Talk:Kelsang Gyatso/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Might I suggest that the text:

"This remarkable teacher inspires so many people from so many different countries because he teaches from example. He is a humble Buddhist monk dedicated to helping people throughout the world find true happiness in their hearts."

...is a bit too flowery and not objective enough?

It certainly might be true of the gentleman :), but it doesn't sound quite unbiased enough.

Picture added

Added a picture of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Also very controversial

I like to add that Geshe Kelsang is also very controversial. For further informations I added a link to informations from an ex NKT member, Thubten Gonpo. I'm also Ex-NKT. -- Kt66 12:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry there are many points who are not unbiased or neutral, so thats why i made some changes. i don't want to frustrate his desciples but there are also other sides of him and backrounds which should be known in an enzyclopedia. because advertisment you can find on the nkt sites... -- Kt66 16:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is looking much less biased than it was when I was here a few weeks ago. I've only just glanced at it and I'll have to go through it more completely but this seems initially to be a big improvement. At least unsubstantiated allegations without any evidence presented have been removed. I see that things must now be based on verifiable sources. How wonderful!!! Kristi

I enjoy in your joy, fine. Kt66 12:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

remove page

would it not be better to remove the page to Geshe Kelsang Gytaso he is known with this name. Kelsang Gytaso's name is known as the name of the 7th Dalai Lama. -- Kt66 16:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No the wikipedia convention is not to use titles before names and Geshe is something like Dr, in that it signifies the award of a higher degree, see prefixes. Billlion 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

oh thank you for this information - of course this makes sense! and thank you also for your fine corrections of my additions -- Kt66 22:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

took charge or took over

hi billion you changed and asked me...

I meant: took over. Geshe Kelsang Gytaso was invited by Lame Yeshe at Lama Yeshe's center: Manjushri Institute - an FPMT Center. The Ex-Member Thubten Gonpo own a tape on which Geshe Kelsang forced Lama Yeshe to give him the center. You find this in the phayul forum. That's why: He took it over. Just to say took over is quite neutral but implies also the question: how that?

As Thubten Donpo says he has documents and the tape from 22th July 1983 (oh tomorrow the tape has birthday!) which shows that Lama Yeshe was blackmailed by Geshe Kelsang. So to say "took over" seems to me to be more diplomatic than to say "blackmailed by...".

The quote you find at: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:pXbqBr63L-gJ:www.phayul.com/forums/showPost.aspx%3FpostID%3D40296%26cp%3D6+thubten+gonpo+Chip+Rodarmor&hl=de or just put "Thubten Gonpo Chip Rodarmor" into google.

Here a very short extract: "However, at Lama Yeshe’s request the Dalai Lama asked Kelsang Gyatso to leave Manjushri Manjushri in Autumn of 1983 and repair to York and live in his (KG’s) own center there, the Madhyamaka Centre. His Holiness did this by sending his brother to Conishead Priory to discuss this with KG. Obviously, KG was not swayed by this emissary of the Dalai Lama.

As I said above, I am in possession of a document composed by Kelsang Gyatso (with the help of his English editors) entitled "Eradicating Wrong Views." It contains ALL the information about Kelsang Gyatso's tactics in acquiring Manjushri Institute for himself and it is this that NKT people do not want to hear. "

I know this stuff is quite strange. But sometimes this happens. That's why an article based on facts is very useful. --Kt66 19:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

put reasons for critics and links back

is there anything wrong to list the reasons of critics? or with the mentioned links? I believe not, so I put it back. What does Billion thinks on that??? --Kt66

Some people submitting on this site seem to be quite angry and defensive, which is not a buddhist thing to do. If you practice buddhism, whether under Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or the dalai Lama, I assume you practice some of the main principals of buddhism. I don't want to point out your faults, but I feel I must be wrathful for you right now in pointing out that Buddhism is not supposed to be in any way involved in politics, however it has been in the past, which lead to a purification that Tibet is now facing, from the chinese invasion. Second, concerning yourself with samsara, like arguing who is what, and trying to say bad things about one GURU or another is pointless and a negative action. Buddhists hold no criticism against other traditions. Third, one should not be concerned about acheiving a bad reputation, because renunciation of samsara means they will not concern themselves with such things. Why would one be concerned of "smear campaigns" and the like if what was being said in such campaigns were not true? Many people posting on Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the dalai lama are acting like they are not informed at all about true, pure buddhist teachings. Keep in mind, corruption exists, unfortunately even in sacred practices. The suffering of tibetan buddhists and the dalai lama's struggle with china is their karma. Karma doesn't make mistakes. ---- ubmkty

some corrections

I think to write: "Geshe Kelsang has been criticised by many Buddhist masters including the 14th Dalai Lama" is not that much appropriate. Normaly Tibetans are quite low key with critics. My experience is: they knit their brows, laught about it or shake softly theirs heads - like they would say: 'this is unbelieveable'. This reactions expresses their critics.

NKT 'refutations'

I think the problem is to use the word "pure" to describe oneself as "pure tradition", "pure practitioners" and the like is the problem. Never I heard that any buddhist tradition nowadays says: We're pure tradition, you know: We're pure Sakya or pure Nyingma, pure Zen, and the like. And how would people feel if the Germans or Frenchs would claim: We're pure Germans, we're pure Frenchs. We're pure Eurpopeans! Or a katholic group would claim: "we're pure catholic!" ?? If you say: we're pure tradition than there must also be an impure tradition. If NKT is pure, is there anything outsite NKT impure? If not, why using this term? This term is just giving some exclusivity to NKT. On the other hand. NKT is no pure tradition even from their own defintion. The teachers of GKG taught him that homosexuality is sexual misconduct and GKG first put this also in his book Joyful Path, later he removed that passage. (Which I think is quite appropriate, because one has to understand the historical background of that explanation). But however he changed that explantion of his teachers! And of course he do not pass what was taught him about monastic tradition, he do not teach the Tantras him was taught, like Yamantaka, Ghuyasamaja, Kalarupa and the like. So better not to use the term "pure", isn't it?

I think the discussion on NKT is not on "to hold power in Tibet" and such stuff. NKT has itself quite isolated within the buddhist community and even GKG has isolated himself from his family, monastic tradition and tibetan community and GKG/NKT make their own things now. And I think this comes from seeing the own things as superior or exclusive. From this concept of "pure" (pure tradition, pure practitioners), the following thought of exclusivity (to be something very special, better than others) arises and from this arrogance and proud arises (and is misunderstood as self-confidence) and from this proud the conflicts with other groups and the Dalai Lama arises. The unability to listen well to the detractors of NKT behaviour and develope a sence of selfcritic comes from this proud. This is my experience and opinion and I felt and did the same when I was with NKT for many years: I'm very special, I have special Karma, because I now within that pure tradition, admidst these pure practitioners. I'm even more fortunate than all the tibetans are, because they are misleaded by the Dalai Lama. And when I look on the pityful migrators who have not that luck as me, oh I feel "compassion". I'm so pure, I feel compassion, I'm very special Mahayanaist... --> I needed years to understand that this was no compassion this was just pitifulness based on arrogance.

Of course you can ignore the Vinaya (monastic vows) and reduce it as a thing of numbers, thats your choice. But Buddha didn't taught that. He taught the Vinaya is the root of the doctrine.

In NKT there are not "noumerous masters" like quoted here. NKT has only one master: Geshe Kelsang himself. If some NKT teacher gives an empowerment, they say: 'Geshe-la' gives the empowerment through me. So where are the masters? Only one: GKG!

However NKT is for many people also very useful and they like NKT and Geshe Kelsang very much. Hopefully one time will come when we can see us as the desciples of the Buddha and one Sangha-Community not less and not more. --84.190.170.220 08:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

March 2nd, I apologise for having reverted your change but I feel it is a personal view held by you that Geshe Kelsang is not a Buddhist. It is not a majority view, and as such, should not be included in this article. Anyone who goes for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha is a Buddhist. I would ask you please to examine Geshe Kelsang's books and to compare them with the teachings you follow. You will see that they are the same and I hope this will satisfy your doubts as to whether Geshe Kelsang is a Buddhist or not. He is not only a Buddhist but a Gelugpa, not from the point of view of being in the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition, but from the point of view of being a follower of Je Tsongkhapa. --Kelsangpagpa 15:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I understand what you are trying to say, but Geshe Kelsang is NOT a Geluk. To be a Gelukpa, one not only is a follower of Tsongkhapa, but one also acknowledges the lineage and authority of each Ganden Tripa. This distinction you appear to make (about there being two types of Gelukpa?) is a fabrication - there is only one Gelukpa school. Being a follower of Je Tsongkhapa alone does not make one a Gelukpa; after all, there are many followers of Je Tsongkhapa from schools such as the Kargyud, Nyingma, Sakya, Jonang, even Bon. Also there are several modern philosophers who follow Je Tsongkhapa who don't claim to be Geluk. The moment Geshe Kelsang publicly lost respect for the Geluk hierarchy, he ceased to be a Gelugpa. This is a very simple matter. Yes, he was trained as a Geluk, but he is no longer a Geluk. Membership of a group involves following the rules of that group. This is central to understanding social behaviour of any sort.

Now it may be that Geshe Kelsang is a Buddhist - but maybe he is not. Anyone can recite the NAMO formula, but that does not make them a Buddhist, right? So, without some understanding of what the NAMO formula means, I doubt one could claim to be a Buddhist. I don't dispute that he was brought up and trained in a Buddhist monastary. Here are some problems with him being a Buddhist:

His claim (or if you prefer 'not denying the assertion of his students to the point that they understand why he cannot be') that he is a 'third Buddha'. Such a claim is non-buddhist. A claim like this indicates that there is no need to take refuge in Sakyamuni Buddha anymore - after all, if he is a Buddha, then he has all the qualities of a Buddha, so in that case would be a worthy object of refuge in himself. In this manner, one breaks with Buddhism regarding the first refuge.

Secondly, in order to take refuge in Dharma, a teacher encourages his/her students to read the sutras and commentaries according to his/her tradition. But this doesn't happen in Geshe Kelsang's presence as far as I know. In fact, from what I can gather, students are encouraged to read solely from his own works. This also implies that his works are enough - that the sutras are not necessary, nor indeed are the works of Je Tsongkhapa, Pabonkhapa, and so on. This is a similar re-writing of the Dharma refuge, consistent with the first notion - that Geshe Kelsang is a Buddha. However, as stated before, this is a break from Buddhism regarding the object of refuge.

Lastly, it appears that Geshe Kelsang has rewritten the vinaya and the vinaya lineage. This is a complete break from the tradition of Sakyamuni.

In conclusion, it is not my POV - but merely a set of facts. The NKT, under the guidance of it's leader, Geshe Kelsang, has used the overall substantial trappings of Buddhism, but has actually reinterpreted the objects of refuge to focus onto Geshe Kelsang as a Buddha. This means that NKT is not Buddhism, but is 'Kelsangism'. In order to refute this statement, you will need to show me that:

• Geshe Kelsang is not considered to be a Buddha in NKT
• Geshe Kelsang/NKT encourages students to read sutras and commentaries, as well as texts by Je Tsongkhapa, etc.
• That the NKT encourages and supports the vinaya and sangha lineage of sakyamuni Buddha.

This is NOT point of view. This is early-learner Buddhism. There are similar precedents: Some schools of Nichiren hold Nichiren himself to be Buddha, etc. -- And though they call themselves Buddhist, and use many Buddhist ideas and doctrines (karma, rebirth, etc) there is a well-known and long-standing dispute as to their actual status as Buddhists. (20040302 18:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear 2nd March, I really don't want to enter into a full scale argument about this issue. All I am saying is, at least look at Joyful Path of Good Fortune by Geshe Kelsang and you will see that it is the teaching of lamrim as in Lamrim Chenmo. I would also disagree with your criterion for being a 'gelugpa' in the sense of being a follower of Je Tsongkhapa.

Hi Kelsang-la. Did you read Lamrim Chenmo? If yes you will understand there is a difference between Lamrim Chenmo and Joyful Path of Good Fortune by Geshe Kelsang, isn't it? But before we discuss this, I ask you for a sincere reply: Did you ever read Lamrim Chenmo? Or some extracts of it? Thank you Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As to whether someone is 'really' a Buddhist, in that they take refuge from their heart rather than just reciting the words, you can't be sure of anyone but yourself. Even the Dalai Lama may not be Buddhist if you apply this criterion, who knows?

Geshe Kelsang has never claimed to be a Buddha. As you are aware, it is a Mahayana training to see one's spiritual teacher as a Buddha (you can find this in Lamrim Chenmo). No one is taking refuge in Geshe Kelsang instead of Buddha Shakyamuni. For any Buddhist, Buddha Shakyamuni is the principal object of refuge, as it is for NKT practitioners too. Geshe Kelsang even wrote a praise of Buddha Shakyamuni that we recite at the beginning of all our prayers. It can't be any clearer than Buddha Shakyamuni is our principal object of refuge.

If you want to say that regarding a living being as a Buddha is against Buddhist belief, and that someone who does is not a Buddhist, what about all the Tibetans and others who believe that the Dalai Lama is Avalokiteshvara? Are they breaking their refuge commitments too by relying upon him in such a way?

As far as Dharma goes, I have asked you to compare our Teaching and yours. You will see that they are the same. Geshe Kelsang has no more started his own religion than Je Tsongkhapa did by founding the Gelugpa Tradition. Geshe Kelsang's books are teachings from the sutras and tantras. They are Buddha's teachings, and, yes, they are a complete path to enlightenment, otherwise you would have to say that Je Tsongkhapa's teachings are incomplete and not a path to enlightenment. You can check if you doubt this. Furthermore, Geshe Kelsang has never said that people cannot read books other than his. Are those who rely on the many books of the Dalai Lama Buddhists or not? Perhaps they aren't by your definition.

Sorry Kelsang-la, the teachings are not the same. We can't compare this if we didn't study both or even know other texts. I know as EX-NKT the books of GKG very well and have enough teachings outsite NKT. Also Je Tsongkhapa did'nt found the Gelugpa Tradition. He just received teachings from all traditions (Kadampa, Shije, Kagyu, Sakya and Nyingma) and gave it and his understanding and realisations of it to his desciples. Later it was called a tradition. (The same is with Atisha.) Regarding texts other than GKG books: It is not wished for that members of the teacher training program study other books than Geshe-las, isn't it? Further the major works of Tsongkhapas Tradition are: 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). None of this is studied in NKT. The Six Texts of the Kadampa Tradition are: 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. Only one of them is studied within NKT: Bodhisattvacharyaavatara. So NKT studies one Text of the main texts of Kadampa Tradition and one similar Lamrim text of the main texts of Gelug Tradition (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is more like Pabongkha Rinpoches style than Je Tsongkhapas). For me this is quite ok, because people have the choice what they wish to do. What I feel really pitty for is that NKT claims in all their Websites that it is the Kadampa Tradition of Atsha and a complete lineage. This is to be shamed for. NKT attracts people with false informations by its deceiving and misleading advertisements. Please stop this and give proper informations. This I ask you and NKT for! My involvement in this wikipedia article is not other motivated than this: to give people proper informations on New Kadampa Tradition so that they can decide on the basis of the truth if they wish to follow NKT. Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Sangha, full ordination means having spontaneous renunciation, not how many vows you hold, but if you want check, you would be able to see all the 253 commmitments of a fully ordained monk in the New Kadampa ordination. Furthermore, there is ordination for nuns too in NKT ,which I believe has died out in the Tibetan tradition. Tradition is maintained in the meaning, not just the words, and if you have wisdom you can change the presentation, but not the meaning.

