Talk:Dorje Shugden

Archives
Talk Page Archive 1 (stuff before 18 July 2006) Talk Page Archive 2 (stuff 30 Dec 2006) Talk Page Archive 3 (stuff from 30 Dec 2006 to 3 May 2008)

Thegone is also adding this exact same section to other articles

He has added the same section to the articles New Kadampa Tradition and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He has not consulted with any editors. It does not belong in any of these articles. It belongs in the Dorje Shugden controversy section only, where it also needs editing to reflect the other point of view. This article did state the two differing views of Dorje Shugden and had sources for both points of view. With Thegone's copy and paste from other anti-Dorje Shugden websites, it has now lost its neutrality. If other editors do not agree with this, they should make small changes and discuss them, not huge changes without discussion, or we will all simply have to just continue reverting each others' changes and that is a monumental waste of time for everyone concerned. (Truthbody (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, the references #51, 52, 54 have nothing to do with the content. These reference to other Wikipedia articles only peripherally related to the subject matter, and they do not even explicitly mention Dorje Shugden or the controversy. Furthermore, reference #55 is to "antishugden.com", whose banner reads "Eliminate evil". This certainly cannot be counted as an independent, neutral source for information.

Thegone also uses this section to attack Geshe Kelsang, calling him the "head of Shugden sectarian movement in the west". This is not even close to neutral, nor is it factually accurate, and it has no place in this article.

Considering how poorly referenced this section is, and how aggressive its tone is, I would suggest removing it completely from this article. It also appears in the Dorje Shugden Controversy article, and while a section on "sectarianism" may debatably be appropriate there, it should not remain in its present, poorly referenced form. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"The current article itself lacks independent and neutral sources. So yes, we should reach a compromise (somehow).Jmlee369 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by those who support the ban

Someone keeps posting a long tract denouncing Dorje Shugden practitioners. This should not be on this article at all (there is one called Dorje Shugden controversy) and the talk pages need to be used. This is not following any wiki protocol and will be brought to the attention of the administrators if it continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbody (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens, this article will have a positive spin on Dorje Shugden, neglecting all possibility that he may not be, in fact, everything that is described here. We need the alternate views of how he is a preta/gyalpo/mundane protector/harmful spirit, rather than presenting only how one side views him. If this article was the only thing I read, I would be overwhemingly in support of Shugden so quite clearly, this page is unbalanced. Comments like Shugden being the main protector of almost all Gelug monasteries for the past 300 years is a lie and is based on a biased website's claim. These issues need to be addressed not only on the controversy page but also here. Jmlee369 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jmlee, I understand your concerns. Please read my proposition to create a revised, compromising article, found at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

kt66 aka Tenzin Paljor

Just so you know, kt66 has a personal agenda to undermine the New Kadampa tradition and is an ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. As Tenzin Paljor, he has been on chat groups and blogs all over the internet for years trying to persuade people to abandon the New Kadampa tradition and Dorje Shugden. Please therefore be on the look out for potential POV bias and disinformation in his edits of this article or any article to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang, or the New Kadampa Tradition. (Wisdomsword (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Two things. First of all, kt66 is retired. Secondly, I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. Unfortunately, it appears that there are no students of GKG, of the DSS, or any other supporter who is yet able to do that. It is fascinating. If we read the texts of the Kadampa tradition (I recommend ISBN 0-86171-440-7 as a seminal work which accurately represents the entire lojong foundation, or the great translations of the LRCM for Je Rinpoche's Lam Rim.) we are told to reveal our own faults first, and to hide our qualities. This behaviour is NOT something readers find when coming across the NKT sponsored pages of WP. Instead, they are faced with no mention of the controversies, politics or sexual escapades that the organisation is stained with.

e.g GKG expelling students who complained about Kelsang Lodrö having sex with Kelsang Thogme, or GKG's email to Steven Wass indicates the degree of truth of my words:

Steven Wass,

I have received your email message. You have destroyed the NKTs reputation and the power of all NKT Resident Teachers. Through your actions so many ordained Teachers have disrobed following your view which is opposite to Buddhist view – you tried to spread a sexual lineage which you yourself created. Even in society a Teacher cannot have sex with students. After you left many people confessed to me that you had had sex with them. You had sex with so many students and through your deceptive actions one nun tried to commit suicide because of your sexual behaviour towards her.

Because the NKTs reputation and power of the Resident Teachers has been destroyed by your activities now the future development of the NKT will be difficult both materially and spiritually. However, I myself and all my students are working hard to recover the damage you made. We will never allow your sexual lineage to spread in this world.

I have no connection with you.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

(20040302 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

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)

'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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wrong use of sources

Dhontog Rinpoche's Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word is in support of HHDL's current position, not in favour of Shugden. Jmlee369 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

I request that a banner is put over this page that the neutrality of the article is disputed. After a couple of months of edit-war, this article even does not show the opponents view to the pactice anymore in the controversy section. The page is loaded with Shugden proponents references and links, and none of the opponents.rudy (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nailing the diamantine phurba of shunyata with joyful benevolence

Phurba

Would a neutral Wikipedian please work in aspects of this recent thesis with appropriate citations to improve this article's quality: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf

Moreover, I move that we have three subheadings as lineitems under the auspice of "Shugden Controversy", they being namely "View of Shugden apologists" being a showcase of cited points promoting, authenticating and legitimizing Shugden sadhana; the "View of Shugden detractors" showcasing the converse view also duly cited; and the third heading being a "Synthesis and dialogue of apologists and detractors" which is exactly what it states a synthesis or dialogue of these extreme/polarized views in the form of a dialectic, also duly cited for probity and transparency. Remembering that difference and diversity, religious tolerance, compassion and an awareness of the emptiness and voidness of ALL dharmas and views is the sagely advice of the tradition(s).

Thanxta svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please: Let's Come to a Compromise

B9 hummingbird, you have some good ideas. If some claim that this article recently erred on the side of supporting the view of Dorje Shugden practitioners, it now has veered dramatically towards the side of opposing that view. It is clear that those who think that Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha will never back down from that stance, and neither will those who think that Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit. We can remain locked in this edit war stale mate indefinitely, or we can come to a compromise. Therefore, I am proposing a re-structuring of this article and trimming it down to essential points only, so that it is once again comprehensible to members of the general public.

Building on what B9 hummingbird suggests, here is a suggestion for what might be a fair article representing both sides of the story:

1. Keep the opening few lines.
2. Two Views of Dorje Shugden -- Explaining in brief that two views exist
3. The View of Dorje Shugden Practitioners -- I do not think the term "Apologists" is neutral enough, because people who are practitioners do not see a need to "apologize" for anything. Subheads could include information about the practice.
4. The View of Shugden Detractors -- Using your word here, B9. Subheads could include Dalai Lama's main points. A link should be included in this section to the controversy article.

At any rate, I think it is unacceptable for a supposedly neutral article to open with the bold headline "Sectarian". This is inappropriate because there are a significant number of people who do not believe that Dorje Shugden practice is sectarian, so it should not be presented as a plain truth.

How do other editors feel about extensively revising this article? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider re-adding http://www.dharmaprotector.org to the external links section. Emptymountains (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another link to NKT again; there are really enough of these....rudy (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is a good one and we should also try to resist adding rebuttals to arguement on either side, just simply adding them. However, to exhaust all the arguements will be difficult and difficult to source as well. So much of the whole controversy is also passed orally and there has been little scholarly analysis of the subject, but that doesn't mean we have to resort to obviously biased sources either.

As for the first point, I think we should start with something like what is there, then ...deity in Tibetan Buddhism whose nature is disputed. If we simply say deity, it is more biased towards the POV that he is signifcant and important.Jmlee369 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, Jmlee. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No future for Dorje Shugden

The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. I am yet to see an unbiased stance towards the Nyingma from any Shugden practitioner, in person or in literature. For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue. Otherwise the stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here)

The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.

In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from GKG, NKT, DS, WSS, and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD New Kadampa Tradition Dorje Shugden Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Dorje Shugden Controversy Western Shugden Society and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the Path

Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child

so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful. In teachings, Zong Rinpoche (a teacher of GKG, who visited Ulverston several times, and gave initiations into Vajra-yogini, as well as DS itself) stated to many buddhists in the UK that protesting was a waste of time and energy, and should have no place in the activities of even the lay practitioner. It would be better to recite some Manis. (20040302 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

It would be great to see the edit warring come to an end, but actually this solution won't work. There clearly is a struggle in the real world about some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, and it is notable to a certain extent. What is needed is short, sharp, purely-factual articles and not too many of them. Please feel free to propose article mergers and come to the noticeboards as often as required: neutral point of view noticeboard for unbalanced articles, reliable sources noticeboard to ensure that unreliable sources aren't used, biography of living persons noticeboard if there are potentially damaging statements about living people, and fringe theories noticeboard if views that are neither science or religion are being pushed as truth. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear 20040302,

Regarding your request, "For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue," please consider these remarks from GKG:

Personally, I have never said that Dzogchen or Nyingma are not Buddhadharma because I respect these traditions. In 'Joyful Path of Good Fortune', I said that the teachings of Padmasambhava are pure Buddhadharma. Before Lama Tsongkhapa, Lamas such as Buton Rinpoche, Sakya Pandita, Lotsawa Rinchen Sangpo, debated whether Dzogchen was Buddhadharma or not, but I have never been interested in this debate. If you wish to have a full explanation of what these Lamas said and what other Lamas said to prove the contrary, please ask other Tibetan scholars. I do not wish to become involved in this debate. I respect and appreciate very much the Dzogchen and Nyingma traditions. I rejoice in their practice, and I think that it is very important to respect each other and to keep harmony between traditions.

Although most of my family are Gelugpas who rely on Dorje Shugden, some of them are Nyingmapas. My younger sister married a Nyingmapa Lama from western Tibet from a renowned lineage, he was called Ngora Lama. They had many children, and I visited them frequently, sometimes he and I would do puja together. I would do Dorje Shugden puja and he would do his own practice. We had a very good relationship until his death in Mussourie, India. Now his youngest son and my sister are living in Manjushri Centre in England.

When I lived in Mussourie I had many good friends from the Nyingma tradition, one of whom in particular was called Ngachang Lama. He was an old man, a lay practitioner; one winter he and I did retreat in the same house. In between sessions we talked Dharma, each talking about our experiences. His oldest son would often invite me to his house to do puja. Also, I was often invited to do puja at houses of other Nyingma families. I was so surprised to hear the Dalai Lama and others saying that Dorje Shugden practitioners and Nyingmapa practitioners are like fire and water!

It is so sad that people are now using this rumour to destroy the reputation of this precious Lama. It is a clear indication that these are spiritually degenerate times. Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.

I know HH Trijang Rinpoche’s way of life very well, and he mainly emphasized the Gelug tradition, but he always had a good relationship with Lamas from the other traditions. I have never heard him say anything in any of his teachings implying that the Nyingma tradition is not pure.

Quotes such as those above are collected together on the http://www.dharmaprotector.org website, which unfortunately Rudy dismissed as "Just another link to NKT again."

Emptymountains (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Emptymountains, thanks for your speedy response. As it happens, I'm not convinced. Of course, you yourself disallow external discussion groups as being valid sources. Dharmaprotector.org is YOUR OWN website, and you are not allowed to quote yourself on WP. Meanwhile, there were teachings given by Trijang Rinpoche, GKG's own root lama, which were compiled by Zemey Rinpoche which includes many anecdotes where practitioners became victims of Shugden's wrath for having engaged in practices of other schools, in particular Nyingmapa and Dzogchen. See eg. [2]. Meanwhile, Pabonkapa, who is Trijang Rinpoche's own root lama, states

Because the All Seeing Great Fifth practiced and developed all tenets of the old and new [schools], this great protector through the power of previous prayers produced a variety of extremely frightful appearances to the supreme Powerful King (the Fifth Dalai Lama) in order to protect and defend spotlessly Dzong-ka'ba's great tradition.

This is clearly a strong assertion that traditions other than Tsongkhapa are not in favour with Shugden. (20040302 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Dear 20040302,

Regarding "you yourself disallow external discussion groups as being valid sources," when/where did I do that?

Regarding, "Dharmaprotector.org is YOUR OWN website, and you are not allowed to quote yourself on WP." I honestly don't believe that I did. I referenced the quotes above directly from Google Groups (although it appears that the ref tag links aren't working on this entire talk page). I mentioned my website to you only because in the previous section of this talk page I asked that its inclusion be considered. Please note that I did not add a link to my own website on the article page, but left it up to other editors to decide.

