Dorje Shugden - Kadampa - Dalai Lama

Tenpel said:
Tenzin Choje for me you appear as one of the classical (somewhat fanatical) Shugden devotees. Why?

Because you think your position is 100% correct and others who oppose your point of view are 100% wrong you assume that I must "cling … to the words of academic scholars" by this you put me down claiming I have a distorted clinging mind – and at the same time you don't consider that you yourself might (also) have a clinging mind that clings to Shugden and what your lamas claimed about him. After you have deprecated me as a spiritual person by claiming I have a clinging and therefore distorted mind you attack the next source the academics by claiming their work would be based on hearsay, and therefore would be invalid. If there are witnesses who observed the distruction of Padmasambhava statues and Nyingma temples by fanatical Shugden devotees in Kham who are reporting this you must prove that their eye witness accounts are invalid and hearsay but what prove do you have except baseless claims? There are many eye witnesses who confirm this and there are high Gelug lamas (one of them a Hotuktu) who confirm this sectarianism in Kham too. But since these reports don't fit your views you just put all this down as "hearsay". Sorry this is totally close minded and the only benefit you gain is that you can keep up your own view and that you continue to be in conflict with the facts and those who disagree with you.

I don't have the view that whatever the scholars write is true. Nor do I have the view what the Gelug lamas claim is all true.

I checked many sources and I asked high Gelug lamas who all approve the sectarian deeds of Pabongkha devotees in Kham. I have done my work, and I don't see a need to convince you. You have to find out yourself what the facts are, and to question the sources who claim this or that.

What you advice me you have to apply also to yourself: "So little is known about Tibetan history, and so much about Tibetan history is littered with half truths and colorer with discrimination. Just because [your Shugden] peers say its good doesn't mean it is the truth, if it contradicts with what many others already know. Sometimes, do re-read the advice you give to others, because it seems that you need that yourself too."
Click to expand...

Well if I do appear to think that my position is 100% correct, then what about you? you tried to discredit and defame me in this thread alone with your lengthy rebuttals and tried to make me look like a fanatic and someone who does not listen to reason when I only asserted my position and my facts on this matter. You're really funny -- If i refuse to be 'converted' to your stance, you keep badgering me and and call me cultish etc. But no, I wont because it wont help me a bit if I did. I'd rather focus on training my mind.

Please read back all that you have wrote. You do not sound spiritual at all but someone who wants to impose their beliefs on others. There is no iota of your reply that shows or indicates that you are a spiritual person. Spiritual people do not try hard to discredit or defame those that do not agree with their views, which is all that your posts are doing. Your first reply to me was offensive and engineered to make me look like a cultish fanatic. I decided to play along with you and be polite and nice while being firm, but now that you've decided to stoop to this level, lets just show our hands.

I assert my stance because it cannot be that so many Gelug lamas are wrong about the same facts. Gelug Lamas that have not met each other before. There are also historical evidence that Pabongkha Rinpoche practiced Dzogchen before in addition to a huge amount of Termas. "eyewitnesses" could might as well been people who were jealous of Pabongkha and wanted to smear his reputation.

It is not that you do not need to prove to me what you said, but you do not have proof of what you said. You're merely insecure about your stance. No Gelug Lama would ever say that Pabongkha destroyed Guru Rinpoche's statues because every Gelug Lama knows he used to dabble in Termas and Dzogchen. It is also Pabongkha who said that Tsongkhapa and Guru Rinpoche are one. If Pabongkha was a liar, his works wouldnt have grown to be so big and he would not be the crowning jewel of the Gelugs of this day. His teachings and works are still regarded to be one of the most comprehensive ones.

I have done a lot of my homework on this and I have come to my own conclusions, and I have proof that I can produce anytime, backed by logic and explanations. You only have your imaginary 'proof' to show, and the words of scholars who twist facts. The only western scholar that has been impartial and who recorded the facts without twisting them is Glenn Mullin.

I'll close this with an interesting article of eyewitness accounts of how Robert Thurman (That's right!) begged for a Dorje Shugden initiation from Domo Geshe Rinpoche, one of the most erudite Tibetan Lamas to have ever lived. He was said to have knelt on the ground and cried, but Domo Geshe refused still. If Robert can switch from begging and crying for a Dorje Shugden initiation a few decade earlier and now be a strong opponent, does that not say a lot about his credibility?

Anyone interested in the subjects of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama will know of Robert Thurman, a self-professed “personal friend” of the Dalai Lama and prolific writer about the Dalai Lama and his teachings.

In light of the Dorje Shugden issue over the last decade or so, Robert Thurman has remained significantly quiet on the subject, refusing to answer any open letters to him nor engage in debate. He is even known to have launched accusations against Dorje Shugden practitioners, calling them Chinese spies. He seems to be very stoically on the side of the Dalai Lama, and not at all empathetic to the plight of Shugden practitioners suffering under the ban.

Now, we learn that in fact, Thurman was known to have “begged” very prominent high Lamas for Dorje Shugden initiation.

In his paper, “Dalai Lama Dorje Shugden”*, respected translator Helmut Gassner – who worked very closely with the Dalai Lama as his translator for many years – recalls,

For his part, Robert Thurman thought it appropriate to portray for Newsweek magazine a murderous Dorje Shugden cult describing it as “the Taliban of Buddhism.” Yet Robert Thurman, presumably before he begot Uma, had been one of the first Western monks with Buddhist vows and had tried twice to obtain Dorje Shugden initiation from revered masters well before the controversy began. Both masters, however, had refused on grounds of his fickle character. Thurman should know quite well what Dorje Shugden actually is about.

(It is interesting to note also that Robert Thurman was one of the first Westerners to have been ordained as a monk in the Tibetan tradition. However, he was also among the first to disrobe, returning his vows only 2 years after taking them. Fickle? It certainly seems so.)

An online commentator and former supporter of the Dalai Lama who goes by the moniker “Thomas Canada” further confirms that these Lamas who denied Thurman the initiation were the renowned Dromo Geshe Rinpoche and Gelek Rinpoche. He writes,

Gelek told me […] that Thurman even begged him, and it was no. For however that is decided. [Dr. Ursula Bernis] (personal attendant to Dromo Geshe Rinpoche) told me Dromo Geshe Rinpoche denied Bob several times. [She told me] that Bob used to push and connive for the Empowerment and he was always denied. Dromo Geshe said, Bob crawled across his floor begging and crying for it and he told him no way.”

Interestingly, it wasn’t that these lamas had denied everyone the initiation. Thomas Canada himself reveals that he had received the initiation, along with other prominent personalities at the time, such as poet Alan Ginsberg. Also, these lamas did have close connections with Thurman; they were not just lamas that he met in passing.

For example. Dromo Geshe Rinpoche founded the New York and New Delhi Tibet House and Thurman is very much involved in running the New York branch. So their decision not to have given him the initiation cannot have been an arbitrary one, but one they made in full knowledge of how Thurman is or how he would maintain the practice.

Observing the way he now behaves towards Dorje Shugden practitioners, it is clear why the lamas had refused him the initiation “on grounds of his fickle character”. Would he have done even more harm if he had been given the initiation? Perhaps. And if he did, he would have damaged both his own spiritual path and the faith of the many thousands who read his books and follow his writings.
Click to expand...
 
Tenpel said:
Your argument is mainly suggesting to me, that the issue cannot be decided because both sides have arguments. One can see it that way, however, if one really wants to understand the issue one can investigate what arguments are based on facts and valid and what arguments are misleading, not based on facts and only blur the issue.

Personally I know both sides of the arguments. I was a convinced Shugden follower and I protested against the Dalai Lama. So I know that side very well. Later I opened up and investigated the issue anew, then I realized that the Shugden opponents have their own arguments.

To help myself, I was thinking I should also check sources that are not involved in the conflict so I read accepted, peer-reviewed and published academic research. This helped me a lot to balance my own understanding and what I learned from both sides.

It's co-accidental that academic research goes quite along with the Dalai Lama's point of view.

Because I find academic research enough dispassionate to both sides of the conflict I usually recommend academic research. However, always when I do this, Shugden followers try to slander the researchers as being "biased", "spreading TGIE propaganda" etc. I think this is quite unfair and also deepens the conflict.

IMO, as Buddhist one should be open to listen, to see how the things are, openly investigate and use scriptures and reasoning in order to cultivate a good understanding of things. It's not good to cling too much on the own views or just to repeat "because my lama said".

That's it from my side.
Click to expand...
I beleive most arguments are simply miscommunication. Some arguments there is a right and a wrong side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top