notions on the Yellow Book about killing the people who does practice Gelug and Nyingma teachings together you can also read it by a member who were present while initiations - also at Manjushri Centre by Zong Rinpoche:

"During the empowerment Zong Rinpoche was very solemn in explaining certain “damtsigs” (samaya) connected with this practice. Among these were never to mention Shugden by name to the uninitiated. He was simply to be referred to as “The Protector.” Another samaya was to learn and propagate only “Gelugpa” teachings and NONE other, especially Nyingmapa. We were even discouraged from merely touching Nyingmapa texts."

You find this and more when putting "shugden thubten gonpo zong rinpoche" into google search machine.

Kt66 13:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, that's as may be, but it is hardly the case today. I have recently granted the empowerment of Dorje Shugden and there is no mention of these 'commitments' in the text of the empowerment. I have personally never heard Geshe Kelsang say that we should not touch Nyingma scriptures, and so forth. I have very good friends who are Nyingmas. I do think it is a great shame that this sort of divisive speech is circulating. A lot of views of NKT practices that I have come across have been based simply on superstitious rumours. It is very sad, let's not be part of it.--Kelsangpagpa 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

HI KP. Thank you for your comment. Yes it is true, Geshe Kelsang Gytaso and his students don't pass these Samayas which Zong Rinpoche gave. Neither NKT keep the name of Shugden secret nor do they pass the promise not to touch Nyingma scriptures. But this was done in the Shugden-lineage and as you can see by Zong Rinpoche himself. Either GKG changed the Samayas or there exist different approaches. The latter can be doubted. I think GKG changed the Samayas as he changed the Vinaya too. However, I gave once the Commentary of Shugden myself and this was based upon GKG written commentary of that. It includes the idea "not to mix" with other traditions, so it is handled by NKT quite moderte. We have yet discussed it. Nevertheless the origin of Shugden is secterian and the behaviour of NKT and most Shugden followers (but not all) are too. It is sometimes quite funny to see how the obvious is neglected or unseen by the followers. However, A happy New Year and all the best for you and your friends. I think we can rest with differnt views on that. yours Kt66 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear KT66, Happy New Year to you! Thanks for your comments. I don't believe there is anything sectarian to wanting to follow one tradition purely. All traditions have special qualities, and we should keep them special by not mixing with other traditions, otherwise there will be no pure traditions and no pure Buddhadharma in this world. I'm sorry that you feel this is sectarian, but we are simply trying to practice Kadampa Buddhism purely without mixing. I think that everyone should do this. We can respect all traditions without having to practise them all. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HI KP, thank you! What is "pure" and "practicing purely" for you and what does "without mixing" or just "mixing" mean for you? What is your understanding of this? Kt66 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposing the claim of Je Phabongkha’s Supression of Nyingma Teachings

The following is taken from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's correspondence in a webdiscussion forum in 1997.

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

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

Je Phabongkha and Nyingma Practices Also from Internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997: "It may be that in his dreams he felt Dorje Shugden was telling him to stop some of his Nyingma practices, but this does not imply that Dorje Shugden does not like the Nyingma tradition. It merely indicates that Je Phabongkhapa had no karmic connection with the Nyingma tradition. If there is no karmic connection with a particular practice, then you will not receive any good results. So please do not misunderstand. It is possible that Je Phabongkhapa encouraged some of his disciples to stop their Nyingma practice, but again it does not mean that Je Phabongkhapa was telling them that Nyingma practice is not pure, but to encourage them to concentrate on their own tradition. Teachers of all traditions and all religions encourage their people to concentrate on their own tradition. There is nothing wrong in this.

According to the information that I have received from authentic sources, when the Dalai Lama first began to engage in Nyingma practices, it was HH Ling Rinpoche who tried to discourage him, strongly advising him against these practices. This does not mean that HH Ling Rinpoche was saying that the Nyingma practices are not good, but he felt that it was an affront to the Gelugpas, indicating that their practice was not a complete path. Until that time the Dalai Lama had been pure Gelugpa, and now he was changing; this was not a good indication for the Gelug tradition. There is no criticism implied that Nyingma practice is not pure.

I know HH Trijang Rinpoche's way of life very well, and he mainly emphasized the Gelug tradition, but he always had a good relationship with Lamas from the other traditions. I have never heard him say anything in any of his teachings implying that the Nyingma tradition is not pure." (Robertect 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Nyingmapa and Gelugpa Relations

Again taken from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's Internet Correspondence in 1997: "Although Sera, Ganden, and Drepung (in Tibet) were Gelug monasteries, many Nyingmapa and Bon practitioners joined to study the philosophical teachings. In my class in Sera-Je I had some friends who were from a Nyingma monastery in eastern Tibet. Their daily practice was Nyingma, and no-one was unhappy about this. They had complete freedom. We never had any problems because the abbot gave complete freedom for individual practice.

Most of my (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) family are Gelugpas who rely on Dorje Shugden,(but) some of them are Nyingmapas. My younger sister married a Nyingmapa Lama from western Tibet from a renowned lineage, he was called Ngora Lama. They had many children, and I visited them frequently, sometimes he and I would do puja together. I would do Dorje Shugden puja and he would do his own practice. We had a very good relationship until his death in Mussourie, India. Now his youngest son and my sister are living in Manjushri Centre in England.

When I arrived in Mussourie I had many good friends from the Nyingma tradition, one of whom in particular was called Ngachang Lama. He was an old man, a lay practitioner; one winter he and I did retreat in the same house. In betwee ˜n sessions we talked Dharma, each talking about our experiences. His oldest son would often invite me to his house to do puja. Also, I was often invited to do puja at houses of other Nyingma families. I was so surprised to hear the Dalai Lama and others saying that Dorje Shugden practitioners and Nyingmapa practitioners are like fire and water!" (Robertect 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Request for a Lineage Guru to Give Commentry

Such statements don't look good, and on face value they seem to contradict the Dorje Shugden instructions that I have recieved. Due to the fact that I trust both my teacher and Je Phabongkhapa I personally cannot accept the apparent meaning of this text without a lineage holder of these instructions such as Gangchen Rinpoche, Dagom Rinpoche, Gonsar Rinpoche or Geshe Kelsang Gyatso giving commentary to it. This is fair because there are often very different meanings to those which are apparent in Buddhist texts, also if one looks at the lives of teachers such as Lama Thubten Yeshe or Geshe Rabten, even Trijang Rinpoche I am sure few if any would accuse them of being sectarian and divisive and yet they all relied on Dorje Shugden and received the lineage of instruction from Je Phabongkha, so for me 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4 here, something is not right.

The lineage Gurus of this instruction have a responsibility as Bodhisattva's to clarify these points for their sincere disciples now and the many future generations to come. The rebirths of countless living beings depend upon this clarification. At the moment faith is being destroyed, doubt is sown and at death we Buddhists believe that these things will lead to aeons of terrible suffering and delay immeasurably the destruction of the iron net of samsara. For this reason they should speak publicly so that their words will always be available and no mis-interpretation, rumour or duplicitousness can be placed upon them. I am making a heartfelt and sincere request on behalf of all mother sentient beings for a commentary to these texts of Je Phabongkha by one of the precious Lamas that I mention or another equally qualified. Previously Geshe Kelsang stirred by great compassion kindly engaged in open debate and honestly clarified many points, but there are still points such as those above that are not clear. I hope with all my heart and call to the bodhichitta in these Lama’s hearts that it may spring into action once more impelling them to show such selflessness, courage and compassion and clarify Je Phabongkha's meaning and intention. (Robertect 10:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)).

reversion of Geir Smith's changes

Dear Geir Smith,

I'm sorry, but I have reverted your changes. The information you added to the article was, in my opinion, overlong and largely irrelvant to the issue of Dorje Shugden. If you want to say that the Sakya lineage rejects the practice of Dorje Shugden, that's fine, but you must provide verifiable evidence for this and reference it. After all, this is an encyclopedia which must contain facts and references. If what you say is opinion, you must clearly state it.

Furthermore, what you say is in contradiction with my own source material from Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who says in his book Heart Jewel which is also referenced on the Kadampa Website: [3]

However, the beings of this present time have a stronger karmic link with Dorje Shugden than with the other Dharma Protectors. It was for this reason that Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realized Master of the Sakya tradition, told his disciples, "Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden." He said this on many occasions to encourage his disciples to develop faith in the practice of Dorje Shugden.

We too should heed his advice and take it to heart. He did not say that this is the time to rely upon other Dharma Protectors, but clearly stated that now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden. Many high Lamas of the Sakya tradition and many Sakya monasteries have relied sincerely upon Dorje Shugden.

Sorry to revert these changes.

--Kelsangpagpa 11:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

HI KP. Of course what GKG says contradicts what Geir says but it also contradicts what the most Buddhist Authorities say or think or checked out on that. That beings would have a stronger karmic link to Shugden is only an assertion of some Shugden followers and this is not really reliable, because Karma can be only fully understood by the Buddha, because it is a very hidden subject. If some master say something this is not from his own site reliable. As stated by HH Sakya Trizin the present head of the Sakyas: In the past some Sakyas practiced Shugden as a local worldly deity but never it was a practice of Sakya institution and he didn't even mention the idea that he can be seen as Buddha Manjushri. Tibetans like GKG are quite skillful to support their views by the accounts of what another Lama said - even when this Lama never talked like cited as with the 5th Dalai Lama was done - but this is not Tsongkhapas approach. One has to check if something is according with the Dharma, with the main seals of Buddhism and does not contradict the great indian panditas an the teaching of the Buddha. Secterian views and exclusivness thoughts on the "own" and "other" tradition contradict these points. And I also want to remind you: GKG is no Tulku, no Rinpoche or any recognized realised master as HH the DL, HH Sakya Trizin, the Ganden Tripa and others are. He is mere a Geshe, but also this is doubted if he passed he ever made his exam. So don't rely to much on words he said. I think the contrdictions can not be overcome by only look what GKG says, one have to develop a broader perspective on that and use different sources. yours Kt66 12:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to a revert, however informations which improve the article are most welcome. KP you used the revert to establish NPOV:

"According to George Dreyfuss, Dorje.....

However, this is incorrect because adherents of Dorje Shugden believe that Dorje Shugden is an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri, not a vengeful spirit."

This origin tale is made by Shugden adherents not by G. Dreyfuss, this passage of the founding myth was even made by a Shugden follower. However you can put in the article the believe of Shugden followers that they believe he is Buddha Manjushri at a passage where it is suited. Here we're talking about the historical origin, not the mode of belief of Shugden adherents. best wishes, yours Kt66 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I did make some additional changes to the article, because I find the use of the word 'cult' unacceptable. This is opinion, not fact, and is not NPOV. The use of the word 'cult' has many negative connotations in the public mind so I have removed it.

Related to the point about the 'origin' of Dorje Shugden, I would like to know what Geshe George Dreyfuss' credentials are for setting forth the belief that Dorje Shugden is a vengeful spirit. It is hard to believe that this view came from a Dorje Shugden devotee, because we believe that Dorje Shugden is an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha. How can we know that his article draws on correct information? Best wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi KP, yes "cult" has a quite negative connotation. I accept to remove the word. We will see if other wiki editors also accept this. For me its ok. Relating the origin. The myth of Dragpa Gyalsten was established by Shugden followers, you find this also in Trijang Rinpoches work - as far as I know! - and also Geshe Kelsang mentioned him in his "Heart Jewel" book isn't it? This section on Dragpa Gyaltsen and the word "founding myth" was brought up here in wiki by a Shugden apologist and it fits just what Dryfuss said and also what I know about this. If you look in the history, Shugden was never seen in Sakya School as enlightened, even Pabonghkha Rinpoche first dealt with Shugden as with worldly oathbouneded protectors is dealt with. The change of seeing him as Manjushri was done later and was fully established by Trijang Rinpoche -as far as I know. That Shugden is a vengeful spirit is seen by the most Lamas from all the tibetan buddhist schools, and also high Gelug Lamas warned against him, so it was not only the 5th,13th and 14th Dalai Lama who warned about that he is a vengeful spirit. I myself asked many Lamas from different schools. Either them agreed that they see him as a demon (Nyingma and Kagyu Lamas) or they replied I should trust in HH the Dalai Lama in that case "he has the most subtle mind to see that clearly." or "take refuge to HH". A Gelug Geshe said: don't worry either he is a Buddha or a mother in both cases don't be angry, be friendly! Only one Gelug Tulku who is a near disciple of Trijang Rinpoche didn't accept this view that Shugden is a demon, "because then it would follow Trijang Rinpoche revered a demon." My opinion is: Why not? Even high Bodhisattvas can make mistakes, even disiples of the Buddha happened that. To make a fault is not saying the person is wrong or has no qualities. So I'm open for the opinion and proofs of other Lamas too. One of the Lamas I met even helped people to overcome the influence of Shugden, he controlled Shugden. He is a Nyingma Lama and practiced also the Vajrayogini Tantra which you do and is coming from Sakya Tradition. He was over years in solitude with only two hours sleep at night and one meal a day. This lama was able to cure people and see things you can not believe. I translated for him and cared for the sick people he treated. And I heard about he helped people in Swiss too which had difficulties and was pointing out why these came from Shugden. So you see, Dreyfuss is not mere giving his opinion. He is in correspondence with the facts how it is seen by many buddhist authorities. Perhaps you check out yourself when the idea of Shugden as Manjushri happend the first time. In no of Tsongkhapa or Atishas work he is even mentioned. For the first time he was mentioned at the time of the 5th DL.

PS: Sorry I remember a young Gelug Tulku I asked, he is a debate partner of Song Rinpoches new incarnation, he was unsure what Shugden is, but believed Geshe Kelsang is no ordinary being. (This opinion I don't share. Also his line on argumente on this wasn't reliable/valid at all.) Of course there are a wide range of opinions. So we look on the facts, check the proofs and historical account what is accepted by the most, and most of the Nyingma, Sakyas and Kagyue and many of Gelug see Shugden not as Buddha Manjushri and warn against him. Nevertheless Shugden adherents are free to believe what they like and it is still mentioned that they believe of him as being Buddha Manjushri. yours Kt66 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

@Geir Smith: Hi there! I suggest if you have further/adiddional material on Shugden/Sakya please include it, but make it short and in a way that it siuts to the article and not destroying it and please as KP said give also reference in the discussion board. Thank you, Kt66 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

@Geir Smith. Hi there I will change the section of you once more. I put in the statement of HH Sakya Trizin, he is the highest present authority in Sakya Tradition now. I add your view and links at the links section or "see also". The section is for me to much based on your own view and normally editiors don't put selfreference in the article itself. Hopefully you can agree to this. And thank your for your contribution, please try to discuss if you don't agree and give reasons for it. Kt66 20:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup

The reference to this Lama in Dorje Shugden commentries is often disputed, I therefore found this reference on the Tibet.com web site of interest: "Because some followers of Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup propitiated Gyalchen Shugden, gradually some Gelugpa lamas also began to propitiate it." http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-history.html

Refer to Jalpo article for rebuttal of this. No sign of truth can be found in the whole of this position above. Kind regards. P.S. I've answered all that already and fully. Just read my article well. The whole of the taking over of Jalpo by the Gelugs, of the highjacking of the Sakya lineage for the Gelug form of it in Shugden, and the banning of Jonang at the same time are all included in it : (and the Kalachakra of Jonang being thus stolen by the Gelugs) all topics above are included in that article. Geir Smith 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What the 5th Dalai Lama Thought

I read previously a prayer of apology by the 5th Dalai Lama to Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang refers to this apology in the Tricycle interview where he says, "Initially the Fifth Dalai Lama was afraid that Dorje Shugden was a harmful spirit trying to destroy him. Then he requested some Nyingma lamas to destroy Dorje Shugden. Then later, after realizing that he had made a mistake, the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote a special prayer to Dorje Shugden of apology and confession." I have read this prayer and it seems to refer to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha, I will try to find a copy of it. This makes me doubt the truth of the 5th Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden. If anyone has a copy of this prayer it will be helpful, also a scholar needs to prove that Geshe Kelsang's statement is wrong, otherwise the prayer should also be included in the Wikipedia article because it reflects the lack of one definite view or another from a central person in the history of this practice. This point will help to establish if the 5th Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden is ambiguous. (Robertect 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)).

I wrote below that there is no historical source of it. Neither in the biografy nor in the works of the fifth DL. Kt66 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the brief history of opposition to Shugden it references one source of this prayer as being the Toe-'Bril, but I do not know what this is. "Let us discuss the assertion found in the Toe-'Bril: "When it was not caught during the fire ritual, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama in a wrathful aspect asked Setrab to announce the order in the protector chapel of Sangphu. It is said that while reading the document containing the order, even the dharma protector's headgear shook with fear," and, "the display of miraculous power increased even after the fire ritual (had been performed), therefore, the Great Fifth composed a short prayer of propitiation, "Hum! Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity...". (Robertect 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)).

Apologies, I see this is actually a work written by Trijang Rinpoche!.(212.163.154.18 14:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)).

Perhaps he wrote this short prayer... I meant the "Hymn to Dorje Shugden" which according to Trijang Rinpoche the 5th DL had written. According to Prof. Dr. M. von Brück there is no historical source which valid this claim that the 5th DL had written that Hymn to Dorje Shugden "neither in the biografies of the 5th Dalai Lama nor elswhere". --Kt66 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Tagpo Kelsang Khädrub Je Phabongkha's root Guru?

Answer to this question will also help establish if as is often claimed it was Je Phabongkha who elevated Dorje Shugden from worldly protector to an enlightened being. Tagpo Kelsang Khädrub wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. Therefore if he is the root Guru of Je Phabongkha the practice was not invented by Je Phabongkha. Thus the Wikipedia article can reflect the Origins section and change the text "Key figures in the modern popularization of worshipping Dorje Shugden are Pabongkha (1878-1944), a charismatic Khampa lama who seems to have been the first historical Gelugpa figure to promote Shugden worship as a major element of Gelugpa practice; " as appropriate.

Original references to the lineage of Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsan

Because there is dispute over the lineage reincarnations of the person commonly agreed to have become Dorje Shugden, and because this person was identified as an incarnate lama, there must be records from the time of the 5th Dalai Lama identifying his previous rebirths. If this information is provided it will be easier to see if they are simply made up by Dorje Shugden followers or have a genuine historical corroboration. (Robertect 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)).

Request to Robert

Dear Robert, please be aware that most of NKT friends only know their own sources. But for an examination on that stuff you have to read more and different kind of articles about this. I have done this task. (I know all the texts by NKT even the Jim Belither broschure and later I read many many critical articles and opinions on Shugden and asked different Lamas on that.) Others have done this too. Thats why the wiki editors agreed to the article as it is now. If you have problems with this, please do the examination on the different sources yourself. You can start with the article of G. Dreyfuss, but I think this is not enough you have to go deeper in tibetan history and their approach to Buddhism, their culture and beliefs to catch the points. This is not an easy task at all, you have to develop an unbiased attitude and a critical approach. But this challange is a good way to learn a lot and deepening once understanding of Buddhism and even a way to overcome a naive attitude. Please do this task, then we can discuss more deeply if needed. This is my opinion on your questions. By the wy the mentioned Lama is the root Lama of Pabongkha Rinpoche. But most you will find in Dreyfuss' article also many questions will be answerd. Best Wishes for your research, Kt66 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt, I wholeheartedly agree with the approach you advise, however I feel woefully inadequate when it comes to such work. I do not speak or read Tibetan, I have a full time job and the sources available to me (those you mention and other books) do not give answers to the questions I have asked. There seem to be some very well qualified people who are contributing to this article and I am relying on their kindness to answers these questions truthfully and impartially. The issues regarding the apology of the 5th Dalai lama, the teaching of Tagpo Rinpoche and the pre-Dorje Shugden established lineage of Tulku Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen may present an alternative history to the one most commonly available. They should not be open to much interpretation, they should be verifiable facts, facts which may change the content of this article.

• • For example would the edit team now agree to remove the point stating that Je Phabongkha was the first to elevate Dorje Shugden to a Buddha? It is established that this view was in fact that of his own root Guru Tagpo Rinpoche.

Allthough there exist a text of Lama Pabonghkhas root teacher about the benefit of worshiping a protector deity, this text doesn't mention the name Shugden.

Hi Kt, you need to show that the version of the praise in the book Heart Jewel is inaccurate, because the first line of Tagpo Rinpoche's praise in that book begins: "With deep faith I prostrate to you, Vajradhara Dorje Shugdän." (Robertect 15:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)).

What is the tibetan title of the original text? Kt66 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK to check this more deep I have to consult some sources/texts on it. I think the article can also be improved and also the word "vengeful spirit" must be proved. As mentioned yet this section was put in by an apologist of Shugden. I changed it by putting the word "often" to that passage and that this is a "saying". Perhaps this section is comletely nonsense in one sense. You can check out what Dreyfuss is saying. It is quite clear to me that what GKG says on the NKT-link which were added is quite contradictionary to all what is known and also what Sakyas says about this... However, we should seek in different sources. Kt66 09:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Escpecially it includes not the later by Pab.Rp. emphasized whole life commitment (Sodge) to Shugden. It is not clear at all if Pabongkha Rinpoche received Shugden practice from his Guru or not. Clear is that Pabongkha Rinpoche spreaded it widely. From that time on the history of Shugden is brought into Gelug school, before is was related to Sakya school. But better you check this all yourself, much research is yet done, quite better than any of my short contributions. By the way Pab. Rinpoche was scolded by the 13th Dalai Lama about the sodge practice on Shugden and he excused and promised to stop it! For this there are documents in the biografie of Pab. Rp. too.

You can easily follow what is now in the article (Pab. Rp. was the first in Gelug school and he changed Shugden to a state of a Buddha) by consulting different sources on that: I will make some remarks. One of the first Sadhanas of Pab. Rp. on Shugden is in the style of how you invite wordly Dharmaprotectors: you visualize yourself as Yamantaka/Vajrabhairava and you control them. (Do you control a Buddha???) This must be stated by Dreyfuss too. (Later the Shugden apologists did most of the facts reinterpretate, thats why it is not an easy task and one has to consult different sources.) The starting point of the appearing of Shugden is quite easy to recognize as being at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama. Before he isn't mentioned at all. If you look at the incarnation lineage of Shugden, this is more a kind of belief than of facts. If Shugden followers say the Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, who bacame after his dead Shugden was before the Panchen Sönam Dragpa and his incarnation lineage goes back to Dulzin Dragpa Gyaltsen who was a disciple of Tsongkhapa, how you can validy proof this?

I can't, I only want to know if the claim to this lineage can in anyway be ascribed to the existence of Dorje Shugden, or predates the death of Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen.(Robertect 15:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)).

This is an important point. Tibetan disciples have the attitude to give the own masters a state of holyness and glory and some powerful incarnation lineage which impresses you, but I feel this is also more a way to push up the own ego: I have that high Lama, I'm so special. Even if they do so out of devotion they are quite sure that there are only less high realised Lamas. Most of the Tibetan saw only very few Lamas as holy and all what they say you can not take to serious. So if you ask them about there own teacher they praise him, if you ask them who they think is a real Bodhisattvas, they think a time and point to Dza Patrul Rinpoche, Thogmey Zangpo or Khunu Lama Galtsen seldom they refer to their own teacher. Also Trijang Rinpoches incarnation lineage, according to his followers, goes back to Buddha Shakyamuni. But better not to take this all to serious. So to check this out you have to go deeper in your examination, as I mentioned yet. On Shugden there exist different accounts and versions. Michael von Brück quoted after checking different sources, it is not even sure if the Shugden worship from the beginning of the 19/20th century is related to the same being as at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama at the 16th century. There is a huge amount of belief and less historical facts behind this. In a letter HH Sakya Trizin the head of the Sakyas states that Shugden was only revered as a lower protector deity in Sakya tradition and only some of Sakya adepts practiced Shugden, never it was a part of Sakya Institution. If you look in the lineage of Shugden where he is revered as being Buddha Manjushri, they put in Sakya Lamas, isn't it? This was mentioned also by Geir Smith here. So how you deal with this contradiction? Some of the documents of Shugden followers like the praise on Shugden by Sönam Rinchen have no original source / text which are undoubtly. Even Pabongkha is himself contradictionary, because he is saying Shugden can be dealt as a Buddha and on the other hand he is saying, you can also see him as a lower spirit who is creating out of his bad Karma conflicts...

Than I'd like just to establish another thought/background. If you look in the book of Geshe Kelsang there is the saying that the Root Lama of Pabongkha (or was it Pabongkha Rp. himself?) went to the Tushita where Tsongkhapa revealt by lifting the drapery of his throne the "Five Lineages of Dorje Shugden". If this is like this, one have to be aware than the origin of Shugden as a Buddha is established by a vision.

I have read this account by other lamas but never in a book by Geshe Kelsang, please can you reference the source. Thankyou. (Robertect 15:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)).

Visons are not relieable, that's why Tsongkhapa didn't believed his own visions of Manjushri and what he was saying. He checked it by another person who also had visions of Manjushri (a sheepherder) and by the indian scriptures. Visions can be quite deceptive and also an influence of demonic forces. Demons can also appear in the form of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and demons can give you "good signs" or experiences in meditation and even kinds of supernatural powers. The only sign you can check if it was a demon or a Buddha is - as stated by Dza Patrul Rinpoche - the demonical force pushes up the Ego, whereas the Buddha gives totally peace and reduce the ego feelings by his blessings.

In the past of the indian panditas visions were checked like this: firstly if they are in accordance with the Buddha main seals of teaching and secondly by practicing the revealt by high realized yogis and checking out if they make progress by doing this forward enlightenment. (There is also a third point of proofing I can not rememeber.) So if you check the secterian ideas and exclusivness behind the Shugden Practice and Pabongkhas views; I think there is the basis to be doubdful if this is in accordance with Buddhas Teachings, because Buddhism doesn't allow secterian views this even violate the Vajrayana Commitments. And the second question for me is: Which high Lamas other than Pabongkha Rp. or Trijang Rinpoche agreed to the visons as being reliable? No Lama of any other school! And even Gelug Lamas critisized that practice. On the other hand reliable Tantras revealed by visions like Kalachakra, Yamantaka, Mahakala, Vajrayogini and the like you find in all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, Yogis of different lineages practice it and get realisations and confirm by that the evidence of the Tantra. So Vajrayogini Tantra of the Naro Khachö Lineage from Kagyue/Sakya is also practiced by Nyingma Yogis and Gelugpas - even NKT ;-), whereas Shugden as being Buddha Manjushri never was practiced by yogis of other traditions. Kt66 14:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Next if the Prayer of the 5th Dalai Lama is true, then this must also be stated in the article to show that the 5th Dalai Lama changed his mind or at least sometimes held a different view.

...this prayer is first established by Trijang Rinpoche, for this prayer exist no historical account at all. You find it in no text of the 5th Dalai Lama and it is also not mentioned in his extended biografy. This is a fact. How you deal with that contradiction? Kt66 12:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for explaining the common view of this prayer. Clearly the prayer can only be considered of meaning if it can be proven that it was written by the 5th Dalai Lama. (Robertect 15:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)).

• • Thirdly if the lineage of Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen can be established without reference to the Dorje Shugden teachings then view of Gier Smith that there is Dorje Shugden plot to distort the Sakya lineage can also be removed with reference to this discussion, (although it may well have a place in another article about the appropriation of Sakya teachings by the Gelug school).

We can remove Geir Smiths view. I think it is not important and I don't know if it is in any way valid, but some points I think are correct. I have to less knowledge and time to check it further. We can make a reference at the link section as done yet. Kt66 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you can put the believe of Shugden folowers on the lineage in the section of the followers, it is mere a belief than based on facts. If you wish to put it in the main article you have to give proofs for it and read the different sources and historical accounts on that. That's my opinion. I have done my homework on that still. Some points on the lineage I gave above. Kt66 12:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of the writing about Dorje Shugden and Je Phabongkha is opinion and point by point I could give an alternative opionion, often from an equally revered source, for example as many Panchen Lama's relied on Dorje Shugden as warned against him, so what do these opinions prove? Let me also state categorically that I do not personally mind if it is proven that Je Phabongkha himself tore down monastries or any other heinous thing, what has this to do with Dharma? Like any Buddhist or right minded person I absolutely abhor and condemn any such actions, including inciting hatred and violence towards other schools of thought. Such things are external actions and have nothing to do with the Dharma, except that they may serve to increase ones wish not to harm others in the same way. It is Dharma not historical facts which I try to cultivate in my mind - so trust me I am very happy for facts to be given. Lastly to demonstrate my earnestness I will not personally change the article but will leave it to the original editors to make their decisions regarding the content and the pertinence of my contributions here.(Robertect 10:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)).

I agree totally what you're saying here: "Much of the writing about Dorje Shugden and Je Phabongkha is opinion" to have a unbiased opinion, a open view based on facts you have to go deeper. I can advise Michael von Brück and G. Dreyfuss. Their research are revealing a lot of historical facts/texts and shows contradictions without to much interprating them. I think these "external actions" you mentioned show the "internal mind" of sectarian view and this is what HH the Dalai Lama is speaking when warning against Shugden: it increases secterian thoughts.

Thank you also very much for your earnestness. To give it back I will openly admit: Even Michael von Brück is stating that the destroying of Padmasambhava Statues and Nyingma monasteries and the like by Pab. Rp. desciples are also not undoubtely traceable. So you see, the whole stuff is not an easy task at all and you have to contact different sources and uses your common sense, being unbiased and open to find out the "truth". Perhaps we should leave it a problem of the Tibetans, refering Je Tsongkhapa who didn't wrote a single word on him. So why waste energy if following Tsongkhapas tradition who didn't mentioned him at all? I never would say I understand this or my view is the right one. I inisted beacause I was a victim of blind belief on that and emphasize now: Hello, there is also another side and perhaps HH the Dalai Lama is not destroying the Dharma at all, how Geshe Kelsang said, perhaps he has taken responsibility to keep it and this is a expression of his compassion and wisdom and not of his "politics". Kt66 12:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See also

http://www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx?postID=105199 for more on this topic

The list of some of the prominent non-sectarian scholars who have placed restrictions on Shugdens (Dolgyal's) practice was taken from there.

1. His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama
2. Choegyal Terdag Lingpa
3. Do Drag Rigzin Pema Thrinley
4. Gadong Ngagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho
5. Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse
6. Choeje Vugja Lungpa
7. Palri Tulku
8. Drigung Tulku
9. Katsak Zurpa Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup
10. The 54th Gaden Throne Holder Thrichen Ngawang Chogden
11. Volkha Jedrung Losang Thrinley
12. Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa
13. The Fifth Panchen, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk
14. Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Zhenphen Nyingpo
15. The Fourteenth Karmapa
16. Ngor Khangsar Khenpo Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho
17. Ngor Luding Khenpo Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen
18. Zongsar Jamyang Khyentse Choekyi Lodro
19. Panchen Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima
20. The Sixteenth Karmapa
21. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama

Thus, many well-known great and learned lamas, who are unbiased in their religious outlook and the systems of philosophical tenets they propound have placed direct restrictions on this Dolgyal. Therefore, it is not just important, but imperative that those who want to review the history of Dolgyal should break out of the confinement of their one sided version to develop and promote a more complete picture. 84.190.190.29 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Kt, I politely ask, what is the relevance of the text below (about Gorampa Sonam Senge view of madhyamaka) to Dorje Shugden? (Robertect 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)).

Garompa refuted the madhyamaka view of Tsongkhapa. You now he was a reformer and so he gave also very new explanations. Not all of them were accepted by the scholars. In Tibet there is the saying: "If two scholars meet each other than they dispute, otherwise one is no scholar. If two saints meet another they agree otherwise one is no saint." So to refute views is quite common and Tsonghapa himself did this extensively - see Lam Rim Chen Mo. This is seen as a help for both sides. Is this enough or appropriate to your question? yours Kt66

Very clear thanks. Only I can't see that you should have included this text in your quote, it does not shed any light on the Sakya view of Dorje Shugden, unless i am still missing something. Still i enjoyed the history lesson. Thanks (Robertect 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)).

I just put the text here in his full quotation, because this is the origin from Jeff Watts. The text on Garompa is not that important for the article, but gives some background/history, I think. Kt66 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Just to clarify an item that has been mentioned more than once. Mahakala is not the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. There is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara which arose in the form of Mahakala and this is the Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala with one face and six arms, in a standing posture. This form was later adopted by Tsongkhapa and followers as the main protector of the Gelugpa School. Mahakalas can arise from various sources namely Vajradhara and the Anuttarayoga Tantras but are not generically Avalokiteshvara." Kt66 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert I still haven't answered some questions you raised up above. Now some new points where added by you. First thank you for your work and effort. But I don't like really to discuss this further. I was involved for more than six years with Shugden and apologists of him, even very high Lamas, as Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche, my abbot among them. I know their reasons, I know their views. I argued that much as you just do and try, but I have finished my research, I checked the story for a very long time. First I believed over 6 years Shugden apologists, followed them, demonstrated against HH in Swiss and Germany, tried to convince others on that topic, completely and partially overtook the reasons of Shugden followers and was totally convinced of it. After checking out unbiased with different documents, different sources, after collecting many knowledge on Tibetan History, tibetan power struggle, tibetan traditions and tibetan culture and many talks with different (really high) Lamas from all Tibetan Schools, I draw my conclusions. All my knowledge I put in the article and the article fits to the knowledge of the majority of Tibetan Buddhists and researchers. If you have problems with it, please be so kind and check out the sources and reasons yourself. I'm a little bit tired of it, there are that many sources you can visit. So it is on one hand quite easy. The only thing you need for proper examination is: be open, unbiased, be critical. Nevertehless I will perhaps some thing say to some points but not a lot. The task of finding a correct understanding in that subject is yours not mine. I asked you for doing this yet, but you replied you have not the time. OK, than you have to live with that. Hopefully you can understand my point of view.

Now to make it short some thoughts on your addidtions. If you contact the original sources you can find easily that on Shugden by his followers is more added than can be varified by scrpitures, like the "praise of the 5th DL". As HH Sakya Trizin stated in an official letter: Shugden came from Sakya and was by SOME Sakyas practiced as a WORLDLY spirit. Never it was a practice of Sakya Institution. So here is the root of Shugden. All the Tantras of Gelug come either from Kagyue, Sakya, Kadampa or Shije Lineage, some perhaps also by Nyingma. The sources of all of Tsongkhapas Tantras are undoubted, Shugden never was a part of Tsongkhapas doctrine. LATER it was added as a worldly being, LATER he was pushed up as being a Buddha. This is so easy to follow if you are just open, this can be easily find out even by using Pabongkhas words/Sadhanas. If you now cite GKG - ok he is a parsian follower of that practice, what do you like to hear from him others than that his view is the right one? Now you put some Sakya Tulku on the board. OK you will allways find people who say this who say that. Look on the facts and look in the Vinaya. Catch the points yourself. More I can now not do for you. If you like to discuss on telephone, please ring me. I have not the time to add more and more here. My warmest and heartfelt wishes for you, and please be patient with me, I wish you good luck and blessings, don't worry to much. The main point is to overcome attachment, anger and ignorance of the two truths not what a belief on protectors one have. I stay with you in mind, yours Kt66 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PS I asked a Nyingma friend of mine, if he can serve you at these points, hopefully he can. Perhaps I will answer more detailled in the future. Perhaps these 2 links can also help you with different points of view:

• http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=301&discussionID=447938
• http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=475214&messages_per_page=4

An Happy New Year! :-)) Kt66 23:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt, You are correct, the postings I made do not prove that Dorje Shugden practice is correct, also I think you can validly hold the opposing view by relying on the sources that you mention. However when I examine my own experience and the teaching and example of Lamas, including at one time HH the Dalai Lama I do not find that this practice causes sectarianism, nor does it prevent the development of Dharma realisations. It may well be that in combination with many factors this practice can create problems, but so can others practices that you do not discuss. Therefore I posted these comments to present a more rounded view of Dorje Shugden and those who practice his sadhana. As always I am very grateful for your comments and kindness. I also wish you the very best and feel happy to be in your thoughts, as I hope you will be when I say you are in mine. (Robertect 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)).

Dear Robert, I'm sorry, I just put your question "Dear Kt, I politely ask, what is the relevance of the text below to Dorje Shugden?" below the text of Jeff Watt, because it was a citation of Jeff Watt and I understood your question as relating to the Sakya Dhongtog Tulku. Did I misunderstand this? Please feel free to put it back and excuse my behaviour. If I misunderstood please correct me. Perhaps you was wondering about what Jeff Watts is saying and the question was related to that? However if you just wanted to add different views on the discussion board for a more broader perspective, well done. So all the best and a Happy New Year. Kt66 13:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

View of Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen

I would be interested in clarification of this point and also the text of the Dorje Shugden puja mentioned would be very helpful. Excerpt from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso internet correspondence during 1997: "In the book by Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen (a Sakya lama) he says that Dorje Shugden cannot be a worldly spirit because he is a Bodhisattva. He says that Dorje Shugden is a protector Deity of the Sakya tradition. Previously the Sakya monastery in Rajpur, India always used to practise Dorje Shugden puja, but maybe nowadays that has changed." (Robertect 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)).

@KP

Hi KP. If you as a follower think the opposite what was said in the sections of the opponents, please don't change the opponents argumentations, rather put it in the Shugden follower section. By this we can avoid confusion. It is a base and result of the conflict that the most of the points each side tells the opposite of the other is and this would confuse the reader more I think than making two different sections. This gives more freedom to the reader to check themselves. Kt66 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi kt66, it doesn't make sense to segregates these arguments because then it's more difficult for people reading the article to compare the different points of view, so I've re-reverted. Sorry if you disagree, we can discuss further - best wishes --Kelsangpagpa 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I reverted back. Then you have to completely overwork both sections, but now you mix it and this is confusing the article. For instance you say Trijang Rinpoche was disappointed, but there was also said by HHDL that he agreed. Perhaps he has done both, one time he said ok, later he said: ok, but this makes me sad or later he sad not ok, I don't agree. Then you have also to make clear (more neutral), that there exist to almost every topic a different line of reasoning and have to present them more unbiased. This is not done now. Now you give simple adherents reasons and you put it in the opponents section. That's why I reverted back to the points which are clear and were accepted until now. You can that much easily put your points in the followers section. I see no cause why you don't do it. Now it seems to me: your action to mix the reasonings sections is mere a trick to blurr the reader. yours Kt66 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way the article structure of "Arguments Pro and Con" were developed by different editors of both sides and neutral ones. If you wish to change this structure please give good reasons. If you wish to mix the arguments please do also. Please tell why this mixing serves the article? Thank you, Kt66 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What perhaps would be beneficial is to make a section "Conclusions" of Pro and Contra. This could serve the article, I think. Kt66 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

@KP: You wrote: "To date, the Dalai Lama has provided no evidence to support his claim that the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful to his health and to the cause of Tibetan independence." I can give an answer to you: Because in the empowerment ritual of Shugden the promise has to been given not even to touch Nyingma scrpitures and in the oral tradition it is said that Shugden will even kill who "mix" traditions, the Dalai Lama seems to be a good target for his activities. That's why he is harming his life. Secterian behaviour can never support the cause of Tibet, instead the Chinese are very happy to use Shugden as method to destroy the reputation of the Dalai Lama. There are only quite view Tibetans who don't trust him. See the article of GG Dreyfuss. Did you ever study it? 84.190.151.208 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To make this clear I add a post by a witness of a Shugden Empowerment at Manjushri Institute: "However, I was sitting not more that 2 meters from KG (Kelsang Gyatso) when Zong Rinpoche gave that empowerment at Manjushri Institute in the summer of 1978. Zong Rinpoche, when explaining the qualities of Dholgyal said that Dholgyal had even killed Gelugpa Lamas who had "forsaken" Tsongkhapa's tradition. He cited a couple of examples from the Yellow Book. Zong Rinpoche also said that not only studying but even touching Nyingmapa texts was to be avoided. Kelsang Gyatso was sitting right there and was part of the whole thing. These adomonitions were backed up right after the Life Entrustment ritual when I ask Tenzing Wangchug, Zong Rinpoche's personal attendant if I had understood correctly (about killing the unfaithful and not "sullying" Gelugpa with the study of other scriptures. ... When Kelsang Gyatso denies the truth of the Yellow Book he is denying the teachings of his own root guru, Trijang Rinpoche and through him Pabhonkha himself. That is how deceitful KG is. He will even re-invent a version of Shugden that his own gurus would not even recognize. There is no depth to which KG will not stoop to carry out his own agenda. If KG says the Yellow Book is a lie then he is saying that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabhonkha are also liars. see: [4]

Hello 84.190.151.208,

No matter what justification you make for the Dalai Lama's position, it's still true that he has never given any logical reasons for his statements. That was true in 1996 when the ban on Dorje Shugden practice began, and it's still true today. The main reason, I believe, is that when analysed with logic, his reasons don't make any sense.

Did you ever listen to him? Did you ever read his statements and articles on Dhogyal? Or did you just cloese your ears and eyes? (You can not see if you got blinded.) Even if you don't understand did you try to understand? If one (Shugden) will kill those beings - "even high ones" - who "mixes" traditions, a fear which you have too, than it is logical, when the DL is accused for "doing" this "mixing" (because he practiced also Nyingma), he will be killed by Shugden, what would be a harm to his life and the Tibetan cause, because then he can not serve the Tibetans anymore. ;-) I think you swallowed the fear-pills of "mixing" and "politics which destroys the Dharma" and the stupid-maker-pills of "believing" and "pure" quite good. So you can not change your point of view anymore, I think. But there is always a point, where one can open his eyes. Feel free to do it. 84.190.151.208

I don't trust Thubten Gompo's words. If you can find me a statement from Trijang Rinpoche or Song Rinpoche that the contents of Yellow Book are true, I will consider what you say. I believe it is superstitious nonesense that Zemey Rinpoche published in an attempt to stop the Dalai Lama from mixing traditions, and which spectacularly backfired. It's all politics and nothing to do with Dharma which is why, in my tradition, we choose not to indulge in politics as it just destroys the Buddhadharma. We should respect the spiritual traditions of all without mixing, and give everyone religious freedom to practice and believe what they wish. This is not the case in Tibetan Society, sadly. With all good wishes - --Kelsangpagpa 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good in a way, but not locical. That the yellow Book is based on Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoches oral teachings you don't know? Did you read GG Dreyfuss article? 84.190.151.208

THE LATE ZEME RINPOCHE ON SHUGDEN

I praise to you - the protector of the Yellow Hat tradition You destroy like a pile of dust; Great adapts, high officials and ordinary people; Who defile and corrupt the Gelug order.

With this quotation from the praise to Dorjee Shugden, Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang told me some highly interesting accounts which he had not written for publication. As is clear from the above mentioned praise, the protector has punished those who corrupted the Gelug order. The symptoms were clear with various episodes of punishments from the king, entanglement with the law and untimely death for many powerful lame regents, incarnate tulkus, highly adept scholars, high officials and rich and powerful people. While being followers of Lama Tsongkhapa tradition, they have corrupted it with other tenets and traditions. Since Kyabje Rinpoche told me about these with great compassion it is very precious for me. With these accounts as the basis, I compiled other reliable material and added to the Ocean of Praise to the Protector.

THE PANCHEN LAMAS

All knowing Losang Palden Choekyi Dakpa was the lord of the Doctrine and from a very young age proved himself as an eminent scholar. He thus had great potential to serve the Dharma and sentient beings. But he did not make the flawless and well established teachings of the Dharma Raja Lama Tsongkhapa as his principal practice. But instead he studied many treasure texts of Nyingma order and did meditation on those teachings. These were mentioned in his autobiography. Dorjee Shugden repeatedly asked him not to do that. He got annoyed with the deity and performed a wrathful and despicable ritual to burn it. Along with other ingredients he put a thanka of deity in the fire. But the fire could not consume the thanka. Then he took out the thanka and put it under the steps of his door in Tashi Lhunpo. Because of those actions, the Panchen Rinpoche became ill and eventually passed away in the water-sheep year of the 15th rapjung when he was only thirty years of age. In this way the Panchen Rinpoche was unsuccessful in his Dharma propagation deeds. ...." more see at http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=147&st=560

Because you have posted the above I need to post this to balance things. It is from an interview with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1996. May I ask that if you post information in this discussion you identify yourself and also that you state what is your reason for posting specifically with respect to proposed changes within the the Wiki article. This is not a discussion group. (Robertect 09:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)).:

Q: Geshe-la, in Zemey Tulku’s The Yellow Book, it says that Dorje Shugden killed many Gelugpa Lamas who engaged in practices of the Nyingma tradition. Do you believe this?

GKG: No, I never believed this. I knew Zemey Tulku. However, I do not believe the information contained in The Yellow Book.

Q: Why did Zemey Rinpoche write such things?

GKG: I don’t know the real reason for his writing this book. Maybe this was his view and he was trying to prevent Gelugpa Lamas from engaging in Nyingma practices. There are two reasons why I don’t believe this.

• One is that Dorje Shugden never harms any sentient being because he is a Buddha, an enlightened being. He has compassion for all living beings without exception, even those who try to harm him.
• The second reason is that the list of Lamas in The Yellow Book supposed to have killed by Dorje Shugden never received any harm from any spirit because they were sincerely practicing refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

In many holy scriptures of Sutra and Tantra it says that those who are sincerely taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, will never receive harm from spirits. We have this guarantee from Buddha if we sincerely practice refuge. I understand that The Yellow Book causes many Nyingmapa practitioners to become unhappy with Dorje Shugden, and because of this they do not appreciate Dorje Shugden practitioners and sometimes even criticize them. This causes the development of disharmony within the Mahayana Buddhist community. As we know, our harmony is important. We Buddhists need to show a good example, we should not argue with each other or criticize each other. We should practice our own tradition purely but respect other traditions. We should never try to destroy the spiritual life of others. Although some people say ‘I am Nyingmapa’, ‘I am Gelugpa’, this is just a different way of presenting and practicing Dharma. The real essence is the same. So I would like to suggest to everybody to forget The Yellow Book. The Yellow Book was not written by Buddha, so why should we believe this?

I think this is reinforces KT66's point. Essentially, there is a direct link between the Yellow Book, Trijang Rinpoche, and Pabonkha Rinpoche. Dzeme Rinpoche did not write the book independantly - it is based on informal stories of his teacher - Trijang Rinpoche. IIRC, TR suggested that he did not write or publish the work - but DR felt that it was too valuable. Once the book was written, there was no way that the practice of DS could remain established within the Tibetan community, due to the book's strong Gelugpa supremacist stance as well as it's attack against the deities and traditions that are used in the governance of Tibet. There are strong logical reasons why the practice was dropped like a hot stone: the yellow book. Everyone within the Gelukpa tradition has had difficulty accomodating this issue; (also many westerners have lost faith due to it), and the general approach has been (not just from HHDL - also Ganden Tripa and others) to drop the practice - a clear, clean cut - which is now institutionalised in the Gelukpa tradition. As I understand it, KG's position has been to maintain the practice, but to attempt to distance his understanding of it from the yellow book. It is an alternative approach, but requires unshakeable conviction that DR wrote the book out of his head, for which there is evidence that suggests otherwise, including that: TR never denied the attribution, and other students of TR (such as Zong Rin.) were familiar with these stories, and used them also in their teachings. (20040302 10:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

You say that it requires unshakeable conviction that DR wrote the book from his own head, but I disagree. It requires unshakeable conviction that your teachers are not sectarian and also that they follow Buddhist refuge and are Buddhists. Bodhisattva moral discipline stipulates specifically not to criticise other Mahayana traditions, if TR broke this then he is not a Mahayanist. Additionally because Trinang Rinpoche taught that Dorje Shugden is inseperable from the Guru and Manjushri, and in Lama Choepa it says "The Guru is Buddha", if Dorje Shugden is not an enlightened being but a dark spirit, then Trijang Rinpoche had no refuge and was not a Buddhist. Because both of the above points cannot be true, the stories in the Yellow book cannot be the truth. They are as Geshe Kelsang says stories, but if we accept them as anyting more then the two consequences above also follow, of these possibilities it is clear to me that Geshe Kelsang's analysis is correct from the perspective of a spiritual practitioner and the analaysis that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit is wrong. Of course I do understand that from a political perspective this book caused many problems and made people unhappy with Dorje Shguden but that is a social problem - one which the Dalai Lama as a political leader may well feel inclined to address(Robertect 13:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)).

last changes by User:Beeflin

Hi Beeflin. I am not sure if you have done a good task to support the article by your changes. I know these arguments only from the NKT campaign. But it is up to you or Kelsang Pagpa, Robertect, if you wish to include these kind of arguments, because it is the section of the followers. I'd like to add a short reply to these points - I am quite familiar to them because I used them too to convince people on Shugden. Some of the wrong logic with these arguments are discussed also at this thread at Beliefnet.

