Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 2

removal of first paragraph

Dear Robertect your removed the first praragraph with the reasoning that it is not Shugden related and also the formation of NKT/split from FPMT at Manjushri and the conflict there is not Shugden related and Lama Yeshe practiced Shugden too. This I can not agree really although I see sense in your argumentation or thoughts on that.

My understanding (deriving from Kay's research and own experience with NKT) is:

The idelogical background of "Shugden and exclusivism" is a main part of GKG believes and NKT actions, especially in the fields of Manjushri conflict, formation of NKT, split from Gelug school and NKT center policies.

1. It is mainly the exclusiveness view of GKG (together with personal wishes, I think), which led to his criticism of Lama Yeshe who had an open approach and which led finally to the split. 2. as stated by Kay Pabongkha Rinpoche married the idea of "exclussivism and Shugden" and it is obvious that GKG started to follow that idea of "exclussivism and Shugden" ever stronger. 3. when he started to increase his exclusive approach he started to increase the importance of Shugden as well (see Kay) 4. Although Lama Yeshe practiced Shugden he had an open/inclusive approach, like HH the Dalai Lama, but this approach was not accepted by GKG and even was seen as a degeneration or corruption of the Gelug school 5. The split of GKG and his disciples from FPMT/Lama Yeshe, from the Gelug school and the demonstrations and center policies of GKG/NKT are based on that Shugden/exclusive marriage. This is shown by Kay and I think it is a fact. So it fits to that article especially because it makes the whole stuff quite understandable, what was my main point to include that paragraph, to describe and show the interdependence/interrelations of these topics. But perhaps we have to discuss or improve this paragraph further.

Best regards. --Kt66 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kt, I still think the first paragraph should be removed. Each of the points you give above refer only to the views of Geshe Kelsang, and as you say, these are not consistent with all Dorje Shugden practitioners so they don't bring us any closer to understanding what it means to be a Dorje Shugden practitioner, rather what it means to be an NKT shugden practitioner which is a very specialist and specific area of study. Because this is not an artice about the views of Geshe Kelsang or the NKT the first para should be ommited. GKG and NKT are only relevant where they directly interact with the debate on Shugden. Perhaps you would like to invite a neutral editor to reach a conclusion on this point. Best wishes (Robertect 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Dear Robertect, thank you very much for your answer. I am not that sure but perhaps we have to move it to the NKT article. To cancel it I would not prefer because it sheds light about the root of the conlfict of Shugden in the west as it was brought to the public eye and this para gives a short background on it. Perhaps we should invite a neutral editor to reach a conclusion on this point as suggested by you. You are right with GKG/NKT - it is just one and also a very special approach, but the point is:

the conflict in the west was mainly established by NKT and their media campaign/publicity/demonstrations and it was picked up by the medias in large; only by that activities of GKG/NKT/SSC it became public and became known to the public alertness.

So that points matter and GKG and NKT are relevant because they directly interact with that debate on Shugden and the para opens the background of the ideological "hidden" views. On the other hand we can improve the para by bringing in the activities/views of other Shugden apologists. So than it is more balanced. That NKT/GKG played the main role in the Shugden conflict in the west is clear, I think. Mhm. I think we will find a solution. I will be back after the 20th of August. Have a nice time, regards, --Kt66 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kt66; you asked for my opinion on the removal of this paragraph, of course I'm no authority on this subject at all, it seems to me that the information you wrote is fully correct, but strictly spoken not related to Shugden. I think it explains the relationship between GKG and the FPMT, but imho this is an ecyclopedia and not a book about Shugden... I must say that I was pleasantly surprised to see how good and balanced the whole article is; 'chapeau' to everyone who helped create it! --rudy 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rudy, thank you for your opinion. The content is correct but it seems it fits not in the article on Shugden. Perhaps I should check this a new and either change it, move it (to NKT article) or as Robertect has done it yet: delete it. Mhm. I will be absent until the 20th of August and don't know really what to do. I will ask 2nd MArch for his opinion. Thank you both and also for your comments on the article, I think all the writers will be emjoyed. Regards, --Kt66 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - Kt66, thanks for asking me to give a balanced opinion - I will do what I can! I understand that for most English-speaking people, the name "Shugden" will be introduced to them within the context of the NKT - and so I think it is fair and necessary to have a sub-section called "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition" within the Shugden article. I am also impressed with the quality of language in the Kt66 editorial.

I also understand that the article in general is making a claim that the followers of Shugden are prone to exclusivism. My current belief is that Pabongkhapa reinvented Shugden as a part of a general project to unify and strengthen Tibet, which (understandably) was beginning to feel increasingly vunerable, being surrounded by three major superpowers. I believe that the weakness of his plan was to identify the Gelukpa school with the unification project - something that HHDL has deliberately steered away from as much as possible. In fact I cannot disagree more with GKG when he stated "the Dalai Lama’s main wish is to integrate the four Tibetan traditions into one." - instead, I would see that he wishes to unify the Tibetan cause and the Tibetan national identity - and a part of that wish has been an identification of the need to encourage both diversity of views and to encourage the schools to develop a shared interest for Tibet and the Tibetan national identity.

So, I agree that ideological exclusivism and Shugden (anyway, Pabonkhapa's Shugden) are closely tied. However, I am not sure that Shugden is the cause of ideological exclusivism - but they are definitely components of the religio-political movement of Pabongkha Rinpoche.

This leaves me in a quandary. On one hand, I agree with RudyH and others that this paragraph (and parts of others) is not about Shugden specifically, but about the exclusivity found with so many Shugden followers, indeed as a defining mark of the exclusivist followers of Pabongkhapa. On the other hand, there is no other place I can think of for the whole movement that promoted shugden, gelukpa exclusivism, etc. which I feel warrants some presence in an encyclopedia of this size.

I suggest authoring a new article ( to be reciprocally linked to the stubby(!) Pabongka Rinpoche article as well as the Dorje Shugden article ) called something like Pabongka's Exclusivism or something. I am aware that this particular title (possibly mistakenly) shifts the emphasis of exclusivism away from Shugden and onto Pabonkhapa, whereas I guess my intent is to look at that group of students who follow the exclusivism that is marked both by Pabonkhapa and Shugden - Maybe Shugden Exclusivism would be better? I have little else to offer right now! I hope it is helpful (20040302 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

political dimension

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

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

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

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

Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

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

Very well

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

He is the head of the Gelugpas and he is the successor of Tsongkhapa, so his opinion/reasoning matters - especially how to solve conflicts according to the Vinaya. Also his view is not listed in the middle, it is posted after the Shugden followers view before AI state

Documentary link?

Could this documentary be of use? http://www.dalailama.com/page.157.htm --Aryah 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robertect's last changes (July/August 2006)

Dear Editors, Dear Robertect, I didn't follow the changes of the article and didn't read it. I have not the interest to work more on that article so that's why I refrain from further editor work. If someone is familiar with the matter he/she can check the changes. The article I can agree with I published at: http://info-buddhismus.de/new_kadampa_tradition.html#Shugden . Take care, Shugden is the neverending story ;-) I make an end. --Kt66 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't make an end ;-) I felt the urge to correct some passages and expand the political dimension section. --Kt66 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NKT/SSC/Shugden conflict in the west - NKT's media campaign and the medias reaction

This section should be improved and balanced. It's just a start. --Kt66 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]