dorjeshugden.com
About Dorje Shugden => General Discussion => Topic started by: honeydakini on February 12, 2010, 01:51:18 PM
-
Criticism, judgement and rallying - no matter how right and correct we think we are and how wrong the other side is - doesn't necessarily win the world over. From the outside, we just look political and not engaging in the very thing we are trying to promote: Dharma practice. The world will look at us protesting and criticising other lamas, and think to themselves, "this is what Dharma practice is? This is what DS practitioners do to defend their faith?"
After all, do we really have that many attainments and knowledge to be able to look upon the Lamas and judge what they are doing? Imagine if we did that to all our Lamas? Guru devotion is about believing that the Lamas do have more wisdom, clairvoyance and attainments than us and know what they are doing more than we can understand at this time.
(1) Imagine if Milarepa had said to himself, “damn that Marpa. He shouldn’t act that way! What a horrible Lama, why does he do this to me? He shouldn’t torture me by making me build houses for 12 years! He should teach me Dharma!” Imagine if he had gotten so angry at what seemingly crazy Marpa was doing and just upped and left and given up on Dharma.
(2) Imagine if Naropa had said, “I give up. That stupid Naropa won’t even acknowledge me. I want the Dharma so much and he won’t give it to me after 12 years of following him around. What kind of Guru is that who won’t teach the Dharma??” and then he just upped and left.
(3) Imagine if all the great Lamas sat around lamenting the loss of Tibet and cursed all the Buddhas for not protecting and helping them to keep their country? Imagine if they all sat about and bitched about how uncompassionate Tsongkhapa, Tara and the protectors were for allowing so many millions of Tibetans to be killed during the cultural revolution and their monasteries to be bombed? Imagine if they just eventually decided “you know what, *$&* all this, I don’t need Dharma, the Buddhas are just a bunch of statues that don’t do anything” and they gave up Dharma and went to work as a busboy in New York.
No, all these Lamas and great teachers stuck in it for YEARS, believing that their Gurus and the Buddhas had greater wisdom that would be beneficial. Even if they didn’t understand it or even didn’t agree with it, they at least didn’t criticize or speak badly against the Lamas. They saw and recognized that the success and results of their own Dharma practice wasn’t dependent on what their Lamas or other practitioners were doing, but was entirely from their own side – their effort, patience, generosity, perseverance in their practice, and reflecting their own application of Dharma and the teachings of their Lamas well.
-
Criticism, judgement and rallying - no matter how right and correct we think we are and how wrong the other side is - doesn't necessarily win the world over. From the outside, we just look political and not engaging in the very thing we are trying to promote: Dharma practice. The world will look at us protesting and criticising other lamas, and think to themselves, "this is what Dharma practice is? This is what DS practitioners do to defend their faith?"
After all, do we really have that many attainments and knowledge to be able to look upon the Lamas and judge what they are doing? Imagine if we did that to all our Lamas? Guru devotion is about believing that the Lamas do have more wisdom, clairvoyance and attainments than us and know what they are doing more than we can understand at this time.
(1) Imagine if Milarepa had said to himself, “damn that Marpa. He shouldn’t act that way! What a horrible Lama, why does he do this to me? He shouldn’t torture me by making me build houses for 12 years! He should teach me Dharma!” Imagine if he had gotten so angry at what seemingly crazy Marpa was doing and just upped and left and given up on Dharma.
(2) Imagine if Naropa had said, “I give up. That stupid Naropa won’t even acknowledge me. I want the Dharma so much and he won’t give it to me after 12 years of following him around. What kind of Guru is that who won’t teach the Dharma??” and then he just upped and left.
(3) Imagine if all the great Lamas sat around lamenting the loss of Tibet and cursed all the Buddhas for not protecting and helping them to keep their country? Imagine if they all sat about and bitched about how uncompassionate Tsongkhapa, Tara and the protectors were for allowing so many millions of Tibetans to be killed during the cultural revolution and their monasteries to be bombed? Imagine if they just eventually decided “you know what, *$&* all this, I don’t need Dharma, the Buddhas are just a bunch of statues that don’t do anything” and they gave up Dharma and went to work as a busboy in New York.
No, all these Lamas and great teachers stuck in it for YEARS, believing that their Gurus and the Buddhas had greater wisdom that would be beneficial. Even if they didn’t understand it or even didn’t agree with it, they at least didn’t criticize or speak badly against the Lamas. They saw and recognized that the success and results of their own Dharma practice wasn’t dependent on what their Lamas or other practitioners were doing, but was entirely from their own side – their effort, patience, generosity, perseverance in their practice, and reflecting their own application of Dharma and the teachings of their Lamas well.
Best post I've read on here today (barring tk's one!), especially your final paragraph which was so well-put! I think it's the same point many people have been trying to make regarding the WSS/NKT protesting, or A Great Deception not being very well-written. Although the information may be accurate and well-researched, and the WSS/NKT are trying to take a stand, it does make some people wonder what Buddhism really is about. After all, the image of monks and nuns shouting, and picketing their supposed leader doesn't look good. You might add, "Well, neither does the Dalai Lama suppressing a religious practice" but like you've said, do we really have that many attainments and knowledge to be able to look upon the Lamas and judge what they are doing?"
Of course, other people may argue that it is necessary that the WSS/NKT take such a public stand, that they are fighting for our right to practise Dorje Shugden. However, my view is that we retain our own right to practise Dorje Shugden - no one can take that away from us unless we let them. Evidently many Tibetans have let that happen; how can we change that by antagonising them when we call their leader a liar?
-
After all, the image of monks and nuns shouting, and picketing their supposed leader doesn't look good.
Dear Dharma Defender,
I agree with you there.
While i do respect them for standing up and fighting for a practice and Protector which they feel very passionately about, I don't really agree that standing around in their robes shouting and picketing reflects very well on their own practice, lama, teacher or the very protector they are trying to defend.
I hold that the best way we can really reflect and defend our protector well is by our own ardent practice. The best kind of protest is to be
- even better than others,
- even kinder
- even more compassionate
- more knowledgeable on the subject
- develop the skill to share this knowledge with other people so they can make up their own minds rationally, logically and with the facts.
standing about shouting and picketing and using highly emotive rhetoric doesn't bode well for reflecting the calibre of lamas you are learning from nor the very protector and Buddhas you are practising. It will probably only make the world look at you and think, "THIS is how you do your Dharma practice? THIS is what it means to be spiritual? I'd rather not then, thanks."
Sure, I understand the importance of NOT hiding the facts and the importance of telling people what is really going on - how the ban of DS has had a terrible, devastating and very damaging effect on thousands of people around the world. This website alone highlights so much of what is really going on behind the scenes. But we can provide the information factually, provide as much information as we can and encourage people to think for themselves instead of stuffing it down their throat that DS is bad / Dalai Lama is bad and getting emotional / belligerent / angry / offensive about it.
I met many DS lamas before I even knew about the DS ban! (I was very, very new to Dharma then). These Lamas never spoke about politics, they exuded only kindness, compassion, care and everything that the Dharma has taught us to embody and practise. They practised DS but it wasn't a big, central, political ISSUE to talk about. They just did their practices and continued to teach. DS was an important part of their teachings, practices and lineage but it wasn't the ONLY THING they focused on.
When I found out later that *gasp* they were DS practitioners, I thought to myself that if Gurus / people like this are DS practitioners and they do and teach this practice, then it cannot be a bad thing. Hearing all the rhetoric against DS thereafter was not convincing at all because I had seen and experienced for myself what a DS practitioner is really like.
If we practise like these lamas do and really uphold what DS is about, that is the best way, I believe, of shutting up the anti-DS perpetrators and inspiring others to also hold DS as sacred as we do.
-
But we can provide the information factually, provide as much information as we can and encourage people to think for themselves instead of stuffing it down their throat that DS is bad / Dalai Lama is bad and getting emotional / belligerent / angry / offensive about it.
I think we will have to come up with a name for this most pernicious of logical errors. It seems to be quite persistent here of late..... speaking out = being angry.
any suggestions?
-
I think we will have to come up with a name for this most pernicious of logical errors. It seems to be quite persistent here of late..... speaking out = being angry.
I haven't come up with a name for this specific instance, but I would say all this noobian stuff is based on idiot compassion for the Dalai Lama.
I think we seriously need to consider what is the greater good: preserving the Dalai Lama's reputation so that we can get a "free" Tibet out of the deal, or preserving Je Tsongkhapa's tradition so that we can become Buddhas for the benefit of all.
Just think: for 50 years the Dalai Lama has enjoyed a stainless reputation throughout the world, with uncritical press everywhere he goes. It has not secured any land deals with China. Instead, haven't the last 50 years shown us that our 'homeless' Lamas are fully capable of spreading Dharma at a sustainable rate, even now without the Dalai Lama's "seal of approval"?
-
speaking out = being angry.
Actually, I don't think anyone here has ever equated speaking out to being angry. There's a way of putting information across that doesn't appear vehement, vitriolic and insulting which tk, Trinley Kelsang and a couple of other names do well. For example, in many of the 'oldies' speaking out against the 'noobs', many have felt attacked not because it was their views being challenged (which most, I believe, welcome), but because they felt the oldies were making it personal, and stirring waters on purpose.
I haven't come up with a name for this specific instance, but I would say all this noobian stuff is based on idiot compassion for the Dalai Lama.
I think we seriously need to consider what is the greater good: preserving the Dalai Lama's reputation so that we can get a "free" Tibet out of the deal, or preserving Je Tsongkhapa's tradition so that we can become Buddhas for the benefit of all.
Just think: for 50 years the Dalai Lama has enjoyed a stainless reputation throughout the world, with uncritical press everywhere he goes. It has not secured any land deals with China. Instead, haven't the last 50 years shown us that our 'homeless' Lamas are fully capable of spreading Dharma at a sustainable rate, even now without the Dalai Lama's "seal of approval"?
It's not about preserving the Dalai Lama's reputation for a free Tibet, but about preserving his reputation so that he may continue to spread the Dharma to others. If his reputation is totally destroyed, how will he be able to spread it? He's the most recognisable face in Tibetan Buddhism, and someone everyone associates with wisdom and compassion. It's because of his image that many people are attracted to the Dharma; destroy that, and perhaps you're destroying many people's chances at even entering the Dharma, never mind the Protector's practice which (a) people may find difficult to accept at first, given his wrathful demeanour (b) the WSS seem to be doing very little to educate people about, aside from the politics.
I'm happy that our 'homeless' Lamas can spread the Dharma so well (even without the Dalai Lama's seal of approval), but it's not for us to judge whether the rate is sustainable or not, because we don't have a handle on all the practitioners in the world.
-
If his reputation is totally destroyed, how will he be able to spread it?
I make this point a third time: The Dalai Lama is destroying his reputation through his very own actions; his reputation is not destroyed by those who would point out the harmful, samsaric nature of his actions.
And, what about preserving the reputation of Shugden Lamas (against the Dalai Lama's slanderous speech) so that they may continue to spread the Dharma to others?
???
-
But we can provide the information factually, provide as much information as we can and encourage people to think for themselves instead of stuffing it down their throat that DS is bad / Dalai Lama is bad and getting emotional / belligerent / angry / offensive about it.
I think we will have to come up with a name for this most pernicious of logical errors. It seems to be quite persistent here of late..... speaking out = being angry.
any suggestions?
I must correct myself (please also read my most recent post on "all this can't we get along stuff" http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.0). I do understand (thank you Crazy Cloud for taking the time to respond to my many rather excitable posts) that speaking out does not necessarily equate to being angry.
I was reacting to has seemed to be an attitude that quite blatant in much of the coverage of this issue: i.e. that people ARE reacting in an angry and aggressive way that does not necessarily reflect well on either themselves or the practices they are trying to uphold. I apologise if it has come across as being directly specifically to any individual here, which was not my intention.
I am concerned about views such as those that are being pushed forward in the Great Deception book. While it does provide a lot of very relevant and insightful information, it was written very strongly in a way that I felt, was not merely against the actions and tenents of the Dalai Lama but against the Dalai Lama himself. It frequently comes across as being very personal and, yes, angry and sometimes almost aggressive.
i apologise again (sorry, here i go repeating again) for overreacting and assuming too quickly, too soon that this was the view held here by others also. But I am concerned that there is quite some exaggeration, rhetoric and overly emotive language being used in the media and also by certain groups in villifying the Dalai Lama himself, rather than to look properly what is going on.
I take heart that this website provides information without necessarily forcing a view down our throats ("i.e. this guy is the bad guy, this guy is the good guy... believe it or else" which can be seen in both pro-shugden and anti-shugden sites/groups) and I hope very much that this forum will continue to be an extension of this for us to provide more information and views for people to think about before just blindly jumping into one extreme view or another.
-
I am concerned about views such as those that are being pushed forward in the Great Deception book. While it does provide a lot of very relevant and insightful information, it was written very strongly in a way that I felt, was not merely against the actions and tenents of the Dalai Lama but against the Dalai Lama himself. It frequently comes across as being very personal and, yes, angry and sometimes almost aggressive.
If the Dalai Lama is a fraud (and he is), it should be made known. The book is against the Dalai Lama because he is destroying the Buddhadharma through mixing with politics and other Lamas will follow his example.
It is not wise to hide a wolf amongst a flock of sheep as slaughter is the inevitable result. Perhaps the wolf's real purpose is to benefit the sheep? I think not! Wolves are carnivorous beings who are only looking for their next meal. The Dalai Lama is a power-hungry politician who is looking to extend his influence further. No wise person will entertain the presence of the wolf in sheep's clothing but will 'out' him in order to protect the flock.
The language used is strong, yes, just as mine is. I don't hate the Dalai Lama but I do want him to stop destroying Je Tsongkhapa's tradition. Making excuses for the Dalai Lama with mealy-mouthed platitudes and showing respect where none is deserved will not protect the Dharma - rather it hastens its demise through an ignorant conception of what constitutes 'right speech'.
BTW, I don't hate you either ;D but please stop helping the Dalai Lama to destroy Je Tsongkhapa's tradition by letting him off the hook.
-
Lineage holder - i like the way you said 'If the Dalai Lama is a fraud'. That shows that you are willing to at least consider that he isn't.
I quote this recent entry to the guest book from Thomas Canada:
http://www.dorjeshugden.com/Guestbook/
"Tk's attitude of not abandoning Dorje Shugden and not critizising the Dalai Lama is certainly the way to go.
And there defintely is a 'bigger picture', whether it was intended by those at the root of the controversy I doubt.
All the (unjust) blame we (Trijang Rinpoche's followers) presently experience is certainly the result of a collective negative karma of all of us concerned ones.
It is also very true, that Dorje Shugden NEVER says a negative word about the Dalai Lama, but rather admonishes not to loose respect towards him. But of course he also never 'endorses' the witch hunt.
It is a well known characteristic of Doje Shugden's activities, that in course of time he brings even most unfortunate circumstances to finally positive effects for the beings. This is the 'bigger picture' the arises out of the situation due to Dorje Shugden's powerful activities.
When all the criticism started, I also heard Kache Marpo once say that we (our side) would never be able to find the financial resources to propagate the precious name of our protector throughout the world to an extent as it is happening now with the controversy. So he seemed quite happy about the 'publicity'. Nevertheless he also hinted, that in truely 'out-of-hand' circumstances of slander he would sometimes prefer to intervene with his sharp powers, but that Dorje Shugden is always binding him by obliging him to never do any harm to sentient beings."
I personally find the last paragraph of most interest. Why? Because firstly, if Kache Marpo says he is happy about the 'publicity', i am certain that the great King Dorje Shugden would be happier. Secondly, Kache Marpo wanted to intervene when negative words were said which were too much, but Dorje Shugden bound him to not harm sentient beings. It shows Dorje Shugden's tremendous compassion for all - his followers and his detractors, without distinction. Definitely this is the sign of an enlightened Being.
-
I also heard Kache Marpo once say that we (our side) would never be able to find the financial resources to propagate the precious name of our protector throughout the world to an extent as it is happening now with the controversy. So he seemed quite happy about the 'publicity'. Nevertheless he also hinted, that in truely 'out-of-hand' circumstances of slander he would sometimes prefer to intervene with his sharp powers, but that Dorje Shugden is always binding him by obliging him to never do any harm to sentient beings."
How interesting that Kache Marpo himself says he is "happy" with the "publicity"! Where did you hear this from??? Have you actually witnessed an oracle in trance before? I heard that when the oracle goes in to trance, it is usually in front of a high Lama and no other being/spirit can pretend to be the oracle because of what the Lama represents (Dharma). And most of the Dorje Shugden oracles are created by either Trijang Rinpoche himself or blessed by him. I like what you say because Kache Marpo would definitely have said or done something if the Dalai Lama has ill motive. Some of my monk friends have witnessed DS oracle in trance and have said that DS/Kache Marpo is quick to point out those with ill motive. Ironically up till this day, Kache Marpo/Dorje Shugden or even Trijang Rinpoche, have never mentioned anything in regards to the Dalai Lama's fraudulence and that we should reveal the Dalai Lama's deceptive nature. None of them said any of that but instead always I hear them advising like what TK has said in previous postings "Never to lose faith in the Dalai Lama or the protector" This I believe was Trijang Rinpoche's own words. And if Trijang Rinpoche who is one of the main lineage holder of Dorje Shugden can say that... it makes one think deeper.
Thank you WisdomBeing for that useful info about Kache Marpo. For awhile it made me wonder why? Why are they choosing to keep quiet, continuously spreading the teachings and never advice us against the Dalai Lama. Why do they (Trijang Rinpoche, Gangchen Rinpoche, Dagom Rinpoche etc. all not doing or saying anything? Are they not compassionate towards their own people suffering due to this ban? hmmmm ... ???
-
Lineage holder - i like the way you said 'If the Dalai Lama is a fraud'. That shows that you are willing to at least consider that he isn't.
Thanks, but your optimism is premature. I only said that to save the feelings of some people on this forum. Now that you mention it directly, I believe he is 100% a fraud, no doubt.
-
And most of the Dorje Shugden oracles are created by either Trijang Rinpoche himself or blessed by him. I like what you say because Kache Marpo would definitely have said or done something if the Dalai Lama has ill motive.
Don't place your trust in the words of a oracle, they can't be trusted. The Nechung oracle is a case in point.
I don't need oracles or divination to see what the Dalai Lama is up to. Rely on your own wisdom and wake up to the truth. We can trust the words of our Gurus who see things as they are and act in accordance with Dharma. Those words are in 'A Great Deception':
"There is no greater liar or a person more powerfully deceptive than this in the world today."
-
And most of the Dorje Shugden oracles are created by either Trijang Rinpoche himself or blessed by him. I like what you say because Kache Marpo would definitely have said or done something if the Dalai Lama has ill motive.
Don't place your trust in the words of a oracle, they can't be trusted. The Nechung oracle is a case in point.
I don't need oracles or divination to see what the Dalai Lama is up to. Rely on your own wisdom and wake up to the truth. We can trust the words of our Gurus who see things as they are and act in accordance with Dharma. Those words are in 'A Great Deception':
"There is no greater liar or a person more powerfully deceptive than this in the world today."
I agree with you regarding trusting the words of our Gurus because they act in accordance with the Dharma. It is because I trust my Guru through years of observing and his consistency and he always acts in accordance with the Dharma. As such, I can trust what he says when he advises me not to criticise HH the Dalai Lama. Saying that though, I understand your motivation for highlighting the Dalai Lama's inconsistencies, which is to stand up for our Protector.
With regard to oracles - some Gurus are so humble that they refer their students to the oracles because some of their students sadly do not believe them but will believe what the oracles say. When the oracle confirms what their gurus say, then they believe. For me personally, the word of my Guru is good enough for me but i guess everyone has different levels of trust.
Regarding the Nechung oracle - i cannot comment because I do not know enough about it. However, i have read that the Nechung oracles has made mistakes before - perhaps he makes mistakes because he is NOT an enlightened Protector, therefore he is fallible.
-
(1) Imagine if Milarepa had said to himself, “damn that Marpa. He shouldn’t act that way! What a horrible Lama, why does he do this to me? He shouldn’t torture me by making me build houses for 12 years! He should teach me Dharma!” Imagine if he had gotten so angry at what seemingly crazy Marpa was doing and just upped and left and given up on Dharma.
Marpa was Milarepa's Guru. The Dalai Lama is not my Guru.
(2) Imagine if Naropa had said, “I give up. That stupid Naropa won’t even acknowledge me. I want the Dharma so much and he won’t give it to me after 12 years of following him around. What kind of Guru is that who won’t teach the Dharma??” and then he just upped and left.
Tilopa was Milarepa's Guru. The Dalai Lama is not my Guru.
(3) Imagine if all the great Lamas sat around lamenting the loss of Tibet and cursed all the Buddhas for not protecting and helping them to keep their country? Imagine if they all sat about and bitched about how uncompassionate Tsongkhapa, Tara and the protectors were for allowing so many millions of Tibetans to be killed during the cultural revolution and their monasteries to be bombed? Imagine if they just eventually decided “you know what, *$&* all this, I don’t need Dharma, the Buddhas are just a bunch of statues that don’t do anything” and they gave up Dharma and went to work as a busboy in New York.
That would have been lamenting the loss of a piece of land. We are standing up to prevent the loss of a precious spiritual lineage. Surely everyone on this forum can see there is no analogy here.
All these and similar arguments seem to be based on the idea that we are criticising a spiritual Teacher and refusing to accept his 'skilful means'. However the unfortunate thing is that in reality the Dalai Lama is a world leader, a politician, and as such should be accountable for his actions. Surely no political leader should be beyond reproach? The Dorje Shugden ban has been enforced using political mechanisms such as the TGIE and the identity cards. The fact that he's also used his Dharma teachings to promote the ban does not mean it should be regarded as spiritual advice. He travels the world giving talks, sometimes teaching Dharma from Trijang Rinpoche's lineage and sometimes talking about the environment and human rights. If he wants to be taken seriously as a spritual Teacher he should make his role clear. If he doesn't like being criticised, questioned, demonstrated against or having books written about him he shouldn't be a politician. If his disciples don't like him being criticised they should ask him to stop drawing attention to himself in such a strange manner. When politicians are cruel and persecute others they are publicly criticised and demonstrated against. That is the way of the west - that is our culture and our democratic right.
If you want to stop the damage to his reputation you should write to him and ask him to stop giving the WSS and others these unfortunate facts to report. If he wasn't doing these things we'd have nothing to say and no reason to say it. This whole big stink is not our fault. It's his. All we're trying to do is reduce the power of his speech to the level of influence it should have. If people knew the truth, they wouldn't take him so seriously and he wouldn't get away with the ban. So we're telling the truth. That's all. Someone who tells lies is a liar. Someone who wears robes and inflicts suffering is a hypocrite. Someone who bans other people's legitimate spiritual practice needs to give religious freedom. Why does saying these things make us negative? What's negative about stopping lying or giving religous freedom? What's negative about encouraging someone to do these things? Should he really need encouragement in these areas from people like us? What's negative about asking for Buddhism and murky politics to be separated? Is it really so much to ask from the living incarnation of Avalokiteshvara?
Does the WSS book give Dharma a bad name? I don't think so as it makes it quite clear DL is not behaving like a Buddhist Teacher. I think it attempts to distance Buddhism from this person's example by making it clear his political interests and actions are not in accordance with Buddha's instrctions. If you ask me what looks far worse for the Dharma is so many Buddhists accepting without question DL's actions and holding him up as a pillar of the Dharma when even newspaper journalists can spot he's not behaving like a monk.
The story of the emperor's new clothes springs to mind.
When it all comes out in the wash I think we'll come off quite well for having said all along 'we're not with him'.
-
If his reputation is totally destroyed, how will he be able to spread it?
I make this point a third time: The Dalai Lama is destroying his reputation through his very own actions; his reputation is not destroyed by those who would point out the harmful, samsaric nature of his actions.
And, what about preserving the reputation of Shugden Lamas (against the Dalai Lama's slanderous speech) so that they may continue to spread the Dharma to others?
???
I think we need to look at which group/ target audience we are talking about when we speak about Dalai Lama's reputation being destroyed.
For those who are actively following Tibetan politics and are exposed to Dalai Lama's flaws and “deceptions” long term, it is Dalai Lama’s actions that tarnish his reputation. But if we are talking about the general public (the world who doesn’t know about Dorje Shugden and not interested in Tibetan politics but in Tibetan BUDDHISM), it is others accusing Dalai Lama and HIGHLIGHTING Dalai Lama’s flaws/ actions that is causing Dalai Lama’s reputation to be at stake as the most respected and widely recognized icon of Buddhism.
For example, on 28 April 2008, Shugden devotees organised a press conference in New Delhi. The declared intention of the event was to publicly express concerns about the group's perceived persecution at the hands of the Tibetan exile community. The speakers, however, were shrill in their criticism of the Dalai Lama, who they portrayed as an arbitrary ruler effectively preaching violence and responsible for the protests that took place in Tibet during spring 2008. Their condemnation echoed, in parts literally, comments made by the Chinese authorities against the Dalai Lama.
I agree with Dharma Defender. Firstly, it's about preserving the Dalai Lama's reputation NOT for a free Tibet, but about preserving his reputation so that he may continue to spread the Dharma to others. He has brought Dharma to many people, beyond any of us here. What I think is worse is not that one lama’s reputation is being destroyed, but Buddhism in general, because the people who wear the holy robes are on the street protesting and calling their spiritual leader a liar - it implies that Buddhists can’t solve their problems internally and has to make their voice heard through screaming on the street (instead of other methods like FASTING may be?). It is a clear example to the world that protesting for one’s right is more important than Dharma practice nor Sangha’s image.
I haven’t heard anything about Shugden Lamas being slandered by Dalai Lama (may be I am not exposed to it?).
I personally think Lama Gangchen Rinpoche is a shining example of how to deal with this controversy. Although he is considered an enemy of Tibetans by the Tibetan Government in exile, and for his practice of Dorje Shugden he has been expelled from Sera Mey Monastery of which he has brought much financial benefit in the past, he didn’t protested nor demand for his rights.
I read that Rinpoche consulted Dorje Shugden through his medium and Dorje Shugden said it would be very beneficial to make known ancient tantric meditations with excercises. Rinpoche then embarked on his highly successful body and mind tantric healing excercises that the Tibetan Government in exile vehemently ridicules, and discourages on their 'official' websites.
Gangchen Rinpoche’s success is widely acknowledged and there arise a great respect for him and Dorje Shugden, due to his perseverance and his works that benefits many in the world. Gangchen Rinpoche and his students has all rights to protest, especially when he has been put on the list of Tibetan “enemies” for his only 'crime' - Rinpoche practices Dorje Shugden. But I guess he doesn’t need to, because his works and the benefit that H.E. can bring to many is more important than his “rights”.
-
If his reputation is totally destroyed, how will he be able to spread it?
I make this point a third time: The Dalai Lama is destroying his reputation through his very own actions; his reputation is not destroyed by those who would point out the harmful, samsaric nature of his actions.
And, what about preserving the reputation of Shugden Lamas (against the Dalai Lama's slanderous speech) so that they may continue to spread the Dharma to others?
???
Like Vajraprotector, I too perhaps haven't been exposed to the slanderous things the Dalai Lama supposedly says against Shugden lamas. In all cases however, whether DS related or not, I look at the lamas based on their actions and results, and not based on what other people say.
Action: The Dalai Lama banned Dorje Shugden
Result: The ban seems to coincide with the spread of Dorje Shugden's practice, keeping it alive in strongholds around the world. The Dalai Lama also spread Dharma to hundreds of thousands of people, for whom his picture brings them much peace of mind and hope. Do you really want to take what little peace they might have away from them? I'm sure the Shugden lamas' minds and actions are strong enough to withstand the ban...perhaps this entire exercise is purification for us. After all, with anything incredibly holy, obstacles always arise.
I'm not being an apologist for the Dalai Lama's actions but because we cannot judge his (or any lamas') motivations, nor can we see the end result of this ban, we cannot make premature assumptions on whether the Dalai Lama is good or bad, or whether his actions are harmful and samsaric or not.
-
Action: The Dalai Lama banned Dorje Shugden
Result: The ban seems to coincide with the spread of Dorje Shugden's practice, keeping it alive in strongholds around the world.
[/quote]
So if you were to put this logic into a syllogism it would be:
'The Dalai Lama's action of banning Dorje Shugden practice is a cause for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice because the two events are concurrent.'
Lets put this to the test. First the reason needs to have a definite relationship with the predicate. So 'because the two events are concurrent' must have a definite relationship with 'the ban causing the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice'.
There are two main types of relationship - natural & causal. If a natural relationship is present that means the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice is the same nature as someone imposing a ban on it. This is like saying the flourishing of racial freedom is the same nature as apartheid, so I think we can say this is incorrect. Saying that a ban is a cause of the flourishing of the banned thing is also like saying apartheid is a cause of racial freedom, so we can also dismiss the presence of a causal relationship.
For the sake of thoroughness though, lets carry the syllogism through by looking at whether it is qualified by the three modes:
1) Property of the subject: Is the reason 'the two events are concurrent' a property of the subject 'The Dalai Lama's ban'.
No. Why? Because Dorje Shugden practice can flourish independently of a ban on it. Or you could say a ban on Dorje Shugden practice does not naturally give rise to the flourishing of that practice - so the flourishing of DS practice (one of the 'two events') is not a property of the ban.
2) Forward pervasion: is the reason 'the two are concurrent' pervaded by the predicate '[the ban] is a cause of the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice'.
No, again because the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice can happen without the existence of a ban. This is the same as acknowledging that an earthquake in Haiti can happen independently of my drinking tea in Britain. My drinking of tea may be simultaneous with an earthquake, but the earthquake is not pervaded by my drinking of tea. If it was I would be very paranoid when drinking my tea.
3) Reverse pervasion: If the predicate '[the ban] is a cause for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice.' were not to apply, would the reason 'the two are concurrent' also not apply?
No, because the two can be concurrent even where the ban is not a cause for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice. In the same way, even if my drinking of tea is not a cause of the earthquake in Haiti, the two can still happen concurrently.
So - your logic is unsound & you need to reconsider your standpoint.
[/quote]
I'm not being an apologist for the Dalai Lama's actions but because we cannot judge his (or any lamas') motivations, nor can we see the end result of this ban, we cannot make premature assumptions on whether the Dalai Lama is good or bad, or whether his actions are harmful and samsaric or not.
[/quote]
We could bring more syllogistic action in here. What constitutes a harmful action? Does the seed of a sprout cause an oak tree? Does a sectarian ban cause peace? We can already see results to the ban - huge suffering - had you not noticed? Some people's faith is blind.
By the way - I don't think the Dalai Lama is a lama in more than title, so I would not refuse to question him on that ground.
[/quote]
The Dalai Lama also spread Dharma to hundreds of thousands of people, for whom his picture brings them much peace of mind and hope. Do you really want to take what little peace they might have away from them? I'm sure the Shugden lamas' minds and actions are strong enough to withstand the ban...perhaps this entire exercise is purification for us. After all, with anything incredibly holy, obstacles always arise.
[/quote]
More logic is needed. What will be the cause of the destruction of the faith in the minds of the DL's disciples when they realise he is a liar? What will be the cause of his inability to spread the Dharma? His own actions. Telling lies causes these things, telling the truth does not. Telling the truth causes faith to arise. I'll give you an example:
Recently some Catholic Bishops in Ireland swept a child abuse controversy under the carpet because they did not want to damage people's faith. The end result has been terrible damage to people's faith because they see church leaders as having no integrity. If we, as a Buddhist community have the integrity to stand up & point out evil within our own community then when the whole thing inevitably blows up people are still going to be able to have faith in Buddhism, because they will have faith in our integrity.
By the way, on a more emotive note - the phrase 'little peace' is a bit patronising, whoever might be removing it. Those people probably care very much about human rights & would like to know where it is being abused & take exception to being conned! Saying 'maybe it's purification for us' is also a little glib unless you are one of the people who are being physically threatened - are you?
The message here is simply to look at cause & effect & not fudge over it by saying 'we can not know'. In an ultimate sense it may be true that ordinary beings like myself 'can not know', but then in an ultimate sense there is no suffering, no cessation of suffering etc. does that mean we should not act to avert it? If we have compassion we still need to act in accordance with cause & effect. Or maybe it's better to say, 'in order to have compassion we need to act in accordance with cause & effect'. Bans on religious freedom cause suffering so we act to lift the ban. Maybe these actions will work, maybe they will not - I keep my mind peaceful regardless by keeping my motivation pure. But simply meditating will not lift the ban - this statement is in accordance with logic. Meditation solves our real problem - our inner problem of bad feeling. Solving outer problems requires outer action. In this case it is correct, and in accordance with democratic principles which have contributed to the freedom which is now threatened, to protest peacefully & loudly & to spread the truth however harsh it seems. Truth being a cause of happiness - not suffering.
-
BTW - please excuse my inept usage of the 'quotes' - I wish I could promise to get it right next time! :)
-
Middleway,
Where were you, why were not you with us before? Your logic lesson is impeccable, and you tread the path of reasoning in a way that would be praised by Lord Dharmakirti himself.
My only fear is, who is going to understand you? Who studies logic?
It does not matter, you please go on using your knowledge to debunk false assumptions. Good luck! If you come here to help in this way, believe me, there is a lot to do!
-
The strange thing is A Friend, that the DL studied logic! Which is completely illogical given his actions... :-\
-
My only fear is, who is going to understand you? Who studies logic?
Try it out: http://www.understandingthemind.org/syllogism.pdf (http://www.understandingthemind.org/syllogism.pdf)
1) Property of the subject: Is the reason 'the two events are concurrent' a property of the subject 'The Dalai Lama's ban'.
No. Why? Because Dorje Shugden practice can flourish independently of a ban on it. Or you could say a ban on Dorje Shugden practice does not naturally give rise to the flourishing of that practice - so the flourishing of DS practice (one of the 'two events') is not a property of the ban.
For simplicity, I used the sentence "Banning Dorje Shugden practice is the cause of it flourishing because the two events are concurrent."
For property of the subject, I came up with "Banning Dorje Shugden practice is one of two concurrent events."
This is true, because the reason does apply to the subject. The reason given is not utterly irrelevant/unrelated, so it is indeed a property of the subject. (At least, that is how I understand property of the subject; please correct me if I'm wrong.)
2) Forward pervasion: is the reason 'the two are concurrent' pervaded by the predicate '[the ban] is a cause of the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice'.
No, again because the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice can happen without the existence of a ban. This is the same as acknowledging that an earthquake in Haiti can happen independently of my drinking tea in Britain. My drinking of tea may be simultaneous with an earthquake, but the earthquake is not pervaded by my drinking of tea. If it was I would be very paranoid when drinking my tea.
My understanding is that since the subject is not mentioned in the forward pervasion (or the reverse pervasion for that matter), it needs to be more of a "generic" statement. So, in general, "Whenever two events are concurrent, one is the cause of the other."
Obviously, this is not correct because we can think of many counter examples. In short, correlation does not imply causation.
3) Reverse pervasion: If the predicate '[the ban] is a cause for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice.' were not to apply, would the reason 'the two are concurrent' also not apply?
No, because the two can be concurrent even where the ban is not a cause for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice. In the same way, even if my drinking of tea is not a cause of the earthquake in Haiti, the two can still happen concurrently.
In general, "If one event is not the cause of the other, then the two events are not concurrent."
Again, we can think of many counter examples.
So - your logic is unsound & you need to reconsider your standpoint.
Yes, although I can check off on #1, the other two modes get big X's. Therefore, the reason given is not conclusive. It is still open to doubt.
-
Thanks emptymountains - I'm still not sure about the first mode - I'll have to lube my brain to figure it out. Oh hold on, 'the brain is not the mind because the brain is a physical object…'
this is better than coffee… :)
-
Still haven't gotten round to chewing over that first mode, but I have been looking at the website that Emptymountains linked to. There's some very helpful stuff on there. One thing in particular that caught my attention was the following from an essay on reincarnation, discussing substantial causes vs contributory conditions. The followng quote comes from it:
'Geshe-la goes on to say that “The substantial cause of a thing must be something of similar type or substance. Thus, the substantial cause of a clay pot must be clay and the substantial cause of a gold coin must be gold.” So, obviously, an apple seed cannot be the substantial cause of an oak tree, which is a basis for saying that they are not part of the same continuum of cause and effect.'
http://www.understandingthemind.org/reincarnation.html
Which is a good thing to bear in mind when we're considering whether a ban on a practice can be a cause of the practice flourishing. Can we apply the above reasoning directly to the ban do you think?
-
'Geshe-la goes on to say that “The substantial cause of a thing must be something of similar type or substance. Thus, the substantial cause of a clay pot must be clay and the substantial cause of a gold coin must be gold.” So, obviously, an apple seed cannot be the substantial cause of an oak tree, which is a basis for saying that they are not part of the same continuum of cause and effect.'
[url]http://www.understandingthemind.org/reincarnation.html[/url]
Which is a good thing to bear in mind when we're considering whether a ban on a practice can be a cause of the practice flourishing. Can we apply the above reasoning directly to the ban do you think?
Please do not see what I'm presenting here as I'm opposing Geshe-la. I highly revere Geshe-la and fold my hands to him.May Geshe-la and all our Lamas live long.
In one of Shakyamuni's life before he attained full enlightenment, he killed to save many others. Can we then use the same logic to say that he killed due to ill motive. Is it that simple to read others' intentions and minds? I am one on the path of learning with no powers of clairvoyance and dare not make such a judgment on mere outward observations, but strife to maintain equanimity as much as I know how.
Thank you everyone for posting your views and I do spend time to pondering on them, be it similar or opposing.
-
Please do not see what I'm presenting here as I'm opposing Geshe-la. I highly revere Geshe-la and fold my hands to him.May Geshe-la and all our Lamas live long.
No worries, I wasn't thinking along those lines & I doubt if anyone else was.
In regard to your other point - I personally find the strongest arguments for the wrathful actions which you find unsavory or inappropriate to be those that explain how, regardless of the DL's motives, it is appropriate to oppose him wrathfully. You'll find those arguments in some other recent threads on this topic. One argument I haven't seen, but is very likely there somewhere, is that it is actually a downfall of our Bodhisattva vows not to use wrathful actions where appropriate. We can debate over when 'appropriate' is I guess, but I don't think a fear over judging someone's actions because they're widely regarded to be holy is a valid reason to end that debate before it begins.
BTW - if I'd caught Buddha Shakyamuni in that previous life - knife in hand - about to kill that fella - I'd have stopped him! & I think I would have been right to do so.
-
Yay! Got the quotes working :)
-
when we're considering whether a ban on a practice can be a cause of the practice flourishing. Can we apply the above reasoning directly to the ban do you think?
Sure. If introducing a ban is the cause to increase the practice of Dorje Shugden, then turning down the heating in a room is the cause of increasing the temperature, reducing the number of plants in a field is the way to an abundant harvest and the way to increase the effect arising from any cause is to reduce the cause - in other words, the complete opposite of what is observed and understood from the laws of cause and effect.
It's totally illogical, Captain! ???
-
Sure. If introducing a ban is the cause to increase the practice of Dorje Shugden, then turning down the heating in a room is the cause of increasing the temperature, reducing the number of plants in a field is the way to an abundant harvest and the way to increase the effect arising from any cause is to reduce the cause - in other words, the complete opposite of what is observed and understood from the laws of cause and effect.
It's totally illogical, Captain! ???
I think that a ban on the practice is not the same as turning down the heating or reducing the number of plants.
As i understand it, the ban is a decree from the Dalai Lama that says if you practice this,
1. you will harm my life
2. Tibet will not gain independence
3. you cannot be at any Tibetan monastery
4. you cannot attend any of my teachings.
Maybe a better analogy would be if there was a ban on eating durians.
There are people who love durians and there are people who hate them. And i bet there are many more people who don't even know what a durian is. Some people won't care what it is but some when some other people hear about the ban, they may be curious. What is this bloody thing people are making such a fuss out of?
Do you know what a durian is?
It's a very strange fruit found in Asia. And it's very much an acquired taste - stinks like an over ripe corpse in a drain.
Some people may follow the ban and NOT continue eating it, but many more who don't care much about the ban may try the fruit and like it.
Therefore, the fruit ban, which actually publicises the fruit, may result in an increase of people who like it.
Likewise, the Dalai Lama's ban - while the Dalai Lama is very much respected, i am sure there are many people who will not follow the ban on his say so. For example, in China, Dorje Shugden is one of the fastest growing practices! Can you imagine how many billion people there who will follow Shugden. In other places, people will google it (hopefully find websites like this, take part in the discussions and read the articles) and come to their own conclusion.
As an aside, I believe that in the 16th century, during King Henry VIII's time, he was considered a God King too and he (and several kings after him) decided to wipe out Catholicism. Of course there was much strife and suffering for Catholics in olde Englande then but today, Catholicism is alive and well in England. Likewise, I believe Dorje Shugden's practice will prevail - because Dorje Shugden himself has said that his time is coming, and you know what? I believe him :)
-
I think that a ban on the practice is not the same as turning down the heating or reducing the number of plants.
No, it's exactly the same. Someone like Dharmakirti would see that what I said is analogous.
The Dalai Lama's wish is to reduce the number of Dorje Shugden practitioners throughout the world to zero - that's why there's a ban! It's exactly like those analogies I quoted. He's not promoting Dorje Shugden, he's getting people to SIGN to say they won't practice and imposing draconian penalties (ostracism) on those who refuse. The only reason people in China are practising Dorje Shugden is to spite the Dalai Lama.
On what authority do you say that the practice is increasing? Is there any real evidence?
Those who follow the Dalai Lama in Tibet (probably most) will probably have stopped doing the practice. Before the ban there was 4 million Dorje Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan community, there's nowhere near that many now,
Extending your reasoning it would be a good idea to ban Buddhadharma altogether as that will make it flourish. Does that sound sensible?
-
It's a very strange fruit found in Asia. And it's very much an acquired taste - stinks like an over ripe corpse in a drain.
Some people may follow the ban and NOT continue eating it, but many more who don't care much about the ban may try the fruit and like it.
Therefore, the fruit ban, which actually publicises the fruit, may result in an increase of people who like it.
This is vague. Lets get precise. We need to consider the ban in terms of it's existence as a substantial cause, because then we can determine what effect it will produce.
If the ban is the substantial cause of the flourishing of the banned thing, then a ban on an object will only give rise to the flourishing of that object - which is patently ridiculous. Consider the following:
In your example the ban on the durians could be seen as a condition for some people to discover & subsequently enjoy the fruit, but it could not be seen as a substantial cause of that enjoyment or the subsequent spreading of that enjoyment by those people to others. This is the important point we must grasp here, the misunderstanding of which leads to your wrong view & harmful inaction. The substantial cause is always the same 'substance or type' as the effect. So the substantial cause of someone coming to enjoy durians could be them enjoying it, or something similar to it, in the past, maybe in a past life. But the effect of the ban would be the same substance or type as the ban - ie it would bring about a decline in the consumption of durians. If the durians were to suddenly take off as a treasured delicacy world wide, this would be because of the enjoyment of the people who discovered it, as supported by other conditions such as democracy, which is also not supported by undemocratic bans!
The ban on Dorje Shugden practice may bring the practice to some people's attention, but it is not a substantial cause of it flourishing. The substantial cause of the practice flourishing is faith in the practice. This faith inspires an individual to practice sincerely, set a good example to others, work to make the practice available to others etc. However the effect that the ban, as a substantial cause, gives rise to is a reduction in the practice. With this clarity we can see that while it is possible for someone to become a Dorje Shugden practitioner by hearing about the ban in the media, investigating it further & subsequently developing faith in Dorje Shugden (spelling it out like that makes it sound unlikely eh?), the ban is not the substantial cause of that faith. It is opposite in nature - going in the opposite direction. It is out of faith that our hypothetical person will have the opportunity to go to a Dharma Centre, meet with qualified Teachers etc. The ban is a substantial cause of none of this and it's only a condition (in this specific imaginary instance) in very small part.
The ban is not even a necessary condition for the flourishing of Dorje Shugden practice, like water is a necessary condition for the effect of a plant to arise from its substantial cause of a seed. If you remove the ban then you do not remove the faith of the practitioners, you do not do anything to slow or prevent any of the conditions which promote the growth of Dorje Shugden practice world wide. In fact it is easy to see how the ban much more readily brings about conditions which are conducive to the destruction of faith (how many people do you know like that hypothetical person in the example just given? How many people do you know who have lost their faith since the ban?). Given the harmful & unnecessary nature of a ban, why would we then support it or consider it beneficial simply because of the unlikely event of someone hearing about, investigating & developing faith in the practice through hearing of the ban?
You use the word 'may' (& 'possibly' - sends shivers down my spine! I wouldn't trust my lineage to a 'possibly'!) a lot, which in itself shows on some level you know the ban is not a substantial cause of the growth of the practice. So you have to ask what is. In what circumstances would those effects actually arise & when would they not? What is the cause, that is to say the substantial cause of someone meeting with & engaging in Dorje Shugden practice? What are merely conditions? What are necessary conditions? And what are their opposites? Your lack of clarity is dangerous. Someone might believe that water is the substantial cause of wheat growing & so end up starving to death! Or someone may think that the presence of Jews in a country is the cause of that country's misfortunes & so try & exterminate them. It is very important we are clear about causes & their effects. Proximity does not prove causation, & it certainly doesn't prove substantive cause, which is what we need to be crystal clear about.
Given that the ban is not a necessary condition for the substantial cause of faith to arise, but is a substantial cause of the destruction of the lineage, we should act to oppose the ban. I'd add that given that the ban stinks like a durian, we should act to oppose it wrathfully!
All this is very interesting as it shows how a simple misunderstanding can bring about huge disruption. We need to eradicate our ignorance of the precise meaning of the Dharma through debates like these. Again - I greatly appreciate this opportunity to reduce & finally eradicate my own.
BTW:
Extending your reasoning it would be a good idea to ban Buddhadharma altogether as that will make it flourish. Does that sound sensible?
Excellent reasoning - spot on.
-
This is absurd!
Dalai Lama can't do nothing to Dorje Shugden practitioners around the world. He can't and the silly TGIE can't do nothing as well! If he could, we all wouldn't be able to openly discuss this on the Internet. I can practice whatever I want and I choose to practice Dorje Shugden!
The Dalai Lama knows this. I am sure! So what is he doing with the ban and lying about it and creating such a big fuss? What for? Doesn't he have better things to do? Thank god, he isn't like some crazy people we know that starts killing minorities or like how the Pagan Romans use to feed the Christians to the tigers. Aren't we much better off? I know! I know! We aren't but look, Dalai Lama won't stop! I can guarantee you this, as he age and his time is coming, he will push for this ban even stronger and harder. But we won't stop defending our precious protector too! So no silly TGIE is going to tell us what I can or cannot practice or what I can or cannot propagate because they have no jurisdiction in where i live.
By the way, the Christian is huge and everywhere despite the harsher persecution than what the Dalai Lama is dishing out. So don't say Dorje Shugden practice will die out because of the petty ban that is currently being enforced by TGIE and amongst the few uneducated Tibetans.
It is just too bad. Dorje Shugden will outlive all of us and he will be much bigger! He will benefit so many and so many will enter the Dharma because of him. The Dharma will experience a last renaissance, just before it dies out completely as predicted by Buddha Shakyamuni.
-
This is absurd!
If you could please take a moment to show me what is absurd in my argument by giving specific responses to the parts you find to be wrong. Then I think we might get somewhere. As it is I feel responding to your most recent post would be a waste of time, as although your reasoning is full of holes, pointing them out would just illicit another surge of ill considered words.
Thank you.
P.S - I've changed my mind - there's one thing I can't let pass - that is Lineageholders statement:
As an aside, I believe that in the 16th century, during King Henry VIII's time, he was considered a God King too and he (and several kings after him) decided to wipe out Catholicism. Of course there was much strife and suffering for Catholics in olde Englande then but today, Catholicism is alive and well in England. Likewise, I believe Dorje Shugden's practice will prevail - because Dorje Shugden himself has said that his time is coming, and you know what? I believe him :)
And your statement:
By the way, the Christian is huge and everywhere despite the harsher persecution than what the Dalai Lama is dishing out. So don't say Dorje Shugden practice will die out because of the petty ban that is currently being enforced by TGIE and amongst the few uneducated Tibetans.
I don't want to comment on these statements, just highlight them for the world to see. They are so irrational that they require no comment to point it out. As such they oppose the 'don't protest, there is a bigger picture' point of view better than anything I could say.
-
Sorry - that first quote was from WisdomBeing.
-
Second quote even (sheesh...)
-
I find what is said here to be good lessons. "Criticism, judgement and rallying - no matter how right and correct we think we are and how wrong the other side is - doesn't necessarily win the world over."
Do take a read.
Criticism, judgement and rallying - no matter how right and correct we think we are and how wrong the other side is - doesn't necessarily win the world over. From the outside, we just look political and not engaging in the very thing we are trying to promote: Dharma practice. The world will look at us protesting and criticising other lamas, and think to themselves, "this is what Dharma practice is? This is what DS practitioners do to defend their faith?"
After all, do we really have that many attainments and knowledge to be able to look upon the Lamas and judge what they are doing? Imagine if we did that to all our Lamas? Guru devotion is about believing that the Lamas do have more wisdom, clairvoyance and attainments than us and know what they are doing more than we can understand at this time.
(1) Imagine if Milarepa had said to himself, “damn that Marpa. He shouldn’t act that way! What a horrible Lama, why does he do this to me? He shouldn’t torture me by making me build houses for 12 years! He should teach me Dharma!” Imagine if he had gotten so angry at what seemingly crazy Marpa was doing and just upped and left and given up on Dharma.
(2) Imagine if Naropa had said, “I give up. That stupid Naropa won’t even acknowledge me. I want the Dharma so much and he won’t give it to me after 12 years of following him around. What kind of Guru is that who won’t teach the Dharma??” and then he just upped and left.
(3) Imagine if all the great Lamas sat around lamenting the loss of Tibet and cursed all the Buddhas for not protecting and helping them to keep their country? Imagine if they all sat about and bitched about how uncompassionate Tsongkhapa, Tara and the protectors were for allowing so many millions of Tibetans to be killed during the cultural revolution and their monasteries to be bombed? Imagine if they just eventually decided “you know what, *$&* all this, I don’t need Dharma, the Buddhas are just a bunch of statues that don’t do anything” and they gave up Dharma and went to work as a busboy in New York.
No, all these Lamas and great teachers stuck in it for YEARS, believing that their Gurus and the Buddhas had greater wisdom that would be beneficial. Even if they didn’t understand it or even didn’t agree with it, they at least didn’t criticize or speak badly against the Lamas. They saw and recognized that the success and results of their own Dharma practice wasn’t dependent on what their Lamas or other practitioners were doing, but was entirely from their own side – their effort, patience, generosity, perseverance in their practice, and reflecting their own application of Dharma and the teachings of their Lamas well.
-
Criticism, judgement and rallying - no matter how right and correct we think we are and how wrong the other side is - doesn't necessarily win the world over. From the outside, we just look political and not engaging in the very thing we are trying to promote: Dharma practice. The world will look at us protesting and criticising other lamas, and think to themselves, "this is what Dharma practice is? This is what DS practitioners do to defend their faith?"
But sadly, this is what the anti Dorje Shugden belueve and continue to act upon the belief. On places where open discussion is allowed on Dorje Shugden, they keep on attacking Dorje Shugden, but when it comes to being here in this forum, they do not dare to challenge. It also serves as a very bad example for fellow Buddhists of other traditions, and gives the impression that Tibetan Buddhists are very fragmented and very political.
After all, do we really have that many attainments and knowledge to be able to look upon the Lamas and judge what they are doing? Imagine if we did that to all our Lamas? Guru devotion is about believing that the Lamas do have more wisdom, clairvoyance and attainments than us and know what they are doing more than we can understand at this time.
Some people, surprisingly believe that they do. Guru devotion is also about knowing our own limitation and that the only way to do that is to devote ourselves to a Guru and surrendering our delusions and self grasping to him. But these people usually say "But i'm kagyu and not gelug, so me criticising Pabongkha dosent affect me!" and they call themselves not sectarian.
(1) Imagine if Milarepa had said to himself, “damn that Marpa. He shouldn’t act that way! What a horrible Lama, why does he do this to me? He shouldn’t torture me by making me build houses for 12 years! He should teach me Dharma!” Imagine if he had gotten so angry at what seemingly crazy Marpa was doing and just upped and left and given up on Dharma.
At this age, this is a very common thing. At this day and age, Milarepa would not only have left Marpa, but would have also put up posters and set up a website saying that Marpa is a fake guru, how Gurus cannot be as nasty and mean as that, and how gurus are supposed to be compassionate, and therefore he is a fake guru, etc. And then start a support group: healing center for students who are the victims of Marpa, and then put Marpa on the press as a fake and abusive guru.
(2) Imagine if Naropa had said, “I give up. That stupid Naropa won’t even acknowledge me. I want the Dharma so much and he won’t give it to me after 12 years of following him around. What kind of Guru is that who won’t teach the Dharma??” and then he just upped and left.
Then we would have no Mahamudra at all and Tilopa would just say too bad and move on.
(3) Imagine if all the great Lamas sat around lamenting the loss of Tibet and cursed all the Buddhas for not protecting and helping them to keep their country? Imagine if they all sat about and bitched about how uncompassionate Tsongkhapa, Tara and the protectors were for allowing so many millions of Tibetans to be killed during the cultural revolution and their monasteries to be bombed? Imagine if they just eventually decided “you know what, *$&* all this, I don’t need Dharma, the Buddhas are just a bunch of statues that don’t do anything” and they gave up Dharma and went to work as a busboy in New York.
I mean who wants to be inspired by a bunch of whiny losers? There is a reason why people respect Lamas -- because of their fortitude and their strength in spreading the teachings.
No, all these Lamas and great teachers stuck in it for YEARS, believing that their Gurus and the Buddhas had greater wisdom that would be beneficial. Even if they didn’t understand it or even didn’t agree with it, they at least didn’t criticize or speak badly against the Lamas. They saw and recognized that the success and results of their own Dharma practice wasn’t dependent on what their Lamas or other practitioners were doing, but was entirely from their own side – their effort, patience, generosity, perseverance in their practice, and reflecting their own application of Dharma and the teachings of their Lamas well.
Dharma practice is not really about who is on the right or wrong camp -- it is about results and transforming the mind and being a kinder person, and applying the teachings into practice. So many Lamas practice Dorje Shugden and has gained results. Any of those who are gelug and went against the practice and gain results and are famous at the same time? I have not seen any yet. It is through perseverance and loyalty that the Dharma can actually spread and last.
This is a very thought provoking post, especially on the part where loyalty is important. Without loyalty, there would be no lineage masters, and without the lineage masters, there would be no teachings. Guru devotion is still more important than the Dalai Lama's camp and it still brings a lot more attainments and benefits, so why choose to betray the Guru?
-
This is absurd!
If you could please take a moment to show me what is absurd in my argument by giving specific responses to the parts you find to be wrong. Then I think we might get somewhere. As it is I feel responding to your most recent post would be a waste of time, as although your reasoning is full of holes, pointing them out would just illicit another surge of ill considered words.
Thank you.
P.S - I've changed my mind - there's one thing I can't let pass - that is Lineageholders statement:
As an aside, I believe that in the 16th century, during King Henry VIII's time, he was considered a God King too and he (and several kings after him) decided to wipe out Catholicism. Of course there was much strife and suffering for Catholics in olde Englande then but today, Catholicism is alive and well in England. Likewise, I believe Dorje Shugden's practice will prevail - because Dorje Shugden himself has said that his time is coming, and you know what? I believe him :)
And your statement:
By the way, the Christian is huge and everywhere despite the harsher persecution than what the Dalai Lama is dishing out. So don't say Dorje Shugden practice will die out because of the petty ban that is currently being enforced by TGIE and amongst the few uneducated Tibetans.
I don't want to comment on these statements, just highlight them for the world to see. They are so irrational that they require no comment to point it out. As such they oppose the 'don't protest, there is a bigger picture' point of view better than anything I could say.
Thank you for your feedback but why is our opinion irrational? The Dalai Lama and the CTA has no jurisdiction outside of India and it appears that Dorje Shugden movement within China and the rest of the world seems to be getting bigger and bigger instead or shrinking. We have given our reasonings but you apparently have not. We would very much welcome your comment on this. Thank you.
Although the comments we made over 2 years now but I believe that the situation on the Dorje Shugden ban is relaxing a little and I think the Dalai Lama is focussing on other matters and from a recent comment, he was even slightly jovial when he mentioned that the Dorje Shugden movement is growing in many places and he took the time to name specific countries. This is highly unusual and I think groundbreaking.
-
I find some of the older posts quite interesting so I'll reply to it with my own reasonings.
No worries, I wasn't thinking along those lines & I doubt if anyone else was.
In regard to your other point - I personally find the strongest arguments for the wrathful actions which you find unsavory or inappropriate to be those that explain how, regardless of the DL's motives, it is appropriate to oppose him wrathfully. You'll find those arguments in some other recent threads on this topic. One argument I haven't seen, but is very likely there somewhere, is that it is actually a downfall of our Bodhisattva vows not to use wrathful actions where appropriate. We can debate over when 'appropriate' is I guess, but I don't think a fear over judging someone's actions because they're widely regarded to be holy is a valid reason to end that debate before it begins.
The bodhisattva vow of using wrath when appropriate applies to a situation where having wrath would benefit the majority. In this case, even though a lot of people practice Dorje Shugden, the numbers are not more than the amount of Dalai Lama's fans and students that will be damaged if we damage his reputation. To this, no matter how hard i try to reason, i feel that this vow does not apply in this situation. I dont think that damaging the samaya and faith of others to lift the Dorje Shugden ban is Buddhist or justifiable, but I do support the protests that has been staged against the Dalai Lama as it made people think twice, and to let people see another side of the story. On that ground, I support the protests.
BTW - if I'd caught Buddha Shakyamuni in that previous life - knife in hand - about to kill that fella - I'd have stopped him! & I think I would have been right to do so.
In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, one dead psychotic killer is better than many dead innocent people. It was one against many and if i was him, I would have killed the psychotic killer all the same. It would have prevented the killer from acting out on his interest to kill.
I do not support that the protests and 'wrath' was done under the context of the bodhisattva vows because it is just not logical to see it as that way. however, one benefit of the protests is that 1) Dorje Shugden gets some media attention and it prompts journalists and curious people to investigate about Dorje Shugden, and 2) It makes people think deeper, that the "perfect" Dalai Lama also has his flaws and problems. There has been this misconception for so long that the Dalai Lama is perfect because he is Chenrenzig on earth, but as a Buddhist monk and Gelugpa scholar, I do not think he would like the idea of being hero worshipped at all, so perhaps, the protests are also part of a scene of a huge play. I would say that the protests help break people's delusional view about the Dalai Lama, and the protests are good because it causes people to think and to re-evaluate their positions on the Dalai Lama. On that point, I support the protests and say that they are beneficial.
-
Yes this is a rather old post and debate made some time ago...never the less it is interesting and well here is what I think of it now... 2 years after...
Actually I do support the peaceful protest... I thought it was rather good to bring about media attention on the issues and no doubt because of the protest (which was instructed by Geshela)... has created many curious about Dorje Shugden, put Dorje SHugden on the media light and it has also created many doubts in people's mind... some which I know are the very students of NKT. Perhaps this is why the newer students of NKT are actually pretty sheltered about this issue when asked and they would rather not talk about it because their center's Guru claims they do not dwell in politics. This I find funny because well ermmm everyone knows that NKT was pivotal in this. So my question is... how come it is some what swept under the carpet now? Shouldn't this be discussed openly to clear away doubts and misconceptions of newer students so tht their faith in the protector be even stronger? I would encourage this.
Yes I do support the protest but I do not support the use those degrading name calling words like... Dalai Lama is a lier"/ power hungry/ a fake etc etc. This is because such harsh words that shows condemnation of another, puting others down is really not quite Buddhist even though we know the motivation is probably to just arose the opposition n to gain some attention. However, I think by putting any Guru's down from anyone is a huge no no for it is breaking our basic vows. So I would have personally find another way/words of putting it... u can instead talk about TGIE/CTA they are not sangha and they are the ones who would take HHDL words and execute how they please...
Secondly puting another Guru down... you actually disturb a lot of people/students mind and that is again creating the causes for one self in future not being able to receive the Dharma with conducive conditions.
Whether we believe we are right and His Holiness is wrong does not matter to karma... for there is repercussions to face if HHDL is Chenrezig which I believe He is so still.... and why take the risk? Why because look at the consistency of his actions... the only weird and negative thing HHDL has done that caused so much trauma is this Dorje Shugden issue which blew all our minds away... so the question is WHY, what's the reason behind this? And the more I look at it, the more I am likened to agree with this websites' wise stand together with out Guru's guru HH Trijang Rinpoche's advice to remain neutral and not take sides for it may appear that HHDL is in conflict with Dorje Shugden... an "illusory play" and yes I do agree so because now after 2 years... look at how much HHDL tone has changed and probably no 15th Dalai Lama, he is has resigned frm politics and now the Tibetan govt in exile claims to be democratic ( a laugh). But still the change does give us a clearer picture of the future. And definitely I am confident it is one where Dorje Shugden practice will prevail even stronger as we witness it growing in and many parts of the world i.e China.
Hence we dig deep and if we really cannot come to a conclusion why not just agree to disagree. I do not think we have the clairvoyant to judge such highly attained beings.. if we do then we would be HHDL already. Let the high Lamas say and do it, it does not mean we the students should act and parrot them... they are in a different league I think, and we would never really know just what is it they are up to.
I guess my point is whether HHDL is right or wrong, before we judge we really need to see everything on a bigger scale, and if we do not like it, still we do not need to say negative things because HHDL is after all a "monk" - are we? I am not siding HHDL, all I am saying I would have done it differently that is all.
-
I must correct myself (please also read my most recent post on "all this can't we get along stuff" [url]http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.0[/url] ([url]http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.0[/url])). I do understand (thank you Crazy Cloud for taking the time to respond to my many rather excitable posts) that speaking out does not necessarily equate to being angry.
I was reacting to has seemed to be an attitude that quite blatant in much of the coverage of this issue: i.e. that people ARE reacting in an angry and aggressive way that does not necessarily reflect well on either themselves or the practices they are trying to uphold. I apologise if it has come across as being directly specifically to any individual here, which was not my intention.
Well, I do think that at this stage that the WSS people are, very obviously, angry about the Dalai Lama and the ban and they are not at all happy about him. They have been creating many rumors about the Dalai Lama that is not true, and it seems that their campaign against the Dalai Lama was motivated by hatred after all. Disappointing, but what is new in samsara? After all, their appearance has been predicted by Trijang Rinpoche.
I am concerned about views such as those that are being pushed forward in the Great Deception book. While it does provide a lot of very relevant and insightful information, it was written very strongly in a way that I felt, was not merely against the actions and tenents of the Dalai Lama but against the Dalai Lama himself. It frequently comes across as being very personal and, yes, angry and sometimes almost aggressive.
A great deception is a very interesting book indeed, with many facts that is relevant to the ban. However, more often than not, I find that most of its contents tend to skew towards being anti Dalai Lama instead of discussing about it from a neutral standpoint. If the facts were discussed from a neutral standpoint, then it would have been far more credible.
i apologise again (sorry, here i go repeating again) for overreacting and assuming too quickly, too soon that this was the view held here by others also. But I am concerned that there is quite some exaggeration, rhetoric and overly emotive language being used in the media and also by certain groups in villifying the Dalai Lama himself, rather than to look properly what is going on.
I have always believed that the approach that we should use to lift the ban is to provide information for people to judge and learn themselves rather than having to go to the level of having intense hatred against the Dalai Lama. I dont feel that it is Buddhist at all but the protests did work its magic and the CTA were forced to be more careful so something worked.
I take heart that this website provides information without necessarily forcing a view down our throats ("i.e. this guy is the bad guy, this guy is the good guy... believe it or else" which can be seen in both pro-shugden and anti-shugden sites/groups) and I hope very much that this forum will continue to be an extension of this for us to provide more information and views for people to think about before just blindly jumping into one extreme view or another.
The best thing about this forum is that, this forum goes in accordance with the view that Trijang Rinpoche has taught, that is we follow a neutral POV where we do not generate hate towards the Dalai Lama or towards Dorje Shugden. I have full faith in my Guru and by extension, our Lineage masters and Trijang Dorjechang is one of them. Does not make sense if I trust his teachings but not this aspect.
To be honest, I am not comfortable with all the hate against the Dalai Lama and all the anger that WSS has shown, but it did have results and I am happy with the results, but do note that this approach will upset more people than benefitting them in the long run.