Religious Fundamentalism in Buddhism
The protests of the Western Shugden Society (WSS) / New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and Kundeling Lama’s[1] lawsuit against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile[1], India, invite reflection on the issue of fundamentalism in Buddhism.
Fundamentalism is a term which may be a battlefield for different interpretations as the terms “cult” or “religious freedom” can be said to be.
The editors of the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism came to agreement to offer this definition:
Fundamentalism refers to a “deep and totalistic commitment” to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[2][3][4][5]
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[6] the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[7]
The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[7] The collective use of the term fundamentalist to describe non-Christian movements has offended some Christians who desire to retain the original definition.
Fundamentalism is often used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase “Muslim fundamentalists” and “right-wing fundamentalists”).[8][9] Richard Dawkins used the term to characterise religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.[10]
Regarding doctrinal beliefs or fundamentalist concepts which appear to underlie the Dorje Shugden controversy, the website Western Shugden Society – unlocked has already offered a short analysis. Whatever point of view or understanding is followed, a radical and narrow minded attitude and clinging to specific concepts can be posited to form the basis for the ongoing dispute.
The issue of religious fundamentalism has been addressed also in an interview with the Dalai Lama by journalist Raimundo Bultrini. In this interview H.H. the Dalai Lama addressed the Shugden controversy indirectly:
HH. “But if we analyse the problem we can see that the limits of the fundamentalists lie in their inability to tolerate even the idea of dialogue, there is proof in their attempts to be invisible when they carry out their actions. Among the Imans there are different interpretations of the Koran but the final understanding is left to the individual. This is why there are extremists and black sheep, as there are in any religion”.
RB. Even in Buddhism?
HH. “Certainly even in Buddhism. In 1997 a group claiming to be from my same religious school were strongly suspected of having killed a lama who was very dear to me, the director of the School of Tibetan Dialectics in Dharamsala, and two monks, translators who were playing an important role in interpreting with the Chinese. These same people have beaten up and threatened other Tibetans in the name of their vision, which I would define as Buddhist integralism. They consider a certain protecting spirit, that I used to pray to and that I now distrust to be as important as the Buddha himself. In order to assert this, they went on to damage those round them instead of respecting them and understanding them, in line with the teachings of the man who spread the principles of universal compassion five centuries before Jesus Christ. From this point of view our experience is no different from that of Christianity, or of Hinduism”.
The overwhelming missionary media campaign by the Western Shugden Society, and also four recent articles[11] for “The Faith Column” in New Statesman were written by a close follower of the controversial Kundeling lama[1]. These actions have provoked different activities of Buddhists, e.g. the publication of the site Buddhism under assault, and an endless debate in different forums and news outlets.
The section of the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism regarding Buddhism has been repeatedly deleted – probably by followers of the NKT – however the quotes and material are based on reliable sources and the section is balanced. It states (or stated):
Buddhism
H.H. the Dalai Lama has agreed that extremists and fundamentalists also exist in Buddhism,[12] arguing that fundamentalists are not even able to pick up the idea of a possible dialogue.[12]
The Japanese Nichiren sect of Buddhism, which believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labelled fundamentalist. However, Nichiren Buddhism contains influences from Shintō and a strongly nationalistic streak.
At the height of the Dorje Shugden Controversy Robert Thurman claimed: “It would not be unfair to call Shugdens the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism” referring to the Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, who believe in swift and brutal justice.[13] A statement which was rejected by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the New Kadampa Tradition (aka NKT), arguing: “This really is a false accusation against innocent people. We have never done anything wrong. We simply practise our own religion, as passed down through many generations.”[14]
David N. Kay argued in his doctoral research that the NKT fit into the criteria of Robert Lifton’s definition of the fundamentalist self.[15] Inken Prohl stated: “Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organisational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism”. Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later ‘fundamentalist’ identity.”[16] However Prohl states also: “Although this observation presents a convincing and challenging observation of a mechanism at work in Buddhist organizations in the West, I would hesitate to characterize, as Kay does, such organisations as ‘fundamentalist’ due to the vague and, at the same time, extremely political implications of this term.”[16]
A monk sent these thoughts about fundamentalism in Buddhism to the Editorial staff of New Statesman:
»The scourge of fundamentalism is not merely a problem in the monotheistic faiths based on the god of Abraham. As with other world faiths, Buddhism has had in its fold members who believe unequivocally that they hold the ultimate truth, and that their detractors are dangerously mistaken and must be corrected. It is out of the energy of such fundamentalism that Dorje Shugden was promoted from Dolgyal, the spirit of Dol – a minor regional guardian; to a fully enlightened Buddha-protector by the conservative establishment within the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
The Gelugpa tradition’s beginnings are the teachings of Lama Tzongkhapa, the ultimate non-sectarian lama, who based his writings on a combination of Indian treatises, Mahayana Sutras, and teachings he received from masters of the Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyu traditions. His approach was essentially non-sectarian and firmly rooted in a close adherence to the Indian texts.
How strange then, that those who claim they are “protecting the purity” of Tsongkhapa’s teachings from the non-sectarian approach of the Dalai Lama, have taken up as the banner of their cause, Dorje Shugden, a deity of dubious origins. Not found in any of the classical Indian texts which Tzongkhapa taught his followers should be the ultimate authority, or in any of the extensive writings of Tsongkhapa himself, Shugden in fact is a worldly deity who has become the banner of the fundamentalists.
Pabongkha Rinpoche, the root guru of Trijiang Rinpoche and founding lama of the Shugden movement, never gave clear reasons why he felt Shugden was a Buddha. The 13th Dalai Lama questioned his reliance on such a mundane protector, and in a letter responding to the Dalai Lama asking that he stop Shugden worship, Pabongkha promised to do so, and said that his reason for Shugden propitiation was because “my mother told me that Shugden is the deity of my maternal lineage.”
Despite this promise, after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama, Pabongkha once again began the transmission of Shugden practice to his students. Without scriptural references or historical precedents, his students believed Shugden to be a Buddha based on their faith in Pabongkhapa alone. Georges Dreyfus, noted Buddhist scholar, says:Pa-bong-ka suggests that he (Shugden) is the protector of the Ge-luk tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tzongkhapa (Gelug’s founder) himself.
In modern times, Shugden became the enforcer of the purity of Gelugpa doctrine. Zemey Tulku released a document called the “Yellow Book“. This book outlines stories of misfortunes that befall Gelug Shugden devotees who read and practice the texts of the other Tibetan lineages, especially the Nyingma tradition. Those who “mix” traditions are seen as enemies of the lineage, as can be seen from this excerpt from a propitiation ritual included in Zemey’s book:
Praise to you, violent god of the Yellow Hat teachings,
Who reduces to particles of dust
Great beings, high officials and ordinary people
Who pollute and corrupt the Geluk doctrine.Thus, Shugden’s purpose is clear and well-known in both Gelug and non-Gelug circles. It is for this reason that high Kagyu Lamas such as Tai Situpa Rinpochey say they “utter Shugden’s name with fear” and the late head of the Nyingma tradition, Minling Trichen Rinpoche, referred to Shugden as a “ghost”. The head of the Sakya tradition, His Holiness Sakya Trizin, says that while some in his lineage made offerings to Shugden, he was always regarded as a mundane protector on the lowest level of the pantheon.
Due to this widespread fear and the sectarian flavour it gave modern Gelug practice, the Dalai Lama began speaking about the dangers of Shugden at his teaching events, eventually requesting Shugden devotees not to take teachings and initiations from him. The majority of Gelugpas understood and followed his reasoning, because it was after all based on the teachings of the fountainhead of the Gelugpa tradition, Lama Tzongkhapa.
Those most loyal to Pabongkha’s lineage, however, resisted, stepping up Shugden worship in monasteries, commissioning new statues, and printing Shugden texts that were dutifully thrust into the laps of monks in their houses who had doubts about the practice. Then, Lobsang Gyatso, head of the dialectics institute in Dharamsala, an opponent of Shugden who had written voluminously on the subject along with two attendants, was murdered in his home. Interpol eventually released arrest warrants for two chief suspects in his murder, confirmed by Indian police to be Shugden activists who subsequently fled to Chinese controlled Tibet. The suspects were never apprehended, and so never went to trial.
It was after this murder that HH Dalai Lama began to speak more actively against Shugden, including in a meeting with the abbots of all the major Gelug monasteries. As promotion of the deity continued, in 2007, the Dalai Lama recommended the matter be put to a vote. In all three Gelug monastic universities; Sera; Drepung and Ganden, the Shugden opponents won by a landslide. In the tradition of the original spirit of monastic law, vote sticks were drawn. In the spirit of the majority (on which monastic law is based, according to the Vinaya scriptures of early Buddhism), it was decided those who practiced Shugden could no longer participate in the monastic rituals. This was all done according to Buddhist law, with many precedents including votes held during schisms for various reasons in many other Buddhist countries such as Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka.
The Shugden activists refused to leave, so all monks were asked to take an oath to abandon Shugden and all those who refused were turned away from public pujas and debates. In effect, they were banished from monastery functions for not following monastic principles- rule of majority and abiding by vote results, common procedures in all Buddhist monastic communities. Rather than being banished from monastery grounds, however, Shugden worshipers were allowed to keep all their residential buildings and temples, essentially becoming a separate community within the monastery.
Without an understanding of the basics of monastic law and the Tibetan history of Shugden practice, it is easy to misunderstand this controversy. However, when one digs a little deeper, the picture becomes far more complex, and far less incriminating (for the Buddhist monastic communities) than Shugden activists would have us believe.
Sincerely, [...], Buddhist Monk«
(The name of the monk is kept private due to threats he received. His teacher was threatened with death many times.)
In general one can say, according to Buddhist understanding, fundamentalism – “a ‘deep and totalistic commitment’ to a belief” – is based on ignorance and clinging. The ignorance in that context is mainly referring to a lack of knowledge, therefore offering more knowledge about the disputed issue and its related vocabulary (concepts) can help for those open to differentiate their understanding to overcome fundamentalism. That’s why more understanding about Buddhism – especially the rectification of terms like devotion, faith, belief, Guru or root Guru, Breach of Guru Devotion, reliance to a Guru, seeing the teacher as a Buddha and so on – and the disputed issue – in this context the Shugden Controversy – could help some individuals to overcome fundamentalist attitudes.
However such a process of refining one’s understanding is impossible if one lacks the defining characteristics of a proper student of the Mahayana or prefers to read only texts written by their own school of thought. Sadly, NKT has a totally self-referential system and students are discouraged to read non-NKT Dharma-books, because this could confuse them and they could lose “faith”. NKT literature lacks a lot of Buddhist teachings and was written only by one author, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, which makes followers completely dependent on his views and thoughts.
Statements by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso which probably invite a narrow-minded perspective and blind faith include:
“Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely – relying upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. If we mix traditions many obstacles arise and it takes a long time for us to attain realizations.”[17]
According to Geshe Kelsang spiritual success is based on
“unwavering faith and confidence” and “it is essential to eliminate those doubts that interfere with the development of pure faith.”[18] Faith he explains is “a naturally virtuous mind that functions mainly to oppose the perception of faults in its observed object.”[19] “In particular, our ability to rely completely upon our spiritual guide depends upon having faith based on conviction that our spiritual guide is a buddha.”[20] and “We should be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once.”[21]
Regarding sectarianism he states:
“It is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism”[22] , and he discourages the reader of doing so, stating “studying non-religious subjects is less of an obstacle to our spiritual progress than studying religions of different traditions.”[22] “The practices taught by one teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we will become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction.”[23] “The ugly, unfortunate result of not understanding pure Dharma and of following misleading teachings that pretend to be pure Dharma is sectarianism. This is one of the greatest hindrances to the flourishing of Dharma, especially in the West. Anything that gives rise to such an evil, destructive mind should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.”[24]
Je Tsongkhapa explains the defining characteristics of a student of the Mahayana in this way:
The defining characteristics of the student who relies upon the teacher
Aryadeva states in his Four Hundred Stanzas (Catuh-sataka):
“It is said that one who is non-partisan, intelligent, and diligent
Is a vessel for listening to the teachings.
The good qualities of the instructor do not appear otherwise
Nor do those of fellow listeners.”Aryadeva says that one who is endowed with the three qualities is suitable to listen to the teachings. He also says that if you have all these qualities, the good qualities of one who instructs you in the teachings will appear as good qualities, not as faults. In addition, he says that to such a fully qualified person the good qualities of fellow listeners will also appear as good qualities and not as faults.
It is stated in Candrakirti’s commentary that if you, the listener, do not have all these defining characteristics of a suitable recipient of the teachings, then the influence of your own faults will cause even an extremely pure teacher who instructs you in the teachings to appear to have faults. Furthermore, you will consider the faults of the one who explains the teachings to be good qualities. Therefore, although you might find a teacher who has all the defining characteristics, it may be difficult to recognize their presence.
Thus, it is necessary for the disciple to have these three characteristics in their entirety in order to recognize that the teacher has all the defining characteristics and in order then to rely on that teacher.
With respect to these three characteristics, “nonpartisan” means not to take sides. If you are partisan, you will be obstructed by your bias and will not recognize good qualities. Because of this, you will not discover the meaning of good teachings. As Bhavaviveka states in his Heart of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka-hrdaya):
“Through taking sides the mind is distressed, Whereby you will never know peace.”
“Taking sides” is to have attachment for your own religious system and hostility toward others’. Look for it in your own mind and then discard it, for it says in the Bodhisattva Vows of Liberation (Bodhi-sattva-pratimoksa):
“After giving up your own assertions, respect and abide in the texts of the abbot and master.”
Question: Is just that one characteristic enough?
Reply: Though non-partisan, if you do not have the mental force to distinguish between correct paths of good explanation and counterfeit paths of false explanation, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have the intelligence that understands both of these. By this account you will give up what is unproductive, and then adopt what is productive.Question: Are just these two enough?
Reply: Though having both of these, if, like a drawing of a person who is listening to the teachings, you are inactive, you are not fit to listen to the teachings. Therefore, you must have great diligence. Candrakirti’s commentary says “After adding the three qualities of the student to the two qualities of being focused and having respect for the teaching and its instructor, there are a total of five qualities.”Then, these five qualities can be reduced to four:
(1) striving very diligently at the teaching,
(2) focusing the mind well when listening to the teaching,
(3) having great respect for the teaching and its instructor, and
(4) discarding bad explanations and retaining good explanations.Having intelligence is the favourable condition that gives rise to these. Being non-partisan gets rid of the unfavourable condition of taking sides.
Investigate whether these attributes that make you suitable to be led by a guru are complete; if they are complete, cultivate delight. If they are incomplete, you must make an effort to obtain the causes that will complete them before your next life. Therefore, know these qualities of a listener. If you do not know their defining characteristics, you will not engage in an investigation to see whether they are complete, and will thereby ruin your great purpose.
(Lam Rim Chen Mo, p 75ff, Snow Lion Publications)
Buddhism is much about common sense and seeing things as they are. Students are encouraged to think for themselves and the Buddha and his genuine successors have repeatedly pointed out to not accept claims which contradict common sense or the spirit of the Dharma teachings. A genuine follower should have the ability to discriminate between what is constructive, what is not constructive and he should base his judgement on an unbiased investigation rather then following traditions.
Clash of Concepts
Because a main argument in the conflict on the side of the Shugden followers is that their Gurus, e.g. Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, revealed the Shugden practice and gave commitments for it, then, one has to follow it. Alternatively the Shugden opponents in the Gelug school cite Buddha in the Kalama Sutra and Je Tsongkhapa, the Gelug founder, who said one should not follow “if it is an improper and irreligious command”, which is based on the following from the Vinaya Sutra: “If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it.”[25] Shugden opponents refer to the sectarian nature of the Shugden practice which is seen by them as a contradiction to Buddhist ethics and one can also sum up the conflict as the religious scientist Michael von Brück (LM University, Munich) has done:
“We can conclude that the present controversy reveals the contradiction between the imperative of critically establishing the validity of (one’s own) opinions and the obedience towards the Lama (Guru)”[26]
Alexander Berzin pointed out as the central elements of the present conflict:
There are commitments on the levels of friendship, allegiance, loyalty, and bondings, both from student to teacher as well as from the student to their group. These life-long commitments are established through tantric empowerments. With respect to this there is a significant difference between Shugden followers and (almost) all other Tibetan Buddhists: followers of the ‘Shugden cult’, who receive the initiation, are told that this ‘protector’ or this ‘practice’ may never be given up again. However, according to an old instruction of the master Ashvaghosha, it’s the case that one may end the teacher-student-relationship even when having received an empowerment. There can be different reasons for ending such a relationship: if one has failed to sufficiently investigate one’s teacher beforehand or if one has critically distanced oneself from him and his methods. It’s said, that one may then respectfully distance oneself from such a teacher but that one should avoid speaking harsh words about him and his practice.[27]
Is there a Solution?
In general as previously stated, fundamentalism is based on non-knowledge so offering more understanding is suggested as one way to address fundamentalism. However, as long as a more narrow-minded person can refuse to broaden their understanding or to relax their views, and because one cannot force others to think about their point of view, this method has limitations.
Dialogue with fundamentalists is almost impossible. A Hindu master puts it this way: “It is impossible to discuss with a fundamentalist, without becoming a fundamentalist yourself.”
Fundamentalism is a challenging issue for each society, religion and mankind. Because the difficulties of fundamentalism lie in the mind and a mind can not be changed by force there seems to be only the challenging solution H.H. the Dalai Lama suggests in the interview by Raimundo Bultrini:
RB. What can the West or westerners do in a concrete way at this point?
HH. “Listen. Listen to their complaints and their reasons. They are unhappy and we should share their unhappiness.”
RB. Your Holiness, you have to admit that is a bit difficult.
[1] Tactics of Shugden Activists (perspective of the TGIE), Kundeling Tagtsa Jetung Rimpoche (perspective of Kundeling lama), Sowing dissent and undermining the Dalai Lama (perspective of TibetInfoNet), Vested interest group up in arms against the Dalai Lama (perspective of World Tibet Network News), The Dalai Lama’s demon (perspectives of France 24 TV), Writ Against the Dalai Lama
[2] Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. “Fundamentalism”, Global Policy Forum (with “consultative status at the UN”), May 2000, Accessed 14-05-2008.
[3] thefreedictionary.com: “Fundamentalism”, Accessed 14-05-2008.
[4] Google define:fundamentalism
[5] Marsden, George M. “Fundamentalism and American Culture”, Oxford University Press US (1980/rev.2006)
[6] Giddens, Anthony (1994). Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 6. ISBN 0-8047-2451-2. OCLC 32371646.
[7] Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1989
[8] Harris, Harriet (2008). Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953253-2. OCLC 182663241.
[9] Boer, Roland (2005). “Fundamentalism”. New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. Ed. Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris and Raymond Williams. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 134–137. ISBN 0-631-22568-4. OCLC 230674627 57357498. Retrieved on 2008-07-27.
[10] Dawkins, Richard (2006-10-02). The God Delusion. Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0593055489.
[11] Meindert Groter: Why did the Dalai Lama ban Dorje Shugden?, Will the Dalai Lama return to Tibet?, The deity banned by Dalai Lama, Are the Dalai Lama’s critics backed by China?
[12] a b Tibet und Buddhismus, No. 79, April/2006, page 14
[13] Newsweek, April 28 1997, http://www.cesnur.org/press/Newsweek.htm
[14] Reply to Newsweek, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, 1997, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/fr99/gkg.htm
[15] Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation by David N. Kay, London and New York, p 110, ISBN 0-415-29765-6
[16] a b Inken Prohl, Free University of Berlin, Book Review on “Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain…”
[17] Kelsang Gyatso: Great Treasury of Merit: A Commentary to the Practice of Offering to the Spiritual Guide, 1992, p 31
[18] Kelsang Gyatso: Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 75
[19] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 107
[20] Kelsang Gyatso: Joyful Path of Good Fortune, 1990, p 106
[21] Kelsang Gyatso: Guide to Dakini Land: The Highest Yoga Tantra Practice of Buddha Vajrayogini, 1996: p 18
[22] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 167
[23] Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, 1993, p 166
[24] Kelsang, Clear Light of Bliss, 1982, p 154
[25] The Fulfillment of All Hopes: Guru Devotion in Tibetan Buddhism, Wisdom Publications, ISBN 0-86171-153-X, page 64
[26] Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3-466-20445-3, page 209, 210
[27] Austria Buddhist magazine “Ursache und Wirkung”, July 2006, page 73
Hello Tenzin, I hope you are well.
One or two points that your article raises:
“If we analyse the problem we can see that the limits of the fundamentalists lie in their inability to tolerate even the idea of dialogue” – Raimondo Bultrini
You also quote the Dalai Lama as saying that the solution to fundamentalists is:
“Listen. Listen to their complaints and their reasons. They are unhappy and we should share their unhappiness.”
I guess this is the same Raimondo who’s a student of Namkhai Norbu, yes? He’s hardly neutral but I do agree with what he says – that must make the Dalai Lama a fundamentalist because he doesn’t want to discuss his banning of the Dorje Shugden practice. The Dalai Lama is being hypocritical again because he’s not doing what he says – he’s not listening. He’s made up his mind using very unsound advice (some of it from a spirit) and reasoning and he’s not open to being persuaded otherwise. I think that’s fundamentalist, don’t you? The Dalai Lama perfectly fits Richard Dawkin’s definition of fundamentalism:
clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence
The Dalai Lama’s fundamentalism is hurting millions of people.
You say:
“In general one can say in Buddhism that fundamentalism – “a ‘deep and totalistic commitment’ to a belief” – is based on ignorance and clinging”
Your statement is incomplete and incorrect. The actual definition of fundamentalism is a “deep and totalistic commitment to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life” – not simply a deep and totalistic commitment to belief, which is a beneficial thing for spiritual practitioners. For example, what about a deep and totalistic commitment to the belief that Buddha’s teachings can remove all suffering? That’s based on wisdom, not ignorance and clinging.
Everything that you say applies to the NKT can equally apply to the Dalai Lama and that’s the sad thing about this – the Dalai Lama and his followers such as you are often accusing the NKT and the WSS of things which he is guilty of. In this case I do think that it is the problem is based on ignorance and clinging – the Dalai Lama needs more knowledge about the nature and function of Dorje Shugden and then he wouldn’t cling fundamentally to his mistaken view. If this happened all problems would be solved. Shugden practitioners would be able to practise with religious freedom and everyone would be able to get on with their spiritual practice. All conflict would cease.
It’s all in the Dalai Lama’s hands to solve this problem, but he’s too fundamentalist about the nature of Dorje Shugden to do it. I agree that there is fundamentalism in Buddhism, but you should look to HHDL to see the source of it.
Manjushri's Sword
September 6, 2008 at 7:26 am
Dear Manjushri’s Sword,
thanks for your thoughts. I knew when writing this post that Shugden followers may argue in this way that this may equally apply to HHDL’s position – this is of course the perspective of someone holding a Shugden followers’ perspective.
However if one investigates unbiased the publications of
- Shugden followers and their statements and the publications of
- HH 14th DL and his statements, and the
- statements of other Tibetan lamas (opposing or supporting Shugden),
- the violence of fanatic Shugden followers,
- the history of Shudgen worship,
- neutral academic research, and
- the biographies and mind setting of the lamas involved (e.g. the 5th,13th,14th Dalai Lamas, Je Tsongkhapa, Pabongkha Rinpoche/Kelsang Gyatso/Kundeling Lama)
such a view as you present it will collapse.
I leave it with this and to the reader to judge.
Best Wishes, Tenzin
Tenzin
September 6, 2008 at 9:20 am
Dear Tenzin,
A very well thought out blog, but you haven’t addressed the basic issue that I personally, as a Dorje Shugden practitioner, see as the main thing worth discussing – religious freedom. Here in the West we’re fortunate enough to have freedom to believe what we want but even here it seems we aren’t free from discrimination.
We can debate for aeons about whether or not Dorje Shugden is a Buddha without coming to any agreement so can’t we just agree to disagree? The Dalai Lama has freedom to practise what he wants – we’re not asking people to believe what we believe, just to stop persecuting those who believe diiferent to them. If someone wants to mix traditions, that’s fine. If someone wants to not mix traditions, isn’t that equally fine?
I would like to respond to one untruth in your blog – in reference to your quote from HHDL saying we see Dorje Shugden as more important than Buddha himself: this is not true. Speaking as a Shugden practitioner I can tell you from my own experience:
1. in every NKT Dharma Centre, Buddha Shakyamuni is always the central figure on the main shrine and his statues are always the largest – Geshe Kelsang always instructs us to arrange our shrines in that way.
2. At the beginning of EVERY puja, whatever sadhana we follow, we ALWAYS begin with a prayer to Buddha Shakyamuni, written personally by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. We follow many different sadhana’s, and people can choose their own daily practice, making prayers to different Buddha’s such as Arya Tara, Medicine Buddha, Avalokiteshvara and so on but in every one of these puja’s we always begin with a prayer to Buddha Shakyamuni.
3. We are constantly encouraged to remember the kindness of Buddha Shakyamuni and to request and receive his blessings continually.
4. It is HHDL’s ban of the Dorje Shugden practice that has made it seem like it is our biggest practice – if a ban was placed on any of the practices I follow, then I would respond in the same way; ie I would check my experience of that practice, contemplate and meditate on it, making sure that my mind is free from delusion before making a decision about whether to carry on the practice or not. This is what I have done with regards to Dorje Shugden. Surely, I have the right to carry on if I wish – without being judged, slandered and discriminated against.
Finally, I consider myself to be a Kadampa Buddhist and Dorje Shugden is one of the many Buddha’s I pray to in order to help me to realise the meaning of Buddha’s teachings. Does HHDL have a problem with other Buddhist traditions whose main focus is Amitabha, Chenrezig, or Quan Yin?
Many more of the things you included in your blog are easily refuted on http://www.newkadampatruth.org and http://www.westernshugdensociety.org
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
comment TP
„religious freedom“ – first be aware that this is a label. It can easily put at anything. Before one imputes such a term on a specific subject it has to been checked what the meaning is, what definitions there are, and if that on what it is imputed is a basis proper to be labelled that way. It is the same difficulty and bears the same possibilities of abuse, like the terms of “cult” or “fundamentalism”.
Researcher Martin A. Mills, Senior Lecturer in the Anthropology of Religion, has addressed the issue of religious freedom in his paper This turbulent Priest – Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden Controversy (2003) published by Routledge. It is he who states: “The Shugden dispute represents a battleground of views on what is meant by religious and cultural freedom.” So caution in abusing this term is important. Maybe you start to read his research.
In general WSS/NKT abuses already a lot of terms like “liar”, “dictator” etc. I haven’t investigate until now the term „religious freedom“ in the Shugden context, if this is also a misused term or not. So at the moment I can not add much besides some thoughts.
Your post already speaks of “persecution” – which is a mere claim and from my pov an abuse of the term.
What looks tolerant if you say: “If someone wants to mix traditions, that’s fine. If someone wants to not mix traditions, isn’t that equally fine?” is very misleading and typical wrong WSS/Shugden follower propaganda, lacking understanding and knowledge. HH DL or those practising different schools of Buddhism don’t “mix different traditions” or view a “mix” as an aim of religious practice. The term “mixing” is itself a term based on questionable purist concepts and belongs to the purist vocabulary of Shugden followers striving for “purity”. So your statements already involve concepts on which the fundamentalism of many Shugden followers is based on. —> To question these concepts of “purity” of one’s tradition and of “mixing traditions” is the first step to overcome fundamentalist tendencies. So I would like to invite you to investigate these two concepts and their validity.
It is true that NKT has in the center of their shrines BS not DS. However protectors never were put on or in the main shrine but always out of the temple in specific protector gompas were no public access was possible. This has been changed by GKG clearly and is uncommon. It places more importance on DS than it had before. So a change took place.
In general the literature of DS in NKT is not much, some pages, but he is very in the mind and talks of the people, he is referred to regarding almost every problem and his prayer is recited usually daily together with Je Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga. It is also clear that DS is a valid object of refuge in NKT.
I would agree to say that the importance of DS is not so much findable in the rituals but there is for sure an overemphasising in NKT which gives him an importance similar or more important than the Buddha. This I know from my own experience in NKT. BS appeared to me in NKT always far away, besides the Heart Sutra no other speech of the Buddha, not a single other Sutra (!) is present. But DS was always very present.
In general I hesitate to name the restrictions “ban”, you can practice Shugden, can’t you? People in India and all over the world can practice, can’t they? If monasteries ban it – as it has been done only recently (!) some months ago it was still practices in Sera (!) – then this is their right and their “religious freedom”, people can practice it still privately at home or set up their own monasteries. This has been stated also many times by HHDL and this takes actual place.
If you speak of “I have the right to carry on if I wish – without being judged, slandered and discriminated against.” Of course you have!
Others rights is to disagree with Shugden worship and to warn about its dangers.
I take a hard example: A butcher may not let go (enjoying) killing animals, so if he wishes to continue, this is his right. However, another person can say this is not correct to kill animals, and point out the faults of killing animals. I guess the butcher won’t like to hear that and may feel slandered and discriminated. Likewise the dangers of Shugden worship can be pointed out by those having the spiritual authority to do that, if they do, this will not feel good for those who like to worship Shugden.
Sorry for now being a bit frank:
You say you are a Kadampa but Shugden was no practice of the Kadampas. Moreover Kadampas had complete different studies than NKT offers, they had also empowerments and Vinaya which NKT lacks. So for me you are a NKT follower, not a Kadampa.
I guess HHDL is more a Kadampa than you, because he really puts ALL teachings of the Buddha into practice, not a selection of some teachings by one teacher. He studied the Kadampa texts and he teaches them, he holds the lineage of the Sixteen Drops, Acala etc. and he grants them to others. NKT referring to themselves as “Kadampas” is another abuse of words – at least for me. This label lacks the basis. It is more spinning than based on facts.
However, this is my judgement. I wish not to hurt you or to put you down. If it is non-sense for you – what I said – just forget it and be happy. Best wishes.
DJK
September 6, 2008 at 11:31 am
Hi TP
There is no such thing as “unbiased publications” coming from ordinary beings like ourselves. Everybody in this debate has a point of view that is biased by the advice of the religious leader that they choose to follow.
This issue has everything to do with faith in our teachers and zero to do with “objective research”.
We cannot judge the qualities of teachers directly but have to look at their words and actions to see if they are consistent with Buddha’s teaching.
When the dalai lama inferred that I was a Nazi in his Esotera magazine interview (1998 – I have the reference :look up Klemens Ludwig in Switzerland) that was another moment of understanding for me.
What did I understand? That the dalai lama, in saying such shameful things about people, is only on the level of an ordinary politician using such emotive language to stir people up and influence their behaviour.
I know myself and I know that I am neither a Nazi nor a religious fundamentalist. I know myself and you do not know me. You are trying to get people to believe that I am a religious fundamentalist because I pray to Shugden. I can say to you – without a wish to provoke you – that you are lying.
Maybe you are not aware that you are lying but – in my specific case – you are lying. It would be great if you could stop these lies – for your own sake and the sake of others.
I once heard an old saying about lies…..something along the lines of : “When one person tells a lie everybody else repeats it as if it were the truth.”
I believe that is what you are doing and you believe that is what I am doing. But I know myself and I know that the things you and other dalai lama supporters saying about Shugden people are simply lies.
Will you please stop lying?
comment TP
So there is no hope for us because we are all ordinary and only our holy teachers are able to jugde, therefore we have to have faith in them and follow them like slaves their masters?
This is surely not a Buddhist approach.
“Faith” means to see the really existing qualities of something, e.g. the really existing qualities of a teacher. By this inspiration arises by this effort arises by this results of happiness or spiritual progress and finally enlightenment arises. In general one can say “Faith” is based on discriminating awareness and involves judgement but the actual mind of faith is far deeper than that.
I agree with you here:
“We
cannot judge the qualities of teachers directly buthave to look at their words and actions to see if they are consistent with Buddha’s teaching.I do not know to what in your comment you are referring to. Before I can say something I have to check it. If you have checked it and the result is that you feel HHDL is not a reliable teacher for you, that’s fine. There are many teachers.
It is your freedom to judge and to draw your own conclusion.
If you accuse me of lying, you abuse the term lie. Maybe you start beforehand to check what lying means?
Best Wishes and thank you for your thoughts. TP
croatia
September 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm
HH Dalai Lama has researched extensively the nature and function of Shugden – using historical documents, texts, interviews with teachers of ALL traditions (including several prominent Gelugpas), first hand accounts of people adversely affected by the practice, and consultations with the abbots of the major monasteries. From the Shugden side, we have only Phabongkhapa and Trijiang Rinpochey’s assertions, no historical evidence for the authenticity of Shugden, and a self-expressed mandate (in many, many documents) to protect purity from polluting non-sectarians. I’d say that his positions are very well researched.
The depiction of Shugden as a snuggly compassion protector whose mission is world peace is hardly verifiable according to historical records. If you have any pre-2000 documents that depict him this way, please let me know. It is only recently, in the WSS video, that I have heard Shugden’s mission described in this way.
His Holiness allowed the worship to go on for a very long time. But if you examine the document above you can see many key events which forced him to speak out on the issue. This was done after many consultations during the Gelugpa conference. A vote was held, according to Vinaya procedure, and the Shugden faction lost.
They are welcome to start a new monastery, or have seperate functions in their own house group buildings(as they do now). Why should Shugden worship and propagation be permitted against monastic laws that were determined by the vast majority of monks.
Khedrup
September 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Dear All,
the term “totalism” was coined by Robert Jay Lifton while writing up his study on Chinese brain-washing in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. I found this book fascinating and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in the psychology of the Chinese communists, and fundamentalism in general. His main theoretical conclusions are contained within the last section, but you need to read the preceding sections to appreciate it.
As I understand it “totalism” is a subtle concept combining aspects of both individual and group psychology within a particular context. The author explains the characteristics of totalism as he understands them, the likely causes of it that he has been able to identify, and a list of suggestions on how it can be overcome within several specific contexts including education.
I’m not convinced that Shugden practitioners are “totalistic.” I think that a few may be depending on their individual psychology and way of relating to their faith. In reality many Tibetan Shugden practitioners already practise the “non-sectarianism” so-called that the Dalai Lama advocates and study Nyingmapa texts and celebrate events associated with Padmasambava. This point was made by Ursula Bernis in her research.
In my opinion the Dalai Lama’s position on Shugden is driven by paranoia and pride. He isn’t relating to the real Shugden practitioners but just constructs of his anger and insecurity – evil people who dare to defy his authority.
Anyway…. I apologise if this last comment offends in what I was planing as a studiously neutral posting; but I guess it’s a bit difficult to not just say what one thinks.
Best Wishes,
Adam
comment TP
Dear Adam, I like Lifton very much and read a bit in his texts. This helped me to understand my experience in NKT and among other Shugden Lamas better. I would strongly recommend him to everybody interested in the issue of fundamentalism, ‘totalism’ or the functioning of ‘totalistic’ groups, like Shoko Asahara or the issue of ‘brain-washing’…
I do not know on what you base your claim that HHDL’s position would be based on paranoia and pride. The dangers of Shugden worship have been spoken out by many high masters including the head of the Nyingma order, Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche. Moreover HHDL was criticized by other masters to not have stopped the Shugden worship more forcefully. They say due to this the problem is nowadays still there.
How much the action of protecting others from fear (to protect them from falling under a negative influence – as already said, Shugden worship is seen by many as spiritual harmful) is related with pride, you may to have explain further. From the point of view of a Bodhisattva or the Bodhisattvas’ actions, this is the deed of giving fearlessness and a compassionate act.
As I know both sides and I was almost equally long related to both sides (each about 6 years), I claim that it is NKT leadership and many of their followers who suffer on paranoia and pride and of course – as it is with so many of their claims – they project the own doing onto others. These two reports give a good proof for what I claim here:
http://nktworld.org/bullet.html
http://nktworld.org/anothermonk.html
Best Wishes, TP
Adam
September 6, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Hi Khedrub,
thank you for your clarification about the Shugden monks. Are they being shown compassion as you suggest? Yes they are being shown some compassion in that they haven’t been kicked out onto the street, but my perception of this situation is that this is a compromise that pleases no one very much.
Obviously what I say is to some extent speculative but I would guess that the Dalai Lama and his most ardent supporters would see this as “following the letter of the law but not the spirit” i.e. they would wish for the Shugden monks to be cast further afield; whilst the Shugden monks and their sympathisers would see the situation as sad and regrettable.
The situation is open to different interpretation because what you perceive as compassionate and well-intentioned guidance we perceive as delusion driven intolerance and hostility. Also, much of the pressure put on Dorje Shugden worshippers is psychological in nature – being told that they’re traitors to the Tibetan cause unless they conform and give up their practice.
Furthermore, you must know that the situation of the lay practitioners is surely far worse in many respects than that of the monks, as they lack a supporting community of fellow practitioners. Did you not feel even the slightest bit sorry for the elderly woman on the France 24 report who had to barracade her door each night?
I don’t wish to chastise yourself, Tenzin, or anyone else, as you’re not guilty of any crime yourself; and only wish to defend the actions of someone in whom you have faith. It’s difficult to be in this position of protesting against the actions of someone in whom people have faith, but I did have a smile on my face while I was protesting, and one elderly Tibetan man really beamed back at me – a nice moment. I would like to think that he appreciated our sincerity in trying to defend the rights of Tibetans and preserve an element of the vast and profound heritage of Tibetan Buddhism.
As for compromise, this has by definition to be a two-way thing. Why not write to the Dalai Lama and TGIE yourself and invite them to enter into constuctive dialogue with the Dorje Shugden Society and the Western Shugden Society. Who knows, maybe they’ll listen to you more than they listen to us.
Best Wishes,
Adam
Adam
September 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Dear Khedrub,
Re: “From the Shugden side, we have only Phabongkhapa and Trijiang Rinpochey’s assertions, no historical evidence for the authenticity of Shugden”
One account of authenticity of Dorje Shugden being a pure Dharma Protector comes from the Fifth Dalai Lama which is referred to by the current Dalai Lama on his own website.
The following is extracted from http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/dorje-shugden/is-the-present-dalai-lama-really-following-the-great-fifth/
One of the reasons the Dalai Lama gives for banning the practice of Dorje Shugden is that he is following the example of the Fifth Dalai Lama.
As he says on his website:
‘The Fifth Dalai Lama, who assumed both the spiritual and temporal leadership of Tibet in the 17th century, personally denounced Dolgyal as a malevolent spirit that arose out of misguided intentions and is detrimental to the welfare of beings in general and the Tibetan government headed by the Dalai Lamas in particular.’
This is a typical example of the present Dalai Lama’s selective use of facts and deliberate distortion of history.
What he fails to mention is that after initially condemning Dorje Shugden as malevolent spirit and even attempting to destroy him with wrathful rituals, the Fifth Dalai Lama later realized he had made a terrible mistake and recognized Dorje Shugden as a pure Dharma Protector.
He made confessions to Dorje Shugden and then composed the first prayer dedicated to the Deity and founded the first Dorje Shugden Temple in Lhasa!
He even made a statue of Dorje Shugden with his own hands, which can still be seen at the Ganden Phegyling Monastery in Nepal.
comment TP
Although you addressed to Khedrub.,I’ll give also a short reply. The point here is that Shugden of Pabongkha Rinpoche followers – and this seems to include sadly also Trijang Rinpoche – offered stories and praises they claimed the 5th Dalai Lama would have written but these claims lack historical evidence.
There was so much contradiction and quarrel in that issue of Shugden that Shugden follower seem to have started to justify its importance and introduced a lot of stories. Thy gave Shugden an importance he never had, they tried even to replace the state oracle by Shugden. To do so they had to verify their claims and they did by offering different stories. However, independent research show these prayers the 5th Dalai Lama had written are not findable in his autobiography. At least this is true for this one below. See what researcher von Brück states:
for more see: http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html
After I left Shugden Lamas and checked their claims I was astonished to see that there are a lot of claims which lack a proper basis, they lack facts.
DJK
September 6, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Indeed I did feel sorry for the woman who had to barricade her door every night. I also feel sorry for two of my teachers, high lamas who received death threats from Shugden activists night after night for years. I also feel sorry for the Tibetan monks in China who were given the choice of Shugden worship and denouncing the Dalai Lama or get out of the monastery (they weren’t given the choice to stay, see the report from Gangchen Monastery).
This conflict is messy on all sides. I don’t agree, as I have said many times, that people should be turned away from shops etc. But I also think that the WSS’s campaign is one-sided, crass, at times offensive to uninvolved groups (like Muslims), and damaging to the TGIE at a crucial time in their negotiations with China. There were many choices of how to run this campaign, and they chose militancy, name-calling, and offensive language. That is what puzzles me.
As someone from the WSS camp mentioned, there was stone throwing, name-calling etc. from BOTH sides.
The issue of fundamentalism is much more relevant with the practitioners of Tibetan origin than Westerners. This is because the WEstern people, such as those in the NKT, are not informed of the history and true functions of the practice. Also, the liturgy is very much toned down and less political. I can assure you that many (not all) Shugden lamas prayed to this deity in order for the Gelug to ascend into a position of dominance, and for those who mixed teachings to meet with misfortune. If you look at the historical documents, there is ample evidence of this.
Khedrup
September 7, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hi Tenzin,
the Dalai Lama’s personal disapproval of Dorje Shugden is consistent with his belief in practising all four traditions of Buddhism together; however, the manner of his denunciation of those who rely on Dorje Shugden is not consistent with his professed belief in values of compassion and tolerance. For this reason I believe such behaviour to be the produce of deluded minds that he appears to be suffering from.
Many people within the NKT think the security is excessive, but I guess the policy is one of “better safe than sorry.” In any case the only people who have grounds for complaint are those who have to wait to get their bags checked before entering the temple. Many faults have occurred in many different settings, but the teachings are clear and practical, and are helping people throughout the world.
Hi Khedrup,
I’m glad that you felt sorry for the old woman.
If you want to read my views on “right speech” with respect to the demonstrations check out the debate on this issue between myself, Tenzin, and Chris Ward on the Triple Gem web-site. I’m sure Tenzin can provide a link.
I think I’m going to sign off from the discussion for a while in order to give myself some space for reflection, and other activities and interests. Also, I don’t think that I have anything new to contribute right now. I’ll rejoin a bit later though, if and when I think I have something new to offer.
Best Wishes,
Adam
Adam
September 8, 2008 at 12:54 am
In the same way, I hope my teachers who received those death threats and the monks expelled from the monastery in Tibet for not worshipping have your compassion. Thanks for entering into dialogue here. Your posts have been aimed at discussion rather than flaming, which is excellent. As I’ve said many times, as Buddhists we have to discuss these things reasonably.
I myself have pulled away from several discussions and am trying to be more concise in my comments. I think everyone is feeling a little tired about the issue.
Khedrup
September 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Dear Adam, the disapproval of Dorje Shugden by HHDL is consistent with his understanding of its sectarian nature and his understanding that sectarianism is against Buddha’s teachings, the Dharma.
He is not the only one who holds such a position and he was urged to stop Shugden worship by other high lamas too, especially from the Nyingma school.
(I heard he was even criticized by some that he was not forceful enough to stop Shugden propagation.)
It is clear that such a controversy is only involved in Shugden worship and not in Je Tsongkhapa’s protectors: Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa or any other protector.
What you see as a denunciation is seen by many high masters as a fact: Shugden is either a spirit or a demon who is harmful for one’s personal spiritual development. There are enough sources about opponents available.
Seeing the harm of Shugden Worship and protecting others to perform it is an act of compassion and protection.
If one sees a demon as a demon why can the person not openly say “this is a demon”? This is what the person perceives as the truth. Much more a person of highest integrity and spiritual development, like HHDL, can say and issue such a view and its implications. Also the Buddha and Milarepa spoke of and saw demons. And it is also clear from Buddhist understanding that demons appear as beings who help but actual they bring harm. There are a lot of inspiring stories about this available. I lack time to share it here.
The point in our case is more the question: whose perception is valid and whose not. This makes it so difficult to jugde this issue. While HHDL gave many valid reasons (see von Brück) and the majority of masters and Tibetans share his view (see Kay) Shugden followers have only one reason: two late influential Gelug Lamas taught it, therefore it is a tradition and must be valid. Quite a narrow minded view from my perspective, and obviously in contradiction to Buddha’s own words in the Kalama Sutra and elsewhere.
Even if this view, Shugden is a demon or a spirit, would be wrong it is still based on compassion and the wish to protect others to stop Shugden worship.
If you and others feel happy with NKT, please enjoy.
Best Wishes, TP
Tenzin Peljor
September 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Regarding, “be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once”:
The wording of this quote was derived from a story about the differences between a *wise* blind person and a *foolish* blind person. This particular metaphor was never meant as an imperative to take anything on blind faith. Besides, that quote has nothing to do with how many Spiritual Guides someone has but how many Tantric Deities one practices.
Please do not quote Dharma out of context.
comment TP
The quote is from “Guide to Dakini Land: The Highest Yoga Tantra Practice of Buddha Vajrayogini, page 18 by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He states: “We should be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once.” I don’t see that the quote is quoted out of the context. This is what GKG suggests to his students, doesn’t he? Feel free to scan or to transcribe the complete section and to add it here if you disagree. Best Wishes, TP
emptymountains
September 9, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Tenzin,
Your article is set up on the premise that the protests of the Western Shugden Society and Kundeling Lama’s lawsuit against the Dalai Lama invite reflection on the issue of fundamentalism in Buddhism. The irony is that engaging in protests and filing lawsuits are part of an individual’s civil liberties in the western world. They are socially and politically acceptable methods for resolving disputes in democratic nations.
So by adhering to your negative beliefs regarding the Western Shugden Society on the basis of actions which are completely acceptable in modern society you are an example of “adherence to a set of basic principles, away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.” Oh yeah that’s the definition of fundamentalism.
Please stop your negative campaign against the WSS.
comment TP
This sounds as a good point.
However, there is a difference in working for human rights or if someone, maybe based on personal grudge or a personal agenda, starts a slander and one-sided misinformation campaign against a person under the guise of “human rights”. Let us not forget that the campaign is performed by people who never engaged in “human rights”, who – according to themselves – are not interested in worldly or social issues, but only “to spread the pure Dharma”, it is performed by people who have a controversial history themselves.
The dishonesty and exaggerations and verbal abusive language of WSS is striking and not in accordance with Buddhist attitudes. From a worldly perspective, if you say the methods “are socially and politically acceptable methods for resolving disputes in democratic nations” then you accept that WSS is a political movement. This is properly fine. But NKT states and claims not to engage in politics and to be “pure” Buddhists, “not mixing Dharma with politics”, while they accuse others, e.g. HHDL, of “mixing Dharma with politics”, this is a contradiction and a duplicity. More over, as far as I know, according to UK laws charity trusts are not allowed to perform political actions, isn’t it?
It is the right of people to protest, it is the right to file lawsuits, no problem. My post uses these outer appearances as an invitation to reflect a driving force in that dispute, religious fundamentalism. I think, there is nothing wrong in this, this is also according to democratic principles, reflections are also suggested in Buddhism.
It is also according to democratic principles that communities, like the monasteries can set up their rules, based on majority wishes, to forbid Shugden worship at their dwelling place. There is a lot what the WSS campaign and Kundeling brush under the carpet to justify their unilateral war.
While my article “invites to reflect” the WSS campaign states fixed “truths” which are established by ignoring the setting, based on exaggerations, spinning the facts, and they are issued in an aggressive one-sided manner. This can be criticized and I don’t see fundamentalism in holding such a view. In general, I think, it will be hard to judge a reflection as fundamentalism. Of course you can do that, but that’s a bit strange, isn’t it?
Your Guru, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, who started the present protests, stated in 2002:
see: http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com/newsroom/news_view.phtml?news_id=124
So what is NKT’s nature and function? Is it to “simply concentrate on the flourishing of holy Buddhadharma throughout the world” or to apply “socially and politically acceptable methods for resolving disputes in democratic nations.”, is it both or neither?
practitioner
September 11, 2008 at 5:05 am
Dear TP,
Unless you see the instruction to accomplish all Tantric Deities within a single Deity practice as inviting “a narrow minded attitude,” then you have taken the quote “be like a wise blind person” out of context. You can read the entire section here:
http://www.dharmaprotector.org/wiseblindperson.html
Other quotes so often taken out of context are addressed here:
http://dharmaprotector.wordpress.com/
Thank you for your time.
comment TP:
Thanks, I hadn’t the book here to verify it. What you say is very correct. The sites you are referring to list this quote in the context of the tantric deity. I have now to check if it is established in the HYT text by GKG in the same context. If it is there also used in the same context, I will remove it from the post, because it is indeed misleading and out of the context and a fault to use it in that way. I appreciate your effort and correction. I’ll check if we have the book in the library. As soon as I verified it and can confirm your point, I’ll remove that quote here and elsewhere. My gratitude for your patience and effort to correct this. Best Wishes TP
September 16, 2008
I couldn’t find a copy of the book. The complete sentence I got confirmed via Google booksearch. Due to not having a copy of the book I used now the link http://www.dharmaprotector.org/wiseblindperson.html you offered. Following this link and the context:
It is true that it is said in the context of the Tantric deity, however, the sentence “We should be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once.” is not referring to a deity but “people” and “guide”. The sentence clearly states “trusted guide” and “a number of people at once”. In the language of NKT “guide” refers to the Spiritual Guide, and different tantric deities are not “people”. According to my understanding, the sentence is said in the context of Vajrayogini but refers to the spiritual guide. Because some of the books of Geshe-la are transcribed oral commentaries it makes sense that he switches to that subject – the spiritual guide – in that context – to go back again to Vajrayogini.
As I recognized by investigation GKG has a very fine language to imply in his teachings his personal understanding/views indirectly. Such a statement as quoted is also in accordance with his clear and unmistakeable interpretation of the Lama Chöpa, Great Treasury of Merit, page 31:
This quote is not slightly different from the content of the other quote in the context of Tantric deity practice. What I will do, I change the order and extent the quote. The present order is not suited, a new order may be more clear. Thanks a lot. TP
emptymountains
September 11, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Dear practitioner.
If you wish to posit fundamentalism – either of me or WSS – I think based on a unbiased perspective, it is far more appropriate to posit WSS’s claims and campaign as fitting in what is portrayed as “fundamentalism”.
Why?
WSS makes excessive use of words like “truth”, “the truth”, “truths”. Just by checking the use of the term “truth” at WordPress by WSS/NKT in the tag:
http://wordpress.com/tag/new-kadampa-tradition/
brings to light: the term “truth” is used 18 times. 17 times it is used by NKT’s truth blogs. Only one time it is mentioned in a post by me, and there it is only the tag “New Kadampa Truth”, a creation of the ‘NKT truth office’.
The WSS campaign is overloaded by “truths”, truth blogs, truth sites, truth statements, truths about, truth posters.
On the other side, those holding different opinions are branded as being “liars” because they have a different truth, e.g. the Dalai Lama, Robert Thurman or me.
It seems to be far more reasonable to posit this “truth clinging” and “truth rejections” by WSS/NKT to fulfil the definition that you quoted: “adherence to a set of basic principles, away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life” because it is common ground that truths depend upon the perspective and are rather individual than lasting truths.
If you look at my Wikipedia account, the talk page, there someone noted:
“Hello to all, there is a new website dedicated to show the truth about the NKT http://www.newkadampa.com …”
My reply was:
A position I still hold.
Tenzin
September 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi Tenzin,
Thanks for your feedback and ongoing, open discussions. I never really paid much attention in English lessons at school but I do know what words convey my feelings so I have no problem with using the terms persecution, liar etc.
In your response you appear to agree with me on the meaning of the term ‘religious freedom’
If you speak of “I have the right to carry on if I wish – without being judged, slandered and discriminated against.” Of course you have!
I don’t feel that I am being given this freedom, even by yourself as you went straight into a judgement about me and the religion I practise. You even say at the end of your comment: However, this is my judgement. My teacher, Geshe Kelsang, has taught me not to criticize other traditions but to respect them all as they all contain their own complete path to enlightenment. He likens these to the different sides of a mountain, all leading to the top. I think it’s ok to know and maybe even talk about the differences between each path, but to openly criticize people on another path is what leads to sectarianism. This is why I don’t really go into debating about whether or not Dorje Shugden is a Buddha or not. People are free to believe that he isn’t, it’s the enforcement of this view that troubles me. For example, on HHDL’s website he uses the term ‘proper conformity’ which just doesn’t sit right with me at all.
I looked up a few of the other words you mentioned in the online Oxford dictionary and it seems to back me up actually. So if nothing else, this discussion is improving my English – thanks.
Re: persecution. In the Oxford English Dictionary the definition of persecute is:
• verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment. 2 persistently harass or annoy.
In my pov therefore, there is great justification in using the word persecution and no abuse of that word at all.
Fundamentalism:
• noun 1 a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.
From that pov the term fundamentalist could be used towards any religious Buddhist since all Buddhist would strictly adhere to the belief that Buddha is a completely reliable source of refuge and that Dharma is the supreme medicine for our sickness and so forth, which are fundamental doctrines of Buddhism are they not? So, actually, in that sense you could say that I am a fundamentalist.
As for being a ‘purist’ – I had a long think about this one and it has two meanings for me personally. Firstly, Buddha taught that we should practise Dharma purely, free from worldly concern. Because I am trying to keep politics, which is worldly concern basically (ie Tibetan independence etc) separate from my Dharma practice, then yes you probably can call me a purist. Secondly, I wish to practise only that which I have been taught in my tradition without practising other schools. Therefore again, yes you can call me a purist. I see nothing wrong with either.
Oh, and you’re right, the butcher analogy was a bit harsh but I understand your point. That’s why I have no problem asking the Dalai Lama to stop this ‘ban’ – a word which, by the way, his own followers and government officials have used in public teachings and statements.
Just one last thought about the elephant and mosquito: would it be right for the human to force the mosquito to get off the elephant because it views the elephant as harmful?
Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this.
comment TP
There are some more comments by WSS/NKT followers in the queue, I will check step by step to approve them or not. I didn’t read your comment but will do so in the next days. Best Wishes, TP
DJK
September 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Someone posted this in the NKS forum, maybe it is of interest to some:
Gaps in Phabongkhapa’s reasoning of why it is okay to see Shugden as enlightened
Namdrol-la from e-sangha (on the NKT hit list because his ability to understand classical Tibetan makes him one of their most effective critics) published Phabongkhapa’s assertions that is is okay to rely on mundane beings because they can be considered Buddhas, is contained here. Please take the time to read his translation of Phabongkhapa’s letter and his analysis, it should make the error very clear:
Basically, the root of the whole error is this attitude expressed by Pabhongkha in response to this question:
Question:
“Learned one: in general (and apart from transcendent protectors as objects of refuge), where is the contradiction between the statement that it is inappropriate to rely upon and engage as objects of refuge protectors such as Yudronma, Setrab, the Ku Nga, Gyalchen Shugden, and so on who have taken a mundane form even though they are actually transcendent and also such statements in each one’s amendment rite, for example, that of Yudronma “externally, the great medicine goddess that removes the darkness of ignorance, internally, the dakini who bestows bliss, secretly, Dhatishvari, Vajravarahi, with this supreme unsurpassed support of confidence and faith…” Since doubt has arisen in my ordinary mind, please give clear advice that will remove doubt like the sun.”
