the yellow book

[Big Uncle]

Ra Lotsawa Dorje Drak (rwa lo tsA ba rdo rje grags) was born in 1016, in Nyenam, in a place called Nangyul (snye nam / gnya' nang snang yul), on one of the most important Nepali-Tibetan trade routes. His father was Raton Konchok Dorje (rwa ston dkon mchog rdo rje) and his mother was Dorje Peldzom (rdo rje dpal 'dzom). His father was a lineage holder of the Nyingma tradition Yangdak Heruka and Vajrakila, and he passed these on to his son. According to tradition, soon after birth the goddess Remati took him into her robe and traveled across Tibet for two months.

At the age of fourteen Ralo made his first trip to Kathmandu, arriving in Patan during a period of some political social instability, but great cultural fluorescence. Despite the considerable details of his sojourn there given in the (probably) thirteenth-century hagiography, recent scholarship has shown that little of the information given can be trusted, from the name of the monastery in which he resided to the circumstances of his ordination, where he was given the name Dorje Drak.

Ralo is said to have trained under a master named Bharo, a title given to newly influential members of the merchant class. The Blue Annals gives the teachers name as Bharo Chakdum (bha ro phyag rdum). Bharo was a specialist in the Vajravarahi and Vajrabhairava ritual systems, the transmission of which Ralo received during this first visit. According to the hagiography, during this first trip he already displayed his penchant for magical combat, engaging with a Shaivite teacher whose doctrine he insulted, driving the Shaivite to suicide. In addition he trained with a Mahakaruna, a master in Naropa's lineage of disciples. From him he received a number of tantric initiations, including the Chakrasamvara and the Namasamgiti.

Returning to Tibet, Ralo quickly became enmeshed in clan feuds over property and marriage arrangements, and he used his new magical abilities to do battle with his enemies. Many of his enemies were translators and lamas propagating in competing tantric systems, and Ralo infamously engaged them in combat. Khon Skyakya Lodro ('khon shakya blo gros), a member of the Khon family that would later initiate the Sakya tradition and a holder of the same Yangdak Heruka and Vajrakila lineages, saw in Ralo a serious rival to his influence and survival as a sought-after teacher. He accused Ralo of propagating a non-Buddhist teaching, one that would lead all Tibetans to Hell. According to the hagiography Ralo slew Shakya Lodro with the killing rite of Vajrabhairava, and witnesses saw Vajrabharava in the sky carrying the 58-deity mandala of Yandak Heruka as a sign of the Vajrabhairava's superiority. Shakya Lodro's disciples and feudal subjects then became disciples of Ralo.

Later a similar contest arose between him and Langlap Jangchub Dorje (lang lab byang chub rdo rje), another important Vajrakila master. Ralo had gone to pay his respects to the venerable teacher, but Langlap, like Shakya Lodro, dismissed Ralo as a purveyor of non-Buddhist magic. In the ensuing contest, however, Ralo was defeated, his disciples slain by Langlap's superior magic. According to the hagiography Ralo then experienced a vision of Tara, who sent him to Nepal for further instructions from Bharo and other Nepali masters. Upon his return to Tibet he once again engaged Langlap, this time emerging victorious and slaying the Nyingma lama.

It was during the second trip south than Ralo is said to have gone to India and ordained at Nalanda.

Ralo claimed to have murdered thirteen lamas. Among them were translator Gyu Monlam Drakpa (rgyus smon lam grags pa), the translator of the Chakrasamvara Samvarodaya Tantra, which he had studied in India with Pandita Shenpen (paN Di ta gzhan phan), Go Lotsawa Kukpa Letse ('gos lo tsA ba khug pa lhas brtses), the translator of the Guhyasamaja, and Marpa's son Dharma Dode (dar ma mdo sde).

In addition to challenging rivals to competing tantric systems, Ralo spent his wealth renovating temples in southern Tsang and Lhato, including Samye, Tibet's first monastery, which had been damaged by fire in 986. He also sponsored translations, the copying and recitations of scripture, and the installation of statues.

Ralo is known to have attended the famous religious council of 1076, convened by the Purang King Tside (rtse lde), for translators working on new texts and new versions of scripture from India. There Ralo met Nyen Lotsawa Darma Drag (gnyan lo tsA ba dar ma grags), who accompanied Ralo to India. The two later fell out, and slayed each other in magical combat.

Sources

Davidson, Ronald. 2005. Tibetan Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 129-141.
Dudjom Rinpoche. 2002. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, trans. Boston: Wisdom, pp. 713-714.
Grags pa 'byung gnas. 1992. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod. Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, p. 1645-1647.
Roerich, George, trans. 1996. The Blue Annals. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, pp. 374-380.
Ye shes seng ge. 1974. Rwa lo dang thar pa'i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar. New Delhi: N. G. Demo.

Alexander Gardner
December 2009


Ra Lotsawa was believed to have slayed another Lama using an obscure Yamantaka ritual with the intention to perserve the Vajrabhairava teachings. It is also believed that this is actually a dramatic play of high Lamas probably as a means to obliterate dangerous obstacles of the lineage. It is believed that high Lamas like these Lotsawas are not mere scholars but living lineage holders and practitioners who had mastered the teachings they were transmitting to Tibet. Therefore, they have natural control of their subsequent rebirth and hence, the "killing" was merely staged.

Likewise, in the yellow book, it mentions on many occasions that Dorje Shugden slayed Lamas for polluting the Gelug teachings and other harmful actions. Perhaps, it was merely staged to give a stern warning to future practitioners not to engage in such actions. Like I mentioned before, it is cautionary tales that form what we call "interpretive teachings". That means that they are to be read for its meaning and not to be taken literally.

[Zach]

Good Lord Buddha 

[honeydakini]

Ra Lotsawa was believed to have slayed another Lama using an obscure Yamantaka ritual with the intention to perserve the Vajrabhairava teachings. It is also believed that this is actually a dramatic play of high Lamas probably as a means to obliterate dangerous obstacles of the lineage. It is believed that high Lamas like these Lotsawas are not mere scholars but living lineage holders and practitioners who had mastered the teachings they were transmitting to Tibet. Therefore, they have natural control of their subsequent rebirth and hence, the "killing" was merely staged.

Likewise, in the yellow book, it mentions on many occasions that Dorje Shugden slayed Lamas for polluting the Gelug teachings and other harmful actions. Perhaps, it was merely staged to give a stern warning to future practitioners not to engage in such actions. Like I mentioned before, it is cautionary tales that form what we call "interpretive teachings". That means that they are to be read for its meaning and not to be taken literally.

I've always been rather fascinated by the stories of old and I wouldn't discount what you have said here. A lot of the allegorical and symbolic references should be taken for their meaning and not for what the literal story.

It's interesting to also note our modern day reactions to these stories. When we hear the legends and stories of the great masters, we feel inspired and awed. The extremes situations that are related in these tales don't faze us at all but actually serve to inspire us further in our path - Milarepa building and tearing down houses 12 times, Naropa enduring "abuse" and being ignored for 12 years, bodhisattvas who feed themselves to the tigers, highly attained teachers who kill harmful beings for the sake of saving a country's religious future.... There are even schools of thought that put forward the idea that even Devadetta was an enlightened being too, deliberately manifesting evil deeds towards the Buddha as a means of teaching us certain lessons.

We see nothing wrong at all in those actions because we accept that they are the actions of enlightened beings and that they arise out of their great wisdom, compassion and attainments. But if any of that were to happen today, we go up in arms, we protest, we yell, we criticise the lamas. Suddenly, these same actions motivated by the same great wisdom and compassion, are not okay anymore.

So when is it okay and when it is not okay? And how can we ascertain that we even have the wisdom to know this?

[DSFriend]

How do we know when it is ok and when it is not? Which part of the various biography stem from a pure motivation and which one isn't ?
I don't know,. thus reliance on monastery's endorsement  of a particular lama in question is very important.

[Ensapa]

The very first "official" thing the Dalai Lama said in 1978 was not a recusal from sectarian favoritism to settle an alleged sectarian rift.  Instead it was a *personal* statement of how the previous Dalai Lama's had no relation with Dorje Shugden, and that when he was about to ask Trijang Rinpoche for Life Entrustment Nechung stopped him.  Fine, he is allowed to decide a course of action on that based on his divinations or whatever.  But the fact is he *personalized* this and banned it based on this, and used all of the other minor things as an excuse to impose his ideological not only to his office and the TGIE, but to the monasteries in India.  That is exactly the crux of the issue that no scholar has dared acknowledge yet.

I think to HHDL's stand to oppose a religious practice in order to guarantee to all Tibetans an equal right to religious freedom and political equality (eliminating sectarianism) in a future Tibet doesn't make sense.
Because it is suppressing a practice (now) and there's no religious freedom and political equality already for DS practitioners as of now.

I find it very interesting that HHDL had said that because he also wrote a prayer to Dorje Shugden called melody of the unceasing vajra. Why would he say that and then say he has no connection to Dorje Shugden and never had any? So what is the prayer for? why did he write the prayer? I find this part really really intriguing. Why does the Dalai Lama make such contradictory statements again and again? Things just dont make sense. there is just so many loopholes and so many things that contradict each other again and again the more we investigate further into this. Is this why the Dalai Lama keeps asking people to investigate time and time again when he brings up Dorje Shugden? To highlight to us on these incidents? To make people really think before they actually take a stand? I mean, evidence and many things are very clear that the Dalai Lama supports Dorje Shugden but it is as though he is forced to declare this ban.

If the story about Nechung being impersonated by ngatrul's spirit is true, then we could say that HHDL is doing this to appease his powerful spirit, as tulkus who have gone wrong and became a spirit is extremely malicious and dangerous, uncontrollable and they can easily overpower and deceive high lamas. Dorje Shugden does not display any of those signs, but he has assisted time and time again for the Gelugs to flourish and it is clear that this angry spirit is angry at Dorje Shugden and wants to destroy his practice so he can dig deeper into the  people. If it is true that he impersonated Nechung that would explain why Nechung has been inaccurate ever since ngatrul's death, and why CTA has been making wrong decisions and unfortunate choices ever since that brings them down further and further.

[harrynephew]

Because the Dalai Lama does not want the Gelug school to survive, he wants to merge it with other schools.
He perfectly knows that Je Tsongkhapa adopted and incorporated all the transmissions from the other schools that were valuable for us to practice. So if we follow our lineage we are in fact practicing already from the other traditions, but not everything: that what was deemed perfect by our Guru, Mañjushri Tsongkhapa.
So why wanting today to destroy what our Lord Tsongkhapa, the Buddha of Wisdom emanated in human form, so painstakingly created as a system for us to practice, after years and years of listening to Gentle Voice, studying all the Masters from India and Tibet, contemplating and meditating? Why?
Well, the Dalai Lama wants to create his own school, he abandoned the purity of our holy lineage ... good luck! Those who want to follow him, go ahead and follow him.
But do not force those who want to keep pure such unfathomable treasury of Dharma to give up on it.

There are still some people who want to follow their Gurus, who want to follow the teachings of Mañjushri Tsongkhapa, believe it or not. I know, it sounds unbelievable.

Lama Je Tsongkhapa spent his entire life even though he is that of the same mindstream of Arya Manjushri, showed that the basis of study, contemplation and meditation are pith of the practice of the Teachings. So much sweat, hard work and blood if i may say so were put into Je Rinpoche's life's works that we cannot simply put it aside and for political reasons merge everybody with everybody.

Each sect/school is unique in itself and we have more than volumes of writings put in records from all schools and walks of life praising Je Rinpoche's works and achievements. Why is there now a movement which is trying to shadow this fact? Regardless the motivation, I think it has done enough damage and has created obstacles from making the Teachings of Je Tsongkhapa to grow within Tibet and throughout the world.

Standing up for obstacles against the growth of Je Tsongkhapa's Teachings is none other than Je Dulzin Dorje Shugden himself. Our kind and compassionate Dharma Protector takes the problem onto his hands and ensures that beings who enter into Je Rinpoche's doctrine are cared for and well nurtured so that they may realize their fullest potential.

What it takes to handle such problems is alot of courage and determination which is not found in any living human being but through a highly realized Buddha such as Dorje Shugden. The activities and things which he does may not deem fit in the eyes of an earthling but on an ultimate level, it is pure benefit. Our well being is in the front line of this protector whose time has come.

[Ensapa]

Ra Lotsawa Dorje Drak (rwa lo tsA ba rdo rje grags) was born in 1016, in Nyenam, in a place called Nangyul (snye nam / gnya' nang snang yul), on one of the most important Nepali-Tibetan trade routes. His father was Raton Konchok Dorje (rwa ston dkon mchog rdo rje) and his mother was Dorje Peldzom (rdo rje dpal 'dzom). His father was a lineage holder of the Nyingma tradition Yangdak Heruka and Vajrakila, and he passed these on to his son. According to tradition, soon after birth the goddess Remati took him into her robe and traveled across Tibet for two months.

At the age of fourteen Ralo made his first trip to Kathmandu, arriving in Patan during a period of some political social instability, but great cultural fluorescence. Despite the considerable details of his sojourn there given in the (probably) thirteenth-century hagiography, recent scholarship has shown that little of the information given can be trusted, from the name of the monastery in which he resided to the circumstances of his ordination, where he was given the name Dorje Drak.

Ralo is said to have trained under a master named Bharo, a title given to newly influential members of the merchant class. The Blue Annals gives the teachers name as Bharo Chakdum (bha ro phyag rdum). Bharo was a specialist in the Vajravarahi and Vajrabhairava ritual systems, the transmission of which Ralo received during this first visit. According to the hagiography, during this first trip he already displayed his penchant for magical combat, engaging with a Shaivite teacher whose doctrine he insulted, driving the Shaivite to suicide. In addition he trained with a Mahakaruna, a master in Naropa's lineage of disciples. From him he received a number of tantric initiations, including the Chakrasamvara and the Namasamgiti.

Returning to Tibet, Ralo quickly became enmeshed in clan feuds over property and marriage arrangements, and he used his new magical abilities to do battle with his enemies. Many of his enemies were translators and lamas propagating in competing tantric systems, and Ralo infamously engaged them in combat. Khon Skyakya Lodro ('khon shakya blo gros), a member of the Khon family that would later initiate the Sakya tradition and a holder of the same Yangdak Heruka and Vajrakila lineages, saw in Ralo a serious rival to his influence and survival as a sought-after teacher. He accused Ralo of propagating a non-Buddhist teaching, one that would lead all Tibetans to Hell. According to the hagiography Ralo slew Shakya Lodro with the killing rite of Vajrabhairava, and witnesses saw Vajrabharava in the sky carrying the 58-deity mandala of Yandak Heruka as a sign of the Vajrabhairava's superiority. Shakya Lodro's disciples and feudal subjects then became disciples of Ralo.
This is a very interesting piece of information, that in the past such accomplished masters would 'accuse' each other doing practices that will lead people to hell....sounds very very similar to what the Dalai Lama had said about Dorje Shugden, isnt that right? But anyway, why and how would tantric masters display jealousy against another tantric master? I find it very odd in more ways than one.

Later a similar contest arose between him and Langlap Jangchub Dorje (lang lab byang chub rdo rje), another important Vajrakila master. Ralo had gone to pay his respects to the venerable teacher, but Langlap, like Shakya Lodro, dismissed Ralo as a purveyor of non-Buddhist magic. In the ensuing contest, however, Ralo was defeated, his disciples slain by Langlap's superior magic. According to the hagiography Ralo then experienced a vision of Tara, who sent him to Nepal for further instructions from Bharo and other Nepali masters. Upon his return to Tibet he once again engaged Langlap, this time emerging victorious and slaying the Nyingma lama.
Again, why would accomplished masters slay each other? Unless of course it is to send us a very powerful subconscious message that criticizing something that we are not familiar with will only result in self ruin. Just because things dont appear to be the way that we expect them to be, they are not wrong and we should not criticize.

It was during the second trip south than Ralo is said to have gone to India and ordained at Nalanda.

Ralo claimed to have murdered thirteen lamas. Among them were translator Gyu Monlam Drakpa (rgyus smon lam grags pa), the translator of the Chakrasamvara Samvarodaya Tantra, which he had studied in India with Pandita Shenpen (paN Di ta gzhan phan), Go Lotsawa Kukpa Letse ('gos lo tsA ba khug pa lhas brtses), the translator of the Guhyasamaja, and Marpa's son Dharma Dode (dar ma mdo sde).

In addition to challenging rivals to competing tantric systems, Ralo spent his wealth renovating temples in southern Tsang and Lhato, including Samye, Tibet's first monastery, which had been damaged by fire in 986. He also sponsored translations, the copying and recitations of scripture, and the installation of statues.

Ralo is known to have attended the famous religious council of 1076, convened by the Purang King Tside (rtse lde), for translators working on new texts and new versions of scripture from India. There Ralo met Nyen Lotsawa Darma Drag (gnyan lo tsA ba dar ma grags), who accompanied Ralo to India. The two later fell out, and slayed each other in magical combat.

Sources

Davidson, Ronald. 2005. Tibetan Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 129-141.
Dudjom Rinpoche. 2002. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, trans. Boston: Wisdom, pp. 713-714.
Grags pa 'byung gnas. 1992. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod. Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, p. 1645-1647.
Roerich, George, trans. 1996. The Blue Annals. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, pp. 374-380.
Ye shes seng ge. 1974. Rwa lo dang thar pa'i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar. New Delhi: N. G. Demo.

Alexander Gardner
December 2009


Ra Lotsawa was believed to have slayed another Lama using an obscure Yamantaka ritual with the intention to perserve the Vajrabhairava teachings. It is also believed that this is actually a dramatic play of high Lamas probably as a means to obliterate dangerous obstacles of the lineage. It is believed that high Lamas like these Lotsawas are not mere scholars but living lineage holders and practitioners who had mastered the teachings they were transmitting to Tibet. Therefore, they have natural control of their subsequent rebirth and hence, the "killing" was merely staged.
At this day and age, there are many self proclaimed scholars of Buddhism who discount other traditions as not Buddhist just because they have interesting presentations or that these traditions do not match what their impression of Buddhism. They should really read this story and think twice.

Likewise, in the yellow book, it mentions on many occasions that Dorje Shugden slayed Lamas for polluting the Gelug teachings and other harmful actions. Perhaps, it was merely staged to give a stern warning to future practitioners not to engage in such actions. Like I mentioned before, it is cautionary tales that form what we call "interpretive teachings". That means that they are to be read for its meaning and not to be taken literally.
Actually, many of the lamas that were talked in the yellow book either failed to manifest in their next life, or that they fail to manifest Dharma activity for the next few lifetimes. Perhaps that is also a divine play to indicate the severity of distorting the teachings.

You have an interesting point when comparing the yellow book and ralo's biography as both of them talk about highly acclaimed masters taking the wrong step on the path or that they are being killed. Both texts also speak about taking things on a face value and to look deeper for the essence. What appears on the surface does not reflect what it is beneath.

[diablo1974]

Yes, those who have the chance to read the yellow book must hv a lot of questions raised waiting to be clarified by a senior practitioner. From what i believe, there must be someone to protect the doctrine of Je Tsongkhapa to prevent it from losing the lineage and passed on as long as it can endure. Sentient beings are out to lose if Je Tsongkhapa teachings diminishes, and only the Dharmapala protects and prevent it from happening to the best of their ability. 

[Amitabha]

Whilst the 14th Dalai Lama started to encourage the devotion to Padmasambhava for the purpose of unifying the Tibetans and "to protect Tibetans from danger", the "more exclusively orientated segments of the Gelug boycotted the ceremonies", and in that context the sectarian Yellow Book was published.

It was since 2010. Nonethlessly, in the development of disagreement such as this. It should refer to the sutra on Buddha mentioned the basic goal of all beings away from suffering and danger. And in this context, the well beings of Tibetan as a whole instead of prowess on traditions' practice. 

[Rihanna]

This has got nothing to do with the topic of Yellow Book but i was reading TK's comment:
On top of that, if we look in the Tantric tradition, there are many Tantras that have wrathful rituals to kill! I am not kidding! I am reading a book on the Tara Tantras and even amongst the gentle Tara Tantras, there are records of wrathful but extinct rituals to kill - with Bodhichitta motivation of course. The famous Ra Lotsawa was said to have used extinct Yamantaka rituals to eliminate his foes that were threatening his life and endangering the precious teachings he held.

I have heard from someone before that he has seen an oracle take trance of Dorje Shugden to subdue a spirit. The spirit refused to be subjugated. Hence Dorje Shugden had to kill him and then eject the spirit's consciousness to buddha heaven. So it is true as TK mentioned that he read it from a book on Tara Tantras.

[Ensapa]

This is a fascinating thread as it covers a subject that not many people would dare touch or explain. What I know is that the Yellow Book covers cautionary tales of Gelug Lamas who had mixed the teachings of Gelug lineage with that of other lineages - specifically mentioned is Nyingma and met with untimely death due to the wrath of Dorje Shugden.
That is basically, what the book is about but for some reason the language used in the english translation does not really reflect what is really happening. using the words magical and miraculous is almost like a put down. The translator should have a better choice of words or should have annotated it properly, unless the book was translated with the intention of creating misunderstandings. I have also read somewhere before that Zemey Rinpoche never wanted it to be published. I cannot find the source now, but can someone confirm this?

I think that Dorje Shugden really did cause their deaths but his motivation was to protect the Gelug tradition as the Lamas who were mixing the practices, were in the position to spread this tainted lineage and the blessings of Lama Tsongkhapa would be lost. The Gelug tradition in itself is already the synthesis of the best teachings of the three traditions and unless we have the ocean-like wisdom of Lama Tsongkhapa, I don't think anybody is in the position to mix teachings and propagate it and the recipient of this lineage will gain attainments and if they do, is it as swiftly as those who practice Lama Tsongkhapa's tradition? (Thanks to Manjushri's blessings)
I wouldnt see it as that way. If the Gelug teachings are polluted with teachings from other sources or from sources that cannot be verified, many people will be harmed and hurt and misled and the karma from this is very heavy. Dorje Shugden basically hastened their negative karma to manifest in that life so that they wont have to go to the 3 lower realms or be away from the Dharma forever. So, it is not like Dorje Shugden murdered them 'directly', but their negative karma did.

On top of that, I don't really think Dorje Shugden really harm these Lamas because if they are real Lamas, they would return anyway and even if they can't, I am sure Dorje Shugden would eject them to a pure realm or a good rebirth.
Some of the lamas mentioned in the book came back, such as Panchen Lama but had a lot of difficulty in manifesting their Dharma work. There were a few more that were mentioned and met an untimely death but never came back like one of the Panchen Lama's teachers who disliked Dorje Shugden (sigh, they do exist...) Lelung Shepay Dorje who made a huge bubu by sleeping around and encouraging others to do so could not manifest Dharma work for up to 5 lifetimes and his case was not blamed on Dorje Shugden, but Dorje Shugden did manifest wrath on his oracle who took trance of the Nyingma protector Drashul Wangpo (Lelung Shepay was a Nyingma Terton who became a Gelug...and still held on to his Nyingma practices) due to him polluting the teachings. 5 Lifetimes later, he's doing Dharma work again

On top of that, if we look in the Tantric tradition, there are many Tantras that have wrathful rituals to kill! I am not kidding! I am reading a book on the Tara Tantras and even amongst the gentle Tara Tantras, there are records of wrathful but extinct rituals to kill - with Bodhichitta motivation of course. The famous Ra Lotsawa was said to have used extinct Yamantaka rituals to eliminate his foes that were threatening his life and endangering the precious teachings he held. 

Now, back to the yellow book, I don't think Dorje Shugden nor his trustworthy assistant - Karche Marpo will ever kill us just because we pick up a book on Guru Rinpoche's life story or Dharma teachings from a Nyingma, Sakya or Kagyu Guru. Heck, even if we forsake our Guru and run to a Nyingma master, he won't do anything but probably show signs of disapproval.
To me, I'd rather be killed than destroy the Dharma and mislead many. If I cause more harm than good, what is the use of my existence? But in all honesty, I do not think he will kill anyone, but there will be a lot of obstacles for that person to do Dharma as Dorje Shugden will not assist that person anymore.

Nice points there, but Dorje Shugden 'killing' someone is something that many people will never understand or choose not to understand because to them killing is inherently bad. Perhaps we should use a more subtle approach to protect the protector's reputation in the eyes of the newbies, until they can think deeper.

[diablo1974]

If HH Dalai Lama life can be threatened by a "worldly spirit", then there is a big question mark here....u know what i mean. So that is why the ban of DS has a greater meaning to be revealed later.

[DharmaSpace]

If Avalokiteshvara cannot overcome a mere 'spirit' then Buddha Dharma is contaminated or degenerated so much there are no real lineage holders or dharma holders. Such is not the case as per my thoughts that many scholars and monks are still holding teachings and vows to preserve Buddha Dharma.

Yamantaka in its iconography shows that it has power over all beings in the six realms, so why not do Yamantaka to destroy just the 'spirit', unless it is not a spirit to begin with.
 

[Ensapa]

If Avalokiteshvara cannot overcome a mere 'spirit' then Buddha Dharma is contaminated or degenerated so much there are no real lineage holders or dharma holders. Such is not the case as per my thoughts that many scholars and monks are still holding teachings and vows to preserve Buddha Dharma.
It only means that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha like the Dalai Lama is Chenrezig. There is no denying in this at all. Perhaps HHDL is trying to make his point even more clear by pointing this out?

Yamantaka in its iconography shows that it has power over all beings in the six realms, so why not do Yamantaka to destroy just the 'spirit', unless it is not a spirit to begin with.
Yamantaka cannot destroy something that is of the same nature of it: Manjushri. How can Yamantaka destroy Dorje Shugden? If he could, it would already have happened, but why not? looks like some people need to put on their thinking caps and think.

There is so much to see here when the Dalai Lama speaks about destroying Dorje Shugden: That Dorje Shugden is not a ghost and should not really be treated as one. There are so much evidence that points out to us that he is not one, but yet so many people wish to believe otherwise. I find it almost hilarious sometimes at the way some people describe Dorje Shugden and give excuses to justify that he is bad.

[Ensapa]

I have been having a theory for quite some time and this quote that I found just confirms it: that HHDL, on the surface, banned Dorje Shugden due to personal reasons and not for the benefit of all:

The very first "official" thing the Dalai Lama said in 1978 was not a recusal from sectarian favoritism to settle an alleged sectarian rift.  Instead it was a *personal* statement of how the previous Dalai Lama's had no relation with Dorje Shugden, and that when he was about to ask Trijang Rinpoche for Life Entrustment Nechung stopped him.  Fine, he is allowed to decide a course of action on that based on his divinations or whatever.  But the fact is he *personalized* this and banned it based on this, and used all of the other minor things as an excuse to impose his ideological not only to his office and the TGIE, but to the monasteries in India.  That is exactly the crux of the issue that no scholar has dared acknowledge yet.

So, Nechung stopped HHDL from receiving Sogtae, and on that basis, HHDL banned Dorje Shugden? Sounds very funny because Nechung is not enlightened. Why would Chenrezig listen to an unenlightened protector and then cast away the enlightened one? As we can see subsequently, HHDL and CTA has been making up lots of froth that is not substantial at all about why Dorje Shugden is bad, simply because there is no concrete proof and it would seem odd to people that HHDL would listen to Nechung, but not an enlightened protector per se.