Your adds: (1) The statement that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit is unsubstantiated and contradicts the view of many spiritual masters of the Gelugpa tradition who hold him to be a manifestation of the Wisdom Buddha.

In the past not all high Gelug masters had this view, today only less share this view that he is a Buddha. As stated, even Pabongkha saw him in the beginning as a protector who has to been controlled and can also bring harm (see Dreyfuss' article). Do you controll a Buddha? There where other high Gelug Lamas who warned on Shugden, not only HHDL in the 13th, Fifth and 14th incarnation. See discussion above. So if there are some and some not who see him as a Buddha it is funny to me, to conclude this view is "unsubstantiated". This one can only conclude if one see the view "Shugden is a Buddha" as the "right faith", isn't it? Also contrary to this view is the view of many high masters of the other traditions who agree to HHDL view, seeing Shugden as a demon. Kt66 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(2) Furthermore, the essential Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the emptiness of persons requires that one should not attribute inherently existent qualities to any being. Thus, Shugden like any other being has the qualities that one's own mind sees in him.

If this is the case, then you'll also believe that Hitler is a holy man, "one should not attribute inherently existent qualities to any being. Thus, Hitler like any other being has the qualities that one's own mind sees in him." So Hitler was so much compassionate and wise, really! Perhaps he was even a Buddha! Why? Because my mind sees this in him and so it is valid. Whereas other (deluded people) see him as a murder, suffering on hatred. They are very bad. I think Hitler is a holy man; I am better then these deluded people, because I can see his holiness...

This is the logic of your statement and especially the logic of NKT followers on the Shugden subject.

So if one have or follow the idea of "pure view" as tought extensively in NKT then, because one wants to be a Pure NKT Practitioner and a Pure NKT Practitioner sees anything as "pure", one will conclude from this: because Hitler "has the qualities that one's own mind sees in him" (and a NKT practitioner wants to see only good things, because if he sees bad things this only will tell other people that one has a bad mind) one has to see Hitler as holy and neglect all his heavy misdeeds and brutality, isn't it?

Your statement is based on the same trick as described in the myth of the The Emperor's New Dresses: A tailor made some "very special clothes" to the emperor (and got much money for it). He said: Only good persons will see his New Clothes and the beauty of the clothes. But the tailor had made no clothes at all but pretended to give these very special clothes to the king. The king felt shame not to see the clothes and thought this is because he is not a good person and started to pretend how wonderful the clothes are. So than he went naked through the streets and his subjects also saw no clothes at all instead they saw the king naked. But fearing the shame to be recognized as bad persons, they pretended too: how wonderful the clothes of the king were... By this they all deceived themeselves and each other until one honestly cried: He has no clothes on. He is naked!

I don't share your understanding and think it is not at all in accordance to "the essential Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the emptiness of persons". Beacuse it isn't based on logic and neglects the understanding of interdependent arising, it neglects the conventional truth (of functional phenomenon) and is thereby contradictorily, it is based on the extreme of Nihilism.

If you believe your stated view as true, why not revering and praying to a poisonous snake, because "one should not attribute inherently existent qualities to any being. Thus, a poisonous snake like any other being has the qualities that one's own mind sees in it." So if you see the poisonous snake as your own holy protector, the poisonous snake will protect you from harm and support your Dharma practice. Funny, isn't it? And because you cling on this idea, that the poisonous snake has the power to protect you, everybody who warns you out of his understanding and compassion about the danger with the poisonous snake, this person will be someone who wishes to suppress your religious freedom and has a impure view, isn't it? Kt66 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, your points are certainly worth thinking about for anyone who is trying to discriminate correctly what is a Buddha and therefore what is a reliable source of refuge. I think there is one important difference however between the snake/hitler analogy and that of Dorje Shugden. In the case of the first two, both can be apprehended by an ordinary human conciousness and also there is a convention which agrees to their non-enlightened nature (although in Buddhist scriptures some animals and evil people are in fact said to be Buddhas). In the case of Dorje Shugden there is no conventional agreement. Also niether his conventional or ultimate nature appear directly as objects of ordinary conciousness, so ordinary beings cannot say if he is good or bad. To establish his nature we need therefore to rely on the valid minds of those who can percieve him. You and I do not know who is or is not a Buddha, but beings such as Tagpo Rinpoche or Serkong Dorjechang are said to have been able to discriminate between ordinary and holy beings; even the 13th Dalai Lama called Serkong Rinpoche "Dorjechang" and acknowledged his unique spiritual attainments. By relying on the conciousness of such beings (Tagpo or Serkong Rinpoche), I conclude Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, simply because they say he is. I believe that they and subsequent lineage Gurus of Dorje Shugden practice meet the qualifications given by Maitreya to identify a valid Spiritual Guide, more than this what method is there to know Dorje Shugden's nature? You on the other hand do not have conviction in the valid conciousness of these beings and instead have faith in other people who say Dorje Shugden is a demon. Niether you nor I can establish the truth ourself, we both depend on faith. The same is true for all Buddha's including Shakyamuni himself, in other traditions, those you call Buddha are not considered enlightened at all. Also isn't it true that in the Lojong it teaches that we should train to see living beings as faultless and that if we do so we will recieve Buddha's blessings even if it looks like those same people are beating us or abusing us? So there is some validity in the statement that the qualities depend on the mind of the beholder. Lastly you will notice that nowhere above do I claim to be right and you wrong, its unfair of you to suggest this is the view of people who rely on Dorje Shugden.(Robertect 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you Robertect. I agree to the most points. We have on one hand the complexity with the topic whoes perception is according to the reality in that case. But this is only one way to check this topic. So one can also check openly the lineage of Shugden, when and how it appeared, what different high masters said to it and also different experiences with it. (One can include for that check also the opinions of masters from different traditions.) One can check: What are the commitments of that practice? What are Shugdens deeds? (All of these topics where discussed in large here and are put in the article). So there exist nevertheless ways to get conviction in that topic without focusing to much on Gelug Teachers who practiced it or gave it up or opposed it. Even if one rely just on Tsongkhapa, Atisha or Padmasambhava it is quite simple, because they didn't teach or mention Shugden even with a single word. There is also no prediction of the Buddha on Shugden...

But if one believe once teacher as infallible it is difficult in a way. To solve this, one can look in Tsongkhapas work on Relying to a Guru. He advised not the follow the Gurus advice if it is not in accordance with the Dharma or the Buddhas Teachings. Because secterianism is never in the Dharma and contradict even Tantric Vows, for the people who got convinction that Shugden supports secterian views, it is quite easy not to follow Shugden.

Whereas for the ones who got that convinction not or do not know this behaviour in Relying on the Guru (what to do when teh teacher made faults), it is almost not possible to give up on Shugden. And one has of course the choice to follow what oneself and once teachers believe.

However, why I felt the urge to add this comment was only, because the NKT-argument (I heard this only by NKT) of seeing Shugden as empty and concluding from this: one can see in him what one like to see is quite naive to me and seems to contradict a proper understanding of emptiness. (If this NKT understanding on emptiness would be taken really to heart by NKT followers, NKT could stop the discussion on that topic by let go Shugden and revere Mahakala as a protector as Tsongkhapa did and taught. Mahakala is undoubted by all Vajrayana Buddhists. But NKT do not let go Shugden and rely on Mahakala. Why? They see also some kind of (true) existence in Shugden and the teachers who bruit him about. They see him and the teachers as a functional phanomenons, isn't it?) This argumentation of "one can see in the things what one likes to see, because they are empty" was not only brought up by User Beeflin, but also by Gen Kelsang Pagpa and Kwinter (in beliefnet) and I know it from my past membership in NKT. If you don't follow this kind of argumentation as it is used in NKT please feel not addressed. However; all the best. Kt66 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, regarding whether or not Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian etc I think we have discussed more than enough, for me there are three main points

1) In his main teaching such as Liberation in the Palm Je Phabongkha taught the faults of sectarianism, this I believe is his definitive view everything else is merely the opinion of others or without sufficient context to interpret and would also indicate that Je Phabongkha and other lineage Lama's broke their Bodhisattva vows which I can't accept.

Yes. And a Shugden devotee told me in the same text Pabongkha is teaching it is better to be born as man who recite one times OM MANI PÄME HUM than to be born as a Muslim (something like this). This is secterianism and not true. My proofs according to Buddhist Dorctrine are: It is better to be a Muslim with good Ethic than a Tibetan who is a butcher and recites 100 times OM MANI PÄME HUM. If it is of use we can find the section in that text and discuss upon that basis of his direct teaching. Kt66 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

From the teaching of how to identify our precious human life, with respect to being free from holding wrong views Je Phabonkha says: "Being a person holding wrong views is the greatest hinderance to taking up Dharma....It is most unfortunate if you are born a Muslim, for example, because you will never acquire the root virtue of reciting even one rosary of om mani padme hum, even if your life is a long one." P310 Liberation in the palm of your Hand, paperback Wisdom Publications. (Robertect 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. Kt66 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2) If Je Phabongkhapa or Tagpo Rinpoche etc did not really know or think that Shugden is a Buddha but used him for sectarian and political reasons and therefore deliberately encouraged their disciples to go for refuge to a non-Buddhist object (a demon!) they would be destroying the very Buddhism it is claimed they sought to elevate. Such reasoning is absurd and therefore I do not believe this is the case.

Not that absurd. The Nechung oracle said this: Pabongkha is shorten the life of the Dharma. However it is until now even mysterious how Shugden became a Buddha, because in the beginning even Pabongkha treated him as a worldly being which has to been controlled. Even he said: sometimes Shugden can harm. See Greyfuss. Kt66 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is absurd, even if Nechung were correct this could never be Phabongka's intention or do you really think he was not a Buddhist and actually did not believe what Buddha taught in the Refuge, Bodhisattva and Tantric Vows?

I agree: "this could never be Phabongka's intention". I never felt, that Pabongkha, a Shugden Lama or Geshe Kelsang has any wrong intention. Nevertheless, faults can happpen and Demons can appear as Buddhas. If you have a wrong view as a basis you can act with good intention nevertheless. This is common knowledge in Buddhism. Kt66 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims of harm caused by Dorje Shugden have two possibilities. The first is that he is a Buddha and the second is that he is not a Buddha. If he is a Buddha these actions have tremendous meaning. If he is not a Buddha the stories are not true and are meaningless because the people he harmed had Buddhist refuge which protects from harm by worldly spirits. Of course there is a third possibility but I doubt either of us would accept it, the third is that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit and the lamas he harmed had no refuge, were therefore not Buddhists at all. Of the first two possibilities neither is a reason to discredit Dorje Shugden. (Robertect 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)).

I think there are many possibilities and one has to find out which of them fits most to reality. For instance it is usual that Demons appear as Buddhas and delude honest practitioners and give them power, influence, a kind of attainments and "signs" just to mislead them. This is common knowledge in Tibetan Buddhism, thats why the authority of many high master (when a dispute takes place in that) can be helpful to come to a desicion. --Kt66 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

3) There is an oral tradition concerning the arising of Dorje Shugden which dates back to Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsän who made a promise to Je Tsongkhapa to become a protector of his teachings.

This is indeed a saying and has to been proofed or blindly believed...Kt66 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For me and many practitioners the assurance of our lineage teachers are proof. I do not think they lie. That is a choice I have made and you are correct may be called blind faith (although I didn't develop this trust with out many experiences and signs showing that the teacher is reliable).(Robertect 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)).

Of course they do not ly. They are convinced and have experience. Its your choice to follow their example. On the other hand beings who spoke against Shugden are convinced and have experience too. Its my choice (after checking this stuff over years) to follow their example as well.Kt66 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

All of these points are matters of faith.

Regarding imputations I entirely agree with you, there must be a correct basis of imputation. In the Dorje Shugden sadhana we invite him from the sphere of nature, which is the Dharmakaya, also inseperable from Manjushri etc, this is the basis of imputation and is correct. From this perspective there is no relation between this Dorje Shugden and the blood thirsty demon written about in some histories who arose from a murder and a pond called Dol.

The basis is your imagination of him as Buddha Manjushri. You can also imagine me as Buddha Vajrapani and meditate upon me, follow me, pray to me... But I am not a Buddha. Don't treat me like I would be one. If I you blindly beliefe me as a Buddha you'll believe even the greatest rubbish I say. Don't do this, just check what one say, if it is reasonable. Shugden is seen by many high authorities as not relyable and harmful. However you are free to do what you like and follow whom you like. Kt66 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but my practice with respect to any Buddha, including Shakyamuni is currently imagination, Dorje Shugden is no different. I can't percieve actual Buddha's, not even Shakyamuni, all I can do at the moment is imagine actual Buddha's and gradually make this imagination more qualified. So you don't add anything with this observation. I do however agree that imagining you as a Buddha won't make what actually appears to me of your words or deeds those of a Buddha - even if you are one. So as you say we should check what is reasonable.

• I do not think it is reasonable to say Dorje Shugden was taught by the lineage Guru's as a political or sectarian tool because these teachers had faith in Buddhadharma and would not knowingly break their vows. (For more detail see point 2 above).
• I also do not believe it is reasonable to say he is a worldly being because realised beings of my lineage said he is a Buddha - (more detail given earlier regarding how we establish a Buddha)
• It is not reasonable to accept as proof of his demonic nature the stories of harm attributed to him unless we accept that those he is claimed to have harmed were not in fact Buddhists.

If I imagine you are a Buddha and then you say the "greatest rubbish" I can check to see if it is reasonable in the context of Dharma texts such as the 3 Principal Aspects of the Path and in this way know if you are decieving me, or at least if my understanding of what you say is decieving me, the same is true for anything my lineage Gurus teach.

• The practice of relying on a Dharma Protector is reasonable, it is in accordance with Mahayana Daharma, for example Geshe Chekawa taught it
• The practice of Dorje Shugden specifically is reasonable because it is given not to promote sectarianism but to support the development of realisations such as the 3 Principal Aspects and those of Highest Yoga Tantra - whats wrong with that? I might add that whilst I am no yogi, I have found this to be true in my own experience. (Robertect 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)).

I read the discussion in beliefnet and think that there is some confusion about the object being cognized. Buddha's tooth/dogs tooth in the context described are cognized as objects of faith, not as ordinary objects. If one thinks an ordinary dogs tooth can be called a buddha's tooth or can function as such that is wrong. It is however clear that many schools teach a dogs tooth can indeed bestow the same blessings as a Buddha's tooth when cognized by a mind of faith Objects of Faith. In this respect an object is not absolutely one thing or another but depends in part upon the mind cognizing it. However I think this topic is very subtle and here is not the place to discuss further. Also of course, sholars may disagree with me and I would welcome any thoughts to my Wiki page. I hope this discussion is however of use to others, Kt, thanks for bringing this subject up. (Robertect 10:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)).

Yes it is a subtle topic. One of my teachers said: if the dogs tooth were a really Buddha relict, the attainment would be higher. - But better small attainment than no attainment ;-) However a teacher is no tooth: he set thoughts and ideas in your mind, especially if you are open and faithful and have less wisdom he can put bad ideas in the mind. In the worst case you have no effect by revering a dogs tooth but it is more dangereous to get bad ideas, wrong concepts in the mind. These will mislead you and this effects even future lives in a very negative way. That's why it is warned to follow bad Gurus or wrong ideas of them who are not in accordance with the Dharma. Take care, Kt66 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(3) Prior to instigating this ban, there was no history of disharmony between practitioners of Dorje Shugden and other traditions - it is the ban itself that is a manifestation of sectarianism.

This is exactly what Geshe Kelsang wrongly claimed in his reply to the Newsweek article. It is a shaso me that he and you negelct facts to support the own ideas with the aim to put down the Dalai Lama and accusing him of creating disharmony and even sectarianism - instead of being open to the subject of this history of conflicts and try to understand them and avoid it in the future. There is a history with this disharmony and this is acknowldged by Gelugpa masters, Nyingma masters and historians. It is so easy to find out. Kt66 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So I will stop here. I don't want to get to much involved. I am not responsible for these funny ideas of the followers section. Maybe it will help someone. Kt66 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Role of the Chinese state?

Some mention of the perceived hand of the Chinese state in manipulating religious politics is called for, I think. "Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority" (BBC: "Dalai Lama 'behind Lhasa unrest'"). A-giau 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

of course this plays a role too. China is quite interested to split the Tibetans and undermine the authority of the Dalai Lama. It is easy to conclude that they use this topic on shugden too. But I have no specific knowledge on that. If you have, please try to work out a section on this. Kt66 11:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)