KYABJE TRIJANG RINPOCHE'S ADVICE REGARDING DORJE SHUGDEN AND DALAI LAMA...

[Big Uncle]

The following is an extract from Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors (pg 125 onwards)
- a masterpiece of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and downloadable from this site.

CONCLUSION: PERVASIVE ENLIGHTENED ACTIVITIES
 
There is something I must mention at this point.  As stated above, the Great Fifth
Dalai Lama and Omniscient Panchen Rinpoche were like Lords of the Teachings. In
actuality they are, respectively, Arya Avalokiteswara and Buddha Amitabha
emanating in the human form of special holy beings. Yet this Lord of Dharma
Protectors exhibited an ability to harm or destroy them, and such events as the
Great Fifth, having been able to summon this Dharmapala to be burned with
intense samadhi but not accomplish it, also shows that the enlightening activities
of these great masters and those of this Dharmapala are each as mutually
universal and pervasive as the other. But some who are narrow minded, not
understanding this point, consider this Dharmapala to be like an ordinary worldly
being and, with supposed faith in the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama,
disparage him; or else they indeed admire this great Dharmapala but criticize the
Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama. Using either one as a reason not to admire the other
and speaking badly about either in any way is the conduct of an ordinary being
who, under the influence of attachment and hatred, just tries to help friends and
hurt enemies; it obscures the increase of these great holy Aryas' deeds and
creates the karmic cause to experience unbearable suffering in the future. Why is
this true? Because it is utterly impossible that such great beings, who are special
emanations of Arya Avalokiteswara and Buddha Amitabha, could lack the power
to overcome the harmful force of any sort of magical spell, harmful demon, or
spirit. This is because they are both powerful Lords who have overcome external
and internal maras without exception.
   
Again, some who like to speak illogically say that there is resentment
between this lord of Dharma Guardians and the Great Dharmaraja Nechung and
that it is therefore unsuitable for the Tibetan Government and its workers to rely
upon this Protector.   

This is a projection of ordinary faults upon those of high realization, special
Dharmapalas, out of habituation to their own common bad behavior of
competitiveness, prejudice, and harboring of grudges. It simply reveals complete
ignorance of the nature of these Dharmpalas, the extent of their realizations, and
knowledge of what they protect and do not protect. If such Dharmapalas were
motivated by competitiveness, attachment, hatred, and jealousy, how could it be
suitable for those who seek liberation to rely upon and make offerings to them? 
This is because not relying upon or associating with vicious worldly gods and
ghosts is one of the precepts of having gone for refuge.
   
Furthermore, to the common view of beings, it is difficult to fully
understand the appearances of holy great Aryas and their inconceivable three
secrets at the definitive level. Although Buddha Shakyamuni was free of all
dangers, Devadatta firing his catapult at him, wounding him, and he constantly
appeared to compete with and harm Buddha by setting mad elephants upon him
and so forth. Yet glorious Chandrakirti in his Lamp Illuminating Guyasamaja quotes
from the Great Union Tantra called Uncommon Secrets, as follows,
 
Then, I shall furthermore expound upon the Omniscient One's perfect
entourage. It is like this: Manjusri became King Shuddhodana. Avalokiteswara
became Devi Maha Maya. Sri Devi is Yasodhara. Vajrasattva is Rahula. Sarva
Nivarana Viskambini is Shariputra. Samantabhadra is Stavira Ananda. Indra,
Lord of the Gods, is Stavira Devadatta. Great Vairochana is Samyaksam
Buddha Glorious Shakyamuni. By this principle, Buddha emanates as both the
one around whom the entourage gathers, as well as the entourage, in order to
get sentient beings who are beginners started.
 
Thus, Devadatta was, himself, said to be an intentional emanation of the Lord of
the Gods, Indra.  The holy Dharma of the White Lotus Sutra also states, Bikshus! 
At that time, in that life, Devadatta became a wise sage.  Bikshus!  Devadatta is
even my Spiritual Guide!
 
and continues up to,
 
Bikshus!  You should admire him! You must understand this!  Bikshus! 
Limitless countless eons from now, Devadatta, in a world system known as
Staircase of the Devas, will become the Tathagata Arhat Samyaksam Buddha
Devaraja, King of the Devas.   

Bikshus!  The lifespan of that Tathagata Devaraja shall be twenty intermediate
eons.     
 
Omniscient Kedrubje has said,
 
For example, in ultimate definitive terms, those such as Legshay Karmal,
Devadatta, and the six non?buddhist teachers, emanated well, in order to
draw out Buddha's greatness.
 
and also, 
 
Likewise, in other Tantras Buddha himself emanates in sets of six and so forth,
such secrets of the holy great Aryas are difficult to understand. Furthermore,
as is said in the Mahaparanirvana Sutra,
 
To some in this world of Jambudvipa I shall appear like an obstructive
mara, and sentient beings will be correct in thinking, 'O no!  It is an evil
mara!' But, like the lotus that is not stained by the mud of the swamp, I
am not stained by the faults of mara!
 
Accordingly, if it serves to benefit trainees, Buddhas will even emanate as evil
maras.  As is said in that same Tantra again, Likewise, they emanate many forms
out of skillful means.  All of them are just in accordance with the needs of the world.
 
Thus, they are all said to be nothing but displays appearing to the common view of
trainess. In a similar way the Lord of the Devas Indra has emanated as a Brahmin
to put beings such as the Bodhisattva Sadapraruditali though tests such as making
him have to cut off his flesh and bone in offering. The Dharmaraja Songtsen
Gampo emanated people that were executed by other emanated people. In the
previous life stories of Atisha, Dromtonpa, and Kutson Dru Yungdrung, these
three sometimes harmed each other and resented each other while, at other
times, they were close relatives such as father and son, as is clear in the many
accounts recorded in the Kadampa Scriptures.
     
Even such holy great beings such as Ra Lotsawa, Tanag Golo, and Nyenlo
appeared, to common view, to be Tantric practitioners who were jealous of each
other, some of whom died in conflict of wrathful activities. There are cases such as
these in the life accounts of many previous great beings.

[LosangKhyentse]

Very beautiful post. It raises my faith to another level after re-reading this passage here on this post today.

Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche is himself no other than Vajra Yogini.

I fold my hands to all Enlightened Beings and their emanations.

tk

[a friend]

Oh yes, it is a wonderful, impeccably classic Mahayana text.

We have said several times in this Forum that Devadatta was a somehow realized being playing the role of a Mara.

If we were to be really intelligent, we might even act as if every single sentient being, to the last of obstructive demons, were a realized being that is playing the role of this and that in order to give me, the only stupid being in the universe left unenlightened, the opportunity to gather merit and become enlightened.

Now does this teach something about our conduct? Oh it certainly does. It teaches us that there are levels in reality and in the teachings comprehending reality: outer, inner and secret.

The problems in this Forum come from not recognizing these levels. And not to acknowledge these levels brings about a great vast disruption and probably the acceleration of the destruction of Buddhadharma.

I would like us all to reflect upon this: outer, inner and secret. By the way, if you are a practitioner you already know it, it´s spelled all over our main ritual text.

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Nice quote. Let us see what it says:

1 - Those who think that DS is a demon, are mistaken. [So far this kind of view has been promulgated mainly by Dalai and his followers.]

2 - Those who think that Dalai or Panchen could be harmed by DS, or any "demon", are mistaken. [So far this kind of view has been promulgated mainly by Dalai and his followers, eventhough Dalai has later recanted.]

3 - Those who say that DS and Nechung have "personal problems between them" are mistaken. [So far this kind of view has been promulgated mainly by Dalai and his followers (and later sadly also by some shugdenites, I must add).]

4 - Sometimes Buddha's followers, the Sangha members, manifest as Stupid Ones, like Indra manisfesting as Devadatta, and later, those same persons will become Great Beings, as all practitioners should. But of course, whether this person was before that, or later becomes something else, means nothing, in an ethical sense. The fact that the Buddha is the ground and principal, means nothing, from the point of view of addressing the choices and actions of the "grounded ones", like, say, Devadatta. Devadatta was surely in the mandala of the Buddha, as he had been traveling the samsara with the Bodhisattva for aeons, but this fact does not have any ethical relevance when it comes to the actions of "devadattaism". And as we all become Buddhas eventually, it cannot be used as an argument of the morality of any action we do today. Josef Stalin becomes a Buddha eventually, but does this mean that killing 30 million humans is an action of a Buddha? Of course not. So who cares what Devadatta becomes later, since the acts he did were unethical.

5 - Sometimes Buddha emanates as the whole setting; both the principal and the entourage. This also, like the point 4, has no ethical implications whatsoever. So even if the Buddha himself would have emanated as the six heretics to show the glory of Dharma, it nevertheless is true that the claims, views, and actions based on those claims and views, were erroneous! That afterall was the whole point in emanating as the six heretics. If a Buddha makes an erroneous action in order to show error, the act remains erroneous eventhough it was made by a Buddha. To maintain an opposite view is to maintain that a Buddha could not manifest as a "mara" or a "devadatta", whereas Tantras and scholars such as Khedrubje just said otherwise in the quote from Trijang. In short: Buddhas cannot show error without doing error. Therefore there is error, as Khedrubje implied.

6 - And so, finally, the main point: If all the previous holds true, then one can say that actions can be judged faulty or unethical irrespective of whether one holds the actor to be faultless or not. As an practical example: One can say that Dalai has practiced wrong speech and wrong action even if one holds him to be Avalokiteshvara. Otherwise one would have to say that it is ethically correct action to try to kill a Buddha, since Devadatta the Emanatee did just that.


blessings and ponderings,
Zhalmed Pawo

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Oh yes................ [snip]....................

Ah, while I was typing, you said the same in so much more eloquent and compact way. Thank you.  Neato!

[Middleway]

The problems in this Forum come from not recognizing these levels. And not to acknowledge these levels brings about a great vast disruption and probably the acceleration of the destruction of Buddhadharma.

maybe the DL is enlightened, maybe he is not. Either way it is correct to protest. If it is not then why do you protest at our protestations, which you seem to think are also emanations of the enlightened mind produced for your benefit as the last being in samsara? Shouldn't you be in solitary retreat somewhere with this view?

[Middleway]

Oh yeah, I misunderstood what you said a friend, sorry.  I think we actually agree.  Excuse me for needing it to be spelled out, but you're saying that we hold the secret view of everything arising from bliss & emptiness, but our outer behaviour acts in accordance with outer appearance (ie protesting) while holding the inner motivation of bodhichitta?

Excuse my doofusness.

[a friend]

Yes, precisely. (But Middleway, you don´t need to apologize).
What I´m trying to say is that in a certain way all parties concerned here are right.
The newbies are right in wishing to uphold the inner and secret views of our system and apply them to the case of the DL: both the Lojong teachings and the Secret Mantra teachings. According to these we can and should view all things as pure, in different ways according to the type of teaching. All of us should do this.
But they are not so right in proclaiming it to the outer world because by doing that they are destroying the basic teachings of Lord Buddha, allowing the world to think that we do not possess the morality of the Muni, the very root of his teachings, the very root of what DUL. ZIN. protects.
On the other hand, the WSS is correctly dealing with outer conventional reality and it should be recognized by all that their actions are needed and correct. (I have some disagreements with WSS that only concern form, effectiveness, not the Dharma).
If we could understand this simple view about outer, inner and secret levels of the teachings then we could have not only truce, as some have been requesting, but a nice agreement. True peace among the followers of Lord Buddha and particularly among the followers of Mañjushri Lobsang Drakpa.
Of course I’m not requesting that everybody here jumps with goose bumps and embraces my suggestion. But I request that it be examined, taken into consideration.

[Middleway]

Yes, it's been stated elsewhere on this forum that the standardisation of a pure view of the DL has contributed greatly to our current problems.  Such pure view should be a personal decision taken by a disciple towards his/her Spiritual Guide after long investigation & is not meant to be publicly propagated as a given (I know the DL is very humble with his Western audiences, but his disciples/fans often show misunderstanding of this point regarding pure view & in the exile community & the TGIE in particular there is much blind faith, & I think blatant abuse of this 'pure' view).  With my own Spiritual Guide I can say I will never lose faith that he is a pure being, but if he was to engage in actions such as the DL has then I would have to take the same actions as I have taken towards the DL.  Internally I would see it all as a perfect lesson from an unsurpassed master, but that's something I would keep to myself & close Sangha.  I can say this sincerely because my Spiritual Guide has received much criticism which I have had to check out thoroughly.  So I have some appreciation of the heart stopping difficulty of having to confront the possibility that your Spiritual Guide has engaged in wrong actions.  One thing that my own experience taught me is that actually I didn't have pure view at all - if I had genuine pure view I would not have been unsettled when making those investigations.  What I had was some faith that was mixed with attachment coming from the idea that my Spritual Guide was inherently pure.  That attachment pressed me very hard to either stop looking for the truth, give up my refuge altogether, get angry, blame others, make excuses etc etc.  Fortunately I was able to keep my eyes open & investigate without bias & come to some happy conclusions, including, most importantly a better understanding of what it really meant to have a Spiritual Guide & how to rely upon that person appropriately & without blind faith.

Excuse the blurb, but my point really is that yes, I agree with you - it is possible to keep faith in the DL for those with genuine, deep pure view born out of clear wisdom, but it is not appropriate to externally promote a view of him as inherently faultless and then to say we should not criticise him or oppose his actions because of this. This is a misunderstanding of pure view & refuge which leads to big problems.

Although I don't agree that the DL's actions are contributing to a renaissance in Dorje Shugden practice through publicising it, I do sometimes wonder whether his actions are providing an opportunity for us to clarify this very point about what constitutes pure view & how to rely correctly, which is so crucial to the flourishing of faith in this world today.  This is why I think this current debate is necessary.  Even if some people on this forum are not prepared to listen (one thing that misunderstanding pure view breeds is attachment to your own view), then still we have to try & oppose this misunderstanding & provide a correct view as an alternative for those who are prepared to investigate honestly.

[Lineageholder]

I think, whatever happens, it's possible to view the Dalai Lama's actions as a kindness that can function as the basis for developing our own wisdom about what it means to have pure view and develop faith in a Spiritual Teacher.

One of the ten criteria given in the teachings for accepting that someone is a valid Mahayana Spiritual Guide is that they keep moral discipline.  The Dalai Lama has been seen to directly lie and deceive, in contradiction to Buddha's teachings.  One of the characteristics of bodhisattvas is that they have no wish to deceive living beings.  I see this as a big contradiction, although some will choose to impute a spiritual motivation on the Dalai Lama's actions.  It's arguable.

One thing that is not arguable, in my mind, is that the action of undermining faith in one's own Spiritual Guide and the lineage Gurus by saying they were 'wrong' is a virtuous action of a pure Spiritual Guide.  How can this ever be transformed into a spiritual action as it seems to contradict Refuge practice itself?  The Dalai Lama has clearly undermined both Trijang Rinpoche and Je Pabongkhapa and their students by saying that they were wrong to rely on Dorje Shugden.  This, more than anything,  puts the 'final nail in the coffin' of my respect for the Dalai Lama and tells me he is not a valid Teacher.


How can this be a spiritual action?  If anyone has any input on this, I'd be happy to hear it. 

[a friend]

Dear Lineageholder, I´m sorry if I confused you, it was not my intention. Let me simplify this for you to the max. A practitioner has to deal externally with external conventional reality in accord with our first level of vows; and example of this would be that your public actions have to be in accord with morality. To try and help persecuted people and to try and restore the truth for the minds of others to know it, are perfectly correct moral actions.
When it comes to your own aprehension of the same (mainly your perception of the actions of others) you have to apply both the Lojong and Tantric level of vows, which are not to be proclaimed to the world. You might wish to read for instance the book "Essence of Mahayana Lojong" that Sermey Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tharchin wrote on Geshe Langri Tang Pa´s 8 verses. It´s a tiny book, but a true atomic bomb for our self cherishing mind. There you can develop a pure vision about the actions of others, irregardless of those actions being externally right or wrong, and you keep your pure vision it to yourself.
You keep it to yourself because it contradicts the Lojong vows to proclaim our good actions, and you keep it to yourself because these teachings can cause and imbalance in an immature mind, that is why at the beginning they were kept secret by the first Kadampa Masters. So in a case so sensitive as the public DL´s actions this secrecy about pure view should be kept even more secret, if I can use such repetition, for the reasons I stated in other posts. I hope this helps, if not, please go on talking.

[thor]

By the way, I feel that Trijang Rinpoche, in his wisdom, wrote that particular section of his text because he foresaw that this debate re the Dalai Lama's actions would arise amongst Dorje Shugden practitioners. Hence he left these clear teachings for loyal practitioners to realise what is actually happening.

Let's face it - TGIE and Dalai Lama-ites would not read this holy text, or if they did, would not pay much heed to what it said, much less promote the view that Dalai Lama MIGHT have a deeper motivation than simply banning the practice of Dorje Shugden.

WSS has had success in reducing the pressure from TGIE on Dorje Shugden practitioners, but perhaps the same effect could have been achieved in a more positive way like what TK says in this post (http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=609.0) rather than accusing the Dalai Lama of being a liar.

Don't misunderstand please. I am not saying that Dalai Lama isnt lying. But there are alternative methods that cause less damage to the institution of the Dalai Lama.

[thor]

Yes, precisely. (But Middleway, you don´t need to apologize).
What I´m trying to say is that in a certain way all parties concerned here are right.
The newbies are right in wishing to uphold the inner and secret views of our system and apply them to the case of the DL: both the Lojong teachings and the Secret Mantra teachings. According to these we can and should view all things as pure, in different ways according to the type of teaching. All of us should do this.
But they are not so right in proclaiming it to the outer world because by doing that they are destroying the basic teachings of Lord Buddha, allowing the world to think that we do not possess the morality of the Muni, the very root of his teachings, the very root of what DUL. ZIN. protects.
On the other hand, the WSS is correctly dealing with outer conventional reality and it should be recognized by all that their actions are needed and correct. (I have some disagreements with WSS that only concern form, effectiveness, not the Dharma).
If we could understand this simple view about outer, inner and secret levels of the teachings then we could have not only truce, as some have been requesting, but a nice agreement. True peace among the followers of Lord Buddha and particularly among the followers of Mañjushri Lobsang Drakpa.
Of course I’m not requesting that everybody here jumps with goose bumps and embraces my suggestion. But I request that it be examined, taken into consideration.

Can you please explain further why you consider it inappropriate to promote a pure view openly? And on the other hand, if we only promote the outer view and keep the understanding of the pure view within a select group, we may destroy the reputation of Dalai Lama (our 'outer' representative of Tibetan Buddhism) so much that it is irreparable.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) Dalai Lama has the most influence at this time. Damaging him will damage the face of Buddhism as he is the spiritual leader of Tibet. And the head representatives of the different schools publicly regard him as such. So they are 'buying in to his leadership.

Some form of protests is needed in order to keep the controversy alive and in the public eye. We cannot allow TGIE and the uneducated Dalai Lama-ites to have free rein and do as they please. But I am uncomfortable with the strong anti-Dalai Lama sentiments aired by some on this forum which almost seems to be a refusal to consider any alternative at all. Within this community, I would wish for a more moderate view.

[a friend]

Dulzin la,

I suggest that you read my last posts about the subject, let's say, since January. Think about them, everything is there.
I wish I had enough time to answer again and again them same points ... But most eveything has been already answered.

Thank you

P.S., Ok, I have a little time now.
The pure view of Tantra is secret as is rything related to Tantra. In this website we have said many times that we do not talk about Tantra, lest we break our tantric vows.
The pure view of the Lojong should not be "promoted" out of context. In the beginning the Lojong teachings were kept secret by the early Kadampa Masters for a good reason.

When you say that the outer view will damage the reputation of the Dalai Lama, well, that is exactly what the WSS wants to do. I personally refused to do that (read the very early posts of this website) until his actions of the unfortunate Winter of 2007/2008. There, even Beggar who entirely shares your view and was the promoter of this view at the time of the inception of the website, even Beggar actively denounced his actions to the world, he was active collecting addresses and such, because he needed to be stopped. And we did stop him. I don't know why some people are refusing to accept that it is the demonstrations of WSS the external factor that allowed the creation of Shar Ganden and Ser Pom, everybody knows that, and that is what the monks and Rinpoches of those monasteries say (at least the ones I know). The Pomra monks from Sera Mey had been alerted by the two abbots of Sera Mey and Sera Jey that the DL wanted them out of the monasteries land and out of India altogether. But the demonstrations of WSS put an end to those main threats. Unfortunately it didn't stop the slander.

Here I am trying, and I think some other people are trying to find some middle way. It's very difficult to do this when people are refusing even to look in the face what the facts were, forget pure view.

I don't have yet a clear idea of how to do this. I think it's not enough that everyone keeps a 100% necessarily his or her view. We have to try and find some points that we might yield to the other side.

Coming back to damaging the reputation of the Dalai Lama. I'm not so worried now about that because the cat has been let out of the bag, the world knows already what he has done and except for some attentive individuals the world couldn't care less. They have invested too much in the Dalai Lama as an icon and they don't like to recognize that they might've misjudged him. So don't overworry about the DL's reputation.

I personally am more worried now for the dammage to Dharma that might come from well intentioned but imho wrong movements like the one the newbies have started here. But then, as I said above, I practically have stated all my good reasons, and it is as useless to state them as it is to write in water. No matter what, again:
A Buddhist should not contradict the external truths of conventional reality, this is just not Dharma. In this respect, I personally concede that in times when there are no immediate threats from the Dalai Lama, one might abstain from talking about his wrong actions. Actually before the Noobs invaded the website  I was having my personal "fight" with my WSS friends about this point. But of course the shower of non truths that came with the "nvasion"forced me to the sad task of having again to mention what DL did wrong. Believe me, I was trying to find some consensus about the opposite.
Ok, though. One thing is to shut our mouths up and let him go on with his life and us with ours, and start concentrating again in the teachings, the study, the whole Dharma work that is so urgent to accomplish. Another thing is to sing his lauds. To praise the Dalai Lama for the ban ... this is not Buddhist. One should not oppose conventional external truth, not even in the name of the inner and secret views of our teachings. If you want praise the Dalai Lama for his efforts on behalf of Tibet or for ... I don't know, whatever you wish. But do not praise him for the ban. Whatever view you have that contradicts external correct perception of his actions should be kept to yourself, or among your friends. To do otherwise demolishes the actions of the Buddha, whose basic job was to teach what one has to do and what one should not do. That is the outer view of our teachings. But outer does not mean inferior. It means outer. It is the root of the Buddha's  teachings.
I don't know what else to say right now. Again, I don't think you are wrong if you have a pure view about the DL's actions, and we all have to have that pure view if we follow our teachings, but to publicize it is not correct imho.

I hope you can reflect a bit on what I explained. Sorry for being a dumb explainer.

[Lineageholder]

Within this community, I would wish for a more moderate view.

You can't be moderate about religious persecution.  Do you think it would be appropriate to be moderate about Hitler's actions in persecuting the Jews?  Some actions are simply evil, and the Dalai Lama' rejection of his pure Teachers' views and his use of Dharma for political power is evil. 

It has to be said, we cannot be moderate.  We cannot turn away and simply accept what is going on or make excuses for it.