Regarding, "if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue," I met your criterion by quoting GKG's reference to Joyful Path of Good Fortune page 10, but then you changed what would be acceptable to you. Here are some more:

Nyingma [Joyful path of good fortune] 21

Nyingma [Universal Compassion] 3

Nyingma tradition [Clear Light of Bliss] 191-2

Padmasambhava [Clear Light of Bliss] 192

Padmasambhava [Great Treasury of Merit] 55

Padmasambhava [Meaningful to behold] 110

Regarding, "This is clearly a strong assertion that traditions other than Tsongkhapa are not in favour with Shugden," everything I've heard and read from GKG shows that he never encourages sectarianism, which is why we can never find any quotes from him disrespecting other traditions. However, he does advise against eclecticism and syncretism, but even then he never forbids his own students from doing so. He only recommends that after studying and exploring different religions, "finally it’s very necessary to choose one. Otherwise there’ll be fighting inside, conflict." Again, it doesn't matter which one; if it did matter which one, then that would be sectarianism.

Here's a really bad analogy: I don't like banana ice cream, but I have nothing against bananas or ice cream individually. In fact, they are really good on their own; it's the mixture of the two that doesn't work for me. I wouldn't even offer it as a dish to guests in my home, but they are free to eat it at their place. And if you like banana ice cream, that's fine too. As Geshe-la says, "We are eating our own food and they [Nyingmas] are eating their own food. There is nothing wrong."

Thank you for your time,

Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear March 2nd,

You said:

It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. I am yet to see an unbiased stance towards the Nyingma from any Shugden practitioner, in person or in literature. For those familiar with the publications of GKG, if you can find a citation that demonstrates positive support towards the Nyingma (I.E. respect for it's views and practices) then I will completely back down on this specific issue. Otherwise the stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

Firstly, where is it published that it is a key commitment of the Shugden practice to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma? I believe this claim is unsupportable. Nyingma and Kadampa are different traditions. You don't have a key commitment to abandon the texts and traditions of the Gelugpa because you don't practise them. We don't practise the Nyingma traditions. There's no commitment to abandon something you have no connection with!

Geshe Kelsang has said publicly that Nyingmas have a complete path to enlightenment, as do all other Tibetan traditions. Here is the quote from his interview with Donald Lopez Jr in 1998:

LOPEZ: Given your devotion to Dorje Shugden and your founding of the New Kadampa Tradition, do you feel that Je Tsongkhapa’s view, meditation, and practice is the most complete in all Tibetan Buddhism? Is it only through Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings that one can attain enlightenment? Or is it also possible though Nyingma or Kagyu?

GKG: Of course! Of course we believe that every Nyingma and Kagyupa have their complete path. Not only Gelugpa. I believe that Nyingmapas have a complete path. Of course, Kagyupas are very special. We very much appreciate the example of Marpa and Milarepa [in the Kagyu lineage]. Milarepa showed the best example of guru devotion. Of course the Kagyupas as well as the Nyingmapas and the Sakyupas, have a complete path to enlightenment. Many Nyingmapas and Kagyupas practice very sincerely and are not just studying intellectually. I think that some Gelugpa practitioners need to follow their practical example.

What difference does it make what Shugden practitioners think of Nyingmas? Nyingmapas probably believe that Pabongkha was a sectarian demon whereas we see him as Buddha Heruka but we're not about to delete any Nyingma related articles because of it! If it were true that Gelugpas had a problem with Nyinmapas, why aren't they on the 'Nyingma' Wiki page saying "this isn't Buddhism?". However, sadly, on NKT and Dorje Shugden related pages we find editors who are trying to discredit and slander mainstream Buddhist traditions and practices.

Personally I advocate non-sectarianism, practising our own tradition without criticizing others. I don't see why this isn't possible, it's the real meaning of non-sectarian. Okay, you believe that Dorje Shugden is a spirit and I believe he's a Buddha so we each practise our own tradition without problems. The only problem at the moment is that those who follow the Dalai Lama's view won't allow Shugden practitioners to practice in peace without discrimination. If he did, there would be no problems. Dorje Shugden has no connection with your tradition, so why is it such an issue for you?

I don't see any grounds for the deletion of these articles. Thank you for your time --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To 20040302:

1. You disliked my request for us to respect each other's religious traditions and said that we Shugden practitioners don't respect Nyingma practitioners. I think that Emptymountains response adequately represents the view of Geshe Kelsang and his students. To respond on a more personal level, I don't even KNOW any Nyingmapas, let alone do I know much about their practice. I have no reason to disrespect them and I never have and never will. But maybe there are Shugden practitioners who are biased, and maybe there are Nyingma practitioners who are also biased -- I don't know. At any rate, I don't see anything on any of the pages that you mention where any pro-Shugden writer has said something disrespectful about Nyingma practice, so I do not think your point that we cannot reach a compromise is valid.

2. Yes, I agree with you that I am one of the "vocal minorities" who has focused all my editing time on just these few articles. Please consider looking at it this way: if I was a scientist who specialized in ducks, I would limit myself to writing about ducks, because that is my area of expertise. And if I specialized in a specific species of duck, pages about that species would be my main focus. Well, I am not a scientist, but a spiritual practitioner, and Dorje Shugden is my "species" of spiritual practice. I am not expert enough in other topics, nor do they have as much import for me, because other topics that I may be expert in are not in the middle of an edit war in which pages need be made neutral. Therefore I think it very reasonable that I and others spend most of our time working on behalf of these articles.

3. You suggest that we delete these pages and have a five year moratorium before they are resurrected. I am going to buck the trend of other pro-Shugden writers here and say that I have no problem with your suggestion and would be happy to see all of the above-mentioned pages deleted for five years. I agree with you that I would rather see no article at all than having to spend one more minute of my time trying to advocate for neutrality. I have other things I would rather be doing.

4. On the other hand, I like Itsmejudith's comment that what is really needed is something short, sweet, and to the point, that is factually based and dispassionate. I appreciate this view, too, and perhaps if a compromise could be agreed to by the major contributors to these articles, they could also agree to monitor the articles to maintain such a compromise.

5. Moving forward: It seems that most are in favor of keeping these articles rather than deleting them. I do not have strong feelings on this matter either way; I would be happy with them deleted, or I would be happy with a compromise position being BOTH reached and MAINTAINED. If a deeply revised article is to be created, who will begin this process, and who will agree to maintain its neutrality? If a compromise position is to be maintained, it will require all the major players to buy into it and agree to back it when the bias -- whether pro-Shugden or anti-Shugden -- tries to slip back in.

I for one am happy to volunteer myself for the task, as I am committed to seeing an end to this rift in the Buddhist community, and a respectful equilibrium between practitioners renewed. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthsayer wrote: "only problem at the moment is that those who follow the Dalai Lama's view won't allow Shugden practitioners to practice in peace without discrimination." OK, I'm in favor of teh Dalai Lama's viewpoint in this matter, but I have never seen him or anyone else in the west preventing you from practicing. I have never seen opponents fro the practice standing on the streets with banners protesting against Kelsang Gyatso. However, I have seen the opposite, as recently as during the last teachings of the Dalai lama in the UK. All this kind of talk does not just represents a lack of neutrality, it keeps sending out the message as if all Buddhists are beating up poor NKT practitioners. Perhaps in India some Tibetans have had a scuffle on this dispute, and some people have made unjustified accusations - that's what tends to happen in any quarrel - but it is not helpful to try and keep distorting day-to-day reality. I'd be in favor of a brief article with an explanation of the two different perceptions of Shugden, the consequences of these different perceptions, and then a rougly equal amount of text dedicated to both views, and a rougly equal amount of references/links to both views. Does that make sense? Unfortunately, I have too little time and too little experience in this subject to write much on this or look up sources. rudy (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request result

It was decided to keep the articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_14#Dorje_Shugden --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What??? What makes you think you can close an AfD? I'm reverting. AfD will stay open until closed by an admin. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is an AfD? Will someone explain this better to me -- what is going on? --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

An AfD is a request that an article should be deleted. You found your way to the relevant page and posted your opinion. When an admin sees that there has been enough chance for editors to express their points of view, he or she will close the discussion and tell us the result. At the moment it seems that the result will be Keep. I hope that all editors who wish for a neutral and informative article will stay around and help improve it. I will be available to comment but I know virtually nothing about the subject area. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I got that part figured out. Itsmejudith, I think I could create something more or less acceptable to both sides. I don't have much experience in how this process works; how can I go about this? --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)