Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Re-instating this article

I'm re-instating this article, since the main Dorje Shugden article is 92KB and rambling. I've tried to transfer most of the information related to the controversy into this new article, making only minimal editorial changes. If you see something inappropriate that I've left out or changed, please just add this in.Peaceful5 (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

(20040302 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Initiating a temporary subpage for a draft re-write

A re-write of this article has been proposed with the goal of making this article more intelligible, especially for those unfamiliar with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I'm proposing a major re-write of this article and am initiating a subpage in the talk namespace. Contributions are welcome. Visit the /proposed re-write page. Peaceful5 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's title could be changed to "Dorje Shugden discrimination" instead of "Dorje Shugden controversy." Emptymountains (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peaceful5, this article is approaching un-intelligible and seems quite partisan in places. I'd start the article off with the timeline or the background (or a very short summary) and move "Today's Controversy" further down. I disagree that the title should be changed as "discrimination" is a partisan word. Iainspeed (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Discrimination" might be inappropriate for this particular article. However, if there is factual evidence of discrimination -- and the 1998 Swiss TV documentary is certainly a strong argument that there is (to name but one source) -- then the word "discrimination" is not partisan but objective fact. And if it is objective fact, then this definitely deserves to be brought to light. Does it not? No matter which view of Dorje Shugden you support, no matter which view of the Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang you support, if people are being actively discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, this is something that needs attention -- not something that needs to be buried inside a long article on a controversy which most of the world won't read. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof of religious persecution

I would like to suggest adding content from this article which shows many of the things that have been going on in this controversy: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This section desperately needs some writing which is neither partisan nor assumes familiarity with the intricacies of Buddhist practice. This issue is in the media, and it would be helpful to have a brief and straightforward account of what this is about, which is as yet very murky Crocodilian (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is definitely too long and needs a short summary to begin with. As it is now, the only people who could dare to read it all the way through would be those with some personal investment in the issue. A short summary at the beginning, representing both views, would be enough for curious passerbys, and those interested in learning more could read the rest. But, I also think that the article is quite thorough and gives an excellent overview of both sides of the controversy, as well as what is happening currently. I think most of the current content should stay for those interested in the full details. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not harming HHDL because he is Buddha, harming lamas through samaya breaches

A lot of the arguement coming from the Shugden side is that because HHDL is a Buddha, the claim that he can be harmed by Shugden is wrong. Then why is it said that the life of lamas are decreased when students break samaya? Jmlee369 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard either claim. You might also contemplate in what ways HHDL is empty and Shugden is empty and samaya is empty and yet they all appear, or in what ways they are all interdependent and not independent inherently or truly existing things, per the mahayana sutras. From the point of view of interdependence, I can see how breaking samaya would potentially reduce the life of one's teacher in the same way that poorly behaving children will reduce the lifespan of their parents, or a poorly behaving population will reduce the lifespan of the nation's leaders. Poorly behaving is not the only cause and condition of reduced lifespan but perhaps influences it. Similarly, how can a Buddha be harmed if a Buddha is beyond harm altogether? Easy, harm sentient beings and the heart of Buddha has no choice but to feel that harm too. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooo, found another related correlation with scientific evidence even. If part of samaya is maintaining sacred outlook, then one way to break samaya is through pessimism. And a recent study found that pessimism causes one to die younger! That may not cause one's guru to die younger, so not exactly what you were asking, but from this one might surmise that maintaining samaya helps one live longer. Here's some reporting about the study - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New section has been added without any discussion

User Thegone has added a great deal of material to this section without checking first to see that it is all covered already in this article, but with both points of view as opposed to cut and pasted from the Dalai Lama's website and Western Shugden society unlocked, where only one point of view (anti Dorje Shugden) is given. For now, i have moved it to a more appropriate place in the article (as opposed to right at the beginning!!) and it will need to be sifted and edited as it makes this article incredibly repetitive and, now, very unbalanced in favor of those who oppose the Dalai Lama's ban of this religious practice. Thegone has also added exactly the same section to three other articles (Dorje Shugden, New Kadampa Tradition and Kelsang Gyatso), which makes it into a campaign against Dorje Shugden practitioners and the New Kadampa Tradition. (Truthbody (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't think Thegone is interested in helping us incorporate his sections into the article. His motivation for adding what he did was only polemical and meant to bias readers to his POV. This is clear since he wanted what he put to be the very first thing people saw when they looked at any of those articles. Although his post was removed from those articles but retained here (since it was most relevant to this article), I don't think we should consider his post as having really wished to contribute to the article in the first place. Emptymountains (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the material again after User Thegone had reinserted it. I agree with Emptymountains; I don't think that he wants to contribute in a constructive way to the content of this article --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed Thegone's section entitled "Sectarian" yet again after it has been reinserted. As I have previously mentioned, this section is both strongly biased and very inadequately sourced. However, in the interest of trying to be fair and compromise, rather than deleting outright the section entitled "HHDL's Views" I summarized the Dalai Lama's three main objections against Dorje Shugden and inserted them in the "Views of the Dalai Lama" section. I request to any administrator who might be reading this to investigate Thegone's repeated abuse and please see that there are several editors who are happy to compromise to make this a more fair, balanced article. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I took a brief glance at this article, and was concerned by how Wikipedia articles are being used for many of the references. This needs to be fixed, as one Wikipedia article cannot be used to source a different Wikipedia article. Instead, please use the actual non-wiki third-party reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks, --Elonka 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And not only are Wikipedia articles used as sources, the ones that are used are not even relevant to the content they supposedly support. This section ought to be outrightly removed -- or at the very least, re-written. As it stands now, it has an obvious bias. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

The discussion whether to remove this and related articles was first being carried out at [1]. Emptymountains (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The result is that individual articles have to be nominated and considered on an individual basis. There were too many articles grouped together to come to a decision --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that the article will not be deleted, I think we need to consider a major restructure. The order of the article is illogical and doesn't give the general reader a good overview of the controversy. Although the issue is can seem quite complicated, I'm sure we could construct the article in a better way, for example by including a 'summary' of the controversy as an opening section. What do other editors think? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Before continuing as an editor myself, I wish that a neutral or even an anti-DS editor would impartially comment on User:Thegone's editing behavior on the unprotected articles such as New Kadampa Tradition, where he/she keeps putting POV edits right at the beginning of the article after the introduction. I also request that someone warn this user about making personal attacks against me and other editors (see Talk:Rime movement and his/her recent edit summaries), rather than using the talk pages to discuss changes. User:Thegone is getting away with breaking nearly every principle of Wiki etiquette, with no wish to work towards NPOV, which is very difficult to work with. I'll see you all in a week. Emptymountains (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Friends,
I apologize, but I deleted the biased sections that Thegone continues to add over and over. I noticed when logging in this morning that they had all been re-added again. Please, will someone lock these articles until we can all come to a compromise? I will be posting this message on the other talk pages where I deleted this information. Thank you for your understanding. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User Thegone keeps inserting inappropriate and undiscussed material

User Thegone keeps saying any edit made of his insertions is "Marketing vandalism by a cult editor: The history of this topic shows it is being censored by the marketing members of the NKT organization and is biased and one sided." Then he reverts everything back to his version. What he says is not true and it is very rude language to use against fellow users. He refuses to use the talk pages or to accept any edits of his pages and pages of added material, all unsourced and cut and pasted from anti-Shugden websites. This appears to be vandalism. (Truthbody (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Dear All,

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. If someone wants to start the process, I'll co-sign it. Once the RfC is created, please post a notice of its existence on the other pages, including Talk:Rime movement. Emptymountains (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I used the "Tenzin Gyatso" talk page to try to reason one more time with Thegone, and I pointed out the Wiki rules he was breaking. If he still persists, I would be happy to create an RfC on 21 July. (I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure I can figure it out!) If anyone else would like to start that process before 21 July, please feel free. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Western Shugden Society point of view to new section about Dalai Lama's reasons

I thought we needed to give both points of view in this section so as to absorb the large swathes of recently added material by Thegone and others without it making the article polemical or one-sided. I feel both points of view have now been given equal air space in this section. I hope Theogone and others agree and not simply revert it to his point of view without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbody (talkcontribs) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 === Dolgyal Shugden=== 

Please, "Dolgyal Shugden" is not a derogatory name for this entity - it is a name by which Shugden has been known for centuries. This entity was generally considered to belong to the "Gyalpo" or "King spirit" class of protectors and, whatever you consider his nature to be (enlightened protector or mundane spirit), he manifests or is always depicted with the attributes which are traditionally associated with that class of spirit/deity (including the special hat) - so there can be nothing wrong with calling him a Gyalpo or "King". Since he was also asssociated with a locality called Dhol he was commonly called "Dhol-gyal" Shugden. The honorific name "Dorje Shugden" which is what modern-day devotees of this entity call him seems to be much more recent. ""Dolgyal Shugden" is a neutral name not derogatory. OTOH I think it could be argued that the name "Dorje Shugden" is not neutral. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden's external aspect is one of an enlightened being, not a Gyalpo (rides snow lion, round yellow hat, wisdom sword, etc.). So I disagree that his aspect is of a Gyalpo. If our goal is to be fair and balanced, we have Dorje Shugden and Dhol-gyal. This reflects both sides.--Dspak08 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - but one of the main forms of Gyalpo Pehar also rides a snow lion, has the same round yellow hat and so on. Are you saying Pehar does not have the aspect of the Gyalpo class of protectors or spirits? Anyway I agree with you - both names should be given here. I'm just saying names like Gyalpo Shugden "King Shugden", Dholgyal Shugden "Shugden King of Dhol" and Gyalchen Shugden "Great King Shugden are not derogaory. Please stop trying to make out that they are. It is well known that when Tibetans want to belittle this entity or be derogatory they use names like "Damsri Shugden". Chris Fynn (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for the clarification and for agreeing that both names should be included. (The round yellow hat, by the way, symbolizes the view of Nagarjuna that is possessed by Shugden and is one symbol indicating that he is fully enlightened.) Can I ask you a favor? Would you mind filling in that Edit summary box when you make changes? I for one find it useful. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Just a couple of quick questions, since I don't know translations of Tibetan to English. On the article you say 'Dholgyal Shugden, "Shugden, King [spirit] of Dhol"'. First question, is "Shugden, King [spirit] of Dhol" the translation of Dholgyal? I assume it is. If it is, then for purposes of balance it can be included (since it also says 'Vajra possessing strength'. If it is not, and it is another name for Dorje Shugden, then I think we need to limit it to two names: Dorje Shugden and Dholgyal. Second question is [spirit] explicit in the translation of Dholgyal or is this something you added? If it is something you just added, then perhaps it should be deleted since below we talk about how there is dispute about his nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspak08 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
On the hat mentioned by Truthbody. Gyalpo Pehar, Nechung, and the Nyingma protector Damchen Dorje Legpa all wear what is apparently the very same kind of domed golden hat. Some high Lamas in Tibet also wore these while travelling - covered in real gold. In the early 1970's I once had a photo of an exquisite old Gelugpa thangkha of Pehar. A Tibetan friend of mine who used to be a monk in Tibet and was a life long DS practitioner asked me for it since he thought it depicted the wrathful form of DS (I didn't know the difference at the time either). For a year or two he had this picture sitting on his shrine until a particularly knowlegeable Lama informed him the picture was of Gyalpo Pehar not Gyalchen Shugden. So the appearance or aspect of the two can be very similar.
On "Dholgyal". Yes "Dhol" is the name of a place and "Gyal" is ahort for Gyalpo or King. The "spirit" part is implied and refers to a class of protectors who have an aspect like Shugden or Pehar. I put in square brackets to show it is implied. Square brackets are traditionally used to show where a translator has inserted something like this for clarity. BTW the word "spirit" is not derogatory or negative. For instance in Christianity there is the Holy Spirit as one of the Trinity.\If we are going to remove "[spirit]" perhaps the "is a deity" should also be removed since that at least as much implies something about the nature of DS which is disputed. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks Chris for the clarification. I can go along with this.--Dspak08 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The hat mentioned by Truthbody does not represent Nagarjuna's view, it is the straw hat which is typical of the Gyalpo class. Most if not all gyalpos are depicted with such a straw hat.Jmlee369 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is a question of point of view. For the practitioner of Dorje Shugden, who views DS as an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri, the yellow hat does represent DS's realization and protection of Nagarjuna's view of the Middle Way. This was taught by Je Phabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and now Geshe Kelsang. But it is certainly not inherently this, rather this is how it is understood in the mind of the practitioner. If others want to view it differently, that is their choice. For purposes of this Wiki article, our job is simply to accurately describe the controversy and the different arguments on each side, not actually come to an agreement. So I don't think we need to agree on this point.

Rebuttal to His Holiness' reasons

I feel that they are unfair in that although there are three different arguements against His Holiness, there are no repsonses to these arguements so as to clarify the viewpoint of His Holiness. Furthermore, the initial paragraphs describing his views are also biased. I think it is only fair to also add rebuttal to the criticisms. Jmlee369 (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Links keep being moved

An anonymous user keeps moving critical links into common links. If that is something he/she wants to do, then it will only be fair to put supporting links into common links also and I will do that. However, it seemed to be more mutually satisfactory before, when we had three categories -- common, supporting and critical. Can we therefore agree to keep it that way? (Truthbody (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Since I wrote this, another user has pointed out that he or she has had to remove links to a "google reported attack site (Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.)" Thank you for the warning to avoid that site for the time being. (Truthbody (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Article is already unwieldy, please lets try not to add the same material twice

Redacteur Tibet, if you read this article, you'll see that you have repeated completely what was said above about the Dalai Lama's reasons. We are trying to simplify this article so please don't repeat all the same material. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Zemey Tulku’s Yellow Book

Does anybody know anything about this person, besides the fact, that he wrote and published that book? Where and in which language(s) has it been sold?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

mess with links

Truthbody you are completely mistaken, the research of Brück is in no way critical of Shugden it is completely neutral. You look too much from fan club perspective! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid the temptation to insult me on this article. I am trying to help make a balanced and neutral Wikipedia article. You have already insulted me a couple of times, and you have just appeared on this article as an anonymous user. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

This is nice that you try to balance it. If you have really this attitude you have to acknowledge that the amount to external links to pro-Shugden sites is overwhelming. It is you who removed two websites which may contradict Shugden followers' view: the article of investigative journalist Bultrini, a professional and one to a critic's website. As long as you delete them I doubt that you are neutral. There are enough links to anonymous pro-shugden websites. Why not adding two which are not anonymous? (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete Bultrini's, i suggested you move it. As for Tenzin Peljor's website, that is actually libellous. For his sake alone, I suggest you leave it out. (Truthbody (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

if this site is libellous than also these two sites are libellous: Western Shugden Society and Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden Blog, either you delete them also or you include the website again which counters the claims of these two anonymous websites, which mainly slander the Dalai Lama. If you don't agree then I remove both websites also until a final judgement by a neutral WP:Admin has been made! --22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
thanks so far for your cooperation (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder also why The Independent and The Gurdian articles are not included, I add them. The belong clearly to WP:RS. (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenzin Peljor vs three anonymous pro Shugden sites

As long as you can accept this three slander websites:

  1. Western Shugden Society
  2. Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden Blog Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden Blog contains the latest updates of this controversy.
  3. Why is the Dalai Lama Suppressing Religious Freedom? compiled by some US supporters in the Western Shugden Society

you should be able to accept the far more researched website by Tenzin Peljor:


otherwise I doubt your neutrality. A jugde from a neutral Admin should be made. 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

addition of links

To balance the link section I added the following links:

After this addition the quote is:

  • 10 links supportive of Shugden
  • 9 links disagreeing with Shugden

I think the link section is now more balnaced than the quote before: 10:5 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article includes links to anonymous blogs which are no WP:RS, its also quotes from the blogsite: see: this violates WP:standards. Such quotes should be removes or replaced by WP:RS. (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of news articles

As the story of Dorje Shugden and its ban and persecution have moved on a million miles since the 1990s, rendering almost everything that appeared in the press around the 1990s very outdated or misleading at best and libellous at worst, can we agree to stick to news sources from this decade? Especially the Guardian and Independent articles were refuted and rejected a long time ago and editors on this article agreed not to have them as NPOV sources on here. There are plenty of up to date press articles to choose from that show both sides of the argument. (Truthbody (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Truthbody, you claim to be neutral. Ha Ha ha. The two press articles of world media press are of historic significance and independent press researches as it is with Time and NYT. This WP article should link also these press articles and not only those which support your and other Shugden followers claims about millions who would be persecuted. Wikipedia is not the press arm of WSS. I include them again, if you have doubt we ask a neutral Admin. It is clear that both press articles are WP suited and WP:RS. What you and Shugden followers see as misleading is based on your own bias but not a neutral approach. The WP articles on Shugden are already pro-Shugden. There is no refutation of these two press articles. This is a wrong claim from NKT/WSS followers. If there is any "refutation" of those press articles by an independent medium please name or add it. The Guardian article is used in different researches of academics. Don't fool the reader. 10:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Unbalanced Article

This article heavily favours onse-sided Shugden followers position. It excludes available 3rd party material, mainly academic researches, which are already available to favour point of views as they are expressed on WP:SPS like or less researched TV broadcasts like France24 TV. Medias like spike or may not be suited as WP:RS and are mainly used to favour Shugden follower' POV. (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, if anything, still favors the supporters of the Dalai Lama and his ban against Dorje Shugden, and these supporters keep trying to come along here under anonymous names and change it to be even more anti-Shugden and anti Shugden practitioners. The information on the Dorje Shugden controversy comes from all sources, including those who do the practice and are being persecuted for it and those who merely talk about the practice and support the ban. Both sides are represented. France 24 is not at all one-sided -- it shows the ban and persecution, but it also shows the false accusations of murder and the smears about Dorje Shugden practitioners all being Chinese agents because they oppose the Dalai Lama on this. Western Shugden Society's website obviously has to be included as it gives the point of view of the beleagured Dorje Shugden practitioners and is an important source of updated news and so on from India and elsewhere. There are plenty of negative sources against Dorje Shugden practitioners in this article!! (Truthbody (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

This article is very unbalanced. Why does the wikipedia article not contain links to the sworn testimony of the two monks who were kicked out of Gangchen Tulku's monastery for NOT worshipping Shugden, for example? And since when is GEshe Kelsang considered by wikipedia to be an unbiased source? How did they manage to get so many of his quotations in there? And why are Kundeling's pro-cultural revolution and PRC statements not included? It should also include that monks who denied Shugden worship in Tibet were expelled from their monastery by Gangchen Lama? Here the article and link:
Forceful evacuation in Gangchen Monastery
Sonam Wanglak from Shigatse, Saga County, Drashuk township, reached Nepal on 30 May 2000. He is a 32-year-old former monk of Gangchen Monastery. Born into a farming family in Gangchen village of Drashuk township, Saga County, Sonam never had any schooling opportunities as there were no schools in his village.
In Gangchen village, there are 53 Tibetan families and most of them are farmers. Of these, 37 families face cereal shortage due to small landholdings, unfavourable climate and heavy taxes. At the age of 20, Sonam became monk of Gangchen Monastery, located in Saga County of Shigatse Prefecture and did intensive study of religious scriptures since then. Gangchen Monastery suffered complete destruction during the Cultural Revolution, and saw renovation in 1987 when local Tibetans and some elder monks took collaborative actions. Until March 1997, Gangchen Monastery had 29 monks, but the number has now reduced to 12 monks. In 1997, Sonam was appointed as a member of the Democratic Management Committee and tru-ren (Vice-President) of the Religious Committee of Gangchen Monastery. A six-member work team came to the monastery in March 1997, and stayed for three and a half months to conduct re-education. The members banned the pictures of the Dalai Lama and set a limit of 19 monks. No arrests were reported at the time. In June 1997, Gangchen Lama, a close associate of the Chinese authorities, visited the monastery. He called a special meeting of the monks whereby he gave instructions on showing loyalty and patriotism for PRC.
Gangchen Lama visited the monastery again on 3 December 1999, and instructed the monks to worship shugden deity (Shugden is a spirit which the Dalai Lama discourages to propitiate). He claimed himself as the re-incarnation of Panchen Sang Tashi, the founder of Gangchen Monastery, and called the monks to respect and worship him. He distributed booklets to the monks that has detailed explanation about his re-incarnation. However, no monks accepted him at the time.
Later, Gangchen Lama called 10 officials from the County Religious Department and PSB to instruct the monks to worship shugden and to respect him. A meeting was held in the monastery that very same day where the officials threatened the monks with arrest, detention and imprisonment if they oppose Gangchen Lama. Furthermore, refusal on the monk's part would be deemed political and they would be investigated for crime against the nation. Since the beginning of 1999, Gangchen Lama had started building a new monastery of his own on the northen valley of Gangchen Monastery. The officials of County Religious Department and PSB forcefully evacuated the monks of Gangchen Monastery to the new monastery on 27 December 1999. Two new statues of the shugden deity placed in the prayer hall by Gangchen Monastery were met with protest by the monks. The statues were later taken by the monks who hid them in a nearby cave, which was used for meditation. There has been no history of shugden worship by the monks of Gangchen Monastery.
Owing to constant pressure to worship the deity and orders to carry out the instructions of Gangchen Lama, seven monks fled the monastery. Sonam fled from his monastery on January 1999, and stayed in Shigatse for two months. He escaped to Nepal in a group of eight Tibetans by paying 1800 yuan to a guide. He wishes to join a monastery in India.
If you removed the templates I add it again, don't remove them until the unbalanced article has been improved. (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the template -- I agree the article is unbalanced, just not in the direction you think it is. Many editors from both sides have been working hard to make this article NPOV and in accordance with Wiki standards. No one should be using it as a soap box, just keeping it to the facts. So far, it has been getting better.

So you agree that it is wrong to expel monks? I'm glad. Then perhaps you might agree that it is wrong to expel over a thousand monks from their homes? 2 versus over a thousand? Also, of course Geshe Kelsang's views have to be heard on here as much as the Dalai Lama's because he is one of the principal opponents to the Dalai Lama on the Dorje Shugden controversy, which is the name of this article. The Dalai Lama and his reasons and speeches are utterly prominent on this article -- in fact, if it were not for him, there would be no Dorje Shugden controversy article in the first place! Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I might just add that of course Geshe Kelsang does not get anywhere near the same amount of airtime as the Dalai Lama on this article, which is partly why it remains unbalanced. But we can live with it as long as anonymous supporters such as yourself don't keep trying to make it even more favorable to the Dalai Lama and his restriction of religious freedom. (Truthbody (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks Truthbody , I am a bit frantic here to see this unbalanced article and to experience that links to other point of views which clearly belong to WP:RS were deleted, after insertion. If you strive for balance that's fine. Regarding the expelled monks: it is hypocrisy of WSS to complain about the expulsion of monks in Sera and to start a anti-dalai-lama-campaign while tolerating the expulsion in of non-Shugden monks in Tibet by Gangchen Lama. I don't like to go in details, as long as you strive for neutrality, I have hope. Good luck. BTW, as you strive for neutrality please stop NKT editors to delete the link to the neutral paper by von Brück in the Shugden article. Thanks a lot. (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you can agree with my link addistions. I think at least the link section is now far more fair, isn't it? (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made two proposals below for improving this article and making it more consistent with Wiki standards. The first is to massively cut the article down to only that which everybody can agree to (and then rebuild from there if necessary). The second is to limit the links to 3 for each side. I would appreciate the views of the editors discussing the balance of this article on my proposals. --Dspak08 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a re-write

I think that this article is long, complicated, overly specialised and of interest to no one apart from the people who are editing it! I think we should re-write the article in a shorter, more coherent form giving the main arguments on both sides. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so the article should be NPOV and informative. What do the editors think? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think as a starting point we delete every single point that is controversial - in other words, every point that we cannot all agree on. So what will then remain will be only those (perhaps few) things that everybody can agree on (basic factual things, describing what this controversy is all about). Then, we can perhaps make two sections, one for proponents of the practice one for opponents of the practice, and limit these two sections to something like 3-4 reasonably lengthed paragraphs. I also think we set up a word limit for the whole article (perhaps the same length as the Dorje Shugden article). This current article is a monster that nobody (but those editing it) will ever read - so what is the point? Lets just write a simple, short, factual article and go home. In effect, all sides agree to stop trying to make Wikipedia a battleground for this controversy. We all agree to a Wiki-cease-fire, cut things down to the absolute minimum and we all then defend the resulting minimum, neutral article against any who come here with some agenda not consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. I see that Tenzin is editing on these articles again. Can you agree with this? Surely we all have better things to do with our time than hash it out here on Wikipedia.
If anybody has any ideas on how to improve upon this proposal, I am all ears.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
While I agree in principle that this article is long and unwieldy, it might be very hard to reduce it unless people on both sides devote a lot of time to it. In the meantime, at least we can say that it provides a wealth of material on both sides in terms of who says what about the Deity and practice. However, in some ways I wonder about all this polemical argument and if it even belongs here -- surely it should be Dorje Shugden practitioners' right to worship a tree if they so desire -- the "Dorje Shugden controversy" has only become a controversy due to the Dalai Lama's ban. So, if we do change it, perhaps we should call it "Dorje Shugden discrimination" and just stick to a presentation of the facts of the ban and persecution and briefly the Dalai Lama's main reasons and why Dorje Shugden practitioners disagree with those reasons? That way we could cut it right down quickly at least. (Truthbody (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I agree that there is a wealth of information, and it is nice to have it all in one place. But the reality is (it seems to me, at least) that all of this information has almost zero value since nobody (but us editors) will ever read the article due to its length and complexity. If you look at the comments from the Wiki administrators who are periodically called in to rule on some random deletion request, they all say the same thing - make a short version of the main ideas. Problems seem to arise when each side thinks their ideas are really important so they need to be preserved. But this then creates a pretext for the other side to say their bit, and on and on it goes. If we have a word limit and we divide the sections into the two sides, then it forces editors to say their main points in as concise of a way as possible and it limits the back and forth. Then, with a short, readable article, any person from 'the general public' (who this article is aimed at) will be able to, with 5-10 minutes of reading, walk away with a good understanding of the main points of what this is all about. Those die hards who are interested in all the details can go to other sites referred to in the external links.
In this light, I could support almost any proposal that adheres to the following principles:
1. There needs to be a word limit to the article length, such as roughly the same length as the Dorje Shugden article.
2. Each side gets equal 'air time' within the article itself. I think the easiest way of doing this is to make two separate sections, one for proponents one for opponents, and we say each section needs to be of the same length. Within their sections, the respective editors can say their main arguments (only check is cannot violate Wiki rules).
3. We limit the external links to three for each side (again, only check is not violating Wiki rules).
4. We make a very explicit agreement here on the talk pages about what the principles are for this article, which we can then refer new editors to when they come to this article. Unfortunately, these articles tend to attract extremists (from both sides), who then sabotage any balance in the article, which then requires either edit wars or endless refutations of what the other side is saying. If we have an explicit agreement here on the talk pages, we can then immediately refer any new editors to the agreement and remove any counter-productive material. We did something similar on the Rimé article (reaching an agreement) and then when some new people came in to sabotage the article, we just referred them to the agreement, removed the material, and things remained peaceful. How wonderful it would be if we could do the same thing here.
That being said, I can agree with your proposal to limit the content to:
1. Executive summary (we can perhaps keep the existing one)
2. Brief historical background (2-4 paragraphs maximum)
3. Factual description of the discrimination (2-4 pagagraphs maximum)
4. Two sections explaining the main reasons and refutations of those reasons (2-4 paragraphs maximum per section)
5. External links (limited to 3 links per side)
(implication - everything else gets deleted).
However, I do not agree with your title 'Dorje Shugden discrimination'. Discrimination seems to me to be a loaded word which automatically would bias the article in favor of proponents. Opponents of the practice would not see it as discrimination. I think controversy is a neutral and accurate description - there is a controversy. If a proponent wants to make the argument that the only reason why there is a controversy is because of the DL's ban, then that is fine. They have the right to do so in their section. But every other section, it seems to me, should be neutral, factual, descriptive, non-controversial and above all SHORT. So I would say keep the title of the article as it is. --Dspak08 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable way to approach a re-write is to take one paragraph or one section per day or per week and let's all focus the majority of our attention on that one part of the article. We could agree not to move on to the next paragraph or section until there's consensus to do so. Otherwise, the total length and detail covered in the article makes the whole task seem daunting. We need to make molehills out of this big mountain. Emptymountains (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We could list each section in a "to do list" [2] and then strike through them as we go down the list. Emptymountains (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we did do something like this, I'd recommend archiving this talk page so that we start with just the "to do list." Emptymountains (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on external links

Looking through the history of the writing of this article, it seems to me that there has been a tremendous amount of back and forth on the external links. We can endlessly debate the merits and validity of each link. The number of links has also balooned to ridiculous numbers.

I propose that we limit each side to 3 external links (6 links in total). As long as the 3 links chosen do not violate any Wikipedia rules, then they are accepted. But each side can have no more than 3 links. I think two obvious links would be the Western Shugden Society site for proponents of the practice and the Dalai Lama's site (where he has his things against DS) for the opponents. So that leaves two more links for each side.

This will be cleaner, simpler, more easily accessed and avoid useless back and forths between editors. Again, the fundamental point is whether we are using Wikipedia to simply inform the general reader of 'what is this all about' or whether we are trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for advancing our own agenda. I think history has shown that when either side has an agenda, problems arise. Sometimes the article swings pro-Shugden, sometimes the article swings anti-Shugden, but in neither case is it what Wikipedia is all about.

If anybody else has an idea how to improve upon my proposal, I am open. --Dspak08 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these are the best links to include, 4 links for supporters and 4 links for critics:
I chose those sites which seem to have a wealth of information to offer Wiki readers. I also think that the various speeches, academic papers and essays, and news articles should be referenced in the article itself, rather than bogging down the external links section. In general, I would make the external link list identical on both the Dorje Shugden article and the Controversy article. Emptymountains (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Method of Changes to my additions

If we are going to criticize the Dalai Lama for relying on oracles, it is only fair to point out the reliance of Geshe Kelsang, Gangchen Lama and other Shugden supporters on Shugden oracles. Since the comments about the oracles go to the credibility of the Dalai lama's restrictions on the practice, it is only fair.

Geshe Kelsang has never relied on oracles, even though his uncle Kuten Lama was the oracle for Dorje Shugden. It is true that Kuten Lama visited a number of UK NKT Dharma Centers and performed invocations, but nothing of any value came as a result. Geshe Kelsang notably didn't attend any of them and we now have an internal rule forbidding reliance on oracles. Maybe it was Kuten Lama's wish to come, I'm not sure.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But did Geshe Kelsang not have the authority to refuse permission? And did NKT students not ask the oracle for advice? Perhaps we can say some NKT students relied on the oracle? Since no other Tibetan lamas ever gave public events in 1995/6 When Kuten Lama visited for example, I find it hard to believe that GKG could not have prevented the invocations. He was and is the Spiritual Director after all and had the authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipropaganda1 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it has been sometime since anyone with a sympathy for the Dalai Lama's views has edited here, and with examination I see that 3 of the changes here have been made by identities charged with "sockpuppetry". For this reason, I suggest any changes made to my edits be discussed on the talk page first, instead of just being edited right in. Otherwise we will never have a balanced view. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'sockpuppet' accusation was shown to be false, and the charges lifted. We are each different people who have different views and live in different places. I live in Geneva, Switzerland. Those accused of being sockpuppets happened to all be together at a conference this summer, and we were editing from the same Wifi hotspot (thus the same IP address). But it can be easily verified that we are each editing from somewhere different now, confirming we are each independent editors. Instead of making false accusations against one another, our focus should be finding some sort of compromise for improving this article. I have made two proposals which are fair and balanced. The other advantage of these proposals is by limiting the content of the articles, we limit how the article explodes in length. Each time somebody adds some paragraph, the other side feels the need to add a paragraph refuting the new point. Then the first side wants to refute the refutation, and on and on it goes endlessly. If we agree to a word limit, and certain principles of what can go into the article, then we will be able to cut this article down to the bare minimum necessary for informing the general public what this controversy is all about. If people want to know more, they can visit the 3 external links that each side is entitled to. Fair, balanced, simple, limited and it protects against future manipulation of this article (by either side).--Dspak08 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is false I apologize. From my perspective it wasn't an accusation, I just read the sock puppet report. At the same time, it is clear the overwhelming number of new contributions are from those who are positive towards Shugden propitiation and the NKT, and biased against the Dalai Lama's decision. For example, the position of non-Gelug lamas was shifted further and further down the article. As the heads of two non-Gelug Lineages, Sakya Trizin and the late Minling Trichen deserve to have their view heard. Also, there are several Gelug lamas (pre-restrictions) who critiqued the practice, including, most notably, Ngulchu Dharmabhadra (a great Yamantaka and Guru Puja scholar and poet from Tashi Lhunpo). The Gelug contributions are biased towards the POV of Sera lamas. However, the GElug tradition is actually a combination of the works of Tsongkhapa and monastery specific "traditions" and practices. In addition, Trijiang Rinpochey, while one of the most famous lamas, is not the Guru of all Gelug lamas. There are lineages coming through Trashikyil Monastery and Drepung Gomang Monastery that don't go through him or Phabhongkhapa, for example. This POV bias needs to be examined. Finally, I agree with you about the simplification, but it seems a massive task. Should each "side" in the debate nominate a spokesperson, or how should we go about this? I agree I want this dialogue to be amicable rather than confronational. From our own perspectives, we are all trying to ensure our traditions and lamas get a fair hearing. BTW, is the "summer conference" you mentioned the NKT Summer Festival in Ulverston, Cumbria? I have no problem declaring my affiliations from the beginning if the other three can be honest about theirs. Revealing these affiliations is key to indicating whether or not the debate is balanced. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Summer Festival in Ulverston. As far as transparency is concerned, I have been a NKT practitioner for 15 years, 14 of which I have been following this controversy very closely. I have written extensively on the issue (academic papers, articles, blogging, etc.). I have a PhD in International Relations, and am a NKT Resident Teacher. I am also married, work as a Professor of Economics and International Relations, and have three children. As I hope my contributions to this discussion have shown, my goal is to simply create an article that is reflective of Wikipedia's purpose. I think this is in the best interest of the readers of Wikipedia and also ourselves so we do not have to waste our time endlessly editing this article. I admit when I first started contributing to Wikipedia I tended to contribute to the problem by trying to make the article tilt in favor of proponents of the practice. But then I had a really bad experience on the Rimé article which taught me (the hard way) that Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. Now I am a firm believer that the only valid objective one should have in writing these articles is to produce an informative encylopedia article which transmits the main ideas to the general public. I would classify anybody who has some other objective as being an extremist editor. So while I am a DS practitioner and a NKT resident teacher, my intention is to find a fair compromise which would enable these articles to finally become stabilized. Then, we can all go back to our families... --Dspak08 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

dear Antipropaganda, i can see you are trying to play by the rules, like the rest of us are also trying to do, so thank you. But I think that this article is not really a conversation about what my lama thinks or what your lama thinks about Dorje Shugden. For discussion of who Dorje Shugden is and whether this Lama or that Lama agrees, there is the article called Dorje Shugden.

Calling Dorje Shugden practitioners "biased against the Dalai Lama's decision" seems completely the wrong word to use when talking about religious suppression -- it is obvious that Dorje Shugden practitioners would not agree with his decision to wipe out their spiritual tradition, but it seems odd to call that a bias. Dorje Shugden practitioners have not expressed any bias against the Dalai Lama's own decision to stop practicing; and he can hold whatever view of Dorje Shugden he likes -- he is free to do what he wants, no one is taking away his religious freedom. However, Dorje Shugden practitioners are clearly going to be opposed to his theocratic decision to stop everyone else practicing because it is not his right (or anyone's right) to make that decision.

That is the source of the controversy here, and the reason this article came about. The controversy only comes about because the Dalai Lama has used his political power to ban worship of a popular Dharma Protector. Any small doctrinal disputes before then discussed among the polemicists did not affect the spiritual lives of many hundreds of thousands of people, and would never have needed a whole Wiki article to themselves.

Have you ever had one of your religious practices banned? It does change things a bit. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Addition of info on use of oracles

there's been some debate about whether to include information concerning Kuten Lama's invitation to NKT Centres (under Geshe Kelsang, obviously), as proof of Geshe Kelsang's reliance on oracles. while it's arguably relevant that Kuten Lama is Geshe Kelsang's uncle, the point of debate was that Geshe Kelsang had *invited* Kuten Lama to Manjushri Centre and other NKT Centres to perform the invocation of Dorje Shugden. i believe that this isn't true: while Kuten Lama was certainly invited to perform invocations - i myself attended one at Tara Centre (sometime around '96, i think) - Geshe Kelsang himself never attended any of them. a statement was published, i think by James Belither as NKT secretary, disavowing an NKT connection with Kuten Lama. does anyone have a copy of this statement? in any case, my understanding - please correct me if you know better - is that Geshe Kelsang never invited Kuten Lama, and that it was some NKT students who had done this, hence his not attending the invocations. therefore, Geshe Kelsang's relationship with Kuten Lama cannot be used as evidence of his having relied on oracles. what do you think?

Atisha's cook (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My response would be that these invocations were performed at Geshe Kelsang's centres, and the questions posed to the oracle were about how to make "The Kadam Dharma Flourish". I have a friend, former NKT member, who was at the invocation that occurred at NKT's Heruka Centre in London, said all the questions posed regarded advice for how to manage/grow the NKT organization. Geshe Kelsang clearly sets the policies at the centre, and Kuten Lama was the only Tibetan Lama to visit NKT centres that year. If Geshe Kelsang didn't want his uncle to do the invocations, he had the power as spiritual director to prevent them.

My understanding is that Geshe Kelsang distanced himself from his uncle after his Uncle decided to cease practice of Dorje Shugden and re-align himself with the Dalai Lama. It is discussed here I think: Also, in researcher Kay's book he mentions several visits of Kuten Lama to Manjushri Centre, HQ of the NKT. My question would be, if it wasn't Geshe Kelsang who OK'd the visits of his own uncle and the trances, who was it? Antipropaganda1 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am double-checking all my facts on this, but for now this is what I recall offhand from having been there.

The teachers and managers asked the questions about the running of Centres etc (not Geshe Kelsang) and also requested some Dharma questions and a long life prayer for Geshe Kelsang. All that got translated from hours and hours of tapes were an extraordinary poetic Dharma rhyming couplet commentary to Jewel Rosary (or what was the name of the text? I'll check) and Geshe Kelsang's long life prayer. The rest may still exist in the archives but will very unlikely ever see the light of day.

Geshe Kelsang also said at the time we don't need to rely on oracles for advice because that is the function of the Spiritual Guide. Shortly after he stopped the use of oracles in NKT Centres, and that became one of the Internal Rules.

This happened years before Kuten Lama was told to stop practising Dorje Shugden by the Dalai Lama. Kuten Lama was an old man at the time and wanted to be left in peace and allowed to stay in his home; that's why he aligned himself with the Dalai Lama. It was sad. I'll find out more details and get back to you both. (Truthbody (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Regarding, "If we are going to criticize the Dalai Lama for relying on oracles, it is only fair to point out the reliance of Geshe Kelsang, Gangchen Lama and other Shugden supporters on Shugden oracles," I don't think that reliance on oracles per se is criticized. It's reliance on oracles of worldly beings like Nechung (versus enlightened beings like Dorje Shugden) that is criticized. Emptymountains (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The response from many traditional Tibetan Buddhists would be that ONLY worldly deities manifest through oracles, while enlightened beings do not. That is why we don't see any "enlightened protectors" like Mahakala, Damchen Choegyal (Kalarupa), Ekajati or Lion Faced Dakini Manifesting through oracles. This was a deep contradiction that instilled doubts about Shugden, because how could an "enlightened" being need an oracle? The reasoning given by the Dalai Lama is, because it is only recently that Shugden was "upgraded" from an oracle to an enlighetened being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipropaganda1 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to sign! Antipropaganda1 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference. Apparently the word "oracle" itself means spirit:In the Tibetan tradition, the word oracle is used for a spirit which enters those men and women who act as mediums between the natural and the spiritual realms. The mediums are, therefore, known as kuten, which literally means, "the physical basis." Antipropaganda1 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropagandaAntipropaganda1 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, why is the Dalai Lama relying on the Nechung oracle/spirit for his political decisions? Is that really a reliable basis for banning a spiritual practice? (Truthbody (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Regarding, "ONLY worldly deities manifest through oracles," I believe that Buddha Shakyamuni speaks through Avalokiteshvara in the Heart Sutra. Emptymountains (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Avalokiteshvara, as a fully enlightened bodhisattva, can hardly be compared to an oracle, which manifests through a human medium. Many Mahayana teachers say Avalokiteshvara was already fully enlightened when the heart sutra was spoken so took on the aspect of the bodhisattva as an act of compassion. There are many commentaries about this, including the excellent one by Geshe Sonam Rinchen. To the second point, HH Dalai Lama gives many reasons besides the oracles for the ban. So while it is fair to say he did consult the oracles, most of his reasons came from his own observations. Shugden supporters have stated their disagreements with his reasons in the article, which is fine by me, but oracles were only part of the process. More concerning is the precedent set by beginning to rely on an oracle as an elightened being, because this would indicate what the oracle said could never be wrong. When the oracle is channeling a worldy spirit, they can be wrong, and HHDL fully aknowledges this in the link I posted above. In short, oracles are consulted in decisions, along with the government, and along with heads of lineages. The comments I posted from the Nyingma, Sakya and many (but yes I agree not all) Gelug lineage holders indicate many of them agree with HHDL's views on this. Also, any discussion of the controversy should include how Shugden went from being considered a wordly spirit by the Sakyas who tamed him, to a fully enlightened BUddha -deity from Phabongkhapa onwards. I lack material on this so would welcome it. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The principal reasons the Dalai Lama gives for banning the practice are the fact that it harms his life and the Podrang government of the successive Dalai Lamas. These were the reasons given by the Nechung oracle, so he does principally rely on an oracle for his decision making. (He also relied somewhat on his dreams.)

The state oracle Nechung had increasing influence over the Dalai Lama since the 70's. The Tibetan state oracle system goes back to a pre-Buddhist time and consultation of the state oracle has proven constructive at times, but also destructive at other times. For this reason, the state oracle was not consulted during the Dalai Lama’s escape in 1959. (When Dorje Shugden's oracle was). This fact of history is still held intact by the presence of living eye-witnesses of the time: some old monks, who accompanied the Dalai Lama on that secret journey as his life guards are still living; their testimony was shown on Swiss TV in January 1998. Mr. Lithang Atar, an active member of the Khampa-guerilla, left his testament for the world on a video-recording, before he passed away in 2006.

The Dalai Lama was pleased with Dorje Shugden as a result of his successful escape and wrote him praise as an enlightened protector. Some say this caused the state oracle to become deeply jealous and it began to exert a deceptive influence on the Dalai Lama and some other persons in order to change the positive picture of Dorje Shugden. The slander varied and worsened year by year. 1-First the state oracle started off saying, "Dorje Shugden is a powerful deity, only to be worshipped by beings with high realizations. However worshipping this deity would upset Goddess Palden Lhamo (a superior protecting deity, who does not have an oracle)". 2-Then he said "the deity is appropriate to be worshipped by an individual, but not by a group". 3-Then it was "Dorje Shugden is a deity, suitable to others, but not to the successor of the 5th Dalai Lama and those working for the Gaden Phodrang Government established by the 5th Dalai Lama." 4-At another occasion: "Dorje Shugden is a spirit born out of a Kagyupa-monk who hated the Tibetan government, and not the incarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen" (as it is well-known). 5-At other times: "Dorje Shugden is the spirit of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, whose Samaya bond to the 5th Dalai Lama was not good, thus it is harmful for this government." 6-Then he said: "Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a good lama, whose works of composition are praiseworthy, therefore Dorje Shugden cannot be the spirit of such a master." 7-And then: "Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen himself was a false Tulku, who came to be among the candidates for the 5th Dalai Lama and failed to be chosen, but through clever tactics of his mother on the first Panchen Lama Choe Kyi Gyaltsen, he was recognized as the fourth reincarnation of Panchen Sonam Dragpa (the teacher of 3rd Dalai Lama), but was then born as an evil, trouble-making spirit to harm the Tibetan government.” 8-The state oracle adopted as his assistants two new oracles, a man and a woman that came from Tibet, claiming to speak for a certain Tibetan god and goddess. They at once joined in his efforts of denouncing Dorje Shugden. Their slander of Dorje Shugden took its heaviest form in the beginning of the nineties, by blaming him as "a Chinese demon, responsible for everything that goes wrong in the Tibetan government, most harmful for the freedom of Tibet, and heaviest of all, harmful for the life of His Holiness”.

This last one has been the constant reason for the ban on Dorje Shugden given by the Dalai Lama himself. (Truthbody (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Is "anti-propaganda" trying to provoke an edit war?

I notice that you have only joined Wikipedia in the last couple of days and call yourself 'antipropaganda' in a clear attempt to discredit what Shugden practitioners say as propaganda. You are also making a great number of changes and have just brought in a controversial mention of violence from an anti-Shugden website, presumably in a possible attempt to provoke an edit war?

Forgive me if I am mistaken in my analysis, but please understand that people on both sides have worked hard on this article for many months and are trying to keep it civil and to avoid edit wars. At least use the talk pages before adding incendiary material. Otherwise I will have to dig out the great amount of material of documented specific violence perpetrated on Shugden practitioners, instead of keeping it general as it was before. I think you will find that there has been far far more violence against the Shugden practitioners in India than instigated by them -- you are using one old example whereas there are scores of new ones we can talk about. Generally Shugden practitioners are non-political spiritual practitioners who just want to be left in peace to practice their tradition. Some Dalai Lama supporters on the other hand put Tibet about Buddhism (by their own admission) and have been very violent toward those who are disobeying their leader. (Truthbody (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

sorry, I meant "Tibet above Buddhism", not "about". (Truthbody (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I am not at all trying to provoke an edit war. "In general Shugden practitioners..." is the type of generalization that has been made in the Wikipedia articles, which are exactly what I find disturbing. When we say "In general Dalai Lama supporters..." and "In general Shugden practitioners..." we are not aknowledging that both these groups are made up of various people. So, for example, while it could be argued that Geshe Kelsang has minimal involvement in Tibetan political affairs, the same could not be said for Kundeling Losang Yeshe or Gangchen Lama. While it could be said some shopkeepers in the camps refuse people who are declared shugden practitioners service, this cannot be said for all of them. By making sweeping generalizations,we create propaganda, hence my name. The majority of edits lately have been from pro-Shugden people, so I am seeking to correct the bias. I have deleted very few points, only added new ones. FOr example, the views of Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya high lamas were not before represented, so it was only fair to include them. While i questioned some of your rebuttals, others I left in. I think you are seeing me as an enemy I see myself merely trying to represent the other side. And from the editing of today and yesterday, I am the only one representing that side. Hence it is only fair I be allowed some input. As dspak said, rather than hurling accusations, we should work towards an article we can deal with. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Finally, asking the WSS for accountability in its numbers and accusations in only fair. I am more than happy to remove the quote about the violent incident, if the WSS article removes the "numbers of protestors"or at least says "as counted by WSS the number of protestors are as above" until this can be verified from a neutral source, such as a newpaper or police report. It is clear that there has been assumptions made by both sides, and that neither has a NPOV. Hence, documented evidence, like police reports should be considered as the final word. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see you as my enemy at all. I also have let many of your additions remain, even if I don't agree with them. However, bringing in accusations of violence that are outdated will only provoke me or others to bring in accusations of violence going the other way, and it will inevitably degenerate into an edit war. If, as you say, we shouldn't blame all Dalai Lama's followers for the misguided actions of some of them (and I agree), then you should not use one incident of alleged violence by Shugden practitioners to tar the reputation of all Shugden practitioners, who are, by and large, peaceful practitioners who would not harm a fly. (Truthbody (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Finally, I am happy to stop posting on these subjects if we can agree the statements from the non-Gelug shugden lamas and from the Buddhists critical of the WSS are left in as is. I am happy to stop posting edits to wikipedia completely if you can demonstrate there is another person sympathetic to the dalai lama who is more skilfull and posts regularily. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I absolutely agree that the vast majority of devotees on BOTH sides are largely peaceful. We can all pull out examples of one or another shugden supporter or detractor who did something wrong, and I agree this is completely counter-productive. But as I've said, I am more than willing to back out of wikipedia editing (I actually have loads of teachings to transcribe on the computer) if you can demonstrate to me there is at least 1 person leaning towards the dalai lama (as dspak, truthbody and quiet mountain represent pro-Shugden perspectives) who will take responsibility for making sure the edits aren't too biased towards the WSS. Finally, rather than posting publicly about me trying to start an edit war, I wish that you could have just asked me my reasons for adding the points, rather than making assumptions. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have assumed you were trying to start an edit war. It seemed that way for a moment when you added the bit about the violence, but I can see that you are genuine and I apologize for acting too hastily. As I said before, do stick around. (Truthbody (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I've just realized that the bit that says "stick around" did not get onto this page, i must have hit delete by mistake. I was saying that you should stick around to help edit these articles as you are far better than various Dalai Lama supporters who have actually vandalized this site. You are keeping me on my toes and I do genuinely want a balanced article. I do think it would be fairer to allow a rejoinder as to why we don't believe the Nyingma Lama who calls our Protector a ghost (whatever that means!) and that it is an ironically sectarian thing to say given that some Nyingmapas call Shugden practitioners sectarian! However, I don't mind what numbers of demonstrators are put and as you can see I left that bit you added about it being the WSS estimate. To me, what is important is not the number of demonstrators but why they felt they had to be there in the first place -- there is a very harmful ban of their spiritual practice that they want lifted. So, thank you for your contributions, and we can help each other even if we argue (or "discuss!") (Truthbody (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, absolutely. I am not here to engage in name calling etc. WIth many of the HHDL supporters who have come here, some haven't had enough written English to express themselves effectively and I felt that is a real problem. When trying to get their point across (which they could do magnificently in Tibetan, with loads of scriptural citations for example) frustration happens. So I come here with letting their view be heard, and hope more Tibetans with good English skills will contribute as well (there are a great number of such people but they are largely secular and so mostly uninterested in this dispute). I also have colloquial Tibetan so I can help from that perspective as well. I can only think of my own inadequacy if I had to post this stuff in written Tibetan or French. So I can empathize with their frustration, but agree such edit wars don't help us come to consensus re: the article. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropadanda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear AP, why are you signing your name multiple times? Emptymountains (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know, are we allowed to use YouTube videos to back up what we say? I notice that Antipropaganda has used several YouTube references. I had been avoiding the use of YouTube as source as I thought the Bots would remove them, but if we can use them, that's great. (Truthbody (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

See [3] for guidelines regarding linking to YouTube. Emptymountains (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Regarding, "don't outright call him sectarian (he is a highly revered master)," I do think he is being sectarian. Criticizing the beliefs of other religious traditions is being sectarian, no? Consider this:

Buddha said: ‘A man has a faith. If he says “This is my faith”, so far he maintains the truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’ In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say ‘I believe this’. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false. (Walpola Sri Rahula, quoting Canki Sutta, What the Buddha Taught, 2nd ed., p. 10, © 1959, 1974)

Therefore, to say, "Shugden is a ghost" as if that should be true for everybody is too big a generalization, don't you think? Emptymountains (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we clarify, IN HIS VIEW. But it should be obvious. Lord Buddha himself, when he felt that others had wrong view, said so. Sometimes even chastising them and calling them "foolish man." As long as we clarify it is HIS view, he has a right to it, without the views being judged. In the same way, when Gelug Shugden lamas say that Shugden DOES NOT represent fundamentalism, that is THEIR VIEW. When Zemey Rinpochey in the yellow book said Shugden brought retribution to devotees who studied Nyingma scriptures, that is also his view. If we quantify every single thing every single master says, it will get ridiculous. (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda174.14.16.84 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC) What about Chandrakirti when he said only holders of Madhayamika-Prasangika school of emptiness could attain full enlightenment, is Chandrakirti therefore sectarian? Should that view be held for everyone, even those who hold the Chittamantrin view? Should we paraphrase every paragraph written by him with "Chittamantrin emptiness devotees regard his condemnation of their school as unfair and prejudiced, as they do feel they can reach full enlighenment."With such logic, all religious debate would be regarded as politically incorrect.

When Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says the practice of Vajrayogini is more profound than that of Yamantaka because it has a body mandala and Yamantaka doesn't, even though Yamantaka scholars assert their system is the foremost, is that being fundamentalist? We must respect the rights of lineage holders and masters to represent their own views without a long analysis of whether or not they have a right to them. (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda174.14.16.84 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda74.14.16.84 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, what's with all the signatures? Anyway, what would lead to harmony is if we were all entitled to our beliefs, so long as we did not try to impose those beliefs onto others, saying, "You must believe this way." It seems that by not quantifying our beliefs as right for us even if not for others, things have gotten a little too absolutist. I think that GKG said it best:

Some scholars debate with each other, such as the well-known Gelugpa scholar Yonten Gyatso and Dongthog Tulku, a scholar from another tradition, who conducted a debate by letter over a number of years. They have written many books replying to each other’s assertions, but this does not mean they are criticising each other. They are simply clarifying the doctrines of their own traditions, with good motivation. There is nothing wrong with this.[4]

Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All the singnatures are due to my unfamiliarity with the interface. I apologize. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Antipropaganda has received word of other urgent commitments

I have been instructed by my teachers via email and telephone to focus on my transcription, editing and Tibetan studies. A similar note has been recorded on my personal talk page. To be honest, one teacher said I should be spending more time on studies, especially since I'm young and can still absorb languages. I am not ducking out, and was glad that I got another POV across. It seems there are no neutral contributors, so I do ask that the pro-WSS people please make sure you have your edits checked by at least one person sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's views before final edits. Wikipedia editors, please note my IP address so everyone can know I am sincere in pulling away due to other commitments. I have learned alot about this process and it was fascinating. I wish there were more even "teams" but of course it is those most committed to the process who will be heard. Thanks to everyone for explaining things, and PLEASE do try to include the views of non-WSS supporters in the controversy and WSS articles. Bowing out gracefully with best wishes for everyone's practice and a quick resolution to the dispute. Antipropaganda1 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)antipropaganda1Antipropaganda1 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Antipropaganda, i think i might miss you, I'd gotten used to you! Good luck with your studies and thank you for your contributions and good wishes for a quick resolution. (Truthbody (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

The socalled Yellow book

Shouldn't it be mentioned?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some links with information: [5], [6], [7], [8].

Austerlitz -- (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


"By Stephen Batchelor

Praise to you, violent god of the Yellow Hat teachings, Who reduces to particles of dust Great beings, high officials, and ordinary people Who pollute and corrupt the Gelugpa doctrine.

- From “Praise to Dorje Shugden,” quoted by Zemey Rinpoche (1927-1996)"

Batchelor only says that Zemey Rinpoche quoted those words from a prayer (?) called "Praise to Dorje Shugden". There are people practicing this praise, aren't there? What has Geshe Kelsang Gyatso said about the meaning of this prayer? Who has created it? It it known?

Additionally, Batchelor says: In 1973, a senior Gelugpa lama called Zemey Rinpoche published an account of Dorje Shugden that he had received orally from his teacher (and the Dalai Lama's tutor) Trijang Rinpoche. This text recounts in detail the various calamities that have befallen monks and laypeople of the Gelugpa tradition who have practiced Nyingma teachings. Those mentioned include the last three Panchen Lamas, senior officials of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s government, Reting Rinpoche, and even Pabongka himself. In each case, the illness, torture or death incurred is claimed to be the result of having displeased Dorje Shugden. The publication of this material was condemned by the Dalai Lama, who was then engaged in Nyingma practices himself under the guidance of the late Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. But the Dalai Lama's views about Dorje Shugden began to shift and led to his first statements discouraging the practice in 1976.

Is the book still available? The title is: „Die mündliche Übermittlung des gelehrten Vaters“ (Pha-rgod vla-ma'i zhal-lung)."

Who is (was) Zemey Rinpoche?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Zemey Rinpoche

Trying to find out: [9] he has been a "high lama" ("On Saturday, the third day after Rinpoche's passing, Kyabje Zemey Rinpoche and other high lamas gathered to conduct a self-initiation of Chittamani Tara, and the monks of Ganden Shartse, who had completed a Yamantaka retreat, conducted the self-initiation of Yamantaka.") He has been one of the "foremost disciples" of Kyabje Zong Rinpoche

  • [10] "Thupten Jinpa describes the effect of these expressions of spiritual insight: 'When Zemey Rinpoche used to give large public teachings of the Buddhist path, I remember that he would have the entire congregation sing some of the classic verses evoking impermanence and exhorting the individual to make human life meaningful. It is one of the most moving experiences to be in a large gathering of this sort and to see senior lamas and distinguished scholars weeping openly.'"
  • [11] he has been a buddhist teacher
  • [12]
Q: Geshe-la, in Zemey Tulku’s The Yellow Book, it says that Dorje

Shugden killed many Gelugpa Lamas who engaged in practices of the Nyingma tradition. Do you believe this?

GKG: No, I never believed this. I knew Zemey Tulku. However, I do not believe the information contained in The Yellow Book.

Q: Why did Zemey Rinpoche write such things?

GKG: I don’t know the real reason for his writing this book. Maybe this was his view and he was trying to prevent Gelugpa Lamas from engaging in Nyingma practices. There are two reasons why I don’t believe this. One is that Dorje Shugden never harms any sentient being because he is a Buddha, an enlightened being. He has compassion for all living beings without exception, even those who try to harm him. The second reason is that the list of Lamas in The Yellow Book supposed to have killed by Dorje Shugden never received any harm from any spirit because they were sincerely practicing refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

In many holy scriptures of Sutra and Tantra it says that those who are sincerely taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, will never receive harm from spirits. We have this guarantee from Buddha if we sincerely practice refuge. I understand that The Yellow Book causes many Nyingmapa practitioners to become unhappy with Dorje Shugden, and because of this they do not appreciate Dorje Shugden practitioners and sometimes even criticize them. This causes the development of disharmony within the Mahayana Buddhist community. As we know, our harmony is important. We Buddhists need to show a good example, we should not argue with each other or criticize each other. We should practice our own tradition purely but respect other traditions. We should never try to destroy the spiritual life of others. Although some people say ‘I am Nyingmapa’, ‘I am Gelugpa’, this is just a different way of presenting and practicing Dharma. The real essence is the same. So I would like to suggest to everybody to forget The Yellow Book. The Yellow Book was not written by Buddha, so why should we believe this?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photograph of Zemey Rinpoche [13], he is called H.E. Kyabje Zemey Dorje Chang, [14].

Austerlitz -- (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Book

I made an excerpt of the Yellow Book available here:

the interview with geshe kelsang was made by kelsang dekkyi, who, using her unordained name, tried to appear like an objective reporter. Good luck with the article :-) --Kt66 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Book in Kay's research

The young Fourteenth Dalai Lama was introduced to the practice of Dorje Shugden reliance by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959. After some years in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama became aware that his practice was in conflict, first with the state protector Pehar[2], and later with the main protective goddess of the Gelug tradition and Tibetan people Palden Lhamo (dPal Idan lha mo), who, as a ‘jig rten las ‘das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened protector), objected strongly to Dorje Shugden’s pretensions.[3] He did not, however, voice his doubts about the merits of Dorje Shugden reliance until 1978 following the publication of a sectarian text by the Gelug lama Zimey Rinpoche (1927-96). This text, which is variously known as The Yellow Book or The Oral Transmission of the intelligent Father,[4] enumerates a series of stones that Zimey Rinpoche had heard informally from Trijang Rinpoche about ‘the many Ge-luk lamas whose lives are supposed to have been shortened by Shuk-den’s displeasure at their practicing Nying-ma teachings’ (Dreyfus 1998: 256). The text asserts the pre-eminence of the Gelug school which is symbolised and safeguarded by Dorje Shugden, and presents a stern warning to those within the Gelug whose eclectic tendencies would compromise its purity. This publication provoked angry reactions from members of non-Gelug traditions, setting in motion a bitter literary exchange that drew on ‘all aspects of sectarian rivalry’ (Kapstein 1989: 231).[5] Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation by David N. Kay, page 49, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415297656

also his annotations are of interest:

[2] Since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Pehar has served as the traditional Dharma-protector of the Tibetan state. Pehar has been, and continues to be, consulted by the Dalai Lama and his government on affairs of state through the protector’s chief medium, who is known as the Nechung (gNas chung) Oracle. The importance of oracle priests in the processes of political decision-making may provide a context for understanding the claim that Dorje Shugden should replace Pehar as the state protector. According to ex-monk and popular Buddhist author Stephen Batchelor, such a shift in Dharma-protector allegiance would have given supporters of Dorje Shugden a degree of political influence (interview, June 1994). If the view that he was the chief Dharma-protector in Central Tibet had gained a wider acceptance, it would have been ‘Rdo-Rje-Sugs-Ldan rather than Pe Har himself who functions as the State Oracle at Nechung‘ (Chime Radha Rinpoche, 1981: 31). According to some commentators, Dorje Shugden worshippers within the Gelug continue to harbour aspirations for political power. The most recent declaration of the Dalai Lama regarding Dorje Shugden propitiation has thus been interpreted by some as an essentially political statement.
[3] Palden Lhamo is seen not only as the chief guardian goddess of the Gelug tradition, but also as the patron-deity of Tibet who is ‘very much connected with the cause of Tibetan intependence and the protection of Tibet from foreign invaders’ (Schwartz 1994: 131)
[4] The full Tibetan title of Zimey Rinpoche’s text translates as ‘Account of the Protective Deity Dorje Shugden, Chief Guardian of the Gelug Sect, and of the Punishments meted out to Religious and Lay Leaders who incurred His Wrath’. The book was published in 1973 but not circulated publicly until 1975.
[5] The main participants in this exchange were a Gelug disciple of Zimey Rinpoche called Yonten Gyaltso and the Sakya scholar T. G. Dhongthog, who composed at least three rejoinders to Zimey Rinpoche’s position, one of which was entitled The Rain of Adamant Fire: A Holy Discourse Based Upon Scriptures and Reason, Annihilating the Poisonous Seeds of the Wicked Speech of Dzeme Trulku Lobsang Palden (1979). Full bibliographical details of this dispute can be gleaned from Kapstein (1989:231).

--Kt66 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

kt66, The Yellow Book is already mentioned in this article and I don't think we need to keep dragging it up. It is used over and over again to denounce Dorje Shugden, most likely because it is the only thing left that can be used as an excuse for the persecution of innocent monks and lay people.

Yet this book was written by just one Lama 50 years ago and is strongly disagreed with and even condemned by many other Shugden Lamas alive today. It is not used as a basis for the prayers and practice of Dorje Shugden anywhere. It is simply used as a pretext to persecute Dorje Shugden practitioners. It is a book of superstitious tales probably told by Zimey Rinpoche to discourage Gelugpas from mixing traditions (and there is nothing wrong with not mixing traditions, that is not a sectarian stance, and Zemey Rinpoche was only talking to Gelugpas). It is held up and used by the Dalai Lama as a convenient means to begin his campaign to stamp out a practice adored by many thousands of peaceful people. The fact that he pays so much literal heed to it can only be a reflection of his own superstitious views and inappropriate attention, because his view bears no resemblance to that of millions of Dorje Shugden practitioners who see and rely upon Dorje Shugden as a Buddha. There is absolutely NO evidence for Buddha Dorje Shugden harming a single living being -- I suggest you seek out some actual evidence if you wish to espouse the views held in the Yellow Book, so you are not basing your entire argument on hearsay.

One can choose to believe the stories in the Yellow Book literally or not--that depends on one's level of rationality. Most Westerners, trained in science, shake their heads at it and let it be, just as they shake their heads at parts of the Old Testament and so on. They are not irrational enough to blame Dorje Shugden for stubbing their toe. And Buddhists understand that all harm and suffering comes only from one's own karma.

The confusion over the Yellow Book seemingly shared by you and the Dalai Lama comes from failing to understand that these stories are just that -- stories. I don't know if this misunderstanding is deliberate (a useful pretext for religious suppression) or genuine. Either way, it may help to consider that every religion has stories and parables that are not intended to be taken literally but designed to help the reader or listener lead a better life. Did Jonah really set up his home in a whale's stomach? Was Sarah really turned to a pillar of salt when she turned to look back at her town? (Truthbody (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Chatral Rinpoche

I added a link to Chatral Rinpoche's text which he published after the publication of the Yellow Book:

Chatral Rinpoche was a strong opponent of the practice and also researcher von Brück mentions him.His discourse is directly opposing Zemey Rinpoche. -- (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tenzin, what's the point of sourcing something that almost no one can read? -- (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's all in Tibetan. If this author is mentioned in the article, it could be added as an in-line reference. Otherwise, it's not really helpful to your average Wiki reader who doesn't know Tibetan. Emptymountains (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

CTA pov

Hi there. I added an extra section for the link to the Central Tibetan Administration. When a group of mainly anonymous people attacks an (elected) government the statements of the government should be included as well. 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 attacking the TGIE and their representatives. --Kt66 (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the CTA link again on the top of the link section, why? 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 will not engage in the article. Best Wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tenzin, the TGIE, a secular government is making pronouncements on religious issues. Just because the TGIE does this does not make it right and it does not mean that their opinions are more valid than anyone else's. Is it right to say that a government's views are more important than other people's views? Since Tibet is part of China, does the PRC's views have more weight than anyone else's? I don't think this line of reasoning will withstand critical analysis. Also, TGIE does not speak for Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners who have equally valid opinions.
You'll notice that the common links are the first in the list, which is fair. All the best --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine to include the URL but it should go under critical links rather than in its own section as that gives it undue weight -- if it has its own category, then we will have to find categories for the other URLs, pro and anti, and this article is already unwieldy enough. (Truthbody (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Neutrality problem concerning "Claims of violence/ By the Tibetan Government in Exile" paragraph

The murders are already amply covered and this adds nothing at all factual, just hearsay. There is no evidence for who did these murders, they happened over ten years ago, editors of this article have already discussed this a great deal, and the murders do not merit so much emphasis in this article. Please stop reintroducing it. (Truthbody (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

I have added important information with references concerning the murder of Lobsang Gyatso. These info were not present in the article, whereas they should be mentionned for neutralisation reason. These information have been suppressed repeatedly without objective reason. Different reasons for reversions are indicated in the History of the article (First, by Truthsayer62 (« reverted to previous version, this edit isn't written in good English and is speculation ») [15]
Second, by Atisha's cook « allegations made in these newspapers over a decade ago and still unproven. this contributes nothing of substance to the article. stick to proven facts, please »[16]
Actually, the information are in newspapers, and the reference do exist, it refers to the fact that Indian police enquired about the murders, and that there was evidence of Shugden followers implication in the murder, and nothing else. Whether the culprit are catch and their culpability established is another question.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you check, there is already an extensive section on the murders and they do not merit even more attention -- they are actually not sufficiently relevant to the controversy. To add all this material simply means other editors will have to spend time refuting it, and the section on violence (on both sides) will become unacceptably long for this wiki article. There are so many instances of violence from Dalai Lama followers to Dorje Shugden practitioners that have not been mentioned to keep the article a reasonable length. Adding this propaganda will induce editors (including me) to feel forced to add further detailed refutation of the murder allegations (none of which have been proven of course) and more accounts of violence toward Shugden practitioners will also have to be added to balance the article out again. This will make a long unwieldy article even longer and more unwieldy. What do other editors think? (Truthbody (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
I concur. Redacteur - you're contributing nothing of value to the article. The murders are sufficiently covered.
Atisha's cook (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I did not find these information or discussion you mentioned. I therefore think you are using any argument to suppress this contribution. I insist I have added this to neutralize the paragraph, because the only references in Dorje_Shugden_controversy#By_the_Tibetan_Government_in_Exile were pro-Shugden. Therefore, for neutrality, references from Newspapers from India should be quoted there. Newspapers from India are acceptable as neutral.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Redacteur - you are starting edit war. this s unhelpful. just because this info. appeared in a newspaper does not make it true, valid or pertinent to this article. once more, i repeat: *no evidence links these murders to this controversy*. adding more information about themn creates unnecessary skew in article, denigrating one side in this controversy. it is not improving article. this issue has been discussed ad nauseam - i feel your motivation here is suspect. i would like to request some 3rd party adjudication, from another, disinterested editor. please leave this information off the article until we have some independent advice. i suggest we ask Tangerines, who has been bth neautral and helpful in the past. please respect this.
Atisha's cook (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please find here after the text deleted in (). It is clearly to be added for neutral and encyclopedic reasons. If some constructive contributor could give independant advice, it would be extremely useful. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::(February 4 1997, Lobsang Gyatso, principal and founder of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, as well as two of his students were brutally murdered, stabbed 15 to 20 times each of them, in Dharamsala.[1] · [2].

:::::::According to an article published by the Indian newspaper Jansatta, April 1997, on the site of the murder, Lobsang Gyatso had grabbed from his assailants a bag containing belongings of Dorje Shugden followers, indicating their possible involvement in the murders [3]. :::::::According an article published by the Indian newspaper The Tribune, November 1997, four of the six suspects in the murders were identified and are their extradition were request to Interpol. Sources claimed that the six suspects, alleged followers of Shugden, had crossed to Tibet after the murders and were escorted to their villages of origin by the Chinese Army[4].)

I also propose to add the more recent following information :
Ten years later, june 2007, Interpol issued a Red notice for two followers of Shugden accused of the killings.[5].
--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a good feeling of what is going on here. Atisha's cook and Truthsayer62 are sharing the same IP-address and have been suspected before of sockpuppeting because they were collaborating in talks. Knowing this and than reading that Atisha's cook is accusing Rédacteur Tibet as if he were starting an edit war is really making me sick. This in the first place.
Then secondly, this article is highly unreliable when only the point of view of the Shugden side is given. Especially when several newspapers have issued that the murders might even have been carried out by Shugden followers. For that reason I have reverted the actions of these three collaborating persons, in favor of the contribution that was done in the article. The sources given are from newspapers that indeed are regarded to be impartial.
Thirdly, if the English of the contribution contains errors, one corrects the errors en doesn't erase the whole lot. Davin (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not Truthsayer, and am not certain who that person is. i am attending a conference, in a large hotel. i grant you that it is very possible Truthsayer is attending same conference, but i don'rt know this for certain.
There remains no evidence linking these murders to Dorje Shugden controversy - the newspaper articles were based entirely on hearsay. The murders are mentioned in the article already, and to add more about them here gives them undue weight. To create balanced article we need facts, not more hearsay.
Atisha's cook (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That is an unreliable explanation. If you are not a pup socket, you are collaborating together to mangle another user. In both cases malicious. Next to that, you are covering up one side of the story in this article. If you ask me, this thing that you call a hotel is just you yourself. Davin (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Davin - what can i say? I am *not* Truthsayer. clearly, we agree broadly in our pov on this issue. however, i do not know for certain who this person is, nor are we collaborating. i was banned previously for editing on this topic, along with several other users (i don't recall if Truthsayer was one of them or not), because we were all editing from the same IP address, and therefore some Admins - reasonably - suspected us of being one person, or a collection of sock puppets. In fact, as we explained, we were all at the time attending the same conference (a religious event, attended by many Dorje Shugden practitioners - hence the similarity in our pov - back in July/August) and editing from the same location. we were not actively collaborating, we just happened to share many similar views on the topic. we explained this, and our explanation was accepted; i, and the others, were subsequently reinstated as WP users.

as i have explained, i am currently attending a similar conference. it is quite possible that Truthsayer is also attending, but i don't know for certain if he/she is in fact here. if our IPs are the same, then Truthsayer must be here, i suppose - i haven't checked. i repeat - i *do not* know for certain who Truthsayer is, and i am not actively collaborating with anyone to "mangle" another user, as you put it. if you will not accept my explanation, that is your choice - there is nothing more i can do for you.

Regarding the info. that Redacteur Tibet and yourself are trying to include here (i assume *you're* not collaborating?), it has been debated ad nauseam, and is, at the very least, highly controversial. it is already covered in this article - why do you wish to include more about it here?

once again, i repeat - there has never been *any* hard evidence to prove a link between these horrendous murders and the controversy covered by this article. the relevance of the murders to this topic is therefore highly questionable. while it is true that the murders were linked to Dorje Shugden practitioners in Indian newspapers, this link was subsequently shown to be based entirely on hearsay propagated by the TGIE. Helmut Gassner, the Dalai Lama's former interpreter, checked the TGIE's "evidence" and found it to be completely false: the letter that was found in the room with the bodies and that the TGIE claimed contained death threats by Shugdenpas to Lobsang Gyatso was shown, on translation, to contain no such thing - it was simply an impertinent invitation to debate.

these murders in fact have no clearly demonstrable link to the Dorje Shugden controversy. nevertheless, they are already covered in the article. i feel that to give them more coverage here is to imply that there *is* some link, which clearly skews the article's neutrality.

Davin and Redacteur - please - if you disagree with my points, let's find a neutral editor or admin who can adjudicate. user Tangerines has already performed this function - to the satisfaction of both "sides" - on the WSS article. i suggest him/her as a suitable adjudicator, and i would be prepared to accept that user's decision.

what say you? Atisha's cook (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" as per [17]. Take care, all. Emptymountains (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but before my proposal to include a summary based on references from indian newspapers and The Times, there was no reference to this information which concerns Indian police and Interpol. I think this can not be simply be suppressed based on an individual opinion. In addition, given the fact that the presentation of the murders is presented only by pro-shugden sources, it is important to give neutral sources as these ones. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject. Since the article is ridiculously long as it is, perhaps we can come up with some short sentence which reflects both points of view. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If we start saying one point, then it needs to be refuted by the other side, then a rebuttal, and on and on. This is endless and why we have wound up with such an unwieldly article. I propose something short and sweet, such as: "Some Indian newspapers have reported some evidence linking the murders and Shugden supporters. Shugden practitioners contend that they have been framed for these murders for political reasons, and the reported evidence is suspect." This reflects both views and avoids a senseless edit war and further lengthening of the article. --Dspak08 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is much too long, but the summary you propose is too short. Any way, it is a good idea to summarize. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Do you have a suggested "summary" sentence? It would be good if we can find one straightforward sentence that we can all agree on. (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
@Atisha's cook, my apologies, since a conference explains indeed why a number of editor were using the same IP. Davin (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to Dspak08 too that the article is far too long as well as that there should come a short sentence which reflects both points of view. This was my argument from the beginning. Davin (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One way to summarize easily is at least to take away the long citations (which are a bit of copyvio anyway) from this paragraph.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think one point that we feel is important is that there remains no evidence at all linking the murders to this controversy, and to add much more to what already appears in the article gives these claims undue weight. At most, in order to represent the fact that these claims were reported in the newspapers, I suggest adding the following sentence:
"Claims that Shugden supporters were responsible were made in two Indian newspapers (Jansatta, April 1997 and The Times, December 1997), but without any evidence to corroborate them; also, two suspects who appeared in 2007 on Interpol's Red List have been linked to Shugden - again, without evidence."
This mentions the newspaper articles, and the Interpol list, while stating the lack of evidence to support the claims, which seems to be a fair balance.
Atisha's cook (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
@Davin - Accepted. Thank you.
Atisha's cook (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is not neutral, and do not correspond to the text cited above in Bold characters. There are evidences, they are cited in the Bold text. Your proposal is also much too summerarized as compared to the long citations from Shugden side, and it doesnot propose a general view including both Shugden view and indian police one. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column, it is not National Enquirer, and adding spurious details to a murder case that was thrown out 12 years ago adds nothing to this controversy except bad feeling among the editors and misdirection to the readers. Redacteur Tibet, I notice you have very strong feelings about this subject, as evinced on your contributions on the French articles (which I have read but cannot contribute too, unfortunately, as my written French is not good enough.) For example, the DS controversy article in French begins with the triple murder!! Do you have something to do with that? We are aiming here for an article that will satisfy everyone, that is accurate, fair and non-sensational. Actually, the murder section was considered adequate before. (Truthbody (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, if gossip is to be taken away, then please delete "The Director of the Dialectics School was well known for his slanderous writings in which he would drag through the mud anything that veered even slightly from the course established by the government-in-exile: famous masters, the big monastic universities and even the Tibetan guerilla were his targets. In one of his last articles he wrote, "...these people will not cease to criticize the Dalai Lama until blood flows from their bodies...." Given the character of the assassination and the humiliations the Tibetan guerilla movement had been subjected to in earlier years, one could have assumed that the search for the murderer would eventually also lead to them. But that obviously did not occur; already the next day, Dharamsala's local newspaper claimed that the murderer would certainly be found among the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi. Aside from who committed the murders, this gruesome act was exploited to the hilt by the government-in-exile with only one aim in mind: Resorting to all possible means they tried to incriminate the Dorje Shugden Society in Delhi in order to put its leading monks behind Indian bars. For the benefit of the press, the image of a Dorje Shugden sect with bloodthirsty, cultish, terrorist and fundamentalist attributes was successfully established linking it effectively with the traditionally depicted wrathful appearance of the deity while cleverly neglecting to mention that many wrathful Buddhist deities are represented in considerably more terrifying ways.[120]" This is only a POV, and this kind of references should not be accepted on wikipedia. Then, your effort to suppress the information which is based on news papers, and not on "gossip" is not convincing, the references are appropriated as it concerns an event that took place in 1997, it is also updated by the quote of Interpol one year ago in 2007. I am sorry to say the article is not convincing, in particular when reading the Interpol related article, Helmut POV was published in 1999, much before the Interpol related article of 2007. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Interpol quote -- there is no mention of it on their website. What I heard is that they suggested in 2007 that no one should be considered guilty in this crime as there is no proof. (Truthbody (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

It is above in this paragraphe. See the last reference which should appear below then.

--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Times may have covered the story in 2007 but it looks like Interpol have removed those notices, judging by their website, and I heard (I will track down where) that Interpol had indicated there is no proof of any guilt. It is still an unsolved murder which could have any number of protagonists, given who the murder victim was. It is of course used as the TGIE as a propaganda weapon against Shugden practitioners as no one has any hard evidence anywhere of why the peaceful religious practice of Dorje Shugden should be banned -- the whole thing is actually crazy. The violence is all on the side of the persecutors, not the persecuted, and this is a case of blaming the victim for the crime. That gruesome shrine full of bloody pictures is still kept (shown in the France 24 report), using the poor victims as a blatant and distasteful political ploy to keep the murders on the public's mind and therefore continue the justification for the witch hunt of Shugden practitioners. That 2007 news is out of date, as is this whole debate about the murders, which happened 12 years ago and have never been pinned to Shugden practitioners. (Truthbody (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)) --- Redacteur, may I ask, are you the one who tries to maintain the triple murder right at the top of the Dorje Shugden controversy article in French Wikipedia? (Truthbody (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

No, I am not "the one", I am nobody special, I am just one user, wikipedia has its rule, like Interpol has its own probably. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC) ---

I am sorry, but you give no reference of your comments. This can not be used to downplay published data, it is just a POV. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not used my point of view on the article (e.g. "the whole thing is actually crazy"), and here I'm giving some background to show the propaganda behind the scenes. However, the things I say do have references. On the DL's website, the murders are used as a propaganda weapon in lieu of any actual evidence of wrongdoing by Shugden practitioners. There is a lot of evidence of violence against Shugden practitioners (some already is on the article). France 24 does show that distasteful ghastly shrine kept by Tibetans for no reason other than a political ploy (my pov here is that it is shameful to do this, but I have not said that in the article as I'm aware it is a pov, some people may be happy with it). Meanwhile there is no evidence that Shugden practitioners did the murder and it was thrown out by the Indian police. Also, the 2007 Interpol news has changed so unless you find the actual link to their red notices that exist today, it is out of date and deliberately misleading. (Truthbody (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

OK, really, I am sorry, but the POV I am talking about is precisely that about Interpol : you are apparently giving your opinion there, whereas there is a publication in 2007 cited above. You deliberatly want to downplay the issue. In addition, one can find the Interpol data on the web today, LOBSANG CHODAK TENZIN CHOZIN whereas there is no indication that that these "Interpol news has changed" this is the "POV" and it is clearly wrong, I am sorry.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this prove that they did the murders as you want to imply? Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The TGIE is more powerful than the Devotees society and certainly fingered Dorje Shugden practitioners, but the Indian police found no evidence for any wrongdoing by Shugden practitioners and threw the case against them out. How do we know that the TGIE did not do the murders themselves and frame Shugden practitioners? There is as much proof for that as for anything else, and it certainly seems at least as realistic given the other abuses and persecution of Shugden practitioners that has taken place before and since. Plus, it would not be the first time government forces have been involved in nasty business. My point is that you put too much emphasis in this article (and especially the one in French wikipedia where you put it at the top) considering this is an old unsolved murder mystery that has very little indeed to do with the controversy of Dorje Shugden, except insofar as it has been used over and over again as propaganda.(Truthbody (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

These only says the "Categories of Offences: CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND HEALTH" and "IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONTACT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF INTERPOL". Just that. There are also links by which you can send the info : [18] and [19]. On other link, there is also a reward : Reward for information Lobsang Chodak. As for your comment related to TGIE fabricating, this suggestd some confusion in your mind if you really think what you write. I am really sorry for you. As for wikipedia, the rules are clear : articles should not be build on POV, only on verifiable data. I wish somebody can do the job. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Redacteur - what are you doing? Trying to start another edit war? What is your motivation, here? For goodness' sake, this is pathetic. Grow up. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)