Hey friends,
I have found this very interesting rebuttal letter which is obviously very biased, written by an internet scholar in response to Geshe Keslang Gyatso's letter on why Dorje Shugden is valid. I shall quote the Sakya part of the letter here, as the entire letter is far too long to be quoted:
"...Now the Sakyas generally believe that because Shugden was so terrifying people and
caused so many problems Sakya Trizin Sonam Rinchen (or Jamyang Sonam
Wangchuk) made an offer to him that Sakyapa monks would ritually feed him
once a day by offering torma in the daily 'Protector Puja' and in exchange
Shugden would not harm or kill sentient beings. This offer was excepted by
Shugden. The main monastery of Sakya, Lhakang Chenmo, and its branch
monasteries offer torma to Shugden daily and have done so for the past few
hundred years. The text used is approximately one folio in length, back and
front. No branch of the Sakyapas (Ngorpa, Tsharpa, etc.) other than the original
tradition practice the torma offering to Shugden.
But the present day practice of some Gelugpas worshipping Shugden as an
object of refuge and so on is markedly different than this. Some people find this
odd and, although others have asked about this, still no reasonable account of
why this may be so has been put forward. Geshe-la as you are more learned and
experienced in these matters perhaps you can enlighten us on this issue.
Moreover, Geshe-la last year it was pointed out here by the Ashoka Society
there are serious flaws in proposed 'reincarnation' lineage of Gyalpo Shugden, as
put forward by yourself in the book "Heart Jewel" - so far these points have not
been addressed:
1) It has never been a position of the Sakyapa school that Jamgon
Sakya Pandita was the same continuum as the Mahaasiddha Virupa,
know generally to the Tibetan as Birwapa who in any case attained
complete enlightenment, thirteenth stage Vajradhaarahood, during his
own lifetime
2) According Jamgon Sakya Pandita's rnam.thar, his Guru, Jetsun
Dragpa Gyaltsen predicted that he was to take only three more births
subsequent to his death; as a Vidyadhaara in a distant world realm to the
east; after that, as the son of an Bengali King called Mumuni, named
Suryagarbha; and finally in his last life traversing the stages and paths, he
was to have become the Buddha Vimala`srii.
3) It is traditionally held by the Gelugpa school that Khedrup Je, etc.,
to the First Panchen Lama, Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen, are incarnations of
Jamgon Sakya Pandita. The notion that Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen, etc.,
up to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen [a disciple of the First Panchen Lama] is
quite new, I believe. The conflict arises because Duldzin Dragpa
Gyaltsen and Khedrup Je are contemporaries.
Therefore you can see, Geshe-la that there seems to be no clear agreement
amongst any party on these issues; there is a disagreement between the Sakya
school and the Gelugpa school regarding the question of Sakya Pandita's
incarnations; and among the Gelug school there is no common agreement about
the disposition of this matter either. As such these issues must be confined to
matters of *opinion* and *belief* and cannot be held as facts, in the sense that
we in the West commonly take the term 'factual' to mean - yet in your book
these things are stated as if they were commonly accepted truths.
In fact isn't it true that the notion that any Sakyapas, knowledgeable in their
own tradition, believe that Mahasiddha Virupa, the founder of the Lam Dre, and
Sakya Pandita, one of the five founding Lamas of the Sakya Tradition are
previous incarnations of Gyalpo Shugden would be utterly absurd to any learned
Sakyapa?
As far as the Sakya Tradition is concerned the Sakya master Trichen Jamyang
Sonam Wangchuk (1638-1685) tamed the spirit Gyalpo Shugden in the
seventeenth century and bound him as a protector. In the Sakya tradition, he is
classified below Pehar which definitely makes Gyalpo Shugden an
unenlightened protector. I have never seen any text or heard of any oral
commentary coming from a Sakyapa Lama, living or dead, past or present, that
states anything other than the worldly nature of Shugden. In particular, it seems
that he is not regarded by Sakyapas as an emanation of Manjushri or of
Yamantaka.
In the biography of Ngagchang Kunga Tashi, Sonam Wangchuck's son, he
was given the transmission for the sadhanas of Shugden which
his father wrote, along with the sahanas of Pehar and Ponlop
Satrap sadhana. The order in which they are mentioned in his
biography is Pehar, Ponlop Satrap and then Shugden. Also in this
practice, in the offering section to the worldly deities, the
text reads as follows; "Pehar, Ponlop Setrap, Shugden Tsal",
and then goes it goes on to mention Naga Queens and so on.
This is should be sufficient proof that Sonam Wangchuck (whom
Shugden supporters have mentioned) considered Shugden to be to
be a worldly deity and not an object of refuge.
You also write that Sakya Lama Morchen Kunga Lhundrup said that
Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being and encouraged his followers to rely
upon him. Could you please provide an exact reference to support this
conflicting claim of yours? A friend of mine carefully read the autobiography of
Morchen Kunga Lhundrup (Lamdre Collection, Volume #5, folio 451-625) and
found only one reference to Shugden (which occurs on folio 577) where
Morchen Kunga Lhundrup makes reference to making an offering to Dorje
Shugden Tsal 'so that oaths are maintained.'
There are also very long detailed lists of teachings that Morchen received and
detailed lists of the teachings etc he gave at various places and to specific
students. Nowhere in these lists it seems is Shugden mentioned as a teaching or
a scriptural reading (lung) received or transmitted.
Sometime ago Dorje Gyurme <[email protected]> posted the views of Prof.
Namkha'i Norbu Rinpoche who was educated in the Sakya tradition at Dzongsar
Gonpa where, in one section of the monastery, regular offerings were made to
Dorje Shugden (this fact has been confirmed to me by another source):
<< " Like all masters educated in the Sakya tradition,
Norbu Rinpoche says that Shugden is a worldly deity.
He further states that Gyalpos in general are very
difficult protectors to control, and advises it is
perhaps best to avoid them. Norbu Rinpoche also levels
this criticism at Pehar, etc. This is not to say that
Norbu is critical of all worldly protectors, like the
Tenma, Tsiu Marpo, etc., but mainly those of the
Gyalpo class. They have bad track record, so to speak.
This is what I have heard from the mouth of Rinpoche
himself. So you see it is Gyalpos in general that
Norbu is critical of, and not Gyalpo Shugden in
particular.
" Norbu Rinpoche personally practiced the Sakya
version of Shugden quite briefly until he became very
ill from doing this practice, and ceased doing this
practice under advisement from his uncle, a Sakyapa
Abbot by the name of Khyentse Choskyi Wangchuck, who
was also one of his main Root Gurus. This may be read
in his available published writings, if one will only
look."
So, all the evidence I have seen appears to contradict the claim that the Sakyapa
regarded Shugden as an enlightened protector, or as a Buddha.
Furthermore, some people have tried to claim that Shugden is a Buddha based
on his iconography. How can this be so? After all there are many worldly
Gyalpo spirits who wear the three robes of a fully ordained bhikshu and the
same golden hat - even the worldly Bonpo protector Dakpa Senge (the story
of whoose origin is very similar to that of Shugden)
There are also many worldly protectors (including Nechung) who ride snow lions
or have five forms corresponding to the five Buddhas - again Gyalpo Pehar is an
example of this.
Even if G.S. is an embodiment of Manjushri what is the reason that
you *need* this form of protector? Je Tsongkhapa recommended Gelugpas should rely
for protection on the wrathful form of Manjushri known as Damchan Chogyal or
Shinje. Why is it that you seem to give more importance to this "new protector"
Gyalpo Shugden than you do to the protectors recommended by
Je Rinpoche himself? Wouldn't it be better to rely principally on the
protectors assigned by Tsongkhapa himself rather than fighting with HH the Dalai
Lama?
Perhaps I am wrong but you appear to believe that H.H. the Dalai Lama is not
adhering to the pure lineage of Tsongkhapa. Is this in fact the case? If so then
surely you must disagree with His Holiness's teachings on other things beside the
question of Gyalchen Shugden. After all, this practice is not an indispensable
part of the Gelugpa teachings since Je Tsongkhapa, his two spiritual sons and
their immediate followers did not worship Gyalchen Shugden - either as a
worldly protector or as a wisdom protector. Neither did the Buddha,
Naagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, or Atisha rely on Gyalchen Shugden.
So I'm very interested to know on what points of Je Tsongkhapa's own teachings
you disagree with H.H. the Dalai Lama? For instance to me it seems that there
are many points of difference in your published explanation of the Gelugpa
Mahamudra tradition and that tradition as explained in the recent book by H.H.
the Dalai Lama. In your view are these differences unimportant a different way
of teaching the same thing or are they irreconcilable? Which represents the
actual view of Je Tsongkhapa Since both you and H.H. have published
books on Mahamudra which are freely available to the general public I
presume it is alright to discuss these teachings in public - at least to the extent
that they are discussed in those books.
As far as I can see, H.H. the Dalai Lama has worked tirelessly to promote the
teachings of Je Tsongkhapa. H.H.'s books on Buddhism in English are mostly
based on the teachings of Tsongkhapa - as are the majority of the talks on
Buddhism by H.H. that I have read or heard.
Thank you once again for your attention to my post here. I think that once they
have been raised it is best to get all these issues out in the open where they can
be subject to the sunlight of reason and understanding. At present I'll admit that
many people including myself may have heard only a fraction of the story
concerning Gyalchen Shugden and related issues I look forward to having
this issue clarified by yourself and do hope this is settled to the ultimate benefit
of all those concerned.
Regards
- Chris
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.buddhism/msg/973a22ab9c4fe2e5?pli=1What I find interesting is:
Biased and stupid reasonings (i.e scholars that appeared before Dorje Shugden and Tsongkhapa did not approved of Dorje Shugden...OF COURSE!!! THEY EXISTED BEFORE DORJE SHUGDEN!!!) I almost rolled over laughing when he used that argument in his letter. It is obvious that this well researched person had obvious logical flaws. I am not too sure about the Sakya facts, but I thought that it would be interesting for us to dissect and talk about such writings so that we are able to refute these people better.
