Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 3

last changes by the new editors

the last inclusions are really damaging the article in full, give undue weight to an minor opinion (that he is enlightened), and lack accordance with academical neutral researches, instead they give a strong weight to the POVs of Kelsang Gyatso or are based on an antonym website or sources which are questionable. The last actual and neutral research which is accepted and where there is also a peer-review is Kay:2004. He uses as academical sources all what is available, including Dreyfus. To avoid that the article gets totally corrupted I will base my edits mainly on his research. If you wish to get informed see: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation @ Google Book search. you can read Mills' research also at google books: Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights @ Google Book search thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Truthsayer, you and WisdomBuddha put a lot of POV and WP contradicting material in the article without discussion, so please don't revert my changes of what I improved and removed according to WP:Guidelines. I am open to discuss anything, but I could not face such a poor and horrible article. You can see in the history that other editors saw it likewise. I hope we can collaborate. You can see I accepted also your structure changes of AI and the like. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You undid the last change I made which simply rearranged one section of the overview. You rewrote the entire overview without consulting anyone on it. Then when anyone else rewrites sections you complain about it and revert. I have made very few changes, yet you still try to blame me every time. It is your own karma and one sidedness that are responsible for the edit wars you create.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I agree it is a poor and horrible article, but for reasons other than those you have quoted. This article is horribly biased and gives a completely one sided view of this controversy, the view that you wish to portray. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your apparently friendly demeanor saying that "you will discuss anything", I don't see any evidence of that. You've reverted the changes of two editors of this article without any discussion whatsoever. We can collaborate when you are co-operative and open to the inclusion of more NPOV material. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Open Letter to Kt66

Dear kt66,

At the moment, you are interfering with the improvement of this article. The article is POV because it is one sided. As others have remarked, it is 80% in favour of the Dalai Lama's mistaken position and 20% in favour of Shugden practitioners. It is precisely because this article is so one sided that it is POV and needs to be corrected. Even other editors such as jossi have agreed that it is POV and one sided. Maybe your idea of POV is that it contains even a slightly positive view of Dorje Shugden and you want to fill this article with negative but so called 'academic' references to people like Kay and Dreyfuss in order to justify your position.

It seems to me that at the moment you are saying that you want to make a better article and that what you are doing is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines but in reality you are jealousy guarding this article, removing material included by editors who are sympathetic to a positive view of Dorje Shugden (even factual information that is fully referenced to the Newsweek article). In short, you are attempting to control the content of this article because you want to show Dorje Shugden practice in a negative light and you are stubbornly refusing to accept any changes by anyone who would show a positive view. I'm sure that isn't wikipedia policy. Furthermore you are making major structural and content changes to this article without consultation with the other editors. On the one hand, you are saying that you are open to reasonable changes to the article, but when this happens you revert them or replace them with something else that opposes the view of Dorje Shugden practitioners and that exonerates the Dalai Lama for his negative view of this Deity.

If this continues, I will have no choice but to report your obstructive and non-co-operative actions to Wikipedia and have this article edited by only a very small number of editors, under supervision. Please co-operate with us. Don't delete material simply because it does not accord with your own view, and do not be disrespectful to the valid inclusion of information from other editors, otherwise there will be an edit war. I'm asking for reasonable co-operation. Thank you.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dear Truthsayer62, you and WisdomBuddha have made substantial changes in a very POV and questionaable manner, without discussion, please don't aks me to discuss the removal of that stuff and the insertion of reliable academical sources to avoid future discussion just based on your and WisdomBuddhas lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Please look in the history, it was not me who added the tons of POV and questionable sources. And they were reverted also by other editors, it was you and WisdomBuddha. My request is: please get knowledge of the subject and read the WPGuidelines: WP:RS, WO:link etc. I will now include a reference section of accepted academical sources, so that the reader can see, were the article is based upon. I hope for better collaboration. Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you are blaming me for two changes I made. I am going to start helping these other editors if you are accusing me of it anyway. At least there is proof now that we are discussing and you are not!Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kt66, I don't see why you have changed the overview so it relies entirely on Kay. I do not approve of this. I think it was much better before when it showed many points of view that all had valid references. I would revert it but you and the other editors are to busy engaging in and edit war. Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are both a bit funny, did you check your huge amount of changes you made without discussion? Did you check, who inserted so many POV and poor sources things (from google group) etc, moreover both of your additions were also reverted by other editors, so I am not the only one who disagrees. I think you used the gap, that I was absent ;-) --Kt66 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, you are understandably concerned that this article contains properly sourced materials, but I'd like to question your definition of these. I've been doing some investigation. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the source page for policy regarding verifiability. On this page it states:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

In other words, not just academic sources. It says that reputable magazines are reliable sources, but you deleted the quotations I supplied from Newsweek, even though yourself have used them. This is inconsistent.

With regard to self-published websites it says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable, but websites by organizations are.

Therefore, if any of the editors wish to included material from websites by organizations (such as cesnur, Dorje Shugden.com or the Western Shugden Society), this is acceptable as are newspaper or magazine material, such as those that have reported on the recent demonstrations against the Dalai Lama. Therefore, in future it would be appreciated if you would not delete any such properly sourced material. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, Newsweek could be a good source. Where there is doubt about sources, why not post a note at the reliable sources noticeboard? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I'm a little bit surprised that you disregarded so offhandedly the text of Kyabdje Trijang Rinpoche, while he has been one of the most recognized and acclaimed tibetan scholars of the XXth century (having even received his geshe larampa grade at only 18 years old). Don't forget that receiving the geshe larampa grade is no small issue and can be compared favourably with obtaining a doctorat. So, I don't think that somebody with the grade of geshe larampa is a second class scholar in any way. This is why I don't see any valid reason to disregard tibetan scholars and to retain only western scholars on tibetan matters as you do. I think that there is nothing that can justify such a condescending attitude. On the contrary, I would say that information coming from tibetan scholars such as Trijang Rinpoche should be used as first hand insiders information. And you also seem to forget that we are talking about a secret practice which have been hidden for the last 350 years, coming onto the center stage only during the XXth century. Furthermore, you also seem to disregard Ursula Bernis' study (even if she hold a PhD, see http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~hsilverman/PLACEMENT/SB-PhilosophyDoctorates.htm). But, did you read her study. I think that reading her text would, at least, raise some questions about the exhaustive character of the Dreyfus text (even if this study is referred to by other western scholars). 209.222.238.205 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Stibo (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)stibo

Left-handed issues: A musing

[1] The original Wikipedia version of this had embedded interwikies and metatext, if anyone has the siddhi of historical Internet access... track it!

Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed_issues on Thursday March 15, 2007 (the meta-enhanced version is more nordy & entertaining i rekon *heheheheh*):

Left-handed issues [1] is a Jungian term that is used to describe each individuals unique set of challenges to Individuation. It is particulary dextrocentric, that is, established on the 'normalization' of right-handedness. Therefore, left-handed people [2] may be deemed to have the converse, that is 'Right-handed issues' (alternatively known as sinisterrific [3] issues [4]): which are essentially cognate with 'Left-handed issues'. Ambidextrous people unfortunately just have issues, which is certainly why there are not many of them in comparison to the other polarized handedness modalities and also betrays why they have more fun and are generally blonde ~ as their issues are uncompounded, though out of hand.

Tantra, honoured as the Left-handed Path ~ though its practitioners have been defamed and demonised as red-handed (sometimes with due warrant), is a corpus of disciplines, literatures and traditions that articulate, codify and enshrine what may be deemed archaic [5] (though no less effective, current and valid for that) methods, technologies and devices for weaving both polarities of the individual into systemic harmony: whether the individual be a South Paw, a Paw Paw or North Paw (or a Sore Paw if they be unhanded, which is considered underhanded by the North Paw particularly [6]).

In summary, if we do not realise and individuate we perpetuate miscreant internalized apartheid [7], otherwise known as self-hate or project this externally onto an ill-warranted construction of the Other which really isn't handy at all. Like what happened to that beautiful shining Lucifer [8] before his demonisation or those strapping swarthy indigenous peoples by the upright North Paws or those præternatural [9] dæmonic Bönpo.

Notes 1^ A note of caution, humour is employed as a teaching tool in this article. It is advisable that the reader harken to the lark of their intuition and discern Truth. Intuition is keened and brought to fruition by rooting and study, mindful intentionality, diligent contemplation and wishing. All is One on this route. 2^ Left-handed people being endearingly referred to as South Paws and thereby constructing their Other as North Paws, render ambidextrous people as simply Paw ~ which is a most unfortunate homonym. Which should give one pause in lieu of poise. 3^ Sinisterrific is an irreverent though reverential contracted conjunction of sinister, sin & terrific. 4^ Which is glorious and in turn another name for bastards or children born out of wedlock. 5^ Archaic is rooted in arch and age, not outmoded; ancient, though more appropriately may be understood as primordial and archetypal. 6^ In this instance and this instance only, pronounced pawticularly. This is an auditory representation of how meaning is attributed and played with in the Art of Zen calligraphy and Brush painting. 7^ An extreme and often pathological example of which is Dissociation. Hark the mutually informing dual homonym of apartheid: a+part+hate & apart+hate or ~hide...like the duality in Jekyll & Hyde. 8^ Satanist is really just a contraction of sanitationist. The Satanist deal with their own effluent affluently and effectively. 9^ Hark the sound homonym "pray to natural".

References

• Authorship Unattributed. (2005). Psychological Type and Christian Faith. Source: www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/typ...nition.php (accessed: Monday, February 26, 2007)
• Charles, Keating (1993). Who We Are is How We Pray: Matching Personality and Spirituality. Mystic, CT: Twenty-third Publications.
• Chammy. A Musing: The Mysteries of Trickster and the Wise Fool. www.shamantic.org/shaman-antics1.phtml (accessed: Monday, February 26, 2007).
• Crabtree, Vexen (2002). Left Hand Path. Source: www.dpjs.co.uk/lefthandpath.html (accessed: THORsday February 22, 2007)
• du Pré, Athena (1998). Humour and the Healing Arts: A Multimethod Analysis of Humour Use in Health Care. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. (A complete viewing copy may be cited/sighted @ Google Books Online.[1])
• Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II: temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co.
• Martin, Rod A. (2007). The Psychology Of Humour: An Integrative Approach. London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 13: 978-0-12-372564-6
• Michael, C. P. & M. C. Norrisey (1984). Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Open Door.
• Perkins, Rev. Elizabeth Cunningham, et. al (c2007). School of the Shaman Fool in Aloha Salem Quest (ASQ) Shamanic University. Source: www.shamantic.org/alohasalem.phtml (accessed: Monday, February 26, 2007).
• Southam, Marti & Kathleen Barker Schwartz (2003). Laugh and Learn: Humour as Teaching Strategy in Occupational Therapy Education. The Haworth Press, Inc.

Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed_issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Emptymountains (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the first paragraph of the over view section

I think the paragraph as it is now is to much for the reader and it also includes only some views. Moreover the views of Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama are not included.

If we add these views also, what would be only fair, then the reader may be get only confused. Maybe we can do a chart or choose some important views or proponents of a view?

At the moment I have no idea, but I added GKG's view, because it may represent the view of the majority of Shugden proponents. What do you think?? Maybe we open here discussion and playground to improve that passage of the first section?

