Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 5

Go to the Bottom for New Discussions

Since nothing new had been added for ten days, I took the opportunity to archive the discussion to date again as once more it had grown very large. (see: Talk:Dorje Shugden/archive4)

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! Chris Fynn (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

— Please put discussion related to the neutrality of this article here —

To try to make this a little more neutral, I've added "some" and removed "all" in the first sentence of the second para in the opening summary - Sakya practitioners who see DS as a mundane protector obviously do not consider DS to be an incarnation or Emanation of Manjusri. Similarly I've removed from this para the perhaps contentious claim that the DL "practiced it himself until he was in his forties" and the "although they have provided no evidence of this when requested" - as this stuff doesn't really belong in the opening section which should present an overall summary. It might be appropriate in the Controversy section. I've also changed the "particularly the present Dalai Lama" to "including the present Dalai Lama" since there is no conclusive evidence that he does so any more particularly than others who oppose the practice.

"Heart Jewel" is a primary source written and published by DS practitioners involved in the Controversy ~ therefore not an independent or neutral source. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heart Jewel is based closely on the teachings of one of the greatest Dorje Shugden practitioners of the last century, Trijang Rinpoche, the Guru of the Dalai Lama and hundreds of other Gelugpa Lamas, and a Ganden Throne Holder. It is written by Geshe Kelsang, a close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche and one of the foremost proponents of Dorje Shugden practice. He is a highly respected Buddhist master, who has written 22 acclaimed Buddhist books. The practice of relying upon Dorje Shugden as a Wisdom Protector -- who safeguards our realizations of compassion, wisdom and spiritual power -- was handed down to Geshe Kelsang by the lineage Gurus of the Gelug tradition. It certainly merits being included in this article as a source! If it does not, then all references to the Dalai Lama's works must also likewise be considered neither independent nor neutral sources. Heart Jewel is just Dharma, unmixed with politics. The Dalai Lama's website www.dalailama.com, along with most of his pronouncements on the subject, are arguably far less neutral and reliable sources for this article on the nature of Dorje Shugden, as they are not Dharma but politics. They belong in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Also, Chris, the sad thing is that since the Dalai Lama made this into a political issue and not just a religious practice, everyone is now involved in the controversy to one extent or another -- practitioners and non-practitioners alike. Some are defending their right to practice and some are opposing the practice. This is chronicled in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk)18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I've reinstated the point that the DL practised Dorje Shugden until he was into his forties as he has said so himself. The DL wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden that is widely available on the internet. Also I've reinstated 'particularly' because it is due to the actions of the present Dalai Lama that Dorje Shugden has become such a controversial figure. Other Tibetan Lamas only support the view of the DL, so he has to bear primary responsibility for the present division in the Buddhist Sangha.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if this section is to be added to the opening paragraphs (though I feel it is redundant as it is all covered in the controversy), it needs to be clear that the source of all the controversy is the Dalai Lama's own actions. Until he spoke out against and then banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, there was no controversy. Everyone practiced their own traditions. No one was forcing anyone else to stop practicing their tradition. No one had the power to do this until the 14th Dalai Lama assumed this power. All this is now well documented. (Truthbody (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The Yellow Book is also based closely on the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche, yet it's mention here is stronly rejected as GKG denies its validity. Although unrelated to the discussion, I'd also like to know if there is any reasoning for why Lama Tsong Khapa never mentioned this protector is he were to be so important in protecting his lineage.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This argument has never held much weight for me; we have to look at the timeline. Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) lived two-hundred-plus years before Dragpa Gyaltsen’s (1619-1656) manifestation as Dorje Shugden (1656-present). It would be nonsense for me to counter with “Well, Je Tsongkhapa never mentioned the institution of the Dalai Lama during his lifetime either” because this came later, too. Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point Empty Mountains. Taken in the grand scheme of things, there are countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Protectors who have appeared in different forms to help sentient beings since beginningless time, and it is unreasonable to suppose that they were all talked about long before they appeared. Some were predicted by other Buddhas, but by no means all, of course. (Truthbody (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

It's interesting that you mention the Dalai Lama lineage. FYI, Gedun Drub was a direct disciple of Lama Tsong Khapa and furthermore, the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by the Buddha in the White Lotus sutra.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But the "first" Dalai Lama was not recognized as such during his own lifetime (or Je Tsongkhapa's). A posthumous fulfillment of prophecy? After all, the "first" Dalai Lama was not until the third, Sonam Gyatso. In regards to Dorje Shugden, the Sakya master Kunkhyen Ngawang Kunga Lodroe praises him saying, "In the middle, in front of many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, having generated the aspiring and entering Bodhicitta, you obtained the prophecy as a protector of the teaching of the Dharma, thus you protect all the teachings of the Bodhisattvas without exception, to you I prostrate."[6] Emptymountains (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by Buddha as the so-called Ocean Lamas were first and foremost a political appointment by the Altan Khan and also, as Empty Mountains points out, the lineage was established posthumously. Also, the lineage in its entirety has not all been that fabulous has it? e.g. the 5th and the 13th were warlords. Did a lot of Dalai Lamas die young? On Wikipedia it says that Thubten Jigme Norbu, the elder brother of the present 14th Dalai Lama, describes these unfortunate events as follows: "It is perhaps more than a coincidence that between the seventh and the thirteenth holders of that office, only one reached his majority. The eighth, Gyampal Gyatso, died when he was in his thirties, Lungtog Gyatso when he was eleven, Tsultrim Gyatso at eighteen, Khadrup Gyatso when he was eighteen also, and Krinla Gyatso at about the same age. The circumstances are such that it is very likely some, if not all, were poisoned, either by loyal Tibetans for being Chinese-appointed impostors, or by the Chinese for not being properly manageable." I wonder if some of the choices of reincarnated Dalai Lamas were politically motivated and organized and thus somewhat suspect? I don't know enough about the history but imagine the institution of the Dalai Lama was open to some abuse due to warring partisan factions. I'd be interested to see the quote from the White Lotus Sutra if you have it. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Emptymountains:Just because the title of Dalai Lama was not conferred on the first and second lamas, does not invalidate the reincarnation lineage. Also, it was the second birth of this line that initiated the predictions at Lhamo Lhatso, establishing a definite line of tulkus. Now in that prayer by the Sakya master, does it mention from whom Shugden obtained the prophecy and what that prophecy is to be exact?

Truthbody:I'm sure that the incarnation lineage has been manipulated since the time of the Great Fifth. But that would also indicate that the great masters were wrong. Even GKG dedicated one of his books to the long life of the Dalai Lama. So whether or not you accept the validity of the current birth, you cannot deny that the greatest masters of our time have shown the greatest respect for him. As for the White Lotus sutra quote, I found it here - www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=371

Jmlee369 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They have shown respect because it is expected as much as because they feel it. Many people have reported being bitterly disappointed and let down by the Dalai Lama, after years of tireless service and devotion to him. The Dalai Lama is to be respected -- that is his position. Geshe Kelsang was happy to go along with it until the Dalai Lama attempted to destroy the lineage of his spiritual masters by calling them spirit worshippers and banning their religious practice. Then he broke ranks, and you can see how much venom poured upon him for daring to do so. I'll check out the quote, thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

There seems to be nothing in that quote from the White Lotus Sutra to indicate that it is referring to the Dalai Lama!!! And Lama Zopa has broken with the legacy of his own teacher Lama Yeshe to follow the policy of the Dalai Lama, so why is he to be trusted on this -- why should Lama Zopa's saying it is so make it so? (Truthbody (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Also from the link:"His Holiness Serkong Dorje Chang, who passed away in Tibet, had a dream in which a spontaneously arisen statue of Avalokiteshvara with five faces predicted that he would see the Compassion Buddha the following day. The next day he saw His Holiness.

One day the great scholar-yogi Tehor Kyoerpen Rinpoche, renowned in Sera, Gaden and Drepung Monasteries, told all his disciples that they were going to meet Dromtonpa, an incarnation of Compassion Buddha. They then went to see His Holiness."

Also, with Lama Zopa, he was close to Lama Yeshe up to his passing and even then, he jointly conducted the many practices with Zong Rinpoche afterwards, hardly a relationship that has been broken. I also think you should be careful not to put words into the mouth of lamas. As for this whole ban thing, I think you should remember that this all started with HH asking people not to take initiations or teachings from him if they practiced Shugden. A vajramaster has the right to do this, just as Chatral Rinpoche says that anyone who wishes to be his disciple must be vegetarian. As for the lineage of spiritual masters, I hardly think HH broke any lineage with Ling Rinpoche by not practicing Shugden, nor with Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche. I know this isn't very convincing to you, but I don't have the time right now to elaborate.

Lama Zopa is also an amazing bodhisattva who has lead countless beings on the path to Buddhahood who never rests to aid others - something that very few of us can say. So even though I am not his disciple, I still have great faith in his actions.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dalai Lama did break with his teachers (including Trijang Dorjechang and Ling Rinpoche) in so far as he called them "wrong, all wrong" and spirit worshippers. Conventionally speaking, those are not recognizable actions of Guru devotion! -- perhaps in his heart he keeps a purer view, I don't know. I don't know whether the lineage of the Dalai Lamas is authentic or not, i just know it is open to abuse, and that the current Dalai Lama's actions with respect to thousands of Shugden practitioners are more in keeping with a ruthless theocrat than with a loving manifestation of Avalokiteshvara (even if he has done some good things here and there, we are all mixed.) As for Lama Zopa, how tolerant is it to disallow any Shugden practitioner from attending your teachings? (Let alone from getting ordained or teaching at your Centers?) Non-Buddhists are allowed, but Buddhist Shugden practitioners? Stay away! This apartheid does not seem in keeping with the behavior of a Bodhisattva, despite his other good qualities. Perhaps he justifies his behavior by his allegiance to the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama's political will. However, I do not believe that Lama Yeshe would have approved of any of this. He never gave up his Dorje Shugden practice or reliance on Trijang Rinpoche. And where is Lama Osel now? How can he stay associated with those who are destroying his Guru's lineage? I guess we'll see what happens there. (Truthbody (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Was it not Ling Rinpoche who advised HH not to take the Shugden life entrustment? Also, considering that Chatral Rinpoche does not allow anyone who is not vegetarian to be his disciple, isn't that even more intolerant? Furthermore, it is his right as a guru to choose his disciples. As for oridnation, what non-Buddhist would take ordination? Even when taking teachings, they are not there for a serious commitmnet. Established practitioners who are doing protector practices definitely go beyond the mere realms of curiousity. Lama Osel also said that his world and the FPMT's world will merge in the future.

Jmlee369 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is fruitless, when and where did Ling Rinpoche speak against Shugden? I have a torma offering written by him that includes Mahakala, Vaishranava, Mahadevi and Dorje Shugden. It's funny Serkong Dorje Chang is mentioned, he is one of the lineage holders of the Dalai Lama's Kalachakra who wrote an extensive kangso to Dorje Shugden and praised him as the protector of the Gelug.Tkalsang (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do realise the whole thing with Serkong Dorje Chang as being slightly ironic, but does that mean he was wrong about both, neither, one or the other? As for Ling Rinpoche's advice, I cannot remember my sources, but it has been mentioned before. But neutrality is something that will be difficult to achieve and I still feel that this page presents a one-sided enlightened view of Shugden only and when the worldly side is mentioned, it seems less convincing.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Ling Rinpoche did advise the DL not to take the life entrustment empowerment, why is this always read as Ling Rinpoche was anti-Shugden? He probably realized that the DL would turn against Dorje Shugden and his own Gurus and that by taking the life entrustment he would be digging an even bigger karmic hole for himself. How kind the Buddhas are! --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In this video the Dalai Lama tries to make the case that Shugden practitioners tried to "restrict his religious freedom" by using the example of Ling Rinpoche advising him against receiving a particular terma transmission. Ling Rinpoche was a practitioner of Dorje Shugden, although not as strongly as Trijang Rinpoche. It's ridiculous to assert that Ling Rinpoche was anti-Shugden. Peaceful5 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Dr. Michael von Brück's paper

I noticed this links to a paper translated from German written by Dr. Michael von Brück. However, I also compared to the original German paper on: http://info-buddhismus.de/shugden.html. There are several important components not translated from the original German to English, which address historical evidence of Shugden. These include the reference to Morchen Kunga Lhundrup's writings as well as Lobsang Tayang who collected many of the early texts. In particular:

"Eines der frühen Dokumente des Kultes um Shugden ist ein Text namens Lam de cha pa des Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundup, der zu Beginn des 18. Jh. in der Dol-Gegend lebte.[27] Er erwähnt darin, daß er Rituale für Shugden vollzogen und diesen als dharmapala akzeptiert habe, Rituale wie z.B. die Konsekration einer Mantrarolle für Shugden, die in eine Statue Shugdens eingelassen worden sei. Des weiteren erwähnt er ein Orakelmedium (sku rten) Shugdens zu dieser Zeit und scheint zumindest teilweise selbst von Shugden besessen worden zu sein. Unter den Lehren, die er empfangen habe, listet er auch Lehren über Shugden auf, was bedeutet, daß es bereits vor ihm eine Kulttradition dieser Gottheit gegeben haben muß."

"Losang Tayang

Am Anfang der Tradition in diesem Jahrhundert steht der mongolische Meister Losang Tayang (blo bzang na dbyangs), dessen Wirken während der letzten Dekade des 19. Jahrhunderts begonnen hat und um 1920, vor der russischen Eroberung der Mongolei, kulminierte. Er schrieb eine lange "Liste von Texten über Gyalchen Dorje Shugden, den einzigartigen dharmapala des zweiten Buddha Jamgön"[29]. Dies bedeutet, daß Shugden hier als der Beschützer Tsongkhapas gilt, denn Jamgön (Jam mgon) ist Tsongkhapa, identifiziert als Manjushri, der sich in Tsongkhapa manifestiert. Der Text verdient unsere besondere Aufmerksamkeit, denn er stellt die erste Evidenz eines ausgedehnten Shugden-Kults dar. Er listet mehr als sechzig Texte auf, von denen die meisten verloren gegangen oder zumindest noch nicht gefunden worden sind. Einige der Texte sind Biographien von Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen einschließlich einiger Gebete an unterschiedliche Inkarnationen desselben; ferner werden erwähnt: 37 Verse des Kaschmir Pandita Shribhadra mit einem Kommentar von Thurpu Lotsawa, eine Biographie von Panchen Sonam Drakpa von dem Eremiten Lhawang Gyatso, Gebete für die Inkarnation des Panchen Sonam Drakpa von Khenchen Ngawang Khedrup aus der Mongolei, ein Lobpreis an Panchen Sonam Drakpa von Tulku Losang Thrinlay aus Amdo, ein Gebet anläßlich der Bitte um eine Reihe von Reinkarnationen des Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen von Panchen Losang Choekyi Gyaltsen, ein Gebet um langes Leben für den Ngari Rinpoche (in Gestalt einer Liste seiner Inkarnationen) von Kelsang Tulku usw. Zwei Schlußfolgerungen können wir aus der Gestalt dieser Liste ziehen:

Erstens ist die Shugden-Tradition eng verbunden mit der Geschichte von Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen und seinen weiteren Inkarnationen, zweitens hat Shugden eine nicht näher erläuterte Beziehung zu den Ngari Rinpoches (der gegenwärtige Ngari Rmpoche ist der jüngere Bruder des Dalai Lama). "

I realize this is not a Wikipedia issue, but the WP article is linking to a translation that is clearly filtering out parts not desired and cannot be treated as a true representation of the original.Tkalsang (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The following link has been removed until a complete English translation is provided: *Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück

By omitting translated paragraphs from this paper this misrepresents the author's views and also slants the POV to suit the POV of the person hosting and presenting this translation. If there is an issue with this I suggest contacting Dr. Michael von Brück to get his opinion on this matter of omitting portions of his work.Tkalsang (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, the paper by von Brück is exactly the same paper as it has been published in:

Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent Edited by Vasudha Dalmia, Angelika Malinar, and Martin Christof. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0195666205, pages 328-349 Review

It is correct that some essentials of the German paper are summed in that edition published by Oxford University Press and that this edition of the paper is not that detailed as the German is. But this is no reason to remove the link from the article. That the paper is not that detailed as the German one (or sums some detailed points) is due to demands by the book publisher. I added also a piece by Williams so the the section reads now as it follows... --Kt66 (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC):

• Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Michael von Brück (German professor)
• Letting Daylight into Magic by Stephen Batchelor
• A quick note on Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan) by Paul Williams (British professor)

I agree with Tkalsang, the article does not represent the author's original content and, being POV and unrepresentative, shouldn't be included --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this section is this is essentially an attempt to tilt the balance of the external links. As it currently stands, there are four links supporting DS, four links against. This is balanced and this is fair. Adding additional sections for links just invites endless back and forth on the links.

Can I propose that we establish a rule (we can also extend this to the DS controversy article) that each side can choose their own links, but they each only get 3 or 4 links total. We limit it that way. What do other editors think of this proposal.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything, citing those scholarly sources should be worked into the article itself such that there is no need to list them in the external links section. This is what is recommended in WP:EL. Emptymountains (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So now we have three reference sources, one of scholars, one pro and one against - except that two of the articles in the 'scholars' section are ostensibly negative, so how is this balancing the links as Dspak08 suggested? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the entire section of scholarly essays should be removed and whoever wants to can just cite them in the article, where they belong. If they're that good, why aren't they being cited? Emptymountains (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Less is More

As with the Dorje Shugden controversy article, I took the liberty to do a makeover of this article (including the external links section). Hopefully, the editors will feel more satisfied with this new and improved version of the article than before. The last version before my edits was 10:54, 26 November 2008. Emptymountains (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

edits on Sakya and 5th Dalai Lama

I added sources and balanced the claims in those sections. As far as I know Mumford didn't research Shugden solely among Nyingmas. Please add the correct citation or explain here exactly what he states. I removed that claim, because it sounded as that Nyingmas naturally practice Shudgen and there was a great tradition among them to do this, which is probably not the case as far as I know. I removed the wrong and misleading claim which was attributed to Glenn Mullin, that since 300 years Shugden would be a central element in the Gelug school, he states correctly as other sources that "eventually" it became one of the most popular practices. Eventually is not precise and in general the meaning is: from Pabongkha Rinpoche onwards as other sources state it. Amazing to see how sources are read or interpreted so wrongly. I add 3rd party WP:RS for that. Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is in the book that is referenced, there is no online copy I'm afraid, but there is no good reason for you to disbelieve that it is WP:RS. Please discuss with tkalsang and other editors before simply removing it, especially as tkalsang he has done a lot of scholarly research on the subject and translated many Tibetan texts. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Kt66, I don't understand why you deleted this part of the article:

According to anthropologist Mumford, who studied the practice of Dorje Shugden in Nepal, the 5th Dalai Lama unsuccessfully tried to subjugate through various rituals the reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. (Mumford, Stan. Himalayan dialogue: Tibetan lamas and Gurung shamans in Nepal, page 126. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989)

Your edit summary explaining your reason ("the 5th dalai lama made rituals to stop shugden who was seen as the incarnation of dragpa gyaltsen.") seems to say the exact same thing as what you deleted. Emptymountains (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mumford page 125, it's quite a long thing to quote: "The Tibetan guardian deity called Shugs-ldan provides a special case study of the Tibetan Srungma and its transmutation. He is extremely popular and held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive. Dawa Tsering a merchant of Tshad-med village, has done very well with Shugs-ldan as his guardian deity: Long ago in Tibet, rGyal-po Shugs-ldan was a powerful, learned lama who was more than the Dalai Lama himself. Other lama envied him and tried to kill him[...]. The above is a Tibetan villager's version of the Shugs-ldan legend."Tkalsang (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually as things are being edited quite rapidly by various people it may lead to certain references being spun, it's not necessarily purposes. I would recommend adding short quotations where possible to avoid deviating too much from the original. However, I see no reason to showcase long block quotations.Tkalsang (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and clarification with respect to Mumford. The final result of the criticisms and changes can be found below (History) and in the article. I think it could be a result acceptable to all. --Kt66 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template: additional citations for verification

I added also the template to add more sources to verify the claims. It is not possible to make a "fansite" by using references to blogs of Shugden followers. Really this is rather poor style. --Kt66 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so can we take all references to your info buddhism website and anti-WSS and anti-NKT blog out too? Other than the DL's website, these are the most anti-Shugden sources on the Internet, as far as I can see. (Truthbody (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Unlike the blogs and wesites of Shugden followers this website has articles by named authors and the quoted material is published by academic publishers. --Kt66 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, this is not a fansite, nor is it a trash site as your edits are intended to make it. Are references to the DL's website and your own anti-Shugden website more reliable and neutral than Mumford and Mullin.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin was quoted incorrectly and out of context. In general both are completely acceptable but not to spin what they say. The spin by misinterpreting Mullin was 'since 400 or 300 years Shugden would be the "central element" in Gelug school' but this is neither what he says nor what is in accordance with the facts and academic research. With respect to Mumford I have not the text, I assumed also he is quoted wrongly or in a spin-way. Therefore I asked to give a clear reference and quote/citation at the talk page, what exactly he is stating. I am happy if you can clarify this. --Kt66 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I made quite radical changes, I think everyone can see that they make some sense. Many times sources were quoted wrongly or it was put a spin on the facts, other passages were mainly like a fan site of devotees using strongly their blogs and websites. I will look if I find time to look again on the article this was just a "emergency edit". Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider using the "in use" tag during your next "emergency edit," so that we don't have so many edit conflicts. Tomorrow morning, I'll go through and standardize the formatting of all the references on this page as I did on the controversy page. (Eventually, I'll do the same for the NKT and GKG pages.) I implore everyone to always provide complete references (including title and retrieval dates of webpages, and page numbers from books and PDFs); that way, it will be easier to check whether something has been quoted correctly. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and acceptance. I just glanced through the previous article and felt 'no it can not stay like this'. I would prefer to discuss details before on the talkpage, but in some cases brave for edits is encouraged. I think the points with the Sakya pov and the claims about the 5th Dalai Lama are more clear and balanced now. I'll look from 12.12. onwards, again and will take more time. Best wishes. I think the templates can soon be removed, with the second glance now it appeared quite acceptable but still somewhat unbalanced. This gives me hope with respect to the other related articles and user:despak's proposal on NKT. Again, thanks for the time being. I just ordered from India 'Oracles and Demons of Tibet' by Rene De Nebesky-Wjkowitzand 'Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies' by Prof. Samuel for further reference and to proof certain quotes. --Kt66 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I will balance the section about Shugden's enlightened lineage, this is a claim established by Trijang Rinpoche and according to research (Drefyfus, Brück) lacks historical evidence. This is approved by the statements of HH Sakya Trizin, that Shugden was put in the lowest category in the pantheon of deities in Sakya school. With respect to the use of sources, the trials of some to rely heavily on anonymous websites with unverified claims by anonymous authors while strongly rejecting accepted academic works and scholars, e.g. Dreyfus who is recommended and used in almost every academic literature and also two recent thesis (2007) on this subject won't have any support by me. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. Such opinions from anonymous authors can be placed on blogs but not here. That I use quotes or statements from the video of HHDL's website although this is WP:SPS is mainly due to that this is an interview with the head of the school (minute 2-4) and his opinions is just relevant. The same what he says can be verified with Dreyfus or other resewarch, but these have been rejected so strongly here, that I fear again baseless discussion about if it would be appropriate to quote Dreyfus. So to avoid that I take the direct speech. Claims in the article Shugden would be the "Protector of Buddhism" are just ridiculous. Here is the transcript:

Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya tradition, states that some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. 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." According to Jeff Watt, a scholar of the Sakya tradition, "within the Sakya School there is no initiation or 'life-entrusting' (Tibetan: srog gtad) ritual for Shugden as found in the Gelug School."

In an interview Sakya Trizin explains:

“In the beginning the Sakya throneholder Sakya Sönam Rinchen bound Shugden to protect Dharma. However, neither Shudgen nor other worldly spirits were depended upon during prayer meeting at Sakya. The statue of Shugden was in some shrine rooms but in the lowest category in the pantheon. No Sakya follower has ever taken life pledging empowerment through the medium of Shugden.”

Later Shugden worship decreased strongly among Sakyas due to the efforts of three leading Sakya lineage lamas, including the root Guru of Sakya Trizin, who was “extremely unhappy with Shugden practice and advised on the demerits of Shugden practice.” One of his disciples, Ngawang Yönten Gyatso, took strong actions to remove Shugden statues from the Sakya monasteries and to destroy them. Khyentse Dorje Chang Chökyi Lodrö was “also very unhappy with Shugden practice, although he didn’t destroy statues, he performed rituals to banish Shugden.”

Sakya Trizin concludes: "Since these three leading Sakya Lamas were against Shugden, this practice declined greatly among Sakya followers."

Interview with HHDL:

:“In his autobiography the 5th Dalai Lama writes that he performed a fire ritual against Shugden during which he composed a prayer to protect the deities. In the prayer the 5th Dalai Lama says that he is performing this ritual to went Dorje Shugden who is harming the Buddhadharma and sentient beings. He clearly says that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s negative prayer resulted in his rebirth as Shugden.” The 5th Dalai Lama talks about this in both his open and his secret teachings. He concludes: “So there is no truth made in the claims by some people that the 5th Dalai Lama practiced Shugden.”

--Kt66 (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are more clear statements by eminent masters of Tibetan Buddhism on Shugden, including the heads of school:

The late 101. Ganden Tripa, head of the Gelugpa school’s states: “[???] Gelug Lamas of the past would have taken notice of Shugden if he was really the embodiment of the three refuge. But there is no historical record to show that they took any interest in Shugden. Therefore I can not accept Shugden as the embodiment of the Three Refuge."

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

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

--Kt66 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

factual inaccuracy: The history claim that it would be the central element of Gelug school since 300 years

as already stated this claim is incorrect and contradicts the academic sources. Although Mullin states that it was finally the central element of Gelug school (which is correct) the passage suggest wrongly it would be the central element in Gelug school since 300 years which is plain wrong, and also Mullin does not claim this. The practice was marginal in the beginning and controversial from the start and only due to Pabongkha's influence in the 19th century it became widespread in Gelug school. The passage claims it would be so since 300 years which clearly spins the facts.

sources:

• Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama of the 20th century, who received this practice from his root guru, is attributed with spreading reliance on Dorje Shugden widely within the Gelug tradition "during the 1930s and 1940s, and in this way a formerly marginal practice became a central element of the Gelug tradition." David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, published by RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 48

• "The 5th Dalai Lama: In order to determine the quality and nature of Shugden his history needs to be taken into account. However, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of this century, though many oral traditions—sometimes mutually contradictory—have to be taken into account." von Brück
• "Pabongkha suggests that he is the protector of the Gelug tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tsongkhapa himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shugden's partisans use to justify their claim. According to this story, the Dharma-king has left this world to retire in the pure land of Tushita having entrusted the protection of the Gelug tradition to Shugden. Thus, Shugden has become the main Gelug protector." Dreyfus
• "Where Pabongkha was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Gelug tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Tsongkhapa's teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pabongkha's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dorje Shugden as the central protector of the Gelug tradition. Whereas previously Shugden seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Gelug tradition, Pabongkha made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. In this way, he founded a new and distinct way of conceiving the teachings of the Gelug tradition that is central to the "Shugden Affair." Dreyfus
• "In promoting Shuk-den as the protector of his charismatic movement, Pa-bong-ka did not invent the practice of this deity, which he seems to have received from his teachers, [34] but he transformed a marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition. This transformation is illustrated by the epithets used to refer to Shuk-den. Instead of being just "The Spirit from Dol" (dol rgyal), or even the "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal), he is described now by Pa-bong-ka and his disciples as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord Manjushri (i.e., Dzong-ka-ba)" ('jam mgon rgyal ba'i bstan srung)[35] and "the supreme protective deity of the Ge-den (i.e., Ge-luk) tradition" (dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog).[36]" Dreyfus

--Kt66 (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see, Kay references Dreyfus, and Dreyfus's paper is just an essay with no reference to back this up, hardly academic. Regarding the other point from von Bruck, if there is little evidence then there is little evidence to deny Shugden was not a main protector as well. You are the one adding interpretation and new research.Tkalsang (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin is clearly not precise in his short statement over two sides while those three offered an extensive research which shows the different perspectives of the respective claimers, with Mullin it is not even clear which sources he uses and from which perspective he is portraying the short view on the history. This is very different from the precise researches. The WP article section claims to tell something about the history yet tells rather nothing about it. I am not against Mullin at all, my aim is that the article should be precise and the sentence from Mullin is neither precise nor is it acttual what he is saying, he said: "eventually" it became the main practice. This is congruent with Kay, Drefus and also HHDL who said that finally (in Exile) almost every Gelug monk practised it, including him, and only rare voices in Gelug school spoke against the practice. The passage makes all this - the development, Pabongkha's influence and the changes not clear, and Mullin is just not precise to tell why, and when by whom it became so widespread. The summery of what he is saying is also simplified and somewhat misleading. As my reasons matter please don't delete - who ever did it - the template again. My suggestion to solve this issue (I will latest at the weekend pick up this task) is, to use all four sources. Starting with Brück, quoting Dreyfus and Kay and including Mullin, according to Mullin ... The present section is rather a fraud because it claims to tell the history but states not much about it. I wonder how you can prefer a short condensed piece by Mullin without any source and rather superficial, rather a bit fuzzy, while rejecting proper sourced academic material which is very precise. Much more the latter academic sources are accepted and often quoted sources in other academic works - especially Dreyfus. Also Geoffrey Samuel used Dreyfus - recently for a court case. Show me a reference in any academic paper to Mullin. I like Mullin, but not to spin the facts or the sources. --Kt66 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now clearly solved: the article cites WP:RS.

Atisha's cook (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin is wise not to attribute the spread of Shugden to Pabongkha which is merely hearsay as none of the scholars mentioned have sources for this to show for. The problems with the Shugden Affair are manifold. Here are just a few:

• "One of the sources in this essay is the present Dalai Lama": WP::COI
• Dreyfuss claims Shugden practice was not present at Ngor monastery, David Jackson in Lungta 2001 says one of the most important shrines was there and a 20th century abbot mentioned in his essay widely Shugden practice in Kham.
• Dreyfuss has the wrong year (1636) for a chronology to prove Dholgyal came before Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's death, however the year is actually after his death. This totally debunks one of his key arguments that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Shugden are not the same entity.
• Contradictory statements: claims that "Pabongkha... developed this practice" yet says later "He did not introduce these practices himself."
• Dreyfus attributes certain long quotes to Pabongkha, as they are in his collected works, however Pabongkha is explicitly citing a Mongolian author called Ngag-gi Dbang-po. This is plain to see looking at the original Tibetan text and can be verified as it has been published independently. Yet Dreyfus fails to mention this and attributes it to Pabongkha himself, talk about spin!
• Dreyfus claims Pabongkha made up the epithets that promoted Shugden such as 'Jam mgon rgyal ba'i gnyis pa'i bstan srung, yet this has been mentioned by 18th/19th century masters. For example, this can be found in Oracles and Demons which showcases the ritual written by Ye shes bzangs po who founded Nyungne temple in Lhasa in the 18th century. You can find the colophon and the ritual written in Wylie in the appendix of Oracles and Demons. Also, on TBRC you can find this epithet mentioned by 19th century Kirti Rinpoche.
• Last but not least he claims the Thirteenth DL banned Shugs-ldan except from certain locations. I can't find the information in the Pabongkha biography published according to the footnote. This claim may not be verifiable but I will keep looking.
• There are also other accounts that contradict the claim the 13th DL banned Shugden: In Minyag, Kham there was a public Cham held on July 29, 1924 for Palden Lhamo and Dorje Shugden, as documented by Paul Sherap in A Tibetan on Tibet, pages 197-199, London, T.F. Unwin, ltd., 1926. Also, the National Geographic article which claims to have been witnessed the oracle in 1927-28.

These problems reach far beyond WP which is why I mention with hesitation here.Tkalsang (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang. (I misread initially what you said as user:AtishaCook's reply, so I correct now my remarks and address it correctly to you.) If there are inconsistencies and you have other material which show a fault, this should be made clear and information can balanced or corrected, there is no problem in this. However, original research can not be included but will help to evaluate the sources. If there are contradictions they can be pointed out, and it can be looked what source is more precise. The letter with the apology by Pabongkha to the 13th Dalai Lama can be found in Dharma Losang Dorje's Biography of Phabongkhapa, Vol 14 (Lhasa Edition), page 471 ff. Pabongkha wrote this letter of excuse to the 13th Dalai Lama, in which he excused for having violated the refuge and to have provoked the wrath of Nechung and in which he promises to stop Shugden worship. Full title in Tibetan: Rigs dang dkyil 'khor rga mtsho 'l khyab bdag heruka dpal ngur smrig gar rolskyabs gchig pha bongkha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po'l rnam thar pa don ldan tshangs p'al dbyangs snyan.

For me it is clear that some Shugden followers may dislike Dreyfus' paper, and I have no problems to find compromises, but I have a problem when some editors repress history and offer a misinterpretation or narrow minded version of history. Besides scholars / academics like Kay, Brück, and Dreyfus who researched that subject thoroughly, offering a precise line of who is claiming what in well referenced papers, we can also use Lopez, Mills or Samuel. I see the attempt to reduce the history of Shugden into one even misinterpreted quote by Mullin (wasn't this sentence I moaned added by you?) as an attempt to offer a fuzzy or simplified version of history as it is so common findable by some of the followers. Maybe I am wrong here but the article as it was some weeks ago strongly suggest such an attempt.

That Shugden was established as a worldly protector is also clear by reading Mullin or since what Buddhas have to been "exorcised", "transformed" and "pacified"? The claim that he would be enlightened came probably by Trijang Rinpoche or at the end of the life of Pabongkha Rinpoche. Pabongkha Rinpoche excused himself to the 13th Dalai Lama for having violated the principles of the Refuge in a letter which can be found in his biography. There would be no reason for this if Shugden was commonly accepted to be enlightened. Also that the Sakya's saw him in the lowest class of protectors does not suggest that he is enlightened.

I lack time to improve the section Tkalsang. If your are interested in a proper history account the first step could be (if you prefer Mullin as reference) to explain correctly what he said and not a narrow minded or fuzzy summery. To sum it, he states that the mind of the diseased / murdered Dragpa Gyaltsen turned into a spirit who made trouble in Lhasa "the soul of the murdered monk wandered in the hereafter for some time as a disturbed spirit, creating havoc for the people of Lhasa", then the 5th Dalai Lama to "exorcise and pacify it" asked first Nyingma shamans to subdue him, but when they failed he asked Gelugpa shamans who were finally successful. The spirit of the diseased lama was tamed and bound ("pacified and transformed") as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden (- which clearly indicates him as a worldly spirit). This version is also what Dreyfus and Kay state but they are able to put it into perspective that this is a version of those propagating Shugden what Mullin does not. Mullin also mentions that the practice was later (when?) adopted by "numerous Gelug" lamas who disapproved the 5th Dalai Lama's manner of combining Nyingma and Gelug practice and that the 5th Dalai Lama tried to discourage the practice, but "it caught on in many monasteries". He states then "The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa school." He adds, "In particular, during the late 1800s, when four Dalai Lama died young, it became an all pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries, and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families." I can not support a simplified version of history as expressed in the present sentence:

• "Over the course of the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden became a central Dharma Protector practice for almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[38]"

Although this sentence is much better than the previous one, which I initially criticised:

• "Over the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden practice has been a central Protector practice of almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile."[32]

The present sentence:

• "Over the course of the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden became a central Dharma Protector practice for almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[38]"

It still is not able to express the history accurate and in a differentiated manner, and invites rather for historical misrepresentation, then for clarification. Also to perform this puja monthly and that it was popular does not indicate that it was central - as this sentence claims - much more as the central protectors for Gelugpas are Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa, before Pabongkha's mission to spread Shugden and to replace the three origin protectors established by Je Tsongkhapa by Dorje Shugden. (This is not only pointed out correctly by Dreyfus but also Geshe Kelsang states that Pabongkha made clear that the protectors bound by Je Tsongkhapa "have gone to their pure lands", that people "have no Karma with them anymore" so they would not be able to protect beings therefore "now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden".) I hope you and other editors are able to see the differences. History has to been differentiated. The newly added claim:

• "The practice of relying upon Dharma Protectors began in ancient India as part of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, and spread to Tibet:"

can not be found in any research on Shugden, who claims this? What source proves this? A sentence like

• "There were also Sakya and Nyingma[39] practitioners of Dorje Shugden."

is ok but does not help much for a correct history account. The headline claims to explain something about the history. --Kt66 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In a first aid I changed to this much more accurate section. I hope this version overcomes the weak points of the previous one and as it accepts Mullin strongly is also accepted by the other editors. --Kt66 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

History

The emergence of the practice is strongly related to Tulku Drapga Gyaltsen, a contemporary of the Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama about whom exist different stories. According to researcher von Brück, in general, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of the 19th century and although there exist different orally-transmitted versions of his origins, they contradict each other in the key points.

Von Brück traces the root of the link between the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the worship of Dorje Shugden back to "the power struggles of the 5th Dalai Lama and the successful centralization of power in his hands after the death of the Mongol Gushri Khan."

According to Mullin the soul of the murdered monk Dragpa Gyaltsen wandered after his death for some time as a disturbed spirit, who created trouble for the people of Lhasa. The 5th Dalai Lama to "exorcise and pacify" him asked first Nyingma shamans to subdue him, but when they failed he asked Gelugpa shamans who were finally successful. By this measures the spirit of the diseased lama was "pacified and transformed" as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. Mullin continues that the practice was later adopted by "numerous Gelug lamas" who disapproved the 5th Dalai Lama's manner of combining Nyingma and Gelug practice and that the 5th Dalai Lama tried to discourage the practice, but "it caught on in many monasteries". According to Mullin "The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa school." The practice became more popular during the late 1800s. During that time four Dalai Lama died young, and according to Mullin Dorje Shugden "became an all pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries, and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families."

There were also Sakya and Nyingma practitioners of Dorje Shugden.

According to Ursula Bernis, "Some of the most widely revered Buddhist masters in the last three hundred fifty years of Tibetan history relied on Dorje Shugden as their guardian, including the Dalai Lama until the mid-1970s."

According to anthropologist Mumford, who studied the practice of Dorje Shugden in Nepal, the 5th Dalai Lama unsuccessfully tried to subjugate Dorje Shugden through a fire exorcism and "invited the still-wandering spirit to become a Srungma of the Gelugpa order, with result that Shugs-ldan became one of the most popular Srungmas in Tibet. With the encouragement of local lamas, kin groups all over Tibet took on Shugs-ldan as their lineage guardian." According to some Gelug Lamas, there is evidence to show that the Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama realized he was mistaken in considering Dorje Shugden a spirit, and then composed a prayer praising Dorje Shugden as a Buddha and crafted a statue to show his respect for Dorje Shugden. However, 14th Dalai Lama has denied that the 5th Dalai Lama compose such a prayer. Also von Brück denies the historical evidence of such a claim, stating "The problem is that this position has no historical evidence, neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama or elsewhere."

In the 18th and 19th centuries, rituals related to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, Kelsang Thubten Jigme Gyatso - 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. The Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 - 1813, Losang Thubten Wangchuk Jigme Gyatso - 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. The prolific Mongolian scholar Lobsang Tamdin (1867-1937) collected many of the early Dorje Shugden rituals written by the earlier Sakya, Mongolian and Tibetan Gelug lamas. This collection also includes a biographies of Panchen Sonam Dragpa, the Indian master Shakya Shri Bhadra and a table of contents (dkar chag) and introduction written by Lobsang Tamdin.

The history section is more balanced now, with an equal amount of airtime for those who believe in the two conflicting versions of the origin of Dorje Shugden. (Truthbody (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

template removal

I removed all templates, the article is quite proper now. To quote claims made by the WP:SPS http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html which has no author and reference and spins the historical facts is unacceptable for the intro. That's why I removed:

He has been relied upon for 400 years as a protector of the teachings of Buddha and revered by many of the most venerated Masters of the Gelug and Sakya traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, "as well as by many monasteries, families and entire regions."

"evil Deity."

--Kt66 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kt66 that the content from the DSDCRS website is a "self-published source" and therefore should not be included in the introduction. Emptymountains (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the article including the changes by user:emptymountains and truthsayer is completely acceptable to me and fine. Maybe now the missing references should be added. Thank you so far. However, I won't accept a reinsertion of the above site in the intro section. I wrote to emptymountains:

You can see my changes and the final removal of the misleading statement by the Indian Shugden Society in the intro. As the article is now it is fully acceptable for me and I think all weaknesses are removed and the templates not needed anymore. However, if again sources like http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html are used for reference which hold unverifiable or extreme views, which are contradicted by WP:RS and have no authors I will add templates according to the situation and changes. If somewhere at the end of the article (but not in the intro) it is stated in NPOV manner that the Indian Shugden Society holds this or that belief/view, I have no problem, but to quote it in the intro as a fact is just not appropriate for WP. I would be happy if you can help and explain this to the editor who might re-add it again. It is clear that for some it is difficult to accept what I say. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last change by an anonymous editor because I see the present article as the result by all present editors. I hope you can agree. Thank you em for your comment. best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

PRC news claim removed

An editor added this misleading claim to the introduction section:

• The Dalai Lama sometimes refers to him as a "pro-Chinese demon".

The Dalai Lama is known to be precise and it is very very unlikely that he has ever stated something like this. If you follow the reference http://en.rian.ru/world/20081212/118827618.html it is clear that the claim was made by an editorial on Xinhua, the official government news agency of PRC and belongs to the propaganda section (using phrases like "Dalai clique") and not to be judged as WP:RS. So I removed that propaganda. --Kt66 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the PRC view of the Dorje Shugden controversy is notable and should be reported factually. This does not imply that WP endorses that view. Of course it can be described as "propaganda", but we are in the realm of belief systems here, or ideology, not fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to include the view from the PRC news agancy it can be done of course somewhere in the article but not as a statement of fact in the introduction and without making it even WP:NPOV. Such a claim lacks the support by 3rd party WP:RS and can't be offered as a fact in the introduction. --Kt66 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The earliest instance I can find online right now of this "Chinese demon" quote is the 2000 interview with Kundeling Rinpoche at http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1726/17260840.htm. However, I cannot find a direct quote attributable to the Dalai Lama himself. It doesn't mean he didn't say it, but we should try to find the original source for something so important. (I'm guessing people want to use the quote to show how the Dorje Shugden issue is used by the Dalai Lama for political purposes?) I personally would not go by hearsay, even if it is in a WP:RS. Emptymountains (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that it should be attributed directly to the Dalai Lama. That would be quite inappropriate. It should be attributed to the Xinhua editorial and/or the interview with Kundeling Rinpoche. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry Emptymountains but this Kundeling is not seen as being the recognized Kundeling Tulku, he has no official recognition as the Kundeling tulku, therefore Tibetans refer to him as Nga-Lama, I-Lama, who recognized himself. He is probably no WP:RS either. He can be quoted as the PRC news agency can be quoted but in WP:NPOV and not as a matter of fact. for more see:

http://www.tibet.net/en/prelease/2002/190702.html

http://www.kundeling.net/tagtsha.htm

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=Organisations+accuse+Dhoegyal+Society+of+undermining+Tibetan+freedom+struggle&id=21174

I agree with Itsmejudith, when it is clearly attributed to the Xinhua editorial and/or the interview with Kundeling Rinpoche, then this is appropriate. But in general, as both are rather controversial and not WP:RS I oppose presently the inclusion in the introduction section or are there reasons why a rather unverifiable view should be stated in the intro? --Kt66 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You both have misread me. I invite you to go back and read what I actually said. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The two articles

Dear All,

I'm noticing some content from the Dorje Shugden controversy article creeping into this more 'general' article. One example is the "Shugden is a ghost" quote from the late head of the Nyingma school. (This was in the "Popularization of the 20th Century" section of the DS article, but I think that whole pagraph beginning with "While Mumford claims..." should be removed since the Nyingmapa's view and the Ganden Tripa's view are more pertinent to the DS controversy article.) Granted, there is bound to be overlap between the two articles, but I would think that this would happen only with the general information, not something so specific.

So, I would like to ask, what is the purpose of each of these articles in terms of content? What information is one article supposed to cover that is unique and not included in the other? If we cannot answer these questions clearly, then maybe it's time to merge the two articles together? I personally would like to keep them separate, but in that case we should strive to avoid needless repetition. Emptymountains (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the articles quotes in a partisan and misleading way Bernis and Mumford without balancing it by the statements who have the highest spiritual authority in this, I see a need to balance this. If you remove Bernis and Mumford, the balance-quotes can also be removed. Otherwise this section is strongly misleading by claiming things as facts or suggesting / implying an importance to Shugden that he never had as seen by the heads of the schools. Especially Bernis is in general rather a questionable source, and Mumford's inclusion suggests that Nyingma were in a way keen adepts, which is ridiculous. This is just not correct. So I include it again until the section has been balanced properly. I took exact two quotes: first to balance Mumford, second to balance Bernis. --Kt66 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the complete removal to the controversy article I can agree, thanks :-) --Kt66 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had only looked at the second paragraph. I hadn't noticed that Bernis and Mumford were first mentioned in the first paragraph. Emptymountains (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy that you are a reasonable editor. I will presently not take a look on the Dorje Shugden controversy, I fear to much work and thoughts. However, maybe you have time to include the quote by Tai Situ Rinpoche, about the Kaguyepa's fear of Shudgen and that they do not like to even speak his name. (This has been reported to me also different times orally by Kagyuepas, including a Tibetan Tibetologist from Hamburg University.) This claim is also congruent with Mumford, who states: Dorje Shugden is "extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.” Mumford 1989:125-126. Tai Situ Rinpoche states in the interview:

“We Kagyue followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyue followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.” this is also in the film documentary with interviews of heads of Tibetan Schools or eminent Tibetan masters: Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy by the Tibetan Government in Exile, http://dalailama.com/page.157.htm. Although this is a WP:SPS and should treated with care, with respect to the interviews it is highly informative because it offers the opinion of the head of schools or eminent Tibetan masters which are rarely known.

Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect to that Kagyu quote from Tai Situ Rinpoche, it is astonishing to hear a Buddhist master talk in this way -- it is like someone out of Harry Potter 'not' talking about Voldemort: "He who must not be named"!! If Tai Situ and others are actually going for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, let alone if they possess actual Dharma realizations, what are they afraid of?! Even if they believe Dorje Shugden is a spirit, a spirit cannot harm someone who goes for refuge -- this is basic Buddhist understanding. This comment is so very sad and makes so little sense but is indicative of the problem of superstition, baseless fear and so on amongst those who oppose the practice of Dorje Shugden. Thank you for including it here.(Truthbody (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Improving Referencing Style

(Yes, there is already a "fear" quote in the article that was added before.)

When citing videos, please provide the start and end times of the quote (and its context, if helpful). This is akin to providing a page reference in a book. For a 'documentary' that is nearly an hour long, this would be a big favor to readers and editors who want to verify the quote.

Also, for books, please do not use a named reference tag. How could this work for us if different citations refer to different page numbers in the same book? Please follow Itsmejudith's example: Kay (2004:230), where the number before the colon is the year of publication (in case we are citing from more than one work by that author), and the number after the colon is the page reference. Emptymountains (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

kt66's latest round of additions/amendments

in my view, these are more examples of wilful misinterpretation of sources and WP guidelines. what is wrong with the article as it stands? if there is a consensus, then we can try to agree on changes. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

you asked for more WP:RS - a eeasonable request, which i'll try to fulfill in the near future. thank you. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's cook you may lack the academic sources, otherwise you could easily check that many sources like woikowitz are mispresented. Woikowoitz, mumford and all the other researches show clearly that shugden was defined as a worldly protector. you can not spin these facts or exclude them from the article. when you have the sources we can discuss. i gave precise references. --Kt66 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, but i may not, eh? like i said - please wait. the article's been fairly static for almost a fortnight: let's leave it so until we have our sources together.Atisha's cook (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

and before you start, by "we" i mean you and me, both - not me and my gang of PRC-sponsored sock-puppets!Atisha's cook (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's cook is strongly suggest to read the quoted texts before you remove them, they all are WP:RS and they are mainstream and accepted, moreover their content is mainly consistent. If WP:RS were used at all like Wojkowitz than even with misrepresenting what they state. The article is no fan site for NKT or Shugden followers. All views should be reported and the main weight should have WP:RS] My additions fulfil WP requirements. --Kt66 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

with respect, this may be a language issue? N-W is quite correctly referenced. by stating: "According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him..." the article means, precisely, that this is the view of "followers of Dorje Shugden" as explained by N-W, *not* that this is the view of N-W. your edit actually attributes a view of DS to N-W! Atisha's cook (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He is quite misrepresented. The point is that the issue of succeeding pehar is misrepresented and that Nebresky-Wojkowitz clearly shows him to be a mundane protector. Moreover he states "A Tibetan tradition" by using Nebresky-Wojkowitz and Kay it is clear that "A Tibetan tradition" refers to Pabongkhapa and by using the full quote misrepresentations are avoided. By adding Batchelor it is clear that there are motives behind such developments. Another point is that Nebresky-Wojkowitz stated the other sentence you quote ""regard him as dutiful guardian of their temples and particularly the Ganden (dGa' ldan) monastery. In most temples of the Dge lugs pa one finds paintings and images of this dharmapala in the mgon khang, the room reserved for the worship of protectors of religion." in the end of the 1950/60 without mentioning this thequote gives a misrepresentation of the actual situation. Therefore I added the year and put it in the past tense.

The full passage reads like this in Nebresky-Wojkowitz:

A Tibetan tradition claims that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan, "Powerful Thunderbolt", will succeed Pe har as the head of all 'jig rten pai srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the wordly spheres. Compared with other dharmapalas, rDo rje shugs Idan - who bears the titles dgra lha'i rgyal chen, "great king of the dgra lha" and srog bdag, "life-master" - is a divinity of comparatively recent origin. The following legend explains, how and when rDo rje shugs Idan came into existence....

This is very different to what you claim he states:

According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him as succeeding Nechung (Pehar) as the head of the wrathful forces protecting Buddhism against evil, and according to this view, Dorje Shugden is a particularly important deity in the Tibetan pantheon, since he would replace the present state oracle, Nechung.

Nebresky-Wojkowitz states clearly that he is a mundane protector who "will succeed Pe har as the head of all 'jig rten pai srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the wordly spheres." using the quote as Key does it avoids such misrepresentations.

And Kay '97 (strongly advised by CESNUR) states:

Scholarly English language accounts of rDo rje shugs Idan reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of rDo rje shugs Idan was gradually elevated from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz presents rDo rje shugs Idan as a deity “of comparatively recent origin” (1956: 134), who is one of the main dGe lugs protective deities operating in the worldly spheres, and Mumford’s references (1989) indicate how modern-day dGe lugs and Sa skya Buddhists in Nepal still regard the deity as a popular ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma. rDo rje shugs Idan’s rise to prominence through the sectarian activities of Phabongkha Rinpoche has already been mentioned. This appears to have preceded another important development whereby, during the 1930s and 1940s, Phabongkha supporters began to proclaim the fulfilment of the tradition “that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan … will succeed Pe har as the head of all ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the worldly spheres” (de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, 1956: 134) and maintain that the Tibetan government should turn its allegiance away from Pe har, the State protector, to rDo rje shugs Idan.9

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

Therefore I revert to my correct presentation and which used a correct quote instead of a rather misleading summery. --Kt66 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

once again - with respect - you've misread and misunderstood. N-W does *not* state "clearly that he is a mundane protector who "will succeed..." " at all. he states that this is the view of "a Tibetan tradition" - which is the meaning of the original wording you're trying to change here. i say this with all due respect (my German is appalling) but you seem to be having difficulty with basic English comprehension.

i have to ask - why are you, a non-Dorje Shugden practising, non-Gelugpa monk, who has no connection with any Shugden-practising tradition, going to such lengths to put forward your own view on this matter in a WP article written in a language you don't even speak fluently? Atisha's cook (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Atisha's cook of course he does clearly state that his is a worldly protector, a ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma, see page 4 + 134 and the complete research or see Kay or Mumford and try to understand from their or other research that ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma is a worldly protector. this has to be explained to the reader, therefore I put it in brackets. Moreover "A Tibetan tradition" refers to pabongkha's followers, as it is also explained by Kay. If you remove this again, I will replace it completely by Kay. Then this is solved. Or we give a precise quote of both Kay and Wojkowitz, you clearly misrepresent Wojkowitz. For personal issues don't uses this talk page. It is wrong that I would "forward my own view", I forward the views of WP:RS as stated by academic research. --Kt66 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe my word "misrepresenting" is too harsh and has to be explained to make it more clear. Probably "inaccurate" or "fuzzy" would be a better and more moderate term to label my criticism to that passage. when you write:

• According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him as succeeding Nechung (Pehar) as the head of the wrathful forces protecting Buddhism against evil, and according to this view, Dorje Shugden is a particularly important deity in the Tibetan pantheon, since he would replace the present state oracle, Nechung.

such a statement covers up that Shugden is seen in that context as a mundane protector, and that it will only succeed Pehar, when Pehar attained enlightenment. In such a case Shugden would be the head of the mundane (worldly) protectors. The phrasing is so fuzzy that these details are faded out and it can be misread. Also a phrasing like "protecting Buddhism against evil" is rather misleading because Shugden is clearly shown as a clan-deity and a Gelug deity and not as someone protecting Buddhism (in general). moreover if he succeeds pehar he would be mainly the protector of tibet and would be closely associated with the government or the governing of Tibet - for political issues. nechung's or the state protector's function is not mainly "protecting Buddhism against evil". this is rather a task of supramundane protectors. --Kt66 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, Kt66 is starting from this viewpoint clearly spoken here i.e. that Dorje Shugden does not protect Buddhism in general (which according to many great Lamas and sincere practitioners he does) and that he is not a supramundane Protector (which according to many great Lamas and sincere practitioners he is), and holds his own view as supreme, trying to distort sources that may be quite neutral to back himself up. This is not the first time he has done this. The purpose of Wikipedia however is to be balanced and objective and in the last two weeks this article has been deteriorating fast to the "world according to kt66" again and needs more balance and NPOV. (Truthbody (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody please read WP:RS. You won't get the article balanced by favouring Geshe Kelsang and NKT's blog pages but by using neutral academic research - 3rd party sources. --Kt66 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

removal of quotes from anonymous websites which lacks verifiable sources

I removed:

and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, who wrote a praise to him as an enlightened Protector.

the reason is that this website http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden03.php is rather an anonymous blog which holds rather extreme views, it has no qualified authors etc and has no sources which could be verified by consulting WP:RS. --Kt66 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The website is not anonymous. It says clearly: "This website is compiled by some Western and Tibetan supporters in the Western Shugden Society. Contact Us. The Western Shugden Society (WSS) is an ad hoc coalition of Dorje Shugden practitioners from many different countries. The immediate aims of the WSS are expressed in a letter sent to the Dalai Lama. © Copyright 2008 WisdomBuddhaDorjeShugden.org" This website and its associated blog includes a huge amount of documented material and legitimate sources, as well as first-hand accounts of persecution, news reports, documentaries, and so on. It has plenty of verifiable sources throughout it and also throughout its associated blog. It is composed, compiled, researched etc by a large number of people. It receives many views per day and is considered by many to be a valuable resource on the subject of Dorje Shugden and the Dalai Lama's ban of the practice, including journalists and neutral observers. It makes no pretense at being anything other than supportive of the practice of Dorje Shugden and against the Dalai Lama's ban of the practice, so it is not pretending to be something it is not (unlike kt66's individual websites and blogs, which claim to hold the supreme truth of the matter, but which in fact are very biased and jaundiced yet still get used in wikipedia.) It is perfectly permissible, and indeed helpful, to use quotations and other research from www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org. (Truthbody (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Truthbody blog pages are no reliable source for wikipedia, the removal of proper WP:RS is inappropriate. Wikipedia prefers heavily WP:RS which were deleted by you to favour fringe views established by blog pages you prefer to favour the pov of the New Kadampa Tradition. Further your changes spin sources or present them in a prartial manner. As you have reverted my corrections which included correct full quotes without discussion (while I gave extensive reasons previously for my correction) and your changes spin the article e.g. Mullin and put an undue weight to favour Kelsang Gyatso's pov + anonymous webblogs I added the two template warnings. the article is now neiter accurate nor neutral and it is based too much on WP:SPS thoough reliable 3rd party WP:RS exist. --Kt66 (talk)

You have not read what is said above. I have not spun sources -- you are just saying that to try and sound like you know what you are talking about, when ironically you are one of the masters of spin! I have presented the material in a partial manner. I have not reverted your corrections but added WP:NPOV. This article was accepted by other editors to be both accurate and neutral, with a great deal of WP:RS, it is only you who do not like it as it is not entirely in keeping with your own views. (Truthbody (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I think you do not understand Wikipedia. Anonymous Blog pages and blogs in general are no sources for an encyclopaedia - though there are some exceptions e.g. when the article is about a blog or the blog was quoted in WP:RS etc. The preferred sources are academic research, not blogs and books by a rather controversial author, though he can be quoted of course but not favoured. --Kt66 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very condescending. I understand Wikipedia as well as you do. And if you read what I had written, you will see that the blog is not anonymous etc. Why do you make people repeat themselves over and over again? All the authors on this page are controversial to someone or another, by the way. I find your sources, and especially your own blogs and websites, highly controversial. So, we have to bear with each other. (Truthbody (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

of course it is, it has not any reputable and acknowledged author. WP:RS are preferred. The academic research I added and which you have either removed or put a spin on it, fulfil that standard. --Kt66 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not listening. I have not removed sources and I have not added spins. I would suggest that you are the one who is hell-bent on spinning this article as you add edits that are undiscussed and your own WP:POV -- there is nothing wrong with academic sources (and I intend to use more of them on this article shortly); but you tend to try and use them in an unbalanced manner. (Truthbody (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

What should I listen, I see the changes and removals of WP:RS and the inclusion of WP:SPS from the blogosphere by just looking in the history. You could not even accept the proper WP:RS for the intro-section. --Kt66 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

kt66's addition of unbalanced template

For as long as kt66 himself tries to upset the balance of this article, an article that was pretty balanced and NPOV before, perhaps it warrants this unbalanced template -- but for the opposite reasons he would assert. He seems to be attempting to bias it back toward an anti-Shugden viewpoint. (Truthbody (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry Truthbody, as I said you different times 3rd party WP:RS sources which were discussed detailed above, and also accepted by other users, like user:emptymountains. You have removed it without any discussion. You further added sources from private blogs with no authors who all belong to WP:SPS and your favour the one-sidedly the point of view of the New Kadampa Tradition by not only using all their blogs but also including heavily claims by its founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. On top of that you spin sources and you removed passages from formerly accepted sources like Mullin and include your personal pov. All this is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and there exist enough 3rd party WP:RS. Due to all of this I added the two templates until these weaknesses of the article are removed. --Kt66 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done none of those things. (Truthbody (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

You have removed WP:RS and added WP:SPS from blog pages as anybody can see by viewing the history. --Kt66 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to let people judge from the historical facts who is doing what. (Truthbody (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Maybe again for you and Atisha's Cook:

Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources. see WP:RS --Kt66 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenzin - you said: "as I said you different times 3rd party WP:RS sources which were discussed detailed above, and also accepted by other users, like user:emptymountains. You have removed it without any discussion. You further added sources from private blogs with no authors who all belong to WP:SPS and your favour the one-sidedly the point of view of the New Kadampa Tradition by not only using all their blogs but also including heavily claims by its founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. On top of that you spin sources and you removed passages from formerly accepted sources like Mullin and include your personal pov."

when were any of these things done? just because you don't agree with a source does not make it unreliable! Atisha's cook (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

look in the history of the article --Kt66 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kt66 POV

User:Kt66 is not fit to edit any article concerning the Buddhist Deity Dorje Shugden, the New Kadampa Tradition, its founder Geshe Kelsang Gystso, or its lineage gurus. I move to seek a ban on this editor contributing further to these topics. He has made no secret of his identity, so it is not "outing" him here to refer, as evidence supporting my position, to his numerous blogs, websites and forum contributions across the www promoting his view on this topic. He has stated his intention to "warn" the world about the evils of this cult/these practices/these individuals. It is clear, therefore, that he has *no interest in contributing simple, factual content to these topics in this encylopedia* - his aim is solely to promote his own POV. The sheer volume of his highly opinionated and selectively-referenced work throughout the www undermines his claims to neutrality and provide some evidence for a charge of obsession on his part. His opus dwarfs that of any other writer on the topic!

It is a truism that any article concerning religion will attract strong views, and there are editors on these articles that are in favour of this Deity, etc., but none of them has shown anything like the single-minded determination of User:Kt66 in promoting their views. Many of them, such as User:Truthbody and User:emptymountains have engaged in thoughtful discussion and editing, carefully including differing and opposing viewpoints and the sources that demonstrate them; while they may have a POV on these topics, as I do, they at least are careful not to promote their own POV above others. In contrast, User:Kt66 consistently seeks to find any and all "3rd party" sources to support his own view, while seeking to devalue any source that contradicts his ideas. His contributions skew the balance of the article strongly in favour of one POV, his own.

Of course, WP should be democratic and all viewpoints must be given where they contribute to the overall understanding of a topic. But allowing such a confessed and vehement anti-Dorje Shugden editor to monopolise this article is comparable to allowing a vehement and open anti-Christian to monopolise the editing of an article on Christianity. It cannot lead to a balanced article, as evidenced (over the years now) by his edits.

He cannot edit neutrally on these topics. For the sake of the articles' validity and credibility, this user should be banned from editing them. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above statement from Atishas cook makes a lot of sense to me and I fully agree. I have not edited in this article before, but observe it since a while, and the activities of User:Kt66 are simply not in accordance with the principles of the wikipedia. This does not mean that his voice is not heard and his opinion and his freedom is not respected, but it can not be allowed that an encyclopedic article on a subject is continiously over years swamped with criticism and aversion to the extend that the actual subject - The deity Dorje Shugden! - becomes almost unrecognisable under the layers of mud that User:Kt66 tries to throw on it. There are countless subjects where people have a different view of, but the function of an encyclopedia is simply to present the subject. At the end of an article, or in a seperate controversy article, other opinions find their place. This is general practice in the wikipedia.

In the case of a deity the main presentation has to be done from the point of view of those who practise it. Otherwise the distortion will be too extreme. If you check carefully this is exactly what has been done with virtually all the other religious articles on the wikipedia. Hindu deities are presented in the way they are whorshipped by their followers, christian saints in the way they are seen by their followers, etc. Controversial perceptions again can be added at the end, and be clearly indicated as such.

If we do not follow this approach, what will happen? If a Dorje Shugden practitioner comes at present across this article he will not feel much that it is about his deity. He will feel, well, some people seem to be argueing here, but they hardly say who Dorje Shugden is, how he looks like, how and why I am whorshipping it.

Imagine a christian is reading an article about Jesus in the Wikipedia and feels almost no identification with the article?! Would't that miss the point?

Sadly User:Kt66 is trying his very best to distort this article exactly in that manner. Let him write on other articles, let him write all his blogs and websites, but stop him, or restrict him, on this subject. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Just take a look at the Maitreya page, it is not exclusively Buddhist. Furthermore, the controversy with Dorje Shugden has been around since the conception of this deity, something which justifies more than a single point of view. The views on Shugden are so different that a page on him cannot have one and exclude the other. Essentially, we should provide as much information about Shugden himself and because his very nature is disputed, we have to be inclusive of those views.

Jmlee369 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, of course different perceptions must have their place, but they can not be presented in such a way, that they dominate the entire article. The main function of an encyclopedia is to present a topic to a reader. THIS article here deals with the deity Dorje Shugden. There is a second article about the controversy. Therefore this article needs thorough cleaning up, and the contoversial opinions should be moved. It looks as if the concept of producing an article that is pleasant, clear, and informative to the reader got almost lost. Due the grasping of User:Kt66 and the like, the article is a headache for the reader. No-one wants to read such an article. Therefore, can we please agree that the presentation of the deity Dorje Shugden, as it is practised, must have its place in this article. The opinion of those who have difficulties with this practice must have also its place, but in such a way that it is clear to the reader and under their own headings.

Apart from that it is wrong that the controversy about Dorje Shugden has always been with the practice of this deity. When this practise arose, it was not immediatly clear who Dorje Shugden was, but once a way to rely upon him developed, the tradition was over centuries steady and continuous without any conflict that is noteworthy in comparison to other religious conflicts. It is only during the last 13 years that a historicly unparalleled conflict arose. And, as I said this is fair enough to be mentioned in this article.

The main point to discuss here is however the style of User:Kt66. It is not difficult to see that his angle on the subject is always "how can I say something in the most possible negative way". It is this style that needs to be restricted and it would be very good if some more people feel responsible. A suggestion might be, that User:Kt66 can contribute to the talk page, but not edit the article, or only after 2 or 3 people agree with his suggestions. That would be a democratic way and help him to calm down. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Yourfriend21 and Atisha's cook, you both make valid points. The best thing would be for kt66 to edit the controversy page, rather than ruin this page for the thousands of people who would like to see who Dorje Shugden is and how people rely on him. Your point about articles on Christian saints and so on is significant -- there is very little material in this article about how to rely upon Dorje Shugden, the symbolism, the mandala, the prayers, the benefits, the qualities of the practitioners and so on. So those trying to find out about Dorje Shugden the Deity (as the article's title would suggest) really find nothing they are looking for.

Those who say he has been a wandering spirit for the last four hundred years are mainly superstitious (how could a wandering spirit still be wandering around?! why would great masters and yogis want to rely on a spirit when they have deep Buddhist refuge and a full understanding of the Dharma of Sutra and Tantra?! etc). More importantly, those who state that Dorje Shugden is a spirit are not practitioners -- and although they can make their voice heard, they shouldn't dominate the article. Why? Because they don't honestly know what they are talking about -- by definition they are looking at him only from an outside perspective, with no feeling whatsoever of whom he is from experience. They are just criticizing him based on hearsay or dodgy historical accounts, influenced by the recent controversy. (And Yourfriend is correct, the controversy is recent -- hundreds of years went by without any problems, everyone free to do their own practice.) This of course mainly applies to kt66, who uses this page as his platform.

There are two pages for Dorje Shugden and I think it would be good to avoid all the overlap that comes from the controversy invading the Dorje Shugden article. The controversy about Dorje Shugden should be on the controversy page -- I imagine that is why that page was created. kt66 is singularly unqualified to edit the Dorje Shugden page because of his undisguised self-proclaimed anti-Shugden agenda (evidence of this is throughout this talk page and his own blogs etc). He is like an extreme right-wing evangelical Christian using Wikipedia to diss another religion, saying it leads to hell, simply because it is not his religion. Or like Victorian Englishmen trying to convert savage Africans to the one true faith. We don't criticize his religion or faith and I feel it would be more appropriate to Wikipedia that he does not use the Dorje Shugden page as a platform to criticize the religion or faith of thousands of faithful practitioners -- he can do this on the Dorje Shugden controversy page if he feels the strong need to do it. (Truthbody (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

This might not belong to this section about kt66, but it is a response to Truthbody. I'm not sure which of the origin stories you accept, but if the one about Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen is accepted by the majority of Shugden practitioners, then the controversy started since the beginnings of this deity. Of course, no one really knows where Shugden originated from. As improbability of Shugden being a spirit (i.e deva [including different classes such as gyalpo], asura or preta), those classes of beings are all said to have a long lifespan which is why a birth as a deva is considered one of the opposites for one of the eight freedoms and ten endowments. Likewise, we can see that devas and yakshas from the Buddhas time, as mentioned in the Golden Light Sutra, the Medicine Buddha sutra as well as the agamas made various vows to protect the dharma throughout their lives, which last for a long time in human years.

There are also cases of beings who broke their vows which bound them under oath - I think Guru Padmasambhava or another master predicted that one of the oath bound spirits they tamed would break their vows and cause harm in the future by spreading the use of a certain narcotic. In terms of the recent form of practice, it can be concluded that the prominence of Pabongkha Rinpoche lead to the greater propogation of Tagphu Dorje Chang's views on this deity, who is said to have received these teachings from Tushita (interesting to note is that when HHDL witnessed the oracle while in Tibet, he is said to have told HHDL that he had just come from Lama Tsong Khapa's presence in Tushita). Pabongkha Rinpoche also said that it was acceptable to view certain wordly deities as objects of refuge if they were considered the emanation of enlightened beings such as Setrap, Yudronma, Pehar and so forth. From this, I think it is reasonable to say that his view of wordly deities being enlightened was not limited to Shugden.

As for Kt66's participation, I would say that all changes be discussed here before they are acted on. Personally, I feel that changing anything to reach neutrality is near impossible as I myself have tried to change certain aspects. It would be best to have people on both sides of the debate participating with equal influence but it seems that there is neither enough time nor resources to make that possible.

Jmlee369 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the point we're trying to make is that the "debate" is better off on the controversy page. This page on Dorje Shugden could be short and sweet, explaining who Dorje Shugden is mainly according to those practicing Dorje Shugden, but then mentioning others have a different viewpoint and referring the reader to the controversy section for the debate or controversy. This would be more in keeping with other Wikipedia articles on holy figures when there are a lot of people who have faith in those figures. Publicly insulting another's religion on Wikipedia seems to go against Wikipedia's ethos and against moral discipline in general. (Truthbody (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

thank you Jmlee and truthbody for your points. Jmlee you have a lot of knowlegde about the history of tibetan buddhism, which I admire and respect a lot. From this you will also know that there is some disagreement about many deities and practices. However in an encyclopedia they are simply presented in the way they are practised. In case of different perceptions, then these ones are mentioned, including their reasons, but under an appropriate heading. Jmlee, you mentioned the Maitreya article, and there are in fact different perceptions listed, but the article does not start in the first paragraph with the statement that Maitreya is explained in the Sutras and Ron Hubbard also believed he is Maitreya, and then going into lengthy debates on that. Most people who pray to Maitreya and want to know more about him, will find that article nice and informative. They will also have no problems with the fact that Ron Hubbard is mentioned, because the overall balance in that article is ok.

There is also no point in trying to claim that Dorje Shugden is a controversial deity, simply because not everybody saw him from the first day of his appearance as a holy being and was happy with him. Can you give me one single example of a holy being or even founder of a major religion who started like that? Jesus was nailed to the cross and there were several attempts to murder Buddha. Are they therefore by nature controversial beliefs? Such a statement would completely miss the point. Jesus was teaching compassion, as Buddha did, and - as Dorje Shugden does!

There are people in this world who feel threatened by Jesus, who feel threatened by Buddha, or feel threatened by Mohammed. Yes. But this is an encyclopedic article. It simply presents a Deity.

I once met a high rank Theravadin teacher from Sri Lanka. He was looking at a shrine, pointing at a statue of Green Tara and said "what's that?" He did not accept that Tara was a Buddha at all. When you look in the article on Tara, it is not even mentioned that some buddhist schools do not believe in Tara. But it is still a good article innit? It looks neutral and reliable to me. And all Tara practitioners will be happy with it. hmmmm.

You are editing since a while on this article don't you? Then my question: how often did you got feedback from a Shugden practitioner who found that article somehow ok? Someone who said, "Well, that's a nice, plain information about the Deity I am practising. It is not a hymn, but clear, factual information." How often did that happen? For as long as every single Shugden practitioner who comes across this article just says "goodness, about whom or what is that stuff?", there might be something wrong. There are millions of Shugden practitioners in Mongolia, Ladakh, Leh, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Tibet, and around the world. They have the right to rely on Dorje Shugden and they have reasons which are valid for them. And these people simply have the right to find here in the wikipedia an article that neutrally reports about their belief. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of sense, YourFriend. Very significant examples, also. It is good to read what you are saying. What do the other editors' think? (Truthbody (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm totally in agreement that this article should be presented from a practitioner's point of view and the controversy should be in the other article. This is why we decided to split the article in the first place, but then User:Kt66 and other anti-Shugdenpas have subsequently tried to reintroduce a negative view of Dorje Shugden because they can't stand to see something positive or even neutral about this Deity. User:Yourfriend21 makes a lot of sense. Also I was thinking that it's a wikipedia rule that the biography of a living person should be neutral and any libelous claims should be immediately removed. Since Dorje Shugden is a living person, he should also be accorded this right. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading up Wikipedia entries for other holy beings, however controversial their origins and however many people believe there is something wrong with them e.g. Mohammed, Jesus, some Catholic saints, etc etc. It is true that the emphasis is always on the practitioners' point of view, and sometimes it says things like "according to adherents...." Any controversial elements have their own sections. They are respectfully written, actually. Take a look yourself if you wish. With that in mind I am going to start moving controversial elements to the controvery section and/or to the controversy article, trying to make this article short, simple, factual, unlibelous, in keeping with Wikipedia WP:NPOV etc. Those who disagree with practitioners' view of and faith in their Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden (and those who support the TGIE political policy banning the practice and all that that entails) still have their own Dorje Shugden controversy article. (Truthbody (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

ok, well - i guess User:Kt66's pov ought to be represented. so let's try to rework this old compromise and give him a platform in the controversy article while leaving this article free from the silliness. so - imho, all that's required on this article is: "There is some controversy over the worship of this deity: please see DS Controversy." or similar. what purpose writing more? there is LOTS of controversy over many objects of faith, but no need to write everyone's view on the main page - the controversy page is the place for that in this case.Atisha's cook (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User Emtymountains started a new section at the end, which is a follow up to this one. I added some suggestions there.--Yourfriend21 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - blog pages as sources?

see for the opinion of other editors: Noticeboard Dorje_Shugden

Someone replied:

Avoid these web sites, I think. Google returns quite a few sites claiming to be the "official" voice, and it would be very difficult to decide which, if any, has any standing outside its own contributors. If you have 3rd party academic sources, make sure they are fairly recent as books by "outsider" academics can themselves contain misunderstandings - for example Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa is still controversial. You should be prepared to cite works that express differing views - this is actually pretty common in the types of science article I edit, I know from my student experiences that it's common in philosophy, and I'd expect it to be common in history (it certainly is in chess history) - and I notice that there's a historical / theological controversy around Dorje Shugden. --Philcha (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

--Kt66 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I found what user:Philcha said very interesting, thank you. He or she said: "If you have 3rd party academic sources, make sure they are fairly recent as books by "outsider" academics can themselves contain misunderstandings - for example Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa is still controversial. You should be prepared to cite works that express differing views - this is actually pretty common in the types of science article I edit, I know from my student experiences that it's common in philosophy, and I'd expect it to be common in history (it certainly is in chess history) - and I notice that there's a historical / theological controversy around Dorje Shugden. --Philcha (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"

I replied that most editors on the article think that kt66 has overused Kay, making him judge and jury of the controversy. kt66 has never cited "works that express differing views". The sources for these academic studies themselves include a lot of propaganda from the tibetan government in exile and very little from the point of view of Buddhists practicing Shugden. These studies are all done by "outsider" academics and do inevitably "contain misunderstandings". They are almost all over ten years old and there has been a huge amount of research since then that brings them into question. (Truthbody (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

The books and article that kt66 listed on the the reliable sources noticeboard are all perfectly acceptable academic texts. What you need to do now is to make a case for the sources you want to use. It may be that one or more of them is also acceptable and can be cited alongside the others for the sake of balance. I will leave a message at WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism for more help with this article. Although I've had it watchlisted for a while now, I don't understand enough about these traditions to be able to get fully involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Truthbody you added some funny sources which can't be verified, please read again WP:RS. This should be published material and a precise reference should be made, some of your addition lack the qualification to be verifiable like: "Address delivered by the Dalai Lama at the preparatory session of Tamdrin Yangsang and Sangdrub empowerments, March 21 1996" this is WP:original research that's why I removed it. Please precise also Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche praise of Dorje Shugden, Infinite Aeons, published??, year??, page?? which you quote. Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I included again the "self-published"-template until this has been solved. This is a highly controversial topic and it will not help to have a proper encyclopaedic article by quoting from anonymous blogs with anonymous hobby authors. There exist enough WP:RS. --Kt66 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the websites under discussion, my view is that the official website of the Western Shugden Society is a reliable source for the views of that organisation. And since that organisation holds a notable viewpoint on Dorje Shugden, then it is an appropriate source for this article. Of course its views should be clearly attributed. Academic sources, even if "Western" are to be preferred for factual content, but we also need to maintain an international perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview

The overview is perfectly clear and simple and expresses both points of view. Everyone was happy with it before. Please stop trying to reintroduce a thesis by Kay at that point -- his material comes later in detail in any case. (Truthbody (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok kt66, i personally think it is okay to make the overview shorter as you suggest. (Truthbody (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

fine. Thanks. --Kt66 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Links again

I added again three papers which are from respected sources and either used in other research or advised by other researchers. All three papers were not used for the article. My inclusion is backed up by WP:link policy which states:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sachen Kunlo Reference

Would it be possible to find and add that reference from Sachen Kunlo's own writings rather than from one of GKG's works? Jmlee369 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

McCune reference

user:truthbody added a reference from McCune's unpublished and unreviewed university thesis and a wordpress-blog, the latter I deleted twice now, see talk page and guidelines for articles, such links aren't suited for WP. We can discuss to use McCune, but McCune is not properly referenced, what page is it and what does she exactly say?

Presently, after making it at least NPOV, the sentence sounds: According to McCune, the story about his being a wandering spirit was said by followers to be disseminated by those who murdered Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, not by his followers who viewed him as the reincarnation of a highly realized being. I am a bit wavering to use her, there are enough reviewed and highly accepted 3rd party sources. It would be better to work with them. A link to McCune's thesis: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf a link to more academic research: http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/ --Kt66 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

McCune offers the other point of view, that the view of Dragpa Gyaltsen arising as a harmful wandering spirit of course was not one spread by those who had faith in him!! So it deserves its place in this article for balance. I'll find the exact quote and page number later when I get some more time. (Truthbody (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Michael v. Brück´s and the Prayer of the 5th Dalai Lama

Hello there, since there was already some discussion about v. Brück´s Text, I thought someone might be able to help with a question.

Michael v. Brück does interestingly quote the prayer of the 5th Dalai Lama to Dorje Shugden. However he omits the first line of the prayer, as we can see below:

...He quotes a hymn which the 5th Dalai Lama is said to have written in praise of Shugden (Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen)

... your might and power is like lightning, you possess the courage and confidence to discriminate between right and wrong, I invite you faithfully, so come here to this place. ... You subdue various spirits of cremation grounds. I arrange varieties of outer, inner and secret offerings and tormas. I confess that previously due to my selfishness I could not leave this attitude of being so strict (against this spirit), but now I praise you humbly and respectfully with body, speech and mind ... may we always be protected by the triratna. (from [info-buddhism.com http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html])

The full translation on [shugdensociety.info http://www.shugdensociety.info/praise5DalaiLamaEN.html] reads:

Prayer to the protector Dorje Shugden, composed by the Superior Victor, The Fifth Dalai Lama

HUM

Though unmoving from the sphere of primordial spontaneity,

With wrathful turbulent power, swifter than lighting,

Endowed with heroic courage to judge good and bad,

I invite you with faith, please come to this place!

Robes of a monk, crown adorned with golden lacquer hat,

Right hand holds ornate club, left holds a human heart,

Riding various mounts such as nagas and garudas,

Who subdues the mamo's of the charnel grounds, praise to you!

Samaya substances, offerings and torma, outer, inner and secret,

Favourite visual offerings and various objects are arranged.

Although, previously, due to slight rising of selfishness,

having not prevented my severe views, I reveal and confess!

Now respectfully praising with body, speech, and mind,

For us, the masters, disciples, benefactors and entourages,

Provide the good and avert the bad!

Bring increase like the waxing moon in spiritual and temporal realms!

Moreover, swiftly accomplishing all wishes,

According to our prayers, bestow the supreme effortlessly!

And like the jewel that bestows all wishes,

Always protect us with the Three Jewels!

Composed by the omniscient Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso

tibetan text available also at [7]

MY QUESTION: Does the first line „Though unmoving from the sphere of primordial spontaneity,“ refer in the tibetan text unmistakenly to an enlightened beings truth body? I do not speak tibetan, but was wondering, whether the words in tibetan can be translated only as such, or is there the possibility of a different interpretation?

If they refer clearly to a truth body, then we need to ask why Michael v. Brück omits these words. Of course his entire reasoning of trying to establish that Dorje Shugden is not a Buddha would not work.

Hopefully someone can help with this, maybe TKalsang has some comments? --Yourfriend21 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

obviously von Brück was not interested to quote the foisted prayer in full, so he just quoted what he saw as relevant. The first line could indicate one of the four kayas. --Kt66 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

as kt66 points out, obviously Bruck was not interested in quoting anything that is irrelevant to his argument; and this clearly undermines his entire argument. (Truthbody (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

DS article vs. DS Controversy article

I am spending some time catching up on this article, as I have not been around for a number of weeks. However, straight away I would like to compliment on Truthbody and the others for their recent work on the article. I was one of the editors who petitioned for a new Controversy article separate from the basic article; but for a while now, more and more content about the controversy has been appearing in this more basic article (oftentimes, without bothering to put it in the Controversy article at all). I started to think that maybe the two articles should just be merged together again since some editors cannot seem to keep the two separate. However, I really like the new direction Truthbody is beginning to take the article in--it is like a revelation of sorts since, finally, we are getting a sense of exactly what should appear in this basic article, and what should appear exclusively in the Controversy article. Bravo! Emptymountains (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

there is now some clarity appearing in this article, and you are right, now all the bits which actually relate to the topic "Deity Dorje Shugden" become visible. It might need some more work on the eloquence of the text, and the sequence of the sections is not completely logic. It might be best to leave the controversy article for now seperate is my personal feeling. If the editors now keep mainly in mind to look at the article from a normal wikipedia readers point, then some more improvements can be made. What does the average reader want to find in an article about a buddhist deity? Is the article pleasant and easy to read? Does the overall structure make sense? Is it giving clear, factual information in a meaningful order?

A suggestion for a new sequence of the sections might be:

Contents

   * 1 Nature and function
         o 1.1 Previous incarnations
         o 1.2 Appearance and Mandala
         o 1.3 Symbolism
         o 1.4 Prayers to Dorje Shugden
   * 2 Dorje Shugden Practice
         o 2.1 History
         o 2.2 Dorje Shugden in the individual Traditions
         o 2.3 Gelug
               Sakya
               Other
         o 2.4 Popularization in the 20th Century
         o 2.5 Dorje Shugden practice today
         o 2.6 Oracle
   * 3 Controversy
   * 4 Notes
   * 5 References

What do the others think? --Yourfriend21 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(For those joining this discussion, it is a continuation of the section kt66 POV above). I for one think this structure you suggest is more logical and clearer and would be happy to see you go ahead and shift those paragraphs around. (Truthbody (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Okay, I implemented the section sequence suggested above. I did make some modifications to it once I went through the article, though. Let me know what you think. Emptymountains (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Emptymountains, I think readers will find this article vastly improved in terms of clarity, readability, simple facts, freedom from libel and so on (all the things the editors discussed above under kt66 POV). Only the origin story is still long, unwieldy, and hard to read. Although the article is shorter and now far more in keeping with other articles on religious figures on Wikipedia, nothing has actually been deleted -- the controversial material has simply moved to the controversy article. Now both these two articles are more what they claim to be. (Truthbody (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Thank you all! This is the most sensible approach I've seen so far. When I like Wikipedia, it's because it's simple. When I get to a long-winded article, I tune out and go elsewhere for information. Why and how this article has gotten so convoluted in the past is beyond me. All we need to know is what the spiritual belief in Dorje Shugden is. The controversy is a different topic and those who are interested in that can go to that page. I hope this format sticks.Eyesofcompassion (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of good work done; thank you for picking up on my suggestions. I have added a sentence at the beginning, because I still feel the start of the article is a bit abrupt. It seems, because of all the little battles the overall feeling for the article got a bit lost. As Eyesofcompassion points out, we all love the wikipedia and appreciate its approach. So the editors need to keep thinking from a neutral and new readers point, whether the article benefits and pleases such a person. Maybe one of you eloquent writers has more good ideas and can weave the existing sections nicely together.

Here is an attempt to re-order the first section:

According to his adherents, Dorje Shugden is the last incarnation in a lineage of enlightened Masters. The lineage of Dorje Shugden's previous lives includes Buddha Manjushri, Mahasiddha Biwawa or Virupa, Sakya Pandita, Butön Rinchen Drub, Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsän, and Panchen Sönam Dragpa.[2][3] According to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche said:

You have manifested in different aspects as Indian and Tibetan Masters, such as Manjushri, Mahasiddha Biwawa, Sakya Pandita, Buton Rinchen Drub, Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen, Panchen Sonam Dragpa, and many others.

Followers of Shugden believe that Dorje Shugden appeared in his current form as the reincarnation of a Buddhist Teacher in the Gelugpa Tradition named Ngatrul (Tulku) Dragpa Gyaltsen and that Dragpa Gyaltsen was the reincarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa - who is mentioned in the above vers - a highly regarded teacher at the same time as the Fifth Dalai Lama (17th century CE) and considered by some Gelugpa practitioners to be an emanation of Buddha Manjushri.

This understanding is also based on the commentary to Dorje Shugden by Trijang Rinpoche:

This great guardian of the teachings is well known to be the precious supreme emanation from Drepung monastery's upper house, Dragpa Gyaltsen, arising in a wrathful aspect. The proof is unmistaken. Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, as is taught in the lineage, was the final birth in a reincarnation lineage that included the Mahasiddha Birwawa, the great Kashmiri Pandit Shakya Shri, the omniscient Buton, Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen, Panchen Sonam Dragpa, and so forth; this is proven by valid scriptural quotation and reasoning. These great beings, from a definitive point of view, were already fully enlightened, and even to common appearances, every one of them was a holy being that attained high states of realization.

Later, Ngulchu Dharmabhadra (1772 - 1851), a Mahamudra lineage Guru, referred to Dorje Shugden in his collected works as “Manjushri Dorje Shugden” and identifies him as having arisen from the continuum of great beings that includes Duldzin Drakpa Gyaltsen, Panchen Sonam Drakpa and Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.

I have put the suggested changes in bold. I tried to stay with the existing text, and have altered it only slightly, but maybe more easy to read. Please let me know your feedback --Yourfriend21 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it should read Also, Ngulchu Dharmabhadra, not Later, Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. I got a bit lost in a contemplation on the emptiness of time.... Of course the future exists before the past, because if we do not impute future first, we can not impute past, or??? ;-) --Yourfriend21 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

difficult to say "the past", "the future", etc. - the past of what? more precise to say "the past of object x" or "the future of object x". of course, the future of object x is a functioning thing that existed in object x's past, and the past of object x is a functioning thing that will exist in object x's future.

um, sorry - a bit OT! i think the article here is vastly improved now - *not* because it reflects my or anyone else's viewpoint, but because it now pertains almost exclusively to the religious figure Dorje Shugden and how he is and has been relied upon; as has been said above, the controversy info. is now where it belongs - in the controversy article. at last we're approaching articles that Joe Public might want to read, and that will inform him or her about Doje Shugden on the one hand and the Dorje Shugden/Dalai Lama Controversy on the other. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My feedback, Yourfriend, is that your changes would make it clearer, so go for it! (Truthbody (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, be bold! Go for it! Emptymountains (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Things seem to be going fine in the article but there are a few issues I want to raise. Firstly, the line about the body mandala implies that Shugden is enlightened, but as far as I know, it is not a practice that came from Sakya, but rather originated from Gelug (I would assume from either Mongolia or Tagpo Dorje Chang). Also, are the torma offering rituals composed by Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche and the Jetsun Dampa performed with the view that Shugden is enlightened? Also, wouldn't it make more sense to place the Sakya history before the Gelug one since the practice was originally Sakya (I have always understood this to be the case but it seems that it is a disputed matter)? As I mentioned above, does anyone have refernces for GKG's quote of Morchen Kunga Lhundrub from his own works? Perhaps we could also remove the 5th Dalai Lama from the list of Shugden practitioners as that point is debatable. In regards to HHDL, shouldn't it be mentioned that although he practiced, he did not have the life-entrustment? The line "As with other Protector Deities in Tibet" is also problematic as it is only the wordly deity with oracles - no enlightened protectors have oracles.Jmlee369 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

hello Jmlee, you are making some good points, but is my understanding right, that a lot of this hinges on the point whether the 5th DL finally relied on Dorje Shugden or not, and whether the first prayer was written by him, and whether Dorje Shugden is actually adressed as an enlightened being in that prayer (see my question above). If this is the case, then the origin of the practise would be rather in the Gelug school. In either case, I am happy with whatever sequence you like for those sections. My suggestion was based on the point, that the practise was more common in the Gelug.

But as you said, it might be good to specify the orgin of the body mandala practise, as well as HHDL's practise. The other scholars are needed to comment on your other points. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything Geshe Kelsang wrote in Heart Jewel concerning Dorje Shugden is based on Trijang Rinpoche's writings. Now that Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors has been translated into English, we can see that Trijang Rinpoche took the Morchen quote from Losel Gyatso’s Dispelling the Darkness of Torment, as quoted by Lelung Shepai Dorje: "Again, at a later time, Morchen Dorje Chang Kunga Lhundrub spread the practice [of Dorje Shugden] widely, saying that, since now is the time for all of his special pure visions to be fulfilled, one must rely upon this Great King, himself" (Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors, p. 110). Hope that helps! Emptymountains (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

here we go. Anyway, I was thinking about Jmlees comment from before and hope it is ok to make a suggestion. Jmlee was making some good points that need to be adressed, however maybe everybody can think one more time whether they are now fine with the general structure of the article, before it goes into details? Is the article now reader friendly and up to wiki standards? I was comparing with some other articles about holy beings, and found they have often a section on "Further Reading". Is this covered with the references in this article? And what about some images?

To me it seems a vast improvement and everyone sounds relieved that we have finally figured out how to deal with the two articles fairly and to a higher Wiki standard of readability, accountability etc. As for further reading, generally only if something pertinent is missing from the references should it be added, but there are a lot of sources about Dorje Shugden mentioned in the references and I think they cover it? (Truthbody (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

just briefly about the oracle. I've seen that Venerable Choyang Kuten Lama, who was an oracle for Dorje Shugden, was also oracle for Setrap, the wrathful form of Amitayus. So some enlightened protectors seemed to have oracles in Tibet? Please correct me, if I am wrong. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Choyang Kuten was also an oracle for Setrap. (Truthbody (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Does anyone know where what Lelung Shepai Dorje's source was? As for Setrap, he is by and large considered a worldly protector. It is only in Ganden Shartse that he is considered an emanation of Amitabha. Thus, according to that view, he appears as a worldly deity and should be treated as such (AFAIK, but the actual practice may differ). Regardless of which POV you uphold, he is worldly, in appearance or nature. Jmlee369 (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is only at the great Ganden monastery (which has produced thousands of holy beings) that Setrap is considered enlightened, that view should be respected and it means that there are examples of other enlightened Protectors who have oracles. Dorje Shugden, of course, is an enlightened being who has an oracle. It is only cynical non-practitioners who wish to maintain that various Deities are not who their adherents believe and even know them to be. It seems there is some cultural imperialism going on with these assumptions about other people's objects of faith (see kt66 POV conversation above). Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

My point was that even in Ganden Shartse (Jangtse does not put much emphasis on this practice AFAIK) they knew him to have the conventional appearance of an unelightened deity. We all know that the Buddhist Ganesh is Avalokitesvara but we treat him as a worldly deity. Even Pabongkha Rinpoche said that Pehar is the emanation of the Five Buddha's activity, that Dorje Tseringma is also an emanation of an enlightened being but we still treat them as what they appear to be i.e. unenlightened. We do not take refuge in them. Therefore, it cannot be said that Setrap has an oracle as an enlightened being. Jmlee369 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

People in Ganden did not (and some still do not) treat Dorje Shugden as a worldly being but as a Buddha. It makes no sense whatsoever for a pure Buddhist to treat an emanation of a Buddha as a worldly being. Eventually, with Tantric pure view, we are aiming to see everyone as a pure being. And no Buddhist goes for refuge to a worldly being. (Truthbody (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

If that is so, why are not all supposed emanations taken refuge in? The very nature of an emanation is that it is like a country's ambassador - they have the authority of the country but act as an independant being, both positively and negatively. Why is it then that the masters do not take refuge in Yudronma, Pehar and the other emanations? Would you take refuge in Ganesh? Pure view is irrelevant here. Jmlee369 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

this is no fan page

I reincluded deleted passages which mainly include 3rd party sources like von Brück, Kay, Woikowitz and Mumford. The present article is heavily one-sided and excludes deliberately different povs. This WP article should not serve as a fan article for those believing Shugden is a Buddha but it should present the different povs in WP:NPOV. It is misleading to favour the minor and controversial pov, that Shugden would be enlightened, as the main pov while excluding the other povs, although 3rd party sources exist on them. I marked the article again with unbalanced because it favours a minor pov as the major pov of the article, this violates the WP Guidelines. --Kt66 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

cut it out, Katie - everybody has decided that this article is not the place for this - this stuff belongs in the controversy article (where it already appears). your extremist revisions here are simply vandalism. please get a life. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable kt66. We all agreed on this version and moved the controversial material to the controversy. Read the discussions above. Please do not make us have to repeat them all over again! You do not own this article. It is time you stopped this antisocial editing behavior. Now it will all have to be moved again in accordance with the discussions we all had. All you are doing is wasting everyone's time.

Please read the discussion pages before reverting this article to your version and flying in the face of everyone else's careful, reasoned discussion. You are acting as if no other editor exists or matters except you. Use the controversy page for all your controversial points. (Truthbody (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot simply keep reverting to your own favorite version! That is not how Wikipedia works. Many people have worked hard on this article to make it in keeping with other Wikipedia articles on religious figures. (Truthbody (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

this has been discussed previously intensely. Your changes spin the facts about Shugden, and you have shown that you are willing to remove 3rd party sources and even to spin them by quoting them either incorrectly or incomplete. This justifies to add the previous versions whic are accurate again. --Kt66 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear pro-Shugden editors, are you kidding? Your removal of previous discussed passages and the favour of disputed claims about enlightened lineage without balancing them violates WP principles. Your deliberately exclude other pov and spin the article to a fan-site. This article has to be improved and to made NPOV. Until this has be done I include the POV template. Please don't change my headlines. --Kt66 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense kt66. This article is vastly improved already by the careful editing of several users. I don't care about the POV template -- if it makes people read these discussion pages, that is fine, as they will then understand clearly what you are up to. You clearly have not read the discussions above. You editing this page is like a born-again Christian editing the page on Muhammed or a Muslim editing the page on Buddha. Or it is like a Christian missionary slandering the worship of African gods simply because he neither understands nor believes them. It is patronizing, insulting and not done on any of the other Wiki pages on religious figures and living figures (which avoid such slander as you like to include). This article is not designed to have every opponent's point of view on Dorje Shugden -- that is what the controversy article can do for you. Or find an article with the holy being you yourself rely on and edit that instead; that would seem a more meaningful use of your time. This is an article on a religious figure and how he is relied upon by practitioners. This is what people want to find out with this page (see Your Friend's excellent comments above).

of course for you this is non-sense because you are mainly responsible for deleting all the 3rd party sources, inserting NKT's blog pages and spin the sources like Mullin, Woijkowitz etc. I will at least correct your wrong citation of Mumford again. --Kt66 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This page has a controversy section and makes it clear there and elsewhere that there is another point of view of Dorje Shugden from non-practitioners and that people can go to the controversy page to find out all about that. This is a concession to people like you who will not let us practice our religion in peace. It is the equivalent of an article on Buddha Tara having a controversy section with, say, the Muslim view on her (e.g. "We don't agree with a word these crazy faithful practitioners say! Relying on Tara is idol worship!") (Truthbody (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

you seem not to understand. You favour with this article an one-sided and minor view that Shugden would be a Buddha and you exclude deliberately other point of views. The article was previously at least half-way accurate and balanced, now it is completely unbalanced and a fan site article. --Kt66 (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

with respect to this and your previous remark, check the notes section -- there are no self-published sources. There are plenty of third-party sources. This article is objective, clear and factual. Controversial points of view are where they should be, in the controversy section and in their very own long Dorje Shugden controversy article! (Truthbody (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

template-reasons again - don't remove the template until this has been solved, violations I report to the admin board

The article as it presently is represents a fan site which puts emphasize on the minor view or opinion that Shugden would be a Buddha, and it excludes deliberately the major view that he either is a worldly spirit or even an evil being (demon). For this there exist 3rd party sources which had been added and which were deliberately removed, adding information which either lack WP:RS or are based on WP:SPS or anonymour blogs and websites. This has been done also by neglecting previous discussions and by issuing an intra-Shugden editor agreement. This agreement argues that the other povs would be controversial and would belong to the article Dorje Shugden Controversy. This position is not tenable, because the article on Dorje Shugden should offer in an unbiased and balanced WP:NPOV manner different point of views, it should not emphasize a minor controversial one as the main pov and excluding other (major) positions. To take one pov, the minor and mainly disputed one, that he would be enlightened, and extending this view even by removing 3rd party sources which balanced these claims, to favour NKT's fringe opinion violates Wikipedia's NPOV and balanced policies and is in no way acceptable. One could also include exclusively the major pov that Shugden is unenlightened and ask to remove the claim (minor pov) he is enlightened to the Dorje Shugden Controversy but also this would not be acceptable, becuase it is a one-sided, unbalanced approach. The idea of some editors that here should only be presented the minor view he is enlightened and all what contradicts that, should be removed to Dorje Shugden Controversy is both unprofessional and naive. For more read WP policies again, e.g. how to write good articles.

Not only have 3rd party sources been deleted to favour one-sided and unverified fringe views based on WP:SPS but also links to different povs in the link section have been deleted and 3rd party sources had been quoted either incorrectly or only half of the statements to favour this fringe view. All this is not at all acceptable. I will add here all the correct quoted and previously on the talks page and by edits agreed 3rd party sources or misrepresented quotes again to make these points clear. All sources I add are perfectly fine WP:RS as this has been confirmed also previously by neutral editors. The last incident of a misrepresentation of sources is the half quote by Mumford. The full quote states: "Tibetans in Kathmandu regard Shugden as a guardian honored by those who adhere to the Gelug sect, while members of the Nyingma sect think of Shugden 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." the first part of it has been deleted different times by user:Truthsayer62 clearly to spin the facts. The deletion of full quotes or the mutilation of them can be seen as WP:vandalism as it can be done with the deletion of the following 3rd party sources I've added to balance the heavily one-sided and misrepresented facts about Shugden in this context.

quotes and insertions by 3rd party WP:RS which were deleted

The following 3rd party sources and quotes aimed to balance the article were deliberately deleted to favour the minor view Shugden is a Buddha. Also the previous agreement to quote Mullin for the history section and the passage had been deleted.

Here is the list of deleted 3rd party sources:

• Dorje Shugden's precise nature — an emanation of Buddha Manjushri, either a transcendent or a worldly Dharma Protector, or a malevolent spirit — is disputed among adherents of Tibetan Buddhism.

There are differing views regarding Dorje Shugden's origin, nature and function. According to the university thesis of David Kay, there are two main opposing conceptions:

• a Dharma Protector, an enlightened being who is a deity that has been worshipped as a Buddha ever since, and that he is the chief guardian deity of the Gelug Tradition
• a worldly protector whose relatively short existence over only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him an inappropriate object of veneration and Buddhist refuge.

According to Kay scholarly discussions show that Shugden is defined as a worldly protector, and "the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance." Also Nebesky-Wojkowitz defines Dorje Shugden as a worldly protector. It is not clear when belief in Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being first developed, Kay suggests: "the likelihood is that it emerged gradually as the Dharma-protector grew in prominence. This belief seems to have been in place by the time the young Fourteenth Dalai Larna was introduced to the practice by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959." According to Mumford, Dorje Shugden “is extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.”

• According to Von Bruck, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, after examining Dorje Shugden based on three methodological devices (1) historical evidence, (2) political reason, (3) spiritual insight, changed his view and now considers Dorje Shugden to be a worldly spirit. Von Bruck concludes: "It is clear that by historical evidence the authenticity of that tradition on Shugden cannot be decided." According to Sara Chamberlain in the New Internationalist, in 1996 the Dalai Lama announced that worship of Dorje Shugden was banned and explained that the Tibetan state oracle, Nechung, had advised him that the deity was a threat to his personal safety and the future of Tibet.. The Dalai Lama stated in 1996:

"All final decisions have been concluded only through divination."

• According to Nebesky-Wojkowitz, the enlightened lineage of Dorje Shugden is in contradiction with some historical accounts. Von Brück suggests that there is a controversy about the interpretation of the status of Shugden:

On the one hand it is argued that Shugden is a wrathful, mundane protector deity with such and such an origin in history, and to deal with such a spirit one has to have control over him. On the other hand, those who propitiate Shugden maintain that Shugden is a high deity beyond the mundane level and therefore deserves life-entrustment (srog gtad), i.e. complete surrender, like emanations of the Buddha. [..] It depends on the interpretation of Shugden, and this varies, as has been demonstrated.

• The original protectors of the Gelug school, established by Je Tsongkhapa, are Mahakala, Vaibravala, and the Dharma-king (Kalarupa). Kalarupa is a supra-mundane deity who was bound by Je Tsongkhapa himself. Kay and Dreyfus attribute the popularisation of the practice to Pabongka Rinpoche. According to Dreyfus, Pabongka Rinpoche "replaced the protectors appointed by Je Tsongkhapa himself..." and that through Pabongkha Rinpoche's changes and claims, Dorje Shugden "has become the main Gelug protector replacing the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Gelug tradition."

• According to Nebresky-Wojkowitz Shugden is a mundane protector whose followers proclaim that he will succeed Pehar (Nechung) as the head of all ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma (worldly protectors) once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the worldly spheres”. According to Kay, followers of Dorje Shugden maintained "that the Tibetan government should turn its allegiance away from Pehar, the State protector, to Dorje Shugden." According to Stephen Batchelor, such a shift would have given supporters of Dorje Shugden more political influence.

• The emergence of the practice is strongly related to Tulku Drapga Gyaltsen, a contemporary of the 5th Dalai Lama about whom exist different stories. According to von Brück, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of the 19th century and different orally-transmitted versions of his origins contradict each other.

• Von Brück traces the root of the link between the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the worship of Dorje Shugden back to "the power struggles of the 5th Dalai Lama and the successful centralization of power in his hands after the death of the Mongol Gushri Khan." According to Mullin, the soul of the murdered monk Dragpa Gyaltsen wandered after his death for some time as a disturbed spirit, who created trouble for the people of Lhasa. The 5th Dalai Lama tried to "exorcise and pacify" him by first asking Nyingma shamans to subdue him, but when they failed he asked Gelugpa shamans who were finally successful. By these measures, the spirit of the diseased Lama was "pacified and transformed" into the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. According to Mumford, the 5th Dalai Lama unsuccessfully tried to subjugate Dorje Shugden through a fire exorcism and "invited the still-wandering spirit to become a Srungma of the Gelugpa order, with result that Shugs-ldan became one of the most popular Srungmas in Tibet. With the encouragement of local Lamas, kin groups all over Tibet took on Shugs-ldan as their lineage guardian." Mullin continues, saying that the practice was later adopted by "numerous Gelugpa monks who disapproved of the 5th Dalai Lama's manner of combining Gelugpa and Nyingmapa doctrines" and that the 5th Dalai Lama tried to discourage the practice, but "it caught on in many monasteries". According to Mullin, "The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa school." The practice became even more popular during the late 1800s. During that time, Dorje Shugden "became an all pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries, and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families."

• However, 14th Dalai Lama has denied that the 5th Dalai Lama composed such a prayer. Also von Brück denies the historical evidence of such a claim, stating "The problem is that this position has no historical evidence, neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama or elsewhere."

--Kt66 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

kt66 agenda to harm this religious tradition and destroy faith in this holy being

kt66, I fail to see how you have even tried to address any of the points made by me or any other editor. You just repeat the same old thing year in year out. You have declared publicly that you have an agenda to warn everyone against the tradition of Dorje Shugden and destroy everyone's faith in it. How is this different to e.g. a fanatical Muslim or Christian pervasively editing the pages of each other's faith, or indeed any faith they feel is wrong?

Please give other examples on Wikipedia where editors with such a self-avowed negative agenda to harm that religious tradition are permitted to edit the pages of that religious tradition? I would be surprised if you can find even one. (Truthbody (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

From what I understand, any and all 3rd-party sources that "were moved" were simply moved over to the Dorje Shugden Controversy article, where they are relevant. This change was discussed above and agreed to by consensus by a number of editors, basing the change on how other similar Wikipedia articles are structured. Before re-adding something to this article, check to see if it is in the Controversy article. If it is, there's no need for it here. If it isn't, re-add it there. Emptymountains (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Truthbody, truthsayer, atisha's cook are you able to follow WP guidelines or not? Don't issue personal attacks on me and don't violate WP guidelines. This is no blog site of the New Kadampa Tradition. It is also extremely inappropriate to delete 3rd party sources which had been previously discussed and agreed, like Mullin or Kay and Woijkowitz and favouring a minor pov as the main pov of the article. My corrections have nothing to do with agenda, I gave reasons and put a lot of effort in discussing this. Every person familiar with 3rd party sources will accept them, but obviously not most NKT editors. Every absence of non-NKT editors is abused to delete these passages again and again or to spin quotes etc. This is not acceptable at all.

Dear Emptymountains you say: "3rd-party sources that "were moved" were simply moved over to the Dorje Shugden Controversy article, where they are relevant" but the result is that this article presents a minor pov as the major pov at the cost of exclusing all other povs which are main povs. This is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia which aims to give the different relevant povs balanced and NPOV without favouring certain view points. you claim "This change was discussed above and agreed to by consensus by a number of editors, basing the change on how other similar Wikipedia articles are structured." but you don't mention that the "agreement" is the agreement of NKT or pro-Shugden editors, aimed to emphasize their controversial pov and excluding all the other povs. The article as it is now is a Shugden-fan site and it is no encyclopaedic article. Every person with common sense and some understanding of the subject matter can see this. I strongly disagree with this article as it is now, it is violating WP policies as I said and gave reasons above. --Kt66 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "minority view" is senseless in the context of this article. The view that Jesus is the Son of God is a minority view in this world, but it doesn't mean the article on Jesus is all about what people who don't believe in him think, in detail and at the expense of what Christians believe. On this article, people want primarily to know what practitioners believe. They can check out the controversy to see what you believe since the time the Dalai Lama spoke out against this religious tradition. (Truthbody (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Both the Jesus and Mohammed article are semi-protected, for example, presumably to avoid tampering with by anti-Christians or anti-Muslims, even though they may hold a "majority pov". Manjushri is an example of an article where the faith is explained rather than the extensive opinions of people who have no knowledge or faith in Manjushri. There are many other examples. (Truthbody (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Everybody, STOP!

Before going forward, we need to discuss what the two Dorje Shugden articles are all about. For example, does the Dorje Shugden controversy article only cover events from the 1970s onwards, or does it cover the "controversy" from the beginning? If the latter, then what is the basic Dorje Shugden all about? I think it was made clear above, but it does not seem clear to Kt66. Emptymountains (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversy has arisen since the 1970s primarily. There is no proof that it started any earlier than that. (Truthbody (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

As far as i remember, it started with the socalled yellow book, as far as the 20th century is concerned.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.44 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Recently I have read that there are people who think the "ghost" to be an incarnation or so of a person called Chöpel, the regent of the fifth Dalai Lama. But now I am going to STOP. -- 88.75.73.44 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reclaimed history of Dorje Shugden

A scholarly, well researched and accurate history of this Deity is now, thankfully, available on the Internet : www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org. It would be great if editors of this article (both Dorje Shugden practitioners and Dorje Shugden detractors) could take the time to have a look at this crucial and illuminating website (if you haven't done so already) because it sets the record straight on many aspects of Dorje Shugden's history that were distorted by George Dreyfus and those who copied him. The author has done this by means of thorough translations of ritual texts and so on from before the twentieth century: Dorje Shugden History (It is clear from this site that David Kay's work, for example, is credulous and poorly researched in that it relies heavily on Dreyfus rather than upon original research, and Dreyfus is largely discredited by the author's translations.) (Truthbody (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Spelling

Can we standardise on spelling please? Out of simple courtesy and respect. The article uses "Dorje Shugden", "Dorje Shugdan" and "Dorje Shugdän". My personal preference in private use is for "Dorje Shugdän". Short of asking the Dharma Protector himself for his opinion on the matter, perhaps someone can advance a sound linguistic reason for a choice and we can stick with it. Stormerne (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tharpa Publications is phasing out all umlauts in everything except mantras. For example, all new prints of the book Heart Jewel have Dorje Shugden instead of Dorje Shugdän. Emptymountains (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad summary

Hi guys. I read the article and it seems it's written almost entirely by the worshippers of Gyalpo Shugden. I think that in order to be fair you need to include in the summary that the Dalai Lama considers him a bad spirit. I don't care who is right, but the fact that he has this opinion is undisputable. Why do you remove it from the summary? It's the most important, crucial point of the dispute. Otherwise the summary is completely false. The fact is that Gyalpo Shugden is a being, considered by one group an enlightened deity, and another group, including the Dalai Lama, as a bad spirit. Wikipedia is not for wars, you may think that the Dalai Lama is wrong. But you can't remove his view on this, otherwise the article is biased. I tried to include the DL opinion, but one guy is always reverting it back. He says I'm insluting him by including DL's opinion here. I don't think how including DL opinion is insulting, especially if you can find it also on the Criticism article. You should also remove it from there, no? Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg, welcome to the discussion! What has been clarified many times before is the purpose of this article versus the Controversy article. I would say one of the distinctions relevant to your recent contribution to the article is that this article focuses on Dorje Shugden's non-controversial nature and funciton (i.e., either as a enlightened protector or a wordly protector), while the Controversy article discusses the debate about whether he is in fact a "bad spirit." Of course, this article needs to make reference to and link to the Controversy article, but that is not what this article is about. This article is about Dorje Shugden practice, and no one who does the practice considers him a "bad spirit." In contrast, some Dorje Shugden practitioners consider him an enlightened protector, while other practitioners consider him a worldly protector. Whether or not he is a "bad spirit" is not discussed in this article, so why would the summary of this article mention it? Emptymountains (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This article should not be about Shugden practice - it should be about who/what Shugden is. So there are two views about this: Shugden worshipers consider him a protector (enlightened or worldly), whereas the others, including the Dalai Lama and representatives of all other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, consider him a bad spirit. Reducing the summary to "enlightened or worldly protector" is just false. I understand you may not like the Dalai Lama, but you cannot change the fact that he considers Shugden a bad spirit.

Okay, then. What makes this article different from the Controversy article? Emptymountains (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg, please! while there is some merit in describing controversial views about religious figures and institutions, as we've discussed at length previously, it's not appropriate to do this on the main page relating to those figures. much controversy surrounds the 14th Dalai Lama, for example, but this is not given undue weight or discussed at length in the summary section of his wiki. there are many who violently oppose Christianity, but their views are not represented on the main pages concerning Jesus. the proper place for such information in this case is the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. thank you.Atisha's cook (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Shugden is that its controversy is one of the core features of this figure. There is nothing controversial about Manjushri. There are no controversies regarding Hevajra or Cakrasamvara. Everyone agrees they are TB deities. Whereas with Shugden the only ones who believe tha he is a protector (enlightened or worldy, doesn't matter) are his worshipers. Other lamas and practitioners, including the Dalai Lama, consider him a bad spirit. Why hide it? I understand you don't like it, but it's not the reason for WP.

The controversy in no way is one of the core features of this figure, in fact it has nothing to do with the way in which Dorje Shugden has been relied upon over many generations, including by the Dalai Lama's own spiritual teachers. The controversy arises from Tibetan politics and is therefore dealt with fully and adequately in its own article. Please see the discussion above instigated by user friend of truth; there is some valuable input there that led to a broad consensus about keeping the two articles separate, with links to each other, as they are actually dealing with two different subjects. The Dalai Lama's controversial ban of the practice is what caused the controversy in the 1970s. The Deity was not controversial before then and is still not controversial for practitioners. The fact that the Dalai Lama and some of his followers call him a gyalpo or worldly spirit is mentioned right there in the introduction, and sourced to a third-party (David Kay), and the reader is rightly referred to the controversy article for more on that. (Truthbody (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

By the way, gyalpo means 'worldly spirit' or 'worldly protector', not 'bad spirit', as you put it! So for that reason also your addition is redundant. (Truthbody (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

See WP:TP: "The default organization format for most talk pages is dated (time-based and deprecating), where new threads are appended (added to the end of the page) and earlier threads become more and more deprecated as newer discussions tend to dominate." Emptymountains (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes this article different from the Controversy article? What topics does it cover? Emptymountains (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the neutral warning box at the top as it is not justified, simply one user's opinion. (Truthbody (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I disagree that the neutrality issue has been taken care of. Describing Shugden primarily in terms of the views of followers begs the question of what the modern mainstream view of Shugden is- is it the view offered by his remaining followers and expressed in the West primarily by associates of the NKT, or is it the view put forth by the Dalai Lama's associates? Most English-language readers will come to this article after hearing about the controversy- to have who Shugden is defined in terms of one sides view is not really neutral. I think it would be better to reduce the 'nature' section and move the opposing views into the controversy article, rather than adopt one side here and move the meat of the other side's views into a controversy article. --Clay Collier (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors on this article have concluded that it is more suitable for Wikipedia to have the two separate articles on Dorje Shugden rather than just the one. There were some very good points made and a consensus was reached, so please read all that. I have taken the liberty here of repeating some of the main points that were made (sorry it got a bit long but these points seem important. Moreover this is an article about a Deity or Buddha who is the object of faith and respect for many thousands of people, and it should also be in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines on writing about living persons (avoiding slander, etc): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons): (Truthbody (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

In the case of a deity the main presentation has to be done from the point of view of those who practise it. Otherwise the distortion will be too extreme. If you check carefully this is exactly what has been done with virtually all the other religious articles on the wikipedia. Hindu deities are presented in the way they are whorshipped by their followers, christian saints in the way they are seen by their followers, etc. Controversial perceptions again can be added at the end, and be clearly indicated as such.

If we do not follow this approach, what will happen? If a Dorje Shugden practitioner comes at present across this article he will not feel much that it is about his deity. He will feel, well, some people seem to be argueing here, but they hardly say who Dorje Shugden is, how he looks like, how and why I am whorshipping it.

Imagine a christian is reading an article about Jesus in the Wikipedia and feels almost no identification with the article?! Would't that miss the point?

Apart from that it is wrong that the controversy about Dorje Shugden has always been with the practice of this deity. When this practise arose, it was not immediatly clear who Dorje Shugden was, but once a way to rely upon him developed, the tradition was over centuries steady and continuous without any conflict that is noteworthy in comparison to other religious conflicts. It is only during the last 13 years that a historicly unparalleled conflict arose. And, as I said this is fair enough to be mentioned in this article.

Your point about articles on Christian saints and so on is significant -- there is very little material in this article about how to rely upon Dorje Shugden, the symbolism, the mandala, the prayers, the benefits, the qualities of the practitioners and so on. So those trying to find out about Dorje Shugden the Deity (as the article's title would suggest) really find nothing they are looking for.

Those who say he has been a wandering spirit for the last four hundred years are mainly superstitious (how could a wandering spirit still be wandering around?! why would great masters and yogis want to rely on a spirit when they have deep Buddhist refuge and a full understanding of the Dharma of Sutra and Tantra?! etc). More importantly, those who state that Dorje Shugden is a spirit are not practitioners -- and although they can make their voice heard, they shouldn't dominate the article. Why? Because they don't honestly know what they are talking about -- by definition they are looking at him only from an outside perspective, with no feeling whatsoever of whom he is from experience. They are just criticizing him based on hearsay or dodgy historical accounts, influenced by the recent controversy. (And Yourfriend is correct, the controversy is recent -- hundreds of years went by without any problems, everyone free to do their own practice.) This of course mainly applies to kt66, who uses this page as his platform.

There are two pages for Dorje Shugden and I think it would be good to avoid all the overlap that comes from the controversy invading the Dorje Shugden article. The controversy about Dorje Shugden should be on the controversy page -- I imagine that is why that page was created. kt66 is singularly unqualified to edit the Dorje Shugden page because of his undisguised self-proclaimed anti-Shugden agenda (evidence of this is throughout this talk page and his own blogs etc). He is like an extreme right-wing evangelical Christian using Wikipedia to diss another religion, saying it leads to hell, simply because it is not his religion. Or like Victorian Englishmen trying to convert savage Africans to the one true faith. We don't criticize his religion or faith and I feel it would be more appropriate to Wikipedia that he does not use the Dorje Shugden page as a platform to criticize the religion or faith of thousands of faithful practitioners -- he can do this on the Dorje Shugden controversy page if he feels the strong need to do it.

I suppose the point we're trying to make is that the "debate" is better off on the controversy page. This page on Dorje Shugden could be short and sweet, explaining who Dorje Shugden is mainly according to those practicing Dorje Shugden, but then mentioning others have a different viewpoint and referring the reader to the controversy section for the debate or controversy. This would be more in keeping with other Wikipedia articles on holy figures when there are a lot of people who have faith in those figures. Publicly insulting another's religion on Wikipedia seems to go against Wikipedia's ethos and against moral discipline in general.

thank you Jmlee and truthbody for your points. Jmlee you have a lot of knowlegde about the history of tibetan buddhism, which I admire and respect a lot. From this you will also know that there is some disagreement about many deities and practices. However in an encyclopedia they are simply presented in the way they are practised. In case of different perceptions, then these ones are mentioned, including their reasons, but under an appropriate heading. Jmlee, you mentioned the Maitreya article, and there are in fact different perceptions listed, but the article does not start in the first paragraph with the statement that Maitreya is explained in the Sutras and Ron Hubbard also believed he is Maitreya, and then going into lengthy debates on that. Most people who pray to Maitreya and want to know more about him, will find that article nice and informative. They will also have no problems with the fact that Ron Hubbard is mentioned, because the overall balance in that article is ok.

There is also no point in trying to claim that Dorje Shugden is a controversial deity, simply because not everybody saw him from the first day of his appearance as a holy being and was happy with him. Can you give me one single example of a holy being or even founder of a major religion who started like that? Jesus was nailed to the cross and there were several attempts to murder Buddha. Are they therefore by nature controversial beliefs? Such a statement would completely miss the point. Jesus was teaching compassion, as Buddha did, and - as Dorje Shugden does!

There are people in this world who feel threatened by Jesus, who feel threatened by Buddha, or feel threatened by Mohammed. Yes. But this is an encyclopedic article. It simply presents a Deity.

I once met a high rank Theravadin teacher from Sri Lanka. He was looking at a shrine, pointing at a statue of Green Tara and said "what's that?" He did not accept that Tara was a Buddha at all. When you look in the article on Tara, it is not even mentioned that some buddhist schools do not believe in Tara. But it is still a good article innit? It looks neutral and reliable to me. And all Tara practitioners will be happy with it. hmmmm.

You are editing since a while on this article don't you? Then my question: how often did you got feedback from a Shugden practitioner who found that article somehow ok? Someone who said, "Well, that's a nice, plain information about the Deity I am practising. It is not a hymn, but clear, factual information." How often did that happen? For as long as every single Shugden practitioner who comes across this article just says "goodness, about whom or what is that stuff?", there might be something wrong. There are millions of Shugden practitioners in Mongolia, Ladakh, Leh, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Tibet, and around the world. They have the right to rely on Dorje Shugden and they have reasons which are valid for them. And these people simply have the right to find here in the wikipedia an article that neutrally reports about their belief. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement that this article should be presented from a practitioner's point of view and the controversy should be in the other article. This is why we decided to split the article in the first place, but then User:Kt66 and other anti-Shugdenpas have subsequently tried to reintroduce a negative view of Dorje Shugden because they can't stand to see something positive or even neutral about this Deity. User:Yourfriend21 makes a lot of sense. Also I was thinking that it's a wikipedia rule that the biography of a living person should be neutral and any libelous claims should be immediately removed. Since Dorje Shugden is a living person, he should also be accorded this right. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading up Wikipedia entries for other holy beings, however controversial their origins and however many people believe there is something wrong with them e.g. Mohammed, Jesus, some Catholic saints, etc etc. It is true that the emphasis is always on the practitioners' point of view, and sometimes it says things like "according to adherents...." Any controversial elements have their own sections. They are respectfully written, actually. Take a look yourself if you wish. With that in mind I am going to start moving controversial elements to the controvery section and/or to the controversy article, trying to make this article short, simple, factual, unlibelous, in keeping with Wikipedia WP:NPOV etc. Those who disagree with practitioners' view of and faith in their Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden (and those who support the TGIE political policy banning the practice and all that that entails) still have their own Dorje Shugden controversy article. (Truthbody (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

For example, look at the Wikipedia article for Moses, and you'll see it has a link to another separate article called "Criticism of Moses". Look at the article on God, surely a controversial figure if ever there was one, and see how that is written. Or Mohammed, for that matter, someone who has been infinitely more controversial than Dorje Shugden. Not to mention any other Hindu (Kali or Shiva) or Buddhist Deities. Dorje Shugden has done nothing from his side to warrant the criticism he receives from the Dalai Lama. There is no proof that Dorje Shugden has ever harmed even a fly; it is just words of slander actually, whoever speaks them (even if it is the Dalai Lama). Calling him a "bad spirit" is utterly insulting, and constitutes religious discrimination and intolerance toward his followers that would not be countenanced for any other religious figure. When people in the general public hear these things, they find it inappropriate. The Dalai Lama is even being taken to court for Deity discrimination. It is only the popularity of the Dalai Lama that has allowed this to happen, but it is not right. Religious intolerance is certainly not something that should be enshrined in an encyclopedia. Point is, this article needs to be as respectful with respect to this Deity as any other Wiki article on a religious figure and living person. The controversy arising from the Dalai Lama's words and ban, along with all the amazingly rude and critical things said about Dorje Shugden, are fully and adequately dealt with in Dorje Shugden controversy. (Truthbody (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

There is an issue of authority here that doesn't exist in a case like 'criticism of Moses'. Dorje Shugden is historically associated with a particular sect of Buddhism (the Gelugpa). Current followers of Dorje Shugden maintain that association. One branch of the Gelugpa sect- a branch generally considered by most to represent the Gelugpa mainstream, based on the senior officials of the Gelugpa associated with it- have made certain statements regarding the status of 'their' supernatural entity. Another group, also with a claim to descent from the Gelugpa tradition, but at odds with a lot of the institutional structure over this issue, disagrees with the statements being made. What we have is a dispute within a religious tradition, and in particular a dispute over who has the authority to determine what Shugden's function is and if he should be propitiated. If, for instance, two branches of Judaism were to disagree over how important Moses was, we would not just report what the branch that thought more of him had to say- doing that amounts to picking a side in the dispute on authority. I agree with the idea that we should not be depicting a deity or religious figure in terms of its external opposition or criticism- every article would be a mess in that case. However, in a case where there is a legitimate dispute with the tradition about the authority of a practice or entity, Wikipedia should not take a particular position solely to avoid giving offense. Consider Society of St. Pius X; the Vatican historically called the Society schismatic, whereas the Society itself considered itself to be faithful to the Catholic communion. We don't report just one side and move the other side's claims into a 'controversy' article, because the controversy is not about aspects of the topic, or issued by critics outside the topic, but is an intrinsic part of reporting the topic's status. Who is Dorje Shugden? Well, the Gelugpa mainstream- traditionally associated with this particular entity- says one thing. Another group, also affiliated with the same tradition, says something else. If we pick one of those views in the article, rather than reporting that there is a dispute within the tradition over just this question, we are implicitly picking a side in the dispute over who has the right to define what Shugden is and how he relates to mainstream Tibetan Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, I think everything sourced is, of course, worthy of inclusion in the articles. I just don't know clearly what belongs in each article. Is the "controversy" only about from the 1970s onwards? Can we maybe come up with a bullet list of what goes in one article versus the other? Or, should we entertain the idea of re-merging them? Emptymountains (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of next steps, I think it might be a good idea to get some broader input on how to organize this topic. I'd propose opening an RfC on this topic, and asking for some input from WikiProject Buddhism; it might also be interesting to talk to the WikiProject Saints people and see if there are cases of contested de-canonization in the Catholic or Orthodox context. I know the Vatican has removed the status from certain of the 'mythical' saints in the past. Not a perfect analogy, obviously, but interesting in terms of seeing how WP might handle a situation where there is a dispute between an authority and a community over the status of an entity claimed, in a sense, by both. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, one of the factors in this dispute is that the Dalai Lama as the Dalai Lama has no ecclesiastical authority to define what Dorje Shugden is. He is not the spiritual leader of the Gelugpa sect, much less Tibetan Buddhism. Who is the "authority" in this dispute: the Dalai Lama as political leader of the Tibetans, the Ganden Tripa as throne holder of the Gelugpas (traditionally elected by the Gelugpa hierarchy, now appointed by the Dalai Lama), or one's own Spiritual Guide (e.g., Trijang Rinpoche for many of the Lamas and Geshes who do not give up the practice, since the DL is not their Guru)??? Emptymountains (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I say, it is an imperfect analogy. However, the facts on the ground seem to be that quite a lot of the Tibetan exile community and institutions, as well as the mainstream press, seems to have gone along with the statements of the Dalai Lama. That demonstrates that there is a de facto authority there that is engaged in a conflict within the tradition. Wikipedia can not decide who has authority and who does not, but can not decline to report the conflict on the grounds that one side does not have standing to enter into it, when a lot of the media and involved community has accepted that premise. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the problem with seeking arbitration on the nature of Dorje Shugden and how he should be portrayed from any group or body *other* than his adherents is that they will tend to take the Dalai Lama's view as being the most authoritative - which is precisely what the community of Dorje Shugden adherents disputes! the Dalai Lama's view has *become* the most publicly followed view, but the Shugden community argue that this is similar to a politician who has eliminated all opposition to his views: is it correct to refer to that politician's view then as the "mainstream" simply because the majority of the opposition has been silenced? even to refer to Dorje Shugden as "controversial" is (ironically!) disputed by his adherents, who claim that the controversy has only arisen in its current, very visible form since the 1970s, and in large part since the Dalai Lama's ban in 1996. i am of the view that the current solution to how this all should be represented in the encyclopedia is a good one: having two articles, one of which explains the religious entity Dorje Shugden, the other explaining the controversy that surrounds this entity. i feel that to "re-merge" the articles will simply be to remove the former and leave only the latter: an article about the controversy. the objection that having two articles gives undue weight to the view of one "side" isn't valid, imho. one "side" would like an article explaining the religious entity and its practice, the other would like an article explaining other views of this entity and the controversy surrounding it: this is what we currently have. to re-merge the articles (or to rewrite the Dorje Shugden article so that it repeats much of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article - which would seem to make it redundant anyway) would be to destroy this balance. an argument *against* having two articles that has been put forward here previously is that currently anyone searching for "Dorje Shugden" may come first on the article explaining how he is seen by his adherents, and that this lends weight to their view. whilst i think a credible case has been made by others above that this weight is quite correct (all articles on religious entities or figures should explain primarily their importance *as religious figures* and their practice by their adherents) to satisfy the dissatisfied, perhaps we could have a Disambiguation page for Dorje Shugden? it might say: "Dorje Shugden - For information concerning the worship of Dorje Shugden, see [Dorje Shugden]; For information concerning the controversy surrounding Dorje Shugden, see [Dorje Shugden Controversy]." what do people think? Atisha's cook (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I, personally, am not arguing for a merge. Rather, I think that the Dorje Shugden article should describe historical and present practices surrounding the entity in question, as described in sources, but not stake an opinion on the "nature" of Dorje Shugden. My current thinking is to advocate one of two solutions:

1. Move most of the discussion about Shugden's nature into the 'Controversy' article, and direct people there to answer the question "Who or what is Dorje Shugden?". I think this may be unsatisfactory in terms of leaving the main article about the topic deficient of any discussion of the thinking of Tibetan Buddhist practitioners.
2. Move a concise summary of the two positions- what they say Shugden is, not delving into the reasons why- into this article, and direct further inquiry to the Controversy article. This is my preferred solution.

As to my rationale for this: if you look at the intro, it currently states that Dorje Shugden is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the Gelugpa school. But Tibetan Buddhism as a whole does not take a position on him, or, based on statements by leaders of the other three schools, seems to adopt the Dalai Lama's view. Many of the senior members of the Gelugpa school seem to subscribe to the Dalai Lama's view. We have no reasonable way of assessing what the majority of Tibetan Buddhist lay folk or monks think on the issue, Gelugpa school or otherwise. I am sensitive to the concern that the view of the Dalai Lama tends to be over-represented in mainstream sources; however, the Dalai Lama has made statements about what Shugden is, and the impression one gets from the mainstream and academic media is that those claims have generally been accepted (though maybe with protest) by the majority of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment. Wikipedia can't really take the position that the most common view presented in reliable sources is wrong, and that the view of an apparent minority with a particular interest in the topic should be presented as the consensus. Shugden supporters argue that Shugden's status is non-controversial; they are pretty much alone in that assertion. The Dalai Lama has taken a different view, as has much of the Tibetan exile establishment. Academic writers write that the status is controversial. News writers write that there is controversy. Saying then that Shugden's status is not controversial is the definition of giving undue weight to a vocal minority; we can not ignore the numerous news and academic publications that have been produced in the last 10+ years stating that their is a controversy because we believe that they have gotten behind the wrong side. Wikipedia is not here to judge the truth of the matter as to whether the DL has the authority to make these sorts of statements, or if Shugden's status is really controversial. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This article makes it clear that there is currently a controversy and refers the reader to the controversy article. This cannot be missed! We could put the disambiguation on Dorje Shugden if you don't think it is clear enough, but we really don't need to repeat all the same old material here as well. The Dorje Shugden article does concisely say there are different views of Dorje Shugden and what those are, but mainly it explains about his practice, his iconography, how people rely upon him, his mandala, his mantra, and so on -- useful encyclopedic material about the Deity Dorje Shugden. (Truthbody (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

The framing of the article is still problematic, however. The intro says: 'is a deity', 'is an incarnation of Manjushri', and then says 'some academic discussions' define him as a worldly spirit. Most of the discussion of practice is under the heading 'Nature and Function', which assumes a particular version of the interpretation of his nature. The view presented is that a particular view of Shugden's nature is primary, and another view that is not being stated clearly is secondary or marginal. Outside of the community of Shugden practitioners, Shugden is most notable in academia and the news in terms of the controversy. Again, I don't want to rehearse the arguments for why Shugden is or isn't one thing in this article, nor do I really care about their relative merits. But given the widespread perception that Shugden's status is in question, we can't say 'no it isn't, he's this except for a few people that don't think so'. We need to reflect the dispute, briefly, in the article. In the view of most scholars and news organizations, a central facet of this entity is in dispute between two parties that both have standing to contest his nature; I don't see a way around clearly reflecting this in the main article. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is where the mistake is made. There are not just two views, but four(!). This article discusses the first three, the Controversy article discusses the fourth. The first three views are that Dorje Shugden is (1) an enlightened protector, (2) a worldly protector, or (3) an enlightened protector appearing in the aspect of a worldly protector, which by the way is how Trijang Rinpoche reconciled the first two views. The fourth view, which is what the Controversy is all about, is that Dorje Shugden is not a protector at all, but a spirit; thus, we should not confuse the terms worldly protector and worldly spirit, which is what I detect in Clay's comments above. Thanks. Emptymountains (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The precise number of views, however, is not really the issue, though that clarification actually serves my point. The first three views, it seems, are held by those who continue to hold with practices relating to Shugden. The fourth view is held by the Dalai Lama, etc. The conflict between the first three views and the fourth view is widely reported. Authority of the Dalai Lama and the senior Gelugpas that support him to make these sorts of statements seems to be quite widely accepted within the academic and Tibetan community (though obviously the depth of that support among ordinary people is not discernible from the current evidence). However, this article makes only two mentions of the phrase 'worldly spirit', neither of them prominent, and never explains what that distinction entails- which is critical. There are two major camps in this conflict. Reliable sources do not regard Shugden as 'belonging' to one camp and not the other- it is viewed as an internal disagreement over the status of an element of the religious tradition, not a critique by outsiders operating under a fundamentally different world view. The article must answer the question 'What is Dorje Shugden' without picking a winner from either camp; the sources on this conflict not associated with one camp or the other do not embrace the option 'the Dalai Lama's view has no standing in the argument'. The current article neglects entirely to explain what one side in the conflict believes, and defines this entity in terms of the other sides view. To mention twice that Shugden is viewed by some as a 'worldly spirit' is misleading to the reader; it does not reflect the attention and authority lent to that position by mainstream sources, and it leaves the reader with no idea of what the difference between a 'worldly spirit' and a 'worldly protector' actually is. All I propose is that we bracket the question of 'what is Dorje Shugden' on this page, and begin the article by stating the two positions as concisely as possible, without rehearsing either sides arguments. We say 'since 1976, the Dalai Lama (and whoever else) have put forth the view that Shugden is a 'worldly spirit', and discouraged his worship. This is what they say a 'worldly spirit' is. If you want to know why they think this, see the controversy article', and also include '(these people) support the view that Dorje Shugden is (some combination of views 1-3), and here's how that differs from being a worldly spirit. They regard the Dalai Lama's actions relating to the worship of Shugden as an infringement on their rights. If you want to see why they think this, see the controversy article. We spend the rest of the article, essentially as it is now, describing the practices and mythology associated with Shugden in neutral sources. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points and I agree there should be two articles like the ones we have now. I will repeat here an assessment on someone's blog as it is put succinctly and will hopefully bear more light on why it is that the Dalai Lama's authority should not be seen as definitive when it comes to Dorje Shugden and therefore his opinions should not be given undue weight.

A theory explaining why it is okay for the Dalai Lama to marginalize Dorje Shugden practitioners.

Many people accuse Dorje Shugden practitioners of being violent, terrorists, fundamentalists, cultish, etc. These accusations are completely false and are not based on valid evidence that can be proven in a court of law. If the accusations are true, why have those who oppose Dorje Shugden practitioners not bring such evil-doers to justice in fair trials? To assert accusations as if they were fact while there is no evidence is a symptom of ignorance. It is superstitious and fear mongering.

The reason why these criticisms are levied against the Dorje Shugden practitioners is done to discredit Dorje Shugden himself and subsequently justify the actions taken against Dorje Shugden followers. It is the same psychology behind much of the discrimination and oppression that we have seen in this world. Such as the Native Americans, African slaves, and Jews in the holocaust to name a few.

When such views are enforced by a higher power, a perfect being who is infallible, then it is blasphemy to disagree with that perfect being. Because who are we, mere ordinary beings, to dare question the pronouncements of such a higher being? So then (in the case of the Dalai Lama) ‘Enemies’ of the church become enemies of the state, and enemies of the state are the worst kind because they threaten the stability of society and government. The reason I put enemies in quotes is because in this case they are not really enemies. They are just people with a different view, practice, or belief who have been conjured up as enemies without proper reason.

Then we have the idea of faith. In the purest sense faith helps us to see beyond this ordinary world and connect with higher beings who inspire us towards spiritual advancement. Such faith is able to also see resemblances of higher beings in those who are around her, which serves as further fuel for her spiritual fire. This is beautiful. We can see this happening in many sincere religious people around the world.

There is an apparent downside to faith, however, when we have blind faith or faith that is not based on reason. I’ll call this incorrect faith for the sake of this article. So how does this incorrect faith come about? It is important first to note that a correct faith is connecting with an actual truth with regards to the object of faith. For example, when one has faith in Buddha he will regard Buddha as having perfected his love, and based upon this recognition aspire and act to attain a similar state. So Buddha actually has this perfectly pure mind of love. It would be incorrect faith to believe that someone who has not developed their mind in love and compassion is actually such a higher being. This is because emulating their example would not lead the disciple along the path of enlightenment.

Buddha looked at each and every being as though they were a dear friend or child, cherishing them and inspiring them to gain the realizations of renunciation, bodhichitta, wisdom realizing emptiness and the two stages of Secret Mantra.

Is this the type of behavior we see from the Dalai Lama?

I think not.

He’s got his own Tibetan people signing oaths to not associate with other Tibetan people, encouraging monasteries to throw out students who are practicing the prayer of Dorje Shugden and he openly claims full responsibility in front of a large audience. (See the Al-Jazeera news report http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=KqON2lxArek). How can you become a benefactor of all living beings if you can’t even sit at the same table with them? Or sell them some food? These are not compassionate minds. These are minds of righteousness and hatred.

This negativity it is justified by demonizing the oppressed. In the words of Samdong, the TGIE Prime Minister:

“A lot of shugden perpetrators are becoming terrorists and they are willing to kill anybody, they are willing to beat up anybody.“

It becomes good vs. evil, and then it is okay to do horrible things to the evil. It is the same as fundamentalist Christians who engage in ‘holy wars’ or Islamic extremists who are trying to rid the world of infidels. What is worse about this case is that the Dalai Lama has got the modern world fooled… with his Hallmark-card style sayings, signature smile, and old Tibetan monk giggle we’re all smitten. The Path to enlightenment is much much more than this.

copied and pasted from: http://kachemarpo.wordpress. com/

(Truthbody (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

New version/major changes

in fairness to those whose edits i've reverted or criticised in the past, i should say to EmptyMountains that perhaps it would have been better to discuss your recent edit here before making it! having said that, in fact i think this new version is a vast improvement and a greatly more accessible, concise and non-contentious article far more in keeping with the WP mission. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

EmptyMountains, you have certainly followed the Wiki guideline to be bold! But I think you are trying to incorporate Clay Collier's suggestions above, who had some criticisms of the article as it stood; and you have succeeded in making the article even more WP:NPOV and readable. Thanks for your good efforts. (Truthbody (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Well done. This new version is easier and better to read. Definetely an improvement in terms of a good encyclopedic article. thank you for your efforts --Yourfriend21 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the new version is an improvement. I've changed the intro section a little just now so that it reflects the rest of the article; I'd like to see a little expansion of the two main positions in the debate (in terms of what they think Shugden is, rather than why- 'spirit' is still a little vague for the casual reader) but it's definitely a move in the right direction. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reverted the introduction again. Please can we agree that this article is simply about the deity Dorje Shugden. Just that. It has been discussed many times that every single deity in this world has faithful followers, as well as people who do not believe in it. So either we put "controversial" in the introduction to every single article on a deity, belief, etc. on the wiki, or we leave it out.

There is a section on the so-called "controversy", which is for me anyway questionable for 2 reasons:

1. It is more a controversy about the Dalai Lama than a controversy about Dorje Shugden, because the Dalai Lama changed his mind in 1976. Dorje Shugden did not change in 1976. There is nothing that happened from the side of the deity in 1976. So, who became controversial in 1976?

2. It does not make sense to list in an article on a deity or belief every other opinion of anybody else on this deity or belief. Do you feel in an article on Baptism you should write what the Drukpa Kagyus think about Baptism, etc? It does not matter that the Tibetan King in exile - the Dalai Lama - does not like Dorje Shugden.

It is more than enough to have the reference to the "Controversy" article to please the ever-angry-ones. It is a very strange and unique behaviour, that people who do not like a practice keep insisting in having their negative view written down in an article. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no view on what Shugden is or isn't, or whether his practice is good or bad. I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist of any stripe, and I believe in exactly zero supernatural entities, be they deity, spirit, or otherwise. What I do think is important is that this article reflect the diversity of viewpoints that exists among Tibetan Buddhists on this topic. As I explained above, I consider this case to be quite different from adding comments on what Baptists think about Ganesha; there is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism over who this entity is. The intro says currently 'Shugden is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the Gelug tradition'. That statement ignores the fact that his status among Tibetan Buddhists is clearly in dispute, including by senior leadership of the Gelug tradition. The intro currently makes an assertion of universality within the Tibetan tradition that is not supportable; we know that senior members of the Gelug tradition don't regard Shugden as a deity. We know that senior members of the Nyingmapa and Kagyu are opposed to it, and in the first case don't regard Shugden as a deity. That at the very least suggests that we should not say 'he is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism', but limit to 'is a deity within certain branches of Tibetan Buddhism'. But even within those branches (Gelug), there is a dispute over if he is enlightened, deity, spirit, etc. So it is inappropriate to say without reservation he is a deity in the Geulug tradition, as significant leaders of the Gelug tradition (including people other than the DL) don't hold that view. So who is it that we can say, without reservation or qualification, continues to believe that Shugden is a deity? Followers of the NKT. Certain Tibetan Buddhists living in India or Tibet. Right now, the article depicts the view of a sub-set of Tibetan Buddhists as belonging to Tibetan Buddhism. We don't, for example, say the Book of Mormon is a scripture in Christianity; that's because that view is specific to a subset of Christians. Likewise, I'm fine with saying Shugden is a deity as long as we don't attribute that belief to people who don't hold to it. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the revert, but for different reasons. The intro as it stands now is a good summary of the article as it stands now. I know that Clay would like to have more info about the differing views on Dorje Shugden's nature, but it's not in there yet (currently, there's just a redirect to the Controversy article). However, it's not a good idea to write an article summary based on what the article might look like in the future.

That said, do you think the section in the Controversy article on Dorje Shugden's nature, origin, and function should just be moved from there to here? It would help to shorten that article (which would just reference this one), and it would make this article no longer be so "one sided." Then, we can revert again back to the version of the introduction that Clay made. Emptymountains (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think that adding the 'nature and function' section from Dorje Shugden Controversy would be an improvement- I think it would need to be cleaned up a little bit, and perhaps have the two positions separated a little better so that it's clear that it is a presentation of arguments, rather than a debate. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yourfriend that we should keep the controversial elements, which after all were started by the Dalai Lama not by the Deity or even his practitioners, in the controversy article and let this one be about the Deity Dorje Shugden. The article has a suitable and adequate reference to the other views of his nature and the reader is directed clearly to the controversy article if he/she wants to know about this controversy. Even when the politics die down, the Dalai Lama's influence is less pervasive, the Phoenix-like Dorje Shugden temples and monasteries get larger and larger in the east and the west, and the reputations of the great Gelugpa Buddhist Masters (who also practiced Shugden) such as Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are restored, Dorje Shugden will still be relied upon as a holy being; and this article shows the nature of the Deity, the practice and reliance. In the future, it is likely that this Protector will be relied upon once more by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Tibet, China, India and the West. (Truthbody (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

I've implemented some of the proposed changes tonight in light of the disruptive editing of the intro and 'nature' section that has taken place.

1. I've changed 'deity' to 'supernatural being' and removed all mention of the controversy in the intro. It is totally uncontroversial that Shugden is a supernatural entity.
2. I moved the 'nature' section up. Since we're leaving the question of his nature open in the intro, I think it's appropriate to apprise the reader of the situation before getting into the specifics of Shugden's history and practice.
3. I split the nature section in two, with a short summary followed by a recitation of the two positions, with sources.
4. The remainder of the article is about practice associated with Shugden, as it was before.

--Clay Collier (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes you have proposed and made for all the reasons given above. For now, I have at least made the statements more complete. Everything you have added is already explained in the controversy article and should stay there, with the reader being referred there. This is putting far too much emphasis on the Dalai Lama and his own views and just because he is the "God King" and doesn't personally like the practice for various strange reasons doesn't mean that he should have such a disproportiate amount of airtime when it comes to a Buddhist Deity who has been around for 400 years. A political or even spiritual leader making these allegations would not be supported in other religions or societies, at least since the days of the witchhunt, or perhaps in regimes like China. The only reason other Lamas oppose the practice is because of the Dalai Lama. None of them (including the Ganden Tripa who by other accounts still does the practice privately) have come up from their own side with any statements or scriptural citations to "prove" that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit who causes sectarianism, the loss of Tibet to the Chinese, and the undermining of the Dalai Lama's health and lifespan; they are just nodding their heads at the Dalai Lama. There are far more scriptural references to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector. See for example www.dorjeshugdenhistory.com. In truth, it is only the Dalai Lama's own statements that say he is not, and some people have jumped on that bandwagon because it is far easier in Tibetan society to agree with the Dalai Lama than not to agree with him, especially when your job, reputation, family and livelihood are at stake. (Truthbody (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

I also am of the opinion that this current Nature section is misplaced. this article is about the Deity Dorje Shugden - NOT the Dalai Lama's view, or the controversy he's created. this information is properly given in the Dorje Shugden Controversy article. i don't understand clearly your need to add this info here, Clay? i propose stripping out these "Views of..." sections entirely and leaving this discussion to the controversy article. unless i hear a convincing argument to the contrary, i shall do this later today. everybody's thoughts?Atisha's cook (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this section is misplaced. I looked at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary and the structure is that it explains the Virgin Mary mainly from the devotee's point of view. Almost the very last sections of the article are alternative views of Mary from the point of view of the Orthodox and Protestant Churches. The Protestant section quotes one Theologian who says "the heresy of the Catholic Church is its mariology.",but this 'heresy' is still the primary focus of the article and the Protestant view is presented almost as an afterthought.

I therefore think, if this material has to be included at all, it should be a separate 'alternative view' section at the very end of the article with the majority of the article being written from the devotee's point of view.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good, clear example Truthsayer, thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

yes, it is. I can only support what you both said above. The present "nature section" is not in line with other wiki articles on deities or saints. It should be moved back to the controvery article. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a fundamentally different situation from other deities and saints. The intro is making claims about what 'Tibetan Buddhism' and the 'Geluk sect' believe. Simply: is it true that all Tibetan Buddhists and all of the Gelug sect share the same view of Shugden? Is there any evidence presented that the view being presented is the presently dominant view among those groups? --Clay Collier (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fundamentally different situation from other deities and saints. Dorje Shugden is a deity, pure and simple. He is relied upon by a huge number of Buddhists in umpteen ritual practices and has been for 400 years. That is really the main point of this discussion and of this article. The Dalai Lama has used his political position to try and ban the practice of this Deity. That is where the controversy and the differing viewpoints of Shugden arise from and they are dealt with on the controversy page. (Truthbody (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Shugden is a deity to who? The intro says that he is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug sect. That isn't accurate. He is a deity to a sub-set of Tibetan Buddhists and the Geluk sect which does not include some of the major institutions associated with the religious tradition. The Virgin Mary isn't a saint to all followers of Abrahamic religion; she's a saint to Christians. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clay - you have a point, insofar as it's not accurate to state (or imply) that *all* Tibetan Buddhists or Gelugpas hold this view or that. therefore, i've amended the intro thus: "...a Deity in some sections of Tibetan Buddhism..." not the most elegant phrase, but i feel at least it's accurate. i've also removed the two "Views" subsections from the Nature section, leaving it as a simple paragraph linking to the controversy article.Atisha's cook (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I give in! i tried, but there's just no way to satisfy both camps with a _succinct_ Nature section! i've therefore moved and renamed it to "Controversy", which is an extremely brief overview, linking to the main article. i hope this will suffice!Atisha's cook (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some of your efforts were an improvement, but overall I fear we're going around in a circle- this version looks very similar to one from a month ago, except that there is slightly more material in the controversy section and a small change in the intro. I feel that we need some outside input on the issue, so I've opened an RfC about these issues. If you have concerns about how I have worded things below, please let me know. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

that looks a good summary of our different ideas on this. my only concern, obviously, is that it may be difficult for many, if not most, "uninvolved" people to avoid the influence of the Dalai Lama's reputation and not assume that his views are the most reliable on all matters Buddhist... i hope that on WP we may find freer thinkers, though! let's see. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Clay, there are hundreds of different deities in tibetan Buddhism, and even those who are practised mainly in a particular tradition are not neccesarily practised by all the people in that tradition. But is would still be a correct phrase to call a deity which is practised mainly be certain people in a certain tradition a "deity of tibetan Buddhism" simply to give some idea of the origin to the reader. Then later it can be specified, as it is sufficiently done in these two articles. It is completely ok to start the article with a phrase that gives a rough image, and then to specify. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. There is a difference, however, between a deity that some members of a tradition acknowledge but do not practice, and one that they have actively rejected. The impression that I get from news and academic sources is that most of the institutions and authorities of Tibetan Buddhism that once were involved with Shugden practices have rejected them (given the statements by leaders of various sects, the TGIE, statements in the media and by academics about the relative political strength and popularity of the positions). The NKT, which based on views in the article here, is no longer considers itself a Tibetan Buddhist tradition as such, continues to be the most notable proponent of the Shugden cause. If Shugden has moved from being generally Tibetan Buddhist to being specific to the NKT and their supporters, in terms of observance of his rituals, then it seems that it would be more appropriate to identify him that way. Even if that is not the case, if there is a rejection, rather than just indifference, to the idea that Shugden is a part of their religious practice and tradition by a lot of the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism, it seems that something about this position needs to be clarified very early on in the article- if not in the intro, then certainly before the reader is very far into the text. That's why I put the 'Nature and Views' section higher in the article, but you guys didn't like that move. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clay. I admire your patience and efforts to reach a compromise. But I really doubt it would be possible - they will revert all your changes, either completely or in parts, or modify them so as they will mean something completely different. You arguments are clear and reasonable, but it's impossible that they agree. Their only aim is to remove any references to the views of majority and present only their views. It's upsetting because someone who looks up Shugden on Wikipedia gets false information, knowing only the NKT view. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is wonderful that we try to clarify the truth here patiently, I fully agree with that. But let us stick to the facts. If you look here http://www.dorjeshugden.com/ (a non-NKT site) and in the articles on various monasteries and Buddhist centres on that page, it is obvious that the NKT is just one of many organisations and groups who follows Dorje Shugden. This was always the case, and it is still the same. The Shugden followers who still live in Tibet and other countries around outnumber by far the NKT practitioners. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/ website is also non-NKT. Emptymountains (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not clear at all that those two sites are non-NKT sites- they say nothing clear about who their authors are and affiliations are. They're just random web sites that happen to address this topic; this is why I've raised objections to their use as sources in the Controversy article. Self-publishes sources are not reliable sources except for in reporting what their authors say- but we don't know who the authors of these sites are. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't bringing it up as a possible source on Wikipedia, since it is WP:SPS, I agree. I just happen to know who the author is, although they haven't yet put up a "Who We Are" section on their website yet. Emptymountains (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fantastic

The current summary is really good. It's way too long, but it's a price for a compromise. It could be stated much shorter, like "Shugden a deity or a demon", but they wouldn't like it, so we have along summary that hopefully is very close to the compromise. (Just kiding, they will revert all my changes later in the day... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asasjdgavjhg (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This current version works for me too. Maybe we can all leave it as it is, at least until someone else jumps in again, and have a break! (Truthbody (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

As editors have seemed content with the version we all agree on, and a month has passed, I am removing the original banner on this article. If anyone feels the need to put it back, please give the reasons on this talk page in detail, not just do a drive-by tagging. As it says on WP:NPOV: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Truthbody (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

The introduction has been improved, but there are still significant issues with the overall balance of the rest of the article, as the ongoing RfC and the discussions here and on the other page indicate. I'm of the opinion that the tags should stay. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden rituals

You cant write deliberate falsehoods like 'all texts refer to DS as an enlightened being' and expect people to stand by-dont you have vows against lying? You must know this is untrue???94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go with your personal attacks again. Please limit your comments to the subject matter or it is hard to take you seriously. I changed it to "vast majority" to allow for the relatively few Sakya rituals. I am not telling a falsehood and you are out of order to accuse me of doing so. My understanding is that the vast majority of Shugden practitioners have been Gelugpas, who see him as a holy being. It is important to show that most rituals related to Shugden reveal that, as can also be seen clearly on www.dorjeshugdenhistory.com, for example. Many Sakyas do see him as a holy being too. By all means add a Sakya verse showing he was relied upon by an oathbound Protector if you like. However, there are no rituals that show people have relied upon him as a malevolent spirit. (Truthbody (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Your full of it man-all you know is what uyouve been told-Almost all of the sakya rituals refer to him as oath bound therefore to say all rituals refer to DS as enlightened is just plain wrong-Just as elsewhere, you are using wiki for propaganda-thoroughly dishonest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

False summary again

I have noticed that Shugden worshipers try to push again the impression that only the Dalai Lama considers Shugden a bad spirit. Please don't include untrue statements and don't remove note about other schools. It's the most important thing, maybe even more important than the opinion of Dalai Lama himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asasjdgavjhg (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for a version acceptable by all

Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength", or Dolgyal Shugden (Tibetan: དོལ་རྒྱལ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: dol rgyal shugs ldan), "Shugden, King of Dhol" is considered a deity and emanation of Buddha Manjushri in some sections of Tibetan Buddhism, particularly among some practitioners of the Gelug school including the Dalai Lama's teacher Trijang Rinpoche,[1] whereas the 14th Dalai Lama[2] and the heads of all Schools [3] of Tibetan Buddhism now consider him a malevolent spirit belonging to the gyalpo class.

- do you think the above could stay as it is? I cannot find any false statements, and not really any skew. Both views are included. I'm very happy with that version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asasjdgavjhg (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it is balanced out to show that it is not just Trijang Rinpoche (important though he is) but thousands of others past and contemporary Lamas. (Truthbody (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Please re-add:

Both camps believe that Dorje Shugden is the incarnation of Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen of Drepung Monastery, a contemporary of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama.

I cannot re-add it for fear of 3RR. Emptymountains (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, currently we have:

Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength", or Dolgyal Shugden (Tibetan: དོལ་རྒྱལ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: dol rgyal shugs ldan), "Shugden, King of Dhol" is considered a deity and emanation of Buddha Manjushri in some sections of Tibetan Buddhism, particularly among some practitioners of the Gelug school including the Dalai Lama's teacher Trijang Rinpoche[1] and thousands of Tibetan and Western practitioners,[2], whereas the 14th Dalai Lama[3] and the heads of all Schools [4] of Tibetan Buddhism now pronounce him a malevolent spirit belonging to the gyalpo class. Most adherents of both camps believe that Dorje Shugden is the incarnation of Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen of Drepung Monastery, a contemporary of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama.[5][6]

Seems OK to me.Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK to me too. See, we can work together! (Truthbody (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes and I'm very happy about it! :) Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done! At last, people being resonable-I might even follow suit. PS I know gassner is not a geshe HA!94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. He did not receive the Geshe certification, I wrote to him to clarify. I understood that he had because he had done years of Geshe training and is a faithful monastic. Sorry. I have removed his title. (Truthbody (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

(Asasjdgavjhg, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, thanks). (Truthbody (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

Asasjdgavjhg, please start signing your posts. I don't think "most adherents of both camps" is accurate; at least, it adds something not stated by the sources cited. Please note that the Dalai Lama also considers Dorje Shugden to be the reincarnation of Dragpa Gyaltsen, the (subtle) difference being that he thinks that Draga Gyaltsen was himself a false incarnation. Emptymountains (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about this sentence, as most tulkus in Tibet were a part of political system, imitating the success of Karmapa. But other people will have a different view, so if we can find a way to state it precisely and shortly, that would be best. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if someone else other than me checked dreyfuss-he really does ay it is not DG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

94, please start signing your posts. Emptymountains (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The introductory sentance is far too complicated and convoluted for the normal reader - all the detail belongs further into the ariticle. Something like

Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength", or Dolgyal Shugden (Tibetan: དོལ་རྒྱལ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: dol rgyal shugs ldan), "Shugden, King of Dhol" is a controversial spirit or protective diety in Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhists consider him to be to be either a manevolent spirit, a worldly protector, or an emantation of the enlightened Bodhisattva Manjusri.

would be better.

Points: 1) the fact that Dorje Shugden is a controversial entity in Tibetan Buddhisn is probably the most significant fact for most readers ~ therefore this should go right at the top. 2) Within Tibetan Buddhism there are more than two views of Shugden. Broadly speaking some consider him a harmful / manevolent spirit. Others consider him one of a whole class of worldly spirits - on one level or another- which can be controlled and propitiated either for worldly benefit or to protect the Dharma (ie a worldly protector or as an oath-bound dharma protector ). Others consider him to be an enlightent protector and an emanation of Manjusri (or sometimes Guhyasamaja). These three broad views can be summarized simply in a sentance like: " Tibetan Buddhists consider him to be to be either a manevolent spirit, a worldly protector or an endlightend emantation of the Bodhisattva Manjusri." No need to go into all the detail till later. 3) The majority view should normally go first.

In this regard, many Tibetans are not Gelukpas but followers of the Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya traditions ~ I think it is safe to assume that most followers of these traditions broadly agree with the Dalai Lamas view on this issue (ie "manevolent spirit"), otherwise they consider Shugden to be just another one of the numerous worldly protecters in Tibetan Buddhism. The number of present day Nyingmapas, Kagyupas or Sakyapas who believe Shugden to be an "enlightened emanation" is insignificant. Among Gelugpas all three views prevail - those who provess great devotion to the Dali Lama will consider Shugden "a harmful / manevolent spirit"; many will consider him another worldly spirit or an oath-bound dharma protector like many others propitiated in all Tibebetan traditions (this may be the majority Geluk view - and one drowned out by all the for and against arguments); those with close ties to certain lamas who teach that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened protector will take that view.

If Trijang Rinpoche is mentioned, he should probably be called "a teacher of the Dalai Lama" not "the teacher of the Dalai Lama" - or perhaps "the Dalai Lama's junior tutor", which was his title. However I think details on the particular personalities involved belong further down in the article, not in the opening paragraph.

Chris Fynn (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt recall hearing Trulshig Rinpoche or Sakya Trizin using such a term such as "malevolent spirit" in "The Spirit and the Controversy". The word "spirit" does not always have negative connonations, so if someone simply says spirit it does not always mean "malevolent spirit". Perhaps the "heads of all sects" have not simply claimed Dorje Shugden is a malevolent spirit? Moreover, has the current head of the Nyingma made such a statement? Also, it's well known that the majority of Tibetans follow the Gelug sect, and the exiled Tibetans are a small, but more visible segment of that population. Large counties of Tibetans follow Dorje Shugden as their protector, such as in Gyalthang, Litang, Chatreng, Drayab and Chamdo to name a few.Tkalsang (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Remaining Problems (re: tags)

Remaining issues with the article:

• Awaiting more participation in the RfC to decide how the intro and the section on views on Dorje Shugden's nature should be presented.
• Sourcing issues remain- wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org is being used as a reference for the number of adherents in the intro, but it is a self-published source of unknown origin. Likewise dorjeshugden.com- is this the official website of some organization, or just a self-published source?

--Clay Collier (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with negativities related with Shugden

Since so many people in the world (not only tibetans) suffer from the negativities caused by Shugden, I suggest to add a section about how to deal with this negativities. There is a practice of the deity Guru Dragpur (found in a terma of Namchö Mingyur Dorje and in a terma of Heka Lingpa.) that is very effective dealing with these negativities. According to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche it is the most effective practice against Shugden. Dzjorrit (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a religious how-to article; unless such practices are particularly significant with respect to Shugden (as documented in third-party sources- and I have to say, I've never seen mention of them in any of the academic sources I've read), it's really not the sort of thing that should be included. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but how about a separate page about this issue. Wikipedia seems to become the first source of information for people on the internet. Since this is related to Buddhism, out of our compassion we must be able to supply some relevant information for all those people that know nothing about this issue. It is a very relevant issue, I did meet so many people that experienced negativities related to this spirit. Even the books of this new kadampa sect are acting like a support for this spirit. One day some one came in with a book of this new kadampa sect and a tanka of Manjushri that has been on the wall for years fell down...

Dzjorrit (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be good if you start coming up with reliable and verifiable sources for exactly what you want to add. The sources should state a) what the problem is, in an objective and verifiable way, b) what remedies work according to reliable sources. After that, it would be easier to advice if and where it could be added to Wikipedia. Mlewan (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is completely irrelevant, not to mention superstitious. I have no experience of negativities associated with Manjushri Dorje Shugden and it's hardly a subject for an objective encyclopedia article --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"One day someone came in with a book of this new kadampa sect and a tanka of Manjushri fell down"!!! Oh no, how dreadful this spirit must be!! Out of compassion, we must let people on Wikipedia know how to ward off this evil spirit!!

This is a fairly representative sample of the superstitious clap trap Dorje Shugden practitioners are subject to on a daily basis, and explains why so many Tibetans have been so keen to sign the declaration that they will segregate Dorje Shugden practitioners from Tibetan society, and why so many followers of Namkhai Norbu make really strange hand gestures and dance around chanting whenever they see a Dorje Shugden practitioner. It also explains why Namkhai Norbu gave amulets to his disciples who were so terribly unfortunate and cursed as to run into an NKT practitioner at a friend's dinner party in New York, and various other weird and wacky tales that would be amusing if they were not so shameful. Namkhai Norbu is surprisingly shamanistic for a Tibetan Buddhist Lama and many sources indicate how he has put the fear of the bogey man into his disciples. It seems the medieval witch hunt mentality is live and well. However, I agree with Truthsayer that such superstitious fear-mongering has no place in an encyclopedia. (Truthbody (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I have never heard of a single example of a Shugden practitioner praying to Dorje Shugden to harm any living being. I also have never heard of a single text or ritual related to Dorje Shugden, in which he is asked to harm any living being.

I have also never heard of any teacher encouraging students to pray to Dorje Shugden to harm any living being.

I have also never heard of any Shugden practitioner who is in any way afraid or worried about these rituals mentioned above by Dzjorrit, which are performed against Dorje Shugden and his followers.

So please Dzjorrit, you are very welcome to do all these rituals, wear amulets etc., what is recommended by Namkhai Norbu and some others.

But if you don't mind me saying that: the one and only obvious effect of all these things seems to be that you become more and more anxious and paranoid.

In the name of all the Shugden practitioners that I know, I can reassure you that they never pray to harm you or anybody else --Yourfriend21 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't presume that I'm doing those things because someone else is sugesting that, I'm not doing any of those things and I'm not paranoid. I always presume everyone is trying to do their best for the benefit of all. But I suggest you look more into the background of Shugden since all the great masters of our time are asking their students to stay away from Shugden. Don't you think it is weird that only a little group is persisting with this practice. Shugden is probably clouding your vision...

There is a book in Italian being translated right now. The original is in Italian, written by Raimondo Bultrini. The title is " Il Dalai Lama e il Demone", or "the Dalai Lama and the Demon".Dzjorrit (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dzjorrit: thank you very much for your reply. I was very happy about your statement: "I always presume everyone is trying to do their best for the benefit of all." This way of thinking is a very good foundation for harmony and mutual respect.

When you then look at this list of buddhist masters here [8] and here [9], you can also see that Shugden practitioners are relying on many, many high Lamas, many of which are considered as fully enlightened beings.

It is an incorrect statement to say "all the great masters of our time are asking their students to stay away from Shugden". There are hundreds of teachers who rely on Dorje Shugden, give teachings on Dorje Shugden etc. None of them is harming anybody. They simply follow a lineage of pure buddhist practice which is hundreds of years old, is still flourishing, and is right now increasing everywhere in the world.

Thank you also for your book recommendation. However, there is also one book from a christian academic for religious studies, which says "The Dalai Lama is the most dangerous person in the world and is trying to establish a buddhocratic universal empire"! Do you think this statement should be included in the wiki article on the Dalai Lama? Because it is an academic source? And the neutrality of the article on the Dalai Lama must be ensured? And people need to be warned against the evil influence of the Dalai Lama? - I don't think so. I feel such books are neither good academic sources nor beneficial for anybody. --Yourfriend21 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthbody talks about "superstitious clap trap". Many would consider the whole belief in entities like Shugden, whether you beleive him to be negative or positive, to be "superstitious clap trap". The Yellow Book written by Zeme Rinpoche, based on teachings he says he heard from Trijang Rinpoche, contains all kinds of views and accounts which would normally be called superstitious. Incidentally why is the publication of this so-called Yellow Book and it's contents not detailed? It was the publication of that book - and later several refutations of it - which pretty well first gave rise to the whole controversy amongst Tibetans in India. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Yellow Book would have been collecting dust like most other Tibetan books in places such as Tibet House in Delhi, but unfortunately a few people decided to take this text, from a different tradition and not meant for public consumption, and write polemical texts around it. The first mention of any "controversy" in modern newspapers is not from the Yellow Book, it's Dhongtog's text which is mentioned in Tibet Journal 1975.Tkalsang (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, for better or worse, polemics have been part of Tibetan Buddhism for centuries. Any erudite person like Zeme Rinpoche publishing a book like that would expect that a polemcal reply from other erudite scholars like Dhongtog Rinpoche would eventually be forthcoming. As I'm sure you know, there has been a whole series of polemical publications and erudite replies on both sides of the issue since then. Whatever the original intention of the authors of these tracts, aspects of the arguments have come to attention of those far outside the usual readership of Tibetan polemics. Perhaps this attention was originally due to those behind the Tibetan Review and oranisations like Tibet House calling attention to it. What does seem rather bizzare, is that the nature of a Tibetan protecive diety and it's practice became the centre of demonstrations by westerners on the streets of London and New York - and later the centre of so many heated arguments on Usenet, Wikipedia and other parts of the Internet. I'm sure neither the authors of these tracts or those who drew attention to them ever expected that. However, the publication of that book, the attention subsequently drawn to its contents, the subsequnt reactions and what follwed are all relevent as they seem to constitute the documentary origin of the controversy in the post-diaspora Tibetan community. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)