Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 1

message: high robertect, thank you for opening a section on that theme. I extended the section to give different views. I expelled the passage:
Further expression to the desire for religious homogenity can be seen in the formation and activities of the United Party between 1964 and 1973. This party was established by Gyalo Thundup [7]the brother and representative of the Dalai Lama. Amongst its objectives was the creation of "a single reformed Buddhist temple for all the sects [7] ". The 16th Karmapa in particular was instrumental in opposing this movement, organising what become known as the Thirteen Settlements see also [8] and [9].
I do not understand what this passage is for, especially it is not reasonable to me why the creation of "a single reformed Buddhist temple for all the sects" is a sign for "the desire for religious homogenity". The same could be argued to the Rime movement. I understand that Geshe Kelsang is accusing HHDL for only being interested in gaining power and control over all Tibetan schools and their adepts - which is based mere on his belives than facts, I think and with that opinion he is quite alone. However if you can reasoning this passage we can reinlcude it, please discuss it here or make the passage more clear, thank you very much, --Kt66 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kt, I removed the Geshe Kelsang quote because it is now out of context, in this quote he is referring specifically to the United Party. If you read in more detail about the United Party you will see that the idea was to consolidate all of the resources and followers of the different schools under one school, headed and controlled by the Dalai Lama and as such it is not related to the Rime movement. However it is a controversial topic and I understand if it is not included. Best wishes (Robertect 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi [User:Robertect|Robertect]], thank you. I agree the United Party must not be directly related to the Rime Movement but I think the idea is the same. But for this I have to read it in detail as you still said. The idea of seeing in this a political attempt of gaining power ("controlled by the Dalai Lama") I can not follow, outsite of NKT, Trimondis, Ole Nydahl, Shamar Rinpoche and Shugden followers the Dalai Lama is a high respected spiritual person, also to Theravadins and other Buddhist traditions and religious poeple and even scientists; for that people it is natural to see him as a head of such an idea of an open non secterian school or temple without including the idea to see this as a political power attempt. There exist a nunnery for western nuns in Dharamsala with this approach and natural they see HHDL as their head yet. But of course it may be "a controversial topic" here. Nevertheless I felt to include your citation of GKG POV, expressed in his letter. It fits in the section of GKG/NKT so I remove it there. many regards. --Kt66 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: political dimension

message: I used Kays research to add a new section to have a better background and to understand the conflict more deeply, especially from the view of westerners. Please feel free to imrpove it by Wikipedia:reliable sources or please give your comments - who are most welcome - here please. --Kt66 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC
Very well
-But I fail to understand why you post the last Ganden tripa's personnal views in the middle of this page. So many past ganden tripas have worshipped Shugden as a buddha why don't you post their views as well? BTW, the current ganden tripa is a well known Dorje Shugden practionner, this is why Dharamsala was not pleased with his nomination and tried to have him removed. Why don't you post his views as well on this page?
::He is the head of the Gelugpas and he is the successor of Tsongkhapa, so his opinion/reasoning matters - especially how to solve conflicts according to the Vinaya. Also his view is not listed in the middle, it is posted after the Shugden followers view before AI statement, so nearly at the end. Please check it again. I think you are quite desinformed about the Ganden Tripa and his practice, perhaps you try to get first proper information. There is an interview with the present Ganden Tripa and he is as clear as in the article with renouncing Shugden. Check it yourself: 
:::Does Your Holiness practise the controversial protector Shugden banned by HH the Dalai Lama?
::::Answer HH the Ganden Tripa: Did you not hear of the announcement made by HH the Dalai Lama in front of nearly 300,000 people in Bodhigaya in December 2002 about this? I did not do the practice of this protector. [laughin] see: PDF file
::So I think your problem is - ecxuse please my straightforwardness - that you are onesided informed and do not know much of the different sides of that conflict. However when I was under the influence of Shugden Lamas I had the same problem... --Kt66 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in a way, they said what they said and Robertect put a comment on it, however the involvement of AI is a part of the history in that conflict and can be mentioned of course. --Kt66 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition

message: To add such a section in the article we can use the quote from Pabonkha's introductory remarks in the Dorje Shugden sadhana. Before doing this it would be good to discuss this and try to find out the exact title of the text which the quote is refering to and if the translation is from a reliable source. I myself trusted in the past on a wrong translation of a misleading source. Who has this information relating to the quote below? At what date/year it was written? Before the death of the 13th DL or after it? The quote given was:
:Some see this supreme deity, Emanated Gyalchen, as not different from an ordinary monk spirit or king spirit, a priest or monk who has died and taken a spirit body out of negative karma, and proclaiming this in a loud voice, make fun of not only the deity but of others who rely on him also; there seem to be many as well as a great many who, following their lead, hold very tightly to this mistaken view. They are speaking just out of supposition without really understanding the source.
:This very dharma protecting 'gyelpo' is reknowned as the unmistaken emanation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was the unmistaken succeding incarnation of Panchen Sônam Dragpa and Je Dültzin (Lord of Vinaya Holders) Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thus, those great beings were great elder holders of the vinaya who did not transgress even the slightest rule of the Buddha and were great beings who cherished others more than themselves. They were great lords of masters who reigned over the ocean-like treatises of sutra and tantra as well as the ordinary sciences. That they were great lords of siddhas who perfected the supreme realization of tantra's two stages is well proven and known to all. For that very being to arise in the body of a wrathful deity is the mere display of a form for a very special purpose through the power of compassion and prayers and for him, rather, to have taken birth, like other ordinary beings, out of evil karma as a sky-walking preta; how would that be possible? If one says that he was born like that then it would follow that one meets with karma uncommitted by oneself or that deeds done are wasted, etc., so one would be expounding falsity of the law of causality, etc., which would be the worst kind of nihilistic view. Furthermore, Lord Dültzin Dragpa Gyaltsen was fully established to be the emanation of the omniscient Bütön and Lord Bütön was fully reknowned beyond dispute, based on many valid scriptural and biographical source books, as the succeeding incarnation of the lineage including Manjusri, the mahasiddha Birwapa, and Sakya Pandita. Therefore, to think that the succeeding incarnation of those great pandits and siddhas, who were as reknowned throughout India and Tibet as the sun and the moon, could take birth in the low evil body of an actual preta and to propound such is a misconception slandering those great beings and the cause of an unbearable unfortunate rebirth. So everyone should be careful in such matters.
:Furthermore, the story of how Nechung, the Emanated Dharma King, Great Dorje Dragden, again and again urged Panchen Sônam Dragpa to arise in the form of a protector uncommon to the Gelugpa by not abandoning his promise and mind generation of previous incarnations is in his biography. Again, it is suitable to worship because, as is said in many valid sutras and commentaries, even animals who are emanations of the Tathagatas such as 'Ru Ru', the golden stag, are a supreme field of worship; this is similar. Thus, this very great Dharmapala is established without doubt to be peaceful and wrathful Manjusri himself arisen in the form of a terrifying wrathful one (dregpa) in order to protect one's teachings. Therefore, wherever there is stainless teaching and practice of the Geden he guards and protects without dependence upon his being relied upon or worshipped.
thank you for your cooperation and trial to improve the article. --Kt66 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pabongkha Rinpoche's view on Shugden

message: someone made great changes after a big discussion at Talk:Dorje_Shugden_Controversy and made a redirect from Shugden Controversy. so now i made some corrections to that. --Kt66 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Changes

message: "Lamas like Their Holinesses the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen—a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.
Purchog Jampa Rinpoche, a very high lama of Sera Je Monastery and an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, wrote against the practice of Shugden in the Monastery’s constitution. Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced." quote taken from Lama Zopa Rinpoche. Kt66 21:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different high Gelug Lamas didn’t practice Shugden and also advised against the practice

message: The following is taken from internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997:
"Concerning whether or not Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, there can be no final conclusion. This is because from the point of view of many people he is a worldly being, but at the same time from the point of view of many other people he is the Wisdom Buddha. This reasoning applies not only to Dorje Shugden, but to all holy beings.
If someone asked you how to prove that the fifth and fourteenth Dalai Lamas are Buddhas, you would most certainly find it difficult to give clear reasons. On the other hand, if someone asked you how to prove that these two lamas are not Buddhas, you could easily give a clear answer. You could say: they are not Buddhas because they need translators, they get sick, they are unable to come to their own decisions but have to rely on those of oracles, and sometimes they even get angry. How can a Buddha get angry, get sick, and so forth? Buddhas do not need oracles? So talking about this subject is completely meaningless, and only destroys peace and harmony in Buddhist circles."(Robertect 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointlessness of Arguing if Dorje Shugden is or is not a Buddha

message: I deleted the Sadhana link. There is no need to linke prayertextes in Wikipedia, isn't it? Kt66 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: delete

message: This is a letter sent by Pabonkhapa to the Chinese General Lu Chu Tang in the Earth Rabbit Year.
You can follow the whole statement on this issue by the added link to the E-Sangha Forum but you must log in there...
Honest expression of the General presentation of Inner and Outer 
Tenets of the World.
In general there are many religions in this world. Every follower thinks that his own faith is the best. However, if we honestly examine, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM are barbarism and therefore are the worst and there is no other religion worse than these. The non- Buddhist systems like that of Kapila and Sankhya are slightly better than the aforementioned faiths but they do not have the path to liberation. They may undertake great hardships like self-immolation and jumping upon a trident but there is no path to liberation. It opens the gate to the lower realm. The so-called Bonpo is also not at all different from the other non-Buddhist faiths. Far from achieving liberation it opens the door of the lower realm. Since Confucianism is also not the teaching of the Buddha it simply gives temporary happiness but not liberation. As all these systems are opposite to the Buddha's teachings, leave aside achieving Buddhahood, they do not at all have the path to liberation. One cannot show even a single example of one who has achieved liberation after having practiced these faiths. Without exception most of them fall into the unfathomable lower realms. It is only Buddhism which is the path of liberation. Even in Buddhism, the compassionate Buddha Shakya Muni knew that if the profound and ultimate truth of emptiness is taught right at the outset, it would not be understood by the followers. Just as children are gradually taught, starting from the alphabet, in the same way at first easily understandable teachings are taught. Therefore he first taught the Vaibhashika Tenet System which explains grosser meanings of selflessness of persons. After that he taught the Sautantrika Tenet System which is more profound than the previous one. Then he taught the Mind Only School, which is again more profound and which teaches the grosser selflessness of phenomena. It is this school which Thangsen Lama propagated in China. After that he taught the Madhyamika Tenet System which explains the subtle selflessness, the ultimate view. Here also we have Indian Acharya/Masters Bhavaviveka; Shantarakshita, who even though they have entered the Madhyamika philosophy could not fathom the meaning of very subtle emptiness, the ultimate intention of the Buddha. Thus they are mid-dling Madhyamikas and they are known as the Svatantrika Madhyamikas.
And we also have Indian Acharyas like Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti who had unmistakenly fathomed and realised the ultimate intention of the Buddha, which was trail-blazed by Nagarjuna, and they are called Prasangika Madhyamikas. Regarding the path of liberation and Buddhahood, there are two parts: wisdom and method. All those tenet systems below the Svatantrikas have found the unmistaken path of the method but have failed to realise the ultimate view which is the wis- dom aspect, and therefore they have not realised the ultimate emptiness but just a facsimile. Hence it is only the Prasangika Madhyamika System which realises the unmistaken subtle emptiness, the ultimate thought of the Buddha.
There is not even a single individual who has realised the subtle emp-tiness without entering into the Prasangika System. In the absence of this realisation it is not possible to attain enlightenment. Therefore this Prasangika Madhyamika System, the system of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is the best, the supreme and the peak among the four Buddhist Tenet Systems. In Tibet there are many systems of Buddhist teachings like Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Jonang, Bodong and others. All these are Buddhist teachings and they all have wonderful methods of accumulation of merits, purification of obstructions, meditation on deities and recitation of mantras. Through these practices one can achieve liberation. Therefore these are a hundred thousand million times better than Christianity, Islam and other non-Buddhist teachings. However, there is no system like that of Tsongkhapa's, which is complete, unmistaken, profound and fast.
Although each of the Tibetan philosophical schools feel and assert that their own philosophy is that of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and thus the philosophy of Prasangika, but, because of its very subtlety the followers could not realise the main intention of their preceding learned scholar practitioners and have thus erred. Most of them have become like the philosophy of Hvashang Mahayana. By becoming so one will fall into nihilism and will become the cause for hell. Therefore, in Tibet, except Tsongkhapa's philosophy, all others are mistaken. As such I can affirm that at present on this earth and be-neath the sky it is only the refined gold, like Manjushri Tsongkhapa's system which is alone totally faultless in every aspect, be it the philosophical view, the meditation or the conduct. It is complete, profound and extensive and if one has the knowledge and the ability to practice this teaching properly then one will be able to attain Buddha-hood within twelve human years or even in three years and three fortnights. This can be sustained through thousands of reasonings and references. The core of the teaching is the path to enlightenment alone. While this wonderful philosophy is existent many unfortunately adhere strongly to inferior teachings. Many such people are there in Tibet as well, which is a clear indication of lack of merit. The establishment of Tsongkhapa's teaching, the core of the Buddha's teachings, in your country is such a rare priviledge that even tens and hundreds of millions of merits accumulated by Lord Indra and Brahma cannot equal even a portion of this merit. This is really fortunate.
Kt66 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pabhongkha's Sectarianism

message: Taken from Internet correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997:
"Regarding Dorje Shugden, there are two different ways of perceiving him. These two appearances came originally from the 5th Dalai Lama. First Dorje Shugden appeared to him as a harmful spirit which he tried to destroy, (albeit unsuccessfully), and because of this many people cam to view Dorje Shugden as a harmful spirit. In this way the ordinary appearance of Dorje Shugden developed. Later, the 5th Dalai Lama realised that he had misunderstood the real nature of Dorje Shugden, and he then began to engage in the practice and composed prayers to him. In these prayers he he invites Dorje Shugden to come from Chöku, the Dharmakaya, clearly indicating that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being. Since that time the appearance of the qualified practitioner developed.
Later Lamas such as Tagphu Dorje Chang and Je Phabongkhapa perceived Dorje Shugden as a manifestation of Buddha Manjushri. These Lamas realised that Dorje Shugden is the same mental continuum as Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen. Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen is the same mental continuum as Sakya Pandita who is a manifestation of Manjushri. For followers of Je Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche, including myself, it is impossible that Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen, the manifestation of Manjushri could be reborn in an uncontrolled way as a worldly spirit. Not only Gelugpa lamas believe this, some Sakya Lamas also believe that Dorje Shugden is a holy being. In the book by Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen he say that Dorje Shugden cannot be a worldly spirit because he is a Bodhisattva. He says that Dorje Shugden is a protector Deity of the Sakya tradition. Previously the Sakya monastery in Rajpur, India always used to practise Dorje Shugden puja, but maybe nowadays that has changed.
Although Je Phabongkhapa’s view is that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being, the 13th Dalai Lama, using his political power, did not allow Je Phabonghapa to publicise this view, so he had to accept the lower position of Dorje Shugden. Therefore, at that time Gelugpa practitioners lost their freedom to say publicly that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened being. To the majority of ordinary Tibetans Dorje Shugden appeared as a worldly spirit. At that time there were many stories and rumours about how Dorje Shugden would help some people, harm others and so forth, all according to the ordinary appearance of the majority of people, most of whom were very superstitious. The stories mentioned in Zemey Tulku’s “Yellow Book” are just superstitions. He was not necessarily expressing his own view in this book, but telling may different superstitions according to ordinary peoples appearance of Dorje Shugden. Of course the view of Dorje Shugden as a harmful spirit was neither Trijang Rinpoche’s view, (nor was it Je Phabongkapa’s)." (Robertect 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dorje Shugden as a Worldly Protector and Enlightened Being

message: Taken from Internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997:
"As mentioned above, according to the ordinary appearance of Tibetan people there are many stories, in reality superstitions, about Dorje Shugden, how he harms people etc. But such stories also abound about other protector deities. For example Gyalwo Behar, Nöjin Tsemar, Therang Dorlek are very popular protector deities in the Nyingma tradition. Many Nyingmapas engage in the practice of these protector deities. There are many stories of how Gyalwo Behar harmed people, even high lamas. It is said that he tried to destroy Padmasambhava by throwing huge stones onto his head. Similarly with Nöjin Tsemar, he also harmed people including high lamas; the 5th Dalai Lama said that he killed the Karmapa Mikyo Dorje. Nojin Tsemar is the protector deity of Samye monastery. Such stories are very common in all four traditions." (Robertect 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HI KP. Thank you for your comment. Yes it is true, Geshe Kelsang Gytaso and his students don't pass these Samayas which Zong Rinpoche gave. Neither NKT keep the name of Shugden secret nor do they pass the promise not to touch Nyingma scriptures. But this was done in the Shugden-lineage and as you can see by Zong Rinpoche himself. Either GKG changed the Samayas or there exist different approaches. The latter can be doubted. I think GKG changed the Samayas as he changed the Vinaya too. However, I gave once the Commentary of Shugden myself and this was based upon GKG written commentary of that. It includes the idea "not to mix" with other traditions, so it is handled by NKT quite moderte. We have yet discussed it. Nevertheless the origin of Shugden is secterian and the behaviour of NKT and most Shugden followers (but not all) are too. It is sometimes quite funny to see how the obvious is neglected or unseen by the followers. However, A happy New Year and all the best for you and your friends. I think we can rest with differnt views on that. yours Kt66 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear KT66, Happy New Year to you!  Thanks for your comments.  I don't believe there is anything sectarian to wanting to follow one tradition purely.  All traditions have special qualities, and we should keep them special by not mixing with other traditions, otherwise there will be no pure traditions and no pure Buddhadharma in this world.  I'm sorry that you feel this is sectarian, but we are simply trying to practice Kadampa Buddhism purely without mixing.  I think that everyone should do this.  We can respect all traditions without having to practise them all. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI KP, thank you! What is "pure" and "practicing purely" for you and what does "without mixing" or just "mixing" mean for you? What is your understanding of this? Kt66 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stories of the Harm Caused by Dorje Shugden

message: Biography of Jigme Dhamchoe Gyatsho by the Dhomey scholar Tsetan Zhabdrung(21)(1910-1985)
"Some followers of Ven. Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo Rinpoche engaged in heated argument on the philosophical tenets of the new and the ancient. They engaged in many wrong activities like destroying images of Padmasambhava and those of other peaceful and wrathful deities, saying that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Guru is of no value and fed the Padma Kathang to fire and water. Likewise, they stated that turning Mani prayer wheels, observing weekly prayers for the deceased etc. are of no purpose and thus placed many on the path of wrong view. They held Gyalpo Shugden as the supreme refuge and the embodiment of all the Three Jewels. Many monks from small monasteries in the Southern area claimed to be possessed by Shugden and ran amok in all directions destroying the three reliquaries (images of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas) etc. displaying many faults and greatly harming the teaching of Je Tsongkhapa, the second Conqueror. Therefore, if you could compose an instructive epistle benefitting all and could publish it and distribute it throughout the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham it would greatly contribute to counteracting the disturbance to the teaching."
This letter of request is a letter sent by Jamgon Choekyi Lodro, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, a great scholar of the recent past from the Kham area, to Jigme Damchoe Gyatsho of Dhomey (1898-1947). We can clearly see in this letter that by propagating inappropriate behaviour, some followers of Kyabje Phabong Khapa Dechen Nyingpo greatly harmed Je Tsongkhapa's teaching, therefore a request was made that an instructive epistle should be composed, carved on a wooden block and distributed to the three (provinces) U, Tsang and Kham.
for more seee please: http://www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx?postID=105199
84.190.190.29 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HI KP. Thank you for your comment. Yes it is true, Geshe Kelsang Gytaso and his students don't pass these Samayas which Zong Rinpoche gave. Neither NKT keep the name of Shugden secret nor do they pass the promise not to touch Nyingma scriptures. But this was done in the Shugden-lineage and as you can see by Zong Rinpoche himself. Either GKG changed the Samayas or there exist different approaches. The latter can be doubted. I think GKG changed the Samayas as he changed the Vinaya too. However, I gave once the Commentary of Shugden myself and this was based upon GKG written commentary of that. It includes the idea "not to mix" with other traditions, so it is handled by NKT quite moderte. We have yet discussed it. Nevertheless the origin of Shugden is secterian and the behaviour of NKT and most Shugden followers (but not all) are too. It is sometimes quite funny to see how the obvious is neglected or unseen by the followers. However, A happy New Year and all the best for you and your friends. I think we can rest with differnt views on that. yours Kt66 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear KT66, Happy New Year to you!  Thanks for your comments.  I don't believe there is anything sectarian to wanting to follow one tradition purely.  All traditions have special qualities, and we should keep them special by not mixing with other traditions, otherwise there will be no pure traditions and no pure Buddhadharma in this world.  I'm sorry that you feel this is sectarian, but we are simply trying to practice Kadampa Buddhism purely without mixing.  I think that everyone should do this.  We can respect all traditions without having to practise them all. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI KP, thank you! What is "pure" and "practicing purely" for you and what does "without mixing" or just "mixing" mean for you? What is your understanding of this? Kt66 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adds on Pabhongkha's and Shugden's Secterianism

message: The following is taken from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's correspondence in a webdiscussion forum in 1997.
"Je Phabongkhapa and other Lamas could not be involved in politics because in Tibetan society the only political power was held by the Dalai Lama and his office. People had no freedom of speech whatsoever. When I lived in Tibet I checked very carefully with local Geshes about the truth or falsity of these assertions. I understood that when Je Phabongkhapa visited eastern Tibet (Kham) and gave teachings there, many people came to his teachings. He was widely respected and received a lot of devotion from many people, but at the same time some local people jealous of his success spread rumours, saying that he caused the statue of Padmasambhava to be destroyed and so forth.
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."
Je Phabongkha and Nyingma Practices
Also from Internet Correspondence of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in 1997:
"It may be that in his dreams he felt Dorje Shugden was telling him to stop some of his Nyingma practices, but this does not imply that Dorje Shugden does not like the Nyingma tradition. It merely indicates that Je Phabongkhapa had no karmic connection with the Nyingma tradition. If there is no karmic connection with a particular practice, then you will not receive any good results. So please do not misunderstand. It is possible that Je Phabongkhapa encouraged some of his disciples to stop their Nyingma practice, but again it does not mean that Je Phabongkhapa was telling them that Nyingma practice is not pure, but to encourage them to concentrate on their own tradition. Teachers of all traditions and all religions encourage their people to concentrate on their own tradition. There is nothing wrong in this.
According to the information that I have received from authentic sources, when the Dalai Lama first began to engage in Nyingma practices, it was HH Ling Rinpoche who tried to discourage him, strongly advising him against these practices. This does not mean that HH Ling Rinpoche was saying that the Nyingma practices are not good, but he felt that it was an affront to the Gelugpas, indicating that their practice was not a complete path. Until that time the Dalai Lama had been pure Gelugpa, and now he was changing; this was not a good indication for the Gelug tradition. There is no criticism implied that Nyingma practice is not pure.
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."
(Robertect 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing the claim of Je Phabongkha’s Supression of Nyingma Teachings

message: Such statements don't look good, and on face value they seem to contradict the Dorje Shugden instructions that I have recieved. Due to the fact that I trust both my teacher and Je Phabongkhapa I personally cannot accept the apparent meaning of this text without a lineage holder of these instructions such as Gangchen Rinpoche, Dagom Rinpoche, Gonsar Rinpoche or Geshe Kelsang Gyatso giving commentary to it. This is fair because there are often very different meanings to those which are apparent in Buddhist texts, also if one looks at the lives of teachers such as Lama Thubten Yeshe or Geshe Rabten, even Trijang Rinpoche I am sure few if any would accuse them of being sectarian and divisive and yet they all relied on Dorje Shugden and received the lineage of instruction from Je Phabongkha, so for me 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4 here, something is not right. 
The lineage Gurus of this instruction have a responsibility as Bodhisattva's to clarify these points for their sincere disciples now and the many future generations to come. The rebirths of countless living beings depend upon this clarification. At the moment faith is being destroyed, doubt is sown and at death we Buddhists believe that these things will lead to aeons of terrible suffering and delay immeasurably the destruction of the iron net of samsara. For this reason they should speak publicly so that their words will always be available and no mis-interpretation, rumour or duplicitousness can be placed upon them. I am making a heartfelt and sincere request on behalf of all mother sentient beings for a commentary to these texts of Je Phabongkha by one of the precious Lamas that I mention or another equally qualified. Previously Geshe Kelsang stirred by great compassion kindly engaged in open debate and honestly clarified many points, but there are still points such as those above that are not clear. I hope with all my heart and call to the bodhichitta in these Lama’s hearts that it may spring into action once more impelling them to show such selflessness, courage and compassion and clarify Je Phabongkha's meaning and intention. (Robertect 10:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for a Lineage Guru to Give Commentry

message: The reference to this Lama in Dorje Shugden commentries is often disputed, I therefore found this reference on the Tibet.com web site of interest: 
"Because some followers of Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup propitiated Gyalchen Shugden, gradually some Gelugpa lamas also began to propitiate it." 
http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-history.html
Refer to Jalpo article for rebuttal of this. No sign of truth can be found in the whole of this position above. Kind regards. P.S. I've answered all that already and fully. Just read my article well. The whole of the taking over of Jalpo by the Gelugs, of the highjacking of the Sakya lineage for the Gelug form of it in Shugden, and the banning of Jonang at the same time are all included in it : (and the Kalachakra of Jonang being thus stolen by the Gelugs) all topics above are included in that article. Geir Smith 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundrup

message: I read previously a prayer of apology by the 5th Dalai Lama to Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang refers to this apology in the Tricycle interview where he says, "Initially the Fifth Dalai Lama was afraid that Dorje Shugden was a harmful spirit trying to destroy him. Then he requested some Nyingma lamas to destroy Dorje Shugden. Then later, after realizing that he had made a mistake, the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote a special prayer to Dorje Shugden of apology and confession." I have read this prayer and it seems to refer to Dorje Shugden as a Buddha, I will try to find a copy of it. This makes me doubt the truth of the 5th Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden. If anyone has a copy of this prayer it will be helpful, also a scholar needs to prove that Geshe Kelsang's statement is wrong, otherwise the prayer should also be included in the Wikipedia article because it reflects the lack of one definite view or another from a central person in the history of this practice. This point will help to establish if the 5th Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden is ambiguous. (Robertect 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote below that there is no historical source of it. Neither in the biografy nor in the works of the fifth DL. Kt66 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the brief history of opposition to Shugden it references one source of this prayer as being the Toe-'Bril, but I do not know what this is. "Let us discuss the assertion found in the Toe-'Bril: "When it was not caught during the fire ritual, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama in a wrathful aspect asked Setrab to announce the order in the protector chapel of Sangphu. It is said that while reading the document containing the order, even the dharma protector's headgear shook with fear," and, "the display of miraculous power increased even after the fire ritual (had been performed), therefore, the Great Fifth composed a short prayer of propitiation, "Hum! Unwavering from the sphere of spontaneous eternity...". (Robertect 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I see this is actually a work written by Trijang Rinpoche!.(212.163.154.18 14:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he wrote this short prayer... I meant the "Hymn to Dorje Shugden" which according to Trijang Rinpoche the 5th DL had written. According to Prof. Dr. M. von Brück there is no historical source which valid this claim that the 5th DL had written that Hymn to Dorje Shugden "neither in the biografies of the 5th Dalai Lama nor elswhere". --Kt66 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the 5th Dalai Lama Thought

message: Because there is dispute over the lineage reincarnations of the person commonly agreed to have become Dorje Shugden, and because this person was identified as an incarnate lama, there must be records from the time of the 5th Dalai Lama identifying his previous rebirths. If this information is provided it will be easier to see if they are simply made up by Dorje Shugden followers or have a genuine historical corroboration. (Robertect 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original references to the lineage of Ngatrul Dragpa Gyaltsan

message: http://www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx?postID=105199
for more on this topic
The list of some of the prominent non-sectarian scholars who have placed restrictions on Shugdens (Dolgyal's) practice was taken from there.
#His Holiness the Fifth Dalai Lama
#  Choegyal Terdag Lingpa
#  Do Drag Rigzin Pema Thrinley
#  Gadong Ngagrampa Dhondup Gyatsho
#  Nangjung Ngagchang Losang Khyentse
#  Choeje Vugja Lungpa
#  Palri Tulku
#  Drigung Tulku
#  Katsak Zurpa Ngari Ngagchang Konchok Lhundup
#  The 54th Gaden Throne Holder Thrichen Ngawang Chogden
# Volkha Jedrung Losang Thrinley
#  Phurchog Ngawang Jhampa
#  The Fifth Panchen, Panchen Tenpai Wangchuk
#  Aewam Khangsar Khenchen Ngawang Lodro Zhenphen Nyingpo
# The Fourteenth Karmapa
#  Ngor Khangsar Khenpo Ngawang Yonten Gyatsho
#  Ngor Luding Khenpo Jamyang Thubten Lungtok Gyaltsen
#  Zongsar Jamyang Khyentse Choekyi Lodro
#  Panchen Yongzin Kachen Ang Nyima
#  The Sixteenth Karmapa
#  The Fourteenth Dalai Lama
Thus, many well-known great and learned lamas, who are unbiased in their religious outlook and the systems of philosophical tenets they propound have placed direct restrictions on this Dolgyal. Therefore, it is not just important, but imperative that those who want to review the history of Dolgyal should break out of the confinement of their one sided version to develop and promote a more complete picture. 84.190.190.29 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I would be interested in clarification of this point and also the text of the Dorje Shugden puja mentioned would be very helpful. Excerpt from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso internet correspondence during 1997:
"In the book by Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen (a Sakya lama) he says that Dorje Shugden cannot be a worldly spirit because he is a Bodhisattva. He says that Dorje Shugden is a protector Deity of the Sakya tradition. Previously the Sakya monastery in Rajpur, India always used to practise Dorje Shugden puja, but maybe nowadays that has changed." (Robertect 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: View of Dhongtog Tulku Tenpai Gyaltsen

message: Some mention of the perceived hand of the Chinese state in manipulating religious politics is called for, I think.  "Tibet analyst Theirry Dodin said China had encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority" (BBC: "Dalai Lama 'behind Lhasa unrest'").  A-giau 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course this plays a role too. China is quite interested to split the Tibetans and undermine the authority of the Dalai Lama. It is easy to conclude that they use this topic on shugden too. But I have no specific knowledge on that. If you have, please try to work out a section on this. Kt66 11:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the Chinese state?