dorjeshugden.com
About Dorje Shugden => General Discussion => Topic started by: DSFriend on June 25, 2012, 05:33:26 AM
-
Bon, Tibet's oldest religion was founded by Tonpa Shenrab, also known as Shenrab Miwo as the Enlightened teacher of this aeon. He is believed to be of the same status of and predates Shakyamuni by half a millenium.
Bon religion was dominated by Buddhism as early as the 7th century onwards. With the establishment of the first Buddhist Monastery Samyey in the 8th century, Buddhism began to be of greater influence in Tibet and especially during the reign of the Great Fifth where many were forcibly converted to the Gelug sect. Many of the Bon's text were destroyed throughout the centuries. There was a great need to preserve this faith and a few notable monasteries arose. Shenrab Gyeltsun played a central role and founded Menri monastery in 1405, as well as other monasteries such as Yungdrung Ling and Kharna. Monks in these monasteries studies sutras primarily by way of debates.
While i was reading about the Bon religion, I came across this passage which i found to be of much interest in relation to the situation Dorje Shugden practitioners are encountering. Some believes in the big picture concept that though HHDL is implementing this ban on Dorje Shugden, in the end positive results will come about. Some thinks this concept is ridiculous.
Going back many lifetimes, the Bon religion suffered much persecution under the Great Fifth. HHDL's incarnation seems to have this one pattern of dominating other faiths but let's take a read at this passage below taken from "Historical Introduction to the Five Principal Spiritual Traditions of Tibet" observed how the opposition did not destroy but rather influenced the development of its counterpart :
"The relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism is often misunderstood due to the latter's dominance of politics in Tibet from the 13th century onwards. though the two faiths were often at odds and occasionally underwent periods of violent rivalry, their relations were generally characterized by peaceful coexistence and doctrinal interdependence. Each religion influenced the development of its counterpart over the centuries, resulting in significant difference between what is known of Bon prior to the advent of Buddhism and the "reformed" syncretic tradition that exists today. "
Devotees and eminent lamas of the Bon faith continued to persevere and kept the faith throughout centuries of being dominated. Bon religion underwent severe persecution and opposition during the reign of the 5th Dalai Lama. Fast forward thru the many incarnations of HHDL, the 14th HHDL requested to convene for a 1988 Tulku Conference where all 5 traditions were represented Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, Gelug, and Bon. HHDL emphasized the importance of adding the pre-Buddhist Tibetan tradition of Bon, making it the Five Tibetan Traditions. Basically the message is clear that Bon is to be preserved and acknowledged as having played a major role in influencing the Tibetan unique culture and believes.
There is no need to reform Dorje Shugden's practice but what is obvious is that the persecution and dominance imposed by the 14th HHDL on Dorje Shugden has resulted in this practice to explode all over the world. The Great fifth and Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen goes way back as we all are familiar with. If the 14th HHDL has changed his opposition stance created by the Great Fifth towards Bon, I have faith that the 14th HHDL can also do the same for Dorje Shugden's practice.
In today's technological age, practitioners and devotees of Dorje Shugden certainly can play a major role in preserving and advancing this practice which is currently being dominated and opposed by HHDL. The internet space is of great influence and far reaching.
As long as we do not relent, i believe no matter how strong the opposition is, by the blessings of our lineage lamas we will pull through and lift the ban.
-
Good post and it is interesting to note HHDL's policy towards the Bon religion. Bon is essentially an ancient religion based on animist-shamanist beliefs, with exorcisms, talismans, spells, incantations, sacrifices, rituals, a pantheon gods and evil spirits.
The religion arises as the result of pre-Buddhism Tibetan people's fears and suspiciousness, and hope towards objects found in nature and begin to worship them. In principle belief in Bon is that everything has a spirit in it and so they worshipped the heaven, the earth, the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers, thunder, lightning, hail, fog, and even animals.
While there are quite a bit of common ground that Bon shares with Buddhism, there are principle differences. Spirit worship is at the heart of Bon and in the past Bon practice also involved some animal sacrifice, the very act of which is clearly anti-Buddhist and yet this does not pose a problem for the Dalai Lama (who claimed that Dorje Shugden not be worshipped as he is merely a spirit) or the CTA. In fact, within the CTA there are 2 official representatives from the Bon religion.
This openness by the Dalai Lama to Bon, a sectarian religion has ironically not being extended to the practice of Dorje Shugden, the practitioners of whom are pure Buddhists in the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. Dorje Shugden has been clearly recognized to be the emanation of Manjushri, the Buddha of Wisdom.
This is yet another example of the idiotic discrepancies in the CTA's stance towards other religions and beliefs and the inconsistency in the basis of the Dalai Lama's policy towards Shugden practitioners.
-
I really do not think so from His Holiness side He will retract what He has said and He will remain firm though we can see the announcements in public has quiet down and His Holiness tone has soften regarding Dorje Shugden. However in His official office site... the category of Dogyal (Shugden) is still there and this it what it says.
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/his-holiness-advice (http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/his-holiness-advice)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Advice Concerning Dolgyal (Shugden)
Following long and careful investigations, His Holiness the Dalai Lama strongly discourages Tibetan Buddhists from propitiating the fierce spirit known as Dolgyal (Shugden). Although he once practised Dolgyal propitiation himself, His Holiness renounced the practice in 1975 after discovering the profound historical, social and religious problems associated with it. He did so with the full knowledge and support of his junior tutor, the late Kyabje Trichang Rinpoche through whom His Holiness first became associated with the practice. Even within the Geluk and Sakya schools - the Tibetan Buddhist traditions to which majority of Dolgyal practitioners belong - the propitiation of this spirit has been controversial throughout its history. Historical investigation reveals that Dolgyal practice, which has strong sectarian overtones, has a history of contributing to a climate of sectarian disharmony in various parts of Tibet, and between various Tibetan communities. Therefore, from 1975 onwards, His Holiness has regularly made public his view that this practice is inadvisable, based on the following three reasons:
1. The danger of Tibetan Buddhism degenerating into a form of spirit worship: Tibetan Buddhism originally evolved from the authentic and ancient tradition upheld at the great Indian monastic university of Nalanda, a tradition that His Holiness often describes as a complete form of Buddhism. It embodies the original teaching of the Buddha as developed through the rich philosophical, psychological and spiritual insights of such great Buddhist masters as Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharamakirti. Since the great philosopher and logician Shantarakshita was instrumental in establishing Buddhism in Tibet in its earliest stages in the 8th century, philosophical enquiry and critical analysis have always been important hallmarks of Tibetan Buddhism. The problem with Dolgyal practice is that it presents the spirit Dolgyal (Shugden) as a Dharma protector and what's more tends to promote the spirit as more important than the Buddha himself. If this trend goes unchecked, and innocent people become seduced by cult-like practices of this kind, the danger is that the rich tradition of Tibetan Buddhism may degenerate into the mere propitiation of spirits.
BUT IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY TO SEEK ADVICE AND DECISIONS OF THE NATION WITH NECHUNG WHO IS A SPIRIT?
2. Obstacles to the emergence of genuine non-sectarianism: His Holiness has often stated that one of his most important commitments is the promotion of inter-religious understanding and harmony. As part of this endeavour, His Holiness is committed to encouraging non-sectarianism in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. In this His Holiness is following the example set by his predecessors, especially the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Not only is a non-sectarian approach mutually enriching for all Tibetan Buddhist schools, but it is also the best safeguard against a rise of sectarianism that could have damaging consequences for the Tibetan tradition as a whole. Given the acknowledged link between Dolgyal worship and sectarianism, this particular practice remains a fundamental obstacle to fostering a genuine non-sectarian spirit within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
3. Especially inappropriate in relation to the well-being of Tibetan society: Propitiating Dolgyal is particularly troublesome, given the Tibetan people's present difficult circumstances. Textual and historical research demonstrates that the spirit Dolgyal arose out of hostility to the great Fifth Dalai Lama and his government. 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. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama and other respected Tibetan spiritual masters have also spoken out strongly against this practice. Therefore, in the current Tibetan context, in which unity among the Tibetan people is vitally important, engaging in this controversial and divisive propitiatory practice is inappropriate.
His Holiness has strongly urged his followers to consider carefully the problems of Dolgyal practice on the basis of these three reasons and to act accordingly. He has stated that, as a Buddhist leader with a special concern for the Tibetan people, it is his responsibility to speak out against the damaging consequences of this kind of spirit worship. Whether or not his advice is heeded, His Holiness has made clear, is a matter for the individual. However, since he personally feels strongly about how negative this practice is, he has requested those who continue to propitiate Dolgyal not to attend his formal religious teachings, which traditionally require the establishment of a teacher-disciple relationship.
[/b][/color]
BUT ANY OTHER RELIGION IS ALLOWED. ISN'T THIS IT SELF IS RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND SECTARIAN?
-
Thank you for this very interesting and educational post DS Friend.
The controversy of Dorje Shugden is almost like a repeat of the scenario below, extracted from the thread:
"The relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism is often misunderstood due to the latter's dominance of politics in Tibet from the 13th century onwards. Though the two faiths were often at odds and occasionally underwent periods of violent rivalry, their relations were generally characterized by peaceful coexistence and doctrinal interdependence. Each religion influenced the development of its counterpart over the centuries, resulting in significant difference between what is known of Bon prior to the advent of Buddhism and the "reformed" syncretic tradition that exists today. "
It does not seem like an accident that, centuries later, the 14th Dalai Lama who is of the same mind stream as the 5th Dalai Lama is re-orchestrating the controversy for the case of Dorje Shugden. This gives me great faith because we have a reference to look at. Similarly, besides looking at the commonality of events, we should have a look at what the Bon practitioners did to protect and uphold their practice. It is said in that the “Devotees and eminent lamas of the Bon faith continued to persevere and kept the faith throughout centuries of being dominated”. Therefore, we should have confidence based on results that the practice of Dorje Shugden will evolve in a manner that is positive as indicated by some initial outcome, i.e. the growth Dorje Shugden awareness and practice in various parts of the world.
Therefore, let’s keep learning up, practice sincerely and share the practice of Dorje Shugden with as many people as we can so that we create the merits to lift the ban.
-
"Although he once practised Dolgyal propitiation himself, His Holiness renounced the practice in 1975 after discovering the profound historical, social and religious problems associated with it. He did so with the full knowledge and support of his junior tutor, the late Kyabje Trichang Rinpoche through whom His Holiness first became associated with the practice."
Are there any documented evidences or witness to the event mentioned above?
-
"Although he once practised Dolgyal propitiation himself, His Holiness renounced the practice in 1975 after discovering the profound historical, social and religious problems associated with it. He did so with the full knowledge and support of his junior tutor, the late Kyabje Trichang Rinpoche through whom His Holiness first became associated with the practice."
Are there any documented evidences or witness to the event mentioned above?
The quote is part of an official statement present on the official website of the Dalai Lama. There's no other evidence that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche supported the ban or not. However, according to the Shugden Society's chronology ( http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1996EN.html (http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1996EN.html)), the Dalai Lama first spoke about Dorje Shugden in the early 1980s and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche entered clear light in 1981.
Therefore, the chance that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche knew about Dorje Shugden was minimal at best. However, that is still not an indication of whether he approved of the ban but surely a clairvoyant Lama like Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche would have foreseen the ban. That is probably why in 'Music Delighting the Ocean of Conquerors', he wrote the following advice:-
But some who are narrow minded, not understanding this point, consider this Dharmapala to be like an ordinary worldly being and, with supposed faith in the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, disparage him; or else they indeed admire this great Dharmapala but criticize the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama. Using either one as a reason not to admire the other and speaking badly about either in any way is the conduct of an ordinary being who, under the influence of attachment and hatred, just tries to help friends and hurt enemies; it obscures the increase of these great holy Aryas' deeds and creates the karmic cause to experience unbearable suffering in the future.
-
The quote is part of an official statement present on the official website of the Dalai Lama. There's no other evidence that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche supported the ban or not. However, according to the Shugden Society's chronology ( [url]http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1996EN.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1996EN.html[/url])), the Dalai Lama first spoke about Dorje Shugden in the early 1980s and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche entered clear light in 1981.
Just like the statement in the website that is not true, I doubted that the above statement is true as well. I found it interesting because Trijang Rinpoche gave DS practices to a number of students. Many of these students are prominent lama such as Kyabje Zong Rinpoche. Why he only gave the permission to renounce DS practice to HHDL?
-
"Although he once practised Dolgyal propitiation himself, His Holiness renounced the practice in 1975 after discovering the profound historical, social and religious problems associated with it. He did so with the full knowledge and support of his junior tutor, the late Kyabje Trichang Rinpoche through whom His Holiness first became associated with the practice."
Are there any documented evidences or witness to the event mentioned above?
Sounds ridiculous that Trijang Rinpoche would actually permit only one person, His Holiness not to practice but all His other students which are also high Lamas are allowed? Geshe Kelsanf Gyatso was also Trijang Rinpoche's student... well I am sure Trijang Rinpoche would have advised him to stop too knowing He will be spreading throughout 1000 over centers.
It is obvious that this statement is probably another lie to justify and cover up all the illogicalness behind the BAN. I don't know how many more interesting lies CTA will come up with... be careful as it will all come back to them when someone decides to go massively public with it... then all hopes of even a Govt in Exile will be flush down the drain.
-
It is obvious that this statement is probably another lie to justify and cover up all the illogicalness behind the BAN. I don't know how many more interesting lies CTA will come up with... be careful as it will all come back to them when someone decides to go massively public with it... then all hopes of even a Govt in Exile will be flush down the drain.
Dear Dsiluvu
Who came up with the statement? The CTA or HHDL? Because the title state HHDL's advice.
-
"Although he once practised Dolgyal propitiation himself, His Holiness renounced the practice in 1975 after discovering the profound historical, social and religious problems associated with it. He did so with the full knowledge and support of his junior tutor, the late Kyabje Trichang Rinpoche through whom His Holiness first became associated with the practice."
Are there any documented evidences or witness to the event mentioned above?
HHDL had cited a dream he had of Trijang Rinpoche as his approval for the ban.
After that, was it about two years ago that the Shartse geshe, Tsultrim Gyaltsen who requested the Sixteen Drops of the Kadam empowerment. When that was finished, I did the meditational retreat associated with the practice. There were indications that this was successful. The next night I had an incredibly clear dream of Trijang Rinpoche. In this, he was acting particularly affectionately toward me. There was a Stages of the Path text, which had notes of his on some of the pages. He gave me the pages and said, "These will prove useful in the future". That put me at ease. I feel that what I am doing is in accordance with what Trijang Rinpoche would have wanted. I feel that what I am doing is the correct course of action. He followed the system dictated to him by his root Lama, of whom he was the special disciple. Now doing what I am doing, being open about all this is, I feel, in line with what he would really have wanted. I used to have some dreams when I was in Tibet that seemed to show signs that I had some link with the Fifth Dalai Lama. More recently, after the turmoil that ensued after taking action against the worship of Dolgyal I had another dream. In it, there was a thangka portrait of the Fifth Dalai Lama. As I was looking at it, after some time it turned into the real thing. He came toward me and handed me a ceremonial scarf. It was incredibly long. When I woke up what I felt was that I was completing something that had been left over from the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Again, convinced that I am acting in accordance with his wishes and that he would be happy with me, I feel at ease with my decisions. So these days when the Dolgyal Association state that they have no quarrel with anyone except the Ganden Phodrang - Tibetan government established by the Vth Dalai Lama, that turns out to be absolutely true. It was the Ganden Phodrang who originally demolished Simkang Gong. Now almost four hundred years later, they are agitating over that. They are directing their case against the responsible party. I am not quite sure in which court they intend to have their case heard though (laughter). The basis for the dispute is a historic one. That is about all I have to say.
http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/speeches-by-his-holiness/gelug-conference (http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/speeches-by-his-holiness/gelug-conference)
Now, why would HHDL lie? Unless of course it was Trijang Rinpoche's instruction to implement the ban and that the ban should be lifted after a certain period of time. But let's kind of discuss what the dream means to all of us, shall we?
-
Now, why would HHDL lie? Unless of course it was Trijang Rinpoche's instruction to implement the ban and that the ban should be lifted after a certain period of time. But let's kind of discuss what the dream means to all of us, shall we?
Hmmm... I usually do not doubt HHDL except in the case of DS. It’s hard to say or trust whether he really had a dream, especially after he said DS is a spirit, which is a lie.
-
Hmmm... I usually do not doubt HHDL except in the case of DS. It’s hard to say or trust whether he really had a dream, especially after he said DS is a spirit, which is a lie.
If you usually don't doubt His Holiness , then why would you doubt him now? What makes you so great and clever that you are able to distinguish whether the Dalai Lama "really had a dream" or what he said is really "a lie" as you have so boldly proclaimed?
Why do you not doubt him in everything else but you doubt him in this? If you doubt this, then you could doubt everything else he has said ... couldn't you? What makes you the judge of whether the Dalai Lama is telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be better to accept everything he says. Why would he lie to you anyway ? He has vows against that, d'oh!
-
Hmmm... I usually do not doubt HHDL except in the case of DS. It’s hard to say or trust whether he really had a dream, especially after he said DS is a spirit, which is a lie.
If you usually don't doubt His Holiness , then why would you doubt him now? What makes you so great and clever that you are able to distinguish whether the Dalai Lama "really had a dream" or what he said is really "a lie" as you have so boldly proclaimed?
Why do you not doubt him in everything else but you doubt him in this? If you doubt this, then you could doubt everything else he has said ... couldn't you? What makes you the judge of whether the Dalai Lama is telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be better to accept everything he says. Why would he lie to you anyway ? He has vows against that, d'oh!
He's obviously not telling the truth as he seems to have neglected much of history In favour to support his position.
-
If you usually don't doubt His Holiness , then why would you doubt him now? What makes you so great and clever that you are able to distinguish whether the Dalai Lama "really had a dream" or what he said is really "a lie" as you have so boldly proclaimed?
Why do you not doubt him in everything else but you doubt him in this? If you doubt this, then you could doubt everything else he has said ... couldn't you? What makes you the judge of whether the Dalai Lama is telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be better to accept everything he says. Why would he lie to you anyway ? He has vows against that, d'oh!
Dear Karla
I usually do not doubt HHDL because usually his teachings and claims are based on sound reasonings. However, his advices against DS are not based on sound reasonings:
• DS is not a spirit – After the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, one of his reincarnation is the form of DS. (I said one of the... because it is possible for enlightened being to have more than one incarnation at the same time). Since Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen himself was enlightened, it is just impossible that DS can degenerate into a spirit. It is just like saying that a state of degeneration from enlightenment is possible.
• The argument that the 5th Dalai Lama was against DS. After Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen passed away (he was murdered by the attendants of the 5th Dalai Lama), many calamities occured in Tibet. Many people were speculating that this was because Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen has emanated into an angry spirit. So there were many puja done to subdue this “spirit.” None of these pujas were successful. At the end, the 5th Dalai Lama acknowledged that DS is an enlightened protector. His acknowledgement was presented in the following prayers:
http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?page_id=341 (http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?page_id=341)
Thus, I cannot believe him when HHDL claimed that:
“Textual and historical research demonstrates that the spirit Dolgyal arose out of hostility to the great Fifth Dalai Lama and his government. 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.”
• All the pujas ordered by 14th Dalai Lama to subdue DS were not successful. If DS is a spirit, is it possible that all the pujas ordered by the 14th Dalai Lama and the previous Dalai Lamas to subdue him were not successful. Does it occur to you that DS cannot be subdued because he is an enlightened Buddha? Can it be that HHDL who is an enlightened Buddha cannot subdue a spirit? Please think outside the box here that the pujas were ordered to proof to us that DS is indeed enlightened and very powerful.
• Why I think the dream that Trijang Rinpoche is a lie? The previous Trijang Rinpoche gave DS practice to many students, HHDL was one of them. Why Trijang Rinpoche only gave advice to HHDL not to practice DS and he did not do so to other students. Did you see the inconsistency here?
The above you can see some of my reasons not to believe in HHDL claim on DS. Because they do not make sense. I do not claim I am great. But I just use logical reasoning to think about what HHDL said, not only believing in what he said. Only believing in what he said is just the same as blind faith. You know that HHDL encourages investigation and sound reasoning right? If you so admire him, you should implement his advice.
-
I would also like to add a few things to your statement(s)
Dear Karla
I usually do not doubt HHDL because usually his teachings and claims are based on sound reasonings. However, his advices against DS are not based on sound reasonings:
• DS is not a spirit – After the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, one of his reincarnation is the form of DS. (I said one of the... because it is possible for enlightened being to have more than one incarnation at the same time). Since Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen himself was enlightened, it is just impossible that DS can degenerate into a spirit. It is just like saying that a state of degeneration from enlightenment is possible.
If we check the line of incarnations of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, one of his incarnations is also the Sakya Pandita who was one of the 5 founding fathers of the Sakya tradition. If his susbsequent incarnation turns into a spirit, would that not invalidate the entire Sakya tradition? Also, Buton Rinpoche is also one of his incarnations and he compiled the Kangyur and Tengyur. If someone who did that can degenerate, would it also mean their work is bad as well? It would also mean that Buddhahood can be reversible. How can that be?
• The argument that the 5th Dalai Lama was against DS. After Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen passed away (he was murdered by the attendants of the 5th Dalai Lama), many calamities occured in Tibet. Many people were speculating that this was because Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen has emanated into an angry spirit. So there were many puja done to subdue this “spirit.” None of these pujas were successful. At the end, the 5th Dalai Lama acknowledged that DS is an enlightened protector. His acknowledgement was presented in the following prayers:
[url]http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?page_id=341[/url] ([url]http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?page_id=341[/url])
Thus, I cannot believe him when HHDL claimed that:
“Textual and historical research demonstrates that the spirit Dolgyal arose out of hostility to the great Fifth Dalai Lama and his government. 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.”
If it is true that HHDL is continuing the mindstream of the 5th Dalai Lama, coupled with this statement, it would only show and mean that the 5th Dalai Lama is jealous of TDG. Why else would the 5th Dalai Lama blame and make such statements? It sounds exactly like how people would blame and begrudge people that they do not like. If we want to believe that both beings are enlightened, then we could also see that they are giving us a live lesson on human relations.
• All the pujas ordered by 14th Dalai Lama to subdue DS were not successful. If DS is a spirit, is it possible that all the pujas ordered by the 14th Dalai Lama and the previous Dalai Lamas to subdue him were not successful. Does it occur to you that DS cannot be subdued because he is an enlightened Buddha? Can it be that HHDL who is an enlightened Buddha cannot subdue a spirit? Please think outside the box here that the pujas were ordered to proof to us that DS is indeed enlightened and very powerful.
And also by the 5th Dalai Lama. The 13th Dalai Lama could have just banned Dorje Shugden using a very hard line way, like the way he closed down the Jonang school during the 5th Dalai Lama's time, but whats odd is that he only mentioned but did not enforce. Maybe he's trying to send us a message with all the failed pujas and half-bans?
• Why I think the dream that Trijang Rinpoche is a lie? The previous Trijang Rinpoche gave DS practice to many students, HHDL was one of them. Why Trijang Rinpoche only gave advice to HHDL not to practice DS and he did not do so to other students. Did you see the inconsistency here?
I think you misunderstood here. The Dream was not Trijang Rinpoche gave advice to HHDL, it merely shows his approval for HHDL's decision to ban Dorje Shugden. If it is true, it would also mean that Trijang Rinpoche has the stage set a long time ago for the ban, for reasons that will benefit many at the cost of Dorje Shugden and his practitioners.
The above you can see some of my reasons not to believe in HHDL claim on DS. Because they do not make sense. I do not claim I am great. But I just use logical reasoning to think about what HHDL said, not only believing in what he said. Only believing in what he said is just the same as blind faith. You know that HHDL encourages investigation and sound reasoning right? If you so admire him, you should implement his advice.
Investigating something can take a very long time and it can take a lot of effort. It takes real passion to investigate something to the bone and be unbiased while at it. And that is what some of us in this forum have and we are carrying out Shakyamuni's and Dalai Lama's exhortation to investigate everything before believing :) so we are creating the causes for HHDL's long life by following his instructions!
-
Hmmm... I usually do not doubt HHDL except in the case of DS. It’s hard to say or trust whether he really had a dream, especially after he said DS is a spirit, which is a lie.
If you usually don't doubt His Holiness , then why would you doubt him now? What makes you so great and clever that you are able to distinguish whether the Dalai Lama "really had a dream" or what he said is really "a lie" as you have so boldly proclaimed?
Why do you not doubt him in everything else but you doubt him in this? If you doubt this, then you could doubt everything else he has said ... couldn't you? What makes you the judge of whether the Dalai Lama is telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be better to accept everything he says. Why would he lie to you anyway ? He has vows against that, d'oh!
Dear Karla... I think for myself I doubt what His Holiness says simply because all the evidence is not there and as michaela has clearly stated quite clearly the reasons... it is illogical based on the several events one of them is the puja by high Nyingma Lamas that were done on Dorje Shugden.
Firstly if Dorje Shugden was a demon then why was he not been subdue then? This actually shows us that either
1) He is more powerful then the Buddhas - how can this be. Thought Buddhas were Enlightened
2) The Nyingma Lamas are weak/inferior
3) Dorje Shugden is obviously not a demon hence cannot be subdued
There is doubt in what His Holiness says because He has mentioned that it is GOOD TO QUESTION before you accept any teachings/advice. In fact His Holiness is encouraging this and making it sound like 50 stanzas of guru devotion needs to even be rewritten. Hence there is not doubt, simply logical to question.
Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline. ~ HH The 14th Dalai Lama
http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2225.msg31365#msg31365 (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2225.msg31365#msg31365)
-
Investigating something can take a very long time and it can take a lot of effort. It takes real passion to investigate something to the bone and be unbiased while at it. And that is what some of us in this forum have and we are carrying out Shakyamuni's and Dalai Lama's exhortation to investigate everything before believing :) so we are creating the causes for HHDL's long life by following his instructions!
I like what you said Ensapa ;D. And Karla, if you do take time to investigate the matter at hand and not just choose to take side, your faith will be so much stronger in both HHDL and DS.
-
If you usually don't doubt His Holiness , then why would you doubt him now? What makes you so great and clever that you are able to distinguish whether the Dalai Lama "really had a dream" or what he said is really "a lie" as you have so boldly proclaimed?
Why do you not doubt him in everything else but you doubt him in this? If you doubt this, then you could doubt everything else he has said ... couldn't you? What makes you the judge of whether the Dalai Lama is telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be better to accept everything he says. Why would he lie to you anyway ? He has vows against that, d'oh!
It was HHDL who gave us permission to doubt him in some things that we find, dubious.
I am not someone who tries to claim that I should be counted amongst the ranks of the scholarly or accomplished beings. I do however feel that 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. I often reflect upon these words:
Vasubhandu, who had the welfare of beings at heart,
Due to his personal leaning,
Explained (the Prajnaparamita /Abhisamayalankara),
In terms of the internal (mental) existence of all things.
He who was counted amongst the ranks of the aryas,
And was known as "freedom'.
Seeing that what (Vasubhandu) had done was not how it should be,
He scrutinised with a "middle way" judgement.
Therefore, Arya Vimuktisena, whose teacher was Vasubhandu, saw that Vasubhandu's manner of explanation of the Abhisamayalankara had been more affected by his own personal bias towards a particular position than being a true reflection of the author's ultimate intent. He therefore composed a commentary refuting that view, displacing it with a Madhyamaka interpretation. Now was this a case of a corruption of the spiritual guide - disciple relationship on Arya Vimuktisena's part or of him showing disrespect for Vasubhandu? It was neither of these things.
So if HHDL has said that it's okay, you can respect your Guru in everything else but if he is weak in a certain subject or if we perceive that he has made a mistake, he just has make a mistake and there is nothing there is to it. It does not affect his faith. But seeing the circumstances HHDL has been through, it must have been very hard for him to keep a pure view of Reting Rinpoche amidst the allegations and "evidence' of his wrongdoings. HHDL has mentioned this in some of his biographies as Reting Rinpoche was extremely close to HHDL, almost like a father. How can any of us handle such instances? Perhaps, this methods is the way to handle cases where the Lama who is a highly qualified teacher actually manifests mistakes or weaknesses and we find it very hard to keep a pure view of him. For me there is no problem because my Lama is flawless in any way and the "mistakes" he makes are just a result of the jealousy of others and I will never, ever desert my Lama.
