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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Why I am questioning the neutral point of view of this article

I think that the way this article is presented is heavily weighted in favour of the opinions of Kay - indeed I would argue that -UNDUE WEIGHT- has been given to his views. Please see the number of foot notes relating to Kay for evidence to this effect.

I find the whole article riddled with opinion presented as fact - for example I find the following confusing: The last five vows are different from the Vinaya and the Pratimoksha Sutras where the personal rules and community life for buddhist monks and nuns are accurately described.

If we are saying that the ordination vows used by the NKT are different from those of a Gelong as defined in the Vinaya and Pratimoksha Sutras then that is one issue, to use the word 'accurately' passes an editorial judgement. It would probably be fair to say that the term buddhist monk would be defined differently by Kt66 than say Geshe Kelsang and therefore the statement is not neutral. Surely to meet the NPOV criteria it is important to point out the differences in ordination vows (keeping it factual) and leave the judgements to the reader.... I could go on, but lets hear what others think first. Excellentone 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Excellentone, I support the NPOV brick very much! I would add that the way this article is presented is heavily weighted in favour of the opinions of kt66 who is the main author of this article! Since he is an ex-member of the NKT he is far too much emotionally involved. He is so biased that it is imposible for him no write a neutral article. He even admits publicly that he wants to warn against the NKT and is misusing WP to do so. I think the only way to achieve NPOV would be to exclude kt66 and other strongly biased authors from editing this article. Of course, you could also add another 500 pages of discussion to the talk page... I will not get involved in these endless discussions. Even Jimmy Wales doesn't believe that NPOV can be achieved by quarreling parties. Best wishes. Marpa 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Excellentone, just improve the point regarding the monastic vows by changing it into a neutral and unbiased perpective. That Kay is a main reference maybe due to WP policies to have reliable sources and this he fits into. As far as I can see it, often he is refered to as "According to Kay", so the NPOV policy seems not to be violated. Kay has done a main job in researching NKT and he has used a lot of different sources that's why he has that authority in the article. It is not against NPOV policy to cite him often, besides he himself is biased, what seems not to be the case at all. Maybe he is cited in a bisaed manner???... A monk is defined by the Rules of the Buddha, if the NKT has another definition (rules) it should be made clear in a NPOV manner. Do you have some suggestions? --84.190.196.15 11:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I believe Kay is cited in a biased manner. Due to his biased attitude towards the NKT kt66 extracted apparently critical points from his thesis and presented these "fact" in a negative way because his intention is to warn against the NKT, something he has even published in a buddhist journal. Someone who reads this article will probably believe that Kay is very critical of the NKT. However, I believe this is not the case. I was told that after Kay finished his thesis he became an RE teacher in England and invited the NKT monk he interviewed for his thesis to his school to teach his pupils about buddhism! Something he would certainly not have done if he believed the NKT to be a sect or dangerous in any way, wouldn't he? As I said above, I believe the only way to achieve NPOV is to exclude all biased authors including kt66 from editing this article. Marpa 11:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marpa, thank you for your points. If something is biased it has to been moved/changed. But it should be discussed what in detail is biased in the article as Excellentone has started to do. So I like to invite you to point out the controversial points and to make these points better or suggest improvements. Regarding Kay's critical view he goes to the point to discribe NKT as fiting to Liftons "fundemtalist self":

• "Drawing on Robert Lifton’s definition of the “fundamentalist self,” Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organizational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism” (p. 110)." For more on his book see this sites's citations and:
• Idendity of NKT - NKT exclusivism extract from D.N. Kay's research...

When he invites NKT monks this is indeed nice for them and kind of him, I think.--Kt66 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We can use also the book British Buddhism, Teachings, Practice and Development by Robert Bluck, published in August 2006 if you think Kay is used onesided. For an extract please see: A ‘post-Tibetan’ Western organization?--Kt66 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that in order to improve this article it is really important that we agree on what is a fact and what is an opinion. I would argue that whilst it is a fact that someone has an opinion, the opinion itself is not a fact. Excellentone 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To put the cat perhaps amongst the pigeons, I can find no positive citations from David Kay - should all the quotes from him be in the criticisms section? I still find the article gives undue weight to David Kay and given that his is a somewhat obscure academic work based on his doctoral thesis and therefore not especially accessible, not a particularly appropriate source to base an article so heavily on (are we as editors really expected to pay £70 in order to verify the quotes given..?, or are we expected to take the citations on good faith?) the article now has many missing citations - I would suggest that we try to agree on a time limit for remedying this and then deleting uncited information. How about 1st Nov 2006? I find no discussion on these pages relating to the suggested merging of two of the sections (criticism of Geshe Kelsang and Shugden) do I take it that this means there are no objections to this course of action? My personal view for what it is worth is that this article has suffered from being a battleground for so long - there is a lot of interesting information here, there is also a lot of opinion presented as fact. I think that a fact-based approach and a more selective use of source material is needed to improve the article. That's my opinion - what are yours? Excellentone 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, E1. Regarding the merging, I do not think that NkT article can really avoid discussing the DS issue. This protector practice is really central importance to the NKT. They discribe it was "[one of] two essential practices that are practiced daily by Kadampa practitioners around the world." An NKT article taht does not cover this issue would not be complete. In the same way, no NKT article would be complete without a full discussion of its founder, spiritual guide and head. For this reason, I think neither sections should be merged. yours in Dharma Karma chogyam 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Karma Chogyam, if the NKT article cannot avoid discussing the DS issue I wonder why the article on Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, can avoid it. :-) It was him who created the "DS problem". Maybe we should start working on the Dalai Lama article and include a bit more criticism. I wonder whether the other editors and administrators would allow this to happen as they did in the case of the NKT and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I doubt it. Maybe it's worth a try, just for the fun of it. :-) Marpa 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Marpa. Even though it is factually incorrect to say that the fourteenth Dalai Lama created the "DS problem" (it is a 'problem' that predated him by many years), I don't think it would be a bad idea to mention the issue on the wikipedia article about him, as he has sought to solve the problem more than any other lama. But discussion on that belongs in another place. The reason it should be mentioned in the kelsang article is because it is a central practice to the nkt. The nkt have been very public in promoting this practice. It is also the practice that serves most to alienate the nkt from the mainstream Tibetan religious tradition. regards, Karma chogyam 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all - I'm ClockworkSoul, and I saw that somebody has requested an NPV review for this article. If the community members who are involved with this article don't mind, I'm going to go through the article from time to time just to see if I can help to strike a fair balance. I'm a neutral editor on the subject, and although I'll admit that I've heard of NKT, I have heard no actual information either way so I'll be relying heavily on citations that state facts. After all, there are lots of opinions in both directions for a subject such as this one, and an opinion in print is still just an opinion and therefore not a very useful citation. – ClockworkSoul 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, ClockworkSoul! To pick up Excellentones point about the ordination, where is the reference about the 10 vows? If there is no reliable source is it ok to delete this section? If we don't know the 10 vows how can we compare them to the Vinaya? What do you think? Marpa 11:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in my research phase... but I'll put that at the top of my list. I should have somethign within a couple of days (it's very handy that I also happen to have a NKT center just about 10 mile from my home - what luck!) – ClockworkSoul 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Clockwork for helping in that field. There are two sources on the NKT ordination vows I know: there is a booklet (broshure) and a summary of the vows published by NKT. The latter I will put below. I think these sources fit to the WP category of "Self-published sources in articles about themselves". After checking other sources I found quotes by Waterhouse (See A ‘post-Tibetan’ Western organization?):

1. Waterhouse (1997: 139—40) found that while ordination is often ‘the normal progression for unmarried members’, there is also considerable emphasis on lay practice, in contrast to Tsongkhapa’s ‘strict monastic rule’ in Tibet, where tantric practice was restricted to experienced monks. Unlike the Karma Kagyu tradition, frill ordination is not available, and those who do ordain remain as novices, though again this is common in Tibet. Namgyal (2004) explained that NKT monks and nuns are simply described as ‘ordained’, and usually take the name ‘Kelsang’ from Geshe Kelsang, who still ordains all monastics personally. NKT ordination vows have been slightly modified to be ‘more appropriate for westerners’ (Waterhouse, 2001: 139): vows are always taken for life, though some monastics have disrobed over the years. There is less separation between monastics and lay people than in some other traditions. Geshe Kelsang (1997: 169) defines Sangha traditionally as ‘four or more fully ordained monks or nuns’ but adds that this may also include ‘ordained or lay people who take Bodhisattva vows or Tantric vows’. Monastics no longer sit in the traditional order of precedence, which was seen as peripheral, and Geshe Kelsang has encouraged ‘more integration’ between monastics and lay people (Pagpa, 2004), which may begin to blur the distinction between them.
2. Waterhouse (1997: 17Sf.) found no discrimination between monks and nuns, with ‘many well-respected nuns who play leading roles’, although one woman was ~uneasy about having to remain a ten-precept nun and was unaware of the wider debate about women’s ordination in Buddhism.

Maybe there is more. --Kt66 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the POV now I've made some changes to the article? I've tried to remove extraneous quotes and repetition, and I've taken out some of the Kay quotes which I felt were dominating the article somewhat. How does the POV feel now? ready to remove the brick? Excellentone 10:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort and work Excellentone. I feel it's well done and I can mainly agree. I made some changes where I do not agree with as it was suggested by you. I finished at 11:15, 12 November 2006. Do you can agree with theses changes? What do other editors feel/think? Regards, --Kt66 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw you expelled the proselytizing topic at the Growth section. I think this is well needed, because NKT has that attidtude and its a basis of NKT's growth. It was u:2ndMarch who wished to add it there. Also I reincluded the stuff on ordination with its quotes. --Kt66 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question for you Kelsang Tashi - what exactly is your agenda with this article? are you trying to help the POV or not? (I hear you're one of the Dalai Lama's buddhist monks so I expect an honest answer) I think many of us agreed with Robert's suggested revision and if you check you'll find that the recent changes I have made conform to the suggestions he made (which you have subsequently undone) I'm actually starting to wonder if the language barrier is getting in the way of your ability to edit this article in line with the policy on NPOV - are the words for fact and opinion the same in your language? (seriously I know you had a similar problem with sect and cult...) I fear the reasons I gave for suggesting the article was deleted are now coming more into focus - I don't think anyone will be able to take this article towards a NPOV while kt66 is editing the article. Can anyone else offer constructive advice on the NPOV? Excellentone 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1, I saw no statement on your, u:Robertect's, u.Marpas "agenda" (all NKT). If you say: "I think many of us agreed with Robert's suggested revision" it should be considered: NKT followers may agree to it others may not agree to it. Regarding my "language barrier" and fact/opinion views. It is not easy to draw a line between facts and opinions. For example that NKT is a "time-honored tradition", and "Kadampa Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054)." is this a fact, a claim, an opinion or mere wrong? The problem seems to be more a philosophical one. Maybe you know more about it because you come from "an academic background in Linguistics". That NKT represent Tsongkhapa's 'pure' tradition, that GKG's books are commentaries on Tsongkhapas works: are these facts, claims or opinions? Regrading my motivation: I said my motivation different times: I wish to have a well informed article on the subject without contorting the facts. (This starts just with what NKT is or is not.) I tend to focus on the controversial aspects, that may be a problem. Because none of us can say he is free of bias, it may be a good idea to ask for madiation/opinion/AMA request/neutral editors. Would you like to pick up that idea for AMA request as you still did? I support it very much. I appreciate your effort and work. I think we will come to a solution. We just should communicate about what we disagree. I am happy to find compromizes. No problem. Many Regards, --Kt66 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

and your view on the POV of the article is what??? given that the article has been criticised for giving undue weight to the views of David Kay, why are you adding more quotes from David Kay? if you want an article that doesn't contort facts why are you adding so many quotes that are solely based on opinion? if you understand the policy on POV why are you introducing headings that include value judgements (cf 'a balanced view')? why litter the article with quotes when it is already flagged as being like a quotefarm? the article you have produced in my view doesn't conform to the policy on NPOV - and you appear to be thwarting editorial attempts to rectify its POV - I ask you again - honestly - what is your agenda with this article? Excellentone 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1. I found your changes quite helpful and put in some points where I felt they should be in the article. If you disagree we can discuss on these. I just went through the text at the whole and made my final corrections. What are the points you can not agree with? Your changes removed also quotes of Bluck & Waterhouse who where used to balance Kay's domination. Kay will ever have a strong effect on the article because he has done the most extended research on NKT. Maybe in the future more sources will be available. Regarding Kay that he analyses that Geshe Kelsangs perception of himself changed dramatically this is quite obvious, only by this changes it was possible to split that radical from the Gelug school, his root, without having any connections with them anymore. The header inlcudes the self-view of NKT and this self-view is balanced by the view of Prof. Clark which is a view shared by other scientists as well. Both views contradict each other in a way. This contradiction reveals the field of tension on how people view NKT. What is wrong with this? Also we should ask now neutral editors on their view. Regarding your personal questions: Dear E1: After you and u.Marpa revealt my idendity it would be nice that you first introduce yourself and explain what your "agenda" is. What you wishes from me can be offered also by you. This would be fair. Personal stuff can be exchanged at the user-page or by email. Many Regards, thank you for your patience and effort, --Kt66 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1 one, sorry, I was to swift in replying. My answer more closely to your points: "given that the article has been criticised for giving undue weight to the views of David Kay" - this is a personal critic made by yourself which must not be shared necessarily by others as well. Until now neither you nor another NKT follower could suggest another independent source. As long as we have only few independent sources on NKT we'll be limited. I agree the article is a "quotefarm" this was also critisized by u:boboluna (whoes inputs of another source (Barett, David) you expelled different times from the article without discussing it [23]). u:Billion defended this "quotefarm situation", argueing to u:BoboLuna: "I think this is a consequence of it being controversial. It is bound to be of the form "x says" but "y says" that way we can be NPOV while saying what the different factions say. Direct quotes are less controversial than paraphrasing them. On the other hand hopefully the article will converse towards a concesus about what the different points of view are and then summarise them in prose, with references to the sources. If you feel: "In my view doesn't conform to the policy on NPOV." I would be happy to hear what especially is POV in the article? I think the article starts with POV of NKT claiming NKT=time-honered=Kadmapa=Atisha. This NKT-POV is cited=NPOV and balanced by Clark=scientistsPOV by citing Clark=NPOV. Through this way the article introduction on NKT is NPOV and balanced. The same is with the rest of the article. Using citations on different POV's on the subject are the way advised to reach NPOV on controversial subjects. After your AfD I made a lot of changes (as it is adviced by WP guiedlines) and left a note on the talk page of doing so and invited to take part on this process. In that time I used more quotes of NKT/Bluck/Waterhouse to balance Kay's dominance. Some of them where now expelled by you, especially the balanced view of Bluck at the end, which includes the NKT view to bring peace to the world. Why do you reject Bluck's abstract on how NKT can be looked at as a 'a balanced view'? He offers three existing perpectives on NKT and these three perspectives are reflected in the article as well. These three perspectives sum the situation/views on NKT and balance them. It seems to me being pefect to close the article with this Bluck quote. I just checked the article: We have a lot of NKT quotes as well. In some sections they are dominating (see self idendity of NKT). In other sections NKT quotes are cited completely and are well used, as NKT has published them. I completed two citations of Cozort and Kay which you cut off. It is advised rather to have full citations. On the main changes you made I can agree with, so I didn't change the structure of your changes but I added, corrected (e.g. expulsion) or completed (e.g. citations) some points. Maybe we can now discuss what we disagree with? Maybe we get advice from neutral editors or u.Robertect. Regards, --Kt66 09:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask…

As I have already mentioned I think it is important to give the reader the facts and let them make their own mind up about them. All value judgements should be removed from the text in my view – this is in line with what Robert suggested too – and statements such as ‘a balanced view’ will have to go (it should be up to the reader to decide whether the views expressed are balanced or not).

• Maybe we delete the header. I feel Bluck's view at the end is quite beneficial, because he suggests three different perpectives on NKT and the reader has the freedom to choose one, two or all three and can understand why this discussion regarding NKT has these dynamics: If someone follow the perspective of 'empire building'/missionary and it's dynamics he can choose the first view of Bluck and will argue based on this first view, if someone is following a scholary view he will point out the one pointedness of NKT practice and its scholary presentation and the like, and if someone is describing NKT on the basis of the motivation of GKG/NKT, to bring peace to the human mankind (the world) he can argue based on the third view. From a distance these views, Bluck suggests, are interconnected and a way to describe NKT. Your and Marpa's wish to leave it to the reader will be fulfiled. Also it harmonizes the article itself because, how you describe NKT is strongly based on which perpective you choose and how you deal with the other perspectives. I agree "a balanced view" is a appraisal, I will find another header and reinclude these three views. It is a fact that there are different views on NKT, isn't it? And the discussion on NKT is mainly based on the underlying views and it's proofs. Why not using them?
• Your changes of:
  • (old) "The Manjushri Institute, also called Conishead Priory, was founded by British students of Lama Thubten Yeshe with Lama Yeshe as the S..." to
  • (new) "The NKT arose from the students of Manjushri Institute, also called Conishead Priory, which was originally founded by British students of Lama Thubten Yeshe"

I will revert, because it is not correct that "The NKT arose from the students of Manjushri Institute" NKT arose mainly from the vision of Geshe Kelsang and the dynamics at Manjushri Institute, mainly based on the dissatisfaction of Geshe Kelsang's close desciples with FPMT and GKG own critcism on Gelug school and Lama Yeshe. Leaving your statement as it is and not correting it is what I usually label as "contorted views" because it blurs the facts. I do not say you did this intentionally, but maybe you can follow my reasoning when reading your changes again and can agree to my approach to going back to the former sentence, don't you? --Kt66 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That GKG is NKT's director is a fact but it is confusing to state that at the place in the article where the article starts to indroduce the background of the formation of the NKT, because your addition brings in a future development into the section of the past. That's why I removed it there. Many Regrads and thank your for your work. --Kt66 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To deal with the paragraph you view as perfect specifically, I see no benefit of including it at all. The first view presented is a ‘Could be’ which is not the same as an ‘is’ – infact it is not even an opinion expressed of the NKT – this could be levelled at any religious group – the reference to Titmuss (1999: 91) is therefore meaningless as it is not referring to the NKT. It offers no clarification as to ‘who’ could, might or does think this. The Barker quote is again not referring to the NKT but generally to NRM’s– since it is not specific to the NKT (who would presumably argue that they are not a new religious movement anyway) I see no point in giving this airplay here. The third view seems to me to be supposition – since it is not attributed or referenced we are left wondering if this is this case or just what Bluck supposes is the case – it is extremely wishy-washy. So this ‘balanced’ view is what? Two things no-one has said about the NKT and something Bluck supposes – not exactly the stuff good encyclopaedic entries are made of is it? Removing the title 'a balanced view' would in my view help the NPOV of the article, removing this quote altogether would make an overladen article less so without any appreciable loss of information to the reader. Excellentone 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

the first view is exactly the view why there are this lot of NKT critism and is of course only one perspective on NKT. In the beginning this underlying view dominated the article. It depends on the preference of the writer what view he prefers describing NKT. Bluck is balanceing these views by naming them and offering three views which all will lead to another picture (result) when discussing/describing the NKT. He offers thereby a way either to follow such a view or to understand why some articles on NKT are that crictical and the like, the same it with the other two views. I will add his suggestion as a suggestion/comment again. (See above.) If you will further disagree with it, I think, we should ask another (neutral) editor what he thinks regarding that point. --Regards, --Kt66 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear kt66, I've just been looking through some of the changes that you have made recently - I wonder if you are clear about the difference between a 'citation' and a 'quotation'? Excellentone 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Kt66 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So why have you changed the length of a quotation and drawn my attention to the notes regarding the inclusion of a full citation??Excellentone 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1, Citation and Quotation are synonyms (says my Oxford Dict.). Why I prefer full citation is: for controversial subjects this is strongly advised. Also you just used the first part of the quote which supports one-sided NKT views and expelled the balancing following critical sentence (in both cases). --Kt66 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some minor edits but I think it needs thinning out much further to improve the NPOV. I wonder if around a half of the quotes from David Kay could be removed and which quotes people are most attached to? I've taken out the "balanced" view paragraph for the sake of the NPOV and the reasons I have given above. Excellentone 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you see my comments above on your changes. To critisize extensive use of Kay and removing other authors, as you did, I see a little bit as a contradiction. Regarding Kay or quotes/citations in general, I think they should shed light on the subject and improve the article and removing/adding it should not be a matter of clinging, instead a matter of reasoning or common sense. Regards, --Kt66 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little bit more housework on the article - I don't see the relevance of the information regarding the Geshe program of the FPMT in an article about the NKT - maybe this information belongs in a different article? anyway I removed it as I think that whole section is far too complicated for the reader already and in my view it takes out an unnecessary angle. I've put back the information about Geshe Kelsang being the current Spiritual Director as I think this helps the reader (don't forget that some people reading this article will never have heard of Geshe Kelsang) and I hope I've clarified the timeline sufficiently (he is a contemporary as this will never cease - therefore not was). I've taken out the conclusion you put back for the reasons I gave before - I don't think it adds to the article - I'm sure there must be a more appropriate quote. The article as stands is still in my view more like an advertisement for David Kay than an article about the NKT - I really do think the best way to overcome this is to remove a good proportion of the quotes from him (rather than adding loads more quotes from other people). Excellentone 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! The point is: Geshe Kelsang was one of two Lamas who was requested to teach there, so he was clearly not the main teacher at MI/CP as established in later NKT history versions - which completely hide that GKG "mere" led the 'General Programme' and was "mere" one of two Geshes there. The more important program (from FPMT POV) was the Geshe Study Programme. It shows further that Lama Yeshe saw GKG teachings activity just as a part of his spiritual wishes for westerners and clarifies that he didn't intent to loose the center in any way. However, thank you, this point was to much elaborated so I shortened that passage. The phrasing "current Spiritual Director" is not correct he is since the foundation of NKT until now the director. "Current" gives the verbal impression this could change at any time, a speciality of NKT using words which imply also another meaning and tend to blur the facts. He is the director since that. This is the fact. Current is more vague. I changed to "who became the Spiritual Director of NKT in 1991". As long as you can not provide different WP:reliable sources on NKT's history than David Kay you have to accept the use of Kay. "A more appropriate quote" is also a personal opinion and includes a personal judgement as well - something you citisized. It is not a Kay article, the history of NKT is based on the seven years research of Kay who is a acknowldeged specialst in the subject matter. If you have the wish to shorten the NKT history section we can use Kay's short statement as well: "As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism, the social organization of memory and forgetfulness, especially by 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." Or if you have we can use other WP:reliable sources to balance Kay's dominance. I have done this yet, since you had pointed out his dominance. Thank you very much for your effort, Regards--Kt66 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Source: NKT flyer on the ordination vows (citation))

Ordination Vows

Please repeat the following three times:

O Noble one, please listen to what I now say.

I whose name is...from this time forth throughout my life

Go for refuge to Buddha,

Go for refuge to Dharma,

Go for refuge to Sangha;

I no longer wish to remain as a lay person but I wish to become ordained, so please grant me the ordination.

Throughout my life I will abandon killing,

stealing, sexual conduct, lying, and taking

intoxicants.

I will practise contentment, reduce my desire for

worldly pleasures, abandon engaging in

meaningless activities, maintain the commitments

of refuge, and practise the three trainings of pure

moral discipline, concentration and wisdom.

Whereas Waterhouse notes: NKT ordination vows have been slightly modified to be ‘more appropriate for westerners’ (Waterhouse, 2001: 139) in fact 50% of the vows have been changed if one uses as reference the aggregation of the 36 novice vows of the Mulasarvastavadin Lineage into 10 or 13 condensed vows. So here we have a contradiction to the fact regarding Waterhouse's view of they have been changed only slightly. Also the absence of the full ordination (skt: Bhikshu, pali: Bhikkhu, tib:Gelong) and the resulting unability to follow the Vinaya rules and perform the proper monastic rituals as they have been discribed in the Vinaya and Pratimoksha is not a slight change. These rituals and rules which regularise the life of buddhist ordained persons depend completely on an assembly of minimum four fully ordained monks (also called "Sangha") is not a slight change but a heavy one, from a monastic POV. We have to look how to deal with that in the article/ordination section too. Maybe we'll find a appropriate solution. --Kt66 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the rules of buddhist sangha a single individual is not qualified to change the Vinaya. I found following cites:

"One bhikkhu cannot effect any changes since Vinaya-decisions are arrived at after the consultation of a Sangha"[24]

"However, when the monks want to amend even certain minor precepts, they would have to do it with the sanction of a recognized Sangha Council. Individual monks are not at liberty to change any Vinaya rules according to their whims and fancies. Such a Council of Sangha members can also impose certain sanction against monks who have committed serious violations of the disciplinary code and whose behavior discredits the Sangha."[25]

--BoboLuna 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Kt66, I didn't expect to see you online! On your user page you say that you're taking a wikibreak. I guess you're a wikiholic by now ;-). It's painful if you can't stop checking, isn't it? Well, as you know I questioned the neutrality of this article in June. Since then I have done some research to understand why you put so much effort into this article and in particular why you're trying so hard to present and interpret the information about the NKT in such a negative way. I found out some interesting points:

1. As you explain on your userpage you are an ex-member and ex-monk of the NKT and you don't seem to have many fond memories of that time which is a shame :-) This means you are emotionally involved in this subject which is not a good basis for writing a neutral article on the NKT.
2. You are Tenzin Peljor, a German buddhist monk who received ordination from the Dalai Lama in March this year. So, we can say you are a representative of the Dalai Lama. This quite naturally makes you even more biased with respect to the subject of the article (see article for reasons).
3. You bought the domain www.info-buddhismus.de which you use not to give general information about buddhism as the name would suggest but to make the articles that you wrote in WP and other sources available to as many people as possible in order to spread your view of the NKT. So you first introduce your negative view into WP articles and then you use the good reputation of WP to spread this information as the "truth". I noticed you use WP as a reference, for example when you discuss about the NKT in the internet forum of the German Buddhist Society and, vice versa, you use your own interviews and website as reliable sources or references in WP articles. Very clever.
4. You have declared publicly on your website (http://www.info-buddhismus.de/Interviews-Ex-NKT.html), in an Austrian Buddhist Journal and on other occasions on WP talk pages that your aim is to warn of the NKT and to stop this "madness".

This makes it absolutely impossible for you to write a neutral or unbiased article on the NKT. And you can't even see that you are biased! :-) Let's take the ordination section as an example because it has just been mentioned above. No problem to write that Geshe Kelsang grants ordination, that he uses 10 vows, that there are over 500 monks and nuns, etc. This is information about the NKT in an article on the NKT, ok. But then you start including other information about the Vinaya, the Pratimoksha, etc. You start comparing and evaluating the NKT ordination. Why? To help the reader to come to a certain conclusion? To your own conclusion about ordination in the NKT? I think the reader should be left to come to his own conclusion. Another author with a positive attitude towards the NKT might mention that monks in Tibet have 253 vows, Theravada monks have 211, some Zen monks I know have 10 just like the NKT. This author could cite from the Vinaya article "Buddha, as part of his last teaching, tells the bhikkhus that they can abandon some minor rules, but that they should stick to the major ones, but there appears to have been some confusion over which was which." Do you know what I mean? You can always find additional information that will induce a negative or positive view in the reader. Your way of writing is pervaded by things like that. You shouldn't include your own opinion. Even if you include further facts you have to be very careful. Ask yourself why you want to include these facts. I would like to suggest that we strip this article down to the mere facts about the NKT without introducing anything else, without comparing it, without evaluating it. Also you shouldn't take everything Kay writes as a fact. Have you ever written a thesis? I've written two. A thesis is not just a collection of facts. You don't get a degree for doing just that in this field. Kay collected facts and opinions and also introduced his own opinion into the subject, his own contribution for which he was awarded a degree. You have to be very careful when you use him as a source. For all these reasons I request you, if you have any sense of shame please stop editing this article and leave this job to someone more neutral. Thank you. With love. Marpa 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, dear Tenzin Peljor, your intention to stop the NKT from using WP for publicity purposes is correct. I just think you've gone a bit too far. It's not ok to use WP for anti-propaganda either. Marpa 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the question of monastic ordination in the nkt, this is very pertinent to the subject of the article. The fact that Kelsang Gyatso has started an order of 'monks' that hold vows that are different to those held by him or his teachers, or anyone else in his or any other lineage is noteworthy. The fact that these monks and nuns do not hold the ten, thirty-six or two-hundred and fifty-three vows of a getsul or gelong but only hold the five vows of a celebate upasika of the mulasarvastivada tradition, together with five aspirations that Kelsang seems to have made up is an important point to make clear. Otherwise, people could fairly assume that when they see nkt members dressed in robes these nkt members are also members of the Buddhist monastic Sangha, when they are not. Making clear that this is a departure from tradition, whilst acknowledging that other sects have also departed from tradion is not a bad idea, but this is an article about the nkt, not Japanese traditions. Regarding kt66's editing, I feel that he is doing a good job in expressing a view of the nkt. His contributions have shed a lot of light on the nkt, which is the purpose of this article. There are other editors who have contributed. Some of these are members of the nkt itself, and are presumably as equally biased as kt66, but in the other direction. From reading your comments, Marpa, I imagine that you are also a member of the nkt. Despite your obvious bias, your contributions should also be welcome, in my opinion.- yours in Dharma,Karma chogyam 01:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC) .

Thank you, Karma Chogyam. I perfectly agree that the development of a new ordination, let's call it Kadampa ordination, is noteworthy. I have no intention to remove it from the article. I'm questioning the way these facts about the NKT are presented here. I would say that almost every sentence gives away the intention of the main author, kt66, to discredit the NKT. This includes the wording, the information given to compare the NKT, the order in which things are presented, the references, etc. This violates WP policy. "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases." Kt66 is strongly influenced by his bias. You wrote "I feel that he is doing a good job in expressing a view of the nkt.". Again you are perfectly right! :-) He is doing a very good job in expressing his own view of the NKT. That's the whole point. That's why I requested him to stop editing this article. I also noticed that previously some pro-NKT authors did some work on this article. I don't understand why they let kt66 do what he did. Recently, kt66 tried to add some negative information into the article of Michael Roach, whose study programme he followed for two years after he left the NKT. He tried very hard and even got blocked by an administrator for reverting four times within 24 hours but he didn't succeed because the two users Hanuman Das und Ekajati stopped him. For some reason the other authors of the NKT article didn't manage to stop him. He is very persistant. No one made more changes to this article and no one did more reverts. He is trying to spread his view of the NKT on every possible website, discussion forum, journals and other media he can find. This is fine, no problem, but he shouldn't be allowed to do the same on WP. Have a look at this quote from Jimmy Wales, the founder of WP: Jimmy Wales' reply to P.Jacobi Good night. Marpa 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, ordination. No we should not call it "Kadampa ordination". The word Kadampa is associated with Atisha, and later Tsongkhapa. Using this label to describe something that directly contradicts Atisha's and Tsongkhapa's attempts to conserve the vinaya would be very inappropriate and misleading. Maybe it should be called Kelsangism ordination? Secondly, I think that in the past, kt66 and other editors have managed to collaborate successfully in producing a neutral article. I am actually very impressed by the ways in which kt66 and other WP editors, such as 'Robertect' have worked together, despite their obvious differences of opinion. I would like to suggest that if you have any specific problems with the article, you bring them up, point by point, and see what can be acheived. Many of those that contributed to this article are followers of the Buddha's teaching. I suggest you take this on board, and rather than try to get another editor barred, you try to work with him. I think that this will benefit both the article and yourself. Regards, Karma chogyam 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Karma Chogyam, thank you for sharing your own opinion on the Kadampa ordination with us, thereby illustrating and supporting the points Excellentone and I made about the lack of NPOV. To remind you, Excellentone wrote "Surely to meet the NPOV criteria it is important to point out the differences in ordination vows (keeping it factual) and leave the judgements to the reader....". In the WP guidelines about reliable sources it says "In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion." This does not mean that an opinion cannot be added to the article "if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.". We can even add things to the article that are not true as long as they are verifiable. However, a problem arises if due to conscious or unconscious bias, which is not always self-evident, sources which reflect our own opinion are given too much weight, thereby introducing our own opinion into the article. In addition due to our conscious or unconscious bias we may present the information from the sources we have chosen in a biased way by choosing certain words or a certain order of presenting the information we want to introduce. When these things happen the NPOV is lost. That's what happend in this article. This violates WP policies and needs to be changed. Kt66 and the other editors have not produced a neutral article. By the way, Robertect has "given up" in July. Since then Kt66 has made many changes to the article. I feel that Kt66's strong bias is the main obstacle in achieving NPOV. That's why I suggested that he should stop editing it. But the longer I think about it, also reading your comments, I feel that even if Kt66 stopped the remaining editors would not be able to achieve the NPOV. We need to consider other solutions... Marpa 12:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Marpa, thanks for sharing your opinion about my points. I agree with you. We should simply state the facts as they are. Even the way we present these facts may indicate a bias. I see such a bias in your use of the phrase "Kadampa ordination". The word 'Kadampa' suggests a connection to Atisha and his lineage, as the word was first used by his followers. As the ordination under discussion is in no way similar to the type of ordination used in Atisha's lineage, calling it Kadampa ordination would be misleading. I am not saying that there are no elements of the NKT that are derived from Atisha's teachings and tradition (lam rim, lojong etc.) but the NKT ordination is one example of a marked departure from Atisha. From what you say, I'm sure you agree that there is a big difference between the two systems of ordination. Even though it is only an opinion, I do believe that Atisha played a major role in reviving the monastic vinaya, after the anti-Buddhist purges of King Langdarma. Tsongkhapa (in my opinion) also set out a system of practice that gave monasticism great importance. This is in stark contrast to a tradition that no longer follows the vinaya, as set down in the teachings of the Buddha. Yours in Dharma, Karma chogyam 12:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Karma Chogyam, I think we are digressing a bit. The phrase "Kadampa ordination" is not even used in the article, and I wouldn't suggest including it. I just used the ordination section as an example for the biased presentation of facts that pervades this article. Excellentone has already improved this section. I think it's much better now. Thanks. Marpa 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Marpa, I think you are an active NKT member and formerly posted on Wikipedia Germany using another name. Isn´t it, Marpa ? As you want to tell us who kt66 is, please tell us who you are ?--82.82.98.219 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the above user. Respectfully, Marpa, as you painstakingingly pointed out kt66's identity, could you now reveal your own involvement (or lack of it whatever the case may be) with the NKT? Best wishes. Magic Pickle 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ladies first! :-) Cheers. Marpa 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Magic Pickle 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above user, and Magic Pickle. If Marpa feels that kt66's identity is so important, it is only fair for marpa to shed some light on his own identity.Karma chogyam 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out Tenzin Peljors identity to show that the main author of this article is heavily biased which explains the bias of the article itself. I was hoping this would help other editors to understand what WP is being misused for here. Since I am not an author of this article I can't see any reason why I should disclose my identity. With "Ladies first!" I meant to say that you should disclose your own identity first before I do it. Sorry about my studpid sense of humour. Marpa 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But Marpa, just because someone is heavily involved with a subject it doesn't mean they should be barred from editing. Would you suggest Gen-La Samden be forbidden from contributing to this article also, because he is bound to have a positive view of the NKT! You can only judge what the contributors CONTRIBUTE to the article, not who they are. Now, kt66 may be adding a load of POV rubbish to the article as far as you are concerned, but you should criticise him on the contributions alone, not by who he is. Although you have not contributed to the article you have made your opinions clear and pointed out someone else's identity - it is surely skilful to either reveal your own identity, or if you want to remain anonymous, not to reveal the identity of others either. I know the Buddha did not says this, but I'm sure he would agree that 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' I don't feel your current approach bears much fruit. If you think the article is innacurate, edit it! That's what Wikipedia is all about. Magic Pickle 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good idea to reduce my contribution now by giving quotes from the WP:reliable sources. I will go through the different passages step by step and add quotes. Thank you all for improving the article and making it neutral. Regards --Kt66 12:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added citations and reincluded some points (with quotes) I felt needed to understand the emergance of NKT and the present situation and the reactions NKT is faced to. Now the quote-section is confused in a way (redundant page notes) due to the requested citations and should be summed up. This I do the next time or anyone else can do this. There is also enough space and there are all possibilities to shed light also on different other aspects of NKT, improving and in going on in balancing the article. Good Luck. I will go on with my Wikibreak for a while. Thanks. --Kt66 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marpa, thank you for kind request and pity. I am well. Regarding of some points you addressed to me:

• Since then I have done some research to understand why you put so much effort into this article and in particular why you're trying so hard to present and interpret the information about the NKT in such a negative way.

If you had written me an email as other WP-editors have done - like User:Robertect or User:Patrick (both NKT) - you would have known my identity without research quite easily. Regarding my motivation which you tried to find out, I said it many times: I wish to have proper information on NKT at WP and I started to work for this after NKT started at WP to spread false and contorted information. The main point why I did this is: I wish for Buddhist newcomers to get well informed not misinformed. That’s all.

Regarding “present and interpret the information about the NKT in such a negative way” what is negative for you? If an information is negative, where is the negativity? Is the “negativity” in the information, the fact the information represents or the feeling which arises when you read the information? For instance when somebody is killed, what is negative: the information of somebody is killed, the deed of the killing of a person or the feeling which arise to a close person of the victim?

I feel the information not negative, I feel them helpful. But some actions they present are negative for me as a Buddhist. My feelings towards the information are more “astonishing”. If I sum they all up I understand NKT and their followers. Maybe it depends on once own interests and understanding when one is labeling “negative” or "positive" to something.

• you don't seem to have many fond memories of that time which is a shame :-) This means you are emotionally involved in this subject which is not a good basis for writing a neutral article on the NKT.

Maybe you are a little bit fast in your conclusions: I remember the good things I experienced in NKT well and do not deny them. But I did not appear here for adding more “positive news” about NKT, there were enough established yet (and deleted by other WP editors before me), I appeared to stop spinning on the facts. “positive news” about NKT you find everywhere in the internet by NKT. And I am happy if they are presented in the article. But this is to easy; the article is not about “positive” or “negative” it is about facts. The facts are just as they are. And in all the edits I gave you’ll find it hard to find an error regarding the facts. Maybe that’s why you change from the factual level to the personal level, instead of correcting or balancing the facts? Before I got active I had more than four years to solve my emotionally involvement in this subject. So don’t worry too much about it. If the facts are not presented in a neutral manner everyone can correct this and this has been done many times and will go on. This is the nice thing WP offers: all help improving the article is welcomed.

• You are Tenzin Peljor, a German buddhist monk who received ordination from the Dalai Lama in March this year. So, we can say you are a representative of the Dalai Lama. This quite naturally makes you even more biased with respect to the subject of the article (see article for reasons).

Yes this am I. Congratulations. But I was for four years in NKT too. I was a NKT Education Program Coordinator, NKT teacher and a NKT monk. I taught the Foundation Program (FP) in different towns and also studied in the Teacher Training Program (TTP). I visited almost all of the NKT spring and NKT summer festivals in these four years and read most of the books of Geshe Kelsang. I partook also at the three NKT study porgrams. So, we can say I am a representative of the NKT as well. Also I became main responsible for avertisement and PR, so I produced flyers, posters and even bookmarks for Geshe Kelsangs books. So, we can say I am a representative of the GKG as well. Also I was very active in the Shugden subject and partook the demonstrations of NKT in three German towns and Swiss as well. I was also active in spreading the NKT "news" on Shugden to the press in a huge campaign, ringing the press, talking to the press and people and informing them about that subject of "religious perescution". So, we can say I am a representative of the Shugden as well. Than I met many Shugden Lamas and heard also their view on GKG. So, we can say I am a representative of them as well. This quite naturally makes me even more useful with respect to the subject of the article (see article for reasons).

• You bought the domain www.info-buddhismus.de which you use not to give general information about buddhism as the name would suggest but to make the articles that you wrote in WP and other sources available to as many people as possible in order to spread your view of the NKT. So you first introduce your negative view into WP articles and then you use the good reputation of WP to spread this information as the "truth". I noticed you use WP as a reference, for example when you discuss about the NKT in the internet forum of the German Buddhist Society and, vice versa, you use your own interviews and website as reliable sources or references in WP articles. Very clever.

Do you wish to deceive people or inform them? Quite from the beginning I run it the site states:

Diese Domain (www.info-buddhismus.de) wurde lediglich genutzt, weil die Domain frei war und schon gut verlinkt ist. Die Informationen, die hier zur Verfügung gestellt werden, geben keinen repäsentativen Auszug des Buddhismus in Deutschland wieder, noch sind die Informationen für jeden geeignet. Die Informationen sind für diejenigen gedacht, die unabhängige, sachliche Informationen über die zwei genannten Organisationen, die "Schützerpraxis" um Dorje Shugden und der eigentlichen (nicht mehr existenten) Kadampa Tradition gewinnen möchten.

Mit dieser Infoseite trage ich meine Verantwortung, in der Vergangenheit die einseitige und verdrehende Publicity beider Vereine mitunterstützt und damit Menschen fehlerhaft informiert und auf - für mich - äußerst fragwürdige Pfade geleitet zu haben.

(Maybe you translate it for the reader and excuse yourself for giving misleading information?)

Further when doing the changes at WP I was faced by the strong effort of NKT to revert and repress all the points they do neglect and hide usually. So I had the wish after a while to collect the articles with correct information together so that I have some information for people independent on how successful NKT is to delete the correct mentioned facts at WP. I think this is a natural idea and not a bad one. Parallel to this people asked for information on NKT because they lacked it. Why not giving them proper information where they can find it and referring to WP? If I have the interest to give correct information on NKT why not saying where people can find them? Even if based on my knowledge, as long as my knowledge is not wrong people get proper information…(When searching of someone knowing NKT well I was introduced by two respected Buddhist teachers (one of them is a Havard doctorate) as a source of information to the Chief Editor of the Austria Buddhist Magazine, who himself is a professor of medicine. So maybe I have some knowledge on NKT, maybe not. By the way it was NKT who refused any interview to that magazine not me, I gave it.)

• You have declared publicly on your website (http://www.info-buddhismus.de/Interviews-Ex-NKT.html), in an Austrian Buddhist Journal and on other occasions on WP talk pages that your aim is to warn of the NKT and to stop this "madness".

Maybe you have not the correct background. The interview was led by telephone and was dealing more if NKT is a cult or not and what agruments I have of claiming this. If he would have asked “Do you could sleep well in NKT?” I would have answered this question: "Yes the most time I slept well". You can not transfer in general different situations and mix them up. Sometimes this leads to errors. My aim at WP is as I stated above. But of course if possible I do warn people. Sometimes I have this motivation too.

I put much effort to avoid being biased. Maybe I was not successful. Please excuse me. But I think we can come to the agreement: all the facts are correct now and there is no wrong or contorted information anymore in the article on NKT, isn't it? Further the article sheds light on the history and development of NKT in a correct way, isn't it? But maybe to much light. So perhaps we need some changes…(Maybe we can include a dimmer switch...).

Regarding the ordination: In Buddhist countries such deeds as ignoring and not following the Vinaya and setting up an own ordained community of lay people with celibacy wearing robes is quite a hard thing. I think the point is even lighted to less. It is not a slight change it is a heavy one, especially because it is done by one person not by an assembly of elder ones. However; I tried to express it more moderate. We do not have here a case of “minor rules” we have a case of establishing an order without novice and full ordained monks and thereby expelling the complete Vinaya with its democratic rules. It is also based very much to this (and the lack of knowledge of westerners) that GKG was able to establish himself as the sole spiritual leader and authority and even take off robes from people who wish not to follow him anymore or taking the ordination away when he wants to put down persons fearing to loose control. (as happened in Berlin 2000) In cases of wrong behaviour (regarding the monastic rules) of a monk or nun the whole community of the elder full ordained ones are in charge to help and correct a person, not a single one. Also at first it is examined well if the person has acted in contradiction of any rule and the like so that all is fair and correct. All this is not present in NKT. So I think the information in the article are neutral and give fair information (regarding your example). This is seen by other editors too.

Regarding Kay: I think the history and emergence sections are completely correct and following the research correctly without misusing the information or contorting them in any way. However if you find faults I am happy if you can correct them. Also I am happy if you can give some reference to the points made by NKT members in the article where quotes are still missed; maybe you’ll find more good things on NKT you miss as well, just put it in the article if they are correct. I am happy if you can improve the article, balance it or make it more neutral. I focused and gave evidence on the contorted information and will do this in the future as well. So please don’t ask me to write a section on the flowers at the Manjushri Centre and how people smile if new persons or the press is coming ;-) "She told us a little about the New Kadampa tradition of Buddhism, brought to this country by the bespectacled 67-year-old Tibetan monk Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, now resident in Cumbria, while bestowing upon us wave after wave of those wonderful smiles so that we were soon all grinning back beatifically at her." (The Guardian, [26]) But however User:Marpa I see the fault of being too much active and dominating the article too. I asked three editors (Humanum/Excellentone/Clockwork) for their opinions regarding the dvelopment of the article. We'll see what they will say. take care, --Kt66 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, with due respect but you seem to be very confused. How can you say you ARE a representative of the NKT, you ARE a representatve of Geshe Kelsang, you ARE a representative of many Shugden Lamas??? And how can you say that this makes you more useful with respect to the subject of the article??? I know you have a psychologist in Berlin who specialized in helping "Shugden-victims" (as if there were any!) but maybe you should seek other help too. Sorry, but what you are expounding here and the many changes you made to the article in the last few days just prove how obsessed you are with respect to this subject. Why don't you allow yourself a permanent wikibreak? It would do you good. Marpa 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellentone has made the AMA request regarding the article. I think it is good to make this transparent here. For more see:

• AMA request by USER:excellentone
• Your AMA request

Some also suggested the article for deletion.

I replied regarding the AMA request to user:Amerique

Hi Amerique I just recognized that Excellentone has made the Ama request, kindly you mentioned my wiki-break, I changed it to a semi-wikibreak now, because I got an email someone was telling me the article will maybe deleted. However, please leave your comments also at the NKT talkpage so that other people maybe be able to follow that discussion too. Regarding Kay: his research is highly achknowledged among scientists. Whereas Cozort (I put now more of him in the article too) is mainly relying on NKT sources without questioning them much, Kays fieldresearch is the first time a unbiased study of the subject because he also interviewed former members and people who are critical to NKT and did not only rely what NKT has published or told him. His research shed light on the NKT history which he said himself has been always repressed by NKT. Waterhouse notes regarding Daniel Cozort: "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." (see Book Review : Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition.) Instead of deleting the article we can include futher researchs as I have still suggested at the talk page:

We can use also the book British Buddhism, Teachings, Practice and Development by Robert Bluck, published in August 2006 if you think Kay is used onesided. For an extract please see: A ‘post-Tibetan’ Western organization?--Kt66 23:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think on that?

So all together I have asked now for their opinions: four WP editors: (Humanum/Excellentone/Clockwork/Amerique) this seems to be fair, I think. --Kt66 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regaring the argument of Kay is used one sided: Just check it: there are many sources and over 35 lines of NKT original statements. What Kay is excellent in is that he has done the first unbiased research on the history of NKT and that his field research is based not only on NKT internal documents or only what NKT says instead he has checked the whole process from different angles. He also says NKT was always active in repressing the history. So, I see no reason why to follow that NKT policy of repressing history also at WP. If anybody has a better source he can include it. To balance Kays view there is also a quote from the NKT Kadampa broshure. So instead of deleting the article it is better to make constructive suggestions how to improve it or what passages should be imporved or balanced, isn't it? --Kt66 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello all, I apologize for my absence. I've been reading over this article, and observing the dynamics of its editors for a few weeks, and I've been forced to reach an inevitable conclusion. You see, one of the things that I've learned over my past few years here is that if you have a particular presupposition it's not that difficult to find supporting sources: take a look at Talk:Evolution for an excellent example. I'm going to be very frank, but this article has tended away from a balanced description of the history and practices NKT, and has begin to lean very heavily into an article more accurately described as "David Kay's History and Opinion of NKT". I'm very concerned that the opinions and viewpoints of a relatively small number of individuals is drawn upon as the source material for a large portion of the article, which is representative of the point of view of a single editor who, in his determination to ensure that the article fully descibes his own perspective, has dominated the editing process. What if evolution was editing primarily by a couple of very dedicated authors who drew upon any of the number of books that claim to conclusively disprove it? – ClockworkSoul 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though ClockworkSoul, is that as the NKT is a very new, New Religious Movement, there hasn't been a whole lot written about it from a neutral or at least, academic perspective. You have the material written by the movement themselves, you have the national newspapers attacking the NKT over the Dorje Shugden issue, and then you have Kay. Maybe I'm wrong and there's a lot of sources we can draw upon, but I'm not so sure. Magic Pickle 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clockwork. Maybe the history section is now to much elaborated and other aspects, like the teachings/education/western lamas (NKT teachers) to less lighted. Also I agree that there is a undue wight on corrupt aspects. On the other hand it is Kay who has made the research on NKT history not Cozort or someone else. Cozort has a complete different focus in his article. So the extensive use of Kay is connected with his knowledge/research on NKT history which is not present in other researches. However this whole section can be condensed, I think. As you can see, I included Cozort and I think we can use Blucks research to find also different view or angles so that Kays view is not that much present. The NKT history in a summery is: "Lama Yeshe invited Geshe Kelsang to his FPMT-center (fouded by LY's disciples). Geshe Kelsang is a Gelug teacher and a collegue of LY. GKG was one of two teachers at LY's center. LY was the Spiritual Director. Than it came to a split/shism. There are different reasons for this shism. After this split GKG severed all connections to the Gelug tradition and established the NKT. From that time on, no Gelug teacher teaches in the NKT and GKG is the sole spiritual authority there." These are just facts without evaluations. To balance the article we can include of course the version on the history NKT established - this has been done a little bit yet and can be more extended. Kay states that as with the most NRM's there is a difference how the NRM's see their history and outsiders see it. Maybe this has to be considered too. I see my contributions not as my "own perspective" on NKT. If there is any other perpective we should include this. I can not remember that I repressed such trials here. If you look in the archives of this TP, it was a NKT member who claimed there are no accounts available on the history. The same person even suggested Kay's book. You can compare the section "The idendity of NKT" in the WP-article with an extract of the chapter of Kay The idendity of NKT. In the WP-article we have in that section about 90% NKT statements (in the correct chronical order) only at the end it is pointed out that critics refute this claim of being identical with the ancient Kadampa Tradition. Nothing of Kay is used (besides the citation of the Full Moon Magazine). However we will see what other editors/admins suggest and what can be improved or if the article should be deleted. Thank you very much for your efforts, Regards, --Kt66 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear ClockworkSoul, I felt such a sense of relief when I read your contribution! Finally, someone seems to notice what is going on in this article! Just a few thoughts on this. Choosing biased sources is one thing. Selecting mainly information from these sources that support ones own opinion and to present them in a biased way is another thing. All kind of things are happening here. Things that are difficult to avoid if you have a particular presupposition. That's why I pointed out kt66's identity. I also question Kay's study which according to kt66 is "the first unbiased research on the history of the NKT" and "highly acknowledged among scientists". I have information that Kay attended meditation classes in Lancaster in the early/mid 90's. He would then have been in his early 20's. He was described as being academically oriented but internally troubled, and he seemed genuinely interested for some time and then stopped coming and his 'research papers' were published. Someone indicated that he was quite a vulnerable young man, and there was suspicion that in writing his papers he was influenced/manipulated by one or two colleagues/teachers at Lancaster Uni who were quite anti-NKT - possibly even the idea of writing the papers was put into his mind by them. He isn't a world renown professor of Buddhism or anything like that. Of course people who don't like the NKT for one reason or another think Kay did a wonderful job. Also one thing you notice when you brouwse through his book is that alot of his comments are not referenced at all, especially the more opiniated ones. So on this basis alone I would say that his portrayal of NKT is questionable. Another thing is the wording Kay uses which shows clearly that he is making assumptions and bringing his own opinion into it. Look at these phrases that I copied from the article: "Geshe Kelsang's perception of himself and his centres", "and he came to believe that he could only uphold the tradition of Tsongkhapa purely by", "He had come to believe by this time that", "prompted by his radically exclusive belief that", "He thus became convinced that", "From an NKT viewpoint, Geshe Kelsang", "It is believed by NKT followers that", etc, etc. How on earth does Kay know how Geshe Kelsang perceives himself and what he believes?! Some of these things Geshe Kelsang either never said, or never said in the way Kay quotes. Kay also converts quotes from individuals or small groups within the NKT into general viewpoints of the NKT and of Geshe Kelsang. Is this what WP calls a reliable and reputable source? Good night wikipedia. Marpa 00:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"He was described as being academically oriented but internally troubled" - what has that got to do with anything? Kay did also write about the OBC, as well in the book, don't forget. Magic Pickle 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the current article. I think that phrases like "Kay's research" is a bit overstated. However it is a published source that at the least is evidense that there are two sides to this debate and what the anti-NKT camp says. For an article of such controversy I think we are doing reasonably well, and I encourage editors with the opposing points of view to continue this constructive dialogue. Here are some questions to help us move forwards. What are facts that we can all agree on (eg names, dates etc?) What are documented oppinions of NKT follows and critics? I think that when articles like Palestine and Israel can converge on constructive and helpful articles (despite continual vigorous debate on talk pages) I think it should be possible for Buddhist topics!Billlion 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's good constructive advice, Billion. Thanks. I think that the problem is that some NKT members, such as Marpa, would prefer to have no NKT article at all, rather than one that contains any apparent criticism of his tradition. Changes can be made, to make it more balanced, but views of both sides of this controversial group must be included, if the article is to faithfully present the facts.Karma chogyam 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree to you both. I will remove the phrase "Kays research" where it is possible. I invite once more the NKT editors for improving and balancing the article and I agree that we have a constructive environment and the situation is not hopeless as User:BoboLuna said below. To understand the situation better and thereby come to a solution I try now to discribe why the article is so difficult to write:

