dorjeshugden.com
About Dorje Shugden => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mana on March 25, 2011, 05:18:14 AM
-
They worked together in England to spread the dharma decades ago. Both hail from Sera Je Monastery.
-
Those were the good old days. Even teachers have their differences, preferences and approaches. If they had stayed together they would have been the biggest force in Tibetan Buddhism today after the Dalai Lama. Would have been an incredible sight. I wonder what was the differences that made them separate? It must be approach in their dissemination style of Buddhism? It could not be about mundane issues such as money, or power. I highly doubt it.
Both men are movers and shakers of modern Buddhism, if they joined forces and stayed together continuing the practice of Dorje Shugden, it would have been even more powerful.
Would Lama Yeshe continued practicing Dorje Shugden or caved into the browbeating and given up if he was still with us? What do you think?
-
Those were the good old days. Even teachers have their differences, preferences and approaches. If they had stayed together they would have been the biggest force in Tibetan Buddhism today after the Dalai Lama. Would have been an incredible sight. I wonder what was the differences that made them separate? It must be approach in their dissemination style of Buddhism? It could not be about mundane issues such as money, or power. I highly doubt it.
It was all about control of what was then the FPMT centre Manjushri Institute:
http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/good-night-lama-the-blackmail-tape/
[quote} Would Lama Yeshe continued practicing Dorje Shugden or caved into the browbeating and given up if he was still with us? What do you think?
[/quote]
Impossible to say for sure but I doubt it as he was100% devoted to HHDL. I think he would have followed the advice of his teacher and given up the practice. This is what all of his of his friends from Sera Je did and there's no reason to suppose he would do otherwise.
-
Those were the good old days. Even teachers have their differences, preferences and approaches. If they had stayed together they would have been the biggest force in Tibetan Buddhism today after the Dalai Lama. Would have been an incredible sight. I wonder what was the differences that made them separate? It must be approach in their dissemination style of Buddhism? It could not be about mundane issues such as money, or power. I highly doubt it.
It was all about control of what was then the FPMT centre Manjushri Institute:
[url]http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/good-night-lama-the-blackmail-tape/[/url]
Would Lama Yeshe continued practicing Dorje Shugden or caved into the browbeating and given up if he was still with us? What do you think?
Impossible to say for sure but I doubt it as he was100% devoted to HHDL. I think he would have followed the advice of his teacher and given up the practice. This is what all of his of his friends from Sera Je did and there's no reason to suppose he would do otherwise.
-
Those were the good old days. Even teachers have their differences, preferences and approaches. If they had stayed together they would have been the biggest force in Tibetan Buddhism today after the Dalai Lama. Would have been an incredible sight. I wonder what was the differences that made them separate? It must be approach in their dissemination style of Buddhism? It could not be about mundane issues such as money, or power. I highly doubt it.
It was all about control of what was then the FPMT centre Manjushri Institute:
It would have been spectacular if both these great men could have seen eye to eye and combined forces.
Back then it was FPMT and it was control? Control as in Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang wanted to control the direction of the FPMT? Or control of what?
-
The main issue back then was that the FPMT, having set up Manjushri Institute, wanted to liquidate it to fund other projects, much against the wishes of the actual community themselves. Geshe Kelsang became involved because the community approached him and asked what they should do. Finally, the community decided that they wanted to separate from the FPMT but to keep Lama Yeshe as their Spiritual Director, but things didn't really work out.
You can read the whole (accurate) story here:
http://www.newkadampatruth.org/geshe-kelsang-gyatso/#Smear: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso stole Manjushri Institute from the FPMT
-
I would think that Lama Yeshe would have followed his Gurus, HH Trijang Rinpoche and Geshe Rabten Rinpoche, and kept his practice rather than the Dalai Lama's instruction since the Dalai Lama was not directly Lama Yeshe's guru.
Lama Yeshe doesn't strike me as someone who would keep to convention!
-
What interesting thoughts and questions.
Such a beautiful photo too to see such harmony.
I don't believe it would be altogether total disharmony if they were both still around. I don't believe real lamas like these two great masters would never have stooped to the level of what is happening now, saying the things that are being said.
We believe that these teachers are enlightened and attained, and therefore have clairvoyance. Then surely these supposed conflicts and differences would be just so petty to them! Buddhas wouldn't argue over a Dharma centre would they? Wouldn't these two great masters know each others' true intentions on a much higher level?
Whatever the perceived differences, these are now two of the largest Buddhist organisations throughout the world - do you think this would have been as possible and as huge if they had "stayed together"? Another interesting question to ponder.
-
Smear: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso stole Manjushri Institute from the FPMT
Unfortunately for those who were around at the time and involved with establishing the centre this is exactly what happened. Subsequent accounts are a bit economical with the truth but people are free to believe whatever they like.
-
Back then it was FPMT and it was control? Control as in Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang wanted to control the direction of the FPMT? Or control of what?
Lama Yeshe established Manjushri Institute and invited Geshe Kelsang to come as a teacher. After a while GK and his students took over the Institute and forced the FPMT to hand over control.
-
Believe what you want:
http://www.newkadampatruth.org/smear-geshe-kelsang-gyatso-stole-manjushri-institute-from-the-fpmt (http://www.newkadampatruth.org/smear-geshe-kelsang-gyatso-stole-manjushri-institute-from-the-fpmt)
Geshe Kelsang was the first Resident Teacher at Manjushri Institute. He later accepted Lama Yeshe’s request for him to step down and had made plans to return to India and then to live at Madhyamaka Centre (which Geshe Kelsang founded independent of the FPMT) in York. However, the community at Manjushri all petitioned him to stay.
The community of Manjushri Institute wished to save their building, Conishead Priory, from being sold to make funds available for suspect business dealings in Hong Kong. This meant they needed to separate from the FPMT. On the other hand, they wished Lama Yeshe to stay as their Spiritual Director. After continual discussions on how to solve the problem, also involving two representatives from the Dalai Lama, the Institute’s managers – then called the ‘Priory Group’ – decided to take steps to separate Manjushri Institute from FPMT.
There were three main reasons for doing this:
1) FPMT managers had committed serious illegal actions, which was public knowledge among many people at Dharma centres;
2) FPMT managers wanted to sell Manjushri Institute’s building; and
3) Although, according to its constitution, legally everything at the centre belonged only to four people, in reality all the work of developing the centre was being done by the community, and not these four.
Eventually, a legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives. One part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre.
The whole detailed history of Manjushri Institute over these years has been chronicled by three reliable witnesses who were part of the proceedings.
and:
.....Then at London Manjushri Centre there were two days of meetings (13th - 14th February 1984) with the Dalai Lama’s two representatives, Peter Kedge and Harvey Horrocks as FPMT representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group, and two Manjushri community representatives. At the beginning there was no progress, but when the Priory Groupexplained about the possibility of legal action bringing to light the FPMT’s involvement in illegal activities (including drug-smuggling), the FPMT’s representatives accepted the separation. With the Dalai Lama’s representatives, both sides reached a peaceful agreement to formulate a new constitution such that Manjushri Institute would be owned publicly. A legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives.
Another part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre. The community did not want to separate from Lama Yeshe, only to separate from FPMT.
-
Thoughts:
1. If Lama Yeshe invited Geshe Kelsang, wouldn't it be impolite for Geshe Kelsang to try to take over Manjushri or counter Lama Yeshe's wishes? After all Lama invited Geshe to his centre in the first place. Is it not wrong for Manjushri students to petition a guest lama to stay over your founding lama's instructions?
2. If the students petitioned Geshe to stay in the centre, shouldn't Geshe advise them to listen to Lama Yeshe their spiritual director and founder of the centre?
3. What proof is there that Lama Yeshe's group was having suspect dealings in Hong Kong? This is what one side claims is it not?
4. What actual proof is there that FPMT managers engaged in illegal dealings? What were the illegal dealings?
Lama Yeshe was brilliant. Geshe Kelsang is brilliant. Can these two brilliant teachers have engaged in actions that are described above. If either parties tell their side, it will swing to their own teachers would it not?
Why would Lama Yeshe allow illegal dealings in Hong Kong and then try to sell Manjushri building to fund it? Why would Geshe Kelsang even consider a petition for him to stay when the centre and it's people do not 'belong' to him? If he wanted to start a new centre, he should not take anyone from Manjushri with him at all to respect Lama Yeshe as their teacher? If Lama Yeshe engaged in illegal dealings, then the whole foundation of FPMT falls flat. No one gains attainments?
I wish so much both teachers remained friends, close and worked together. The impact is too great.
-
Back then it was FPMT and it was control? Control as in Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang wanted to control the direction of the FPMT? Or control of what?
Lama Yeshe established Manjushri Institute and invited Geshe Kelsang to come as a teacher. After a while GK and his students took over the Institute and forced the FPMT to hand over control.
I am not debating with you but where did you hear a valid recount GK took over the institute and forced FPMT to hand it over? If that is true, lots of respect for GK would be lost everywhere. Where do you get your information from? It sounds murky?
-
If you wish to view Geshe Kelsang and Lama Yeshe as brilliant teachers but still ordinary beings, then the fallout and negative circumstances are possible. And it did occur.
If you wish to view them as attained beings, then there was no fallout but a play of magical karmic illusions to subdue the mind and purify the circumstances so their works can grow massive.
(The viewer could or could not be attained is added into the equation of course)
The combinations of the above two are endless.
It depends who you are and what view you choose?
-
Believe what you want:
At the beginning there was no progress, but when the Priory Group explained about the possibility of legal action bringing to light the FPMT’s involvement in illegal activities (including drug-smuggling), the FPMT’s representatives accepted the separation. With the Dalai Lama’s representatives, both sides reached a peaceful agreement to formulate a new constitution such that Manjushri Institute would be owned publicly. A legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives.
Another part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre. The community did not want to separate from Lama Yeshe, only to separate from FPMT.
Re the explanation about the potential legal action (highlighted in blue above), personally i feel it was a blackmailing threat. Whether it is true or not, any legal action would bring disrepute to an organisation, so i would imagine that Lama Yeshe - thinking of the bigger picture (woo hoo yes he has a bigger picture too), probably decided to acquiesce to the separation. Why else would any teacher wish to separate from his own centre if not for the greater good?
I don't understand this point though: "Another part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre. The community did not want to separate from Lama Yeshe, only to separate from FPMT."
Lama Yeshe founded FPMT so he IS FPMT. He is the spiritual director of FPMT. It's like saying one of the NKT centres wants to separate from NKT but not Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
If they wanted Lama Yeshe to remain the Spiritual Director but they did not wish to listen to him, why ask him to stay as Spiritual Director. Doesn't make sense to me.
I do like Mana's perspective on the issue though."If you wish to view them as attained beings, then there was no fallout but a play of magical karmic illusions to subdue the mind and purify the circumstances so their works can grow massive."
Anything is possible and I dare not think that whatever my deluded mind thinks is the truth.
-
I don't understand this point though: "Another part of the agreement was to confirm that Lama Yeshe was the Spiritual Director of Manjushri Centre. The community did not want to separate from Lama Yeshe, only to separate from FPMT."
Lama Yeshe founded FPMT so he IS FPMT. He is the spiritual director of FPMT. It's like saying one of the NKT centres wants to separate from NKT but not Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
If they wanted Lama Yeshe to remain the Spiritual Director but they did not wish to listen to him, why ask him to stay as Spiritual Director. Doesn't make sense to me.
This says to me that they regarded FPMT and Lama Yeshe as different. They didn't agree with the management of the tradition, which was being strongly influenced by Peter Kedge, but they wanted to follow the teachings. They wanted to secure their future as a spiritual community so that they would be free to follow the teachings.
The right thing for FPMT to have done, IMHO, would be to put to the community the reasons for selling the building and then let them choose. Neither of these things were done, as far as I can see. There didn't appear to a spiritual reason for disbanding the community and selling their building, I'm not surprised they didn't accept it.
I saw a picture recently of the FPMT management commitee, and Peter Kedge is still there, so obviously both Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa trust him: http://bit.ly/eAbDmm
-
If you wish to view Geshe Kelsang and Lama Yeshe as brilliant teachers but still ordinary beings, then the fallout and negative circumstances are possible. And it did occur.
If you wish to view them as attained beings, then there was no fallout but a play of magical karmic illusions to subdue the mind and purify the circumstances so their works can grow massive.
(The viewer could or could not be attained is added into the equation of course)
The combinations of the above two are endless.
It depends who you are and what view you choose?
I am with Mana on this point. Even wrote something along the same lines as Mana did in the DS FB link.
I do believe that our Lamas and Gurus take on much more than just teaching us Dharma. And I sincerely believe that our Lamas and Guru will do whatever that is necessary to purify our collective or individual karma or negative circumstances for their Dharma work to really grow.
As it is with a single person, the accumulated karma over beginningless time is already bad enough. Imagine the collective karma of various individuals in a centre or spiritual organization - how much more purification would be needed to make the Dharma to really grow and benefit more people?
Since reading up on HH Trijang Dorje Chang's bio, I firmly believe that highly attained teachers shoulder so much burden in the name of Dharma. And they do that and more because the whole point is to make Dharma grow and help as many people as possible. It never about the money, power or fame. They are all beyond that.
It is all about how they can bring the Dharma to the masses out there.
Btw, WB - I am also inclined to agree with you - I don't believe Lama Yeshe is anything conventional. In fact, Lama Yeshe is so well adored and remembered because he is anything but conventional. He strikes me as someone who will stick to his faith and practice no matter.
-
This says to me that they regarded FPMT and Lama Yeshe as different. They didn't agree with the management of the tradition, which was being strongly influenced by Peter Kedge, but they wanted to follow the teachings.
It is sad to hear this but from my own experiences and seeing the experiences of fellow Dharma friends in other centres, this actually does happen more commonly than we think. I have heard several cases of people kicking out their resident teachers or laypeople trying to assume control of a centre. Ironic and perhaps a little tragic that they do this because they think they are defending or helping the Dharma in this way and "following the teachings" as you say.
Actually, they are just splitting up a spiritual community - schism - what part of the teachings encourage THAT? I have never understood how someone can be happy to see the division of a spiritual community and feel pleased about a separation.
-
I think the question to ask is how a student of both Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang would have / should have reacted to this? This is a common dilemma - both are your teachers, so whoever you choose to follow (either to stay and kick one out, or to leave with the one who is being kicked out), you betray one of your teachers.
(sounds like a familiar dilemma? DS/ Lamas/ Dalai Lama...?!)
I have to say I would not know how to act in this situation and I don't know how to answer this. Any thoughts?
-
It is sad to hear this but from my own experiences and seeing the experiences of fellow Dharma friends in other centres, this actually does happen more commonly than we think. I have heard several cases of people kicking out their resident teachers or laypeople trying to assume control of a centre. Ironic and perhaps a little tragic that they do this because they think they are defending or helping the Dharma in this way and "following the teachings" as you say.
Actually, they are just splitting up a spiritual community - schism - what part of the teachings encourage THAT? I have never understood how someone can be happy to see the division of a spiritual community and feel pleased about a separation.
