Talk:Dorje Shugden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Wikiproject_Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Dorje Shugden and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive
Archives

(stuff before 18 July 2006)

(stuff 30 Dec 2006)

(stuff from 30 Dec 2006 to 3 May 2008)

Contents

[edit] Page protection

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

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

[edit] 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))

[edit] Simplicity and Clarity

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

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

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

[edit] 'Dholgyel Controversy' new article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestion to move the controversy material to a new entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggested inclusion of Glen Mullin brief discussion of Dorje Shugden

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] Reference

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

[edit] WP:RS & WP:SPS

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

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

[edit] POV template

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

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

[edit] Dharmapala?

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

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

[edit] Unablanced article

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

Here again an extract of Kay's research:

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

There are two dominant views:

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

and

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

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

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

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

I will not contribute to that article or other WP-articles besides that I insist that a full quote of neutral academical source is given in this article about the different point of views (NPOV). Kay/von Brueck are excellent sources to do that. Both acacedmical works have reviews as well. --Kt66 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree Trijang Rinpoche's view is a minority. First, there are only a few hundred thousand Tibetans in exile at most, a much greater number still reside in Tibet. In Tibet alone I have been to areas alone where every single house has Dorje Shugden images and monasteries. I know this information can't qualify for the webpage itself, but Kay doesn't give census information to qualify his own observations in terms of minority/majority. So, in short, there is no valid information to indeed say Trijang Rinpoche's view is in the minority.Tkalsang (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


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

[edit] Clean up and balancing

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

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

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

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

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