new method of Guru devotion...?

[Ensapa]

I found this quote while going thorugh an article on HHDL's website:

Anyway, I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dolgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dolgyal.

I am not someone who tries to claim that I should be counted amongst the ranks of the scholarly or accomplished beings. I do however feel that my approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted. I often reflect upon these words:

Vasubhandu, who had the welfare of beings at heart, 
Due to his personal leaning,
Explained (the Prajnaparamita /Abhisamayalankara),
In terms of the internal (mental) existence of all things.

He who was counted amongst the ranks of the aryas,
And was known as "freedom'.
Seeing that what (Vasubhandu) had done was not how it should be,
He scrutinised with a "middle way" judgement.
 
Therefore, Arya Vimuktisena, whose teacher was Vasubhandu, saw that Vasubhandu's manner of explanation of the Abhisamayalankara had been more affected by his own personal bias towards a particular position than being a true reflection of the author's ultimate intent. He therefore composed a commentary refuting that view, displacing it with a Madhyamaka interpretation. Now was this a case of a corruption of the spiritual guide - disciple relationship on Arya Vimuktisena's part or of him showing disrespect for Vasubhandu? It was neither of these things.

Then we could look at accounts of the relationship between Jowo Je Atisha and his teacher Serlingpa. Serlingpa was the teacher who Atisha himself accredited as the one who helped him most in his quest to generate bodhicitta. In this area, he was like his root Lama. Despite this, on the philosophical level they were at variance. Serlingpa held the Cittamatra view. Accounts have it that Serlingpa congratulated Atisha for his practise of bodhicitta, whilst informing him that as far as his philosophical view was concerned he was incorrect. Atisha said though that Serlingpa's instructions only served to boost his confidence in the correctness of the middle way view.

Likewise, we have the case of Dharmakirti. Vasubhandu had many students, one of whom was Dignaga. He was said to have been the one who surpassed even his own master in terms of his understanding of Pramana. Dignaga then had a disciple called Ishvarasena. He in turn had Dharmakirti as a student. Dharmakirti heard explanation of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya text from Ishvarasena, but rejected Ishvarasena's interpretation. He then incorporated Ishvarasena's views as the objects of attack in sections of his Pramanavarttika. Thus, when it comes to helping to clarify the doctrine, creating, and rectifying mistakes, even one's own teacher may come under criticism. One can see it in terms of one's teacher having given certain instructions directed at a few specific individuals (when there is a need to give a different message). Whilst this might generally work though, it would be difficult to square in the above-mentioned case of Vasubhandu. At least in the way that Haribhadra has put it, it sounds as though it was Vasubhandu's own bias (as opposed to consideration of any particular disciple) that led him to interpret things in the way that he did. Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline.

The 50 verses of Guru devotion tells us to treat our Gurus as if they were the Buddha himself. Can the Buddha ever make a mistake? If we see our Gurus as people who can make mistakes as well, then why do we study under a Guru in the first place? And how is that having Guru devotion? Lets discuss this point as it does raise some questions as to why HHDL would want to re-write the 50 verses of Guru devotion, and also what are the real reasons behind the accounts that he quoted?

[dsiluvu]

Anyway, I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dolgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dolgyal.

I am not someone who tries to claim that I should be counted amongst the ranks of the scholarly or accomplished beings. I do however feel that my approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.

By HHDL saying this... it opens up the door to also check and analyse His point of view and claims. How is that it is a mistake and where are the hard core evidences and facts?   

Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline.

We can take His Holiness advice here and also have dialogue... YES finally some dialogue with Shugden practitioners to "CLARIFY" any misunderstandings and this will surely help us all learn more about the reasons why there is a sudden BAN and harshness to separate monks and excommunicate them out from their own monasteries. Why family and friendships are thorn due to this BAN, how Shugden practitioners are basically treated like dogs with scabies and how this is all being seen as acceptable and compassionate and kind. Yes I think many Dorje Shugden practitioners have requested repeatedly to have this CLARIFIED... So could we??? As it is to safe guard Dharma against decline.   

