Denma Locho Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche of Kadhampa Buddhist Association

[lightning]

This Kadhampa Buddhist Association arrange regular relics tour in Asia, with thousanads of relics. CAS Online mentioned that kind of 'magic' show in TV:

'The Taiwanese "tulku", the alleged incarnation of Chenrezig, has also, in front of television audiences, held an alleged hair of Lord Buddha between his fingers, with the hair apparently twitching like a worm from side to side in his hands. When he dumped the hair in a mug of liquid, the hair apparently "swam" of its own efforts, '

It is said that $ trading is involved behind it.

See one of their advertisment as enclosed.

The hair relics belongs to Kasyapa Buddha and Maitreya Project also have relics of Kasyapa Buddha: http://www.maitreyaproject.org/en/relic/gallery-kashyapa.html

This hair relics will spin itself to mass chanting of Om Mani Pe Mei Hum and the spinning speed changes according to the fast or slow chanting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjvoUe53Ok
	Small | Large

[WisdomBeing]

For more info on Serkong Tritul, do read this thread:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=41.0

It starts with a letter dated 20 November 2007 from Nepal Manjushiri Society and Nyenang Phelgyaling monastery, which states that "Much astonishing and poignant is they gave up not only the practice of Dorje Shugden in Thali Mahayana monastery, but also have emptied photos, scriptures, and statues of Dorje Shugden. It is said that statues of Atisha, Dromtonpa and so on are being constructed. This trend is indeed shocking and distracting to Shugden devotees."

However, we know that Serkong Tritul Rinpoche is the main patron and sponsor of Shar Gaden Monastery in South India. Does anyone know what happened between these two contradictory events?

Thanks,
Kate

[lightning]

For more info on Serkong Tritul, do read this thread:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=41.0

It starts with a letter dated 20 November 2007 from Nepal Manjushiri Society and Nyenang Phelgyaling monastery, which states that "Much astonishing and poignant is they gave up not only the practice of Dorje Shugden in Thali Mahayana monastery, but also have emptied photos, scriptures, and statues of Dorje Shugden. It is said that statues of Atisha, Dromtonpa and so on are being constructed. This trend is indeed shocking and distracting to Shugden devotees."http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=634.15

However, we know that Serkong Tritul Rinpoche is the main patron and sponsor of Shar Gaden Monastery in South India. Does anyone know what happened between these two contradictory events?

Thanks,
Kate

For your information, there is a difference between giving up completely and not to practise Dorje Shugden. In the mass campaign to make the monk to swear not to practice Dorje Shugden, HH Dalai Lama tried to make HH Serkong Tritul Rinpoche give up Dorje Shugden completely but He didn't give in to HHDL and was cast out by HHDL.

Whatever the lineage masters has recongised and predicted, as the followers of Gelug cannot deny at all. This fact can be verified by some of our well known members as they have posted some where in this forum. Serkong Tritul Rinpoche was groomed up by Song Rinpoche from young and had maintained as the top debater in Ganden Monastery. Zemey Rinpoche passed all the Yamantaka Lineages to Serkong Tritul Rinpoche making Him the Lineage holder of Lone Yamantaka. He also acquired 8 Maha Teachings and many others valuable uncommon teachings from various renowned masters, like Guru Deva, Kensur Rinpoche Sonam Kunga, Zemey Rinoche, Locho Rinpoche etc.

[thor]

I can't comment on the relics as I have not seen them for myself. It would be possible for the hairs to vibrate or dance. After all, miraculous feats such as divination etc are definitely possible and is a commonly recognised practice. If the future can be told via dice, prayer and reliance upon the enlightened beings, then it is a small thing for an artefact of that enlightened being to jump or dance or vibrate. If miracles are what is required to attract people to the dharma, so be it. Times are degenerate after all. Just don't forget it is a means to an end and don't just stop at worshipping the relics.

Serkong Tritul still practices Dorje Shugden, but on an outer level, the temples no longer feature his image and the practice is done secretly. This is the first I am hearing that Tritul Rinpoche's status is in doubt?

[lightning]

I can't comment on the relics as I have not seen them for myself. It would be possible for the hairs to vibrate or dance. After all, miraculous feats such as divination etc are definitely possible and is a commonly recognized practice. If the future can be told via dice, prayer and reliance upon the enlightened beings, then it is a small thing for an artifact of that enlightened being to jump or dance or vibrate. If miracles are what is required to attract people to the dharma, so be it. Times are degenerate after all. Just don't forget it is a means to an end and don't just stop at worshipping the relics.

Ultimately, Buddha Shakyamuni has left His relics behind out of compassion to the salvage the sentient beings and lead them to purse Buddhism to attain complete happiness. According to one of the Buddha Sutra, seeing Buddha relics enable to gain a lot of merits and one will not enter the hell realm within that life time.

Seeing these relics is actually seeing Buddha Himself, one will gain faith and inspiration to purse the peerless enlightenment and diligently seek for Dharma.

[WisdomBeing]

My favourite story with regard to relics and their authenticity thereof.

The Story of the Dog tooth

There once was a Tibetan man who traveled to India to trade. He took things like salt or yak tails, and brought back tea and other things to sell. Since India was where Shakyamuni taught, this trip also became a pilgrimage. Because of this latter aspect, his mother, a very religious woman, asked him to bring back a momento from the Holy Land. He promised to do so. However, over the years although he took many such journeys, he forgot and came back empty handed. His mother no longer inquired on his return as to what he had brought. “Next time,” he promised always, “Next time.”

One year coming back, almost in sight of home he remembered.“Uh oh,” he said, which translated from Tibetan is Uh oh. “I’ve forgotten again, and my mother is getting older. Why—she may even be dead already.” He felt he could not come home empty handed again.

Seeing a dead dog by the wayside he took out one of his teeth, wrapped it in silk, and placed it into a portable amulet box. “She will not know,” he said, “and it will not do any harm.”

At home his mother was making mo-mo’s, and he called, “Guess what I brought you from India?”

“You finally remembered?” she laughed.

“Yes. I brought you a Buddha’s tooth.”

She was overcome with joy. “Oh, I only expected a little dirt where Buddha walked. This is so sacred!”

She placed in on her altar and every morning did prostrations to it. The son smiled at the sight of his happy mother.

One day he was passing the room and a beam of light came out. On striking old people, they became young. Poor people became rich. Sad people became happy.

“What is happening?” he asked his mother, who was churning butter. “What do you expect of a Buddha’s tooth?” she replied.

The mind of the woman, through her devotion, had changed the dog’s tooth into a Buddha tooth. We can do that also.
John Brzostoski
Maitreya Festival 2003
http://www.bro-pa.org/dog-tooth.html


As such, like the story above, whether the relics are authentic OR not doesn't matter. The power of the object is up to the subject rather than the object. This also ties in with whether we see our Guru as the Buddha or not. As the Buddhist saying goes, if we see our Guru as the Buddha, we will receive the blessings of the Buddha. If we see our Guru as an ordinary being, we will receive the blessings of the ordinary being. So whether the Guru IS a Buddha or not is not relevant but how we view him.

In that sense, if we view the Dalai Lama as Chenrezig, whether he is or not, only we will gain the benefit.

[Zhalmed Pawo]

As for the relics, there indeed are in this world true relics of the Buddha. Usually they are housed in large and venerated old stupas/chedis, but are not made to dance to the audience.

In fact, the same kind of real relics that the Buddha left us are "produced" even today by Arhats of all traditions, Tibetan, Theravada, or Korean. The great temple of Khon Kaen, Thailand, houses over 300 reliquaries of rilbus left behind by attained practitioners. Just go and see. But there are no hairs, only rilbus, you see. And no dancing.

Sorry to be a cynic, but the trick of the dancing hair is something so basic that David Copperfield would be ashamed. Get real, folks.

If a Teacher wants to impress the audience by showing them something that originates from the Buddha, then why not proclaim Samyutta-Nikaya? It has the hard-core topics, is surely and unambiguously the common ground of all known Buddhist traditions, and the best thing is, that it is free for all who have ears to hear. But maybe just that is the problem. Namely: It is free, and that all Teachers can give the Samyutta-teachings (provided of course that they are Buddhist Teachers). This kind of approach would not make the Teacher special. Or famous. Or rich. But it would make him Buddhist.

And as for the compassion of Shakyamuni Buddha, he actually stated that "whoever wants to see me, is to look at the Dharma, and whoever sees the Dharma, sees just me". No dancing hairs needed, only Dharma.

Get real, folks.

[crazycloud]

get real, folks. Second that emotion.

Tulku worship, oracles, politics, promoting "King Shugden" etc

=

the end of Dharma in this world

[lightning]

And as for the compassion of Shakyamuni Buddha, he actually stated that "whoever wants to see me, is to look at the Dharma, and whoever sees the Dharma, sees just me". No dancing hairs needed, only Dharma.

Get real, folks.

Dear Friends,

As mentioned Buddhas have left their relics out of compassion as a skillful mean to salvage sentient beings to purse Dharma instructions to gain Enlightenment. Kindly do not commit the same folly like Wang did as you do not even witnessed it yourself? At times, Shakaymuni Buddha also need to displayed great magical powers to lead sentient beings to gain faith in Dharma. Movever, Only enlightened beings can verified by them. A dog tooth can be even venerated and become a real relic out of faith. Kasapa Buddha relics are very rare and few in this world have His relics. There are devotees sensitive to out of "worldy" things could see lights from these relics or experienced bliss by venerating them.

Sometimes, the lay people including us also need some amazing things to appear before us to "get real" and inspired to diligently purse Dharma. It is amazing how the enlightened beings & dharma protectors  manifested many skillful means to lead sentient beings to enlightenment.

The benefit of venerating Buddha relics can be found on
The Sutra On The Merit Of Bathing The Buddha.
http://www.purifymind.com/Sutras34.htm

The power of the object is up to the subject rather than the object. This also ties in with whether we see our Guru as the Buddha or not. As the Buddhist saying goes, if we see our Guru as the Buddha, we will receive the blessings of the Buddha. If we see our Guru as an ordinary being, we will receive the blessings of the ordinary being. So whether the Guru IS a Buddha or not is not relevant but how we view him.

I seconded to this quote and thanks for the beautiful story

[crazycloud]

This also ties in with whether we see our Guru as the Buddha or not. As the Buddhist saying goes, if we see our Guru as the Buddha, we will receive the blessings of the Buddha. If we see our Guru as an ordinary being, we will receive the blessings of the ordinary being. So whether the Guru IS a Buddha or not is not relevant but how we view him.

In that sense, if we view the Dalai Lama as Chenrezig, whether he is or not, only we will gain the benefit.

I suppose even chenresig can manifest as an out of control politician.

Is this what you mean?

[Geronimo]

I can more easily and realistically perceive WisdomBuddha as Vajrayoginni.
Than I can visualize the Dalia Lama as Chenresig.

[Lineageholder]

Anyone can be seen as Buddha, but surely Buddha doesn't manifest as someone who causes his own doctrine to degenerate?  Where's the benefit in that?  In the scriptures it says that Buddha can manifest as a handicapped person or even as an insane being if that benefits living beings, but what benefit is there in manifesting as someone who increases ignorance and attachment to worldly concerns such as the freedom of Tibet?  Buddhas benefit living beings by appearing as teachers who spread wisdom, so what benefit is there in destroying the teachings?  This is not a Buddha action!

Should we then also view Langdarma and Mahmud of Ghazni as emanations of Chenrezig as well?   Surely there appear to be deluded sentient beings who are actually engaging in harmful actions?  should we deny this and see everyone as a Buddha?

We have to be clear - of course you can see the Dalai Lama as Chenrezig but if that then makes you accept his actions of mixing Dharma with politics, this is a mistake, I feel.  If your view makes you hold back from the full strength of condemnation that such actions deserve, this is also a mistake.

[DSFriend]

I just noticed that Denma Locho Rinpoche and Jamseng Rinpoche are reported in another article: Desecrating the Dharma? Another 'interesting' article from Singapore!! http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=554.0 which reported that Jamseng Rinpoche conned Denma Locho Rinpoche to take photos with him. Is the article below true?


 

Looking at the photos, Jamseng Rinpoche along with his monks and nuns are no longer wearing the yellow inner vest but wearing the green colored vest. What does this symbolise? A new lineage?

[WisdomBeing]

Anyone can be seen as Buddha, but surely Buddha doesn't manifest as someone who causes his own doctrine to degenerate?  Where's the benefit in that?  In the scriptures it says that Buddha can manifest as a handicapped person or even as an insane being if that benefits living beings, but what benefit is there in manifesting as someone who increases ignorance and attachment to worldly concerns such as the freedom of Tibet?  Buddhas benefit living beings by appearing as teachers who spread wisdom, so what benefit is there in destroying the teachings?  This is not a Buddha action!

Should we then also view Langdarma and Mahmud of Ghazni as emanations of Chenrezig as well?   Surely there appear to be deluded sentient beings who are actually engaging in harmful actions?  should we deny this and see everyone as a Buddha?

We have to be clear - of course you can see the Dalai Lama as Chenrezig but if that then makes you accept his actions of mixing Dharma with politics, this is a mistake, I feel.  If your view makes you hold back from the full strength of condemnation that such actions deserve, this is also a mistake.

I think in another thread, it was mentioned that we can view someone as an enlightened Being, but their actions may not necessarily be so. Eg if the Buddha manifests as a thief, his thieving is wrong (on our mundane view anyway?), though there may be a higher reason for it.

I do think that the enlightened Beings can manifest as anything be it even a murderer, if it has some benefit in the long run.

I strongly do NOT agree with the Dalai Lama's actions in the ban on Dorje Shugden practice. I also do not agree with his passive endorsement of ostracising Shugdenpas in the Tibetan monasteries and refugee camps. Definitely NOT.

However, my personal viewpoint (and it's not that i want to persuade you that it's the correct one but just what i have personally chosen) is that I will respect the Dalai lama for who he represents. If he is not real, i lose nothing. If he is the real deal, i haven't been cursing a Buddha. Even if it's 100% sure he is fake (although in our deluded mind, we can never be 100% sure?), I would still not criticise him because Dorje shugden said we shouldn't.

[crazycloud]

I think in another thread, it was mentioned that we can view someone as an enlightened Being, but their actions may not necessarily be so. Eg if the Buddha manifests as a thief, his thieving is wrong (on our mundane view anyway?), though there may be a higher reason for it.

I do think that the enlightened Beings can manifest as anything be it even a murderer, if it has some benefit in the long run.

This is not is question, I believe, by anyone in the forum. This is straightforward Buddhist doctrine.

I strongly do NOT agree with the Dalai Lama's actions in the ban on Dorje Shugden practice. I also do not agree with his passive endorsement of ostracising Shugdenpas in the Tibetan monasteries and refugee camps. Definitely NOT.

Smart woman

However, my personal viewpoint (and it's not that i want to persuade you that it's the correct one but just what i have personally chosen) is that I will respect the Dalai lama for who he represents. If he is not real, i lose nothing. If he is the real deal, i haven't been cursing a Buddha. Even if it's 100% sure he is fake (although in our deluded mind, we can never be 100% sure?), I would still not critisise him because Dorje shugden said we shouldn't.(sic)

This is where I think you are still struggling. I think you find it difficult NOT to promote this view. You seem to want it to be true so very much, and in this I sympathize with you. I think everyone here remembers holding this view at some point early in their DS/DL experience. But it's time for us all to grow up now.

The dog tooth story followed by your summation "In that sense, if we view the Dalai Lama as Chenrezig, whether he is or not, only we will gain the benefit." is clearly advice from you on how to apply the Buddhdist scriptures to the Dalai Lama.

Again, as on other threads, your view is technically correct, straight out of a book. It is the application that lacks sophistication.

Respect the Dalai Lama if you want, but to avoid valid criticism because someone might be a Buddha means one can never criticize anyone, ever. Only a moony-eyed Brand new Buddhist, someone who completely mistakes the teachings based on a misplaced idealism, would try to practice this way.

ANYONE could be a Buddha! If there were a child molester who was responsible for the children of an orphanage and he was doing his thing, would you speak out? Criticize? Say "He is a child molester" when others couldn't see what the problem was?

Would you respect him for "who he represents?" (Children with no protector?)

Would you say, "Well, he COULD be a Buddha manifesting to give these defenseless children some lojong opportunities, or perhaps by molesting them he is creating the causes for them to develop renunciation and compassion. By creating such a scandal, he is bring the problems of Child Molestation to a wider audience..... etc etc ."

When someone behaves like a monster, you speak out.

If he is the real deal, i haven't been cursing a Buddha.

Although I am certain you mean it in good faith, this is essentially a suggestion to others that if they criticize the DL, they are flirting with aeons in hell. It is a form of intimidation-discourse that many western Buddhists have happily picked up from the Tibetans.

No one said ANYTHING about cursing anyone. This view seems to be a default view of those who want to make nicey-nice with the World's leading religious dictator. I can honestly say, it is baffling to me how this view continues to appear here. Either you go along like a sheep, or you hate (curse) the Dalai Lama (and by extension, end up in the lower realms for it). So let's everyone be careful, shall we?

These are not the only options here. Please consult many other postings where this view is clearly refuted, over and over again.

You are correct, you cannot be 100% he is a fake, but can you give me one reason to suggest he's not? Don't we have to finally act on the evidence, especially when it is so overwhelming??

DID Dorje Shugden in fact "Say" not to lose faith in the Dalai Lama. When did he say this? To whom was he speaking? you? Are you certain about this? I can tell you I am not. And if he did, what did he mean? 

I would be happy if you would answer, please.