Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Archive 1

message: I like to add that Geshe Kelsang is also very controversial. For further informations I added a link to informations from an ex NKT member, Thubten Gonpo. I'm also Ex-NKT. -- Kt66 12:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I enjoy in your joy, fine. Kt66 12:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also very controversial 

message: would it not be better to remove the page to Geshe Kelsang Gytaso he is known with this name. Kelsang Gytaso's name is known as the name of the 7th Dalai Lama. -- Kt66 16:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No the wikipedia convention is not to use titles before names and Geshe is something like Dr, in that it signifies the award of a higher degree, see prefixes. Billlion 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  oh thank you for this information - of course this makes sense! and thank you also for your fine corrections of my additions -- Kt66 22:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove page 

message: hi billion you changed and asked me...
I meant: took over. Geshe Kelsang Gytaso was invited by Lame Yeshe at Lama Yeshe's center: Manjushri Institute - an FPMT Center. The Ex-Member Thubten Gonpo own a tape on which Geshe Kelsang forced Lama Yeshe to give him the center. You find this in the phayul forum. That's why: He took it over. Just to say took over is quite neutral but implies also the question: how that?
As Thubten Donpo says he has documents and the tape from 22th July 1983 (oh tomorrow the tape has birthday!) which shows that Lama Yeshe was blackmailed by Geshe Kelsang. So to say "took over" seems to me to be more diplomatic than to say "blackmailed by...". 
The quote you find at:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:pXbqBr63L-gJ:www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx%3FpostID%3D40296%26cp%3D6+thubten+gonpo+Chip+Rodarmor&hl=de 
or just put "Thubten Gonpo Chip Rodarmor" into google.
Here a very short extract:
"However, at Lama Yeshe’s request the Dalai Lama asked Kelsang Gyatso to leave Manjushri Manjushri in Autumn of 1983 and repair to York and live in his (KG’s) own center there, the Madhyamaka Centre. His Holiness did this by sending his brother to Conishead Priory to discuss this with KG. Obviously, KG was not swayed by this emissary of the Dalai Lama.
As I said above, I am in possession of a document composed by Kelsang Gyatso (with the help of his English editors) entitled "Eradicating Wrong Views." It contains ALL the information about Kelsang Gyatso's tactics in acquiring Manjushri Institute for himself and it is this that NKT people do not want to hear. "
I know this stuff is quite strange. But sometimes this happens. 
That's why an article based on facts is very useful. --Kt66 19:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  took charge or took over 

message: I think the problem is to use the word "pure" to describe oneself as "pure tradition", "pure practitioners" and the like is the problem. Never I heard that any buddhist tradition nowadays says: We're pure tradition, you know: We're pure Sakya or pure Nyingma, pure Zen, and the like. And how would people feel if the Germans or Frenchs would claim: We're pure Germans, we're pure Frenchs. We're pure Eurpopeans! Or a katholic group would claim: "we're pure catholic!" ??
If you say: we're pure tradition than there must also be an impure tradition. If NKT is pure, is there anything outsite NKT impure? If not, why using this term? This term is just giving some exclusivity to NKT. 
On the other hand. NKT is no pure tradition even from their own defintion. The teachers of GKG taught him that homosexuality is sexual misconduct and GKG first put this also in his book Joyful Path, later he removed that passage. (Which I think is quite appropriate, because one has to understand the historical background of that explanation). But however he changed that explantion of his teachers! And of course he do not pass what was taught him about monastic tradition, he do not teach the Tantras him was taught, like Yamantaka, Ghuyasamaja, Kalarupa and the like. So better not to use the term "pure", isn't it? 
I think the discussion on NKT is not on "to hold power in Tibet" and such stuff. NKT has itself quite isolated within the buddhist community and even GKG has isolated himself from his family, monastic tradition and tibetan community and GKG/NKT make their own things now. And I think this comes from seeing the own things as superior or exclusive. From this concept of "pure" (pure tradition, pure practitioners), the following thought of exclusivity (to be something very special, better than others) arises and from this arrogance and proud arises (and is misunderstood as self-confidence) and from this proud the conflicts with other groups and the Dalai Lama arises. The unability to listen well to the detractors of NKT behaviour and develope a sence of selfcritic comes from this proud. This is my experience and opinion and I felt and did the same when I was with NKT for many years: I'm very special, I have special Karma, because I now within that pure tradition, admidst these pure practitioners. I'm even more fortunate than all the tibetans are, because they are misleaded by the Dalai Lama. And when I look on the pityful migrators who have not that luck as me, oh I feel "compassion". I'm so pure, I feel compassion, I'm very special Mahayanaist...
--> I needed years to understand that this was no compassion this was just pitifulness based on arrogance.
 
Of course you can ignore the Vinaya (monastic vows) and reduce it as a thing of numbers, thats your choice. But Buddha didn't taught that. He taught the Vinaya is the root of the doctrine. 
In NKT there are not "noumerous masters" like quoted here. NKT has only one master: Geshe Kelsang himself. If some NKT teacher gives an empowerment, they say: 'Geshe-la' gives the empowerment through me. So where are the masters? Only one: GKG!
However NKT is for many people also very useful and they like NKT and Geshe Kelsang very much. Hopefully one time will come when we can see us as the desciples of the Buddha and one Sangha-Community not less and not more. --84.190.170.220 08:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NKT 'refutations' 

message: I am aware that some people object to the issue of whether or not KG is a Geshe. Could a student (or someone in the know) actually state which Geshe degree he has, and on what date and where he completed his Geshe examination - after all. evidence is the key to removal of objections. 
Also, what dates he completed the tantric component of his degree (if he took it), and whether it was at Gyumed or Gyutod, and under whose guidance.
Likewise, it would be very useful to know what retreats (how long, which deities, and what locations, which tradition etc.) he engaged in between 1960 and 1977 - so far the only biographical details I have are that he resided at Mussorie, suffering from tuberculosis. 
Moreover, I am unaware of the date at which he left Buxar for Mussorie.
I am also looking for the date of his expulsion. It was in early 1999, but apparently he was expelled from Tsangpa Khangtsen before that. 
I am interested also in KG relationship with HE Zong Rinpoche. Back in 1983 I seem to recall that KG considered Zong Rinpoche to be his root guru. (20040302 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  KG biographical details request 

message: Dear Kt66 and others,
I have reverted your ammendment to this section for two main reasons:  March 2nd said in the discussion section of the article "New Kadampa Tradition" that he would like to see a complete list of the books and the subject they cover.  Furthermore, they ARE a major achievement (I think that other Buddhists and non-Buddhists would agree on this), and if you are going to write text that is critical of Geshe Kelsang, it is only right (fair, and balanced) to note his achievements.  Geshe Kelsang has made a major contribution to Western Buddhist literature (I would say Buddhist literature in general) with the publication of his books.  I could have been more gushing about them, but I deliberately refrained (for example, there is no book in this world like Essence of Vajrayana or Tantra Grounds and Paths, where tantric practice is explained so completely and practically), but I have been balanced, and I would ask you to be balanced too. - with love --Kelsangpagpa 20:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I agree, Geshe Kelsangs works should be noted, thats fair and neutral. But there is no need to list them all, isn't it?. To announce the 19 books are the "complete path to enlightenment" is mere Tharpa and NKT advertisement, what proofs there are for it? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. you can look at Wikipedia is no propanganda machine I suggest to make a link to Tharpa publication. Also we can see if other Wikipedias see this section of you as neutral. yours Kt66 20:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there folks, I think that it is a good idea to include the published works of GK - but any statement that they are a "complete path to enlightenment"  must be qualified - there are different points of view regarding this. Also, if we are to mention works he has published, we should include works written in Tibetan, including the controversial letters against the Dalai Lama. (20040302 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geshe Kelsang's Achievements 

message: So, in a manner similar to Lama Thubten Yeshe, he is an intelligent scholar, but he is not actually a Geshe. However, his teacher called him "Geshe", due to his strong intellect and academic bent, and it may be based on this appelation that he uses the title.
I have removed this because it is not neutral, nor is it factual.  It is mere speculation.  
If you wish to register some doubt over Geshe Kelsang's Geshe status in the article, fine, but you can't say "he is not actually a Geshe" because you don't know that. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there KP. Actually there is a need for evidence on the side of the claimant. I agree that "he is not actually a Geshe" may be too strong an assertion - however, "To date there is no evidence that he is a Geshe" is certainly not supposition. This is why I have been encouraging you to find evidence of his qualification. (20040302 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life in India - Geshe Kelsang's Geshe status 

message: I have updated the article, using extracts from the following. (Robertect 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning whether Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a Geshe or not

message: I have changed this section because it was inaccurate.  It is clear from the letter that the reason why Geshe Kelsang was expelled was because of his opposition to the Dalai Lama, not for recruiting monks in his 'fight against the Dalai Lama'.  I have also changed the date, as I remember the explusion coinciding with the NKT peaceful demonstrations against HHDL when he visited England in 1996. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two expulsion dates - the first was from his house, not from the monastary - and it is possibly this that happened around 1996. The latter happened as stated, in 1999. The expulsion letter refers to the earlier expulsion.  I will quote the part about recruitment from the letter in a minute (20040302 08:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sera Expulsion 

message: see the beliefnet board at http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=475214&messages_per_page=16
Kt66 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: for further discussions

message: Hi Robert. I used your section to improve it. We just discussed. Please don't revert, first discuss. What do you think about the sentence: "In the New Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang is the sole living spiritual authority and Abbot." It's true, isn't it? Of course my inputs in the article are a little bit provoking, nevertheless we'll find a way of balancing it and proof them. Hopefully we keep our clarity, sorry for any malaise, Kt66 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations

message: I don't like to delete that section, beacuse it is completely a fact. However, what do these statements give for security, how valid are they - even when coming from high spiritual authorities? My answer: They give no security and validity at all. One has the responsibility not to follow blindly what authorities said and has to check it out oneself - unbiased, openly and with understanding. As a remark on that point, I'd like to give reasons for this to the interested (NKT-)reader. One of the highest authorities in the lineage of Shugden adherents is surely Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche from Nepal. After Geshe Kelsang ejected his former representative in Germany - saying she is guilty for all problems which arised and all other people (including him) are not "guilty" - a person, a nun who is from my point of understanding a victim of the NKT itself and a person about whom Geshe Kelsang said: "she is a very selfish person" and the like... (most NKT's knows that story and how "bad" this NKT teacher is): She, this ejected, selfish person got a long Longlife Prayer from Kabje Dagom Rinpoche, in which he states, that she keeps the pure Tradition of Tsongkhapa and shines as pure like a white mountain and the like. Please think about that. The same you can follow by the acknowledgement of HHDL on AUM-Guru Asahara. This theaches me, what the Buddha said: "Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." So keep you're mind well. I leave the board-acticities, except for urgent changes. Kt66 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acknowledgement of his teachers

message: Hi KP Hi Robert. I changed the article section to make it more correctly and add now some reasons for it. In the Vinaya, which GKG studied and which lineage he keeps, there are different rules how one has to be ordained, what rules there are. These were negelected by GKG himself, instead of this he created a new style. This style is serving that he is the single authoritiy - like a cult leader - and no democratic rules are present anymore. As with the vows we discussed this yet at the wiki article board on NKT. As with the non-democratic ruler I give reasons now.
So if one in the ordained buddhist community makes a fault or says: This monk or Nun violated the rules. Then all the assambly has come together to check what is good and wrong. If they come to a decision they ask the monk: We ask you to stop this. Please do it not again... and the like (there is a ritual for it). If he/she doesn't stop then they repeat this three times. If after the third request the monk is going on with his bad habbit what is against the rules, than he can be expelled from the community - and has therefore to live at another place. 
If there is a conflict in the whole group of ordained and they can not make a clear decision than a second group of ordained from another place, who is not involved, have to been asked to mediate the conflict.
I think all this was done, when Sera Mey Monastery expelled Geshe Kelsang.
How does Geshe Kelsang respect the rules of the Buddha? I will give an symptomatic example:
When there was a conflict in Germany, because his reprasentative wanted to be recognized as a Tulku. There was no democratic basis for solveing this conflict. He decided on his own and talked and acted as follows: I tell you what is going on: "You are 'guilty' and all the other aren't 'guilty'" and he said he takes away all her vows, including her nun vows. (This is quite strange. One looses the vows if one breaks it, but noone can take them away because noone can possesses vows, except the person who received it. He is not a buddhist god who can give and take as he likes, he was just Buddhas representative, when he gave the vows!) He acted like a dictator, he made a meeting like a spiritual execution (and NKT members served as the audience) and when someone tried to said something critically than the fans of him fizzled: "Pssst. Geshe-la has said this." Then we tried to say that also NKT made faults. Then someone asked: Who is NKT? Geshe Kelsang Gyatso answered: "Me. I'm NKT". From this you can see: He is the sole 'Boss'. This is his view and if you look at NKT and know it a little bit internally you have to acknowldge this.
So I think this gives evidence for my changes in the article and is quite valid also with other stuff and background of NKT. And it is mere funny how NKT describes them as "Kadampas - putting all the teaching of the Buddhas into practice" and are not able to keep the Vinaya and democratic rules - even violates them. Hopefully a time will come were a reformer in NKT appears and changes this. 
On the contrary the Dalai Lama about whom GKG says: 'he destroys the Dharma', does the complete opposite: He cares for the Vianya, the rules and teachings on that and he establish and support democracy even in the Tibetan Community, but him Geshe Kelsang named as a "ruthless dictator". So what is a matter of fact and what not? Please check it out yourself. For further changes please discuss. Kt66 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vinaya Rules

message: If you read these different statements one can easily be upset and each site seems to have different views on GKG. I’d like to share another view which perhaps serves more understanding.
If you look at the Tibetan Culture, the heritage or its burdens, before the Chinese came it was more like feudalism and in many points quite degenerated, like that sometimes it was more important which height a throne of a teacher has and which throne of what Lama is higher; many rituals whereas precious scriptures’ were revered but not read and the like. I think one has to understand some of the cultural burdens to understand Geshe Kelsang and his opponents in a better way and to avoid to take on the faults and integrate them into western society and Buddhism. For this I can advice the film on Gendün Choepel “angry monk” the film on Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche “Word of my perfect teacher” and the text of him at: Tibetan Buddhism in the West
Another point of this is, that many Tibetans only have known their own valley, less of the other valleys and traditions and Tibet was complete isolated and closed – has complete isolated and closed itself. 
The emphasize of the Guru helped also the feudal system and was of course also misused. But the Tibetans developed their own mode of behaviour to deal with such faults whereas we in the west have not done this task yet properly.
So if one comes from this culture it is not easy to overcome it – even when one wishes for. One can not deny the cultural, historical, political and religious background, because all is interdependent, one has to understand it, not to neglect it.
So if a girl in her childhood had a very hard time of growing up, and her parents were not that kind to her, then of course she wishes to make it better with her own child later. But if you look, you will see: most parents do at the end the same bad things with their children as were done to them. Why? They know no other way. This is a pity, but is normal and only very few people are able to make it really better than the own parents.
In the same way to criticize the negative sides of the cultural, historical, political and religious background of Tibet and go to distance to it, as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and also other Tibetans have done it, is a good basis to change it, but it is a difference and more difficult task not to repeat instead the same faults without recognizing it - as the mother is unable to make it better and does the same with her child what she suffered from in her childhood.
Another point is, that Tibet has also very good sides and many great masters developed there, especially they kept the Indian Mahayana Sanskrit Tradition and scriptures - not found anywhere else today and one have to see also the qualities of their heritage and cultural, historical, political and religious background.
Both: One has to seen the qualities and faults. The same is with the western culture: One has to see the qualities and faults of Western Culture. And with the teachers the same: One has to seen the qualities and faults. Otherwise one is training in ignorance and will not learn from the situations as they are.
So if I look on GKG, I can see also his qualities. Although the Gelug Tradition at the end was quite fundamental, and one witness of it are the empowerment vows on shugden, GKG does not follow these vows and don’t pass them. The same is with: he was quite moderate with his definition of sexual misbehaviour, wereas Vasubandu (on the basis of cultural backgrounds and different other views) defined homosexuality as sexual misconduct. GKG removed this view of Vasubandu from his book of Joyfull Path, so that westerners will get an easier access to it. And there are many other things one has to acknowledge as a good intention of him. The same is with his effort and the effort of NKT followers to give all what they have: their time, knowledge, money, lifetime, energy and the like.
On the other hand GKG is quite contrary by always emphasising, that he has a “pure” tradition which noone has to “mix” and has completely to follow as he taught – whereas he himself, on his own, changes as he likes to do and later claiming his teacher allowed he is free to do that. And at the end he is even saying: there would exist no difference between NKT and Gelug/Tsongkhapa…
GKG has also isolated himself from his background and works quite isolated of the Buddhist Sangha on his own. He has no elder one to correct or reflect him. From my point of view he has now created a new feudal system, and became dictator who always decides on his own and only knows himself what is "good" or "bad". The radical attitude which this brings I could recognize by myself, when I saw how he treated one of his well loved representatives: it was a complete lack of compassion, he didn’t even understand interdependent arising and that from this, the idea: someone is “guilty” and all other NKT people, including him, are not "guilty" – as he said – is complete nonsense. He didn't recognize that he himself, his NKT and all the people, and also we the follower of this representative had created that "difficult situation" on our own and the main responsible one was he himself: because he put less educated, naive westeners after almost two years on the throne to teach the "pure tradition" and many start to fly high in the sky...and don't recognize it. Because we are "so 'pure' practitioners". 
This idea: I/we made no faults, I'm not "guilty", the other is "guilty", bad, deluded, have grudge, is aggressive and the like is quite syptomatic for NKT reactions also to critics.
One high Dzogchen Master said: If we Tibetans didn’t get the Dharma, we would be the Talibans of this century. This illustrates the radical style which sometimes is developed by Tibetans and is expressed also by their quite brutal law system and feudal structure in Tibet. You can also recognize this by reading the statements of GKG against the Dalai Lama and the reply by the Sera Letter of the Monasteries: both tones are quite radical and hard to believe.
On one side I have to acknowledge the trials of GKG to make it better than it was in the past in Tibet. On the other site it was HH the 13th and it is the present 14th Dalai Lama who worked that hard on it, to improve the Tibetan Society and their work are undermined by radical Gelug fundamentalists. 
Kt66 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Different View

message: Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and his political activities (due to his adherence to this deity) of 1996 through 1998 caused him to be expelled from his monastery and alienated from the Tibetan community. As mentioned in a 1996  interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. The open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the tone of his statements in the public letters led directly to the public  expulsion from his former monastery. Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.
:I corrected some grammar. Also the link for public expulsion was to dholgyal3 rather than the Sera letter, which I don't think was correct. I also removed the wikilink to Kashag, as there is no article yet. Moreover, we seem to agree that his political activities ranged from 1996 through to 1998, so I have amended the text to reflect that. 
:Lastly, I removed the word 'Geshe' - not to be provocative, but to be balanced - we have two names being used here - one is "Kelsang Gyatso" - which is the title of the article, and conforms to general wiki rules regarding doctorates, etc. and the other is 'Geshe Kelsang', which is a more familiar term for many people. I don't wish to push one way or another, but feel that the balance is about correct. However, 'Geshe Kelsang Gyatso' is a little too formal for this paragraph IMO. (20040302 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion