Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
JKhedrup wrote:I wasgoing to say in a month or two when I have another laptop and software reinstalled I would take another crack at it. But honestly I have other challenges at the moment and sectarianism is something I find very upsetting. So once things are up and running I will start on the Vinaya texts rather than Pabongkhapa, people's minds are made up anyway. Faith scares me, though, when it involves a refusal to be objective because of affiliation. It really scares me.
Everytime this can of worms is opened it makes me feel a little depressed actually. So many sad issues are connected to this whole mess, and people are so invested they put their discernment aside.
conebeckham wrote:Caz wrote:conebeckham wrote:So, is there anything that could possibly be in any of Phabongkha's writings that would lead you to believe that he was sectarian, short of explicit instructions to others to actually destroy monasteries, or worse? Or are these "polemics" as you term them merely specific instructions, skillful means geared towards individuals only?
Yes nothing short of direct commands to destroy monasteries and worse and even then I would still view him purely :.
On reflection, I've decided not to spend any further time weeding through the pages in an attempt to translate his sectarian statements and advice. They are there, I can assure you, but there's ample evidence, even in this thread, that any such statements can be defended by Pahabongkha's supporters--though I have to say that Caz's statement is more extreme than many would care to endorse. Such is the case in Tibetan politics and society--the "religious" affirmation is trotted out to support acts of power, often retrospectively......and so it goes, even into the 21st Century, and even into Western society and culture, and by an organization (NKT) that proposes to be non-(or even anti-) political and "trans-Tibetan." The irony is immense!
There is no limit to the things we will believe.
Jikan wrote:conebeckham wrote:So, is there anything that could possibly be in any of Phabongkha's writings that would lead you to believe that he was sectarian, short of explicit instructions to others to actually destroy monasteries, or worse? Or are these "polemics" as you term them merely specific instructions, skillful means geared towards individuals only?
David N. Kay, in the book Tibetan Buddhism and Zen in Britain, claims that Pabonka's sectarianism was extraordinarily severe, and came in response to the Rime movement. Specifically, Kay claims Pabonka advocated the destruction of artifacts associated with Guru Rinpoche, and that such relics were destroyed, to cite one instance.
JKhedrup wrote:Point taken, but I am not looking down on the intelligence of people, rather I mentioned them putting their discernment aside. Many of the people I have encountered who make this choice are more intelligent than I am, this is why I find it disappointing. It is not an attitude unique to our tradition either-I have seen this attitude amongst Kagyus and Nyingmas and also in Thailand and Taiwan.
As for the 5th, just be open to researching and knowing the history. I am not a huge fan of rnam grol lag bcangs but Phabongkhapa's texts connected with Chittamani Tara are profoundly beautiful an some of my favourites. But I don't wilfully close my eyes.
Perhaps having lived in monasteries in India during this conflict and seeing friends being impacted, and being impacted directly myself, all the misinformation perpetuated connected with this, as well as the real toll on y teachers and on HH, has made me more emotionally involved than should be the case.
However, I want people to be empowered with a little Tibetan so they can have informed opinions. That is really my only agenda in this thread. And if I can learn Tibetan, anyone can.
Sherab wrote:Just curious - when the monasteries were destroyed by those 'overzealous' gelugpas, did Pabongka Rinpoche spoke out against it? Did he actively discourage such people from such negative acts?
The Cult of Tara, p239, Stephan Beyer, 1973. wrote:When the Lord Refuge of Dragyab died, his monastery was taken over, during the minority of his reincarnation, by a regent named Zangmar toden, who was a very different sort of man from the former abbot. Zangmar had originally followed the "ancient" sect (he had been a disciple of the great and famous Drugu SakyasrI of Sbderk'a) but then had moved to Ch'amdo, where he met and became the disciple of a Gelug lama named Master Refuge P'awang kawa.
Zangmar had fallen under the spell of this new and impressive personality. P'awang kawa was undoubtedly one of the great lamas of the early twentieth century, but he was a man of contradictory passions, and he shows us two different faces when he is recalled by those who knew him. In many ways he was truly a saint; he was sent to Ch'amdo by the central government to represent its interests and administer its Gelug monasteries, and he was sympathetic to the concerns of the K'am people over whom he had been granted jurisdiction, a scholar and an enthusiast for all aspects of Tibetan culture. But many eastern Tibetans remember him with loathing as the great persecutor of the "ancient" sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K'am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of "ancient" books and paintings. P'awang kawa sent his new disciple back to take charge of the Gelug monastery in Dragyab; Zangmar, with the zeal of the convert, carried with him only his master's sectarianism and implemented only his policy of destruction. He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped-up charge of treason.They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made a fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk, who carried with him by chance that day our image of Tara, tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back. But the power of the thunderstone had not diminished during its repose: the bullet simply flattened itself upon the old monk's body, just as the yak's horns had bent upon the body of the servant. Everyone present was astonished to see that he was unhurt, and though the looting continued, the miracle most likely prevented the outbreak of real and bloody warfare. Those who knew about the image were further convinced of its power.
michaelb wrote:I think it is improbable that Pabongkha didn't know of and endorse these actions. He was the Lhasa government's man in Kham and acting in a political role and had the power, or more power than anyone else, to say what happened and what didn't in that area.
michaelb wrote:More forced conversion than outright destruction, afaik, but yes this began before the passing of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Lhasa was a long way away, remember. Pabongkha became most influential after that of course and particularly after Reting Rinpoche was forced out of his regent role.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests