Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Expulsion Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Expulsion from Sera

First of all, can you both please stop reverting the text for the time being? Otherwise some admin will come along and lock the page, which doesn't really help the issue.

Secondly, I am not really sure I understand the nature of the dispute here.

Here is the text as last edited by kp: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 (see Kashag Statement), Geshe Kelsang Gyatso found himself center stage in an argument about the status of this deity. He refused to back down from the orders of HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, and the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition. This resulted in his public expulsion (see Sera Expulsion Letter) in 1996 from Sera Monastery, brought to a head because the Sera authorities were upset with his open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama over the Dorje Shugden issue, feeling that it harmed the cause of Tibet.

KP, Do you feel that adequately represents the section?

KT, you have inserted the following: In May 1996 a so called Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) was set up. NKT and Geshe Kelsang were the main forces in SSC and SSC started a huge media campaign in May 1996. The SSC accused the Dalai Lama of being an "oppressor" and a "ruthless dictator" who is as bad as the Chinese because of his alleged ban on Dorje Shugden. (see The Guardian and The Independent from July 1996).

About this - first of all - we need attribution - ie someone somewhere stating that the SSC had KG / NKT behind them - unless this isn't disputed; KP - Is it disputed? Secondly, the citations should go to the end of the article proper. Moreover, KP, in what ways do you characterise your dispute over this insert?

My main problem has been some lack of reconciliation concerning dates and reasons around the expulsions. I am still waiting for dates and information concerning the earlier expulsion from Tsangpa Khangtsen. As it stands, I feel that the Sera expulsion section needs to (1) explain the significance, and (2) the reasoning for the expulsion - ideally in a way which is not controversial. I have no doubt whatsoever that the expulsion events are significant enough to be mentioned in this article.

I do not wish to cause yet more dispute, but to help resolve it. Please let us work on that together. (20040302 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Thank you very much. I asked just also User:Robertect if he can help to improve this section. Kt66 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I am happy to offer my thoughts, but it may take a few days, in the meantime continue to update as you wish. As to the immediate question, firstly it is an important biographical detail and should be included, secondly I agree that the SSC was mainly NKT in the UK, but in other countries? Gonsar Rinpoche and Kundeling Rinpoche were both active in Switzeland and the USA (Kundeling Rinpoche gave press conference and Gonsar Rinpoche organised a documentry on the subject). Also the activities in India were not NKT at all but organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable society headed by Geshe Chime Tsering. Whilst I agree to the factual statements in the section I would like to review the context. (Robertect 11:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)).

To the added section we will see if KP sees it in a different way. That behind SSC is mainly NKT and GKG can be summerized by the two press articles but more I know it because I myself was active in the SSC and supported this press campaign too. The press campaign papers were published and written by NKT. I do not know if there was any paper not from NKT. Perhaps KP can say something to this too? Normally GKG/NKT tried always to hide that they are the main forces behind the SSC in the past (see with Ron and Ruth Lister, this is a typical example of this). But there were also different Lamas on the list. (From one I know he protested against it, but wasn't removed from the SSC list.) I do not know what with the others lamas was. When we wondered that not much Tibetans supported the SSC during the campaign and demonstrations and the like then us was told they fear the punishment of the DL and his followers and hide that's why before the public, because they are strucked and the like and fear for their lifes. This was used as an argument to improve our understanding that we must help them (out of compassion) because they can not go for their rights of religious freedom. So NKT then became quite busy to overwhelm the press with faxes. Kt66 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Having reviewed the current paragraph, I feel very unsure about the sentence: After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 - This is because as I remember, His Holiness first made an open statement about the practice in 1976 or so, and did not in any way change his policy since then. I do not think it is fair to say that the debate was re-awakened in 1996. Indeed, I was under the impression that the debate was considered to be re-awakened by the publication of the yellow book. The referred article (kashag statement) does not substantiate the claim made here; indeed it contradicts it, referring explicitly to earlier public statements made by His Holiness including one in the previous year. Indeed, what seems to be relevant to 1996 are the activities of the "Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society" - which elicited a strong reaction from the Dept. of Information and International Relations, and in turn was probably very instrumental in the setting up of the "Special Committee on Dholgyal" by the Kashag ten days after their initial response. So, if we are looking to events of 1996 to indicate timings for the expulsion event - it would seem quite feasible that we can point a finger to the reactions made by the Kashag to the activities of the "Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society". Is this group the same as the "Shugden Supporters Community"?

Also, what evidence is there that the DSS/DSDCRS was formed as a reaction to new events or statements made by His Holiness? As it stands, the current claim (that the debate was re-awakened by His Holiness) is unsubstantiated: for instance, see the statement made ten years earlier; alternatively, what sort of evidence do we have that the debate was 'put to sleep' in order to be re-awakened? (20040302 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Okay I am now more informed. The interview with KG from 1996 is very clear about the central role that he played in these events. Also, it is clear that he was requested to take part in this in April of that year. Moreover, there is no specific event of His Holiness that was referred to - indeed some of the events went back ten years or more. Therefore, it appears that the chain of events that led to his expulsion are not obscure. I propose the paragraph is changed to the following:

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. His opposition and subsequent refusal to cease his activities led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery.

I feel that this adequately reflects the actions of 1996 that led up to the public expulsion. It does not explicitly mention the activities - such as the organisation or approval of demonstrations, but such details I feel are not necessarily so relevant here. Moreover, the sentences of this paragraph do not conflict with external evidence - namely the expulsion letter or the 1996 interview. His interview is worth reading - it is clear that he deeply regrets his activities - the letters he wrote, and his engagement in the political activities at that time.

Dear March 2nd, nice to see you again and thank you very much for trying to resolve this impasse.

I agree that the wording of the section is much better than it was before, however, I'm not sure about the reason for the expulsion. When you say:

This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. His opposition and subsequent refusal to cease his activities led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery.

Where is the evidence that he was requested to stop this practice, and that he did not respond, and that this was the reason he was expelled? Have I missed something?

This is mostly derived from the expulsion letter and other documents. It's certainly the case that these demands were made in a general sense, and it makes sense that the specific opposition led to such demands which as I understand it were a part of the 1996 reaction - though the demands may have been made in a more public sense. I have added 'general' to the sentence above: "led to general demands" - indicating that they were not solely aimed at KG - though there is no doubt that he was included. Also, I have changed the phrase "subsequent refusal" to "continued refusal" to de-emphasise any causal link there. (20040302)

My understanding is that Geshe Kelsang's intention, and the intention of the Shugden Supporters, was to get the Dalai Lama to reverse his ban on Dorje Shugden. It was his mere act of opposition to the Dalai Lama that got him expelled from Sera Monastery, not only (if at all) his adherence to Dorje Shugden. After all, the Dalai Lama claimed that people had freedom to practice Dorje Shugden or not.

I think that this is a mistake on your behalf. The Tibetan community at large was (and remains) vehemently opposed to Shudgen worship; this included community institutions, such as the Kashag and so on:- the 'Yellow Book' (which KG was opposed to) had created an impossible situation for the popular practice of the deity due to it's extreme anti-Nyingmapa attitude. In his interview, KG is quite clear that he was directly involved in the politics of Shugden from around April '96 - and he regrets his actions. His actions were not only aimed against His Holiness, but also the Kashag and other political bodies that supported His Holiness. (20040302)

Dear March 2nd, I think important not to misunderstand Geshe Kelsang's 'regret'. He says that he regrets making statements that made supporters of the Dalai Lama unhappy, he also regrets that he had to resort to political means to try to get the Dalai Lama to reconsider his position (ideally, Dharma and politics should be kept separate), however, it's clear that he did not regret his opposition to the Dalai Lama's position on Dorje Shugden as he was fighting for the religious freedom of those Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners in India who needed his support, and for the continuation of the practice of Dorje Shugden as promoted by his Spiritual Guide Trijang Rinpoche, seen to be very important to the Ganden Tradition. I'm sure if I was in the same position as Geshe Kelsang, I would do the same, with no regrets about making a stand about something I clearly considered to be important. - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't continue this thread further- but two points - (1) Making public statements are actions with strong consequences - and he regrets those actions - specifically those that made people unhappy. (2) He regrets his political activities - and has made it clear by declaring publically that he will never do that again. I was saying nothing else. I am sure that he doesn't regret his support for Shugden - merely the ways (as mentioned) in which he publicly behaved between the years 1996 and 1998. There is no argument here - and there is no need for you to defend his activities. (20040302)

I would also dispute that this disagreement over Dorje Shugden is not the main reason why Geshe Kelsang has made a break from the Tibetan Tradition - it is clear that he always wanted to make a distinction between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Gelugpa Tradition for various reasons. It could be argued that the break occured when he took over Manjushri Centre so that it was no longer an FPMT Centre. At that point the centre was 'independent' of any tradition and the formulation of the New Kadampa Tradition as an organisation was inevitable. It could be argued that it happened even earlier when he had his last long meeting with Trijang Dorjechang (presumably in 1981), who gave him permission to change the presentation of Dharma for Western practitioners. So I'm not clear on the validity of these statements.

I agree with you first point, but completely disagree with your second. Indeed, I feel it wasn't so much to do with Shugden that alienated KG from the Tibetan community (even though they were and remain opposed to the practice) but his involvement in political actions against His Holiness and the institutions of the Tibetan community, which he now regrets (see the interview). Regardless of personal motive, he didn't actually have much choice once he had so completely alienated himself from the Tibetan community; the fact of his regret indicates to me that it was nothing to do with making a distinction, and everything to do with faulty political maneuovering. The documents appear to speak for themselves on this point. Regardless - this section is concerned with the events that led up to his expulsion from Sera-Je, and the issue of breaking from the Tibetan tradition may warrant a separate section. Alternatively we could change the section title to "Expulsion from Sera and separation from the Tibetan community", which seems rather clumsy to me. As I am unsure to relevance, I will take out the component that talks about it. (20040302)

Hi 2nd March, I am happy with the content as it stands, thankyou for your efforts. However re the "distinction" you discuss above, in the interview Geshe Kelsang says "I had already stopped my affiliation with Sera-Je twenty years ago and have no intention of renewing it.". (Robertect 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC))..

Hi Robertect, yes. I read that also. It's very interesting. However, there really is little doubt that his political actions during 1996 alienated him completely from the Tibetan community; therefore IMO, any subsequent rationalisation for why the KG/NKT separated from the Tibetan tradition is suspect. This is merely taking what evidence there is available at face value, and is no judgement against KG here. Regardless, I believe such discussion will remain speculative, and therefore fruitless for wikipedia. (20040302 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your patience and help - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for interspersing my responses! (20040302 16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

As I understand it, the section is no longer in dispute - is that correct? (20040302 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

No, for me it is in a dispute. I add some reasons and try to suggest another version. If there is no acceptance its ok for me.

Some thoughts on the changes, sources and reasons for his expulsion. I was not satisfied with the section because it offers the view that he was expelled because he didn't stop the Shugden practice and organised (as his legal right) protest notes against it. I think this is a short cut and fits not. Also Gonsar Rinpoche refused to stop also. Also he said in Swiss TV he is not happy with that and doesn't understand the DL. He also worked against that. So why GKG was expelled and not Gonsar Rinpoche? I think and heard, he was expelled more of the tones of his public statements. These statements were felt and described by many as fanatical. Tibetans were very upset about his tone: he said the DL is misleading the people, is foolish and the like and also the SSC statements upon which GKG/NKT was main responsible were not even modest as Gonsar Rinpoche was. So thats why I added also: "his tone", I mean the style of protest like "Your smiles charms your actions harms", "ruthelss dictator" and the like. This was upsetting the Tibetans more than his open opposition. The article gives now GKG more as a victim of the DL and its followers. GKG started this "smear campaign" (The Guardian) with SSC and experienced the results. This SSC/NKT/GKG campaign wasn't only three months, as GKG wrongly stated in the interview. The campaign lasted until 1998 (more than two years): "However in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT." see OPEN LETTER from Geshe Kelsang Nov 2002. Also there weren't only three demonstrations as stated by him. There were organised wuite more in different countries: England, Amerika, Swiss, Germany. I remember on four I was present: The mentioned one in Swiss, and three in Germany, which he didn't even mention, although NKT England was also present there and NKT Germany was the main organisator. So far to that points. My remark and concern is mainly: I think, he was expelled more out of his tone of opposition and the style and not because he didn't accept the DL views and actions on that. There are many who didn't follow that advice and even protested, like Gonsar Rinpoche, and weren't expelled at all. It could be that it is a summery of reasons, but to understand the conflict, than one has to understand that his tone was felt by many as shameless and fanatical. For Tibetans this is quite unbelievable. Sorry for my many words, did you catch my point? All the other corrections I can accept. Than some backgrounds on SSC/DSDCRS. As far as I know the DSDCRS is based on Tibetans in India. They organised their own. Gonsar Rinpoche was not involved in the NKT/SSC campaigns - outwardly - in Europe and Amerika. In Europe and Amerika were the press campaign started GKG/NKT were the main forces. Although they could invite Kundaling Rinpoche, he was not the main force, he was a supporter and used his status/name to support the aims of SSC. In Germany the SSC/NKT could present one Tibetan more for a press audience. So SSC was at that time supported by two Tibetans directly. The other were only NKT followers and most time daily GKG was informed about the actions and press campaign and how the press reacted. There was no direct link to Gonsar Rinpoche or Gangchen Rinpoche from the side of SSC organisation or that these groups worked together. During the four demonstrations/actions (press campaigns)of SSC on which I was present: NKT England, NKT Germany, NKT Swiss and perhaps NKT Spain too were present and only two Tibetans. I saw also pictures from America: Only NKT followers. So I think it is correct to say: The main force of SSC was GKG/NKT (Europe and Amerika) and the DSDCRS was responsible for India, they had a link. As far as I know only GKG was expelled no other person of that alliance. Kt66 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in essence I agree with the central thrust of your claims, but feel that the revised text deals clearly with the causal chain.

My suggestion:

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and his political activities of 1996 (due to his adherence to this deity) caused him to be expelled from his monastery and alienated from the Tibetan community. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. The open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the tone of his statements in the public led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery. Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

I canceled the section of the demand, I never heard this. What do you/KP/Robertect think on that version? Thank you for your patience, Kt66 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We know from plenty of public statements that HHDL asked for the practice of Shugden to be stopped. We can conclude that the abbots and so on specifically asked him to cease his activities - as a precursor to his expulsion, following rules of vinaya. We know that the Ganden Tripa made it clear that the Gelugpa school will no longer practice Shugden. We also know that the Kashag (and other organisations representing the Tibetan community) wished for Shugden practices to be stopped (mainly due to the yellow book). I think it is highly likely that the reinforced political activities of 1996 helped to clear up any lack of position regarding the practice of Shugden - in a sense, the SSC and DSDCRS forced the issue of "with us or against us" for all institutions involved in Tibetan and Tibetan Buddhist affairs. Therefore, this is why I had included the sentence This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. - and I consider this to be a reasonably fair assessment of events. I also think that it is completely fair to say that he was expelled for his political activities and his opposition to the Dalai Lama, as well as refusing to back away from promoting the practise of Shugden. There is no doubt that his public profile is much larger than that of Gonsar Rin. etc, and therefore I am not surprised that he was expelled for his activities. However, I can understand if you feel that much of this is POV, and I have no wish to prolong the discussion, so I am happy to withdraw the sentence. (20040302 12:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Hi Kt, I am happy with the content. Regarding your point about the activity lasting up until 1998 that is true. However there was a break up to the autumn of 1997. The interview referred to was I think done around August 1996, hence the discrepencies you identify. I am not sure why Geshe Kelsang became involved once more in Shugden issue although it may have been prompted by the Documentry on Swiss TV which Gonsar Rinpoche contributed to. (Robertect 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert. Thank you for your thoughts. If the interview was led in August 1996 then is makes sense that he says that it lasted only three months (May, June, July 1996). Thank you for your contribution and clarification! I remember the Swiss TV contribution, it was shown us in our NKT centre. Gonsar Rinpoche was quite modest and said, he doesn't understand HHDL. He used not harsh words and the like and didn't loose respect. However, all modest Shugden practitioners I know always said: "We do not understand the DL", also my Abbot. Nowadays I ask myself: Why did they not try to understand him? Why they didn't try to get a different perpective on that field? But that's just my question to them, not to you...

As with the prompt of GKG you remarked: "I had already stopped my affiliation with Sera-Je twenty years ago and have no intention of renewing it." Perhaps it is useful to put it in that section too? I do not know how long one belongs to a monastery or if there is a formal procedure to a removal from the register of students. But normally you belong to a Sangha Group of ordained and they can decide in accordance with the Vinaya Rules to request you to stop your bad behaviour three times; if one does not follow, they can expell you. On a western perspective: If I studied in a university and was removed from the register of students, they can not expell me 20 years later. This would be of course stupid. But I do not know what Rules the monasteries on that had. I can only assume that they did the correct procedure. But I do not know. Kt66 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is more complex than merely a university affiliation, Kt66 - but I don't think that this is the right time to examine the details of vinaya for expulsion here. It may be more relevant on an article on vinaya. (20040302)

Hi Kt, I have no idea. I recently got this book Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation which has a wealth of factual historical information. All the best to you (Robertect 12:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Robert, with respect I recommend you keep such observations to yourself. You must be fully aware of just how provocative such statements are, and they serve little purpose on a website which is not concerned with POV or personal opinions. If Kt66 or anyone else says something that you personally find difficult, address that, rather than behave like a troll and come out with flamebait. (20040302 12:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Dear 2nd of March, I was not upset by anything Kt wrote and in no way meant to stir anyone up, it was only that he and I discussed before in the Shugden article the reason why Shugden practitioners criticised the Dalai Lama, because I did not think it was for following the Kalama sutra, offering instead the point above as a possible alternative explanation, hence it was funny as in ironic to me that the exact point I made came again up but this time the other way around - but humour doesn't translate well on the internet!. I have deleted the coment. I apologise if I have upset anyone and thankyou for reminding me to be more mindful in the future. Best wishes and thanks again for your help (Robertect 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert, I'll write you at your personal user site some remarks...Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I have no problems with your amended version, apart from the fact that I don't think it was the tone of Geshe Kelsang that got him expelled, but his mere act of disagreement with the Dalai Lama. I'm sure you aware that people in the past who disagreed with HHDL had to flee for their lives (as in the case of the Panchen Lama and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama), or have been 'disposed of'. Tibetan history is full of such retribution.

However, your amended paragraph reads well and I am happy to accept it. - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I understand your doubts on the "tone issue" but I think this was the main point. Ok, different views on one topic are quite normal. Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

@2nd March. Thank you very much for your help. So perhaps we change to the version I suggested, Robert/KP agreed, I too. Do you have any remarks or doubts on its validity or wish to improve it further? Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and his political activities (due to his adherence to this deity) of 1996 through 1998 caused him to be expelled from his monastery and alienated from the Tibetan community. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. The open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the tone of his statements in the public letters led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery. Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

I corrected some grammar. Also the link for public expulsion was to dholgyal3 rather than the Sera letter, which I don't think was correct. I also removed the wikilink to Kashag, as there is no article yet. Moreover, we seem to agree that his political activities ranged from 1996 through to 1998, so I have amended the text to reflect that.

Lastly, I removed the word 'Geshe' - not to be provocative, but to be balanced - we have two names being used here - one is "Kelsang Gyatso" - which is the title of the article, and conforms to general wiki rules regarding doctorates, etc. and the other is 'Geshe Kelsang', which is a more familiar term for many people. I don't wish to push one way or another, but feel that the balance is about correct. However, 'Geshe Kelsang Gyatso' is a little too formal for this paragraph IMO. (20040302 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC))