Talk:Rime movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is the most biased article I think I have ever seen on Wikipedia

I am amazed that any alternative point of view has been summarily dismissed, leaving this article as quite possibly the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The section on the controversy is so full of slanderous attacks against Dorje Shugden practitioners that I despair of this article ever achieving a NPOV. I cannot summon up the energy to do anything about it as it is so bad to begin with. How discouraging.(Truthbody (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Does Rime promote eclecticism and syncretism?

Rimé is often wrongly described as an "eclectic movement", in fact it aims at harmony and emphasizes the tradition where practitioners "follow multiple lineages of practice" from different masters or mistresses.

The above seems contradictory to me, and so I think it would be good for us to distinguish what is meant by saying something is ecumenical, eclectic, and/or syncretistic. I believe that we can make distinctions between all three (even if, at times, only subtle distinctions), and it would be good to agree upon exactly which of these Rime is so that we can clear up misunderstandings. By defining these terms, perhaps we can avoid going back and forth in our edits of this article, since it is obvious we have different things in mind when using those words.

In some parts of the article, Rime is described as merely promoting inter-tradition dialogue. And in order to accomplish this, it is recommended that students study different traditions, to better understand both their similarities and their differences. If this is what Rime means, I commend it, for mutual understanding leads to mutual respect.

I think that such interfaith dialogue is what is meant by ecumenical. The dictionary definitions do not always help, because both the Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage dictionaries refer to ecumenicism as "promoting unity," which unfortunately suggests syncretism, where perhaps "promoting non-sectarianism" would be better wording. If that is what ecumenical means, then I can accept that ideal as well.

However, there is a difference between studying different religions (or traditions within a particular religion) and practicing different religions or traditions. For example, you can study different world religions but not necessarily practice them. Or, within a particular religion you can study different traditions/denominations/sects, but still only practice one.

Yet, I can tell that Thegone, who is favorable to Rime, does not want it to be associated with either eclecticism or syncretism. So, what would being eclectic mean? I think that when someone takes the next step from just studying other traditions to actually practicing multiple traditions, this is the difference between mere ecumenicism and eclecticism. Someone becomes eclectic when one starts to practice more than one tradition, "selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources; made up of or combining elements from a variety of sources."

Eclecticism is often on a slippery slope towards syncretism. Regarding "The combination of different forms of belief or practice," do you think this is the definition of eclecticism or of syncretism? It may sound like how I described the term eclecticism above, but actually, that is Merriam-Webster’s definition of syncretism! The American Heritage dictionary says, "Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, esp. with partial success or a heterogeneous result." For an eclectic practitioner, the different traditions may remain nominally distinct, but for all practical purposes they are mixed or "fused together" in his or her actual practice.

From the above, I would consider Rime to be both ecumenical and eclectic, since students are encouraged both to study and to practice multiple traditions. But can we go so far as to claim that Rime is syncretistic? It does seem like things are going that way. I say this because of the prevalent view nowadays that anyone not following an eclectic approach is presumed to be sectarian; i.e., you can only be non-sectarian if you practice eclectically. Rime, as the syncretic presentation of Tibetan Buddhism, is fast becoming the only legitimate approach to study and practice in many quarters of Tibetan Buddhist society.

P.S. One thing I found eye-opening is the etymology of the word to syncretize, from the Greek for "to unite against a common enemy." Rime can even be used for political purposes against those who have been made an 'enemy' of the Tibetan government. This article states that one goal of Rime is "removing elements considered by the Rime advocates to be divisive," such that if you are not practicing eclectically, then you do not stand 'united' with other Tibetan Buddhists, so you must be harming the cause of Tibet!

Emptymountains (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rime is not eclectic. An eclectic movement is where a new school takes elements from various previous schools of thought and forms a new school and maintains the original elements to a large degree without diffusing them. If the elements are diffused enough then it is not eclectic as there is hardly anything original. Rime is not in this non-eclectic category as I'll explain later. More importantly in an eclectic school of thought, apart from mixing of major components large traits and sub-structures of the original building blocks remain intact to a large degree and are not diffused enough. A simple example could be Social Democracy where large elements of Socialism (which in some definitions by certain figures can be non-democratic) and Democracy unite where both of which retain their shape to a large degree. The most classic ideological eclectic historic movement and a more accurate example which shaped many religions and schools of thoughts was Manicheanism. Other examples are bahai'ism or the New Age movement.

1) Rime is not eclectic because it does not diffuse elements into something new. 2) More fundamentally it is not even a new school. This is 'very' emphasized: maintain the purity of various lineages. Rime followers practice within various schools and lineages. There is no tantric practice whereby some of it from one lineage and some from another are mixed into something new. That would be an invalid and concoctive invention with no tantric power. The tantric lineages have to be transmitted exactly as they were originally in that lineage or sub-lineage and not mixed into a new entity. This is strictly observed by Rime masters. Even in the philosophical areas, contradicting schools, often debunking each other, are not mixed but taught side by side by Rime masters. In fact this is nothing new and there have been conflicting major masters and trends in disagreement between all schools of TB and within each school too.

Rime simply says follow different schools and lineages within TB (as it was originally):

- without mixing them into an eclectic new jumble which in Tantric practice would render them powerless.

- consider it a freedom of choice for the practitioner as well as the advising the master which is how it was -the norm- prior to the innovative sectarianism of the recent centuries in some minority sub-schools which has been put right by all TB schools' institutional establishments mainly due to the influence of Rime's powerful figures and popular practices.

- (i) do not consider Rime a new school, this is very emphasized. (ii) Nevermind an eclectic one.

Thegone (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

Thank you for your kind response. To me, it seems that what you are saying above is simply that Rime is not syncretistic. According to its Wiki article, "Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought." I watched the YouTube video you posted, and the Teacher there mentions that the traditions are not mixed but kept distinct; if they were, I'd call that syncretism.

But it still sounds like Rime is eclectic, because also in the video the Teacher mentions that an individual practitioner can mix things up, combining some practices from one tradition with practices from another tradition. According to its Wiki article, "Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases." That sounds very much like ri-me (lit., "not one-sided" according to the video)!

So, how would you distinguish between something that is eclectic versus something that is syncretistic? Are the two words synonymous to you?

Emptymountains (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

eclectic versus syncretistic

Hi Emptymountains,

Thanks for your kind response. The topic has now shifted completely to distinguishing eclectic versus syncretistic and possibly branding Rime as one or the other. This prospect presents some unsightly conclusions.

Firstly the general impression of the two is basically synonymous for an average reader. Even if there was specialist or esoteric or semiotic or philosophical justification for separating the two, Rime as a subtopic of TB would not be a suitable ground nor relevant as such for that possible debate.

Secondly one could distinguish between the two or not. It is as simple as that. It is not a settled debate and I would argue that there is not much if any difference between them. Indeed the Wiki article on syncretistic mentions eclectic at the beginning. Logically it would have to be debated and settled there first, in the two relevant articles, that they are different. This will never happen in a million years as we both know as many would disagree and would regard the whole thing as a non-issue. Once it was settled there, then there might be justification to drag that debate here and distinguish between the two. Even if it was settled there, then I would argue there is not enough justification to extend it over here.

