Dear Tenzin,

I did not see until today that you posted a lengthy reply to my original post. Thank you very much for your reply. I think this is the first time we have actually had a direct exchange (normally you ignore my postings elsewhere), and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you.

Regrettably there is no way I can respond to everything that you mentioned. I simply do not have the time and I am afraid my fingers would hurt afterwards!!! hee hee Since we said all Buddhists agree to do no harm to one another, I will keep my reply brief.

I cannot speak for the NKT, I can only speak from my own experience of the NKT. From my perspective, I don't think anybody in the NKT wants to have to do any of this stuff on the internet, the demonstrations, etc. I know for me personally I just want to do my practices, work on my own mind, and try become a better person. I find it exhausting to go through all of this stuff on the internet. I don't know how you do it!

You mention that if the NKT stopped, then you would stop. From the NKT perspective if the Dalai Lama would stop criticising NKT practices, then we would be able to stop. At the end of the day, if we all respect one another as having different paths, then I don't think there would be any problems.

I think you bring up a very good point about the NKT acting to criticise other spiritual teachers (namely the Dalai Lama). I often ask myself the question, 'why is all of this criticism being made against my tradition and my spiritual teacher'. The only response I can honestly come up with is because in the past I was highly critical of other traditions and other teachers. Because I created such negative karma, I am now suffering from this coming back to me. Therefore, I myself try to never criticise or to do anything to undermine somebody else's faith. Under this logic, I have remained silent on the internet for the last 10 years.

So why have I started posting again? From my perspective, the Dharma taught within the NKT is very beneficial when put into practice. It has helped me become a calmer, happier and kinder person than I was before. I have found as an NKT teacher that it has helped many people solve their daily problems. The highlight of my day is to sit down and do my morning meditations. My favorite 'sport' is debating/discussing emptiness with others. In my darkest hours, such as when my mother committed suicide, it was my NKT teachers who helped me. In short, there are many good things within the NKT which others seem to find to be beneficial as well.

When the Dalai Lama (or yourself) criticise the NKT as being a sect, or fundamentalist, or whatever, then people lose faith in the NKT when they were otherwise having a good experience. Or they never go into the NKT because they have preconceptions that it is a sect. So people are missing out on a very useful Dharma. The reality is most people don't take the time to investigate things deeply for themselves. They should, but they don't. So most people just assume that the Dalai Lama is right because, well, he is the Dalai Lama. It is like reading a movie review from Siskel & Ebert. Without seeing the movie, you believe what they have to say without investigating it for yourself.

You can ask any of my students, historically I have always said that we should maintain pure view of everybody involved in this story, understanding that all of this is emanated to teach us different things. So I have always encouraged a pure view of the Dalai Lama and others (and I still do). But the dilemma I have faced is the following: I know the Dalai Lama won't stop saying bad things about the NKT, and I know that his speech is unnecessarily deterring people from receiving spiritual benefit (I have seen this first hand with many many people who have come to my center, friends I have known, etc.). The reason why people are swayed by what he has to say is because they believe him. Thus, to decrease the power he has to deter people from entering or continuing with a spiritual path they otherwise would enter or continue with then people need to stop believing him (or believing him less) when it comes to the question of Dorje Shugden. The only way to do that is for people to put his words into question. Towards that end, my personal contributions have been primarily aimed at showing the contradictions between what the Dalai Lama says in general and what he does with respect to Dorje Shugden practitioners in particular. I am only calling for the Dalai Lama to live up to the noble ideals he teaches so eloquently and effectively around the world. It is because I believe in the Dalai Lama that I am calling for him to live up to and practice his own words. I do not believe it is a negative criticism for me to make this request of him. I also try show how there might be ulterior political motivations or calculations behind his actions to help people have a political context for interpreting his speech.

Some of the things the WSS has had to say I personally find to be counter-productive. I believe it is more effective to request the Dalai Lama to live up to his own words than to make him out to be an evil person. I don't believe anybody is evil in this story. I think everyone is doing what they think is most beneficial for all living beings. We just have different views about what that is. I guess we are all right and we are all wrong equally. But the logic of the WSS' activities is simple: the NKT Dharma is good, what the Dalai Lama is doing is creating obstacles for people being able to practice this Dharma, he is powerful only to the extent people believe what he has to say, people believe what he has to say because of who he is, thus to protect others ability to enter into the path they need to not believe what he has to say about Dorje Shugden, therefore to weaken the power of his speech you need to call him into question. I can agree with this logic, but I personally try to avoid re-starting a karmic cycle where I am criticising somebody else's spiritual guide then in the future they will criticise mine, and then I critise theirs and on and on we go in a tragic karmic danse through time. It is a very fine line to walk, and I do not walk it very well. But I am trying to stay on the right side of things.

I completely agree with you that there have been many problems due to an immature pure view within the NKT. I have experienced first hand some of the problems you are referring to. These are definitely things that need to be worked on and improved, and Geshe-la has been trying for the last several years to help people develop a more balanced view of things. He stressed this point quite strongly during the festival in Paris. We all have a lot of work to do in this regard, and thankfully people are aware of the problem and working on overcoming it. It will, however, take time to purge the NKT of this wrong view. Old habits die hard.

I have not answered all of your points, but I have tried to clarify a few things. I thank you for your taking the time to provide such a lengthly reply to me before and I am sorry I never responded before now.

All the best,

Dspak

P.S. My original post and apology was not a 'tactic'. It is how I feel.

Dear Dspak,
thank your for your kind respond. I am very sorry that I’ve ignored you, but I have to find a mode to focus on what I see as ‘essential’ in this case, and these are mainly structure issues of the organisation, facts the organisation represses or explains in a contorted way, other pov than NKT’s about the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa or Tibetan Buddhism/Vajrayana and what NKT is or is not. Views well believed within NKT but in general not shared outside of the NKT world, and from my pov rather simplistic. So probably I didn’t recognize such topics in your posts until now.

You said:

“You mention that if the NKT stopped, then you would stop. From the NKT perspective if the Dalai Lama would stop criticising NKT practices, then we would be able to stop. At the end of the day, if we all respect one another as having different paths, then I don't think there would be any problems.”

This may be the NKT persective, but did the Dalai Lama “criticise NKT practices”? HH the Dalai Lama is not the only one who regards the veneration of Shugden as being harmful and his worship as a Buddha as going against Buddhist principles. There are many other lamas who share his view and even urged him to solve this issue. In a way it is the task and the responsibility of the most respected members of the Buddhist monastic community to issue spiritual matters like these, and he has the full support of the majority of monastics and Tibetan Buddhist masters.

I agree with your view on Karma. It follows, because I criticize others (mainly NKT and their leadership) I get criticized, that’s why I have to live with criticism (mainly from NKT members with the support of their leadership) and NKT has to live with criticism as well from others and myself. That’s how it is.

You were very active as well (google DSPAK Shugden) but moderate, however you claimed e.g. that HHDL is “persecuting Shugden people”, this could be quite a wrong accusation. So you are already involved but probably not that deep.

I had also very very good experience within NKT and on my Buddhist cult site (only available in German: [buddhistische-sekten.de]), I have a section which issues this. However, also people following Shoko Ashara or from Jonestown had these. One of the few survivors of Jonestown (mass suicide 1978) still – after 30 years – states openly that “I loved Jonestown. The time within the organisation was the best time of my life” – regardless how destructive the organisation and how paranoid their leader was. Why I state this? Issues of “cults” or “NRM”s are more complex than good or bad experiences of individuals may suggest.

The Dalai Lama did not criticize the NKT as a “sect” or “fundamentalists”. Although I searched I could never find such a statement made by him. What he did, he was referring to radical Tibetans among Shugden devotees, who are accused to have killed other monks and to beaten up Shugden opponents (including recently to tie a government official on a chair) he referred to them when he issued criticism, but even then he is rather very restrained, see this interview: [info-buddhism.com]

To understand this you have to know the mentality of Tibetans and Tibetan history, a branch well neglected by almost all NKT members, therefore they lack cross cultural background knowledge and the ability to put things into perspective (e.g. why he speaks different with Westerners and his own people.)

The issue of “loosing faith” you posit is rather a NKT issue. Outside of the NKT Buddhist world ‘faith’ is defined differently and if someone has faith in the Buddhist sense, nobody can destroy or ‘undermine’ it. Doing critical investigation and not to accept what is destructive is the Buddhist way. Even the Buddha approved that it is correct to have doubts were doubt should be developed (see Kalama Sutra), and He strongly recommended to rely on investigation and analyse and not on authority, and not to belief even when He said it. (As I said already, I think, NKT has a superficial approach on ‘faith’, based on this there are many misunderstandings and accusation against members and others, like the belief “others faith is underminded”. Outside of NKT world I never heard such a phrase or conception.)

So it is just not correct to claim the Dalai Lama would ‘undermined people’s faith’ in NKT, neither from a Buddhist pov nor from a factual one. If you do not refine your understanding of faith we can never communicate, because we have completely different bases – nothing common – and there is no sense to discuss if even the basics on Buddhism are so different.

As stated so many times NKT world and the World outside of NKT are very different. So what to do, as long as NKT feels they should get involved in Tibetan issues (while having almost no correct conceptions about Tibetans and their history nor much about Tibetan Buddhism), and to spread their reading of Tibetan history, the Dalai Lamas, and about themselves in public, it is the right of others to oppose or correct them in public, isn’t it?

From a spiritual or Buddhist pov people follow certain people due to having merit or a lack of merit or good or bad Karma. However, as things are dependent arising even the Buddha indicated to make known that Devadatta is a spiritual beguiler and that his followers should not follow him, just for the sake to protect them to fall into a spiritual trap. Since the death of the Buddha, its mainly up to the monastic community to solve spiritual controversies and the rules for this are lay down by the Buddha in the Vinaya. The Vinaya issues things of expulsions, how to settle spiritual disputed etc. to call their views and decisions as “persecution” “lies” and “blind faith to the Dalai Lama” is surely not respectful nor in accordance with the facts. As NKT members lack knowledge about the Vinaya and Tibetans, Tibetan monasteries, and Tibetan History it can not work well to superimpose their non-knowledge on them in the name of “religious freedom” – for me this is spiritual and cross cultural confusion at its height.

The point with NKT / HH Dalai Lama is that to believe someone one must see that the other person is a honest and reliable source of information or a congruent being, who lives what he states. People have faith in HHDL because they see him as a honest and reliable, open, humble, compassionate, humorous, non-fanatic, and self-critical person (a person with abundant qualities) – contrary many don’t have faith in NKT because they see the organisation or those acting in their interest, including the leadership, lack these attitudes, especially former members can tell you a lot about this. To understand how lies undermine people’s faith please read this: [www.accesstoinsight.org] and my comment on this: [westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com]

So all what you state here is strongly involved in how NKT teaches Buddhism and what understanding they have. It is almost impossible to solve the discrepancy of the controversial appearance and actions in this issue without getting critical even if one wishes to avoid to get critical. As I said, all of this is dependent arising. The only way to find harmony with all of this is to perceive all of this as dependent arising, based on many causes and circumstances. The root of all problems is ignorance not the Dalai Lama.

For today I think this may be sufficient as a reply.

People should investigate, the Buddha said this and it is the main mantra of HHDL. He said

Quote
HH the Dalai Lama
“Others of you may be thinking, ‘well I am not sure of the reasons, but as it is something that the Dalai Lama has instructed, I must abide by it’. I want to stress again that I do not support this attitude at all. This is a ridiculous approach. This is a position that one should come to by weighing the evidence and then using one's discernment about what it would be best to adopt and what best to avoid." [www.dalailama.com]

Best wishes, t
(I belief now that your post was no tactic (I have faith in this claim) because some of the comments made by you which I glanced through were free of tactics.)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2008 06:41AM by Tenzin Peljor.

Dear Tenzin,

I am happy we seem to be having a constructive exchange. Lets hope we can sustain it. I will try from my side to do so.

For me, the starting point for resolving this issue is whether or not the Dharma taught by Geshe-la is good or not. For some people, it is, and they do not feel the need for anything more. They feel like they have all they need to advance along the path, and appreciate having a fully integrated (or self-referential as you might call it) system. To get to the airport, I do not need to know every street in the city, I just need to know how to get from where I am to where I want to go. These people appreciate not being distracted with non-essential things so that they can focus all of their energies on what is considered most important. For me personally, this non-mixing approach works and is seen to be a very efficient way of making progress in transforming my own mind, though I admit it makes me ignorant of other paths and what other teachers have to say. My non-practice and general ignorance of other traditions is not a problem if I genuinely respect that others will practice differently than myself, and that is a good thing. Each person their own spiritual path.

For other people, it is incredibly constrained to remain exclusively within the NKT system. Geshe-la has never said that people have to do it this way, but there is no doubt that he has advised us to follow one tradition purely without mixing as a means of advancing along the path. This has loosened up some in terms of how directly this is advised, but (for me at least) there is no denying that this is one of the defining characteristics of what it means to be a NKT practitioner. As an individual practitioner, I choose to follow one tradition purely without mixing because I believe this is the approach that works best for me. But I suspect I am a minority compared to the world. Most people would find this constraining, whereas I find it liberating. I have found a system that I see clearly how it can take me to where I want to go, therefore I don't feel any need for anything else. I don't read other things not because I can't, but becaues I do not want to. I am sure many people look at my mode of practice and feel that it would never work for them. My answer to this is: that's fine with me. We each need to travel our spiritual path in our own way. If some want to mix, then that is fine. If some want to follow one tradition purely without mixing, that is fine too. We all respect one another.

What I don't appreciate is being told that I am sectarian because I practice this way. I believe sectarianism necessarily involves a pride in believng one's way of practice is superior. I am not saying my way of practice is superior, I am just saying it works best for me - it is a superior way of practicing for me (I have tried the other way, and from my own personal experience not mixing works better for me). If for you, perhaps because you have a greater capacity than I do, you find your instructions, your traditions and your way of practicing superior then I am happy for you. I just don't see why there needs to be a problem here. To each their own, lets rejoice in one another, not tear each other down. I for one do not claim to have enough wisdom to make sure that I am not creating schisms in the sangha or criticising other mahayana traditions, so I just try say only good things about everyone.

I think there are probably extremists on both sides of this issue. I condemn them all, regardless of what side they are on. If some extremist Dorje Shugden practitioners have engaged in negative actions such as the murders (I have no idea if they did or not), then I condemn this. I likewise condemn any infringement of human rights and religious freedom. Giving advice is not a violation of religious freedom. Using state power to enforce this advice (through penalties or incentives) or to invoke others to engage in non-virtuous actions towards antoher human being is a violation of religious freedom. I have no way of knowing what is really going on. So I say, if this is happening, then I condemn it.

I do believe that you are doing what you are doing because you believe you are protecting people from joining something that you see to be by nature bad. Which is why I feel it comes back to the question I stated at the beginning - is the Dharma Geshe-la teaches good or bad. My answer to this question is it is not universally good and not universally bad. My answer is it is good for me, and bad for others. Other traditions are not for me, but are good for others. Lets all respect that we like different food.

I need to go now because I have a class of 20 people looking at me, waiting for me to begin teaching!

I look forward to continuing our exchange if you find it useful. I understand why you need to prioritize your efforts. Hopefully this genuine attempt at reconciliation will be worthwhile.

Kindest regards,

Dspak

Quote
dspak08
Dear Tenzin,

I did not see until today that you posted a lengthy reply to my original post. Thank you very much for your reply. I think this is the first time we have actually had a direct exchange (normally you ignore my postings elsewhere), and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you.

....
All the best,

Dspak

P.S. My original post and apology was not a 'tactic'. It is how I feel.

Dear Despak, I am a bit sick and so I have some time to reply to other points you’ve said in your previous post, points I didn’t pick up, although quite interesting and important from the pov of the practice of Dharma or religious practice, and the practical implications for daily life.

You said:
Everybody involved should “maintain pure view”. You described how you lead your disciples with this teaching. But the point is, as far as I have explored this, “pure view” is not understood correctly within NKT and there is a lot of confusion about this within the organisation including its application. In the simplest form we can posit ‘pure view’ means to see that everyone has the potential to attain a fully purified state in which all qualities are complete. When it comes to Tantric reality ‘pure view’ is something which belongs to a very different reality, and it is not advised to beginners but those with a strong foundation in the Sutra, this is very true for the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa and much more for the ancient Kadam school of Atisha!

I am no Tantric or Buddhist master nor a Buddhist teacher to feel able to express these ideas on ‘pure view’, but I heard from different qualified Buddhist teachers outside of NKT teachings on ‘pure view’ or read texts on it, which are quite different from the simplistic approach I learned within NKT. (I have a German text on ‘pure view’ by a close disciple of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche - the author of the text is also a highly respected Gelug master - on my German cult site.)

Maybe we discuss and share our understanding on ‘pure view’ and its implication in that context of the controversy?


As I said HHDL didn’t criticize the NKT, he expressed his concern with respect to a certain practice on which exist claims it would be beneficial or harmful, in accordance with the Dharma / Buddhism or in contradiction to it. I see just nothing wrong to point out that something is harmful if it is harmful. I see nothing wrong in defending the own understanding.

With respect to pointing out what is harmful, it is the duty of HHDL and other high Buddhist masters within the context of Indian-Tibetan Buddhism to point out if there is something wrong, and to find measures to protect those involved in it, in the most skilful or best way. Much more this duty and the need to validate a practice can be found in Tibetan Buddhism, and the Indian Pandits and Siddhas had their own very profound way to proof the validity of a certain practice or texts which claimed to be Buddhist. With respect to Shugden there are many inconsistencies and lack of proper Tantric procedures with respect to its establishment. There was controversy right from the beginning, something which can not be observed with other practices. It is up to those with knowledge and respected elders to issue such things and to clarify these issues, even when this means to correct the own teacher – something which is not uncommon in Indian-Tibetan Buddhism.


With respect that you wish that HHDL lives what he states. Perception is based on the own mind, judgement as well. The perception and judgement can be wrong, correct, sem-wrong, semi-correct, true from a certain perspective and false from another.

From my perspective and investigation: If one perceives Shugden worship as being spiritual harmful (only 1 from a about 10 high masters of the different schools I’ve asked felt it is not harmful, the other were very keen to see its harm)* – a view I certainly share – to speak out against that what is perceived as being harmful is no hypocrisy it is a deed of giving fearlessness and giving protection, it is a compassionate deed. If you know there is a trap in the forest, set up by a skilful hunter, and you know animals will be caught up there, and suffer a lot to finally die; if you have a clear perception about this and you have investigated this issue thoroughly and you have compassion and wish to protect others from harm, what will you do?

For many Shugden worship is a spiritual trap. To speak out against it is a matter of compassion and taking responsibility. Even when the perception of the masters who have this view that Shugden is harmful have wrong perception this doesn’t mean that their motivation is not in accordance with their words and inner quality of compassion. Both, the accusation by WSS/NKT/GKG of HHDL would be a ‘liar’ or a ‘hypocrite’ show just a lack of understanding of the Dharma and a lack of understanding the facts and some simple philosophical issues.

So from my pov, there is no need to follow what you said: “I believe it is more effective to request the Dalai Lama to live up to his own words than to make him out to be an evil person. I don't believe anybody is evil in this story.”, because HHDL is following the principles of compassion in this issue, he lives up to his own words.

How WSS or some fanatics acts reminds me sometimes on a child with his most beloved toy. The caring mother has taken away the toy from the child due to having recognized that the toy is made of poisonous substances. The cry of the child with respect to the mother and the accusation it may bring up against her sound quite similar of what WSS is expressing: You don’t love me. You have no compassion. You are a ruthless mother (dictator)…


Another point in your precious post: Shugden worship is not necessarily Dharma even if it is labelled with that etiquette. As there are few beings able to discriminate what is Dharma and what is not it is surely better for the infants to listen to the wise. Also by giving up Shugden worship, the Dharma receives no harm, because neither Atisha nor Tsongkhapa have taught this ‘practice’. As both have not taught it, the question is why there is a need to cling on it, especially as it is involved in so much sectarianism, conflict and schism? From the pov of a Bodhisattva, there are many practices and he happily gives up what harms other beings. It is a mere belief that Shugden worship is ‘Dharma’ and ‘helpful’. History and investigation, and analysis show a different image (if done unbiased.)

For those viewing Shugden worship as being harmful, the practice is an obstacle for the individual as well as for the community, and those sharing the same place. Therefore the separation as now practiced in India is probably the best for both sides. Since the NKT has already separated themselves since its inception and do and can do what they like, there is no real problem for them with respect to this, besides that the controversy on Shugden may cause some people to avoid NKT. But this is nothing bad. There are many Buddhist schools people can follow.

Of course you say the points you stated are WSS’s members view, and that you have another approach.


You state:

Quote
despak
I completely agree with you that there have been many problems due to an immature pure view within the NKT. I have experienced first hand some of the problems you are referring to. These are definitely things that need to be worked on and improved, and Geshe-la has been trying for the last several years to help people develop a more balanced view of things. He stressed this point quite strongly during the festival in Paris. We all have a lot of work to do in this regard, and thankfully people are aware of the problem and working on overcoming it. It will, however, take time to purge the NKT of this wrong view. Old habits die hard.

Well fine. May you all be successful.
Best wishes, t


*H.E. Gangteng Tulku Rinpoche, head of 25 monasteries in Buthan, said: “I think, and most Nyingmapa, Kayguepa and Sakyapa think, that Shugden is a demon. If you practice it you will get many disciples, many money and then many problems.”

It should be known that ‘demons’ or destructive forces are more active with respect to beings which are stable in their path and have certain types of realisations. ‘Demons’ can also appear as Buddhas. There are many stories I heard or read how they work and deceive practitioners, which reminded me strongly on my time within the NKT. If wished I am happy to offer a story I felt very much inspired with, and Patrul Rinpoche’s description how they work and how their influenced can be recognized. I was also a translator and offered accommodation for a Nyingma Yogi and healer who could perceive Shugden, and helped people having conflicts with respect to him.

I will read and reply to your last post in the next days. Thank you for having this discussion, and your kind and honest approach.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2008 11:14PM by Tenzin Peljor.

a correction:
my phrase: "Another point in your precious post:" should be "Another point in your previous post:"
when I stated: "I see just nothing wrong to point out that something is harmful if it is harmful. I see nothing wrong in defending the own understanding." I included that I view it also as being correct to defend Shugden worship.

Dear Tenzin,

The Dorje Shugden issue itself is a huge debate, one I have given a great deal of thought and investigation to (as you have). From your perspective, it is clear that Dorje Shugden is harmful and the arguments in favor of him are without basis, and from my perspective, after my own thorough investigation I have come to the opposite conclusion - that Dorje Shugden is beneficial and the arguments against him are without basis! At some point in the future, I would welcome having a debate with you about this point, as it is obviously quite important. However, I think we would be better advised to focus our discussion for now on other points to build up a basis of common understanding. On the basis of some common understandings, we can then reapproach the question of Dorje Shugden. Is this OK with you?

If yes, I would first like to take up the question of pure view. I completely agree that most of the problems that have arisen within the NKT have come from an incorrect understanding of pure view. It is this incorrect understanding that has been under massive overhaul during the last few years, and it has brought about what I perceive to be substantial improvements in avoiding alot of the problems that have come up.

So what is incorrect pure view? Incorrect pure view is pure view 'on the side of the object'. We try see an object as being pure 'on the side of the object'. So if we see our teacher doing something inappropriate, such as manipulating somebody or giving a wrong teaching, we are supposed to tell ourselves 'this person is a Buddha, therefore what they are doing is correct. I do not understand how it is correct, but I need to see it as correct (when it is manifestly wrong). Therefore, I go along with dysfunctional behavior, allow myself (or others) to be manipulated, and force myself to believe what is wrong is correct. Unsurprisingly, this gives rise to many many problems, tieing people in big knots which can create big problems for people, the like of which no doubt many of the NKS members have experienced. Would you agree with this?

Correct pure view is pure view 'on the side of the mind.' Nothing is pure on the side of the object, because nothing exists on the side of the object. Nobody is perfect on the side of the object, rather they become perfect 'for me' by my viewing them/relating to them 'in a perfect way.' In other words, if my mind relates to others in a perfect way then I am able to receive perfect benefit from the person regardless of what they do. So, if I see my teacher engaging in inappropriate behavior, such as manipulating somebody or giving a wrong teaching, then this can be a powerful teaching to me of what NOT to do, a teaching in karma, etc., etc., etc. I can correctly 'call a spade a spade' (in other words, condemn inappropriate behavior as being inappropriate) while at the same time receiving perfect benefit from having witnessed such inappropriate behavior. So for example, the Gen-la Samden story has been a powerful teaching for me in many ways. I have received tremendous benefit from it. If I relate to it in a perfect way, I receive perfect benefit from it, and FOR ME it will function as if it were the extremely skilful means of a Buddha to teach me various things. I do not make apologies for it saying it was OK what he did, but I am still able to receive perfect benefit as if he were a Buddha giving me this teaching. Even if from his own side he is a deluded sentient being, if my mind relates to him in a perfect way his actions 'function for me as if he were a Buddha with extremely skilful means giving me a profound teaching.' All I need do is ask myself the questions: (1) what truth of Dharma does this reveal to me, and (2) what does this situation give me as an opportunity to train my own mind. My answer to these two questions will enable me to derive perfect benefit from anything anybody does, and therefore all beings will function for me 'as if they were Buddhas' even if from their own side they are all deluded sentient beings. VGL said a few years ago that Buddha Vajradhara appears in an ordinary aspect because he wants us to relate to him in a 'normal' way; and it is by relating to him in a normal way that we will gain the realizations that we need to gain. So if we see our teacher engaging in inappropriate behavior, the 'normal' thing to do would be to discuss it openly with him (even confront him with it), declare it as wrong, not follow it as an example, etc., etc., etc. In this way we protect ourselves from dysfunction while at the same time receiving perfect benefit from whatever anybody does. Would you agree with this notion of correct pure view?

I believe we can reach agreement on this, and by doing so we can not only establish a common basis for future discussion but also clearly identify the fundamental point within the NKT that needs improving to avoid the sorts of problems which have arisen. In my view, over the last 4-5 years VGL has been giving many teachings helping people abandon the incorrect pure view and cultivate the correct one.

Looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Dspak

P.S. I am gone this weekend, and won't be able to reply until next week.

Quote
dspak08
Dear Tenzin,

I am happy we seem to be having a constructive exchange. Lets hope we can sustain it. I will try from my side to do so.

....

Kindest regards,

Dspak

Dear Dspak,

I try my best to answer your post, although not that easy, because you write from a personal perspective. Who should feel inclined to debate a personal perspective? Usually it is better to accept personal perspectives, because they are ‘truths’ from the pov of the expresser.

In general things and the validity of claims should be seen from a broad perspective, a perspective which is able to look on phenomena from different angles, like in the Buddhist example of the elephant described by blind people to the king.

The Tibetan Buddhist monastic system puts much effort in making the students independent and to help them to think for themselves. This includes also to be able to recognize the faults or weaknesses of certain texts or contradictions and their strengths. It has a very realistic and critical yet Dharma-devoted approach.

The differences between the hallowed and naïve NKT approach and the approach in Indian-Tibetan Buddhism, including Je Tsongkhapa’s, can not be recognized by someone with in the NKT system who has no experience of the monastic tradition of Je Tsongkhapa, it can’t be understood by people who are bound to the exclusive reliance on the texts and system, centers and policies of one single author and spiritual leader, who is not any more rooted in the system he derives from, and has never expressed respect or gratitude to it - at least as far as my investigation was able to detect this. To explain the differences is as much impossible as to explain to a frog who dwells in a small local well the differences between his well and the ocean. As long as the frog didn’t see the ocean and clings to the well, it won’t understand. The frog has to see the ocean with his own eyes to be able to recognize the limitations of the well and the differences.

I think, it is fair to say that I know the well (NKT) and when I had the good luck to escape NKT and Shugden lamas, I met the ocean. So I know what I say here, because I have at least some comparison. The differences between the system of NKT and the Shugden lamas I met, and the Indian-Tibetan Buddhism as incorporated by genuine masters, especially HHDL, are so vast and deep that for the first two years of separation from NKT/Shugden Lamas I was almost shocked to be faced with the differences. On the one hand I was so joyous and felt so close and united to/with the Buddhist Sangha, and Buddha Shakyamuni, I recognized so many wrong attitudes in myself unrecognised within NKT, like pride, sectarianism, hostility against other schools etc., and felt tremendous release, and on the other hand looking back to the NKT-well, I was shocked to see in what spiritual swamp I’ve sunken. It was almost unbearable to be faced with the differences, like encountering two different - mutually exclusive - worlds.

So I think this is enough from my pov.

Now with respect to NKT. To be frank as someone else stated it. NKT is ‘Gyatsoism’. I think this is very clear. And this ‘Gyatsoism’ and the exclusive reliance on one person and his books, the totally self-referential system is uncommon in Tibetan Buddhism and the Buddhist world. To rely on one single author and his texts may include many faults and these faults can not be recognized and corrected as long as the system allows no other sources and establishes fear of ‘mixing’ and posits the own system as ‘pure’ which includes, to accept other pov than expressed by Geshe Kelsang, makes the system ‘impure’. I know from own experience how self-censoring, self-deceptive such a system can be, and how much it invites heavy sectarianism, pride, fear, feelings of guilt, narrow minded and hardened views, and hostility.

In general every one can follow what he likes to follow, but if someone posits the own system in such a exclusive way as NKT does it and acts in public with a rather ‘evangelical’ approach like NKT and a strong portion of hostility towards respected members of the outer NKT world, criticism will fall back to the organization.

With respect to follow only one tradition. This is properly fine. No one challenges this. One of my lamas, Pora Tulku Rinpoche, a Kagyue lama, also a physician and healer, is also just following the Karma Kagyue school. (BTW, he said to me: “When it comes to protectors, follow the Dalai Lama, he has the most subtle mind, so his judgement is far more reliable.”)

Sectarianism is mainly an attitude in the mind and certain settings may nourish it. Sectarianism can also be found among those, who claim to be not sectarian. For more see these inspiring and frank talks: “Tibetan Buddhism in the West” by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche: [www.siddharthasintent.org] and “Buddhism without Sectarianism“ by the Venerable Deshung Rinpoche: [quietmountain.org]

Also Je Tsongkhapa issues this in his Lam Rim Chen Mo. It is better to know these texts, much more as the understanding on sectarianism as offered by Geshe Kelsang sounds rather awkward and different from how the rest of the world defines sectarianism.

With respect to NKT, I and some others see NKT as ‘Gyatsoism’. If he sees himself in the footsteps of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa and thinks his system is equal to them, then this is disapproved by the lack of heirs. The two most capable heirs of Geshe Kelsang, Gen Thubten and Gen Samten, both appointed as Geshe Kelsang’s successors by Geshe Kelsang himself, failed tremendously. This didn’t happen with the heirs of Atisha or Tsongkhapa. NKT may argue this is due to ‘impure times’ but for me this is just a self-deceptive excuse, there is a fault line within the system NKT, which can’t be recognized and solved as long as NKT is separated from its roots and is caught in a self-referential, self-centred circle, with no other perspectives than those of Geshe Kelsang or his books.

If Geshe Kelsang thinks he is the heir of Je Tsongkhapa’s school or Atisha's, then this is disapproved by the knowledge of what these traditions are and what texts and practices they applied. It is correct to portray NKT as ‘based on a selection of Gelug teachings’ which Geshe Kelsang regards as important for his students, and that NKT is based on his commentaries and understanding to it. All other claims either contradict the facts or are spins.

I leave the question open if “whether or not the Dharma taught by Geshe-la is good or not.” This is something the individual, the proper qualified student, with the three defining characteristics as described in the Buddhist texts and by Je Tsongkhapa (see Lam Rim Chen Mo), has to decide.

I think this is enough for today but probably not exhausting the topic, rather another perspective.

Best wishes, t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2008 08:59PM by Tenzin Peljor.

With respect to the dangers of a totally self-referential system I wish to add the following:

Besides other untruths the NKT 'truth' site states wrongly about my Amazon reviews:

Quote
NKT truth
He has written hostile book reviews on Amazon. He focuses not on the book (for it is hard even for him to find fault with the Buddhism taught in Geshe Kelsang’s 21 books, and also he clearly has not read many of them) but on the NKT as being a cult.

My reviews can be read here: [www.amazon.com]

One faulty explanation of the Bodhisattva vows is a quite important fault within the context of NKT. Geshe Kelsang claims wrongly, that the 34th Bodhisattva vow would be: "Preferring to rely on books, rather than to rely on our spiritual guide".

This is not only wrong and contradicts the correct explanation of the Bodhisattva vows, it contradicts also the explanation of Je Tsongkhapa who said, 'if a teacher teaches something which contradicts the texts of the great Indian pandits, he can not bee seen as a reliable teacher'. The explanation given by Geshe Kelsang spins the NKT system into a narrow minded belief-system, where followers have to rely solely "on their spiritual guide" - Geshe Kelsang - even when he is wrong.

As long as people are caught in Geshe Kelsang's system, and don't know the original texts and their explanations by authentic masters, they can't recognize the implications and incorrectness of such claims. It is quite the same as in the ideology of the Communist Party and their leadership: The party (or the leader of the party) is always right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2008 10:05PM by Tenzin Peljor.

Please avoid drifting off into a theological debate.

This thread is about NKT and its leadership, i.e. the behavior and dynamics of that group and how it might be harmful.

Please stay focused on the subject of the thread and do not sidetrack into another discussion that is off topic.

Quote
rrmoderator
Please avoid drifting off into a theological debate.

This thread is about NKT and its leadership, i.e. the behavior and dynamics of that group and how it might be harmful.

Please stay focused on the subject of the thread and do not sidetrack into another discussion that is off topic.

Hi rrmoderator.
ok. I will try to keep that in mind.

However, I think to change Buddhist rules to make followers more dependent on the leader is much related with the dynamic of the group. The leader has installed himself as the sole spiritual authority, made his followers completely dependent on him while separating them from the outer Buddhist world.

As this is based on theological (mis-)interpretations which are claimed to be Buddhist and members believe they are, and are discouraged to question these things ('doubt leading into the wrong direction', 'very negative Karma'), or they are discouraged to use other texts than Geshe Kelsangs for clarification and thereby caught in his self-referential system, I think some theological issues related to the group should be discussed as well, because they form the background for the dynamics within the group and how they behave.

The same is true for other theological issues, e.g. "pure view" is abused to repress criticism or to throw the blame of critics back by claiming he perceives only faults due to his impure mind, and actual the faults he sees are only his own faults, not that of the perceived object.

For me it is not that easy to avoid such discussions, however I will think and check what should be ignored or pointed out. Thank you for moderating the thread.

In general I would like to discuss the issue of "pure view", but if this is not the aim of the forum or a side-track, I will restrain. What do you think?
Best wishes, t



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2008 03:44AM by Tenzin Peljor.