Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 7

Old Discussions Archived
Since nothing new had been added here for nine months, the discussion to date has been archived as recommended since it had grown very large. (see: Talk:Dorje Shugden/archive6)

Please read all the archives before posting to avoid repetition.

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! (Most recent discussions last.)

Chris Fynn (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues with this article
This largely just seems to be a replica of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article, with the introduction having a direct copy of two of the paragraphs.

Its evident this article has been highly edited over the last few months by a few editors.

We should probably start with the lead then, and then slowly change the rest of it.

If we look at the article in December, it looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden&diff=584771121&oldid=584459628 It is amazing how much change has happened and I have seen no discussion on the talk page about why all that change has occurred. I am not saying that this article in the body is perfect, as of course it is lacking in some citations and is overly lengthy.

In addition, which is the main point of this post, is that the lead there was this: "Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength", orDolgyal Shugden (Tibetan: དོལ་རྒྱལ་ཤུགས་ལྡན, Wylie: dol rgyal shugs ldan), "Shugden, King of Dhol" is adeity (Tib. lha)[1][2][3] in Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelug school, who is regarded as aDharma Protector or "guardian angel."[4][5] The practice of Dharma Protectors is central to most religious Tibetans and practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.[6]

Dorje Shugden is regarded as the incarnation of Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen[2][7] of Drepung Monastery, a contemporary of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Yet, Dorje Shugden's enlightened nature has been debated since his appearance in the 17th century.[8] With the current Dalai Lama's growing public opposition[9][10] and subsequent "explicit ban"[11][12][13][14] of the practice, this debate has escalated into what is known as the Dorje Shugden controversy. "

This seems far more reasonable in an article about Dorje Shugden. Of course include the points regarding the controversy, but it should not be the same article. If I don't hear back soon then I'll go ahead and change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete scholarly sources yet again.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi VictoriaGrayson, it seems there is an understanding of how Wikipedia works. Just because something is scholarly does not mean it is appropriate, useful, or effective in a certain section. Please feel free to discuss this further, as I have attempted, in the talk page of the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Taking scholarly citations and replacing them with equally scholarly citations but more appropriate ones is what Wikipedia is founded on. If you can give a convincing explanation of why the current leads are more appropriate than something else I would love to hear, otherwise I will happily go ahead and change them. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, Monk and Mystic and Buddha's Not Smiling are not scholarly books as you claim. Secondly, I highly doubt any of the references say what is claimed since they originate with a blocked editor.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Edits by a blocked editor are certainly deserving of increased scrutiny, but there is no presumption that such edits are unreliable. Many blocked editors have contributed excellent content before the infractions that led to their blocks. So, such edits need to be evaluated on their merits. Simply asserting that certain books are not "scholarly" is not persuasive. Instead, one can argue that "Book A is not scholarly, and not reliable, because . . . ", with a persuasive, policy-based argument filling in for the ellipsis. Assertions are inadequate. We require thoughtful arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, Monk, Mystic is not a scholarly book because it wasn't written by a scholar. Buddha's Not Smiling is not a scholarly book because it wasn't written by a scholar. Prasangika37 wants to replace secondary academic works specifically focused on Shugden, with references that are not.  And I am opposed to that. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am going to replace these quotes soon and propose a better version for the introduction. I won't use those quotes necessarily from those sources, but you have to agree that it is a bit bizarre to have those two block quotes in an explanation of Dorje Shugden. Again, just because something is scholarly >>does not<< mean it is appropriate. It seems like we keep running into an issue regarding this.Prasangika37 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this is quite intriguing that you are criticizing Man, Monk, and Mystic as not acceptable. Please see Bultrini's book, as he is a journalist just like the author of Man Monk and Mystic. If you are going to deem one as not acceptable, please realize the other would also be put in this category. We have to be consistent on points like these! Prasangika37 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it not possible to get this article to contain both views of Dorje Shugden rather than the current one-sided view? I would like to help if at all possible. I am on the positive side of the argument but if I was to be allowed to write the article by myself I would give equal space to the positive and negative views of the subject, since surely that would make it a better page. Beeflin (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be great, Beeflin. Would you mind editing in a small introduction? And anyway, since there is a Dorje Shuden Controversy page already, it would make a lot more sense to not focus on things regarding the controversy and just give a simple explanation of Dorje Shugden himself. E.g. Who he is said to be, Why people practice this practice, and then a link to the controversy along with a small blurb on what it is. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think a summary section as per WP:SS would be more appropriate than a "small blurb" would be. I would also have to agree that VictoriaGrayson would probably want to familiarize herself with all of our content guidelines, not, just WP:RS. Persistent behavior incosistent with content and conduct guidelines frequently leads to consequences that invididual might well prefer to avoid. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Buddha's Not Smiling is a self-published book written by a nobody
 * Misrepresenting reference - Martin Mills says "suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement". Not practice.
 * Misrespresenting reference - Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying "However, everyone is completely free to say....we have religious freedom....we will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal". pg. 194.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues with the Opening Section
The first sentence of this article currently reads "Dorje Shugden, is considered by his followers to be a Wisdom Buddha appearing in the form of a wrathful Dharma Protector". This is misleading as not all those who worship or propitiate Shugden regard this entity as an enlightened protector or as a Wisdom Buddha - many regard Shugden as merely a worldly protector.

