Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 2

message: I do not feel the article is at all appropriate.  This is an encyclopedia, not a debate board.  The opening article should provide basic facts about the New Kadampa Tradition-ONLY.  Everything else that relates to either other people's opinions (!) as to if it's a Gelupa offshoot or a seperate group entirely should be confined to the bottom of the page about the controversy.
Likewise all the stuff about ordination should be removed and reposted as part of the debate section.  When people come and do a search on the NKT, they don't want to read people arguing, they want neutral facts.
I tried to be very fair in what I left in and took out, making it based on FACTS not opinions. ALL controversial comments as regards the NKT should be taken out of the main body of the text.
Also, the entire section that Geshe-la claims to be a Buddha is false, and everything that follows that erroneous statement is also false.  Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to make and perpetuate false statements about others.  It should not be used in ways which create a schism in the dharma community.
Putting up such slander and focusing on petty disputes harms the Buddhadharma, not your intended target, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.
kwinters
:Hi Welcome to the Wikipedia Community. It is a good idea to read the article Wikipedia, and you will see what is considered a good article. Opinions and views are relevant in an article, as long as they are declared as such. If you read the detailed queries on this page, you will see that there are lots of open questions that someone with experience in the NKT may answer.  Please be helpful and contribute with what knowledge you have, rather than go around deleting what you disagree with. After all, what makes your POV more relevant than anyone elses? (20040302 19:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kwinter: Hi Welcome to the Wikipedia Community and thank you for your remarks. I see no POV in the article. What is POV for you? What should be changed? The main article indroduces NKT now as what it is. It would be fine to improve it. So I ask you for your contributions. The Wikipedia discussion board on NKT seems to be like a debate board because there is a need to discuss the facts on NKT and no POV should be published. I think, these discussions are really nesseccary to point out the facts due to the confusion which NKT spreads. First we had to find out what NKT really is, because NKT and Wikis are very confused on that! Some think NKT is Gelugpa other think NKT is Kadampa. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso said "...in reallity NKT-tradition and Gelugpa are the same; there is no difference.." (I have a letter published by NKT on this). But in their advertisements NKT publishes: "We are Kadampa Buddhism as founded by Atisha." The Resident Teacher Kelsang Pagpa stated himself Thu Jul 8, 2004  12:45am in a discussion forum: "We are not Tibetan Buddhists, so we are not Gelugpas. We are not one of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. The Gelugpa tradition does not follow the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden, whereas Kadampa Buddhists do. Kadampa Buddhism is global Buddhism, straight from the heart of Guru Tsongkhapa in this modern age. Although the teachings are similar to those in the Gelugpa tradition, the presentation is quite different and more suited to busy Western practitioners. Also our lineage is quite different to the Gelugpas..." But Atisha didn't even mention Shugden and his lineage doesn't exist anymore seperated from the four main buddhist schools of Tibetan Buddhism. So what is NKT??? Before you can write an article on a subject you have to find out what the subject is. Before these discussions there were completely contradict ideas, these have been discussed here to ensure to have no POV. Lying harms the Buddhadharma and creates the shism. I try to destroy lies not a person! So enjoy to take part to have an accurate article which fits to reality is based on facts and not on lies or POV's by engaging yourself to improve and discuss the facts or form of the article. Kt66 09:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier feelings regarding appropriateness

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: Disputations made by NKT practitioners

message: Hi 20040302. First let me say my gratitude for your contributions on that article. As you supposed Gen Pagpa is having an incomplete understanding on emptiness - he has perhaps a view of Nihilism. I think this Nihilism is the main misunderstanding in NKT. I myself suffered on that - and taught in NKT too - I needed years and many techings to correct my wrong views (outside NKT). The main person who helped me was Dr. Alexander Berzin. This week I had contact with two NKT members and they have the same problem. Just let me share and I ask you for your opinion: 
1. One NKT-member said: he can speak with no one really because nobody understands him. He believes for instance there is no death at all, because death is mere a name and does not exist really. I said to him he negelct the cenventional reality by arguing like this. Then he said, that I'm perhaps a Buddha. I said: 'No! I have not the signs and realisations.' Then he said: 'If I see you as a Buddha you are a Buddha for me. Because everything is just name. We have only to use the name which is beneficial for the mind and name the things as we like.' 
2. In German Wikipedia a Buddhist (>20 years) and a follower of NKT said: "Kadampa Buddhisms is mere a name as Kadampa Tradition is. Everybody can give himself a name like he wants to do or feel is needed." He concluded beacause NKT does practice Lamrim they are Kadampa Buddhists and Kadampa Tradition and everyone who practice Lamrim is Kadampa Buddhist.
3. When I was with NKT I believed the faults of my unqualified teacher came from my bad Karma, and I'm responsible for it. When one person complained about that teacher and wrote a letter to GKG, GKG replied: 'just develop Bodhicitta in your mind then you will see the Bodhicitta in your teacher.' 
(Later he expelled that teacher in a quite interesting manner. He maned that person as very selfish and guilty for all problems and he said about himself when someone asked: "Who is NKT?" "I'm NKT.")
4. If you look on Kelsang Pagpa and NKT style: If they want to name Shugden as Buddha, then he is a Buddha, if they do so with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso he is. 
What do you think on that? --Kt66 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi. Thank you 20040302. I think many NKT's lack the correct view of conventional phenomenas. Thats why I feel your views and pointing it out very important. On the other hand they are not that much motivated in money. It seems to be like this but it is not. A completly other point makes them so busy. They emphasize very much the topic of merit and that they are pure tradition (something special). To build up NKT you earn a lot of merit. With enough merit you will get quick enlightenment. And most powerful source of merit is Guru Yoga. Guru Yoga means to serve Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT centers. So Shugden says: "Now is the time!" (To spread this stainless tradition.) - of course to help sentinent beings. So they are very busy to do that: spreading NKT and all which is related to NKT like their centers and temples. This is the idea. If people give money to NKT this does not help NKT, this helps the people, because they get merit from this, so NKT helps people by helping NKT with money and voluntary work... I think most of the NKT's feel they are very honest and have a "right motivation". But what happens is your Ego can get very high, because you feel yourself so selfless and you can not recognise your hidden pride and ego, because you are so busy. When a NKT teacher asked Geshe Kelsang he wants to go to retreat because his delusions are getting more and more strong, Geshe Kelsang denied and said: it is more important to teach. I myself think in this way you destroy desciples, isn't it? But GKG also thinks he has a good motivation and "Now is the time!" Kt66 00:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. By the way, as an exercise I produced a (slightly formal) argument concerning Shugden as a Buddha.  It may interest you:
 Axioms: 
 (A1) All phenomena lacks inherent existence (Madhyamaka)
 (A2) Some phenomena exist conventionally (Madhyamaka)
 (A3) There are three tests to pass for existing conventionally (Tsongkhapa)
 (A3.1) if it is known to a conventional consciousness; (Tsongkhapa)
 (A3.2) if no other conventional valid cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known (Tsongkhapa)
 (A3.3) if reason that accurately analyses whether something intrinsically exists - does not contradict it. (Tsongkhapa)
 (A4) What fails to meet tests (3.1)(3.2)(3.3) does not exist. (Tsongkhapa)
 (A5) In Sutra, a Buddha turns the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before (Sutra)
 (A6.1) In Tantra convention, all phenomena are Buddhas (Tantra)
 (A6.2) In Sutra convention, some phenomena are not Buddhas (Sutra)
 (A7) Buddhist conventions are either Sutra conventions or Tantra conventions (Buddhism)
 (A8) Shugden as a Buddha is a phenomena (Buddhism)
 (A9) Shugden as a Buddha is known to one or more conventional consciousnesses (NKT, Tantra)
 (A11) Sakyamuni Buddha is a phenomena (Buddhism)
 (A12) Sakyamuni Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma in Jambudvipa (Buddhism)
 (A13) Shugden resides in Jambudvipa subsequent to Sakyamuni Buddha (Some Buddhism)
 
 Thesis:
 (T1) Shugden is a Buddha in a convention where other phenomena are not (NKT)
 
 Shugden as a Buddha is a phenomena. (A8)
 All phenomena lack inherent existence. (A1)
 Therefore (C1) Shugden as a Buddha lacks inherent existence. (MP)
 
 Shugden as a Buddha is a phenomena. (A8)
 Some phenomena exist conventionally  (A2)
 Therefore (C2) Shugden as a Buddha may exist conventionally (MP)
 Due to (C2) we can use the three tests.
 
 If Shugden as a Buddha is known to a conventional consciousness, 
    it passes the first test. (A3.1)
 Shugden as a Buddha is known to conventional consciousnesses, (A9)
 Therefore (C3) Shugden as a Buddha passes the first test (MP)
 
 If reason that accurately analyses whether something intrinsically exists 
   does not contradict Shugden as a Buddha, it passes the third test. (A3.3)
 The existence of Shugden as a Buddha does not contradict intrinsic existence (C1)
 Therefore (C4) Shugden as a Buddha passes the third test (MP)
 
 Buddhist conventions are either Sutra conventions or Tantra conventions (A7)
 Therefore (disjunction)
 (C5) if a Buddhist convention is not Sutra, it is Tantra and
 (C6) if a Buddhist convention is not Tantra, it is Sutra
 
 In Tantra convention, all phenomena are Buddhas (A6.1) 
 Shugden is a Buddha in a convention where other phenomena are not Buddhas (T1)
 Therefore (C7) Shugden is a Buddha in a non Tantra convention (MTP)
 
 If a Buddhist convention is not Tantra, it is Sutra (C6)
 Shugden is a Buddha in a non Tantra convention (C7)
 Therefore (C8) Shugden is a Buddha in a Sutra convention (MTP)
 
 In Sutra, a Buddha turns the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before (A5) 
 Shugden is a Buddha in a Sutra convention (C8) 
 Therefore (C9) Shugden turns the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before
 
 Sakyamuni Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma in Jambudvipa (A12)
 Shugden resides in Jambudvipa subsequent to Sakyamuni Buddha (A13)
 Therefore (C10) Shugden could not turn the wheel of Dharma where it has not been turned before
 
 If no other conventional valid cognition contradicts 
     Shugden being as it is thus known, then it passes the second test (A3.2)
 (C10) contradicts (C9)
 Therefore (C11) Shugden as a Buddha fails the second test
 
 If Shugden passes the three tests (A3.1,A3.2,A3.3) Shugden exists as a Buddha conventionally (A3)
 Shugden passes test (A3.1) with (C3) and (A3.3) with (C4) but fails (A3.2) at (C11)
 Therefore (C12) Shugden as a Buddha fails the three tests (MP)
 
 What fails to meet tests (3.1)(3.2)(3.3) does not exist. (A4) 
 Shugden as a Buddha fails the three tests (C12) 
 Therefore (C13) Shugden as a Buddha does not exist (MP)
 ----
keep well! (20040302 00:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does NKT practitioners suffer on wrong view, Nihilism?

message: I feel the article reads better with section heads. KP, thanks for reading my opinion about the vinaya. I hope you agree it reads better, and is less controversial. Is it possible to actually state what the ten vows are? Much more interesting and informative if we can. (20040302 22:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  section heads 

message: I added mention in the introductory sentence that the NKT is independant - something that all current interested parties appear to agree on. 
Do we have a strong founding date for the NKT? 1990's is a bit weak.
Although the NKT-ites seem to dislike it, the takeover of Manjushri Institute was certainly far from amicable. It is far better to address this lightly rather than not at all:- 
To not mention it at all will look like a whitewash - basically, an untruth, a deception, a lie. 
We could go into the hairy details of drugs allegations, lists of 'criminal evidence' (against FPMT members) followed by heavy-handed 'blackmail' (by Chip on behalf of KG) along with all the tape transcriptions, but this is really really messy, and no-one appears to want to really go into those details, and at that level it really gets into micro-history, rather than general history. This is why saying "against lama yeshe's wishes" is, in my mind, a reasonable 'middle way'. Students of KG at the time were calling it a 'revolution' and a 'coup', which wasn't very nice. It happened. (I have no affiliation with the FPMT btw. I don't think either party behaved very well back then, but who am I to judge?) 
I also think that sometime all the stuff about benefits fraud is going to come out, which won't do NKT's reputation any good. (This is to do with that for many years, many if not most of KG's students in the UK were signing on while working on renovating properties, teaching, etc. Apparently (from inside sources) students were encouraged to sign on. Several cases went to court. This is breaking the law, and in my opinion very questionable behaviour). Right now, I don't think we need to go into that stuff either though. (20040302 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory sentence and history - Manjusri Institute.