However mainly the question is not even one of etymology or epistemology. It is a matter of ontology. Rime simply is not a school. In the morning you might take a Sakya or Gelug empowerment with lung/wang/tri and in the afternoon session it might be a Nyingma or Kagyu or Bon. You don't then mix them into 'one new eclectic or syncretistic tantra whole'. Similarly you might be taught Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka in the morning and then the opposing one of Mipham in the afternoon. You don't then mix them up into a new creation.

Secondly going back to the historic fathers of TB schools, who took teachings/empowerments across lineages/schools, it is not even a new approach. It was always the norm for majority of schools most of the time except certain factions within Sakya/Gelugs for a brief historic period. Thirdly from the Rime founders to Rime masters of today we have been warned against mixing things up to create new wholes. Further they emphasize maintaining of lineages and even schools' identities. A lot of Tibetan concepts might still be unusual for us and we might try to fit them into our pigeon holes but we should resist. For example the word religion is really a new concept for Tibetans. The equivalent for what they called TB would be the truth or the way for example. I think the way Rime masters constantly mention the pitfall of misrepresenting Rime into an eclectic/syncretic/mixed classification should be respected, otherwise we are perverting their point of view and one of the primary foundations of Rime. This is why I edited originally. Specially as they argue that is not even a new school but an approach or choice or basic freedom to attend different masters which was mainly frowned upon by a minority in the late 19th C. and early 20th C. A lot of that was due to political power struggles in the Lhasa and central region for a brief historic time and the majority of Tibetans (in the east) were not affected by that in those temporal windows. There were many other wars or violence or power struggles not only between schools but between Gelug factions over successions too before that period while the original free approach was never questioned.

Stating the eclectic and/or syncretistic tag for Rime would mean you have: 1) To refute the Rime masters who insist it is not so. 2) To refute the Rime masters that is a new school as that is what eclectic and/or syncretistic implies for a reader.

Becoming a knowledgeable Khenpo Khenchen Geshe or Professor emeritus of TB takes many decades and there is not one who argues so far that this is a new school. Even the Shugdenpa sectarians, who have murdered Gelugs in Dharamsala and ran away into Chinese controlled Tibet, actually never say it is anything new. They simply say taking teachings/empowerments from non-Gelugs is a downfall according to the teachings of Tsongkhapa. When told that Tsongkhapa himself had a Nyingma as one of his major gurus, some of them even say he made a mistake. Amongst Gelugs, most of the Dalai Lamas who were allowed to live beyond teenage years practiced Dzogchen in their highest secret temple (Lukhang) as did many Panchen Lamas (#2) and Retings (regents). Many of Gelug main tantric cycles originates from Nyingma. The norm in TB was always taking teachings/empowerments across schools/lineages. That is what Rime was and is now. If we want to misrepresent it as an eclectic/synctretic entity (same connotation even if they were proven as different) which would imply it is a new school (even if not stated explicitly), then that would be misleading and a disservice to both Tibetans and the world by us.

Thegone (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

Please bear with me a little longer. Note that the Wiki article on syncretism does not identify eclecticism with syncretism but invites the reader to compare the two. Granted, there is not any comparison to speak of in the Wiki articles themselves, but check out these encyclopedia entries:

eclecticism [in] philosophy and theology (from Greek eklektikos, “selective”), in philosophy and theology, the practice of selecting doctrines from different systems of thought without adopting the whole parent system for each doctrine. It is distinct from syncretism—the attempt to reconcile or combine systems—inasmuch as it leaves the contradictions between them unresolved. In the sphere of abstract thought, eclecticism is open to the objection that insofar as each system is supposed to be a whole of which its various doctrines are integral parts, the arbitrary juxtaposition of doctrines from different systems risks a fundamental incoherence. In practical affairs, however, the eclectic spirit has much to commend it.[1]

eclecticism, in philosophy [Gr. eklektikos=to choose], in philosophy, the selection of elements from different systems of thought, without regard to possible contradictions between the systems. Eclecticism differs from syncretism, which tries to combine various systems while resolving conflicts. Many Roman philosophers, especially Cicero, and the Neoplatonists were known for eclecticism. Eclecticism among Renaissance humanists, who drew from Christian and classical doctrines, was followed by a 19th-century revival, particularly with French philosopher Victor Cousin, who coined the term and applied it to his own system. Eclectics are frequently charged with being inconsistent, and the term is sometimes used pejoratively.[2].

We are debating this because the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism defines Rime as an "eclectic movement," which you believe is wrong because for you it implies the connotation that Rime is syncretistic. However, no dictionary considers these two words to be synonymous; no thesaurus lists them together; and no encyclopedia confuses one for the other. (Indeed, as shown above, they make a point of distinguishing between the two.) Therefore, showing that the Rime approach is not syncretistic does not prove it is not eclectic. As an encyclopedia, we also have a responsibility to be precise in our word choice. Perhaps as a compromise, we can change the article to say:

Rime is defined as an "eclectic movement," although this does not imply that a new, syncretistic school has been created.

I honestly don't think eclecticism is as adverse a concept as syncretism. In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica considers it commendable! It is very in tune with modern, liberal thinking... an 'interdisciplinary' approach, if you will. As the Teacher in the YouTube video says (8:25-9:24), the eclectic approach is often very individualistic:

There are two things: One is a person who is practicing, and one is the tradition that's preserved. A person can mix things up, you know? If I practice and then if you give me good advice, I take it also; he gives me good advice, and I take it also; she gives me good advice, I take it also. It's good for me!

And, like that, some good instructions from you, some teachings from here--all good for me, and a person can take all different things. But the tradition I should not mix because there are some specialties of that tradition, so those I have to keep. That's the understanding of Rime.

If eclectic ideas were then formalized/centralized/organized into a new religious school, only then would I characterize it as syncretistic. So, I must say that the burden of proof lies upon you to provide citations that explicitly state that Rime is not an “eclectic movement,” otherwise the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism quote has more merit, as per WP guidelines:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.[3]

Emptymountains (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains,

Citing a dictionary entry as the ultimate source would render much of detailed explanation in Wiki not only useless but also contradictory.

Please settle the debate about the differences between the 2 words in their relevant articles first. Once it is accepted there and becomes proven in their 'relevant topics', then you can make a case to distinguish between the two here. This is a very improbable hypothesis. Then I will contest there is enough relevancy to this topic even in that case.

Thirdly, you will have to disprove the Rime founders and modern masters why it is an ecleectic movement which would imply they are mistaken as well.

There are other points in my post which were not addressed.

It really is not about a copmpromise between yopu and me. There will be countless others who will edit this in future.

I hope these comments here shed light for future reference. It seems to be a very worthy effort.

Thegone (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

Where is the debate? I don't see one in the Wiki articles on eclecticism and syncretism. I also don't see a debate in the encyclopedias, or in the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism. They seem quite clear about what those words mean. All I asked was that this article include citations to support your view, like I did. For example, you reference the YouTube video in saying that Rime is not eclectic, but that word never appears anywhere in the video. As it says on this very screen, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

I won't bother reverting your edit, because I am hoping that you will add a reference to verify what you are saying.

Equananimously yours,

Emptymountains (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains,

Dictionaries are never sufficient, often wrong and even more so contradicting other dictionaries! I have looked in different dictionaries and they give differing and similar accounts of the two.

Eclectic implies for the general reader pretty much what syncretic does. The debate, non-existent, I am referring you to settle is a solid differentiation between the two in the relevant sections on those two.

Also eclectic would imply a new whole or entity even if one does not call it a school. As I explained Rime is not an entity (nor new). It is simply a freedom of choice.

Please call it an eclectic 'whatever' if you like. Others, including masters and advanced students, will take it up in the future. I won't re-edit you. I am happy this discussion took place for the record.

Best Wishes

Thegone (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more evidence for use of the word eclectic, from Georges Dreyfus:

According to the legend, Shuk-den takes the Fifth Dalai Lama as his target because the latter was eclectic, including in his practice many elements from the Nying-ma tradition, which provoked the anger of Shuk-den as a guardian of Ge-luk orthodoxy.... For example, the Fifth Dalai Lama advocated a more eclectic and inclusive approach..... The Yellow Book and the propitiation of Shuk-den threaten this eclectic system centered on the worship of Guru Rin-bo-che and the propitiation of Ne-chung.... In his early years, the present Dalai Lama followed the advice of his teachers and practiced an almost purely Ge-luk ritual system. In doing so, he was continuing the tradition of the last seven Dalai Lamas, who had adopted a strictly Ge-luk ritual system as the religious basis of their power. Important changes were introduced after the death of the Fifth and the defeat of his party, when the role of the Dalai Lama and the ritual system supporting the institution were changed. Instead of an eclectic system emulating the religious basis of the early empire, a more purely Ge-luk ritual system was installed under the auspices of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kel-zang Gya-soo[, ]the monks of Nam-gyel, the personal monastery of the Dalai Lama, were replaced by monks from the Ge-luk Tantric Colleges and the Nying-ma rituals that they had performed were discontinued. This situation continued into this century, forming the religious practice of the young Fourteenth.... This collective dimension of protectors is most relevant to the present conflict between Shuk-den and Ne-chung, which is quite obviously a reflection of the conflict between two groups, the conservative Ge-luk-bas, who resent the Dalai Lama's reliance on the Nying-ma tradition, and the groups who accept or support the Dalai Lama's eclectic approach.... This opposition between two visions of the Ge-luk tradition focuses on the figure of the Dalai Lama because of the way in which the Fifth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas have considered the institution they represent, i.e., as resting on an eclectic religious basis in which elements associated with the Nying-ma tradition combine with an overall Ge-luk orientation.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptymountains (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And also:

Throughout the history of the [dGe Lugs] tradition there have been independent thinkers such as Nga ri pan chen padma dbang rgyal (1487-1542), the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682), gTer bdag gling pa (1646-1714), and others who blurred the lines between traditions. This antisectarian stance became particularly significant during the nineteenth century in eastern Tibet, when an eclectic or nonsectarian (ris med) movement developed around the charismatic personalities of ’Jam mgon kong sprul (1813-18199), ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse‘i dbang po (1820-1892), and Dza dpal sprul (1808-1887).

Emptymountains (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Political Misuse of Rimé ideals

An addition I made was reverted with the following explanation by 'thegone':

"Highly sectarian and biased view of a small minority including Chinese backed Shugdenpa collaborators who have murdered in Dharamsal, not the view of the of majority."

I would like to respond to this. First of all, I would like to be clear. I believe in the ideals of Rimé. I think they are, from a social and political perspective, correct. Dialoge and mutual respect are exactly what is necessary and how to build a strong and unified Tibetan community. I simply believe that the ideals of mutual respect and tolerance that Rimé advances should also be extended to all segments of Tibetan society. A 'free Tibet' is not enough, Tibet itself needs to be free.

1. Sectarian is to impose one's views on another. A non-sectarian approach would be to allow each person to practice according to their own view. If some people want to practice a mix of traditions, that is their choice. If others wish to practice exclusively the teachings of one tradition, that is also their choice. Non-sectarianism is everyone respecting everyone else's choice.

2. A biased view assumes an objective view of the situation. There is an on-going controversy surrounding the use of the Rimé ideals. Therefore, it is fair to present both sides in an encyclopedia article.

3. 'Small minority'. It is currently a small minority because the practice has been systematically banned over a period of 30 years. It used to be the majority of Gelugpas. Besides, minority opinion is not a basis for exclusion from an article on a controversial subject. If it were, then there would be no discussion at all.

4. 'Chinese backed Shugdenpa collaborators'. This is an easy accusation to make in an effort to avoid debate. I am not backed by the Chinese at all. I am an independent Dorje Shugden practitioner who is acting in his personal capacity. Unsubstantiated accusations have no place on Wikipedia.

5. 'who have murdered'. I have murdered noone. To make unsubstantiated accusations of this nature is slanderous. The Indian police investigation found no link between Shugden practitioners and the tragic murders. This is a fact. Besides, even if some Shugden practitioners did do this (which they didn't), it does not mean that all Shugden practitioners are murderers or support murder. Do all muslims support terrorism. Should all muslims not be allowed to express their opinion because some mulsims are terrorists. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, so too not all Shugden practitioners are extremists. In fact, only a small minority are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspak08 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shugden Practitioner

1- This is what anti democratic groups often use as an excuse. For example the Nazis and fascists believe in achieving power by any means, including democratic, and then closing that free system down as we have seen in many examples. By merely saying that non-sectarian approaches shut down sectarian views does not make it so. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said you are free to practice that worldly spirit or anything you like but he won't give such people empowerments or any kind of affiliation. As he sees that spirit damaging to Tibet and Buddhism as well as it's practitioners in the long run. Even Pabonkga, after trying to give up unsuccessfully, said he got stuck into it and advised many not to begin it as they would would suffer from disease (mainly mental) and early death in the end. So your argument is false. Practice what you want but we don't have to like your sectarian fascistic small group which has become a new cult (neo-kadampa) that even dismisses Tsongkhapa's practice of having masters and teachings and empowerments from various schools and lineages. Furthermore we have seen the record of brief Shugdenpa rule where Gelug monestary of Reting was destroyed in Lhasa and many killed in other incidents too. You are just as free as neo-Nazis are in a democratic society but we don't have to like or engage with you and we do not for one moment are under any illusion how you would behave once you have power as your record shows.

2- There is NOT an on-going controversy surrounding the use of the non-sectarian Rimé ideals. There are on-going debates about the 'controversies' of democracy within neo-Nazis small circles for example but one would not say most people are seeing the world as a brain washed cult member sees it. Your cult is sectarian and sees taking teachings from others as a downfall despite the historic founders and leaders of Kadam and Gelug such as Tsongkhapa, Dalai Lamas, Atisha etc.

3. It is currently a small minority because your cult has gone against the Gelug history. Collaborates with the security forces in Tibet.

Promotes the Chinese backed fake Panchen Lama (son of two security agents) while the real Panchen Lama stolen as a child has been in custody and unheard of for years. Meanwhile the communist Party's appointed Panchen Lama promotes Shugden and sectarian practices with the backing of security forces and his picture under Shugden adorn your website.

All the main Gelug monasteries and abbots including head of Gelug (Ganden) dismiss your cult which has become a new school to all intents and purposes and has broken away from Gelug school. This is the case inside Tibet too as you are seen collaborating with the security forces.

Tibetan people outside Tibet overwhelmingly despise the collaborators and the new cult which has rebelled against the Gelug school as well.

4. You might be a lowly western practitioner of Shugden and totally brain washed but you can not silence me here by calling my points about official promotion of Shugden inside Tibet as 'accusation'.

To show how you are being dishonest, I recommend you reading in one of your main websites where the Communist Party's fake Panchen Lama is pictured under Shugden. There your cult admits the official support for the spreading of your demonic spirit's practice within Tibet time and again. It seems to be a veiled threat but as jailed monks and laypeople inside Tibet testify as well as those who have escaped, you are collaborating with the fascistic security forces.

First correct your site regarding the official backing of your practice. Then come here to call my same points as accusation. Meanwhile these are jackboot tactics and you are the one accusing and as proven false at that.

5. Again you are lying. The murders of Gelugs in Dharamsala was by well known Shugdenpas. They ran over the border into China. The jail and security force HQ built 'inside' Ganden in Tibet is frequented by your cult's collaborators. Here is the link quoting Indian police regarding your cult's well known murderers who ran over the border back to where they were dispatched from. http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-1.html another link: http://www.antishugden.com/component/content/article/35-organization/49-dharamsala-murder-linked-to-shugden-group

Finally your stealthy editing here is like a sectarian Nazi trying to edit a page on Holocaust. I am glad you were shown to be who you are and admitted to your secret cult.

Also sign your posts with your nickname.

When you come to the unhappy end all Shugden practitioners end up in, remember that the only practices that would help you will be those related to Guru Rinpoche as experience shows.

Sincere Best wishes for you and your fellows.

Thegone (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone, Thank you for responding to my points. It is unfortunate that you have a fixed notion of who we are and you are relating to your projection as if it were really true. Be that as it may, it is clear that we are not going to agree on the subject at hand. But fortunately, we do not have to. The issue at hand is the writing of the Rimé article. You have your right to say what you want, and we have the right to say what we want. You do NOT have the right to unilaterally decide what goes into this article and what does not. I would like to remind you that on Wikipedia, 'all editors are created equally'. So you have the right to contribute, and so do others. This article is not your property. If you want to have complete unilateral right to say what you want, then you can make your own website. But here, you have chosen an interactive and public forum where all editors have equal right to contribute their point of view on the subject. You may disagree with everything we have to say, and that is your right, but you do not have the right to silence anyone's point of view here. Your language choice and inflamatory accusations are also in violation of Wikipedia's rules on contributing and discussing. You may feel justified in your views, but they are just that - your views. There are alternative views of the Rimé movement. These two are legitimate to be included in an encyclopedia article, whether you like it or not.

We can keep playing this game of reverting back and forth the contribution, or we can behave like adults. I propose as a compromise we make a section entitled: 'Alternative view of Rimé'. In that section, we can present our view; in your section you can present your view.

The bottom line is this, while there may not be a controversy surrounding Rimé in your own mind, there is one in the world. As such, in Wikipedia world, each side has the right to express their views.

Sorry about not signing my name last time. I forgot to do it. I will do so this time. Please let me know what you think of my proposal. If you have a different proposal by which we can each express our different views, I am willing to listen.

Your friend, --Dspak08 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Dspak08,

I refuted your post point by point. I showed:

a) You are extremely sectarian and anti-democratic historically and currently b) Supported by occupying security forces of Tibet as: Shugdenpas are 'according' to your own website c) You make false accusations and accuse others of doing so d) Are murderers e) In violation of i)Gelug school monastries and abbots ii)Gelug History iii)Kadam and Gelug founders of multi lineage empowerments iv)Nyingma tantric cycles as some of the main Gelug cycles

Your new sect, disowned by Gelug authorities inside and outside Tibet and highly despised by average Tibetans, claims taking teachings outside your school is a downfall. This despite the fact that all the luminaries of Kadam and Gelugs did so. So your typings here are like those of a rapist in a women's sanctuary.

Watch others edit you out from now on. You think you are clever but really you are just practicing a 'worldly spirit' as a refuge which is not his class and further he is just a demonic Gyalpo who has sworn to take his followers down according to Gelug and Sakya masters who have unmasked him after initially trusting him. So the real victim here is you and your fellow sectarian murderers who are not that clever anyway as a definition. The job of us, Buddhists, is to pray and act for the sake of those who have fallen most way beyond their victims such as you and other sectarian murdering groups.

Your edits are lies since they start by praising taking multi lineage empowerments but end up in condemning Rime. Whereas your bloody cult leaders state that taking empowerments from others such as Nyingma (ironically like the Dalai Lamas, Retings, Panchens and even Tsongkhapa himself!) is completely forbidden.

So your posts are lies to begin with and you are a two faced dishonorable person as proven on this page with facts, links and your self-contradictions.

The senior western deputies of your leader who are supposedly celibate are falling one by one as serial sexual abusers and being edited out just as those around Stalin Hitler and Mao were erased. There will come a point in your life like so many Shugdenpas we see these days that you need desperate help and in that moment you will need to remember Guru Rinpoche. Only he can neutralize the demonic Shugden lowly Gyalpo for people like you. Of course many die young into the abyss as that is his specialty regarding his victims. But if you are fortunate, remember my tip.

Unlike you, when I wish you and your fellows best wishes I do mean it.

All the Best sentient being. Thegone (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not edit this article any more. Thegone (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone.

Thank you for your attacks on me. They have given me a wonderful opportunity to practice.

Genuinely speaking, I am just trying to present an alternative point of view on what has happened with Rime. In particular, how in the view of many the movements ideals have been hijacked or kidnapped for political purposes. You accuse me of a great many things but if you took the time to look at what I am actually saying, you would see that it is quite reasonable. Sectariansism is when one imposes their view on others, or claims their view is superior to others. If you check, this is what you are doing.

I fully respect that some people may want to practice Dharma by mixing different traditions together. I have no problem with that. That is simply their choice. But others may want to engage in practices just within one tradition. It seems to me a truly non-sectarian approach would be one in which everybody respects everybody else. Some mix, some don't, we all respect one another. But instead, you seem to be saying that anybody who does not follow the approach of mixing different traditions is by definition sectarian. Thus the only valid way of practicing is one that mixes many different traditions together. In effect, you have created a 'sect of the non-sectarian.'

Ironically, your extremely hostile reaction to me trying to make this point is in fact proving my point. The problem is this: here in WikiWorld, it is just an article that is being discussed and written. In the real world, there are real people who are suffering from the point of view you are taking. The Rime ideals are the intellectual and philosophical foundation for the current efforts against Dorje Shugden practitioners. This Dorje Shugden controversy has been described by many observers as the the most significant controversy within the Tibetan community today. Thus, it is perfectly valid for this to be addressed in a Wiki article on Rimé. You may have different views that I do, but that doesn't mean you have the right to exclude this other point of view from being included in the article.

I have not responded in kind to your many hostile attacks. But I think it is worth noting that you have violated many many rules of Wikipedia with the way you have been responding to various contributions. I suggest you take some time to review the sections on neutral point of view, Edit war, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, Proposed negotiation, Ad hominem and name calling, etiquette, Civlity, Personal attack and Dispute resolution. I think if you reflect upon these sections you might be able to approach our joint editing of this article in a more constructive way. If you continue with your current approach, I will have no choice but to bring in some third party moderator.

Once again, I believe in non-sectarianism. I believe we should all respect one another and each other's choices for how to practice. I have no problem with you, you have a problem with me. Who is being non-sectarian and who is being sectarian?

Once again, I propose to you some sort of compromise. Why can we not make a separate section, and we each respect one another? If you have another proposal, I am willing to listen to it.

Your friend (and I mean it), --Dspak08 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I will not edit this article any more." Thegone, please don't say that!

I agree with you that Dspak08's recent addition to the article does not belong. At most, a single sentence saying that it is a point of contention in the Dorje Shugden controversy can be mentioned and provide a link to that relevant article. I, myself, usually focus on correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, word usage (e.g., eclecticism! :), and the layout/organization of an article. I generally leave it up to everyone else to consider the actual content 'cause that's just too much work for me!

P.S. I do, however, think that the "murdering Shugdenpas" argument also does not belong; it is too big a generalization. Whoever did those 3 murders was not Buddhist, just as anyone killing "in the name of God" is not Christian, Muslim, or Jew. It is important that we not put genuine practitioners in the same class. At the minimum, it is an ad hominem argument, one that does not even apply, even to Wiki users such as Dspak08. The vast majority of Dorje Shugden practitioners wouldn't hurt a fly.

With love,

Emptymountains (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains,

I believe your original suggestion of making a separate section was a good one. I proposed to thegone to create a separate section to highlight an alternative point of view on Rimé but he did not respond to my proposal.

As the Rimé movement's misuse has been the intellectual justification for an on-going controversy within the Tibetan community, it seems perfectly legitimate and within the scope of a Wiki article that the connection between Rimé and an on-going dispute be explored. Thus I respectfully disagree with you that the addition does not belong. On what basis should it be excluded? It is a point of view on Rimé that has topical relevance to a contemporary issue. This seems to clearly fall within the scope of a Wiki article.

I also do not appreciate your referring to me as 'even to Wiki users such as Dspak08', as if I am some crazed lunatic. If you actually check, everything I have written has been balanced, calm and reasoned. How did I become an inappropriate user? I am not the one calling people neo-nazi, chinese collaborating, sectarian murderers. I am trying to defend non-sectarianism. What is wrong with that?

Thank you for taking the time to reply,

--Dspak08 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dspak08,

I'm sorry, I'm not doing too well with my wording here lately. What I meant to say was that bringing up the Dharmasala murders as an ad hominem argument against you as a fellow Wiki editor is totally unjustifiable and in very bad taste. Everyone: Show respect, both in word and in deed.

Also, to be honest I was so focused on the Rime Talk Page that I did not see what was going on the past couple of days in the article itself. Whatever side people are on, I don't think the article should be used as a platform for fighting about the Shugden controversy. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, yet so much of what you two have been adding is unsourced. It will only backfire for the pro-Shugden people and also make the anti-Shugden people look bad (case in point, the current "Sectarian Opponents of Rimé" section).

I'm thinking of the average Wiki user who just wants plain encyclopedic information, but then gets bombarded by propaganda and counter-propaganda from both sides. We've all read these arguments a thousand times before, and neither side remains convinced of the other's views, so there's no need to repeat it all here. Just re-direct readers elsewhere if they really want to hear it.

Moving forward,

Emptymountains (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Emptymountains,

Thank you for your clarification. Yes, I agree with you. I did not realize that I would be opening up such a can of worms. I believe Owlmonkey has proposed a reasonable compromise. It is factual, neutral, and makes the point. Unfortunately, 'thegone' reverted it back to his inflamatory version. I reverted it back to Owlmonkey's compromise in the hope of making a move towards a neutral middle ground.

It seems to me that you and owlmonkey are more or less neutral in this article, so I am willing to default to you and Owlmonkey deciding between the two of you what is a reasonable compromise. Essentially acting as third party meditators.

What do you think?

--Dspak08 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Emptymountains

1- The case of the murders is a particular criminal case which according to Indian Police (which your friend lied about quoting them) was carried out by Shugdenpas who then ran to Chinese authorities. Further it is you who is generalizing as I proved the lies regarding the specific multi murder criminal case.

2- Your other sweeping generalization that those who murder or conduct wars in the name of whatever religion are not followers of all those religions is similarly absurd.

3- The Neo-Kadampa cult your friend belongs to, disowned by the Gelug monasteries, is a hierarchical cult with defined leadership that operates inside and outside Tibet whose senior members abuse serially as self confessed by their organization and murder as Indian authorities testify to as linked above.

The vast majority of Dorje Shugden practitioners obey orders within their organizations and turn blind eyes to their leaders atrocities. As we see they come here and lie that they are not sectarian and take others' empowerments and teachings when excluding that is the main distinguishing feature of their cult.

My points, systematically laid out above and numerated, have not been addressed by the sectarians nor their sympathizers in this topic which is about the historic tradition of tolerance and non-sectarianism in Tibetan Buddhism. This is a concerted attack in stealth by a sectarian group on a topic which is very against their taste. Simply shameful.

Metta to all sentient beings, including sectarians and their blood covered victims including the many recent ones whether dead or the many still suffering currently in Tibetan dungeons mainly as a result of collaborating informers.

Thegone (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

Yes, I think I did misread you about #1. What I was trying to say was that the actions of the handful(?) of murderers does not make all Shugden practitioners culpable. I see now that you were not making such a sweeping statement.

For #2, again I'm sorry that my wording was unclear. What I meant to say was that they are Buddhist (or Christian or whatever) in name only. Their actions prove that they are not what they claim to be. The rest is between you and Dspak08.

Lotta metta,

Emptymountains (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is under organized attack

I just found out that the four following posters as shown are followers of the New Kadampa Shugden organization. Their contributions shows they are part of the notorious marketing efforts of that organization which is strictly against Wiki rules. This is made worse as they try to hide their affiliation and coordination which is revealed by checking their contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dspak08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emptymountains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Truthsayer62

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atisha%27s_cook

Non-sectarian and democratic people such as legitimate Wiki editors should monitor their editings. Thegone (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

It is true that I have an interest in this and other related topics, but I hope you don't see my edits as vandalizing this article (or any other). I have a year-long track record with Wikipedia now which shows this.

But, it is also true that I did have an ulterior motive in asking you/everyone about whether Rime is eclectic and/or syncretistic. I did my BA capstone project on Nietzsche's perspectivism, exploring perspectivism within Buddhism. The question I sought to answer was "What is the middle way between sectarianism and syncretism?" If you want to read it, you're welcome to email me @yahoo, and I'll send you the link.

I want you to know that you and I had a meaningful discussion above, and I look(ed) forward each day to your responses. It changed my view on what some of those things mean, so I thank you.

P.S. I can't speak for the other people you mentioned.

Equananimously yours,

Emptymountains (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________

My request for information in the 14th_Dalai_Lama article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Coordinated_Stealthy_defamatory_attacks_by_NKT_organization

Thegone (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right Thegone, these articles are under attack by NKT. The best is to stick to the facts and not getting blurred by their confusion. The more knowledge you have, the better you know the rules and learn to work according to WP:Guidelines the more NKT is out of this sad game. Good luck! --87.185.217.102 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear kt66 / 87.185.217.102,

I'm new here at Wikipedia, but isn't it called "Sockpupppeting" when you use two different identities -- in this case a user name and an IP address, as if you are two different people? I don't quite understand how all this works yet, and I am certainly open to being wrong about this, but it seems like you are trying to mask your identity by using the IP address instead of your usual handle. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical setting

The article as I read it now seems more about an idealized view of non-sectarianism. My understanding of Rime is that the Gelug order was just so dominant in the 18th and 19th century that many of the practices of the other orders were dying out. So it was to some degree an effort to prevent the transmission lines from breaking. It had as much to do with the Gelugpa hegemony and dominance as any kind of idealized freedom of religion notion. This is how it has been explained to me by my teachers. I haven't explored this in scholarly settings at all yet — so I'm not sure the academic take on things — but if that perspective has merit then the tension with the gelug order - in the 19th century and factions of it today - would be appropriate to explore here. Even just to set the stage properly, I wonder if we should convey how the lineage landscape had changed dramatically from the 17th century on with the rise of the Gelugpas. And that includes Je Rinpoche's creating this notion of hierarchy of views in a more strict fashion than predecessors, so that all other philosophic tenets were considered 'lower'. I'm not sure that the rime movement would have happened honestly if all that had not happened, given what I've heard. I'm not hoping to fan any sectarian bitterness in this observation, and I'd need to do more research, but I'm concerned we may be painting rime as it is viewed today in an idealized view and the history might be a little more gritty. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Found a citation for this, page 320 in the Prasangika-Svatantrika Distinction by Professor Dreyfus [5] where he writes,

“ The nonsectarian movement has been in many ways a means for non-dGe lugs pa schools to counter the dGe lugs pa hegemony. As such, the movement has been at times critical of dGe lugs pa ideas and practices. This critical stance is taken, however, less as expressing a deep sense of opposition than as allowing the formulation of a distinct non-dGe lugs viewpoint that can compete with the dominant dGe lugs tradition. ”

So while I agree the term characterizes perhaps a more openness generally for the traditions to study each others methods and views in the last 150 years, I'm not sure it's idealized or inseparable from the Gelugpa dominance at that time. Maybe you all already agree with me and my point is moot. - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

deluded article

Really, I think the current version is a very deluded article with half-truths and untruths about the Rime movement. I suggest to revert it back to the version as edited by SmackBot at 13:57, 29 April 2008, and then step by step to expand it after discussion here at the talk page. --87.185.217.102 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the controversy section where Dreyfus is quoted wrongly. The best is to give full quotes at controversy sections. Those NKT editors who removed the controversies from the NKT article, and adding here a controversy section I can not understand nor can I tolerate this behaviour, this is plain wrong and ignorant about the facts. I added also a quote of Jamgon Kongtrul and removed the wrong statements which are just prejudices from Shugden devotees. --87.185.217.102 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted more than one part in the controversy section. One was about anti-gelug sentiments in early rime movement. The other was about Dorje Shugden. Which part or was it both that you thought was misquoting? Because the two Dreyfus citations were decent and not misquoted in my opinion. I disagree that original quotes are needed in controversy sections, but if you really don't read that in Dreyfus' citations I'll try the original quotes here for comparison. It's not contentious that early Rime had anti-gelug tone to the writing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's right above this section on the talk page, the quote I mentioned, just above this section on this page. The other part of Dorje Shugden has changed so much and churning so much I'm not sure I want to dive into that again until things cool down here. But the Dreyfus summary of the Shugden controversy, The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy is a very interesting read and should be included somehow. On related pages as well, he has rich detail there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another citation for you:

• from Hookham, S.K. (1991) The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong ISBN 0-79140-357-2
  • from page 162: [6]
    • "strove to gather together and preserve the massive collections of Tantric transmissions and commentaries of the Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya, Kadam, Jonang, and numerous other lineages." (note omission of gelugpas)
    • "Non-Partisan here means not limited by adopting a one-sided approach to the Buddhist tradition, which was the great feature of Kongtrul's life and work as well as that of his contemporaries. It should be noted, however, that the Rimay movement included very little, if any, Gelugpa material except insofar as the Gelugpas trace their origin to the Kadampas whose works are represented." (interesting no?)
  • from page 175: [7]
    • "it was standard practice for Rimay masters to disregard the later Gelugpa tradition after Tsongkapa." (meaning they would not comment upon Gelug masters post 14th century even though they were in the 19th century - that's a pretty significant omission in their 'great gathering' of teachings, no?)

I don't dispute that the intention of rime was to promote openness generally. I just dispute a modern delusion that the movement was so idealistic from the start. The deeper you look, the more you'll see that the movement was anti-gelug in some sense to begin with. And that just fit the situation. The rime movement started in eastern tibet which was marginalized and traditions like the jonang had been mostly suppressed. The reason to collect all the transmissions was because they were dying out. Not because of atrophy, but because of gelug was dominating so much for the previous 200 years. Rime perhaps many years later has morphed into a general sentiment or idealism about nonsectarianism, sure, but it didn't start so idealistic the more I look into it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another, concerning Ju Mipham who was solidly in the Rime camp in the 19th century.

• From Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen p.146
  • "Mipham's critiques in the Beacon are implicitly directed toward Tsongkhapa."
• From Mipham's Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness p.16
  • "despte the fact that most of [Mipham's] polemical writings are critiques of Tsongkhapa's interpretation and the Gelukpa understanding of Emptiness, he even went as far as to eulogize Tsongkhapa and identify his final understanding of Emptiness with the Primordial Purity of Dzogchen thought. He repeatedly argues that Tsongkhapa and other eminent Gelukpa masters like Ghangkya Rolpai Dorje held views consonant with the Nyingmapa and other Ngarabpa viewpoints, although they taught a provisional understanding of Emptiness that their followers, the Gelukpas, mistook for definitive and final."

I love Mipham's writing, he's hilarious, he'll praise Tsongkhapa's view but he'll praise it as an excellent provisional teaching and not a definitive teaching. That must have had fellow Rime masters roaring with laughter. Then he'll go on to present what a real prasangika should do and how that's different from the Gelug approach. My point though is that these Rime teachers were polemic in their critiques of the Gelugpa's in the 19th century. Yet they were the core Rime leaders. So idealized views of Rime are obscuring part of the real history. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two more citations concerning Mipham's criticism of Tsongkhapa:

• Garfield, Jay L., (2006) The Conventional Status of Reflexive Awareness: What's at Stake in a Tibetan Debate? Philosophy East and West - Volume 56, Number 2, April 2006, pp. 201-228
• Paul Williams (1983) On Rang Rig. In E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher, eds., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy: Proceedings of the Cosma de Ko¨ ro¨ s Symposium, 1981, vol. 2, pp. 321–332. Wien: Arbeitkreis fu¨ r Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universita¨ t Wien. Reprinted in Williams 1998, pp. 232–246.

And here is excellent synopsis about openness yet staying true to one's lineage in the rime ethic, as a modern interpretation:

• Sogyal Rinpoche (2003) The Spirit of Buddhism: The Future of Dharma in the West ISBN 0-06053-995-X [8] page 3

That last one might be a good citation for the lead paragraph or summation. -Owlmonkey (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Message for Owlmonkey

Dear Owlmonkey,

Thank you for your contributions. You seemed to arrive just in time, as there was a bit of an impasse between 'thegone' and myself and a couple of other editors. I find your compromise text quite good, balanced, neutral, factual, etc. So thank you very much.

I removed, however, the section on the murders because this issue is already covered in the Dorje Shugden controversy article. I think including it here in the Rimé article might be inflamatory, and then compel more contributions to be made to this article, which could then once again degenerate as it did earlier.

The only idea that I would like to be included in the Rimé article is the idea that a truly non-sectarian approach would be one in which everyone respects one another, regardless of how they choose to practice. Some may choose to mix different traditions, some may choose to practice exclusively the instructions of one tradition, but we all respect one another. To me, this is the Rimé ideal and this is what non-sectarianism is all about.

Can you agree with this being included?

--Dspak08 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

________________________

Dear Dspak08,

It is completely dishonest of you and your fellow cult member Emptymountains who came here disguised and despite the central tenet of your violent sect being taking no teachings and empowerments from others you call Red Hats, 'you lie that you support it' as above and in earlier edits to the article. This shows your complete dishonest nature.

Now listen to this. I had no interest in your worldly spirit cult denounced by Gelug establishment as demonic. Due to your marketing gang's action today I have made a vow and confirmed with others to set up an organization to expose your cult in every little town in the States as demonic and help the growing number of your ex-cult members and coordinate all existing groups exposing your cult. This will have many dimensions and you will see them stage by stage. Your western cult masquerading as Tibetan is being recognized as abusive by non-Buddhist and secular organizations also.

Emptymountains who is overseeing your marketing gang here should have been wiser instead of believing in his gyalpo and double digit IQ. It has been auspicious. May many sentient beings benefit.

From the Copper Colored Mountain, with True Love. xx Thegone (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

________________________

OK, I don't want to get pulled into open anti-NKT versus NKT warfare of any kind. But I do want to answer Dspak08's questions to me just above.

A couple things come up for me. 1) how much is rime an ideal versus a description of a movement, and 2) is there a difference between respecting different views and letting each lineage stand uncriticized. My guess is that Rime was more of a movement with some views but also with complex motivations and context, so the ideals really didn't stand on their own nor drove the movement in isolation. And in my experience the movement included tremendous criticism still, so it's hard for me to pin down how the ideals manifested really beyond 'allowing' the aggregation and cross-pollination where it had been discouraged previously. Maybe that's changed over time, but it just doesn't seem quite so idealized. Maybe modern usage of rimé is different?

I'm getting the sense Rimé started as the minority lineages banding together of sorts to make sure their traditions weren't extinguished. As such, it was not so much an ideal about how the lineages should behave. It was partially polemic to start with, and somewhat allied against the Gelugpas initially, though the goal was not merely polemic. I really see examples of this reading Ju Mipham's commentaries. He's respectful of the Gelug view and even complementary in part — so I definitely see that — but often he's taking Je Rinpoche to task on various points. He has scathing criticisms and arguments and weighs in on the Gelug approach and views, even down to really fundamental tenets. He argues that the Gelug interpretation of Prasangika is flawed for example, I'm not sure you could cut much deeper than that. So respect, yes, but strong criticism and telling the other lineages what they should do or not do to have a better approach is still definitely there.

If that is a precedent, then having various lineages tell another to start or stop practicing a particular practice is not beyond precedent, really. It's still part of the long history of debate and polemic. But it is another thing to actually obstruct or persecute others for their views, shut down their monasteries, force them to convert, etc. But then is that kind of persecution a Rimé issue exactly? We may be conflating the rime movement with a larger sense of ethics that it might not have had originally.

I'm fine keeping the murder on the controversy article. There were so many possible causes and conditions at play as motives of their deaths, to pin it all on a rime viewpoint or even on the Dorge Shugden controversy is a bit farfetched to me. And without a conviction it's not something to speculate about too much here.

But in terms of this article and the rime ideals, I don't think we should paint it as overly idyllic or be careful not to add to rime something that it originally was not. Yet we should discuss how in the modern times it is viewed and how the relationship between traditions has evolved. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey,

Thank you for your reply. Frankly, it seems to me that the best thing to do is go back to how the article was before I made any attempt to make a change.

However, to be honest, the fact that the current article is so hostile and virulent stands in such contradiction with what Rimé is supposed to be about that it makes my point anyways. Someone coming here will see such extreme hostility and come to their own conclusions...

It is regrettable that all of this has happened. It feels as if I accidentally stepped into a bees hive.

I agree with your points, by the way.

--Dspak08 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to approach the controversy section. There certainly are plenty of sectarian controversies in Tibetan history generally that are notable and inter-sectarian conflicts. They're all worthy of mention somewhere. I'm just not sure where. In this article, since it discusses an increasing openness between the lineages, then it seems like discussion of the sectarian bitterness before that movement and during is very relevant and sets the stage. The Jonang sect for example, and how it was extinguished, probably needs a mention here as a common example described as sectarianism but probably wasn't really (more political reasons).

I guess the point is being attempted in the current controversy section not that there's in internal Gelug rift and that inherently it is an example of sectarianism, but more it's being surmised that groups of gelug's are anti-rime and that has caused a splinter of the Gelug to separate away. It's an interesting proposition, though the Dreyfus review of this I mentioned above seems to convey that while the ban on Shugden was a component there was a much longer history and political situation at play and more to it than just a rime or anti-rime issue. Basically that there are more than a couple causes and conditions to the fracture, really a multiplicity of causes and conditions (as usual). Do others agree that it was more complicated than the one issue or is there still a belief that it was the main issue? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey,

I find it interesting that you have no problems with those that killed the Dalai Lamas in 19th century as well as many of their fathers, the Gelug regent Reting Rinpoche and Gelug monks of his monastery as well as the three mentioned here in India and this year informing currently to authorities in China on dissidents when hundreds were killed and thousands are jailed and tortured as we speak in concentration camps. There are quotes of their collaboration with the security forces justified in their own words because of the Communist appointed fake Panchen lama and other communist appointed tulkus' support for the Shugden practice (see one of thier Shugden sites). Of course the real Panchen lama who refused to denounce the Dalai Lama is still unheard of. In fact historically they specialize in killing Gelugs. These days their western cult, NKT, organizes demonstrations with and alongside the Chinese embassies' staff and pickets under their flag (see youtube videos). They inform regularly to the 2 jail/security HQs in Ganden in Tibet. They, Chinese and Shugdenpa/WSS/NKT have come out of the closet regarding their collaborations. Now the only thing that seems to matter to you is not the dharma or your karma getting heavier by the day by each viewer but your half-baked thinly disguised excessive Christian baggage and subconscious extrapolations and musings here. There are some pictures here in the numbered links below. Sweet dreams and happy future reincarnations, whatever realm or dimension they might be. I genuinely, there are good reasons for this, prefer the poor unfortunate ill-fated Shugdenpas to you. There are many dimensions beyond our homosapien five senses and geologically speaking extremely primitive cognition. All the best. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11805&geo=&theme=&size=A

Thegone (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thegone,

You haven't made your case with verifiable reasonings nor valid syllogisms. Especially when we're discussing the legacy of Lama Je Tsongkhapa, where are your valid syllogisms? And further, when I renew my bodhisattva vow, it includes *all* sentient beings. We're all in this samsaric mess together really. Whenever we think the problem is them we should be suspicious of the state of our mind as much as the accuracy of our discernment.

Best Regards,

-Owlmonkey (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey,

Your friends' cult (expelled by Gelug leaders) who specialize in killing Gelugs and Gelug leaders as I proved above on which you keep silent on say taking teachings from others (Tsongkhapa went much further and had as his meditation guru a Nyingma) is a downfall. You have no logic. If you have honor, give me your email and I'll arrange the families of the murdered Gelug lama and his two disciples contact you regarding your public defense of their murderers' cult.

If you are a Shugdenpa and lying like your friends, Emptymountians, who started by saying on this page and earlier article edits that they support taking teachings from other schools (as in Tsongkhapa's example) and turned out to be NKT Shugdenpas who would be expelled for breaking that defining central tenet of their cult as it is exercised without exception, then in that case you are just another hypocritical liar possessed by the Dolgyal mara. In either case, without honor and conscious regarding murders of Gelugs or a two faced demonic Dolgyalpa, I pity your sorry state and heavy bloody karma. In the laws of karam, a supporter of an act, such as murders, shares in that karma and its heavy karmic retribution. Study abhidharma. The karma is multiplied everytime it is communicated (read in this case by many everyday). Sweet dreams to all hellbound karmic-collective murderers of Gelugs.

Thegone (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see your definitive logic, sorry. You're making a lot of assertions, but where are the hard facts to back it up? Don't just give us more assertions, where are the facts? You're accusing people of murder left and right, going back hundreds of years, and laying blame on a whole category of people. And the only connection between the people you malign in this century and the 19th century, as far as I can tell, is that they practiced a particular protector sadhana. That is absurd. Have you ever practiced one? But to the facts, surely you must have some pretty unequivocal evidence, some well established, attributable facts for all of that - beyond any reasonable doubt or disagreement? right? - it should be so obvious to scholars across the ages that this particular protector sadhana just magically causes its practitioners to suddenly go against the most basic tenets of buddhism and start killing people, and yet it's passed on through the ages in a buddhist lineage. That's ridiculous. One doesn't have to be a particular member of a particular lineage to realize how silly that sounds. I'm a Kagyupa, and my lineage's monastery complex was razed by the Gelugpas thirty years before it was razed by the Chinese. So I find it quite ironic to end up in the middle of an argument between two gelug streams, trying to mitigate in some way. But the world is too small for this pettiness, and there is too much real work to do for the benefit of others. It's time to get over sectarian bitterness; a total waste of energy. We're all better than that. I for one am here to write an encyclopedia, and one based on verifiable facts above opinion. You need to control your klesha and stop acting out. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Owlmonkey,

It is obvious you hate the Dalai Lama who was described as a Buddha by The Sixteenth Karmapa.

1- Your post is avoiding every point and merely rambling. You are the one with no logic. Apart from Tibetan philosophy, I am well read in logic as well as German, French and Anglo-American-A8strian philosophical schools and mathematics. You don't even know what logic (classic, modern and Tibetan) is. You have mastered neither Tibetan nor any western branch of the various fields you are pompously claiming to have valid opinions in. Similar to your friend here who thinks he is beyond good and evil like a thirteenth stage Bodhisattva to engage in activities which will send him to hell for a kalpa.

2- The facts are linked in the article. It is a criminal case which is still open with facts. The Shugden web is a secret united network which is united and spans inside and outside Tibet. They gloat over the murders. They are laughing at you as you read this.

3- If you are a Kagyu then apart from being illogical in debate and engaging in sophistry you are still without honor and conscience regarding the defense of the murder of the Tibetans by anti-Kagyu Shugdenpas who have also murdered many Kagyus.

You postulate your fantasy Christian extrapolations and assertions into the issue. I practice protectors and let me tell you don't know what you have done but that is irrelevant like a drunk's ignorance while diving off a cliff into an abyss. Not just by mere illogical avoidance of my well referenced points in debate, but by the karma you have amassed which will continue here long after your afflicted monkey mind wonders off. You need to talk to your lama about your public support for the mara which The Sixteenth Karmapa banned. You have broken your fundamental samayas with the Karmapa and Kongtrul and Kagyu and ignorance of what you have done is not relevant to your woeful and serious situation. You are in serious trouble. Thegone (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You, sir, have gone beyond any reasonable discourse at this point and are merely trolling. Hope you had a good snack. -Owlmonkey (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions on Wiki Procedures

Dear all,

I am in the process of calling into question the NPOV status of the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsang_Gyatso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kadampa_Tradition

1- Can someone tell me how to do that?

2- Is there an admin section to complain against coordinated marketing effort of an organization (in itself not allowed) enforcing bias?

Thank you in advance. Thegone (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Archive 1