Other Lamas Advising Against Dorje Shugden?

[WisdomBeing]

I just have a question which is not directly related to Dorje Shugden but to Guru Devotion.

I had read that Buddha had said that we can take whatever we understand from his teachings and the parts we don't accept, we don't have to.

In the 50 verses of Guru devotion, verse 24 says:
(A disciple) having great sense should obey the words of his Guru joyfully and with enthusiasm, If you lack the knowledge or ability (to do what he says), explain in (polite) words why you cannot (comply).
(http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/resources/50_verses_guru_devotion.html)

in that sense, we do not necessarily have to follow what the Guru says without question.

However, i do read about the mahasiddhas who advise their students to do crazy things... which are not the heinous or non-virtuous actions, eg Milarepa... it was just to clear stuff for him even though it was physically and emotionally tough for him. So how do we distinguish between what is crazy wisdom and what isn't. I have heard that once you take a guru, you just follow whatever he says.

With reference to verse 24,
1. you can say that if the Guru tells you to do something, he would know if you have the knowledge or ability to do it when he asks you, so you should just follow.
2. if we think we cannot, perhaps it's our deluded mind that thinks we cannot when we can.
3. if we think we cannot, do we even dare to tell the Guru that we think we cannot!

What do you think?

[honeydakini]

With reference to verse 24,
1. you can say that if the Guru tells you to do something, he would know if you have the knowledge or ability to do it when he asks you, so you should just follow.
2. if we think we cannot, perhaps it's our deluded mind that thinks we cannot when we can.
3. if we think we cannot, do we even dare to tell the Guru that we think we cannot!

What do you think?

Hi WisdomBeing, this is good food for thought and important for our understanding of following our Lama's advice.

I think that Verse 24 however, is not meant to be a loophole for not following our Lama's advice just because we are lazy, feel we can't do it because we're insecure or inadequate etc but rather about a practicality. It is about questioning not to be belligerent or resistant or to flat out say "Nope, I can't do it and here are my reasons why."

Rather, I think it is a guideline for a few things:

1) If you don't really understand the instruction and need to clarify something so that you can carry out the assignment commitment with fuller understanding and to do it well. In this case, questioning is beneficial as it is to clear your doubts, not to reinforce and live by them.

2) If there really is a practicality for not being able to do something, which the Lama may not know of. Something as basic as your Lama asks you to please drive him somewhere but you do not have a driver's license. Of course then you would explain to him that you cannot fulfil the assignment as you can't legally drive. Clearly, this is not wrong. But it is also not to just say that and then look at the lama, blink and expect that that's it. It would also be to think of how else you can fulfil what needs to be done, such as to arrange for another driver. Then to tell the Lama, "I am unable to drive, but Mary will be able to drive you and I will also accompany you if you need me to".

At the end of the day, it always goes back to our motivation - why are we questioning or saying we cannot do something? Is it because of our own fears / laziness etc?

as to whether we "dare tell our Guru that we cannot" - i think Guru Devotion shouldn't be characterised by fear. if we sincerely feel that we cannot do something, and we explain it to him with a sincere heart and motivation, he will not be angry. He may show us a different way or explain further to us to help us understand so we CAN do it. Again, we need to check ourselves - why are we scared of telling him we cannot? And after the lama explains, are we happy to go away and fulfil the assignment or do we get even more resistant? find even more ways and reasons to disagree or not follow? That should tell us the real motivation for why we say we cannot do it in the first place.

Or if we really are confused and not sure whether we can or not, we can speak to our Dharma brothers and sisters to find other methods and solutions to accomplish what the lama has advised us to and which we thought was not possible. E.g. the example of driving the lama. If we really cannot, we can ask our dharma friends who can drive and find a solution that way.

[dsnowlion]

The Dalai Lama’s ‘Research’ Concerning Past Masters and Dorje Shugden
By truthaboutshugden

When the Dalai Lama speaks out against the practice of Dorje Shugden, he often describes how he came to renounce his own practice of this deity, a practice he engaged in for a quarter-century. In these speeches, he inevitably mentions his own “thorough research.” Due to this reference, repeated over and over again, most people already inclined to believe the Dalai Lama are mollified, and are therefore disinclined to look into the matter further.

As an example, consider this introduction on the Dalai Lama’s own website…

His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Advice Concerning Dolgyal (Shugden)
Following long and careful investigations, His Holiness the Dalai Lama strongly discourages Tibetan Buddhists from propitiating the fierce spirit known as Dolgyal (Shugden)….

and from the Dalai Lama’s talk at Lehigh University in July 2008.

During the Fifth Dalai Lama this problem started. From 1951 to the early 70’s, I myself was a worshipper of this spirit, so actually, previously, I was also one of them….Then around early 70’s..using different sort of methods to investigate, also reading the biographies of past many great masters, mainly the lamas of the yellow hat sect, …suppose if this Shugden is truly reliable, most of the great lamas after the fifth Dalai Lama, then I think must practice….but this is not the case. So….I developed some doubt.  Then…thorough investigation, then it became clear.

So, what are the results of all this thorough research? What did the Dalai Lama discover amongst the thousands of works written by the great masters of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition?

Let’s take a look.

Three of the seven “historical references” listed on the Dalai Lama’s website refer to works that do not even mention Dorje Shugden. Of the remaining references, one is by Je Pabongka, one of the most well-know advocates of Dorje Shugden practice. Another is from the Fifth Dalai Lama, although it is believed by many that he later retracted this opinion and changed his view, composing prayers to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. The final mention is by one “Jigme Damchoe Gyatso” and is hardly compelling. It is also rejected by several important contemporary Lamas, such as Lama Zopa and Zong Rinpoche.

However, this does not stop the Dalai Lama and his government from citing the many “references” they have found, and representing them as being about Dorje Shugden when they are not.


Trichen Ngawang Chogden

This extraordinary master was the root guru of Kelsang Gyatso, the Seventh Dalai Lama. He was also the 54th Ganden Tripa, head of the Gelugpa Tradition. The view that this Lama spoke out against the practice of Dorje Shugden is derived from an episode in his biography written by Chankya Rolpai Dorje, another highly renowned Lama of the Gelug tradition. This Biography, however, never mentions Dorje Shugden. Instead, it talks about a local spirit known as Taktse Gyalpo.

The incident (the Dalai Lama) refers to is narrated in Changya’s biography of Trichen Ngawang Chogden. An evil monk spirit (rgyal.’gong) from Dragsob (brag.sob) who was invoked by some active Lama retired from his monastic office (bla.zur) and a Khamtsen at Ganden. They built a wayside shrine for this spirit in the circumambulation path of Ganden.

Trichen Ngawang Chogden declared this unsuitable. He said that since the time of Je Tsong Khapa and his disciples no worldly spirits were worshiped at his [Ganden] monastery and that in future this would also not be permitted. When that spirit was invoked through an oracle, he said that since the Trichen Rinpoche had said this, he had no choice but to leave and he excused himself and left for Taktse-Shöl. The Lama retired from his monastic office who had relied on that evil spirit died soon after as punishment by Kalarupa [one of Je Tsong Khapa’s protectors]. There is no reference to Dorje Shugden in this passage . The evil monk spirit (rgyal.’gong) was continued to be worshiped as a local deity at the place where he came from.

-Ursula Bernis,  Condemned to Silence A Tibetan Identity Crisis, 1999

The reason this spirit from went back to “the place where he came from,” Taktse, an estate not far from Ganden Monastery, is because the spirit referred to in this verse is Taktse Gyalpo, a local spirit said to have been the spirit of a monk who died in bad circumstances.

In this biography master Changya clearly mentions what Trichen Ngawang Chogden has expelled is a ‘Gyalpo’, instead of ‘Dolgyal’. ‘Gyalpo’ is a general name used for all the deities and spirits born as incarnation of former lamas or monks. Therefore hundreds of Gyalpos exist in the Tibetan pantheon, and the term does not only apply to the Dolgyal. The name Dolgyal is a short term for ‘dol gyi gyalpo’. Dol is the name of a place, where the first temple of Dorje Shugden was erected by the 5th Dalai Lama.

-Dorje Shugden Charitable Societey, Chronicle, 2008.

So the original text says “Gyalpo,” and clearly refers to Taktse Gylapo, not Dorje Shugden. Dorje Shugden is not mentioned.

The Samlo department of Ganden monastery took over (the Taktse) estate, and with it, adopted that spirit of the estate as a protector deity of the department. It was then worshipped in the Ganden monastery in their department for some time, until it was expelled by the great master Trichen Ngawang Chogden, who at that time was the throne-holder of Ganden. The spirit was sent back to its estate, where it was worshipped by the villagers until 1959.

-Chronicle

The recognized reincarnation of Trichen Ngawang Chogden was called Trichen Tenpa Rabgya. Tenpa Rabgya was a Geshe lharampa from Sera Monastery, and became the tutor to Changkya Yeshe Tenpai Gyaltsen, the reincarnation of Chankya Rolpai Dorje. Among his teachers were such luminaries as Panchen Lama Palden Yeshe and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen. Tenpa Rabgya was a famous practitioner of Dorje Shugden, and wrote praises and rituals for his practice, requesting him to come from the “wisdom Dharmakaya,” clearly indicating his view that Dorje Shugden was a Buddha.

Extracted from: http://truthaboutshugden.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/the-dalai-lamas-research-concerning-past-masters-and-dorje-shugden/#comment-120

[a friend]

Of course he has engaged in deception but also in plain lies.
Like saying that there was no ban. Or saying that the oaths in front of deities in the monasteries against Dorje Shugden practitioners had been the initiative of the abbots as if he never had severely incited them to do what they did.
These lies are not at all difficult to explain because we have his original words and his subsequent denials.