Lama Zopa writes a foreword AGAINST Shugden

[donoharm]

This whole thing about monks of Idgaa Choizinling in the Mongolian city of Ulaanbaatar have translated into Mongolian the second book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama advising not to practice Dolgyal  and Lama zopa Involvement is nothing but  Direct counter to HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche.   Many Mongolian people including monks and lay people are very much worship dorje shugden and consider HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche as their root guru...   The new action  dalai lama or lama zopa or TGi in mongolia is nothing but  they hate that fact that   His Holiness Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche growing very big in mongolia and few other countries..   I have recently heard from a very good source about  HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche  and how he operate things and connections way beyond i have ever imagine.  It shocking!!  really made me happy.  Guess time will tell.   Sorry my english is not the best.

[Ensapa]

This whole thing about monks of Idgaa Choizinling in the Mongolian city of Ulaanbaatar have translated into Mongolian the second book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama advising not to practice Dolgyal  and Lama zopa Involvement is nothing but  Direct counter to HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche.   Many Mongolian people including monks and lay people are very much worship dorje shugden and consider HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche as their root guru...   The new action  dalai lama or lama zopa or TGi in mongolia is nothing but  they hate that fact that   His Holiness Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche growing very big in mongolia and few other countries..   I have recently heard from a very good source about  HH Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche  and how he operate things and connections way beyond i have ever imagine.  It shocking!!  really made me happy.  Guess time will tell.   Sorry my english is not the best.

Thank you for your information donoharm. Updates about Trijang Rinpoche and news about him is always a good thing and a very welcome thing as it is not easy to get information or updates of the current Trijang Rinpoche as he keeps a low profile, but from what you wrote filled my heart with joy and hope that he is still benefitting others despite the difficult conditions he was placed in. It is definite proof that tulkus are indeed enlightened and they will find a way to teach Dharma and spread it no matter what the conditions are. CTA may be hostile against him  but that does not stop him at all from spreading the Dharma. I really wish that you would share with us more on how Trijang Rinpoche benefitted others in this life so that we may all be inspired and we do know what is going on because it does increase our faith in him. To me, he is our Lineage Lama, and he will always be one and any news on any of the Lineage Lamas is a nice one that we all would like to know about.

I really hope that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche can go "mainstream" again as more people will be able to benefit from them, more than ever before. If CTA decides to suppress them, too bad for the CTA as  they will be creating more and more causes for them to go down. HHDL DID NOT ask you to give death threats to Trijang Rinpoche, so why do it? Why threaten HHDL's Guru? what a stupid and unfortunate act. Karma from that is extremely heavy as it also affects so many other people who can potentially benefit from Trijang Rinpoche. Moreover, how can you claim to love the Dalai Lama but put his Guru down? What logic?

[beggar]

Well, this really did get me thinking. Would Lama Zopa really be that crass about this? I'm not quite sure. I've been hiding out with my thinking cap and here's what I think (otherwise known as, an attempt at being a journalist):


The Ban on Dorje Shugden: A Manifested Mistake?


H.E. Lama Zopa has put forward a shocking new voice in the Dorje Shugden debate in a new foreword he has written for a book of the Dalai Lama’s compiled teachings against this Protector Deity (see full foreword below). While Lama Zopa himself has openly chosen not to continue the practice within his organisation (FPMT), he has, until now, expressed a fairly neutral and respectful stance towards the issue. This foreword however, presents quite a different perspective and tone.


Most importantly, the foreword touches on the very profound and central issue of Guru devotion, and the relationship we must hold with our spiritual teachers. This is especially important in the context of the Shugden issue. For millions of practitioners, this decision to continue or give up their practice also necessarily involves a question of keeping or breaking samaya (the sacred relationship and loyalty) with their Gurus.

In his foreword, Lama Zopa explains at length the highly negative consequences of harboring negative thoughts towards our Gurus, to belittle, doubt or criticize them. We assume he writes this with a specific reference to the Dalai Lama, and not following his advice about Shugden. But there’s the first break in his argument. What if our lamas are NOT the Dalai Lama? In this case, “belittling and criticizing our Gurus” would mean not following their advice. They may have given us the practice of Dorje Shugden. So, if we give up the practice and criticize them for it, we reap the same terrible consequences that Lama Zopa describes so clearly here.

The situation becomes much more complicated for the thousands of people who have both Dalai Lama and other Shugden lamas as their Gurus. Who should they follow? Whichever teacher’s advice they follow regarding Shugden practice will mean they forsake the other and therefore end up in the lower realms. How can Lama Zopa not know this? Are we being set up to fail? Or is there something more to this?

Then, Lama Zopa very kindly advices that holy beings can deliberately manifest mistakes and an “ordinary” appearance for students to “increase devotion” and learn and examine the teachings deeper. Lama Zopa suggests that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche manifested a ‘mistake’ when they taught and spread Shugden. But this ‘mistake’ is no small matter. Thousands of practitioners worldwide since the time of Pabongka Rinpoche (and even before, before hundreds of years) have been doing this practice and are continuing to practice to this day. They would not have known in any way that this was a ‘mistake’; that Shugden was not ‘really’ an enlightened being all along but a ‘spirit’, as is now claimed.

If it really was the case that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche were manifesting ‘mistakes’ by promoting the practice of a so-called spirit, then these thousands of beings would now be in the three lower realms as a result of this ‘mistake’. Where was these lamas’ compassion for those millions of students who followed their ‘mistaken’ advice? Surely, that would be an unnecessarily high price to pay for a teacher just to manifest a mistake to ‘teach a lesson’.  Is there no other way for displaying an ordinary aspect, without putting students’ future rebirths at such risk of landing in the three lower realms?

Lastly, if Lama Zopa says that such holy beings – including “Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Dechen Nyingpo [who] are Buddha” – are capable of manifesting mistakes, then logically this could also mean that the Dalai Lama himself is also manifesting a mistake in this ban. Think about it – why would this teaching apply to some lamas – such as Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche – but not to others, like the Dalai Lama? Lama Zopa himself emphasizes throughout the foreword that the Dalai Lama is unquestionably the emanation of Chenrezig. Would the omniscient, fully enlightened Buddha Chenrezig really make such simple mistakes without knowing the consequences?

Lama Zopa has surprised us with this new stance on the Shugden issue but he has also opened up the whole situation for further debate – for practitioners both for and against the practice. After all, another point he repeatedly drives home to the reader that “whatever we practice in Buddhism, we must examine it well, just as Buddha has advised, and Buddha gave us the freedom to do this”.

Examine the ‘mistakes’, as well as the teachings and realize that the black mark on our face – our doubts, our broken samayas and wrong views – is truly our own, not the Guru’s.

[Ensapa]

Well, this really did get me thinking. Would Lama Zopa really be that crass about this? I'm not quite sure. I've been hiding out with my thinking cap and here's what I think (otherwise known as, an attempt at being a journalist):


The Ban on Dorje Shugden: A Manifested Mistake?


H.E. Lama Zopa has put forward a shocking new voice in the Dorje Shugden debate in a new foreword he has written for a book of the Dalai Lama’s compiled teachings against this Protector Deity (see full foreword below). While Lama Zopa himself has openly chosen not to continue the practice within his organisation (FPMT), he has, until now, expressed a fairly neutral and respectful stance towards the issue. This foreword however, presents quite a different perspective and tone.

The sudden change of stance is something quite shocking and odd for a high lama of his calibre. one would expect a Lama to be more consistent with his actions and words, but perhaps, Lama Zopa is trying to prove a point or that this foreword is simply not written by him.

Most importantly, the foreword touches on the very profound and central issue of Guru devotion, and the relationship we must hold with our spiritual teachers. This is especially important in the context of the Shugden issue. For millions of practitioners, this decision to continue or give up their practice also necessarily involves a question of keeping or breaking samaya (the sacred relationship and loyalty) with their Gurus.
Lama Zopa has somewhat introduced the Dalai Lama's way of Guru devotion: that your Guru can make mistakes but he is still perfect. He expanded that idea to say that it is the Guru's way of teaching the disciples via mistakes. Um, so, how do i know now if his Kalachakra initiation is a mistake too?

In his foreword, Lama Zopa explains at length the highly negative consequences of harboring negative thoughts towards our Gurus, to belittle, doubt or criticize them. We assume he writes this with a specific reference to the Dalai Lama, and not following his advice about Shugden. But there’s the first break in his argument. What if our lamas are NOT the Dalai Lama? In this case, “belittling and criticizing our Gurus” would mean not following their advice. They may have given us the practice of Dorje Shugden. So, if we give up the practice and criticize them for it, we reap the same terrible consequences that Lama Zopa describes so clearly here.
Then it does not apply to us, but he has mentioned that the Dalai Lama is the Guru to ALL tibetan Buddhists (guffaw...) so if we are Tibetan Buddhists, we have to accept him by default. No matter how we want to talk about this, neither Lama Zopa nor Dalai Lama asked anyone to publicly criticize Dorje Shugden Lamas. Then why are their students doing just the opposite?

The situation becomes much more complicated for the thousands of people who have both Dalai Lama and other Shugden lamas as their Gurus. Who should they follow? Whichever teacher’s advice they follow regarding Shugden practice will mean they forsake the other and therefore end up in the lower realms. How can Lama Zopa not know this? Are we being set up to fail? Or is there something more to this?
Then they will have to make a decision based on their Dharma practice experience and wisdom. They will have to decide which Lama is the one that they are closest to and who can teach them directly as opposed to having one that can only visit once a year. Hint: DS Lamas actually are  more dedicated.

Then, Lama Zopa very kindly advices that holy beings can deliberately manifest mistakes and an “ordinary” appearance for students to “increase devotion” and learn and examine the teachings deeper. Lama Zopa suggests that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche manifested a ‘mistake’ when they taught and spread Shugden. But this ‘mistake’ is no small matter. Thousands of practitioners worldwide since the time of Pabongka Rinpoche (and even before, before hundreds of years) have been doing this practice and are continuing to practice to this day. They would not have known in any way that this was a ‘mistake’; that Shugden was not ‘really’ an enlightened being all along but a ‘spirit’, as is now claimed.
This ideology and explanation is flawed: why must it be that it is Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche the ones that made mistakes? why cant it be the Dalai Lama? A sword cuts both ways and perhaps, this is Lama Zopa's very subtle  hint, or was slipped in as it does not fit in to the rest of the foreword.

If it really was the case that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche were manifesting ‘mistakes’ by promoting the practice of a so-called spirit, then these thousands of beings would now be in the three lower realms as a result of this ‘mistake’. Where was these lamas’ compassion for those millions of students who followed their ‘mistaken’ advice? Surely, that would be an unnecessarily high price to pay for a teacher just to manifest a mistake to ‘teach a lesson’.  Is there no other way for displaying an ordinary aspect, without putting students’ future rebirths at such risk of landing in the three lower realms?
And the people that will be misled by their mistakes, who would take care of them? also, how can we know if the practices and the teachings that they teach are not mistakes as well?

Lastly, if Lama Zopa says that such holy beings – including “Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Dechen Nyingpo [who] are Buddha” – are capable of manifesting mistakes, then logically this could also mean that the Dalai Lama himself is also manifesting a mistake in this ban. Think about it – why would this teaching apply to some lamas – such as Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche – but not to others, like the Dalai Lama? Lama Zopa himself emphasizes throughout the foreword that the Dalai Lama is unquestionably the emanation of Chenrezig. Would the omniscient, fully enlightened Buddha Chenrezig really make such simple mistakes without knowing the consequences?
A sword cuts both sides. this is a huge hint that Lama Zopa has left us in this article.

Lama Zopa has surprised us with this new stance on the Shugden issue but he has also opened up the whole situation for further debate – for practitioners both for and against the practice. After all, another point he repeatedly drives home to the reader that “whatever we practice in Buddhism, we must examine it well, just as Buddha has advised, and Buddha gave us the freedom to do this”.
This is the advice that both the Buddha and Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated. It is really up to us to listen or to pretend we never heard this.

Examine the ‘mistakes’, as well as the teachings and realize that the black mark on our face – our doubts, our broken samayas and wrong views – is truly our own, not the Guru’s.
It is due to our negative karma that we perceive otherwise. It is said that people with very deeply broken samaya will start to feel that the Guru has faults. So what is this really about? hmmm.

I feel that for some reason, Lama Zopa is trying to point out to some people about their broken samaya with regards to this issue. Thanks for highlighting this, beggar. your writings are illuminating as always.

[vajrastorm]

First of all, knowing Lama Zopa for the compassionate Lama that he is , so full of Guru Devotion, it is most uncharacteristic of him to launch into this sharp attack of Dorje Shugden and Shugden practitioners. He cannot, for instance be criticizing his own beloved Lama , Lama Yeshe, for practicing Shugden (which he did). In this particular instance, though, his criticism is in very vague words.He says  " Gen Thubten Yeshe, when passing away, before his last breath, showed very clearly the experience that Dogyal was not perfect". (Actually, one isn't even sure of what he means here in the criticism).

 He himself says here that terrible negative karma will be collected by students who go against their Guru and break samaya with him. What about the terrible consequence of his own broken samaya with Lama Yeshe by his forsaking Shugden practice(given to him by Lama Yeshe, a devoted Shugden practitioner)?

Curiously, he cites the 5th Dalai Lama, as saying"To the mind that is hallucinating, the opposite mind, one's mistakes is manifested in the Guru's actions". Can this be applied to him and his FPMT students?

All in all, in answer to the questions posed by Mana, such as  whether this foreword's attack on Shugden is to "keep up the schism"  and "Shouldn't the anti-Shugden issue be laid to rest?", I would say that this foreword's attack on Shugden is important in keeping alive the debate on the Dorje Shugden issue and ban, so as to create the cause for the ban to be lifted. I believe that this is precisely the intention of the Lama Zopa in employing a strong anti Shugden stance in his foreword. 

[Ensapa]

First of all, knowing Lama Zopa for the compassionate Lama that he is , so full of Guru Devotion, it is most uncharacteristic of him to launch into this sharp attack of Dorje Shugden and Shugden practitioners. He cannot, for instance be criticizing his own beloved Lama , Lama Yeshe, for practicing Shugden (which he did). In this particular instance, though, his criticism is in very vague words.He says  " Gen Thubten Yeshe, when passing away, before his last breath, showed very clearly the experience that Dogyal was not perfect". (Actually, one isn't even sure of what he means here in the criticism).
you're right. This sounds very ambiguous and not something concrete. Lama Zopa has never attacked anyone before in any way, sharp or not, which is why the more I read this letter, the more I do not feel that it was written by him. I do not think that he would go to as far as using Lama Yeshe's name in this issue. Only someone who is not Lama Zopa would write in this way.

 He himself says here that terrible negative karma will be collected by students who go against their Guru and break samaya with him. What about the terrible consequence of his own broken samaya with Lama Yeshe by his forsaking Shugden practice(given to him by Lama Yeshe, a devoted Shugden practitioner)?
What about those who broke their samaya with their Guru  by forsaking Dorje Shugden and deserting their Guru just because the Guru practiced Dorje Shugden, not just Lama Zopa? Can these broken samayas be erased just because HHDL said it is ok without much logical basis? If this is possible, it would also mean that one can have all their negative karma purified just by getting the Dalai Lama to say so.

Curiously, he cites the 5th Dalai Lama, as saying"To the mind that is hallucinating, the opposite mind, one's mistakes is manifested in the Guru's actions". Can this be applied to him and his FPMT students?
Broken samaya can cause the Guru to manifest in unpredictable ways, and the most obvious examples of these are Lama Osel and Kalu Rinpoche. they have stopped manifesting in the traditional way of a monk due to broken samaya, and perhaps this is Lama Zopa's hint to his students, if it is true that this foreword was written by Lama Zopa in the first place. Maybe thats whats gonna happen to Lama Zopa too...

All in all, in answer to the questions posed by Mana, such as  whether this foreword's attack on Shugden is to "keep up the schism"  and "Shouldn't the anti-Shugden issue be laid to rest?", I would say that this foreword's attack on Shugden is important in keeping alive the debate on the Dorje Shugden issue and ban, so as to create the cause for the ban to be lifted. I believe that this is precisely the intention of the Lama Zopa in employing a strong anti Shugden stance in his foreword.
If HHDL really wanted Dorje Shugden to die out, he would have done what the other 3 lineages did: proclaim that even mentioning the name Dorje Shugden brings bad luck and therefore we should not even mention his name (oh my, how Buddhist!) instead of talking about it and reminding people about Dorje Shugden again and again. So..yep, here's another way to look at it.

No matter how you say, this foreword has more mystery than clarifications, and there are just so many interesting and unexplainable points contained within this seemingly simple foreword. Thank you so much Vajrastorm for giving us another perspective of this issue!

[Losang_Tenpa]

Those who strongly practice Dolgyal eventually end up dying in the most dangerous manner. For example, Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk, learned in scriptures and from the great seat of Sera Me Monastery, who invited the reincarnation of Pabongka Rinpoche to Tibet and made the incarnation take the life-entrusting initiation of Dolgyal and the Heruka Body Mandala from Gonpa Sa Rinpoche. One day when travelling in a vehicle, they came up on a pass and although there were many people in the vehicle, he alone fell out of the window, down the cliff and died.

I am still bewildered by this statement, which lacks any logic or reasoning whatsoever.
This is such an absurd over-generalization. He did not qualify this first sentence in any way with the words  'some' or 'a few'. His first statement, as it stands, is disproved by looking into the accounts of countless lineage masters, who not only passed into clear light consciously and peacefully, but came back again and again to turn the wheel of the Dharma.

This type of shoot-from-the-hip statement, along with many other widely discrepant claims, renders the whole article unreliable.

[Lineageholder]

It is sad that more of such books are being proliferated in the Mongolian speaking world where Dorje Shugden is relatively strong and the ban has not really penetrated.

That's precisely why this politically motivated nonsense is being proliferated.

It makes me sad that either Lama Zopa wrote this, or refuses to disown it if it was written by someone else.  It shows what level the Gelugpa tradition has sunk to in this degenerate world and it shows that FPMT is just a political puppet organisation of the Dalai Lama's now. Apart from those Lamas who are faithful to the teachings of Je Pabongkhapa and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, there's no hope for the Gelugpa tradition's future.

[Lineageholder]

Those who strongly practice Dolgyal eventually end up dying in the most dangerous manner.

This is superstitious nonsense.  I know lots of people who are strongly practising Dorje Shugden who have good and healthy lives and who die peacefully.

[DS Star]

You know what? It doesn't matter that it was not written by Lama Zopa, it would have been written by an attendant but the fact that it does bear Lama Zopa's name and it was not contested says a lot. However, I too do not believe that Lama Zopa would say such things about Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Dorje Shugden.

If you read his prior writings on Dorje Shugden, Lama Zopa writes vaguely and tells people not to denigrate the lineage Lamas like Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and he says not to put down Dorje Shugden but encourages people not to practice Dorje Shugden because of the Dalai Lama's qualities and not what he said about Dorje Shugden. That sounds more like Lama Zopa than this foreword.

It is sad that more of such books are being proliferated in the Mongolian speaking world where Dorje Shugden is relatively strong and the ban has not really penetrated.

Agreed, the foreword bears Lama Zopa's name but the writings did not resemble Lama Zopa's previous teachings and writings on Dorje Shugden's issue.

A great Lama would not have resort to this kind of 'Fear tactic' to justify his stand. As we know and can still witness from Lama Zopa's actions, his has very very strong Guru Devotion and thus, he definitely would not goes against his own Guru Lama Yeshe and would not write such remarks or stories about great lineage Gurus especially Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche.

The argument that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche practice DS to show us the mistake... this is really ridiculous. If it was a mistake to be avoided, why Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche still continue to practice it and even risk his own life not to denounce it?

I too very sad that more and more this kind of books are being published to mislead DS practitioners in Mongolia.

[Ensapa]

Those who strongly practice Dolgyal eventually end up dying in the most dangerous manner. For example, Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk, learned in scriptures and from the great seat of Sera Me Monastery, who invited the reincarnation of Pabongka Rinpoche to Tibet and made the incarnation take the life-entrusting initiation of Dolgyal and the Heruka Body Mandala from Gonpa Sa Rinpoche. One day when travelling in a vehicle, they came up on a pass and although there were many people in the vehicle, he alone fell out of the window, down the cliff and died.

I am still bewildered by this statement, which lacks any logic or reasoning whatsoever.
This is such an absurd over-generalization. He did not qualify this first sentence in any way with the words  'some' or 'a few'. His first statement, as it stands, is disproved by looking into the accounts of countless lineage masters, who not only passed into clear light consciously and peacefully, but came back again and again to turn the wheel of the Dharma.

This type of shoot-from-the-hip statement, along with many other widely discrepant claims, renders the whole article unreliable.

No matter how we wanna see it, this foreword contains a lot of illogical statements that do not make sense in any way at all. It does sound a lot like what the Dalai Lama had said about Dorje Shugden but it lacks substance completely as these stories lack many supporting information that makes it concrete. In any case, this is not how Lama Zopa would normally give a teaching, and probably in some way, I do not feel that Lama Zopa is even aware of the existence of this foreword attributed to  his name. If he was, I am sure he would not be happy about it. Not to impose that Lama Zopa should teach in a certain way, but the differences between this foreword and his previous works is too stark and hard to reconcile. The tone and context differs very much. It actually sounds more like the articles against Dorje Shugden posted on the Dalai Lama's website and I am not surprised if they are indeed actually written by the same person.

One thing for sure is, you aint gonna get a confession from Lama Osel that Dorje Shugden is bad. If anyone can verify the account that Lama Yeshe said that Dorje Shugden is bad on his deathbed, it would be Lama Osel himself.

[gomchen]

One thing for sure is, you aint gonna get a confession from Lama Osel that Dorje Shugden is bad. If anyone can verify the account that Lama Yeshe said that Dorje Shugden is bad on his deathbed, it would be Lama Osel himself.

It wouldn't surprise me if Osel does make some statement in the future condemning Dorje Shugden.

That forward is very sad to read.

[Ensapa]

It wouldn't surprise me if Osel does make some statement in the future condemning Dorje Shugden.

That forward is very sad to read.

I dont think that will happen. Lama Osel is really Lama Yeshe's incarnation but due to circumstances, he is unable to manifest as a Lama in this life and reconnect with his former students. The reason for this is simple -- Lama Yeshe was a strong Dorje Shugden practitioner. When he returned and the FPMT students started to spin the whole Dorje Shugden thing into a political thing, he decided to give up his monkhood due to the force of the broken samaya from the students. It wasnt the ban that caused him to become the way he did, it was the students acting in ways that contradict the Dharma and adding in additional things to the ban. If they kept quiet about Dorje Shugden and focused on their own practice, while disallowing Dorje Shugden practitioners in their center, that would have been fine but they somehow find the need to publicly deride Dorje Shugden lamas and practitioners. This caused them to sever their ties with Lama Yeshe, and effectively generating the negative karma for Lama Osel to manifest the way that he is now.

For Lama Osel to manifest as a Lama again, they must seek forgiveness from Dorje Shugden via the oracle, but clearly, nobody could care less.

[dondrup]

I personally do not believe Lama Zopa Rinpoche would write such a forward that goes against Dorje Shugden!  It was Dorje Shugden who gave Lama Zopa his official recognition as a Rinpoche!  How can Kyabje Lama Zopa not have gratitude for Dorje Shugden?  Not logical!  Why would Lama Zopa want to create further schism amongst the Mongolian practitioners when the ban has already generated so much unnecessary sufferings for the Gelugpa practitioners?

How do you substantiate the stories in the forward with concrete evidences that they are true?  Surely at the time before the ban, many would have addressed these queries with Pabongka Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche,  and all the lineage and high lamas?

[Manjushri]

Many of those who rely on Dolgyal have received teachings and initiations in the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and have relied on His Holiness as their most kind Guru (Virtuous Friend). Nevertheless, later they have come to regard His Holiness as an enemy.

I would like to say that what if HHDL is not our root Guru? Does that mean we can practise Dorje Shugden if we have received it from our kind guru?


Dolgyal is one who, in the past, broke samaya (pledges) and made harmful, mistaken prayers to the teachings of our Founder/Teacher: Buddha. This has been stated by one who knows the past and future.

I would like to know what has been stated?

Again, a business man, Dorje Gyaltsen, who was a very strong practitioner of Dolgyal in secret, when tormented by sickness, he asked his wife to go to the usual place to propitiate Dolgyal. Not having known that he was a daily practitioner of Dolgyal, his wife, although very shocked, had no choice but to comply with his wishes to go and make the tea offering (relying on Dolgyal for the success of actions) on his behalf. Then directly from the mouth of the sick person came the words, “Up until now, Dolgyal has deceived me. I can see the actual ghost form of that vicious one. I have been deceived. I have been mistaken until now. I apologize and confess to my Gurus.”

Who was his guru? A lay person can see the actual "ghost" of a Buddha..what makes you think it was Shugden? Many people hallucinate during times they are extremely down. Not being an enlightened being, how can he declare that that 'ghost' is of Shugden? Maybe it was his own karma that cause his death. If he died foaming at the mouth with an expression of being strangled, could it be that he was poisoned, and gasping for air in the very last minutes that gave the impression as if he was being strangled? And because of this poison so strong in his body, vultures can't take his flesh.

The other is the one whose kindness is greater than the Buddhas of the three times, the one whose name is difficult to mention, my great virtuous friend Gen Thubten Yeshe, who was a strong practitioner of Dolgyal. When passing away, before his the last breath, he showed very clearly the expression that Dolgyal was not perfect. This has been my personal experience, from being together at the time of his passing away.

If Shugden was not perfect and Lama Yeshe was a strong practitioner of Shugden, doesn't it make his teachings and practises tainted since praying to a "spirit" breaks one refuge vows which is the basis to all other vows? Then Lama Zopa have been tutored by a teacher with a stained root and lineage therefore Lama Zopa too, would be practising and teaching without the lineage lama's blessings. Also, if Shugden was a spirit, and Lama Yeshe was such a strong practitioner, wouldnt he have gone to the 3 lower realms? Why has his re-incarnation come back as Lama Osel? And also, isn't Lama Zopa creating doubt in Lama Yeshe? Isn't that wrong to do, as a disciple? What happened to guru devotion?


But Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Dechen Nyingpo are Buddha. Their practice of Dolgyal is the act of showing ordinary aspect for us. Showing ordinary aspect means showing mistakes. Otherwise there is no other meaning of showing ordinary aspect. Without showing this ordinary aspect for us, there is no method to guide us from samsara. Showing the aspect of having mistakes is what leads us to enlightenment. It is so extremely kind of the Guru to show this; it is like the Guru is giving us skies filled with wish-granting jewels
 
I don't think high lamas will show mistakes in their practises and pass that down onto their disciples. That would be teaching incorrect Dharma.. so why do we have the Lamrim and base many studies from the Lamrim that was thought by Pabongkha? Could that have been him showing ordinary aspect as well?

To be honest, the foreward written is not very convincing at all because many of the points do not have a strong backing or a "root" to it. Many points are taken on a surface level, and to me, still cannot justify that Dorje Shugden's practise is 'bad'.

Just on the basis that HHDL is not our root guru therefore if our guru practises and passes on the practises of Dorje Shugden onto us, does that mean that we are free to practise? Does the whole of China get to practise because obviously HHDL is not their guru. Therefore, they are not defying guru devotion, which formed a lengthy commencement to the foreword?