The actual passage is:

Overview passage, what I think should be improved

There exist different accounts and claims on Dorje Shugden's origin, nature and function. Since the 19th century Dorje Shugden is primarily associated with two influential lamas: Pabongka Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche of the Gelug (also Geluk) school of Tibet. According to Dreyfus: "When asked to explain the origin of the practice of Dorje Shukden, his followers point to a rather obscure and bloody episode of Tibetan history, the premature death of Truku Drakba Gyeltsen (sprul sku grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1618-1655). Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was an important Gelug lama who was a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngak-wang Lo-sang Gya-tso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, (1617-1682). According to Kelsang Gyatso, many Gelugpa Lamas say, that his origins can be traced back to the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri through a lineage of enlightened beings.. He states that: "Dorje Shugden always helps, guides, and protects pure and faithful practitioners by granting blessings, increasing their wisdom, fulfilling their wishes, and bestowing success on all their virtuous activities. Dorje Shugden does not help only Gelugpas; because he is a Buddha he helps all living beings, including non-Buddhists." According to Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya Tradition, some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that "The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a 'jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala.". Then there are lamas who regard Dorje Shugden as an evil and malevolent (demonic) force, including the 14th Dalai Lama, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Mindrolling Trichen Rinpoche, former head of the Nyingma school, and Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche. The latter one is head of 25 monasteries in Bhutan and holds the view: "most of the Nyingmas, Kagyus and Sakyas believe that Shugden is a demon. People who practice Shugden will get many money, many disciples and then many problems."

suggested solution

I got the key: the problem is: the origin, nature and functions are mixed. I will try to improve that and correct it direct in the article. If you strongly disagree please revert. If you wish to add according WPRules and common sense please do. Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not perfect, but a first step. What do others think, is the presentation better now than before? --Kt66 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008

Use of Dreyfus' Article

As for specific content by Dreyfuss that is questionable, under Origins the long quotation by Dreyfus is highly unacceptable:

1. This is taken from an essay "Shugden Affair" and that has not been peer reviewed (WP Reliable Sources).

That it has not been reviewed does not mean he is not acceptable, it just means he would be more acceptable if he would have been reviewed, right? Do you have any other acedemical source, which has been reviewed and state the same view or a different one? (We have a problem of having only less academical sources.)--Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is some of the interpretations in this essay extend far beyond the references, even where there aren't any. Granted for the first part of the essay he does a good job giving references, and this is wonderful because we can validate and see if we agree with the interpretations. However, the part of the essay that goes into detail about Pabongkha Rinpoche, Rime, etc. does not have many references and highly interpretative. Not only that one of his references refers to volume "Ha" of the Fifth Dalai Lamas collected works and there is no volume "Ha". I believe a peer review would catch all of these issues.Tkalsang (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A peer review of any academical article regarding this subject matter would be the best, but until now there are few acedemical articles working through the vast amount of Tibetan original sources and checking them against each other. Tibetan sources can be very contradictional, polemical and tend to put down every other POV. Especially the Shugden stuff is full of "oral stories" and claims, like that of the fith Dalai Lama prayer, which can not be found there. Further on almost every subject exist different editions and so forth. So we have to live with a incompleteness until there is more. I read also Kay's reearch and Brück'S research, they do not slightly contradict Dreyfus. If you have a reviewed academical paper I am happy to hear about it. I asked someone to send me the two papers of Brück, Professor at the University of Munic, again, to check again with other sources.--Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are oral sources, it needs to be referenced who they were heard from and when. Of course there could be volume "ha" somewhere, but a scholarly accepted paper needs to do the due diligence to check into what this is exactly.Tkalsang (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The actual information in the quote is intermittent opinion (actually veiled insults at Pabongkha Rinpoche) under the guise of "research" and not well referenced in his original work. His writing suggests he is trying to describe Pabongkha as a cult leader.

Especially the quotation about how Pabongkha changed the Gelug school is really accordant to the fact and the facts are even easily proofable by common sense and having some knowledge about what the practice of Gelug school according to Tsongkhapa is. Also what Kay stated and what he referenced (Samuel) does not slightly contradict this, also Pabongkhas own statement (See quotation in the Yellow book section here, rather confirming than opposing such a record. Do you have acedemical sources stating different things? What do they say? --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Has Kay studied Pabongkha's life in detail? What are his credentials for being able to look into this? Pabongkha was the 8th Gelug lineage holder of the Sakya originated Vajrayogini lineage (Naro Khacho) in the Gelug. Predating this lineage in Gelug, even the Fifth Dalai Lama's collected works has works on Naro Khacho. Vajrayogini is taken from the Chakrasambhara Tantra which is one of the 3 main Gelug deities. Thus there is no contradiction with Vajrayogini in the Gelug. Second even if there was a contradiction, Pabongkha merely continued this lineage in the Gelug, adding new compositions just other previous masters such as Ngulchu Dharmabhadra.

Confirm: http://vajrayogini.com/Vajrayogini_Lineage/Gelug_Lineage/

Pabongkha Rinpoche's collected works (volume "ja") contains 5 works for Four Faced Mahakala (over 300 folios) eclipsing that of the texts on Dorje Shugden (5 works under 200 folios in comparison). Moreover, at least some the works on Four Face Mahakala are taken from lineages directly from his Sakya his guru (skyabs rje gzim 'og mchog sprul rin po che) of Nalendra in Penpo. However, the general tradition of Four Faced Mahakala has been always practiced in Gelug. Thus the only new things he introduced to the Gelug were some new kangso's for Dorje Shugden and some new lineages and a kangso of Four Faced Mahakala. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. To confirm look at Pabongkha collected works on TBRC, you will see most of the works are standard for Gelug: Lama Chopa, Ganden Lha Gyema, Lam-Rim, Yamantaka, Guyhasamaja.Tkalsang (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see there are only about 8 Gelug masters in the lineage. The point is not that Pabongkha included Vajrayogini or is one of the lineage masters of that tantra, the point is, that he gave more and primary importance to this pracitice and to Dorje Shugden and the importance of complete reliance on the Guru (Sodge practice) then every body else or befor him. About the protectors of Tsongkhapa he claimed: People of our time have no karmic relation anymore, they have returned to their pure realms, "no is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden", this you find even in NKT teachings and publications. If he is the one who claims this, he is the one who changes the tradition, because neither there was something like that at Tsongkhapa' time nor did Tsongkhapa teach anything about this oscure deiety, which longs for not even touching other's school scriptures. This was the first change he made, regaridng the protectors. Secondly Tsongkhapa has taught a special unficiation of the Heruka, Ghyasamaja and Yamantaka Tantra, this is practiced and studied until today in the Tantric Colleges, by claiming that now the time for Vajrayogini has come and that her Tantra is more powerful, than again he changes the center of Gelug practice. (Whatever his motivation may be, this is not the object of my observation), but in fact by these two changes + the indroduction of the lifelong Sogde practice with a special commitement to the Lama (him, who gave it) he bound all is students to him. By these three features he made himself more important, because he had the lineage of Shugden, because he spread and taught Vajrayogini and he gave the Sodge practice. There are different ways to interprete this, he may have doen it due to his own understanding, out of compassion or what ever, but it is just a fact, that he himself changed the Gelug school. Contrary he estalsished a command on purity of HIS lineage, not mixing and the like, as we find still today in NKT among some Gelug purists. Tsongkhapa was again very different from this. However, if there are other academical sources investigating this subject matter and they either disagree or agree we can add them or discuss how to deal with that. --Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pabongkha did not _replace_ these central Gelug practices, instead here passed on nearly all of the lineages in the Gelug, included Yamantaka and Vajrayogini. In fact his sadhanas and writings on Yamantaka include Yamaraja, so he did not in fact replace the 3 main protectors with Dorje Shugden. He merely passed on so many lineages that it would appear he overshadowed these practices. In fact, if you have received a transmission into the Gelug Lama Choepa, it came through Pabongkha Rinpoche.Tkalsang (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on Dorje Shugden over these three protectors is merely rhetoric, because when a Lama gives teachings/initiations on deity A, he will say deity A is more effective than deity B, and when he gives an initiation on deity B he will say deity B is effective than deity A. It seems contradictory, but if the lama said, "well this deity is not so great there are better ones" the initiation would be a waste of time. Plus this oral story in Dreyfus's work doesn't cite a source for the other protectors going to a pure land or whatever.Tkalsang (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say HIS lineage does that refer to Pabongkha or the lama giving the Sogde initiation? Also, as far as a I know just as NKT doesn't contain the Yamantaka transmission it doesn't have the Sogde initiation either. I may be wrong, as I've never even talked to someone from NKT before, but this is the information I've gathered. Instead, there is a general initiation (rje gnang) that is given more freely, same as referenced in the work of the Eight Kirti Rinpoche.Tkalsang (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

a. His assertions regarding Pabongkha Rinpoche's popularity merely being due to his "charisma" is subjective, as Pabongkha held a Geshe degree and studied at Sera. Correction: Pabongkha's curriculum was standard for recognized lamas.

Pabongkha hold the lowest Geshe Degree and was at his time as a student not be taken very seriously (on the debate ground), this you can find on the backcover of a book on reasoning of one of his disciples: Khensur Lobsang Tarchin. Later former colleagues were surprised by his qualities he developed later. Also Ribur Rinpoche describes the impact on the mind he made to him, so stating that he was quite charismatic and having a blissful voice etc. is ok, I think, you can say the same about the Dalai Lama. The question is of course why he became so popular, his charisma is of course not the only point, but I do not remember, that Dreyfus ever claimed this. If he would I would see this also quite questionable. Dreyfus mentioned other points, like he was the first giving initiations to lay people in great public audiences(!), which was not done before him, so he had much more disciples only due to that fact, aqnd then he also founded the Sogde practice which includes a special commitment to the lama. I do not remember that he mentioned the spiritual impact he made on many, and this may be a weakness. However, the fact that Pabongkha changed the school of Tsongkhapa in a drastic manner and that he was rebuked by the 13th Dalai Lama is also a fact. What sources or reaches do you have regarding these points? We can balance them or replace what seems not to be acceptable. --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pabongkha was highly regarded because of the vast number of teachings from a large number of root Gurus he had including Sakya. In volume "ka" of Pabongkha's collected works, this ENTIRE volume is list of teachings he received (gsan yid). The TBRC page on Pabongkha lists only a partial list of teachers: http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq;jsessionid=3E0DFB584075F438AA7652E6AC7FCFE3?RID=P230Tkalsang (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sogde or "Life Entrustment", the source of the life entrustment (srog gtad) tradition is noted in this work by Pabongkha:

shugs ldan srog gtad bka' rgya can dang srog 'khor bri tshul gyi zin bris http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail-outline.xq;jsessionid=27F55120FA4BD0E8C73BCD1E081F3473?address=7.13&wylie=n&RID=O01PD4

If it is not in that collection, this does not mean that it didn't exist. In Brück's research it is presented as well, including the letter of devotion and appologize from Lama Pabongkha to the 13th Dalai Lama, who scolded him for that. As I said above the Tibetan Tradition has many different volumes, editions and claims; and therefore it is very hard to get a correct overview and to check the different sources against each other. As it is so, we have mainly to use the academical sources which exist... or have to wait for more in the future. --Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree but there are so many things I personally believe but don't have the "academic" proof so I can't use it here. Just as well Brück needs to show the source to see if it is credible or not.

It originated with the 4th reincarnation of Tagphu Dorje Chang, an important well recognized Gelug reincarnation:

http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq;jsessionid=77694E9FD61A4DACDCA2B41D2FFF39E2?RID=P231&wylie=n

You can confirm in the link Pabongkha was his student.

The origin of this practice is also recognized by opponents of Shugden:

www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm "the whole tradition of "life offering" in relation to Dholgyal practice sprung from a vision that Tagpu Dorje Chang..." Note validity of the practice itself is not within the scope of this argument, we are merely trying to attribute the origin.Tkalsang (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not contented. Visions were verified in the past by the great Indian Mahasiddhas. However, the 13th Dalai Lama ordered PR to him and PR promoised him to refuse spreading this practice, but kept this promise onyl until the death of the 13th Dalai Lama, as said above, Brück has published that letter and the circumstamces. --Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: The incident between Pabongkha and the 13th: Pabongkha was challenged (to put it mildly) by the 13th DL because of his inclusive of the Southern Tradition of "Manjushri's Own Words" Lam-Rim, which was proven using scriptural sources to the 13th DL who had to accept it. There is no document proof the Thirteenth challenged Pabongkha over Shugden.Tkalsang (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

b. Dreyfus even asserts Pabongkha promoted himself as the Guru! This is an insult in a field where humility is a pivotal.

No this is a fact, if you understand the Sogde practice and the commitment to never give up that lama, who gave it to you, and that you have to devote the entire life to him, this is correct to assert, because the assertion has a valid basis. --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All HYT initiations have a special commitment to the Guru. Given this logic any Guru giving a HYT initiation is promoting himself. Not only that, Dreyfus doesn't give a reason behind this statement.

c. Pabongkha was not the first to assert Shugden as "Protector of the Gelug".

Who else was the first? And what account and source tells something else? If there is an acceptable source for a different POV, we can either add or replace. --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail-outline.xq;jsessionid=F26C2D6C2A505F3C2D9BACA6F79B0D2D?address=12.25&wylie=n&RID=O00EGS1014793#O00EGS10147932DB446

The Eight Kirti Rinpoche (noted above) on page 1 calls Shugden 'jam mgon rgyal ba'i gnyis pa'i bstan srung, which means protector of the Second Buddha Tsongkhapa's Dharma.Tkalsang (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Dreyfus himself was student of Lobsang Gyatso (WP Independent Sources).

Source? And what does this mean? The we should exclude also all sources which are Shugden proponents? What other sources do you have to offer, which explain the rise of the conflict and the historical background? I have: Dreyfus, Kay, 2x Brück, all three are acedemics, all three give no different pictures on the historical accunts, all three translated and included historical sources and cite them or have shown what claims miss historical sources. --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To read about how Dreyfus was personally affected, read page 301 of the work below. Nothing against him, I empathize with his hardship in this, but this is a disqualification for neutrality in my opinion. Granted he had teachers on both sides of the issues, but still it is difficult to extricate oneself into neutrality.Tkalsang (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sounce of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Buddhist Monk, by Georges B.J. Dreyfus. A Philip E. Lilienthal Book in Asian Studies. No, we can included opponents/proponents, but I don't think Dreyfus can be considered NPOV.Tkalsang (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard yesterday that Dreyfus mentioned something in that book and that Dreyfus' teacher were mainly Geshe Rabten and Gen Nyima. I checked today the Libraries here, there is no book available, my edition is in another country, I'll check as soon as possible, thank you for your notes. It is especially what makes Dreyfus more neutral source of information, because he had teachers from both sides. So he knew both POV's and their sources for establishing their POV. This is very different then following only Shudgen Lamas and only hearing their POV. I am happy to hear about other acedemical POV's and articles who researched that field. I asked an Havard religious scientist (PhD) about that subject, and he strongly recommanded Dreyfus. The only people I heared who reject Dreyfus are Shugden/NKT followers. So I understand this as their bias. --Kt66 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Wiki copyright does not allow extensive quotation of material.

No, you're joking, this is allowed to cite, it is not longer as what is usually cited and especially it brings to the point, what is the basis of the dispute, but we can also sum this up, if you think it is to long, maybe this could be better. What do you think? --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

5. "Shugden Affair" is included to promote the aligned views on dalailama.com and the Tibetan Government in Exile webpages.

No sorry, The Shugden Affair is not for promoting "the aligned views on dalailama.com" instead it was written because until that time there was a huge conflict but nor academical and especially neutral, uninvolved POV. "In recent years the community of Tibetan Buddhists has been agitated by an intense dispute concerning the practice of a controversial deity, Gyel-chen Dor-je Shuk-den (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan). Several Tibetan monks have been brutally murdered, and the Tibetan community in general and the Ge-luk tradition in particular have become profoundly polarized. Outsiders have been puzzled by the intensity of this dispute, for it concerns an unusualtype of deity, the dharma protector (chos skyong srung ma), the concept of which is difficult to understand within the modern view of religion as a system of individual beliefs." to explain the difficult subject is the purpose of the paper.

As the effect of reading the "Shukden Affair" simply causes confuses the reader more than helps clarify, this is clearly in favor of opponents to deity.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion which contradicts yours and Shudgen follower's views. But this is no proof that he is wrong. Further, this is a WP article, using mainly academical sources and we have not the slightest other acedemical paper which either opposes him or refutes his research, instead, reaercher Kay or Brück do not state a different opinion. The reason why you wish to remove this quote is: It does not fit to the view of Shugden Followers, who are either not aware of these facts or deny them. However, I have no problem to state that very summery and add another POV, of a reputable Shugden Lama who sees it different. We can write, (like) whereas Dreyfus states... the Lama... gives another impression and describes him.... Although I have some problems with this, because again a religious subject and statement is mixed with a more neutral academical source. That's why I prefer another acedemical source - of a religious scientist, Tibetologist or someone who is a real researcher, not a freelance journalist. --Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

6. There is WP reliable information to contradict some of these assertions.Tkalsang (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to know and insert them. Please insert and introduce them. My wish is a NPOV article, well infomed, dispassionate, clarifying. Happy that you support this.--Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please name the sources. It's good to check and add them. --Kt66 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to forget about this, I am allowing the opportunity to respond within 2-3 days with credible reasons before I start removing the extensive quotation of Dreyfus. Dreyfus can be referred to present the POV but not to the extent to present all of the quotes and complicated arguments from the "Shugden Affair". This Wikipedia page is already hard enough for people to understand. Including all of these quotes it seems the intention to cause doubt. But really it is a house of cards based on unreliable information. Also can you please state David Kay's academic credentials within Tibetan Buddhism. ThanksTkalsang (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Give other verifiable sources. I had an extensive exam today, so I was not able to participate until now again. Now I have holidays.

For checking the sources see: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

The reasons why Dreyfus can be quoted

Dreyfus fulfils so far the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, because of being scholar, because of being used and accepted by other scholars: Kay, Richard Wilson/Jon P. MitchellBrück, Lopez, further he presents the development in the Geulg school (especially the changes Pabongkha made) according to the facts, there is no account which opposes him, rather Kay and other accept him, cite him. If there would be any scholarly paper opposing him we can check to present both views or to think about what we should better not present or what exactly is opposed by other scholars. As it is s religious conflict, the use of academical papers are of primary importance for the overview section. The pity is, there are not much papers about it.

But these "facts" are not based on referential sources and these "scholars" have not done their duty to scrutinize. Such a pity as history will prove them wrong, but that is the nature of scholarship.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here a small presentation who make use of Drefus' Research article: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - pages 48ff David N. Kay - 2004 - 224 pagses extract: "The view that Dorje Shugden 'is ultimately a fully enlightened buddha who merely appears as a mundane deity' (Dreyfus 1998: 255) was promoted even more ..." Routledge Kay makes extensive use of that paper of Dreyfus. Kay's reasearch was reviewd by Inken Prohl without any criticism of his extensive use of Dreyfus:

Reviews on this book:

• Book review by Georg Feuerstein (PhD.)
• Book Review by Inken Prohl (PhD.), Lecturer at the Free University of Berlin

This thesis notes some issues with Dreyfus, but it barely even scratches the surface: etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf Tkalsang

Further Routledge is a reputable academical publisher, I think there is no doubt about it.

Dreyfus' paper is also used and included in the bibliography of the same reputable publisher (RoutledgeCurzon): - Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights ... the article is written by Martin A. Wills pages 54-70, The turbulent priest: contestin religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden controversy

here Dreyfus' paper is also mentioned in the bibliography (see page 69), including the link, which fulfils WP demand: "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed."--Kt66 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This paper researched the case of religious freedom/persecution in detail and I will read it the next days. --Kt66 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- Lopez, another researcher, refers in "Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West" to Dreyfus - page 270 - "... but they go to the Shugden for such favors — and this is where it has ... For preliminary considerations, see Georges Dreyfus" to Dreyfus as a a researcher and

- Jose Ignacio Cabezon, directly refers in his text : "Freedom from Extremes: Gorampa's "Distinguishing the Views" and the Polemics..." to that article at page 354, including the exact link.

Cabzon has also the Link to that paper of Dreyfus in his Bibliography, which fulfils WP demand: "Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed."-Kt66 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

- "The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century" by Geoffrey Samuel - another researcher, page 152, Cambridge University Press, also refers in a short passage about the nature of Shugden to Dreyfus' article.

- "Geopolitical Exotica: Tibet in Western Imagination", Dibyesh Anand, U of Minnesota Press, page also makes use of that article as well.

These are just passing references, the latter two are not even apparently experts in the field. They are risking the validity of their own research by basing their ideas on this paper.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

of course, I agree. --Kt66 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will check if I find more. I would appreciate if you have academical researches which show another view or reject Dreyfus, until now I have not seen any. Thanks for your collaboration, --Kt66 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually thank you for this information, I will be going right to these people to address the concerns and issues. I will try to get some kind of issued statement, as this is a long term issue not just a wikipedia issue.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

very good, especially all new researches or reviews are most welcomed. I found an email address of Kay in the internet but never asked him. Thank you for etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf I will read it. Many regards, --Kt66 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read until now but I saw she agrees that on all sources available on the Origin of the Controversy, Dreyfus' research is the most thoroughly. Which again proofs why he can be used in that context. --Kt66 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

where the paper was originally published

I checked: The article was originally published at Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies(Vol., 21, no. 2 [1998]:227-270), I added that information also to the WP article. --Kt66 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

what other neutral academical sources state

I'll give some quotes from another academical source which makes clear, that there is no contradiction between Dreyfus and other researchers opinion, and with the article as we have now. The quotes are taken from the paper of Martin A. Mills, and his academical paper is pulished by Routledge in Human Rights in Global Perspective, ISBN 0-415-30410-5

• The object of the controversy - the deity Dorje Shugden, also named Dholgyal by opponents of its worship - had been a point of controversy between the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism since its emergence onto the Tibetan scene in the late seventeenth Century, and was strongly associated with the interests of the ruling Gelukpa Order. Supposedly the spirit of a murdered Gelukpa lama who had opposed the Fifth Dalai Lama both in debate and in politics, Shugden is said to have laid waste to Central Tibet until, according to one account, his power forced the Tibetan Government of the Fifth Dalai Lama to seek reconciliation, and accept him as one of the protector deities (Tib. choskyong) of the Gelukpa order (see Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1993: 134-144). Despite this, the deity retained a controversial quality, being seen as strongly sectarian in character, especially against the ancient Nyingmapa school of Tibetan Buddhism: the deity was seen as wreaking supenatural vengeance upon any Gelukpa monk or nun who 'polluted' his or her religious practice with that of other schools. Most particularly those of the Nyingmapa. This placed thc deity's worship at odds with the role of the Dalai Lama, who not only headed the Gelugpa order but, as head of State, maintained strong ritual relationships with the other schools of Buddhism in Tibet, particularly the Nyingmapa (see below; Dreyfus 1999). The deity thus became the symbolic focus of power struggles, both within the Gelukpa order and between it and other Buddhist schools. page 55,56
• the present Dalai Lama himself practised Shugden worship in his younger years, but he renounced it during the 1970s following the publication by a prominent Gelukpa lama of a devotional text to Shugden which, in defence of the deity's efficacy as a protector, named 23 government officials and high lamas that had been assassinated using the deity's powers. In 1978, His Holiness spoke out publicly against the use of the deity as an institutional protector, although maintaining that individual should decide for themselves in terms of private practice. It was not until Spring 1996 that the Dalai Lama decided to move more forcefully on the issue. Responding to growing pressure - particularly from other schools of Tibetan Buddhism such as the Nyingmapa, who threatened withdrawal of their support in the Exiled Government project - he announced during a Buddhist tantric initiation that Shugden was 'an evil spirit' whose actions were detrimental to the 'cause of Tibet', and that henceforth he would not by giving tantric initiation to worshippers of the deity (who should therefore stay away), since the unbridgeable divergence of their respective positions would inevitably undermine the sacred guru—Student relationship, and thus compromize his role as a teacher (and by extension his health). page 56
• As we have seen, Shugden was a protector deity - a choskyong - whose historical role served to bolster the symbolic distinction between the ruling Gelukpa order and the influence of other school of Buddhist institutional thought in Tibet. As a choskyong, however, the deity's role was more than a question of personal belief: it existed as an element within the functioning structure of state law and practice. As such, the continuity of the deity's institutional worship within the diaspora supported a State that was institutionally sectarian at a symbolic level. This consequence of continued Shugden prac¬tice was so strongly felt, for example, that during thc early I990s the Nyingmapa school threatened to remove their presence from the Tibetan Assembly of People’s Deputies - they sought to secede from a State structure whose very form and functioning was antagonistic to their presence. page 63
• In summary, the Shugden dispute represents a battleground of Views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom. Inherent to this calculation is some kind of assessment of the legitimate relationship between religion and State action, a calculation which, in the case of the Shugden dispute, has been approached from (at least) four angles, whose evocation of the State as the basis for the conceptualization of religious rights can be seen as a rough continuum between a fundamentally sacral polity, and one based on the modern European nation-state. page 65
• Conclusion: Whilst there was clearly also a strong issue of the actual ‘facts of the case’ the debate surrounding Shugden was primarily one of different understandings of the constitution of religious rights as an element of State life, particularly in the context of theocratic rule. As an international dispute, moreover, it crossed the increasingly debated link between theoretic Tibetan and liberal Western interpretations of the political reality of religion as a category. By this, I do not mean to imply that the CTA slipped through a loophole in human rights law. Rather that it by denaturing relationships of religious faith to the extent to which they are merely 'individually held beliefs' and 'private practices'. Western social and legal discourse may have blinded itself to the role that such relationships play in the constitution of states as communal legal entities. page 66

In two notes at the end of the article he also remarked:

• Tibetan Buddhist political and institutional life centres round the activities of its four principal schools - the Nyingmapa, the Kagyud, the Sakya and the Gelukpa - the last of which was politically dominant in Tibet from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries; the four schools had the Dalai Lamas as their political figure-heads. page 67

and

• In a Guardian interview on the Shugden controversy in 1996, the Bristol-based Buddhist specialist Paul Williams remarked: 'The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant?' (Bunting 1996). page 68

I would really appriciate if those new editors and Shudgen followers who newly appeared as editors, start to read the academical sources: Kay, Dreyfus, Samuel, Mills, Brück or what ever high reputable and accepted scholarly research is available, otherwise I see not much hope for the article. Mills article deals in detail also with the religious freedom issue. --Kt66 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent events heading

As this topic will most likely be an active one perhaps we should have a recent event heading. I would like to add this along with a paragraph about the recent protest of the Western Shugden Society. Perhaps this should be added somewhere else? Wisdombuddha (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 22, 2008, a group of protesters, including 100 Tibetans, protested the Dalai Lama outside of Colgate University. The group accused the Dalai Lama of oppressing their religious freedom by banning the Dorje Shugden prayers. The spokesperson for the group claimed that due to "the Dalai Lama's ban, Shugden practitioners are ostracized in Tibetan society and prohibited from obtaining visas."

Yes I know that the NKT started their protests again at the 22 of April, that's why I checked what activities at Wikipedia they will unfold. That you founded a team to change the article that way was not that surprising to me. However I think collaboration is possible and we'll have an improved article after our discussions. Thank you so far. Regarding a News Line in the article I am not so sure, lets wait if major press will pick up it. (BTW, I know the story behind it and I have information from both sides, including the Email of Geshe Kelsang and other NKT members who support these protests and asked NKT memvers to participate; also I have a description what happened in actuality in Dharamsala. Although this is original research, it is of use to know both POV's.) Thank you for the links! Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding the yellow book

"The Yellow Book was intended to complement Tri-jang's commentary on Pa-bong-ka's praise of Shuk-den.[46] It consists of a series of stories which the author had heard informally from his teacher Tri-jang during the many years of their relationship which he wanted to record for posterity before the death of his teacher.The book enumerates the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to have been shortened by Shuk-den's displeasure at their practicing Nying-ma teachings. First, the Fifth Pen-chen Lama, Lob-zang Pal-den, is described as the object of Shuk-den's anger because he adopted Nying-ma practices. Despite the repeated warnings of the protector, Lob-zang Pal-den refused to mend his ways. After an unsuccessful ritual self-defense, which backfired, Lob-zang Pal-den died at the age of twenty nine.[47] The book cites several other Ge-luk lamas who had similar fates.Most noticeable is the long description of the Re-treng (rwa streng) affair.According to this account, Re-treng's tragic fate is not due to his real or alleged misdeeds,[48] but because he incurres the wrath of Shuk-den by practicing Nying-ma teachings." see Dreyfus' article: [2] --Kt66 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think to keep this article uncluttered there needs to be a section for the yellow book itself rather than have bits and pieces of reference to it all over the place. Also there are several reference to Lamas who do not agree with this text and there should be as much text from these as there are from Dreyfus to be fair. WisdomBuddha —Preceding comment was added at 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think as the appearing of the (sectarian) Yellow Book was the driving force of the request of the DL to speak against that pracitice, it should be mentioned of course(!) but there is no need to overemphasize it and of course other POV's can be added when based on reliable sources. --Kt66 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The last developments of the article were a bit quick and started not upon very auspicious circumstances, however, reading you comment again, of course, the views of others should be added. So what references and quotations of other Lamas do you have and what section do you wish to balance? What are your sources? Thanks a lot for helping, to improve the article. I gave the reference above because someone doubted the content of the Yellow Book. --Kt66 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also the quote in Pabongkhas Supplement to the practice: "[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." (see Dreyfus). which may show why so many conflicts arised and it is seen as sectarian. I just put it here, maybe it is needed in the future. --Kt66 (talk)

Perhaps we could use these quotes of Pabongkha somewhere as well! Wisdombuddha (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"The aggregates, elements, sources and limbs of Lama Losang Tubwang Dorje Chang

Appear in the aspect of the five lineages of Dorje Shugden and their retinues

Realising that in reality I am practising the yoga of the thirty-two deities of the body mandala,

I offer this practice to you, O five lineages of Dorje Shugden;

Please accept it with delight."

And this: Wisdombuddha (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Even though you appear as a haughty and fearsome being

To dispel obstructions to Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine,

You are by nature Manjusrhi and Yamantaka themselves."

I offer this practice to you, O five lineages of Dorje Shugden;

Please accept it with delight."

Thank you WisdomBuddha, there is no contradiction in using both. PW sates the facts and different POV's in NPOV manner. So if he said this and said another thing all this can be added, I have no problem with this. Thanks for your suggestion, many regards, --Kt66 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How can we add content from talks given by Trijang Rinpoche and Pabonkga Rinpoche if most of them are not completely translated? For example, what would I need for the quotes above to be a WP approved source?Wisdombuddha (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find something in Geshe Kelsang's book "Heart Jewel"; also his webpage on Shugden can be used to present his or other follower's view. Could you find there something? Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional information, edit storms

I have merely added some additional, referenced information. I have not deleted anything, yet my changes were rolled back.

Common stay on the earth and correct first yourself, please. --Kt66 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another question, was Dreyfuss's paper "Shugden Affair" peer reviewed as academic papers are supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dreyfus is quoted as well by Kay. Kay is again quoted by many other scholars. Both, as well as Brück, are reputable sources and acknowledged scholars. If you start to remove Dreyfus you will again disrespect the WP rules, then I will vote for a temporary block of your account. If you think the anonymous webpage, you use and inserted, as reference is more reliable as Dreyfus you are cheating yourself and waste our time. I could remove many of your quotes according to the rules, but I resisted to have a good collaboration here. It will be very hard for you to remove my sources, because they are accepted as secondary WPreliable sources. Please avoid non-cooperative behaviours. Thanks, --user:kt66 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WPReliable: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. "

Spurious opinions by academics outside of peer reviewed articles do not count as reliable.

Also Dreyfuss can not be considered an independent source (studied under Lobsang Gyatso) who is recognized as a major opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

see our discussion above. --Kt66 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ways of viewing Dorje Shugden

I added the four ways of viewing Shugden again, as it was before in the article and I added references. Please read the WP guidelines on NPOV. That we have now have even five views is properly fine, it shows that there are different views which strongly disagree and it shows, why he is seen as "highly controversial". As the four points of view were the result of the past article with other editors, you should give arguments, why they should be condensed into two views, and why other views can be negelcted. Thank you. --Kt66 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

prima facia case

The sentence: Whilst a prima facia case of infringement of religious freedoms within Tibetan refugee communities certainly existed, the absence of definable nation-state command structures precluded the formulation either of accountability or unavoidable jurisdiction essential to the formulation of a ‘human rights violation’.

seems to be no quote but rather a POV of the editor. So it was correct to remove it as done by 04:13, 11 April 2007 220.236.197.23 (Talk) (There is no Prima facie case for any infringements of religious freedom, as that would be covered under amnestys mandate as a basic human right.)

Recognizing this I support removing it unless we have a WP:reliable source for the claim that there is "prima facia case of infringement of religious freedoms within Tibetan refugee communities".

Many regards, --Kt66 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WPreliable sources can be included in NPOV manner. See WPGuidelines. --Kt66 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubris

This controversy is one of political association, not one of spiritual inclusion. There is no evil other than separation and segregation given 'form' (Sanskrit: rupa) as thoughtform. Evil, as deity, is the external manifestation or projection of the internal: this is the poison, the obscuration of the continuum of the Five Pure Lights. Demonization, the personification of The Other, as illustrated in the application of the work of Said and the development of the Shadow in Psychology informs a psycho-sociological understanding of the Dorje Shugden phenomenon. In the nondual substrate of the mindstream there is no inner, no outer. I am ill-informed to edit the Dorje Shugden page due to the sapient scholarly convention of citation as a safeguard for probity ~ a time-honoured, laudable requirement for reputable article and knowledge iteration and development. That said, I will edit the article as requested, repairing what I intuit is inappropriate in tone and implication. If any editor contends with my edits, please solicit my attention through inclusive, respectful dialogue. Fighting the hubris of elitism and the canker of spiritual pride starts with slaying the inappropriately prideful self, which is releasing the need for others to embrace the constructions of a mind or minds in separation. That is the slaying of self, the self-sacrifice inherent in the teaching of Anatman. Concern yourself not with the distraction of political intrigue and with the prideful need to be right.
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help and work, --Kt66 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a poor quoted sentence

I deleted: "Followers of Dorje Shugden deny that." Why? It is not clear to me if Shugden followers in general deny this or just some or many. If the website is run by one or three person, it presents just their POV. If there is a known website which presents a great amount of Shugden Followers, like the Dorje Shugden Society (how many members do they have?) then we could cite this, because then it may represent the view of a majority of Shugden Practitioners. The quote now can give not even only a wrong fact but the sentence implies also, that Shugden Followers deny historical accounts. I am not sure if this is correct. What I know is - and there is a reliable source for it - that Geshe Kelsang does not believe that and says that there was not any disharmony between Gelugpas and Nyingmas. But this is again the view of just a single person among the numbers of practitioners and may not present the view of all Shugden followers. Does anyone have other (non-anonymous and representing) sources? For the time being and according to the descriptions how to write article, I deleted that sentence. What do other editors thing, suggest? Thanks -Kt66 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

someone added the following passage in the overview section

The Dalai Lama has “banned” the practice of Dorje Shugden and in so doing caused a rift in the Tibetan community as it is a widespread practice. Tibetan and Western practitioners are currently organizing demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban wherever the Dalai Lama appears, accusing him of denying them religious freedom. The representative of the Dalai Lama appeared in Hamilton New York to say that from a legal standpoint there is no ban. However, he was contradicted by the practical examples and stories of Dorje Shugden practitioners which clearly indicate that while legally there may be no ban, from the point of view of discrimination there is clearly a ban in effect and it arises from the Dalai Lama’s words. The representative said that he would look into all the evidences of human rights abuse within the Tibetan community in India and agreed that they were wrong.

If you look on the sources and the content, it is obvious they fit not at that place of the WP article on Shugden; moreover the youtube-reference is not acceptable for WP articles, besides you write an article about youtube or something similar. The short press notices from recordonline.com and The Times of India, picking up the claim of "ban" and the actual demonstrations in the overview section, which aims to give an overview on the general subject matter, is not suited at that place. So I removed that. Maybe we can use it for another section or create a new one, like, "actual developemnts"? Although I doubt that the two press articles are that important to include them. What do experienced editors think about this? (Dear WisdomBuddha, I know these news are important for you, and I wish not to block them, but there are also some Guidelines and Rules regarding articles, that's why I asked for comments from more exprienced editors.) --Kt66 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

revert of past changes

as already mentioned here: Trimondis and Goldner are no WP:reliable source and actual small news about some new demonstrations of NKT/DSC do not fit at all in the overview section. I think this is easy to recognize. I suggested above, if there is a need to add this elsewhere or to add a new section. --Kt66 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Clifton Article however is acceptable as WP:reliable source, we can use it from the website http://www.cesnur.org/press/Newsweek.htm the other link was not so clear to me and CESNUR is of course acceptable. Sorry this was my fault I didn't see this. --Kt66 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link and reference to Sumati Arya's personal webpage. It is not suited as WP:reliable source. --Kt66 (talk)

The website contained a court document which must be a WP WP:reliable source Wisdombuddha (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wisdom Buddha, if you go on ignoring WP rules, changing quoted sources or to include self-published personal websites, I will bring this again on the Admin Board, Sumati Arya's personal webpage is not acceptable as WP:reliable source. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 : "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." [5]

The exception: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." is also not fulfilled by Sumati Arya'w personal webpage. --Kt66 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, there are plenty of other sources. Please don't accuse me of vandalism for changes that I did not make.Wisdombuddha (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I am very sorry to have accused you wrongly! I would be happy, if you can accept my apologize. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Who deleted some discussions from the talk page?

kt66 is systematically removing all other points of view than his own and using nothing but sources written by opponents to Dorje Shugden practitioners. He is deleting all opposing viewpoints or arguments and their citations and sources. I am amazed that he feels he is within his rights to do this dishonest, unfair and quite vicious editing. Perhaps he feels he owns this article as he has been the only one editing it for years. This article is incredibly one-sided. I hope no reasonable person will take it as being even remotely fair or accurate but check out the facts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen37 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He has also broken the three revert rule. This is a warning Kt66. I will report you if you continue to do this.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As a rule, you really shouldn't be removing other editors' comments on an article: see [3], I will reinsert the deleted passages. The present talk page does not slightly present the discussion which started with the substantial and undiscussed changes by

• Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tkalsang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also:

• Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

see also Notes on the Admin Board by Justin (koavf)❤

I will try to restore them and include them here for the sake of transparency. --Kt66 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of the deletions. Maybe there is still stuff disappeared, if you find something and it seems worthwhile to reinclude, please do so. thanks. --Kt66 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

revert

I reverted back to a version which was well documented and based on WP reliable sources. Especially Helen37 has used her edits to delete passages she don't belief or like but where there are proofs and WP reliable sources for it. I suggest to discuss the changes step by step. Thanks a lot for your effort to improve the article. --Kt66 (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

reverting

I reverted back to a version which had improved this article dramatically. Just because information has a reliable source does not mean that it belongs in certain sections. This article is more of a personal opinion than a wikipedia entry.

I ask you again to discuss substantial changes in that controversial subject which is full of unverified stories as you can take from Dreyfus's research article. The changes are based on the assertion of Shugden Followers who may disagree with points, but the article should either be based on WP reliable sources or where they are missed we have to discuss. The inclusions we have now are not findable in WP reliable sources, I will revert back and hope we can discuss it. The changes which took place by new editors deleted verified passages, deleted whole passages and inserted claims from anonymous sources. It is most welcome to improve the article but as it is a very controversial subject we should come to agreement and discuss substantial bases, until now this has worked well. To give base for my argument I add the quote from Dreyfus:

As we realize, this description of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's posthumous fate is highly partisan and it is no surprise that his sympathizers rejected these explanations. They were keen on keeping the blame on the party of the Dalai Lama, arguing that the unfortunate events were not due to the wrathful reincarnation of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, who had taken rebirth as the emperor of China.[20] Finally, there are other stories that seem to hint that the evil spirit connected with Drak-ba Gyel-tsen was already active prior to the latter's demise, even as early 1636.[21] If Shuk-den was already active prior to Trul-ku Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's tragic demise, how can he be the latter's wrathful manifestation?These conflicting stories show that what we have here is not a unified narrative but several partly overlaping stories.The founding myth of the Shuk-den tradition grew out of a nexus of narratives surrounding these events and developed in accordance with the new changing historical circumstances.It is not the account of the followers of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen, as claimed by Shuk-den's modern followers, but it is only one of the many versions of the bundle of stories surrounding these tragic events.In fact, the story of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's demise as it appears in contemporary sources has little to do with Shuk-den.It is not about the deity but about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Only much later, when the significance of Drak-ba Gyel-tsen's story faded, did this story resurface and get taken as the account of the origin of Shuk-den. see Drefus' Research Article. --Kt66 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because inclusions have reliable sources does not mean they belong in this article. You seem to be extremely biased, and I can see that a lot of the unnecessary points in here come from this. Please note that WP is not a personal opinion encyclopedia.

Sorry the last changes delete verified passages and facts, like that he is seen as "demonic", that only a minority see him as a "Wisdom Buddha", and instead the neutral and unbiased presentation is changes to favour the POV of Shugden activists, based on one of their anonymous websites, not based on WP reliable sources or academical articles. Also there were made substantial changes in an article which is written on one of the most hot debated issue in Tibetan Buddhism, especially among teh Gelug school. Substantial changes in controversial articles should be discussed. The new editors are most welocme to improve, but please read before the rules, guidelines and work in a cooperative manner. I will again revert, until you start to discuss changes and will ask an admin to temporarily block the article from changes to avoid an edit war and come to consensus. The article was well accepted until now and a new editor, accompanied by some other new editors made radical changes without discussing, this is not the way. I hope to be able to recognize a cooperative attitude and common sense from the new edotors and ask them to read the Guidelines. Thank you, --Kt66 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors. You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits. If you do report to the admin we will request that the latest version is used as it is accepted by the majority of current editors.--Wisdombuddha

Dear Wisdombuddha, nice that you wish to improve the article. Until now not any change is discussed but there were made substantial changes without any discussing. I revert again and give the reason here:

1. Instead of wholesale deletion, please discuss your NPOV concerns on the talk page. It is considered poor practice to delete large amounts of sourced material without prior discussion
2. it is clear from the WPreliable sources that Shugden is conidered (as stated before) in four ways, including as a demonic or malovent force. The changes deleted the varified passages which clearly are NPOV, to favour a ShugdenFollowerPOV. There is no need to turn the article to bias by excluding the different views.
3. You negelct the rules of WP, regarding sources by including quotes from anonymous (and questionable) websites, whereby you deleted complete passages, which are based on academical sources.

Until now no one of you new editors have discussed any change here, but rather support each other outside of Wikipedia or public discussion. It is not true that the article was only accepted by me. As you can see at the History of the many contributors. I will asked editors to start to debate about it. The reason for reverting is: no discussion while making substantial changes. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, There is no need to have your single approval for a change when there are many people who regularly edit this article. You are the only editor who supports this revert war to your version of the article. Please note that I did not make the changes but feel they vastly improve the clarity of the article. Many Regards, --Wisdombuddha

Dear Wisdombuddha, as you can see from the history and the contribution, the article is the result of the work of many, until now there was no problem, because the article covered the main points in a quite neutral NPOV manner, but of course it had also repetitions. Since the article was accepted until now there were no further work on it needed. So if you feel it should be changed substantially - as you and your friends find in private - you should discuss here openly. As you said, you are a team who came (outside of WP) to agreement to change the article in a certain style and you support each other in that issue, it is very unfair to not discuss openly the changes, and the reasons, and more specific, now the artile is biased, omitting different views and putting a favour on the view of Shugden Opponents. What ever you may feel discuss, please discuss the changes with common sense and reasons and according to WP Rules. Until now you, and your team of Editors, block any discussion on the subject. Thank you very much. Looking forward your collaboration, --Kt66 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that you are the one blocking any discussion on the subject Kt66. You have not responded to many of my posts on here so I went ahead with some of the changes. I agree that these changes need to stick. I agree with this version of the article and will help to keep it this way. Please discuss changes to the current version that you would like to make Kt66 and watch how many times you revert.

This is very funny, where is your discussion or the other new editor's discussion? I can not see any, maybe I really didn't see it. Please show me the points where you and your team discussed the substantial changes and the reasons for it. I am happy to collaborate but until now there was no discussion on any of the radical changes of the article. Now having made a plenitude of new changes, without any discussion on the points to be changed, without any answer to the points I made, you ask me to discuss your and your team's changes. Do you think this is correct? I left a massage on the Admin's board and gave notes to former article editors. Lets look how this will turn out. Thank you, --Kt66 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not funny. There are dozens of edits by other editors that you keep undoing! Here is a discussion...Wikilama Please put your name here if you support the reversion of the article back to 3 days ago as Kt66 insists against all other editors:

Wikilama you are in violation of policy/guidelines, you must discuss matters with the other editors on the articles talk page. Period. By not doing so you are being disruptive. If you can not do as requested further edits could be marked as vandalism. If needed a request for protection of this article may be in need to end what is going to become a potential (if it already hasn't) edit war. Please discuss this with the community and not just with your little friends in private. Also, I checked your edits summaries. Please note that this article may not be owned by KT he as an editor has every right to rollback edits he (and others) have deemed inappropriate to whatever article he feels. Also 3RR does not apply to vandalism fighting which this may end up becoming. So, now can you discuss your edits here...and civilly? Rgoodermote  03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

civil discussion

Kt66 if you wish to undo these please do them one at a time rather than reverting the entire page.Wisdombuddha

Some general thing to the new editors, as the article was a result of former discussion and edits which was made due to the agreement of the past editors, I do not accept the deletions you made, especially those based on verified sources, WPreliable sources, without discussion. I do not accept that you and your friends changed that article in such a rude manner and now ask me to discuss your deletions, rather you should explain what reasons you have to delete these passages. That's why I will reinsewrt those passages which are clearly NPOV and based on accurat sources. I am open to any improvemnt but not the way how you, and your friends ignored the rules, favouring your version without any discussion. Because I have a lack of time, to to a big exam on Thursday, my contributions for discussion will be small until tomorrow, whereever you discussed here a point I will give my POV/opinion and arguments. Hope for better collaboration, Regards --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite acceptable now. --Kt66 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Movement of Ganden Tripa message. Resolved.

Where was the removal of the Ganden Tripa Massage discussed? When the passage is in a section which is not suited we can create a new section, as WisdomBuddha suggest. There is no reason for deleting, why? There is a religious conflict with this subject matter :and a NPOV article should present all POV in a neutral manner. Because the Ganden Tripa is the highest authority of the Gelug school, where the conflict is present, his statement matters in the sense of presenting it to the reader. --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No one suggested removing it. I agree it should stay, but not with an entire section. I will make this more like and encyclopedia article.Wisdombuddha

You can remove where ever it is more suited. --Kt66 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Section with reference to "Himalayan dialogue : Tibetan lamas and Gurung shamans in Nepal" should be kept as an alternative political view as it is a reliable source.

I think this reference fits in well here. Perhaps this section need subheadings as well? WisdomBuddha

Another view of the political dimension can be taken from an objective anthropological view on the situation. Many of the arguments above are made by those who in some way have been biased by their own studies and affiliation in the Tibetan Buddhist orders. Some have argued that Shugden by nature is against Nyingma. However, Shugden has been practiced by some members of the Nyingma sect for many generations. Evidence of this was written by Stanley Mumford, an anthropologist who studied Tibetans in a village called Gyasumdo, Nepal near the border of Tibet in the late 1970's/early 80's. This particular group of Tibetans had migrated into Nepalese national border within the last few hundred years. The families of village were Nyingma by sect and yet practiced Shugden as their family protector (Srungma). Although they were Nyingma, they were isolated from the various sect related position developed by exiled Tibetans: "Tibetans in Kathmandu regard Shugs-ldan as a guardian honored by those who adhere to the Gelug sect, while members of the Nyingma sect think of Shugs-ldan as their enemy, sent against them by the rival sect. But in the villages these sectarian differences are not well understood. In Gyasumdo the lamas are Nyingmapa, yet most of them honor Shugs-ldan as a lineage guardian picked up in Tibet in the past by their patriline."

Sorry you accuse sources of being biased and thereby arguing they should be excluded, but this is your personal POV. I can do the same regarding your sources, and try thereby to repress them. Rather we should present the different POV's in unbiased manner. If you have WPrelieble sources you can add them and balance their statements, there is nothing wrong with this. Please not that quotes from anonymous webpages are not acceptable and quotes from academical sources are highly acceptable. Instead of removing quotes from academical sources, find other similar valuable sources which show another POV, just deleting because YOU feel the may be bias, is not correct, and then we can exclude any reputable source by our own POV judge "this source is bias". Especially those researchers who studied Tibetan Buddhism and have a academical career. Like Dreyfus or Sparham know the stuff very good due to their inside. Dreyfus, Kay, Waterhouse are also wide accepted and used in other sources. So please dont't delete such sources out of your own personal POV. Thanks. --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, this case study reveals the political nature of the campaign against Shugden, and that the Dalai Lama himself promoted the issue to create tension between the Gelug and Nyingma: "Recently the Dalai Lama, as leader of the Tibetan people, has made a historic judgement. He has determined that the guardian deity called Shugs-ldan is not only too dangerous, but he also has promoted a vicious factional rivarly between the Gelugpas and Nyingmapa religious orders." Wikilama

Wikilama. Please read the WP Guidelines there is the point that WP is not "finding the truth" it "WP is no truthfinding", WP presents the facts and views in NPOV manner. If you want to know what this is again read the rules. I will reactivate those passages which clearly fulfilled that criteria and are based on WPReliable sources. When you see a unbalanced passages, and you have a quote presenting a different POV, just add it in NPOV manner. That's it. Thanks --16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mumford has long been a standard reference for this issue on this wiki page. Now we've included a quote by him that doesn't suit your views you are hiding behind "truth seeking". Tkalsang (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3. The unsolved murder may belong in the article (which I disagree with) but it definitely does not belong in the origins!

agreed. I will move it to the political area. Perhaps we need another reference for this... Wikilama

The first section was made to give an overview of the subject matter. To give an overview is suitable to show that the conflict at his hight led to three victims, which lost their lives. I am open, to put it to another section but nor for deleting. --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes, mainly I reinserted the four views which were expanded to five (which is properly fine). Then I gave a more broader view on the different POVs which are held by different authorities. We miss a quote of the fifth POV on Shugden still. Alsi I re-added developments at the peak of the controversy, with the murdered monks. This shows the dynamic of that conflict and is based on WPreliable sources. In general I can agree with the article as it is presented now, it seems most of the content of the old version is still existing. I am enjoying that we can work together to improve it further. I have no problems with radical changes, but they must be discussed beforehand. Thank you all for your collaboration, --Kt66 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

4. The overview changes that were omitted did not have references if you check. The links to the anonymous sites have other references as well that can be used instead.

I think it is more appropriate to link to Trode Khangsar and change the number to 300... WisdomBuddha

It is correct that the overview has not much references, why? The past editors agreed on it and all the points are obvious to those who know the subject. As any article on controversial subjects leads to endless discussion until every very sentence is approved by a WPreliable source, it is obvious that now are disagreements, this is a fault of the article and the past work. On the other hand it is very easy to find references for most of the sentences. I will check that. Beware: "nonymous sites" can surely not be used as references. Why? from the POV of WP rules and because as researcher Dreyfus clearly said: there is so much bias in that subject matter and as Brück - another religious scientist pointed out: the Proponents of Shugden have a lot of claims, which can not be verified by any source. The article should not mislead the reader and it should not even lead to misleading webpages. --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Proponents of Shugden have a lot of claims, which can not be verified by any source." This is only because nobody in the West has yet looked yet, the evidence is there though! Case in point, as far as Shugden being an enlightened deity this is evident in this by Eight Kirti Rinpoche, Rongchen Kirti (1849-1905), an important lama from Amdo who never travelled to central tibet in this incarnation, wrote a Dorje Shugden initiation manual called rdo rje shugs ldan gyi rjes gnang bya tshul phrin las lhun grub: http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail-outline.xq;jsessionid=F26C2D6C2A505F3C2D9BACA6F79B0D2D?address=12.25&wylie=n&RID=O00EGS1014793#O00EGS10147932DB446

In the first page he calls Shugden 'jam mgon rgyal ba'i gnyis pa'i bstan srung, which means protector of the second Buddha's Dharma. Two questions, would an unenlightened protector be given such a high position? Would an initiation be given into an unenlightened deity?

Second, the "Shugden Affair" has many unreferenced conclusions, it was never peer reviewed either. We value him as a researcher, but he is not a neutral source either as he was a student of Lobsang Gyatso. There's two disqualifications for WPReliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is not a neutral source? Who says that? Is he not recognized by other scientists or only by you. If he is baised, than also GKG and the anonymous Shugden Pages are biased. Or why are the not biased? Regarding the lack of the sources from the Shugden side, this was stated by Brück, a researcher at the University in Munic. If you have relaible sources, add. As you can see to help to balance the article I accepted for the time being anonymous pages, at least where it presents a POV, not claims a wrong fact, and inserted by anonymous source. --Kt66 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is discussion not a bargaining table, either things meet WP reliability or not. If other things don't it should be scrutinized and removed. The subject being questioned is the essay, not just the academic who wrote it. A person's credentials can be stainless but the work itself also needs to qualify for WP reliability. Of course academics have opinions, but these opinions only qualify when they go through the correct procedures or are used in a formal context. Merely being quoted by another scholar does not qualify everything at person has done.

Can you provide proof "The Shugden Affair" was peer reviewed and who has endorsed it? I would be surprised because whoever does may be risking their academic reputation. If so, I will be happy to contact these endorsers to point out the issues. Even if it was endorsed there are now texts available on TBRC to refute the central tenents of this paper. I bring this up because many of the views presented in this Wiki entry is based on Dreyfus' views in the "Shugden Affair".

Also, please describe what a "fundamentalist" is in Tibetan Buddhism, this is yet another pejorative term used out of context and incites disharmony in our civil discussion. One should note it is the Dalai Lama that criticizes Pabongkha for the so called promotion of "non-Gelug" practices over the 3 main Gelug deities, perhaps HHDL holds a more fundamentalist position? Tkalsang (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

6. What heading was never discussed? And what is wrong with it. What exactly is two sided, please explain. thanks --Kt66 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to whom ever modified my comment. I do not appreciate it. But at least the message went through. Please next time. Leave a diff to the original. Rgoodermote  20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rgoodermote  I do not know what happened with the talk page, passages and discussion were deleted, I will try to find your original contribution and restore it as well. Or if you find it, please restore it yourself. What I have done in this section is: I reinserted the discussion of WisdomBuddha, on which you gave your reply. He seems to have deleted it. Thank you for your help. --Kt66 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just going let it be this time because it seemed the intended message got through. O and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters of Dorje Shugden link

I would like to suggest that http://www.dharmaprotector.org/ be added to links section. Emptymountains (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it appropriate and have added it. Any disagree?(talk)

discussion to end edit war

1. See also: Gyalpo Sum, Cult, Anti-cult movement, Opposition to cults and new religious movements are not mentioned or are not related to this article. I find these more accurate: Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama, New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso

2. Movement of Ganden Tripa message. This was previously discussed, but if you disagree with this, please explain why this is an entire section under the article about Dorje Shugden.

3. Section with reference to "Himalayan dialogue : Tibetan lamas and Gurung shamans in Nepal" should be kept as an alternative politcal view as it is a reliable source.

4. The unsolved murder may belong in the article (which I disagree with) but it definitely does not belong in the origins!

5. The overview changes that were omitted did not have references if you check. The links to the anonymous sites have other references as well that can be used instead. Please discuss everyone...

murders in india

I would like to request the murders be removed from the overview, moved into another section, and the reference to these murders be re-written to show that was overseen by authorities who could not conclude the Shugden group was involved.Wisdombuddha (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The Shadow of the Dalai Lama – Part II – 7. The war of the oracle gods and the Shugden affair

http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/SDLE/Part-2-07.htm

Indeed, despite interrogations lasting weeks by the Indian criminal police, nothing has been proven. The evidence is so meager that it is most likely that the crime was committed by another party. The matter was also seen so by a court in Dharamsala, which negated any connection between the Dorje Shugden Society and the murders of February 4. For this reason, there are claims from the Shugden followers that the Dalai Lama’s circle tried to pin the blame on them in order to muzzle and marginalize them. In light of the power-political ambitions and relative strength of the sect — it is said to have over 20,000 active members in India alone — this version also makes sense. Some western worshippers of the protective god even go so far as to claim that a higher order from the Kundun lay behind the deed. Until the murderers are convicted, a good criminologist must keep his or her eye on all of these possibilities.

The author of that book, Mr. Colin Goldner is not even slightly acceptable as a WP:reliable source. I didn't check English reviews of that book, but in German Wikipedia, an Admin is refuting strongly this source, stating that this text goes clearly in the direction of "incitement of the people" not to speak of the "obscure activities" of Goldner himself. The appellate court of Vienna agreed with an review article in the Austria Buddhist Magazine, who compared his way of thinking and writing with that of a Nazi. The appellate court of Vienna stated that Mr. Goldner's writing is "vulgarly simplifying" and "...the (way of) judgement of Tibetans (by Goldner) allows (the Buddhist Magazine) to judge Goldner's description of the Tibetans as "racist" and allows the comparison of his view with that of the Nazis on the Jews." Another court didn't forbade that Magazine to name Goldner a "deluded fanatic". see: http://de.nntp2http.com/soc/menschenrechte/2002/10/b7b58a11e78ee71d062eab7312f1d978.html So it is very interesting that you wish to use such a poor source. --Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2. DID AN OBSCURE TIBETAN SECT MURDER THREE MONKS CLOSE TO THE DALAI LAMA?

© Newsweek April 28 1997 - Posted on May 6, 1997 by World Tibet News BY TONY CLIFTON

http://www.attan.com/shugden2.html

The suspicion now is that the savvy these Shugdens apply to business could have been put to more nefarious ends in Dharmsala. But Kelsang insists his idol and his order are peaceful. No one saw the attackers slip in and out of the monastery chamber on the frosty night of Feb. 4. There are no real suspects in hand, only suspicions, potential witnesses and the suggestive tale of an angry split in Tibetan Buddhism.

No author, no WP:reliable source. --Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3. With Suzanne Miller in London Newsweek 5/5/97 International/Tibet: Murder in a Monastery

Police say the five Shugden followers they questioned last winter are not suspected killers but might be witnesses to a well-organized murder plot. The leader of the Dorje Shugden devotees, Geshe Dragpa Gyaltsan, said his followers are innocent. "We are supposed to have a hit list of 14 men," he said. "We don't have a hit list, and it would be completely against the advice and guidance of Dorje Shugden if we did." The mystery of the Dharmsala murders is far from solved. No one saw the attackers slip in or out of the monastery chamber. So for now, there's no proof that the Shugdens are behind the killings.

Where is the article? I have no problem to balance or remove something or to replace it when it fulfils WP:reliable source. Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

4. http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1997.html

July 25, 1997 The five leaders of the Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society in Delhi receive bail from the local Dharamsala court. This clears them of any connection to the murders.

We can include the view of the DSC in NPOV manner. But this has yet been done by stating in the article that they reject this. So there is maybe no need to state this a second time, or where and why this should be done? Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is good enough to just say that the DSC rejected this claim. I think that it needs to be clear that the authorizes investigated this situation and found no connection whatsoever between the DSC and the murders.Wisdombuddha (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes by Kt66

Drear Kt66, I would like to point out the the changes you made on 12:35, 27 April 2008 where not discussed by anyone on wikipedia. I am fine with the changes but please except a very large change to the section below that without prior discussion. Thanks, Wisdombuddha (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WisdomBuddha, you are right. Things which are obvious or the editor guesses nobody will disagree or are against the Guidilines of articles can be changed without discussion. I felt, these changes are not so difficult to accept. However, if you wish to discuss, we can do. Your insertion of the Trijang Rinpoche view is fine, it would be nice if you also add the publisher/book, source. This is especially important, the reader must be able to check if this view really exist and was not made up by someone. So I like to ask you to complete the source, this means include please the publisher, year of publishing or the text where you have taken the information from. You can see I completely overworked the section on the opponents view, because there was no source at all. If you have WP:reliable sources you can improve the Proponent's section, but please: no anonymous website. Geshe Kelsangs text Heart Jewel can help you or the NKT website on the protector, but of course we have to state whose view that is, because we can not speak for all Proponents by citing only GKG or NKT websites. Thank you for your help. --Kt66 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You continue to make changes to the overview without discussing. The few changes I made you deleted entirely. Lets be more fair about this...Wisdombuddha (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The content: "In his first commentaries on the practice, he dealt with him as worldly (unenlightened) Dharmapalas are dealt with: the disciple has to control him by his Tantric Power and give him orders. Later Shugden was considered to be a manifestation of the enlightened Buddha Manjushri." is in Brück's research, I get the book next week and will add the page number. --Kt66 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why this article needs to be changed

Dear Editors,

I believe this article needs to be changed or even re-written for the following reasons:

1. The structure is unclear. There are a great many sections and it is difficult to read and get an overview of. I don't think that the structure is logical and I feel that it has developed "organically" due to the input of many editors, perhaps. I would propose a review of the structure.

2. The article is very one-sided,and sometimes (not always) even when the arguments of Shugden proponents are given, they are misrepresented (for example, "Guru Obedience"). Just because Shugden practitioners are following the tradition that their Teachers have given them they are painted as being 'blindly obedient', whereas the Dalai Lama, who has arguably shown the worst example of Guru Devotion in the history of Buddhism is painted as a logical and reasonable (using the Kalama Sutra, for example) even though he is destroying the tradition of his own Teachers. Also, saying things like 'Guru obedience' is a complete misrepresentation of what reliance on a Spiritual Guide is all about and I am concerned that it misrepresents Buddhism.

3. The article relies too heavily on hearsay from unreliable sources. Dreyfus is quoted as 'fact' even though his 'facts' are refuted by other sources such as the work of Trijang Rinpoche. There are also many quotes from unreliable sources such as self-authored websites.

I do appreciate the great effort that kt66 has made so far on this article, but I do feel that now is the time to change it substantially. Do any of the editors agree? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more that this article needs to be changed substantially. I believe it was written some time ago by a team of editors who are hostile to practitioners of Dorje Shugden and who support the Dalai Lama despite his intolerant and unreasonable actions. Ths article is by nature therefore biased and misleading, even appallingly verging on slanderous at times. It is plain wrong to keep bringing up unproven accusations of murder, for example, against innocent people.

Those who hold opposing views, who are actually practitioners of this Buddhist Deity and Protector, have not been represented at all on this Wikipedia entry until just recently. Practically all their changes, cited or not, are being reverted by the previous team of editors, especially KT66, and I don't buy the reason that the article should stay biased just because it started out that way. (Trudy21 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you everyone for discussing this.

I agree in the following points:

• structure unclear
• needs more balanced POV's
• many redundant passages and difficult to read to readers

I don't agree:

• article is from hearsay
• Dreyfus is refuted by Trijang Rinpoche

I suggest to discuss structure, and then what should be presented in the sections. The article is also for me hardly acceptable but a start, and not that bad. Moreover it is much more acceptable than many other articles in the WWW on that highly controversial and very complex subject. I will make a pause until Sunday, the 4th of May, 2008, and then I'll check what other editors suggest. I would be happy if also experienced editors participate in the improvement, leave their comments or suggestions or if editors participate who know the academical sources. If not I will probably quit my work at Wikipedia. The new editors I like to encourage to read the academical papers available or to suggest accepted academical papers. I will make use of Kay, Mills, Dreyfus, Brück, Lopez, Samuel, all of them fulfil the criteria of WP:RS regarding scholarship. --Kt66 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have thought the same thing about this article. Until now I have just been making small changes that make it slightly more balanced, but it is very confusing and one sided. Kt66 seems to insist that if it has a reference, it should be included in the article. I may just paste giant chucks of text from Trijang Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang sources and put a reference to the text. Then he won't be able to remove them if he uses his own reasonings lol. I am only joking of course. Wisdombuddha (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the article needs to be pared down and presented in a more relevant fashion. It is highly repetitive and very biased against faithful Dorje Shugden practitioners, who are put on the defensive by the actions of the Dalai Lama. I would help contribute suggestions if it is helpful. (Geoffduggan (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Seeing as we all seem to be in agreement about rewriting this article, can I suggest a few following guidelines? Let me know if you approve and if :people want I can put together a new simplified article and the rest of you can then add to it.

Keeping it simple seems the main thing.

· Getting rid of a lot of those sections that are repetitive and irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry on Dorje Shugden himself. (Some of those :sections may belong in another Wikipedia entry, I don't know, but they don't all seem to belong here.)

Starting by explaining the nature and function and origin of Dorje Shugden from the positive angle for a change, with references from Trijang :Rinpoche's text, the Dalai Lama's praise, and Geshe Kelsang's Heart Jewel. Then for balance a few short references to all that background and :discussion about his being a spirit. This could be followed by Geshe Kelsang's (or anyone else's) opinion on the two views of Dorje Shugden (one being :superstitious, one being from the point of view of practitioners).

A little bit about the ban and persecution, but short and simple if we can?

Also, avoiding such long references to the NKT as there are far more practitioners of Dorje Shugden worldwide (one million by some counts, if Tibet and China are included) and it detracts from that.

Cut out most of Kay’s verbiage – people can go and read it themselves if they’re interested in all that long tedious and largely irrelevant detail, it can be put on the anti-links.

Get rid of that unproven stuff about the murders once and for all to avoid slander.

Is there anything else that would really need to be on the article? How long does it need to be anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen38 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign (Helen38 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) (I was Helen37 but forgot my password!)

Obedience towards the Guru

Do any of the other editors have a problem with this section? Firstly, where it appears is out of context and secondly, what it is saying is that detractors of Dorje Shugden are logical and reasonable whereas those who practise Dorje Shugden are merely 'obeying' their Gurus. There is nothing in Buddhism that says that we should obey our Teachers, but if we also don't follow our Teachers, having ascertained that they are genuine Spiritual Guides, where will our knowledge and spiritual realizations come from? I find the quote from Brück particularly objectionable and it seems to have been included merely to imply that Dorje Shugden practitioners slavishly follow their Gurus without investigation. Geshe Kelsang gives two reasons why we want to do this practice from the Newsweek reply:

...we do not wish to give up this practice because it is a commitment received from our root Gurus, and because we know from our own experience that it is a very meaningful practice for the development of spiritual realizations. So now we are in a very sad and difficult situation.

So firstly we are doing this practice because we received it from our root Gurus, who we first checked to see that they were valid Teachers before relying upon them and we know from our own experience that the practice is beneficial. In other words, it's not blind obedience but reliance on our Teachers and, more importantly, having practised Dorje Shugden we know that this practice is successful to inducing spiritual realizations.

In the past I have tried to delete this section because it is both misleading from the point of view of why we are practising Dorje Shugden and from the point of view of reliance on the Spiritual Guide, but it keeps coming back! The main reason given for reversion seems to be that it contains properly referenced material, but I say that this material is misleading. What do people think we should do? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look on this tomorrow, as you can see, I focused in my last first aid edits, on the inclusion of scholarly, dispassionate POV and quotes. Please try to find WP:RS for the unsourced statements of GKG and SF. Google.groups &sf are not acceptable. --Kt66 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but just because something is a scholarly quote doesn't mean it is reliable, it means it was published by a scholar. Any scholar who talks about Guru obedience in Buddhism doesn't understand Buddhism. I'm sure you understand this, so why have you quoted it? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

This is an extremely biased article. It uses George Dreyfuss' research extensively, even though much of what he says disagrees with the writings of Trijang Rinpoche, although these are not quoted. I seriously have to question the neutrality of this article which seems almost exclusively to be written by detractors of Dorje Shugden so I've placed a note to say that the neutrality of the article is in question. I hope we can work together to produce a more balanced view. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

kt66, please, you do not have the right to undo the contributions of other editors, especially where clear citations are given as evidence. There are many claims made in this article which do not have citations and as such, are inadmissible. I propose that we remove them or find citations for them

Please explain why the article is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the POV template is not for editors who out of dislike can put a template there. You should give reasonable reasons for adding it. That Dreyfus contradicts Trijang Rinpoche is no reason to include the template. Trijang Rinoche is just one proponent and you can include his POV, where it suits. Because Research Articles are WP:reliable source and strongly recommended it is not POV to make use of him. However, I agree the article needs improvement. Thank you so far. - Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear kt66, I have placed the POV template on this article because it is not neutral. On the 14th Dalai Lama page you said that the Kamarpa information was written only from the side of Sharmar Rinpoche. This article is written mainly from a critical point of view, trying to show that the practice of Dorje Shugden is a practice of spirit worship based mainly on Dreyfuss' article which can be found on the Tibetan Government website. If Dreyfuss' article supported the view that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha it wouldn't be on their website! My point is that there are many claims made in this article which are not supported by citations and are therefore 'hearsay' which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia and it is not balanced by citations from the work of Trijang Rinpoche, which I intend to include. If you doubt that this article is NPOV, this is also the view of editor Jossi because he has removed the reference to this article from the 14th Dalai Lama's article saying "These articles are not NPOV, and require a lot of work. Once these are corrected, a summary of them can be placed here. Not before" Thank you kt66. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Truthsayer62, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 before you add a minor opinion in a article of that context based on self-sources. Thank you. --Kt66 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the neutrality of the article is in question. If you compare the amount of content from those who oppose Dorje Shugden to those who rely on him, it is about 80% opposing and 20% pro Dorje Shugden. The sheer amount of time Kay is used in the article is an indication to this. I think that banner needs to stay there until this is more even sided.24.39.153.186 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also! It can not be neutral, because it does not state what the Western Shugden Society thinks, that the Dalai Lama is a saffron robed Muslim and that there is valid evidence to prove that he is not Buddhist that he has stolen Buddhist teachings from Trijang Rinpoche and that he has cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that his real nature is cruel and very evil. see WSS website. - I am joking ;-) I accept the POV check it can only help to improve the article and make the reader aware that the article is in process. That's fine. --Kt66 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter the "Shukden Affair" is an essay by Dreyfus, which allows him biase, mistakes and personal views. It is NOT official research. Nevertheless I am still planning to write to JIATS to check their official stance on this. There are many inaccuracies and biases I have specifically going to point out to them. If it is supposed to neutral a retraction may be in order.Tkalsang (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, nice that you are back again. As you can see in the discussion above, Dreyfus is at the moment the most acceptable academical source, and it was also stated in the Thesis of the work you have offered above, from all available sources on Shugden's origin, "it is the most thoroughly". Although the paper seems to lack a review, it is used in other researches (e.g. Kay) and is also recommended at least in one scholarly bibliography. I will look if I can make more use of Kay, so that Dreyfus is not given undue weight. What you do now is Original Research, please see: Wikipedia:No original research However it is always helpful to learn more. Thank you for your effort. --Kt66 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, these arguments are not original research I am proposing to have on the main WP page, they are for talk only. I am pointing the Dreyfus essay is not a reliable source. Not only that, I have cited independent sources, I have not made up any ideas of my own. I would argue for some of these I should be able to include these sources as well on the main page provided I don't add interpretation. Moreover, as far as I know Kay's work is not directly on Shugden, more on NKT and their related issues. These would probably be better on the NKT Wikipedia page, as Shugden has been practiced for 300 years while NKT has existed about 20 years. The scope of this Wiki page is already way too wide.Tkalsang (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant, if you "write to JIATS to check their official stance on this" this is Original Research, however it is most welcome to have their POV, but we can't use it in the article. I didn't wish to reject your effort but rather make you aware on that subject of Original Research. So I am still waiting to learn from you academical sources which contradict Dreyfus or support your POV, that Dreyfus' research is not acceptable or bias, or not a reliable source. Which academical research states this? The researches I know accept him, I think also Brück is using him, not only Kay, but I have to check when I get my books back. Of course we can use any WP:reliable source I never said something against this. Kay made a chapter on Shugden and this is far enough to make use of him. He has been published also by Routledge and his paper has been reviewed. He is explaining the subject Dorje Shugden in detail. I can give you the exact pages when I have the book. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But the "Shukden Affair" is by the author's own admission in the opening paragraphs an essay which basically excuses the author from any academic standards, it is not official research. It's that simple, a letter from JIATS would merely confirm that, it is not for publishing.Tkalsang (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, if you consider quoting "Shukden Affair" acceptable, so can "Himalayan Dialog" by Stan Mumford can be quoted as well. He specifically did research on Shugden practice in Nepal. This is not "new research" as somebody alleged earlier.Tkalsang (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As we have only few academical sources but plenitude of bias sources, any accepted academical source is welcomed. Mumford is used as a source by Kay as well. I see no problem using Mumford, Dreyfus, Kay and Brück. All four are accepted scholars and their papers are used by other scholars. --Kt66 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ursula Bernis did hold a PhD, that is confirmed here as well: http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~hsilverman/PLACEMENT/SB-PhilosophyDoctorates.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, she holds a philosophical doctorate; good to know. Because she is not mentioned in any academical work on Shugden and Shugden Followers operate quite easily with titles, like Kundeling who is announced as Prof. Dr., I am always quite sceptical when titles appear. Again thank you for clarification. --Kt66 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am myself concerned regarding the NPOV of the article, the views of Shugden followers and their opposition to the Dalai Lama is less presented. This may be due to the fact, that there are only antonym webpages and also very questionable webpages, which hold extreme views (WSS), which can't be used as WP:reliable sources and that editors did not add so much to the article or didn't use acceptable WP:RS. (The fault is also mine, because I focused also one-sided.) I will check the academical sources to find more material which can be used to present their POV, and like to encourage everybody to do this as well or to balance the sections with WP:RS. --user:kt66 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And the quotations from http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-history.html are WP:reliable sources? This holds extreme views as well. Also let me state how flawed some of this academic "research" is, this is not new research it is simply reading the existing papers. Dreyfuss in his essay states FOLLOWERS of Pabonkha Rinpoche destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues, with no source so it can't be trust. Then Kay merely references this and ADDS Panbongkha and followers destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues. So not only is the first source unreferenced, we have the second source adding more unbased distortion on top of this. Does Kay have some new unnamed source that can back up these claims.Tkalsang (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Tkalsang, it is possible to cite from the official websites of the parties involved. This has been done also by citing GKG, or the NKT Shugden site or the NKT festival site, among other. By making clear that it is the source of the TGI/NKT/GKG it is clear who is behind that view. It is also clear that Trijang Rinpoche's text at dorjeshugden.com can usually not be used at all for the article, because it is original research and published at an antonym website. In a way I think we must find a compromise here. If you start to argue like this, we can almost offer no article at all. Further when three (!) researcher, Kay, Dreyfus and Samuel state that this events happened and you can find the same in Autobiographies, like that of Chagdug Tulku, then it is properly fine to add it to the article. SF have a strong sense of rejection and denying of almost everything what their POV opposes. But WP just presents what is there on the factual level according to WP:reliable sources and Kay, Samual and Dreyfus fulfil that criteria. --Kt66 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue with allegation of Pabongkha destroying monasteries, etc. is this is very serious with ramifications far beyond the Shugden issue. An essay makes this claim with no verifiable source, then this is merely quoted by the other "academic" works. I don't think it is WP's position to publish serious allegations for something that can't be verified that happened 100 years ago. Also, the Trijang book was publish in Gangtok Sikkim in 1967, and is available on TBRC as well, the link provided is just an English translation to conform with WP policy for non-English works.Tkalsang (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are the sources so we can state that, but not only that I asked a high Gelug lama and close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche, he confirmed that issue, that disciples of Pabongkha did that, and added but he does not believe that Pabongkha personally was involved. If you try further to reject the use of academical resources (moreover without any suggestion of other academical sources) than we can do

