I feel HH Dalai Lama is correct in speaking against Shugden

[Zhalmed Pawo]

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

.... GKG is a scholar for sure and good monk as far as I know, but he can make mistakes too.
Your tantric view of GKG as your teacher (secretly) is he is a tantric Buddha. But to the world stage and general view, he is a ordinary human monk that organized alot of protests that was very bad PR for Buddhism. He can be wrong about Dhogyal also.

Yes, GKG is my Guru, and yes, he can make mistakes. The Buddha did some mistakes as well. This is not a problem.

But concerning DS, he has not made a mistake, nor is he wrong. On the contrary. He merely continued and spread the practice given to him by HE Trijang Rinpoche.

The mistake was done by certain other student of HE Trijang Rinpoche, who for some mysterious reasons wanted to discontinue and suppress the practice in question.

In tantric view according to their students, they are tantric Buddhas.
If the HHDL can be wrong, so can Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in ordinary view or general view.

Yes. Exactly. On this point, it seems, we do agree. This is a good starting point.

[beggar]

Are there things that we don't talk about?  Is it too taboo to consider that the Dalai Lama might not be a Buddha of Compassion but a destroyer of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition?  The evidence seems to point to this unless there are clear, logical reasons why this is not the case.

On top of what TK has already very clearly expounded on, I'd like to also shed my views on this.

At our level of practice (well, mine anyway) there is no way for us to judge the level of anyone, least of all the teachers. So we are also "faulted" in this way when we begin this conversation.

I think of Dalai Lama as Chenrezig as I do have faith in my teacher and his lineage of teachers. My own teacher, the teachers before him and many highly attained masters of our lineage have recognised Dalai Lama as Chenrezig. Whether or not he really is will never be verified by ourselves, but there must be some level of trust we have in our own teachers and lineage lamas.

In any case, whether or not he really is is secondary. More important, I think is, as TK has already pointed out, how we affect the minds and practice of other students. If we are talking badly about the Dalai Lama, based upon our own very limited perceptions, then we can become a direct cause for so many negative things to arise, such as:
- for students to lose faith and begin to doubt their teacher, the dalai Lama. we become responsible for their broken samaya. Whatever good and practice they may have done by their relationship with the Dalai Lama, would be derailed and we would be responsible for that.

- we show others that it is "alright" for us to criticise, talk and "discuss" the actions of the Lamas, gauging them to be right or wrong according to our own limited compass. one student does it, then another, then another, then eventually, we are all talking about other lamas. Some may be out of some kind of genuine concern, but there is the risk that the talk spins off into blatant rumor-mongering. People will look back upon us and say, "well you are doing it, so we can too." Then what is sacred anymore?

- If we are drawing attention to the negatives of a Lama - ANY LAMA -  then what makes us so sure of our own Lama? Are we that sure of our judgement to know whether one lama is better or not? If the Dalai Lama - or any other Lama - could act in such faulty ways, then what's to say our Lama isn't acting in wrong ways also?
 
It is not to say that we don't bring attention at all to what a teacher may be doing that is perceived as wrong or unusual. But I think it would be more helpful to provide education and knowledge to people, according to the teachings and "rules" of Dharma and allow people to make up their own minds. At the same time, we are also sharing Dharma, so there is much more benefit in this way. We are not just directing our comments at the Dalai Lama, as TK has already made very clear, but directly affecting the practice of millions of other students in the world. Do we want to risk that? We must think clearly how our actions and what we are saying against or about another lama will ENCOURAGE a student in his practice or DISCOURAGE him.

[WisdomBeing]

This is certainly an interesting thread and one which will make many people who are confused over the Dorje Shugden/Dalai Lama issue think more deeply. When I first learned about Dorje Shugden, I was also in great conflict over why the Dalai Lama was so aggressively against Dorje Shugden. It just didn’t sit well with me to think that the Dalai Lama was being unfair and unkind. When I came across this website and read about the bigger picture hypothesis, I felt so happy because it simply gave me an alternative view where I could keep a pure opinion of the Dalai Lama and keep my practice.

On a very simple and personal level, it does make me feel a bit uncomfortable when I read about people criticizing the Dalai Lama on this forum and elsewhere, so what TK says about being kind and thinking about other people’s feelings really makes sense and affects many people like me. Thank you Tk. You are a genuine Buddhist and from my heart, I appreciate your kind consideration for others.

[Tenzin Gyatso]

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

.... GKG is a scholar for sure and good monk as far as I know, but he can make mistakes too.
Your tantric view of GKG as your teacher (secretly) is he is a tantric Buddha. But to the world stage and general view, he is a ordinary human monk that organized alot of protests that was very bad PR for Buddhism. He can be wrong about Dhogyal also.

Yes, GKG is my Guru, and yes, he can make mistakes. The Buddha did some mistakes as well. This is not a problem.

But concerning DS, he has not made a mistake, nor is he wrong. On the contrary. He merely continued and spread the practice given to him by HE Trijang Rinpoche.

The mistake was done by certain other student of HE Trijang Rinpoche, who for some mysterious reasons wanted to discontinue and suppress the practice in question.

In tantric view according to their students, they are tantric Buddhas.
If the HHDL can be wrong, so can Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in ordinary view or general view.

Yes. Exactly. On this point, it seems, we do agree. This is a good starting point.

Zp,

The other points is your view and my view. It doesn't matter. Subjective. Your guru makes mistakes, BUT (LOL) on this Shugden point he doesn't make mistakes. Well if he CAN make mistakes, he can make mistakes on much bigger issues than Shugden. That would be 'dangerous' to take tantric commitments from him then. Out of your sessions Geshe Kelsang makes mistakes and during your tantric practice session, he is perfect? No attainments would arise there as you are suppose to have pure view always. Like I said, your guru, my guru, whatever. Subjective.

But the Buddha does not make mistakes. As it says in Abisamaya-alankara text after three countless aeons the Buddha-awakened mind arose or was 'born' free from mistakes in Shakyamui's mindsteam and in total omniscience. If the Buddha makes mistakes then we are taking refuge in a being that is not a Buddha. The state of enlightenment is total awakening free of all mistakes. Free of all traces of ignorance and karma. All klesas and traces of ignorance are removed. The Buddha or a Buddha makes no mistakes. If a Buddha makes mistakes, Manjushri, Tara, Heruka, Vajryogini, Kalacakra can make mistakes. Not logical. Since you believe Shugden to be a Buddha, Shugden makes mistakes. A Buddha does not make mistakes but Geshe Kelsang can and Dalai Lama can.

This text was taught in the Tibetan Library of Works and Archives by senior Geshes in lower Dharamsala (Gangchen Kyishong).

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Are there things that we don't talk about?  Is it too taboo to consider that the Dalai Lama might not be a Buddha of Compassion but a destroyer of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition?  The evidence seems to point to this unless there are clear, logical reasons why this is not the case.

On top of what TK has already very clearly expounded on, I'd like to also shed my views on this.

At our level of practice (well, mine anyway) there is no way for us to judge the level of anyone, least of all the teachers. So we are also "faulted" in this way when we begin this conversation.

I think of Dalai Lama as Chenrezig as I do have faith in my teacher and his lineage of teachers. My own teacher, the teachers before him and many highly attained masters of our lineage have recognised Dalai Lama as Chenrezig. Whether or not he really is will never be verified by ourselves, but there must be some level of trust we have in our own teachers and lineage lamas.

But you have judged someone to be a Buddha already! And that judgement, which is based on judgements of others, in this case many Lineage Gurus, prevents you, or anyone else making the same judgement based on judgements of others, from seeing the reality of observable facts. In other words, it keeps one in an imaginary La-la-land, and prevents one to enter the gates of Dharma. It keeps one a child or a dharma-baby, and prevents any real growth into dharmic adulthood. As long as people say that "we are not yet capable to understand/judge this or that ourselves..." they will never be capable. The tantric pure view, brought into the public sphere, arrests all development, it dumbs down the Dharma.

I am sorry to yap yap about this, and I do know this might not sound nice, and I do understand that this might hurt some feelings, but the other option is an affront and a slap to the face of intellect, reason, growth, personal responsibility, development, the progress on the Path.

We can rely on our senses and sensibilities, on our own wits. A mind of faith is important, but an overdose of faith makes things and therefore the Path too fluffy and incoherent, bland even. Some pepper of wisdom of discrimination is sometimes needed. I think it is needed just now.

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Your guru makes mistakes, BUT (LOL) on this Shugden point he doesn't make mistakes. Well if he CAN make mistakes, he can make mistakes on much bigger issues than Shugden. That would be 'dangerous' to take tantric commitments from him then.
.....

But the Buddha does not make mistakes. As it says in Abisamaya-alankara text after three countless aeons the Buddha-awakened mind arose or was 'born' free from mistakes in Shakyamui's mindsteam and in total omniscience. If the Buddha makes mistakes then we are taking refuge in a being that is not a Buddha. The state of enlightenment is total awakening free of all mistakes. Free of all traces of ignorance and karma. All klesas and traces of ignorance are removed.

According to the classical Suttas, the Buddha did make mistakes which even caused several deaths. This by the way also means that the Buddha was not omniscient.

I have no problem with these facts, for I do not seek a Holy Totally Pure Perfection, only the ending of all suffering.

[dondrup]

After reading all the arguments, facts, and reasons put forth on this thread by the proponents as well as the opponents, a verdict cannot be reached as to who would ‘win’ this debate of whether HHDL is wrong to speak against Shugden unless the rules of this debate is spelt out clearly at the outset.  In the eyes of the proponents, HHDL is always correct.  However in the eyes of the opponents, HHDL is always wrong. In between we have the bigger picture view - HHDL and DS are working together for the spread of Buddhadharma.

I agree with what TK has mentioned.  We have to be sensitive to the words or facts that we used in getting our points across in the debate on Dorje Shugden.  Any speech unskillfully used will have an impact on the person(s) listening.

What is important to know is that everyone is personally responsible for his or her own spiritual practice including Dorje Shugden practice.  If our lama had kindly given us Dorje Shugden practice then we must go all the way and adopt the practice.  Since we have chosen our lama, then what our lama had prescribed for us is correct, and we should not doubt our lama or the practice. If you believe Dorje Shugden is a spirit and is not a Buddha, then you doubt your lama, HH Trijang Rinpoche, HH Pabongka Rinpoche, the lineage lamas, Buddha Manjuhsri, and Buddha Shakyamuni.  If you doubt the Dorje Shugden practice, then you have a choice i.e. don’t practise Dorje Shugden.

But what is wrong is:
-   to put a ban on the practice of DS. 
-   the ban on DS had created schisms in Sangha
-   the ban had inflicted immeasurable sufferings on many DS practitioners.
-   spreading lies about DS and this is disparaging the pure DS lineage in particular and Buddhadharma in general
-   stopping others who have faith in Dorje Shugden to practise DS freely. 
-   depriving Tibetan DS practitioners their basic human rights as citizens of the Tibetan in Exile community.
-   to ostracize monks or nuns from their monasteries because of their DS practice.
-   TGIE (currently CTA) forcing ordained sangha to swear not to practise DS.
-   etc.

The truth shall prevails ...
 

[Tenzin Gyatso]

Your guru makes mistakes, BUT (LOL) on this Shugden point he doesn't make mistakes. Well if he CAN make mistakes, he can make mistakes on much bigger issues than Shugden. That would be 'dangerous' to take tantric commitments from him then.
.....

But the Buddha does not make mistakes. As it says in Abisamaya-alankara text after three countless aeons the Buddha-awakened mind arose or was 'born' free from mistakes in Shakyamui's mindsteam and in total omniscience. If the Buddha makes mistakes then we are taking refuge in a being that is not a Buddha. The state of enlightenment is total awakening free of all mistakes. Free of all traces of ignorance and karma. All klesas and traces of ignorance are removed.

According to the classical Suttas, the Buddha did make mistakes which even caused several deaths. This by the way also means that the Buddha was not omniscient.

I have no problem with these facts, for I do not seek a Holy Totally Pure Perfection, only the ending of all suffering.

An ending of all sufferings means the end to all klesas, defilements and their imprints. Having Klesas, defilements and imprints completely removed and fully negates any room for mistakes. Mistakes can only arise from ignorance of any level. Without ignorance it is impossible for mistakes. Therefore a fully enlightened being cannot have any mistakes otherwise a Buddha does not fit the description of Buddha. State the name of the classical sutta and author in which Siddhartha after his enlightenment can make mistakes. One unnamed Sutta cannot rewrite the descriptions of a omniscient Buddha.

In Tsongkapa's praise in dependent origination, clearly when all ignorance is removed you are totally omniscient without any faults. This is not seeking any HOLY TOTALLY PURE PERFECTION, but the description of a fully perfected Buddha. Therefore Shakyamuni, Manjushri, Heruka, Vajrayogini, Avalokitesvara, Krukkachanda, Tsongkapa, Guru Rinpoche and all the field of merit are without mistakes. Cannot make mistakes. Will not create mistakes. Mistakes are a sign of samsara arising and creation of samsara. Enlightenment has no trace of Samsara therefore mistake free. Why would people meditate on the sadhana of Heruka/Vajrayogini to reach their completely enlightened state fo mind, if they make mistakes. Why retreat, do mantras, practices and put effort toward reaching a Buddha state that was not fully omniscient. If Buddhas can make mistakes then either they are not out of samsara or they can fall back into samsara. Mistakes lead to bigger mistakes in turn leading to huge mistakes and problems. What Buddhas lead themselves to problems?

Manjushri, Shakyamuni and any Buddha are free of mistakes. That is a description of a Buddha.

Therefore Geshe Kelsang and Dalai Lama can make mistakes. So can Shugden make mistakes? Can Manjushri make mistakes? No.

I went over to the Tibetan works and Archives and just asked a senior Geshe if Buddha can make mistakes. He said definitely not as it would indicate defilements (samsara).

[Tenzin Gyatso]

Are there things that we don't talk about?  Is it too taboo to consider that the Dalai Lama might not be a Buddha of Compassion but a destroyer of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition?  The evidence seems to point to this unless there are clear, logical reasons why this is not the case.

On top of what TK has already very clearly expounded on, I'd like to also shed my views on this.

At our level of practice (well, mine anyway) there is no way for us to judge the level of anyone, least of all the teachers. So we are also "faulted" in this way when we begin this conversation.

I think of Dalai Lama as Chenrezig as I do have faith in my teacher and his lineage of teachers. My own teacher, the teachers before him and many highly attained masters of our lineage have recognised Dalai Lama as Chenrezig. Whether or not he really is will never be verified by ourselves, but there must be some level of trust we have in our own teachers and lineage lamas.

But you have judged someone to be a Buddha already! And that judgement, which is based on judgements of others, in this case many Lineage Gurus, prevents you, or anyone else making the same judgement based on judgements of others, from seeing the reality of observable facts. In other words, it keeps one in an imaginary La-la-land, and prevents one to enter the gates of Dharma. It keeps one a child or a dharma-baby, and prevents any real growth into dharmic adulthood. As long as people say that "we are not yet capable to understand/judge this or that ourselves..." they will never be capable. The tantric pure view, brought into the public sphere, arrests all development, it dumbs down the Dharma.

I am sorry to yap yap about this, and I do know this might not sound nice, and I do understand that this might hurt some feelings, but the other option is an affront and a slap to the face of intellect, reason, growth, personal responsibility, development, the progress on the Path.

We can rely on our senses and sensibilities, on our own wits. A mind of faith is important, but an overdose of faith makes things and therefore the Path too fluffy and incoherent, bland even. Some pepper of wisdom of discrimination is sometimes needed. I think it is needed just now.

Zp,

If Buddhas such as Shakyamuni, Manjushri, Vajra Yogini can make mistakes, there is no friendly debate left at all.

Everyone's judgement is wrong. You, me, Geshe Kelsang, Shakyamuni, Dalai Lama, Manjushri, Tara, Vajrayogini, Heruka, Shugden are all wrong. Why practice Dharma?  So ultimately there is no Buddhas at all, so why bother following a guru or practicing a questionable protector. Geshe Kelsang, his guru and his gurus make mistakes. So don't believe anyone. Everyone makes mistakes and therefore there is no exiting of samsara.

 

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Dear TG,

By one classical Sutta, the Buddha did fumble in his meditation instructions and caused a mass suicide of a group of monks. He was rather surprised to find out, and changed the instructions afterwards by request of the ever compassionate Ananda. Not something one would expect from an omniscient being.

By another classical Sutta, the Buddha himself categorically denies that it is possible for anyone, including him, to be omniscient.

In the collected writings of Je Tsongkhapa, an enligtened being, we find him disproving his own prior works.

I do know that some Buddhists think that to be a Buddha is to be a Totally Awesomelly Pure and All Knowing Godly Source of Sheer Radiance, but there are many other traditional Buddhists who do not understand supreme enlightenment like that. Some Buddhists do not seek Absolute Perfection, and even dare to believe the Buddha when he says that omniscience is impossible. Mistakes are made and shit happens. Not everything goes according to the plan. There are chance occurences in the universe. And the Buddha had back pains, eventhough he was outside of samsara. Stuff exists and reality bites. Our refuge is Buddha and Dharma, not Krishna and fantasyland, you see.

So think carefully when you say "if Buddhas such as Shakyamuni, Manjushri, Vajra Yogini can make mistakes, there is no friendly debate left at all", for quite a many traditional Buddhists do believe in the Teachings of the classical Suttas.

When we were kids, we thought that our Mama and Papa were capable of everything, knew everything, were perfect. They could open doors, tie our shoe laces, open food cans and soda bottles, and could answer all our questions. But then we grew up, and the illusion of perfection was just a childish dream. We must now be careful not to approach Buddhism in that same childish sense. It might be helpful for a while, year or two, but then we must grow up, and see that there is no way back to that carefree existence when Momma and Poppy did everything perfectly and skillfully and all-knowingly whenever we needed their help. We ourselves must walk the Way - the Buddha and all of Sangha can just give maps and point the way in the hope that neither we, nor them, fumble. Some of us do, sadly, and equally sadly some of them have done and will do. It is a crap, but what can you do. Maintaining a view that someone out there is Perfect-and-Holier-than-Holy sadly does not help - it only keeps us infantile.

[Big Uncle]

Dear TG,

By one classical Sutta, the Buddha did fumble in his meditation instructions and caused a mass suicide of a group of monks. He was rather surprised to find out, and changed the instructions afterwards by request of the ever compassionate Ananda. Not something one would expect from an omniscient being.

By another classical Sutta, the Buddha himself categorically denies that it is possible for anyone, including him, to be omniscient.

In the collected writings of Je Tsongkhapa, an enligtened being, we find him disproving his own prior works.

I do know that some Buddhists think that to be a Buddha is to be a Totally Awesomelly Pure and All Knowing Godly Source of Sheer Radiance, but there are many other traditional Buddhists who do not understand supreme enlightenment like that. Some Buddhists do not seek Absolute Perfection, and even dare to believe the Buddha when he says that omniscience is impossible. Mistakes are made and shit happens. Not everything goes according to the plan. There are chance occurences in the universe. And the Buddha had back pains, eventhough he was outside of samsara. Stuff exists and reality bites. Our refuge is Buddha and Dharma, not Krishna and fantasyland, you see.

So think carefully when you say "if Buddhas such as Shakyamuni, Manjushri, Vajra Yogini can make mistakes, there is no friendly debate left at all", for quite a many traditional Buddhists do believe in the Teachings of the classical Suttas.

When we were kids, we thought that our Mama and Papa were capable of everything, knew everything, were perfect. They could open doors, tie our shoe laces, open food cans and soda bottles, and could answer all our questions. But then we grew up, and the illusion of perfection was just a childish dream. We must now be careful not to approach Buddhism in that same childish sense. It might be helpful for a while, year or two, but then we must grow up, and see that there is no way back to that carefree existence when Momma and Poppy did everything perfectly and skillfully and all-knowingly whenever we needed their help. We ourselves must walk the Way - the Buddha and all of Sangha can just give maps and point the way in the hope that neither we, nor them, fumble. Some of us do, sadly, and equally sadly some of them have done and will do. It is a crap, but what can you do. Maintaining a view that someone out there is Perfect-and-Holier-than-Holy sadly does not help - it only keeps us infantile.

Dear Zp,

Since the Buddha as you say, can make mistakes and are so untrustworthy, why do you still call yourself a Buddhist? Why take refuge in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as his teachings come from the Buddha and you said that the Buddha could make mistakes and Lama Tsongkhapa said his earlier teachings were wrong? Those are very scary statements to make as you are saying that the teachings could be wrong, there are so many teachings that could be wrong as well.

So, who is going to decide which teachings are flawless and perfect since the highest authority has been downgraded by you. I recall that a Buddha is a suitable object of refuge simply because his teachings are perfect for us and can bring us to enlightenment. So, after you have proclaimed the Buddha lead monks to suicide, how can the Buddha be a suitable object for refuge. Hence, I ask you why do you call yourself a Buddhist?

I hope you reflect on this as your words are very damaging for the Buddhadharma. Your warped logic will help many to develop doubts in the sublime Buddha's and Lama Tsongkhapa's teachings. Please use your logic and knowledge to increase faith in Buddhadharma and Dorje Shugden. Otherwise, you are undoing Dorje Shugden's hard work along with all the many High Lamas including your own Lama. Why do I say this? There are thousands reading this forum and many of them are very new in the Dharma.

[wang]

[/quote]

...Please use your logic and knowledge to increase faith in Buddhadharma and Dorje Shugden. Otherwise, you are undoing Dorje Shugden's hard work along with all the many High Lamas including your own Lama. Why do I say this? There are thousands reading this forum and many of them are very new in the Dharma.
[/quote]

Looks you don't get his point...

[tsangpakarpo]

Dear ZP,

The very fact that the Buddhadharma has been passed down for thousands of years, shows the quality of the Buddha and Dharma. I am dumbfounded with your point of the Buddha making mistakes.

Thousands and thousands of years we have been practicing the Buddhadharma. Are you saying that we all have made a mistake by doing so? The reason we are all practicing the Buddhadharma is because WE HAVE MADE MISTAKES in our lives and in need of a remedy, NOT BECAUSE THE BUDDHAS AND GREAT MASTERS MADE MISTAKES. We know that by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha we will be able to obtain eternal happiness (enlightenment).

For example, the Lamrim which was written by Atisha is widely studied by millions until today. The teachings were debated by many great masters and monks and no one could find any faults in it. This is the reason why the teachings were passed down through many great masters like Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche. Even Lama Tsongkhapa who is a Buddha written a few books like the Lamrim Chen Mo (Path to Enlightenment) based on the original text by Atisha.

Many have gained enlightenment by studying the Lamrim. I am just giving an example of how the Buddhadharma is flawless. There are many more facts out there. Please brush up your knowledge for you to have more faith in your protector, Dorje Shugden!

[beggar]

But you have judged someone to be a Buddha already! And that judgement, which is based on judgements of others, in this case many Lineage Gurus, prevents you, or anyone else making the same judgement based on judgements of others, from seeing the reality of observable facts. In other words, it keeps one in an imaginary La-la-land, and prevents one to enter the gates of Dharma. It keeps one a child or a dharma-baby, and prevents any real growth into dharmic adulthood. As long as people say that "we are not yet capable to understand/judge this or that ourselves..." they will never be capable. The tantric pure view, brought into the public sphere, arrests all development, it dumbs down the Dharma.

I am sorry to yap yap about this, and I do know this might not sound nice, and I do understand that this might hurt some feelings, but the other option is an affront and a slap to the face of intellect, reason, growth, personal responsibility, development, the progress on the Path.

We can rely on our senses and sensibilities, on our own wits. A mind of faith is important, but an overdose of faith makes things and therefore the Path too fluffy and incoherent, bland even. Some pepper of wisdom of discrimination is sometimes needed. I think it is needed just now.

This is why, in the first place, it is so important to check a teacher before we take him as our teacher. The scriptures outline clearly the "criteria" for a true teacher and we are encouraged to thoroughly check a teacher before accepting him as our guide to enlightenment. Once you have checked and examined the teacher's actions, motivations, teachings and results, it is understood that you have faith that he can convey the perfect teachings to you in a perfect way to lead you to enlightenment. If you believe that your teacher is full of mistakes, then why take him as a teacher in the first place? If he can be "wrong" in one aspect, what's to say that he's not wrong in another aspect? and another? and another? And are we as learned, trained, have been ordained for as long as our teachers to be able to gauge what he teaches is perfect or riddled with mistakes?

It is conflicting to rely on the Buddha's teachings as our sole spiritual path, and then turn around to say that the person who gave those teachings is imperfect and mistaken. Then, why are we following a path that we don't have 100% confidence in for being perfect and faultless? Then what are we aspiring towards? And there is no possibility, ever, for being free of mistakes? Then what are doing on this path in the first place?

[triesa]

I don't know if I should be on this forum but let's give it a try. I've been watching this forum and I came over because of phayul. There were threads which talked about Shugden.

Most of you say HH Dalai Lama is wrong about speaking against Dorje Shugden. Did ever think he can be right. I know you claim much pain was caused due to the speaking out against Shugden by HHDL. But did you ever think of the pain that was caused from NOT speaking out? I mean if Dorje Shugden was not harmful, why would HHDL speak out. He gets nothing but backlash. Why would Dalai Lama knowingly hurt his own people? The media rarely speaks out about Shugden? Why? Maybe because Shugden people are wrong and there is not much news to report. No point in reporting? I mean a Nobel Peace laureate like HHDL who is celebrated by millions as a man of peace suppressing his own people by religioius segregation would be big news right?

I don't want to create trouble, but these are my thoughts. Yes, I am a follower of His Holiness and I live in Dharamsala and I've been here for over 10 years. I attend most of HHDL's talks and he is amazing to me.

I'd like to add a twist to this :

As you have said Tenzin Gyatso, not many media spoke about Dorje Shugden.

It really depends which way you look at it ......I think the Dalai Lama is correct in speaking against Shugden. As a Nobel peace icon, when Dalai Lama spoke against Shugden, the effect is hundred folds.... I don't believe that Dalai Lama is not aware of the Dorje Shugden's lineage as this protector practice was passed down to him from his junior tutor, HE Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and has been practised by so many elucidate high lamas of the Gelupa sect. As a result of this "bad publicity" of Dorje Shugden, many many more people get a chance to even hear the name of this enlightened protector Dorje Shugden. So many imprints are planted.....it is not bad afterall, isn't it?

And I disagree with you that Media don't talk about Shugden becasue Shugden people was wrong and nothing to report. On the contrary, media people would jump on something bad, dig anything possible to talk about and make it the headlines. That is exactly the results of what Dalai Lama has helped to create, the whole propaganda was initiated by Dalai Lama, ever since the ban was in place, the name Dorje Shugden has been heard in Television, newspaper, radio station...I personally think Dalai Lama is the greatest marketing strategist.

Some would say but what about the pain and sufferings caused to those DS practitioners who have been ostracized, striped of their rights to basic humanity, threatened to death.....I dont believe that is the intention of the Dalai Lama at all, No, definitely not. That is the results of how the followers interpreted the ban.

To me, I remain open minded, and I choose to follow HE Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche's advice, which is not to loose faith in both the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden.