Dalai Lama Bashing

[thaimonk]

Dear TK

Well,it's 8;30 in the morning where I 'am' now...so going to do my Dorje Shugden prayers, golden drink, read up further on Trijang Rinpoche's biography, read up on the latest talks by Dalai Lama and then do some work.  Do private message me again. I enjoyed hearing from you just now. Yes, I will most likely attend the teachings you mentioned.

[beggar]

Another few thoughts:

All of us here, I believe, have great teachers that we have a lot of faith in.

It is my belief that no real lama would advocate or encourage any negative speech against any other lama, but encourage their students to always maintain respect (for other lamas as well as their students).

So therefore: do we believe that we are right? or our Lamas are right? If we believe our Lamas are right and have more knowledge and understanding than us, then we should try to reflect that by not speaking ill of other lamas / practitioners/ lineages / traditions etc. If we continue to do this, then we are saying that we know a better way than our lamas and we are right to continue doing this, while our lamas are wrong in advising us not to do this.

If you really believe that other lamas are "wrong" and your lama is most correct, wise and that his teachings are most truthful and the right way, then prove it right by putting those teachings into action. It doesn't make sense on the one hand to say that you believe in your lama and he is the best and you have full faith in his teachings, but then on the other hand, you turn around and do opposite to his teachings - badmouth other lamas, criticise their actions and inadvertently possibly destroy other people's faith in their lamas. That doesn't reflect well on you as a practitioner or as a student; and sadly, it also won't reflect well on your own teacher.

[LosangKhyentse]

Another few thoughts:

All of us here, I believe, have great teachers that we have a lot of faith in.

It is my belief that no real lama would advocate or encourage any negative speech against any other lama, but encourage their students to always maintain respect (for other lamas as well as their students).

So therefore: do we believe that we are right? or our Lamas are right? If we believe our Lamas are right and have more knowledge and understanding than us, then we should try to reflect that by not speaking ill of other lamas / practitioners/ lineages / traditions etc. If we continue to do this, then we are saying that we know a better way than our lamas and we are right to continue doing this, while our lamas are wrong in advising us not to do this.

If you really believe that other lamas are "wrong" and your lama is most correct, wise and that his teachings are most truthful and the right way, then prove it right by putting those teachings into action. It doesn't make sense on the one hand to say that you believe in your lama and he is the best and you have full faith in his teachings, but then on the other hand, you turn around and do opposite to his teachings - badmouth other lamas, criticise their actions and inadvertently possibly destroy other people's faith in their lamas. That doesn't reflect well on you as a practitioner or as a student; and sadly, it also won't reflect well on your own teacher.

Well said and very powerful thoughts.

Thanks

[beggar]

If you say "I have faith" and you put down the one
who arises from the transcendental wisdom vajra
Then really you have no clear idea of who he is
You have no idea of the workings of Buddha,
Bodhisattvas and their different forms.

Exactly - and very relevant to this thread about speaking badly of the dalai lama, or of any lama for that matter - how do you know which lama is or isn't "one hwo arises from the transcendental wisdom vajra".

Certainly, yes, it's true - none of us at our level have any idea "of the workings of the Buddha, Bodhisattvas and their different forms" so who are we to judge their actions when we can't even tell who is a Buddha or not? It would be safer, and more beneficial for to maintain a respectful distance, speak objectively and think always about how our speech may be damaging for ourselves and damaging to another person's practice and samaya with his teacher... because you just never know. It is much better to assume that all these teachers ARE buddhas, than to assume that they are not.

ultimately, this practice extends to all human beings. At a tantric level, the old homeless lady down the road could be an enlightened being manifested to teach us in some way - then we train ourselves to see everyone as a teacher and to develop virtuous and positive ways of seeing the people and beings around us. Much healthier for individuals and the planet, I believe!

[Heartspoon]

If you say "I have faith" and you put down the one
who arises from the transcendental wisdom vajra
Then really you have no clear idea of who he is
You have no idea of the workings of Buddha,
Bodhisattvas and their different forms.

Exactly - and very relevant to this thread about speaking badly of the dalai lama, or of any lama for that matter - how do you know which lama is or isn't "one hwo arises from the transcendental wisdom vajra".

