Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

hi, i found that article here in wikipedia. i know this arguments only by the NKT members, because i was with them for a long time.. i changed the article to make it more objective. i know both views very good - pro and contra. my personal opinion is: the most profound article to that topic is the mentioned one by Gerorge Dreyfuss. It is quite objective and scholarly - non partisan. -- Kt66 11:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

revert

I suggest to revert kelsang pagpas changes, they do end the quite unbiased article into the NKT viewpoint. Please kelsang pagpa discuss the points or you can include your viewpoint into the sections of the viewpoints of Shugden followers. --Kt66 14:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

discussion on kelsang pagpas changes

1. HH didnt banned anything he said who practice it should not take him as his teacher and gave clear statements. The word ban was used by NKT for the propagation of the demonstrations. 2. the demonstrations werent peaceful! I was as NKT member present there and saw the aggression of many NKT members and were even quite shocked and not only me! so better just to say demonstration, this is neutral. 3. Shugden was never protector of Tsonghapas doctrine, neither Tsongkhasp nor Atisha taught it. there is no offical belief in Gelug tradition that Shugden is the protector of the gelugpas, the protectors are reveiled by tsongkhapa as mahakala and so on.

If NKT member dont give the sectarian vow than of course you should mentioned this. But the Shugden Sodge practice (long life commitment) includes it! So quite fine to hear you dont give this vow.

So I reverted your changes and ask you to make changes properly or discuss it. Fine to hear from you. --Kt66 15:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously NKT tries to use Wikipedia for anti Dalai Lama -propaganda. False informations false quotations, thats typical NKT-information-policy. Your revert was correct and necessary. -12 Tenma 07:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

kt66's alteration of Kelsang Pagpa's changes

Dear friend,

Since this is a public article, which is read by many people, I am concerned that a balanced and accurate view of this issue should be given. Therefore, I think it is important to include:

"However, prior to the Dalai Lama's pronouncement, it was felt by many high Masters of the Sakya and Gelugpa Buddhist schools that Dorje Shugden was the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine, and was an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri."

This is the case. Dorje Shugden was regarded as the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings (and he still is by many Gelugpa lamas and the New Kadampa Tradition practitioners) I would like to quote from Geshe Kelsang's book Heart Jewel(Tharpa Publications) where he states (p 72):

Buddhas have manifested in the form of many different Dharma protectors, such as Mahakala, Kalarupa, Kalindewi and Dorje Shugden. From the time of Je Tsongkhapa until the time of the first Panchen Lama, Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen, the principal Dharma protector of Je Tsongkhapa's lineage was Kalarupa. Later however it was felt by many high Lamas that Dorje Shugden had become the principal protector of this tradition.

If you are to state that the Lamas of the four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism regard Dorje Shugden as a demonic spirit, you must include the above. Therefore I have reinserted this. I hope you will accept this for the sake of providing a balanced view.

With all good wishes,

Gen Kelsang Pagpa, Vajravarahi UK

Balanced view?

It has never been felt by Sakya-Lamas that Dorje Shugdan was a protector of Tsongkhapas Teaching, nor has it been felt, within Sakya (and Gelug !!!) that Shugdan was an enlighted being. Shugdan was for some time a minor protector within the Sakya-school and was never worshipped as Buddha. Today it is easy to find Sakya-Trizins statement concerning Shugdan on the net. Shugdan was never seen as Buddha within Sakya. Pabongka himself, who propagated the Shugdan-practice within Gelug, thought him to be a gyalpo-spirit, no word of "enlightend" protector. This stuff about an emanation of Manjushri came up in the seventies of the last century, the meaning of a certain Gelug-Lama alone, not a general Gelug-position. There has never existed some kind of Shugdan-tantra committed from the Sambhogakaya, not to speak about Sutras, giving reason for this wrong view. There is no reason to worship a gyalpo-demon as Buddha today, like there was no reason to worship him as Buddha since Shugdan-practice began some centuries ago. --12 Tenma 08:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Kelsang Pagpa

Hi Kelsang Pagpa. "Since this is a public article, which is read by many people, I am concerned that a balanced and accurate view of this issue should be given." Yes I totally agree we have the same wish.

Your suggestion: "it was felt by many high Masters of the Sakya and Gelugpa Buddhist schools that Dorje Shugden was the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine, and was an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri." i can not agree to: Sakyas do not believe that. Please ask Sakyapas themselfs! You find also a statement on that site: Do Sakyas rely on Shugden? If you don't believe ask the Sakyapas please by letter or mail or ask them personally.

I can agree to write after the passage "However after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama Pabongkha Rinpoche began to spread it again.": First the practice was established by him as a worldly protector (one had to manifest oneself as Yamantaka), later Lama Pabongkha Rinpoche told: 'The Protectors of the Gelug school have gone to their pure realms, now Shugden is the protector of that school.' Then this practice in Gelug school became quite popular and it was felt by many high Masters of the Gelugpa Buddhist school that Dorje Shugden is now the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine, and that he is an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri.

You found the whole story in Geshe Gerorge Dreyfuss and Michael von Brück who searched for a very long time and visited many scriptural sources. You dont find any notation in the Kanyur or Tangyur or Atisha or Tsongkhapa. Please also contact the office of the Ganden Tripa the head of the Gelugpas.

I have no problems if you insert in the section of the Arguments of the followers of Shugden the citation of Geshe Kelsangs book. Please remark it as the statement of his book.

So have a good night :-)) What other opinions there are? --Kt66 21:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

further proposed changes

"Because the practice of Shugden includes a vow not even to touch Nyingma scriptures and the propagators of that practice said in the oral tradition that he even kills Gelug practitioniers who practice Nyingma teachings it was pointed out by the 14th Dalai Lama as being sectarian. Many Lamas from the tibetan buddhist schools especially Nyingma and Kaygue school had many problems with this practice. It was also not taught by Buddha, Atisha or Tsongkhapa."

I'm afraid this is also not acceptable. As already stated, many Gelugpa and all New Kadampa Tradition practitioners regard Dorje Shugden as an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri. Therefore, why would Dorje Shugden kill anyone? A Buddhist would not kill, much less a Buddha! This seems like superstitious nonsense. I have also never heard that Dorje Shugden practitioners should never touch a Nyingma scripture or should take a vow to do so. No one in the NKT-IKBU has been asked to do this, or has done this.

If it is right to reject the practice of Dorje Shugden because it was not taught by Buddha, Atisha or Je Tsongkhapa, then the practice of the Dalai Lama's own protector, Nechung, should be rejected for similar reasons. It is reasonable to argue that if you discriminate against one Dharma Protector, you should discriminate against them all. However, the practice of relying upon a Dharma Protector was taught by Buddha in the Mahayana sutras, and Atisha and other Buddhist practitioners relied upon them. Therefore, I feel that the statement "It was also not taught by Buddha, Atisha or Tsongkhapa" should be removed.

Gen Kelsang Pagpa, Vajravarahi Centre

Dear friend, I would like you to specify your sources for the assertion "[...] many Gelukpa [...] practitioners regard Dorje Shugden as an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri." As the practice has been formally banned by the Ganden Tripa, I feel that you would have to revise your statement to either

• a very few Gelugpa practioners..

or

• many Gelugpa practitioners during the (albeit short) period between propagation of the practice by Je Pabongkhapa and the wish of HH 14th Dalai Lama as stated in 1976.

A minor amount of research shows that there are now very few practitioners of Dhogyal remaining in the New Kadampa (ie Gelukpa) School. Most importantly, the practice is almost completely deprecated from the great monastaries in the South - the sole exception being Pabonkha Dratsang, which still practices it. However, the IKBU endorses and encourages the practice, and, IMHO, in doing so has alienated itself from the Tibetan community. (20040302 08:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Guru Rinpoche

Gyalpo Spirits like Shugdan can be very harmful, that's why it's possible. People who are afraid of this Gyalpo demon and want to get protection should worship Guru Rinpoche instead, the master who subdued all evil spirits in Tibet.

Ask for the reason why it's forbidden for NKT-followers and Shugdan-devotees to touch Nyingma-scriptures! I'm sure, the Gyalpo Shugdan himself is in fear to loose devotees and to be subdued (again!?). Guru Rinpoche will protect all who pray, against all evil, especially against threats coming from the Shugdan-gyalpo-demon. --12 Tenma 08:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Worshipping a demon like Shugdan as buddha is not only a violation of tantric vows, its a violation of buddhist refuge! --12 Tenma 08:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your view. I understand that your view is that Dorje Shugden is a spirit, but for me, he is Buddha. Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me, as he does for many Gelugpa and New Kadampa Tradition practitioners. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that it is forbidden for NKT-IKBU practitioners to touch Nyingma scriptures. I have many friends who are Nyingmapas, and my Teacher has never said that their scriptures should not be touched. He even mentions the Great Padamasambhava in his book Clear Light of Bliss. It's sad that such misinformation is now quite widespread. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, 15 August 2005

Hi Kelsang Pagpa. This is the point: you believe just something. It is not a question of beliefe. Buddha never advised just to believe, not even what he said. He advised to check properly! When the teachers of HH the Dalai Lama taught H.H. that the moon is shining from his own side and is as far away from the earth as the sun is, why your so sure that they have not make a mistake with the Shugden??? It was also HH himself who checked that stuff with the moon and found out from his own proofs, wisdom and openness that this is not true and refuted it. Do you no anything about Old Tibet? (Please try to see the new film "angry monk" about Gendün Choephel) Also if you argue with emptiness in this way, why not seeing Adolf Hitler also as a protector, because he also lacks inherent existence? Or more moderate: why not just beliefe in the protectors which Je Tsongkhapa really taught and clinging on Shugden which he never taught? I understand your psosition quite well, but before you really can discuss about that points, I think, you need a proper understanding of both sides. I know both sides quite well. Please read Geshe Gerorge Dreyfuss' article on that topic. However a Dharmaprotector is not really important, the Three Traings and monastic tradition is important to save the Buddhadharma. Fine that you share this discussion :-) Sorry I forgot one point, you said: "Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that it is forbidden for NKT-IKBU practitioners to touch Nyingma scriptures." I even said to your statement and repeat it: this is quite fine of NKT! I enjoy! But nobody statet that NKT does this, it was stated that that practice includes this vow and this is quite well known I gave you also notations on this. So this passages should be placed in the article further but you can add: NKT do not follow this vow or knows this - something like this. --Kt66 09:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Family Matters

There is nothing said in the article about the family relationship between Geshe Kelsang and his brother, the current Dhogyal oracle, which may go some way to explain in purely worldly terms why the IKBU promotes the practice in defiance of the wishes of HH 14th Dalai Lama and the Tibetan community at large. (20040302 08:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

oh Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has even split from his brother (the Shugden Oracle). He hast stoped any contact to Tibetan people and asked once his student Gen Dechen in Germany to do it like him. --Kt66 11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

discussion on further proposed changes

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

"During the empowerment Zong Rinpoche was very solemn in explaining certain “damtsigs” (samaya) connected with this practice. Among these were never to mention Shugden by name to the uninitiated. He was simply to be referred to as “The Protector.” Another samaya was to learn and propagate only “Gelugpa” teachings and NONE other, especially Nyingmapa. We were even discouraged from merely touching Nyingmapa texts." You find it at: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:n5XChchDb04J:www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx%3FpostID%3D40296%26cp%3D4+shugden+thubteng%C3%B6npo+zong+rinpoche&hl=de

If GKG doesn't give these Damtsigs this is quite fine and honorable. But the Long-life-Damtsig of Shugden Practice inlcudes this. I know this also from my past with Shugden Lamas, not only GKG. There are reliable scriptural sources by the Shugden Propagators themselfs. That's why it is appropriate to state it.

Nechung is not sectarian. Nechung was bound by Padmasambhava (as far as I know) and has a quite more long history than Shugden and on him is not disputed for. However this is an article on Shugden not on Nechung. You should think about why Kagyupas began to make cleaning rituals when they entered into Gelug monasteries who practiced it and why Nyingmapas are not at all happy with Shugden and Lama Pabongkha. Why did the desciples of Lama Pabongkha destroy Nyingma monasteries and Padmasambhava statues? Just one easy findable Quotation: "Lord of the Dance: The Autobiography of a Tibetan Lama by Chagdud Tulku". This is also known by all tibetan Buddhists. So you can always look on a small perspective of some who believe Shugden is important and a Buddha and cling to that view or you can take a wider one which inlcudes not only a small group of people. Than you can see Shugden practice is quite controversial and a new practice and created many conflicts under the different tibetan traditions. Even you can find that the groups who make strong emphasize on it: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (NKT), Lama Gangchen Rinpoche, Lama Tenzin Sangmo Dechen, Gonsar Rinpoche, Kundeling Rinpoche have quite a difficult relationship. And even more quaint: The Head of the NKT in Germany Gen Kelsang Nyima said that the reincarnation of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche is not accepted by Geshe Kelsang. After the sacking of a famous german NKT teacher we visited as EX-NKT members Kyabje Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche. He was quite wondering: for the very first time he saw someone from NKT. So perhaps you can also see there is some evidence on the points that this practice is sectarian and splits the Sangha of the Buddha Shakyamuni.

What ever you regard this is your choice. You can even regard a dictator as a Buddha. But if the facts speak another language it has to be said.

Than "It was also not taught by Buddha, Atisha or Tsongkhapa" should be removed." I'm sorry there is no reason to remove it. Why? There is no Sutra who mention Shugden! Do you have any citation of a Sutra??? Never heard this not even by Shugden followers. Never did Atisha or Tsongkhapa even mentioned or relied upon Shugden you can study all of their scriptures you won't find it. I'm very sorry for you, this is not based on facts that they have done so or that there is a Sutra. Even the Shugden followers date the origin of Shugden at the time of the 5th Dalai Lama at that time both were quite dead.

I suggest you put on the section of Shugden followers the information, that within NKT there is not such vow if NKT do not have such vow, but please make sure if people have really no longlife commitment of Shugden and they tell the truth. If only you or some firends do not have this vow, this is not a reason that other also do not have. Thank you for your patience. --Kt66 21:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes Kt66, you are right, the article needs no changes. It's based on facts, and that's what counts!--12 Tenma 08:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Summarize and compromise

Dear Kelsang Pagpa, 12 Tenma, As KP wrote: “Since this is a public article, which is read by many people, I am concerned that a balanced and accurate view of this issue should be given.”

I think we have the same wish on that and this also fits to Wikipedia rules.

Summarize

The wishes for changes of KP were:

1. "However, prior to the Dalai Lama's pronouncement, it was felt by many high Masters of the Sakya and Gelugpa Buddhist schools that Dorje Shugden was the protector of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine, and was an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri."

This is not possible, because no Sakyapa belives that.

2. KP wanted to include a citation of GKG book. I think his would be ok under the section of “Arguments of the followers of Shugden” But than there is to remark also that at about 1920 Lama Panbongkha felt this and not all the Gelugpas. Also the Ganden Tripa the head of Gelugpas doesn’t say such things! So there are many high Gelug-Lamas who don’t think so, not only HH the Dalai Lama!

3. Because the prohibition of not touching Nyingma scriptures, the warning if practising Nyingma teachings as a Gelugpa one will be killed by Shugden and the destroying of Nyingma monasteries by radical disciples of Pabonhkga Rinpoche are based on reliable sources this should be stated here.

I gave some clear sources, citations and there is the great article by Geshe Gerorge Dreyfuss too. That practitioners will be killed by Shugden is stated in the Yellow book: "the oral transmission of the capable father (pha-rgod vla-ma'i zhal-lung) by Zemey Rinpoche and he says this is based on oral teachings of Trijang Rinpoche. As far as I understood Zemey Rinpoche was also Shugden practitioner and no friend of the view of HH the Dalai Lama that Shugden is a demon. He published this book when HH decided to help people and Tibet by practicing Nyingma teachings.

Conclusions

So what then can be changed or added? Kelsang Pagpa can add - if he likes - that NKT does not follow this Shugden vows or know it, and that NKT to not teach such things. When this is true why not adding? And you can add a citation of GKG and remark it as his believe.

What do other people think about that suggestion? --Kt66 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It does not surprise me that the majority of NKT-IKBU do not know this. Apprarently, they also don't know that one should enter a mandala before receiving Vajra-yogini. (20040302)

Since everything lacks inherent existence...

What follows is an examination of Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me..

Simply put, the assertion is a non sequitur. However, it may be that KP is missing out some of his logical steps - maybe he is wishing to say something like:

1. Because everything lacks inherent existence, all phenomena are without essence.
2. Because everything is without essence, all phenomena exist only according to the conventions of the world.
3. There is a legitimate convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha.
4. KP has been initiated into this convention.
5. Therefore for KP, it is true that Dholgyal is a Buddha.

If we accept the legitimacy of the HYT vase, then it is hard to deny that Dholgyal is a Buddha - because within such a convention, everything and everybody is a Buddha. This doesn't help much for KP's cause, because I think he is attempting to say something more strong. If not, then he also agrees with the statement "Since everything lacks inherent existence, Hitler functions as a Buddha for me.", and (more relevantly) "Since everything lacks inherent existence, evil worldly spirits function as Buddhas for me." which does not help his cause in the current controversy!

Therefore, supposing that the 'legitimate convention' of point 3 above is a convention where it is not so that everything and everyone is a Buddha, then we can revise KP's assertion of point 3 to:

3. There is a legitimate convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not.

As NKT-IKBU acknowledge (I hope) the teachings of Je Rinpoche, we should examine what conventions are considered legitimate - certainly the mere belief in something does not make it legitimate! Such a view is nihilistic (e.g. "Mr Xen does not believe in Karma/Rebirth, so there is no rebirth or karma for him" is nihilism according to Buddhism).

The insight chapter of Je Rinpoche's LRCM (folio 313b Tibetan, p178 of English) states:

How does one determine whether something exists conventionally? We hold that something exists conventionally:

1. if it is known to a conventional consciousness;
2. if no other conventional valid cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known
3. if reason that accurately analyses reality - that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists - does not contradict it.

We hold that what fails to meet those criteria does not exist.

We can discount point 3 here. However, points 1 and 2 are more difficult: Is the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha known to a conventional consciousness within the context of a convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not? Does no other conventional valid cognition within such a context contradict it's being as it is thus known?

In brief, the conventional existence of Dholgyal as a Buddha cannot be asserted unless one can prove these two points. Does Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me. help us with establishing either point 1 or 2? No. Not at all.

My tasks and questions for Gen Kelsang Pagpa are: Demonstrate that the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha is known to a conventional consciousness within the context of a convention where Dholgyal is a Buddha but at least one other being is not. Demonstrate that no other conventional valid cognition within such a context contradicts the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha. For whose consciousness is the existence of Dholgyal's status as a Buddha known? What criteria are necessary for identifying who is, and who is not a Buddha? How does Dholgyal match against those criteria? How is the statement 'Since everything lacks [...]' meaningful?

Regardless, Gen Kelsang Pagpa's assertion Since everything lacks inherent existence, Dorje Shugden functions as a Buddha for me. indicates a weak and possibly nihilistic position which is worrying. I am concerned that the understanding of both logic and the insight tradition of Je Rinpoche is particularly weak for someone who is the principal teacher at Vajravarahi Kadampa Centre. Moreover, if such weakness is exemplar of the NKT-IKBU, there must be major worries to be had about the organisation that claims to follow Je Rinpoche, Atisha, or the Madhyamaka tradition. (20040302 10:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC))