Author Topic: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’  (Read 14074 times)

Blueupali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • Email
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2014, 12:41:41 AM »
At DharmaSpace,
  Okay, that's okay if you like the Dalai Lama.  I disagree that he is bringing the dharma alive for me, or that I owe him a lot as a Buddhist, other than incredibly good lojong practicum, just like all our other mother living beings.
  All he has done is divide; it's not that western audiences are more critical; it's that we are allowed to say something, because we aren't under his and CTA's oppressive political thumb over here the way the Tibetans are.  I can't really say, oh gosh he's so wonderful when he is trying to destroy Dorje SHugden and deciding he can tell us who the Karmapa is (and he backed China for that).  There is nothing good or honest about him, and I certainly didn't find his talk anywhere near as wowing (I was not slightly impressed) as I found the real Karmapa's (the one he doesn't like) Shamar RInpoche's, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, etc.  He says everyone is a demon but what has he got to offer us except politics?
  Look, I have no problem if you or others wish to take him as your guru, as far as that is your own personal choice.  I would do nothing to obstruct you from going to a teaching; however, I do not feel it is equitable to say that I have to respect him as a guru, when I never took him as one.  Also, even if a person makes a mistake about a guru, if they find a real one later, then they can purify and follow the path.  A reliable guru helps us a lot, a false guru doesn't, but in the end, it is that we want to become Buddhas to help everyone else become Buddhas, so basically we have to become Buddhas.  If you like DL, that is okay for you.  But I object that I have to pretend like he is my guru, other than in the way that all mother living beings are our guru.  Different people have different gurus, but not everyone has to take the Dalai Lama as one, okay.  It is inappropropriate (and this is for the general audience, rather than directed at DharmaSpace) that people come to other people's (Shugden) centers and try to constantly get people to convert and go to the DL.  You have choice.  Go to the DL if that is what you want, but the rest of us just let us practice, let us get our empowerments without interfering in our lives.  If you want to come and listen quietly, okay by me, but stop trying to force conversions of Shugdens to the Dalai.  I never followed him.  Seriously.  I resonate with Karmapa (the real one, not the Gelugpa one), the Shugden lamas, and Penor Rinpoche's Nyingmas.  Seriously.  I never paid much attention to the DL after I went to a teaching by him. 
  You know there are tons of emanations of Buddhas, so even if he were one (anything is possible) then you know, maybe some of us have karma with paths that work to get us to enlightenment.  We don't all have to follow one guru, one man, one emanation--- pick your word, but we all don't have to follow the DL.

DharmaSpace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1470
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2014, 07:41:53 PM »
@blueupali I am not forcing the Dalai Lama down your throat and that you must like him and all.

I still feel many things the Dalai lama have done is inconsistent for one who is just out to destroy Je Tsongkhapa's teachings and dorje shugden. The ban yes it damages I do not deny that, but it has put Dorje Shugden and Lama Tsongkhapa's tradition on a world scale, many more people have embraced Dorje Shugden spurred on by the efforts of Dorje Shudgen lamas. I can't quantify it, but I think ban did it bring more benefit to many more people than those that were hurt or harmed by it. And the people who carried on practicing dorje shudgen their conviction in the protector is much stronger and based on faith whose foundation is correct understanding and knowledge.

The dalai lama could have moved against Dorje Shugden after the 5th Dalai lama, he did not need to wait till the 14th dalai lama, it is so hard to suppress or move against anything now due to the proliferation of the internet and news.

Blueupali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • Email
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2014, 06:31:29 AM »
Okay DharmaSpace,
  I am only asking this because I seek to understand other people and would like to find common ground: how do you reconcile the ban with the Dalai Lama being a supreme Buddha?
  I know you say that there is a lot of publicity put out about Dorje Shugden and Dalai Lama (which I understand should activate imprints in people)--- but what about the violence?  What about when people were burned out of their houses? What about when someone had his fingers removed because his family relies on Shugden?
  I am just asking, for the purposes of thinking and understanding.
  Thank you.

DharmaSpace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1470
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2014, 05:00:50 PM »
Quote
Okay DharmaSpace,
  I am only asking this because I seek to understand other people and would like to find common ground: how do you reconcile the ban with the Dalai Lama being a supreme Buddha?
This is the only ban, whereby since the ban started the ban did not reduce the population of the practitioners in fact the number of practitioners of Dorje Shugden is increasing day by day. So the ban is just a skilful way to spread Dorje Shugden and Tsongkhapa's tradition. So the Dalai Lama's ban is a misdirection from the underlying purpose.

Quote
What about when people were burned out of their houses? What about when someone had his fingers removed because his family relies on Shugden?
If we abide in karma, can anyone experience a result that they had not committed? This dos not mean we should not have care and compassion  for the affected person but best to have the most accurate view on such matters.

Blueupali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • Email
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2014, 02:38:34 AM »
DharmaSpace,
  Okay, I get you have the assumption that the DL is a Buddha, which I don't happen to share, though I respect you can have a different outlook.
  Concerning karma, of course, anything that happens to us individually, as practioners, we can think you know, I am experiencing the results of past karmas--- like good or bad.  Okay, this is good lojong practice.  When we see others suffering though, do we just sit by and let them suffer?  I don't think so, as it is important to act relatively to help them, if we are still out and about in the world (rather than in a cave like Milarepa, close to enlightenment).  If we are still out here, not in retreat, then you know, we have a responsibility to try to help one another.  Now, if the DL were teaching like backwards to get people to do more practice (logically possible) then don't you think right activity is to outwardly (because he's teaching backwards) tell him like leave people alone, and try to get people to be kind to each other?  Because that is a bodhisattva's practice too.  And I also think it is giving people too many excuses to act meanly to one another--- oh they just have bad karma--- I feel compassion, but nothing I can do.... well when I get people telling each other that there is nothing that they can do, then I have to wonder, why not?  Why do we have to let the "karmas" ripen in this case unchecked, on other human Dorje Shugden practitioners, when we would intervene to save the life of even an insect?
  I think people teach this to one another, because it comes from a misteaching (reverse or otherwise) that comes from the DL school (overtly okay, teaching backward you can think, to get us to argue and develop reasoning skills) that anything we do to the Shugdens is fine because they are harming the Dl's long life, by praying to a Buddha we think is a spirit.  So we will argue that anyone who tries to help them, well , they shouldn't bother, because you know.... it's just their karma.
  So, to me, it's not like someone like you is really trying to harm other people, but rather that a lot of the wrong teachings have been emphasised to keep the DL school happy.  Like if people in old Tibet were too afraid to do anything against the DL, his court, or invaders he invited, well then they would have to say, in order to keep their long lives, well, it's karma.  Okay, and there were a lot of teachings in the past that emphasized that people would go to hell easily.  I was at a teaching on powa by a Kagyu lama named Ole, whom the 16th Karmapa said was an emanation of Mahakala, and he said that people go to hell much less for a lot of karmas then we might think, but teachings on going to hell were common in Tibet, more or less, to paraphrase, to keep everyone from talking against the government....
  So, anyway, he did say, of course, to be careful of the lower realms, but I think a lot of times, it seems to me like there has been a picking and choosing of teachings, both lojong and HYT that favor the everybody be quiet and listen to the goverment (DL-- sorry) approach.  So, if you say anything against the government (DL) then you say something against a holy being, and might go to hell.... actually the same applies to anyone we talk about, but everyone keeps trying to force people (I don't mean you but generally) to believe this guy (DL) is a Buddha.  I think those teachings about karma are similar, okay, so I am supposed to try to save bugs from drowning--- I don't just say, oh well, too bad... his karma... instead I try to help, with immediate and relative action the bug from drowning (even though he isn't in that great of a rebirth, okay, and we say a mantra and wish for his karma to clear so he enters the human realm soon and starts the path to enlightenment with a qualified guide).  Okay, so this is a bug, already in a low realm.  So, what about a human who does Shugden, they are human. We are supposed to let their human lives be thrown away as well as potential other human lives by perpetuating the notion that everything the DL does is right so we just play along.  I do understand how you feel, but my lamas, the ones I have had that I think are Buddhas, they don't hurt people, or order people to hurt people.  These are many Kagyupa and Shugden lamas, as well as some Nyingmapa; I don't really see the DL as a Buddha--- so he would need to be convincing on that--- and by encouraging hate (forgive me, but that is what he is doing relatively) then how can people really expect us to buy that?  I did go to one of his teachings (no empowerment, no I hadn't heard of Shugden, but I just wasn't that impressed, okay.  He didn't act like Chenrezig, but the 17 Karmapa did (Thaye Dorje) so I was expecting wow--- there must be lots of Chenrezigs in New Delhi today, but I said okay, well, if that one (DL) is a Chenrezig then I am guessing he didn't want me to notice. ;) which is also perfectly logically possible).
  At any rate, I am just saying we need to act relatively to take down this ban, including encouraging people to ignore the DL's injunctions, because overtly they are against the bodhisattva vow, regardless of how they may play out secretly.

DharmaSpace

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1470
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2014, 05:41:26 PM »
The dalai lama will collect negative karma if his mindstreams dwells in the three poisons there is no doubt about that. I agree with you we need to fight the ban and all that is not just coming from the Dalai Lama and CTA and if we can alleviate others suffering. Just because I feel the Dalai Lama is doing the ban on purpose for a bigger reason  it does not mean I do not need to lift the ban and oppose all that Dalai lama is doing to ban Dorje Shugden and the practice.

If the Dalai Lama wants to spread Dorje Shugden in this day and age and employ controversy, he has to make it believable and convincing for others. Controversies do sell in this an age as compared to goody goody method IMHO. Infamy  We should work hard, collect merit for the lifting of the ban as there are beings suffering from the ban but I would like to vouch for a theory, if a country's population has not purified the karma of being oppressed we can protest do many actions, they will still get oppressed. Another example is if a dog is dying and in pain , if we euthanise it and supposedly the dog had more karma to purify, then the dog just carries it to another lifetime?
 
Let me reiterate, just because I think DL is Chenrezig it does not mean i do nothing to fight the ban. I should not have to fight this ridiculous ban in the first place, but this stress/ban placed on the gelug tradition could have created that momentum amongst lamas and practitioners to blaze Je tsongkhapa's tradition to a whole new level.  It has made many practitioners reflect more and contemplate more about their practices the dharma and so forth which created that rocket energy to propel the Ganden tradition to the world stage and another level.

Blueupali

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • Email
Re: ‘Dalai Lama in talks to return’
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2014, 01:42:14 AM »
Well Okay DharmaSpace,
  Let me level with you.  I too (not the same amount as you, probably) often think the DL is a Buddha-- though that is my practice to regard everyone as Buddhas.  So in reality, i often think i hope so and just doing super strange (relatively) activity to purify people's karmas-- and on that I am also hoping like all the people harmed are really Buddhas too.
  So, I don' t know, really, who is a Buddha, because we have to be enlightnened to know that.
  However, I do think karma is more complicated and we have to be Buddhas to really understand EVERYTHING about it.  In your example of a dog dying in pain and we euthanize it, then does it carry the pain to the next life--- well--- not necessarily because we are in fact also part of the karma, if out of genuine compassion we euthanize the dying dog to alleviate suffering, then we may help purify the karma--- because maybe he has a good seed ripening--- like he is going to die more peacefully, with us there saying mantras and then doing a lot of Vajrasattva and mandalas for him and all bardo beings.  Because of our connection, we can help him have a better rebirth.  So, motivation is important, and intention.  He is dying anyway, and we are alleviating a physical suffering, as well as helping his mental continuum, because we can help him feel better as he goes.  Also he is in the lower realms, and hopefully gets to move up.  There is really no way for us to be certain exactly what someone's karma is.... so if we see someone suffering and say, well, you need to purify your karma over there so I will just let you suffer, then we are not necessarily acting with wisdom or compassion, assuming there is something we can do to actually improve the situation.  If we cannot do anything else that will help, we should at least pray for the being.... that's what Geshe Kelsang writes in one of his books (I can't remember which one--- sorry).  Like a Buddha would know always what exactly to do for every being and how exactly to emanate to help them--- so we have to  become Buddhas to really help.... to really know what to do and how. 
  So with the ban, while I get what you are saying, and I also get we all have different role in these things, for me, it doesn't do to say the DL is a Buddha (though I think he COULD be one, okay) because to me, his teaching, if it is from a Buddha at all is that we should stay away from government in religion and vice versa because he is outwardly manifesting a guy who is power hungry who wants to pretend to be in charge of everything--- and is making mixed and bad transmissions, and encouraging others to do the same.  So I can take a teaching from him--- which is whatever he is dong he isn't the right one for me.  Which is fine, since there are a lot of lamas, and some of us definitely resonate with some lamas and go to enlightenment with them, while other people go with others. 
  Saying the dude is a Buddha, though I may think whatever in secret is for me (but not necessarily the same for others) not right activity.