Certainly, yes, it's true - none of us at our level have any idea "of the workings of the Buddha, Bodhisattvas and their different forms" so who are we to judge their actions when we can't even tell who is a Buddha or not? It would be safer, and more beneficial for to maintain a respectful distance, speak objectively and think always about how our speech may be damaging for ourselves and damaging to another person's practice and samaya with his teacher... because you just never know. It is much better to assume that all these teachers ARE buddhas, than to assume that they are not.

ultimately, this practice extends to all human beings. At a tantric level, the old homeless lady down the road could be an enlightened being manifested to teach us in some way - then we train ourselves to see everyone as a teacher and to develop virtuous and positive ways of seeing the people and beings around us. Much healthier for individuals and the planet, I believe!

Exactly. And that leads again to the questions I asked to Thaimonk :

First, should you have missed this post, here the original quotation of Nagarjuna:

"Monarchs who do what is against the practices
And senseless are mostly praised
By their citizens, for it is hard to know
What will or will not be tolerated.
Hence it is hard to know
What is useful or not (to say).
If useful but unpleasant words
Are hard to speak to anyone else,
What could I, a monk, say to you,
A King who is a lord of the great earth ?"

Nagarjuna

Then the questions I adressed to thaimonk:

Should useful words be uttered, even if they are unpleasant words to be heard ?
Why does Nagarjuna utter those unpleasant words to be heard by the King ?

[beggar]

Exactly. And that leads again to the questions I asked to Thaimonk :

First, should you have missed this post, here the original quotation of Nagarjuna:

"Monarchs who do what is against the practices
And senseless are mostly praised
By their citizens, for it is hard to know
What will or will not be tolerated.
Hence it is hard to know
What is useful or not (to say).
If useful but unpleasant words
Are hard to speak to anyone else,
What could I, a monk, say to you,
A King who is a lord of the great earth ?"

Nagarjuna

Then the questions I adressed to thaimonk:

Should useful words be uttered, even if they are unpleasant words to be heard ?
Why does Nagarjuna utter those unpleasant words to be heard by the King ?

I think the question doesn't and cannot remain just at the word "unpleasant". Our lamas may say things that are "unpleasant" for us to hear but they are necessary for us to grow, learn or gain a realisation. When we look at something that may sound unpleasant, then we should think on several levels and consider a few things:
- what is the intention behind these words?
- are they true?
- do these words help in some way? Or are they said with intent to harm someone?
- if these kinds of words have been uttered before (either in the same tone, or the same words are used), then have they brought positive, beneficial results before? Or have they caused or more harm? Or nothing has happened by saying those words before?

I think this last point is important to consider, especially in determining whether words are useful or not. At our level, it is quite easy for our minds to trick themselves into thinking that the words we use, or our actions are useful or to benefit someone, when actually they arise out of a personal or selfish place.

[DSFriend]

"The disciple who has reverence for the guru always looks on the guru as follows:
The guru is the equal of all the enlightened ones. Always he himself is Vajradhara.
He holds all the qualities of the tathagata Ratnasambhava, the great ocean of
transcendental wisdom and the giver of the priceless wish-fulfilling gem.
Such a disciple does not consider, even in his thoughts, that the guru has any flaw."

Ornament of the Vajra Essence Tantra

Well and good if we are able to see our guru as equal to all the enlightened ones.

However, due to our own deluded minds and duality, we are limited in seeing beyond what we can...

Why run the risk of criticizing one who is enlightened whom we can't see...and argues all our lives with those who has taken refuge in and sees as their guru who is equal to all the enlightened ones?

Are you ready to face the karma? How sure are you that the one we are speaking of is to be condemned?

[DSFriend]

Then you surpass all the teachers,
your wisdom is greater than theirs,
you have no klesas to overcome,
hence your view is supreme

Your view of those who possess reason or not
is unbiased since you have no karmas that bind,
therefore you need no teacher, as you hear
what you deem as reason and all others are not,

You need no guru, as only those that speak with your
reason you hold.
Hence the tantras become difficult as devotion is not necessary,
all the great masters who hold their gurus supreme, must rewrite the texts.
Ashvagosha, Atisha, Tsongkapa, Shantideva all would follow not a guru
to enlightenment and their devotions are wrong.
Woe to the student who need no guru, such is a time as predicted
in the kaliyuga.

Absolutely powerful to counter wrong views on relying on a spiritual guide, the first requirement as taught by Manjunatha Je Tsongkhapa.

My heartfelt appreciation always dear Thaimonk

[Heartspoon]

Exactly. And that leads again to the questions I asked to Thaimonk :

First, should you have missed this post, here the original quotation of Nagarjuna:

"Monarchs who do what is against the practices
And senseless are mostly praised
By their citizens, for it is hard to know
What will or will not be tolerated.
Hence it is hard to know
What is useful or not (to say).
If useful but unpleasant words
Are hard to speak to anyone else,
What could I, a monk, say to you,
A King who is a lord of the great earth ?"

Nagarjuna

Then the questions I adressed to thaimonk:

Should useful words be uttered, even if they are unpleasant words to be heard ?
Why does Nagarjuna utter those unpleasant words to be heard by the King ?

I think the question doesn't and cannot remain just at the word "unpleasant". Our lamas may say things that are "unpleasant" for us to hear but they are necessary for us to grow, learn or gain a realisation. When we look at something that may sound unpleasant, then we should think on several levels and consider a few things:
- what is the intention behind these words?
- are they true?
- do these words help in some way? Or are they said with intent to harm someone?
- if these kinds of words have been uttered before (either in the same tone, or the same words are used), then have they brought positive, beneficial results before? Or have they caused or more harm? Or nothing has happened by saying those words before?

I think this last point is important to consider, especially in determining whether words are useful or not. At our level, it is quite easy for our minds to trick themselves into thinking that the words we use, or our actions are useful or to benefit someone, when actually they arise out of a personal or selfish place.

So, if after due consideration you deem useful those unpleasant words to be uttered, will you frighten away thinking at your potential loss or utter them in order to benefit other beings ?

[Heartspoon]

"The disciple who has reverence for the guru always looks on the guru as follows:
The guru is the equal of all the enlightened ones. Always he himself is Vajradhara.
He holds all the qualities of the tathagata Ratnasambhava, the great ocean of
transcendental wisdom and the giver of the priceless wish-fulfilling gem.
Such a disciple does not consider, even in his thoughts, that the guru has any flaw."

Ornament of the Vajra Essence Tantra

Well and good if we are able to see our guru as equal to all the enlightened ones.

However, due to our own deluded minds and duality, we are limited in seeing beyond what we can...

Why run the risk of criticizing one who is enlightened whom we can't see...and argues all our lives with those who has taken refuge in and sees as their guru who is equal to all the enlightened ones?

Are you ready to face the karma? How sure are you that the one we are speaking of is to be condemned?

Maybe in order to help fellow mother sentient beings, should we "run the risk" ?
If we are speaking to an enlightened being, he would surely be delighted that someone is taking it upon himself as a duty to help fellow mother sentient beings.
If we are not speaking to an enlightened being, he will maybe not be so delighted but nevertheless be "helped".

[WisdomBeing]

Goodness - I haven't been to the forum for a few hours and there's so much activity going on! I just want to add my tuppence to this issue:

Heartspoon - re your poem from Nagarjuna to the King - which King is he referring to? if it is just an earthly King the monk wishes to address to, then the monk may know better with his spiritual perception, but if it is a spiritual King and a fellow monk - then the context would be completely different.

Also - you say:

Maybe in order to help fellow mother sentient beings, should we "run the risk" ?

How would you actually help fellow mother sentient beings?

[Heartspoon]

Goodness - I haven't been to the forum for a few hours and there's so much activity going on! I just want to add my tuppence to this issue:

Heartspoon - re your poem from Nagarjuna to the King - which King is he referring to? if it is just an earthly King the monk wishes to address to, then the monk may know better with his spiritual perception, but if it is a spiritual King and a fellow monk - then the context would be completely different.

Also - you say:

Maybe in order to help fellow mother sentient beings, should we "run the risk" ?

How would you actually help fellow mother sentient beings?

Like this:

"His Holiness the Dalai Lama consulted Palden Lhamo by means of divination and other methods to discover whether the propitiation of Shugden could be continued or should be prohibited."

Actually, HH the Dalai Lama consulted the State Oracle:

1rst answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden a powerful deity, only to be worshipped by beings with high realizations. However worshipping this deity would upset Goddess Palden Lhamo (a superior protecting deity, who does not have an oracle)"

2nd answer of the State Oracle:

"the deity is appropriate to be worshipped by an individual, but not by a group"

3rd answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is a deity, suitable to the others, but not to the successor of the 5th Dalai Lama and those working for the Gaden Phodrang Government established by the 5th Dalai Lama."

4rth answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is a spirit born out of a Kagyupa-monk who hated the Tibetan government, and not the incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen"

5th answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is the spirit of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, whose Samaya bond to the 5th Dalai Lama was not good, thus it is harmful for this government."

6th answer of the State Oracle:

"Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a good lama, whose works of composition are praiseworthy, therefore Dorje Shugden cannot be the spirit of such a master."

7th answer of the State Oracle:

"Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen himself was a false Tulku, who came to be among the candidates for the 5th Dalai Lama and failed to be chosen, but through clever tactics of his mother on the first Panchen Lama Choe Kyi Gyaltsen, he was recognized as the fourth reincarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa (the teacher of 3rd Dalai Lama), but was then born as an evil, trouble-making spirit to harm the Tibetan government."


When HH the 14th Dalai Lama presented his "proofs" to HH Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, his Tutor answered:

"Palden Lhamo would not lie to You"

[WisdomBeing]

Goodness - I haven't been to the forum for a few hours and there's so much activity going on! I just want to add my tuppence to this issue:

Heartspoon - re your poem from Nagarjuna to the King - which King is he referring to? if it is just an earthly King the monk wishes to address to, then the monk may know better with his spiritual perception, but if it is a spiritual King and a fellow monk - then the context would be completely different.

Also - you say:

Maybe in order to help fellow mother sentient beings, should we "run the risk" ?

How would you actually help fellow mother sentient beings?

Like this:

"His Holiness the Dalai Lama consulted Palden Lhamo by means of divination and other methods to discover whether the propitiation of Shugden could be continued or should be prohibited."

Actually, HH the Dalai Lama consulted the State Oracle:

1rst answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden a powerful deity, only to be worshipped by beings with high realizations. However worshipping this deity would upset Goddess Palden Lhamo (a superior protecting deity, who does not have an oracle)"

2nd answer of the State Oracle:

"the deity is appropriate to be worshipped by an individual, but not by a group"

3rd answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is a deity, suitable to the others, but not to the successor of the 5th Dalai Lama and those working for the Gaden Phodrang Government established by the 5th Dalai Lama."

4rth answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is a spirit born out of a Kagyupa-monk who hated the Tibetan government, and not the incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen"

5th answer of the State Oracle:

"Dorje Shugden is the spirit of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, whose Samaya bond to the 5th Dalai Lama was not good, thus it is harmful for this government."

6th answer of the State Oracle:

"Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a good lama, whose works of composition are praiseworthy, therefore Dorje Shugden cannot be the spirit of such a master."

7th answer of the State Oracle:

"Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen himself was a false Tulku, who came to be among the candidates for the 5th Dalai Lama and failed to be chosen, but through clever tactics of his mother on the first Panchen Lama Choe Kyi Gyaltsen, he was recognized as the fourth reincarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa (the teacher of 3rd Dalai Lama), but was then born as an evil, trouble-making spirit to harm the Tibetan government."


When HH the 14th Dalai Lama presented his "proofs" to HH Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, his Tutor answered:

"Palden Lhamo would not lie to You"

Sorry for being thick, my dear, but what are you trying to say?

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your posts - i'm afraid i'm not as educated as some of the people on this forum - you are speaking in riddles most of the time to me... so please have compassion on me and speak plainly.

thank you.

[Heartspoon]

You asked me how we should actually help fellow mother beings.

When HH the Dalai Lama presented his "proofs" relating to the practice of Dorje Shugden, he asked us not to simply accept them, but to check their validity. We should follow this advice.

Then even if they are unpleasant words to be read, they are useful to be known by fellow mother sentients beings: it will enable them to check the validity of the "proofs" themselves, thus following the wishes of HH the Dalai Lama.

[Helena]

Heartspoon,

I totally empathize with WB. I don't get it either.

I have read through it a couple of times. Sorry, I still don't get what you mean to say.

Although a flair of words is a gift, it would be a greater gift if those words could be well understood by all who read them.

Please have compassion and explain EXACTLY what you mean to say and please, mean what you say - or write, for that matter.

Thank you.