Zum Inhalt springen

Diskussion:Shugden

Seiteninhalte werden in anderen Sprachen nicht unterstützt.
aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Dies ist eine alte Version dieser Seite, zuletzt bearbeitet am 1. Oktober 2005 um 00:54 Uhr durch Waschi (Diskussion | Beiträge). Sie kann sich erheblich von der aktuellen Version unterscheiden.

habe artikel überabreitet. --Waschi 13:44, 14. Aug 2005 (CEST)


Aus dem Artikel hierhin kopiert (Text von Benutzer:213.6.124.64) --Kam Solusar 01:22, 30. Sep 2005 (CEST) :

Kritische Anmerkung zur Einleitung: Es gab und gibt nach wie vor Gruppierungen innerhalb der Sakyas und der Gelugpas, die Dorje Shugden für einen erleuchteten Dharmaschützer halten. Das ist insofern von Relevanz, weil die Vorstellung von einem erleuchteten Wesen, das sich als böser Geist gebärdet, absurd ist. Das Dorje Shugden-Orakel in Tibet war übrigens zuletzt (d.h. bis zur chinesischen Invasion) im Panglung-Kloster nicht weit von Lhasa beheimatet, das der Gelug-Tradition angehört.''


Kritische Anmerkung zum Absatz "Verklärter Buddhismus":

Das bedeutet allerdings auch, dass man die Aussagen S.H. des Dalai Lama zum Dorje Shugden Konflikt prüfen und hinterfragen darf. Man darf z.B. hinterfragen, warum die eine Seite als rückständig und traditionalistisch bezeichnet wird, wenn doch Seine Heiligkeit selbst auf die beanstandeten Methoden der Orakelbefragung (s.o.)zurückgreift. Man darf z.B. hinterfragen, warum behauptet wird, Dorje Shugden würde all seinen Praktizierenden verbieten, Nyingma-Praktiken auszuführen, während man aus seinem eigenen Umfeld genug Gegenbeispiele kennt, in denen es offensichtlich keinerlei Probleme damit gibt. Man darf z.B. hinterfragen, warum Dorje-Shugden-Praktizierende als Fundamentalisten bezeichnet werden, während gleichzeitig das Gebot vom Dalai Lama ergeht, dass seine Schüler mit diesen Menschen noch nicht einmal reden dürfen und Unterschriftenlisten erpresst, sowie Lamas bespitzelt werden. Man darf z.B. hinterfragen, wie es möglich ist, dass vor Geisterglaube gewarnt wird, während die Warnung bereits impliziert, ein solcher böser Geist sei existent. Die einfachste Maxime des Buddhismus lautet ja, dass jeder Mensch selbst für sein Schicksal verantwortlich ist - und eben nicht böse Geister. Weiter darf man z.B. hinterfragen, inwiefern die Dorje-Shugden Praxis das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis gefährden soll. Erst das Verbot hat für viele traurige Entzweiungen und einen hässlichen Bruderkrieg gesorgt, keineswegs aber die Praxis selbst. Und schliesslich darf man hinterfragen, wieso es so schnell Verdächtigungen für den Mord in Dharamsala gab, nachdem die indische Polizei bis heute keinen Schuldigen gefunden hat und sich alle Dorje Shugden praktizierenden Gruppen entschieden davon distanzierten. Bis heute ist keine der unterstellten Gräueltaten jemals bewiesen worden. Anonymer Schreiber, von mir aus dem Artikel hierher verschoben --Herzbert 08:01, 30. Sep 2005 (CEST)

Pabhongkha's Sektierertum

Das ist ein Brief, den Pabongkha an den Chinesischen General Lu Chu Tang im Erde Hase Jahr sendete, er dürfte eigentlich einiges klären, wenn es auch sehr schade ist, dass das geschrieben wurde oder es notwendig erscheint, das veröffentlichen zu müssen...:

"Honest expression of the General presentation of Inner and Outer Tenets of the World.

In general there are many religions in this world. Every follower thinks that his own faith is the best. However, if we honestly examine, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM are barbarism and therefore are the worst and there is no other religion worse than these. The non- Buddhist systems like that of Kapila and Sankhya are slightly better than the aforementioned faiths but they do not have the path to liberation. They may undertake great hardships like self-immolation and jumping upon a trident but there is no path to liberation. It opens the gate to the lower realm. The so-called Bonpo is also not at all different from the other non-Buddhist faiths. Far from achieving liberation it opens the door of the lower realm. Since Confucianism is also not the teaching of the Buddha it simply gives temporary happiness but not liberation. As all these systems are opposite to the Buddha's teachings, leave aside achieving Buddhahood, they do not at all have the path to liberation. One cannot show even a single example of one who has achieved liberation after having practiced these faiths. Without exception most of them fall into the unfathomable lower realms. It is only Buddhism which is the path of liberation. Even in Buddhism, the compassionate Buddha Shakya Muni knew that if the profound and ultimate truth of emptiness is taught right at the outset, it would not be understood by the followers. Just as children are gradually taught, starting from the alphabet, in the same way at first easily understandable teachings are taught. Therefore he first taught the Vaibhashika Tenet System which explains grosser meanings of selflessness of persons. After that he taught the Sautantrika Tenet System which is more profound than the previous one. Then he taught the Mind Only School, which is again more profound and which teaches the grosser selflessness of phenomena. It is this school which Thangsen Lama propagated in China. After that he taught the Madhyamika Tenet System which explains the subtle selflessness, the ultimate view. Here also we have Indian Acharya/Masters Bhavaviveka; Shantarakshita, who even though they have entered the Madhyamika philosophy could not fathom the meaning of very subtle emptiness, the ultimate intention of the Buddha. Thus they are mid-dling Madhyamikas and they are known as the Svatantrika Madhyamikas.

And we also have Indian Acharyas like Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti who had unmistakenly fathomed and realised the ultimate intention of the Buddha, which was trail-blazed by Nagarjuna, and they are called Prasangika Madhyamikas. Regarding the path of liberation and Buddhahood, there are two parts: wisdom and method. All those tenet systems below the Svatantrikas have found the unmistaken path of the method but have failed to realise the ultimate view which is the wis- dom aspect, and therefore they have not realised the ultimate emptiness but just a facsimile. Hence it is only the Prasangika Madhyamika System which realises the unmistaken subtle emptiness, the ultimate thought of the Buddha.

There is not even a single individual who has realised the subtle emp-tiness without entering into the Prasangika System. In the absence of this realisation it is not possible to attain enlightenment. Therefore this Prasangika Madhyamika System, the system of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is the best, the supreme and the peak among the four Buddhist Tenet Systems. In Tibet there are many systems of Buddhist teachings like Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Jonang, Bodong and others. All these are Buddhist teachings and they all have wonderful methods of accumulation of merits, purification of obstructions, meditation on deities and recitation of mantras. Through these practices one can achieve liberation. Therefore these are a hundred thousand million times better than Christianity, Islam and other non-Buddhist teachings. However, there is no system like that of Tsongkhapa's, which is complete, unmistaken, profound and fast.

Although each of the Tibetan philosophical schools feel and assert that their own philosophy is that of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and thus the philosophy of Prasangika, but, because of its very subtlety the followers could not realise the main intention of their preceding learned scholar practitioners and have thus erred. Most of them have become like the philosophy of Hvashang Mahayana. By becoming so one will fall into nihilism and will become the cause for hell. Therefore, in Tibet, except Tsongkhapa's philosophy, all others are mistaken. As such I can affirm that at present on this earth and be-neath the sky it is only the refined gold, like Manjushri Tsongkhapa's system which is alone totally faultless in every aspect, be it the philosophical view, the meditation or the conduct. It is complete, profound and extensive and if one has the knowledge and the ability to practice this teaching properly then one will be able to attain Buddha-hood within twelve human years or even in three years and three fortnights. This can be sustained through thousands of reasonings and references. The core of the teaching is the path to enlightenment alone. While this wonderful philosophy is existent many unfortunately adhere strongly to inferior teachings. Many such people are there in Tibet as well, which is a clear indication of lack of merit. The establishment of Tsongkhapa's teaching, the core of the Buddha's teachings, in your country is such a rare priviledge that even tens and hundreds of millions of merits accumulated by Lord Indra and Brahma cannot equal even a portion of this merit. This is really fortunate." Waschi 00:54, 1. Okt 2005 (CEST)