Sorry Kelsang-la. This is not true. NKT gives 10 vows for both nuns and monks. These vows are different from the 36 novice (monks and nuns) and 253 full ordained monks vows. Even the summrize of the original 36 novice nun and monk vows of a set of ten is different from NKT vows. The lineage of full ordained nuns with 364 vows was not transmitted in Tibet but it still exists. As far as I know the only two persons of NKT who are full ordained is Ven. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Ven. Samten Kelsang. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Only in a ceremony of minimum Five Full Ordained one can receive Ordination. This is the tradition, the Vinaya, the root of the Doctrine! If you change the root of the Doctrine - this is a new mode, never happend before - than don't claim to be a "Pure Tradition" just say NEW Tradition or Geshe Kelsangs Tradition , something new. Further no Full Ordained monk outsite NKT is allowed to teach in NKT this shows how NKT has splitted from the experienced and elder Sangha Community and by doing so has given up the refuge in the Sangha. (By the way it is His Holiness the Dalai Lama who cares for the lineage of the Full Ordained Nuns and gave money and support to nuns to revive this intact lineage: He respects and cares for the Vinaya. NKT demonstrated against him without being proper ordained and feel they are more wise and compassionate than him! It is just sad, so sad. I did the same when I was within NKT because I was stupid enough to believe their stories. I feel ashamed! However, there is just the need to give proper informations not emotions ;-)) Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are using the Tibetan Government website for accurate information about the NKT-IKBU, you will be disappointed. There is a lot of misinformation going around out there, due also to old and inaccurate press articles that are presented on websites. If you want to know what we are and what we practise, we can discuss it.

Hi Kelsang-la. If you are using the NKT websites for accurate information about the NKT-IKBU you will be also disappointed. But lets discuss how NKT can claim to be Kadampa Tradition (without being it) or to be a complete lineage without being one. Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply. I don't want to be filling the wikipedia up with reams and reams of our debate. If you wish to discuss further, perhaps we could do it by email? - with every good wish --Kelsangpagpa 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kelsang-la. I dont like these discussions at all but they are needed for clarifications. For me it is ok if Wikipedia has a proper article on the subject of NKT which is unbiased and fair for all. I'm also - as EX-NKT - quite convinced that NKT has damaged their refuge (see above) but however if NKT would say the truth there would be not that much discussion on this topic here. I will not engage in the discussion anymore. For me is more important to have a correct article on NKT that informs the people correct and not false. Thats all I'm wishing for. Kt66 22:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi - First of all, thanks a lot for replying - I appreciate it. We may come from different areas, but there I feel there is much benefit in this discussion. Maybe both of us will learn to understand the truths of each others views and the views of others more clearly!

Regarding your response - (I will be verbose, after all the electrons aren't doing anything particularly more useful, and the server can handle it!) Your first point is regarding the terminology of 'Geluk' - I ask you what especially does this Tibetan word mean to you, if it does not mean a Tibetan tradition? Certainly one cannot define a follower of Tsongkhapa as a Gelukpa; most Tibetan Buddhists have more than one Guru. I have a lot of respect for Padmasambhava and his works, but does that make me a Nyingma? Would I then be a NyingmaGeluk?! It's just nonsense. So, though you disagree with me (the Geluk article doesnt), maybe I should follow Candrakirti and ask you to sort your differences with the rest of the world, and then I will agree with whoever wins that argument! At least honour me with your reasoning, rather than just state your disagreement!

FYI, I have read portions of JPGF. I admit I haven't studied it in detail, but having received extensive teachings from both the LRCM (Lam Rim Chenmo) and the excellent text written by Trijang Rinpoche during a talk by Pabonkhapa - LITPOYH (Liberation in the Palm of your Hand) over several decades; having also studied the excellent translation of those texts as well as pieced together some from the Tibetan, I guess I have some poor idea about the substance of the Lam Rim tradition. As Geshe Kelsang allows you to read books other than his, and as your tradition favours both Je Tsongkhapa and the Lam Rim tradition highly, I recommend you get a copy of the three volumes of the LRCM from Snow Lion as soon as possible and study it. Then at least we won't have to worry about the nihilistic views that you appear to have.

Regarding the LRCM and the JPGF, I have been informed that there are areas of the JPGF which significantly differ from the LRCM- scholars have addressed these issues elsewhere (though I'm not sure the details are online). Also, you tell me that I know that it is a Mahayana training to see one's spiritual teacher as a Buddha which can be found in the LRCM - but in fact, the LRCM says something else completely regarding this. I can go into details - do you want me to cite from the Tibetan text, or the English translation? (How good is your tibetan by the way? Is it of any meaning to you for me to page references from the tibetan prints of Je Rinpoche's Texts? ) In the English translation, there are about 30 pages from the LRCM on how to rely upon a teacher. I recommend you study it carefully. As the LRCM says: (p92) Some do not know how to rely upon the guru, and, even if they know how, they do not do it. Therefore they will incur numerous misdeeds that are related to their improper reliance on the guru. Be aware that there is a distinction made in the LRCM between the guru and Buddha. It is this specific distinction which appears to be missing from the NKT. Let me quote from the LRCM again: (I am now assuming that you respect the LRCM as being authoritative Dharma - if I am wrong, you must tell me!) Question: What if we rely on the gurus and they lead us to an incorrect path or employ us in activities that are contrary to the three vows? Should we do what they say? Reply: With respect to this, Gunaprapha's Sutra on the Disciple states, "If the abbot instructs you to do what is not in accord with the teachings, refuse." Also, the Cloud of Jewels Sutra says, "With respect to virtue act in accord with the gurus' words, but do not act in accord with the gurus' words with respect to nonvirtue."

So, this is enough to show that according to the LRCM, the relationship towards the Guru is not to see one's spiritual teacher as a Buddha. This is a very important issue. Gurus are not perfect, and one must exercise critical discrimination regarding their advice and instructions, check to see whether or not they accord with the teachings, and act accordingly. In other words, we cannot rely upon the Guru to be omniscient. This is very, very important. Also, if one is mistaken and identifies ones' Guru as being a Buddha, then one has shifted the basis of ones' refuge away from Buddha Shakyamuni. You (KelsangPagpa) are yet to show me that Geshe Kelsang is not considered to be a Buddha in NKT. Therefore, regardless of prayers written to Buddha Shakyamuni, these could be thinly veiled prayers written to Geshe Kelsang himself. Such practices are not without precedent!

Regarding the common Tibetan view of His Holiness Dalai Lama as being Avalokiteshvara, there are several issues regarding that - the most important for this discussion is that Avalokiteshvara is not actually a Buddha, but a Bodhisattva. The basis of Avalokiteshvara being considered as a Buddha comes from Tantra, not Sutra. It is true that some individuals consider His Holiness to be a Buddha, but this is not an institutionalised view - and if such individuals thought about it carefully and studied the issues, they would have no problem revising their views. After all, His Holiness did not turn the Wheel of Dharma and does not have the 32 major and 80 minor signs of a Buddha! Sutra Buddhism is quite clear that on this world, the next Buddha will be Maitreya. Of course, what Tantra Buddhism says must be understood solely within the entire context in which it is stated, and requires initiation.

Regarding Dharma - I cannot begin to compare my teachings with yours. I have the entire Sutra and Tantra collection on my computer, along with every major Indian commentary. I have the entire works of Atisha, Je Tsongkhapa, Pabonkhapa, and many important texts by the great lineage masters from both ancient and recent times. Whereas, from what I gather, you have 18 texts to work from. Je Tsongkhapa alone wrote 18 volumes of texts. So for instance, what logic texts do you use? What are your root Madhyamika texts, and which commentaries do you follow? How many sutras do you have available? How many vinaya texts? Which of the Kadampa histories do you rely upon? What is the NKT view regarding the distinct teaching of Je Rinpoche's regarding Guhyasamaja, Yamantaka and Cakrasamvara? So you asked me to make a comparison, and, as far as I can see, in no way whatsoever can I agree that they are the same. As for those who rely upon His Holiness' books, some are Buddhist, some are not. But no-one suggests that one should read from his books only. I ask you to explicitly reply - is it true or not that one is encouraged to read Dharma books written by Geshe Kelsang, and discouraged to read anything else? You tell me that the texts that are available are a complete path to enlightenment - what are the NKT books that deal with logic, reasoning and debate? What are the books that discuss the various distinctions within the Madhyamaka view, for instance, commonly held misintepretations regarding Nagarjuna's statement (Text: Refutation of Objections) "If I had any thesis, Then I would suffer from that fault, But as I have no theses, I alone am without faults" ? In fact, what about all the other sutras and tantras, commentaries and texts that are not available to you? Are you saying that they are actually unnecessary? Are you saying that everyone is able to follow one path, and therefore most of the Kanjur and Tanjur serve no purpose any more? Or would you agree with me that such a view breaks one's refuge in Dharma? Now, it is true that some ardent Gelukpas state that Je Tsongkhapa wrote enough to gain enlightenment, but if that is true, then why do the monastaries burst with texts and commentaries from so many other sources? In fact, in the LRCM, we are repeatedly advised to look at this book or that text, and to study further, especially from Indian sources. Please do yourself a favour and study that text. You will be so astounded that you hair will stand on end! I cannot even begin to compare the LRCM with JPGF - The LRCM has 30% of its text (258 pages of 887) devoted to Insight, whereas the JPGF has a mere 3% (22 pages of 554). It is probably not so surprising that you have not responded to my queries regarding your understanding of the nature of reality!

In the great monastaries there are huge libraries of texts - many, many texts are used merely to achieve a mere academic understanding, such as the geshe degree. Most texts repeatedly encourage us to study and compare, draw out, re-express, argue, fight, debate each sentence with other texts, and this is why the logic tradition is so important. Dharma isn't a gentle delicate object that needs to be handled carefully or it breaks. If it were, it would merely be a belief system dependant on blind faith. So, you are yet to show me evidence of the NKT promoting the texts of anyone other than Geshe Kelsang- for instance, provide institutional documents that encourage NKT members to read the Sutras and Tantras as well as the volumes of texts authored by Je Tsongkhapa. Otherwise, otherwise you will have failed to show me that the NKT keep the refuge in Dharma.

Regarding Sangha - first to correct a misapprehension, ordination for nuns exists in a long unbroken lineage in Tibet. Your misapprehension is based upon the specific gelongma ordination, but you wouldn't know about that, because you appear to think that taking 10 vows is the same as taking 253. So, you would not understand that the getsulma lineage of 36 vows is unbroken, but the gelongma lineage of 253 from the Mulasravastivada lineage was broken in Tibet. The (male) gelong and the getsul lineages (Mulasravastivada) were witheld. In recent times, a group of Westerner nuns have been attempting to reintroduce the gelongma lineage to the Tibetan tradition - it was met with some resistance, and with some success, depending on who you listen to; the main issue being that the surviving lineage is Dharmaguptaka, rather than Mulasravastivada.

This is of course veering away from the substance of our discussion, regarding the unbroken lineage of Sangha from Sakyamuni Buddha being present in the NKT. I am guessing that the ordination vows that are given in NKT are the 10 rabjung vows, which are normally given to children attending a monastary, and which precede the 36 getsul vows. It appears that both the Getsul (36) and the Gelong (253) sangha lineages have been discarded in the NKT - this is certainly a break from the lineage of Sangha, which depends upon the lineage of full ordination. There are specific rules regarding ordination, and if they are not kept, then the lineage is definitively broken. Therefore, you are yet to show me that the NKT keep the refuge in Sangha by maintaining the Mulasravastivada or Dharmaguptaka lineage of Vinaya.

The ten NKT vows are: abandon: killing, stealing, sexual conduct, lying, taking intoxicants and practice contentment, reduce desire for worldly pleasure, abandon engaging in meaningless activities, maintain the commitments of refuge, and practice the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration and wisdom. I didn't found these set of vows in any Vinaya text. Did you? (But I'd like to remark: they are really fine, I like them. But we're just discussing now on proper or even broken Vinaya Lineage.) Kt66 23:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your defensiveness about sources of information, let me inform you that you are my prime source of information regarding the NKT. I am happy about that, while you are willing to write publicly: I believe that your status as a teacher from within the NKT will prevent you from stating something that is other than policy. Moreover, Wikipedia is a great place for this discussion - first of all, it serves the greater public need for clarity (and I am sure that a lot of this will find its way into articles) and secondly, we are relinquishing copyright, while maintaining some degree of responsibility.

Finally, Wikipedia is not about holding majority views. If it were, then for a start, tantra would be about sex, and Buddhism would be heretical, and the soul would exist. Actually, Wikipedia tells us that (Ideally), Wikipedia would not be written from a single "objective" point-of-view, but would fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way – and representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. My purpose is to ensure that some viewpoints regarding the Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT as a movement are fairly presented.

I humbly await your response. Keep Well! (20040302 23:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

Dear 2nd March, sorry for not replying sooner but I have been away for the weekend at teachings and retreat. Having considered the matter over the weekend, I feel there is no meaning in our continuing this discussion. The energy of this discussion would be more productively used to generate bodhichitta! I have realized that the more you write, the more people can disagree, and the more emnity it stirs up. This is witnessed by the point of your now claiming that my Teacher is not a Geshe, which is incorrect. I don't think that harmony is increasing by us having this dialogue. It is better that we both put effort into practising our individual traditions. After all, it is heavy negative karma to criticise other Mahayana traditions, so caution is definitely needed.

I don't think we have anything to prove to each other: you have faith in your tradition and I have faith in mine. In fact, your responses have strengthened my faith in my Teacher and tradition, so for that I am grateful - thank you. What is important is that we have complete and unmistaken instructions on how to follow the path. Venerable Atisha used to give very practical instructions to people such as "practise compassion" or "you need to have faith". Not everyone has the time or inclination to study the sutras and tantras extensively if they are living a busy Western lifestyle. I'm very happy that you do - you are most fortunate. What people need is clear guidance and succinct, practical instructions. Geshe Kelsang's books condense the meaning of the whole Buddhadharma into a very few volumes. While you seem to see this as a limitation, I see it as a manifestation of my Teacher's great skill and wisdom. Nothing is missing. Even practitioners of other traditions read and use these books in their spiritual practice and have praised them highly.

I rejoice in your Dharma study and practice. May it benefit countless living beings. With love - --Kelsangpagpa 09:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am not sure you know what criticism is, or how you define it. Essentially, there is a distinction between pointing out the errors in an assertion from compassion, and pointing them out from anger. I have no anger towards you, your colleagues or your teacher. However, non-criticism does not mean having to use rosy words to hide from the truth. Your teacher is a Dharma brother of mine - we both have received initiations from HH Dalai Lama, so it completely inappropriate for me to think of feeling anger towards him. So please do not hide behind some sort of ideal of harmony. In the great monastic universities of Tibet, the substantial exercise for sharpening one's faculties is debate - and within that scope there is no space for holding hands! Indeed the sole way one can learn is through challenging one's own preconceptions - itself a necessary disagreement.

Secondly, this activity in no way contradicts from the development and practice of Bodhicitta. Maybe you should think about what that statement means- You are a teacher. If you had no intention on bringing new views to your students, how could you teach? The fact that the views you encourage often disagree with their current views is indeed a disagreement which is necessary for even the slightest achievement.

Let us once get back to the nubbin of your issue. You say to me "Not everyone has the time or inclination to study the sutras and tantras extensively" - which to me means that you agree that some people do. In that case, you must agree with me that the teaching of your lama is not sufficient for everyone - just for those who do not have the time or inclination to study the sutras or tantras extensively. You also imply by your remark that I do not have a busy Western lifestyle. The fact that I am a line manager for a company and work well over 50 hours a week, maintain a loving relationship, manage a property, watch TV(!), go out for social evenings, theatre, etc. would indicate to most that actually I do have a busy Western lifestyle. So, don't use 'busy western lifestyle' as a reason not to study the sutras of Lord Sakyamuni Buddha! Regardless, you are a teacher in a centre - you even wear robes - so what is your excuse? You have plenty of time to study the mass of sutras and tantras as well as the writings of Lama Tsongkhapa. You claim to follow his tradition of Lam Rim, and yet you haven't read his seminal work on the issue.

I would like you to be honest with me (remember the benefits of honesty?) - if you have no answers to my questions, then say so. Tell me that your tradition is not based on logic or reason, but blind faith in your teacher, and for you that is all that is necessary, and I will get off your case! But don't use some sort of vague accusation of disharmony or lack of compassion as a reason to back down from your inability to respond! Please engage your wonderful mind (20040302 12:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

KG biographical details request

I am aware that some people object to the issue of whether or not KG is a Geshe. Could a student (or someone in the know) actually state which Geshe degree he has, and on what date and where he completed his Geshe examination - after all. evidence is the key to removal of objections.

Also, what dates he completed the tantric component of his degree (if he took it), and whether it was at Gyumed or Gyutod, and under whose guidance.

Likewise, it would be very useful to know what retreats (how long, which deities, and what locations, which tradition etc.) he engaged in between 1960 and 1977 - so far the only biographical details I have are that he resided at Mussorie, suffering from tuberculosis.

Moreover, I am unaware of the date at which he left Buxar for Mussorie.

I am also looking for the date of his expulsion. It was in early 1999, but apparently he was expelled from Tsangpa Khangtsen before that.

I am interested also in KG relationship with HE Zong Rinpoche. Back in 1983 I seem to recall that KG considered Zong Rinpoche to be his root guru. (20040302 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Reversion

The article has been reverted until such time that 2nd March can corroborate his claims. The way he has written the article is not neutral, and the information in it is not accurate. Also, the claim that the NKT was a result of his split with the Dalai Lama is incorrect, as the Dorje Shugden issue surfaced in 1996, five years after the formal establishment of the NKT, and nearly 20 years after Geshe Kelsang had first come to the West. His explusion from Sera Monastery was a result of his opposition to the Dalai Lama over the Dorje Shugden issue. It is interesting that if anyone had a problem with his status as a Geshe, it did not surface before his open opposition to the Dalai Lama. It's fairly clear that Geshe-la was being used as an example and a warning to anyone else who might follow his actions --Kelsangpagpa 16:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

KP, you are the one who has decided to bow out of discussion, not I. I have a list of biographical details above for you to come back on, and your action of merely reverting the article because you object to it is not meaningful or harmonious. You already have refused to answer a whole list of carefully detailed issues. Moreover, you are crazy to believe that the DS issue surfaced in 1996! For what reason do you think it was necessary to split from the FPMT? Because of the reaction by Lama Yeshe and the rest of the community to the Yellow Book. Just because KG disagrees with the Yellow Book doesn't mean that he disagrees with DS.

I agree that I have not provided sources. I will cite sources. This is in accordance with the basic strategy of Wikipedia.

2nd March can corroborate his claims.

More or less done, your turn.

The way he has written the article is not neutral, and the information in it is not accurate.

I have used citations from the expulsion letter, and now say so. So, it is accurate that the letter said this and that.. Now show real counter-evidence. Mere disagreement isn't enough.

Also, the claim that the NKT was a result of his split with the Dalai Lama is incorrect,

I removed that claim. It is true I cannot substantiate it.

as the Dorje Shugden issue surfaced in 1996, five years after the formal establishment of the NKT, and nearly 20 years after Geshe Kelsang had first come to the West.

This is wrong my friend. I was on the scene in 1978 - The DS issue arose in 1976 thanks to the yellow book. But it is not relevant to the issue.

His explusion from Sera Monastery was a result of his opposition to the Dalai Lama over the Dorje Shugden issue.

His opposition to the Dalai Lama over the DS issue started in 1983 or 1984. But he was expelled 15 years later. Why?

It is interesting that if anyone had a problem with his status as a Geshe, it did not surface before his open opposition to the Dalai Lama.

There is good reason for this - the Tibetans are lenient up to a point. KG crossed that point.

It's fairly clear that Geshe-la was being used as an example and a warning to anyone else who might follow his actions

No, it's not clear. To me it is clear that KG was not willing to bow to any living authority, and in the process alienated himself from the community completely. Moreover, he initially attempted to overthrow the reputation and leadership of the dalai lama. Friends of mine left the NKT having been witness to obnoxious behaviour of NKT outside London's Buddhist Society, on the occasion of a visit by the Dalai Lama.

I am happy for you to supply substantiated evidence that contradicts any of the claims made by friends, colleagues, lamas, or monastic authority. We can then show all of these people wrong, with demonstrable evidence that noone can deny. You must agree that it is impossible to prove a non-event, therefore it really is up to you, or another NKT student to prove an event - at a minimum, the award date, provider and class of Geshe degree by Sera. (20040302 18:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

The controversy section has been deleted because none of the information in it was accurate. Geshe Kelsang has, at no time, promoted himself as a Buddha and I would challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, he has never said that his students should only follow him and not another teacher - He says "everyone has choice". I know students who left NKT for other traditions, and that's fine. This goes for his books, too. No one is prohibited from reading any Buddhist literature, therefore it is wrong to say so. These 'cultish' characteristics must be the product of fevered imaginations, and are certainly not the experience of NKT-IKBU practitioners --Kelsangpagpa 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I have added According to Kelsang Pagpa, a teacher at one of his centres, Kelsang Gyatso has at no time promoted himself as a Buddha, he has never stated that his students should only follow him and not other teachers; and moreover no student of his is prohibited from reading any Buddhist literature that they choose. I guess the stuff about students being chucked out of the NKT for having a photos of or books written by the Dalai Lama are just not true.

My Resident NKT teacher forbid me to have a book of HH the Dalai Lama when I lived in the NKT center. When he saw me walking through the NKT center with a book of HH he said: this is not wished for. Later he told to me, that GKG books are pure Dharma. Also another Dharma friend who partook the NKT foundation program was said when he used a book of Shantideva by another author: this is not wished for at this place. --Kt66 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like 'cultish' characteristics to me. Comments, Kelsangpagpa? (20040302)

Of course, journalists all over the world disagree with you. KG himself just says 'it is the people's choice' - But you and I know that he promotes the identification of the Guru with Buddha - you have told me as much yourself, thinking that this concept was shared with mainstream mahayana buddhism. So he does actually promote himself as a Buddha via his interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism. Here are two of the many articles available. Try googling for "Kelsang Gyatso Third Buddha" for more.

Madeleine Bunting (The Guardian, 1996) Referred to as Geshe la, a term of respect, by his followers, he is not just their teacher but seen as the Third Buddha. The first Buddha founded Buddhism 2,500 years ago, the second Buddha founded the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism in the 15th century, and now the NKT believe Buddha has appeared in the form of Kelsang to establish Buddhism in the West. To other Tibetan Buddhists this is unbelievably arrogant and self-aggrandising.

Mike Wilson (Cross Currents, 1999) Some former followers suggest that those around him create an atmosphere that promotes Kelsang as "the Third Buddha," come to establish Buddhism in the West, the first and second Buddhas having been respectively Buddha himself and Tsongkhapa, founder of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Initiation

"However, Geshe Kelsang himself denies that he has ever received initiations from the Dalai Lama." -- Where does he deny this? I am curious because I know reliable eye witnesses who saw him at the Kalacakra in Tibet. I do not need depend upon other sources for this. Also, attending an initiation of the Dalai Lama does not mean that his Root Guru cannot be Trijang Rinpoche! (20040302)

Instructions of the Guru

Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche asked KG to teach "Chandrakirti's Guide to the Middle Way" - did KG do this, and was a book published, or does KG consider it unnecessary, after all, Geshe Kelsang's books already condense the meaning of the whole Buddhadharma into a very few volumes, so he does not need to publish any more, right? Of course if he did not teach it, then he would be breaking the samaya of his root guru, right? (20040302)

He did indeed teach both Chandrakirti and Shantideva. These two teachings formed the basis of Ocean of Nectar and Meaningful to Behold. - Chris

Thanks. Do those books include translations, or are they interpretations? (20040302)

Ocean of Nectar has a full translation of Guide to the Middle Way, Meaningful to Behold is a commentary without full translation. The full translation is now available as a seperate text from Tharpa Publications; it was prepared by Neil Elliot, one of Geshela's disciples. Geshela has asked all resident teachers to memorise the root text - Chris 01/10/2005.

Thomas Merton Question

I was reading along and came to this part in the biographical info: In 1976 he accepted an invitation by the Christian monk, philosopher and writer Thomas Merton. Clicking on the Thomas Merton link, it says that Thomas Merton died in 1968. Is this information correct? Can someone clarify?' (This was posted by someone else onto the main article)

Yep - The dates must be wrong here. It must have been in 1968, while he was visiting India. (20040302)

Someone in NKT - this NKT text Modern Day Kadampas is quite clearly mistaken about the Thomas Merton invitation. (20040302)

changed section

As Wikipedia states Wikipedia is no Fan site or makes advertisemnt for a company or group, thats why I reduced the listing of the books of Geshe Kelsang. One can find them at the Tharpa sites or a link can be added in the link section. Also the assertion that these 19 books are the "complete path to enlightenment" as stated is mere advertisement. The complete teachings of the Buddha are summerized in the Tengyur and Kangyur. The Kangyur Collection (What the Buddha taught) consists of 92 volumes (1055 texts) and the Tengyur (indian commentaries on that) consists of 224 volumes and 3626 texts. What of Geshe Kelsangs books makes them to a "complete path to enlightenment"? What does this mean? Containe the 19 books all the Sutras and Tantras of the Buddha and can lead all human people to enlightenment how the teachings of the Buddha can do? Kt66 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, Kt66, but you can't read the Kangyur or Tengyur, nor can any other Western person unless they can read Tibetan! Geshe Kelsang's books represent a complete path to enlightenment, the first in any Western Language.

Who says this? Please tell me. Kt66 20:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They are clear and accessible. This is not an advertisement; it is simply a fact. No other Teacher in this world has done this; if you think so, then please tell me who it is? Furthermore, if you don't think that Geshe Kelsang's books are a complete path to enlightenment, perhaps you would like to tell me what's missing? - --Kelsangpagpa 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he has written many essential books on Buddhism; I agree of course. But these books are also only a section of Buddhism not a complete presentation of it. Many Tantras are missing, many teachings of Tsongkhapa and the complete teachings of Nagarjuna, Maitreya/Asanga and so on are missing. So to have written that good and essential books on Buddhism does not include the idea that these books contains the "complete path to enlightenment". I find it very difficult to accept that NKT or Tharpa Publication says "Geshe Kelsang's books represent a complete path to enlightenment" this is mere a saying. What proofs for it there are, which high masters or buddhist authorities agree to this statement? Kt66 20:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang's Achievements

Dear Kt66 and others,

I have reverted your ammendment to this section for two main reasons: March 2nd said in the discussion section of the article "New Kadampa Tradition" that he would like to see a complete list of the books and the subject they cover. Furthermore, they ARE a major achievement (I think that other Buddhists and non-Buddhists would agree on this), and if you are going to write text that is critical of Geshe Kelsang, it is only right (fair, and balanced) to note his achievements. Geshe Kelsang has made a major contribution to Western Buddhist literature (I would say Buddhist literature in general) with the publication of his books. I could have been more gushing about them, but I deliberately refrained (for example, there is no book in this world like Essence of Vajrayana or Tantra Grounds and Paths, where tantric practice is explained so completely and practically), but I have been balanced, and I would ask you to be balanced too. - with love --Kelsangpagpa 20:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course I agree, Geshe Kelsangs works should be noted, thats fair and neutral. But there is no need to list them all, isn't it?. To announce the 19 books are the "complete path to enlightenment" is mere Tharpa and NKT advertisement, what proofs there are for it? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. you can look at Wikipedia is no propanganda machine I suggest to make a link to Tharpa publication. Also we can see if other Wikipedias see this section of you as neutral. yours Kt66 20:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there folks, I think that it is a good idea to include the published works of GK - but any statement that they are a "complete path to enlightenment" must be qualified - there are different points of view regarding this. Also, if we are to mention works he has published, we should include works written in Tibetan, including the controversial letters against the Dalai Lama. (20040302 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Life in India - Geshe Kelsang's Geshe status

So, in a manner similar to Lama Thubten Yeshe, he is an intelligent scholar, but he is not actually a Geshe. However, his teacher called him "Geshe", due to his strong intellect and academic bent, and it may be based on this appelation that he uses the title.

I have removed this because it is not neutral, nor is it factual. It is mere speculation. If you wish to register some doubt over Geshe Kelsang's Geshe status in the article, fine, but you can't say "he is not actually a Geshe" because you don't know that. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there KP. Actually there is a need for evidence on the side of the claimant. I agree that "he is not actually a Geshe" may be too strong an assertion - however, "To date there is no evidence that he is a Geshe" is certainly not supposition. This is why I have been encouraging you to find evidence of his qualification. (20040302 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

Concerning whether Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a Geshe or not

I have updated the article, using extracts from the following. (Robertect 11:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)).

This is a repost from January 30 1998, it is written by James Belither, Secretary of the New Kadampa Tradition zmadhy...@mail.rmplc.co.uk

In Tibet before he joined Sera-je Monastery near Lhasa, Geshe Kelsang studied on the Geshe training programme for many years in his local monastery of Jampaling. He then took two examinations at the great monastic university of Tashi Lhunpo, one for memorization of texts, the second being the actual examination. After the second examination he was awarded a degree from that monastery, and from that time on the other monks and local people called him Geshe Kelsang. Later, he continued with the Geshe training programme in Sera-je Monastery until he left for India in 1959, where he alternately studied and engaged in meditation retreats. One day he received a letter from Sera-je Monastery in south India, encouraging him to attend a Geshe offering ceremony and to take an examination in order to receive a certificate. In 1973 he went to Sera Monastery and made an extensive offering at the Geshe offering ceremony to a large assembly of monks from both Sera-je and Sera-mey monasteries, in Sera Tsogchen Prayer Hall. He also made the traditional offerings to Sera-je Monastery. On that occasion the monks of his class offered him a 'katag', or ceremonial scarf, and gifts in the traditional way. If he was not considered a Geshe then what was the point of inviting him to participate in this ceremony?

At that time he declined to take the examination, which was a new system that had been recently introduced. He later explained that this was because he did not think that receiving a piece of paper was important.

