Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I have moved most the talk regarding things that have either been resolved, or which will never be resolved(!) into archive 2, hoping no-one minds. If there are any questions that I have been asked that are left outstanding, please take them out of the archive and either use my talk page, or just put them back here. (20040302 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

I am still hoping for a strong founding date for the NKT? 1990's is a bit weak. The only date I know of for KG's expulsion from Sera is early 1999. (see his page for that). It would be good (IMO!) for the article to see a full list of publications, and also to see the list of vows taken in NKT ordination. Also, though this is more to do with the KG page - it would be good to get the details regarding his degree sorted out..

I am away most of this week-end. Please let us attempt to collaborate here, regardless of our differing views. (20040302 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

KW - I too will be away most of the weekend. Yes, let's continue our collaboration. I am finding it informative and beneficial in many ways, and I hope we can continue to exchange views and understand more of each others position. I will also try to find a more firm date for the establishment of the NKT.

Controversial

KW Oct 1 - As a follow up to the e-sangha citation, the man who runs the site told me in an e-mail that the reason he prevents links to NKT sites is to stop arguments bewteen members of the NKT and the Gelugpas. He did not give as his reason that he sees the NKT as controversial, etc. I have a copy of this e-mail if anyone would like to read it.

KW - I still object to the use of the phrase 'most Buddhists' see the NKT as controversial. Unless someone has access to polling data of Buddhists worldwide on this issue, I don't think it is accurate to say 'most'. The fact is that this is not an issue for anyone but the Tibetan Buddhist community. Thervadan and other Mahayana traditions can have no view on this since Dharma Protectors are only found in the Tibetan tradition. Further, many Tibetan Buddhists have sided with Geshe-la on the issue of DS. Since the Tibetan community itself is split on the issue, it would be inaccurate to say 'most' Buddhists.

I think it would be accurate to say (even without polling data) that 'for some Tibetan practioners', the NKT is controversial. Unless someone can provide me with evidence from the many different traditions within Buddhism making official statements which are negative about the NKT we should stick with 'for some Tibetan Buddhists'.

Sept 28 - I changed this passage again, slightly. I changed the order of the wording, putting the DS issue second and the Buddhist Unions last. I also changed 'these controversies' to 'this controversy' since the DS issues is the only thing mentioned as being controversial. Also, can we get any sense of how many Buddhist Unions do not allow NKT centers to join? If it only a minority of them, that should be reflected in the passage.

Also I am still waiting for evidence that Buddhist traditions outside of the Gelugpa's view the NKT as controversial. I've redacted the page again.

1. If you look in the letter of Ken Jones - the present secretary of the UK Network of Engaged Buddhists, who is a long-standing Zen and Ch'an practitioner - you can find an experienced elder Buddhist practitioner who is not tibetan and is quite clear about that point. He is the secretrary of this organisation and you can be sure many of them share his view.

It Ken's a PERSONAL view or an OFFICIAL view? The opinion of one person does not mean the same thing as being the official position of an organisation.

2. Also in Germany the NKT is among Buddhists - also non-tibetan traditions - seen as very controversial. If you want find out more you can ask the Buddhist Unions and groups by a letter or Email. It seems to me you don't believe that NKT is among many Buddhists seen as controversial because you have no contact to a larger group of Buddhist outside NKT. For me the quesition is more: Who don't see the NKT as controversial? - except NKT itselfs.

Again, where is your proof? If you want to put AS FACT that many non-Gelugpa groups see the NKT as controversial then you have to give EVIDENCE that non-Gelugpa groups hold this view. At this point all we have is your opinion. That is not enough.

3. Also, if you look at the E-Sangha Community (7,697 registered members) you'll find:

"These few "Buddhism" school of thoughts are not recognized by e-Sangha. No links to their websites, their books, their followers' websites are allowed.

1) New Kadampa Tradition

2) Dark Zen

3) Lama Ponya Yeshe (Kentucky)

4) True Buddha School

Thank you for your cooperation." see: [1]

So what? An internet site is not the same as the official statement of a religious organisation. I would assume you would not say that 'godhatesfags.com' is reflective of the views of most Christians about gays.

I suggest you ask them by mail what proofs they have. Kt66 20:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also German Buddhist Union published an official statement in which NKT was criticized for its internal structure and fanaticism. Kt66 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is a single group. Also, I suspect this statment was written at the height of the DS controversy. If it is linked to DS then take it to the DS page and create a link to their statement. This page, however, is about the NKT.

Buddhist unions banning NKT

I did an internet search on this and the only thing that came up on it was this article's assertion. No other page on the internet claims NKT center are banned and if this claim cannot be substantiated it should be removed. It would be more informative and accurate if the names of such Buddhist Unions were provided, since most new readers won't even know what a Buddhist Union is.

The NKT "Mamaki Centre" in Germany for instance was expelled by the German Buddhist Union and the "Dipankara Centre" in Berlin was refused to be a member of the German Buddhist Union. So the best is we sample, which Buddhist Unions didn't accept NKT centers and which did, to be clear about that point. Kt66 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

We should also see when the expulsions took place and if they are still in force. After all the Shugden debate has receeded greatly since the late 1990s (fortuntely for everyone involved and the Buddhadharma!), so policies may have been altered in the last 6 to 8 years.

In German Buddhist Union the facts above are still the same. Kt66 21:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, but that is one country only, and the NKT operates in 40 countries (so far). If it's just the Germans we should be more precise in our language to prevent any misunderstanding that this is widespread.

Yes you're right. We have to check out this. When I was within NKT I heard NKT has poblems with different Buddhist Unions to be accepted. We can wait until people react or you send Emails/letters to the different Buddhist Unions. The latest information I got from NKT was: They are present in 25 countries - so now 40 countries? It is always funny how NKT work with informations. Kt66 21:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I got that number by going to the web page and counting the number of countries listed in the 'find a center' web page. If you doubt the number you can go and look up each country, do a count yourself and find out how many contact details are given for each country.

Thanks for alterting me to your clear anti-NKT bias. Would it help if I apologised for all the emotional pain you feel on this issue? I hope we can use this exchange as a way to heal divisions between NKT and Gelugpas. We are dharma brothers and sisters and we should look for ways to move beyond previous divisions and not cling to our anger about the past.

Hi there. I'm sorry to give you the impression that I'm anti-NKT bias. I'm just interested in having a proper article on NKT in Wikipedia which doesn't deceive people and give clear and unbiased informations. As you see it seems to be not easy for the Wiki Editiors to work out a proper article. So lets work on that. My intention by doing this is not to fight NKT. My intenton is to protect people by stepping blindly faithing into NKT (led by the NKT advertisements of "accomplished master", "Kadampa Tradition founded by Atisha", "complete lineage" and so on), and at one day recognize - as I did - there is something wrong with NKT and there has getting something wrong in once own mind. For instance before I was with NKT I cherished holy beings like His Holiness the Dalai Lama very much, I read other books and learned step by step the oppisite by NKT. Also I wanted to become a monk in the tradition of the Buddha Shakyamuni, but I recognized after 4 years I'm not. I'm just a person with 10 vows in a new western organisation. I felt and feel deceived by NKT and I wish to protect other people to experience this and waste their life by following a mistaken path, thats why my engagement in this topic of NKT. I demonstrated with NKT as a stupid, narrow minded, arrogant 10vows-monk blindly believing the NKT opinions against full ordained and wise people. I was ignorant on the facts. This I want now correct. But for you and all NKT's I wish all the best. Don't take it personally. We have the same intention: protect and helping others. But we have a different view on the subject "NKT". You can check your view and I check mine. If you say I'm angry this is a typical phrase to put down critics. yours Kt66 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

30 Sept - Someone tried to insert a line that NKT members were banned from Buddhist websites. This is factually incorrect for e-sangha, as I contact them myself. 'Leo' from e-sangha, in replying to my querry about NKT members being banned from the site replied that 'Hi Kristi, This is not rue [sic]. NKT members are welcome to join us.' I have a copy of the e-mail and will forward it to anyone who'd like to read it.

Oh perhaps you mean the NKT chat. I meant the E-Sangha announce:

"Announcement: These Few Buddhism School Of Thoughts Are Not Recognized By E-Sangha teyes These Few Buddhism School Of Thoughts Are Not Recognized By E-Sangha

Administrator

Group: Admin Posts: 980 Member No.: 1 Joined: 18-June 03

These few "Buddhism" school of thoughts are not recognized by e-Sangha. No links to their websites, their books, their followers' websites are allowed.

1) New Kadampa Tradition 2) Dark Zen 3) Lama Ponya Yeshe (Kentucky) 4) True Buddha School

Thank you for your cooperation." Just visit the site I listed above. Kt66 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Manjusri Institute and the take-over issue

Oct 1 KW - It is my hope that we can discuss the Manjushri issue, which some people feel very strongly about, here. I am very happy to do so, but since I am learning about this situation, let's pretend I'm from Missouri. In other words, 'Show me'. Show me the evidence.

To date the only 'evidence' I have had access to is a transcript posted by someone with anamosity for the NKT. The transcript reveals the following piece of information:

1) The then-trustees of the Manjushri Institute (including a Peter Kedge and a Harvey Horrocks), were being investigated by the Charities Commission for civil illegalties for violations of the terms of the Manjushri Institute Trust Deed.

2) The charges were viewed so extremely serious by the Charities Commission that it could have constitudes the basis for removal from the Manjushri Institute of Peter Kedge, Harvey Horrocks Lama Yeshe.

3) Very serious violations of the law with respect to the conduct of business operations, particularly Lotus Trading Company including illegalities carried out by the trustees themselves and others very closely connected with FPMT. Although the transcript does not detail the charges, it directs Lama Yeshe to ask Peter Kedge or Harvey Horrocks who apparently were at the center of the investigation as well as being key members of the FPMT organization.

4) The Charities Commission produced a report numbering close to 100 pages which summarized the civil and criminal illegalities with respect to the conduct of the management of Manjushri Institute as well as the supporting evidence. The report explicitly requested the Charities Commission to remove 3 trustees from the Manjushri Institute, including Peter Kedge, Harvey Horrocks and Lama Yeshe.

5) It was the opinion of the speaker that any prosecution of trustees for these criminal and civil offenses in a public trial would result in the FPMT being disgraced internationally.

6) Lama Yeshe said in his taped correspondence that he agree with the proposal (a proposal which is never explained in the transcripts )that was offered and they asked him to sign the written version of that proposal.

Now, this is the ONLY information provided on the Manjurshri building. It does not substantiate claims of theft or whatever else people are alleging against Geshe-la.

If anyone want to include a section on the Manjushri issue I would be happy to look at any evidence such as documentation or web links. However, we should not put up unsubstantiated hearsay and personal opinions on issues for which there should be plenty of evidence. I look foward to reading what documentation you have.

Hi there KW - sorry if it looks like I don't reply to your comments - it's just that you do not follow the wikipedia convention regarding colons for indenting, and you do not sign your work in the normal fashion, so I often miss your contributions - forgive me for this. Regarding the specifics of the case over Manjushri Cumbria, I cannot personally give you any more details than I have already done. What I do know is that the evidence against the FPMT trustees was compiled by someone internal to the organisation, and this type of behaviour is normally (within Tibetan culture) kept 'internal'. Now, this does not excuse anyone, or suggest that such behaviour is correct, but one does have to ask questions regarding motive - why would anyone wish to list evidence against the organisation that one is a part of? If you wish to have evidence regarding Lama Yeshe's feelings about the takeover, maybe you should contact the FPMT for comment - they are likely to be able to let you know their views on the issue. take care (20040302)

Although the NKT-ites seem to dislike it, the takeover of Manjushri Institute was certainly far from amicable. It is far better to address this lightly rather than not at all:-

To not mention it at all will look like a whitewash - basically, an untruth, a deception, a lie.

I myself agree to mention in the article: "(against Lama Yeshes wishes)" this is a history fact, and important too. If the bases of a "tradition" is based on stealing or blackmailing than it has to be mentioned. It is a history fact. Kt66 11:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

We could go into the hairy details of drugs allegations, lists of 'criminal evidence' (against FPMT members) followed by heavy-handed 'blackmail' (by Chip on behalf of KG) along with all the tape transcriptions, but this is really really messy, and no-one appears to want to really go into those details, and at that level it really gets into micro-history, rather than general history. This is why saying "against lama yeshe's wishes" is, in my mind, a reasonable 'middle way'. Students of KG at the time were calling it a 'revolution' and a 'coup', which wasn't very nice. It happened. (I have no affiliation with the FPMT btw. I don't think either party behaved very well back then, but who am I to judge?)

The transcription is on the web. Try a google for "kelsang chip tape transcription" - maybe phayul. (20040302)

I also think that sometime all the stuff about benefits fraud is going to come out, which won't do NKT's reputation any good. (This is to do with that for many years, many if not most of KG's students in the UK were signing on while working on renovating properties, teaching, etc. Apparently (from inside sources) students were encouraged to sign on. Several cases went to court. This is breaking the law, and in my opinion very questionable behaviour). Right now, I don't think we need to go into that stuff either though. (20040302 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

The nature of these quotes, regardless of 'who was right' (remember, I am not affiliated with either party here) is not reflected in the current article. The fact that the institute is mentioned at all is enough to warrant mention of the take-over. As I agree that 'the wishes of Lama Yeshe' may not be particularly relevant to the WP audience at large, and only indicate the problem from a distinctively Tibetan POV, I shall alter the text to say "a controversial manner" - which is hard to argue with, and remains relevant. The issue of the take-over as above is that there is often a general agreement to not shine light on the flaws of others - and it was this 'list of criminal activities' which was considered to be a rebellious and aggressively critical action on behalf of KG and his students. It's not that there was no wrong done - but that he threatened to book charges. After all, once the take over was completed, no charges were raised against LY or his students. Therefore this was a political move on behalf of KG, not a move of 'law and justice'. Moreover, NKT's own illegal activities (primarily benefits fraud) indicate that NKT uses the law as suits the occasion. (20040302 08:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Fine, remove the reference to Manjushri. I fail to see why something which happened in 1983 should be part of the discussion of the NKT which wasn't established until 1991. If the mere mention of Manjushri reminds those few who have intimate knowledge of the event mental anguish we'll just remove the mention of it completely. From my side it looks like people are living in the past and holding onto anger which serves them no useful purpose.

No, dear heart, this is more to do with the nature of history, not anger. If it were Buddhist to excise all mentions of conflict, we would not know of devadatta, and we would not have the vinaya. There is no anger here. IMO, it will be incredibly hard for the NKT to convince anyone that the organisation was not born out of strife and conflict; indeed I doubt that many NKT students do not privately wonder about the complete severance of the NKT from the Dalai Lama and Tibetans. We can remove all historical references in the NKT, but the article will once more become a stub. History is an inevitable consequence of any article about an institution within an encyclopedia.

I'm not opposed to detailing the history of the NKT, but since the NKT was founded in 1991 your fixation on events which occurred in 1983 seem very much out of place. Further you are posting a very biased account of events. Perhaps we should also post precisely what charges were being brought against Lotus Trading Company and what illegal activities the trustees and other FPMT members were being investigate for, but I don't think that is either relevant or helpful.

As an NKT practioner, I know that there was a split which resulted in the formation of the NKT and as a consequence we now have a Western tradition of Buddhism based upon the teachings and lineage of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. Many thousands of people have found the wonderful Buddhadharma through the NKT, and since there is plenty of information on the internet about the DS controversy people can make up their own minds and thousands like me have chosen Geshe-la as their guru.

It is improper to use this site as a place to promote your anti-NKT views. This place is designed to give people information based upon FACTS so they can make up their own minds.

reminds those few who have intimate knowledge of the event mental anguish Apologies, I don't understand what you are saying here. (20040302 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

I'm saying you're fixated on past events which aren't relevant to the NKT.

Reliance on the Spiritual Guide cont.

Dear March 2nd, thank you for your considered reply. I would like to extract three points from your response to comment on:

Therefore, we must be able to identify whether the actions in our Guru are right or wrong. We can do this even if we see him to be an emanation of Vajradhara as an ordinary being (which is a tantra context) - we can understand that sometimes he is teaching us what not to do by showing us the consequences of his actions.

Seeing the Guru as Buddha is not an invitation to disengage our wisdom. Of course we must discriminate whether our Guru's actions are in accordance with Dharma, and if he asks us to do something that is not, we must refuse or explain why we cannot. This perfectly accords with Fifty Verses by Ashvagosha. From your responses, I feel that you believe that if we view the Guru as Buddha, we must do everything they say, and indeed that is what NKT does. That is completely incorrect. We have discussed many times, and Geshe Kelsang has addressed in Teachings, how to relate to our Teacher in a proper way while still maintaining pure view. Even though our Spiritual Guide may be a living Buddha (and it is essential to view him in that way in order to attain the highest realizations), he will appear to make mistakes because our minds are clouded by ignorance. One of the reasons Pabongkha uses to justify why faults may be perceived in the Guru is that appearances are deceptive and our own opinions are unreliable. Because we have faulty minds, we will perceive faults even in pure objects like Buddha emanations. We have discussed the issue of what happens when the Teacher's actions are incompatible with the teachings, or if they appear to have made a mistake, and the conclusion was that we should ask him or her why they did what they did. Teachers should also be honest and admit when they have made mistakes. We do not slavishly follow everything that our Teacher says and your point is an important one: The Guru teaches by manifesting faults.

Regarding this Third Buddha thing that keeps coming up, I think your next paragraph is important:

To consider one's guru as an emanation is for private practice - we should not proclaim this to others without looking foolish. Similarly, if you have taken vajra-yogini initiation, if you go around saying "I am Vajrayogini", most people will be surprised at your claim!

You are completely right. I fear than in the past, some NKT practitioners have been unskilful in expressing their view that Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha - a view that should only be held internally. This has been picked up on by the press and has led to some cringingly embarrassing comments in print that leave NKT open to ridicule. Even talking about it openly in a forum like this can lead to misunderstandings. The view that the Guru is a Buddha is a completely personal and private view that should not be expressed verbally or physically. As Geshe Kelsang has said: "do not exaggerate". Having said that, no one I know has ever expressed the view that Geshe Kelsang is the "Third Buddha".

Finally, by using the predominantly tantric approach of identifying one's Guru to be an emanation of Vajradhara as an ordinary being, we are free from the faults of making Sakyamuni redundant (thereby maintaining refuge), of the dangers of imagining our Guru to be omniscient, and likewise we are able to keep discriminating analysis regarding our Guru's behaviour.

I think we mean different things by identifying our Guru as an emanation of Vajradhara as an ordinary being. I believe that this view means regarding the Guru as a deliberate emanation of Buddha Vajradhara who has consciously manifested as a Spiritual Teacher to guide us to liberation and enlightenment. I feel that your view is "according to tantric view, everything is Buddha so the Guru is just another emanation, like a bridge or some other ordinary object". The point is that this emanation, which is a Spiritual Guide, is not ordinary. He or she appears ordinary because of the obscurations in our own mind, and we are to view this person as Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Vajradhara.

The question is, do you have a living Buddha in your life or a dead one? According to Theravada, Buddha passed away and his teaching is our refuge. According to Mahayana, Buddha can manifest countless emanations to benefit living beings and is omnipresent. He exists where he is visualised. According to Vajrayana, our Guru is the synthesis of all Buddhas (including Buddha Shakyamuni) and by holding this view, and engaging in Guru yoga to recieve his profound blessings, he can bestow enlightenment upon us. To achieve the highest realizations it is essential to view all things are pure, and that starts with someone who is performing the actions of a Buddha - our Spiritual Guide. There is a process of purification that needs to take place such that we can recognise all things as emanations of the Dharmakaya. If we can't see someone who is performing the actions of a Buddha as Buddha, what chance do we have of seeing everything else as pure? This is the training according to tantra. Furthermore, Buddha Vajradhara himself declared that he would manifest as a Spiritual Teacher in degenerate times. We cannot be Buddhists if we do not believe Buddha. Anyway, I am sure you are familiar for the reasons for regarding the Guru as Buddha. Buddha has to emanate as an ordinary being, performing the actions of a Buddha, because our karma is so impure that we are unable to see Buddha's enjoyment body or Supreme Emanation body, so we have to receive guidance from a 'seemingly' ordinary being. This doesn't make Buddha Shakyamuni redundant at all, because Buddha Shakyamuni and the Guru are one. In the Guru Puja it says:

Namo Gurubhä

Namo Buddhaya

Namo Dharmaya

Namo Sanghaya

The Guru is the synthesis of all objects of refuge. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 15:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

By seeing His Holiness, especially by hearing his holy speech, and by seeing all his qualities, the hearts of many millions in the world have been filled with hope, joy and peace. Of course, we should see His Holiness in the pure aspect of Buddha Avalokiteshvara, in the aspect of the Compassionate Buddha Avalokiteshvara’s holy body, but as it is mentioned in the teachings, “Even if all the Buddhas actually descend in front of us, one does not have the fortune to see the holy body with the holy signs and exemplifications except the present appearance (the ordinary impure appearance projected by the ordinary impure mind) until one is free from karmic obscuration.” Since ordinary beings like myself only have the karma to see the Buddha in a human form, His Holiness has manifested in this inspiring human form exactly in accordance with our karma, giving us the opportunity to hear and see directly this aspect. This kindness of His Holiness is without limit or measure, like the limitless sky. By being able to see His Holiness and hear his holy speech we can awaken or enlighten our mind—this is the best gift we can receive in this life. - Lama Zopa Rinpoche

The above quote is from Lama Zopa's article In Praise of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and perfectly expresses the view that I was explaining above. Since such a great Gelugpa Lama as Lama Zopa expounds this view, it is obviously correct. It is clear that Lama Zopa sees HHDL as the Buddha of Compassion in human form. I don't think that Lama Zopa has abandoned his refuge in Buddha Shakyamuni by holding this view! It is unfortunate that his view, which is the essence of relying correctly upon a Spiritual Guide, has been used to brand New Kadampa Tradition as 'controversial'. I hope that such detractors will now see the error of their ways and understand that it is not an exaggeration to see the Guru as a Buddha, but an essential Mahayana view that is necessary to gain the highest spiritual realisations of the tantric path. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 18:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gen Keslang Pagpa, I can understand your point of view very well. I didn't follow the discussion whether one sees his Guru as a Buddha or not. But perhaps I can serve with a differentiated view on that topic. In Mahayana Way you see the Teacher as he would be a Buddha, this does not mean that he is. Then in Tantra there is the (secret) view that you see the Lama as equal to the Buddhas. If one takes this view literally then one will think he/she is indeed a Buddha. But thats not the meaning. The meaning is, if you have the spiritual mature (form spiritual practice), the Lama posesses hugh qualities (not projeted ones, real qualities), and you have a Karma with him from past lifes, together with your natural feelings of faith (which comes from seeing his actual qualities) he can lead you to highest attainments. Then he is function for you as a Buddha. Kt66

When I was within NKT I learned (and it was also taught so) to take it literally: The Guru - and there is only one in NKT: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - is a Buddha. So the Guru (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) can see the past, present and future, has the abilities and so on of a Buddha. But thats not the meaning of the proper understanding. I think 20040302 saw the misconceptions behind your statements and wanted pointing out these. The Tantric Guru Yoga is no beginner practice and a secret (tantric) teaching is not for the public and to have a misconception on it is also very dangerous. So I feel not comfortable to see (and experienced by myself) how NKT emphazise it in the west and built up NKT on that understanding. I will not say more details on that practice, thats not my task and not requested for, but I ask you please to be very careful with this topic. After leaving NKT I found many good Teachers which taught me a different understanding on "Guru Yoga", "seeing the teacher as a Buddha" and the concept of "faith" as I received in NKT. With this differentiated understanding of my new teachers I got until now no problems at all and I feel released from many wrong views. My mind feels very well. --

Just to think about: Geshe Kelsang said: 'He visits all NKT centers twice a day to look if all things in the centers are proper.' After receiving teachings of him, that 'All Gurus are Buddhas, because Buddha Vajradhara said this' with the understanding of the abilities of a Buddha and then you hear that remark of him... --> you can easily follow what in the mind of a devoted listener will happen, isn't it? This student will think: He is!

However, everyone is responsible for himself and his spiritual way. But due to the strong structures in NKT I was not able to receive proper teachings outsite NKT. So I only could free myself after leaving NKT. For westeners I can advice the book: "Relating To Spiritual Teachers" by Alexander Berzin; classical commentaries are: "The Fulfillment of All Hopes" - Guru Devotion in Tibetan Buddhism by Tsongkhapa and "The Teacher-Student-Realtionship" by Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. One of my teachers (Kagyu) said : "Listen to HH the Dalai Lama's advise which is completely according to both sutra and tantra. He said things on this topic." Kt66 20:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi folks; I remain perplexed about this issue - KP, I hope you are not dissembling here - Kt66 implies a different state of affairs in NTK. I know that he is disillusioned by NKT, but I wonder if there is any 'meat' on the bone of his contentions.

Also, KP, you say above I feel that your view is "according to tantric view, everything is Buddha so the Guru is just another emanation, like a bridge or some other ordinary object". Actually, no. The emanation as a bridge or boat, comes from sutra, and is normally used to show that one's Guru may also be an emanation of a Buddha. You then go on to say The point is that this emanation, which is a Spiritual Guide, is not ordinary. He or she appears ordinary because of the obscurations in our own mind, and we are to view this person as Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Vajradhara. must be interpreted, not taken literally.

I agree that the issues of the nature of an emanation are complex - for instance, according to some, Nagarjuna was an eighth stage bodhisattva manifesting as a third stage bodhisattva, who himself was manifesting as a first stage bodhisattva. However, we must be aware that when a bodhisattva or buddha emanates, the emanation is not imbued with the realisations and qualities of the emanator. This is like a puppet and a puppet-master; In a crime scene of a puppet show, when the puppet is a policeman, it is important for him not to know who the perpetrator is, even though the perpetrator is held in the other hand of the puppet-master. However, when we praise the actions of the puppet, we are making a mistake - we should be praising the actions of the puppeteer. Likewise, if we are using methods of recognising emanations, when we relate to our Gurus, and see amazing qualities, then at that time we should praise Sakyamuni or Vajradhara - the puppeteers of all enlightened activities. However, we are very mistaken if we imbue the puppets - our lamas and other spiritual guides - with the qualities and realisations of Vajradhara, such as omniscience and so on. Otherwise we will fall into trouble - we will not be able to critically analyse the actions of our teachers into those that are acceptable and those that are not. After all, according to the tantric vision, all activities are possible by Buddha - even those that would normally be termed 'great evil'. So it is completely possible for us to see our Guru as an emanation of Vajradhara even after he has killed his own parents; however, as we all agree, such practices are a private issue.

If KG claims to 'visit' all his centres twice a day, then he is also claiming to have supernormal powers, and therefore his statements about himself that he is 'a normal person' are to be ignored. These issues are very grave and serious. Kt66 - do you have textual evidence? KP - you know about this?

I heard it surely by my NKT-Teacher she used this assertion often. I think - but I'm just not quite sure - I heard it also in England by Geshe Keslang Gyatso himself when I partook a NKT festival at Manjushri Center Ulverston. I will think about it. But my NKT-teacher really emphasised this assertion very much and named as the author of it Geshe Kelsang Gytaso. Just to make it more concrete:

The Resident-NKT-teacher of the NKT center I belonged to said for instance: "Geshe-la said he visits all NKT centers twice a day to look if all things in the centers are proper. So every time I look to myself - when I remember this - I ask myself: Am I according to his intentions? And sometimes I feel very ashamed, because I'm not." So she used the assertion to correct herself. Kt66 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way the NKT announce Geshe Kslsang as a Buddha. They publish at [2] : "Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a fully accomplished meditation master" What does "fully accomplished meditation master" others mean than full awakend? I understood and understand this as: He has not to meditate anymore. Or is there a different interpretation of this statement possible? Kt66 20:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Lama Zopa, if you read the text again, you will see that LZ states that he is an emanation, and not a Buddha.

Lastly, KP, the 'question' do you have a living Buddha in your life or a dead one? is a slight against any Mahayana or Tantric Buddhist, and I take it you do not wish to offend me this way. (20040302 09:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear March 2nd, I did not mean to cause offence to you or to anyone else, and I unreservedly apologise. Again, we have considerable variance in our views on this subject. I do really feel that because we each have different views, intentions and understandings that it is better if we each practise our own tradition, being happy with our own teachings and understandings. If you feel that your Tradition is better than mine, that's fine. I rejoice in your practice. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 11:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

KP, thanks for your apology - I also sometimes let my words escape me before I have reflected on them; there is no blame. I am happy to close this discussion - though as I recall, the core point I was making was stating that one's guru has divine powers is about the fastest way of achieving the label "cult" or "sect", which damages the reputation of the NKT. Moreover, claiming that KG is omniscient puts him alongside Buddha - and therefore shifts the emphasis of refuge, which is about the fasted way of achieving the label "non-buddhist", something that I am convinced is not wished for by the NKT. All I am saying is that if anyone in NKT goes on record stating these qualities, or anyone goes into a public teaching hearing these qualities, then the NKT cannot be surprised at labels such as "non-buddhist cult", regardless of your views or feelings regarding the issue. I cannot state that the NKT is, or is not a non-buddhist cult - because I am not privy to public talks or the shared views and practices of the NKT. I am only pointing out a caveat. Certainly, my interpretation of earlier remarks made by yourself (and others) lent themselves strongly towards the status of the NKT indeed being a non-buddhist cult, though after discussion I am less sure about this. Regardless, if KG claims to have clairvoyant abilities and does not have them, he immediately loses his vows as a monk - lying about one's spiritual powers is one of the four great crimes of a monk, equivalent to murder or sexual intercourse. Which brings me onto a second point - if (and it is possible) KG is an emanation of Vajradhara demonstrating the path to western students, he will need to take a living female consort in order to achieve omniscience. This is something that Atisha himself forbade for monks - he said that they must not do this, and it is why Je Tsongkhapa waited until the moment of his death to realise omniscience, regardless of the fact that he was an emanation of Manjushri. So, regardless of if KG an emanation of Vajradhara or not, if KG is omniscient (assuming that he is a monk, and not just dressed as one) then he has taken a consort in this lifetime, and broken the instructions of Atisha. So even according to the Kadampas and the Gelugpas, KG cannot be omniscient - therefore he is not fully enlightened. As long as the NKT accept this status, regardless of anything else, it is much easier defend itself as being a Buddhist school. Of course, while the NKT tends towards isolationism, the appelation of Cultism is considerably harder to avoid. (20040302 12:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

is seen as controversial

I can't understand why the following things were inserted into this page:

Among many Buddhists, the New Kadampa Tradition is considered to be controversial. Criticisms against the NKT include issues concerning:

 + *NKT behaviour against the Dalai Lama 
 + *NKT isolationism 
 + *NKT internal structure 

There is no NKT behaviour against HH. What is this in reference to? Exercising freedom of speech on the Shugden issue in the 1990s? Again, since the controversy has died down and people are moving on I don't see why some people want to generate schisms in the dharma community by using erroneous and inflammatory language.

The past is as relevant as the present. This is something that you resist continually - do you not accept Karma? Every action has a consequence. Why don't you look more carefully at the actions of NKT back in 1996? Here is an article from the Guardian that may shed some light for you on what behaviours against the Dalai Lama the NKT is publically known for. Read what the FWBO says about the NKT here - But if you wish to see what the Guru of NKT himself has said against the Dalai Lama, why not read his accusations against the dalai lama in his public letter, written in response to the famous newsweek article? Did you never see the infamous NKT pictures of the dalai lama that said "YOUR SMILES CHARM, YOUR ACTIONS HARM."? There is so much history of the NKT and KG showing negative behaviour against the Dalai Lama. This and DS are the primary things that the informed public know about NKT. Just because in the last few years, KG has asked NKT members to stop behaving badly towards the Dalai Lama does not mean that everyone has forgotten it's history. (20040302 18:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

Sorry it is a fact that for instance the German Buddhist Union has expelled one NKT center because of these three reasons and denied another to become a member. The behavior of NKT against His Holines was quite strange: This I can tell you as Ex-NKT member, EX-Education Programm Coordinator and EX-NKT Teacher quite clear! I felt - and not only me - like in the army and the mood was pushed up like an army troupe wants to defeat an enemy. I was also in Swiss together with NKT, the English Monks (dressed in suit) were aggressive and even scold us because we smiled to much: Look wrathfully they prompted us. The freedom-of-speech-words wich Geshe Kelsang used against His Holiness were like this:

"The Dalai Lama has been very successful in destroying this ancient religious tradition. He is very clever at destroying the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, but he is very ignorant and foolish at achieving Tibetan independence. This should be his main job because he is the Tibetan political leader, but in this he is paralyzed, without any direction. Everyone can see this situation now. The Dalai Lama is using these three reasons, repeating them over and over like a weapon to destroy the spiritual practice taught by his root Guru. He is continually saying these things, and people believe him, and their minds are gradually changing. In reality he is misleading people in order to fulfil his wishes. His main wish is to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and then to change the entire Gelug tradition. He wants to integrate all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism into one so that the leaders of the other traditions will no longer have a role and he will become the only leader of Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he can easily control the spiritual life of all practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I know this is his wish; he has been working towards this for many years." Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, "Re: RELIGIOUS ISSUES - related to DORJE SHUGDEN and the DALAI LAMA", 01/12/1997

and this was of course not all. Kt66 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

On isolationism, I find it ironic how people want to include details on how the NKT is not allowed in certain Buddhist unions and then accuse the NKT of being isolationists! I see no evidence of NKT 'isolationism' so this erroneous attribution has been removed.

The isolationism is made by NKT itself (in their own behavoiur, views and cultish structure). The only motivation of NKT to become member of Buddhist Unions is to have this white wash paper. Not because they seek for exchange. Kt66 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you seek for more details why NKT has this isolationism I can open a new section if you like. Kt66 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As for 'internal structure' again, I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to.

cultish behaviour. If you like we can also discuss this. Kt66 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way: I'm no Tibetan Buddhist and criticize NKT and also many members of the German Buddhist Union are also no Tibetan Buddhists and do so. Also the people from the E-Sangha member board and many other EX-NKT members are westeners! So I changed once more the section. Kt66 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Everytime someone changes from "many" to "some", "some" to "many". I suggest to say: "For Tibetan Buddhists and also Buddhists from other traditions the New Kadampa Tradition is seen as controversial." If friends of NKT feels not comfortable with this: "some" is not correct. With avoiding "many" perhaps they feel better? What do other Wiki-Editors think on that? The statement should be in accordance to facts. "Many Buddhists" is quite more correct than "some". Kt66 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, unless you have polling data, or a list of other Buddhist traditions which have issued official statement I think 'some' is accurate. The non-Gelugpa Buddhists I've talked to on the DS issue see this as an internal Tibetan dispute. If you can prove how many groups have taken official positions on the NKT I will conceed the point. However without EVIDENCE it would be speaking falsely.

OK something to the evidence, I wrote something before of the understanding of the German Buddhist Union on NKT. Just to add and give the wished evidence I give you now the members of the umbrella organisation of the German Buddhists:

• Altbäckersmühle (Zen)
• Aryatara Institut (tibetischer Buddhismus Gelug)
• Bodaisan Shoboji (Tempel der Rinsai-Schule des Zen-Buddhismus)
• Buddhistische gesellschaft München e.V. BGM (Theravada).
• Haus Meditation und Studienzentrum Theravada.
• Buddhismus im Westen e.V. Waldhaus am Laacher Se] (alle Schulen/Vipassana).
• Buddhistische Gemeinschaft der DBU BG (alle Schulen)
• Buddhistische Gemeinschaft Longchen e.V. (tibetischer Buddhismus Kagyü)
• Buddh. Gem. Shin Do e.V. (reines Land)
• Buddhistische Gesellschaft Berlin e.V. (alle Schulen)
• Buddhistische Gesellschaft Hamburg e.V. (alle Schulen)
• Buddhistische Perspektiven (alle Schulen/Akademie)
• Buddhistischer Bund Hannover e.V. (Theravada/offen)
• Buddhistisches Zentrum e.V. (tibetischer Buddhismus Gelug)
• Choka Sangha e.V. (Zen)
• Das Buddhistische Haus/Haus der Stille (alle Schulen)
• Dharma Sangha Europe (Zen)
• Freunde des Westlichen Buddhistischen Ordens (traditionslos)
• Rigpa e.V. (tibetischer Buddhismus Ningma)

Kt66 12:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

History Section

From the history section was taken out essential parts which, I think, NKT doesn't like to hear. If one wants to improve the section he can do, but not taken out the stuff from whom GKG was invited and that he overtook the center which was belonged to Lama Yeshe. Just to remind you three quotes:

1. "However, at Lama Yeshe’s request the Dalai Lama asked Kelsang Gyatso to leave Manjushri Manjushri in Autumn of 1983 and repair to York and live in his (KG’s) own center there, the Madhyamaka Centre. His Holiness did this by sending his brother to Conishead Priory to discuss this with KG. Obviously, KG was not swayed by this emissary of the Dalai Lama." quote from Thubten Gonpo which is according to the quote of the Sera Letter from the Tibetan Monasteries:

2. "When he was picked up by the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the MahayanaTradition, found by the late Lama Yeshe) to go to England, he not only went there but he usurped the FPMT centre and made it his own NKT!!" taken from Sera Expulsion Letter

3. "Indeed, Geshe Kelsang split from the FPMT in 1978, in difficult circumstances..." taken from FWBO UK site

Thank you; ;-) Kt66 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the offending phrase but balanced the removal with the first quote from the sera expulsion letter, and attributed the quote. This is in accordance with WP guidelines. I personally think the second quote is not so informative. (20040302 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Yes the second quote is not so informative, I agree. But I think NKT only accept stamped letters... Kt66 11:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I just made some corrections of the quotes... Kt66 10:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to put in the section on Manjurshri, then I think the criminal investigations of the Lotus Trading Company and trustee members should be part of the discussion. If people are determined to put this in the NKT page, then the WHOLE history of it should be put in,

Why? Did Lotus Trading Company overtook the center against the wishes of someone? Kt66 21:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I reactivated the take over issue. As stated above by an NKT member: "As an NKT practioner, I know that there was a split which resulted in the formation of the NKT and as a consequence we now have a Western tradition of Buddhism..." and based on the informations that the takeover was against Lama Yeshes wishes and in a controversial manner I put it back in the article. I tried to find a comprimise which fits both views, NKT's and the former owner of the center. I see no reason to hide this point. If the foundation was based upon a split (even stated by NKT) this should be mentioned. This split is also active nowadays and can easyly followed by seeing that no Tibetan or recognised traditional Teacher (Tibetan or Westener) is related to NKT. Kt66 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual Programmes

I have removed the erroneous section on 'what we don't study'.

We have already established that NKT is not the Tibetan Gelugpa Tradition. Our way of living, presenting and practising the Dharma are different. We are not living in monasteries and we are not studying to become Geshes. We have unique study programmes, which is one of the defining characteristics of the New Kadampa Tradition. There are subjects that we study that Tibetan Geshes don't study at their monastic universities: for example, lamrim, lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra, but I wouldn't say that they are deficient for not doing so. In the same way, it is erroneous for you to say what we don't study because we aren't trying to be the Tibetan Gelug tradition. There is already one of those. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

KP, there is only one Gelugpa tradition - which is Tibetan. I know you are desparate to try to split the Gelugpa into some Tibetan/non-Tibetan dichotomy, but (see Talk:Kadampa) this is an arbitrary delineation created by you or your organisation with no substance. What I ask of you is to tell me what it is that makes something Tibetan Buddhist (while preserving the identity of the NKT as not being Tibetan Buddhist). Tibetan Buddhism has little to do with physical location - and the Gelugpa school has been present in Europe (with monastaries, temples, and teachers) for centuries. Go read the article Tibetan Buddhism, then come back and tell me how NKT is not Tibetan Buddhist. Secondly, stick to areas of your expertise, please. FYI every qualified Geshe in the world has formally studied lamrim, lojong and mahamudra. (20040302 08:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear March 2nd, with respect, you seem to have a hang up about Dharma being 'Tibetan' and traditions being 'Tibetan Buddhist', which is understandable considering that you are practising Tibetan Buddhism. There was Dharma before it went to Tibet, you know! Dharma is not 'Tibetan', it's not even Indian, it comes from the Pure Land of Buddha Shakyamuni. It is not constrained by geographical boundaries or culture, and wherever the Wheel of Dharma turns, to whatever country to goes to, it adapts to the culture of that country. Je Tsongkhapa's Dharma has moved to the West since the invasion of Tibet and has adapted to Westerners in the form of the New Kadampa Tradition. For example, people do not need to learn Tibetan to learn Dharma, our teachings and prayers are in English (or German, or Spanish, or whatever country you happen to be studying it).

The Tibetan Gelugpa tradition and the NKT are simply different presentations of Je Tsongkhapa's Dharma. Let's take for example two products made by Hersheys. These two products might have different names, and the wrappers might be different, but they are both 'chocolate' and furthermore, 'Hershey's Chocolate'. In the same way, the Tibetan Gelugpa Tradition and the New Kadampa Tradition are two different 'products' with different presentations but they are both Dharma and furthermore, Je Tsongkhapa's Dharma. What would you call a follower of Je Tsongkhapa? Gelugpa. And that's what we are. We are following Je Tsongkhapa's Dharma, but not your particular presentation of it. We have our own presentation.

Why you follow Je Tsongkhapas Dharma? No scripture of him is studied. The books of Geshe Kelsang are just his commentaries on different texts. Shantideva is not Tsongkhapa, Chandrakirti is not. The Lamrim book you use is different from the Lam Rim Chen Mo of Tsongkhapa. Also the Meditation Handbook is not made by Tsongkhapa. Which textes of Tsongkhapa you use? How can your lieneage be complete as you claim, if there are missed so many teachings of Tsongkhapa? I can not follow your arguments but I understand you just want to believe and see the things as you like to see. This I can accept. But it is very difficult by this behavoiur to have a accurate article on NKT at Wikipedia. However. love. Hopefully the reader will catch the important points himself. Kt66 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

We are simply going in circles here, which is quite pointless so I don't see that there is any meaning in continuing this discussion - do you agree? with love, --Kelsangpagpa 09:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure yet. You see, you are the only person I know who sticks "Tibetan" as a prefix to the Gelugpa Tradition. It isn't me who has the hang up. The main disagreement is your rather personal definition of "Gelugpa" - just be aware that it is a rather personal definition. (20040302)

The Study Program which is studied in NKT I added in the teaching section: "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has designed three spiritual programs for the systematic study and practice: the General Program, the Foundation Program, and the Teacher Training Program. In all three study programs the students can study his books on Buddhism.

From the classical five major topics of studying two are studied: The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (Prajnaparamita) and the Philosophy of the Middle Way (Madhyamika) - represented by his books "Heart of Wisdom" a commentary on the Short Heart Sutra and "Guide to the Middle Way" a commentary on Chandrakirtis Madhyamakavatara.

The other three major topics: Valid Cognition (Pramana), Phenomenology (Abhidharma) and Monastic Discipline (Vinaya) and the classical texts of Tsongkhapa, Atisha, Nagarjuna or Asanga aren't studied.

From the Sutras of the Buddha the Heart Sutra is studied."

This is neutral, clear and gives proper informations. Why this was canceled? I don't understand. Is this to clear for NKT? This is an important information and it is completley true, no assessment like 'The study only one Sutra.' is included. Kelsang Pagpa can you tell me what your reasons are not to accept this? I reverted this section. Please give me good reasons why this is not in Wikistyle or not fitting. yours Kt66 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kelsang-la. I changed a little bit your passage of the spiritual programs. You wrote "the Dharma is suited to Westerners"... but this is mere an assertion (and I can not agree as westener to this assertion). Also you wrote "many profound subjects" but this is POV, NKT has not many profound subjects, NKT has some; but of course profound and valuable, like Lorig, Lojong and Lamrim and two texts of the indian panditas. Please be aware this variety of teachings for westeners can only be named as a selection of the teachings and can not represent them all or that this selection is adequate to the needs of westeners. Kt66 10:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt66. it not a mere assertion that this Dharma is better for Westerners. Not having to learn Tibetan is a bonus for a start! Also, I cannot agree with your assertion that we do not study many profound subjects; you only have to look at books like Tantric Grounds and Paths Great Treasury of Merit and Mahamudra Tantra to see that Geshe Kelsang's presentation of Kadam Dharma is clear but profound. We don't study Commentary to Valid Cognition and so forth, but again you are comparing the Gelugpa and New Kadampa Traditions, which is inappropriate. We are not Geshes living in Monasteries but we are sincerely seeking enlightenment and Geshe Kelsang has given us everything we need to accomplish that goal. I would like you to prove otherwise if you disagree, but you cannot because Lamrim contains everything. Mere philosophy and intellectual knowledge without being put into practice within the context of lamrim is pointless.

I still don't understand why you insist on comparing the Tibetan Gelugpa and Western New Kadampa Traditions; we are quite different in terms of our presentations and way of practising. I think your problem is that you hold the Gelugpa Tradition presentation to be 'ultimately valid'. Their presentation is suited to Tibetans and some Westerners who have the karma to study it and our presentation is suitable for those who have the karma for Kadam Dharma. It's about being flexible and responding to the needs of practitioners. Buddha was flexible like this - he dispensed the medicine of Dharma in accordance with needs, intentions and inclinations of his disciples. That is all that Geshe Kelsang has done. Presentation is not inherently existent nor inherently valid - the only ultimately valid thing is emptiness. with love --Kelsangpagpa 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To make it short. You believe or suppose "Geshe Kelsang has given us everything we need to accomplish that goal" and you have some more not well checked topics of blind beliefes too. We have no basis for discussion because you only know NKT and not the Kadampa or Gelug Tradition but you claim NKT is the same, which is not agreeable for me and other Buddhists. What can I do, what can I say more? NKT opinions are mostly based upon "pushed up" assertions which I first believed, later checked and after checking properly found out as bluring or untrue. The only need I saw to discuss this is to work out an proper article on NKT in Wikipedia for the benefit of the readers. yours, Kt66 14:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

KP - you do love to have your cake and eat it, don't you?

As I pointed out elsewhere, you (and possibly others from your organisation) are the sole individual(s) who prefix the word "Gelugpa" with "Tibetan" - what is YOUR hang-up with Tibet and the Tibetans? After all, the Gelugpa has been present in Europe for centuries already.

What is YOUR hang-up with dividing the world into "Westerners" and "non-Westerners"? Where is the divide? Go and read the article and then tell me which particular group of people you are referring to. Do you mean developed vs. non-developed countries? How does Hong Kong and Taiwan fit into that - both of whom have had a Gelukpa presence for centuries? Europe? How about Kalmykia - a Gelukpa state for centuries. Christian states? So demonstrate the specifically Christian take adopted by the NKT, also show how it applies to many Christian African nations, such as Ethiopia. Democracies? Whoops! Forgot about India - and your organisation isn't exactly... democratic, is it?

kt66 doesn't hold the Gelugpa (the only Gelugpa) tradition to be 'ultimately valid' - his views, and those of the Geludpas, are more profound. The Gelugpa tradition holds that there are many different religions (let alone Dharmas) for many different minds; what is best accords with the context of the individual; take for instance, Islam. There are individuals for whom Islam is most beneficial - so it is good for them to practice Islam. The Dalai Lama has spent a lot of time talking about and promoting religious pluralism over the last few years (based upon the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa), but I guess you wouldn't know about that. This is different from your own claims - which (from what I can gather) is that there is something uniquely pure and special about the NKT that makes it more appropriate and useful than other traditions. If purity isn't an issue, why go on about how pure your tradition is? If it isn't unique, then why differentiate it? If it isn't special, then why say "(NKT) Dharma is suited to Westerners", implying that other things are unsuitable. You see, every qualifying statement you make implies that other traditions do not share those qualities. This is why we make qualifying statements, right?

The Gelugpa school's presentation of Dharma is not solely for 'Tibetans', nor for 'non-Westerners' - it is for human beings. Any other interpretation is a criticism of Je Tsongkhapa - please think about that before saying such things. The Kadam Dharma of Atisha and Lama Dromtompa likewise is for human beings - and has spent most of it's lifespan in countries influenced by Tibetan Buddhism. If you actually read Je Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chenmo, you would find it hard to continue asserting that it is not applicable to Westerners, which is what you continue to imply by your qualifying statements. Moreover, it would give you plenty of insight into your Lam Rim meditation - it has great value for aiding you in your quest for enlightenment.

You have yet to answer several pertinent questions regarding your possibly nihilist views on existence, so please keep your mouth shut regarding existence until you are willing to establish what those views are.

Lastly, if the NKT dharma is no different from the Gelukpa dharma or the Kadampa dharma, (which you have often claimed in these discussions), then the NKT has nothing new to offer 'Westerners'. If the NKT does have something new to offer 'Westerners', then it must be different from both the Gelukpa teaching and the Kadampa teachings. So tell me, does the NKT have something new to offer 'Westerners' (whatever they are) or not? Please think about this carefully before you answer. So for instance, if you say to me "KG's exposition is unique and special, but the basis is the same" - how can you show me in what way the exposition is unique and especially suited for a group of people? The FPMT is not a small organisation, and yet presents the Gelukpa dharma and the Kadampa dharma in the same countries as yourself - so how does the NKT actually distinguish itself from all these other global Tibetan Buddhist groups (apart from it's isolationism and other cultish qualities)? In the end, such distinctions crumble into dust - the claims cannot be held, because they have no substance - find an example of something specific that shows how the NKT is especially suited to the West, and it is either new to NKT (such as the exceptionally weird vinaya) and not derived from the ancient lineages, or it is found in other schools that are Tibetan Buddhist.

Please don't be trite about these things, and do your best to explain yourself, rather than reply with irrational or declarative statements. (20040302)

Teachings

I have cut this from the main article because it is pure opinion. If it goes anywhere it should be in the "Critics Say" section.

'This action was done due to the view of Geshe Kelsang that all of his books contain only authentic Buddhist teachings and westeners can get confused if they read buddhist books from different authors. Later NKT adopted the view that Geshe Kelsangs books are a complete presentation of the entire buddhist path so that no other buddhist scripture is required for scholastics and practice. A main effect of the elimination of the buddhist scriptures and books from the library and promoting only Geshe Kelsangs books is that his followers are isolated from other sources of inspirations and are totally dependent on him.

In recent years, however, more extreme claims are being made. According to Kelsang Gyatso's most senior students, the authentic teachings on Mahamudra Tantra are now only available within his New Kadampa Tradition, meaning that those outside his school do not have access to the complete path to enlightenment. In effect, enlightenment in this life is impossible for anyone outside the group!'

I would like to address each of the points you raise:

1) As the main Wikipedia article states, NKT centers stock only Tharpa books in thier shops, because these are the books that these centers are authorised to teach. Geshe Kelsang's emphasis on finding and remaining within one presentation of Buddhadharam, which is what I understand to be one meaning of the word Tradition, is again very commonplace, in the fall issue of Tricycle 2005 you can read His Holiness the Twelfth Gyalwang Drukpa offering a very simillar view, does this also mean that he believes his teachings are the only authentic ones?

There is always a difference of what NKT thinks about tradition and what high masters says about that; thats why what the twelfth Gyalwang Drukpa said on tradition is perhaps similar, but the ideas don't fit really together if you look on a deeper level. I think the passage "This action was done due to the view of Geshe Kelsang ..." meets the point quite good - but there is no need to put this in the main article. Your explanation of why only Tharpa books are offered in NKT centers is quite funny to me. Why do NKT centers avoid to sell other books? Because they are not taught in NKT? Is it a required condition for NKT centers to sell books that they must be authorised to teach? In Gelug tradition there are always different presentations of different authors and scriptures. Gelugpas use mainly the original Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna, Asangas scriptures and scriptures of the Tengjur and Kangjur (GKG books are not part of the Tengjur and Kangjur) and the texts of Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna and Asanga are not present in NKT. To use the word tradition to defened the idea to sell and read the books of only one author in this context is perhaps a good solution avoiding to think deeper about that topic. Suppose you would get the transmission of Tsonghapas Lamrim Chen Mo, Tsongkhapas other main texts and the transmissions of the Sutras of the Buddha and the scriptures of Nagarjuna, Asanga and the like and you would study and practice it: you would keep the tradition of Tsongkhapa and that great pioneers. But now you only keep the tradition of Geshe Kelsangs books and his teachings... Kt66 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for your thoughts here, I will certainly think about them, however they are finally your thoughts and opinions and therefore not pertinent to the content of the Wikipedia article. I would ask you a question, is Je Tsongkhapa's tradition his own texts or is it the meaning of those texts? If it is the meaning, you and I, unless we are enlightened can never really say who is or who is not keeping this tradition alive.(Robertect 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi there, I agree they are not needed for the wiki article directly. I adressed it just to you and the interested reader. Let me answer your question by three questions: What is Je Tsongkhapas tradition? Why your so sure that GKG catched the meaning of his tradition? Did you check it out by consulting original scriptures like Tsongkhapa did? Kt66 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your questions are reasonable although I do not think they negate the need to answer my question.

You're right. I don't like really to step in a new big discussion. At the time I have not the time at all. On the other hand I see you seem to be interested in. Ok I will not block it - as I just indirectly did. I just catched some ideas of your points but to discuss the points properly I have to read carefully your statements and have to look that your/my points are related to the article (because Wiki is no discussion board). In doing this I see the opportunity to benefit the article, you, the reader and myself. But please also read the sources I mentioned. Just on Pabongkhas secterian views: Did you follow my link? There you find that he said "However, if we honestly examine, CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM are barbarism and therefore are the worst and there is no other religion worse than these." It is common that his desciples destroyed Nyingma monasteries Padmasambhava statues and the like, you find a scriptural source in Lord of the Dance: Autobiography of a Tibetan Lama by Chagdud Tulku. He spoke with the people in that region also and could recognize the effects of this. The only point which is disputed if Lama Pabonghkha himself has take part in these actions or only some of his fanatic desipcles. That these secterian actions took place was also confirmed to me by a high Gelug Lama who is a close desciple of Trijang Rinpoche. I will in the next two weeks step by step go through your points. But please be patient with me, because I lack enough time at the moment. By the way Dagom Rinpoche from Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling is my abbot and I know also Gangchen Rinpoche and also visited Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche at Rabten Choeling Monastery and met Gonsar Rinpoche there. And Kuten Lama I met also... I think we will have a quite interesting discussion, because all this is related to Shugden and many contradictionary stuff... and I know quite well what some Lamas of them said upon each other ;-) One person is missing here in this set: HH Kundeling Rinpoche, from whom Geshe Kelsang said he is a good friend of him. (When Kundeling heard this he was laughing: "We're friends???".) Kundeling Rinpoche was almost the only one Tibetan (besides Geshe Kelsang Gyatso) who supported the NKT demonstrations and he is well known in NKT. When I phoned with him he said on the telephone to me what he is thinking about what for him Geshe Kelsang is, he compared him with a dictator and said: "He is like Adolf Hitler."

I have to add: The view of Kundeling Rinpoche is not my view at all. It is a citation what he thinks about him. He also named HH the Dalai Lama as the "Chief Demon" in person. To get more about him you can follow Interview with the 13th Kundeling Tagtsha Jetung Rimpoche and Who is the 13th Kundeling Tagtsha Jetung Rimpoche?. To understand this stuff in a better way I would advice to read the following article: Tibetan Buddhism in the West - by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche - Website with a selfcritical approach Kt66 12:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your question: "Is Je Tsongkhapa's tradition his own texts or is it the meaning of those texts?" I can not answer. I know the intention of your question: if I say yes, then it follows if GKG keeps the meanings of Tsongkahpas texts he will keep also his tradition. My feeling is your question tries to simplify complex things. Before I can answer your question we have to find out: What is a tradition? You try just to reduce the topic in: is tradition the texts of someone or the meanings of the texts. Suppose I would say say: "Tsongkhapa's tradition is the meaning of those texts." Because the meaning of Tsongkhaps texts are summerized in one page the Lam-tso nam-sum (Three principles of the path) then this singel page is than Tsongkhapas Tradition. Then anybody who just know, study and practice this single page keeps Tasonkhapas Tradition. Following this, why Tsongkhapa wrote that many works and gave not only one page which consits the meaning of his teachings??? Kt66 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1) So first of all, for me Je Tsongkhapa's tradition is the lineage of instructions and blessings passed from him through generations through to Trijang Rinpoche. It is the practice of the 3 Principal Aspects of the Path, for me it does not mean the specific study of his texts. For example I do not think that Geshe Kelsang has abandoned the lineaage he recieved from Trijang Rinpoche even though the NKT does not study a single text written by Trinjang Rinpoche. Everything Geshe Kelsang teaches, all of his understanding is the fruit of reliance on his teachers, and they on their etc back to Je Tsongkhapa and finally to Buddha Shakyamuni. So whatever each of them teaches which does not contradict thier own teachers instruction arises from the lineage of teachers who passed these teachings on, it is in fact the living tradition being maintained.

This is your beliefe. I accept. But look at some sentences you wrote here "Everything Geshe Kelsang teaches, all of his understanding is the fruit of reliance on his teachers" this is just a assertion you beliefe in. If you check more deeply. Firstly he had different teachers, secondly without his own effort in studying and teaching, his intentions and people who listen to him there is no teaching at all. What he teaches, his understandings and misunderstandings are not a fruit of solely one cause, in fact his teachings are effected by many many circumstances, his tibetan background, western background (and understanding), his personality, practice and Dharma-Understandings. Where there are such huge interdependent relationships, there can happen certainly faults and wrong ideas, isn't it? But GKG normally said: I made no faults, we (NKT) made no faults. This is not a really Buddhist understanding, isn't it? Your phrase is a typically way of NKT argumentation which normally simplifies complex dependend phanomenons to a reduced single one to defend themselves. I don't agree also with "which does not contradict thier own teachers" I answer: 'whatever one teaches can contradict your own teachers, but it daren't contradict Buddha and the Indian Panditas.' My source is Tsongkhapa himself: "If what your teacher teaches contradicts the great indian Panditas, this teacher can not be seen as a reliable source." But I don't beliefe also blindly Tsongkhapa because he is seen as an authority. His argument makes sense if you know the background about the indian monsateries and how deeply and carefully they checked the scriptures and doctrine and how realized they were (this was never done so deeply in Tibet, thats why Tsongkhapa didn't believe much in tibetan commentaries - he was even quite sceptical about them! - and used as authority for his views basically Sutras, Tantras and the indian Panditas scriptutres, not mainly what his teachers said!). If you look in Tsongkhaps works you'll recognize easily that teachers are just human beings who make faults too. So it is the task of the student to recognize these faults and not to follow them, this ability is even - stated by Tsongkhapa - a main qualification of a proper Dharma student. What most NKT's do: I beliefe Geshe-la is right. He is a Buddha, he is authentic, his lineage is pure, he knows, me not. But this is no Buddhism. This is naivety. The Buddha taught: don't beliefe: check it out! So one has to use ones common sense. Kt66 12:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang says quite the opposite of "I made no faults, we (NKT) made no faults.", he teaches quite the opposite of believe me I am a Buddha. For example this year in the Spring Festival in front of more than 2000 people he said has made many mistakes, that the NKT has made mistakes - I am sure someone somewhere could provide an audiophile with this. I recall that he talked about reliance on the spiritual guide and made it clear that because Vajradhara appears as an ordinary person who is a Spiritual Guide, they should not be exempt from following ordinary standards of behaviour and also they can/will make mistakes. From memory he said "If you believe your teacher is mistaken, ask them to explain himself, if they have good reasons then your understanding and confidence in your teacher will increase by hearing what they have to say. If your teacher is wrong they should say "I made a mistake", this too will let you grow closer to your teacher and increase your confidence and faith in them because they show humility and how it is possible to improve. You will help them and they will help you, all the time both student and teacher becoming better better better. This way of relying on your teacher is very beautiful. This advice is true for me and resident teachers. I have made many mistakes, I am happy when I am corrected because in this way I can improve, otherwise not." Also in the Tricycle interview with Geshe Kelsang he makes an apology to other Buddhists for the effects of debating & protesting against the Dorje Shugden ban, I have never heard any other Lama make such an apology for the results of their actions, he says, "We are ashamed and sorry that this causes the reputation of Buddhists in general to be damaged." (Robertect 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

Thank your for your quote. It is really nice to hear that. And of course I agree to the content completely. However I heard the opposite of him himself. And when stopping the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama he didn't excuse, he said: 'We stopped this because we found out, this is a political problem, not a spiritual one.' This was not said as an excuse this has the underlying meaning: 'We do not make politics, we're pure, so we stopped.'

I know Geshe-la can explain the Dharma quite good but if one lives it you will see in difficult situations. To make this clear I will give you next days a quite clear example of GKG behaviour. But first I want to go on through your past points and not create new ones. Kt66 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

2) I have confidence that Geshe Kelsang maintains the meaning of his tradition

• • Firstly because Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche praised fundamental texts such as Meaningful to Behold and Clear Light of Bliss. Further more I understand from senior students that Song Rinpoche was both supportive of and instrumental in advising Geshe Kelsang after the seperation from FPMT (he visited Manjushri Institute in the early 80's), so he did not turn away from Geshe Kelsang after the break with the FPMT. Lastly Trijang Rinpoche gave Geshe Kelsang permision to give the presentation of Dharma he is now giving. This occured shortly before the death of Trijang Rinpoche. So the lineage holders, Geshe Kelsang's root teachers say he is qualified.

On one hand this is a nice thought I used it too when I was within NKT and tried to defend NKT/GKG and my way there. And I think it has some evidence. I was quite wondering with that background why then GKG has made that many bad activities like I recognized. Am I false, is he? - I doubted many times. I could'nt get a right answer until I met one Geshe - related to Lama Gangchen - who also vistited and gave teachings in the past at Manjushri Center and who knows Geshe Kelsang Gyatso quite well. He told: ...there is something happend with the Bodhicitta of Geshe-la. Later he told he don't like to go back to Manjushri Center - even when asked for - because this place is full of spirits. - from this point of view it can happen that a teacher goes in a wrong direction. This is very pity but happened often and a proper student has to recognize this and has go to a neutral distance, even when received Highest Yoga Tantra Empowerment from him. Some other teachers talked in a same way to me. Some said they are think this is out of Shugdens influence... Kt66 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Next I met students both western and tibetan of other Lama's within Geshe Kelsangs tradition, such as Geshe Rabten and Lama Gangchen who said that these teachers were happy for their students to recieve teachings from Geshe Kelsang, further you can see that centers such as Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling (http://www.ganden.org/Resources/DharmaStore/tabid/76/Default.aspx) and the Trijang Institute http://www.trijangbuddhistinstitute.org/spirit_director.html and Rabten Chöling http://forum.rabten.com/productlist.cfm?DOrderBy=3&valSortway=1&CFID=894823&CFTOKEN=24305189 acknowledge Geshe Kelsang as a valide teacher or sell the books of Geshe Kelsang, so he is not expelled by those living teachers closest to his lineage and root teacher, http://forum.rabten.com/productlist.cfm?DOrderBy=3&valSortway=1&CFID=894823&CFTOKEN=24305189.
  • In 1996 I met Kuten Lama and his assistant - Kuten Lama was also a disciple of Trijang Rinpoche and Song Rinpoche - he was very happy with Geshe Kelsang's teachings.

Some short points to that: Yes it is true even the high Gelug Tulku, who is a close desciple of Trijang Rinpoche and whom I mentioned before, says to his students: you can use the books of GKG. Also you find some books of GKG in Samye Ling at Akong Rinpoches center. But this means nothing more than that his books are acceptable but not as you conclude by this that they "acknowledge Geshe Kelsang as a valide teacher" Lets look deeper to that:

1. Rabten Choeling: The bookstore Rabten Boutique is led by Ven. Max. It is just a bookstore, nothing more.
2. Dagom Gaden Tensung: You see there just one book of GKG at a picture. He is not in the list of the recognized teachers.
3. Gangchen Rinpoche: Sometimes he talks good about GKG sometimes he criticizes him. He is quite changing in that field. I can add more if wished for.
4. The mentioned Gelug Tulku who says his students can use KGK books said: I'm able to discriminate beetween Geshe Kelsangs abilities as a scholar and his deeds. Thats why this is no problem for me at all. The deeds of Geshe Kelsang ho don't like. His newspaper named GKG as fanatic and they have proofs for it. I can tell more if needed.
5. You should check out why Kuten Lama is not anymore related to NKT. Please do it.

Kt66

3) I checked other texts, teachers and sangha to see if he is teaching according to that which is typical in his tradition. In my case I have read texts such as Je Phabongkha's Liberation in The Palm of Your Hand, Lamas Yeshe & Zopa's Wisdom Energy, Geshe Wangyal's Door of Liberation - and found nothing in these texts to contradict the teachings of Geshe Kelsang. The translation of Lamrim Chenmo is relatively new and that is why I have not yet read it, although by now I do not need to read it in order to check Geshe Kelsang's qualifications.

• • Additionally I read other texts by Buddhist authors such as Sogyal Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Thich Nhat Hanh and again found nothing in these texts that contradict the meaning and purpose of anything taught by Geshe Kelsang. So I was confident his teaching is within Buddhism.

I agree as also confirmed by many his teachings are good. The teachings are not critisized actions of him and some of behavoiurs and of course the structure of his ruling style is critisized. Kt66 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Next I looked at the life of Geshe Kelsang, his teachers and the Dharma Centers in NKT. I saw no sign of worldly faults such as seeking sexual gain, financial gain, power or other selfish attitudes in either Geshe Kelsang or my teacher and center or other teachers I met.

I and other saw the opposite: Control, power over others and seeking for money...Please look in the critical articles of The Independent, London, 1996) and Student Direct - Campus link. This is confirmed by many. Not to see something does not mean it doesn't exist. You have to proof it nonpasian from all sites to find out if something is true or not. Kt66 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The people I met in NKT cetners were a mixture of different characters and lifestyles, from Doctors to Students, the retired to the young family. In every case the people I met were not different from well functioning members of society with their own views, experiences - in other words not cowering cult members.

I agree of course that they are different, and I'm convinced they don't feel as cult members. But when I have contact to members (even still associated with NKT) I can see also the opposite what you're saying here. But also this is dependend on many causes, like how old the person is, the depths of his relation (faith/attachment) to NKT, his backgrounds and the like. The last talk I had were like this: "Nobody outsite NKT can understand me anymore. They do not understand what I'm saying." This man was completely fed with distorted NKT-Dharma ideas, which I know from my own when I was within NKT. Because I could overcome this after leaving NKT (by the help of many masters!), I could help him a little bit. His answer: "I'm always quite happy to meet you. It helps me. In my (NKT)community I find noone to talk in this way." He is a member of NKT. He is not stupid but confused as many I met and know. Please feel not bad about this, but if you ask me I will answer. Kt66 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Finally and most importantly I checked very carefully if by using Geshe Kelsang's teaching my views or attitudes became more or less harmful towards other living beings; they were certainly less. Also I checked to see if he is teaching me things which offend my intelligence, experience or common sense. In none of these areas did I find Geshe Kelsangs teachings to be at fault.

Thats very good. Also my attachment, hatred and stinginess decreased when I began to practice in NKT. My love and compassion increased. And of course I saw this as a good omen and sign. On the other hand deep inside me, fanatism, hostility against the Dalai Lama, other traditions, other books, pride (to be in the pure tradition, to be very special, have very special Karma and the like) increased also. I think now you want immidiately reply: thats not due to NKT or Geshe-la. Or that is solely my fault. No, it isn't. To discuss this properly and well understandable. This is a huge topic and my english is perhaps to bad for this. I checked for 5 years carefully the causes and conditions and circumstances about NKT and what is going on there and my own contributions and faults in that case. Thats why I can honestly say: NKT is a cult for me and I have proofs for it and I made a lot of faults to many people, especially HH the Dalai Lama, and excuse for it deeply. In the beginning of going to distance to NKT I thought: 'All of this is my fault, I'm guilty.' but later I recognised: No, noone is guilty. This is just the play of interdependent origination and the problems and faulty developements are based on the minds root poisons of the praticipants and especially my naivety and partiality. So I work on this. Kt66 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

These are the ways in which I was able to conclude that Geshe Kelsang offers an authentic tradition. I don't speak or read Tibetan so I have never read the Kangyur and Tangyur texts, but honestly how many people who follow different teachers have? I am content with the checks I made given my temprement and lifestyle. (Robertect 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).

Ok and what you will do now after receiving this and other informations? Please take time and feeel not pushed by me. Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

2) Saying that something is a complete presentation is not the same as saying nothing else is required, for example the transaltion of Je Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo describes the work as "presenting the entire breadth of the Buddha's teachings", technically if its the entire breadth, whats left? but do you really think that by writing this they are suggesting that other texts are lesser or irrelevant? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1559391529/ref=wl_it_dp/202-3946605-0410246?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3SWWIT5EFO9EG&colid=3KF3QYZEBKDW1

Well done. :-) Kt66 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

3) In Geshe Kelsangs books he references many different Buddhist texts and in his teachings also refers to translations, especially life stories of great masters which he suggests we might read. To suggest that anyone these days, with so many book stores and Amazon.com etc becomes isolated from other sources of inspiration is rather a stretch of the imagination.

His references and the references of NKT are mainly references to NKT/Geshe Kelsang and his books (selfreferences). This is quite easy to recognize. Just look on NKT-internetsites and the last pages of all of GKG's books - only selfreferences. He has not even added a source overview of which original texts he used for writing his books as it is common. Allthough he refers in the text of his books to original scriptures and even advise to read the original ones, how his desciples can do this when the original scriptures aren't provided and it is seen as not needed to learn tibetan or sanskrit language to read the original scriptures? What sense makes this advice? He doesn't refer to any buddhist book besides his own. He don't refer to any english translation of any of the original scrpitures or Sutra. It is not adviced or wished for to read translated original scriptures by other authors than him. So people depend on his books and his explanations - completely - and people are spiltted from any other source than his books. But theoretically his students could read other sources, but most do not because "this would confuse" them - this is a hidden spoken internal idea within NKT which anybody can confirm if he/she is just familiar with NKT and honest. Especially it is not liked to be that NKT teachers read other books, because they "should keep the lineage pure", isn't it? The NKT represantative in Germany Ven. Gen Kelsang Nyima spoke against the english translation of Tsongkhapas Lamrim Chenmo: "It is doubted if the translators are really qualified and it is dedicated to the Dalai Lama". This is the NKT internal view. External NKT talks in another way with smooth and gentle words, isn't it? It is easy to point out that Gen Kelsang Pagpa didn't read Lamrim Chenmo and you can ask all the NKT teachers if they did and why not. Please tell me their answers. Everybody who read Tsongkhapas work on Lamrim and Geshe Kelsangs book on Lamrim will confirm that they are different. I suggest just to read the original Lamrim Chenmo of Tsongkhapa, did you yet? Why not? If yes, what is your opinion about the difference? Kt66 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree he never directly names authors or translations but you can't say that this means he is opposed to people reading them. He often says in a teaching things like, "This text is translated into english, I think it is very interesting, you can see what you think too if you wish to." Most commonly he refers to life stories such as Milarepa's or other texts by previous lama's. If you read the section on Wisdom in Joyful Path you can be in no doubt that Geshe Kelsang encourages his students to read the Lamrim Chenmo, his praise for it is positively gushing.

I never heard this when I was within NKT and heard GKG teachings. Perhaps he changed his attitude. But I can tell you that other Dharma Books then his are not wished for really. When my NKT teacher told to GKG assistent (K. Dekyong?) that she wants to make a library the assistant said quite shocked: 'But not with other than Geshe-las book, isn't it?' Today the behaviour can be more modest, this can be possible, I don't know. If GKG says something in public or mention in his book this is no guarantee that this is also handled like this (or even true). See my quotation of the NKT representative who spoke against the english translation of Lamrim Chenmo and doubted its authenticy. This was up to 2000 quite the common style. If now GKG say his students "you can see what you think too if you wish to" this is fine but it can also have the hidden meaning "but this is not really neseccary for a faithful student of me". So, one has to listen also to the connotation and context. You can easily follow this when you just check out how many (or better less - is there even one?) of his teachers read the original text (either in english or tibetan) or how many of his students done it. Ask why they didn't read this valid source until now! Just chek it out! ;-) Kt66 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst the NKT centers are not libraries, I do personally feel it is a shame that they do not stock texts such as Old Path White Clouds, Wheel of Sharp Weapons, Jatarka Tails etc. I do not know why they don't do this, these books are wonderful and only support what Geshe Kelsang's books teach. Especially as a student of Geshe Kelsang I would appreciate his guidance on which translations etc are most appropriate and clarfication of the sometimes differing accounts of great masters lives. I think I address your other points in my previous comments. (Robertect 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).

It is a shame these are medecine for the deluded mind and that much inspiring. Try please to find out why they don't do. Perhpas they will change it? This would be quite fine. I had always bad feelings reading other books than Geshe-las. Please ask monks and nuns of NKT how they feel reading other books and if they don't read other books ask them please why they don't do. This is a good field of research to check more deeply. Then you can try to organize a Lamrim Chenmo Reading and discussion group among your NKT-Dharmafriends and invite the monks and nuns to share and suuport each other to gain the meaning of the text. This is a quite fine Dharmaactivity.

Do you think you can do this? Do you guess how they react and if this will work? Please ask than more deeply. Kt66

As to reading other texts, and the danger of confusion for me this advice is not a bad thing. Each student should consider carefully what they want to achieve by reading any Dharma text, especially where they know little about the author or the context of that authors teaching. These teachings are not toys and can have very powerful good or bad impacts on the mind. I think Thich Nhat Hanh gives commenty to The Better Way to Catch a Snake which illustrates this point. However if a person decides that they do wish to read a text, by Geshe Kelsang or any one else they most certainly are free to do so.

OK but what do you know about Geshe Kelsang: Mostly only what NKT advertisement said, isn't it? and you have some experience and positive idaes on him and feelings. But do you know him really? I was quite shocked when I recognised he is not as I positive projected and was told me by the NKT advertisment... however. If you have wisdom nothing and especially no Dharmabook can confuse you. It helps to improve your wisdom. If you lack wisdom and you get confused by reading other Dharmabooks this is just a sign of a lack of wisdom or wrong views. By reading Dharmabooks you can expell these wrong views quite good, so there is no need to protect one reading other Dharmabooks, there is only the need to help each other improving wisdom, isn't it? A good teacher should help by improving wisdom not by protecting his students reading other Dharmabooks, this is what I think on that. I was only confused by reading other books than Geshe-las because I was so attached to his books, his style and his words. But the meaning of the dharma is behind style and words and "traditions". You can learn by anything, even by a baby. So why there is a need to protect one against Dharmabooks? The only reason I can see because there are secterian thoughts, naivety, partisan views or just confusions in ones mind. (Or even pride: we're/our Tradition/Dharma is better, we are "pure", "authentic", "very special" and the like - well used words in NKT.) But when these confusions in mind there are, than it is better to dispel these confusions from the mind than dispeling the Dharmabooks, isn't it? Otherwise if we start a way to dispel confusions or avoiding them by dispeling Dharmabooks we will have in the future no Dharmabooks anymore because many people are confused and confusion is quite normal. So, to protect people against confusion we have to avoid that they meet Dharmabooks??? Or that they only read the books of "Geshe-la"? This is what happened in NKT, it started in Manjushri Center after the take over and it is a line of politic and understanding also in the NKT libriaries. The hiddden meaning is: Geshe Kelsangs Books are authentic (the only authentic) ones these can help people whereas other Dahrmabooks are not authentic or less authentic and can confuse people. Before you answer and try to object this please read the Beliefnet posts - (see post 40) at where one is telling: "In just about every class it was pointed out that the NKT was the only pure Dharma path." and "He said that we were very fortunate, as the "pure Dharma" only existed in our country. It had died out in India and Tibet, but existed in England, in the form of the NKT." Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Only fact should be submitted in the main Wikipedia article, to show the diffference between fact and personal opinion I would like to share my experience of NKT because it is very different to yours, thus showing that your view and experience are not "the truth". By the way I also do not mean my experience is the truth and yours not, or vice versa, rather that niether should be given as the definitive truth with respect to the NKT. I have no doubt that you experienced something quite different and indeed I know people in the NKT, like in any large group, who hold demeaning and narrow minded views, so I am not suprised that people have both good and bad to say about the NKT. I personally do not believe that the bad things, at least those we are discussing reflect the views of Geshe Kelsang or are the predominant/characteristic attitude in the NKT. So!

Of course only facts should be submitted. I agree completely. Not your not my opinion is searched for, but can give some background on the discussionsite for a deeper understanding. So when our experience differs we can summrize our different exp. as a fact: 'two human beings have different exp. with NKT'. ;-) So thank you very much. Kt66 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I know for certain that 2 very senior teachers in the NKT are always happy to read widely.
    • I personally have never in 10 years encountered any problems about what I read, and for 5 of those years I lived in a NKT center and taught both General Program classes and Foundation Program.

Are you a monk or live as a "resident"? The rules for monks and residents are more strict in that. I was monk and resident in NKT. Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I first went to Manjushri Center in 1996 at the hieght of the protests against the Dalai Lama's ban on Dorje Shugden practice. Whilst there I made a point of reading very publicly a book by the Dalai Lama, and also discussing its contents with different people (because I had read Madeline Bunting's article in the Guardian). No-one made any problems for me at all and I felt very comfortable reading it there.

Other people had other experience, you can follow this by the different witnesses and their publications. When my NKT teacher was weeping (after Geshe Kelsang gave a Chenrezig empowerment and immidiately after that spoke against HH DL) the other NKT teachers were laughing on her tears, so fanatic they were... Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Additionally to theses points, Geshe Kelsang sometimes stays with one of the teachers I mentioned above (the teacher who reads widely different buddhist books by living authors), and during those stays Geshe Kelsang has never commented adversely on that person's extensive library or at least hadn't in 1999 which was the time I had the discussion about this point with that teacher.

Ok. I accept just different experience. Perhaps he changes his modes of dealing with this from time to time. From Ex-Residents of Manjushri Center I heard that it was not allowed to have other books in their private rooms there! From one I heard this was even told by GKG himself during the Guru Puja... I myself received as Education Program Coordinator (EPC) an email from Geshe-la which was addressed to all centers. In this he asked for not to go to the shop of the artist Andy Weber and buy pictures of the Vajrayogini Mandala and the Vajrayogini picture he painted. The reason he gave: Andy Weber wants only disturb NKT by selling this in Ulverston.... So if he cares about who of his students goes to which store to buy Buddhaimages, why not who have other books than his own? After one of is students had gone away of him (this is a story I heard from the person herself and there are more if you check) she took refuge by Lama Gangchen, than he allowed her to use the title Lama and give Vajrayogini Empowerments. Do you know what Geshe Kelsangs disciples did? They protested against her with banners at he same place and date when she was passing the empowerment... quite fanatic, isn't it?

another quote on that: "When an ex-member was overheard telling a visitor that he admired the Dalai Lama; within 40 minutes he was thrown out of his centre. Another family who had close contact with the centre for 15 years was banned from the centre because they had other spiritual teachers. Another former member wrote to Kelsang with a number of concerns about the NKT, but in his reply, Kelsang rejected all criticism and threatened with legal action if any of the criticisms were ever published. He shot back a letter to the grieved follower saying, “you are going against my spiritual wishes and as you say………….rebelling against my system, such a thing has never happened in Buddhist history”." see Seraletter and there is more...see beliefnet: "I told him about my Kagyu/Nyingma/Rime Lama in my home town. He became rather angry and said that I was following a false lineage and that I should not attend the NKT classes." Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I have a friend who is close to Geshe Kelsang's heart disciple Gen-la Samden, my friend studied on Teacher Training Program for many years and also recently spent 4 weeks in Plum Village on retreat with Thich Nhat Hanh having first Gen-la's blessing to do so.

This is not exactly the sectarian "Geshe Kelsang or nothing" organisation others talk about. So my experience is different to yours. Also as I write later, I believe that Geshe Kelsang is telling the truth in his books when he states he is opposed to sectarianism and respects other traditions, I also believe him when he says we have choice and should check things for oursevles - I don't think he says one thing but means another. Finally the Wikipedia article should only be based on what he says or writes not the reported speech or opinions of others.

Ok thank you for sharing your good experience and giving a more broader view. I also had good exp. But also I met Geshe Kelsang personally he didn't behave like a master. He didn't behave like he taught in his books, he did the complete opposite. And I'm not the only one who realized this. This is a fact, no projection of me. I'm happy if you're happy. I don't want to defeat you. We just give different aspects of a complex phenomenon. It is not white, not black it is compound, complex and dependent on many things. Kt66 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I also have met Geshe Kelsang personally and found his behaviour appropriate and inspiring. Of course Marpa originally didn't think much of Naropa, so as you say neither my view or your view hear prove anything. (Robertect 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

OK as we can see there seem to exist different sides of Geshe Kelsang. You met the friendly inspiring side which I met too. But until now you didn't meet his opposite side, as I and other did. The example of Marpa and Naropa and also Milarepa and Marpa and Tilopa and Naropa are not suit for the west I think and they are mentioned that often because they are exceptionally not the rule. Which westerner has the qualifications which Naropa, Marpa or Mila had??? Do you have? I have not. Kt66 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I Have the translation of Lamrim Chenmo?

You will no doubt be pleased to know I have the translation of the Lamrim Chenmo on order, but as to my ability to compare one work to the other, forget it! There are so many profound meanings I am sure I would only scratch the surface. With respect to Gen Nyima's comments, he is expressing an opinion and again we can't be sure of what this means. Geshe Kelsang frequently reminds his students not to believe what he or anyone says without checking carefully for themselves, hence I will read the Lamrim Chenmo for myself, this after all is the freedom Geshe Kelsang often refers to in public teachings. I certainly don't consider Gen Nyima's comments have anything to do with the article in Wikipedia or reveal a carefully hidden view of Geshe Kelsang's.

My dear friend. First let me express my joy: I enjoy that you have the Lamrim Chenmo on order and I wish that you will have deep insights and inspirations by reading this great text. It is not neseccary on one hand to compare. It is quite good just to open read it, check it and receive inspirations. So I wish much joy to you with this main work of Tsongkhapa.

There wouldn't have been a doubt about Gen Nyima's comment to you if you had listen his voice and you had seen his body movements while telling this. This expressed: 'Not worth of discussion that book.' At that time he was the NKT representative in Germany. The representative before him argued in the same way with such topics. This past NKT representative in Germany told me this: Geshe Kelsang said when someone mentioned a german translation of Shantideva roottext: This is no authentic Dharmabook, this is just a book of Dieterichs Gelbe Reihe. From such examples I learned: only Geshe-las book are authentic.. But as you now can imagine from our talk he even act to the opposite what he said: At one day he gave her that book as a present...??!! Kt66 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why assume the worst of Gen Nyima's comment?

There are more "worst"... ;-) Please try not to convince me that there is no secterian in NKT. I put enough informations at this site. GKG/NKT has mastered reinterpretations and blurrings. Just to give you an example: In his Newsweek letter GKG says many different things which are based on untruth or semitruth, like "Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas" and he negelct completely that there was - out of Shugden! - this is so easy to check out, he neglects completely the secterian views of Pabongkha and the trouble which them and his desciples made to Nyingmapas... by doing this reinterpretations and blurrings he can publish his ideas on that topic...and this is quite common in NKT: to neglect basics and spread a different idea of it.... I will come back to that site and go on reading your view, just I have to do some other things, thank you, yours Kt66 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You are very sure of the history of relations between Nyingma and Gelug schools, however consider some other points: It is documented that Trijang Rinpoche and Dudjom Rinpoche (the head of the Nyingma school) had great respect for one another. Je Phabongkha is accused of burying a statue or Thangka of Padmasambhava, destroying monastries but Geshe Kelsang has said he checked these things himself from local people in this area of Tibet and found no corroboration for these claims. I myself read correspondence to a friend of mine from the assistant of the present reincarnation of Je Phabonkha in which he said he was very suprised by the claim of Je Phabongka's sectarianism. In the letter he advised that we speak with old Nyingma lamas who knew Je Phabongkha because they could confirm that they had good relations with him. Also the destruction of monastries was carried out by armed forces, Je Phabongkha had no authority or politcal power so how can he be responsible for such things? Also Geshe Kelsang wrote in public discussion about his own experience, he tells of when he shared a retreat with a Nyingma practitioner (each doing their own practice) and also discussing their Dharma experiences, there were no problems. Also he explained that his own brother in law was a Nyingma lama, again this was not a problem. So how can you be so confident that Geshe Kelsang is using either untruth or semi truth? All of these points show that there was no problem between Nyingma and Gelug practitioners.

Perhaps we move this at the Pabongkha discussion board, there it suits better, isn't it?

Just to answer shortly: I gave quotes above. There is the article of G. Dreyfuss. There is the passage of Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche, a Nyingma Lama, there is the citation of the letter to the chinese empereror, and as stated: a high Hotuktu (Holder of the Dharamdoctrine) in Gelug school agreed about the fact that his desciples has done that (destoying monasteries and statues of Padmasambhava). He said also: but not Pabongkha Rinpoche himself. Then I learned many high Lamas from different traditions and the told me this: many high Nyingma Lamas made rituals to kill Shugden to stop his harmful influence. This was told me by Nyingma and Kagyue Lamas. I heard also - but this I'm not sure if it is true - there was a cleaning ritual which Kagyuepas practiced after they left Gelug Monasteries who practiced Shugden... So firstly there is a conflict on Shugden in the Tibetan Community espec. Gelug and Nyingma, secondly it is easy to follow that Pab. Rp. had sectarian ideas unless one want to close his eyes: saying I can not see anything. Ask Nyingma Lamas themselves about that, just do it. Dujom Rinpoche was - as far as I know - known for not criticizing anyone. Perhaps thats why you find nothing in his book.

Saying one is secterian means not that person has not qualifications or is bad or has no qualities. Even highest Bodhisattvas are not free of faults as you know... for today I will stop. So lets relax and lets take it easy. :-)) Kt66 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Phabonkhas Sectarianism

I would like to suggest that this discussion is moved to the Wiki page for Je Phabongkha as we are straying way outside the NKT discussion. (Robertect 18:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

I do not think Phabongkha was sectarian, if he was why are the so many references to the Nyingma tradition, as corroboration of certain practices, in Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand? This book was edited and published by Trijang Rinpoche after Je Phabongkha died. If he changed his view and became opposed to Nyingma teachings in the later part of his life as people claim, why would Trijang Rinpoche, his heart disciple include these references to the Nyingma teachings? Furthermore the link which pupports to prove Phabongkha is sectarian is not proof at all. He criticises quite validly Christianity and Islam and false views of emptiness, how is this sectarian? What clear minded person would deny that there are ideas within both Christianity and Islam that are valid to criticise and even barbaric? What are your views of the Spanish Inquisition, Intelligent Design, Islamic destruction of Indian monastries such as Nalanda or Beheading people? Are these actions paths to liberation? Further his critcisms of other Tibetan traditions is not sectarian, he refers to the fault of a false understanding of emptiness, again is Liberation or Enlightenment possible with a mistaken view of emptiness? Every account of Je Tsongkhapa's life I have ever read includes reference to the fact that many wrong views had developed in the existing Tibetan schools which Je Tsongkhapa corrected in his presentation. It is reasonable to assume that according to the Gelug these mistaken teachings continued after Je Tsongkhapa's time, and this must be what Je Phabongkha is refering to in this letter. Criticising mistaken view of emptiness is a kindness not sectarian. (Robertect 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

It's the best to quote Phabonkha himself, to recognize his sectarian viewpoint:

From A letter (of Phabonkha) send to Chinese General Lu Chu Tang:

Although in the land of Tibet there are many different tenets like that of Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelugpa and so forth it is only the Gelug School which establishes the unmistaken view of emptiness and the Prasangika Madhyamika system which is the philosophy of Nagarjuna. It is not only the philosophical view but also in terms of meditation it is the perfect meditation devoid of laxity and torpor. As for its behaviour it is again pure as it is practiced in accordance with the vinaya teachings. Thus it is only the Gelug School which knows how to adopt the three: the view, the meditation the behaviour (...). There is nothing to discuss anymore about Phabonkhas sectarianism, it's a historical fact. Greetings --12 Tenma 16:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above and to quote KT "Tsongkhapa didn't believe much in tibetan commentaries - he was even quite sceptical about them! - and used as authority for his views basically Sutras, Tantras and the indian Panditas scriptutres, not mainly what his teachers said!)" Who were these tibetan teachers? These can only have been the same lineages Je Phabongka refers to. Clearly the Gelug view is that the other lineages lost the perfect view of the Prasangika Madhyamika system or why else would Je Tsongkhapa give his presentation? I don't think that is sectarian, that is a difference of opinion. You might as well say that a scientist who does not agree with teachings on rebirth is sectarian. (Robertect 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

A scientist who does such statements is not bound by vows he took within Anuttarayogatantra-initiations. One of them is that under no circumstance a tantric practitioner should claim that the "own" lineage is better suitet to reach enlightenment then other tantric-lineages. That's what sectarianism is about. Relating to Tsongkhapa, the lamrin introduced by him was an excellent method to train the students he dealt with. A new generation of students, with certain capacities and a new methodical approach. Buddhadharma was transmitted all the time relating to the capacities of students to train, from the time of Buddha Shakyamuni on. That's what happened in Tibet and that's the reason for different schools of dharmatransmission. The different capacities of students make different approaches necessary.--12 Tenma 20:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the possible interpretations do they have to be sinister? I agree with his point, who are the people who translated the Lamrim Chenmo? What are their qualifications and intentions? These are fundamental questions which need to be answered before relying on any buddhist text. A great write up on the back cover of the book is not sufficient to answer these questions. Without answering to one's personal satisfaction these questions how can a student have the confidence to take this book into the foundation of their practice? Additionally in any translation the meaning can differ from or only present one interpretation of the meaning of the original text. So Nyima's comments may well be sensible and cautionary advice, also I assume you translated his comment from the German!. As to the dedication to the Dalai Lama, some people do not trust the Dalai Lama, and a book dedicated to a person you don't trust should also raise a question mark over the reliability of the book's contents(Robertect 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).

With reference to the second point about only NKT having the complete path, this contradicts Geshe Kelsang's own book Clear Light of Bliss, a commentry to Mahamudra Tantra, in which he explicitly states that all 4 Tibetan schools have the complete path to enlightenment and supports the statement by explaining that they all hold lineages going to Nargajuna and his teaching on emptiness. Futhermore, as is stated on the Main Wikipedia site, he also makes this view explicit in his interview in Tricycle.(Robertect 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Of course this contradicts. I don't know who gave that reference of what is (perhaps) said by senior students. We will see if he/she can give a reference. But as far as I remember I read in the german translation of Tantric Grounds and Paths of GKG: 'This is a very special lineage. Only in this you attain Buddhahood in other lineages not.' - He wrote there about a special practice which not even Milarepa had... I will search for the reference and check it out. Kt66 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it and I have to correct myself: there is just the saying about this special Ensa-Mahamudra Lineage: "No other tradition has this (Mahamudra) transmission...(the masters of this lineage) entered this path joyfully without difficulties and finished it in three years... why Milarepa had to work that hard and this masters (of that lineage) could attain Buddhahodd so easily and quickly?..." This passage is just emphasizing the qualities of that lineage without saying that only in this lineage you can attain Buddhahood. He emphazises there how easy and quick you can attain Buddhahood in the Ensa Mahamudara lineage whereas in other lineages it is quite hard. On the other hand in the commentary on Guru-Puja GKG warns about authors and books who say you can attain Buddhahood quickly (I think he meant only other authors ;-)) and claims also that Termas are not authentic! (He takes Tsongkhapa and Atisha as a source of this. But I think this is not correct. If you look on mind treasures and hidden treasures these exist also in Gelug: Kalachakra, Uttara Tantra Shastra (was found together with a second text of Maitreya as a Terma in a Stupa). And why deny Termas while accepting mythological tales about Ensa Mahamudra Lineage (which was directly revealt by Manjushri to Tsongkhapa), that Asanga went to Tushita or Nagarjuna to the Nagas and got teachings there? When NKT accept this, why not Termas?) The citation of GKG book is as follows: "Following them (Tsongkhapa and Atisha) a teaching can not be seen as authentic when it is not mentioned in the Sutras and Tantras, even if it is a so called 'terma' or 'hidden treasure'." I think it is quite easy to follow when Nyingma lineage is in many parts based on 'termas' then Nyingma lineage is not authentic, isn't it? You find more of this hidden ideas when you carefully check it out. On the other hand then also Geshe Kelsangs Joyful Path is not authentic, because it was not mentioned in the Sutras and Tantras, isn't it? And because Shugden is not mentioned in any Sutra or Tantra the main protector practice of NKT is also not authentic... Then Asanga received the Five Books directly from Maitreya in Tushita, is he also not authentic? This is what some Hinayanist says... So one has to think deeper about it. Kt66 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I will comment the view to Authenticity of Terma:

From Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö, The Opening of the Dharma, Tibetan Library of Works and Archives, Dharamsala 1974The teachings of the tradition of Treasure Texts are established as valid by three criteria (of direct perception, inference based on pure logic and inference based on scriptual authority). Therefore, if anyone is disrespectful towards these texts, he is commiting a serious mistake of disparaging the Dharma.(...) There are many examples of Treasure Texts which existed in India. Nagarjuna unearthed the last chater of Prajnaparamita Sutra in One Hundred Thousand verses.(...) Great Indian Mahasiddhis have unearthed Treasure Texts of Tantra teachings from the Stupa of Urgyen Dhu.ma.tha.la. Thus it is clear that this tradition of Treasure Texts existed in India as well. --12 Tenma 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct, and Geshe Kelsang in the quote from Great Treasury of Merit is referring to "inference based on scriptural authority", so where is the problem? Just calling something a Terma doesn't mean it is unless it meets this criteria. (Robertect 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

Your interpretation of what is meant in Great Treasury of merit is an opinion

Sorry, just short, because I have to leave: This is a citation no interpretation. This is not a opinion it's a fact that he wrote "Following them (Tsongkhapa and Atisha) a teaching can not be seen as authentic when it is not mentioned in the Sutras and Tantras, even if it is a so called 'terma' or 'hidden treasure'." . Please look in the book! I just added the logical line what follows from this assertion. Please be so kind, you can put the whole english section here, I have just only the german version of his book Great Treasury of Merit. I think the main misundersatndig behind this is that GKG/NKT are quite familiar with using the word "authentic" but do not really know/say clearly what "authetic teaching" really means. This we should discuss this will help the discussion. bye yours Kt66 14:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As you will see below, I do not agree that your line of reasoning is correct or logical. Thankyou for discussing these points with me over the last few days, I suspect that we will have little more to add to each other and I dread taking up all the Wiki space with my views and opions, so unless you having something very suprising to add I don't think I will write any more here, however I would be delighted to correspond with you by e.mail. (Robertect 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

and not the basis for statements of fact in the Wikipedia article. I am sure your understanding of what Geshe Kelsang means in the citation from Great Treasury of Merit is incorrect if only on the basis of the implications you identify. You are quite right that according to your interpretation then it would logically follow for example that Dorje Shugeden practice is not a valid Buddhist practice. Although we can't agree on his intentions I am sure we can agree that Geshe Kelsang is not stupid, so this can't be his meaing. Secondly because there are intelligent and sincere people in the NKT who engage in searching discussion and contemplation, I also doubt that Geshe Kelsang could really get away with such an obvious contradiction and yet remain a credible teacher.

I personally have other reasons that indicate you have mis-understood his meaning. I take the view that Geshe Kelsang is not a liar, so he cannot be lying when he says that all schools have the complete path. Because I trust him when he says this I am sure your interpretation of his teaching must be wrong. For what it is worth, and this is only my understanding of this point, the meaning is that a teaching must accord with the Sutra and Tantra teachings. It must be possible to corroborate and validate the truth of any teaching in the Sutras and Tantras. For example does a teaching correctly identify obects to be abandoned and valid methods to abandon them?. Therefore Terma texts that reveal these things correctly according to the Sutras and Tantra´s are valid and those that don´t are not. There is a teaching on the FPMT web site http://www.fpmt.org/teachings/more/tantra_trijang.asp by Trijang Rinpoche which illustrates this point. He explains that Hindu tantra has in many respects the same aspect as Buddhist tantra, but because the objects to be abandoned are different and the motivation are different, Hindu tantra is not considered to be a Buddhist practice and in partcular not a path to enlightenment. (Robertect 09:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

I think there is no real need for it. I just changed to that version because what was said before "NKT point out that all of Geshe Kelsang's texts contain only authentic Buddhist teachings transmitted through a highly respected spiritual lineage. The reason given for the removal of these other texts was to avoid potential confusion caused by differing translations and presentations." is bluring. 84.190.190.86 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

All this is testament to the fact that Kelsang Gyatso now claims that his New Kadampa Tradition is the only existing school on earth to present the genuine Buddhist path.

This is an outrageous thing to say - a quite unjustified and horrible attack. I'm afraid you just demean your own position by saying such things. Now I will tell you the truth. From Geshe Kelsang's interview with Professor Donald Lopez Jr. in 1998:

LOPEZ: Given your devotion to Dorje Shugden and your founding of the New Kadampa Tradition, do you feel that Je Tsongkhapa’s view, meditation, and practice is the most complete in all Tibetan Buddhism? Is it only through Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings that one can attain enlightenment? Or is it also possible though Nyingma or Kagyu?

GKG: Of course! Of course we believe that every Nyingma and Kagyupa have their complete path. Not only Gelugpa. I believe that Nyingmapas have a complete path. Of course, Kagyupas are very special. We very much appreciate the example of Marpa and Milarepa [in the Kagyu lineage]. Milarepa showed the best example of guru devotion. Of course the Kagyupas as well as the Nyingmapas and the Sakyupas, have a complete path to enlightenment. Many Nyingmapas and Kagyupas practice very sincerely and are not just studying intellectually. I think that some Gelugpa practitioners need to follow their practical example. But we don’t need to mix our traditions. Each tradition has its own uncommon good qualities, and it is important not to lose these. 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.

Please do not be unkind.

With love - --Kelsangpagpa 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

All this is testament to the fact that Kelsang Gyatso now claims that his New Kadampa Tradition is the only existing school on earth to present the genuine Buddhist path. Well who said that- kt66? I don't hold such an extreme view, though I do hold that the NKT has many questions yet to answer. (20040302 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Me not. Someone else put in the Teaching Section the statement: "Only books written by Kelsang Gyatso are allowed in his centres. The Manjushri centre removed all the books from their library which were written by anyone else, including the Sutras, the Buddha's own words. These books were accumulated when Lama Yeshe was spiritual guardian of the centre. Many of the books were destroyed, but some were rescued and given by concerned students to Samye Ling, in Scotland. All this is testament to the fact that Kelsang Gyatso now claims that his New Kadampa Tradition is the only existing school on earth to present the genuine Buddhist path." Kt66 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Origin of Kelsang Gyatso’s Innovative approach to Tantra.

Although they are often described as being ‘ultra traditional’ (by Stephen Batchelor, for example) the NKT has abandoned many of the central practices of the lineage of Je Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelugpas. The interpretation of Tantra found in the New Kadampa Tradition originated with Pabonkha Rinpoche, whose highly sectarian attitude led to him being banned from teaching and preaching his innovative version of Gelugpa by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. In the Gelugpa the three central Tantric Deities are Guhyasamaja, Chakrasamvara, and Yamantaka. The Kalachakra Tantra also has a central place in the Gelug tradition. But Pabonkha thought he had a better idea, he wanted the Vajrayogini Tantra (which Tsongkhapa never taught) to be the main Highest Yoga Tantra practice of the Gelugpa. In addition, he demanded that their ancient traditional tantric protector deity Mahakala be replaced by ‘Dorje Shugden’. He also may have been the first person to claim that Shugden was an enlightened being, rather than a worldly demon. And, also like Kelsang Gyatso, he demanded that he be the only lama his students had. Tsongkhapa himself had teachers from all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Nyingma. But what was most notable about Pabonkha was his extreme sectarianism, not his respect for Tsongkhapa’s teachings.

For more detailed information on Pabonkha’s overhaul of the Gelugpa tantric tradition, his sectarian attitude, and the link between the Shugden practice and sectarianism consult:

• The Shuk-Den Affair: Origins of a Controversy, by Georges Dreyfus

(this contribution was made by User:83.70.32.148)

Hello!

I assume you know that Je Tsongkhapa was a tantric innovator?

Before he appeared in this world there was a lot of confusion about how to practice sutra and tantra together and how to develop the illusory body. Tsongkhapa clarified all these points in a way that no one before him had. Also, what's most important about Tsongkhapa's tradition is not that he had Teachers from other traditions - it's the contents of the Kadam Emanation Scripture that was passed from Manjushri to Je Tsongkhapa which contains the Guru Yoga practices as well as uncommon Vajrayana Mahamudra instructions not found in any other tradition. That's what makes Tsongkhapa an innovator.

I'm afraid you're wrong about the NKT practice of tantra being based on Phabongkha; it's based on Je Tsongkhapa's commentaries which you would know if you had read one of Geshe Kelsang's books on tantra, which you probably haven't. In NKT we practice both Vajrayogini and Heruka. Vajrayogini was practiced by Tsongkhapa, and he is a lineage holder for the Heruka Body Mandala practice.

Furthermore, if you had read Great Treasury of Merit, you would know that the main practice is still the union of Heruka, Guhyasamaja and Yamantaka, so you're wrong on that point too.

About Phabongha's sectarianism, he wasn't sectarian; he simply believed in practising one tradition purely, which is something that seems to have lost by the Gelugpa tradition now. Everyone is as pains to show they aren't sectarian by mixing and matching teachings from other traditions. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama tried to use his political power to stop Phabongkha from spreading the practice of of Dorje Shugden, much as the fourteenth has done - THAT'S sectarianism: telling people what they can and cannot do and banning practices that you don't agree with. Everyone should have religious freedom.

If you are a gelugpa, it's strange that you can't see that you are destroying your own tradition by destroying the reputation of your own lineage Gurus like Phabongkha. How can your tradition have any credibility when you disparage your own Gurus? That's the complete opposite of what Buddha taught.

Phabongkha was not the first person to declare Dorje Shugden a Buddha. The Sakyas had Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector, and Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden called "Infinite Aeons". So you are incorrect about that too.

Furthermore, Geshe Kelsang has never demanded that he be a person's only Teacher. From his internet correspondence from 1997:

NKT people have complete choice to read whatever books they choose, to follow other Teachers and to practise in whatever way they want. There are no rules limiting people's freedom. However, I have understood according to experience that many Westerners find themselves in conflicting situations because of following many Teachers who give them opposite advice. Therefore they find serious obstacles in their spiritual path. But still individuals have choice to practise in the way they choose.

I'm sorry you have such a negative view, and you have a right to criticise because this is a free society, but please get your facts straight first.

Best wishes

--Kelsangpagpa 03:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP. I agree as Gelugpa-monk and Ex-member of NKT who studied and heard also many backgrounds and historical facts on Gelugpas completely to the content above on which you replied. There are many reasons why it is possible to say that Lama Pabongkha changed the Gelug Tradition of Tsongkhapa on his own and one of my Gelug-teachers said that’s why it is perhaps appropriate to say that he created a new – his own - tradition. The reasons are exactly as mentioned above. Your claim of the Kadam Emanation Scriptures is doubted, because there are no valid scriptural source for them, they are not findable in Tsongkhapas work – this I read and perhaps has to be checked more deeply. You can follow some of the thoughts also at: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=19&discussionID=475214&messages_per_page=4

A short citation from there: "For example, the Mahamudra lineage of the Ganden Oral Tradition is mentioned nowhere in Tsongkhapa's collected works. Is it just something that Phabongka made up or pretended to rediscover/refabricate? The main yidam sadhanas were also not emphasised by Tsongkhapa, but "borrowed" from the sakyapas. His protector lineage was also never mentioned by Tsongkhapa."

So you find not Vajrayogini Tantra, not Shugden, not Kadam Emanation Scriptures in Tsongkhapas work. These three as NKT follower you do follow and rely on but are not in Tsongkhapas works!!! All of them where added after Tsongkhapa. So Vajrayayogi came from Naropa and was kept by the Sakyapas, the Vajrayayogi Tantra is just since only seven generations in Gelug-Tradition. And it was Lama Pabongkha who made this to the main Gelug practice although Tsongkhapas emphasised and wrote commentaries on different other Tantras and mainly on the Guhyasamaja, Chakrasamvara, Yamantaka and the Kalachakra Tantra. Also Lama Pabonghka was the one who said the original protectors of Tsongkhapa went to the “pure realms” and now Shugden is the one who is responsible for the Gelugpas… and Shugden was never even mentioned by Tsongkhapa - quite strange.

Also your reason that the Kadam Emantation Scr. makes Tsongkhapa to an innovator is – excuse me – mere a claim or idea. Suppose he received it really: visions you find in all schools by all masters at all times. What is the innovation with this? Tsongkhapa is an innovator for other deeds not for receiving a Scripture in mind but because he reestablished the Vinaya, the celibacy for monks and nuns, dispelled misconceptions on many different Buddhist topics. And he is also an innovator by having the highest master of all schools as his teachers – nonsecterian – and he was accused by many critics who grasped rather on their traditions than catching the meanings of the teachings – that he would practice eclecticism. He also developed the combination of the three Tantras Guhyasamaja, Chakrasamvara, and Yamantaka – what is a main practice in the Gelug Tradition. And if you reread the commentary on Vajrayogini from your Guru you will easily see that it is no commentary based on any teaching of Tsongkhapa, isn’t it? And how can you be sure that NKT Tantra is based on Tsongkhapa and not on Pabongkha when you never read a scripture of Tsongkhapa? Allthough GKG sometimes mention Tsongkhapa and texts of him does not mean that he wrote in accordance to him. As far as I recognized GKG is more like Pabongkhas style than Tsongkhapas style. And also what valid source is there that Tsongkhapas practiced Vajrayogini? Perhaps this is one of the many claims of Pabongkha to establish this Tantra?

Allthough Great Treasury of Merit by GKG, tells that the main practice is still the union of Heruka, Guhyasamaja and Yamantaka, you and GKG and NKT do not practice this how it was established by Tsongkhapa. Did GKG ever give a Guhyasamaja and Yamantaka empowerment? Did he ever teach how to practice these three Tantras together as emphasised by Tsongkhapa? Perhaps I miss some informations.

One of my main question to you is: What do you mean when saying:

“About Phabongha's sectarianism, he wasn't sectarian; he simply believed in practising one tradition purely, which is something that seems to have lost by the Gelugpa tradition now.”

Purely? Impure? What means that for you "to practice one tradition purely"? What do you mean with that Gelugpas nowadays don’t practice their tradition purely? Please be so kind and explain it to me. From my understanding NKT and Pabongkha are just masking with the words "purely” and “mixing” just some sectarian views. Most of the great masters did practice different traditions, like Tsongkhapa himself, the Karmapas, the Dalai Lamas, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Jamgon Kongtrul and the like and the chief of the mixing buddhists seems to be the Buddha Shakyamuni himself, because from his mind all the Dharma came from. So does he not keep Buddhism purely?

Suppose you have a vison of Dakinis and they reveal secret Dharmas to you. Would you ask them: Is this within the New Kadampa Tradition or something different? And if they say: something which never was revealt in NKT, would you reject these Dharmas? And further more what features do you have to check the authenticity of the vision and proof the Dharma for correctness and that it is in accordance to the buddhist doctrine?

When you say to point out the dangers of Shugden practice by HHDL (and as pointed out by many high masters of different schools!) is sectarianism what especial is sectarian with this? When a high Bodhisattva sees clearly the danger of something he has the responsibility and the heavy duty to point out the dangers to protect beings, isn’t it? Otherwise he violate his duty and vows to protect and help beings. But if the being himself cling to that point what was told as being unwholesome than this being will have mental pain, as with a hunter who likes to hunt animals, when you tell him he should stop that, because it will harm him at the end. This hunter will also not see the benefit of the advice out of his attachment on hunting and will tell that the advisor is mere jealous on his success and the like…

But perhaps we can also say: Everyone has the freedom to shoot as he likes! Would this not be the correct bodhisattva deed and a kind of religious freedom? Because the hunter beliefs also killing is a nice thing: "I made good experience with this and even feel better after I shot some animals. And also my father did the same and my grandfather and they were respected and famous men. So I keep their tradition very purely."

I think when something is harmful and the time has come it is better to point this out, isn't it? Of course we can summerize: If Shugden is harmful or not is disputed and not an easy task to find out as with the killing of a hunter. But I think it is not fair to accuse HHDL on Sectarianism when he is doing his compassionate duty, isn’t it? And as you know: Never NKT was forbidden by HHDL or anyone else to practice Shugden. And others can of course do it, if they like. We discussed this yet extensively.

So on your further statements:

“If you are a gelugpa, it's strange that you can't see that you are destroying your own tradition by destroying the reputation of your own lineage Gurus like Phabongkha. How can your tradition have any credibility when you disparage your own Gurus?”

Pabongka Rinpoche is mere ONE teacher in Gelug School although he is renown this gives no evidence that he also didn't fail. There are other high (and higher!) Lamas too and there are of course lineages within Gelug School without him as a lineage Guru. That he was put up in the lineage prayer is also a feature from himself. Whereas to check the gurus, teachings and traditions was allowed by the Buddha himself. This debate is a way of checking. So don’t worry to much on that. And Lama Pabonghka was critisised also when he was still alive, like from the high 13th DL! Please note also that Pabongkha had the lowest Geshe degree. It is better to have a more broader view on him and don't putting him to high and don't put him to much down. He is and was also seen by non-Geulgpas as controversial!

And please stop ignoring and please stop claiming that “The Sakyas had Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector”. This is not true! This claim came up with Pabongkha and was perhaps based on his Guru Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche, but from whom he had that claim? Not from Sakyapas as you can see by consulting the Sakyas themselves. Yours Kt66 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please excuse my bad English!

Hello Kt66-la!

I would like to wish you a very happy Heruka Day! It's an auspicious day to be discussing these things considering that we regard Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo as an emanation of Heruka.

Firstly I would like to say: you can take my comments at face value. There is no real meaning in this long discussion/debate because it won't change anyone's opinions or minds. No matter how much we try to dress things up as 'objective' by 'gathering the evidence', it comes down to two things:

1. I have complete faith in Je Phabongkha as a holy Meditation Master and Guru of my lineage

2. You have complete faith in the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and his views

Let's just say that our views will never coincide. No matter what ever else is said, we will not agree because Phabongkha and HHDL are poles apart.

Robert has said something similar below: we have complete faith in Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang as the disciple of Phabongkha. No matter how much you would like to avoid it, if you are a Gelugpa, you have received teachings from Phabongkha because Trijang was his disciple and everything in the Gelugpa tradition comes from these two precious lamas. If you disparage them, you disparage your own tradition. There is no getting away from that. If you assert the views of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama you are as good as saying that these lamas were not realized because they couldn't tell the difference between a Buddha and a demon, and you have destroyed your own tradition. The point about tradition is that it has to be passed from teacher to teacher, and each Lineage Guru has to gain experience of the instructions. By espousing the views of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, you are disregarding your own Gurus by saying that they were mistaken and therefore not realized. If that is not destroying your own tradition, I don't know what is. I don't think you can avoid this contradiction.

By the way, at what point do we decide that we've been over these arguments over and over again and there's no value in pursuing them further?

I really do wish for your peace and happiness.

with much affection - --Kelsangpagpa 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP-la. Thank you for your thoughts on that. I think Wiki is not the board to discuss this extensively especially if one is not interested in proofing his owns ideas on that but also more because it is not the intention of Wikipedia to serve as a discussion group forum. On the other hand we had a nice opportunity here, I think, and I enjoy that very much. Allthough my thoughts on Pabongkha seems provoking, I think this is the main key point: to believe to much Pabongkha didn't fail. By saying he failed in some points one does not neglect his qualities he possessed. It is a more balanced view to see and understand: there are teachers with more qualities than faults, there are teachers with the same amount of qualities and faults and there are teachers with more faults than qualities. The first one is very rare: a teacher with more qualities than faults. I never would say HHDL is without faults. Even two of his devotest disciples and my teachers said they think HHDL is not free from faults but his huge amount of qualities is that much obvious that these really obvious qualities are a deep source of their inspiration - and this inspiration is the main key point in relying on a teacher. Also one of the teachers of HH the 17th Karmapa, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche pointed out, that of course teachers have faults because they are human beings - and as you know Kague Tradition is more emphasising the Vajarayana view than Gelugs. There are many quotes where devoted disciples pointed out faults in the teaching of their masters without loosing respect. I can add some of them if you like, by doing this they don't disparage their Gurus. One of them said (I think Jamyang Khentse Wangpo - I'm not really sure and have to look in the source once more for his name, but I remember what he said): "it is my duty, if my teacher made a fault in the teaching to correct this fault". There is also the story about a disciple of Vasubandhu who heard the Prajanaparamita teaching from Vasubandhu, while Vasubadhu explaining the Cittamatra View this disciple recognized it as wrong and gained instead the Madhyamika view. By having a different view than his teacher and pointing out this he didn't disparage his Guru! Also there is the story on the texts of Pranama (Geshe Kelsangs text on Lorig ("Understanding the Mind") is based on that lineage): While one of the linieage Gurus was explaining them, one disciple understood it the first time as his teacher, the second time more deeply and the third time his understanding was completely higher than his Guru's understanding and he recognised the faults in the teaching of his Guru. Than he went to his Guru and corrected him politely. Than his teacher recognised the higher understanding of his disciple and asked him to teach the Pramana text instead of him! There was no problem at all for both of them. Please think about that Tsongkhapa did the same! Otherwise he never would be a reformer...or a teacher of his teachers. A good teacher should also see when his students qualities or understanding surpasses his own. And this is "the best sign of a good teacher, that the students qualities and understanding surpasses the qualities and understanding of the teacher" (a tibetan saying). In this way predictions by Milarepa to Gampopa were made and the like. So to contradict Pabongkha or Trijang Rinpoche in their view on Shugden by HHDL is not disparaging Gurus it is a quite normal thing. But it is not normal for Gelug fundamentalists, I think. When you say: "I have complete faith in Je Phabongkha as a holy Meditation Master and Guru of my lineage" by what this faith is different than the faith of a taliban who thinks in the same way: "I have complete faith in Osama Bin Laden as a holy man who will lead us to freedom and promised us the heaven."? To believe the Guru is unfailing and completely right and taking the words of Vajradhara "that the Guru is a Buddha" literally as emphasised in the late Gelug years by Pabongkha Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche and some of their disciples seems to me more establishing fundamental views than anything else and is a point we have to think about! Of course I provoke once more a little bit but this seems to me the key point: blind and fanatical belief or a balanced view... And also the words disparage once Guru has also to be understood on a deeper level and in the right way: to disparage once Guru means that you hate your Guru constantly for a long time, feel no shame for that and instead you are very happy about your bad attitude and think this attitude is correct. To disparage once Guru also includes that you feel your Guru is not worthy, very low. These inner attitudes are quite strange and very rare, they will not easily be developed by a disciple. When I heard the comments of HHDL on Shugden I heard also that he cherishs the qualities of Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche very much, he doesn't hate them or feels they are not worthy. He said the opposite: both are great masters of the Gelug school but in this point he can not agree. And one of my teachers whoes Lamas are both: Trijang Rinpoche and HH the Dalai Lama doesn't accept HHDL's view on Shugden but that's why he doesn't "diparage his Guru". Sorry for my strong insisting on that points. All the best for you, yours Kt66 11:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear KP. I just recognized a point where I think there is a underlying misunderstanding which is quite symptomatic for NKT followers or westeners and I had this also. As you wrote: "By espousing the views of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, you are disregarding your own Gurus by saying that they were mistaken and therefore not realized." When citing HHDL on that or saying they are not free from faults or made faults this does not inlucde they are not realised. Even high stage Bodhsisattvas are not free from faults and as Tsongkhapa stated, a disciple has to recognize them and has the duty not to follow these faults. So thank you very much for this opportunity, yours Kt66 12:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At least, I wish to add some thoughts on Tsongkhapa. As of the Guru Yoga you find the scriptural meaning in the text "Fullfillment of All Hopes of Disciples" a commentary by Tsongkhapa on the Fifty Stanzas on the (Tantric) Guru - a text written by Aryadeva. This commentary was published also into English. There you find what is meant by disparage once Guru and how you react if he is not in accordance with the Dharma. In the Lam Rim Chen Mo you find that a disiple must be able to discriminate between wrong and correct teachings otherwise he is no suitable vessel for the Mahayana Dharma. So please take time to check it with authentic sources. Not included there is the advice from the Kalachakra Tantra (which was also emphasised by Tsongkhapa allthough one of his teachers said he believes that it is not authentic) that you can go to a neutral distance if you recognize you can not deal with your Guru anymore because you recognized to many obvious faults - even when you received Highest Yoga Tantra Empowerment. But I think only very view NKT followers are open enough to let such thoughts into their mind or even read these books. However, as with "keeping traditions purely and not mixing" I wish to remark: If you look at the root of Gelugs: Tsongkhapa integrated different teachings and lineages into his presentation of the Dharma. He received Sakya, and Kagyue teachings and lineages and practiced them. He received also two of the three Kadampa lineages by a Nyingma Lama and integrated them. So the root of Tsongkhapas Teachings are different lineages from different sources. In his biografy you'll find that he gave in one teaching session to a disciple first the Mahamudra Kagyu Teachings, than he gave the Sakya Lam Dre Teachings. And allthough he quite surely received the Kagyue Ngöndro too (preparations for Tantra like prostrations, Mandala Offerings, Vajrasattva and so on) he practiced on his own a different Ngöndro by doing the prostrations (3.5 million) in relation to the 35 Confession Buddhas Sutra. So he was quite free. But never I heard that Kagyupas or Sakyas said Tsongkhapa didn't keep their lineage's "essential purity" or had "mixed" it. You'll find also Tsongkhapa and Atisha in some Kagyue Refuge Trees - I have a picture of one. So when Tsongkhapa, Sakyas and Kagyuepas have such an open mind, why then be so fixed and close minded and making a cult with "keeping it's essential purity"? Perhaps we stress to much the word "tradition" and "pure" and thereby creating a conceptual demon which bonds the mind to fundamentalism. The main point is to tame the mind. For this you need different methods. All of them came from the Buddha, why not using them? Is there something wrong with other methods who came from the Buddha? Do they defile the mind? Please excuse me, perhaps you're fed up with my remarks. All the best for you KP and all those friends from NKT, yours Kt66 10:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, wow, you've outdone yourself this time! Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts and experience on this issue. It's clear to me we should view our Gurus as Buddhas. How is it possible for Buddha to make a mistake? So, if the Guru appears to make a 'mistake' it must be a deliberate enlightened action to teach us something we need to realize.

It's not acceptable to say that Gurus make mistakes out of ignorance. In one prayer it says "the Guru is Buddha, the Guru is Dharma, the Guru is also Sangha, the Guru is the source of all joys". If the Guru is faulty, the Three Jewels are therefore faulty! A Guru is not to be seen as a high bodhisattva, but as the synthesis of all objects of refuge! How can he or she make mistakes our of ignorance?

I don't think there is any contradiction in seeing your Guru as Buddha Vajradhara and observing that he appears to make 'mistakes'. There's also no problem with asking him about mistakes that he appears to make, asking him why he is doing these things, out of respect and love. We can have pure view but also ask our Teachers why they act as they do, if their actions appears to be mistaken. There is no contradiction here. I'm certainly not suggesting that we 'brush their 'mistakes' under the carpet', pretending that they never happened.

I don't know - I think this discussion is not really relevant to the subject matter (New Kadampa Tradition), but thanks for all your contributions. --Kelsangpagpa 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, as always your comments are thought provoking. I do not have time to address at least my opinion of them at the moment but I thought that this extract from an interview with the present Ganden Tripa provides something for all of us to think about and refer to. Also I would reflect that the view of practitioners such as myself regarding things like the Prayer of Apology to Dorje Shugden by the 5th Dalai Lama, the Ensa Whispered Lineage and the Sakya view of Dorje Shugden all have their foundation in our confidence in teachers such as Trijang Rinpoche. I would trust his scholarship, knowledge and honesty above those of Geshe George Dreyfus or the information on the Tibet.com website. Even I who know really nothing, have given several citations regarding the Sakya view indicating he is seen as enlightened by some Sakyas, none of these citation are dispelled to date. Anyway, here are the points from the Ganden Tripa which I found interesting and relevant. I would post the whole interview but don't know how (Robertect 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)):

HI Robertect. The text from the present Ganden Tripa is quite clarifiing for my mind. Thank you very much. You can put the link to the text at the board. With this the reader can follow the whole text. In relation with the Sakya view as KP wrote: “The Sakyas had Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector” I denied this repeatedly. Why? As HH Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakyas, offical stated in a letter to the Assembly of Tibetan Peoples Deputies (June 15, 1996): Some Individuals in the Sakya Tradition revered Shugden as a lower protector deity but never he was revered by the Sakya Institution.

So with this you can see, you can not say “The Sakyas had Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector” because the head of the Sakyas tells the opposite. Perhaps HH the Sakya Trizin does not know it or ly? I think you have to acknowledge that even if one or two Sakyapas had the view Shugden is enlightened, one can not conclude by this individual view that “The Sakyas had Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector”. I insisted on this point because from my own experience I know that sometimes NKT completely ignore the views and statements of other Buddhist Authorities to promote their own views. This was also done by Geshe Kelsang who put on the Shugden Supporter List a Lama, who protested against this. And allthough this Lama asked him to remove his name, he didn't do so... Kt66 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I think we can all agree with what HH Sakya Trinzin has to say about the Sakya Institution. This point is quite valid, however we may not finally agree on the views of those Sakya Lama's specifically mentioned in the commentries on Dorje Shugden. As to the other point concerning the list of names, I cannot comment. best wishes Robert (Robertect 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)).

Fine. Could you please be so kind to give me the link or send the text of the 101st Ganden Tripa? This short statement of him I find very useful. We'll hear from each other. bye, Kt66 17:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the link at the start of the quote. Best wishes (Robertect 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)).

Excerpts form Interview with the 101st Ganden Tripa

From Click here for full Original Text"I feel that it is best if a practitioner can do the practices of all these four lineages without discrimination. However, it may be difficult for some unless they have the capacity. On the other hand, it is also possible for a practitioner to concentrate only on one lineage. However, this latter practitioner even concentrating only on one lineage, needs to have sincere and genuine respect and appreciation for all the other lineages he or she is not practicing."

"The Vajrayogini or Naro Kachodma practices is not introduced into the Gelugpa Tradition by Trijang Rinpoche but popularized earlier by masters such as Pabongka Rinpoche as Pabongka Rinpoche is considered to be an emanation of Naropa who is Himself the first Lineage Master of this tantric cycle. Trijang Rinpoche is Himself strongly affiliated to the Vajrayogini cycle as even HH the Dalai Lama pronounced that Trijang Rinpoche is a great practitioner of both the Heruka and Vajrayogini cycles.

In general, Je Tzongkhapa’s three meditational deities or yidams are the 32 Deity Guhyasamaja, the 62 Deity Heruka Chakrasamvara and the 13 Deity Yamantaka. Amongst these 3 yidams, Tzongkhapa especially meditates on Guhyasamaja and wrote most extensively and deeply on this practice. Guhyasamaja is in fact Tzongkhapa’s main practice. Both Guhyasamaja’s and Heruka’s meditation texts are long whilst Yamantaka’s text is relatively shorter. The genuine good practitioner of the Gelugpa tradition must do all these three practices inseparably.

I have personally heard HH the Dalai Lama taught before that doing the practices of these 3 yidams inseparably is not exactly to mean to read the meditation texts of these 3 yidams separately. The point is to extract the essential and critical features of each of these 3 respective yidams and to subsequently integrate them into any one of these 3 yidams which one has adopted as one’s main yidam.

For example, if your main yidam is Yamantaka, you integrate the essential features of each of these 3 yidams into Yamantaka and you then concentrate on the practice of Yamantaka. Similarly, if your yidam is Guhyasamaja, you then integrate the essential features of each of these 3 yidams into Guhyasamaja and you then concentrate on the practice of Guhyasamaja. This applies also if your yidam is Heruka.

The past great lineage Gelugpa Masters similarly do practices of these 3 yidams inseparably. The recent great lineage Gelugpa Masters such as Ling Rinpoche [ who is the 97th Ganden Tripa and the Senior Root Teacher of the present Dalai Lama ], Trijang Rinpoche [ who is the 10 Junior Root Teacher of the present Dalai Lama ] and Zong Rinpoche all practise these 3 yidams inseparably. These great masters have definitely mastered practices of these 3 yidams.

Some teachers may have taught their students only to concentrate on Vajrayogini and Solitary Yamantaka because their students may not have the ability or time to do the practices of these 3 great Yidams. "

Hi Kelsangpagpa,

You wrote: “About Phabongha's sectarianism, he wasn't sectarian; he simply believed in practising one tradition purely…” Sure, practicing a tradition of his own making.

“Everyone is as pains to show they aren't sectarian by mixing and matching teachings from other traditions.” Personally I practice only teachings from the Gelugpa (though I have received teachings from Kagyu teachers), that is not sectarian to my mind. The Dalai Lama is quite clear that he believes the Shentong view to rest on a serious philosophical error (as did Tsongkhapa himself), but that’s not sectarian either. One of Je Tsongkhapa’s teachers held that the Kalachakra was not a genuine Tantra, this being a reasoned belief based on the peculiarity of the Kalachakra but can hardly be thought to be sectarian. But Pabongkha’s Shugden practice, according to which so much as touching a Nyingma scripture will result in Shugden’s pursuing and killing you, is sectarian. The Yellow Book is full to the brim with these stories.

And Robertect wrote: “I would trust his [Trijang’s] scholarship, knowledge and honesty above those of Geshe Georges Dreyfus…” With respect, I think that Dreyfus is a clearly better historian of ideas, a more broadly educated scholar, and a more impartial observer on this issue than Trijang Rinpoche. In his book about the Gelugpa education system (The Sound of Two Hands Clapping) he points out that his two main teachers were on opposite sides of the Shugden controversy: Geshe Rabten was a Shugden practitioner and Geshe Lobsang Gyatso was strongly opposed to the practice, and to Geshe Rabten’s sectarian writings. (In the end Lobsang Gyatso was murdered by Shugden fanatics.)

Dan

Hello Dan,

Thanks for your comments, expressed eloquently. I must disagree though, as I did with Tashi. Firstly, the Yellow Book is superstitious rubbish, and if the Dalai Lama had ignored it, there wouldn't be any problems. There were no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmas before this was published and accepted as truth, and propagated. Zemey Rinpoche had freedom to publish, but why did people believe it? Bad karma.

Secondly, you are stating in a very matter of fact way that Lobsang Gyatso was murdered by Shugden fanatics although there is no evidence for this, other than the ongoing dispute between Dorje Shugden supporters in India and the Dalai Lama. That seems scant evidence for accusing someone of murder. I totally condemn this action, it was horrendous, but as I'm sure you know, Tibetan history is full of this kind of thing. It's not unusual. You can't blame Dorje Shugden supporters. I don't know who did it, but they aren't Buddhists.

It would be useful sometime to agree on a defintion of sectarian. Wanting to practice one tradition of Buddhism purely isn't it.

Best wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts Dan, but we will have to disagree. I can't think of a better source of knowledge than Trijang Rinpoche. Also I wonder, what do you think when the present Ganden Tripa refers to the foremost disciples of Je Phabongkha as "great lineage Gelugpa Masters". Does this mean you disagree with the Ganden Tripa?

You say that "according to (Je Phabongkha)... so much as touching a Nyingma scripture will result in Shugden’s pursuing and killing you", but that is not true. You are referring to the Yellow book, but the Yellow book describes stories according to those that view Dorje Shugden as a worldly being. They are stories nothing more, clearly you can't say he is enlightened and at the same time say he did all those things described in the yellow book. You can see the contradiciton? You can't surely imagine Je Phabongkha and other Lama's didn't notice? So you misunderstand the yellow book.

As for the consequences of breaking commitments (i'm sure you'll get round to the empoworment text at some point so i'll pre-empt you), they are always expressed in severe terms and Dorje Shugden's commitments are no different. The following are some of the results of breaking one's reliance on a spiritual guide, I took them from the letter expelling Geshe Kelsang from his monastery, not very nice things eh? but not very different to the resluts of breaking commitments concerning Dorje Shugden or any other major practice:

• If one generates angry thoughts towards the Guru; because of having destroyed the root of virtue; one will be reborn in the hells for as many aeons as the number of moments one was angry
• Although relying on the Mantra Path, one will not obtain the supreme state.
• Although one practices with effort in order to attain the aim of tantric practise, one will attain rebirth in the hells on and on
• All the good qualities not generated before will not be generated and those already generated will decay
• In this life, many things that you don’t desire, such as sickness will befall you
• In this next life you will wonder endlessly in evil migrations
• In all lifetimes you will be separated from spiritual friends

Lastly I have never heard of Geshe Rabten writing sectarian tomes, please elucidate, his biography is a model of openness and respect for other traditions. Lastly there is a) no proof that Geshe Lobsang Gyatso was killed by Shudgen fanatics, b) that anything in the teaching of the lineage holders of Dorje Shugden practice (eg Trijang Rinpoche) would support such a vile action as murder. (Robertect 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

last changes

OK I see, the only compromise to solve some problems on this article is putting the controversial issues into the Critics Section. I think this is ok, isn't it? NKT has the choice to put his reasons in the Response Section of the article. This is the only way I see to solve all the discussions for a proper article on NKT without getting to much involved further. Kt66 14:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, you are free to criticise us. There is nothing to criticise and nothing to defend. You are right; there is nothing further to discuss. Take care - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 15:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK fine. At the and of the debate I lost my inner balance and became harder in my words, I'm sorry for that! It was really quite a challenge for me. I'm not sorry for the facts I put here, I see this as a necessary and beneficial task. So thank you and KWinter for your patience and contributions and especielly 2nd March without him, I think, the article and discussions wouldn't be that clear and inspiring. I enjoy in all perceivable and hidden abilities and understandings of the discussion participants. All the best for you Kelsang-la and your friends on your way. :-)) yours, Kt66 15:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The wikiedtor who put in the article this: "The Manjushri Institute removed all books from their library which were written by anyone else, including the Sutras, the Buddha's own words. These books were accumulated when Lama Yeshe was spiritual guardian of the centre. Many of the books were destroyed, but some were rescued and given by concerned students to Samye Ling monastery, in Scotland. All this is testament to the fact that Kelsang Gyatso now claims that his New Kadampa Tradition is the only existing school on earth to present the genuine Buddhist path."

I deleted the last sentence. I think it is enough to have the facts of the treatment of Dharma scriptures and Dharma books in the article. In the article section there is no need to comment this. Perhaps you can integrate that point in the critics section or it is not really necessary, isn't it? Kt66 18:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A question, what is the source or proof that "many of the books were destroyed"' and also can anyone be specific about what books we are actually talking about? Who organised this action, etc. Otherwise this is hearsay and should not be included in the article. (Robertect 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)).

This was added by a witness, I think. When I was within NKT I heard that they removed the books from the library, exchanged the keys of the doors and put down the pictures of HH the Dalai Lama and Lama Yeshe and relpalced it by the pictures of Geshe Kelsang. This was told me by a NKT teacher. Is there any witness who can tell more or the opposite? Kt66 23:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can say that until either 1999 or 2000 Lama Yeshe's photo was in the North Wing Gompa of Manjushri Center to the right of the throne from the teacher's perspective. The picture was removed only when the entire Gompa was redecorated, at this time all of the Thangka's which adorned the walls were also removed making the room far less ornate and leaving the focus only on the shrine. I am sure that no disrespect was meant either to Lama Yeshe or the many Buddha's when this was done. (Robertect 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).

Mhm. Perhpas I'm blinded or missed something. Do you mean the Gompa where all the original painting of Andy Weber where put up? Allthough I attended from 1996 to 2000 almost every festival at Manjushri and looked always very interested at all places, I never saw that and I never saw other Lama pictures than Geshe-las, Pabongkhas and Trijang Rinpoches and NKT members. But of course if you saw it, your a witness for one single picture. On the other hand, the other pictures of Lama Yeshe and HHDL where removed or how came Geshe Kelsang's picture at the shrine? Before he overtook the center it belonged to Lama Yeshe! And of course pictures of HHDL and Lama Yeshe were on the shrine not GKG's, isn't it? So they have to been removed by anyone and replaced not mere for renovation ;-) Kt66 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Gen Pagpa can confirm, he used to live at Manjushri. There were picturs of more than one Lama, inlcuding Lama Yeshe and I think Song Rinpoche and another Lama, they certainly were not of Geshe Kelsang.(Robertect 18:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert and kt66. I'm not the Pagpa that used to live at Manjushri (there are two of us), but I can confirm that until the renovation of the North Wing Meditation Room, there was a picture of Lama Yeshe, and also one of Song Rinpoche. Neither of these lamas, though revered, are Lineage Gurus of the New Kadampa Tradition, so why should we have their picture in the meditation room? It is the same with HHDL. These pictures are not excluded out of resentment, they just aren't part of our lineage.

Geshe Kelsang has never asked for his pictures to be put up, or for his name to be included in the list of Lineage Gurus in the sadhanas that we practice. These things have been done as a result of a request by Geshe Kelsang's faithful disciples --Kelsangpagpa 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way. I saw also no book of Lama Yeshe in the library. Suppose before GKG overtook the center there were also texts/books written by Lama Yeshe - what I do not know. Then they must be also removed later. This we should check out too. Which texts and books where there before and which texts and books were given away? Who can say this? So if even one single book of Lama Yeshe were there and removed later, than Kelsang Khynrab is wrong when saying: "giving away all those texts from the library that were not part of this tradition" because Lama Yeshe is part of the Gelug-tradition as Kelsang Gyatso is too. So this is also a good point to check more deeply. But perhaps this knowledge is not really needed to improve the article. Kt66 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone put in the article board: "From Modern Day Kadampas, by James Belither - "On May 31st 1991, Geshe Kelsang called together representatives from a number of these centres to discuss the setting up of a 'common organization for the development of Dharma spiritual education' as Geshe-la expressed it. It was during this meeting that 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.

Geshe-la has likened the Kadampa practitioners of old to eagles soaring in the sky, and although New Kadampa Tradition practitioners are as yet little birds trying to emulate these eagles, through their effort and dedication there is no reason why they should not become exactly like them:

'All lay people can become like Geshe Dromtönpa and all ordained people can become like Geshe Potowa.'

During the same meeting, Geshe Kelsang also set out the purpose of the common organization of the New Kadampa Tradition:

1. To provide general spiritual assistance to the centres of the New Kadampa Tradition 2. To ensure the purity and authenticity of their spiritual programs 3. To oversee the setting of examinations for both the Foundation and Teacher Training Programs at each centre 4. To assist in the development of new Dharma centres

Geshe Kelsang has often spoken of the importance of Dharma centres. Without them there can be no sustained study or meditation programs, and thus no possibility of practitioners gaining realizations, becoming Teachers and continuing the lineages of scriptural transmission and realization. Without Dharma centres, people cannot make contact with the Dharma, and without Dharma there can be no Sangha and thus no Buddha. As Mahayana Buddhist centres, all New Kadampa Tradition centres have been established with the intention of benefiting all beings without exception."

I think it is better to point out clearly what you wish to say in a summerized way - just try it and it should fit to the article or made points clear which where not mentioned before or are seen controversial. The best is you try to respond point by point the critics as NKT tried with Shugden. This would serve the article. But just to publish statements in the main article I think is not the Wiki Way and serves not a good article, isn't it? Kt66 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)