From tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com  Wed Jul 24 19:37:11 1996
From: nagasiva 
Subject: hhdldrjshgn.txt
To: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[compilation: His Holiness Dalai Lama, Root Gurus and Dorje Shugjen]

Subject: Dalai Lama and Root Guru (was Guru and Protector are one)
Date: 27 Jun 1996 11:56:05 -0700

[from alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan: edwingood@aol.com (EdwinGood)]

Within the Mahayana Tradition of Buddhism practitioners are encouraged to
view their Spiritual Guide as a Buddha. This is clearly explained in the
lamrim teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. Four correct reasons are
given establishing that one's Guru is a Buddha. By contemplating these
reasons the practitoner gains conviction that their Spiritual Guide is a
Buddha and offers actions of service and devotion, which include:

1. Offering actions of physical or verbal respect
2. Offering material things
3. Offering service
4. Offering our own practice of Dharma

Of these four, offering our own practice of Dharma is the most pleasing to
our Spiritual Guide.

Also, within the Kadampa Tradition as taught by Trijang Rinpoche
practitioners are encouraged to view their Spiritual Guide, Yidam (Tantric
Deity) and Dharma Protector as one. All three are regarded as different
aspects of the same holy being. The present Dalai Lama received this
spiritual tradition from his root Guru, the late Trijang Rinpoche. This
understanding enables us to gain a clearer understanding of the praise the
Dalai Lama wrote in 1959 to his Protector at the time, Dorje Shugden:

"In summary, I request you O Protector,
Who are the synthesis of all Protectors, Yidams, and Gurus,
Please be the embodiment of all my Protectors, Yidams and Gurus,
And please send down a rain from the great gathering of clouds of the four
aspects of deeds to fulfil the two accomplishments."

The Dalai Lama at this time regarded Dorje Shugden as the synthesis of his
Dharma Protectors, Yidams and Gurus and relied on him accordingly. In
other words he regarded Dorje Shugden as the same nature as his Yidams and
Gurus. An enlightened being who had many different aspects - sometimes
manifesting as his Gurus, sometimes manifesting as his Tantric Yidams and
sometimes manifesting as his wrathful Protector. We can understand this by
contemplating the analogy of a diamond, the most precious of jewels. A
diamond has many different aspects depending on how it is cut and how the
light is shining on it. But from all angles we are still looking at the
same precious stone, just looking at different aspects. In the same way
one regards one's Guru, Yidam and Protector to be the same enlightened
being just manifesting in different aspects to perform different
functions.
   If this is the case how can it be argued that in abandoning one's
Protector one is not also abandoning one's Guru? If you regard your Guru
as an emantion of Buddha who is the same nature as your Protector, then in
abandoning one you are abandoning the other. To hold otherwise would be
like saying in all respects my Guru is a Buddha and is to be relied upon,
but with respect to his Protector aspect he is a worldly being and is not
to be relied upon. From the point of view of being my Guru he is a Buddha,
from the point of view of being my Tantric Yidam he is a Buddha, but from
the point of view of being my Protector he is an evil spirit! This is
completely illogical! It would be like saying from all aspects this is a
beautiful diamond, except if you look at it from underneath it is a dirty
piece of coal. Either it is a diamond or it is a piece of coal. Either one
regards one's Guru as an enlightened being or not. One cannot
simultaneously regard the same being as both a Buddha and an evil spirit.
 From this it is clear that the Dalai Lama has parted ways with his root
Guru. Trijang Rinpoche until his death propagated the practise of Dorje
Shugden, encouraging all his disciples to rely upon this holy being as an
emantion of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri, and as a synthesis of their Guru,
Yidam and Protector. The Dalai Lama has not just chosen to not follow this
advice, but has said that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit and that relying
upon him is like putting a noose around your neck. He has banned the
practice on the grounds that it is bad for his health and the cause of
Tibet, and the Tibetan government in exile under his auspices has
vigorously pursued this ban. He is doing everything in his power to stop
people from engaging in this practice and is therefore acting directly
against his Guru's words. He is doing everything in his power to denigrate
this Deity and is therefore destroying the lineage of his Spiritual Guide.
   Of course the Dalai Lama has freedom to choose whether he follows his
Spiritual Guide or not, but please do not argue that in destroying the
tradition of Trijang Rinpoche he is not abandoning his Root Guru.

-----------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Menninger 
Subject: The ethical quandry in Tantric relationships
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 19:45:09 +0000

Assuming all of that is true (which I am not going to
read or verify in detail) it is just raising the stakes
of how hard a decision it must have been for HHDL.  Even
if he had a less tight binding or a released binding, it
would have been a hard decision.  But all that sets the
stage for the real ethical (a la the Bodhisattva Ideal)
quandry involved, which is the highly charged fuel for
all of this.

In the Guru/protector/disciple relationship there seem
to be two schools of thought.  Since we are talking about
a stance that sees unity of protector and Guru and Buddha,
I will simplify to just guru for now.

The total blind faith school:
1) The Guru is always right.
2) If you think the Guru is wrong, see number 1.
If you have total, perfect commitment to the Guru,
you can make no mistake.  If something goes wrong,
your job is to go wrong with it while always defending
it as right, strenuously, vehemently.  YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.

The school that requires you to have full personal
responsibility while completely relating to the Guru
as well.  There is a real basis for holding this in the
actual roles of the tantras that lead to the "meeting
of the minds" and in the stances of the historical
Buddha that we must not do this on blind faith.
If something goes wrong, you have to deal with it
according to the Bodhisattva Ideal.  That is your
responsibility.  YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.  You take your
personal sacrifice as a matter of course.  It is
that simple.

The extremes that totally characterize tantric
practice push you to one of these results if something
goes wrong.  Buddhist Tantric practice is real tough
stuff.  You don't dabble in it or take it lightly at all.
This is why pre-tantric practice and a very considered
choice of traditions is so important.

By the way, to put this in another context, Osel Tendzin
seems to have been a total blind faith school tantrika
and he definitely tinged the organization with that at
that time.  The error seems to have been his, but he was
so locked into the "nothing can go wrong" blind faith
that he could not back out.  One view is that he even
shortened his Guru's life as a result.  Think about that.

One of the problems is determining that something is
going wrong.  The blind faith school does not permit
it at all.  The bodhisattva responsibility school
absolutely requires it.  But it is still hard to do.
HHDL, having Avalokiteshvara's level of Bodhisattva Ideal
commitment (it dominates even the Samaya vow) has no
choice but to be of the bodhisattva responsibility school.

One final point, you will not be able to distinguish
HHDL being wrong from the DS people being blind faith
school practitioners going down with the ship.  At least
you cannot from our non-Buddhahood perspective.  Even
the projection on the Guru is insufficient for this one.
Also, there is no way to determine that they are not
blind faith school, but simply mistaken.  Them saying
they were not would actually be probable blind faith
action to protect the commitment.

This is why I meet this with practice.  I see no other
way to do anything that helps.

Dick