The present abbot of Sera-je, Geshe Jampa Tekchog, also made offerings at another Geshe offering ceremony and he also did not take this examination for receiving a certificate.

Lama Thubten Yeshe, founder of the FPMT, although he completed his Geshe studies, never took the examination for receiving his Geshe degree, although later Sera Monastery offered him an honorary Geshe degree, no doubt after he became so well-known.

If it has been known for years that Geshe Kelsang is not a Geshe, then why has Sera Monastery waited until 1996 to declare him a fraud? For years, ever since 1978, a large number of Tibetan Lamas, including some of the most eminent within the Gelugpa Tradition have been invited by Geshe Kelsang to Manjushri Centre and other centres. If he is a fraud then why did they not expose him?

Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, and the Dalai Lama have all written prefaces to his books. Kyabje Ling Rinpoche refers to Geshe Kelsang as 'this most precious Spiritual Guide'. Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche refers to him as 'The excellent expounder, the great Spiritual Master Kelsang Gyatso ...', and in the colophon to the long life prayer that he wrote for Geshe Kelsang he says, 'This brief prayer for the long life of the Tsang-pa Geshe, Kelsang Gyatso, of Sera-je Monastery, who is endowed with great learning and immaculately pure conduct, ...'.

It is only now, when Geshe Kelsang has dared to face up to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in refusing to accept the Dalai Lama's ban against the practice of Dorje Shugden - a practice given to him by his Spiritual Guide Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche - that Geshe Kelsang's credentials as a Buddhist teacher have been called into question.

The campaign to discredit Geshe Kelsang is clearly an attempt to silence him and to act as a warning to others. As one Tibetan Lama living in America said to another Lama living in Germany who was planning to come out publicly against the Dalai Lama's ban 'No, you mustn't do that. They'll do to you what they've done to Geshe Kelsang.'

Actually, having been a student of Geshe Kelsang for the past twenty years, it matters little to me whether my teacher has an ecclesiastical title or not. The title 'Geshe' originally had the meaning of 'Virtuous or Spiritual Friend'. Through having been inspired by his writings, teachings, example, and personal advice, Geshe Kelsang is a dearly loved Spiritual Friend and Guide to myself and to thousands of others.

Jim Belither Secretary New Kadampa Tradition

Sera Expulsion

I have changed this section because it was inaccurate. It is clear from the letter that the reason why Geshe Kelsang was expelled was because of his opposition to the Dalai Lama, not for recruiting monks in his 'fight against the Dalai Lama'. I have also changed the date, as I remember the explusion coinciding with the NKT peaceful demonstrations against HHDL when he visited England in 1996. - with love, --Kelsangpagpa 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two expulsion dates - the first was from his house, not from the monastary - and it is possibly this that happened around 1996. The latter happened as stated, in 1999. The expulsion letter refers to the earlier expulsion. I will quote the part about recruitment from the letter in a minute (20040302 08:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

for further discussions

see the beliefnet board at http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=475214&messages_per_page=16

Kt66 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

many citations and changes

I think we have now a little bit to much citations from NKT sources. Perhaps we can summerize these points. Out of the many citations I feel the article has lost a little bit of his balance. To put in that GKG gave a car - allthough a kind and good action - I think is a little bit to much for an article. Because the citations on the time of Mussoori give the impression that GKG is very open - and perhaps he was it at that time really - I felt the need to add how the situation is now - his isolations. These came up out of different causes and conditions and I think is related also to Tibetans cultural behaviour and cultural burdens. However, it seems to me important to mention this in the article. Perhaps someone neutral can now compromize and neutralize the article once more? I added the stuff with the temples and named them correctly NKT-Temples, allthough NKT name them Kadampa Buddhist Temples. If you watch them you will see, they are mere NKT temples and have NKT specifics, not Kadampas. These are: setting big pictures of Shugden at the front and putting his satues at the shrine. The scriptures at the shrine - which represents the Dharma Jewel - are ONLY GKG's books. The style of the temples were also developed by GKG himself. So I think refering to them as "NKT temples" is in more accordance to reality than using the term Kadampa Buddhist Temples. Kt66 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some of the tasks myself, please feel free to improve further... We have to think also on the Wiki User who has no idea what follows or understands Buddhist Terms. That's why I put the fact that GKG is seen by Buddhists as controversial at the beginning otherwise he will not understand in the beginning what the article is going about. Perhaps many further changes are needed? Kt66 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I don't know why you think that NKT temples only have books by Geshe Kelsang, the temple at Manjushri Center has a cabinet with the complete Kangyur and Tangyur. Also your addition of relations is a very partial view. Of course you can say he has distanced himself from his monastrarey and from the Ganden Tripa who in the interview I posted states "the Dalai Lama is my boss", now you know that Geshe Kelsang doesn't agree with the Dalai Lama so why would he align himself to an institution that is organised in a way so contrary to the understanding he received from his root teacher? I will add context to these statements and you can review and see if you agree. Also you say he is distanced from his family but his sister and nephew live at Manjushri center and until shortly before his death his Uncle Kuten Lama visited NKT centers quite often. Also during the past few festivals I have met monks from different traditions who come to learn how NKT organises itself or to receive blessing empowerments. So again I think your ideas are overstate the idea of his isolation. Best wishes (Robertect 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert. Thank you. At the main shrine in the middle as the symbol of the Dharma Jewel you'll find in the NKT Temple at Manhushri Center only the books of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Whereas the Buddhist Scriptures summerized in the Kangyur and Tangyur were put aside in a second minor shrine at the right side. Shugden was normally never put on the main shrine or even in the same room of the main shrine. For protectors there existed seperated rooms and as stated yet: Kadampas didn't even heard the name Shugden, he came up later at the time of the 5th DL. As with his relations: If my information on that is wrong I'm happy if you correct it. I heard that even he disagreed with his uncle, who is a Shugden Oracle, at the end that's why his uncle didn't come anymore to visit him. When did he die and visit the last time the Manjushri Center? If the sister of GKG and his nephew live there it is completely nonsense to write he has even isolated from his family - thank you for your corrections. Either my information is wrong or he told it wrong to the representative or there is any other kind of misunderstandig. But in relation to the monasteries, Buddhist Authorities, the Ganden Tripa and HHDL, the incarnation of his teacher, Trijnag Chogtrul Rinpoche we can state this, isn't it? If he has the convinction to keep Tsongkhapas tradidition "purely" and he is not accepting the repesentatives of Tsongkhapa, the Ganden Tripas or has no relations to the full ordained Sangha who keeps that tradition, then this is a little bit difficult I think. Also the former Ganden Tripa, Kybje Ling Rinpoche, didn't practice Shugden. However all of that is not that much important I think. I'm more interested to have a balanced view and informations. Kt66 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I am more or less happy with what we have now in the article, thankyou. I question to some extent the point regarding one teacher for three reasons. 1) There are many teachers in the NKT. 2) For many years (into the early 1990's there were other Tibetan Lama's at his centers). 3) Geshe Kelsang does not say or write this anywhere. So can you offer more information to support this point. As far as I am concerned the actual view of Geshe Kelsang is in the point immediately below it.

Regarding the other points, the Kuten Lama was obliged to renounce all links with Geshe Kelsang by the Dalai Lama on Kuten Lama's return from Manjushri Center in 1996. If he had not done so his position in the community where he lived would have been untenable, this was a horrible instance of the impact of the Dalai Lama's position on Dorje Shugden. Shortly after he returned to India he wrote to Heruka Center in London where he stayed for a short time thanking the community there for their kindness and encouraging them to continue their practice which he rejoiced in. You can read the autobiography of Kuten Lama on the Dorje Shugden wikipage and you can see he was very happy with the practice he received. Also you will note in the biography that one of the Lama's consulted over the authenticity of the Dorje Shugden oracle was Ling Rinpoche.

With respect to lineage holders, Tulku's and statue locations, the fundamental question is does Geshe Kelsang show a path which leads to enlightenment? I believe without doubt that he does, you need to show that this is not the case. Best wishes (Robertect 09:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).

If he saw himself as a part of the Buddhist Sangha and accepted living elder Sangha Members and Spiritual Authorities and don't "protected" his followers from the experienced elder Buddhist Sangha (especially the full ordained ones) and the Dharma from other teachers and traditions, there would be no problem and we could leave this sentence out of the article. Now there is no accepted living Buddhist Authority than Geshe Kelsang himself in NKT. Where do he lead his followers? They have to check themselves properly and need the qualifications as stated by Tsongkhapa (but not in GKG's books ;-)) for this. You have done your checks, I have done mine. Sorry for my insisting. Please feel free to correct me. yours, Kt66 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I used the section to put in more points which clarifies his relations to the Buddhist Community and Buddhist Authorities. I think this is not really wished for by NKT followers or GKG himself, but this is true and clarifies some background for the reader which he can easily check out.

At your suggestions and remarks:

"1) There are many teachers in the NKT."

There are only NKT teachers, who received the ten-vows ordination and start to teach normally after 2 years of beining within NKT to "spread the pure tradition". There were always conflicts by the NKT headquarter when someone tried to invite a non-NKT teacher - like a well educated Geshe or a Lama.

"2) For many years (into the early 1990's there were other Tibetan Lama's at his centers)."

This was when the center still belonged to Lama Yeshe. Later he invited two Geshes, one of them was Geshe Lobsang Pende (I talked with him) who lives now in Italy. But he stopped doing this since many years. Not even his uncle the Kuten Lama gave teachings there. He is the single spiritual authority now. His students have to follow his ideas, isn't it? Thats why you hear allways from members the mantra: "Geshe-la says... Geshe-la says..." and it is not allowed to invite other authorities than him.

"3) Geshe Kelsang does not say or write this anywhere. So can you offer more information to support this point. As far as I am concerned the actual view of Geshe Kelsang is in the point immediately below it."

You're right. Official he doesn't say that. He keeps his policies secret and outwardly his secretary or others do the jobs. And ot of "Guru Devotion" they of course do what he likes. When there were situations in NKT where people invited other Lamas to NKT centers then it gave big trouble from the NKT headquarter in England as well as abroad. As a result of this politic no NKT teacher would now get the idea to invite another Lama than NKT followers. His views are not spoken outwardly but managed secretly within NKT. The result you can see by observing the present situation. (Because I was NKT monk and Education Program Coordinator in NKT I know what I tell.) A reference you find also here: ...For the most part this uniformity is socialised into the membership and does not require any formal imposition. As the latest arrival, however, the NKT has to make a more explicit effort. Thus the manual for the NKT teacher training programme insists that "...every NKT teacher must give exactly the same explanation [of the works of Geshe Kelsang, the founder] , otherwise the NKT will disintegrate... Therefore this generation of Teachers must try very hard to come to complete consensus as to what is the correct interpretation of every single section of every one of Geshe-la's books" . see Ken Jones at http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/jonesbritbudd.html

This does not allow other politics. If other monks or nuns - the follower of the Buddha - would teach in NKT, "the NKT will disintegrate", I think ;-)

As with the Kuten Lama, I will first read his biografy. I heard by a Tulku, the debate partner of the reincarnation of Zong Rinpoche, that Kuten Lama wished to be protected by HHDL and asked him therefore for help. For more I have first to investigate. Who wrote the biografiy of Kuten Lama you've mentioned? He himself? Thanks a lot, yours Kt66 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt, I removed these points, against each one I give my reason. You can review as you see fit:

• He emphasize that one should follow only one teacher and his teachings.

This statment needs to be substantiated because in interviews he made it clear that people are free to follow as many teachers as they wish, also in his books Geshe Kelsang gives advice for people who have more than one teacher. Finally I know NKT practitioners, on study programs who also have other teachers.

As said at another place what he says official and acts internal is sometimes very different. Please tell me one monk or nun who teaches in NKT and has actual another teacher - who teaches him or her actual the Dharma - and is also a NKT teacher! Why it is allowed for beginners to have other Lamas too, is "a skillful mean of NKT" first they go along with the horse (the ideas of the new follower) than if he or she has trust, they "tame the horse" by leading them to their (internal) views on that. This "taming of the horse" by going along in the beginning with the ideas of new followers is an internal method of NKT which was also published in the past by NKT itself.

• He passes only a selection of the Gelug Sutra and Tantra teachings to his followers.

This is a redundant statement. The entirety of Gelug Teachings are so vast that many teachers, even Tibetan monastries only pass on a selection of Gelug teachings. For example we might say that a teacher passes on only a selection of Buddha's teachings but what is the point?

Sorry, not redundant! Why? People are very different and practiced in the past also different Tantras and approaches to the Teachings, that's why it is quite important to have access to different methods of the entire tradition or even different traditions. By excluding other practices (Dharmas), and making a Dharma-bundle for his followers, the Dharma of the Buddha is minimized to a package for all (A "power package" which fits to all personalities, does this really work???). If for instance one has more relation with Yamantaka Practice or Kalachakra and first met NKT, he will never be able to do this practice in this lifetime, because GKG does not pass them and it is not wished for to receive it by other lamas. Especially if you are ordained and a NKT teacher, you have no chance at all, oyu have to take the bundle - besides by leaving NKT - but this you fears, because you leave your root teacher and will thereby go to hell - as taught in NKT. Please check it out! Kt66 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally NKT is rooted in the Gelug tradition but does not claim to teach the same texts etc that are taught traditionally in Gelug institutions, for example in the Geshe program. Also I don't know any NKT practitioner would compare their scriptural knowledge to to that of a Geshe for example, that is not what NKT is for, so why do you think this is so important?

For me, there is a fundamntal difference if one wants to study the Dharma, the doctrine of the Buddha - and what one gets are only books of one teacher and a different ordination... I don't know. Really, a pity. In the Gelug tradition - which you said NKT said is rooted in - the scriptural authorities are not GKG books. The scriptural authorities are the works of the Indian Panditas and Tsongkhapa and the commenteries of reknowned masters on it. No text of Tsongkhapa is studied in NKT, only two texts of Indian Panditas are used but also with no commentary by Tsongkhapa or another high Gelug Authority. And because I studied within NKT and heard the NKT-Dharma and heard later Teachings by non-NKT-teachers and read texts of Tsongkhapa I can summerize: there is a big difference with this. Kt66 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• He changed the Vinaya, the monsatical rules, by developing an own ordination system - where he is the sole Abbot from.

He did not change the Vinaya, the Vinaya is as it has always been. However if you wish to say that the ordination vows in NKT are different to those given in India or Tibet this is quite correct. So what is the purpose of this statement?

Sorry he did. (By the way: Do you know the Vinaya? Where did your hear, read or studied it? I must acknowledge I know it mere from some less teachings and scriptural sources (Tsongkhapa, Lama Mipham, Theravada and Jamgon Kongtrul who wrote extensively on that. If you don't know it you can not state: "He did not change the Vinaya"). He established a different system of ten vows, we discussed this yet at the NKT discussion board. Please look there. When he gives different ordination vows and does not pass the ordination how it was taught (by 10 full ordained monks if there are enough in the country present and 5 if not) then this is a change of the Vinaya (Rules for the Monasics), isn't it? Kt66 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• He doesn't allow that other novice and full ordained monks or nuns teach at his centers.

Also not true, anyone can teach in NKT centers if they are engaged in the Study programs and are given permission by their teacher. You should know that for many years at Madhyamaka center there was a monk from another tradition who was on Sutdy programs and also taught. It is impossible that you did not to notice him at festiveals in the costume of the traditon within which he was ordained. Lastly there are still some monks with Gelong vows in NKT. (Robertect 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).

Yes I remember this monk from the other tradition - see how you "tame the horse" - than you understand why it was possible: NKT expects he will convert to NKT (I think he has cenverted yet, isn't it?). So I will improve the points. Thank you for your remarks. By the way: "Lastly there are still some monks with Gelong vows in NKT." This is fine, really! Did they also taught, did you spoke with them. What they told? Thank you for your contributions. yours Kt66

As with "taming the horse" and what I said is not only from own experience within NKT you'll find it also in the same source I've mentioned yet: "Newcomers are simply made very welcome, and the seductive lure of a new identity of the kind offered by all movements, secular or religious, does the rest. Thus the NKT manual quoted earlier warns to "Be very careful not to give the impression it is a recruitment drive...to start with we need to agree with people, to show that we understand where they are at, not to resist them or argue with them. If we have a wild horse the best way to tame it is to mount it, to go with it."" see Ken Jones at http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/jonesbritbudd.html How to get people into NKT I learnt quite good, but not how the get them out ;-) Some informations may help. By this you can learn, that to tolerate some behaviour by NKT must not be a sign of tolerance. It can be mere a "skilfull mean" to turn the person into a NKT follower. Kt66 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Relations

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

Acknowledgement of his teachers

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

@KP

Sorry I can not fullfill my wish to leave the disc. board. However I reverted your changes back, you gave the following reasons:

"this is a spurious reason. I doubt very much if Nyingma centres allow Sakya spiritual guides to teach there!"

Many centers do allow, no problem at all. My Gelug Centers, Kague Centers and Sakya Centers do allow. How it is with Nyingma Centers I do not really know but they are very open, the Rime Movement came from them. And please be aware that it is not going about traditions its going about how NKT seperated from the monastic community, buddhist experienced elder authorites, and don't allow really learnt teachers, like Geshes who all have the same education and same tradition as Geshe Kelsang, to teach in NKT! We can say they are in a way "forbidden", except they would study his books at his three education programs - perhaps ;-)

Then let me give you another example - a zen master would never be invited to teach in a Gelugpa monastery because they are different traditions. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Gelugpa Teachers to teach in NKT Dharma centres because the Gelugpa tradition and the NKT are different traditions.

Perhaps a Zen Master wouldn't be invited at a Gelug Monastery but in Gelug Dharma Centres he would be invited. A Gelug Center I know invited a Zen Master, and another invited also Theravadins to help the people with the Dharma - not even this; of course the Gelug centre invited also HH Sakya Trizin from the Sakya Tradition. But you changed the basis of your arguments to win our small debate ;-) , first you talked about centers now on monasteries. Because we discussed on the basis of centres, your argument is not valid and was refuted through facts. The second reason you gave: "...because the Gelugpa tradition and the NKT are different traditions." fits not what Geshe Kelsang said on it. He said in a letter from 2000: "We are pure Gelugpas but in public we don't use the term Gelugpa." So it is nonsense if you state: "the Gelugpa tradition and the NKT are different traditions" and conclude by this: "it is inappropriate for Gelugpa Teachers to teach in NKT Dharma centres" I think it is quite appropriate and would be very helpful if GKG/NKT would allow this. I see no reason why this is not done. Do you no one? Will the Gelug Teachers, the Geshes, like Geshe Kelsang one is, make the "pure Dhrama" impure or confuse the NKT students by giving them Buddhas or Tsongkhapas Teachings? If yes: Why people get confused by receiving teachings of the Buddha and Tsongkhapa by other Lamas? From which this confusion will come? What is the cause for this possible confusion? Or is it mere fear that GKG looses power and influence or something else? Kt66 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

why don't you allow NKT Teachers to teach in Gelugpa monasteries if you feel so ecumenical? --Kelsangpagpa 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can not allow at all, because I'm no Abbot or responsible for the teaching schedule at the monasteries. But I can give you one clear example: NKT was invited by a former NKT-member to teach at his Gelug-centre - where also other teachers (a Gelug Geshe, a Gelug Tulku and a Theravada Monk taught) - but NKT didn't like to do that, they didn't accept the invitation. By the way, why do no NKT teacher studies for some time in a Gelug monastery from which the teachings and their teacher is coming from? Also: I'm Gelug but open for the teachings of the Buddha also given by others traditions, because they are coming from the Buddha and I'm Buddhist, a follower of the path of the Buddha ;-) Kt66 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Relations - 'Abbot' is not an appropriate term as there are no monasteries or nunneries in the NKT)"

It is. The Abbot is the one who gives ordination. This is what GKG does: giving ordination.

An abbot is the head of a Monastery. There are no monasteries in the NKT, as you know. The term ordaining master is more appropriate. --Kelsangpagpa 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. So I will change it. Thnak you very much. Kt66 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Relations - this statement is incorrect and therefore it is deleted. Geshe Kelsang encourages people to practise Kadam Dharma"

Kadam Dharma. What is this? He is a Gelug Teacher and received the Gelug Teachings. So he gives Gelug Teachings. And as GKG himself stated, NKT and Gelug are the same.

Gelug is a tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. To avoid confusion, we say we practise Kadam Dharma, which, as you know, is the Dharma that originated with Atisha in India with Lamp for the Path and was elucidated by Je Tsongkhapa in his teachings. As you have said, we don't follow the authority of the Ganden Tripa, so how can they be Gelugpa teachings? It is Kadam Dharma --Kelsangpagpa 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think to say "Kadam Dharma" is another "skilfull method". What GKG is teaching are Gelug Teachings - as he understood them. It is not Atishas Tradition, because Atisha emphasised the Sutras and not the Tantras. Also the contents of Atishas lineage (heritage) is different to the one of NKT. This can easily be recognized by studiing the features of the Kadampa Tradition. However I know we discussed it at the wiki board there extensively yet. We can summerize: Geshe Kelsang said: NKT and Gelug are the same, therefore what you call "Kadam Dharma" and Gelug Teachings are the same. Kt66 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Please discuss further changes. Kt66 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your adds on oracles and divinations: The uncle of GKG, Kuten Lama, gave himself invocation on Shugden (served as his oracle) at the Manjushri Center in the past, isn't it? Kt66 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, it says in the NKT Internal Rules that we do not rely on oracles or divination, I was simply including this in the article. What happened with Kuten Lama was a long time ago and no longer reflect the current situation within the NKT --Kelsangpagpa 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Thank you! Kt66 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is any neutral Wiki Editor who can support the discussion and article? Perhaps KP, Robert and I are to much involved... Kt66 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

changes to this article

Dear kt66 - I notice you have reverted my changes, claiming that changes should be discussed. I notice made many unauthorised changes yesterday without discussing them. This is not practising equanimity, please also discuss your changes in future --Kelsangpagpa 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the 'relations' section. How is this relevant to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso? It is more to do with the NKT and the differences between NKT and the Gelugpa tradition. It is inappropriate here. --Kelsangpagpa 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

HI KP you didn't read the baord well, I think. Robert and I discussed it at the board. We were still in the process. I included also your statement and chaged slightly. Please read the points above on the discussion and improve the section, yours Kt66 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt and KP, for my part I am happy to leave the article as it stands today. Personally I am not in a position to comment on Vinaya or what happened in Germany. Therefore unless someone with more knowledge and experience in these matters is prepared to engage in further clarification and discussion, I believe that what we now have is a fair reflection of all views with clear analysis. I hope one day Geshe-la himself will clarify all of these contentious points so that the NKT is not harmed by them in future generations. As we have been discussing the integration of a religious tradition and community, I thought you would both be interested to read about the activities of this Muslim scholar who died recently. I believe he showed a good example for all religious people to follow tp://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1693985,00.html ZakiBadawi. I wish you both continued success in your Dharma practice. Best wishes (Robertect 09:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)).

HI Robert. Thank you for your fairness, openess and contributions. I wish you all the best. And perhaps we hear from each other. For me it is also ok to leave it as it is. Today started the Gelug Monlam (Prayerfestival) on the Miracle Deeds of the Buddha, established in the past by Tsongkhapa. So may all be auspicious and clarified in a positive way, so that noone will suffer and everyone attain spiritual progress and lasting peace. Thank you very much, yours Kt66 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt and Robert,

I am not happy to leave the article as it is. Kt66, would you please explain why you added the section on 'relations' - it has nothing to do with the life of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I think that the material in this section would be better in the New Kadampa Tradition article.

I think the article was fair and balanced as it was before. It mentions that Geshe Kelsang is controversial, it mentions his expulsion from Sera monastery, the Dorje Shugden issue, as well as his achievements. Kt66, please explain why you are not content to let the article remain as it was - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 09:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi dear KP. After the many citations were made, I found the article not balanced anymore. Then I recognized that the article doesnt say any about his life in th west and how this life developed. An major point in his life is, I think, that his relations step by step changed, and to put this in the article makes many points more clear about why he is seen also as controversial. This change and the situation now was a step by step process it came not over night. Many of it is related with his past in Tibet/India and his culture and also Gelugpa fundamentalism, I think. The article makes clear that he broke quite completely with the Gelugpa Tradition and also with their main spiritual authorities. This is his right and choice and I'm happy that we have democracy and he can share this too. But his isolation and radical attitude in this is an extreme, I think. However, I would be happy if you give more reasons, why you don't wish to have this in the article. It is about his life and to make a light on his relations gives a background why he is saying and doing this or that and even why NKT is seen as controversial. It is grounded in his personality. If it is not neutral, we have to improve this. But at this time (now) I can see no reason why to put this out of the article. The relations reflects his believes, his views and make clear his actions. It is related to him, not NKT. However, I will use my time to think about it more deeply. What do other wiki editors say to that point? yours Kt66 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

HI KP. I tried to give the biografy more clarity in the order of the life steps and make the different points more clear and visible for the reader. Do you think I did a mistake or there is something to be changed, neutralized or added or has to be more balanced? Thank you very much, yours Kt66 10:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear KT66, I think there is a danger in trying to simplify something that is really quite complex. You have chosen one of two 'quotes' which personally, I don't find helpful in expressing the arguments. Firstly, you say that Geshe Kelsang was expelled for accusing the Dalai Lama of being a ruthless dictator, etc, but that's not the main point. Geshe Kelsang was trying to re-establish religious freedom for Dorje Shugden practitioners in India, but you make it sound like he just wanted to attack the Dalai Lama. This misleading and it casts Geshe Kelsang in a bad light. I feel that your edit has missed the point! I tried to edit it to improve it, but I still feel that the basic premise that you are expressing is incorrect and I really don't think it improves on what was there originally.

There is danger in reducing arguments to 'soundbites' that the real meaning of the debate will not be clarified, but lost, and for this reason I have reverted the change. Sorry.

With all good wishes - --Kelsangpagpa 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

HI KP: of course there "is a danger in trying to simplify something". I agree and don't want to have this too. But not to show the developements is "trying to simplify something", I think. GKG was not expelled because he propagates Shugden, other do this also without being expelled. He was expelled out of his shamles tone in the debate and what he established in the public about HHDL. This was perhaps not seen in accordance with his monk vows what he did. So he was expelled. NKT tries to simplify this to a conflict where GKG is a hero: He tried to keep the "pure" tradition, that's why he was expelled, he fought for religioues freedom, that's why he was expelled. He is the little "pure" David who fight against the great ("political") Goliath; that's why he was expelled. This is simplifying and this I want to avoid. So I reverted and perhaps we have to discuss each point. It is always allowed to make an article better. So please say why my new includings make the article more worse? You are free to make the section more balanced or improve it. Please see also the section on the cultural heritage I put below, perhaps you can follow than more easyly the changes. yours Kt66 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, it seems that you are making quite a few changes to this article, many of which I think are unnecessary or unbalancing to what was here before. I thought we had a perfectly good and balanced article and I don't really see the need to keep changing it.

Perhaps if you expressed what it is you are hoping to achieve, and what you would like to see specifically, we can discuss it, or maybe just agree that the article is okay as it is. Robert said before that he was happy with it. I am not very happy with the 'relations' section because I feel this would be better in the New Kadampa Tradition article, not having anything really to do with the biographical details of Geshe Kelsang's life, but I've let it ride. However, you are still making more and more changes! Why? I don't see what we can achieve by continuing to change the article, so could we please discuss? - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand the difficulties of the changing process on the article (the suffering of impermanance ;-). My wish is to make points more transparent and thereby serve to get a broader image which helps TO UNDERSTAND EACH SIDE. So especially with the section you just reverted: It was a process of developing and both sites said quite strange things. Why not citing them? What there is to hide? I will read the section once more and perhaps I change it or I let it as it is. I will look if it is balanced and a broader view which helps to understand it better. That's it. Kt66 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, thank you for the clarifications below. I've reverted the change again, I'm afraid. In the section you have written, it seems to me you are picking quotes to justify Geshe Kelsang's explusion from Sera Monastery, with him accusing the Dalai Lama of being a dictator and so forth.

Because of his behaviour and tone (wich Tibetans and ordained felt to be shameless) he was expelled by the monastery, not because he is worshippig Shugden and he said this loudly. The tone and the kind of actions and campaign he estabblished. This makes the passage quite clear now. I do not say after it the Monasteries have written a more friendly letter than he wrote. Whereas the NKT was until now quite skillfull to sell themselves as the victim of the Dalai Lama and his followers. This you do even now when you write: "anyone who opposes the Dalai Lama's view is punished". When and how you were punished? Please tell me what for punishment you received? So I think you have fear, because the well loved attitude of NKT to sell themsleves as religious freedom victims is not in accordance what the article says now, isn't it?

I'm sure you're not naive - anyone who opposes the Dalai Lama's view is punished. The Dalai Lama's pronouncements are not open to honest debate, you have to do what he says! The Tibetan Government is dictatorial and will not tolerate any disagreement with the Dalai Lama. I'm afraid this is the real reason why Geshe Kelsang was expelled. If you want to pick something to quote from Geshe Kelsang, let's pick Geshe Kelsang's questions to the Dalai Lama that he never answered, or where he says that he intended no disrepect to the Dalai Lama, or that by publishing untruths in the Newsweek article, the Dalai Lama was trying to destroy the NKT. Let's not focus on sensationalist soundbites!

Oh KP. Now I'm a little bit shocked about what you said. You wrote: "you have to do what he says!" Sorry, this is not the case. Why do you think this? What is the reason why you think I have to do what he says? I have not, I do not. I use just my intelligence and understanding to think about the topics. I'm free! (But I was not free when I was in NKT.) You fear the hell if you critisize your Guru, do not what he says to you or if you go away to another Guru. That's why you can not be open, I think, blocked by fears. When I was in NKT they established well the Dalai Lama as an enemy to my mind, a person who "destroys the pure Dharma", "obsessed by a demon" and they established fear to leave the Guru and manipulated me in many ways like cults just do it. Today I thought perhaps to stop my engagement in wikipedia, because I said to me: I will make no harm to other and do not really know if my contributions are helpful. But when I see how you are a victim of the isolations and NKT-brainwashing (as I was) when you write: "The Tibetan Government is dictatorial and will not tolerate any disagreement with the Dalai Lama." This you can forget. You can even just read the article of the Ganden Tripa which Robert, your NKT Dharmafriend, offered here, there you can easily see that he contradicts many ideas and inner interests of the Dalai Lama, like the study of science and others. He is quite free to have another opinion: Please read it! He can say his opinion without being expelled. Check it out yourself! You learnt by a dictator (GKG) that the Dalai Lama is a dictator. Quite funny. I will revert the passage I see no reason why not having this passage as it is and you gave just some prejudices you learnt by NKT. About the truth and untruth we can also put in the section, why not. But I think it is quite ok now because the passage and article make clear that both sides made accusations in not so nice tones. And what is wrong or biased with this? Kt66 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that a 'soundbite' approach does a disservice to this debate, and doesn't improve on what was there before. What is written there is a good summary of what happened, and if people are interested, all the references are available for them to read and make up their own mind. Let's not oversimplify or dumb down this debate with out of context quotations - with all good wishes --Kelsangpagpa 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the context quotations, they give more evidence and I will now revert the section. But perhaps we can ask other wikieditors what they think. This question I put at the board. So lets see what other editors think on it. Thank you very much, all the best to you and your friends. Kt66 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vinaya Rules

Hi KP Hi Robert. I changed the article section to make it more correctly and add now some reasons for it. In the Vinaya, which GKG studied and which lineage he keeps, there are different rules how one has to be ordained, what rules there are. These were negelected by GKG himself, instead of this he created a new style. This style is serving that he is the single authoritiy - like a cult leader - and no democratic rules are present anymore. As with the vows we discussed this yet at the wiki article board on NKT. As with the non-democratic ruler I give reasons now.

So if one in the ordained buddhist community makes a fault or says: This monk or Nun violated the rules. Then all the assambly has come together to check what is good and wrong. If they come to a decision they ask the monk: We ask you to stop this. Please do it not again... and the like (there is a ritual for it). If he/she doesn't stop then they repeat this three times. If after the third request the monk is going on with his bad habbit what is against the rules, than he can be expelled from the community - and has therefore to live at another place.

If there is a conflict in the whole group of ordained and they can not make a clear decision than a second group of ordained from another place, who is not involved, have to been asked to mediate the conflict.

I think all this was done, when Sera Mey Monastery expelled Geshe Kelsang.

How does Geshe Kelsang respect the rules of the Buddha? I will give an symptomatic example:

When there was a conflict in Germany, because his reprasentative wanted to be recognized as a Tulku. There was no democratic basis for solveing this conflict. He decided on his own and talked and acted as follows: I tell you what is going on: "You are 'guilty' and all the other aren't 'guilty'" and he said he takes away all her vows, including her nun vows. (This is quite strange. One looses the vows if one breaks it, but noone can take them away because noone can possesses vows, except the person who received it. He is not a buddhist god who can give and take as he likes, he was just Buddhas representative, when he gave the vows!) He acted like a dictator, he made a meeting like a spiritual execution (and NKT members served as the audience) and when someone tried to said something critically than the fans of him fizzled: "Pssst. Geshe-la has said this." Then we tried to say that also NKT made faults. Then someone asked: Who is NKT? Geshe Kelsang Gyatso answered: "Me. I'm NKT". From this you can see: He is the sole 'Boss'. This is his view and if you look at NKT and know it a little bit internally you have to acknowldge this.

So I think this gives evidence for my changes in the article and is quite valid also with other stuff and background of NKT. And it is mere funny how NKT describes them as "Kadampas - putting all the teaching of the Buddhas into practice" and are not able to keep the Vinaya and democratic rules - even violates them. Hopefully a time will come were a reformer in NKT appears and changes this.

On the contrary the Dalai Lama about whom GKG says: 'he destroys the Dharma', does the complete opposite: He cares for the Vianya, the rules and teachings on that and he establish and support democracy even in the Tibetan Community, but him Geshe Kelsang named as a "ruthless dictator". So what is a matter of fact and what not? Please check it out yourself. For further changes please discuss. Kt66 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Different View

If you read these different statements one can easily be upset and each site seems to have different views on GKG. I’d like to share another view which perhaps serves more understanding.

If you look at the Tibetan Culture, the heritage or its burdens, before the Chinese came it was more like feudalism and in many points quite degenerated, like that sometimes it was more important which height a throne of a teacher has and which throne of what Lama is higher; many rituals whereas precious scriptures’ were revered but not read and the like. I think one has to understand some of the cultural burdens to understand Geshe Kelsang and his opponents in a better way and to avoid to take on the faults and integrate them into western society and Buddhism. For this I can advice the film on Gendün Choepel “angry monk” the film on Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche “Word of my perfect teacher” and the text of him at: Tibetan Buddhism in the West

Another point of this is, that many Tibetans only have known their own valley, less of the other valleys and traditions and Tibet was complete isolated and closed – has complete isolated and closed itself.

The emphasize of the Guru helped also the feudal system and was of course also misused. But the Tibetans developed their own mode of behaviour to deal with such faults whereas we in the west have not done this task yet properly.

So if one comes from this culture it is not easy to overcome it – even when one wishes for. One can not deny the cultural, historical, political and religious background, because all is interdependent, one has to understand it, not to neglect it.

So if a girl in her childhood had a very hard time of growing up, and her parents were not that kind to her, then of course she wishes to make it better with her own child later. But if you look, you will see: most parents do at the end the same bad things with their children as were done to them. Why? They know no other way. This is a pity, but is normal and only very few people are able to make it really better than the own parents.

In the same way to criticize the negative sides of the cultural, historical, political and religious background of Tibet and go to distance to it, as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and also other Tibetans have done it, is a good basis to change it, but it is a difference and more difficult task not to repeat instead the same faults without recognizing it - as the mother is unable to make it better and does the same with her child what she suffered from in her childhood.

Another point is, that Tibet has also very good sides and many great masters developed there, especially they kept the Indian Mahayana Sanskrit Tradition and scriptures - not found anywhere else today and one have to see also the qualities of their heritage and cultural, historical, political and religious background.

Both: One has to seen the qualities and faults. The same is with the western culture: One has to see the qualities and faults of Western Culture. And with the teachers the same: One has to seen the qualities and faults. Otherwise one is training in ignorance and will not learn from the situations as they are.

So if I look on GKG, I can see also his qualities. Although the Gelug Tradition at the end was quite fundamental, and one witness of it are the empowerment vows on shugden, GKG does not follow these vows and don’t pass them. The same is with: he was quite moderate with his definition of sexual misbehaviour, wereas Vasubandu (on the basis of cultural backgrounds and different other views) defined homosexuality as sexual misconduct. GKG removed this view of Vasubandu from his book of Joyfull Path, so that westerners will get an easier access to it. And there are many other things one has to acknowledge as a good intention of him. The same is with his effort and the effort of NKT followers to give all what they have: their time, knowledge, money, lifetime, energy and the like.

On the other hand GKG is quite contrary by always emphasising, that he has a “pure” tradition which noone has to “mix” and has completely to follow as he taught – whereas he himself, on his own, changes as he likes to do and later claiming his teacher allowed he is free to do that. And at the end he is even saying: there would exist no difference between NKT and Gelug/Tsongkhapa… GKG has also isolated himself from his background and works quite isolated of the Buddhist Sangha on his own. He has no elder one to correct or reflect him. From my point of view he has now created a new feudal system, and became dictator who always decides on his own and only knows himself what is "good" or "bad". The radical attitude which this brings I could recognize by myself, when I saw how he treated one of his well loved representatives: it was a complete lack of compassion, he didn’t even understand interdependent arising and that from this, the idea: someone is “guilty” and all other NKT people, including him, are not "guilty" – as he said – is complete nonsense. He didn't recognize that he himself, his NKT and all the people, and also we the follower of this representative had created that "difficult situation" on our own and the main responsible one was he himself: because he put less educated, naive westeners after almost two years on the throne to teach the "pure tradition" and many start to fly high in the sky...and don't recognize it. Because we are "so 'pure' practitioners".

This idea: I/we made no faults, I'm not "guilty", the other is "guilty", bad, deluded, have grudge, is aggressive and the like is quite syptomatic for NKT reactions also to critics.

One high Dzogchen Master said: If we Tibetans didn’t get the Dharma, we would be the Talibans of this century. This illustrates the radical style which sometimes is developed by Tibetans and is expressed also by their quite brutal law system and feudal structure in Tibet. You can also recognize this by reading the statements of GKG against the Dalai Lama and the reply by the Sera Letter of the Monasteries: both tones are quite radical and hard to believe.

On one side I have to acknowledge the trials of GKG to make it better than it was in the past in Tibet. On the other site it was HH the 13th and it is the present 14th Dalai Lama who worked that hard on it, to improve the Tibetan Society and their work are undermined by radical Gelug fundamentalists.

Kt66 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

expulsion section discussion

Hi wikis there. What do you think on the section of Monastery expulsion? I tried to make more clear that GKG was not expelled because he practiced Shugden or opposed the DL, instead out of the tone of his offical statements against the DL which upsets many Tibetans and of course the monastreries too. I put in citations and made also clear that the respond of the Sera Letter had used also ugly words. So I feel the changes fair and neutral and more clear than before. KP don't like this section. So before we start a big edit war: What do you think on that? Kt66 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here the two setcions:

older one

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 (see Kashag Statement), Geshe Kelsang Gyatso found himself center stage in an argument about the status of this deity. He refused to back down from the orders of HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, and the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition. This resulted in his public expulsion (see Sera Expulsion Letter) in 1996 from Sera Monastery, brought to a head because the Sera authorities were upset with his open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama over the Dorje Shugden issue, feeling that it harmed the cause of Tibet.

Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

newer one

Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 (see Kashag Statement), Kelsang Gyatso found himself center stage in an argument about the status of this deity. He refused to back down from the orders of HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, and the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition. Mainly the Sera authorities were upset with his tone on his open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama. Also the Tibetans were deeply distressed by the attempt of Geshe Kelsang to portray the Dalai Lama as a “ruthless dictator” an “oppressor of his own people”. The controversies resulted in Geshe Kelsangs public expulsion (see Sera Expulsion Letter) in 1996 from Sera Monastery. In the Sera Letter Kelsang Gytaso was in return accused to be a "cult leader" who "should try to open his eyes rather than his foul mouth". In 1997 Geshe Kelsang accused the Dalai Lama to be "very successful in destroying this ancient religious tradition" (Shugden/Gelug) and on the contrary to be "very ignorant and foolish at achieving Tibetan independence". This "debate" resulted in further controversies (like demonstrations) and is nowadays quite less heated and out of the public.

However, such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

---

Dear Kt66, having read these through again, and trying to remain neutral, another thought occured to me. I feel the first one (the original) is more in the style of an Encylopedia entry and more suitable for the article.

Also, in general, I feel the whole Dorje Shugden issue is distasteful and as Geshe Kelsang has said in his letter to the Dalai Lama, has harmed the reputation of the Gelugpa tradition and the image of Buddhism in general. Do we really want to air all our dirty washing in public, regardless of who said it? - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP. I asked 2nd March what he thinks on that. We will see what other editors will say. In the meantime I make my replies to you more clear and give more reasons on what you said. I'd be happy if you will reply. I have found no good reasons why you don't accept my version. But I understand that this version serves not the NKT view to sell themsleves/GKG as a viction of religious freedom and the evil "oppressor" and "ruthless dictator" and that's why you don't like it. I will wait what other editors will say, otherwise I will revert back and try to improve the section. For this I add further details. Thank you very much. Kt66 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, It's good that you have asked other people for their opinions. I hope you asked Robert too. My objection to your changes are that you are trying to show Geshe Kelsang in a bad light so that people can agree that his expulsion was justified. It wasn't.

I feel you are trying to present is a distortion of what happened, and that's what I object to. It does the whole article a dis-service to present a one sided argument or to simply the issues in this dispute. With all good wishes for your happiness, --Kelsangpagpa 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I see you have closed. I accept but will continue to improve the section. All the best for you also. yours Kt66 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

HI KP. You wrote above: "If you want to pick something to quote from Geshe Kelsang, let's pick Geshe Kelsang's questions to the Dalai Lama that he never answered, or where he says that he intended no disrepect to the Dalai Lama, or that by publishing untruths in the Newsweek article, the Dalai Lama was trying to destroy the NKT." I think you mixes the order of the events and causes and effects. First NKT alias SSC started a press campaign (I am witness from inside NKT and it was well described also and acoordance to the truth in the articles of The Guardian and The Independent) and later when in 1997 the Newsweek Article appeared NKT got back what they spread: bad press. That's it. But instead of seeing the own faults in it, NKT was quite skillfull to mix up the events and sell themselves as the victims who can not have religious freedom. Even they started to say the press is manipulated by the Dalai Lama. And as I see, you believe it until today. I changed the section in the correct order. Please discuss facts on the issue and don't use only NKT/SSC sources, they are not reliable at all, as I showed in the section below. And SSC is also based on untruths as was correctly shown in the Independent article where the author described: "Ruth Lister's house, that Steven Lane, a plump young man in his twenties with monkishly cropped hair, arranged to tell me the story of the Shugden Supporters Community. Steven Lane talked for nearly an hour, hardly drawing breath, without notes. He had the catechetical manner you find among Scientologists or Trotskyists: people who know not only all the answers, but all the questions, too. If the wrong question came up, he simply steamed on and ignored it." and Ruth who pretend not to be a member of NKT - only "a concerned Buddhist" was later recognized that the first number on her telephone is Geshe Kelsangs... NKT was always quite skilfull to blurr and change the facts so that they support their view of the things. This I wish not to have in the article. One more The Guardian: "Let us start with allegiance of the people involved. Ron Lister and his wife claimed not to be members of the NKT, but merely "concerned Buddhists". However, when I went to use the telephone in the hall, I noticed that the first number on their speed dial was for "Geshe-la", as the devotees of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso call their guru; later I discovered that Ron and Ruth Lister had edited the first of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books to be published in English, and Geshe Kelsang himself told me that he had accompanied Ron Lister on his "fact-finding" tour round India to find evidence of the Dalai Lama's alleged persecutions." Kt66 12:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi KP. I checked some points, most of the NKT arguments I know, I demonstrated with NKT and organized press information campaigns. So you must not convince me on your arguments. I will check if yours/GKG are proper. To support my version of the expulsion section I'll make now some points more clear. First let me say two general things: What makes communication with NKT quite strange is, (from my point of view, experiences and proofs) that NKT people created an own realm of existence, where logic and resonable thinking and to read informations unbiased were consumed by a radical attitute to follow the Guru, which you call Guru Devotion. The main idea is: the Guru is a Buddha, so GKG is a Buddha what he says is true. Who speaks against his words is untrue. So that's why the Dalai Lama is a destroyer or the "pure" Dharma and a really bad person. By this NKT ignore their own teachings: if you really believe teachers are Buddhas, "because Buddha Vajradhara said this" (GKG in one of his books) then the Dalai Lama would also be one. But GKG named him a "ruthless dictator" so is the Dalai Lama a "Ruthless Dictator Vajradhara Buddha"? or are there exceptions of this saying of Buddha Vajradhara? Or is this just putting into practice in relation with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, that he is the sole Buddha Vajradhara? Please clarify this. Also NKT teachers are than Vajradhara, isn't it? Or what reason is there that they are not? So I learnt this view by GKG and saw my NKT teacher as Buddha Vajradhara. But later GKG said this teacher is a bad and selfish teacher. So is there a "Selfish Vajradhara Buddha" too? Or is only GKG Buddha Vajradhara? NKT followers believe GKG and follow him mainly of that idea: 'he is Buddha Vajradhara' because "Buddha Vajradhara said that the teacher is a Buddha". And they do not leave him, because they fear, they will go to hell, "because Buddha Vajradhara" said this too. This is a main logic one has to understand to understand NKT followers. So to be open for a different perspective is not possible because the recognition could lead to a break / a different perspective on GKG and than one looses his faith and will create negative Karma, and will later go to hell. Nobody wishes for that, thats why better to close eyes and ears even if it hurds.

• Dictatorship

Although GKG accused the DL to be a "ruthless dictator" who "opresses his own people". I think it is the complete opposite. GKG is the sole ruler of NKT and does not even respect the Vinaya Rules which say what is to do if a conflict arises, instead he created his own rules. If one is not following his views or teachers anymore: one can loose once monks and nuns vows. Why? Because he says this and than this is the truth. So he creates the reality for his followers. This is was he has done in a conflict: "I take away your nuns vows, you lost it, I take away your tantric vows, you lost it..." later he threatened: "If you follow that person, you will experience the same." And this is against the teachings of the Buddha and Vinaya. And it is even a kind of creating a shism in the Sangha: saying things which weren't taught by the Buddha. Never one looses vows because the Guru said this. Never because you follow another teacher, which he expelled. By this he is creating fear to leave him, or to follow another teacher. The opression of the own people is quite hidden by different ideas NKT step by step establishes to their followers (like brainwashing). At the end one is not able to leave NKT without fear to be reborn in the hell. So it was with me and also others and this fear together with the enemy picture of the DL and the exclusive-thoughts to have the "pure tradition" and to be a "pure practitioner" among "pure" (NKT) practitioners - so special, very special Karma and the like, this creates the NKT mechanisms - which work like in a cult. And naive westerners follow it blindly to get a short cut enlightenment in 3 years, 3 months, 3 weeks and 3 days. Another point is: whereas HHDL invites specialists to make the government more democratic and is quite open, supports this and encourage the Tibetans to critisize him, GKG has created an organisation where he is the sole living spiritual authority and head and decides on his own and all follow him, because of "Guru Devotion".

KP I will now, because you mentioned them and it is related with the section, say something to the Newsweek letter, the reply of GKG and his open letter. At First: All three documents were published after his expulsion and are thats why not needed for the section that much. Whereas his harsh tones of accusings happened before his expulsions. So the order seems to be quite correct and the content too. In the Newsweek Letter what Thurman said with the Taliban is correct I think if one looks on Gelug fundamentalism especially from Pabongkha (for this I will include extracts on an article by a Nyingma follower of Namkahi Norbu Rinpoche) and it fits also to the brutal murder of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso - about whom NKT said: 'he was murdered because he made black business dealings...'. As with NKT I can follow by my experience that one can say this with the Taliban. Even when I left NKT I was a long time convinced that is is allowed to murder one if he destroys the "pure" Dharma, because he does harm to the beings and teachings and himself. I new what fundamentalism is from inside. And I learnt it in NKT! But to recognize this, one has to be honest and listen inside, not perform big actions and be busy around the clock outsite to establish the "pure tradition", centres, teaching and temples and the like. Even GKG seems not to have this insite look: introspection, because in different difficult situations he said: "We have never done anything wrong." and this can be found even quite easy if you read his reply to the newsweek article. I think this tells enough: He is correct, so others must be incorrect. I don't believe this is a buddhist attitude and in accordance with the teachings on emptiness (interdependence). What Thurman says on the money is also not that wrong, I think: NKT is quite skillfull to "help" the poeple to give their money by praising what spiritual merit they gain. And in the teachings they emphasize how important merit is, than people give their money. In NKT exist a lot of broshures how you give money for even a single stone and how you can pass your finacial legacy to NKT and the like. It is always going on money. Even if you live in a center: money, you have to pay for rooms huge rents "to support the center" and the like. When I started to live in a NKT center my rent in that were 200% higher than before...

• on Shugden argues of GKG

In the letter to Newsweek GKG said: "Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism." This is not correct. He said also: "The Dalai Lama said: 'That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought. Say I want to practise Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me.' This is also completely untrue." But this is also not correct. I will give some evidence. Nyingmapas saw and see Shugden as a demonic force and I know from two trials to destroy him. Is is common that fanatic disciples of Pabongkha destroyed Nyingma Monasteries, converted them to Gelug monasteries and destroyed Padmasambahava Statues, this can be found in quite any source - besides Shugden fans'. You find it also in the book "Lord of the Dance" by Chagdud Tulku. So GKG tries to communicate this conflict by completely ignoring the other point of views. Why? And is it not mormal if you argue on the basis of ignoring the facts of the other site, that you won't get an answer? So if I make an open letter to you and I ask you where you left our children and I cry for them: "Please give it back to me, don't be so bad!", you would surely also not answer, because I negelct reality: we have no children together.

Now I will cite some parts from an article of a Dzogchen (Nyingma) practitioner who is a Journalist and disciple of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche - and you will see it fits to the research of Geshe Georg Dreyfuss - who has done also great effort in that research and will publish later a book on it: "When the 13th Dalai Lama sent him (Pabongkha) a formal letter asking him why he has repeatedly disobeyed his order not to give the transmission of the initiation of this spirit of this Gyalpo, Pabongkha answered that he received the transmission for the worship of this being from his mothers familiy. Nevertheless, at least formally he apologized..." "It is necessary also to reflect on what the development of such a secterian cult has meant and continues to mean for the Dalai Lama and for all Tibetans in exile..." "However it was at the time of Pabongkha (and to a lesser extend his teacher Thapu Rinpoche) that the cult erupted among the higher Gelugpa hierrchs against the wish - as we have seen - of the 13th Dalai Lama - who died prophesysing the impending tragedy for the Tibetan clergy and people. Both before and after the Chinese invasion throughout Tibet, where the Nyingma presence was still predominant, noumerous statues of Padmasambhava were destroyed and lamas and monks of others traditions humilated and attacked by hordes of Gelugpa fundamentalists insistigated by the teachings of Pabongkha and his lama disciples. In this way they intended the domination of the so called 'pure tradition' of lama Tsongkhapa, which arccording to them had beeen neglected and abandoned in favour of offensive Tantric practices, and especially for the 'termas' or hidden treasures that many Gelugpas alongside the Nyingmapas and Dzogchen practitioners, made great use of." If this is a fact why GKG says insetad the following to the public? "His (DL) words are causing disharmony between Shugden practitioners and Nyingma practitioners. Why is HH the Dalai Lama creating this new problem? Until now there have been no problems between Gelugpas and Nyingmapas, and there has been no arguing or criticism." So GKG tells not the truth to his followers and the public. For more see also Shugden and its discussion board. Kt66 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I understand your views because you have stated them many times already in this forum. With respect, you keep repeating the same accusations - that Geshe Kelsang is a dictator, that he doesn't allow his students freedom and are 'brainwashing' them, that he has changed the tradition and is not following the tradition that Trijang Rinpoche gave him, etc, etc. There is no value in continuing to repeat them because they won't change how NKT does things.

I understand that what you are trying to do in this article, and the reason why you keep editing it (although its quite long anyway and contains all the relevant information) is that you want to show Geshe Kelsang and NKT in the worst possible light. NKT do things differently to the Gelugpa Tradition. We're not the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition and to keep comparing us is like comparing a horse with a donkey. We're different, that's all that needs to be said. You don't like the way NKT does things, but it's not your concern because you are no longer in the NKT. The thousands of people who follow Kadampa Buddhism do appreciate Geshe Kelsang's kindness and find NKT works very well for them!

Thank you KP. You are right. But I felt you ignore quite any topic which you don't like and I felt thats why to give more evidence to them. Perhaps to much evidence? Kt66 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the Dorje Shugden issue ended ten years ago. It's only in forums like this that it's been kept alive. I'd personally like to cut off the life support machine because it's an issue that should have died a long time ago. Most Gelugpas stopped doing the practice, and NKT continue to do it. We agreed to disagree, and because we are different spiritual traditions, that's fine. We need to respect each other's traditions, as Geshe Kelsang has said.

I agree in some points, but we are not different spiritual traditions, as you said. We are the same tradition (Gelug), isn't it? Even our teacher GKG said "we are pure Gelugpas". I think we had to discuss to have a proper article which gives the history of it correctly. Also since that time (10 years) there is more space to think about it, to see it from different points of views, different angles. This helps to recognize the own faults in it and one can overcome them. Thats a good thing, I think. Kt66 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no value in keeping raking this up and having these disputes in a public forum. We have edited the article to make it factually correct, which is right and proper for an encylopedia article. I believe that our work is done - I don't feel there is any need for any more editing, and I would ask the other Wikipedia Editors for their views on this. Let's put an end to this. What do you say? There is far too much time and energy being wasted here. With all good wishes - --Kelsangpagpa 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear KP. I don't know if the energy is wasted. It depends on what our motivations and views to life is. To discuss or debate different points of view with an open mind, helps to check the own reasoning and validity of recognition more deeply. This kind of debate was seen as beneficial and Tsongkhapa included it into his presentation of the Dharma. Buddhist discussed always, also with religious ones from the Hinduism. This helped both sites to deepen their understanding. These debates were quite normal by the Indian masters, like Naropa, Shantideva, Aryadeva and the like. Even the debates were sometimes quite heated. So one disciple of Nagarjuna who discussed with Nagarjuna got that heated that he has thrown his shoe against the head of Nagarjuna ;-) But if there is use of a debate it depends upon different causes and conditions - especially ones openess, understanding and ability to be unbiased. I can not really say if "too much time and energy being wasted here". I heard from members of NKT that some of them find my arguments useful. So I do not know. But we can rest. As you have seen, I changed the section once more. I do not know if you can accept it. We will see. my warmest regards and thank you for your patience, Kt66 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion from Sera

First of all, can you both please stop reverting the text for the time being? Otherwise some admin will come along and lock the page, which doesn't really help the issue.

Secondly, I am not really sure I understand the nature of the dispute here.

Here is the text as last edited by kp: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 (see Kashag Statement), Geshe Kelsang Gyatso found himself center stage in an argument about the status of this deity. He refused to back down from the orders of HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, and the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition. This resulted in his public expulsion (see Sera Expulsion Letter) in 1996 from Sera Monastery, brought to a head because the Sera authorities were upset with his open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama over the Dorje Shugden issue, feeling that it harmed the cause of Tibet.

KP, Do you feel that adequately represents the section?

KT, you have inserted the following: In May 1996 a so called Shugden Supporters Community (SSC) was set up. NKT and Geshe Kelsang were the main forces in SSC and SSC started a huge media campaign in May 1996. The SSC accused the Dalai Lama of being an "oppressor" and a "ruthless dictator" who is as bad as the Chinese because of his alleged ban on Dorje Shugden. (see The Guardian and The Independent from July 1996).

About this - first of all - we need attribution - ie someone somewhere stating that the SSC had KG / NKT behind them - unless this isn't disputed; KP - Is it disputed? Secondly, the citations should go to the end of the article proper. Moreover, KP, in what ways do you characterise your dispute over this insert?

My main problem has been some lack of reconciliation concerning dates and reasons around the expulsions. I am still waiting for dates and information concerning the earlier expulsion from Tsangpa Khangtsen. As it stands, I feel that the Sera expulsion section needs to (1) explain the significance, and (2) the reasoning for the expulsion - ideally in a way which is not controversial. I have no doubt whatsoever that the expulsion events are significant enough to be mentioned in this article.

I do not wish to cause yet more dispute, but to help resolve it. Please let us work on that together. (20040302 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Thank you very much. I asked just also User:Robertect if he can help to improve this section. Kt66 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I am happy to offer my thoughts, but it may take a few days, in the meantime continue to update as you wish. As to the immediate question, firstly it is an important biographical detail and should be included, secondly I agree that the SSC was mainly NKT in the UK, but in other countries? Gonsar Rinpoche and Kundeling Rinpoche were both active in Switzeland and the USA (Kundeling Rinpoche gave press conference and Gonsar Rinpoche organised a documentry on the subject). Also the activities in India were not NKT at all but organised by the Dorje Shugden Religious and Charitable society headed by Geshe Chime Tsering. Whilst I agree to the factual statements in the section I would like to review the context. (Robertect 11:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)).

To the added section we will see if KP sees it in a different way. That behind SSC is mainly NKT and GKG can be summerized by the two press articles but more I know it because I myself was active in the SSC and supported this press campaign too. The press campaign papers were published and written by NKT. I do not know if there was any paper not from NKT. Perhaps KP can say something to this too? Normally GKG/NKT tried always to hide that they are the main forces behind the SSC in the past (see with Ron and Ruth Lister, this is a typical example of this). But there were also different Lamas on the list. (From one I know he protested against it, but wasn't removed from the SSC list.) I do not know what with the others lamas was. When we wondered that not much Tibetans supported the SSC during the campaign and demonstrations and the like then us was told they fear the punishment of the DL and his followers and hide that's why before the public, because they are strucked and the like and fear for their lifes. This was used as an argument to improve our understanding that we must help them (out of compassion) because they can not go for their rights of religious freedom. So NKT then became quite busy to overwhelm the press with faxes. Kt66 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Having reviewed the current paragraph, I feel very unsure about the sentence: After the reawakening of the Shugden debate caused by the Dalai Lama's open statements against the practice in the spring of 1996 - This is because as I remember, His Holiness first made an open statement about the practice in 1976 or so, and did not in any way change his policy since then. I do not think it is fair to say that the debate was re-awakened in 1996. Indeed, I was under the impression that the debate was considered to be re-awakened by the publication of the yellow book. The referred article (kashag statement) does not substantiate the claim made here; indeed it contradicts it, referring explicitly to earlier public statements made by His Holiness including one in the previous year. Indeed, what seems to be relevant to 1996 are the activities of the "Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society" - which elicited a strong reaction from the Dept. of Information and International Relations, and in turn was probably very instrumental in the setting up of the "Special Committee on Dholgyal" by the Kashag ten days after their initial response. So, if we are looking to events of 1996 to indicate timings for the expulsion event - it would seem quite feasible that we can point a finger to the reactions made by the Kashag to the activities of the "Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society". Is this group the same as the "Shugden Supporters Community"?

Also, what evidence is there that the DSS/DSDCRS was formed as a reaction to new events or statements made by His Holiness? As it stands, the current claim (that the debate was re-awakened by His Holiness) is unsubstantiated: for instance, see the statement made ten years earlier; alternatively, what sort of evidence do we have that the debate was 'put to sleep' in order to be re-awakened? (20040302 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Okay I am now more informed. The interview with KG from 1996 is very clear about the central role that he played in these events. Also, it is clear that he was requested to take part in this in April of that year. Moreover, there is no specific event of His Holiness that was referred to - indeed some of the events went back ten years or more. Therefore, it appears that the chain of events that led to his expulsion are not obscure. I propose the paragraph is changed to the following:

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and it his adherence to this deity which is the substantial reason for his break with the mainstream Tibetan tradition. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. His opposition and subsequent refusal to cease his activities led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery.

I feel that this adequately reflects the actions of 1996 that led up to the public expulsion. It does not explicitly mention the activities - such as the organisation or approval of demonstrations, but such details I feel are not necessarily so relevant here. Moreover, the sentences of this paragraph do not conflict with external evidence - namely the expulsion letter or the 1996 interview. His interview is worth reading - it is clear that he deeply regrets his activities - the letters he wrote, and his engagement in the political activities at that time.

Dear March 2nd, nice to see you again and thank you very much for trying to resolve this impasse.

I agree that the wording of the section is much better than it was before, however, I'm not sure about the reason for the expulsion. When you say:

This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. His opposition and subsequent refusal to cease his activities led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery.

Where is the evidence that he was requested to stop this practice, and that he did not respond, and that this was the reason he was expelled? Have I missed something?

This is mostly derived from the expulsion letter and other documents. It's certainly the case that these demands were made in a general sense, and it makes sense that the specific opposition led to such demands which as I understand it were a part of the 1996 reaction - though the demands may have been made in a more public sense. I have added 'general' to the sentence above: "led to general demands" - indicating that they were not solely aimed at KG - though there is no doubt that he was included. Also, I have changed the phrase "subsequent refusal" to "continued refusal" to de-emphasise any causal link there. (20040302)

My understanding is that Geshe Kelsang's intention, and the intention of the Shugden Supporters, was to get the Dalai Lama to reverse his ban on Dorje Shugden. It was his mere act of opposition to the Dalai Lama that got him expelled from Sera Monastery, not only (if at all) his adherence to Dorje Shugden. After all, the Dalai Lama claimed that people had freedom to practice Dorje Shugden or not.

I think that this is a mistake on your behalf. The Tibetan community at large was (and remains) vehemently opposed to Shudgen worship; this included community institutions, such as the Kashag and so on:- the 'Yellow Book' (which KG was opposed to) had created an impossible situation for the popular practice of the deity due to it's extreme anti-Nyingmapa attitude. In his interview, KG is quite clear that he was directly involved in the politics of Shugden from around April '96 - and he regrets his actions. His actions were not only aimed against His Holiness, but also the Kashag and other political bodies that supported His Holiness. (20040302)

Dear March 2nd, I think important not to misunderstand Geshe Kelsang's 'regret'. He says that he regrets making statements that made supporters of the Dalai Lama unhappy, he also regrets that he had to resort to political means to try to get the Dalai Lama to reconsider his position (ideally, Dharma and politics should be kept separate), however, it's clear that he did not regret his opposition to the Dalai Lama's position on Dorje Shugden as he was fighting for the religious freedom of those Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners in India who needed his support, and for the continuation of the practice of Dorje Shugden as promoted by his Spiritual Guide Trijang Rinpoche, seen to be very important to the Ganden Tradition. I'm sure if I was in the same position as Geshe Kelsang, I would do the same, with no regrets about making a stand about something I clearly considered to be important. - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't continue this thread further- but two points - (1) Making public statements are actions with strong consequences - and he regrets those actions - specifically those that made people unhappy. (2) He regrets his political activities - and has made it clear by declaring publically that he will never do that again. I was saying nothing else. I am sure that he doesn't regret his support for Shugden - merely the ways (as mentioned) in which he publicly behaved between the years 1996 and 1998. There is no argument here - and there is no need for you to defend his activities. (20040302)

I would also dispute that this disagreement over Dorje Shugden is not the main reason why Geshe Kelsang has made a break from the Tibetan Tradition - it is clear that he always wanted to make a distinction between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Gelugpa Tradition for various reasons. It could be argued that the break occured when he took over Manjushri Centre so that it was no longer an FPMT Centre. At that point the centre was 'independent' of any tradition and the formulation of the New Kadampa Tradition as an organisation was inevitable. It could be argued that it happened even earlier when he had his last long meeting with Trijang Dorjechang (presumably in 1981), who gave him permission to change the presentation of Dharma for Western practitioners. So I'm not clear on the validity of these statements.

I agree with you first point, but completely disagree with your second. Indeed, I feel it wasn't so much to do with Shugden that alienated KG from the Tibetan community (even though they were and remain opposed to the practice) but his involvement in political actions against His Holiness and the institutions of the Tibetan community, which he now regrets (see the interview). Regardless of personal motive, he didn't actually have much choice once he had so completely alienated himself from the Tibetan community; the fact of his regret indicates to me that it was nothing to do with making a distinction, and everything to do with faulty political maneuovering. The documents appear to speak for themselves on this point. Regardless - this section is concerned with the events that led up to his expulsion from Sera-Je, and the issue of breaking from the Tibetan tradition may warrant a separate section. Alternatively we could change the section title to "Expulsion from Sera and separation from the Tibetan community", which seems rather clumsy to me. As I am unsure to relevance, I will take out the component that talks about it. (20040302)

Hi 2nd March, I am happy with the content as it stands, thankyou for your efforts. However re the "distinction" you discuss above, in the interview Geshe Kelsang says "I had already stopped my affiliation with Sera-Je twenty years ago and have no intention of renewing it.". (Robertect 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC))..

Hi Robertect, yes. I read that also. It's very interesting. However, there really is little doubt that his political actions during 1996 alienated him completely from the Tibetan community; therefore IMO, any subsequent rationalisation for why the KG/NKT separated from the Tibetan tradition is suspect. This is merely taking what evidence there is available at face value, and is no judgement against KG here. Regardless, I believe such discussion will remain speculative, and therefore fruitless for wikipedia. (20040302 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your patience and help - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for interspersing my responses! (20040302 16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

As I understand it, the section is no longer in dispute - is that correct? (20040302 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

No, for me it is in a dispute. I add some reasons and try to suggest another version. If there is no acceptance its ok for me.

Some thoughts on the changes, sources and reasons for his expulsion. I was not satisfied with the section because it offers the view that he was expelled because he didn't stop the Shugden practice and organised (as his legal right) protest notes against it. I think this is a short cut and fits not. Also Gonsar Rinpoche refused to stop also. Also he said in Swiss TV he is not happy with that and doesn't understand the DL. He also worked against that. So why GKG was expelled and not Gonsar Rinpoche? I think and heard, he was expelled more of the tones of his public statements. These statements were felt and described by many as fanatical. Tibetans were very upset about his tone: he said the DL is misleading the people, is foolish and the like and also the SSC statements upon which GKG/NKT was main responsible were not even modest as Gonsar Rinpoche was. So thats why I added also: "his tone", I mean the style of protest like "Your smiles charms your actions harms", "ruthelss dictator" and the like. This was upsetting the Tibetans more than his open opposition. The article gives now GKG more as a victim of the DL and its followers. GKG started this "smear campaign" (The Guardian) with SSC and experienced the results. This SSC/NKT/GKG campaign wasn't only three months, as GKG wrongly stated in the interview. The campaign lasted until 1998 (more than two years): "However in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT." see OPEN LETTER from Geshe Kelsang Nov 2002. Also there weren't only three demonstrations as stated by him. There were organised wuite more in different countries: England, Amerika, Swiss, Germany. I remember on four I was present: The mentioned one in Swiss, and three in Germany, which he didn't even mention, although NKT England was also present there and NKT Germany was the main organisator. So far to that points. My remark and concern is mainly: I think, he was expelled more out of his tone of opposition and the style and not because he didn't accept the DL views and actions on that. There are many who didn't follow that advice and even protested, like Gonsar Rinpoche, and weren't expelled at all. It could be that it is a summery of reasons, but to understand the conflict, than one has to understand that his tone was felt by many as shameless and fanatical. For Tibetans this is quite unbelievable. Sorry for my many words, did you catch my point? All the other corrections I can accept. Than some backgrounds on SSC/DSDCRS. As far as I know the DSDCRS is based on Tibetans in India. They organised their own. Gonsar Rinpoche was not involved in the NKT/SSC campaigns - outwardly - in Europe and Amerika. In Europe and Amerika were the press campaign started GKG/NKT were the main forces. Although they could invite Kundaling Rinpoche, he was not the main force, he was a supporter and used his status/name to support the aims of SSC. In Germany the SSC/NKT could present one Tibetan more for a press audience. So SSC was at that time supported by two Tibetans directly. The other were only NKT followers and most time daily GKG was informed about the actions and press campaign and how the press reacted. There was no direct link to Gonsar Rinpoche or Gangchen Rinpoche from the side of SSC organisation or that these groups worked together. During the four demonstrations/actions (press campaigns)of SSC on which I was present: NKT England, NKT Germany, NKT Swiss and perhaps NKT Spain too were present and only two Tibetans. I saw also pictures from America: Only NKT followers. So I think it is correct to say: The main force of SSC was GKG/NKT (Europe and Amerika) and the DSDCRS was responsible for India, they had a link. As far as I know only GKG was expelled no other person of that alliance. Kt66 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in essence I agree with the central thrust of your claims, but feel that the revised text deals clearly with the causal chain.

My suggestion:

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and his political activities of 1996 (due to his adherence to this deity) caused him to be expelled from his monastery and alienated from the Tibetan community. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. The open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the tone of his statements in the public led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery. Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

I canceled the section of the demand, I never heard this. What do you/KP/Robertect think on that version? Thank you for your patience, Kt66 22:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We know from plenty of public statements that HHDL asked for the practice of Shugden to be stopped. We can conclude that the abbots and so on specifically asked him to cease his activities - as a precursor to his expulsion, following rules of vinaya. We know that the Ganden Tripa made it clear that the Gelugpa school will no longer practice Shugden. We also know that the Kashag (and other organisations representing the Tibetan community) wished for Shugden practices to be stopped (mainly due to the yellow book). I think it is highly likely that the reinforced political activities of 1996 helped to clear up any lack of position regarding the practice of Shugden - in a sense, the SSC and DSDCRS forced the issue of "with us or against us" for all institutions involved in Tibetan and Tibetan Buddhist affairs. Therefore, this is why I had included the sentence This open opposition led to demands (made by HH Dalai Lama, the abbots and Rinpoches of his own Sera Monastery, as well as the Ganden Tripa - the head of the Gelug tradition) to stop the practice and promotion of the deity, which he refused to do. - and I consider this to be a reasonably fair assessment of events. I also think that it is completely fair to say that he was expelled for his political activities and his opposition to the Dalai Lama, as well as refusing to back away from promoting the practise of Shugden. There is no doubt that his public profile is much larger than that of Gonsar Rin. etc, and therefore I am not surprised that he was expelled for his activities. However, I can understand if you feel that much of this is POV, and I have no wish to prolong the discussion, so I am happy to withdraw the sentence. (20040302 12:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Hi Kt, I am happy with the content. Regarding your point about the activity lasting up until 1998 that is true. However there was a break up to the autumn of 1997. The interview referred to was I think done around August 1996, hence the discrepencies you identify. I am not sure why Geshe Kelsang became involved once more in Shugden issue although it may have been prompted by the Documentry on Swiss TV which Gonsar Rinpoche contributed to. (Robertect 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert. Thank you for your thoughts. If the interview was led in August 1996 then is makes sense that he says that it lasted only three months (May, June, July 1996). Thank you for your contribution and clarification! I remember the Swiss TV contribution, it was shown us in our NKT centre. Gonsar Rinpoche was quite modest and said, he doesn't understand HHDL. He used not harsh words and the like and didn't loose respect. However, all modest Shugden practitioners I know always said: "We do not understand the DL", also my Abbot. Nowadays I ask myself: Why did they not try to understand him? Why they didn't try to get a different perpective on that field? But that's just my question to them, not to you...

As with the prompt of GKG you remarked: "I had already stopped my affiliation with Sera-Je twenty years ago and have no intention of renewing it." Perhaps it is useful to put it in that section too? I do not know how long one belongs to a monastery or if there is a formal procedure to a removal from the register of students. But normally you belong to a Sangha Group of ordained and they can decide in accordance with the Vinaya Rules to request you to stop your bad behaviour three times; if one does not follow, they can expell you. On a western perspective: If I studied in a university and was removed from the register of students, they can not expell me 20 years later. This would be of course stupid. But I do not know what Rules the monasteries on that had. I can only assume that they did the correct procedure. But I do not know. Kt66 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is more complex than merely a university affiliation, Kt66 - but I don't think that this is the right time to examine the details of vinaya for expulsion here. It may be more relevant on an article on vinaya. (20040302)

Hi Kt, I have no idea. I recently got this book Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation which has a wealth of factual historical information. All the best to you (Robertect 12:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Robert, with respect I recommend you keep such observations to yourself. You must be fully aware of just how provocative such statements are, and they serve little purpose on a website which is not concerned with POV or personal opinions. If Kt66 or anyone else says something that you personally find difficult, address that, rather than behave like a troll and come out with flamebait. (20040302 12:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Dear 2nd of March, I was not upset by anything Kt wrote and in no way meant to stir anyone up, it was only that he and I discussed before in the Shugden article the reason why Shugden practitioners criticised the Dalai Lama, because I did not think it was for following the Kalama sutra, offering instead the point above as a possible alternative explanation, hence it was funny as in ironic to me that the exact point I made came again up but this time the other way around - but humour doesn't translate well on the internet!. I have deleted the coment. I apologise if I have upset anyone and thankyou for reminding me to be more mindful in the future. Best wishes and thanks again for your help (Robertect 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)).

Hi Robert, I'll write you at your personal user site some remarks...Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I have no problems with your amended version, apart from the fact that I don't think it was the tone of Geshe Kelsang that got him expelled, but his mere act of disagreement with the Dalai Lama. I'm sure you aware that people in the past who disagreed with HHDL had to flee for their lives (as in the case of the Panchen Lama and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama), or have been 'disposed of'. Tibetan history is full of such retribution.

However, your amended paragraph reads well and I am happy to accept it. - with all good wishes, --Kelsangpagpa 13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I understand your doubts on the "tone issue" but I think this was the main point. Ok, different views on one topic are quite normal. Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

@2nd March. Thank you very much for your help. So perhaps we change to the version I suggested, Robert/KP agreed, I too. Do you have any remarks or doubts on its validity or wish to improve it further? Kt66 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Kelsang Gyatso is a follower and promoter of the controversial deity, Shugden, and his political activities (due to his adherence to this deity) of 1996 through 1998 caused him to be expelled from his monastery and alienated from the Tibetan community. As mentioned in a 1996 interview, encouraged by other Shugden followers in April 1996, he was involved in a series of activities and also published letters in open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama and the Kashag regarding the deity. The open opposition to the 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the tone of his statements in the public letters led directly to the public expulsion from his former monastery. Such expulsions are very rare within the Tibetan tradition.

I corrected some grammar. Also the link for public expulsion was to dholgyal3 rather than the Sera letter, which I don't think was correct. I also removed the wikilink to Kashag, as there is no article yet. Moreover, we seem to agree that his political activities ranged from 1996 through to 1998, so I have amended the text to reflect that.

Lastly, I removed the word 'Geshe' - not to be provocative, but to be balanced - we have two names being used here - one is "Kelsang Gyatso" - which is the title of the article, and conforms to general wiki rules regarding doctorates, etc. and the other is 'Geshe Kelsang', which is a more familiar term for many people. I don't wish to push one way or another, but feel that the balance is about correct. However, 'Geshe Kelsang Gyatso' is a little too formal for this paragraph IMO. (20040302 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC))