This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

anti NKT editors vandalizing this article

Thegone and others are making changes without any discussion, adding a very long section right at the beginning that is anti-NKT propaganda and does not belong to this article but to the article Dorje Shugden controversy, if anywhere at all. These sections are filled with language hateful to other users. They are also using similar tactics on other pages related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, again without any discussion and making hurtful and untrue allegations. (Truthbody (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

I have for now moved the section in question to under controversy, where it can be looked at over time and edited to reflect both points of view. It is my wish for transparency in this article and even amongst the editors. I for example am a long-term NKT practitioner and have studied in great detail both sides of the divide. I know that those who support the Dalai Lama's ban of Dorje Shugden do feel strongly about the Western Shugden Society demonstrating against him and I understand that, yet at the same time we have to be careful not to shoot the messenger when there is a clear cut case of segregation and persecution in the Tibetan exile community in Tibet. I feel it is an over-exaggeration to blame NKT practitioners so harshly for supporting the WSS in its activities to bring this to light. I feel optimistic that, over time and with a bit of patience, we can work together to reflect both points of view on wikipedia to do with this and related articles -- avoiding opinion, slander and just presenting facts. Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for presenting propaganda from either side. There are plenty of other places on the internet where people can find pro- and anti- positions. I know there are other editors on both sides of the divide who feel likewise. We are adults, please can we work this out. (Truthbody (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Thegone will not stop. He will not listen to anybody. He keeps repeating the same allegation that I am engaged in a cultlike campaign and am supported by the chinese, which are both untrue and terrible accusations. Thegone is repeatedly vandalizing these articles, adding long tracts of unsourced material cut and paste from dalailama.com without any discussion. He deletes complaints against him. He is using hateful and unsubstantiated language. He will not accept any edits whatsoever of the material he has inserted. This material does not belong in these articles at all -- if anywhere, it should be put in Dorje Shugden controversy (although it is all covered and discussed there already). Please help. He is breaking wiki codes of conduct. (Truthbody (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Waterhouse reference

Please give the book title and first name of the author Waterhouse who is referenced in this article. Are the Waterhouse quotes simply being taken from David Kay's book? Emptymountains 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I am im Italy and have no access towards the texts. What quote do you mean? Some quotes are from Kay who is referring to Waterhouse. For details I have to check. Thank you for all your efforts! I have seen some changes in the ordination section. The Ritual in NKT is not the Sojong Ritual. The actual Sojong Ritual is different from what they do. Especially for a real Sojong there must be four Bhikshus present what is surely not the case. So I will change that passage into Sojong-like Ritual or better Purification Ritual. Maybe you'll not agree, than let's discuss how to change it or improve as you like. Thanks, --Kt66 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

kt66 aka Tenzin Paljor

Just so you know, kt66 has a personal agenda to undermine the New Kadampa tradition and is an ardent supporter of the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. As Tenzin Paljor, he has been on chat groups and blogs all over the internet for years trying to persuade people to abandon the New Kadampa tradition and Dorje Shugden. Please therefore be on the look out for potential POV bias and disinformation in his edits of this article or any article to do with Dorje Shugden, Geshe Kelsang, or the New Kadampa Tradition. (Wisdomsword (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Two things. First of all, kt66 is retired. Secondly, I worked alongside kt66 on WP for a couple of years, and although he was sometimes furious at himself for having spent so much of his life promoting NKT, when he came here, he learned to balance his opinions carefully with fact. It was mainly due to his efforts that the NKT, DS, KG articles remained reasonably balanced. Of course, now that GKG has told his students to stay away from discussion groups, it is unlikely that his faithful followers would continue to edit and discuss on WP - but it appears this isn't the case. Once more, the said articles are blatantly biased in NKT's favour - so much so that they garner attention as being not much more than promo. material. If you wish to present the NKT, DS, GKG etc in a manner that meets the criteria of an encyclopedia, it is essential that you reflect the facts of these things in an impartial manner. Unfortunately, it appears that there are no students of GKG, of the DSS, or any other supporter who is yet able to do that. It is fascinating. If we read the texts of the Kadampa tradition (I recommend ISBN 0-86171-440-7 as a seminal work which accurately represents the entire lojong foundation, or the great translations of the LRCM for Je Rinpoche's Lam Rim.) we are told to reveal our own faults first, and to hide our qualities. This behaviour is NOT something readers find when coming across the NKT sponsored pages of WP. Instead, they are faced with no mention of the controversies, politics or sexual escapades that the organisation is stained with.

e.g GKG expelling students who complained about Kelsang Lodrö having sex with Kelsang Thogme, or GKG's email to Steven Wass indicates the degree of truth of my words:

Steven Wass,
I have received your email message. You have destroyed the NKTs reputation and the power of all NKT Resident Teachers. Through your actions so many ordained Teachers have disrobed following your view which is opposite to Buddhist view – you tried to spread a sexual lineage which you yourself created. Even in society a Teacher cannot have sex with students. After you left many people confessed to me that you had had sex with them. You had sex with so many students and through your deceptive actions one nun tried to commit suicide because of your sexual behaviour towards her.
Because the NKTs reputation and power of the Resident Teachers has been destroyed by your activities now the future development of the NKT will be difficult both materially and spiritually. However, I myself and all my students are working hard to recover the damage you made. We will never allow your sexual lineage to spread in this world.
I have no connection with you.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

(20040302 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Dear Kt66, there are nine references to three works by "Waterhouse" in this article: notes 44, 62, 96, 112, 119, and 135 refer to Waterhouse 1997, while notes 50 and 101 refer to Waterhouse 1977, and note 144 refers to Waterhouse 2000. However, there are no books or articles by Waterhouse listed in the Reference section. We are not even given Waterhouse's first name! Also, discussion comments on the ordination section should be addressed to user Rnchn, not to me. Any changes I made in the section were simply attempts to correct grammar, spelling, and order of presentation. Beyond this, I did not make changes to the actual content of the section; I'll leave that to the legalists. With metta, Emptymountains 14:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem of the changes in the Ordination section are as follows: Geshe Kelsang's Handbook is a primary and unpublished source (only available for NKT monks and nuns) and usually it is not allowed at Wikipedia. However, the reader may have benefit. As far as I can see GKG is claiming things which are not correct, citing them involves discussing them and giving also the correct Vinaya view to it... that's why I tried to find a compromise with the condensation of it which at least include no false facts or cites this as his opinion. His view in a talk from July 1999 by practicing the 10 vows and lamrim the 10 NKT vows turn into Getsul and even Gelong vows and how he is dealing with that topic is more than qustionable.(*) Also a Rabjung is no member of the ordained community and therefor no real Sangha member, he is an aspirant, him is not allowed wearing the yellow upper robe and performing Sojong. Only full monks are full members, Gestuls are members of the order but not full members. Both can perform Sojong, but only Gelongs can perfrom the complete ritual and there must be four Gelongs for performing Sojong. No Getsuls or even Rabjungs can perform Sojong on their own. Also the "basic 5 vows" of NKT are not similar to monks and nuns vows, they are only similar to lay and maybe Rabjung vows (see clarification below). The vows of monks and nuns differ and depend upon their status of ordination. So for instance a Gelong has four root vows, and "not killing" refers to "not killing a human", "not lying" to "a great lie" not any lie or any killing; than a "pure gelong" is referred by Gyaltsab Je to someone keeping the four root vows without defeat and "not intentionally emitting semen", the first remainder. A Gelongma has 6 root vows and "not intentionally emitting semen" is not included in the remainders or root vows... so they can not be compared how it was compared in the article. That's why I removed that section. Many Regards and thank you for your effort. --Kt66 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(*) Here some extracts of his views, I think this is what is referred by you as the "Ordination Handbook"(?), because there he states (and claims) many things, like these:

There are three levels of ordination. The first is an initial or basic ordination. The second level is called the Getsul ordination – Getsulpa and Getsulma in Tibetan, or Shramanera and Shramanerika in Sanskrit, for monks and nuns respectively. The third and highest level of ordination within the Pratimoksa is the Gelong ordination – Gelongpa and Gelongma in Tibetan, or Bhikkshu and Bhikkshuni in Sanskrit, again for monks and nuns respectively.

Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which belongs to the Hinayana tradition. Personally I find this strange. We are Mahayana Buddhists so why are we following the Vinaya – the Pratimoksha vows - of the Hinayana tradition? For example, the Ornament for Clear Realizations (Skt. Abhisamayalamkara) by Maitreya is a commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra written according to the Prasangika view. However, most commentaries written by Tibetan scholars follow the Madhyamika-Svatantrika view. Khedrubje is the only one who has written a commentary to this according to the Prasangika view, and I follow his explanation. Everyone else follows the Svatantrika commentaries, which I find very strange. If the root text is Prasangika why should the commentary be Madhyamika-Svatantrika?

I asked some qualified Teachers about this, including my root guru, Kyabje Trijang Dorjechang. He told me that in India some of the early Svatantrika Masters were very powerful, both materially and politically, and had many disciples. They exerted a powerful influence on the development of Mahayana Buddhism and many later Masters and their disciples followed the Svantantrika view. Kadampa Buddhist Masters such as Geshe Potowa had a different view concerning ordination; I too follow their interpretation.. Geshe Potowa was a Bhikkshu, a fully ordained monk. His root Guru and Principal Lamrim Teacher was Dromtönpa, a lay Lama. Geshe Potowa would often say that his Ordaining Master was Dromtönpa. Superficially this was incorrect, since according to the Vinaya Sutra ordination vows can only be received from a highly qualified senior Teacher who has been ordained for at least ten years. It may seem that Geshe Potowa is contradicting Buddha’s teaching, but if we think carefully his words are very meaningful.

When I received Lamrim teachings from my Lamas they taught me the meaning of Geshe Potowa’s words and I have contemplated these for a long time. Although he received his initial ordination from a Teacher who was a fully ordained monk, at that time he had no renunciation so his ordained vows were not real Pratimoksha vows. Some years later he met Dromtönpa and received Lamrim teachings, and through putting these teachings into practice he gained the realization of renunciation. Only then did his ordained vows become actual Pratimoksha vows. We can therefore say that Dromtönpa was his Ordaining Master because his actual Pratimoksha vows developed through the kindness of Dromtönpa and his Lamrim teachings. This is a very practical way of understanding how our ordination develops over time.

Perhaps you are like Geshe Potowa? At first when receiving your ordained vows you do not have real renunciation. Your vows are artificial, but later through the practice of Lamrim your artificial renunciation becomes actual renunciation and your vows become real ordained vows. As your renunciation deepens, and your wish to attain nirvana strengthens, your ordained vows transform into Getsul or Shramanera vows, and you become a Getsul or Getsulma. By continuing to improve your renunciation until it becomes spontaneous, your Getsul vows will transform into Gelong vows and you will become a Bhikkshu or Bhikkshuni.

As your renunciation continues to improve you can transform it into bodhichitta. Your Gelong vows will then transform into Bodhisattva vows. As a Bodhisattva you will then have both ordained vows and Bodhisattva vows, but they will not be different, they are the same nature. You can also transform your Tantric vows in this way. This accords with the view of the Kadampa Geshe Potowa and I follow this view.

Some clarification about the Rabjung ordination and monastic rules

The term 'Rabjung' means 'renunciate' and all ordained are in that way Rabjungs. Only Gestul/Getsulma and Gelong/Gelongma are member of the Buddhist order. Only them are allowed to wear the yellow upper robe (Tib. Chogue). Only four full orained monks (or nuns) can perform the Sojong Ritual. These ordinations and rituals as well as the "Rain Retreats" and "End of Rain Retreats" are not present in the NKT. By this the Vinaya is not present, which indeed is also not taught in NKT.

Than there is a kind of ordination which depends on the ordaining master, and is called also Rabjung. Such a person aims to become a Getsul but takes at first an initial step, by receiving an intermidiate ordination. With this step he is neither a lay person nor a ordained person. He /She is something in-between. This kind of initial step is trationally given for children monks, but sometimes also for Westeners. The ordaining master may give them the five vows including celebacy of a lay follower or the eight vows of the 24hour ordination (including not eating after noon) or even only one or no vow. Such a person is allowed to wear the robe, but not the yellow upper robe. He can not take part in Sojong and him is not allowed to accept offerings which are intended for ordained persons. The difference between a lay person with the five vows includng celebacy and a Rabjung is, that the latter wishes to step into the order of the Buddha by becomeing a Getsul. But the desciples of GKG are discarouged from doing so. The question is than are they than Rabjungs at all? There are some questions open here. An religious scientist told me, the scientific literature does not cover that topic at the moment in a satisfying way, although she is aware of that situation, that the Vinaya in NKT has changed (how it also changed in Japan, when the monks there started to get merried). Many regards, --Kt66 07:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology in ordination section

The NKT ordination is said to consist of (a) five vows and five aspirations and then (b) ten vows. The section then goes on to talk of "the additional five aspirations of the ten vows". Could someone tidy this language up to make it consistent. I haven't as I'm not sure which is most accurate way to proceed. Thanks 82.30.77.133 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the first five promises are vows in the sense that you keep it completely. The last five points are mere aspirations which just state: I will do this, they include not the promise to restrain from bad conduct as the monastic vows in general do. Between an aspiration and keeping vows there is a difference. Maybe ma English is to bad to show the point more clearly. Many Regards, --Kt66 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Waterhouse references again

Emptymountain notes

there are nine references to three works by "Waterhouse" in this article: notes 44, 62, 96, 112, 119, and 135 refer to Waterhouse 1997, while notes 50 and 101 refer to Waterhouse 1977, and note 144 refers to Waterhouse 2000. However, there are no books or articles by Waterhouse listed in the Reference section. We are not even given Waterhouse's first name!

It would be useful if this could be corrected. I suspect the Waterhouse publication is

Helen Waterhouse, Buddhism in Bath: Authority and Adaptation 1997. ISBN 1 871363 05 5. 251 pp

This reference is listed at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/irpl/crp.htm.

I suspect the "1977" in notes 50 and 101 should be "1997". In her publications list, there is nothing listed for 2000 but three publications in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.77.133 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotes refer to Helen Waterhouse's academical works. Kay, Bluck and others used her as a source for their papers as well. Because many of her works aren't published you have to go to the University Library to read the complete papers or to re-check it. I included her views from the papers of Kay, Bluck, Lopez, Cosort and the like and I put the exact year as they quoted her in the article. I didn't list it as their work, because they quoted her, so the reference is made to her academical researches. If there is a need I can tell you the exact pages in the works of Kay, Bluck and the like where you can find the Waterhouse quotes, including the year. Many Regards, --Kt66 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency re ordination between this article and "Kelsang Gyatso" article

In this article, the NKT ordination is described as a Rabjung-like ordination - as opposed to a Getsul(ma) ordination. By contrast, in the "Kelsang Gyatso" article, Waterhouse is quoted as saying that

the majority of monastics in NKT receive...the...Getsul ordination (novices)...

Clearly, both can't be right so it would be good if someone could correct this inconsistency. And, as in this article, Waterhouse is not properly referenced in the "Kelsang Gytso" article. THanks. --82.30.77.133 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Waterhouse is wrong with her claim, that this is Gestul ordination. This is clearly by common sense and knowledge of what are the vows of monastics. I asked also Inken Prohl by Email. She said there is an evident change in the Monastic Lineage but there is nothing written in academical research until now. So we have the wrong information by Waterhouse regarding the status of ordination and we have no other reliable source for any other / correct statement. This is the actual misery. Regards, --Kt66 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Parlimentary Questions

Recently, user 80.2.20.68 added "Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultish behaviour against the organisation" to the introduction. I moved it to the Controversies seciton, but the user moved it back to the introduction saying, "Not all PQs have been answered-also it is part of general overview-intro should not just be positive-it adds to Clarke's comments." I looked up all the PQ numbers given in the reference, and it seems they've all been answered: 147208 & 9 - "The Department considered whether these allegations had any relevance when set against the Fund's stringent criteria and guidelines. The decision was made that the criteria was satisfied and the award of funding was made"; 152364 - "It is up to schools and local authorities to decide upon resources and teaching methods and this would include checking the credentials of any organisation they chose to work with."; 152368 - "The Department has offered no grants to: (a) Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, (b) new Kadampa Tradition and (c) Soka Gakkai International."; 156701 - "Communities and Local Government has received correspondence from a member of the public regarding the alleged cultish behaviour... As far as we are aware, no other representation has been received."; 157746 - "I refer to the earlier answer given on 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 555W."; 157747 - "I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 October 2007, Official Report, column 667W." It is quite clear to me that the allegations of one member of the public have indeed been "answered," no? It does not seem substantial enough to be put in the introduction of this Wiki article. If it is kept at all, it should be moved back to the Controversies section, with some indication of Parliament's response(s). Emptymountains 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Each time you move it there I will move it back-it is relevant at the beginning of the debate!80.2.20.68 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here, maybe you ask a neutral moderator? regards, --Kt66 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do - remove it - clearly it is an irrelevance - the question of an unnamed member of the public (presumably living in the locality of Portsmouth) relating to allegations is hardly going to meet any criteria here is it? best regards Excellentone 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That the UK parliament is dealing with that question is not irrelevant, I think. I removed that information to the Controversy section. There it fits better. Many regards, --Kt66 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to upset or provoke you in any way, but what exactly do you mean by 'dealing with'? I think it is fairly clear that the question was answered, further that the question didn't relate exclusively to the New Kadampa Tradition, and thirdly that it stemmed from one person - I accept that you find that controversial, I would like to argue that it isn't particularly and is actually fairly irrelevant. Excellentone 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No if you have arguments there is no one who can be get upset, I think. Your former argument is not acceptable for me, if a member of the parliament asks different times the NKT-cult question then this is a fact which can be stated I think. A member of the parliament is an elected person and represents therefore not only himself as you claim. If the parliament has answered that question, the answer can be included as well, and that also the FWBO and SGI was questioned can be stated as well. Reading your arguments I can see no real need to delete the sentence completely, but to improve it. As far as I know, for the UK this question is of importance, because it includes other points as well, like if the NKT, FWBO, SGI can teach Buddhism in UK schools. For the moment I have no idea what to do with that subject matter. Maybe another editor has. I included the existence of the New Kadampa Survivors Group. You can see in the Steven Hassan article that this is possible and with more than 190 members you can not say this is irrelevant, I think. Thank you for your thoughts and effort, --Kt66 09:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you well with your survivors group and with your efforts to identify and oppose the minds that cause you suffering. I still think (for the reasons I gave earlier) that the question of whether a single person writing to their Member of Parliament requesting information about grants given to organisations against whom allegations (note, not substantiated necessarily) have been made of engagement in cultish activity is fairly irrelevant to this article. I am of course happy to be disagreed with. -- Excellentone (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course if this is so important that a single member asked that question is a good argument, but on the other hand he is an elected member of the UK parliament and represents more than one person. Also the fact that that issue was raised up in the UK parliament shows people do worry about that. However, I am not sure how relevant that is, so I restrain to re-include it. (BTW, your manipulative and well packed phrase "I wish you well with your survivors group and with your efforts to identify and oppose the minds that cause you suffering." I do not accept, I offer this phrase back to you.) Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NKT Disambiguation Page

I think a disambiguation page may be needed for the NKT abbreviation, as right now it only goes here, as opposed to giving the option to get to Natural Killer T cell. I added a referral at the top of this page, but I don't know how to make a disambiguation page/what guidelines to follow.--corvus.ag 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

changes in the ordination section

I reverted the changes of Rnchn; they included unsubstantial claims, like

NKT ordination has three levels - basic ordination, novice (Getsul), and fully-ordained (Gelong).

and others like

According to the Lamrim teachings of Geshe Potowa and others, provisional ordination vows transform into actual basic ordination vows when the practitioner develops actual, rather than fabricated, renunciation.

and no quotes were given.

It is most welcome to improve that section but maybe better to discuss this before, because this section may be the most difficult out of a lack of WP:reliable and secondary sources. Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article regards extremely heavily on Kay. Is needs other sources that support the view of the NKT if it is going to be NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdombuddha (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no other source than Kay that researched NKT history, also Kay's research is reviewed and there is no major criticism by scholars. What other WP:RS or scholarly source do you suggest on the NKT history? Although the article regarding the NKT history is based on the research by Kay - a source highly accepted by scholars - many other parts of the article use other sources (see added list). So only the history part is heavily based on Kay, due to a lack of other researches on NKT history. In some time Inform will publish a flyer on NKT. We can see if this will contradict Kay and how to balance. They started their own research on NKT.

  1. ^ www.kadampa.org [1]
  2. ^ Official Kadampa Website, Kadampa Buddhism at [2]
  3. ^ Clarke, Peter Bernard. New Religions in Global Perspective, page 92, ISBN 0-415-25748-4, Routledge 2006
  4. ^ Kay page 56; The Manjushri Institute charity registration number: 271873, Trust Deed, July 1976, 1
  5. ^ Bluck 2006: 129
  6. ^ a b c d e f David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, pages 55, 56
  7. ^ a b c d e f Modern Day Kadampas - published by the NKT [3]
  8. ^ Kay page 53 and 77
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kay pages 61,62,63,64
 10. ^ "Eradicating wrong views" a letter, dated October 27, 1983, written as a response to the FPMT report "A report on recent events at Manjushri Institute (dated October 1, 1983)
 11. ^ Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 230
 12. ^ a b Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 226
 13. ^ a b Kay, page 63
 14. ^ a b c Kay page 78
 15. ^ Kay 2004 : 66
 16. ^ Kay 2004 : 56
 17. ^ Kay 2004 : 65
 18. ^ Kay page 59
 19. ^ a b c d Kay page 73
 20. ^ Kay page 68
 21. ^ Kay 2004 : 74
 22. ^ Kay 2004 : 75
 23. ^ Kay, page 76
 24. ^ a b c d Kay page 77
 25. ^ Kay page 67
 26. ^ a b c Kay page 76
 27. ^ The New Kadampa Tradition, charity registration number: 2758093, October 1992 designed to study and experience Geshe Kelsang's presentation of Buddhism (see page 233 of Kay's research)
 28. ^ Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 234
 29. ^ Kay page 89
 30. ^ Kay page 74
 31. ^ a b Daniel Cozort, The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0, page 240
 32. ^ NKT brochures before June 2006 and NKT-internet-sites (see [4],[5])
 33. ^ Kay pages 88,89
 34. ^ a b Kay : 2004, p82
 35. ^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.; Geshe Kelsang Gyatso discusses Dorje Shugden as a benevolent protector god, Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3
 36. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [6]
 37. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [7]
 38. ^ Joyful Path of Good Fortune (p. 622)
 39. ^ Gyatso, Kelsang: 2002; Clear Light of Bliss, page 294
 40. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [8], [9]
 41. ^ Official Kadampa Website at [10], 12/02/08
 42. ^ Belither, 1997:7—8, see also Bluck
 43. ^ Kay : 2004, p83
 44. ^ Official NKT website,[11]
 45. ^ BBC (bbc.co.uk), [12]; The New Kadampa Tradition
 46. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 47. ^ a b c d Sect disrobes British monk, World Tibet Network News, Sunday, August 18, 1996, [13]
 48. ^ Sect disrobes British monk, World Tibet Network News, Sunday, August 18, 1996, [14]; see also NKT magazine Full Moon
 49. ^ Long Life Prayer for Gen-la Thubten Gyatso, 1991
 50. ^ Gen-la Kelsang Khyenrab
 51. ^ Gen-la Kelsang Khyenrab | The New Kadampa Tradition (NKT)
 52. ^ a b Kay page 86
 53. ^ Cozort page 232
 54. ^ Books on Buddhism and Meditation, [15]
 55. ^ Kay page 91
 56. ^ Special Spiritual Programs in Kadampa Buddhism, [16]
 57. ^ a b c Introduction to the Foundation Program, a transcript of a talk given by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso on the occasion of the inauguration of the Foundation Program at Tara Centre, October 1990, [17]
 58. ^ Waterhouse 1997: 151
 59. ^ a b Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, page 167, ISBN 81-208-1891-1
 60. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind, page 166, ISBN 81-208-1891-1
 61. ^ Kay page 93,94
 62. ^ Full Moon Magazine, Winter 1995, “Wisdom”
 63. ^ Bluck 2006 : 139
 64. ^ Waterhouse 1977 : 166
 65. ^ Kay 2004 : 94
 66. ^ Kay 2004 : 95
 67. ^ Bunting, The Guardian, July 1996, "Shadow Boxing on the Path to Nirvana", [18]
 68. ^ Bunting, Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian, 1998, [19]
 69. ^ Statement by Belither, James 2004 in Bluck 2006 : 139
 70. ^ Statement by Naymgyal 2004 in Bluck 2006 : 139
 71. ^ Bluck, British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development, [20]
 72. ^ Kay page 95
 73. ^ Prasad, 2004
 74. ^ Kay 2004: 85
 75. ^ a b c Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 146, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 76. ^ Published NKT calendars 2000-3
 77. ^ Published NKT calendars 2004-7 and the web calendar at kadampa.org
 78. ^ Geshe Kelsang, Guide to Dakini Land, page 191, 1st and 2nd editions, ISBN: 0948006-40-4
 79. ^ Geshe Kelsang, Guide to Dakini Land, 2005 reprint, page 191, ISBN: 978-0948006-40-1
 80. ^ NKT calendar 2004-7
 81. ^ NKT yearly calendars 2000 onwards
 82. ^ Waterhouse 1997: 174
 83. ^ Bluck Robert, British Buddhism - Teachings, Practice and Development, page 144, RoutledgeCurzon Press, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
 84. ^ Geshe Jampa Thekchok, "Monastic Rites", Wisdom Publication, 1995, page 8
 85. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - the Ordination Handbook
 86. ^ a b www.kadampa.org [21]
 87. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006, Bunting:1996, Lopez 1998: 194
 88. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006
 89. ^ Bluck Interview with Belither 2004, see Bluck:2006
 90. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004, see Bluck:2006, Bunting:1996
 91. ^ a b c Bunting, Special Report - Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana, The Guardian, 1998, [22]
 92. ^ Waterhouse, 1997: 144
 93. ^ Newsweek April 28 1997, see [23]; Ursache und Wirkung, Austria Buddhist Magazine July 2006
 94. ^ a b Bunting, Madeleine: The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996; Ursache und Wirkung, Austria Buddhist Magazine July 2006
 95. ^ Bunting, Madeleine: The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996, Lopez 1998:194, Bluck 2006
 96. ^ a b Lopez 1998:194
 97. ^ The Guardian, London: Saturday 13 July, 1996 (page 10)
 98. ^ Bluck interview with Namgyal, 2004
 99. ^ Bluck interview with Belither, James 2004
100. ^ Buddhist Temples for World Peace, [24]
101. ^ Hotel Kadampa, "A place of Dreams", [25]
102. ^ Kadampa Meditation Center, [26]
103. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 151, ISBN 0-415-39515-1
104. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 8 Autumn 1993
105. ^ a b c d Kay page 95
106. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 6 Winter 1992
107. ^ NKT magazine Full Moon No. 7 Spring 1993
108. ^ Waterhouse (1997: 143)
109. ^ Bluck, page 151
110. ^ a b Bluck, Robert. British Buddhism, 2006: 149
111. ^ Bluck Robert, (Jenkins, 2004)
112. ^ Bluck Robert, (Kelsang Namgyal, 2004)
113. ^ The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, David Barett p.310
114. ^ Kay pages 38,83; The Guardian, July 6, 1996 [27], Newsweek, April 28, 1997 [28]
115. ^ New Kadampa Survivors, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newkadampasurvivors
116. ^ see CNN interactive, [29]
117. ^ "Two Sides of the Same God", by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998
118. ^ Waterhouse 2000, Oliver Freiberger, Department for the Study of Religion University of Bayreuth, Germany [30], Kay page 213
119. ^ a b Buddhist Magazine "Ursache und Wirkung" No. 56, 2006, Austria
120. ^ von Brück, Michael (1999). Religion und Politik im Tibetischen Buddhismus, page 159. München: Kösel Verlag. ISBN 3-466-20445-3 and Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La, ISBN 0-226-49310-5, University of Chicago Press, page 195
121. ^ Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling - Our Purpose (Dorje Shugden statement)[31]
122. ^ Biography of Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche by Geshe Jangsem[32]
123. ^ Interview with Trijang Rinpoche by Dario Tesoroni, in 2001[33]
124. ^ A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden by The Dolgyal Research Committee, TGIE, [34]
125. ^ "A Spirit of the XVII Secolo", Raimondo Bultrini, Dzogchen Community published in Mirror, January 2006
126. ^ Open letter from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso to Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief, The Washington Times [35]
127. ^ Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Summer Festival 2006, Dorje Shugden, [36]
128. ^ a b Bluck 2006 : 148
129. ^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso discusses Dorje Shugden as a benevolent protector god. Spring 1998. Tricycle
130. ^ Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, page 150/151, ISBN 0-415-39515-1

--Kt66 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving pre-NKT historical information to the Manjushri Institute page

I'm moving some of the historical information that pre-dates the founding of the NKT to a new Manjushri Institute page to keep this article concise and focused on the NKT itself. Peaceful5 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According to ....

Has anybody counted the number of times a section starts with "According to ...."? This is not nice --84.167.209.192 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC: encyclopedic tone of article

I just came to look at this article because I heard that there is some controversy relating to the NKT, and was kind of surprised to find an article reading considerably more like an organization's own publicity pamphlet than like an unbiased encyclopedia article on a controversial topic. However I am not an expert on the subtleties of Wikipedia style guidelines, so I am requesting comments from the larger community. Thanks very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgoleus (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 June 2008

Hi there. I'm no expert either, so I skimmed through two pages of other religious traditions: the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist convention. I picked those two in particular because they have both dealt with their own controversies in the past few decades. However, I didn't find much more than a passing mention of controversy. The main point of each article seemed mainly to lay out the basic beliefs and institutions of these two organizations. The format that those two articles use is similar to the format used in the New Kadampa Tradition article. In a sense, you could also say that both the articles on the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention read "like an organization's own publicity pamphlet". In short, I found the tone of the NKT article to be consistent with both the content and the tone as these other two spiritual institutions, which have also been faced with recent controversy. Thanks for asking the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartmanjushri (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it reads fine, very encyclopedic, very informative. There didn't seem to be any undue flattery or hostility. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no "expert" either, as i have never personally visited a centre of the NKT. I am a Buddhist practitioner in germany. My teachers are, as is the founder of the NKT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, members of the Gelugpa sect, the "youngest" and since approx. 300 years dominant school of Tibetan Buddhism, whose most influential member is the currrent Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has spoken out against the practice of worshipping Dorje Shugden, which is one of the main practices of the NKT. Dorje Shugden is a protector deity especially guarding the Gelugpa, also against other sects and is therefore considered sectarian. As the Dalai Lama is the most prominent teacher of Tibetan Buddhism in the west, i consider it a very important fact, that he consistently warns against this practice and banns followers of this practice from entering a formal teacher-pupil-relationship with him (as is regularly required in Buddhist practices). As i said, i am no expert on the subject, but what i do know is that the controversy is huuuge. Actually, i wouldnt even have known about the NKT, was it not for this controversy and the remarks by the Dalai Lama, which i personally witnessed twice already. Everyone in the Buddhist community knows about it... so i think it can only be considered fair to inform the readers of this article about it. That is why i added a little remark about it. I do not want to delve even deeper into this topic as i really am no "expert", but i do know that there are many hints, that underlying the Dorje Shugden controversy is a deeper controversy about the future directions of Tibetan Buddhism. (Dogmatic/traditionalist/exclusive vs. the rather undogmatic/inclusive approach of the Dalai Lama). The founding of the NKT by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso could then be seen as an attempt to establish a rather dogmatic, exclusively gelug western branch of Tibetan Buddhism.

Here´s what i added:

The NKT is at the center of an ongoing controversy regarding the practice of worshipping the protector deity Dorje Shugden, which the current Dalai Lama has consistently spoken out against, and which many in the Tibetan Buddhist community consider sectarian.^[1] Andi 213.196.200.77 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the logic sited above, then wouldn't it be equally logical and fair to add to the page of the Dalai Lama that his organization is at the center of the controversy as well? In both cases, the article is about the person. There is a full Wiki page devoted to the controversy. I don't think we should mention it on this page unless it's also on the Dalai Lama page as well. If it hasn't already been removed, I'll do it now, until this has been discussed more. Eyesofcompassion —Preceding comment was added at 04:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not think that my/your logic applies in both ways. While the refusal to give up the worship of Dorje Shugden is one of the defining characteristics of the NKT and may even be one of the main reasons for its founding/seperation from the Gelug school and rejecting the spiritual authority of the Dalai Lama altogether i do not see how the controversial views of this very new and rather small fraction of western buddhists, founded in 1991 and centered around ONE teacher, who has purportedly even been excluded from the monastery he studied at, could contribute significantly to characterizing the person of the 14th Dalai Lama, but.....

2. ...surprise, surprise....the controversy is already mentioned there :-) Andi 84.44.146.41 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find where you saw reference on the Dalai Lama wiki or Gelug wiki sites to this controversy. Can you point me in the right direction? Even so, going by the history, it could be argued that the Dalai Lama is the one who changed and went off in another direction, dropping a former core practice of key Gelugpa teachers. Hence, I think everyone can be served if each site just describes the core beliefs of that tradition and the controversy remains on the controversy page 68.231.12.16 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It´s in the article about the current (14th) Dalai Lama under "Controversy". 78.34.209.41 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it. I was looking under the generic 'Dalai Lama' site. As long as it's on both sites, I think it's not unreasonable to mention, though I still prefer it not be on either. 68.231.12.16 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I came because of the request for review. I'm not exactly neutral since I'm an ex-NKT member and moved to the FPMT which makes the Dalai Lama my guru. However... I think in general the tone's fine. What's problematic is the length... it's 34kb and they've only used 41kb for the whole Mahayana page. So maybe if the editors tried to reduce volume (there seems to be a few long quotes that might be editited somewhat).

Also... I'd suggest that instead of a whole section on the Dorje Shugden controversy there's simply a link in the lead saying no more than "For the Dorje Shuden controversy see Dorje Shugden Controversy" Many readers will come to this page looking for it and they shouldn't need to scroll down to find it. But those staying probably wont be much interested in the details Dakinijones (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD: New Kadampa Tradition

The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. I am yet to see an unbiased stance towards the Nyingma from any Shugden practitioner, in person or in literature. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.

We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) ^[2]

The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.

In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from GKG, NKT, DS, WSS, and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD New Kadampa Tradition Dorje Shugden Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Dorje Shugden Controversy Western Shugden Society and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the Path

Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child

so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful. In teachings, Zong Rinpoche (a teacher of GKG, who visited Ulverston several times, and gave initiations into Vajra-yogini, as well as DS itself) stated to many buddhists in the UK that protesting was a waste of time and energy, and should have no place in the activities of even the lay practitioner. It would be better to recite some Manis. (20040302 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

The discussion whether to remove this and related articles is was first being carried out at [1]. Emptymountains (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so that no one thinks that User:20040302's comments and requests above have not gone unanswered, please see people's replies at [2]. Emptymountains (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

I apologize, but I deleted the biased sections that Thegone continues to add over and over. I noticed when logging in this morning that they had all been re-added again. Please, will someone lock these articles until we can all come to a compromise? I will be posting this message on the other talk pages where I deleted this information. Thank you for your understanding. --Iheartmanjushri (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

What do the editors feel about this section? There are no references included so my feeling is that either reliable references should be provided or the section should be removed. It also seems to repeat a lot of information in the Dorje Shugden controversy article, so would it be better to shorten this section and provide a reference to the main article? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordination issues

I find that this section is overly defensive and incorrect. For example, quoting Nagarjuna is out of context there, as it was in his text A Letter To a Friend which was written to the king, a householder. He is simply saying that the practice of the three higher trainings sum up the Vinaya, not that upholding gives a person the right to say that they practice the Vinaya. Also, I changed the point about the robes being of Lama Tsong Khapa's tradition as they are not exclusive to the Gelug.Jmlee369 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This may be incorrect from the perspective of the tradition that you yourself practice in, but it is not incorrect in the context of Kadampa ordination. This is a religious belief held by the NKT, so therefore there is no basis for judging it from the outside as being 'incorrect'. The most that can be said is it is perhaps different elsewhere. Different does not mean wrong.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was rather shocking to see the NKT ordination summarily dismissed by someone who knows very little about it, especially given that 700 people are happily ordained in this tradition and keeping pure moral discipline. (Truthbody (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

To state that such ordinations are not found elsewhere is not incorrect. Even the NKT says that the vows are a modern adaptation and condensation of the Vinaya, which means that it was previously non-existant. Furthermore, if the quote from Nagajurna is to be used, it should at least be put into context by saying that the text was a letter to a householder, not a monastic. It's not as if the NKT are denying that the text "Letter to a Friend" wasn't written to a householder king.

Furthermore, to use already established terminology such as Getsul and Gelong is improper as there is a already a consensus as to what makes a person a Gelong (Bikshu) or Getsul (Sramanera) and to say that the people who ordain under the NKT will eventually come to be equal to Gelongs and Getsuls would be to contradict the Buddha himself. One's actions as a non-monastic may be like the Gelong's or Getsul's, but without the ordination and vows being received, the term is misleading.

Also, to generalise and say that all the ordained people of the NKT are abiding purely in their vows is baseless and a huge assumption. ALthough it is not in the article, to even say it is wrong. Just consider all the scandals that have occured and to which GKG has acknowledged and apologised for.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, we must discuss this matter because it's my belief that in these degenerate times, very few people actually understand the real nature and function of ordination. Therefore, please tell me according to your understanding:

What is ordination and how is it received?
What is the meaning of ordination?
What is it that constitutes a Getsul or a Gelong? Surely it's not the number of vows!
Why would it contradict Buddha to say that NKT monks and nuns would eventually become Gelongs or Gelongmas?

When we come to a consensus about these questions, it will be much clearer. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddha, in the teachings on the four reliances Buddha gives further guidelines for arriving at an unmistaken understanding of the teachings. He says:

Do not rely upon the person, but upon the Dharma.

Do not rely upon the words, but upon the meaning.

Do not rely upon the interpretative meaning, but upon the definitive meaning.

Do not rely upon consciousness, but upon wisdom.

NKT ordination in particular relies upon the second and third of these pieces of advice. The actual meaning of ordination is mental, not physical. So the actual words of the Vinaya are not what make the Vinaya, but rather the 'meaning' of those words is the actual Vinaya. This meaning of the Vinaya is captured in NKT ordination, and so therefore it is valid. If we overly rely upon the literal words, and not realize their meaning, then we fall into the extreme of fundamentalism. The Vinaya vows listed in the Sutras are the interpretive meaning of the definitive Vinaya in the given cultural context in which the Vinaya was given 2,500 years ago. The definitive meaning is timeless. NKT ordination ordaines people into the definitive meaning, the exact words of the NKT ordination vows are modern interpretive meanings of the timeless definitive meaning. So if somebody wants to literally practice the Vinaya, I rejoice. But if somebody wants to practice the definitive meaning of the Vinaya in a modern context, we cannot say it is not a valid ordination. To do so is not only sectarian, it is dangerous. It causes NKT monks and nuns to doubt their ordination, which can only lead to a loss of their moral discipline. What NKT monks and nuns are doing is 'good', not 'bad'. We should rejoice in this, not insult them and harm their practice because of an unrelated political issue. --Dspak08 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "He [Nagarjuna] is simply saying that the practice of the three higher trainings sum up the Vinaya, not that upholding gives a person the right to say that they practice the Vinaya," please consider that "The domain of sīla, for instance, comprises also all the regulations of the monk's Code of Discipline (Vinaya)" from Nyanatiloka Mahathera's The Buddha's Path to Deliverance[3] (p. 54). I think Nagarjuna meant what he said: An ordained person practicing the training in higher moral discipline is practicing the entire Vinaya, because the training in higher moral discipline is "bigger" than the Vinaya (i.e., the latter is subsumed under the former). Emptymountains (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why say that to the king who is a householder? Also included in the text is advice about the proper wife and so forth, so it was advice given in context of a householder. It also brings into question why the Buddha established the ordination procedure of 10 bikshus and so forth, along with the robes if the three higher trainings were simply enough.

Jmlee369 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you follow your logic, then it means that there are some Sutras which do not apply to ordained people. So everytime Buddha said something to a lay person it has nothing to do with ordained people (and presumably vice versa). This is an extremely narrow view which makes an unnecessary division in the Dharma. One of the preeminent qualities of the lamrim is to realize that all of Buddhas instructions are to be taken as personal advice. The three higher trainings are common to all practitioners. If such a division were supposed to exist, then why would Buddha give teachings to mixed audiences. It seems that would create confusion. Or perhaps you are saying the people in the audience should not listen to the Buddha if they think he is talking about another class of practitioner. If your logic is true, he would have to start every sentence and say who it applies to - for ordained people, blah blah blah; for lay people, blah blah blah. It makes no sense. But if you want to view things that way in the context of your tradition, that is your choice. Within the NKT, this is not how it is viewed. Notions of mutual tolerance and respect would dictate tolerance and respect for different views. You also have not addressed the other issues and valid reasons mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspak08 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the point. What I am saying is, Nagarjuna knew who he was talking to and though it is good advice and the predecesor to the Lam Rim, not all of it is applicable to the ordained people. An example is how he advises the king on what type of person is a good wife. If ordained people were to listen to this, then they would take up wives. However, after putting the advice into context, we can see that this is not the case.

The advice about taking up a wife is obviously specific to a lay person. The 'definitive meaning' of the three higher trainings applies to all practitioners.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is said that the teachings concerning the Vinaya are not for lay people.

Lay people practice the 'meaning' of the Vinaya, just not its external aspect.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons being that laypeople can then criticise bikshus and bikshunis for faults, even though it is up to the bikshu or bikshuni sangha to do so, not laypeople.

Within the NKT, all Sangha members are encouraged to help one another, which often includes helping others see their faults, regardless of whether or not they are lay or ordained. How else could a lay teacher help ordained students. Within the NKT, the ordained community does not lead a traditional monastic life. The Vinaya arose for rules within traditional monastaries. If monks and nuns are not cloistered in traditional monastaries, it seems entirely natural that different external rules would apply. The 'meaning' must remain the same, but its application will vary depending upon the context of the individual practitioner. Such a view is more beneficial because it opens the door up to more people to practice the meaning of ordained life. What is better, somebody practicing the meaning of ordained life or them not doing so at all? --Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, to say that any practitioner of the three higher trainings has the right to wear robes, shave their heads and call themselves monks.

That is not what is being said in the NKT. There are uncommon vows of NKT ordination that lay people do not practice. Your argument is NKT monks are nuns are not 'real' monks and nuns because they do not practice the Vinaya. The NKT's answer is they do practice the 'timeless meaning' of the Vinaya, and that is more important than getting caught up in the literal words. --Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To address other points, to say that because one is practising morality, one is also practising the Vinaya is a fallacy. It is possible to say that because one is upholding the Vinaya, one is also upholding the three higher trainings. However, the reverse does not apply because the recipient of the vows based on the Vinaya are spefic individuals who underwent the proper procedures, whereas anyone can practise the three higher trainings.

The NKT is not saying anybody who practices the three higher trainings is ordained, they are just saying that the meaning of the entire Vinaya is being practiced through the 10 NKT ordination vows. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. You keep putting words in the mouth of the NKT and then criticising them for those words. That is called 'a straw man.' --Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the questions, I did not notice them so will answer them here. To start, the bikshu ordination is the procedure through which a novice is fully ordained into the bikshu sangha by receiving vows conferred to them by a Vinaya master and a quorum of at least five bikshus who have held the vows for more than 10 years. The meaning of ordination is that after generating renunciation, a person seeks to live the 'homeless life' to devote their entire life to the dharma without distraction. Based on this, they take up the training rules as formulated by the Buddha to keep their actions of body, speech and mind proper as was expected of beings worthy of offerings. What constitutes a gelong and getsul is that they receive the vows of a gelong or getsul. Why? Because the Buddha laid down the rules for those as bikshus and bikshunis to follow when they became bikshus and bikshunis so that their conduct may be pure and in line with those worthy of repect. We could easily say that a person who has generated bodhichitta, has the aspiring bodhichitta vows, but does not uphold the bodhisattva vows and is therefore, not a bodhisattva. Why? Because they have not received the vows in their mindstream in this life. To say one is a bodhisattva, one should uphold the vows of a bodhisattva. So it would contradict the Buddha if a person who does not have the vows of bikshu to say that they are a bikshu. No matter how advanced their renunciation, even though their conduct may be like that of a bikshu, without the conferred vows they are not a bikshu. Simply look at the ngagpas, who, although having generated renunciation and the three higher trainings, do not wear the robes of a bikshu. Even when gathering for prayers, they will take their seat behind the bikshu sangha, regardless of realisation, because the bikshus uphold more vows.

Some great ordained master (I can't remember off of the top of my head his name) said that Dromtonpa was his ordaining abbot. How is this possible if Dromtonpa was a lay person. It is because under Dromtonpa this master developed ~~bodhichitta~~ renunciation, and his vows transformed into actual vows. It is with the same spirit that NKT ordination vows develop as the realizations of the practitioner develop. Seating assignments are really besides the point... Speaking about bodhisattva vows, I was wonderng how you reconcile your bodhisattva vows of not criticising other traditions with you spending so much time trying to do just that with your contributions to this article? Different people may have different opinions on the Dorje Shugden controversy, but that has nothing to do with the NKT itself and NKT ordination. It seems the real motivation is trying to discredit the NKT due to its stand on the Dorje Shugden issue. Lets keep the separate issues separate. Virtue is good, even if the NKT does it. Lets rejoice in it instead of try to tear it down. NKT ordination might not fit your definition of ordination, but it does fit the NKT definition of ordination. So those who want to ordain in the NKT may do so happily, and those who want to ordain in another tradition practicing the ordination vows in a different way may also do so. The NKT can rejoice in the ordination of other traditions, and others can rejoice in the ordination of the NKT. This is how harmony between traditions is built, not through criticising and judging. --Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dspak08, you mean Geshe Potowa. And, it was renunciation (not bodhichitta) that transformed Geshe Potowa's provisional Pratimoksha vows into real Pratimoksha vows. Plus, I think that Jmlee369 is merely critiquing the validity of NKT ordination, not criticizing it. Maybe there's not much difference in those two words, but in any case I don't see Jmlee369 as being disrespectful. Besides, how do you know Jmlee369 has taken Bodhisattva vows? Emptymountains (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the Buddha allowed for the amendment of minor vows. However, the entire bikshu sangha must reach a consensus. Which individual has the right to create a modern vow system? Not even the Dalai Lama has changed the vows concerning the conference of the bikshuni ordination by the bikshu sangha, because the agreement of the biskhu sangha has not been reached. During the first council, the arhats there chose not to change the vows, because they were unable to know which vows were minor and which were major. So before anything can be changed or modernised, the entire sangha must agree to it.

Again, see the quote I mentioned above about relying upon the meaning, not the words, relying upon the definitive meaning, not the interpretative meaning. The meaning of the Vinaya is not being changed, so there is no problem. --Dspak08 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the Medicine Buddha Sutra:

Ananda said, "Greatly virtuous World Honoured One, I have absolutely no doubts regarding the Sutras spoken by the Tathagata. Why? Because all Buddhas' karmas of body, speech and mind are pure-World Honoured One, the sun and moon could fall, wonderfully high, the king of mountains, could be toppled or shaken, but the words of the Buddhas never change.

That isn't to say that we should disregard our own questioning and so forth, but why should the Vinaya not be timeless literally? Especially for the vows that can be considered major ones.

Jmlee369 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See quote above where Buddha said we rely upon the meaning, not the words; we rely on definitive meaning, not interpretative meaning. To not do this we fall into the extreme of fundamentalism. The fundamental point is this: different traditions do things differently according to the different karmic dispositions of the practitioners. Problems arise when we judge other traditions through the lens of our own tradition. The Dalai Lama himself advises against us doing this. He said:

“I want to emphasise that it is extremely important for practitioners to sincerely believe in their respective religions. Usually, I say that it is very important to distinguish between "belief in one religion" and "belief in many religions". The former directly contradicts the latter. Therefore, we should resolutely resolve these contradictions. This is possible only by thinking in contextual terms. A contradiction in one context might not be the same in the other. In the context of one person, a single truth is closely associated with a single source of refuge. This is of extreme necessity. However, in the context of society or more than one person it is necessary to have different sources of refuge, religions and truths. …

A society, which has many religions should also have many prophets and sources of refuge. In such a society it is very important to have harmony and respect amongst the different religions and their practitioners. We must distinguish between belief and respect. Belief refers to total faith, which you must have in your own religion. At the same time you should have respect for all other religions. This tradition of believing in one's own religion and having respect for others is in existence in Ladakh since your forefathers. Therefore you do not have to invent it. The most important thing at the moment is to preserve and promote this tradition. I would like to thank all of you for working hard regarding this and request you to continue to do so in the future."(http://www.dalailama.com/page.122.htm)

The purpose of this article is to describe what is the NKT. This section describes what is ordination within the context of the NKT. I just don't see the value of criticising the practice of virtue. Why cannot people just rejoice in what NKT monks and nuns are doing? They have their interpreation, as does any other tradition. Problems come when we judge other traditions from the lens of our tradition. If we understand they are different traditions, then we can all respect and rejoice in one another and harmony will result. Isn't that better?--Dspak08 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding, "... not all of it is applicable to the ordained people," perhaps not all of the letter is applicable to lay people either. It is written to a king, and presumably this king would have both lay and ordained as his subjects. Why else do you think a letter written to a layperson would mention the 253 vows of a monk, since it is clear they would not be applicable to him personally?

Regarding, "...to say that because one is practising morality, one is also practising the Vinaya is a fallacy," I do not think this is what Nagarjuna or Nyanatiloka meant. I provided a pdf of the latter so that you could see the quote in context, and Nyanatiloka does make a distinction between what the higher training in morality comprises for an ordained person versus a lay person; he is not saying that a lay person practicing the higher training in morality is thereby practicing the Vinaya, and I was not claiming that either.

Since it is clear from the Nagarjuna and/or Nyanatiloka quotes that an (already) ordained person can uphold the Vinaya simply by practicing the higher training in morality, all we have to ask is whether the NKT Sangha were even actually ordained in the first place. Therefore, the real strength of your arguments rests in the question of whether ordination vows were "conferred to them by a Vinaya master and a quorum of at least five bikshus who have held the vows for more than 10 years." I think we can all agree that GKG is a Vinaya master, so what about the quorum? Well, that's really for others to answer more authoritatively, but I have some thoughts on the matter. The quorum was not always necessary: (1) Buddha himself did not need a quorum to ordain others, and (2) when Buddha first allowed monks other than himself to ordain people, one monk was sufficient, with the person being ordained needing only to recite a refuge prayer three times, with no precepts.^[3] Precepts were only added "whenever a bhikkhu violated the spirit of the Way of Enlightenment and Liberation." Especially in regards to #1, why isn't there a quorum needed for Bodhisattva and Tantric vows? And, if the Vinaya master is also a Tantric master, then why cannot he or she ordain others just as Buddha himself? I think what we are seeing in NKT ordination is ordination from a Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective, not contrained to a Hinayana perspective; this is based on what I've read in The Ordination Handbook, but I could be wrong.

Regarding, "...before anything can be changed or modernised, the entire sangha must agree to it," well, you better go tell Thich Nhat Hanh![4]

Regarding, "...why should the Vinaya not be timeless literally," how many times was the (formalized) Vinaya changed or amended during Buddha's lifetime, and after Buddha's parinirvana (hence the different Vinaya codes in different lineages, e.g. 227 vows vs. 253 vows)? If the Vinaya is timeless, why did Buddha give permission for it to be changed? I actually partially agree with you, that the outer Vinaya changes according to external circumstances, but the inner Vinaya (i.e., "the spirit of the Way of Enlightenment and Liberation") is timeless. The NKT is trying to reclaim the "timeless Vinaya." Dspak08 explained this above. Emptymountains (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to simplify this problem, this is what I see as being improper. That the monks and nuns of NKT are wearing the dharma robes (that is, the upper yellow robe and the lower red robe. I'm not sure about the upper outer robe) and having the appearance identical to those who uphold all the vows of the Vinaya. This obviously leads to people's assumption that they are the one and the same, as is so often seen in the media when they use the term monk or nun to refer to NKT ordainees while also using it to refer to upholders of the Vinaya. Just as the Japanese priests call themselves priests and not monks because they do not uphold the Vinaya, likewise, I think some distinguishing point must be made, whether it is here or not. That is to say, it should be clear that the procedures for ordination and the vows conferred are different between the two (also noting that the NKT vows do not require a person to wear robes or shave their head, whereas the Vinaya vows do).

This part is just to answer some of the points raised above, not all, but some. To say that GKG has the spiritual authority (which is quite often disputed due to possible samaya breaches) of the Buddha is going a bit too far, seeing as not even the Dalai Lama performs bikshu ordinations without the quorum. For whatever reason the Buddha required a quorum for the full ordination, it has been maintained. Also, the Buddha did not require such a quorum for tantric and bodhisattva vows, so it is not performed in such a manner. Furthermore, the early sangha did indeed ordain under the Buddha, then later under one bikshu. But as the sangha grew, with the establishment of monasteries and an increased number of vows set down, the procedure was also formalised. It should be noted that whatever country has at least 5 bikshus and bikshunis is considered the central land of the dharma. Surely, there is a reason for this and not simply any person who has generated true renunciation. I'd also like some clarification on Geshe Potowa's ordination, whether he received the full ordination under what circumstances and so forth for the purposes of this discussion.

To quote Lama Tsong Khapa:"When I become a monk or nun, may I not commit any of the natural bad deeds nor break even the slightest of Buddha’s precepts." I think it is signifcant that even the minor precepts are worth upholding in their entirety. Jmlee369 (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear jmlee - how do you know that those who wear the robes of an ordained person are upholding all the vows of the Vinaya? My understanding is that even they recognise that they cannot and recite some prayer of purification for the vows they cannot maintain.

There are no samaya breaches between GKG and Trijang Rinpoche. Geshe Kelsang has no samaya with the Dalai Lama. In a public teaching he once explained how he had the intention to go to one of the Dalai Lama's teachings when he was living in India but then there were some obstacles and couldn't go. He said something like "it looks like I have no karma to attend the Dalai Lama's teachings"

But as the sangha grew, with the establishment of monasteries and an increased number of vows set down, the procedure was also formalised. It should be noted that whatever country has at least 5 bikshus and bikshunis is considered the central land of the dharma. Surely, there is a reason for this and not simply any person who has generated true renunciation

NKT ordinations are performed not just with 5 Bhikshus and Bhikshunis but pretty much with the whole ordained Sangha community of the NKT (everyone is welcome to attend the ceremony and renew their own ordination vows) so this criterion is satisfied. What other criterion should there be for being a fully ordained monk or nun other than realizations? It makes perfect sense that whatever qualifies you as fully ordained is the state of your moral discipline based on the realization of renunciation; surely it can't just be how many vows you've taken but not necessarily been able to keep? I personally don't see how anyone can keep 253 vows in these degenerate times, especially when many of them are physical vows that have no relevance to this age and culture.

I don't believe there are people these days who really know the meaning of ordination, so because of that they stick to the original rules of Buddha without understanding why he made them. What we need is clear understanding and wisdom rather than slavishly sticking with a bunch of rules because we don't know why they were formulated in the first place. Surely that's just dogma? Buddha never advised doing something just because it was tradition.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gen-la Losang, who at one time was a fully ordained monk in the traditional sense jmlee is talking about, told a story in a teaching once that he had all the vows, he was able to keep them, but the problem was if he did he would not really be able to help people in this modern age. He then wrote Venerable Geshe-la saying that he could keep his Vinaya vows (in the traditional sense) but by doing so it would be less beneficial to others (and thus violate the spirit of his bodhisattva vows). I don't know the exact sequence of events after that, but essentially this experience was to a certain extent part of why VGL simplified the NKT ordination vows.

However, we need to find some sort of compromise, otherwise this discussion will go on forever. I agree, it seems appropriate that some distinction be made between NKT ordination as opposed to the traditional Vinaya ordination. Perhaps we can say, "NKT monks and nuns do not take the 253 vows traditionally found in the Vinaya. However, they do take 10 broadly-encompassing vows, which are viewed by them to capture the essential meaning of all the traditional 253 vows." I am open to any other suggestions, so this is a first attempt at compromise language. --Dspak08 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dspak08 and I think their suggestion is quite reasonable. However, to reply to the points made, there is a common example of one of the Kagyu masters, I think it was Naropa about helping a woman cross the river. Naropa was concerned about breaching his vows of not touching woman with an excited state of mind, so though it best not to help her. Meanwhile, his companion took her across. When they reached the other shore, the woman revealed her true nature of being Vajrayogini and took the monk who helped her to Kacho Shing, her pureland. That's only one ending, but the point is, the bodhisattva vows do allow for breaches in the Pratimoksha vows when neccesary. However, in that example, I doubt that the monk broke a Pratimoksha vow at all because he probably did not give rise to thoughts of lust.

To get back to point, the Vinaya rules are accompanied by stories relating their origin. So adherence to them is not just dogma, we can quite easily reflect on the meaning and put the vow into practice. Furthermore, to perform an ordination, the basic requisites are five monks with over ten rains retreats, one of whom is a Vinaya master to be assembled at a place where the monastic boundry has been defined. Then the applicant is asked about obstructions that may impede them from being ordained. Also, only monastics may participate in the ceremony. To purify broken vows, the confession and other such actions as forfeiture of objects and the meeting of the community should be performed before sojong so that all who attend are pure in their vows. The Vinaya specifies the action which must be taken to correct a breach of vows. No one can be expected to keep all vows purely for ever, seeing as they are rather easy to break. Thus, mindfulness must be cultivated. That is essentially the purpose of these vows - to generate mindfulness and to subdue the actions of the three doors.

To briefly mention GKG's samaya and a possible breach of them, it is said that in the records of Tsangpa khangtsen, GKG's college at Sera in Tibet, he took Kalachakra with the Dalai Lama in Tibet. He also took some sutra teachings as well, apparently. However, more easily confirmed is his criticism of the Yellow Book, even though it is the oral instructions of Trijang Rinpoche. Just something to think about, seeing as samaya and instructions of Rinpoche is one of the main reasons for upholding the Shugden practice.

Jmlee369 (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding, "his [GKG's] criticism of the Yellow Book, even though it is the oral instructions of Trijang Rinpoche," are we to also say that the Dalai Lama broke his samaya with Trijang Rinpoche when he criticized the book?

Regarding, "Furthermore, the early sangha did indeed ordain under the Buddha, then later under one bikshu. But as the sangha grew, with the establishment of monasteries and an increased number of vows set down, the procedure was also formalised," please consider the following:

Vinaya rules are only promulgated in a community with disciplinary problems. If bhikkhus are enlightened, or at least practicing sincerely, there is little or no need for a disciplinary code. For this reason, the Buddha explicitly refused to lay down a Vinaya, even when begged to do so by Sāriputta... We are thus perfectly justified in thinking that a Vinaya with more rules is indicative of a community with more disciplinary problems. This remains the case today. In a small monastery with a few sincere bhikkhus practicing together, there is little need for disciplinary measures or restraints beyond the basic Vinaya. Only in the large monasteries, which attract many monastics of differing motivations, is there a need to promulgate extra controls on conduct.[5]

It has been good discussing this with all of you. But to avoid endless debate, working towards a consensus on the language in the article should be our focus. That said, I agree with DSpak08's proposed compromise. Emptymountains (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last thing I mention about the Yellow Book here, but my point was that because Shugden practice and much of it's teachings are maintained due to samaya with Trijang Rinpoche, I find it strange then that only select teachings are considered true instructions and those dealing with sectarianism such as the Yellow Book are considered to be incorrect.

Jmlee369 (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this apparent discrepency is addressed well at [6]. Emptymountains (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the Buddha's quote about the abolishment of the minor rules to the one that can be found in the sutras, rather than Thich Naht Han's quote. Jmlee369 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

^ see references in main article about the Dorje Shugden Controversy
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition
^ Old Path, White Clouds, pp. 160-161, 315-316

[1] see references in main article about the Dorje Shugden Controversy

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition

[3] Old Path, White Clouds, pp. 160-161, 315-316

[1]

[2]

[3]

Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Archive 8