I think we have to acknowldge that it is hard to balance the article because we have different perpectives when writing on NKT and have to keep them in mind, being open also for other perpectives.

We have

• the perpective of NKT and NKT followers
• we have the perpective of scientists (Kay, Cozort, Bluck, Waterhouse, Lopez)
• we have the perpective of a NRM / cult specialist / UK-press
• we have the perspective of past inhabitants at Manjushri Institute (FPMT)
• we have the perpective of ex-members

Than we have in all of that perpectives different informations which most time even contradicts each other or are neglected by the other group. Also we have the different perspectives of the editors and their backgrounds, so in my case I focused more on the topics which are repressed by NKT although I know they have their positives sides as well. (For instance NKT offers a feeling of Family - "the Kelsang Family" and this creates much of the positive feelings of the members - why they cherish the NKT as well. The trial to create a family is also discribed by Kay...) User:Excellentone and User:Marpa were always encarouaged and welcomed to correct the article or make suggestions to improve it as one can see easily at the talk page. (They both made less of that opportunity.) However the article is a challange and for the good of the article all editors are responsible and anyone can contribute. To write the article is a challange and I am not sure if the challange is solved by nominating the article for deletion. This can only be a temporary solution. Also the argument Kays research is used in undue wight: What other WP:reliable source we have than his on the NKT history? As far as I know there is only Kay and noone could offer other research sources. I my self suggested to use NKT literature and Bluck to balance the article but no NKT editor picked up that suggestion. However, it is not a hopeless case it is a challange and we can master it. I will inlude a summery on NKT by Bluck in the article this will balancing it and underlines of what I said here. --Kt66 07:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for this article to be deleted on the following grounds: I think it gives undue weight to the opinion of David Kay, and is riddled with opinion presented as fact, furthermore that those editing the article seem to be either ignoring or misunderstanding the policy on NPOV and this is evidenced by recent changes that have been made to the article. One only has to look at the recently amended first paragraph to see an example that illustrates this point: the line "It derives from Tibetan Buddhism and is one of the newest and most controversial buddhist movements" has been added recently together with the reference to David Barett's The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions. There is a huge difference between stating a fact "is one of the newest and most controversial" and stating an opinion "in the opinion of David Barett one of the newest and most controversial..." this is fundamental and a point I raised on these pages weeks ago. I'm afraid I agree with Clockworksoul that while there is such a strong agenda other than presenting facts the article cannot move forward. I hope that everyone involved can remain friends and overcome extreme views. Excellentone 13:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that Wikipedia should have no article on the NKT at all is a little crazy. It may be that someone 'starts over' with the article, but the Wiki needs an NKT article, definitely. One source we could use, is the BBC's online info on their religions page. Magic Pickle 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question: if you opened an encyclopedia and found this article what would you think of the encyclopedia? that's what I have been trying to do and I think I would be very surprised to find an article based so heavily on the work of a previously unpublished, previously unheard of academic writing his Phd thesis, not to mention a ten year old newspaper article...honestly if you trawl the internet for long enough you can probably find obscure references for any point you are trying to make. If you check the timeline here you'll find almost all of the references are ten years out of date and I don't think it's particularly helpful to the reader to have to search google books or part with £70 to check the arguments being quoted so heavily. It might also be worth noting that David Kay has been criticized in the academic press for amongst other things his fieldwork and for failing to document his sources Review by Inken Prohl. Since you mention the BBC website it is also worth raising the point that kt66 has carried his crusade to that arena too and has succeeded in having alterations made on their page to bring it in line with the Wikipedia article he has largely written.[27]I firmly believe that this article has been a waste of everyone's time for far too long already and in addition to the arguments I have put forward it is the compassionate thing to do to delete it.Excellentone 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that hard to get hold of a copy of Kay's work - simply register at your local university library for reading priveliges, then ask for a British Library search.

The problem is, Excellentone, that deleting is a last resort. Wikipedia is about a collaboration of editors. You think the article is badly written or skewed? Get editing it then! Even if this article is deleted there is absolutely nothing to stop someone starting another NKT article. The NKT deserves to have its own page on Wikipedia - I'm sure that's one thing pro and anti camps can agree on! It's an issue over content, and that requires other editors (like Robertect once did) to get involved, if they feel there are problems. The NKT is too important (either from a pro or a negative position) to not have a page on Wiki and I can guarantee there will be a demand for those wanting to know more, and those wanting to write about the NKT. I don't think your AFD will be successful, so far we haven't even had anyone from the pro-delete camp make their case on the page at all. Get involved and change the article, because it isn't going anywhere, I'd bet my Citroen Saxo on it! Magic Pickle 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the Inken Prohl review of Kay which you said criticises Kay's work. Err..it's not exactly a scathing criticism, though, is it? I think the review is generally positive, pointing out Kay's limitations, as Prohl says. It also has positive things to say like 'wealth of information'. As for the BBC, if it was kt66 who made the BBC unfairly change their article, can the NKT not do anything to get the BBC to change it back? The BBC are a very trusted source, people who aren't sure about NKT may get a negative view from this Wiki article, but they know it's written by amateurs, unlike the BBC, which also has some negativity in its NKT article, but will be much more trusted as a source by most people.Magic Pickle 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear E1, I do a little bit wonder how one-sided the contributions at the talk page are recognized here. Although there exist this research of Kay (2004) (with many quotes) and different other sources - even an extract of Robert Bluck (2006!) - NKT members are focusing on Kay, critcizing him without ever have read his book...and even slander his person (User:Marpa). Until now I could not recognize a worthwhile reflection or any suggestion of other sources regarding the NKT history at the talk page; no suggestion, no reflection on the facts was made...Also as u:MP said, Inken Prohl is not criticizing Kay at all only at the end of her review she is pointing out some things she missed. She gives not the impression in any way that he has made a "wrong research" is biased and the like. Maybe you read the review again and start to study the book of Mr. Kay which will be well accessable at the university libraries. I have noted above that Waterhouse suggested in a review of Cozorts article: "He (Cozort) 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." (see Book Review : Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition.). This does not look like Mr. Kay is an academic failure or something like this. Until now nobody could suggest at the talk page another source than Kay. I myself made suggestions on Bluck's research but nobody picked it up until now... However this is no complaint, I just want to express that I am astonished on that: faultfinding on Kay and me instead of improving the article or make suggestion of how to go on...The failure is not Kay, Bluck, Waterhouse and the like and also not me, the problem is the complex stuff regarding NKT and that there exist 'multiple histories', that NKT represses the history and that there exist different angles/perspectives on NKT - all these are presented in Kays research and also Blucks research. I ask myself what does E1 and Marpa know about NKT? How you want to contribute if you neglect the sources - without ever have read them - which fit to WP:reliable sources? Dear E1, what do you know abou the topic? What independent sources (than NKT's) you have studied? Your knowledge and ability to critisize and improve the article in a constructive manner are most welcome as of any other editor, but to contribute you have to give input of knowledge on the subject and I am happy to hear your knowledge or what is wrong regarding the facts. Let's discuss the history of NKT and improve the article so that it is useful and balanced. (See my suggestions below). Thank you very much, happy to hear from you, Regards --Kt66 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (PS: Regarding BBC: I suggested them different specialists among them also Waterhouse and Kay, but I do not know if they have contacted them...maybe you ask them yourself.)

I do not share your pessimism. You criticised that the article is too heavily based on the research of Kay. Now another source other than Kay is mentioned. It is a fact that NKT is one of the newest buddhist movements and that it is higly controversial,too. When NKT joined the British Network of Buddhist Organizations, about thirty percent of the other Buddhist groups identifying themselves with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition left the NBO. Some Buddhist unions did reject the application of membership. It is a fact that it is very controversial and it is a fact that it is very new. What do you criticise exactly? That it is not a reliable source, or that it states a fact that you interpret as negative? --BoboLuna 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. There do not happen much here: I do not know really why. However the AMA request will be resolved (I see no great popblems regarding this) maybe we can discuss how to go on in improving the article. Maybe some of the editors who wish to contribute have to buy the books by Kay, Cozort and Bluck. Besides a possible undue wight of Kays research (or corrupt aspects of NKT) there is a lot of the subject still not in the article. The emphasis on Guru devotion / guru-yoga is a main key in NKT and is related with all the other subjects. Also it would be fine to tell what the qualifications of NKT teachers are and the like. I agree to user:Karma chogyam, the merge of the two sections I think is not helpful. I disagree at that time with a merge. Both sections describe an integral part of NKT and give a short summery and I see no use of merging them. I will make some changes in the reference section and the teaching sections. If you disagree please remove it again, than we can discuss here. It seems no one is really active now. --Kt66 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added further sources and included the subject on the qualifications of NKT teachers. Please feel free to balance this or discuss this or raise up any doubt here. The short-cut of that is: "As the basis of NKT is strong reliance to GKG the teachers have to follow in exactly, otherwise - they say - the NKT will disintegrate and the purity of the teachings is getting lost. It is very important to keep the NKT/GKG teachings 'pure' which means not 'mixing' them with other teachings, personal ideas and the like. So NKT teachers are not enocurgaed to read other books rather they where actively discorouged in the past. Also the qualification of NKT teachers should be mentioned. The main qualification is their faith in GKG (being a 'channel'), than they just have to sign for the Teacher Training Program and are choosen quite eearly without completing it as teachers, are sent to oversea and teach there studying on tapes and two times a year at Mahjushri Centre." This is an important point, I included. What do other edtors think? Regards, --Kt66 08:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some sentences on the financing of the centers. If anybody wish to critisize that the housing benefit has a undue wight I agree, but we have the problem to give full quotes. I balanced it by citing Bluck and NKT members he interviewed. If you ask why I added this topic: The growth of NKT is based also very much on how they aquire money to establish centres. (We had some discussions in the past with 2nd March on that (see Archive)). As Bunting, Waterhouse and Lopez noted: aquiring money has been done also by asking the resident members for high rental fees in different cases (maybe most time) payed from social support from the government. I do not know how all this is working in Britain, but in Germany we resident members were asked for high rental fees (my rental fee was 250% higher then before I lived there and my room was 4 times smaller than before). Some people named that exorbitant rents. Beacuse it was not liked that we worked to much and had not enough time to support the centre ("to dedicate us") most of us signed for social help to get money from the government with this we financed and ran the centre and worked for it. This has raised up a controvery also in the Berlin Neukölln Social Department however at the end it was lawful and although they scolded us a cult they could not do anything and have accepted at the end and payed. I do not mention this topic to make the article more negative, I mention it, because it plays a role in the financing of NKT centres and the rapid expansion; the topic was picked up in different sources. Maybe we can make a short sum of it and remove it to the Controversy section? Or should we leave it completely aside because it gives an undue wight? What do WP editors think on that? I have no problem if you just revert and make some comments here. Please excuse my bad English! --Kt66 00:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I followed the suggestion of u:E1 and added sources where possible or deleted unsourced quotes. Please leave your comment, suggestion or just change the article if you disagree in any way or put in the article wich you feel should stated. --Kt66 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now put all the suggestions I recognized into practice. I think a neutral Editor and native English should go through the text and make it more NPOV where needed and and remove grammar, language and spelling errors. Maybe User:Billion can do this? Thank you very much, --Kt66 11:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the article very hard to read as the style changes with every source that is quoted. It is full of "xy says....". I would suggest to put all that quotes to an extra page , if necessary, instead of putting them all in the article. Just telling what the source has to state should be enough. --BoboLuna 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a consequence of it being controversial. It is bound to be of the form "x says" but "y says" that way we can be NPOV while saying what the different factions say. Direct quotes are less controversial than paraphrasing them. On the other hand hopefully the article will converse towards a concesus about what the different points of view are and then summarise them in prose, with references to the sources. Billlion 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree with user:Billion and have recognized that some of the main problems of the article, besides that it is discussed controversial, is also to get clear about the different perspectives and information which each of them offers to get together. I would pick up user:Billions advice to get clear about:

• What are facts that we can all agree on (eg names, dates etc?)
• What are documented oppinions of NKT follows and critics?

and additional we should get clear about the different perpectives on which NKT is discribed and what facts/arguments they offer. We have

• the perspective of NKT and NKT followers
• we have the perspective of scientists (Kay, Cozort, Bluck, Waterhouse, Lopez)
• we have the perspective of a NRM / cult specialist / UK-press
• we have the perspective of past inhabitants at Manjushri Institute (FPMT)
• we have the perspective of ex-members

Then we have to acknowldge of course the different backgrounds of the editors, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. --Kt66 07:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(PS the removal of the phrase "Kays research" I will do this week. I have not that much time now. Regards, --Kt66 07:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Although there is a lot to discuss about the different subjects still. I made some changes and balanced different sections. If someone sees this as weakening, not improving the article, please feel free to revert, balancing it or discussing it here. As the AfD guiedlines says:

You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).

I will have a look tomorrow again how it develops. Regards, --Kt66 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As the main point of AfD is the reference towards Kay whom seem to be at that time the only one who made a research on the history I will give here some quotes of what he thinks makes discribing the history of NKT so dificult. This can be used as a background keeping in mind when discussing improvements on the History section. If there is anybody able to balance that section please do it.

After Kay has indroduced the situation of the most NRM's regarding different versions on their history he cites 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 argues further:

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'.

Then he is introducing what he has observed in the following lines:

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 movement. As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism, the social organization of memory and forgetfulness, especially by 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 characterizing the organization 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.

For more see Kay page 81-83. If you don't have the money to buy the book try it please with google book search. If there are any other sources than Kay on the history please be so kind to name it. Regards --Kt66 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe Amerique listed this article on AFD. Come on guys keep a level head and keep editing. Billlion 17:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. Amerique was doing it as part of an WP:AMA on behalf of User:Excellentone, see Excellentone's Talk. Billlion 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In its present form the article is untenable. We editors have fallen into the error of trying to write an essay which includes at its heart a an underlying thesis or principal, instead lets just stick to facts or delete. I have been impressed by the efforts of Kt to bring a balance to the article, but there is no source that represents the views of myself or the hundreds of thousands of readers of books sold by and studied in NKT, so we can never achieve balance. I have seen first hand hours of discussion spent reaching agreement on content wasted when that content was then deleted and replaced within days. I don't know how many words I have personally written but I see almost none of them in the article now. It is especially difficult since the strict requirement for source citations which has invalidated everything other than published sources.

In those published sources facts are few and opinions are many. As an example, the article opens by saying that NKT is controversial - thats opinion and to support it we get into thesis, citing sources and interpreting them or offering the interpretation of others, and once we're writing a thesis the article is NPOV, its circular problem. Point by point I have a different view of the article but my sources are first hand contact with Geshe Kelsang, the NKT or my own experience... not much use, not permitted sources. Kay has a view of NKT defined by Exclusivism vs Inclusivism, I have a view NKT defined by humility and respect for other people's views and teachings. Kay quotes people saying they believe Geshe Kelsang was jealous of Lama Yeshe, I believe Geshe Kelsang loved and respected Lama Yeshe. But Kay didn't interview me and I didn't suit his thesis so my view can't be in the article. etc etc. Lets have an article of facts not views or no article. If you want an article called critical discussions of the NKT, or an article called the views of people who don't like the NKT then fine, lets see where they go. But my conclusion is either delete or have an article which is facts and nothing more. That includes removing quotes like "Legal loophole", "criticised the Geshe program", "Became convinced..." and "Third Buddha--" Quoting something doesn't make it a fact or neutral. On the 3rd Buddha point, its interesting to observe that in over a decade with NKT the first time I saw this was from critics of NKT and the first time I saw a sourced quote was in Wikipedia thanks to Kt's diligence - yes it was written but its not a fact its an opinion and it is not an NKT teaching. But my view is irrelevant because its not published. So just facts or delete - below I offer a reduced article which I think falls more closely to the objective of facts not thesis. (Robertect 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)).�

Dear Robertect,

thank you very much for your effort, help and comment. Some remarks to your contribution:

’’lets just stick to facts’’

I agree, but sometimes it is not clear what the fact is, because the different perspectives on NKT offer different facts, some of them are neglected (or actively denied) by a person following another perspective. Also there are “facts” based on semi-truths or untruths which will create confusion. So discussion on some points (facts) may be valuable, this seems to be needed also because whatever fact you tell will support a different view on NKT and lead to a possibly “undue weight”. (see Bluck’s different views on how on NKT can be looked at). So I think the different facts should be evaluated also under the perspective which view they do support and how to balance the different views with their different facts they offer and if there is a fact opposing it. Otherwise the article will confuse the reader or is one-sided. The better we are clear about this the better we can differentiate and offer clarity to ourselves and the reader, I think. Also by deleting or adding different views/comments/facts, special views are weakened or get stronger. Regarding NKT history we have the problem exactly as described by Kay and should acknowledge this circumstance: “the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism, the social organization of memory and forgetfulness, especially by 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.” (Kay page 82)

’’there is no source that represents the views of myself or the hundreds of thousands of readers of books sold by and studied in NKT, so we can never achieve balance.’’

This I can not follow really. What is your view? There are tons on NKT material which can be used. Tons of NKT brochures, NKT festival diaries, NKT internet sites and the like, books of Geshe Kelsang…just use them. I feel it is really needed to have a well presentation of “NKT followers view” in the article and I always encouraged of adding it – besides it makes the article unclear (blurring) – this is a matter where you and in which context you place them. Of course this “NKT followers view” is just one perspective of the different perspectives available. The same is with what I added on critical stuff: it is just also the representation of some few perspectives available. The article is of course not near to perfection…

When expressing that you feel your own view is not presented or the view of “the hundreds of thousands of readers of books sold by and studied in NKT”: the only thing you can do is: “just add it!” --- (by the way my own view is also not in the article, I belong to ex-members, who are usually put down by NKT as “disgruntled ex-disciples whose evidence is biased” (see Bluck, or just see User Marpa and user:Excellentone…). Although there exist quotations of ex-members (Bunting) or at the Austria magazine, which u:marpa mentioned, I refrained of using them here. However, I think there are only few (crazy and obsessed) ex-members ;-), so we can neglect them but we should not neglect the views of the other “parties” as listed above.) ---

“by saying that NKT is controversial – that’s opinion and to support it we get into thesis”

Dear Robertect: NKT is controversial discussed. I can not understand how you can neglect this fact. Just look at E-Sangha, the different places in the internet which are not NKT dominated. The three sources of NBO and the Buddhist Unions may not be the only one maybe there are more, but these where just the one I know who had their struggle with the NKT. The same you can see at http://dalailama.com (see Shugdenvideo)… NKT is criticized almost everywhere. NKT lacks the ability to be open in that case. Rather they tend to neglect such things completely. Also Kay, Bluck, Waterhouse and Lopez, the British Newspaper as well as other newspapers have discussed NKT controversial. There is no need of a thesis to acknowledge this. The citation of Barett you can just see as a representative of that existing controversy on NKT, it’s a fact. I think u:boboluna saw a urge to add it, because it is so obvious.

I agree we need no thesis in the article. But sometimes something like a thought-out comment to understand the subject/actions better seems to be useful if it is presented in a NPOV manner (full citation). It is not needed to use Kay to much, however he offers something reasoned. I prefer Kay because his analyse sheds light or offer an understanding what a simple monk and Geshe led towards splitting from his benefactors (Lama Yeshe/FPMT), his fellow monks and fellow Geshes, his Abbots and teachers (in Sera), accusing his Gelug school of being “serious degenerated” and accusing persons higher esteemed than himself of “destroying the ‘pure’ Dharma” and “mixing Dharma with politics”. It is clear what Kay said: his perspective of the outer Gelug world changed dramatically. Because he established himself as the only reliable Tibetan in NKT (with no connection of his religious background (Sangha) and religious colleagues anymore, with no one who is equally or higher than him, with no one who could correct him, with no one where a NKT member could complain to when he felt GKG has misused him or treated him unfair, where he is the sole and lasting authority), it is obvious that his views of himself had also changed dramatically as Kay described it. This self-view is even more obvious because no other Gelug Lama was ever invited by him to teach – even no Shugden Lama, or a ‘simple Geshe’. One may ask: how can this happen, what led him to that radical steps? Kay offers an understanding of this which is based on facts, includes the cross cultural background as well as the Gelug history, and the personal visions of Geshe Kelsang. Kay offers an understanding which is reasoned and logical. ("Kay’s treatment of the NKT is well informed.., Kay’s is a fine academic study" (Book review by Georg Feuerstein (PhD.)) -- NKT offers no understanding but blur the facts. NKT cut off and deny the cultural and religious roots and their religious background and escape the questions of the roots, background and development of the NKT, its history and its leader by labelling “Kadampa Buddhism” to the presentation of Geshe Kelsangs “Gelug-Dharma” and equalizing it with Atisha’s Tradition, which is not alive today (all masters of the ancient Kadampa Tradition are dead and can say nothing in that subject), so nobody can correct him. By this ‘skilful mean’ of labelling ‘Kadampa Buddhism’ to his Dharma-presentation, repressing the NKT history and repressing criticism by ‘theological means’ (Guru devotion) he can once more escape the urge questions why he separated from his personal religious background, his Gelug school and established his own ‘completely independent’ NKT school. Kay’s comment to this is quite neutral: “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.” (Kay page 89). All announcements and the different name-labelling (‘Kadampa Buddhism’, ‘completely independent’, ‘no political affiliations’, ‘Kadampa Buddhist Union’…) of the NKT and the changes in the NKT teachings (especially on Guru devotion) can be seen under the perspective to justify these developments of GKG and NKT. Because we live in the west in a democracy not in a theocracy he has the freedom of doing what he likes in a way. From the perspective of the Buddhist order (Sangha) it looks quite different. However, for an encyclopaedia to much in depth analyses are not needed, but maybe some of Kay’s comments are quite useful to shed light on the subject and should not be put easily aside.

"Point by point I have a different view of the article but my sources are first hand contact with Geshe Kelsang, the NKT or my own experience... not much use, not permitted sources.”

of course they are permitted if published. Cozort for instance used mainly NKT sources without questioning them much. But if you have any special view which is not published then it will be difficult of course. (This comes back to the point: What is your view?)

there seem to exist positive and negative experiences encountering GKG; both are published. good experience do not disprove the bad experiences of others and also bad experiences to not disprove the good experiences. All these different experiences may have happened and can be validate, because persons might encounter different aspects of a person’s behaviour and some people might have had only the possibility to encounter some selected aspects of a person’s behaviour, there seem to be a need to get a more holistic picture which includes all of these aspects. Critics and followers should be both open to broaden their view. (A person who wears always nice and smooth clothes has also a naked aspect of the body under his clothes. The look on that naked body can be quite shocking and not nice, not smooth. Both views are related to the same person; both views may contradict each other, may compete each other but are no contradiction, just different views, based on facts.)

” Kay has a view of NKT defined by Exclusivism vs Inclusivism, I have a view NKT defined by humility and respect for other people's views and teachings.”

NPOV means: if there are sources for it, to explain both views in the article in a neutral manner. This should not be any problem at all to include both views you are presenting here, both can be stated.

” Kay quotes people saying they believe Geshe Kelsang was jealous of Lama Yeshe, I believe Geshe Kelsang loved and respected Lama Yeshe.”

If there is a source which support your view it should be added.

If you say: “I believe Geshe Kelsang loved and respected Lama Yeshe.”

Comment: It seems to me GKG and NKT followers like sometimes to make things as a “matter of beliefs”, I observed this many times. But if one looks deeply sometimes things are more a “matter of facts” or a “matter of logic and analyse”. The same “argument of believe” GKG has used with the trials of NKT (after the media disaster) to become member of the Buddhist Unions in the different countries: he said to the German NKT representative (who told it to me): “either they (the Buddhist Unions) believe us (the NKT) or they believe the Dalai Lama”. But is the creditability of NKT a “matter of believe” or a “matter of behaviour” or a “matter of facts”? The more people experienced that NKT members (GKG) are not honest or tell lies, spread wrong or contorted information the more NKT/GKG loose creditability…This is no matter of believe this is a matter of behaviour and the ability of the mind to be clear about the facts. The “argument of believe” seems to be more a Christian approach to me and a way to avoid looking honestly (clear minded) on the facts. The same is with the jealousy: it can be jealousy, it can not be jealousy, what reasons do we have to support the pro or the con view? This is difficult, but if you look in the NKT/FPMT history and the development of GKG own school, there is a great possibility for the “jealousy” version, but there is also no guarantee for its “validity” at all.

If you say: “I believe Geshe Kelsang loved and respected Lama Yeshe.”

Kay states that GKG criticized Lama Yeshe to mix the Dharma with politics and money (Kay page 86); further he states “his (GKG) criticism of Lama Yeshe and the FPMT, for example would often be couched in terms of the destruction of ‘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.” (Kay page 66): this is a heavy accusation from someone (GKG) who was invited to teach the Dharma, isn’t it? It is even more delicate to accuse the one (Lama Yeshe) who invited him (GKG) and to whom he could also feel gratitude. It is even more interesting that a ‘simple Geshe’ accused a Tulku in this way, who is regarded higher than GKG in the Tibetan Buddhism system. (Do you believe Geshe Kelsang did this all because he “loved and respected Lama Yeshe”?) One may feel some doubts here. Kay did not create this accusation, GKG has spread it himself with the text “Eradicating wrong views” (27th oct. 83). You can label such heavy accusations of ‘destroying the Dharma’ as “Geshe Kelsang loved and respected Lama Yeshe.” or as FPMT has labelled it as “motivated Geshe Kelsang first to attempt to 'seize control' of the Institute and eventually to 'steal' it from its mother organisation.” (Kay page 83) If you look on a logical line the latter is not only a negative idea, there can be some truth in it as well as in your belief. Maybe you check it further. Regarding ‘jealousy’: Lama Yeshe was a Tulku, GKG is a ‘simple Geshe’. A Tulku is more respected in Tibetan Buddhism as a ‘simple Geshe’. Why has GKG forbidden later that Tulkus are teaching in the NKT and rejected the higher status of Tulkus and the Dalai Lama? (see: internal rules of the NKT and interviews). (‘realistic approach’, ‘jealousy’, ‘pure view’, ‘something else’?) If you believe GKG did this all “out of love and respect”, this is your belief and choice. However the sources tell another story, that’s why some of the controversial points are in the article. If there are different views all of them can be included in NPOV manner into the article - even if they are mere belief. This is no problem, maybe a little bit we may have to weight the importance of the views. Maybe Kay’s view weights something.

I answered in detail to your points and gave some points to it, because I think Kay’s research makes sense, sheds light on that subject, can not be neglected, is well considered and is based on profound observance of the subject, not on nonsense or mere assumptions, but I agree he is also quite critically to the subject and we should balance it. Do you have Bluck’s research yet?

Just short the other points:

"Legal loophole"

this statement of Kay is the only available reason/statement/explanation of a WP:reliable source which sheds light how FPMT ‘lost’ the center towards Geshe Kelsang and his close disciples. So it should be stated here. Until now no other explanation could be given how this could happened (besides the so called “blackmail tape” which could not been verified until now by a secondary source or the “Sera Letter” who spoke of that GKG has “usurped” the centre, a phrase which was rejected by you and the source was rejected because it was published on a personal site…). The reader may be interested how this could happen that the “crown Jewel of the FPMT” ‘got lost’ and the flagship center of Lama Yeshe became the flagship center of GKG, although the latter had his own center in York since 1979 and until 1990 14 further centers in Britain and Spain he could move into. The two different non-profit association constitutions of the Manjushri Centre (the first constitution with Lama Yeshe as the Spiritual Head and his vision of FPMT, the latter constitution with GKG as the head and his vision of NKT) (see References and Kay’s text) support this view of Kay that the Priory Group “exploited a legal loophole” and by this “the assets of the Institute finally fell under the control of the Priory Group” (Kay page 78), because “until the late 1990” “the Manjushri Institute legally remained part of the FPMT.” (Kay page 78). It seems Kay has more knowledge on that, so why remove this? It should be included.

"criticised the Geshe program",

there are two sources (Cozort and Kay) for this so it can and should be stated.

This criticism of the Geshe Program (“demise”/”undermined”) mentioned by Cozort and Kay seems to follow an inner logical pattern that GKG did not like or cherished the Geshe program and therefore criticized it (how he criticized before Lama Yeshe, the FPMT, the Gelug school, Tulkus in general…and HHDL). GKG has established his own teacher study program in 1990 - before the announcement of NKT in 1991 and before the other Lama residing at Manjushri Centre, Geshe Konchog Tsewang retired to Gyuto monastery in India in 1991. When he had announced his new study programs in 1990 the Geshe program seems still to have existed (as far as I can see from Kay’s text) – quite delicate if this is the case... If there is since 1979 a 12 year Geshe-study-program (validated by the Dalai Lama, led by another Geshe, established by Lama Yeshe – a fact completely closemouthed by the ‘official NKT history’), why establishing a second teacher training program, ‘competing’ with this Geshe Program and not supporting the existing one if you not disagree with it?

“Third Buddha--"

This claim is just the top of the importance GKG and his followers has given to his person, comparing his deeds with Tsongkhapa’s deeds … I think, this claim it is not negligible in the context of NKT Guru devotion and the exclusive reliance on GKG and his books. The “Third Buddha Claim” was yet mentioned by Bunting (1996) and the Sera Letter (1998), so it is not new. That the teacher is a Buddha is the main teaching and also a beginner teaching on the Guru topic in NKT. Because there is only one Root Guru for all in the NKT, it follows GKG is the Buddha. (All NKT teachers are just ‘channels’, ‘talking books’ or ‘Geshe-las emanation’. To whose person ‘pure NKT practitioners’ will apply that literally taken teaching ‘the teacher is a Buddha’ then on GKG?) If you do not see him as a Buddha, you do not get the blessings of a Buddha and it is difficult to get any attainment – you know this NKT teachings, don’t you? You know also the hell is waiting for you, if you leave your root Guru? So the Third Buddha Claim is of course an expression on NKT teachings, but a more direct, euphemistic one. It is not taught directly that GKG is a Buddha, it is taught indirectly, by using Vajrayana teachings and taking them literally. Many NKT followers do also consider Geshe Kelsang as Tsongkhapa himself. So this statement is also an expression of the opinion of NKT followers.

So far, what should be excluded from the article, what included, what extended what shortened? I don’t know really at that time. Maybe we ask other editors – maybe laypersons on the subject what they think is worthwhile to know?

My main suggestion of what should be at least in the article is:

• 1. in the beginning the citation of Barett to balance NKT’s Kadampa claim (that NKT=Kadampa Buddhism=founded by Atisha). The citation of Barett is also needed to give a sum of what the article is about. With the sole NKT view some information on the subject would be blurred and mixed together and the controversial aspect is concealed – what is the use of that?
• 2. at the end of the article there should be cited the three views of Bluck on NKT (which are still there), because they show the variety of views on how NKT can be locked at and are a short summarise of the main views regarding NKT and do balance the different views in a harmonious way, I think. (Even we can use these three views as a guideline for the article to balance it. The NKT view belongs to the third view he offers.)

If we’ll go on together with edits/changes I prefer to go on as U:Billion has suggested: to get firstly clear about the facts (and different perspectives) and their sources and reasoning, and then balancing this all together. Then we have also to weight what is important what can be neglected and the like. This will take time, patience and effort. As Bluck said: “Our choice of interpretation may depend on how we engage with the other viewpoint, as well as the evidence itself, and until recently the NKT’s supporters and critics have largely ignored each other.” I’ll make a pause for two weeks until the 22nd of November. I will study Bluck's research "British Buddhism" in the meantime, maybe it offers some idea how to balance the article. Hopefully there are more editors contributing in that process of cleanup, please excuse the extended version of my reply. Editors I like to ask to leave their possibly comments to this under this answer and not to mix it into this reply. Thank you very much, Regards --Kt66 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert's suggestion was better. Excellentone 23:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kt66, we know that you completely rely and depend upon Kay. No need to prove this again. Here are some quotes from the official WP policy that might be useful to think about if we want to improve this article.

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Great, you can write all sorts of lies, criticism, negative opinions and so forth as long as they have been published. We cannot limit the article to facts. Opinions and viewpoints are allowed as long as there are verifiable sources for them. Unfortunately, there are not many sources about specific NKT views we can use even though kt66 thinks there are many. Maybe he can find them for us. By the way, when kt66 is studying Bluck in his break he will find quotes such as "Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang (b. 1931) had been classmates, and he asked their teacher Trijang Rinpoche (1901-81) to invite Geshe Kelsang to become the resident teacher at Manjushri." I'm curious to see whether he will incorporate them into the article or just put them at the bottom of the article so that no one really takes any notice of them. I don't know any NKT sources on the detailed history of the NKT, ordination, housing benefit (!), etc, etc. Kt66 keeps on asking us for sources but we can't provide them because these things have not been published unlike the views of crtitics in these matters. So, how can we achieve NPOV?

• " I don't know any NKT sources on the detailed history of the NKT, ordination, housing benefit (!), etc, etc. Kt66 keeps on asking us for sources but we can't provide them because these things have not been published unlike the views of crtitics in these matters"

-Really? the NKT really really needs to be publishing histories of itself and its ordination. It needs to do this for potential converts and to be open and informative. Magic Pickle 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." In particular the last sentence ("not enganged in"!) always makes me laugh! :-) How can we present conflicting views fairly if we have a lack of sources for one set of views?
• "But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are." This reminded me of the statement that the NKT is controversial and other statements. How many people consider the NKT to be controversial and who are they? The members of the NKT? No. The neighbours of NKT dharma centres? No. Shopowners, bank managers, school teachers, Christians, Moslems, Zen Buddhists, Theravada Buddhists, ...? No. I have no sources :-) but I think it's pretty much confined to Tibetan Buddhists who comprise about 1.6% of all Buddhists worldwide (source WP, number of Tibetans devided by number of Buddhists). Of course it's not all Tibetan Buddhists who thinks the NKT is controversial, so it's even less than 1.6%. Most Tibetans live in China. They have other problems than the NKT. Most of the 100,000 Tibetans in India also have other things to think about. Of course there are some Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism. I guess most of them just engange happily in their practice and don't get involved into politics. That leaves us with Kt66 and a few others. I think the statement should be deleted from the introduction.

Marpa 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, u:Marpa

a short reply:

• "we know that you completely rely and depend upon Kay"

Not only me, Bluck (PhD.) as well as Prof. Peter B. Clark, "a Professor Emeritus of the history and sociology of religion at King's College, London (University of London), and currently professorial member of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford, where he lectures in anthropology of religion..."(see: [28]) relied on him. The latter relied soley on Kay. Kay has published in 1997 an article in the renowned "Journal of Contemporary Religion", VOLUME 12, Number 3, October 1997, called "The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition". Based on that research article by Kay, Prof. Clark wrote in his book New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in Modern World (see: [29]) about the NKT at page 92: The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) (Kay, 1997) is another controversial Tibetan Buddhist NRM, this time for reasons of a doctrinal rather than of a mural kind.....Lama Yeshe. The latter, who died in 1984, was less of an intellectual and more eclectic and ecumenical in his opinions and outlook than Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rimpoche. He was also inclined to centralize authority at the expense of local community initiatives. Another serious bone of contention with international, if not global, repercussions since it involved disagreement between Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rimpoche and the Dalai Lama..The purpose of the launching in 1991 of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) was to unite those centres that opened to be under the spiritual tutelage of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rimpoche for the purpose of teaching to the West 'pure' Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism as taught by the Tibetan scholar Je Tsongkapha. The New Kadampa tradition, thus, represents the replacement of the inclusive approach, followed by Lama Yeshe and his supporters, with a rigid, exclusive one. By following this course, Geshe Kelsang Gyaso Rimpoche believes he has reintroduced Kadampa Buddhism to the West in its pristine, authentic form, which he describes, paradoxically, as an autono¬mous, modern, Western tradition (Kay, 1997: 286).

• Kay's doctorial research (2004) as well as his research article on NKT (1997) were published at RoutledgeCurzon, described as "one of the most important European imprints for social sciences" (WP quote). Maybe they took a completely wrong decision with this and were greatly influenced by Anti-NKT-Activists, Anti-NKT-Professors and the like...
• Regarding the Bluck quote you mentioned: Bluck as well as Cozort cite J. Belither, the Secretary of NKT. Belither's statement (the official NKT statement) you mentioned is still in the article.

Maybe you'll find something about the "inner problems" of Mr. Clark, as you did with Mr. Kay? I think also Mr. Georg Feuerstein must be wrong because he found Kay's research: "Kay’s treatment of the NKT is well informed.., Kay’s is a fine academic study" see (Book review on Kay's research by Georg Feuerstein (PhD.)  ;-)

• Another source (among others) advising David Kay is CESNUR. They wrote: For the background of this controversy, a good starting point is the scholarly paper by David Kay, "The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition", Journal of Contemporary Religion 12:3 (October 1997), 277-293., see: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/NKT.htm

If we start to put down acknowledged researchers (scientists), while citing them describing them as a "university student" then I think it would be fair too to write - when using Geshe Kelsang as a source - "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a tibetan monk, who was expelled from his monastery, and was accused of being a "selfmade Geshe"...", but this is not the way to cite a source. It can be put in the article of the person. So I suggest to write an article on Kay if you feel a need of having one on him as I did with Donald S. Lopez, Jr..

My suggestion is: 1. Let's stick to the facts (as suggested by u:Robertect) - with the understanding that it is difficult to draw a line between facts and opinions. 2.Let's use the common way of quoting sources. Scientists (and also Tsongkhapa) used sources in that ways: 'He said this, he said that.' The addition on Clark of u:Nat Krause does not put down it's source, however usually it is not refered to the background of the person which quote is given. I leave it to others how they will deal with this. Regards, --Kt66 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)/addition at Kt66 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kelsang Tashi 66, why should we stick to the facts? It's not necessary as I pointed out above. It's completely ok for you to include your own views and opinions into the article as long as they are supported by verifiable sources. The same applies to the pro-NKT editors. You're very fortunate that you found Kay's thesis. I think it's absolutely fine to quote from Kay. I wouldn't suggest that we shouldn't use him as a reference at all. The criticism from Excellentone and myself was only that undue weight has been given to Kay and that some of his views and opinions have been presented as facts even though they are not. I had no doubt that other authors/scientists also rely upon Kay. They don't have much choice. The fact that they praise his work doesn't mean that the content is entirely correct. Bluck, Clark and Feuerstein have no means to check the truth of the content. Neither do we. Just because people praise Harry Potter books it doesn't follow that the content is true. :-) Also, it is usually very easy to publish a thesis. I could have published mine but I didn't because I found it too expensive. So, that also doesn't support the truth of it's content because my thesis is full of mistakes. :-) You should simply accept that Kay writes about one side of the story. You agree with that side of the story which is fine. If we had a similar thesis about the other side of the story we could use that as a source and maybe we could even achieve NPOV in this article! Wow! :-) If we just stick to the facts we both agree on this article would be very, very short. :-) I can't imagine that you really want this but if you do please prove me wrong and go ahead! Marpa 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Venerable Gen Kelsang Tashi" please ;-) or keep "kt66". I just recognized that your tone (or my understanding of it) has changed. Maybe we come now more close. I can agree here with you in many ways. It is correct that Kay is used extensively. I agree also: some of the points offer opinions. It could be useful as suggested by you, u:E1, u:Robertect to focus on mere facts. Maybe this would be more easy. But that NKT is Kadampa Buddhism, is this a fact or an opinion? That NKT is Tsongkhapas tradition is this a fact or an opinion? That GKG had split from the Gelug school, is this a fact, an opinion? Is it a fact that GKG's books are commentaries on Tsongkhapas texts or a claim, an opinion?.... It will be quite difficult to draw a line what is a fact, what is an opinion. However it maybe useful to check this more deeply. We can do this. I agree also that there is the fortune to have Kay's research (unlike Geshe Michael Roach where there exist no WP:reliable source). But I can not follow the idea that Kay is one-sided and all what is published by non-NKT sources is coming from critics. This may be the perspective/belief of NKT followers. Also your claim "if you have money you'll be able to publish your thesis" is provoking, because it implies Kay's researches are only published because he had the money to do so. (Maybe he even bought his publisher Routledge & the other scientists who uses him as a reliable source? Please think about that Routledge as well as other scientists ruin their reputation if they fail in their researches and that they have a high level of requirements/standards before publishing. A scientis who lost reputation because he is biased and erroneous you can simply forget. Who risks this?) Your statement and request: "You should simply accept that Kay writes about one side of the story." is not correct and so I will not accept it. It is Kay who reveals all sides of the stories, NKT stories, FPMT stories, Gelug stories, Shugden stories and he lights them from different perspectives and gets thereby a more differentiated picture on NKT than anybody else before him. Did you still read the text of Kay or is your claim based on presumptions? What site of the story he is repressing? What is "the other side of the story"? Maybe you explain it so that I can understand. If there is another side of the story it should be considered and put into the article. It is funny how E1 (and maybe you too) reject Kay without having reading his text. --Kt66 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Excellentone and User:BoboLuna, may I invite you to discuss your changes. As stated above "substential changes should be discussed at the talk page"; a "clean up" should either be discussed or if this is not possible we should ask for mediation. We should go through the process as it was still picked up by user:Robertect. This will take time and some effort and patience. Regards, --Kt66 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:kt66, thankyou for your invitation - I think if you check there has already been a great deal of discussion on these pages aswell as on the Afd page. Perhaps you would like to 'edit' the changes I have made rather than simply reverting? just a thought...Excellentone 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

HiExcellentone, if you feel better I inlcude my changes without discussing. I can do so, no problem but maybe non-discussion will lead to chaos, we'll see. You can see I will only put in things where there is a quote for and leave a short comment in the edit-comment line. If you disagree we have to discuss about the points however. As I recognized you deleted the quote of u:boboluna many times without discussing it. I think this will not work. If we come to no conlusion I suggest to make a new AMA request, and start from the beginning of the AfD "keep" quote. This would be fair. Most - including you - agreed with a "clean up" but it seems we disaree about how to work it out. Regards, --Kt66 10:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, are you making fun of us?! Only recently (30 October to 2 November) you made 30 odd changes without discussion! Some of these changes were substantial and also controversial (such as the financing of the centres). Although you left a note on the talk page these changes were made without anyone agreeing to them. You always invite people to contribute but if they do you just revert. You can't even accept tiny changes. For example, please explain to me why it is not ok to state that Kay was a PhD student when he wrote his thesis and that Madeleine Bunting was a newspaper journalist in the same way as it seems ok to state that Jim Belither was the former NKT secretary? I'm willing to learn. To me it seems you're operating a double standard. By the way, did you not say that you are taking a two-week break until the 22nd of November? :-) Must be horrible to be addicted to WP. No peace. Why don't you just do what people would expect a Dalai Lama monk to do and bring happiness and peace into this world instead of criticising other Buddhist traditions (not just the NKT). I can't see any NKT-monks or nuns doing similar things anywhere on the internet or elsewhere. This probably provokes another one of your outbursts. Sorry about this but I still think you should stop editing this article. Just sit back, relax, do some meditation and come back on the 22nd. You won't recognise the article then. :-) Only joking. Marpa 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Marpa. I agree in some points. I made that changes, I invited you as well to take part and left comments at the talk page. Nobody disagreed with the changes. NKT members didn't pick up the points but instead focussed on the AfD. Now we have a new situation after the AfD. The new situation is to make a "clean up". The many changes in the period of AfD are advised by WP Guideline and I left also a not at the talk page about this and invited everyone to take part. NKT members prefered not to take part in improving the article. Regarding the financing I left a quote as well and said: "just revert if you disagree". Nobody picked it up. It is not easy for me if NKT members (besides Robertect) do not take part in discussing about the facts...Your point of Kay and Bunting is fine. The answer is easy: It is not usual to write about a scientific source "university student", a scientific source is a scientific source, WP/sciences have standards for using such sources. If you reduce Kay as a mere "university student" the effect is to put down that source as an ordinary "university student"-spleen source. Kay is an acknowledged scientist and his source is referenced many times. So why you choose "university student" instead of "scientist"? The same is with Bunting. NKT is quite used to put down people who are critical on them with how they discribe them, choosing words which put them down or reduces their authority. In the hight of the Shugden dispute this was done also with Bunting who was influenced by the "Dalai Lama clique". Instead of fighting on how to discribe Kay or Bunting the WP standard is to open a WP article or making a link to it. Kay is a scientist and a lecturer as well, why reducing him as an ordinary "university student" (having "inner problems")? I know this "reducing method" of NKT quite well, that's why I insist on WP standard in that case. Maybe you ask yourself why E1 used these terms? If you are interested in my person maybe we can meet us. Regards, --Kt66 10:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tenzin Peljor, you are offering to meet up? That's funny. How do you know we are not already meeting on a regular basis? Maybe I'm your next door neighbour? Maybe we meet in the Kagyu centre? Maybe I'm your best friend who doesn't agree with what you're doing here? Don't you worry sometimes when the door bell rings that it could be one of the many people you upset here on WP or elsewhere? I hope you will be safe and nothing ever happens to you. If anything happend to you the Tibetan Buddhists would blame Dorje Shugden and the NKT for it. Maybe the NKT should hire a bodyguard to look after your safety! :-) If I were you I couldn't live in peace. I just can't believe how much of your time and energy you invest here and elsewhere to discredit the NKT by spreading the "truth". As I said above you have no means to check the truth of the sources you use. It's simply information you receive from other people. You believe this information because it just fits your own opinions which you find so difficult to let go of. It took you six years to let go of the name "Tashi" that you received from Geshe Kelsang although he asked you not to use it any more. Maybe it will take you another six years to let go of your view of the NKT. Funny, how easily you notice when pro-NKT editors might be trying to influence the reader by including certain facts (university student, newspaper journalist) but how blind you are when you and other anti-NKT editors are doing the same. By the way, I'm waiting for you to remove "a theology professor at Oxford" from the introduction. :-) Or are you operating a double standard again? Yesterday you said that the article starts with the POV of the NKT but now it says "Tibetan Buddhist organisation" in the very first sentence. Do you agree to that? I think the article is moving away from NPOV instead of moving towards it. Marpa 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Marpa, what the hell are you doing, listing another user's home address here on a talk page (I presume that's what this is supposed to be). Your remarks here could easily be read as a threat of violence against Kt66. I think you should think really, really carefully about what you're trying to say before continuing down this road.

FYI, it was I who added "Tibetan Buddhist organisation" to the intro. I didn't realise it was controversial.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Marpa, I think you should take your own advice to Kt and chill out from this discussion for a bit. The way you have written about both Kt and Kay has been unpleasent. With regards Kay I hope that what you write does not actually come from people who taught him and with whom he should have an absoultely confidential relationship no matter what he does. With respect to Kt I believe he did actually publish the link to his own web site from his talk page at one time so I think all this "unmasking the batman" talk is rather hyped-up, but the suggestions about people turning up at his door are just awful. As far as I am concerned people can write or say whatever they like about me, the NKT, Buddha, Geshe Kelsang etc. We are lucky that Wikipedia provides a framework in which we can respond to those criticisims and hopefully readers have sufficient brains to, as you say, "make up their own mind".

I was in London at the time some of the worst articles about NKT were published such as Madeline Buntings article. Geshe Kelsang was also in London at Heruka center, whilst many people were upset by the article, he was unworried and happy, his main comment was that it was good that so many people would see the Buddhist images and words (The Guardian is a leading British national newspaper) whatever the content, as he felt this would create causes for them to meet Buddhadharma in the future. I was with the then Gen-la, Losang when the Independent article was published, again, he was relaxed and not at all upset or angry. This is the example we should follow, it is the example of Geshe Langri Tangpa, not to become upset when we are criticised. If the NKT was a government, and Borat made a movie ridiculing them, I would expect NKT would still let that movie show in its country. I hope you get my drift. Dear Marpa, I think your strong voice has much to bring to this article, just keep it constructive and why not actually make an edit of the article and see where that takes you? I hope this is useful. Very best wishes Robertect 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If Kt66 has attempted to use his personal website as a source for this article, then I think it's reasonable to point out his personal details insofar as its necessary to establish that connection. Beyond that, I think it's bad form at best to take the initiative to make him unanonymous, even if he has mentioned some information about himself somewhere else on Wikipedia. Listing his home address is completely beyond the pale.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do apologise for my last contribution. I had a bad migraine and should have gone to bed. It wasn't a threat of violence at all but rather a heartfelt concern for his well-being. I will take Robertects advice and retire from this discussion. Bye, bye. Marpa 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am disgusted by (so-called) Marpa's behavior here. If his personal attacks and thinly veiled threats are typical of NKT supporters, this fact should be included in the article. His behavior shows no sign that he has even attempted to tame his own mind. What kind of Buddhist organisation would ever endorse this kind of activity? No wonder they are so controversial. Karma chogyam 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... dear people lets calm down a little here. Firstly, unless I have missed something Marpa didn't publish Kt's address, please clarify if he did (perhaps it has been deleted). Secondly, Marpa has a rather sharp and ironical sense of humour which unfortunately doesn't always translate very well in this sort of medium. I hope and feel sure that what he wrote was just that, poorly executed humour. Third Marpa doesn't represent the NKT any more than I do. Sadly we are all subject to uncontrolled minds which is why we rely on Dharma to bring them under control, its not a process that happens over night, to be quite clear Dharma fundamentally opposes harm to any living being in any form, so this is not NKT behaviour, this is human behaviour and I suspect we are all human here right?. Lets not get self rightous or indignant, an error has been committed and the fault accepted. I think Marpa could make a very valuable contribution to the article and I hope he does, what I would like to see is him actually doing some edits and letting them stand or fall by the subsequent discussion here - if he actually has the time and energy needed. The important thing is to direct our thoughts to what is being said and not focusing un-necessarily on who says it. So come on guys, I think we are all good hearted people so lets try to help each other improve even if we do have different views. Robertect 10:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robertect and Karma chogyam. Thank you both for your commnents. u:Marpa didn't publish my address directly, and the link of my website I put also myself on the discussionsite of the Dorje Shugden article. However he and u.E1 have published my personal name. I never published my personal name and also my WP:usersite User:Kt66 never revealt my personal name nor intended to do so. Although u:Marpa as well as u:E1 do not represent NKT it seems to me a common behaviour of NKT followers working in that way. The only exception I met until today is u:Robertect. Some short examples who underline what I said: In WP Germany NKT editors revealt my idendity as well and one used consequently my personal name when adressing me (until I asked the NKT representative in Hamburg to stop this behaviour on his WP:usersite). Anothers editor's idendity, who was critical with NKT, has been revealt also by a NKT follower at WP Germany, including the http-address of his personal website (which included his address as well as my http-site does). Then there appearead another anonymous NKT follower who started firstly to establish himself as a health professional and then he claimed he would know me quite well and stated I would suffer on a psychic trauma - thereby implying my contributions can not be taken serious because I am mental sick (see the same trials of U:Marpa). At beliefnet I observed two times that NKT followers done the same with two persons (u:Thubten Gonpo and u:Dharmascribe), who were critical of NKT. Firstly they revealt their idendity and then they tried to put them down. According to u:ThubtenGonpo beliefnet deleted in the past a heated, long and critical thread on NKT because NKT had threaten with legal actions (beliefnet had written this to ThubtenGonpo who complaint on the deletion). In the discussion forum of the NKT a NKT teacher described my activities at WP as "garbage", me as a "axe grinder" and said wrongly I would be a FPMT follower. I have no problem with this, I expect such behaviour, however it is nice to meet another behaviour as well making effort and thoughtful contributions but this does not wash out the "shadow side" many persons experienced as well. I accept u:Marpas apologize. As Bluck stated "until recently the NKT’s supporters and critics have largely ignored each other." this discussion maybe a way to overcome this a little bit. --Kt66 16:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that kt was an abbreviation of your name and that this was common knowledge - please forgive me for using it - I certainly had no wish to upset you. By the way just because I don't like the way you have steered this article doesn't mean I speak for the NKT - I don't. Excellentone 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

From where do you got the information of "Kelsang Tashi", my NKT-monks name? To whom this is common knowledge? You didn't upset me nor did it Marpa nor do I know if you are NKT or not. So please excuse me too. --Kt66 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I just want to clarify that there was an edit by Marpa in between this one by Excellentone and this one by me that was deleted by Wikipedia administration using Oversight. My subsequent edit preserved Marpa's comment, except that there was an address that was removed. Anyway, since Marpa has apologised, I don't think it needs to be dwelt upon any further.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your NKT-monks name; I got it from these talk pages - (and by common knowledge I merely meant common within this forum, that is amongst contributors to this article) I think Marpa may have used it (although I may have followed a link to one of your webpages aswell) I can honestly say that I was unaware of the sensitivity of using it and once again please accept my apologies as I had no intention of offending you or upsetting you in any way by referring to you with this name - I shall of course refer to you in all future correspondence as kt66.

Regarding the article there is a big difference between the Manjushri Institute and Conishead Priory - one is a name relating to an (now defunct) organisation, and one is a name relating to a building that has existed for many hundreds of years. It is therefore correct to say that Manjushri Institute was based at Conishead Priory, but incorrect to say 'Manjushri Institute also called Conishead Priory'. Your version makes it sound like Lama Yeshe's British students founded Conishead Priory which of course they can't have done. The question of telling the reader who Geshe Kelsang is and why he is relevant to the historical formation of the NKT is quite an interesting one - what is your objection to saying that he is the current Spiritual Director of the NKT? Excellentone 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because there never has been another spiritual director other than him? It implies that there have been other spiritual directors of NKT before Geshe Kelsang, which is not the case--BoboLuna 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

@E1. Once more thank you very much. I see, no problem, thank you. I checked it also: indeed one day before you used it U:marpa had named me with my NKT's monk name.

• "Regarding the article there is a big difference between the Manjushri Institute and Conishead Priory - one is a name relating to an (now defunct) organisation, and one is a name relating to a building that has existed for many hundreds of years."

It is, however it was purchased by Lama Yeshe's desciples and his charity organsiation, where Lama Yeshe was the spiritual director, and the assets had built the basis/home for that Charity Trust until the late 1990 when finally in 1991 the assets moved to Geshe Keslang's desciples and his charity organisation, where GKG is the spiritual director since that. The phrasing "was based at Conishead Priory" I feel as to vague and can be easily misunderstood, so I made some changes to make the points more clear by explaining that CP was bought by them and what happend with the property. The point of "current" I explained above: "Current" gives the verbal impression this could change at any time, I am quite sensitive of using words, because a speciality of NKT is, using words which imply also another meaning and tend to blur the facts. He is the director since that. This is the fact. Current is more vague. I changed to "who became the Spiritual Director of NKT in 1991".

Introducing GKG, LY as historical figures and describing the past (1976-1990) should avoid possibly confusions to the reader by telling at the same place in the article future developments. I prefer telling the development in a chronical order, to mix into the past future developments and the many idendities/functions of GKG even from later times is to much in the beginning for the reader. So I prefer telling what GKG was excaclty at the time of the invitation and not to put in there functions he picked up 14 years later. At the time he was invited he was a monk, scholar and Gelug Geshe. That's should be stated there, I think, nothing more. What do you think now on these points? --Kt66 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

James Belither is not the Secretary of the NKT - this is an easy fact to check, just go to the Charity Commission website and you'll find the details there (as is true for any registered charity the Secretary is a matter of public record). Changing commented to explained is meaningless in my view and the expression 'described that' is extremely poor English. Excellentone 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much. if he is not at the present the Secretary of the NKT, he was it in the past. the statement was made when he was the secretary. so it is not his opinion it is an official nkt statement, especially this statement was published in the official NKT booklet as stated and is still published at that website. that's why I will change it to the official NKT view, as it was before. also kay and bluck refer to him as the secretary. maybe he is it not anymore. however it was stated when he was it... as with the "in kay's opinion", from the meaning of those words it implies that his record is mere his opinion and can be wrong. this is not neutral. i use another phrase which is neutral. regards, --Kt66 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear kt66 - I think you'll find the description 'former Secretary' is both accurate and clear for the reader - I don't know why you removed it. I'm sorry, but I can't understand the rest of what you are trying to say here - the meaning completely eludes me. Excellentone 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

quite easy: you turned an official NKT statement into Belithers personal opinion, that's not accurate and contorts the facts. regarding the use of "in Kay's opinion" this I found not neutral and these terms "in Kay's opinion" include a judgement about the facts he is telling by reducing what he says to a 'mere' opinion instead of presenting these two points as facts based on his research. The same is by reducing official NKT statements to personal opinions of Belither. He acted as the official represantative of the NKT. So what he publishes on NKT as its represantative is no personal opinion. --Kt66 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I've missed something but I honestly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.Excellentone 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

-J. Belither made this statement as the official NKT secretary and so his statement is not his private opinion

-D. Kay presents the result of his doctoral research. What he reveals is the result of his research and not his privat opinion.

-There is a difference of making a privat statement and acting in a function. If there is no difference for you we can also conclude that all what Geshe-la teaches is mere his privat opinion. How do you will feel if we write "in Geshe-la's opinion one should follow only one teacher, his tradition and his protector" instead of "Geshe Kelsang stated one should follow only one teacher, his tradition and his protector" or instead of "Geshe Kelsang states that it is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism" we would write in the article "in Geshe Kelsang's opinion it is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism". Do you can see/feel the difference? If not: there is a difference of what Mr. G.W. Bush states in his function as the President of the USA and what he says 10 years later at his ranch. Many Regards, --Kt66 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

--Both spoke not as privat persons but in their functions, so it is not their privat opinion.

I see absolutely no problem in saying in Geshe Kelsang's opinion - if that is what it is (his opinion) if he is quoting someone else it is not of course his opinion, and if he is stating a fact then that is a statement. I think it is entirely accurate to say that it is Geshe Kelsang's opinion that one should follow one teacher. The question really comes down to being clear about what is an opinion and what is a fact (and maybe what is a factual statement) I mentioned weeks ago my concern that this article is riddled with opinion presented as fact and that this is affecting the NPOV of the article - most of the attempts I have made so far to rectify this have been reverted by kt66 - this is a matter of record. Regarding your other point of course there is a difference between someone speaking in an official capacity (as President of the United States) and in an unofficial capacity (off record, or years later or before) as would be illustrated by something George Bush said being accurately described as having been said 'previous to his election as President' or something Bill Clinton said 'whilst serving in office'. Is this what you mean? you want to make it clear that James Belither made these statements whilst serving as Secretary of the NKT? If that is the case then maybe it should just say 'in 199? (whatever year it was)then Secretary of the NKT, James Belither said'

I think that would be a lot clearer than the current version which appears to suggest that James Belither is the Secretary of the NKT. Excellentone 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Excellentone, I made some slight changes and accepted the removal of the Cozort quote, it is enough that Kay mentioned the end of the Geshe Study programme, mainly I included it because you asked for other sources to overcome Kay's dominance. So I agree to the removal. On the other side I could not follow the need of the removal of Bluck's quote. In the past this issue came up different times, an anonymous editor mentioned that the idea of "completely independent" and being "pure tradition of Tsongkhapa" outside the context of it is inconsistent, as well as user:20040302 has discussed this intensively with Ven Pagpa at different places at WP. Bluck and Waterhouse found also the need to comment this: claiming to be pure, exactly the stainless tradition of Tsongkhapa but cutting all connections to the roots of it. For the benefit of the reader Bluck is enough I think. Here the full passage from a former version of the article (for the editors remarks/discussions on that see the different archives -- see also the Kadampa discussion between Ven. Pagpa and user:20040302 at it's talk page).

According to Bluck "Waterhouse (1997: 178) argued that the NKT is based so firmly 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. This means that comparisons with the parent Gelug tradition will have different values for NKT members and for observers of the movement."^[1] Bluck remarked that "There remains an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and complete separation from contemporary Tibetan religion, culture and politics."^[1]

regards, --Kt66 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. Please help summarize the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or excerpts to Wikisource. (April 2008)

Part of a series on
Buddhism
Glossary Index Outline
History Timeline The Buddha Pre-sectarian Buddhism Councils Silk Road transmission of Buddhism Decline in the Indian subcontinent Later Buddhists Buddhist modernism
Dharma Concepts Four Noble Truths Noble Eightfold Path Dharma wheel Five Aggregates Impermanence Suffering Not-self Dependent Origination Middle Way Emptiness Morality Karma Rebirth Saṃsāra Cosmology
Buddhist texts Buddhavacana Early Texts Tripiṭaka Mahayana Sutras Pāli Canon Sanskrit literature Tibetan canon Chinese canon Post-canon
Practices Three Jewels Buddhist Paths to liberation Five precepts Perfections Meditation Philosophical reasoning Devotional practices Merit making Recollections Mindfulness Wisdom Sublime abidings Aids to Enlightenment Monasticism Lay life Buddhist chant Pilgrimage Vegetarianism
Nirvāṇa Awakening Four Stages Arhat Pratyekabuddha Bodhisattva Buddha
Traditions Theravāda Pāli Mahāyāna Hinayana Chinese Vajrayāna Tibetan Navayana Newar
Buddhism by country Bhutan Brazil Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan Korea Laos Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar New Zealand Russia Singapore US Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand Tibet Vietnam
Buddhism portal
v t e

The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is a registered charitable company^[2] and global Buddhist organization founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso 1991 in England. In 2003 the words International Kadampa Buddhist Union (IKBU) were added to the name. Since then it is known as the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU).

The NKT-IKBU introduce themselves as Kadampa Buddhism and explain that "Kadampa Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054)."^[3]

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, monk and scholar, was a contemporary of Lama Thubten Yeshe, studying for his Geshe degree at Sera Monastery (Gelug Tradition).^[4] In 1976 Lama Thubten Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche visited Geshe Kelsang in India and invited him over to teach at the FPMT-Center Manjushri Institute.^[4] The Manjushri Institute, also called Conishead Priory, was founded by Lama Yeshe's British students with Lama Yeshe as the Spiritual Director^[5] in Ulverston (Cumbria), England. Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche sought the advice of the Dalai Lama when choosing Geshe Kelsang.^[4] Geshe Kelsang accepted the invitation and in 1977 he moved into Conishead Priory.^[4] He was chosen by Lama Yeshe to lead the "General Program" of Buddhist study and taught parallel to the twelve-year Geshe Studies Programme, which was established in 1979 by Lama Yeshe. This Geshe Studies Programme was recognized and validated by the Dalai Lama and was modeled on the traditional geshe degree.^[4][6] Lama Yeshe installed another Tibetan Lama, Geshe Jampa Tekchok, to direct it. From 1982 to 1990 this Program was led by Geshe Konchog Tsewang.

According to the NKT brochure 'Modern Day Kadampas' "Lama Yeshe requested Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to ask Geshe Kelsang to become Resident Teacher of Manjushri Institute. Geshe Kelsang later recounted that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche asked him to go to England, teach Shantideva's 'Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life', Chandrakirti's 'Guide to the Middle Way' and Lamrim, and then check whether there was any meaning in his continuing to stay." ^[7]

In the late 1970s Geshe Kelsang opened up a Buddhist Centre in York under his own spiritual direction. In his field reseach David Kay recognized this as the beginning of a conflict between Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang.^[8] According to Geshe Kelsang "the opening of the Centre in York caused not one moment of confusion or disharmony".^[9] Geshe Kelsang was asked to resign so that another Geshe, described by Kay as "more devoted to FPMT objectives", could take over as resident teacher of Manjushri Institute.^[8] Many students of Geshe Kelsang petitioned him to stay and teach them, and on this basis he decided to stay.^[8] In the following years (until 1990) Geshe Kelsang established 15 centers under his own direction in Great Britain and Spain.^[10]

Both David Kay and Daniel Cozort describe the management committee of Manjushri Institute from 1981 onwards as made up principally of Geshe Kelsang's close students, also known as the Priory Group.^[8][11] According to Kay, "The Priory Group became dissatisfied with the FPMT's increasingly centralized organisation."^[8] Cozort states that different disagreements "led to a rift between Lama Yeshe and his students and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his, and eventually the Manjushri Board of directors (comprising of Geshe Gyatso students) severed the connection of the between institute and FPMT."^[11] In February 1984 the conflict was mediated by the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London.^[8] According to Kay, "The dispute between the Institute and the FPMT, however, was never resolved."^[8] Since that time (Kay states) the Manjushri Institute developed mainly under the guidance of Geshe Kelsang without further reference to the FPMT^[8] but legally remained part of the FPMT until late 1990.^[12] Although the appointed Trustees had many meetings in the following years, they could find no compromise which suited all parties.

Geshe Kelsang did a 3-year retreat from 1987-1990 in Dumfries, Scotland and asked Geshe Losang Pende from Ganden Shartse monastery to lead the General Program in his absence, whilst Geshe Konchog Tsewang continued to teach the Geshe Studies Programme at Conishead Priory (Manjushri Institute).^[13] Different Lamas, including Lama Zopa Rinpoche, were at that time still invited. In 1988 and 1990 the uncle of Geshe Kelsang, Ven. Choyang Duldzin Kuten Lama - the oracle of Dorje Shugden - also visited Manjushri Institute. Before that time Song Rinpoche, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Geshe Rabten, as well as other lamas such as Ajahn Sumedho and Thich Nhat Hanh taught at Manjushri Institute.^[14]

In Spring 1991 Geshe Kelsang announced the creation of the 'New Kadampa Tradition' an event which was celebrated in the NKT-Magazine Full Moon as 'a wonderful development in the history of the Buddhadharma.'^[15] In 1992 Manjushri Institute developed a new constitution^[16], which constituted the formal foundation of the NKT. According to David Kay this was the result of exploiting a legal 'loophole'.^[8] The Manjushri Institute was renamed as Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre.^[8] Nowadays it is Geshe Kelsangs home and NKT's flagship center.^[17]

After the foundation of NKT the Manjushri Institute Library with over 3000 books,^[18] was eleminated.^[19] The Manjushri Mahayana Buddhist Centre is nowadays called Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre.

With the foundation of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, he could establish a new and independent religious movement^[20] aiming to, "principally follow the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa"^[7] and gave a new identity to his followers.

In 1998 Geshe Kelsang clarified in an interview:

“

We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn’t matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa lamas and geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries on Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa Tradition and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely.[21]

”

James Belither (currently Secretary of the NKT) explains:

“

Geshe Kelsang first introduced the title 'New Kadampa Tradition' to give the centres under his spiritual direction a distinct identity within the wider Buddhist world. Although the Gelugpas were sometimes referred to as new Kadampas, the name New Kadampa Tradition had never been used previously in a formal sense. Nevertheless, by using this title Geshe Kelsang is making it clear that practitioners of this tradition are principally following the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa. The word 'New' is used not to imply that it is newly created, but is a fresh presentation of Buddhadharma in a form and manner that is appropriate to the needs and conditions of the modern world. Furthermore, by using the title 'Kadampa', Geshe Kelsang encourages his disciples to follow the perfect example of simplicity and purity of practice shown by the Kadampa Geshes."[7]

”

Nowadays the New Kadampa Tradition describe the presentation of Buddhism as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west as Kadampa Buddhism and offer the following clarification:

"Kadampa Buddhism is a time-honored tradition that for centuries has made Buddha's teachings and meditation practices available to people throughout the world"^[22] and "a vehicle for promoting Kadampa Buddhism throughout the world."^[23]

"It is an association of Buddhist Centers and practitioners that derive their inspiration and guidance from the example of the ancient Kadampa Buddhist Masters and their teachings as presented by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) is an international non-profit organization registered in England as a charitable company."^[23]

Critics argue "that the New Kadampa Tradition, as it is known today, is not part of the ancient Kadampa Tradition but a split from the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism."^[24]

James Belither, the currently NKT secretary, described the NKT as "a Mahayana Buddhist tradition with historical connections with Tibet", rather than a Tibetan tradition, and explained that Geshe Kelsang wishes his followers always "to present Dharma in a way appropriate to their own culture and society without the need to adopt Tibetan culture and customs"^[25]

All NKT Centers are members of the New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU).

File:Geshekelsanggyatsoteaching.JPG

The NKT expresses the main figures of its lineage as follows:

1. Shakyamuni Buddha
2. Venerable Atisha
3. Je Tsongkhapa
4. Pabongka Rinpoche
5. Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang
6. Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

The New Kadampa Tradition has been developed exclusively^[26] on the basis of Geshe Kelsang's teachings and published books, which follow a selection of Gelug Teachings of different Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana texts. The main practice in NKT is Lamrim (Stages of the Path to Enlightenment), Lojong (Training the Mind), and Vajrayana Mahamudra (The practices of Highest Yoga Tantra) with a strong emphasis on Guru devotion and the tantric Guru-Yoga.

At the heart of the NKT are three study programs. These are introduced by NKT as "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has designed three special spiritual programs for the systematic study and practice of Kadampa Buddhism that are especially suited to the modern world."^[27] It is believed by NKT followers that they embody the "pure lineage" in its entirety.^[26]

Geshe Kelsang described the introduction of these programs in 1990 as follows: "At present in our Centers we have a Foundation Program and a Teacher Training Program. This is not a new tradition. In the past there have been other programs specially designed for Dharma students according to their particular circumstances. All of these programs involved studying a certain number of texts, memorizing material, passing examinations, and being awarded a degree or certificate. For example, the ancient Kadampa Geshes had a program in which they studied six texts. Later Je Tsongkhapa introduced a program based on ten texts, and later still Tibetan Monasteries such as Ganden, Sera, and Drepung introduced a program based on five texts. I studied this program at Sera Monastery."^[28]

The three spiritual programs are:

1. The General Program, which provides a basic introduction to basic Buddhist ideas and meditation.
2. The Foundation Program, which includes the study of six commentaries written by Geshe Kelsang on the following classical texts:
   • Joyful Path of Good Fortune - based on Pabongka Rinpoche's teachings on Lamrim or The Stages of the Path to Enlightenment
   • Universal Compassion - a commentary on Bodhisattva Chekhawa's Training the Mind in Seven Points
   • Eight Steps to Happiness - a commentary on Bodhisattva Langri Tangpa's Eight Verses of Training the Mind
   • Heart of Wisdom - a commentary on the Heart Sutra
   • Meaningful to Behold - a commentary on Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life
   • Understanding the Mind - a commentary and detailed explanation of the mind based on the works of the Buddhist scholars Dharmakirti and Dignaga.
3. The Teacher Training Program is intended for people who wish to train as NKT Dharma Teachers. All Resident Teachers of NKT Centers follow this program of study and practice. The program involves the study of 14 texts of Geshe Kelsang, including all of those in the Foundation Program, and the following 8 listed below. In addition this program includes commitments concerning one's lifestyle based on the 5 lay vows of the Pratimoksha and the completion of specific meditational retreats.
   • The Bodhisattva Vow - A commentary on Mahayana moral discipline and the practice of the six perfections.
   • Ocean of Nectar - A commentary on Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle Way
   • Clear Light of Bliss - A commentary on meditations of Highest Yoga Tantra.
   • Great Treasury of Merit - A commentary on the Puja Offering to the Spiritual Guides of Basi Chökyi Gyaltsen (1st Panchen Lama)
   • Mahamudra Tantra - Meditation on the nature of mind according to Tantra
   • Guide to Dakini Land - A commentary on the Highest Yoga Tantra practice of Vajrayogini
   • Tantric Grounds and Paths - An explanation of the practice of the lower and upper classes of Tantra
   • Essence of Vajrayana - A commentary on the Highest Yoga Tantra practice of Heruka

Geshe Kelsang explained about the qualifications of NKT teachers in 1990: "Buddhadharma is beneficial to others only if there are qualified Teachers. Without Teachers, Dharma texts alone are of little benefit. To become a qualified Dharma Teacher requires special preparation and training. It is not easy to become a Dharma Teacher because special qualities are needed: wisdom, correct view, faith, conviction, and pure conduct as an example to others. Also a Teacher needs an inexhaustible reservoir of Dharma knowledge and experience to teach from, otherwise he or she will dry up after one or two years. If a Teacher lacks qualities such as wisdom, experience, faith, and pure motivation, it will be difficult for others to develop faith in them or their teachings, and there will be little benefit. Also, without proper training and preparation there is a danger of Teachers mixing worldly, samsaric activities with their teaching activities. Therefore we definitely need to train well if we wish to be a genuine benefit to others."^[28]

According to Blucks research: "Most teachers are appointed to centres by Geshe Kelsang before they have completed the Teaching Training Programme and continue studying by correspondence, with an intensive study programme at Manjushri each summer. After 4 years as a resident teacher, monastics take the title ‘Gen’ and lay teachers become ‘Kadam’ (Namgyal, 2004). Most resident teachers are ordained, with only a few centres having a lay teacher, though local branch classes are often taught by lay students (Prasad, 2004). Kay (2004: 85) found that lay people were almost as likely as monastics to be given teaching and leadership roles; and he sees this as an important Western adaptation of Gelug Buddhism, again because this includes tantric practices which Tsongkhapa restricted to those with 'a solid grounding of academic study and celibate monastic discipline'."^[1]

The ordination vows of monks and nuns within the New Kadampa Tradition are different to those followed by monks and nuns in the Tibetan tradition. Geshe Kelsang gives his followers an ordination based on 10 vows.

The NKT ordination is founded on and includes the five Pratimoksha vows of a lay follower and in addition includes celibacy. The last five vows are different from those described in the Vinaya and the Pratimoksha Sutras.

Waterhouse has examined that the majority of monastic in NKT receive only the lower form of Getsul ordination (novices) and that there is the absence of an available equivalent of the Gelong (skt. Bhikshu) full monastic ordination.^[29]

According to NKT within the NKT community there are over 500 monks and nuns.^[30] The guiding principle of ordination in the NKT is the motivation of renunciation (Tib.: nge-jung).

Throughout the year and in different places in the world, the NKT run a number of festivals. These feature teachings and empowerments from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or senior NKT teachers. The longest running are the Spring and Summer Festivals at Manjushri Centre in Ulverston, England.

As of 2006 NKT claims the establishment of over 1000 centres and groups worldwide^[30]. Although some of these centres are residential communities, most are branch groups that meet weekly in places such as Quaker meeting houses and community centres.

Bunting stated in 1996 that "The method of expansion is that residential centres support branch centres, which are often no more than a group meeting in someone's house; or a hall is rented to run the NKT courses. When the group has reached a size sufficient to sustain a centre, a property is bought. The NKT maintains that each centre is entirely autonomous and is only "spiritually joined" to the NKT, although it admits that the two principal officers of each centre are NKT members. The aim is to establish a centre in every major UK town with the NKT as the biggest umbrella Buddhist organisation in the West.

To finance new centres, NKT has built up a New Centres Development Fund^[7]. Regarding the financing of NKT centres Bluck notes that "Fees are charged for meetings, payable at the door or by a monthly 'Centre Card' covering all local classes ^[31]. The Manjushri Spring and Summer Festivals generate considerable income from the 2,000 or more lay and monastic guests. Like Samye Ling there are fixed charges for accommodation and courses, and a large shop and general stores sells Geshe Kelsang’s books, CDs of sadhanas and statues."

Another part of the expansion forms the building of Buddhist Temples, called Kadampa Temples for World Peace. The NKT has established a Kadampa Buddhist Temple in the United Kingdom, as well as in Canada, the United States, and Spain, is currently developing a Temple in Brazil and plans to build one in Germany too. NKT stated that "The International Temples Project was established by Venerable Geshe Kelsang in the early nineties. The vision is to build a Kadampa Temple for World Peace in every major city in the world. The project is funded entirely by voluntary donations and revenue from International Buddhist Festivals."(means NKT festivals)^[32]

There have been developed also World Peace Cafes at some residential centres, and in 2005 the NKT opened their first World Peace Hotel, called Hotel Kadampa, a no-smoking, alcohol-free hotel in Southern Spain with swimming pool, sauna, and meditation classes.^[33] A second Hotel Kadampa has been bought in Italy. This place will be also the home of the Kadampa Meditation Centre Italy.^[34]

Some Buddhists who are critical of the NKT and some non-Buddhists see the NKT as a cult.^[35]

NKT attracted international media attention^[36] and a lot of criticism when performing public demonstrations "for religious freedom" in America, England, Swiss and Germany (1996-1998) against the Dalai Lama who advised publicly against the Shugden practice. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. mentioned the media attention, the press criticism and the cult allegation in Britain in an interview in 1998:

“

In the summer of 1996, the disciples of Kelsang Gyatso denounced the Dalai Lama for impinging on their religious freedom, and picketed against him during his visit to Britain, accusing him of intolerance. The demonstrations made front-page news in the British press, which collectively rose to the Dalai Lama’s defense and in various reports depicted the New Kadampa Tradition as a fanatic, empire-building, demon-worshipping cult. The demonstrations were a public relations disaster for the NKT, not only because of its treatment by the press, but also because the media provided no historical context for the controversy and portrayed Shugden as a remnant of Tibet’s primitive pre-Buddhist past.[37]

”

In 1998 NKT became a member of the British Network of Buddhist Organizations (NBO). Waterhouse notes^[38] when the NKT joined the British Network of Buddhist Organizations, about thirty percent of the other Buddhist groups identifying themselves with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition left the NBO.

The Deutsche Buddhistische Union (DBU) has refused membership for the NKT main center in Germany and its 15 branch centers in 2000.^[39] The Österreichische Buddhistische Religionsgesellschaft (ÖBR) gave a signal to the NKT that they will have no chance to become a member of it.^[39]

On August 22,1996 the monks of Sera Je monastery, India expelled him from the monastery^[40]. Expulsion from the Buddhist monastic order (Sangha) is a penalty laid down by the Buddha and in the scriptures of the vinaya, or monastic code. Expulsion is the highest penalty for a monk. "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."^[41]

Another source of criticism of NKT is their emphasis on the Shugden practise. Although it was established by two of the NKT lineage teachers, it was and is the subject of warnings by Buddhist masters. According to the The Dolgyal Research Committee (Tibetan Government in Exile), prominent opponents include the 5th, 13th and current Dalai Lamas, the 5th and 8th Panchen Lamas, Dzongsar Khyentse Chokyi Lodro, the 14th and 16th Karmapas among others.^[42] Also Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, a Dzogchen master, "has been insisting on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults".^[43] For more see the Shugden article.

Since 1998 Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT have disassociated themselves from their dispute with the Dalai Lama.^[44] Geshe Kelsang still continues to grant the empowerments of Dorje Shugden. ^[45]

Other respected Tibetan lamas who have also taught the Dorje Shugden practice include Lama Yeshe, Song Rinpoche, Gonsar Rinpoche^[46] and Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche^[47]. The reincarnation of Trijang Rinpoche called Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, still continues to practice Shugden and was even recognised by the oracle.^[48]

In a general response to criticism of the New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso has said:

“

We should concentrate on our own tradition and maintain the good qualities of our tradition, but we should always keep good relations with each other and never argue or criticize each other. What I would like to request is that we should improve our traditions while maintaining good relations with each other."[49]

”

• Kay, David N. (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation - The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), and the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives (OBC), London and New York, ISBN 0-415-29765-6
• Book Review on "Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain..." by Inken Prohl, Free University of Berlin
• Belither, James. "Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition". New Kadampa Tradition.
• Daniel Cozort (2003). The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0195146980,
• Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0415395151
• Bunting, Madeleine (1996). Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian - London, [30]

• Official kadampa.org NKT website
• Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition
• BBC on NKT
• 'Beliefs of a Kadampa Buddhist' - NKT at BBC
• New Kadampa Tradition on About.com
• Geshe Kelsang talks about the NKT Study Programs
• NKT and Science - An individual perspective

• Retreat Guide from Daily Telegraph
• Account of weekend retreat in The Guardian

• The Independent, London: Battle of the Buddhists by Andrew Brown
• The Guardian - London: Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana
• Internal conflicts in Tibetan Buddhist sect, by Mike Wilson
• Cult Information Centre (CIC) London - some articles
• Spiritual Split by Colman Jones
• Movements In British Buddhism by Ken Jones - a founder and the present secretary of the UK Network of Engaged Buddhists

de:Neue Kadampa-Tradition nl:Nieuwe Kadampa-traditie

This is a dispute about the POV of this article, specifically the weight given to the views of university student David N. Kay 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I think that the way this article is presented is heavily weighted in favour of the opinions of Kay - indeed I would argue that -UNDUE WEIGHT- has been given to his views. Please see the number of foot notes relating to Kay for evidence to this effect. I find the whole article riddled with opinion presented as fact -- Excellentone 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to be very frank, but this article has tended away from a balanced description of the history and practices NKT, and has begin to lean very heavily into an article more accurately described as "David Kay's History and Opinion of NKT". I'm very concerned that the opinions and viewpoints of a relatively small number of individuals is drawn upon as the source material for a large portion of the article, which is representative of the point of view of a single editor who, in his determination to ensure that the article fully descibes his own perspective, has dominated the editing process -- ClockworkSoul 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• The problem, though ClockworkSoul, is that as the NKT is a very new, New Religious Movement, there hasn't been a whole lot written about it from a neutral or at least, academic perspective. You have the material written by the movement themselves, you have the national newspapers attacking the NKT over the Dorje Shugden issue, and then you have Kay. Maybe I'm wrong and there's a lot of sources we can draw upon, but I'm not so sure. Magic Pickle 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Having a repairable POV is no basis for deletion. In fact, it is specifically listed as being a counter-criteria. – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• It seems that most of the editors agree that the NPOV is violated in the current article on the NKT -- Marpa 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the problem is that some NKT members, such as Marpa, would prefer to have no NKT article at all, rather than one that contains any apparent criticism of his tradition. Changes can be made, to make it more balanced, but views of both sides of this controversial group must be included, if the article is to faithfully present the facts.Karma chogyam 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• There are a lot of references to verifiable, credible sources. Kay may dominate, but he's the only one who has written extensively on the NKT -- Magic Pickle 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Since the article has been nominated for deletion it has undergone another (undiscussed) dozens of changes from the main editor. It does not make sense to work for an agreement in the discussion section, knowing that some editors will change the article anyway according to their views when guest editors left the article -- Real Friends 13:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Many editors have strived to keep NPOV on this controversial topic. Keeping POV in quotations and citing sources is a good way forward, and to keep talking on the Talk pages. Billlion 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• David Kay may be biased, but I think the article has begun to do an adequate job of isolating "his comments" as "his comments," as opposed to a presenting him as a non-partisan source -- Amerique dialectics 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• If the problem is a possibly undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, it can be balanced. As said above Kay is the only one who did extended research on NKT, so he can not be neglected either -- Kt66 08:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• leave your comments here. 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.newkadampa.com