[Ensapa]

Anyway, I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dolgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dolgyal.

I am not someone who tries to claim that I should be counted amongst the ranks of the scholarly or accomplished beings. I do however feel that my approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.

By HHDL saying this... it opens up the door to also check and analyse His point of view and claims. How is that it is a mistake and where are the hard core evidences and facts?   

Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline.

We can take His Holiness advice here and also have dialogue... YES finally some dialogue with Shugden practitioners to "CLARIFY" any misunderstandings and this will surely help us all learn more about the reasons why there is a sudden BAN and harshness to separate monks and excommunicate them out from their own monasteries. Why family and friendships are thorn due to this BAN, how Shugden practitioners are basically treated like dogs with scabies and how this is all being seen as acceptable and compassionate and kind. Yes I think many Dorje Shugden practitioners have requested repeatedly to have this CLARIFIED... So could we??? As it is to safe guard Dharma against decline.

This does open the door to a lot of interesting things, in my opinion. First of all, can we also say that all of His Holiness's teachings are good EXCEPT for what you say about Dorje Shugden and the ban was done out of personal bias and out of a grudge to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, and therefore we can still call ourselves HHDL's students without breaking samaya? Since His Holiness have said that he is the continuation of the 5th Dalai lama, and it is well known that the 5th Dalai Lama has a dislike against Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, so does that not make it a personal bias/personal issue? The ban is just His Holiness's personal opinion since it contradicts the position of so many other high Lamas. Since it is that, according to the Dalai Lama's reasoning, we can also continue our practice of Dorje Shugden and be his student at the same time. If  Arya Vimuktisena can see Vashubandu's view of Abhisamayalankara is imperfect due to personal bias, then we can also see that HHDL's ban on Dorje Shugden is not perfect and wrong due to personal bias and is therefore invalid. In other words, there is nothing wrong with Dorje Shugden practitioners by His Holiness's logic, and that the monasteries should never have expelled the DS monks, nor should the CTA prosecute Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners, nor should FPMT centers around the world spread fear about Dorje Shugden because it contradicts with His Holiness's advice completely.

So this does open doors to the student, that the student is now allowed to be selective about the Guru's instructions. What happens them? We get all kinds of kooky new age people who claim that being a buddhist means we dont have to believe in anything, including reincarnation but that is not true and that is not what the Buddha has taught. While it is true that we need to investigate our teacher's teachings, it does not mean that we are allowed to put him or her down or ignore certain advice that they have given, unless of course they openly declare that they are not knowledgable in this field and request the disciple to go and seek another teacher that is an expert in that subject, as that is the case for Serlingpa. But since Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche has not openly declared their mistake in the practice of Dorje Shugden, this argument and example is invalid. Also, this is with regards to a practice and not a philosophical tenet so how does the same logic apply?

I wonder what would HHDL say about this rebuttal of this statement. I respect His Holiness from the bottom of my heart, so I follow his advice to scrutinize everything he says and investigate with logic and I have come to this conclusion. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way as I do?

[michaela]

Anyway, I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dolgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dolgyal.

I like what HHDL said, and I am applying it to HHDL.  It should have been written like this:

Anyway, I am of the opinion that His Holiness Dalai Lama's promotion of the ban of Dolgyal was a mistake.  But this ban represents merely a fraction of what he did in his life.  His contributions in the area of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable.  His contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by the ban on Dolgyal.

I think this is how HHDL legacy will be read by future generations. 

[michaela]

This does open the door to a lot of interesting things, in my opinion. First of all, can we also say that all of His Holiness's teachings are good EXCEPT for what you say about Dorje Shugden and the ban was done out of personal bias and out of a grudge to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, and therefore we can still call ourselves HHDL's students without breaking samaya? Since His Holiness have said that he is the continuation of the 5th Dalai lama, and it is well known that the 5th Dalai Lama has a dislike against Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, so does that not make it a personal bias/personal issue?

I do not think that Dalai Lama the 5th disliked DS.  The 5th wrote a beautiful prayer of acknowledgement that DS is a Buddha after so many attempts to defeat DS failed. 

Hmmm... I am not sure that HHDL implemented the ban out of grudge for Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.  I honestly do not think so.  Looking at his other great deeds, this is the only inconsistency that I found.  HHDL did this for other reasons.  I just scratch my head what this other reason is!!! Because if we know, we can just fulfill this reason and be done with this ban.  I hate to see other people suffer and being harrassed because of this.

As much as I do not like the ban and all these lies being put forth against DS, I have to admit, this ban forced me to think and investigate deeper, and it increases my faith in DS even more.

[Ensapa]

I do not think that Dalai Lama the 5th disliked DS.  The 5th wrote a beautiful prayer of acknowledgement that DS is a Buddha after so many attempts to defeat DS failed. 

Hmmm... I am not sure that HHDL implemented the ban out of grudge for Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.  I honestly do not think so.  Looking at his other great deeds, this is the only inconsistency that I found.  HHDL did this for other reasons.  I just scratch my head what this other reason is!!! Because if we know, we can just fulfill this reason and be done with this ban.  I hate to see other people suffer and being harrassed because of this.

As much as I do not like the ban and all these lies being put forth against DS, I have to admit, this ban forced me to think and investigate deeper, and it increases my faith in DS even more.

thats not what the Dalai Lama said about the 5th Dalai Lama:

Translation of the testimony that the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) mentions in his autobiography. The original Tibetan can be found on page 148 front and back (English pages 423 and 424) of the volume Da of his Collected Works published in Gangtok, Sikkim.
 
"Because of the manipulations of Lag Agyal (the mother) of Gekhasa, the false reincarnation of Tulku Sonam Geleg Palsang (Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen) got his way (and was installed as the successful candidate). However, because of distorted prayers he became a perfidious spirit (dam sri) and brought serious harm to sentient beings. Therefore, a total of seven groups of practitioners led by (Pema Trinley) Rinpoche of Dorje Drag, Choegyal Terdag Lingpa, Choeje Vugja Lungpa, Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup, Palri Tulku and two groups of practitioners of Phende Legshe Ling (Namgyal Dratsang) performed a ritual fire offering and burnt the interfering spirit. This is the declaration I have written at that time.

To the deities, Legden, Chagdrug, Leshin and Magzor.
To the oath bound protectors Gongzhi, Gonpo, Chamsre and Begtse, etc.
Who have been propitiated and whose practice (has been done)
I offer this sublime libation.
The so-called Dragpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being,
Even though he is not,
And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers
Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
To the female protectors like Nodjin Yangghaza, etc. and
Gyalpo Ku-nga, Khyabjug, Dorje Leg and particularly
Nechung and his entourage
I offer this sublime libation.
The so-called Dragpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being,
Even though he is not,
And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers
Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings -
Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
 
To the seven Barwa brothers like Tse-marpa etc.
And likewise Setrab of Sangphu etc. - the wrathful gods and spirits
Among whom this negative spirit seeks support -
I offer this sublime libation.
The so-called Dragpa Gyaltsen pretends to be a sublime being,
Even though he is not,
And since this interfering spirit and creature of distorted prayers
Is harming everything - both the dharma and sentient beings -
Do not support, protect or give him shelter, but grind him to dust.
 
Having agreed before the root and lineage lama Vajra Dharas
To increase what is good and beneficial to sentient beings and the dharma,
If you protect this perfidious spirit,
Will you not cause your own past pledges to degenerate?
 
There are groups of interfering spirits who display inopportune miracles
In the form of human sickness, cattle disease, hailstorms, famine and drought.
May their power and ability
Their body, speech and mind be smashed into tiny particles.

I feel that it is impossible for HHDL to hold grudges, but for this play and for this assumption, based on this statement, since everyone is taking things on the surface, we'll play the game by the rules and boundaries as defined by such statements that to my lack of understanding, contradicts completely all the texts that teach on Guru devotion. The text clearly states to check the teacher before accepting and after accepting we should no longer doubt. If we are still allowed to doubt the lama after that, what is the meaning of Guru devotion then? If the Guru knows he or she lacks knowledge in a certain aspect of the teachings, he or she will definitely send us to another teacher who knows more, like in the case of Atisha when his Gurus pointed him to Serlingpa to study Bodhicitta. As far as I know, it is not up to us to decide if our Guru lacks in a specific area and then see it as that way.

I think that if we want to prove a certain theory, we have to first set some assumptions. For example, If HHDL wants to use this reasoning of Guru devotion and at the same time say that his ban on Dorje Shugden is a continuation of the 5th Dalai Lama, we have to play with that same leveling ground. On a higher level, it is but a play and only to convince living beings, but in order to be able to reason and to understand how the minds of others work, we need to be at that level.

[Big Uncle]

Anyway, I am of the opinion that Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche's promotion of the worship of Dolgyal was a mistake. But their worship represents merely a fraction of what they did in their lives. Their contributions in the areas of Stages of the Path, Mind Training and Tantra teachings were considerable. Their contribution in these areas was unquestionable and in no way invalidated by involvement with Dolgyal.

I am not someone who tries to claim that I should be counted amongst the ranks of the scholarly or accomplished beings. I do however feel that my approach to this issue (i.e. differing on one point, whilst retaining respect for the person in question) is completely in line with how such great beings from the past have acted.

By HHDL saying this... it opens up the door to also check and analyse His point of view and claims. How is that it is a mistake and where are the hard core evidences and facts?   

Anyway, whether the original reasons for certain interpretations were due to individual students, other considerations or plain misunderstanding, it may prove necessary for later individuals to clarify things. Rectifying, clarifying and the like are generally accepted approaches for the learned and completely in step with the correct general approach to the teachings. This is way to proceed and help to guard against decline.

We can take His Holiness advice here and also have dialogue... YES finally some dialogue with Shugden practitioners to "CLARIFY" any misunderstandings and this will surely help us all learn more about the reasons why there is a sudden BAN and harshness to separate monks and excommunicate them out from their own monasteries. Why family and friendships are thorn due to this BAN, how Shugden practitioners are basically treated like dogs with scabies and how this is all being seen as acceptable and compassionate and kind. Yes I think many Dorje Shugden practitioners have requested repeatedly to have this CLARIFIED... So could we??? As it is to safe guard Dharma against decline.

Dear Dsiluvu,

You see, in the past, he speaks of Dorje Shugden differently according to his audience. This was obviously meant for Westerners or people outside of the Tibetan community. Why do I say this? Behind closed doors, the Dalai Lama demands total ban on Dorje Shugden within the Tibetan community, especially the monasteries. The situation is very different if you were within the Tibetan community. Why else do you need the monks to swear that they do not practice Dorje Shugden?

Gaden monks forced to swear against Dorje Shugden (Part 2)	Small | Large

So, it doesn't look like the Dalai Lama is open to discussion on this matter and he is definitely not open to any other form of suggestion with regards to the ban. That's the sad part and that's why it has become the mission for us here on this forum along with many other Tibetan and non-Tibetan practitioners of Dorje Shugden within South India and the world over.                               

[dsiluvu]

Big Uncle... Yes it may be catered to the Westerners, but I am also thinking and wondering and curious really how long is this world will this kind of speech hold water especially if we start educating the world about the BAN and the situation every Shugden practitioners are facing in India and also around the world. Why I say around the world, it because I have personally experience prejudice and discrimination even though I am not in India/Dharamsala nor am I Tibetan.

The BAN must be lifted... Why I say this is because you can't go around to fool people without expecting to be expose. Sooner or later you will. Yes Big Uncle, we need to work harder in spreading Dorje Shugden to as many as possible... create a hype, create awareness in Dorje Shugden that is by far the best chance for Dorje Shugden to spread globally!!!

[Aurore]

I wonder what would HHDL say about this rebuttal of this statement. I respect His Holiness from the bottom of my heart, so I follow his advice to scrutinize everything he says and investigate with logic and I have come to this conclusion. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way as I do?

If everyone continues to see our teacher's views as imperfect and start scrutinizing everything, it completely defeats the purpose of having a teacher. What if HHDL's ban on Dorje Shugden is an act of true guru devotion? Maybe everybody should start looking at the positive possibilities rather than the negative!

In The Union of Bliss and Emptiness: Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama, Geshe Thupten Jinpa, pg 26, HHDL himself mentioned that he considered Trijang Rinpoche as his root guru, not just any guru but his ROOT guru. Maybe HHDL is carrying out his guru's instructions perfectly by imposing the ban similarly to Samdhong Rinpoche who not too long ago revealed that everything he did was following the instructions of his root guru, Trijang Rinpoche. Only a handful will go all out to do that. It is almost impossible to find such devotion these days.

Hmmm ... on second thoughts, this could be a new method of guru devotion as the old method doesn't seem to work on most of us seeing how degenerated we all are.

[Ensapa]

If everyone continues to see our teacher's views as imperfect and start scrutinizing everything, it completely defeats the purpose of having a teacher. What if HHDL's ban on Dorje Shugden is an act of true guru devotion? Maybe everybody should start looking at the positive possibilities rather than the negative!

In The Union of Bliss and Emptiness: Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama, Geshe Thupten Jinpa, pg 26, HHDL himself mentioned that he considered Trijang Rinpoche as his root guru, not just any guru but his ROOT guru. Maybe HHDL is carrying out his guru's instructions perfectly by imposing the ban similarly to Samdhong Rinpoche who not too long ago revealed that everything he did was following the instructions of his root guru, Trijang Rinpoche. Only a handful will go all out to do that. It is almost impossible to find such devotion these days.

Hmmm ... on second thoughts, this could be a new method of guru devotion as the old method doesn't seem to work on most of us seeing how degenerated we all are.

I love what you said here, aurore, that you made comparisons between HHDL and Samdhong Rinpoche on how far they are willing to go for Guru devotion, even if it means that they have to go against their personal feelings and beliefs. How many of us can even overcome our own comfort zones for the Lama? In their examples, HHDL and Samdhong Rinpoche can overcome their personal preferences and feelings just to follow the Lama's instructions. Lest we forget, Reting Rinpoche, who found and enthroned the Dalai Lama was like a father to the Dalai Lama when he was young and very close to the Dalai Lama until he was accused and tortured to death. He was the Dalai Lama's first Guru and HHDL can still view him as his Guru despite the 'things' he was accused of. It is said that he was tortured in the dungeon of the potala palace, right below the Dalai Lama's residence. Who can bear that kind of pain and still not give up on Dharma?

perhaps, those incidents have put HHDL in a situation where he cannot go against the general perception and at the same time, not compromise on samaya and this is the way where he can hold his samaya without breaking it in the face of the Guru doing actions that lead to misfortune. How many of us can take it if our Guru was accused of something and then imprisoned, convicted and executed and still keep our samaya? To me, only HHDL has the willpower to hold on but in the process, perhaps, he had to modify the rules to Guru devotion in response to the death of Reting Rinpoche. The people who caused Reting Rinpoche's death...horrible indeed their negative karma to cause Reting Rinpoche to pass away this way and affect HHDL's mind. That is what I feel about this 'advice' anyway....

[Vajraprotector]

Is it only me or does anyone else find this issue of Shugden practice and guru devotion confusing and in conflict?

Lama Zopa has advised previously:

But this doesn’t include gurus who may have practiced the protector in the past. It doesn’t mean that they’re bad. I’m not saying that. If you have already made a Dharma connection with such teachers and you criticize them or give them up, that’s totally incorrect; that’s opposite to lam-rim practice. The lam-rim, sutra and tantra teachings all explain how to practice guru devotion so that we can avoid creating such heavy negative karmas as criticizing our gurus. It’s for our benefit. Since we disciples want profit, not loss, since we aspire to achieve the highest profit, enlightenment, the complete qualities of cessation and realization, it is crucial to know how to practice guru devotion.

If those previous gurus who used to do the practice were still in the same aspect now, if they were still alive in that aspect, they would also change. For example, His Holiness himself did the practice in Tibet for short while, but after extensive analysis, checking many experiences and signs, and considering the advice of many other high lamas, who spread the teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa like the sun rising both inside and outside of Tibet, who greatly benefited sentient beings, many valid lamas who advised not to do the practice, His Holiness also decided against it.

Is not only His Holiness who is saying not to do it. Before His Holiness, many other high lamas, holders of the entire Buddhadharma, also instructed their monasteries and students not to do this practice.

So, if we have received practice from our Guru, we should not at any point criticise our Guru nor give up the practice. But then why is it that His Holiness CAN 'after extensive analysis and checking many experiences and signs, and considering the advice of many other high lamas"? Does it mean if I get advice from others high lamas, I can also discard my practice when my Gurus are not alive anymore?

Also, in the case of His Holiness, if the practice is not 'suitable' for him, why is it that it is not suitable for everyone else? And if it harms the cause of Tibet, I am so sorry, but my (and many people's) path to enlightenment is more important than Tibet gaining independence/ autonomy or any political progress.

[Ensapa]

Is it only me or does anyone else find this issue of Shugden practice and guru devotion confusing and in conflict?

Lama Zopa has advised previously:

But this doesn’t include gurus who may have practiced the protector in the past. It doesn’t mean that they’re bad. I’m not saying that. If you have already made a Dharma connection with such teachers and you criticize them or give them up, that’s totally incorrect; that’s opposite to lam-rim practice. The lam-rim, sutra and tantra teachings all explain how to practice guru devotion so that we can avoid creating such heavy negative karmas as criticizing our gurus. It’s for our benefit. Since we disciples want profit, not loss, since we aspire to achieve the highest profit, enlightenment, the complete qualities of cessation and realization, it is crucial to know how to practice guru devotion.

If those previous gurus who used to do the practice were still in the same aspect now, if they were still alive in that aspect, they would also change. For example, His Holiness himself did the practice in Tibet for short while, but after extensive analysis, checking many experiences and signs, and considering the advice of many other high lamas, who spread the teaching of Lama Tsongkhapa like the sun rising both inside and outside of Tibet, who greatly benefited sentient beings, many valid lamas who advised not to do the practice, His Holiness also decided against it.

Is not only His Holiness who is saying not to do it. Before His Holiness, many other high lamas, holders of the entire Buddhadharma, also instructed their monasteries and students not to do this practice.

So, if we have received practice from our Guru, we should not at any point criticise our Guru nor give up the practice. But then why is it that His Holiness CAN 'after extensive analysis and checking many experiences and signs, and considering the advice of many other high lamas"? Does it mean if I get advice from others high lamas, I can also discard my practice when my Gurus are not alive anymore?

Also, in the case of His Holiness, if the practice is not 'suitable' for him, why is it that it is not suitable for everyone else? And if it harms the cause of Tibet, I am so sorry, but my (and many people's) path to enlightenment is more important than Tibet gaining independence/ autonomy or any political progress.

If the practice is not suitable for people who wish to gain independence for Tibet, then those who wish for Tibet's independence should not practice Dorje Shugden, but at the same time they have no right to bad mouth Dorje Shugden or tell others not to practice him. To me, sorry to say but gaining my own attainments and benefitting people with that attainments in this aspect, the freedom of Tibet cannot benefit much people except for the CTA. Also, CTA is already not going a good job with Dharamsala, so why should i work for CTA to retake Tibet? they cannot even manage such a small enclave efficiently, how can they manage such a huge country? More people would suffer. If I want to work towards Tibet's independence, I would want to make sure that the CTA can take care of Tibet before i work towards that and not because it's the "right" thing to do, just because the general public thinks it is the correct thing to do based on a few facts.

As such, I have my own Guru and getting practices and holding my promises to him is far more important than being politically right or following a high ranking Lama. I will never let go of my Guru to join the Dalai Lama's camp because he is "valid". I did not practice Dharma to be part of the "right" group. I practice Dharma so that I may gain attainments to help others. That is my goal and nothing can change me from that, no difficulties will ever make me give up my own Guru unless he explicitly tells me so, so for sure i would not let something as small as this override my devotion to my Guru.