I found this old gem which has been buried for awhile and I wanted to resurface. What I thought was intriguing here is the contradiction to the standard criticism of Dorje Shugden practice by Nyingmapas and Sakyapas.
I also found this interesting debate online (
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan/3LYBELeXxuE) from 1998 so it's pretty old but nevertheless I thought the points raised were interesting. This is a post from a Kelsang Khyenrab in response to a Shugden critic, Namdrol:
Hello Namdrol, here's a few observations on some of your recent posts on the issue of whether or not some Sakyas rely on Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector of the Dharma.
You said:
>No Sakya Lama has ever taught that Shugden is enlightened Protector.
>This is what Sakya Trizin says, and additionally, what my teacher says, who
>was resident at Sakya Monastery in Rajpur/Derhadun as the Secretary of the
>Sakya order between 1982-1989.
I asked a few people to lend their knowledge to this debate. Although I'm not quoting my sources I can tell you they've been in Tibetan Buddhism for up to 20 years, know many Lamas, lived in India, speak Tibetan etc. In other words, I take them as authoritative.
One of them told me the following:
In his talk in 1978 the present Dalai Lama repeated as a 'common story' that a throne-holder of the Sakya tradition developed a connection with Dorje Shugden. I (that's my friend) understand that this was the 17th
century Dagchen Dorje Chang Sonam Rinchen. Sakya masters at that time such as Sakya Dagchen Kunga Lodo (Sachen Kunlo) and Morchen Dorje Chang also wrote sadhanas which have been practised within the Sakya Tradition since then. Dorje Shugden, in particular in the aspect of riding a black horse, has been a Dharma Protector of the Sakya Tradition from that time until now.
Because of the pressure of the Dalai Lama's government this practice has now been suppressed within the Sakya Tradition. However, according to one oracle of Dorje Shugden, Kuten Choyang Duldzin, many Sakya
Lamas - including the father of the present Sakya Trizin - relied on Dorje Shugden and requested advice from the Dorje Shugden oracle, including advice concerning the present Sakya Trizin.
Many people have stated that they have been present during Shugden pujas with Sakya Lamas including Sakya Trizin in the Sakya Temple in Mussourie, India. In Lo, Nepal, they do (or did) an annual Dorje Shugden dance, and according to eye-witness accounts Chogye Trichen the Teacher of both Sakya
Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama, offers a katag to the dancer. The eye-witness account said the abbot of Lo Monastery told him that in Tibet, in Samye, they used to perform a dance with 32 dancers representing the 32 Deities of the Dorje Shugden Mandala plus dancers representing Pehar and Tsemara. But nowadays they only have one dancer.
So this is one account that differs from your view. Who should we believe?
Also you quoted from an old post by Losang last year where he said:
>>"Even when I
>>visited Geshe Kelsang's nephew in the Sakya monastery in Rajpur I found
>>that they relied upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector.
In response to this you said:
>Nonsense. rTa.nag is not considered to be a enlightened protector by the
>Sakyapa, I ought to know, I studied in the Sakya tradition for eight years.
Namdrol, were your eight years prior to 1978 by any chance? How can you be certain that Sakya teachings since then haven’t undergone revision in light of the Dalai Lama’s view? How do you know written records eg sadhana booklets weren’t destroyed? And how can you be sure that you studied everything in the Sakya tradition in those 8 years?
Again you quote:
>>prayers and offerings to him which were in essence the same as those
>>offered to Mahakala who all schools believe to be an enlightened being. I
Your response:
>How can you possibly know this? You don't know Tibetan.
Sorry, Namdrol, but Losang does know Tibetan. Although I can't read that language I know of several Western Dorje Shugden practitioners who can read and speak it. And then there are Tibetan practitioners who can also read and speak English.
Again you quoted:
>>aspect except that he was riding a horse. Perhaps it is only when he rides
>>a snow lion that he becomes harmfull! I was so surprized when I later heard
>>the Sakyapas saying that they only gave Dorje Shugden cakes so that he
>>would not get angry with them. I notice on the Sakya calander that they no
>>longer practice Dorje Shugden. If they truly believed he was such a demonic
>>being and feared him so much then why do they not continue to appease him
>>with cakes? I believe it is the tibetan politicians that they fear more
>>than Dorje Shugden. His Holiness Sakya Trinzen spent a large part of his
>>time at this monastery so surely he knows the real situation."
And then you said:
>Yes, Sakya Trizin is my root Guru. He maintains that Shugden is a) harmful
>b) mundane. The fact is that Shugden is deity practice in Sakya mainly by
>the Khon family in Sakya monastery proper. The Ngorpas and the Tharpas
>have never adopted this practice.
Perhaps I could put forward the following ideas here. There are 3 possible explanations:
1.You are lying
2. Sakya Trizin is lying
3. There are two ways of regarding Dorje Shugden in the Sakya lineage - openly and secretly.
Then as both you and Sakya Trizin are Buddhists and would not lie, we have to conclude that the third is the only reasonable explanation for the differences between us on this matter.
Also, can you say for sure that Sakya Trizin has never explained to any of his other disciples a different way of perceiving Dorje Shugden? Are you omniscient? Namdrol, you may know a lot but I suspect you do not
know everything. Or are you claiming to be enlightened?
As a great Teacher, Sakya Trizin would explain what is most beneficial according to the karmic connections of each of his students. Even Buddha himself taught in this way.
You also said:
>BY claiming a Sakyapa origin for your views, you are in effect
>misrepresenting and attacking Sakya.
No-one here is attacking Sakya. Relax. We are telling you what our lineage gurus have explained to us.
You also said:
>Anyone who has studied in the Sakya tradition knows that Gorampa did not
>believe that Tsongkhapa's visions of Manjushri were authentic. Why? Because
>in Gorampa's opinion, Tsongkhapa's explanations of Buddhism were incorrect,
>and therefor, his "Manjushri", from whom Tsongkhapa credits with all of his
>insights, kmust have been a mara. This is not sectarian-- this is one
>scholar criticizing and passing judgements on another scholar.
Then what does Gorampa think of Buddha Shakyamuni's prediction that a boy living at that time, an emanation of Manjushri, would become a monk called Losang Dragpa (Tsongkhapa’s ordained name) at a place called Ganden? Does Gorampa think that Buddha made a mistake? Does Gorampa not accept Buddha's endorsement that Tsongkhapa is, in fact, an emanation of Manjushri?
Namdrol, why should written records, even Tibetan ones, be such an authoritative source of knowledge? People can write down anything - that does not make it a truth. Oral lineages remain oral because there's
no karma for them to be written down. It doesn't mean that they are wrong. Buddha himself and his immediate disciples maintained only oral lineages.
BTW another friend told me that one of the high Sakya Lamas said directly that there was/is a line of Sakyas that secretly rely upon Dorje Shugden as an enlightened Protector but this person didn't wish to be quoted publicly. Why not? In the current climate in Tibetan Buddhism does that question really need an answer? Why should a high Sakya lama rely secretly? Why do people not want to be quoted publicly? Why are we having this debate?
Khyenrab