It seems to me that, at that time, the FPMT were not following the Dharma - they had a different view and intention. What one always has to do is try to be true to the Dharma. Harming others is not Dharma. If they really were involved in some nefarious activities to fund the growth of the tradition, that would be wrong. The Dharma says "cherish others" and selling someone's home without even asking them doesn't seem to be cherishing others, whatever your reasons. Sometimes there are good reasons to separate from a spiritual community (if, for example, they become spiritually degenerate). I don't think it's the case that everyone should just accept the views of one person, especially if those views lead to non-Dharma, so for what it's worth, I believe this separation was very necessary as it has been necessary to separate from the Dalai Lama for similar reasons.
-
If you wish to view Geshe Kelsang and Lama Yeshe as brilliant teachers but still ordinary beings, then the fallout and negative circumstances are possible. And it did occur.
If you wish to view them as attained beings, then there was no fallout but a play of magical karmic illusions to subdue the mind and purify the circumstances so their works can grow massive.
I have read all that was said by everyone. I concur with what Mana has said. If we believe that both Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang are attained beings, we will trust that their actions even if perceived as seemingly negative is for the benefit of the big picture and for the growth of Buddhism in the west. I think it would be difficult for us to guess their intentions at the point of time when the event happened as it would be beyond our ordinary understanding. (ie why would two attained beings if we truly believe they are have a fallout).
However, if we look at how NKT and FPMT has grown and brought Buddhism to so many people all around the world since then, we can conclude that both Geshe Kelsang and Lama Yeshe did what they did with pure intentions. Otherwise, their Dharma protector, Dorje Shugden would never allow that to happen. Dorje Shugden will never support the growth of a Tsongkapa lineage organisation if the motivation of it's spiritual leader is for anything else except the spread of pure Dharma.
-
Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang never met up again or were seen in public since their split right up until Lama Yeshe's death. The bottom line is they did split.
During those difficult times, Peter Kedge and the FPMT group consulted Lama Yeshe on everything. They wouldn't simply make moves without Lama's knowing. Those days Lama Yeshe and FPMT were not very big. Lama Yeshe had control of everything. Everything must be approved of by Lama. People blame Peter Kedge and his people for being the causes of the split. Obviously Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa did not believe Peter was to blame as he is still with FPMT. Now if those people back then are saying it is Peter Kedge's fault, then they are opposing Lama Yeshe, their original teacher. Obviously from Lama Yeshe's actions he does not believe Peter was at fault. Voting to take away a centre whether it will close or not just seems opposing to the founding dharma teacher.
If you are teacher A and you invite B. B the guest teacher wants to break away because A is doing things with the centre B doesn't like. Should B influence A's group and separate? Should B convince A's group to separate at all? Or the thing to do is B completely leaves, starts his own centre taking nothing from A's place including ppl. Not threatening A to court, but let A do as he likes with his own centre. If A's is doing negative things, it is his centre. And also encouraging the ppl to remain with A as they have made a dharmic teacher-student relationship already. I am not concluding but writing out thoughts. What does everyone think?
(Afterthought-Some ppl view Geshe Kelsang as a ordinary person who makes mistakes and organized the protests. Some ppl view him as a Buddha that cannot make mistakes. Either way he has brought Buddhism to many and he has recieved much criticism and paid a heavy price for his strong stance on being loyal to his gurus and practice. For this you must admire the man.)
-
Geshe Kelsang, Lama Yeshe and Geshe Jampa Tekchok..in the beginning...
-
Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang never met up again or were seen in public since their split right up until Lama Yeshe's death. The bottom line is they did split.
During those difficult times, Peter Kedge and the FPMT group consulted Lama Yeshe on everything. They wouldn't simply make moves without Lama's knowing. Those days Lama Yeshe and FPMT were not very big. Lama Yeshe had control of everything. Everything must be approved of by Lama. People blame Peter Kedge and his people for being the causes of the split. Obviously Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa did not believe Peter was to blame as he is still with FPMT. Now if those people back then are saying it is Peter Kedge's fault, then they are opposing Lama Yeshe, their original teacher. Obviously from Lama Yeshe's actions he does not believe Peter was at fault. Voting to take away a centre whether it will close or not just seems opposing to the founding dharma teacher.
I don't know much about protocol but for me, it is simply that if Lama Yeshe was my Guru, I would have to trust everything he says and follow his instructions, regardless of whether I understand what his instructions are. If I was to follow certain instructions and not others, it shows that I don't truly respect him. All that I have read on Guru Devotion says that I have to follow all the way. If I think that Lama Yeshe as my Guru can be wrong over something, then he can be wrong over other things. So how can I do the practices my Guru was to give me yet I do not agree in how he wants to run the Dharma centre. Whether Lama Yeshe wants to dissolve the centre or not would be his holy prerogative. That's my humble view.
If you are teacher A and you invite B. B the guest teacher wants to break away because A is doing things with the centre B doesn't like. Should B influence A's group and separate? Should B convince A's group to separate at all? Or the thing to do is B completely leaves, starts his own centre taking nothing from A's place including ppl. Not threatening A to court, but let A do as he likes with his own centre. If A's is doing negative things, it is his centre. And also encouraging the ppl to remain with A as they have made a dharmic teacher-student relationship already. I am not concluding but writing out thoughts. What does everyone think?
(Afterthought-Some ppl view Geshe Kelsang as a ordinary person who makes mistakes and organized the protests. Some ppl view him as a Buddha that cannot make mistakes. Either way he has brought Buddhism to many and he has recieved much criticism and paid a heavy price for his strong stance on being loyal to his gurus and practice. For this you must admire the man.)
My personal view is that I think that it is not ethical for teacher B to break away with teacher A's students. Again, that's my humble opinion. For a student to threaten a Guru (any Guru for that matter, let alone MY Guru) with legal action contravenes every concept I have about Guru Devotion.
Again, as I have stated elsewhere, I do respect what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has achieved in building up the NKT organisation worldwide. I do believe that Dorje Shugden is the reason behind NKT's growth and i have nothing to say against Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
-
I don't know much about protocol but for me, it is simply that if Lama Yeshe was my Guru, I would have to trust everything he says and follow his instructions, regardless of whether I understand what his instructions are. If I was to follow certain instructions and not others, it shows that I don't truly respect him. All that I have read on Guru Devotion says that I have to follow all the way.
This way of thinking shows how the Dalai Lama has been able to encourage people to perform non-Dharma actions such as destroying statues of Dorje Shugden and ostracising his followers - blind devotion without questioning whether the actions are correct or not. Regardless of your view of a Teacher, the ultimate arbiter of what is appropriate is the Dharma, and if person goes against the Dharma, you cannot do what they request. We must use our wisdom and act appropriately, in accordance with convention.
If your Guru asked you to murder someone, would you do it? Blindly doing what a Guru says is not Guru devotion and is not Dharma.
My personal view is that I think that it is not ethical for teacher B to break away with teacher A's students. Again, that's my humble opinion. For a student to threaten a Guru (any Guru for that matter, let alone MY Guru) with legal action contravenes every concept I have about Guru Devotion.
Again, as I have stated elsewhere, I do respect what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has achieved in building up the NKT organisation worldwide. I do believe that Dorje Shugden is the reason behind NKT's growth and i have nothing to say against Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
If a Teacher is performing non-virtuous actions, and legal action will remedy the situation, then of course it's right to take legal action. No doubt you disagree with Kundeling Rinpoche did in taking the Dalai Lama to court, but what he did was perfectly right and appropriate for the situation.
On the matter of 'Teacher B breaking away with Teacher A's students', this is not what happened at all. The residential community of Manjushri Institute decided, following a democratic vote, to break away from the FPMT because, under FPMT, the community had no future anyway. They still expressed their wish for Lama Yeshe to be their Spiritual Director so no one was leaving Lama Yeshe.
-
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Guru Devotion. From many places i have read, such as this article below, the student is supposed to see their Guru as the Buddha himself. Buddha himself said that if we think of him as a Buddha, we will receive the blessings of a Buddha and if we think if him as an ordinary man, we will receive the blessings of an ordinary man.
I highlighted the part in red below to draw attention to the concept of if one's Guru acts in a seemingly incorrect form.
Are you saying Guru Devotion is wrong or can be selective?
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=373
From the Introduction of Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey's short commentary on the Fifty Verses:
The Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion [Skt: Gurupancashika; Tib: Lama Nga-chu-pa] was written in about the first century B.C. by Ashvagosha. This Indian poet was known by many names—such as Aryashura, Matriceta, Patriceta, Matichitra, and Bhavideva—and was a contemporary of King Kaniska of the Kusan Dynasty. Having previously been a strong non-Buddhist believer, he became an extremely devout follower of the Buddha’s path and wrote many works on its various aspects.
Shakyamuni Buddha lived about four centuries before Ashvagosha. He taught sutras dealing with meditative practices for attaining liberation and enlightenment and, in the form of Buddha Vajradhara, tantras covering speedier but more dangerous methods for achieving this latter goal.
Success in following either the sutra or the tantra path to enlightenment depends solely upon your guru devotion, as Lord Buddha indicated in the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarikasutra) and in the Kyedor Shägyü Dorje’i G’ur, an explanatory work to the Hevajra tantra, where he stated that in future times of degeneration he would take the form of gurus and therefore, at such times, gurus should be as respected as buddhas because they are their living representatives.
Guru devotion involves both thought and action. The most important thing is to develop the total conviction that your guru is a buddha—this is a prerequisite for receiving any insight. Whether you are aiming to attain liberation in order to benefit mainly yourself or reach the perfected state of a fully enlightened buddha in order to enlighten all others, your guru can show you the way only if he himself has already gained these achievements. If you doubt your guru’s competence and ability to guide you, your practices will be extremely unstable and you will be unable to make any concrete progress. You must have full confidence that it is possible to become enlightened, that your guru is living proof of this, and that by following the Buddha’s teachings as your guru instructs, you can achieve the same. Only then will it be possible for you to gain any real benefit from your practices.
Seeing only good qualities in your guru, therefore, is the way to develop these qualities yourself. Normally most people are blind to their own shortcomings, while the faults of others shine out clearly. But if you did not possess these same faults yourself, you would be unable to recognize them in others. If there are two pieces of fruit, one ripe and one rotten, and the person next to you takes the ripe one, it is only because of your own greed that you accuse him of being greedy and selfish. If you were unattached to the fruit, it would not matter to you which one he took—you would simply see him as having taken a piece of fruit.
Likewise, if you can train yourself to see only good qualities and never any faults in your guru, this positive outlook will come to pervade, amplify and reflect your own state of mind. As we all have buddha nature within us—the clear, uncontaminated state of pure mind established without any true independent existence—seeing our guru as a buddha gives us the possibility of activating and realizing our own buddha nature. Seeing only our guru’s faults merely reinforces our own shortcomings and negative attitudes; seeing only his perfection enables us to attain the perfection of buddhahood ourselves. Therefore, one of the main practices of guru yoga, particularly in tantra, is to realize the inseparability of our own mind with our guru, the buddhas and our meditation deity, which is a pure manifestation of the enlightened mind. Thus, guru devotion is the root of all attainments.
If your guru acts in a seemingly unenlightened manner and you feel it would be hypocritical to think him a buddha, you should remember that your own opinions are unreliable and the apparent faults you see may be simply a reflection of your own deluded state of mind. Also, you should think that if your guru acted in a completely perfect manner, he would be inaccessible and you would be unable to relate to him. It is therefore out of your guru’s great compassion that he may show apparent flaws. This is part of his skillful means in order for him to be able to teach you; he is mirroring your own faults. Therefore, check within and learn from him how to remove your shortcomings. If you are only intent on criticizing your guru, he will never be able to benefit you.
It was Buddha Vajradhara himself who said that your guru is to be seen as a buddha. Therefore, if you have faith and take refuge in the Buddhist teachings, you will try to understand what Vajradhara meant by this.
Buddhas exert a great positive influence on the world in the same way that the sun does. But just as a magnifying glass is needed to focus the rays of the sun in order for tinder to catch fire, so too is a guru required to focus the buddhas’ virtuous conduct into your mind-stream to inspire you to follow the path. Thus, as living examples representing the buddhas, gurus carry on the work of all the enlightened beings, acting as an accessible focal point for your practices so that you can gain buddhahood yourself.
Through devotion to your guru, showing him respect and making offerings, you accumulate the merit necessary to attain liberation from all suffering. Such service is done not to benefit your guru but for your own sake. When you plant seeds in a field, it is not to benefit the earth—you’re the one who harvests the crops. Therefore, with the proper devotional attitude towards your guru—seeing him as a buddha—the more positive energy you exert in his direction, the closer you come to buddhahood yourself. Likewise, if you hate your guru and generate negative energy towards him, you are deliberately distancing yourself from his enlightened state and freedom from pain. As a result you bring intense suffering upon yourself. Therefore, if you see faults in your guru and tend to belittle him, remember that your opinions are unreliable and that only unhappiness can result from despising the states of happiness he represents.
Remembering your guru’s kindness to teach you during this degenerate age after Shakyamuni Buddha has passed away, you must develop loving respect for him. He teaches you despite your delusions and does not force you to undergo the hardships that many disciples had to endure in the past. He gives you initiations and oral teachings and transmits the unbroken lineages that come from the Buddha himself. He inspires you to attain his state and helps you materially when you need it. Without loving respect for your guru you will never become enlightened; if you don’t respect the state of buddhahood he represents, how can you hope to attain it?
The various aspects of devoting yourself to your guru by means of thought have been taught extensively in such texts as the Gandavyuha Sutra and their scriptural references are detailed in Je Tsongkhapa’s Lam-rim Chen-mo.
Ashvagosha’s Fifty Verses is the most comprehensive summary of devoting yourself to your guru by means of action. Its scriptural sources are a wide range of tantric texts, including the Guhyasamaja, Kalachakra, Chakrasamvara, Vajradakini, and Vajrahridayalamkara tantras. The specific tantric sources for each verse are given in Lama Tsongkhapa’s Fulfillment of All Hopes, his commentary on this text.
As important as guru devotion is for practitioners of sutra, it is even more essential and more emphasized in the study and practice of tantra . This is because tantric techniques are extremely difficult and complicated. If practiced correctly, they can bring you buddhahood within your lifetime, but if not, they can be very dangerous and bring you extremely dire consequences. Therefore, the direct personal guidance of a guru is indispensable.
Since the Fifty Verses outlines specifically how disciples should act with their guru, it is customarily taught before a tantric initiation is given. Once a guru-disciple relationship has been established, disciples are taught guru devotion and the common path of renunciation, bodhicitta, and correct view of emptiness. Then, after receiving the proper initiations, they can be led gradually through the stages of tantra on the firm foundation of guru devotion and the three principal aspects of the path.
-
If your Guru asked you to murder someone, would you do it? Blindly doing what a Guru says is not Guru devotion and is not Dharma.
.....
If a Teacher is performing non-virtuous actions, and legal action will remedy the situation, then of course it's right to take legal action. No doubt you disagree with Kundeling Rinpoche did in taking the Dalai Lama to court, but what he did was perfectly right and appropriate for the situation.
This is why it is always so important to thoroughly check a teacher before you take someone as your teacher. A real teacher would never ask you to do something that would truly you or others harm. Once you take someone as your teacher, it is with the faith and the complete understanding that he can take you all the way to enlightenment, so you follow his instruction, even if you might not understand it at the time. Something helpful is to check the results of all the things that your lama has asked you to do - you will find that it is always beneficial, so when you come up against something that you don't understand now, you contemplate: has your lama ever done anything to harm you? If not, then why would he be hurting you now? Or is there a reason for what he is asking you to do?
-
This is why it is always so important to thoroughly check a teacher before you take someone as your teacher. A real teacher would never ask you to do something that would truly you or others harm.
I totally agree, but the possibility is left open for the Guru to ask something that is against the Dharma. As it says in 50 Verses of Guru Devotion:
(24) (Disciples) having great sense should obey the words of their guru joyfully and with
enthusiasm. If you lack the knowledge or ability (to do what he says), explain in
(polite) words why you cannot (comply).
This verse says that highly intelligent disciples should listen to the words, or orders, of their guru with great pleasure, or bliss; they should hear whatever he has to say with much enthusiasm and perseverance. Whenever your guru speaks, listen with pleasure. If you can do what he asks, if you can act in accordance with his words, you should accept, but if it’s too hard, then explain your difficulty politely. Don’t ignore what he’s asking, but tell him intelligently why you can’t do it. If your guru tells you to do something that you feel goes against your three types of morality, you can avoid doing it, but explain intelligently and unemotionally why.
One of the Jataka Tales is about a previous life of Guru Shakyamuni when he was born as a Brahmin disciple. The Brahmin teacher told his disciples to go out and steal for him. His logic was that since the universe was made by Brahma, if, as sons of Brahma, Brahmins take things, it’s no more stealing than if a son takes things belonging to his father—since they are his own possessions, he’s not stealing. However, the disciple who was the previous life of Buddha didn’t go. His teacher said, “You don’t seem to like me.” Guru Shakyamuni replied, “Theft is at no time religious,” and intelligently explained many ways in which stealing wasn’t good. Later he became one of this guru’s best disciples. Intelligence is always stressed as one of the very best qualities a disciple can have.
As I said, the Dharma is the arbiter of what should be done and what should not be done.
I do think it's possible to rely upon a Teacher who is not qualified and to be taken advantage of - to be led into non-virtuous actions.. Tsem Tulku says that this happened to many people in the past and I wonder if it is still happening to some.
-
LineageHolder,
I do think it's possible to rely upon a Teacher who is not qualified and to be taken advantage of - to be led into non-virtuous actions.. Tsem Tulku says that this happened to many people in the past and I wonder if it is still happening to some.
Of course it is possible to rely on a teacher who is not qualified, which is why Beggar said that we must check a teacher out first to make sure he IS qualified. For example, we should check to make sure the teacher comes from an authentic spiritual lineage and that this spiritual lineage is recognised and unbroken - better even if it's traceable back to Shakyamuni Buddha. In the Vajrayana tradition, I understand that a qualified spiritual teacher is the most important because from him or her, all attainments will arise.
As there are so many Mahasiddhas who manifest in the most unlikely forms, I guess there will always be people who challenge if they are qualified and in the end whether the teacher is qualified or not will be reflected in the consistency of the teacher's character and the results of his life achievements. For example, Lama Yeshe's life achievements are to be greatly admired.
-
There has been some discussion about the possible motives regarding what happened at Manjushri Institute. As I was not there I don't feel in any position to comment, although knowing some of the people who were part of the so called, "Priory Group" I can say that they are some of the most gentle and humble people I know; people who I could not possibly attribute any malicious motivations to, if you met them you would also know how silly and out of proportion some of the speculations on this matter are.
Anyway, in Geshe Kelsang's web discussions back in 1997 he discussed this point a little, I quote both the question and the answer, it seems very clear from Geshe-la's answer that there was no disagreement between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang regarding the main purpose of their lives, to be Qualified Spiritual Guides:
Question: By the way, didn't you get to the position you have today through the kindness of the late Lama Yeshe and the FMPT? Trying to criticize Kopan Monastery and Je Lama Zopa is a strange way to repay that isn't it?
Answer from Geshe Kelsang: I have already said that I never criticise these other Lamas. Instead of this I have great sympathy for them because they have had to stop their daily practice of Dorje Shugden, which is their commitment. They have no choice about this. Day and night I pray how wonderful it would be if these Lamas could have religious freedom. Because we all are disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche, these Lamas are my vajra brothers, we have the same spiritual father. The main reason why I have involved myself in this debate, and why I am telling the truth about the Dalai Lama, is in the hope that his mind will change and he will give these Lamas and other practitioners the freedom to worship in the way they wish. It is my choice to help in this way.
Do you know what was Lama Yeshe’s intention in organizing Dharma Centres in the west and inviting Tibetan teachers? It seems that you do not understand this. His intention was to spread Buddhadharma throughout western countries, and with this intention he invited me to come to Manjushri Institute in England. He then requested HH Trijang Rinpoche to ask me to come to England. Finally, at Trijang Rinpoche’s request I accepted this invitation. I arrived in England in 1977 and since that time I have worked very hard to spread Buddhadharma and can show very good results. In this way I have fulfilled Lama Yeshe’s wishes. Your comment makes no sense, so I think you need to improve your understanding about Lama Yeshe's main intention.
-
Two other things may also be helpful to mention. The first is that after Conishead priory became independent from the FPMT Lama Zopa taught several times (the last in1989) at Manjushri Institute. The second is that Lama Yeshe's photo remained by the teaching throne in the original Gompa until it was refurbished inthe year 2000.
I think both these points also illustrate that separating from the (young and quite different) organisation that the FPMT was then and splitting from Lama Yeshe were not the same thing.
Also we talk now from a position where FPMT and Dharma groups in general are well established and understood. I'm not sure it makes sense to judge actions towards these groups then by the standards and meaning we understand today.
-
I have not lost respect for both these teachers, but as humans everyone makes errors. What is important are not the errors but their hard work, dedication and sincere efforts towards bringing Dharma to so many. Obviously they both do this tirelessly.
Lama Yeshe was one of the most instrumental teachers bringing dharma to outside Tibetans and so kindly bringing Geshe Kelsang to the world stage. We owe so much to Lama Yeshe. We owe so much to these great teachers who spend their lives for others. They of course are not the only ones, there are many other teachers doing the same. We should respect them all and their individual contributions. We are on the same side after all.
-
I have not had the privilege to receive the dharma directly from any of these two great lama. But just as you've said, these two lamas's works and names have gone worldwide.
-
Thoughts:
1. If Lama Yeshe invited Geshe Kelsang, wouldn't it be impolite for Geshe Kelsang to try to take over Manjushri or counter Lama Yeshe's wishes? After all Lama invited Geshe to his centre in the first place. Is it not wrong for Manjushri students to petition a guest lama to stay over your founding lama's instructions?
2. If the students petitioned Geshe to stay in the centre, shouldn't Geshe advise them to listen to Lama Yeshe their spiritual director and founder of the centre?
3. What proof is there that Lama Yeshe's group was having suspect dealings in Hong Kong? This is what one side claims is it not?
4. What actual proof is there that FPMT managers engaged in illegal dealings? What were the illegal dealings?
Lama Yeshe was brilliant. Geshe Kelsang is brilliant. Can these two brilliant teachers have engaged in actions that are described above. If either parties tell their side, it will swing to their own teachers would it not?
Why would Lama Yeshe allow illegal dealings in Hong Kong and then try to sell Manjushri building to fund it? Why would Geshe Kelsang even consider a petition for him to stay when the centre and it's people do not 'belong' to him? If he wanted to start a new centre, he should not take anyone from Manjushri with him at all to respect Lama Yeshe as their teacher? If Lama Yeshe engaged in illegal dealings, then the whole foundation of FPMT falls flat. No one gains attainments?
