Setrap a worldly being or Amitabha in worldly form ?

[Big Uncle]

Well, there are just too many evidences that seems to point that Setrab is actually a Dharma Protector that is fully enlightened while manifesting in a worldly form. Yes, worldly Dharma Protector are worshiped in Gelug tradition but generally frown upon. I am not familiar with Camseng but I do know that Sera May propitiate Teu, an unenlightened Protector with a top hat. The image of the statue is only carried into the monastery for pujas and escorted out after pujas.

On the other hand, Setrab was actually the Protector of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen. Hence, when the spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen assumed the form of Dorje Shugden, widespread disasters, diseases, spirits, deaths and so forth broke out all over Lhasa. The blame was pinned solely on the spirit of the deceased Lama. The Dalai Lama eventually contracted some Nyingma Lamas to destroy the spirit with powerful fire rituals. It was said that Dorje Shugden was rescued on several occasions by Setrab.

Now, if Setrab was unenlightened, how could he rescue Dorje Shugden and like someone mentioned if he was unenlightened, why would Dorje Shugden have him reside on the floor above him. These points seemed to point to the fact that Setrab must be more than meets the eye and must definitely possess an enlightened mind.

[Ensapa]

It is definitely surprising to me to hear that not all Lamas at Ganden Shartse think of Setrab as enlightened. Did you hear this directly, Zach? Or was it told to you by someone else? I would have thought that as Setrab is the Dharma Protector of Ganden Shartse, they would all have the same view of Setrab. I am curious which lamas actually disagree. Perhaps it is simply a linguistic thing - as in what the monk wanted to say was that Setrab manifests as a worldly being, which he did, rather than saying Setrab IS a worldly being. The correct meaning could have been lost in translation - like a case of chinese whispers. Just a thought.

This was a monk on Dharmawheel who practices on the otherside, So it was certainly interesting to hear his opinion

I did chance upon that thread in question and it strikes me that the 'monk' is partially biased against Setrab. He does not need to check with his monk friends to see whether or not Setrab is enlightened -- he only needs to read the prayers, and also consult the elder Kensurs there. Setrab being an enlightened being in the Gelug tradition is a well established. Even Lati Rinpoche's center in Singapore (http://www.drophenling.com/Default.aspx) installs Setrab as an enlightened Dharma protector. The difference in opinion to me does not matter because the Sakyas view Dorje Shugden and Setrab as both unenlightened protectors, you want to investigate where that view comes from? If we spend all day investigating who's right and who's wrong, we wont reach a conclusion because everyone has their views due to the fact that everyone's karmic dispositions is different. You could however, show the monk a link to the drophenling website and remind him that Lati Rinpoche did assert that Setrab is an enlightened protector. The senior monks of Ganden Shartse knows this. Some things cannot be argued unless that monk person has ulterior motives in declaring otherwise. After all, we would not know if he is saying this to put down Shartse as he appears to be from Jangtse.

[Tenzin Gyatso]

To Ensapa,

If Setrab is in the 'mandala' house of Shugden then he must be a worldy being. Another evidence is he can take trance in oracles that Dhogyal takes trance in sharing the same vessel. Why would a worldy being be able to share the vessel of a enlightened being. It's like letting dhogyal drink from the cup of HHDL. That would be profane. As he is an evil spirit that harms and would not be able to be in the presence of HHDL (pure love and light) without first being tamed. Like bank robbers seeing the police show up would flee.

Setrab is definitely a worldy god but much more higher than dhogyal who is an evil incarnate spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen's perverted prayers due to his jealousy of the Great 5th Dalai Lama. But there was no competition in the first place between 5th Dalai Lama and Tulku.

 

[WisdomBeing]

It is definitely surprising to me to hear that not all Lamas at Ganden Shartse think of Setrab as enlightened. Did you hear this directly, Zach? Or was it told to you by someone else? I would have thought that as Setrab is the Dharma Protector of Ganden Shartse, they would all have the same view of Setrab. I am curious which lamas actually disagree. Perhaps it is simply a linguistic thing - as in what the monk wanted to say was that Setrab manifests as a worldly being, which he did, rather than saying Setrab IS a worldly being. The correct meaning could have been lost in translation - like a case of chinese whispers. Just a thought.

This was a monk on Dharmawheel who practices on the otherside, So it was certainly interesting to hear his opinion

I did chance upon that thread in question and it strikes me that the 'monk' is partially biased against Setrab. He does not need to check with his monk friends to see whether or not Setrab is enlightened -- he only needs to read the prayers, and also consult the elder Kensurs there. Setrab being an enlightened being in the Gelug tradition is a well established. Even Lati Rinpoche's center in Singapore (http://www.drophenling.com/Default.aspx) installs Setrab as an enlightened Dharma protector. The difference in opinion to me does not matter because the Sakyas view Dorje Shugden and Setrab as both unenlightened protectors, you want to investigate where that view comes from? If we spend all day investigating who's right and who's wrong, we wont reach a conclusion because everyone has their views due to the fact that everyone's karmic dispositions is different. You could however, show the monk a link to the drophenling website and remind him that Lati Rinpoche did assert that Setrab is an enlightened protector. The senior monks of Ganden Shartse knows this. Some things cannot be argued unless that monk person has ulterior motives in declaring otherwise. After all, we would not know if he is saying this to put down Shartse as he appears to be from Jangtse.

hmmmm personally i would be at loath to just take someone's word for it on an online forum. I would prefer to look at the evidence, as Ensapa has presented. Firstly - the wordings in Setrab's prayers, and secondly, that Lati Rinpoche's centre says that Setrab is enlightened. As Lati Rinpoche is an ex-abbot of Ganden, i am sure he would know what he is talking about.

Anyway, whoever the monk is (or isn't as may be the case sometimes!), sometimes people just want to create mischief so we should just look at the facts and sort the wheat from the chaff.

[Tenzin Gyatso]

Sorry. Lati Rinpoche use to practice Shugden too till he was enlightened by HHDL's views. Then he gave up. That means Lati Rinpoche can make mistakes too. He may be a great teacher, but he can make mistakes. So he can be mistaken about Setrab easily with good intentions? 

It is definitely surprising to me to hear that not all Lamas at Ganden Shartse think of Setrab as enlightened. Did you hear this directly, Zach? Or was it told to you by someone else? I would have thought that as Setrab is the Dharma Protector of Ganden Shartse, they would all have the same view of Setrab. I am curious which lamas actually disagree. Perhaps it is simply a linguistic thing - as in what the monk wanted to say was that Setrab manifests as a worldly being, which he did, rather than saying Setrab IS a worldly being. The correct meaning could have been lost in translation - like a case of chinese whispers. Just a thought.

This was a monk on Dharmawheel who practices on the otherside, So it was certainly interesting to hear his opinion

I did chance upon that thread in question and it strikes me that the 'monk' is partially biased against Setrab. He does not need to check with his monk friends to see whether or not Setrab is enlightened -- he only needs to read the prayers, and also consult the elder Kensurs there. Setrab being an enlightened being in the Gelug tradition is a well established. Even Lati Rinpoche's center in Singapore (http://www.drophenling.com/Default.aspx) installs Setrab as an enlightened Dharma protector. The difference in opinion to me does not matter because the Sakyas view Dorje Shugden and Setrab as both unenlightened protectors, you want to investigate where that view comes from? If we spend all day investigating who's right and who's wrong, we wont reach a conclusion because everyone has their views due to the fact that everyone's karmic dispositions is different. You could however, show the monk a link to the drophenling website and remind him that Lati Rinpoche did assert that Setrab is an enlightened protector. The senior monks of Ganden Shartse knows this. Some things cannot be argued unless that monk person has ulterior motives in declaring otherwise. After all, we would not know if he is saying this to put down Shartse as he appears to be from Jangtse.

hmmmm personally i would be at loath to just take someone's word for it on an online forum. I would prefer to look at the evidence, as Ensapa has presented. Firstly - the wordings in Setrab's prayers, and secondly, that Lati Rinpoche's centre says that Setrab is enlightened. As Lati Rinpoche is an ex-abbot of Ganden, i am sure he would know what he is talking about.

Anyway, whoever the monk is (or isn't as may be the case sometimes!), sometimes people just want to create mischief so we should just look at the facts and sort the wheat from the chaff.

[Tenzin Gyatso]

Sorry. Lati Rinpoche use to practice Shugden too till he was enlightened by HHDL's views. Then he gave up. That means Lati Rinpoche can make mistakes too. He may be a great teacher, but he can make mistakes. So he can be mistaken about Setrab easily with good intentions? 

It is definitely surprising to me to hear that not all Lamas at Ganden Shartse think of Setrab as enlightened. Did you hear this directly, Zach? Or was it told to you by someone else? I would have thought that as Setrab is the Dharma Protector of Ganden Shartse, they would all have the same view of Setrab. I am curious which lamas actually disagree. Perhaps it is simply a linguistic thing - as in what the monk wanted to say was that Setrab manifests as a worldly being, which he did, rather than saying Setrab IS a worldly being. The correct meaning could have been lost in translation - like a case of chinese whispers. Just a thought.

This was a monk on Dharmawheel who practices on the otherside, So it was certainly interesting to hear his opinion

I did chance upon that thread in question and it strikes me that the 'monk' is partially biased against Setrab. He does not need to check with his monk friends to see whether or not Setrab is enlightened -- he only needs to read the prayers, and also consult the elder Kensurs there. Setrab being an enlightened being in the Gelug tradition is a well established. Even Lati Rinpoche's center in Singapore (http://www.drophenling.com/Default.aspx) installs Setrab as an enlightened Dharma protector. The difference in opinion to me does not matter because the Sakyas view Dorje Shugden and Setrab as both unenlightened protectors, you want to investigate where that view comes from? If we spend all day investigating who's right and who's wrong, we wont reach a conclusion because everyone has their views due to the fact that everyone's karmic dispositions is different. You could however, show the monk a link to the drophenling website and remind him that Lati Rinpoche did assert that Setrab is an enlightened protector. The senior monks of Ganden Shartse knows this. Some things cannot be argued unless that monk person has ulterior motives in declaring otherwise. After all, we would not know if he is saying this to put down Shartse as he appears to be from Jangtse.

[Ensapa]

Sorry. Lati Rinpoche use to practice Shugden too till he was enlightened by HHDL's views. Then he gave up. That means Lati Rinpoche can make mistakes too. He may be a great teacher, but he can make mistakes. So he can be mistaken about Setrab easily with good intentions? 

I dont think we're qualified to comment on whether or not Lati Rinpoche stopped or went underground instead because he could have not openly practiced Dorje Shugden to show respect to the Dalai Lama, but quietly he does. Else how would his Dharma work be so successful? Lama Zopa does his Dorje Shugden practice quietly as well and he made it very clear that he 'gave up' Shugden out of respect for the Dalai Lama. If Lati Rinpoche can be 'mistaken' about Setrab, then what about Kensur Jampa Yeshe? He also sees Setrab as enlightened also.

[beggar]

I dont think we're qualified to comment on whether or not Lati Rinpoche stopped or went underground instead because he could have not openly practiced Dorje Shugden to show respect to the Dalai Lama, but quietly he does. Else how would his Dharma work be so successful? Lama Zopa does his Dorje Shugden practice quietly as well and he made it very clear that he 'gave up' Shugden out of respect for the Dalai Lama. If Lati Rinpoche can be 'mistaken' about Setrab, then what about Kensur Jampa Yeshe? He also sees Setrab as enlightened also.

Yes I second this. There are many reasons for why monks and lamas have "given up" the practice of Dorje Shugden. (in parenthesis because it is quietly known that many masters have continued their practice in secret, although they may publicly declare that they have given it up. This does not necessarily mean that it is because they are saying that Dorje Shugden is wrong or that they have made a mistake. Have you ever heard, explicitly from the mouth of Lati Rinpoche, that he thinks that he made a mistake about Dorje Shugden or that he no longer thinks Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being?

Lama Zopa, for example, has 'given up' the practice of Dorje Shugden but he has never spoken against the practice and he states clearly in a letter to his student: "This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil."  (see Lama Zopa's stance on this among a collection of letters he wrote to his students: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/lama-zopa-advice-book/)

So it wouldn't be totally accurate to assume that just because someone gives up the practice, it was for such a simplistic reason that they were "wrong".

[Ensapa]

I dont think we're qualified to comment on whether or not Lati Rinpoche stopped or went underground instead because he could have not openly practiced Dorje Shugden to show respect to the Dalai Lama, but quietly he does. Else how would his Dharma work be so successful? Lama Zopa does his Dorje Shugden practice quietly as well and he made it very clear that he 'gave up' Shugden out of respect for the Dalai Lama. If Lati Rinpoche can be 'mistaken' about Setrab, then what about Kensur Jampa Yeshe? He also sees Setrab as enlightened also.

Yes I second this. There are many reasons for why monks and lamas have "given up" the practice of Dorje Shugden. (in parenthesis because it is quietly known that many masters have continued their practice in secret, although they may publicly declare that they have given it up. This does not necessarily mean that it is because they are saying that Dorje Shugden is wrong or that they have made a mistake. Have you ever heard, explicitly from the mouth of Lati Rinpoche, that he thinks that he made a mistake about Dorje Shugden or that he no longer thinks Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being?

Lama Zopa, for example, has 'given up' the practice of Dorje Shugden but he has never spoken against the practice and he states clearly in a letter to his student: "This does not mean that Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo, His Holiness Trijang Rinpoche, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche have made mistakes. It does not mean they are wrong. Nor does one have to look at the protector as evil."  (see Lama Zopa's stance on this among a collection of letters he wrote to his students: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/lama-zopa-advice-book/)

So it wouldn't be totally accurate to assume that just because someone gives up the practice, it was for such a simplistic reason that they were "wrong".

The other thing that I feel that I must point out  here is that, most of these highly attained masters would not reveal their Dharma practice because it might be detrimental to people who are not prepared for the higher teachings who emulate these masters. So I dont think we can say that they have given up/still continuing because we are not them and how would we have the clairvoyance to know? But if it is a Lama who is famous for Guru devotion, do you think he would give up his Guru's instructions just because another Lama of a higher rank instructs him to give up what his Guru has taught? I dont think so and neither would I believe that would happen.

[Dondrup Shugden]

It has been taught to me that Setrap is the emanation of Amitabha and as a Protector I guess would be in a worldly form. 

It was Setrap who assisted Dorje Shugden when DS arose as an enlightened Protector. This fact alone proves with doubt that Setrap is also an enlightened protector, an emanation of Amitabha Buddha.

Very detailed information on this post.  Most educational.