Talk:Dorje Shugden

; Archives
	Shugden Talk - Archive 1 (to: 2006,07,18); Shugden Talk - Archive 2 (to: 2006,12,30); Shugden Talk - Archive 3 (from: 2006,12,30 to 2008,05,03); Shugden Talk - Archive 4 (to: 2008,10,29);

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Tibet Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Since nothing new had been added for ten days, I took the opportunity to archive the discussion to date again as once more it had grown very large. (see: Talk:Dorje Shugden/archive4)

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! Chris Fynn (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

— Please put discussion related to the neutrality of this article here —

To try to make this a little more neutral, I've added "some" and removed "all" in the first sentence of the second para in the opening summary - Sakya practitioners who see DS as a mundane protector obviously do not consider DS to be an incarnation or Emanation of Manjusri. Similarly I've removed from this para the perhaps contentious claim that the DL "practiced it himself until he was in his forties" and the "although they have provided no evidence of this when requested" - as this stuff doesn't really belong in the opening section which should present an overall summary. It might be appropriate in the Controversy section. I've also changed the "particularly the present Dalai Lama" to "including the present Dalai Lama" since there is no conclusive evidence that he does so any more particularly than others who oppose the practice.

"Heart Jewel" is a primary source written and published by DS practitioners involved in the Controversy ~ therefore not an independent or neutral source. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Jewel is based closely on the teachings of one of the greatest Dorje Shugden practitioners of the last century, Trijang Rinpoche, the Guru of the Dalai Lama and hundreds of other Gelugpa Lamas, and a Ganden Throne Holder. It is written by Geshe Kelsang, a close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche and one of the foremost proponents of Dorje Shugden practice. He is a highly respected Buddhist master, who has written 22 acclaimed Buddhist books. The practice of relying upon Dorje Shugden as a Wisdom Protector -- who safeguards our realizations of compassion, wisdom and spiritual power -- was handed down to Geshe Kelsang by the lineage Gurus of the Gelug tradition. It certainly merits being included in this article as a source! If it does not, then all references to the Dalai Lama's works must also likewise be considered neither independent nor neutral sources. Heart Jewel is just Dharma, unmixed with politics. The Dalai Lama's website www.dalailama.com, along with most of his pronouncements on the subject, are arguably far less neutral and reliable sources for this article on the nature of Dorje Shugden, as they are not Dharma but politics. They belong in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also, Chris, the sad thing is that since the Dalai Lama made this into a political issue and not just a religious practice, everyone is now involved in the controversy to one extent or another -- practitioners and non-practitioners alike. Some are defending their right to practice and some are opposing the practice. This is chronicled in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk)18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've reinstated the point that the DL practised Dorje Shugden until he was into his forties as he has said so himself. The DL wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden that is widely available on the internet. Also I've reinstated 'particularly' because it is due to the actions of the present Dalai Lama that Dorje Shugden has become such a controversial figure. Other Tibetan Lamas only support the view of the DL, so he has to bear primary responsibility for the present division in the Buddhist Sangha.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if this section is to be added to the opening paragraphs (though I feel it is redundant as it is all covered in the controversy), it needs to be clear that the source of all the controversy is the Dalai Lama's own actions. Until he spoke out against and then banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, there was no controversy. Everyone practiced their own traditions. No one was forcing anyone else to stop practicing their tradition. No one had the power to do this until the 14th Dalai Lama assumed this power. All this is now well documented. (Truthbody (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The Yellow Book is also based closely on the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche, yet it's mention here is stronly rejected as GKG denies its validity. Although unrelated to the discussion, I'd also like to know if there is any reasoning for why Lama Tsong Khapa never mentioned this protector is he were to be so important in protecting his lineage.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has never held much weight for me; we have to look at the timeline. Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) lived two-hundred-plus years before Dragpa Gyaltsen’s (1619-1656) manifestation as Dorje Shugden (1656-present). It would be nonsense for me to counter with “Well, Je Tsongkhapa never mentioned the institution of the Dalai Lama during his lifetime either” because this came later, too. Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Empty Mountains. Taken in the grand scheme of things, there are countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Protectors who have appeared in different forms to help sentient beings since beginningless time, and it is unreasonable to suppose that they were all talked about long before they appeared. Some were predicted by other Buddhas, but by no means all, of course. (Truthbody (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's interesting that you mention the Dalai Lama lineage. FYI, Gedun Drub was a direct disciple of Lama Tsong Khapa and furthermore, the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by the Buddha in the White Lotus sutra.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the "first" Dalai Lama was not recognized as such during his own lifetime (or Je Tsongkhapa's). A posthumous fulfillment of prophecy? After all, the "first" Dalai Lama was not until the third, Sonam Gyatso. In regards to Dorje Shugden, the Sakya master Kunkhyen Ngawang Kunga Lodroe praises him saying, "In the middle, in front of many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, having generated the aspiring and entering Bodhicitta, you obtained the prophecy as a protector of the teaching of the Dharma, thus you protect all the teachings of the Bodhisattvas without exception, to you I prostrate."[1] Emptymountains (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by Buddha as the so-called Ocean Lamas were first and foremost a political appointment by the Altan Khan and also, as Empty Mountains points out, the lineage was established posthumously. Also, the lineage in its entirety has not all been that fabulous has it? e.g. the 5th and the 13th were warlords. Did a lot of Dalai Lamas die young? On Wikipedia it says that Thubten Jigme Norbu, the elder brother of the present 14th Dalai Lama, describes these unfortunate events as follows: "It is perhaps more than a coincidence that between the seventh and the thirteenth holders of that office, only one reached his majority. The eighth, Gyampal Gyatso, died when he was in his thirties, Lungtog Gyatso when he was eleven, Tsultrim Gyatso at eighteen, Khadrup Gyatso when he was eighteen also, and Krinla Gyatso at about the same age. The circumstances are such that it is very likely some, if not all, were poisoned, either by loyal Tibetans for being Chinese-appointed impostors, or by the Chinese for not being properly manageable." I wonder if some of the choices of reincarnated Dalai Lamas were politically motivated and organized and thus somewhat suspect? I don't know enough about the history but imagine the institution of the Dalai Lama was open to some abuse due to warring partisan factions. I'd be interested to see the quote from the White Lotus Sutra if you have it. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Emptymountains:Just because the title of Dalai Lama was not conferred on the first and second lamas, does not invalidate the reincarnation lineage. Also, it was the second birth of this line that initiated the predictions at Lhamo Lhatso, establishing a definite line of tulkus. Now in that prayer by the Sakya master, does it mention from whom Shugden obtained the prophecy and what that prophecy is to be exact?

Truthbody:I'm sure that the incarnation lineage has been manipulated since the time of the Great Fifth. But that would also indicate that the great masters were wrong. Even GKG dedicated one of his books to the long life of the Dalai Lama. So whether or not you accept the validity of the current birth, you cannot deny that the greatest masters of our time have shown the greatest respect for him. As for the White Lotus sutra quote, I found it here - www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=371

Jmlee369 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]