Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 5

message: Instead of text paraphrased from Geshe Kelsang's public statement, I think it is better to include the statement in full with a reference mark. I placed a http link for this, but should this be a footnote? I hope this edit is accepted. Avanze 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...it seems top me a little bit strange to have a list on that. The main purpose of mentioning these Lamas in the article is the wish to make clear that also other Lamas practiced it and NKT/GKG are not "alone" with it, instead making clear it was at a time quite popular among Gelugpas. Only for that purpose I see a need to inlcude some high/respected Lamas. I think that purpose is fulfilled and its ok if Robertect reincluded Lama Yeshe, I felt what I said above: it would be better to have there really high Lamas, who are even high respected among the Tibetans. The para was wished by Patrick. However, it's ok now as it is, I think. --Kt66 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shugden Issue

message: Hi Avanze and Patrick. Patrick's wish was to show that other high Tibetan Lamas practice Shugden too and this is indeed needed. The problem is: what are high Lamas in Tibetan Tradition? I removed Lama Yeshe, according to Alexander Berzin he received critisism from Tibetan Lamas because of his unconventinal style (there are special points on that), although he was high regarded among westerners, he was not that high regarded among Tibetans, although he was a Tulku and higher than GKG who is none. There is no doubt that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Zong Rinpoche are high regarded among Gelug followers. Pabongkha Rinpoche was charismatic and influential due to his charisma and approach to teach as the first Gelug Lama also lay people outside the monastery. But he was not seen as that high, he became influential - as far as I understood it - and because he emphasised himself as the Guru (especially with the sodge practice on Shugden (see Dreyfuss)) he became the root Lama of many. Of course he became a source of inspiration of many Gelugpas. However it seems to be that from his followers he was overemphasized and it is clear that he was scolded by the 13th Dalai Lama because of his Shugden/Sodge practice (see Dreyfuss). He had the lowest Geshe degree. By this I wish not to disparage him but to put his work in a differntiated context. According to Alexander Berzin it was also Pabongkha Rinpoche who put in many texts his name as the lineage Guru, although it is clear there were many of them. On the other hand Nyingmas seem not to have great joy on his/his disciples actvities in Kham. So high "respected Lamas" among westerners, "respected Lamas" among one school (Gelugpas) or "respected Lamas" by all Tibetan schools make some difference, I think. However we can include Pabongkha Rinpoche here of course. Dagom Rinpoche is seen by Shugden followers as a one of the highest present Lama, so it makes sense to mention him here. I think it would be good to include other high Lamas, but I mean high Lamas respected by the Tibetans from which Tibetan Buddhism was brought to the west. As far as I know Serkong Dorje Chang practiced it - he is very high and also his son and Tulku Tsenshab Serkong Rinpoche, but he stopped that practice because of his deep respect towards HHDL, although his root Guru is also Kybje Trijang Rinpoche. Perhaps we have to investigate that topic more deeply. See: Tulkus - The Mystery of the Living Buddhas. Conversations, Encounters, Backgrounds by Egbert Asshauer, ASIN: 3931997243, Fabri; 15th March 2006. What do you think on that, whom we should include and we know for sure has not given up that practice? And what sources do you have for that? I will check Assgauer the next days. Thank you very much, --Kt66 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...it seems top me a little bit strange to have a list on that. The main purpose of mentioning these Lamas in the article is the wish to make clear that also other Lamas practiced it and NKT/GKG are not "alone" with it, instead making clear it was at a time quite popular among Gelugpas. Only for that purpose I see a need to inlcude some high/respected Lamas. I think that purpose is fulfilled and its ok if Robertect reincluded Lama Yeshe, I felt what I said above: it would be better to have there really high Lamas, who are even high respected among the Tibetans. The para was wished by Patrick. However, it's ok now as it is, I think. --Kt66 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamas practicing it

message: Due to the size of the response, I moved this section to it's own page - Note to new editors, please review this discussion befrore creating new edits of the final article. (Robertect 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is NKT Cult? Discussion

message: The paragraph as we have it doesn't seem to be very proper. So I suggest to revise it based on the discussion and suggestion we still had + Thubten Choedroens Site: "The ceremony of ordination as a sramanera or sramanerika (novice) is conducted on the basis of having taken the lay precepts of an upasaka/upasika, and rabjung (renunciation, leaving the householder's life). Then one takes the novice vow of a sramanera/sramanerika. The ceremony consists of preparation, actual practice, and conclusion.." +  "Levels of Ordination 
1.Someone who has completed a period of two years as a temporary monastic may make a request to the Monastic Council that they be considered for Parma Rabjung ordination. This level of ordination is a lifetime commitment and is held  for one to two years before taking the next level of ordination. 2. Further levels of vows are novice and full ordination." + To light how important the Vinaya in Buddhism is one can listen to the Vinayastutra (Buddhas words): "As long as the complete Vinaya, the supreme treasure, abides, The lamp of Dharma shall abide."+"In many Sutras and Shastras it is clearly stated that the single innermost treasure of the Buddhadharma is the Pratimoksha discipline." (His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Advice from Buddha Shakyamuni) + Je Tsongkhapa: "The Sugata’s doctrine’s supreme essence, Which is known as pratimoksha" --> taken from past discussion
My suggestion is:
Geshe Kelsang gives for his followers an ordination based on 10 vows. This ordination is comparable with the Rabjung (tib.) ordination, which is a lifetime commitment and is held normally for one to two years before taking the next level of ordination of Novice (tib. Getsul) and full monk or full nun (tib. Gelong or Gelongma). The novice and full ordination, as laid down by the Buddha in the Vinaya and in the Pratimoksha sutras, are not given within NKT, so that the complete Vinaya is not present. The complete Vinaya is described as the "the essence of the doctrine". 
Geshe Kelsang himself argues that he designed the ten vows of NKT ordination to be appropriate for living in the modern world and that the skilfull practioner can gradually learn to incorporate the vinaya within these 10 vows. The first five vows of NKT ordination are in accordance with the Rules of novice monks and novice nuns, but the last five additional vows differ from it. In the past Geshe Kelsang has said that Lamrim as taught in his book "Joyful Path of Good Fortune" can also be considered the Vinaya text for NKT practitioners. The guiding principle of ordination in the NKT is the motivation of renunciation (Tib.: nge-jung).
I will put it in the section because I think the section has now more faults than correct facts. If you don't agree please improve or revert it. Thanks a lot. --23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revision of the ordination section

message: citation of the pages 82-83:
::Most often, what is forgotten is forgotten because it no longer fits in with the current version of events, especially one constructed by an elite group. Sometimes, indeed, unwelcome memories are systematically destroyed by leaderships. (Coney 1997)
Leaderships exclude memories by expelling individual malcontents or by simply not referring to unwelcome historical facts until they 'cease to be part of the group repertoire of memories'. Changing the name of the leader or group also allows memories associated with previous designations to fade whilst promoting the creation of new memories. The project of deliberately excluding histories, however, is not always completely successful because repressed memories 'can return to haunt the margins of a discourse and continue, despite their apparent absence, to influence its structure'. Alternatively, competing versions of events may only become temporarily submerged within the dominant account and may later 'rise again to the surface of the collective memory'.
The NKT is a religious movement in which the dynamics of history construction, as outlined by Coney, are well exemplified. Multiple 'histories' exist on an individual and public group level both inside and outside the move¬ment. As the pre-history of the group is rooted in conflict and schism the social organisation of memory and forgetfulness especially the group's leadership is particularly striking. Accounts of current and former members either reinforce or contradict and compete with each other. They diverge widely over points of historical detail and often interpret the same events and processes in very different ways, reflecting a wide range of personal experience, depth of involvement, bias, opinion and loyalty. At the level of public discourse, the history and identity of the NKT has also, during the course of its development, undergone considerable realignment. Of course, such revision and reconfiguration of the past is commonplace within religious movements that are more concerned with issues of identity and ideology than with notions of historical veracity.
It is important that the observer looking at the NKT today accounts for the substantial pre-history of the movement's emergence in Britain, examining carefully the forces that influenced Geshe Kelsang's thought and the direction of his centres in the years preceding the NKT's announcement in 1991. Otherwise, there is a danger that the pre-history of the group might be (mis)placed within a narrative of continuity; that is, understood as if the features characterising the organisation today were always part of its outlook. Such anachronistic readings of the group's history are not uncommon among both NKT disciples and non-NKT Buddhists alike, who often place the group's emergence into a simplified teleological narrative, albeit for quite different personal and ideological reasons. Other disciples retain a greater awareness of the complexities of the group's historical emergence in spite of the leadership's attempts, at the public level of discourse, to eradicate certain Unwelcome memories' of discontinuity and conflict by presenting an overarching narrative of continuity.
Individuals who are most likely to place the NKT's emergence within an overarching narrative of continuity fall within two main groupings: on the one hand, certain longstanding students within the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) whose dealings with Geshe Kelsang and the Manjushri Institute terminated in the early 1980s; and, on the other, current NKT disciples whose involvement does not predate the forma¬tion of the organisation in 1991. Both groupings tend to lack an adequate awareness of the historical development of Geshe Kelsang's emergent network during the 1980s, and their very different backgrounds and personal experiences ensure that their assessments are poles apart.
The conflict between Geshe Kelsang and the FPMT in the early 1980s provoked feelings of anger and disappointment amongst many FPMT students, feelings that remain unabated today. These students often explain the emergence of the NKT in terms of the desire for power and prestige that, they believe, motivated Geshe Kelsang first to attempt to 'seize control' of the Institute and eventually to 'steal' it from its mother organisation. The origin of this drive for power is variously explained - as a result, for example, of the excessive devotion he received, upon arriving in England, from naive and undiscriminating Western practitioners; or as a product of his 'Extreme envy' of Lama Yeshe, who was formerly a junior student to him in Sera Je monastery but who had now become the key personality behind a growing worldwide network of centres. The emergence of the NKT is thus described as the growth of a 'personality cult', orchestrated by a 'totally unscrupulous rogue geshe' through the 'cynical manipulation' of students and the 'transference of [their] loyalty and devotion' via the practice of guru devotion.
Current disciples of Geshe Kelsang whose association with him is relatively recent also tend to place the NKT's emergence within a narrative of continuity that bypasses its actual historical development. These disciples, who usually have little or no awareness of the early history of the organjsation, assume that since Geshe Kelsang is an 'enlightened being', the creation of the NKT had always been his intention. They tend to explain the years preceding 1991 as a penodf in which he Carefully and deliberately planned, prepared and laid the foundations for the later organisation. This approach to the NKT's historical development reflects the dominant narrative that has been publicly promoted by the leadership of the organisation. The 'official' version of the NKT's history has been reluctant to admit that Geshe Kelsang's thought has undergone considerable development and change during his time in the West. It has also, in Coney's (1997) terms, repressed the 'uncomfortable Other' of the Institute's conflict with the FPMT, ironing out the discontinuities in favour of a strong,…."
--Kt66 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kay on the history of NKT

message: page 86.
Waterhouse rightly observes that a fundamental element of the NKT's self-identity is 'the notion of the purity of Geshe Kelsang's lineage and the importance of maintaining that purity in practice’ (Waterhouse 1997: 151). According to the literature of the organisation, Geshe Kelsang united his centres as the NKT 'in acknowledgment of their pure lineage from Je Tsongkhapa', and the explicit constitutional aim of the organisation is to preserve and promote this pure lineage as it has been handed on by Geshe Kelsang via the organisation's threetier study structure. This is based exclusively upon the teachings contained in his texts, believed by members of the NKT to embody the pure lineage in its according to the teacher at Tushita Centre, Blackburn,
::The NKT is pure Buddhadharma; it isn't invented in any way, it's just as if Buddha Shakyamuni revealed it [...] So I guess you could say from that point of view that there is nothing better to be found. And that is the defining characteristic of the NKT: it's pure Dharma, everything else is a distraction. That's the core of it, the important thing about it. Everything else is just the icing on the cake.
The lineage represented by Geshe Kelsang is considered to be 'pure' because it has not been mixed with or diluted by the teachings of other traditions. One disciple explained the notion of purity as follows:
::You may have one pure tradition and another pure tradition. If you mix them what you get is a mish-mash without any purity and you have destroyed two traditions. So we're very strict on keeping the purity of the tradition. There is nothing invented and nothing taken away. It's completely pure so we can rely on it.
Geshe Kelsang is believed to have faithfully represented the teachings he received from his root guru, Trijang Rinpoche, who in turn faithfully trans¬mitted the teachings of his root guru, Phabongkha Rinpoche, 'and so on all the way back to Buddha Shakyamuni'.
--Kt66 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kay on the Purity and impurity approach of NKT

message: (short citation of page 91)
The importance of cultivating a mind of faith and devotion in a qualified guru or lama is a fundamental element of all Tibetan Buddhist belief and practice, especially in personal Tantric practice where the guru may be explicitly combined and identified with the yidam (meditational deity). Teachings on guru devotion and guru-yoga naturally form an important part of the texts composed by Geshe Kelsang, and his general presentation of this concept is rooted firmly within traditional Tibetan outlines of the guru-disciple relationship. His teachings on this subject have, nevertheless, changed and developed during his time in the West and they now incorporate a number of unusual features. The main shift in his thought occurred with the creation of the NKT. Discussions of the guru-disciple relationship appearing in his publications from this time reflect an exclusivism that did not characterise his earlier presentation and which is uncommon within traditional Tibetan contexts....
The uncommon on NKT Guru Yoga is the litrally taken view of Geshe Kelsang as a Buddha and the exclusive reliance on him, his teachings and his books and his sole power. The hierarchy is exactly as described by Singer for cult leaders (see Singer, Margaret Thaler: Cults in Our Midst, , pages 7 ff, The first and second of three points: "Origin of the Group and role of the leader" and "Relationship between Leader and followers). On page 8 ...imagine an iverted T, the leader is alone on the top, and the followers are all on the bottom.  
* Citation of the NKT Full Moon 1994 Gen Kelsang Thubten, successor of GKG at that time wrote in the article "On Training as a Teachers": "There is only one Teacher in the NKT, Geshe Kelsang; all other NKT Teachers are his emanations."
* Under the headline of "The NKT's organisational structure" page 84 Kay cites a "senior member" and long-standing NKT monk "The NKT hierarchy is Geshe Kelsang; and then there's a successor, someone who will be the spiritual director of the NKT after Geshe Kelsang passes away; and then there's everybody else, all on the same level really."
* „The exclusive reliance on Geshe Kelsang encouraged within NKT is transferred to his texts with the claim that they (GKG books) are ‘scriptures, an emanation of the mind of the holy being’.” quote Full Moon magazine winter 1997
*NKT magazine Full Moon, Spring 1995, Gen Thubten wrote: "People call Je Tsongkhapa the Second Buddha, not becasuse he replaced Buddha Shakyamuni but because he restored the essential doctrine of the Buddha and showed hwo it could practice in impure times. From this viewpoint, we have to say that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the Third Buddha, because he has once again restored the essential purity of Buddha's doctrine and shown how to practice it in extreme impure times."
====The student must be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once====
on page 92 Kay states:
Geshe Kelsang's texts list the traditional qualities that should be possessed by the ideal spiritual teacher, and he encourages students to check these qualifications thoroughly before relying upon someone as a spiritual guide. This attitude of crit¬ical enquiry should be retained throughout a person's spiritual career (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 144). Since the creation of the NKT in 1991, this teaching on the importance of personal authority in negotiating the Buddhist path has been overshadowed by an emphasis upon developing 'unwavering faith and confidence' in the guru and upon having faith in the teachings 'even if we do not fully understand them' (Kelsang Gyatso 1993a: 78). The exclusive emphasis on the authority of Geshe Kelsang is also reflected in the texts. The earlier view that practitioners 'must depend upon the advice of experienced guides - fully qualified spiritual masters - and meditate according to their instructions' (Kelsang Gyatso 1982:180) was replaced following the NKT's creation with the narrower claim that they must 'rely upon a qualified Spiritual Guide and practise precisely according to his or her instructions' (2nd edn: 190). According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must now 'be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once' (Kelsang Gyatso 1991b: 17).
The emphasis Geshe Kelsang placed in his earlier texts upon adopting an exclusive approach to one's spiritual tradition was continued following the creation of the NKT. However, this teaching now took place within the organi¬sational and ideological context of the NKT, and it was combined with the new teaching that one should rely exclusively upon only one trusted spiritual guide. Whereas the injunction about committing oneself to a single tradition was previously an attempt to encourage students to practise only the teachings of Lamas within the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, it now became an injunction to practise only within the NKT:
::Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely -relying upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 31)
Similarly, whilst the teaching that students should only rely upon teachers who 'share the same lineage and view as our principal Spiritual Guide' (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 102) is not an uncommon view within Tibetan Buddhism, where lamas will often encourage students to study under others who have a similar orientation to themselves, this teaching carried a very specific and untraditional meaning within the context of the NKT. Since students within the organisation have only one spiritual guide, the teaching is in practice an injunction to study only under Geshe Kelsang and teachers who have trained under him. Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.
Just to repeat it: Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.
I used this research as a qualified Wikipedia:reliable sources to improve the article, especialy the history section. Your comments are most welcome. --Kt66 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to be fair, I have spoken to Zen monks who suggested it to me that the best course of action is to choose one path only and devote yourself utterly to it. this might fit with the NKT approach. Magic Pickle 18:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their is a difference between following one path or limiting ones own understanding to the interpretation or experience of one person only. Tsongkhapa and Atisha followed one path only but had many teachers.Because every of their teacher had their qualities and strengths in different practices or fields of learning.--BoboLuna 19:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Could you clarify? If, for example I believe the NKT have the correct ideas, it is natural for me to follow the teachings of that organisation exclusively Magic Pickle 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kays note on NKT exclusivism and the uncommon of NKT Guru Yoga

message: on page 92 Kay states:
Geshe Kelsang's texts list the traditional qualities that should be possessed by the ideal spiritual teacher, and he encourages students to check these qualifications thoroughly before relying upon someone as a spiritual guide. This attitude of crit¬ical enquiry should be retained throughout a person's spiritual career (Kelsang Gyatso 1982: 144). Since the creation of the NKT in 1991, this teaching on the importance of personal authority in negotiating the Buddhist path has been overshadowed by an emphasis upon developing 'unwavering faith and confidence' in the guru and upon having faith in the teachings 'even if we do not fully understand them' (Kelsang Gyatso 1993a: 78). The exclusive emphasis on the authority of Geshe Kelsang is also reflected in the texts. The earlier view that practitioners 'must depend upon the advice of experienced guides - fully qualified spiritual masters - and meditate according to their instructions' (Kelsang Gyatso 1982:180) was replaced following the NKT's creation with the narrower claim that they must 'rely upon a qualified Spiritual Guide and practise precisely according to his or her instructions' (2nd edn: 190). According to Geshe Kelsang, the student must now 'be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once' (Kelsang Gyatso 1991b: 17).
The emphasis Geshe Kelsang placed in his earlier texts upon adopting an exclusive approach to one's spiritual tradition was continued following the creation of the NKT. However, this teaching now took place within the organi¬sational and ideological context of the NKT, and it was combined with the new teaching that one should rely exclusively upon only one trusted spiritual guide. Whereas the injunction about committing oneself to a single tradition was previously an attempt to encourage students to practise only the teachings of Lamas within the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, it now became an injunction to practise only within the NKT:
::Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely -relying upon one Teacher, practising only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 31)
Similarly, whilst the teaching that students should only rely upon teachers who 'share the same lineage and view as our principal Spiritual Guide' (Kelsang Gyatso 1992: 102) is not an uncommon view within Tibetan Buddhism, where lamas will often encourage students to study under others who have a similar orientation to themselves, this teaching carried a very specific and untraditional meaning within the context of the NKT. Since students within the organisation have only one spiritual guide, the teaching is in practice an injunction to study only under Geshe Kelsang and teachers who have trained under him. Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.
Just to repeat it: Even the most exclusively orientated Gelug lamas, such as Phabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoche, do not seem to have encouraged such complete and exclusive reliance in their students as this.
I used this research as a qualified Wikipedia:reliable sources to improve the article, especialy the history section. Your comments are most welcome. --Kt66 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to be fair, I have spoken to Zen monks who suggested it to me that the best course of action is to choose one path only and devote yourself utterly to it. this might fit with the NKT approach. Magic Pickle 18:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their is a difference between following one path or limiting ones own understanding to the interpretation or experience of one person only. Tsongkhapa and Atisha followed one path only but had many teachers.Because every of their teacher had their qualities and strengths in different practices or fields of learning.--BoboLuna 19:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Could you clarify? If, for example I believe the NKT have the correct ideas, it is natural for me to follow the teachings of that organisation exclusively Magic Pickle 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The student must ''be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once''

message: My teacher has said that someone once asked him when he was in a new country -'Are you here to spread Buddhism?', and he said something like 'I am trying to make people happy'.
I have a lot to say about this, if it is to be taken at face value. The use of 'compassion/loving-kindness' as a motive for teaching Dharma is very dangerous indeed. It is clear that such a motive leads directly towards evangelism and missionaries. It is based upon absolutist views - that there is a true path that is suitable for all individuals: Here is the reason - if I am unable to distinguish the specific requirements of an individual - (that is, if I am unable to be clairvoyant regarding the nature of an individual's karma) - how can I actually know how to make that person happy? 
We know that Buddha did not teach just one path - there are many paths and many doctrines in Buddhism. The original Kadampa tradition identifies a lack of conflict between these apparently conflicting doctrines by asserting that different paths are taught according to the needs of different individuals.
If we look at the function of compassion in accordance with the paths of Bodhicitta as taught by Atisha, we see that it is used to generate determination to achieve Buddhahood as quickly as possible - NOT to go out and teach. The Kadampas such as Geshe Chekawa wrote extensively about this.
The Christians (and other evangelic traditions) have an absolutist view - and in this sense, it is understandable that they take a patronising (read evangelic) attitude regarding other people - they believe that there is only one door to happiness and that they are the keyholders to it. 
Madhyamikas cannot accept this view however - because it makes no sense to hold any view as being inherently more truthful than any other view; instead there is only the specific context of each situation. We lean to discourse in accordance with the views of those around us rather than imposing our views upon them. We must be reluctant to accept converts and, at first, we should do what we can to persuade them to find peace in their own religious and cultural backgrounds. Our compassion is revealed through speaking the languages and worldviews of our dear mother beings, and not through imposing on them our languages and worldviews.
If we wish to make people happy, we must continually strive on developing a continuity of both relative and absolute bodhicitta in our mindstreams - until it becomes substantial reality. This is the way that we can benefit suffering beings most. Until then, we would be like burning victims in a burning building telling other victims that we have an idea about the way out; or like blind individuals foolishly believing we can see better than those blind individuals who listen to us. What a mess that would be. (20040302 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you 20040302. I printed it out and read it step by step. I found it quite helpful for my mind. --Kt66 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth and Compassion/Loving-kindness 

message: there were some slight changes I felt they were not that logical and it would be better to embedd them in a more conistent background of NKT history. I feel the revised section gives a better background as before on NKT history. --Kt66 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Avanze, I reverted. I think it is not that good idea to discuss POV in the article. First let discuss us here. The aim of the article is just to describe the NKT not to give commetaries. However, thank you for your work I will put it here. I just extended the history section to give a better background to understand the NKT development and their background. I doubt if the section added by you is of much help to improve the article/understandig, it comments more a euphemistic religious view...--Kt66 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: NKT literature has stated as describing the role of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the west as follows;
:"People call Je Tsongkhapa the Second Buddha, not because he replaced Buddha Shakyamuni but because he restored the essential doctrine of the Buddha and showed how it could be practiced in impure times. From this viewpoint, we have to say that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is the Third Buddha, because he has once again restored the essential purity of Buddha's doctrine and shown how to practice it in extremely impure times."NKT magazine Full Moon, Spring 1995, Gen Kelsang Thubten, successor at that time of Geshe Kelsang
However this claim maybe a misrepresentation as according to an interview with H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpche regarding the Samaya teachings of Buddha;
:"The Buddha taught very clearly in his teaching on Vajrayana, he never mentioned that there would be a Buddha appearing between Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Maitreya. What is really taught in Vajrayana is that the master, who teaches us the real meaning of the Buddha's teachings and makes us realize the teachings, is kinder than the Buddha because we do not have the good karma to meet any of the past Buddhas in person. But in this regard, people make mistakes and misunderstand."The Three Root Samayas, An interview with H.E. Dugu Choegyal Rinpche 
Patrul Rinpoche, the author of 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher', gave a very clear and simple explanation. He said, 
:"The root guru is respected and treasured as the Buddha not because he is the Buddha, but because his kindness which is beneficial to oneself is even greater than the Buddha's."
::thank you it is clear (for non NKT) that the Third Buddha Claim is quite quaint but let us wait for more commentaries on this by other editors. Even for my changes I am not sure if they will be accepted but as far as I see they meet the WP guideline and are based on fatcs descibing the NKT history. Whereas your add allthogh based on fatcs is a commentary on a philosphical/religious view. To discuss philosphical/religious view of NKT there is needed a different section I think but there are also guidelines for that (see Scientology) --Kt66 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm to be fair, don't some other sects emphasise the Buddha nature within us all and that we are all Buddhas (proto-Buddhas at least). Magic Pickle 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Third Buddha claim

message: My last changes are slight: BBC webspace and cat. If there is a need for further discussion please feel free to discuss/revert it...
As mentioned yet: I asked BBC by Email to correct the NKT article at their sites to fact. First they didn't reply at all, than I made a complaint and they answered by Email:
:Dear Mr ....
:Thank you for your e-mail.  I appreciate that you have noticed some errors on the Religion website on bbc.co.uk relating to the New Kadampa Tradition.
:I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and I can assure you that I have forwarded your comments to our site owner of the following website:
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/features/kadampa/
:I cannot guarantee that you will receive a direct response from the site owner, but I can assure you that the matter has been brought to his attention for his consideration. 
:In the meantime, thank you once again for contacting the BBC.
:Regards
:Paul Hunter
:BBC Information
:______________________________________
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland
So it seems as I said yet: BBC is not the owner of that sites. It is quite presumably that NKT is the owner and made the "BBC article" themselves...thats why it is according to NKT views/policies. And the article at About.com seems to be also written by a NKT follower (see the author Anthony Flanagan. Good PR ;-) --Kt66 05:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have noticed the difference. In the past the articles describing each sect were obviously taken from the self-description made by the sect themselves. This is not a neutral view, but rather one that at least guarantees the BBC is not making a partial view known, prescisely by letting the sect speak for themselves. But now I see the whole description section of the NKT has been rewritten and includes controversies and criticisms of the NKT. The problem is that one might complain as to why the NKT are singled out for this controversial description. The BBC hardly mention the controversies generated by the SGI-UK, for example. Overall the BBC religion section has been massively overhauled and is really informative, it has a lot of info covered by the book "The New Believers". Magic Pickle 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC have dropped their article on the NKT and the link is therefore now redundant. Excellentone 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, just checked man, and although the URL above is dead, the BBC's NKT article is alive and well here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/kadampa.shtml Magic Pickle 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NKT at BBC

message: Sorry for the disturbance. After consulting four different Vinaya commentaries of the Mulasarvastavada lineage, I see the need to correct that section once more. The point is: The first five vows in NKT are layfollower vows including the celebacy. I'll explain it shortly:
There are seven types of lay followers. It depends upon how many vows one takes or if one just take the vows of refuge.
The five lay follower vows are: 
*(1) to refrain from killing  
*(2) to refrain from stealing 
*(3) to refrain from lying
*(4) to refrain from sexual misconduct 
*(5) to refrain from using intoxicants
One is not obliged to take all five vows. The commentries describe seven types of lay followers: 
#Promising to keep just one vow
#Promising to keep certain vows
#Promising to keep most of them
#Promising to keep all five
#Keeping all five and also promising to keep the pure conduct of avoiding sexual contact
#Keeping all five, pure conduct, and wearing robes with the promise to behave like a monk or a nun
#Lay follower of mere refuge. This person is unable to keep the vows but he promises to go for refuge to the triple gem until death.
For a Rabjung (tib. means ordained person) there are needed the first three (No. 1-3) of these lay followers' vows and additional:
    * 4. no sexual misconduct
    * 5. no intoxicants (like alcohol or drugs)
    * 6. not dancing or wearing garlands, rosaries etc.
    * 7. not to eat after noon
    * 8. not to use high seats or beds
These five vows (No 4-8) are vows of ordained ones or Rabjung (tib.). The Bama.Rabjung ("intermediate ordained one") is one who is preparing to become a Novice (tib. Getsul or skt. Sramanera or pali Samanera). This person receives a Dharma name, shaves his head, wears robes, and acts like a monk or nun but he/she does not yet possess the vows of a ordained person. 
For more see: Monastic Rites by Geshe Jampa Thegchok, Wisdom Books, , pages 6-8.
For remembrance the 10 NKT vows are:
*1. abandon killing 
*2. abandon stealing 
*3. abandon sexual contact 
*4. abandon lying 
*5. abandon taking intoxicants 
*6. I will practise contentment
*7. I will reduce my desire for worldly pleasure 
*8. abandon in engaging in menaingless activities 
*9. maintaining the commitments of refuge 
*10. practise the three higher training 
and thus are rather belonging to the five lay followers of type 6 (vow 1-5 including celebacy and wearing robes) and the additional five vows (6-10) are not mentioned in the Vinaya or Pratimoksha and seem to be a creation of GKG. --Kt66 21:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition, serious misconduct with a monastery is treated by complete expulsion. Although this may seem severe, it is the result of a deep understanding of karma. To allow someone to break or repeatedly break rules results in an overwhelming accumulation of negative karma to the person performing this misconduct."Code of Conduct, Policy of Violating this Code of Conduct, Consequence of Serious Misconduct, Official Sakya Website, 
There is no contradiction to use a Sakya source, because
#it states in common According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition
#Sakya belongs to the same Vinaya lineage (Mulasarvastavada) as Gelug Tradition belongs to. (Until now I could find only agreements in this view, maybe this has to be investigated further.) According to Vinaya Teachings of Mogchok Rinpoche Panchen Shakya Shri, the Sakya Master Sakya Pandita and Lama Tsongkhapa belong to the same lineage. There is a slight differentiation between all the four Tibetan Buddhist school - who all belong to the Mulasarvastavada lineage - in "Upper region lineage" and "Lower region lineage", but this does not strike to how expulsions are dealt with and that expulsion is the strongest penalty for a monk.
--Kt66 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordination section once more

message: There was asked for a quotation on the expulsion. I added the passage:
:"According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition, serious misconduct with a monastery is treated by complete expulsion. Although this may seem severe, it is the result of a deep understanding of karma. To allow someone to break or repeatedly break rules results in an overwhelming accumulation of negative karma to the person performing this misconduct."Code of Conduct, Policy of Violating this Code of Conduct, Consequence of Serious Misconduct, Official Sakya Website, 
There is no contradiction to use a Sakya source, because
#it states in common According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition
#Sakya belongs to the same Vinaya lineage (Mulasarvastavada) as Gelug Tradition belongs to. (Until now I could find only agreements in this view, maybe this has to be investigated further.) According to Vinaya Teachings of Mogchok Rinpoche Panchen Shakya Shri, the Sakya Master Sakya Pandita and Lama Tsongkhapa belong to the same lineage. There is a slight differentiation between all the four Tibetan Buddhist school - who all belong to the Mulasarvastavada lineage - in "Upper region lineage" and "Lower region lineage", but this does not strike to how expulsions are dealt with and that expulsion is the strongest penalty for a monk.
--Kt66 09:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clarifying a passage

message: Hi SDdesigner,
your wrote:
:A number of former practitioners have left the NKT in recent years due to what they consider an underlying, albeit subtle anti-Tibetan sentiment. Aside from the fact the New Kadampa Tradition firmly discourage the term “Tibetan Buddhism” when referring to the NKT (a fact many find awkward because they wear traditional Tibetan monastic robes, call monks and nuns by Tibetan names, and practice traditional Tibetan rituals and study materials), there are no photos of the Dalai Lama allowed to be displayed in centers, and discourage in participating in other Tibetan Buddhist center’s activities. This, they claim, is because of an anit-NKT sentiment in other centers - a claim most who have visited other centers have found not to be true.
:Furthermore, the altering of Thangkas (traditional Tibetan paintings of Buddhist deities found in most temples) were re-framed, with the traditional portion of the brocade pressed behind the painting - potentially damaging the fragile fabric - and then set in Western frames with most of the brocade out of sight. Letters to NKT officials regarding the re-framing concerns received no response.
:Additionally, although difficult to discuss in this forum, are the remarks said numerous times from a variety of NKT officials with inappropriately anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama statements and implications.
I tried to sum it. I think it is not that relevant what with the Thangkas is. It could have some relevance by working out the condradictions between the claim of being "completely independent western tradition" and the heritage of Tibetan Buddhism what they neglect or deny. Perhaps such a passage is useful and needed. But just as a fact: where NKT put Thangkas in is not that important for the article I felt. 
::by the way the condradictions between the claim of being "completely independent western tradition" and the heritage of Tibetan Buddhism were acknowledged by scientific research too: However, there remains an apparent contradiction between claiming a pure Tibetan lineage and complete separation from contemporary Tibetan religion, culture and politics.;While the iconography of the NKT remains clearly Tibetan to an observer. Belither (2004) argued that the symbolism ‘would be recognised across traditions’, and Kelsang Namgyal (2004) confirmed that there is no attempt to preserve a Tibetan style, which is to do with ‘another country’s culture’ rather than the essence of Buddhism. There may be an ambivalence here, reflecting the NKT’s unusual relationship with traditional Tibetan Buddhism, but the prominent images of Sakyamuni, Tsongkhapa, Dorje Shugden and Geshe Kelsang himself, whatever their style, indicate the veneration with which these four figures are regarded.;Waterhouse (1997: 178) argued that the NKT is based so finnly on Geshe Kelsang and his texts and sadhanas that the so-called ‘essential Buddhism’ which he presents for Westerners ‘must be an essential Tibetan Buddhism’. Yet while the NKT strongly emphasizes its pure unbroken Tibetan lineage, it has no Tibetan followers and claims to stand outside current Tibetan Buddhism. see: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=14997 --Kt66 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: although difficult to discuss in this forum
So the anti-attitude towards Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama of NKT is one reason for some former members and there are other reasons for other former members too. For instance I myself and others where shocked by the activities of Geshe Kelsang himself... Please feel free to revert, improve or discuss that new section/my changes or disagree with me. --Kt66 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanka and other issues

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