Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 4

Various edits by original residents of Manjushri Centre

As original (and still current) residents of Manjushri Centre, among us Jim Belither (involved with Manjushri Institute since 1975), who have witnessed directly the inception and development of the Centre (even before the purchase of Conishead Priory), the arrival and activities of Geshe Kelsang, and the inception and development of the NKT, we have made a number of important edits to this article.

Firstly, out of respect for this English-language version of Wikipedia, we have made a number of grammatical edits throughout the article. We hope that any future editors will make an effort to maintain these basic standards of writing.

We have changed references of 'Kelsang Gyatso' to 'Geshe Kelsang' throughout, as this is the name by which he is publicly known.

We have amended the History section to record more accurately the way in which Geshe Kelsang was invited to teach at the then 'Manjushri Institute'.

Regarding references to Geshe Kelsang 'taking over' the Centre, we feel that this is not objective and have thus moved it to the "critics of NKT say" section; we have explained what actually happened in the 'Responses by NKT' section.

your feeling is not objective, I think ;-). If a guest teacher starts to run the center which not belonged to him and where he was a guest, than it is quite diplomtic to say he took it over. You see other see this as stealing from the Three Jewels (see Sera Letter). Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let us be clear that Geshe Kelsang was not just a 'guest teacher' at Manjushri, rather he was invited to be the resident teacher here, and in the Institute's publicity at that time (of which we still have a copy) he was even referred to as the Abbot. The idea that he 'took over' is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but which is not neutral.

Yes let us clear that point: Who invited Geshe Kelsang? Who was the resident teacher at Manjushri when he was invited? The center belonged to Lama Yeshe. Please include this copy you mention here. Thank you very much. In the Letter of Sera Monastery it is stated clearly: "Then he was picked up by the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, found by the late Lama Yeshe) to goto England, hence not only went there but he usurped the FPMT centre and made it his own NKT!!" Kt66 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we would like to draw your attention to a quote from Lama Yeshe himself on the 'Lama Yeshe Archive' website, where he refers to Trijang Rinpoche as his Root Guru ([1]). Secondly, in a Public Talk at Manjushri Institute given by Lama Zopa Rinpoche in 1977, Lama Zopa explained that he had suggested to Lama Yeshe that Geshe Kelsang be the Teacher at Manjushri Institute, and that Lama Yeshe felt that it was more likely that Geshe Kelsang would accept if invited directly by their Root Guru Trijang Rinpoche, and thus it was Trijang Rinpoche who invited Geshe Kelsang to go to Manjushri Institute.

Hi there, fine to see that you changed your style of working in Wikipedia at this article. The citation you gave here is pointing to a teaching of Lama Zopa Rinpoche! That's why from my understanding your reverence is just saying that Lama Zopa Rinpoches Root Guru is Trijang Rinpoche. Your change in the article that you mention the way to ask Geshe Kelsang via Trijang Rinpoche is good and fine. It seems in accordance with reality. Fine. Thank you. Hopefully we can work in this way of cooperation now. I can agree your changes and am grateful that we will not have a further revert war. I ask you to make the four tildes to sign your contribution otherwise it is diffcult for outsiders to understand who wrote the note. As you say you are present members of Manjushri, I know past members too. yours Kt66 09:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - we had put the wrong link, and have now changed it to point to the correct reference, where Lama Yeshe expresses his Guru devotion. ( - Manjushri Residents)

Dear Manjushri Residents, thank you. Your new source is not that clear to me, the letter is not telling that Trijang Rinpoche is his root Guru, it just says: "Mindful of our root guru unequaled in kindness, king of great bliss, Heruka of the body mandala, crown ornament of the holders of the practice lineage of Ganden, I here pay homage to Trijang Dorje Chang and in doing so reply to your series of advises my spiritual brother, Ven. Jampa Wangdu, which you sent with such great affection." He is not directly name him his or "my" root Guru. He remembers the root Guru and pays homage to Trijang Dorje Chang. To say he meant with the first the latter is more an assumption. It could be but is not clearly stated. One can have different root Gurus and many of them. If you look in the official biografy of FPMT site [2] there is no saying that Trijang Rinpoche is his root Guru. So if it is not there I'll follow no assumption. Kt66 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I see you removed the reference to Trijang Rinpoche being the root guru of both Lama Yeshe and Geshe Kelsang, I am puzzled by this edit please explain what is your concern. It is a true statement and not in the least controversial. It helps the general reader understand the context, otherwise for most people just saying Trijang Rinpoche with no explanation is no different from saying Jimmy Jones or Mary Muller. The questions must arise in the reader's mind, Who is Trijang Rinpoche? Why is it relevnt that he in particular asked Geshe Kelsang? What is his relationship with Lama Yeshe etc. So by stating that this Trijang Rinpoche was also the root guru of both lama's these questions are answered and we no longer have a random name but a meaningful reference. (Robertect 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

HI re. As you see above we have until now no reference that this is true. So until this point is not confirmed by a source why add it? Kt66 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"he came across the stupa dedicated to his former root guru, Trijang Rinpoche" (Robertect 09:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)).

O fine. I accept. Thank you. Kt66 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why it is so important to you to say in the very beginning that their "root guru" is the same. A non buddhist reader - even a buddhist reader - will not understand clearly what a "root Guru" is about. Why you want to bring up that topic in the very beginning? yours Kt66 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the Sera Leter "usurped the FPMT centre and made it his own NKT" is of course relevant to the article but I do not think it should be included in the actual History Section, rather it should be in the Critical of NKT section. I suggest this because the factual accuracy is disputed and the tone is not impartial and does not reflect the understanding of all parties. What do you think? (Robertect 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

If you see it as relevant - as many others do too, then it is right there. The article is going about relevants on NKT. NKT could until provide no document which tells the opposite. Kt66 11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, we can both agree that the Sera Letter is not impartial and also that the use of the word "usurped" is extremely partial?, For example, by definition usurped indicates that an illegality took place which is something no one has ever claimed. Additionally it seems clear that the disassociation of the Institute from the FPMT came about for many different reasons but was not driven by the wish of Geshe Kelsang to "usurp" Lama Yeshe, indeed it can be argued that it was the Manjushri Community and not Geshe Kelsang who pushed for change, Geshe Kelsang's involvement seems to be at the request of his students and not the other way around, this ability to hold different views about the same thing also proves that the claim he "usurped" is a view not a fact.

I have provided some excerpts from “Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain”, which is published by Routelidge Curzon and is written by David N. Kay and was published in 2004 ISBN 0-415-29765-6. I hope you agree this is an impartial source. In the book it says that the move to independence from the FPMT was supported by "a large section of the Institute's community" and principally concerned dis-satisfaction with the Administrative organisation of the FPMT and its use of Manjushri Institute's assets.

Just to answer: The point is that the centre belonged to Lama Yeshe and FPMT, if people get unsatisfied and split the group and this actual led to a new situation in which Lama Yeshe lost his centre than this is also like mobbing (or as NKT like to say: creating a shism in the Sangha). As a qualified teacher, as Geshe Kelsang should be, his job would be to stop such splits. His centre was in York not in Ulverston. The centre belonged to Lama Yeshe and FPMT and according to past members Lama Yeshe was blackmailed. You can study the blackmail tape but of course you know it. Kt66 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Priory group became dissatisfied with the FPMT’s increasingly centralised organisation. Directives from Central Office came across as distant and authoritarian and they were often in conflict with how the Priory Group perceived the Institutes’s interests at a local level. The FPMT’s designs to use Conishead Priory as an asset to provide funds for projects elsewhere within the FPMT network for example, and the legal financial liability Manjushri had for Wisdom Publications were considered particularly unreasonable strains which threatened the Institute’s existence. In the same book one resident of Manjushri Institute at the time is quoted as saying:

This was what was really difficult in the early years, the feeling that people here didn’t really have any control over what was going on. And yet, year by year, we were left to run the place. We were here holding the place up, building it with our hands, trying to fincancially keep it going, keep the central heating running… And yet someone else, who had no connection, could say to us, ‘Right this is going to happen there, or that lama’s leaving and this one’s coming and you’ve got to pay for this translator to fly in’. People got fed up with being told what to do by somebody else who didn’t seem to have any particular awareness or connection. On one hand we were running a a very viable and big centre, one of the earliest centres in the West. And at the same time there was the feeling that someone else telling us what to do. And that just didn’t work.

One FPMT student from that time described the conflict thus, "The whole dispute took off with, essentially, Geshe Kelsang saying, ‘I’m staying here for the concerns of my students who have asked me to stay; my students who have put in all this energy in creating this building, all this effort’.

Ok it sounds very unsatisfied. And it seems Geshe Kelsang hold onto his students. But why he did not leave the centre of Lama Yeshe and ask his students to follow him to his own center in York? Why didn't he respect that the centre belonged not to him, that he were a guest there? What were his activities to improve the relations between them and Lama Yeshe/FPMT? What were his activities to heal the relation between them? Look at Geshe Kelsangs' sentence: ‘I’m staying here for the concerns of my students who have asked me to stay; my students who have put in all this energy in creating this building, all this effort’ He is partial with them; he takes their side of dissatisfaction, he even pushes it. Instead of showing the fault of unsatisfaction or ways to overcome it he takes their sides by naming them twice "my students" and praise their effort in working. He is not balancing the situation he is pushing the split. By this he is deepen the split by misusing/enhancing their dissatisfaction, isn't it? Read the sentence once more. Geshe Kelsang is very skilful. Kt66 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I correct myself: It seems to me that he misused and enhanced the dissatisfaction and thereby supported the split.

Let us look on this subject on a neutral perspective:

Suppose there is a Lama who has build up an organisation, gathered disciples around him and these disciples started to built up buildings / centres in that organisation….

Suppose even this Lama (because he is free of clinging) always emphasizes to remind his followers: "The centre is yours not mine, so take care of it." Than this Lama recognizes he can not do all his responsibilities and asks another Lama to help by teaching at his centre.

I imagine myself now in that situation – as a Buddhist:

There is a Lama, he has his organisation, he has his centres. He asked me to give a course on Buddhism at his centre. OK?

Then I go there, stay there and teach there because I was asked for it. The Lama can only come once or twice a year. Then the people get inspired by the regular teachings of mine on Buddhism. Then they feel dissatisfied that the Lama who established the centre comes only twice a year, is seen seldom and they feel he cares not for them. They express their dissatisfaction to that. They start to reject the Lama who invited me, thinking he doesn’t love them. On the other side, they start to honour and cherish my presence, my teachings. What do you think a Buddhist, a Lama has to do in that case?

My answer is: I would remind them, that I am just a guest. That all we can do here is deeply related to the kindness of that Lama who helped and inspired the centre to be built. I would honour this Lama, express my gratitude towards him and I would encourage the members of the centre to do likewise. I would point out that I am only here because he felt responsible for them and asked me to teach there, that this is showing his care, his love for them. I would discourage them from not being grateful towards this Lama of I would discourage them of being dissatisfied with this Lama. Instead I would reveal his kindness to them, I would reveal his qualities to them, I would reveal his care for them and express humbly my gratitude towards this Lama of being asked to teach there.

Isn’t this correct and qualified for a Buddhist Lama, is it?

But If I say: I’m staying here for the concerns of my students who have asked me to stay; my students who have put in all this energy in creating this building, all this effort This will only get them more dissatisfied, this will split them. I would not do this. This would be improper to do.

If I argue in that way – how you cite it from that source: I’ll bind them to myself; I’ll disconnect them with the Lama. I’ll increase their dissatisfaction; I’ll split them from him. I’ll forget my own gratitude I should have towards him. I’ll forget that I am just a guest and that the property belongs not to me.

If one follows the first way no conflict will arise.

If one follows the second way conflicts and suffering will arise.--Kt66--

Thanks for the story, am I to imagine it sheds light on what actually happened in Manjushri Insitute? If so it makes a lot of assumptions about what happened and what people intended, also your analyis makes sense when viewed from the concept of the established International Buddhist Organisations we have today, but this is different to the communities of the time. At the time such organisations were very new and their strucuture and legal organisation was not at all clear. FPMT reviewed and changed its administrative and legal structure after these events. Making such assumptions is bad history writing. I can give you some information which contradicts your story:

• At the time of the meeting I referred to in 1983, according to the same book there was an agreement to work out a constitution which would enable the Institute to be part of the FPMT but also able to act independently - so even leaving the FPMT was not necessarily the intention. However shortly after that meeting Lama Yeshe died and no agreement was ever reached.

Why than Lama Yeshe asked the Dalai Lama for help to ask Geshe Kelsang to leave his centre? (Or is this not true?) Also Lama Zopa Rinpoche went to him to talk with him...(but about what?) Also how came the blackmail tape into existence and the statements that it was a split from the FPMT? What are your sources? Do you work for the NKT office now? Your wrote your are since 10 years with NKT so you can be not witness. So what are your sources of information, only the book? Is the author a NKT practitioner? Kt66 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This point is confused I think with something that happended in 1979, again I quote from the book:

"In 1979 Geshe Kelsang opened a Buddhist center in York under his own spiritual direction (not FPMT), and as a result was asked to resign so that a more suitable Geshe, one totally committed to FPMT objectives could take over as resident teacher (at Manjushri). This prompted a response from the Manjushri Institute’s students, many of whom had developed a stronger connection with Geshe Kelsang, their daily teacher, than with Lama’s Yeshe or Zopa, who visited the Priory only rarely. They petitioned Geshe Kelsang to continue teaching them and it was on this basis that he decided to stay."

Here again we should not conclude however that Geshe Kelsang commited any great negative action, and we must be careful not to judge this in the light of what has happened in the subsequent years. He was for example later invited to open the FPMT Manjushri London center along with the Lama at Lamrim Center Bristol when it opend some years later indicating there was no great rift with Lama Yeshe or FPMT over this point at the time.

With regards to your question about the book it is on Amazon, but in general I will say that the book is not pro NKT at all, it is an academic study of the cultural impact and changes in traditional Buddhist schools, in this case Zen and Tibetan, when they are transplanted to the UK. In fact the narritive of the author's thesis includes the idea that the NKT gradually redefined its history to edit out unpleasent events of the past - a view I have some sympathy with. I used this book as a source because it is not written by either NKT or FPMT students and therefore lacks the emotional bias which might come from these sources. You ask why the Majushri Residents didn't provide this information, well I don't know the answer to that but they are free to contradict anything I quote as is anyone else who was there at the time, however we arrived at the point in your discussion with Manjushri residents where you wouldn't accept what they said because of their bias, so I introduced this source as neutral.(Robertect 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you very much Robert! Perhaps it is good to put the book as a source in the article, I think. However your explanation does not satisfy me completely, because I do ask myself: If I am invited to a center of a befriend lama or collegue (Vajra brother), than I feel as a guest and even when the students there get closer to me I would be sensitive to the situation, that I am just a guest. What ever they wish I will refer to my statues as a guest and that they are related to my collegue (Vajra brother) too. But never I would stay there or even support any way where my lama collegue will lost one of his centers. This is my thought. The proper way for me would be either to leave or if my lama collegue insist of giving me his center as a gift out of his gratitude to accept it for his and others benefit. (But I think this didn't happen). Also there is the quote that Lama Yeshe asked HHDL for help (but perhaps this source is not true), than a Bhikshuni told me, that also Lama Zopa went to Geshe Kelsang to talk with him (but I do not know on what subjects especially)...So doubts are left in my mind. Perhaps now they can not be clarified. However thank you very much for your effort and excuse my mulish and bisased mind. The danger to accuse someone falsely can easily happen, so I should be careful. --Kt66 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no indication that at that time Lama Yeshe was rejected by the community at Manjushri Institute - indeed his picture remained on the main shrine until the gompa was refurbished in the late 90's early 00's.

It is clearly that Geshe Keslang was invited as a Guest teacher in Lama Yeshe centre. So why Lama Yeshe and FPMT lost a centre and Geshe Kelsang got it. Something had happened. There are at minimum three sources which speaks from a split from FPMT. Kt66 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• There was some illegal activity concerning the management of funds on the part of the FPMT which seriously compromised the Manjushri Institute. Unfortunately we have no more detail but this is the subject of the so called black mail tape.

That's a pity. Kt66 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was another 8 years before the NKT came into existence and during that time many Tibetan Masters, including, Song Rinpoche, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Geshe Rabten, and Lama Zopa - (although LZR needs to be confirmed) as well as other lama's such as Ajhan Sumedho & Thich Nhat Hanah taught at Manjushri.
• After 1984 the Dalai Lama wrote a forward to a book by Geshe Kelsang.
• Lama Yeshe's main wish was for Dharma to flourish, which it has both in FPMT and later NKT.
• The Zen & tibetan Buddhism book (referenced earlier) also states "the dispute was primarily organisational and did not necessarily entail tany breaking of spiritual bonds between the students and the lamas..."

OK fine, thank you. Can you pease tell me something about the author? Was he or is he a NKT practitioner? Why do I ask this? NKT always gives reference to their own people. Kt66 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

These points collectively indicate that what took place was not in opposition to Lama Yeshe as a Guru and Dharma teacher but solely in response to the adminstrative sturcutre of the FPMT. Also they show that in all probability the wider Buddhist community and specifically the Gelug Hieracrchy at that time did not seem to feel a serious infraction had taken place, in otherwords did not think Geshe Kelsang to have "usurped the FPMT center and made it his own NKT" as the Sera monastrey would write some 14 years after the event. I do not think I can say more, and leave it to the conscience and judgement of the wiki edit community to agree to move this statement into the critics of NKT section or not. (Robertect 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)).

You are right, it indicates that there was no special conflict regarding changes or they ignored it for the benefit of... The so called blackmailtape gives a slightly other background and then perhaps we have to understand how Tibetans solve conflicts. So I agree, there seem to be no evidence to that he took over in a negative way the center. And as lon as there is no valid source it can not be stated. Kt66 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. So why FPMT lost this centre and then it belonged to Geshe Kelsangs organisation? Why NKT has not documents on it (this is charity trust stuff of an organisation) and you have to refering to a book? Why do you tell this not the Manjushri residents? Why do they not clarify this and instead you - who were not present at that time, weren't you? Your book is one source there are three other sources who speak from a split or break-away from FPMT. And there are two more sources (Thubten Gonpo and the link of FunWang below that it was a take over. So alltogether five sources which do oppose your book. (I will get my answer from non NKT source in the future too. Perhaps this will provide more clarification on that.) What do we do now with the section we want to improve? It is clear we can not hide the split or break away from FPMT, isn't it? Ok take care, yours Kt66 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Manjushri Institute split from the FPMT, all I am contending is that it was not necessarily a negative action in the Buddhist sense and that it certainly was not illegal. Of these two parts, the first is open to interpretation and rightly belongs in the Critics and Responses sections - I will ammend the text and you can tell me if you are happy with it. (Robertect 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you for your patience. Well done, well argued. Kt66 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

HiRobertect. Thank you for your work. I can agree. All we could discuss to get a deeper view on that subject we have now in the article, knowing that we both were not witness but gave our best to approximate that topic. For me it sounds fair what we have now in the article. So thank you for your cooperation. The passages don't hide something nor do they overstrech it or are based upon assumptions. Fine. Thank you. Kt66 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt66 I also agree with and would repeat everything you say above. I hope you have found the effort worthwhile and also that it will be helpful to others, it is good that all parties can express their understanding in a relatively neutral and public space. In our discussion I think you have raised some important points and encouraged me to improve my understanding of things such as the Vinaya. Thankyou also for your work. As a small point I think at some point we could improve the english and flow of the article but I suggest it is left to stand for a while in case people want to make any further significant changes. Best wishes (Robertect 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Thank you and good night. May it be helpful and bring no harm to anyone, instead my it cause clarity in the mind of the reader. Normaly I am not interested to bring my time in such articles and discussions, however I felt the urge - as you know - to do so and I put a lot of time and effort in it the last months. I am happy that we have a cooperative atmosphere and enjoy that a time will come where the main parts will come to an end and I can relax - and you and other editors too ;-) Your effort protects me against faults. Thank you, yours Kt66 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I got a phone call where someone pointed out that your changes now gives the impression that Trijang Rinpoche invited Geshe Kelsang and that this gives a wrong impression. So I changed that passage and shortened it. Instead of Root Teacher I wrote main teacher, because it is to heavy for a reader to understand that topic - even by NKT it is misunderstood, I think. NKT method is blinding peoples common sense by this concept of "root teacher". Kt66 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The book also gives the date Feb 1984 as the date when a new legal structure to govern Manjushri Center was agreed between representatives of FPMT and Manjushri Institute, although full ownership of Conishead Priory assests did not fall to the NKT until 1991. I think these points illustrate that there was a legitimate wish on the part of the community at Manjushri Institute to manage the center themselves, this no doubt led to the disagreement concerning the appointment of a new administrative director and eventually to the talks and legal changes which followed subsequently. Taking these points into consideration I think it is reasonable to assert that the word usurped is a partial opinion, and an extreme simplification of what actually happened and should therefore be included only in the Critics of NKT section and not in the main History section (Robertect 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)).

OK we don't need any simplification. This is not the way of course. Thank you for your contribution. You gave here one source, there are others too. To get the point most balanced I asked yet a reliable person of the Buddhist order on that point, the answer will take some time. Until now I found it very moderate to write he "took over the centre" but NKT wanted to delete the sentence, so I used an official source. Until now it is mysterious how the changes came and NKT always put much effort to hide it. You find "Indeed, Geshe Kelsang split from the FPMT in 1978, in difficult circumstances..." [[3]] and "Among the larger ones are the FPMT, which I have already mentioned, now headed by Lama Zopa and the child-reincarnation of Lama Yeshe; the New Kadampa, in origin a break-away from the FPMT" at [[4]]. I could agree in changing the section in a way where the split is not hide and not partial, until now NKT tried to hide it so my way was to reveal it. So let us make a suggestion how to improve that passage. Thank you for your work. Kt66 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My questions, doubts and thoughts seem to be supported by Dr. Inken Prohl from the Free Unsiversity of Berlin who wrote in a review on the book you mentioned:

“The founder of the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (b. 1931), was originally brought to Britain to teach at an FPMT center, but in 1991 he split from this organization in order to found the NKT. This schism,…” - she even uses the words shism!

“Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later “fundamentalist” identity.”

--Kt66 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: By the way I will finish this issue because I have to less knowledge on that. My way of thinking about it I told - I agree with you the imagination I developed to get some clarity on that is based on assumptions and it could shed light on it but must not. Only members of that time can really do this. This is not my task, I was not there. However there are still many open questions. Even if there was no structure in FPMT I know what I own and what I don't own. So we have now to find a solutiion how we put in the article the split or break-away from FPMT in a proper way. What do you think? Take care, Kt66 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi RE. I will buy this book you mentioned allthough it is quite expensive and agree that "that the word usurped is a partial opinion, and an extreme simplification of what actually happened".Kt66 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just recognized that someone put the Kundeling Rinpoche (who is not the official recognized one) in the section of PRO NKT. That's not correct. I told yet, what he said on NKT. This site is better to use in the Shugden article where it is yet and also another critical link on him. So I see no reason to list him among PRO NKT because he is not pro NKT. The article is dealing mainly with Shugden. I changed the link section too, because it was misleading no Pro NKT link was pro NKT. They were just PRO Schugden. Thank you, Kt66 10:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding teachings, we have changed 'follows a selection of Gelug teachings' to 'follows the essential teachings of Venerable Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa'; the previous reference is too vague. The NKT presents the entire Lamrim, and Je Tsongkhapa himself explains that the Lamrim is the condensation of all Buddha's teachings.

sorry this is NKT advertisement idea. Correct is 'follows a selection of Gelug teachings'. Neither Shugden, nor Vajrayogini was taught by them and both is a main practice in NKT! The previous reverence is according with what NKT really is based on and this is easily acknowledgeable, because Geshe Kelsang is a Gelug Teacher, who had a Gelug Teacher. The Lamrim is also taught and practice in the Kagyu Tradition...this is no special sign of Tsongkhapa or Atishas Tradition allthough they taught on it and emphasised it. The basis of Tsonghkhapas Teachings are his main texts (see the Wiki Article on Tsongkhapa) none of them are taught in NKT. What the basis of the Kadampas was you can see in the Kadampa article and the related discussions. To summerize: the essentials of Tsongkhapas were the Union of Sutra and Tantra (this you find in NKT too) and especially the union of the three Tantras (not practiced in NKT) and to revive the complete Vinaya (not practiced or emphasized in the NKT, rather neglected). The essentials of Atisha were to emphasize the Sutras (only one Sutra is taught in NKT), the Jataka Tales (none is taught in NKT) and to practice Tantra very secret (also not done in NKT). Allthough the Lamrim is a main feature of both it is not the main sign of their traditions. It is just an essential part of it and as I said you find the Lamrim also in the Kagyue schools and the types of it in the Sakya and Nyingma schools too.

Rather NKT follow Pabongkha Rinpoche on whom Geshe Gerorg Dreyfuss correctly said: "Pa-bong-ka had an enormous influence on the Ge-luk tradition that cannot be ignored in explaining the present conflict. He created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru. Like other revivalist figures, Pa-bong-ka presented his teachings as embodying the orthodoxy of his tradition. But when compared with the main teachings of his tradition as they appear in Dzong-ka-ba's writings, Pa-bong-ka's approach appears in several respects quite innovative. Although he insisted on the Stages of the Path (lam rim) as the basis of further practice, like other Ge-luk teachers, Pa-bong-ka differed in recommending Vajrayogini as the central meditational deity of the Ge-luk tradition. This emphasis is remarkable given the fact that the practice of this deity came originally from the Sa-gya tradition and is not included in Dzong-ka-ba's original synthesis, which is based on the practice of three meditational deities (Yamantaka, Guhya-samaja, and Cakrasamvara). Where Pa-bong-ka was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Ge-luk tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Dzong-ka-ba's teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pa-bong-ka's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dor-je Shuk-den as the central protector of the Ge-luk tradition. Whereas previously Shuk-den seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Ge-luk tradition, Pa-bong-ka made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. In this way, he founded a new and distinct way of conceiving the teachings of the Ge-luk tradition that is central to the "Shuk-den Affair." In promoting Shuk-den as the protector of his charismatic movement, Pa-bong-ka did not invent the practice of this deity, which he seems to have received from his teachers,[34] but he transformed a marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition." Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding references (from both sides) to Manjushri Centre's library books, we feel that this is also too opinionated to be included in the main body of the article, and so have moved both points of view into the Criticisms/Responses section, including some additional comments from witnesses among us.

Regarding Spiritual Programs, since these form the very core of the New Kadampa Tradition we feel that it may be helpful to the general reader for a little more detail about the programs to be included in this section.

Regarding Ordination, to say that the 10 vows are 'different' from the Rules articulated in the Vinaya is not accurate, because (1) the first 5 vows are explicitly enumerated in the traditional Buddhist monastic ordination, and (2) the last 5 vows are presented as a condensation of all the Vinaya vows. Also to say that 'the NKT ordination is founded on and includes the Five Pratimoksha Vows of a Lay-Follower' is misleading, because it is in fact founded on and includes the five root vows of the traditional Buddhist monastic ordination (the vow to abandon sexual conduct is not a lay-follower's vow). Thus we have edited this section accordingly.

the first 5 vows are lay followers vows and are not considered as monk or nun vows. Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense. You have just stated that the first five vows of the NKT ordination are not considered vows of monks or nuns, implying that monks and nuns are allowed to kill, steal, engage in sexual activity, lie, and take intoxicants! The third NKT ordination vow (to abandon sexual conduct) is not a lay follower's vow.

Please sign your contributions. Your are right in one case and I recognize now an error: the third vow of NKT ordination is the vow of celebacy. However, the vow of celebacy can also be taken by a lay follower. But this lay follower remains a lay follower even when he took the vow of celebacy. A lay follower can have even more vows (up to ten I think and these 10 were taken (I heard one time) by the lay follower Dromtonpa - whom you mentioned, but he is a lay follower). Also what NKT names "precept day" - the ordination of the 8 Mahayana precepts - is a lay follower practice allthogh these 8 vows covers more the novice monks and nuns vows than the NKT ordination do. These 8 Mahayana vows can be taken for the whole life but it is a lay follower practice. A person who helds these 8 precepts the whole life is called Venerable Lay Follower. To be a monk or nun the Buddha taught what for vows you have to keep. The last five vows of NKT are not mentioned as monk or nuns vow. So it is correct what I said. Thanks to your remark I recognise, the section has to be improved on that point. I will inlclude the celebacy. But what you see as an implying I didn't imply at all, I just said what it is, nothing more. Please read the text of Tsongkhapa as I yet asked you; further study the Vinaya please. Take care, Kt66 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text of Tsongkhapa by reading it you will understand that the passage is correct:

---

The Essence of the Vinaya Ocean

By Je Tsong Khapa

OM. May it be well.

Homage to the Omniscient One.

The means dependent on which one goes

With ease to liberation’s city,

The Sugata’s doctrine’s supreme essence,

Which is known as pratimoksha,

I shall explain in six parts: nature,

Divisions, the recognition of each,

Bases in which it is produced,

Causes of loss, and benefits.

a) Nature

It is, with thought of renunciation

Acting as cause, to turn away

From harm to others and its base.

Our higher and lower schools have two

Modes of assertion: that it has form,

Being karma of body and speech;

Or that it is the constantly coming

Will to abandon, with its seed.

b) Divisions

Pratimoksha is of eight types:

Fasting, layman and laywoman,

Male and female novices,

Nun probationer, full nun, full monk.

The first three are householders’vows,

The last five, vows of those gone forth.

c) The Recognition of Each

c1) Fasting (Upavasa) Vows

Fasting vows are to abandon

Eight things - four roots and four branches.

Incontinence, to take the ungiven,

Killing and false speech are four roots.

Great or high beds, drinking liquor,

Dance, song, garlands and so forth,

And afternoon eating are four branches.

c2) Lay-Followers’ (Upasaka & Upasika) Vows

Vows of lay-followers are to abandon

Killing, theft, lies, sexuall misconduct, and intoxicating drink.

Six lay-followers: those who practise

One, some, most rules, or completely,

The continent, and those of refuge.

They are lay-followers who, in order,

Abandon one, two, three of the four roots,

Sexuall misconduct, and incontinence;

Or just of refuge, we assert.

c3) Novices’ (Sramanera & Sramanerika) Vows

Novice vows are to abandon

Ten things - four roots and six branches.

Amusements and adornments, as two;

Three; and accepting gold and silver -

This division makes six branches.

Adding three kinds of falling away -

From making request to one’s preceptor -

Leaving aside householder’s marks,

And wearing the marks of one gone forth -

Thirteen things are to be abandoned.

c4) Probationer Nun’s (Siksamana) Vows

The discipline of a probationer nun

Is, after taking novice vows,

Vow of avoidance - six root rules

And six secondary rules.

Not to go on the road alone,

Not to swim across a river,

Not to touch a male person,

Not to sit with a male alone,

Not to act as go-between,

And not to conceal non-virtue

Are the six root rules of avoidance.

Not to pick up golden treasure,

Not to shave one’s pubic hair,

Not to eat food not received,

Not to eat what has been hoarded,

Not to excrete on green herbage,

Not to dig the soil - these six

Abandonments are the secondary rules.

c5) Full Nun’s (Bhikshuni) Vows

Eight defeats, twenty suspensions,

Thirty-three lapses with forfeiture,

A hundred and eighty simple lapses,

Eleven offences to be confessed

And the hundred and twelve misdeeds

Make three hundred and sixty-four

Things the bhikshuni abandons.

c6) Full Monk’s (Bhikshu) Vows

Four defeats, thirteen suspensions,

Thirty lapses with forfeiture,

Ninety simple lapses, then

Four offences to be confessed

And the hundred and twelve misdeeds -

Added together, two hundred and

Fifty-three things the bhikshu avoids.

Bases in which it is Produced

These eight types of pratimoksha are produced in the bases of men and women of three continents, except Kuru, but not such as eunuchs, hermaphrodites and neuters.

Causes of Loss

Causes of losing vows are two.

Common Causes

Giving back the training, death, two sexes appearing, changing thrice, and cutting one’s roots of virtue are common.

Special Causes

Learning one was not yet twenty, agreeing to serve, and the day’s elapsing are special to, respectively, bhikshus, probationer nuns, and fasters.

Some assert the vows are lost if one commits a root offence or if the holy Dharma vanishes. Vaibhashikas of Kashmir assert one with vows with a root offence is like a rich man with a debt.

Benefits

From keeping these vows, one will gain the temporal fruit, divine or human birth, and the ultimate fruit, the three awakenings. Since this is taught, the energetic always keep the pratimoksha, devotedly striving.

Dedication

By this virtue, may embodied beings throughout their rebirths live in pure conduct.

---

If Geshe Kelsang wants to change the Vinaya on his own he is responsible for it. But for the article it is good to mention that the 10 vows of NKT ordination are not in accordance with the Rules laid down by the Buddha for monks and nuns. Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just your opinion that these vows contradict the Vinaya. It is clear from the article that all 253 gelong vows are not enumerated in the NKT ordination, because it says there are only 10 vows. It is also already clear that this is a new presentation; it has been designed by Geshe Kelsang for his ordained followers living in the modern world. The guiding principle of ordination is the motivation of renunciation (Tib.: nge-jung), as conveyed by Geshe Potowa (a Kadampa monk) in his statement that Dromtonpa (a lay teacher) was his ordaining Abbot, because it was through Dromtonpa's guidance that he attained the realization of renunciation.

Sorry, I said "If Geshe Kelsang wants to change the Vinaya". The Vinaya tells exactly what nuns and monks vows are. From the 10 NKT vows five are mentioned in the Vinaya: the first five. That's it. The vows for a novice monk or novice nun are 36. These 36 are summerized into 10 (but you have to keep of course the 36!) As with your story of Geshe Potowa, perhaps he NAMED him his Abbot but of course Dromtonpa was not his Abbot. An ordination can only be given by a Sangha with minimum five full ordained monks (in a remote region) otherwise there have to be 10 full monks there for a proper ordination. This is the Vinaya. Also of Geshe Potowa had not the NKT ordination ;-)

The summerize of the 36 vows of a novice monk or novice nun into ten (four roots and six braches) are:

"Four roots"

• 1. not to kill
• 2. not to take what was not given
• 3. not to lie
• 4. no sexual intercourse

"six branches":

• 5. to drink no alcohol
• 6. not to sing, dance, playing music
• 7. nor to wear ornaments or take parfume
• 8. not to use high seats or beds
• 9. not to eat after noon
• 10. not to touch gold or silver

To these ten are added 3 more than you have the thirteen once which Tsongkhapa lists:

• 11. Leaving aside householder’s marks,
• 12. Wearing the marks of one gone forth
• 13. Making request to one’s preceptor (serve and respect him)

To help you and others I list now the 36 vows:

Thirty-Six Novice Vows.

• 1. Avoid killing a human.
• 2. Avoid beating or harming livestock and other living beings.
• 3. Avoid using water containing living creatures.
• 4. Avoid killing animals.
• 5. Avoid stealing.
• 6. Avoid indulging in sexual misconduct.
• 7. Avoid telling lies.
• 8. Avoid accusing [a monk or nun] of a root defeat.
• 9. Avoid slandering [a monk or nun] by insinuation.
• 10. Avoid creating a schism in the monastic community (Sangha).
• 11. Avoid following such a schism.
• 13. Avoid knowingly tell a lie.
• 12. Avoid disturbing a householder's faith.
• 14. Avoid making false accusations to favor a friend.
• 15. Avoid slander or derision.
• 16. Avoid accusing [a monk] of teaching Dharma for material gain.
• 17. Avoid accusing [a monk or nun] of committing a remainder transgression.
• 18. Avoid casting off a teacher's advice.
• 19. Avoid accepting food that is more than one's share.
• 20. Avoid drinking beer.
• 21. Avoid [all] kinds of singing.
• 22. Avoid [all] kinds of dancing.
• 23. Avoid playing musical instruments.
• 24. Avoid wearing [all] kind of ornaments.
• 25. Avoid using aromatic scents.
• 26. Avoid using colorful costumes.
• 27. Avoid wearing garlands, etc.
• 28. Avoid using high or fancy seats and beds.
• 29. Avoid sleeping or sitting on high and fancy seats and beds.
• 30. Avoid using thrones or beds more than one elbow length high.
• 31. Avoid sleeping or sitting on beds or thrones more than one elbow length high.
• 32. Avoid eating food after noon.
• 33. Avoid accepting gold and silver.
• 34. Avoid maintaining a lay person's lifestyle.
• 35. Avoid abandoning a novice's lifestyle.
• 36. Avoid refusing service to one's abbot or teachers.

for more see:

• The 10 vows and 36 vows of a novice monk or novice nun - an excellent list by Venerable Thubten Choedroen and Thich Nhat Hanh
• What is a monk?
• A Novice Ordination in Tibet

The 10 NKT ordination vows I listed yet:

• 1. abandon killing
• 2. abandon stealing
• 3. abandon sexual contact
• 4. abandon lying
• 5. abandon taking intoxicants

These five are in accordance with the first four of a novice and his fith vow too or in accordance with a lay follower who took also the celebacy vow. But the next five vows are not mentioned as monks or nuns vow in the Pratimoksha These five additional NKT vows can be added for a "Rabjung" who can wear a robe (but no yellow upper robe) and whom is not a member of the order and for whom it is prohibited to take part in Sojong (the confession ritual - which has to be held by minimum four full ordained monks)

• 6. NKT vow: I will practise contentment
• 7. NKT vow: reduce my desire for worldly pleasure
• 8. NKT vow: abandon in engaging in menaingless activities
• 9. NKT vow: maintaining the commitments of refuge
• 10. NKT vow: practise the three higher trainings

Thank you very much for pointing out my error on the celebacy - I oversaw it completely! Kt66 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Controversies, we have made explicit the reason why Geshe Kelsang was 'expelled' from Sera Monastery, as opposed to the vague statement given previously ('due to these controversies'). We have also added the fact that he had already left the monastery some thirty years earlier, to make it clear to the general reader that he was not expelled during his time at the monastery. Concerning Buddhist Unions, to give some context to the present statement we have added that the NKT is a member of Buddhist associations in other countries.

I improved the section. There are many Lamas who practice Shugden and oppose His Holiness the Dalai Lama and are not expelled at all ;-) Even they live nowadays in Sera too ;-) Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Responses section, we have included a comment about the position of the Ganden Tripa, as well as an NKT perspective on the practice of the three Deities based on oral teachings given by Geshe Kelsang. As mentioned above we have also included comments about Manjushri Centre's history, including the observation that the Dalai Lama's brother has never visited.

I doubt if you do not once more turn up to down with the Ganden Tripa. The Ganden Tripa is elected but (as far as I know but I am not sure) traditional the Dalai Lama suggest the Abbots and the Ganden Tripa from a list and later they are elected. This is because His Holiness is seen as a high realised being, respected by so many great masters of our time (from different schools of Buddhism) with a great lineage of incarnate predecessors. Even by Shugden devotees he is respected (allthough they are not that happy with his opinion on Shugden). Mere NKT, Geshe Kelsang and Trimondis ;-) see him as destroyer of the Pure Dharma, as paralyzed, confused, misleading people and the like. A shame for any Buddhist. I am really sorry for your view on holy, widely respected persons. Really. As with the brother I don't know. But with Lama Zopa Rinpoche that he talked with Kelsang Gyatso I know for sure. I don't care what you put in the section of your arguments. Kt66 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

- 14:20, April 14, 2006

Sorry I was to fast in my corrections on your changes. I said: "Lamrim is not based on Atisha." of course this is completely stupid, sorry for the confusion I created! I meant the book of Kelsang Gytaso on Lamrim is not based on Atishas Lamrim. You claimed in the article GKG book on Lamrim is a commentary on Atishas Lamrim. This is not correct. The structure of both texts are completely different. Geshe Kelsangs Lamrim is neither as Atishas or Tsongkhapas Lamrim it is more like Pabongkhas Lamrim. This you can easily conclude when you read or glance their Lamrim scriptures, did you yet? .... Also, Did you know that Atisha taught a Guru meditation were you acknowledge the faults on your teacher? Not denying them... NKT always says they practice Guru Yoga as taught by Atisha, but why they use not his texts and do not know how and where the original texts differs from Geshe Kelsangs? Kt66 23:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there I neutralized both changes and put in the controversial subject on Shugden. FunWang 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny article, isn't it? What do other editors think on it? FunWang 23:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NKT Resident Teacher Talks About Books in NKT Centers

The following from Ven Kelsang Khyenrab during a internet based discussion in either 1996 or 1997. He is the resident teacher at the UK Tara Center, also he is the NKT Spirtual Director for Enlgand. It sheds a very different perspective on the handling of books, I would like to incorporate the relevant parts from this into the article to give a balanced perspective (Robertect 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).:

The books at Manjushri Centre’s library, as Dharma texts, were treated with respect; they were given to Centres and libraries which studied the particular traditions explained within them. What is wrong with this?

In the early days at Tara Centre we had several hundred books covering the whole range of Buddhist traditions. Each book was authentic and came from its own special lineage; we had the Pali Canon, Zen texts and many, many others. Many people would read these books and often the Centre would be host to seemingly endless and inconclusive discussions about people’s personal preferences in terms of Teachers, traditions and practices. It was very confusing and agreement about the actual meaning of Buddha’s teachings was very difficult to achieve.

Later I learned that it is accepted in Tibetan monasteries that each college has its own 'yig cha' or special understanding and interpretation of the teachings gained by study of a specific set of texts covering the whole Dharma within one tradition. By studying in this way clarity of meaning was far easier to attain due to a standard set of definitions of technical terms throughout each of the texts. (The editors at Tharpa Publications, for example, work constantly with Geshe Kelsang to standardise the terminology throughout his books to aid clarity of understanding for the serious student.)

It was the mid-1980’s and I had already received lots of teachings from many teachers of different traditions - very wonderful in itself but difficult to get a sense of making progress in learning and practising Dharma in any systematic and sequential way. We were students of Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a fully accomplished meditation Master who had received fully the lineages of instructions within Je Tsongkhapa's tradition.

He was in the process of publishing a complete set of texts covering the entire path to enlightenment. Each of these texts are authenticated by reference to the works of Je Tsongkhapa. When the Teacher Training Programme based on these books began at Tara Centre I saw the opportunity to study in a clear and systematic way the entire range of Buddha's teachings on both Sutra and Tantra.

Therefore I saw nothing wrong with giving away all those texts from the library that were not part of this tradition. To me it made a lot of sense because at last there would be clarity. I remember at the time several people at the Centre, misunderstanding our intention, remarked that giving away the books was wrong, narrow-minded, disrespectful etc.

To me, sending the texts to the other Centres was quite appropriate and an action of generosity to boot! Some of those centres were very happy to receive valuable augmentation of their libraries and wrote to thank us. Useless heated debates about the meaning of Dharma from the point of view of a certain Zen master versus that of a certain Theravadin master became, thankfully, a thing of the past. Those who wished to follow Zen teachings would go to a Zen Centre and those who wished to follow a Theravadin could do the same and those wishing to follow Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition could study at Tara Centre.

I know from my own experience that the action of bringing clarity to our library and study programmes, far from being sectarian, actually reduced sectarian feelings among the Centre members. How wonderful for all traditions to happily enjoy the clarity and precision of Dharma understanding that I feel is now possible to attain in New Kadampa Centres. I have no reason to suppose that other traditions cannot do this and I rejoice in their special characteristics.

At Tara Centre no-one has ever been, or is now, forced to stop reading the books of other teachers; individual people were, and still are completely free to keep and read books by any other Teachers, Buddhist or non-Buddhist - and they do!

However, Tara Centre as an institution follows the 'yig cha' according to Ven Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s texts and therefore on the study programmes those books are studied and those books only are in the library and shop. There is no need to promote the books of other traditions; if individuals wish they can purchase them through mail-order or visit the local Waterstones, Dillons etc.

Dear Robert, some remarks on that.

1. It is true that in Tibetan monasteries each college has its own 'yig cha' or special understanding and interpretation of the teachings gained by study of a specific set of texts. And in the beginning they emphasize these texts – later they are free to use texts what ever they like. These texts of 'yig cha' are not chosen by the author or are all from the same author like you find in NKT with GKG. The texts were chosen by high masters of the monastery and include a variety of different well known and accepted Buddhist masters. Also the texts are well checked about their content and reliability by Buddhist Authorities and on the root of the texts are not contemporary commentaries but the Indian texts and Tsongkhapas texts.
2. “Each of these texts are authenticated by reference to the works of Je Tsongkhapa.” To make a reference in a book makes not a text to an authentic one. The authenticity of the Indian texts were proofed by other accepted masters and had to go through a strong set of proofing. (Bad texts were bind at the tail of a dog and they made funny and shame on the author by let the dog run with the texts through the mud.) Because of the proper proofing of the Indian texts Tsongkhapa found them more reliable than Tibetan Texts. So what makes the texts of NKT to authentic ones? And what is the meaning of “authentic” and how one can check if something is authentic? And why NKT say they follow Tsongkhapa without even using a text of him or even know them? Why NKT followers and teachers are so sure that GKG texts are in accordance or even the same as Tsongkhapas? Who checked this, who proofed this? NKT-followers believe that because GKG says this and it sounds good and they believe him because “he is Buddha Vajradhara”, as he wrote in one of his books: “because all spiritual masters are Vajradhara and a follower of the Buddha will believe what Buddha Vajradhara says” NKT followers conclude from his books and teachings that GKG is also Buddha Vajradhara and they should believe him, isn’t it? So NKT-followers who almost only know the books of GKG always believe what GKG says because he is a spiritual master, therefore he is Budddha Vajradhara and because one like to be a good practitioner NKT followers just believe him. But this belief is no reference that his books are the same as Tsongkhapas or authentic. All of this NKT claims are mostly mere beliefs. So one has to check more deeply, I think.
3. “Therefore I saw nothing wrong with giving away all those texts from the library that were not part of this tradition.” - “this tradition” is referring to NKT or Gelug? Were also Gelug Texts and books given away?

The NKT style of argumentation is always really quite naive and I wanted to give some balance to it by adding some points. Kt66 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, following the teachings I received from Geshe Kelsang, I understand that one fruit of correct spirtual practice is that I shall percieve him, and eventually all living beings as Buddha Vajradhara. When I percieve this Buddha reliabley and correctly, (which is when all the qualities are complete within my mind and the appearances which confirm him to be the actual Buddha appear to me) then I shall be able to rely on Geshe Kelsang as Buddha Vajradhara himself. Until this time I need to use what faculties I have. You should know very well that Geshe-la never says "Believe this because I say it".

I believe what Vajradhara said because I am a Buddhist, but I don't believe what Geshe Kelsang says only because of something which is the fruit not the seed of spiritual practice (I mean spiritual guides are Vajradhara). This view comes from relying on Geshe Kelsang's teachings, your idea of what they mean is, in my experience, wrong.

Regarding the authentiaction of texts, I have confidence in Geshe Kelsang primarily because I can and have practiced and authenticated through my own experience the effectiveness of what he teaches. As I explain later, unless I find something wrong in my own practice with no remedy from NKT, I will remain very satisfied. Also Geshe Kelsang's teachings are authenticated by other Lama's such as Trijang Rinpoche, Song Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche all of who showed great confidence in him and his writing. In this list I am talking about two previous Ganden Tripa's of the Gelug lineage! Also, did you know that the reason there is a Tibetan condensed text in Clear Light of Bliss is because the Abbot of Gyuto Tantric monastery asked Geshe-la to prepare it? He did so because it contains instructions that were not previously written down.

With respect to lineages and traditions, the meaning is not easy to pin down precisely, but I would like to say that of course NKT is within the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa and the Kadampa lineages, where else do the teachings Geshe Kelsang gives come from? So why give ourselves a name? Well, Geshe-la's books are like a jigsaw that fits together perfectly, which is why I study them and rely on them as my principal guides. Lama Yeshe is part of my immediate tradition, but not part of my way of studying, hence his books are not in NKT centers. So the NKT is distinct in the way of studying and the fact that it is not governed by the Gelug Hierarchy. Also despite what you have written previously, are NKT Kadampa's? Yes, are you Yes, are Nyingma practitioners who follow Longchenpa? Yes, Kagyupa's who follow Gampopa, Yes etc etc. The name NKT is very beautiful because it reminds us of these qualities, our shared heritage.

Thankyou for explaining the yig-cha. I agree with what you say, that when one completes the practice taught in the yig cha - in my case in Geshe-la's books, and or gains high realisations, it may be appropriate to follow other teachings. Who knows? I would like to get there first. I do not feel confident that I could choose the most appropriate practices without guidance and Geshe Kelsang is my guide. Within this yig cha of NKT, we are taught about masters who followed more than one teacher, so this example is part of NKT heritage. To mentiona a few, Gampopa sought another lineage when he left his Kadampa masters to recieve teachings from Milarepa. Buddha did this, but again only when he had exhausted the teachings of his "Hindu" gurus and become their equal and indeed superior, the same is true of Je Tsongkhapa himself. So I agree with the ideas you explain about yig cha and see no contradiction with NKT.

It is also interesting to note that teachers such as Khedrubdje strongly urged their students to follow only Je Tsongkhapa's teachings. Here we have a tradition whose founding fathers advised their students to follow one author.

There are benefits and dangers in following one teacher. Personally I find it very easy, it is a lazy mans way to practice - you find one teacher, like them, stick with them! Also the closeness helps build confidence and deep faith and faith is the root of understanding. I should say that there is a danger in this approach. The danger is that one forgets to really question and examine the meaning of things, that one forgets to check the impact on ones mind carefully, that a groupthink mentality arises. In your case you felt that following NKT teachings made you dislike other Lama's and teachings, quite correctly you stopped the practice of NKT, this shows you are wise and did not fall into the faults I mentioned above. In that case though, I believe the fault is yours not NKT or Geshe Kelsang, otherwise this would always happen. I really mean that kindly, and I don't mean that you know less than me, I am sure you know far more and are a realised person.

I will seek out other authors and teachers only if my practice gets stuck and there are no answers within my immediate spiritual family. Why such reluctance to seek other teachers? Because faith is the root of the path and I have deep faith in NKT which nourishes me. It takes so much effort to check out a teacher and instructions, to gain the confidence and faith necesary for practice to be fruitful; it is beyond my capacity to do so and I suspect many other people's too. That is why I am not interested in seeking many teachers. So I am very grateful and happy to have met NKT, it suits my disposition very well. Of course from a Lojong point of view everyone is my teacher, but that is slightly different. I also have faith in other Lama's and Sangha, I feel so happy knowing they are there and practicing sincerely, but their power for me personally is more like a candle compared to the sun.

In conclusion, my deepest experiences of love and wisdom during this life have come since practicing Dharma, from my teachers, sadhanas, periceiving mother beings not strangers or enemies, the Buddhas and yes one particular Dharma protector. So I have no reason to doubt NKT, other than if I am disturbed by the things other people say. To oppose so many negative claims, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to compile a list of all the occaisions where I have been drawn back to Dharma, when I have helped others in sickness and sadness and suffering, particularly through the kindness of Dorje Shugden? To give one instance, when my mother was very ill and near death I dedicated Kangso to her, she recovered and said that while she was unconcious she dreamt of Lions, but not scary ones friendly ones, all around her, protecting her! She knows nothing of Dorje Shugden.

During all the time I have been relying on Geshe Kelsang (10 years), it never crossed my mind to spend time worrying about other peoples practice, thier teachers and books. I only thought, "I really must gain the experiences described in Joyful Path of Good Fortune or Guide to Dakini Land etc then I can be of use to the world". I assure you such thoughts did not arise naturally but came from my teacher.(Robertect 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

You can easily get a different view of what Khyenrab says here. From another witness of that time was said: "Manjushri Institute was established by Lama Yeshe, who invited kelsang gyatso over from India to be the resident teacher at Manjushri Institute. gyatso instigated a coup and took over the Centre. He changed the constitution so that only he and his teachings would be taught there. The comprehensive library at Manjushri Institute was dismantled with books being burned - only gyatso's books are used now, and there is no library. The bookshop only sells gyatso's turgid texts. I lived at Manjushri nkt Centre and spoke to the very few residents left from 'the good old days'. I think just about all of them have now been squeezed out. Alan Bird has never lived at the Centre - but nevertheless sets himself up as knowledgable."

see: [5]

FunWang 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahamudra Claims

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

It seems to be some of past NKT members, like Thubten Gonpo and the Ex Car driver of Khyenrab, talked in the past about this claims and their different views are either forgotten or denied by NKT members or is unknown to their new members. Perhaps one has to research it once more. You find at [6]

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

Perhaps it is quite useable to investigate the complete discussiongroup for more and also Thubten Gonpos information at [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ordination section

I corrected and summerized the section. It is a distorted idea to claim that the Ordination lineage of the Buddha belongs merely to the Hinayana vehicle, implying it could thereby neglected by Mahayana followers. In the Mahayana and Tantric teachings as well it is taught how important the Vinaya and monastic rules are. The same was taught by Atisha and Tsongkhapa; both NKT claims to follow. Also in the Kalachakra Tantra it is stated, that the supreme teacher is the one who holds all three sets of vow: Bhikkhu (full ordination), Bodhisattva (Mahayana) and Vajrayana vows. The main article should not provide false informations on this or points which legitimate the wrong NKT point of view.

To clarify the status of NKT ordination further I like to add: The NKT ordination is even different from the Novice Ordination as taught by the Budhha himself. The 10 vows of NKT can be best compared to the Rabjung ordination within Tibetan Buddhism: The Rabjung ordination is a little bit above the lay ordination (five Shilas) and it is allowed to wear the robe of a ordained (but not the yellow upper robe (Chogue) - as far as I know, I'll check this now...). For a Rabjung (any state below a Novice) it is not allowed to take part at the Sojong (a purification ritual of the ordained). Even Novices are not allowed to enter the full Sojong, only a part of it. Rabjungs are not seen as a memeber of the ordained Sangha. They are just going in this direction and are not part of the monastic order. From this understanding the question arises (which I can not answer): Are NKT monks and nuns really monks and nuns or not? Kt66 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add: it is as I said: for a Rabjung is not allowed to wear the yellow upper robe and to act as a monk (or nun)....Kt66 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To light how important the Vinaya in Buddhism is one can listen to the Vinayastatra:

Just as the earth is the basis of life,

And gives birth to all that grows,

Likewise, good Vinaya is tha basis for those striving to restrain;

Likewise it even gives birth to merits.

Discipline is understood as the source of every excellence

And the abidance of that is said to be the Vinaya.

As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides,

The lamp of Dharma shall abide.

As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides, the lamp of Dharma shall abide. so you can easy conclude from this how important the Vinaya is and what a great deal to change it on once own, as Kelsang Gyatso has done. "In many Sutras and Shastras it is clearly stated that the single innermost treasure of the Buddhadharma is the Pratimoksha discipline."" (quotes taken from His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Advice from Buddha Shakyamuni) FunWang 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

weblinks

there were too many weblinks, the article was very unbalanced, only contra critics, no pro critics at all. please dont remove the pro-critics weblinks, please dont add too many new weblinks. thats all, thanks --Protector 11:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is known as "Geshe Kelsang". It is like the name of the Dalai Lama: "Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth and current Dalai Lama, and as such, is often referred to in Western media as simply The Dalai Lama, with nothing attached." Only few people would call Kelsang Gyatso or Tenzin Gyatso. It is better to use the common names. --Protector 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

citation to reasoning a passage

as with the changes of the anonymous adds of someone who does not know what was going on in the past, here once more the citation to substance the passage:

"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

It was told us the Dalai Lama is obsessed by a demon and nowadays I heard NKT members believe he is encircled by the mafia - just recently a NKT member said this to a friend of mine. NKT was quite clear to say their followers that the Dalai Lama is no Buddhist (I over took their argumentation on that and tried to convince other people also on that). GKG/NKT were quiet clear in telling their followers that the Dalai Lama is destroying the Pure Dharma. It was also said that Geshe Kelsang said that the Dalai Lama is no holy being because he is getting angry. Even the NKT representative in Germany, Gen Keslang Nyima, was doubting that the translation of the Lam Rim Chen Mo of Tsongkhapa is a valid translation, "because it is dedicated to the Dalai Lama". There is more but it is such a shame that it depresses me even to say this. But to verify the passage - because someone wanted to change it anonymous I had no choice. If you read the statement above once more, you see this is not just an idea or short episode.

Please get informed before you change the article. For more see also the E-Sangha Board and the related discussions at [8]. Kt66 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to add to that topic: It is not that NKT made a balanced critic to HHDL it is that Geshe Kelsang misinformed his followers on the facts and pushed his followers by establishing a concept of HHDL that evokes feelings of hatred or fear. I myself was a witness of many situations on that, I know a NKT nun who were full of hatred and another one who reptured pictures of HHDL and the like.

Hi Kt, I am very sorry to hear your account, I agree that some people in NKT get these ideas, however as I explain below this is due to a misunderstanding of the meaning and intention of Geshe Kelsang's words on the part of these students. Despite your dire warning there is also tremendous diversity of opinion in NKT. Many people hold the Dalai Lama in very high esteem, myself included.

Some (less) do indeed. Yes, I agree there is also diversity in opinions. But the concept of the enemy is coming not out of the misunderstandings of some students of Geshe Kelsang. The bad view towards HHDL is emphasized by Geshe Kelsang and NKT representatives (like SWISS: Kadam Björn Claussen or Germany: Gen Kelsang Dechen and Gen Kelsang Nyima) too - all influenced by Geshe Kelsang himself. (Gen Kelsang Dechen, the former NKT representative in Germany, told me personally how her mind changed in that by the influence of Geshe Kelsang. She told this at a time where she was still a devoted student of Geshe Kelsang (later Geshe Kelsang expelled her in a incompassionate and traumatising manner). She spoke at the time of her good relation towards Geshe Kelsang, that Geshe Kelsang is convinced that HHDL is no holy being, because HHDL is getting angry. She spoke that she was weeping, when GKG started to express his opinion on HHDL after a Chenrezig empowerment and how the "compassionate" NKT teachers laughed on her, because she was not tough-minded enough. Until that time she had - how many others - a good relation towards HHDL, then she lost it completely. She lost it and could not recover until today.... I lost my good relation towards HHDL and started to hate him too, I am one of the many, but fortunely I could recover from it.

Some NKT centers try to be more modest or not that loudly on that. I know many past and present members from different countries, it is always the same. Of course there are also some less exceptions. But the NKT policy in that has a line rooted in Geseh Kelsang himself, let's start slightly: Just one year ago two new NKT members were wondering why the elder NKT members always said nothing if they talked about HHDL. When the new members started to speak about HHDL, the long time members of NKT started to look to the ground, all became quite and nobody said anything. - Also a way to tame peoples mind in that ;-) Me was told by a long time ordained Bhikshuni that GKG got very angry and put a hex on a student of him when this student told him to go to HHDL. There are many soft and hard stuff on it! Here two more stories from the Sera Letter:

"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”. But when he himself rebels against the Dalai Lama that is altogether another matter according to this bigot. Complete subservience to the “third Buddha” was expected and dissent was met with severe indicment. Any activitiesby the members whoquestioned Kelsang’s integrity or the centre’s way of conducting things was shown the door. :-( Kt66 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Geshe Kelsang spoke quite forecefully about what he viewed as the mistakes of the Dalai Lama, every one can see that from his letters etc. However as we discussed previously reliance on the Guru requires the student to discriminate what is correct and what is false and is not a passive role. Any one who reads Universal Compassion, for example, will understand clearly that according to Dharma there is no possibility that it is taught to hate anyone or that a valid teacher might do so - ever. Therefore if anyone hears certain words or ideas from Geshe Kelsang or NKT and then develops hatred they should consider whether they understood correctly, because there are only two possibilities:

1) Geshe Kelsang teaches his students to hate (in this case the Dalai Lama), in which case he is not a Buddhist teacher

2) The listener or reader misunderstands Geshe Kelsang's words or actions.

Fundamentally the conclusion will depend on whether or not you have deep confidence that Geshe Kelsang is a qualified Mahayana teacher or not. Developing hatred and still saying that the teacher is right is clearly a dis-service to the teacher who infact, if they are a qualified teacher, would never intend to teach people to hate. As an example in one interview Geshe Kelsang said that protesting against the Dalai Lama was "loving him... Showing him he made a mistake." Many people however thought that the NKT protests were an act of hatred and these words seem incongrous. In Berlin last year Geshe Kelsang taught that his students should tell him or their teacher if they thik they have made a mistake and explain why, and that this is an act of kindness. By discussing with humility both parties will improve their undersanding of what is correct and increase their confidence in each other making their relationship closer, so that everyone improves. This is a good way to cherish our teachers and also to become better students. (Robertect 16:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)).

Sorry to simple. Before you can check a teacher and his words you have to have the proper qualifications. Also you have to get informations how to detect false teachers. The conclusion is dependend on your understanding, impartiality and ability to discriminate correctly. This can take time. Thats why a long time period is avised for checking the teacher. Further GKG never ever invited people to hate someone. To induce hate in someone you can do by using nice words too. If you push people on the subject of "Purity" and how important "Purity" is, then you tell these people that someone destroys the "Purity"...what will happen? Even GKG faulty letters (in which he accused others wrongly in a incompassionate tone, so that many - not just one - devoted students of him didn't even believe that the letter is written by him) are signed "With Love". Also wrong actions of him (against the Vinaya) he signed "with love". Then the last but not least is: What GKG says and how he acts is different - from my experiences with him. Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Until now these concepts of the enemy on HHDL by NKT are still alive but are expressed not that loudly anymore. NKT is full of hearsay on HHDL. To give an impression on the misinforming of NKT/GKG we can simply use the official sayings of Geshe Kelsang: "We would like to ask HH the Dalai Lama: who are these Shugden practitioners saying these meaningless things? His words are causing disharmony between Shugden practitioners and Nyingma practitioners. Why is HH the Dalai Lama creating this new problem? Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism." see [9]

He is denying flatly the problems which were of course eminent between Gelug and Nyinmas out of Shugden. (I gave many sources on this yet). An base of this flase fact which Geshe Kelsang established, he is accusing HHDL that HHDL is the one who causes the problems and creates the disharmony. In that way is the stuff on that and not mere about Shugden issue. Everyone who will enter NKT should know, they will turn once's image on HHDL into a bad one and one will loose once good relation and faith towards him. Kt66 09:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt. Geshe Kelsang never denied that there had been disagreements between different scholars concerning the nature of Dorje Shugden, however as he said in general there was no problem between Shugden practitioners and other Buddhists.

And this is not true. In general there were many problems between Shugden practitioners and other Buddhists, especially Gelug and Nyingma. But also Kaygu and Gelug. I know a lot of stories and quotations, articles and masters opinion on that. Just visit the E-Sangha thread on NKT and Shugden. We discussed this a huge yet. Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake. I can not claim "there were many problems between Shugden practitioners and other Buddhists". This I do not know. What I know is: There were many problems caused by Shugden to other Lamas and especially Nyingma Yogis (not scholars - realized ones). These realized Nyingma Yogis felt quite concerned about Shugden actions destroying the Dharma flourishing and the like. Twice they tried to kill Shugden in a ritual to stop his influence. It is disputed if they were successful. Also to Shugden followers this is known and they take the failures of Shugdens end as a sign or reason that Shugden is a Buddha. I heard this story the first time by Shugden followers, later it was confirmed me by Nyingma and Kagyu lamas. Then we have this example of fanatical desciples of Pabongkha destroying Nyingma monasteries and statues of Padmasamhava (See Chagdug Tulkus biografy: "Lord of the dance" and many other sources) So how one can say there were no conflicts and put the blame to HHDL that he created disharmony where there was still since the passing of the 13th DL and reawaking of Pabongkhas influence this ever increasing problems? From a Kagyupa I heard that the Kagyus made cleansing rituals after they returned from a Gelug monastery where Shugden was practiced... HHDL just spoke out the illness, he pointed to it what many felt as an abscess and than he draw consequences. This is his duty, I think. Kt66 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I appreciate the openess of your posts today - I will try to follow suit, so please bear in mind that the following is not intended to prove my point but to explain a point of view. I just wanted clarify a couple of points. They are that there are two dimensions to be considered, the first is spiritual and the second is social. I think many problems come from confusing the two. First spiritual, as you say it is clear that realised beings said that Dorje Shugden is harmful, but there are also realised beings said he is a Buddha - so we have a stalemate. Therefore from a spiritual point of view we should follow our own teachers advice on this matter, as Trijang Rinpoche said, this is skillful means to tame the mind of disciples.

Hi Robert, yes of course there are different dimensions in this Shugden topic. Not only spiritual and social but also political dimensions and personal dimensions too. So we have different views on it by different realized beings and different backgrounds which led them to their views. So what should a student of Buddhism do in that case? You say: "Therefore from a spiritual point of view we should follow our own teachers advice on this matter, as Trijang Rinpoche said, this is skillful means to tame the mind of disciples." and indeed one can do this if one wishes. This is one way. On the other hand you have the freedom not to do this. So there are also different dimensions and ways how you react if you can not follow yours guru advice in this or if you see that the advice is wrong (not according to the doctrine); see Tsongkhapa and different sources. As Michael von Brück a lecture and Professor in religious studies at the University of Munic stated, the underlying conflict in this topic is: "Daraus ergibt sich die Schlussfolgerung, dass die gegenwärtige Kontroverse den Widerspruch zwischen der Notwendigkeit, die Gültigkeit von Urteilen kritisch herzustellen, und dem Gehorsam gegenüber dem Lama (Guru) offenbart." I try to translate this: From his research in that conflict follows "that the present controversy reveals the antagonism between the exigence of getting a valid conviction (by the own analysing/critical mind) and the obedience to the Guru." So your answer to solve it by relying on what your teacher said, is also just one dimension and possible way, but is seen by Shugden followers as the only possible one. And indeed there are more ways to deal with it. Kt66 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the social dimension, it seems that other than the disputed circumstances concerning the destruction of statues of Padmasambhava in the first half of the last century, the practice of Shugden has not been divisive to the Tibetan community, especially in the last 40 years, until the Dalai Lama placed his restrictions on the practice. This leads to the conclusion that the divisions in the Tibetan society are not over the nature of Dorje Shugden, but whether or not one follows the Dalai Lama's view of Dorje Shugden, which is a different thing. Opposing the Dalai Lama's view did not mean only endorsing Shugden practice but also implied an opposition to the Tibetan cause and the long life of the Dalai Lama, and it was the Dalai Lama himself who said just that. In this way it became a social problem. This line of reasoning does not imply that the Dalai Lama was wrong, only that the divisions in the society over Shugden can be traced back to this action rather than the nature or merits of Shugden practice. Of course we can have pages of discussion concerning this, but I don't think that will be helpful, there are already pages enough and as I said I am not trying to win a debate, only clarify a different view.(Robertect 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)).

I can follow. But my understanding is it is mere to simple and even wrong. If you follow the different sources of the development the problem began with Pabongkhas spreading of this practice who out of the strong emphasised "obedience to the Guru" and teaching lay people the first time outside monasteries and his charisma and other factors became quite influential. Never I met (and I met many and high) a Nyingma Yogi who did not spoke against Shugden and his bad influence. After the escape of the Tibetans to India shugdens influence and spreading became even stronger and other opposing high Gelug Lamas left in Tibet. You can read Geshe G.Dreyfuss article: there you can see: the society and spiritual community was yet splitted at that time. HHDL just had to react on that. And of course there are many other dimensions also in it. So for instance HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche beceme a main Teacher of HHDL and also Khunnu Lama Gyaltsen, who followed a non secterian approach and were high realized masters. The cause of Tibet is harmony and Shugden created from the point of view of many disharmony and secertianism. So the problem came not with HHDL open opposition it came with Shugden himself and he had to solve this. My POV after reading many stuff of it and asking many (really high) Lamas from differnt schools and traditions is: HHDL did his compassionate task, courageously. And many high Lamas rexpect him and cherish him for this courage - even some critize him that he waited to long to do so and that he missed his duty! So we will stay in different views of it I think. I just found the article by Gareth Sparham, a well translator, author and PhD in Asian studies he said to that Why the Dalai Lama Rejects Shugden? Kt66 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To give some examples, Geshe Kelsang explained that at Sera, Nyingma practioners would join for part of the study at the monastrey, he also cited his own experience where his brother in law was a Nyingma lama and also he did retreat with a Nyingma practitioner and also did puja with Nyingma families. Also this is the information we have about the lives of some leading Shugden Practitioners:

• Trijang Rinpoche was invited to reside as Abbott for short spells in different Nyingma monastries (this I read in the Tibetan Review which published an biography of Trijang Ripoche after his death, I think it was Spring 1982 edition).

Perhaps this is true. OK and the Bhutanese and others refused to invite Trijang Rinpoche. Even nowadays the Gelug has a bad reputation in Bhutan. A Nyingma Yogi advised me not to tell in Buthan that I am a Gelugpa - all due to the Shugden stuff. He helped people to get out of Shugden. ;-) Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Song Rinpoche "in 1965 was appointed principal of the non-sectarian college at Mussoorie for training many scholars of different parts as teachers" (biography of Song Rinpoche published by Wisdom 1981, copyright Zasep Tulku).

Oh fine. I didn't know. Greatly. On the other site Zong Rinpoche when in Manjushri Institute: "Another samaya was to learn and propagate only “Gelugpa” teachings and NONE other, especially Nyingmapa. We were even discouraged from merely touching Nyingmapa texts." see: [10]

• Ven Choyang Kuten Lama, the Dorje Shugden oracle, in his biography says [11]:

• "During my tenure as Secretary I worked very hard for obtaining the funds for the monks' quaters, not only for Ganden but also for Drepung, and the Nyingma and Sakya monka as well. " also he said that

Kuten Lama is the uncle of GKG. Of course they could deal with the situations but I look not on a surface level. Just ask yourself why there is no real Lama than GKG in NKT anymore and all the other Lamas left him and NKT aside or NKT and GKG left them aside... Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• "I served as a sort of secretary of the monks' society of about 600 monks who came south. There are monks from the four traditions included in this society. I was appointed by election"
• In his role as Dorje Shugden oracle he was consulted by all traditions "I stayed at Buxa for ten years at the request of the officials of His Holiness and served as an oracle. Whenever there was a major decision to be made I was consulted, irrespective of any tradition posing the questions.".

• Until 1973 or 4 the Dalai Lama himself was a practitioner of Shugden, he also was niether sectarian or had problems with other traditions because of it.

You follow now a blocked view and blurr me which is so typical for NKT followers. HHDL was given that practice by Trijang Rinpoche neglecting that HHDL'S predecessor warned and spoke against Shugden. When recognized the faults of Shugden pracice and stopping it, the fanatical Shugden followers started to cast the "Root Guru" axe against HHDL...These sentence you published here is one of the methods of NKT: simplifications which sound good but blurr the facts. Kt66

These points give some context against which Geshe Kelsang made these comments. Far from being a divisive issue in the Tibetan Community, even critics of Shugden such as Thubten Gonpo acknowledge that little was known of the controversy surrounding Shugden practice when they recieved the Shugden empowerment in the 70's. For the majority of practitioners in other traditions why would it really be of interest?; they had their own practices to focus on.

Why it was not known to the public? Because the vow was to keep the samayas secret...Nevertheless fantical followers of Pabongkha desroyed Nyingma monasteries and Padmasambhava statues... Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering this evidence taken from the daily life of the Tibetan community it is indeed reasonable to say that only since the Dalai lama spoke out against the practice has there been "arguing and ciriticism" - I would like you to think about the meaning of this phrase, it is quite different to saying that until now no-one rejected the practice of Shugden, or disagreed with other sholars. The sources you point to are either referring to scholarly views of high lama's or disputed historical events from the first part of the last century which I doubt continued to exert a divisive influence within the Tibetan community in the 1990's. Since the Dali Lama's very public opposition to the practice however it has become one of the most divisive issues within that community which is, as we can all agree, tremendously sad. This is true irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the Dalai Lama's statements.(Robertect 15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)).

Oh you are funny. I accept but do not follow your twisting ideas. take care Kt66 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krauses' Changes

[Nat Krause] has changed a lot of the article without discussion. Perhaps a good idea to sum the article in that way. Instead of reverting his changes, I'd like to know the opinions of other editors? I think it is ok and better now, isn'T it? Thank you Kt66 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is much cleaner now. I will have to think about the content, the specific criticisms are no longer adressed in the responses section, also the reference to cult is rather up in the air. This word has so many meanings, such as it promotes suicide, cynically garners wealth, destroy's people's self esteem and ability to think for themselves or opposes society and breaks up families etc. I don't think NKT meets any of these criteria? In general though I thik Nat did a good job. (Robertect 18:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you for your reply. I see some points lost, but perhaps it is now more clear than before. As with the cult: NKT meets criterias of a cult. But it is difficult to show this by quotes. However at least there are four-six public sources which accuses NKT to be a cult. We discussed this yet, I think. Kt66 21:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I hope you are all well. I would like to add these points, what do you think? Maybe under the 'Response made by NKT practioners'.

1)If we are talking about Dorje Shugden on this entry, I would like to say something like - Dorje Shugden was taught by Geshe Kelsang's Spirtual Guide and so he is therefore practising Buddhas teachings by relying upon his Spirtual Guide. Other respected modern Tibetians have also practisied this, such as Triijang Rinpoche, Lama Leshe, and Zong Rinpoche.

Hi Patrick! Sorry, but this statement is a NKT simplification. Buddha didn't taught to rely on the teacher even when he make a mistake and to follow that mistake. A student has to recognize the mistake and has to act in a proper manner with it. This can be studied in Tsongkhapas commentaries but not in NKT. So your addition does not fit in this article I think. At the Shugden page the facts are named and I see no need why to add it here. Also the article says yet that two lineage teacher of NKT taught Shugden. So it is mentioned in a way. Kt66 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

2) Use of the term 'Kadampa'. Geshe Kelsang gives (in all his books I think) a defination of what he means by this word. I don't have it to hand now, but I could get hold of it and add it to the site. It is similar to how the FPMT use the word. For example, on this site [[12]] it says -

"The word "kadampa" refers to those who are able to see the Buddha's teachings as personal advice that applies immediately to their own lives."

The point here is: NKT claims that Geshe Kelsang brought "Kadampa Buddhism as founded by Atisha to the west". But this is not true. Thats why the critics on that. Please see Kadampa and the related discussions and check it out yourself. Thank you, Kt66 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add this as well to show that other people agree with Geshe Kelsang's defination.

All the best

Patrick --Patrick K 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Sorry Kt66 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!! I have made some changes, and it looks as if I have ignored everything that you have said, Kt66. Please do not be offended, I do not mean any disrespect. Here are the reasons for my edits -

The section is called 'Response made by NKT practitioners'. I am an NKT practioner so I feel this is the correct place to put these comments - anybody reading the article will know that I will have some bias and will take this on board when reading the comments. I feel that everything I have said is true - if it is not please tell me here. I have put links in to FPMT sites because there has been complaints about the use of only NKT sites. I have put in a link to Trijjang Rinpoche because there is not a Wikipedia site on him (maybe this is something we could look into later?).

The defination of Kadampa - I know that some people will not agree with this, that is fair enough, this comment is made in the critics section. However, it is true to say that this how Geshe Kelsang defines the word 'Kadampa'. As this is a site on the NKT, it makes sense to me to have statements from Geshe Kelsang on it. I have put in the link to the FPMT site to show that other people have a similar view.

I have only put in the Dorje Shugden issue as this is mentioned in the critics section - I think what I say is correct. Again FPMT links show that it is not only a view held by NKT people. I did take on board the point about reliance upon a spirtual guide - it is true, I know very little about this and so choose not to mention.

I have put in a bit about being a cult - again I think what I have written is correct. I don't think the quote is that appriopate, anybody know anything better?

Thanks for bearing with me!

All the best

Patrick--Patrick K 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry I do revert:

either we leave it as with Nats changes or we extend it once more. lets first discuss these. Kt66 10:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

your changes were:

• Geshe Kelsang defines the term Kadampa - "A Tibetan word in which 'ka' means 'word' and refers to all Buddha's teachings, 'dam' refers to Atisha's special Lamrim instructions known as the 'stages of the path to enlightment', and 'pa' refers to a follower of Kadampa Buddhism who intergrates all the teachings of Buddha that they know into their Lamrim practice'. The FPMT- affiliated Buddhist Centre called Kadampa Centre in the USA say 'The word "kadampa" refers to those who are able to see the Buddha's teachings as personal advice that applies immediately to their own lives.' [[13]]

whatever he defines... You can even define the world is carried by a turtle. This point does not clarify the critics. His definiton does not clarify the critic that NKT and he claim directly or indirectly that he brought the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha to the west. This point is also clear if you just read the article. So if the definition of him gives no light to the article/critic, why there should be a use in adding it? Kt66 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• In reply to the Dorje Shugden issue. This was taught to Geshe Kelsang by his own teacher, His Holiness Triijang Rinpoche [[14]]. Other respected modern Tibetans who have done this practice include Lama Yeshe, who set up the FPMT, and His Holiness Song Rinpoche [[15]].

This is known and yet mentioned in the article. Elobarations are in the Shugden article yet. Your additions are weaking the clarity of the article as intended by Nats changes and agreed by me and Robertect so far. Kt66 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• In reply to being a cult - Geshe Kelsang says in the book 'Great Treasury of Merit' - "We should continue to associate with our friends and family...". Many NKT practioners have a job, a family, and non-NKT friends. People's involvement in the NKT vary from those who go to meditiation classes once a week to those who study Geseh Kelsang's books extensively and live in NKT Dharma Centres.

What GKG says and how he acts is different. (Just some days before a long time member of NKT agreed to this - how many do.) So to cite a books passage, what does this clarify to the cult allegation? Kt66 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, it seems that on all issues your view is correct eh? I am suprised that for someone who has such a grasp of the idea of dependent relationship you are so fixed. Also rumour and conjecture are not much value. I can't begin to tell you the number of rumours I hear which later turn out to be unfounded. NKT is a large organisation and filled with all types of people. Naturally resentments and suspicions sometimes arise, its no different to working in an office. (Robertect 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)).

Dear Robertect. Sorry, I thought you saw If there is a good reason I'll agree. Perhaps you can give good reasons why Patricks changes should be included? I saw no good reason which improves the article, whereas Nats changes and also some of yours and NKT's found agreement. So where is the problem now? If we start to extend with non logical reasons the article once more Nats changes are needless. I think he did it in the policy of Wikipedia. And we both agreed in a way. If we start to extend the NKT respond section then the critical section will be also extend and it is the same endless extension as before. What we can do: we can agree to revert the article back before Nats changes. Do you wish this? So we need a neutral article. I can see no reason why this is established by extending the responding section once more (and even with points which give not that much clarity, I feel). But of course for instance Patrick can add the sentence of Trijang and Pabongkha at the section where the two lineage Lamas are mentioned. Please give me reasons why Patricks changes improves the article! Of course I think every "needless" change of NKT will urge me in a way to change and extend the critics section once more...so I wish to avoid this. Also it would be good to know what other editors like Nat or 2nd March think on that and not just we. Also you can easily see in the history that I reverted a NKT-critic from Portugal too because he didn't improve the article. Many regards, Kt66 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Here are the reasons for my edits -

Dorje Shugden

If it is mentioned in the critics section, why can't it be mentioned in the 'response made by NKT practioners'section? Surely it is unbalanced to have criticism of the NKT and not to allow an answer to this? I think what I said was factually correct.

Of course one can answer to all, but Nats changes were to condense the article and as you can see complete sections on the critics account are also lost. So if we restart to extend it should be quite resonable, isn't it? Kt66 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Defination of the word Kadampa

I am not saying that one person is right and one person is wrong. I know very little about the term 'kadampa'. All I was doing was giving an explanation of what Geshe Kelsang means when he uses the term Kadampa, and that other non-NKT people have similar views. Again I think what i said is factually correct. I had a look at the David Irving site yesterday [[16]] . He is a Holocust denier and racist. His site have quotes from him with his views. It does not mean that the Wikipedia editors belive what he says, that they are racist too, they are just saying 'this is what this person has said'. I am trying to do the same. I am not trying to prove what Kadampa means or to defend any position or prove a point. I just wanted to give some more info from Geshe Kelsang. I think that it is accepable on a site about the NKT to have a quote from the NKT's founder.

I think to add a definition of what GKG defines as Kadampa makes sense. But to extend the Response section to five points will only lead to extend the critics section too...Kt66

If you would like me to try and make it more relveant to the arguement above I could add something like "All sutra meditations in the NKT come from the book "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Geshe Kelsang claims that this book is based on the teachings of Atisha." This statment is correct I think. I am not passing judgement on whether it is based on Atisha or not, some people may say it doesn't, but it is true that the meditions come from this book and that Geshe Kelsang claims it is based on the teachings of Atisha.

Mhm we should discuss before adding disputed things I think. The Guru Yoga as taught in GKG "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" is no Sutra Meditation it is Vajrayana Teaching and not suit for beginners...However on one hand in a Response section all things can be said in a way but to extend this section will lead to extend the critics section too and then we have this huge article once again as before. So either we revert before Nats changes or we deal with it more reduced what should be added. And added should what is really improving the ARTICLE. As you see I deleted also the changes of a Portugal NKT critic and asked him to discuss...Kt66 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is not for the article, just for my own interest. Can you please give some more details on this point -" Guru Yoga as taught in GKG "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" is no Sutra Meditation it is Vajrayana Teaching and not suit for beginners... ". Thanks. I still think it is a fact that there are no sutra meditiatons in the NKT from any book other than 'Joyful Path...'. Cheers Patrick--Patrick K 15:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

About a cult

You are allowed your view about whether the passage I put in is an adequate defense or not, if you don't belive that it is proves any point that is fair enough. However, I think that under a section called 'Response made by NKT Practioners' I am allowed to put a response. Surely other NKT practioners should judge whether it is an adequate defence or not? Are are saying that under this section I am not allowed to put in a quote from a book by Geshe Kelsang?

The point is that your citation just gives no clarity why NKT is no cult or that the accusations of being a cult are wrong or something like this. For me this is obvious but perhaps my brain is blocked. So I asked other editors now... Your citation should something improve, should something make more clear or show in another view. I saw this not with this citation but of course I can be wrong, so I asked to discuss it and give proofs for it. Kt66 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I also think the problem is that it is unclear in what sense NKT is considered a cult. Perhaps you could refer to the Cult page in Wiki and extract some points from there to aid this discussion. Thanks (Robertect 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)).

Yes this the case and it would be good to make it more clear. Now we have four to six sources which name NKT a cult. To improve the article there has to be find out which criteria NKT meets to make it more valid or show the opposite or a middle view on it or what ever there is. To do this I need time and effort. (And I think is not easy because of the deversity of NKT and its quite hidden policy). But however a try should be done. Perhaps we can include also citations of the book which you mentioned? There we have a further more scientific source too. Regards, Kt66 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, can you list the sources for me. I will review the book as well. Thanks (Robertect 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)).

Patrick --82.42.2.18 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC) --Patrick K 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

@Patrick: Please be so kind to add here the wished changes once more and give reasons what they do improve. Then we can discuss. Please make short statements or citations (see answer to Robertect, I askes also Billion and 2nd March to look on it. So we are more to check it. Kt66 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look over Patrick Ks contributions that Kt66 reverted, under the heading "Response made by NKT Practioners". It is certainly a good thing to put "points of view" in sections, especially where there are two opposing views like this. However we do not want such sections to degenerate in to a kind of bulletin board for discussion of the issues. Of course it is good to have debate here on the talk pages, but the article itself should aim to be encyclopedic and summarise the main points of disagreement, citing sources for what the two sides give as their position. On the whole I support Kt66's rv, but please keep talking about it.Billlion 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Kt66 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope you had a good weekend. Thanks for your work on this and putting up with me! I will need to have a think about these points. My view over the weekend was that only NKT practioners should decide what facts go in the section entitled 'Response by NKT Practioners', that it is misleading to readers of the article if non-NKT practioners have decided what facts can not go in there. However, I will have a think about these points and try to make a response later on in the week.

Cheers

Patrick

--Patrick K 08:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks by the way Kt66 for removing those edits last week from the person who was a bit negative about the NKT.

I still believe that under the section untitled 'Response by NKT Practioners' it should be possible to give a response to all the points made in the 'Critics of the NKT' section. This means giving details on Dorje Shugden, the use of the world Kadampa, and of being a cult. I think that the way the page is structured, new readers will expect that NKT people have been given a right to reply to all the criticism, and if they haven't replied then they do not have a point to make, not that they have not been allowed to make the point. So first of all, do I have the right to respond to each critism that has been made on NKT entry?

Thanks

Patrick

--Patrick K 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, thank you for your consideration and that you thought about it. Perhaps it is useful to study the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines to get an idea what fits to a good Wikipedia article and also to study other articles which where put in the Best Article List could help. I just saw the danger to expand needlessly, nevertheless everyone can improve the article - in the policy of an encyklopeadia and rule for articles. This is the way. Normally it is not wished for that non neutral people write the article. Persoanlly I feel a response section fits not to Wikipedia, it would be better to establish a section on diferent views. In Germany the article on Falun Gong, Jehovah's_Witnesses are quite good. So we can look on them to get ideas and improve this article. But first it should be discussed and then perhaps experienced neutral editors should take a look on it. Also the Scientology article shows a way and also how difficult this topic and NPOV is. Kt66 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Also this link may help us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles Kt66 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for all these points, I think I have a bit of reading to do! I also think a neutral point of view might be benefical, how do you go about getting one? Are there people who work for Wikipedia who you can ask to intervene and provide a different viewpoint? All the best. --Patrick K 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, you're welcome. Thank you for your cooperation! The neutral point of view is a skill which can be developed by oneself by trying to develope it, effort, and some understanding I think. It is not easy to get this NPOV especially for religious people. I do not have it at all. I just try. But it is a great challange for the mind and a good thing to develope. Scientist are more used to it. My present understanding is: The basis is to be open and unbiased and the ability to see the subject from different points of view and also not to cling on one view as the sole "truth". And than to establish the different facts/reasons/sources to support the different views. That's why it is a challange - for me. For a help it would be good to find not involved Wikis, like Nat or Billion. The latter insisted immediately when I changed the article the first time and he asked for facts or proofs. It would be good to have some of them here as a support. You can look at my usersite there is an email from Pjacobi to Jimmy (Chief of Wikipedia) what he said to that. PJacobi is a Wiki-Admin and served in WP Germany for the NKT article and suggested solutions and intervened when needed. The optimum would be to write as good as one of the Wikipedia:Featured_articles but honestly there is much ability and a lot work of many people behind it However they can serve as a inspiration... All the best, Kt66 20:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shugden

Hi, can anyone give a reference to support the assertion that the 4th and 5th Panchen Lama's warned against the practice of Shugden? The same question regarding the 5th Dalai Lama, who seems according to Dreyfus to have establishe his propitiation as a Worldly deity. Many thanks (Robertect 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)). I have found now a reference in the biography of the 5th Panchen Lama where he says "taking refuge in Dolgyal ...contradicts the fundamental precepts of taking refuge in the Three Jewels". However the 4th Panchen? Also I know that the 5th Dalai Lama is understood to have regarded Shugden as worldly being, so maybe I am splitting hairs - i'd appreciate a sanity check! (Robertect 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)).

Hi.RE. You'll find a list at: http://www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx?postID=105199 There is a post of A brief history on opposition to Shugden with a list of Lamas who spoke against Shugden and a list of sources where they have taken it from. It gives as the author the The Dolgyal Research Committee and list 27 sources for it. --Kt66 13:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, as I said the thing is I can't see the 4th Panchen Lama - Chokyi Gyaltsen in that list. He was the root Guru of Ngatrul Drakpa Gyatsen who is said to have taken rebirth as Shugden. Please corroborate or remove from the list thanks. (Robertect 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).

OK I will do it and inlcude instead a famous lame of the rime movement. Of course we do not need a list of lamas. The point is just to make clear that there were prominent opponents from gelug and also different schools. Do you can agree? Thank you for pointing it out. --Kt66 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes @Robertect

Dear edit team, I have made some changes to the article which are intended to remove unnecessary duplication of points and improve the English. I have made evey attempt not to change the meaning and views of the different members of the edit team, I hope you will correct any bias I inevitably have, but also read my changes with an open mind as I think it moves us closer to a coherent article. Also I removed the cult reference because I can't see any credible source to support it and it needs context, this does not mean that I object to it being included, only it needs referencing and context. Many thanks for your patience. (Robertect 17:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)).

Dear Robert it is said to discuss first. So I reverted. You can introduce your changes in that section. Thank you very much. You deleted for instance the whole definition what the basis of NKT is: a selection of Gelug Teachings. This I can not agree. In improving the English and put out duplications I can agree. But please discuss content changes here. Thanks ,--Kt66 13:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, I think you are being unreasonable. The re-edit was a much more coherent piece of work, now we have so much duplication of ideas and book titles etc and bad english, quite frankly its a shoddy piece of work. I would ask you to have a little more confidence in me and simply change the text in my re-edit version. I in turn will try to improve your english and finally we should agree that both the english and the content are satisfactory. Go back and have a good look at what I wrote lets get a decent structure which is what I primarily tried to provide. (Robertect 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).

Ok Kt, we are friends eh? and its not easy working over the internet. So I agree to work in a systematic way through the changes I proposed. Thanks for being patient and I apologise if what I wrote above was at all offensive. (Robertect 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

What do you mean with: "Ok Kt, we are friends eh?" I try to focus on the article and I felt the re-edit wasn't a much more coherent piece of work. It swallowed a lot of some clear statements what NKT is and NKT don't like to have in the article, beacuse it is to clear, I think. It was the content changes as I said which led me to the revert. We can throw out the book titels, no problem. You are most welcome to improve grammar and spelling. You are most welcome improving the article, it's content, its facts and remove duplications. (However I do not have confidence in you. Why I should have?) You are more open than other NKT followers and I am grateful to that beacuse this makes the work more easy. Perhaps you feel I am to fixed on details, but in relation to NKT details matter. Your changes turn the content of the two parapgrphs in a different direction. But I think we can improve both sections. My suggestion is: Instead of rewriting both new, we can improve the sections as they are now. Or step by step we work out together a new section of both paragraphs and discuss the points. --Kt66 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kt, "we are friends" referred to myself and the unfriendly tone of my previous paragraph. We are now working through the changes in discussion - I agree with you its better that way. (Robertect 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you. The tone I did not catched just the content. Fine that you can agree. We are humans and of course our mood is not stable all the time. So no problem at all. I like very much your constructive manner and that we have this open discussion on the article. So take care, --Kt66 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of the Teachings and Spiritual Programs sections

Below is my proposed text for the merge of these two areas. It removes the duplication of the books and also reduces the unnecessary repitition of the "Geshe Kelsang, this,...", "Geshe Kelsang that...". (Robertect 21:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)).

Spiritual programs

The New Kadampa Tradition has been developed on the basis of Geshe Kelsang's teachings and published books which follow a selection of Gelug Teachings of different Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana texts. Their main practice is Lamrim (Stages of the Path to Enlightenment), Lojong (Training the Mind) and Vajrayana Mahamudra (The practices of Highest Yoga Tantra).

At the heart of the NKT are three study programs which have been prepared with the objective of creating a systematic study and practice of Buddhism for people in the modern world. To this end the presentation of the Dharma focuses less upon Buddhist philosophy and more upon integrating spiritual practices into daily life.

The NKT emphasis on only one author and one main teacher has drawn the criticism that these programs represent a partial and exclusive understanding of what the Buddha taught and also that the programs and texts are different from those emphasized and taught by Je Tsongkhapa and which are still followed today in the Gelug Tradition.

The three programs are: The General Program which provides a basic introduction to basic Buddhist ideas and meditation.

The Foundation Program which includes the study of six commentaries written by Geshe Kelsang to the following classical texts:

• Joyful Path of Good Fortune - based on Trijang Rinpoche's teachings on Lamrim or The Stages of the Path to Enlightenment
• Universal Compassion - a commentary to Bodhisattva Chekhawa's Training the Mind in Seven Points
• Eight Steps to Happiness - a commentary to Bodhisattva Langri Tangpa's Eight Verses of Training the Mind
• Heart of Wisdom - a commentary to the Heart Sutra
• Meaningful to Behold - a commentary to Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life
• Understanding the Mind - a commentary and detailed explanation of the mind based on the works of the Buddhist scholars Dharmakirti and Dignaga.

The Teacher Training Program is intended for people who wish to train as NKT Dharma Teachers. All Resident Teachers of NKT Centers follow this program of study and practice. The program involves the study of 14 texts of Geshe Kelsang including all of those in the Foundation Program and also the following 8 listed below. In addition this program includes commitments concerning one's lifestyle based on the 5 lay vows of the Pratimoksha and the completion of specific meditational retreats.

• The Bodhisattva Vow - A commentary to Mahayana moral discipline and the practice of the six perfections.
• Ocean of Nectar - A commentary to Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle Way
• Clear Light of Bliss - A commentary to meditations of Highest Yoga Tantra.
• Great Treasury of Merit - A commentary to the traditional Offering to the Spiritual Guide practice of Je Tsongkhapa
• Mahamudra Tantra - Meditation on the nature of mind according to Tantra
• Guide to Dakini Land - A commentary to the Highest Yoga Tantra practice of Vajrayogini
• Tantric Grounds and Paths - An explanation of the practice of the lower and upper classes of Tantra
• Essence of Vajrayana - A commentary to the Highest Yoga Tantra practice of Heruka

In the past participants of the study programs were advised not to read other books, nowadays however, Geshe Kelsang has given his permission that his followers can also read other books. Dorje Shugden is the main protector practice in the NKT. It was taught to Geshe Kelsang by his teacher Trijang Rinpoche and is seen by him as a part of his lineage. Geshe Kelsang has remarked that he regards all his books as coming from Je Tsongkhapa, with himself as being like a cassette recorder into which their Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden, has placed the cassette of Je Tsongkhapa's teachings.

Hi Robert. I wrote my adds and changes cursive. And put also some blank lines in it to have more space to catch the points. Do you can agree? --Kt66 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I removed one italic which seemed unnecessary and also changed a little bit the order of some sentences to make more sense of the blank lines. Have another look - thanks (Robertect 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Kt, a question, what do you mean by different to those emphasised and taught by Je Tsongkhapa? Also why do you feel it important that NKT teaches a selection of Gelug teachings? I have been looking at the Geshe degree [17] for example and the subjects (with the exception of Vinaya and Abhidharma) are more or less the same. I would appreciate an explanation of your reasons. Many thanks (Robertect 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

My opinion is that the revised copy (as of 22 May) looks quite good. I agree with Kt66 regarding both 'emphasis' and 'selection': examples of Geluk teachings not taught in the NKT include many of the HYT deities - eg. Guhyasamaja, Yamantaka, - and therefore the special 'Jig-De-Sang' tradition among others. I am unsure about the status of debate, and regarding views - I am uncertain as to the depth of teaching regarding both the Wisdom and Method lineages of Nagarjuna and Asanga respectively. There are also many texts of Je Rinpoche, such as the Ngag Rim Chenmo, which includes a complete set of teachings regarding all four tantras, with special details regarding initiations which do not appear to be published under the aegis of the NKT. I am unaware of the representation of the various phases of development of view as represented by a substantial set of works by Je Rinpoche. The Lam Rim Chenmo is missing - albeit covered by a smaller volume, which places less emphasis on view, and greater emphasis on the low scope. Not to mention the thousands of volumes of text generated by great Geluk lamas following in the steps of Je Rinpoche. Of couse, if the NKT were to include all Geluk teachings, it would be Geluk (which is a Tibetan tradition) rather than NKT. (20040302 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Dear Robert. I agree to 2nd March. I think you can also find it out easily by reading the source you gave or visit a Gelug monastery. None one two (short, but essential) text of the Texts of Tsongkhapa is studied in NKT (but none of his six main texts), none scripture of Nagarjuna, none scripture of Maitreya, and just one Sutra. A debate culture is also not there and the four schools on emptiness are also not studied. Collected Topics (bsdus grwa) and Types of Evidence (rtags rigs) are not studied and by this NKT followers are unable to debate properly. However Types of Mind (blo rigs) is studied. The NKT debate is: to find good reasons why Geshe Kelsangs sayings are right. (It is in a way foolish you can easily see this by entering the NKT Yahoo Group - and I know it from experience too). Also there are only used relyable and well checked commentaries of undoubted masters on the main texts, rooted in the Gelug school not contemporary works of a single (and disputed) author. Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika (Commentary on Valid Cognition) and Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma-kośa (Treasury of Abhidharma) and Gunaprabha’s Vinaya-sūtra is not studied and the like. Especially the high respected commentary on Guhyasamaja of Tsongkhapa is not studied and it is said in that teaching: There is no (Tantric) Dharma if there is no Guhyasamaja Tantra. This is to underline the importance of that Tantra and its commenteries. All the main tools of Gelug (Tsongkhapas texts, the great Indian Pandits texts (except Chandrakirtis), the Vinaya, the debate and the union of the three Tantras (Guhyasamaja, Yamantaka, Heruka) are not present. And how solve NKT the latter problem? "Geshe-la explains in Heart Jewel how we are supposed to view him (Shugden). He is the wrathful aspect of Manjushri, and Je Tsongkapa is the peaceful aspect of Manjushri. His retinue (9 attractive mothers, eight guiding monks, and so forth) are the same exact deities as of Je Tsongkapa's body mandala. Je Tsongkapa's body mandala is actually Guyasamaja's body mandala. Which means that Dorje Shugden is also Guyasamaja, the spiritual power of all the Buddhas. The three lineages of Je Tsongkapa are the wisdom lineage, the compassion lineage, and the lineage of spiritual power. According to Highest Yoga Tantra, Yamantaka is the synthesis of the wisdom of all the Buddhas, Heruka is the synthesis of the Compassion of all the Buddhas, and Guyasamaja is the spiritual power of all the Buddhas. For us, we view Je Tsongkapa as the same nature of Yamantaka, Heruka as Heruka, and Dorje Shugden as the same nature as Guyasamaja. Thus we rely upon the three lineages of Je Tsongkapa through our reliance upon Je Tsongkapa, Dorje Shugden, and Heruka (or Vajrayogini). For us this is who Dorje Shugden is. This is the way in which our Guru tells us we should practice. Other Guru's say different things. The point is who he is depends on your view of him. If you have even the slightest understanding of emptiness you can understand quite clearly that if you mentally construct Dorje Shugden to be the synthesis of the spiritual power of all the Buddhas, then for you he will be." the source was sent me by email and comes from the NKT. It is quite funny by relying on Tsongkhapa and Shugden that one will also practicing the Ghyuasamaja Tantra...Also another important difference is: NKT offers one Dharma bundle for all (uniformity of belief): this is not Tsongkhapas/Gelug style at all. --Kt66 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, you can see these texts (one by Atisha and two by Je Tsongkhapa [18] are regularly refered to and taught in NKT centers - I always assumed when you said no text of Je Tsongkhapa that you were being figurative not literal. Also for the record I agree to March 2nd's analysis above. Best wishes (Robertect 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)).

Oh fine. Thank you. So I have to correct myself. There is one text of Tsongkhapa used. Regrads, --Kt66 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good then, 2nd of March - I am happy to use the last version on 22nd May authored by Kt66, Patrick to you agree?. - I see also your point re teachings and I am not in any position to comment but accept what you have written as the basis for these statements. Thankyou (Robertect 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

Hi, you all know far more than me so this is fine. As for no texts by Je Tsongkapa in the NKT, we do study "The 3 Principal Aspects of the Path" - I have been to a weekend course on it. As for not doing the Guhyasamaja practice, from my limited knowledge there is only a need to do 1 Highest Yoga Tantra practice, so it is not needed to do this practice if you do Vajrayogini. Vajrayogini was taught to Geshe Kelsang by his Spirtual Guide so I do not see a problem with doing this rather than Guhyasamaja in the NKT. As for not being a debate culture, my experience is that at the end of classes there is an opportunity to discuss the points raised in the class with other people and to ask questions to the teacher.

Cheers Patrick --Patrick K 09:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi There Patrick. Thank-you for describing your experience. However, don't be mistaken - there is no need to justify what practices the NKT teach, as there is no attack on this issue. The basic premise is that the NKT teach a selection of the Gelugpa, sometimes with a different emphasis. This does not detract from the activities of the NKT, but places them in context. Indeed, it also aids support to the basic thesis that the NKT are a tradition separate from the Gelugpa, but where at least the general teachings are derived from the Gelugpa.

On a factual note, you are correct that for those fortunate enough to be able to walk the path of HYT, only one deity is necessary. Here we can see a difference in emphasis: in the Gelukpa the choice of primary deity is made according to the particular requirements of the individual. Sometimes this includes a special group of deities rather than, one such as Jig-De-Sang, and sometimes many more. Also, many individuals have particular connections with other deities of the hierarchy. Eg, Tara remains popular across the whole of Tibet and all across the himalayas lay people recite the 21 praises with their children every evening. In my eyes, one of the most beautiful aspects of Tibetan Buddhism is the vast array of deity practices and lineages to be found in each of the schools.

The Three principles is a wonderful text. I used to recite it daily for some time and I used it as the basis of my meditation in a retreat back in the '80s. There are also several good commentaries in English. None of us deny that the NKT use texts authored by Je Rinpoche. But it would be hard to assert that the NKT uses all the texts authored by Je Rinpoche; even more so the collections by his sons, and all the great lamas of the Gelukpa school. Even Pabonkhapa wrote many volumes of texts, of which very few have been translated into English. As there is no (is this right?) translation department within the NKT, it is unlikely that Tharpa will ever be in a position to publish these thousands of keys that gently unlock the gates to enlightenment.

Regarding debate - what you are talking about is healthy discussion, but this is not special training in logic and reasoning; moreover it is not training in the great debate tradition of the Gelugpa. It appears that this (quite technical and specialised) aspect of the Gelugpa is considered unnecesary in the NKT, hence it is a distinction.

On a final note, especially as the NKT doe not restrict students from reading books published outside of Tharpa, I heartily recommend that you acquire and repeatedly read the Lam Rim Chenmo by Je Tsongkhapa (ISBN 1559391529, ISBN 1559391685, ISBN 1559391669 - impartially translated by an entire commitee of experienced translator-practitioners and geshes) - possibly the singlemost important text there is for those who would call themselves followers of JE Rinpoche. The Wisdom chapter alone is enough to bring tears of wonder and faith to my eyes. The text as a whole renders me speechless. (20040302 10:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

@Patrick: if the NKT really use and teache the text of Tsongkhapa "The Three Principle Aspects of the Path" than this would be indeed the first text of Tsongkhapa they directly use and this would be well done because it teaches correct on emptiness. If this is the case than my statement: "they use no text of Tsongkhapa" wouldn't be correct and I would avoid such claims in the future and do apology for it. But before correcting myself I wish to check this, so my question is: Did the course leader just offer the idea of the 3 Aspects based on Geshe Kelsangs books or did he really use and give a copy of the text of Tsongkhapa? You'll find the translation of the orgigin text here Did the NKT teacher give a commentary on this text? Thanks a lot. -Kt66 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, Robert gave me the reference: [19] So this text is used by NKT indeed and I excuse myself. So we have one Sutra and one text of Tsongkhapa and one text which were studied by the ancient Kadampa Tradition (Shantideva) which NKT uses. There are also commentaries on different other texts like Chandrakirti and the like. All this is fine and good and it is not correct to crtisize this, because every relyable text is a treasure. The point was to discriminate on what NKT is based and to show that it is separate from the emphasised texts of the Gelugpa and Kadampa Tradition. --Kt66 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, you might say i'm "nit picking" but there are two texts by Je Tsongkhapa in that link, the second is Prayer of the Stages fo the Path, you can see a different translation on the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive web site [20].(Robertect 08:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)).

@Robert/2nd March/Patrick: I changes slightly the suggested section above: I added texts by Geshe Kelsang in the TTP program and replaced Guide by commentary. --Kt66 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I moved this version over to the article. As always feel free to correct any errors I may have made in doing so. I am away now for a week. Thanks for all the hard work. (Robertect 08:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you very much for your hard work and corrections too. If you are back we can add - if you like - also the revised and discussed ordination section. I wish you a nice relaxing week and the editors a nice day. --Kt66 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Robert, thank you very much. Here my comments:

• I’d like to avoid stating and using “New Kadampa Buddhists”
• Reason: There is in general no discrimination between Nyingma Buddhists and Sakya Buddhist and Gelug Buddhists. So it makes no sense to establish a “New Kadampa Buddhist”.
• I’d like to avoid stating and using “The swift path to enlightenment”
• Reason: This is a euphemism. It hides that it is also a very dangerous path leading direct to hell if one or the master is not fit for ;-)
• I disagree with: “which is said to represent the essence of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine.”

You are correct, also in Geshe Kelsang's books this idea refers not only to Je Tsongkhapa - this was my mistake.(Robertect 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

• Reason: The Vajrayogini Tantra of NKT is not seen as the “essence of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine.” This is just one of the many trials to claim NKT is the essence of Tsongkhapa which is disputed. Lamrim, Lojong and Vajrayana is practiced also by Kagyues, so do they “represent the essence of Je Tsongkhapa's doctrine.” too?
• “The NKT emphasis on only one author” I’d like to add “and one main teacher for all followers”. (or we have to discuss further)
• Reason: NKT is based sole on Geshe Kelsang: His books, his teachings, his views, his ordination and the like. All who teach in NKT have to accept him as the highest authority and as stated by NKT brochure of the TTP class: “"...every NKT teacher must give exactly the same explanation [of the works of Geshe Kelsang, the founder] , otherwise the NKT will disintegrate... Therefore this generation of Teachers must try very hard to come to complete consensus as to what is the correct interpretation of every single section of every one of Geshe-la's books" Even he states (wrongly) in the Bodhisattva vow No 34 that it will be a fault "Prefering to rely on books, rather than to rely on our spiritual guide". By this he is even enhancing his power and increase the dependence towards him. (The correct meaning of this vow is: "Deprecating him and referring to the letter". This has two meanings: not to be disrespectful to the teacher. And second: not to rely on his word literally. You have to look for the meaning of his words.) I feel your section is a little bit hiding this now. On the other hand before it was perhaps overstretched. But now it is hidden and I will not agree.

My suggestion: The NKT emphasis on only one author, one Abbot, and one main teacher for all followers. This has drawn the criticism that by these NKT represent a partial and exclusive understanding of what the Buddha taught based on the understanding of Geshe Kelsang. Also texts are different from the traditional Tibetan Gelugpa program of study and meditatation as it was emphasized and taught by Je Tsongkhapa within the monastic community and is still alive today.

--something like this. I think you will understand. The article as we have it now makes this more clear without criticizing GKG/NKT. It just states clearly what it is. Personally I feel you wish to cancel this clarity.

• Next is the statements of:

“The General Program which provides a basic introduction to Buddhist view” the point is what NKT teaches of emptiness and you can impute what ever you like is not Buddhist view. So I can not support this sentence. That’s why it is quite moderate to write: “the Dharma-presentation of Geshe Kelsang” because this let open if this is Buddhist view what NKT teaches.

Kt, I don't agree here. This is not what NKT teaches, also you can see that Geshe Kelsang's commentry to the 9th Chapter of Shantideva's Guide and his commentry to Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle way are both accepted as following the traditional Gelugpa view of emptiness (for example see the John Powers Review of Ocean of Nectar and Trijang Rinpoche's praise of Meaningful to Behold). Additionally you take buddhist view too literally, GP hardly touches on emptiness. I suggest a rewording of Buddhist Ideas to replace Buddhist View. (Robertect 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

• also I can not accept the use of blurring words like “six commentaries prepared by Geshe Kelsang” the commentaries are written by him it is his view on their works.

All together I can not accept you suggestions here. But we can discuss how to improve the yet present sections. Best Wishes, --Kt66 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt, I made changes to the proposed text according to your comments. Please reveiw again and let see if you are happy. Many thanks (Robertect 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

Ordination

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

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

O fine. I can agree. Thank you.

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

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

Thanks for highlighting that 20040302, apart from in this Wiki discussion I have never heard it suggested that NKT ordination vows created a schism so perhaps my wording is not correct. It is certainly the case that Geshe Kelsang intends his ordained sangha to practice in accordance with the meaning of the Vinaya as laid down by Buddha. I understand the intention of Geshe Kelsang to be simillar to the project of Thich Nhat Hanh to update the vows[21]. In response to Kt's point above I quote from Thich Nhat Hanh's web site on this, because these are the sentiments I believe Geshe Kelsang shares, certainly he has no intention to offend or criticise other Buddhist monastics "For a long time it has been the desire and intention of Buddhists to revise the Pratimoksha so that it can be true to the Buddha’s teachings as they can be best expressed in our own time. The Buddha, Thich Nhat Hanh says, needs courageous disciples to make this revolutionary step....Buddhism is a living reality. Like a tree, the dead branches need to be pruned in order to allow new shoots to grow. The new shoots are the teachings that are appropriate to our time and culture." Lets get the thoughts of other editors.(Robertect 11:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)).

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

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

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

Is NKT Cult? Discussion

Due to the size of the response, I moved this section to it's own page: Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Cult Question

slight changes

Because we work extensive in WP GE on the NKT article I recognized inaccuratenesses in the WP EN article on NKT. I corrected them now. Please fell free to discuss it if you disagree with it. I think they are obvious so I didn't discuss them before. Thank you, Kt66 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also: The article does until now not provide the information that New Kadampa Tradition is a registered charitable company in England. We should add this I think but where? Kt66 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I hope you are well and enjoying the start of the summer (with a mind of non-attachment of course). I had an idea about 1 of the points I made earlier.

With regard to the Dorje Shugden issue - I wanted to add some extra text to the response section but Kt66 didn't want this. How about this suggestion - Delete this paragraph - "Another source of criticism of NKT is their emphasise on the Shugden practise. Although it was established by two of the NKT lineage teachers, it was later the subject of warnings by teachers such as the 5th, 13th and current Dalai Lamas, the 4th, 5th and 8th Panchen Lamas and Namkai Norbu Rinpoche among others. It is also said that the 14th and 16th Karmapas have spoken against that practise. For more see the Shugden article."

I can not agree to delete it (it is a fact that NKT is disputed because of Shugden and the addition on whom warned on Shugden make clear in short that not only HHDL warned on him.) However, we can improve the points to make it more unbiased/neutral. My criticism to your past suggestion was that it makes the article not more clear. However I agreed to have a note, that Shugden was taught to GKG by his main teacher. Kt66 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead, have a section in the main part of the article, perhaps after 'Growth' or 'Ordination' called 'Dorje Shugden'. It could have a short line like - "Dorje Shugden is the main protector practice in the NKT. It was taught by Geshe Kelsang's Spritual Guide Trijang Rinpoche but has been criticised by the current Dalai Lama. Please see the Shugden article for more details"

Of course we can include this sentence in the article. The point is where to inlcude it? I think we need no extra section on Shugden. I think we can put it in the Teaching section, can't we? We can add (something like this): "Dorje Shugden is the main protector practice in the NKT. It was taught to Geshe Kelsang by his teacher Trijang Rinpoche and is seen by him as a part of his lineage". This I can agree. I deleted "Spiritual Guide" - we should avoid to much spiritual language in the article. Also I deleted HHDL's view, this is yet stated and just to name HHDL as an opponent of Shugden is a reduction I can not support. With the Wiki Link the "Please see..." note is not needed, I think. What do you think on that? Also you should have in mind: Shugden never was an official part of the Gelug order, thats why I prefer this kind of sentence. Kt66 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be neutral and the reader can find out more details and all the arguments if they want.

Hi everyone, I hope you are having a good day. I have made that edition, thanks for your help. A few related points-

- Would it be okay to put a link after Trijang Rinpoche to a site which gives some more details on him (like the FPMT)? There is no wiki page on him.

I suggest to make a Wiki page. It is not that usual to put external links in the article - only in very seldom exceptions it is done. Mostly this is avoided. Kt66 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- It says in the text about the critics of D.Shugden - "Although it was established by two of the NKT lineage teachers, it was later the subject of warnings by ...". I think the use of the word 'later' is a little wrong - some of those people were around before Trijang Rinpoche. Therefore, it suggests that the 5th Dalai Lama was alive and teaching about D.Shugden after T.Rinpoche, when I think it is the other way around.

"later" is indeed wrong! I will delete it. Thank you! Kt66 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- On this NKT wiki entry, we have a list of some of the people who criticised the D.Shugden practice. Would it be balanced to list some of the people who taught the practice and encouraged it?

Why not but they should be undoubted be pro and have some authority evidence (not like the "fake" Kundeling Rinpoche), I think. And also it should be a short summerize. I suggest first to discuss it here. Kt66 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

- You all know far more about Tibetian history then me. Just a question about this comment -

"Also you should have in mind: Shugden never was an official part of the Gelug order...". Was Trijang Rinpoche the Gaden Tripa? If so, would it have been offical policy then? What about the person before the current Gaden Tripa, was he a D.Shugden practioner? I am just asking this because I have seen a statement on wikipedia from the currect G.Tripa about stopping the D.Shugden practice - this suggests to me that it was widely practised, and perhaps supported by the previous G.Tripa, or at least there was no attempt to stop it before this statment. But as I said, you all know more than me.

The information I have is stated above. Perhaps you find more in G. Dreyfuss' article. My information is allthough it was wide spreaded by Pabongkha Shugden was not an official part of Gelug school. Perhaps somebody knows more. If needed I can check it out more deeply. Also the current Gandne Tripas' main practice is Vajrakilaya I read, but this does not mean that Vajrakilaya is a official part of the Gelug order. But maybe I am wrong. In this subject I have not much knowledge until now... Kt66 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Dreyfus Article it is clear that Dorje Shugden was part of the institutional and public practices of the main Gelug Monastries, it says "(In 1977) The three great monasteries of Dre-bung, Ga-den and Se-ra, .... and the two tantric colleges were ordered not to propitiate Shuk-den in public ceremonies. Moreover, several statues of Shuk-den were removed from the chapels of the three monasteries. Finally, the Dalai Lama ordered the monks of Se-ra in Bylakuppe not to use a building originally intended for the monthly ritual of Shuk-den." (Robertect 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)).

That's an interesting interpretation, Robert. If your mother tells you not to go around naked in public, should we automatically assume that you have been doing that? I wish you wouldn't kill dogs. Should KT66 now assume that you have been killing dogs? It's also not too surprising that (especially in light of the role Pabonkhapa played in the Geluk) there could be found statues in some of the chapels; Considering we are talking about monasteries that include several thousands of monks, it would not be too surprising to find some support for Shugden. However, it would be a dramatic mistake, IMO, to imagine that DS played a central (or even particularly significant) role in any of the monasteries. (20040302)

De 20040302, i'm sure its not your intention but your tone appears rather rude. I would be delighted to get an informed discussion on this point which is why I quoted from a widely respected source. I agree that it is open to interpretation. This subject is difficult to get an honest and respectful discussion going so I suggest that the tone you inadvertently adopted is not going to be helpful in the long run. Many thanks for you consideration. (Robertect 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)).

So we can agree that this is open to interpretation. According to Dreyfus: "He (Pabogkhha) created a new understanding of the Ge-luk tradition focused on three elements: Vajrayogini as the main meditational deity (yi dam,), Shuk-den as the protector, and Pa-bong-ka as the guru." So if we take this and the other accounts of Dreyfus as a basis: the Shugden populartity is due to Pabongkhas influence. So if it had become the official part of the Gelug school, how this would have happened? Who changed the Gelug order to include Shugden as a main practice? It is clear that Tsongkhapa, Gyaltsabje and Khe Drubje didn't taught Shugden and empahsized three different and undisputed protector deities. I think this topic is still open in a way. Perhaps we need more sources to clarify this... --Kt66 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, absolutely I agree that it was through Pabongkha that the practice became widespread. Dreyfus also notes that Ganden Tripa's in the 18th Century did practices associated with Dorje Shugden, but they do not seem to have been mainstream. The question is only was it in 1977 considered to be an official practice? Lets not get side tracked into a discussion of whether or not that it was valid. (Robertect 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)).

Dear Robert, sorry if you thought I was being rude. I was attempting to merely be to the point. I feel no antagonism towards you. Regarding DS in 1977, I don't think we can use RD as an authority on 'official practices' of the Geluk; but even if we did, we could not use his statement above as evidence either. To me, the notion of 'official practice' requires some examination: what specifically warrants a practice for it to become 'official'? (20040302 18:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Dear 20040302, you are right. In fact your example was quite funny. I was just trying to gather information, but official - you are right its a difficult term to define and the source I used wasn't ideal. Unlike you I am partial and I guess sometimes over sensitive! Best wishes and thanks for the apology, please also accept mine. (Robertect 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Ok I think this is my fault. I can not remember now where I picked up that information, that "Shugden never was an official part of the Gelugs", so it turns back to me... I will think about it or try to remember or evaluate this. I think I read it when I read something about the local spreading of Shugden... sorry. --Kt66 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I hope you are well. I just typed in an entry and then deleted by mistake so here we go again! My question is, what is considered to be part of the 'tradition'? Can only practices taught directly at the time by Buddha Shakyamuni, Atisha or Tsongkhapa be considered part of the Gelug tradition? I am thinking about the practice called 'Lama Chopa' (Offering to the Spirtual Guide'). According to this FPMT Centre [[22]] it was '..composed by the First Panchen Lama, one of the greatest tantric masters the Gelugpa tradition...'. I think this person came after Shakyamuni, Atisha and Tsongkhapa, but I think this practice is considered to be part of the Gelug tradition. Therefore, it seems to me that a practice like Dorje Shugden could come after those 3 teachers and still be considered part of the Gelug tradition. Hope you have a good weekend. Patrick--Patrick K 10:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All the best

Patrick --Patrick K 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the change in ownership of Manjushri Institute, here are my views. Please bare in mind that this is only what I have gathered from the web and of course I am biased. I am a bit confused about the use of the term 'Lama Yeshe's Centre' when referring to Manjushri Institute in the 1970s. In what way was it his building? Had he bought it with his own money or had it actually given to him, so that he owned it outright? If this had happened, how could the onwership change against his will? For example, if my neighbours own their house, the ownership will only change if they make a decision. The only way for them to loose the house to someone else is if they don't pay their morgage. And if my neighbour owns his house, it is his and nobody elses. So I am a bit confused about how Manjushri Institute is thought to be 'Lama Yeshe's Centre' and yet he can loose control of it against his will.

Thanks for your time. Patrick--Patrick K 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, MI was a flagship centre of the FPMT, of which LY was the founder and the spiritual director. It is only in this sense that it was 'his': it belonged to the FPMT. IIRC, there were residents at MI which wished to separate themselves (and the building) from the FPMT. As I understand it, they used a potential drugs scandal (see New Kadampa Tradition:Take Over Transcription) as leverage to gain freedom of the FPMT. Many individuals consider this to be blackmail, though (like most blackmail cases) it was a mess that the FPMT themselves had not properly addressed. As a part of the agreement to relinquish MI, the group agreed not to bring the scandal to the attention of the authorities. I may be mistaken, but in my own mind, such collusion (or making use of it for one's own profit) is as karmically black as performing the act itself. This is all based on possibly mistaken memory. (20040302)

Hi there, thanks for this input. I have been reading your comments in the archive section, they are interesting as well. What does IIRC mean? So would you say it is incorrect to say 'Manjushri Institute was Lama Yeshe's Centre'? You say it belonged to the FPMT - did they actually buy it with their own money? Do you know when this transaction was made? Thanks for your time. Patrick--Patrick K 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC is Internet slang for "If I recall correctly"! - The building and grounds were bought by two early students of Lama Yeshe - (Harvey and Charles - see http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/bio/yeshe.htm ) for the organisation - and became an asset of the charity. It was the second 'Western' centre, after Chenrezig in Australia. Regarding the phrase 'Manjushri Institute was Lama Yeshe's Centre' - I would say it's would be better rephrased as 'Conishead Priory was an estate belonging to the charity, for which Lama Yeshe was the spiritual director and decision maker.' The transaction was made by Harvey and Charles, in order to encourage LY to come to the UK.(20040302)

Thanks, Patrick