This is evidenced by the article by Martin A. Mills “Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya” where he writes of the formerly widespread worship of Shugden by Gelukpa monks in Ladakh: “The international arguments over the deity have been characterized by a particular presentation of his status as a ‘supra-worldly deity’ (‘jigs rten las ‘das pa’i lha), akin to a Buddha. Indeed, the Western-based New Kadampa Tradition assert the deity to be a supra-worldly form of the Buddha Manjuśri. By contrast, the Gelug monastic establishments of Ladakh generally regarded the deity as a worldly spirit (‘jigs rten pa’i lha), yet to attain liberation from the wheel of samsaric suffering, that acted as a lower protector (chos skyong srung ma), inferior to established supra-worldly protectors such as Gonpo, Palden Lhamo and Choegyal.” and: "The distinction between worldly and supra-worldly status was an important one for Ladakhi monks, who treated the claim that Dorje Shugden could be a supra-worldly being with the status of a Buddha with a certain degree of disapproval. Specifically, they note that the British-based New Kadampa Tradition (that asserts supra-worldly status to the deity) also maintains an oracle who is regularly possessed by the deity. For the monks I spoke to, this constituted an outright contradiction: supra-worldly deities such as Buddhas never possess oracles; rather, they manifest as teachers such as incarnate lamas. Indeed, the use of Shugden as an oracular deity was precisely linked by monks in Ladakh to his worldly partiality"

In the extensive study of Tibetan protector dieties “Oracles and Demons of Tibet” by René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz (written in the 1950’s - years before this issue became so polarised and politicised) the author clearly classifies Shugden as a ̔ʼjig rten pa'i srung ma or worldly protector. For example on pg. 4: ‘Thus Pe har, a well known ancient god of the branch styled ̔ʼjig rten pa'i srung ma, occupies a prominent position in the religious systems of all Buddhist schools of Tibet, while on the other hand rDo rje shugs ldan, another important god of the same branch, is apparently recognized only by the dGe lugs pa and Sa skya pa sects, especially the former, claiming that he is a powerful guardian and protector of their doctrine against any detrimental influence coming from the side of the old rNying ma pa school.” Chapter VIII of that book which is devoted to Dorje Shugden (pp. 134-144 ) is under the sub-section entitled ̔ʼjig rten pa'i srung ma. The first sentences of that chapter read: ‘A Tibetan tradition claims that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs ldan, "Powerful Thunderbolt", will succeed Pe har as the head of all ̔ʼjig rten pa̔ʼi srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the wordly spheres. Compared with other dharmapalas, rDo rje shugs idan - who bears the titles dgra lha'/ rgyal chen, "great king of the dgra lha", and srog bdag, "lifemaster" - is a divinity of comparatively recent origin.’ It is difficult to see how René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz could have been mis-informed about the status of Shugden at that time since his informants were Dardo Tulku Rinpoche, Tomo Geshe Rinpoche and Lhagpa Dondrub – an oracle of Shugden from Dungkar Gompa in the Chumbi Valley  who had also studied at Drepung.

A close Tibetan friend if mine, who was a Shugden practitioner, and had formerly been a monk at Sera Je in Lhasa, and before that at Dargey Monastery in Kandze, Kham, told me in the early 1970’s that Shugden was a powerful worldly protector and that his shrine at Dargey had been outside the main wall of the monastery – which would be consistent with the status of a worldly protector. Some other elderly Tibetan practitioners of Shugden I talked to around that time told me the same thing - while others of course insisted Shugden was a 'jig rten las 'das pa'i srung ma - or supra-mundane / enlightened protector.

My point is that not all practitioners of Shugden regard him as an enlightened protector and that it is not only critics of Shugden that regard hin as a worldly protector. And those who regard Shugden as a "harmful demon", by calling him that, are in fact placing him outside the category of Dharma protectors entirely.

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. The article is Kelsang Gyatso centric, with his personal views of Shugden. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, Thanks for the time doing a bit of research on the issue. Maybe you would prefer to also include other views of Dorje Shugden then? The view that he is an Enlightened being, the view that he is a worldly protector held by some, and then the view that he is also a mischievous spirit/whatever you would classify the third view? As of present, the view that he is an Enlightened being is the most publicly accepted view of Dorje Shugden of those who are in favor of relying on him. We can agree on that, no? The fact that two of the previous lineage holders of the Gelugpa's, Trijiang Rinpoche, and Phabongka Rinpoche, viewed him that way, makes it quite obvious this was a very, very mainstream view.
 * Regarding the Oracles and Demons text, you may be surprised he could be misinformed, but I am curious if you have read books by Alexandra David-Neel and other early visitors of Tibet(or even other Eastern countries) ? I assume so. If so, I assume you also see that there are countless issues in these early translations or efforts of research. For example, David-Neel's text lack almost entirely a true understanding of Tantric practices and consistently make mistakes. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

, and  Please see new intro and removal of nonRS.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I am surprised about is that you make such a pathetic attempt at argument by trying to put Alexandra David-Neel, who was not a scholar and didn't know Tibetan; and René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, who was a well regarded Ethnologist and Tibetologist, into the same boat. In many ways the work of Nebesky-Wojkowitz on Tibetan protector deities has never been surpassed - and he is still considered a valuable and reliable source. Nebesky-Wojkowitz was writing at a time when Shugden was not the issue that it is today, so he can't be accused of taking sides in the current controversy and he also gives us a valuable insight into to how Shugden was perceived at the time he wrote - at least in Southern Tibet. His major informants were Dardo Rinpoche, Tomo Geshe Rinpoche and someone who was an oracle of Shugden. Now does it seem at all likely to you that those particular lamas were a poor source of information on Shugden or that they would have misinformed him?
 * Chris Fynn (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with CFynn. Nebesky-Wojkowitz is quoted extensively in all modern major academic works on Shugden.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah CFynn.. It was only time before your cards were revealed more, using hurtful speech. Anyway, its clear from countless examples that there were many, many bad translations done in the 50s and earlier. There were not other scholars to consult with. The author could have easily misinterpreted the points being presented, as much is symbolic and there is no proof that it was exhaustive research. The fact that many people use Nebesky as a source doesn't mean much. Theres essentially nothing else to work with!
 * Lastly, please do not remove quotes from Heart Jewel just based on the fact that it is not RS, VictoriaGrayson. It is RS, as has been repeatedly established. It represents a major view of Dorje Shugden, held by millions in modern times. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd expect someone using the name "Prasangika" would use a little logic and sense. Trying to imply that the work of a scholar is suspect because the books of another writer (not even a scholar) writing at approximately the same time contains errors is a pathetic argument, simply because that argument contains no logic at all. Alexandra David-Néel was an ex-opera singer who became an adventurous traveller and popular writer. On the other hand, René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz had studied Central Asian ethnology, Tibetan, and Mongolian at the universities of Berlin and Vienna, wrote his PhD thesis on Tibetan texts, had done post-doctoral studies with Tucci and Rockwell, and published over 20 related academic papers before writing his book on Tibetan protective deities which was the result of 3-years of field research. And I wonder, how can someone fairly pass judgement on the quality or accuracy of Nebesky-Wojkowitz's work or translations unless they know Tibetan themselves?


 * According to one of my teachers, Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen - who met her several times in Tibet and India - David-Néel knew Hindi and a little Pali but could neither speak nor read Tibetan. David-Néel was also born 55 years before Nebesky-Wojkowitz and she first travelled in Sikkim and Tibet before he was born - so you can't really consider them contemporaries. Other than the fact that they both wrote about Tibet there is no real connection at all.


 * On your second point - I agree that parts of the article were not fairly representing the views of Shugden worshippers. However the best thing to do to improve and add balance to those sections, would have been to use reliable second party sources which summarize the views of Shugden worshippers, rather than directly quoting a first party source.


 * Chris Fynn (talk)

Enlightened protector whose appearance is enlightened?
We now have: "Dorje Shugden is variously looked upon as a gyalpo, a mundane minor protector, a mundane major protector, a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is that of a gyalpo or a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is enlightened." I'm a bit confused about the last view mentioned in that sentence - dies anyone have a good verifiable source? According to Trijang Rinpoche's "Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors", whose words are presumably authoritative for the majority of present day Shugden worshipers, Shugden outwardly "exhibits a worldly aspect" though his "nature is actually supra‐mundane" - in other words Trijang Rinpoche was saying his outer appearance is worldly but inner nature enlightened - unless I've missed it, in that book he doesn't say that DS's outward appearance is enlightened. Possibly the latter view may be one taught by the NKT? If so, it seems they are saying something quite different to what Trijang Rinpoche actually taught.

Perhaps: "Dorje Shugden is variously looked upon as a harmful spirit, a minor worldly protector, a major worldly protector, or a supra-mundane (enlightened) protector whose outward appearance is that of a worldly protector." would more accurately summarize all the different views?

The first view is what the Dalai Lama now claims; the second that held by some Sakyas; the third one held by some Gelugpa's; and the last is one held by Trijang Rinpoche - and presumably by his followers that worship Shugden.

Chris Fynn (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Although Kelsang Gyatso maintains that Shugden's outward appearance is enlightened.  That's his unique teaching.  See here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Image used may be a copyright violation
The image of DS used in the Iconography and symbolism section may be a blatent copyright violation and I have flagged it as such. If so, it may be a candidate for speedy deletion. The page from which this image was taken says clearly © Copyright 2010 WisdomBuddhaDorjeShugden.org. Also there is no proper attribution given for the artist who originally painted this image which is clearly fairly recent. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Some Tibetan sources
I once put a list together of some Tibetan sources on "the Shugden debate" which can still be found here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.buddhism.nkt/WeWdJU8YDqA/RbdZH6fdJtcJ Chris Fynn (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)