Reply:
“Though one should not go for refuge to these protectors that have taken mundane form, even though they are transcendent in essence; but if one attains intense uncontrived conviction that, in terms of the definitive meaning, Yudronma is the mother of the Buddhas, Vajrayogini or is among the rank of the twenty four heroines and the twelve Vajrayoginis; Setrab is Amitabha, The Ku Nga are the five families, Shugden is Peaceful and Wrathful Manjushri, through focusing on so and sos essentially transcendent aspect, it is suitable to go for refuge [to such protectors]. For example, though one mustn’t visualize Palden Lhamo in the row of the protectors in Refuge tree in the form of a worldly arrogant one, since Trichen Tenpa Rabgye received Dharma teachings from Palden Lhamo, he placed her in the row of Gurus in the refuge tree.”
Ok– there is one really important point here– Sakyas and so on never consider any of these deities to somehow enlightened.
Second, for example, it is well known that the Hindu god Shiva is considered to be the worldly emanation of Avalokiteshvara. By Pabhongka’s reasoning, it is ok to take refuge in Shiva.
With the exception of Palden Lhamo, who does come from the tantras and is a wisdom protector, none of these other deities derive from a tantra. Setrab was brought to Tibet from India by Ngog Lotsawa, and is the wrathful form of Brahma. The Twelve Tenma are worldly deities tamed by Padmasambhava. The Ku Nga included Pehar/Dorje Dragden, and according to this reasoning, NKT should never criticize HHDL for relying on Pehar, because according to Pabhongha, it is ok to take refuge in Pehar Gyalpo as long as you are convinced of his awakened aspect. Pehar was also tamed by Guru Rinpoche.
So frankly, I think there is a bit of a gap in Pabhongkha’s thinking on this issue.
Furthermore, the NKT/Trijiang position that Shugden is not taking on the form of a worldly being is clearly contradicted by Pabhongkha “Though one should not go for refuge to these protectors that have taken mundane form…” Beyond that, he is also actually saying that it is inappropriate for beginners to take these deities, any of them, as wisdom protectors. Why can I say that? Because his criterion for doing so is “….if one attains intense uncontrived conviction” in their transcendent status. But how is any beginner going to be able to do so apart from pure blind faith?
This statement is actually at the basis of HHDL’s earlier and more moderate observations that what high yogis can do, ordinary people cannot.“
Tenzin
September 17, 2008 at 11:46 am
DJK,
Really there are so many historical factors to take into account, like Lama Phabongkha Rinpoche’s letter to HH 13th Dalai Lama promising not to pass on the Shugden practice, Nyingma and Kagyu Lamas who wouldn’t sit down to meetings if the practice was propagated etc.
These restrictions didn’t come to pass overnight, and I think it’s useful to note the additional events that led to them. At first, the Shugden issue was treated very lightly, just some recommendations, and then, for a long time, it was just understood that Shugden practitioners should not attend initiations with HHDL. But we all know what happened afterwards it has been gone through over and over again on this blog and many websites, so I encourage people to read the events for themselves (rather than having a point-by-point flame war again). In addition, in light of the connections of several important Shugden leaders (Gangchen Lama, Kundeling Losang Yeshe) they sold out the credibility of their followers right from under them.
But agitations and politics aside, if we want to look at the spiritual reasons for this, one need only look to the comments above about the nature of Shugden, and how he was promoted to the level of Buddha-protector. HHDL is the patron (it says so on the ID cards ,pre and post restrictions)) of all the monks of the 3 seats. The abbots and monks requested him to take on the responsibility of these monasteries many times.
If one looks at the evidence (such as that posted above recently), and Shugden poses problems for Buddhist refuge, as patron and spiritual guide of the monasteries, it is the duty of HHDL to protect the monasteries from this. Now, I know WSS doesn’t like it, but they had a vote-stick referendum in the ancient style of the Vinaya, and the huge majority of monks didn’t want anything to do with Shugden as they agreed with the reasoning presented that he wasn’t a suitable object of refuge. Such a mistaken view was seen a threat to the monastic community, so they held the oath taking.
I want to emphasize to that while the monks cannot participate with the community in pujas and debate, they have not been “kicked out” from their homes. They kept the Khangtsen buildings and several of the Shugden houses are very well sponsored (each house is responsible for 70% of its food anyway, rather than the monastery). On e-sangha recently, another Sera monk (from Sera-Jey I think) said in Jey and Mey together, both colleges of Sera, there are only about 120 monks now following Shugden. So, there are not so many monks affected, and they are not forced to leave their dormitories, kitchens and shrine rooms.
Khedrup
September 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Dear TP,
You are doing eisegesis (i.e., “reading into the text”), while I am doing exegesis (i.e., “reading from the text”). Your claim that the word ‘guide’ in this context refers to the Spiritual Guide is simply not supported by the text; there is no hint of it here (even you had to go to another book to find one). Geshe-la used the analogy of a wise blind person vs. a foolish blind person to conclude:
“Similarly, by following the practice of one particular Deity wholeheartedly we shall definitely attain enlightenment, but if we keep switching from one to another we shall never reach our goal, no matter how much effort we make.”
Again, no mention of the Spiritual Guide. So, what does Geshe-la say about having more than one Spiritual Guide? Later in the second book you cited, he says:
“Some Kadampa Lamas gave very useful practical advice concerning relying upon more than one Teacher. They would say that if we wish to rely upon more than one Spiritual Guide we should ensure that they all share the same lineage and view as our principal Spiritual Guide, otherwise the blessings of the latter will soon disappear.” (Great Treasury of Merit, p. 102)
Plus, in Understanding the Mind, Geshe-la explains the different divisions of persons:
“The definition of person is an I imputed in dependence upon any of the five aggregates…. There is a twofold division of persons into Buddhas and non-Buddhas; another twofold division into ordinary beings and Superior beings; and a fivefold division into Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Solitary Conquerors, Hearers, and migrating beings.” (pp. 13, 14)
Do not Yidams fall into one of those divisions? If Yidams have aggregates, and if there is a self imputed onto those aggregates, then why are they not persons? Geshe-la defines Yidam as a “Tantric enlightened being.” If a Yidam is a Buddha, then a Yidam is a person, albeit an enlightened one.
However, specifically in the quote “be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide,” Vajrayogini is the ‘guide’ while the practitioner is the ‘person.’ How do I know this? Earlier in that same chapter, Geshe-la explains:
“If we continually recite Vajrayogini’s mantra we shall remember the mantra when we are dying, and then, as if in a dream, we shall hear Vajrayogini and her retinue of Dakinis calling us and inviting us to her Pure Land. In this way Vajrayogini will guide us through death and the intermediate state and lead us to the Pure Land of the Dakinis.”
You can read that chapter in its entirety here: http://www.tharpa.com/us/book-introduction-Guide.to.Dakini.Land-562.html
With love,
emptymountains
emptymountains
September 18, 2008 at 2:45 am
Dear Emptymountains,
while you say correctly I am doing eisegesis (i.e., “reading into the text”) and you are doing exegesis (i.e., “reading from the text”) in that context, there is another context where I do “exegesis” in the sense of that I focus on how the setting of NKT is functioning in context to GKG’s personal views and teachings and how he addresses these directly or indirectly.
I know from the NKT festivals I attended and from reports of festivals after 2000 I didn’t attend records how Geshe-la works with hints and indirect speech to lead his followers to a certain view he holds. The book references serve mainly as a basis to bring up this issue.
It will be far more hard for me to quote his words like: “I visit every day two times my centers” because there are no records in his or academic books, although he said this. Such a sentence has two meanings: He has supernatural powers and he views the centers as “his” centers, while contrary he says from time to time, it would be the centers of the people. There are other occasions where he skilfully uses speech and hints to imply a certain view in the mind of the listener – mainly that NKT is pure, Gelug impure and we have degenerate times, but NKT is the one pure lineage. Read just this:
In the context of NKT where the Dalai Lama is viewed as destroying this lineage and the Gelug school is “quite degenerated”, where HHDL “has broken with his root Guru” and GKG is the only upholder of that lineage, he is the “Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage”, such a statement implies that Je Tsongkhapa may have appeared now also in the aspect of GKG. He does not say this but how he introduces this issue and in the setting of NKT the devoted disciple, who has “pure faith” (which means to see no faults in GKG) will spin it to the conclusion: therefore also Geshe-la must be an emanation of Je Tsongkhapa.
There are reasons why NKT members see him as Je Tsongkhapa and a Buddha, something Tibetans would laugh at. (Sorry, but they would really just laugh about such views.)
You have to put all the NKT teachings, his views and ways how he addresses his issues and views together to understand NKT and him. The quotes are just proxies for this.
I do not feel the quote is used inappropriately in that context. Why?
I know that he is precise in using terms. He never would call Yiddams “people”. He may call a Yiddam “guide” – but even this would be very uncommon for him. However, guide in NKT context refers to guru not to yiddam. Isn’t the text also a transcriptions of a series of oral teachings? As far as I remember, yes. Oral teachings address mainly the audience and the lama picks up in subordinate clauses issues he feels important to address. The issue that people rely sole and completely on him is important for him – it was he who introduced many policies in NKT which made him to the sole spiritual authority in NKT, and the sentence is in line with this, his personal understanding.
But I agree there is space for discussion and refutations in that context of the HYT book, that’s why I put now the quote at a later point in the post.
However, thank you for your efforts and references and especially your kind tone. At the moment I feel it is still appropriate to quote it here. Thanks for your food of thoughts. Let’s see how it will effect my mind. I need space to work with it.
———————————-
Your quote is very interesting:
As all the Gelugpas and HHDL share the same lineage, the Gelug lineage, I wonder why this advise isn’t put into practice in NKT?
The answer I have is, GKG made his own lineage, the Gelug lineage, into a special Kadampa Buddhism lineage. This spins the facts but allows him to introduce his NKT as something unique and separate from his own school. This subject is so tricky and fine that NKT changed different times their statements who they are. I collected some of them here The Identity of NKT.
At the moment there seems to be a new official version who NKT is: http://kadampa.org/en/buddhism/kadampa-buddhism/
So all these quotes have to bee seen also in context of a wider exegesis of NKT, its identity struggle, its policies and inception. It is strongly related to the personality of GKG and his views.
GKG’s views regarding reliance on a Guru are not only expressed like this: “You should only rely on one teacher, and his books and his protector” they are put indeed into practice by his followers. Why? Because GKG makes them believe this would be the correct approach for a “pure Kadampa”. To achieve his aim he is using direct teachings, indirect speech, spins the facts, and is performing hidden background actions (like expelling or threatening those close disciples who express devotion to HHDL or wish to go to other teachers etc.), and he is using duplicity (e.g. “these are ‘your’ centers”, but he says in another context “you have stolen ‘my’ centers”; ‘you can go to other teachers’ but threats close students: if you do that, I am not your teacher any more etc.)
The quotes are proxies for these complex structure and patterns within NKT, based on GKG’s own perceptions and views, and these quotes aim mainly to invite reflection to what such statements may lead. I think it is not inappropriate in that context to quote this single sentence. However, this can be seen as a bit controversial. I agree with this.
Best wishes, TP
Tenzin
September 18, 2008 at 9:53 am
This statement alone is enough to confirm Phabongkhapa’s sectarianism:
Phabongkha Rinpoche’s letter to the novice Nyu’u Tshalmo Krang:
Khedrup
September 18, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hmmm… alot of intense debate here. Reminds me of my childhood – “they started it!” I would cry.
I’m afraid I agree with ‘the Shugdens’ and would request that attempts to destroy my faith or spiritual practice as it has brought about great benefit to myself and my family in terms of inner peace and qualities such as love, compassion, patience and so on.
However, I sense that ‘debating’ here is quite pointless so just 3 questions – rhetorical really as I shall probably not return here to interrupt your ‘debates’:
1. Are we remembering our Lamrim teachings whilst engaging in these ‘debates’? For example, these people who have opposing views are our kind mothers.
2. Are we remembering our Lojong teachings? For example recognising our own faults in the mirror of Dharma.
3. Are we remembering our Mahamudra teachings and recalling how all these appearances are manifestations of bliss and emptiness?
Answers on a postcard please…
Mahayana Disciple
September 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Hi
Hi Tenzin
sorry to be random but I have this question and I’m finding it a little difficult to find the appropriate blog to ask it in.
When I ask this I really mean not to antagonise I am honestly interested in how a member of the FPMT feels about this.
On the FPMT website it discusses the practice of Dorje Shugden as I’m sure you know and it also mentions that
”All those who offer service or teach in FPMT centers are committed to follow the advice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. As an example, His Holiness has prohibited the practice of the so-called protector, Do Gyel (Shugden), so teachers or others affiliated with the FPMT should not engage in this practice.”
How do you feel about the fact that the FPMT was founded by Lama Yeshe and that he, throughout his life, relied upon and encouraged his students to rely upon Dorje Shugden? Does this not sit a bit strange with you? a little contradictory?
Also who’s advice would you feel to be the best to follow Lama Yeshe the great father of the tradition?(rely upon Dorje Shugden) or the Dalai Lama the great father of tibet?(dont rely on dorje Shugden)
As I say above I dont mean to stir I am honestly interested interested.
lightmind
September 22, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Dear Lightmind, if you are “honestly interested in how a member of the FPMT feels about this” please ask a member of FPMT. I am no member of FPMT.
Best wishes, Tenzin
—————
ok to add my understanding although i am not a fpmt member:
Lama Yeshe had great faith in HHDL and I guess he quit DS worship as so many did without any problem. So why should it be a problem for his students?
even when your own teacher prefers a certain practice this doesn’t mean you should practice it as well. some practices are for some person not suited at all even when suited for others.
then all the high Lamas from all the traditions in Tibetan Buddhism see HHDL as a reliable realized person of highest spiritual authority, integrity and insight, so when he gives his opinion or advice it is usually put into practice (at least by the wise) – but not blindly. HHDL asks all not to accept because he said it but to check what he said.
so if a comparable ‘small lama’ has a certain policy and HHDL another the majority will follow the advice not of the ‘small lama’ but the great one. and a genuine ‘small lama’ will encourage his students to follow the great lama who has more insights and wisdom and not to follow himself.
unlike in NKT HHDL is recognized by the highest masters as a holy being, some say he is enlightened, some say he is the emanation of Chenrezig, some see him as a very high Bodhisattva, nobody sees him as an ordinary being but all are able to see his amazing qualities.
so he is a superior being naturally due to his realisations and therefore his advice is appreciated. as the buddha suggested: follow the wise.
finally a correction: Lama Yeshe is not “the great father of the tradition” the father of what tradition? fpmt is no tradition it is mainly an organisation which serves as the basis for offering the teachings of the Buddha to the people. The tradtion Lama Yeshe is rooted in is the Gelug school, however he was also very open to other traditions.
if you posit HHDL as the great father of the Tibetans, I don’t know if they see it that way, maybe you ask some Tibetans.
Tenzin
September 22, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Thank you for your reply Tenzin and sorry about the mistake in thinking you were associated with the FPMT. thank you also for the correction concerning the FPMT not being a tradition. my mistake
I heard from a close disciple of Lama Yeshe that he had relied on Dorje Shugden until his death which would suggest that he hadnt given up the practice so I’m not sure he did ‘quit the DS worship with no problem’ as you suggested. It seems that Lama Yeshe as well as Song Rinpoche, Trijang Dorjechang, and so on, continued to rely on Dorje Shugden right up to their deaths even after HHDL had relinquished the practice and begun to encourage others to abandon it with warnings about its apparent harm.
You said above ”then all the high Lamas from all the traditions in Tibetan Buddhism see HHDL as a reliable realized person of highest spiritual authority, integrity and insight, so when he gives his opinion or advice it is usually put into practice (at least by the wise).”
Surely then these high lamas would have taken the advice of HHDL and abandoned relying on Dorje Shugden would they not? But these high Lamas didnt take the advice of HHDL on this matter but continued to rely and engage in the prayers of Dorje Shugden and encourage their students also to rely on this Dharma protector.
It is this fact that leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable with the current stance of the FPMT in not allowing people who wish to continue to rely on Dorje Shugden to attend teachings. I would imagine that there are people who received initiation into the practice of Dorje Shugden from Lama Yeshe who, wishing to continue with the practice they received, are no longer allowed in the centres that he and perhaps they themselves helped establish.
It just comes across as being a bit restrictive
lightmind
September 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hi Lightmind. Thanks for your kind reply and approach. As I am no student of Lama Yeshe or Lama Zopa I don’t know how Lama Yeshe dealt with it…
I know only how my Lamas deal with it.
Yes its true that at least Zong Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche and Gonsar Rinpoche continued. But that’s their freedom. Everyody is free whom he accepts as an authority. I guess – but I don’t no for sure – they encourage their students to practice it.
Regarding Lama Yeshe I just don’t know. In Kay’s research it is said that when HHDL made his opinion public Lama Zopa encouraged the students at Manjushri Institute to practice Palden Lhamo while Geshe Kelsang contrary emphasized Shugden more then previously.
So I would encourage you to take Kay’s research and to find out for yourself.
When you feel uncomfortable and you do not know for sure what exactly was the case then you create for yourself unnecessary trouble. I never heard or read that Lama Yeshe didn’t stop Shugden worship. Although this is no evidence that he actual stopped it, personally I prefer to build my knowledge on facts I have checked carefully. So you may build your awareness too much on unverified assumptions.
Then as long as you are no member of FPMT and you don’t know how they live and think what you may feel towards them may just be projections and may have no basis in reality.
As far as I recognized, Shugden worship is no issue at all in any FPMT center, all FPMT members and Geshes who teach in their centers I met see HHDL as a supreme teacher of highest integrity and spiritual authority – all revere him – and nobody has any conflict with this issue. I also met nobody who practice or wished to practice Shugden and has a conflict with this issue. For them – all I met – this is not an issue at all.
So I would say your concern is not needed. If you don’t believe me, just explore it for yourself by visiting different FPMT centers.
Best Wishes, Tenzin
Tenzin
September 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm