I feel that all the accusations against Pabongkha are both silly and tragic because if you're a Gelugpa, you would have learnt that he indeed has accomplished Dzogchen and he has studied a lot of Nyingma teachings and he also had a statue of Padmasambhava. It is also well known that the Tibetans of that time was extremely jealous of Pabongkha's fame that they said nasty things against him. For example when Trijang Rinpoche was extolling the virtues of the Gelug, a group of Kagyus who heard it immediately said that Trijang Rinpoche was being sectarian and that Trijang Rinpoche said that the Kagyus were inferior when Trijang Rinpoche never said anything like that. This is how Tibetans work and how they can trick you into being their side and pass the lies as the truth.
If you feel that it is unfair for me to 'defame' david kay, how is it fair for Pabongkha Rinpoche for so many people to post rumors against him and worse of all, those are passed as the truth?
Now I am giving you a different perspective in this matter. It's up to you to see it as you think fit.
Sorry but history has nothing to do with "I feel" but facts. And that at least fanatical followers of him did is, is just a fact. It's always easy to put down others' criticism by claiming they would be "extremely jealous", actual this is the next insult you are issuing here: the researchers are wrong and those who criticise someone who is precious to you are "extremely jealous" "of Pabongkha's fame" – it follows that the critics are deluded and are not even proper Dharma practitioners because they have an eye on fame & reputation. In this way you slander the critics without evaluating the history and the arguments they issue forth.
To tell facts is no rumour, and to neglect history while slandering critics is not "a different perspective in this matter" either.
To base what I say on facts I quote you first Kay, and you can tell me how "he defamed Pabongkha Rinpoche and accused him of destroying Padamasambhava statues" and then I quote Pabongkha Rinpoche himself and I would like to know how what he says is not sectarian.
Kay:
As the Gelug agent of the Tibetan government in Kham (Khams) (Eastern Tibet), and in response to the Rimed movement that had originated and was flowering in that region, Phabongkha Rinpoche and his disciples employed repressive measures against non-Gelug sects. Religious artefacts associated with Padmasambhava – who is revered as a ‘second Buddha’ by Nyingma practitioners – were destroyed, and non-Gelug, and particularly Nyingma, monasteries were forcibly converted to the Gelug position.11 A key element of Phabongkha Rinpoche’s outlook was the cult of the protective deity Dorje Shugden, which he married to the idea of Gelug exclusivism and employed against other traditions as well as against those within the Gelug who had eclectic tendencies.12
11 Kapstein describes how Phabongkha’s visions of Dorje Shugden ‘seem to have entailed a commitment to oppose actively the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the Bon-po’ (Kapstein 1989: 231). Samuel also describes how Phabongkha, a strict purist and conservative, adopted an attitude of sectarian intolerance and ‘instituted a campaign to convert non-Gelugpa gompa in K‘am to the Gelugpa school, by force where necessary’ (Samuel 1993: 52).
12 There are actually conflicting views concerning the extent of Phabongkha’s exclusivism, and it is important to acknowledge that a different picture is painted by others who maintain that he was not as actively sectarian as is widely claimed. The image presented here is gleaned from Kapstein (1989), Samuel (1993), Dreyfus (1998) and Beyer (1978), as well as from personal discussions with Gelug Buddhists.
Pabongkha about Shugden:
[This protector of the doctrine] is extremely important for holding Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition without mixing and corrupting [it] with confusions due to the great violence and the speed of the force of his actions, which fall like lightning to punish violently all those beings who have wronged the Yellow Hat Tradition, whether they are high or low. [This protector is also particularly significant with respect to the fact that] many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.
If you wish I can give you the exact sources. As Buddhists, I think, we should be open and openly question also our own believes and opinions if they can withstand reality or not.
