Devotion with Discernment — A question of personal responsibility by Rob Preece

There is an excellent essay by Rob Preece which was recommended by a poster of this blog, Tiger Lily. I think this essay deserves our attention. Here is an extract. For the full essay please read: Devotion with Discernment — A question of personal responsibility.

Recognising boundaries

Possibly the most critical issue that arises in relationship to the guru is the potential for a loss of appropriate boundaries. As a psychotherapist there is consistent emphasis on the understanding of how teachers and therapists need to be clear of their ethical boundaries, especially because of the power imbalance in the relationship. When we consider the power we often give away to our gurus the assumption we make is that they will be skilful with us and not be abusive or exploitative. Unfortunately this is often misunderstood by both teachers and students. Boundaries imply a teacher or guru will respect the needs and vulnerabilities of a student and not take advantage of them for his own needs. This can be materially, economically, emotionally or sexually. Materially it is very easy for teachers to exploit the devoted student who wishes to practice generosity towards them and so provide money, material goods, a home, work, and so on out of devotion. Gurus can get very rich on the offerings of their disciples and in Tibet the estates of the highly revered Tulkus where often extremely wealthy and powerful.

Emotionally there can be a tendency for some gurus to actually feed on the devotion of their students. It can nourish a narcissistic need for love and to be seen as special that has been there since childhood. Possibly the worst form of exploitation is the sexual abuse of female students to satisfy a need of the teacher. It is this, which is the most blatant form of abuse of boundary and power and can often be dismissed or denied within the context of a dysfunctional community of disciples. […]

29Comments

Add yours

1

jigje on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Reply

I’m familiar with Rob Preece’s books and have read the occasional article in Snow Lion, etc. Curious to know more about his background, I visited his (and his wife’s) website, (www.mudra.co.uk) only to discover that Zazep Tulku is prominently displayed there as their “patron.” When working to get a translation completed of my late teacher’s text on why Shugden should NOT be propitiated, I had some email correspondence with one of Zasep Tulku’s chief disciples in Canada. From that correspondence, I learned that Zasep Tulku was a Shugden practitioner (as was his student). A confirmation of this can be found on the dorjeshugden site (dorjeshugden.com) where a short biography of Zasep Tulku appears. This YouTube video provides yet another confirmation (http://www.youtube.com/watch). In fact, simply by Googling “Zasep Rinpoche and Dorje Shugden.”you get many hits. Apparently he is not trying very hard to hide his connection with Shugden.

Rob Preece may have many cogent things to say about devotion “with discernment,” but I frankly find it the height of irony. How about exercising some discernment when it comes to who he chooses for a patron (or for that matter, who he chooses to write the foreword to his books)? Sadly, his close affiliation with Zasep Tulku tarnishes his credibility for me personally.
- 2
  
  tenpel on July 11, 2012 at 9:22 pm
  Reply
  
  This goes too far for me.
  
  Though I know that Zazep Rinpoche was a Shugden practitioner, others were too. I recognized that Zazep Rinpoche was explicitly mentioned as a guru of Rob before I posted the post above. So this decision was made being aware of this.
  
  What this ShugdenSite claims or lists is not reliable either. So for instance they put Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche on their site as a great Shugden practitioner, as well as Lama Zopa Rinpoche and many others though they don’t practice Shugden. I know that a member of the board of directors of Dagyab Rinpoche’s charity trust asked the ShugdenSite to remove him from their website but they refused and ignored their wishes. One cannot take this site as a reliable source.
  
  If someone wishes to express his or her gratitude to his or her teacher or states honestly the fact that a certain teacher is their teacher, even if that person practised or practices Shugden, there is nothing wrong with this and I think more tolerance would be required as well as accepting the Dalai Lama’s own words that it is ok if someone practices it personally or in private.
  
  Moreover, I prefer to learn from available examples and to avoid the traps of hysteria. For instance, Geshe Thubten Jinpa, who has a PhD from Oxford University and who is a beloved translator of HH the Dalai Lama, writes in the preface of his PhD work (published by RoutledgeCurzon) “Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa’s Quest for the Middle Way“, page x:
  
  Inevitably, for a project such as the research and writing of this book, which has been in the making for a long period of time, I owe deep gratitude to many individuals and organisations. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my incalculable debt to my late teacher Kyabje Zemey Rinpoche whose life embodied perfect marriage of what the Tibetans recognise as the three principal qualities of a true spiritual teacher – one who is deeply learned, is ethically sound, and is genuinely kind and compassionate. It was with Rinpoche that I first read many of Tsongkhapa’s great philosophical classics. It is fitting, therefore, to dedicate this study to Rinpoche’s memory.
  
  So when the Dalai Lama has no problem that Geshe Thubten Jinpa has so much devotion and gratitude to his main teacher, though the same teacher is the author of the Yellow Book and really offended the Dalai Lama by its publication, why should we be overly zealous and fishy?
  - 3
    
    Saraha on July 28, 2012 at 2:29 am
    Reply
    
    “What this ShugdenSite claims or lists is not reliable either. So for instance they put Dagyab Kyabgön Rinpoche on their site as a great Shugden practitioner, as well as Lama Zopa Rinpoche and many others though they don’t practice Shugden. I know that a member of the board of directors of Dagyab Rinpoche’s charity trust asked the ShugdenSite to remove him from their website but they refused and ignored their wishes. One cannot take this site as a reliable source.”
    
    The very fact they have practiced in the past could mean either the teachers were dumb and fooled by Shugden, or Shugden’s practice is not harmful, but they were browbeaten into giving up due to political pressure from His Holiness the Dalai Lama and CTA. So i’d say that the information from the site is still reliable, because there is no way we can tell if the Lama is telling others they are not practicing publicly but are doing so privately.
    - 4
      
      tenpel on July 28, 2012 at 9:46 am
      Reply
      
      Sorry, but you are spinning the facts.
      
      It was up to the individual to decide if they continue to practice Shugden or not. Most of the Lamas stopped and it is misleading of the ShugdenSite to claim they would be great Shugden practitioners because most of them don’t practice Shugden any more. To claim something which does not meet reality is not reliable but unreliable.
      
      The ShugdenSite people also seem to lack any respect. On the one hand they call those lamas great and on the other hand they do not even pay heed to their requests to be removed from this website.
      
      What ever it meant that they practised Shugden in the past, I think it was better to give it up. Look just what happened to the strongest proponents of Shugden Pabongkha and Kelsang Gyatso, they became fanatics and infused sectarianism in their students. (That both are fanatics is said even by scientists.) With sectarianism your spiritual path comes to an halt. http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/nonsect.htm
      - 5
        
        an old friend on July 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm
        Reply
        
        I think of it like this. I used to drink alcohol regularly because it was the norm.Then some people wiser than myself said that, in their experience, it was damaging for my health so I gave it up. Now that I have given it up, you wouldnt refer to me as an alcoholic: after all, I dont drink. NKT continuing to refer to these lamas as great Shugdenpas is like referring to someone who doesnt drink as an alcoholic.Shurely shome mishtake???
      - 6
        
        Saraha on July 30, 2012 at 5:39 am
        Reply
        
        The other thing is whether or not those lamas are actually practicing Dorje Shugden at all, is none of our business, and I do not think that they would put it up on that side if there was no evidence of them doing so. Why did they not serve the site with a defamation lawsuit if they did not comply, unless of course the lamas in question are practising but in private, and they cannot deny that. I dont think that damages the reliability of the shugdensite, but rather, yours, because you do sound like you seem to know for sure what these Lamas practice in private. They could very well be doing Dorje Shugden pujas in their Ladrangs and only their close assistants know about it, but they tell people they dont to comply with the Dalai Lama’s wishes. Perhaps the site has very strong connections to these lamas and they have inside information.
        
        Pabongkha did not become a fanatic, and the rumor that he destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues has been proven as a rumor cooked up by jealous people to discredit him as the rumor lacks many details, such as the names of the monasteries that were involved, names of disciples, dates and so on. Even Kalu Rinpoche said he heard that as a rumor and there is no solid facts to back up on it. FYI, Pabongkha spoke very highly of Guru Rinpoche, and he respected all the other traditions equally, but not partake in their teachings. He has narrated the life story of Guru Rinpoche several times. If he was sectarian and fanatical, would he do that? I dont think that’s sectarian. What is sectarian is to criticise the unique protector of a certain lineage without investigation in its history.
        
        what is really sectarian is criticising a tradition that is not your own, and blindly without evidence to support.
        
        Also, by dissing Pabongka Rinpoche, you are effectively saying that all Gelug lamas of this generation are fanatics as ALL the Gelug lamas of our current generation are indirect disciples of Pabongkha. Even the Dalai Lama would not go that far to say that Pabongkha is fanatical or sectarian, so why are you not following the Dalai Lama’s viewpoint?
        
        What happened to Pabongkha? the 3rd Pabongkha Choktrul is back, and he is in Nepal and there are sightings of a red lady (Vajrayogini) repairing his roof from monks of Sera monastery, near his ladrang. If he worshipped a ghost, can his reincarnation return? logic time. If Pabongkha Rinpoche is as bad as you claim him to be, why would this happen to him? I would choose to listen to Pabongkha as even Vajrayogini herself visits him, but does she visit you?
        
        Even the Dalai Lama would always tell people to check properly every time he talks about Dorje Shugden and I’ve done my homework. I’m following the Dalai Lama’s advice to check my facts without bias, have you?
        
        7
        
        tenpel on July 30, 2012 at 7:38 am
        Reply
        
        The other thing is whether or not those lamas are actually practicing Dorje Shugden at all, is none of our business,
        
        It is my business whom I trust. I won’t follow a lama who practice Shugden. I don’t want to burn myself with sectarianism and gelug supremacy. Therefore its important for me to know who practices it and who not.
        
        and I do not think that they would put it up on that side if there was no evidence of them doing so.
        
        One can speak honestly with the Lamas and they will honestly reply – as far as I have experienced it with the genuine lamas.
        
        Why did they not serve the site with a defamation lawsuit if they did not comply, unless of course the lamas in question are practising but in private, and they cannot deny that.
        
        Whom they should lawsuit? The site is made anonymous by using proxy and there is no one who stands up with his or her name for it. Requests will be ignored by the website owner, corrections even in comments are deleted. Most of the lamas mentioned there I know myself. They are lamas of me and the don’t practice Shugden. Are you here at the blog to defame them or to spread the shugden site’s propaganda?
        
        I dont think that damages the reliability of the shugdensite, but rather, yours, because you do sound like you seem to know for sure what these Lamas practice in private. They could very well be doing Dorje Shugden pujas in their Ladrangs and only their close assistants know about it, but they tell people they dont to comply with the Dalai Lama’s wishes. Perhaps the site has very strong connections to these lamas and they have inside information.
        
        They damage their own reputation by claiming wrongly to list great Shugden lamas though many of them don’t practice Shugden any more – since many years. I asked the Lamas I rely on, I check what I say, and I correct myself when I make mistakes. I’ve never seen a correction by this site. They ignore corrections, they ignore questions for corrections as well as they delete comments immediately which correct them. Its the site of fanatics – only their “truth” is supreme and correct and they are the owners of “the truth”. Clinging to the own view as supreme is a delusion, one of the five wrong views.
        
        This Shugden site does not have good connections either to many lamas they list. For instance they don’t have connections to Lama Zopa Rinpoche or Dagyab Rinpoche- They know that both of them (as well as others) don’t practice Shugden, that they recommend their students not to practice it and the shugdensitees ignore requests to remove them from their website (this is also true for other lamas). Your “Perhaps the site has very strong connections to these lamas and they have inside information” does not meet reality, like the site in general does not meet reality. You have no proofs for what you are saying but you suggest to guess that they would have “very strong connections” “They could very well be doing Dorje Shugden pujas”. With such mental games (or manipulations?) you try to “prove” “the reliability of the shugdensite” – what a non-sense of “reasoning”.
        
        Pabongkha did not become a fanatic, and the rumor that he destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues has been proven as a rumor cooked up by jealous people to discredit him as the rumor lacks many details, such as the names of the monasteries that were involved, names of disciples, dates and so on.
        
        Some who defend him say he was not personally involved but his heated students did this. There is no reputable researcher, no Tibetan Lama I met who denies this fanaticism, and the fact that close followers of Pabongkha destroyed Nyingma temples and Guru Rinpoche statues.
        
        Of course criticism against the “supreme practitioners” who are somewhat distinct from others is seen by them as coming from “jealous people” – this is the classical defence of narcissistic people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#ICD-10
        
        Even Kalu Rinpoche said he heard that as a rumor and there is no solid facts to back up on it. FYI, Pabongkha spoke very highly of Guru Rinpoche, and he respected all the other traditions equally, but not partake in their teachings. He has narrated the life story of Guru Rinpoche several times. If he was sectarian and fanatical, would he do that? I dont think that’s sectarian. What is sectarian is to criticise the unique protector of a certain lineage without investigation in its history.
        
        Give me an exact verifiable quote where Kalu Rinpoche has said this. I can give you mass of quotes which prove what I claimed, be it by academics like Prof. Samuel or Buddhist masters. For the time being its just sufficient to quote Prof. Williams here:
        
        The problem is that Pabongkhapa was renowned for being—or at least held by followers of other schools of Tibetan Buddhism as being—extremely sectarian and intolerant of other schools. The practice of Dorje Shugden was considered at least by other traditions as having been developed as a form of Gelug triumphalism and aimed at bringing into play a Dharma protector for the (magical) suppression of the other schools, or at least their marginalisation. In particular it was considered that the practice of Dorje Shugden was aimed at the Nyingma pa tradition. In the later 1970s and early 1980s there was fierce controversy among certain Gelug, Sakya and Nyingma Lamas in India over Dorje Shugden and his status, which the Dalai Lama attempted to cool down. The material has been published and is available in Tibetan.
        
        http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_note_Paul_Williams.html
        
        what is really sectarian is criticising a tradition that is not your own, and blindly without evidence to support.
        
        Maybe you read Je Tsongkhapa. He gives a good definition of sectarianism which is shared by other Tibetan Buddhists. To sum it up sectarianism is to have attachement to the own school of thought and aversion or aggression against other school of thoughts. The “gelug supremacy” is nothing else than sectarianism too because its based on pride, attachment to the own view and looking down on others.
        
        And why should I not criticise a tradition that is “my own”?
        
        Also, by dissing Pabongka Rinpoche, you are effectively saying that all Gelug lamas of this generation are fanatics as ALL the Gelug lamas of our current generation are indirect disciples of Pabongkha. Even the Dalai Lama would not go that far to say that Pabongkha is fanatical or sectarian, so why are you not following the Dalai Lama’s viewpoint?
        
        Your logic is plain wrong. Criticising Pabongka Rinpoche as a fanatic (which researchers and Buddhists alike did) does not mean that “all Gelug lamas of this generation are fanatics …” if they are fanatics or not depends on their mind and the person judging it + their background. Also having some faults does not mean that the person all in all has no qualities or is wrong in all ways. The Dalai Lama has a very differentiated view on this which I see as very correct:
        
        “I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche’s promotion of the worship of Dholgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dholgyal … My approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.”
        
        http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy.html#Other_Tibetan_Lamas
        
        What happened to Pabongkha? the 3rd Pabongkha Choktrul is back, and he is in Nepal and there are sightings of a red lady (Vajrayogini) repairing his roof from monks of Sera monastery, near his ladrang. If he worshipped a ghost, can his reincarnation return? logic time. If Pabongkha Rinpoche is as bad as you claim him to be, why would this happen to him? I would choose to listen to Pabongkha as even Vajrayogini herself visits him, but does she visit you?
        
        Just claims that “Vajrayogini herself visits him”. You can claim whatever you like, claims are no facts. I didn’t say he has no qualities. Having a higher rebirth is based on Karma and what Karma ripens at the time of death; and in the case of highly developed lamas a human incarnation might depend on his ability to control the process of death. So if Pabongkha Rinpoche could control his death (which is very likely) he has incarnated in our human realm (or if he has higher realizations he has manifested in the human realm). So his appearance has nothing to do with Shugden but his abilities to control the process of death, his karma or higher realizations. Since even highest Bodhisattvas have faults there is no contradiction that he has these qualities and a wrong view about Shugden at the same time (at least as long as he has not attained the path of seeing because at this level all wrong views and their imprints are destroyed.)
        
        Even the Dalai Lama would always tell people to check properly every time he talks about Dorje Shugden and I’ve done my homework. I’m following the Dalai Lama’s advice to check my facts without bias, have you?
        
        Of course. I was 6 1/2 years with Shugden Lamas, I protested against the Dalai Lama … I know all the arguments, twists and crazyness involved. For a short summery see here:
        https://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/a-former-dorje-shugden-followers-thoughts/
- 8
  
  Rob on August 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. I had no idea that this was so and have not wanted to be drawn into the whole controversy. Zazep Tulku is not one of my gurus but I appreciated his openness to a more Western approach to the Tibetan tradition when he stayed with us for a short while. I like him as a person and never inquired as to his politics. That is why I asked if he would be a patron. I will consider this more.
  Rob
  - 9
    
    tenpel on August 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you Rob.
  - 10
    
    jigje on October 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    Reply
    
    Rob,
    
    Sorry, I’m only now reading your reply! I appreciate your intention to “consider more” on this issue. I think it is important for us to know as much as possible about those who we consider our teachers and guides. Many of us would like to be able to separate “politics” from religion, but I’m afraid that they’re interdependently connected and cannot be conveniently compartmentalized. Thank you for your reply and sorry for such a tardy response.
- 11
  
  TnTenzin on August 9, 2015 at 12:57 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes, I can confirm from direct experience that Zasep Rinpoche and his followers practice shugden. I found out in a very roundabout way several years back; I do wish that they had been more up front about it. At the time, there was little info on the web concerning this matter. I do have an issue with the secrecy concerning it; his disciples will not answer the question concerning shugden directly, and this is, I believe, misleading for new students. I came after many years practicing with other groups, so I had an advanced knowledge; as I consider HH the Dalai Lama my supreme guru, and have attended his teachings, I found the shugden connection deeply troubling. I would never want to jeopardise my ability to attend teachings with HH due to a shugden connection. HH still asks that individuals who propitiate shugden refrain from coming to his teachings. They are, of course, free to practice elsewhere, but they are not his disciples.
  - 12
    
    Namkhah on August 9, 2015 at 5:42 pm
    Reply
    
    I can absolutely confirm Zasep Tulku practices this gyalpo: I know several members of his extended family including his late grandfather in Nepal. Zasep earned an acharya degree in Sarnath, spent some time in Thailand then eventually visited Australia then to Canada, where he married a Pakistani muslim woman about 35 years ago. No one has stopped him from persisting in this practice, perhaps the only problematic issue for him is his damtsig with the Great 14th Dalai Lama from whom he also took teachings, however that is his problem and that of his uninformed students.
  - 13
    
    jigje on August 9, 2015 at 6:41 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you for your comment, TnTenzin, and corroborating what I discovered for myself some three years ago. I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning their deliberate secrecy and the very real potential for misleading new students. When other dharma practitioners (and even some Buddhist academics) tell me that this whole Shugden controversy is a “Tibetan issue” that does not involve us Westerners, I have to laugh out loud, albeit ruefully. Clearly unsuspecting Westerners new to the dharma are involved when they are initiated into this practice and given commentarial teachings on it.
    
    So, from your comment I am presuming that you got involved directly with one of Zasep’s dharma centers/practice groups?
- 14
  
  Rob Preece on August 19, 2015 at 8:31 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi
  Just to respond to some of the comments made. I have never had any relationship to Shugden and do not support this practice. When I met Zazep Tulku I had no knowledge of his connection to this practice. He is however no longer a patron of my website. I felt he was a very kind Lama but was never one of my Lamas or gurus.
  
  I hope this clarifies things finally
  
  Thanks
  Rob
  - 15
    
    jigje on August 23, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    Reply
    
    Rob,
    Count yourself fortunate that you avoided getting involved in this practice…. despite your (former) relationship to Zasep Tulku. It was only after I left Tharpa Chöling in Mont Pèlerin, Switzerland (where I lived for six months) that I discovered Geshe Rabten and many there were shugden practitioners. Somehow I was spared knowing anything about this practice while I was there and apparently didn’t have the karma to get enmeshed with it.
    
    All the best,
    Jigje
16

Reform and His Holiness the Dalai Lama « mahayanadharma on July 16, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Reply

[…] There is much discussion recently about the troubles in western dharma centers and the need for western students to take charge of reform and new directions in the dharma. Due to recent allegations of sexual abuse by Tibetan Buddhist teachers, there is a general sense of urgency about this reform. In Rob Preece’s excellent overview of the situation, he observes the very real suffering which results when western students are abused or otherwise maltreated by their teachers. He also observes the existence of teachers, such as his own, whose work for the dharma is sincere and to be highly valued. https://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/devotion-with-discernment-a-question-of-persona… […]
17

an old friend on July 17, 2012 at 8:19 am
Reply

1) I have read most of this before. It was by someone who condemned others for posting under different names. I think this is the third name the person has posted under
2) Devotion to HHDL is no bad thing. However, to suggest that he is the only lama to have spoken out about these issues is factually wrong and the suggestion that HHDL is our sole saviour in this issue is short sighted and a deferment of our own roles as central figures in the resolution of these difficulties.
3)This piece exhibits exactly the devotional adulation and over reliance on the external guru which have given rise to many of our problems in the first place and reads, at times, like an advert for the DL-He doesnt need adverts and people should be left to make up their own minds about who should guide us in these times. Zealous advocacy of ones own perspective does not a successful Dharma practitioner make!
4)The assertion that several years of study is superior to ngondro for beginners is to contradict the time honored methods of the different traditiond, traditions that have emphasised the combined practice of study, contemplation and meditation for millenia
5) There is nothing wrong with taking ones children to Dharma teaching
- 18
  
  tenpel on July 17, 2012 at 9:09 am
  Reply
  
  @ an old friend
  1) The post was originally posted under http://mahayanadharma.wordpress.com/ There it was posted under a real name. I prefer real names (you know this) that’s why I decided to post it here also under the real name. So you have to put the blame on me.
  2) There is no one so outspoken than HH the Dalai Lama, and no one who has been that consistent in it than HHDL. I think this can be stated for sure as a fact. I cannot get from the essay the message that it is suggested he would be the sole saviour.
  3) I cannot get this from the essay either. As far as I got it the key point is to take his encouragement to act seriously, and to find a right balance. IMO you are using the essay to attack the writer of “zealous advocacy” and implicitly trying to put the writer down by suggesting she wouldn’t be a “successful Dharma practitioner”. This approach / attack is unacceptable for me. It comes across as a trial to put other’s down and to elate oneself.
  4) Of course its good to question the opinion that before doing Buddhist Tantra practice (which Ngöndro belongs too) one has to study as being the sole way of approaching Buddhist Tantra practice. On the other hand it is not that wrong either. When one makes 100.000 prostrations without understanding refuge, meaning etc. it might be at best a physical exercise or a ritual. After 1.000.000 prostrations the mind can be even more hardened than before because the practice was done without understanding. Since tantra is meant for Bodhisattva’s with highest faculties it is for sure not a beginner practice for a person approaching Buddhism. And this is the key theme the writer is suggesting, and I think here all reasonable persons would agree with. So to criticise extensive study before Tantra as a sole way of approaching Tantra practice, and to point out that there are other ways like doing combined practice of study and tantra, is IMO a very helpful and reasonable criticism. Thank you for this.
  5) I agree.
  
  The essay comes across also for me as “very confident”. But I see it as an opinion in the ocean of opinions. I have also in mind it represents the struggle of a person who met an approach to Tibetan Buddhism that didn’t work for her—and she is not the only one who made these experiences!—to figure out what would be a better way. So to add it to the blog is for me a welcome addition. Thank you Joanne for this!
19

Sheila on July 17, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Reply

I do think there must be a very great difference from teacher to teacher, dharma center to dharma center. I was never encouraged to do Ngöndro, nor even told that it existed (to this day I have never had the topic brought up initially by a teacher, lol); I found out through the dharma-vine.

My center doesn’t push this or that practice, but rather offers very long-term teachings based on various texts–taking years and years with some texts. I have never had a feeling of being rushed or pushed; in fact, in every case where I moved deeper into practice, I had to do the asking. I would chalk this phenomenon up to a particular teacher, except that we have had multiple teachers, both resident and visiting, and they have all behaved this way (i.e. not pushing, but waiting for students to ask them about a specific practice).

We’re never turned away from anything; brand new people, and visitors, show up all the time to even advanced teachings and practices, and are always accommodated, but simply by being welcomed to share the experience, not by being pushed into tantra. It’s always explained that there are different levels of participation, including just observing and contemplating.

So I wonder, sometimes, in these discussions, how much pushing certain teachers are doing as opposed to how much leaping some students are doing. Are you saying specific teachers are pushing hard, or is it also possible some students are diving in without checking things out, or both?

The concept of being “pushed” by a teacher is just so unlike what I have experienced so far. With the exception of NKT, the social environment in my various Buddhist experiences has always been extremely hands-off, to the point of me wondering whether they should be more directive. But I have always chalked that up to what I perceive as an ethic in Buddhism that we the students should really be the driving force behind our own studies. That’s certainly what I’ve seen to date. I mean, when I first asked for refuge, I was cautioned to think about it for a while! I didn’t actually take refuge until five years later.
- 20
  
  tenpel on July 18, 2012 at 1:32 am
  Reply
  
  Dear Sheila,
  of course there are differences. One cannot generalize this too much.
  
  That you made good experiences in your centre is great. But your good experience does not invalidate the bad experiences of others.
  
  NKT followers (and some Rigpa followers alike) try to invalidate reports about bad experiences by reporting about their good experiences and that the Guru has only the wish to benefit others etc. but this is a mistaken approach. One good experience cannot invalidate a bad experience like the existence of blue does not invalidate the existence of yellow. They both can exist at the same time.
  
  I think one should rather ask: How could this happen? And why not expressing compassion for a person who had bad experiences?
21

Sheila on July 17, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Reply

I should say we do have White Tara and Medicine Buddha practices and tsog and so forth, but the regular weekly teachings are commentary on, and discussion of, texts such as Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, etc.
22

Joanne on July 18, 2012 at 12:02 am
Reply

Sheila, it is my own deepest wish that someday TB lamas from western centers will come together with western teachers and students and discuss these issues. Then, TB lamas can talk about their efforts to ensure that dharma is transmitted authentically and safely– then, some of the customs you’re talking about can be shared.
23

Sheila on July 18, 2012 at 4:31 am
Reply

I think a good immediate step would be to have a list of dharma centers in the West, where students can give their individual recommendations, experiences, and so forth, maybe in a “comments” section after each dharma center.

From Amazon reviews, to music reviews, etc., this is one way the modern world is dealing with the fact that people now move around a lot more, and need good advice on the products, services, and institutions they will be dealing with.

Sure, there will be plenty of questionable commentary (spam, frivolous remarks, etc.), just as there is on Amazon book reviews–but, as we also know from Amazon book reviews and the like, you really can get a good feel for a book or movie that has been reviewed by enough people for the truth to filter through. Most people feel ownership in their experiences and observations, and want to give an honest review.

A list of dharma centers, with real observations from real people–everyone from guests just passing through, to long-time students–would be invaluable. It would give people a feel for that dharma center’s teaching style, too; there are as many teaching styles as there are teachers, and it’s good to find the right fit (and avoid the wrong one). Those characteristics, too, would come through. As an added benefit, it would serve to let people know what’s going on in nearby centers that they might otherwise not hear about.

So whether describing teaching style, giving a general impression, or just plain informing students on various issues, such a website would I think be really beneficial all around. At the end of the day, what prospective students really want to know is: where should I consider studying? Who’s having the dharma experience I seek, and how can I find it?
24

an old friend on July 18, 2012 at 7:51 am
Reply

I am sure the Tibetans had similar problems when Dharma arrived from India. Considering the very good condition the Dharma is in overall (for every abusive lama, there are hundreds of genuine ones), without their having set up such review bodies, councils etc, one wonders whether such current ideas are good practice or are just born of our tendency to conform with contemporary mores. Maybe the Dharma is big enough and strong enough to sort out its problems, without the inteference of Western newcomers intent on forcing their views on such a timeless phenomena-Just a thought
- 25
  
  Sheila on July 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm
  Reply
  
  I’m definitely not in favor of review councils; just regular people maybe posting a bit of their experience, so that (in my town, for example, which has a wide assortment of Buddhist programs) people can find out a little about that dharma center when deciding which to go and visit.
  
  I agree there’s a benefit to just having the student do all the seeking–i.e., go around oneself with no advice whatsoever, and just have an experience and then judge that experience. But I also know that when, instead of just seeing a list of dharma centers with nothing other than names and addresses, if people can hear a few words from others who have attended teachings, and have posted their experiences, it brings that dharma center to life a bit and makes some people more likely to check it out if it sounds appealing to their own nature.
  
  I also think that, even though it wasn’t this way in the past, humans spend a lot of their lives online now, and it wouldn’t hurt to look at the implications of that fact. The dharma is going to have a big presence online as well as off, so maybe our dharma centers could, too. Personally, I spend a lot of time encouraging people to get offline and go to a flesh-and-blood class; but the place I generally find myself having that conversation is online! It’s just a fact of life. In the old days we might have been discussing whether or not a dharma center should have a listing in the yellow pages. But I think we agree now that it’s helpful to modern humans to list our centers in the phonebook, even maintain a webpage, since those are places people now expect to get information.
  
  I agree that the dharma is healthy; the idea of having open discussions about dharma centers and the nature of their various programs reflects my belief that some of the nature (of any center) is going to surface in conversation. Modern, online humans are used to various “review” issues, such as that some reviews will be unfair or inaccurate; we generally know to look at the bulk of reviews rather than an individual tirade.
  
  I don’t see such a forum (well, these discussions are already happening on various forums anyway, but…) as being imperative or anything, but just a potentially helpful tool. I also see it as a constructive way to deal with differences in dharma centers, and the difference in people’s opinions of dharma centers–it widens the conversation, rather than narrowing it down into blanket statements about “dharma centers” or “dharma teachers” which are rarely specified.
26

Sheila on July 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Reply

I guess I should say why I’m not personally in favor of review councils–but maybe rather than get into that right now, I’ll leave it as-is.
27

jigje on August 12, 2015 at 1:44 pm
Reply

Thank you Namkhah for sharing this with all of us here. A crucial corroboration! Yes, one has to wonder how he squares his damsig with HHDL and his continued loyalty/allegiance to Shugden?
28

John on April 5, 2019 at 6:17 pm
Reply

If you are so fortunate to be blessed to practice the great Dharmapala Dorge Shugden wonderful , if not thats ok there are many other practices that may suit your sensibility .
If you disparage any liniage practices handed down from guru to student than you know little of what Mahayana vajrayana is about .
- 29
  
  tenpel on April 5, 2019 at 10:09 pm
  Reply
  
  John, it’s a common thing to investigate a practice and to accept or to reject it. Accepting when its authentic, leads to realisation, rejecting when it’s inauthentic, doesn’t lead to realisations or is harmful. So, maybe it’s you who “know little of what Mahayana vajrayana is about”?
  BTW, what great Mahasiddhas have practiced and attained realisation through Shugden worship? How does the propitiation of a mundane being, a vengeful spirit, lead to realisations or awakening anyway?

	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…
	Tenpel on Heartwood Hosts Its First Gath…
	Exposing the New Kad… on Who is demonstrating against t…
	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…
	Peartree Layne on Who is demonstrating against t…
	astrologerdevanand on Hurts within the Karma Kagyu s…
	mikepazda on Western Shugden Society / New…
	tenpel on Who is demonstrating against t…

See also

Rate this:

Share this:

Related