I wish so much both teachers remained friends, close and worked together. The impact is too great.
It is sad to see so much internal fighting, differences in opinions when all what Lama Yeshe wanted and even Geshe Kelsang (I am sure), was to spread the buddha's teachings to as many as possible.
The Manifestation of the split in the community in Manjushri Center, in my humble opinion, is a mirroring effect of the minds of the students then.
Right or wrong, for better or for worse, it had happened. But I hope this episode in Manjushri center serves a great reminder to all Dharma centers in the world that, we as students should adopt a one lama and one center policy. If we have chosen to take refuge in a lama after checking the teacher out, we should follow him ALL THE WAY.
This is to avoid issues such as greed, jealously, different style of management or even to the way the teachings is disseminated from different lamas. Our minds, at our level and particularly at this time and age, are hard to be tamed. We sometimes find it hard just to follow one lama's instruction, not to mention, different lamas.
Thus, my opinion is to .........stick to one lama, one center.
-
Good and well thought out posts here.
Mana
-
The growth, rise or demise of any centre is a reflection of the students AND NOT the teachers. I firmly believe that.
So, whatever changes that were going on reflect what was happening within the students' collective mind and karma.
I believe that both of Gurus are Enlightened Beings - Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang. These Gurus will do what is best for Dharma to establish in that place or centre.
As Dharma takes priority, Gurus will know what to do best for the students and what's most beneficial from the Dharma's standpoint.
In any case, look at how both of the organizations have grown over the years. The benefit these two organizations bring to others, by making Dharma accessible to those around them is undeniable.
-
The growth is there, but also nice to understand the beginnings. They are great masters and also human beings that made mistakes as well as spectacular decisions.
Both their mistakes and their decisions brought them to where they are today. Their past is neither good nor bad, but just history. All is like a illusional play in a theatre.
Ultimately, whatever we want to perceive as good or bad will always be subjective in the greater sense of the word.
-
Triessa I cannot agree with you more. It also appears that Lama Yeshe unfortunately have some very ungrateful students who decided to jump ship just cause they were not happy with someone...
If this was the attitude with a teacher we've taken refuge in, then imagine the attitude we would have with other people, with our Dharma practice? It is like saying this practice is not working for me so I'm going to switch. People like this would destroy tantra and they also create a trend that it is okay to swap Guru's like changing your socks!
That it is completely okay to take refuge and then be disloyal to one's guru. If you really cannot follow your lama and wish to part, then you apologize and part quietly. Not like this, where you take votes and ask your Lama to hand over his center to another. It is not only so bad in terms of Guru Devotion practice, on a worldly sense people would she it as completely unethical, quite a huge betrayal or stab in the back!
Yes this is clearly a reflection of the students mind and I can now understand why Lama Yeshe the current incarnation, Lama Osel cannot return to teach his students in Fpmt. It is the group karma of so many broken samayas, un-repaired from the students side that will prevent them and future students from their Lama and the teachings.
Now Lama Osel needs to find other skillful methods to spread the Dharma...hence he is learning to film! Can't wait for him to produce his 1st movie!
-
The growth is there, but also nice to understand the beginnings. They are great masters and also human beings that made mistakes as well as spectacular decisions.
Both their mistakes and their decisions brought them to where they are today. Their past is neither good nor bad, but just history. All is like a illusional play in a theatre.
Ultimately, whatever we want to perceive as good or bad will always be subjective in the greater sense of the word.
As they both are great highly attained masters, even if they made "mistakes" they had managed to transform them into the path and made their respective centres grow.
We can't be sure that all the decisions/actions taken will always be correct , what I learned is how to turn "mistakes" into positive force with a virtuous motivation.
-
Breaking away because the directors are involved in illegal activities, dealing drugs in buddhist centers is not a negative action. Wanting to protect the reputation of Buddhism is not a negative action. Geshe Kelsang thought he had no choice but to seperate from FPMT , still wanted to remain with Lama Yeshe, but not with a drug dealing organisation.
Quote:"Then at London Manjushri Centre there were two days of meetings (13th - 14th February 1984) with the Dalai Lama’s two representatives, Peter Kedge and Harvey Horrocks as FPMT representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group, and two Manjushri community representatives. At the beginning there was no progress, but when the Priory Group explained about the possibility of legal action bringing to light the FPMT’s involvement in illegal activities (including drug-smuggling), the FPMT’s representatives accepted the separation. With the Dalai Lama’s representatives, both sides reached a peaceful agreement to formulate a new constitution such that Manjushri Institute would be owned publicly. A legally binding agreement was made, which was signed by the FPMT’s representatives, Geshe Kelsang, the Priory Group and the community representatives."
And yes, there is proof, safely locked away. And no, it will not be outed to satisfy the curiosity of a few. I believe Geshe Kelsang already saw the potential for growth of Kadampa Buddhism in the West and saw the seperation from the FPMT as a step in the right direction.
Vajra
-
No need to be more curious than what is already clearly explained.
There are people who would just keep digging and making it (seemingly like) their life's only ambition to expose something or another about a lama, or an organization. When they do not obsessively, it is clear to see that they are not doing it for the sake of Dharma or for the benefit of anyone. They are just doing it to create schism and gossip. It's all about achieving some self-glorification moment in history or something to that effect. LAME.
Anyone with half a brain can see right through it all. If some people don't see it, then it is clear that they are also more interested in gossiping and not learning the Dharma. Forget about practising!
Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are both highly attained Lamas. They are in total control of what they are doing or want to achieve.
I do not need to trouble my little to even doubt or speculate on their actions and motives. THESE TWO GREAT MASTERS will never compromise the Dharma for anything or anyone else.
-
I too wish very much that these great lamas are all working together for the same cause instead of being split. Perhaps they are, but just accomplishing it through different methods. Some spreading the dharma via "agreeing with HHDL's way" while others spreading the dharma via "going against HHDL's way"
What I'm going to say is going to sound like a treason if I was a Tibetan in Tibet...
This ban has split monasteries, organisations, friendships between vajra brothers, families, lay practitioners. What have we gotten in upholding this ban?
- We got Tibet back? No
- HHDL's life shorten? No. He's well and may he continue to live long
- Ordained and lay people have religious freedom in India? No. It is India who is giving protection and resources
I see no outward, mundane benefit for this ban.
However, I see tenacity, commitment, passion, strong faith from Dorje Shugden practitioners all over the world.
The more we be in harmony, support each other, not criticize any lama, the more Dorje Shugden practice will be made known.
Talking about results, some beings are able to bring about positive and beneficial outcomes eventhough the method seems questionable and doesn't jive with what we think dharmic actions should be.
Well, best to hold our horses and watch our own actions IF it brings about the results or is it all about our own ego.
-
I think you will find the other side would respond by saying that so long as there are even a small amount of people practising reliance upon Dorje shugden then tibet will never be free.
-
I think you will find the other side would respond by saying that so long as there are even a small amount of people practising reliance upon Dorje shugden then tibet will never be free.
That's exactly why Dorje Shugden has to be the bad guy (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=599.0).
I will repost it here because I still find it as fascinating and logical as I did the first time I read it:
1. Dorje Shugden acts in the Bodhisattva manner accepting criticisms, hate campaigns and the 'destruction' of his practice. Why? Because it serves a bigger purpose for the overall survival of Buddhism in the world for the future. Why? It is easier to resurrect or do a Lazarus on Dorje Shugden in the future when the smoke clears, than it would be for the Dalai lama. The Dalai lama is a man and controlled by media, opinions, ppl, circumstances. But Dorje Shugden is a formless entity that can 'rise' above all of that very quickly when the time is right.
2. Whenever Dorje Shugden takes trance in any of the oracles, he never criticizes the Dalai Lama and in fact tells the audience to always withhold criticism towards Dalai Lama. He can say nothing about the Dalai Lama and just keep quiet. Dorje Shugden is well known to not answer questions that has little meaning, insignificant, or unacceptable to the listener. When questions are presented to him through the oracle, he often skips through questions that should not be answered at this time or has no meaning.
3.All the the destruction happening against him, he never makes comments, speaks against nor advices undharmic actions. Because it can all be fully reversed in a short time when the time is right.
4. Temporarily Dorje Shugden will accept the name AS THE CAUSE FOR THE LOSS OF TIBET, OR THE CAUSE WHY TIBET CANNOT BE REGAINED BACK, but in the end truth will arise. Dorje Shugden will reveal the true plot which Trijang Rinpoche already hinted at in the late 70's. ( I fold my hands to Trijang Rinpoche and prostrate my full body to Him. I offer my head as a stepping block for his feet. I truly have confidence in this great being. )
5. Dorje Shugden is strong enough to carry such a burden. Dorje Shugden practitioners are resilient enough to not abandon his practice during this crisis. Both Dorje Shugden and his true followers will not abandon each other no matter what is said and done temporarily at this time. Both can carry the burden. I personally do not dislike, hate the Dalai Lama but have confidence in him and my own sacred protector Dorje Shugden. I choose to believe and take refuge in Trijang Rinpoche's prophecy. The other two options of hating Dalai lama and abandoning Dorje Shugden are not open to me nor would I choose any of the two options.
6. Why would Dalai Lama act, talk and promote so many contradictory actions that makes himself look unstable. Unless it was on purpose. I believe that truly. He is not stupid.
7. If Kache Marpo has 'destroyed' lamas/people/practitioners in the past for breaking the samaya or polluting the yellow hat teachings, then why is Samdhong Rinpoche, Kashag, Kalons, Ministers, Kunga Tara, and even the Dalai Lama himself are spared? Unless there is a much bigger soup brewing.
8. Nechung is the one who requested Dulzin Drakpa Gyeltsen to arise as a uncommon Protector to protect Nagarjuna's view as embodied within Lama Tsongkapa's lineage only 350 years ago. Why would the same Nechung be talking the opposite. Unless there was a larger plan between Dorje Shugden, Dalai lama and Nechung. Seems like a hopeful fantasy? Well to many more, the idea of a dharma protector or Dorje Shugden themselves are fantasies made up by the Tibetan Lamas.
9.If Dorje Shugden is so powerful (which he is), why doesn't he do something to stop all this. Perhaps it is not time to 'stop' all this yet. In fact, Dorje Shugden is putting his followers through 'hell and back' (excuse me) and we have to just take it. Yes we will 'take' it. There has to be a much bigger game plan. Dorje Shugden takes the blame, Dalai lama works hard to make the Buddha Dharma grow while all the elite lamas and teachers are young.
Those who take refuge in Dalai lama and Dorje Shugden will not give up on both. Strongholds for the growth of Buddhadharma and the 're-arisal' of Dorje Shugden in the near future. If Dalai lama is so powerful (which he is), why doesn't he just do a binding ritual or fire puja himself and rid the planet/samsara of this horrible demented being called Jamgon Gyelway Tensung Gyelpo Dorje Shugden. And then stop spending so much time, money, heartaches, energy, resources to keep going against Dorje Shugden???!!! Just get rid of him ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE END. Because the Dalai Lama cannot destroy a being who has actualized the complete path of Guhyasamaja in both completion/generation stages or in other words a Buddha. Dalai lama cannot destroy Buddha Dorje Shugden who is one with Guhyasamaja and the 32 deities of his mandala are the same 32 deities as in Guhyasamaja's entourage.
So for the bigger purpose, the Dalai Lama has TO PUT THE BLAME OF ALL THE ILLS OF TIBET'S MISFORTUNE ONTO DORJE SHUGDEN WHO IS STRONG ENOUGH TO SHOULDER THIS. Dorje Shugden plays the bad guy for now. If it is blamed onto the Dalai Lama, it would spoil his reputation to spread dharma on the global scale which is what he is doing now. Planting seeds of dharma on the global scale, ripe for the young lamas to take over later as well as Dorje Shugden. The ills of Tibet are not Dalai lama or Dorje Shugden's fault, but the Tibetan peoples' own fault. But for most of the world , karma is not accepted, so the blame would go to the leader which is the Dalai lama. We couldn't afford that at this time when no one else can spread Buddhism like the Dalai lama. Think through this carefully to come to terms with the pain in your heart.I do not blame you for the pain. You are not at fault. You are part of a bigger plan. I've had many pains in my heart that I have come to terms with and some still working on because of this issue. We are all part of a bigger plan. Sounds cliche, but it is true and easier to get through the storm with this way of thinking.
10. If Dalai lama loses his reputation because he is the 'cause' for the loss of Tibet, then it would stain his reputation greatly and that would hinder to say the least, his promotion of the BuddhaDharma around the world. No lama of any tradition can match the skills, the persona, the knowledge, the title, and the charisma of Dalai lama to spread Buddhism so far and wide around the world.
11. Why can't the Tibetan Govt and various Monasteries destroy Dorje Shugden through binding rituals? Because they have tried and it shows the power of Dorje Shugden purposely. Hence to keep this power in mind, when later ppl will remember this power when they re-adopt Dorje Shugden's practice later. To leave a mark in people's minds that DORJE SHUGDEN CANNOT BE DEFEATED OR DESTROYED.
12. Why is Trijang Rinpoche allowed to practice Dorje Shugden if it harms the cause of Tibet and brings danger to the Dalai lama's life? Because it leaves a mark for the future, to bring up the point that Dorje Shugden does not hinder Tibet or Dalai Lama. These are small traces of hints left by the Dalai Lama for the SURVIVAL OF DORJE SHUGDEN. Someone has to take the blame. That is samsara.
13. Why does Dorje Shugden himself 'SIT ON THE FENCE?' Meaning, he says on one hand to respect and follow what the Dalai Lama says, but on the other hand, he told the Shar Gaden Monks that if their motivation for opening Shar Gaden was for the growth and preservation of the lineage, then it will be auspicious in the future. Doesn't that look contradictory. C'mon, which one is it Dorje Shugden? Clear it for us. So if we were to follow what the Dalai Lama says, why open Shar Gaden and Serpom Monastery? If we were to follow what Dorje Shugden says, then why be on this forum as he says to respect the Dalai lama always.
Should we open Shar Gaden which 'opposes' the Dalai Lama or should we listen to the Dalai lama and abandon Dorje Shugden's practice? Even the great Dorje Shugden sounds contradictory.
Why does Dorje Shugden continuously take trance and give advice even to those who do not give their allegiance up to Dalai lama while practicing Dorje Shugden at the same time? Doesn't that damage the samaya of the individual with Dorje Shugden or with the lama who initiated them into Dorje Shugden's practice? Whichever way you look at it, you damage the samaya with your guru or protector.
Zong Rinpoche (previous), Dagom Rinpoche, Yongyal Rinpoche,Geshe Tendar, current Trijang Rinpoche, current Zong Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, current Pabongka, Gonsar Rinpoche, the oracle monks, Gangchen Rinpoche, Lama Yeshe, Geshe Tsultrim Gyeltsen, etc etc all took teachings from the 14th Dalai Lama, let's not forget, at once time or another. So if we have taken teachings from the above lamas, then 14th Dalai lama is also our lineage lama which we must respect. Logical?
Since we say the Dalai lama must respect our lineage lamas such as Pabongka, then we must also reverse the situation and respect the Dalai lama as our lineage lama. So either way, the system is set up for you to 'lose'. If that is the case, there must be a MUCH BIGGER PICTURE that current infractions with our lineage lamas can be repaired later FOR THE BIGGER PICTURE.
After all with or without the Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden current state affairs, we were doing a great job collecting negative karma, breaking commitments, and generally creating the causes for our personal samsaras to remain intact and strong on our own.
It is not the Dalai lama or Dorje Shugden to blame. Nor are they adding to it. We were in Samsara before the Dalai lama's name and Shugden even 'existed' as we know them today.
Yes the Dalai lama does look like he contradicts himself always. But so does Dorje Shugden. This AGAIN LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THEY ARE COOKING UP SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER OR IT'S NEARLY COOKED.
Yes, it is nearly cooked.
It is best to have respect for the Dalai lama and keep our practices towards Dorje Shugden steady. Whatever the case, if we go to Dalai lama's camp or we go to Dorje Shugden's camp, we go against lineage lamas. So best is to keep an equilibrium by thinking things out logically, following the law of cause and effect, engage in our practices to develop attainments within our continuum. With the great attainment we win freedom totally and no disrespect intended, but we won't need Dalai Lama, Buddha, Dorje Shugden or anyone. And that is their original intention.
I have stated my thoughts at this time and I SINCERELY HOPE THIS WILL BRING PEACE/UNDERSTANDING TO THE MANY PRACTITIONERS THAT VISIT THIS GREAT WEBSITE. With my thoughts, I wish to offend no one, or be right. It is just my attempt to think and reason things out at this time when no many other options are available. Again, I will NEVER GIVE UP MY DORJE SHUGDEN COMMITMENTS AND TO THE LAMAS WHO GAVE ME THE PRACTICES. Nor will I demean and hate His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I will not hate those against Dorje Shugden and forgive them.
Much success to all,
Tk
-
Furthermore, the 14th Dalai Lama is not Geshe Kelsang's teacher and Geshe Kelsang has never received empowerments from him. The Sera Expulsion letter claims:
He (Geshe Kelsang) had received the fifth Dalai Lama's Lamrim Jampel Shalung at the Norbu Linka summer palace and the Kalachakra Initiation in 1956 from H.H.The Dalai Lama which incidently was the first Kalachakra.
This is incorrect. From an interview with Geshe Kelsang on 24th November 1996:
Q: In this letter [the Expulsion Letter] it says that you received the Lamrim Jampel Shal-lung at the Norbu Linka summer palace in Tibet and the Kalachakra Initiation in 1956 from HH the Dalai Lama. Did you receive these?
GKG:" I never received the Lamrim Jampel Shal-lung from HH. I don't know where they got their information from. I don't know why the people of Sera-Je Tsangpa Khangtsen are saying this. I believe they think they are telling the truth, because they are Buddhist monks. Of course it is true that HH gave these Lamrim teachings at the Norbu Linka summer palace, but at that time I was unaware of this.
When HH was about to give the Kalachakra Initiation in Lhasa, I tried to join this teaching but unfortunately there were no places left, it was full. For a short while I waited with some lay people, and then I returned home. So I never received the Kalachakra Initiation from HH.
Later, in India I was in Dalhousie, near Dharamsala, in the mountains doing long retreat. One day, I heard the news from my assistant that HH was giving a teaching on the Great Exposition of the Stages of Tantra by Je Tsongkhapa. I decided to attend these teachings and left for Dharamsala. Again, I became very sick and was unable to attend. Later, when I was in Manjushri Buddhist Centre, England, we requested HH to visit, but he could not come. It seems that I have no karma to listen to HH's Dharma teachings. Of course, in the past I have attended some of his general public talks, but that is different. Just because I attended these talks we cannot say that he is my root Guru."
Therefore for those in the NKT the Dalai Lama is not a lineage Lama.
vajra
-
There has been some discussion about the possible motives regarding what happened at Manjushri Institute. As I was not there I don't feel in any position to comment, although knowing some of the people who were part of the so called, "Priory Group" I can say that they are some of the most gentle and humble people I know; people who I could not possibly attribute any malicious motivations to, if you met them you would also know how silly and out of proportion some of the speculations on this matter are.
I have also read about what happened to the Manjushri institute as the Goodnight, Lama tapes: [url]http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/good-night-lama-the-blackmail-tape/[/url] ([url]http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/good-night-lama-the-blackmail-tape/[/url]) to me, that letter did not feel malicious, although some people would like to see it as that way. GKG had to protect his rights to something and people want to make it sound controversial. I have heard many good things about NKT people, but since they are a huge organization, it is only fair that there is also a number of people who think that they are bad. I find that a lot of people tend to take this point to criticize NKT but it is not fair at all. It's like saying that all Catholics are pedophiles because one or two priests are.
Anyway, in Geshe Kelsang's web discussions back in 1997 he discussed this point a little, I quote both the question and the answer, it seems very clear from Geshe-la's answer that there was no disagreement between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang regarding the main purpose of their lives, to be Qualified Spiritual Guides:
Question: By the way, didn't you get to the position you have today through the kindness of the late Lama Yeshe and the FMPT? Trying to criticize Kopan Monastery and Je Lama Zopa is a strange way to repay that isn't it?
Answer from Geshe Kelsang: I have already said that I never criticise these other Lamas. Instead of this I have great sympathy for them because they have had to stop their daily practice of Dorje Shugden, which is their commitment. They have no choice about this. Day and night I pray how wonderful it would be if these Lamas could have religious freedom. Because we all are disciples of HH Trijang Rinpoche, these Lamas are my vajra brothers, we have the same spiritual father. The main reason why I have involved myself in this debate, and why I am telling the truth about the Dalai Lama, is in the hope that his mind will change and he will give these Lamas and other practitioners the freedom to worship in the way they wish. It is my choice to help in this way.
There is no proof that Geshe Keslang is going against Lama Yeshe or Lama Zopa in any way. It is pretty easy tho for people to think that he is because sometimes, people need some excitement in their lives. I have never heard of any NKT members criticize Lama Yeshe, Lama Zopa or FPMT in any way, but I have heard many FPMT members criticizing NKT and Geshe Keslang many times. One thing great is that Geshe Keslang is doing something for the interest of Dorje Shugden at the risk of his own reputation and this to me is a great offering to Dorje Shugden himself.
Do you know what was Lama Yeshe’s intention in organizing Dharma Centres in the west and inviting Tibetan teachers? It seems that you do not understand this. His intention was to spread Buddhadharma throughout western countries, and with this intention he invited me to come to Manjushri Institute in England. He then requested HH Trijang Rinpoche to ask me to come to England. Finally, at Trijang Rinpoche’s request I accepted this invitation. I arrived in England in 1977 and since that time I have worked very hard to spread Buddhadharma and can show very good results. In this way I have fulfilled Lama Yeshe’s wishes. Your comment makes no sense, so I think you need to improve your understanding about Lama Yeshe's main intention.
Even Lama Yeshe's own students know not of his intentions, so i dont blame anyone for misunderstanding Lama Yeshe and Geshe Keslang, but I do like the way Geshe Keslang handled the accusations. It felt that he was calm and did not panic throughout the whole interview and he answered and explained everything calmly and well.
Thank you for posting this interview snippet up or else we will never know what really happened. As everyone knows, facts and letters can be doctored or altered to make someone look bad on purpose and by not hearing the other side of the story, we would have developed wrong view against Geshe Keslang on this matter. The website I linked above has every intention of making sure that happens.