Talk:Kadam (Tibetan Buddhism)/Archive 1

message: I suggest a complete revision of the text to the Old Kadampa Tradition. What here is described is to easy and does not touch the deep tradition of Atisha. 
My problem is, I do not speak English very well, but you can find under Wikipedia German Kadampa a very detailed and precise description of this ancient tradition. 
My corrections are: not Atisha has founded that tradition; his main lay disciple Dromtönpa has founded it. Atisha himself was a complete open and non sectarian master (like Je Tsongkhapa too) and he was even much respected in the Theravada school. He promoted mainly Sutra teachings and Tantra teachings only very secret. Dromtönpa himself gave three different lineages to the "three brothers". So there were three different Kadampa lineages after Dromtönpa. 
The origin of the Sakya, Kagyu and Gelugpa are connected with this lineage and the most of the Kadampa teachings are took into all Tibetan Buddhist schools, also Nyingmapa. All three Kadampa lineages of Dromtönpa were collected and absorbed complete into Gelug Tradition by Je Tsongkhpa. And Gampopa the main disciples of Milarepa and great Kagyu master was also a disciple of the Kadampa-Tradition of Atisha and integrated these teachings into the teachings given by Milarepa to him. So he combined Mahamudra, the six Yogas of Naropa and the Kadampa Teachings (especially on Bodhichitta) and passed it to his disciples.
Today there is no Kadampa Tradition as taught by Atisha anymore! 
(The New Kadampa Tradition is based on Gelug teachings and can not referred to as being Kadampa Tradition as taught by Atisha or Dromtönpa. Atisha also taught Kalachakra and other Tantras which are part of Gelugpa but not New Kadampa Tradition. And he also emphasised the Vinaya very much, also no part of the NKT but of Gelugpa. And the root master of Geshe Kelsang was not a Kadampa master he was a Gelugpa! 
I think there happened a big misunderstanding over the years with the advertisement of the NKT:
 To be inspired to practice like the eagles of the Old Kadampas does not convert a Gelugpa back into an Old Kadampa! 
New Kadampa Tradition is based on the teachings of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche and the latter has made himself something new, like to emphasize the Vajrayogini Tantra (from Sakyapa) and give up the main protectors of the Gelug tradition (Mahakala, Kalarupa, Vairavana) and promote Shugden. Because Geshe Kelsang only offers a small (but of course essential) range of the teachings and made also new styles like the 10-vows-ordination for nuns & monks, my opinion is that it is better to refer NKT as his own tradition, based on Gelugpa teachings and inspired by the example of the old Kadampas and with different new aspects made by him. And not mix it with Old Kadampas or New Kadampas - because "New Kadampas" were given to the Gelug Tradition it is just a second name for Gelug Tradition. So there would be much less confusion than claiming or give the impression that Old Kadampas has survived as NKT or NKT is Old Kadampas...)
Perhaps there is somebody who can translate the German article of Wikipedia or can make the points more clear?
The German article on Kadampa Tradition (Atisha’s) is quite objective an unbiased.  -- Kt66 15:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest a complete revision of this article 

message: After the death of Atisha (1054) his main disciple Lama Dromtonpa (Drom-tön Gyal-we Jungne, 1005 - 1054) organized his transmissions into the legacy known as "The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas" - a tradition whereby an individual practitioner could perceive all doctrines of the sutras and tantras as non-contradictory and could personally apply them all as complementary methods for the accomplishment of enlightenment. Eventually this lineage came to be known as Atisha's Kadam Tradition, the Marvellous Legacy of Seven Divine Dharmas.
Lama Dromtonpa transmitted the various lineages of Atisha by dividing them between The Three Noble Brothers. To one he gave the scriptural traditions, to the second the oral transmissions, and to the third the pith instructions. The Three Noble Brothers are: Geshe Potowa, Geshe Phuchungwa and Geshe Chenngawa. Geshe Potowa (1031-1106) received the entire scriptual teachings and hidden verbal transmission of both sutra and tantra from Dromtonpa.
The scriptural traditions were of two main types: those dealing with ultimate reality and the wisdom of emptiness; and those dealing with conventional reality and the vast Bodhimind (Skt. Bodhicitta) activities.
As for the former of these, or those dealing with the ultimate wisdom of emptiness, the principal texts stressed here were Nagarjuna's six treatises on emptiness philosophy, such as The Root of Wisdom (Skt., Mulamadhyamikakarika) and so forth, together with the commentaries to them by the later Indian masters; and also Atisha's own commentaries on the middle view and on the nature of the two truths.
Six quintessential texts were used to elucidate the nature of the bodhisattva's vast activities: The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt., Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga; An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt., Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga; A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt., Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva; A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way (Skt., Bodhisattvacharyaavatara) by Shantideva; A Garland of Birth Stories (Skt., Jatakamala) by Aryashura, and The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt., Udanavarga) - the Tibetan Dhammapada by Dharmatrata. It is the tradition to read at the Great Prayer Festival (Mönlam) the fifth of these, A Garland of Birth Stories, during the morning session.
These were the principal scriptures studied in the Old Kadam School.
As for the oral transmission teachings, these emanated from and were the essential practices taught in the five scriptures mentioned above. These oral tradition teachings are generally known as "the instructions for training the mind in the Mahayana tradition" (Tib., Theg-chen-blo-sbyong-gi-gdampa-pa).
Atisha had collected these Lojong Teachings from his three principal Indian gurus (from his Master Dharmakirti (Serlingpa), Guru Dharmarakshita and Yogi Maitreya) and later he secretly transmitted them to his main disciple, Lama Dromtonpa.
During the time of the The Three Noble Kadampa Brothers many of these oral teachings were collected together and compiled into the text Stages of the Doctrine (Lamrim; tib.: sTan-rim). Yet at the time the lineages from Atisha’s Indonesian master Serlingpa (the Lojong - Teachings on how to train in Bodhichitta) were still kept secret!
When the times were sufficiently mature the Lojong Teachings were publicly revealed. First Geshe Kham Lungpa published Eight Sessions for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-thun-brgyad-ma). Then Geshe Langri Tangpa (1054-1123) wrote Eight Verses for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-tshig-brgyad-ma). After this Sangye Gompa composed A Public Explanation (Tib., Tshogs-bshad-ma) and Geshe Chekhawa (1102-1176)wrote Seven Points for Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-sbyong-don-bdun-ma).
By this way the Lojong Oral Transmission Teachings gradually emerged and became known to the public. However they exist before secret by the lineage of Serlingpa-> Atisha-> Dromtöpa -> Potowa -> Sharawa (1070-1141) -> Chekhawa (1101-1175). From Khamlungpa, Langri Tangpa and basically Chekhawa onwards they became public and later they were integrated into all four Tibetan Buddhist Schools. (These Kadampa-Lojong texts were brought together into the anthology A Hundred Texts on Training the Mind (Tib., bLo-byong-brgya-rtsa).)
As for the third lineage the pith instructions transmitted by Lama Dromtonpa has its root in the secret oral teachings of Atisha and his disciples as embodied in The Great Book of the Kadampa Masters: A Jewel Rosary of Profound Instructions on the Bodhisattva Way.
The Kadam Tradition has mainly emphasised the Sutra Path (The Union of Compassion and Wisdom). The Kadampa Lineage is also summarized by "The Teachings Of The Four Divinities and Three Dharmas That Adorn The Body", "The Three Containers That Adorn The Speech" and "The Three Disciplines That Adorn The Consciousness".
Ok if you have more detailed informations or you can improve or refuse my information’s your most welcome but please do it by knowing and after checking it out ;-)
I activated a little bit when I said: Je Tsongkhpa was perhaps the first Rime Master!; because to many people are to attached and fixed to traditions and belief on them of something very solid and fixed. A tradition is always a mix of different transmission lineages and the understanding and practice of the Dharma of the main masters of that lineage. In Tibet there is the saying: "One Lama one lineage." If you want to read more detail informations on Tsongkhapas non-sectarian style you can read his biographies like "Source of all Goddness". The Tibetan title I can give you next time I lent the book to someone. 
PS: Your statemant: "The impression within the Bka'-brgyud sect is certainly not that Blo-sbyong (Lojong) comes from the Kadampa tradition." look at "The Great Path of Awakening : The Classic Guide to Using the Mahayana Buddhist Slogans to Tame the Mind and Awaken the Heart" by Jamgon Kongtrul (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1570625875/ref=sib_rdr_bc/103-4065359-0629438?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00H&j=0#reader-page) he says totally the same: The root text was written down by Chekhawa Yeshe Dorje, a Kadampa Master. So different Gelug texts say this, Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Jamgon Kongtrul say it. I got the same information’s from different high Lamas from all Tibetan Buddhist lineages, from Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu school and so on. Look also at http://community.palouse.net/lotus/ljp2.htm or make your own investigation and put it on the board. --Kt66 16:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed Informations on the Kadampa Lineage

message: Dear Everyone,
I would like to remove the last section of this article, which seems to me to be discriminatory and inaccurate, and to reinstate the definition of Kadampa that was removed from the article.  I would now like to prove to you that NKT practitioners are Kadampas, in accordance with the definition which was pulled from the article by the Wikipedia user March 2nd.
Firstly, there is no contradiction between myself and K Winters.  March 2nd says:
There seems to be a conflict of view between yourself and KWinters regarding the status of the NKT and Kadampa. She/He says "You wrongly see (NKT) as an offshoot of a Tibetan school when we are clear that we are an independent western Buddhist movement which is based upon the teachings of the Kadampa lineage." 
Firstly, what is independent?  Buddha taught that everything is dependent. Kristi says: You wrongly see (NKT) as an offshoot of a Tibetan school when we are clear that we are an independent western Buddhist movement which is based upon the teachings of the Kadampa lineage What she says is completely correct.  We are different from and independent of the Tibetan 'Gelugpa' tradition, insomuch as we do not follow the authority of the Dalai Lama and the Ganden Tripa, but we are dependent on the teachings of the Kadampa Lineage.  We follow the authority of Atisha, Je Tsongkhapa, Je Pabongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.  We are a different 'brand' of Kadampa, but Kadampas nonetheless because we are a suitable basis for imputing 'Kadampa' - namely, we practise the teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa (the lineage holders of the Old and New Kadampa respectively) and our main practice is lamrim (and also lojong and Vajrayana Mahamudra).
Where does the term 'Kadampa' come from?  It is the name of a Buddhist tradition that began in Tibet with 'Lamp for the Path' by Atisha, composed as a result of a request from Tibetan King Yeshe O,  but what distinguishes Kadampa from Kagyu, or Nyingma, for example?  Kadampas have lamrim as their main practice.  The Kadampa tradition is so called because it is made up of Kadampa practitioners, and the distinguishing characteristic of such practitioners is that Lamrim, the special presentation of Buddha's teachings originated by Atisha and elucidated by Je Tsongkhapa, is their main practice.  By this definition, NKT practitioners are Kadampas.  Our lineage is pure Kadampa, and our practice is pure Kadampa.
Kt66 seems to think that the Kadampa lineage disappeared or was absorbed into the Gelugpa tradition, but this is completely incorrect.  I can list our Lineage Gurus, from Buddha Shakyamuni to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso,  for  both our vast path teachings and our profound path teachings, and show that there is an unbroken lineage of Kadampa practitioners to the present day.   Kt66 has accused us of lying (or at best misrepresenting ourselves) when we say that we are Kadampas, but why should we lie?  I can prove that we are Kadampas and that the lineage is intact.  
This is what he says (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition/Archive_2):
K Winters: --Again, this is your biased opinion and is contrary to the facts. Since we study Lamrim and the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa you are wrong to say we are not in the Kadampa lineage. It should not be included in the main body of the article.
Kt66 - Sorry, I think you have a biased opinion and list wrong facts! NKT lies on that point. I repeat: NKT lies on that point! And you're completely ignorant about the facts! NKT is NO Kadampa NO Gelugpa. If you would know Gelugpa and Kadampa lineage and their texts really you would agree but your totally absorbed in NKT ideas and do not know anything outsite NKT, isn't it? Since Nyingma and Kagyuepa practice Lamrim are they Kadampas? Even Drikung Kagyu posesses main teachings of Kadampas and they do not claim to be Kadampa Tradition because it just does not exist outsite the four main Buddhist school.  (I assume he means that four main Tibetan Buddhist schools of Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug)
The reason why Kagyupas and Nyingmas are not Kadampas is that their main practice is not lamrim.  Kagyupas follow the instructions and lineage of Marpa and Milarepa as their main practice, a different presentation of Dharma emphasising Mahamudra, and Nyingmas follow Padmasambhava and Rabjam Longchenpa.   We exclusively follow the teachings of Atisha, the Kadampa Geshes such as Geshe Potowa, Geshe Chekhawa and Geshe Langri Tangpa (we study their lojong root texts) and Je Tsongkhapa.  This is OUR lineage – the Kadampa lineage.  Therefore, we are  Kadampas and it is quite incorrect for you to say otherwise.  We are not lying.  We meet the criteria for being Kadampas and we are Kadampas – Modern Day Kadampas.
I am not saying that 'Gelugpa tradition' practitioners are not Kadampas, so why are you saying that we aren't Kadampas? You have incorrectly judged us without the correct information.  Tibetan Buddhists is so keen to denounce NKT in order to justify their position on Dorje Shugden that they haven't properly investigated the lineage and motivation of NKT and so make false claims such as we are not Kadampas. If you think that we are not Kadampas because we are not part of your Gelugpa organisation, you are wrong..  It's like claiming that Gelugpas are the 'one true Kadampas', in the way that some Christian traditions may claim to have exclusivity.  For example, can you find Christians outside of an organised church?  Of course!  A Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ.  A Kadampa is someone who practices the teachings of the Kadampas and who follows that lineage.  In the same way that you don't have to be part of a church to be a Christian, you can be a Kadampa without being part of the 'Gelugpa tradition' as an organisation, or even the NKT.  Furthermore, we can use the same arguments that we have used with Kadampa to prove that we are Gelugpas.  If a Gelugpa is a follower of Je Tsongkhapa, and a practitioner of his teachings, we are also Gelugpas.  There is absolutely no definition of Gelugpa in which one is a Gelugpa only if one follows the authority of the Dalai Lama and the Ganden Tripa!  I would personally like to know what the Dalai Lama's role is in the Gelugpa tradition to dictate its belief and direction, given that he is not a Lineage Guru but that's another issue. The point is, a Gelugpa is simply a follower of Je Tsongkhapa as a Christian is simply a follower of Jesus.  
(As an aside, I   recently discovered that Trijang Rinpoche was the Ganden Tripa at one point, and he enthusiastically encouraged the practice of Dorje Shugden.  However, the Dalai Lama is not following his direction, even though Trijang Rinpoche was one of his Gurus.  It seems that even the Dalai Lama doesn't follow the authority of someone who was both the Ganden Tripa and his Guru –  a most strange example of Guru devotion!  It's also interesting that even Ganden Tripas do not agree on the status and nature of Dorje Shugden.)
::You did not recognize that the senior tutor of HH the Dalai Lama Ling Rinpoche spoke against Shugden. And you don't understand if HH had different Gurus only he himself decides and knows who his Root Gurus are. Not you. Also because you seem not to know the scriptures of Tsongkhapa on Guru Devotion and the Kalachakra teachings you don't know how to act if the teacher advices you not in accordance with the Dharma or how you go properly to distance to a Guru if you see, you can not deal with him anymore. Further because you negelct that the 13th Dalai Lama (and different other Gelugpas and of course most of the masters of other Tibetan Buddhist Schools) spoke against Shugden you can not even a slightly bit understand what His Holiness was given for a burden by Trijang Rinpoche by giving His Holiness a practice which his incarnation before refuted and even scolded Pabhongka Rinpoche for. You seem to be quite clever, but from high flying a deep fall will come. Because I was for years within NKT I know your thoughts very well but they are arrogant and stupid as my were when I argued as arrogant as you just do. yours Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just an assertion and says not that much. Also there is no commentary on Vajrayogini made by Tsongkhapa. The commentary of Geshe Keslang on Vajrayogini is not based on a work of Tsongkhapa. So how can Jim Belither says "all"? Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not agree. NKT has also not the main teachings of Gelugpa/Tsongkhapa and do not teach it or transmit it. To remember you one of the main emphasised teachings of Tsongkhapa is the Vinaya and the Vinaya was changed by NKT and the Major works of Tsongkhapa are: the Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path (Lam-rim chen-mo), the Great Exposition of Tantras (sNgag-rim chenmo), the Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretive and Definitive Teachings (Drnng-nges legs-bshad snying-po), the Praise of Relativity (rTen-'brel bstodpa), the Clear Exposition of the Five Stages of Guhyasamaja (gSang-'dus rim-lnga gsal-sgron) and the Golden Rosary (gSer-phreng). From these Major Works of Je Tsongkhapa only a Lamrim text is provided by NKT and this Lamrim text - a commentary of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is not compareable with Tsongkhapas Lam-rim chen-mo. NKT excludes many teachings of the Gelugpas, like the Chöd, Kalachakra Teachings and the special feature of Tsongkhapa the Union of Ghuyasamaja, Chakrasambhava and Yamantaka Tantra, so NKT can also not claim to be a complete lineage....) Kt66 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh fine Keslang Pagpa that you opened this discussion on this issue, this evening I will read your statement and think about it. Just short: I want to excuse myself for accuseing NKT to lie on this point. I was confused and didn't recognize the basis of the imputation "ly" properly. Lying means either not saying the truth, when you are asked for and know the truth or if you say consciously  the untruth. Now I recognized I myself as Ex-NKT (teacher) was confused and NKT is still confused about what "Kadampa Tradition" really is - confused about the basis of imputation "Kadampa". I think, if NKT member would really know what Kadampa or Gelug tradition is, if they would have a proper understanding of it, they would'nt label NKT as Kadampa or Gelugpa. So to clarify this point we have first establish the correct understanding of "Tradition" and "Kadampa" and then we can check further. So we have to find out the characteristics of "Kadampa" and "Tradition" to discuss this issue properly. This will help us all. So long, Kt66 14:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On whether New Kadampa Tradition are Kadampas 

message: There is one very serious circumstance which make kadampa-practicioners permanently braking their buddhist refuge. Buddha Shakyamuni told, that from the time on one takes buddhist refuge, one should no longer worship worldly gods. What the NKT-devotees permanently do is worshipping a worldly demon called Shugden, even more worse then worshipping a worldly god. This implies a permanent violation of buddhist refuge. A Very very serious problem of NKT.--12 Tenma 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Kadampa Tradition and violation of buddhist refuge

message: The Old Kadampa School does not exist as an independent tradition anymore. They dissolved into different tibetan schools, mainly into Geluk in the 15th century. Nearly all Old-Kadampa-monasteries were overtaken by Geluk, some by the Sakya. 
To state, that new kadampa is old kadampa is good propaganda but not relying on facts. Typicall half-truths/half-lies of the New Kadampa-information-policy. 
Go to the facts and do research on Kadampa and the sources of New Kadampa. The difference is so easy to find. Try to deny Shugden -practice, very easy - and maybe you come a little closer to practice like it was done within old Kadampa. Shugden was never worshipped by Atisha and Tsongkhapa.  
When these Lamas are really so important and the heart of practice of New Kadampa, give Shugden-practice a kick, worship Mahakala as the main protector within all schools of tibetan buddhism instead and return to what buddhism really is about. --12 Tenma 17:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Kadampa does not exist anymore - Deny Shugden practice

message: - and can't thereby correctly be identified as being the ancient Kadampa Tradition of Atisha.
1. Geshe Keslang himself stated in a letter published by NKT July 2000:
"From the very beginning NKT is the pure tradition of Lama Tsongkhapa. All my Dharmabooks are commentaries on the teaching of Lama Tsongkhapas teachings. We are pure Gelugpas but in public we don't use the term Gelugpa. Why not? Because in the Gelugpa Community there are a lot political problems and many quarrels between Galugpas and other traditions. NKT don't want to experience that problems, thats why we don't use this term in public but the name „New Kadampa-Buddhism". In reality New Kadampa Buddhism and Gelugpa is the same...." (Written by Geshe Keslang Gytaso. Translated from German into English by myself.)
2. Gen Kelsang Pagpa, NKT-monk and a resident Teacher in the New Kadampa Tradition who knows their internal rules stated in "Which tradition we are?" at the 8th July 2004:
"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. I feel it is important to recognise that Kadampa Buddhist and the Gelugpa tradition are quite different, otherwise there could be mixing of traditions and problems in the future. Lots of love, Pagpa"
3. The basis of imputation of ancient Kadampa Tradition (Lineage) is their teachings (presentation), practice and the unbroken lineage. The teachings of the Kadampas and emphasized texts you'll find in the article Kadampa. From all of these texts only one text is practiced and is taught in NKT: Shantideva's Bodhichayravatara. None of the other texts. Not even Atisha's Lamrim text 'Lamp for the Path'! So NKT can not be Kadampa Tradition. Just to have some money makes you not a millionaire, because you lack a lot of money to complete the necessary amount which can be named as "million" likewise just to have some Gelug (or Kadampa) teachings makes you not to Gelugpa or Kadampa because you lack a lot of teachings to complete the necessary amount which is the basis to be named as "Gelugpa" or "Kadampa". 
4. Neither did Atisha emphazised "Guru Yoga" as NKT does nor did he taught, practice or even mention Shugden, the main "protector" practice of NKT. He emphasised Refuge and Bodhichitta. Also he didn't emphazised Vajrayogini as NKT does (a practice which is only since 7 generations in the Gelug lineage and was integrated from the Sakyapas) and his Kalachakra teachings are also not peresent in NKT.
5. For more on the discussion on the early Kadampa Tradition I suggest to study the "The blue Annals". I didn't and also Geshe Kelsang didn't offer this until now, but perhaps Gen Pagpa you can ask him to teach or translate the text, this would be perhaps very beneficial. 
6. By focusing mere on the books of Geshe Kelsang even he would possess the complete Kadampa lineage you would destroy this lineage, because NKT excluded the Birth Stories (Jataka Tales) by Aryasura, The Bodhisattva Stages (Skt. Bodhisattvabhumi) by Asanga; An Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras (Skt. Mahayanasutraalamkara) by Maitreya/Asanga; A Compendium of Bodhisattva Trainings (Skt. Shikshasamucchaya) by Shantideva; The Collected Sayings of the Buddha (Skt. Udanavarga) - the Tibetan Dhammapada by Dharmatrata; The Great Book of the Kadampa Masters: A Jewel Rosary of Profound Instructions on the Bodhisattva Way and so on, because NKT teachers don't teach and study these texts or give the oral transmissions of it (tib. Lungh). If you would possess the Kadampa lineage then you're just destroying it.
7. Atisha and Tsongkhapa emphasised most the Vinaya and were famous and respected for this very much. NKT does neglect their Vinaya teachings and established a new Vinaya by this you also destroy their Vinaya lineage. 
8. The spiritual head of the New Kadampa Tradition himself, Geshe Keslang Gyatso, stated: "New Kadampa Buddhism and Gelugpa is the same."
How then one can name NKT as Kadampa Tradition?
===Can NKT practitioners be named as Kadampas?===
Yes I agree perhaps they can. Geshe Sonam Richen (a Gelug authority) states: 
"A Kadampa Practitioner is one who practices the paths of the three levels of capacity taught by Atisha, which comprise everything included in the three categories of teaching."
So then also the Karma Kagyuepas (Gampopa included Lamrim in the Karma Kagyue tradition) and all practitoners of all tibetan buddhist schools who practice Lamrim can be named as Kadampas. But this means not they possess the (complete) early Kadampa Lineage or are the continuation of that ancient tradition and can thereby claim(as NKT in their advertisement does) they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha.
So my conclusions from this are:
First I excuse myself for accuseing NKT to ly about that point. I'm sorry for it!
(As I mentioned before: NKT does not ly if they state they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition, I think they are only confused about it, that's whay it is appropriate to excuse myself. On the other hand NKT is bluring themselves and thereby the people: Geshe Keslang says NKT is Gelug, Gen Pagpa wrote NKT is not Gelug but comes straight from the heart of Tsongkhapa; and the internet sites of NKT says they are Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha - very confusing, isn't it?)
Secondly NKT practitioners can (from my understandings) say they are Kadampas if they follow the three levels. But to be a Kadampa is not the same as possessing and keeping the Kadampa Tradition Lineage (Legacy). 
Thirdly NKT can not claim to be the Kadampa Tradition or keep the lineage of the ancient Kadampa Tradition. Either NKT practitioners are confused if they do that or they do ly if after they have checked this out they still claim to be the same as the ancient Kadampa Tradition. 
Is Kadampa Tradition the same as Gelugpa Tradition? 
This is not possible. The Gelug Tradition is based on different lineages, like Kagyu, Sakya, Kadampa and Shije lineage so Gelugpa is not Kadampa. 
Kt66 08:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I relax. Some people don't want to understand so they won't understand. People who look on the contributions open, unbiased and critical will understand. yours, Kt66 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a minute.. I quote KP from above: "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition, quite deliberately so", whereas KG says (tricycle) "We are pure Gelugpas.". And yet, if the NKT is indeed pure Gelugpa, it won't merely follow the texts, but also bow to the institution. I mention below that there are two (at least!) different interpretations of Kadampa - that of the practitioner, and that of the institution. No-one can claim that an institution has the characteristics of a practitioner! Therefore, I guess that by "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition" you are talking about the institution, whereas "We are pure Gelugpas" is a statement regarding individual practice- you follow the Gelugpa way. Therefore, you will have no difficulty understanding my argument that the NKT is NOT the Kadampa tradition, but that it does promotes the way of the Kadampas. Or have I made a mistake somewhere? (20040302 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You discriminated correctly. Thank you very much. :-)) Kt66 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand I can not agree that NKT follow the Gelugpa way! But we can discuss this if this becomes necessary for the article on NKT. Kt66 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the New Kadampa Tradition don't keep the legacy of the ancient Kadampa's

message: Yes I agree perhaps they can. Geshe Sonam Richen (a Gelug authority) states: 
"A Kadampa Practitioner is one who practices the paths of the three levels of capacity taught by Atisha, which comprise everything included in the three categories of teaching."
So then also the Karma Kagyuepas (Gampopa included Lamrim in the Karma Kagyue tradition) and all practitoners of all tibetan buddhist schools who practice Lamrim can be named as Kadampas. But this means not they possess the (complete) early Kadampa Lineage or are the continuation of that ancient tradition and can thereby claim(as NKT in their advertisement does) they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha.
So my conclusions from this are:
First I excuse myself for accuseing NKT to ly about that point. I'm sorry for it!
(As I mentioned before: NKT does not ly if they state they are the Ancient Kadampa Tradition, I think they are only confused about it, that's whay it is appropriate to excuse myself. On the other hand NKT is bluring themselves and thereby the people: Geshe Keslang says NKT is Gelug, Gen Pagpa wrote NKT is not Gelug but comes straight from the heart of Tsongkhapa; and the internet sites of NKT says they are Kadampa Tradition as founded by Atisha - very confusing, isn't it?)
Secondly NKT practitioners can (from my understandings) say they are Kadampas if they follow the three levels. But to be a Kadampa is not the same as possessing and keeping the Kadampa Tradition Lineage (Legacy). 
Thirdly NKT can not claim to be the Kadampa Tradition or keep the lineage of the ancient Kadampa Tradition. Either NKT practitioners are confused if they do that or they do ly if after they have checked this out they still claim to be the same as the ancient Kadampa Tradition. 
Is Kadampa Tradition the same as Gelugpa Tradition? 
This is not possible. The Gelug Tradition is based on different lineages, like Kagyu, Sakya, Kadampa and Shije lineage so Gelugpa is not Kadampa. 
Kt66 08:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can NKT practitioners be named as Kadampas?

message: *THE GELUG TRADITION
*SHORT OUTLINE OF THE GELUG TEACHINGS
*Excerpts from an interview with Jangtse Chöje Rizong Rinpoche
A Short Citation:
"In the 15th century, Je Tsongkhapa and the upcoming Gelugpa tradition absorbed the Kadampa School." Kt66 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I relax. Some people don't want to understand so they won't understand. People who look on the contributions open, unbiased and critical will understand. yours, Kt66 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a minute.. I quote KP from above: "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition, quite deliberately so", whereas KG says (tricycle) "We are pure Gelugpas.". And yet, if the NKT is indeed pure Gelugpa, it won't merely follow the texts, but also bow to the institution. I mention below that there are two (at least!) different interpretations of Kadampa - that of the practitioner, and that of the institution. No-one can claim that an institution has the characteristics of a practitioner! Therefore, I guess that by "We are not part of the Gelugpa tradition" you are talking about the institution, whereas "We are pure Gelugpas" is a statement regarding individual practice- you follow the Gelugpa way. Therefore, you will have no difficulty understanding my argument that the NKT is NOT the Kadampa tradition, but that it does promotes the way of the Kadampas. Or have I made a mistake somewhere? (20040302 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You discriminated correctly. Thank you very much. :-)) Kt66 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand I can not agree that NKT follow the Gelugpa way! But we can discuss this if this becomes necessary for the article on NKT. Kt66 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links on further informations of Ancient Kadampa Lineage and Gelug School