Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche speaks

[yontenjamyang]

So much truth in the worlds of His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.We should practice equanimity all the time and not just in studies and in our prayers. This ban is the best opportunity for us to practice equanimity. Just like in our refuge and boddhicitta visualization, we place our loved ones beside and behind us, our enemies in front and all sentient beings surrounding us, that is we placed the 3 poisons of attachments, anger and ignorance around us and visualize it receiving the same blessings and purifications from the merit field; we shall treat the pro and anti shudgen the same with love and compassion; what more the holy beings like the Dalai Lama and Trijang Rinpoche, we should not criticise.
With folded hands!

[eyesoftara]

We should work towards lifting the ban by highlighting the factual ie the atrocities and the ban on freedom of religion, supporting the holy Shar Gaden and Serpom Monateries, supporting the work of old and young Lamas like Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche, Yongyal Rinpoche, Gangchen Rinpoche etc, organisations like the NKT and this site; without disparaging anyone especially the Dalai Lama.
I know it is hard sometimes and with the NKT and ISC  going on a "no lie" campaign, it becomes more difficult to not disparage. For me, motivation is important and we need to be mindful of what we say or do all the time even if we have to take to the streets to lift the ban. This is really a Dharma retreat of sort.

[Blueupali]

I think I see this as what worked at the time; not to critizise the Dalai Lama back in 1967, if you were a monk trying to practice; two of the greatest masters I have ever known (and both of whom I have attended teachings from) are Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the currently Dharmakaya, recently passed from Nirmanakaya Shamar Rinpoche.  Both did what could be considered critizism of the Dalai Lama (though both are Buddhas, so maybe both are automatically exempt from anything they do being labeled as criticism).  However, I think different Buddhas have different activities and train their students in different ways; so I think both are teaching that it is okay, with pure motive, to speak against the Dalai Lama's actions.  It's not really criticism to say he isn't likely to be a Buddha either, just as that is not criticism of mother sentient beings generally, rather just an observation.
  I don't think we should make excuses to pretend that what Trijang Rinpoche, back in 1967 intended was for no one to talk ever against anything the Dalai Lama does.  I don't buy from younger western people that they really respect the Dalai Lama and do the Shugden practice; that doesn't seem likely, given how the Dalai Lama has spoken against the practice so vehemently.  I do buy that a lot of them wish they could get people to quit criticizing his 'holiness' for whom they have immense devotion (therefore I do not think they are really doing the Shugden practice, since he asked them not to).... but they like to find ways to get everyone to quit talking.

[Blueupali]

" 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."

 - Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's advice in Music Delighting The Ocean Of Protectors:, 1967

**************************

It is obvious here His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche wants us not to criticize Dalai Lama. If we can follow, practice and adhere to the practices as written in MUSIC DELIGHTING THE OCEAN OF PROTECTORS, then why be selective. Why only pick and choose what we wish to follow and or not believe. Everything composed in this text by the saintly Trijang Rinpoche must be respected otherwise we are saying Trijang Rinpoche is wrong. Same as what Dharamsala is saying about him. Dharamsala is saying he is wrong about Shugden being beneficial. We are saying Trijang Rinpoche is wrong about Dalai Lama. Either way, Trijang Rinpoche becomes wrong. If Trijang Rinpoche is wrong and we continue to disparage the Dalai Lama, then we are contradicting Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's advice to us. Then how will our practice bear fruit?

Mana


I think another thing to consider is that disparagement is necessarily impure, whereas asking the Dalai Lama to stop lying, or saying that he is lying (like Geshe Kelsang did) is with a pure motive of bodhichitta; therefore it is not really disparagement.  We need the Dorje Shugden practice for some of us (a lot of us) to become Buddhas; not everyone understands this, and it is not their business.  However, when the Dalai Lama says one thing to the west and enacts a ban he says isn't a ban etc., it's just a magical display of pure bodhichitta motives to tell him to stop lying.  The rest of the world doesn't understand our views anyway;holding peaceful demonstrations against someone who is not ACTING like a Buddha is fine; we are not disparaging him, just trying to help all living beings.
  Taking something Trijang Rinpoche said in 1967 as the unchanging way to behave, and suggesting that saying anything against the Dalai Lama is disparagement, to me is simply a way to silence people's voices; lamas may not generally say things against each other; this is to show a good example (the general one we should follow).  However, enlightened masters such as Geshe Kelsang Gyastso and Shamar Rinpoche have in the first case stated that the Dalai Lama was lying and in the second case told the Dalai Lama to stay out of the internal affairs of his school.  I don't see either as disparaging, but rather since they both have pure motives, as helping all living beings.
  If a person sees the Dalai Lama as a Buddha, that is fine, and sees him teaching in reverse, is fine, which to me means the person still acts normally, and tells him to stop lying.
  It seems a bit of a stretch to me to act as though we are not having faith in Trijang Rinpoche if we say anything against the Dalai Lama, but that the Dalai Lama has faith in Trijang Rinpoche after turning agaisnt him and disavowing the practice.  I think what Trijang Rinpoche said needs to be put in context of 1967; he is not making a general universal truth like .... cultivate compassion for all living beings.... he is giving specific advice for what was happening at the time.  Like if we ask a lama, should we cross that river over there, and he says yes, does that mean that 50 years later we need to cross that same river, or maybe we are on a different route, or maybe there is some reason why it would no longer be safe to cross that river.
  To me, trying to get people to think they have no faith in Trijang Rinpoche if they say anything against the actions of the Dalai Lama is a misunderstanding of dharma; saying something doesn't mean disparaging if the motive is pure.  Also, it doesn't really apply to some of us; since some of us never had faith in the Dalai Lama anyway. 

[Kim Hyun Jae]

The previous Trijang Rinpoche wrote the book Music Delighting The Ocean of Protectors, knowing in advance, the future the disputes of DS may bring to create discord amongst Buddhist. He pre-warn of the impending future of what may come and will happen.

He wrote "Dalai Lama and Shugden would be working together hand in hand to make Shugden's practice/Buddha Dharma simultaneously grow contrary to outer appearances. Trijang Rinpoche exhorted to not criticize Dalai Lama and not criticize Dorje Shugden when the obstacles arose."

I agree to take the middle way of not to criticize the works of the Dalai Lama and Shugden's for my view is of the common, and am unenlightened. All I hope to pray for is to bring down the ban without violence and hatred for the sake of Tibetans and practitioners alike.
   

[grandmapele]

Thank you for sharing this article. It's interesting how everyone forgot about this equanimity part of the equation and needs reminding. If we start disparaging the high Lamas, will we know when to stop? I doubt many of us are so attained that we know the subtle differences in concepts and teachings that we are able to say who is right or wrong. So, back to the drawing board - none of the 8 worldly concerns!

[Blueupali]

Again, I don't think pointing out that someone is lying is disparaging them, not when the motive is pure.
  So for example, it is Geshe Kelsang that said that the Dalai Lama is lying.  If we cannot take sides, are we to say Geshe-la is wrong?  By logic you might be saying we are?  But somehow or other it's fine if the Dalai Lama himself says whatever he wants.
  So for me, this is the problem of having been in the political position since the 5th Dalai Lama recognition to the present 14th one; these sorts of arguements where we take one line and say oh that guy is knowing the future so always we can never say anything against the Dalai Lama, but it is okay if the Dalai Lama says things against what Trijang Rinpoche said.... well, that is just a double standard based on politics.
  So, yes, Trijang Rinpoche knows the future, as in my opinion does Geshe Kelsang Gyastso.  I think it would make sense that sometimes lamas say things in a certain context, like of the time they said it, not as a universal truth that we must continue for generations to come.
  With the example I gave before of the river, we ask for instance, a Buddha emanation should we cross this river?
  He says yes, this river is good to cross, so we do.
  Then, years later, when he is in his next body, and while there are robbers etc. in front of the river, plowing on across the river, when maybe by then the conditions had changed, wouldn't make sense.  Yes, Trijang RInpoche is omniscient, but that doesn't mean he thinks we are. So, maybe we could cross the river for the next 30 years, or something, but then by the time I am worried about it in my next life, there is a bridge or a better route or we've left Tibet.... conditions change.   So, to do what he is saying at the time, back in the 1960s okay--- on an advise like that--- this trying to force people to follow one line a lama said when we (in many cases) weren't even born, and don't have full context of the situation doesn't really make a lot of sense.
  I think it is okay to tell the Dalai Lama to stop lying, because Geshe Kelsang says the Dalai Lama is lying, so for me he is showing right activity of acting normally to the Dalai Lama; we still live in the world; if the Dalai Lama were a Buddha, then why would it bother him if people did not see him as one?  Other Buddhas are not upset by this?  It is politics to say we need to always listen to what one guy says, and we can't say anything against him, and we will take things out of context by other high Rinpoches to shut people down so that they won't say anything against them.  It's an old political trick of the Gelugpa school since the time of the 5th, nothing more.

[christine V]

The reasons that Dalai Lama imposed on this ban is really unknown at this stage. Deep down, i still believe that Bodhisattva have their way to works things out. To get things done. Thus, as practitioner of Dorje Shugden. I truly believe we should not disparage Dalai Lama. But to understand this nature of ban, and to get to know more on Dorje Shugden.

[Manisha Kudo]

" 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."

 - Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's advice in Music Delighting The Ocean Of Protectors:, 1967

**************************

It is obvious here His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche wants us not to criticize Dalai Lama. If we can follow, practice and adhere to the practices as written in MUSIC DELIGHTING THE OCEAN OF PROTECTORS, then why be selective. Why only pick and choose what we wish to follow and or not believe. Everything composed in this text by the saintly Trijang Rinpoche must be respected otherwise we are saying Trijang Rinpoche is wrong. Same as what Dharamsala is saying about him. Dharamsala is saying he is wrong about Shugden being beneficial. We are saying Trijang Rinpoche is wrong about Dalai Lama. Either way, Trijang Rinpoche becomes wrong. If Trijang Rinpoche is wrong and we continue to disparage the Dalai Lama, then we are contradicting Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's advice to us. Then how will our practice bear fruit?

Mana

This is a good reminder of our motivation in the Dorje Shugden quest. Is it spiritual, dharmic or cathartic? If it is the latter, then, our fight to lift the ban comes from our selfish desires that are ruled by ignorance, anger and hatred. We will direct our inner turmoil against the Dalai Lama by finding faults in him, making him our enemies as forewarned by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche. But if we operate from a selfless stand, our words, actions and thoughts will have a penetrative effect in achieving a balanced outcome for all parties involved. Looking at the current state of affairs, something is still amiss.    Therefore, never forsake our Dharma practice at all times. 

[Blueupali]

This is a good reminder in those of who want to defend the Dalai Lama's every move with something that Trjiang RInpoche said in 1967; what is our motive in the Dorje Shugden quest?  Well, it seems an odd question, since Dorje Shugden practitioners have as their motive helping preserve the practice to help all living beings be free from suffering.
  It's like if someone wanted to take the Avalokiteshvara practice away, and said we were worshipping demons  (like a lot of Christains do about Buddhism generally); we need the practice of Avalokiteshvara, just like we need the practice of Dorje Shugden, to help all living beings.
  Regardless of what people have heard, there is nothing about harming anyone (including the physical/mental well being of the Dalai Lama or shortening his life).  It's not like we go around trying to inflict harm.
  but just because some people don't like a practice or don't understand what would motivate us to defend the practice, doesn't make the practice less valid.  If you would ask Fundamenalist Christains, or a lot of Christians, everybody but the Christians are going to hell (and they think it is forever) for even believing that Buddha Shakyamuni is good.  Then we have people who say oh well don't see the Buddha Dorje Shugden as a Buddha; and we have people who say, we will go to the lower realms for doing this practice, etc.  Look, if you see the Dalai Lama as a Buddha, then you get the blessings of the Buddha.  If you don't though, but you see someone else as a Buddha, then you still get the blessings of the BUddha.
  I don't think we should take Trijang Rinpoche's words in 1967 out of context of the time; also, he was primarily addressing an audience that was deeply encsonsed in the middle of monestaries; what he said at the time applied at the time.
  I know Geshe Kelsang Gyatso did not get bad karma by mentioning that the Dalai Lama was lying; just an observation from a Buddha, the other guy is lying (who knows if the Dalai Lama is a BUddha or not, okay, but either way Geshe-la's view would be perfect okay).  Also, I don't really understand how we would need such cautioning on our motives as devoted Shugden practitioners--- I am not sure why so many bloggers on this site take as an a priori truth that we all ever followed the Dalai Lama.  Or that we would believe him more than say.... Barack Obama, George Bush...?  He is a political leader; if you see him as a Buddha that is fine, but why should we be concerned with what others think of him?

[Matibhadra]

If we start disparaging the high Lamas, will we know when to stop?

Which ”high lamas”? The evil terrorist ”dalai”?

And then, if we start deifying evil terrorists, will we know when to stop?

[Blueupali]

If we start disparaging the high Lamas, will we know when to stop?

Which ”high lamas”? The evil terrorist ”dalai”?

And then, if we start deifying evil terrorists, will we know when to stop?

We aren't disparaging high lamas, just observing that they are sometimes doing inappropriate behavior.  Disparagment is really a different thing, based on negative emotions.  Saying for example we must have equanimity with the motive of making Dorje Shugden followers be silent and not question the Dalai Lama is not a pure motive.  Observing that something that is harming Buddhism and Buddhists in this modern era, now, rather than say 1967.... at any rate with a very pure motive, is different.
  Look, there is no a priori truth that the Dalai Lama is a Buddha, okay.  If he really were a Buddha, then actually there would be no reason for everyone to be policing whether we say anything against him or not--- in Buddhism we generally don't proseletize, because it can backfire and turn people away from the Buddha.  I wish people who liked a certain teacher (the DL is who) could remember that if they want people to like their lama that they should try being like.... non-dogmatic.... they are trying to force us to like this guy and see him as a Buddha.... well--- goodness.... I am not trying to force anyone to see Dorje Shugden, Barack Obama, Geshe Kelsang, either Karmapa, etc. as a Buddha but if you happen to find the Buddhas from that list and start praying to the ones that are, well that's good, and I'm saying mantras for that.  But if  I force you, then what good would that do?  In this regard I see the people who try to make me say this guy is a Buddha as actually causing the opposite to happen...

[Matibhadra]

We aren't disparaging high lamas,

Many criminals would feel disparaged, if compared with the evil dalai.

But as far as extremely evil criminals such as terrorists are concerned, they would not feel disparaged if compared with the evil dalai. Rather, they would feel proud of the company, as Shoko Asahara did.

[shugdenpromoter]

It is amazing that Trijang Rinpoche has already foresee this controversy in 1967. And it is also consistent that the current Trijang Rinpoche practices the same as what the previous incarnation did.

I wonder why CTA has not ban Trijang Rinpoche and his previous works. It is obvious that the current Trijang Rinpoche still practices Shugden. In fact, with the current "method" Rinpoche is using, it is obvious that the practice is growing. Why so selective? Even with the previous physical harm they have sent to hurt Trijang Rinpoche's students, why is CTA so underground about this when it comes to anything related to Trijang Rinpoche. It is because they have no way to hide the TRUTH! Or is it because by openly criticising Trijang Rinpoche consistently will make HH looks like a joke cause Trijang Rinpoche was after all the tutor to HH.