Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about New Kadampa Tradition. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Shugden Issue

Instead of text paraphrased from Geshe Kelsang's public statement, I think it is better to include the statement in full with a reference mark. I placed a http link for this, but should this be a footnote? I hope this edit is accepted. Avanze 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am unsure where I am supposed to write this (please feel free to move it somewhere better). Thanks for all the comments written over the last few days, they are all really interesting. I do not have much time for reading books at the moment, but hopefully this will change later in the year, and I would very much like to read the book which March 2nd recommended, thanks for the suggestion. As for the Sutras, I think there are 2 in the NKT - the Heart Sutra and the Confession Buddhas practice (I think this is called a Sutra but I may be wrong). All the best Patrick --Patrick K 13:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick. Thank you for your work and contributions. Now is the NKT spring festival. So most NKT members will not be present here. We can wait until their return. One topic left undiscussed so I will put it below. Thank you for your remark, the Confession Sutra is a Sutra of course. So two Sutras are present. All the best, --Kt66 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lamas practicing it

Hi Avanze and Patrick. Patrick's wish was to show that other high Tibetan Lamas practice Shugden too and this is indeed needed. The problem is: what are high Lamas in Tibetan Tradition? I removed Lama Yeshe, according to Alexander Berzin he received critisism from Tibetan Lamas because of his unconventinal style (there are special points on that), although he was high regarded among westerners, he was not that high regarded among Tibetans, although he was a Tulku and higher than GKG who is none. There is no doubt that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Zong Rinpoche are high regarded among Gelug followers. Pabongkha Rinpoche was charismatic and influential due to his charisma and approach to teach as the first Gelug Lama also lay people outside the monastery. But he was not seen as that high, he became influential - as far as I understood it - and because he emphasised himself as the Guru (especially with the sodge practice on Shugden (see Dreyfuss)) he became the root Lama of many. Of course he became a source of inspiration of many Gelugpas. However it seems to be that from his followers he was overemphasized and it is clear that he was scolded by the 13th Dalai Lama because of his Shugden/Sodge practice (see Dreyfuss). He had the lowest Geshe degree. By this I wish not to disparage him but to put his work in a differntiated context. According to Alexander Berzin it was also Pabongkha Rinpoche who put in many texts his name as the lineage Guru, although it is clear there were many of them. On the other hand Nyingmas seem not to have great joy on his/his disciples actvities in Kham. So high "respected Lamas" among westerners, "respected Lamas" among one school (Gelugpas) or "respected Lamas" by all Tibetan schools make some difference, I think. However we can include Pabongkha Rinpoche here of course. Dagom Rinpoche is seen by Shugden followers as a one of the highest present Lama, so it makes sense to mention him here. I think it would be good to include other high Lamas, but I mean high Lamas respected by the Tibetans from which Tibetan Buddhism was brought to the west. As far as I know Serkong Dorje Chang practiced it - he is very high and also his son and Tulku Tsenshab Serkong Rinpoche, but he stopped that practice because of his deep respect towards HHDL, although his root Guru is also Kybje Trijang Rinpoche. Perhaps we have to investigate that topic more deeply. See: Tulkus - The Mystery of the Living Buddhas. Conversations, Encounters, Backgrounds by Egbert Asshauer, ASIN: 3931997243, Fabri; 15th March 2006. What do you think on that, whom we should include and we know for sure has not given up that practice? And what sources do you have for that? I will check Assgauer the next days. Thank you very much, --Kt66 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a section of which lamas currently practice openly and which have stopped in support of HHDL. Avanze 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...it seems top me a little bit strange to have a list on that. The main purpose of mentioning these Lamas in the article is the wish to make clear that also other Lamas practiced it and NKT/GKG are not "alone" with it, instead making clear it was at a time quite popular among Gelugpas. Only for that purpose I see a need to inlcude some high/respected Lamas. I think that purpose is fulfilled and its ok if Robertect reincluded Lama Yeshe, I felt what I said above: it would be better to have there really high Lamas, who are even high respected among the Tibetans. The para was wished by Patrick. However, it's ok now as it is, I think. --Kt66 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ordination

The first sentence currently says that Geshe Kelsang changed the Vinaya, from what has been written I understand this to mean two things, 1) he changed the ordination vows, 2) he changed the ceremonial conditions (at least 5 Gelong Monks in attendence). At the moment the opening sentence is in poor english, therefore bearing all of these points in mind I propose it should read (Robertect 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).:

"Monks and nuns in the NKT take different vows to those laid down by Buddha in the Vinaya sutras and do not follow the traditional ordination ceremony which requires at least 5 fully ordained sangha to be in attendance, this has attracted criticism from other Buddhists who say this action destroys the Vinaya which Je Tsongkahpa described as "the root of the doctrine". Geshe Kelsang himself argues that he designed the ten vows of NKT ordination to be appropriate for living in the modern world and that the skilfull practioner can gradually learn to incorporate the vinaya within these 10 vows. The first five vows of NKT ordination are in accordance with the Rules of novice monks and novice nuns, but the last five additional vows differ from it. In the past Geshe Kelsang has said that Lamrim as taught in his book "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" can also be considered the Vinaya text for NKT practitioners. The guiding principle of ordination in the NKT is the motivation of renunciation (Tib.: nge-jung)."

O fine. I can agree. Thank you.

A thought on it (not for the article): Geshe Kelsangs reason I feel is depreciateing the full members of the order in the west from all the traditions including Theravada, because they show the example that it works and is possible to live in the Vinaya Rules. By his argumentation he is implying his view to have found more "appropriate" vows "for living in the modern world". In buddhist countries such behaviour will be never accepted told me a long time monk of the Theravada Tradition. What I personal feel as sad, that by this the NKT monks and nuns are separated from the origin buddhist order and their democratic rules. But I think you know my arguemnts yet. However, the section is fine and better than before. So thank you. --Kt66 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue of not following the vinaya - but "tak(ing) different vows to those laid down by Buddha" - is particularly provocative. Essentially, this is pretty much schism as defined in the vinaya, in that it is a substantial change of vinaya - moreso, because it differs from what was laid down in sutra. However, I understand that for a schism to take place, there must be at least four Bikkhu 'of good standing' who take each side in the debate. As I understand it, there is only one Bikkhu in the NKT, so a schism has not occured – basically because the NKT do not have enough Bikkhus for a schism to have occured. (Let us remind ourselves that schism in Buddhism is serious business — one of the five heinous crimes). Regardless, if Robertect's paragraph conforms with the activities of the NKT (especially the highlighted phrase), then the NKT is, at the least, schismatic. (20040302 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for highlighting that 20040302, apart from in this Wiki discussion I have never heard it suggested that NKT ordination vows created a schism so perhaps my wording is not correct. It is certainly the case that Geshe Kelsang intends his ordained sangha to practice in accordance with the meaning of the Vinaya as laid down by Buddha. I understand the intention of Geshe Kelsang to be simillar to the project of Thich Nhat Hanh to update the vows[1]. In response to Kt's point above I quote from Thich Nhat Hanh's web site on this, because these are the sentiments I believe Geshe Kelsang shares, certainly he has no intention to offend or criticise other Buddhist monastics "For a long time it has been the desire and intention of Buddhists to revise the Pratimoksha so that it can be true to the Buddha’s teachings as they can be best expressed in our own time. The Buddha, Thich Nhat Hanh says, needs courageous disciples to make this revolutionary step....Buddhism is a living reality. Like a tree, the dead branches need to be pruned in order to allow new shoots to grow. The new shoots are the teachings that are appropriate to our time and culture." Lets get the thoughts of other editors.(Robertect 11:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

Thanks for your thoughts, Robert. Of course (as Thich Nhat Hanh says) such steps are revolutionary. Changing the vinaya has, for all Buddhism, been the basis of samghabheda or schism. Eg. we find in Williams (Mahayana Buddhism, p16) The five points of Mahadeva were debated in Pataliputra and were accepted by the majority, hence the name 'Mahasamghikas' [...] Since the five points of Mahadeva concern doctrinal matters there was not at this time technically a schism. Nevertheless, it is clear that where doctrines differ so differences in monastic practice (vinaya) may well follow, and such seems eventually to have happened in this case.. The fact that TNH also appears to be proposing schismatic changes to Buddhism does not deviate from the fact that such changes remain schismatic. Schism in Buddhism is a technical term with a long history behind it. (20040302 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree with what you are saying from a technical point of view, however because the word schism carries many "moral" undertones - ie 5 heinous actions etc I think it is better to avoid it use in this article, by using it we inadvertently bring in a whole load of other judgements which skew the neutrality of what has been written. I think the paragraph I suggested is OK and the reader can interpret it as they wish, the facts are presented very clearly. I suggest we use the paragraphy but will wait now for your and other editors views. Many thanks (Robertect 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

The paragraph I can agree. On changing the Vinaya: only a council of the Elder Full Ordained Ones of the Vinaya lineage can do this in a democratic manner. Never a single person. His Holiness the Dalai Lama said it can be useful to changes some rules and the Buddha has allowed to do this, but the point is: Only a meeting of the Elder Ones and with the voice of the many can change the rules. Because this majority is not there for changing the rule, His Holiness has accepted and restrained of course to change it on his own, because this would be a serious fault to the rules. And indeed goes in the direction of a shism. The Vinaya is based on democratic rules and the monk is just a part of the community. Also HHDL goes to the Sojong Confession Ceremony, because he sees himself as a part of the ordained community and accept with all respect the Rules and the Vinaya. So I see that good example. --Kt66 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really have no time to respond to this now - so I am being naughty. It seems that KG/NKT has chosen to use the tradition of the rabjung found in Tibet and stemming from ancient Indian sources. If rabjung are initiating rabjung - then this is certainly unusual, and probably schismatic - not in the formal sense of legitimate schism - but actually in the sense of being non-Buddhist. If however, rabjung all receive their vows from KG, then this isn't necessarilly odd - though normally rabjung are given only to children, in preparation of getsul vows. I think that it could possibly be a mistake to call any rabjung a "monk" - though the english language is so bereft of the distinctions between eg rabjung, getsul and gelong. If anything, the term 'novice monk' gets close, but normally we reserve that term for the getsul - superior to the rabjung. Certainly, if NKT rabjung are dressing up as gelong (which I severely doubt) - this would be a terrible thing. (20040302 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

Geshe L. Sopa: gnas skabs dge tshul dang dge slong gi sdom pa ma blangs kyang 'grigs/ de dus sdom pa ma blangs kyang gos bsgyur ba dang/ skra bregs pa sogs byas te rab tu byung: It is permissible for (a young boy) not to take the vows of a novice or a fully ordained monk right away. Even if he does not take vows, he can become a (rab tu byung) by changing his clothes (for monks' robes) and shaving his hair.

Hi 2nd March. Thank you for your research. I checked this yet. There is a way to see NKT ordained as Rabjungs, because a Rabjung takes the five vows (like the first five of the ten vows in NKT) and some additional like the teachers suggest it. But a Rabjung is not a part of the order. Him or her is not allowed to follow the monastic rituals like the Sojong Confession Ceremony. From a former Rabjung who is now a Getsul I received this additional answer: "a rabjung is not allowed to wear the yellow robe or to be in sojong, and i think he isn't allowed to learn the novice vows. beside that he has only the five vows + celebacy, but he should act as a monk. some of the rabjung are allowed to work and to wear regular clouse when they want (depand on the lama advice), so it's easier for a rabjung.)" I think it is perhaps a kind of spiritual suicide to organize as Rabjungs worlwide demonstrations against a full respected member of the order (HHDL) wearing the yellow upper robe, giving the impression to be real monks and nuns, and accusing HHDL in the public of lying by wearing banners like "Dorje Shugden loves Ningmapas, Please don't lie!" or "Dorje Shugden loves all Buddhist practitioners, Please don't lie!" or "You know that Dorje Shugden doesn't harm any being. Please stop propagating lies!". (According to the former NKT represantative in Berlin, Gen Kelsang Dechen, Geshe Kelsang has created the slogans himself.) Normally a Rabjung is training in respecting the order and the Elder Ones and taking the Rabjung vows is a way to approach the order. Relating to the robe: NKT monks and nuns are dressed like Getsuls (Novice Monk/Novice Nun), not like Gelongs (Full Monks). NKT has an own Sojong Confession Ceremony which is different from the traditional one. According to the Pratimoksha a Rabjung is not listed as one of "Those Gone Forth". See also the Vinaya text of Tsongkhapa. So perhaps we have to check the subject further. --Kt66 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahamudra Claims

No member of the NKT, senior or otherwise, would lay claim that Kadampa Buddhism is the only correct source of Mahamudra teachings. If you think otherwise, post a reference so that your claim is verifiable. Until then, this claim is deleted --Kelsangpagpa 08:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be some of past NKT members, like Thubten Gonpo and the Ex Car driver of Khyenrab, talked in the past about this claims and their different views are either forgotten or denied by NKT members or is unknown to their new members. Perhaps one has to research it once more. You find at [2]

"The nkt have tried to deny this, eg the claim by Thubten Gyatso that the nkt had the only pure mahamudra lineage - unfortunately for them they didn't expect that I'd have the material on tape!"

Perhaps it is quite useable to investigate the complete discussiongroup for more and also Thubten Gonpos information at [3]

If you disagree with the harsh words these ex member often use (But who can be happy if one recognize one was deceived methodically and skilfully?...), I would suggest to focus on the information they give. NKT is quite skillful to use nice words if they say something and it sounds always good in a way what they say, but most time it misrepresent the facts. As Steven Hassan says: "Cults are masters of fuzziness". From my point of view this mastership of fuzziness is the basis of NKT information and advertising politics. The google group is also of interest for the history of NKT and a mirror of this Wikipedia article, I think. FunWang 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What Kelsangpagpa said here is not correct. If anyone whishes to have a taperecording (mp3) where Gen Thubten is saying what was yet mentioned in the article but was deleted by NKT members I'll send it to you. Please send your request at 100.277607@germanynet.de. Gen Thubten is the former heart son of Geshe Kelsang who was sent by Geshe Kelsang to all his centres around the world (11 or 12 years ago) to bring "Purity" to the NKT-centres and established the NKT policy of "Pure Lineage", not mixing with anything else except Geshe Kelsangs books and his teachings. He, who was dealt at that time as the successor of Geshe Kelsang, his heart son, is saying: "These days this we can say definitely this (Mahamudra) lineage does not exist outsite the NKT anymore only this tradition (NKT) holds the two lineages, Vajrayana and Mahmudra." So I will re-include the Mahamudra claim section from the past article. What Gen Thubten is refering to "this lineage" he is naming the "direct lineage from Manjushri to Tsongkhapa". Kt66 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, as an NKT practitioner for 10 years I have never heard this claim and it is certainly not a view which is taught. However I don't doubt your quote and think that NKT made some mistakes over the years, for example Gen Thubten did not behave in an appropriate manner or according to Geshe Kelsang's wishes and was therefore asked by Geshe Kelsang in 1995 to return his robes. There is a question mark over the Mahamudra lineage he refers to, your quote refers to one particular lineage "this lineage". As I mentioned before the Tibetan condensed text at the back of Geshe Kelsang's book Clear Light of Bliss was written at the request of the then Abbot of Ghyuto Tantric monastrey because the instructions had never been written down before. Perhaps there is something within this which may shed light but I don't know. What is clear is that even this quote is not the same as saying only NKT holds Mahamudra lineage, there are many traditions and lineages. (Robertect 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)).

HI RE. Sorry it is completely in acordance with the NKT exclusiveness they emphasize which is easy recognizeable even for beginners (and one of the signs of a cult). NKT became quite skilful in avoiding to claim this nowadays in the public, but it is nevertheless there if they talk about the Pure Lineage, Pure Gelugs, Pure Kadampas, Pure Practitioner, Pure Dharma. This is a wrong concept to name the Dharma pure, because there is no impure Dharma. By this purity claims NKT establishes the idea of impurity too. And the Mahamudra claim is just one way to support this idea - and of course it is wrong. It is not going about some faults, it is going about the structures behind NKT. The faults have causes.

Also I am sorry for you, it seems to me you step now in the lineage of NKT to blurr facts or hide it. Gen Thutbten was one of the devotest desciples of GKG and his first deputy and was the main responsible (who acted on orders of GKG) to "purify" the centers from influences on others than Geshe Kelsang and his books. He traveled to the different centers and establishes mainly this idea of "purity" there. Based on this it was forbade ("not wished for") to use other Dharmabooks. This was not Thubtens policy, he did this at disposition of Geshe Kelsang. I know witnesses of that time. Me too was said in the very beginning: This book (of the Dalai Lama) is not wished here. We have the pure Dharmabooks of Geshe Kelsang.' This policy is findable even nowadways - but not to the public. (I can include a newer story (one year ago) if you wish for it. I know witnesses of the time when Gen Thubten started this "purity stuff tour". These people are even nowadays angry with what happend there. This Purity and exclusivness concept is a basis idea of NKT. What you do not say is, that Gen Thubten was mere released out of sexual misbehaviour, not because he established the Mahamurda claims and Purity concepts.

The citation is just stateing this claim and it was yet mentioned in the article but NKT denied it and deleted the section on it, claiming it is not true. The Mahamudra claim was told by past members of NKT too in user forums, but NKT always denied it. See FunWangs link to one Forum. Also Thubten Gonpo always told it. The Mahamudra claim is wrong in any way, even if there is a special Mahamudra lineage, it is for sure that many outsite NKT would hold it too. The Mahamudra claim is just one of the many tricks of NKT to bind naive westeners to itself. Thats why I added it at the cults reproaches. Take care, Kt66 16:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed the lineage quote

I removed from the article"These days this we can say definitely this (Mahamudra) lineage does not exist outsite the NKT anymore only this tradition (NKT) holds the two lineages, Vajrayana and Mahmudra." . Some good reasons to reject this from the article are:

It is not representative of NKT teachings - as explained earlier in 10 years I have never heard such a claim
It is not taught in any of Geshe Kelsang's books
The meaning is not clear, it is absurd to believe, as the sentence implies, that what Gen Thubten meant is that only NKT has a lineage of both Mahamudra and Vajrayana. Any one can see through even a cursory study on the internet that this is not true. Furthermore, and because Gen Thubten was very knowledgeable about Buddhism this cannot have been his meaning.

We should also recognise that some people dislike NKT and love this quote because on a cursory level it seems to confirm many of their own prejudices. In this respect they themsleves become masters of fuzziness. (Robertect 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert. The Mahamudra Claim is not important for the article it is just a sign of the claim that NKT gives itself a very exclusive status which is also pointed out by Kays research. So no problem to remove it. The claim is nowadays established more hidden, it is not established loudly it follows on the way how the topic of purity/impurity of the lineage, the degenerated times and the idea of not mixing GKG teachings with others are established and emphasised; and it is based on the underlying and outspoken idea that the Gelug tradition is "seriously degenerated" (GKG 1995 Spring Festival). The outspoken of Gen Thubten is just the sign of the thought which is present and one can ask oneself where it dervies from. I heard this claim within NKT quite often, sometimes more directly (when hearing the commentary on Vajrayogini), somtimes more indirectly. So no wonder for me to hear Gen Thubtens claim. NKT is quite aware of the criticizm they received and my recognition is, they learned to avoid to speak critisized ideas loudly out to others. So for instance in the past critisizing HHDL openly was common. Nowadays in many NKT centres people just remain silent, say nothing, if somebody is joyful of HHDL. This was told me different times from members of different NKT centres. (They said if they talked on HHDL the NKT members said nothing instead they gazed the eyes on the ground or left the room). Of course there are different approaches, so Kadam Björn Claussen is open with its critic also nowadays and perhaps there are some people who enjoy hearing from HHDL. However, for the article the Mahamudra claim is not needed and it is true it is nowadays not taught in public directly. All the best. --Kt66 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is NKT Cult? Discussion

Due to the size of the response, I moved this section to it's own page - Note to new editors, please review this discussion befrore creating new edits of the final article. (Robertect 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)).: Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Cult Question

Revision of the History and Teaching Section

Hi there. After reading some pages in Kays research I feel many of my doubts confirmed and my knowledge on NKT deepened or agreed. Some points rose up yet but could not be traced back to a reliable source. With Kays research this gap is over bridged. On the basis of this research I see a need to revise some sections and especially to quote the article to the sources which were used. I will now give same notes and next week some details.

According to Kays research Geshe Kelsang was directly invited by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche in 1976 when both visited him in India Mussourie in 1976 asking him to come to Ulverston to teach there. It is stated that they apparently sought the advice of HH the Dalai Lama when choosing him as a resident teacher in their centre Manjushri Institute. (The version of NKT of Trijang Rinpoche is not confirmed in the research.) GKG arrived with his translator in 1977. In 1979 Lama Yeshe installed parallel a 12-year-Geshe-Study-program which was recognized and validated by HH the Dalai Lama. This program was led by Geshe Jampa Thegchok which later became Abbot of Nalanda Monastery (France) and now is Aboot of Sera Monastery.

Geshe Kelsang was actually requested twice by Lama Yeshe to come to Manjushri, but it was only when he (Lama Yeshe) finally made the request to Trijang Rinpoche, who then asked Geshe Kelsang to come that Geshe Kelsang accepted the invitation and came to England. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

Do you have a Wikipedia:reliable source for this claim? --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang led the General Program which included Tantric Teachings and thereby empowerments were required which were given by GKG. By this a closer teacher-student-bond were established and some students were bound more to GKG. The Geshe Study Program offered no Tantric Teaching.
The 12-year-Geshe-Study-program was led until 1990 and after Geshe Kelsangs retreat (1997-1990) he became outspoken against the Geshe-Study-program, which was led by Geshe Konchoeg at that time. (The details are findable in Kays research.)

I don't recall this from Kaye's book. What I do recall is that no one throughout FPMT ever completed the Geshe program as taught in Majushri and that Geshe Konchog left when there were no more students left on the program. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

see page 77: by his open opposition to the Geshe Study Program, "the basis of Geshe Konchog's Teaching Program at the Institute were undermined, and in 1991 he retired to Gyto Monastery in Assam, India."

see page 56 on the parallel two study programs of the two resident teachers: Geshe Jampa Thegchok( (later followed by Geshe Konchog) for the 12-year-Geshe-study and Geshe Kelsanf for teh General Program. -Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kay: "His (GKG) criticism of Lama Yeshe and FPMT, for example, would often be couched in terms of the destruction of the 'purity' of Dharma. According to Geshe Kelsang the creation of the central governing organisation of the FPMT by Lama Yeshe had 'mixed the Dharma with politics' and thereby destroyed it."

Unfortunately this is in reference to the same problems which involved illegal activities by FPMT appointed Trustees of Manjushri. There is an often referenced document written by Geshe Kelsang called something like "Correcting Wrong Views", again the unfortunate thing is that the text of this docuement has never been made available (although according to Kay it was widely distributed at the time including to other FPMT centers. So you site a quotation without context. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

It is findable on page 66. It is not out of the context. I put the context below. As Kays used this paper of GKG it can be stated what is stated there too. Do you have rleiable source on illigal activities of FPMT? By the way the "Eradicating Wrong Views" of GKG is still existing, Thubten Gonpo has it and I asked him for a copy. -Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On the "take over issue" he writes: "In 1991, through the successful exploitation of a legal loophole, the assets of Manjushri Institute fell under the sole control of the Priory group." The Priory group he explains were mainly the close students of Geshe Kelsang.

Whilst the phrase sounds menacing, the meaning is rather banal. Since the death of Lama Yeshe the FPMT ceased to have any interest in Manjushri Center and in the published literature from 1984 owards the center makes no reference to an affiliation with the FPMT. The legal loophole was merely the final step in a process that actually occured many years before. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

According to Kay page 67: The development of NKT is based on revisionism on its history and it started 1984 while the Institute was still associated with FPMT "The revisionism characterising the presentation of NKT today can thus be traced back to this time." So it is the repression of the history which gives rise to that situation that FPMT is not mentioned anymore. This is also stated at page 84: that NKT "making no reference at all to FPMT. The renaming of the Institute as Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre in 1991 also facilitated the NKT's project of consciously forgetting his FPMT roots. These attempts to write the FPMT out of its group history is an aspect of NKT's idendity that current FPMT members, praticulary those who have actively supported the early development of Manjushri Institute, find particulary objectionable." --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover it is stated the the Library of Manjushri with 3000 books were removed step by step and even books from Gelug Teachers when NKT was founded.

This has been widely discussed and included in various versions of the article. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

Yes you put an accunt of Ven. Kelsang Khyenrab at [[4]] and we discussed it. Anyway it is remarkable that NKT also removed Gelug texts. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When GKG started to found an own center in York 1979 he was asked to resign, so that a more suitable Geshe can take over as resident teacher in Manjushri Institute, which prompted the response of many close students of him and they asked him to stay, on which he agreed.

This I already posted as information on our discussion about Manjushri Center's seperation from FPMT. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

I remarked it, because you did deny that GKG was involved in the conflict. And the establishing of the York centre created a conflict too, allthough GKG did deny this. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the Priory Group (the close students of Geshe Kelsang) which got dissatisfied with the FMPT's increasingly centralized organisation. At the end the conflict were mediated in 1984 by the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London and there were found an agreement to resolve this dispute...

And??? (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

This sheds light, that the process of the split was based on the close disciples of GKG which attended his General Program, were bound by the closer Tantric Empowerments (and influence) to GKG and that they were the people which became dissatified with FPMT/Lama Yeshe as I guessed yet in an earlier discussion. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So what I wish to add is a little bit better background which led to the founding of NKT and its history. We have now a quite white washed version which should be corrected to the facts and gives a correct overview. Kay states also that the history of that time was repressed by NKT and this repression we have now in the article too. I don't wish this.

All of the above points are covered in the existing article with the level of detail appropriate. Remember nearly everything you reference took place in the late 70's or early to mid 80's. NKT was established in 1991. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

Some points we have, but the Dalai Lama is not mentioned and for Trijang Rinpoche we have no reference. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly the main feature of NKT is the Guru-Yoga and the reliance on "only one Guru and his teachings and his protector". This is missed in the article (we had this in the respond section yet),

It is quite clear in the Article that there is only one living Root/Main teacher or Guru in the NKT. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

and also that the interpretation of the Guru Yoga is different to the mainstream.

This I strongly dispute. There is nothing unusual in the teachings on Guru Yoga within NKT. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

See page 91 of Kay Discussions of the guru-disciple relationship appearing in his publications from this time reflect an exclusivism that did not characterise his earlier presentation and which is uncommon within traditional Tibetan contexts and the following pages and also the discussion we still had in the discussion pages like: Reliance_on_the_Spiritual_Guide and Reliance_on_the_Spiritual_Guide_cont. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Further NKT's/GKG's main focus on ‘purity’ and his exclusivism should be included too. Also Neil Elliot (Gen Kelsang Thubten - GKG's first successor and heart desciple) who had a big influence for the development of NKT should be mentioned in the article too, I think.

further the break away from the Gelug Authorities like Ling Rinpoche and HHD. (the dedication towards them in GKG first books were later deleted and HHDL pictures were removed.)

The seperation from the Gelug Authorities is also made abundantely clear in the existing article and has been extensively discussed. To the best of my knowledge there was never a dedication to HH Ling Rinpoche in any of Geshe Kelsang's books although there is a Praise of Clear Light of Bliss written by HH Ling Rinpoche which is still included in the most recent editions. HH the Dalai Lama on the other hand has taken such a strong stance against the teaching in NKT that it is hardly a suprise to see this dedication ceased to be appropriate (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

see the extraction below (page 89): "Revisions made to the list of Mahamudra lineage gurus in the second edition of Clear Light of Bliss, published in 1992, are equally revealing. In the first edition, the lineage breaks into two branches from the time of Panchen Losang Ckogyen (1570-1662) before recombining in Phabongkha Rinpoche, who is followed by Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche, the 'current holder of the throne of Ganden' (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: iv). In the second edition, by contrast, a simplified lineage is presented which excises one of the two earlier branches and omits Ling Rinpoche altogether, replacing his name with that of 'Dorjechang Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche' (i.e. Geshe Kelsang)." --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful to Behold was dedicated to HHDL by Geshe Kelsang, this passage was removed in later editions. [Avanze]

It is also important to understand some other background. Accept for one year (I think 1979) Geshe Kelsang did not consider himself to be an FPMT teacher. Whilst he continued to remain at Manjushri Center it was at the request of Student's there, I do not believe he had any legal authority over the assets of the building. It was only in 1991 when Geshe Kelsang invited the students of Majushri, Madhayamaka Center and several other centers to join NKT that he had any formal or legal relationship with Manjushri or any other center. This means that the Center was run by students not Geshe's and that any dispute ultimately was over the students ability to control the assets of their own center. Below is some useful background also from Kaye's book:

"Background to FPMT Center Geshe's from Kaye's book

Not all the geshes (who taught in FPMT centers) shared Lama Yeshe’s vision of Gelug Buddhism in the West or understood themselves to be part of it. This was the case with Geshe Loden, the teacher at Chenrezig Institute in Australia who opted out of the organisation in 1979. It was also the case with Geshe Kelsang who at the time of the Madhyamaka Dispute refused to sign a Geshe Agreement with which he had been presented, claiming that ‘I have had nothing to do with the FPMT before or after 1979’. ...From the notes to Chapter 3: It appears that the other resident Geshe at Manjushri Institute, Jampa Tekchog, was also unwilling to sign the contract. In light of what his students have told me about him and his relationship with the FPMT, it is quite likely that Geshe Konchog Twewang (another teacher at MI) did not sign either."

you did not refere to the page 66: "From 1984, the Manjushri Institute was developing independently of the FPMT framework. Allthough Geshe Konchog Tsewang continued to teach Geshe studies to students there, the main source of authority at the Institute was Geshe Kelsang." To understand this it is helpful to remember that he was picked up as a (Guest) teacher by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa and that he was just one of two Resident Teacher in Lama Yeshes main centre in the West and that mainly his students were dissatisfied with the FPMT and that GKG accuses Lama Yeshe and FPMT to destroy the pure Dharma, based on GKG's exclusive Gelug approach which contradicted the inclusive and open approach of Lama Yeshe (manifested also in the Library with its 3000 books). Of course he was no FPMT Teacher but a guest in the center in shich Lama Yeshe was the spiritual director. The dipute raised up by the Priory Group could not been overcome really. And so it seemed needless to FPMT to engage further....as FPMT describes it (page 83 of Kays research):

"The conflict between Geshe Kelsang and the FPMT in the early 1980s provoked feelings of anger and disappointment amongst many FPMT students, feelings that remain unabated today. These students often explain the emergence of the NKT in terms of the desire for power and prestige that, they believe, motivated Geshe Kelsang first to attempt to 'seize control' of the Institute and eventually to 'steal' it from its mother organisation. The origin of this drive for power is variously explained - as a result, for example, of the excessive devotion he received, upon arriving in England, from naive and undiscriminating Western practitioners; or as a product of his 'Extreme envy' of Lama Yeshe, who was formerly a junior student to him in Sera Je monastery but who had now become the key personality behind a growing worldwide network of centres. The emergence of the NKT is thus described as the growth of a 'personality cult' , orchestrated by a 'totally unscrupulous rogue geshe' through the 'cynical manipulation' of students and the 'transference of [their] loyalty and devotion' via the practice of guru devotion." --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What do other editors think on that? --Kt66 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Neil Elliot could be introduced - but it would probably be under a 'controversies' section of the article. I seem to recall his position was suspended when he confessed to a sexual liaison that occured while he was a monk. (20040302)

I meant his enthusiastic drive to spread and establish NKT, he was one of the most active forces in the begining and had the direct link to Geshe Kelsang. The other point I would not use in the article. However until next week I will be absent. Take Care and thank your for working on the article. By the way you made a suggestion on the cult claim. We should in a way come to decision or further discussion how we describe it NPOV. Thanks a lot. What does Robert and Patrick think? --Kt66 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I responded to the main points above. Apart from perhaps mentioning the active role of the then Gen Thubten in establishing NKT and articulating its self identity - BTW the "enthusiastic drive" of Gen Thubten led to the founding of Heruka Center London, for which I am tremendously grateful because it was through this center that I met with Buddha Dharma, please consider this. I think the History and Teaching section is fine as it stands. Re the Cult discussion I will need to review once again the main points. (Robertect 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you I put some answers to it. --Kt66 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

revision of the ordination section

The paragraph as we have it doesn't seem to be very proper. So I suggest to revise it based on the discussion and suggestion we still had + Thubten Choedroens Site: "The ceremony of ordination as a sramanera or sramanerika (novice) is conducted on the basis of having taken the lay precepts of an upasaka/upasika, and rabjung (renunciation, leaving the householder's life). Then one takes the novice vow of a sramanera/sramanerika. The ceremony consists of preparation, actual practice, and conclusion.." + [5] "Levels of Ordination 1.Someone who has completed a period of two years as a temporary monastic may make a request to the Monastic Council that they be considered for Parma Rabjung ordination. This level of ordination is a lifetime commitment and is held for one to two years before taking the next level of ordination. 2. Further levels of vows are novice and full ordination." + To light how important the Vinaya in Buddhism is one can listen to the Vinayastutra (Buddhas words): "As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides, The lamp of Dharma shall abide."+"In many Sutras and Shastras it is clearly stated that the single innermost treasure of the Buddhadharma is the Pratimoksha discipline." (His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Advice from Buddha Shakyamuni) + Je Tsongkhapa: "The Sugata’s doctrine’s supreme essence, Which is known as pratimoksha" --> taken from past discussion

My suggestion is:

Geshe Kelsang gives for his followers an ordination based on 10 vows. This ordination is comparable with the Rabjung (tib.) ordination, which is a lifetime commitment and is held normally for one to two years before taking the next level of ordination of Novice (tib. Getsul) and full monk or full nun (tib. Gelong or Gelongma). The novice and full ordination, as laid down by the Buddha in the Vinaya and in the Pratimoksha sutras, are not given within NKT, so that the complete Vinaya is not present. The complete Vinaya is described as the "the essence of the doctrine".

Geshe Kelsang himself argues that he designed the ten vows of NKT ordination to be appropriate for living in the modern world and that the skilfull practioner can gradually learn to incorporate the vinaya within these 10 vows. The first five vows of NKT ordination are in accordance with the Rules of novice monks and novice nuns, but the last five additional vows differ from it. In the past Geshe Kelsang has said that Lamrim as taught in his book "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" can also be considered the Vinaya text for NKT practitioners. The guiding principle of ordination in the NKT is the motivation of renunciation (Tib.: nge-jung).

I will put it in the section because I think the section has now more faults than correct facts. If you don't agree please improve or revert it. Thanks a lot. --23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Missionary drive

I will be not present until the 7th of June perhaps we can think about to inlcude the missionary activity of NKT in the section of the growth. David N Kays states in his research on NKT:

"The missionary imperative

The NKT's self-identity as a source of pure Buddhism in a world of decline and degeneration has instilled a missionary- drive within the organisation. The purpose of the NKT, as it has been conceived by Geshe Kelsang, is to ensure the continuation of Tsong Khapa's pure tradition by spreading it all over the world through the creation of Dharma centres and the training of teachers. NKT students in Britain who have encountered Geshe Kelsang's 'doctrine of good fortune' have a responsibility to 'help spread his precious teachings to every corner of the world' (19) by establishing and teaching in centres overseas, by sponsoring and translating his books into non-English languages, or just by supporting the growth of new centres financially.

According to NKT literature, whilst Buddha Sakyamuni, Tsong Khapa and Geshe Kelsang have all 'introduced the same Dharma into the world', the uncommon contribution of the latter has been 'to lay down the structures to ensure that this precious Dharma will spread throughout the world'.(20) The publishing activity of the organisation is regarded as another key mechanism of growth. Since one of the most common ways in which people are attracted to the NKT is through reading Geshe Kelsang's books, it is considered imperative to publish them in every language and 'get them into every book shop in the world' (21) Much emphasis is also placed on equipping NKT teachers with effective presentational techniques. Training in teaching skills within the organisation originally took the form of occasional short courses run by Gen Thubten Gyatso, but it has now been integrated as a regular component of the Teacher Training Programme. A number of passages in Gen Thubten Gyatso's Notes on Teaching Skills are revealing about the organisation's missionary ambitions. NKT teachers should 'not worry about converting people at the beginning' but should concentrate instead on building up a supportive environment and a friendly rapport with their group, because 'If we feel that the Teacher understands us and is sympathetic to us, we will naturally feel close to him or her, and keep coming back.'

The will to grow and expand is another element of the NKT's self-identity that has met with criticism from non-NKT Buddhists. Ken Jones (1996) is critical of the 'unhealthy' dominance of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), Soka Gakkai International (SGI) UK and the NKT on the British Buddhist landscape, characterising these movements as 'forceful and extrovert organisations where recruitment of new members is a major activity'. Others have claimed that the methods of recruitment outlined in Notes on Teaching Skills are deceptive and that a deliberate aim of group meditation within the organisation is to 'induce a pleasant trance-like state, in which the critical faculties are dimmed' so that the meditator 'becomes increasingly suggestible to group doctrine'. (22) Geshe Kelsang's response to such criticisms is that every organisation 'tries to attract more people with appropriate publicity' and that Gen Thubten's advice 'is free from any intention to trick or manipulate people'.(23)

The NKT has become sensitive to outside criticism on the subject of expansion and maintains that its emphasis on spreading NKT Buddhism is not 'empire building' but stems from a pure motivation to benefit others. The growth of the NKT, according to one student, 'is not something I see coming from the NKT's side':...." (Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation by David N. Kay, London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, pages 95/96).

What do other editors think? Nice and relaxing time, --Kt66 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quote from Kays includes several references - is it possible for you to include those references - especially 19 and 20? (20040302)

Yes I will do it. --Kt66 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I think this statement is incorrect - "NKT students in Britain who have encountered Geshe Kelsang's 'doctrine of good fortune' have a responsibility to 'help spread his precious teachings to every corner of the world' (19)". From my experience, there is no responsibility at all. Most people who come to the centre I live in just go to a General Programme class or the Foundation Programme, and are not involved in publicity at all. It is entirely a choice that the individual makes, so it is incorrect to say there is a 'responsibility'. As for this kind of missionary drive, from my experience, people are not approached directly and asked to come to an NKT class - all that happens is adverts are put in a shop window or on the internet for meditation classes. This is different to other (non-Buddhist) groups. For example, I have been stopped in the street by Hari Christnars (I think they were) and asked about meditation, and also by Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged (I think they were) who were asking me to give them money.

Cheers Patrick --Patrick K 09:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement was made by NKT itself in their magazine Full Moon. So we can add an account of it. If you feel NKT statements are not right I can agree to it. In the NKT Full Moon magazine it was largely discussed how NKT had difficulties to spread "this stainless treadition" in Spain and how the main responsible NKT teachers studied texts on christian missionaries how they have spread christianity in Spain and adopted their way for the NKT mission. So if your experience contradict NKT policy this is no valid proof that the missionary drive is not there and is the basis of NKT spreading. Also the NKT temple project is an expression of this "Missionary drive". The same is with your experience of not being pressured by NKT to attend classes, a present NKT friend told just the opposite of your experience to a friend of mine. This is due to the fact that NKT centres have different facets and local colours in their approach and this is due to the local NKT teachers personality. (Also Singer, Margaret Thaler: discusses this issue in Cults in Our Midst : The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace, 1992, ISBN 0787967416 on the variety of cults: see page 10: "Cults Are Not All Alike") --Kt66 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Who else is a missionary in Buddhism world?

Titel "The World's Religions", Author: "Ninian Smart", Publisher "Cambridge University Press", Date "28.061998", ISBN 0521637481, page. 72, §4: Buddhism died out in India almost compeletely, but established itself throughout nearly all the rest of South and East Asia. It became one of the three great missionary religions in the world.
Titel "What In Brief Is Buddhism?" ,Author: "Ananda W P Guruge" Publisher "Buddha's Light Publishing" Date "1.08.2004" ISBN 1932293043 page. 1: Buddhism or Buddha Dhamma, as a religion, is unique in many ways. It was the earliest religion of Indian origin to spread beyond the the frontiers of the Subcontinent [...]. it could claim to be the only Indian religion to become a World Religion , in the strict sense of the word. Missionary in character and monastic in organization, it provided ...
Titel "Encyclopedia of Religion", Author: "James Hastings", Publisher: "Kessinger Publishing", ISBN 0766136957, page.590: "Padmasambhawa: This Indian Buddhist missionary...

So, what does it mean when Kay thinks that the NKT is missionary? That they are seen as all buddhists? --Real Friends 21:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

we just discuss the Missionary approach of NKT as a fact. Missionary is not seen as a Buddhist activity. Padmasambhava was invited to Tibet to teach by the King Trisong Detsen. India was a Buddhist Country whereas Spain, missioned by NKT was not ;-) --Kt66 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

Hi everyone, I hope you are well, and Kt66 I hope you have had a good break. It was menioned a few weeks ago that Kt66 would be fine with adding a list of people who were Dorje Shugden practioners, to add balance to the list of people who have spoken against it. So how about adding under 'Response by NKT Practioners section' -

As well as Trijang Rinpoche, other respected Tibetians who have taught the Dorje Shugden practice include Lama Yeshe, Pabongka Rinpoche, Song Rinpoche and Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche.

[6] [7]

Also, I have read on the wiki site of Pabongka Rinpoche that he was the Spirtual Guide for Ling Rinpoche, which suggests to me that Ling Rinpoche would have been a Dorje Shugden practioner. However, I know very little (ie nothing) about this, and there is nothing on the web so does anybody else have any more info?

All the best Patrick --Patrick K 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, re Ling Rinpoche, it seems that he did not practice Dorje Shugden although it is difficult to establish exactly what his position was with respect to this practice because there is very little information. (212.163.154.18 11:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Patrick and 212.163.154.18!

Song Rinpoche and Rinpoche are seen as high Lamas in the Gelug tradition. Ling Rinpoche however never did no practice Dorje Shugden as far as I know. According to Dreyfus Ling Rinpoche, the senior Tutor of HH the Dalai Lama and Ganden Tripa "offered an alternative to those who did not completely share Trijangs orientation (on the Shugden issue)".

TO GIVE YOU A QUOTE: "Some people think that the practice of Shugden prevents Lama Tsong Khapa’s teachings from degenerating and promotes their development. But there have been many Gelug lamas who without practicing Shugden, spread Buddhadharma, spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa like the sky. Lamas like Their Holinesses the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dalai Lamas, Ling Rinpoche and Kachen Yeshe Gyaltsen—a great, well-known Tibetan lama who wrote many, many teachings and not only didn’t practice Shugden but also advised against the practice.

Purchog Jampa Rinpoche, a very high lama of Sera Je Monastery and an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, wrote against the practice of Shugden in the Monastery’s constitution. Jangkya Rölpa’i Dorje and Jangkyang Ngawang Chödrön, who wrote many excellent texts, also advised against this practice, as did Tenpa’i Wangchuk, the Eighth Panchen Lama, and Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen, the Fourth Panchen Lama, who composed the Guru Puja and wrote many other teachings, and Ngulchu Dharmabhadra. All these great lamas, and many other highly accomplished scholars and yogis who preserved and spread the stainless teaching of Lama Tsong Khapa, recommended that Shugden not be practiced.

This point is very important, because people think that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the only one trying to stop the practice of Shugden. Therefore, the people who are practicing it get negative towards His Holiness. But His Holiness is not the only one. There are many other high lamas who, in monastery constitutions, have advised their monasteries not to practice, or, if they are practicing, to stop. There are many, many lamas who have done this." see http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamazopa/shugden.shtml

Take care, --Kt66 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV brick

Hi Patrick, Robert and 2nd March. I will answer in the next days. I re-added the cult claim because there is enough evidence for it and removed the NPOV brick. If there is a reason for the NPOV brick than it should be discussed here, I think. All the best --Kt66 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this message is more suitable. WP says this is a "message used to mark articles that may be biased". I have the feeling that this article (and some of the authors) is clearly biased against the NKT. If everything was ok with the article you wouldn't need to discuss it over hundreds of pages, would you? If you can't accept this message to warn the reader I would have to assume that you are trying to hide something. --Marpa 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just show the faults of being biased in the article. I will put some pages on NKT research this evening than you can check it with that. Please give good reasons for being biased article and note the fact that the article is based on Pro-NKT editors too. Thank you very much. --Kt66 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, you seem to be the only one who doesn't like to see this message at the top of the article. You don't seem to mind a similar message at the top of the discussion page. Many readers may not visit the discussion page though. They should be informed that the subject of this article is controversial and is being discussed at length on this page. If the subject of the article is not disputed just stop disputing it and the message can be removed. Thanks --Marpa 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marpa, I have no problem to discuss the neutrality of the article but is is stated to give reasons (not feelings) for the addition of the message at the article page on the talk page. This I miss. The only thing I got is that you feel it could be biased. The information is needed if the article is biased. So either you give good reasons or it is deleted. Thank your very much. --Kt66 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just read the article slowly. Then tell me what you think. Don't you find it rather negative? There must be some good qualities about the work of the NKT. I had a look at their website. Why don't you write a paragraph on these beautiful temples and include some pictures? Why not a paragraph on these international and national festivals and celebrations? Why not a paragraph on this apparantly new development of Western teachers? I'm sure you can find even more positive things to write about. What you did yesterday was just the opposite, you made it more biased. I'll put the message back where it belongs. --Marpa 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marpa, for the NPOV policy there is a guideline. Either you show what in the article is not NPOV or I will remove it. The Temples are mentioned, the NKT teachers are mentioned, the programm of NKT is mentioned, the centres and books are mentioned. Cites were given of NKT webesites and publications and there is a respond section. You are most welcome to improve the article further if it lacks anything. NPOV is different from lacking something. This NPOV policy in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals. see also Wikipedia:POV_check and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

The NPOV check says:

explain your reasons on the talk page of the article that needs checking and
For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, POV, and explain the reasons on the talk page.
In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

If there is something wich is not presented fairly and without bias and not from a neutral point of view you are most welcome to show this, point this out, criticize this and improve this, but mere claiming it is NPOV is not the way. Especially the extended section on the history is based on unbiased scientific source and the author himself critizizes the bias of dealing with NKT history. Simply the fact that the history of NKT is difficult and based on a split or shism is not an indication of representing this fact as not NPOV or bias. So please either make clear were there is bias or not NPOV or I will delete it once more, because POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification. Thank you and welcome as a new editor. --Kt66 09:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On Kays research on NKT

Dear Editors. I will pass some more information on NKT based on David N Kays research which I can in all the main parts of it agree to and most of it can confirm by my own experience when associated with NKT. My main wish was to hinder NKT to misuse Wikipedia for their bowdlerised and spinning information policy and to have a correct article available for the interest reader. My main wish to have proper information on the New Kadampa Tradition is fulfilled by the doctorial research on NKT by David N. Kay, there is almost nothing I have to add to it. Indeed it is a deep insight and profound and I can recommend it by heart.

On basis of this reliable source (which is seen as a standard for Wikipedia articles but not as a must) I will give some further notices. Please be so kind and put your commends under that sum to avoid confusing that contribution. Thank you.

The many different, opposing views on NKT history can be understood as stated by Kay at page: 82 citing (Coney 1997):

Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships.

and his statement on page 82: Accounts of current and former members either reinforce or contradict and compete with each other.

To summarize some parts on NKT on which the research sheds light:

NKT derived from a split, a shism of FPMT and Gelug school. Pages 53, 82: "The pre-history of the group (NKT) is rooted in conflict and shism..", Page 88: "The creation of NKT was thus as shismatic event…" this is confirmed also in the book review of Inken Prohl who wrote: "The founder of the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (b. 1931), was originally brought to Britain to teach at an FPMT center, but in 1991 he split from this organization in order to found the NKT. This schism..." see http://www.globalbuddhism.org/7/prohl06.htm To avoid picking up just some statements from the context and thereby giving a biased view I will give a longer citation of some pages of the research below.
To balance Roberts exclusive extraction from the book I will also give two pages on the conflict which shows it in a broader perspective.
Geshe Kelsang was quite involved in the split from FPMT and Lama Yeshe and used the topic on purity/impurity to accuse FPMT/Lama Yeshe to destroy the Buddhadharma. A short extract of the book, page 66 "The statements he made during the dispute reflected his differing ideological position. His criticisms of Lama Yeshe and the FPMT, for example, would often be couched in terms of the destruction of the 'purity' of the Dharma. According to Geshe Kelsang, the creation., of the_central governing organisation of the FPMT by Lama Yeshe had 'mixed the Dharma with politics' and thereby destroyed it. The notion of 'purity' was to become one of the defining characteristics of Geshe Kelsang's presentation of Buddhism in Britain through the NKT. Whilst it would be inaccurate to suggest that the same degree of exclusivism characterizing his vision of Buddhism in the West today also characterized his vision in 1983, the purity/impurity polemic employed during the dispute does indicate a leaning to the clerical exclusive pole. This orientation lent support to the unfolding conflict and, in turn, it appears to have been hardened by it."

Now follows some page extracts from the research to support passages and critics which were mentioned yet. Thank your for taking them into consideration. --Kt66 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kay on the history of NKT

citation of the pages 82-83:

Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships. (Coney 1997)

Leaderships exclude memories by expelling individual malcontents or by simply not referring to unwelcome historical facts until they 'cease to be part of the group repertoire of memories'. Changing the name of the leader or group also allows memories associated with previous designations to fade whilst promoting the creation of new memories. The project of deliberately excluding histories, however, is not always completely successful because repressed memories 'can return to haunt the margins of a discourse and continue, despite their apparent absence, to influence its structure'. Alternatively, competing versions of events may only become temporarily submerged within the dominant account and may later 'rise again to the surface of the collective memory'.

The NKT is a religious movement in which the dynamics of history construction, as outlined by Coney, are well exemplified. Multiple 'histories' exist on an individual and public group level both inside and outside the move¬ment. As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism the social organisation of memory and forgetfulness especially the group's leadership is particularly striking. Accounts of current and former members either reinforce or contradict and compete with each other. They diverge widely over points of historical detail and often interpret the same events and processes in very different ways, reflecting a wide range of personal experience, depth of involvement, bias, opinion and loyalty. At the level of public discourse, the history and identity of the NKT has also, during the course of its development, undergone considerable realignment. Of course, such revision and reconfiguration of the past is commonplace within religious movements that are more concerned with issues of identity and ideology than with notions of historical veracity.

It is important that the observer looking at the NKT today accounts for the substantial pre-history of the movement's emergence in Britain, examining carefully the forces that influenced Geshe Kelsang's thought and the direction of his centres in the years preceding the NKT's announcement in 1991. Otherwise, there is a danger that the pre-history of the group might be (mis)placed within a narrative of continuity; that is, understood as if the features characterising the organisation today were always part of its outlook. Such anachronistic readings of the group's history are not uncommon among both NKT disciples and non-NKT Buddhists alike, who often place the group's emergence into a simplified teleological narrative, albeit for quite different personal and ideological reasons. Other disciples retain a greater awareness of the complexities of the group's historical emergence in spite of the leadership's attempts, at the public level of discourse, to eradicate certain Unwelcome memories' of discontinuity and conflict by presenting an overarching narrative of continuity.

Individuals who are most likely to place the NKT's emergence within an overarching narrative of continuity fall within two main groupings: on the one hand, certain longstanding students within the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) whose dealings with Geshe Kelsang and the Manjushri Institute terminated in the early 1980s; and, on the other, current NKT disciples whose involvement does not predate the forma¬tion of the organisation in 1991. Both groupings tend to lack an adequate awareness of the historical development of Geshe Kelsang's emergent network during the 1980s, and their very different backgrounds and personal experiences ensure that their assessments are poles apart.

The conflict between Geshe Kelsang and the FPMT in the early 1980s provoked feelings of anger and disappointment amongst many FPMT students, feelings that remain unabated today. These students often explain the emergence of the NKT in terms of the desire for power and prestige that, they believe, motivated Geshe Kelsang first to attempt to 'seize control' of the Institute and eventually to 'steal' it from its mother organisation. The origin of this drive for power is variously explained - as a result, for example, of the excessive devotion he received, upon arriving in England, from naive and undiscriminating Western practitioners; or as a product of his 'Extreme envy' of Lama Yeshe, who was formerly a junior student to him in Sera Je monastery but who had now become the key personality behind a growing worldwide network of centres. The emergence of the NKT is thus described as the growth of a 'personality cult', orchestrated by a 'totally unscrupulous rogue geshe' through the 'cynical manipulation' of students and the 'transference of [their] loyalty and devotion' via the practice of guru devotion.

Current disciples of Geshe Kelsang whose association with him is relatively recent also tend to place the NKT's emergence within a narrative of continuity that bypasses its actual historical development. These disciples, who usually have little or no awareness of the early history of the organjsation, assume that since Geshe Kelsang is an 'enlightened being', the creation of the NKT had always been his intention. They tend to explain the years preceding 1991 as a penodf in which he Carefully and deliberately planned, prepared and laid the foundations for the later organisation. This approach to the NKT's historical development reflects the dominant narrative that has been publicly promoted by the leadership of the organisation. The 'official' version of the NKT's history has been reluctant to admit that Geshe Kelsang's thought has undergone considerable development and change during his time in the West. It has also, in Coney's (1997) terms, repressed the 'uncomfortable Other' of the Institute's conflict with the FPMT, ironing out the discontinuities in favour of a strong,…." --Kt66 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kay on the Purity and impurity approach of NKT

page 86. Waterhouse rightly observes that a fundamental element of the NKT's self-identity is 'the notion of the purity of Geshe Kelsang's lineage and the importance of maintaining that purity in practice’ (Waterhouse 1997: 151). According to the literature of the organisation, Geshe Kelsang united his centres as the NKT 'in acknowledgment of their pure lineage from Je Tsongkhapa', and the explicit constitutional aim of the organisation is to preserve and promote this pure lineage as it has been handed on by Geshe Kelsang via the organisation's threetier study structure. This is based exclusively upon the teachings contained in his texts, believed by members of the NKT to embody the pure lineage in its according to the teacher at Tushita Centre, Blackburn,

The NKT is pure Buddhadharma; it isn't invented in any way, it's just as if Buddha Shakyamuni revealed it [...] So I guess you could say from that point of view that there is nothing better to be found. And that is the defining characteristic of the NKT: it's pure Dharma, everything else is a distraction. That's the core of it, the important thing about it. Everything else is just the icing on the cake.

The lineage represented by Geshe Kelsang is considered to be 'pure' because it has not been mixed with or diluted by the teachings of other traditions. One disciple explained the notion of purity as follows:

You may have one pure tradition and another pure tradition. If you mix them what you get is a mish-mash without any purity and you have destroyed two traditions. So we're very strict on keeping the purity of the tradition. There is nothing invented and nothing taken away. It's completely pure so we can rely on it.

Geshe Kelsang is believed to have faithfully represented the teachings he received from his root guru, Trijang Rinpoche, who in turn faithfully trans¬mitted the teachings of his root guru, Phabongkha Rinpoche, 'and so on all the way back to Buddha Shakyamuni'. --Kt66 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kays chapter of Critique of contemporary Buddhist practice

Conceptions of time and history within the Buddhist tradition describe an oscillating system involving alternating periods of improvement and degeneration (Nattier 1991). There is a consensus within the textual sources that the universe is currently in the lower reaches of an extended period of decline. Within the Buddhalogical framework, this decline is attributed both to the fail¬ings of Buddhists themselves and to the actions of those outside the Buddhist community (e.g. the persecution of Buddhism by secular authorities). According to Nattier, the anticipation of the disappearance of Buddhism within a finite number of centuries has, within much of South, South-East and Inner Asian Buddhism, led to the adoption of

a fierce conservatism, devoted to the preservation for as long as possible of the Buddha's teachings in their original form [...] Thus the impulse to preservation (and, accordingly, the tendency to deny any change that may actually have taken place) is both understandable and expected. (Nattier 1991:137)

The view of time and history presented by Geshe Kelsang and the NKT is traditional in its depiction of a universe oscillating between periods of relative progress and decline. Most attention is given to a specifically Gelug framework, which sees Tsong Khapa as 'the Second Buddha' (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 166) appearing to reform and restore the pure teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni at a time when they had fallen into decline. History subsequent to Tsong Khapa is seen as one of progressive degeneration again, and modern practitioners are encouraged to view their spiritual guide as 'like a second Buddha for us, showing us the path and leading us to liberation and enlightenment* (Kelsang Gyatso 1992:179).

When discussing the 'internal' causes for the decline and demise of Buddhism, the scriptures most commonly single out factors like the lack of dili¬gent meditation, carelessness in transmitting the teachings, the appearance of false Dharma and the excessive association with secular society. There is no doubt that for Geshe Kelsang and the NKT, the decline of Buddhism in the modern world can be attributed to failings such as these within the Buddhist community. The organisation has, in fact, been outspoken in its criticism of the groups it holds responsible for the modern degeneration of Buddhism, and the two main groupings singled out are Western Buddhist practitioners on the one hand, and the contemporary Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism on the other.

Although Geshe Kelsang's use of the doctrine of decline is traditional in many respects, the emphasis that he has placed upon the modern degeneration of Buddhism is unusual. Other Gelug lamas have not dwelt upon this image to the same degree,6 or used it so explicitly as part of an overall critique of contemporary Buddhist, and specifically Gelug, belief and practice. Geshe Kelsang's use of the image of degeneration is not surprising in light of the strand of Gelug Buddhism that he represents, a current that has defined itself as a bastion of purity against other elements within the tradition that corrupt the teachings with their open eclecticism. His exaggerated perception of the widespread decline of Gelug Buddhism has instilled a 'fierce conservatism' and urgency into the NKTs self-identity as an embodiment and protectorate of Tsong Khapcts pure tradition.

From an NKT perspective, the responsibility for the modern degeneration of Buddhism lies, in part, with Western practitioners, whose habitually open and eclectic orientation towards spiritual practice is believed to have damaged the transformative power of the various Buddhist traditions in the West. The tendency of westerners to 'pick and mix' traditions and create 'a sort of western soup' is regarded by one NKT practitioner as 'the biggest threat [to Buddhism] that westerners have'. The inclusivism of westerners is also believed to pose a specific threat to the continued existence of Tsong Khapa's pure tradition. Geshe Kelsang's books and study programmes are thus believed to have been 'specially written for people in degenerate times'7 because their structured, systematic and focused nature skilfully responds to the 'handicap' of the Western mind which 'is fickle and finds it difficult to accept tradition' and is 'always wanting to choose bits from here and there, to be eclectic'.

NKT students are often aware of and sensitive towards criticisms levelled against the organisation from outside which reject its approach as unhelpfully restrictive, and can offer well-versed and articulate defences of their more focused orientation. In turn, though critical of Western Buddhist practice generally, they rarely single out specific organisations as embodiments of impure practice. This is partly out of a concern not to speak ill of other Buddhists and partly out of a self-professed ignorance of other Buddhist traditions, a common trait amongst NKT students and a natural consequence of the exclusive approach encouraged by Geshe Kelsang.

The one tradition about which Geshe Kelsang has been explicitly outspoken, however, is the modern Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism. During his teachings at the NKT Spring Festival of 1995, he maintained that contemporary Gelug Buddhism was in a state of 'serious degeneration'. This critique is echoed by practitioners throughout the organisation who regularly define the NKT's purity in contradistinction to the impurity of modern Gelug Buddhism. The excessive involvement of monks in Tibetan political affairs and the preponderance of worldly and materialistic motivations are often cited as causes of degeneration. The tendency of Gelug practitioners to 'mix their tradition with other traditions' and the absence of a balanced combination of intellectual study and meditational practice within the sect are also emphasised.

The creation of the NKT in 1991 was thus a schismatic event, marking the formal separation of Geshe Kelsang and his network of centres from the degen¬erate religio-political world of Tibetan Gelug Buddhism. It was prompted by his radically exclusive belief that the Gelug sect itself had now become a major threat to the continuation of Tsong Khapas tradition in the modern world, and that he could protect the purity of the teachings only by severing all connections with it. In terms of his criticisms of Gelug belief and practice, Geshe Kelsang is firmly rooted within the exclusively orientated strand of the Gelug tradition, particularly as it was represented by Phabongkha Rinpoche. However, the fact that Gelug exclusivism went to the extreme of establishing a new and independent religious movement can be seen either as an innovation or as a departure from tradition.

Within the NKT, statements declaring the organisation as a modern and 'Western' form of Buddhism abound. In defining the movement in this way, the organisation is not simply maintaining that it represents Buddhism adapted for westerners; it is also striving to underline its separation from the Tibetan Gelug sect and emphasise the point that the West - via the NKT - is now the guardian and custodian of the pure tradition of Tsong Khapa in the modern world. From an NKT viewpoint, Geshe Kelsang has played a unique role in the transmission of Tsong Khapa’s pure teachings, and the organisation and study structures he has created in the West are now believed to protect and preserve a tradition that is all but lost in its indigenous Eastern context. Geshe Kelsang has also underlined the separation between himself and the wider Gelug sect through making a number of revisions to the later editions of his earlier publications. Dedications to the long life of the Dalai Lama found in editions of Meaningful to Behold prior to the creation of the NKT, for example, are omitted from the fourth edition published in 1994- Revisions made to the list of Mahamudra lineage gurus in the second edition of Clear Light of Bliss, published in 1992, are equally revealing. In the first edition, the lineage breaks into two branches from the time of Panchen Losang Ckogyen (1570-1662) before recombining in Phabongkha Rinpoche, who is followed by Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche, the 'current holder of the throne of Ganden' (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: iv). In the second edition, by contrast, a simplified lineage is presented which excises one of the two earlier branches and omits Ling Rinpoche altogether, replacing his name with that of 'Dorjechang Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche' (i.e. Geshe Kelsang). Long-standing disciples of Geshe Kelsang have not been able to offer a clear explanation as to why he has made these revisions. One possible explanation for the simplification of the lineage has been offered by Paul Williams. He suggests that by retaining the lineage branch which includes the names of several Panchen Lamas, Geshe Kelsang may be creating a lineage and identity that is more closely aligned with the Panchen Lamas and their perceived rivalry with the central government of the Dalai Lamas. Geshe Kelsang's reasons for omitting Ling Rinpoche from the lineage, and for dropping the reference to his position within the Gelug hierarchy as the Ganden Tripa as well as all references to the Dalai Lama, are more obvious. These omissions enabled him to dissociate himself from the two main authority figures within the Gelug monastic system whilst promoting himself as the principal authentic disciple and direct lineage descendent of Trijang Rinpoche and Phabongkha Rinpoche…

Kays note on NKT exclusivism and the uncommon of NKT Guru Yoga

(short citation of page 91) The importance of cultivating a mind of faith and devotion in a qualified guru or lama is a fundamental element of all Tibetan Buddhist belief and practice, especially in personal Tantric practice where the guru may be explicitly combined and identified with the yidam (meditational deity). Teachings on guru devotion and guru-yoga naturally form an important part of the texts composed by Geshe Kelsang, and his general presentation of this concept is rooted firmly within traditional Tibetan outlines of the guru-disciple relationship. His teachings on this subject have, nevertheless, changed and developed during his time in the West and they now incorporate a number of unusual features. The main shift in his thought occurred with the creation of the NKT. Discussions of the guru-disciple relationship appearing in his publications from this time reflect an exclusivism that did not characterise his earlier presentation and which is uncommon within traditional Tibetan contexts....

The uncommon on NKT Guru Yoga is the litrally taken view of Geshe Kelsang as a Buddha and the exclusive reliance on him, his teachings and his books and his sole power. The hierarchy is exactly as described by Singer for cult leaders (see Singer, Margaret Thaler: Cults in Our Midst, ISBN 0787967416, pages 7 ff, The first and second of three points: "Origin of the Group and role of the leader" and "Relationship between Leader and followers). On page 8 ...imagine an iverted T, the leader is alone on the top, and the followers are all on the bottom.

Citation of the NKT Full Moon 1994 Gen Kelsang Thubten, successor of GKG at that time wrote in the article "On Training as a Teachers": "There is only one Teacher in the NKT, Geshe Kelsang; all other NKT Teachers are his emanations."
Under the headline of "The NKT's organisational structure" page 84 Kay cites a "senior member" and long-standing NKT monk "The NKT hierarchy is Geshe Kelsang; and then there's a successor, someone who will be the spiritual director of the NKT after Geshe Kelsang passes away; and then there's everybody else, all on the same level really."
„The exclusive reliance on Geshe Kelsang encouraged within NKT is transferred to his texts with the claim that they (GKG books) are ‘scriptures, an emanation of the mind of the holy being’.” quote Full Moon magazine winter 1997
NKT magazine Full Moon, Spring 1995, Gen Thubten wrote: "People call Je Tsongkhapa the Second Buddha, not becasuse he replaced Buddha Shakyamuni but because he restored the essential doctrine of the Buddha and showed hwo it could practice in impure times. From this viewpoint, we have to say that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the Third Buddha, because he has once again restored the essential purity of Buddha's doctrine and shown how to practice it in extreme impure times."

The student must be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once

on page 92 Kay states: 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 crit¬ical enquiry 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 experienced 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 practise 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).

The emphasis Geshe Kelsang placed in his earlier texts upon adopting an exclusive approach to one's spiritual tradition was continued following the creation of the NKT. However, this teaching now took place within the organi¬sational and ideological context of the NKT, and it was combined with the new teaching that one should rely exclusively upon only one trusted spiritual guide. Whereas the injunction about committing oneself to a single tradition was previously an attempt to encourage students to practise only the teachings of Lamas within the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, it now became an injunction to practise only within the NKT:

Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely -relying upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 31)

Similarly, whilst the teaching that students should only rely upon teachers who 'share the same lineage and view as our principal Spiritual Guide' (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 102) is not an uncommon view within Tibetan Buddhism, where lamas will often encourage students to study under others who have a similar orientation to themselves, this teaching carried a very specific and untraditional meaning within the context of the NKT. Since students within the organisation have only one spiritual guide, the teaching is in practice an injunction to study only under Geshe Kelsang and teachers who have trained under him. Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.

Just to repeat it: Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.

I used this research as a qualified Wikipedia:reliable sources to improve the article, especialy the history section. Your comments are most welcome. --Kt66 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, to be fair, I have spoken to Zen monks who suggested it to me that the best course of action is to choose one path only and devote yourself utterly to it. this might fit with the NKT approach. Magic Pickle 18:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Their is a difference between following one path or limiting ones own understanding to the interpretation or experience of one person only. Tsongkhapa and Atisha followed one path only but had many teachers.Because every of their teacher had their qualities and strengths in different practices or fields of learning.--BoboLuna 19:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What if NKT are the path to follow? Magic Pickle 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NKT is not a path, its an organisation. --BoboLuna 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify? If, for example I believe the NKT have the correct ideas, it is natural for me to follow the teachings of that organisation exclusively Magic Pickle 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Festivals

Hi everyone, I hope you are well.

Following Marpa's suggestion, I had an idea about adding some info on the NKT Festivals. Maybe something like this -

Throughout the year and in different places in the world, the NKT run a number of Buddhist festivals. These feature teachings and empowerments from senior NKT practioners. The longest running are the Spring and Summer Festivals at the Kadampa Buddhist Temple in Ulverston, England. About 2,500 people travelled from around the world for the empowerment of Green Tara and commentary to the practice from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for the 2006 Spring Festival.

I was also thinking about adding a link at the bottom of the page to a festival diary from the NKT website, maybe this one [[8]] . Would this break any copywrite or wikipedia rules?

Thanks

Patrick --Patrick K 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the sense of adding it into Wikipedia. Feels like advertisement--Bobo Luna 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? This is an article on the NKT, so NKT activities should be part of the article. Marpa 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for including it and avoiding advertisement is:

A part of the religious activities form annual NKT festivals. Throughout the year and in different places in the world, the NKT run a number of NKT festivals. These feature teachings and empowerments from Geshe Kelsang Gytaso or senior NKT teachers. The longest running are the Spring and Summer Festivals at the Manjushri ... Centre in Ulverston, England. In 2006 about 2,500 people travelled from around the world for the empowerment of Green Tara and commentary to the practice from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso for the Spring Festival.

For this we can open a new section on 'Religious Activities and we can include of course also a picture. Why not. --Kt66 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Growth

Hi everyone, hope you are well. I would like to re-write the growth section.

This is the old text -

Due to a missionary attitude[13] developed along with the foundation of the NKT the New Kadampa Tradition has expanded rapidly. As of 2005 they claim to have established over 900 centres worldwide[14], including Europe, Asia, East Asia, North, Central and South America and in South Africa. Some of these centres are residential communities, but most are branch groups that meet weekly in Quaker meeting houses and community centres. The NKT has established a NKT Temple in the United Kingdom, as well as in Canada, the United States, and Spain, and is currently developing Temples in Brazil, Australia, and Italy.

I would like to change it to -

The NKT is a popular Buddhist organisation. As of 2005, it had 800 meditation centres and groups worldwide. These consist of residential centres (teaching introductionary Buddhist meditation classes, day courses, empowerments and retreats) and branch classes (introductionary meditation classes in public buildings such as a library or community centre). Each residential centre may have several branch classes. Most residential centres are in Western Europe and North America, although some are in Asia, Central and South America and South Africa. The number of residents in a centre vary from a few people up to 20, 30 or even 100 in the largest one. The NKT has established an NKT Temple in the United Kingdom, as well as in Canada, the United States, and Spain, and is currently developing Temples in Brazil, Australia, and Italy.

It is suggested that one possible reason for the growth of the NKT is that Geshe Kelsang has tried to immerse the teachings into the country it is located in. Traditional ceremonies have been translated into the local language, and residential teachers are often from that country, rather than Tibet or India. There are also World Peace Cafes at some residential centre, and in 2005 the NKT open their first World Peace Hotel, a no-smoking, alcohol-free hotel in Southern Spain with swimming pool, sauna, and meditation classes.

Another suggestion for the growth has been the use of voluntary work and donations from NKT practioners to develop and run the residential centres. This has been called a missionary attitude[13].

Thanks Patrick --Patrick K 08:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patrick I agree in some points. We can add NKT's activities and combine what we have now. It is a fact that NKT has this missionary drive as shown by Kay and based on NKT's own publishing and Kays research (based on different sources). According to a NKT member, Geshe Kelsang said at one of his festivals that nowadays it is more important to spread NKT than practising the Dharma. This view and that they must spread NKT 'to every corner of the world' is quite clear independent from if you like it or not. According to this NKT member, GKG said at one NKT festival NKT followers can practise the Dharma in the future lifes now they should just work to spread NKT. I see your suggestion just as a way to expell this topic. The point now informs short, factual and unbiased. Normally it would be more wished for to explain it in more detail, but I wanted to find a compromise not to point it out to much. So it is now quite moderate, I think. Just to announce NKT fruits without giving the background of the root for the fruits may work at NKT sites but not at Wikipedia.

Picking up your suggestion and combining it with the section as we still have it and combining it with the scientific research I suggest:

Due to a missionary attitude[13] developed along with the foundation of the NKT the New Kadampa Tradition has expanded rapidly. As of 2005 they claim to have established over 900 centres worldwide[14], including Europe, Asia, East Asia, North, Central and South America and in South Africa. About 200 of these centres are residential communities. The residential centres offer introductionary Buddhist meditation classes, day courses, empowerments and retreats and the branch centres (about 700) offer introductionary meditation classes in public buildings such as a library or community centre.

To finance new centres NKT has built up a New Centres Development Fund^[1]. Once if there has been built up a residential centre the resident teacher starts to offer Buddhist teachings in nearby towns. For this purpose the residential centre rents rooms at public places and offer meditation or Buddhist basics for interested people. By this way local groups are developed.

Another important part of NKT acitivities form the establishing of NKT Temples. The first was built up in ???? in the United Kingdom, later NKT temples were built up in Canada, the United States, and Spain, and NKT is currently developing Temples in Brazil, Australia, Italy and plans to built up one in Germany too.

According to NKT sources the number of residents in a centre vary from a few people up to 20, 30 or even 100 in the largest one.

The power behind the "missionary imperative"^[2] to spread Geshe Kelsangs teachings "into every corner of the world"^[3] can be traced back to Geshe Kelsang's belief that the Gelugpa Tradition is "seriouesly degenerated"^[4] and the belief of his followers that Geshe Kelsang is "the third Buddha, because he has once again (as Tsongkhapa did) restored the essential purity of Buddha's doctrine and shown how to practice it in extremely impure times."^[5]

With the "notion of the purity of Geshe Kelsangs lineage and the importance of maintaining that purity in practice"^[6] combined with the belief that the teachings and the world is in a state of decline^[7] Geshe Kelsang felt the urge to spread this "pure lineage", and his followers have started to translate his books into different languages, built up Tharpa Puiblications, having found centres and translated some traditional ceremonies into the local language. Geshe Kelsang started to educate westerner NKT teachers to spread his teachings to the different countries around the world. These teachers are often from that country. All teachers are his disciples and among them are no Tibetans.

There are also World Peace Cafes at some residential centre, and in 2005 the NKT open their first World Peace Hotel, a no-smoking, alcohol-free hotel in Southern Spain with swimming pool, sauna, and meditation classes.

So something like this. --Kt66 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope you are well.

It may come as no surprise, but I do not agree entirley with everything you have written. Here are my thoughts which have come to mind now, some may come later.

1) As I said above, we need to be careful about how we use research such as Kays. For me, it is not a scientific study. I think a scientific study involves having 2 similar groups, doing an experiment on one, and keeping the other the same, and then comparing any changes in them. Obviously this cannot be done with the NKT - so I feel that some of his points are opinions, and so should not be put in as fact. For example, this 'missionary drive'. It is not a set action, it is, to me, slightly vague and will mean different things to different people, so it is not really a very scientific word or that useful for an encyclopedia . It is also only Kays view as to why the NKT is so popular - other people may have different views. Some may think the popularity may be due to a discontent in the West with a material lifestyle and are looking for something else, some may say it is due to the NKT trying to integrate with the local area, others may even say it is due to the karma of the people in this world.

2) As for the numbers of the centres and groups (800), I got that from the back of the book 'Mahamudra Tantra', which was published in 2005. I don't think we have any accurate info on the breakdown between residential centres and branch classes so I think it is probably best not to put in numbers.

3) As for the reasons for Geshe Kelsang wanted to spread the NKT around the world, I think it is difficult to say accurately what his reasons are. My teacher has said that someone once asked him when he was in a new country -'Are you here to spread Buddhism?', and he said something like 'I am trying to make people happy'. So should we put that in the article - the reason why the NKT is spreading around the world is that Geshe Kelsang wants to make people happier? I would say no.

By the way, I am trying to put a picture onto my own Wikipedia page, anybody have any ideas? I have uploaded it into Wikipedia but am not sure how to paste it in. Thanks

All the best.

Patrick --Patrick K 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, thank you for your comments.

1. Kays research is well acknowledged and welcome among scientists as far as I recognized this. Also Waterhouse wrote in a review to "Buddhism in the Modern World" ...Part of his argument concerns the narrow curriculum of the NKT. He discusses this with exclusive reference to NKT internal sources that describe the movement as "an association of independent centres with a weak center" (p. 240). However, fieldwork based accounts of the NKT produced over the last decade consistently find that, regardless of the movement's rhetoric, it is highly controlled, at least in the UK where the majority of its centres can be found. The essay would therefore have been more rounded with reference to academic analysis published in the UK, especially the work of David Kay. So just because you find a new friend (NKT) and you like it, it is naive to conclude "For me, it is not a scientific study." You can do that of course but I can not take you serious, because you just follow your likes and dislikes. Perhaps you start to read Wikipedia:reliable source. The success of NKT is based on different causes and conditions, thats true. This is also shown by Kay, it is not only the belief of GKG of being the one which keeps Tsongkhapa Traditions in "extreme impure times" and therefor must spread it, it is also the site of the westerners, which search for something spiritual and reliable in a world of quick changes and do not know much about Buddhism and believe just what GKG and NKT tells them. Kays research is pointing out the cross cultural backgrounds in depths too. Of course there is also Karma to follow GKG. NKT followers may believe this is good Karma, others may believe it is bad Karma. But for WP article we can cancel this topic I think. It is one of the points of NKT success to offer their new followers the idea, that they must have enourmous good Karma to meet GKG and NKT. By this offering their ego feels well and the typical less self esteem of westerners is reduced by feeling now as something "very special". These feelings are increased by the exclusiveness which NKT establish and the idea of that the world is in a state of serious decline. The success of NKT is embedded in a field of causes and conditions. Many of them you'll find in cults too. To discuss this porperly, it will take time and we have to read Kays section on that too.

2. As for the numbers of the centres I used the official NKT source. see http://www.kadampa.org/english/centers/index.php NKT has changed their website now. Some weeks ago NKT claimed they have built up 900 centres now they say: "There are over 900 Kadampa Buddhist centers and groups in 35 countries" new is that they are more honest and tell now: 900 centres and groups. The past misleading advertisement is still findable in the net: "There are over 800 Kadampa Buddhist centers in 40 countries" see: [9]

Also the BBC took over many of the misleading advertisments of NKT so they published according to NKT claims: "The New Kadampa Tradition is one of the fastest growing Mahayana Buddhist traditions in the West, with over nine hundred meditation centres in thirty-seven countries." see [10] However if they changed it we can change the article too. But it would be good to tell the facts: about 200 residential centres and 700 "branch groups": "branch groups" means rented rooms in local community centres. The number of centres and self advertising of it is interesting for the article. It shows the growth of NKT and their wish to express how large/important their organisation is.

3. The motivation behind NKT spreading is based on NKT's own publishing. It is obvious just to repeat for you:

NKT students in Britain who have encountered Geshe Kelsang's doctrine of good fortune have a responsibility to help spread his precious teachings to every corner of the world (Full Moon) by establishing and teaching in centres overseas, by sponsoring and translating his books into non-English languages, or just by supporting the growth of new centres financially.
According to NKT literature, whilst Buddha Sakyamuni, Tsong Khapa and Geshe Kelsang have all introduced the same Dharma into the world, the uncommon contribution of the latter has been to lay down the structures to ensure that this precious Dharma will spread throughout the world.(Full Moon)

perhaps your read once mor the account of Kay on the Missionary drive

I can understand you that you try to defend NKT.

take care, --Kt66 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks once again for all your work. This Wikipedia thing is so addicitive! Maybe in a few years time they will have dry-out clinics were we can go for a few weeks and not be anywhere near a computer.

Excuse me answering below your points. I agree. I will make a pause until monday ore Tuesday. --Kt66 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The point I am trying to make is this. I am not disputing how reliable Kays work is - I am suggesting that just because he may say something it does not make it a fact, it may be an opinion. For example, you quote him elsewhere as saying - "The origin of this drive for power is variously explained - as a result, for example, of the excessive devotion he received, upon arriving in England, from naive and undiscriminating Western practitioners; or as a product of his 'Extreme envy' of Lama Yeshe, who was formerly a junior student to him in Sera Je monastery but who had now become the key personality behind a growing worldwide network of centres." His suggestion that Geshe Kelsang had envy of Lama Yeshe is an opinion - it is not a fact. It says on the Wikipedia guidelines "By fact we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.". It also says "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable.". So with the issue of this 'missionary drive' I would say it is an opinion - there may be many reasons for the successive of the NKT, and Kays research suggests 1 reason, but it does not make it "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". I kind of understand what you are getting at and are trying to say, but I think we need to keep it to stated facts, otherwise people will read different things into what 'missionary attitude' means. That is why in my edit I try to give some reason why Kay suggested it - I did not suggest deleting it, just to make it clear that it is an opinion, and give some information on the actions which he formed the opionin on (this is what I suggested - Another suggestion for the growth has been the use of voluntary work and donations from NKT practioners to develop and run the residential centres. This has been called a missionary attitude[13].).

I agree to "that just because he may say something it does not make it a fact". I agree "His suggestion that Geshe Kelsang had envy of Lama Yeshe is an opinion - it is not a fact." But the 'missionary drive' is not mere an opinion it is proofed by facts. He gives different reasons also the cross cultural backgrounds. If there are more reasons than Kays for the mission of NKT we can include it in the article too. No problem at all. The point on the missionary attitude is not mere opinion it is a fact and it is validly shown by Kay and obvious. But it would be good, if you feel it can be misinterpreted, to go deeper into that point, why not. We have also the sources of NKT. The missionary attitude is not "the use of voluntary work and donations from NKT practioners to develop and run the residential centres. This has been called a missionary attitude" the "missionary imperative" is coming from the firm believe of having the pure tradition and that the world is going down and one must spread that pure lineage throughout the world to benefit beings. This belief was openly published by NKT itself and is well known to me and other ex-members. The "the use of voluntary work and donations from NKT practioners to develop and run the residential centres" is based on that idea as well as on the talking of gaining merit for gaining realisations. --Kt66 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2) As for the centres, thanks for finding that. I still don't think we should quote figures which we are estimating, therefore I think we can only say what is on the NKT website and then make clear that there are more branch classes than residential centres (I think I did this when I said - Each residential centre may have several branch classes).

After NKT changed their adverstisement on that we can change it in the article too. Why not. But the official NKT website talks on 900 centres and groups. By the way the book of GKG on Shantidevas verses of Bodhicharyavatara tells: Geshe Kelsang has established about 500 hundred NKT centres. Groups are not mentioned at all. --Kt66 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3) As I said earlier, I can only talk about my own experience. While some people who live at my centre do help with publicity, the majority of people who are involved with the NKT at the centre do not do anything to help spread the teachings throughout he world.

Yes, I know there may be differences. But these do not deny the view of GKG and NKT leadership about spreading NKT. --Kt66 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So I think the challenege for us is to try and capture these points - that the NKT has grown recently, that some people have been involved in helping this growth, but that it is only 1 part of the organisaiton and most people who have read Geshe Kelsangs books or go to a centre are not involved.

So we have to find out how to improve the passages, isn't it?

Have a good afternoon.

nice days too. --Kt66 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Patrick --Patrick K 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just included passages of Kays research and mentioned that for the growth may be exist also other causes. So we have now clear that this is based on Kays research and NKT magazines (Full Moon). If there are other sources we can include it too. If there are sources which contradicts his research we should inlcude it also. Good night - it is quite late now, --Kt66 23:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To balance the cult claim I thought it is worthwhile to add Lopez' opinion that the medias took over the claim to qickly during the 1996's. However as discussed on the talk page in large, there are more points regarding this. Also I balanced the expulsion, because I got an email from a nun who said "But a monastery could have its own internal way of cutting away from someone, a monk, whom they regard as non-desirable." I asked Sera Monastery directly for the reason today. We will see what they say. On the other hand we have the information from the Sera Letter. --Kt66 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Growth and Compassion/Loving-kindness

My teacher has said that someone once asked him when he was in a new country -'Are you here to spread Buddhism?', and he said something like 'I am trying to make people happy'.

I have a lot to say about this, if it is to be taken at face value. The use of 'compassion/loving-kindness' as a motive for teaching Dharma is very dangerous indeed. It is clear that such a motive leads directly towards evangelism and missionaries. It is based upon absolutist views - that there is a true path that is suitable for all individuals: Here is the reason - if I am unable to distinguish the specific requirements of an individual - (that is, if I am unable to be clairvoyant regarding the nature of an individual's karma) - how can I actually know how to make that person happy?

We know that Buddha did not teach just one path - there are many paths and many doctrines in Buddhism. The original Kadampa tradition identifies a lack of conflict between these apparently conflicting doctrines by asserting that different paths are taught according to the needs of different individuals.

If we look at the function of compassion in accordance with the paths of Bodhicitta as taught by Atisha, we see that it is used to generate determination to achieve Buddhahood as quickly as possible - NOT to go out and teach. The Kadampas such as Geshe Chekawa wrote extensively about this.

The Christians (and other evangelic traditions) have an absolutist view - and in this sense, it is understandable that they take a patronising (read evangelic) attitude regarding other people - they believe that there is only one door to happiness and that they are the keyholders to it.

Madhyamikas cannot accept this view however - because it makes no sense to hold any view as being inherently more truthful than any other view; instead there is only the specific context of each situation. We lean to discourse in accordance with the views of those around us rather than imposing our views upon them. We must be reluctant to accept converts and, at first, we should do what we can to persuade them to find peace in their own religious and cultural backgrounds. Our compassion is revealed through speaking the languages and worldviews of our dear mother beings, and not through imposing on them our languages and worldviews.

If we wish to make people happy, we must continually strive on developing a continuity of both relative and absolute bodhicitta in our mindstreams - until it becomes substantial reality. This is the way that we can benefit suffering beings most. Until then, we would be like burning victims in a burning building telling other victims that we have an idea about the way out; or like blind individuals foolishly believing we can see better than those blind individuals who listen to us. What a mess that would be. (20040302 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Thank you 20040302. I printed it out and read it step by step. I found it quite helpful for my mind. --Kt66 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

history once more

there were some slight changes I felt they were not that logical and it would be better to embedd them in a more conistent background of NKT history. I feel the revised section gives a better background as before on NKT history. --Kt66 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add an opposing angle to the "Third Buddha" claim by the NKT based on a teaching by H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpoche and based on fact. Maybe we can create a separate section on this? Avanze 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Avanze, I reverted. I think it is not that good idea to discuss POV in the article. First let discuss us here. The aim of the article is just to describe the NKT not to give commetaries. However, thank you for your work I will put it here. I just extended the history section to give a better background to understand the NKT development and their background. I doubt if the section added by you is of much help to improve the article/understandig, it comments more a euphemistic religious view...--Kt66 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I balanced the history changes by giving also qotes on how NKT sees themselves nowadays. If further additions are needed to balance please feel free to do it - according to WP guidelines. --Kt66 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Third Buddha claim

NKT literature has stated as describing the role of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west as follows;

"People call Je Tsongkhapa the Second Buddha, not because he replaced Buddha Shakyamuni but because he restored the essential doctrine of the Buddha and showed how it could be practiced in impure times. From this viewpoint, we have to say that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the Third Buddha, because he has once again restored the essential purity of Buddha's doctrine and shown how to practice it in extremely impure times."^[8]

However this claim maybe a misrepresentation as according to an interview with H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpche regarding the Samaya teachings of Buddha;

"The Buddha taught very clearly in his teaching on Vajrayana, he never mentioned that there would be a Buddha appearing between Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Maitreya. What is really taught in Vajrayana is that the master, who teaches us the real meaning of the Buddha's teachings and makes us realize the teachings, is kinder than the Buddha because we do not have the good karma to meet any of the past Buddhas in person. But in this regard, people make mistakes and misunderstand."^[9]

Patrul Rinpoche, the author of 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher', gave a very clear and simple explanation. He said,

"The root guru is respected and treasured as the Buddha not because he is the Buddha, but because his kindness which is beneficial to oneself is even greater than the Buddha's."

thank you it is clear (for non NKT) that the Third Buddha Claim is quite quaint but let us wait for more commentaries on this by other editors. Even for my changes I am not sure if they will be accepted but as far as I see they meet the WP guideline and are based on fatcs descibing the NKT history. Whereas your add allthogh based on fatcs is a commentary on a philosphical/religious view. To discuss philosphical/religious view of NKT there is needed a different section I think but there are also guidelines for that (see Scientology) --Kt66 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm to be fair, don't some other sects emphasise the Buddha nature within us all and that we are all Buddhas (proto-Buddhas at least). Magic Pickle 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NKT at BBC

My last changes are slight: BBC webspace and cat. If there is a need for further discussion please feel free to discuss/revert it...

As mentioned yet: I asked BBC by Email to correct the NKT article at their sites to fact. First they didn't reply at all, than I made a complaint and they answered by Email:

Dear Mr ....

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate that you have noticed some errors on the Religion website on bbc.co.uk relating to the New Kadampa Tradition.

I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and I can assure you that I have forwarded your comments to our site owner of the following website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/features/kadampa/

I cannot guarantee that you will receive a direct response from the site owner, but I can assure you that the matter has been brought to his attention for his consideration.

In the meantime, thank you once again for contacting the BBC.

Regards

Paul Hunter

BBC Information

______________________________________

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland

So it seems as I said yet: BBC is not the owner of that sites. It is quite presumably that NKT is the owner and made the "BBC article" themselves...thats why it is according to NKT views/policies. And the article at About.com seems to be also written by a NKT follower (see the author Anthony Flanagan. Good PR ;-) --Kt66 05:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, the site of BBC seems really not rented by NKT, it seems BBC just took over the NKT represantation made by NKT. However they have rewritten the articles. --Kt66 11:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed the difference. In the past the articles describing each sect were obviously taken from the self-description made by the sect themselves. This is not a neutral view, but rather one that at least guarantees the BBC is not making a partial view known, prescisely by letting the sect speak for themselves. But now I see the whole description section of the NKT has been rewritten and includes controversies and criticisms of the NKT. The problem is that one might complain as to why the NKT are singled out for this controversial description. The BBC hardly mention the controversies generated by the SGI-UK, for example. Overall the BBC religion section has been massively overhauled and is really informative, it has a lot of info covered by the book "The New Believers". Magic Pickle 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have dropped their article on the NKT and the link is therefore now redundant. Excellentone 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why have they dropped the article? Does anyone know? Magic Pickle 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, just checked man, and although the URL above is dead, the BBC's NKT article is alive and well here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/kadampa.shtml Magic Pickle 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ordination section once more

Sorry for the disturbance. After consulting four different Vinaya commentaries of the Mulasarvastavada lineage, I see the need to correct that section once more. The point is: The first five vows in NKT are layfollower vows including the celebacy. I'll explain it shortly:

There are seven types of lay followers. It depends upon how many vows one takes or if one just take the vows of refuge.

The five lay follower vows are:

(1) to refrain from killing
(2) to refrain from stealing
(3) to refrain from lying
(4) to refrain from sexual misconduct
(5) to refrain from using intoxicants

One is not obliged to take all five vows. The commentries describe seven types of lay followers:

Promising to keep just one vow
Promising to keep certain vows
Promising to keep most of them
Promising to keep all five
Keeping all five and also promising to keep the pure conduct of avoiding sexual contact
Keeping all five, pure conduct, and wearing robes with the promise to behave like a monk or a nun
Lay follower of mere refuge. This person is unable to keep the vows but he promises to go for refuge to the triple gem until death.

For a Rabjung (tib. means ordained person) there are needed the first three (No. 1-3) of these lay followers' vows and additional:

   * 4. no sexual misconduct
   * 5. no intoxicants (like alcohol or drugs)
   * 6. not dancing or wearing garlands, rosaries etc.
   * 7. not to eat after noon
   * 8. not to use high seats or beds

These five vows (No 4-8) are vows of ordained ones or Rabjung (tib.). The Bama.Rabjung ("intermediate ordained one") is one who is preparing to become a Novice (tib. Getsul or skt. Sramanera or pali Samanera). This person receives a Dharma name, shaves his head, wears robes, and acts like a monk or nun but he/she does not yet possess the vows of a ordained person.

For more see: Monastic Rites by Geshe Jampa Thegchok, Wisdom Books, ISBN 0861712374, pages 6-8.

For remembrance the 10 NKT vows are:

1. abandon killing
2. abandon stealing
3. abandon sexual contact
4. abandon lying
5. abandon taking intoxicants
6. I will practise contentment
7. I will reduce my desire for worldly pleasure
8. abandon in engaging in menaingless activities
9. maintaining the commitments of refuge
10. practise the three higher training

and thus are rather belonging to the five lay followers of type 6 (vow 1-5 including celebacy and wearing robes) and the additional five vows (6-10) are not mentioned in the Vinaya or Pratimoksha and seem to be a creation of GKG. --Kt66 21:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

clarifying a passage

There was asked for a quotation on the expulsion. I added the passage:

"According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition, serious misconduct with a monastery is treated by complete expulsion. Although this may seem severe, it is the result of a deep understanding of karma. To allow someone to break or repeatedly break rules results in an overwhelming accumulation of negative karma to the person performing this misconduct."^[10]

There is no contradiction to use a Sakya source, because

it states in common According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition
Sakya belongs to the same Vinaya lineage (Mulasarvastavada) as Gelug Tradition belongs to. (Until now I could find only agreements in this view, maybe this has to be investigated further.) According to Vinaya Teachings of Mogchok Rinpoche Panchen Shakya Shri, the Sakya Master Sakya Pandita and Lama Tsongkhapa belong to the same lineage. There is a slight differentiation between all the four Tibetan Buddhist school - who all belong to the Mulasarvastavada lineage - in "Upper region lineage" and "Lower region lineage", but this does not strike to how expulsions are dealt with and that expulsion is the strongest penalty for a monk.

--Kt66 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanka and other issues

Hi SDdesigner, your wrote:

A number of former practitioners have left the NKT in recent years due to what they consider an underlying, albeit subtle anti-Tibetan sentiment. Aside from the fact the New Kadampa Tradition firmly discourage the term “Tibetan Buddhism” when referring to the NKT (a fact many find awkward because they wear traditional Tibetan monastic robes, call monks and nuns by Tibetan names, and practice traditional Tibetan rituals and study materials), there are no photos of the Dalai Lama allowed to be displayed in centers, and discourage in participating in other Tibetan Buddhist center’s activities. This, they claim, is because of an anit-NKT sentiment in other centers - a claim most who have visited other centers have found not to be true.

Furthermore, the altering of Thangkas (traditional Tibetan paintings of Buddhist deities found in most temples) were re-framed, with the traditional portion of the brocade pressed behind the painting - potentially damaging the fragile fabric - and then set in Western frames with most of the brocade out of sight. Letters to NKT officials regarding the re-framing concerns received no response.

Additionally, although difficult to discuss in this forum, are the remarks said numerous times from a variety of NKT officials with inappropriately anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama statements and implications.

I tried to sum it. I think it is not that relevant what with the Thangkas is. It could have some relevance by working out the condradictions between the claim of being "completely independent western tradition" and the heritage of Tibetan Buddhism what they neglect or deny. Perhaps such a passage is useful and needed. But just as a fact: where NKT put Thangkas in is not that important for the article I felt.

by the way the condradictions between the claim of being "completely independent western tradition" and the heritage of Tibetan Buddhism were acknowledged by scientific research too: However, there remains an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and complete separation from contemporary Tibetan religion, culture and politics.;While the iconography of the NKT remains clearly Tibetan to an observer. Belither (2004) argued that the symbolism ‘would be recognised across traditions’, and Kelsang Namgyal (2004) confirmed that there is no attempt to preserve a Tibetan style, which is to do with ‘another country’s culture’ rather than the essence of Buddhism. There may be an ambivalence here, reflecting the NKT’s unusual relationship with traditional Tibetan Buddhism, but the prominent images of Sakyamuni, Tsongkhapa, Dorje Shugden and Geshe Kelsang himself, whatever their style, indicate the veneration with which these four figures are regarded.;Waterhouse (1997: 178) argued that the NKT is based so finnly on Geshe Kelsang and his texts and sadhanas that the so-called ‘essential Buddhism’ which he presents for Westerners ‘must be an essential Tibetan Buddhism’. Yet while the NKT strongly emphasizes its pure unbroken Tibetan lineage, it has no Tibetan followers and claims to stand outside current Tibetan Buddhism. see: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=14997 --Kt66 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I think it is better to discriminate more the variety for leaving NKT: there are some former practitioners with that critic you mentioned, but there are also some with a cult claim critic, and other with other reasons of critics why they left. But until now no scientific or Wikipedia:reliable source has picked up that variety for leaving NKT, did they? On the other site the article is no "forum" as you stated in the article:

although difficult to discuss in this forum

So the anti-attitude towards Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama of NKT is one reason for some former members and there are other reasons for other former members too. For instance I myself and others where shocked by the activities of Geshe Kelsang himself... Please feel free to revert, improve or discuss that new section/my changes or disagree with me. --Kt66 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

exclusively

Please be so kind to check my changes. Especially if the balance in the article is appropriate. I felt now in the article the word "exclusively" is over stressed. What do Wikis think? Thanks a lot, --Kt66 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

^ NKT broshure
^ Kay page 95
^ Full Moon
^ Kay cites GK page 88
^ Full Moon, Guardian
^ Waterhouse
^ Kay 87, 88
^ NKT magazine Full Moon, Spring 1995, Gen Kelsang Thubten, successor at that time of Geshe Kelsang
^ The Three Root Samayas, An interview with H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpche [11]
^ Code of Conduct, Policy of Violating this Code of Conduct, Consequence of Serious Misconduct, Official Sakya Website, [12]

[1] NKT broshure

[2] Kay page 95

[3] Full Moon

[4] Kay cites GK page 88

[5] Full Moon, Guardian

[6] Waterhouse

[7] Kay 87, 88

[8] NKT magazine Full Moon, Spring 1995, Gen Kelsang Thubten, successor at that time of Geshe Kelsang

[9] The Three Root Samayas, An interview with H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpche [11]

[10] Code of Conduct, Policy of Violating this Code of Conduct, Consequence of Serious Misconduct, Official Sakya Website, [12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]