-
Investigating something can take a very long time and it can take a lot of effort. It takes real passion to investigate something to the bone and be unbiased while at it. And that is what some of us in this forum have and we are carrying out Shakyamuni's and Dalai Lama's exhortation to investigate everything before believing :) so we are creating the causes for HHDL's long life by following his instructions!
I like what you said Ensapa ;D. And Karla, if you do take time to investigate the matter at hand and not just choose to take side, your faith will be so much stronger in both HHDL and DS.
I too like what has been said here. In fact Michaela, you have hit the nail on the head here... end result is that our "faith will be so much stronger in BOTH HHDL AND DORJE SHUGDEN".
You should do everything your guru tells you to do, even if it seems strange, right? Wrong. According to His Holiness the Dalai Lama every student is responsible for checking the guru’s instructions against reason and Dharma. The rationalizations that many students tell themselves in the face of odd guru behaviours – "It must be a teaching" or "It’s crazy wisdom that you can’t question" or "It’s a test" - serve only to damage students who don’t understand that even powerful teachers have personalities that sometimes have blind spots and make mistakes. An interesting article below that highlights this topic clearly...
I have highlighted some key points that blows my mind!
Questioning the Advice of the Guru
- by H.H. the XIV. Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso
H.H. the Dalai Lama speaks strongly on this topic in this excerpt adapted from The Path to Enlightenment.
The offering of practice means always to live by the teachings of one’s guru. But what happens when the guru gives us advice that we do not wish to follow or that contradicts Dharma and reason? The yardstick must always be logical reasoning and Dharma reason. Any advice that contradicts these is to be rejected. This was said by Buddha himself. If one doubts the validity of what is being said, one should gently push the point and clear all doubts. This task becomes somewhat more sensitive in Highest Tantra, where total surrender to the guru is a prerequisite; but even here this surrender must be made only in a particular sense. If the guru points to the east and tells you to go west, there is little alternative for the student but to make a complaint. This should be done with respect and humility, however, for to show any negativity towards a teacher is not a noble way of repaying his or her kindness.
Perception of faults in the guru should not cause us to feel disrespect, for by demonstrating faults to us the guru is actually showing us what we should abandon. At least, this is the most useful attitude for us to take. An important point here is that the disciple must have a spirit of sincere inquiry and must have clear, rather than blind, devotion.
It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect. Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see written in the scriptures, Every action seen as perfect. However, this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own words: Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me. The problem with the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple. Therefore, whenever I teach this practice, I always advocate that the tradition of every action seen as perfect not be stressed. Should the guru manifest unDharmic qualities or give teachings contradicting Dharma, the instruction on seeing the spiritual master as perfect must give way to reason and Dharma wisdom.
Take myself, for example. Because many of the previous Dalai Lamas were great sages and I am said to be their reincarnation, and also because in this lifetime I give frequent religious discourses, many people place much faith in me, and in their guru yoga practice they visualize me as being a Buddha - I am also regarded by these people as their secular leader. Therefore, this teaching of every action seen as perfect can easily become poison for me in my relationship with my people and in my effective administration. I could think to myself, They all see me as a buddha, and therefore will accept anything I tell them. Too much faith and imputed purity of perception can quite easily turn things rotten. I always recommend that the teaching on seeing the guru’s actions as perfect should not be stressed in the lives of ordinary practitioners. It would be an unfortunate affair if the Buddhadharma, which is established by profound reasoning, were to have to take second place to it.
Perhaps you will think: The Dalai Lama has not read the Lam Rim scriptures. He does not know that there is no practice of Dharma without the guru. I am not being disrespectful of the Lam Rim teachings. A student of the spiritual path should rely upon a teacher and should meditate on that teacher’s kindness and good qualities; but the teaching on seeing his or her actions as perfect can only be applied within the context of the Dharma as a whole and the rational approach to knowledge that it advocates. As the teachings on seeing the guru’s actions as perfect is borrowed from Highest Tantra and appears in the Lam Rim mainly to prepare the trainee for tantric practice, beginners must treat it with caution. As for spiritual teachers, if they misrepresent this precept of guru yoga in order to take advantage of naive disciples, their actions are like pouring the liquid fires of hell directly into their stomachs.
The disciple must always keep reason and knowledge of Dharma as principal guidelines. Without this approach it is difficult to digest one’s Dharma experiences. Make a thorough examination before accepting someone as a guru, and even then follow that teacher within the conventions of reason as presented by Buddha. The teachings on seeing the guru’s actions as perfect should largely be left for the practice of Highest Tantra, wherein they take on a new meaning. One of the principal yogas in the tantric vehicle is to see the world as a mandala of great bliss and to see oneself and all others as Buddhas. Under these circumstances it becomes absurd to think that you and everyone else are Buddhas, but your guru is not!
Actually, the more respect one is given the more humble one should become, but sometimes this principle becomes reversed. A spiritual teacher must guard himself or herself carefully and should remember the words of Lama Drom Tonpa, Use respect shown to you as a cause for humility. This is the teacher’s responsibility. The student has the responsibility of using wisdom in his or her demonstration of faith and respect.
A problem is that we usually only observe those teachings that feed our delusions and ignore those that would overcome them. This leniency can easily lead to one’s downfall. This is why I say that the teaching on seeing all the guru’s actions as perfect can be a poison. Many sectarian problems in Tibet were born and nourished by it.
The First Dalai Lama wrote, The true spiritual master looks upon all living beings with thoughts of love and shows respect to teachers of all traditions alike. Such a one only harms delusion, the enemy within. The different traditions have arisen principally as branches of skillful methods for trainees of varying capacities. If we take an aspect of their teachings, such as the precept of all actions seen as perfect, and use it for sectarian purposes, how have we repaid the past masters for their kindness in giving and transmitting Dharma? Have we not disgraced them? If we misunderstand and mispractice their teachings, it will hardly please them. Similarly, it is meritorious for a lama to perform rituals or give initiations to benefit people, but if his or her motivation is only material benefit, that person would be better off going into business instead. Using the mask of Dharma to exploit people is a great harm.
We erect elaborate altars and make extensive pilgrimages, but better than these is to remember Buddha’s teachings: Never create any negative action; always create goodness; aim all practices at cultivating the mind. When our practice increases delusion, negativity and disturbed states of mind, we know that something is wrong.
It is sometimes said that a major cause of the decline of Buddhism in India eight hundred years ago was the practice of Vajrayana by unqualified people, and sectarianism caused by corruption within the Sangha. Anyone teaching Tibetan Buddhism should keep this in mind when they refer to the precept, every action of the guru is to be seen as perfect. This is an extremely dangerous teaching, particularly for beginners.
-
I appreciate what you guys are saying. Question and question the guru. That's fine.
But there are some things that you just can't question or find the answer yourself. So you still need to rely on a teacher for that. I mean, can you tell if Dorje Shugden is a spirit or not yourself? Have you even met him in person? Perceived him directly? I don't think so.
So what you are saying is derived from what you are reading or hearing or what your teachers told you.
So what makes one teacher more correct than another? Why are other teachers more correct than the Dalai Lama? you respect him and you believe him, but you don't believe this part that he says? How judgemental and presumptuous.
So now if one of your teachers tells you now that Shakyamuni is a demon but Dalai Lama says it is a very good practice (of course), then who would you listen to? Why listen to one advice sometimes, and not another advice another time?
-
I appreciate what you guys are saying. Question and question the guru. That's fine.
But there are some things that you just can't question or find the answer yourself. So you still need to rely on a teacher for that. I mean, can you tell if Dorje Shugden is a spirit or not yourself? Have you even met him in person? Perceived him directly? I don't think so.
Well dearie, there are lots of historical proof that he is not a spirit, and we can actually see him in actuality during trance sessions. From there we can actually see what is going on and observe for ourselves whether or not he is a spirit or an enlightened being, based on how the high lamas actually pay their respects to him instead of the other way round, and also from the Dharma talks that he gives during trance.
So what you are saying is derived from what you are reading or hearing or what your teachers told you.
So what makes one teacher more correct than another? Why are other teachers more correct than the Dalai Lama? you respect him and you believe him, but you don't believe this part that he says? How judgemental and presumptuous.
Our root Guru is more "correct" than the other Gurus, in retrospect. Why? because we have decided to take teachings from our root Guru, and have decided that this person has benefitted me the most in this life, which is why i take him or her as my root Guru. How can anyone else override the instructions of the root Gur if this is the case? If someone can, then the root Guru is no longer the root Guru and tantric percepts are breached.
So now if one of your teachers tells you now that Shakyamuni is a demon but Dalai Lama says it is a very good practice (of course), then who would you listen to? Why listen to one advice sometimes, and not another advice another time?
Guru devotion and samaya comes first before anything else. This is especially true if we have taken any sort of Tantric teachings or initiations. If the Guru is Buddha Vajradhara, whatever mistakes he makes is just the fault of our perceptions when he is actually pure in nature. That is AFTER we have checked him out that he complies with the 50 verses of Guru devotion and based on that, take this person as our teacher.
I love your reasonings and your style when you question. It is very intellectual. But unfortunately, my Guru is not the Dalai Lama and i dont think so I am qualified to be his student as I am too far away from him and I need lots of nurturing from my Guru in order to be able to learn and practice. And it is my root Guru who is kind enough to guide and nurture me through personally, not the Dalai Lama, so I will stick with my Guru all the way no matter what anyone says.
-
Great comments are given by contributors to this post. Very interesting to read why the Ban on Dorje Shugden should be lifted.
The main reason is that it makes no sense for the ban in any direction of a debate.