• Request for comment --Kt66 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

@Tkalsang

I think your conflict with the article comes exactly through your own bias, it is just funny how you reject academical sources without suggesting other academical sources, how you ignore, that Dreyfus is used in other academical sources and suggested in bibliographies, that you ignore the fact that at least three acknowledged researchers: Dreyfus, Kay and Samuel reported about this events of violence. I'd like to give you a note from Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, John J. Makransky, Roger Reid Jackson, 2000, Routledge, ISBN:0700712038. John J. Makransky states at page 20, in his introduction Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology; Its emergence and rationale:

A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centered on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the "protector" deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their "religious freedom" to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.

--Kt66 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No I've read the "Shukden Affair" in great detail, and there are some big mistakes and gaping holes for missing references. Moreover, it is not an academic research, it is an essay. How many times do I need to say this? If other researchers have failed to recognize this and have referenced this it is a fault in their own work. It is not neutral, it is not peer reviewed. I'm not trying to get my own "new research on the front page. That's funny you can quote all of the academic opinion you want, nobody has ever approached me to pressure me into getting a Shugden initiation. If the quote above indicates an issue in the NKT dissemination of Shugden practice, that is a fault of the NKT and not Shugden. This is not the normal way Shugden practice is disseminated with traditional Tibetan teachers, which I have been involved with. Tkalsang (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

if you have personal claims that all the researcher failed, than this is your POV, but there are rules in WP for using sources and all academical sources - and these are the only available - meet WP standards. So they can be used and I use them, if you further disagree we can ask the opinion of other WP:editors as I suggested above. Nobody ever said or claimed, that someone is "pressured to into getting a Shugden initiation". There is a strong sense of "turning a blind eye" on the historical and cultural facts on the site of SF, and a lot of mere claims and beliefs, which have no source at all, at the site of the SF, that's why neutral research is needed. Especially what there is transmitted in the oral lineage is quite questionable and bias. Until now you rejected every academical source which researched the subject, still very funny, by claiming they are biased, and relying on your own POV. --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then when I included quotes from Mumford why are they removed?Tkalsang (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which quote you inserted? Sorry if I removed it, I can not remember. Please insert again. You can see that I accepted the passage you inserted:

In the 18th and 19th centuries rituals related to Dorje Shugden began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, skal bzang thub bstan 'jigs med rgya mtsho), an important Lama and a tutor (yongs 'dzin) to the 9th Dalai Lama wrote a torma offering ritual[35]. Also, the Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 - 1813, blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug 'jigs med rgya mtsho), the head of Gelug sect in Mongolia also wrote a torma offering to Shugden in the context of Shambhala and Kalachakra[36] although this is WP:OR and usually not acceptable, and I think it is not important at all, however I accepted just for the sake of collaboration. For me there is no reason to delete Mumford. Sorry again, when this happned. --Kt66 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Mumford quotes above on this page and some other ones, but I'm going to have to wait to add this stuff because the legitimate stuff is being lost by the massive edit wars going back and forth. Also, to improve verifiability I will include sources with links to TBRC, because these can be treated as primary sources as long as there is no interpretation added.Tkalsang (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, I am very sorry, you may be based in India and belonging to the Tibetan Community. There was a big difference between how DSS and the Delhi protesters arranged their criticism and how they protested. The research of Mills shows this aspect very clearly. Because the Indian protests and POV and actions are quite less presented, maybe you can include them in the article. Although you may not be able to afford the books of Mills and Kay, you can use google-book-search as described below. As you can see Kay:2004 uses all material available and he is neutral, unbiased and very to the point. Mills includes the perspective of human rights. I think both texts can serve for all involved to get a better understanding upon each other. I would appreciate when our article here, can do the same work. You are right, with TBRC. But please make it NPOV: like "according to TBRC, ...." It is no problem for the article when different opinions oppose each other, this is the nature of the conflict. But the presentation must be NPOV. many regards, thank you for your effort and contributions. --Kt66 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Shugden Society - New Kadampa Tradition's new activities

The Western Shugden Society and their Webpages fulfil not any of the criteria of Wikipedia. They are funny enough to claim, the Dalai Lama would be a Muslim:

"According to some sources, you were born in a Muslim family. When you were a child who did not know anything, some ignorant Tibetans acting as representatives of the Tibetan Government chose that boy as the reincarnation of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Since that time, that boy wore saffron robes, and the local people jokingly nicknamed you as ´The Saffron Robed Muslim´. In this way, you received the position of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Because of this, many people now keep your photograph on their shrines and worship you." "...All these horrible situations have developed through the power of your evil actions. This is our valid evidence to prove that you are not Buddhist. Because of this, we also believe that you are the saffron robed Muslim. Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that your real nature is cruel and very evil. Copyright © 2008 WesternShugdenSociety.org. All Rights Reserved. The Western Shugden Society is only the community or confederation of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden practitioners -- it has no leader nor registered office." very interesting... see: 21st Century Buddhist Dictator - The Dalai Lama or [21st Century Buddhist Dictator - The Dalai Lama]

Truthsayer62 already tried to link to that site and giving references from it in the article Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, see its history. --Kt66 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To proof my claim that NKT is behind WSS, see Colgate UNI, the first image is Kelsang Khyenrab, the present successor of Kelsang Gyatso, the the rest you know yourself. I removed the link from the link section. --Kt66 (talk)

Dear kt66, it's unfair to say that the WSS is the new activity of the New Kadampa Tradition. NKT members are 'involved' in that Geshe Kelsang is organising the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's inhumane and totalitarian actions on behalf of the WSS but if you check the photos you will also see Tibetan Geshes and students present at the demonstration. The WSS speaks for all Western Shugden practitioners, both Westerners and Tibetans who are living in the West.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You will also see many Tibetans speaking to the Dalai Lama's representative: http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/colgate-university-ny-demonstration-overview Wisdombuddha (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as there are some non-NKT it is not a sole NKT activity. The question is, who is mainly behind it, and how many NKT people and how many Tibetans support this. I am quite sure it is mainly NKT, because I read some of the emails NKT passed to followers. So if you say: "Many" Tibetans. How many? How many Tibetans were at the demonstrations and how many from NKT? BTW, who wrote the text on the 21st Century Dictator, Geshe Kelsang? I saw people in lay cloths who seem to be NKT monks and nuns but seem to have to decide to wore lay cloth. I saw no Tibetan Geshe. How many Geshes and Rinpoches were there? The photo serie start with the NKT successor, this is clearly indicating who is the main force. Am I wrong here? However, there is no need to stress this subject further here, because WSS is no WP source or suited to be used, so we can neglect it for that article completely.

Geshe Kelsang himself is the main force behind this, but there were several Geshes and Rinpoches at the protest as well. There were 50 Tibetans and 150 NKT supporters. The protests in India that are coming soon will be 99% Tibetans.Wisdombuddha (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the video. It is clear that Khyenrab, the successor of GKG, and Dekyong, GKG's representative in USA, are the leading figures of the demonstration, and the speaker of WSS, Kelsang Pema, is also NKT; further the Tibetans who discuss with HHDL's representative, say, they may become a member in the future of WSS, it follows, they are not part of WSS. So my statement that WSS is a new activity of NKT seems to be quite correct. However, interesting Video, thank you for the hint. --Kt66 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still in the process of re-reading many articles - at the moment those on the website of the Dalai Lama - until I get hopefully tomorrow my books on that subject by academics (I left those books abroad). Until I re-read the academical works, I will make no further major improvement or suggestion for improving, but maybe some minor improvement, mainly coming from reviewing the articles at the DL's homepage. I would be happy if you or anyone of the new editors or whomever like, tries to find WP:reliable sources to improve the understanding and POV of Shugden Followers or opposing views/papers on Kay's/Dreyfus's research etc. Also for the last section on the view of Dorje Shugden Followers, which has almost no reference at all, it would be good to have WP:reliable sources which can be used as reference to the statements there. Until now there are almost no references at all in that section. To state what exactly is not acceptable or needs to be balanced or violates the NPOV rules would be fine too. Trijang Rinpoche's view is included now, what else is missed? Thank you and the other editors very much, --14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished my insertions from the DL's webpage, I hope I can balance sections better when I got my books on academical research. --Kt66 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of a repeated inserted section that lacks sources etc.

Some editors put again and again the following passage in the section on the overview of the dispute:

The Dalai Lama has “banned” the practice of Dorje Shugden and in so doing caused a rift in the Tibetan community as it is a widespread practice.[6] Tibetan and Western practitioners are currently organizing demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban wherever the Dalai Lama appears, accusing him of denying them religious freedom.[7] The representative of the Dalai Lama appeared in Hamilton New York to say that from a legal standpoint there is no ban. However, he was contradicted by the practical examples and stories of Dorje Shugden practitioners which clearly indicate that while legally there may be no ban, from the point of view of discrimination there is clearly a ban in effect and it arises from the Dalai Lama’s words. The representative said that he would look into all the evidences of human rights abuse within the Tibetan community in India and agreed that they were wrong.[8]

The reasons of my removals are:

1. this lacks any sources
2. to put it at that place destroys the chronic order of that section

--Kt66 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)