Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 4

This article is much more streamlined now

Thank you everyone, on both sides of the debate, for working together to make a more streamlined article. It seems more balanced and readable than before. (Truthbody (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

That is a good thing. When I have time I will add the Sakyapa historical sections since they are important to the over all picture of the history of Shugden's development in Tibet.

Tendrel (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thegone is also adding this exact same section to other articles

User:Thegone has added the same section to the articles New Kadampa Tradition and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He has not consulted with any editors. It does not belong in any of these articles. It belongs in the Dorje Shugden controversy section only, where it also needs editing to reflect the other point of view. This article did state the two differing views of Dorje Shugden and had sources for both points of view. With Thegone's copy and paste from other anti-Dorje Shugden websites, it has now lost its neutrality. If other editors do not agree with this, they should make small changes and discuss them, not huge changes without discussion, or we will all simply have to just continue reverting each others' changes and that is a monumental waste of time for everyone concerned. (Truthbody (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, the references #51, 52, 54 have nothing to do with the content. These reference to other Wikipedia articles only peripherally related to the subject matter, and they do not even explicitly mention Dorje Shugden or the controversy. Furthermore, reference #55 is to "antishugden.com", whose banner reads "Eliminate evil". This certainly cannot be counted as an independent, neutral source for information.

Thegone also uses this section to attack Geshe Kelsang, calling him the "head of Shugden sectarian movement in the west". This is not even close to neutral, nor is it factually accurate, and it has no place in this article.

Considering how poorly referenced this section is, and how aggressive its tone is, I would suggest removing it completely from this article. It also appears in the Dorje Shugden Controversy article, and while a section on "sectarianism" may debatably be appropriate there, it should not remain in its present, poorly referenced form. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"The current article itself lacks independent and neutral sources. So yes, we should reach a compromise (somehow).Jmlee369 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by those who support the ban

Someone keeps posting a long tract denouncing Dorje Shugden practitioners. This should not be on this article at all (there is one called Dorje Shugden controversy) and the talk pages need to be used. This is not following any wiki protocol and will be brought to the attention of the administrators if it continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbody (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens, this article will have a positive spin on Dorje Shugden, neglecting all possibility that he may not be, in fact, everything that is described here. We need the alternate views of how he is a preta/gyalpo/mundane protector/harmful spirit, rather than presenting only how one side views him. If this article was the only thing I read, I would be overwhemingly in support of Shugden so quite clearly, this page is unbalanced. Comments like Shugden being the main protector of almost all Gelug monasteries for the past 300 years is a lie and is based on a biased website's claim. These issues need to be addressed not only on the controversy page but also here. Jmlee369 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jmlee, I understand your concerns. Please read my proposition to create a revised, compromising article, found at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested that this page be protected because of the media coverage in relation to it. [1] Wisdombuddha (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for four days. Come here or contact me if it needs lengthened.

kt66 aka Tenzin Paljor

Just so you know, kt66 has a personal agenda to undermine the New Kadampa tradition and is an ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. As Tenzin Paljor, he has been on chat groups and blogs all over the internet for years trying to persuade people to abandon the New Kadampa tradition and Dorje Shugden. Please therefore be on the look out for potential POV bias and disinformation in his edits of this article or any article to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang, or the New Kadampa Tradition. (Wisdomsword (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Two things. First of all, kt66 is retired. Secondly, I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. Unfortunately, it appears that there are no students of GKG, of the DSS, or any other supporter who is yet able to do that. It is fascinating. If we read the texts of the Kadampa tradition (I recommend ISBN 0-86171-440-7 as a seminal work which accurately represents the entire lojong foundation, or the great translations of the LRCM for Je Rinpoche's Lam Rim.) we are told to reveal our own faults first, and to hide our qualities. This behaviour is NOT something readers find when coming across the NKT sponsored pages of WP. Instead, they are faced with no mention of the controversies, politics or sexual escapades that the organisation is stained with.

e.g GKG expelling students who complained about Kelsang Lodrö having sex with Kelsang Thogme, or GKG's email to Steven Wass indicates the degree of truth of my words:

Steven Wass,

I have received your email message. You have destroyed the NKTs reputation and the power of all NKT Resident Teachers. Through your actions so many ordained Teachers have disrobed following your view which is opposite to Buddhist view – you tried to spread a sexual lineage which you yourself created. Even in society a Teacher cannot have sex with students. After you left many people confessed to me that you had had sex with them. You had sex with so many students and through your deceptive actions one nun tried to commit suicide because of your sexual behaviour towards her.

Because the NKTs reputation and power of the Resident Teachers has been destroyed by your activities now the future development of the NKT will be difficult both materially and spiritually. However, I myself and all my students are working hard to recover the damage you made. We will never allow your sexual lineage to spread in this world.

I have no connection with you.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

(20040302 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Simplicity and Clarity

I heard heard feedback from someone who is not Buddhist and looking into this issue and said this article is convoluted. I think what we need to aim for here is simplicity and clarity on this issue. Anyone who is interested should be able to read this and get an idea of both sides of the issue without confusion... Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's much clearer now. Peaceful5 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a bit to the introduction from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso that explains the nature of a Dharma Protector because that section was labeled as unclear to non-Buddhists by the Wiki editors. Maybe it belongs closer to the top so people understand at the beginning what a Dharma Protector is? Eyesofcompassion (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'Dholgyel Controversy' new article

I have created a new enarticle called 'Dholgyel controversy' where we could dump most of the controversy material from 'The dispute itself' down.

We could use the newly emptied space to actually discuss Dorje Shugden as a deity!!!Act72 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)act72

If we move all the controversy from this then there will be almost nothing left to this article! I have put all of it under one section for now.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to split the articles as it would create a a POV-fork. This is against policy. After an introduction the article needs first to explain the nature of Dorje Shugden as a deity and the manner of veneration and then to move on to the controversy. The controversy should be explained in a straightforward way: firstly the views of the Dalai Lama and similar views, mainly sourced from the DL's website, secondly the responses to those views. Although it should be structured in this for-and-against way, priority should be given throughout to academic analyses. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suggesting splitting the article in several smaller articles because it's too long 00:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)act72 00:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)act72

The article is too long but that is because it contains too much non-notable material. If it is split, it should not be split as a POV-fork but on some other basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friends, I'm going to go ahead and create a spin-out article, in accordance with the majority opinion on these talk pages, and specifically in accordance with "act72"'s suggestion that we establish one article on the Deity himself and one article on the controversy. I'll post back here when I've spun out the other article.Peaceful5 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC) OK, I created the spin out article Dorje Shugden controversy. Because I was removing 73 KB, Cluebot automatically assumed I was vandalizing and reverted the article. I've reported this as a false positive. My edited version of the page should appear soon. I've tried to do this correctly, leaving all of the information intact, and leaving a summary section and a link in this article. Let me know if you see any problems.Peaceful5 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to move the controversy material to a new entry

It appears that all the editors of this article are agreed on doing this so we will go ahead and create two pages out of this one. Let us know soon if you object. (Wisdomsword (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Hello, I think it would be best to move details about the controversy and recent events to a new entry dedicated to this effect. This would keep the article short and focus on the 'fact of the matter' as in a regular encyclopedia. The details of the events from 1976 to 2008 could be described in more details in this new article. Act72 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)act72

Yes, it could be mentioned briefly here and then the reader referenced to the new article. Who would like to write it the new article? What should it be called? (71.101.201.85 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

The controversy was a separate article in the past and was then merged with this one. I don't think it is necessary...Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think linking the deity to the controversy in the same article is just bad, as if their are one and the same (this is what some propagandists wants), they should be kept seperated! Contrary to what some tibetan politicians wants to make us believe, Dorje Shugden is not a controversial deity and should be described simply, without any association to the mud these politicians tries to throw at him!Act72 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)act72

Good point! (Wisdomsword (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Instead of the huge amount of space dedicated to the controversy and recent events, the space in this article should be used to describe the characteristics and functions of the deity. This would be more informative about Dorje Shugden and help people make their opinion...Act72 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)act72

hello74.56.78.22 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)act72

-We should also include in the article description of the Five families of Dorje Shugden, why he is the keeper of the Ganden Emanated Scripture, why he is labelled a Protector who's time has come, his function as the head of the wrathfull forces protecting buddhadharma, a list of eminent gelugpas lamas and lineage and ganden throne holders who have practiced and promoted this deity, etc, etc.Act72 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)act72

Suggestion to remove some of Kay's quotations as they dominate the article and their context and bias are suspect

After reading from the primary sources, I invite you to double check the following analysis by David N. Kay from his book Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development, and Adaptation (p. 92, © 2004), the most cited reference in the Wikipedia articles on Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang and the NKT. Context changes everything, so I have included whatever surrounding text appears relevant, whether it be just a few sentences, one or two paragraphs, or even at times an entire section. See for yourself whether the isolated quotes are in keeping with Geshe Kelsang's words, or whether we are given the wrong impression when they are taken out of context. You can click on the links below to view the quotations in full and in their original setting. If we want to know what Geshe Kelsang's writings really say, it’s best to go directly to the source material.

Geshe Kelsang’s texts list the traditional qualities that should be possessed by the ideal spiritual teacher, and he encourages students to check these qualifications thoroughly before relying upon someone as a spiritual guide. This attitude of critical inquiry should be retained throughout a person’s spiritual career (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 144). Since the creation of the NKT in 1991, this teaching on the importance of personal authority in negotiating the Buddhist path has been overshadowed by an emphasis upon developing ‘unwavering faith and confidence’ in the guru and upon having faith in the teachings ‘even if we do not fully understand them’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1993a: 78). The exclusive emphasis on the authority of Geshe Kelsang is also reflected in the texts. The earlier view that practitioners ‘must depend upon the advice of spiritual guides—fully qualified spiritual masters—and meditate according to their instructions’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 180) was replaced following the NKT’s creation with the narrower claim that they must ‘rely upon a qualified Spiritual Guide and practice precisely according to his or her instructions’ (2nd edn: 190). According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must now ‘be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1991b: 17).

Kay’s report on its own may indeed cause alarm for the reader, but there are a few problems with his interpretations. First, it is unclear why Kay singled out the one instance in the revised edition of Clear Light of Bliss where the wording was changed from ‘spiritual guides’ to ‘Spiritual Guide,’ when there are other passages throughout the book which retain this plurality. (Click here to see a side-by-side comparison of these passages.) Additionally, two of the four quotes cited above are based on figurative language coming from traditional Tibetan analogies. When this is taken into account, Geshe-la’s instructions appear far less extremist than Kay would have us believe. For example, the wording of the last quote was derived from a story about the differences between a wise blind person and a foolish blind person. This particular metaphor was never meant as an imperative to take anything on blind faith.

Elsewhere (p. 60), Kay again neglects the surrounding context that would have shed light on Geshe-la’s intended meaning:

[T]he early texts indicate that Geshe Kelsang’s primary orientation was exclusive. For example, he encourages students to commit themselves to their chosen practice and to follow it exclusively. His critique of students who ‘jump from one meditation to another’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1980: 197) may be an allusion both to the Tibetan practitioners within the Rimed movement who follow multiple lineages of practice, and to the Western trainees encountered at Manjushri Institute who adopted a similar approach to their Buddhist training.... In [Clear Light of Bliss] he maintains that ‘pure’ practitioners within all the Tibetan Buddhist traditions uphold the Prasanghika Madhyamaka view of emptiness, and that without this view, ‘there is no chance of their attaining liberation or enlightenment, no matter how much they meditate’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 192). There is no explicit mention here of Nyingma Buddhism, but the hardline approach taken towards the Prasanghika Madhyamaka school clearly rules Dzogchen out as a valid or legitimate path to enlightenment. Coupled with this is his emphasis upon the importance of refuting ‘mistaken or misleading teachings’ (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 153).

As described in the previous section of this website, there are both unhealthy and healthy forms of exclusivism, but here Kay seems to equivocate the two. Extreme exclusivism says, “Our tradition is right, and all the others are wrong, so stay away from them,” while moderate exclusivism says, “After choosing the tradition that is right for you, stick with it through to the end.” Unlike the extreme exclusivist, the moderate exclusivist has no interest in criticizing the beliefs of other traditions; it is sufficient merely to state what is relevant (or not) within one’s own school of thought. Geshe-la’s view accords with the latter, cautioning us against being fickle practitioners who do not stay with any one practice long enough to experience its transformative effects; merely dabbling brings no lasting benefits. Next, by looking at the preceding paragraphs leading up to talk of refuting mistaken teachings, it is obvious that Geshe-la was referring to an erroneous Mahamudra teaching, not any Dzogchen teaching. His primary concern in writing a book on Mahamudra is for Mahamudra practitioners to get these particular teachings right. Although Kay claims that “There is no explicit mention here of Nyingma Buddhism,” in fact Geshe-la praises this tradition of Buddhism by name just three paragraphs before, citing the examples of “the great Nyingma Lama, Longchen Rabjampa ... and indeed the great Padmasambhava” as followers of Nagarjuna’s view. Plus, in Joyful Path of Good Fortune (p. 10), Geshe-la clearly says that Padmasambhava had spread “pure Dharma” in Tibet. (Wisdomsword (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Suggested inclusion of Glen Mullin brief discussion of Dorje Shugden

Hello, I'm new in here. I noticed that Glen Mullin's discussion of Dorje Shugden in his book "The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation" has not been taken into account here. I would like to discuss the inclusion of some of the material found on p.208:

-'Another controversy surrounding the Great Fifth concerns the details of the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, a famous Gelugpa lama of the period. He was one of the most prominent lamas of his day, and in fact in some circles was held in even higher regard than was the Great Fifth, for the Fifth at the time was still in his youth. One day Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was mysteriously murdered. His followers claimed that the culprits were followers of the Fifth Dalai Lama, although there was no suggestion that the Great Fifth was personally even aware of the plan. The theory was that the Great Fifth was being eclipsed by the towering stature of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, and thus would greatly benefit from the death. As long as Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was alive the Fifth Dalai Lama would be number two in the Gelugpa School; his death allowed the Great Fifth to rise to the position of number one. Whether or not the followers of the Great Fifth were involved in Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen’s murder was never proved, but the rumours persisted.The tale, already somewhat bizarre, now takes an even more exotic twist. It is said that the soul of the murdered monk wandered in the hereafter for some time as a disturbed spirit, creating havoc for the people of Lhasa. Eventually the Great Fifth contracted a group of Nyingmapa shamans to exorcise and pacify it, but they failed. He then contracted a group of Gelugpa shaman monks. As a result of the rituals of this second group the spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was eventually pacified and transformed into the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. This spirit was later adopted as a guardian angel by numerous Gelugpa monks who disapproved of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s manner of combining the Gelugpa and Nyingmapa doctrines. Although the Great Fifth tried to discourage the practice of worshipping this deity, it caught on with many monasteries. The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa School. In particular, during the late 1800s, when four Dalai Lamas died young, it became an all-pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries,and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families. The controversy surrounding the murder of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the deity that emerged from his disturbed spirit has shadowed the Dalai Lama office until the present day. By the time the Tibetans came into exile in 1959, worshipping Dorje Shugden was still a common monthly practice of most Gelugpas. In recent decades the present Dalai Lama has attempted to discourage the practice, but with little success. It is as strong today as ever, if not stronger; for with the Dalai Lama discouraging it in India, the Chinese are fully promoting it in Tibet.-

I think this qualifies a serious objective material, unlike Dreyfuss' articles which is filled with inaccuracies and vague allegations.

There are also some of René de Nebresky information on Dorje Shugden found in Oracles and Demons of Tibet which need to be discussed but I'll keep that for another time. I am not yet sure how this wiki thing works of if I've done things correctly here. Sorry for any mistakes...Act72 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)act72

Welcome Act72! This is very interesting material which largely accords with Trijang Rinpoche's version of events. Glen Mullin is also a highly respected author and scholar. I find it interesting that he says that the practice is very popular, contradicting Dreyfus. I definitely think we should include it as a balance for Dreyfus' opinions. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Someone might like to have a look at the article in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, volume 21, part 2. Peter jackson (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS & WP:SPS

The article in the introduction is based one-sided on Shugden followers' view, is this neutral? Kay is neutral acedemical research and he presents both views. Further a long quote of Kelsang Gyatso's pov, and only one sentence for the other view is not balanced. Kay is 1a primary source. The shugdenpages are it clearly not, they have no author, no acedemical background and they are not neutral at all. Funny enough Kay is used at the end of the article but only to refer to the shugden followers's view. very neutral... 89.202.145.100 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kay's work focuses more in the context of NKT, which is only one aspect of Dorje Shugden. His research has not actually looked into the 300 years worth of Tibetan sources directly, and only exaggerates unreferenced claims in Dreyfuss's essay.Tkalsang (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

POV template

The section on controversies offers now 80% Shugden followers' view, even Kay is quoted one-sided regarding that view. This is not a balanced approach, is it? 50-50 is balanced. 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kay's quote offers the alternate view that makes it 50/50 here. The main controversy is in that article.Wisdombuddha (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dharmapala?

Is Dorje Shugden considered to be a Dharmapala? Yes, no, or is that what the quarrel is all about? Is Dorje Shugden considered to be a wrathful deity? I am mainly asking so that appropriate links can be added early on in the article. Or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The quarrel is about whether he is a beneficial Dharmapala or a harmful spirit. I think he can be considered a wrathful deity in both cases. Wisdombuddha (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unablanced article

The article is heavily biased. It favours a minor view which is hold by Geshe Kelsang and Trijang Rinpoche, The article includes a lot of content which supports their point of view based on WP:SPS and is giving that view an undue wight. More over the article excludes neutral academical sources WP:RS and the other point of views, which are held by the majority. That "Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance." (Kay 2004 : 47) These views are excluded or just mentioned marginally in the present article. The full quote of Kay's research should be given as it is common in controversial topics. Although I retired and do not contribute anymore this partisan article is unacceptable. Kay states what other acedemical sources state as well (e.g. von Brueck etc).

Here again an extract of Kay's research:

„Whilst there is a consensus that this protector practice originated in the seventeenth century, there is much disagreement about the nature and status of Dorje Shugden, the events that led to his appearance, onto the religious landscape of Tibet, and the subsequent development of his cult."

There are two dominant views:

“One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a 'jig rten las 'das pa'i srung ma (an enlightened being) and that, whilst not being bound by history, he assumed a series of human incarnations before manifesting himself as a Dharma-protector during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. According to this view, the Fifth Dalai Lama initially mistook Dorje Shugden for a harmful and vengeful spirit of a tulku of Drepung monastery called Dragpa Gyaltsen, who had been murdered by the Tibetan government because of the threat posed by his widespread popularity and influence. After a number of failed attempts to subdue this worldly spirit by enlisting the help of a high-ranking Nyingma lama, the Great Fifth realised that Dorje Shugden was in reality an enlightened being and began henceforth to praise him as a Buddha. Proponents of this view maintain that the deity has been worshipped as a Buddha ever since, and that he is now the chief guardian deity of the Gelug Tradition. These proponents claim, furthermore. that the Sakya tradition also recognises and worships Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. The main representative of this view in recent years has been Geshe Kelsang Gyatso who, like many other popular Gelug lamas stands firmly within the lineage-tradition of the highly influential Phabongkha Rinpoche and his disciple Trijang Rinpoche."

and

"Opposing this Position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a 'jig nen pa'i srung ma (a worldly protector) whose relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him a highly inappropriate object of such exalted veneration and refuge. This view agrees with the former that Dorje Shugden entered the Tibetan religious landscape following the death of tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, a rival to the Great Fifth and his government. According to this view, however, the deity initially came into existence as a demonic and vengeance-seeking spirit, causing many calamities and disasters for his former enemies before being pacified and reconciled to the Gelug school as a protector of its teachings and interests. Supporters of this view reject the pretensions made by devotees of Dorje Shugden, with respect to his Status and importance, as recent innovations probably originating during the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche and reflecting his particularly exclusive and sectarian agenda. The present Dalai Lama is the main proponent of this position and he is widely supported in it by representatives of the Gelug and non-Gelug traditions.”

Regarding English scholarly discussions Kay states: "Scholarly discussions of the various legends behind the emergence of the Dorje Shugden cult can be found in Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1956), Chime Radha Rinpoche (1981), and Mumford (1989). All of these accounts narrate the latter of the two positions, in which the deity is defined as a worldly protector. The fact that these scholars reveal no awareness of an alternative view suggests that the position which defines Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being is both a marginal viewpoint and one of recent provenance."

Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 46-47

It is completely inappropriate to quote in controversial subjects heavily from proponents' or opponents' self-published sources. Moreover there is no neutral academical review of Geshe Kelsang's books but there is from Kay. Please improve that. For the time being I insert the full quote of Kay, as it is common for such articles. BTW, Prof. Dreyfus' essay fulfills WP:RS, and it is in the bibliographies of other scholarly researches. All this can not be said about Geshe Kelsang and the anonam websites. --Kt66 (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not contribute to that article or other WP-articles besides that I insist that a full quote of neutral academical source is given in this article about the different point of views (NPOV). Kay/von Brueck are excellent sources to do that. Both acacedmical works have reviews as well. --Kt66 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree Trijang Rinpoche's view is a minority. First, there are only a few hundred thousand Tibetans in exile at most, a much greater number still reside in Tibet. In Tibet alone I have been to areas alone where every single house has Dorje Shugden images and monasteries. I know this information can't qualify for the webpage itself, but Kay doesn't give census information to qualify his own observations in terms of minority/majority. So, in short, there is no valid information to indeed say Trijang Rinpoche's view is in the minority.Tkalsang (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite clearly biased in the view that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being. Simply the mention of a body mandala makes this so, even though the actuality and validity of the body mandala practice is in question. Also, in terms of lamas, truly realised beings, those who denounce Shugden are greater. Also, why is the Great Fifth listed as being in support of Shugden? Where is the strong evidence to support that claim? There is too much to go through by myself. Jmlee369 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean up and balancing

These sources are quite biased and lack any textual support of the claims. How can it be said that most Gelug lamas agree on the past incarnations of Shugden? How can it be said that he was the main protector of most Gelug monasteries when he wasn't the protector of any of the three Great Seats, Sera, Drepung and Ganden? Where in the Guhyasamaja tantra does it mention that this deity Shugden has the same body mandala? There is no evidence in the sutra or tantras that mention this spirit and it was not bound properly under oath by a lama, so how can it act as a worldly protector, much less an enlightened one? Also, I have noticed that mention of the Yellow Book and the spirit's sectarian activities have not been mentioned. Zemey Tulku wrote the words of Trijang Rinpoche as the Yellow Book, so quite clearly, pro-Shugden lamas had this view that Gelugpas should not practise other lineages. Isn't that sectarianism? Simply because Shugdenpas have edited this article, doesn't mean the world should accept their views as being correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlee369 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama himself said that Dorje Shugden was a reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, and the many lamas such as the Fifth Dalai Lama acknowledged the previous incarnations of Dragpa Gyaltsen. The different monasteries and their sub-colleges have their own specific protectors, but in terms of the prevalence of the practice, the vast majority of Gelugpas engaged in this practice. The Guhyasamaja Tantra says that pure practitioners of Guhyasamaja manifest this body mandala in their own body. Je Tsongkhapa and Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsen manifested this body mandala and so they appear as Lama Losang Tubwang Dorjechang and Dorje Shugden's 32 deities, respectively. There is no reference in the Sutras or Tantras encouraging a Buddhist theocracy governed by the Dalai Lama. Dorje Shugden's name came from the Kadam Emanation Scripture, but Vajra Begawan is also a general description of the Truth Body of a Buddha -- the Vajra possessing Power. The Fifth Dalai Lama himself in his ritual praise to Dorje Shugden said that he is inseparable from the Choku (Truth Body). Zemey Tulku's book is understood to be just superstition ... and is similar to many Tibetan works of the same kind. There are many teachers in many lineages who hold the view that practitioners in their lineage should practice that lineage purely without mixing with other traditions. They hold this view because it works. That's not sectarianism. Sectarianism is a disrespectful mind that views other traditions as inferior or wrong simply because they use different terminology, etc. Sectarianism is deeply contrary to Je Tsongkhapa and Buddha's view ... it is not a characteristic of Shugden practitioners. 76.251.68.162 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So when the fifth Dalai Lama who later became opposed to the practice writes a praise (as did the current Dalai Lama), it is definitive while when Zemey Tulku writes a work, it is sectarian? That harldy makes sense. How can you dismiss Zemey Tulku's work if it is said to be Trijang Rinpoche's words? Also, the Dalai Lama's were predictied by Shakyamuni Buddha in the White Lotus Sutra and the institution was harldy a theocracy. I also point out that nowhere did Lama Tsong Khapa predict such a protector of his lineage but rather emphasised the three, Mahakala, Kalarupa and Vaishravana to his disciples. With his great wisdom and omniscience, why would he not have mentioned Shugden if he were to become a protector of his lineage? Also, it is undeniable that Pabhongka Rinpoche wrote letters with sectarian content and that he gave up interest in Nyingma practices due to the threatening event which he went through. Jmlee369 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the nature, function, and practice of Dorje Shugden. If you have wikipedia reliable sources that explain his nature and function as a spirit, please post them here and we can discuss. Please keep all there discussion in the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)]

So many of the sources already listed are obviously biased toward's Shugden's status as a enlightened protector. Furthermore, the alternative views on the deity's position is not provided clearly and the controversy section is mainly covered by GKG's views. Jmlee369 (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong use of sources

Dhontog Rinpoche's Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word is in support of HHDL's current position, not in favour of Shugden. Jmlee369 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

I request that a banner is put over this page that the neutrality of the article is disputed. After a couple of months of edit-war, this article even does not show the opponents view to the pactice anymore in the controversy section. The page is loaded with Shugden proponents references and links, and none of the opponents.rudy (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nailing the diamantine phurba of shunyata with joyful benevolence

Phurba

Would a neutral Wikipedian please work in aspects of this recent thesis with appropriate citations to improve this article's quality: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf

Moreover, I move that we have three subheadings as lineitems under the auspice of "Shugden Controversy", they being namely "View of Shugden apologists" being a showcase of cited points promoting, authenticating and legitimizing Shugden sadhana; the "View of Shugden detractors" showcasing the converse view also duly cited; and the third heading being a "Synthesis and dialogue of apologists and detractors" which is exactly what it states a synthesis or dialogue of these extreme/polarized views in the form of a dialectic, also duly cited for probity and transparency. Remembering that difference and diversity, religious tolerance, compassion and an awareness of the emptiness and voidness of ALL dharmas and views is the sagely advice of the tradition(s).

Thanxta svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please: Let's Come to a Compromise

B9 hummingbird, you have some good ideas. If some claim that this article recently erred on the side of supporting the view of Dorje Shugden practitioners, it now has veered dramatically towards the side of opposing that view. It is clear that those who think that Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha will never back down from that stance, and neither will those who think that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit. We can remain locked in this edit war stale mate indefinitely, or we can come to a compromise. Therefore, I am proposing a re-structuring of this article and trimming it down to essential points only, so that it is once again comprehensible to members of the general public.

Building on what B9 hummingbird suggests, here is a suggestion for what might be a fair article representing both sides of the story:

1. Keep the opening few lines.
2. Two Views of Dorje Shugden -- Explaining in brief that two views exist
3. The View of Dorje Shugden Practitioners -- I do not think the term "Apologists" is neutral enough, because people who are practitioners do not see a need to "apologize" for anything. Subheads could include information about the practice.
4. The View of Shugden Detractors -- Using your word here, B9. Subheads could include Dalai Lama's main points. A link should be included in this section to the controversy article.

At any rate, I think it is unacceptable for a supposedly neutral article to open with the bold headline "Sectarian". This is inappropriate because there are a significant number of people who do not believe that Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian, so it should not be presented as a plain truth.

How do other editors feel about extensively revising this article? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider re-adding http://www.dharmaprotector.org to the external links section. Emptymountains (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another link to NKT again; there are really enough of these....rudy (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is a good one and we should also try to resist adding rebuttals to arguement on either side, just simply adding them. However, to exhaust all the arguements will be difficult and difficult to source as well. So much of the whole controversy is also passed orally and there has been little scholarly analysis of the subject, but that doesn't mean we have to resort to obviously biased sources either.

As for the first point, I think we should start with something like what is there, then ...deity in Tibetan Buddhism whose nature is disputed. If we simply say deity, it is more biased towards the POV that he is signifcant and important.Jmlee369 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, Jmlee. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No future for Dorje Shugden

The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. I am yet to see an unbiased stance towards the Nyingma from any Shugden practitioner, in person or in literature. For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue. Otherwise the stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here)

The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.

In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from GKG, NKT, DS, WSS, and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD New Kadampa Tradition Dorje Shugden Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Dorje Shugden Controversy Western Shugden Society and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the Path

Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child

so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful. In teachings, Zong Rinpoche (a teacher of GKG, who visited Ulverston several times, and gave initiations into Vajra-yogini, as well as DS itself) stated to many buddhists in the UK that protesting was a waste of time and energy, and should have no place in the activities of even the lay practitioner. It would be better to recite some Manis. (20040302 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

It would be great to see the edit warring come to an end, but actually this solution won't work. There clearly is a struggle in the real world about some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, and it is notable to a certain extent. What is needed is short, sharp, purely-factual articles and not too many of them. Please feel free to propose article mergers and come to the noticeboards as often as required: neutral point of view noticeboard for unbalanced articles, reliable sources noticeboard to ensure that unreliable sources aren't used, biography of living persons noticeboard if there are potentially damaging statements about living people, and fringe theories noticeboard if views that are neither science or religion are being pushed as truth. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear 20040302,

Regarding your request, "For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue," please consider these remarks from GKG:

Personally, I have never said that Dzogchen or Nyingma are not Buddhadharma because I respect these traditions. In 'Joyful Path of Good Fortune', I said that the teachings of Padmasambhava are pure Buddhadharma. Before Lama Tsongkhapa, Lamas such as Buton Rinpoche, Sakya Pandita, Lotsawa Rinchen Sangpo, debated whether Dzogchen was Buddhadharma or not, but I have never been interested in this debate. If you wish to have a full explanation of what these Lamas said and what other Lamas said to prove the contrary, please ask other Tibetan scholars. I do not wish to become involved in this debate. I respect and appreciate very much the Dzogchen and Nyingma traditions. I rejoice in their practice, and I think that it is very important to respect each other and to keep harmony between traditions.[2]

Although most of my family are Gelugpas who rely on Dorje Shugden, some of them are Nyingmapas. My younger sister married a Nyingmapa Lama from western Tibet from a renowned lineage, he was called Ngora Lama. They had many children, and I visited them frequently, sometimes he and I would do puja together. I would do Dorje Shugden puja and he would do his own practice. We had a very good relationship until his death in Mussourie, India. Now his youngest son and my sister are living in Manjushri Centre in England.

When I lived in Mussourie I had many good friends from the Nyingma tradition, one of whom in particular was called Ngachang Lama. He was an old man, a lay practitioner; one winter he and I did retreat in the same house. In between sessions we talked Dharma, each talking about our experiences. His oldest son would often invite me to his house to do puja. Also, I was often invited to do puja at houses of other Nyingma families. I was so surprised to hear the Dalai Lama and others saying that Dorje Shugden practitioners and Nyingmapa practitioners are like fire and water![3]

It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation of this precious Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually degenerate times. Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.[4]

I know HH Trijang Rinpoche’s way of life very well, and he mainly emphasized the Gelug tradition, but he always had a good relationship with Lamas from the other traditions. I have never heard him say anything in any of his teachings implying that the Nyingma tradition is not pure.[5]

Quotes such as those above are collected together on the http://www.dharmaprotector.org website, which unfortunately Rudy dismissed as "Just another link to NKT again."

Emptymountains (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Emptymountains, thanks for your speedy response. As it happens, I'm not convinced. Of course, you yourself disallow external discussion groups as being valid sources. Dharmaprotector.org is YOUR OWN website, and you are not allowed to quote yourself on WP. Meanwhile, there were teachings given by Trijang Rinpoche, GKG's own root lama, which were compiled by Zemey Rinpoche which includes many anecdotes where practitioners became victims of Shugden's wrath for having engaged in practices of other schools, in particular Nyingmapa and Dzogchen. See eg. [6]. Meanwhile, Pabonkapa, who is Trijang Rinpoche's own root lama, states

Because the All Seeing Great Fifth practiced and developed all tenets of the old and new [schools], this great protector through the power of previous prayers produced a variety of extremely frightful appearances to the supreme Powerful King (the Fifth Dalai Lama) in order to protect and defend spotlessly Dzong-ka'ba's great tradition.

This is clearly a strong assertion that traditions other than Tsongkhapa are not in favour with Shugden. (20040302 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Dear 20040302,

Regarding "you yourself disallow external discussion groups as being valid sources," when/where did I do that?

Regarding, "Dharmaprotector.org is YOUR OWN website, and you are not allowed to quote yourself on WP." I honestly don't believe that I did. I referenced the quotes above directly from Google Groups (although it appears that the ref tag links aren't working on this entire talk page). I mentioned my website to you only because in the previous section of this talk page I asked that its inclusion be considered. Please note that I did not add a link to my own website on the article page, but left it up to other editors to decide.

Regarding, "if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue," I met your criterion by quoting GKG's reference to Joyful Path of Good Fortune page 10, but then you changed what would be acceptable to you. Here are some more:

Nyingma [Joyful path of good fortune] 21

Nyingma [Universal Compassion] 3

Nyingma tradition [Clear Light of Bliss] 191-2

Padmasambhava [Clear Light of Bliss] 192

Padmasambhava [Great Treasury of Merit] 55

Padmasambhava [Meaningful to behold] 110

Regarding, "This is clearly a strong assertion that traditions other than Tsongkhapa are not in favour with Shugden," everything I've heard and read from GKG shows that he never encourages sectarianism, which is why we can never find any quotes from him disrespecting other traditions. However, he does advise against eclecticism and syncretism, but even then he never forbids his own students from doing so. He only recommends that after studying and exploring different religions, "finally it’s very necessary to choose one. Otherwise there’ll be fighting inside, conflict."[7] Again, it doesn't matter which one; if it did matter which one, then that would be sectarianism.

Here's a really bad analogy: I don't like banana ice cream, but I have nothing against bananas or ice cream individually. In fact, they are really good on their own; it's the mixture of the two that doesn't work for me. I wouldn't even offer it as a dish to guests in my home, but they are free to eat it at their place. And if you like banana ice cream, that's fine too. As Geshe-la says, "We are eating our own food and they [Nyingmas] are eating their own food. There is nothing wrong."

Thank you for your time,

Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear March 2nd,

You said:

It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. I am yet to see an unbiased stance towards the Nyingma from any Shugden practitioner, in person or in literature. For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue. Otherwise the stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

Firstly, where is it published that it is a key commitment of the Shugden practice to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma? I believe this claim is unsupportable. Nyingma and Kadampa are different traditions. You don't have a key commitment to abandon the texts and traditions of the Gelugpa because you don't practise them. We don't practise the Nyingma traditions. There's no commitment to abandon something you have no connection with!

Geshe Kelsang has said publicly that Nyingmas have a complete path to enlightenment, as do all other Tibetan traditions. Here is the quote from his interview with Donald Lopez Jr in 1998:

LOPEZ: Given your devotion to Dorje Shugden and your founding of the New Kadampa Tradition, do you feel that Je Tsongkhapa’s view, meditation, and practice is the most complete in all Tibetan Buddhism? Is it only through Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings that one can attain enlightenment? Or is it also possible though Nyingma or Kagyu?

GKG: Of course! Of course we believe that every Nyingma and Kagyupa have their complete path. Not only Gelugpa. I believe that Nyingmapas have a complete path. Of course, Kagyupas are very special. We very much appreciate the example of Marpa and Milarepa [in the Kagyu lineage]. Milarepa showed the best example of guru devotion. Of course the Kagyupas as well as the Nyingmapas and the Sakyupas, have a complete path to enlightenment. Many Nyingmapas and Kagyupas practice very sincerely and are not just studying intellectually. I think that some Gelugpa practitioners need to follow their practical example.

What difference does it make what Shugden practitioners think of Nyingmas? Nyingmapas probably believe that Pabongkha was a sectarian demon whereas we see him as Buddha Heruka but we're not about to delete any Nyingma related articles because of it! If it were true that Gelugpas had a problem with Nyinmapas, why aren't they on the 'Nyingma' Wiki page saying "this isn't Buddhism?". However, sadly, on NKT and Dorje Shugden related pages we find editors who are trying to discredit and slander mainstream Buddhist traditions and practices.

Personally I advocate non-sectarianism, practising our own tradition without criticizing others. I don't see why this isn't possible, it's the real meaning of non-sectarian. Okay, you believe that Dorje Shugden is a spirit and I believe he's a Buddha so we each practise our own tradition without problems. The only problem at the moment is that those who follow the Dalai Lama's view won't allow Shugden practitioners to practice in peace without discrimination. If he did, there would be no problems. Dorje Shugden has no connection with your tradition, so why is it such an issue for you?

I don't see any grounds for the deletion of these articles. Thank you for your time --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To 20040302:

1. You disliked my request for us to respect each other's religious traditions and said that we Shugden practitioners don't respect Nyingma practitioners. I think that Emptymountains response adequately represents the view of Geshe Kelsang and his students. To respond on a more personal level, I don't even KNOW any Nyingmapas, let alone do I know much about their practice. I have no reason to disrespect them and I never have and never will. But maybe there are Shugden practitioners who are biased, and maybe there are Nyingma practitioners who are also biased -- I don't know. At any rate, I don't see anything on any of the pages that you mention where any pro-Shugden writer has said something disrespectful about Nyingma practice, so I do not think your point that we cannot reach a compromise is valid.

2. Yes, I agree with you that I am one of the "vocal minorities" who has focused all my editing time on just these few articles. Please consider looking at it this way: if I was a scientist who specialized in ducks, I would limit myself to writing about ducks, because that is my area of expertise. And if I specialized in a specific species of duck, pages about that species would be my main focus. Well, I am not a scientist, but a spiritual practitioner, and Dorje Shugden is my "species" of spiritual practice. I am not expert enough in other topics, nor do they have as much import for me, because other topics that I may be expert in are not in the middle of an edit war in which pages need be made neutral. Therefore I think it very reasonable that I and others spend most of our time working on behalf of these articles.

3. You suggest that we delete these pages and have a five year moratorium before they are resurrected. I am going to buck the trend of other pro-Shugden writers here and say that I have no problem with your suggestion and would be happy to see all of the above-mentioned pages deleted for five years. I agree with you that I would rather see no article at all than having to spend one more minute of my time trying to advocate for neutrality. I have other things I would rather be doing.

4. On the other hand, I like Itsmejudith's comment that what is really needed is something short, sweet, and to the point, that is factually based and dispassionate. I appreciate this view, too, and perhaps if a compromise could be agreed to by the major contributors to these articles, they could also agree to monitor the articles to maintain such a compromise.

5. Moving forward: It seems that most are in favor of keeping these articles rather than deleting them. I do not have strong feelings on this matter either way; I would be happy with them deleted, or I would be happy with a compromise position being BOTH reached and MAINTAINED. If a deeply revised article is to be created, who will begin this process, and who will agree to maintain its neutrality? If a compromise position is to be maintained, it will require all the major players to buy into it and agree to back it when the bias -- whether pro-Shugden or anti-Shugden -- tries to slip back in.

I for one am happy to volunteer myself for the task, as I am committed to seeing an end to this rift in the Buddhist community, and a respectful equilibrium between practitioners renewed. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthsayer wrote: "only problem at the moment is that those who follow the Dalai Lama's view won't allow Shugden practitioners to practice in peace without discrimination." OK, I'm in favor of teh Dalai Lama's viewpoint in this matter, but I have never seen him or anyone else in the west preventing you from practicing. I have never seen opponents fro the practice standing on the streets with banners protesting against Kelsang Gyatso. However, I have seen the opposite, as recently as during the last teachings of the Dalai lama in the UK. All this kind of talk does not just represents a lack of neutrality, it keeps sending out the message as if all Buddhists are beating up poor NKT practitioners. Perhaps in India some Tibetans have had a scuffle on this dispute, and some people have made unjustified accusations - that's what tends to happen in any quarrel - but it is not helpful to try and keep distorting day-to-day reality. I'd be in favor of a brief article with an explanation of the two different perceptions of Shugden, the consequences of these different perceptions, and then a rougly equal amount of text dedicated to both views, and a rougly equal amount of references/links to both views. Does that make sense? Unfortunately, I have too little time and too little experience in this subject to write much on this or look up sources. rudy (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem right now seems to be that Tendrel is making scores of changes and some of them seem okay and can just about pass, but some of them definitely require more discussion and consensus but that is not happening. It would be a full time job to follow Tendrel and query his changes so out of courtesy perhaps he can ask about the bigger changes at least on the talk pages, and wait for a reply in the affirmative before he makes his change. I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself but Tendrel has only just arrived on the scene and perhaps has not fully figured out how it best works (I have not either, but i'm sure it is not good to make so many undiscussed changes over such a short period of time.) I don't want to be unfair, but over the past few days it feels as if Tendrel is trying to change the article completely to suit him, perhaps hoping that the other editors on this article will either not notice or let some of his changes through because there are just so many of them! He is not adding anything to support the view of Dorje Shugden practitioners, only in opposition, which adds to the sense that he is not acting fairly. (Truthbody (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Deletion Request result

It was decided to keep the articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_14#Dorje_Shugden --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What??? What makes you think you can close an AfD? I'm reverting. AfD will stay open until closed by an admin. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand the due process involved. When I checked the page it said 'keep' but this was just one user's view. I thought it was a decision by admin. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I hope you will be able to work with Iheartmanjushri and get the article into better shape. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is an AfD? Will someone explain this better to me -- what is going on? --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

An AfD is a request that an article should be deleted. You found your way to the relevant page and posted your opinion. When an admin sees that there has been enough chance for editors to express their points of view, he or she will close the discussion and tell us the result. At the moment it seems that the result will be Keep. I hope that all editors who wish for a neutral and informative article will stay around and help improve it. I will be available to comment but I know virtually nothing about the subject area. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I got that part figured out. Itsmejudith, I think I could create something more or less acceptable to both sides. I don't have much experience in how this process works; how can I go about this? --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are various ways, so let's sort out what the best approach is. One is for you to set up a "sandbox" on your user page and to work out a version there until you are ready to show it to other people. Another is for you to make suggestions here on this talk page so that everyone agrees on the principle of edits before you make them. Something I am personally very keen on is to start with the sources. We would agree which documents (books, articles, web pages) are reliable sources and relevant to the article. Then we would summarise sections of those documents, and ... we have an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Iheartmanjushri - I wonder about your statement above "I think I could create something more or less acceptable to both sides". You started contributing to Wikipedia on 26 May 2008 and all your edits seem to be connected to Dorje Shugden, the NKT, Geshe Kelsang etc. Are you sure yu are approaching this from a neutral point of view or do you have a personal interest / involvement in this subject? If you do I think it would be helpful if you are up-front about this since the articles are controversial.

Since I'm suggesting this I should be clear about myself - I have been studying Tibetan Buddhism since 1970 and from then to now I have lived for many years amongst the Tibetan community in India and Nepal. In the 1970's and 1980's I studied with respected teachers of all Tibetan Buddhist traditions. However I am not now affiliated with any particular Buddhist group or teacher. When the initial Shugden-NKT-Dalai Lama controversy occurred years ago I took part in some long discussions on the issue on Usenet. I'm sure if you are interested you can find those threads archived. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I do believe that it will be great for us all to be upfront about these articles and try and work together. My belief is also that there is always a first time to start editing on Wikipedia and it could be that heartmanjushri has every intention of contributing to many articles, not just these ones. I don't know as I don't know who heartmanjushri is, but I for one only discovered the joys of wikipedia editing recently myself, yet have every intention of contributing to many articles over a long period of time as I find this both enjoyable and, hopefully, helpful in contributing to a neutral body of knowledge. I have an interest in many subjects and am just waiting for enough time to jump in. I have started with Dorje Shugden as I am a Dorje Shugden practitioner and it is a rather topical time for contributing to these articles -- but my hope is that when the fuss dies down I will also contribute to other things, especially articles relating to Africa and Sri Lanka (where I am starting a charitable foundation). Chris, I know your arguments against Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition from the mid-nineties and am not sure whether you are any less biased in your point of view than anyone else -- I seem to remember you always argued very adamantly against Dorje Shugden and the NKT and never conceded a single point! So, we will have to all work hard at finding compromise. Well, hopefully it will be an enjoyable process. (Truthbody (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi Truthbody I think you will find my arguments back then - and any I happen to make now - were on historical and textual grounds. I'm not "against" anything but I am for the facts. I know Tibetan well so have looked at original sources and spoken at length to respected lamas on all sides of the issue. If you look into it carefully I think you will find as I have the idea of considering DS as an "enlightened being" is relatively recent - I can find no real substantial evidence of this being a usual view before the time of Phabongkha and his teacher. OTOH there is plenty of evidence that DS was considered to be an oath bound mundane protector by Gelugpas and others. Perhaps these later lamas had a realization of DS as an "enlightened" protector or an emanation of Manjusri - which may be perfectly valid. But IMO all the stuff about DS being considered an enlightened protector before the time of Phabongkha is based on extremely thin evidence collected together over the last 100 years. However since you are a DS practitioner I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not against DS - it is just that as a Buddist I take v. seriously the part of the refuge about not going for refuge to worldly spirits. Of course all sects of Tibetan Buddhism propitiate worldly protectors and often praise them in terms similar to those used for DS - but "going for refuge" to a worldly protector is something else.

I'm sure you will agree the whole argument surrounding this entity is based on whether or not one considers DS to be a) an emanation of Buddha - i.e. a enlightened protector - or b) a mundane "oath bound" protector c) a harmful spirit [or d.) a figment of Tibetan imagination]. (My own view tends towards b) & d)). Since you are a believer in DS - as you say a DS practitioner do you think "jumping in" at what you admit is "a rather topical time" is being objective?

With all good wishes.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to but in again, but it seems to me that our focus should be on making the ARTICLE NPOV, not ourselves. We each have our own opinions, so instead of pretending we are these 'neutral ones' by nature, lets just accept as a mutual goal making the article neutral and we work towards that end. Let the substance of our comments, and the substance of our arguments stand on their own merits irrespective of who might have what agenda. We are mature, reasonable adults, so lets just get on with writing the article instead of turning in circles about these things. --Dspak08 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question Chris, yes I am sure I can be a part of crafting an article that will be acceptable to both sides. I am happy to work with others, and I would like to see a finished product that gives roughly equal space to both points of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box. Just because I am a student of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's doesn't mean that I will abuse Wikipedia or that I have no sense of being reasonable. I definitely appreciate and understand your concern, and if any draft I or others start to create seems too biased, I encourage you to speak out. My intention is to create something that is a fair representation of both sides of the controversy, not to forward my own views. I save my blog for that, not Wikipedia! My greatest wish is that we can all start to heal this divide that has come between us; we are all still Buddhists regardless of our particular lineage, and ought to act that way.

I hope that alleviates any concerns that you or others might have. Again, I appreciate your very reasonable question to me. Like Truthbody, I have felt compelled to spend most of my time on this particular group of articles, but hopefully some of the back-and-forth will eventually die down, and I'll have the bandwidth to start contributing to other topics, too.

All that being said, I'm going on vacation tomorrow! Yay! So please accept my apologies in advance for my silence over the next couple of weeks, and I will be eager to see what has been accomplished when I return. Maybe I can get something started today, so that a dialog can begin -- I haven't caught up on all the posts, but it seems like a good deal of research has already started. That's encouraging!! --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel, i appreciate your previous comments on this talk page and i thought we were working toward a compromise but over the past few days you have added and deleted a fair bit of text without discussion, stating that the article is one-sided, which I disagree with. It is still polarized but both sides are at least represented in equal measure (if you were to ask me, I would say the bias is more on the side of the opponents of Dorje Shugden, so clearly we both have different points of view). I don't think it is suitable to add a long paragraph here about the Dalai Lama's comments about the fifth Dalai Lama in this section on this article -- it causes the whole article to go off-balance when we were all working to shorten and simplify it. Please take that comment to Dorje Shugden controversy and let us leave this article as simple and neutral as possible. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Sources

In principle, sources we all agree on is fine, but already I do not agree with most of the sources below as they are terribly one-sided and contain a great deal of misinformation about Dorje Shugden -- much of the material is unacceptable to actual Dorje Shugden practitioners as it verges on slanderous, superstitious, and insulting. For example, mentioning Namkhai Norbu as someone who is a reliable source on this protector makes no sense as he is entirely superstitious about this issue and makes his students avoid Dorje Shugden practitioners as if they were contaminated. In fact, he says they are contaminated. Upon even seeing a Dorje Shugden practitioner, they chant prayers and make strange mudras -- I know this, as I have been at the receiving end. So, his point of view can be heard, but at the same time it is considered entirely unreliable by many people and what authority does he actually have to say Dorje Shugden is a spirit other than his own superstitious belief? David Kay's thesis has also been much overused -- at one point the entire article was practically written by David Kay, and really a doctoral thesis by a junior researcher who uses emotive language and pretends to know Geshe Kelsang's motivation, for example, is not good enough, except if used in moderation, which it is already on all the articles to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang and the New Kadampa Tradition (actually, I think he is still overused). If we are to use Tibetan government propaganda such as www.tibet.com, we also need to use at least as many sources written by the Western Shugden Society, such as www.WesternShugdenSociety.org. In general, if we go for sources, we must have have sources coming from actual Shugden practitioners themselves, such as Trijang Dorjechang and Geshe Kelsang, because they, presumably, know this practice better than anyone as they have relied upon it their entire life and possess high religious credentials and reputation. We also need to represent the views of present-day Western and Tibetan practitioners of this Deity who are naturally interested in this article and also need to be heard as they are subject to a great deal of abuse and victimization just for their religious beliefs, even though they feel passionately that the practice is a legitimate holy practice. They rely upon this wisdom Buddha to protect the Dharma in their minds, and it seems to work for them. They 100% disagree with the academic analysts who say that Dorje Shugden is a spirit. Despite all our best intentions, I do believe it might be hard to find the same list of acceptable sources, especially if we are starting with the list below. We might have to agree to disagree on what constitutes acceptable sources and have some from each side (which I think we do already at the moment.) Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Hey Truthbody can you please put your comments below what you are referring to not above. This keeps everything in sequence. Also please indent like this. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Truthbody's points on the sources I've listed below. First, please go ahead and list authoritative sources you think would be useful just as I have.

Second - of course as a "Dorje Shugden practitioner" you object to Prof Namkhai Norbu as a source since he does discourage the practice. Prof Nakhai Norbu worked for years as an academic in Italy and is widely respected. When he was young he studied in a Sakyapa monastery where he says DS was propitiated - so he may have had some first hand experience. As for NN being "superstitious" - I think the majority of rational people in the west would probably consider anyone who believes in the reality of "Dharma Protectors" riding Snow lions as being superstitious if not totally deluded - so one is hardly in a position to call someone else "superstitious".

Again you object to David Kay and try to dismiss his work. His dissertation was accepted by his University and he got his Doctorate. To those not wrapped up in the issue that counts for something and he would be considered an authoritative source.

We don't need to use "at least as many sources written by the Western Shugden Society" since the WSS represents the views of a small minority.

You dismiss all the views on the Tibetan Government in Exile site as "propaganda" - some of it may be but so of course is much of what is put out by the WSS the NKT etc.

Being an "actual Shugden practitioner" does not qualify one as being neutral on the issue. If the majority of academics who have looked into the matter say that Dorje Shugden was usually considered to be a spirit then the article should reflect this.

It seems rather paranoid to regard anyone who does not agree with the POV of DS practitioners as "against" DS or DS practitioners.

Actually I think this article would be best if it was re-written by someone who has no interest in the matter whatsoever who sat down and read through the available literature and summarized the issues. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith wrote: "Something I am personally very keen on is to start with the sources. We would agree which documents (books, articles, web pages) are reliable sources and relevant to the article. Then we would summarise sections of those documents, and ... we have an article."

O.K. Let's start.

Possible, well referenced, sources which could be used to re-write this article include:

• Beyer, Stephen. The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet, Berkeley, 1978. — This book, written before the present controversy, contains some references to Shugden and Phabongkha as well as material related to Tibetan protective deities in general.

• Chime Radha, Rinpoche. "A short history of the protector - Shugden" pp. 3 - 37 in Loewe, Michael and Blacker Carmen (eds.) Oracles and Divination Boulder: Shambhala, 1981.

• Dreyfuss, Georges. The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol., 21, no. 2 [1998]:227-270. — The author Georges B. Dreyfus is Professor of Religion at Williams College and was one of the first Westerners to qualify as a Gelugpa Geshe at Sera Monastery - so should be eminently qualified, from both an Eastern and Western perspective, to write on this matter. (A revised version of this article is available at http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-origins.html

• Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama. The Gold Manuscript in the Fournier Collection, Serindia London 1988. — Contains an account of the origins of the rivalry between the "Lower Chamber" (zim khang 'og ma) under the 5th Dalai Lama 5th Dalai Lama and the "Upper Chamber" (zim khang gong ma) under Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen.

• Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6. Pubication of PhD Thesis.

• Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Rene Oracles and Demons of Tibet. The Hague: Mouton, 1956. — This book , although a little dated, is a massive work devoted entirely to the subject of Tibetan protective dieties and spirits. It contains almost a whole chapter on Shugden.

• Von Bruck, Michael. Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy— originally published in Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent Edited by Vasudha Dalmia, Angelika Malinar, and Martin Christof. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0195666205, and it was re-published, with some changes in Michael von Brück: Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus. Kösel Verlag, München 1999, ISBN 3466204453. Article is available on line at: http://info-buddhismus.de/dorje_shugden_controversy.html

• A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden' edited and compiled by The Dolgyal Research Committee, Department of Religion and Culture Central Tibetan Administration Dharamsala in October 1998. This article references many important Tibetan language sources.

Some un-referenced articles and publications from authoritative sources:

• Batchelor, Stephan. Letting Daylight into Magic: The Life and Times of Dorje Shugden in Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Vol. 7, no. 3. New York: Spring 1998. Text of article available online at http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/daylight.html. Stephan Batchelor was for years a Buddhist monk and studied in both the Tibetan (Gelugpa) and Korean traditions. He was formerly the translator for Geshe Rabten in Switzerland. Batchelor, probably now best known for his modern "rational and secular" approach to Buddhism, is the author of nmerous books on Buddhism and tibt including: Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening; The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture; and Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime.

• Gaden Tripa - Statement Of His Eminence The Gaden Tri Rinpoche (Head Of Gelukpa Sect) Regarding The Worship Of Gods And Protectors - by the "Throne Holder of Gaden" - i.e. the holder of Je Tsongkhapa's seat and respected head of the Gelukpa sect.

• Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. "Heart Jewel: The Essential Practices of Kadampa Buddhism". Essentially a devotional book on a Guru Yoga of Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden. Tharpa Publications; 2 edition (June 1, 1997). The author Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the founder of the NKT one of the largest Buddist organisations in the west and author of over 20 books on Buddhism. He is the most well known proponent of Shugden practice and critic of the Dali Lama on this issue.

• Norbu, Namkhai. Letting Daylight into Magic: The Life and Times of Dorje Shugden. Merigar, Dzogchen Community Italy, 2005. Prof. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche formerly of the Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) was trained in the Sakya and Nyingma traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and wrote numerous books and articles on Tibetan Religion and History in Tibetan, Italian and English - and was particularly respected for his knowledge of Tibetan History.

• Sparham, Gareth. Why the Dalai Lama Rejects Shugden. in Tibetan Review, Delhi, June 1996. The text of this article is available online at http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-history.html. Gareth Sparham was an ordained monk in the Gelugpa tradition for more than 20 years holds a Ph D. in Asian Studies from the University of British Columbia and now teaches Tibetan and Sanskrit in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Michigan. He has published many important books including his mammoth four volume translation of the "Abhisamayalamkara with Vrtti and Aloka"; andOcean of Eloquence: Tsong Kha Pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind (SUNY Press); Tsong Kha Pa's Golden Garland of Eloquence (Legs bshad gser phreng) also in four large volumes (Jain Pubishing); 'Tantric Ethics: An Explanation of the Precepts for Buddhist Vajrayana Practice by Tsongkhapa (with Jeffrey Hopkins); and The Fulfillment of All Hopes: Guru Devotion in Tibetan Buddhism by Tsongkhapa. Gareth Sparham has also written a number of articles in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism and is one of the foremost western experts on Tsongkhapa and his teachings.

• Zopa, Lama Thubten Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Shugden; Dorje Shugden Practice (Advice given 16 May 1997) - Statements by Lama Zopa head of the FPMT - the organisation which originally invited Geshe Kelsang to the West.

The FPMT Site on DS is at [8]

A number of newspaper and magazine articles referring to Shugden and the controversy surrounding this protector are collected together as: Documents on the Dorje Shugden - New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) Controversy at [9] and [10].

Others who are interested, please feel free to suggest other sources you think would be useful below.

Chris Fynn (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the utility of this exercise. It seems to me that we discuss what edits and changes we want to make to the article itself. Part of that discussion will revolve around references in the comments. The concern is if we put up a long list of articles, we may wind up debating the whole articles instead of what actual comments we want to make in the article we are trying to right here in Wikipedia. So perhaps we deal with the sources we use as the comments are made and save some time by not worrying about this list. We each rely upon what we think is best, and then discuss it as we go.--Dspak08 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The intended utility was to provide a list of articles that someone with no prior interest in the subject could go through and come up with a good WP article on the matter. Of course others are welcome to add to my list. If the article itself is written by people who are in some way wrapped up in the issue or perceived to be wrapped up or involved in the issue - on either "side" - others will object that it is not neutral. IMO other than to suggest sources anyone who might be so perceived - including myself - should probably back off editing this and closely related articles and it should be re-written some experienced WP editors who have absolutely no prior connection with the issue. If this can't happen this article and other related articles should probably be deleted as right now, from any point of view, they stink. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: anybody who is removed from the issue will not be able to fully grasp the issues being discussed and the subtlty of some of the points. There are two goals: neutral and high quality. High quality is achieved by having those most knowledgeable about the spiritual implications involved in the controversy participating in the writing process. Neutral will be achieved by having people of various opinions and perspectives being forced to reach a consensus on the article. We are all bright and knowledgeable people who are committed to making a good article, so I see no need to hand this article over to others. If others want to join in the writing, fine. We can incorporate their suggestions as well. There are plenty of controversial articles on Wikipedia, on much more substantive and high stakes issues than this one. If we all have intellectual integrity and a willingness to work with one another (which we all have), there is no reason why we will not be able to produce a good article. None of us may be happy with the final article, but perhaps we can all be equally unhappy with it.

Chris, can you also please fill in the 'edit summaries' when you make a change. This makes it easier to follow. Thanks.

--Dspak08 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggested this, so naturally I think it is a helpful approach. As someone who responds frequently to sourcing queries on the reliable sources noticeboard I might be able to bring some expertise. General expertise in the WP approach sourcing, of course, not expertise in this subject at all. But remember, however subtly you express a nuance about this spiritual tradition, someone else coming to this article cold can just delete the sentence if it does not have a reliable source attached to it.

With reference to the sources that Chris has identified, I think they fall into two categories, which is typical for sources in religion-related articles. Documents coming directly from a religious tradition are not recognized as reliable sources generally, but are good for describing the beliefs of that tradition. For example, in the article on Purgatory, a tenet in Roman Catholicism, we cite dogmatic statements of the Church for what its current beliefs are, but for the way that these beliefs emerged historically and how they fitted into the ideas of the Middle Ages, Early Modern Period etc, we use the work of academic historians.

• Beyer 1978. If this is University of California at Berkley, excellent source.

• Chime Radha 1981. Doesn't look great at first sight, not sure what this publisher is.

• Dreyfuss 1998. Looks excellent, considering both the author and publisher.

• Karmay 1988. Not sure about this one. Doesn't look reliable.

• Kay 2004. Fine. If he is writing from one POV, i.e. pro NKT, then the other POV also needs to figure in the article.

• Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956. Fine. Pre-controversy material should be good for this article, I would have though.

• Von Bruck 2001. Should be OK.

• A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden Presumably this represents the Dalai Lama POV. I think it is OK to use official material from the DL but it could be worth getting further opinions on. As a parallel, in articles on Catholic tenets of faith we might accept a source that most authoritatively represented the Protestant POV.

• "Some un-referenced articles" - don't worry whether an article is itself referenced. Something can appear to be very well referenced and still not be reliable.

• Batchelor 1998. Not sure, further opinions would be useful.

• Gaden Tripa. Not sure.

• Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. Fine, on the basis that this describes the pro Dorje Shugden viewpoint.

• Norbu, Namkhai. Not sure.

• Sparham 1966. Fine given the author's participation in the Macmillan Encylopedia.

• Zopa. Not sure.

• The FPMT Site on DS. Probably most useful as an EL.

• Newspaper and magazine articles. Case-by-case basis depending on the reliability of the newspaper or magazine.

Anyway, if you can continue to discuss amicably, feel free to come back to the WP:RSN whenever necessary for further opinions. There have been some excellent people around on Wikiproject Religion, who will also be happy to advise depending on how active they are.

So nice to see some expertise and assumption of good faith applied to this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Judith, thanks for your clarification. For me, when I look back over the years, the main reason why writing all of these articles has been so difficult is because of intransigence on the part of certain editors. So I think the policy governing this process is we all agree on the principle that our goal is to write an article that acurately describes the controversy and both points of view in the debate. It is a descriptive exercise, not a battleground. If we all agree on this, everything should work out OK. It seems to me we have a good team right now, with everybody working towards the same goal, and we are all working in good faith.

I think we need to collectively agree that instead of being keen on excluding certain sources or ideas we become keen on excluding extremist editors (like 'thegone' for example). When extremist editors come along, the whole process collapses into a big ugly mess. Can we all agree on this principle? I think we need to prepare the ground now because it is inevitable that this issue arouses strong passions in some people, so more editors of this type will definitely come along(from both sides).

As far as this 'sources' exercise is concerned, I have no problem with identifying sources as long as this doesn't become a pretext for excluding anything that does not come from these sources. This is an area where there has been little research, and it is often only those who have been spiritually following the matter for many years who can acurately represent the different sides of the debate. For myself, I have been following this issue closely for about 15 years. I have a PhD in International Relations, I wrote a (non-published) paper on this issue in 1996 (I am happy to email this to anybody who is interested), and have been a Kadampa Buddhist practitioner for 15 years, so I have an understanding of both the political and spiritual implications of this controversy. --Dspak08 (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also fantastic to have people with expertise around. It does have to continue to be a collaborative effort, of course. We can't exclude anyone just because we can identify them as "extremist". We must assume good faith. But if there is tendentious or disruptive editing then we should take action immediately. Things should go OK if everyone presents justification on this talk page for major edits, uses sources that are in line with WP:V and WP:RS and presents a case for marginal sources, and comes to a wikiproject or noticeboard for help if things get sticky. fringe theories noticeboard to notify if someone is pushing a non-scientific belief as if it were proven truth (that's where I arrived from). WP:RSN for guidance on marginal sources. WP:RELIGION for people interested in fair portrayal of every faith both major and minor. administrators' noticeboard for egregious behaviour such as massive deletion of sourced material or rudeness. I'm watching the page now but will be off on wikibreak soon. You and Chris both seem very reasonable people, Truthbody's last post was also reasonably expressed although I could take issue at some points. The article may be coming together at last. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Judith, I am quite happy to have you around. At this point you seem to have some awareness of the issues, a desire for balance, etc. This way we have somebody to 'go to' if and when things get sticky. In any case, thank you for your help.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Judith, Dspak, Chris: I don't necessarily disagree with the exercise of finding sources first; my fear is that we can spend a good deal of time debating sources and not come to clear conclusions. So as we discuss this, can we keep the end goals mentioned above in mind (Quality and Neutrality), and not get too bogged down in sources? That being said, I have a few questions or comments:

1. David Kay: I don't have all that much problem with Mr. Kay. By and large I think he's "O-Kay". I think the problem is that he's been misused in the past by people wishing to forward their agenda, but under the guise of "academic neutrality", and so supporters of the point of view of Dorje Shugden are rightfully suspicious of him. From my own readings of Kay, I don't find him horribly biased so much as abused. I think he could be used to represent both points of view. I believe Emptymountains has pointed this out previously.

2. Lindsay McCune: This person wrote a pretty interesting Master's Thesis on the subject. Like Kay, s/he presents both sides and can be used to support the views of both camps. Also, s/he has some criticisms of other academic work that ought to be considered.

3. Glenn Mullins: Someone previously pointed out that in his book about the fourteen Dalai Lamas, Mullins states that the practice used to be a popular one which most of the Gelug school practiced. This is important information coming from an important scholar. It counters the claim that the Dalai Lama banned an obscure or minor, "cult-like" practice. It had actually become quite mainstream and widespread by the time the contemporary controversy began.

4. Primary sources? In the list submitted so far, Geshe Kelsang is the only real "primary source" of a Buddhist master writing directly about this issue. What about authentic autobiographical material from the Fifth Dalai Lama, or some of the works of Trijang Rinpoche? It seems that the goal of Quality should be met by using both primary and secondary sources. There is one major difficulty with this, however: I don't speak or read Tibetan, and I would imagine much of the primary source material is in Tibetan. Anyone know of translations, or have the access and the ability to read in the original?

5. Speaking of the Fifth Dalai Lama... This fellow confuses me. Some say that first he practiced Dorje Shugden, and later he did not. Others say first he did not, and later he did. This is an important question to find some facts on, because it is his supposed rejection of Dorje Shugden that the 14th Dalai Lama bases much of his own objection on. For example, http://youtube.com/watch?v=gZfGaPrOOP0.

6. How to handle the issue of persecution? One big concern I have is the religious persecution that Tibetan Shugden practitioners in India and elsewhere say they are experiencing. On the one hand, I think there is good evidence to support the claim of discrimination and persecution, and on the other hand, I am not sure that it fits well in this article. I have considered creating yet another article to deal specifically with persecution, as this article focuses more on the debate around the nature of Dorje Shugden. But what a headache to see yet ANOTHER article arise around this topic. Another problem relates to my point #2 -- that most of the evidence for persecution which is publicly available can be found mainly at websites that support the practice of Dorje Shugden, and much of the evidence is in Tibetan. Do we exclude the translated evidence found at WesternShugdenSociety.org and ShugdenSociety.info just because of the nature of the source? There is also the 1998 Swiss TV documentary about this, which is also widely known and more neutral, but it is ten years old and does not include more recent instances of abuse. And what about the question of including it at all? Ethically, if there is valid evidence that people are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs, then this is a "noteworthy" topic that needs to see daylight and not be obscured by the rest of the debate. But WHERE should this be included, and HOW?

That's all for now... see you in a few weeks. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

Per K. Sorensen: Rulers on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet A Study of Tshal Gung-thang. This has some historical places described.

Dan Martin: Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-language Historical Works has a list of Tibetan historical texts by century; under the 1700's it lists: "Btsun-pa Ma-ti, Rgyal-'bai Bstan-bsrung Chen-po Rdo-rje-shugs-ldan-rtsal-gyi Byung tshul Mdo tsam Brjod pa Pad-dkar chun-po... The text by Btsun-pa Ma-ti is contained on folios 19v through 27v, and is concerned with the origins of the protective deity Rdo-rje-shugs-ldan, with special reference to the Gzims-khang Gong-ma incarnation lineage. This entry supplied by E. Gene Smith (letter March 9, 1996)."

Oracles and Demons contains an extensive translation and description of a text from the 18th century written by Jnanabhadra, otherwise called Nyungne Lama Yeshe Zangpo who founded the Zhide Nyungne Lhakhang in Lhasa.

Mumford, Stan. "Himalayan dialogue : Tibetan lamas and Gurung shamans in Nepal". Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. This is book is objective and clearly documents Shugden practice among Nyingma, Gelug in Nepal.

Trijang Rinpoche: Dam can rgya mtsho dgyes pa’i rol mo (Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors) published in 1967 in Gangthog, Sikkim (TBRC Work RID: W14594).

Primary sources can be used as long as they are not intrepreted: "'Jam mgon Bstan srung rgyal chen Rdo rje śugs ldan rtsal gyi be bum : the collected rituals for performing all tasks through the propitiation of the great protective deity of Tsong-kha-pa, Mañjuśrī reembodied, Rdo-rje-śugs-ldan." New Delhi : Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1984.

TBRC: there are dozens of works already reproduced in here that blow holes through Dreyfuss's views, I propose just documenting what they are without interpretation. Tkalsang (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Trinley Kalsang, Can you also share the references you have showing that Dorje Shugden was regarded as an enlightened being long before the time of Phabongkhapa? Emptymountains (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In one text described above in Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-language Historical Works, it describes Dorje Shugden's past lives, especially Panchen Shakya Shri who became renown as the Seventh Tathagatha (to come) of this fortunate aeon. Trophu Lotsawa wrote "as shown by the foe destroyer of Sri Lanka, the Rishi of Jakang Mountain [in Yunnan, China], Orgyan protector, to the Seventh Buddha of this aeon to attain enlightenment and return to Ganden afterwards I prostrate." This could be considered a primary source at most, which is why I would not like to be pushy with interpreting this, so that's a small sample for reference only for now.Tkalsang (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History vs. Tradition

While there are multiple problems with this page, the origins section is about the worst. There is no evidence at all in the Fifth Dalai Lama's collected works that the prayer attributed to him is in fact his work. Moreover, it is an egregious omission that the Sakya origin of this protector is omitted.

Tendrel (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)t

Dear Tendrel,

You are encouraged to add information and sources about the development of Dorje Shugden in the Sakya school. If you have references from collected works, etc. that would be most encouraged.

Otherwise, not all writings of a master are included in their collected works. Unfortunately we need to go with later sources, publications as well, of which there are many available. One of the oldest verifiable stories of the Fifth Dalai Lama requesting Dorje Shugden to become a protector is at least several centuries old. As listed above in Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-language Historical Works.

There is a story in this text that the Fifth DL sent a messenger to Dhol to invite DS as a protector, which has been published multiple times (including the Guru Deva collection listed above, and in Khure Khenchen collected works). This text was also cited and quoted verbatim by Pabongkha Rinpoche. As for a modern publication and translation of this it is found in Lama Chime Radha's brief history of Dorje Shugden listed in the sources above.

As for the prayer allegely written by the Fifth DL, this was purportedly written on the back of a statue, which is not uncommon. A modern publication of this was first published in Trijang Rinpoche's: Dam can rgya mtsho dgyes pa’i rol mo, published in 1967 in Gangthog, Sikkim (TBRC Work RID: W14594).

If you need more information on exact publications, I can provide whatever information I can find.Tkalsang (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi TKalsang:

You do not have the right to limit anyone's participation in the editorial process of this article. In short, you don't own it-- though you and other pro-Shugden people may have a stake in what is says. At this point, the article is completely unbalanced and lack objectivity. In your list of sources, oral traditions recorded by western Scholars are not facts, and in this instance, neither are assertion of Pabhongkha RInpoche and Trjiang RInpoche. If you go down that road, you have no business excluding Zemey's Yellow Book traditions, which is what started this whole mess to begin with. We can also mention Deshung Tulku's experiences in Eastern Tibet with sectarian Shugden practitioners, and Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodo's experiences, as well as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's experience of becoming ill from having participated in Sakya Kangso's to Shugden when he was young teenager and so on. We should mention the Ngor Khenpo who dismantled several Shuugden shrines and on one occasion even shot a mask of Shugden with a pistol in the 1940's. These events are reported in various places, which can be sourced.

The point is that you have presented the authorship of this prayer as a _fact_, as opposed to a _tradition_.

While it is true that not every piece of writing by a master will necessarily be in their collected works, an important master like the great Fifth will record many aspects of their activities, including statue building and so on, and frankly, there is no record of this event in the Great Fifth's bio, just as there is no record of this prayer in his collected works.

As far as The Dorje Shugden thing goes, there are a lot of stories-- but I do not see them all represented here in any sort of objective way. Samten Karmay, for example, has an account of Shugden-- but I don't see it-- if the standard that we are going to apply is _stories_, then everything must be admissible. You have not addressed the steady opposition to this practice with Gelug by famous masters such as Ngulchu Dharmabhadra, and so on.

As for your contention that the Great Fifth's requesting Shugden to be a Dharmapala is "several centuries" old, this is not a sourceable statement, you are not being objective. Since you are not being objective, you will just cause the process of writing anything useful to stall, unless that is your objective. Tendrel (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tendrel,

If nothing in oral tradition can be presented, then we cannot talk about Buddhism at all in WP. It is the textual evidence of these oral traditions that are presented as an approximation of fact. Nobody can honestly know for a fact whether the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote the prayer and invited Dorje Shugden to be a protector or not. Admittedly it is hard to believe. In any case, there is a paper trail that documents the belief he did (viz. TBRC work RID: W5327, mkhas grub chen po paN chen bsod nams grags pa'i sde'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba dad pa'i rol rtsed dang rgyal ba'i bstan bsrung chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal byung tshul mdo tsam brjod pa pad dkar chun po). Whether that belief is established in truth, historically or not, it is an aspect of modern Shugden beliefs and deserves due mention.

In the "Bhutan Abbot of Ngor: Stubborn Idealist with a Grudge against Shugden" it mentions the root of his grudge was he blamed Shugden for the pre-mature death of his previous life. This even led to him not paying respects to the previous abbot of Ngor: "Ngag-bdang-yon-tan-rgya-mtsho's actions amounted to open revolt against the senior lama of the Khang-gsar lama palace, whom, many people believed, he should have revered as a guru." (Lungta 14, page 95). In any case, it is a fascinating read.

The Fifth Dalai Lama's collected works are 25 volumes and his biography is 3 volumes, quite the task to examine closely. If anything one of the scholarly examinations of his biography written as "The Sovereign Power of the Fifth Dalai Lama: sPrul sku gZims-khang-gong-ma and the Removal of Governor Nor-bu. Memoirs of the Research Department of The Toyo Bunko (The Oriental Library), 53, 1-27." actually does answer a lot of the questions regarding the relation between the Fifth and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. So closer examination of Fifth's works is definitely worthwhile.

As for Ngulchu Dharmabhadra he did write a letter, which is in his collected works (collection of letters in volume 4, pp. 223-516), about Shugden, which confirms the existence of the belief Shugden Dolgyal, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Manjushri being one entity. "Panchen Sonam Dragpa's reincarnation Tulku Sonam Dragpa, his reincarnation Tulku Sonam Gelek Pelzang, and his reincarnation Zimkhang Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and his sudden death reincarnation indeed appeared as the Shugden Dorje Barwa Dragpa or Dolgyal. In the Ganden Lha Gyema offering, blessing and torma offering indeed appears as Jamyang Barwa Dragpa." Available here: http://www.asianclassics.org/research_site/09_Author/NgulchuDharmaBhadra/Sungbum/PersonalSpiritualPractice/WorksOnTheThousandAngelsOfTheHeavenOfBliss/ResponsestoQuestionsonthePracticeoftheThousandAngelsoftheHeavenofBliss/S6370M15_T.TXT

Can we assume Ngulchu Dharmabhadra was opposed to Dorje Shugden because of one sentence in his biography written by byangs can grub pa'i rdo rje that says there was a formless being hitting a boulder day and night, and Lochen Rinpoche advised reciting Ganden Lha Gyema scripture. Sounds to me like Dholgyal was encouraging him to do his prayers...Tkalsang (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

An account by Samten Karmay: "In 1654, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, the reincarnation who was installed in the 'Upper Chamber' at 'Bras-spungs, died. It should be recalled that he had been one of the candidates for the reincarnation of the Fourth Dalai Lama. As a result, he was always seen as a rival of the Fifth Dalai Lama though he invariably proclaimed himself a disciple of th latter. He came to be despised by a number of officials and especially the sDe-srid [Sonam Chopel]. The circumstances of his death, whether natural or not, were contested and part of the dGe-lugs-pa school believed that the official Norbu, acting under the sDe-srid's orders had assassinated him. Whatever the truth, the search for his reincarnation was banned, which suggests that the affair must have been quite serious indeed. In 1658, the actual building of the 'Upper Chamber' was destroyed and the stupa containing the remains of the Lama was supposedly thrown into the sKyid-chu river. It was then believed that the spirit of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan had returned as a sort of 'protector of the Buddhist religion'.... Indeed, in 1659, the official Nor-bu, who had settled at Gad-kha gsar-pa, a residence belonging to Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's family, fomented a rebellion against the Fifth Dalai Lama's government." page 514, The Arrow and the Spindle.Tkalsang (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TK " In the Ganden Lha Gyema offering, blessing and torma offering indeed appears as Jamyang Barwa Dragpa.""

Your reading is incorrect-- the name is not "Jamyang Barwa Dragpa". "....'JAM DBYANGS 'BAR BAR GRAGS PA YIN PAR SNANG LAGS>

"Does appear to be known as 'jam dbyang 'bar ba.." This is a Tibetan way of saying that yes, the text appears like that-- but it is not a definitive approval as we will see.

Ngulchu continues to the end of the passage to say that the 'jam dbyangs 'bar ba: "not been seen in the texts of authoritative scholars, nor heard from lamas, but can be understood well to be a minor corruption of [someone's] conceptual bias."

Then, having removed this problem, he goes on to give an outline of how to do the practice.

This text which you have kindly pointed us to, shows us the opposite of what you intend, i.e. that the famous Gelug master Ngulchu Dharmabhadra considers this attribution a corruption of the One Hundred Deities of Tushita. This combined with passage in his bio, clearly show what Dharmabhadra's attitude towards Dolgyal was. Considering that Dharmabhadra is a very late scholar here in the scheme of things, he lived between 1772-1851. Since it is a dris lan, it must have been written when he was a mature scholar, in sometime in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Tendrel (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Tendrel (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Ganden Lha Gyema torma offering is not done through Shugden, even modern proponents of Shugden do not do the torma offering to Shugden. You missed the point, if Ngulchu is advocating against mixing Shugden and a specific practice, Ganden Lha Gyema, that does not mean he is against Shugden practice in general. Would the scholars advocate changing centuries old practices and mixing in whatever? No, whatever is changed has to follow scutiny and rules. Nevertheless, modern scholars such as Dreyfuss assert that Pabongkha made up the idea of Shugden being the reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, this is clearly evidence this is not the case.Tkalsang (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TK:

"If nothing in oral tradition can be presented, then we cannot talk about Buddhism at all in WP. It is the textual evidence of these oral traditions that are presented as an approximation of fact. Nobody can honestly know for a fact whether the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote the prayer and invited Dorje Shugden to be a protector or not. Admittedly it is hard to believe."

Two things, then: one, the article starts with a positive affirmation that the Fifth began this practice. This is patently false. Second, it also starts with the assertion that he wrote this prayer-- and this is not certain. So the article needs to be changed. Otherwise, it just winds up sounding like Anti 14th Dalai Lama propaganda.

Second, the point of the article, I presume, is to assemble information, their sources, and the dates of those sources; preferably primary sources, and not secondary sources where possible.

Tendrel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

Granted it is a disputed point, I would advocate adding qualifications such as "according to such and such tradition" or whatever. It is best to list multiple sources to let people make up their own mind. WP makes distinctions about primary and secondary sources, generally primary sources should be presented without interpretation. Secondary sources put things in context. Given this is such a foreign concept to Western scholarship there is probably more room for primary sources than normally advocated.Tkalsang (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TK:

" if Ngulchu is advocating against mixing Shugden and a specific practice, Ganden Lha Gyema, that does not mean he is against Shugden practice in general. Would the scholars advocate changing centuries old practices and mixing in whatever? No, whatever is changed has to follow scutiny and rules. Nevertheless, modern scholars such as Dreyfuss assert that Pabongkha made up the idea of Shugden being the reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, this is clearly evidence this is not the case"

To begin with, Dreyfus nowhere in his article accuses Pabhongkha of fabricating the idea that Shugden is the direct reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Actually, he does the opposite, and maintains that Pabhongkha received these traditions from his teachers. Read the article again.

The main point: the topic of this text is the blessing of the offerings and offering the torma to the _lineage Gurus_, beginning with Tsongkhapa, then moving on to Gyaltsab and so on. Just read the bottom of the text, and you will see that this is so. The point that Ngulchu is addressing is precisely whether or not it is appropriate to refer to Shugden as _Manjushri_, he is saying such an attribution is found in no authoritative text. The text clearly shows that Dharmabhadra disapproves of identifying the Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's reincarnation, Shugden, as Manjushri. In other words, in the lineage torma the enquirer has seen, Tulku Panchen Dragpa's incarnation is mentioned in the list, his incarnation of Shugden, and identification with Shugden is also mentioned there as Jamyang Barwa. This is what Dharmabhadra is rejecting-- it is really very, very clear, if you know how to read Tibetan. Do you know how to read Tibetan? If you don't, I will be happy to explain the text and its grammar to you point by point.

Also, in fairness, I made a slight error in my haste earlier: the text lists the authoritative scholars in whose texts Dharmabhadra himself has not seen this attribution, as 'jam dbyangs bde ba'i rdo rje' [b. 1682 d. 1741] and the seventh Dalai Lama, bskal bzang rgya mtsho [b. 1708 d. 1757].

So basically, he is saying that identifying Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, aka _Shudgen_, as Manjushri is minor corruption of the text through someone's bias.

Tendrel (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to make it clear: Dharmabhadra is rejecting the identification of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen as Manjushri. He is therefore also rejecting the idea that Shugden is a Manjushri emanation. What this shows, negatively, is that by the early nineteenth century, some Gelugpas were identifying this protector with Manjushri. What has been left out of this fascinating glimpse is exactly who was making this identification.

Tendrel (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that anything that counts as a tradition has to be regarded automatically as a secondary source. In other words, the attribution of the prayer to the Fifth comes not from a primary source i.e. his collected works or an independent text with a clear statement of authorship, but from materials apparently received by Pabhongkha frop his teachers, and these materials themselves have a trail that does not lead to a definitive origin in the Gelug school. In other words, no one can really say for certain who began the practice of Shugden as a Dharmapala in the Gelugpa school, there is no clear paper trail that definitively leads to this or that Lama.

Let me give you a modern example of how a text such as this can easily misattributed. There is a text attributed to Dilgo Khyentse. This text was originally an oral teaching by Trungpa that appeared in his Meditation in Action. Somewhere, it was attributed to Dilgo Khyentse, was translated into Tibetan, and distributed among the Tibetan Community as a teaching of Dilgo Khyentse, whereupon it was retranslated into English as his text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendrel (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but here's my take on it. The 7th Dalai Lama wrote a widely accepted commentary on Ganden Lha Gyema, and yes there is no mention of Shugden, Jampel Barwa or anything about that in there. In the standard Ganden Lha Gyema there is no Shugden or Jampel Barwa either. Even paging through the Migtsema Be Bum I didn't see anything Shugden mixed in either. As far as I know even Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche never mixed the practice. The Migtsema Be Bum (published in the Gedan Mipham Sungrab series) there are many minor variations of Ganden Lha Gyema that developed, such as the later Panchen Rinpoche's later he refers to, perhaps in Tibetan somewhere one variation (whether authentic or rogue) mentioned Jampel Barwa which led to the questioner to write a letter to Ngulchu to see if this referred to Shugden. So, Ngulchu it seems is saying mixing that idea of Shugden, Jampel Barwa in this practice has no scriptural basis (ie. 7th Dalai Lama's commentary), and he hasn't heard it from any lama either. Just the same as not plugging in Kalarupa or Yamantaka when it has no precedent. In any case he explains how the torma is offered on the basis of the Third Panchen Rinpoche Lobsang Palden Yeshe's writings to Guru Tsongkhapa.

Dreyfuss says "Its gradual adoption in the Ge-luk tradition does not show any relation with either Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba or his third reincarnation, Drak-ba Gyel-tsen. Shuk-den seems to have been adopted by Ge-luk lamas because of his power as a wordly deity, not on the basis of a connection with Pen-chen S¯-nam-drak-ba's lineage." His explanation refers to Tulku Dragpa Gyeltsan being identified definitely as Dholgyal, but whether Shugden is the same entity as Dholgyal was more questionable. "For him [Pabongkha], the narrative was not about Drak-ba Gyel-tsen but about Shuk-den and the identification of the latter with the former was a way to legitimize the diffusion of a practice that had been previously marginal."

As for a pre-Pabongkha work that identifies Shugden as Manjushri, read this initiation manual to Shugden written by Rongchen Kirti Rinpoche (1849-1904): rdo rje shugs ldan gyi rjes gnang byed tshul (TBRC W4595). http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail-outline.xq;jsessionid=B07DFD79DC8EAEC5ABAC3A02F2A60B0F?address=12.25&wylie=n&RID=O00EGS1014793#O00EGS10147932DB446 Dreyfuss claims Pabongkha made up the title protector of Jamgon Lama Tsongkhapa's teachings, but it is mentioned in here as ‘Jam mgon rgyal ba’i gnyis pa’i bstan srung. Rongchen Kirti Rinpoche never even travelled to central Tibet, it is interesting how this lineage may have come about.Tkalsang (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TK:

"So, Ngulchu it seems is saying mixing that idea of Shugden, Jampel Barwa in this practice has no scriptural basis (ie. 7th Dalai Lama's commentary), and he hasn't heard it from any lama either. Just the same as not plugging in Kalarupa or Yamantaka when it has no precedent. In any case he explains how the torma is offered on the basis of the Third Panchen Rinpoche Lobsang Palden Yeshe's writings to Guru Tsongkhapa."

I think that you have really truly missed the point of Ngulchu's short text-- so I will repeat myself. The version of the lineage torma being referred to, is referring to Tulku Dragapa Gyalsten, aka Shugden as Manjushri. Ngulchu is saying this is minor corruption in the text. This is not a text responding to the question "Is it ok to mix Shugden into the Ganden Lha Gyama", the question is "is referring to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen aka Shugden as Jamyang Barwa ok?" And the answer is that Dharmabhadra has not seen it in any authoritative commentary, nor did he hear it from his Guru, so therefore it is a corruption.

This lineage torma is not like a torma offering to a protector, it is a list of the names of various Gurus, with a short praise, and then an offering of torma to the Guru, for example, here, Lama Tsongkhapa is offered a torma with "Guru Sumatikirti saparivara Idam balingta kha kha khahi khahi..." and so on. In short, you are not understanding the text.

So again, what Ngulchu is saying is a corruption is applying the epithat of Jamyang Barwa to Tulu Dragpa Gyaltsen, aka Dorje Shugden Tsal or Dholgyal.

In relation to your other comment, it is clear that for Dharmabhadra, Dholgyal is Dorje Shugden, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's reincarnation. It is also clear, that referring to this person as Blazing Manjushri is inappropriate.

As for your other comment, Dreyfus's scholarship is not perfect, no scholar has perfect scholarship. Obviously, based on Dharmabhadra's comment, someone in the early nineteenth century decided that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a Manjushri emanation, the question now is to figure out which Tibetan or Mongolian Lamas decided that this was so.

However, as far as this proffered text is concerned i.e. ‘Jam mgon rgyal ba’i gnyis pa’i bstan srung you have to read the whole line, and the end of the text:

"'dir 'jam mgon rgyal ba gnyis pa'i bstan srung khyad par can sprul pa'i chos skyong rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan gyi rjes gnang kyi tshul"

"Here is the method of the permission of the the Great King, Dorje Shugden, the special emanated protector of the teaching of the second Manjunatha."

The second Manjunatha is of course Lama Tsongkhapa and not Shugden.

This is born out later in the text where Shugden is encouraged to "'jam mgon chos gyi rgyal po Tsongkha pa chen po bstan pa bstan 'dzin dang bcas bsrung dang skyongs..."

"Protect and sustain the teaching of Manjunatha, the King of Dharma, the great Tsongkhapa, along with the holders of [his] doctrine..."

So, while you are right that Dreyfus is wrong in his contention that it was Pabhongkha who elevated Shugden to the status of being an emanation of Manjushri, you are wrong that this text proves it to be so, since there is not a single reference in this text that identifies Shugden as being a Manjushri emanation.

Also, of course, this text is a late nineteenth century text, so we still have no solid evidence that there is any identification of Shugden as a Manjushri emanation that is earlier than the early 19th century.

Tendrel (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted neither texts establish Shugden as Manjushri, inclusion of that aspect in my renderings we're mistakes on my part. However, I think more context needs to be thought about what Ngulchu means. We both agree he considers any sort of offering and torma to Shugden/Blazing Manjushri as being part of the Ganden Lha Gyema as a fabrication. He is correct according to information we have now, there appears to be no precedent in the Ganden Lha Gyema commentaries. Even the Seventh DL's commentary mentions nothing about a torma offering in Ganden Lha Gyema practice.

Putting Shugden aside, there appears to be no text or precedent at all to offering to Blazing Manjushri ('jam dpal 'bar ba) in the Ganden Lha Gyema either! Even modern Ganden Lha Gyema practices that do any sort of torma offering use the Third Panchen Rinpoche's text described. So without more context we cannot know what indeed the "corruption" is, ie. was he discrediting Shugden to the core or just lack of any valid torma offering in Ganden Lha Gyema practice with the exception being the Third Panchen's text. Which words in the text make you think this is a lineage torma? The bla brgyud described at the beginning of the text refers to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, not the Ganden Lha Gye lineage. I think I have the Third Panchen's original text, maybe I'll look at that for more clues.

I know this is a stretch and just food for thought until more evidence can be found: "Another interesting perspective that can be potentially linked to the terminology of Ngulchu Dharmabhadra is a Dorje Shugden ritual written by se ra sngags pa mkhan zur nam mkha' bstan skyong, an abbot of the Sera Tantric College and disciple of Ngulchu Dharmabhadra born in 1799 (TBRC Person RID: P276). This ritual is called shugs ldan ‘bar ba rtsal gyi bskang ‘phrin (TBRC Work RID: W6013) and is six folios in his collected works. In particular the term shugs ldan ‘bar ba is unique and is close to Ngulchu’s term Shugden Dorje Barwa Dragpa. This may point to a particular, and perhaps extinct, tradition of Dorje Shugden practice passed through Ngulchu Dharmabhadra to zur nam mkha' bstan skyong."Tkalsang (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

" Which words in the text make you think this is a lineage torma? "

This entire section indicates how one is to perform the lineage torma:

"GTOR MA'I BCUD THAMS CAD DRANGS TE GSOL BAR GYUR, AOm GU RU SU MA TI K'I RTI SA PA RI W'A RA AI DAm BA LI TA KHA KHA KH'A HI KH'A HI, LAN GSUM GYIS GTOR MA DANG, AOm

GU RU SU MA TI K'I RTI SA PA RI W'A RA ARGHAm PRA T'I TZTSA YE SV'A H'A, ZHES PA NAS, SHPTA PRA T'I TZTSA YE SV'A H'A, ZHES PA'I BAR GYIS MCHOD PA PHUL LA, GANGS CAN SHING RTA'I SROL 'BYED TZONG KHA PA, ,DNGOS

STOBS RIGS PA'I DBANG PHYUG RGYAL TSAB RJE, ,MDO SNGAGS BSTAN PA'I BDAG PO MKHAS GRUB RJE, ,RGYAL BA YAB SRAS GSUM LA GUS PHYAG 'TSAL, ,ZHES BSTOD NAS, RGYAL KUN MKHYEN PA'I

RANG GZUGS 'JAM DPAL DBYANGS, ZHES SOGS DKYUS LTAR MDZAD PAS THUS PAS DGONGS 'JAGS MKHYEN MKHYEN LAGS, GZIGS RTEN BCAS TSES BZANG POR PHUL"

Such lineage tormas are common in all four schools as supplements to this kind of Guru offering practice, especially when done in a large group setting for special occasions, as oposed to privately, by oneself.

""Another interesting perspective that can be potentially linked to the terminology of Ngulchu Dharmabhadra is a Dorje Shugden ritual written by se ra sngags pa mkhan zur nam mkha' bstan skyong, an abbot of the Sera Tantric College and disciple of Ngulchu Dharmabhadra born in 1799 (TBRC Person RID: P276). This ritual is called shugs ldan ‘bar ba rtsal gyi bskang ‘phrin (TBRC Work RID: W6013) and is six folios in his collected works. In particular the term shugs ldan ‘bar ba is unique and is close to Ngulchu’s term Shugden Dorje Barwa Dragpa. This may point to a particular, and perhaps extinct, tradition of Dorje Shugden practice passed through Ngulchu Dharmabhadra to zur nam mkha' bstan skyong."

This statement is more than a stretch. It is completely unsupported by the text. We are not in the business of creating fabrications, but rather, dispelling them, where ever they may appear, on both sides of the controversy. Since Dharmabhadra's text is primary, the only basis upon which it may be evaluated is according to what the text actually says-- and to someone who reads Tibetan well what the text has to say is utterly obvious. It will not be obvious, however, to anyone who lacks good Tibetan grammar. Making simple mistakes like not recognizing _la don_ where they occur in such passages as YANG SRID DU DOL RGYAL PO'AM GSHUGS LDAN RDO RJE 'BAR BAR GRAGS PA YIN PAR SNANG LAGS and 'JAM DBYANGS 'BAR BAR GRAGS PA YIN PAR SNANG LAGS really does not inspire my confidence.

The terminology "GSHUGS LDAN RDO RJE 'BAR BA" as such does not come from Dharmabhadra, but from the person to whom he is replying.

Can we get back to main topic at hand, which is to fix this articles problematical assertions about the origins of Shugden? Thanks.

Tendrel (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"...without more context we cannot know what indeed the "corruption" is, ie. was he discrediting Shugden to the core"

He is merely discrediting the idea that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen aka Shugden aka Dholgyal can be properly identified as "Blazing Manjushri.", and that is all. The only context one needs in this instance is proper understanding of Tibetan grammer.

Tendrel (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tendrel and TKalsang,

I have very much enjoyed reading through your discussions, and I am happy to see that some of the initial hostility in the conversation has died down somewhat (we all know how this issue can give rise to strong passions, which often interfere with writing a good Wikipedia article). Can I perhaps offer a compromise between your discussions.

The compromise is based on a few observations. First, we don't have to agree with each other to write this article. Instead, our job is just to present both sides of the debate. Second, as these discussion pages show, a thorough in depth analysis of this question could literally go on forever, which is WAY beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. This is not a public debate forum, this is an encyclopedia. So our job is to just summarize the 'main points' of the different points of view, that way somebody who wants to, in about 15 minutes of reading, can get a 'general overview' of the dispute. Third, what I have found on all of these articles is an endless back and forth, which then causes the article length to literally explode. The result is then nobody but the most die hard even bother to read the article, and of those who do there is very little actual understanding that arises in their mind. And of those where some understanding arises, they have already made up their mind before they started reading, so we have to ask ourselves - what is the point of such an article?

So the compromise I propose is we make two distinct sections, each limited to 3-4 'reasonably lengthed' paragraphs (on the nature of the deity), in which each side presents what they feel to be their best and most important justifications for their particular point of view. The other side agrees to not interfere with the substance of the opposing section, except for taking out inappropriate language choices (non-encyclopedia type language choices). That way it is balanced, short, and saves us the time of trying to reach some sort of agreement here on Wikipedia.

Feel free to ignore this compromise, but it is offered in good faith as a way of moving forward.

Kindest regards,

--Dspak08 (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi DS:

As far as I can tell these are the facts that we can all agree on: Shugden arose because of a conflict between factions around two Tibetan Lamas.

In the 1648, the Fifth Dalai Lama has some issues with a Gyalpo spirit that arose at Dhol Chu Mig Karmo i.e. The White Pond of Dhol. www.antishugden.com gives this account from the Fifth's biography:

"a new shrine was constructed at Dhol Chumig Karmo and articles were placed there in the hope that it would become a place for the Gyalpo to settle."

This is also the origin of the term Dholgyal i.e. Gyalpo Spirit of Dhol.

in 1656 Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen [TDG] dies suspiciously.

The Fifth, in his collected works opines about TDG that "Because of the meddling of Lag Agyal of Gekhasa (his mother)the false reincarnation of Tulku Sonam Geleg Palzang (Tulku Dakpa Gyaltsen) got his way and because of distorted prayers he became a perfidious interfering spirit (dam sri)".

Apart from the scant records recorded in the Fifth Dalai Lama's autobiography, there seem to be no other contemporary, first person, 17th century sources that are presently known. I have not consulted the biographies of Terdag Lingpa.

Excluding the apocryphal prayer attributed to the Fifth, the first ritual texts for Shugden torma rites begin to be written in the mid 18th century in Sakya and Gelug.

Morchen [1654-1726] notes in his autobiography, in a single line, that in 1718, having entrusted Dorje Shugden with activities, Shugden accepts the role of protector. In Morchen's autobiography there is no record of his giving the transmission of Shugden to anyone, anywhere, though there are ample records of all the other protector transmissions he gave, both wisdom and mundane protectors. This limits Morchen's contact with Shugden to a period of eight years. Supposedly, at this time Trichen Sonam Rinchen adopts Shugden as a Sakya protector; according to Trijiang Rinpoche, this happened in 1721.

The first mention of Tulku Dragpa Gyalten aka Shugden being identified as a Manjushri emanation occurs in either the late 18th or nearly 19th century. We do not know who first made this identification.

By the early 19th Century Dholgyal and Shugden are considered by Dharmabhadra to be the same entity. It is likely this identification has been current for some time.

The first mention of Shugden being a special protector for the Gelug tradition occurs in the late nineteenth century.

Based on older texts and oral traditions as well as visionary accounts, Pabhongkha composes many new Shugden Texts.

Trijiang Rinpoche and Zemey Tulku compose a letter in 1968 asking HH Dalai Lama's to carefully consider the wisdom of his new found interest in Nyingma Teachings.

Trijiang Rinpoche composes a commentary on Pabhongkha's praise to Dorje Shugden in 1967 based upon his collection of earlier sources.

In 1975, Trijiang Rinpoche's student, Zemey Tulku publishes a record of Trijiang Rinpoche's oral history of the manner in which Shugden aggressively protects the Gelug lineage from contamination.

The 14th Dalai Lama decides to cease propitiating Dorje Shugden and begins his program to eliminate the practice among his students.

I think this sums up the skeleton of hard facts that we know.

Tendrel (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Who first wrote down Shugden as a protector of the Gelug in a text? A text in the collected works of Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang, listed in TBRC as ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan, TBRC PID: 259. The text is signed as Tsunpa Mati, it is not clear if this was an earlier work by a different master included in Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang's works. This is also referred by Pabongkha, and quoted verbatim by Pabongkha: http://www.tbrc.org/ds/abstract?jsessionid=52653209787DE273F32CEFA852719F6F In the beginning folio of Pabongkha text it says: "as written in sources including rab ‘byams ngag gi dbang po’s Rosary of White Lotuses". In page 527 he quotes verbatim from Tsunpa Mati’s text the story about Pehar appearing to Panchen Sonam Dragpa. Note rab ‘byams ngag gi dbang po is probably a slight variation on Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang's name, cross referencing the verbatim text makes it almost 100% certain this is the text Pabongkha is referring to.

Who is Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang? He appears to be Khure Monastery’s Great Abbot Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang (1779-1838) Years according to Dan Martin. TBRC has different dates, "The author was abbot of the great monastery Khu-re in Urga [Ulanbator, Mongolia]". http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq?RID=P259&wylie=n

The Panchen Sonam Dragpa biography and Rosary of White Lotuses are indeed included in rab ‘byams ngag gi dbang po’s collected works. This work shows up twice in TBRC as mkhas grub chen po paN chen bsod nams grags pa'i sde'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba dad pa'i rol rtsed dang rgyal ba'i bstan bsrung chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal byung tshul mdo tsam brjod pa pad dkar chun po. The first reference belongs to ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan, Work RID: 5327, "38 ff. in vol. ka of the 4 vol., largely printed, gsung 'bum".

In the opening paragraphs of this text it says: 'dir rgyal ba'i bstan bsrung chen po rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal gyi sngon gyi byung ba'i tshul mdo tsam brjod pa la de yang bstan bsrung chen po 'di ni 'jam dpal mgon rgyal ba gnyis pa'i bstan ba bstan 'dzin dang bcas pa la log par 'khu ba'i gnod byed 'dug pa can mtha' dag tshar gcad pa'i phyir bsam bzhin du drag po'i skur bstan pa zhig ste de'i tshul yang deng sang yongs su grags par paN chen bsod nams grags pa'i sku phyi ma'i yang phyi ma sprul sku grags pa rgyal mtshan zhes bya ba thams cad mkhyen pa yong tan rgya mtsho'i sprul sku dang nor khrul byung ba de dregs pa'i gzugs bzung ba yin par smra..

This writing also may be what Rongchen Kirti's intiation text was referring to, protecting Gelug doctrine and its holder ('jam dpal mgon rgyal ba gnyis pa'i bstan ba bstan 'dzin). It is quite a lengthy text, and has some arguments later saying after reaching the first bodhi ground one can emanate hundreds of bodies so it is not appropriate to say he took a dregs pa'i gzugs by throwing karma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi TK:

"Who is Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang? He appears to be Khure Monastery’s Great Abbot Rabjampa Ngawang Lobsang (1779-1838)"

This seems impossible since the teachers of ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan are all born at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the nineteenth century, and this person lived for 82 years. Ngawang Lobsang, according to the text you have mentioned, lived for 59 years.

Thus, this account appears in the generation of writers immediately preceding Pabhongkha, and gives added juice to a Mongolian/Eastern Tibetan origin for most of Trijiang Rinpoche's ideas about about Shugden.

This also puts this writing as post Dharmabhadra.

BTW:

"nor khrul byung ba de dregs pa'i gzugs bzung ba yin par smra.."

This is wrong: "... so it is not appropriate to say he took a dregs pa'i gzugs by throwing karma."

The text says: "Those [in whom] erroneous delusion have arisen [nor 'khrul byung ba] claim [smra] [he i.e. Shugden] did take [bzung ba yin pa] the form of a haughty one [dregs pa'i gzugs (dregs pa is a term for the eight classes of native Tibetan worldly spirits, of which rgyal pos are one)].

It certainly seems that these two authors i.e. Rongchen and the master listed above are roughly contemporary.

We have not established which Gelug author decided that Shugden was a Manjushri emanation and when, nor where. I am guessing however that this turn of events likely took place in Mongolia during the mid-Nineteenth century.

Tendrel (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel, The paragraphs regarding emanation vs. ordinary rebirth comes a few folios later which I have not typed in yet. There seems to be a descrepancy between Dan Wilson's bibliography years and lifespan for Ngawang Lobsang and TBRC's listing. This will need to be scrutinized more. But they clearly refer to the same person because Dan Wilson describes the same texts as in the TBRC entry (Origin of the Tara Tantra, etc.). No certainties here yet on dates.Tkalsang (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wanted to add this information:

I looked at Trichen Kunga Lodo's biography, looking to narrow down dates. This is in volume six of the Lam 'bras slob gshad series. I was meaning to look at gnas sar ba's bio to see what it said about Shugden, which preceds it in the volume. Needless to say since Kunga Lodo is a primary author of Shugden texts, I reexamined his bio first. This is what I found.

Trichen Sonam Rinchen [b.1705] died in 1740-41, when, by Tibetan reckoning, Kunga Lodo was twelve (11). At the biography does not say exactly when, but at some point, Kunga Lodo received Sonam Rinchen's torma offering to Shugden.

Since I think we can accept Trijiang Rinpoche's statement that Shugden became a Sakya protector under Sonan Rinchen when the latter was 19 (18). This means that earliest possible date for the composition of a Shugden torma by Sonam Rinchen will be 1723, the latest possible date, 1740.

Additionally, the first record of Kunga Lodo transmitting the practice (as written by his father) was when he was 18 (17), in 1746.

Barring the apocryphal prayer attributed to the Fifth, this means the earliest ritual practice of Shugden that can be presently verified was composed between 1723 and 1740, with a date of around 1724-1725 most likely.

Morchen, it is true, accepted Shugden as a protector by his own account (volume five of the Lam 'bras slob gshad series), but there is no evidence that he composed any rite to Shugden and no such text presently exists. Since Morchen was a disciple of Trichen Kunga Tashi's, Sonam Rinchen's father, it may be possible that he influenced Sonam RInchen. However, I have not yet noticed any example of Morchen giving teachings to the young Sonam RInchen anywhere in his autobiography.

In any event, these dates show that the practice, as far as we know, first spread in the Sakya school. This is important and is not reflected at all in the article as it stands presently.

I will fill more details in as they become available.

Tendrel (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

I decided I'm going to back off a little on the Sakya side of this, because I have not studied in that tradition and I don't want to cause any kind of misunderstandings given the sensitivity of this subject. Sorry if I may be stepping where I shouldn't, it seems you know more about the Sakya tradition and I will let you fill that in.Tkalsang (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I might as well bring this up, to add to the confusion-- the oral tradition in the Sakya school is that the Black Horse (rTa nag) Shugden bound by Sonam RInchen is not the reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. It is supposed to be the spirit (Dholgyal) that appeared at Dhol Chu Mig that was causing the Fifth Dalai Lama problems whiel Tullu Dragpa Gyaltsen was still alive. This is in fact one of the bones of contention that Sakyas have with Pabhongkha concerning his of Sakya materials to provide a provenance for the identity of Shugden. In other words, from the Sakya point of vew, using Sakya sources to defend validity of the practices around the Gelug version of Shugden are invalid because the Sakya Shugden and the Gelug Shugden are entirely different entities. One of the reasons why this is not often mentioned is that it is very confusing. But anyone who wants an explanation of this would do well to go and ask His Holiness Sakya Trizin himself about this.

Suffice it to say that we cannot really, in all honesty, consider the spirit reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen the same being as Dholgyal; but we can consider that Dholgyal is the Sakya Dorje Shugden bound by Sonam Rinchen.

Tendrel (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary:

Can we all agree that the Fifth's prayer is apocryphal, and the first place a Shugden practice appears is in the early 18th century in the Sakya school? If we can, I can suggest a reorganization of topics that will leave everyone feeling satisfied.

One, we start with what we historically know to be the case based on the primary sources we have. We divide the account into three phases:

Historical:

Early 1600s to 1740

Death of TDG

Gyalpo at Dholchu Mig

Short mention of apocrypha

1740 to 1900

Sakya sources

Gelug sources

1900 to 1975

Pabhongkha

Trijiang

Zemey etc.

Nature:

Shugden as lokapala (Sakya school) Shugden as lokottarapala (Pabhongkah and his predecessors)

Controversy

etc.

I think we don't need the lengthy and repetitive article that we have.

Tendrel (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

Regarding Dhol Chu mig karmo, some translations have the year wrong: The Tibetan Fire Bird year of the 11th Rabjung corresponds to 1657-1658 of the Common Era. The Tibetan Earth Bird year of the 11th Rabjung corresponds to 1669-1670 of the Common Era.

These are all immediately after the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen.Tkalsang (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi TK:

Thanks for the correction-- should have looked at and tracked down the dates myself to see if they were accurate-- that's what you get for trusting other people;s translations. I wish there existed a comprehensive source book on all the various statements made by Lamas about this deity in Sakya and Gelug from the beginning. In this instance, the translators must have erred when the looked at the bod rgya tshig mdzod for dates because 1636 is the me byi year i.e. the fire mouse year. I corrected the outline above. There is nevertheless a contention in Sakya that the Shugden tamed by Sonam Rinchen and the one later adopted by the Gelugpas are not the same entity.

Anyway, I have trimmed up the article and reduced to to what we have now, hopefully every one will be happy. I think I have left in what is more essential to the proponents point of view. Shortly, I intend to flesh out what we know from the available Sakya sources, including the fact that no life entrustment for Shugden ever existed in Sakya, or for that matter, not even a rjes gnang. I thought it best first to sort of trim to article down and focus it on the deity itself. Hopefully we are all in agreement.

01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

I have never seen any textual evidence of a Sakya initiation, so anyone making this claim would be proposing a fringe theory. A few things got trimmed out but I may add back later, especially the 'on rgyal sras reference, but it would be better to scrutinize the early Gelug period first before aadding back. The 5DL apocryphia is still open to debate, and it would be nice if you could provide authorities that explicitly deny the authenticity of this prayer as a reference, but I'll leave it for now because it is good reminder to check into this more and perhaps see if du ku la'i gos bzang has any information providing the 5DL's later view on Shugden/Dholgyal.

Gelugpa history of Shugden I would map out into 4 nominal phases, in an ideal world everything would be available on TBRC but the older texts currently I just have prints from collections, so making claims will need more scrutiny: 1. Late 1600's/ Early 1700's -- Fifth DL, Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, Dholgyal, etc. Accounts of Shugden adoption within Riwo Choling monastery, Trode Khangsar. Some things are and less reliable with some being secondary sources.

2. Mid/Late 1700's, Early 1800's -- Gelug development of its own texts. These are mostly torma, serkyem offerings. Per the colophon in the first Dragri Dorje Chang rgya mtsho 'tha yas bkang chog, the 2nd Ratreng Rinpoche requested him to write a Gelug kangso. Other texts start to appear such as the Fifth 'on rgyal sras Rinpoche's text, also Nyungne Lama Yeshe Bhadra. Part of Nyungne Lama Yeshe Bhadra's original text is preserved in Oracles and Demon's appendix in Wylie. A comparison to iconography and terminology later Gelug texts varies. The Gelug texts of this period clearly refer to the four other manifestations of Dorje Shugden as ru 'dren sde bzhi, by similar names and iconography as found later.

3. Mid/late 1800's -- Dorje Shugden apparently becomes more specialized within the Gelug as a lineage protector. An account (byung tshul) is written making arguments that Dorje Shugden specially emanated to protect the school, according to the colophon it was written at Drepung and signed by btsun pa ma ti. It is included in the collected works ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan who came to Lhasa then later returned to Mongolia and became an abbot of khu re monastery in Ulan Baator. ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan's collected works also contains bstan bsrung rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal la mchod gtor 'bul tshul dam can dgyes pa'i mchod sprin las bzhi lhun grub, which expands on 'on rgyal sras rin po che's torma offering including most parts verbatim. In the colophon it says rgyal sras rdo rje 'chang gi gsung byin rlabs kyi tshan kha che ba'i khyad kyis de nyid sor bzhag la cung zad kha bsgyur te kha bskong ba'i tshul du bsgrigs te btsun gzugs ngag gi dbang pos bris pa 'dis kyang rgyal bstan yun ring du gnas pa'i cha rkyen du gyur cig.

Evidence is found of a Shugden rje gnang lineage in Amdo (Rongchen Kirti Rinpoche) with an epithet of Shugden being protector of Manjunatha's doctrine. Two generations ahead of Pabongkha is dvag po skal bzang mkhas sgrub who has a torma offering enumerating the 32 deities of Shugden and writes a praise to Shugden later commented on by Trijang Rinpoche. The generation preceding Pabongkha, Shugden has become widespread in Gelug. Many of Pabongkha's root lamas do the practice: tre hor khang gsar rin po che, dvag po 'jam dpal lhun grubs, stag phu padma vajra, etc. Pabongkha was not a student of gser kong rdo rje chang, though he has written to Shugden as well .

4. 1900's -- Pabongkha/Tagphu Padmavajra and beyond -- Both were contemporaries though Pabongkha was the latter's student. Further development of the Shugden practice, although as a side note Pabongkha's collected works contain just as many Four Face Mahakala works as Shugden works, which was present in the Gelug previously debately to a lesser degree. Tkalsang (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a nineteenth century painting commissioned by the 34th Sakya Trizen, Pema Dudul Wangchug [TBRC Person RID: P808} which also shows four activity emanations:

http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm/393.html

The inscription on the back:

http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm/393/alt/393B.html

I assume, without being certain, this thanka is based on the fulfillment rites of Kunga Lodo, his grandfather.

Tendrel (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

TK:

"if you could provide authorities that explicitly deny the authenticity of this prayer as a reference..."

That has been done. See the main page-- unless Truthbody has undone my undo of his undo.

Tendrel (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

Very interesting, I didn't notice this before, but the mantras on the back of the thangkha has "ba dzra bi ghi bi gra nta" mixed within a longer mantra. I previously thought the now ubiquitous (and perhaps shortened) mantra was one of Pabongkha's completely new contributions because none of the many earlier Gelug texts I've seen have any mantra resembling this whatsover. The Gelug claim (via Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha as well I think) is that Kunga Lodro wrote about the four manifestations in a text called ‘dul ‘dzin mchod chog phun ‘tshogs ‘dod ‘khyil, which I mention with some hesitation with a lack of verifiability at the moment.

TBRC was correct regarding Ngawang Lobsang (born 18th century), Dan Martin's bibliography had misassumed him for his teacher and used his years. Changed the Gelug history above with this consideration.Tkalsang (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi TK

"This simply provides more evidence that the practice originated in Sakya. I suggest that because the Sakya Gongma clearly originated this practice including its mantra, Shugden gained prestige-- especially since Trichen Kunga Lodo was a very important master on the Sakya Landre lineage all main lines of Lamdre go through him.

If the mantra originates with Kunga Lodo, or more likely, Sonam Rinchen, then it is proven that Shugden originates in Sakya and is adopted by Gelugpas during the mid 18th century after Kunga Lodo's fame as a teacher spread. I imagine a scenario like this: Kunga Lodo has responsibilities to Ganden Phodrang, like all Sakya Trichens since the Fifth Dalai Lama. The Sakya Gongma are highly revered by Mongolians because Sapan was the person who brought them to Dharma. Mongolian Geshe's adopt Shugden with enthusiasm in the mid 18th century where they bring Kunga Lodo's Shugden back to Mongolia and Amdo, and in their minds they make a link between Sapan, who corrected their non-Buddhist views, and Shugden, who they imagine will help conservative Geshes stem what they perceive to a rising degeneration of the Gelug school because at this time in Mongolian history, many Gelugpas are beginning to mix Gelug and Nyingma teaching, much to conservative consternation. Dorje Shugden becomes, for Mongolians, a banner practice that has no prior Nyingma influence, is modern, and has a stainless source in their eyes, i.e. the Sakya Gongma (ironically, Kunga Lodo, like all Sakya Trichens, is as much a Nyingma Lama as a Sakya Lamas, when you examine his collected works). Because Shugden becomes identified with Gelugpa conservatism in Mongolia, in the mid ninteenth century, Shugden is reintroduced to Lhasa from Mongolia where it has undergone considerable change in character-- it is now THE Gelugpa deity, and the rest as we know is found in books by Pabhonkha etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendrel (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel, Whether or not one accepts that the 5DL wrote the prayer, I think it fair to say that the Sakyas developed Shugden as a practice. Now that we both agree on the Sakyas contribution I would argue Kunga Lodro may have given some of his texts to Gelugs, I mentioned earlier but retracted because the time wasn't right, but in Kunga Lodro’s collected works volume 6 (cha) there is a work called mchod dpon sde drug mkhan por gnang ba'i shugs ldan gtor bsngo (mysteriously dissappeared on TBRC this month). mchod dpon sde drug mkhan po was a mchod dpon mkhan po of the 7th of the Dalai Lama ("chaplain" of offerings), this can be found in his collected works, as he wrote down the composition of a Kalachakra Tsok offering and later requested Chakya Rolpai Dorje to write 7DL's namthar. Also, according to Kunga Lodro's collected works he apparently has some other texts related to 'on rgyal sras rin po che, who's Shugden torma offering matches the description of Shugden depicted in the Sakya thangkha very closely. So there is probably some merit to these claims. Granted the Mongolians are a bit puritanical even soon after the 5DL. But what evidence is there that in Mongolia in the 19th century there was this response to growing Nyingma influence? Also, was this related to the Rime movement necessarily? Another interesting note, according to several sources (TR and Serkong Dorje Chang) dre'u lhas, who was a Drugpa Kagyu terton and Drugpa Kunleg incarnation, wrote rituals to Shugden.Tkalsang (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to read Tkelsang and Tendrel's debate about the Sakya influence on Dorje Shugden practice, and I appreciate the efforts and the Tibetan scholarship, but the discussion is not reflecting on the article -- the numerous changes Tendrel is currently making seem to have little or nothing to do with what is being discussed here. There seems to be a problem right now in that Tendrel is making scores of changes and some of them seem okay and can just about pass, but some of them definitely require more discussion and consensus but that is not happening. It would be a full time job to follow Tendrel and query his changes so out of courtesy perhaps he can ask about at least the bigger changes on the talk pages, and wait for a reply in the affirmative from tkelsang and perhaps other wiki editors too, before he makes his change. Otherwise we just go backwards and forwards. Please see above for another comment on this subject. (Truthbody (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Who is the Dalai Lama's root Guru?

Hi Folks:

It is a fact that The Dalai Lama has many more root Gurus that Trijiang Rinpoche. So please stop changing the page. Yes, it is true that he mentions that Trijiang Rinpoche is one of his root Gurus when he was giving the transmission for the Quick path, in Path to Bliss-- but this does not mean he is excluding his other masters. In one of the unpublished transcripts of his addresses in the 1990's he points out that if any teacher is his real root Guru, it is Taktra Rinpoche, the second Regent, from whom he received the majority of his Gelug transmissions.

There is also Dilgo Khyentse, Chogye Trichen, and so on. So, please-- stop trying to make out that the Dalai Lama has only one root Guru. It's a misconception. Those of us who are his students and supporters know the real truth of this situation-- so when the detractors of the Dalai Lama insist that there he had not other root Lamas other than Trijiang, we know that this is just politics and spin-doctoring.

Tendrel (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is interesting to read Tkelsang and Tendrel's debate about the Sakya influence on Dorje Shugden practice, and I appreciate the efforts and the Tibetan scholarship, but the discussion is not reflecting on the article -- the numerous changes Tendrel is currently making seem to have little or nothing to do with what is being discussed here"

The changes I have made have cleaned up the article, removed needless repetitions, and have made it much more readable and more well organized.

The discussions about the history between TK and I will be incorporated into the article in due course, in when discussing the Origins section.

If we cannot come to agreement about the nature of the Dalai Lama's relations with Trijiang and his other root Guru's like Dilgo KHyente, Chogye Trichen and so on-- this is very negative, and it means you are being deliberately uncooperative.

In other words, what I am trying to say is that you have no right to assert who the Dalai Lama's root Gurus are-- only he has that right. The fact is that he has taken four full empowerments from many Gurus-- so they are all his root Gurus. This is simply a fact. So it is wrong to keep insisting over and over again the mantra that Trijiang Rinpoche is the DL's root Lama--- for example, also Ling Rinpoche is HHDL's root Guru-- and Ling Rinpoche _never_ practiced Shugden, and so on and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendrel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kay says that Je Phabongka was scolded by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama for doing so and promised to stop, however after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, being freed from danger of retribution he began to spread the practice again.

According to the biography of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, there is no mention of any ban of Dorje Shugden or his oracle. On the contrary, it mentions advice given by Dorje Shugden through the oracle at Tromo Dungkar Gonpa which the Thirteenth Dalai Lama appreciated and followed."

This section does not belong in the origin section.

Frankly, the best way to have this page is to remove all the sectarian controversies from it-- and simply highlight historical development of the practice; the Sakya view and origins of the practice, the Gelug view and origins of the practice, and leave the squabbles for the controversy page.

This is supposed to an informational page, not a page where we discuss all the detailed controversies. My edits are intended to achieve a streamlined, objective and non-controversial recounting of facts.

So this paragraph about, does not really tell us about the origins of Shugden practice. So it does not belong this section, and indeed, since it is a subject of polemics, it is does not belong in this article.

Tendrel (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"80.177.206.35 ...(those are certainly his teachers but he only has one root Guru, who he named as Trijang R in one of his books. At least, that is usually how it works, isn't it?)"

I agree with Tendrel in this case that it possible to have more than one root Guru. I was under the impression that whoever grants one Highest Yoga Tantra Empowerments becomes a root Guru. If it is documented that the Dalai Lama received these from several people then of course he would have several root Guru's.

Generally practitioners consider one of their root Guru's (if they have more than one) to be their main root Guru - but this is of course up to the individual to decide. As Tendrel says - it is up to the Dalai Lama to assert whoever he wants to be his main root Guru.

If he once considered Venerable Trijang Rinpoche to be his main root Guru, it does not seem certain that he has not abandoned this relationship - particularly as he is attempting to destroy the reputation of a practice that Venerable Trijang Rinpoche held so dear.

LivingAndLearning (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama has received major empowerments from many high Lamas. Most of the emphasis on HHDL's relationship with TR is tied up with the legends around the Ganden Miraculous Volume and who owned it. Trijiang Rinpoche was considered to have possessed this book, and accordingly, therefore was considered something like the secret head of the Gelug school. Therefore, it is considered that Trijiang and Pabhongka before him represented the true heart of the Gelug school. Therefore, some of TR's students consider it inconceivable that TR was merely one of serveral of HHDL's root gurus-- because, in their view, TR was so vital in preserving what they consider to the be the summum bonum of the Gelug school-- he must has been the caop de tutti de capo of HHDL's root Gurus.

But the fact is that the Ganden Miraculous Volume itself has been at the center of prolongued controversy within the Gelug school for just about as long as Shugden has been around.

The Dalai Lama has argued that if there is a so called Ganden Miraculous Volume, it is nothing other than the collection works of Tsongkhapa themselves. There are a number of features of the neo_Gelug tradition coming from Pabhongkha that HHDL is intent on dismantling-- Shugden, Ganden Miraculous Volume legend, emphasis on Yogini at the expense of other practices. He has also argued forcefully that he is perfectly within his right to disagreee with Trijiang Rinpoche, and uses the example of Arya Vimuktesena's refutations of Vasubandhi, his own teacher, as an example.

In any event, I think the main point is that this article should shy away from polemics and controversy and stick with facts, and not opinions. Most of the discussion here is aimed at providing a solid basis for this, that does not mean it needs to appear in the main article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendrel (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tendrel,

I thoroughly agree that this article should:

"shy away from polemics and controversy and stick with facts, and not opinions."

Lets keep that sort of thing to the controversy pages - and there hopefully we can work together to create a simple and balanced overview. After all, an encyclopedia really isn't the sort of place to get personal.

Still, in the interests of harmony, it does seem fair to make changes at a slower pace - in order to give more people a say and avoid any possible edit wars that may result from any one person making very frequent and substantial changes (as has been happening of late).

LivingAndLearning (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendrel,

I agree the DL has more than 2 root gurus (the 2 yongs 'dzin), anyone he has received wang, lung, tri from is a root guru. I don't see a need to spell that out on this page, but referring to TR it should say Junior Yongdzin (tutor is really an inaccurate translation) or something so it doesn't give the impression the DL's gurus are limited to only two.

Regarding Ling Rinpoche we really don't have hard evidence one way or the other, I have a torma offering he allegely wrote for the Varanasi Dharma group that clearly includes DS. But it would be better to sidestep the polemics of this and don't even mention Ling Rinpoche at all on this, I think it would be unproductive to bring every point into scope.

Finally regarding the Ganden Miraculous scripture, I'm not familiar with any controversy. But it clearly predates Shugden as it is mentioned in the works of Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen, that these are the teachings Je Rinpoche received from Manjushri (see sprul pa'i glegs bam in the opening paragraphs): http://www.asianclassics.org/research_site/09_Author/PanchenLobsangChukyiGyeltsen/Sungbum/BiographiesOfEminentSpiritualMasters/CollectionsOfBiographiesOfTheGendenTradition/AMaptotheGoldmineBiographiesoftheLamasoftheProfoundPathintheTraditionoftheVirtuousOnes/S5880M_T.TXT

But it would be better to leave it there, researching Shugden is hard enough and overdue as we both probably agree Western scholars have done a really lousy job and just made things more confusing.Tkalsang (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi TK:

The only reason the question of HHDL's root gurus are in an issue, is that Trijiang Rinpoche's students have made persistent claims that TR is DL's one and only. Thus, when the article prefaces a statement by TR that he is DL"s root guru, this supports a political position and must be corrected. Either all references to their relations as guru and disciple should be removed, or alternately, it must be made clear that TR is not DL's sole root guru.

As far as the Ganden Volume, disputes about the authenticity of this can be found in the later 17th century onwards after it was first mentioned. Especially since the Fifth was not too pleased at the Panchen Lama's Ganden Mahamudra. The first Lama to mention to GMV was this Panchen Lama. This is similar to the polemics in the Sakya school about the slob bshad tradition-- there were some in Ngor who did not accept it because it added dream yoga and illusory body practices that were not spelled out in the earlier Lamdre manuals and secondary literature. Anyway, you can read HHDL's remarks about this in his Mahamudra book, and Willis has mention of issues around the GMV in her book of bios of the Ensapa lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendrel (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tendrel & TKalsang,

RE: "Either all references to their relations as guru and disciple should be removed, or alternately, it must be made clear that TR is not DL's sole root guru."

Clearly this relationship is a very important one for many reasons, so it does not make any sense to remove all references to it. I do think that it should be stated that TR is one of DL's root Guru's though, not the sole one. If there is a reference that the DL ever referred to TR as his main root Guru - or that he used a similar term - this would be significant - but I do not know of any references personally. Does anyone else?

LivingAndLearning (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lama Zopa also says that Trijang Rinpoche was the Dalai Lama's root Guru, at the top of page 6 and again towards the bottom of page 8 of [11]. I guess the question for me is, while you can have many Gurus, can you have more than one root Guru? Emptymountains (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On page 6 the PDF you cite refers to Trijang Rinpoche as Zopa's root guru, and Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo as the root guru to the DL's guru. Since both Trijang and Ling (The DL's Junior and Senior Tutors) were students of Pabongka, this could refer to either one without making either the DL's root guru. On page 8, it refers to Trijang simply as the DL's guru, without reference to a root guru. So this document gives no support for the claim that Trijang was the DL's root guru.

I've looked, and I can't find any reference to Trijang as the DL's root guru that doesn't come from NKT/Shuk-den sources. Unless independent confirmation can be found that Trijang was the DL's root guru, or one of his root gurus, then any statement referring to the Trijang as the DL's root guru or one of his root gurus has to be treated as POV.RenGalskap (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I went back through this section and found Tendrel's reference to the DL's statement that Trijang was a root guru. I was trying to digest too much the first time through. My thanks to Tendrel; searching for such a reference was how I ended up here in the first place. I agree with the point made above that the count of the DL's root gurus and their names belongs in the controversy article and has little relevance to the history of Dorje Shugden. 72.196.230.96 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give a brief summary of Vimuktesena's refutations of his Teacher Vasubandhi and what the outcome was? Or, can you give a book or online reference that describes what happened? I came up with nothing when doing an online search. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi EmptyMountains,

I was initially under the impression that one could - though most don't have more than one root Guru, however there appears to be is significant written assertions that according to certain traditions, one cannot. e.g.

In Karma Chakme's Mountain Dharma By Khenpo Karthar rinpoche (p.304):

"Does that mean we can have more than one root Guru? According to the Kagyu tradition the answer is no."

http://books.google.com/books?id=eiXR8LKn1eMC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=%22more+than+one+root+guru%22&source=web&ots=C5zBMU29S3&sig=uTGJmxpO52s71xIyJ47jTortCM0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA304,M1

(The Dalai Lama presents a synthesis of Gelug and Kagyu in his book 'The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra'.)

I don't think anyone can assert that Trijang Rinpoche was not the Dalai Lama's root Guru. The question, as you say is only whether it is valid to assert one can have more than one in a given tradition.

Perhaps if we had some more published sources as opposed to mere opinion and speculation by people with unknown and possibly little training we could lay this issue to rest. I'd also like to know more about the other article you mention.

LivingAndLearning (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• (although clearly many people participating are very well versed in their traditions (including yourself) - the last comment was not aimed at any person in particular - I was just suggesting a way to qualify assertions, not to insult anybody)

LivingAndLearning (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Kagyu and Nyingma lineages, the root guru is the teacher who directly points out the nature of the mind. For Sakya and Gelug lineages, the root guru is anyone from whom a person received a Highest Yoga Tantra, so for each yidam, a person can have a root guru just for that practice.

Jmlee369 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly appreciate the feedback, but what we are lacking are not opinions or claims on the subject, but references stating such claims - preferably from published teachers. I'm not saying what you state is wrong, but there is nothing listed here to back it up.

LivingAndLearning (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sakya Pandita states in The Reply to the Questions of the Nyimo Gomchen:

"Twenty two: ‘What is the reason that makes someone a root guru?’

A root guru bestows the four empowerments and so on; demonstrates the four paths, creation stage and so on; arranges the interconnections with the four kāyas, the nirmanakāya and so on. In brief, since the deeds are present in accordance with what is stated in the sutras and tantras of the Buddha, one holds as one’s root guru those who perform the deeds of a perfect Buddha. Otherwise, without bestowing the empowerments according the Buddha’s teachings, without demonstrating the path, without arranging the interconnections, since that introduction to the mind exists as the oral instruction of the shravakas, no matter how much merit there might be, it is not appropriate to hold Mahāyāna persons of such types as a root guru because that path is not the Mahāyāna path."

Tendrel (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Of course, the quote's emphasis is on "a root Guru," (does not address having multiple root Gurus) and even then the answer is from a Sakya perspective. It is perplexing to me that such an important question (i.e., "Who is the Dalai Lama's root Guru?") is so elusive. All the other famous Gelug Teachers I've looked up so far seem to be able to state explicitly who their root Guru is, but the Dalai Lama's lineage of Teachers seems hidden by a smoke screen. I attended a teaching by Gen-la Dekyong last fall, and someone asked her about the DS situation with the Dalai Lama. She said that if she had the chance to meet him, she would ask him just three questions, the first being, "Who is your Spiritual Guide?" Emptymountains (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! If you check the Dalai Lama's page, there's 'teachings' but no 'Teachers'! He doesn't explain the lineage which is quite odd. He talks about the 'Nalanda tradition' in interviews and quotes great Teachers such as Nagarjuna but he doesn't say who his close lineage Gurus are. I suspect this is done deliberately to prevent criticism --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Berzin's book, Relating to a Spiritual Teacher:Building a Healthy Relationship mentions root gurus here - http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/published_books/spiritual_teacher/pt1/spiritual_teacher_04.html#nad7bf177600c7df910

I don't think it's strange though, for HH not to specify a root guru. I think he has mentioned Ling Rinpoche in a talk somewhere as being the major source of the lineage transmissions but I'm not certain about that. Anyhow, everyone knows that he had the two tutors and Tsem Tulku's website - http://www.tsemtulku.com/rinpoche/highlamas.htm, says they were both root gurus to HH. On that same site, it says that Tsem Tulku has 14 root gurus. Jmlee369 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these references will be helpful:

From The Union of Bliss and Emptiness, Snow Lion Publications 1988

I received the transmission of the guru yoga (Lama Choepa Guru Yoga Practice) from my root guru, the late Kybje Trijang Rinpoche. (p26)

Regarding the visualization of the merit field:

The tradition which was explained by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche is very good. Because there are many different explanations regarding the lineage gurus, the former Dalai Lama asked Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche for clarification on this topic. (p80)
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche had a very unique meditation on the cultivation of equanimity, explaining it in the context of conventional and ultimate truths. (p153)

Regarding 'Eight verses on Thought Transformation':

I myself read it daily and received the transmission of the commentary from Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.' (pp162-3)

From Illuminating the Path to Enlightenment, Thubten Dhargye Ling Publications, 2002

… I first received the transmission of Lama tsong khapa's text, lines of experience, from Tathag Rinpoche … and later from my most venerable tutors, the late Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, … and the late Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche.'

From 'The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama', Thomas Laird, Atlantic Books, 2007, Page 302, when asked about his feelings during the Chinese invasion when he was fifteen years old:

"What did you feel when you heard of the invasion?' I asked the Dalai Lama.
"Much anxiety," he said. ….
"… Then my senior tutor Ling Rinpoche and also Trijang Rinpoche gave me some encouragement at that time and that was helpful.," the Dalai Lama said.
…"… How did they encourage you to deal with this?" I asked.
"They said, 'At this critical time in the history of Tibet, everyone will look towards His Holiness, and you must take this responsibility.' They gave me great personal encouragement.

Sorry forgot to sign last this. (Truthbody (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

That is not to say that he did not have other root gurus either.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibet.com

Talk about suspicious!!! A listed link to tibet.com - Tibetan Government in Exile's Official Web Site (that was under critics of Dorje Shugden prior to my removal) is a reported attack site (try and view Tibet.com in firefox 3 if you want to risk infection to see for yourself - do so at your own risk and don't say I didn't warn you that you might get infected).

The page summary for tibet.com in firefox 3 says:

Reported Attack Site!

This web site at tibet.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.

When clicking the link to see why this site was blocked by firefox I am redirected to the following google page:

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://tibet.com/

Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for tibet.com/

What is the current listing status for tibet.com/?

   Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

   Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

   Of the 6 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 08/01/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 08/01/2008.

   Malicious software includes 5 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 8 new processes on the target machine.

LivingAndLearning (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an apparently legitimate site contains malware may indicate that it has been hacked. Has this been reported to the site's webmaster? Rodparkes (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism

97.90.158.48, anonymous user, is trying to vandalize this site -- not using the talk pages and adding chunks of texts from other articles, perhaps trying to either get away with anti Dorje Shugden propaganda or to incite an edit war. Please can he or she stop doing this for the sake of a good article and harmony. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Hearsay

Gentlepersons:

We cannot use hearsay in this article. The reference to the Ganden Tripa cannot stand.

If someone wants to try and get such a statement from him in writing, this is one thing-- otherwise, it is just hearsay.

Tendrel (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it needs to contain verifiable facts. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, you are right. But it is a very interesting piece of hearsay and the source is very reliable. It is very hard for the Ganden Tripa to say something publicly as he will lose his job, status and everything -- it is easier for Lamas to agree with the Dalai Lama in public. He has a small group of disciples in France who practice Dorje Shugden, publicly he does differently. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Links

As on Dorje Shugden controversy, the same anonymous user keeps moving critical links into common links, so i have moved them back. (Truthbody (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Biography

Here on the socalled Anti-Shugden [12] the existence of an autobiography written by Drakpa Gyaltsen is mentioned. Can we find out whether and where it is still available?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.192 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New origin section

Anonymous user 88.75.94.166 please use talk pages before making sweeping changes that are very anti-Dorje Shugden straight from dalailama.com. We are trying to avoid any edit wars on this article. Your section should be incorporated into controversy section (where it is already actually covered). Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

anti-Dorje Shugden Truthbody, I had not suspected that some historical truth about the place of origin might cause an aggression. Dalai Lama is looking for truth. Where is the information covered? thank you for the information. Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.166 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We are all looking for the truth. There are two different points of view and the dalailama.com website has been quoted ad infinitum already on both this and the controversy website. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Anonymous user 79.171.63.246 please use the talk pages before adding sources that are more appropriately placed in the Controversy article, which is where you have also put them. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Since you seem to be a self-proclaimed Truthbody, no need for you to look for truth, no? I had quoted parts of the site of the fifth Dalai Lama which had not been quoted until now, on neither of the two sites mentioned by you, and, if you were not a truthbody, I might have said that you've told a lie.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.214 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Section Practice

It is stated: "On the basis of this failure, some Gelugpa Lamas believe there is evidence to show that the Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama realized he was mistaken in considering Dorje Shugden a spirit, and then composed a prayer praising Dorje Shugden as a Buddha and crafted a statue to show his respect for Dorje Shugden. However, this evidence is disputed by the 14th Dalai Lama ." Is there any information where or when the composed prayer has been found? or the statue? Looking up the content of the links, I have not found anything regarding these questions.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.166 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Academic Paper

von Brück's paper can in no way be judged as a Shugden critical academic paper. So it should have top priority for external links and for using it for this article. the paper is clearly WP:RS. 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

@Atisha's cook and other NKT/WSS editors. The paper of von Brück, http://info-buddhismus.de/dorje_shugden_controversy.html is Wikipdia reliable source WP:RS don't delete that link again based on your own bias. Every neutral admin or editor will accept this paper here. If you disagree find an admin who shares your opinion. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Atisha's cook you was already blocked being accused of using sockpuppets it is you who violates WP.Guidelines by excluding links to acknwoledged academic papers. These are neutral 3rd party sources and these are primary sources for Wikipedia. If you delete the link again; I'll send a notice to the adminboard for WP:vandalism. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion page on Dorje Shugden controversy to see that the accusation of sock puppetry was removed as it was shown that those different users had the same IP while attending the same conference in the summer months. (Truthbody (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I think that the paper is okay, but just because it is an academic paper doesn't mean it is neutral. Was it peer reviewed? There's no information about it. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the discrimination between neutral and non-neutral papers were made by user:Thruthbody in the Shugden controversy WP article. I just picked it up for the sake to avoid endless discussions. No problem to remove this label here. I don't know if it ws peer reviewed but it is published among other papers by Oxford University Press. This is enough for the sake to add it and to use it, especially as Shugden followers quote from blogs and other non WP:RS questionable sources. 79.171.63.246 (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

79.171.63.246 (why won't you sign your edits and posts?) this paper is not the problem - it seems balanced enough for both povs to accept. the problem is its source. as Truthsayer62 says, it's not known to have been peer reviewed, and as i and others have pointed out - you link to it on Tenzin Peljor/kt66's site (yours? i'm just guessing, because we have no idea who you are). this site is very clearly and admittedly anti-Shugden. therefore, you cannot expect pro-Shugden editors such as myself, in our efforts to reach a compromise with anti-Shugden editors such as yourself in order to create a valid, balanced WP article, to be happy with a link to this article *on this site*. if an interested layperson goes to Tenzin Peljor's site to read a "neutral academic paper", how will they know to discriminate this from the other, strongly biased information on that site? this is what i will argue if you want to report me to admin.

please - for the sake of compromise to achieve a balanced WP article, find a neutral site hosting this article (should be possible, if it's OUP published, as you say) and link to it there.

if after a reasonable period of time you've not done this, i will delete the link to the article on Tenzin Peljor's site, you can report me, and none of us gets any closer to our goal. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Atisha's cook (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

you(?) removed the TP/kt66 link - thank you. but the new link seems to be broken?

Atisha's cook (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lineage section

In addition to mentioning the short lineage that came through Pabhonkha Rinpoche's guru, it should also be mentioned that Shugden was practised in the Sakya schools long before that, though as a worldly protector. This page is, of course, about Shugden and so the lineage should also cover the original practice of the deity as well. Jmlee369 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I have no objection to this. Do you want to draft a few sentences for inclusion? Then we can discuss them? --Dspak08 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert and I have read many good summaries out there on the net, which I have unfortunately lost track of. The problem here is that there are so many varying accounts about the origin of Shugden that it is hard to say that something is definite. The basic outline from the Sakya side was that initially, the spirit (gyalpo) Shugden (seeing as he was a wordly protector in the Sakya lineage) went to Tashi Lhunpo to see his guru from his previous life, but was turned away the monastery's guardians. GKG's account of this says he had to turn away due to inauspicous circumstances and does not mention the guardian incident. Aferwards, he went to and declared to the Sakya master that he (Shugden) was a vow breaker and requested food and shelter, after which Sakya Dagchen Sonam Rinchen bound him under oath out of compassion. From then on, he was supplicated as a deity within Caturmukha Mahakala's retinue and part of the Three Kings, consisting of Shugden, Setrap and Ts'ui Marpo.

Some sources mentioning Sakya practices and Shugden origin theories are as follows: http://vajrasana.org/jeff01.htm, http://www.shugdensociety.info/Bernis2EN.html and Dhonthog Rinpoche's (a Sakya master) account of events found in his work, "The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Words, Sapan Institute, 2000". In it, he says:

"There he [Shugden] met Sakya Dagchen Sonam Rinchen. Dagchen Rinpoche recognized the spirit, but pretended not to know who he was and asked him "Who are you?" Dolgyal replied "I am the pledge breaker of Ganden. Will you please give me shelter and food?"

Dagchen Rinpoche decided that the time was not right to annihilate him because his very bad karma, associated with the wicked prayers uttered as his deathbed [as Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen] was yet unresolved. Therefore, Dagchen bound him spiritually, (by means of the power of his meditation), and compelled him to cease harming people and the Dharma.

Dolgyal was thus held in the custody of four faced Mahakala, Caturmukha, one of the three chief guardian deities at Khau Kyelhye hermitage. By this means the life of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Government and the people of Tibet were protected from the danger of Shugden for some time."

Interestingly, though it seems that the Sakya throne holders had a connection to the Three Kings, it seems that the current Sakya Trizin and his sister were told by HH Sakya Trizin's root guru to not propitiate Shugden, even before the whole controversy broke out.

Not only that, but it seems that the quote often cited by GKG and other of Morchen Kunga Lhundrup encourging his students to rely on Shugden is not found in his biography, even though he is said to have said it on many occasions.

Another thing that the article hasn't mentioned is the development of Shugden practice in Mongolia, where it seems to have gained many of it's non-Sakya elements.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmlee, this is what it says in Trijang Rinpoche's 'Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors', page 112:

The Great Fifth Dalai Lama's main lama was Minling Terchen Rinpoche Gyurme Dorje Tsel, an undisputed great treasure revealer at whose feet he studied for a long time. The biography of one of that lama's disciples, the Vajra Master named Chechog Dupa Tsel or Losel Gyatso, is called Dispelling the Darkness of Torment. As quoted by Lelung Shepay Dorje who kept Losel Gyatso's genuine miscellaneous writings in order, it says,

Again, at a later time, Morchen Dorje Chang Kunga Lhundrub spread the practice widely, saying that since now is the time for all of his special pure visions to be fulfilled one must rely upon this Great King, himself. He would speak of incredible benefits. Even then, some would say it is not good and claim that those who spread the practice of this King's activities are terrible, but they do not understand the main point: Vajradhara has said that he is definitely the emanation of a great master, a great clarifier of the teachings.

Also, at that beginning period, this King was more powerful than any harm that could be wrought against him and his activities even increased at that time. Morchen himself was more effective at that time, in terms of his teachings serving to train disciples, which ultimately comes down to the same point, if you check.

To take an example, those such as the great yaksha Tsiu Marpo and King Pehar are, in actuality, definitely Buddhas, and fully renowned as protectors of Buddha's teachings. Yet the story is told of how Pehar experienced obstacles and did not complete his Dharma practice and there are many stories of his harming Dharma practitioners. Many great beings that have gone to Samye Monastery tell of a great yaksha making them leave. As regards wrathful types of action, Ra Lotsawa did away with thirteen vajra masters such as Darma Dode with fire pujas, and all of his actions were only those of a Buddha performed with special awareness for necessary reasons. With one expression Pehar may help someone, and with another he may obstruct someone, but his actions are not conceivable to ordinary thought. When dispatched for activity, Pehar is made offerings in the aspect of a Dharma protector and requested to perform activities, while, on the other hand, the very same Pehar is often dispatched on missions in the aspect of a demon. Understanding these profound points alone is completely liberating. Still, if I am criticized because this does not conform to modern belief systems or is difficult for the Geshes to comprehend, I can only say, I am sorry.

I'm curious who the Sakya Dagchen was during the Fifth Dalai Lama's time as indicated in Dhongtog Rinpoche's account. Moreover, some discussion on the history in Gelug/Sakya is discussed above in the history vs. tradition section. Granted there are some missing specifics that make the time period between the Fifth DL and Sakya Sonam Rinchen which sort of leaves a hole for all various speculations. I'm not sure if that is going to be solved for awhile, unless some text written in the late 17th/early 18th centuries is found that clearly explains how Dorje Shugden was enthroned by the Sakyas. According to Trijang Rinpoche there was something but who knows what that was and where it can be found now. Dreyfus and Von Bruck conveniently leave out about a dozen Gelug masters who wrote rituals to Shugden before Pabongkha. Given that an initiation didn't exist until the late 19th century starting with the Eighth Kirti Rinpoche, there was no "lineage" in the sense that there was a initiation passed down from master to master before that time. Rather earlier Gelugpas, apparently like the Sakyas, simply did protector pujas to Shugden without an initiation passed down. So, really these flowered in a non-linear way to be able to draw a lineage as can be found with other practices. Otherwise, out of the Sakya rituals I've seen there is no reference to Four Face Mahakala, it would be interesting to know the relation though. One I read through is done through the yidam Hayagriva, and invokes Dorje Shugden. Another interesting thing is Shugden attendent, Khache Marpo, is one of the Seven Blazing Brothers of Tsiu Marpo. The earlier reference I can find to Khache Marpo individually is in the Fifth Dalai Lama's collected works, in which he states he is related to Tsiu Marpo.Tkalsang (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long quote! For whatever reason, this contradicts the information you have given. It also shows that even at that time, people did not comprehend the actions of Protectors, much less their enlightened nature, so is there any surprise that people are confused these days? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It still does not explain why Morchen's namthar does not mention him urging the propitiation of Shugden (though to be honest, I myself cannot read Tibetan and am relying on the words of a Sakya scholar). I find it strange that it mentions Pehar as being enlightened, as HHDL said it would be wrong to take refuge in such beings, if I remember correctly. It has always been my understanding that no matter their true nature, deities who appear in the form of wordly beings (i.e. with oracles and so forth) such as the Ganapati (who had Chenrezig dissolved into his form) should be treated as wordly beings and refuge should not be taken in them. I do remember my source for this information, however.

As for the identity of the Sakya Dagchen, I would have thought it would be Sakya Dachen Sonam Rinchen as mentioned above.

Perhaps we could have to seperate parts, the practice lineage in Sakya then the practice lineage in Gelug.

Jmlee369 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I dug around in google groups way back to 1996 when this stuff was hashed out before my time. I found this: "Jeff Watt has mentioned here that he carefully read the extensive biography of Morchen Kunga Lhundrub (Lamdre Collection, Volume #5, folios 451-625) and found only one reference to Shugden (which occurs on folio 577) where Morchen Kunga Lhundrup makes reference to making an offering to Dorje Shugden Tsal "so that oaths are maintained." Granted it is biography less than 200 folios long so it probably doesn't go into too much detail on everything. Otherwise, the only "published" ritual by Morchen is in Guru Deva Rinpoche's Be Bum (pages 232-243), it is called rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal gyi gsol kha 'phrin las 'dod 'jo zhes bya ba bzhugs so. The first half consists of a ritual written by the Fourth Drugpa Kunleg dre'u lhas and the second half is Morchen's. Apparently at some later time these rituals were compiled them into one single work as dre'u lhas would have been very young at the time of Morchen. Otherwise there are a few colophons of Gelug masters that refer to Morchen's rituals including Serkong Dorje Chang's kangso as well as Dragri Dorje Chang's kangso.

Otherwise, I think it was Chris Fynn way back on artb wrote that Shugden was first propitiated in the Sakya by Trichen Sonam Wangchuck (1638-1685) and Trichen Kunga Tashi. It would be nice to find references to where this is information is derived and finally get to the bottom of this mystery.Tkalsang (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Worldly or Beyond Worldly?

The earliest distinction I can find that defines the difference is in the 18th century by Longdol Lama. For beyond worldly protectors they are the ones who have attained at least the path of seeing of the Mahayana path. So, according to this definition to say a protector is only either an enlightened Buddha or a worldly protector is wrong. This means the beyond worldly protectors are Arya Bodhisattvas as well as Buddhas.Tkalsang (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, even if a protector is an 8th level bodhisattva, they are still considered worldly because they are not fully enlightened. Thus, my lama said that even though the four directional kings are on the 8th bhumi, they can still cause some harm to beings inadvertantly. It is like saying that because a human arya sangha has attained that state, they are beyond mistake which isn't totally true, nor does that mean that they are not human. Likewise, arya protectors still are wordly gods in their form.

Jmlee369 (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the Four Directional Protectors being at the Eight Bhumi, but it could be my lack of materials to refer to. I've heard that individually Vaishravana (sitting form) being at the Arya level. Infallibility is not question here, it is simply the definition of worldly. Moreover, the Three Jewels includes Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, so how is taking refuge in the Guru appropriate? The fact of the matter is the Gurus are worldly manifestations of Buddha (skye ba sprul sku). So by the same token the difference between truly worldly, enlightened manifesting as worldly and trans-worldly is a question broader than just protectors.Tkalsang (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting point there. Gurus are the manifestation of our inner guru and it is often said that if we view the guru as an ordinary beng, we receive the blessings of an ordinary being and if we see him as a Buddha, we will receive the blessingas of the Buddha annd so forth. If we consider, the body of the guru is the sangha, the speech is dharma and the mind is Buddha. In Je Rinpoche's Ngak Rim Chen Mo, he explains the difference between 1-7th bhumi and 8-10th bhumi bodhisattvas, I'll get the quote later.Jmlee369 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Given the acknowledged link between Dolgyal worship and sectarianism, this particular practice remains a fundamental obstacle to fostering a genuine non-sectarian spirit within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition." Should be mentioned within the article, I think; as far as I remember there is a paper by the fifth Dalai Lama with the reproach of Dissension referring to Drakpa Gyaltsen.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.4 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an opinion, moreover I could easily argue the opposite, namely there is more division now that steps have been taken by the DL to ostracize those who adhere to this deity. In any, at best it belongs on the Dorje Shugden Controvery page.Tkalsang (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be clear that sectarianism in relation to Shugden is not an opinion if one were to carefully go over many of Pabongkha Rinpoche's works related to Shugden, as well as his various letters to a Chinese general. It is well known that he practised Nyingma teachings when he was younger, then stopped after what he saw as signs from Shugden. If you consider the number of non-Gelugs to Gelugs who practise Shugden, it is quite clear which division would cause the greater problem.

Jmlee369 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

His writings about Dorje Shugden don't say much about other sects, and his letters about other sects don't say anything about Dorje Shugden. Therefore the two not necessarily related.Tkalsang (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not even in the various kangso that were composed by him?

Jmlee369 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The kangso is a ritual, I don't recall much polemics in there.Tkalsang (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

What is he (she?) aiming at according to followers and adversaries? :Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.232 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

oracle Something should be added here: this [13]? and/ or that [14]?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.190 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Weight of the Article and Sources

Hi there. I added an extra section for the link to the Central Tibetan Administration on the top of the link section. Why? When a group of mainly anonymous people attacks an (elected) government the statements of the government should be included as well and have surely more priority then the links to a group of some attackers. Here it is mainly a group of few fundamentalists attacking the Dalai Lama and the prime minister Samdhong Rinpoche. The article should not go into an undue weight to some anonymous people or the expelled monk Kelsang Gyatso attacking the TGIE and their representatives. --Kt66 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear kt66, I thought from your website you were going to stop getting involved in this controversy? Never mind.

I've moved the section you proposed under 'Shugden critics' because they are. How can the statements of a secular government on spiritual matters that don't really concern them have more weight than spiritual practitioners who have a thorough grounding in the history of this controversy, on both sides? Also, given the extreme views expressed by Kalon Tripa in the recent Al Jazeera report on the controversy, I doubt they have anything balanced and fair to say about this issue. I am not the only one who has concerns about a secular government making pronouncements and policies concerning spiritual matters, there are articles by Tibetan writers expressing the same concern. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Truthsayer62. The TGIE or CTA is what is the elected government of the Tibetans in Exile and accepted as the official representatives of the Tibetans not Kelsang Gyatso and his NKT or Western Shugden Society or Kundeling lama. So this source has much more weight than the plenitude of anonymous blogs and websites run by few Shugden followers who are a minority and most not even Tibetans. If you have a group of fanatics in Great Britain who is opposing the British governmengt nobody will give undue weight to the group of anonymous people, although their point will be stated, it will be balanced with what the government says about it. Although Kelsang Gyatso and his NKT or Western Shugden Society are very busy in this issue, they are no representatives of the Tibetans nor Buddhism. That's a matter of putting things into perspective. I can live with that the section moved a bit. I will not engage in the article. Best Wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From their Wikipedia page: "The CTA is not recognized as a government by any country." Even if they were since when have governments been reliable to make religious decisions? This very situation we have now is the exact reason why government should stay out of religion, they started this whole controversy. Moreover there are more Tibetans in Tibet than small tiny exile group of which so we can hardly say this is about the majority view.Tkalsang (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the private internet site info-buddhism.com (from kt66) in the link section? Private sites should not be used as reference within Wikepedia as anybody can create private sites --APlus (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m not so sure about this. I see no rule in the Wikipedia:External links article that precludes private websites. In the “links normally to be avoided” section of that article, #11 precludes “links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.” I’ve had this reason used against me when suggesting the addition of one of my own websites to the external links section. However, if you read what Wikipedia considers to be a personal web page, it is a vanity site “created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature,” but you won’t learn anything personal about me on my website because it isn't about me. It is important, though, that individuals do not add their own website, but put it up for discussion with other editors on the talk page, who then come to a consensus about whether or not it should be included. Such “anonymous” websites should be judged on the merits of their content. Emptymountains (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all too easy to allow decisions about external links to become an edit-war. It might be helpful to bear in mind the purpose of external links, which is to allow the reader to find out more than is possible in a short encyclopedia article. I note that several articles are included as external links. If they are of interest, then consideration should be given to using them as sources in the article. The URL should be given in the reference and then the article does not need to appear as an external link. I would think that two links would suffice for this article: one to those who practice Dorje Shugden and one to a relevant webpage of the Dalai Lama. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the purpose of the Dorje Shugden entry is on WP. If it is to merely give an overview of the deity or the social issue. The fact of the matter is it is a very multifaceted issue, there is still more waiting to be uncovered historically, etc. The external links guide line says "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; " I think having a number of links promotes because there is not enough information on the internet to fully under the history, practice and issue. One single linked is by nature limited and not only biased to one side, but even among Shugden adherents there are differing views.Tkalsang (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. The main thing is to stick to links that will inform and not simply promote. As for the purpose of the article: it needs to explain to readers who have never heard the term before both what the deity is considered to be and how come controversy has arisen; at the same time it should be a source of further information even to those who are already well acquainted with Tibetan Buddhism. A tall order perhaps. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oracle section

Seeing as how there's mention of the oracle, could it also be mentioned that enlightened protectors are said to have no oracles? Of course, the arguement would be that Shugden is an emanation of an enlightened being and therefore is able to have a medium without any contradiction but it seems to be worth mentioning. Jmlee369 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Which scriptural authority says this about oracles? The earliest definition of worldly/beyond worldly protectors I could find was written by Longdol Lama Ngawang Lobsang (late 18th Century). Before this time the concept does not seem to have existed at all, so it is questionable if early Sakyas who propitiated Shugden even thought in these terms.

In Longdol Lama's definition he says beyond worldly protectors are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas' emanations, while worldly protectors are oath bound. However, this definition contains contradictions as some protectors have been recognized as both. For example, the second Retreng Rinpoche Trichen Tenpa Rabgye (1759-1815) says that Shugden is an emanation of Vajrapani (gsang bdag sprul pa) yet the ritual name it is contained in is called a collection of entrustments, offerings and serkem to worldly deities ('jig rten pa'i lha mthu bo lche ba rnams la 'phrin bcol bsangs mchod dang gser skyems 'bul tshul sogs chos skyong skor, volume kha, pp. 1-48). This is also in accordance with Trijang Rinpoche's views, he specifically says Dorje Shugden is a worldly protector, yet is also an emanation of Manjushri, as opposed to Vajrapani. "Worldly protector" is not necessarily an insult it is just how down to earth the Buddha or Bodhisattva is.Tkalsang (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I don't have any sources but it is the generally accepted as being so. If you could point out any enlightened protectors who have mediums, please point them out. I do think though, that the distinction is important as we should know who we can take refuge in. Wordly protectors, in general, are considered to be the local deities bound under oath, no? Which would indicate a past in which they were not enlightened, seeing as they were normal sentient beings like us. They might also have been causing problems and were thus bound under oath, like Hariti whom the Buddha himself gave refuge to.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's advocating taking refuge in Shugden, I dont see any mention of this in Trijang Rinpoche's work? On the Wikipedia page itself I don't see that mentioned anywhere other than the reference from Kay who is actually somewhat of an opponent. Local deities are called yul lha and I've never seen Shugden called that before. Buddha Shakyamuni was also a normal person like us before as well and likewise all enlightened beings.Tkalsang (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying he is a fully enlightened being i.e. a Buddha would indicate that people take refuge in him. The article says this in the section on his nature and function, as well as the body mandala section.

Jmlee369 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just one of the many straw man arguments that have been leveled, whether Shugden is mentioned as enlightened or not is a different claim. If you look at Pabongkha's rituals, etc. there is no taking refuge section, also in Pabongkha's Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand Dorje Shugden is not mentioned being on the merit field.Tkalsang (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we get something clear? Do you or do you not take refuge in the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as a Buddhist? Is Shugden said to be a Buddha or not? In this article, he is. If so, does that not make him an object of refuge?

Jmlee369 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Shugden is quoted as being a Buddha or Bodhisattva emanation by many masters, but normally refuge is to non-mundane forms of Buddha. Confusing isn't it? But that's the ambiguous roadmap left by the previous masters. Even Pabongkha says one normally should not go for refuge to the protectors that are in a mundane form even though they are emanations of Buddhas. This includes Setrap, but he goes on to say it is permitted if one has developed conviction they are Buddhas (http://www.asianclassics.org/research_site/09_Author/KyabjePabongkaDechenNyingpo/Sungbum/GeneralCommentaries/CompilationofQuestionsandAnswersonanAssortmentofSubjectsfromBoththeOpenandSecretTeachings/S0505E_T.TXT).

This apparent ambiguity isn't limited to Pabongkha, even in the 18th century we find it in the quote above where Trichen Tenpa Rabgye says Shugden is an emanation of Vajrapani, wouldn't Vajrapani be acceptable to take refuge in? But, the work is still classified as a collection of worldly deities, and Lam-rim normally says you should not take refuge in worldly emanations. So this confusion obviously has existed for a long time which is why the person wrote a letter to Pabongkha seeking clarification.Tkalsang (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another thing I just found today, written by Sera Tantric College's Abbot Namkha Tenkyong (born 1799), who was a Ganden Mahamudra lineage holder, Five Deity Heruka lineage holder, and a heart disciple of Ngulchu Dharmabhadra and Yangchen Druppai Dorje:

Hum You Dorje Shugden, Chief of the dregs, Kind root and lineage gurus, yidams, infallible Three Jewels, Dakas and Dakinis’ actuality, I enthrone you as the actuality of the collection of all refuge.

He also states Dorje Shugden is a Vajrapani emanation (http://www.tbrc.org/kb/tbrc-detail.xq;jsessionid=543A3FE5C77323DEDAC7A9A1F8BFCAF7?RID=W6013&wylie=n).Tkalsang (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)