LOL I've just been reading Psylotripitaka's post about how to reconcile the 'bigger picture' and what the Dalai Lama is doing with this ban. Then I noticed there was this discussion here about this photo too.
I think that's a big question a lot of people have had too - how can the Dalai Lama have relied so strongly on a protector for almost half his life (or more?) and then just suddenly give it up. Is he really that fickle and contradictory? Is his understanding of Dharma so shallow that he could just give up something without any real reasoning? So many other things fall apart if we just accept this single advice that Dorje Shugden is bad. There are so many perspectives of why this statement about Dorje Shugden being a harmful demon make everything else fall apart, the ground beneath our feet gets ripped up.
The strongest one I think, is that if the Dalai Lama says that the practice of Dorje Shugden is bad, he effectively nullifies one of the heart practices of his own root teacher Trijang Rinpoche. If he says that one practice which he would have received from this teacher is bad, then surely, that puts every other practice on the rocks! Then it follows that the same would apply for the Dalai Lama's students. If the Dalai Lama had "made a mistake" about the practice of Dorje Shugden, then that plants a seed of doubt for all the other practices he is doing and giving out now - could those be a "mistake" too?
So is he really that fickle about his faith in his teachers and his practices? This photo shows a beautiful moment between the Dalai Lama and his teacher Trijang Rinpoche but with the implementation of the ban, every of these moments would have meant nothing. I don't think this could be so.
So we're back to that discussion - was this ban a really silly mistake, a BIG FAT oversight by the Dalai Lama? Or really a divine plan for something bigger?
I'd like to look at this picture and hope that this kind of closeness - in action as well as in practices - will happen again one day soon, with the new incarnation of Trijang Rinpoche.
HoneyDakini
From the ground base that everything can act as a support for realization, certainly, the 'divine plan', the 'higher purpose' of the ban is to give us an extraordinary opportunity to generate a fierce Universal Compassion, for what greater suffering than the destruction of Holy objects of refuge. Certainly, as I've said elsewhere, according to common conventions of our society and the Dharma itself, the damage arising from the ban is entirely inappropriate and requires the response of compassionate action to control and pacify the damaging actions, revealing the beauty of our precious Dharmapala, and setting a good example.
It is said that when we view our Gurus as Buddhas, all the Buddhas enter our Guru and we receive the blessings of a Buddha. So, if we view the Dalai Lama as an emanation of Buddha, the Buddha's enter and we can receive the Buddha's blessings whether or not he is actually a Buddha. From this point of view we can see the actions of the ban as the skillful means of a Buddha revealing incredibly potent objects of universal compassion. This point of view is humbling and very blessed, but it is insufficient to provide us clarity when acting against the ban. The lamrim is full of subjective decisions that we make in our own mind, and like inner people, they function to produce their own effect. Whether or not our Guru is a Buddha depends on us, not the Guru. However, there are basic conventions to be observed while we remain in the human realm. For example, I may view a homeless person as an emanation of Heruka, but the likelihood that they could give me a detailed transmission of how vajra recitation should be done is quite slim (these days). Likewise, though we may view the Guru as an emanation teaching the path of abandonment and practice, because we live in the human realm we must abide by the conventions of society when it comes to broad reaching actions that effect many in inappropriate ways. To do so, I find it helpful to take the following approach:
With respect to confronting the situation with practical actions, we can see him not as a Buddha, but as an object of compassion. In this way we can respond appropriately to the situation with compassionate action. As I said, you do not develop compassion for a Buddha as this is called 'wrong compassion' because they are not suffering. So, in order to develop universal compassion for perceived suffering that we regard as having been emanated, we must acknowledge the illusion-like suffering by withdrawing our pure view in order to develop universal compassion. Then we are truly using the situation very constructively for the very purpose we believe it was emanated - the development of realizations (which is the "bigger picture"). Because there is no inherently existent suffering and no inherently existent Buddha, we can change our views accordingly and develop realization from both points of view.
I am driving at getting to the bottom of our precise views and intentions, for it is clearly insufficient to 'just have respect'. How do we reconcile the 'the Guru is Buddha and does not make mistakes' with 'the Guru may be a Buddha but he appears to be making mistakes'? Now don't say 'his actions teach the path of abandonment and practice'. Surely, but that too is not enough due to 'wrong compassion'. Check precisely. What is going on in this situation?
So let me put it another way:
- there's a story of a practitioner who is beaten by the Guru and he explains to a friend that every time this happens he is receiving the wrathful blessings of Heruka. That is a subjective decision that has profound effects, but to what extent do we allow the Guru to beat us before speaking up?
- Or what about if the Guru is ordained and makes sexual advances, do you think 'the Guru's actions are pure so it is ok' or do you speak up about the inappropriateness?
- If the Guru begins murdering a bunch of people, do you view this as the unmistaken actions of a Buddha and that they are receiving a Buddhas blessings, support it, and actually help him (service)? At what point do you speak up about it being a mistake? And if you do, what are the implications for you internally as far as your view is concerned?
